Features, Events, and Processes: System Level
ANL-WIS-MD-0000019 REV 01
April 2004



1. PURPOSE
The primary purpose of this analysis is to evaluate System Level features, events, and processes 
(FEPs). The System Level FEPs typically are overarching in nature, rather than being focused 
on a particular process or subsystem. As a result, they are best dealt with at the system level 
rather than addressed within supporting process-level or subsystem level analyses and models 
reports. The System Level FEPs also tend to be directly addressed by regulations, guidance 
documents, or assumptions listed in the regulations; or are addressed in background information 
used in development of the regulations. 
This evaluation determines which of the System Level FEPs are excluded from modeling used to 
support the total system performance assessment for license application (TSPA-LA). The 
evaluation is based on the information presented in analysis reports, model reports, direct input, 
or corroborative documents that are cited in the individual FEP discussions in Section 6.2 of this 
analysis report. 
By default, FEPs are included in the TSPA-LA unless they can be excluded based on low 
probability, low consequence, or by regulation. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) provides the evaluation criteria, or screening criteria in the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) at 10 CFR 63.114 (d, e, and f) ([DIRS 156605]). The NRC regulations also incorporate 
the performance standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found at 
40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]). A FEP can be excluded from the TSPA-LA per 
10 CFR 63.114(d) ([DIRS 156605]) by showing that the probability of occurrence is less than 
1 in 10,000 in 10,000 years (or an approximately equivalent annualized probability of 10-8). 
A FEP also can be excluded from the TSPA-LA per 10 CFR 63.114 (e or f) ([DIRS 156605]) by 
showing that omitting the FEP would not significantly change the resulting radiological exposure 
to the reasonably maximally exposed individual (RMEI) or the radionuclide release to the 
accessible environment. A FEP may also be excluded by regulation based on characteristics, 
definitions, or concepts specifically stated in applicable NRC regulations. 
This analysis report documents changes to the System Level FEP list that have occurred since 
issuance of REV 00 (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 144180]). These changes resulted from 
reevaluation of the FEP list, as outlined in The Enhanced Plan for Features, Events, and 
Processes (FEPs) at Yucca Mountain (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158966]) and the KTI Letter Report, 
Response to Additional Information Needs on TSPAI 2.05 and TSPAI 2.06 (Freeze 2003 
[DIRS 165394]). Reorganization and redefinition of FEPs between the total system performance 
assessment for site recommendation (TSPA-SR) and the TSPA-LA is specifically addressed in 
Section 6.1. 
Because this analysis report is intended for use as a source of information to populate a FEP 
database, it contains a self-identifying reference to help maintain traceability (i.e., in this analysis 
report) within the text of Section 6.2 and subsections. 
This revision addresses updates in the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) administrative procedures 
(APs) as they pertain to this analysis report; the current procedures are discussed in Sections 2 
and 3. Sections 4, 5, and 6 incorporate updates to the technical basis and assumptions that are 
provided in supporting analysis and modeling reports (collectively, AMRs) and also provide 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 1-1 April 2004 

additional information pertaining to the relevant FEP-related acceptance criteria presented in the 
Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]), herein 
referred to as the NUREG-1804. 
The initial report (REV 00) was originally scoped based on consideration of a repository with 
backfill and drip shields, as described in the License Application Design Selection Report 
(CRWMS M&O 1999, EDA II [DIRS107292]). During preparation of REV 00, however, 
considerations expanded to evaluate changes to the design, including the no-backfill repository 
design and changes to resolve certain thermal design issues, reorientation of the drift azimuths, 
and 70,000 metric ton uranium and 95,000 metric ton uranium designs (CRWMS M&O 2000 
[DIRS 150088]; CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 149137]). This version of the analysis report 
(REV 01) is based on the TSPA-LA design as presented in the drawings listed in Section 4 of 
this analysis report. 
1.1 PLANNING AND DOCUMENTATION 
Documentation requirements for this analysis report are described in the technical work plan 
(TWP) entitled Technical Work Plan for: Decisions Support and Documentation Department 
Activities (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168024]). Changes in the assigned System-Level FEP list for 
TSPA-LA resulted from the planned work scope and are further described in Table 6-1. 
1.2 SCOPE 
The scope of this report is to describe, evaluate, and document screening decisions and technical 
bases for the System Level FEPs for TSPA-LA for both the included and the excluded FEPs. 
This approach differs from other FEP AMRs for TSPA-LA. In other FEP AMRs, the screening 
decision and technical basis for an included FEP is evaluated and documented in a supporting 
AMR, and the decision and evaluation is summarized and, if needed, updated in the FEP AMR. 
That approach works well for FEPs that are focused on a particular process, interrelated 
processes, or a defined subsystem. By contrast, the System Level FEPs are overarching and are 
not focused on a particular process or subsystem and, therefore, evaluation of the FEPs cannot be 
assigned or mapped to a specific AMR or to a set of supporting AMRs. This difference in 
approach is particularly reflected in Section 4 of this report, with direct inputs being provided for 
both the included and the excluded FEPs. Consequently, this FEP AMR provides the 
documentation and technical basis for both included and excluded System Level FEPs, as 
required in 10 CFR 63.114 (d, e, and f) [DIRS 156605]). 
For System Level FEPs that are included in the TSPA-LA, this AMR provides a TSPA-LA 
disposition, which summarizes how the FEP has been included and addressed in the TSPA-LA 
model, and cites the various analysis reports and model reports (collectively, AMRs) or other 
direct input that support inclusion of the FEP. For System Level FEPs that are excluded from the 
TSPA-LA it provides a screening argument, which identifies the basis for the screening decision 
(i.e., low probability, low consequence, or by regulation) and discusses the technical basis that 
supports that decision. 
For TSPA-SR, 26 of the FEPs listed in the YMP FEP Database were initially grouped as System 
Level FEPs (BSC 2001, Appendix B [DIRS 154365]). Subsequently, five FEPs were reassigned 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 1-2 April 2004 

from disruptive events (i.e., salt creep, salt diapirism and dissolution, diapirism, diagenesis, and 
metamorphism) because they did not deal with disruptive events as defined by the regulations 
(i.e., the FEPs did not address volcanism, seismicity, criticality or human intrusion). The 
resulting 31 TSPA-SR FEPs were grouped as system-level FEPs rather than being mapped to 
process-oriented or system-oriented AMRs. 
The scope of activities for this report, starting with the TSPA-SR System Level FEP list, was 
described in The Enhanced Plan for Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) at Yucca Mountain 
(BSC 2002 [DIRS 158966]), and the results of those activities for TSPA-LA System Level FEPs 
are documented in detail in Section 6.1. These activities included FEP reorganization 
(eliminating primary and secondary FEP classifications and eliminating redundant FEPs); change 
in the level of detail of FEP descriptions; and reevaluation of FEP screening decisions, 
arguments, and TSPA dispositions. The reorganization and reevaluation of the System Level 
FEPs started with the FEP list extracted from DTN: MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431], 
which was modified during the review process for this analysis report. The reorganization and 
reevaluation of the System Level FEPs have resulted in a revised and reorganized list of 
33 System Level FEPs for TSPA-LA. The differences in the TSPA-SR list and the TSPA-LA 
list for System FEPs include removing and reassigning FEP 3.2.10.00.0A (atmospheric transport 
of contaminants), and adding FEP 2.1.01.04.0A (repository scale spatial heterogeneity of 
emplaced waste) to the System Level FEP list. Also, two new FEPs were added to address the 
joint concurrence of disruptive events with the human intrusion stylized analysis. FEP 
1.4.02.03.0A (igneous events) precedes human intrusion, and FEP 1.4.02.04.04 (seismic event) 
precedes human intrusion. Other changes are detailed in Section 6.1. The list of TSPA-LA 
System Level FEPs is given in Table 1-1, which reflects the grouping of the System-Level FEPs 
by topic and their numeric ordering by FEP number within each topic. Each FEP discussion also 
provides a list of related FEPs by FEP number. The associated FEP AMRs are listed in 
DTN: MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]. 
In cases where a FEP covers multiple technical areas and is shared with other FEP AMRs, this 
analysis report provides only a partial technical basis for the screening decision as it relates to 
system-level concerns. The sharing FEP AMRs are listed in DTN: MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 
[DIRS 167431]. The full technical basis for these shared FEPs is addressed, collectively, by all 
of the sharing FEP AMRs. Only one System-Level FEP, FEP 1.1.11.00.0A, which addresses 
monitoring of the repository, is shared with another analysis report as indicated in last column of 
Table 1.1. 
The resulting System Level FEP list has been compared with the list of external hazards 
presented in MGR External Events Hazards Screening Analysis (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163999]), 
which deals with external events occurring within the operational and preclosure time frame. 
Within the constraints of postclosure concerns, as opposed to preclosure considerations, the FEP 
lists were found to be consistent. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 1-3 April 2004 

Table 1-1. System Level FEPs for TSPA-LA 
FEP Addressed in 
Number FEP Name Section Sharing FEP AMR 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPs (Section 6.2.1) 
0.1.02.00.0A Timescales of Concern 6.2.1.1 System Level Only 
0.1.03.00.0A Spatial Domain of Concern 6.2.1.2 System Level Only 
0.1.09.00.0A Regulatory Requirements and Exclusions 6.2.1.3 System Level Only 
0.1.10.00.0A Model and Data Issues 6.2.1.4 System Level Only 
1.1.07.00.0A Repository Design 6.2.1.5 System Level Only 
1.1.13.00.0A Retrievability 6.2.1.6 System Level Only 
2.1.01.04.0A Repository-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity of Emplaced 
Waste 
6.2.1.7 System Level Only 
PROCESS AND SITE-CONTROL FEPs (Section 6.2.2) 
1.1.05.00.0A Records and Markers for the Repository 6.2.2.1 System Level Only 
1.1.08.00.0A Inadequate Quality Control and Deviations from Design 6.2.2.2 System Level Only 
1.1.09.00.0A Schedule and Planning 6.2.2.3 System Level Only 
1.1.10.00.0A Administrative Control of the Repository Site 6.2.2.4 System Level Only 
1.1.11.00.0A Monitoring of the Repository 6.2.2.5 System Level, UZ 
1.1.12.01.0A Accidents and Unplanned Events During Construction and 6.2.2.6 System Level Only 
Operation 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) 
1.4.02.01.0A Deliberate Human Intrusion 6.2.3.1 System Level Only 
1.4.02.02.0A Inadvertent Human Intrusion 6.2.3.2 System Level Only 
1.4.02.03.0A Igneous Event Precedes Human Intrusion 6.2.3.3 System Level Only 
1.4.02.04.01 Seismic Event Precedes Human Intrusion 6.2.3.4 System Level Only 
1.4.03.00.0A Unintrusive Site Investigation 6.2.3.5 System Level Only 
1.4.04.00.0A Drilling Activities (Human Intrusion) 6.2.3.6 System Level Only 
1.4.04.01.0A Effects of Drilling Intrusion 6.2.3.7 System Level Only 
1.4.05.00.0A Mining and Other Underground Activities (Human 6.2.3.8 System Level Only 
Intrusion) 
1.4.11.00.0A Explosions and Crashes (Human Activities) 6.2.3.9 System Level Only 
3.3.06.01.0A Repository Excavation 6.2.3.10 System Level Only 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) 
1.2.05.00.0A Metamorphism 6.2.4.1 System Level Only 
1.2.08.00.0A Diagenesis 6.2.4.2 System Level Only 
1.2.09.00.0A Salt Diapirism and Dissolution 6.2.4.3 System Level Only 
1.2.09.01.0A Diapirism 6.2.4.4 System Level Only 
1.5.01.01.0A Meteorite Impact 6.2.4.5 System Level Only 
1.5.01.02.0A Extraterrestrial Events 6.2.4.6 System Level Only 
1.5.03.01.0A Changes in the Earth's Magnetic Field 6.2.4.7 System Level Only 
1.5.03.02.0A Earth Tides 6.2.4.8 System Level Only 
2.2.06.05.0A Salt Creep 6.2.4.9 System Level Only 
2.3.13.03.0A Effects of Repository Heat on the Biosphere 6.2.4.10 System Level Only 
FEPs = features, events, and processes 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 1-4 April 2004 

1.3 SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS LIMITATIONS AND USE 
The intended use of this analysis report is to provide FEP screening information for a project 
specific FEP database, and to promote traceability and transparency for both included and 
excluded FEP dispositions and screening arguments for the System Level FEPs. This analysis 
report is intended to be used as the source documentation, and to provide the technical basis and 
supporting arguments, for inclusion or exclusion of System Level FEPs within or from the 
TSPA-LA model. The following limitations apply to this analysis report: 
 Because this analysis report cites other AMRs and controlled documents as direct input, 
the limitations of this analysis report inherently include any limitations or constraints 
described in the cited AMRs or controlled documents. In particular, the results of the 
waste package degradation analyses cited from BSC 2003 (Section 6.7.1 
[DIRS 161317]) result from the use of representative thermal hydrologic history files 
produced to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited report. The actual drip shield 
and waste package degradation profiles used in the TSPA-LA Model will make use of 
the actual thermal hydrologic history files appropriate for the repository. Because 
representative histories were used, significant differences in the degradation profile 
generated for TSPA-LA is not expected. 
 For screening purposes, this analysis report generally uses mean values of probabilities, 
mean amplitude of events, or mean value of consequences (e.g., mean time to waste 
package degradation) as a basis for reaching an include/exclude decision. Mean values 
are determined based on the range of possible values. 
 The results of the FEP screening presented herein are specific to the repository design 
and processes for YMP available at the time of the TSPA-LA. Changes in direct inputs 
listed in Section 4.1, in baseline conditions used for this evaluation, or in other 
subsurface conditions, will need to be evaluated to determine whether the changes are 
within the limits stated in the FEP evaluations. Engineering and design changes are 
subject to evaluation to determine whether there are any adverse impacts to safety, as 
codified at 10 CFR 63.73 and in Subparts F and G ([DIRS 156605]). (See also the 
requirements at 10 CFR 63.44 ([DIRS 156605]). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 1-5 April 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 1-6 April 2004 

2. QUALITY ASSURANCE
This work constitutes an analysis report, and the documentation has been prepared according to 
AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific Analyses, and in accordance with related procedures and guidance 
documents as outlined in the TWP. 
Development of this analysis report and the supporting analyses are subject to the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) quality assurance (QA) program. 
(BSC 2004, Section 8.1, Work Package APA0FB [DIRS 168024]). Approved QA procedures 
identified in the Technical Work Plan for: Decision Support and Documentation Department 
Activities. (TWP) (BSC 2004, Section 4.1 [DIRS168024]) have been used to conduct and 
document the activities described in this analysis report. The TWP also identifies applicable 
controls for the electronic management of data (BSC 2004, Section 8.4 [DIRS 168024]) during 
the analysis and documentation activities. 
The report contributes to the analysis and modeling used to support performance assessment. 
The System Level FEPs documented herein involve the investigations of items or barriers on the 
Q-list and have the potential to affect the calculation of the performance of the natural barriers 
and various engineered barrier system (EBS) components included on the Q-list. However, the 
System Level FEPs themselves do not qualify as Q-list items. The evaluations and 
conclusions do not directly impact engineered features important to safety, as defined in 
AP-2.22Q, Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 2-1 April 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 2-2 April 2004 

3. COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND MODEL USAGE
This analysis report uses no computational software; therefore, this analysis is not subject to 
software controls. The analyses and arguments presented herein are based on guidance and 
regulatory requirements, on results of analyses presented and documented in other analysis 
reports, or on other technical literature. Software and models used in the supporting documents 
are cited in this analysis report for traceability and transparency purposes but were not used in its 
development. 
This analysis report was developed using only commercial off-the-shelf software. Microsoft 
Word 2000 used for word processing is exempt from qualification requirements in accordance 
with LP-SI.11Q, Software Management. The spreadsheet program Microsoft Excel 2000 was 
used for calculations as described below. 
This analysis report provides data qualification documentation (Attachment II) and an analysis 
package (Attachment IV) for determining the probability of meteorite impact and the resulting 
crater damage. The spreadsheets in the appendices were written using the standard functions of 
commercial off-the-shelf software (Microsoft Excel 2000) and, therefore, are not required to be 
qualified in accordance with LP-SI.11Q, Section 2.1.6. Microsoft Excel 2000 was also used to 
graphically present the meteorite impact probability data and to provide equations and 
coefficients for a regression analysis using the standard graphical interface for adding trend lines 
to graphs. There were no applications (routines or macros) developed using this commercial 
off-the-shelf software. The information provided is sufficient to allow review and checking 
without recourse to the originator. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 3-1 April 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 3-2 April 2004 

4. INPUTS
The data, product output, direct input, and other references used in this analysis report were 
obtained from controlled source documents and other appropriate sources in accordance with the 
controlling procedure AP-3.15Q, Managing Technical Product Inputs. 
4.1 DIRECT INPUTS 
The procedure for managing inputs categorizes technical product inputs as either direct input or 
reference only. Direct input constitutes the input used to develop the results or conclusions in a 
technical product. Direct input is further classified as established fact, data, or vendor data (no 
vendor data are used in this analysis). 
There are no assumptions needing further confirmation for this analysis report. Software and 
models developed in the supporting documents are cited for traceability and transparency 
purposes; however, they were not used directly in development of the analyses and arguments 
presented herein. 
4.1.1 Site Characterization and/or Site-Specific Data and Expert Elicitations (Data) 
This subsection identifies qualified data and other factual information used as direct input in this 
analysis report. Table 4-1 lists all data tracking numbers (DTNs) cited to justify the FEP 
inclusion or exclusion. This report also cites to the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for 
Fault Displacement and Vibratory Ground Motion at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (or PSHA) 
(CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 103731]) regarding the magnitude of earthquakes that were 
addressed as part of the PSHA, the results of which were used as inputs for the seismic 
evaluations for seismic-related FEPs. The PSHA presents the ground motion and fault 
displacement evaluations resulting from the expert-elicitation process, and per AP-3.15Q are 
considered as qualified data. 
4.1.2 Product Outputs (Data) 
Other direct input used in this analysis report has been obtained from controlled source 
documents (product output) using the appropriate document identifiers or records system 
accession numbers. Sources of such information include, but are not limited to, YMP-prepared 
databases, drawings, and other technical documents. 
4.1.2.1 YMP FEP Database 
The FEP list used for the TSPA-LA screening presented in this analysis report was extracted 
from DTN: MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 ([DIRS 167431]). The list of FEPs was reviewed for 
possible System Level FEPs and evaluated for appropriateness of use and comprehensiveness, 
and was determined to be comparable and traceable to the list of System Level FEPs presented 
for site recommendation (SR) and suitable for use as a preliminary list of System Level FEPs to 
be further evaluated for LA. Modifications to the System Level FEP List for LA are detailed in 
Section 6.1.1 of this analysis report. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-1 April 2004 

Table 4-1. Data Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations 
Section Data Name Data Description DTN/Data Source 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPs (Section 6.2.1) 
(none used) 
PROCESS AND SITE-CONTROL FEPs (Section 6.2.2) 
(none-used) 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) 
6.2.3.4 
Attachment III 
Properties of Alloy 22 (UNS 
N06022)2 
Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, 
Modulus of Elasticity 
MO0003RIB00071.000 
[DIRS 148850] 
Properties of Ti Grades 7 
and 16 
Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, 
Modulus of Elasticity 
MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926] 
Properties of 316N 
Stainless 
Yield Strength, Tensile Strength, 
Modulus of Elasticity 
MO0003RIB00076.000, 
[DIRS 153044] 
Rock Material Properties Unconfined Compressive Strength 
MO0311RCKPRPCS.003 
[DIRS 166073] 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) 
6.4.2.5 
Attachment IV 
Depth of lithologic contacts 
for the PTn 
Contact depths for all borings located in 
or adjacent to the repository footprint 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
[DIRS 152554]: (Depth 
to contacts for Tpp, Tpt, 
Tptrv3, Tptrv1) 
Magnitude of earthquakes 
considered during expert 
elicitation 
Included Magnitude 5 to Magnitude 7 
events 
CRWMS M&O 1998, 
Section 4 [DIRS 103731] 
DTN = data tracking number, FEP = feature, event, and process, DIRS = Document Input Reference System 
4.1.2.2 Technical Reports and Controlled Documents 
Other direct input used to address safety and waste isolation issues have also been obtained from 
controlled sources. Table 4-2 lists any AMRs or other Q products that satisfy the definition of 
Product Output as given in AP-3.15Q and that are cited as a technical basis for including or 
excluding a System Level FEP. 
Sources of such information include, but are not limited to, supporting YMP AMRs, YMP 
Technical Reports, and other YMP documents and databases prepared in accordance with 
procedures controlling Qstatus documents. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-2 April 2004 

Table 4-2. Controlled Documents Used as Basis for the System Level FEP Evaluations 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPs (Section 6.2.1) 
6.2.1.1 
Timescale and 
duration of TSPA-LA 
analyses 
10,000 years and extended to 20,000 years 
to address uncertainties 
BSC 2003, 
Sections 1.3 and 9.1 
[DIRS 166296] 
6.2.1.2 Spatial domain of 
concern 
Extends from the land surface through the 
UZ, through the repository, into the (SZ), and 
laterally away from the repository to the 
location of the RMEI at 18 km from the 
repository 
BSC 2003, 
Section 5.1 
[DIRS 166296] 
6.2.1.3 
Demonstration of 
compliance with 
applicable regulations 
Assignment of regulatory applicability and 
responsibility to various YMP organizations 
Canori and Leitner 2003 
[DIRS 166275] 
BSC 2003 
Treatment of various modeling aspects in 
TSPA and summary of method of inclusion 
[DIRS 166296] for the 
following specific 
section and related 
information: 
6.2.1.4 Compliance with 
modeling requirements 
Alternative conceptual models 
Abstractions 
Parameter uncertainty 
Section 3.3 
Section 3.4 
Section 3.5 
Use of geologic, hydrologic and geochemical 
data Section 5.1 
TSPALA Model validation approach Section 7 
Uncertainty analysis Section 8.1 
6.2.1.5 
Method for 
recognizing change in 
conditions and/or 
inadequate design 
Performance confirmation plan requirements 
Snell et al. 2003 
[DIRS 166219] 
6.2.1.5 
and 
6.2.1.6 
Method and approach 
for including design 
elements 
Summary of method of inclusion. Design 
elements are implicitly included through the 
use of information extracted from project EDs 
for EBS, waste package, and drip shield and 
used in related models. 
BSC 2003, Section 5.1 
[DIRS 166296] 
6.2.1.7 
Method of 
incorporating waste 
heterogeneity at the 
repository scale 
Summary of method of inclusion 
BSC 2003, 
pp. 71-73; 77-78; and 
81 [DIRS 166296] 
PROCESS AND SITE-CONTROL FEPs (Section 6.2.2) 
6.2.2.2 
Method for 
recognizing change in 
conditions and/or 
inadequate design 
Performance confirmation plan requirements 
Snell et al. 2003 
[DIRS 166219] 
6.2.2.5 Performance 
confirmation plan 
Precludes significant effects from required 
and unplanned monitoring activities 
Snell et al. 2003 
[DIRS 166219] 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) 
6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 
6.2.3.7, 
Attachment III 
Lifetimes for drip 
shield and waste 
package 
Under nominal case conditions, drip shield 
failures occurring after about 35,000 years. 
The first failures of the waste package occur 
on the order of 100,000 years 
BSC 2003, 
Section 6.7.1 
[DIRS 161317] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-3 April 2004 

Table 4-2. Controlled Documents Used as Basis for the System Level FEP Evaluations (Continued) 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) (Continued) 
6.2.3.3 Probability of igneous 
intrusion 
Computed mean annual frequency of 
intersection of the repository footprint by a 
dike is 1.7  10-8 
BSC 2003, Table 22 
[DIRS 163769] 
6.2.3.4 
Probabilities and 
associated damage 
states for seismic 
events 
A summary of the damage abstraction 
related to seismic ground motion 
BSC 2003, 
Sections 6.6.5, 6.3.2, 
and 6.5.2 
[DIRS 167780] 
Attachment III 
Summary of Rock 
Properties for 
lithophysal and nonlithophysal 
units 
Values for Youngs modulus and for tensile 
strength 
BSC 2003, 
Tables V-5, V-6, V-8, V9 
[DIRS 162711] 
BSC 2003, 
Figure 8-45 
[DIRS 166660] 
6.2.3.9 Depth of repository 
below surface 
Surface topography contours above the 
repository 
BSC 2004, 
Figure 4 
[DIRS 168029] 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) 
6.2.4.1 Cumulative fault slip 
rate values 
Strain rate has resulted in cumulative fault 
slip rates of 0.0010.03 millimeter/year 
(mm/yr) 
BSC 2004, 
Table 6 
[DIRS 168030] 
6.2.4.3; 6.2.4.9 
Lithologic and 
stratigraphic 
descriptions 
Yucca Mountain composed of sequence of 
volcanic-related deposits 
BSC 2004, 
Section 6.5.1.4 and 
Table 4 
[DIRS 168029] 
6.2.4.4 
Characteristics of 
current tectonic 
stresses in the Yucca 
Mountain region 
Future igneous 
intrusion 
Current tectonic stresses in the region are 
extensional 
Future igneous activity will be in the form of 
dike intrusion 
BSC 2004, 
Section 6.3.1 
[DIRS 168030] 
BSC 2003, 
Section 6 
[DIRS 163769] 
6.2.4.5 and 
Attachment IV 
Boring locations Borings located within or adjacent to the 
repository footprint 
BSC2004, 
Figure 4 
[DIRS 168029] 
Flow characteristics of 
the Paintbrush 
nonwelded tuff unit 
Unit tends to dampen and divert flow due to 
difference in matrix and fracture 
characteristics compared to underlying unit 
BSC 2004, 
Sections 6.1.2 and 
6.2.2 
[DIRS 168027] 
UZ model grid block 
size 
Grid block sizes in eastern portion of the 
repository 
BSC 2004, 
Figure 6.1-1 
[DIRS 168027] 
6.2.4.10 Infiltration rates Range in infiltration rates 
BSC 2004, 
Table 6.1-2 
[DIRS 168027] 
FEPs = features, events, and processes, TSPA-LA = total system performance assessment for license application, 
SZ = saturated zone, UZ = unsaturated zone, YMP = Yucca Mountain Project, IEDs = information exchange 
drawings, EBS = engineered barrier system, 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-4 April 2004 

4.1.2.3 Information Exchange Drawings 
YMP-prepared drawings or design documents used to provide direct input for System Level 
FEPs are those shown in Table 4-3. 
Table 4-3. Drawings Used as Basis for the System Level FEP Evaluations 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPs (Section 6.2.1) 
(none used) 
PROCESS AND SITE-CONTROL FEPs (Section 6.2.2) 
(none used) 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) (Continued) 
6.2.3.9 
Overburden 
thickness from 
emplacement drift 
area to topographic 
surface 
215 m 800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519] 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) 
6.2.4.5, 
Attachment IV 
Overburden 
thickness from 
emplacement drift 
area to topographic 
surface 
215 m 
800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519] 
6.2.4.5, 
Attachment IV 
Drift end coordinates 
for determining area 
of TSPA-LA 
Repository Footprint 
Drift Number and 
Basis 
Drift End 
Coordinate 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519] 
6.2.4.5, 
Attachment IV 
(3-1W) 
northernmost 
drift end 
N236237 BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519] 
6.2.4.5, 
Attachment IV 
(2-27) 
southernmost drift 
N230944 BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519] 
6.2.4.5, 
Attachment IV 
(3-2E) easternmost 
drift end 
E172231 BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519] 
6.2.4.5, 
Attachment IV 
(4-20) westernmost 
drift end 
E170085 BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519] 
FEBs = features, events, and processes, TSPA-LA = total system performance for license application 
4.1.3 Regulations Used for System Level Feature Event Process Screening (Established 
Fact) 
The nature of the FEP screening arguments and TSPA dispositions is such that the NRC 
regulations (and by incorporation, therein, the corresponding portions of 40 CFR Part 197) serve 
as direct inputs for determining whether a FEP can be excluded from further considerations. 
These regulatory inputs are classified as Established Fact. No data from technical handbooks 
or standard references are used as direct input for the System Level FEP evaluations. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-5 April 2004 

Regulatory Basis for Screening FEPs on Low ProbabilityThe application of the 
low-probability threshold for FEP screening is further described in Section 6.1.2 of this analysis 
report. For probability, the direct input from the regulatory criterion at 10 CFR 63.114(d) 
([DIRS 156605]) is as follows: 
Consider only events that have at least one chance in 10,000 of occurring over 
10,000 years. 
The EPA provides essentially the same criterion in 40 CFR 197.36 ([DIRS 165519]): 
The DOEs performance assessments should not include consideration of very 
unlikely features, events, or processes, i.e., those that are estimated to have less 
than one chance in 10,000 of occurring within 10,000 years of disposal. The 
NRC shall exclude unlikely features, events, and processes, or sequence of 
processes from the assessments for the human intrusion and ground water 
protection standards. The specific probability of the unlikely features, events, and 
processes is to be specified by NRC. 
As explained in Assumption 5.1, this is assumed equivalent to a 10-8 annual-exceedance 
probability. Furthermore, for the human intrusion considerations, the NRC at 10 CFR 63.342 
([DIRS 156605] specifically exempts consideration of FEPs with less than one chance in 10 of 
occurring within the 10,000-year compliance period (i.e., those with an annual exceedance 
probability of 10-5 or less). 
Regulatory Basis for Screening FEPs on Low ConsequenceThe application of the 
low-consequence arguments for FEP screening is described further in Section 6.1.2 of this 
analysis report. For low consequence, the direct input from the regulatory criterion at 
10 CFR 63.114 (e and f) (66 FR 55732[DIRS 156671]) is as follows: 
Provide the technical basis for either inclusion or exclusion of specific features, 
events, and processes in the performance assessment. Specific features, events, 
and processes must be evaluated in detail if the magnitude and time of the 
resulting radiological exposures to the reasonably maximally exposed individual, 
or radionuclide releases to the accessible environment, would be significantly 
changed by their omission. 
Provide the technical basis for either inclusion or exclusion of degradation, 
deterioration, or alteration processes of engineered barriers in the performance 
assessment, including those processes that would adversely affect the 
performance of natural barriers. Degradation, deterioration, or alteration 
processes of engineered barriers must be evaluated in detail if the magnitude and 
time of the resulting radiological exposures to the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual, or radionuclide releases to the accessible environment, would be 
significantly changed by their omission. 
The EPA provides essentially the same criterion for low consequence at 40 CFR 197.36 
([DIRS 165519]): 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-6 April 2004 

In addition, unless specified in NRC regulations, the DOEs performance 
assessments need not evaluate, the impacts resulting from any features, events and 
processes or sequences of events or processes with a higher chance of occurrence 
if the results of the performance assessments would not be changed significantly. 
The terms significantly changed and changed significantly are undefined terms in the NRC 
and EPA regulations. The absence of significant change if the FEP is omitted is inferred for 
FEP-screening purposes, to be equivalent to having no effect or negligible effect. 
Regulatory Basis for Screening FEPs By RegulationRegulations also address required 
characteristics, definitions, and concepts, which may serve as the basis for exclusion of FEPs by 
regulation, as further discussed in Section 4.2. Because the regulatory concepts and definitions 
are used as part of the technical basis for an exclude decision, the relevant regulatory citations 
are listed and addressed as direct input, and are listed in Table 4-4 below. 
By specifying characteristics, concepts, and definitions the regulations serve as de facto inputs 
used for screening related FEPs. For the System Level FEPs, these criteria include the 
characteristics, concepts, and definitions pertaining to the reference biosphere, the geologic 
setting, and the RMEI. Also pertinent are characteristics, concepts, and definitions that must be 
considered during the FEP screening, such as the areal extent of the accessible environment and 
of the controlled area, and the spatial relationship between repository and the RMEI. These 
terms define or imply geographical limits or constrain the consideration of the future state of the 
reference biosphere and/or geologic setting. The characteristics, concepts, and definitions are 
listed in Table 4-4, and additional discussion of their application and use follows the table. 
Table 4-4. Other Direct Input from Regulations Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPs (Section 6.2.1) 
10 CFR 63.114(d) 
6.2.1.1 
Required time period 
for performance 
assessment 
10,000 years 
10 CFR 63.321 
10 CFR 63.303 
10 CFR 63.305(c) 
10 CFR 63.341 
[DIRS 156605] 
10 CFR 63.312(a) 
The location is based on the accessible 10 CFR 63.302 
6.2.1.2 
Location of the RMEI 
to define spatial scale 
of concern 
environment above the highest concentration of 
radionuclides in the plume of contamination. 
This is located approximately 18 km from the 
repository above the plume of contamination per 
the EPA. 
[DIRS 156605] 
40 CFR Part 197 
(66 FR 32074, p. 32117 
[DIRS 155216] 
10 CFR Part 63 
10 CFR 63.303 
6.2.1.3 Applicable regulations 
NRC regulations 
(and EPA regulations as adopted by NRC) 
[DIRS 156605]), and as 
incorporated, the 
requirements of 
40 CFR Part 197 
[DIRS 165519] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-7 April 2004 

Table 4-4. Other Direct Input from Regulations Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations (Continued) 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPs (Section 6.2.1) (Continued) 
6.2.1.4 Model and data 
requirements 
Specific elements required for a 
performance assessment 
10 CFR 63,114 (a, b, c, and 
g) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.1.5 
Requirement to provide 
data and observations on 
actual and encountered 
conditions 
Data and observations related to 
encountered subsurface conditions, 
functioning of the natural engineered 
systems, and monitoring and testing 
10 CFR 63.44 
10 CFR 63 Subpart F 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.1.6 Requirement to allow for 
retrieval 
Specific requirements needed to achieve 
retrievability 
10 CFR 63.111(e)(1, 2, 3) 
[DIRS 156605] 
PROCESS AND SITE-CONTROL FEPs (Section 6.2.2) 
6.2.2.1 
and 
6.2.2.4 
Requirement for use of 
active and passive 
institutional controls 
NRC stated reasoning that long-term 
reliability of institutional controls can not be 
reliably forecast 
10 CFR 63.102(k) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.2.2 
and 
6.2.2.5 
Requirement to provide 
data and observations on 
actual and encountered 
conditions 
Data and observations related to: 
encountered subsurface conditions, 
functioning of the natural engineered 
systems, and monitoring and testing 
10 CFR 63 Subpart F 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.2.2 
and 
6.2.2.5 
Required notification Address modifications and deviations from 
design 
10 CFR 63.44 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.2.2; 
6.2.2.5 
and 
6.2.2.6 
Prompt notification if 
there is a significant 
deficiency found 
(1) in the characteristics of the Yucca 
Mountain site, or (2) in design and 
construction of the geologic repository area, 
including significant deviations from the 
design criteria and design bases stated in 
the application 
10 CFR 63.73(a) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.2.2 Quality control Required quality control program elements 
and application 
10 CFR 63 Subpart G 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.2.3 
Requirement to address 
postclosure concerns in 
the TSPA-LA 
Preclosure concerns are not the focus of 
performance assessment 
10 CFR 63.102(j) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.2.5 Requirement to conduct 
a monitoring program 
Such a monitoring program not adversely 
affect the repository from meeting 
performance objectives 
10 CFR 63.131(c) 
10 CFR 63.131(d)(1) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.2.6 
Prompt notification if 
there is a significant 
deficiency found 
Includes requirement for regular audits and 
inspections 
10 CFR 63 Subpart D 
[DIRS 156605] 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) 
6.2.3.1; 
6.2.3.2; 
6.2.3.7; 
6.2.3.8; 
and 
6.2.3.10 
NRC stated intent 
regarding exposure of 
intruders and exposure 
from tailings 
Should not be considered because it does 
not show how well a particular repository 
site and design would protect the public at 
large 
10 CFR Part 63 
(Supplementary 
Information, 3.10 Human 
Intrusion Standard, 
p. 55761) 
(66 FR 55732 
[DIRS 156671]) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-8 April 2004 

Table 4-4. Other Direct Input from Regulations Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations (Continued) 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) (Continued) 
6.2.3.1; 
6.2.3.2; 
6.2.3.7; 
6.2.3.8; 
and 
6.2.3.10 
NRC requirement 
regarding which 
exposure pathways to 
consider as part of the 
stylized human intrusion 
analysis 
The exposure scenario includes only those 
radionuclides transported to the saturated 
zone by water. 
10 CFR 63.322(f) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.3.2; 
6.2.3.6; 
and 
6.2.3.7 
Conditional consideration 
of effect of human 
intrusion in TSPA-LA 
Conditional on lack of recognition of 
intrusion by intruder prior to 10,000 years 
If the exposure of the RMEI occurs after 
10,000 years, or if the intrusion is projected 
to occur after 10,000 years, the results of 
the analysis and the bases of the analysis 
are to be provided in the environmental 
impact statement for Yucca Mountain. 
10 CFR 63.321 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.3.3 
and 
6.2.3.4 
Unlikely features, events, 
and processes excluded 
from consideration as 
part of the human 
intrusion assessment 
Unlikely event defined as those with those 
that are estimated to have less than one 
chance in 10 and at least one chance in 
10,000 of occurring within 10,000 years of 
disposal 
10 CFR 63.342 
[DIRS 156605) 
6.2.3.5 
Definition of human 
intrusion 
Breaching of any portion of the Yucca 
Mountain disposal system, within the 
repository footprint, by any human activity 
10 CFR 63.302 
[DIRS 156605] 
Conditions for human 
intrusion stylized analysis 
Human intrusion only to be evaluated 
through the specified human intrusion 
stylized analysis 
10 CFR 63.113(d) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.3.6; 
6.2.3.7; 
6.2.3.8; 
and 
6.2.3.9 
Specifications for human 
intrusion stylized analysis 
There is a single human intrusion as a result 
of exploratory drilling for ground water. 
10 CFR 63.322 
[DIRS 156605] 
The intruders drill a borehole directly 
through a degraded waste package into the 
uppermost aquifer underlying the Yucca 
Mountain repository. 
The drillers use the common techniques and 
practices that are currently employed in 
exploratory drilling for ground water in the 
region surrounding Yucca Mountain. 
6.2.3.6; 
6.2.3.7; 
6.2.3.8; 
and 
6.2.3.9 
Specifications for human 
intrusion stylized analysis 
Careful sealing of the borehole does not 
occur, instead natural degradation 
processes gradually modify the borehole. 
10 CFR 63.322 
[DIRS 156605] 
No particulate waste material falls into the 
borehole. 
The exposure scenario includes only those 
radionuclides transported to the SZ by water 
(e.g., water enters the waste package, 
releases radionuclides, and transports 
radionuclides by way of the borehole to the 
SZ). 
No releases are included which are caused 
by unlikely natural processes and events. 
6.2.3.10 
ANL-WIS-
Definition of performance 
assessment 
MD-000019 REV 01 4-9 
Performance assessment is to demonstrate 
compliance with the postclosure 
performance objectives 
April 2004 
10 CFR 63.102(j), 
[DIRS 156605] 

Table 4-4. Other Direct Input from Regulations Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations (Continued) 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
Preclosure requirements 
The preclosure requirement is to be based 
on protection of the RMEI against radiation 
exposures and releases of radioactive 
material 
10 CFR 63.311(a), 
[DIRS 156605] 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) 
6.2.4.3; 
6.2.4.4; 
and 
6.2.4.9 
Definition of geologic 
setting 
Defined as the geologic, hydrologic, and 
geochemical systems of the region in which 
the geologic repository is or may be located 
10 CFR 63.2 
[DIRS 156605] 
FEPs required to be 
considered 
Consideration and description of features, 
events, and processes outside of the site to 
the extent the information is relevant and 
material to safety or performance of the 
geologic repository. (Evaporite deposits are 
absent and stress regime is extensional and 
not conducive to diapirism) 
10 CFR 63.21(c)(1) 
[DIRS 156605] 
Data requirements and 
identifying barriers are 
addressed 
Include data that are related to the geology, 
hydrology, and geochemistry (including 
disruptive events) of the Yucca Mountain 
Site, and the surrounding region to the extent 
necessary  and to identify  natural 
features of the geologic setting, that are 
considered barriers important to waste 
isolation 
10 CFR 63.114(a); 
10 CFR 63.115(a) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.4.3; 
6.2.4.4; 
and 
6.2.4.9 
Requirement that 
assumptions must be 
consistent with present 
knowledge 
Vary factors related to the geology, 
hydrology, and climate based upon cautious, 
but reasonable assumptions consistent with 
present knowledge of factors that could affect 
the Yucca Mountain disposal system over the 
next 10,000 years 
10 CFR 63.305(c) 
[DIRS 156605] 
6.2.4.10 
Requirements that 
changes in the biosphere 
should not be projected 
DOE should not project changes in society, 
the biosphere (other than climate), human 
biology, or increases or decreases of human 
knowledge or technology. In all the 
analyses done to demonstrate compliance 
with this part, DOE must assume that all of 
those factors remain constant as they are at 
the time of submission of the license 
10 CFR 63.305(b) 
[DIRS 156605] 
application. 
The definition of 
reference biosphere 
Specifically identifies flora as being a 
component of the reference biosphere 
10 CFR 63.2 
(66 FR 55732 
[DIRS 156671]) 
DOE = U.S. Department of Energy, EPA = U.S. Environmental Agency, FEPs = features, events, and processes, 
NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, RMEI = reasonably maximally exposed individual, SZ= saturated 
zone, TSPA-LA = total system performance assessment for license applicable 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-10 April 2004 

RMEIThe characteristics of the RMEI to be used in exposure calculations are given at 10 CFR 
63.312 (a, b, c, d, and e) ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.21(a, b, and c) ([DIRS 165519])). 
Conceptually, the RMEI is described at 10 CFR 63.102(j) [DIRS 156605]: 
The reasonably maximum exposed individual, as a hypothetical person living in a 
community with characteristics of the Town of Amargosa Valley, is a 
representative person using water with average concentrations of radionuclides as 
described at 63.312. Characteristics of the reference biosphere and the 
reasonably maximally exposed individual are to be based on current human 
behavior and biospheric conditions in the region, as described in 63.305 and 
63.312. 
For completeness and explanation, the required characteristics of the reference biosphere are 
given in 10 CFR 63.305 [DIRS 156605] and are addressed separately below. For purposes of 
this analysis report, the pertinent required characteristics of the RMEI, as described at 
10 CFR 63.312(a) and (b) [DIRS 156605] is that the RMEI: 
Lives in the accessible environment above the highest concentration of 
radionuclides in the plume of contamination. 
and: 
Has a diet and living style representative of the people who now reside in the 
Town of Amargosa Valley, Nevada. 
From 10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.12 [DIRS 165519]: 
Accessible environment means any location outside the controlled area. 
Moreover, the controlled area is: 
The surface area, identified by passive institutional controls, that encompasses no 
more than 300 square kilometers. It must not extend farther: 
South than 36 40' 13.6661. north latitude, in the predominant direction of 
ground water flow; and 
Than five kilometers from the potential repository footprint in any other 
direction; and 
The subsurface underlying the surface area. 
The preamble in the regulations for 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, p. 32117 [DIRS 155216]) 
states further that: 
If fully employed by DOE, and based on current repository design, the controlled 
area could extend approximately 18 km in the direction of ground water flow 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-11 April 2004 

(presently believed to be in a southerly direction) and extend no more than 5 km 
from the repository footprint in any other direction. 
Furthermore, the NRC states in the preamble to 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732, p. 55753 
[DIRS 156671]) that: 
At distances less than 18 km to the Yucca Mountain site, there is evidence of 
intermittent or temporary occupation in modern (historic) times in and around the 
sitefor prospecting or ranching. There also are a number of Native American 
archeological sites reported throughout NTS closer to the site than the Lathrop 
Wells location. However, the literature indicates that these were never 
permanently occupied, and most were abandoned by the end of the 1800s. 
Overall, the literature suggests many reasons for the absence of permanent 
inhabitation at distances much closer than 18 km to the site - unfavorable 
agricultural conditions, inhospitable terrain, the scarcity of mineral resources, and 
limitations on water availability. 
These definitions and concepts indicate that the RMEI is located no closer than 18 km to the 
south in the direction of groundwater flow and over a contaminated groundwater plume 
(in accordance with 10 CFR 63.312 (a, b, c, d, and e) [DIRS 156605]), and that the limit of the 
controlled area is no greater than 5 km from the repository in any other direction (as specified at 
10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]). These concepts, definitions, and required characteristics are 
pertinent because the location of the RMEI and the associated distance from the repository is of 
primary interest in evaluating potential exposure risk due to potential releases at the repository. 
The location of the RMEI is also of importance for determining exposure and is part of the 
technical basis for included FEPs. The location and characteristics of the RMEI for the nominal 
scenario class are also used for the disruptive scenario classes. 
Reference Biosphere and Geologic SettingPer 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]), the reference 
biosphere is defined as: 
Reference biosphere means the description of the environment inhabited by the 
reasonably maximally exposed individual. The reference biosphere comprises the 
set of specific biotic and abiotic characteristics of the environment, including, but 
not necessarily limited to, climate, topography, soils, flora, fauna, and human 
activities. 
Characteristics pertaining to the reference biosphere are presented in 10 CFR 63.305(a) and (b) 
([DIRS 156605]). 
(a) Features, events, and processes that describe the reference biosphere must 
be consistent with present knowledge of the conditions in the region 
surrounding the Yucca Mountain site. 
(b) DOE should not project changes in society, the biosphere (other than 
climate), human biology, and increase or decreases of human knowledge or 
technology. In all analyses done to demonstrate compliance with this part, 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-12 April 2004 

DOE must assume that all those factors remain constant as they are at the 
time of license application. 
The evolution of the reference biosphere and the geologic setting are linked by the NRC at 
10 CFR 63.305(c) [DIRS 156605]; also by the EPA at 40 CFR 197.15 ([DIRS 165519])). 
(c) DOE must vary factors relating to the geology, hydrology, and climate, 
based upon cautious, but reasonable assumptions, consistent with present 
knowledge of factors that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system 
in the next 10,000 years. 
(The EPA language varies slightly by stating the changes in these factors, in contrast to the 
NRC language of consistent with present knowledge of factors.) Per 10 CFR 63.2 
[DIRS 156605]), the geologic setting is defined as: 
The geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical systems of the region in which a 
geologic repository is or may be located. 
By NRCs juxtaposition of the geologic and hydrologic factors within the subsection addressing 
required characteristics of the reference biosphere, it is inferred that the listed regulatory 
constraint of changes in the reference biosphere may also be applicable to conditions that may 
occur at Yucca Mountain. This approach agrees with the statement at 10 CFR 63.102(i) 
([DIRS 156605]) that: 
Characteristics of the reference biosphere and the reasonably maximally 
exposed individual are to be based on current human behavior and biospheric 
conditions in the region, as described in 63.305 and 63.312. 
Specifically identified in the definition of the referenced biosphere are changes to soil, 
topography, and flora. The application of this regulatory input specifically indicates that 
characteristics of the reference biosphere are to be based on biospheric conditions in the region. 
The restriction on consideration of changes in flora is applicable to discussions in 
Section 6.2.4.10 dealing with potential changes in ecological factors due to repository heat and 
provides a regulatory basis for excluding the consideration of changes. 
Institutional ControlThe regulatory definition of the controlled area and the associated 
resulting geographic boundaries are previously described within the discussions of the concept of 
the RMEI. At 10 CFR 63.102(k) ([DIRS 156605]), the regulations address the use of 
institutional controls. The regulations require that the use of both passive and active institutional 
controls are to be maintained, and recognizes that they are expected to reduce significantly, but 
not eliminate, the potential for human activity that causes or accelerates the release of radioactive 
material. To eliminate further speculation on how to address the effectiveness of these controls 
the cited regulations state: 
However, because it is not possible to make scientifically sound forecasts of the 
long-term reliability of institutional controls, it is not appropriate to include 
consideration of human intrusion into a fully risk-based performance assessment 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-13 April 2004 

for purposes of evaluating the ability of the geologic repository to achieve the 
performance objective 
Accordingly, for those FEPs addressing administrative controls, and particularly their influence 
on the timing of human intrusion, the FEPs have been excluded, by regulation, from 
consideration in the human intrusion stylized analysis. 
Human IntrusionHuman intrusion is defined at 10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605]) and 40 CFR 
197.12 ([DIRS 165519]) as: 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
By way of clarification, in 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]), the term performance assessment is 
defined as an analysis that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all System Level FEPs that address 
human intrusion from consideration in the TSPALA model. However, there are also specific 
regulatory provisions regarding consideration of human intrusion. At 10 CFR 63.322 
([DIRS 156605]), the NRC states that: 
For the purposes of the analysis of human intrusion, DOE must make the 
following assumptions: 
(a) There is a single human intrusion as a result of exploratory drilling for 
ground water; 
(b) The intruders drill a borehole directly through a degraded waste package 
into the uppermost aquifer underlying the Yucca Mountain repository; 
(c) The drillers use the common techniques and practices that are currently 
employed in exploratory drilling for ground water in the region surrounding 
Yucca Mountain; 
(d) Careful sealing of the borehole does not occur, instead natural degradation 
processes gradually modify the borehole; 
(e) No particulate waste material falls into the borehole; 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-14 April 2004 

(f) The exposure scenario includes only those radionuclides transported to the 
saturated zone by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases 
radionuclides, and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the 
saturated zone; and 
(g) No releases are included which are caused by unlikely natural processes and 
events. 
This is similar to the requirements in 40 CFR 197.26 ([DIRS 165519]), except that the EPA 
regulations do not specify item (e) above, and item (f) is replaced with the following language at 
40 CFR 197.26 (e) ([DIRS 165519]): 
Only releases of radionuclides that occur as a result of the intrusion and that 
are transported through the resulting borehole to the SZ are projected; 
Several concepts in this set of regulations are important to the evaluation of human intrusion 
FEPs and are listed as direct input. First, rather than speculating on the nature and probability of 
future intrusion, the NRC has required that human intrusion be evaluated via a human intrusion 
stylized analysis. This is emphasized in the regulations at 10 CFR 63.322 (66 FR 55732 
[DIRS 156671]) with the statement that DOE must make the following assumptions,which 
define the human intrusion stylized analysis. . Additionally, the preamble to 10 CFR Part 63 (66 
FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], Supplementary information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, 
p. 55761) indicates that the NRC intended the analysis to be based on a stylized analysis. 
With regard to the timing of the human intrusion, the use of both active and passive institutional 
controls (such as markers and an information repository) will reduce the potential for future 
human activity. However, it is not possible to make scientifically sound forecasts of the 
long-term reliability of such controls as previously discussed under institutional controls. 
Accordingly, at 10 CFR 63.321 ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC specifies the criteria under which 
human intrusion must be evaluated: 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 
Furthermore, by way of explanation and corroboration, per 10 CFR 63.321(a) ([DIRS 156605]), 
DOE must: 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion (see 10 CFR 63.322) without recognition by the 
drillers. 
Also, by way of explanation and corroboration, if the waste package penetration is projected to 
occur before or at the 10,000-year performance period, then the DOE is to provide a 
demonstration per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) ([DIRS 156605]) that: 
there is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 milliSieverts (mSv) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-15 April 2004 

(15 mrem) as a result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after 
disposal. 
And, by way of explanation and corroboration, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) ([DIRS 156605]): 
If the exposure of the RMEI occurs after 10,000 years, or if the intrusion is 
projected to occur after 10,000 years, the results of the analysis and the bases of 
the analysis are to be provided in the environmental impact statement for Yucca 
Mountain. 
Additionally, the specifications at 10 CFR 63.322(f) ([DIRS 156605]) and at 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
([DIRS 165519])), indicating that only radionuclides transported to the saturated zone be 
considered, preclude the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or 
other human intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The preamble to 
10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], Supplementary information, 3.10 Human 
Intrusion Standard) is clear about the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS concluded, 
and the Commission agrees, that analysis of the risk to the public or the intruders 
(i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill cuttings left unattended at the surface for 
subsequent dispersal into the biosphere would not fulfill the purpose of the human 
intrusion calculation because it would not show how well a particular repository 
site and design would protect the public at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard 
of particulate high-level waste (HLW) left on the surface would be dominated by 
assumptions subject to significant speculation and uncertainty regardless of the 
particular site or design under evaluation. Additionally, the release to the surface 
represents a one-time release with no long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional/deliberate or inadvertent/ 
accidental, the regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]) is silent. Similarly, the 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]) do not directly address the motivation or 
intentionality of the intrusion. However, the NRC states in the preamble to 10 CFR Part 63 
(66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55753) that: 
Overall, the literature suggests many reasons for the absence of permanent 
inhabitation at distances much closer than 18 km to the siteunfavorable 
agricultural conditions, inhospitable terrain, the scarcity of mineral resources, and 
limitations on water availability. 
This suggests that the motives for a human intrusion are not likely to be economically motivated 
given knowledge of present conditions, and adds support for use of a human intrusion stylized 
analysis. 
The supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216]) clarify that 
consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the preamble to 40 CFR Part 197 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-16 April 2004 

(66 FR 32074, Item 3 What is the Standard for Human Intrusion? p. 32105 [DIRS 155216]), 
the EPA, in response to comments regarding the human intrusion stylized analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the NAS recommendations and we therefore retained our 
original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this in the preamble to 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more 
specifically Item 10, Is the SingleBorehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to Judge the 
Resilience of the Yucca Mountain Disposal System Following Human Intrusion? 
[DIRS 155216]). The EPA explicitly states that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs conclusion regarding intentional intrusion (NAS Report, p. 14). 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs discussed in this analysis report are excluded 
based on the regulatory intent, and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of 
the regulatory requirements. The requirement is to consider only the stylized human intrusion 
(i.e., based on drilling techniques related to groundwater use) and the timing of such an event, 
regardless of the specific motivation or intentionality of the intruders. 
4.1.4 Other Not Site-Specific Data from Non-Yucca Mountain Project Sources (Data) 
For the System Level FEPs, the majority of the direct input is in the form of data taken from non-
project sources. The nature of the FEP screening arguments and TSPA dispositions is such that 
other direct input and data are cited extensively to support reasoned FEP screening arguments or 
TSPA dispositions. As needed, other non-YMP data sources, alternative conceptual models, and 
references were obtained from literature searches of peer-reviewed journals, other widely 
recognized scientific periodicals, and results of review of YMP documents by external 
organizations. The procedure governing the management of direct inputs allows the use of such 
references as data, but requires that the basis and justification for use be provided within the 
citing AMR. These additional sources of information are shown in Table 4-5, and data 
qualification activities are addressed in Attachment II. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-17 April 2004 

Table 4-5. Data from Non-YMP Sources Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPs (Section 6.2.1) 
(none used) 
PROCESS AND SITE-CONTROL FEPs (Section 6.2.2) 
(none used) 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) 
6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 
6.2.3.7 and 
Attachments II 
and III 
Relation of compressive 
strength to penetration rate 
Rate of penetration ranges from 
inversely proportional to the square of 
the compressive strength of the 
material being drilled, to inversely 
proportional, all other factors being 
equal 
Bourgoyne et al. 1986, 
Equation 5-19 
[DIRS 155233]; 
Kahraman et al. 2000, 
Equation 8 
[DIRS 167761] 
Energy release required to 
fracture or exhume to various 
depths of interest. 
1012 to 1017 Joules (200 to 20 
megaton TNT equivalent) 
Dence et al. 1977, 
Figure 12 
[DIRS 135253] 
Various energy releases 
associated with airplane 
crashes 
Kinetic energy of a Boeing 767 is on 
the order of 1 to 2 tons TNT 
Energy from a Tomahawk cruise 
missile is on the order of 0.5 ton 
Stix and Yam 2001, 
p. 15 
[DIRS 160994] 
Energy yield from conventional 
weapons 
Conventional yield of a GBU-28 
bunker buster bomb is on the order 
of 2 tons 
Ferguson 2002 
[DIRS 160988] 
Backman and 
6.2.3.9 and 
Attachment II 
Goldsmith 1978, 
pp. 33, 38, Equation 
6.2 
[DIRS 167628] 
Maximum penetration depth of 
ground penetrating weapons Reported penetration depths 
Forrestal et al. 1981, 
p. 28[DIRS 167630] 
Patterson 1974, 
[DIRS 167805] 
Young 1976, 
Table II 
[DIRS 167806] 
Radial effects from 
underground nuclear blasts 
In the 64-kt Pile Driver test, stresses 
at about 100 m (328 feet) were 
slightly less than that needed to 
propagate fractures in granodiorite 
Dence et al. 1977, 
p. 262 
[DIRS 135253] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-18 April 2004 

Table 4-5. Data from Non-YMP Sources Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations (Continued) 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) 
6.2.4.1 and 
Attachment II 
Conditions needed for 
regional metamorphism 
T>150-200C at pressures on the order of 
a 0.5-1 kilobars, and depths of 4-5 kms 
Ehlers and Blatt 1972, 
p. 566 
[DIRS 167802] 
Value for pressure 
gradients from geostatic 
loading 
Approximately 0.6 kbar per km 
Ehlers and Blatt 1972, 
p. 169, 
Figure 6-3 
[DIRS 167802] 
Value for temperature 
gradients Approximately 10 to 25 C per km 
Ehlers and Blatt 1972, 
pp. 684-685 
[DIRS 167802] 
Time required for 
complete naturally 
occurring diagenesis in 
the shallow environment 
The time required for complete diagenesis 
in the shallow environment (extending 
from the surface to the downward limit of 
evapotranspiration) is potentially within 
the timescale of concern for the repository 
performance assessment 
Lattman and 
Simonberg 1971, 
p. 277 
[DIRS 129306] 
Krystinik 1990, p. 8-1 
[DIRS 135295] 
CaCO3 and SiO2 exhibit distinctive trends 
that correspond with ages of surficial 
deposits, but SiO2 cementation is not 
dependent on climatic conditions 
Relationship of 
Diagenesis to Climate 
Accumulation rates are attributable to 
several climatic scenarios, but climate 
change was insufficient to significantly 
decrease the rate of accumulation 
Taylor 1986, 
Chapter 5 
[DIRS 102864] 
6.2.4.2 and 
Attachment II 
Modeling suggests that CaCO3 may 
translocate to greater depths with greater 
precipitation. 
Initial compaction can reduce porosity by 
Compaction during 
diagenesis 
20 to 30 percent. Compaction does not 
generally become an important factor in 
diagenesis until the onset of grain 
deformation and pressure solution during 
Krystinik 1990, 
pp. 8-3, 8-4 
[DIRS 135295] 
deeper burial diagenesis 
Cementation during 
diagenesis 
The net effect of shallow diagenesis is to 
stabilize the surface environment and 
decrease the net vertical infiltration rate 
Accumulation rate for Yucca Mountain 
alluvium favors SiO2 over CaCO3. CaCO3 
is an accessory cement and cementation 
process is reversible 
Cementation by calcium carbonate is not 
a significant process in rhyolitic tuffs due 
to the lack of carbonate source material 
Cements other than from carbonate may 
develop 
Reeves 1976, p. 110 
[DIRS 104303] 
Taylor 1986, pp. 31-33, 
Figure 9, Chapter 5 
[DIRS 102864] 
Lattman 1973, p. 3015 
[DIRS 129305] 
Krystinik 1990, p. 8-4 
[DIRS 135295] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-19 April 2004 

Table 4-5. Data from Non-YMP Sources Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations (Continued) 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) (Continued) 
Ceplecha 1992, 
Flux data for a range of meteor masses p. 362, Figure 1 
[DIRS 135242] 
Flux data by meteor type and related 
densities 
Ceplecha 1994, 
p. 967: Tables 1, 3, 
and 4; Figure 2, 
Table 4 
[DIRS 135243] 
Subsurface spatial relationships and 
energy/distance relationships resulting in 
crater formation 
Dence et al. 1977, 
pp. 250 and 261264 
[DIRS 135253] 
Crater rate distribution based on observed Grieve 1987, 
earth cratering and diameters associated pp. 249, 257, Figure 8 
6.2.4.5 
Appendices 
II and IV 
Meteorite input data 
with onset of complex cratering [DIRS 135254] 
Provides results of a model that link a 
variety of effects to initial meteor radius, 
including resulting crater diameters and 
related consequences 
Hills and Goda 1993, 
pp. 1140 and 1142, 
Figures 9, 16, 17, 
and 18 
[DIRS 135281] 
Values for percent of meteors that are of 
iron composition 
Shoemaker 1983, 
pp. 464 and 480 
[DIRS 135308] 
Spatial relationship of crater diameter to 
extents and depth of fracturing and 
exhumation and crater diameters 
associated with onset of complex 
cratering 
Wuschke et al. 1995, 
p. 3 
[DIRS 129326] 
Spatial extent of fracturing is assumed to 
be spherical 
Wuschke et al. 1995, 
Figure 1 
[DIRS 129326] 
Crater diameters associated with onset of Grieve et al. 1995, 
complex cratering p. 184 [DIRS 135260] 
Crater diameter to depth of effect 
relationships 
Grieve 1998, 
p. 113, Figure 8 
[DIRS 163385] 
Provides cratering rate data for the 
Canadian shield and application to a 
hypothetical Canadian repository 
Wuschke et al. 
1995,pp. 4 and 26 
[DIRS 129326] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-20 April 2004 

Table 4-5. Data from Non-YMP Sources Used for the System Level FEP Evaluations (Continued) 
Section Type of Input Value/Contribution Input Source 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) (Continued) 
6.2.4.6, 
Attachment II 
Effects of Non-Solar 
Extraterrestrial Events 
Frequency of events is on the order of 1 
event per 100 years 
Energy released from such events is on 
the order of 1050 ergs 
Effects may have included creation of a 
nitrogen-rich environment, short-term 
global cooling, and ozone depletion 
No subsurface effects were mentioned or 
discussed 
Brakenridge 1981 
[DIRS 167873] 
Solar-related Effects 
There are numerous associations 
between solar variability and terrestrial 
parameters that range from the earths 
surface to hundreds of kilometers above 
it, on the time scales from days to 
centuries. These include relations 
between decadal sun cycles and earths 
surface temperature, overall solar activity 
with earths surface temperature, and 
possible links from changes in IR and 
visible and IR radiation to changes in 
earths temperature and climate 
Lean 1997 
[DIRS 167639] 
Uses of space weather 
prediction; discussion of 
the type of operations 
affected and problems 
encountered 
List of engineered systems and operations 
that could experience problems due to 
space weather 
Maynard 1995 
[DIRS 160888] 
6.2.4.7, 
Attachment II 
Evidence for changes and 
fluctuations in the earths 
magnetic field 
During the last 20 million years, the fossil 
record shows at least 60 reversals, and 
the periodicity of the reversal is on the 
scale of a few hundred thousand years to 
once every million years 
Odenwald 2003 
[DIRS 160892] 
Changes in the earths 
magnetic intensity in the 
past and prediction for the 
future 
There has been a decrease in the earths 
magnetic intensity in the last few thousand 
years, and there is some evidence that a 
reversal in the earths magnetic field may 
occur sometime during the next few to 
several thousand years 
Odenwald 2003 
[DIRS 160892] 
Effects of magnetic field 
changes on natural 
systems 
No identifiable fossil effects such as 
mutation or extinctions. 
Odenwald 2003 
[DIRS 160892] 
6.2.4.8, 
Attachment II 
Tidal force effects on 
water levels at Yucca 
Mountain 
Water level fluctuations in well UE-25 pl is 
cited from others as 2.05 cm 
Bredehoeft 1987, 
p. 2460 
[DIRS 100007] 
FEPs = features, events, and processes 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-21 April 2004 

4.2 CRITERIA 
This section addresses the criteria relevant to the FEP screening process. These criteria were not 
presented in the TWP because they were not identified until after preparation of the TWP during 
review of the Project Requirements Document (PRD) (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]) 
and during preparation of this analysis report. These criteria stem from the applicable 
regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156671] (and also those incorporated from 40 CFR Part 
197 [DIRS 155216]), as identified in the PRD. These criteria find expression as specific 
acceptance criteria presented by the NRC in NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). The 
correlation of the regulations and criteria are shown in Table 4-6, and applications of the criteria 
for FEP screening are described in Section 4.1.3.1 of this analysis report. 
The PRD (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]) documents and categorizes the regulatory 
requirements and other project requirements and provides a crosswalk to the various YMP 
organizations that are responsible for ensuring that the criteria have been addressed in the LA. 
The regulatory requirements include criteria relevant to performance assessment activities, in 
general, and to FEP-related activities as they pertain to performance assessment, in particular. 
Table 4-6 provides a crosswalk between the regulatory requirements, the PRD (Canori and 
Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]), and the acceptance criteria provided in NUREG-1804 (NRC 
2003, Sections 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.1.4 [DIRS 163274]). 
The NRC will be reviewing the LA. The basis of the review is described in NUREG-1804 
(NRC 2003, Sections 2.2.1.2 [DIRS 163274]), and the bases for acceptance are stated as 
acceptance criteria. In Table 4-6, NUREG-1804 acceptance criteria are correlated to the 
corresponding regulations and related PRDs as they pertain to FEP-related criteria. With only a 
few exceptions, the regulatory requirements at 40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]) have been 
incorporated within the requirements of 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]). However, because 
the EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]) have not been superseded, this 
analysis report has, for completeness, retained EPA citations in the individual FEP discussions as 
needed for clarity. In a few instances, differences in the regulations also are cited to clarify a 
particular FEP concept, definition, or approach to a screening argument. 
The cited NUREG-1804 criteria are provided in Table 4-7. The acceptance criteria for FEP 
screening presented in the NUREG-1804echo the screening criteria of low probability and low 
consequence (NRC 2003 Section 2.2.1.2.1.3 Acceptance Criterion 2 Screening of the Initial List 
of Features, Events, and Processes Is Appropriate [DIRS 163274]) but also allow for exclusion 
of a FEP if the process is specifically excluded by the regulations. To wit: 
The U.S. Department of Energy has justified excluding each feature, event, and 
process. An acceptable justification for excluding features, events, and processes 
is that either the feature, event, and process is specifically excluded by regulation; 
probability of the feature, event, and process (generally an event) falls below the 
regulatory criterion; or omission of the feature, event, and process does not 
significantly change the magnitude and time of the resulting radiological 
exposures to the reasonably maximally exposed individual, or radionuclide 
releases to the accessible environment. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-22 April 2004 

The application of the FEP screening criteria is described further in Section 6.1.2 of this analysis 
report. The regulatory criteria for determining low probability or low consequence, and the 
characteristics, definitions and concepts used to screen FEPs based on the regulations, are listed 
in Section 4.1.3.1 as Direct Input. 
Table 4-6. Relationships of EPA and NRC Regulations to the PRD and to the Acceptance Criteria from 
the NUREG-1804 
Description of the 
Applicable Regulatory 
Requirement or 
Acceptance Criterion 
40 CFR Part 197 
[DIRS 165519] 
10 CFR Part 63 
[DIRS 156605] 
Canori and Leitner 
2003 
[DIRS 166275] 
Associated 
Criteria 
in NUREG-1804 
[DIRS 163274] Regulatory 
Citation 
Regulatory 
Citation 
Associated 
PRD 
General Requirements and Scope Pertinent to FEP Screening 
Include data related to 
geology, hydrology, 
geochemistry, and 
geophysics 
Not Applicable 63.114(a) 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 1 
Include information of the 
design of the engineered 
barrier system used to 
define parameters and 
Not Applicable 63.114(a) 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 1 
conceptual models 
Account for uncertainties 
and variabilities in 
parameter values and 
provide the technical basis 
for parameter ranges, 
probability distributions, or 
197.14 63.114(b) 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
2.2.1.2.2.3 
Acceptance 
Criteria 
2 and 5 
bounding values 
FEP Screening Criteria 
Provide the justification 
and technical basis for 2.2.1.2.1.3 
excluding FEPs 
specifically excluded by 
Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
regulation. 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
Provide the technical basis 
for either inclusion or 
exclusion of FEPs. Provide 
63.114(d) 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
the justification and 
technical basis for those 
197.36 
2.2.1.2.2.3 
excluded based on 
probability. 
63.342 PRD-002/ 
T-034 
Acceptance 
Criteria 
1 and 2 
Provide the technical basis 
for either inclusion or 
exclusion of FEPs. 
Provide the justification 
and the technical basis for 
those excluded based on 
lack of significant change 
in resulting radiological 
exposure or release to the 
accessible environment. 
197.36 
63.114 
(e and f) 
63.342 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
PRD-002/ 
T-034 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
2.2.1.2.2.3 
Acceptance 
Criteria 
1 and 2 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-23 April 2004 

Table 4-6. Relationships of EPA and NRC Regulations to the PRD and to the Acceptance Criteria from 
NUREG-1804 (Continued) 
Description of the Applicable 
Regulatory Requirement or 
Acceptance Criterion 
40 CFR Part 197 
[DIRS 165519] 
10 CFR Part 63 
[DIRS 156605] 
Canori and 
Leitner 2003 
[DIRS 1662754] 
Associated 
Criteria 
in NUREG-1804 
[DIRS 163274} Regulatory 
Citation 
Regulatory 
Citation 
Associated 
PRD 
General Requirements and Scope Pertinent to FEP Screening 
Human Intrusion Criteria 
Time of earliest penetration 
without recognition and basis 197.25 63.321 
PRD-002/ 
T-029 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 1 
Treatment if human intrusion 
results in RMEI exposure prior to 
10,000 years 
197.25(a) 63.321(b)(1) 
PRD-002/ 
T-029 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
Treatment if human intrusion 
results in RMEI exposure post-
10,000 years 
197.25(b) 
63.321 
(b)(2) 
PRD-002/ 
T-029 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
Required circumstances/ 
assumptions for human intrusion 
analysis 
197.26 
63.322 
(a, b, c, d, e) 
PRD-002/ 
T-030 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
Consideration only via 
groundwater pathway 197.26(e) 63.322(f) 
PRD-002/ 
T-030 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
No consideration of unlikely 
processes in combination with 
human intrusion 
197.26(f) 63.322(g) 
PRD-002/ 
T-030 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
FEPs = features, events, and processes, PRD = Project Requirements Document, RMEI = reasonably maximally 
exposed individual, 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-24 April 2004 

Table 4-7. NUREG-1804 Criteria and the System Level FEPs AMR 
NUREG-1804 
Criterion Acceptance Criterion Description How Addressed in this Analysis Report 
Scenario 
1. The Identification of 
a list of FEPs Is 
Adequate 
The safety analysis report contains a complete list of FEPs 
related to the geologic setting or the degradation, deterioration, 
or alteration of engineered barriers (including those processes 
that would affect the performance of natural barriers), that have 
the potential to influence repository performance. The list is 
consistent with the site characterization data. Moreover, the 
comprehensive features, events, and processes list includes, but 
is not limited to, potentially disruptive events related to igneous 
activity (extrusive and intrusive); seismic shaking (high-
frequency-low magnitude, and rare large-magnitude events); 
tectonic evolution (slip on existing faults and formation of new 
faults); climatic change (change to pluvial conditions); and 
criticality. 
The list of System Level FEPs is provided in 
Section 1.2, and FEP Descriptions are 
provided in Section 6.2. See Section 6.1.1 of 
this analysis report for a description and origin 
of the System Level FEP list and descriptions. 
This analysis report does not address 
disruptive events or climatic change. 
Analysis and 
Event Probability: 
Scenario 
The DOE has identified all FEPs related to either the geologic 
setting or to the degradation, deterioration, or alteration of 
engineered barriers (including those processes that would affect 
the performance of natural barriers) that have been excluded. 
See Table 7-1 for a list of excluded System Level 
FEPs. 
Analysis 
(from Section 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
NUREG-1804 
[DIRS 163274]) 2. Screening of the 
Initial List of Features, 
Events, and Processes 
Is Appropriate 
The DOE has provided justification for those FEPs that have 
been excluded. An acceptable justification for excluding FEPs is 
that either the FEP is specifically excluded by regulation; 
probability of the FEP (generally an event) falls below the 
regulatory criterion; or omission of the feature, and process does 
not significantly change the magnitude and time of the resulting 
radiological exposures to the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual, or radionuclide releases to the accessible 
environment. 
See the method and approach discussion provided 
in Section 6.1.2 and the individual justification (by 
regulation, low probability, low consequence) for 
excluding FEPs. The justification is also included in 
Table 7-1. 
The DOE has provided an adequate technical basis for each 
FEP, excluded from the performance assessment, to support the 
conclusion that either the FEP is specifically excluded by 
regulation; the probability of the FEP falls below the regulatory 
criterion; or omission of the FEP does not significantly change 
the magnitude and time of the resulting radiological exposures to 
the reasonably maximally exposed individual, or radionuclide 
releases to the accessible environment. 
See Section 6.2 for discussion of the individual FEP 
depositions and supporting technical bases. 
ANL-WIS-MD-0000019 REV 01 4-25 April 2004 

Table 4-7. NUREG-1804 Criteria and the System Level FEPs AMR (Continued) 
NUREG-1804 
Criterion Acceptance Criterion Description How Addressed in this Analysis Report 
Events or event classes are defined without ambiguity and used 
consistently in probability models, such that probabilities for each 
event or event class are estimated separately. 
See the FEP Description provided for each FEP 
in Section 6.2 and the cited supporting AMRs. 
1. Events are 
Scenario Analysis 
and Event 
Probability: 
Adequately Defined Probabilities of intrusive and extrusive igneous events are calculated 
separately. Definitions of faulting and earthquakes are derived from 
the historical record, paleoseismic studies, or geological analyses. 
Criticality events are calculated separately by location. 
This analysis report does not address igneous, 
seismic or criticality FEPs. This criterion is not 
applicable to this analysis report. 
Identification of 
Events with 
Probability 
Greater than 10-8 
per Year 
2. Probability Estimates 
for Future Events Are 
Supported by 
Appropriate Technical 
Bases. 
Probabilities for future natural events are based on past patterns of 
the natural events in the Yucca Mountain region, considering the 
likely future conditions and interactions of the natural and 
engineered repository system. These probability estimates have 
specifically included igneous events, faulting and seismic events, 
and criticality events. 
Other future naturally occurring events (such as 
meteorite impact) are addressed in this analysis 
report. See FEP discussions in Section 6.2.4 for 
a list of naturally occurring FEPs that are 
addressed. This analysis report does not 
address igneous, seismic or criticality FEPs 
(from Section 
2.2.1.2.2.3 
NUREG-1804 
[DIRS 163274]) 
5. Uncertainty in Event 
Probability is Adequately 
Evaluated 
Probability values appropriately reflect uncertainties. Specifically: 
a. The DOE provides a technical basis for probability values used, 
and the values account for the uncertainty in the probability 
estimates: and 
The technical basis and discussion of 
uncertainties used for exclusion of System-Level 
FEPs are discussed in the subsections of Section 
6.2 for the individual FEPs 
b. The uncertainty for reported probability values adequately 
reflects the influence of parameter uncertainty on the range of model 
results (i.e., precision) and the model uncertainty, as it affects the 
timing and magnitude of past events (i.e., accuracy). 
ANL-WIS-MD-0000019 REV 01 4-26 April 2004 

Table 4-7. NUREG-1804 Criteria and the System Level FEPs AMR (Continued) 
ANL-WIS-MD-0000019 REV 01 4-27 April 2004 
NUREG1804Criterion 
Acceptance Criterion Description How Addressed in this Analysis Report 
Demonstration of 
Compliance with 
Post-closure 
1. Evaluation of the 
Time of an Intrusion 
Event 
The technical basis and associated analyses adequately support 
the selection of time of occurrence of human intrusion, as 
specified in 10 CFR 63.321 
See the technical justification of timing as 
provided in Attachment III of this analysis 
report. See Section 6.2.3 for a discussion of 
human intrusion-related FEPs. 
The TSPA of human intrusion is performed separately from the 
Public Health overall TSPA, and meets the requirements for performance 
and assessments, specified in 10 CFR 63.114. 
See the technical justification of timing of 
earliest occurrence of human intrusion without 
recognition by the driller, provided in 
Attachment III of this analysis report. See 
Section 6.2.3 for a discussion of human 
Environmental 
Standards 
Demonstration of 
Compliance with 
2. Evaluation of an 
Intrusion Event 
Demonstrates that the 
Annual Dose to the 
The TSPA for human intrusion is identical to the TSPA for 
individual protection, except that it assumes the occurrence of a 
postulated human intrusion event with characteristics, as defined 
in 10 CFR 63.322 and excludes the consideration of unlikely 
natural FEPs. 
the Human Reasonably Maximally A sufficient number of realizations has been run using the total intrusion-related-FEPs consistent with the 
Intrusion Exposed Individual in system performance code, to ensure that the results of the requirements of 10 CFR 63.321 and 10 CFR 
Standard Any Year during the calculations are statistically stable. 63.322. A human intrusion analysis has been 
provided for a post-10,000 year human 
intrusion in the FEIS (DOE 2002, Section 5.7.1 
[DIRS 155970]). 
from Section 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
NUREG-1804 
[DIRS 163274]) 
Compliance Period is 
Acceptable 
The estimated repository performance is reasonable and 
consistent with the analysis of overall repository performance 
and with the characteristics of the postulated intrusion event. 
The annual dose curve for limited human intrusion confirms that 
the repository system meets performance objectives, specified in 
10 CFR 63.321, for limited human intrusion events. 
NOTE: 
The NUREG-1804 (Section 2.2.1.2.2.3 [DIRS163274]) has two additional criteria regarding the identification of events with probabilities greater than 10-8 
per year. Acceptance Criteria 3 applies to probability models, which are not used for System Level FEP evaluations and the criterion is, therefore, not 
applicable. Acceptance Criteria 4 deals with probability model parameters, and is, therefore, not applicable. 
DOE = U.S. Department of Energy, FEPs = features, events, and processes, TSPA = total system performance assessment 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
4.3 CODES AND STANDARDS 
As identified in the review process, but omitted from the TWP, applicable codes and standards 
include 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]), as discussed in Section 4.2. 
As applicable for FEP evaluation, portions of the NRC regulations (and the corresponding 
portions of the EPA regulation at 40 Part 197 [DIRS 155216] that have been incorporated into 
the NRC regulations) may serve as direct inputs and/or criteria. Regulations used as direct 
inputs, including the criteria used for FEP screening, are cited in Section 4.1.3, and those 
providing criteria as identified in the PRD are cited in Section 4.2. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 4-28 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
5. ASSUMPTIONS
This section addresses assumptions used in the FEP screening for the System Level FEPs. Four 
general assumptions are used in screening the System Level FEPs. 
Assumption 5.1: For naturally occurring FEPs, it is assumed that regulations expressed as 
probability criterion can also be expressed as an annual exceedance probability, which is 
defined as the probability that a specified value (such as for ground motions or fault 
displacement) will be exceeded during one year. More specifically, a stated probability 
screening criterion of one chance in 10,000 in 10,000 years (10-4/104 yr) criterion is assumed 
equivalent to a 10-8 annual-exceedance probability, and a stated definition of unlikely events 
as having one chance in 10 in 10,000 years (10-1/104 yr) of occurring is assumed equivalent to a 
10-5 annual-exceedance probability. 
JustificationThe definition of annual exceedance probability, and the following justification for 
this assumption is taken from BSC (2004, Glossary [DIRS 168030]). 
The assumption of equivalence of annual-exceedance probability is appropriate if the possibility 
of an event is equal for any given year. This satisfies the definition of a Poisson distribution as 
a mathematical model of the number of outcomes obtained in a suitable interval of time and 
space, that has its mean equal to its variance (Merriam-Webster 1993, p. 899 
[DIRS 100468]). This is inferred to mean that naturally occurring, infrequent, and independent 
events, can be represented as stochastic processes in which distinct events occur in such a way 
that the number of events occurring in a given period of time depends only on the length of the 
time period. The use of this assumption is justified in Characterize Framework for Seismicity 
and Structural Deformation at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168030]), which 
indicates that assuming that the behavior of the earth is generally Poissonian or random is the 
underlying assumption in all probabilistic hazard analyses. 
For example, all meteorite impacts are considered as independent events with regard to size, 
time, and location. Although there may be cases where sufficient data and information exist to 
depart from this assumption, the Poissonian model is generally an effective representation of 
nature and represents a compromise between the complexity of natural processes, availability of 
information, and the sensitivity of results of engineering relevance. Consequently, for geologic 
processes that occur over long time spans, assuming annual equivalence over a 10,000-year 
period (a relatively short time span for geologic-related events) is reasonable and consistent with 
the basis of probabilistic hazard analyses. Therefore, no further confirmation is required. 
UseThis assumption is used for the FEPs: 
Changes in the earths magnetic field (1.5.03.01.0A) Section 6.2.4.8 
Meteorite impact (1.5.01.01.0A) Section 6.2.4.10 
Assumption 5.2: The analysis to determine the timing at which a human intrusion could occur 
without recognition by the drillers is based on physical principles and material properties 
(see Attachment III). However, inherent in the analysis is the assumption that records and 
markers are lost, ignored, or otherwise ineffective in preventing or delaying the intrusion. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 5-1 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
JustificationThis assumption is intrinsic in the regulatory requirement to consider that a human 
intrusion occurs and for determining the earliest time for the intrusion. It is consistent with the 
regulatory requirement at 10 CFR 63.102(k) ([DIRS 156605]), which states it is not possible 
to make scientifically sound forecasts of the long-term reliability of institutional controls. It is 
also conservative and reasonable to assume that surface controls are lost at some time within the 
10,000-year regulatory time span. No further confirmation is required. 
UseThe assumption is used for the FEPs 
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A) Section 6.2.2.3 
Records and markers for repository (1.1.05.00.0A) Section 6.2.2.5 
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A) Section 6.2.3.2 
Drilling Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A) Section 6.2.3.7 
Mining and Other Underground Activities (1.4.05.00.0A) Section 6.2.3.9 
Assumption 5.3: It is assumed that potential naturally occurring events, but perhaps of different 
magnitude, have occurred at least once in the past within the geologic record used as the basis for 
the TSPA-LA. 
JustificationThis assumption is justified because it is consistent with the regulations used as 
direct input. At 10 CFR 63.305(c) ([DIRS 156605]), DOE is directed to vary factors related to 
the geology, hydrology, and climate based upon cautious, but reasonable assumptions consistent 
with present knowledge of factors that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system over the 
next 10,000 years. See also the discussion on the regulatory concepts for reference biosphere and 
geologic setting provided in Section 4.1.3. 
The implication of this assumption is that any discernible impacts or processes related to past 
events on the site setting are reflected in the present knowledge of natural processes that form the 
basis of the TSPA. If the subject FEP phenomena are not reflected or discernible in the data 
used to describe past settings, then they are either of low consequence or of low probability and 
can be excluded from consideration. Because it is consistent with the regulations, no further 
confirmation is necessary. 
UseThis assumption is used throughout. It is particularly germane to FEPs related to processes 
or phenomena that, speculatively, could affect future states of the system, but for which the 
magnitude and/or coupling to the effect on the repository is not well defined, or for which 
consequences in present time are known to be minor. These include FEPs such as: 
Earth tides (1.5.03.02.0A) Section 6.2.4.8 
Changes in the earths magnetic field (1.5.03.01.0A) Section 6.2.4.9 
Extraterrestrial events (1.5.01.02.0A) Section 6.2.4.10 
These types of events are known to occur. However, the effects of the phenomenon or the 
effects associated with varying magnitudes of the event type and probabilities are not well 
documented (e.g., effects of a supernova); the form of the coupling process is not well defined 
(e.g., changes in the earth's magnetic field); or the phenomenon has been shown to have no 
impact or insignificant impact at the present time (e.g., earth tides). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 5-2 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Assumption 5.4: It is assumed for the meteorite impact analysis, that the initial entry velocity of 
meteors is between 15 and 20 km/sec., that the initial entry angle is vertical, and that fracturing 
beneath an impact crater is cylindrical with depth. 
JustificationFor the meteorite analysis discussed in Section 6.2.4.5 and provided in 
Attachment IV, assumptions are made to ensure that the analysis is conservative in nature, and 
that the range of uncertainty in values is covered. The justification for each segment of the 
assumption is as follows: 
Initial Entry Velocities are 15-20 km/sec.Initial entry velocities are assumed at 15 and 
20 km/sec., regardless of the meteor composition or size. These presumed velocities are justified 
because they are generally conservative and in agreement with available entry velocity data. For 
fragmented meteors, higher initial velocities tend to result in smaller meteorite-impact crater 
diameters (Hills and Goda 1993, p. 1140, Figure 17 [DIRS 135281]). The intuitive assumption 
of increased velocity leading to increased cratering is only correct if the metric is the equivalent 
radius of the crater produced if all of the impacting material were collected into a single body 
that hits the ground at a given impacted velocity (see Hills and Goda 1993, p. 1140, 
Figure 16 [DIRS 135281]). Ram pressures on the meteor are a function of the velocity squared. 
Once ram pressures exceed material strength properties, the meteor fragments, and the fragments 
disperse over a wider area (Hills and Goda 1993, Figures 3 and 9 [DIRS 135281]). Additionally, 
increased initial velocities also result in increased ablation in the atmosphere, resulting in a loss 
of mass (Hills and Goda 1993, p. 1140, Figure 6 [DIRS 135281]). As a result, for a given meteor 
below a certain initial radius (which is composition dependent, but generally on the order of 
100 m) increased initial velocity leads to decreased impact velocity (Hills and Goda 1993, 
Figure 10 [DIRS 135281]), and the mass of the largest resulting fragment markedly decreases for 
initial meteor radius of less than 100 m (Hills and Goda 1993, Figure 11 [DIRS 135281]). 
Decreased velocity and decreased mass of the largest fragment in turn lead to decreased 
individual crater radius. Velocities less than 15 km/sec. would result in larger crater diameters. 
However, lower velocities are not considered because they would not be consistent with 
available corroborating information. 
A summary of velocity information from the reviewed literature is provided in Table 5-1. 
Velocity of known meteoroids and comets range from 12.9 km/sec. for observed meteorites 
(Chyba 1993, Table 1a [DIRS 135248]) to over 80 km/sec. for long period comets (Marsden and 
Steel 1994, pp. 233236 [DIRS 129308]). However, the choice of 15 km/sec. and 20 km/sec., in 
addition to being conservative with respect to crater formation as just discussed, are also 
consistent with the average velocities for observed meteors (see Chyba 1993, 
Table 1a [DIRS 135248] and Ceplecha 1994, Table 2 [DIRS 135243]) with diameters of 
particular interest (i.e., producing craters with frequencies at or greater than the screening 
criterion). Also, Hills and Goda (1993, p. 1116 [DIRS 135281]) indicate that V=20 km/s is 
typical of incoming meteors. Therefore, no further confirmation of this assumption is necessary. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 5-3 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table 5-1. Summary of Velocity Data from Reviewed Literature 
Velocity (km/s) 
Source Asteroids 
Long Period 
Comets 
Short Period 
Comets Not Specified 
20.3 Brown et al. 1998 p, 294 [DIRS 162569] 
20 60 40 
Chapman and Morrison 1994 p. 34 and Figure 1 
[DIRS 135245] 
14.3 Chyba 1993, p. 701 [DIRS 135248]. Average value 
excluding object 1991-VG as human artifact 
13.3 
Chyba 1993, p. 701. median value 
[DIRS 135248] 
20.8 45 38.5 Hughes 1998, p. 35 and 37 [DIRS 162562] 
20.7 
Ceplecha 1994, Table 2 [DIRS 135243] and Chyba 
1993, Table 1a  derived average for 1-10 m 
[DIRS 135248] 
15.8 
Ceplecha 1994, Table 2 [DIRS 135243] and Chyba 
1993, Table 1a  derived average for 11-60 m 
[DIRS 135248] 
58.2 
Marsden and Steel 1994, Table V 
[DIRS 129308] 
25 Grieve 1987 p. 250 [DIRS 135254] 
20.1 Shoemaker 1983, p. 468 [DIRS 135308] weighted by 
probability 
20.3 54.4 39.3 18.2 Average 
0.36 6.7 0.75 4.1 Standard Deviation 
29.4 Average of All Values Regardless of Type 
15.9 Standard Deviation 
Initial Entry Angle is Zero (or Vertical)Initial entry is at zenith angle zero, or vertical, for all 
meteoroids. Due to a longer path length, meteoroids entering at nonzero zenith angles have more 
kinetic energy absorbed in the atmosphere (Hills and Goda 1998 [DIRS 135291]) and would 
result in smaller crater diameters. Vertical entry (zero entry angle) is an upper-bounding value 
because all material entering the atmosphere with vertical entry is implicitly considered to have 
the potential to impact the earths surface, and the path length through which atmospheric effects 
occur is minimized. This assumption is needed because there is no direct input available relating 
flux and angle of entry. This assumption is conservative and no further confirmation of this 
assumption is necessary. 
Zone of Fracturing is Cylindrical with Depth, Rather than ParabolicFor analysis purposes, 
the vertical extent of effects (e.g., exhumation or fracturing) is represented as a cylinder. The 
diameter of the cylinder is assumed to correspond to the crater diameter, and the depth 
corresponds to the depth of interest derived from the crater diameter. In reality, the effects are 
more likely parabolic in nature (inferred from Wuschke et al. 1995, Figure 1 [DIRS 129326]). If 
a parabolic zone is used, however, the depth of the effect becomes shallower with distance from 
the centerline of the crater. Consequently, the volume of material affected by meteorites 
impacting outside the boundary of the repository (i.e., with the centerline of the crater outside the 
repository but with crater diameters overlapping the boundary of the repository) would be 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 5-4 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
smaller, and located in shallower geologic units. By assuming a cylindrical zone, the maximum 
depth of the effect (exhumation or fracturing) is applied throughout the area below the crater 
diameter and, thereby, conservatively considers a larger volume of the material overlying the 
repository. Therefore, no further confirmation of this assumption is necessary because the 
assumption is conservative. 
UseThis assumption is used in the meteorite impact analysis presented in Attachment IV of this 
analysis report, which supports the discussion provided in: 
Meteorite impact (1.5.01.01.0A) Section 6.2.4.5 
The assumptions are used in calculating the probability of formation of craters of a given 
diameter, and to determine the crater diameter occurring at a 10-8 annual exceedance frequency. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 5-5 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 5-6 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
6. ANALYSES
The following sections discuss the System Level FEP analyses. Section 6.1 of this analysis 
report discusses the methods and approach used for the FEP screening process as applicable to 
the System Level FEPs, as well as changes in the System Level FEPs from the TSPA-SR to the 
TSPA-LA FEP list. Section 6.1 also identifies the source of the System Level FEPs, describes 
the FEP screening process, and provides documentation of consideration of generic issues related 
to uncertainty, alternative conceptual models, and models and software. Section 6.2 addresses 
the technical basis for the FEP screening. 
The FEP analyses presented in Section 6.2 are appropriate because they are consistent with the 
TSPA approach to satisfy the performance-assessment requirements. These analyses are also 
appropriate because they address NRC's review criteria described in NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274]) as previously discussed in Section 4.2 of this analysis report. 
6.1 METHODS AND APPROACH 
The methods and approach for FEP screening for TSPA-LA is provided in generic form in The 
Enhanced Plan for Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) at Yucca Mountain (BSC 2002 
[DIRS 158966]) and the KTI Letter Report, Response to Additional Information Needs on TSPAI 
2.05 and TSPAI 2.06 (Freeze 2003 [DIRS 165394]). As described in these documents, the YMP 
TSPA has chosen to satisfy the performance-assessment requirements by adopting a FEP 
analysis and scenario development approach. A review of FEP analysis and scenario 
development in other radioactive waste disposal programs is provided in BSC (2002 Section 2 
[DIRS 158966]) and includes a discussion of alternative FEP analysis methods and scenario 
development approaches. Regardless of the specific approach chosen to perform the screening, 
the screening process is, in essence, a comparison of each FEP against the criteria specified in 
Section 6.1.2 of this analysis report. 
6.1.1 System Level Feature Events and Processes Origin and Identification 
The first step of FEP analysis is identification of FEPs potentially relevant to postclosure 
performance of the Yucca Mountain repository. Consistent with that approach, FEP screening 
for postclosure probability of the System Level FEPs uses the following definitions, as taken 
from BSC (2001, Appendix A [DIRS 154365]): 
feature  An object, structure, or condition that has a potential to affect disposal system
performance.
event  A natural or anthropogenic phenomenon that has a potential to affect disposal
system performance and that occurs during an interval that is short compared to
the period of performance.
process  A natural or anthropogenic phenomenon that has a potential to affect disposal 
system performance and that operates during all or a significant part of the period 
of performance. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-1 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
The development of a comprehensive list of FEPs that are potentially relevant to performance of 
the Yucca Mountain repository is an ongoing, iterative process based on site-specific 
information, design, and regulations. The approach for developing an initial list of FEPs in 
support of TSPA-SR was documented in BSC (2001 [DIRS 154365]). The initial FEP list 
contained 328 FEPs, of which 176 were included in TSPA-SR models (BSC 2001, 
Tables B-9 through B-17 [DIRS 154365]). Each FEP was assigned a unique YMP FEP database 
number, based on the Nuclear Energy Agency categories. The database number is the primary 
method for identifying FEPs, and consists of an eight-digit number having a format x.x.xx.xx.xx. 
The numbering system used by the Nuclear Energy Agency is further explained in 
BSC (2001 [DIRS 154365]). A similar numbering system is used for the TSPA-LA FEP list to 
provide a unique identifier for each FEP. In general, TSPA-SR FEPs with numbers ending in 
.00 were converted to TSPA-LA FEPs with numbers ending in .0A. Where splitting existing 
TSPA-SR FEPs created new FEPs for TSPA-LA, the new FEPs end in .0B, .0C, etc., to ensure 
traceability to their origin in TSPA-SR. 
The results of the System Level FEP activities described in the TWP (BSC 2004, Section 1.2.2 
[DIRS168024]) are documented in this analysis report as shown in Section 6.2. The revision of 
the FEP organization and descriptions were needed to implement The Enhanced Plan for 
Features Events and Processes (FEPs) at Yucca Mountain (BSC 2002, Section 3.2 
[DIRS 158966]) and the KTI Letter Report, Response to Additional Information Needs on TSPAI 
2.05 and TSPAI 2.06 (Freeze 2003 [DIRS 165394]). The particular revision efforts included: 
 Review of the FEP hierarchical system 
 Recategorization and redefinition of System Level FEPs as needed to provide a 
consistent and appropriate level of detail 
 Review of updated analysis reports and modeling reports as needed, and integration with 
subject matter experts (SMEs). 
As part of the TSPA-LA FEP evaluation, the FEP 3.2.10.00.0A (Atmospheric transport of 
contaminants) was removed from the System Level FEP list and reassigned, and the FEP 
2.1.01.04.0A (Repository scale heterogeneity of waste) was assigned to the System Level FEP 
list. Consequently, this analysis report addresses the 31 FEPs that are identified as System Level 
FEPs for TSPA-LA as noted and derived from the preliminary YMP FEP Database 
(DTN: MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]). Two additional FEPs were added. These 
address the effect of preceding disruptive events on determining the timing of human intrusion 
(1.4.02.03.0A Igneous Event Precedes Human Intrusion; and 1.4.02.03.0B Seismic Event 
Precedes Human Intrusion). 
Changes to the preliminary FEP list, including additions and deletions during the review process, 
are given in Table 6-1. That table summarizes the changes from TSPASR to the FEP 
organization and descriptions being used for TSPA-LA that appear in this analysis report, and 
provides a comparison of the resulting screening decisions and bases as provided in Section 6.2 
of this analysis report. Additional changes made in the descriptions from the cited Data Tracking 
Number (DTN) are also presented in Table 6-1 under the TSPA-LA description heading. The 
changes are shown as italics. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-2 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPS 
0.1.02.00.00 Timescales of Concern Included 0.1.02.00.0A Timescales of Concern Minor changes were made 6.2.1.1 
This FEP describes the timescale of concern This FEP addresses the timescale of to clarify the description. 
over which the disposal system presents a concern over which the disposal system 
significant health or environmental hazard. presents a significant health or 
environmental hazard. 
0.1.03.00.00 Spatial Domain of Concern Included 0.1.03.00.0A Spatial Domain of Concern Minor changes were made 6.2.1.2 
This FEP describes the spatial domain of This FEP addresses the spatial domain of to clarify the description. 
concern over which the disposal system may concern over which the disposal system 
present a significant health or environmental may present a significant health or 
hazard. environmental hazard. 
0.1.09.00.00 Regulatory Requirements and Included 0.1.09.00.0A Regulatory Requirements Minor changes were made 6.2.1.3 
Exclusions and Exclusions to clarify the description. 
This FEP describes regulatory requirements This FEP addresses regulatory 
and guidance specific to the Yucca Mountain requirements and guidance specific to the 
repository. Yucca Mountain repository. 
0.1.10.00.00 Model and Data Issues Included 0.1.10.00.0A Model and Data Issues Minor changes were made 6.2.1.4 
This FEP describes issues identified by 
other programs related to modeling of the 
disposal system. Model and data issues are 
general (i.e., methodological) issues 
affecting the assessment modeling process 
and use of data. These issues include the 
Excluded for un-
modeled design 
features 
This FEP addresses issues related to 
modeling of the disposal system. Model 
and data issues are general (i.e., 
methodological) issues affecting the 
assessment modeling process and use of 
data. These issues include the approach 
to clarify the description. 
Reassigned the issue of 
features not modeled to a 
more appropriate FEP 
dealing with inadequate 
quality control. 
approach and assumptions associated with and assumptions associated with the 
the selection of conceptual models, the selection of conceptual models, the 
mathematical implementation of conceptual mathematical implementation of 
models, model geometry and dimensionality, conceptual models, model geometry and 
models of coupled processes, and boundary dimensionality, models of coupled 
and initial conditions. These issues also processes, and boundary and initial 
include the derivation of data values and conditions. These issues also include the 
correlations. derivation of data values and correlations. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-3 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPS (Continued) 
1.1.07.00.00 Repository Design 
This category contains FEPs related to the 
design of the repository, and the ways in 
which the design contributes to long-term 
performance. Changes to or deviations from 
the specified design may affect the long-term 
performance of the disposal system. 
Included for licensed 
repository design and 
for design modifications 
Excluded for significant 
undetected deviations 
from design 
Excluded for 
inadequacy or lack of 
safety of the proposed 
design and for non-YMP 
design elements 
1.1.07.00.0A Repository Design 
This FEP addresses the consideration of 
the design of the repository and the ways 
in which the design contributes to long-
term performance. The performance 
assessment must account for design 
features, material characteristics, and the 
ways in which the design influences the 
evolution of the in-drift environment. 
Modified the description to 
move the issue of 
undetected deviations, 
inadequacy, and lack of 
safety into a more 
appropriate FEP dealing with 
inadequate quality control 
and deviation from design. 
This was done to resolve the 
mixed include/exclude 
screening decision. 
6.2.1.5 
1.1.13.00.00 Retrievability Included design 1.1.13.00.0A Retrievability Minor changes were made to 6.2.1.6 
This category contains FEPs related to 
design, emplacement, operational, or 
administrative measures that might be 
applied or considered in order to enable or 
ease retrieval of wastes. There may be a 
requirement to retrieve all or part of the 
waste stored in the repository, for example, 
to recover valuable fissile materials or to 
elements and 
emplacement 
Excluded for operational 
and administrative 
considerations 
This FEP addresses design, 
emplacement, operational, or 
administrative measures that might be 
applied or considered in order to enable or 
ease retrieval of wastes. There may be a 
requirement to retrieve all or part of the 
waste stored in the repository, for 
example, to recover valuable fissile 
the description. Modified the 
disposition discussion to 
identify the operational and 
the administrative issues as 
preclosure concerns. This 
was done to resolve the 
mixed include/exclude 
screening decision. 
replace defective containers. materials or to replace defective 
containers. 
Not Applicable Not Applicable 2.1.01.04.0A Repository Scale Spatial 
Heterogeneity of Emplaced Waste 
Waste placed in Yucca Mountain will have 
physical, chemical, and radiological 
properties that vary spatially, resulting in 
variation in the mass of radionuclides 
New FEP for System Level. 
Reassigned for TSPA-LA due 
to overarching nature of the 
FEP. 
6.2.1.7 
available for transport from different parts 
of the repository. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-4 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
PROCESS AND SITE CONTROL FEPs 
1.1.05.00.00 Records and Markers, 
Repository 
Included for 
construction of markers 
1.1.05.00.0A Records and Markers for 
the Repository 
Minor changes were made to 
the description. Modified the 
6.2.2.1 
This category contains FEPs related to the 
retention of records of the contents of the 
repository and markers constructed to inform 
future humans of the location and contents 
of the repository. Performance assessments 
must consider the potential effects of human 
activities that might take place within the 
controlled area at a future time when 
to inform future humans 
of the location and 
contents of the 
repository, retention of 
records, and for lack of 
knowledge of the 
repository at future 
times 
This FEP addresses both the retention of 
records of the contents of the repository 
and the markers constructed to inform 
future humans of the location and 
contents of the repository. Performance 
assessments must consider the potential 
effects of human activities that might take 
place within the controlled area at a future 
screening argument to 
exclude to eliminate the need 
for a mixed include/exclude 
screening decision. 
institutional controls and/or knowledge of the Excluded for efficacy of time when institutional controls and/or 
presence of a repository cannot be markers and record knowledge of the presence of a repository 
assumed. retention to prevent cannot be assumed. 
intrusion during the 
postclosure period 
1.1.08.00.00 Quality Control Included for quality 1.1.08.00.0A Inadequate Quality Control Changed name to better 6.2.2.2 
This category contains FEPs related to 
quality assurance and control procedures, 
and tests during the design, construction, 
and operation of the repository, as well as 
the manufacture of the waste forms, 
containers, and engineered features. Lack of 
quality control could result in material 
defects, faulty waste package fabrication, 
and faulty or non-design-standard 
construction, all of which may lead to 
control 
Excluded for material 
defects, faulty 
fabrication, and faulty or 
non-design-standard 
construction 
Excluded for installation 
of panels, silos, and 
drains 
and Deviations from Design 
This FEP addresses issues related to 
inadequate quality assurance and control 
procedures and inadequate testing during 
the design, construction, and operation of 
the repository. It also includes 
inadequacy in the manufacture of the 
waste forms, containers, and engineered 
features. Lack of quality control could 
result in a poorly designed repository, 
reflect focus of the FEP. 
Expanded the description to 
focus on deficiencies and lack 
of safety. Incorporated 
language from the Repository 
Design FEP to resolve the 
mixed include/exclude 
screening decision. 
reduced effectiveness of the engineered unmodeled design features, deviations 
barriers. from design, material defects, faulty waste 
package fabrication, and faulty or non-
design standard construction. All of these 
may lead to reduction in the effectiveness 
of the engineered barriers. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-5 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
PROCESS AND SITE CONTROL FEPs (Continued) 
1.1.09.00.00 Schedule and Planning Excluded 1.1.09.00.0A Schedule and Planning Minor changes were made to 6.2.2.3 
This category contains FEPs related to the This FEP addresses the sequences of 
the description. 
sequences of events and activities occurring events and activities occurring during 
during construction, operation, and closure construction, operation, and closure of the 
of the repository. Deviations from the design repository. Deviations from the design, 
construction or waste emplacement construction, or waste emplacement 
schedule may affect the long-term schedule may affect the long-term 
performance of the disposal system. performance of the disposal system. 
1.1.10.00.00 Administrative Control, 
Repository Site 
This category contains FEPs related to 
administrative control of the repository site. 
Administrative control can reduce the 
possibility that human activities might take 
place within the controlled area. 
Included for 
administrative control 
during the preclosure 
period, for initial 
construction of markers 
and archiving of 
records, and for 
subsequent loss of 
administrative control 
1.1.10.00.0A Administrative Control of the 
Repository Site 
This FEP addresses administrative control 
of the repository site. Administrative 
control can reduce the potential for 
detrimental or unplanned human activity 
within the controlled area that could 
inadvertently cause or accelerate the 
release of radioactive material. 
Minor changes were made to 
the description. Modified the 
screening argument to 
eliminate the need for a 
mixed include/exclude 
screening decision. 
6.2.2.4 
Excluded for efficacy of 
administrative controls  
during the postclosure 
period 
1.1.11.00.00 Monitoring of Repository Excluded for monitoring 1.1.11.00.0A Monitoring of the Repository Changed the description to 6.2.2.5 
This category contains FEPs related to 
monitoring that is carried out during or after 
operations, for either operational safety or 
verification of long-term performance. 
Monitoring boreholes could provide 
enhanced pathways between the surface 
operations 
Included for monitoring 
wells and boreholes 
within the stylized 
human-intrusion 
scenario 
This FEP addresses the potential for 
monitoring that is carried out during or 
after operations, for either operational 
safety or verification of long-term 
performance, to detrimentally affect long-
term performance. For instance, 
focus on detrimental effects 
and changed the screening 
decision and screening 
argument to eliminate the 
mixed include/exclude 
screening decision. 
and the repository. monitoring boreholes could provide 
enhanced pathways between the surface 
and the repository. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-6 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
PROCESS AND SITE CONTROL FEPs (Continued) 
1.1.12.01.00 Accidents and Unplanned Excluded 1.1.12.01.0A Accidents and Unplanned No changes were made to 6.2.2.6 
Events During Operation Events During Construction and Operation the description. 
The long-term performance of the disposal The long-term performance of the 
system might be seriously affected by disposal system might be seriously 
unplanned or improper activities that take affected by unplanned or improper 
place during construction, operation, and activities that take place during 
closure of the repository. construction, operation, and closure of the 
repository. 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs 
1.4.02.01.00 Deliberate Human Intrusion Included for a human-1.4.02.01.0A Deliberate Human Intrusion No changes were made to 6.2.3.1 
Humans could deliberately intrude into the 
repository. Without appropriate precautions, 
intruders could experience high radiation 
exposures. Moreover, containment may be 
left damaged, which could increase 
radionuclide release rates to the biosphere. 
Motivation for deliberate human intrusion 
includes mining, waste retrieval, site 
intrusion stylized 
analysis 
Excluded for deliberate 
intrusion 
Humans could deliberately intrude into the 
repository. Without appropriate 
precautions, intruders could experience 
high radiation exposures. Moreover, 
containment may be left damaged, which 
could increase radionuclide release rates 
to the biosphere. Motivation for deliberate 
human intrusion includes mining, waste 
description or screening 
decision. Eliminated the 
discussion of stylized human 
intrusion within the screening 
argument and thereby 
resolved the mixed 
include/exclude screening 
decision. 
remediation/improvement, archaeology, retrieval, site remediation/improvement, 
sabotage, and acts of war. archaeology, sabotage, and acts of war. 
1.4.02.02.00 Inadvertent Human Intrusion Included 1.4.02.02.0A Inadvertent Human No changes were made to 6.2.3.2 
Humans could accidentally intrude into the 
repository. Without appropriate precautions, 
intruders could experience high radiation 
exposures. Moreover, containment may be 
left damaged, which could increase 
Intrusion 
Humans could accidentally intrude into the 
repository. Without appropriate 
precautions, intruders could experience 
high radiation exposures. Moreover, 
the description. Screening 
decision and screening 
argument were changed to 
exclude from TSPA-LA based 
on timing of intrusion. 
radionuclide release rates to the biosphere. containment may be left damaged, which 
Inadvertent human intrusion might occur could increase radionuclide release rates 
during scientific, mineral, or geothermal to the biosphere. Inadvertent human 
exploration. intrusion might occur during scientific, 
mineral, or geothermal exploration. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-7 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Continued) 
Not Applicable Not Applicable 1.4.02.03.0A Igneous Event Precedes 
Human Intrusion 
An igneous event, such as a dike, 
intersects the repository and damages one 
or more waste packages. The damage is 
such that the material and structural 
New FEP needed to address 
disruptive event and human 
intrusion interaction 
6.2.3.3 
properties of the drip shield and/or waste 
package are significantly altered. Because 
of the change in properties, an intruder, 
using groundwater exploration drilling 
techniques, may not be able to recognize 
that something other than naturally-
occurring materials have been 
encountered. 
Not Applicable Not Applicable 1.4.02.03.0B Seismic Event Precedes New FEP needed to address 6.2.3.4 
Human Intrusion 
A seismic event occurs at the repository 
and damages one or more waste 
disruptive event and human 
intrusion interaction 
packages. The damage is such that the 
material and structural properties of the 
drip shield and/or waste package are 
significantly altered. Because of the 
change in properties an intruder, using 
groundwater exploration drilling techniques, 
may not be able to recognize that 
something other than naturally-occurring 
materials have been encountered. 
1.4.03.00.00 Unintrusive Site Investigation Excluded 1.4.03.00.0A Unintrusive Site Investigation Minor changes were made to 6.2.3.5 
This category contains FEPs related to This FEP addresses airborne, geophysical, 
the description. 
airborne, geophysical, or other surface-or other surface-based investigations of a 
based investigations of a repository site repository site after its closure. 
after its closure. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-8 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Continued) 
1.4.04.00.00 Drilling Activities (Human Included for a human 1.4.04.00.0A Drilling Activities (Human Minor changes were made to 6.2.3.6 
Intrusion) intrusion stylized Intrusion) the description. The 
This category contains FEPs related to any 
type of drilling activity in the repository 
environment. These may be taken with or 
without knowledge of the repository. Drilling 
activities may be associated with natural 
resource exploration (water, oil and gas, 
minerals, geothermal energy), waste 
disposal (liquid), fluid storage (hydrocarbon, 
gas), or reopening existing boreholes. 
analysis 
Excluded for specific 
types of drilling 
analyses 
This FEP addresses any type of drilling 
activity in the repository environment. 
These activities may be with or without 
awareness of the presence of the 
repository and with or without consent of 
the repository licensee. Drilling activities 
may be associated with natural resource 
exploration (water, oil and gas, minerals, 
geothermal energy), waste disposal 
(liquid), fluid storage (hydrocarbon, gas), or 
screening argument changed 
to focus on economic 
motivation for conducting 
drilling operations 
(exploration, water resources, 
or other). Changed the 
discussion of the human 
intrusion stylized analysis to 
address the mixed 
include/exclude decision. 
reopening existing boreholes. 
1.4.04.01.00 Effects of Drilling Intrusion Included for interactions 1.4.04.01.0A Effects of Drilling Intrusion No changes were made to 6.2.3.7 
Drilling activities that intrude into the 
repository may create new release 
pathways to the biosphere and alter 
existing pathways. Possible effects of a 
drilling intrusion include interaction with 
waste containers, increased saturation in 
and changes in 
conditions 
Excluded for materials 
brought to the surface 
Drilling activities that intrude into the 
repository may create new release 
pathways to the biosphere and alter 
existing pathways. Possible effects of a 
drilling intrusion include interaction with 
waste packages, increased saturation in 
the description, but the 
screening decision was 
changed. The screening 
argument was changed to 
exclude based on timing of 
intrusion. 
the repository leading to enhanced the repository leading to enhanced 
transport to the SZ, changes to transport to the SZ, changes to 
groundwater and EBS chemistry, and groundwater and EBS chemistry, and 
waste brought to surface. waste brought to surface. 
1.4.05.00.00 Mining and Other Excluded 1.4.05.00.0A Mining and Other No changes were made to 6.2.3.8 
Underground Activities (Human Intrusion) Underground Activities (Human Intrusion) the description or screening 
Mining and other underground human Mining and other underground human 
decision. 
activities (e.g., tunneling, underground activities (e.g., tunneling, underground 
construction, quarrying) could disrupt the construction, quarrying) could disrupt the 
disposal system. disposal system. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-9 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Continued) 
1.4.11.00.00 Explosions and Crashes Excluded 1.4.11.00.0A Explosions and Crashes No changes were made to 6.2.3.9 
(Human Activities) (Human Activities) the description or screening 
Explosions or crashes resulting from future Explosions or crashes resulting from future 
decision. 
human activities may affect the long-term human activities may affect the long-term 
performance of the repository. Explosions performance of the repository. Explosions 
may result from nuclear war, underground may result from nuclear war, underground 
nuclear testing, or resource exploitation. nuclear testing, or resource exploitation. 
3.3.06.01.00 Repository Excavation (also Excluded 3.3.06.01.0A Repository Excavation No changes were made to 6.2.3.10 
listed as Toxicity of Mined Rock) 
Excavation of the repository and/or its 
contents may result in the production of 
Excavation of the repository and/or its 
contents may result in the production of 
tailings, which may subsequently release 
the description or screening 
decision. Changed the title to 
Repository Excavation. 
tailings, which may subsequently release toxic contaminants. 
toxic contaminants. 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPS 
1.2.05.00.00 Metamorphism Excluded 1.2.05.00.0A Metamorphism Minor changes were made to 6.2.4.1 
This category includes FEPs related to This FEP addresses regional 
the description. 
regional metamorphism, which has the metamorphism, which has the potential to 
potential to affect the long-term affect the long-term performance of the 
performance of the repository if it occurs. repository if it occurs. Metamorphic activity 
Metamorphic activity is defined as solid is defined as solid state recrystallization 
state recrystallization changes to rock changes to rock properties and geologic 
properties and geologic structures through structures through the effects of heat 
the effects of heat and/or pressure. and/or pressure. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-10 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPS (Continued) 
1.2.08.00.00 Diagenesis Excluded 1.2.08.00.0A Diagenesis Minor changes were made to 6.2.4.2 
This category contains FEPs related to This FEP addresses natural processes that 
the description. 
natural processes that alter the mineralogy alter the mineralogy or other properties of 
or other properties of rocks after the rocks rocks after the rocks have formed under 
have formed under temperature- and temperature- and pressure-conditions 
pressure-conditions normal to the upper normal to the upper few kilometers of the 
few kilometers of the earth's crust. earth's crust. Diagenesis includes 
Diagenesis includes chemical, physical, chemical, physical, and biological 
and biological processes that take place in processes that take place in rocks after 
rocks after formation but before eventual formation but before eventual 
metamorphism or weathering. This FEP is metamorphism or weathering. This FEP is 
assumed to refer to natural diagenetic assumed to refer to natural diagenetic 
processes only. processes only. 
1.2.09.00.00 Salt Diapirism and Dissolution Excluded 1.2.09.00.0A Salt Diapirism and Minor changes were made to 6.2.4.3 
This category contains FEPs related to 
Dissolution the description. 
geologic processes primarily relevant to This FEP addresses geologic processes 
repositories located in salt and evaporite relevant to repositories located in salt 
deposits. Diapirism refers to the tendency deposits. Salt diapirism refers to the 
of any rock, but most particularly salt, to tendency of salt to flow under lithostatic 
flow under lithostatic loading when density loading when density and viscosity 
and viscosity contrasts with surrounding contrasts with surrounding strata are 
strata are favorable. Salt domes are the favorable. Salt domes are the best-known 
best-known example of salt diapirism. example of salt diapirism. Salt dissolution 
Dissolution can occur when any soluble can occur when any soluble mineral is 
mineral is removed by flowing water, and removed by flowing water, and large-scale 
large-scale dissolution is a potentially dissolution is a potentially important 
important process in rocks that are process in rocks that are composed 
composed predominantly of water-soluble predominantly of water-soluble evaporite 
evaporite minerals, such as salt. minerals, such as salt. 
1.2.09.01.00 Diapirism Excluded 1.2.09.01.0A Diapirism No changes were made to 6.2.4.4 
The process by which plastic, low density 
rocks (most commonly evaporites) may 
The process by which plastic, low density 
rocks (most commonly evaporites) may 
the description or screening 
decision. 
flow under lithostatic loading when density flow under lithostatic loading when density 
and viscosity contrasts with surrounding and viscosity contrasts with surrounding 
strata are favorable. Such a process would strata are favorable. Such a process would 
modify the groundwater flow regime and modify the groundwater flow regime and 
affect radionuclide transport. affect radionuclide transport. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-11 April 2004 

Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPS (Continued) 
1.5.01.01.00 Meteorite Impact Excluded 1.5.01.01.0A Meteorite Impact No changes were made to 6.2.4.5 
Meteorite impact close to the repository site 
might disturb or remove rock so that 
Meteorite impact close to the repository site 
might disturb or remove rock so that 
the description or screening 
decision. 
radionuclide transport to the surface is radionuclide transport to the surface is 
accelerated. Possible effects include accelerated. Possible effects include 
alteration of flow patterns (faults, fractures), alteration of flow patterns (faults, fractures), 
changes in rock stress, cratering, and changes in rock stress, cratering, and 
exhumation of waste. exhumation of waste. 
1.5.01.02.00 Extraterrestrial Events Excluded 1.5.01.02.0A Extraterrestrial Events Only minor changes were 6.2.4.6 
Extraterrestrial events (e.g., supernova, Extraterrestrial events (e.g., supernovae, 
made to the description 
solar flare, gamma-ray burster, alien life solar flares, gamma-ray bursters, alien life 
forms) may affect long-term performance of forms) may affect long-term performance of 
the disposal system. the disposal system. 
1.5.03.01.00 Changes in the Earth's Excluded 1.5.03.01.0A Changes in the Earths No changes were made to 6.2.4.7 
Magnetic Field Magnetic Field the description or screening 
Changes in the earth's magnetic field could Changes in the earth's magnetic field could 
decision. 
affect the long-term performance of the affect the long-term performance of the 
repository. repository. 
1.5.03.02.00 Earth Tides Excluded 1.5.03.02.0A Earth Tides No changes were made to 6.2.4.8 
Small changes of the gravitational field due 
to celestial movements (sun and moon) 
Small changes of the gravitational field due 
to celestial movements (sun and moon) 
the description or screening 
decision. 
cause earth tides and may, in turn cause cause earth tides and may, in turn, cause 
pressure variations in the groundwater flow pressure variations in the groundwater flow 
systems. systems. 
2.2.06.05.0A Salt Creep Excluded 2.2.06.05.0A Salt Creep No changes were made to 6.2.4.9 
Salt creep will lead to changes in the stress 
field, compaction of the waste and 
Salt creep will lead to changes in the stress 
field, compaction of the waste packages, 
the description or screening 
decision 
containers, and consolidation of the long-and consolidation of the long-term 
term components of the sealing system. components of the sealing system. 
2.3.13.03.00 Effects of Repository Heat on Excluded 2.3.13.03.0A Effects of Repository Heat on No changes were made to 6.2.4.10 
the Biosphere the Biosphere the description or screening 
The heat released from radioactive decay of This FEP addresses the heat released from 
decision 
the waste will increase the temperatures at radioactive decay of the waste that will 
the surface above the repository. This could increase the temperatures at the surface 
result in local or extensive changes in the above the repository. This could result in 
ecological characteristics. local or extensive changes in ecological 
characteristics. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-12 April 2004 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-13 April 2004 
Table 6-1. Changes to the System Level FEPs from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA (Continued) 
TSPA-SR FEP and Description 
TSPASR 
Screening Decision 
TSPA-LA FEP and Description 
(italics denote changes from DTN: 
MO0312SEPFEPS5.000 [DIRS 167431]) 
Remarks on 
Description Changes Section 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPS (Concluded) 
3.2.10.00.00 Atmospheric Transport of 
Contaminants 
This category contains FEPs related to 
transport of contaminants in the atmosphere. 
Atmospheric transport includes radiotoxic 
and chemotoxic species in the air as gas, 
vapor, particulates, or aerosol. Transport 
processes include wind, plowing and 
irrigation, degassing, saltation, and 
precipitation. 
Included for transport 
mechanisms and 
species (via ashfall). 
Excluded for volatile 
radionuclides as a 
gaseous release 
through the host rock 
3.2.10.00.0A Atmospheric Transport of 
Contaminants 
Atmospheric transport includes radiotoxic and 
chemotoxic species in the air as gas, vapor, 
particulates, or aerosol. Transport processes 
include wind, plowing and irrigation, degassing, 
saltation, and precipitation. 
Minor changes were 
made to the description. 
Eliminated discussion of 
ash fall within this FEP to 
resolve the mixed 
include/exclude decision. 
Not 
assigned 
to System 
Level 
FEPs for 
TSPA-LA 
FEPs = features, events, and processes, TSPA-LA = total system performance for license application, TSPA-SR = total system performance assessment for site 
description 

6.1.2 Feature, Event, and Process Screening Process 
As described in Section 6.1.1, the first step in the FEP analysis was the identification of FEPs. 
The second step includes the screening of each FEP against the FEP screening criteria. Each 
FEP is screened against the regulations, assumptions, guidance, or specific criteria that are 
summarized in the form of three FEP screening statements: 
1) The event has at least one chance in 10,000 of occurring over 10,000 years 
(see 10 CFR 63.114(d) ([DIRS 156605])) 
2) The magnitude and time of the resulting radiological exposure to the RMEI, 
or radionuclide release to the accessible environment, would be significantly 
changed by its omission (see 10 CFR 63.114 (e and f) ([DIRS 156605])). 
Additionally, the Acceptance Criteria 2 in NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003, Section 2.2.1.2.1.3 
[DIRS 163274]) calls for evaluating the FEPs based on the regulations. This criterion can be 
summarized in the form of a third FEP screening statement: 
3) The FEP is not excluded by regulation. 
If there are affirmative conditions for all three screening criteria, the FEP is Included in the 
TSPA-LA model. By default, FEPs are included in the TSPA, unless they are shown to be of 
low probability, of low consequence, or excluded by regulation. Any negating condition in the 
three screening criteria Excludes the FEP from the TSPA-LA model. 
The first screening criterion (probability) is addressed in Section 6.1.2.1; the second criterion 
(consequence) is addressed in Section 6.1.2.[should there be a 2 added to the section number?]; 
the third criterion (regulatory) is addressed in Section 6.1.2.3. 
6.1.2.1 Exclusion by Low Probability 
For the TSPA, an event is defined as "a natural or anthropogenic phenomenon that has a 
potential to affect disposal system performance and that occurs during an interval that is short 
compared to the period of performance" (BSC 2001, Appendix A [DIRS 154365]). For 
postclosure, the event probability criterion is set at one chance in 10,000 of the event occurring 
in 10,000 years (10 CFR 63.114(d) [DIRS 156605])). 
Event probability screening is the consideration of the probability of a phenomenon occurring 
independent of its effect on the repository. This is particularly germane to processes where the 
phenomena are well defined. If it can be demonstrated that a phenomenon, independent of its 
effect on the repository, is of low probability, then the phenomenon is excluded from the TSPA. 
6.1.2.2 Exclusion by Low Consequence 
This screening criterion allows FEPs to be excluded from further consideration if the magnitude 
and time of the resulting radiological exposures to the RMEI, or radionuclide releases to the 
accessible environment would not be significantly changed by the omission of the FEP from 
the TSPA-LA model. The terms significantly changed and changed significantly are 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-14 April 2004 

undefined in the NRC and EPA regulations. The absence of significant change (i.e., an 
insignificant change if the FEP is omitted) is inferred for FEP-screening purposes to be 
equivalent to having no effect or negligible effect. 
The low-consequence arguments can be made for the FEP screening by demonstrating that a 
particular FEP has no effect on the distribution of an intermediate-performance measure that can 
be linked to radiological exposure or radionuclide release, or it may be given directly in terms of 
the effect on radiological exposure or radionuclide release. If a FEP can be shown to have 
negligible impact on unsaturated zone or saturated zone flow and transport, waste-package 
integrity, and/or other components of the EBS or natural barrier system, then the FEP does not 
provide a mechanism that results in an increase in the radiological exposure or radionuclide 
release. 
Various means to demonstrate negligible impact include site-specific data, sensitivity analyses, 
expertise of SMEs (including, in some cases, the expert elicitation process), natural analogues, 
modeling studies outside of the TSPA, and reasoned arguments based on literature research or 
corroborative data. In some cases, the demonstration may be direct, using results of computer 
simulations of the potential event or process. For example, by demonstrating that including a 
particular waste form has no effect on the concentrations of radionuclides transported from the 
repository in the aqueous phase, it is also demonstrated that including this waste form in the 
inventory would not affect other performance measures, such as radiological exposure of the 
RMEI, that are dependent on concentration. Explicit modeling of the characteristics of this 
waste form, therefore, could be excluded from further consideration in the TSPA, where 
concentration of radionuclides has a primary impact on dose or the release of radionuclides. 
A low-consequence argument can include the probability of the FEPs because the consequence 
(dose or concentration) include probability weighting of events or processes. One can define a 
threshold value at which an event or process has the potential to affect repository performance, 
and then evaluates the probability of the threshold being violated. This approach is justified 
because: (1) FEPs can be defined temporally, spatially, and in amplitude; (2) the phenomena and 
effect of the interaction can be quantified (or at least bounded) and, therefore, incorporated into 
the design in such a way that the potential effect of the FEP is eliminated or minimized; (3) the 
implementation of the design and changes to the design are subject to a performance-
confirmation process; and 4) the "as-built" design can be verified (see Section 6.1.7). This use of 
probability to support a low-consequence argument is particularly germane to FEPs involving 
potential breaching of containers due to a geologic phenomenon. An example of this approach is 
FEP 1.5.01.01.0A (Meteorite impact). Based on the diameter of an impact crater, a probability 
of such an event can be quantified, and the associated depth of fracturing can be determined. 
The minimum crater diameter sufficient to affect repository performance is directly related to the 
depth of the repository below the ground surface or the depth of some defined key geohydrologic 
stratum. Craters that are of insufficient size to fracture to the threshold depth can be therefore 
excluded based on consequence independent of cratering probability. Larger crater diameters 
extending can be excluded if their probability-weighted consequence is insignificant. Extremely 
large craters can be excluded based on their low probability because they have less than one 
chance in 10,000 of occurring in 10,000 years. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-15 April 2004 

Another method of supporting a low-consequence argument is to quantify the conditional 
exposure or conditional radionuclide release (i.e., that exposure or release which results 
presuming that the FEP occurs), and demonstrate that, once weighted by the probability of the 
associated scenario class occurring, the exposure or release is of no significance. 
6.1.2.3 Exclusion by Regulation 
The NRC Acceptance Criteria 2 for FEP screening published in NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003, 
Section 2.2.1.2.1.3 [DIRS 163274]) allows for exclusion of a FEP if the process is specifically 
excluded by the regulations as described in Acceptance Criterion 2 Screening of the Initial List 
of Features, Events, and Processes Is Appropriate. 
6.1.3 Direct Input, References and Corroborative Information, Literature Searches, and 
other Background Information 
Per the requirements of AP-SIII.9Q (particularly, Attachment 2, Section 6), the direct inputs used 
in this AMR are identified in Section 4 and are discussed based on the classification of the type 
of direct input. Technical products used as direct inputs in this analysis report have been 
obtained from controlled source documents and are cited using the appropriate document 
identifiers or records system accession numbers. Sources include, but are not limited to, 
YMP AMRs, YMP Technical Reports, and other YMP documents, databases, and drawings. 
The NRC regulations also provide direct inputs for the FEP evaluations. These direct inputs are 
identified, and discussed in Section 4 of this AMR. 
However, the nature of the System Level FEPs is diverse and encompasses a wide range of 
naturally occurring phenomena that are not necessarily specific to YMP. Consequently, other 
sources of direct inputs are used, and corroborative information is cited to support the direct 
input. Such information was obtained from literature searches of peer-reviewed journals, other 
widely recognized scientific periodicals, compendiums of technical articles, and other 
appropriate sources such as technical handbooks and textbooks. Direct Inputs from these 
non-YMP originating sources are identified in Section 4.1.3.2. Qualification of such direct 
inputs, per AP-SIII.9Q, is discussed in Attachment II of this analysis report. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Attachment 2 allows for the use of attachments to the main body of the scientific 
analysis report. To wit Supporting documentation, such as computer output, that are lengthy or 
cannot be conveniently included with the main text of the documentation may be included as 
attachments. Accordingly, lists and/or tables of the direct inputs and the corroborating/ 
supporting data are provided in Attachment II, along with a description of the result of literature 
searches and discussions that substantiate and corroborate the input used in the various FEP 
discussions. Attachments, divided based on subject matter, are used to provide the procedurally 
required information in an effort to avoid redundancy in the main body of this analysis report, to 
satisfy the qualification requirements of AP-SIII.9Q, and to facilitate incorporation of the FEP 
discussions in Section 6.2 into a FEP database. 
The sources of data, product output, direct input, and references used for the FEP evaluations are 
cited within the discussion in each of the individual FEP discussions in Section 6.2 of this 
analysis and its subsections. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-16 April 2004 

6.1.4 Assumptions and Simplifications, Alternative Conceptual Models, and 
Consideration of Uncertainty in Feature, Event, and Process Screening 
The generic assumptions used in the System Level FEPs evaluation are provided in Section 5, 
along with the justification and description of their use. No other assumptions or simplifications 
are used directly in the FEP analyses unless specifically described in the individual FEP 
discussions. Simplifications made as part of the FEP analysis, if used, are explained for each 
FEP in the related FEP discussion presented in Section 6.2 of this analysis report. 
Specific guidance and criteria for the consideration of alternative conceptual models 
(including their relationship to FEPs) and the treatment of uncertainty were addressed, as 
appropriate, following guidance in Appendices A and C of the Scientific Processes Guidelines 
Manual (SPGM) (BSC 2002 [DIRS 160313]). The issues of alternative conceptual models and 
uncertainty are addressed in the documentation cited as part of the FEP evaluations. For 
included System Level FEPs, these alternative conceptual models are then incorporated, or not, 
into the TSPA-LA model based on their development and evaluation in the cited AMRs. For 
excluded System Level FEPs, the discussions of the alternative conceptual models from the cited 
AMRs are summarized in the FEP discussions. 
The quantification of uncertainty, as described in the SPGM is discussed below for each of the 
screening criteria: low probability, low consequence, and by regulation. 
In the case of probability screening arguments, the mean probability of an event (which reflects 
the range in the underlying uncertainty in supporting information) is used for the evaluation. In 
no instance has a value less than the mean probability of an event been used as a screening basis 
for excluding a System Level FEP. If the screening decision is to include a FEP into the 
performance assessment, and the resulting consequence is to be probabilistically weighted within 
TSPA-LA, then uncertainty becomes a potentially important consideration in parameter or model 
development and implementation, per the SPGM (BSC 2002, Appendix A [DIRS 160313]). 
In the case of low-consequence arguments, it is important to identify the mechanisms or 
sequence of events that could affect the repository performance and any associated intermediate 
performance measures. Low-consequence arguments can be postulated using worst-case 
values for the sequence of events and the associated intermediate performance measures. If it 
can be demonstrated that such values have negligible impact on repository performance, then the 
issue of uncertainty is addressed by the use of the bounding conditions. However, the use of 
low-consequence arguments is also subject to uncertainties stemming from substantiated and 
reasonable alternative conceptual models. Inherent in the evaluation of such alternative 
conceptual models is a dependence on data, ranges in values and, in some cases, on modeling 
results that have associated uncertainties. Thus, for low-consequence arguments, consideration 
of alternative conceptual models and the range in available data and results is more extensively 
discussed than for probability screening arguments. Alternately, modeling that considers 
uncertainty and alternative conceptual models, and insignificantly changes the radiological 
exposure or other measures that are representative of release of radionuclides to the accessible 
environment, also can be used to support the low-consequence argument. In either case (i.e., use 
of bounding conditions or use of models and evaluations that explicitly consider uncertainties), 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-17 April 2004 

the issue of parameter uncertainty is not as critical for FEPs evaluation, as the consideration of 
alternative conceptual models (or model form uncertainty). 
In the case of exclusion of FEPs by regulation, uncertainty (as represented by alternative views 
of regulatory meaning and intent) cannot be readily quantified. Rather, this type of uncertainty is 
resolved through the regulatory review and licensing process. Thus, in the System Level FEPs 
discussions, specific citations to the regulations or regulatory discussions are provided, and the 
application of the regulations is explicitly expressed for the individual FEPs. 
6.1.5 Alternative Approaches, Mathematical Formulations, and Units of Measure 
Alternative approaches and technical methods for the FEP development and screening process 
used by YMP are discussed in The Enhanced Plan for Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) 
at Yucca Mountain (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158966]). 
In general, FEP screening involves the comparison of the measure of some feature, event, or 
process to some threshold level of probability. Mathematical and numerical formulations 
typically are used to define the probability of the event or process and to define the threshold 
measure for consequence. For the System Level FEPs, the only mathematical formulation used 
directly is the analysis of the potential for meteorite impact. The formulation of the probability 
values, and the relationship of impact effects to damage thresholds in terms of depth of effect, 
are fully discussed in Attachment IV and constitute a scientific analysis. 
Depending on the FEP evaluated, the units of measure may vary among FEPs and among cited 
source documents. In all cases, the units as they appeared in the cited source are provided to 
allow traceability, and metric equivalents also are provided for consistency and transparency. 
6.1.6 Model and Software Issues for Previously Developed and Validated Models 
No models were used directly in the System Level FEP evaluations, and no software beyond that 
listed in Section 3 was used in the development of this analysis. The results of models and 
documents developed by others are cited as the technical basis in some instances (e.g., the human 
intrusion stylized analysis for TSPA-SR cited from the FEIS (DOE 2002, Section 5.7.1 
[DIRS 155970], and published work by Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281])) that deals with 
meteorite impact as discussed in Attachment IV. The cited documentation for those models 
provides an extensive discussion of the formulation of the models, consideration of uncertainty 
and consideration of alternative conceptual models. 
6.1.7 Intended Use and Limitations 
The intended use of this analysis report is to provide System Level FEP screening information 
for a project-specific FEP database, and to promote traceability and transparency regarding 
System Level FEP dispositions. Except as previously noted for some instances of shared FEPs, 
this analysis report also is intended to be used as the source documentation and to provide the 
technical basis and the supporting arguments for both included and excluded System Level FEPs. 
Details of the implementation of included System Level FEPs in TSPALA are provided in 
Section 6.2. For System Level FEPs that are designated for inclusion into the TSPALA model, 
the manner in which the FEP has been included, list of parameters, and any uncertainty 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-18 April 2004 

considerations are described. Details of the technical basis for exclusion of System Level FEPs 
from TSPALA also are provided in Section 6.2. 
Inherent in this evaluation approach is the limitation that the repository will be constructed, 
operated, and closed according to the design used as the basis for the FEP screening and in 
accordance with NRC license requirements. This is inherent in performance evaluation of any 
engineering project, and design verification and performance confirmation are required as part of 
the construction and operation processes. The results of the FEP screening presented herein are 
specific to the repository design evaluated in this analysis report for TSPA-LA, particularly for 
FEPs related to explosions and meteorite impacts. 
Any changes in direct inputs listed in Section 4.1, in baseline conditions used for this evaluation, 
or in other subsurface conditions, will need to be evaluated to determine if the changes are within 
the limits stated in the FEP evaluations. Engineering and design changes are subject to 
evaluation to determine if there are any adverse manner impacts to safety as codified at 
10 CFR 63.73 and in Subparts F and G ([DIRS 156605]). See also the requirements at 
10 CFR 63.44 and 10 CFR 63.131 ([DIRS 156605]). 
6.2 SYSTEM LEVEL FEATURE, EVENT, AND PROCESS SCREENING AND 
ANALYSES 
This section addresses the 33 FEPs that have been identified as System Level FEPs for 
TSPA-LA. The FEPs have been organized into four groups: Assessment Basis and Modeling 
Requirement FEPs (Section 6.2.1), Process and Site Control FEPs (Section 6.2.2), Human 
Intrusion FEPs (Section 6.2.3), and Miscellaneous Geologic and Astronomic FEPs 
(Section 6.2.4). Within each group, the FEPs are addressed in numeric order based on the FEP 
number. 
Appendices pertaining specifically to System Level FEPs include Appendices I, II, III, and IV. 
Attachment I is a glossary. Attachment II provides data qualification documentation for direct 
inputs being qualified and used within this work product. Attachment III is an analysis of the 
timing of human intrusion without recognition by the intruder. Attachment IV is an expanded 
discussion of meteorite-related FEPs, including the mathematical formulation for determining 
the probability of various impacts and cratering effects. 
6.2.1 Assessment Basis and Modeling Issue Features, Events, and Processes 
This set of FEPs is related to the regulatory framework, modeling, and design basis used for the 
performance assessment. All direct inputs used in this Section originated from YMP-controlled 
sources or NRC regulations and are listed in Section 4 and its subsections. No further discussion 
beyond that provided in Section 4 is required. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-19 April 2004 

6.2.1.1 Timescales of Concern (0.1.02.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the timescale of concern over which the 
disposal system presents a significant health or environmental 
hazard. 
Descriptor Phrases: Timescale of concern 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Timescales of concern is Included in the TSPALA by analyzing 
performance for a 10,000-year period, as required by the NRC. 
The timescale of concern has been set by the NRC at 10 CFR 63.303 [DIRS 156605]. That 
section of the regulation states that compliance is to be based upon the mean of the distribution 
of projected doses of DOEs performance assessments which project the performance of the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system for 10,000 years after disposal. 
A 10,000-year timescale is consistent with the criteria established for low probability at 
10 CFR 63.114(d) ([DIRS 156605]), and also consistent with the requirement at 
10 CFR 63.305(c) ([DIRS 156605]) that states that DOE must vary factors relating to the 
geology, hydrology, and climate that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system in the 
next 10,000 years. 
A 10,000-year period is also specified as a basis of consideration at 10 CFR 63.321 
([DIRS 156605]) for treatment of the human intrusion stylized analysis. 
At 10 CFR 63.341 ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC requires that as part of the performance 
assessment DOE provide, in the environmental impact statement, peak dose information after 
10,000 years following disposal. However, the regulation specifically states that no regulatory 
standard applies to the results of this analysis. 
As stated in the Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach (BSC 2003, Section 1.3 [DIRS 166296]), The regulatory time period of analysis for 
the compliance evaluation is 10,000 years. However, the TSPA analyses are intended to extend 
beyond 10,000 to 20,000 years. This is intended to provide a basis for evaluating whether 
uncertainties in results after 10,000 years affect compliance during the regulatory performance 
period. Likewise, the FEPs for these analyses will not go beyond 10,000 years. Furthermore, 
Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
Section 9.1 [DIRS 166296]) states that, Current plans are to analyze simulations up to 
20,000 years, and to utilize 300 realizations per analysis. These plans may be modified for 
various reasons as the analyses progress. The TSPA for the final environmental impact 
statement (FEIS) (herein referred to as the TSPA-FEIS model) evaluated doses over longer 
periods (up to one million years) (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970]). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-20 April 2004 

Related Documents: Total System Performance Assessment-License Application 
Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository 
for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada 
DOE/EIS-0250 (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970]) 
Related FEPs: 
Regulatory requirements and exclusions (0.1.09.00.0A)
Model and data issues (0.1.10.00.0A)
Early failure of waste packages (2.1.03.08.0A)
Early failure of drip shields (2.1.03.08.0B)
Radioactive decay and ingrowth (3.1.01.01.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-2. Indirect Inputs for Timescales of Concern (0.1.02.00.0A) 
Reference 
Input 
BSC 2003, Sections 1.3 and 9.1 [DIRS 166296] 
Modeling to be performed out to 20,000 years 
DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970] 
Modeling past to 10,000 years for peak dose 
6.2.1.2 Spatial Domain of Concern (0.1.03.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the spatial domain of concern over which the 
disposal system may present a significant health or environmental 
hazard. 
Descriptor Phrases: Spatial domain of concern 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Spatial domain of concern is included in the TSPALA by 
specifying the spatial boundary conditions for the various models 
used in the performance assessment and those used in the 
environmental impact statement. 
The spatial domain of concern is a function of the analysis that is being performed. The 
model-specific spatial domain considered in the TSPALA model varies according to the 
phenomenon being considered. For instance, the spatial domain of concern for a regional 
groundwater flow model and the geologic setting is bounded on a regional scale, while the 
analysis of waste package damage occurs at the scale of a single waste package, with specific 
corrosion phenomena being considered at the fracture and pitting level. Individual model 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-21 April 2004 

domains are described in the documentation of each component of the TSPA model and in 
individual AMRs. 
The spatial domain encompassed and evaluated explicitly in the TSPA model extends from the 
land surface through the unsaturated zone, through the repository, into the saturated zone, and 
laterally away from the repository to the location of the RMEI. This encompasses the eight 
primary model components and submodels described and illustrated in Section 5.1 of the Total 
System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296]). 
A significant health or environmental hazard may not be present throughout the entire area, but 
the entire area is considered to be within the domain of spatial concern of the performance 
assessment. The potential for environmental impact has been addressed in the FEIS (DOE 2002 
[DIRS 155970]) and is not further addressed in the TSPA-LA. From a regulatory standpoint, the 
spatial domain of concern wherein there is a potential for a significant health or environmental 
hazard is primarily defined by the location of the RMEI. 
In practical application, this spatial domain could extend approximately 18 km in the direction of 
groundwater flow (generally in a southerly direction) and extends no more than 5 km from the 
repository footprint in any other direction (i.e., the spatial domain defines the extend [is this 
word correct?] of the controlled area to the location of the RMEI). As described in 
Section 4.1.3 above, and as specified at 10 CFR 63.312(a) [DIRS 156605]), the RMEI 
Lives in the accessible environment above the highest concentration of 
radionuclides in the plume of contamination 
The accessible environment is defined at 10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605]) by the definition of 
the controlled area. 
Accessible environment means any location outside the controlled area. 
The controlled area is defined in the same section of the regulations as: 
(1) The surface area, identified by passive institutional controls, that 
encompasses no more than 300 km2. It must not extend farther: 
South than 36 40' 13.6661. north latitude, in the predominant direction of 
groundwater flow; and 
Than 5 km from the repository footprint in any other direction; and 
(2) The subsurface underlying the surface area. 
The preamble in the regulations for 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, p. 32117 [DIRS 155216]) 
states further that: 
If fully employed by DOE, and based on current repository design, the controlled 
area could extend approximately 18 km in the direction of ground water flow 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-22 April 2004 

(presently believed to be in a southerly direction) and extend no more than 5 km 
from the repository footprint in any other direction. 
As stated in the Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach (BSC 2003, Section 9.1 [DIRS 166296]), The probabilistic simulations of the total 
system will be evaluated to determine the key factors contributing to the dose at 18 km. 
Related Documents: Total System Performance Assessment-License Application 
Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]) 
Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository 
for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada 
DOE/EIS-0250 (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970]) 
Related FEPs: 
Regulatory requirements and exclusions (0.1.09.00.0A) 
Model and data issues (0.1.10.00.0A) 
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-3. Indirect Inputs for Spatial Domain of Concern (0.1.03.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
BSC 2003, Sections 5.1 and 9.1 [DIRS 166296]) Descriptions of models and model domains 
DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970] Potential for environmental impact within the model 
domain 
6.2.1.3 Regulatory Requirements and Exclusions (0.1.09.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses regulatory requirements and guidance specific 
to the Yucca Mountain repository. 
Descriptor Phrases: Regulatory criteria 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Regulatory requirements and exclusions is intrinsically Included 
in the TSPALA due to the governing nature of the federal 
regulations and the mandated licensing process. 
Federal regulations applicable to the long-term performance of the disposal system are 
described at 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]), and incorporate the requirements of 
40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]). Regulatory requirements and exclusions provide the 
framework within which the TSPA is conducted. They define the performance criteria and 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-23 April 2004 

provide assumptions that must be used in the evaluation (e.g., timescale of concern, 
characteristics of the reference biosphere, specification of a human-intrusion stylized analysis, 
limits on release to the accessible environment). They provide guidance on the FEPs that must 
be considered (i.e., exclusion of low-probability and low-consequence events and processes) and 
limit the range of conditions that must be considered (e.g., consistent with present knowledge of 
natural processes). 
The various aspects of the repository including design, construction, operation, and preclosure 
and postclosure performance must be shown to comply with regulatory requirements. If not, the 
repository will not be licensed, construction may be prohibited, operations may be halted until 
deficiencies are corrected, or further operations or closure activities will be delayed until 
deficiencies are corrected. 
At 10 CFR 63.303 [DIRS 156605), the NRC is stated as being responsible for determining 
compliance based upon the mean of the distribution of projected doses of DOEs performance 
assessments which project the performance of the Yucca Mountain disposal system for 
10,000 years after disposal. DOE must demonstrate a reasonable expectation that the 
Postclosure Individual-Protection Standard, Human-Intrusion Standard, and Ground-Water 
Protection Standard will not be exceeded. Evaluation of compliance to these standards is a 
primary objective of the TSPA. 
The criteria and assumptions to be used in making the evaluation are provided in the various 
referenced sections at 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]) and at 40 CFR Part 197 
([DIRS 165519]) and, as applicable to FEP screening, are listed in Section 4.2 of this analysis 
report. These criteria and assumptions are regulatory requirements and have been incorporated 
into the TSPA model either using specified characteristics to guide selection of input parameters 
(such as the characteristics of the RMEI) or by consideration of a range of possible climatic and 
geologic settings consistent with present knowledge of natural processes. 
In a more general sense, compliance with regulatory requirements has been identified in the PRD 
(Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]). The PRD was developed as part of Configuration 
Management as described in the YMP Configuration Management Plan (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168396]). The PRD is used to implement the Requirements Management Plan (DOE 
2003 [DIRS 165181]). The PRD documents and categorizes the regulatory requirements and 
other project requirements, and it provides a crosswalk to the various YMP organizations that are 
responsible for ensuring that the criteria have been addressed in the LA. The regulatory 
requirements include criteria relevant to performance assessment activities, and the regulatory 
requirements have been mapped to specific technical activities being performed for license 
application. These criteria find expression as specific acceptance criteria presented by the NRC 
in NUREG-1804 (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]), which will be used by the NRC during the 
licensing process to evaluate whether regulatory requirements have been adequately addressed. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-24 April 2004 

Related Documents: Project Requirements Document 
(Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]) 
Related FEPs: 
Regulatory requirements and exclusions provide the framework within which the 
TSPA is conducted. They define the performance criteria and provide assumptions 
that must be used in the evaluation (e.g., characteristics of the reference biosphere, 
specification of a human-intrusion stylized analysis). Consequently, in that sense, all 
FEPs are related to this FEP. A partial list of related FEPs includes: 
Timescales of concern (0.1.02.00.0A)
Spatial domain of concern (0.1.03.00.0A)
Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-4. Indirect Inputs for Regulatory Requirements and Exclusions (0.1.09.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274] NRC Review Criteria 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 168396] Management Plan 
DOE 2003 [DIRS 165181] Management Plan 
NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
6.2.1.4 Model and Data Issues (0.1.10.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses issues related to modeling of the disposal 
system. Model and data issues are general (i.e., methodological) 
issues affecting the assessment modeling process and use of data. 
These issues include the approach and assumptions associated with 
the selection of conceptual models, the mathematical 
implementation of conceptual models, model geometry and 
dimensionality, models of coupled processes, and boundary and 
initial conditions. These issues also include the derivation of data 
values and correlations. 
Descriptor Phrases: Model issues (geometry, boundary conditions, initial conditions, 
uncertainties, conceptual models); Data issues (uncertainty, 
correlation). 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Model and data requirements are addressed specifically at 
10 CFR 63.114 ([DIRS 156605]) and are included in the TSPA-LA 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-25 April 2004 

as described in the document Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]). 
The specifications at 10 CFR 63.114 (a, b, c, and g) [DIRS 156605] pertinent to this FEP include 
the following clauses: 
(a) Include data related to the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry (including 
disruptive processes and events) of the Yucca Mountain site, and the 
surrounding region to the extent necessary, and information on the design of 
the engineered barrier system, used to define parameters and conceptual 
models used in the assessment. 
(b) Account for uncertainties and variability in parameter values. Several 
kinds of uncertainties are distinguished and receive somewhat different 
treatments. In general, the TSPALA has grouped these as parameter 
uncertainty and model form uncertainty. The TSPA recognizes and 
accounts for parameter uncertainty, where appropriate, and intends to 
provide the regulators with a basis for a reasonable expectation of 
compliance. 
(c) Consider alternative conceptual models of features and processes. In many 
of the subsystems of the overall TSPA system, there are plausible alternative 
models or assumptions, which result in model form uncertainty. In some 
cases, these alternative models form a continuum, and sampling from the 
continuum of assumptions fits naturally within the Monte Carlo framework 
of sampling from probability distributions. In other cases, the assumptions 
or models are based on discrete choices. Two possible approaches to 
incorporating alternative models within the TSPA include 1) weighting all 
models into one comprehensive Monte Carlo simulation (lumping), or 
keeping the discrete models separate and performing multiple Monte Carlo 
simulations for each discrete model (splitting). There are advantages and 
disadvantages to both approaches. A combination of the two approaches is 
being used. 
(g) Provide the technical basis for models used in the performance assessment 
such as comparisons made with outputs of detailed process-level models 
and/or empirical observations. Each of the models used in developing the 
TSPA has been documented according to project-specific QA procedures for 
model development, validation, and use. Model selection, use, verification, 
and inputs are addressed in the individual modeling reports. 
The document Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]) outlines the use of various model components that 
consider the geologic, hydrologic and geochemical data (Section 5.1), parameter uncertainty 
(Section 3.5), alternative conceptual models (Section 3.3), and abstractions (Section 3.4). The 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-26 April 2004 

TSPALA Model validation approach is outlined in Section 7 and the approach for uncertainty 
analysis is provided in Section 8.1 of that document. 
Additionally, each of the models used in developing the TSPA has been documented in a 
stand-alone modeling report per project-specific QA procedures. The modeling reports address 
model selection, model development, verification, validation, inputs and use. These modeling 
reports were prepared per the guidelines for model documentation and the specific guidance and 
criteria for the consideration of alternative conceptual models (including their relationship to 
FEPs) and the treatment of uncertainty as provided in Appendices A and C of the SPGM 
(BSC 2002 [DIRS 160313]). The list of regulatory specifications for the performance 
assessment germane to model and data issues requires the consideration of data on the geology, 
hydrology, and geochemistry (including disruptive processes and events), consideration of 
uncertainty, the consideration of alternative conceptual models, and providing the technical basis 
of any models used. 
Related Documents: Total System Performance Assessment-License Application 
Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296])
Related FEPs: 
This FEP is broad in its definition. Consequently, the following list of related FEPs is
not exhaustive. The listed FEPs were chosen based on elements within the FEP
description (geometry and dimensionality, coupled processes, boundary and initial
conditions). Any FEP addressed by models could potentially have been included
within the list.
Timescales of concern (0.1.02.00.0A)
Spatial domain of concern (0.1.03.00.0A)
General corrosion of waste packages (2.1.03.01.0A)
General corrosion of drip shields (2.1.03.01.0B)
Mechanical impact on waste package (2.1.03.07.0A)
Mechanical impact on drip shields (2.1.03.07.0B)
Chemical effects at EBS component interfaces (2.1.06.07.0A)
Mechanical effects at EBS component interfaces (2.1.06.07.0B)
Locally saturated flow at bedrock/alluvium contact (2.2.07.01.0A).
Thermo-mechanical stresses alter characteristics of fractures near repository
(2.2.10.04.0A)
Thermo-mechanical stresses alter characteristics of faults near repository
(2.2.10.04.0B)
Thermo-mechanical stresses alter characteristics of rocks above and below
repository (2.2.10.05.0A)
Thermo-chemical alteration in the UZ (solubility, speciation, phase changes,
precipitation/dissolution) (2.2.10.06.0A)
Thermo-chemical alteration in the SZ (solubility, speciation, phase changes,
precipitation/dissolution (2.2.10.08.0A)
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-27 April 2004 

Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-5. Indirect Inputs for Model and Data Issues (0.1.10.00.0A) 
Reference 
Input 
BSC 2002, Appendices A and C [DIRS 160313] 
Guidelines for model documentation 
6.2.1.5 Repository Design (1.1.07.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the consideration of the design of the 
repository and the ways in which the design contributes to long-
term performance. The performance assessment must account for 
design features, material characteristics, and the ways in which the 
design influences the evolution of the in-drift environment. 
Descriptor Phrases: Design control (implemented) 
Design modification 
Construction materials 
Quality control (implemented) 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Repository design and potential design modifications are Included in 
the TSPALA because the repository design is the basis of the 
models used for the performance assessment. 
The approach for including design elements is outlined in Section 5.1 of the Total System 
Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296]). Particularly applicable to this FEP are the model components for the EBS, 
Waste Package and Drip Shield Degradation, Waste Form Degradation and Mobilization, and 
EBS Flow and Transport. These model components take into account the physical dimensions, 
material characteristics, and evolution of the in-drift environmentall of which stem directly 
from design considerations. The design elements are included as nominal-scenario class parameters 
used to define the physical dimensions, the characteristics, and the long-term behavior of the 
waste form, waste packages, and EBS. Any design modifications are required to be analyzed for 
potential impact. 
The incorporation of repository design information into the framework of the various TSPA-LA 
model components has been accomplished using of a series of information exchange drawings 
(IEDs), which are cited as needed in the individual model AMRs. The IEDs contain information 
regarding material characteristics and properties, component dimensions, and component 
performance under various conditions (e.g., corrosion rates, seismic response, damage areas). 
The use of these design drawings is discussed in each model AMR, as applicable. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-28 April 2004 

Inherent in the performance assessment modeling of engineered systems is that there are failure 
rates, or times-to-failure, associated with the systems and that there are interactions of the 
engineered systems with the natural systems. Such baseline failure rates are identified in the 
related FEP 2.1.03.08.0A (early failure of waste packages) and specifically include the 
consideration of manufacturing and welding defects within the waste package degradation 
analysis. Deficiencies beyond those specifically included in the cited FEP are addressed under 
FEP 1.1.08.00.0A (inadequate quality control and deviations from design). 
Furthermore, 10 CFR Part 63 Subpart F ([DIRS 156605]) provides a list of specifications for a 
performance confirmation program to provide data related to conditions encountered and 
changes in those conditions, functioning of the natural engineered systems, and monitoring and 
testing. A performance confirmation plan is documented in Snell et al. (2003 [DIRS 166219]). 
Modifications and/or deviations from the TSPA-LA design are subject to regulatory 
requirements that address deliberate changes and modifications. The manner in which DOE 
must address changes and by which the NRC is informed of the changes is codified at 
10 CFR 63.44 ([DIRS 156605]). As indicated in 10 CFR 63.142 (d) ([DIRS 156605]), 
deviations from quality standards must be controlled. 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEP: 
Inadequate quality control and deviations from design (1.1.08.00.0A) 
Supplemental Discussion: 
There are no indirect inputs for this analysis. 
6.2.1.6 Retrievability (1.1.13.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses design, emplacement, operational, or 
administrative measures that might be applied or considered in 
order to enable or ease retrieval of wastes. There may be a 
requirement to retrieve all or part of the waste stored in the 
repository, for example, to recover valuable fissile materials or to 
replace defective containers. 
Descriptor Phrases: Waste emplacement (retrievability) 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-29 April 2004 

TSPA Disposition: Retrievability is a performance objective of the repository as 
specified at 10 CFR 63.111(e)(1, 2, and 3) [DIRS 156605]), and 
features are included in the design to allow for retrievability. 
The regulation specifies that the repository be designed in such a way that it preserves the 
option of waste retrieval throughout the period during which wastes are being emplacedso that 
any or all of the emplaced waste could be retrieved on a reasonable schedule starting at any time 
up to 50 years after waste emplacement operations are initiated (10 CFR 63.111 (e) (1, 
2, and 3), [DIRS 156605]). This precludes further FEP consideration for resource recovery and 
retrieval past 50 years after waste emplacement (see the Supplemental Discussion for other a 
discussion of limitations). Regardless, the repository design is part of the basis of the 
postclosure evaluation, and aspects of the repository design related to waste retrievability are, 
therefore, implicitly considered as part of the basis for the TSPA modeling and have been 
included as noted in FEP 1.1.07.00.0A (repository design). The design elements related to 
retrievability include dimensions of the drifts, design of the emplacement system, and waste 
package design. The incorporation of repository design information into the framework of the 
various TSPA-LA model components has been accomplished using of a series of IEDs, which 
are cited as needed in the individual model AMRs. The IEDs contain information regarding 
material characteristics and properties, component dimensions, and component performance 
under various conditions (e.g., corrosion rates, seismic response, damage areas). 
The approach for including design elements is further outlined in Section 5.1 of the Total System 
Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296]). Particularly applicable to this FEP are the model components for the EBS, 
waste package and drip shield degradation, waste form degradation and mobilization, and EBS 
flow and transport. Retrievability is thereby implicitly Included in the TSPA. 
Supplemental DiscussionThe objective of the performance assessment is to evaluate 
compliance with the postclosure performance objective per 10 CFR 63.102(j) 
([DIRS 156605]). The operational and administrative considerations of "retrievability" are a 
preclosure consideration and are, therefore, beyond the scope of the performance assessment. 
Furthermore, postclosure retrieval of wastes or other repository-system components for the 
purpose of resource recovery was addressed by the NRC in the Supplementary Information for 
10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 , III. Public Comments and Response, 2.2 Retrievability, Issue 2, 
p. 55743 [DIRS 156671]). To wit: 
the Commission has previously noted that its retrieval provision is not intended 
to facilitate recovery. Waste retrieval is intended to be an unusual event only to 
be undertaken to protect public health and safety. 
Table 6-6. Indirect Inputs for Retrievability (1.1.13.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.102(j) ([DIRS 156605] Performance assessment is to address postclosure 
10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605] Regulatory intent regarding retrieval 
Related Documents: None 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-30 April 2004 

Related FEPs: 
Repository design (1.1.07.00.0A)
Inadequate quality control and deviations from design (1.1.08.00.0A)
Accidents and unplanned events during construction and operation
(1.1.12.01.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Mining and other underground activity (human intrusion) (1.4.05.00.0A)
6.2.1.7 Repository-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity of Emplaced Waste (2.1.01.04.0A) 
FEP Description: Waste placed in Yucca Mountain will have physical, chemical, and 
radiological properties that will vary spatially, resulting in 
variation in the mass of radionuclides available for transport from 
different parts of the repository. 
Descriptor Phrases: Drift-scale spatial heterogeneity of waste packages; 
Repository-scale spatial heterogeneity of waste. 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Heterogeneity of the waste inventory is discussed under 
FEP 2.1.01.03.0A. The heterogeneity is greater for DOE spent 
nuclear fuel (DSNF) and high-level waste (HLW) glass inventories 
than for commercial spent nuclear fuels (CNSF). 
At the repository scale, waste form degradation and mobilization in the TSPA-LA model is 
addressed using three generic waste forms: (1) commercial spent nuclear fuel (CSNF), which for 
modeling purposes also addresses naval spent nuclear fuel, (2) DOE-owned spent nuclear fuel 
(DSNF), and (3) DOE high-level radioactive waste glass (DHLW). These three generic 
categories of waste will be contained and disposed in two types of waste packagesCSNF waste 
packages and codisposal waste packages, with the latter containing both DSNF and DHLW 
glass. 
For scenarios in which only a few packages breach, the package-to-package heterogeneity could 
be important in quantifying exposure of the RMEI. For postclosure TSPA, however, these 
few-package scenarios are not significant to performance because only scenarios with many 
packages breached show calculated releases that approach the exposure limit. For 
multiple-package breach scenarios, package-to-package heterogeneity is directly addressed in the 
TSPA-LA using uncertainty parameters for the average inventory within the CSNF and 
codisposal packages (BSC 2003, Table 19, FEP 2.1.03.01.0A [DIRS 161961]). 
At the repository-scale, radionuclide dissolution and release depend more directly on infiltration 
than on the specific location within the repository, Accordingly, waste forms are treated as 
generic categories (BSC 2003, pp. 71-73 [DIRS 166296]) and, within the TSPA-LA model, the 
varying generic waste types are coupled to spatial variations in infiltration properties rather than 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-31 April 2004 

to specific location (BSC 2003, pp. 77-78 [DIRS 166296]). More specifically, the process of 
waste form degradation will be modeled by equations using empirical degradation rate formulas 
for the three different generic waste form types: CSNF, DSNF, and HLW. Output will be the 
mass of waste form exposed versus time and the volume of water in contact with the waste form 
versus time, which will be used to populate several waste form cells in the model that correspond 
to different waste form types and seepage cases. The amount of inventory that can ultimately 
enter each waste form cell will be a linear function of the number of packages emplaced in each 
inventory, seepage, and thermal hydrologic environment (BSC 2003, p. 81 [DIRS 166296]). 
The potential effect of waste heterogeneity at the drift-scale is addressed by including various 
seepage and thermal hydrologic environments at the repository scale. Because the repository-
scale heterogeneities are addressed in the above manner, this FEP is considered as explicitly 
included. 
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-7. Indirect Inputs for Repository-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity of Emplaced Waste (2.1.01.04.0A) 
Reference 
Input 
BSC 2003, Table 19 [DIRS 161961] 
Waste inventory heterogeneity 
6.2.2 Process and Site-Control Features, Events, and Processes 
This set of FEPs addresses quality control processes, site-control and institutional-control related 
issues, and site operational concerns that may have a potential for impact on postclosure 
performance. All direct inputs used in this section originated from YMP-controlled sources or 
NRC regulations and are listed in Section 4 and its subsections. No further discussion beyond 
that provided in Section 4 is required. 
6.2.2.1 Records and Markers for the Repository (1.1.05.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the retention of records of the contents of the 
repository and markers constructed to inform future humans of the 
location and contents of the repository. Performance assessments 
must consider the potential effects of human activities that might 
take place within the controlled area at a future time when 
institutional controls and/or knowledge of the presence of a 
repository cannot be assumed. 
Descriptor Phrases: Records and markers on site 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Records and Markers for the Repository is excluded from the 
TSPALA by regulation. At 10 CFR 63.102(k) [DIRS 156605]), 
the regulation addresses the use of institutional controls. The 
regulation requires that both passive and active institutional 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-32 April 2004 

controls are to be maintained, but also indicates that it is not 
possible to make sound forecasts regarding their long-term 
reliability. 
The requirements for constructing monuments, preserving and archiving records, and oversight 
are listed at 10 CFR 63.51(a)(3)(i-iii) and at 10 CFR 63.72(a) and (b)(1-11) ([DIRS 156605]). 
Land ownership and control requirements are specified by 10 CFR 63.121 ([DIRS 156605]). 
The markers and repository archives will persist for some portion of the regulatory period, but 
for the analyses, they are assumed ineffective, in accordance with the regulatory requirements. 
See Assumption 5.2 of this analysis report. 
At 10 CFR 63.102(k) ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC recognizes that institutional controls are 
expected to reduce significantly, but not eliminate, the potential for human activity that causes or 
accelerates the release of radioactive material. To eliminate further speculation on how to 
address the effectiveness of these controls the regulation states: 
However, because it is not possible to make scientifically sound forecasts of the 
long-term reliability of institutional controls, it is not appropriate to include 
consideration of human intrusion into a fully risk-based performance assessment 
for purposes of evaluating the ability of the geologic repository to achieve the 
performance objective. 
Accordingly, for those FEPs addressing administrative controls, and particularly their influence 
on human intrusion, the FEPs have been excluded, by regulation, from consideration in the 
human intrusion stylized analysis. 
On that basis, the consideration of the timing of occurrence of human intrusion without 
recognition (see Attachment III of this analysis report) is based only on the physical properties of 
the drip shields and waste packages past 10,000 years, rather than on any consideration of 
administrative control, planning restrictions, repository markers, or an information repository. 
Although these institutional controls will be implemented, they do not influence the calculated 
timing or determination of the likelihood of a human intrusion, and therefore make no difference 
to the resulting dose to the RMEI or to the release of radionuclides to the accessible environment 
as addressed by the TSPALA model. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Unintrusive site investigation (1.4.03.00.0A)
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A)
Mining and other underground activities (1.4.05.00.0A)
Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-33 April 2004 

Wild and natural land use and water use (2.4.08.00.0A) 
Agricultural land use and water use (2.4.09.01.0B) 
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A) 
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-8. Indirect Inputs for Records and Markers for the Repository (1.1.05.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.51(a)(3)(i-iii) [DIRS 156605] Requirements for monuments and archives 
10 CFR 63.72(a) and (b)(1-11) [DIRS 156605] Requirements for monuments and archives 
10 CFR 63.121 [DIRS 156605] Requirements for land ownership and control 
6.2.2.2 Inadequate Quality Control and Deviations from Design (1.1.08.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses issues related to inadequate quality assurance 
and control procedures and inadequate testing during the design, 
construction, and operation of the repository. It also includes 
inadequacy in the manufacture of the waste forms, containers, and 
engineered features. Lack of quality control could result in a 
poorly designed repository, unmodeled design features, deviations 
from design, material defects, faulty waste package fabrication, 
and faulty or non-design standard construction. All of these may 
lead to reduction in the effectiveness of the engineered barriers. 
Descriptor Phrases: Design control (inadequate) 
Quality control (inadequate); Defects 
Deviations from design. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Inadequate Quality Control and Deviations from Design is 
excluded from the TSPALA based on low consequence because 
the regulatory requirements for performance confirmation (10 
CFR 63 Subpart F [DIRS 156605] and quality assurance 
(10 CFR Subpart G [DIRS 156605]) require that any deviation 
from design be evaluated for potential impact, and that significant 
deviations which are detected during the operational period be 
corrected (10 CFR 63.73a [DIRS 156605]). 
This FEP description is focused on the lack of quality control processes. As discussed in 
Section 6.1.7 of this analysis report, inherent in the FEPs evaluation approach is the limitation 
that the repository will be constructed, operated, and closed according to the design used as the 
basis for the FEP screening and in accordance with NRC license requirements. This is an 
inherent limitation for performance evaluation of any engineering project, and design verification 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-34 April 2004 

and performance confirmation are required as part of the construction and operation processes. 
Design verification during the operational period is the subject of an extensive performance 
confirmation plan documented in Snell et al. (2003 [DIRS 166219]). Furthermore, 
10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]) provides a list of requirements that have been incorporated 
into the performance confirmation program to provide data related to encountered subsurface 
conditions, functioning of the natural and engineered systems, and monitoring and testing. The 
performance confirmation program is documented in Snell et al. (2003 [DIRS 166219]). 
Modifications and/or deviations from the TSPA-LA design are subject to regulatory 
requirements and review that address deliberate changes and modifications. The manner in 
which DOE must address changes and by which the NRC is informed of the changes is codified 
at 10 CFR 63.44 ([DIRS 156605]). As indicated in 10 CFR Subpart G [DIRS 156605], the 
quality control program (including design control, procurement and materials control, 
inspections, and handling, storage, and shipping controls) is to be applied to all systems, 
structures, and components important to safety and to design and characterization of barriers 
important to waste isolation. Furthermore, deviations from quality standards and the design 
basis must be controlled. 
At 10 CFR 63.73(a) ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC requires prompt notification if there is a 
significant deficiency found in (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site, or (2) design 
and construction of the geologic repository area, including significant deviations from the design 
criteria and design bases stated in the application. Significant deviations that are detected during 
the operational period will be evaluated, and as needed, corrected. Any residual defects or 
fabrication or construction deficiencies, therefore, will be of a minor nature and will not lead to 
significant effects on the repository performance. Compliance with these requirements ensures a 
low consequence (it is unlikely that there will be significant effects from undetected deviations) 
in the event that the design is not followed. 
Regardless of the requirements of the quality assurance and performance confirmation programs, 
the TSPA allows for the possibility that engineered systems may not perform entirely as 
designed for the full 10,000 years, through the probabilistic treatment of waste-package and drip 
shield degradation. Some qualitative understanding of the effect of deficiencies can be taken 
from the multiple barrier analyses to be performed as part of the TSPALA modeling activities 
(BSC 2003, Section 8.3 [DIRS 166296]). The qualitative understanding can be further 
supplemented with a quantitative measure provided by barrier neutralization analyses as 
described in Appendix D.3 of Total System Performance Assessment-License Application 
Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Undesirable materials left (1.1.02.03.0A) 
Error in waste emplacement (1.1.03.01.0A) 
Error in backfill emplacement (1.1.03.01.0B) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-35 April 2004 

Incomplete closure (1.1.04.01.0A)
Repository design (1.1.07.00.0A)
Accidents and unplanned events during construction and operation
(1.1.12.01.0A)
Retrievability (1.1.13.00.0A)
Degradation of cladding from waterlogged rods (2.1.02.11.0A)
Early failure of waste packages (2.1.03.08.0A)
Early failure of drip shields (2.1.03.08.0B)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-9. Indirect Inputs for Inadequate Quality Control and Deviations from Design (1.1.08.00.0A) 
Reference 
Input 
BSC 2003, Section 8.3 and Appendix D.3 
Barrier neutralization analyses 
[DIRS 166296] 
6.2.2.3 Schedule and Planning (1.1.09.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the sequences of events and activities 
occurring during construction, operation, and closure of the 
repository. Deviations from the design, construction, or waste 
emplacement schedule may affect the long-term performance of 
the disposal system. 
Descriptor Phrases: Schedule and planning; Delays; Phased operations.
Screening Decision: Excluded: By Regulation
Screening Argument: Schedule and Planning is excluded from the TSPALA by
regulation because the stated regulatory objective is postclosure 
performance assessment, whereas scheduling and planning are 
preclosure operational issues (10 CFR 63.102(j) ([DIRS 156605]). 
Events related to changes in the construction, operation, or closure schedule are outside the scope 
of the TSPA and would need to be evaluated as design modifications should they occur. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: None 
Supplemental Discussion: 
There are no indirect inputs for this analysis. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-36 April 2004 

6.2.2.4 Administrative Control of Repository Site (1.1.10.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses administrative control of the repository site. 
Administrative control can reduce the potential for detrimental or 
unplanned human activities within the controlled area that could 
inadvertently cause or accelerate the release of radioactive 
material. 
Descriptor Phrases: Institutional control of site 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Administrative control of the repository site is excluded from the 
TSPALA by regulation. At 10 CFR 63.102(k) ([DIRS 156605]), 
the regulations address the use of institutional controls. The 
regulations require that both passive and active institutional 
controls be maintained, but not relied upon for performance. 
The requirements for constructing monuments, preserving and archiving records, and oversight 
are listed at 10 CFR 63.51(a)(3)(i-iii) and at 10 CFR 63.72(a) and (b)(1-11) [DIRS 156605]). 
Land ownership and control requirements are specified at 10 CFR 63.121 ([DIRS 156605]). The 
markers and repository archives will persist for some portion of the regulatory period, but for the 
analyses, they are assumed ineffective (see Assumption 5.2 of this analysis report) in accordance 
with the regulatory requirements. 
At 10 CFR 63.102(k) ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC recognizes that institutional controls are 
expected to reduce significantly, but not eliminate, the potential for human activity that causes or 
accelerates the release of radioactive material. To eliminate further speculation on how to 
address the effectiveness of these controls the regulation states: 
However, because it is not possible to make scientifically sound forecasts of the 
long-term reliability of institutional controls, it is not appropriate to include 
consideration of human intrusion into a fully risk-based performance assessment 
for purposes of evaluating the ability of the geologic repository to achieve the 
performance objective. 
Accordingly, for those FEPs addressing administrative controls, and particularly their influence 
on human intrusion, the FEPs have been excluded, by regulation, from consideration in the 
human intrusion stylized analysis. 
On that basis, the consideration of the timing of occurrence of human intrusion without 
recognition (see Attachment III of this analysis report) is evaluated only on the physical 
properties of the drip shields and waste packages past 10,000 years, rather than on any 
consideration of administrative control, planning restrictions, repository markers, or an 
information repository. Although these institutional controls will be implemented, they do not 
influence the calculated timing or determination of the likelihood of a human intrusion, and, 
therefore, make no difference to determining the resulting dose to the RMEI or to the release of 
radionuclides to the accessible environment as addressed by the TSPALA model. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-37 April 2004 

TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Records and markers for repository (1.1.05.00.0A)
Accidents and unplanned events during construction and operation (1.1.12.01.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Unintrusive site investigation (1.4.03.00.0A)
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A)
Mining and other underground activities (1.4.05.00.0A)
Altered soil or surface water chemistry (1.4.06.01.0A)
Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
Explosions and crashes (human activities) (1.4.11.00.0A)
Wild and natural land and water use (2.4.08.00.0A)
Agricultural land use and irrigation (2.4.09.01.0B)
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-10. Indirect Inputs for Administrative Control of Repository Site (1.1.10.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.51(a)(3)(i-iii) [DIRS 156605] Requirements for monuments and archives 
10 CFR 63.72(a) and (b)(1-11) [DIRS 156671] Requirements for monuments and archives 
10 CFR 63.121 [DIRS 156605] Requirements for land ownership and control 
6.2.2.5 Monitoring of the Repository (1.1.11.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the potential for monitoring that is 
carried out during or after operations, for either operational 
safety or verification of long-term performance, to 
detrimentally affect long-term performance. For instance, 
monitoring boreholes could provide enhanced pathways 
between the surface and the repository. 
Descriptor Phrases: Monitoring (performance confirmation) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Monitoring of repository is excluded from the TSPALA 
based on low consequence stemming from the regulatory 
requirements that monitoring activities must not adversely affect 
the ability of the repository to meet the performance objectives 
and requirements for seal confirmation. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-38 April 2004 

The repository will be constructed, operated, and closed according to NRC license requirements 
during the preclosure period. Modifications and/or deviations from the design are subject to 
regulatory requirements that address deliberate changes and modifications per 10 CFR 63.44 
([DIRS 156605]). Furthermore, at 10 CFR 63.73(a) ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC specifies prompt 
notification if there is a significant deficiency found in (1) the characteristics of the Yucca 
Mountain site, or (2) design and construction of the geologic repository area, including 
significant deviations from the design criteria and design bases stated in the application. 
Significant deviations that are detected during the operational period will be evaluated, and as 
needed, corrected. Any residual defects or fabrication or construction deficiencies, therefore, 
will be of a minor nature and will not lead to significant effects on the repository performance 
At 10 CFR Part 63 Subpart F ([DIRS 156605]), the regulation provides a list of requirements for 
a performance confirmation program to confirm design parameters and to ensure that the NRC is 
informed of changes needed in the design to accommodate actual field conditions. The 
performance confirmation plan documented in Snell et al. (2003 [DIRS 166219]) precludes 
significant effects from monitoring activities. A performance confirmation program is a 
regulatory requirement as specified at 10 CFR 63.131 ([DIRS 156605]). The provisions of that 
requirement include 10 CFR 63.131(c) ([DIRS 156605]) which states that the program must 
include in situ monitoring, field and laboratory testing, and in situ experiments, as may be 
appropriate to provide the data required by paragraph (a) of the section. Consequently, the use of 
in situ monitoring and experimentation is anticipated. However, the regulation also states that 
any monitoring program must be implemented so that it does not adversely affect the ability of 
the geologic and engineered elements of the geologic repository to meet the performance 
objectives per 10 CFR 63.131(d)(1) ([DIRS 156605]). 
All boreholes and monitoring wells will be drilled and sealed in accordance with regulatory 
requirements effective during the preclosure period. Confirmation that an adequate seal can be 
achieved is a regulatory requirement as specified at 10 CFR 63.133(d) [DIRS 156605]) which 
states that tests must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of borehole, shaft, and ramp 
seals, before full scale operation proceeds to seal boreholes, shafts, and ramps. Once properly 
sealed, there should be no pathway for unevaluated effect on groundwater flow systems, and 
boreholes should have no impact (i.e. are of low consequence) on the repository performance. 
Some qualitative understanding of the effect of any residual deficiencies can be taken from the 
multiple barrier analysis to be performed as part of the TSPALA modeling activities 
(BSC 2003, Section 8.3 [DIRS 166296]). This qualitative understanding can be supplemented 
with a quantitative measure provided by barrier neutralization analyses performed, as described 
in Appendix D.3 of Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-39 April 2004 

Related FEPs: 
Open site investigation boreholes (1.1.01.01.0A)
Influx through holes drilled in drift wall or crown (1.1.01.01.0B)
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A)
Effects of drilling intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-11.Indirect Inputs for Monitoring of the Repository (1.1.11.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.131 ([DIRS 156605] Requirement for performance confirmation 
10 CFR 63.131(c) ([DIRS 156605] Requirement for in situ monitoring 
10 CFR 63.131(d)(1) ([DIRS 156605] Requirement for no adverse effect from monitoring 
10 CFR 63.133(d) [DIRS 156605] Requirement for seal testing 
BSC 2003, Section 8.3 [DIRS 166296] Multiple barrier analyses 
6.2.2.6 Accidents and Unplanned Events during Construction and Operation 
(1.1.12.01.0A) 
FEP Description: The long-term performance of the disposal system might be 
seriously affected by unplanned or improper activities that take 
place during construction, operation, and closure of the repository 
Descriptor Phrases: Accidents (during construction and operation) 
Unplanned events (during construction and operation) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Accidents and unplanned events during construction and 
operation is excluded from the TSPALA based on low 
consequence because regulatory requirements for performance 
confirmation and quality assurance require evaluation of any such 
events should they occur. 
The history of the development of this FEP indicates that the intent and scope of the FEP is to 
include the effects of unplanned events during the preclosure phase that have longer lasting 
impact, such as improper operation, handling accidents, and some aspects of sabotage. The 
objective of the TSPA is to evaluate compliance with the postclosure performance objective. 
Events related to changes in the construction, operation, or closure schedule are outside the scope 
of the TSPA. 
Operations will be according to procedures acceptable to the NRC. At 10 CFR 63.73 
([DIRS 156605]), the NRC requires prompt notification if there is a significant deficiency found 
in the characteristics, design, and construction of the geologic repository operations area that, 
were it to remain uncorrected, could adversely affect safety at any time in the future. This 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-40 April 2004 

includes significant deviations from the design criteria and design bases stated in the application, 
construction authorization, or the license. If the repository does not meet regulatory criteria, it 
will not be licensed, and waste will not be emplaced. Quality control procedures and 
performance confirmation are designed to detect operational events resulting in deviations from 
the repository design that might affect long-term performance. Any significant deviations would 
be detected during regulator audits and inspections per 10 CFR Part 63 Subpart D 
([DIRS 156605]) and corrected before further work in the repository would be allowed to 
continue. Therefore, accidents and unplanned events during the operational phase would not 
have a significant effect on long-term performance and are excluded from the TSPALA based 
on low consequence. 
Sabotage is a form of deliberate human intrusion and has been excluded. It is more fully 
addressed in the FEPs 1.4.02.01.0A (deliberate human intrusion) and 1.4.11.00.0A (explosions 
and crashes (human activities)). 
Regardless of the type or cause of the event, some qualitative understanding of the potential 
effect of accidents and unplanned events can be taken from the multiple barrier analysis to be 
performed as part of the TSPALA modeling activities (BSC 2003, Section 8.3 [DIRS 166296]). 
This qualitative understanding can be supplemented with a quantitative measure provided by 
barrier neutralization analyses performed, as described in Appendix D.3 of Total System 
Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2002 
[DIRS 166296]). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Site flooding (during construction and operation) (1.1.02.01.0A) 
Undesirable materials left (1.1.02.03.0A) 
Inadequate quality control and deviations from design (1.1.08.00.0A) 
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A) 
Retrievability (1.1.13.00.0A) 
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A) 
Explosions and crashes (human activities) (1.4.11.00.0A) 
Mechanical impact on waste package (2.1.03.07.0A) 
Mechanical impact on drip shield (2.1.03.07.0B) 
Gas explosion in EBS (2.1.12.08.0A) 
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-12. Indirect Inputs for Accidents and Unplanned Events during Construction and Operation 
(1.1.12.01.0A) 
Reference 
Input 
BSC 2003, Section 8.3 and Appendix D.3 [DIRS 166296] 
Multiple barrier analyses 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-41 April 2004 

6.2.3 Human Intrusion Features, Events, and Processes 
This set of FEPs is related to the potential for human intrusion into the repository. Direct inputs 
used in this section originating from YMP-controlled sources or NRC regulations are listed in 
Section 4 and its subsections and no further discussion beyond that provided in Section 4 is 
required for such sources. Non-YMP sources of direct input are also cited in Section 4. Such 
sources and corroborating information are discussed in Attachment II of this analysis report. 
6.2.3.1 Deliberate Human Intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Humans could deliberately intrude into the repository. Without 
appropriate precautions, intruders could experience high radiation 
exposures. Moreover, containment may be left damaged, which 
could increase radionuclide release rates to the biosphere. 
Motivation for deliberate human intrusion includes mining, waste 
retrieval, site remediation/improvement, archaeology, sabotage, 
and acts of war. 
Descriptor Phrases: Human intrusion (sabotage); 
Human intrusion (resource recovery); 
Human intrusion (acts of war). 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Deliberate Human Intrusion is excluded from the TSPALA 
human intrusion stylized analysis by regulation, which indicates 
that analysis of deliberate human intrusion and/or exposure of the 
intruders is not intended and does not serve the intended purpose 
of the analysis (10 CFR Part 63 Supplementary Information, 
3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, p. 55761 66 FR 55732 
[DIRS 156671]), and that exposure of the intruder is not to be 
considered (10 CFR 63.322(f) [DIRS 156605]). 
Human intrusion is defined at 10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.12 
([DIRS 165519])) as: 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
In 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]), the term performance assessment is defined as an analysis 
that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-42 April 2004 

Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human intrusion 
from consideration in the TSPALA model, although other regulations provide the conditions for 
which human intrusion must be considered. 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional/deliberate or 
inadvertent/accidental, the regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]) are silent. Similarly, 
the regulations at 40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]) do not directly address the motivation or 
intentionality of the intrusion. However, the supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 
[DIRS 155216] clarify that consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the preamble 
to 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, Item 3 What is the Standard for Human Intrusion? p. 32105 
[DIRS 155216]), the EPA, in response to comments regarding the human intrusion stylized 
analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the NAS recommendations and we therefore retained our 
original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this at 66 FR 32127 (66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more specifically Item 10. Is 
the SingleBorehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to Judge the Resilience of the Yucca 
Mountain Disposal System Following Human Intrusion? [DIRS 155216]). The EPA explicitly 
states that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs conclusion regarding intentional intrusion (NAS Report, p. 14). 
Additionally the specifications at 10 CFR 63.322(f) ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
([DIRS 165519])) indicating that only radionuclides transported to the saturated zone be 
considered, preclude the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or 
other human intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The preamble to 10 CFR 
Part 63 (66 FR 55732, Supplementary Information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, p. 55761 
[DIRS 156671]) is clear with the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS concluded, 
and the Commission agrees, that analysis of the risk to the public or the intruders 
(i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill cuttings left unattended at the surface for 
subsequent dispersal into the biosphere would not fulfill the purpose of the human 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-43 April 2004 

intrusion calculation because it would not show how well a particular repository 
site and design would protect the public at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard 
of particulate HLW left on the surface would be dominated by assumptions 
subject to significant speculation and uncertainty regardless of the particular site 
or design under evaluation. Additionally, the release to the surface represents a 
one-time release with no long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs are excluded based on the regulatory intent 
and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of the regulatory requirements to 
consider only the human intrusion stylized analysis and the timing of such an event 
(see Attachment III of this analysis report). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Records and markers for repository (1.1.05.00.0A)
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A)
Accidents and unplanned events during construction and operation (1.1.12.01.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Unintrusive site investigation (1.4.03.00.0A)
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A)
Effects of drilling intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A)
Mining and other underground activities (1.4.05.00.0A)
Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
Explosions and crashes (human activities) (1.4.11.00.0A)
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-13. Indirect Inputs for Deliberate Human Intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605] Definition of human intrusion 
40 CFR 197.12 ([DIRS 165519]) Definition of human intrusion 
10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]) Definition of performance assessment 
10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605] NRC Regulations 
40 CFR Part 197 [DIRS 165519] EPA Regulation 
40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, Item 3 What is the Standard for EPA intent to exclude human intrusion 
Human Intrusion? p. 32105 [DIRS 155216] 
66 FR 32127 (66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more specifically Item 10. EPA intent to exclude human intrusion 
Is the SingleBorehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to 
Judge the Resilience of the Yucca Mountain Disposal System 
Following Human Intrusion? [DIRS 155216] 
40 CFR 197.26(e) ([DIRS 165519] Only transport via groundwater to be 
considered 
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-44 April 2004 

6.2.3.2 Inadvertent Human Intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A) 
FEP Description: Humans could accidentally intrude into the repository. Without 
appropriate precautions, intruders could experience high radiation 
exposures. Moreover, containment may be left damaged, which 
could increase radionuclide release rates to the biosphere. 
Inadvertent human intrusion might occur during scientific, mineral 
or geothermal exploration. 
Descriptor Phrases: Human intrusion (drilling); 
Human intrusion (mining); 
Human intrusion (resource recovery). 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Inadvertent Human Intrusion is excluded from the TSPALA 
based on regulation (10 CFR 63.321 [DIRS 156605]) because 
inadvertent human intrusion without recognition by drillers prior to 
10,000 years is not credible, and by regulatory intent, exposure to 
the intruders need not be considered 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional/deliberate or 
inadvertent/accidental, the regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]) are silent. Similarly, 
the regulations at 40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]) do not directly address the motivation or 
intentionality of the intrusion. However, the supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 
[DIRS 155216] clarify that consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the preamble 
to 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, in a discussion regarding Item 3 What is the Standard for 
Human Intrusion? p. 32105 [DIRS 155216]), the EPA, in response to comments regarding the 
human intrusion stylized analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the National Academy of Science (NAS) recommendations 
and we therefore retained our original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this at 66 FR 32127 (66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more specifically Item 10. Is 
the SingleBorehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to Judge the Resilience of the Yucca 
Mountain Disposal System Following Human Intrusion? [DIRS 155216]). The EPA explicitly 
states that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs conclusion regarding intentional intrusion (NAS Report, p. 14). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-45 April 2004 

Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs discussed in this analysis report are excluded 
based on the regulatory intent, and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of 
the regulatory requirements to consider only human intrusion stylized analysis and the timing of 
such an event. 
At 10 CFR 63.321([DIRS 156605]), the NRC specifies the criteria under which human intrusion 
must be evaluated: 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 
Furthermore, by way of explanation and corroboration, per 10 CFR 63.321(a) ([DIRS 156605]), 
DOE must: 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion (see 10 CFR 63.322) without recognition by the 
drillers. 
And if complete waste package penetration is projected to occur before or at the 10,000-year 
performance period, then the DOE is to provide a demonstration (10 CFR 63.321(b)(1)) 
([DIRS 156605]) that: 
there is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) as a 
result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after disposal. 
And, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) ([DIRS 156605]), 
If the exposure of the RMEI occurs after 10,000 years, or if the intrusion is 
projected to occur after 10,000 years, the results of the analysis and the bases of 
the analysis are to be provided in the environmental impact statement for Yucca 
Mountain. 
The drip shield and waste package barrier capability are based on the physical properties of the 
drip shield and waste packages. Degradation of these components with time is discussed in 
BSC 2003 (Section 6.7.1 [DIRS 161317]) and the analyses indicate that: 
 Because of the low corrosion rate of titanium alloy used for the drip shields, the initial 
breaches of the drip shields are not expected to occur until approximately 35,000 years 
and the median estimate of the mean time to initial breaching of drip shields is 
approximately 310,000 years; and 
 Because the corrosion rates of Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) used for the waste packages are 
so low, it is not expected that any waste packages would be breached by general 
corrosion or stress corrosion cracking during the first 10,000 years: models indicate that 
the time to initial breaching of the waste packages is on the order of 100,000 years. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-46 April 2004 

The results of the waste package degradations analyses cited from Calibrated Properties Model 
(BSC 2003, Section 6.7.1 [DIRS 161316]) result from the use of representative thermal 
hydrologic history files produced to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited report. The 
actual drip shield and waste package degradation profiles used in the TSPA-LA Model will make 
use of the actual thermal hydrologic history files appropriate for the repository. Because 
representative histories were used, however, significant differences in the degradation profile 
generated for TSPA-LA are not expected. While general corrosion occurs gradually over time 
up to the time of failure, the oxidation process is a surface phenomenon, and the underlying 
metal retains its integrity and resistance to drilling. Although results show the potential for 
failures at early time, these failures are the result of localized corrosion and, although modeled in 
TSPA-LA as a patch, are not associated with degradation of a significant surface area with 
respect to potential interaction with a rotary drill bit. See Attachment III of this analysis report 
for additional explanation. Regardless of these localized corrosion effects, the overall structural 
integrity of the waste package or drip shield, and the resistance to drilling is maintained. This is 
corroborated by the TSPA-SR drip shield and waste package studies, which indicate similarly 
long lifetimes for these components (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 3.4 [DIRS 153246]) with the 
first drip shield failures occurring after about 20,000 years. The first failures of the waste 
package outer material, Alloy 22, by general corrosion occurred after approximately 
30,000 years. 
Based on DOE analyses documented in Attachment III of this analysis report, the compressive 
strength and ductility of the metals from which the drip shields and waste package are fabricated 
differ significantly from the rock that would surround them and remain largely intact through the 
10,000-year regulatory period. Drillers would notice these differences in properties based on the 
rate of penetration. Rate of penetration ranges from inversely proportional to the square of the 
compressive strength of the material being drilled, to inversely proportional, all other factors 
being equal (Bourgoyne et al. 1986, Eq. 5-19 [DIRS 155233]; Kahraman et al. 2000, Equation 8 
[DIRS 167761]). As discussed in Attachment III, the compressive strength of the materials 
differ by a factor of two, suggesting that at a minimum, the rate of penetration would decrease by 
half or possibly to one fourth as the bit moved from the rock material to the engineered barrier, if 
in fact, the drill bit could even penetrate the engineered barrier. Other effects would also be 
noticeable. A full discussion is provided in Attachment III of this analysis report. The drillers, 
therefore, should recognize that they have attempted to drill into some material other than rock 
for at least as long as the drip shields or waste packages are intact. 
Based on these analyses, and in accordance with 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) ([DIRS 156605]), dose 
analysis of the stylized human intrusion case is not required for TSPA-LA because the human 
intrusion without recognition cannot occur prior to 10,000 years. Because the dose from the 
human intrusion was expected to occur after the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period, the 
human intrusion dose analysis for TSPA-SR was previously presented in the FEIS (DOE 2002, 
Section 5.7.1 [DIRS 155970]). Documentation of the human intrusion stylized analysis for 
license application will include a description of the technical basis and analyses to support the 
determination of the time of occurrence of the human intrusion and an update to the human 
intrusion stylized analysis exposure determination. 
The requirements at 10 CFR 63.322(f) ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
([DIRS 165519])), indicating that only radionuclides transported to the saturated zone be 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-47 April 2004 

considered, preclude the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or 
other human intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The preamble to 
10 CFR Part 63 ((66 FR 55732) Supplementary information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, 
p. 55761 [DIRS 156671]) is clear with the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS concluded, 
and the Commission agrees, that analysis of the risk to the public or the intruders 
(i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill cuttings left unattended at the surface for 
subsequent dispersal into the biosphere would not fulfill the purpose of the human 
intrusion calculation because it would not show how well a particular repository 
site and design would protect the public at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard 
of particulate HLW left on the surface would be dominated by assumptions 
subject to significant speculation and uncertainty regardless of the particular site 
or design under evaluation. Additionally, the release to the surface represents a 
one-time release with no long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
Consequently, consideration of exposure to the intruders is specifically excluded. 
Therefore, consideration of inadvertent human intrusion is excluded from the TSPALA. 
Because the dose from the human intrusion is expected to occur after the 10,000-year regulatory 
compliance period, the human intrusion stylized analysis is not required for TSPA-LA. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository 
for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada 
DOE/EIS-0250 (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970] 
Related FEPs: 
Records and markers for repository (1.1.05.00.0A)
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Igneous Event Precedes Human Intrusion (1.4.02.03.0A)
Seismic Event Precedes Human Intrusion (1.4.02.04.0A)
Unintrusive site investigation (1.4.03.00.0A)
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A)
Effects of drilling intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A)
Mining and other underground activities (1.4.05.00.0A)
Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
Explosions and crashes (human activity) (1.4.11.00.0A)
Wild and natural land and water use (2.4.08.00.0A)
Agricultural land use and irrigation (2.4.09.01.0B)
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A)
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-48 April 2004 

Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-14. Indirect Inputs for Inadvertent Human Intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.321(a) [DIRS 156605] Requirement to provide evaluation 
of timing of intrusion 
10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605] NRC Regulations 
40 CFR Part 197 [DIRS 165519] EPA Regulations 
40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, in a discussion regarding Item 3 What is the EPA intent to exclude deliberate 
Standard for Human Intrusion? p. 32105 [DIRS 155216]) intrusion 
66 FR 32127 (66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more specifically Item 10. Is the EPA intent to exclude deliberate 
SingleBorehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to Judge the Resilience of intrusion 
the Yucca Mountain Disposal System Following Human Intrusion? 
[DIRS 155216]) 
10 CFR 63.321(b)(1)) [DIRS 156605] Applicable if intrusion is prior to 
10,000 years 
10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) [DIRS 156605] Applicable if intrusion is after 
10,000 years 
(CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 3.4 [DIRS 153246] TSPA-SR Waste package 
degradation results 
DOE 2002, Section 5.7.1 [DIRS 155970] TSPA-SR Human intrusion 
analysis results 
40 CFR 197.26(e) [DIRS 165519]) Only transport through 
groundwater to be considered 
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, TSPA = total system 
performance assessment for site recommendation 
6.2.3.3 Igneous Event Precedes Human Intrusion (1.4.02.03.0A) 
FEP Description: An igneous event, such as a dike, intersects the repository and 
damages one or more waste packages. The damage is such that the 
material and structural properties of the drip shield and/or waste 
package are significantly altered. Because of the change in 
properties an intruder, using groundwater exploration drilling 
techniques, may not be able to recognize that something other than 
naturally-occurring materials have been encountered. 
Descriptor Phrases: Igneous event; 
Human intrusion event 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: The probability of a dike intruding the repository has been 
determined to have a mean annualized probability of 1.7 x 10-8 
(BSC 2003, Table 22 [DIRS 163769]), but in no estimates 
reviewed to date has the probability of igneous activity within the 
repository footprint been calculated to be as high as 1 x 10-5. 
Therefore, it is an unlikely event as defined in 10 CFR 63.342 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-49 April 2004 

([DIRS 156605]), and need to be further considered in conjunction 
with human intrusion. 
In 10 CFR 63.342 ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC indicates that the unlikely FEPs (defined as those 
that are estimated to have less than one chance in 10 and at least one chance in 10,000 years of 
occurring within 10,000 years of disposal, or roughly an annualized probability of 1 x 10-5 to 
1 x 10-8) are to be excluded from the assessments for the human intrusion and groundwater 
protection standards. Consequently, this particular FEP is excluded based on the regulation. 
Furthermore, the existing disruptive events scenario class allows for such an event to occur, but 
assumes that all waste packages within an intruded drift are damaged such that the drip shield 
and waste package provide no further protection. Thus, all waste packages in the intruded drift 
can contribute radionuclides to a groundwater release pathway, using the nominal scenario 
groundwater transport mechanism. Under the requirements of the human intrusion analysis, it is 
assumed that only one package is penetrated and that transport occurs to the saturated zone via 
the borehole. Because of the increased source term associated with the igneous intrusion, the 
existing disruptive scenario probability weighted exposure to the RMEI is likely conservative 
compared to the release from a single waste package release postulated for the human intrusion 
stylized analysis. Although, the release through the borehole may provide for a decreased 
transport time from the unsaturated to the saturated zone, the potential source term for the human 
intrusion stylized analysis is many times less than that associated with just the naturally 
occurring igneous event. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Igneous Intrusion Interacts with EBS Components (1.2.04.04.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Effects of drilling intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
There are no indirect inputs for this analysis. 
6.2.3.4 Seismic Event Precedes Human Intrusion (1.4.02.04.0A) 
FEP Description: A seismic event occurs at the repository and damages one or more 
waste packages. The damage is such that the material and 
structural properties of the drip shield and/or waste package are 
significantly altered. Because of the change in properties an 
intruder, using groundwater exploration drilling techniques, may 
not be able to recognize that something other than naturally-
occurring materials have been encountered. 
Descriptor Phrases: Seismic event, human intrusion event 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-50 April 2004 

Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence and By Regulation 
Screening Argument: The regulation requires that events with at least a 1 in 10 chance in 
10,000 years of occurring (i.e. roughly an annualized of 1 x 10-5 or 
greater) be considered as part of the human intrusion assessment, 
but events with less of a chance not be considered (10 CFR 63.342 
(DIRS 156605]). 
Seismic events with annualized probability between 1 x 10-4 to 1 x 10-5 are associated with the 
onset of seismic-related damage to the drip shield and waste package (BSC 2003, Sections 6.6.5, 
6.3.2, 6.5.2 [DIRS 167780]). The onset of such events is associated with the damage of limited 
surface areas on the engineered barriers (such as initiation of cracking or development of 
corrosion sites). However, this does not necessarily indicate that the materials properties 
(such as compressive strength) of the material has been significantly altered or that structural 
strength of the barriers has altered significantly with respect to the potential for intrusion by 
drilling without recognition of the driller. As long as the materials retain their basic material 
characteristics (i.e. compressive strength in particular) the reaction of the drilling assembly will 
be such that a change in conditions will be recognized by a change in drilling conditions. As the 
damaged barrier is encountered, the drill bit will tend to seize or catch on any fractures or 
cracks in the surface, and the operation will produce chatter at the surface, or at the extreme, 
result in the drill bit being unable to rotate as it entangles with the metals and alloys of the 
engineered barriers. Under these conditions, the difference in shear strengths and modulus of 
elasticity will be the determining factors in being able to determine the difference between 
naturally-occurring materials and the engineered barrier materials. As further described in 
Attachment III of this analysis report, the difference in these particular properties for rock and 
the various metals and alloys used in the engineered barrier is significant. 
Based on information provided in Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2003 Tables V-5 through 
V-9 [DIRs 162711]) and MO0311RCKPRPCS.003 [DIRS 166073], the mean tensile strength 
and mean ultimate strength of the rock units are reported to range from 11.6 MPa to 23.8 MPa 
(or approximately 7 to 50 percent of the corresponding mean compressive strength). These rock 
tensile strengths are, at a minimum, a factor of 14 less than those of the engineered barrier 
materials. Even conservatively assuming an equivalence of the yield strength of a ductile 
material to tensile or ultimate strength of brittle material generates a difference of a factor of 
much greater than 2 (i.e., the threshold for recognition of a change in penetration rates, as 
explained in Attachment III of this analysis report). The material properties for the engineered 
barriers is taken from MO0003RIB00071.000 [DIRS 148850]; MO0003RIB00073.000 
[DIRS 152926]; and MO0003RIB00076.000 [DIRS 153044]. The yield strength assigned to the 
engineered barrier materials is reported to range from 240 to 450 MPa for the stated offsets. 
A comparison of the ultimate and tensile strength to the rock units represents a minimum factor 
of 20 in material properties. Similarly, the mean modulus of elasticity for the rock materials is 
on the order of 6.9 to 33 GPa. Correspondingly, the reported shear modulus for the repository 
host horizon ranges from 0.42 to 8.21 GPa (or no greater than 1/3 of the maximum reported 
modulus of elasticity). By contrast, for the ductile alloys, the modulus of elasticity ranges from 
106 to 206 GPa, representing a minimum factor of 3.2 different from the rock properties. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-51 April 2004 

Thus, the occurrence of a seismic events that must be considered (i.e. with annualized 
probabilities of 1 x 10-5 or greater) are of low consequence because they would not induce 
significant changes with the material properties of the host rock, or in the engineered barrier 
materials, and the penetration of such materials would still be recognizable. 
In 10 CFR 63.342 ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC indicates that the unlikely FEPs (defined as those 
that are estimated to have less than one chance in 10 and at least one chance in 10,000 of 
occurring within 10,000 years of disposal, or roughly an annualized probability of between 
1 x 10-5 and 1 x 10-8) and very unlikely events (those with an annualized probability of less than 
1 x 10-8) are to be excluded from the assessments for the human intrusion and groundwater 
protection standards. Consequently, other seismic events of greater magnitude, that may occur 
less frequently, but have the potential to result in increased damage, are excluded based on the 
regulatory proscription of considering such events. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Seismic Ground Motion Damages EBS Components (1.2.03.02.0A)
Seismic-induced Rockfall Damages EBS Components (1.2.03.02.0B)
Seismic-induced Drift Collapse Damages EBS Components (1.2.03.02.0C)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Effects of drilling intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
There are no indirect inputs for this analysis. 
6.2.3.5 Unintrusive Site Investigation (1.4.03.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses airborne, geophysical, or other surface-based 
investigations of a repository site after its closure. 
Descriptor Phrases: Human intrusion (archaeology); 
Human intrusion (surface activities). 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Unintrusive site investigation is excluded from the TSPALA 
based on regulatory definition and requirements for the human 
intrusion analysis and on low consequence of any unintrusive activities. 
By definition, unintrusive activities will have no discernible effect (i.e. are of low consequence) on 
the performance of the system. At 10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.12 
([DIRS 165519]), human intrusion is defined regulatorily as breaching of any portion of the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-52 April 2004 

Because it is unintrusive, there is no mechanism for the activities of this FEP to breach the 
disposal system or negatively impact the repository performance, and is therefore excludable by 
regulation and on low consequence. 
Alternately, any human activity (including surface-based site investigations) or human-induced 
activity that has a significant negative impact (breach) of the barrier system is, by definition, 
human intrusion. The regulations at 10 CFR 63.113(d) ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.26 
([DIRS 165519])) stipulate that human intrusion shall be considered only through the 
consideration of the human intrusion stylized analysis. 
Furthermore, the NRC, in the discussion regarding the timing and frequency of human intrusion 
(10 CFR Part 63, Preamble, 66 FR 55732, p. 55761 [DIRS 156671]), states that some 
evaluations of the resource potential suggest that Yucca Mountain and the area around it does not 
represent an active candidate for either systematic or random exploratory drilling at this time. 
A list of citations for those studies is available in the regulation. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Records and markers for repository (1.1.05.00.0A)
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A)
Effects of drilling intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A)
Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
Explosions and crashes (human activities) (1.4.11.00.0A)
Wild and natural land and water use (2.4.08.00.0A)
Agricultural land use and irrigation (2.4.09.01.0B)
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-15. Indirect Inputs for Unintrusive Site Investigation (1.4.03.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
40 CFR 197.12 [DIRS 165519] EPA definition of human intrusion 
40 CFR 197.26 [DIRS 165519] EPA defined human intrusion analysis 
10 CFR Part 63, Preamble, 66 FR 55732, p. 55761 NRC perspective on likelihood of mineral resources 
[DIRS 156671] 
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-53 April 2004 

6.2.3.6 Drilling Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses any type of drilling activity in the repository 
environment. These activities may be taken with or without 
awareness of the presence of the repository and with or without 
consent of the repository licensee. Drilling activities may be 
associated with natural resource exploration (water, oil and gas, 
minerals, geothermal energy), waste disposal (liquid), fluid storage 
(hydrocarbon, gas), or reopening existing boreholes. 
Descriptor Phrases: Human intrusion (drilling) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Drilling activities (human intrusion) is excluded from the 
TSPA-LA based on regulation because consideration of only a 
stylized human intrusion is mandated in the regulations at 
10 CFR 63.322 and 10 CFR 63.321 [DIRS 156605]). 
Human intrusion is defined at 10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605]) and 40 CFR 197.12 
([DIRS 165519]) as: 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
In 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]), the term performance assessment is defined as an analysis 
that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human intrusion 
from consideration in the TSPALA model. However, there are specific regulatory provisions 
regarding consideration of human intrusion and drilling activities. To wit, 10 CFR 63.322 
([DIRS 156605]), states that: 
For the purposes of the analysis of human intrusion, DOE must make the 
following assumptions: 
(a) There is a single human intrusion as a result of exploratory drilling for 
ground water; 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-54 April 2004 

(b) The intruders drill a borehole directly through a degraded waste package 
into the uppermost aquifer underlying the Yucca Mountain repository; 
(c) The drillers use the common techniques and practices that are currently 
employed in exploratory drilling for ground water in the region surrounding 
Yucca Mountain; 
(d) Careful sealing of the borehole does not occur, instead natural degradation 
processes gradually modify the borehole; 
(e) No particulate waste material falls into the borehole; 
(f) The exposure scenario includes only those radionuclides transported to the 
SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ); and 
(g) No releases are included which are caused by unlikely natural processes and 
events. 
This is similar to the requirements in 40 CFR 197.26 ([DIRS 165519]), except that the EPA 
regulation does not specify item (e) above, and that item (f) is replaced with the following 
language at 40 CFR 197.26(e) ([DIRS 165519]): 
Only releases of radionuclides that occur as a result of the intrusion and that are 
transported through the resulting borehole to the SZ are projected; 
Several concepts in this set of regulations are important to the evaluation of human intrusion 
FEPs. First, rather than speculating on the nature and probability of future intrusion, the NRC 
has required that human intrusion be evaluated via a human intrusion stylized analysis. 
Secondly, the regulation specifies that the stylized analysis must assume the intrusion is the 
result of exploration for groundwater. This is emphasized in the regulations at 10 CFR 63.322 
([DIRS 156605]) with the statement that DOE must make the following assumptions. 
Therefore, all other types of drilling activities, by default, are excluded due to the 
regulatory-specified assumption. 
Additionally, the preamble to 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605], Supplementary information, 
3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, p. 55761) indicates that the NRC intended the analysis to be 
based on a stylized analysis. Accordingly, at 10 CFR 63.321 ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC 
specifies the criteria under which human intrusion must be evaluated: 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-55 April 2004 

Furthermore, by way of explanation and corroboration, per 10 CFR 63.321(a) ([DIRS 156605]), 
DOE must: 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of occurrence of 
human intrusion (see 10 CFR 63.322) without recognition by the drillers. 
And if complete waste package penetration is projected to occur before or at the 10,000-year 
performance period, then the DOE is to provide a demonstration per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) 
([DIRS 156605]) that: 
there is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) as a 
result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after disposal. 
And, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) ([DIRS 156605]): 
If the exposure of the RMEI occurs after 10,000 years, or if the intrusion is 
projected to occur after 10,000 years, the results of the analysis and the bases of 
the analysis are to be provided in the environmental impact statement for Yucca 
Mountain. 
The drip shield and waste package barrier capability are based on the physical properties of the 
drip shield and waste packages. Degradation of these components with time is discussed in 
BSC 2003 (Section 6.7.1 [DIRS 161317]), and the analyses indicate that: 
 Because of the low corrosion rate of titanium alloy used for the drip shields, the initial 
breaches of the drip shields are not expected to occur until will after 10,000 years; more 
specifically the modeling indicates approximately 35,000 years with the median estimate 
of the mean time to initial breaching of drip shields at approximately 310,000 years; and 
 Because the corrosion rates of Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) used for the waste packages are 
so low, it is not expected that any waste packages would be breached by general 
corrosion or stress corrosion cracking during the first 10,000 years: models indicate that 
the time to initial breaching of the waste packages is on the order of 100,000 years. 
The results of the waste package degradations analyses cited from Calibrated Properties Model 
(BSC 2003, Section 6.7.1 [DIRS 161316]) result from the use of representative thermal 
hydrologic history files produced to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited report. The 
actual drip shield and waste package degradation profiles used in the TSPA-LA Model will make 
use of the actual thermal hydrologic history files appropriate for the repository. Because 
representative histories were used, however, significant differences in the degradation profile 
generated for TSPA-LA are not expected. While general corrosion occurs gradually over time 
up to the time of failure, the oxidation process is a surface phenomenon, and the underlying 
metal retains its integrity and resistance to drilling. Although results show the potential for 
failures at early time, these failures are the result of localized corrosion and, although modeled in 
TSPA-LA as a patch, are not associated with degradation of a significant surface area with 
respect to potential interaction with a rotary drill bit. See Attachment III of this analysis report 
for additional explanation. Regardless of these localized corrosion effects, the overall structural 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-56 April 2004 

integrity of the waste package or drip shield, and the resistance to drilling is maintained. This is 
corroborated by the TSPA-SR drip shield and waste package studies which indicate similarly 
long lifetimes for these components (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 3.4 [DIRS 153246]) with the 
first drip shield failures occurring after about 20,000 years. The first failures of the waste 
package outer material, Alloy 22, by general corrosion occurred after approximately 30,000 
years. 
Based on DOE analyses documented in Attachment III of this analysis report, the compressive 
strength and ductility of the metals from which the drip shields and waste package are fabricated 
differ significantly from the rock that would surround them and remain largely intact through the 
10,000-year regulatory period. Drillers would notice these differences in properties based on the 
rate of penetration. Rate of penetration ranges from inversely proportional to the square of the 
compressive strength of the material being drilled, to inversely proportional, all other factors 
being equal (Bourgoyne et al. 1986, Eq. 5-19 [DIRS 155233]; Kahraman et al. 2000, Equation 8 
[DIRS 167761]). As discussed in Attachment III, the compressive strength of the materials 
differ by a factor of two, suggesting the at a minimum, the rate of penetration would decrease by 
half or possibly to one fourth as the bit moved from the rock material to the engineered barrier, if 
in fact, the drill bit could even penetrate the engineered barrier. Other effects would also be 
noticeable. A full discussion is provided in Attachment III of this analysis report. The drillers, 
therefore, should recognize that they have attempted to drill into some material other than rock 
for at least as long as the drip shields or waste packages are intact. 
Based on these analyses, and in accordance with 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) ([DIRS 156605]), dose 
analysis of the stylized human intrusion case is not required for TSPA-LA because the human 
intrusion without recognition cannot occur prior to 10,000 years. Because the dose from the 
human intrusion was expected to occur after the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period, the 
human intrusion dose analysis for TSPA-SR was previously presented in the FEIS (DOE 2002, 
Section 5.7.1 [DIRS 155970]). Documentation of the human intrusion stylized analysis for 
license application will include a description of the technical basis and analyses to support the 
determination of the time of occurrence of the human intrusion and an update to the human 
intrusion stylized analysis exposure determination. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Open site investigation boreholes (1.1.01.01.0A)
Records and markers for repository (1.1.05.00.0A)
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A)
Monitoring of repository (1.1.11.00.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Unintrusive site investigation (1.4.03.00.0A)
Effects of drilling intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A)
Mining and other underground activities (1.4.05.00.0A)
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-57 April 2004 

Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-16. Indirect Inputs for Drilling Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605] NRC definition of human intrusion 
40 CFR 197.12 [DIRS 165519] NRC definition of human intrusion 
10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605] NRC definition of performance assessment 
40 CFR 197.26 [DIRS 165519] EPA defined human intrusion analysis 
40 CFR 197.26(e) [DIRS 165519] Only groundwater transport need be considered 
10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605] NRC Regulations 
10 CFR 63.321(a) [DIRS 156605] Requirement to provide evaluation of timing of intrusion 
10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) [DIRS 156605] Applicable f intrusion is prior to 10,000 years 
10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) [DIRS 156605] Applicable if intrusion is after 10,000 years 
CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 3.4 [DIRS 153246] TSPA-SR Waste package degradation results 
DOE 2002, Section 5.7.1 [DIRS 155970] TSPA-SR human intrusion analysis results 
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, TSPA-SR = total system 
performance assessment for site recommendation 
6.2.3.7 Effects of Drilling Intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Drilling activities that intrude into the repository may create new 
release pathways to the biosphere and alter existing pathways. 
Possible effects of a drilling intrusion include interaction with 
waste packages, increased saturation in repository leading to 
enhanced transport to the saturated zone, changes to groundwater 
and EBS chemistry, and waste brought to surface. 
Descriptor Phrases: Human intrusion (drilling) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Effects of Drilling Intrusion is excluded from the TSPALA 
based on regulation because consideration of only a stylized 
human intrusion is mandated by the regulations at 10 CFR 63.322 
and 10 CFR 63.321([DIRS 156605]) 
Human intrusion is defined at 10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605]) and at 40 CFR 197.12 
([DIRS 165519])) as: 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-58 April 2004 

In 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]), the term performance assessment is defined as an analysis 
that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect 
the Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring 
during 10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human intrusion 
from consideration in the TSPALA model. However, there are specific regulatory provisions 
regarding consideration of human intrusion. To wit; 10 CFR 63.322 ([DIRS 156671]), states 
that: 
For the purposes of the analysis of human intrusion, DOE must make the 
following assumptions: 
(a) There is a single human intrusion as a result of exploratory drilling for 
ground water; 
(b) The intruders drill a borehole directly through a degraded waste package 
into the uppermost aquifer underlying the Yucca Mountain repository; 
(c) The drillers use the common techniques and practices that are currently 
employed in exploratory drilling for ground water in the region 
surrounding Yucca Mountain; 
(d) Careful sealing of the borehole does not occur, instead natural 
degradation processes gradually modify the borehole; 
(e) No particulate waste material falls into the borehole; 
(f) The exposure scenario includes only those radionuclides transported to 
the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases 
radionuclides, and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the 
SZ); and 
(g) No releases are included which are caused by unlikely natural processes 
and events. 
This is similar to the requirements in 40 CFR 197.26 ([DIRS 165519]), except that the EPA 
regulation does not specify item (e) above, and that item (f) is replaced with the following 
language at 40 CFR 197.26(e) ([DIRS 165519]). 
Only releases of radionuclides that occur as a result of the intrusion and that 
are transported through the resulting borehole to the SZ are projected; 
Several concepts in this set of regulations are important to the evaluation of human intrusion 
FEPs. First, rather than speculating on the nature and probability of future intrusion, the NRC 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-59 April 2004 

has required that human intrusion be evaluated via a human intrusion stylized analysis. 
Secondly, the regulation indicates that the stylized analysis be based on the assumption of release 
through the borehole, and not through other alternate pathways such as cuttings brought to the 
surface. This is emphasized in the regulation at 10 CFR 63.322 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671]) 
with the statement that DOE must make the following assumption. 
Additionally, the preamble to 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], Supplementary 
Information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, p. 55761) indicates that the NRC intended the 
analysis to be based on a stylized analysis. Accordingly, at 10 CFR 63.321 ([DIRS 156605]), the 
NRC specifies the criteria under which human intrusion must be evaluated: 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 
Furthermore, by way of exploration and corroboration, per 10 CFR 63.321(a) ([DIRS 156605]), 
DOE must: 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion (see 63.322) without recognition by the drillers. 
And if complete waste package penetration is projected to occur before or at the 10,000-year 
performance period, then the DOE is to provide a demonstration per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) 
([DIRS 156605]) that: 
there is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) as a 
result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after disposal. 
And, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) ([DIRS 156605]): 
If the exposure of the RMEI occurs after 10,000 years, or if the intrusion is 
projected to occur after 10,000 years, the results of the analysis and the bases of 
the analysis are to be provided in the environmental impact statement for Yucca 
Mountain. 
Additionally, the requirements at 10 CFR 63.322(f) ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
([DIRS 165519])), indicating that only radionuclides transported to the saturated zone be 
considered, preclude the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or 
other human intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The preamble to 
10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732, Supplementary Information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, 
p. 55761 [DIRS 156671]) is clear with the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). The NAS 
concluded, and the Commission agrees, that analysis of the risk to the public or 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-60 April 2004 

the intruders (i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill cuttings left unattended at 
the surface for subsequent dispersal into the biosphere would not fulfill the 
purpose of the human intrusion calculation because it would not show how well a 
particular repository site and design would protect the public at large. Rather, an 
analysis of the hazard of particulate HLW left on the surface would be dominated 
by assumptions subject to significant speculation and uncertainty regardless of the 
particular site or design under evaluation. Additionally, the release to the surface 
represents a one-time release with no long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
The drip shield and waste package barrier capability are based on the physical properties of the 
drip shield and waste packages. Degradation of these components with time is discussed in 
BSC 2003 (Section 6.7.1 [DIRS 161317]), and the analysis indicates that: 
 Because of the low corrosion rate of titanium alloy used for the drip shields, the initial 
breaches of the drip shields are not expected to occur until approximately 35,000 years 
and the median estimate of the mean time to initial breaching of drip shields is 
approximately 310,000 years; and 
 Because the corrosion rates of Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) used for the waste packages are 
so low, it is not expected that any waste packages would be breached by general 
corrosion or stress corrosion cracking during the first 10,000 years: models indicate that 
the time to initial breaching of the waste packages is on the order of 100,000 years 
The results of the waste package degradations analyses cited from BSC 2003 (Section 6.7.1 
[DIRS 161316]) result from the use of representative thermal hydrologic history files produced 
to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited report. The actual drip shield and waste package 
degradation profiles used in the TSPA-LA Model will make use of the actual thermal hydrologic 
history files appropriate for the repository. Because representative histories were used, however, 
significant differences in the degradation profile generated for TSPA-LA are not expected. 
While general corrosion occurs gradually over time up to the time of failure, the oxidation 
process is a surface phenomenon, and the underlying metal retains its integrity and resistance to 
drilling. Although results show the potential for failures at early time, these failures are the 
result of localized corrosion and, although modeled in TSPA-LA as a patch, are not associated 
with degradation of a significant surface area with respect to potential interaction with a rotary 
drill bit. See Attachment III of this analysis report for additional explanation. Regardless of 
these localized corrosion effects, the overall structural integrity of the waste package or drip 
shield, and the resistance to drilling is maintained. This is corroborated by the TSPA-SR drip 
shield and waste package studies which indicate similarly long lifetimes for these components 
(CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 3.4 [DIRS 153246]) with the first drip shield failures occurring 
after about 20,000 years. The first failures of the waste package outer material, Alloy 22, by 
general corrosion occurred after approximately 30,000 years (this general corrosion duration did 
not consider the 5 cm of stainless steel beneath the Alloy 22). 
Based on DOE analyses documented in Attachment III of this analysis report, the compressive 
strength and ductility of the metals from which the drip shields and waste package are fabricated 
differ significantly from the rock that would surround them and remain largely intact through the 
10,000-year regulatory period. Drillers would notice these differences in properties based on the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-61 April 2004 

rate of penetration. Rate of penetration ranges from inversely proportional to the square of the 
compressive strength of the material being drilled, to inversely proportional, all other factors 
being equal (Bourgoyne et al. 1986, Eq. 5-19 [DIRS 155233]; Kahraman et al. 2000, Equation 8 
[DIRS 167761]). As discussed in Attachment III, the compressive strength of the materials 
differ by a factor of two, suggesting the at a minimum, the rate of penetration would decrease by 
half or possibly to one fourth as the bit moved from the rock material to the engineered barrier, if 
in fact, the drill bit could even penetrate the engineered barrier. Other effects would also be 
noticeable. A full discussion is provided in Attachment III of this analysis report. The drillers, 
therefore, should recognize that they have attempted to drill into some material other than rock 
for at least as long as the drip shields or waste packages are intact. 
Based on these analysis, and in accordance with 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) (DIRS 156605]), dose 
analysis of the stylized human intrusion case is not required for TSPA-LA because the human 
intrusion without recognition cannot occur prior to 10,000 years. Because the dose from the 
human intrusion was expected to occur after the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period, the 
human intrusion dose analysis for TSPA-SR was previously presented in the FEIS (DOE 2002, 
Section 5.7.1 [DIRS 155970]). Documentation of the human intrusion stylized analysis for 
license application will include a description of the technical basis and analyses to support the 
determination of the time of occurrence of the human intrusion and an update to the human 
intrusion stylized analysis exposure determination. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Open site investigation boreholes (1.1.01.01.0A)
Influx through holes drilled in drift wall or crown (1.1.01.01.0B)
Monitoring of repository (1.1.11.00.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Igneous Event Precedes Human Intrusion (1.4.02.03.0A)
Seismic Event Precedes Human Intrusion (1.4.02.04.0A)
Unintrusive site investigation (1.4.03.00.0A)
Mining and other underground activities (1.4.05.00.0A)
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A)
Geochemical interactions and evolution in the SZ (2.2.08.03.0A)
Geochemical interactions and evolution in the UZ (2.2.08.03.0B)
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-62 April 2004 

Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-17. Indirect Inputs for Effects of Drilling Intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605] NRC definition of human intrusion 
40 CFR 197.12 [DIRS 165519]) EPA definition of human intrusion 
10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605] NRC definition of performance assessment 
40 CFR 197.26 [DIRS 165519] EPA defined human intrusion analysis 
40 CFR 197.26(e) [DIRS 165519] Only groundwater transport needs to be considered 
10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605]) NRC Regulations 
10 CFR 63.321(a) [DIRS 156605] Requirement to provide evaluation of timing of intrusion 
10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) [DIRS 156605] Applicable if intrusion is prior to 10,000 years 
10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) [DIRS 156605] Applicable if intrusion is after 10,000 years 
40 CFR 197.26(e) [DIRS 165519] Only groundwater transport needs to be considered 
CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 3.4 [DIRS 153246] TSPA-SR waste package degradation results 
FEIS (DOE 2002, Section 5.7.1 [DIRS 155970] TSPA-SR human intrusion analysis results 
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, TSPA-SR = total system 
performance assessment 
6.2.3.8 Mining and Other Underground Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.05.00.0A) 
FEP Description: Mining and other underground human activities (e.g., tunneling, 
underground construction, quarrying) could disrupt the disposal 
system. 
Descriptor Phrases: Human intrusion (mining); 
Human intrusion (quarrying); 
Human intrusion (excavation); 
Human intrusion (resource recovery). 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Mining and other underground activities (human intrusion) is 
excluded from the TSPALA and the human-intrusion stylized 
analysis based on regulation because consideration of only a 
stylized human intrusion is mandated at 10 CFR 63.322 
([DIRS 156605]). 
Human intrusion is defined at 10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.12 
([DIRS 165519]) as: 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-63 April 2004 

At 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]), the term performance assessment is defined as an analysis 
that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human intrusion 
from consideration in the TSPALA model. However, there are specific regulatory provisions 
regarding consideration of human intrusion. To wit; 10 CFR 63.322 (66 FR 55732 
[DIRS 156671]), states that: 
For the purposes of the analysis of human intrusion, DOE must make the 
following assumptions: 
(a) There is a single human intrusion as a result of exploratory drilling for 
groundwater; 
(b) The intruders drill a borehole directly through a degraded waste package 
into the uppermost aquifer underlying the Yucca Mountain repository; 
(c) The drillers use the common techniques and practices that are currently 
employed in exploratory drilling for ground water in the region surrounding 
Yucca Mountain; 
(d) Careful sealing of the borehole does not occur, instead natural degradation 
processes gradually modify the borehole; 
No particulate waste material falls into the borehole; 
(f) The exposure scenario includes only those radionuclides transported to the 
SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ); and 
(g) No releases are included which are caused by unlikely natural processes and 
events. 
This is similar to the requirements in 40 CFR 197.26 ([DIRS 165519]), except that the EPA 
regulation does not specify item (e) above, and that item (f) is replaced with the following 
language at 40 CFR 197.26(e) ([DIRS 165519]): 
Only releases of radionuclides that occur as a result of the intrusion and that are 
transported through the resulting borehole to the SZ are projected. 
Several concepts in this set of regulations are important to the evaluation of human intrusion 
FEPs. First, rather than speculating on the nature and probability of future intrusion, the NRC 
has required that human intrusion be evaluated via a human intrusion stylized analysis. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-64 April 2004 

Secondly, the regulation specifies that the stylized analysis assume the intrusion is the result of 
exploration for groundwater. This is emphasized in the regulations at 10 CFR 63.322 
([DIRS 156605]) with the statement that DOE must make the following assumptions. 
Therefore, all other types of intrusion, including mining, by default, are excluded due to the 
regulatory-specified assumption. 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional/deliberate or 
inadvertent/accidental, the regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]) are silent. Similarly, 
the regulations at 40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]) do not directly address the motivation or 
intentionality of the intrusion. However, the supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 
clarify that consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the preamble to 40 CFR Part 
197 (66 FR 32074, Item 3 What is the Standard for Human Intrusion? p. 32105 
[DIRS 155216]), the EPA, in response to comments regarding the human intrusion stylized 
analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the NAS recommendations and we therefore retained our 
original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this (66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more specifically Item 10. Is the 
Single-Borehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to Judge the Resilience of the Yucca 
Mountain Disposal System Following Human Intrusion? [DIRS 155216]). The EPA explicitly 
states that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs conclusion regarding intentional intrusion (NAS Report, p. 14). 
Additionally, the requirements at 10 CFR 63.322(f) ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
([DIRS 165519])), indicating that only radionuclides transported to the saturated zone be 
considered, preclude the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or 
other human intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The preamble to 10 CFR 
Part 63 (66 FR 55732, Supplementary Information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, p. 55761 
[DIRS 156671]) is clear with the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS concluded, 
and the Commission agrees, that analysis of the risk to the public or the intruders 
(i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill cuttings left unattended at the surface for 
subsequent dispersal into the biosphere would not fulfill the purpose of the human 
intrusion calculation because it would not show how well a particular repository 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-65 April 2004 

site and design would protect the public at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard 
of particulate HLW left on the surface would be dominated by assumptions 
subject to significant speculation and uncertainty regardless of the particular site 
or design under evaluation. Additionally, the release to the surface represents a 
one-time release with no long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs discussed in this analysis report are excluded 
based on the regulatory intent, and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of 
the regulatory requirements to consider only the stylized human intrusion and the timing of such 
an event. (See also Assumption 5.2 of this analysis report regarding the loss of records and 
ineffectiveness of repository markers). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Records and markers for repository (1.1.05.00.0A)
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A)
Effects of drilling intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A)
Repository excavation (1.4.05.00.0A)
Altered soil or surface water chemistry (1.4.06.01.0A)
Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-18. Indirect Inputs for Mining and Other Underground Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.05.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605] NRC definition of human intrusion 
40 CFR 197.12 [DIRS 165519] EPA definition of human intrusion 
10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605]) NRC definition of performance assessment 
40 CFR 197.26 [DIRS 165519] EPA defined human intrusion analysis 
40 CFR 197.26(e) [DIRS 165519] Only groundwater transport needs to be 
considered 
10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605] NRC Regulations 
40 CFR Part 197 [DIRS 165519] EPA Regulations 
40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, Item 3 What is the Standard EPA intent to exclude human intrusion 
for Human Intrusion? p. 32105 [DIRS 155216]) 
66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more specifically Item 10. Is the EPA intent to exclude human intrusion 
Single Borehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to Judge 
the Resilience of the Yucca Mountain Disposal System 
Following Human Intrusion? [DIRS 155216] 
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-66 April 2004 

6.2.3.9 Explosions and Crashes (Human Activities) (1.4.11.00.0A) 
FEP Description: Explosions or crashes resulting from future human activities may 
affect the long-term performance of the repository. Explosions 
may result from nuclear war, underground nuclear testing or 
resource exploitation. 
Descriptor Phrases: Human intrusion (explosion); 
Human intrusion (crashes); 
Human intrusion (acts of war); 
Human intrusion (sabotage). 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Explosions and Crashes (Human Activities) is excluded from the 
TSPALA based on regulation and low consequence because the 
type of phenomena listed would primarily have only surficial 
effects, unless the repository was deliberately targeted, which is a 
specific form of deliberate human intrusion as is therefore 
excluded (10 CFR 63.322 ([DIRS 156605]). Resource exploration, 
in the form of groundwater exploitation, is addressed as part of the 
human intrusion stylized analysis. 
The development history for this FEP indicates that several possible cases are covered by this 
FEP. These include surface detonation of nuclear or conventional weapons, aircraft crashes, 
subsurface explosion related to resource recovery, and nuclear detonation nearby in the 
subsurface. 
Human intrusion is defined at 10 CFR 63.302 ([DIRS 156605] and at 40 CFR 197.12 
([DIRS 165519]) as: 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
In 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]), the term performance assessment is defined as an analysis 
that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human 
intrusion, including explosions and crashes, from consideration in the TSPALA model. 
However, there are specific regulatory provisions regarding consideration of human intrusion as 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-67 April 2004 

a stylized analysis based on exploratory drilling for groundwater (10 CFR 63.322) 
([DIRS 156605]). 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional/deliberate or 
inadvertent/accidental, the regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605]) are silent. Similarly, 
the regulations at 40 CFR Part 197 ([DIRS 165519]) do not directly address the motivation or 
intentionality of the intrusion. However, the supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 
clarify that consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the preamble to 40 CFR Part 
197 (66 FR 32074, Item 3 What is the Standard for Human Intrusion? p. 32105 
[DIRS 155216]), the EPA, in response to comments regarding the human intrusion stylized 
analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the NAS recommendations and we therefore retained our 
original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this at 66 FR 32127 (66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more specifically Item 10. Is 
the SingleBorehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to Judge the Resilience of the Yucca 
Mountain Disposal System Following Human Intrusion? [DIRS 155216]). The EPA explicitly 
states that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs conclusion regarding intentional intrusion (NAS Report, p. 14). 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs discussed in this analysis report are excluded 
based on the regulatory intent, and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of 
the regulatory requirements to consider only the human intrusion stylized analysis and the timing 
of such an event. 
With regard to explosions and crashes, the depth of the repository suggests that such events are 
of low consequence to repository performance. The minimum depth of the TSPA-LA repository 
(distance from the emplacement area to the overlying surface) is approximately 200 m. Drawing 
800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519] indicates that the overburden 
thickness from emplacement area to topographic surface is 215 m. A depth of 200 m will be 
used in the calculation to provide a small margin of conservatism. 
With regard to potential consequences of airplane crashes, or surface and subsurface detonation, 
the results of the evaluation of meteorite impact cratering described in Attachment III of this 
analysis report are relevant, and direct input to the discussion are addressed in Attachment II. To 
be of consequence, the detonation or impact must either be sufficient to exhume the waste, create 
fracturing to depth, or create a significant increase in fracturing over a widespread area such that 
infiltration patterns and rates are significantly altered. The analysis presented in Attachment IV 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-68 April 2004 

suggests that impacts resulting in craters with diameters on the scale of 80 to 100 m (262 to 328 
feet) might be sufficient to lead to fracturing of the geologic units overlying the repository 
sufficient to increase infiltration. A crater with a diameter on the order of 300 m (984 feet) is 
needed to initiate fracturing to the depth of the repository, and a crater with a diameter on the 
order of 1 km (3,280 feet) is needed to exhume waste directly to the surface. Based on Dence et 
al. (1977, Figure 12 [DIRS 135253], such crater diameters, respectively, are associated with 
energy release on the scale of 1012 to 1017 joules (200 tons to 20 megatons (Mt) TNT equivalent 
based on a relationship of 1 megaton (Mt) TNT = 4.2  1015 joules (J) per Chapman and 
Morrison (1994, p. 33 [DIRS 135245]). 
Such large-scale energy releases are not associated with surface impact of an aircraft or surface 
detonation of conventional ordnance because of insufficient energy release to the subsurface. By 
way of comparison, Stix and Yam (2001, p. 15 [DIRS 160994]) suggest that kinetic energy of a 
Boeing 767 is on the order of 1 to 2 tons TNT. Stix and Yam also indicate that the potential 
explosive energy release from fuel on board a large jet passenger aircraft is on the order of 
180 tons TNT, though this would not all be focused into the subsurface. With regard to more 
conventional ordinance, Ferguson (2002 [DIRS 150988]) suggests that the conventional yield of 
a GBU-28 bunker buster bomb is on the order of 2 tons. With regard to earth-penetrating 
weapons, available direct inputs suggest that a penetration depth of 30 m is a reasonable 
maximum estimate. Backman and Goldstein (1978, pp. 32 and 38 [DIRS 167628]) provide two 
direct inputs. For a 5000-psi concrete (34.5 MPa), which is at the lower end of the range in rock 
compressive strengths at Yucca Mountain, the maximum penetration depth is given as 
25 penetrator diameters. If one assumes a 1-m-diameter, then the maximum penetration depth is 
25 m. Backman and Goldstein also present the Poncelet equation (1978, p. 38, Equation 6.2 
[DIRS 167628]) which, for a 150 kg mass and entrance velocity of 400 m/sec, yields a maximum 
penetration depth of about 38 m. Other direct input include the empirical results of Patterson 
(1974 [DIRS 167805]), who reports maximum penetration depth of 20.7 m in an old glacial lake 
bed; the results from Young (1976, Table II [DIRS 167806]), who reports 67 m in hard dry playa 
lake soils, and those of Forrestal et al. (1981, p. 28 [DIRS 167630] who records 2.6 m into a 
welded tough. 
Dence et al. (1977, p. 262 [DIRS 135253]) suggest that in the 64-kt Pile Driver test, stresses at 
about 100 m (328 feet) were slightly less than that needed to propagate fractures in granodiorite. 
Consequently, energy releases of the magnitude required to induce fracturing to depths of 
interest (i.e., 80 to 100 m, 262 to 328 feet) or over a wide portion of the repository, would require 
intentional and targeted, deep penetrating, high-yield detonations. By regulatory definition, this 
is considered as deliberate human intrusion and is excluded under other FEPs. For generic 
smaller scale crashes and explosions, the energy release is insufficient to significantly affect the 
repository performance are, therefore, excluded based on low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-69 April 2004 

Related FEPs: 
Administrative control of repository site (1.1.10.00.0A)
Accidents and unplanned events during construction and operation (1.1.12.01.0A)
Deliberate human intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A)
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A)
Unintrusive site investigation (1.4.03.00.0A)
Social and institutional developments (1.4.08.00.0A)
Meteorite impacts (1.5.01.01.0A)
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A)
Gas explosions in EBS (2.1.12.08.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-19. Indirect Inputs for Explosions and Crashes (Human Activities) (1.4.11.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605] NRC definition of human intrusion 
40 CFR 197.12 [DIRS 165519] EPA definition of human intrusion 
10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605] NRC definition of performance assessment 
10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605] NRC regulations 
40 CFR Part 197 [DIRS 165519] EPA regulations 
40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074, Item 3 What is the Standard for EPA intent to exclude deliberate intrusion 
Human Intrusion? p. 32105 [DIRS 155216]) 
66 FR 32127 (66 FR 32074, p. 32127, more specifically Item 10. EPA intent to exclude deliberate intrusion 
Is the SingleBorehole Scenario a Reasonable Approach to 
Judge the Resilience of the Yucca Mountain Disposal System 
Following Human Intrusion? [DIRS 155216]) 
EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NRC = U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency 
6.2.3.10 Repository Excavation (3.3.06.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Excavation of the repository and/or its contents may result in the 
production of tailings, which may subsequently release toxic 
contaminants. 
Descriptor Phrases: Excavated rock/tailings left; 
Human intrusion (excavation) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Repository Excavation is excluded from the TSPALA based on 
regulation because the handling of excavation spoils during 
construction is primarily a preclosure operational concern, whereas 
the regulatory focus is on postclosure assessment. Furthermore, 
future mining of the repository for its waste content constitutes 
human intrusion and postclosure excavation of repository contents 
would constitute deliberate human intrusion. Additionally, the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-70 April 2004 

surface facilities will be removed and the surface restored prior to 
closure. 
By explanation of the concept of performance assessment, the NRC at 10 CFR 63.102(j) 
[DIRS 156605], clarifies that a performance assessment is to demonstrate compliance with the 
postclosure performance objectives. Given that excavation of the repository host horizon will 
occur at the outset of the construction phase, the creation and handling of excavation spoils is a 
preclosure concern. 
At 10 CFR 63.311(a) ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC indicates that the preclosure requirement is to 
be based on protection of the RMEI against radiation exposures and releases of radioactive 
material. The regulation does not specify chemical toxicity as a preclosure performance 
criterion, nor does it require the estimation of health effects resulting from non-radiological 
toxicity. This is consistent with exclusion of FEP 3.3.07.00.0A (Non-radiological toxicity/ 
effects). 
Furthermore, future mining of the repository for its waste content constitutes human intrusion 
and postclosure excavation of repository contents would constitute deliberate human intrusion 
and is therefore excluded. The regulations at 10 CFR 63.322(f) ([DIRS 156605]) and 
40 CFR 197.26(e) ([DIRS 165519]), indicating that only radionuclides transported to the 
saturated zone be considered, preclude the consideration of human-intrusion FEPs related to the 
exposure of the public, drillers, or other human intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or 
tailings. The preamble to 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732, Supplementary Information, 
3.10 Human Intrusion Standard, p. 55761 [DIRS 156671]) states the following: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS concluded, 
and the Commission agrees, that analysis of the risk to the public or the intruders 
(i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill cuttings left unattended at the surface for 
subsequent dispersal into the biosphere would not fulfill the purpose of the human 
intrusion calculation because it would not show how well a particular repository 
site and design would protect the public at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard 
of particulate HLW left on the surface would be dominated by assumptions 
subject to significant speculation and uncertainty regardless of the particular site 
or design under evaluation. Additionally, the release to the surface represents a 
one-time release with no long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
Within context, this statement is strictly directed towards concern with excavated waste rather 
than initial excavation tailings. However, the reasoning that materials left at the surface 
represent a one-time release with no long-term effect on the repository barriers is equally 
applicable to the initial excavation spoils. This is because the spoils resulting from excavation of 
the repository would consist of naturally occurring materials. No chemical additives or 
chemical-based slurrying of the spoils will be used during excavation, and no organic materials 
(aside from the potential for trace amounts of machinery-related fluids such as lubrication oils, 
grease, or hydraulic fluids) will be introduced to the spoils. By deduction, the spoils will be 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-71 April 2004 

similar in composition to naturally occurring alluvial materials already present in the washes and 
drainage channels existing at Yucca Mountain, and organic contaminants are not of concern. By 
deduction, the resulting leachate from these materials would likely be similar to the existing 
groundwater found in the alluvial materials. Consequently, there is no mechanism for the 
leachate to be of concern with regard to degradation of the repository barriers. Repository 
excavation is therefore excluded based on regulations and low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Mining and other underground activities (1.4.05.00.0A)
Altered soil or surface water chemistry (1.4.06.01.0A)
Geochemical interactions and evolution in the SZ (2.2.08.03.0A)
Geochemical interactions and evolution in the US (2.2.08.03.0B)
Urban and industrial land and water use (2.4.10.00.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-20. Indirect Inputs for Repository Excavation (3.3.06.01.0A) 
Reference 
Input 
40 CFR 197.26(e) [DIRS 165519] 
Only groundwater transport needs to be considered 
6.2.4 Miscellaneous Geologic and Astronomic Features, Events, and Processes 
This set of FEPs is related to affects of heat on the biosphere, to the geologic setting, or to 
extraterrestrial processes and events. Direct Inputs used in this Section originating from 
YMP-controlled sources or NRC regulations are listed in Section 4 and its subsections and no 
further discussion beyond that provided in Section 4 is required for such sources. Non-YMP 
sources of direct input are also cited in Section 4. Such sources and corroborating information 
are discussed in Attachment II of this analysis report. Attachment II discusses non-YMP 
originating source information related to various FEPs such as diagenesis, extraterrestrial events 
and earth tides. Attachment IV specifically addresses source information specifically related to 
meteorite-impact analyses. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-72 April 2004 

6.2.4.1 Metamorphism (1.2.05.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses regional metamorphism, which has the 
potential to affect the long-term performance of the repository if it 
occurs. Metamorphic activity is defined as solid-state 
recrystallization changes to rock properties and geologic structures 
through the effects of heat and/or pressure. 
Descriptor Phrases: Geologic change (metamorphism) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Probability (not credible) and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Metamorphism is excluded from the TSPALA based on low 
probability because the conditions and time required for metamorphic 
process near Yucca Mountain are such that metamorphism is not 
credible within a 10,000-year period, and on low consequence because 
contact metamorphism may occur only over a limited area and at a low 
probability. 
For purposes of the FEP screening, the discussion is limited to regional scale and contact 
metamorphism. The definition of regional metamorphism applied herein refers to the processes 
by which rocks are changed by the action of heat and pressure at depths of a few kilometers 
beneath the earths surface (i.e., the onset of metamorphic conditions correspond to T of 
150-200C at pressures of 0.5 to 1 kilobars, and depths of 4 to 5 kilometers, as taken from Ehler 
and Blatt (1972, p. 566) [DIRS 167802]). Alternately, metamorphism may occur in the vicinity 
of magmatic activity (referred to herein as contact metamorphism). Changes in sediments and 
rocks at lesser conditions are referred to as diagenesis. See FEP 1.2.08.00.0A Diagenesis, in 
Section 6.2.4.5 of this analysis report. See also Bates and Jackson 1984, pp. 137 and 
322 DIRS 28109], and Berry and Mason 1959, p. 240 [DIRS 135236] for additional definitions. 
Regional metamorphism is dependent on regional tectonic deformation at Yucca Mountain and 
is, therefore, dependent on the strain accumulation rates and on slip rates. Savage et al. 
(1999, . 17627 [DIRS 118952]) present an evaluation of the strain accumulation rate at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada for the period 1983 to 1998. Savage et al. 1999, p. 17627 [DIRS 118952] 
indicate that the strain rate in the Yucca Mountain area is very low, equivalent to 2 nanostrain/yr. 
The Savage et al. study also addresses alternative interpretations indicating higher strain rates 
(on he order of 50 nanostrain/yr presented by Wernicke et al. (1998 [DIRS 103485]). Whether 
the strain rates from Savage et al. or Wernicke et al. are considered, the strain rate has resulted in 
cumulative fault slip rates of 0.0010.03 mm/yr (BSC 2004, Table 6 [DIRS 168030]). These 
strain rates and resulting local cumulative fault slip rates suggest the mechanisms leading to 
metamorphic activity, deep burial in particular, will also occur at a slow rate. 
The rate of subsidence (vertical movement leading to deep burial) will be controlled by 
movement along the block-bounding faults and, at maximum, approximates the cumulative rate 
of fault slip at Bare Mountain and Yucca Mountain. The local cumulative fault slip rate is low 
(0.0010.03 mm/yr) (BSC 2004, Table 6 [DIRS 168030]). A slip rate of 0.03 mm/yr would 
result in a vertical movement of only approximately 0.3 m (1 foot) in a 10,000-year period. A 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-73 April 2004 

0.3-m (1-foot) vertical movement is insufficient to result in pressure and temperature conditions 
conducive to regional metamorphism of T >150-200.C and pressures on the order of a 0.5 to 
1 kilobar and depths of 4-5 kilometers. An expected, typical geothermal gradient may range 
from 10 to 25C per kilometer. By way of comparison, the geothermal gradient, measured in 
300- to 600-m-deep borings at Yucca Mountain is approximately 30C/km (Sass et al. 1988, 
pp. 3839 [DIRS 100644]), which agrees with the temperature gradient indicated by Press and 
Siever (1978, p. 298 [DIRS 167965]). A typical value for pressure gradients from geostatic 
loading is about 0.6 kbar/km (Ehlers and Blatt (1982, p. 169, Figure 6-3 [DIRS 167802]), 
although Press and Siever (1978, p. 298 [DIRS 167965]) indicate a pressure gradient on the 
order of 0.2 bar/km. Additionally, the locus of subsidence has moved to the southwest corner of 
the basin, away from Yucca Mountain (Fridrich 1999, p. 189 [DIRS 118942]). Because the 
repository block itself will not be significantly affected by present subsidence rates within 
10,000 years, this FEP is excluded based on low consequence. 
Contact metamorphism is by definition associated with igneous activity, and at Yucca Mountain 
is a localized rather than regional phenomenon. Further discussion, is therefore, beyond the 
scope of this FEP. Contact metamorphism is more fully addressed as part of the disruptive 
events FEP evaluation for FEP 1.2.04.02.0A (Igneous activity changes rock properties). 
In summary, metamorphism refers to the processes by which rocks are changed by the action of 
heat (T>150-200C) and pressure at depths (usually a few kilometers and at pressures on the 
order of a few kilobars) beneath the Earths surface or in the vicinity of magmatic activity. 
Regional metamorphism requires significantly increased pressure (generally resulting from 
burial on the order of kilometers), increased temperatures (T> 150-200C) and long periods of 
geologic time (millions of years) to occur. At Yucca Mountain, development of these conditions 
is dependent on the rate of active tectonism and would require several million years to develop 
and is therefore of low probability within the next 10,000 years. Because the repository block 
will not be significantly affected, metamorphism does not provide a mechanism to affect dose 
within the repository performance period (10,000 years). Therefore, Metamorphism is 
excluded from the TSPALA based on low consequence. Contact metamorphism is addressed in 
a related FEP. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Tectonic activitylarge scale (1.2.01.01.0A)
Faulting (1.2.02.02.0A)
Igneous activity causes changes to rock properties (1.2.04.02.0A)
Diagenesis (1.2.08.00.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of rock (2.2.06.01.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of faults (2.2.06.02.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of fractures (2.2.06.02.0B)
Effects of subsidence (2.2.06.04.0A)
Geochemical interactions and evolution in the UZ (2.2.08.03.0B)
Geochemical interactions and evolution in the SZ (2.2.08.03.0A)
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-74 April 2004 

Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-21. Indirect Inputs for Metamorphism (1.2.05.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
Bates and Jackson 1984, pp. 137 and 322 Definition 
[DIRS 128109] 
Berry and Mason 1959, p. 240 [DIRS 135236] Definition 
Savage et al. 1999, p. 17627 [DIRS 118952] Strain accumulation rate 
Wernicke et al. 1998 [DIRS 103485] Alternative interpretations of strain conditions 
Sass et al. 1988, pp. 38 to 39 [DIRS 100644] Geothermal gradient at Yucca Mountain 
Press and Siever 1978, p. 298 [DIRS 167965] Geothermal and pressure gradients 
Fridrich 1999, p. 189 [DIRS 118942] Locus of subsidence moving southwest 
6.2.4.2 Diagenesis (1.2.08.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses natural processes that alter the mineralogy or 
other properties of rocks after the rocks have formed under 
temperature- and pressure-conditions normal to the upper few 
kilometers of the earth's crust. Diagenesis includes chemical, 
physical, and biological processes that take place in rocks after 
formation but before eventual metamorphism or weathering. This 
FEP refers only to naturally occurring diagenetic processes. 
Descriptor Phrases: Geologic change (diagenesis) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Diagenesis is excluded from the TSPALA based on low 
consequence because the diagenetic effects are generally favorable 
with regard to infiltration, reversible in nature, and occur over a 
prolonged time-scale. 
The time required for complete diagenesis in the shallow environment (extending from the 
surface to the downward limit of evapotranspiration) is potentially within the timescale of 
concern for the repository performance assessment (i.e., 10,000 years, see Lattman and 
Simonberg 1971, p. 277 [DIRS 129306]; and Krystinik 1990, p. 8-1 [DIRS 135295]). Thus, 
diagenesis cannot be excluded based on low probability. 
The two primary mechanisms for early and shallow diagenetic changes are compaction and 
cementation. Krystinik (1990, p. 8-3 [DIRS 135295]) indicates that initial compaction may 
reduce eolian sediments by as much as 20 to 20 percent, but that after the initial compaction 
compaction does not become and important factor in diagenesis until the onset of grain 
deformation and pressure solution during deeper burial diagenesis. The geologic setting of 
Yucca Mountain, however, is one of minimal rates of subsidence (see FEP 1.2.05.00.0A 
Metamorphism, in Section 6.2.4.1 of this analysis report, for discussion of subsidence rates). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-75 April 2004 

Consequently, deep burial and significant compaction is not a credible diagenetic mechanism at 
Yucca Mountain within the repository performance period (10,000 years). 
Cementation, however, may be of interest. The predominance of SiO2 cements at Yucca 
Mountain is documented in Taylor (1986, Figure 9 [DIRS 102684]), who indicates that the 
accumulation rate of CaCO3, while occurring, is significantly less that that for SiO2. This is 
reflected in statements indicating that carbonate is primarily derived from airborne dust and the 
opaline SiO2 from in-place weathering of the parent material and that the cementation by opaline 
SiO2 is common in the study area and that opaline SiO2 accumulation in the soils is favored over 
that of CaCO3 (Taylor 1986, pp. 31-33 [DIRS 102684]). Taylor also indicates SiO2 cementation, 
with CaCO3 as accessory cement, is common in the study area. Furthermore, the presence of 
cements other than CaCO3, such as SiO2 in arid environments, is documented in Krystinik (1990, 
p. 8-4) [DIRS 135295]).
Reeves (1976, p. 110 [DIRS 104303]) indicates that the net effects of shallow diagenesis and 
associated cementation is to stabilize the surface environment and decrease the net vertical 
infiltration rate. Whereas Reeves work focused primarily on CaCO3, but also addressed silicious 
cements, cementation in rhyolitic tuffs, absent a carbonate source, is not a significant process 
(Lattman 1973, p. 3015 [DIRS 129305]). The predominance of SiO2 cements at Yucca 
Mountain is an important consideration because Taylor indicates that in the soils studied, in the 
absence of effective precipitation or drainage to remove newly dissolved silica, it is precipitated 
elsewhere within the calcrete horizon, or CaCO3 preferentially precipitates after opaline silica 
bonds adjacent soil grains. Taylor notes that this process may occur without necessarily 
plugging intervening pores spaces, as suggested by Reeves. Taylor (1986, Chapter 5 
[DIRS 02864]) also suggests that the cementation process, particularly for CaCO3 is reversible, 
and that the material can be redissolved and moved deeper into the soil profile. Modeling results 
discussed by Taylor suggest that increased precipitation in the future may translocate CaCO3 
accumulations to greater depths, where precipitation is greater. Thus for Yucca Mountain 
alluvial material, it can be concluded that the net effect of infiltration is either minimal or 
infiltration is likely decreased. 
Because the time frame of interest is 10,000 years, the potential for effects of climate change on 
shallow diagenesis must be considered. As direct input, Taylor (1986 Chapter 5 [DIRS 102864]) 
indicates silts that formed in alluvium and eolian fines of Holocene to early Pliestocene or late 
Pliocene age near Yucca Mountain are characterized by distinctive trends in the accumulation of 
secondary clay, CaCO3, and opaline SiO2 that correspond with the ages of the surficial deposits. 
However, there is no macro- or micromorphological evidence that suggests that silica 
cementation occurred under climatic conditions cooler and wetter than those of present climate. 
In contrast, Taylor also states that accumulation rates of these materials during the Holocene can 
be attributed to several possible climatic scenarios associated with the Holocene-Pliestocene 
climate change, but suggest that precipitation has not been a limiting factor, and that climatic 
change was not sufficient to significantly decrease rate of accumulation. 
Consequently, climate change can be assumed to affect the rate and location of shallow 
diagenesis due to changes in temperature, precipitation, vegetation, and other less critical factors 
that control the rate and distribution of diagenetic changes such as cementation. The net effect, 
however, will be to vary the depth of the cemented horizons (due to dissolution/reprecipitation), 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-76 April 2004 

change the composition of the cement materials (due to differing equilibrium conditions), and 
otherwise drive the diagenetic processes to differing endpoints and redistribute the areas 
affected, rather than eliminating the net effects of diagenesis. However, the effect of variability 
in rates and location of infiltration is already addressed in TSPA-LA by varying the infiltration 
rates associated with varying climatic conditions. The net effect of past diagenesis in the host 
rocks is included implicitly in the TSPALA through the assignment of models and parameters 
for flow and transport in the unsaturated zone and saturated zone. Mineralogic changes, if any, 
induced by the repository and occurring over the period of several hundreds of years due to 
thermal loading, would be of greater consequence at the repository depth than changes resulting 
near the surface from naturally occurring diagenetic processes in the vadose zone. Repository-
induced changes (e.g., geochemical and thermal processes) are addressed by other FEPs and are 
beyond the scope of the naturally occurring process that is the focus of this FEP. Although the 
changes might be similar due to increased temperatures, the naturally occurring changes at depth 
would occur over a period on the order of several thousand years rather than in several hundreds 
of years. Furthermore, uncertainty in rates and location of infiltration are already addressed in 
the TSPALA by varying the infiltration rates associated with the varying climatic conditions, 
which tends to dominate other flow rate uncertainties. This FEP, therefore, is excluded based on 
low consequence. 
A brief overview of some of the above listed information is provided in the Supplemental 
Discussion at the end of this section of the analysis report. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Igneous activity changes rock properties (1.2.04.03.0A)
Metamorphism (1.2.05.00.0A)
Erosion/denudation (1.2.07.01.0A)
Deposition (1.2.07.02.0A)
Climate change, global (1.3.01.00.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of rock (2.2.06.01.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of faults (2.2.06.02.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of fractures (2.2.06.02.0B)
Geochemical interactions and evolution in the UZ (2.2.08.03.0B)
Geochemical interactions and evolution in the SZ (2.2.08.03.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Bates and Jackson (1984, p. 137 [DIRS 128109]) define two types of diagenesis. 
Mineralogically, it is defined as the geochemical processes or transformations that affect clay 
minerals before burial in the marine environment. Sedimentologically, it is defined as all the 
changes undergone by a sediment after its initial deposition, exclusive of weathering and 
metamorphism. It includes those processes (such as compaction, cementation, replacement) that 
occur under conditions of pressure and temperature that are normal in the outer portion of the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-77 April 2004 

earth's crust, and according to most United States geologists it includes changes occurring after 
lithification. Bates and Jackson (1984, p. 137 [DIRS 128109]) further state that There is no 
universally accepted definition of the term, and no delimitation, e.g., with metamorphism. A 
prelithification definition has been used by Thrush (1968, p. 320 [DIRS 106989]) and Berry and 
Mason (1959, p. 233 [DIRS 135236]). Post-lithification changes in rock that change grain size, 
develop new minerals, or destroy previously existing minerals are typically considered to be 
alteration (Thrush 1968, p. 30 [DIRS 106989]) or metamorphism (Thrush 1968, p. 699 
[DIRS 106989]) rather than diagenesis, although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably 
or in conjunction. 
The majority of literature on diagenesis focuses on sedimentary deposits and diagenetic 
processes that have occurred in clastic or carbonate sedimentary environments. The history of 
the studied deposits is typically characterized as fluvial or marine deposition (either as clastic 
deposition or chemical precipitation) during and followed by an extended period of deep burial 
(>1 km). The geologic system at Yucca Mountain, however, is characterized by erosion and 
exhumation of lithified igneous materials, rather than deposition and burial of clastic or 
carbonate sedimentary sequences. Consequently, for the evaluation of Yucca Mountain FEPs, 
diagenesis is being expanded to include alteration of volcanic rocks at pressures and 
temperatures below metamorphic conditions, and lithification processes that may occur in 
surficial deposits. 
The Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE 1998, Section 6.1 
[DIRS 100548]) provides an extensive discussion of diagenesis of the volcanic rocks at Yucca 
Mountain. The host rock unit present at Yucca Mountain is a welded tuff. Diagenesis has 
modified rocks at Yucca Mountain in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. 
Diagenesis has resulted in the formation of secondary zeolite and clay minerals. Much of this 
change has occurred shortly after deposition of the volcanic rocks. Additional change has 
continued at a slower rate throughout the last 10 million years, subsequent to deposition of the 
tuffs. Note that the products of past diagenesis in the welded tuffs are included implicitly in the 
TSPALA through the assignment of models and parameters for flow and transport in the 
saturated zone and unsaturated zone. 
Surficial Quaternary deposits occur at the Yucca Mountain site and in the region. These deposits 
result from the weathering of parent geologic material (rhyolitic tuffs), and subsequent erosion 
and redeposition. On Yucca Mountain, these surficial deposits are present as alluvial and 
colluvial fans and fan remnants and as deposits in stream channels. In the Amargosa Desert, 
they are present as valley-fill material. The primary lithification processes affecting these 
surficial deposits are compaction and cementation, which in turn decrease infiltration rates. The 
variance in infiltration rates based on soil types is currently incorporated into the infiltration 
models for the Yucca Mountain region. 
Compaction/ConsolidationThe primary diagenetic processes of concern for Yucca Mountain 
include compaction and cementation. Compaction due to burial can result in a significant 
decrease in porosity with time. Palmer and Barton (1987, Figure 3 and pp. 32 and 39 
[DIRS 118483]) indicate that compaction due to burial of uncemented Tertiary-age sands 
reduced the in situ porosity by about 12 to 13 percent of the initial porosity, while Berner (1980, 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-78 April 2004 

Figure 3.2 [DIRS 128110]) suggests that a 40 to 50 percent decrease is possible, assuming a 
consistent and continuing burial process. 
CementationA second diagenetic process is cementation. In most arid and semi-arid 
environments, cementation occurs due to formation of calcium carbonate or other carbonate 
cements (Reeves 1976, p. 7 [DIRS 104303]; and Lattman 1973, p. 3014 [DIRS 129305]). This 
may be expressed as formation of layers or fracture infills in the near surface environment. 
However, the formation of carbonate cements is dependent on the presence of a source of the 
carbonate ion. Lattman (1973 [DIRS 129305]) conducted studies on fan deposits near 
Las Vegas, Nevada. The results indicate that alluvial fans in Nevada that consist of silicic 
igneous materials (such as those composed of rhyolite and rhyolitic tuffs) are almost always 
very poorly cemented, showing little more than a few scattered, coated pebbles in weak calcic 
horizons. Even where, as in Las Vegas Basin, large quantities of calcareous dust are available, 
the cementation is very weak. Lattman (1973, p. 3022 [DIRS 129305]). 
Krystinik (1990, p. 8-8 [DIRS 135295]), however, discusses the role of other cementitious 
materials during diagenesis of surficial (eolian) deposits in arid environments, and also notes that 
weathering can reverse the previous effects of diagenesis by removing earlier cements and 
allowing deflation to occur (Krystinik 1990, p. 8-3 [DIRS 135295]). Krystinik (1990, p. 8-4) 
indicates for eolian deposits, that in dry sand, diagenesis on the surface of active dunes occurs 
in the form of minor chemical degradation of grains, rock-flour mortar, and as amorphous 
silica, iron, and aluminum oxy-hydroxide grain coatings. The cited study also notes that 
observed cements in damp sand included amorphous iron silica, aluminum, and lesser 
percentages of calcite, smectite, and sodium carbonate. Krystinik (1990, as stated and inferred 
from pp. 8-4 and 8-8, and Table 2 [DIRS 135295]) also notes that the solutes in water associated 
with these cements are remarkably similar to examples of water from granitic/igneous source 
terranes documented by others. 
Reeves (1976, p. 28 [DIRS 104303]) indicates that indurated soil horizons, due principally to 
silica cementation, are termed duripans in the U.S. and silcrete or silcrust in Australia and 
other countries. Reeves (1976, p. 29 [DIRS 104303]) also mentions that near-surface silica 
hardpans occur in granitic alluvium in the San Joaquin Valley, discusses the factors that favor 
silica versus carbonate cementation, and also mentions that many carbonate caliches contain 
measurable quantities of silica. 
Duripans and/or petrocalcic layers are common in the soil descriptions provided in the FEIS 
(DOE 2002, Table 3-20 [DIRS 155970]). It is possible that these deposits could experience 
additional cementation. Such cementation of deposits mantling Yucca Mountain could affect 
future rates of moisture infiltration or cementation in deposits composing the alluvial aquifer 
downgradient of Yucca Mountain. As indicated above, however, increases in cementation tend 
to decrease the porosity and permeability of deposits. Thus, it is unlikely that cementation will 
significantly increase infiltration or flow rates. 
Rate of Diagenesis of Shallow DepositsHumphrey et al. (1986, pp. 77 to 78 [DIRS 118461]), 
in their study of the diagenesis and carbonate cementations of the Smackover Formation of 
Louisiana, indicate that rates of mineralogic stabilization differ in the various diagenetic 
environments. For the materials studied on various carbonate islands, however, mineralogic 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-79 April 2004 

stabilization in the meteoric phreatic zone goes to completion within a few thousand years. 
They further state that rates of mineralogic stabilization in the shallow vadose zone (i.e., the 
downward limit of the zone of evapotranspiration) may be comparable to those of the meteoric 
phreatic environment. By contrast, Humphrey et al. (1986, p. 78 [DIRS 118461]) also cite 
studies from carbonate sequences that indicate incomplete diagenesis in the deep vadose zone 
even after 200,000 years. 
Dependence on ClimateReeves (1976, pp. 84 to 87 [DIRS 104303]) indicates that the ideal 
environment for caliche formation appears to be neither excessively arid nor excessively humid, 
and that caliche formation can occur over a wide range of climatic conditions. Reeves 
(1976, p. 86 [DIRS 104303]) further states that: 
Certainly, the vast mineralogical differences between calcium carbonate and 
silica, yet the juxtaposition of both minerals in caliche, is prima facia evidence of 
significant changes in soil chemistry Because soil chemistry is affected by so 
many variables, such as temperature, parent material, vegetation, time and 
topography, it is impossible to describe a singular causative environmental factor 
for caliche formation. 
Birkeland (1974, p. 234 [DIRS 128113]) and Reeves (1976, Figure 4-10 [DIRS 104303]) cite 
studies that suggest that the depth to calcareous horizons (i.e., pedocals) is closely related to the 
amount and timing of precipitation. Increased precipitation generally results in a greater depth to 
the calcic horizon. 
Table 6-22. Indirect Inputs for Diagenesis (1.2.08.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
Humphrey et al. 1986, pp. 7778 [DIRS 118461] 
Taylor 1986, Chapter 5 [DIRS 102864] 
Bates and Jackson 1984, p. 137 [DIRS 128109] Definition of diagenesis 
Thrush 1968, p. 320 [DIRS 106989] Definition of diagenesis 
Berry and Mason 1959, p. 233 [DIRS 135236] Definition of diagenesis 
Thrush 1968, p. 30 [DIRS 106989] Definition of alteration 
Thrush 1968, p. 699 [DIRS 106989] Definition of metamorphism 
Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain Diagenesis at Yucca Mountain 
(DOE 1998, Section 6.1 [DIRS 100548]) 
Palmer and Barton (1987, Figure 3 and pp. 32 and 39 Compaction due to burial 
[DIRS 118483] 
Berner 1980, Figure 3.2 [DIRS 128110] Compaction due to burial 
Reeves 1976, p. 7 [DIRS 104303] Cementation in arid environments 
Lattman 1973 [DIRS 129305] Cementation in southeastern Nevada 
Lattman 1973, p. 3022 [DIRS 129305] Cementation near Las Vegas, Nevada 
Krystinik 1990, as stated and inferred from pp. 8-4 and 8Cementation 
process in eolian environments 
8, and Table 2 [DIRS 135295] 
Reeves 1976, p. 28 [DIRS 104303] Definition of duripans 
Reeves 1976, p. 29 [DIRS 104303] Hardpans in granitic alluvium 
DOE 2002, Table 3-20 [DIRS 155970] 
Humphrey et al. 1986, pp. 77 to 78 [DIRS 118461] Rate of diagenesis in carbonates 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-80 April 2004 

Table 6-22. Indirect Inputs for Diagenesis (1.2.08.00.0A) (Continued) 
Reference Input 
Reeves 1976, pp. 84 to 87 [DIRS 104303] Conditions for caliche formation 
Birkeland 1974, p. 234 [DIRS 128113] Depth of calcareous horizon dependent on precipitation 
Reeves 1976, Figure 4-10 [DIRS 104303] Depth of calcareous horizon dependent on precipitation 
6.2.4.3 Salt Diapirism and Dissolution (1.2.09.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses geologic processes primarily relevant to 
repositories located in salt deposits. Salt diapirism refers to the 
tendency of salt to flow under lithostatic loading when density and 
viscosity contrasts with surrounding strata are favorable. Salt 
domes are the best-known example of salt diapirism. Salt 
dissolution can occur when any soluble mineral is removed by 
flowing water, and large-scale dissolution is a potentially 
important process in rocks that are composed predominantly of 
water-soluble evaporite minerals, such as salt. 
Descriptor Phrases: Geologic change (salt diapirism); 
Geologic change (salt dissolution). 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Salt Diapirism and Dissolution is excluded from the TSPALA 
based on regulatory requirements because salt deposits and evaporite 
deposits are not a geologic feature near the repository. 
The definition of geologic setting at 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]) is the geologic, hydrologic, 
and geochemical systems of the region in which the geologic repository is or may be located. 
Inclusion of this FEP would be outside the scope and intent stated at 10 CFR 63.21(c)(1) 
([DIRS 156605]), which specifies consideration and description of features, events, and 
processes outside of the site to the extent the information is relevant and material to safety or 
performance of the geologic repository. Furthermore, at 10 CFR 63.114(a), and 
10 CFR 63.115(a) ([DIRS 156605]), the regulatory requirements are to include data that are 
related to the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry (including disruptive events) of the Yucca 
Mountain Site, and the surrounding region to the extent necessary  and to identify  natural 
features of the geologic setting, that are considered barriers important to waste isolation. At 
10 CFR 63.305(c) ([DIRS 156605]), DOE is directed to vary factors related to the geology, 
hydrology, and climate based upon cautious, but reasonable assumptions consistent with present 
knowledge of factors that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system over the next 
10,000 years. 
Evaporite deposits of sufficient volume to develop a diapir or to be of concern for dissolution 
have not been reported near Yucca Mountain. Rather, Yucca Mountain is located in the 
southwestern Nevada volcanic field and consists of tilted fault blocks composed of layered 
sequences of ash flow, ash-fall, and bedded tuffs of Miocene age (BSC2004, Section 6.5.1.4 and 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-81 April 2004 

Table 4 [DIRS 168029], as corroborated by Simmons 2004, Section 3.3.4 [DIRS 166960]) and as 
shown by Day et al., 1998 [DIRS 100027]). Voluminous evaporite deposits do not exist in the 
vicinity of Yucca Mountain, and the repository is not planned for a salt dome or cavern. This 
feature and related process of lithologic flow are, therefore, inconsistent with the present 
knowledge of the geologic setting for Yucca Mountain. Therefore, Salt diapirism and 
dissolution is excluded from the TSPALA based on the regulation. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Metamorphism (1.2.05.00.0A) 
Diapirism (1.2.09.01.0A) 
Large-scale dissolution (1.2.09.02.0A) 
Effects of subsidence (2.2.06.04.0A) 
Salt creep (2.2.06.05.0A) 
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-23. Indirect Inputs for Salt Diapirism and Dissolution (1.2.09.00.0A) 
Reference Input 
Simmons 2004 Section 3.3.4 [DIRS 166960] Lithology at Yucca Mountain 
Day et al. 1998 [DIRS 100027] Geology at Yucca Mountain 
6.2.4.4 Diapirism (1.2.09.01.0A) 
FEP Description: The process by which plastic, low density rocks (most commonly 
evaporites) may flow under lithostatic loading when density and 
viscosity contrasts with surrounding strata are favorable. Such a 
process would modify the groundwater flow regime and affect 
radionuclide transport. 
Descriptor Phrases: Geologic change (diapirism) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Diapirism is excluded from the TSPALA based on regulatory 
requirements because geologic conditions suitable to diapirism are 
not a geologic feature in the vicinity of the repository. 
In the broadest sense, diapirism encompasses the piercing or rupturing of domed or uplifted 
rocks by mobile core material, by tectonic stresses as in anticlinal folds, by the effect of geostatic 
load in sedimentary strata as in salt domes or shale diapirs, or by igneous intrusions, forming 
diapiric structures such as plugs (Bates and Jackson 1984, p. 138 [DIRS 128109]). The concept 
of diapirism is usually applied to salt structures resulting from geostatic loading. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-82 April 2004 

FEP 1.209.00.0A (Salt diapirism) is addressed in Section 6.2.4.3 of this analysis report and is 
excluded by regulation. There is no past evidence of other forms of diapirism within the geologic 
setting at Yucca Mountain. 
Current tectonic stresses in the region are extensional (BSC 2004, Section 6.3.1 [DIRS 168030]), 
and an extensional stress regime is not conducive to compression-related anticlinal folding and 
doming associated with diapirism. The geologic materials at Yucca Mountain are brittle 
(particularly the welded tuffs), and have exhibited deformation by faulting and jointing, or 
formation of breccias rather diapirism. The volcanic rocks present at the site are not capable of 
ductile flow under the stresses and at the temperatures expected to result at the site due to 
geostatic loading and waste emplacement. In general, ductile behavior is associated with 
increased temperatures and increased hydrostatic pressures and is expected at deep levels of the 
earths crust and in the mantle. However, Yucca Mountain is located in an area of only moderate 
heat flow in the Southern Great Basin, and lies south of the regions that might be more 
conducive to diapirism as indicated by relatively high crustal heat flow (Lachenbruch and Sass 
1978, pp. 212 and 246 [DIRS 142990]). 
Hence, further consideration of diapirism related to tectonic stresses and geostatic loading is 
precluded at 10 CFR 63.2, 10 CFR 63.21(c)(1), 10 CFR 63.114(a), 10 CFR 63.115(a), and 
10 CFR 63.305(c) ([DIRS 156605]) because the necessary geologic materials and stress 
environment do not occur at Yucca Mountain. 
Diapirism related to igneous intrusion is relevant to the disruptive scenario for igneous intrusion. 
Because of the stress regime at Yucca Mountain, an igneous event is most likely to be in the 
form of dikes, as discussed in BSC 2003 (Section 6 [DIRS 163769]. These dikes will be 
oriented subparallel to the direction of existing groundwater flow and faults and fractures (and, 
therefore, of minimal impact on groundwater flow systems), or in the form of sills, as opposed to 
significant vertical changes due to uplift or doming events related to igneous-induced diapirism. 
By way of corroboration, Smith et al. (1998, p. 155 [DIRS 118967]) point out that extension is 
accommodated in the upper crust by intrusion of vertical dikes perpendicular to the extension 
direction, with surface deformation possibly including open fissures, monoclines, normal faults, 
and grabens, and with surface uplift being approximately a few meters (Smith et al. 1998, 
Figure 2 [DIRS 118967]). Therefore, the igneous aspect of diapirism is excluded based on low 
consequence. The potential for hydrologic response to igneous activity is more fully evaluated 
in the FEP 1.2.10.02.0A (Hydrologic response to igneous activity), which is shared by multiple 
FEP AMRs. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Igneous activity changes rock properties (1.2.04.02.0A)
Igneous intrusion into repository (1.2.04.03.0A)
Salt diapirism and dissolution (1.2.09.00.0A)
Hydrologic response to igneous activity (1.2.10.02.0A)
Salt creep (2.2.06.05.0A)
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-83 April 2004 

Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-24. Indirect Inputs for Diapirism (1.2.09.01.0A) 
Reference Input 
(Bates and Jackson 1984, p. 138 [DIRS 128109] Definition of Diapirism 
Lachenbruch and Sass 1978, pp. 212 and 246 [DIRS Regional crustal heat flow 
142990] 
Smith et al. 1998, p. 155 [DIRS 118967] Features associated with dike intrusion 
6.2.4.5 Meteorite Impact (1.5.01.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Meteorite impact close to the repository site might disturb or 
remove rock so that radionuclide transport to the surface is 
accelerated. Possible effects include alteration of flow patterns 
(faults, fractures), changes in rock stress, cratering and exhumation 
of waste. 
Descriptor Phrases: Meteorite impact (flow and pathway changes); 
Meteorite impact (exhumation). 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Probability and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Meteorite impact is excluded from the TSPALA based on low 
probability and low consequence. 
The FEP analysis is dependent on the probability of occurrence of various size impact craters, 
the area and relative dimensions of the repository footprint, and the depth of the repository below 
the ground surface. The probability of an impact crater of a given size occurring directly over or 
adjacent to the repository is dependent on the total flux of meteorites to the earth surface and the 
repository foot print area (or target area). The size of the crater of interest is determined by the 
depth from ground surface to the top of the repository, the depth of any intervening geologic 
layers of particular interest due to their physical or hydrologic properties, and the spatial 
relationship of crater diameter to the associated exhumation depth and fracture depth. The 
annualized probability threshold for consideration is 10-8, as explained in Assumption 5.1 of this 
analysis report. 
Detailed probability calculations, and a thorough discussion of meteorite impact probability and 
cratering information provide the technical basis for exclusion. These calculations and related 
detailed discussion are provided in Attachment IV of this analysis report. The analysis is based 
on direct input for meteorite characteristics and cratering statistics, all of which were taken from 
published literature, as described in Attachment II of this analysis report. 
The initial evaluation indicated that only simple cratering effects needed to be considered, due to 
the low probability of large crater diameters associated with complex cratering. This was based 
on Grieve (1987, p. 249 [135254]); Grieve et al. (1995, p. 184 [135260]); and Wuschke 
et al.(1995, p. 3 [DIRS 129326]). The relationship of energy release, crater diameter, and the 
spatial relationship of crater diameter to extent and depth of cratering effects was derived from a 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-84 April 2004 

variety of sources, including: Dence et al. (1977, pp. 250 and 261264 [DIRS 135253]); 
Grieve (1998, p. 113 and Figure 3 [DIRS 163385]); and Wuschcke et al. (1995, p. 3 and Figure 1 
[DIRS 129326]). Cratering rate distributions for the repository area were developed based on 
distributions and/or equations presented by Grieve (1987, pp. 249 and 257, and 
Figure 8 [DIRS 135254]), and from Wuschke et al. (1995, pp. 4 and 26 [DIRS 129326]). 
Meteorite flux mass and size information was derived from Ceplecha (1992, p. 362 and 
Figure 1 [DIRS 135242]), and was further refined by type of material and related densities based 
on Ceplecha (1994, p. 967, Tables 1, 3, and 4, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) and Shoemaker 
(1983, pp. 464 and 480 [DIRS 135308]). This was coupled with the work from Hills and Goda 
(1993, pp. 1140 and 1142, Figures 9, 16, 17, and 18 [DIRS 135281]) to translate initial meteor 
radius to resulting crater radius and other effects, to produce a distribution of crater diameters 
based on meteoroid flux to earth. 
The calculations are also based on a minimum depth to the repository of approximately 200 m 
(656 feet). Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00103-00101-000-00A (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168370]) 
indicates that the overburden thickness from emplacement area to topographic surface is 215 m. 
A depth of 200m will be used in the calculation to provide a small margin of conservatism. Also 
of interest is the minimum depth to a key geohydrologic unit. In the easternmost portion of the 
repository, the depth of the unit is approximately 60 m (196 feet), as described in Attachment IV 
of this analysis report. This unit, however, is significantly deeper over the remainder of the 
repository due to topographic changes to the west. The unit outcrops west of the ridgeline of 
Yucca Mountain, but at a location not overlying the repository footprint. 
The FEP is excluded based on low probability for exhumation and fracturing to repository depth 
and based on low consequence for increased infiltration in the unsaturated zone that could result 
from a meteorite impact in the repository area or outcrop area adjacent to the waste emplacement 
area. As calculated in Attachment IV of this analysis report, and based on the TSPA-LA footprint 
design and using conservative assumptions for meteor entry velocity, the crater diameter (i.e., 
20 to 80 m) that corresponds to the 10-8 annualized exceedance probability is of insufficient size 
to exhume waste or produce a crater whose fractures reach the repository depth. Larger crater 
diameters occur less frequently, are, therefore, of lower probability, and are excluded from the 
TSPALA. Smaller crater diameters occur more frequently, but are of insufficient size to result 
in direct exhumation or fracturing to the depth of the repository and are, therefore, excluded for 
exhumation and fracturing to repository depth based on low consequence. 
As discussed in UZ Flow Models and Submodels report (BSC 2004, Sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.2 
[DIRS 168027]), the characteristics of groundwater movement through specific rock units differ 
based on hydrogeologic properties. Water that infiltrates into the Tiva Canyon welded unit can 
be transported rapidly through fractures as deep as the underlying Paintbrush nonwelded unit. 
Due to its high porosity and low fracture density, the Paintbrush unit tends to slow and divert the 
downward velocity of water flow compared to highly fractured units such as the Tiva Canyon 
unit. However, isotopic (chlorine-36) analysis has identified isolated pathways that provide 
relatively rapid water movement for small amounts of water through the Paintbrush nonwelded 
unit to the top of the underlying Topopah Spring welded unit. Due to increased fracturing in the 
Topopah Spring welded unit, water has the potential to travel more rapidly through the unit. 
Consequently, fracturing of the geologic units above the repository is of concern from the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-85 April 2004 

standpoint of altering flow paths, because increased fracturing of the PTn could potentially result 
in increased downward groundwater flux. 
The particular zones of interest include the Pah Canyon and Topopah Spring subzones of the 
Paintbrush nonwelded tuff. For this analysis, the depths of these units were obtained from 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554] based on locations of boreholes within the repository 
area as shown in Figure 4 of BSC 2004 [DIRS 168029]. Depths are provided in Attachment IV 
of this report. The analysis shows that the Paintbrush unit is present across the repository 
footprint and, generally, at depths substantially greater than 60 m at locations overlying the 
repository footprint. However, in the extreme eastern portion of the repository, the top of this 
unit can be at a depth of less than 60 m, and it outcrops to the west of the repository. 
Attachment IV of this analysis report provides four similar probability curves (based on multiple 
sources) in the two figures, Figures IV-8a (for the TSPA-LA emplacement area only) and 
Figure IV-8b (for the PTn outcrop area). Similar curves are provided for corroborative purposes 
on Figures IV-8c and IV-8d for the TSPA-LA footprint siting area and for the previous 
TSPA-SR repository footprint. The curves in the figures are based in part on the modeling 
results given in Hills and Goda (1993, pp.1140 and 1142, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]). In 
each figure, one of the curves represents the annualized exceedance probability for crater 
diameters resulting from the largest meteorite fragment stemming from a meteor with an 
atmospheric entry velocity of V=15 km/sec and a vertical atmospheric entry angle. Increased 
entry velocities and angles tend to dissipate more energy and mass into the atmosphere and thus 
result in decreased crater diameters, as explained in Attachment IV of this analysis report. A 
distribution of entry velocities and angles is likely the reality, but the distribution of velocity and 
entry angles is currently not quantifiable. Therefore, a value of V=15 km/sec and vertical entry 
angle are conservative and used as the basis for the FEP evaluation. The curve for V=15 km/sec 
indicates resulting crater diameters on the order of 80 m (262 feet) at the threshold probability, 
and smaller crater diameters at greater probability. 
A qualitative assessment of the degree of conservatism in using a curve for V=15 km/sec for the 
largest resulting fragment can be gained by examining the remaining curves on Figure IV-8a. 
The remaining curves are for an atmospheric entry velocity of V=20 km/sec, the Grieves curve 
(1987 [DIRS 135254]) and the Wuschke et al. curve (1995 [DIRS 129326]) are based on 
observed earth cratering diameter distributions. The curves indicate that cratering diameters 
ranging from 20 to 60 m (66 to 197 feet) occur at the threshold probability. 
The induced fracture depth from an 80-m (262-feet) diameter cratering event (i.e., a conservative 
estimate of the largest crater likely at the threshold probability of 10-8 events per year) would 
extend no deeper than about 60 meters (197 feet) based on fracture depthto crater diameter 
ratio of 0.76, which is discussed in detail in Attachment IV of this analysis report. More realistic 
crater diameters of 20 to 60 m (66 to 197 feet) suggest extended fracturing to depths of 45 m 
(148 feet) or less. Depths of less than 60 m (197 feet) would be of low consequence to inflow 
because they are of insufficient depth to fracture to the top of the units of interest. More 
frequent, but smaller diameter cratering events would correspondingly result in shallower 
fracturing depths. For most of the TSPA-LA repository footprint, the fracturing of the 
Paintbrush nonwelded unit can therefore, be excluded based on low probability because the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-86 April 2004 

probability of fracturing to depths of 60 m (197 feet) or greater (i.e., to the top of the unit) is less 
than 10-8 per year. 
For the easternmost portion of the repository, where the units of interest are shallower, it must be 
demonstrated that the effect of fracturing would be of low consequence. As long as the 
consequences associated with an 80-m-diameter crater or smaller (that is, the effects from a 
crater diameter occurring at an annualized exceedance probability equal to or greater than 10-8) 
are insignificant, then this FEP can be excluded based on low consequence. To that end, an 
80-m-diameter crater encompasses an area of about 0.005 km2 compared to the total repository 
area(14 km2) used for the basis of the probability calculation, or approximately 0.04 percent of 
the land surface above the repository, with more frequent but smaller crater diameters 
encompassing lesser areas. Additionally, BSC 2004 (Figure 6.1-1, [DIRS 168027]) indicates 
that the smallest model grid block size in the eastern part of the repository encompasses an area 
of approximately 0.01 km2. Thus, the diameter of the meteorite crater coincident with a 10-8 
annualized exceedance probability encompasses about one-half of a single modeling grid block. 
Because only the eastern portion of the repository site is subject to such effects, because the 
curve for V=15 km/sec is a conservative assumption with regard to entry velocity and angle, and 
because of the minimal land surface affected (particularly as modeled for unsaturated zone flow), 
it is concluded that additional fracturing from meteorite impact occurring at an annual 
exceedance probability of 10-8 or greater would not significantly alter the modeled unsaturated 
zone flow conditions used for TSPA-LA. More frequent, but smaller-diameter cratering events 
would correspondingly result in shallower fracturing depths. Because the depths are insufficient 
to extend to the top of the geologic units of interest, the more frequent events can be also 
excluded based on low consequence. 
As discussed above, the figures in Attachment IV of this analysis report indicate that at an 
annualized probability of 10-8, the corresponding crater diameter resulting from impact of the 
largest meteor fragment is likely to range between about 0.02 km to about 0.08 km (20 to 80 m 
[66 to 262 feet]). Based on Hills and Goda (1993, Figure 9 [DIRS 135281]), the radius of the 
associated debris swarm (i.e., the degree of scatter of all fragments, but with lesser cratering 
effects, if any, than the largest fragment) is on the order of 0.4 to 0.5 km, for a meteorite causing 
an 80-m (262-feet) diameter crater. This suggests a debris field with a total encompassing 
cratering area of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 km2, but with a pock-marked surface - some portion of 
the area is affected and some is not depending on the number and size of fragments. 
Furthermore, some of the debris field may fall exterior to the repository, and many of the craters 
would be of insufficient depth to significantly affect infiltration. Such an event would only be of 
concern for the easternmost portions of the repository, due to the shallower depth to the units of 
concern. At most, consideration of the total area of an 0.5 to 0.8 km2 debris field or crater field, 
if totally encompassed within the repository footprint, would involve no more than 4 to 6 percent 
of the 14 km2 surface area, or an equivalent of no more than 50 to 80 of the more than 
2,000 surface grid blocks (BSC2004, Figure 6.1-1 [DIRS 168027]) used for the unsaturated zone 
infiltration modeling. This suggests that an argument for exclusion based on low consequence is 
appropriate, even if the entire debris field and crater field, rather than just the crater resulting 
from the largest fragment, is considered. 
Fracturing of the Paintbrush nonwelded unit above the repository is, therefore, excluded in part 
on low probability (for crater diameters larger than 80-m-diameter for most of the repository) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-87 April 2004 

and in part based on low consequence (for the easternmost portion of the repository and for 
crater diameters occurring with probability greater than the threshold probability). 
With regard to the Paintbrush hydrologic unit outcrop area on the western edge of the repository 
area, the probability threshold is shown on Figure IV-8b in Attachment IV of this analysis report. 
The figure indicates that resulting crater diameters from the largest fragment at the threshold 
probability would be less than 0.02 km (20 m). This is decreased diameter at the threshold 
probability is due to the decrease in target are of the outcrop compared to that of the repository 
footprint. A 0.02-km diameter represents a surface area of about 0.0003 km2, or less than 
0.002 percent, of the repository surface area and significantly less than a single unsaturated zone 
model grid block. With regard to a debris field, the width (i.e. the narrow dimension) of the 
outcrop area is no greater than 0.1 km, thus limiting the affected outcrop area to no more than 
0.03 km2 as an upper bound for an event of any size. This would represent about 0.2 percent of 
the repository surface area used for the calculation. Accordingly, meteorite impact in the outcrop 
area can also be excluded based on low consequence. 
Based on Hills and Goda (1993, Figure 18 [DIRS 135281]), meteors that result in crater 
diameters of 80-m (corresponding with the threshold annual probability of 10-8) could trigger 
earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from Magnitude 5 to slightly less than Magnitude 7. 
Existing seismic analyses cover this range of magnitude (see CRWMS M&O 1998, 
Section 4 [DIRS 103731]). Therefore, a meteorite-caused earthquake is excluded based on low 
consequence because it would not provide a significant contribution to the earthquake hazard 
beyond that which is already included and probabilistically weighted in the TSPA-LA. The 
effects of changes in rock stress, such as those caused by seismic activity, are addressed in 
multiple FEP AMRs for FEPs 2.2.06.01.0A (Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability 
of rock); 2.2.06.02.0A (Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of faults); and 
2.2.06.02.0B (Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of fractures). 
Given that the FEP screening address postclosure issues, the effects of a near-surface explosion 
associated with a meteorite are also excluded based on low consequence because above-surface 
effects are not of concern for the subsurface postclosure repository. 
Since infiltration is not significantly affected and no fracturing or exhumation occurs down to the 
repository depth, there is no mechanism for the meteorite impact at the threshold annual 
probability or greater to affect groundwater flux through the repository horizon. Therefore, the 
dose and radionuclide release of radionuclides are not significantly changed. The hydrology 
aspects of the FEP, therefore, are excluded from the TSPALA based on low consequence. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-88 April 2004 

TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Climate change (global) (1.3.01.00.0A)
Extraterrestrial events (1.5.01.02.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of rock (2.2.06.01.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of faults (2.2.06.02.0A)
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of fractures (2.2.06.02.0B)
Explosions and crashes (human activity) (1.4.11.00.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
There are no indirect inputs for this analysis. 
6.2.4.6 Extraterrestrial Events (1.5.01.02.0A) 
FEP Description: Extraterrestrial events (e.g., supernovae, solar flares, gamma-ray 
bursters, alien life form) may affect long-term performance of the 
disposal system. 
Descriptor Phrases: Extraterrestrial events (climate change); 
Extraterrestrial events (flow and pathway changes). 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Extraterrestrial events are excluded from the TSPALA based on 
low consequence because the only resulting identified mechanisms 
for affecting the repository (climate change and hypothetically, 
microbial activity) are currently addressed in the TSPA-LA 
evaluation. 
The potential mechanisms to link the effect of extraterrestrial events to changes in behavior of 
engineered and natural systems are not well documented in the scientific literature. In the 
absence of reputable published work identifying specific mechanisms, evaluating the effect of 
such events on the postclosure repository performance requires speculation and 
conceptualization of possible linkages between the event and repository performance. 
Brakenridge (1981 [DIRS 167873]) discusses the potential effects of Late Quaternary-Age 
Supernova on the terrestrial paleoenvironment. The paper indicates that over 120 radio-emitting 
galactic supernova remnants have been cataloged. Using a value of 120 events in the past 
15,000 years suggests a rate of approximately one event per 100 years. The most significant of 
these peak fluxes was for the Vela supernova, which was calculated to have a peak flux of about 
40,000 ergs/cm2. The paper indicates that supernova events release on the scale of 1049 to 1050 
ergs of gamma radiation and asserts that such an event has the potential to cause ozone depletion 
in earths atmosphere for a period of two to six years and create nitrogen-rich environments at 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-89 April 2004 

the earths surface. Observable effects are suggested to include kerogen rich sediments at 11 sites 
worldwide. Included short-term terrestrial effects (i.e., on the scale of 1,000 years), 
speculatively, would have included global cooling. The paper also asserts that such events could 
precipitate increased UV-light penetration by ozone layer depletion. The increased intensity 
could be as much as 2 to 10 times the present level. Aside for the potential impact on C14 dating, 
no other effects are discussed and no subsurface effects are mentioned. This work is 
corroborated by Ruderman (1974 [DIRS 167875]) with regard to nitrogen enrichment and ozone 
depletion, and by Arnold (2003 [DIRS 167638]) and Novotna and Vitek (1991, 
p. 35 [DIRS 167634]) with regard to climate linkage. The frequency and energy release is 
corroborated by Karam (2002 [DIRS 167872]), who also addresses the effects of gamma ray 
bursters, and calculates doses for both supernovae and gamma ray bursters. Karam (2002 
[DIRS 167872]) also substantiates the lack of subsurface effects due to shielding and indicates 
that there is a 10-8 reduction in typical dose within the top 20 mm of rock (Karam 2002, 
Table 1 [DIRS 167872]). 
Solar-related effects and correlation to changes in earths natural systems are captured in Lean 
(1997 [DIRS 167639]) in the form of a conceptual summary statement, Numerous associations 
are evident between solar variability and terrestrial parameters that range from the Earths 
surface to hundreds of kilometers above it, on the time scales from days to centuries. In 
particular, Lean points out the decadal cycles in the suns activity are evident in temperatures at 
the earths surface and through the atmosphere. Lean also indicates that there is also an apparent 
association of surface temperature with overall solar activity, but it is unclear weather the suns 
variable radiation is responsible. According to Lean, least certain is the extent to which tenths 
percent changes in visible and IR radiation modify global surface temperature and climate. Lean 
also mentions that there is a current inability to adequately quantify all climate and ozone 
forcings, which adds ambiguities to assessments of the global change. 
Some of the listed examples of extraterrestrial events (supernovae, solar flares, gamma-ray 
bursters) are credible and could result in an influx of solar radiation, space radiation, or cosmic 
rays onto the earths magnetosphere. Collectively, this can be referred to as space weather. 
Maynard (1995 [DIRS 160888]), in discussing the uses of space weather prediction, which is 
primarily focused on solar effects, lists several existing and potential customers and the basis of 
their need for such information. The discussion of the type of operations affected and the 
problems encountered includes spacecraft operations, satellite operations, GPS-locating 
operations (which are satellite based), space object tracking, over-the-horizon radar operations, 
high frequency communications, telecommunications such as transatlantic fiber optic 
communications, geomagnetically induced currents in power transmission lines and 
transformers, applied-DC currents for pipeline corrosion mitigation, and semi-conductor 
manufacturing (likely related to power line fluctuations). This list of systems is corroborated by 
Lean (2001, pp. 57-61 [DIRS 167639]) and Cole (2003 pp. 299301 [DIRS 167641]). While 
these effects may be pertinent to the repository operational concerns or performance 
confirmation activities, they are unlikely to directly affect long-term performance of the 
postclosure repository. 
The effect of any such past events is assumed (see Assumption 5.3 of this analysis report) to be 
reflected through the range of climatic properties, which were determined from field studies and 
observations that are currently included within the TSPA-LA. Because the existing data set 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-90 April 2004 

includes the range of effects that have occurred in the past, the effects of future changes would 
be no greater than those already considered, and therefore, the initiating extraterrestrial events 
are considered to be of low consequence and are excluded. 
This FEP definition also includes the potential for effects from alien life forms. Aside from the 
hypothetical potential for microbial influx via meteorites, the presence of alien life forms has not 
been verified or documented in the scientific literature, is considered to be overly speculative, 
and is not further evaluated. The potential for effects from alien life forms (other than microbial 
activity) is judged to be of low probability (not credible) based on the absence of verification of 
any such life forms in the scientific literature. If the extraterrestrial transfer of microbes is 
presumed, then introduction into the repository could be postulated. However, microbial affects 
on the cladding, waste package, and drip shield are already considered under a separate set of 
FEPs (2.1.02.14.0A, 2.1.03.05.0A, 2.1.03.05.0A), and, as a result, the introduction of 
extraterrestrial microbes is excluded based on low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Meteorite impact (1.5.01.01.0A)
Changes in the earth's magnetic field (1.5.03.01.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-25. Indirect Inputs for Extraterrestrial Events (1.5.01.02.0A) 
Reference Input 
Ruderman 1974 [DIRS 167875] Affects of extraterrestrial events on the ozone layer 
Arnold 2003 [DIRS 167638] Linkage of cosmic rays to climate change 
Novotna and Vitek 1991, p. 35 [DIRS 167634] Linkage of cosmic rays to climate change 
Karam 2002 [DIRS 167872] Magnitude and frequency of supernovae and gamma 
bursters 
Karam 2002 [DIRS 167872] Earths shielding effects 
Lean 2001, pp. 57-61 [DIRS 167639] List of engineered systems affected by space 
Cole 2003, p. 299-301 [DIRS 167641] List of engineered systems affected by weather 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-91 April 2004 

6.2.4.7 Changes in the Earth's Magnetic Field (1.5.03.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Changes in the earth's magnetic field could affect the long-term 
performance of the repository. 
Descriptor Phrases: Climate change (magnetic field reversal) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Changes in the Earths magnetic field is excluded from the 
TSPALA based on low consequence because no effect on the 
repository can be identified. 
Changes and fluctuations in the earths magnetic field are relatively common in geologic history. 
During the last 20 million years, the fossil record shows at least 60 reversals, and the periodicity 
of the reversal is on the scale of a few hundred thousand years to once every million years 
(Odenwald 2003 [DIRS 160892]). There has been a decrease in the earths magnetic intensity in 
the last few thousand years, and there is some evidence that a reversal in the earths magnetic 
field may occur sometime during the next few to several thousand years (Odenwald 2003 
[DIRS 160892]). The frequency of pole reversals, and the variation in field intensity with time is 
corroborated by Biggin and Thomas (2003, Figure 11 [DIRS 167876]) and by Hoffman 
(1995 [DIRS 160891]). This suggests that this FEP, while unlikely, cannot be excluded based on 
low probability (see Assumption 5.1 of this analysis report). 
The potential mechanisms to link the effects of magnetic field changes to changes in behavior of 
engineered and natural systems are not well documented in the scientific literature. In the 
absence of reputable published work identifying specific mechanisms, evaluating the impact of 
changes on the postclosure repository performance requires speculation and conceptualization of 
possible linkages between the event and repository performance. 
From an operational and performance confirmation activities standpoint, difficulties with 
location positioning, communications, and electrical circuitry could be affected, but the 
timeframe of any reversal is well beyond the operational period. Odenwald 
(2003 [DIRS 160892]) indicates that there are no identifiable fossil mutations or extinctions 
associated with the previous reversals. No corroborating information regarding the possible 
effects of a pole reversal or intensity fluctuations was found in the literature search. Only two 
linkages to earths natural systems were found. Pechala (1985, p. 406 [DIRS 167633]) discusses 
the linkage between the earths magnetic field and tropospheric circulation and indicates that 
some authors use the realtionship as a basis for explaining past changes in earths climate. 
Biggin and Thomas (2003, pp. 409-412 [DIRS 167876]) suggest that the changes in the field 
result from global-scale tectonic processes such as slab subduction and mantel processes. 
Among the longer-term possible effects of changes in the earths magnetic field, only climate 
change has a reasonable possibility of affecting the repository. This hypothetically occurs 
through the complex coupling of the earths thermosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere 
(Pechala 1985 (DIRS 167633]). However, no clear evidence exists that long-term climate 
change is connected with magnetic reversals, and, therefore, no basis exists for evaluating the 
range of possible future effects. As noted above, changes in the earths magnetic field are 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-92 April 2004 

common in geologic history. The effect of any such past events is assumed (see Assumption 5.3 
of this analysis report) to be reflected in the range of climatic properties, determined from field 
studies and observations, and such changes are included within the TSPA-LA. Because the 
existing data set includes the range of effects that have occurred in the past, the effects of future 
changes would presumably be no greater than those already considered, and therefore, they are 
of low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Climate change, global (1.3.01.00.0A)
Extraterrestrial events (1.5.01.02.0A)
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-26. Indirect Inputs for Changes in the Earth's Magnetic Field (1.5.03.01.0A) 
Reference Input 
Biggin and Thomas 2003, Figure 11 [DIRS 167876] Frequency of pole reversals and variations in intensities 
Hoffman 1995 [DIRS 160891] Frequency of pole reversals and variations in intensities 
Biggin and Thomas 2003, pp. 409-412 [DIRS 167876] Relationship of geodynamics to magnetic field behavior 
Pechala 1985 (DIRS 167633] Link for magnetic field and tropospheric circulation 
6.2.4.8 Earth Tides (1.5.03.02.0A) 
FEP Description: Small changes of the gravitational field due to celestial movements 
(sun and moon) that cause earth tides and that may, in turn, cause 
pressure variations in the groundwater flow systems. 
Descriptor Phrases: Earth tides (flow and pathway changes) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Earth tides is excluded from the TSPALA based on low 
consequence because the magnitude of water level fluctuations is 
insignificant and is embedded in existing water level records. 
Earth tides are an ongoing phenomenon and are reflected as rhythmic, measurable pressure 
increases and decreases. At Yucca Mountain, the magnitude of the effect on water levels is on 
the order of centimeters. Earth tide fluctuations in Well UE-25pl are cited in non-YMP sources, 
and indicate a fluctuation of 2.05 cm (Bredehoeft 1987, p. 2460 [DIRS 10007]). This is 
corroborated by water levels in wells at Paiute Mesa, on the Nevada Test Site. These water 
levels were analyzed for earth tide effects and the fluctuation due to earth tides was on the order 
of several hundredths of a foot (Fenelon 2000, p. 14 [DIRS 160881]). Consequently, any 
individual fluctuation is of low magnitude. Additional corroboration is from Kies et al. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-93 April 2004 

(1999 [DIRS 160882]) who state, tidal forces deform the earth; effects induced on fluids near 
the surface of the earth are documented by the observations of water level changes in wells. 
These changes are driven by alterations of the pore pressure induced by tidal deformation of 
porous and fluid-saturated crustal material. These pressure changes can result in multiple 
related effects such as fluctuations in underground gas concentrations (Kies et al. 1999 
[DIRS 160882]) and water level fluctuation in wells (Fenelon 2000, p. 14 [DIRS 160881]). As 
noted by Kies et al. (1999 [DIRS 160882]), the strain variations induced by earth tides are very 
small (less than on the order of 10-8), and their appearances are periodic and of known 
magnitude. Therefore, any significant cumulative effects of earth tides are reflected in the 
existing data for the hydrogeologic system (Assumption 5.3 of this analysis report). Earth tides 
are of such a small magnitude that any effect on the flow system is of low consequence because 
the fluctuations are accounted for within the water level data used as the basis for the TSPA. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of rock (2.2.06.01.0A) 
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of fractures (2.2.06.02.0B) 
Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of faults (2.2.06.03.0A) 
Hydrologic Response to Seismic Activity (1.2.10.01.0A) 
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-27. Indirect Inputs for Earth Tides (1.5.03.02.0A) 
Reference Input 
Fenelon 2000, p. 14 [DIRS 160881] Water level fluctuations at Nevada Test Site 
Kies et al. 1999 [DIRS 160882] Magnitude of earth tide effects 
6.2.4.9 Salt Creep (2.2.06.05.0A) 
FEP Description: Salt creep will lead to changes in the stress field, compaction of the 
waste packages, and consolidation of the long-term components of 
the sealing system. 
Descriptor Phrases: Geologic change (salt creep) 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Salt creep is excluded from the TSPALA based on regulatory 
requirements to consider data that are related to the geology of the 
site. Significant salt and evaporite deposits are not a feature of the 
geologic setting of the repository. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-94 April 2004 

The definition of geologic setting at 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]) is the geologic, hydrologic, 
and geochemical systems of the region in which the geologic repository is or may be located. 
Consideration of this FEP is outside the scope and intent stated at 10 CFR 63.21(c)(1) 
([DIRS 156605]), which specifies consideration and description of features, events, and 
processes outside of the site to the extent the information is relevant and material to safety or 
performance of the geologic repository. Furthermore, at 10 CFR 63.114(a) and 
10 CFR 63.115(a) ([DIRS 156605]), the regulatory requirements are to include data that are 
related to the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry (including disruptive events) of the Yucca 
Mountain Site, and the surrounding region to the extent necessary . The regulation further 
requires the project to identify  natural features of the geologic setting that are considered 
barriers important to waste isolation. At 10 CFR 63.305(c) ([DIRS 156605]), DOE is directed to 
vary factors related to the geology, hydrology, and climate based upon cautious, but reasonable 
assumptions consistent with present knowledge of factors that could affect the Yucca Mountain 
disposal system over the next 10,000 years. 
Evaporite deposits of sufficient volume to result in salt creep have not been reported near Yucca 
Mountain. Rather, Yucca Mountain is located in the southwestern Nevada volcanic field and 
consists of tilted fault blocks composed of layered sequences of ash flow, ash-fall, and bedded 
tuffs of Miocene age (BSC 2004, Section 6.5.1.4 and Table 4 [DIRS 168029]; as corroborated by 
Simmons 2004, Section 3.3.4 [DIRS 166960], and as shown by Day et al. 1998 [DIRS 100027]). 
Voluminous evaporite deposits do not exist in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, and the repository 
is not planned for a salt dome or cavern. This feature and related process of salt creep are, 
therefore, inconsistent with the present knowledge of the geologic setting for Yucca Mountain. 
There are no rocks in the repository that are sufficiently plastic to creep in a manner similar to 
salt. Salt creep, therefore, is excluded based on regulations. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Diapirism (1.2.09.01.0A) 
Effects of subsidence (2.2.06.04.0A) 
Large-scale dissolution (1.2.09.02.0A) 
Salt diapirism and dissolution (1.2.09.00.0A) 
Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-28. Indirect Inputs for Salt Creep (2.2.06.05.0A) 
Reference Input 
Simmons 2004, Section 3.3.4 [DIRS 166960] Lithology at Yucca Mountain 
Day et al. 1998 [DIRS 100027] Geology at Yucca Mountain 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-95 April 2004 

6.2.4.10 Effects of Repository Heat on the Biosphere (2.3.13.03.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the heat released from radioactive decay of the 
waste that will increase the temperatures at the surface above the 
repository. This could result in local or extensive changes in 
ecological characteristics. 
Descriptor Phrases: Effects of repository heat on biosphere 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Effect of repository heat on the biosphere is excluded from the 
TSPALA based on regulation and low consequence because the 
regulations preclude consideration of changes in flora and fauna 
and any such changes would likely have minimal impact on 
infiltration rates. 
The effects of repository heat on the biosphere are summarized in the FEIS (DOE 2002, 
Section 5.9 [DIRS 155970]) based on work by CRWMS M&O (1999, p. 46 [DIRS 105031]) and 
are chiefly related to concerns with transition from perennial to annual plant species. At 
10 CFR 63.305(b) ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC states that: 
DOE should not project changes in society, the biosphere (other than climate), 
human biology, or increases or decreases of human knowledge or technology. In 
all the analyses done to demonstrate compliance with this part, DOE must assume 
that all of those factors remain constant as they are at the time of submission of 
the license application. 
The definition of reference biosphere at 10 CFR 63.2 ([DIRS 156605]) specifically identifies 
flora as being a component of the reference biosphere. 
Reference biosphere means the description of the environment inhabited by the 
reasonably maximally exposed individual. The reference biosphere comprises the 
set of specific biotic and abiotic characteristics of the environment, including, but 
not necessarily limited to, climate, topography, soils, flora, fauna, and human 
activities. 
By implication, DOE should not project changes in the biosphere (more specifically, flora) and 
must assume that the flora remain constant. Therefore, the effects of repository heat on the 
biosphere are excluded based on regulation. By way of corroboration, the DOE has presented 
the results of a study of the potential effects of repository heat on the biosphere in the FEIS 
(DOE 2002, p. 5-41 [DIRS 155970]) to satisfy non-NRC regulatory requirements. The effect of 
repository heat on the geosphere is addressed separately in the related FEP 2.2.10.12.0A 
(Geosphere dryout due to waste heat). 
The FEP description does not specify how a change in ecological factors might affect the 
performance of a repository located 200 m (656 feet) below ground surface. One feasible 
conceptual mechanism might be a change in infiltration due to a change in plant species. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-96 April 2004 

Changes in infiltration due to changes in ecological factors are expected to be insignificant in 
comparison to differences in infiltration resulting from use of the bounding infiltration cases 
resulting from changes in climate state, particularly if the ecological factor is primarily a shift in 
species rather than a shift in entire ecosystems. Additionally, the shift in species would be 
transient, and would potentially reverse as the repository cooled with time. This is corroborated 
by pre-1998 studies indicating that resulting temperature changes are within the adaptive range 
of some plant species now at Yucca Mountain (CRWMS M&O 1999, Figure 8 and p. 41 
[DIRS 105031]). As indicated in BSC 2004 (Table 6.1-2, [DIRS 168027]), the range of average 
infiltration values considered is from 1.25 mm/year for the lower bound for present day climate 
to as much as 31.69 mm/year for the upper bound of the glacial transition climate. This 
represents an approximately 25 times increase between the lower bounding case and the upper 
bounding case incorporated into the TSPA-LA. For the various climate states considered, the 
mean infiltration rates range from 4.43 to 17.02 mm/year, or an approximate increase of four 
times. Climate change and its effects on infiltration are addressed in the TSPA-LA as outlined in 
Section 5.1 of the Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]), and infiltration rates include consideration of 
upper-bound, mean, and lower-bound rates. This FEP is also excluded based on low 
consequence because the resulting change in infiltration rate is likely to be significantly less than 
the range in infiltration rates due to climate changes that are already considered. 
By way of corroboration, a potential effect of the repository heat is a shift in species at the 
surface. This shift in species could conceivably result in a change in water infiltration rate. 
However, change in water infiltration is potentially affected by a number of factors such as 
increases and decreases in vegetation and vegetation type, climate changes, slope, aspect, total 
precipitation, air temperature, runoff, solar heating, and characteristics of the soil matrix. The 
degree of the change in species due to change in temperature is discussed in Final Report: Plant 
and Soil Related Processes along a Natural Thermal Gradient at Yucca Mountain, Nevada 
(CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031]) and is used as the basis for this corroborative argument 
and is as follows. 
The Executive Summary of the cited report states that during active transpiration periods, shrubs 
removed about 31 percent of the total precipitation that fell during the period studied (with a 
range of 12 to 54 percent at the seven study locations having a full range of plant species). 
Figure 9 of the same report indicates that total shrub coverage at the sites ranged from about 8 to 
16 percent. In Section 3.3 of the cited report, an analysis of percent cover of shrubs and of soil 
temperature at a depth of 45 cm suggests that for each 1C increase in temperature, the percent 
cover of shrubs decreases by 1.2 percent and that the percent cover of annual grasses increases 
5.5 percent. The percent cover of the only grass species currently found at each of the study sites 
(Bromus rubens) increased by 2.3 percent with every 1C increase in temperature. Table 5-15 of 
the FEIS (DOE 2002, p. 5-41 [DIRS 155970]) presents the results of various analyses of the 
impact of the repository heat on the near-surface soil layer of the biosphere. These results 
predict that the soil temperature near the root zone of the shrub increases by a maximum of 0.4C 
in wet soils and 3C in dry soils. Further, they predict that at a soil depth of 2 m (7 feet), the soil 
temperature can increase by a maximum of 0.8C in wet soils and 6C in dry soils. 
Consequently, the temperature shift of concern can range between 0.4C and 6C. The resulting 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-97 April 2004 

percent cover of shrubs could decrease by about 0.5 percent to 7.2 percent (i.e., 1.2 % change/C, 
multiplied by the temperature change). 
Table 6-29, as part of this corroborative analysis, uses the preceding values to calculate the 
reduction in evapotranspiration, based on existing evapotranspiration and shrub coverage, and on 
thermally driven changes in shrub coverage. 
Table 6-29. Approximation of Percent Change in Evapotranspiration Due to Shift in Plant Species 
Percent 
Evapotranspiration 
from Shrubs (Range 
for Existing 
Conditions 
Percent Shrub 
Coverage 
(Existing) 
Percent 
Evapotranspiration 
Divided by Percent 
Shrub Coverage 
Change in 
Percent Shrub 
Coverage 
Approximate 
Change in Percent 
Evapotranspiration 
12 (low) 8 1.5 0.5 0.8 
31 (mean) 8 3.9 0.5 2.0 
54 (high) 16 3.4 0.5 1.7 
12 (low ) 8 1.5 7.2 11 
31 (mean) 16 1.9 7.2 14 
54 (high) 16 3.4 7.2 25 
Table 6-29 uses the stated values to represent the range of evapotranspiration (12 to 54 percent) 
and dividing by the stated values for the range of existing coverage by shrubs (8 to 16 percent) 
yields a ratio for percent evapotranspiration to percent shrub coverage. Multiplying this ratio by 
the values of the percent change in coverage yields a percent change in evapotranspiration due to 
change in the shrub coverage. 
This suggests that a shift away from shrub species could result in a little less than 1 percent to at 
most a 25-percent decrease in transpiration of total precipitation, and the potential for a similar 
increase in infiltration, due to the loss of shrub cover. These values are conservative in that they 
do not account for an offsetting contribution to evapotranspiration from the increase in annual 
grass percentages (i.e., 2.3 percent increase in annual grasses for each 1C in temperature). 
Additionally, the variation in surface soil temperatures at Yucca Mountain that are caused by 
elevation, slope, aspect, and other natural attributes suggest that soil temperature increases of the 
magnitude predicted are probably within the adaptive range of some plant species now at Yucca 
Mountain (CRWMS M&O 1999, Figure 8 and p. 41 [DIRS 105031]). Thus increases in 
infiltration would likely be less than those stated. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Related Documents: None 
Related FEPs: 
Non-uniform heat distribution in EBS (2.1.11.02.0A) 
Geosphere dry-out due to waste heat (2.2.10.12.0A) 
Heat generation in EBS (2.1.11.01.0A) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-98 April 2004 

Supplemental Discussion: 
Table 6-30. Indirect Inputs for Effects of Repository Heat on the Biosphere (2.3.13.03.0A) 
Reference Input 
DOE 2002, Section 5.9 [DIRS 155970] Results of FEIS analysis of heat effects 
CRWMS M&O (1999, p. 46 [DIRS 105031] Effects of heat on plant species 
DOE 2002, p. 5-41 [DIRS 155970] Potential effect of heat on the biosphere 
CRWMS M&O 1999, Figure 8 and p. 41 [DIRS 105031] Adaptive ranges of existing species 
BSC 2003, Section 5.1 [DIRS 166296] Method of modeling climate change for TSPA-LA 
CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031] Reference to past plant surveys and estimated changes 
due to heat effects 
FEIS = final environmental impact statement, TSPA-LA = total system performance assessment for license 
application 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-99 April 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 6-100 April 2004 

7. CONCLUSIONS 
Table 7-1 summarizes the System Level FEP-screening decisions and the basis for Exclude 
decisions. 
Table 7-1. Summary of System Level FEP Screening Decisions 
FEP Name FEP Number Screening Decision 
and Basis 
Addressed in 
Section 
ASSESSMENT BASIS AND MODELING REQUIREMENTS FEPs (Section 6.2.1) 
Timescales of Concern (0.1.02.00.0A) Included 6.2.1.1 
Spatial Domain of Concern (0.1.03.00.0A) Included 6.2.1.2 
Regulatory Requirements and 
Exclusions (0.1.09.00.0A) Included 6.2.1.3 
Model and Data Issues (0.1.10.00.0A) Included 6.2.1.4 
Repository Design (1.1.07.00.0A) Included 6.2.1.5 
Retrievability (1.1.13.00.0A) Included 6.2.1.6 
Repository-Scale Spatial 
Heterogeneity of Emplaced Waste (2.1.01.04.0A) Included 6.2.1.7 
PROCESS AND SITE-CONTROL FEPs (Section 6.2.2) 
Records and Markers for the 
Repository (1.1.05.00.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.2.1 
Inadequate Quality Control and 
Deviations from Design (1.1.08.00.0A) Excluded  Low Consequence 6.2.2.2 
Schedule and Planning (1.1.09.00.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.2.3 
Administrative Control of the 
Repository Site (1.1.10.00.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.2.4 
Monitoring of the Repository (1.1.11.00.0A) Excluded  Low Consequence 6.2.2.5 
Accidents and Unplanned Events 
During Construction and Operation (1.1.12.01.0A) Excluded  Low Consequence 6.2.2.6 
HUMAN INTRUSION FEPs (Section 6.2.3) 
Deliberate Human Intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.3.1 
Inadvertent Human Intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.3.2 
Igneous Event Precedes Human 
Intrusion (1.4.02.03.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.3.3 
Seismic Event Precedes Human 
Intrusion (1.4.02.04.0A) Excluded  Low Consequence 
and By Regulation 
6.2.3.4 
Unintrusive Site Investigation (1.4.03.00.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.3.5 
Drilling Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.3.6 
Effects of Drilling Intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.3.7 
Mining and Other Underground 
Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.05.00.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.3.8 
Explosions and Crashes (Human 
Activities) (1.4.11.00.0A) Excluded  By Regulation and 
Low Consequence 
6.2.3.9 
Repository Excavation (3.3.06.01.0A) Excluded  By Regulation and 
Low Consequence 
6.2.3.10 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 7-1 April 2004 

Table 7-1. Summary of System Level FEP Screening Decisions (Continued) 
FEP Name FEP Number Screening Decision 
and Basis 
Addressed in 
Section 
MISCELLANEOUS GEOLOGIC AND ASTRONOMIC FEPs (Section 6.2.4) 
Metamorphism (1.2.05.00.0A) Excluded  Low Probability and 
Low Consequence 
6.2.4.1 
Diagenesis (1.2.08.00.0A) Excluded  Low Consequence 6.2.4.2 
Salt Diapirism and Dissolution (1.2.09.00.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.4.3 
Diapirism (1.2.09.01.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.4.4 
Meteorite Impact (1.5.01.01.0A) Excluded  Low Probability and 
Low Consequence 6.2.4.5 
Extraterrestrial Events (1.5.01.02.0A) Excluded  Low Consequence 6.2.4.6 
Changes in the Earth's Magnetic 
Field (1.5.03.01.0A) Excluded  Low Consequence 6.2.4.7 
Earth Tides (1.5.03.02.0A) Excluded  Low Consequence 6.2.4.8 
Salt Creep (2.2.06.05.0A) Excluded  By Regulation 6.2.4.9 
Effects of Repository Heat on the 
Biosphere (2.3.13.03.0A) Excluded  By Regulation and 
Low Consequence 6.2.4.10 
FEPs = features, events, and processes 
The conclusions from this document (FEP screening decisions and supporting rationale) are 
considered technical product output with no assigned DTN. The saturated zone FEP screening 
decision, TSPA-LA disposition (for included FEPs), or screening argument (for excluded FEPs), 
will be incorporated in the Yucca Mountain TSPA-LA FEP database. This database will contain 
all Yucca Mountain FEPs considered for TSPA-LA with FEP Number, Name, Description, and 
relevant FEP AMRs where specific FEPs are screened. The FEP database will also contain 
Descriptor Phrases, Screening Decisions (Include or Exclude), Screening Arguments, and TSPA 
Dispositions quoted from this and all other FEP AMRs. Documentation of the FEP database will 
be given in a separate AP-3.11Q report. All FEP information, including the 33 System Level 
FEPs considered in this report, will be submitted to Technical Data Management System by the 
Yucca Mountain FEP database team as a final LA FEP DTN. These final data will be qualified 
as Technical Product Output from the AP-3.11Q report. The final FEP DTN will supersede all 
of the previous DTNs. It will then be citable by any downstream documents, such as the safety 
analysis report or AMR revisions. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 7-2 April 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
8. REFERENCES
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
100007 Bredehoeft, J.D. 1997. "Fault Permeability Near Yucca Mountain." Water Resources 
Research, 33, (11), 2459-2463. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 236570. 
100027 Day, W.C.; Dickerson, R.P.; Potter, C.J.; Sweetkind, D.S.; San Juan, C.A.; Drake, 
R.M., II; and Fridrich, C.J. 1998. Bedrock Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain 
Area, Nye County, Nevada. Geologic Investigations Series I-2627. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19981014.0301. 
100468 Merriam-Webster. 1993. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition. 
Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. TIC: 8883. 
100548 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Introduction and Site Characteristics. 
Volume 1 of Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. 
DOE/RW-0508. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19981007.0028. 
100644 Sass, J.H.; Lachenbruch, A.H.; Dudley, W.W., Jr.; Priest, S.S.; and Munroe, R.J. 
1988. Temperature, Thermal Conductivity, and Heat Flow Near Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada: Some Tectonic and Hydrologic Implications. Open-File Report 87-649. 
[Denver, Colorado]: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203195. 
102864 Taylor, E.M. 1986. Impact of Time and Climate on Quaternary Soils in the Yucca 
Mountain Area of the Nevada Test Site. Master's thesis. [Boulder, Colorado]: 
University of Colorado. TIC: 218287. 
103485 Wernicke, B.; Davis, J.L.; Bennett, R.A.; Elosegui, P.; Abolins, M.J.; Brady, R.J.; 
House, M.A.; Niemi, N.A.; and Snow, J.K. 1998. "Anomalous Strain Accumulation 
in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada." Science, 279, 2096-2100. New York, New 
York: American Association for the Advancement of Science. TIC: 235956. 
103508 Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister, T., III, eds. 1987. Marks' Standard Handbook for 
Mechanical Engineers. 9th Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 206891. 
103697 Solomon, K.A.; Erdmann, R.C.; and Okrent, D. 1975. "Estimate of the Hazards to a 
Nuclear Reactor from the Random Impact of Meteorites." Nuclear Technology, 25, 
68-71. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 241714. 
103731 CRWMS M&O 1998. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for Fault Displacement 
and Vibratory Ground Motion at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Milestone SP32IM3, 
September 23, 1998. Three volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC:MOL.19981207.0393. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-1 April 2004 

104303 Reeves, C.C. 1976. Caliche: Origin, Classification, Morphology and Uses. Lubbock, 
Texas: Estacado Books. TIC: 245928. 
105031 CRWMS M&O 1999. Final Report: Plant and Soil Related Processes Along a 
Natural Thermal Gradient at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. B00000000-01717-5705-
00109 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990513.0037. 
106989 Thrush, P.W., ed. 1968. Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms. Chicago, 
Illinois: Maclean Hunter Publishing Company. TIC: 207966. 
107292 CRWMS M&O 1999. License Application Design Selection Report. B00000000-
01717-4600-00123 REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19990908.0319. 
116801 Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. 2nd Edition. St. Paul, Minnesota: 
Johnson Filtration Systems. TIC: 217555. 
118461 Humphrey, J.D.; Ransom, K.L.; and Matthews, R.K. 1986. "Early Meteoric 
Diagenetic Control of Upper Smackover Production, Oaks Field, Louisiana." The 
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 70, (1), 70-85. Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. TIC: 246098. 
118483 Palmer, S.N. and Barton, M.E. 1987. "Porosity Reduction, Microfabric and Resultant 
Lithification in UK Uncemented Sands." Geological Society Special Publication, 36, 
29-40. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific Publications. TIC: 246095. 
118942 Fridrich, C.J. 1999. "Tectonic Evolution of the Crater Flat Basin, Yucca Mountain 
Region, Nevada." Chapter 7 of Cenozoic Basins of the Death Valley Region. Wright, 
L.A. and Troxel, B.W., eds. Special Paper 333. Boulder, Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. TIC: 248054. 
118952 Savage, J.C.; Svarc, J.L.; and Prescott, W.H. 1999. "Strain Accumulation at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, 1983-1998." Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, (B8), 
17627-17631. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 245645. 
118967 Smith, R.P.; Jackson, S.M.; and Hackett, W.R. 1998. "Magma Intrusion and 
Seismic-Hazards Assessment in the Basin and Range Province." Proceedings Volume, 
Basin and Range Province (BRP) Seismic-Hazards Summit, Reno, Nevada, May 
13-15, 1997. Miscellaneous Publication 98-2, 155-166. Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah 
Geological Survey. TIC: 246749. 
121510 Neukum, G. and Ivanov, B.A. 1994. "Crater Size Distributions and Impact 
Probabilities on Earth from Lunar, Terrestrial-Planet, and Asteroid Cratering Data." 
Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids. Gehrels, T., ed. 359-416. Tucson, Arizona: 
The University of Arizona Press. TIC: 246879. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-2 April 2004 

128109 Bates, R.L. and Jackson, J.A., eds. 1984. Dictionary of Geological Terms. 3rd 
Edition. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday. TIC: 206591. 
128110 Berner, R.A. 1980. Early Diagenesis: A Theoretical Approach. Princeton, New 
Jersey: Princeton University Press. TIC: 241522. 
128113 Birkeland, P.W. 1974. Pedology, Weathering and Geomorphological Research. 1974. 
New York, New York: Oxford University Press. TIC: 241201. 
129305 Lattman, L.H. 1973. "Calcium Carbonate Cementation of Alluvial Fans in Southern 
Nevada." Geological Society of America Bulletin, 84, (9), 3013-3028. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 235904. 
129306 Lattman, L.H. and Simonberg, E.M. 1971. "Case-Hardening of Carbonate Alluvium 
and Colluvium, Spring Mountains, Nevada." Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 41, 
(1), 274-281. [Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of Economic Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists]. TIC: 223189. 
129308 Marsden, B.G. and Steel, D.I. 1994. "Warning Times and Impact Probabilities for 
Long-Period Comets." Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids. Gehrels, T., ed. 
221-237. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. TIC: 246879. 
129326 Wuschke, D.M.; Whitaker, H.H.; Goodwin, B.W.; and Rasmussen, L.R. 1995. 
Assessment of the Long-Term Risk of a Meteorite Impact on Hypothetical Canadian 
Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Vault Deep in Plutonic Rock. AECL-11014. Pinawa, 
Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories. 
TIC: 221413. 
135236 Berry, L.G. and Mason, B. 1959. Mineralogy: Concepts, Descriptions, 
Determinations. San Francisco, California: W.H. Freeman and Company. 
TIC: 238767. 
135242 Ceplecha, Z. 1992. "Influx of Interplanetary Bodies onto Earth." Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 263, 361-366. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 246784. 
135243 Ceplecha, Z. 1994. "Impacts of Meteoroids Larger than 1m into the Earth's 
Atmosphere." Astronomy and Astrophysics, 286, (3), 967-970. New York, New York: 
Springer-Verlag. TIC: 246761. 
135245 Chapman, C.R. and Morrison, D. 1994. "Impacts on the Earth by Asteroids and 
Comets: Assessing the Hazard." Nature, 367, (6458), 33-40. New York, New York: 
Nature America. TIC: 246781. 
135248 Chyba, C.F. 1993. "Explosions of Small Spacewatch Objects in Earth's Atmosphere." 
Nature, 363, (6431), 701-703. London, United Kingdom: Macmillan Journals. 
TIC: 246762. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-3 April 2004 

135253 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and Robertson, P.B. 1977. "Terrestrial Impact 
Structures: Principal Characteristics and Energy Considerations." Impact and 
Explosion Cratering, Planetary and Terrestrial Implications, Proceedings of the 
Symposium on Planetary Cratering Mechanics, Flagstaff, Arizona, September 13-17, 
1976. Roddy, D.J.; Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. Pages 247-275. New York, 
New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 247237. 
135254 Grieve, R.F. 1987. "Terrestrial Impact Structures." Annual Review of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences, 15, 245-269. Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246788. 
135260 Grieve, R.; Rupert, J.; and Therriault, A. 1995. "The Record of Terrestrial Impact 
Cratering." GSA Today, 5, (10), 194-196. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of 
America. TIC: 246688. 
135281 Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1993. "Fragmentation of Small Asteroids in the 
Atmosphere." The Astronomical Journal, 105, (3), 1114-1144. Woodbury, New York: 
American Institute of Physics. TIC: 246798. 
135291 Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1998. "Damage from the Impact of Small Asteroids." 
Planetary and Space Science, 46, (2-3), 219-229. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier. 
TIC: 246675. 
135295 Krystinik, L.F. 1990. "Early Diagenesis in Continental Eolian Deposits." Chapter 8 of 
Modern and Ancient Eolian Deposits: Petroleum Exploration and Production. 
Fryberger, S.G.; Krystinik, L.F.; and Schenk, C.J., eds. Denver, Colorado: Society of 
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Section. TIC: 247781. 
135308 Shoemaker, E.M. 1983. "Asteroid and Comet Bombardment of the Earth." Annual 
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 11, 461-494. Palo Alto, California: Annual 
Reviews. TIC: 246922. 
141615 ASM International 1990. Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and Special-
Purpose Materials. Volume 2 of ASM Handbook. Formerly 10th Edition, Metals 
Handbook. 5th Printing 1998. [Materials Park, Ohio]: ASM International. TIC: 
241059. 
142990 Lachenbruch, A.H. and Sass, J.H. 1978. "Models of an Extending Lithosphere and 
Heat Flow in the Basin and Range Province." Chapter 9 of Cenozoic Tectonics and 
Regional Geophysics of the Western Cordillera. Smith, R.B. and Eaton, G.P., eds. 
Memoir 152. Pages 209-250. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 225059. 
144180 CRWMS M&O 2000. Features, Events, and Processes: System-Level and Criticality. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.20010108.0012. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-4 April 2004 

145103 ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) 1998. 1998 ASME Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel Code. 1998 Edition with 1999 and 2000 Addenda. New York, New 
York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. TIC: 247429. 
146025 Melosh, H.J. 1989. Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process. New York, New York: 
Oxford University Press. TIC: 247750. 
149137 CRWMS M&O 2000. Repository Subsurface Design Information to Support 
TSPA-SR. Input Transmittal PA-SSR-99218.Tc. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.20000424.0690. 
150088 CRWMS M&O 2000. Site Recommendation Design Baseline. Technical Change 
Request T2000-0133. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.20000503.0159. 
150295 Hyndman, D.W. 1972. Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks. International 
Series in the Earth and Planetary Sciences. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 248141. 
166960 Simmons, A.M. 2004. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 
REV 02. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040120.0004. 
153246 CRWMS M&O 2000. Total System Performance Assessment for the Site 
Recommendation. TDR-WIS-PA-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001220.0045. 
154365 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 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. 
155232 IADC (International Association of Drilling Contractors) 1992. Drilling Manual. 11th 
Edition. [Houston, Texas]: International Association of Drilling Contractors. 
TIC: 232344. 
155233 Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; Chenevert, M.E.; and Young, F.S., Jr. 1986. 
"Rotary Drilling Bits." Applied Drilling Engineering. [SPE Textbook Series 
Volume 2]. Pages 190-245. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 
TIC: 250085. 
155234 Warren, T.M. 1987. "Penetration-Rate Performance of Roller-Cone Bits." Drilling. 
SPE Reprint Series No. 22. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 
TIC: 250084. 
155318 Boyer, H.E. and Gall, T.L., eds. [1984]. Metals Handbook. Desk Edition. 10th 
Printing 1997. Metals Park, Ohio: American Society for Metals. TIC: 250192. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-5 April 2004 

155970 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a 
Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: MOL.20020524.0314; through; MOL.20020524.0320. 
158966 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. The Enhanced Plan for Features, Events, and 
Processes (FEPs) at Yucca Mountain. TDR-WIS-PA-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020417.0385. 
160313 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Scientific Processes Guidelines Manual. 
MIS-WIS-MD-000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20020923.0176. 
160881 Fenelon, J.M. 2000. Quality Assurance and Analysis of Water Levels in Wells on 
Pahute Mesa and Vicinity, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Water-Resources 
Investigations Report 00-4014. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20030904.0304. 
160882 Kies, A.; Majerus, J.; and de Lantremange, N.D. 1999. "Underground Radon Gas 
Concentrations Related to Earth Tides." Il Nuovo Cimento della Societ Italiana di 
Fisica, 22C, (3-4), 287-293. Bologna, Italy: Editrice Compositori. TIC: 253721. 
160888 Maynard, N.C. 1995. "Space Weather Prediction." Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 547-557. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 253729. 
160889 Reid, G.C. 1995. "The Sun-Climate Question: Is There a Real Connection?" Review 
of Geophysics (Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 535-538. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 253730. 
160890 Hagan, M.E. 1995. "Thermospheric Connections." Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 729-735. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 253731. 
160891 Hoffman, K.A. 1995. "How are Geomagnetic Reversals Related to Field Intensity?" 
Eos, Volume 76, July 18, 1995, p. 289 [Washington, D.C.]: American Geophysical 
Union. Accessed April 23, 2003. TIC: 253732. http://www.agu.org/sci-
soc/hoffman.html 
160892 Odenwald, S. 2003. "Earth - Magnetic Field" Poetry Space Science Education: Ask 
the Space Scientist http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/askmag.html. [Washington, 
D.C.]: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Accessed February 25, 2003. 
TIC: 253712. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-6 April 2004 

160986 Nelson, R.W. 2001. "Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons." FAS Public 
Interest Report, 54, (1), 1-5. Washington, D.C.: Federation of American Scientists. 
TIC: 253719. 
160988 Ferguson, C.D. 2002. "Mini-Nuclear Weapons and the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review." 
Monterey, California: Monterey Institute of International Studies, Center for 
Nonproliferation Studies. Accessed December 4, 2002. TIC: 253717. 
http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020408.htm 
160989 Gronlund, L. and Wright, D. 2002. "Earth Penetrating Weapons" Global Security 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed December 10, 
2002. TIC: 253714. 
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=777 
160992 Glasstone, S. and Dolan, P.J., eds. 1977. "Descriptions of Nuclear Explosions." 
Chapter II of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. 3rd Edition. Pages 26-79. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Energy. 
ACC: MOL.20030925.0035. 
160994 Stix, G. and Yam, P. 2001. "Facing a New Menace." Scientific American, 285, (5), 
14-15. [New York, New York]: Scientific American. TIC: 254304. 
161317 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. WAPDEG Analysis of Waste Package and Drip 
Shield Degradation. ANL-EBS-PA-000001 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031208.0004. 
161961 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Initial Radionuclide Inventories. ANL-WIS-
MD-000020 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031110.0002. 
162562 Hughes, D.W. 1998. "The Mass Distribution of Crater-Producing Bodies." 
Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact Effects. Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Grady, M.M.; Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, 
D.A.; eds. Pages 31-42. Bath, England: Geological Society of London. TIC: 254143. 
162563 Bland, P.A.; Conway, A.; Smith, T.B.; Berry, F.J.; Swabey, S.E.J.; and Pillinger, C.T. 
1998. "Calculating Flux from Meteorite Decay Rates: A Discussion of Problems 
Encountered in Deciphering a 10{superscript 5}10{superscript 6} Year Integrated 
Meteorite Flux at Allan Hills and a New Approach to Pairing." Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, 
D.A.; eds. Geological Society Special Publication Mo. 140. Pages 43-58. Bath, 
England: Geological Society of London. TIC: 254143. 
162564 Bailey, M.E. and Emel'Yanenko, V.V. 1998. "Cometary Capture and the Nature of 
the Impactors." Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, D.A.; eds. Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Pages 11-17. Bath, England: Geological Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-7 April 2004 

162565 Bevan, A.W.R.; Bland, P.A.; and Jull, A.J.T. 1998. "Meteorite Flux on the Nullarbor 
Region, Australia." Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H., and Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Geological Society Special Publication No. 140. Pages 59-73. Bath, England: 
Geological Society of London. TIC: 254143. 
162566 Zolensky, M. 1998. "The Flux of Meteorites to Antarctica." Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact Effects. Geological Society Special Publication No. 140. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H., and Rothery, D.A.; eds. Pages 93-104. Bath, 
England: Geological Society of London. TIC: 254143. 
162567 Hartmann, W.K. 1966. Terrestrial and Lunar Flux of Large Meteorites Through 
Solar System History. Publication No. 3. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University, 
Center for Meteorite Studies. TIC: 254144. 
162568 Stuart, J.S. 2001. "A Near-Earth Asteroid Population Estimate from the LINEAR 
Survey." Science, 294, (5547), 1691-1693. Washington, D.C.: American Association 
for the Advancement of Science. TIC: 254146. 
162569 Brown, P.; Spalding, R.E.; ReVelle, D.O.; Tagliaferri, E.; and Worden, S.P. 2002. 
"The Flux of Small Near-Earth Objects Colliding with the Earth." Nature, 420, 
([6913]), 294-296. [London, England: Macmillan Journals]. TIC: 254145. 
162571 Richardson, J. and Bedient, J. 2001. "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About 
Fireballs and Meteorite Dropping Fireballs." [Geneseo, New York]: American Meteor 
Society. Accessed April 22, 2003. TIC: 254120. 
http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireball/faqf.html 
163274 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 
Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
163385 Grieve, R.A.F. 1998. "Extraterrestrial Impacts on Earth: The Evidence and the 
Consequences." Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchinson, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, D.A., eds. Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Pages 105-131. London, England: Geological Society. 
TIC: 254143. 
163999 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. MGR External Events Hazards Screening 
Analysis. ANL-MGR-SE-000004 REV 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030728.0005. 
165181 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2003. Requirements Management Plan. 
PLN-MGR-AD-000004 REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Repository Development. ACC: DOC.20030716.0003. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-8 April 2004 

163999 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. MGR External Events Hazards Screening 
Analysis. ANL-MGR-SE-000004 REV 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030728.0005. 
165181 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2003. Requirements Management Plan. 
PLN-MGR-AD-000004 REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Repository Development. ACC: DOC.20030716.0003. 
165394 Freeze, G. 2003. KTI Letter Report, Response to Additional Information Needs on 
TSPAI 2.05 and TSPAI 2.06. REG-WIS-PA-000003 REV 00 ICN 04. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20030825.0003. 
168396 DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) Configuration Management Plan. PLN-MGR-
AD-000003 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Repository Development. ACC: DOC.20030430.0003. 
166219 Snell, R.D.; Beesley, J.F.; Blink, J.A.; Duguid, J.O.; Jenni, K.E.; Lin, W.; Monib, 
A.M.; Nieman, T.L.; and Hommel, S. 2003. Performance Confirmation Plan. 
TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 02 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031124.0003. 
166275 Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. TER-MGR-
MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
DOC.20031222.0006. 
166296 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Total System Performance Assessment-License 
Application Methods and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00 ICN 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031215.0001. 
166346 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-
000027 REV 02 ICN 01C. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20031210.0125. TBV-5654. 
166660 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report. 
800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040108.0001. 
166694 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Typical Waste Package 
Components Assembly. 800-IED-WIS0-00201-000-00D. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040202.0009. 
166708 Beer, F.P. and Johnston, E.R., Jr. 1981. Mechanics of Materials. New York, New 
York: McGraw-Hill. TIC: 255414. 
167309 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking Drip Shield and 
Emplacement Pallet. 800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00C. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040202.0022. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-9 April 2004 

167622 Yaalon, D.H. 1967. "Factors Affecting the Lithification of Eolianite and 
Interpretation of Its Environmental Significance in the Coastal Plain of Israel." 
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37, (4), 1189-1199. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of 
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. TIC: 255600. 
167623 Arakel, A.V. 1995. "Quaternary Vadose Calcretes Revisited." AGSO Journal of 
Australian Geology and Geophysics, 16, (3), 223-229. Sydney, Australia: AGSO. On 
Order. 
167624 Eghbal, M.K. and Southard, R.J. 1993. "Stratigraphy and Genesis of Durorthids and 
Haplargids on Dissected Alluvial Fans, Western Mojave Desert, California." 
Geoderma, 59, ([1-4]), 151-174. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255601. 
167625 Eghbal, M.K. and Southard, R.J. 1993. "Micromorphological Evidence of 
Polygenesis of Three Aridisols, Western Mohave Desert, California." Soil Science 
Society of America Journal, 57, (4), 1041-1050. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science 
Society of America. TIC: 255602. 
167626 Chadwick, O.A.; Nettleton, W.D.; and Staidl, G.J. 1995. "Soil Polygenesis as a 
Function of Quaternary Climate Change, Northern Great Basin, USA." Geoderma, 
68, ([1-2]), 1-26. [New York, New York]: Elsevier. TIC: 255603. 
167627 Abbas, H.; Paul, D.K.; Godbole, P.N.; and Nayak, G.C. 1996. "Aircraft Crash Upon 
Outer Containment of Nuclear Power Plant." Nuclear Engineering and Design, 160, 
([1-2]), 13-50. [New York, New York]: Elsevier. TIC: 255604. 
167628 Backman, M.E. and Goldsmith, W. 1978. "The Mechanics of Penetration of 
Projectiles into Targets." International Journal of Engineering Sceince, 16, (1), 1-99. 
New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 255605. 
167630 Forrestal, M.J.; Longcope, D.B.; and Norwood, F.R. 1981. "A Model to Estimate 
Forces on Conical Penetrators Into Dry Porous Rock." Journal of Applied Mechanics, 
48, (1), 25-29. New York, New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 
TIC: 255607. 
167631 Siddiqui, N.A. and Abbas, H. 2002. "Mechanics of Missile Penetration into 
Geo-Materials." Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 13, (6), 639-652. [Taejon, 
Korea: Techno-Press]. TIC: 255608. 
167633 Pechala, F. 1985. "The Effect of Extraterrestrial Interactions on Change of 
Tropospheric Circulation in the Polar Regions of the Earth." Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 29, (4), 405-412. Prague, Czechoslovakia: Geophycial Institute of the 
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. TIC: 255609. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-10 April 2004 

167634 Novotna, D. and Vitek, V. 1991. "The Atmospheric Mean Energetic Level and 
External Forcing." Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 35, (1), 33-38. [Prague, 
Czechoslovakia]: Geophycial Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255610. 
167638 Arnold, N.F. 2003. "Space Plasma Influences on the Earth's Atmosphere." 
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical 
and Physical Sciences, 361, 127-132. [London, England]: Royal Society of London. 
TIC: 255613. 
167639 Lean, J. 1997. "The Sun's Variable Radiation and its Relevance for Earth." Annual 
Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 33-67. [Palo Alto, California: Annual 
Reviews]. TIC: 255614. 
167640 Rozelot, J.P. 2001. "Possible Links Between the Solar Radius Variations and the 
Earth's Climate Evolution Over the Past Four Centuries." Journal of Atmospheric and 
Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 63, ([4]), 375-386. [New York, New York]: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255615. 
167641 Cole, D.G. 2003. "Space Weather: Its Effects and Predictability." Space Science 
Reviews, 107, ([1-2]), 295-302. [Dordrecht], The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 
TIC: 255616. 
167643 Kahraman, S. 2002. "Correlation of TBM and Drilling Machine Performances with 
Rock Brittleness." Engineering Geology, 65, ([4]), 269-283. [New York, New York]: 
Elsevier. TIC: 255618. 
167644 Kahraman, S.; Bilgin, N.; and Feridunoglu, C. 2003. "Dominant Rock Properties 
Affecting the Penetration Rate of Percussive Drills." International Journal of Rock 
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 40, ([5]), 711-723. [New York, New York]: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255619. 
167645 Howarth, D.F.; Adamson, W.R.; and Berndt, J.R. 1986. "Correlation of Model Tunnel 
Boring and Drilling Machine Performances with Rock Properties." International 
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts, 23, (2), 
171-175. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 255620. 
167761 Kahraman, S.; Balci, C.; Yazici, S.; and Bilgin, N. 2000. "Prediction of the Penetration 
Rate of Rotary Blast Hole Drills Using a New Drillability Index." International 
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37, ([5]), 729-743. [New York, New 
York]: Pergamon. TIC: 255709. 
167780 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Seismic Consequence Abstraction. MDL-WIS-
PA-000003 REV 0 ERRATA 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20030818.0006; DOC.20040218.0002. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-11 April 2004 

167782 Bilgesu, H.I.; Tetrick, L.T.; Altmis, U.; Mohaghegh, S.; and Ameri, S. 1997. "A New 
Approach for the Prediction of Rate of Penetration (ROP) Values." 1997 SPE Eastern 
Regional Meeting held in Lexington, Kentucky, October 22-24, 1997. SPE 39231. 
Pages 175-179. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. TIC: 255661. 
167786 Grattan-Bellew, P.E. and Vijay, M.M. 1986. "Influence of Physical Properties of Rock 
on Rate of Penetration of a Water-Jet Drill." Canadian Mineralogist, 24, 323-328. 
[Ottawa, Canada: Mineralogical Association of Canada]. TIC: 255711. 
167791 Putot, C.J.M.; Guesnon, J.; Perreau, P.J.; and Constantinescu, A. 2000. "Quantifying 
Drilling Efficiency and Disruption: Field Data vs. Theoretical Model." SPE Drilling 
& Completion, 15, (2), 118-125. [Richardson, Texas]: Society of Petroleum 
Engineers. TIC: 255897 
167802 Ehlers, E.G. and Blatt, H. 1982. Petrology, Igneous, Sedimentary, and Metamorphic. 
New York, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. TIC: 255657. 
167804 Lennox, D.; and Rees, A. (eds.) 1990. Jane's Air-Launched Weapons. Alexandria, 
Virginia: Lennox Information Group. On Order 
167805 Patterson, W.J. 1974. "Results and Analysis of Three Instrumented Projectile 
Penetration Tests at the Watching Hills Blast Range, Suffield, Alberta, Canada." EOS, 
Transactions, 56, (12), 1197. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 255677. 
167806 Young, C.W. 1976. Status Report on High Velocity Soil Penetration Program. 
SAND76-0291. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia Laboratories. 
ACC: MOL.20040407.0069 
167812 Wu, C. 2000. "Powerful Explosive Blasts Onto Scene" Science News Online 
[Washington, D.C.]: Science Service. Accessed March 25, 2004. TIC: 255698. 
167813 Lattman, L. H. 1972. "Relation of Caliche (Calcrete) Horizons to Alluvial Fan 
Processes in Southern Nevada." GSA Abstracts with Programs, 4, 572. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
167814 Machette, M. N. 1982. "Morphology, Age, and Rate of Accumulation of Pedogneic 
CaCO3 in Some Calcareous Soils and Pedogenic Calcrete of Southwestern United 
States." GSA Abstracts with Programs, 14, (4), . Boulder, Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. 
167815 Lattman, L.H. 1983. "Effect of Caliche on Desert Processes." Chapter 4 of Origin and 
Evolution of Deserts. Wells, S.G. and Haragan, D.R.; eds. 1st Edition. Albuequerque, 
New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. TIC: 255700. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-12 April 2004 

167869 Salem, A.M.K.; Abdel-Wahab, A.; and McBride, E.F. 1998. "Diagenesis of Shallowly 
Buried Cratonic Sandstones, Southwest Sinai, Egypt." Sedimentary Geology, 119, 
([3-4]), 311-335. [New York, New York]: Elsevier. TIC: 255708. 
167870 Retallack, G. J. 1991. "Untangling the Effects of Burial Alteration and Ancient Soil 
Formation." Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Weatherhill, G.. Vol. 19, 
183-206. Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews Inc. TIC: 255912. 
167871 Baldwin, B. and Butler, C. O. 1985. "Compaction Curve." American Association of 
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 69, (4), 622-626. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American 
Association of Petroleum Geologists. TIC: 255917. 
167872 Karam, P. A. 2002. "Gamma and Neutrino Radiation Dose from Gamma Ray Bursts 
and Nearby Supernovae." Health Physics, 82, (4), 491-499. Baltimore, Maryland: 
Lippincott, Williams, and Wilkins. TIC: 255918. 
167873 Brakenridge, G.R. 1981. "Terrestrial Paleoenvironmental Effects of a Late 
Quaternary-Age Supernova." Icarus, 46, ([1]), 81-93. [New York, New York]: 
Academic Press. TIC: 255707. 
167875 Ruderman, M. A. 1974. "Possible Consequences of Nearby Supernova Explosions for 
Atmospheric Ozone and Terrestrial Life." Science, 184, (4141), 1079-1081. 
[Washington, D.C : American Association for the Advancement of Science]. 
TIC: 255914 
167876 Biggin, A.J. and Thomas, D.N. 2003. "Analysis of Long-Term Variations in the 
Geomagnetic Polodial Field Intensity and Evaluation of Their Relationship with 
Global Geodynamics." Geophysical Journal International, 152, ([2]), 392-415. 
[Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing]. TIC: 255680. 
167952 Satchwell, R.M. 1994. An Experimental Study of the Effect of Bedding Plane 
Anisotrophy on the Rate of Penetration. Ph.D. dissertation. Laramie, Wyoming: 
University of Wyoming, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering. 
TIC: 255659. 
167965 Press, F. and Siever, R. 1978. Earth. 2nd Edition. Chapters 11 and 16.San Francisco, 
California: W. H. Freeman and Company. TIC: 255856. 
168024 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Decision Support and 
Documentation Department Activities. TWP-MGR-MD-000028 REV 04. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040303.0003. 
168027 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. UZ Flow Models and Submodels. MDL-NBS-
HS-000006 REV 01 ERRATA 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20030818.0002; DOC.20040211.0008. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-13 April 2004 

168029 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 01 ERRATA 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020530.0078; DOC.20040128.0007; DOC.20040211.0003. 
168030 BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Characterize Framework for Seismicity and 
Structural Deformation at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. ANL-CRW-GS-000003 REV 00. 
ERRATA 1 Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
MOL.20000510.0175; DOC.20040223.0007. 
8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
155216 66 FR 32074. 40 CFR Part 197, Public Health and Environmental Radiation 
Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV; Final Rule. Readily available. 
156605 10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
156671 66 FR 55732. Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. Final Rule 10 CFR Part 63. Readily available. 
165519 40 CFR 197. Protection of Environment: Public Health and Environmental 
Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available 
164073 AP-3.15Q, Rev. 4, ICN 3. Managing Technical Product Inputs. 
164786 AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. 
166252 AP-SIII.9Q, Rev. 1, ICN 3. Scientific Analyses. 
168412 LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev. 0, ICN 0. Software Management. 
8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
148850 MO0003RIB00071.000. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Alloy 22. 
Submittal date: 03/13/2000. 
152554 MO0004QGFMPICK.000. Lithostratigraphic Contacts from 
MO9811MWDGFM03.000 to be Qualified Under the Data Qualification Plan, 
TDP NBS-GS-000001. Submittal date: 04/04/2000. 
152926 MO0003RIB00073.000. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Ti Grades 7 and 
16. Submittal date: 03/13/2000. 
153044 MO0003RIB00076.000. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Type 316N 
Grade. Submittal date: 03/14/2000. 
167431 MO0307SEPFEPS4.000. LA FEP List. Submittal date: 12/01/2003. 
166073 MO0311RCKPRPCS.003. Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial and Triaxial 
Compressive Strength. Submittal date: 11/04/2003. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 8-14 April 2004 

ATTACHMENT I
GLOSSARY

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 April 2004 

ATTACHMENT I
GLOSSARY
alluvial fan A cone-shaped deposit of alluvium made by a stream where it runs 
out onto a level plain or meets a slower stream. The fans generally 
form where streams issue from mountains upon the lowland. 
annual exceedance 
probability 
The probability that a specified value (such as ground motion or fault 
displacement) will be exceeded during one year. 
astronomical unit (AU) A measure for distance within the solar system equal to the mean 
distance between earth and sun, that is, about 92,956,000 miles 
[149,598,000 km]. 
asteroid A small planet with a diameter from a fraction of a mile to nearly 
500 miles. 
bolide A meteor that show signs of explosion or fragmentation. 
caliche A calcareous soil component typically forming a friable to hard, off-
white, crudely layered interval near the surface of stony desert soils; 
several cm or more thick; old, thick caliche intervals (calcrete) have 
the texture and hardness of concrete aggregate. 
colluvial slope A hill slope mantled with loose, heterogeneous soil and rock 
fragments that are the result of weathering and accumulation by creep 
and unchanneled snowmelt or runoff. 
comet A celestial body that consists of a fuzzy head usually surrounding a 
bright nucleus, that often, with the part of its orbit near the sun, 
develops a long tail which points away from the sun and that has an 
orbit varying in eccentricity between nearly round and parabolic. 
diagenesis Processes involving physical and chemical changes in sediment after 
deposition that convert it to consolidated rock; includes compaction, 
cementation, recrystallization, and perhaps replacement. 
diapir A dome or anticlinal fold, the overlying rocks of which have been 
ruptured by squeezing out of the plastic core material. Diapirs in 
sedimentary strata usually contain cores of salt or shale. Igneous 
intrusions may also show diapiric structure. 
dike A tabular intrusion of magma that is at a high angle to layering in the 
intruded strata (i.e., vertical or subvertical at Yucca Mountain). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 I-1 April 2004 

disruptive FEP An Included FEP that has a probability of occurrence during the 
period of performance less than 1.0 (but greater than the cutoff of 
10-4/104year). 
disruptive event The scenario class, or set of related scenarios classes, that describes 
scenario classes the behavior of the system if perturbed by disruptive events. The 
disruptive scenario classes contain all disruptive FEPs that have been 
retained for analysis. 
event A natural or anthropogenic phenomenon that has a potential to affect 
disposal system performance and that occurs during an interval that is 
short compared to the period of performance. 
excluded FEP A FEP that is identified by the FEP-screening process as requiring no 
further analysis in the quantitative TSPA, based on low probability, 
low consequence, or regulation. 
expected FEP An Included FEP that, for the purposes of the TSPA, is assumed to 
occur with a probability equal to 1.0 during the period of 
performance. 
faulting Process of fracture and attendant slip along the fracture plane, or 
recurrent slip along a such a plane. 
feature An object, structure, or condition that has a potential to affect 
disposal system performance. 
fireball A bright meteor with luminosity that equals or exceeds that of the 
brightest planets (generally magnitude 3 or brighter). 
folding Formation of folds expressed by geometric features that include fold 
limbs, fold axes, and axial planes. Large or systematic compressive 
and drag folds are results of tectonic activity. 
fracture A brittle crack in rock. Groups of fractures in more or less regular 
orientation and spacing are joints. Fractures form by bending (shear 
joints) or tension or principal stress reduction (extension joints). 
Cooling joints are formed by tension exerted by contraction as a 
volcanic rock cools. 
future A single, deterministic representation of the future state of the 
system. An essentially infinite set of futures can be imagined for any 
system. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 I-2 April 2004 

gamma ray burst 
geodetic strain rate 
graben 
gray 
igneous activity 
included FEP 
intrusive event (with 
respect to repository 
performance) 
meteor 
meteorite 
meteoroid 
metamorphism 
A burst of gamma-rays from space lasting from a fraction of a second 
to many minutes. There is no clear scientific consensus as to their 
cause or even their distance. 
Regional strain rate determined at the earths surface by repeated 
measurement of displacements of precisely located landmarks 
(monuments) embedded in the deforming medium. 
A block, generally long compared to its width that has been 
downthrown along faults relative to the rocks on either side. 
A unit of radiation dose equal to 1 joule of energy deposited in 1 kg 
of tissue or other material. The gray (Gy) is an SI unit and is equal to 
100 rad. 
Any process associated with the generation, movement, 
emplacement, or cooling of molten rock within the earth or exterior 
to the earths surface. 
A FEP that is identified by the FEP-screening process as requiring 
analysis in the quantitative TSPA. 
An igneous intrusion (such as a dike, dike system, or other magmatic 
body in the subsurface) that intersects the repository footprint at the 
repository elevation. 
One of the small particles of matter in the solar system observable 
directly only when it falls into the earths atmosphere where friction 
may cause its temporary incandescence. 
A meteor that reaches the surface of the earth without being 
completely vaporized. 
A meteor particle itself without relation to the phenomena it produces 
when entering the earths atmosphere. 
Process by which consolidated rocks are altered in composition and 
texture, or internal structure, by conditions and forces not resulting 
simply from burial and weight of subsequently accumulated 
overburden. Pressure, heat, and the introduction of new chemical 
substances are the principal causes, and the resulting changes, which 
generally include the development of new minerals, are a 
thermodynamic response to a greatly altered environment. 
Diagenesis has been considered to be incipient metamorphism. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 I-3 April 2004 

modeling case 
nominal scenario class 
nonwelded unit 
paleoseismic slip 
potentiometric surface 
process 
radionuclide 
scenario class 
seismic activity 
A well-defined, connected sequence of FEPs that can be thought of 
as an outline of a future condition of the repository system. 
Modeling cases can be undisturbed, in which case the performance 
would be the expected, or nominal, behavior for the system. 
Modeling cases can also be disturbed, if altered by disruptive events 
such as human intrusion or natural phenomena such as volcanism, 
seismicity, or nuclear criticality. 
The scenario class, or set of related scenario classes, that describes 
the expected or nominal behavior of the system as perturbed only by 
the presence of the repository. The nominal scenario class contains 
all expected FEPs that have been retained for analysis. 
A volcanic ash, or tuff, that is crumbly or easily excavated because 
the component glass shards did not weld together during compaction 
of relatively cool ash, or ash having relatively sparse glass content. 
The amount of fault slip indicated by buried offset strata. Individual 
paleoearthquakes are indicated by discrete amounts of offset. 
A notional surface representing the total head of groundwater as 
defined by the level at which such water stands in a well. The water 
table is a particular potentiometric surface. 
A natural or anthropogenic phenomenon that has a potential to affect 
disposal system performance and that operates during all or a 
significant part of the period of performance. 
Radioactive type of atom with an unstable nucleus that spontaneously 
decays, usually emitting ionizing radiation in the process. 
Radioactive elements are characterized by their atomic mass and 
atomic number. 
A set of related modeling cases that share sufficient similarities that 
they can usefully be aggregated for the purposes of screening or 
analysis. The number and breadth of scenario classes depends on the 
resolution at which modeling cases have been defined. Coarsely 
defined modeling cases result in fewer, broad scenario classes, 
whereas narrowly defined modeling cases result in many narrow 
scenario classes. Scenario classes (and modeling cases) should be 
aggregated at the coarsest level at which a technically sound 
argument can be made, while still maintaining adequate detail for the 
purposes of analysis. 
Seismicity; the recurrence and distribution of earthquakes associated 
with a specified seismic source. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 I-4 April 2004 

strain rate The rate at which a unit of length is shortened or lengthened under a 
stress load, usually given in terms of inverse seconds. Strain rate is 
often expressed in units of mm/yr where an actual length difference, 
rather than a ratio, is calculated. 
stylized analysis An analysis using specified assumptions and requirements in lieu of 
speculation on the nature and probability of a subject event. 
supernova A stellar explosion that takes place late in the life of a massive star. 
tectonic activity The dynamic manifestation of stress loads generated within the 
earths crust (e.g., igneous intrusion, earthquakes, uplift). 
tectonic deformation The suite of geological structures generated by body stresses exerted 
within the earths crust; such structures range in scale from 
microscopic (e.g., mylonite fabric) to regional (e.g., overthrust belts). 
Also, the process by which such structures together are formed. 
tectonic extension Stretching or extension of the crust as a result of deep-seated tectonic 
stress, such as back-arc spreading. 
tectonic process The dynamic evolution of structure generated through the buildup 
and relaxation of regional stress. 
tectonism All movement of the crust at small scale produced by tectonic 
processes, including mountain building (orogeny), regional uplift, 
and subsidence; the general expression of tectonic processes through 
time and space. 
water table The surface of unconfined groundwater at which the pressure is equal 
to that of the atmosphere. 
welded unit A volcanic ash, or tuff, that is strongly indurated because hot glass 
shards partially melted together (welded) during compaction of the 
ash bed while the ash was still hot. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 I-5 April 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 I-6 April 2004 

ATTACHMENT II 
SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DATA FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES USED AS 
DIRECT INPUTS TO SYSTEM LEVEL FEPS 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 April 2004 

ATTACHMENT II
SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DATA FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES USED AS
DIRECT INPUTS TO SYSTEM LEVEL FEPS 
This attachment demonstrates the suitability of previously unqualified data for use in Section 6.2 
and Attachments II and IV of this analysis report. It documents the data suitability 
demonstration as required for an analysis report prepared in accordance with AP-SIII.9Q, 
Scientific Analyses. It is not intended as stand-alone documentation separate from the main 
document. The data justified herein is intended for use only for features, events, and processes 
(FEPs) screening and, more specifically, for use within this work product. 
The System Level FEPs analyses require the use of input, cited from journal papers, 
compendiums, proceedings, Internet citations, and other non-Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) 
originated sources, to represent the nature, magnitude, and potential consequence of the System 
Level FEPs. The use and classification of such input is subject to classification per AP-3.15Q, 
Managing Technical Product Inputs, Attachment 3, because the information satisfies the 
definition of direct input. This non-project generated information directly used in the analysis 
is referred to as data because it is the results of activities such as sample collection, physical 
measurements, testing, and analysis, both in the field and in the laboratory, that are not site-
specific and do not meet the definition of Established Fact. 
Per AP-SIII.9Q, data obtained from outside sources that are not established 
facts must be demonstrated to be suitable for the specific application. When 
appropriately justified, these data are considered as qualified for use within the 
technical product. The following factors are used to present the case that the 
data are suitable for intended use: 
 Reliability of data source . as noted by the type of publication and associated review 
 Extent to which the data demonstrate the properties of interest 
 Prior use of the data 
 Availability of corroborating data. 
Section 1 of this attachment identifies the direct inputs, Section 2 addresses the methods used to 
demonstrate suitability, and Section 3 discusses the appropriate criteria. Accordingly, Section 4 
provides the evaluation of the data, and contains the discussion wherein the direct inputs are 
corroborated and shown suitable for use. 
1. DATA SETS FOR USE WITHIN THIS TECHNICAL PRODUCT 
The direct inputs being evaluated are identified in Table II-1. The table has been subdivided by 
FEP or FEP grouping, which will be treated separately within Section 4 of this attachment. Each 
item in the following table has been assigned an Item designator (Q) to facilitate traceability to 
the sources and factors tables that appear in Section 4 of this Attachment. The tables in Section 
4 of this attachment also address the corroborating information in tables presented in Section 4. 
Corroborating information has been identified in those tables with an Item designator (C), 
denoting that the item is being used for corroboration. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-1 April 2004 

The Source column in Table II-1 below provides the citation as it appears in the Document Input 
Reference System (DIRS) and provides traceability through the Technical Information Center 
(TIC) number and/or DIRS numbers. The Description column in the Table II-1 provides a brief 
description of the data being evaluated, by equation number, numeric value, or statement of the 
concept being used as the direct input. The direct input used in formulating a screening decision 
is listed along with the originating citation or information is given in normal type immediately 
below the input. This information is repeated in the last column in the tables in Sections 4. The 
citations provided in the Table II-1 also appear within Table 4-5 of the main body of the report. 
The tables in Section 4 of the main body identify the associated sections of the main body of the 
report that utilize the input, so that information is not repeated here. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-2 April 2004 

Table II-1. Data Sets for Use within This Technical Product 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Timing of Human Intrusion Analysis 
Q1 Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; 
Chenevert, M.E.; and Young, F.S., Jr. 
1986. "Rotary Drilling Bits." Applied 
Drilling Engineering. [SPE Textbook 
Series Volume 2]. Pages 190-245. 
Richardson, Texas: Society of 
Petroleum Engineers. TIC: 250085. 
[DIRS 155223] 
The rate of drill penetration may range from inversely 
proportional to the square of the compressive strength to 
inversely proportional to the compressive strength of the rock. 
Equation 5-19 directly relates the square of the formation 
compressive strength to the rate of penetration and therefore 
allows a comparison of drilling behavior based on material 
properties. 
Q2* Kahraman, S.; Balci, C.; Yazici, S.; and 
Bilgin, N. 2000. "Prediction of the 
Penetration Rate of Rotary Blast Hole 
Drills Using a New Drillability Index." 
International Journal of Rock Mechanics 
and Mining Sciences, 37, ([5]), 729743. 
[New York, New York]: 
Pergamon. TIC: 255709. 
[DIRS 167761] 
The rate of drill penetration may range from inversely 
proportional to the square of the compressive strength to 
inversely proportional. 
Equation 8 addresses the rate of penetration in terms of a 
drillability index, but provides a correlation of the index to 
unconfined compressive strength and to tensile strength in 
Equations 14 and 15. 
Explosions and Crashes 
Q3 Backman, M.E. and Goldsmith, W. 
1978. "The Mechanics of Penetration 
of Projectiles into Targets." 
International Journal of Engineering 
Science, 16, (1), 1-99. New York, New 
York: Pergamon. TIC: 255605. [DIRS 
167628] 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30m. 
The relationships and equations giving depth of penetration are 
taken from 
p. 32, which provides information for a monobloc round-ended 
steel projectile with a length-to-diameter ratio of 8, striking 
normally at 150 m/s. The stated relationship is a penetration 
depth into sand of 350 diameters, and for high-strength concrete 
(5,000 psi strength), a penetration depth of 25 diameters. A 
maximum penetration depth can be calculated by assuming a 
penetrator with a maximum diameter. 
The Poncelet equation (Equation 6.2 on p. 38) and factors from 
Table 2 for hard soils (95 percent sand and, 5 percent silt a8 = 
15.7, a10 = 24.7) are provided and can be used to determine a 
maximum penetration depth. A maximum depth can be 
determined by assuming the mass associated with the 
penetrator with a maximum diameter. 
Q4 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and 
Robertson, P.B. 1977. "Terrestrial 
Impact Structures: Principal 
Characteristics and Energy 
Considerations." Impact and Explosion 
Cratering, Planetary and Terrestrial 
Implications, Proceedings of the 
Symposium on Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, Arizona, 
September 13-17, 1976. Roddy, D.J.; 
Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. 
Pages 247-275. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 247237. [DIRS 
135253] 
The energy release required to create a crater with a diameter 
sufficient to fracture to 60 m or 200 m (i.e., the depths of interest) 
are on the order of 1012 to 1017 Joule. 
Figure 12 is used to relate energy release to crater diameter and 
hence to fracturing and cratering depth. 
The energy release from underground nuclear detonations 
results in fracturing to distances on the order of 100 meters or 
less. 
p. 262 indicates that the 64-kt Pile Driver test produced stresses 
at about 100 meters (328 feet) that were slightly less than those 
needed to propagate fractures in granodiorite. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-3 April 2004 

Table II-1. Data Sets for Use within This Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Q5 Ferguson, C.D. 2002. "Mini-Nuclear 
Weapons and the U.S. Nuclear Posture 
Review." Monterey, California: 
Monterey Institute of International 
Studies, Center for Nonproliferation 
Studies. Accessed December 4, 2002. 
TIC: 253717. 
http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020 
408.htm 
[DIRS 160988] 
The energy yield of conventional weapons is on the order of 2 
tons or less. 
This is based on direct input from this citation stating that an 
explosive capability of 2 tons is given for the GBU-28 explosive 
ordnance. 
Q6 Forrestal, M.J.; Longcope, D.B.; and 
Norwood, F.R. 1981. "A Model to 
Estimate Forces on Conical Penetrators 
Into Dry Porous Rock." Journal of 
Applied Mechanics, 48, (1), 25-29. New 
York, New York: American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers. TIC: 255607. 
[DIRS 167630] 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
Direct input from this paper indicate that experimental test results 
at the Sandia, Tonopah Test Range, Nevada indicate a 
penetrator; 1.52 m long, with outer diameter of 0.165 m and 
mass of 182 kg, with an initial velocity of 411 m/s penetrated to a 
depth of 2.6 m. in unsaturated welded tuff 
Q7 Patterson, W.J. 1974. "Results and 
Analysis of Three Instrumented 
Projectile Penetration Tests at the 
Watching Hills Blast Range, Suffield, 
Alberta, Canada." EOS, Transactions, 
56, (12), 1197. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 255677. [DIRS 167805} 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30 m 
Provides empirical information on rock penetrations tests. 
Penetrators with a diameter of 15.24 cm and mass of 181.4 kg 
were fired with impact velocities of 93 m/sec, 122.8 m/s and 
150.9 m/sec and achieved penetration depths of 9.08 m, 14.7 m, 
and 20.7 m respectively. The target material was an old glacial 
lake bed. 
Q8 Stix, G. and Yam, P. 2001. "Facing a 
New Menace." Scientific American, 285, 
(5), 14-15. [New York, New York]: 
Scientific American. TIC: 254304. 
[DIRS 160994] 
Kinetic energy for jet aircraft is approximately 2 tons TNT 
equivalent or less 
This information provides energy release associated with a large 
jetliner (Boeing 767) crash. 
Q9 Young, C.W., 1976. Status Report on 
High Velocity Soil Penetration Program. 
SAND76-0291. Albuquerque, New 
Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
[DIRS 167806] 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
Provides empirical information on soil penetration tests, Table II 
indicates that a penetrator with a weight of 320 lbs, and 6.0 inch 
diameter impacting with a speed of 2316 feet per second 
penetrated 220.5 feet (67 m) into a dry playa soil. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-4 April 2004 

Table II-1. Data Sets for Use within This Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Metamorphism 
Q10 Ehlers, E.G. and Blatt, H. 1982. 
Petrology, Igneous, Sedimentary, and 
Metamorphic. New York, New York: 
W.H. Freeman and Company. 
TIC: 255657. 
[DIRS 167802] 
The minimum conditions needed for onset of metamorphism are: 
T> 150-200C 
P = 0.5-1 kbar 
Depth = 4-5 km 
The range in geothermal gradients is 10 to 25C and the 
pressure gradient is approximately 0.6 kbar/km 
From p. 566, the text states the minimum temperature at which 
typical regional metamorphic processes begin in sediments is 
about 150  200 degrees C, with pressures on the order of 0.5-1 
kbar and depth within the crust of about 4-5 km. At these 
pressures and temperatures diagenetic processes are 
complete. 
From p. 684-685, the range in geothermal gradients at 
convergent plate junctions is inferred typically to be between 10 
and 25 degrees C/km. 
From p 168, Figure 6-3, in the top 200 km of the crust, the 
pressure gradient is approximately 1 mbar per 1500 km (or about 
0.6 kbar per km) and the temperature gradient is approximately 
1000 degrees C per 100 kilometer or 10 degrees per kilometer. 
Diagenesis 
Q11 Krystinik, L.F. 1990. "Early Diagenesis 
in Continental Eolian Deposits." 
Chapter 8 of Modern and Ancient Eolian 
Deposits: Petroleum Exploration and 
Production. Fryberger, S.G.; Krystinik, 
L.F.; and Schenk, C.J., eds. Denver, 
Colorado: Society of Economic 
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, 
Rocky Mountain Section. 
TIC: 247781. 
[DIRS 135295] 
The time required for diagenesis is less than 10,000 years 
p. 8-1 indicates that shallow diagenesis may be achieve 
lithification within 5,000 years 
Compaction does not generally become significant until deep 
burial has occurred 
pp. 8-2 and 8-3 indicate that initial compaction can reduce 
porosity by 20-30 percent, but additional compaction is not 
significant prior to deep burial. 
Cements other than carbonate may develop in arid environments 
p. 8-4 indicates that iron, aluminum, and silica may be cementing 
agents in arid environments. 
Q12 Lattman, L.H. and Simonberg, E.M. 
1971. "Case-Hardening of Carbonate 
Alluvium and Colluvium, Spring 
Mountains, Nevada." Journal of 
Sedimentary Petrology, 41, (1), 274281. 
[Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of 
Economic Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists]. 
TIC: 223189. 
[DIRS 129306] 
The time required for diagenesis is less than 10,000 years 
p. 277 provides a bound on the rate of case-hardening and 
formation of calcretes in southeastern Nevada and suggests 
rates on the order of tens of years. 
Q13 Lattman, L.H. 1973. "Calcium 
Carbonate Cementation of Alluvial Fans 
in Southern Nevada." Geological 
Society of America Bulletin, 84, (9), 
3013-3028. Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 235904. 
[DIRS 129305] 
Cementation by CaCO3 is not a significant process in rhyolitic 
tuffs. 
p. 3015 of this paper discusses the role of carbonate cements for 
rhyolitic tuffs and indicates that carbonate cementation is not 
significant if a source of carbonate is not present. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-5 April 2004 

Table II-1. Data Sets for Use within This Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Diagenesis (Continued) 
Q14 Reeves, C.C. 1976. Caliche: Origin, 
Classification, Morphology and Uses. 
Lubbock, Texas: Estacado Books. 
TIC: 245928. 
[DIRS 104303] 
The net effect of cementation is to decrease infiltration rates 
p. 110 indicates that a caliche horizon impedes the movement of 
both infiltration and capillary water and cites several supporting 
studies. 
Q15 Taylor, E.M. 1986. Impact of Time and 
Climate on Quaternary Soils in the 
Yucca Mountain Area of the Nevada 
Test Site. Master's thesis. [Boulder, 
Colorado]: University of Colorado. 
TIC: 218287. 
[DIRS 102864] 
p. 86 SiO2 cementation is not dependent on climatic conditions, 
but does exhibit distinctive trends that correspond with the ages 
of the surficial deposits. 
p. 87 Accumulation rates are attributable to several climatic 
scenarios, but changes were insufficient to decrease the rate of 
accumulation 
p. 89 Modeling suggest that CaCO3 may translocate to greater 
depth with onset of greater precipitation 
The preceding statements are taken from Chapter 5 of the 
citation. 
p. 33, Figure 9, accumulation rates for Yucca Mountain favor 
SiO2 over CaCO3, which is an accessory cement, and the 
cementation process is reversible. 
The preceding statements are taken from pp. 31-33, Figure 9, 
pp 86 to 89, and Chapter 5 of the citation. 
Meteorite Impact 
Q16 Ceplecha, Z. 1992. "Influx of 
Interplanetary Bodies onto Earth." 
Astronomy and Astrophysics, 263, 361366. 
New York, New York: Springer-
Verlag. 
TIC: 246784. 
[DIRS 135242] 
Source of flux information for full range of masses 
p. 362 and Figure 1 
Q17 Ceplecha, Z. 1994. "Impacts of 
Meteoroids Larger than 1m into the 
Earth's Atmosphere." Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 286, (3), 967-970. New 
York, New York: Springer-Verlag. 
TIC: 246761. 
[DIRS 135243] 
Source of flux data based on percent composition and related 
densities. 
p. 967-969, Tables 1, 3, 4, Figure 2 
Q18 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and 
Robertson, P.B. 1977. "Terrestrial 
Impact Structures: Principal 
Characteristics and Energy 
Considerations." Impact and Explosion 
Cratering, Planetary and Terrestrial 
Implications, Proceedings of the 
Symposium on Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, Arizona, 
September 13-17, 1976. Roddy, D.J.; 
Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. 
Pages 247-275. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 247237. 
[DIRS 135253] 
Energy to crater diameter and cratering depth relationships. 
p. 250, pp. 261-264 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-6 April 2004 

Table II-1. Data Sets for Use within This Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Meteorite Impact (continued) 
Q19 Grieve, R.F. 1987. "Terrestrial Impact 
Structures." Annual Review of Earth 
and Planetary Sciences, 15, 245-269. 
Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246788. 
[DIRS 135254] 
Cratering rate distribution based on observed earth cratering 
(i.e., proportional to Dcrater 
-1.8) and threshold size for onset of 
complex cratering (4km). 
p. 248, p. 257. Figure 8 
Q20* Grieve, R.; Rupert, J.; and Therriault, A. 
1995. "The Record of Terrestrial Impact 
Cratering." GSA Today, 5, (10), 194196. 
Boulder, Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. 
TIC: 246688. 
[DIRS 135260]. 
Onset of complex cratering is with crater diameters is 4 km. 
p. 194 
Q21* Grieve, R.A.F. 1998. "Extraterrestrial 
Impacts on Earth: The Evidence and 
the Consequences." Meteorites: Flux 
with Time and Impact Effects. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchinson, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; 
and Rothery, D.A., eds. Geological 
Society Special Publication No. 140. 
Pages 105-131. London, England: 
Geological Society. 
TIC: 254143. 
[DIRS 163385] 
Crater diameter to depth of effect relationships. Depth of 
exhumation is approximately 0.28 Dcrater. 
p. 113, Figure 8. 
Q22 Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1993. 
"Fragmentation of Small Asteroids in 
the Atmosphere." The Astronomical 
Journal, 105, (3), 1114-1144. 
Woodbury, New York: American 
Institute of Physics. 
TIC: 246798. 
[DIRS 135281]. 
Modeling results demonstrating of a variety of effects from 
meteorite impact including resulting crater diameters and related 
consequences. 
Figures 16 and 17 provide key meteor radius to crater diameter 
relationship information. 
Q23 Shoemaker, E.M. 1983. "Asteroid and 
Comet Bombardment of the Earth." 
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary 
Sciences, 11, 461-494. Palo Alto, 
California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246922. 
[DIRS 135308]. 
Contribution of iron meteors to the total flux is about 5 percent 
pp. 464 and 480 
Q24 Wuschke, D.M.; Whitaker, H.H.; 
Goodwin, B.W.; and Rasmussen, L.R. 
1995. Assessment of the Long-Term 
Risk of a Meteorite Impact on 
Hypothetical Canadian Nuclear Fuel 
Waste Disposal Vault Deep in Plutonic 
Rock. AECL-11014. Pinawa, Manitoba, 
Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada 
Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories. 
TIC: 221413. 
[DIRS 129326]. 
Spatial relationships of crater diameter to extents and depth of 
fracturing (0.76 Dcrater) and exhumation (0.14 Dcrater) 
pp. 3 
Spatial extent of fracturing is assumed to be spherical 
Figure 1. 
Cratering rate data for the Canadian shield and application to a 
hypothetical Canadian repository 
pp. 4 and 26 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-7 April 2004 

Table II-1. Data Sets for Use within This Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Extraterrestrial Events 
Q25 Brakenridge, G.R. 1981. "Terrestrial 
Paleoenvironmental Effects of a Late 
Quaternary-Age Supernova." Icarus, 
46, ([1]), 81-93. [New York, New York]: 
Academic Press. 
TIC: 255707. 
[DIRS 167873] 
Frequency of supernova event (1 event per 100 years), 
magnitude (1050 ergs), and potential consequences of the event 
(nitrogen enrichments, ozone depletion, global cooling) due to a 
supernova event. 
p. 81-93 
Q26* Lean, J. 1997. "The Sun's Variable 
Radiation and its Relevance for Earth." 
Annual Review of Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 35, 33-67. [Palo Alto, 
California: Annual Reviews]. 
TIC: 255614. 
[DIRS 167639] 
Relationship exist between the decadal sun cycle, and overall 
solar activity and the earths surface temperature, and possible 
link from changes in IR and visible and IR radiation to changes in 
earths temperatures and climate. 
p. 33-67 
Q27 Maynard, N.C. 1995. "Space Weather 
Prediction." Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 547-557. 
Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 253729. 
[DIRS 160888] 
List of engineered systems potentially affected by space 
weather. 
p. 547-557 
Earths Magnetic Field 
Q28 Odenwald, S. 2003. "Earth - Magnetic 
Field" Poetry Space Science Education: 
Ask the Space Scientist 
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a 
skmag.html. [Washington, D.C.]: 
National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. Accessed February 25, 
2003. 
TIC: 253712. 
[DIRS 160892] 
The periodicity of pole reversals is on the scale of a few hundred 
thousand years to once every million years. 
There has been a decrease in the earths magnetic intensity in 
the last few thousand years, and some evidence that a reversal 
may occur sometime during the next few to several thousand 
years. 
There is no identifiable fossil evidence (such as mutation or 
extinctions) stemming from magnetic field changes. 
These statements are made within the citation. 
Earth Tides 
Q29 Bredehoeft, J.D. 1997. "Fault 
Permeability Near Yucca Mountain." 
Water Resources Research, 33, (11), 
2459-2463. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 236570. 
[DIRS 100007] 
Earth tides cause fluctuations in water levels at Yucca Mountain 
that are on the order of a few centimeters 
p. 2460 give a value of 2.05 cm. 
The information used for direct input is also identified in Section 4 of the main body of this 
document, and supporting references are clearly identified in the various subsections of Section 
6.2, as needed to provide the technical basis for exclusion of the FEP. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-8 April 2004 

2. DEMONSTRATION OF SUITABILITY USING THE CORROBORATIVE METHOD 
The data to be evaluated have been extracted from non-project specific source and will be 
justified for use by the corroborating data approach. The corroborating data approach may be 
used when subject matter data comparisons can be shown to substantiate or confirm parameter 
values and may include comparisons of unqualified to unqualified data. The use of the 
corroborative data approach seems most feasible for judging correctness and reliability by 
comparing independently developed but related, data sets. This approach is also useful for 
justifying use of direct inputs and demonstrating suitability for use in the analysis. 
In this attachment, the indirect input is also referred to as corroborative-use-only information 
to help differentiate it from the direct input being justified for use. In some cases, a single source 
may provide both direct and indirect input. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-9 April 2004 

3. EVALUATION CRITERIA 
The following criteria are established for qualifying these data through corroboration. 
1. Is there a sufficient quantity of corroborating data available for comparison? 
Table II-1 is organized by type of information to be evaluated, and each of the sources 
of data to be evaluated is listed. For each subject area at least two, and preferably 
three or more, independent sources of information will be considered for 
corroboration. 
2. Can inferences drawn to corroborate these data be clearly identified, justified, and 
documented? 
For each source of information to be evaluated, the discussion will include a brief 
statement regarding the original purpose of the study, the method used to acquire the 
data, and any limitations germane to the corroboration of the data. Additionally, the 
basis for assuming adequacy for comparison (e.g., similar type study, update to 
previous study, compared to previous studies in related fields) will be stated. 
For quantitative inputs, corroboration will be shown either by graphical representation of the 
various data sets, or in table or text format, comparing the various values from the various 
sources. Corroboration will be considered acceptable, if singular values (e.g., mean velocity or 
percent by composition) are shown to be within two standard deviations of the mean value, with 
the mean and deviations developed by equal weighting of reported mean values from each 
source. In the case of probability distributions or equations based on probability distributions 
(e.g., mass flux or cratering rates), corroboration will be considered acceptable if the resulting 
probability distributions fall within two orders of magnitude for any given point in the 
distribution (e.g., for the probability of crater diameter of a given size). 
For qualitative inputs addressing key concepts of a FEP, one or more corroborative information 
sources will be used to substantiate the direct input. The source(s) should not conflict with the 
direct input, and should be in general agreement. This standard may also be used when 
corroborating boundary conditions that define the conditions necessary for the initiation of a FEP 
(e.g., temperature and pressure conditions associated with the onset of metamorphism). For 
cases with only one available source of information, the appropriateness for use as direct input 
will be justified. 
Therefore, the use of broad acceptance criteria is justified, and in lieu of corroboration, a 
bounding or conservative value (with respect to inclusion of the FEP) may be recommended and 
considered as qualified under this exercise. Consistent with the intended use, some latitude is 
taken in applying these criteria and an adequate explanation or justification for variance from the 
above criteria is provided. 
For each FEP-specific data set within Section 2, the evaluation criteria to be applied 
(i.e., quantitative or qualitative) will be identified. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-10 April 2004 

4. EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL CORRECTNESS OF THE DATA 
The technical correctness of the data (and the corroborating information) and hence its suitability 
to use was evaluated based on the factors listed in AP-SIII.9Q, Section 5.2.1 l), and discussed 
previously in the introduction to this attachment. 
Section 4 has been subdivided with direct input for each subject FEP (or grouping of FEPs) 
being accorded an individual subsection. The discussion of technical correctness for each 
FEP-specific data set is addressed in four parts. 
The first part (Section 4.x.1 Literature Search) discusses the scope of the literature review. The 
literature review involved a keyword search, and the number of returns or citations is given. 
The term citation is used in the generic sense and is not specific to either direct inputs or 
indirect inputs. Preliminary screening of citations based on title and available abstract 
information was done to help limit the number of citations to be evaluated, and goes to limiting 
further review to those citations that are related to the properties of interest. The direct inputs to 
be used were chosen after reviewing the list of selected citations and review of the technical 
content of the citations. 
The second part (Section 4.x.2 Evaluation of Factors) addresses the technical correctness of both 
the data being evaluated, and the corroborating information. The technical correctness of the 
data and corroborating information was evaluated based on the previous list of factors. . In the 
summary tables, direct input citations are listed first and are followed by the corroborative 
citations. A single cited paper might serve as the source for multiple types of direct input and/or 
reference only information. The designator Q within the item identifier indicates the item is to 
be justified for use. If a direct item is also used to corroborate a different direct input, the Q 
value is listed as corroborating information for that use rather than assigning a C number and 
having a single citation with two designators. In some cases Q information is cross-
corroborating (i.e., if there is little difference in the listed information) and in some cases a 
citation may be direct input in one instance, but is used only in a corroborative sense for other 
information. A C designator in the item identifier column indicates the item is used only to 
corroborate one or more data sets. 
The first column of the evaluation table addresses the factor Demonstrates Properties of 
Interest. For each source, the evaluation includes a brief statement regarding the original 
purpose of the study, its applicability, and any limitations germane to use of the information. 
The factor of Prior Use by Others is documented in column 2 of the table. Where possible, 
this was accomplished by checking against citations in the SciSearch database or Science 
Citation Index, which provide the number of other citations which cite back to the subject 
document. In some instances, the subject document was not found in the SciSearch database 
and the number of citations is not known. This is to be expected, as many of these particular 
articles (such as those related to drill performance) are directed towards technology or 
engineering application and/or the citation did not initially appear in publications routinely 
included in the SciSearch database (such as thesis and textbooks). The factor of reliability of 
the data source is addressed in the third column (Prior Peer or Other Professional Review) by 
noting the type of originating document, with peer-reviewed journals being specifically noted. 
Items listed as technical journal denote that the use of peer-review prior to publishing has not 
been established. Textbooks are noted as such and are typically subject to an editorial and fact 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-11 April 2004 

checking. Citations denoted as articles rather than papers denote information extracted from 
reputable sources, but the reported information has not been subjected to technical review. 
The reliability of the data source is also considered in Column 4 of the tables (Extent and 
Reliability of Documentation). This is a subjective evaluation, which was used in part to 
determine whether a citation should be used as a direct input, with preference as direct input 
given to those citations with moderate to high documentation levels. If information on 
equipment and procedures is provided in the citation, it is noted in this column. The fifth column 
(Importance of the Data) designates the citation as direct input or indirect input, based on its 
importance to the FEP analysis. 
By addressing the above listed factors for the corroborative information, the fourth factor 
(availability of corroborating data) is also addressed. However, the comparison of the direct 
input to the corroborative information requires more detail and it is specifically addressed under 
the third subsection (Section 4.x.3 Discussion) for each FEP-specific dataset. The discussions 
for each FEP may be subdivided by topic to facilitate corroboration of the direct inputs. 
The fourth part of each section (Section 4.x.4 Data Status and Limitations) provides a 
recommendations regarding status of the direct input any associated limitations and relates to 
suitability for use. 
4.1 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR TIMING OF HUMAN INTRUSION 
RELATED FEPS 
The difference in material properties of rock and the engineered barrier system and the effect on 
drilling parameters may allow recognition of penetration of the engineered barriers. The 
relationship being evaluated is that: 
The rate of drill penetration may range from inversely proportional to the square of the 
compressive strength to inversely proportional to the compressive strength of the rock. 
This range in relationship is documented in the direct inputs noted as Items Q1 and Q2 in 
Table II-1. The data are in the form of equations or functional relationships and are qualitative in 
nature. Therefore, the qualitative criteria for general agreement will be applied. Multiple 
sources corroborate the data. 
4.1.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates, and on information directly relevant and applicable to the 
analysis. The intent of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed factors that 
would differentiate between drilling in naturally occurring materials and penetration of an 
engineered barrier. The keyword and subject based-searches utilized various AND 
combinations for the keywords drilling, rate, penetration, and factors in various 
combinations. The SciSearch database (limited to publication dates for 1980 to 2004) returned 
a total of three records and the GeoRef databases (based on all records, including 2004) 
returned 46 records. Duplicate citations between the two databases were noted, and 12 citations 
were judged be potentially pertinent for the intended use and further evaluation. Based on 
existing references used for TSPA-SR, an electronic search of the eLibrary for the Society of 
Professional Engineers was also performed using the SPE Intelligent Search function with the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-12 April 2004 

input question of what factors affect rate of penetration and drilling parameters. The query 
was set at a 50 percent match and for a return of 200 citations, and no publication date limitation 
was imposed. From the list of returned citations, four additional citations were marked for 
further consideration. Additionally, previous discussions of the topic in the final environmental 
impact statement (FEIS) and total system performance assessment for site recommendation 
(TSPA-SR) documentation were reviewed and citations in those sources were added to the list. 
Citations from these sources not selected for evaluation were discarded because they dealt with 
drilling techniques that are unlikely to be used in groundwater exploration, as required by the 
regulations. Some other reasons for discarding a citation is that the citation dealt with rock types 
that are not present at Yucca Mountain above the repository (e.g., shales and limestones), or the 
paper dealt with specific drilling conditions that were not of interest for shallow conditions. 
4.1.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input, or as indirect input 
and corroboration of the direct input), the pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in 
Table II-2. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-13 April 2004 

Table II-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q1 Q2, C2, C3, 
C4, C6 
Bourgoyne, A.T., 
Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; 
Chenevert, M.E.; 
and Young, F.S., 
Jr. 1986. "Rotary 
Drilling Bits." 
Applied Drilling 
Engineering. [SPE 
Textbook Series 
Volume 2]. Pages 
190-245. 
Richardson, Texas: 
Society of 
Petroleum 
Engineers. 
TIC: 250085. 
[DIRS 155233] 
This textbook specifically 
addresses drilling 
engineering principles and 
application of the 
principles. Chapter 5 
specifically addresses the 
use of rotary drill bits and 
principles of operations, 
selection, and factors 
affecting their operation. 
Chapter 5 is directly 
applicable to techniques 
and practices commonly 
used in groundwater 
exploration drilling, which 
is a regulatory criterion for 
determining the timing of 
an intrusion without 
recognition. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Textbook 
created in 
consort by two 
authors in 
petroleum 
engineering 
academia and 
two authors 
from the 
petroleum 
industry. This 
is a standard 
text for 
petroleum 
engineering 
curriculum. 
Moderate to High  This 
text provides a thorough 
discussion of rotary drill 
bit performance and 
provides a variety of 
equations used in 
industry to determine 
the rate of drill bit 
penetration. 
Direct Input  
The rate of drill 
penetration may range 
from inversely 
proportional to the square 
of the compressive 
strength to inversely 
proportional to the 
compressive strength of 
the rock 
Equation 5-19 directly 
relates the square of the 
formation compressive 
strength to rate of 
penetration and therefore 
allows a comparison of 
behavior based on 
material properties. 
Indirect Input - Chapter 5 
also provides several 
discussions regarding 
drilling principles and 
practices that are useful 
for understanding the 
concepts behind drilling 
operations. These are 
discussed in Attachment 
III of this analysis report 
and are not further 
considered herein. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-14 April 2004 

Table II-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q2 Q1 and C1 
through C7 
Kahraman, S.; 
Balci, C.; Yazici, S.; 
and Bilgin, N. 2000. 
"Prediction of the 
Penetration Rate of 
Rotary Blast Hole 
Drills Using a New 
Drillability Index." 
International 
Journal of Rock 
Mechanics and 
Mining Sciences, 
37, ([5]), 729-743. 
[New York, New 
York]: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255709. 
[DIRS 167761] 
Addresses the 
interaction of rotary 
drilling to rock 
properties. This paper 
precedes the paper by 
the same author and 
used as indirect input. 
The rock property used 
for correlation is the 
drillability index, which 
can be defined in terms 
of tensile strength and 
unconfined compressive 
strength. 
Six citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to High  A 
discussion of previous 
studies, field studies, 
and laboratory studies 
is provided. A 
schematic of the 
laboratory equipment is 
provided, and laboratory 
results are provided in 
graphical form. The 
mathematical 
development of the 
proposed model using 
the drillability index is 
provided. 
Direct Input  
The rate of drill 
penetration may range 
from inversely 
proportional to the square 
of the compressive 
strength to inversely 
proportional to the 
compressive strength of 
the rock 
Eq. 8 of this paper 
addresses the rate of 
penetration in terms of a 
drillability index, but 
provides a correlation of 
the index to unconfined 
compressive strength and 
to tensile strength in 
Equations 14 and 15. 
C1 Not Applicable Beer, F.P. and 
Johnston, E.R., Jr. 
1981. Mechanics of 
Materials. 
New York, 
New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 255414. 
[DIRS 166708] 
This is a standard 
engineering text 
addressing mechanics 
of materials 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Textbook Moderate  This is a 
standard engineering 
text. 
Indirect Input  This text 
provides information on 
the relationship of brittle 
and ductile materials and 
the respective strength 
parameters. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-15 April 2004 

Table II-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C2 Not Applicable Bilgesu, H.I.; 
Tetrick, L.T.; 
Altmis, U.; 
Mohaghegh, S.; 
and Ameri, S. 
1997. "A New 
Approach for the 
Prediction of Rate 
of Penetration 
The paper provides a 
description of a neural 
network developed to 
estimate rates of 
penetration. It does not 
specifically link 
penetration rates to 
formation properties. It 
shows the rate of 
Paper not listed 
in SciSearch 
Proceedings 
paper  not 
peer-reviewed 
Moderate  The paper 
does not provide any 
independent validation 
of the approach used 
for modeling. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides 
corroboration of the 
factors affecting rate of 
penetration. 
(ROP) Values." 
1997 SPE Eastern 
penetration rates based 
on neural networks of 
Regional Meeting 
held in Lexington, 
Kentucky, October 
22-24, 1997. SPE 
parameters, one of 
which is formation 
properties 
39231. Pages 175179. 
Richardson, 
Texas: Society of 
Petroleum 
Engineers. 
TIC: 255661. 
[DIRS 167782] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-16 April 2004 

Table II-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C3 Not Applicable Grattan-Bellew, 
P.E. and Vijay, 
M.M. 1986. 
"Influence of 
Physical Properties 
of Rock on Rate of 
Penetration of a 
Water-Jet Drill." 
Canadian 
Mineralogist, 24, 
323-328. [Ottawa, 
Canada: 
Mineralogical 
Association of 
Canada]. 
Addresses water-jetting 
drilling techniques, 
rather than rotary 
drilling. However, links 
performance to rock 
properties. 
Paper not listed 
in SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to Low  This 
paper provides a limited 
discussion of laboratory 
methods and provides 
optical micrographs to 
support the conclusions 
Indirect Input  This 
paper indicates that 
commonly measured 
properties such as 
compressive strength, 
tensile strength, and 
porosity do not correlate 
with rate of water-jet 
penetration. This may 
limit the applicability of 
material properties being 
a defining factor for 
recognition to rotary 
drilling methods. 
TIC: 255711. 
[DIRS 167786] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-17 April 2004 

Table II-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C4 Not Applicable Howarth, D.F.; 
Adamson, W.R.; 
and Berndt, J.R. 
1986. "Correlation 
of Model Tunnel 
Boring and Drilling 
Machine 
Performances with 
Rock Properties." 
International 
Journal of Rock 
Mechanics and 
Mining Sciences & 
Geomechanics 
Abstracts, 23, (2), 
171-175. New 
This paper provides a 
link between rock 
material properties and 
drilling/tunneling 
machine performance. 
Provides correlation of 
rate of penetrations to 
three rock properties 
(compressive strength, 
saturated density, and 
P-wave velocity) and for 
three types of 
equipment (Tunnel 
boring machine, 
diamond drilling and 
percussive drilling.) 
13 citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate-This paper 
provides a cursory 
summary of testing 
equipment and 
methods, and provides 
testing results in table 
and graphical format. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper does not address 
material property strength 
on rotary drilling, but does 
confirm that the 
properties are germane to 
diamond and percussive 
drilling. 
York, New York: 
Pergamon. 
TIC: 255620. 
[DIRS 167645] 
C5 Not Applicable Kahraman, S. This paper provides a Six citations in Peer-reviewed Moderate to High This Indirect Input  Figure 5 
2002. "Correlation link between a rock SciSearch journal paper paper provides provides correlation of 
of TBM and Drilling material property to laboratory test data to three brittleness indices 
Machine drilling/tunneling support correlation of to rate of penetration. 
Performances with machine performance rate of penetration to Adequate correlation is 
Rock Brittleness." 
Engineering 
Geology, 65, ([4]), 
and rotary drilling. It 
does confirm the 
relationships of rock 
various rock properties 
and cites to supporting 
papers that provide the 
shown for factors based 
on compressive strength 
and tensile strength. This 
269-283. [New properties to drilling laboratory methods can be used to 
York, New York]: performance. However, corroborate other papers 
Elsevier. the definitions and using compressive 
TIC: 255618. 
[DIRS 167643] 
assumptions regarding 
brittleness prevent its 
use for comparison to 
strength as a key factor. 
penetration rates in 
ductile materials. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-18 April 2004 

Table II-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C6 Not Applicable Kahraman, S.; 
Bilgin, N.; and 
Feridunoglu, C. 
2003. "Dominant 
Rock Properties 
Affecting the 
Penetration Rate of 
Percussive Drills." 
International 
Journal of Rock 
Mechanics & 
Mining Sciences, 
40, ([5]), 711-723. 
[New York, New 
York]: Pergamon. 
This paper provides a 
link between rock 
material properties and 
performance of an 
alternate drilling 
method. While not 
directly applicable to 
rotary bit operation, it 
does confirm the 
relationships of rock 
properties to drilling 
performance 
One citation in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to High - A 
discussion of previous 
studies and 
experimental studies 
are provided. 
Laboratory results are 
provided in tabular and 
graphical form along 
with a statistical 
analysis of the results. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper describes material 
property correlation to 
percussive drilling, rather 
than rotary drilling. 
However, the rate of 
penetration is correlated 
to the uniaxial 
compressive strength and 
tensile strength, but 
poorly correlated to the 
elasticity modulus for 
percussive drilling. 
TIC: 255619. 
[DIRS 167644] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-19 April 2004 

Table II-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C7 Not Applicable Satchwell, R.M. 
1994. An 
Experimental Study 
of the Effect of 
Bedding Plane 
Anisotrophy on the 
Rate of 
Penetration. Ph.D. 
dissertation. 
This work addresses 
the deviation effect of 
bedding plane 
anisotropies for three 
different bit types, 
include roller cone bits. 
Dissertations 
not listed in 
SciSearch 
Doctoral 
Dissertation 
High  The 
documentation satisfies 
the requirements for a 
dissertation 
Indirect Input  provides a 
summary overview of 
background information. 
Provides an equation 
(cited to Warren) that 
relates torque to rock 
strength and rate of 
penetration. This is used 
to corroborate the inverse 
Laramie, Wyoming: 
University of 
Wyoming, 
Department of 
Chemical and 
proportionality of rock 
strength to rate of 
penetration. 
Petroleum 
Engineering. 
TIC: 255659. 
[DIRS 167952] 
C8 Not Applicable Warren, T. M. 
1984. "Factors 
Affecting Torque for 
a Roller Cone Bit." 
Journal of 
Petroleum 
Technology, [36], 
([10]), 1500-1508. 
Dallas, Texas: 
This paper provides 
description relating 
torque to roller bit 
performance including 
the tendency for bit 
deviation from the 
vertical. 
Seven citations 
in SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate - The paper 
provides and equation 
and supporting 
discussions only. 
Indirect Input  
This is used to 
corroborate the inverse 
proportionality of rock 
strength to rate of 
penetration. 
Society of 
Petroleum 
Engineers. 
TIC: 255859 
[DIRS 167788] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-20 April 2004 

4.1.3 Discussion 
The information being justified for use is that: 
The rate of drill penetration may range from inversely proportional to the square of rock 
strength, to inversely proportional to the rock strength. 
This stems from the two equations cited as direct input. Items Q1 and Q2 are being 
cross-corroborated, and Items C1 through C7 provide corroborating information for both direct 
inputs. 
Bourgoyne et al (1986, Equation 5-19 [DIRS 155233]) (Q1) indicates that the relationship of rate 
of penetration is inversely proportional to the square of compressive strength of the formation. 
The equation is given as: 
2 
K . W . W .. 
(Eq. II-1)
2
R = 
S 
..
. dbo -..
. db 
..
. t 
.
.. 
N 
where K = constant of proportionality, S= compressive strength of the rock, W= bit weight, W0threshold 
bit weight, db = bit diameter, all at time t, and N= rotary speed. All other factors being 
equal, this indicates that the rate of penetration (R) is affected in a manner inversely proportional 
to the square of the compressive strength. Bourgoyne et al (1986, [DIRS 155233]) (Q1) cites to 
another author that indicates that the rate of penetration is directly proportional to K, which is a 
constant of proportionality that includes the effect of rock strength, although it does not indicate 
whether an inverse square relationship is represented in the value for K. 
Kahraman et al. (2000, Equation 8 [DIRS 167761]) (Q2) cross-corroborates to Bourgoyne et al 
(1986, [DIRS 155233]) (Q1). The equation used by Kahraman stems from the same source as 
that used by Bourgoyne et al. However, Kahraman expresses the equation in terms of a 
drillability index, which is then shown to have an inverse proportionality to compressive strength 
and tensile strength, rather than an inverse square relationship. The corroborating equation is 
given by Kahraman as: 
NW
PR = 20.3 
aD (Eq. II-2) 
where PR = penetration rate, N= rotation speed, W= bit weight, a = the drillability index and D = 
the bit diameter. The drillability index, a is then expressed in terms of compressive strength, sc. 
Eq. 12 of Kahraman et al. (2000 DIRS [167761]) (Q2) 
sc = 09 .3 a+ 13.14 (Eq. II-3) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-21 April 2004 

A simple substitution of terms generates an equivalent equation: 
NW
PR 
20.3 
=
13.14 
s
c
..
-
..
D 
09.3 
(Eq. II-4) 
Similarly, Eq. 14 of the same paper provides a correlation to tensile strength, in the form of 
sT 
=
22.0 
+a
11.2 
(Eq. II-5) 
A simple substitution of terms generates an equivalent equation: 
NW
PR 
20 . 3 
=
11.2 
s
T
..
.
-
..
.
D 
22.0 
(Eq. II-6) 
Thus from Bourgoyne et al. (1986, Equation 5-19 [DIRS 155233]) (Q1), the relationship is 
shown to be inversely proportional to square of the compressive strength, and from Kahraman et 
al. (2000, Equation 8 [DIRS 167761]) (Q2), the relationship is shown to be only inversely 
proportional to either the compressive strength or the tensile strength. How is it then that these 
two equations are considered cross-corroborative? 
Based on Equation II-4, a doubling of compressive strength from 20 to 40 MPa, and then from 
40 MPa to 80 MPa would, in the first instance result in a 4 times decrease in the rate of 
penetration (i.e., the inverse square relationship as suggested by Bourgoyne et. al). However, 
with progressive doubling, from 40 MPa to 80 MPa, Equation II-4 above gives about a 2.5 times 
decrease in penetration rates. A third doubling of strength from 80 MPa to 160 MPa would 
result in a decrease of about 2.5 times, and a fourth doubling from 160 MPa to 320 MPa 
indicates a decrease of about 1.8 times. Similar relationships can be seen for the tensile strength. 
Based on Equation II-6, and assuming tensile strengths of 4, 8, 16, and 32 MPa, then the 
decrease in penetration rate, respectively, are factors of 3.1, 2.4, and 2.2. 
This suggests that the correlation proposed by Kahraman et al. (2000, Equation 8 
[DIRS 167761]) (and Equation II-2 above) is not a linear relationship, and at lower values may 
approach or exceed an inverse square relationship. Kahraman notes that the proposed inverse 
relationship is based on a coefficient value for data points with compressive strengths greater the 
40 MPa, because of poor correlation with experimental results at lower compressive strengths. If 
this equation were then applied to lower compressive strength materials, it would be expected 
that the estimated penetration rates would be understated. Bourgoyne does not discuss any upper 
limitations on the applicability of the equation based on rock strength. Thus, the two 
relationships are not contradictory and are cross-corroborative at least for the lower range of 
unconfined compressive strength and for tensile strength. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-22 April 2004 

The two equations (Eq. II-3 and II-5, above) from Kahraman are corroborated from four sources 
(Items C1, C5, C7 and C8). First, if the relationships are correct, then the ratio for compressive 
strength and tensile strength should be between a factor of ten and twenty. This is based on the 
general assumption that for brittle materials, that tensile strength should be about 10 to 
20 percent of the compressive strength. In general, brittle materials are significantly stronger in 
compression than in tension (Beer and Johnston (1981 p. 37 [DIRS 166708]) (C1). For example, 
the tensile strength of concrete is about 10 to 20 percent of its compressive strength, and rock 
properties at the site (See Attachment III) also indicate a ratio of 10 to 20 for compressive 
strength to tensile strength. Assuming a hypothetical drillability index of one, and substituting 
into Equations 3 and 5 above, yields a ratio of sc/sT = 17.22/2.33 = 7.4. Assuming a drillability 
index of 100 yields a ratio of sc/sT = 323.13/24.11= 13.4. Therefore, the relationship between 
the equations is at least reasonable and internally consistent with the rock property used as the 
basis for the conclusions in Kahraman (2000, Table 2 [DIRS 167761]), (Q2). 
A second line of corroboration is the relationships based on brittleness also proposed by 
Kahraman (2002 DIRS [167643]),(C5). Because the data set is the same as that used for 
Kahraman (2000 DIRs [167761]) (Q2), but the principles used to develop the relationships in the 
data are different, the later paper can be used to corroborate the first. In Kahraman 
(2002 DIRS [167643]) (C5), the developed equations relate the rate of penetration to parameter 
values that incorporate both compressive strength and tensile strength of a material. Kahraman 
(2002 DIRS [167643]) (C5) indicates the rate of penetration is correlatable to the brittleness B1, 
which is defined as the ratio of the compressive strength to the tensile strength; and to B2, which 
is the ratio of compressive strength minus tensile strength to the compressive strength plus the 
tensile strength. The equations developed use the ratio of parameters involving both the 
unconfined compressive strength and the tensile strength. Given that they are shown to correlate 
to penetration rates lends support to the appropriateness of the original equations 
(Equations 3 and 5 above), wherein the compressive strength and the tensile strength are related 
to the drillability coefficient and hence to the penetration rate. 
Thirdly, Satchwell (1994, Equation 6-4-1, DIRS [167952]) (C7), citing to Warren 
(1984 [DIRS 167788]) (C8) indicates that the bit torque is proportional to the penetration rate 
and to the rock strength. 
1
..
. 
p
.
..
. 
. 
p 
(
2
ER D 
2 N 
-
WR
)
(Eq. II-7) 
..a
..
= 
4
T 
Isolation of the variable for penetration rate (R) indicates that the penetration rate (R) is inversely 
proportional to rock strength (E), rather than inversely proportional to the square of the rock 
strength (E). This further corroborates the results from Kahraman (2000, Equation 8 
[DIRS 167761]) (Q2). 
Further general corroboration for the direct input taken both Bourgoyne et al. (1986 
[DIRS 155233]) and for Kahraman (2000 [DIRS 167761]) (Q2) stem from the remaining 
corroborative sources (C2, C3, C4, C6). Bilgesu et al. (1997 [DIRS 167782]) (C2) indicates that 
key factors in determining rate of penetration include weight on bit, rotary speed, pump rates, bit 
type and formation harness. Bilegsu et al. expresses the formation characteristics as formation 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-23 April 2004 

drillability and formation abrasiveness. Grattan-Bellew and Vijay (1986 [DIRS 167786]) (C3), 
in evaluating water jetting, indicate that though not applicable to water-jet drilling, commonly 
measured physical properties of rock, for example, compressive strength, tensile strength, 
specific gravity, and porosity, do not correlate water-jet penetration. They indicate, however, 
that the mechanics of water jet drilling are different from rotary drilling (i.e., fracture 
propagation rather than cratering and chip formation), so the lack of correlation is to be expected. 
The dependency of rotary drill penetration on unconfined compressive strength also is 
corroborated from other multiple sources, though these are not directly applicable to rotary 
drilling. Howarth et al. (1986 Figure 2 [DIRS 167645]) (C4) indicate that for percussion drilling, 
a doubling of the saturated compressive strength from 50 MPa to 100 MPa, the penetration rate 
fits a non-linear curve and decreases from 100 mm/min to 50 mm/min. Howarth et al., however, 
demonstrated that there was no significant correlation to dry compressive strength for percussion 
drilling. Kahraman (2002 DIRS [167643]) (C5) provides a list 10 papers by other authors to 
indicate that uniaxial compressive strength is the most widely used parameter for predicting the 
performance of tunneling machines and drilling rigs, though the exact relationship is not given or 
further discussed. Kahraman (2003 [DIRS 167644]) (C6), in contrast to Howarth et al., (1986, 
[DIRS 167645]) (C4) indicates that for percussive drills the relation of penetration rate to 
uniaxial compressive strength is a linear relationship. 
4.1.4 Data Status and Limitations 
The stated relationship that the rate of drill penetration may range from inversely proportional to 
the square of the compressive strength to inversely proportional to the compressive strength of 
the rock stems from the two direct input sources listed in Section 4.1.2. The equations from 
those two direct inputs have been adequately corroborated from multiple sources, and all sources 
evaluated are in general agreement. Thus, the qualitative criteria for general agreement have 
been met. Corroboration of the direct input provides the required level of confidence that the 
data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP Screening. The status of the stated 
relationship and the related direct inputs evaluated above should be considered as qualified for 
use within this technical product. However, limitations apply. 
The direct inputs are entirely adequate, based on compressive strength and tensile strength 
properties, to support a conceptual argument that significant changes in drill performance would 
occur and be recognized if a bit penetrates the drift wall or crown (naturally occurring material) 
and then encounters a metallic or alloy material used for the engineered barrier system. The 
exact relationship of unconfined compressive strength on the penetration rate, however, is not 
entirely certain. The relationship does not appear to an inverse square relationship as suggested 
by Bourgoyne et al (1986 DIRS [155233]) (Q1) for greater material strengths, but does appears 
to be something less that that relationship. However, the corroborative information clearly 
suggests that an inverse square relationship likely represents the upper bound in the range of 
relationship. A more supportable position is that the relationship is inversely proportional. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-24 April 2004 

Accordingly, a limitation on use of the data is imposed: the upper bound of an inverse square 
relationship shown from Bourgoyne et al. (1986 [DIRs 155233]) (Q1) may be mentioned, but the 
FEP screening decision should be determined based on the better substantiated, but less dramatic 
change in rate of penetration suggested by Kahraman (2000 DIRS [167761]) (Q2). As will be 
discussed in Attachment III of this analysis report, the rock and engineered barrier material 
strength unconfined compressive strengths are significantly greater than 40 MPa. Although both 
direct input relationships have been corroborated, the more linear relationship suggested by 
Kahraman for greater material strengths better addresses site conditions, and is more 
conservative. That is, a greater difference in material properties is required to induce a similar 
and noticeable change in drilling conditions and, thus, creates a more stringent threshold to use 
in FEPs screening. 
4.2 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.4.11.00.0A EXPLOSIONS AND CRASHES (HUMAN ACTIVITY) 
This section addresses direct inputs related to the energy released and depth of effects resulting 
from explosions and crashes. The four following statements, and the supporting direct inputs, 
are being justified for use. 
The energy release required to create a crater with a diameter sufficient to fracture to 
60 m or 200 m (i.e., the depths of interest) are on the order of 1012 to 1017 Joules. This 
information is taken from Item Q4 in Table II-1. 
Kinetic energy for jet aircraft is approximately 2 tons TNT equivalent or less. This is 
taken from Item Q8 in Table II-1. 
The energy yield of conventional weapons is on the order of 2 tons or less. This is taken 
from Item Q5 in Table II-1. 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is approximately 30 m. 
This information is drawn from Items Q3, Q6, Q7, and Q9 in Table II-1. 
The energy release from underground nuclear detonations results in fracturing to 
distances on the order of 100 meters or less. This information is taken from Item Q4 in 
Table II-1. 
The direct input being justified is in the form of equations or functional relationships, or they are 
empirical data. The objective is to justify input representing the maximum possible effects 
(i.e., upper bound of possible conditions) against a theoretical threshold of significance 
(i.e., minimum depth or energy release needed to be of significance). Therefore, the quantitative 
criteria will be applied, but conservative values will be recommended 
4.2.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed factors that would identify the 
magnitude of various explosion and crash scenarios, and their effect in the subsurface. Various 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-25 April 2004 

key-word searches based on the terms earth penetrating weapons, subsurface effects, 
explosions and crashes were performed. In total, the SciSearch database (limited to 
publication dates for 1980 to 2004) returned a no pertinent records and the GeoRef databases 
(based on all records including 2004) returned five pertinent records. Because of the sparse 
amount of information, the reference lists for these five citations were then reviewed to identify 
any other pertinent papers, and an Internet search was performed. The resulting citation list is 
provided in Table II-3. 
4.2.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table II-3 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-26 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q3 Q6, Q7, Q9 
and Q5, C11, 
C13, C14 
Backman, M.E. and 
Goldsmith, W. 1978. 
"The Mechanics of 
Penetration of 
Projectiles into 
Targets." International 
Journal of Engineering 
Science, 16, (1), 1-99. 
New York, New York: 
Pergamon. 
TIC: 255605. 
[DIRS 167628] 
Applicable  The 
entire paper is 
concerned with 
terminal ballistics 
and the 
penetration 
mechanics for 
various 
categories of 
targets and types 
of penetrators. 
Earth materials 
are discussed as 
semi-infinite 
targets and 
various factors 
are discussed. 
Equations for 
determining 
depth of 
penetration are 
provided. 
160 citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
Technical 
journal 
High  This is a summary 
work addressing a variety 
of projectile 
characteristics, target 
characteristics and 
equations from a wide 
variety of sources. 
Extensively cited and 
extensive bibliography 
provided. 
Direct Input  
The maximum 
penetration depth of 
earth penetrating 
weapons is 
approximately 30m 
The relationships and 
equations giving depth 
of penetration are taken 
from: 
p. 32, For steel 
projectile with a length-
to-diameter ratio of 8, 
striking normally at 150 
m/s. Penetration depth 
into sand of 350 
diameters, and for high-
strength concrete 
(5,000 psi strength), a 
penetration depth of 25 
diameters. 
The Poncelet equation 
(Equation 6.2 on p. 38) 
and factors from Table 
2 for hard soils (95 
percent sand and, 5 
percent silt a8 = 15.7, 
a10 = 24.7). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-27 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Q4 C10, C11, C12 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, Figure 12 of The effects This paper was Moderate  This paper Direct Input  
R.A.F.; and Robertson, 
P.B. 1977. "Terrestrial 
Impact Structures: 
Principal Characteristics 
and Energy 
Considerations." Impact 
and Explosion 
Cratering, Planetary 
and Terrestrial 
Implications, 
Proceedings of the 
Symposium on 
Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, 
Arizona, September 1317, 
1976. Roddy, D.J.; 
Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, 
R.B., eds. Pages 247275. 
New York, New 
York: Pergamon Press. 
TIC: 247237. 
this paper 
relates energy 
release to 
crater 
diameter. 
Diameter can 
then be 
equated to 
excavation and 
fracturing 
depth, which 
are of direct 
interest. 
addressed in 
this paper 
have been 
used in other 
repository 
design 
considerations 
regarding 
meteorite 
impact. The 
energy release 
equations are 
often cited in 
other works in 
the subject 
area. 
Science 
Citation Index 
indicate 17 
citations 
extracted from 
an edited 
compendium of 
related works. 
provides a summary of 
characteristics of craters 
and respective dimension 
and compares cratering 
effects to those of nuclear 
testing. No information 
on procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
The energy release 
required to create a 
crater with a diameter 
sufficient to fracture to 
60 m or 200 m (i.e., the 
depths of interest) are 
on the order of 1012 to 
1017 Joule. 
Figure 12 is used to 
relate energy release to 
crater diameter and 
hence to fracturing and 
cratering depth. 
The energy release 
from underground 
nuclear detonations 
results in fracturing to 
distances on the order 
of 100 meters or less. 
p. 262 indicates that 
[DIRS 135253] the 64-kt Pile Driver 
test produced stresses 
at about 100 meters 
(328 feet) that were 
slightly less than those 
needed to propagate 
fractures in 
granodiorite. 
Q5 Q8, C13. C16. Ferguson, C.D. 2002. 
"Mini-Nuclear Weapons 
and the U.S. Nuclear 
Posture Review." 
Monterey, California: 
Monterey Institute of 
International Studies, 
This paper 
mentions and 
briefly 
discusses 
existing 
conventional 
and potential 
Article not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
This is 
essentially and 
editorial article 
from a public 
policy institute 
rather than a 
scientifically-
Low  article provides a 
brief discussion of 
various weapons 
capability, but citations 
are primarily to policy and 
position papers rather 
than to technical papers. 
Direct Input  
The energy yield of 
conventional weapons 
is on the order of 2 
tons. 
This is based on direct 
input from this citation 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-28 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Center for 
Nonproliferation 
Studies. Accessed 
December 4, 2002. 
http://www.cns.miis.edu 
/pubs/week/020408.htm 
TIC: 253717. 
[DIRS 160988] 
nuclear earth 
penetrating 
weapons. 
oriented or 
technical article 
Weapons capabilities are 
provided only as 
attributed quotes. 
stating that an 
explosive capability of 
2 tons is given for the 
GBU-28 explosive 
ordnance. 
Indirect Input  The 
depths stated in the 
paper may be biased to 
understating the 
potential depth of 
penetration. However, 
they do provide a 
minimum or lower 
bound of possible 
penetration depths. 
Used to corroborate 
depth of penetrations 
calculated based on 
Backman and 
Goldsmith and results 
of experimental test 
data from Forrestal 
et al; from Young, and 
from Patterson. 
Q6 Q3, Q7, Q8, 
Q9 and Q5 
C11, C14, C15 
Forrestal, M.J.; 
Longcope, D.B.; and 
Norwood, F.R. 1981. "A 
Model to Estimate 
Forces on Conical 
Penetrators Into Dry 
Porous Rock." Journal 
of Applied Mechanics, 
48, (1), 25-29. New 
York, New York: 
American Society of 
Mechanical 
Engineers. 
This journal 
paper develops 
a model to 
predict the 
forces exerted 
on conical-
nosed 
penetrators for 
normal impact 
into dry rock 
targets. 
Results of an 
experimental 
14 citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal paper 
Moderate  Experimental 
test results for a conical 
penetrator into tuff are 
provided and a citation to 
a correspondence is 
given. Information on the 
projectile characteristics 
and the target material 
are provided and are 
adequate to judge 
comparability to Yucca 
Mountain geo-materials. 
Direct Input  
The maximum 
penetration depth of 
earth penetrating 
weapons is 
approximately 30 m 
Direct input from this 
paper (p. 28) indicates 
that experimental test 
results at the Sandia, 
Tonopah Test Range, 
Nevada indicate a 
penetrator; 1.52 m 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-29 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
TIC: 255607. 
[DIRS 167630] 
test into a tuff 
unit are cited 
as 
corroboration 
to the model 
results. The 
experimental 
results are 
directly 
applicable 
long, with outer 
diameter of 0.165 m 
and mass of 182 kg, 
with an initial velocity of 
411 m/s penetrated to 
a depth of 2.6 m. in an 
unsaturated, welded 
tuff. 
Q7 Q3, Q6, Q8, 
Q9 and Q5, 
C11, C14 
Patterson, W.J. 1974. 
"Results and Analysis 
of Three Instrumented 
Projectile Penetration 
Tests at the Watching 
Hills Blast Range, 
Suffield, Alberta, 
Canada." EOS, 
Transactions, 56, (12), 
1197. Washington, 
D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 255677. 
[DIRS 167805] 
This abstract 
provides 
results of 
experimental 
data for 
penetrators 
into 
geomaterials 
and the 
information is 
directly 
applicable. 
Abstract not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
This is 
information 
provide only in 
abstract form 
and was 
presumably not 
subject to peer-
review 
Low  the nature of the 
publication and its 
presentation only in 
abstract form provides 
only the barest of 
documentation 
Direct Input  
The maximum 
penetration depth of 
earth penetrating 
weapons is 
approximately 30 m 
Provides empirical 
information on rock 
penetrations tests. 
Penetrators with a 
diameter of 15.24 cm 
and mass of 181.4 kg 
were fired with impact 
velocities of 93 m/sec, 
122.8 m/s and 150.9 
m/sec and achieved 
penetration depths of 
9.08 meters, 14.72 
meters, and 20.7 m 
respectively. The 
target material was an 
old glacial lake bed. 
Q8 C9 Stix, G. and Yam, P. 
2001. "Facing a New 
Menace." Scientific 
American, 285, (5), 1415. 
[New York, New 
This paper 
addresses 
airline security 
and screening 
issues. 
One citation in 
SciSearch 
This article 
extracted from 
a respected 
scientific 
journal, but is 
Moderate  The 
calculation results in the 
sidebar are 
straightforward 
calculations and the 
Direct Input  Kinetic 
energy for jet aircraft is 
approximately 2 tons 
TNT equivalent or less 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-30 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
York]: Scientific 
American. 
TIC: 254304. 
[DIRS 160994] 
However, a 
sidebar column 
provides the 
results of 
calculations for 
various 
energies 
related to 
airliner 
impacts. 
non-technical 
in content and 
likely not peer 
reviewed 
bases for the calculations 
are given. They are 
adequate for use in FEPs 
screening 
This information 
provides energy 
release associated with 
a large jetliner (Boeing 
767) crash. 
Q9 Q3, Q7, Q9 
and C11, C14 
Young, C.W., 1976. 
Status Report on High 
Velocity Soil 
Penetration Program. 
SAND76-0291. 
Albuquerque, New 
Mexico: Sandia 
National Laboratories. 
ACC: 
MOL.20040407.0069 
[DIRS 167806] 
This is an 
investigation 
report prepared 
for Sandia 
Laboratories 
regarding earth 
penetration. It 
is applicable 
because it 
provides 
experimental 
data for the 
depth of 
penetration in 
soils. 
Paper not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
National 
laboratory 
report 
Moderate  Experimental 
results are discussed and 
provided. In particular, 
description of penetrators 
and targets are provided. 
Direct Input  
The maximum 
penetration depth of 
earth penetrating 
weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
Provides empirical 
information on soil 
penetration tests, 
Table II--1 indicates 
that a penetrator with a 
weight of 320 lbs, and 
6.0 inch diameter 
impacting with a speed 
of 2316 feet per second 
penetrated 220.5 (67 
m) feet into a hard 
playa soil. 
C9 Not Applicable Abbas, H.; Paul, D.K.; 
Godbole, P.N.; and 
Nayak, G.C. 1996. 
"Aircraft Crash Upon 
Outer Containment of 
Nuclear Power Plant." 
Nuclear Engineering 
and Design, 160, ([12]), 
13-50. [New York, 
This paper 
addresses 
aircraft impact 
on above-
ground 
structures  
particularly 
containment 
buildings for 
Three citations 
in SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal paper 
Moderate - This paper 
develops the equations 
needed to analyze 
reaction forces and 
stresses within a 
cylindrical containment 
building and provides a 
comparison to other 
similar types of studies. 
Indirect Input  
Provides a linear mass 
density for three types 
of aircraft. This can be 
used to calculate 
approximate kinetic 
energy of various 
aircraft. Input data by 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-31 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
New York]: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255604. 
[DIRS 167627] 
nuclear power 
plants. Paper 
considers the 
linear mass 
density and 
crushing 
strength of a 
Boeing 707320, 
FB-111 jet 
fighter , and 
the F4 
Phantom jet 
fighter. 
However, the reference 
list appears limited, and 
citations for the aircraft 
characteristics are not 
provided. 
aircraft type include: 
Boeing 707-320: 
Velocity of 102.8 m/s, 
linear mass density of 
9,000 kg/m, total length 
of 40 m. 
FB-111 : Velocity of 
108.2 m/sec, linear 
mass density of 9000 
kg/m, total length of 22 
m 
F4 Phantom: Velocity 
of 215.8 m/sec, linear 
mass density of 3500 
kg/m, total length of 16 
m. 
Provides corroboration 
for calculations cited 
from Stix and Yam. 
C10 Not Applicable Glasstone, S. and 
Dolan, P.J., eds. 1977. 
"Descriptions of Nuclear 
Explosions." Chapter II 
of The Effects of 
Nuclear Weapons. 3rd 
Edition. Pages 26-79. 
Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of 
Defense and 
This document 
provides and 
overview of the 
effects of 
nuclear 
weapons, 
including 
effects of 
underground 
detonations. 
This is a 
government-
sponsored 
document and 
was developed 
through 
interagency 
cooperation. 
Moderate  This 
document is a thorough 
overview of the topic, and 
technical discussion is 
provided. It summarizes 
the results of 
underground nuclear 
testing. 
Indirect Input  Section 
2.104 provides a 
description of fracturing 
related to the RAINIER 
test. 
U.S. Department of 
Energy. ACC: 
MOL.20030925.0035. 
[DIRS 160992] 
C11 Not Applicable Gronlund, L. and 
Wright, D. 2002. "Earth 
Penetrating Weapons" 
This paper 
mentions and 
briefly 
Article not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
This is 
essentially an 
editorial article 
Low  article provides a 
brief discussion of 
various weapons 
Indirect Input  The 
penetration depths 
stated in the paper may 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-32 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Global Security 
Cambridge, 
Massachusetts: Union 
of Concerned 
Scientists. Accessed 
December 10, 2002. 
TIC: 253714. [DIRS 
160989] 
http://www.ucsusa.org/g 
lobal_security/nuclear_ 
weapons/page.cfm?pag 
eID=777 
discusses 
existing 
conventional 
and potential 
nuclear earth 
penetrating 
weapons. 
from a public 
policy institute 
rather than a 
scientifically-
oriented or 
technical article 
capabilities, but citations 
are primarily to policy and 
position papers rather 
than to technical papers. 
Weapons capabilities are 
provided only as 
attributed quotes. 
be biased to 
understating the 
potential depth of 
penetration. However, 
they do provide a 
minimum or lower 
bound of possible 
penetration depths. 
Containment depths for 
subsurface explosions 
are stated. 
Used to corroborate 
depth of penetrations 
calculated based on 
Backman and 
Goldsmith and results 
of experimental test 
data from Forrestal 
et al; from Young, and 
from Patterson, 
(i.e., reported 
penetrations of 6 m of 
concrete and 30 m of 
earth). Also used to 
indicate the depths 
required to contain an 
explosion (60 meters 
for a one-kiloton 
explosion, and 
300 meters for a 100kiloton 
explosion). 
C12 Not Applicable Hughes, D.W. 1998. 
"The Mass Distribution 
of Crater-Producing 
Bodies." Meteorites: 
Flux with Time and 
Impact Effects. 
This paper is 
directed to 
addressing 
factors that 
define basic 
relationships of 
Paper not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
This paper was 
extracted from 
an edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
the London 
Moderate  Paper 
provides a good 
summary of preceding 
work by others and 
performs an evaluation of 
these various sets and 
Indirect Input  
Figure 3 provides a 
direct comparison to 
works by Dence et al. 
and to works by others, 
and therefore provides 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-33 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Geological Society meteor flux to Geologic ranges of equation. The a strong corroborative 
Special Publication No. cratering rates. Society (31 figure of interest provides source indicating that 
140. Grady, M.M.; However, the referees, citations to the original use of the relationships 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, author takes an including two source documentation of proposed by Dence 
G.J.H.; and Rothery, energy-based whom are works by others. et al. are reasonable 
D.A.; eds. equation routinely cited for use as direct input. 
Pages 31-42. Bath, approach and in meteorite 
England: Geological provides a impact work). 
Society of London. figure that 
TIC: 254143. 
[DIRS 162562] 
summarizes 
the results of 
multiple studies 
that link energy 
releases to 
crater 
diameters 
C13 Not Applicable Lennox, D.; Rees, A. 
(eds.) 1990. Jane's Air-
Launched Weapons. 
Alexandria, Virginia: 
Jane's Information 
Group. TIC: 255862 
[DIRS 167804] 
Provides the 
best source 
of information 
from 
unclassified 
materials for 
weapons 
capabilities and 
descriptions 
Not listed in 
SciSearch 
The Janes 
series of books 
are widely 
recognized as 
an acceptable 
source of 
unclassified 
information on 
weapons 
systems for 
most countries 
Moderate to High  This 
highly respected series of 
books contain information 
collected from a variety of 
unclassified sources 
including government 
documents and vendor 
information. 
Indirect Input  the 
mass of the largest 
weapons of various 
types are taken from 
the appendix. A 
conservative 
assumption is made 
that the total mass is 
attributed to high 
explosives, and an 
equivalent energy 
release is calculated. 
For air-to-surface 
missiles, the largest 
warhead is 1,000 kg of 
HE (USSR AS-4, AS-5, 
and AS-6) 
For bombs, the 
greatest weight is 9000 
kg (Iraq NASR-9000). 
Largest diameter 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-34 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
weapon is 1 meter 
diameter. 
Typically, warhead and 
weights are 1,000 kg or 
less, and diameters are 
generally 0.5 m or less. 
C14 Not Applicable Nelson, R.W. 2001. 
"Low-Yield Earth-
Penetrating Nuclear 
Weapons." FAS Public 
Interest Report, 54, (1), 
1-5. Washington, D.C.: 
Federation of American 
Scientists. 
TIC: 253719. 
[DIRS 160986] 
This paper 
mentions and 
briefly 
discusses 
existing 
conventional 
and potential 
nuclear earth 
penetrating 
weapons. 
Article not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
This is 
essentially an 
editorial article 
from a public 
policy institute 
rather than a 
scientifically-
oriented or 
technical article 
Low  article provides a 
brief discussion of 
various weapons 
capabilities, but citations 
are primarily to policy and 
position papers rather 
than to technical papers. 
Weapons capabilities are 
provided only as 
attributed quotes. 
Indirect Input  The 
depths stated in the 
paper may be biased to 
understating the 
potential depth of 
penetration. However, 
they do provide a 
minimum or lower 
bound of possible 
penetration depths. 
Containment depths for 
subsurface explosions 
are stated. 
Used to corroborate 
depth of penetrations 
calculated based on 
Backman and 
Goldsmith and results 
of experimental test 
data from Forrestal 
et. al; from Young, and 
from Patterson 
C15 Not Applicable Siddiqui, N.A. and This paper No citations in Peer-reviewed Moderate - The reliability Indirect Input  
Abbas, H. 2002. 
"Mechanics of Missile 
reexamines the 
work by 
SciSearch journal is comparable to that of 
Forrestal et al. 
This paper reexamines 
and modifies the 
Penetration into Geo-
Materials." Structural 
Engineering and 
Forrestal and 
refines the 
model. 
approach taken by 
Forrestal et. al. 
Mechanics, 13, (6), 
639-652. [Taejon, 
Korea: Techno-Press]. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-35 April 2004 

Table II-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
TIC: 255608. 
[DIRS 167631] 
C16 Not Applicable Wu, C. 2000. "Powerful 
Explosive Blasts onto 
Scene." Science News 
Online, 157, (4), 54. . 
TIC: 255698 
[DIRS 167812] 
This is a 
general news 
article dealing 
with 
development of 
a new 
explosive 
compound. 
This is 
pertinent to 
determining the 
equivalent 
Article not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
This article was 
taken from an 
Internet-based 
weekly science 
magazine. It 
has not been 
peer-reviewed, 
but the 
contents of the 
article have 
been confirmed 
by finding a 
Low to Moderate  
Information is traceable 
to a somewhat obscure 
scientific journal, 
therefore reliability is 
established. However, 
the basis for statements 
regarding relative 
strength of the high 
explosive to TNT is not 
traceable 
Indirect Input  
Provides justification 
for assumption that the 
explosive yield of HE is 
no more than twice that 
of a comparable weight 
of TNT. 
energy similar citation 
released from 
a conventional 
in a peer-
reviewed 
HE warhead. journal 
(Angewandte 
Chemi 
International). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-36 April 2004 

4.2.3 Discussion 
The following discussion has been subdivided by topic, with direct inputs grouped accordingly. 
The topics of discussion include energy release needed to fracture to depth, kinetic energy 
release from aircraft, conventional weapons yields, maximum depth of penetration, and 
fracturing effects from underground nuclear explosions. 
4.2.3.1 Energy Release to Depth of Effect Relationships 
The relationship being justified is that 
The energy release required to create a crater with a diameter sufficient to fracture to 60 m 
or 200 m (i.e., the depths of interest) are on the order of 1012 to 1017 Joule. 
This relationship is direct input from Item Q4, and is corroborated by the studies summarized in 
Item C12. 
Dence et al. (1977 Figure 12 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) provides a series of curves relating energy 
release to the surface to crater diameter that is used as direct input. The crater diameters of 
interest for impact to the repository are 80 m for fracturing to the depth of a key geologic unit (a 
depth of 60 m, on the order of 300 m for fracturing to repository depth and on the order of 
1,000 m for exhumation to repository depth (a depth of 200 m) as explained in Attachment IV of 
this analysis report. For these depths, the curve from Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) 
indicates that energy releases at the surface on the order of 1012 to 1017 joules, or greater could 
potentially cause damage to the repository. 
The relationships presented in Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) are corroborated by a 
similar figure presented in Hughes (1998 Figure 3 [DIRS 162562]) (C12). Hughes shows the 
Dence et al. curve in relation to similar curves developed by five other investigators. For the 
range of diameters of interest, the plot from Dence et al. is shown to be the least conservative 
(i.e., more energy required for a given diameter), with other investigators showing that a crater 
with a given diameter could be produced with less energy. The lowest most curve shown by 
Hughes requires approximately an order of magnitude less energy than that required by Dence 
et al. For a 1 km diameter crater, Dence et al. requires approximately 1023 ergs, while the 
lowermost curve requires 1022 ergs (equating to 1017 and 10 16 joules respectively). At a diameter 
of 100 m, the required energies are 1020 ergs and 1019 ergs (1013 and 1012 joules respectively). 
Thus use of the curve from Dence et al. (1977 Figure 12 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) with a stated 
range of 1012 to 1017 joules is corroborated by Hughes (1998, Figure 3 [DIRS 162562]) (C12). 
However, because the values from Dence et al. are the least conservative, a limitation on the use 
of the data is discussed in Section 4.2.4.1. 
4.2.3.2 Energy Released by Aircraft Impact 
The bounding condition being justified is that: 
Kinetic energy for jet aircraft is approximately 2 tons TNT equivalent or less. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-37 April 2004 

This value was taken as direct input from Item Q8 and is corroborated, based on three different 
aircrafts, using information from Item C9. 
Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994]) (Q8) provide, in a sidebar column, the results of 
calculations for energy released from a jet airliner crash (1 to 2 tons TNT equivalent), excluding 
the release from on-board fuel. In Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994]) (Q8), the stated mass of 
a Boeing 767, larger than the aircraft listed below and fully loaded, is listed as 412,000 pounds 
(186,880 kg), and the stated kinetic energy for a velocity of 530 mph (237 m/s) is given as the 
equivalent of 1 ton TNT. 
With regard to aircraft crashes and the associated energy release, an equivalent calculation for 
three types of aircraft used in analyzing the aircraft crash hazard for nuclear power plants is 
given for corroboration. In the corroborating source, Abbas et al (1996 Figures 9, 10, 11; and 
p 25 [DIRS 167627]) (C9) provide the information on mass distribution and velocity for various 
size aircraft. These can be used to determine the kinetic energy available upon impact. 
Table II-4. Corroborative Information for Determining Kinetic Energy of Various Aircraft 
Aircraft 
Type 
Velocity 
(m/s) 
Total 
Length 
(m) 
Linear Mass Density 
(kg/m) (approximate 
length and associated 
density) 
Mass 
(kg) 
Kinetic Energy 
(at stated velocity) 
Ke = 1/2mv2 
(kg-m2)/s2 or Joules 
TNT Equivalent 
(tons) 
(1 ton TNT = 4.2 x 
109 Joules) 
Boeing 102.8 40 0-15 m  2000 kg/m 30,000 
707-320 15-25 m  10,000 kg/m 
25-40 m  2000 kg/m100,000 
30,000 
8.5 x 108 
0.2 
160,000 
FB-111 102.8 22 0-11 m  2000 kg/m 
11-15 m-9000 kg/m 
15-22 m-3000 kg/m 
22,000 
36,000 
21,000 
79,000 
4.2 x 108 0.1 
F4 
Phantom 
215.8 16 0-5 m 10,000 kg/m 
5-7 m 25,000 kg/m 
7-10m  40,000 kg/m 
5,000 
5,000 
12,0007.0 x 10 8 0.17 
10-16 m  20,000 kg/m 8,000 
30,000 
If the stated velocity for the Boeing 707 and for the FB-111 is scaled upward to 236 m/s, then a 
factor of 2.3 is applied to the velocity. Given that the kinetic energy is a function of the square 
of the velocity, an increase of 2.3 times would increase the kinetic energy by 5.3 times, and the 
corresponding release in TNT equivalent would increase by that same factor. This would equate 
to a release of approximately 1 ton from the Boeing 707-320, and less for the other aircraft 
shown. 
Thus, the energy release given by Stix and Yam in corroborated using equivalent information 
from Abbas et al (1996 [DIRS 167627]) (C9), and the direct input is shown to be at the upper 
range of likely releases from aircraft impacts. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-38 April 2004 

4.2.3.3 Energy Released by Targeted Weapons 
The direct inputs discussed in this section are used to determine whether the energy releases by 
targeted weapons are capable of affecting the repository at depth, based on the curve from Dence 
et al. (1977 Figure 12 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) described in Section 4.2.3.2 of this attachment. The 
condition being justified is that: 
The energy yield of conventional weapons is on the order of 2 tons. 
This is taken as direct input from Item Q5, and is corroborated by information presented in Q8, 
C13, and C16. 
The direct input is based on Ferguson (2002 [DIRS 160988]), (Q5), who states an explosive 
capability of 2 tons for the GBU-28. Based on corroborative sources, this direct input appears to 
be a reasonable representation of the upper end of yields from conventional weapons. 
Corroboration is based on information taken from Janes Air-Launched Weapons (Lennox and 
Rees (1990 [DIRS 167804]) (C13). This is the standard unclassified resource for weapons 
systems information. The appendices provide total mass and dimensions for missiles and bombs 
from all major countries, as well as the mass of warheads and/or mass of the munition in terms of 
high explosives, without specifying the type of high explosive. To convert to equivalence in 
TNT, a factor of 2 is assumed. This is based primarily on Wu (2000 [DIRS 167812]) (C16). Wu 
reports on the synthesization of a new explosive compound (octanitrocubane) that is stated to be 
twice as powerful as trinitrotoluene (TNT) and its thought to be 20 to 25 percent more effective 
than HMX (octagen), which is the state-of-the-art military explosive right now. The statement 
is attributed to a source at the Nation Institute of Standards and Technology. Accordingly, a 
factor of 2 is assumed to convert from mass of high explosive to equivalence of TNT. 
Further corroboration is provided by Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994]) (Q8), who indicate 
that the energy release for a U.S. cruise missile (with a conventional warhead) is 0.5 ton TNT 
equivalent. With regard to the reported TNT equivalent of 0.5 tons for a Tomahawk cruise 
missile with conventional warhead, Lennox and Rees reports that the U.S AGM-131 SRAM 
conventional warhead contains 250 kg of high explosive. Using the factor of 2-multiplier, this 
suggests that the yield cited by Stix and Yam above is correct. 
Additional corroborative information from Lennox and Rees (1990 [DIRS 167804]) (C13) 
indicates that the largest conventional warheads for air-to surface missiles are listed as 1,000 kg 
HE, and are associated with the former USSR AS-4 and AS-6 air to surface missiles. This would 
be equivalent to 2,000 kg TNT (or about 2 tons) TNT. With regard to bombs (such as the 
GBU-28), Lennox and Rees indicates that the total weight of Iraqs NASR-9000 is 9,000 kg. If 
all this mass were attributed to HE, then the TNT equivalent would be upwards of 9 tons of TNT. 
However, for most of the bombs listed by Lennox and Rees, the total weight is typically a few 
hundred to a thousand kg, suggesting that TNT equivalents of about 1 ton are more typical. 
Accordingly, a suggested value of 2 ton TNT equivalent for conventional ordnance is 
corroborated and considered suitable for use in FEP Screening considerations. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-39 April 2004 

4.2.3.4 Maximum Depth of Penetration 
Given that the repository is located no less than 200 m below the ground surface, the maximum 
depth of penetration of a projectile in dry rock is of particular interest. The condition being 
justified is that: 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is approximately 30 m. 
This stems from direct inputs either based on, or taken, from Items Q3, Q6, Q7, Q9 (which are 
all cross-corroborating) and are further corroborated either directly by, or using information 
from, Q5, C11, C13, C14, and C15. 
Direct input is taken from Backman and Goldstein (1978 pp. 32 through 38 [DIRS 167628]) 
(Q3) in the form of a table stating penetration depths in terms of projectile diameters, and in the 
form of the Poncelet equations and associated resistance constants for hard soil. Direct Input is 
also taken from Forrestal et al. (1981 [DIRS 167630]) (Q6), Patterson (1974 [DIRS 167805]) 
(Q7), and from Young (1976 [DIRS 167806]) (Q9), which present results of experimental data in 
a variety of geo-materials. 
Backman and Goldstein (1978, p. 32 [DIRS 167628]), (Q3) indicates that for a round-ended steel 
projectile with a length to diameter ratio of 8, striking normally at 150 m/s, sand will be 
penetrated to a depth of 350 diameters, and high strength concrete (5000 psi compressive 
strength) will be penetrated to a depth of only 25 diameters. Given that samples of the volcanic 
tuff, with only a few exceptions, exhibit compressive strengths of well in excess of 50 MPa (or in 
excess of 7500 psi), as shown in Attachment III of this analysis report, a value associated with 
5000 psi concrete can be chosen as a conservative surrogate. However, to calculate a maximum 
penetration depth, a projectile diameter is needed. A maximum diameter of 1 meter is assumed 
based on information from the corroborating source, Lennox and Rees (1990, [DIRS 167804]) 
(diameter for the NASR 9000, C13). Accordingly, the maximum penetration depth will be on 
the order of 25 meters in the volcanic tuffs present at the site. 
Backman and Goldstein (1978, Eq. 6-2 and p. 38 [DIRS 167628]) (Q3) also cite to the Poncelet 
equation, which indicates that the depth of penetration (P) is dependent on two resistance 
constants a10 and a8. The equation is given as: 
2 
v a 
10
+ 
.
.
. 
1 ln 
.
m
P
=
o 
(Eq. II-8)
.
.
2a 
a
10 
8 
For this equation, P is the penetration depth in cm, m is the mass in kg, and vo is the impact 
velocity in m/sec. The resistance coefficients for hard soil are given as a8 = 15.7 and a10=24.7. 
Assuming a mass of 9,000 kg (again based on the maximum mass reported in Lennox and Rees 
(1990 [DIRS 167804]) (total mass for the NASR 9000, C13), and assuming a mid-range velocity 
of 411 m/sec, yields a penetration depth of 22.8 m (2,275 cm). 
These results based on the relationships and equations in Backman and Goldstein can be cross-
corroborated along with the experimental data from the following direct input sources. 
Experimental data from Young (1976, Table II [DIRS 167806]) (Q9) indicate a maximum 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-40 April 2004 

penetration depth of 220 feet (67 meters) into hard playa lake soils composed of sand, silt and 
clay. The compressive strengths of these materials ranged from approximately 300 psf to 
45,000 psf (13 to 312 psi). These tests were made with a 6-inch (0.15 m) diameter projectile. A 
significant increase in penetration depths in sandy soils versus rock is expected, as Backman and 
Goldstein (1978 p.32 [DIRS 167628]) (Q3) indicates total penetration depth for sand is 
350 times the diameter, compared to 25 diameters for concrete-equivalent compressive strengths. 
Thus for a 0.15 m diameter projectile, a penetration depth of 53 m could be expected in sand. 
These results (i.e., 67 m from experimental data and 53 m by equation) can be cross-corroborated 
to Patterson (1974 [DIRS 167805]) (Q7) by taking into account the difference in target materials. 
Patterson reports a penetration depths ranging from 9.08 meters of 20.7 m into a glacial lakebed, 
a harder geo-material than that targeted by Young (1976 [DIRS 167806]). The Patterson tests 
were conducted using a penetrator of mass of 181.4 kg and diameter of 0.152 m. Initial 
velocities ranged from 93 m/s to 150.9 m/s. Backman and Goldstein provide an intermediate 
value of 36 diameters for 2500 psi strength material. Applying the factors of 36 and 
350 diameters (to bound the potential depths of penetration), provides anticipated depth of 
penetration from 5.4m to 52.5 m. Using Eq. 8 above (the Poncelet equation from Backman and 
Goldstein), the estimated depths of penetration would be 0.3 m to 38.5 m. In either case, the 
experimental results from Patterson are bracketed by the calculated depths based on Backman 
and Goldstein, and taking into account the difference in geo-materials, substantiates the results 
from Young (1976 [DIRS 167806]). One further cross-corroboration can be made to the results 
of Forrestal et al. (1981 p. 28 [DIRS 167630]) (Q6). 
Forrestal et al. report that penetration depth in an unsaturated, welded tuff achieved a penetration 
depth of only 2.6 m. This is significant in that the materials at Yucca Mountain are a series of 
unwelded and welded tuffs. This penetration depth was achieved using a penetrator of mass of 
182 kg and diameter of 0.165 m and initial velocity of 411 m/s. The measured depth of 
penetration was 2.6 m. Using these values, and substituting into the equations presented by 
Blackman and Goldstein, provides estimated depths of penetration of 4.1 m using a penetration 
factor of 25 diameters. However, the unconfined compressive strength of welded tuff materials 
is on the order of 100 MPa or greater (14,500 psi) (see Attachment III of this analysis report for 
rock property information). This is about three times the compressive strength used to determine 
the factor of 25 diameters. Thus, an overestimate of penetration depth should be anticipated. 
Application of Equation 8 above suggests an anticipated depth of penetration of about 0.5 m. 
Thus, the experimental data (2.6 m) is bounded by the range (0.5 m to 4.1m) in the calculated 
data, and they are considered corroborative. The results of Forrestal et al. are independently 
corroborated with the indirect input taken from the additional work of Siddiqui and Abbas 
(2002 [DIRS 167631]) (Item C15 above), who refined the theoretical estimated penetration depth 
to be 2.9 m. 
Given that the calculated depths and experimental depths have been shown to be corroborative, 
and given values for maximum penetration depths of 25 m (calculated for an assumed maximum 
diameter), 60.7 m (observed for hard playa soils), 20. 7 m (observed for glacial lake bed), and 
2.6 m (observed for an unsaturated welded tuff), then the averaged value for depth of penetration 
is 29 m. Thus, the statement that: The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating 
weapons is approximately 30 m, is defensible and reasonable. This is particularly so, given that 
the penetration into a welded volcanic tuff was a factor of 10 less than that value of being used as 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-41 April 2004 

bounding condition, and is probably more representative of site conditions than the other direct 
inputs. 
The direct inputs, and the calculated average, are corroborated from two additional sources used 
as indirect inputs (Items C11 and C14). Gronlund and Wright (2002 [DIRS 160989]) (C11) 
indicate that the U.S. arsenal includes two air dropped weapons that are capable of penetrating 
six meters of concrete or 30 meters of earth. Additionally, Nelson (2001 [DIRS 160986]) (C14) 
suggests a maximum penetration depth to be on the order of 100 feet (33 meters) based on long 
rod penetration, and projects that the maximum penetration depth can be no more than 10 times 
the length of the penetrator. These indirect inputs corroborate the direct inputs discussed above. 
4.2.3.5 Fracturing Effects of Underground Nuclear Explosions 
The FEP description for explosions and crashes specifically mentions the potential for nuclear 
war and underground testing. Although, as discussed for the FEP, there is basis for a regulatory 
exclusion, direct inputs also indicate that these events would be of low consequence. The 
condition being justified is: 
The energy release from underground nuclear detonations results in fracturing to 
distances on the order of 100 meters or less. 
This is based on direct input taken from Item Q4, and is corroborated by Items C10 and C11. 
Dence et al. (1977 p. 262 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) provide the direct input by reference to the 64-kt 
Pile Driver test producing stresses at about 100 meters (328 feet) that were slightly less than 
those needed to propagate fractures in granodiorite. This is corroborated by two indirect input 
sources. Glasstone and Dolan (1977 Section 2.104 [DIRS 160992]) (C10) describe the results of 
the RAINIER underground nuclear test. The authors indicate that the deep (240 meters, 
790 feet) underground detonation of the 1.7-kt event fractured the surrounding materials out to a 
radius of only 54 meters (180 feet)which is less than one drift spacing. In describing the 
penetration depth needed to contain an underground detonation, Gronlund and Wright 
(2002 [DIRS 160989]) (C11) indicate that a depth of 60 meters would contain a one-kiloton 
explosion, and 300 meters would contain a 100-kiloton explosion. Thus, for detonation less than 
100-kiloton, the stated condition is corroborated, as is the direct input taken from Dence et al. 
4.2.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For quantitative data, the criteria regarding standard deviations and establishment of conservative 
bounding values have been satisfied. The above literature review and corroboration of the direct 
input provides a suitable level of confidence that the data are suitable for their intended use, 
which is for FEP Screening. The status of the direct input evaluated above should be considered 
as qualified for use within this technical product. However, some limitations apply. 
4.2.4.1 Energy Release to Depth of Effect Relationships 
Use of the curve from Dence et al. (1977 Figure 12 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) with a stated range of 
1012 to 1017 joules is corroborated by Hughes (1998, Figure 3 [DIRS 162562]) (C12). However, 
the lower threshold for FEP screening should be based on 1012 joules to ensure that the lower 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-42 April 2004 

range of energy levels documented in corroborating sources cited by Hughes has been 
adequately addressed. 
4.2.4.2 Energy Released by Aircraft Impact 
The energy release for a large jet aircraft given by Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994]) (Q8) has 
been corroborated and shown to be at the upper range of likely releases from aircraft impacts. 
However, it should be noted that the calculated energy release pertains only to kinetic energy, 
and does not consider other factors such as explosion of on-board fuel, detonation of on-board 
ordnance, or other factors. 
4.2.4.3 Energy Released by Targeted Weapons 
Ferguson (2002 [DIRS 160988]) (Q5) states an explosive capability of 2 tons for the GBU-28. 
This value has been corroborated and is believed to be representative of possible energy releases 
from conventional weapons systems. However, the maximum potential release, though 
speculative, should be mentioned to ensure that conservative bounding values have been taken 
into account and used to address the range in uncertainty. 
4.2.4.4 Maximum Depth of Penetration 
Based on these various cross-corroborating and independently corroborating sources, a 
maximum depth of penetration of 30 m into volcanic tuffs should be used. The penetration 
factor of 25 diameters reported by Backman and Goldstein (1978 p. 32 [DIRS 167628]) (Q3); the 
reported value of 67 m from Young (1976, Table II [DIRS 167806]) (Q9); the maximum value 
of 20.7 m from Patterson (1974 [DIRS 167805]); and the value of 2.6 m from Forrestal et al. 
(1981, p. 28 [DIRS 167630]) (Q6) have been cross-corroborated and are judged appropriate for 
use in FEP screening analysis. However, the value of 67 m represents conditions that are 
unlikely to be encountered at Yucca Mountain. Tests on material similar to that at Yucca 
Mountain yielded the value of only 2.6 m. Consequently, a conservative, but reasonable, 
bounding value for the maximum penetration depth at the site would be approximately 30 m, 
based on the cited source information and corroborating information used as indirect input. 
4.2.4.5 Fracturing Effects of Underground Nuclear Explosions 
For detonation less than 100-kiloton, the stated condition is corroborated. Use of the 100-m 
fracturing extent should quote Dence et al. (1977 p. 262 [DIRS 135253]) (Q3) directly to avoid 
uncertainty regarding a bound on the yield of the detonation. 
4.3 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.2.05.00.0A METAMORPHISM 
The conditions being justified are stated in the form of boundary conditions required for the 
onset of regional metamorphism. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-43 April 2004 

The minimum conditions needed for onset of metamorphism are: 
T> 150-200C
P = 0.5-1 kbar
Depth = 4-5 km
The range in geothermal gradients is 10 to 25 and the pressure gradient is 
approximately 0.6 kbar/km 
The following statements are based on information taken from Item Q10, and are shown to be 
conservative bounding conditions by corroboration with Items C17, C18, and C19. 
For the FEPs analysis, all that is needed is to show that existing burial rates and geothermal 
gradients are insufficient to result in significant temperature and pressure increases. Therefore, 
the qualitative criteria for general agreement will be applied. The criteria specifically indicate 
that this standard may be used when corroborating boundary conditions that define the 
conditions necessary for the initiation of a feature, event, or process (e.g., temperature and 
pressure conditions associated with metamorphism). 
4.3.1 Literature Search 
A review of available at-hand geology textbooks was conducted to verify conditions necessary 
for metamorphism to occur. The intent of the search was to verify that the conditions being used 
as direct input could be corroborated with other sources. In reviewing sources to be used for 
evaluating diagenetic effects, a third corroborating source was identified and has been evaluated. 
4.3.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the justification (whether as direct input or indirect input 
and used for corroboration of the direct input), pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in 
Table II-5. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-44 April 2004 

Table II-5. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Metamorphism 
1. 3. 4. 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
Extent and 
Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q10 C17, C18, C19 Ehlers, E.G. and 
Blatt, H. 1982. 
Petrology, Igneous, 
Sedimentary, and 
Metamorphic. 
New York, New York: 
W.H. Freeman and 
This is a standard 
petrology textbook 
and contains 
applicable 
discussions and 
text. 
Not 
Applicable 
Textbook All that is needed 
here is a 
statement of 
temperature and 
pressure ranges 
that represent 
the onset of 
Direct Input - The minimum 
conditions needed for onset of 
metamorphism are: 
T> 150-200C 
P = 0.5-1 kbar 
Depth = 4-5 km 
Company. metamorphism. p. 566 
TIC: 255657. 
[DIRS 167802] 
The range in geothermal gradients 
is 10 to 25C and the pressure 
gradient is approximately 0.6 
kbar/km 
pp. 684-685 and p. 169, Figure 3. 
C17 Not Applicable Hyndman, D.W. 
1972. Petrology of 
Igneous and 
Metamorphic Rocks. 
International Series in 
the Earth and 
Planetary Sciences. 
New York, New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 248141. 
This is a standard 
geology textbook 
and contains 
applicable 
discussions and 
text. 
Not 
Applicable 
Textbook All that is needed 
here is a 
statement of 
temperature and 
pressure ranges 
that represent 
the onset of 
metamorphism. 
Indirect Input  This text provides 
corroborative information for 
metamorphic conditions 
From p, 270  Temperatures of 
about 300 to 400 degrees C to 700 
to 800 degrees C. Geothermal 
gradients average about 15 to 25 
degrees C/km for margins, 
compared to about 10 degrees 
C/km for stable shield area. 
[DIRS 150295] From p. 272, Pressures are 
uncertain but for most areas are 
estimated to range from about 
2,000 or 3,000 bars (or 
atmospheres). The normal load 
pressure at depth, resulting from 
the weight of overlying rocks, is 
about 285 bars/km. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-45 April 2004 

Table II-5. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Metamorphism (Continued) 
1. 3. 4. 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
Extent and 
Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C18 Not Applicable Press, F. and Siever, 
R. 1978. Earth. 2nd 
Edition. Chapters 11 
and 16. San 
Francisco, California: 
W. H. Freeman and 
Company. 
TIC: 255856. 
[DIRS 167965] 
This is a standard 
geology textbook 
and contains 
applicable 
discussions and 
text. 
Not 
Applicable 
Textbook All that is needed 
here is a 
statement of 
temperature and 
pressure ranges 
that represent 
the onset of 
metamorphism. 
Indirect Input  This text provides 
corroborative information for 
metamorphic conditions 
From p. 303, As a sediment is 
buried, it becomes subjected to 
increasingly high temperatures  
on the average of 1C for each 30 
meters (100 feet) of depth  and 
high pressures  on the average 
about 1 atmosphere for each 4.4 
meters. The boundary between 
diagenesis and metamorphism is 
somewhat arbitrary, usually drawn 
at a temperature of about 300 
degrees C. 
C19 Not Applicable Retallack, G. J. 1991. 
"Untangling the 
Effects of Burial 
Alteration and Ancient 
This paper focuses 
on defining and 
describing 
differences and 
Book not 
found in 
SciSearch 
 
This paper was 
extracted from 
a book series. 
Moderate  The 
paper is focused 
on distinguishing 
between burial 
Indirect Input  The paper focuses 
on information for related to 
diagenesis effects. However, it 
also defines the onset of 
Soil Formation." 
Annual Review of 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences. 
effects associated 
with burial 
alteration and soil 
formation. 
alteration affects 
and 
characteristic of 
ancient soils. 
metamorphism. 
p. 200 in excess of 200  C and 
depths greater than 7 km. 
Weatherhill, G. 
Vol. 19, 183-206. 
Palo Alto, California: 
Annual Reviews Inc. 
TIC: 255912. 
[DIRS 167870] 
The paper 
provides a 
survey of 
applicable 
studies by 
others, and a 
lengthy citation 
list is provided. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-46 April 2004 

4.3.3 Discussion 
The direct input for this FEP is taken from Ehlers and Blatt (1982, [DIRS 167802]), (Q10), 
largely because the values they present suggest the least temperature, pressure and depth of 
burial needed for the onset of regional metamorphism (i.e., conservative bounding conditions for 
onset). Using it as the basis of the FEPs screening is, therefore, conservative. It is corroborated 
by two other texts: Hyndman (1972 p. 270 and 272 [DIRS 150295]), (C17) and Press and Siever 
(1978, pp. 303) [DIRS 167965]), (C18), and from a third book source, Retallack (1991, p. 200 
[DIRS 167870]), (C19). 
Table II-6. Comparison of Various Stated Conditions for Metamorphism 
Source 
Temperature 
Gradient Pressure Gradient 
Onset 
Temperature 
Onset 
Pressure Onset Depth 
Ehlers and Blatt, Approximately Approximately 1 150  200 C Pressures Depth within 
1982 
TIC: 255657 
1000 degrees C 
per 100 km or 10 
Mbar per 1500 km 
or equivalent of 0.6 
(p. 566) on the order 
of 0.5-1 kbar 
the crust of 
about 4-5 km 
[DIRS 167802], 
Q10) 
degrees C/km 
(p. 169, Figure 63) 
kbar/km 
(p 169, Figure 6-3) 
(p. 566). (p.566) 
Hyndman,1972 
TIC: 248141 
[DIRS 150295, 
C17] 
About 10 
degrees C/km for 
stable shield 
area, and 
average about 15 
to 25 degrees 
C/km for a 
geosynclinal 
environment 
About 285 bars/km, 
or 0.28 kbar/km 
(p. 272) 
300 to 400 C 
(p. 270) 
About 2,000 
or 3,000 
bars (or 
atm); 
equivalent to 
2 to 3 kbars 
(p. 272) 
Not Given 
(p. 270) 
Press and 
Siever, 1978 
TIC: 255856 
[DIRS 167965], 
C18 
Average of 1 
degree C for 
each 30 meters 
(100 feet) of 
depth or about 
33 degrees/km 
About 1 
atmosphere for 
each 4.4 meters, or 
about 0.3 kbars/km 
(p. 303). 
About 300 C 
(p. 303) 
Not Given Not Given 
(p. 303) 
Retallack (1991), Not Given Not Given In excess of Not given Greater than 7 
C19 200 C km (p. 200) 
TIC: 255912 (p. 200) 
[DIRS 167870] 
Ehlers and Blatt (1982, p. 566 [DIRS 167802]) (Q10) indicate 0.5 to 1 kbar is necessary for the 
onset of metamorphism, which is clearly conservative compared to Hyndman (1972 
p. 272 [DIRS 150295]) (C17), which indicates that 2 to 3 kbars of pressure are required. The 
onset temperature, 150  200 C given by Ehlers and Blatt (1982, p. 566 [DIRS 167802]) (Q10), 
is also clearly conservative and as much as one-half of that cited by the corroborating sources. 
Given the respective pressure gradients, Ehlers and Blatt (1982 p. 566 [DIRS 167802]) (Q10) 
would suggest metamorphic onset at depths as little as 1 to 2 km, but also clearly indicate a 
burial depth of 4 to 5 km is needed. In any case, these conditions are clearly conservative 
compared to the temperature and pressures, and to the depth of 10 km, based on Hyndmans 
information. They are also clearly conservative compared to the 9 km depth based on the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-47 April 2004 

average thermal gradient, and they are conservative with respect to the onset temperatures 
presented by Press and Siever (1978 p. 303 [DIRS 167965]) (C18). They are also more 
restrictive than the conditions indicated by Retallack (1991 p. 200 [DIRS 167870]) (C19) of 
greater than 200C and burial greater than 7 km. 
4.3.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For qualitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. The above literature 
review and corroboration of the direct input provides an acceptable level of confidence that the 
data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP Screening. The status of the direct input 
for metamorphism from Ehlers and Blatt (1982 p. 566 [DIRS 167802]) (Q10) evaluated above 
should be considered as qualified for use within this technical product. Because they represent 
the lowest temperature and pressure required for the onset of metamorphism, no further 
limitation on their use is required. 
4.4 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.2.08.00.0A DIAGENESIS 
Diagenesis is an ongoing process of chemical and physical changes to sediments undergoing 
compaction, cementation, and burial. The conditions being evaluated and the associated direct 
input are as follows: 
The time required for complete diagenesis to occur is less than 10,000 years: This is 
taken from Items Q11 and Q12. 
SiO2 cementation is not dependent of climatic conditions, but cementation does exhibit 
distinctive trends that correspond with the ages of the surficial deposits: This is taken 
from Item Q15. 
Accumulation rates are attributable to several climatic scenarios, but climate change was 
insufficient to significantly decrease the rate of accumulations: This is taken from Item 
Q15. 
CaCO3 may translocate to greater depths given greater precipitation, and cementation is a 
reversible effect: This is taken from Item Q15. 
Compaction does not become an important factor until the onset of deep burial: This is 
taken from Item Q11. 
The net effect of shallow diagenesis is to stabilize the surface environment and decrease 
the net infiltration rate: This is taken from Item Q14. 
Cementation by CaCO3 is not a significant process in rhyolitic tuff due to the lack of 
carbonate source material: This is taken from Items Q11, Q13, and Q15. 
Cements other than carbonate may develop: This is taken from Items Q11, Q13, and 
Q15. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-48 April 2004 

Accumulation rates for Yucca Mountain favor SiO2 over CaCO3, which is accessory 
cement: This is taken from Items Q13 and Q15. 
The data being evaluated include Items Q11 through Q15 in Table II-1. The data is in the form 
of conceptual statements and is generally qualitative in nature. Therefore, the qualitative criteria 
for general agreement will be applied. 
4.4.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed factors that significantly affected 
rates of diagenesis in arid environments and that quantified the effects of diagenesis in the near 
subsurface (less than 1 km). The keyword and subject based searches utilized various AND 
combinations for the keywords diagenesis, silcrete duricrust, duripans, effects, 
factors, and infiltration in various combinations. The SciSearch database (limited to 
publication dates for 1900 to 2004), for the search term diagenesis alone returned 
2,940 returns. Addition of the search term shallow restricted the search to 380 returns, and 
further restriction with effects generated one return; this was found to not be of particular 
interest. Use of the combined terms diagenesis and "effects yielded 423 returns. These 
423 returns were evaluated based on titles and available abstracts, and only two citations 
appeared applicable. Use of the individual search terms silcrete, duricrust, and duripans 
returned 26, 12, and 2 records, respectively. Only one of these citations was judged applicable. 
Using the GeoRef database, the search on diagenesis returned 37,855 records. Restricting 
the search by adding the term effects limited the search to 1900 returns. Further restriction by 
adding the term infiltration yielded only five records. These were reviewed by title and 
abstract, and none were found applicable. Other searches using various search terms such as 
calcrete, arid cementation duirpan and polygenesis yield a few more useable citations. 
Searches on the term silcrete yield 352 returns, and addition of the word effects restricted the 
search and yielded only nine returns. A similar search for duricrust and effects yield 
11 returns. These 11 records were reviewed by title and available abstract, and none were found 
to be applicable. The bibliographies of citations were then reviewed to identify other sources 
that might be of interest. The combined result of the searches and the preliminary review based 
on titles and abstracts is reflected in the lists of citations provided in Table II-7, below. 
Citations that were not selected for evaluation were discarded because they dealt with deep 
diagenetic processes, were focused on description of the characteristics and properties of 
formations not of particular interest to Yucca Mountain (such as marine deposits or large scale 
sedimentary and costal basin), or did not appear to characterize the net change in properties since 
initial disposition or describe factors that affected the rate and extent of the diagenetic process. 
Additionally, most of the papers available focused on the interrelationship between the formation 
properties and the potential impact on petroleum or natural gas exploration or production. 
4.4.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table II-7. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-49 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis 
Item Corroborating 
Item 
Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Q11 Q12, Q15, 
C20, C21, 
C23, C25, 
C28, C29, 
C30, 
C31 
Krystinik, L.F. 1990. 
"Early Diagenesis in 
Continental Eolian 
Deposits." Chapter 8 
of Modern and 
Ancient Eolian 
Deposits: Petroleum 
Exploration and 
Production. 
Fryberger, S.G.; 
Krystinik, L.F.; and 
Schenk, C.J., eds. 
Denver, Colorado: 
Society of Economic 
Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists, Rocky 
Mountain Section. 
TIC: 247781. 
[DIRS 135295] 
This information is 
taken from a 
chapter describing 
early diagenesis in 
continental eolian 
deposits and is 
directly applicable 
to diagenesis in 
arid environments. 
Book not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Special book 
publication 
Moderate  The text 
provides adequate citations 
to support the summary 
discussion of diagenetic 
processes, and provides 
summary tables and figures 
as needed. 
Direct Input The time 
required for complete 
diagenesis to occur is 
less than 10,000 years 
(p. 8-1) that lithification 
in desert environments 
can occur within 5,000 
years, and 
Compaction does not 
become an important 
factor until the onset of 
deep burial: 
(pp. 8-2 and 8-3) that 
after initial settling 
compaction is not a 
significant diagenetic 
process until 
significant burial depth 
is achieved. 
Cementation by 
CaCO3 is not a 
significant process in 
rhyolitic tuff due to the 
lack of carbonate 
source material: 
Cements other than 
carbonate may 
develop 
It also indicates 
(p. 8-4) that iron, 
aluminum, and silica 
may be the primary 
cements, rather than 
carbonate. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-50 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Q12 Q11, C20, 
C25, 
C23, C31 
Lattman, L.H. and 
Simonberg, E.M. 
1971. "Case-
Hardening of 
Carbonate Alluvium 
and Colluvium, Spring 
Mountains, Nevada." 
Journal of 
Sedimentary 
Petrology, 41, (1), 
274-281. [Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: Society of 
Economic 
Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists]. 
TIC: 223189. 
[DIRS 129306] 
This paper 
describes field 
observations on 
carbonate alluvium 
and colluvium near 
Las Vegas, 
Nevada. Because 
of the field study 
location and the 
nature of the 
observations, the 
results are 
applicable, but 
likely overstate the 
case for igneous 
source materials. 
Paper not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  This paper 
addresses field 
observations rather than 
laboratory analysis. Field 
procedures are not 
discussed, and the number 
of supporting citations is 
limited. 
Direct Input  The time 
required for complete 
diagenesis to occur is 
less than 10,000 years 
The paper indicates 
(p. 277) that case 
hardening can occur 
within a few tens of 
years. 
Q13 Q15 Lattman, L.H. 1973. 
"Calcium Carbonate 
Cementation of 
Alluvial Fans in 
Southern Nevada." 
Geological Society of 
America Bulletin, 84, 
(9), 3013-3028. 
Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of 
America. 
TIC: 235904. 
[DIRS 129305] 
This paper 
addresses 
cementation effects 
in alluvium and 
colluvium in 
southeastern 
Nevada. The 
author discusses 
these processes for 
basic and igneous 
material in the 
absence of a 
carbonate source, 
which is a directly 
applicable situation. 
Paper not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Low to Moderate  This 
paper addresses field 
observations rather than 
laboratory analysis. Field 
procedures are not 
discussed, but a 
bibliography of cited 
sources is provided. 
Direct Input  
Cementation by 
CaCO3 is not a 
significant process in 
rhyolitic tuff due to the 
lack of carbonate 
source material (p. 
3015) states that 
calcification is not a 
significant process for 
rhyolitic tuffs unless a 
source for carbonates 
is present. 
Q14 Q15, C20, C27 Reeves, C.C. 1976. 
Caliche: Origin, 
Classification, 
Morphology and 
This book was the 
only text found 
devoted to the 
formation of caliche 
Book not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Book High- This book is a survey 
and comparison of pertinent 
studies on calcrete, silcrete 
and other duripans. 
Direct Input  The net 
effect of shallow 
diagenesis is to 
stabilize the surface 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-51 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Uses. Lubbock, 
Texas: Estacado 
Books. 
TIC: 245928. 
[DIRS 104303] 
and other duripans. environment and 
decrease the net 
infiltration rate s. 
The book states (p. 
110) that the net effect 
is to decrease 
infiltration. 
Q15 Q11, Q14, 
Q13, C22, 
C24, C26, 
C28, C30 
Taylor, E.M. 1986. 
Impact of Time and 
Climate on 
Quaternary Soils in 
the Yucca Mountain 
Area of the Nevada 
Test Site. Master's 
thesis. [Boulder, 
Colorado]: University 
of Colorado. 
TIC: 218287. 
[DIRS 102864] 
This is a Masters 
thesis focusing on 
correlation of soils 
characteristics to 
paleoclimate 
effects. 
Citation not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Thesis  not 
subject to 
peer-review, 
but subject to 
academic 
defense. 
Moderate to High Because 
this is a Masters 
thesis, the degree of 
documentation is high, 
although the quality of the 
data has not been 
evaluated within the thesis 
itself. 
Direct Input  
SiO2 cementation is 
not dependent on 
climatic conditions, but 
cementation does 
exhibit distinctive 
trends that correspond 
with the ages of the 
surficial deposits (p. 
86) 
Accumulation rates 
are attributable to 
several climatic 
scenarios, but climate 
change was 
insufficient to 
significantly decrease 
the rate of 
accumulations: (p. 89) 
CaCO3 may 
translocate to greater 
depths given greater 
precipitation, and 
cementation is a 
reversible effect (p.82) 
Cementation by 
CaCO3 is not a 
significant process in 
rhyolitic tuff due to the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-52 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
lack of carbonate 
source material 
Cements other than 
carbonate may 
develop. 
Accumulation rates for 
Yucca Mountain favor 
SiO2 over Ca CO3, 
which is an accessory 
cement (p. 33) 
The relationships of 
CaCO3 and opaline 
Si02 for Yucca 
Mountain soils to 
climate change are 
provided (Chapter 5). 
Additionally, (Figure 9 
and pp. 31-33) the 
relative importance of 
Si02 over CaCO3, is 
discussed. 
C20 Not Applicable Arakel, A.V. 1996. This paper Paper not Peer-reviewed Low to Moderate  This Indirect Input  This 
"Quaternary Vadose describes the listed in journal, but paper appears to be a paper provides 
Calcretes Revisited." 
AGSO Journal of 
Australian Geology 
and Geophysics, 16, 
formation and 
distribution of 
calcretes in arid 
vadose zone of 
SciSearch with restricted 
focus to 
Australian 
geology. 
survey of other studies 
done in the region and is 
focused on overarching 
trends in the information, 
corroboration for the 
conceptualization of 
initial plugging of 
porosity and 
(3), 223-229. western Australia rather than on detailed permeability (p. 223), 
[Canberra], Australia: and is, therefore, descriptions of factors and and for the rapid 
[Australian potentially effects. maturation of 
Government Public applicable. cemented soil profiles 
Service] TIC: 255481 
[DIRS 167623] 
However, the focus 
is on establishing 
various soil profiles 
within a relatively short 
time (p. 226). 
with respect to 
paleoenvironmental 
reconstruction and 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-53 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
mineral exploration 
activities. 
C21 Not Applicable Baldwin, B. and 
Butler, C. O. 1985. 
"Compaction Curve." 
American Association 
of Petroleum 
Geologists Bulletin, 
69, (4), 622-626. 
Tulsa, Oklahoma: 
American Association 
This paper provides 
compaction curves 
for sandstones and 
shales, and shows 
changes in solidity 
with burial depth. 
161 citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to High  This 
paper presents a brief 
review of earlier papers 
describing compaction 
curves and provide 
adequate citations. The 
paper compares the 
proposed curves to results 
of the other studies and 
Indirect Input  This 
paper reproduces the 
Sclater-Christie 
sandstone curve 
(Figure 3), which 
shows the solidity 
(i.e., the complement 
of porosity) is nearly 
constant above about 
of Petroleum 
Geologists. 
TIC: 255917. 
discusses the implications 
of the results and the 
limitations of other types of 
100 m, and it 
approaches but never 
reaches 100 percents. 
[DIRS 167871] 
curves. 
C22 Not Applicable Chadwick, O.A.; 
Nettleton, W.D.; and 
Staidl, G.J. 1995. 
"Soil Polygenesis as 
a Function of 
This paper 
describes a soil 
profile transect in 
the northern Great 
Basin, and shows 
Seven 
citations on 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal. 
Moderate to High  This 
paper provides an 
extensive set of tables that 
summarize various analysis 
done on soils collected 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides 
corroboration that 
climate change drives 
soil characteristics 
Quaternary Climate 
Change, Northern 
Great Basin, USA." 
Geoderma, 68, ([12]), 
1-26. [New York, 
New York]: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255603. 
the relationship 
between climate 
changes and 
pedogenic 
processes. 
along the transect. related to the 
presence and/or depth 
distribution of opaline 
silica, and calcium 
carbonate. It also 
indicates that desert 
loess accumulation is 
[DIRS 167626] episodic, accumulating 
more rapidly during 
interpluvial periods, 
and the resulting soil 
profiles have greater 
surface area, which 
tends to increase 
water retention and 
mineral weathering 
and decrease the 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-54 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
depth of leaching for a 
given precipitation 
regime. 
C23 Not Applicable Eghbal, M.K. and 
Southard, R.J. 1993. 
"Stratigraphy and 
Genesis of Durorthids 
and Haplargids on 
Dissected Alluvial 
Fans, Western 
Mojave Desert, 
California." 
Geoderma, 59, ([14]), 
151-174. 
Amsterdam, The 
This paper 
addresses 
geomorphology 
and soils in a 
desert environment 
of southwestern 
California that is 
similar in many 
ways to the Yucca 
Mountain Region. 
The paper reports 
results of a trench 
Five 
citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate to High  
Detailed soil profile 
descriptions are provided 
along with a summary of 
laboratory methods used 
for the analyses. The basis 
for conclusions is clearly 
stated 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides a 
corroborative value for 
rate of CaCO3 
accumulation needed 
to form a duripan 
compared to estimated 
accumulation rates 
(pp. 170-171) and 
attributes the excess 
accumulation to 
bioturbation. 
Netherlands: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255601. 
study through an 
alluvial fan 
[DIRS 167624] sequence and 
associated soils 
and draws 
conclusions 
regarding the 
distribution of 
associated 
duripans. 
C24 Not Applicable Eghbal, M.K. and 
Southard, R.J. 1993. 
"Micromorphological 
This paper 
addresses 
geomorphology 
Seven 
citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate to High  
Detailed soil profile 
descriptions are provided 
Indirect Input  One 
conclusion of this 
paper is that 
Evidence of 
Polygenesis of Three 
Aridisols, Western 
Mohave Desert, 
California." Soil 
Science Society of 
America Journal, 57, 
(4), 1041-1050. 
and soils in a 
desert environment 
of southwestern 
California that is 
similar in many 
ways to the Yucca 
Mountain Region. 
The paper 
along with a summary of 
laboratory methods used 
for the analyses. The basis 
for conclusions is clearly 
stated 
development of 
carbonate-free-argillic 
horizons probably 
occurred during pluvial 
periods, whereas 
calcification occurred 
during drier periods, 
and silicification 
Madison, Wisconsin: thoroughly appears to have been 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-55 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Soil Science Society 
of America. 
TIC: 255602. 
[DIRS 167625] 
describes results of 
a trench study 
through an alluvial 
fan sequence and 
associated soils 
and draws 
contemporaneous with 
both clay illuviation 
and calcification and, 
thus, may be related to 
pedochemical 
conditions rather than 
conclusions 
regarding the 
distribution of 
climate. (p. 1049) 
associated 
duripans. 
C25 Not Applicable Humphrey, J.D.; 
Ransom, K.L.; and 
Matthews, R.K. 1986. 
"Early Meteoric 
Diagenetic Control of 
Upper Smackover 
Production, Oaks 
This paper 
discusses the 
effects of early 
meteoric 
diagenesis on a 
grainstone 
formation. The 
20 citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  Results of 
studies and some 
supporting information is 
provided, but analytical 
procedures are not 
provided or discussed. 
Indirect Input  
provides a brief 
discussion (p. 77-78) 
of the rate of meteoric 
diagenesis in 
carbonate systems in 
the vadose zone. 
Field, Louisiana." The 
American Association 
of Petroleum 
Geologists Bulletin, 
70, (1), 70-85. Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: American 
Association of 
Petroleum 
Geologists. 
paper discusses 
rates of early 
meteoric 
diagenesis, and 
indicates that 
intervals that had 
been stabilized 
early were less 
susceptible to 
Shallow vadose 
diagenesis can reach 
completion within 
10,000 years, while it 
may take an order of 
magnitude longer for 
the deep vadose zone. 
TIC: 246098. 
[DIRS 118461] 
solution 
compaction that 
those intervals 
retaining significant 
proportions of 
unstable 
mineralogy. 
C26 Not Applicable Lattman, L. H. 1972. 
"Relation of Caliche 
(Calcrete) Horizons to 
This abstract 
addresses the 
formation of 
Abstract not 
found in 
SciSearch 
This 
information is 
provided only 
Low  Only the abstract is 
presented. Basis for 
conclusion is presumably 
Indirect Input  This 
abstract corroborates 
other better-
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-56 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Alluvial Fan extensive caliche in abstract on field observations, but documented sources 
Processes in layers in respect to form and was no documentation is that link diagenetic 
Southern Nevada." changes in climate presumably provided. processes to climatic 
Abstracts with conditions. not subject to conditions. 
Programs-Geological peer-review 
Society of America, 4, 
(7), 574. [Boulder, 
Colorado]: Geological 
Society of America. 
TIC: 255828. 
[DIRS 167813] 
C27 Not Applicable Lattman, L. H. 1983. 
"Effect of Caliche on 
Desert Processes." 
Chapter 4 Origin and 
Evolution of Deserts. 
Wells, S. G.; 
Haragan, D. R. (eds.). 
1st Edition. 101-109. 
Albuquerque, New 
Mexico: University of 
New Mexico Press. 
This book 
addresses desert 
process, and the 
author of Chapter 4 
specifically 
addresses caliche 
formation in desert 
environments. 
Book not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Book 
published by 
the Committee 
on Desert and 
Arid Research 
of the 
Southwestern 
and Rocky 
Mountain 
Division of the 
American 
Low to Moderate  This 
chapter summarizes results 
of studies and a 
bibliography of cited 
sources is included. 
However, no analytical 
information is provided. 
Indirect Input  This 
text corroborates 
statements by others 
that the rate of caliche 
formation depends on 
climate, parent 
material, supply of 
calcium carbonate and 
topography. It also 
corroborates 
statements that 
TIC: 255700. Associate for formation of caliche 
[DIRS 167815] the 
Advancement 
inhibits infiltration and 
tends to stabilize the 
of Science. surface (p. 107-108). 
C28 Not Applicable Machette, M. N. 
1982. "Morphology, 
Age, and Rate of 
Accumulation of 
This abstract 
addresses the 
accumulation rate 
of CaCO3 at various 
Abstract not 
found in 
SciSearch 
This 
information is 
provided only 
in abstract 
Low  Only the abstract is 
presented. Basis for 
conclusion is presumably 
on field observations and 
Indirect Input  This 
abstract corroborates 
accumulation rates 
cited in better-
Pedogneic CaCO3 in 
Some Calcareous 
Soils and Pedogenic 
Calcrete of 
Southwestern United 
locations in Utah 
and New Mexico. 
form and was 
presumably 
not subject to 
peer-review 
laboratory analysis of soil 
samples, but no 
documentation is provided. 
documented journal 
papers. 
States." GSA 
Abstracts with 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-57 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Programs, 14, (4), . 
Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of 
America pp 182-183. 
TIC: 209942. 
[DIRS 167814] 
C29 Not Applicable Palmer, S.N. and 
Barton, M.E. 1987. 
"Porosity Reduction, 
Microfabric and 
Resultant Lithification 
This paper 
addresses the 
extent of diagenetic 
change in Jurassic 
to Recent matrix-
Paper not 
found in 
SciSearch 
This was 
extracted from 
a Special 
Publication 
Moderate to High  The 
characteristics of the 
studied materials are well 
documented. The methods 
used are mentioned, but 
Indirect Input  The 
results of this paper 
are used to 
corroborate the 
minimal effects of 
in UK Uncemented 
Sands." Geological 
Society Special 
Publication, 36, 2940. 
Oxford, United 
Kingdom: Blackwell 
Scientific 
free, uncemented 
sands in the UK 
that are thought to 
have experienced 
only a relatively 
small depth (<1km) 
of burial. However, 
not further discussed. compaction at shallow 
burial depths (pp. 32 
and 39). 
Publications. materials are either 
TIC: 246095. 
[DIRS 118483] 
beach material or 
from stable, shelf 
areas and are 
shallow water 
deposits. 
C30 Not Applicable Salem, A.M.K.; This paper is Two Peer-reviewed Moderate to High  The Indirect Input  The 
Abdel-Wahab, A.; and focused on citations in journal paper is focused on paper provides 
McBride, E.F. 1998. description of SciSearch description of the geologic examples of the 
"Diagenesis of sandstones materials. Procedures are occurrence of 
Shallowly Buried deposited on the briefly described, and ferricrete and silcretes 
Cratonic Sandstones, Arabian shield in analysis results are that represent incipient 
Southwest Sinai, 
Egypt." Sedimentary 
Geology, 119, ([3-4]), 
fluvial and shallow-
marine 
environments. 
provided. silcrete cement rather 
than normal burial 
quartz cement, and 
311-335. [New York, However, the burial reduction in porosity 
New York]: Elsevier. depth is suspected by compaction was 
TIC: 255708. to be no more than about 19 percent 
1.5 to 2.5 km, so 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-58 April 2004 

Table II-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
[DIRS 167869] represent shallow 
burial effects. 
(pp. 319-331). 
C31 Not Applicable Yaalon, D.H. 1967. 
"Factors Affecting the 
Lithification of 
Eolianite and 
Interpretation of Its 
Environmental 
Significance in the 
Coastal Plain of 
Israel." Journal of 
Sedimentary 
Petrology, 37, (4), 
1189-1199. Tulsa, 
This paper 
addresses the early 
diagenesis of 
eolian deposits in a 
coastal plain setting 
in southern Israel 
Citation not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  Sampling and 
analytical procedures are 
discussed and results are 
provided. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides 
corroboration for the 
rate of lithification 
(p. 1189) and indicates 
the percent of CaCO3 
needed to initiate 
lithification in coastal 
sands (p. 1194). 
Oklahoma: Society of 
Economic 
Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists. 
TIC: 255600. 
[DIRS 167622] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-59 April 2004 

4.4.3 Discussion 
Corroboration of direct input is discussed under four general topics: the time required for 
diagenesis, the relationships between diagenesis and climate, the role of compaction, and the role 
of cementation. 
4.4.3.1 Time Required for Diagenesis 
The conditions being justified and the associated direct input is as follows: 
The time required for complete diagenesis to occur is less than 10,000 years. 
This is taken from Items Q11 and Q12. Corroboration is given in Items C20, C23, C25, C28, 
and C31. 
Direct inputs related to the time required for complete diagenesis come from Krystink (1990 p. 
8-1 [DIRS 135295]) (Q11) and from Lattman and Simonberg (1971, p. 277 [DIRS 129306]) 
(Q12), Krystinik states that cementing minerals can precipitate in quantities sufficient to lithify 
sand to friable sandstone in less than 5,000 years. Lattman and Simonberg cite several examples 
of roadcuts and gully banks that are case-hardened in the timeframe of a few tens of years. 
Corroborating sources include Arakel (1996 p. 226 [DIRS 167623]) (C20), which indicates that 
rapid maturation of cemented soils profiles can occur within a relatively short time  within the 
context of the paper, a relatively short time is inferred to be within the time scale of 
10,000 years, though a quantitative statement is not made. Humphreys et al. (1986 pp. 76-78 
[DIRS [118461]) (C25) provides citations for carbonate systems that indicate that diagenesis in 
shallow vadose zones subject to meteoric processes may reach completion within a few thousand 
years, but deeper vadose zone diagenesis may be much more prolonged. Machette (1982 
[DIRS 167814]) (C28) and the paper by Eghbal and Southard (1993 p. 170-171 [DIRS 167624]) 
(C23) provide CaCO3 accumulation rates that range from 0.03 g/cm2 to as great as 0.26 g/cm2 per 
1000 years. Yaalon (1967 p.1189 [DIRS 167662]) (C31) indicates that as little as 8 percent 
CaCO3 is sufficient to initiate lithification. If one assumes a soil density of 1.9 gm/cm3, then 
only 0.15 gm of CaCO3 is needed to initiate lithification. Depending on the accumulation rate, 
this could occur on the timescale of less than 1,000 years (assuming an accumulation rate of 
0.26 g/cm2 per 1,000 years) to on the order of 5,000 years (assuming an accumulation rate of 
0.03 gm/cm2). Thus, the direct inputs are corroborated by other sources. 
Diagenetic Effect Relationship to Climate 
The conditions being evaluated and the associated direct input are as follows: 
SiO2 cementation is not dependent on climatic conditions, but cementation does exhibit 
distinctive trends that correspond with the ages of the surficial deposits. This is taken 
from Item Q15. This is corroborated in Items C22, C24 and C26. 
Accumulation rates are attributable to several climatic scenarios, but climate change was 
insufficient to significantly decrease the rate of accumulations. This is taken from Item 
Q15. This is corroborated in Items C23 and C28. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-60 April 2004 

CaCO3 may translocate to greater depths given greater precipitation, and cementation is a 
reversible effect. This is taken from Item Q15 and corroborated by Items C22 and C26. 
Because the time frame of interest is 10,000 years, the potential for effects of climate change on 
shallow diagenesis must be considered. As direct input, Taylor (1986 Chapter 5 [DIRS 102864]) 
(Q15) indicates silts that formed in alluvium and eolian fines of Holocene to early Pliestocene or 
late Pliocene age near Yucca Mountain are characterized by distinctive trends in the 
accumulation of secondary clay, CaCO3, and opaline SiO2 that correspond with the ages of the 
surficial deposits. However, there is no macro- or micromorphological evidence that suggests 
that silica cementation occurred under climatic conditions cooler and wetter than those of present 
climate. In contrast, Taylor also states that accumulation rates of these materials during the 
Holocene can be attributed to several possible climatic scenarios associated with the 
Holocene-Pliestocene climate change, but suggest that precipitation has not been a limiting 
factor, and that climatic change was not sufficient to significantly decrease rate of accumulation. 
Taylor also suggests that the climatic change was the result of decreases in temperature rather 
than precipitation. Modeling results discussed by Taylor suggest that increased precipitation in 
the future may translocate CaCO3 accumulations to greater depths, where precipitation is greater. 
Taylor also suggests that the cementation process, particularly for CaCO3, is reversible, and that 
the material can be redissolved and moved deeper into the soil profile. 
The dependence of the accumulation depth of CaCO3, and the dependence of other diagenetic 
effects related to chemical changes is corroborated by several sources. Eghbal and Southard 
(1993 p. 1049 [DIRS 167625]) (C24) suggest that, in the Mojave Desert, development of 
carbonate-free argilllic horizons probably occurred during pluvial periods, whereas calcification 
occurred during drier periods. Silicification appears to have been contemporaneous with both 
clay illuviation and calcification and, thus, may be related to pedochemical conditions rather than 
to climate. This corroborates the results by Taylor (1986 [102864]) discussed above, and for a 
similar arid setting. Eghbal and Southard further unequivically state that soils in arid regions are 
often polygenetically related to climatic variations. This trend for calcification is also 
corroborated in the abstract by Lattman (1972 [DIRS 167813]) (C26) in the statement that It is 
suggested that extensive calcrete layers in southern Nevada formed during and immediately 
following the onset of pluvial periods which were times of fan aggradation. They were generally 
destroyed during the interpluvial, which were times of fan stability or degradation. This 
statement also tends to suggest that calcification effects may be reversible, whereas silicification 
may be on-going regardless of the climate state. Further corroboration is gained from Chadwick 
et al. (1995 [DIRS 167626]) (C22), which documents changes in soil profiles along a transect 
that reflect cooler and wetter conditions due to elevation changes. However, these serve as a 
surrogate for change in climate conditions. In particular, they observed that climatic extremes 
drive pedogenic processes that leave polygenetic imprints on soils of Pliestocene age. In 
particular, soils that are now dominated by opaline silica, carbonate, and smectite, contain 
evidence of earlier, more acidic, chemical environments conducive to dissolution of primary 
carbonate and formation of kaolinite. During interglacial times (i.e., drier and warmer), 
Chadwick et al. attribute the changes to more eolian activity and less effective moisture 
combining to decrease the depth of leaching, increase base cations, and modify the soil chemical 
environment in relict paleosols. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-61 April 2004 

This trend toward increased calcification during pluvial times is corroborated in the 
accumulation rates noted in the abstract by Machette (1982 [DIRS 167814]) (C28), who 
indicates that soils <25,000 years old have accumulation rates 2-3 times higher that older soils. 
This observation is attributed to less effective precipitation and vegetation cover in Holocene 
time, which is due in large part to a drier climate state. The increased accumulation rates of 
CaCO3, are also noted by Eghbal and Southard (1993 p.170-171 [DIRS 167624]) (C23). 
Reversibility of cements is cross-corroborated to Krystinik (1990 p. 8-4 [DIRS 135295]) (Q11), 
who clearly indicates that cementations processes are reversible. Indirect inputs also corroborate 
this aspect of cementation. Chadwick et al. (1995 [DIRS 167626]) (C22) note that climatic 
drying at the end of the Pliestocene decreased leaching depth by about 150 cm, and corroborates 
the changes modeled by Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864]). This trend for calcification during 
pluvial periods and decalcification during interpluvial periods is also corroborated in the abstract 
by Lattman (1972 [DIRS 167813]) (C26) mentioned above, and points to the reversibility of the 
calcification process at any given location. 
Compaction during Shallow Diagenesis 
The conditions being justified and the associated direct input are as follows: 
Compaction does not become an important factor until the onset of deep burial: 
This is taken from Item Q11. It is corroborated by Items C21, C29, and C30. 
The two primary mechanisms for early and shallow diagenetic changes are related to 
compactions and cementation. Krystinik (1990 p. 8-3 and 8-4 [DIRS 135295]) (Q11) indicates 
that early diagenesis begins at or near the depositional interface and entails weathering, 
compaction, cementation and numerous allied physical, chemical and biochemical processes, at 
temperature below 50 degrees C. As direct input, Krystinik notes that wind-laid sand can be 
deposited with up to 25-40 percent porosity and that early compaction reduces porosity to 
20-30 percent, depending upon sorting. Krystinik further states that Beyond increasing 
capillarity, compaction does not generally become an important factor in diagenesis until the 
onset of grain deformation and pressure solution during deeper burial diagenesis. By 
minimizing compaction, then, the primary means of diagenesis becomes cementation processes. 
By way of corroborating the role of compaction in early diagenesis, Palmer and Barton (1987 
pp. 32 and 39 [DIRS 118483]) (C29) compare similar, uncemented sands of increasing ages and 
burial depth with porosities. In the first 169 meters of burial, the porosity of the sand decreases 
from 47.2 to 35.6 percent, but from 169 m to 780 meters, the compaction only decreased the 
porosity an additional 2 percent, for a total decrease of 13.6 percent. This corroborates 
Krystinik's assertion of an initial reduction of no more than few percent, followed by minimal 
effects. The lack of compaction during initial burial is also corroborated by the Sclater-Christie 
compaction curve given in Baldwin and Butler (1985 Figure 3 DIRS [167871]) (C21). The 
curve shows that change in porosity during the first 300 m of burial is insignificant, but becomes 
increasingly more important at greater depths, with changes of up to 50 percent porosity relative 
to the initial porosities occurring at depths approaching 10 km. However, Baldwin and Butler 
also caution that sandstones show considerable scatter in solidity-depth values and indicate that 
ranges in values of 25 percent are common. As a case-in-point, the work by Salem et al. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-62 April 2004 

(1998 DIRS 167869]) (C30) on cratonic sandstones indicates that sandstones undergoing burial 
between 1.5 and 2.5 km exhibited only a 19 percent total porosity loss due to compaction. The 
results of this work match well with the compaction curves of Baldwin and Butler for a 1 to 2 km 
burial depth, and further corroborates Krystiniks assertion that compaction plays only a minor 
role during the early stages of shallow burial and diagenesis. 
Cementation during Shallow Diagenesis 
The conditions being justified, and the associated direct input, are as follows: 
The net effect of shallow diagenesis is to stabilize the surface environment and decrease 
the net infiltration rate: This is taken from Item Q14 and is corroborated in Items C20 
and C27. 
Cementation by CaCO3 is not a significant process in rhyolitic tuff due to the lack of 
carbonate source material: This is taken and cross-corroborated with Items Q11, Q13, 
and Q15. 
Cements other than carbonate may develop: This is taken from and cross-corroborated 
with Items Q11, Q13, Q15, and corroborated by Item C30. 
Accumulation rates for Yucca Mountain favor SiO2 over CaCO3, which is an accessory 
cement: This is taken and cross-corroborated with Items Q11, Q13, and Q15. 
With regard to the role of cementation in diagenesis and its effects, Reeves (1976 [DIRS 104303] 
Q14) indicates that the net effects of shallow diagenesis and associated cementation is to 
decrease the net vertical infiltration rate and sites multiple studies to support that assertion. This 
net reduction in infiltration is corroborated by Lattman (1983, p. 107-108 [DIRS 167815]) (C27) 
who states, The formation of caliche inhibits infiltration into a topographic surface. The degree 
of this inhibition is a function of density and induration of the caliche. Petrocalcic horizons, 
laminar layers, and case-hardened layers cause the greatest inhibition. It is also corroborated by 
Arakel (1996, p. 223 [DIRS 167623]) (C20) who refers to progressive plugging of initial 
porosity/permeability zones. It should be pointed out that while this holds true for the 
carbonates, Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864]) (Q15) indicates that in the YMP soils studied, in the 
absence of effective precipitation or drainage to remove newly dissolved silica, it is precipitated 
elsewhere within the calcrete horizon, or CaCO3 preferentially precipitates after opaline silica 
bonds adjacent soil grains. Taylor notes that this process may occur without necessarily 
plugging intervening pores spaces. 
Taylor (1986, Figure 9 [DIRS 102864]) (Q15) indicates that the accumulation rate of CaCO3, 
while occurring, is significantly less that that for SiO2. This is reflected in statements indicating 
that carbonate is primarily derived from airborne dust and the opaline SiO2 from in-place 
weathering of the parent material and that the cementation by opaline SiO2 is common in the 
study area and that opaline SiO2 accumulation in the soils is favored over that of CaCO3. Taylor 
also indicates SiO2 cementation is common in the study area, with CaCO3 as an accessory 
cement. The direct input from Taylor indicating the predominance of SiO2 over carbonate in the 
soil cements is cross-corroborated with direct input by Lattman (1973, p. 3015 [DIRS 129305]) 
(Q13). In studies near Las Vegas, Lattman observed that calcium carbonate cementation is not 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-63 April 2004 

necessarily a significant cementation process in rhyolitic tuffs due to the lack of carbonate source 
materials. The above statements by Lattman and Taylors observations of the predominance of 
SiO2 cements mentioned above, also cross-corroborates with statements from Krystinik (1990, 
p. 8-4 [DIRS 135295]) (Q11) that cements other than carbonate may develop, particularly iron, 
silica, and aluminum. Yaalon (1967, [DIRS 167622]) (C31) corroborates this by indicating that 
one of the controlling factors in diagenesis of Eolian sands is the original content of CaCO3. As 
a corroborative example from indirect input, the presence of cements other than carbonate in arid 
environments is proposed by Salem et al (1998, pp. 319-331 [DIRS 167869]) (C30). In that 
particular study, the predominant cements stemming from the generally arid environment were 
iron and silica. 
4.4.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For qualitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. The above literature 
review and corroboration of the direct input provides an acceptable level of confidence that the 
data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP Screening. The status of the direct 
inputs for diagenesis evaluated above should be considered as qualified for use within this 
technical product. No limitations on use of the qualified data are needed. 
4.5 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION OF DIRECT INPUT FOR FEP 1.5.01.01.0A 
METEORITE IMPACT 
The analysis for meteorite impact probability and consequence requires the use of direct input, 
cited from Technical journals and other non-YMP originated sources, to represent the full range 
of the possible types and size of meteorites potentially striking the repository within a 
10,000-year time frame, and the resulting exhumation and fracturing depths and characteristics. 
This section provides a justification for use of the meteor-related direct input based on its 
adequacy and appropriateness for its intended use for FEPS Screening. 
The general type of information and specific topics being addressed follows: 
Meteoroid flux entering Earths Atmosphere 
Flux data for a range of meteor masses: Taken from Item Q16 
Compositions and Material Properties of Meteoroids 
Flux data, by meteor type and related densities: Taken from Item Q17 
Values for percent of meteor that are of iron composition: Taken from Item Q23 
Crater Diameter Distributions and Rates 
Crater rate distribution based on observed earth cratering: Taken from Item Q19 
and Q20 
Cratering rate data for the Canadian shield and application to a hypothetical 
Canadian repository: Taken from Item Q24 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-64 April 2004 

Crater Dimensions as a Function of Meteor Type 
Results of a model (by others) linking a variety of effects to initial meteor 
radius, including resulting crate diameters and related consequences: 
Taken from Item Q22 
Depth and Extent of Crater Features 
Diameters associated with onset of complex cratering: Taken from Items Q19, 
Q20, and Q24 
Crater diameter to depth of effect relationships: Taken from Items Q18, Q21, and 
Q24 
The data being evaluated include Items Q16 through Q24 in Table II-1. The evaluation criteria 
for quantitative data are applied. Corroboration will be considered acceptable, if singular 
values (e.g., mean velocity or percent by composition) are shown to be within two standard 
deviations of the mean value, with the mean and deviations developed by equal weighting of 
reported mean values from each source. In the case of probability distributions or equations 
based on probability distributions (e.g., mass flux or cratering rates), corroboration will be 
considered acceptable if the resulting probability distributions fall within 2 orders of magnitude 
for any given point in the distribution (e.g., for the probability of crater diameter of a given size). 
4.5.1 Literature Search 
A focused literature search was performed to identify past analyses of meteorite impact 
probabilities for underground facilities (particularly repositories); for current information and 
studies related to meteorite impact probabilities; for current information and direct input on 
meteor characteristics; and for information related to crater features and dimensions. The 
literature search was focused on recent papers and updates, and on information directly relevant 
and applicable to the analysis. The results of the literature search, using Internet based search 
engines and the GeoRef database, and after screening based on titles and abstracts, are given 
below in Table II-8. 
4.5.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input as data or as indirect 
input for corroboration), these factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table II-8. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-65 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q16 C32, C33, C35, 
C36, C37, C40, 
C42, C44 
Ceplecha, Z. 1992. 
"Influx of 
Interplanetary Bodies 
onto Earth." 
Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 263, 
361-366. New York, 
New York: Springer-
Verlag. 
TIC: 246784. 
[DIRS 135242]. 
This paper represents a 
compilation of results of 
studies by others 
addressing mass flux over 
a wide range of masses. 
The paper provides 
cumulative mass by 
number of events for 
meteoroids coming to the 
earths atmosphere. Also 
provides a means to 
relate mass to impact 
velocity at the surface if 
needed. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. 
However, 
subsequent 
related papers 
cite author. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
49 citations. 
This paper taken 
from a 
respected, peer-
reviewed journal 
(Astronomy and 
Astrophysics). 
Moderate - Citation to the 
original sources are 
provided. Quality of 
derivation of conclusions 
regarding consequences 
is moderate but adequate 
for intended purpose of 
the paper, and supporting 
equations are provided. 
Does not rely solely on 
single method to 
determine flux, such as 
kinetic energy 
observations, and thus 
can be corroborated using 
multiple flux 
measurements methods. 
Direct input  
Flux data for a range of 
meteor masses: Indirect 
Input  Provides 
corroborative-use only 
information for crater 
radius comparison. 
Q17 For percent by 
Type: 
Q17 (from an 
independent 
data set), C40, 
C43 
For densities: 
Q17 (from an 
independent 
data set), C32, 
C35, C36, C37. 
C39, C40, C45 
Ceplecha, Z. 1994. 
"Impacts of 
Meteoroids Larger 
than 1m into the 
Earth's Atmosphere." 
Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 286, 
(3), 967-970. New 
York, New York: 
Springer-Verlag. 
TIC: 246761. 
[DIRS 135243], Q17 
The paper focuses on 
determining differences in 
meteor compositions 
based on differences in 
atmospheric penetration 
based on photographed 
meteors and fireballs. 
This information is then 
categorized by type and 
bulk densities, and types 
are assigned a 
percentage basis. Paper 
is of interest primarily 
because it provides a 
distribution of meteors by 
type for meteoroids with 
diameters on the order of 
<1 to 10 m, which is within 
the range of interest for 
possible repository 
damage. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 17 
citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a 
respected, peer-
reviewed journal 
(Astronomy and 
Astrophysics). 
Moderate  The absence 
of the presentation of the 
original information and 
the process used to 
normalize for 
classification is lacking. 
Discussion of methods 
used to obtain the initial 
information is not 
provided. However, 
paper represents one of 
the few attempts to 
categorize small 
meteoroids by type. 
Direct input  
Flux data, by meteor type 
and related densities: 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-66 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q18 Q21, Q24 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, 
R.A.F.; and 
Robertson, P.B. 
1977. "Terrestrial 
Impact Structures: 
Principal 
Characteristics and 
Energy 
Considerations." 
Impact and Explosion 
Cratering, Planetary 
and Terrestrial 
Implications, 
Proceedings of the 
Symposium on 
Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, 
Arizona, September 
13-17, 1976. Roddy, 
D.J.; Pepin, R.O.; 
and Merrill, R.B., eds. 
Pages 247-275. New 
York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. 
TIC: 247237. 
[DIRS 135253]. 
This is a seminal work in 
the area of impact 
cratering and provides a 
listing and discussion of 
development of observed 
crater characteristics. 
Paper relates energy 
release and dissipation in 
the subsurface, which is a 
principal property of 
interest. 
The effects 
addressed in this 
paper have been 
used in other 
repository design 
considerations, 
and the energy 
release 
equations are 
often cited in 
other works in 
the subject area. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
17 citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited 
compendium of 
related work. 
The effects 
addressed in this 
paper have been 
used in other 
repository design 
considerations 
and the cratering 
rate is generally 
accepted due to 
its basis on 
observed 
features. 
Moderate  The paper 
provides a summary of 
characteristics of craters 
and respective 
dimensions and compares 
cratering effects to those 
of nuclear testing. No 
information on procedures 
or quality control is 
provided. 
Direct input  Crater 
diameter to depth of effect 
relationships 
Indirect Input  
Provides corroborative-
use only information for 
crater radius related to 
iron meteors. 
Q19 Q20, Q24, 
C32, C35, C4, 
C42 
Grieve, R.F. 1987. 
"Terrestrial Impact 
Structures." Annual 
Review of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences, 
15, 245-269. Palo 
Alto, California: 
Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246788. 
[DIRS 135254]. Q19 
This is a seminal work in 
the area of impact 
cratering and lists 
observed craters, crater 
characteristics, and 
cratering rates. The 
paper provides 
relationships of crater 
diameter to crater depth 
and provides a cratering 
rate estimate for large-
diameter craters that are 
generally used in hazard 
estimates. 
The effects 
addressed in this 
paper have been 
used in other 
repository design 
considerations 
and are heavily 
cited in other 
works in the 
subject area. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
23 citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a 
peer-reviewed 
journal. The 
effects 
addressed in this 
paper have been 
used in other 
repository design 
considerations. 
Moderate - The 
documentation is 
somewhat limited, but is 
generally accepted as 
reliable and has been 
updated on a periodic 
basis. No information on 
procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
Direct Input  
Crater rate distribution 
based on observed earth 
cratering 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-67 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q20 Q19, Q24, , 
C32, C35, 
C40, C42 
Grieve, R.; Rupert, 
J.; and Therriault, A. 
1995. "The Record of 
Terrestrial Impact 
Cratering." GSA 
Today, 5, (10), 194196. 
Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. 
TIC: 246688. 
[DIRS 135260] 
This is an update to the 
1987 paper by the primary 
author. It provides 
updated cratering 
information, refines the 
constants, and addresses 
the limits for simple and 
complex cratering 
The effects 
addressed in this 
paper have been 
used in other 
repository design 
considerations 
and are heavily 
cited in other 
works in the 
subject area. 
Update to 
previous paper. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
seven citations 
This paper was 
taken from a 
technical journal. 
Acknowledgment 
s are given to 
peer-reviewers 
on an earlier 
version of the 
document. 
Moderate to High- This 
paper provides a listing of 
observed cratering impact 
structures and their 
diameters and ages, 
allowing independent 
confirmation of the 
developed distribution. A 
thorough reference list is 
also provided. 
Direct Input  
Diameters associated with 
onset of complex cratering 
(4 km) (p. 194) 
Crater rate distribution 
based on observed earth 
cratering 
Q21 Q18, Q24 Grieve, R.A.F. 1998. 
"Extraterrestrial 
Impacts on Earth: 
The Evidence and 
the Consequences." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchinson, R.; 
McCall, G.J.H.; and 
Rothery, D.A., eds. 
Geological Society 
Special Publication 
No. 140. Pages 105131. 
London, 
England: Geological 
Society. 
TIC: 254143. 
[DIRS 163385] 
This is an update and 
summary of previous 
papers and summarizes 
the results of studies to 
date, and provides a 
distinction of the cratering 
effect data based on 
craters in sedimentary and 
crystalline materials. 
This paper is 
focused on 
updating the 
state of 
knowledge 
regarding the 
number of 
craters, cratering 
mechanics, 
shock 
metamorphism, 
and effect of 
impacts on 
biological 
evolution. 
This paper was 
taken from a 
compendium 
addressing flux 
with time and 
impact effects. 
Moderate  This paper is 
focused on updating the 
state of knowledge and 
summarizing the 
corresponding findings, 
rather than reporting new 
results of research. An 
extensive reference list is 
provided. 
Direct Input  
Crater diameter to depth 
of effect relationships: 
Q22 Q16, Q18, 
Q23, (these Q 
items are not 
cross-
corroborative 
back to Q22), 
C32, C36, 
Hills, J.G. and Goda, 
P.M. 1993. 
"Fragmentation of 
Small Asteroids in 
the Atmosphere." 
The Astronomical 
Journal, 105, (3), 
Paper focuses on 
evaluating effects of small 
asteroids impacting the 
Earth. Paper deals with a 
multitude of related 
consequences and serves 
to relate initial meteor 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 81 
citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a 
peer-reviewed 
journal. 
Moderate to High - Los 
Alamos National 
Laboratory prepared the 
work, and the 
development of the 
models is well 
documented and 
Direct Input  
Crater Dimensions as a 
Function of Meteor Type 
Figures 16 and 17 provide 
key meteor radius to 
crater diameter 
relationship information. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-68 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C37, C40 1114-1144. 
Woodbury, New 
York: American 
Institute of Physics. 
TIC: 246798. 
[DIRS 135281]. 
diameters to crater 
diameters over the range 
of crater diameters of 
interest. The paper 
considers several 
interrelated physical 
phenomena to derive 
resulting crater diameters. 
supporting equations are 
provided. No information 
is provided on quality 
control or development 
procedures. Results are 
presented for a variety of 
meteor types and for a 
wide range of velocities, 
which allows the paper to 
be corroborated from 
other multiple sources. 
Q23 Q23 
(independent 
data set) C34, 
C37, C39, C43 
Shoemaker, E.M. 
1983. "Asteroid and 
Comet Bombardment 
of the Earth." Annual 
Review of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences, 
11, 461-494. Palo 
Alto, California: 
Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246922. 
[DIRS 135308]. 
This paper focuses on the 
roles of asteroids and 
comet nuclei on the rate of 
crater formation. Includes 
a review of astronomic 
and geologic information 
and provides citations to 
support the summaries. 
This paper is applicable 
with regard to flux, 
composition, meteor size 
to-crater-diameter 
relationships, and 
cratering rate. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 94 
citations-
This paper was 
taken from a 
peer-reviewed 
journal. 
Moderate  Sources are 
fully documented. 
Assumptions and bases 
for conclusions are clearly 
outlined. No information 
is provided on procedures 
used or quality control. 
Direct Input  
Values for percent of 
meteor that are of iron 
composition: 
Indirect Input Provides 
corroborative only 
information for crater 
radius. 
Q24 Q18, Q19, 
Q20, Q21, , 
C32, C35, 
C40, C42 
Wuschke, D.M.; 
Whitaker, H.H.; 
Goodwin, B.W.; and 
Rasmussen, L.R. 
1995. Assessment of 
the Long-Term Risk 
of a Meteorite Impact 
on Hypothetical 
Canadian Nuclear 
Fuel Waste Disposal 
Vault Deep in 
Plutonic Rock. 
AECL-11014. 
Pinawa, Manitoba, 
Canada: Atomic 
Energy of Canada 
Limited, Whiteshell 
This paper is directly 
applicable as it presents a 
well-documented 
evaluation equivalent to 
the evaluation needed for 
YMP. The paper provides 
a detailed analysis of the 
hazard and risk 
associated with meteorite 
impact above an 
underground repository. 
Assumptions, spatial 
relationships, 
mathematical 
formulations, and 
uncertainty analysis are 
all documented within the 
Paper was 
prepared by 
AECL Research 
to evaluate risk 
from meteorite 
impact on a 
hypothetical 
underground 
repository. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
no citations. 
The paper 
reports results of 
a specific 
technical 
analysis. No 
information on 
prior peer review 
is available. 
High Citations are 
provided for all sources 
and uncertainty analyses 
are provided. Cites non-
peer reviewed work. 
Direct Input  
Cratering rate data for the 
Canadian shield and 
application to a 
hypothetical Canadian 
repository. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-69 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Laboratories. 
TIC: 221413. 
[DIRS 129326]. 
report. 
C32 Bailey, M.E. and 
Emel'Yanenko, V.V. 
1998. "Cometary 
Capture and the 
Nature of the 
Impactors." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchison, R.; 
McCall, G.J.H.; and 
Technically Adequate  
Paper is focused on 
addressing uncertainty in 
the number of particular 
type comets present and 
uses existing equations 
and information from 
others to develop the 
argument with regard to 
cratering rates. 
Paper provides 
information on 
diameter 
distributions, 
associated 
cratering rates, 
and provides 
input on 
assumed density 
of asteriods and 
comets. 
No prior use for 
repository design 
considerations. 
Science Citation 
index indicates 1 
citation. 
Taken from edited and 
refereed compendium 
from Geologic Society of 
London (31 referees, 
including two who are 
routinely cited in work of 
this nature). 
Low to Moderate  None 
beyond that provided in 
paper. 
Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Geological Society 
Special Publication 
No. 140. Pages 1117. 
Bath, England: 
Geological Society of 
London. [DIRS 
162564] TIC: 
254143. 
Low to Moderate. 
Provide an 
independent 
means to 
establish meteor 
diameter 
distribution and 
cratering rate. 
Provides 
densities. Used 
primarily as 
source of 
corroborative-
use-only 
information for 
cratering rates. 
C33 Not Applicable Bland, P.A.; Conway, 
A.; Smith, T.B.; 
Berry, F.J.; Swabey, 
S.E.J.; and Pillinger, 
C.T. 1998. 
"Calculating Flux 
from Meteorite Decay 
Rates: A Discussion 
of Problems 
Encountered in 
Deciphering a 
This paper is focused on 
identifying problems and 
methodologies for pairing 
of meteorite fragments. It 
addresses limitations with 
application of meteorite 
information to flux and 
composition 
determinations. 
No prior use for 
repository design 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
one citation. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
the London 
Geologic Society 
(31 referees, 
including two 
who are routinely 
cited in work of 
Moderate  The paper 
cites heavily to other 
related studies and fully 
documents associated 
problems, uncertainties, 
and limitations of its 
applications. Cites and 
summarizes previous 
work of others and thus 
provides an independent 
source of information 
Indirect Input  Provides 
summary of multiple 
related flux studies and 
provides corroborative-
use only information for 
flux evaluation. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-70 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
10{superscript 5} this nature). regarding falls to earth. 
10{superscript 6} 
Year Integrated 
Meteorite Flux at 
Allan Hills and a New 
Approach to Pairing." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchison, R.; 
McCall, G.J.H.; and 
Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Geological Society 
Special Publication 
Mo. 140. Pages 4358. 
Bath, England: 
Geological Society of 
London. 
TIC: 254143. 
[DIRS 162563]. 
C34 Not Applicable Bevan, A.W.R.; 
Bland, P.A.; and Jull, 
A.J.T. 1998. 
"Meteorite Flux on 
the Nullarbor Region, 
Australia." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchison, R.; 
McCall, G.J.H., and 
This paper focuses on 
summarizing meteorite 
falls in Australia. It is 
based on collected 
specimens, and identifies 
limitations and potential 
biases of human 
collections and problems 
of the sample area are 
addressed. Addresses 
mass distribution and 
No prior use for 
repository design 
purposes. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
one citation. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
Geologic Society 
of London (31 
referees, 
including two 
who are routinely 
cited in work of 
High  information is well 
characterized; limitations 
are fully acknowledged; 
information from related 
studies are provided for 
context; and differing 
interpretations are 
considered. 
Indirect Input  Provides 
baseline corroborative-
use only information for 
comparison of several 
meteorite falls with regard 
to frequency and type. It 
provides corroborative 
information for percent of 
iron meteors. 
Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Geological Society 
Special Publication 
No. 140. Pages 5973. 
Bath, England: 
Geological Society of 
London. 
frequency of meteorite 
falls, and breaks out the 
falls on a percentage-by-
type basis. 
this nature). 
TIC: 254143. 
[DIRS 162565]. 
C35 Not Applicable Brown, P.; Spalding, The study is based on use No prior use for This paper was High - Paper is well Indirect Input  This paper 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-71 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
R.E.; ReVelle, D.O.; 
Tagliaferri, E.; and 
Worden, S.P. 2002. 
"The Flux of Small 
Near-Earth Objects 
Colliding with the 
Earth." Nature, 420, 
([6913]), 294-296. 
[London, England: 
Macmillan Journals]. 
TIC: 254145. 
[DIRS 162569]. 
of state-of-the-art 
U.S. Department of 
Defense and 
U.S. Department of 
Energy space-based 
systems in geostationary 
orbits, and represent eight 
years of collection efforts 
and 300 samples 
representing between 
60% and 80% earth 
coverage. The results 
represent in essence a 
whole earth detection 
repository design 
purposes. Paper 
was published in 
November 2002, 
and represents 
best direct 
measurement of 
flux into the 
atmosphere. 
Paper provides 
comparison to 
similar 
information from 
related 
taken from a 
highly respected 
peer reviewed 
journal (Nature). 
documented and cites 
many of the authors used 
for the evaluation. 
Assumed values are 
clearly identified. 
Uncertainty is estimated 
at less than 30%, which is 
the least uncertainty 
documented in studies of 
this type found during the 
literature survey. Also 
clearly states 
assumptions regarding 
velocities and assumed 
represents the most 
current information of this 
type available and covers 
the range of interest with 
a reasonably large sample 
set. Used for 
corroboration of flux and 
crater rate distribution. 
Summary equation 
provided to determine flux 
rates based on meteoroid 
diameter and in terms of 
bolide energy. 
using state-of-the-art 
satellite observation. 
programs. 
Science Citation 
densities for meteorites 
and basis for 
Study is particularly 
targeted to the meteor 
diameters of interest. 
Index indicates 
three citations. 
assumptions. 
C36 Not Applicable Chapman, C.R. and Paper provides a short No prior use for This paper was Moderate - Basis of influx Indirect Input This paper 
Morrison, D. 1994. review of past influx repository taken from a used in analysis of hazard provides a good overall 
"Impacts on the Earth studies and discusses design. Science highly respected is well documented. corroborative summary of 
by Asteroids and velocities and densities as Citation Index peer-reviewed Assumed flux and influx information, and 
Comets: Assessing 
the Hazard." Nature, 
367, (6458), 33-40. 
well as rates and potential 
resulting hazards. Paper 
is focused on determining 
indicates 65 
citations. 
journal (Nature). justification is provided 
and uncertainty in 
assumed values is 
through Figure 1, links 
impact interval, diameter, 
and equivalent yield. It 
New York, New York: hazard of surface effects provided and stated as also provides several 
Nature America. from asteroid impact. between a factor of 2 and singular events and 
TIC: 246781. 
[DIRS 135245] 
5. Overly conservative 
values chosen for 
determining risk. 
related probabilities that 
are corroborative-use-only 
information. 
However, the paper is 
focused on surface effects 
rather than cratering. 
C37 Not Applicable Chyba, C.F. 1993. 
"Explosions of Small 
Spacewatch Objects 
in Earth's 
Atmosphere." Nature, 
363, (6431), 701-703. 
London, United 
Paper provides a short 
review of past influx 
studies and discusses 
velocities, densities, and 
probabilities of impact. 
Paper presents results of 
direct observation of 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Cited by 
later papers and 
compared to 
updated 
information or 
This paper was 
taken from a 
highly respected 
peer-reviewed 
journal (Nature). 
Moderate to High  The 
paper is based on original 
information obtained from 
an on-going observation 
program and compared to 
results of similar 
programs. No information 
Indirect Input Paper 
provides corroborative 
information on observed 
velocities and influx of 
small-diameter objects, 
which are of particular 
interest. Provides 
Kingdom: Macmillan meteors and impact information on procedures or quality corroborative information 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-72 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Journals. 
TIC: 246762. 
[DIRS 135248]. 
probabilities are 
discussed. 
obtained by 
independent 
means. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 13 
control is provided. on percent irons and 
densities, and provides 
corroborative information 
for determining resulting 
crater radius. 
citations 
C38 Not Applicable Hartmann, W.K. 
1966. Terrestrial and 
Lunar Flux of Large 
Meteorites Through 
Solar System History. 
Publication No. 3. 
The paper deals directly 
with earth cratering rates 
for larger scale (>1-km) 
craters. 
Not used for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates no 
citations. Author 
No information 
on peer review 
process. 
Low to Moderate - Paper 
published by Arizona 
Statue Universitys Center 
for Meteorite Studies and 
therefore, considered 
reliable within context of 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides an initial 
baseline, but due to dated 
information and limited 
number of observations 
should not be given equal 
Tempe, Arizona: was cited for the the time of publishing. weight to papers of a 
Arizona State WIPP meteorite However, this paper is similar nature. This 
University, Center for analysis. dated and, therefore, source is not further 
Meteorite Studies. technical accuracy is considered in this 
TIC: 254144. 
[DIRS 162567]. 
limited. It provides a 
glimpse of early estimated 
cratering rates based on 
evaluation. 
initial observations of 
earth and lunar cratering 
counts. 
C39 Not Applicable Hills, J.G. and Goda, Addresses additional No prior use for This paper was Moderate to High  Indirect Input  The 
P.M. 1998. "Damage variables for considering repository taken from a Documentation is similar results of the paper justify 
from the Impact of effects of meteor impacts. design. Science peer -reviewed to that provided in the use of bounding 
Small Asteroids." 
Planetary and Space 
Science, 46, (2-3), 
This is a follow-on paper 
that addresses the 
potential for variation of 
Citation Index 
indicates three 
citations. 
journal. preceding paper. conditions by establishing 
a worst case condition 
for angle of entry. It is not 
219-229. Oxford, impact effects due to further considered in this 
United Kingdom: initial entry angle. It is an analysis, but is used to 
Elsevier. expansion of the support vertical entry as a 
TIC: 246675. 
[DIRS 135291]. 
preceding paper by the 
same authors. 
bounding consideration. 
C40 Not Applicable Hughes, D.W. 1998. 
"The Mass 
Distribution of Crater-
Producing Bodies." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Geological 
Society Special 
Paper addresses three 
factors that define basic 
relationships of meteor 
flux to cratering rates. 
The analysis is applicable 
to very large diameter 
meteoroids. The paper 
uses a subset of highly 
No prior use in 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates five 
citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
the London 
Geologic Society 
of London (31 
Moderate - Paper 
provides a good summary 
of preceding work by 
others and performs an 
evaluation of these 
various sets and range of 
equations. This paper 
addresses three 
Indirect Input  This paper 
primarily addresses large 
diameter meteors, which 
end up being excluded 
from consideration on a 
probability basis. 
However, the paper does 
provide corroborativeuse 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-73 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Publication No. 140. defensible cratering referees, interrelated factors, the only information for influx, 
Grady, M.M.; information to perform an including two crater rate equation, the cratering rate, and meteor 
Hutchison, R.; evaluation of various who are routinely energy diameter equation, properties. 
McCall, G.J.H.; and equations and related cited in work of and the mass distribution 
Rothery, D.A.; eds. uncertainties. this nature). equation. No 
Pages 31-42. Bath, documentation on 
England: Geological procedures or quality 
Society of London. control is provided. 
TIC: 254143. 
[DIRS 162562]. 
C41 Not Applicable Marsden, B.G. and 
Steel, D.I. 1994. 
"Warning Times and 
Impact Probabilities 
for Long-Period 
Comets." Hazards 
Due to Comets and 
Asteroids. Gehrels, 
T., ed. 221-237. 
Tucson, Arizona: 
University of Arizona 
Press. 
TIC: 246879. 
[DIRS 129308] 
This -paper directly 
addresses probability of 
intersection with earth and 
is, therefore, directly 
applicable. Paper focuses 
on determining the 
probability of impact from 
long period comets under 
varying sets of 
assumption regarding 
orbital characteristics. 
The sources used in this 
analysis are well 
documented within the 
paper and the study 
addresses 411 observed 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates nine 
citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited 
compendium of 
related papers. 
Moderate to High Paper 
documents both the 
theory and practical 
application used to 
develop the probabilities 
of intersection. No 
documentation on 
procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
Indirect Input  The 
paper is useful in defining 
the range of probabilities 
of long period comets 
over a range of 
assumptions regarding 
orbital characteristics and 
supports excluding impact 
from long period comets 
based on individual and 
mean impact probabilities. 
No further consideration in 
this evaluation 
long period comets. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-74 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C42 Not Applicable Neukum, G. and 
Ivanov, B.A. 1994. 
"Crater Size 
Distributions and 
Impact Probabilities 
on Earth from Lunar, 
Terrestrial-Planet, 
and Asteroid 
Cratering Data." 
Hazards Due to 
Comets and 
Asteroids. Gehrels, 
This paper is directly 
applicable, and provides 
an alternative method 
(i.e., use of lunar cratering 
and from other planets) to 
evaluate cratering on 
Earth. Paper focuses on 
determining cratering 
rates for from lunar, 
terrestrial planet, and 
asteroid cratering. The 
sources and discussion of 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 53 
citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited 
compendium of 
related papers. 
Moderate to High  The 
methodology and 
assumptions used are 
fully documented within 
the paper. No information 
on quality control or 
procedures for the 
selection of craters is 
provided. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides an 
independent evaluation 
based on lunar cratering 
rates that can be used as 
an upper bound to 
corroborate flux and/or 
cratering rates based on 
earth observations or 
derived from flux 
information. 
T., ed. 359-416. 
Tucson, Arizona: The 
University of Arizona 
Press. 
alternate interpretations 
are fully documented. No 
original information is 
developed in this paper. 
TIC: 246879. 
[DIRS 121510]. 
C43 Not Applicable Richardson, J. and 
Bedient, J. 2001. 
"Frequently Asked 
Questions (FAQ) 
About Fireballs and 
Meteorite Dropping 
Fireballs." [Geneseo, 
New York]: American 
Meteor Society. 
Accessed April 22, 
2003. 
TIC: 254120. 
[DIRS 162571]. 
This citation provides a 
range of information 
regarding general meteor 
properties and 
characteristics. The 
source, while not strictly 
scientific, serves as a 
general clearinghouse of 
information for use by the 
public. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design, and no 
information 
regarding review 
process. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
no citations. 
Not published  
downloaded from 
an Internet site. 
This citation is to 
the home page of 
the American 
Meteor Society, a 
non-profit 
scientific 
organization 
established to 
encourage and 
support the 
research 
activities of both 
amateur and 
Low to Moderate  The 
FAQ page states that  . . 
. all of the numbers are 
estimates, and subject to 
revision as our knowledge 
level increases. We have 
attempted to select the 
most representative 
values for each. . There 
is no information on the 
extent of literature search 
or procedures used to 
derive the stated values. 
Citations regarding the 
stated properties are 
absent within the text, but 
Indirect Input  This cite 
provides corroborative-
use-only information from 
a reliable Internet cite of a 
recognized scientific 
organization. Sufficiently 
reliable to use as 
corroborative source for 
meteor characteristics and 
addresses the possible 
range in values. 
professional 
astronomers 
a list of supporting 
references is provided. 
The stated values appear 
to have been based on 
generally reliable sources 
and agree in general with 
information from sources 
evaluated herein 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-75 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C44 Not Applicable Solomon, K.A.; 
Erdmann, R.C.; and 
Okrent, D. 1975. 
"Estimate of the 
Hazards to a Nuclear 
Reactor from the 
Random Impact of 
Meteorites." Nuclear 
Technology, 25, 6871. 
La Grange Park, 
Illinois: American 
This paper is an early 
effort at linking meteorite 
impact damage via kinetic 
energy to the probability 
of impact for a nuclear 
facility. This paper 
focuses on probability 
estimates for meteorite 
impacts for nuclear 
reactors and takes into 
account blast effects from 
Used in relation 
to nuclear siting 
programs, 
including 
preclosure 
external event 
hazard 
evaluation for 
YMP from 
meteorites. No 
information on 
This paper was 
taken from a 
journal 
sponsored by the 
American 
Nuclear Society. 
The type of 
review process 
used is unknown. 
Low to Moderate  The 
paper documents the key 
assumptions used and 
outlines the mathematics 
used to determine the 
probability. However, the 
basis for developing the 
damage-to-energy 
assumption and the basis 
supporting the mass 
influx, while cited, is not 
Indirect Input This paper 
was previously used as 
the support for eliminating 
meteorite impact as a 
preclosure hazard at 
YMP. It provides the 
probability of small-body 
impacts and uses differing 
sources for flux. 
Therefore, it provides a 
corroborative estimate of 
Nuclear Society. near misses. The paper verification is discussed. The the probability of impact 
TIC: 241714. 
[DIRS 103697]. 
is primarily focused on 
probability of a given size, 
rather than on 
consequence. 
provided. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
two citations. 
assessment in meteorite 
hazard dates to 1968, and 
there has been significant 
progress since that time. 
No information is provided 
for a range of various 
meteorite mass. 
on procedures or quality 
control associated with 
the cited sources of 
information. 
C45 Not Applicable Stuart, J.S. 2001. "A 
Near-Earth Asteroid 
Population Estimate 
from the LINEAR 
Survey." Science, 
294, (5547), 16911693. 
Washington, 
D.C.: American 
Association for the 
Advancement of 
Science. 
TIC: 254146. 
This paper reports results 
of a detailed near-space 
survey (LINEAR). The 
scope of the survey is 
described, as are biases 
and limitations of the 
study. Paper provides an 
estimate of flux of small-
to medium- size, near-
earth objects based on 
physical observation and 
represents current results. 
No prior use in 
repository 
design. Given 
the currency of 
the report, use 
by others is 
limited. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates seven 
citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from 
highly respected 
peer-reviewed 
journal (Science). 
High  This paper 
provides a detailed 
description of 
methodologies and 
assumptions used in 
calculating the flux 
distribution. The sample 
size used to derive a flux 
is approximately an order 
of magnitude larger than 
used for predecessor 
programs 
Indirect Input  This paper 
is of moderate use 
in that the magnitude 
observations are not 
linked to diameter of 
meteoroids and is not 
further evaluated. 
LINEAR is cited by Brown 
et al. and supports work of 
Bailey and EmelYanenko. 
[DIRS 162568]. 
C46 Not Applicable Zolensky, M. 1998. 
"The Flux of 
Meteorites to 
Antarctica." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Geological 
This paper is focused on 
the summary of meteorite 
falls in Antarctica. The 
results are based on 
collected specimens, and 
the limitations and 
potential biases of human 
No prior use for 
repository design 
purposes. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
one citation. 
Paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
the London 
Geologic Society 
High  The study methods 
are well characterized and 
limitations are fully 
acknowledged. Related 
studies are discussed for 
context, and differing 
interpretations are 
Indirect Input - Provides 
baseline for comparison of 
several meteorite falls with 
regard to frequency and 
type. Not further 
considered in this 
evaluation. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-76 April 2004 

Table II-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Society Special collections, and problems (31 referees, considered. 
Publication No. 140. of sample area are all including two 
Grady, M.M.; addressed. It also who are routinely 
Hutchison, R.; addresses mass cited in work of 
McCall, G.J.H., and distribution and frequency this nature). 
Rothery, D.A.; eds. of meteorite falls, and 
Pages 93-104. Bath, breaks out the falls on a 
England: Geological percentage-by-type basis. 
Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
[DIRS 162566]. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-77 April 2004 

4.5.3 Discussion 
The evaluation presented in this section compares direct input used as data to corroborating-use 
only information (indirect input) also taken from peer-reviewed journal papers or edited and 
refereed compendiums of relevant work. Comparisons of the information sets are shown by 
graphical representation, or are provided in tabular format, to allow ready comparison of the 
cited values from the various sources. Corroboration is considered achieved if a cited singular 
value (e.g., a cited percent by composition or density) is shown to be within one standard 
deviation of the mean value of the cited sources. In the case of distributions or distributions 
generated from equations (e.g., mass flux or cratering rates), corroboration is considered 
acceptable if the resulting distributions fall within one order of magnitude of the median for any 
given point in the distribution (e.g.,  one standard deviation of the median value for the 
probability of crater diameter of a given size). For information addressing meteor 
radius-to-crater radius relationships and crater diameter-to-depth of cratering effects, agreement 
within a factor of two is considered adequate for intended use. 
Consistent with the intended use for FEP screening, latitude in applying these criteria was taken 
in two instances. The first instance was for direct input representing percent by type and density. 
No exclusion of information was made for points falling more than one standard deviation from 
the mean. The exclusion would have affected at most a few of the points in each of the 
information sets, and retention helps reflect the entire range in reported values. The second 
instance occurred with regard to the direct input extracted from Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) for the meteor radius-to-crater radius relationships. The 
above-stated criteria did not seem applicable in a strict sense. Rather, examples and ranges or 
limits identified in the cited literature were plotted as corroborative-use-only, where feasible, 
against the curves taken from Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22). A standard of 
reasonable agreement in trends between the corroborative-use-only information was applied 
rather than application of a statistical basis because a point-by-point comparison was not feasible 
due to differing assumptions and basis of calculation. In some instances, the comparison is 
based on other figures provided in Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) that are not part 
of the direct input being evaluated. The inference is that if individual phenomena and processes 
(i.e., fragmentation and ablation) agree between the cited sources and Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) (Q22), then this supports the validity of the resultant cratering relationships that 
depend in part on those phenomena and processes. 
Because the data comes from a variety of sources, manipulation of the data was needed to 
provide direct comparison. Accordingly, supporting spreadsheets showing the calculations are 
provided. 
4.5.3.1 Meteoroid Flux Entering Earths Atmosphere 
The data being justified in this section addresses: 
Flux data for a range of meteor masses. 
This direct information is taken from Item Q16, and is corroborated using other multiple sources 
including Items C32, C33, C35, C36, C37, C40, C42, and C44. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-78 April 2004 

The data from Ceplecha (1992, p. 362 and Figure 1 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) is used as direct 
input; all other listed sources are used for corroboration only. The basis for selecting Ceplecha 
as direct input is discussed below. Figure II-1 of this attachment provides a comparison of 
meteoroid influx information from multiple sources. Flux information presented by Ceplecha 
(1992, Figure 1 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) and corroborated by Bland et al. (1998, 
Figure 1 [DIRS 162563]) (C33); Brown et al. (2002, Figure 4 [DIRS 162569]) (C35); 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994, Table IV [DIRS 121510]) (C42); and Solomon (1975, 
Table I [DIRS 103697]) (C44) are of particular interest due to the completeness, range of mass 
considered, and varying methods of determination. The flux distribution for these sources is 
noted on Figure II-1 by the symbols with connecting lines. The information in Table II-9 has 
been grouped by diameter size to allow ease in comparing the relative cumulative number of 
events. 
The work by Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) is a compilation of the results of works of 
others and overlaps the corroborative work by Bland et al. (1998 [DIRS 162563]) (C33) by using 
common sources of information. The two works are based on direct observation of lunar 
microcraters and space probes, observations of the Spacewatch Telescope program, and by 
photographs of earth-crossing asteroids. In the case of Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16), 
however, the full range of flux for all masses is extended by the use of additional information 
garnered from space probes, radar-tracked meteors, and photographed and television-tracked 
meteors, all as identified in Ceplecha 1992 (Table 1 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16). In the corroborative 
case of Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35), the results are independent from work of 
others, and the work was derived from observations using geostationary satellites monitored by 
the U.S. Department of Defense and DOE. The corroborative information from Neukum and 
Ivanov 1994 (Table IV [DIRS 121510]) (C42) is based on lunar cratering and, using the stated 
equivalent energy release, is directly comparable to that of Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) 
(C35). In the case of Solomon (1975 [DIRS 103697]) (C44), the corroborative distribution was 
cited as being based on historical evidence as well as current information on meteorite crashes 
-with current being circa 1968. However, the flux matches reasonably well with information 
circa 2001. 
Some mathematical manipulation of the data from the various sources was required to allow 
direct comparison between direct and indirect data sources. The numerical manipulations 
needed to convert to equivalent units for comparison along with additional supporting data used 
to construct Figure II-1 are presented in Table II-10. In the case of Ceplecha 
(1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) and the corroborative work by Bland et al. (1998 [DIRS 162563]) 
(C33), points were selected manually from the referenced figures. These papers provide 
information in terms of number of events by mass. To convert to equivalent diameters, a 
spherical body of density 3,000 kg/m3 was assumed, and appropriate unit conversions were 
performed. The assumed density was based on the conversion made in Brown et al. (2002 
[DIRS 162569]) (C35) which used the stated density. 
The graph for Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) was generated from Equation 3 of that 
paper and checked for internal consistency against Figure 4 of the same paper 
The corroborative flux from Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) was extracted 
directly from their Table IV, with the time between events converted to frequency per year. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-79 April 2004 

For Solomon (1975 [DIRS 103697]) (C44), the corroborative graph was generated by converting 
the mass intervals to equivalent diameters, and then the number of events of a given size or 
larger were summed to get the cumulative number of events for a given mass or larger. 
Other corroborative information is also shown on Figure II-1 as symbols without associated 
lines. This information was taken from peer-reviewed journal papers, but the source of the cited 
information was not provided, the source of the information was not transparent, or the 
information covered only a limited range. Other corroborative-use-only information is taken 
from studies cited by Bland et al. (1998, Figure 5 [DIRS 162563]) (C33). Results from Blank 
et al. overlap with that shown on Figure 1 of the same paper, and provides estimates of flux 
based on meteorite fall studies from New Mexico and Australia. The author fully discusses the 
limitations of such estimates due to inherent limitations in sample collection and meteorite 
pairing. It also covers only a minimal range of small diameters. Additionally, for comparison 
purposes, the reported flux had to be scaled upwards by two orders of magnitude to represent 
whole-earth influx. 
Chapman and Morrison (1994, Figure 1 [DIRS 135245]) (C36) is also a source of corroborative-
use only information. In this case, the authors clarify the use of an average total impact flux 
from a single author (p. 34) and clearly indicate that they have not addressed the influx for 
objects in the <50-m diameter range, which is within the range of interest for the screening 
analysis. They cite uncertainty as a factor of 2 for objects >0.5 km, and a factor of 5 for smaller 
objects capable of doing damage (i.e., inferred to mean surface effects rather than cratering). 
Furthermore, the method of acquisition is not transparent (though it is stated to have been based 
on work by Shoemaker et al., which is largely photographic). 
Corroborative-use-only information based on Hughes (1998, Table 2 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) cites 
work by others, in particular it cites to previous work after, Opik (1976) (C46). The nature of 
acquisition is not discussed. The 1976 publishing date for Opik suggests that the work may be 
dated regardless of the methodology used for acquisition. Accordingly, the information is 
treated as corroborative-use only. Hughes (1998, p. 37 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) also references 
two other point values from work by others. These are shown on Figure II-1. They represent 
only single-point values and are not suitable for evaluation as influx distributions. Additionally, 
Hughes focus is on large-scale cratering (i.e., several km), which is not the primary focus of the 
screening analysis, but does address a portion of the flux distributions. 
Work by C46b, Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998 [DIRS 162564], provides an assumed 
cumulative diameter distribution given in the form of an equation (Equation 3 of the cited paper), 
without providing justification for its assumption beyond previous work done by Bailey. 
Additionally, application of the equation is for the total distribution of near-earth asteroids, and 
does not specifically address the influx of those actually intercepting the earth. However, a mean 
probability value is given. For corroborative-use only, this mean value was applied to the 
number of asteroids of a given diameter to provide a number of asteroid events per year. Some 
support for the assumed equation comes from Stuart (2001 [DIRS 162568]) (C45), wherein the 
estimate of the total number of Near Earth Asteroids of 1-km diameter or greater is placed at 
1227 with an uncertainty range of 90 to +170 from the stated value. This agrees well with 
Baileys assumed values of 1,500. Stuart also cites other authors that place the cumulative 
number as low as 750 150. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-80 April 2004 

The direct input for the meteor analysis, and the information from the corroborative papers, are 
summarized in Table II-9. Numeric manipulations of that information, plus information from the 
other remaining corroborative papers, are shown in Table II-10. Figure II-1 provides a plot of all 
the corroborative information and corresponds with information in Table II-10. The evaluation 
criteria as previous discussed, allows acceptance if, for any given diameter, the reported values 
fall within one order of magnitude of the median value. As can be seen from Table II-9, and also 
by inspection of Figure II-1, the distribution from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) 
satisfies those criteria and the total range of values in the cumulative events does not exceed two 
orders of magnitude. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-81 April 2004 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01II-82April 2004Flux of Meteoroids to Earth1 E-10 
1 E-09 
1 E-08 
1 E-07 
1 E-06 
1 E-05 
1 E-04 
1 E-03 
1 E-02 
1 E-01 
1 E+00 
1 E+01 
1 E+02 
1 E+03 
1 E+04 
1 E+05 
1 E+06 
1 E+07 
1 E+08 
1 E+09 
1 E+10 
1 E-04 1 E-03 1 E-02 1 E-011 E+001 E+011 E+021 E+031 E+041 E+05Diameter of Meteroids (m) 
((t)
N (Cumulative Number of Events Per Year 
of Given Diameter or Greater) for Earth 
Ceplecha (1992 [135242])
Bland et al. (1998, Figure 1: afterothers [162563])
Brown et al. (2002. [162569])
Neukum and Ivanov (1994, fromlunar cratering [121510] 
Solomon (1975, Table I [103697])
Bailey and Emel'Yanenko (1998[162564])
Bland et al. (1998, Figure 5, afterZolensky for Roosevelt Co., NM[162563])
Bland et al.(1998, Figure 5,
Nullabor [162563])
Bland et al. (1998, Figure 5, afterHalliday [162563])
Chapman and Morrison 1994[135245]
Chyba (1993, p. 701 point values[[135248])
Hughes (1998, after Opik 1976[162562])
Hughes (1998, point values fromShoemaker and from Kresak[162562])
Note:[(XXXXXX] in legend denotes DIRS numbersFigure II-1. Influx of Meteoroids to Earth

Table II-9. Meteoroid Influx Information 
DIRECT INPUT CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
Ceplecha 
(1992, Figure 1 
DIRS 135242], Q16) 
Bland et al. 
(1998, Figure 1 
[DIRS 162563, C33]) 
Brown et al. 
(2002, Figure 4 
[DIRS 162569], C35) 
Neukum and Ivanov 
(1994, Table IV 
[DIRS 121510], C42) 
Solomon 
(1975, Table I 
[DIRS 103697], C44) 
Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative Cumulative 
D 
(meters) 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year-
D 
(meters) 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year-
D 
(meters) 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year-
D 
(meters) 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year-
D 
(meters) 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year-
Whole Earth Whole Earth Whole Earth Whole Earth Whole Earth 
4.6E-06 3.2E+17 
2.1E-05 1.0E+17 
9.5E-05 1.0E+16 
4.3E-04 3.2E+13 
1.0E-03 4.7E+09 
5.0E-03 6.0E+07 
9.1E-03 3.2E+05 1.0E-02 9.3E+06 
2.0E-02 1.4E+06 
4.2E-02 3.2E+05 4.2E-02 1.0E+04 5.0E-02 1.2E+05 
8.9E-02 1.0E+05 1.0E-01 1.9E+04 8.6E-02 3.4E+03 
1.9E-01 1.6E+04 1.9E-01 1.0E+03 2.0E-01 2.9E+03 1.60E-01 3.7E+02 1.8E-01 1.1E+03 
4.1E-01 1.0E+04 5.0E-01 2.4E+02 3.9E-01 4.3E+02 
8.7E-01 1.6E+03 8.4E-01 1.1E+02 
1.9E+00 6.3E+02 1.0E+00 3.7E+01 1.8E+00 8.7E+00 
2.0E+00 5.7E+00 2.10E+00 4.1E+00 
4.0E+00 1.0E+02 3.8E+00 1.4E+00 
5.0E+00 4.8E-01 
8.5E+00 1.0E+01 8.2E+00 4.0E-01-
1.0E+01 7.4E-02 
1.8E+01 -1.0E-01 1.8E+01 1.0E+00 1.8E+01 8.3E-02-
3.9E+01 1.0E-02 2.5E+01 6.2E-03 3.8E+01 1.5E-02-
5.0E+01 9.6E-04 3.50E+01 6.3E-04 
8.3E+01 1.0E-03 8.3E+01 3.2E-03 8.0E+01 3.9E-03-
1.8E+02 1.0E-04 1.0E+02 1.5E-04 1.92E+02 9.1E-06 1.7E+02 8.0E-04-
2.5E+02 1.2E-05 
3.8E+02 1.0E-05 3.8E+02 3.2E-05 4.21E+02 3.9E-06 3.7E+02 1.7E-04-
8.1E+02 3.2E-06 5.0E+02 1.9E-06 7.8E+02 3.8E-05-
1.0E+03 2.9E-07 9.22E+02 1.9E-06 
1.7E+03 1.0E-06 1.7E+03 1.0E-06 1.7E+03 1.4E-05-
3.7E+03 1.0E-07 2.60E+03 2.2E-07 3.6E+03 1.4E-06-
7.9E+03 3.2E-08 7.9E+03 1.0E-07 5.70E+03 3.7E-08 7.7E+03 2.8E-07 
1.25E+04 6.6E-09 
1.98E+04 3.2E-09 1.6E+04 5.2E-08 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-83 April 2004 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-84 April 2004 
Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers 
Direct Input 
Ceplecha 1992, Figure 1 
[DIRS 135242], Q17 
Rows: 
A B C D E F G H 
FORMULAS 
(Given) 
POWER(10, A6) POWER(10,H6) (Assumed) B6/D6 E6*0.75/PI() F6^(1/3)*2 (Given) 
Log Mass (kg) Mass (kg) 
Number of Events 
Per Year Whole 
Earth Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (m3) D (meters) Log N 
-1 1.0E-01 3.2E+05 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 5.5 
0 1.0E+00 1.0E+05 3000 3.3E-04 8.0E-05 8.6E-02 5.0 
1 1.0E+01 1.6E+04 3000 3.3E-03 8.0E-04 1.9E-01 4.2 
2 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 3000 3.3E-02 8.0E-03 4.0E-01 4.0 
3 1.0E+03 1.6E+03 3000 3.3E-01 8.0E-02 8.6E-01 3.2 
4 1.0E+04 6.3E+02 3000 3.3E+00 8.0E-01 1.9E+00 2.8 
5 1.0E+05 1.0E+02 3000 3.3E+01 8.0E+00 4.0E+00 2.0 
6 1.0E+06 1.0E+01 3000 3.3E+02 8.0E+01 8.6E+00 1.0 
7 1.0E+07 1.0E-01 3000 3.3E+03 8.0E+02 1.9E+01 -1.0 
8 1.0E+08 1.0E-02 3000 3.3E+04 8.0E+03 4.0E+01 -2.0 
9 1.0E+09 1.0E-03 3000 3.3E+05 8.0E+04 8.6E+01 -3.0 
10 1.0E+10 1.0E-04 3000 3.3E+06 8.0E+05 1.9E+02 -4.0 
11 1.0E+11 1.0E-05 3000 3.3E+07 8.0E+06 4.0E+02 -5.0 
12 1.0E+12 3.2E-06 3000 3.3E+08 8.0E+07 8.6E+02 -5.5 
13 1.0E+13 1.0E-06 3000 3.3E+09 8.0E+08 1.9E+03 -6.0 
14 1.0E+14 1.0E-07 3000 3.3E+10 8.0E+09 4.0E+03 -7.0 
15 1.0E+15 3.2E-08 3000 3.3E+11 8.0E+10 8.6E+03 -7.5 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-85 April 2004 
Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Bland et al. 1998, Figure 1 
[DIRS 162563], C33 
Rows 
A B C D E F G H 
For0mulas 
(Given) 
POWER(10,A35)/1 
000 POWER(10,H35) 3000 B35/D35 E35*0.75/PI() F35^(1/3)*2 (Given) 
Log Mass 
(g) Mass (kg) 
Number of Events 
Per Year Whole 
Earth Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 D (meters) Log N 
-10 1.0E-13 3.2E+17 3000 3.3E-17 8.0E-18 4.0E-06 17.5 
-8 1.0E-11 1.0E+17 3000 3.3E-15 8.0E-16 1.9E-05 17.0 
-6 1.0E-09 1.0E+16 3000 3.3E-13 8.0E-14 8.6E-05 16.0 
-4 1.0E-07 3.2E+13 3000 3.3E-11 8.0E-12 4.0E-04 13.5 
0 1.0E-03 3.2E+05 3000 3.3E-07 8.0E-08 8.6E-03 5.5 
2 1.0E-01 1.0E+04 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 4.0 
4 1.0E+01 1.0E+03 3000 3.3E-03 8.0E-04 1.9E-01 3.0 
10 1.0E+07 1.0E+00 3000 3.3E+03 8.0E+02 1.9E+01 0.0 
12 1.0E+09 3.2E-03 3000 3.3E+05 8.0E+04 8.6E+01 -2.5 
14 1.0E+11 3.2E-05 3000 3.3E+07 8.0E+06 4.0E+02 -4.5 
16 1.0E+13 1.0E-06 3000 3.3E+09 8.0E+08 1.9E+03 -6.0 
18 1.0E+15 1.0E-07 3000 3.3E+11 8.0E+10 8.6E+03 -7.0 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-86 April 2004 
Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Brown et al. 2002 (Equation 3, Figure 4) [DIRS 162569], C35 
Cumulative diameter distribution equation 
where: c = 1.568, and d = 2.70 
log N = c -d log D D = diameter in meters 
Rows: 
A B C D E 
Formulas: 
E60/1000 2.7*Log(E60) 1.568-B60 POWER(10,C60) (Given) 
Events Per Year 
Diameter (N) Diameter (D) 
(km) d log D c-dlogD Whole Earth (meters) 
0.000001 -8.10 9.7 4.7E+09 1.0E-03 
0.000005 -6.21 7.8 6.0E+07 5.0E-03 
0.00001 -5.40 7.0 9.3E+06 1.0E-02 
0.00002 -4.59 6.2 1.4E+06 2.0E-02 
0.00005 -3.51 5.1 1.2E+05 5.0E-02 
0.0001 -2.70 4.3 1.9E+04 1.0E-01 
0.0002 -1.89 3.5 2.9E+03 2.0E-01 
0.0005 -0.81 2.4 2.4E+02 5.0E-01 
0.001 0.00 1.6 3.7E+01 1.0E+00 
0.002 0.81 0.8 5.7E+00 2.0E+00 
0.005 1.89 -0.3 4.8E-01 5.0E+00 
0.01 2.70 -1.1 7.4E-02 1.0E+01 
0.025 3.77 -2.2 6.2E-03 2.5E+01 
0.05 4.59 -3.0 9.6E-04 5.0E+01 
0.1 5.40 -3.8 1.5E-04 1.0E+02 
0.25 6.47 -4.9 1.2E-05 2.5E+02 
0.5 7.29 -5.7 1.9E-06 5.0E+02 
1 8.1 -6.532 2.9E-07 1.0E+03 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-87 April 2004 
Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Neukum and Ivanov 1994 (Table IV) [DIRS 121510], C42 
Rows 
A B C D 
Formulas 
(Given) 1/A88 Given (D) LOG(B88) 
Time 
Interval (yr) 
Number of Events 
Per Year Whole 
Earth 
Diameter (D) of 
Meteor (meters) Log N 
2.7E-03 3.7E+02 1.6E-01 2.6 
2.4E-01 4.1E+00 2.1E+00 0.6 
1.6E+03 6.3E-04 3.5E+01 -3.2 
1.0E+05 9.1E-06 1.9E+02 -5.0 
2.6E+05 3.9E-06 4.2E+02 -5.4 
5.3E+05 1.9E-06 9.2E+02 -5.7 
4.5E+06 2.2E-07 2.6E+03 -6.7 
2.7E+07 3.7E-08 5.7E+03 -7.4 
1.5E+08 6.6E-09 1.3E+04 -8.2 
3.1E+08 3.2E-09 2.0E+04 -8.5 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-88 April 2004 
Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Solomon 1975 (Table I) [DIRS 103697], C44 
Rows: 
A B C D E F G H I 
Formulas 
(Given) 
(A108*2000)*0.4 
54 (Assumed) B108/C108 D108*0.75/PI() (Given) 
(5.48 x 1015/1.05 
x 1014 ) x F108 
SUM(G108:G$12 
7) E108^(1/3)*2 
Cumulative 
Number of Number of 
Weight 
(tons) Mass (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (meter3) 
Number of 
Events (N) Per 
Year US 
Events (N) Per 
Year Whole 
Earth 
Events (N) Per 
Year Whole 
Earth D (meters) 
1.0E-03 9.1E-01 3000 3.0E-04 7.2E-05 45.0 2.3E+03 3.4E+03 8.3E-02 
1.0E-02 9.1E+00 3000 3.0E-03 7.2E-04 12.0 6.3E+02 1.1E+03 1.8E-01 
1.0E-01 9.1E+01 3000 3.0E-02 7.2E-03 6.0 3.1E+02 4.3E+02 3.9E-01 
1.0E+00 9.1E+02 3000 3.0E-01 7.2E-02 2.0 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 8.3E-01 
1.0E+01 9.1E+03 3000 3.0E+00 7.2E-01 0.1 7.3E+00 8.7E+00 1.8E+00 
1.0E+02 9.1E+04 3000 3.0E+01 7.2E+00 0.0 1.0E+00 1.4E+00 3.9E+00 
1.0E+03 9.1E+05 3000 3.0E+02 7.2E+01 0.0 3.1E-01 4.0E-01 8.3E+00 
1.0E+04 9.1E+06 3000 3.0E+03 7.2E+02 0.0 6.8E-02 8.3E-02 1.8E+01 
1.0E+05 9.1E+07 3000 3.0E+04 7.2E+03 0.0 1.1E-02 1.5E-02 3.9E+01 
1.0E+06 9.1E+08 3000 3.0E+05 7.2E+04 0.0 3.1E-03 3.9E-03 8.3E+01 
1.0E+07 9.1E+09 3000 3.0E+06 7.2E+05 0.0 6.3E-04 8.0E-04 1.8E+02 
1.0E+08 9.1E+10 3000 3.0E+07 7.2E+06 0.0 1.4E-04 1.7E-04 3.9E+02 
1.0E+09 9.1E+11 3000 3.0E+08 7.2E+07 0.0 2.4E-05 3.8E-05 8.3E+02 
1.0E+10 9.1E+12 3000 3.0E+09 7.2E+08 0.0 1.3E-05 1.4E-05 1.8E+03 
1.0E+11 9.1E+13 3000 3.0E+10 7.2E+09 0.0 1.1E-06 1.4E-06 3.9E+03 
1.0E+12 9.1E+14 3000 3.0E+11 7.2E+10 0.0 2.3E-07 2.8E-07 8.3E+03 
1.0E+13 9.1E+15 3000 3.0E+12 7.2E+11 0.0 5.2E-08 5.2E-08 1.8E+04 
(Note: * Column G uses a scalar ratio of surface 
of whole earth to the U.S, with values for 
surface areas taken from Solomon 1974 therefore 
internally consistent with the 
number of events scaled back to whole 
world.) 

Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-89 April 2004 
Other Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Bailey and Emel'Yanenko 1998, C32 
[DIRS 162564] 
(for 0.5 < d <10 km) 
Cumulative Diameter Distribution of Asteroids 
NA (>d) = 1500(Note: The value of 1500 is given in the cited paper as a constant 
X { d / 1 km}-2 for the stated equation) 
N impact = NA x Mean Probability 
Rows 
A B C D E F G H 
Formulas 
(Given) (Given) A145^-2 B145*C145 Log(D145) (Given) A145*1000 (D145*F145) 
Diameter 
(d) (km) -1500 d-2 
Cumulative Number 
of Asteroids (NA) log NA 
Mean Probability of 
Asteroid Crossing Per 
Year Whole Earth 
Dmeteoroid 
(meters) 
Number of Impact 
Events (NImpact) Per 
Year Whole Earth 
0.5 1500 4.00 6000 3.8E+00 5.0E-09 500 3.0E-05 
1 1500 1.00 1500 3.2E+00 5.0E-09 1000 7.5E-06 
2 1500 0.25 375 2.6E+00 5.0E-09 2000 1.9E-06 
5 1500 0.04 60 1.8E+00 5.0E-09 5000 3.0E-07 
7 1500 0.02 31 1.5E+00 5.0E-09 7000 1.5E-07 
10 1500 0.01 15 1.2E+00 5.0E-09 10000 7.5E-08 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-90 April 2004 
Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Other Corroborative Information (Continued) 
* (Note: A factor of 512 is applied here in Column H to scale up to whole earth 
impact. The information in column B is based on a 106 km 2 area, so the 
number of events has to be scaled upward to the whole earth surface. The 
earth's surface is approximately 5.1.2 x 10 8 km2, so dividing by a factor of 
Bland et al. 1998 (Figure 5) [DIRS 162563], C33 
106 (the area for the cited number of events in this study) leaves a scaling 
factor of 512 
Rows 
A B C D E F G *H 
Formulas 
(Given) (Given) A161/1000 (Assumed) C161/D161 E161*0.75/PI() F161^(1/3)*2 Log(B161*512) 
after Halliday 
Mass (g) N (for 106 km2) Mass(kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (meter3) D (meters) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth 
10 83 0.01 3000 3.3E-06 8.0E-07 1.9E-02 4.2E+04 
50 15 0.05 3000 1.7E-05 4.0E-06 3.2E-02 7.7E+03 
100 28 0.1 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 1.4E+04 
500 11 0.5 3000 1.7E-04 4.0E-05 6.8E-02 5.6E+03 
1000 9 1 3000 3.3E-04 8.0E-05 8.6E-02 4.6E+03 
2000 5 2 3000 6.7E-04 1.6E-04 1.1E-01 2.6E+03 
3000 3.5 3 3000 1.0E-03 2.4E-04 1.2E-01 1.8E+03 
5000 2.1 5 3000 1.7E-03 4.0E-04 1.5E-01 1.1E+03 
10000 1.2 10 3000 3.3E-03 8.0E-04 1.9E-01 6.1E+02 
for Nullabor 
Mass (g) N (for 106 km2) Mass/kg Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (meter3) D (meters) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth 
10 35 0.01 3000 3.3E-06 8.0E-07 1.9E-02 1.8E+04 
50 15 0.05 3000 1.7E-05 4.0E-06 3.2E-02 7.7E+03 
100 9.2 0.1 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 4.7E+03 
500 3.7 0.5 3000 1.7E-04 4.0E-05 6.8E-02 1.9E+03 
1000 2.5 1 3000 3.3E-04 8.0E-05 8.6E-02 1.3E+03 
after Zolensky (Roosevelt County) 
Mass (g) N (for 106 km2) Mass/kg Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (meter3) D (meters) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth 
10 930 0.01 3000 3.3E-06 8.0E-07 1.9E-02 4.8E+05 
50 400 0.05 3000 1.7E-05 4.0E-06 3.2E-02 2.0E+05 
100 270 0.1 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 1.4E+05 
500 110 0.5 3000 1.7E-04 4.0E-05 6.8E-02 5.6E+04 
1000 80 1 3000 3.3E-04 8.0E-05 8.6E-02 4.1E+04 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-91 April 2004 
Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Other Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Chapman and Morrison 1994 (Figure 1) [DIRS 135245], C36 
Rows 
A B C D 
Formulas 
(Given) 1/A197 (Given) LOG(B197) 
Time Number of Events 
Interval 
(years) 
(N) Per Year 
Whole Earth D (meters) Log N 
0.08 1.2E+01 3 1.1 
5 2.0E-01 10 -0.7 
100 1.0E-02 30 -2.0 
1000 1.0E-03 100 -3.0 
5.0E+04 2.0E-05 300 -4.7 
7.0E+04 1.4E-05 600 -4.8 
1.0E+05 1.0E-05 1000 -5.0 
5.0E+05 2.0E-06 1500 -5.7 
1.0E+06 1.0E-06 3000 -6.0 
6.0E+06 1.7E-07 5000 -6.8 
1.0E+08 1.0E-08 10000 -8.0 
Chyba 1993 (p. 701) [DIRS 135248], C37 
Rows: 
A B C D E F G H 
Formulas: 
(Given) (Given) 1/B219 (Assumed) A219/D219 E219*0.75/PI() F219^(1/3)*2 Log(C219) 
Mass (kg) Interval (yrs) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (meter3) D (meters) Log N 
3.2E+07 21 0.05 3000 1.1E+04 2.5E+03 2.7E+01 -1.3 
1.0E+06 1 1 3000 3.3E+02 8.0E+01 8.6E+00 0.0 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-92 April 2004 
Table II-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Other Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Hughes 1998 [DIRS 162562], C40 
after Kresak 1978 and after Shoemaker 1979 
Rows: 
A B C D E F G H 
(B233*1000) (for 
Formulas: Kresak) F234^(1/3)*2 
 (Given) (Given) (Given) (Assumed) C233/D233 F233*0.75/PI() (for Shoemaker) 
Source) Diameter (km) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth Mass (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (meter3) D (meters) 
Kresak 1978 1 6.67E-07     1000 
Shoemaker 
1979  3.50E-06 3.80E+11 3000 1.3E+08 3.0E+07 623 
after Opik 1976 (sum of frequencies in Table 2) 
Rows: 
A B C D 
Formulas: 
(Given) (Given) B245*1000 LOG (A245) 
Number of Events 
(N) Per Year 
Whole Earth Diameter (km) D (meters) log N 
4.6E-05 0.13 130 -4.3E+00 
1.7E-06 0.52 520 -5.8E+00 
7.4E-08 2.1 2100 -7.1E+00 
3.8E-09 8.5 8500 -8.4E+00 
2.3E-10 34 34000 -9.6E+00 
5.6E-11 68 68000 -1.0E+01 

4.5.3.2 Composition and Material Properties of Meteoroids Entering the Earths 
Atmosphere 
The following section addresses the flux in terms of percent by compositions and examines the 
range in possible density values. In this discussion meteors are identified as Stony, 
Carbonaceous, Cometary, Asteroid, Chondrite, Non-chondrite, Carbonaceous Chondrites, and 
Ordianry Chondrites. For this analysis comets classified as asteroidal include both Stony and 
Carbonaceous. Chondrite refers to a meteoric stone characterized by the presence of chondrules 
that are rounded granules of cosmic origin often found embedded in meteoric stones and 
sometimes free in marine sediments. Carbonaceous Chondrites and Ordianry Chondrites are also 
considered as Asterodial. 
The direct input justified includes: 
Flux data, by meteor type and related densities: 
The percent-by-type data is taken primarily from Item Q17 for diameters less than about 10 m, 
but an assumed value, based on the corroborative information, is used for the larger sizes. 
Corroborative information is taken from a table of independent information in Item Q17, and 
Items C40 and C43. The density values for two of the categories (cometary and stony) are taken 
from Item Q17, and the density for irons is taken from Item Q22. Corroborative information 
comes from separate citations with Item Q17, and other sources including Items C32, C35, C36, 
C37, C39, C40 and C45. 
Values for percent of meteor that are of iron composition: 
A value of five percent iron is taken from Item Q23, and corroborative information includes 
separate citations with Item Q23, and corroborative Items C34, C37, C39, and C43. 
Percent-by-Type 
The literature provides an intermixing of information on influx, on composition of observed 
fireballs, on percent composition of various meteorite finds, and on cratering rates by type of 
meteor. In only a few instances are distributions given based on meteoroid mass or size. The 
following summary tables attempt to sort and identify the percent-by-type based on information 
and descriptions provided in the cited sources. Because it constitutes only a few percentage of 
the total flux to earth, most authors do not address the percentage of iron and iron-stony material. 
For this analysis, however, it represents a significant potential for impact damage (due to lack of 
fragmentation in the atmosphere) and is addressed separately from the following discussion for 
cometary, carbonaceous, and stony materials. For direct input, the distribution proposed by 
Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (Q17) is used, along with an assumed equal 
distribution of asteroidal and cometary material for the large size ranges. These data are 
presented in Table 4 of the cited document and are provided in Table II-11. This information 
differs slightly from that taken Figure 2 of the same citation due to differences in mass and sizes 
used to choose points for the distribution. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-93 April 2004 

Table II-11. Distribution of Meteoroid Types 
(Ceplecha 1994, Table 4 [DIRS 135243]) (Q17) 
Diameter of Incident Body (meters) 
Type of Incident Body 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 
Type I (Stony) - % 15 17 15 10 6 3 1 
Type II (Carbonaceous) % 
31 41 46 48 47 42 30 
Type III (Cometary) - % 54 42 39 42 47 55 69 
A value of five percent iron meteorites (based on Shoemaker 1983) (Q23) is used for the entire 
range of sizes. 
Corroboration of Percent of Comets, Carbonaceous, and Stony Materials 
With regard to the influx into the atmosphere, three corroborative sources of information present 
pertinent information. Hughes (1998, in Table 2, [DIRS 162562]) after Opik (1976) provides the 
cumulative frequency per year for asteroids and comets based on diameter of the incident body. 
Hughes does not clarify whether this is tied to cratering rates or represents influx to the 
atmosphere, but based on the nature of Opiks work, it is presumed here to represent influx. The 
information from Table 2 of Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) is provided in the first three 
rows of Table II-12. From that information, determining the percentage of cometary matter is a 
straightforward calculation for the given size ranges. 
Table II-12. Cumulative Annual Frequency of Asteroid and Comet Impacts on Earth 
(Hughes (1998, Table 2 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) 
Diameter of Incident Body (m) 
130 520 2,100 8,500 34,000 68,000 
Asteroid (impacts per 
year) 2.8 E-05 7.1 E-07 2.1 E-08 9.2 E-10 6.9 E-11 2.2 E-11 
Comet (impacts per year) 1.8 E-05 9.8 E-07 5.3 E-08 2.9 E-09 1.6 E-10 3.7 E-11 
Asteroid to Comet Ratio 1.58 0.72 0.39 0.32 0.43 0.57 
Total Impacts (per year) 4.6E-05 1.7E-06 7.4E-08 3.8E-09 2.3E-10 5.6E-11 
Percent Cometary 39.1% 57.6% 71.6% 76.3% 69.6% 66.1% 
The table clearly reflects that bodies of increasing diameter (regardless of type) enter the 
atmosphere with decreasing frequency. For FEP screening, the threshold of occurrence is set at 
an annual equivalence of 10-8, so incident bodies of 8,500 m or greater diameter are not of 
interest (on a whole-earth basis), and the percent of cometary influx of interest is in the range of 
39 to 76 percent. 
Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) also cites works of others with regard to percent of 
cratering based on meteor type. In most cases, the division between stony and carbonaceous 
asteroids is not given, so it is assumed that they are equally distributed between the two groups. 
In addition, for cometary material, the division between short-period and long-period comets is 
ignored, and the total percentage is given in Table II-13. All of the reported values from Hughes 
(1998 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) are reflected in statistical summary provided in Table II-13. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-94 April 2004 

For smaller bodies, Ceplecha (1994, Table 4 [DIRS 135243]) (Q17) provides a detailed 
breakdown by diameter for the size range of 0.1 to 10 m based on fireball observations and 
photographed meteors. The breakdown provided by Ceplecha is on fireball-types as described in 
Attachment IV of this document, and Ceplecha assumes that Type I represents stony materials, 
Type II represents carbonaceous materials, and Type III represents cometary materials. Type I 
materials are likely asteroidal in origin, Type II are probably transitional, and Type III are 
generally assumed to be cometary (Richardson and Bedient 2001, FAQ #15 [DIRS 162571]) 
(C43). The last column of Ceplechas Table 4 provides and division by type, which is from an 
independent data set, compared to what is shown in Table II-11 above. 
In FAQ #16, Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571]) (C43) do not provide citations for 
the given information on compositions, and do not provide distributions by size. However, they 
do indicate that most of the current information on meteoroids comes from photographic fireball 
studies with magnitude > -4 (whereas, the magnitudes reported by Ceplecha (1994, Table 2 
[DIRS 135243]) (Q17) are general magnitude = -18. 
For the meteoroid population as a whole, the fainter the meteoroid population, the more likely it 
is cometary in origin. Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571]) (C43) provide the 
following: 
Cometary meteoroids: 95% 
Chondritic meteoroids: 5% 
Non-chondritic: <1% 
However based on the population of observed meteors with magnitude > -4, Richardson and 
Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571]) (C43) provide the following: 
Type III - Cometary meteoroids: 38% 
Type IIIa  low density comets: 9% 
Type IIIb  high density comets: 29%
Type II  Carbonaceous Chondrites: 33%
Type I  Ordinary Chondrites: 29% 
Non-chondritic meteoroids: <1% 
The lack of quantification of the respective percentages and the lack of explanation of the basis 
for the anecdotal statements precludes their considerations in the statistical basis or listing as 
corroborative data. 
A calculation of the mean and standard deviation of the percent-by-type distribution is shown in 
Table II-13. The information listed in Table II-13, which falls beyond one deviation from the 
mean value, except as noted, has been italicized. However, these point values represent the 
possible range in reported values despite their apparent unreasonableness. For analysis purposes, 
utilizing a preferred value or any combination of percent compositions that honors the means 
and standard deviations is considered appropriate. 
The following information will be used for direct input. Down to an initial meteor mass of 
approximately 108 kg (radius of 14 m for iron, 19 m for stony, and 28 m for carbonaceous 
meteors), the total flux is presumed to be comprised of 5 percent iron material regardless of 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-95 April 2004 

initial meteor radius, and the remainder is divided equally between stony and carbonaceous 
material regardless of initial meteor radius. For initial meteor masses below 107 and down to 101 
kg (minimum radius of 0.014 m for iron, 0.019 m for stony, and 0.028 m for carbonaceous 
meteors), the total flux is presumed to be comprised of 5 percent iron materials regardless of 
initial meteor radius, and 2 to 18 percent stony material depending on initial meteor radius; and 
the remainder (93 to 77 percent) is attributed as carbonaceous/cometary material. These values 
fall within the mean value plus one standard deviation determined from the available literature, 
and are primarily based on Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 and Table 4 [DIRS 135243]) (Q17) for the 
masses from 108 to 10-1 kg. The corroboration for an assumed 5 percent iron is presented below. 
Corroboration of Percent of Iron Meteoroids 
Because the iron and stony-iron meteorites are the least likely to be affected by atmospheric 
effects, and because of their increased density, the potential effects of iron meteors are 
considered separately by most authors from the of effects of asteroidal and cometary bodies. A 
listing of percentage of iron meteors in the meteoroid flux is provided below. Because of the 
durability of iron meteorites, both during meteor fall and through time in desert environments, 
meteorite falls are included in the following table as they likely represent an upper bound on the 
percent of iron meteors. The falls information differs from find information in that biases in 
collection are considered. Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571]) (C43) give the find 
percentage as 54 percentclearly representing a collection and identification bias for iron and 
iron-stony meteorites. Information including finds, therefore, has been omitted. 
The direct input in Table II-14 is used to calculate the mean value and standard deviation for iron 
meteoroids. Italicized values in Table II-14 indicate that the reported values fall outside of the 
calculated standard deviation. However, these point values should be retained as for 
corroboration purposes because they represent the possible range in reported values, despite their 
apparent unreasonableness. For analysis purposes, utilizing a preferred value or any 
combination of percent compositions that honors the mean and standard deviations is considered 
appropriate. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-96 April 2004 

Table II-13. Summary Table for Percent by Type of Meteoroid 
Stony Carbonaceous Cometary Source 
DIRECT INPUT 
16 31 53 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 x 10-1 kg) 
16 34 50 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 kg) 
18 42 40 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 x 101 kg) 
14 47 39 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 x 10 2 kg) 
10 48 42 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 x 103 kg) 
8 46 46 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 x 104 kg) 
6 42 52 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 x 105 kg) 
4 30 66 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 x 106 kg) 
2 30 68 Ceplecha (1994, Figure 2 [DIRS 135243]) (mass = 1 x 107 kg) 
47 26.5 26.5 Assumed for all masses > 1 x 107 kg 
CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
Data Segmented as Stony, Carbonaceous and Cometary 
Stony Carbonaceous Cometary 
14.0 29.0 57.0 Average for following values 
13.1 27.2 32.9 Standard Deviation for following values 
8 54 38 
Ceplecha (1994, Table 4 last column, for 1 to 10 m) 
[DIRS 135243]) 
Richardson and Bedient (2001, for population as a whole 
5 0 95 [DIRS 162571]) 
Richardson and Bedient (2001, observed meteors with magnitude >-4 
29 33 38 [DIRS 162571]) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-97 April 2004 

Table II-13. Summary Table for Percent by Type of Meteoroid (Continued) 
CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
Data Segmented as Asteroidal and Cometary 
Asteroidal Cometary 
50.7 49.3 Average for following values 
22.0 22.0 Standard Deviation for following values 
60.9 39.1 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 162562] after Opik 1976) 
42.4 57.6 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 162562] after Opik 1976) 
28.4 71.6 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 162562] after Opik 1976) 
23.7 76.3 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 162562] after Opik 1976) 
30.4 69.6 Hughes (1998, (DIRS 162562] after Opik 1976) 
33.9 66.1 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 162562] after Opik 1976) 
67 33 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 162562] after Schultz 1988) 
70 30 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 162562] after Wetherhill 1989) 
60 40 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 1625621] after Shoemaker et al. 1994) 
90 10 Hughes (1998, [DIRS 162562] after Bailey 1991) 
47.2 51.1 Average for lumped corroborative values* 
23.6 23.6 Standard Deviation for lumped corroborative values* 
NOTE: * Italicized values indicate that the reported value falls outside of the calculated standard deviation. 
Asteroidal percentages should be roughly equivalent to stony plus carbonaceous percentages. Not all 
literature distinguishes by particular composition, so the values are shown as grouped in the source 
literature, and statistics are grouped accordingly. The final listed average and standard deviation assume 
that stony + carbonaceous percentage = asteroidal percentage, and lumps all as either asteroidal or 
cometary percentages. 
Table II-14. Summary Table for Percent of Iron Meteoroids 
Percent Percent Total 
Iron Stony Iron Percent Source 
DIRECT INPUT 
5.0 5.0 Shoemaker (1983, p. 480 assumed value of observed objects [DIRS 135308]) 
CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
Average Values and Standard Deviation 
4.2 1.2 4.9 Average Value for All Corroborative Information 
3.5 0.9 4.0 Average Value (excluding outliers from Bevan and from Chyba) 
4.3 0.9 5.0 Standard Deviation for all Corroborative Information 
Individual Indirect Inputs 
4.8 1.1 5.9 Bevan et al. (1998, Table 4 Modern Falls [DIRS 162565]) 
15.1 2.7 17.8 Bevan et al. (1998, Table 4 Australia [DIRS 162565]) 
1.3 0.5 1.8 Bevan et al. (1998, Table 4 Antarctica [DIRS 162565]) 
1.5 0.4 1.9 Bevan et al. (1998, Table 4 Nullarbor [DIRS 162565]) 
1.9 0.7 2.5 Bevan et al. (1998, Table 4 Sahara [DIRS 162565]) 
3.5 3.5 Hills and Goda (1998, p. 225 and Figure 7 [DIRS 135291]) 
8 8 Chyba (1993, p. 703  meteorite falls [DIRS 135248]) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-98 April 2004 

Table II-14. Summary Table for Percent of Iron Meteoroids (Continued) 
Percent 
Iron 
Percent 
Stony Iron 
Total 
Percent Source 
6 6 Chyba (1993, p. 703  main belt asteroids [DIRS 135248]) 
0 0 Chyba (1993, p. 703  lunar source for Spacewatch objects [DIRS 135248]) 
6 2 8 
Richardson and Bedient (2001, FAQ #15  observed falls/fresh finds 
[DIRS 162571]) 
1.5 1.5 Shoemaker (1983, p. 480 assumed lower value [DIRS 135308]) 
3.0 3.0 Shoemaker (1983, p. 480 assumed upper value [DIRS 135308]) 
NOTE: * Italicized values indicate that the reported value falls outside of the calculated standard deviation for all 
corroborative information. 
Meteoroid Densities 
For the meteorite impact calculations, the densities used as direct input include 8 g/cm3 for 
metallic materials, which is consistent with Hills and Goda (1993, Figure 1 [DIRS 135281]) 
(Q22). This agrees with the average density for iron meteorites, and is within one standard 
deviation of the average value for iron plus stony irons, as shown in Table II-15. The density 
used as direct input for hard stone materials is 3.7 g/cm3 as taken from Ceplecha (1994, 
Table 1 [DIRS 135243]) (Q17) and is within one standard deviation of the average density for 
stony irons plus stony material plus carbonaceous material, as shown in Table II-15. The density 
for soft stone materials (carbonaceous and cometary materials) is 1.1 g/cm3 and is taken from 
Ceplecha (1992, Table 3, average bulk density [DIRS 135242]) (Q16). This agrees with the 
group average for carbonaceous plus cometary material shown in Table II-15. The use of these 
values is consistent with the use of the meteorite influx and percent-by-type information from 
Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) and 1994 [DIRS 135243]) (Q17), respectively. 
Corroborative information comes from Chapman and Morrison (1994, p. 34 [DIRS 135245]) 
(C36), who gives the possible range in densities as the total range in bulk density is about a 
factor of 10 (~8 g cm-3 for iron, down to <1 g cm-3 for cometary ices). Other corroborative 
peer-reviewed papers provide and/or assume differing values. Corroborating data from these 
sources are summarized in Table II-15, and the mean values and standard deviations are 
calculated. Italicized values in Table II-15 indicate that the reported value falls outside of the 
calculated standard deviation for both the individual type of meteor and for the groupings by 
meteor type. However, these point values should be retained as corroborative information 
because they represent the possible range in reported values, despite their apparent 
unreasonableness. For analysis purposes, utilizing a preferred value or any combination of 
percent compositions that honors the mean and standard deviations is considered appropriate. 
Table II-15 shows that the values selected for direct input satisfies that requirement. The use of 
these values is consistent with the use of the meteorite influx and percent-by-type information 
from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) and Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243]), respectively. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-99 April 2004 

4.5.3.3 Crater Diameter Distributions and Rates 
This section justifies data being used to determine cratering distributions based on observed 
cratering information. The direct inputs include the following: 
Crater rate distribution based on observed earth cratering: This information is taken from 
Items Q19 and Q20, which are cross-corroborative with Item Q24. 
Cratering rate data for the Canadian shield and application to a hypothetical Canadian 
repository: This information is taken from Item Q24, which is cross-corroborative with 
Items Q19 and Q20. 
These distributions are corroborated by distributions given in Items C42, C32, C35 and C40. 
Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) (Q19) and Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) are used 
as direct input for the analysis. This is because the work by Grieve is widely cited for these 
types of studies, and the work by Wuschke et al. has previously been applied to a potential 
nuclear waste repository site. 
One of the corroborative sources, Neukum and Ivanov (1994, Table IV [DIRS 121510]) (C42), is 
unique in that it estimates cratering rates for an atmosphereless earth based on lunar cratering 
data. They also present information on crater diameters, equivalent energy releases, and the time 
between events. Because it is for an atmosphereless earth, the distribution is very useful for 
corroboration and use as an upper bound, so it has been treated in more detailed and is 
corroborated to Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) to further establish its corroborative 
use as an upper bound. 
Grieve (1987) 
An applicable cumulative cratering rate can be derived from Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) 
(Q19), which is commonly used for this type of analysis. Based on observed earth crater 
diameters, Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) (Q19) indicates that the number of impact craters larger 
than a crater diameter D, produced per year per square km is inversely proportional to the 
apparent crater diameter to the 1.8 power (Grieve 1987, p. 248p. 257 and Figure 8 
[DIRS 135254]) (Q19) and further updated in , and is given as: 
F(D) . D-1.8 (Eq. II-9) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-100 April 2004 

Table II-15. Summary Table for Density of Meteors 
Irons plus Stony Irons 
8 
7.0 
1.4 
8  5 
Irons 
(Siderites) 
Stony-Irons 
(Siderolites) 
8.0 6.0 
0.1 1.4 
8 
-
7.9 
7 
5 
Cited Values for Density (g/cm3) 
Stony-Irons + Stony + Carbonaceous Carbonaceous + 
Cometary 
DIRECT INPUT 
3.7 
1.1 
CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
3.4 1.1 
1.4 0.8 
7  2 2.6  0.2 
Stony (Aerolites, Ordinary 
Chondrites, Achondrites, 
Enstaties, Type I Fireballs) 
Carbonaceous 
(Carbonaceous 
Chondrites, Type II 
Fireballs) 
Cometary 
(Type III 
Fireballs) 
3.5 2.2 0.7 
0.4 0.3 0.4 
2.0 0.6 
3.4 2.6 
2.0 0.75 
0.27 
1 
3.5 2.2 1 
3 0.5 
3.65 1.3 
0.2 
3.7 2 
4 0.8 
3 0.3 
Cited Sources 
Hills and Goda (1993, Fig 1  assumed values 
[DIRS 135281]) 
Ceplecha (1994, Table 1 DIRS [135243]) 
Ceplecha (1994, Table 3 DIRS [135243]) 
Grouped Average Value 
Standard Deviation of Group 
Range of Values 
Average Value By Specific Type 
Standard Deviation 
C46b, Bailey and EmelYanenko 1998 (p. 14, for 
long period comet or Halley-type object and for near-
Earth asteroid) [DIRS 162564] 
Brown et al. 2002, p. 294 (reported as 3,400 and 
2,600 kg/m3 [DIRS 162569] 
Ceplecha (1994, Table 1) [DIRS 135243] (0.75 for 
Types IIIA, IIIAi, IIIA(C3) 
Ceplecha (1994, Table 1) [DIRS 135243] (0.27 for 
Type IIIB) 
Chapman and Morrison (1994, p. 34) [DIRS 135245] 
Chyba (1993, p. 703-704) [DIRS 135248] 
Hills and Goda 1993 (Figure 1  assumed values) 
[DIRS 135281] 
Hughes 1998 (p.34 and 40: Asteroids presumed to 
be of stony material and cited as 3650 kg m-3) [DIRS 
162562] 
Hughes 1998 (p. 40) [DIRS 162562] 
Richardson and Bedient 2001 (FAQ #16, densities 
reported in units of g/cc) [DIRS 162571] 
Richardson and Bedient 2001 (FAQ #16, densities 
reported in units of g/cc  upper value for given 
ranges) [DIRS 162571] 
Richardson and Bedient 2001 (FAQ #16, densities 
reported in units of g/cc  lower values for given 
ranges) [DIRS 162571] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-101 April 2004 

where F(D) is equal to the number of craters larger than a given diameter, produced per year per 
km2, as a function of diameter, D. 
Converting the proportionality into equation form gives: 
F(D) = K D-1.8 + B (Eq. II-10) 
Values for K and B can be derived form available observed cratering diameters. The constant B 
is zero since F(D) must approach zero as the crater diameter (D) becomes infinite. Grieve et al. 
(1995, p. 196 [DIRS 135260]) fixes F(D) for D = 20 km at (5.5 + 2.7)10-15/km2/yr. 
So from Eq.10 above: 
F(20) = K(20)-1.8 = (5.5 + 2.7)10-15/km2/yr, (Eq. II-10a) 
which allows a value of (1.2 + 0.6) 10-12.to be assigned to K, and setting the equation for events 
per year per km2 in the form of 
F(D) = 1.2 x 10-12 x D-1.8 (Eq. II-10b) 
The given proportionality (D-1.8) applies for earth crater diameters greater than 10 km, per 
analysis by Neukum and Ivanov (1994, p. 404 [DIRS 121510]) (C42). . The deviation from the 
proportionality below diameters of 10 km is shown for the distribution as plotted in Figure 8 of 
Grieve (1987, p. 257 [DIRS 135254]) (Q19) and varies noticeably from the higher frequency of 
smaller diameter craters observed on lunar and other planetary surfaces (Neukum and Ivanov 
1994, Figure 24 [DIRS 121510]) (C42). The slope change represents a decreased number of 
small crater observations and is explained by Grieve as atmospheric effects on small meteors, 
increased obscuration of smaller diameter craters by weathering and burial, and the implicit 
difficulty in identifying small diameter craters. 
For the purposes of the plot in Figure II-2, and calculations shown in Table II-15, the distribution 
was extended to the 10-m diameter, and for purposes of the analysis of probability, as discussed 
in later sections of this attachment, has been extended to 1-m diameter. This introduces an 
increased uncertainty (unquantified) in the cratering rate for small diameter (i.e., less than 
10 km) craters. However, it does compensate for the obscuration of small diameter craters, and 
is presumed to be conservative. The basis for the presumed conservatism is that the large 
diameter craters, from which the proportionality is extrapolated, result from fragmentation of 
larger meteors, with the larger fragments less subject to atmospheric effects and dissipation than 
small meteors due to the initially greater mass, resulting in more and larger fragments impacting 
the earth surface. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-102 April 2004 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-103 April 2004 
1 10 100 
D (km) 
2 
D or Larger 
) [DIRS 135254, 
DIRS 135260]
) [DIRS 135254, 
DIRS 135260]
) [DIRS 129326] 
) [DIRS 129326] 
1.0E-15 
1.0E-14 
1.0E-13 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
0.01 0.1 
Crater Diameter 
Number of Craters per kmper year 
of Diameter 
Grieve 1998 and 1995 (corroborated 
for D > 10 kmGrieve 1988 and 1995 (extrapolated 
for D < 10 kmWuschke et al. 1995 (corroborated for 
D > 0.5 kmWuschke et al. 1995 (extrapolated for 
D < 0.5kmNeukum and Ivanov 1994 (for 
atmosphereless earth) [DIRS 121510] 
Figure II-2. Cratering Rate Distribution 

Table II-16a. Cratering Rate Distribution for Direct Input 
Grieve 1987 [DIRS 135254], Q19 and 
Grieve et al. 1995 [DIRS 135260], Q20 Wuschke et al. 1995, Equation 3 [DIRS 129326], C32 
Crater Diameter (km) Annual Frequency / km2 Crater Diameter (km) Annual Frequency / km2 
0.01 4.8E-09 0.01 2.0E-08 
0.1 7.6E-11 0.1 2.0E-10 
1 1.2E-12 1 2.0E-12 
5 6.6E-14 5 8.0E-14 
10 1.9E-14 10 2.0E-14 
20 5.5E-15 20 5.0E-15 
Table II-16b. Cratering Rate Distributions Used for Corroborative-Use-Only 
Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], C40) Neukum and Ivanov (1994, Table IV [DIRS 121510], C42) 
Crater Diameter (km) Annual Frequency / km2 Crater Diameter (km) Annual Frequency / km2 
0.01 2.2E-08 0.01 7.1E-07 
0.1 2.2E-10 0.1 8.1E-09 
1 2.1E-12 1 1.2E-12 
5 8.4E-14 5 1.8E-14 
10 2.1E-14 10 7.6E-15 
20 5.2E-15 20 3.7E-15 
C46b, Bailey and EmelYanenko 1998 [DIRS 162564] 
(Assuming all cometary) (Assuming all asteroid) (Observed cratering) 
Diameter (km) Annual Frequency / km2 Diameter (km) Annual Frequency / km2 Diameter (km) Annual Frequency / km2 
0.1 1.4E-10 0.1 4.8E-10 0.1 2.4E-10 
1 2.1E-12 1 3.1E-12 1 2.4E-12 
5 1.1E-13 5 9.4E-14 5 9.4E-14 
10 3.0E-14 10 2.1E-14 10 2.4E-14 
20 8.4E-15 20 4.6E-15 20 5.9E-15 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-104 April 2004 

Wuschke et al. (1995) 
For Wuschke et al. (1995, p. 44 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24), the distribution is derived from subsets 
of the observed Earth cratering distribution used by Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) (Q19). The 
equation is given as: 
-1
. = 2.010-12D-2A a(Eq. II-11) 
where . is the frequency of cratering events of diameter D (km) or larger represented on an 
annual basis (a) that occur in target area A (km2). Putting . = F(D) and setting A = 
1 km2 sets this equation in a form similar to that for Grieve. 
F(D) = 2.010-12(D)-2 (Eq. II-11a) 
This denotes a slightly steeper slope compared to Grieve (2.010-12 compared to Grieves 1.2 + 
0.6 10-12). Wuschkes approach slightly decreases the annual frequency for a 20-km diameter 
crater (5.0 x 10-15 per km2 compared to the values from Grieve of 5.5 x10-15 km2). This 
difference is reflected in the plot in Figure II-2. 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994) 
This distribution was previously discussed in this attachment, and the meteor diameter 
distribution was shown to be adequate and appropriate for use as corroborative information for 
meteoroid flux. Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) is based on the lunar 
cratering rate, with the lunar crater diameter distribution adjusted for earth conditions by 
assuming an atmosphereless earth (i.e., not adjusted for ablation or atmospheric effects, but 
effects of gravity on crater diameters are considered). The corroborative information from 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) is given in Table II-17. 
Table II-17. Cratering Rate Distribution for Atmosphereless Earth 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994, Table IV [DIRS 121510], C42) 
Crater Diameter (km) Energy Release (MT) Time Interval (year) for Whole Earth 
0.01 2.65E-07 2.75E-03 
0.1 5.26E-04 2.42E-01 
1.0 2.58E+00 1.60E+03 
5 4.21E+02 1.10E+05 
10 4.43E+03 2.58E+05 
20 4.66E+04 5.25E+05 
To show adequacy and appropriateness, the corroborative work of Brown et al. (2002 
[DIRS 162569]) is used for comparison. The work by Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) 
is based on direct observation of bolide events (a bolide is a meteor that show signs of explosion 
or fragmentation), and the study uses observed energy releases in Earths atmosphere to 
determine flux. The work is described in more detail in this attachment and was previously 
evaluated based on meteor diameter equivalents. By showing corroboration between the energy 
releases directly observed by Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) and the theoretical 
equivalents determined by Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42), the equivalent 
cratering rate provided in the Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) can be 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-105 April 2004 

evaluated. In effect, this has already been achieved in that the Neukum and Ivanov (1994 
[DIRS 121510]) (C42) relates the meteor diameter to crater diameters, and Brown et al. 
(2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) and Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) were both 
shown to be adequate and appropriate for use as direct input for meteoroid flux. Regardless, the 
comparison of Brown et al. (2002, Figure 4 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) to Neukum and Ivanov 
(1994, Table IV [DIRS 121510]) (C42) is shown on Figure II-3, with the Neukum and Ivanov 
(1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) information converted from megaton (mt) to kiloton (kt) by 
multiplying by a factor of 103. The cratering rate distribution based on Neukum and Ivanov 
(1994, Table IV [DIRS 121510]) (C42) represents and upper bound to the cratering rate 
distribution for smaller diameter craters, and is shown on Figure II-2 for comparison to other 
cratering rate distributions that are used as technical and corroborative information for the 
analysis. 
1 E+01 
1 E+03 
1 E+05 
1 E+01 1 E+03 1 E+05 1 E+07 
Number of Events per Year (Whole Earth) 
1 E-07 
1 E-05 
1 E-03 
1 E-01 
1 E-05 1 E-03 1 E-01 
Energy Release (kt TNT equivalent) 
Brown et al. 2002 [162569] Neukum and Ivanov 1994 (Table IV) [121510] 
Figure II-3. Frequency of Meteor Energy Release in Earths Atmosphere 
Given the previous comparison in this attachment and that on Figure II-3, the plot of Neukum 
and Ivanov (1994 Table IV [DIRS 121510]) (C42) falls within about one-half order of magnitude 
of the plot for Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35), the corroborative information in 
Table II-17 is appropriate for its intended use. The use of this information, however, must 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-106 April 2004 

recognize that it is for an atmosphereless earth and any calculations or use must be adjusted 
accordingly. 
Additional Corroborative Information 
The additional distribution equations represented on Figure II-2 and in Table II-16 includes 
distributions provided by equations in C46b, Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998, Equations 4 and 
10, and p. 15 [DIRS 162564]) and by Hughes (1998, Equation 2, p. 4 [DIRS 162562]) (C40). 
The equations from C46b, Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998 [DIRS 162564]) for assumed 
cometary and asteroidal flux are based on kinetic energy of the meteor, material properties of the 
impacted surface, and associated scaling laws. C46b, Bailey and EmelYanenko 
(1998 [DIRS 162564]) is focused on large-scale diameter craters, and likely applies to crater 
diameters of 20 km or greater, although this is not specifically stated. 
The equation, assuming all impacts are cometary, is given (Bailey and EmelYanenko (C32) Eq. 
10 [DIRS 162564]) in the form of: 
-1.84-1
Nc (>D)  4.310-6 (D/20km) a(Eq. II-12) 
where: Nc is the number of cometary-cratering events of Diameter D or larger that occur per 
year and assumes that all influx is cometary in nature. Putting Nc (>D) = F(D), stating it on an 
annual basis, and dividing by the area of the earths surface (5.1 x 108 km2) sets this equation in a 
form similar to that for Grieve for annual frequency per km2. 
-1.84 
F(D) = 2.110-12 (D) (Eq. II-12a) 
The equation assuming all impacts are asteroidal is given Bailey and EmelYanenko (C32, Eq. 4 
[DIRS 162564]) in the form of: 
2.18-1
Nc (>D)  2.3410-6 (D/20km) a(Eq. II-13) 
where: Nc is the number of asteroidal-cratering events of Diameter D or larger that occur per 
year and assumes that all influx is asteroidal in nature. Putting Nc (>D) = F(D), stating it on an 
annual basis, and dividing by the area of the earths surface (5.1 x 108 km2) sets this equation in a 
form similar to that for Grieve for annual frequency per km2. 
2.18 
F(D) = 3.210-12 (D) (Eq. II-13a) 
The observed cratering rate is given (p. 15 [DIRS 162564]) as 
-2-1
N = 310-6 D20 a(Eq. II-14) 
where: N is the number of cratering events of Diameter D or larger that occur per year for the 
whole earth. Putting N= F(D), stating D20 as (D/20 km), restating it on an annual basis, and 
dividing by the area of the earths surface (5.1 x 108 km2) sets this equation in a form similar to 
that for Grieve for annual frequency per km2. 
2.18 
F(D) = 2.4 10-12 (D) (Eq. II-14a) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-107 April 2004 

Hughes (1998, Equation 2 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) is stated as strictly applying only to the range 
of diameters of 19 <D <45 km, but allows that is could reasonably be stretched to 1<D<500 km. 
It is derived from subsets of the cratering distribution used by Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) 
(Q19). The equation is given as: 
log.c = -11.67  (2.01) log D (Eq. II-15 ) 
where .c is the number of cratering events of diameter D (km) or larger that occur per year per 
km2. Putting .c = F(D) and simplifying the form to match that for the Grieve equation (Eq. 9a, 
this attachment) sets the equation to the form of: 
2.0
F(D) = 2.1 10-12 (D) (Eq. II-15a) 
This information has been plotted to Figure II-2 and shown in Table II-16. Plots for these 
equations from the corroborative papers essentially are identical to that of Wuschke et al. (1995 
[DIRS 129326]) (Q24), as shown in Figure II-2. 
The adequate and appropriate direct input is listed in Table II-16. The plots of the 
corroborating distributions generally span about one order of magnitude or less. It is slightly 
greater for crater diameters of 0.1 km than for larger crater diameters. The plot of the Neukum 
and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) represents an absolute upper bound of event frequency 
(i.e., an atmosphereless earth which neglects effects of ablation and fragmentation) The Grieve 
distribution likely overestimates the number of small diameter craters due to extrapolation of a 
curve fitted to a 10-km crater diameter, for which atmospheric phenomena and obscuration of the 
crater are less significant than for smaller crater diameters. The number of observed 
small-diameter craters is substantially less than that projected by the plotted distributions. The 
crater diameter distribution extrapolated from the observations by Grieve, however, at least 
includes the effects of ablation and fragmentation as reflected for large-diameter craters. The 
slightly higher event frequency distribution derived from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) 
(Q24) may represent a more realistic distribution of actual size, and it has been applied for a 
hypothetical Canadian repository. Regardless, the range in the number of events per year for any 
given diameter generally falls within one order of magnitude and, therefore, the event frequency 
distributions derived from Grieve and from Wuschke et al. are adequate and appropriate for use 
as direct input. 
4.5.3.4 Crater Dimensions as a Function of Meteor Type 
This section addresses data being used to develop a cratering rate distribution based on 
meteoroid flux. A direct input for that calculation is based on the results of non-YMP modeling 
done by others. The direct inputs include the following: 
Results of a model (by others) linking a variety of effects to initial meteor radius, 
including resulting crate diameters and related consequences. 
This information is taken from Item Q22, but is corroborated from a large number of sources 
including Items Q16, Q18, Q23, C32, C36, C37, and C40. 
The direct input that relates initial meteoroid diameter to crater diameter are extracted from Hills 
and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]). These figures represent the results of 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-108 April 2004 

modeling documented in the peer-reviewed paper, and include a variety of atmospheric effects, 
including fragmentation of the meteors, changing velocity of dispersed fragments, radius of the 
debris cloud, energy dissipation in the atmosphere through velocity reduction and ablation and 
velocity. These relationships are shown on Figures II-4a, II-4b, and II-4c. 
Table II-18 presents the direct input taken from Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 
17 [DIRS 135281]) for velocity curves of 15 km/s and 20 km/s for the various meteor types. It 
should be noted that relationships listed in Table II-18 for diameters in excess of 1,000 meters 
for iron, and in excess of about 300 m for hard stone and soft stone, were in fact extracted from 
Figure 16 of Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]). This is reflected on 
Figures II-4a, II-4b, and II-4c by the overlap of the curves. 
Also shown on the figures is corroborative-use-only information from other peer-reviewed or 
refereed papers that relate meteor radius to resulting crater radius. The relationships taken from 
Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) are being compared to 
corroborative-use-only information and statements by others regarding meteor-diameter to 
crater-diameter relationships, minimum sizes and conditions needed to penetrate the atmosphere, 
fragmentation heights, and other calculations regarding atmospheric effects. These comparisons 
are shown on the figures, where feasible, and are shown as wide bars for limits and/or boxes 
representing a range of stated effects. In some cases, the corroborative-use-only information is 
compared to other figures within Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) that address 
specific phenomena or processes other than crater diameter. The inference is that if individual 
components of the work by Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) can be shown to agree 
reasonably with works of others (e.g., decrease in velocity, range of explosive effects), then by 
inference, this further supports the defensibility of the relationship of initial meteor radius to 
crater radius given by Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22). Table II-19 provides a 
summary of the comparison to the corroborative-use-only information. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-109 April 2004 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-110 April 2004 
Resulting Crater Radius (m) 
1 E+06 
1 E+05 
1 E+04 
1 E+03 
1 E+02 
1 E+01 
1 E+00 
1 E-01 
Dip in 
atmosHills acurves reflects 
pheric effects per 
nd Goda 199Figure[13528s 16 and 17 
1]
3,
/
/
/
/
[135253] 
15 kmsec - Largest 
Fragment 
20 kmsec- Largest 
Fragment 
15 kmsec Integrated 
Radius 
20 kmsec Integrated 
Radius 
Shoemaker 1983, p. 
470 [135308] 
Dence 1977, p. 270 
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 
Initial Meteor Radius (m) 
NOTE: 
This figure represents a cross-plot of crater radius data provided in Table II-12 of this AR with corroborative information provided in Table II-13 of this 
Attachment. The data from Table II-12 for iron meteors are shown as solid or dashed line symbols. Stand-alone symbols represent corroborative 
information from Table II-13 
Figure II-4a. Resulting Crater Radius for Iron Meteors 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-111 April 2004 
1 10 
() 
) 
/
/
/
/
iali] 
i 
Minii] 
] 
iiil14 [] 
lii] 
1 E-01 
1 E+00 
1 E+01 
1 E+02 
1 E+03 
1 E+04 
1 E+05 
1 E+06 
0.01 0.1 100 1000 10000 
Initial Meteor RadiusmetersResulting Crater Radius (m15 kmsec - Largest Fragment 
20 kmsec - Largest Fragment 
15 kmsec - Integrated Radius 
20 kmsec - Integrated Radius 
Ceplecha 1992, p. 364 - Zone of 
Part Protecton [135242Chapman and Morrson 1994, p. 3334 
[135245],mum Energy 
Needed to Penetrate Low er 
Atmosphere 
Chyba 1993, p. 701 - Mnimum 
Energy Needed to Threaten 
Surface [135248] 
Shoemaker 1983, p. 473 [135308Shoemaker 1983, p. 479 [135308Limt of Non-fragmentng Stony 
Meteors. 
Baey and Emel'Yanenko 1998, p. 
162564Dip in curves refects 
atmospherc effects per Hills 
and Goda 1993, Fgures 16 
and 17 [135281
NOTE: 
This figure represents a cross-plot of crater radius data provided in Table II-12 of this AR with corroborative information provided in Table II-13 of this AR. 
The data from Table II-12 for hard stone meteors are shown as solid or dashed lined symbols. Stand-alone symbols, boxed areas, and shaded lines 
represent corroborative information from Table II-13. 
Figure II-4b. Resulting Crater Radius for Hard Stone Meteors 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-112 April 2004 
1 10 
i[
1 E-01 
1 E+00 
1 E+01 
1 E+02 
1 E+03 
1 E+04 
1 E+05 
1 E+06 
0.1 100 1000 10000 
Initial Meteor Radius (m) 
Resulting Crater Radius (m) 
15 km/sec - Largest Fragment 
20 km/sec - Largest Fragment 
15 km/sec - Integrated Radius 
20 km/sec - Integrated Radius 
Ceplecha 1992, p. 364 
[135242] Zone of Partial 
Protection 
Hughes 1998, p. 31 [162562] 
Shoemaker 1983, p. 475 
[135308] 
Shoemaker 1983, p.479 
[135308] Limt of Non-
fragmenting Stony Meteors 
Bailey and Emel-Yanenko 
1998, p. 14 
Dip in curves reflects 
atmospheric effects per 
Hills and Goda 1993, 
Figures 16 and 17, 
135281] 
NOTE: 
This figure represents a cross-plot of crater radius data provided in Table II-12 of this AR with corroborative information provided in Table II-13 of this AR. 
The data from Table II-12 for soft stone meteors are shown as solid or dashed lined symbols. Stand-alone symbols, boxed areas, and shaded lines 
represent corroborative information from Table II-13. Break in largest fragment curve due to differences in curves for Figures 16 and 17 in Hills and Goda 
1993 for radii greater than 100 m. 
Figure II-4c. Resulting Crater Radius for Soft Stone Meteors 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-113 April 2004 
Table II-18. Initial Meteor Radius to Resulting Crater Radius for use as Direct Input 
Iron Meteors Hard Stone Meteor Soft Stone Meteor 
R meteor (m) R crater from Largest Fragment (m) R meteor (m) R crater from Largest Fragment (m) R meteor (m) R crater from Largest Fragment (m) 
15 km/s 20 km/s 15 km/s 20 km/s 15 km/s 20 km/s 
3100 170,000 200,000 4000 170,000 200,000 6000 210,000 300,000 
1400 70,000 90,000 1960 70,000 90,000 2800 100,000 130,000 
670 27,000 27,000 870 30,000 40,000 1300 43,000 70,000 
310 11,000 9,000 400 5,000 5,000 600 20,000 28,000 
140 4,500 3,000 190 800 700 280 1,000 1,000 
67 1,000 400 86 100 40 130 280 280 
31 200 60 50 10 0.1 60 3 0.2 
15 35 1 40 1 40 0.1 
14.5 32 0.7 30 0.1 28 
14 28 0.1 19 13 
6.7 3 8.7 6 
5.5 2 4 2.8 
3.1 5 1.9 0.1 1.3 
2.8 100 1.5 15 0.60 
1.4 40 0.1 0.90 10 0.1 0.30 0.1 
1.2 40 40 0.87 7 3 0.28 0.2 
0.67 14 10 0.40 0.8 0.3 0.13 0.1 
0.31 4 3 0.19 0.2 0.1 
0.14 0.6 0.2 0.09 0.1 
0.07 0.1 0.1 
R meteor (m) R crater for Integrated Equivalent (m) R meteor (m) R crater for Integrated Equivalent (m) R meteor (m) R crater for Integrated Equivalent (m) 
15 km/s 20 km/s 15 km/s 20 km/s 15 km/s 20 km/s 
5,000 250,000 300,000 5,000 180,000 220,000 5,000 180,000 220,000 
1,000 45,000 55,000 1,000 35,000 45,000 1,000 35,000 45,000 
500 25,000 30,000 500 18,000 22,000 500 18,000 22,000 
100 5,000 6,500 200 7,000 9,000 200 6,000 8,000 
50 2,100 2,200 100 3,000 3,000 100 2,600 2,500 
15 500 10 80 2,000 1,700 80 1,600 800 
10 400 0.1 60 1,500 160 60 500 80 
6.0 180 50 600 50 40 30 15 
5.0 10 40 200 15 30 15 10 
4.0 10 30 20 10 25 10 - -0.1 
3.0 110 25 10 10 
1.2 32 0.1 
1.1 30 30 
1.0 25 25 
0.50 10 10 
- -Indicates that either there is no resulting crater due to fragmentation effects or the result radius is less than the scale used by Hills and Goda. For Figure 17 the 
minimum radius plotted is 0.1m and for Figure 16 is 0.01 km (10 m). Taken from Hills and Goda 1993, Figure 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281] (Q22). 

Table II-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Hughes 
(1998, p. 31 
[DIRS 
162562], 
C40) 
Considering the typical impact 
velocities of asteroids and 
comets with Earth and the 
energy diameter equation 
mentioned above, the impacting 
objects have diameters that are 
between 1/15 and 1/30 the 
diameter of the craters they 
produce, so 4-40 km craters are 
produced by 0.1-3 km meteors 
Composition of 
asteroid/cometary probably 
is equivalent to soft stone. 
Meteor diameters of 0.1-3 
km relate to meteor radius of 
50 to 1500 m. Crater 
diameters of 4-40 km relate 
to radii of 2000 to 20,000 
meters 
Hills and Goda (1993, 
Figure 16 [DIRS 135281] 
(Q22). The integrated 
crater radius for a 50-m 
meteor is 1 to 2 km. The 
integrated crater radius for 
a 1500-m meteor is on the 
order of 50 km. 
Hills and Goda (1993, 
Figure 17 [DIRS 
135281] (Q22). The 
radius of the largest 
fragment from a 50-m 
meteor yields a crater 
radius on the order of a 
few meters, and initial 
meter radius of greater 
than a few hundred 
Hughes (1998 
[DIRS 162562] (C40) is 
based on an energy-derived 
relationship that holds for 
large diameter meteors, but 
does not consider 
fragmentation effects. The 
integrated radius of Hills and 
Goda is similar to the box 
of the relationships 
meters is not provided. suggested by Hughes. See 
Figure II-4c. 
Hughes 
(1998, p. 37 
[DIRS 
162562], 
C40) 
When it comes to cratering 
potential, it is worth noting that 
an impacting short-period comet 
has a mean relative velocity of 
38.5 km/s, in comparison with a 
mean velocity of 20.8 km/s for 
an impacting asteroid. Crudely, 
the diameter of the resulting 
crater increases as the square 
root of the impact velocity. So a 
1 km comet will produce a 
crater that is about 1.36 times 
bigger than that produced by a 
1 km asteroid. 
The ratio of crater radius 
resulting from an asteroid 
(hard stone) with a radius of 
0.5 km (500 m) at a velocity 
of 20.8 km/s, to the crater 
radius from a cometary body 
with the same radius but a 
velocity of 38.5 km/s, is 
about 1.36. 
Hughes does not consider 
fragmentation effects 
At a velocity of 20.8 km/s, 
a hard stone meteor with 
radius of 500 m yields a 
crater radius of about 20 
km. A same-sized 
cometary meteor at a rate 
of 40 km/s yields a 
maximum crater radius of 
about 12 km, although the 
curve is essentially 
vertical at that point 
suggesting complete 
fragmentation and 
disintegration of the 
meteor. The ratio of the 
Meteor radii for stony 
materials are covered 
only up to 200 m, and 
no curve is shown for 
cometary material. . 
The ratio suggested by 
Hughes holds in Hills and 
Goda for the integrated 
radius if fragmentation 
potential is ignored. This is 
not plotted on the figures. 
The results from Hills and 
Goda has a radius ration of 
about 1.66 similar to the 
1.38 ratio proposed by 
Hughes. 
crater radii is 20/12= 1.66, 
whereas the square root 
of the velocity ratio 
(40/20.8) is about 1.38 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-114 April 2004 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-115 April 2004 
Table II-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Shoemaker 
1983 
TIC: 246922 
[DIRS 
135308] 
p. 470 
p. 473 
p. 475 
p. 479 
If the rms impact velocity of 20 
km/s obtained from Earth-
crossing asteroids is adopted 
for the projectile that formed 
Meteor Crater, a spherical 
asteroid of meteoritic iron about 
42 m in diameter has the kinetic 
energy required to form the 
initial 1.16-km-diameter crater. 
Applying Equation (2) to 
estimate the energy required to 
form a 10-km-diameter impact 
crater, we get 1.04 x 104 
megatons TNT; an asteroid with 
this kinetic energy and a density 
of 2.38 g/cm3 traveling at 20 
km/s has a diameter of 0.57 km. 
From Equation (2), using an 
estimated effective density of 
1.7 g/cm3, the diameter of an 
average C-type asteroid that will 
produce a 10-km crater is 0.61 
km. 
Because of the low strength, 
nearly all stony bodies less than 
150 m diameter are sheared 
apart by aerodynamic stress in 
the lower atmosphere. 
This equates to a 21-m initial 
meteor radius and a crater 
radius of about 600m for a 
velocity of 20 km/s. 
Equates to a 5,000-m crater 
radius and an initial meteor 
radius of 280 m for a density 
of 2.38 g/cm3 . 
. 
Equates to a 5000-m crater 
radius and an initial meteor 
radius of 305 m for a density 
of 1.7 g/cm3 . 
This corresponds to a limit 
on meteor radius of 75 m. 
Figure 16 indicates that an initial iron meteor of 21 m 
yields an integrated crater of about 500 m for a 
velocity of 20 km/s, and approximately 1000 m for 15 
km/s. 
This example plots between the resulting crater 
radius of the largest fragment and the integrated 
crater radius, on Figures 17 and 16 of Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281] (Q22). 
This example also plots between the resulting crater 
radius of the largest fragment and the integrated 
crater radius, on Figures 17 and 16 of Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281] (Q22). 
This threshold corresponds with the decrease in the 
integrated crater radius, which signifies significantly 
increased fragmentation. 
See Figure II-4a. The value 
from Shoemaker plots along 
the 15-km/s velocity curve 
for the integrated crater 
radius, 
See Figure II-4b. This point 
value plots between the 
largest fragment curve and 
the integrated crater radius 
curves. It is in agreement 
with Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281] (Q22). 
See Figure II-4c. This point 
value plots between the 
largest fragment curve and 
below the integrated crater 
radius curves. It is in 
agreement with Hills and 
Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281] 
(Q22). 
This limit is shown on 
Figures II-4b and II-4c as a 
vertical line, It corresponds 
with a steepening of the 
integrated radius curves, 
and the largest fragment 
curve. It is consistent with 
the results of Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281] (Q22). 

Table II-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Dence et al. 
1977, p. 270 
[DIRS 135253], 
Q18 
The energy calculated for 
Brent would be delivered 
by an iron meteorite with 
a velocity of 15 km/s and 
diameter of 130 m. 
The diameter of the Brent 
crater is noted by Dence in 
Table 1 as 3.8 km or a radius 
of 1900 m from an impacting 
meteorite radius of 65 m at 
impact. We will neglect the 
effects of ablation on the 
The point value plots between the curve sets for the 
largest fragment and the integrated crater radius. 
See Figure II-4a. This point 
value supports the results of 
Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281] (Q22). The 
results from Hills and Goda 
bracket this example. 
initial meteor radius, 
, Bailey and  which shows that a This roughly corresponds to The point value was plotted for the both hard stone See Figures II-4b and II-4c. 
EmelYanenko long-period comet or an initial soft stone radius of and soft stone rather than cometary material, and the The corroborative-use-only 
1998, p. 14 Halley-type object has a 900m and a crater radius of Hills and Goda plot should plot as a larger crater due point values plot below the 
TIC: 254143 diameter d=1.8 km in 10,000 m to the increase in density of stony meteors compared curves from Hills and Goda 
order to produce a 20 km to cometary meteors. (1993 [DIRS 135281] (Q22) 
[DIRS 162564] crater. as expected due to the 
C32 difference in assumed 
densities. 
Ceplecha 1994, 
Figure 3 
[DIRS 135243] 
Q17 
This figure shows the 
resulting impact velocity 
for diameter (plotted as 
log d) for various initial 
entry velocities for a 
stony composition. 
Initial and resulting impact 
velocities are 
For 5 m radius : 
Initial Impact 
15 km/s . 1 km/s 
20 km/s . 4 km/s 
25 km/s . 6 km/s 
30 km/s . 6 km/s 
Comparison here is made to Hills and Goda (1993, 
Figure 10 [DIRS 135281] (Q22), which is directly 
comparable. 
For 5-m radius: 
The impact velocity for all initial velocities is 
shown as 0 km/s 
The results of Hills and 
Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281] 
(Q22) include all energy 
dissipation, not just ablation 
effects considered by 
Ceplecha and consequently 
showing a more marked 
decrease in velocity. 
For 50 m radius: For 50-m radius: 
Initial Impact Initial Impact 
15 km/s .14 km/s 
20 km/s .18 km/s 
25 km/s . 23 km/s 
30 km/s . 28 km/s 
15 km/s . 5 km/s 
20 km/s . 8 km/s 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-116 April 2004 

Table II-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Ceplecha (1992, 
p. 364 
[DIRS 135242] 
Figure 4 [same as Figure 
3 from Ceplecha 1994, 
but expressed as log m 
rather than log d] also 
shows that protection by 
the Earths atmosphere 
Equivalent diameters are 
calculated assuming stony 
density of 3000 kg/m3 , 
carbonaceous density of 
1100 kg/m3 and cometary 
density of 500 kg/m3 and 
Given that Ceplecha bases his statement on velocity 
relationships and has linked that to ablation effects, 
corresponding velocity and ablation figures from Hills 
and Goda 1993 {135281] (Q22) should also be used, 
which are Figures 10 and 6 respectively. 
As previously mentioned, 
the velocity curves for Hills 
and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281] (Q22) 
include a greater reduction 
due to effects other than just 
against explosive assuming spherical shape. For stony material, impact velocity drops to 4 km/s or ablation. Consequently, it is 
impacts of stony bodies Accordingly the equivalent less (the threshold used by Ceplecha 1992 to be expected that the 
is effective only below 
105 kg. For masses of 
106 kg, the protection is 
meteor radii for explosive 
impact protection, partial 
protection and no protection, 
[DIRS 135242]) for all initial entry velocities if the 
meteor radius is less than 20m, with some explosive 
impact damage from fragments possible if the radius is 
upper range will be greater 
than that given by Ceplecha, 
but should be on the same 
partial, i.e., against high respectively are as follows: in the range of 1 to 3 m. Ablation has a significant order of magnitude, which is 
velocity bodies. Stony effect for meteor radii less than 40 m and is largely the case. 
bodies more massive 
than 107 kg impact the 
surface explosively for all 
initial velocities. For 
For stony material 
105 kg  2 m 
106 kg  4 m 
107 kg  9 m 
ineffective for meteor radii greater than about 100 m. 
For soft stone (an assumed surrogate for 
carbonaceous), velocity drops to zero for all meteor 
The limits proposed by 
Ceplecha are plotted on 
Figures II-4b and II-4c as a 
carbonaceous bodies the radii less than about 30 m, and no protection from box, which falls in the 
situation is similar except For carbonaceous materials: explosive impacts is provided if the meteor radius is shielding effect portion of 
that the border is shifted 
two orders higher to 
larger masses with a 
steeper velocity gradient. 
107 kg  13 m 
108 kg  28 m 
109 kg  60 m 
greater than about 60 m. Ablation has a significant 
effect for meteor radii less than about 70 m, and is 
largely ineffective for meteor radii greater than about 
150 m. 
the Hills and Goda curves. 
Thus the protection 
against carbonaceous For cometary material: For cometary material, with initial velocities of 30 km/s, 
bodies is much more 
effective. Cometary 
bodies with masses 
under 3 x 1011 kg (initial 
3 x 1011 kg  520 m 
1012 kg  780 m 
4x 1010 kg  270 m 
velocity drops to less than the explosive threshold at a 
meteor radius of about 300 m. 
velocity of 28 km/s) do 
not impact the Earth 
surface explosively . . . 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-117 April 2004 

Table II-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Ceplecha (1992, 
p. 364 
TIC: 246784 
[DIRS 135242]) 
Q16 
(continued) 
(continued). . . while 
bodies with mass of 10 12 
kg and greater do, 
although their terminal 
mass at impact is 4 x1010 
kg and greater. 
For cometary material: 
1012 kg  780 m 
4 x 1010 kg  270 m 
This suggests an ablation 
ratio of about 96 percent of 
the initial meteor mass. 
For a given velocity of 30 km/s and an initial radius of 
780 m, Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281] (Q22) 
predict an ablation fraction of about 0.2 or 20 percent 
(Figure 6 (1993 [DIRS 135281] (Q22). A 90-percent 
ablation occurs for cometary bodies of no larger than 
300- to 400-m radius per Hills and Goda (1993, 
Figure 6 [DIRS 135281] (Q22) for the stated velocity, 
and for a radii of 700 m at velocities in excess of 50 
km/s. 
Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281] (Q22) 
indicate significantly less 
ablation than Ceplecha 
(1992 
[DIRS 135242])  the basis 
for the difference is not 
discernible from Ceplecha 
(1992 [DIRS 135242]). This 
may be in agreement if 
Ceplecha has misstated the 
velocity or based ablation on 
the final size. 
Chapman and 
Morrison (1994, 
p. 33 and p. 34 
[DIRS 135245] 
C36 
Most projectiles <50 m in 
diameter, with energies 
<10 megatons dissipate 
the energy harmlessly in 
the upper atmosphere. 
The height of 
fragmentation depends 
primarily on the 
meteoroids physical 
strength; only the 
This corresponds to radii of 
<25 m and at a velocity of 20 
km/s. 
Hills and Goda 1993, Figures 6 and 10 [DIRS 135281], 
Q22). For hard stone, impact velocity drops to 4 m/s 
or less (the threshold used by Ceplecha (1992 
[DIRS 135242]) for all initial entry velocities if the 
meteor radius is less than 20 m, with some damage 
from fragments possible if the meteor radius is in the 
range of 1 to 3 m. Per Hills and Goda, ablation has a 
significant effect for meteor radii less than 40 m and is 
largely ineffective for meteor radii greater than about 
100 m. 
The statements by 
Chapman and Morrison 
(1994 [DIRS 135245]) 
support the findings by Hills 
and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281] (Q22). This 
has been plotted on Figure 
II-4b as a vertical line 
representing the stated limit, 
and corresponds with the 
break in the Hills and Goda 
strongest iron meteoroids 
reach the ground in one 
piece. For non-iron 
meteoroids, the minimum 
Additionally, Figure 4 of Hills and Goda [DIRS 135281] 
(Q22) provides the height of half energy dissipation. 
This figure indicates half energy dissipation occurs in 
the atmosphere at heights greater than 5 km, for hard 
curve. 
energy required to 
penetrate to the lower 
atmosphere is 10 MT or 
50 m diameter for stony 
object hitting at 20 km/s. 
stone with initial radii less than 20 m, and for soft stone 
with initial radii less than 50 m. Figure 5 indicates that 
although all meteors of hard stone greater than about 
1 m radius will break, significant dispersion of the 
fragments does not occur if the initial meteor radius is 
greater than about 25 m for the given velocity of 20 
km/s. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-118 April 2004 

Table II-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Chyba (1993, p. 
703 
TIC: 246762 
[DIRS 135248]) 
C37 
Figure 1 shows that the 
Spacewatch objects with 
energies below 10 MT (at 
13.3 km/s a stony 
asteroid approximately 
32 m in radius) do not 
threaten the surface. 
Directly comparable for 
radius, and velocity is less 
than 15 km/sec. 
The same values discussed for Chapman and 
Morrison (1994 [DIRS 135245]) apply here as well. 
The 11.2 km/s and 15 km/s velocity curves from Hills 
and Goda were considered surrogate velocities. 
Figure 4 indicates that for a radius of 32 m or greater, 
half dissipation occurs at heights greater than 4 km for 
the 11.2 km/s curve. Chyba is addressing 
atmospheric release and is not addressing potential for 
cratering impacts. 
The statement by Chyba 
supports the findings by Hills 
and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281] (Q22). This 
corresponds with the break 
in the Hills and Goda curve. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-119 April 2004 

4.5.3.5 Depth and Extent of Cratering Features 
The meteorite impact analysis must consider the spatial relationship of crater diameter and 
related phenomena such as exhumation and fracturing depth. Direct input pertaining to the 
spatial relationships of crater diameter to the extent of exhumation and depth of fracturing has 
been taken from existing published literature. Because these may be the best or only information 
available, and have been developed by others for analyzing similar problems, it is technically 
justified to use the values for formulation of the analysis. 
Diameters associated with onset of complex cratering. This information is taken from 
Items Q19, Q20 and Q24. These sources are cross-corroborating. 
Crater diameter to depth of effect relationships. This information is taken from Items 
Q18, Q21, and Q24. These sources are cross-corroborating. 
Simple and Complex Cratering 
The amount of kinetic energy acting in combination with the impacted rock properties 
determines the features, shape, size, and depth of any crater and any related cratering effects such 
as fracturing. The potential consequences are divided at the first level on the two basic types of 
observed cratering. Complex cratering involves the uplift and significant vertical displacement 
of a central portion of the crater. Complex cratering can be initiated with crater diameters 
greater than 2 km in sedimentary rocks; however, terrestrial simple craters may also exhibit 
crater diameters up to 4 km, which is the threshold for simple-to-complex cratering in crystalline 
rocks (Grieve 1987, p. 249 [DIRS 135254]) (Q19), Grieve et al. 1995, p. 184 [DIRS 135260]) 
(Q20), and Wuschke et al. 1995, p. 3 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24). Complex cratering is typically 
associated with larger-scale (greater than 2- to 4-km-diameter) craters and several mechanisms 
are involved in their formation. The threshold for FEP screening based on probability is stated 
as an annualized equivalence of 110-8 events per year for the repository area. Based on the 
cratering rate distributions presented earlier in this attachment, a 2-km crater diameter event 
occurs 10-12 times or less per year. Consequently, complex cratering features do not occur with 
sufficient frequency to be of concern for FEP screening and only simple cratering effects 
need be further evaluated. 
Depth and Extent of Exhumation 
The direct input for depth and extent of simple cratering exhumation come from three sources: 
Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18), Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) and 
Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]). 
Wuschke et al. subdivide the total exhumed depth into two zones. The first zone is based on 
exhumation and ejection of materials from the crater. Wuschke et al. assign a depth value of 
10 percent (0.10) of the crater diameter for simple craters (Wuschke et al. 1995, 
p. 3 [DIRS 129326], Q24). The second zone of exhumation extends below the first. It is defined 
by shattering and redistribution of material within the crater itself. Wuschke et al. (1995, 
p. 3 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) suggest that the second zone extends to a depth of about 14 percent 
(0.14) of the crater diameter for simple craters. Wuschke et al. (1995, p. 3 [DIRS 129326]) 
(Q24) indicate that the depth of shock, compression, and displacement without redistribution is 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-120 April 2004 

approximately 42 percent of the crater diameter, but does not specifically identify this as part of 
the true crater depth. 
The true crater depth is equivalent to an exhumation depth. Grieve (1998, p. 113 
[DIRS 163385]) (Q21) expresses the true crater depth-to-crater diameter relationship for simple 
craters as an equation: 
dt =0.28 D 0.98 (Eq. II-16) 
where dt= true crater depth and D = the crater diameter, with dt and D in km. This suggests that 
the ratio of the true depth (dt) to crater diameter (D) decreases as the crater diameter increases. 
This equation yields calculated true depth-to-crater diameter ratios of 0.32 to 0.27 for a range of 
crater diameters of 0.001 km to 2 km, with a 2-km diameter representing the potential for onset 
of complex cratering. Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21) also suggests on Figure 8 that the 
depths of structures in sedimentary targets are shallower than for equivalent size structures in 
crystalline targets and attributes this to target rock effects as it pertains to variable rock strength 
in cratering mechanics. 
Combined, the relationships presented by Wuschke et al. and by Grieve suggest exhumation 
ratios ranging from 0.10 to as much as 0.33 of the crater diameter. These ratios are cross-
corroborative with information from Dence et al. (1977, pp. 247 and 270 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18). 
Dence et al. refer to the Brent crater, a simple crater with a crater diameter of approximately 
3.8 km, and suggest a meteorite of 130-m-diameter impacting the surface (i.e., the impacting 
diameter, not initial entry diameter) caused the crater. Dence et al. state that the peak pressure 
begins to drop at a depth of about 1.3 Dmeteorite and the excavation continues to a depth of about 
4.1 Dmeteorite, or a depth of about 533 m deep, which is 14 percent of the crater diameter. Dence 
et al. also indicate that there is further cavity expansion due to displacement of bedrock below 
the excavated cavity to give a total depth of 8 Dmeteorite, or a depth of 1,040 m, which is 
27 percent of the crater diameter. Based on this description, it appears that at least part of the 
second zone (i.e., extending to 14 percent of the crater diameter) described by Wuschke et al. 
(1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) corresponds with the depth of the transient cavity described by 
Dence et al. In a summary statement, Dence et al. (1977, p. 250 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18) state 
the depth to the bottom of the lining (true depth) is typically one-third to one-quarter the 
diameter of the crater. 
A range of crater diameter-to-exhumation depth ratios of 0.10 to 0.32 is, therefore, adequate and 
appropriate for use as direct input. A depth of 200 m is used to evaluate the potential for 
damage at the repository depth. This gives a lower bound to the crater diameter of interest for 
exhumation of the repository of about 625 m (i.e., 200 m / 0.32). A key geologic unit is at 60 m 
depth. This gives an upper bound of concern of about 188m (i.e., 60 m / 0.32). 
Depth and Extent of Fracturing 
The ratio of crater diameter-to-fracture depth inferred from Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21), 
and the ratio stated in Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24), are used as direct input and 
are further evaluated in this section. This data is cross-corroborative with information taken 
from Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-121 April 2004 

As discussed in the previous section, Grieve places the depth of exhumation or true crater depth 
(dt) at no less than 0.27 D based on available field observations from some 14 sites, and possibly 
ranging as high as 0.32 D, where for both cases D is the crater diameter in km. This true depth 
represents the depth of exhumation and the onset of fracturing below the crater. 
Wuschke et al. (1995, p. 3 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) indicate that the depth of shock, compression, 
and displacement without redistribution is approximately 42 percent of the crater diameter, but 
does not specifically identify this as part of the true crater depth. Wuschke et al. 
(1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) further states that an ancillary zone of fractured but stationary rock 
extends to a depth of 76 percent in plutonic rock for simple craters. 
Cross-corroborative information is derived from relationships provided in Dence et al. 
(1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18). Based on Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18), the lower 
limit of fracturing values is based on the Hugoniot Elastic Limit of 4.5 gigapascals (GPa) for 
granodiorite (Melosh 1989, p. 35 [DIRS 146025]), which is a very low-porosity rock. From the 
Piledriver nuclear test, it appears that fracturing was initiated when the shock wave pressure was 
reduced to 4.5 GPa. Fracturing ceased at depths corresponding to pressures of about 2 GPa, 
where the rock responds elastically (i.e., without permanent deformation or fracturing) (Dence et 
al.1977, p.261 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18). 
In the attenuation models, Dence et al. (1977, p. 261 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18) relate pressure to the 
radius of the affected region by: 
P = a R-k . (Eq. II-17) 
The ratio of the pressures at 4.5 GPa and 2 GPa is, therefore, also the ratio of the powers of the 
respective radii, that is: 
P4.5 GPa/P2 GPa = [R2 GPa/R4.5 GPa]k , (Eq. II-18) 
or, 
R2 GPa = R 4.5 GPa (P4.5 GPa/P2 GPa)1/k (Eq.II- 18a) 
The radius (R4.5 GPa) for the onset of fracturing corresponds to the true crater depth (or 
exhumation depth) and, as described in Section 2.2.5.1 above, is stated by Dence et al. (1977, 
p. 250 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18) as one-third to one-half the crater diameter (D). Presuming ratios 
of 0.33 and 0.25 and substituting terms into Eq. 10a, then the radius (R2 GPa) of fracturing 
expressed as a function of crater diameter (D) may range from: 
R2 GPa = 0.33D (4.5 / 2)1/k . (Eq. II-18b) 
R 2 GPa = 0.25D (4.5 / 2)1/k . (Eq. II-18c) 
The k values (2, 3, and 4.5) for the models are based on fits to the Brent crater and the Piledriver 
nuclear test (Dence et al. 1977, p. 261 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18). Insertion of the values for k 
provides a range in the relationship of fracture depth to crater diameter (D) of R = 0.5 D (for k=2 
and a ratio of 0.33 or .) to R = 0.3 D (for k=4.5 and a ratio of 0.25). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-122 April 2004 

As previously mentioned, Wuschke et al. (1995, p. 3 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) indicates that the 
depth of shock, compression, and displacement without redistribution is approximately 
42 percent of the crater diameter, and an ancillary zone of fractured but stationary rock extends 
to a depth of 76 percent in plutonic rock for simple craters. 
Accordingly, the fracture depth could be a value of 0.3 D based on Equations 18c above and 
assuming k= 4.5. This corresponds well to the depth of exhumation (0.27 to 0.3 D) suggested by 
Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21) and based on simple crater observation. A value of 0.5 D 
based on Equation 18c above and assuming k=2 may be a more reasonable estimate of the depth 
of penetration by fractures. This also encompasses the zone of displacement (depth of 0.42 D) as 
identified by Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24). The value of 0.5 D, is derived from 
possible models for the Brent crater, and as inferred from Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21), 
depths in sedimentary rocks tend to be shallower. At Yucca Mountain, however, the rock above 
and around the repository is layered welded and non-welded tuff, deposited in tilted strata. 
These tuffs are porous, and their response to shock depends, in part, on their degree of saturation 
(relative water content). A more rapid attenuation of pressure likely will occur in the 
Yucca Mountain tuffs than in the plutonic rock or granodiorite used by Dence (and discussed 
above) to define the upper and lower limits for fracture propagation. Therefore, fracture depth, 
which is dependent on shock attenuation, will be shallower at Yucca Mountain than in the 
granodiorite or plutonic rock for a given cratering event. 
However, a factor of 0.76 from Wuschke et al. (1995, p. 3 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) is specifically 
identified as the zone of fracturing. No support for this depth is given beyond a reference, which 
appears in a proceedings paper. However, a value of 0.76 represents the largest ratio of 
fracturing depth to crater diameter proposed in the reviewed literature and is therefore used as a 
basis for FEP screening. 
The minimum depth of interest is 60 m, which is the top of a key hydrogeologic unit. Using the 
above relationships, then the minimum crater diameter of interest is on the order of 79 m 
(i.e., 60 m / 0.76). As described in Section 4.2, a depth of 200 m is used to evaluate the potential 
for fracturing to the repository depth. This gives an upper bound to the crater diameter of 
interest for fracturing of 263 m (i.e., 200 m / 0.76). 
4.5.4 Data Status and Limitations 
The above literature review and corroboration of the direct input provides an acceptable level of 
confidence that the data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP Screening. For 
quantitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. The direct inputs are 
considered acceptable because singular values (e.g., percent by composition) are shown to be 
within two standard deviations of the mean value, with the mean and deviations developed by 
equal weighting of reported mean values from each source. In the case of probability 
distributions or equations based on probability distributions (e.g., mass flux or cratering rates), 
direct inputs are acceptable because the resulting probability distributions fall within two orders 
of magnitude for any given point in the distribution (e.g., for the probability of crater diameter of 
a given size). 
In the case of determining crater diameter-to-depth of effect ratios, in lieu of corroboration, a 
bounding or conservative value (with respect to inclusion of the FEP) approach has been 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-123 April 2004 

recommended, and the resulting values are considered as qualified under this exercise. The 
status of the direct inputs for diagenesis evaluated above should be considered as qualified for 
use within this technical product. 
The datasets that are considered as qualified for use within this technical product and any 
limitations, are as follows: 
4.5.4.1 Meteoroid Influx Entering Earths Atmosphere 
For the meteoroid flux, the mass influx derived by Ceplecha (1992, p. 362 and Figure 1 
[DIRS 135242]) (Q16) is used. The comparison showed that distribution of meteor diameter 
(derived from the mass influx distribution) from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) is 
generally conservative in that it represents the largest number of events within the primary range 
of interest (79 m to 625 m) for fracturing and exhumation. Therefore, no limitations are placed 
on this data. 
4.5.2.2 Composition and Material Properties of Meteoroids Entering the Earths 
Atmosphere 
The following section addresses the flux in terms of percent by compositions and examines the 
range in possible density values. The qualified direct input includes: 
Percent-by-Type 
Down to an initial meteor mass of approximately 108 kg (radius of 14 m for iron, 19 m for stony, 
and 28 m for carbonaceous meteors), the total flux is presumed to be comprised of five percent 
iron material regardless of initial meteor radius, and the remainder is divided equally between 
stony and carbonaceous material regardless of initial meteor radius. For initial meteor masses 
below 108 and down to 10-1 kg (minimum radius of 0.014 m for iron, 0.019 m for stony, and 
0.028 m for carbonaceous meteors), the total flux is presumed to be comprised of five percent 
iron materials regardless of initial meteor radius, and 2 to 18 percent stony material depending on 
initial meteor radius; and the remainder (93 to 77 percent) is attributed as carbonaceous/cometary 
material. 
Meteoroid Densities 
For the meteorite impact calculations, the densities used for meteoroids are 8 g/cm3 for metallic 
materials, 3.7 g/cm3 for stony materials, and 1.1 g/cm3 for carbonaceous/cometary materials. 
These values fall within the mean value plus one standard deviation determined from the 
available literature and are used by Ceplecha (1994 p. 967, Tables 1 and 3 [DIRS 135243]) 
(Q17). 
4.5.4.3 Crater Diameter Distributions and Rates 
The distribution derived from Grieve et al. (1995 [DIRS 135260]) (Q20), and the distribution 
from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) represent a realistic case and are qualified 
for use. However, the extrapolation of the distribution from Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21) 
for very small crater diameters likely overestimates the number of small-diameter craters, due to 
extrapolation of a curve fitted to a 10-km crater diameter down to crater diameters on the meter 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-124 April 2004 

scale. The number of observed small diameter craters as noted by Grieves is substantially less 
than that projected by the extrapolated distribution, and would in fact be the true lower bound. 
The number of observed small diameter craters is skewed because it does not account for 
atmospheric effects on small meteors, increased obscuration of smaller diameter craters by 
weathering and burial, and the implicit difficulty in identifying small diameter craters. The 
crater diameter distribution observed by Grieve and based on large crater diameters, however, at 
least includes the effects of ablation and fragmentation as reflected for large diameter craters. 
The data derived from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) may represent a more 
realistic distribution of actual size and has been applied to a hypothetical Canadian repository. 
The plot of the corroborative Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) information represents 
a true upper bound (i.e., an atmosphereless earth which neglects effects of ablation and 
fragmentation). Because it is unrealistic due to an atmosphereless earth, it is discussed for 
corroborative purposes only, but it also provides a true upper bound. . However, it should not be 
used to represent cratering on earth because it is not representative of surface conditions. 
4.5.4.4 Crater Dimensions as a Function of Meteor Type 
The direct input used in this analysis that relate initial meteoroid diameter to crater diameter are 
extracted from Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) and are given in 
Table II-18. 
4.5.4.5 Depth and Extent of Cratering Features 
A range of crater diameter-to-exhumation depth ratios of 0.10 to 0.32 is used in the analysis, and 
is based on direct input provided in Wushcke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) and Grieve 
(1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21). A minimum value for crater diameter-to-fracture depth ratios of 
0.32 is realistic based on Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21). Because the intended use is for 
FEP screening and analysis, the conservative value of increased fracturing depth to 0.76 of the 
crater diameter, as indicated by Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24), is examined to 
ensure that the range of uncertainty in relationships is covered. The use of this value based on 
effects in plutonic rock is somewhat contrary to the observation made by Grieve (1998, 
p. 113 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21) that depths in sedimentary rocks tend to be shallower than in 
plutonic rock. However, the use of these values is consistent with use of cratering rate and crater 
diameter distributions from these same sources. 
4.6 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.5.01.02.0A EXTRATERRESTRIAL EVENTS (SECTION 6.2.4.6) 
This section addresses direct inputs used to determining the potential consequence of 
extraterrestrial events such as a solar flares, supernovae, and gamma bursters. The direct inputs 
being justified are as follows: 
Frequency of supernova event (1 event per 100 years), magnitude (1050 ergs), and 
potential consequences of the event (nitrogen enrichments, ozone depletion, global 
cooling) due to a supernova event. This information is taken from Item Q25. 
Relationship exists between the decadal Sun cycle, and overall solar activity and the 
Earths surface temperature, and possible link from changes in IR and visible and IR 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-125 April 2004 

radiation to changes in earths temperatures and climate. This information is taken from 
Items Q26. 
Types of engineered systems potentially affected by space weather. This information is 
taken from Item Q27. 
The data being evaluated include Items Q23 through 26 in Table II-1. The data is in the form of 
conceptual statements and is generally qualitative in nature. Therefore, the qualitative criteria 
for general agreement will be applied. Multiple sources are available to corroborate the data. 
4.6.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify citations that identified possible effects to earth-based natural and 
engineered systems from such extraterrestrial events, and if possible, quantify the effect. The 
keyword and subject based searches utilized various AND combinations for the keywords 
space weather, extraterrestrial, and supernova, effects, and earth. For the keyword 
space weather, the SciSearch database (limited to publication dates for 1900 to 2004) 
returned 95 records. Upon examination of titles and abstracts, all of these records were found to 
specific instances of space weather events, or to describing disturbances to specific engineered 
systems that were not relevant to post-closure repository performance and that were documented 
in other more generic papers that are referenced in the following evaluation. The term 
extraterrestrial yielded 160 returns and addition of the term effects limited the results to 
72 records. The combined search terms supernova, effects and earth yielded nine returns, 
one of which was judged potentially relevant. A review of titles and available abstracts yielded 
the applicable citations that are listed in Table II-20 below. Similar searches of the GeoRef 
databases (based on all records including 2004) returned 58 records. Based on the titles and 
available abstracts, none of these citations appeared relevant. 
4.6.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table II-20. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-126 April 2004 

Table II-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q25 C47, C50, 
C51, C55 
Brakenridge, G.R. 1981. 
"Terrestrial 
Paleoenvironmental 
Effects of a Late 
Quaternary-Age 
Supernova." Icarus, 46, 
([1]), 81-93. [New York, 
New York]: Academic 
Press. 
TIC: 255707. [DIRS 
167873], Q25 
This paper 
discusses the 
frequency of 
gamma and X 
radiation incident 
upon the earth 
and discusses 
potential climate 
forcing 
mechanisms. 
The paper also 
proposes 
evidence that 
such events are 
recorded in 
paleosoil 
horizons 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  The paper 
quantifies the influx of 
radiation upon the earth 
from and extraterrestrial 
event and provides an 
indication of the 
frequency of such 
events. It also 
discusses potential 
climate forcing 
mechanisms and 
provides a brief 
description of studies 
identifying potential soil 
layers that recorded 
such an event. 
Direct Input  Frequency 
of a supernova event (1 
event per 100 years), 
magnitude (1050 ergs), 
and potential 
consequences of the 
event (nitrogen 
enrichments, ozone 
depletion, global cooling). 
Figure 1 and pp. 85-86 
Q26 C49, C52, 
C53, and C54 
Lean, J. 1997. "The 
Sun's Variable 
Radiation and its 
Relevance for Earth." 
Annual Review of 
Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 35, 33-67. 
[Palo Alto, California: 
Annual Reviews]. 
TIC: 255614. 
[DIRS 167639] 
This paper 
provides a 
summary of the 
current 
understanding of 
the Suns 
radiance 
variability and 
cycles and its 
linking to Earths 
global 
environment. 
40 citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Paper from 
book series 
Moderate to High  
Although a survey of 
related studies, the 
author provides 
numerous citations and 
provides graphs and 
plots to substantiate the 
discussion and 
conclusions 
Direct Input  
Relationship exists 
between the decadal Sun 
cycle, and overall solar 
activity and the Earths 
surface temperature, and 
possible link from changes 
in IR and visible and IR 
radiation to changes in 
earths temperatures and 
climate. 
Indirect Input  The paper 
also briefly discusses the 
effects of space weather 
on spacecraft and 
communication systems 
and is therefore 
corroborative with other 
papers dealing more 
specifically with those 
issues. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-127 April 2004 

Table II-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q27 Q25 (but not 
crosscorrborating), 
C48 
Maynard, N.C. 1995. 
"Space Weather 
Prediction." Reviews of 
Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 
1), 547-557. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. 
TIC: 253729. 
[DIRS 160888], Q27 
This paper 
addresses a wide 
range of space 
weather related 
topics. Of 
particular 
applicability is 
the discussion of 
engineered 
systems 
potentially 
affected by 
space weather, 
including several 
ground-based 
systems. 
Nine 
citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  The cited 
portion of this paper 
provides a concise 
overview of documented 
disturbances in 
engineered systems and 
associated costs. 
Direct Input  
List of engineered 
systems potentially 
affected by space weather 
C47 Not Applicable Arnold, N.F. 2003. 
"Space Plasma 
Influences on the 
Earth's Atmosphere." 
Philosophical 
Transactions of the 
Royal Society of 
London. Series A, 
Mathematical and 
Physical Sciences, 361, 
127-132. [London, 
England]: Royal Society 
of London. 
TIC: 255613. 
[DIRS 167638], C47 
This paper is 
targeted to 
providing a 
conceptual 
satellite-based 
investigation. 
However, The 
papers summary 
of various affects 
are adequate for 
corroborative 
support only 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
Journal 
Low  Only a limited 
reference is provided. 
The paper is largely 
qualitative and citations 
are provided to support 
development of a 
strawman satellite 
mission specification. 
Indirect Input . 
discussion of cosmic-ray 
influences, relativistic 
electrons, and auroral 
particles and magnetic 
fields influences on the 
atmosphere are briefly 
summarized 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-128 April 2004 

Table II-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C48 Not Applicable Cole, D.G. 2003. 
"Space Weather: Its 
Effects and 
Predictability." Space 
Science Reviews, 107, 
([1-2]), 295-302. 
[Dordrecht], The 
Netherlands: Kluwer 
Academic. 
TIC: 255616. 
[DIRS 167641], C48 
, This paper is 
useful for 
corroborating 
other papers 
dealing with 
space weather 
effects as it cites 
to a separate set 
of references 
than those 
providing a fuller 
treatment of the 
No citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Low  This paper is a 
cursory treatment of 
potential spaceweather 
effects. No 
mathematical treatment 
is provided, and no 
analytical results or 
measurements or 
provided. A short 
reference list is 
provided. 
Indirect Input . This 
paper addresses the 
potential linkages between 
space weather solar 
activity, the earths 
magnetosphere and 
ionosphere, and how 
space weather affects 
those natural systems and 
engineered systems 
operating in those 
environments 
subject 
C49 Not Applicable Hagan, M.E. 1995. 
"Thermospheric 
Connections." Reviews 
of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 
1), 729-735. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. 
TIC: 253731. 
This is a good 
concise summary 
of the potential 
connections 
between space 
and earth 
environs. 
One citation 
in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  This paper 
is a survey of work to 
date and a summation 
of collaborative efforts of 
various researchers. 
The discussion provides 
adequate citations to 
support assertions and 
conclusion. No 
mathematical treatment 
Indirect Input This paper 
provides an thorough 
survey of work addressing 
connections between the 
extraterrestrial 
environment and earth's 
atmosphere, 
magnetosphere, and 
ionosphere. 
[DIRS 160890] or analytical results are 
discussed in any detail 
C50 Not Applicable Karam, P. A. 2002. This paper One citation Peer-Moderate to High  This Indirect Input This paper 
"Gamma and Neutrino provides specific in reviewed paper provides a provides a discussion of 
Radiation Dose from dose information SciSearch journal calculation of dose the frequency of 
Gamma Ray Bursts and and is used to stemming from supernovae and gamma 
Nearby Supernovae." 
Health Physics, 82, (4), 
corroborate other 
papers 
extraterrestrial events. 
Base equations and 
ray bursts and quantifies 
the expected dose in the 
491-499. Baltimore, addressing assumed values are surface and subsurface 
Maryland: Lippincott, supernova given. The discussions 
Williams, and Wilkins. effects. and conclusions are 
TIC: 255918. adequately documented 
[DIRS 167872], C50and supporting citations 
are provided. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-129 April 2004 

Table II-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C51 Not Applicable Novotna, D. and Vitek, This paper Not found in Peer-High  The paper Indirect Input  This paper 
V. 1991. "The provides SciSearch reviewed documents the develops a mathematical 
Atmospheric Mean corroborative journal mathematics leading to argument relating external 
Energetic Level and support for the conclusions of forcing to changes in the 
External Forcing." 
Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 35, (1), 33external 
forcing 
on earths 
atmosphere. 
interrelationships to 
external forcing 
earths atmospheres 
vorticity. It specifically list 
potential forcing 
38. [Prague, However, it only mechanisms including 
Czechoslovakia]: provides a link to galactic cosmic rays, solar 
Geophyscial Institute of potential climate cosmic rays, and 
the Czechoslovak affects and not to equivalent particles from 
Academy of Sciences. subsurface other sources. It identifies 
TIC: 255610. affects. galactic cosmic rays as 
[DIRS 167634], C51 the best candidate for 
forcing and suggests it 
may also influence cirrus 
cloud formation 
C52 Not Applicable Reid, G.C. 1995. "The 
Sun-Climate Question: 
Is There a Real 
Connection?" Review of 
This is a good 
concise summary 
of the potential 
connections 
Five 
citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  This paper 
is a survey of work to 
date and a summation 
of collaborative efforts of 
Indirect Input  This paper 
provides a thorough 
survey of work addressing 
connections between the 
Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 
1), 535-538. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. 
between space 
and earth 
environs. 
various researchers. 
The discussion provides 
adequate citations to 
support assertions and 
conclusion. No 
mathematical treatment 
sun and earths climatic 
systems 
TIC: 253730. 
[DIRS 160889], C52 
or analytical results are 
discussed in any detail 
. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-130 April 2004 

Table II-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C53 Not Applicable Rozelot, J.P. 2001. 
"Possible Links 
Between the Solar 
Radius Variations and 
the Earth's Climate 
Evolution Over the Past 
This paper 
provides 
corroboration of 
linkage of solar 
activity to earths 
climate. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-
reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  The paper 
provides an adequate 
statistical correlation of 
data to support its 
conclusions regarding 
connection between 
Indirect Input  This paper 
investigates the effect of 
solar radius variance on 
Earths climate over the 
past four centuries 
Four Centuries." earths climate and solar 
Journal of Atmospheric 
and Solar-Terrestrial 
irradiance and solar 
radius. 
Physics, 63, ([4]), 375386. 
[New York, New 
York]: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255615. 
[DIRS 167640], C53 
C54 Not Applicable Pechala, F. 1985. "The 
Effect of Extraterrestrial 
Interactions on Change 
of Tropospheric 
Circulation in the Polar 
Regions of the Earth." 
Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 29, (4), 
405-412. Prague, 
Czechoslovakia: 
Geophyscial Institute of 
the Czechoslovak 
This paper 
provides 
corroborative 
support for 
external forcing 
on earths 
atmosphere. 
However, it only 
provides a link to 
potential climate 
affects and not to 
subsurface 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-
reviewed 
journal 
Moderate - The paper 
documents the 
mathematics leading to 
the conclusions of 
interrelationships to 
external triggering 
Indirect Input  This paper 
is presented as a proof of 
extraterrestrial interactions 
functioning as triggering 
mechanisms in the 
process of redistribution of 
energy accumulated in the 
earths systems 
Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255609. 
effects. 
[DIRS 167633] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-131 April 2004 

Table II-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C55 Not Applicable Ruderman, M. A. 1974. 
"Possible 
Consequences of 
Nearby Supernova 
Explosions for 
Atmospheric Ozone and 
Terrestrial Life." 
Science, 184, 1079Discussions 
in 
this paper are 
used to 
corroborate 
discussions by 
Brakenridge 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-
reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  The 
discussion is supported 
by citations, and the 
assumptions and 
reasoning are clearly 
stated. No analytical 
results or numerical 
models are discussed. 
Indirect Input . This paper 
provides a brief discussion 
of the potential for an 
extraterrestrial event to 
remove earths ozone 
cover and the potential 
consequences on 
terrestrial life 
1081. . 
TIC: 255914. 
[DIRS 167875], 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-132 April 2004 

4.6.3 Discussion 
The evaluation of results has been subdivided by topic. Direct Inputs include Items Q25, and 
Q26. Corroborative sources include Items C47 through C55. 
4.6.3.1 Effects of Non-Solar Extraterrestrial Events (Supernovae, Gamma Ray Bursts, 
Cosmic Rays) 
The direct inputs being justified include the frequency, magnitude, and consequences associated 
with a supernova event. 
Frequency of a supernova event (1 event per 100 years), magnitude (1050 ergs), and 
potential consequences of the event (nitrogen enrichments, ozone depletion, global 
cooling). 
This information is taken from Item Q25, and is corroborated by Items C47, C50, C51, and C55. 
Brakenridge (1981, Figure 1, p.83, and p. 85 and 86 [DIRS 167873]) (Q25) is being used as 
direct input. The paper discusses the potential effects of Late Quaternary-Age supernova on the 
terrestrial paleoenvironment. The paper indicates that over 120 radio-emitting galactic 
supernova remnants have been cataloged. Figure 1 of the paper provides a plot of the peak flux 
and the timing of the initiating supernova event. At least 24 significant (i.e., greater than 
500 erg/cm2) peaks were observed for events occurring within the 15,000 years before present. 
Using a value of 120 events in the past 15,000 years suggests a rate of approximately one event 
per 100 years. The most significant of these peak fluxes was for the Vela supernova, which was 
calculated to have a peak flux of about 40,000 ergs/cm2. The paper indicates (p. 83) that 
supernova events release on the scale of 1049 to 1050 ergs of gamma radiation. The paper asserts 
(pp. 85-86) that such an event has the potential to cause ozone depletion in earths atmosphere 
for a period of two to six years and created nitrogen-rich environments at the earths surface. 
Observable effects are suggested to include kerogen rich sediments at 11 sites worldwide. The 
effects are also stated to include short-term terrestrial global cooling (i.e., on the scale of 
1,000 years). The paper also asserts that such events could precipitate increased uv-light 
penetration by ozone layer depletion. The increased intensity could be as much as 2 to 10 times 
the present level. Aside for the potential impact on C14 dating, no other effects are discussed. 
Ruderman (1976 [DIRS 167875]) (C55) corroborates that ozone depletion in the atmosphere 
could occur and that nitrogen-enriched surface conditions could result. Ruderman also cites to 
work of others and corroborates that supernova explosions result in release of 10 48 to 1050 ergs. 
Ruderman briefly mentions that increased UV influx could have altered life through mutations or 
suppression. The paper mentions that there is no compelling fossil evidence for past biological 
cataclysms related to supernova events. 
Arnold (2003, p. 127 [DIRS 167638]) (C47) also corroborates the assertions of Brakenridge. 
Arnold notes that considerable attention has been focused on the possibility that climate change 
may be attributable to variations in galactic cosmic-ray fluxes that are modulated by the 
heliospheric magnetic field. Arnold further discusses the interaction between cosmic rays and 
role of ionization trails in cloud formation. This suggests a possible climate modifying effect. 
Similarly, Novotna and Vitek (1991, p. 35 [DIRS 167634]) (C51) also discuss external forcing 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-133 April 2004 

mechanisms and specifically mention, galactic cosmic rays, solar cosmic rays, and equivalent 
particle from other sources, with galactic cosmic rays being the best candidate for both short-
term and long-range forcing. They also mention its role in cirrus cloud formation. 
Further corroboration comes from Karam (2002 [DIRS 167872]) (C50), who calculates the 
potential gamma and neutrino radiation dose resulting from supernovae and gamma ray bursts at 
and beneath the earths surface. Sea-level doses are calculated to have been about 1 Gray (Gy) 
every five million years and about 0.2 Gy every million years. Karam indicates that radiation 
levels, while not lethal may have been genetically significant. The paper corroborates 
Brakenridge further by indicating that supernovae release between 1042 joules (1049 ergs) of 
gamma radiation supernovae are noted as occurring at a frequency of about 1 to 2 per century. 
Gamma ray bursts are noted to release the equivalent of about 1053 ergs and occur once every 
million to ten million years (Karam (2002, p. 491-492 [DIRS 167872]) (C50). Karam further 
indicates that due to the relatively short outburst time, no more than one half of the earth would 
be exposed to radiation and the actual exposure will vary according to the location of the burst in 
the sky. By comparison, supernovae will irradiate the entire planet, although no single location 
would be subject to more than one-half of the integrated radiation because of the shielding 
provided by the earth. Karam (2002, Table 1 [DIRS 167872]) (C50) indicates that at distances of 
for gamma ray bursts, the resulting dose at sea level would be on the order of 420 to 0.17 Gy 
from gamma ray bursts, and from 42 to 0.017 for supernovae, at distances of 1 and 
50 kiloparsecs, respectively. More importantly, the paper clearly indicates that there is a 10-8 
reduction in typical dose within the top 20 mm of rock, suggesting that dose (i.e., energy) at 
the repository depth from such events would be negligible Karam (2002, Table [DIRS 167872]) 
(C50). 
4.6.3.2 Solar-related Effects 
This section specifically addresses the impact of solar events. The information being justified is 
conceptual in nature. 
Relationships exist between the decadal Sun cycle, and overall solar activity and 
the Earths surface temperature, and possible link from changes in IR and visible 
and IR radiation to changes in earths temperatures and climate. 
This information is taken from Items Q26 and is corroborated by Items C49, C52, C53, and C54. 
The conclusions from Lean (1997 [DIRS 167639]) (Q26) are in the form of a conceptual 
summary statement; Numerous associations are evident between solar variability and terrestrial 
parameters that range from the earths surface to hundreds of kilometers above it, on the time 
scales from days to centuries. In particular, Lean points out the decadal cycles in the Suns 
activity are evident in temperatures at the earths surface and through the atmosphere. Lean also 
indicates that there is also an apparent association of surface temperature with overall solar 
activity, but it is unclear weather the suns variable radiation is responsible. According to Lean, 
least certain is the extent to which tenths percent changes in visible and IR radiation modify 
global surface temperature and climate. Lean also mentions that there is a current inability to 
adequately quantify all climate and ozone forcings, which adds ambiguities to assessments of the 
global change. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-134 April 2004 

There are multiple corroborating sources to support Leans conclusions. Rozelot (2001 
[DIRS 167640]) (C53) indicates that regression analysis show that, at least over the last four 
centuries, warmer and cooler periods on Earth are inversely correlated to changes in the Suns 
diameter. Pechala (1985 [DIRS 167633]) (C54) indicates that extraterrestrial interaction 
function as triggering mechanisms in the process of redistribution much large amounts of energy 
in the polar regions. The paper is primarily focused on energy releases from the sun and uses the 
examples of solar recurrences of differential rotation and changes in solar radiation, and the 
correlated response of earths atmosphere. Pechala also suggests that corpuscular radiation of 
galactic origin may also play an important part in modulation of transformation of energy 
through the atmosphere, particularly in the polar regions. Pechala also alludes to the complicated 
processes and interactions involved. A summary of thermospheric connections is presented in 
Hagan (1995 [DIRS 160890]) (C49). Hagan specifically mentions that zonal winds were found 
to increase with increased solar activity in the low latitudes; that natural variations in 
photoabsorption of solar radiations excite global-scale atmospheric solar tides whose periods are 
harmonics of a solar day and are commonly observed in the thermosphere. The papers by Hagan 
(1995 DIRS [160890]) (C49) and by Reid (1995 [DIRS 160889]) (C52) also summarize recent 
studies linking the interaction of the earths magnetic field, the interplanetary magnetic fields, 
and the result on thermospheric heating and circulation. 
4.6.3.3 Space Weather Effects 
This section addresses engineered systems that are potentially affected by extraterrestrial events. 
The direct input being justified is: 
List of engineered systems potentially affected by space weather. 
This information is taken from Item Q27, and is corroborated by Items Q26 and C48. 
Maynard (1995 [DIRS 160888]) (Q27) provides direct input in the form of an extensive list of 
engineered systems that are potentially and/or have been observed to be affected by space 
weather. The list includes spacecraft operations, satellite operations, GPS-locating operations 
(which are satellite based), space object tracking, over-the-horizon radar operations, high 
frequency communications, telecommunications such as transatlantic fiber optic 
communications, geomagnetically induced currents in power transmission lines and 
transformers, applied-DC currents for pipeline corrosion mitigation, and semi-conductor 
manufacturing (likely related to power line fluctuations). 
The list of affected systems is corroborated from two sources. Lean (1997 [DIRS 167639]) 
(Q26) was qualified above for statements regarding solar interaction. Additionally, the paper 
also provides a discussion of systems potentially affected by solar activities. Lean cites others 
who group the systems into communication, navigation, surveillance, and commerce. The 
discussion in Lean is focused on spacecraft and communications. The discussion of spacecraft 
focuses on the effects of solar drag and difficulties in locating spacecraft and associated debris, 
and the discussion on communications is focused on systems utilizing the ionosphere for signal 
transmission. Navigation systems (LORAN and OMEGA) are specifically mentioned, as are 
possible interferences with satellite-based positioning systems including Global Positioning 
Systems, Very Long Baseline Interferometery, and Satellite Laser Ranging. Corroboration is 
also taken from Cole (2003 [DIRS 167641]) (C48). Cole mentions that space weather can affect 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-135 April 2004 

the planning of space projects and impairment of satellite systems. Cole also mentions the 
potential impact to spacecraft through vehicle damage, deterioration of solar cells, 
semiconductor damage, and electric charging of spacecraft. Other disturbed systems listed by 
Cole include radio communication, and satellite and navigation. Ground level effects are listed 
as disturbances in terrestrial power systems and long pipe lines  specifically power lines, 
railway lines, steel pipelines, or telecommunication cables of long length. 
4.6.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For qualitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. The above literature 
review and corroboration of the direct input provides an acceptable level of confidence that the 
data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP Screening. The status of the direct 
inputs for extraterrestrial events evaluated above should be considered as qualified for use within 
this technical product. No limitations are needed for the intended use. 
4.7 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 1.5.03.01.0A 
CHANGES IN THE EARTHS MAGNETIC FIELD 
This section addresses direct inputs addressing the potential consequences of changes in the 
earths magnetic field. Three is abundant literature and modeling results regarding the 
fluctuation and changes in the field and possible causes, but little if any information on the 
potential effects on natural or engineered systems. The direct inputs listed below are taken from 
the only source found during the literature search. 
The periodicity of pole reversals is on the scale of a few hundred thousand years to once 
every million years. 
There has been a decrease in the earths magnetic intensity in the last few thousand years, 
and some evidence that a reversal may occur sometime during the next few to several 
thousand years. 
There is no identifiable fossil evidence (such as mutation or extinctions) stemming from 
magnetic field changes. 
The data being justified includes Item 28 in Table II-1. The direct input being qualified is in the 
form of conceptual statements and is generally qualitative in nature. Therefore, the qualitative 
criteria for general agreement will be applied. Only a few sources are available to corroborate 
the data regarding frequency. No sources were found to directly corroborate the discussion of 
potential affects on natural systems, nor were sources were found that contradict the information 
provided. 
4.7.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed the frequency and potential effects 
of changes in earths magnetic field. The keyword and subject based searches utilized an 
AND combination for the keywords geomagnetic, reversal. The SciSearch database 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-136 April 2004 

(limited to publication dates for 1900 to 2004) returned 321 records. A search using the term 
pole reversal yielded 61 citations. Of those, a review of available title and abstracts resulted in 
locating only one applicable citation. No applicable citations were found in the GeoRef 
database. Most of the articles listed dealt with observation of variances in the magnetic field for 
particular geologic formation, discussed modeling of the earths magnetic field, or were 
addressing correlation of various observed geologic formations based on age, field intensity, or 
other non-germane issues. Additionally, previous discussions of the topic in the FEIS and 
TSPA-SR were reviewed and are cited in the evaluation below, 
4.7.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), these factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table II-21. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-137 April 2004 

Table II-21. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs used for Changes in the Earths Magnetic Field 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Q28 C56, C57, C58 Odenwald, S. 2003. 
"Earth - Magnetic Field" 
Poetry Space Science 
Education: Ask the 
Space Scientist 
http://image.gsfc.nasa.g 
ov/poetry/ask/askmag.h 
tml. [Washington, D.C.]: 
National Aeronautics 
and Space 
Administration. 
Accessed February 25, 
2003. 
TIC: 253712. 
[DIRS 160892] 
Information is 
taken from a 
response found 
on a public 
information FAQ 
page that 
addresses 
various questions 
regarding the 
earths magnetic 
field. 
Not 
Applicable  
This is a 
general 
information 
source and 
not 
ameneable 
for rigorous 
research 
activities. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Internet FAQ 
page 
sponsored and 
supported by 
NASA 
Low - The information is 
the best available result 
from Internet search and 
the only information found 
which directly addresses 
the issue of potential 
effects. 
Because it is a NASA-
sponsored site and 
because it is the best 
available information, the 
citation is used as direct 
input 
Direct Input  
The periodicity of pole 
reversals is on the 
scale of a few hundred 
thousand years to 
once every million 
years. 
There has been a 
decrease in the earths 
magnetic intensity in 
the last few thousand 
years, and some 
evidence that a 
reversal may occur 
sometime during the 
next few to several 
thousand years. 
There is identifiable 
fossil evidence (such 
as mutation or 
extinctions) stemming 
from magnetic field 
changes. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-138 April 2004 

Table II-21. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs used for Changes in the Earths Magnetic Field (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C56 Not Applicable Biggin, A.J. and 
Thomas, D.N. 2003. 
"Analysis of Long-Term 
Variations in the 
Geomagnetic Polodial 
Field Intensity and 
Evaluation of Their 
This paper 
provides a 
detailed and 
rigorous 
statistical 
analysis to 
determine 
Three 
citations 
found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
High  The paper is 
thoroughly document and 
the statistical analysis 
procedures and results 
are fully documented and 
transparent. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper indicates that the 
record is too sparse to 
definitively conclude 
anti-correlation, but the 
analysis does suggest 
an anti-correlation. It 
Relationship with 
Global Geodynamics." 
Geophysical Journal 
International, 152, ([2]), 
392-415. [Oxford, 
England: Blackwell 
whether intensity 
and pole 
reversals are 
correlateable 
also provides some 
discussion linking 
geomagnetic 
phenomena to global-
scale geodynamics. 
Publishing]. 
TIC: 255680. 
[DIRS 167876] 
C57 Not Applicable Hoffman, K.A. 1995. 
"How are Geomagnetic 
Reversals Related to 
Field Intensity?" Eos, 
Volume 76, July 18, 
1995, p. 289 
[Washington, D.C.]: 
This short paper 
addresses the 
potential 
relationships 
between 
magnetic field 
reversals and 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Low  Aside from the two 
graphs presented, no 
quantitative or analytical 
information is provided. 
Reference is made to 
various studies, but no 
reference to the studies is 
Indirect Input  The 
paper only provides a 
brief overview of the 
potential relationship 
between intensity and 
reversals. 
American Geophysical 
Union. Accessed April 
23, 2003. 
TIC: 253732. 
intensity and 
goes to 
addressing the 
probability of a 
given. However, the 
author does have other 
works of similar nature in 
the technical literature. 
http://www.agu.org/sci-
soc/hoffman.html 
[DIRS 160891] 
magnetic pole 
reversal event 
within the next 
10,000 years. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-139 April 2004 

Table II-21. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs used for Changes in the Earths Magnetic Field (Continued) 
Item 
Corroboratin 
g Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C58* Not Applicable Pechala, F. 1985. "The 
Effect of Extraterrestrial 
Interactions on Change 
of Tropospheric 
Circulation in the Polar 
Regions of the Earth." 
Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 29, (4), 
405-412. Prague, 
Czechoslovakia: 
Geophysical Institute of 
the Czechoslovak 
Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255609. 
[DIRS 167633], C54 
This paper is 
presented as a 
proof of 
extraterrestrial 
interactions 
functioning as 
triggering 
mechanisms in 
the process of 
redistribution of 
energy 
accumulated in 
the Earths 
systems. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate - The paper 
documents the 
mathematics leading to 
the conclusions of 
interrelationships to 
external triggering 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides 
corroborative support 
for external forcing on 
earths atmosphere. 
However, it only 
provides a link to 
potential climate affects 
and not to subsurface 
affects. 
*C58 is also denoted as Item C54 in Table II-20. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-140 April 2004 

4.7.3 Discussion 
The direct input from Odenwald (2003 [DIRS 160892]) (Q28) was taken from a National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration-sponsored site and is therefore, considered reliable. It is 
the only source found that addresses the potential effect of magnetic reversal on earths natural 
systems. The direct input from that Internet site indicates that the frequency of magnetic pole 
reversals is on the timescale of a few hundred thousand to once every million years and that 
60 such reversals have occurred in the last 20 million years. Odenwald also indicates that polar 
wander occurs and that field intensity waxes and wanes and may range between zero and 
1 gauss. This frequency and variations in intensity is corroborated by Biggin and Thomas (2003, 
Figure 11 DIRS [167876]) (C56), which shows that the number of reversals over 10 Myr periods 
(for the last 160 million years before present) varies from 0 to 50. This same figure also shows 
the variance in the mean dipole moment. The scale of frequency and variation in intensity is also 
indirectly corroborated by the discussion in Hoffman (1995 [DIRS 160891]) (C57), which states 
that a statistical model exists which shows following a reversal there exists a 5,000 year-long 
dead-time during which there is zero probability of another occurrence. Then the probability of 
reversal steadily increases with time, but only for some 45,000 years. 
Odenwald indicates that there are no identifiable fossil effects (i.e., mutations or extinctions) 
associated with the previous reversals. However, no corroborating information regarding the 
possible effects of a pole reversal, or intensity fluctuations was found in the literature. The only 
related citations that were found address the interrelationship of earths magnetic field with 
influxing cosmic and solar rays and the potential cause of earths magnetic field changes being 
globalscale tectonic processes. Pechala (1985 [DIRS 167633]) (C58) indicates that the least 
controversial findings with regard to tropospheric circulation are with regard to the interrelations 
between the changes in magnetic pole position and intensity of the magnetic field, and changes 
of atmospheric circulation. Pechala indicates that some authors use the relationship as a basis for 
explaining past changes in earths climate. Biggin and Thomas (2003 [DIRS 167876]) (C56) 
propose a model that conceptualizes that global-scale tectonic processes such as slab subduction 
and related mantel processes and the cause for changes and variations in the earths magnetic 
field, rather than the reverse condition of changes in the earths magnetic field initiating such 
changes. 
4.7.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For qualitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. No contradictory 
information indicating significant change to regional or smaller scale geologic or hydrologic 
systems due to variations in the earths magnetic field, with the possible exception of a climate 
change relationship. The above literature review and corroboration of the direct input provides 
an acceptable level of confidence that the data are suitable for their intended use, which is for 
FEP Screening. No limitations are needed for the intended use. The status of the direct inputs 
for Earths magnetic fields evaluated above should be considered as qualified for use within this 
technical product. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-141 April 2004 

4.8 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.5.03.02.0A EARTH TIDES 
This section addresses the direct input used to determine the magnitude of earth tides effects. 
The direct input being justified is as follows: 
Earth tides causes fluctuations in water levels at Yucca Mountain that are on the order of 
a few centimeters 
The data being evaluated includes Item Q29 in Table II-1. The data is in the form observed 
fluctuations in water levels stemming from the subject FEP and are approximately 2 cm. This is 
corroborated in Items C59 and C60. 
The objective is to justify input representing the magnitude of the effect (i.e., upper bound of 
possible conditions) against a theoretical threshold of significance (i.e., distance between the 
existing water level and the repository). An order of magnitude understanding of the affect is 
sufficient. Therefore, the qualitative criteria of general agreement will be applied. 
4.8.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed the measurable affects of earth 
tides, and not just the conceptualization and mechanisms of such tides that most of the available 
citations address. The keyword and subject based-searches utilized the search term earth tides. 
The SciSearch database (limited to publication dates for 1980 to 2004) returned 55 records, and 
only one applicable citation was found. Additionally, previous references used for TSPA-SR 
FEPs discussion were reviewed. 
4.8.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), these factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table II-1. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-142 April 2004 

Table II-22. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs used for Earth Tides 
Items Corroborating 
Items 
1. 
Demonstrates 2. 
3. 
Type of 4. 5. 
Source 
Properties of 
Interest 
Prior Use 
by Others 
Publication 
and Review 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Q29 C59, C60 Bredehoeft, J.D. 1997. 
"Fault Permeability Near 
Yucca Mountain." Water 
Resources Research, 
33, (11), 2459-2463. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 236570. 
This paper is 
focused on the 
effects of fault 
permeability at 
Yucca Mountain. 
However, earth 
tides and other 
water level 
Not 
Available 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  The water 
level fluctuation data is not 
presented, but a 
supporting reference for 
the quantification is given 
Direct Input  The data 
used is from a site-
specific well. The 
fluctuation in Well U-25 
pl is cited as being 
2.05 cm. 
[DIRS 100007] fluctuations are 
specifically 
analyzed and the 
magnitude of the 
fluctuations are 
stated. This is 
not a project-
controlled 
document. 
C59 Not Applicable Kies, A.; Majerus, J.; 
and de Lantremange, 
N.D. 1999. 
"Underground Radon 
Gas Concentrations 
Related to Earth Tides." 
Il Nuovo Cimento della 
Societ Italiana di 
Fisica, 22C, (3-4), 287293. 
Bologna, Italy: 
This paper 
reviews 
observations on 
the influence of 
earth tides or 
radon gas 
release in an 
underground 
mine in 
Luxembourg. 
Not 
Available 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to High  The 
experimental methods and 
treatment of collected data 
are discussed, and 
supporting citations are 
given. 
Indirect Input  The 
paper is of interest but 
is not directly 
applicable because it 
does not address 
water level fluctuation 
and the geologic 
formation is 
significantly different. 
Editrice Compositori. 
TIC: 253721. 
The mine is 
located in a 
[DIRS 160882] gypsum deposit 
located 80 m 
below ground 
surface 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-143 April 2004 

Table II-22. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs used for Earth Tides (Continued) 
1. 3. 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
C60 Not Applicable Fenelon, J.M. 2000. 
Quality Assurance and 
Analysis of Water 
Levels in Wells on 
This paper 
reviews water 
level information 
from the Nevada 
Not available USGS Report High  This paper is 
focused on quality 
assurance and the 
documentation is 
Indirect Input  The 
information is relevant, 
but site-specific 
information is 
Pahute Mesa and Test Site and extensive for that reasons available. Information 
Vicinity, Nevada Test 
Site, Nye County, 
Nevada. Water-
identifies the 
fluctuation of 
water levels due 
from the Nevada Test 
Site indicates 
fluctuations of a few 
Resources to earth tides. cm due to earth tides. 
Investigations Report 
00-4014. Carson City, 
Nevada: U.S. 
Geological Survey. 
ACC: 
MOL.20030904.0304. 
[DIRS 160881] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-144 April 2004 

4.8.3 Discussion 
Direct input is taken from Bredehoeft. (1997 [DIRS 100007]) (Q29). The earth tide fluctuation 
for Well UE-25 pl at Yucca Mountain is cited from non-YMP references as 2.05 cm. This low 
magnitude of water level fluctuation is confirmed by Fenelon (2000 [DIRS 160881]) wherein 
earth tide fluctuations at the Nevada Test Site are on the order of several hundredths of a foot 
(i.e., on the order of a few centimeters). Additional corroboration is given by Kies et al. 
(1999 [DIRS 160882]) (C59) which indicates that strain variations induced by earth tides are 
very small (less than on the order of 10-8), which would translate to minimal fluctuations in water 
levels. 
4.8.4 Data Status and Limitation 
The above literature review and corroboration of the direct input provides a suitable level of 
confidence that the data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP Screening. The 
direct input considered as qualified for use within this technical product is intended for use only 
in FEP screening. 
5. DATA GENERATED BY THE EVALUATION 
No data was generated by this suitability demonstration effort. Calculations were performed as 
shown herein to allow corroboration of direct input to indirect inputs. However, the results of 
the calculations are not being qualified and are not to be used directly as data or serve as the sole 
basis for FEP Screening decisions. 
6. THE EVALUATION RESULTS 
The third section for each FEP dataset (Section 4.x.3) provides a comparison of the data being 
justified to the corroborative information. Any manipulations or calculations needed for the 
comparison are provided in that section of the discussion. In some case, this may be further 
subdivided by specific data topic. 
7. CONCLUSION FOR/AGAINST CHANGING THE DIRECT INPUT STATUS 
This is addressed in Section 4.x.4 for each FEP-specific dataset. The fourth section of the 
discussion for each FEP dataset provides a statement of recommendation and a discussion of any 
specific limitations that apply. This is addressed for each FEP-specific data set under the 
heading Data Status and Limitation. 
The direct inputs listed and discussed above have been reviewed against the stated review 
criteria. In some cases, limitations have been applied. However, all the data evaluated satisfied 
the respective criteria and the status should be considered as qualified for use within this 
technical product. 
8. LIMITS OR CAVEATS 
The intended use of the data justified herein is for use in FEP Screening. For all data discussed 
in Section 4, the data provide a desired level of confidence that is suitable for the intended use. 
The data are considered qualified for use only within this technical product. These data should 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-145 April 2004 

not be used or referenced by others as direct input without qualification external to this technical 
product. The fourth section of the discussion for each FEP dataset is Section 4 specifies any 
additional limitations that are applicable. This is addressed for each FEP-specific data set under 
the heading Data Status and Limitation. 
9. IDENTIFICATION OF ANY SUPPORTING INFORMATION 
Supporting information (i.e., corroborating information) is identified in Section 4.x.2 of each 
FEP-specific data set. The table includes an appropriate reference identifier for each citation, 
such as an accession number, DIRs number, or Technical Information Center catalog number. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 II-146 April 2004 

ATTACHMENT III 
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR DETERMINING TIMING OF A HUMAN 
INTRUSION WITHOUT RECOGNITION BY THE INTRUDER 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 April 2004 

ATTACHMENT III
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR DETERMINING TIMING OF A HUMAN 
INTRUSION WITHOUT RECOGNITION BY THE INTRUDER 
This attachment is related to feature, event, and process (FEP) screening for human intrusion-
related FEPs, as discussed in Section 6.2.3 and its subsections of the main body of this analysis 
report. The analysis provided in this attachment indicates that an unrecognized intrusion will not 
occur prior to 10,000 year following closure of the repository, and leads to the FEP decisions to 
exclude the human intrusion related FEPs from consideration in the total system performance 
analysis for license application (TSPA-LA). This attachment is pertinent to evaluation of the 
following FEPs: 
FEP 1.4.04.00.0A Drilling Activities (Human Intrusion) Section 6.2.3.6 
FEP 1.4.04.01.0A Effects of Drilling Intrusion Section 6.2.3.7 
The Human Intrusion FEP 1.4.11.00.0A Explosions and Crashes (Human Activities) is more 
closely aligned with cratering/energy release equations associated with meteorite impacts. This 
FEP is addressed in Section 6.2 and Attachments II and IV. 
This attachment is organized in Section 6.2. Section 1 addresses the purpose of the attachment. 
Section 2 reviews the pertinent literature on factors that influence drilling conditions. Section 3 
discusses regulatory and technical background information pertinent to the analysis. Section 4 
brings forward pertinent points from Section 3 and places them in the context of the potential for 
waste package penetration by drilling. Discussions in Section 4 include an outline of drill bit and 
drilling operation principles and a discussion of bit operating conditions and changes in 
conditions that would signify that a significant change in subsurface conditions had occurred. 
These concepts are then related to a conceptual model of resulting conditions if the drip shield 
and waste package were encountered and the significant role that comparative material properties 
have in determining those conditions. Section 5 summarizes and supports the exclusion of the 
human-related FEPs, as referenced in Section 6.2.3 and subsections of the main body of this 
analysis report. 
1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this attachment is to document the analysis of whether a driller, using techniques 
and practices currently employed in exploratory drilling for groundwater in the region 
surrounding Yucca Mountain, would or would not recognize that a waste package had been 
penetrated, and to document whether such a condition could occur at or before 10,000 years, or 
at more than 10,000 years after disposal. 
Such an analysis and determination require definition and discussion of conditions that would 
cause recognition of such an event. Given that there is no regulatory definition or description of 
such conditions, the recognition would be based on drill performance characteristics observable 
at the surface. Such measures could be qualitative (e.g., smoothness of operation, excessive 
vibration or chatter) or could be quantitative (e.g., drill penetration rates rotation speed, readily 
observable or measurable change in drilling fluid circulation, or changes in machinery hydraulic 
pressures required to maintain an existing drilling condition). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-1 April 2004 

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.1 RESOURCE POTENTIAL 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in the discussion regarding the timing and 
frequency of human intrusion (66 FR 55732, p. 55761 [DIRS 156671]), states that some 
evaluations of resource potential suggest that Yucca Mountain and the area around it does not 
represent an active candidate for either systematic or random exploratory drilling at this time. 
A list of citations for those studies is available in the regulation. Furthermore, the elevation of 
the mountain, with the resultant greater depth to water compared to shallower groundwater wells 
that would be drilled to the south of the mountain, decreases the likelihood of groundwater 
exploration through the repository footprint. Regardless, the regulations specify evaluation of 
the timing of a human intrusion event, and consideration of a stylized human intrusion based on 
a groundwater exploration assumption 10 CFR 63.322 [DIRS 156605]. 
2.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 
At 10 CFR 63.321 ([DIRS 156605]), the NRC specifies the criteria under which human 
intrusion must be evaluated: 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 
Furthermore, per 10 CFR 63.321(a) ([DIRS 156605]), DOE must 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion (see 63.322) without recognition by the drillers. 
In addition, if complete waste package penetration is projected to occur at or before 10,000 years 
after disposal, then per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) ([DIRS 156605]), DOE is to provide a 
demonstration that: 
there is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) as a 
result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after disposal. 
And, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) ([DIRS 156605]), if the exposure of the RMEI occurs more than 
10,000 years after disposal, or if the intrusion is not projected to occur before 10,000 years after 
disposal, the results of the analysis and the bases of the analysis are to be provided in the 
environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain as an indicator of long-term disposal 
system performance. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-2 April 2004 

2.3 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND 
2.3.1 Results of Human Intrusion in Total System Performance Analysis-Site 
Recommendation 
The assumptions used in Total System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation 
(CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 4.4) for a stylized human intrusion into the 
repository are summarized in Table 4.4-1 of the TSPA-SR. The stylized human intrusion into 
the repository was assumed to occur 100 years following permanent closure. The TSPA-SR 
(Figure 4.4-11) shows 300 simulated annual dose histories along with some statistical measures 
of the annual dose distribution. The peak mean human intrusion annual dose during the first 
10,000 years after repository closure for the TSPA-SR model is approximately 0.008 mrem/yr, 
occurring at approximately 1,000 years. No annual dose for any of the 300 realizations exceeds 
0.5 mrem/yr over the first 10,000 years. TSPA-SR Figure 4.4-12 shows a comparison of the 
mean human intrusion annual dose curve from an intrusion at 10,000 years with the mean annual 
dose curve from the base case intrusion at 100 years. For the intrusion at 10,000 years, the peak 
mean annual dose over 100,000 years is less than that for the base case intrusion at 100 years. At 
100,000 years, the mean annual dose is nearly identical to the mean annual dose from the base 
case, and is approximately 0.004 mrem/yr (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 4.4 [DIRS 153246]). 
2.3.2 Results of Human Intrusion in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Two human intrusion scenarios were simulated and discussed in the TSPA Report for Final 
Environmental Impact Statement and Suitability Evaluation (Williams 2001, Section 6.4 
[DIRS 157307]): a sensitivity analysis assuming one intrusion at 100 years after repository 
closure and a sensitivity analysis assuming intrusion at 30,000 years, the earliest time after 
disposal that the waste package would degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur 
without recognition by the drillers. The results of the simulations for a human intrusion at 
100 years after closure show a peak mean dose of 0.0048 mrem/yr over the period of regulatory 
compliance. The results of the 30,000-year simulation analyses are included in the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear 
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (DOE 2002 
[DIRS 155970]). The result for an intrusion occurring at 30,000 years indicates a mean annual 
peak dose of 0.002 millirem, occurring a short time after 100,000 years after repository closure. 
Again, because the DOE determined that an unrecognized human intrusion could not occur at or 
before 10,000 years, the dose limits for the human intrusion do not apply in this suitability 
evaluation. 
Although some uncertainty exists about the timing of when penetrating a waste package would 
not be detected, the results above, based upon an assumption of penetration at 100 years, show 
that the resulting dose is orders of magnitude less than the applicable radiation protection 
standard. Therefore, even if penetration were much earlier than expected, the resulting doses are 
of little consequence for the suitability evaluation. 
In summary, the TSPA-SR (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246]) considered a stylized event 
occurring at both 100 and 30,000 years. The human intrusion stylized analysis occurring at 
30,000 years is provided in the FEIS (DOE 2002, Section 5.7.1 [DIRS 155970]). Both of these 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-3 April 2004 

evaluations showed that dose following a stylized human intrusion remained below the 
regulatory limits, based on the TSPA-SR modeling results. 
Furthermore, the results of the previous TSPA-SR drip shield and waste package studies indicate 
long lifetimes for these components (CRWMS M&O 2000, Section 3.4 [DIRS 153246]), with 
the first drip shield failures occurring after about 20,000 years. The first failures of the waste 
package outer material, Alloy 22, by general corrosion occurred after approximately 
30,000 years. The TSPA-SR results corroborate the drip shield and waste package barrier 
capability for consideration in TSPA-LA, which are based on the updated information for 
repository conditions and physical properties of the drip shield and waste packages, and are 
described in the following section. 
2.3.3 Total System Performance Analysis for License Application Waste Package 
Degradation Analysis Results 
Degradation of the engineered barrier components with time is discussed in BSC (2003, 
Section 6.7.1 [DIRS 161317]), which indicates that: 
 Because of the low corrosion rate of titanium alloy used for the drip shields, the initial 
breaches of the drip shields are not expected to occur until approximately 35,000 years 
and the median estimate of the mean time to initial breaching of drip shields is 
approximately 310,000 years. 
 Because the corrosion rates of Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) used for the waste packages are 
low, it is not expected that any waste packages would be breached by general corrosion 
or stress corrosion cracking during the first 10,000 years; models indicate that the time 
to initial breaching of the waste packages by corrosion is on the order of one hundred 
thousand years. 
 Because the drip shields remain intact for a post-10,000 year period, localized corrosion 
of the waste packages caused by seepage is also excluded during the initial 10,000-year 
period. 
The results of the waste package degradation analyses cited from BSC 2003 (Section 6.7.1 
[DIRS 161317]) result from the use of representative thermal hydrologic history files produced 
to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited waste package degradation (WAPDEG) report 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 161317]). The actual drip shield and waste package degradation profiles used 
in the TSPA-LA model will make use of the actual thermal hydrologic history files appropriate 
for the repository, which introduces some uncertainty in the exact calculated timing of the first 
failure of the drip shield and waste package. Because representative histories were used, 
however, significant differences in the degradation profile generated for TSPA-LA are not 
expected, and the initial model results are corroborated by the TSPA-SR results discussed in 
Section 2.3.2 of this attachment.. 
While general corrosion occurs gradually over time up to the time of failure, the oxidation 
process is a surface phenomenon, and the underlying metal retains its integrity and resistance to 
drilling. For the drip shield, the drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00C in D&E/PA/C IED 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-4 April 2004 

Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167309]) indicates that the 
total corrosion of the drip shield material in 10,000 years is approximately 1.6 to 2 mm. From 
Table 5 of drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00C, the drip shield plates have an original 
thickness of 15 mm. General corrosion is insufficient to significantly compromise strength 
properties of the drip shield since the corroded depth is only 11 percent to 13 percent of the 
original thickness. Although TSPA-SR results show some failures at early time, these failures 
are the result of manufacturing defects that increase susceptibility to stress corrosion cracking 
(BSC 2003, Section 6.3.8.2 [DIRS 161317]) and are not associated with degradation of the 
overall structural integrity of the waste package, and the resistance to drilling is maintained. 
Barring volcanic events or seismic events of large magnitude, until a breach of the drip shield 
occurs the structural integrity of the waste package itself is maintained and provides an 
additional barrier to borehole drill penetration. 
2.3.4 Seismic Consequences Abstraction Analysis Results 
Igneous and seismic-related damage mechanisms are not included in the time to failure stated in 
Section 2.3.3 of this attachment, because the WAPDEG results cited are based on nominal 
scenario assumptions. 
Igneous disruptive events capable of causing significant damage are unlikely (i.e., igneous 
intrusion of the repository footprint has an annual probability of exceedance of less than 10-5 but 
greater than 10-8). Therefore, further consideration of an igneous event in consort with a human 
intrusion stylized analysis is excluded from consideration. The exclusion is consistent with 
requirements of 10 CFR 63.322 (g) ([DIRS 156605]). 
The analyses for seismic damage to the drip shield and waste package are documented in Errata 
For Seismic Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167780]). The analyses indicate that 
low magnitude, but relatively frequent seismic events may occur and lead to relatively minor 
drip shield damage due to seismic ground motion or due to induced rockfall, via imposed 
residual stresses in the drip shield. The presence of residual stress induced by seismic events 
and/or related rockfall may result in local barrier degradation from stress corrosion cracking. 
Once the barrier degrades, seepage can flow through the drip shield and into a breached waste 
package, resulting in advective flow and transport through the engineered barrier system (EBS). 
For the seismic analysis, if the residual stress from mechanical damage exceeds the residual 
stress threshold for the barrier, then the affected area(s) are considered to immediately fail as a 
barrier to flow and transport. 
While this definition of failure criterion is appropriate for consideration to flow and transport 
aspects, it does not necessarily reflect changes to the effective material properties and may not 
constitute failure with respect to recognition of a change in conditions while drilling. Even 
with an imposed residual stress, and even with minor amounts of corrosion and cracking by a 
rotating drill bit that encounters a metallic object will behave significantly different than when 
encountering naturally-occurring geologic materials, provided the drill bit encounters a patch of 
relatively intact material that is roughly the same diameter of the drill bit. This is because the 
failure mode and drill bit interaction is significantly different for rock and metals, as discussed 
below. Consequently, for human intrusion without recognition of waste package penetration, 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-5 April 2004 

additional conditions would need to have occurred. These would include, but not necessarily be 
limited to (1) a significant degradation of material strength due to excessive cracking, fracturing, 
or corrosion, or (2) physical separation of the drip shields. 
In contrast, the seismic damage analysis results (BSC 2004, Section 6.6.5 [DIRS 167780]) for 
the drip shield indicate that: 
 For 5 x 10-4 per year ground motion level, no area of the drip shield exceeds the residual 
stress threshold of 50 percent of the yield strength of Titanium Grade 7 for degradation 
by stress corrosion cracking. 
 For 10-6 per year ground motion level, the mean fraction damage area is 0.70 percent 
and the maximum fraction damage area is only 2.13 percent. There is no indication of 
separation of drip shields in the calculations for the 10-6 per year ground motion level. 
 For 10-7 per year ground motion level, the analysis indicates separation of adjacent drip 
shields. 
As explained in BSC 2004 (Section 6.3.2 [DIR 167780]), the residual stress threshold for failure 
of the drip shield by stress corrosion cracking was fixed by a lower bound of 50 percent of the 
yield strength of the drip shield plate material. This limit, however, is conservative and was 
selected even though the initiation of stress corrosion cracking was not observed in test samples 
with residual stresses greater than yield strength. Furthermore, the analysis indicate that up to 
10-7 per year ground motions, at which separation occurs, at least some intact drip shield material 
is likely to be encountered. 
With regard to the waste package, the residual stress threshold for the abstraction has been set at 
80 to 90 percent of the yield strength of the waste package outer material. For the 10-6 per year 
ground motion level, the mean value of damage fraction is 0.31 percent and a maximum value of 
0.71 percent. A corroborating analysis based on 10-5 per year ground motion levels indicates that 
at that ground motion level, the resulting damage area for waste packages is about zero percent 
(BSC 2004, Section 6.5.2 [DIRS 167780]). 
Consequently, with regard to the human intrusion stylized analysis in consort with a seismic 
event, it is concluded that seismic events occurring with an annual frequency of greater than 10-5 
are of insufficient magnitude to significantly alter material properties of the drip shield or impose 
damage to the waste packages. Furthermore, at 10-5 per year ground motion levels, although the 
drip shield may be increasingly vulnerable, no separation has occurred, and the material 
properties of the waste package remain intact. Increased damage effects could potentially occur 
with less frequently occurring events (e.g., drip shield separation at 10-7 per year ground motion 
levels as an extreme case), but the regulations at 10 CFR 63.322 (g) ([DIRS 156605]) 
specifically exclude consideration of unlikely events in consort with the human intrusion stylized 
analysis (i.e., unlikely events are those events with less than a 10-5 per year annual frequency of 
occurrence). 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-6 April 2004 

3. POTENTIAL FOR WASTE PACKAGE PENETRATION BY DRILLING 
The following discussion presents several lines of evidence relevant to estimating the time when 
a human intrusion could occur, based upon the earliest time that current technology and practices 
used for groundwater exploration could lead to waste package penetration without a recognition 
by a driller. 
There are a number of operational parameters that would indicate to a driller that down-hole 
conditions had changed, merit additional investigation, and possibly justify a bit run (the removal 
of the bit from the hole for review and grading). These include loss of circulation, decreased 
penetration rate, increased drill string and bit instability, and increased drill string torque caused 
by differing material properties. 
3.1 INITIAL BIT SELECTION AND DRILLING PRINCIPLES 
Per the regulatory requirement discussed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of this attachment, the bases for 
the following discussions are focused on typical practices used in drilling water wells in 
southwestern United States. Generally speaking, the drill string assembly consists of the drill bit, 
a drill collar, the drill pipe, and in some instances, the use of stabilizers. 
As described in Driscoll 1986 (pp 278 to 286 [DIRS 116801]) and Bourgoyne et al. 
1986,(Section 5.1[DIRS 155233]), roller bits are typically used in drilling water wells due to 
their low cost and wide range of operational flexibility. Polycrystalline diamond cutter and 
diamond cutter drag bits typically are not used in water well drilling because of the high costs of 
these drill bits. Direct circulation hammer drills are sometimes used to drill brittle competent 
rock such as welded volcanic tuff, but they typically are inefficient in unconsolidated alluvium or 
incompetent rock formations. This limitation reduces the use of these drills in typical water well 
drilling. The discussions provided herein would be generally applicable to roller or hammer bits. 
The initial selection of bit type is typically based on what is known about the formation 
characteristics. The terms usually used by drilling engineers to describe the formation 
characteristics are drillability and abrasiveness. The drillability of the formation is a measure of 
how easy the rock formation is to drill. It is inversely related to the compressive strength of the 
rock, although other factors are also important. The abrasiveness of the formation is a measure 
of how rapidly the cutting surface of a bit will wear when drilling the formation. Although there 
are some exceptions, the abrasiveness tends to increase as the drillability decreases 
(Bourgoyne et al. 1986, Chapter 5 [DIRS 155233]). 
The International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC 1992 [DIRS 155232]) has 
developed a classification chart for selection of roller bits. Using this classification chart, roller 
bits with characteristics of 7-1 or 7-2 (hard semi-abrasive and abrasive formations) would be 
selected for drilling through the welded geologic units at Yucca Mountain, based on 
geomechanical properties. Roller bits are designed to take advantage of brittle failure of the rock 
matrix to crush, break, and remove the rock in an efficient manner. The volume of rock that is 
newly fractured by a tooth depends on the geometry, rock properties, and tooth penetration depth 
below the rock surface. The force applied to the tooth is supplied by the drill string torque and 
the weight on the bit. The force applied to a particular situation determines the tooth penetration 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-7 April 2004 

depth. The bit tooth penetrates into the rock until the resistant force offered back by the rock 
equals the force applied to the tooth. As a load is applied to a bit tooth, the pressure beneath the 
tooth increases until it exceeds the crushing strength of the rock and a wedge of finely powered 
rock is formed beneath the tooth. 
As the force of the tooth increases, the material in the wedge compresses and exerts high lateral 
forces on the solid rock surrounding the wedge until the shear stress exceeds the shear strength of 
the solid rock and the rock fractures. The rock may also exhibit ductility such that a greater 
tooth penetration is required to cause sufficient strain for chipping to occur (Warren 1987 
[DIRS 155234]). The tooth will penetrate until the shear stress on the tooth is balanced by the 
shear strength of the rock. 
These forces generate fractures that propagate along a maximum shear surface. As the force of 
the tooth increases above the threshold value, subsequent fracturing occurs in the region above 
the initial fracture, forming a zone of broken rock. The bit tooth moves forward until it reaches 
the margins of the wedge and/or fracture zone, and the process repeats (Bourgoyne et al. 1986, 
Chapter 5 [DIRS 155233]). The crushed and broken material is then removed from the boring 
using circulated drilling fluids (air, water, or admixtures thereof) that also provide cooling and 
cleaning for the drill bit. 
The drill collar is a heavy-walled length of drill pipe, with a diameter less than the borehole 
diameter. If too much force is applied at the top of the drill stem, the drill pipe will bow and tend 
to cause the bit to cut off-center and thereby cause deviations in the borehole alignment. To 
compensate, drill collars are used to add weight to the lower part of the drill string assembly. 
This concentration of weight and the increased rigidity of the collars helps to keep the lower part 
of the drill assembly in alignment and provide weight to the bit to maintain appropriate 
penetration rate (Driscoll 1986, p. 281 [DIRS 116801]). Drill collars may also be fitted with 
stabilizer devices that contact the borehole walls. The drill collars and stabilizers are used to 
maintain alignment of the drill string within the borehole and reduce vibration or wobble of the 
bit and the drill pipe that transfers the torque from the surface to the drill bit. 
3.2 BIT OPERATING CONDITIONS AND CHANGE-IN-CONDITIONS 
Bit operating conditions (i.e., drilling fluid properties and circulation rates, drill string stability, 
bit weight, and rotary speed) affect the rate of penetration and the vibrations felt on the drill rig. 
These factors would be affected by the drilling assemblys entry into the emplacement drift, and 
the bit operating conditions would be significantly affected by the rounded geometry of the 
emplacement drift, drip shield, and waste package. 
The loss of drilling fluid circulation and the sudden drop in weight on the bit when the drill bit 
breaks through the top of the emplacement drift would provide initial indications that conditions 
had changed significantly. The loss of circulation would occur because of the flow of drilling 
fluids from the borehole and into the emplacement drift which, at 5.5 m diameter and on the 
scale of a kilometer in length, represents an essentially instantaneous increase in volume 
compared to the borehole volume. At that point, the driller would either try to continue drilling 
without compensating for the fluid loss in the hope of passing through the loss zone, would try 
various additives in the drilling fluid to try to seal the formation (Driscoll 1986, p. 360 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-8 April 2004 

[DIRS 116801]), or would have to pull the drill assembly and either change drilling methods or 
run casing to seal off the cavity. In the event of continued drilling, the encountering of the drip 
shield or waste package would prevent progress, and the lack of cooling from circulated fluids 
would eventually destroy the drilling bit and result in the drilling assembly being pulled from the 
hole (or otherwise cause the driller to consider alternative courses of action). Given the volume 
difference between the borehole and the emplacement drift, it is implausible that any amount of 
additive would resolve the lost circulation problem, again leading the driller to some alternative 
course of action. Alternative courses of action, such as spot cementing through the loss zone or 
setting casing through the cavity, would involve pulling the drilling assembly from the borehole. 
In either scenario, the driller would then encounter continued volumetric problems, or would 
encounter problems in trying to set casing due to the presence of the drip shield or waste package 
within the emplacement drift. If successful in such attempts, alternative scenarios involve 
progressing the boring without penetration of the drip shield (i.e., along the side of gap between 
the drip shield and drift wall) or have the potential for contacting the drip shield. 
In addition to loss of circulation, the space between the crown or sides of the emplacement drift 
(5.5 m) and the drip shield would cause the operating conditions to become unstable and would 
evidence themselves as a sudden increase in rotation speed as the weight on the drill bit was 
unloaded, sudden drop in the drill assembly (i.e., essentially free fall until the drip shield or 
invert of the drift was encountered), and or a significant increase in the amount of vibration at the 
surface. Any of these conditions would cause the destabilization of the drill bit (i.e., tend to 
allow the bit to change direction from the original concentric alignment) and would trigger a 
response by the driller to address the change in conditions. This is particularly true as drilling 
conditions would noticeably change (due to the difference in rock and alloy material properties) 
if the drilling assembly came in contact with the drip shield material as discussed in Section 3.4 
of this attachment. 
These various scenarios and alternatives assume that the drift has not collapsed. However, the 
lithophysal and fractured nature of some the Topopah Spring Tuff rock units could provide 
similar indications, or a rubble accumulation at a collapse point could limit the degree of lost 
circulation, and the various alternatives discussed above might allow the borehole to progress. 
Rubble material in a collapsed drift could reduce the degree of the effects on drilling, but would 
likely not eliminate them. The drift stability through time has been examined in Drift 
Degradation Analysis ANL-EBS-MD-000027 (BSC 2003 [DIRS 162711]). The analysis 
indicates that during the regulatory period of 10,000 years, the ground support will completely 
lose its integrity, and drift degradation will occur due to strength decay of the rock mass within 
the lithophysal zone (BSC 2003, p. 188 [DIRS 162711]). However, the collapse results in the 
bulking of, or increase in volume of the rock, as the rock mass disintegrates into a number of 
pieces, resulting in increased porosity and overall volume. The resulting bulk properties of the 
fill are different from that of the intact rock mass. Loss of drilling fluid circulation would still 
occur, but perhaps could be accommodated by the driller. Additionally, the rubble pile of rocks 
would tend to move or shift under small loads, and the uneven loading on the drill bit would 
increase the lateral deviation forces (Bourgoyne et al. 1986, Chapter 5 [DIRS 155233]). As 
such, even if the drifts collapse, the character of the rubble would be insufficient to stabilize the 
drill string. Severe wobbling bit action would result as the bit is rotated if the drill collars or 
stabilizers above the bit are not held in a concentric position in the borehole. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-9 April 2004 

3.3 PENETRATION OF THE DRIP SHIELD AND WASTE PACKAGE 
To have any possibility of penetrating the drip shield or waste package, the drilling assembly 
would have to contact the surfaces in an essentially perpendicular orientation. In general, 
deviation in alignment may be caused by the character of the subsurface material. This is 
because lateral deviation forces increase with relatively small changes in the contact angle 
between the bit and the drilled material (Bourgoyne et al. 1986, Chapter 5 [DIRS 155233]). 
Deviations may also be caused by too much or too little weight on the drill bit and differences in 
the pull-down force applied to the drill pipe during rotary drilling. Additionally, the varying 
hardness of different materials being penetrated deflects the bit from a consistent alignment. 
Given that the top of the drip shield is curved and that most groundwater exploration holes are 
drilled in a near-vertical orientation (i.e., angle and directional drilling are possible but are not 
typically used for groundwater exploration purposes due to increased difficulty and cost), the 
drill bit would have to make contact at the relatively small areas that make up the apex of the 
drip shield or waste package, where the surfaces are essentially perpendicular to the drill bit 
orientation. Only the apex of the drip shield or waste package provides a perpendicular surface 
for which drip shield and waste package geometry would not increase the lateral deviation 
forces. 
If the drilling assembly contacts any location other than the relatively small areas that make up 
the apex of the drip shield or waste package, then the relatively small drill bit diameter and high 
rotational speeds and the increased strength of material used for the drip shield and waste 
package compared to the geologic materials (see Section 3.4 of this attachment) would result in 
large lateral deviation forces and uneven loading on the bit. In turn, this would lead to drilling 
assembly instability and the bit would essentially bounce and slide on the top or side of the 
engineered barriers, and potentially cause the drill bit to slip off of the drip shield or waste 
package apex. Consequently, no penetration of the waste package would occur. Furthermore, 
any non-slip contact with the drip shield or the waste package would be accompanied by a 
noticeable increase in drill string torque and reduced rate of penetration as the bit teeth contacted 
the metallic alloy. At the surface drilling, the driller would recognize these conditions as a lack 
of drill bit penetration and excessive vibration. High levels of vibration and correspondingly low 
rates of penetration, such as these observed with poorly designed bits when crossing hard and 
abrasive formations would prompt the driller to adjust the rotary speed and weight on bit that 
eliminates shock. In some cases, this could include removing the drilling assembly from the 
borehole to inspect the bit condition (Putot et al, 2000, p 118 [DIRS 167791] which would 
increase the chance for recognition of excessive bit wear and possible recognition that a metallic 
object had been encountered. 
3.4 COMPARATIVE MATERIAL STRENGTHS 
Assuming that the drilling assembly does not slide off the apex of the drip shield, then a 
significant change in downhole conditions would also be recognized because the failure 
mechanisms of brittle rock (such as that present at the repository host horizon) and ductile alloys 
(such as the drip shield and waste packages) differ significantly. These changes in failure 
mechanisms are so significant that specialized downhole techniques and tools are used to drill 
through metal. Milling produces a different failure mechanism than brittle failure that roller bits 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-10 April 2004 

and hammer bits typically produce. Bits designed for drilling rock would not be efficient for 
drilling through metal and would likely be seriously damaged, and the milling techniques needed 
to bore metals (Avallone 1987, pp 13-63 to 13-64 [DIRS 103508]) are not used in rock drilling, 
unless required for fishing operations or other specialized applications (e.g., Driscoll 1986, 
Figure 10.10 and Figure 10.54, pp 316 to 319[116801]. 
Brittle materials are characterized by the fact that rupture occurs without any noticeable prior 
change in the rate of elongation. Thus, for brittle materials under tension, there is no difference 
between the ultimate strength and the breaking strength. Also, under tension, the strain at the 
time of rupture is much smaller for brittle than for ductile materials (Beer and Johnston, 
1981, (p. 36 [DIRS 166708]). In general, brittle materials are weaker in tension than in shear 
(Beer and Johnston, 1981, p. 101 [DIRS 166708]), and brittle materials are significantly stronger 
in compression than in tension (e.g., the tensile strength of concrete is about 10 to 20 percent of 
its compressive strength; also see Table III-1 of this attachment for a comparison of rock strength 
in compression and tension). For brittle materials, strength is typically reported as compressive 
strength rather than tensile strength, while ductile material strengths are typically determined in 
tension. 
The ductility of a material, such as the alloys used for the drip shields and waste packages, is 
usually measured as the percent reduction in area (or the elongation that occurs during a tensile 
test. Ductile materials, with a minimum elongation in tensile testing, will not fail in service 
through brittle fracture (Boyer and Gall 1984 [DIRS 155318]), which is the failure mode 
exhibited by the repository host horizon materials. Also, for ductile metals, the compression 
strength is generally assumed equal to the tensile strength (Beer and Johnson, 1981, p. 584 
[DIRS 166708]). Generally speaking, values obtained for the yield strength and ultimate 
strength of a given material are only about half as large in shear as they are in tension, and the 
shear modulus is generally less than one-half, but more than one third of the modulus of 
elasticity of that material (Beer and Johnston pp. 68-69, 1981 [DIRS 166708]). 
Therefore, if the differences between milling and rotary drilling tools are ignored, and rotary bits 
could be used to penetrate the engineered barriers, a measure for comparing strength properties 
between brittle and ductile materials is needed. One such parameter is a comparison of the 
modulus of elasticity of these differing materials. Because of the lack of elongation, the 
stress-strain diagram for brittle materials is generally linear, and the modulus of elasticity 
provides a convenient method for comparing material properties between brittle and ductile 
materials. This also suggests that comparison of tensile strength of brittle materials to yield 
strength of ductile materials may also be appropriate. Comparison of the compressive strength 
of rock materials and tensile strength of alloy is also appropriate. Furthermore, the reported 
shear modulus could be compared (if available) or a value of twice to three times the shear 
modulus could be compared to the modulus of elasticity. 
Various rock properties for materials at Yucca Mountain are shown in Figure III-1 and 
Table III-1, including uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity (Youngs 
modulus), tensile strength, and ultimate strength. Based on the design drawings and Data 
Tracking Numbers (DTNs) cited , the yield strength, tensile strength and modulus of elasticity 
for the drip shield and waste package materials are shown in Table III-2. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-11 April 2004 

Studies that have been conducted to correlate operational parameters to rate of penetration of the 
drill bit indicate that the rate of penetration may range from inversely proportional to the square 
of the strength of the material being drilled to inversely proportional to strength of the material, 
all other factors being equal (Bourgoyne et al. 1986, Eq. 5-19 [DIRS 155233]; Kahraman (2000, 
Equations 8, 12, and 14 [DIRS 167761]). Putot et al. (2000, p 123 [DIRS 167791]) suggests, at 
least for balling tendencies in shales and for a given weight on bit, drilling performance collapses 
upon a doubling of the rotary speed. As shown in Attachment II, Section 4.1.3, penetration rate 
is directly proportional to rotary speed. Assuming that a change in the penetration rate by a 
factor of 1.5 or greater (increase) or 0.66 or less (decrease) (i.e., some condition occurring before 
performance collapse) would be sufficient to be noticed by a driller, a change in compressive 
strength of materials by a factor of 1.5 (or possibly less if one assumes the inverse square 
relationship presented by Bourgoyne et al.) would cause of a significant change in drilling 
conditions that would be recognized by the driller. 
Source: BSC 2003 [DIRS 166660], Figure 8-45. 
Figure III-1. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Youngs Modulus 50.8 mm Specimens, Saturated, 
Room Temperature, L:D = 2:1 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-12 April 2004 

Table III-1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Youngs Moduli by Rock Unit 
Rock Unit 
Uniaxial 
Compressive 
Strength Mean 
(MPa) 
Tensile Strength 
Mean;Range 
(MPa) 
Ultimate Strength 
Mean;Range 
(MPa) 
Shear 
Modulus 
(GPa) 
Elasticity 
(Youngs 
Modulus) 
Mean;Range 
(GPa) 
Topopah Springs Tuff  39.0 - -19.3; - -11.1; 5.0  
upper lithophysal zone 9.4  37.020.5 
(Tptpul) 
Topopah Springs Tuff  110.6 - -23.8; 0.42 to 6.9; 5.3  7.1 
lower lithophysal zone 13.3-32.2 8.21 
(Tptpll) 
Topopah Springs Tuff  
middle nonlithophysal zone 
(Tptpmn) 
154.0 11.6; 6.1  16.8 - - 
-
33.03; 13.4  
44.4Topopah Springs Tuff  
lower nonlithophysal zone 
(Tptpln) 
136.1 - - 
- 
Source: 
Mean Uniaxial Compressive Strength Data based on data provided in DTN MO0311RCKPRPCS.003 
[DIRS 166073] 
Tensile Strength taken from BSC 2003 (Table V-6 [DIRS 162711]) 
Ultimate Strength taken from BSC 2003 (Table V-8 [DIRS 162711]) 
Shear Modulus estimated for rock mass qualities 1 through 5 and taken from BSC 2003 (Table V-9, DIRS 
[DIRS 162711]
Mean for Elastic Modulus (Youngs Modulus) based on data from BSC 2003 (Tables V-5 and V-8 [DIRS
162711]).
The tables indicate that the mean compressive strength of the rock material ranges from 
39.0 MPa to 154.0 MPa. At room temperature, the tensile strength of the drip shield materials 
ranges from 345 MPa to 895 MPa. Thus, the factor of compressive strengths ranges from about 
2.2 (345/154) to as great as 22.9 (895/39.0). The tensile strength of the waste package material 
at room temperature ranges from 550 MPa to 802 MPa. This represents factors of 3.6 (550/154) 
to as great as 205 (802/39.0). If one conservatively assumes the yield strength of the engineered 
barrier materials is comparable to rock compressive strength, the factors decrease. For the drip 
shield material at room temperature, the factor ranges from 1.8 (275/154) to 11.5 (450/39.0). For 
the waste package material at room temperature, the factors range from 1.6 (240/159 to great as 
10.3 (403/39.0). However, given that all waste packages include Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) 
material as outer barrier, the lower end of the range is bounded at a factor of 2.3 (358/154). 
Therefore, at room temperature, a minimum factor of two, and potentially much greater is 
present for at least one of the engineered barriers. If one assumes an inverse proportionality of 
rock strength to rate of penetration, the penetration rates would decrease by a minimum factor of 
0.62 and therefore be recognizable, as previously discussed in Section 3.4. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-13 April 2004 

Table III-2. Material Properties for Drip Shield and Waste Package Fabrication 
Engineered Barrier Material Use 
Yield Strength 
at 0.2% offset 
(MPa) 
Tensile Strength 
(MPa) 
Modulus of 
Elasticity 
(GPa) 
Titanium Grade 7a and Grade 16 Drip Shield 275 to 450 345 106.87 
(at room temperature) 
Titanium Grade 7a and Grade 16 
(at 400oF/204oC) 
Drip Shield 138-152 207-228 
Titanium Grade 24 Drip Shield 895b 113.8c 
Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) (at room Waste Package 358-403 765-802 206 
temperature) 
Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) (at 
400oF/204oC) 
Waste Package 262-303 662-701 196 
Type 316 N Grade Stainless Steel 
(minimum properties)e 
Waste Package 240 550 196 
Source: aDTN: MO0003RIB00073.000 [DIRS 152926] for Titanium Grades 7 and 16 
bTensile Strength for Titanium Grade 24 (ASME 1998, Section II, Table 1 [DIRS 145103]) 
cModulus of Elasticity for Titanium Grade 24 (ASM International 1990, p. 621 [DIRS 141615]) 
The source of values for Titanium Grades 7, 16 and 24 are given on Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00401-
000-00C [DIRS 167309] 
dDTN: MO0003RIB00071.000 [DIRS 148850] for Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) 
eDTN: MO0003RIB00076.000 [DIRS 153044] for Type 316N. 
The source of values for Alloy 22 and for Type 316N Grade are given on Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-
00201-000-00D [DIRS166694] 
At elevated temperatures, such as those during the thermal period (e.g., 200oC), the strength 
properties of the drip shield material are reduced. The factor reduces in range from 1.3 
(207/154) to as great as 5.8 (228/39.0) , based on compressive strength. However, the properties 
of the Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) outer barrier are not as significantly reduced. The factor for 
compressive strengths for the elevated temperature ranges from 4.3 (662/154) to 17.9 (701/39.0), 
and for yield strength is 1.7 (262/154) to 7.8 (303/39.0). Thus, a factor of at least 1.5 is 
maintained and changes in the rate of penetration would be noticeable, even at the elevated 
temperature. 
Furthermore, the mean tensile strength and mean ultimate strength of the rock units are reported 
to range from 11.6 MPa to 23.8 MPa (or approximately 8 to 22 percent of the corresponding 
mean compressive strength). These rock tensile strengths are, at a minimum, a factor of 14 less 
than those of the engineered barrier materials at room temperature. Even conservatively 
assuming an equivalence of the yield strength of a ductile material to tensile or ultimate strength 
of brittle material generates a difference of a factor of greater than 10. Similarly, the mean 
modulus of elasticity for the rock materials is on the order of 6.9 to 33 GPa. Correspondingly, 
the reported shear modulus for the repository host horizon ranges from 0.42 to 8.21 GPa (or no 
greater than 1/4 of the maximum reported modulus of elasticity). By contrast, for the ductile 
alloys, the modulus of elasticity ranges from 107 to 206 GPa, representing a minimum factor of 
3.2 different from the rock properties. These factors would be reduced at elevated temperatures. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-14 April 2004 

The discussion provided above would be applicable even if the drip shield or one of the materials 
used in the waste package were degraded to the point where structural integrity were lost or (in 
the case of the drip shield) the interlock mechanism were bent and penetrated by the drilling 
assembly. 
4. CONCLUSION 
The information presented in this attachment addresses the issue of when a human intrusion 
could occur based upon the earliest time that current technology and practices could lead to 
waste package penetration without the driller noticing waste package penetration. Conclusions 
based on information presented in this attachment suggest that a human intrusion event, if it were 
to occur during the time frame of regulatory compliance, would not happen without recognition. 
Selection of a bit for drilling involves knowledge of the characteristics of the rock. As indicated 
in Tables III-1 and III-2, there are significant differences between the tensile strengths and other 
material properties of the geologic units at Yucca Mountain and the materials for the drip shield 
and waste package. Because the materials used in the drip shield and waste packages have high 
tensile strengths, yield strengths, and increased modulus of elasticity compared to the host rock 
properties, the tooth of a roller bit cannot penetrate enough to cause sufficient strain for chipping 
to occur. Rather, if contact with the drip shield occurs, the rotation of the bit would result in a 
tearing or shearing action with associated and recognizable high torque values. Consequently, 
the ductility of the metals makes them nearly impenetrable by techniques used in drilling rock. 
The downhole milling tools needed to penetrate the drip shield and waste package are not 
typically used in groundwater exploration, and use of such tools would be a clear indicator of 
recognition of penetration of some type of metallic, anthropogenic structure. Boring in metals 
typically utilizes a milling technique. Furthermore, general corrosion failure of the drip shields 
is not expected to occur prior to 35,000 years, and the maximum corrosion depth in 10,000 years 
is predicted to be less than one-half the total thickness of the drip shield plates. Consequently, 
penetration of the drip shield or waste package without recognition by the driller prior to general 
corrosion failure of the engineered barriers is not feasible prior to the end of the 10,000-year 
regulatory period. Before this time, the presence of metallics will be recognizable to the driller, 
generally through loss of rate of penetration or significantly increased torque on the drill 
assembly. 
Because the evaluation for TSPA-SR indicated that the earliest time that current technology and 
practices could lead to waste package penetration without the driller noticing waste package 
penetration was after 10,000 years, the evaluation of the human intrusion stylized analysis was 
previously placed in the FEIS (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970, Section 5.7.1]) as required at 
10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) ([DIRS 156605]). The analysis and materials properties data for 
TSPA-LA do not lead to any significantly different conclusions regarding the timing of human 
intrusion. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-15 April 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 III-16 April 2004 

ATTACHMENT IV 
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSES DISCUSSION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR 
METEORITE IMPACT AND CRATERING PROBABILITY AND CONSEQUENCE 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 April 2004 

ATTACHMENT IV
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSES DISCUSSION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR 
METEORITE IMPACT AND CRATERING PROBABILITY AND CONSEQUENCE 
This attachment supports the feature, event, and process (FEP) screening for meteorite impact, as 
summarized in Section 6.2.4.5 of the main body of this analysis report. It provides a detailed 
calculation and discussion regarding meteorite impact and provides the technical basis for 
exclusion based on probability for meteorite crater diameters larger than the threshold diameter 
associated with a frequency of one per 10,000 per 10,000 years. It also provides the technical 
basis for exclusion based on consequences for meteorite crater diameters smaller than the 
threshold diameter. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Attachment 3, allows for the use of attachments to the main body of the analysis 
report. To wit Supporting documentation, such as computer output, that are lengthy or cannot 
be conveniently included with the main text of the documentation may be included as 
attachments. This attachment is not intended to be used as stand-alone documentation separate 
from the main document. The application of the probability and consequence information 
described here in is intended for FEP screening purposes. Specifically, it is directly applicable to 
consideration of meteorite impacts, and indirectly may be applicable to other surface energy-
release phenomena such as crashes and/or explosions and detonations. The FEP screening 
process is described in Sections 4 and 6 of the main body of the analysis report and is not 
repeated in this attachment. 
Because of the length of the analysis, this attachment has been organized into sections. Section 1 
addresses the overall scientific approach and methods used in the analysis. Section 2 provides 
the calculation of the probability of intersection with the repository footprint based on meteoroid 
flux data and the repository-specific dimensions. A discussion of related uncertainties is also 
provided. Section 3 discusses the FEP implications of the results. 
1. SCIENTIFIC APPROACH AND TECHNICAL METHODS 
The analysis of meteorite-impact probability and consequence is needed to perform FEP 
screening. The initial question is What is the probability of meteorite impact at the repository? 
The answer to the question is that the probability of impact of a meteorite of any size without 
regard to resulting consequence, at or near the repository, in 10,000 years, is approximately one. 
The initial question is incomplete, however, in that not all meteorites impact with energy 
sufficient to cause damage at the surface, to crater the surface, or otherwise affect the subsurface. 
Additionally, it is recognized that impacts near the repository, if of sufficient energy to cause 
damage, also need to be considered. Consequently, the question is refined to address the 
minimum size meteorite (or more precisely, the minimum resulting crater diameter) sufficient to 
affect repository performance, and the associated probability. The question is restated as What 
is the probability or consequence of damage to or impairment of repository performance 
stemming from meteorite impact in 10,000 years? 
The probability of an impact crater of a given size occurring directly over or adjacent to the 
repository is dependent on the total flux of meteorites to the earth surface and on the repository 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-1 April 2004 

footprint area (or target area). The size of the crater of interest is determined by the depth from 
ground surface to the top of the repository and/or any intervening geologic layers of particular 
interest due to their physical or hydrologic properties, and the spatial relationship of crater 
diameter to exhumation depth and fracture depth. Accordingly, this analysis report attachment 
specifically examines the target area to be considered and the probability of crater diameters 
sufficient to exhume waste, to fracture overlying rock units down to the repository depth, and to 
fracture to a depth less than the repository depth but sufficient to impair performance. 
Most authors express the target area as either the whole earths surface (5.1  108 km2) or some 
fraction thereof, such as only the landmass as in the case of meteorite fall studies, or probability 
per km2. In either case, to use the stated values in the literature, a first approximation of the 
target area can be used to scale probabilities. This approach is taken for Sections 2.1 and 2.2. 
Section 2.1 provides a first order approximation based on the probability of intersection from 
individual and known objects. This section only addresses individual objects and not the full 
range of potential meteorite sizes. It is, therefore corroborative, in nature and utilizes only 
indirect input. The results are not used as the basis of the FEP screening decision, but strengthen 
the results that are presented in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. Section 2.2 provides a first order 
approximation based on distributions developed from observed lunar and earth cratering data. 
Section 2.2 also develops a cratering rate distribution based on meteoroid flux, meteoroid 
properties, and crater relationship information. This first order approximation of probability 
based on footprint area slightly under-represents the probability of impact because it fails to 
consider the potential for near-miss impacts in which the center of a crater occurs outside the 
repository footprint, but a portion of the crater diameter extends within the boundary. At most, 
the target area would be expanded by adding one-half of the crater diameter (for the crater 
diameter that occurs at an annualized frequency of 10-8) to all four sides of the repository 
footprint (presuming a roughly rectangular footprint). Consequently, a more accurate 
representation of probability is achieved by expressing the area as a function of the two rectangle 
dimensions plus the crater diameter, coupling this to a known distribution, such as meteorite 
influx or cratering rate, and integrating the function over the range of possible values. 
Section 2.3 uses this approach and uses the distributions discussed in Section 2.2 and applies 
them to repository-relate target areas, including the TSPA-LA emplacement area footprint and to 
the geologic outcrop area of the Paintbrush unit. This results in a more detailed analysis that 
considers the repository footprint area and other key target areas (i.e., geologic unit outcrop). 
Corroborative analysis based on the TSPA-LA siting area and the TSPA-SR footprint are also 
provided for comparison. Each of the approaches used in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 have 
inherent uncertainties, which are discussed in Section 2.4. 
The implications and conclusion from this analysis to be used in FEP screening of meteorite 
impact is discussed in Section 3 of this attachment. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-2 April 2004 

2. METEORITE IMPACT ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS
This section provides an analysis of meteorite impact probability. The results of this analysis 
provide the technical basis used for screening the FEP, as described in Section 6.2.4.5 of the 
main body of the document. 
Direct inputs used in this Section are addressed in Section 4 of the main body of this document 
as required by procedure AP-SIII.9Q. Data qualification for non-YMP sources used for direct 
inputs is provided in of Attachment II of this document, which also provides the list of indirect 
inputs, as required by procedure AP-SIII.9Q. 
For the calculations provided in Section 2 of this attachment, metric units are used throughout, 
with distances and depths being expressed in either meters or kilometers. Densities are 
expressed as either kg/m3 or g/cm3. Energy release is expressed as either equivalent tonnage of 
TNT (i.e., as either kiloton or megaton) or as Joules. The conversion from number of events, 
whole earth to number events per km2 is simply division by the surface area of the earth 
(5.1 x 108 km2). 
Assumptions used in this analysis are identified under Assumption 5.4 of the main body of this 
document and are referenced within the following discussion as needed. Formulations, 
equations, algorithms, and numerical methods used are discussed when used, with equations 
being sequentially numbered throughout this attachment. Justification for use of the equations 
and relationships used is provided in Section 4.5 of Attachment II of this document. Multiple 
approaches and alternative methods were used in developing this analysis, and are described 
within this section. No modeling was performed for this analysis. The calculations were 
performed using simple spreadsheets, examples of which are provided as separate tables. 
For clarity, the following terms are used in the discussions. Meteoroid refers generically to a 
non-anthropogenic space object prior to entry to earths atmosphere, meteor refers to the object 
once it enters earths atmosphere and prior to impact, and meteorite refers to the object (or 
fragments of the object) impacting on (or in the case of aerial explosion, occurring near) the 
earths surface. The terms bolide and fireball are also used. A bolide is defined as a meteor that 
shows signs of explosion or fragmentation, and a fireball is defined as a bright meteor with 
luminosity that equals or exceeds that of the brightest planets (generally magnitude 3 or 
brighter). 
2.1 PROBABILITY OF IMPACT BASED ON INDIVIDUAL OBJECTS 
Various authors have calculated the probability of entry of known individual interplanetary 
bodies into the earths atmosphere. These probabilities are for any entry into the earths 
atmosphere. However, our interest is in the cumulative probability of impact of all objects, not 
just for individual objects, so the following information is considered as corroborative-use only. 
Chyba (1993, Table 1a [DIRS 135248]) addresses 12 objects with diameters of less than 50 m 
that have been observed to date. Excluding object 1991-VG (a suspected possible human 
artifact), the mean calculated probability of impact on the earths atmosphere for the known 
bodies is 29 per gigayear, suggesting rates on the order of 3  10-8 per year, or on the order of 
3 x 10-4 in 10,000 years (Chyba 1993, p. 701 [DIRS 135248]) for the whole earth surface, and it 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-3 April 2004 

is stated to be a factor of approximately seven greater than for other earth-crossing asteroids. 
Since impact is a spatially random process (Grieve 1987, p. 257 [DIRS 135254]), dividing this 
value by the surface area of the earth (5.1108 km2), and multiplying by the maximum area of 
the repository footprint (18 km2), yields a probability of impact above the repository on the order 
of 1.110-15 per year, or approximately 10-11 in 10,000 years. 
Marsden and Steel (1994, p. 235, Figure 4 [DIRS 129308]) provide the calculated atmospheric-
entry probabilities, defined as crossing within 0.1 to 1 astronomical unit (AU) 
(1 =AU = 149,598,000 km) of earths orbit, for all observed long period comets (i.e., orbit 
duration of greater than 200 years). The greatest calculated probability is 2.6  10-7 per orbit and 
the estimated mean impact probability is 2  10-9 to 3  10-9 per orbit. Dividing by the minimum 
orbital period of 200 years (by definition of a long-period comet) yields a maximum probability 
of approximately 1.3  10-9 per year, or on the order of 10-5 in 10,000 years for the whole earth. 
If one neglects atmospheric shielding effects, the probability of impact above the repository can 
be estimated by dividing the probability by 5.1  108 km2, the approximate surface area of the 
earth, and multiplying by the maximum repository footprint. This yields a maximum probability 
of approximately 4.5  10-17 per year or about 4.5 x 10-13 in 10,000 years. 
The probability of the impact of any individual, known object is, therefore, at least seven orders 
of magnitude less than the regulatory threshold of an annualized equivalence of about 10-8 or, 
more specifically, 10-4 in 10,000 years. 
2.2 PROBABILITY OF IMPACT BASED ON OBSERVED CRATERING 
DISTRIBUTIONS 
The FEP screening considers the cratering rate distributions derived from Grieve et al. (1995 
[DIRS 135260]) that is based on world-wide cratering information (Section 2.2.1). It also 
considers the distribution from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]), which is based on 
cratering of the Canadian shield, and serves as a realistic case (Section 2.2.2). In addition, the 
analysis examines the distribution proposed by Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]), 
which is based on lunar cratering data (Section 2.2.3). Because this distribution was developed 
assuming an atmosphereless earth, it serves as an upper bound for earth cratering. However, 
this distribution is only used for corroboration purposes, as it is unrealistic to expect that the 
atmosphere has no effect on the cratering distribution. 
Existing distributions in the literature are stated, generally, to apply to crater diameters on the 
scale of kilometers, rather than within the primary range of interest for this analysis (79 to 625 m 
as discussed in Sections 2.3.2 below). Accordingly, this analysis also develops an independent 
distribution based on meteor influx and couples that with work by Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) to derive a cratering distribution applicable to the smaller diameter range. This 
flux-derived distribution is developed based on meteoroid flux, meteoroid properties, and on 
meteoroid radius to crater diameter relationships (Section 2.2.4). 
The respective distributions based on observed earth and lunar cratering are shown in the 
following figure, Figure IV-1 (and justified for use per Figure II-2 of Attachment II), and are 
described in the following subsections. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-4 April 2004 

1.0E-15 
1.0E-14 
1.0E-13 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 
Crater Diameter D (km) 
Number of Crate 2peyear 
Grieve 1987 and 1995 (corroborated for D 
> 10 km) [DIRS 135254, DIRS 135260] 
Grieve 1987 and 1995 (extrapolated for D 
< 10 km) (DIRS 135254, DIRS 135260] 
Wuschke et al. 1995 (corroborated for D 
> 0.5 km) [DIRS 129326] 
Wuschke et al. 1995 (extrapolated for D 
< 0.5km) [DIRS 129326] 
Neukum and Ivanov 1994 (for 
atmosphereless earth) (DIRS 121510] 
Figure IV-1. Cratering Rate Distribution from Three Sources 
2.2.1 Grieve (1987) 
An applicable cumulative cratering rate (and one commonly used for these types of analyses) can 
be derived from Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]), Grieve et al. (1995 [DIRS 135260]), and 
Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]). The number of impact craters larger than a crater diameter D, 
produced per year per square km is proportional to the apparent crater diameter to the 1.8 power 
(Grieve 1987, p. 257 and Figure 8 [DIRS 135254]). 
Using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and the definition of F(D) provided in Equation 9 
of Attachment II of this analysis report, a distribution function for the frequency of impact for 
craters of a given diameter D can be found. 
By definition: 
8 
F(D) = .f(x)dx = K D-1.8 (Eq. IV-1)
0 
Therefore: 
f(D) = 1.8 K D-2.8. (Eq. IV-2) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-5 April 2004 

Equations IV-1 and IV-2 will be used later in this attachment to determine the frequency of 
impact cratering in the repository area. As shown in Section 4.5.3.3 of this Attachment II 
(Equation IV-10b), the value of K is fixed at 1.210-12, based on the frequency of earth craters 
with diameter of 20 km or greater. That equation is restated here as: 
F(D) = 1.2 x 10-12 x D-1.8 (Eq. IV-3) 
where F(D) is equal to the number of craters larger than a given diameter, produced per year per 
km2, as a function of diameter, D. A plot for this equation is provided in Figure IV-1. 
Using a repository emplacement area of no greater than 11.9 km2 (see Section 2.3.1) then the 
cratering diameter of interest is that associated with an annualized probability of 8.410-10/km2 
(i.e., 8.4 x 10-10/km2 multiplied by an area of 11.9 km2 roughly equates to an annualized 
probability of 1 x10-8, which is the regulatory threshold for consideration). Based on 
Figure IV-3, this equates to a crater diameter of no more than 30 m. It should be noted that the 
Grieve distribution is routinely cited as being applicable only for crater diameters of greater than 
20 km, although Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) support use of the distribution 
down to diameters of as low as 10 km. Given the distribution of crater diameters by Grieve 
(1998 [DIRS 163385]), it is conservative (in relation to observed craters) to extend the 
distribution to lesser diameters. This is because the extrapolation overstates the number of 
craters that would occur compared to the actual number observed to date. However, the number 
of observed small diameter craters is obscured by the ability to recognize such features and the 
destruction through time due to natural and anthropogenic processes, so the degree of true 
conservatism cannot be quantified. 
Using the exhumation and fracturing depth relationships described in Section 2.3.2, a crater 
diameter of 30 m could result in an exhumation depth on the order of 3 to 10 m, which is 
insufficient to exhume waste at the depth of the proposed repository (i.e., greater than 200 m 
below ground surface (BSC 2003, Section 7.1.8 [DIRS 165572]). With regard to fracturing, the 
depth of fracturing could be as little as 10 m to as great as 23 m. These depths are insufficient to 
reach the repository depth or to significantly alter infiltration through the Paintbrush nonwelded 
unit. 
2.2.2 Wuschke et al. (1995) 
A particular example of the use of Grieve distribution and the consideration of exhumation and 
fracturing depths is presented in Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]). The analyses presented 
therein was for a hypothetical depository deep in plutonic rock of the Canadian shield, located at 
least 500 m below ground surface with a total area of 4 km2. The curve from Wuschke et al., if 
comparable to the information used by Hughes (1998, p. 34 [DIRS 162562]), may only be valid 
down to diameters of 1 km. For Wuschke et al. (1995, p. 44 [DIRS 129326]), the distribution is 
derived from subsets of the observed earth cratering distribution used by Grieve (1987 
[DIRS 135254]). The equation (Equation II-11a in Attachment II of this document) is given as: 
F(D) = 2.010-12(D)-2 (Eq. IV-4) 
This denotes a slightly steeper slope compared to Grieve (2.010-12 compared to Grieves 1.2 + 
0.6 10-12). Wuschkes approach slightly decreases the annual frequency for a 20-km diameter 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-6 April 2004 

crater (5.0 x 10-15 per km2 compared to the values from Grieve of 5.5 x10-15 km2). This 
difference is reflected in the plot in Figure IV-1. 
The findings of this study are presented in Table 1 of Wuschke et al. (1995, p. 26 
[DIRS 129326]) and provide the annual probability and cumulative probability for 10,000 years 
for meteorite impact events. The results indicate that the annualized probability of impact for the 
Canadian repository design sufficient to cause damage by exhumation and fracturing is 
approximately 7.6 x 10-12 to 6.5 x 10-11 per year, respectively. This is associated with crater 
diameters of 7.6 to 0.66 km for exhumation and fracturing, respectively. Given the parameters 
used for the hypothetical Canadian repository (area of 4 km2 and depth of 500 m), the reported 
probabilities should be less than the probability of impact for the Yucca Mountain repository 
(depths greater than 200 m below the surface and total area not to exceed 11.9 km2 [BSC 2003, 
Section 7.1.8 and Figure 1, respectively [DIRS 165572]) for the same effects of exhumation and 
fracturing. For exhumation of the Yucca Mountain repository, the least frequent and maximum 
crater diameter that could cause such an event is a crater diameter of 2 km (i.e., 200 m/0.10) and 
the most frequent would be a crater diameter of 625 m (200 m/0.32). Based on Figure IV-3, and 
using a siting area of 11.9 km2, such events occur with annual frequencies on the order of 6 x 1012 
to 6 x 10-11, or about an order of magnitude more frequently than for the hypothetical Canadian 
design. For fracturing to repository depth, the crater diameter of interest is 263 m (i.e., 200 
m/0.76). This occurs, based on Figure IV-3, with an annual frequency of 3.6 x10-10, and again 
this is more frequent than predicted for the Canadian repository as expected. 
Using the probability threshold before for the Yucca Mountain repository, the crater diameter 
associated with a 8.410-10 probability (i.e., 8.4 x 10-10 / yr-km2 x 11.9 km2 = 1 x 10-8 / yr) for the 
distribution from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) is no more than 60 m, and slightly 
greater than that from for Grieve distribution, as shown in Figure IV-3. This results in a 
maximum exhumation depth of about 20 m and a maximum fracturing depth of about 46 m. 
These depths are insufficient to reach to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository depth or to 
significantly alter infiltration through the Paintbrush nonwelded unit. 
2.2.3 Neukum and Ivanov (1994) 
The plot of the Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) information represents a true upper 
bound (i.e., an atmosphereless earth which neglects effects of ablation and fragmentation). 
Because it is unrealistic due to an atmosphereless earth, it is discussed for corroborative 
purposes only, but it also provides a true upper bound. 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994, Table IV [DIRS 121510]) provides a tabulation of impact 
accumulation rates and mean time intervals between impacts for earth, based on lunar craters and 
adjusted for gravity differences. This table includes the mean interval between events with 
energies equal to or greater than that required to form a crater of a given diameter. The 
cumulative cratering rate (or frequency) of such events can be derived from the calculated mean 
intervals by using the inverse of the mean interval. The frequency per-square-km of the earths 
surface can be derived by dividing the frequency by the area of earths surface. This curve 
represents an extreme upper bound for the cratering rate on earth in the range of crater diameters 
of interest as it accounts for gravity differences between the lunar and earth surfaces and includes 
data for small-diameter craters. It does not take into account atmospheric shielding effects, 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-7 April 2004 

which are known to exist and are significant in reducing crater frequency and size. The data 
used in plotting Figure IV-1 is found in Section 4.5, Table II-17 of Attachment II. 
Given that the footprint area is no greater than 11.9 km2 as previously mentioned, then the 
cratering diameter of interest is that associated with an annualized probability of 8.410-10/km2 
(i.e., 8.4 x 10-10/km2 multiplied by an area of 11.9 km2 roughly equates to an annualized 
probability of 110-8, which is the regulatory threshold for consideration). Based on 
Figure IV-1, this equates to a crater diameter of slightly less than 200 m. Using the exhumation 
depth relationship mentioned above such a crater diameter could result in exhumation depths 
greater than 20 m and less than 64 m, which are insufficient to exhume waste at the depth of the 
proposed repository (i.e., greater than 200 m below ground surface (BSC 2003, Section 7.1.8 
[DIRS 165572]) or to exhume significant portions of the Paintbrush hydrogeologic unit. With 
regard to fracturing, the depth could be as little as 70 m to as great as 150 m. These depths are 
insufficient to reach to the proposed repository depth, although the values may represent depths 
that are sufficient to fracture to the Paintbrush nonwelded unit in the eastern portions of the siting 
area. Depending on the choice of factors (0.3 or 0.76) the fracturing may or may not be 
penetrate throughout the Paintbrush nonwelded unit in the emplacement area. However, it must 
be kept in mind that the stated values represent the worst-case model proposed in the literature 
for exhumation and fracturing, coupled with the upper bound for crater diameter distribution. 
They are not realistic in that they are based on an atmosphereless earth. 
2.2.4 Probability of Impact Based on Meteoroid Influx and Meteoroid Characteristics 
The direct application of the Neukum and Ivanov cratering distribution is limited because it does 
not consider atmospheric shielding. The Grieve distribution and the Wushcke distribution are 
limited because they are applicable for large-diameter craters, but uncertain for small diameter 
craters. Consequently, to determine probabilities of meteorite-impact cratering damage, a 
cratering diameter distribution curve is developed based on cumulative meteoroid influx 
information developed during the 1980s and 1990s. The flux distribution is applied against 
information on percent by type and density of meteors to determine a flux by meteor size and 
type. The resulting meteor diameters are then coupled with direct input relating initial meteor 
radius to resulting crater size, and an effective cratering distribution is determined that accounts 
for atmospheric shield effects such as ablation and fragmentation. 
2.2.4.1 Mass Flux of Meteoroids 
Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) has compiled flux information from a variety of authors for 
masses ranging from 10-21 to 10 15 kg (46 orders of magnitude). This compilation is provided in 
graphical form (Ceplecha 1992, Figure 1 [DIRS 135242]) as the log of the mass (m) to the log of 
the cumulative number (N) of interplanetary bodies of a mass equal to or greater than m coming 
to the earths atmosphere every year. The present analysis of probability, however, is only 
concerned with the range of bodies capable of creating craters in the earths surface. Selected 
values from the cited figure over the potential range of interest are provided in Table IV-1, which 
describes the flux of material coming to the entire earths atmosphere. This information is 
provided on Figure II-1 of Attachment II of this analysis report. This direct input is justified for 
use in Section 4.5.3.2 and Table II-10 of Attachment II. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-8 April 2004 

Table IV-1. Mass Flux used as Direct Input 
Ceplecha 1992, Figure 1 
[DIRS 135242] 
Log Mass 
(kg) Mass (kg) 
Number of Events 
Per Year Whole 
Earth 
-1 1.0E-01 3.2E+05 
0 1.0E+00 1.0E+05 
1 1.0E+01 1.6E+04 
2 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 
3 1.0E+03 1.6E+03 
4 1.0E+04 6.3E+02 
5 1.0E+05 1.0E+02 
6 1.0E+06 1.0E+01 
7 1.0E+07 1.0E-01 
8 1.0E+08 1.0E-02 
9 1.0E+09 1.0E-03 
10 1.0E+10 1.0E-04 
11 1.0E+11 1.0E-05 
12 1.0E+12 3.2E-06 
13 1.0E+13 1.0E-06 
14 1.0E+14 1.0E-07 
15 1.0E+15 3.2E-08 
The mass distribution from Ceplecha (1992, p. 362 and Figure 1 [DIRS 135242]) was chosen for 
use in this analysis because it provides a conservative estimate compared to influx determined 
from lunar cratering data or from direct observation of energy releases in earths atmosphere by 
geostationary satellites. The degree of conservatism is approximately one-half to one order of 
magnitude in terms of the number of events occurring for a meteor of a given diameter. For 
consistency and traceability, the use of a single distribution was preferred to construction of a 
fully conservative data set constructed by hand-picking the maximum values from the literature 
for any given meteor diameter. This distribution does not however, address the nature of the 
material, its velocity, atmospheric shielding effects, the frequency and size of material actually 
impacting the earths surface, or the resulting impact crater size. 
2.2.4.2 Influx of Meteoroids Based on Percent by Type 
As defined by Chapman and Morrison (1994, p. 34 [DIRS 135245]) and by Shoemaker (1983, 
p. 464 [DIRS 135308]), meteor composition is described as metallic (iron to iron-nickel, and 
relatively rare), stony (mixtures of iron and stony material, chondritictype S asteroids), or 
cometary (low-density silicates, organics and volatilestype C asteroids). The term 
carbonaceous is also used for those bodies that lie between stony and cometary bodies. The 
differences in composition also reflect differences in the structural make-up and strength of the 
meteors. 
Down to an initial meteor mass of approximately 108 kg (radius of 14 m for iron, 19 m for stony, 
and 28 m for carbonaceous meteors), the total flux is comprised of 5 percent iron material 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-9 April 2004 

regardless of initial meteor radius, and the remainder is divided equally between stony and 
carbonaceous material regardless of initial meteor radius. For initial meteor masses below 108 
and down to 10-1 kg (minimum radius of 0.014 m for iron, 0.019 m for stony, and 0.028 m for 
carbonaceous meteors), the total flux is comprised of 5 percent iron materials, regardless of 
initial meteor radius; 2 to 18 percent stony material depending on initial meteor radius; and the 
remainder (93 to 77 percent) is attributed as carbonaceous/cometary material. The bases for 
these values, and the qualification of this data, are discussed in Section 4.5.3.2 and Tables II-13 
and II-14 of Attachment II. The values are applied to the mass influx to derive at a number of 
events by type. The result distribution considering percent-by-type is provided in Table IV-2. 
2.2.4.3 Density and Initial Radii of Meteoroids 
For the meteorite impact calculations, the densities used for meteoroids are 8 g/cm3 for metallic 
materials, 3.7 g/cm3 for stony materials, and 1.1 g/cm3 for carbonaceous /cometary materials. The 
bases for these values are discussed, and the data justified for use, in Section 4.5.3.2 and Table 
II-15 of Attachment II. The use of these values is consistent with the use of the meteorite influx 
and percent-by-type information from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) and Ceplecha (1994 
[DIRS 135243]), respectively. 
The total range in bulk densities can vary from 8 g/cm3 to less than 1 g/cm3 for the metallic and 
cometary materials respectively (Chapman and Morrison 1994, p. 34 [DIRS 135245]). The basis 
for these density values used in the analysis is discussed in Section 4.5.3.2 and Table II-15 of 
Attachment II. For the meteorite impact calculations, the densities used for meteoroids are 
8 g/cm3 for metallic materials, 3.7 g/cm3 for stony materials, and 1.1 g/cm3 for soft 
stone/carbonaceous /cometary materials. 
By using the flux values from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]), described above and presented 
in Table IV-2, and assuming spherical meteoroids with the density values listed above, the 
corresponding radius by meteoroid composition can be calculated. As used to determine the 
radius listed in Table IV-3, the mass (m) of a sphere is: 
m= (4/3 p R3 )(.) (Eq. IV-5) 
where: 
m = mass (kg)
.= density (kg/m3), which is 103 times g/cm3
R = radius (m)
and correspondingly: 
R = [(m / (4/3 p.)]1/3 (Eq. IV-5a) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-10 April 2004 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-11 April 2004 
Table IV-2. Annualized Mass Influx and Percent by Type Allocation 
Log Ntotal, 
Annualized Nstone Annualized Ncomet, Annualized 
Number of Ntotal Annualized Niron Annualized Number of Hard Percent Soft Number of Soft 
Log m 
(kg) Mass (kg) 
Events (N), 
whole earth 
Number of 
Events per km2 
Percent 
Iron 
Number of Iron 
Events per km2 
Percent Hard 
Stone 
Stone Events per 
km2 
Stones and 
Comets 
Stone and Comet 
Events per km2 
-1 1.0E-01 5.5 6.2E-04 0.05 3.1E-05 0.16 9.9E-05 0.79 4.9E-04 
0 1.0E+00 5 2.0E-04 0.05 9.8E-06 0.16 3.1E-05 0.79 1.5E-04 
1 1.0E+01 4.2 3.1E-05 0.05 1.6E-06 0.18 5.6E-06 0.77 2.4E-05 
2 1.0E+02 4 2.0E-05 0.05 9.8E-07 0.14 2.7E-06 0.81 1.6E-05 
3 1.0E+03 3.2 3.1E-06 0.05 1.6E-07 0.10 3.1E-07 0.85 2.6E-06 
4 1.0E+04 2.8 1.2E-06 0.05 6.2E-08 0.08 9.9E-08 0.87 1.1E-06 
5 1.0E+05 2 2.0E-07 0.05 9.8E-09 0.06 1.2E-08 0.89 1.7E-07 
6 1.0E+06 1 2.0E-08 0.05 9.8E-10 0.04 7.8E-10 0.91 1.8E-08 
7 1.0E+07 -1 2.0E-10 0.05 9.8E-12 0.02 3.9E-12 0.93 1.8E-10 
8 1.0E+08 -2 2.0E-11 0.05 9.8E-13 0.47 9.2E-12 0.48 9.4E-12 
9 1.0E+09 -3 2.0E-12 0.05 9.8E-14 0.47 9.2E-13 0.48 9.4E-13 
10 1.0E+10 -4 2.0E-13 0.05 9.8E-15 0.47 9.2E-14 0.48 9.4E-14 
11 1.0E+11 -5 2.0E-14 0.05 9.8E-16 0.47 9.2E-15 0.48 9.4E-15 
12 1.0E+12 -5.5 6.2E-15 0.05 3.1E-16 0.47 2.9E-15 0.48 3.0E-15 
13 1.0E+13 -6 2.0E-15 0.05 9.8E-17 0.47 9.2E-16 0.48 9.4E-16 
14 1.0E+14 -7 2.0E-16 0.05 9.8E-18 0.47 9.2E-17 0.48 9.4E-17 
15 1.0E+15 -7.5 6.2E-17 0.05 3.1E-18 0.47 2.9E-17 0.48 3.0E-17 
NOTES: 1 Based on Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242] and 1994 [DIRS 135243]) 
2Mass and associated number of events based of the direct input from Ceplecha 1992 [DIRS 135242] as discussed in Section 4.5.3.1 and Table II-10 of 
Attachment II of this analysis report. Percent by type based on direct inputs given in Table II-13 and II-14 of Attachment II of this analysis report. 

Table IV-3 is primarily interested in accounting for differences in size and type, due to later use 
in the analysis for determining resulting crater diameters, so differing densities are used. By 
using the flux values from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]), described above and presented in 
Table IV-2, and assuming spherical meteoroids with the density values listed above, the 
corresponding radius by meteoroid composition is calculated. 
Table IV-3. Annualized Number of Events by Meteor Type and Radius 
Iron Meteors 
Annualized 
Number of 
Events Niron Initial Meteor 
per km2 Mass m (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 Radius (m) 
3.1E-05 1.00E-01 8000 1.3E-05 3.0E-06 1.4E-02 
9.8E-06 1.00E+00 8000 1.3E-04 3.0E-05 3.1E-02 
1.6E-06 1.00E+01 8000 1.3E-03 3.0E-04 6.7E-02 
9.8E-07 1.00E+02 8000 1.3E-02 3.0E-03 1.4E-01 
1.6E-07 1.00E+03 8000 1.3E-01 3.0E-02 3.1E-01 
6.2E-08 1.00E+04 8000 1.3E+00 3.0E-01 6.7E-01 
9.8E-09 1.00E+05 8000 1.3E+01 3.0E+00 1.4E+00 
9.8E-10 1.00E+06 8000 1.3E+02 3.0E+01 3.1E+00 
9.8E-12 1.00E+07 8000 1.3E+03 3.0E+02 6.7E+00 
9.8E-13 1.00E+08 8000 1.3E+04 3.0E+03 1.4E+01 
9.8E-14 1.00E+09 8000 1.3E+05 3.0E+04 3.1E+01 
9.8E-15 1.00E+10 8000 1.3E+06 3.0E+05 6.7E+01 
9.8E-16 1.00E+11 8000 1.3E+07 3.0E+06 1.4E+02 
3.1E-16 1.00E+12 8000 1.3E+08 3.0E+07 3.1E+02 
9.8E-17 1.00E+13 8000 1.3E+09 3.0E+08 6.7E+02 
9.8E-18 1.00E+14 8000 1.3E+10 3.0E+09 1.4E+03 
3.1E-18 1.00E+15 8000 1.3E+11 3.0E+10 3.1E+03 
Hard Stone Meteors 
Annualized 
Number of 
Events Nstone Initial Meteor 
per km2 Mass m (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 Radius (m) 
9.9E-05 1.00E-01 3700 2.7E-05 6.5E-06 1.9E-02 
3.1E-05 1.00E+00 3700 2.7E-04 6.5E-05 4.0E-02 
5.6E-06 1.00E+01 3700 2.7E-03 6.5E-04 8.6E-02 
2.7E-06 1.00E+02 3700 2.7E-02 6.5E-03 1.9E-01 
3.1E-07 1.00E+03 3700 2.7E-01 6.5E-02 4.0E-01 
9.9E-08 1.00E+04 3700 2.7E+00 6.5E-01 8.6E-01 
1.2E-08 1.00E+05 3700 2.7E+01 6.5E+00 1.9E+00 
7.8E-10 1.00E+06 3700 2.7E+02 6.5E+01 4.0E+00 
3.9E-12 1.00E+07 3700 2.7E+03 6.5E+02 8.6E+00 
9.2E-12 1.00E+08 3700 2.7E+04 6.5E+03 1.9E+01 
9.2E-13 1.00E+09 3700 2.7E+05 6.5E+04 4.0E+01 
9.2E-14 1.00E+10 3700 2.7E+06 6.5E+05 8.6E+01 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-12 April 2004 

Table IV-3. Annualized Number of Events by Meteor Type and Radius (Continued) 
Annualized 
Number of 
Events Nstone Initial Meteor 
per km2 Mass m (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 Radius (m) 
9.2E-15 1.00E+ 1 3700 2.7E+07 6.5E+06 1.9E+02 
2.9E-15 1.00E+1 3700 2.7E+08 6.5E+07 4.0E+02 
9.2E-16 1.00E+1 3700 2.7E+09 6.5E+08 8.6E+02 
9.2E-17 1.00E+1 3700 2.7E+10 6.5E+09 1.9E+03 
2.9E-17 1.00E+1 3700 2.7E+11 6.5E+10 4.0E+03 
Soft Stone Meteors 
Annualized 
Number of 
Events Ncomet Initial Meteor 
per km2 Mass m (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 Radius (m) 
4.9E-04 1.00E-01 1100 9.1E-05 2.2E-05 2.8E-02 
1.5E-04 1.00E+00 1100 9.1E-04 2.2E-04 6.0E-02 
2.4E-05 1.00E+01 1100 9.1E-03 2.2E-03 1.3E-01 
1.6E-05 1.00E+02 1100 9.1E-02 2.2E-02 2.8E-01 
2.6E-06 1.00E+03 1100 9.1E-01 2.2E-01 6.0E-01 
1.1E-06 1.00E+04 1100 9.1E+00 2.2E+00 1.3E+00 
1.7E-07 1.00E+05 1100 9.1E+01 2.2E+01 2.8E+00 
1.8E-08 1.00E+06 1100 9.1E+02 2.2E+02 6.0E+00 
1.8E-10 1.00E+07 1100 9.1E+03 2.2E+03 1.3E+01 
9.4E-12 1.00E+08 1100 9.1E+04 2.2E+04 2.8E+01 
9.4E-13 1.00E+09 1100 9.1E+05 2.2E+05 6.0E+01 
9.4E-14 1.00E+10 1100 9.1E+06 2.2E+06 1.3E+02 
9.4E-15 1.00E+11 1100 9.1E+07 2.2E+07 2.8E+02 
3.0E-15 1.00E+12 1100 9.1E+08 2.2E+08 6.0E+02 
9.4E-16 1.00E+13 1100 9.1E+09 2.2E+09 1.3E+03 
9.4E-17 1.00E+14 1100 9.1E+10 2.2E+10 2.8E+03 
3.0E-17 1.00E+15 1100 9.1E+11 2.2E+11 6.0E+03 
NOTES: Number of events and mass taken from Table IV-2 of this attachment. 
Densities taken from direct input in Table II-15 of Attachment II of this analysis report and converted 
from g/cm3 to kg/m3. 
2.2.4.4 Atmospheric Shielding Effects 
Upon entering the earths atmosphere, a meteor is subject to multiple destructive processes 
including ablation and fragmentation caused by heating and differential stresses. These 
processes tend to dissipate energy into the atmosphere. The magnitude of the atmospheric 
dissipation of energy is a function of the radius and composition of the body, the initial entry 
velocity, and the angle of the entry. Hills and Goda (1998, p. 228 [DIRS 135291]) provide a 
series of figures that show the fraction of energy dissipated into the atmosphere for various radii 
of meteors. The dissipation of energy is such a significant effect that, for a certain range of radii 
and initial velocities, the energy dissipation is total and no surface impact occurs. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-13 April 2004 

The relationship used in this analysis between initial meteoroid diameter and crater diameter is 
extracted from Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]). These figures 
represent the results of modeling that is documented in the peer-reviewed paper, and include 
atmospheric effects such as fragmentation of the meteors, changing velocity of dispersed 
fragments, radius of the debris cloud, and energy dissipation in the atmosphere through velocity 
reduction and ablation. These data are justified for use in Section 4.5.3.4 of Attachment II. 
The range of values bracketing this atmospheric shielding window varies depending on the 
composition of the meteor. Hills and Goda (1993, p. 1142 [DIRS 135281]) indicate that the 
threshold for impact to the surface corresponds to a critical radius of 100 m for a stony asteroid, 
and 500 m for a comet. For iron meteoroids with initial velocities of 20 km/s, the critical radius 
is 20 m to 30 m; however, for initial velocities of 11.2 - 15 km/s the critical radius is lowered to 
about 2 m. Hills and Goda (1993, p. 1140 [DIRS 135281]) indicate that meteors with initial radii 
of 1 to 5 m can form craters with radii of approximately 50 m to 100 m, if the initial velocity is 
below 15 km/s. 
This analysis considers cratering rates for assumed initial velocities of 15 and 20 km/s for all 
meteors regardless of composition or size. These values are at the lower end of the range of 
velocities specified by various authors. Given that lower initial values generally yield larger 
impact craters (Hills and Goda 1993, Figure 17 [DIRS 135281]), the assumption of velocities of 
15 and 20 will tend to slightly overestimate the probability of craters of a given size. Available 
velocity information is discussed in Table 5-1 of the main body of the report. However, as 
discussed for Assumption 5.4 of the main body of the document, velocities less than 15 km/sec 
would result in larger crater diameters. There is no indication in the literature of the frequency of 
occurrence of these very low velocity events, so lower velocities are not further considered 
because they would not be consistent with available corroborating information. 
Also, as discussed for Assumption 5.4, this analysis considers all objects to enter the atmosphere 
at zenith angle zero, and could potentially yield surface impacts. This is a conservative selection, 
since objects entering at nonzero zenith angles have more kinetic energy absorbed (Hills and 
Goda, 1998 [DIRS 135291]) as discussed in Assumption 5.4 of the main body of the document. 
There are no data available relating flux and angle of entry. Furthermore, it is assumed per 
Assumption 5.4 that the zone of fracturing is cylindrical with depth, rather than parabolic. That 
is, the extent of the zone of fracturing is at the same depth at the edges of the crater as it is at the 
center. 
The modeling work by Hills and Goda (1993, Figure 17 [DIRS 135281]) relates initial meteor 
radius and initial velocity to the radius of the impact crater produced by the largest fragment (or 
the residual meteorite). Table II-18 of Attachment II of this analysis report provides the 
justification for using the relationship between meteor composition, initial meteor radius, initial 
velocity, and resulting crater radius. It was derived from the curves in Hills and Goda (1993, 
Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) by selecting the velocity curve and initial meteor radius, and 
reading the corresponding point for the resulting crater radius. Those data were combined with 
the data presented in Table IV-3 above, to get a distribution for number of events by mass and 
type, which is shown in Table IV-4, and plotted. Combined plot of these data for 15 km/s and 
20 km/s are provided as Figures IV-2a and IV-2b. For events that would result in no crater, a 
minimum value of 0.1 m was assigned to aid in plotting and calculation. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-14 April 2004 

Table IV-4. Annualized Number of Events by Type and Crater Radius 
Number of Events 
per km2 Mass m (kg) 
Initial Meteor 
Radius (m) 
Crater Radius (m) 
for 15 km/s 
Crater Radius (m) 
for 20 km/s 
Iron Meteor 
3.1E-05 1.00E-01 1.4 E-02 0.10 0.10 
9.8E-06 1.00E+00 3.1E-02 0.10 0.10 
1.6E-06 1.00E+0 6.7E-02 0.10 0.10 
9.8E-07 1.00E+0 1.4E-01 0.60 0.20 
1.6E-07 1.00E+0 3.1E-01 4.0 3.0 
6.2E-08 1.00E+0 6.7E-01 14 10 
9.8E-09 1.00E+0 1.4E+00 40 0.10 
9.8E-10 1.00E+0 3.1E+00 5.0 0.10 
9.8E-12 1.00E+0 6.7E+00 3.2 0.10 
9.8E-13 1.00E+0 1.4E+01 32 0.70 
9.8E-14 1.00E+0 3.1E+01 200 60 
9.8E-15 1.00E+10 6.7E+01 1,000 400 
9.8E-16 1.00E+11 1.4E+02 4,500 3,000 
3.1E-16 1.00E+12 3.1E+02 11,000 9,000 
9.8E-17 1.00E+13 6.7E+02 27,000 27,000 
9.8E-18 1.00E+14 1.4E+03 70,000 90,000 
3.1E-18 1.00E+15 3.1E+03 170,000 200,000 
Hard Stone Meteors 
9.9E-05 1.00E-01 1.9E-02 0.10 0.10 
3.1E-05 1.00E+00 4.0E-02 0.10 0.10 
5.6E-06 1.00E+0 8.6E-02 0.10 0.10 
2.7E-06 1.00E+0 1.9E-01 0.17 0.10 
3.1E-07 1.00E+0 4.0E-01 0.75 0.32 
9.9E-08 1.00E+0 8.6E-01 7.0 3.0 
1.2E-08 1.00E+0 1.9E+00 0.10 0.10 
7.8E-10 1.00E+0 4.0E+00 0.10 0.10 
3.9E-12 1.00E+0 8.6E+00 0.10 0.10 
9.2E-12 1.00E+0 1.9E+01 0.10 0.10 
9.2E-13 1.00E+0 4.0E+01 1.0 0.10 
9.2E-14 1.00E+10 8.6E+01 100 40 
9.2E-15 1.00E+11 1.9E+02 800 700 
2.9E-15 1.00E+12 4.0E+02 5,000 5,000 
9.2E-16 1.00E+13 8.6E+02 30,000 40,000 
9.2E-17 1.00E+14 1.9E+03 70,000 90,000 
2.9E-17 1.00E+15 4.0E+03 170,000 200,000 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-15 April 2004 

Table IV-4. Annualized Number of Events by Type and Crater Radius (Continued) 
Number of Events per 
km2 Mass m (kg) Initial Meteor Radius (m) 
Crater Radius (m) for 
15 km/s 
Crater Radius (m) for 20 
km/s 
Soft Stone Meteors 
4.9E-04 1.00E-01 2.8E-02 0.10 0.10 
1.5E-04 1.00E+00 6.0E-02 0.10 0.10 
2.4E-05 1.00E+01 1.3E-01 0.10 0.10 
1.6E-05 1.00E+02 2.8E-01 0.20 0.10 
2.6E-06 1.00E+03 6.0E-01 0.10 0.10 
1.1E-06 1.00E+04 1.3E+00 0.10 0.10 
1.7E-07 1.00E+05 2.8E+00 0.10 0.10 
1.8E-08 1.00E+06 6.0E+00 0.10 0.10 
1.8E-10 1.00E+07 1.3E+01 0.10 0.10 
9.4E-12 1.00E+08 2.8E+01 0.10 0.10 
9.4E-13 1.00E+09 6.0E+01 3.0 0.20 
9.4E-14 1.00E+10 1.3E+02 280 280 
9.4E-15 1.00E+11 2.8E+02 1,000 1,000 
3.0E-15 1.00E+12 6.0E+02 20,000 28,000 
9.4E-16 1.00E+13 1.3E+03 43,000 70,000 
9.4E-17 1.00E+14 2.8E+03 100,000 130,000 
3.0E-17 1.00E+15 6.0E+03 210,000 300,000 
NOTES: After Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281])
Number of events and mass taken from Table IV-2 of this attachment.
Initial meteor radius taken from Table IV-3.
Crater radius derived directly from Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]; the source for the meteor
radius-to- crater diameter relationship (Table II-18 of Attachment II) was justified for use as direct input based on Tables
II-19 of Attachment II of this analysis report.
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-16 April 2004 

2 
Dilic 
1 E-18 
1 E-17 
1 E-16 
1 E-15 
1 E-14 
1 E-13 
1 E-12 
1 E-11 
1 E-10 
1 E-09 
1 E-08 
1 E-07 
1 E-06 
1 E-05 
1 E-04 
Number of Events Per Year per kmp in curves refects atmosphereffects per Hills and Goda 1993, 
Figures 16 and 17 [135281] 
1 E-01 1 E+00 1 E+01 1 E+02 1 E+03 1 E+04 1 E+05 1 E+06 
Crater Radius (m) 
//
/lIron Meteors at 15 kmsec Hard Stone Meteors at 15 kmsec 
Soft Stone Meteors at 15 kmsec Tota Number of Events by Crater Radius 
Figure IV-2a. Total Number of Events by Type and Crater Radius (15 km/s) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-17 April 2004 

2 
Dil 
16 and 
1 E-18 
1 E-16 
1 E-14 
1 E-12 
1 E-10 
1 E-08 
1 E-06 
1 E-04 
Number of Events per Year per km 
p in curves refects atmospheric effects 
per Hills and Goda 1993, Figures17 [135281] 
1 E-01 1 E+00 1 E+01 1 E+02 1 E+03 1 E+04 1 E+05 1 E+06 
Crater Radius (m) 
//
/lIron Meteors at 20 kmsec Hard Stone Meteors at 20 kmsec 
Soft Stone Meteors at 20 kmsec Tota Number of Events by Crater Radius 
Figure IV-2b. Total Number of Events by Type and Crater Radius (20 km/s) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-18 April 2004 

The difficulty with relating the impact events by mass and type (Table IV-4) to a singular 
probability for a given crater diameter is that for a given initial velocity, meteors of equal initial 
radius but differing compositions result in different crater diameters. In addition, meteors with 
different initial radii but the same composition can result in equal crater diameters. A method 
was needed to determine the number of impact events resulting in crater diameter D by 
composition and to sum the number of possible events resulting in crater diameter D regardless 
of meteor composition or radius of the initial meteor. A graphical method was chosen to sum the 
number of cratering events of diameter D or larger. 
Once the curves for each of the three types of meteors were plotted, the cumulative number of 
cratering events was read for each composition for a range of crater radius from 0.1 m to 200 km. 
The total number of events for each crater radius size was manually summed (Table IV-5). The 
total number of events by crater radius is shown on the Figures IV-2a and IV-2b. 
2.2.4.5 Resulting Cratering Distribution 
The cratering distribution curves for 15 km/s and 20 km/s from Figures IV-2a and IV-2b based 
on the modeling results from Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]) are 
shown on Figure IV-3. Figure IV-3 allows comparison to the distribution curves derived from 
Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]); Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]); and for corroboration with 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]); all from Figure IV-1. The cumulative curves from 
Figure IV-2a and IV-2b have been plotted as crater diameter (km), rather than crater radius (m), 
to allow comparison to the earlier figure. The translation from meteor radius to crater diameter, 
along with the total number of events for each crater diameter, are shown in Table IV-5. There is 
good agreement in the curves for crater diameters greater than 10 km, which is the stated limit 
for Grieve distribution, and for the portion of the curves less than 0.02 km for V=15 km/sec, and 
for the portion of the curve less than 0.1 km for V=15 k/sec. However, the range of crater 
diameter of primary interest is roughly from 0.08 km to 0.6 km (79 m to 625 m) based both on 
the probability threshold and potential for effects on the repository. The distributions show the 
greatest divergence in this range. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-19 April 2004 

Table IV-5. Annualized Total Number of Events by Crater Radius and Diameter 
Crater Radius (m) Crater Diameter D (km) 
Annualized Frequency (F) 
for V = 15 km/s 
Annualized Frequency (F) 
for V = 20 km/s 
0.002 8.5E-07 5.6E-07 
0.004 5.1E-07 4.3E-07 
0.006 4.3E-07 2.9E-07 
0.008 3.6E-07 1.7E-07 
0.010 3.2E-07 1.5E-07 
0.012 3.0E-07 1.4E-07 
0.014 1.9E-07 1.4E-07 
0.016 8.7E-08 1.3E-07 
0.018 8.2E-08 1.2E-07 
0.020 7.7E-08 6.2E-08 
20 0.040 3.4E-08 5.0E-13 
30 0.060 2.7E-08 4.3E-13 
Crater Radius (m) 
40 0.080 9.8E-09 3.9E-13 
50 0.10 8.5E-13 3.7E-13 
60 0.12 7.3E-13 3.3E-13 
70 0.14 6.1E-13 2.8E-13 
80 0.16 5.4E-13 2.5E-13 
90 0.18 4.9E-13 2.2E-13 
100 0.20 4.5E-13 2.0E-13 
200 0.40 2.5E-13 1.5E-13 
300 0.60 1.6E-13 1.1E-13 
400 0.80 1.1E-13 7.5E-14 
500 1.0 7.3E-14 4.9E-14 
600 1.2 6.0E-14 3.9E-14 
700 1.4 4.7E-14 3.4E-14 
800 1.6 3.6E-14 2.6E-14 
900 1.8 3.1E-14 2.3E-14 
1,000 2.0 2.6E-14 1.9E-14 
2,000 4.0 1.5E-14 1.4E-14 
3,000 6.0 1.2E-14 1.1E-14 
4,000 8.0 9.8E-15 9.8E-15 
5,000 10 8.7E-15 9.0E-15 
6,000 12 8.1E-15 7.9E-15 
7,000 14 7.0E-15 7.5E-15 
8,000 16 6.6E-15 6.9E-15 
9,000 18 6.4E-15 6.5E-15 
10,000 20 6.1E-15 6.1E-15 
20,000 40 4.4E-15 4.6E-15 
30,000 60 2.7E-15 3.9E-15 
40,000 80 1.4E-15 3.0E-15 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-20 April 2004 

Table IV-5. Annualized Total Number of Events by Crater Radius and Diameter (Continued) 
Crater Diameter D 
(km) 
Annualized Frequency (F) 
for V = 15 km/s 
Annualized Frequency (F) 
for V = 20 km/s 
50,000 100 8.3E-16 1.9E-15 
60,000 120 5.5E-16 1.5E-15 
70,000 140 3.5E-16 1.2E-15 
80,000 160 2.5E-16 7.3E-16 
90,000 180 1.9E-16 5.0E-16 
100,000 200 1.6E-16 3.9E-16 
200,000 400 5.3E-17 8.2E-17 
NOTE: These are the supporting values used to plot Figures IV-5a and IV-5b. The two right hand columns 
represent the total number of cratering events per year per km2 for initial velocities of 15 km/s and 20 km/s 
respectively and were derived by summing the number of events from each meteor type for a given crater 
radius. 
1.0E-17 
1.0E-16 
1.0E-15 
1.0E-14 
1.0E-13 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
Number of Events per Year per km2 
istribution for 15 
km/sec, after modeling by 
Hikm/sec, after modeling by 
HiGrieve (1987 and 1995, 
extrapolated for D < 10 km) 
[DIRS 135254], 
[DIRS 135260] 
Wuschke et al. 1995 
(extrapolated for D , 0.5 km) 
[DIRS 129326] 
Neukum and Ivanov 1994 
(for atmosphereless earth) 
[DIRS 121510] 
Cratering Dlls and Goda 1993 
[DIRS 135281] 
Cratering distribution for 20 
lls and Goda 1993 
[DIRS 135281] 
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 
Crater Diameter (km) 
NOTE: This figure compares the results of the mass flux distributions given in Table IV-5 to plots 
based on lunar cratering data (for an atmosphereless earth) and observed earth cratering data 
as previously provided in Figure IV-1. 
Figure IV-3. Comparison of Cratering Distribution Based on Meteoroid Flux to Cratering Distributions of 
Others 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-21 April 2004 

2.3 PROBABILITY OF A CRATER DIAMETER OF INTEREST OCCURRING 
WITHIN THE REPOSITORY FOOTPRINT 
Figure IV-3 represents the range of possible frequencies of impacts resulting in a given or larger 
crater diameter per km2. All frequency curves fall below the Neukum and Ivanov curve. This is 
to be expected since the curve derived from Neukum and Ivanov (1994, Table IV 
[DIRS 121510]) is based on the lunar cratering rate and neglects any atmospheric shielding 
effects. he The relationship of the Neukum and Ivanov curve to the other curves show that the 
Neukum and Ivanov curve is an upper bound within the range of interest. As discussed below, 
the bounding nature is used to divide the mass flux curves and to define the related coefficients 
and integration limits for those curves. The Neukum and Ivanov curve is not further used in the 
probability calculations, since it would unrealistically overestimate the frequency of occurrence. 
2.3.1 Footprint 
To apply the distributions described above to the TSPA-LA repository, it is necessary to define 
the target area and the depths of interest, adjust the target area for near misses, and integrate 
the distributions over the range of possible crater diameters. 
2.3.2 TSPA-LA Repository Footprint and Other Target Areas 
Potential target areas to be used for FEP screening, include the TSPA-LA emplacement area 
footprint and the outcrop of the Paintbrush geologic unit. For corroboration and sensitivity 
analysis the TSPA-SR footprint and the TSPA-LA siting area are also of potential interest. 
These various repository and siting area footprints are given on Figure IV-4a. Figure IV-4b 
show the outlines of the TSPA-LA siting area, the drift layout for the TSPA-LA, and nearby 
boring locations. Corroborative probability analyses are performed for the TSPA-SR footprint 
and for the TSPA-LA siting area. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-22 April 2004 

Figure IV-4a. TSPA-SR Repository Footprint and TSPA-LA Siting Area 
Source: 800-P0C-MGR0-00100-00E, Figure 1 [DIRS 165572] 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-23 April 2004 

Figure IV 4b. TSPA-LA Siting Area 
Source: 800-P0C-MGR0-00100-00E, Figure II-4 [DIRS 165572] 
Figure IV-4. Comparison of TSPA-SR and TSPA-LA Repository Footprints and Drift Layouts 
2.3.2.1 TSPA-LA Repository Footprint 
The analysis for TSPA-LA uses the footprint for the emplacement area for direct input. As 
represented in Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519]), the 
maximum extent of the drifts is shown in Table IV-6. 
Table IV-6. Drift End Coordinates 
Drift End Coordinate 
Drift Number and Basis (meters) 
(3-1W) northernmost drift end N236237 
(2-27) southernmost drift end N230944 
(3-2E) easternmost drift end E172231 
(4-20) westernmost drift end E170085 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-24 April 2004 

This results in the following rough dimensions and total surface area. 
North/South Length (L) 
East/West Width (W) 
Approximate Area (A) 
(236237 m-230944 m) = 5.3 km 
(172231m-170085m) = 2.2 km 
5.3 km x 2.2 km = 11.6 km2 
The measured distances are rounded upward to the nearest tenth of a kilometer, and the rounding 
is inconsequential because a rectangular repository area is used as a calculation simplification. 
Also, a 0.1 km was added to the repository length to add distance to account for the construction 
ramp location. Using the adjusted value of 5.4, the rectangular area is approximately 11.9 km2. 
Use of a rectangular area and adjustments of lengths as simplifications will result in an 
conservative overestimation of the repository emplacement area by a factor of about 2. In 
actuality, the area of the repository drifts, as seen in Figure IV-2b is irregularly shaped. For the 
emplacement area shown on Figure IV-4b above and as given in 800-IED-WIS0-00103-000-00A 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 168370]), the total of the emplacement area is given as 6,004,074 m2, or an 
equivalent 6.0 km2. 
2.3.2.2 Paintbrush Outcrop 
This target area is pertinent for TSPA-LA because the Paintbrush is a key geologic unit. For 
TSPA-SR, the area of the repository lying below the Paintbrush outcrop area along the western 
edge of the repository footprint was determined to be 1.1 km by 0.1 km (BSC 2002, Table 4 and 
Section 6.5.1.3 [DIRS 159124]). This portion of the analysis was retained for completeness, 
although the change in repository footprint from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA shifted the repository 
eastward, away and from beneath the outcrop. This change in footprints can be seen by 
comparing Figures IV-4a and 4b above. 
2.3.2.3 TSPA-LASiting Area 
A corroborative analysis is performed using estimated dimensions for the siting area as taken 
from Figure IV-4a above. Consideration of the entire siting area increases the general area and 
aids in determining the sensitivity of the analysis to changes in repository footprint design. 
Knowledge of such sensitivity may allow application of this analysis without revision in the 
event the repository footprint is changed. The reference drawing shows the extent of the entire 
siting area. The estimated dimensions are: 
North/South Length (L) 
East/West Width (W) 
Approximate Area (A) 
(236500 m-230500 m) = 6.0 km 
(173000 m-170000 m) = 3.0 km 
6.0 km x 3.0 km = 18.0 km2 
2.3.2.4 TSPA-SR Repository Footprint 
The corroborative analysis for the TSPA-SR repository footprint has been retained in this 
analysis report because the TSPA-SR design, less the contingency area, is roughly equivalent to 
the longest dimension of the repository footprint to be used as the basis of the TSPA-LA. This 
provides a basis for examining the sensitivity of the analysis to changes in relative dimensions. 
The area and depth of the TSPA-SR repository was based on the design provided in CRWMS 
M&O (2000 [DIRS 150088]). For TSPA-SR meteor evaluation, a conservative bounding 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-25 April 2004 

assumption regarding the repository footprint was used and was based on the shallowest depth of 
the repository and the largest areal footprint. The TSPA-SR meteorite FEP evaluation assumed 
that the repository dimensions were: 
North/South Length (L) 
East/West Width (W) 
Approximate Area (A) 
Minimum Depth 
8.6 km1.3 km 
8.6 km x 1.3 km = 11.2 km2 
250 m 
This length and width for the drift layouts are shown in Figure IV-4a and exclude turn outs for 
the access drifts. The lower block was not considered in the TSPA-SR evaluation. For this 
analysis, the length and width values are retained. However, the minimum depth of the 
emplacement area is assumed to be 200 m to ensure equivalence for comparison to the TSPA-LA 
design. 
2.3.3 Depths and Crater Diameters of Interest 
The depths and crater diameters of interest include the diameter associated with the onset of 
complex cratering, the depth to the Paintbrush geologic unit, and the depth to the repository. 
2.3.3.1 Simple and Complex Cratering 
The amount of meteor kinetic energy acting in combination with the impacted rock properties 
determines the features, shape, size, and depth of any crater and any related cratering effects such 
as fracturing. The potential consequences are divided at the first level based on two types of 
observed cratering. Simple craters consist of an elevated rim and central depression. Complex 
cratering involves the uplift and significant vertical displacement of the central portion of the 
crater. Complex cratering can be initiated with crater diameters of 2 km in sedimentary rocks; 
however, terrestrial simple craters may also exhibit crater diameters up to 4 km, which is the 
threshold for simple-to-complex cratering in crystalline rocks based on the direct inputs justified 
for use in Section 4.5.3.4 of Attachment II (Grieve 1987, p. 249 [DIRS 135254]; Grieve et al. 
1995, p. 184 [DIRS 135260]; Wuschke et al. 1995, p. 3 [DIRS 129326]). The threshold for FEP 
screening based on probability is stated as an annualized equivalence of 10-8 events per year for 
the repository area (Assumption 5.1 of the main body of this document). Based on the cratering 
rate distributions given in Figure IV-3, a 2-km crater diameter occurs at a frequency of 
approximately 10-12 or less per year, which is four orders of magnitude less frequent than the 
threshold for consideration. Consequently, complex cratering features, which can onset at a 
crater diameter of 2 km, do not occur with sufficient frequency to be of concern for FEP 
screening. Because such large diameter craters are very unlikely events, complex cratering is not 
further considered in the FEP analysis. 
2.3.3.2 Depth of the Paintbrush Unit and Related Crater Diameters 
As referenced in BSC 2003, Sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.2 [DIRS 168027], geologic information 
relevant to the assessment of the repository includes the thickness and continuity of the PTn unit 
lying above the repository unit. The large storage capacity and low fracture frequency of the 
highly porous PTn unit may effectively dampen transient pulses of infiltration and more evenly 
distribute the downward flow of water. However, isotopic (chlorine-36) analysis has identified 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-26 April 2004 

isolated pathways that provide relatively rapid water movement for small amounts of water 
through the Paintbrush non-welded unit to the top of the underlying Topopah Springs welded 
unit. Geologic data indicate that the PTn ranges in thickness from greater than 165 m (541 feet) 
beneath northern Yucca Mountain to about 15 m (49 feet) in the south, with breaks in area 
coverage along the Solitario Canyon, Iron Ridge, and Dune Wash fault systems. The 
underground layout incorporates a minimum PTn thickness of 10 m (33 feet). However, the 
primary information relevant to this analysis is the depth of the PTn below the surface, because 
the depth to the top of the geologic unit is used to define the maximum crater diameter, or more 
specifically the associated depth of increased fracturing, that can occur without the potential to 
significantly change the subsurface hydrogeologic fracture properties. The depth of this unit, 
then, is of interest. 
Figures IV-4b and IV-5 references the location of various boreholes in relation to the repository 
footprint and the local coordinates. Starting with the borehole locations shown, the following 
inputs were used to determine the depth to sub-zones of the Paintbrush non-welded unit. The 
zones of interest include the Pah Canyon and Topopah Springs subzones of the Paintbrush non-
welded tuff. The depths of lithostratigraphic contacts are taken from MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 152554]) and are given in Table IV-7. The data are arranged by increasing 
depth to the top of the Pah Canyon (Tpp) unit. 
Across most of the TSPA-LA repository footprint, the Tpp unit is at depths of 60 m or greater, 
based on the average and 50th percentile values for the depth to the top of the Tpp unit. At all 
locations given, with the exception of the locations USW WT-14, USW UZ-N31, UE-25 p #1, 
and USW UZ-N32 (shaded in Table IV-7), the depth of the Tptrv3 unit is greater than 60 m.A 
range of exhumation depthtocrater diameter ratios of 0.10 to 0.33 is noted in Attachment II, 
and a value of 0.32 has been justified for use as direct input in Section 4.5.3.5 of Attachment II. 
These ratios are based on direct input provided in Wushcke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326] and 
Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]). A value for fracture depthtocrater diameter of 0.32 is realistic 
based on Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]). Because the intended use is for FEP screening and 
analysis, the conservative value of increased fracturing depth to 0.76 of the crater diameter, as 
indicated by Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]), is examined to ensure that the range of 
uncertainty in relationships is covered. The use of this value based on effects in plutonic rock is 
somewhat contrary to the observation made by Grieve (1998, p. 113 [DIRS 163385]) that depths 
in sedimentary rocks tend to be shallower than in plutonic rock. However, the use of these 
values is consistent with use of cratering rate and crater diameter distributions from these same 
sources. A more complete discussion is provided in Section 4.5.3.5 of Attachment II. 
Given a 60-m depth to a key hydrogeologic unit, and given the depthtocrater diameter ratios 
just stated, the crater diameters of concern for exhumation for the PTn unit ranges from 188 to 
600 m, and the crater diameters of interest with regard to fracturing is about 79 m. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-27 April 2004 

Source: BSC 2004, Figure 4 [DIRS 168029] 
Figure IV-5. Boring Locations 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-28 April 2004 

Table IV-7. Depth to PTn in the TSPA-LA Repository Area 
Statistic/Boring 
Pah Canyon Tuff 
nondivided (Tpp) 
Topopah Spring Tuff 
(Tpt) crystal-rich vitric 
nonwelded to partially 
welded zones (Tptrv3) 
Tpt, crystal-rich vitric 
densely welded zone 
(Tptrv1) Thickness 
(m)Depth from Surface (m) 
Summary Statistics 
Maximum 281.6 290.8 294.7 83.1 
Average 88 109 112 24 
50th Percentile 68 92 97 17 
Minimum 31.1 32.6 37.8 5.2 
By Boring 
USW UZ-14 31.1 81.7 86.1 55.0 
USW UZ-1 32.0 82.9 86.6 54.6 
USW WT-14 32.6 32.6 37.8 5.2 
USW UZ-N31 36.5 51.3 55.2 18.8 
UE-25 p #1 38.7 42.7 45.1 6.4 
USW UZ-N32 39.6 56.7 60.8 21.2 
USW G-1 41.1 80.8 82.3 41.1 
USW UZ-N37 45.2 74.6 78.2 33.1 
USW SD-9 47.4 77.9 81.8 34.4 
USW G-4 51.3 68.3 72.8 21.6 
UE-25 NRG #7/7a 52.4 86.7 90.3 37.9 
UE-25 UZ #4 53.0 101.5 105.2 52.2 
UE-25 NRG #6 53.3 74.6 79.2 25.9 
UE-25 a #5 54.9 79.9 84.4 29.6 
UE-25 a #6 56.7 70.0 73.7 17.0 
UE-25 UZ #5 56.7 105.2 108.1 51.4 
UE-25 UZ #16 57.5 66.1 69.9 12.4 
USW H-1 58.0 89.9 100.6 42.6 
USW UZ-N54 58.3 66.3 70.9 12.6 
USW UZ-N53 59.6 67.3 70.1 10.5 
UE-25 a #4 60.0 92.0 96.6 36.5 
UE-25 b #1 62.3 78.9 83.8 21.5 
USW UZ-7a 65.5 74.1 75.8 10.3 
UE-25 NRG #5 65.5 97.8 100.6 35.1 
USW H-4 65.8 73.8 76.5 10.7 
USW WT-17 66.1 73.8 75.6 9.4 
UE-25 a #1 66.5 81.3 84.0 17.5 
USW UZ-N55 67.5 71.1 74.4 6.8 
UE-25 a #7 69.0 89.0 92.8 23.8 
USW WT-2 75.3 82.6 85.3 10.1 
UE-25 c #3 82.6 87.2 90.8 8.2 
USW H-6 84.7 91.5 100.6 15.8 
USW SD-12 84.8 95.7 98.9 14.1 
UE-25 NRG #2b 87.0 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-29 April 2004 

Table IV-7. Depth to PTn in the TSPA-LA Repository Area (Continued) 
Topopah Spring Tuff 
Statistic/Boring 
Pah Canyon Tuff 
nondivided (Tpp) 
(Tpt) crystal-rich vitric 
nonwelded to partially 
welded zones (Tptrv3) 
Tpt, crystal-rich vitric 
densely welded zone 
(Tptrv1) 
Thickness 
(m) 
UE-25 c #2 87.2 93.3 96.0 8.8 
USW WT-11 87.5 93.6 96.6 9.1 
UE-25 c #1 91.4 97.2 100.3 8.8 
USW WT-4 98.8 135.3 139.0 40.2 
USW WT-12 103.3 110.3 112.5 9.1 
USW SD-7 104.5 117.1 117.7 13.2 
USW WT-15 113.4 132.9 134.7 21.3 
UE-25 NRG #4 114.3 145.4 147.8 33.5 
USW WT-7 119.2 126.5 131.7 12.5 
USW GU-3/G-3 119.4 127.3 130.4 11.0 
USW H-3 127.1 132.6 135.6 8.5 
USW WT-1 135.9 145.4 147.5 11.6 
USW UZ-6 137.2 145.8 149.0 11.9 
USW WT-13 140.2 149.4 151.8 11.6 
USW WT-16 140.8 176.8 181.1 40.2 
USW H-5 143.6 165.2 171.3 27.7 
USW WT-24 144.5 212.0 212.4 68.0 
USW G-2 150.6 230.2 233.7 83.1 
USW WT-18 151.5 210.9 213.7 62.2 
UE-25 ONC #1 189.3 196.0 199.3 10.1 
UE-25 J-13 198.1 207.9 210.6 12.5 
USW WT-10 281.6 290.8 294.7 13.1 
Source: DTN MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (BSC 2003 [DIRS 152554]) 
2.3.3.3 Depth of the Repository Emplacement Area and Related Crater Diameters 
With regard to the depth of the repository emplacement area, the minimum stand-off distances 
given in Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519]) indicates that the 
overburden thickness from emplacement area to topographic surface is 215 m. A slightly 
shallower depth of 200 m will be used in the calculation to provide a small margin of 
conservatism and to allow for any future eastward extension or additions of drifts within the 
siting area. 
A range of exhumation depthtocrater diametertoratios of 0.10 to 0.33 is noted in Attachment 
II, and a value of 0.32 has been justified for use as direct input in Section 4.5.3.5 of 
Attachment II, as previously discussed. Because the intended use is for FEP screening and 
analysis, the conservative value of increased fracturing depth to 0.76 of the crater diameter, as 
indicated by Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]), is examined to ensure that the range of 
uncertainty in relationships is covered. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-30 April 2004 

Given the above ratios, the crater diameters of interest for impairing repository performance 
from exhumation to repository depth ranges from 625 m to about 2 km, and craters capable of 
fracturing to repository depth have diameters in excess of about 263 m. 
2.3.4 Cratering Distributions Adjusted for Target Area 
The target area in each case is initially assumed rectangular in shape, with the dimensions 
described in Section 2.3.1 of this attachment. However, if a meteorite were to impact exterior to 
the repository boundary or an outcrop area, but within one-half of the crater diameter from the 
boundary, the repository could still potentially be affected. This affects the boundaries on each 
side of the repository and the outcrop. Assuming fracturing and exhumation effects are 
cylindrical below the entire crater, the target area can be expressed as: 
Area (A) = (L + 2 x D/2)(W + 2 x D/2) = (L+D)(W+D) (Eq. IV-6) 
Equation 6 further simplifies to 
Area (A) = LW + (L+W)D + D2 (Eq. IV-6a) 
where: 
L = length of target area (km) 
W = width of target area (km) 
D = diameter of crater (km). 
Starting with Equation IV-1, the overall annual probability of meteorite impacts that could 
disrupt or fracture the repository is given by the product of the frequency of impact and the target 
area integrated over the range of possible crater diameters: 
F = . f(D) A dD (Eq. IV-7) 
From Equations IV-2 and IV-6a and with k equaling the power of the distribution for a given 
meteorite crater distribution: 
F = . (-k K Dk-1) (LW + (L+W) D + D2) dD (Eq. IV-8) 
By removing the constants k and K and using the additive properties of integrals and exponents, 
the resulting integral is in the form of . un du 
F = -k K . (LWDk-1 + (L+W)Dk + D k+1) dD (Eq. IV-8a) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-31 April 2004 

Equation IV-8a simplifies to: 
300 
F = -k K LW(D)k + (L+W)(D)k+1+ (D)k+2 (Eq. IV-8b) 
k k+1 k+2 
D 
where: 
F = frequency of impacts per year capable of disrupting the repository 
K = the proportionality constant (from regression analysis) 
k = power of the distribution (from regression analysis) 
L = length of the repository (km) 
W = width of the repository (km) 
D = diameter of the crater (km). 
The lower limit to the integral is assumed to be 0.001 km (1 m), based on the need to capture 
very small crater diameters to evaluate the potential for impact in the PTn outcrop area. . The 
choice is arbitrary based on the possible scale of interest, and larger or smaller values could have 
been chosen. The upper limit was set at 300 km, which corresponds to the largest recognized 
crater on the earths surface. A smaller limit could have been set, but would have reduced the 
cumulative frequency slightly. So long as the diameter is chosen such that the chosen crater 
diameter occurs at an annualized frequency well below the FEP screening threshold of 10-8, it 
makes only a minor difference in the resulting calculation. However, a 300 km crater diameter is 
the largest observed feature on earth, so it serves as a defensible upper bound. 
Equation IV-4 is coupled with Equation IV-6a to construct a distribution from the equation given 
by Wuschke et al. (1995, p. 4 [DIRS 129326]), and takes on the form of 
F(D) = 2.010-12 (D)-2 (L + D) (W + D) (Eq. IV-9) 
2.3.5 Calculation of Cratering Distribution for the Repository Footprint 
Equation IV-8b is applied below for the target area for both the Grieve distribution and the 
distribution based on mass flux. The power of (1.8) and the value for K of (1.2 + 0.6)10-12 
shown in Equation 3, are only applicable to the Grieve distribution and are used accordingly. As 
seen on Figure IV-3, the cratering distribution derived from meteoroid flux (after Hills and 
Goda) has two primary components, an upper curve (for D < 0.1 km) and a lower curve (for D > 
0.1 km), which are connected by an essentially vertical portion of the curve. Tables IV-8a 
through IV-8d provide the results of the regression analyses for the meteoroid flux distributions 
(i.e., for the upper and lower portions of the frequency curves for 15 and 20 km/s, respectively). 
Figures IV-6a through IV-6d provide representation of the analysis. Because of the offset in the 
cumulative-flux-derived frequency curves, the constant, K, was also determined for each portion 
of the curve for each velocity. Table IV-9 provides example spreadsheet calculations for the 
results shown in Tables IV-8a through IV-8d. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-32 April 2004 

The slope of the distribution and the constant were applied to Equation IV-8b for the upper and 
lower portion of the curves for the two atmospheric entry velocities (V=15 km/s and 20 km/s). 
The use of the two portions of the curve is justified because the lower portion of the meteoroid 
flux curve indicates a differing distribution as shown on Figure IV-3. For the upper portion of 
the curves, the lower limit of the integral was taken to be a lower limit of 1 m, as previously 
described. The upper limit for the integral for the upper portion of the curves was selected based 
on the breakpoint in the curves for V=15 km/s and V=20 km/s (i.e., based on crater diameters of 
80 m and 20 m, respectively). These breakpoints also correspond to the curves approaching the 
distribution curve given by Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]). The Neukum and 
Ivanov curve was previously defined as an upper bound on crater diameter distribution based on 
lunar cratering data adjusted for atmosphereless earth. Use of an upper integral limit of 
300 km for the upper curves would result in a calculated annualized frequency of about 310-8 
for a crater diameter of 1 km. Figure IV-3 clearly indicates that the value based on three 
different distribution curves should be on the order of 10-11 or 10-12, a three to four order of 
magnitude difference. For the lower portion of the curve, the lower integral limit was taken as 
the breakpoints (80 m and 20 m) in the curves, and an integral limit of a 300-km crater diameter 
was used, consistent with its application for the Grieve distribution. To address the break in the 
curve between the upper and lower limits, the calculation overlaps the upper limit for the upper 
curve respective to the lower limit in the lower curve. This allows for annual frequency of the 
breakpoint (80 m and 20 m, respectively) to be calculated. The upper limit of the integration is 
set at 100 m and 40 m respectively, as shown in Tables IV-10a through IV-10d. Using the 
breakpoint as the upper limit would cause the calculated frequency to be zero, because 
Equation IV-8b is for the cumulative frequency and describes the annual frequency of the given 
diameter or larger. 
Tables IV-10a and IV-10b provide the annual probability calculations for cratering above the 
repository for the TSPALA emplacement area, and for the PTn Outcrop area. The results are 
shown in Figures IV-6 and IV-8, respectively. For corroborative and sensitivity analysis 
purposes, Table IV-10c evaluates the probability for the TSPA-LA siting area, and for sensitivity 
analysis purposes, Table IV-10d reassesses the TSPA-SR design. Results are shown for the 
TSPA-LA siting area and the TSPA-SR design in Figures IV-9 and IV-10, respectively. 
For the various repository footprint evaluations (Figures IV-7a, IV-7c, and IV-7d), the figures 
indicate the equivalent FEP screening probability threshold (i.e., an annualized equivalence of 
1  10-8), the crater diameters that are of interest with respect to fracturing of the Paintbrush 
hydrologic unit and to depth of the repository, and the crater diameters that are of interest with 
respect to exhumation of those same features. The diameters of interest for fracturing and 
exhumation overlap, depending on which feature is being considered and which diameter-to-
depth factor is assumed. Figure IV-7b provides the annual probability for cratering in the 
outcrop area, which is the same for the TSPASR and TSPALA designs, and the annualized 
probability for cratering within or near the outcrop area is shown. Because it is the outcrop 
area(i.e., exposure at the surface) any impact in the outcrop will result in exhumation and 
fracturing. 
Tables IV-11 through IV-14 provide example spreadsheet calculations for the results shown in 
Tables IV-10a through IV-10d, for the distribution curves. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-33 April 2004 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-34 April 2004 
Table IV-8a. Regression Analysis for Crater Diameter D for Meteoroid Flux for Upper Portion of Curve (D <0.1 km) and V = 15 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D15 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) 
[log (D) - log (D) 
mean] 
[log(D) - log 
(D)mean]2 [log(F) - log (F)mean] [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
0.002 8.5E-07 -2.70 -6.07 -0.84 0.71 0.79 -0.67 
0.004 5.1E-07 -2.40 -6.30 -0.54 0.29 0.57 -0.31 
0.006 4.3E-07 -2.22 -6.37 -0.36 0.13 0.49 -0.18 
0.008 3.6E-07 -2.10 -6.44 -0.24 0.06 0.42 -0.10 
0.01 3.2E-07 -2.00 -6.49 -0.14 0.02 0.37 -0.05 
0.012 3.0E-07 -1.92 -6.52 -0.06 0.00 0.34 -0.02 
0.014 1.9E-07 -1.85 -6.72 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 
0.016 8.7E-08 -1.80 -7.06 0.06 0.00 -0.20 -0.01 
0.018 8.2E-08 -1.74 -7.09 0.11 0.01 -0.22 -0.03 
0.02 7.7E-08 -1.70 -7.11 0.16 0.03 -0.25 -0.04 
0.04 3.4E-08 -1.40 -7.47 0.46 0.21 -0.61 -0.28 
0.06 2.7E-08 -1.22 -7.57 0.64 0.40 -0.71 -0.45 
0.08 9.8E-09 -1.10 -8.01 0.76 0.58 -1.15 -0.87 
Mean -1.86 -6.86 
Sum 2.45 -3.00 
Slope -1.23 
Regression Analysis 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
Slope = 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean]2 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-07 
Note: Values for D and for F are taken from Table IV-7of this attachment. 
1.0E-08 
Slope = k = -1.23: This is less steep than the Grieve slope of 1.8, 
1.0E-09 
which is based on observed earth cratering at crater diameters of 10 km 
Frequency 
0.001 0.01 0.1 
(events/km2-year) 
and was extrapolated for smaller crater diameters. The slope of the Grieve 
Crater Diameter (m)
distribution decreases for smaller crater diameters, but is recognized as likely 
underestimating the number of small diameter craters. 
Figure IV-6a. Regression Analysis for Upper Curve Portion 
Constant K = 7.0 E-10 
(V= 15 km/s). 
y = 7E-10x-1.23 
R2 = 0.926 

Table IV-8b. Regression Analysis for Crater Diameter D for Meteoroid Flux for Lower Portion of Curve (D > 0.1 km) and V = 15 km/s 
V = 15 km/sec: Lower Portion of Curve 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean]2 
Regression Analysis 
Crater Diameter 
D15 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) [log(D) - log (D) mean] 
[log(D) - log 
(D)mean]2 [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
[log(D) - log (D)mean] x 
[log(F) - log (F)mean] 
0.1 8.5E-13 -1.00 -12.07 -0.68 0.47 0.73 -0.50 
0.12 7.3E-13 -0.92 -12.14 -0.60 0.37 0.66 -0.40 
0.14 6.1E-13 -0.85 -12.21 -0.54 0.29 0.58 -0.31 
0.16 5.4E-13 -0.80 -12.27 -0.48 0.23 0.53 -0.25 
0.18 4.9E-13 -0.74 -12.31 -0.43 0.18 0.49 -0.21 
0.2 4.5E-13 -0.70 -12.34 -0.38 0.15 0.45 -0.17 
0.4 2.5E-13 -0.40 -12.60 -0.08 0.01 0.19 -0.02 
0.6 1.6E-13 -0.22 -12.80 0.09 0.01 -0.01 0.00 
0.8 1.1E-13 -0.10 -12.98 0.22 0.05 -0.18 -0.04 
1 7.3E-14 0.00 -13.14 0.32 0.10 -0.34 -0.11 
1.2 6.0E-14 0.08 -13.22 0.40 0.16 -0.43 -0.17 
1.4 4.7E-14 0.15 -13.33 0.46 0.21 -0.53 -0.25 
1.6 3.6E-14 0.20 -13.44 0.52 0.27 -0.64 -0.34 
1.8 3.1E-14 0.26 -13.51 0.57 0.33 -0.71 -0.41 
2 2.6E-14 0.30 -13.58 0.62 0.38 -0.79 -0.48 
Mean -0.32 -12.80 
Sum 3.19 -3.65 
Slope -1.14 
Slope 
=
NOTE: Values for D and for F are taken from Table IV-7 of this
y = 7E-14x-1.14 
1.00E-11 
Frequency
1.00E-12 
attachment. 
(events/km2-year)
1.00E-13 
Slope = k = -1.14: This is less steep than the Grieve slope of 1.8, which 
1.00E-14 
is based on observed earth cratering at crater diameters of 10 km and was 
1.00E-15 
extrapolated for smaller crater diameters. The slope of the Grieve 
0.11 10 
distribution decreases for smaller crater diameters, but is recognized as 
Crater Diameter (m)
likely underestimating the number of small diameter craters.
Constant K = 7.0 E-14
Figure IV-6b. Regression Analysis for Lower Curve Portion (V= 15 km/s) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-35 April 2004 
R2 = 0.9894 

Table IV-8c. Regression Analysis for Crater Diameter D for Meteoroid Flux for Upper Portion of Curve (D < 0.02 km) and V = 20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
[log(D) - log 
D20 (km) 
Frequency (F) 
log(D) 
log(F) 
[log(D) - log (D) mean] 
[log(F) - log (F)mean] 
[log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean]
(D)mean]2 
0.002 
5.6E-07 
-2.70 
-6.26 
-0.66 
0.43 
0.49 
-0.32 
0.004 
4.3E-07 
-2.40 
-6.36 
-0.35 
0.13 
0.38 
-0.14 
0.006 
2.9E-07 
-2.22 
-6.53 
-0.18 
0.03 
0.22 
-0.04 
0.008 
1.7E-07 
-2.10 
-6.76 
-0.05 
0.00 
-0.01 
0.00 
0.01 
1.5E-07 
-2.00 
-6.83 
0.04 
0.00 
-0.08 
0.00 
0.012 
1.4E-07 
-1.92 
-6.85 
0.12 
0.01 
-0.11 
-0.01 
0.014 
1.4E-07 
-1.85 
-6.87 
0.19 
0.04 
-0.12 
-0.02 
0.016 
1.3E-07 
-1.80 
-6.89 
0.25 
0.06 
-0.15 
-0.04 
0.018 
1.2E-07 
-1.74 
-6.91 
0.30 
0.09 
-0.16 
-0.05 
0.02 
6.2E-08 
-1.70 
-7.21 
0.34 
0.12 
-0.46 
-0.16 
-2.04 
-6.75 
0.91 
-0.78 
-0.85 
Mean 
Sum 
Slope 
Regression Analysis 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-06 
Frequency
. [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) -log (F)mean] 
Slope = 
(events/km2-year)
. [log(D) - log (D)mean]
2
1.0E-07
NOTE: Values for D and for F are taken from Table IV-7 of this
attachment.
1.0E-08
Slope = k = -0.85: This is less steep than the Grieve slope of 1.8, which is 
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 
based on observed earth cratering at crater diameters of 10 km and was
extrapolated for smaller crater diameters. The slope of the Grieve distribution
decreases for smaller crater diameters, but is recognized as likely
underestimating the number of small diameter craters.
Figure IV-6c. Regression Analysis for Upper Curve Portion (V= 20 km/s) 
Constant K = 3.0 E-9 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-36 April 2004 
-0.85 
R2 = 0.9127 
y = 3E-09x

Table IV-8d. Regression Analysis for Crater Diameter D for Meteoroid Flux for Lower Portion of Curve (D > 0.02 km) and V = 20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D20 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) [log(D) - log (D) mean] 
[log(D) - log 
(D)mean]2 [log(F) - log (F)mean] [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
0.04 5.0E-13 -1.40 -12.30 -0.93 0.86 0.62 -0.57 
0.06 4.3E-13 -1.22 -12.37 -0.75 0.57 0.55 -0.41 
0.08 3.9E-13 -1.10 -12.41 -0.63 0.39 0.51 -0.32 
0.1 3.7E-13 -1.00 -12.44 -0.53 0.28 0.48 -0.25 
0.12 3.3E-13 -0.92 -12.48 -0.45 0.20 0.44 -0.20 
0.14 2.8E-13 -0.85 -12.56 -0.38 0.15 0.36 -0.14 
0.16 2.5E-13 -0.80 -12.60 -0.33 0.11 0.32 -0.10 
0.18 2.2E-13 -0.74 -12.65 -0.27 0.08 0.27 -0.07 
0.2 2.0E-13 -0.70 -12.70 -0.23 0.05 0.22 -0.05 
0.4 1.5E-13 -0.40 -12.83 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.01 
0.6 1.1E-13 -0.22 -12.94 0.25 0.06 -0.03 -0.01 
0.8 7.5E-14 -0.10 -13.13 0.37 0.14 -0.21 -0.08 
1 4.9E-14 0.00 -13.31 0.47 0.22 -0.39 -0.18 
1.2 3.9E-14 0.08 -13.41 0.55 0.30 -0.50 -0.27 
1.4 3.4E-14 0.15 -13.47 0.62 0.38 -0.55 -0.34 
1.6 2.6E-14 0.20 -13.59 0.67 0.45 -0.67 -0.45 
1.8 2.3E-14 0.26 -13.63 0.73 0.53 -0.71 -0.52 
2 1.9E-14 0.30 -13.71 0.77 0.59 -0.80 -0.61 
Mean 
-0.47 
-12.92 
Sum 
5.37 
-4.58 
Slope 
-0.85 
Regression Analysis 
1.0E-11 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) -log (F)mean]
. [log(D) - log (D)mean]
2
Frequency(events/km2-year)
Slope = 
NOTE: Values for D and for F are taken from Table IV-7of this attachment. 
Slope = k = -0.85: This is less steep than the Grieve slope of 1.8, which is based 
on observed earth cratering at crater diameters of 10 km and was extrapolated for 
smaller crater diameters. The slope of the Grieve distribution decreases for 
smaller crater diameters, but is recognized as likely underestimating the number 
of small diameter craters. 
Constant K = 5.0 E-14 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-37 April 2004 
-0.85 
R2 = 0.9621 
1 10 
) 
Figure IV-6d. ) 
y = 5E-14x1.0E-15 
1.0E-14 
1.0E-13 
1.0E-12 
0.01 0.1 
Crater Diameter (mRegression Analysis for Lower Curve Portion (V= 20 km/s

Table IV-9. Example Spreadsheet Calculation for Regression Analysis 
Rows/ 
Columns C D E F G H I J 
2 V=15 km/sec: Upper Portion of Curve 
3 
Crater Diameter 
D15 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) 
[log(D) - log 
(Dmean)] 
[log(D) - log 
(Dmean)]2 [log(F) - log 
(Fmean)] 
[log(D) - log 
(Dmean)] x [log(F) log 
(F)] 
4 
5 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C5) =LOG(D5) =E5-$E$19 =G5^2 =F5-$F$19 =I5*G5 
6 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C6) =LOG(D6) =E6-$E$19 =G6^2 =F6-$F$19 =I6*G6 
7 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C7) =LOG(D7) =E7-$E$19 =G7^2 =F7-$F$19 =I7*G7 
8 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C8) =LOG(D8) =E8-$E$19 =G8^2 =F8-$F$19 =I8*G8 
9 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C9) =LOG(D9) =E9-$E$19 =G9^2 =F9-$F$19 =I9*G9 
10 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C10) =LOG(D10) =E10-$E$19 =G10^2 =F10-$F$19 =I10*G10 
11 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C11) =LOG(D11) =E11-$E$19 =G11^2 =F11-$F$19 =I11*G11 
12 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C12) =LOG(D12) =E12-$E$19 =G12^2 =F12-$F$19 =I12*G12 
13 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C13) =LOG(D13) =E13-$E$19 =G13^2 =F13-$F$19 =I13*G13 
14 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C14) =LOG(D14) =E14-$E$19 =G14^2 =F14-$F$19 =I14*G14 
15 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C15) =LOG(D15) =E15-$E$19 =G15^2 =F15-$F$19 =I15*G15 
16 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C16) =LOG(D16) =E16-$E$19 =G16^2 =F16-$F$19 =I16*G16 
17 From Table IV-5 From Table IV-5 =LOG(C17) =LOG(D17) =E17-$E$19 =G17^2 =F17-$F$19 =I17*G17 
18 
19 Mean =AVERAGE(E5:E17) =AVERAGE(F5:F17) 
20 Sum =SUM(H5:H17) =SUM(J5:J17) 
21 Slope =J20/H20 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-38 April 2004 

Annualized Frequency (events per year) 
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1.0E-07
1.0E-08
1.0E-09
1.0E-10
1.0E-11
1.0E-12
0.001
Crater Diameter (km)
1 10 
V=15 km/sec 
V=20 km/sec 
Distribution 
istribution 
iameters of 
Fracturing Effects 
iameters of 
FEP Screening 
0.01 0.1 
Wuschke et al. 
Grieve DCrater DConcern for 
Crater DConcern for 
Exhumation Effects 
Probability 
Threshold 
g 
Figure IV-7. Annualized Frequency of Cratering above the Repository for the TSPA-LA Emplacement 
Area 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-39 April 2004 

1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
Annualized Frequency (events per year) 
V=15 km/sec 
V=20 km/sec 
GriDistribution 
Distribution 
FEP Screening 
eve 
Wuschke et al. 
Probability 
Threshold 
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Crater Diameter (km)
Figure IV-8. Annualized Frequency of Cratering above the Paintbrush Outcrop 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-40 April 2004 

V=15 km/sec 1.0E-04 
1.0E-05 
V=20 km/sec 
1.0E-06 
Wuschke et al. 
1.0E-07 
Distribution 
Grieve Distribution
1.0E-08 
1.0E-09 
Crater Diameters of 
Concern for
1.0E-10
Fracturing Effects 
Crater Diameters of 
1.0E-11 
Concern for 
Exhumation Effects 
1.0E-12 
FEP Screening 
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 Probability 
Crater Diameter (km) Threshold 
Figure IV-9. Annualized Frequency of Cratering above the Repository for the TSPA-LA Siting Area 
Annualized Frequency (events per year) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-41 April 2004 

Annualized Frequency (events per year) 
V=15 km/sec 
V=20 km/sec 
Distribution 
istribution 
Difor Fracturing Effects 
DiFEP Screening 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04 
Wushke et al. 
Grieve Dameters of Concern 
ameters of Concern 
for Exhumation 
Probability Threshold 
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 
Crater Diameter (km) 
Figure IV-10. Annualized Frequency of Cratering above the Repository for the TSPA-SR Design 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-42 April 2004 

Table IV-10a. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-LA Emplacement Area 
TSPA-LA 
Emplacement 
Area L=5.4 W=2.2 V=15 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
UPPER CURVE FOR V=15 km/s 
K=7.0 E-10 k=-1.23 
0.001 7.0E-10 -4.6E+04 -1.6E+02 6.1E-03 -4.6E+04 3.9E-05 
0.002 7.0E-10 -2.0E+04 -1.4E+02 1.0E-02 -2.0E+04 1.7E-05 
0.005 7.0E-10 -6.4E+03 -1.1E+02 2.1E-02 -6.5E+03 5.4E-06 
0.007 7.0E-10 -4.2E+03 -1.0E+02 2.8E-02 -4.3E+03 3.5E-06 
0.009 7.0E-10 -3.1E+03 -9.7E+01 3.4E-02 -3.2E+03 2.6E-06 
0.01 7.0E-10 -2.7E+03 -9.5E+01 3.6E-02 -2.8E+03 2.2E-06 
0.02 7.0E-10 -1.2E+03 -8.1E+01 6.2E-02 -1.3E+03 8.9E-07 
0.03 7.0E-10 -7.1E+02 -7.4E+01 8.5E-02 -7.9E+02 4.9E-07 
0.04 7.0E-10 -5.0E+02 -7.0E+01 1.1E-01 -5.7E+02 3.0E-07 
0.05 7.0E-10 -3.8E+02 -6.6E+01 1.3E-01 -4.5E+02 2.0E-07 
0.06 7.0E-10 -3.0E+02 -6.4E+01 1.5E-01 -3.7E+02 1.3E-07 
0.07 7.0E-10 -2.5E+02 -6.1E+01 1.6E-01 -3.1E+02 8.1E-08 
0.08 7.0E-10 -2.1E+02 -6.0E+01 1.8E-01 -2.7E+02 4.6E-08 
0.1 7.0E-10 -1.6E+02 -5.7E+01 2.2E-01 -2.2E+02 0.0E+00 
LOWER CURVE FOR V=15 km/s 
K=7.0 E-14 k=-1.14 
0.09 7.0E-14 -1.6E+02 -7.5E+01 1.5E-01 -2.4E+02 3.0E-11 
0.1 7.0E-14 -1.4E+02 -7.4E+01 1.6E-01 -2.2E+02 2.8E-11 
0.2 7.0E-14 -6.5E+01 -6.7E+01 2.9E-01 -1.3E+02 2.1E-11 
0.3 7.0E-14 -4.1E+01 -6.3E+01 4.1E-01 -1.0E+02 1.9E-11 
0.4 7.0E-14 -3.0E+01 -6.1E+01 5.3E-01 -9.0E+01 1.8E-11 
0.5 7.0E-14 -2.3E+01 -5.9E+01 6.4E-01 -8.1E+01 1.7E-11 
0.6 7.0E-14 -1.9E+01 -5.8E+01 7.5E-01 -7.5E+01 1.7E-11 
0.7 7.0E-14 -1.6E+01 -5.6E+01 8.6E-01 -7.1E+01 1.6E-11 
0.8 7.0E-14 -1.3E+01 -5.5E+01 9.6E-01 -6.8E+01 1.6E-11 
0.9 7.0E-14 -1.2E+01 -5.4E+01 1.1E+00 -6.5E+01 1.6E-11 
1 7.0E-14 -1.0E+01 -5.4E+01 1.2E+00 -6.3E+01 1.6E-11 
2 7.0E-14 -4.7E+00 -4.8E+01 2.1E+00 -5.1E+01 1.5E-11 
3 7.0E-14 -3.0E+00 -4.6E+01 3.0E+00 -4.6E+01 1.4E-11 
5 7.0E-14 -1.7E+00 -4.3E+01 4.6E+00 -4.0E+01 1.4E-11 
10 7.0E-14 -7.5E-01 -3.9E+01 8.4E+00 -3.1E+01 1.3E-11 
300 7.0E-14 -1.5E-02 -2.4E+01 1.6E+02 1.3E+02 0.0E+00 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-43 April 2004 

Table IV-10a. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-LA Emplacement Area (Continued) 
TSPA-LA 
Emplacement 
Area L=5.4 W=2.2 V=20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
UPPER CURVE FOR V=20 km/s 
K=3.0 E-09 k=-0.85 
0.001 3.0E-09 -5.0E+03 1.9E+01 3.1E-04 -5.0E+03 1.2E-05 
0.003 3.0E-09 -2.0E+03 2.2E+01 1.1E-03 -2.0E+03 4.5E-06 
0.005 3.0E-09 -1.3E+03 2.4E+01 2.0E-03 -1.3E+03 2.7E-06 
0.006 3.0E-09 -1.1E+03 2.4E+01 2.5E-03 -1.1E+03 2.3E-06 
0.008 3.0E-09 -8.5E+02 2.5E+01 3.4E-03 -8.3E+02 1.6E-06 
0.01 3.0E-09 -7.1E+02 2.6E+01 4.4E-03 -6.8E+02 1.3E-06 
0.02 3.0E-09 -3.9E+02 2.9E+01 9.8E-03 -3.6E+02 4.5E-07 
0.04 3.0E-09 -2.2E+02 3.2E+01 2.2E-02 -1.8E+02 0.0E+00 
LOWER CURVE FOR V=20 km/s 
K=5.0 E-14 k=-0.85 
0.03 5.0E-14 -2.8E+02 3.1E+01 1.6E-02 -2.5E+02 4.1E-11 
0.04 5.0E-14 -2.2E+02 3.2E+01 2.2E-02 -1.8E+02 3.9E-11 
0.05 5.0E-14 -1.8E+02 3.3E+01 2.8E-02 -1.5E+02 3.7E-11 
0.06 5.0E-14 -1.5E+02 3.4E+01 3.5E-02 -1.2E+02 3.6E-11 
0.07 5.0E-14 -1.3E+02 3.5E+01 4.1E-02 -1.0E+02 3.5E-11 
0.08 5.0E-14 -1.2E+02 3.6E+01 4.8E-02 -8.4E+01 3.4E-11 
0.09 5.0E-14 -1.1E+02 3.6E+01 5.5E-02 -7.2E+01 3.4E-11 
0.1 5.0E-14 -9.9E+01 3.7E+01 6.2E-02 -6.2E+01 3.4E-11 
0.2 5.0E-14 -5.5E+01 4.1E+01 1.4E-01 -1.4E+01 3.1E-11 
0.3 5.0E-14 -3.9E+01 4.3E+01 2.2E-01 4.6E+00 3.1E-11 
0.4 5.0E-14 -3.0E+01 4.5E+01 3.0E-01 1.5E+01 3.0E-11 
0.5 5.0E-14 -2.5E+01 4.7E+01 3.9E-01 2.2E+01 3.0E-11 
0.6 5.0E-14 -2.2E+01 4.8E+01 4.9E-01 2.7E+01 3.0E-11 
0.7 5.0E-14 -1.9E+01 4.9E+01 5.8E-01 3.1E+01 3.0E-11 
0.8 5.0E-14 -1.7E+01 5.0E+01 6.7E-01 3.4E+01 2.9E-11 
0.9 5.0E-14 -1.5E+01 5.1E+01 7.7E-01 3.6E+01 2.9E-11 
1 5.0E-14 -1.4E+01 5.2E+01 8.7E-01 3.9E+01 2.9E-11 
2 5.0E-14 -7.7E+00 5.7E+01 1.9E+00 5.1E+01 2.9E-11 
3 5.0E-14 -5.5E+00 6.1E+01 3.1E+00 5.8E+01 2.8E-11 
5 5.0E-14 -3.5E+00 6.6E+01 5.5E+00 6.7E+01 2.8E-11 
10 5.0E-14 -2.0E+00 7.3E+01 1.2E+01 8.3E+01 2.7E-11 
300 5.0E-14 -1.1E-01 1.2E+02 6.0E+02 7.2E+02 0.0E+00 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-44 April 2004 

Table IV-10a. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-LA Emplacement Area (Continued) 
TSPA-LA 
Emplacement 
Area L=5.4 W=2.2 V=20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
GRIEVE DISTRIBUTION 
K=1.20 E-12 k=1.80 
0.001 1.20E-12 -1.7E+06 -2.4E+03 1.3E+00 -1.7E+06 3.6E-06 
0.01 1.20E-12 -2.6E+04 -3.8E+02 2.0E+00 -2.7E+04 5.8E-08 
0.03 1.20E-12 -3.6E+03 -1.6E+02 2.5E+00 -3.8E+03 8.2E-09 
0.04 1.20E-12 -2.2E+03 -1.2E+02 2.6E+00 -2.3E+03 5.0E-09 
0.08 1.20E-12 -6.2E+02 -7.2E+01 3.0E+00 -6.9E+02 1.5E-09 
0.1 1.20E-12 -4.2E+02 -6.0E+01 3.2E+00 -4.7E+02 1.1E-09 
0.3 1.20E-12 -5.8E+01 -2.5E+01 3.9E+00 -7.9E+01 2.0E-10 
0.7 1.20E-12 -1.3E+01 -1.3E+01 4.7E+00 -2.1E+01 7.8E-11 
1 1.20E-12 -6.6E+00 -9.5E+00 5.0E+00 -1.1E+01 5.8E-11 
10 1.20E-12 -1.0E-01 -1.5E+00 7.9E+00 6.3E+00 2.0E-11 
100 1.20E-12 -1.7E-03 -2.4E-01 1.3E+01 1.2E+01 7.0E-12 
300 1.20E-12 -2.3E-04 -9.9E-02 1.6E+01 1.6E+01 0.0E+00 
WUSCHKE ET AL. DISTRIBUTION 
Crater Diameter 
(km) 
Adjusted L 
(km) 
Adjusted W 
(km) 
Adjusted Area 
(km2) D-2 F 
0.001 5.40 2.20 11.9 1.0E+06 2.4E-05 
0.01 5.41 2.21 12.0 1.0E+04 2.4E-07 
0.03 5.43 2.23 12.1 1.1E+03 2.7E-08 
0.04 5.44 2.24 12.2 6.3E+02 1.5E-08 
0.08 5.48 2.28 12.5 1.6E+02 3.9E-09 
0.1 5.50 2.30 12.7 1.0E+02 2.5E-09 
0.3 5.70 2.50 14.3 1.1E+01 3.2E-10 
0.7 6.10 2.90 17.7 2.0E+00 7.2E-11 
1 6.40 3.20 20.5 1.0E+00 4.1E-11 
10 15.40 12.20 187.9 1.0E-02 3.8E-12 
100 105.40 102.20 10771.9 1.0E-04 2.2E-12 
300 305.40 302.20 92291.9 1.1E-05 2.1E-12 
For distribution curves: 
max
kk+2
F = k K LW(D)+ (L+W)(D)k+1 + (D) 
k k+1 k+2
0.001 
where: 
F = events per year L = length of repository (km)
K = proportionality constant (from regression equation) W = width of the repository (km)
k = power of the distribution (from regression equation) D = diameter of crater (km)
For Wuschke et al.: F = 2.0 x 10-12 x D-2 x ( Ladjusted x Wadjusted) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-45 April 2004 

Table IV-10b. Frequency (F) of Cratering in the Paintbrush Outcrop 
Outcrop Area L=1.1 W=0.1 V=15 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
UPPER CURVE FOR V=15 km/s 
K=7.0 E-10 k=1.23 
0.001 7.0E-10 -4.3E+02 -2.5E+01 6.1E-03 -4.5E+02 3.8E-07 
0.002 7.0E-10 -1.8E+02 -2.2E+01 1.0E-02 -2.0E+02 1.7E-07 
0.005 7.0E-10 -5.9E+01 -1.8E+01 2.1E-02 -7.7E+01 5.7E-08 
0.007 7.0E-10 -3.9E+01 -1.6E+01 2.8E-02 -5.6E+01 3.9E-08 
0.009 7.0E-10 -2.9E+01 -1.5E+01 3.4E-02 -4.4E+01 2.9E-08 
0.01 7.0E-10 -2.5E+01 -1.5E+01 3.6E-02 -4.0E+01 2.6E-08 
0.02 7.0E-10 -1.1E+01 -1.3E+01 6.2E-02 -2.4E+01 1.1E-08 
0.03 7.0E-10 -6.6E+00 -1.2E+01 8.5E-02 -1.8E+01 6.9E-09 
0.04 7.0E-10 -4.6E+00 -1.1E+01 1.1E-01 -1.6E+01 4.5E-09 
0.05 7.0E-10 -3.5E+00 -1.0E+01 1.3E-01 -1.4E+01 3.1E-09 
0.06 7.0E-10 -2.8E+00 -1.0E+01 1.5E-01 -1.3E+01 2.1E-09 
0.07 7.0E-10 -2.3E+00 -9.7E+00 1.6E-01 -1.2E+01 1.4E-09 
0.08 7.0E-10 -2.0E+00 -9.4E+00 1.8E-01 -1.1E+01 8.3E-10 
0.1 7.0E-10 -1.5E+00 -8.9E+00 2.2E-01 -1.0E+01 0.0E+00 
LOWER CURVE FOR V=15 km/s 
K=7.0 E-14 k=1.14 
0.09 7.0E-14 -1.5E+00 -1.2E+01 1.5E-01 -1.3E+01 1.3E-11 
0.1 7.0E-14 -1.3E+00 -1.2E+01 1.6E-01 -1.3E+01 1.3E-11 
0.2 7.0E-14 -6.1E-01 -1.1E+01 2.9E-01 -1.1E+01 1.3E-11 
0.3 7.0E-14 -3.8E-01 -1.0E+01 4.1E-01 -1.0E+01 1.3E-11 
0.4 7.0E-14 -2.7E-01 -9.6E+00 5.3E-01 -9.4E+00 1.3E-11 
0.5 7.0E-14 -2.1E-01 -9.3E+00 6.4E-01 -8.9E+00 1.3E-11 
0.6 7.0E-14 -1.7E-01 -9.1E+00 7.5E-01 -8.5E+00 1.3E-11 
0.7 7.0E-14 -1.4E-01 -8.9E+00 8.6E-01 -8.2E+00 1.3E-11 
0.8 7.0E-14 -1.2E-01 -8.7E+00 9.6E-01 -7.9E+00 1.3E-11 
0.9 7.0E-14 -1.1E-01 -8.6E+00 1.1E+00 -7.6E+00 1.3E-11 
1 7.0E-14 -9.6E-02 -8.4E+00 1.2E+00 -7.4E+00 1.3E-11 
2 7.0E-14 -4.4E-02 -7.7E+00 2.1E+00 -5.6E+00 1.3E-11 
3 7.0E-14 -2.7E-02 -7.2E+00 3.0E+00 -4.3E+00 1.2E-11 
5 7.0E-14 -1.5E-02 -6.7E+00 4.6E+00 -2.1E+00 1.2E-11 
10 7.0E-14 -6.9E-03 -6.1E+00 8.4E+00 2.3E+00 1.2E-11 
300 7.0E-14 -1.4E-04 -3.8E+00 1.6E+02 1.5E+02 0.0E+00 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-46 April 2004 

Table IV-10b. Frequency (F) of Cratering In the Paintbrush Outcrop (Continued) 
Outcrop Area L=1.1 W=0.1 V=20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of 
terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
UPPER CURVE FOR V=20 km/s 
K=3.0 E-09 k=-0.85 
0.001 3.0E-09 -4.7E+01 2.9E+00 3.1E-04 -4.4E+01 1.2E-07 
0.002 3.0E-09 -2.6E+01 3.3E+00 7.0E-04 -2.3E+01 6.6E-08 
0.005 3.0E-09 -1.2E+01 3.7E+00 2.0E-03 -8.1E+00 2.9E-08 
0.007 3.0E-09 -8.9E+00 3.9E+00 2.9E-03 -4.9E+00 2.1E-08 
0.009 3.0E-09 -7.2E+00 4.1E+00 3.9E-03 -3.1E+00 1.6E-08 
0.01 3.0E-09 -6.5E+00 4.1E+00 4.4E-03 -2.4E+00 1.4E-08 
0.02 3.0E-09 -3.6E+00 4.6E+00 9.8E-03 9.6E-01 5.4E-09 
0.04 3.0E-09 -2.0E+00 5.1E+00 2.2E-02 3.1E+00 0.0E+00 
LOWER CURVE FOR V=20 km/s 
K=5.0 E-14 k=-0.85 
0.03 5.0E-14 -2.6E+00 4.9E+00 1.6E-02 2.3E+00 2.7E-11 
0.04 5.0E-14 -2.0E+00 5.1E+00 2.2E-02 3.1E+00 2.6E-11 
0.05 5.0E-14 -1.7E+00 5.3E+00 2.8E-02 3.6E+00 2.6E-11 
0.06 5.0E-14 -1.4E+00 5.4E+00 3.5E-02 4.0E+00 2.6E-11 
0.07 5.0E-14 -1.2E+00 5.5E+00 4.1E-02 4.3E+00 2.6E-11 
0.08 5.0E-14 -1.1E+00 5.6E+00 4.8E-02 4.6E+00 2.6E-11 
0.09 5.0E-14 -1.0E+00 5.7E+00 5.5E-02 4.8E+00 2.6E-11 
0.1 5.0E-14 -9.2E-01 5.8E+00 6.2E-02 5.0E+00 2.6E-11 
0.2 5.0E-14 -5.1E-01 6.4E+00 1.4E-01 6.1E+00 2.6E-11 
0.3 5.0E-14 -3.6E-01 6.8E+00 2.2E-01 6.7E+00 2.6E-11 
0.4 5.0E-14 -2.8E-01 7.1E+00 3.0E-01 7.2E+00 2.6E-11 
0.5 5.0E-14 -2.3E-01 7.4E+00 3.9E-01 7.5E+00 2.6E-11 
0.6 5.0E-14 -2.0E-01 7.6E+00 4.9E-01 7.9E+00 2.6E-11 
0.7 5.0E-14 -1.7E-01 7.7E+00 5.8E-01 8.2E+00 2.6E-11 
0.8 5.0E-14 -1.6E-01 7.9E+00 6.7E-01 8.4E+00 2.6E-11 
0.9 5.0E-14 -1.4E-01 8.0E+00 7.7E-01 8.7E+00 2.6E-11 
1 5.0E-14 -1.3E-01 8.2E+00 8.7E-01 8.9E+00 2.6E-11 
2 5.0E-14 -7.1E-02 9.0E+00 1.9E+00 1.1E+01 2.6E-11 
3 5.0E-14 -5.1E-02 9.6E+00 3.1E+00 1.3E+01 2.6E-11 
5 5.0E-14 -3.3E-02 1.0E+01 5.5E+00 1.6E+01 2.6E-11 
10 5.0E-14 -1.8E-02 1.1E+01 1.2E+01 2.4E+01 2.6E-11 
300 5.0E-14 -9.9E-04 1.9E+01 6.0E+02 6.2E+02 0.0E+00 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-47 April 2004 

Table IV-10b. Frequency (F) of Cratering in the Paintbrush Outcrop (Continued) 
TSPA-SR 
Repository L=1.1 W=0.1 V=20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
K+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
GRIEVE DISTRIBUTION 
K=1.20E-12 k=-1.80 
0.001 1.20E-12 -1.5E+04 -3.8E+02 1.3E+00 -1.6E+04 3.4E-08 
0.01 1.20E-12 -2.4E+02 -6.0E+01 2.0E+00 -3.0E+02 6.8E-10 
0.03 1.20E-12 -3.4E+01 -2.5E+01 2.5E+00 -5.6E+01 1.5E-10 
0.05 1.20E-12 -1.3E+01 -1.6E+01 2.7E+00 -2.7E+01 9.2E-11 
0.077 1.20E-12 -6.2E+00 -1.2E+01 3.0E+00 -1.5E+01 6.6E-11 
0.1 1.20E-12 -3.9E+00 -9.5E+00 3.2E+00 -1.0E+01 5.6E-11 
0.33 1.20E-12 -4.5E-01 -3.6E+00 4.0E+00 -8.5E-02 3.4E-11 
0.67 1.20E-12 -1.3E-01 -2.1E+00 4.6E+00 2.4E+00 2.9E-11 
1 1.20E-12 -6.1E-02 -1.5E+00 5.0E+00 3.4E+00 2.6E-11 
10 1.20E-12 -9.7E-04 -2.4E-01 7.9E+00 7.7E+00 1.7E-11 
100 1.20E-12 -1.5E-05 -3.8E-02 1.3E+01 1.3E+01 6.7E-12 
300 1.20E-12 -2.1E-06 -1.6E-02 1.6E+01 1.6E+01 0.0E+00 
WUSCHKE ET AL. DISTRIBUTION 
Crater Diameter 
(km) 
Adjusted L 
(km) 
Adjusted W 
(km) 
Adjusted Area 
(km2) D-2 
Frequency 
(per year) 
0.001 1.10 0.10 0.1 1.0E+06 2.2E-07 
0.01 1.11 0.11 0.1 1.0E+04 2.4E-09 
0.03 1.13 0.13 0.1 1.1E+03 3.3E-10 
0.04 1.14 0.14 0.2 6.3E+02 2.0E-10 
0.08 1.18 0.18 0.2 1.6E+02 6.6E-11 
0.1 1.20 0.20 0.2 1.0E+02 4.8E-11 
0.3 1.40 0.40 0.6 1.1E+01 1.2E-11 
0.7 1.80 0.80 1.4 2.0E+00 5.9E-12 
1 2.10 1.10 2.3 1.0E+00 4.6E-12 
10 11.10 10.10 112.1 1.0E-02 2.2E-12 
100 101.10 100.10 10120.1 1.0E-04 2.0E-12 
300 301.10 300.10 90360.1 1.1E-05 2.0E-12 
For distribution curves: 
max
kk+2
F = k K LW(D)+ (L+W)(D)k+1 + (D) 
k k+1 k+2
0.001 
where: 
F = events per year L = length of repository (km)
K = proportionality constant (from regression equation) W = width of the repository (km)
k = power of the distribution (from regression equation) D = diameter of crater (km)
For Wuschke et al.: F = 2.0 x 10-12 x D-2 x ( Ladjusted x Wadjusted) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-48 April 2004 

Table IV-10c. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-LA Siting Area 
TSPA-LA 
Siting Area L=5.4 W=2.6 V=15 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
K 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
UPPER CURVE FOR V=15 km/s 
K=7.0 E-10 k=-1.23 
0.001 7.0E-10 -7.0E+04 -1.9E+02 6.1E-03 -7.0E+04 6.0E-05 
0.002 7.0E-10 -3.0E+04 -1.6E+02 1.0E-02 -3.0E+04 2.5E-05 
0.005 7.0E-10 -9.7E+03 -1.3E+02 2.1E-02 -9.8E+03 8.2E-06 
0.007 7.0E-10 -6.4E+03 -1.2E+02 2.8E-02 -6.5E+03 5.3E-06 
0.009 7.0E-10 -4.7E+03 -1.2E+02 3.4E-02 -4.8E+03 3.9E-06 
0.01 7.0E-10 -4.1E+03 -1.1E+02 3.6E-02 -4.3E+03 3.4E-06 
0.02 7.0E-10 -1.8E+03 -9.6E+01 6.2E-02 -1.9E+03 1.3E-06 
0.03 7.0E-10 -1.1E+03 -8.8E+01 8.5E-02 -1.2E+03 7.3E-07 
0.04 7.0E-10 -7.6E+02 -8.2E+01 1.1E-01 -8.4E+02 4.5E-07 
0.05 7.0E-10 -5.8E+02 -7.8E+01 1.3E-01 -6.6E+02 2.9E-07 
0.06 7.0E-10 -4.6E+02 -7.5E+01 1.5E-01 -5.4E+02 1.9E-07 
0.07 7.0E-10 -3.8E+02 -7.3E+01 1.6E-01 -4.5E+02 1.2E-07 
0.08 7.0E-10 -3.2E+02 -7.1E+01 1.8E-01 -3.9E+02 7.0E-08 
0.1 7.0E-10 -2.5E+02 -6.7E+01 2.2E-01 -3.1E+02 0.0E+00 
LOWER CURVE FOR V=15 km/s 
K=7.0 E-14 k=-1.14 
0.09 7.0E-14 -2.5E+02 -8.9E+01 1.5E-01 -3.4E+02 3.7E-11 
0.1 7.0E-14 -2.2E+02 -8.8E+01 1.6E-01 -3.1E+02 3.5E-11 
0.2 7.0E-14 -9.9E+01 -8.0E+01 2.9E-01 -1.8E+02 2.4E-11 
0.3 7.0E-14 -6.2E+01 -7.5E+01 4.1E-01 -1.4E+02 2.1E-11 
0.4 7.0E-14 -4.5E+01 -7.2E+01 5.3E-01 -1.2E+02 1.9E-11 
0.5 7.0E-14 -3.5E+01 -7.0E+01 6.4E-01 -1.0E+02 1.8E-11 
0.6 7.0E-14 -2.8E+01 -6.8E+01 7.5E-01 -9.6E+01 1.8E-11 
0.7 7.0E-14 -2.4E+01 -6.7E+01 8.6E-01 -8.9E+01 1.7E-11 
0.8 7.0E-14 -2.0E+01 -6.5E+01 9.6E-01 -8.5E+01 1.7E-11 
0.9 7.0E-14 -1.8E+01 -6.4E+01 1.1E+00 -8.1E+01 1.7E-11 
1 7.0E-14 -1.6E+01 -6.3E+01 1.2E+00 -7.8E+01 1.6E-11 
2 7.0E-14 -7.1E+00 -5.7E+01 2.1E+00 -6.2E+01 1.5E-11 
3 7.0E-14 -4.5E+00 -5.4E+01 3.0E+00 -5.6E+01 1.5E-11 
5 7.0E-14 -2.5E+00 -5.0E+01 4.6E+00 -4.8E+01 1.4E-11 
10 7.0E-14 -1.1E+00 -4.6E+01 8.4E+00 -3.8E+01 1.3E-11 
300 7.0E-14 -2.3E-02 -2.8E+01 1.6E+02 1.3E+02 0.0E+00 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-49 April 2004 

Table IV-10c. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-LA Siting Area (Continued) 
TSPA-LA 
Siting Area L=5.5 W=2.6 V=20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
UPPER CURVE FOR V=20 km/s 
K= 3.0 E-09 k= -0.85 
0.001 3.0E-09 -7.6E+03 2.2E+01 3.1E-04 -7.6E+03 1.9E-05 
0.003 3.0E-09 -3.0E+03 2.6E+01 1.1E-03 -3.0E+03 6.8E-06 
0.005 3.0E-09 -1.9E+03 2.8E+01 2.0E-03 -1.9E+03 4.1E-06 
0.006 3.0E-09 -1.7E+03 2.9E+01 2.5E-03 -1.6E+03 3.4E-06 
0.008 3.0E-09 -1.3E+03 3.0E+01 3.4E-03 -1.3E+03 2.5E-06 
0.01 3.0E-09 -1.1E+03 3.1E+01 4.4E-03 -1.0E+03 1.9E-06 
0.02 3.0E-09 -5.9E+02 3.4E+01 9.8E-03 -5.6E+02 6.9E-07 
0.04 3.0E-09 -3.3E+02 3.8E+01 2.2E-02 -2.9E+02 0.0E+00 
LOWER CURVE FOR V=20 km/s 
K=5.0 E-14 k=-0.85 
0.03 5.0E-14 -4.2E+02 3.7E+01 1.6E-02 -3.8E+02 4.8E-11 
0.04 5.0E-14 -3.3E+02 3.8E+01 2.2E-02 -2.9E+02 4.4E-11 
0.05 5.0E-14 -2.7E+02 3.9E+01 2.8E-02 -2.3E+02 4.2E-11 
0.06 5.0E-14 -2.3E+02 4.0E+01 3.5E-02 -1.9E+02 4.0E-11 
0.07 5.0E-14 -2.0E+02 4.1E+01 4.1E-02 -1.6E+02 3.9E-11 
0.08 5.0E-14 -1.8E+02 4.2E+01 4.8E-02 -1.4E+02 3.8E-11 
0.09 5.0E-14 -1.6E+02 4.3E+01 5.5E-02 -1.2E+02 3.7E-11 
0.1 5.0E-14 -1.5E+02 4.4E+01 6.2E-02 -1.1E+02 3.6E-11 
0.2 5.0E-14 -8.3E+01 4.8E+01 1.4E-01 -3.5E+01 3.3E-11 
0.3 5.0E-14 -5.9E+01 5.1E+01 2.2E-01 -7.4E+00 3.2E-11 
0.4 5.0E-14 -4.6E+01 5.4E+01 3.0E-01 7.7E+00 3.2E-11 
0.5 5.0E-14 -3.8E+01 5.5E+01 3.9E-01 1.8E+01 3.1E-11 
0.6 5.0E-14 -3.3E+01 5.7E+01 4.9E-01 2.5E+01 3.1E-11 
0.7 5.0E-14 -2.9E+01 5.8E+01 5.8E-01 3.0E+01 3.1E-11 
0.8 5.0E-14 -2.6E+01 5.9E+01 6.7E-01 3.4E+01 3.0E-11 
0.9 5.0E-14 -2.3E+01 6.0E+01 7.7E-01 3.8E+01 3.0E-11 
1 5.0E-14 -2.1E+01 6.1E+01 8.7E-01 4.1E+01 3.0E-11 
2 5.0E-14 -1.2E+01 6.8E+01 1.9E+00 5.8E+01 2.9E-11 
3 5.0E-14 -8.3E+00 7.2E+01 3.1E+00 6.7E+01 2.9E-11 
5 5.0E-14 -5.3E+00 7.8E+01 5.5E+00 7.8E+01 2.9E-11 
10 5.0E-14 -3.0E+00 8.6E+01 1.2E+01 9.5E+01 2.8E-11 
300 5.0E-14 -1.6E-01 1.4E+02 6.0E+02 7.5E+02 0.0E+00 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-50 April 2004 

Table III-10c. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-LA Siting Area (Continued) 
TSPA-LA 
Siting Area L=5.5 W=2.6 V=20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
GRIEVE DISTRIBUTION 
K=1.20 E-12 k=-1.80 
0.001 1.20E-12 -2.0E+06 -2.5E+03 1.3E+00 -2.0E+06 4.2E-06 
0.01 1.20E-12 -3.1E+04 -4.0E+02 2.0E+00 -3.1E+04 6.8E-08 
0.03 1.20E-12 -4.3E+03 -1.7E+02 2.5E+00 -4.5E+03 9.7E-09 
0.04 1.20E-12 -2.6E+03 -1.3E+02 2.6E+00 -2.7E+03 5.8E-09 
0.08 1.20E-12 -7.4E+02 -7.5E+01 3.0E+00 -8.1E+02 1.8E-09 
0.1 1.20E-12 -4.9E+02 -6.3E+01 3.2E+00 -5.5E+02 1.2E-09 
0.3 1.20E-12 -6.8E+01 -2.6E+01 3.9E+00 -9.0E+01 2.3E-10 
0.7 1.20E-12 -1.5E+01 -1.3E+01 4.7E+00 -2.3E+01 8.4E-11 
1 1.20E-12 -7.8E+00 -1.0E+01 5.0E+00 -1.3E+01 6.1E-11 
10 1.20E-12 -1.2E-01 -1.6E+00 7.9E+00 6.2E+00 2.0E-11 
100 1.20E-12 -2.0E-03 -2.5E-01 1.3E+01 1.2E+01 7.0E-12 
300 1.20E-12 -2.7E-04 -1.0E-01 1.6E+01 1.6E+01 0.0E+00 
WUSCHKE ET AL. DISTRIBUTION 
Crater Diameter 
(km) 
Adjusted L 
(km) 
Adjusted W 
(km) 
Adjusted Area 
(km2) D-2 F 
0.001 5.40 2.60 14.0 1.0E+06 2.8E-05 
0.01 5.41 2.61 14.1 1.0E+04 2.8E-07 
0.03 5.43 2.63 14.3 1.1E+03 3.2E-08 
0.04 5.44 2.64 14.4 6.3E+02 1.8E-08 
0.08 5.48 2.68 14.7 1.6E+02 4.6E-09 
0.1 5.50 2.70 14.9 1.0E+02 3.0E-09 
0.3 5.70 2.90 16.5 1.1E+01 3.7E-10 
0.7 6.10 3.30 20.1 2.0E+00 8.2E-11 
1 6.40 3.60 23.0 1.0E+00 4.6E-11 
10 15.40 12.60 194.0 1.0E-02 3.9E-12 
100 105.40 102.60 10814.0 1.0E-04 2.2E-12 
300 305.40 302.60 92414.0 1.1E-05 2.1E-12 
For distribution curves: 
max
kk+2
F = k K LW(D)+ (L+W)(D)k+1 + (D) 
k k+1 k+2
0.001 
where: 
F = events per year L = length of repository (km)
K = proportionality constant (from regression equation) W = width of the repository (km)
k = power of the distribution (from regression equation) D = diameter of crater (km)
For Wuschke et al.: F = 2.0 x 10-12 x D-2 x ( Ladjusted x Wadjusted) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-51 April 2004 

Table IV-10d. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-SR Design 
TSPA-SR 
Repository L=8.6 W=1.3 V=15 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km)) 
K LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
UPPER CURVE FOR V=15 km/s 
K=7.0 E-10 k=-1.23 
0.001 7.0E-10 -4.3E+04 -2.1E+02 6.1E-03 -4.4E+04 3.7E-05 
0.002 7.0E-10 -1.9E+04 -1.8E+02 1.0E-02 -1.9E+04 1.6E-05 
0.005 7.0E-10 -6.0E+03 -1.4E+02 2.1E-02 -6.2E+03 5.1E-06 
0.007 7.0E-10 -4.0E+03 -1.3E+02 2.8E-02 -4.1E+03 3.3E-06 
0.009 7.0E-10 -2.9E+03 -1.3E+02 3.4E-02 -3.1E+03 2.4E-06 
0.01 7.0E-10 -2.6E+03 -1.2E+02 3.6E-02 -2.7E+03 2.1E-06 
0.02 7.0E-10 -1.1E+03 -1.1E+02 6.2E-02 -1.2E+03 8.4E-07 
0.03 7.0E-10 -6.7E+02 -9.7E+01 8.5E-02 -7.7E+02 4.6E-07 
0.04 7.0E-10 -4.7E+02 -9.1E+01 1.1E-01 -5.6E+02 2.9E-07 
0.05 7.0E-10 -3.6E+02 -8.6E+01 1.3E-01 -4.4E+02 1.9E-07 
0.06 7.0E-10 -2.9E+02 -8.3E+01 1.5E-01 -3.7E+02 1.2E-07 
0.07 7.0E-10 -2.4E+02 -8.0E+01 1.6E-01 -3.2E+02 7.7E-08 
0.08 7.0E-10 -2.0E+02 -7.8E+01 1.8E-01 -2.8E+02 4.5E-08 
0.1 7.0E-10 -1.5E+02 -7.4E+01 2.2E-01 -2.3E+02 0.0E+00 
LOWER CURVE FOR V=15 km/s 
K=7.0 E-14 k=-1.14 
0.09 7.0E-14 -1.5E+02 -9.8E+01 1.5E-01 -2.5E+02 3.0E-11 
0.1 7.0E-14 -1.4E+02 -9.7E+01 1.6E-01 -2.3E+02 2.9E-11 
0.2 7.0E-14 -6.2E+01 -8.8E+01 2.9E-01 -1.5E+02 2.2E-11 
0.3 7.0E-14 -3.9E+01 -8.3E+01 4.1E-01 -1.2E+02 2.0E-11 
0.4 7.0E-14 -2.8E+01 -7.9E+01 5.3E-01 -1.1E+02 1.8E-11 
0.5 7.0E-14 -2.2E+01 -7.7E+01 6.4E-01 -9.8E+01 1.8E-11 
0.6 7.0E-14 -1.8E+01 -7.5E+01 7.5E-01 -9.2E+01 1.7E-11 
0.7 7.0E-14 -1.5E+01 -7.3E+01 8.6E-01 -8.7E+01 1.7E-11 
0.8 7.0E-14 -1.3E+01 -7.2E+01 9.6E-01 -8.4E+01 1.7E-11 
0.9 7.0E-14 -1.1E+01 -7.1E+01 1.1E+00 -8.1E+01 1.6E-11 
1 7.0E-14 -9.8E+00 -7.0E+01 1.2E+00 -7.8E+01 1.6E-11 
2 7.0E-14 -4.4E+00 -6.3E+01 2.1E+00 -6.5E+01 1.5E-11 
3 7.0E-14 -2.8E+00 -6.0E+01 3.0E+00 -5.9E+01 1.5E-11 
5 7.0E-14 -1.6E+00 -5.5E+01 4.6E+00 -5.2E+01 1.4E-11 
10 7.0E-14 -7.1E-01 -5.0E+01 8.4E+00 -4.3E+01 1.3E-11 
300 7.0E-14 -1.5E-02 -3.1E+01 1.6E+02 1.2E+02 0.0E+00 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-52 April 2004 

Table IV-10d. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-SR Design (Continued) 
TSPA-SR 
Repository L=8.6 W=1.3 V=20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
UPPER CURVE FOR V=20 km/s 
K=3.0 E-09 k=-0.85 
0.001 3.0E-09 -4.7E+03 2.4E+01 3.1E-04 -4.7E+03 1.2E-05 
0.003 3.0E-09 -1.9E+03 2.9E+01 1.1E-03 -1.8E+03 4.3E-06 
0.005 3.0E-09 -1.2E+03 3.1E+01 2.0E-03 -1.2E+03 2.6E-06 
0.006 3.0E-09 -1.0E+03 3.2E+01 2.5E-03 -1.0E+03 2.1E-06 
0.008 3.0E-09 -8.0E+02 3.3E+01 3.4E-03 -7.7E+02 1.6E-06 
0.01 3.0E-09 -6.7E+02 3.4E+01 4.4E-03 -6.3E+02 1.2E-06 
0.02 3.0E-09 -3.7E+02 3.8E+01 9.8E-03 -3.3E+02 4.3E-07 
0.04 3.0E-09 -2.0E+02 4.2E+01 2.2E-02 -1.6E+02 0.0E+00 
LOWER CURVE FOR V=20 km/s 
K=5.0 E-14 k=-0.85 
0.03 5.0E-14 -2.6E+02 4.0E+01 1.6E-02 -2.2E+02 4.2E-11 
0.04 5.0E-14 -2.0E+02 4.2E+01 2.2E-02 -1.6E+02 3.9E-11 
0.05 5.0E-14 -1.7E+02 4.3E+01 2.8E-02 -1.3E+02 3.8E-11 
0.06 5.0E-14 -1.4E+02 4.5E+01 3.5E-02 -1.0E+02 3.7E-11 
0.07 5.0E-14 -1.3E+02 4.6E+01 4.1E-02 -8.1E+01 3.6E-11 
0.08 5.0E-14 -1.1E+02 4.6E+01 4.8E-02 -6.7E+01 3.5E-11 
0.09 5.0E-14 -1.0E+02 4.7E+01 5.5E-02 -5.5E+01 3.5E-11 
0.1 5.0E-14 -9.3E+01 4.8E+01 6.2E-02 -4.5E+01 3.4E-11 
0.2 5.0E-14 -5.2E+01 5.3E+01 1.4E-01 1.6E+00 3.2E-11 
0.3 5.0E-14 -3.7E+01 5.6E+01 2.2E-01 2.0E+01 3.2E-11 
0.4 5.0E-14 -2.9E+01 5.9E+01 3.0E-01 3.1E+01 3.1E-11 
0.5 5.0E-14 -2.4E+01 6.1E+01 3.9E-01 3.8E+01 3.1E-11 
0.6 5.0E-14 -2.0E+01 6.2E+01 4.9E-01 4.3E+01 3.1E-11 
0.7 5.0E-14 -1.8E+01 6.4E+01 5.8E-01 4.7E+01 3.0E-11 
0.8 5.0E-14 -1.6E+01 6.5E+01 6.7E-01 5.0E+01 3.0E-11 
0.9 5.0E-14 -1.4E+01 6.6E+01 7.7E-01 5.3E+01 3.0E-11 
1 5.0E-14 -1.3E+01 6.7E+01 8.7E-01 5.5E+01 3.0E-11 
2 5.0E-14 -7.3E+00 7.5E+01 1.9E+00 6.9E+01 2.9E-11 
3 5.0E-14 -5.1E+00 7.9E+01 3.1E+00 7.7E+01 2.9E-11 
5 5.0E-14 -3.3E+00 8.5E+01 5.5E+00 8.8E+01 2.9E-11 
10 5.0E-14 -1.8E+00 9.4E+01 1.2E+01 1.0E+02 2.8E-11 
300 5.0E-14 -1.0E-01 1.6E+02 6.0E+02 7.6E+02 0.0E+00 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-53 April 2004 

Table IV-10d. Frequency (F) of Cratering Above Repository for TSPA-SR Design (Continued) 
TSPA-SR 
Repository L=8.6 W=1.3 V=20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) K 
LWDk 
k 
(L+W)(Dk+1) 
k+1 
D k+2 
k+2 
F(D) 
(sum of terms) kK(F(D)-F(D)max) 
GRIEVE DISTRIBUTION 
K=1.20 E-12 k=-1.8 
0.001 1.20E-12 -1.6E+06 -3.1E+03 1.3E+00 -1.6E+06 3.4E-06 
0.01 1.20E-12 -2.5E+04 -4.9E+02 2.0E+00 -2.5E+04 5.5E-08 
0.03 1.20E-12 -3.4E+03 -2.0E+02 2.5E+00 -3.6E+03 7.9E-09 
0.04 1.20E-12 -2.0E+03 -1.6E+02 2.6E+00 -2.2E+03 4.8E-09 
0.08 1.20E-12 -5.9E+02 -9.3E+01 3.0E+00 -6.8E+02 1.5E-09 
0.1 1.20E-12 -3.9E+02 -7.8E+01 3.2E+00 -4.7E+02 1.0E-09 
0.3 1.20E-12 -5.4E+01 -3.2E+01 3.9E+00 -8.3E+01 2.1E-10 
0.7 1.20E-12 -1.2E+01 -1.6E+01 4.7E+00 -2.4E+01 8.5E-11 
1 1.20E-12 -6.2E+00 -1.2E+01 5.0E+00 -1.4E+01 6.3E-11 
10 1.20E-12 -9.8E-02 -2.0E+00 7.9E+00 5.9E+00 2.1E-11 
100 1.20E-12 -1.6E-03 -3.1E-01 1.3E+01 1.2E+01 7.1E-12 
300 1.20E-12 -2.2E-04 -1.3E-01 1.6E+01 1.6E+01 0.0E+00 
WUSCHKE ET AL. DISTRIBUTION 
Crater Diameter 
D (km) 
Adjusted L 
(km) 
Adjusted W 
(km) 
Adjusted Area 
(km2) D-2 F 
0.001 8.60 1.30 11.2 1.0E+06 2.2E-05 
0.01 8.61 1.31 11.3 1.0E+04 2.3E-07 
0.03 8.63 1.33 11.5 1.1E+03 2.6E-08 
0.04 8.64 1.34 11.6 6.3E+02 1.4E-08 
0.08 8.68 1.38 12.0 1.6E+02 3.7E-09 
0.1 8.70 1.40 12.2 1.0E+02 2.4E-09 
0.3 8.90 1.60 14.2 1.1E+01 3.2E-10 
0.7 9.30 2.00 18.6 2.0E+00 7.6E-11 
1 9.6 2.3 22.1 1.0E+00 4.4E-11 
10 18.6 11.3 210.2 1.0E-02 4.2E-12 
100 109 101 11001 1.0E-04 2.2E-12 
300 309 301 92981 1.1E-05 2.1E-12 
For distribution curves: 
max
kk+2
F = k K LW(D)+ (L+W)(D)k+1 + (D) 
k k+1 k+2
0.001 
where: 
F = events per year L = length of repository (km)
K = proportionality constant (from regression equation) W = width of the repository (km)
k = power of the distribution (from regression equation) D = diameter of crater (km)
For Wuschke et al.: F = 2.0 x 10-12 x D-2 x ( Ladjusted x Wadjusted) 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-54 April 2004 

Table IV-11. Spreadsheet Example: Calculation of Distribution Curves for V = 15 km/s 
8.6 
1.3 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 
Repository L= W= 
From Regression Analysis Equation: K= '=Regression Analyses'!E20 k=='Regression Analyses'!E19 
K Coefficients for Power Distribution - Upper Curve 
D(15) =E3 =G3 =C6+1 =C6+2 Sum of Terms F 
0.001 =$B$6 
0.002 =$B$6 
0.005 =$B$6 
0.007 =$B$6 
0.009 =$B$6 
0.01 =$B$6 
IV-55 
0.02 =$B$6 
0.03 =$B$6 
0.04 =$B$6 
0.05 =$B$6 
0.06 =$B$6 
0.07 =$B$6 
0.08 =$B$6 
0.1 =$B$6 
April 2004 
=($C$1*$E$1*A8^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A8^$D$6)/$D$6 =A8^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C8:E8) =$C$6*B8*(F8-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A9^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A9^$D$6)/$D$6 =A9^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C9:E9) =$C$6*B9*(F9-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A10^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A10^$D$6)/$D$6 =A10^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C10:E10) =$C$6*B10*(F10-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A11^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A11^$D$6)/$D$6 =A11^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C11:E11) =$C$6*B11*(F11-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A12^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A12^$D$6)/$D$6 =A12^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C12:E12) =$C$6*B12*(F12-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A13^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A13^$D$6)/$D$6 =A13^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C13:E13) =$C$6*B13*(F13-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A14^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A14^$D$6)/$D$6 =A14^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C14:E14) =$C$6*B14*(F14-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A15^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A15^$D$6)/$D$6 =A15^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C15:E15) =$C$6*B15*(F15-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A16^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A16^$D$6)/$D$6 =A16^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C16:E16) =$C$6*B16*(F16-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A17^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A17^$D$6)/$D$6 =A17^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C17:E17) =$C$6*B17*(F17-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A18^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A18^$D$6)/$D$6 =A18^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C18:E18) =$C$6*B18*(F18-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A19^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A19^$D$6)/$D$6 =A19^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C19:E19) =$C$6*B19*(F19-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A20^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A20^$D$6)/$D$6 =A20^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C20:E20) =$C$6*B20*(F20-$F$23) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A23^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A23^$D$6)/$D$6 =A23^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C23:E23) =$C$6*B23*(F23-$F$23) 

Table IV-11. Spreadsheet Example: Calculation of Distribution Curves for V = 15 km/s (Continued) 
1 
2 
3 
5 
10 
300 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-56 April 2004 
0.09 =$B$28 
0.1 =$B$28 
0.2 =$B$28 
0.3 =$B$28 
0.4 =$B$28 
0.5 =$B$28 
0.6 =$B$28 
0.7 =$B$28 
0.8 =$B$28 
0.9 =$B$28 
=$B$28 
=$B$28 
=$B$28 
=$B$28 
=$B$28 
=$B$28 
From Regression Analysis Equation: K= k=='Regression Analyses'!E44 
='Regression Analyses'!E45 
K Coefficients for Power Distribution - Lower Curve 
D(15) =E26 =G26 =C28+1 =C28+2 Sum of Terms F 
=($C$1*$E$1*A30^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A30^$D$28)/$D$28 =A30^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C30:E30) =$C$28*B30*(F30-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A31^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A31^$D$28)/$D$28 =A31^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C31:E31) =$C$28*B31*(F31-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A32^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A32^$D$28)/$D$28 =A32^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C32:E32) =$C$28*B32*(F32-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A33^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A33^$D$28)/$D$28 =A33^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C33:E33) =$C$28*B33*(F33-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A34^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A34^$D$28)/$D$28 =A34^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C34:E34) =$C$28*B34*(F34-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A35^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A35^$D$28)/$D$28 =A35^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C35:E35) =$C$28*B35*(F35-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A36^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A36^$D$28)/$D$28 =A36^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C36:E36) =$C$28*B36*(F36-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A37^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A37^$D$28)/$D$28 =A37^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C37:E37) =$C$28*B37*(F37-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A38^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A38^$D$28)/$D$28 =A38^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C38:E38) =$C$28*B38*(F38-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A39^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A39^$D$28)/$D$28 =A39^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C39:E39) =$C$28*B39*(F39-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A40^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A40^$D$28)/$D$28 =A40^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C40:E40) =$C$28*B40*(F40-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A41^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A41^$D$28)/$D$28 =A41^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C41:E41) =$C$28*B41*(F41-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A42^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A42^$D$28)/$D$28 =A42^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C42:E42) =$C$28*B42*(F42-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A43^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A43^$D$28)/$D$28 =A43^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C43:E43) =$C$28*B43*(F43-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A44^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A44^$D$28)/$D$28 =A44^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C44:E44) =$C$28*B44*(F44-$F$45) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A45^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A45^$D$28)/$D$28 =A45^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C45:E45) =$C$28*B45*(F45-$F$45) 

0.001 
0.003 
0.005 
0.006 
0.008 
0.01 
0.02 
0.04 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-57 April 2004 
Table IV-12. Spreadsheet Example: Calculation of Distribution Curves for V = 20 km/s 
8.6 
W= 
From Regression Analysis Equation: K= 
Repository L= 
1.3 
='Regression Analyses'!P20 
k=='Regression Analyses'!P19 
D(20) K Coefficients for Power Distribution - Upper Curve
=E3 =G3 =C6+1 =C6+2 Sum of Terms 
=$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A8^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A8^$D$6)/$D$6 =A8^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C8:E8) =$C$6*B8*(F8-$F$15) 
=$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A9^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A9^$D$6)/$D$6 =A9^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C9:E9) =$C$6*B9*(F9-$F$15) 
=$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A10^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A10^$D$6)/$D$6 =A10^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C10:E10) =$C$6*B10*(F10-$F$15) 
=$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A11^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A11^$D$6)/$D$6 =A11^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C11:E11) =$C$6*B11*(F11-$F$15) 
=$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A12^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A12^$D$6)/$D$6 =A12^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C12:E12) =$C$6*B12*(F12-$F$15) 
=$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A13^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A13^$D$6)/$D$6 =A13^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C13:E13) =$C$6*B13*(F13-$F$15) 
=$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A14^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A14^$D$6)/$D$6 =A14^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C14:E14) =$C$6*B14*(F14-$F$15) 
=$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A15^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A15^$D$6)/$D$6 =A15^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C15:E15) =$C$6*B15*(F15-$F$15) 

Table IV-12. Spreadsheet Example: Calculation of Distribution Curves for V = 20 km/s (Continued) 
1 
2 
3 
5 
10 
300 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-58 April 2004 
0.03 =$B$21 =
0.04 =$B$21 =
0.05 =$B$21 =
0.06 =$B$21 =
0.07 =$B$21 =
0.08 =$B$21 =
0.09 =$B$21 =
0.1 =$B$21 =
0.2 =$B$21 =
0.3 =$B$21 =
0.4 =$B$21 =
0.5 =$B$21 =
0.6 =$B$21 =
0.7 =$B$21 =
0.8 =$B$21 =
0.9 =$B$21 =
=$B$21 =
=$B$21 =
=$B$21 =
=$B$21 =
=$B$21 =
=$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A44^$C$21)/$C$21 
='Regression Analyses'!P45 
k=='Regression Analyses'!P44 
From Regression Analysis Equation: K= 
D(20) K Coefficients for Power Distribution - Lower Curve 
=E18 =G18 =C21+1 =C21+2 Sum of Terms F 
($C$1*$E$1*A23^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A23^$D$21)/$D$21 =A23^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C23:E23) =$C$21*B23*(F23-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A24^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A24^$D$21)/$D$21 =A24^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C24:E24) =$C$21*B24*(F24-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A25^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A25^$D$21)/$D$21 =A25^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C25:E25) =$C$21*B25*(F25-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A26^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A26^$D$21)/$D$21 =A26^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C26:E26) =$C$21*B26*(F26-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A27^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A27^$D$21)/$D$21 =A27^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C27:E27) =$C$21*B27*(F27-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A28^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A28^$D$21)/$D$21 =A28^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C28:E28) =$C$21*B28*(F28-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A29^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A29^$D$21)/$D$21 =A29^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C29:E29) =$C$21*B29*(F29-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A30^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A30^$D$21)/$D$21 =A30^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C30:E30) =$C$21*B30*(F30-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A31^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A31^$D$21)/$D$21 =A31^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C31:E31) =$C$21*B31*(F31-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A32^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A32^$D$21)/$D$21 =A32^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C32:E32) =$C$21*B32*(F32-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A33^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A33^$D$21)/$D$21 =A33^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C33:E33) =$C$21*B33*(F33-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A34^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A34^$D$21)/$D$21 =A34^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C34:E34) =$C$21*B34*(F34-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A35^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A35^$D$21)/$D$21 =A35^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C35:E35) =$C$21*B35*(F35-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A36^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A36^$D$21)/$D$21 =A36^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C36:E36) =$C$21*B36*(F36-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A37^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A37^$D$21)/$D$21 =A37^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C37:E37) =$C$21*B37*(F37-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A38^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A38^$D$21)/$D$21 =A38^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C38:E38) =$C$21*B38*(F38-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A39^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A39^$D$21)/$D$21 =A39^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C39:E39) =$C$21*B39*(F39-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A40^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A40^$D$21)/$D$21 =A40^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C40:E40) =$C$21*B40*(F40-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A41^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A41^$D$21)/$D$21 =A41^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C41:E41) =$C$21*B41*(F41-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A42^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A42^$D$21)/$D$21 =A42^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C42:E42) =$C$21*B42*(F42-$F$44) 
($C$1*$E$1*A43^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A43^$D$21)/$D$21 =A43^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C43:E43) =$C$21*B43*(F43-$F$44) 
=($C$1+$E$1)*(A44^$D$21)/$D$21 =A44^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C44:E44) =$C$21*B44*(F44-$F$44) 

Table IV-13. Spreadsheet Example: Formulas for Calculating Grieve Distribution 
Repository L=
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 
8.6 
W= 
Grieve 
K k Coefficient for Power Distribution 
1.3 
1.2 E--12 -1.8 =C4+1 
=C4+2 
0.001 =$B$4 
0.01 =$B$4 
IV-59 
0.03 =$B$4 
0.04 =$B$4 
0.08 =$B$4 
0.1 =$B$4 
0.3 =$B$4 
0.7 =$B$4 
1 =$B$4 
April 2004 
10 =$B$4 
100 =$B$4 
300 =$B$4 
=($C$1*$E$1*A6^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A6^$D$4)/$D$4 =A6^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C6:E6) =$C$4*B6*(F6-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A7^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A7^$D$4)/$D$4 =A7^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C7:E7) =$C$4*B7*(F7-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A8^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A8^$D$4)/$D$4 =A8^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C8:E8) =$C$4*B8*(F8-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A9^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A9^$D$4)/$D$4 =A9^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C9:E9) =$C$4*B9*(F9-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A10^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A10^$D$4)/$D$4 =A10^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C10:E10) =$C$4*B10*(F10-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A11^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A11^$D$4)/$D$4 =A11^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C11:E11) =$C$4*B11*(F11-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A12^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A12^$D$4)/$D$4 =A12^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C12:E12) =$C$4*B12*(F12-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A13^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A13^$D$4)/$D$4 =A13^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C13:E13) =$C$4*B13*(F13-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A14^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A14^$D$4)/$D$4 =A14^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C14:E14) =$C$4*B14*(F14-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A15^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A15^$D$4)/$D$4 =A15^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C15:E15) =$C$4*B15*(F15-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A16^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A16^$D$4)/$D$4 =A16^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C16:E16) =$C$4*B16*(F16-$F$17) 
=($C$1*$E$1*A17^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A17^$D$4)/$D$4 =A17^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C17:E17) =$C$4*B17*(F17-$F$17) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-60 April 2004 
Table IV-14. Spreadsheet Example: Formulas for Calculating Wuschke et al. Distribution 
Frequency Calculation and Area Adjustment for Distribution per 
Wuschke et al. 1995 
Repository L= 
8.3 
W= 
1.3 
Crater Diameter (km) Adjusted L (km) Adjusted W (km) Adjusted Area (km2) D-2 Frequency per year 
0.001 
=$C$3+A6 =$E$3+A6 =B6*C6 =A6^-2 =D6*E6*0.000000000002 
=$C$3+A7 =$E$3+A7 =B7*C7 =A7^-2 =D7*E7*0.000000000002 
0.01 
=$C$3+A8 =$E$3+A8 =B8*C8 =A8^-2 =D8*E8*0.000000000002 
0.03 
=$C$3+A9 =$E$3+A9 =B9*C9 =A9^-2 =D9*E9*0.000000000002 
0.04 
=$C$3+A10 =$E$3+A10 =B10*C10 =A10^-2 =D10*E10*0.000000000002 
0.08 
=$C$3+A11 =$E$3+A11 =B11*C11 =A11^-2 =D11*E11*0.000000000002 
0.1 
=$C$3+A12 =$E$3+A12 =B12*C12 =A12^-2 =D12*E12*0.000000000002 
0.3 
=$C$3+A13 =$E$3+A13 =B13*C13 =A13^-2 =D13*E13*0.000000000002 
=$C$3+A14 =$E$3+A14 =B14*C14 =A14^-2 =D14*E14*0.000000000002 
10 
0.7 
=$C$3+A15 =$E$3+A15 =B15*C15 =A15^-2 =D15*E15*0.000000000002 
100 
=$C$3+A16 =$E$3+A16 =B16*C16 =A16^-2 =D16*E16*0.000000000002 
300 
=$C$3+A17 =$E$3+A17 =B17*C17 =A17^-2 =D17*E17*0.000000000002 

2.4 UNCERTAINTY CONSIDERATIONS 
Uncertainties for the meteorite impact analysis include both epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. 
Aleatory uncertainties in the physical properties of observed objects (e.g., density, velocities, 
diameters, angle of entry) are inherent in assuming such values for calculating meteor radius. 
Epistemic uncertainties are reflected in the distributions used for the mass flux and for the 
percentage of types of meteors that occur within the entire population of possible earth 
interceptors. This is due to observations of only a limited number of objects over a very short 
period compared to that involved in determining crater rate distributions. 
The evaluation approach used to define the probability distribution can include consideration of 
probability of impact of known objects, probabilities based on empirical cratering observations 
from the lunar and earths surface, or determination of probabilities based on meteor flux to the 
earths atmosphere. The first option, impact of known objects, is only of limited use because 
space surveys are currently incomplete, and there are large uncertainties that influence the 
probability calculations. However, it does serve as a corroborative checkpoint for comparison 
for any other derived values. For the second option, empirical crater observations, uncertainties 
stem from uncertainty in the age of observed craters, uncertainties regarding overprinting from 
multiple impacts in a given area, and extrapolations required to account for differences in 
atmospheric and gravitational effects. In the case of earth cratering studies, the limitations also 
include the destruction of small diameter craters through time and/or limitations in identification 
of such features. For the last option, a crater distribution based on meteor flux, the analysis 
encounters uncertainties in accounting for multiple factors. These factors include the distribution 
of the mass and diameter of the meteoroids, the distribution in composition of meteoroids, the 
velocity of the meteoroids, their entry angle into the earths atmosphere, and effects encountered 
by the meteor during passage through Earths atmosphere (ablation and fragmentation). Each of 
the factors (mass or size, material, velocity, angle, and atmospheric effects) determines the 
kinetic energy with which the meteorite impacts the earth, and thereby influences the resulting 
crater diameter and depth. 
The curve derived from Grieve in Figure IV-3 is based on extrapolation of observable earth 
cratering data, but its limitation is for crater diameters larger than 10 km. For this analysis, 
however, the slope of the Grieve distribution was assumed constant even for the smaller crater 
diameters. The extrapolation of the distribution from Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) for very 
small crater diameters likely overestimates the number of small-diameter craters, and is therefore 
conservative (i.e., the number of small cratering events may be overestimated in the calculation) 
due to the extrapolation of the curve. The number of observed small diameter craters as noted by 
Grieves is substantially less than that projected by the extrapolated distribution, and would in 
fact be the true lower bound. The degree of conservatism, however, cannot be quantified 
because the number of observed small diameter craters is skewed because it does not account for 
atmospheric effects on small meteors, increased obscuration of smaller diameter craters by 
weathering and burial, and the implicit difficulty in identifying small diameter craters. The 
crater diameter distribution observed by Grieve and based on large crater diameters, however, at 
least includes the effects of ablation and fragmentation as reflected for large diameter craters. 
The curve from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) is based on a subset of the Grieve 
information and, if comparable to the information used by Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562]) may 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-61 April 2004 

only be valid down to diameters of 1 km. The data derived from Wuschke et al. (1995 
[DIRS 129326]) may represent a more realistic distribution of actual size and has been applied to 
a hypothetical Canadian repository. 
Furthermore, the curves derived from the cumulative flux data in Figure IV-3, and based on the 
modeling results from Hills and Goda (1993, Figures 16 and 17 [DIRS 135281]), are dependent 
on the assumptions regarding composition, assumed densities, and the relative composition of 
the cumulative flux. The cumulative flux curves overstate the frequency of impact resulting in a 
given crater diameter if the relative percent of iron meteorites is lower and/or the percent of 
carbonaceous meteorites is greater than that assumed. Also, these curves likely overstate the 
frequency because it is assumed that the entire flux enters earths atmosphere at angles that result 
in the least atmospheric dissipation. 
With regard to the flux of meteoroids to earth, the reported values of the cumulative number of 
events for a meteoroid of a given diameter or larger is provided in Figure II-1 of Attachment II of 
this analysis report and spans approximately two orders of magnitude, with the range in values 
decreasing slightly for meteor diameters on the order of 1,000 meters or greater. For the 
analysis, a conservative set of data for the range of interest was selected. Use of a different data 
set would likely result in a decreased rate of cratering of a given diameter, although the 
relationship is not linear due to atmospheric shield effects. 
There is a large uncertainty associated with the distribution of meteoroids based on composition 
as shown in Table II-13 of Attachment II. Selection of a distribution that prefers a cometary 
composition would tend to decrease the probability of given crater diameter due to the greater 
effect of atmospheric shielding effects on cometary and soft stone meteoroids for a given 
diameter. Similarly, decreased percentage of iron meteorids (Table II-14 of Attachment II) 
would also tend to decrease the cratering rate for a given diameter because iron meteors are 
stronger and more dense that stony meteors of the same diameter and result in larger crater 
diameters. A reasonable, but conservative, value of 5 percent iron meteors was selected to 
minimize the effects of uncertainty in the percent irons. The selected value is thought 
conservative, because as shown in Table II-14 of Attachment II of this analysis report, the 
average of the reported values was 5 percent, but only 4 of 13 of the reported values exceeded 
5 percent. These higher values are likely biased because they are based on meteorite finds and 
iron-type meteorites are more likely to be found. One value (17.8 percent) drives the average. 
Excluding the extreme value of 17.8 results in an average value of 3.9 percent. For the 
stony/cometary percentages, an equal distribution was used for larger diameters, and a decreased 
percentage of stony material was used for the small masses and diameters. Selection of a more 
equal distribution would increase the crater diameter rates, although the increase would not be 
linear due to the continued effects of atmospheric shielding effects (albeit shifted based on initial 
diameter). However, the use of the more conservative value of 5 percent for iron meteors may 
also compensate in part for a preferred cometary composition for smaller meteoroids. 
There is also uncertainty associated with meteoroid densities. In reality, meteoroid densities 
likely show some type of modal distributions based on parent bodies and origin, and vary 
according the range of compositions considered. The range of values from the literature search 
is provided in Table II-15 of Attachment II of this analysis report. To simplify the calculation, 
the compositions were binned into three types (metallic, stony, and carbonaceous) and 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-62 April 2004 

reasonable but conservative values for density were assigned for each type as previously. The 
calculation is structured in such a way that increases or decreases in assumed density would 
directly affect the calculated radius of a meteoroid of a given mass, with an increase in density 
leading to decreased equivalent meteoroid radius. A decrease in the density by a factor of two 
would increase the calculated meteoroid radius by a factor of only about 1.3. A decrease in 
initial meteoroid radius generally would result in a decreased resulting crater diameter. 
Additionally, there is little information regarding the distribution of initial velocities or entry 
angle of meteoroids impacting the earths surface, although upper and lower bounds for the 
distributions could be established. These uncertainties are addressed, by assuming conservative 
values for both factors, as described for Assumption 5.4. 
Regardless of the uncertainty in physical property distributions, the net effects of uncertainty are 
partially addressed by comparing the cratering distribution derived from meteoroid influx, to 
those derived based on lunar cratering rates and on observed earth cratering rates. The lunar-
and earth-based cratering rates respectively represent a true upper bound, and a reasonable lower 
bound on cratering rates. These distributions of observed features reflect the net effect of all 
uncertainties in physical property distributions on the resulting crater diameter distributions. 
However, for crater diameters less than about 10 km, there is a high degree of uncertainty with 
regard to the actual cratering rate due to the inability to detect smaller scale features, and due to 
the destruction of smaller scale crater diameters by natural processes acting over prolonged time 
periods. 
3. IMPLICATIONS FOR FEP SCREENING AND CONCLUSIONS 
The probability of the occurrence of crater diameters of interest (i.e., the diameters that define 
whether the repository is affected by direct exhumation, fracturing to repository depth, or 
fracturing of other overlying units of interest) is compared to the FEP screening threshold 
diameter of one chance in 10,000 of occurring in 10,000 years (or an annualized occurrence of 
10-8). If the probability of occurrence is less than this threshold, the effect can be excluded from 
further consideration in TSPA-LA. If not, then the effect is examined for significance. If it 
can be demonstrated that the omission of the effect would not significantly change radionuclide 
exposure or release to the accessible environment, then the effect can be excluded from further 
consideration in TSPA-LA. 
As shown on Figure IV-7, the probability of the formation of crater diameters above or near the 
repository that is sufficient to result in exhumation and/or fracturing to the depth of the 
repository falls below the FEP screening probability threshold. Likewise, exhumation and/or 
fracturing to the top of the Paintbrush hydrologic unit above or near the repository is also 
excluded because the occurrence of such craters falls below the FEP screening probability 
threshold. This holds true for each of the cratering distributions considered for all but the 
easternmost portion of the repository. Figure IV-8 addresses the potential for cratering in the 
Paintbrush hydrologic unit outcrop area, which is discussed separately. 
Figure IV-7 indicates that at an annualized probability of 10-8, the corresponding crater diameter 
resulting from impact of the largest meteor fragment is likely to range from 20 to 80 m. The 80m 
diameter represents the minimum diameter needed to fracture to the depth of the PTn unit in 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-63 April 2004 

the easternmost portion of the repository, where the unit is shallowest, and is taken from the 
V=15 km/sec distribution curve. The other distribution curves indicate lesser crater diameters, 
suggesting that meteorite impact is of low consequence. An 80-m crater diameter corresponds to 
a maximum total surface area of about 0.005 km2, or about 0.04 percent of the repository surface 
area of 14 km2 for any crater resulting from the largest fragment (based on Hills and Goda 1993, 
Figure 17 [DIRS 135281]). Assuming a hard stone composition, this crater diameter is 
associated with an initial meteor radius on the order of 50 m to 100 m, based on Hills and Goda 
(1993, Figure 17 [DIRS 135281]), as reflected in Figure II-4b of Attachment II of this analysis 
report. Based on Hills and Goda (1993, Figure 9 [DIRS 135281]), the radius of the associated 
debris swarm (i.e., the degree of scatter of all fragments, but with lesser cratering effects, if any, 
than the largest fragment and thus incapable of fracturing to top of the PTn or deeper) is on the 
order of 0.4 to 0.5 km. This suggests a debris and/or crater field with a total encompassing area 
of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 km2, but with a pock-marked surface  some portion of the area is 
affected and some is not depending on the number of size of other fragments. This suggests that 
at most, only 4 to 6 percent of the total surface area of the repository (and likely significantly 
less) is even, potentially affected. This suggests that an argument for exclusion based on low 
consequence may also appropriate depending on modeling sensitivity and relative model grid 
size. 
With regard to the Paintbrush hydrologic unit outcrop area, the probability threshold is shown on 
Figure IV-8. The figure indicates that resulting crater diameters at the probability threshold 
would be less than 20 m. This represents a surface area of less than 0.001 km2, or less than 
0.01 percent, of the repository surface area. The resulting effects from the radius of the debris 
swarm would be at the lower end of the scale of the effects just discussed. Although the total 
affected area would be about the same, the width of the outcrop area is no greater than 0.1 km, 
thus limiting the outcrop area affected by the debris swarm to no more than 0.03 km2. This 
would represent less than one-half percent of the repository surface area. Accordingly, this 
aspect of meteorite impact can also be excluded based on low consequence. 
Based on Hills and Goda (1993, Figure 18 [DIRS 135281]), such meteors could results in 
earthquakes with Richter magnitudes ranging from Magnitude 5 to slightly less than Magnitude 
7 (Richter Scale). Existing seismic analyses cover this range of magnitude of events, so a 
meteorite-caused earthquake component would not provide additional significant hazard and is, 
therefore, excluded based on low consequence. 
A comparison of the annualized frequency curves for the three repository designs (Figures IV-7, 
IV-9, IV-10) indicate that there are only minor differences in probability estimates despite 
seemingly significant changes in the total area and the respective dimensions. The total footprint 
area varies from 11.2 km2 for the TSPA-SR design, to 1 km2 based on the TSPA-LA 
emplacement area, and as large as 18 km2 based on the TSPA-LA siting area. For sensitivity 
considerations, the probabilities derived for the Wuschke et al. distribution is further examined 
because it represents a constant slope in the distribution curve. For an 80 m diameter crater, the 
respective probabilities for the above-listed areas were calculated to be 3.7  10-9, 3.9  10-9, and 
4.6  10-9. Consequently, the range of total areas increased from the TSPA-SR repository 
footprint by factors of 1.25 and 1.6 respectively, but the probabilities increased by factors of 1.05 
and 1.24, respectively. And with respect to the TSPA-LA emplacement area, the siting area 
increases by a factor of 1.29 and the probability increased by a factor of about 1.18. Thus, 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-64 April 2004 

excluding consideration of the V=15 km/sec distribution curve, at least a doubling of the 
repository footprint area used for evaluating TSPA-LA would be needed before probability based 
on the Wuschke et al. distribution would be of concern. However, if the V=15 km/sec curve is 
limiting, then expansion of areas greater than that currently considered would dictate further 
evaluation of the consequence for potential fracturing of the PTn unit, and expansion of the 
repository into areas where the PTn was shallower than 60 m or non-existent would also 
require further examination. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-65 April 2004 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 01 IV-66 April 2004