Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report Rev 01, ICN 00 

MDL-NBS-GS-000003

September 2004
 
1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this report is to provide a three-dimensional (3-D) representation of the mineral 
abundance within the geologic framework model domain. The mineralogic model enables 
project personnel to estimate mineral abundances at any position, within the model region, and 
within any stratigraphic unit in the model area. The model provides the abundance and 
distribution of 10 minerals and mineral groups within 22 stratigraphic sequences or model layers 
in the Yucca Mountain area. The uncertainties and limitations associated with this model are 
discussed in Section 6.4. Model validation accomplished by corroboration with data not cited as 
direct input is discussed in Section 7. 
The primary user of the mineralogic model output is the Heat Capacity Analysis Report 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170003]). The Heat Capacity Analysis Report uses as direct input the mineral 
abundance values averaged for each of the 10 mineral groups by the mineralogic model layer to 
calculate the rock grain heat capacity. Then, the following model reports use these heat capacity 
values: In-drift Natural Convection and Condensation Model Report (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 164327]), Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]), Ventilation Model and 
Analysis Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169862]), Igneous Intrusion Impacts on Waste Packages and 
Waste Forms (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168960]), Dike/Drift Interactions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170028]), 
and Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169565]). 
In addition, two near-field environment and transport model reports, Mountain-Scale Coupled 
Processes (TH/THC/THM) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169866]) and Drift-Scale THC Seepage Model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169856]), cite the USW SD-9 borehole mineral abundance data as direct 
input. The data are discrete measurement values used to construct the mineralogic model and are 
not the representation of the 3-D product output. The borehole mineral abundance data are then 
used to calculate mineral volume fractions and surface areas. 
Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model was developed from mineralogic data obtained from 
borehole samples. It consists of matrix mineral abundances as a function of x (easting), 
y (northing), and z (elevation), referenced to the stratigraphic framework defined in Version 3.1 
of the geologic framework model. The stratigraphy is shown in Table 1-1. The significance of 
the mineralogic model for key aspects of site characterization and performance assessment is 
explained in subsequent sections. 
The planning document for this model report is Technical Work Plan for: The Integrated Site 
Model, Rev 05 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635]). The report was prepared in accordance with 
procedure AP-SIII.10Q, Models. 
This report documents the qualification of data cited as direct input and the validation by 
corroboration with data not cited as direct input, in response to comments generated by 
regulatory integration team reviewers. There have been no changes to the product output 
(DTN: LA9908JC831321.001) since the last revision. Constraints and limitations of the 
mineralogic model are discussed in Sections 6.4 and 8.1. 
The mineralogic model is one of three components of an integrated site model scope of work, 
which provides a consistent volumetric portrayal of the rock layers, rock properties, and 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 1-2 September 2004 
mineralogy of the Yucca Mountain site. The other components are the geologic framework 
model and the rock properties model. The lateral boundaries of the three component models are 
shown in Figure 1-1. 
1.1 MINERALOGY AND HYDROLOGIC PROPERTIES 
The hydrologic properties and behavior of rock units can be correlated with mineralogy 
(Loeven 1993 [DIRS 101258], pp. 15 to 26). Loeven shows that nonwelded vitric tuffs and 
zeolitized tuffs can have very different hydraulic conductivities. The use of the observed 
correlation between mineralogic and hydrologic data can provide a means of improving the 
accuracy and confidence of both hydrologic and mineralogic models. For example, in some 
areas, high-confidence mineralogic data can improve estimates of hydrologic properties; and in 
other areas, high-confidence hydrologic data can improve estimates of mineral abundance. 
Where hydraulic conductivity in zeolites is known to a high level of confidence, that knowledge 
can be used to obtain more accurate estimates of zeolitic abundance in samples of zeolites and 
non-welded tuffs for which hydraulic conductivity is known. 
1.2 MINERALOGY AND RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT 
Zeolitic horizons have long been an important factor in models of radionuclide transport at 
Yucca Mountain. Zeolites are capable of sorbing many cationic radionuclides (Johnstone and 
Wolfsberg 1980 [DIRS 109037], pp. 112 to 117, Tables A1, A2, A3). The mineralogic model 
incorporates zeolite and other mineral weight percentages as the basic distributed property, 
allowing the volumes of minerals present, represented as weight percentages of rock mass, to be 
defined explicitly in a spatial manner. 
Table 1-1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy 
Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unith 
Mineralogic 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Alluvium and Colluvium Qal, Qc Alluvium (only) 
Timber Mountain Group Tm 
Rainier Mesa Tuff Tmr 
Paintbrush Group Tp 
Post-tuff unit "x" bedded tuff Tpbt6 
Tuff unit "x"c Tpki (informal) 
Pre-tuff unit "x" bedded tuff Tpbt5 
Tiva Canyon Tuff Tpc 
Crystal-Rich Member Tpcr 
Vitric zone Tpcrv 
Nonwelded subzone Tpcrv3 
Tiva and 
Post-Tiva 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 1-3 September 2004 
Table 1-1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) 
Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unith 
Mineralogic 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Moderately welded 
subzone 
Tpcrv2 
Densely welded subzone Tpcrv1 
Nonlithophysal subzone Tpcrn 
Subvitrophyre transition 
subzone 
Tpcrn4 
Pumice-poor subzone Tpcrn3 
Mixed pumice subzone Tpcrn2 
Crystal transition subzone Tpcrn1 
Lithophysal zone Tpcrl 
Crystal transition subzone Tpcrl1 
Tiva and 
Post-Tiva 
Crystal-Poor Member Tpcp 
Upper lithophysal zone Tpcpul 
Spherulite-rich subzone Tpcpul1 
Middle nonlithophysal zone Tpcpmn 
Upper subzone Tpcpmn3 
Lithophysal subzone Tpcpmn2 
Lower subzone Tpcpmn1 
Lower lithophysal zone Tpcpll 
Hackly-fractured subzone Tpcpllh Sequence 22 
Lower nonlithophysal zone Tpcpln (Layer 26) 
Hackly subzone Tpcplnh 
Tpcp 
Alluvium 
Columnar subzone Tpcplnc TpcLD Tpc_un 
Vitric zone Tpcpv 
Densely welded subzone Tpcpv3 Tpcpv3 
Moderately welded 
subzone 
Tpcpv2 Tpcpv2 
Sequence 21 (Layer 25) 
Tpcpv3Tpcpv2 
Nonwelded subzone Tpcpv1 Tpcpv1 
Pre-Tiva Canyon bedded tuff Tpbt4 Tpbt4 
Yucca Mountain Tuff Tpy Yucca 
Pre-Yucca Mountain bedded tuff Tpbt3 Tpbt3_dc 
Pah Canyon Tuff Tpp Pah 
Pre-Pah Canyon bedded tuff Tpbt2 Tpbt2 
Sequence 20 (Layer 24) 
Tpcpv1-Tptrv2 
Topopah Spring Tuff Tpt 
Crystal-Rich Member Tptr 
Vitric zone Tptrv 
Nonwelded subzone Tptrv3 Tptrv3 
Moderately welded 
subzone 
Tptrv2 Tptrv2 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 1-4 September 2004 
Table 1-1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) 
Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unith 
Mineralogic 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Densely welded subzone Tptrv1 Tptrv1 Sequence 19 
(Layer 23) 
Tptrv1 
Nonlithophysal zone Tptrn 
Dense subzone Tptrn3 
Vapor-phase corroded 
subzone 
Tptrn2 
Crystal transition subzone Tptrn1 
Tptrn 
Lithophysal zone Tptrl 
Crystal transition subzone Tptrl1 Tptrl Sequence 18 
Crystal-Poor Member Tptp (Layer 22) 
Lithic-rich zone Tptpf or Tptrf Tptf TptrnTptf 
Upper lithophysal zone Tptpul Tptpul 
RHHtop 
Sequence 17 
(Layer 21) 
Tptpul 
Middle nonlithophysal zone Tptpmn 
Nonlithophysal subzone Tptpmn3 Sequence 16 
Lithophysal bearing 
subzone 
Tptpmn2 (Layer 20) 
Nonlithophysal subzone Tptpmn1 Tptpmn Tptpmn 
Lower lithophysal zone Tptpll Tptpll Sequence 15 
(Layer 19) 
Tptpll 
Lower nonlithophysal zone Tptpln 
RHH 
Tptpln Sequence 14 
(Layer 18) 
Tptpln 
Vitric zone Tptpv 
Densely welded subzone Tptpv3 Tptpv3 
Moderately welded 
subzone 
Tptpv2 Tptpv2 
Sequence 13e 
(Layers 16 
& 17) 
Tptpv3Tptpv2 
Nonwelded subzone Tptpv1 Tptpv1 
Pre-Topopah Spring bedded tuff Tpbt1 Tpbt1 
Sequence 12 (Layer 15) 
Tptpv1 - Tpbt1 
Calico Hills Formation Ta Calico Sequence 11f 
(Layers 11, 12, 13, 14) Tac 
Bedded tuff Tacbt Calicobt Sequence 10 
(Layer 10) 
Tacbt 
Crater Flat Group Tc 
Prow Pass Tuff Tcp 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 1-5 September 2004 
Table 1-1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) 
Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unith 
Mineralogic 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Prow Pass Tuff upper vitric 
nonwelded zone 
(Tcpuv)d Prowuv Sequence 9 
(Layer 9) 
Tcpuv 
Prow Pass Tuff upper crystalline 
nonwelded zone 
(Tcpuc)d 
Prowuc 
Prow Pass Tuff moderately 
densely welded zone 
(Tcpmd)d Prowmd 
Prow Pass Tuff lower crystalline 
nonwelded zone 
(Tcplc)d Prowlc 
Sequence 8 
(Layer 8) 
TcpucTcplc 
Prow Pass Tuff lower vitric 
nonwelded zone 
(Tcplv)d Prowlv 
Pre-Prow Pass Tuff bedded tuff (Tcpbt)d Prowbt 
Bullfrog Tuff Tcb 
Bullfrog Tuff upper vitric 
nonwelded zone 
(Tcbuv)d Bullfroguv 
Sequence 7 
(Layer 7) 
TcplvTcbuv 
Bullfrog Tuff upper crystalline 
nonwelded zone 
(Tcbuc)d 
Bullfroguc 
Bullfrog Tuff welded zone (Tcbmd)d Bullfrogmd 
Bullfrog Tuff lower crystalline 
nonwelded zone 
(Tcblc)d Bullfroglc 
Sequence 6 
(Layer 6) 
TcbucTcblc 
Bullfrog Tuff lower vitric 
nonwelded zone 
(Tcblv)d 
Bullfroglv 
Pre-Bullfrog Tuff bedded tuff (Tcbbt)d Bullfrogbt 
Tram Tuff Tct 
Tram Tuff upper vitric nonwelded 
zone 
(Tctuv)d Tramuv 
Sequence 5 
(Layer 5) 
TcblvTctuv 
Tram Tuff upper crystalline 
nonwelded zone 
(Tctuc)d 
Tramuc 
Tram Tuff moderately-densely 
welded zone 
(Tctmd)d 
Trammd 
Tram Tuff lower crystalline 
nonwelded zone 
(Tctlc)d 
Tramlc 
Sequence 4 
(Layer 4) 
TctucTctlc 
Tram Tuff lower vitric nonwelded 
zone 
(Tctlv)d Tramlv 
Pre-Tram Tuff bedded tuff (Tctbt)d Trambt 
Sequence 3 (Layer 3) 
TctlvTctbt 
Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll 
Bedded tuff Tllbt 
Lithic Ridge Tuff Tr 
Bedded tuff Tlrbt 
Sequence 2 
(Layer 2) 
Tund 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 1-6 September 2004 
Table 1-1. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) 
Stratigraphic Unita, d Abbreviationa 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unith 
Mineralogic 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll2 
Bedded tuff Tllbt 
Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll3 
Bedded tuff Tll3bt 
Older tuffs (informal) Tt 
Unit a (informal) Tta 
Unit b (informal) Ttb 
Unit c (informal) Ttc 
Sedimentary rocks and calcified tuff 
(informal) 
Tca 
Tuff of Yucca Flat (informal) Tyf Tund 
Pre-Tertiary sedimentary rock 
Lone Mountain Dolomite Slm 
Roberts Mountain Formation Srm Paleozoic 
Sequence 1 
(Layer 1) 
Paleozoicg 
NOTE: Shaded rows indicate header lines for subdivided units. 
a Source: DTN: MO9510RIB00002.004 (DIRS 103801). 
b Source: CRWMS M&O 1997 (DIRS 100223), pp. 43 to 50. 
c Correlated with the rhyolite of Comb Peak (Buesch et al. 1996 [DIRS 100106], Table 2). 
d For the purposes of the geologic framework model, Version3.1, each formation in the Crater Flat Group was 
subdivided into six zones based on the requirements of the users of the geologic framework model. The 
subdivisions are upper vitric (uv), upper crystalline (uc), moderately to densely welded (md), lower crystalline (lc), 
lower vitric (lv), and bedded tuff (bt) (Buesch and Spengler 1999 [DIRS 107905], pp. 62 to 63). 
e Sequence 13 (Tptpv3Tptpv2) is subdivided into two layers of equal thickness. 
f Sequence 11 (Tac) is subdivided into four layers of equal thickness. 
g Sequence 1 (Paleozoic) represents a lower bounding surface. 
h Source: DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 (DIRS 103769). 
RHH = repository host horizon 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 1-7 September 2004 
Sources: DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 (DIRS 103769); Rautman and McKenna 1998 (DIRS 107442), Section 2. 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 1-1. Location Map of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Showing Location of Exploratory Studies Facility, 
Cross-Block Drift, and Area of Integrated Site Model with Boundaries of Component Models 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 1-8 September 2004 
1.3 MINERAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND REPOSITORY PERFORMANCE 
The mineralogic model also addresses the effects of repository-induced heating on hydrous 
mineral components at the site. Hydrous minerals, such as zeolites and clays, and volcanic glass 
are particularly susceptible to reactions caused by repository-induced heating (Levy 1991 
[DIRS 100053]). These reactions can produce or absorb water; yield changes in porosity, 
permeability, and retardation characteristics; and moderate heat flux within the rock mass 
(Vaniman and Bish 1995 [DIRS 101496], pp. 533 to 546). Other minerals, particularly silica 
polymorphs, may undergo phase transitions or may control the aqueous silica concentrations of 
fluids migrating under thermal loads, resulting in silica dissolution or precipitation, redistribution 
of silica, and modification of rock properties (Levy 1991 [DIRS 100053]). All of these effects 
must be considered in three dimensions to adequately address the impact of various 
repository-loading strategies on the repository performance. The mineralogic model allows 
numerical modeling of reactions involving the breakdown of glass to zeolites and smectite, the 
breakdown of clinoptilolite and mordenite to analcime, and the transformation and redistribution 
of silica polymorphs. 
1.4 PREDICTION OF MINERAL DISTRIBUTIONS AND REPOSITORY DESIGN 
Guidelines for repository performance address concerns over mineral stability in systems 
exposed to repository conditions (Section 4.2). Previous studies of thermal effects (Buscheck 
and Nitao 1993 [DIRS 109028], pp. 847 to 867) relevant to assessment of mineral stability have 
not been able to assess solid phase transformations (e.g., transitions between silica polymorphs) 
or hydrous-mineral dehydration/rehydration because of a lack of 3-D mineralogic data. 
Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model allows the formulation of thermal models to indicate much 
more precisely the maximum possible thermal loads that are consistent with maintaining 
relatively low temperatures for zeolite-rich zones, and it provides the abundances of silica 
polymorphs that are susceptible to phase transformations adjacent to the repository. Modeling 
developed in Drift-Scale THC Seepage Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169856]) couples the 3-D 
mineralogic model with mineral-reaction and heat-flow data making it possible to model thermal 
limits with fewer assumptions. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 2-1 September 2004 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
Development of this model report and the supporting modeling activities have been determined 
to be subject to the Yucca Mountains Projects quality assurance program, as indicated in the 
Technical Work Plan for: The Integrated Site Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Section 8.1, 
Work Package ARTM01). Approved quality assurance procedures identified in the technical 
work plan have been used to conduct and document the activities described in this model report. 
Section 8.4 of the technical work plan also identifies the methods used to control the electronic 
management of data during model documentation activities. 
This model report provides representations of selected mineral abundances referenced to the 
stratigraphic framework, which are important to the demonstration of compliance with the 
postclosure performance objectives prescribed in 10 CFR 63.113 [DIRS 156605]. This model 
report addresses nuclides transport for infiltration through the Lower Natural Barrier and Upper 
Natural Barrier, which are classified in the Q-List (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361]) as Safety 
Category SC, because they are important to waste isolation, as defined in AP-2.22Q, 
Classification Analysis and Maintenance of the Q-List. The report contributes to the analysis 
and modeling data used to support performance assessment; the conclusions do not directly 
impact engineered features important to safety, as defined in AP-2.22Q. 
Table 2-1. Model Development Documentation for Mineralogic Model 
Model Planning Document 
Scientific Notebook 
Procedure Scientific Notebook 
Mineralogic Model Version 
3.0 
BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635] LANL-YMP-QP-03.5 
AP-SIII.1Q 
LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001 
(CRWMS M&O registry 
no. SN-LANL-SCI-190-V1) 
(Carey 1999 [DIRS 
138525]) 
CRWMS=Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System; M&O=Management and Operating Contractor. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 2-2 September 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 3-1 September 2004 
3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
3.1 QUALIFIED SOFTWARE 
The mineralogic model was constructed using STRATAMODEL modeling software 
(STRATAMODEL V. 4.1.1, STN: 10121-4.1.1-00 [DIRS 153238]), an industry-standard 
software produced by Landmark Graphics Corporation, Houston, Texas. STRATAMODEL has 
the capability to integrate many different parameters to generate a multidisciplinary 3-D model. 
The software has been determined to be appropriate and adequate for its intended use in 3-D 
mineralogic modeling and no other software applications or computational methods were 
considered for this modeling effort. The software is under configuration management control 
(Table 3-1), and its qualification status is provided by the software baseline report. 
Table 3-1. Quality Assurance Information for Model Software 
CPU Platform 
CPU Operating 
System Software Name Version 
Qualification 
Procedure 
Software 
Tracking Number (STN) 
Silicon Graphics 
Inc. IRIX 6.5 STRATAMODEL 4.1.1 AP-SI.1Q 10121-4.1.1-00 
During the construction and use of the mineralogic model, it is stored on internal computer disks, 
backup tapes, and compact disks. The electronic files for Version 3.0 were submitted to the 
Technical Data Management System (TDMS) in American Standard Code for Information 
Interchange (ASCII) format. All files necessary to reconstruct the mineralogic model are 
available in the TDMS in product output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001, including data, 
interpretive data, parameter files, and instructions. Reconstruction of Version 3.0 requires 
STRATAMODEL software Version 4.1.1 or higher. ASCII format files containing all model 
results are also provided in the TDMS for use in the other software used in downstream 
modeling. 
STRATAMODEL was used to maximize the potential for multiple uses of the mineralogic 
model. Transport codes, which incorporate thermal and geochemical effects, used on the Yucca 
Mountain Project are compatible with STRATAMODEL. STRATAMODEL also embodies the 
preferred methods for interpolation of mineral abundances between drill holes and in 
stratigraphic coordinates. In addition, the data in STRATAMODEL can be directly analyzed 
using geostatistical software. 
Information from the geologic framework model, versions 3.1 
(DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]) and 3.0 (DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001 
[DIRS 109050]), was used in construction of Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model 
(Section 4.1.2). The qualification status of these models is provided in the DIRS database. 
3.2 OTHER SOFTWARE 
Microsoft Excel 97 was used during the course of the model validation activity to assist in 
organizing, managing, manipulating, comparing, and displaying data and information and 
computing standard statistical measures. This product is commercial, off-the-shelf software used 
to perform support activities; it was not used as the controlled source of information for the 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 3-2 September 2004 
analysis, as defined in LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management. Microsoft Excel 97 is not, 
therefore, required to be qualified under these procedures. 
Microsoft Excel 97 was used to organize mineral abundances by borehole and depth. Standard, 
cell-based arithmetic Excel operations were used temporarily to check for and identify duplicate 
sample data (by depth) and to order values by model sequence for comparisons during model 
validation. Standard, cell-based arithmetic operations also were used to average multiple values 
from model sequences for the validation comparisons. This computation is immediately 
verifiable by visual inspection. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 4-1 September 2004 
4. INPUTS 
Inputs for Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model consist of water table and stratigraphic surfaces 
from Versions 3.0 and 3.1 of the geologic framework model and quantitative X-ray diffraction 
(XRD) analyses of mineral abundances. 
4.1 DIRECT INPUT 
A list of direct data inputs is provided in Table 4-1, and their qualification status is provided in 
the Automated Technical Data Tracking database. Four input DTNs (LA9910JC832321.001 
[DIRS 113496], LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142], LADV831321AQ97.007 
[DIRS 113499], and MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]) are qualified in this report 
(Appendices A, B, and C). Information showing the relationship of the sources and related 
qualification activities for output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 are provided in Appendix D. 
Unqualified and qualified data from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 (DIRS 109003) that were 
used as input to construct the model are now all qualified and contained in DTNs 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796), MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), 
MO0101XRDDRILC.002 (DIRS 163795), and MO0106XRDDRILC.003 (DIRS 163797) 
(Table 4-1). Figure 4-1 shows the location of the boreholes from which derived mineralogic data 
was used in the construction of the mineralogic model. A brief discussion of the data is provided 
in the following subsections. 
4.1.1 Mineralogic Data 
The mineralogic model depends directly on quantitative X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses. XRD 
offers the most direct and accurate analytical method for determining mineral abundance, 
because the data are fundamentally linked to crystal structure. Other methods based on 
down-hole logs or chemical or spectral properties from which mineral identities can be inferred 
are subject to much greater uncertainty. The development of quantitative XRD for application to 
core and cuttings analysis at Yucca Mountain (Bish and Chipera 1988 [DIRS 103130], pp. 295 to 
308; Chipera and Bish 1995 [DIRS 105075], pp. 47 to 55) resulted in the development of a 
modeling software input data file of mineral abundances (in product output 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001) as a function of map position and depth at Yucca Mountain. 
The primary mineralogic direct data listed in Table 4-1 are quantitative XRD data used for 
constructing the mineralogic model. The selection of these data sets represents all available 
mineral abundances based on quantitative XRD analyses. A typical inherent analytical 
uncertainty associated with XRD analysis may be relatively low for high mineral abundances 
(feldspar, 60.45  5.13) but, can be relatively higher in the case of low mineral abundances 
(cristobalite + opal CT, 8.07  5.51). All data are expressed as weight percent and are used as 
reported in these files, with the following exceptions. Where a mineral was detected but in only 
trace abundance (i.e., much less than 1 percent) the result is reported in the tables as Trc. or 
Tr. In these cases, a uniform numeric value of 0.1 percent was assigned to each trace 
occurrence in order to have real (but appropriately small) numeric values in the mineralogic 
model. In some instances, depending on the mineralogic makeup of the sample, approximate or 
upper-limit values, such as ~1 percent or < 2 percent, are reported in the data package. In 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 4-2 September 2004 
these cases, the ~ or < symbol was dropped, and the numeric value was used in the mineralogic 
model. These values are a conservative estimate based on the XRD analysis. 
4.1.2 Stratigraphic Surfaces 
The stratigraphic framework for Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model was constructed from 
stratigraphic surfaces obtained as ASCII-format export files from Version 3.1 of the geologic 
framework model (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]). This was the most 
current stratigraphic framework available at the time the mineralogic model was constructed. 
Since the model construction, a later version of the geologic framework model 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]) has been issued. The newer geologic 
framework model made corrections to the thickness of the repository host horizon model layer 
and to an anomalous flexure in the extreme northern edge of the model. The repository host 
horizon is not a mineralogic model sequence/layer. Therefore, these changes have little if any, 
impact on the mineralogic model, and the use of Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model is 
acceptable. 
The water table surface was extracted from Version 3.0 of the geologic framework model 
(DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001 [DIRS 109050]). This surface was the most current at the 
time of the model construction. The current water table surface (DTN: GS010608312332.001 
[DIRS 155307]) is not used, because the surface is shown for illustration purposes only. 
Therefore, the use of the older surface has no impact to the product output of this report. The 
creation of the stratigraphic framework required modification of the ASCII-format export files as 
described in Section 6.2.1. 
4.2 CRITERIA 
The general requirements to be satisfied by the total system performance assessment (TSPA) are 
stated in 10 CFR 63.114 [DIRS 156605]. Technical requirements to be satisfied by the TSPA 
are identified in the Yucca Mountain Project Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 
[DIRS 166275]). The acceptance criteria that will be used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) to determine whether the technical requirements have been met are 
identified in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (YMRP) (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274]). An evaluation of acceptance criteria against the information in this model 
report determined that criteria 1.5.3 discussed in the technical work plan should not be addressed 
and that criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.3 should be addressed. The acceptance criteria identified in 
Section 2.2.1.3.3.3 of the YMRP are included below. In cases where subsidiary criteria are listed 
in the YMRP for a given criterion, only the subsidiary criteria addressed by this model report are 
listed. Where a subcriterion includes several components, only some of those components may 
be addressed. How these components are addressed is summarized in Section 8.2. 
2.2.1.3.3: Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Engineered Barriers and Waste 
Forms 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
(5) Sufficient technical bases and justification are provided for TSPA 
assumptions and approximations for modeling coupled 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 4-3 September 2004 
thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical effects on seepage and flow, the 
waste package chemical environment, and the chemical environment for 
radionuclide release. The effects of distribution of flow on the amount of 
water contacting the engineered barriers and waste forms are consistently 
addressed, in all relevant abstractions. 
(8) Adequate technical bases are provided, including activities such as 
independent modeling, laboratory or field data, or sensitivity studies, for 
inclusion of any thermal-hydrologic-mechanical-chemical couplings and 
features, events, and processes. 
Acceptance Criterion 2: Data are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
(1) Geological, hydrological, and geochemical values used in the license 
application are adequately justified. Adequate description of how the data 
were used, interpreted, and appropriately synthesized into the parameters 
is provided. 
Acceptance Criterion 3: Data Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated Through 
the Model Abstraction. 
(1) Models use parameter values, assumed ranges, probability distributions, 
and bounding assumptions that are technically defensible, reasonably 
account for uncertainties and variabilities, and do not result in an 
under-representation of the risk estimate. 
(4) Adequate representation of uncertainties in the characteristics of the 
natural system and engineered materials is provided in parameter 
development for conceptual models, process-level models, and alternative 
conceptual models. The U.S. Department of Energy may constrain these 
uncertainties using sensitivity analyses or conservative limits. For 
example, the U.S. Department of Energy demonstrates how parameters 
used to describe flow through the engineered barrier system bound the 
effects of backfill and excavation-induced changes. 
4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
No codes, standards, or regulations were used in the mineralogic model other than those 
previously cited in this report. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 4-4 September 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Data Input 
Data Description Data Tracking Number (DTN) DIRS Number 
Mineralogy, borehole 
UE-25 a#1 
MO0101XRDDRILC.002, Table S01026_001 DIRS 163795 
Mineralogy, borehole 
UE-25 b#1 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001, Table S01023_001 DIRS 163796 
Mineralogy, borehole 
UE-25 p#1 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001, Table S01025_002 DIRS 169517 
Mineralogy, borehole 
UE-25 UZ#16 
LA000000000086.002, Table S97218_001 
LAJC831321AQ98.005, Table S98436_002 
DIRS 107144 
DIRS 109004 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW G-1 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001, Table S01023_002 DIRS 163796 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW G-2 
MO0101XRDDRILC.002, Table S01026_002 DIRS 163795 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW G-3/GU-3 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001, Tables S01023_003 
and S01023_005 
DIRS 163796 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW G-4 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001, Table S01023_004 DIRS 163796 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW H-3 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001, Table S01025_003 
LADV831321AQ97.001, Table S97466_007 
DIRS 169517 
DIRS 107142 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW H-4 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001, Table S01025_004 DIRS 169517 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW H-5 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001, Table S01025_005 
LADV831321AQ97.007, Table S98070_005 
LA9910JC831321.001 
DIRS 169517 
DIRS 113499 
DIRS 113496 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW H-6 
MO0106XRDDRILC.003, Table S01074_001 DIRS 163797 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW NRG-6 
LADV831321AQ97.001, Table S97466_001 
LASC831321AQ96.002, Table S97226_001 
DIRS 107142 
DIRS 109042 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW NRG-7a 
LADV831321AQ97.001, Table S97466_002 DIRS 107142 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW SD-6 
LASC831321AQ98.003, Table S98170_001 
LADV831321AQ99.001, Table S99203_001 
DIRS 109043 
DIRS 109044 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW SD-7 
LADV831321AQ97.001, Table S97466_003 
LAJC831321AQ98.005, Table S98436_001 
DIRS 107142 
DIRS 109004 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW SD-9 
LADV831321AQ97.001, Table S97466_004 
LAJC831321AQ98.005, Table S98436_004 
DIRS 107142 
DIRS 109004 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW SD-12 
LADV831321AQ97.001, Table S97466_005 
LAJC831321AQ98.005, Table S98436_003 
DIRS 107142 
DIRS 109004 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW UZ-14 
LADV831321AQ97.001, Table S97466_006 
LASC831321AQ96.002, Table S97226_002 
DIRS 107142 
DIRS 109042 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW UZN-31 
LASL831322AQ97.001, Table S97601_005 DIRS 109045 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW UZN-32 
LASL831322AQ97.001, Table S97601_006 DIRS 109045 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW WT-1 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001, Table S01025_006 DIRS 169517 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW WT-2 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001, Table S01025_007 DIRS 169517 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 4-5 September 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Data Input (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number (DTN) DIRS Number 
Mineralogy, borehole 
USW WT-24 
LASC831321AQ98.001, Table S98084_001 
LADV831321AQ99.001, Table S99203_002 
DIRS 109047 
DIRS 109044 
Stratigraphic 
surfaces, ASCII 
export files, GFM3.1 
MO9901MWDGFM31.000 DIRS 103769 
Water table from 
GFM3.0 
MO9804MWDGFM03.001 DIRS 109050 
NOTES: For simplification, a shortened version of the borehole identifier is used when 
referring to boreholes in the text, figures, and tables (e.g., UE-25 a#1 is 
simplified to a#1). 
DTNs LA9910JC831321.001 [DIRS 113496], MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 
169517], LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142], and LADV831321AQ97.007 
[DIRS 113499] are qualified in Appendices A-C of this report. 
DIRS=Document Input Reference System; GFM=geologic framework model 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 4-6 September 2004 
Source: DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 (DIRS 103769). Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 4-1. Locations of Boreholes Used in Mineralogic Model 3.0

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 5-1 September 2004 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
The assumption used to build the mineralogic model is methodological and geological; therefore, 
it is an inherent part of the discussion in Section 6. The assumption for model development is 
presented here. 
Mineral abundances at one location within a model stratigraphic unit have a value that is 
correlated with a spatially nearby value. This assumption is based on three geologic principles. 
Vertical succession of rock layers can be established using the Principles of Superposition and 
Original Horizontality (Jackson 1997 [DIRS 109119], pp. 361 and 362). These two principles 
establish the fact that geologic depositional events result in a succession of horizontal layers of 
sediments stacked one upon another. In the case of Yucca Mountain, successive volcanic 
eruptions deposited a succession of volcanic rocks. Vertical succession allows the separation of 
the average values of mineral analyses based on model layers or sequences. The Principle of 
Original Lateral Continuity (Jackson 1997 [DIRS 109119], p.361) is applied not only in the 
construction of the model, but also in the validation. This principle states that sediment will be 
deposited in a layer that not only is flat, but also extends for a considerable distance in all 
directions. In other words, the layer is laterally continuous. Vertical continuity within each layer 
or sequence allows the average mineral abundance values to be determined by layers or 
sequences. No additional confirmation of this assumption is required. 
This assumption is the basis for the following methodological approaches: 
 Modeling in stratigraphic coordinates (Section 6.2.3) 
 Calculation of mineral distributions using an inverse distance weighting method 
(Section 6.2.4) 
 Model validation by corroboration with independent data (Section 7). 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 5-2 September 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-1 September 2004 
6. MODEL DISCUSSION 
6.1 CHANGES FROM PREVIOUS VERSIONS TO VERSION 3.0 
Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model incorporates several enhancements, which improve the 
models ability to represent the site mineralogy. Version 3.0 incorporates stratigraphy from 
geologic framework model Version 3.1 and is constructed on a 200-ft (61-m) north-south and 
east-west grid. Version 3.0 represents a complete revision of earlier versions, and the resulting 
model supersedes all previous versions. This version provides values for the entire region of 
geologic framework model Version 3.1: 547,000584,000 ft (166,726178,003 m) easting and 
738,000787,000 ft (224,942239,878 m) northing, Nevada State Plane coordinates. 
A synopsis of changes between versions of the mineralogic model is as follows: 
 Preliminary mineralogic modelThe initial model was developed in a stratigraphic 
framework taken from integrated site model Version 1.0. 
 Mineralogic model Version 1.0The stratigraphic framework was upgraded to 
Version 2.0 of the integrated site model. New mineralogic data from boreholes H-3, 
NRG-6, NRG-7a, SD-7, SD-9, SD-12, UZ-14, and UZN-32 were incorporated. 
 Mineralogic model Version 1.1New mineralogic data from borehole WT-24 were 
incorporated. 
 Mineralogic model Version 2.0The stratigraphic framework was upgraded to 
Version 3.0 of the geologic framework model. The grid resolution was refined from 800 
ft to 200 ft (244 m to 61 m). Borehole H-6 was incorporated. New data from boreholes 
SD-6, SD-7, SD-12, UZ#16, and WT-24 were included. The modeled mineral classes 
were expanded from 6 to 10. Mineralogic modeling was conducted in stratigraphic 
coordinates (see Section 6.2.3 for further explanation). The stratigraphic framework 
used for the mineralogic framework was simplified from 31 to 22 sequences. 
 Mineralogic model Version 3.0The stratigraphic framework was upgraded to 
Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model. New data from boreholes SD-6 and 
WT-24 were included. Tptpv3Tptpv2 sequence was subdivided into two layers. The 
area covered by the mineralogic model was expanded to include the entire area of 
Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model. The procedure for mineralogic modeling 
in stratigraphic coordinates was significantly improved, resulting in a more internally 
consistent representation of mineralogy and stratigraphy. 
An additional layer was created in Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model by subdividing the 
Tptpv3Tptpv2 sequence (sequence 13) into two layers of equal thickness, partly to better 
represent the zone of intense smectite and zeolite alteration at the boundary between Tptpln 
(sequence 14) and Tptpv3. In some places, samples from this altered zone occur at the base of 
Tptpln as defined in Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model, and these samples were 
adjusted in elevation to fall in the upper part of Tptpv3. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-2 September 2004 
The areal boundaries of Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model were extended to cover the entire 
region covered by Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model. Although this extension 
includes areas where borehole data are sparse, project personnel requested that the mineralogic 
model be available for the entire region. The region of better-supported mineralogic values is 
identified within this larger region. 
The mineralogic data for Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model and the previous versions were 
obtained from quantitative XRD analyses of cores and cuttings from boreholes at Yucca 
Mountain. Inclusion of the new data from boreholes SD-6 and WT-24 has resulted in a 
significant improvement of the model because these boreholes provide information from the 
northern and western parts of the site, where boreholes are scarce or the samples available are 
largely cuttings. 
6.2 METHODOLOGY 
The mineralogic model is a static representational model based on geologic principles and 
constructed with industry standard software. Alternative models and the use of alternate 
conceptual methodologies were determined in the technical work plan (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169635], Section 2.2.2) to be not applicable and, therefore, not considered. The 
methodology used to calculate the mineral distributions, an inverse-distance-weighting function, 
was considered adequate for the intended use of the model. The benefits and limitations of this 
function are discussed in Section 6.2.4. Similarly, no literature searches were done, and other, 
additional background information is not provided in this report. 
The basic components of the 3-D mineralogic model are a stratigraphic framework, mineralogic 
data from boreholes, and 3-D geologic modeling software. The stratigraphic framework was 
obtained from Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model 
(DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000). The sources of mineralogic data (listed in Table 4-1) 
contain quantitative XRD data from boreholes. The 3-D geologic modeling was conducted with 
the software STRATAMODEL. STRATAMODEL performs distance-weighted interpolations 
of borehole data within stratigraphic units specified by the framework to produce a volumetric 
distribution of the rock properties associated with each stratigraphic horizon. 
The modeling process consists of four sequential steps: 
1. Modification of ASCII-format export files from Version 3.1 of the geologic 
framework model: Missing values near faults were supplied by interpolation. 
2. Creation of the stratigraphic framework: Stratigraphic surfaces from Version 3.1 of 
the geologic framework model were joined in three dimensions to create a 
stratigraphic framework. 
3. Incorporation of mineralogic data from specific boreholes: Quantitative XRD 
analyses of mineral abundance as a function of geographic position (borehole location) 
and sample elevation were placed within the 3-D stratigraphic framework. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-3 September 2004 
4. Calculation of mineralogic distribution data for the entire 3-D model with the use of a 
deterministic, inverse-distance-weighting function: Measured mineralogic data at each 
borehole were used to predict mineral abundances at all locations in the model. 
Each modeling step is documented in a scientific notebook (Carey 1999 [DIRS 138525]) and is 
discussed in detail in the following subsections. 
6.2.1 Modification of Version 3.1 of the Geologic Framework Model Files 
The Version 3.1 geologic framework model ASCII-format export files used to create the 
stratigraphic framework for the mineralogic model lack elevation values at some grid nodes and 
along fault traces. These omissions occur only in the ASCII-format export files, not in Version 
3.1 of the geologic framework model. Therefore, before the creation of the stratigraphic 
framework, the Version 3.1 geologic framework model ASCII-format files were modified to fill 
in values near major faults. 
To create the stratigraphic framework, STRATAMODEL requires values for all grid nodes. In 
order to provide the missing values at these points in a controlled and reasonable manner, 
elevations for undefined grid nodes were interpolated from adjacent grid points by means of the 
Stratamap function in STRATAMODEL. For example, if the values adjacent to an undefined 
grid node were 600 m and 700 m, the interpolated value would be 650 m. Each Version 3.1 
geologic framework model surface included several thousand extrapolated values per grid with a 
total of 45,756 grid nodes (186 by 246 nodes). The operation of the Stratamap function was 
checked to ensure that the elevations of the original data points had not been adjusted and that 
the interpolated values accurately represented the faulted regions. The checks were done 
numerically, by visual comparison of the grids, and by checking to see that contacts of Version 
3.1 of the geologic framework model within boreholes, as represented within STRATAMODEL, 
were correct. The interpolated data are available in product output 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
6.2.2 Creation of Stratigraphic Framework 
The stratigraphic framework for the mineralogic model was created from the Version 3.1 
geologic framework model stratigraphy Table 1-1. Version 3.1 of the geologic framework 
model results was obtained as exported ASCII-format files with data listed at the 200-ft (61-m) 
grid spacings. The grid used in the mineralogic model has the same 200-ft (61-m) grid spacing 
as Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model and consists of 186 by 246 grid nodes. The 
areal extent is 65.7 sq. mi. (170 km2). 
The stratigraphic framework for the mineralogic model was created with a subset of 22 of the 
52 stratigraphic surfaces in Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model. An example of a 
Version 3.1 geologic framework model surface, that of the Tiva Canyon Tuff vitric zone 
nonwelded subzone (Tpcpv1), is illustrated in Figure 6-1 (elevations in meters are shown in the 
color key). The surface is notable for the fine resolution of topography, including faults such as 
the Solitario Canyon fault to the west. The 22 stratigraphic surfaces were linked via 
STRATAMODEL into a stratigraphic framework to define 22 volumetric sequences, as shown in 
Table 1-1 and illustrated in Figures 6-2 and 6-3. (Note: Figures 6-2 and 6-3 can be used as a 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-4 September 2004 
guide for locating the position of sequences in other figures.) Many of the sequences in 
Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model incorporate several stratigraphic units as shown in 
Table 1-1 and Figure 6-4 in which each sequence is labeled with the units forming its upper and 
lower surfaces. 
The modeling in the mineralogic model was conducted in stratigraphic coordinates so that the 
mineralogic data were constrained to their proper stratigraphic units. As a result, mineralogic 
and stratigraphic data are consistent and all mineral data are located in the correct stratigraphic 
unit. A detailed comparison of Version 3.1 geologic framework model stratigraphic assignments 
versus mineralogy for each of the borehole samples was conducted for every observation used in 
the mineralogic model. This analysis was based on mineralogic composition of the borehole 
sample. In several places, this analysis resulted in reassignment of samples to the 
mineralogically correct stratigraphic unit. As a result, this version of the mineralogic model is 
more consistent with the geologic framework model than previous versions. 
The 22 sequences listed in Table 1-1 were defined to keep the mineralogic model as simple as 
possible and to accurately define zeolitic, vitric, and repository host units at Yucca Mountain. 
Sequence 22, the uppermost sequence, includes all stratigraphic units above Tpcpv because these 
units share a common devitrification mineralogy dominated by feldspar plus silica minerals. The 
next sequence (sequence 21) consists of a Tiva Canyon vitrophyre unit composed of two 
subzones (Tpcpv3 and Tpcpv2), combined in the mineralogic model because they share a similar 
abundance of welded glass. The hydrogeologic Paintbrush nonwelded unit (PTn) is represented 
by sequence 20, which extends from the nonwelded subzone of the lower vitric zone of the Tiva 
Canyon Tuff to the upper vitric zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff. It includes six stratigraphic 
units occurring between the top of Tpcpv1 and the base of Tptrv2. These six units are similar in 
having variable proportions of glass plus smectite that cannot be captured within the larger scale 
of the mineralogic model; therefore, these six units were combined into sequence 20. The 
remaining Topopah Spring Tuff below sequence 20 is represented as eight sequences in the 
mineralogic model, representing the upper vitrophyre, the upper quartz-latite to rhyolite 
transition, the four lithophysal and nonlithophysal units, and units of welded and nonwelded 
glass at the base. The welded glass unit at the base, which includes Tptpv3 and Tptpv2, is 
represented as a single sequence in the mineralogic model (sequence 13). However, the 
sequence is subdivided into two equal-thickness layers. As described in Section 6.1, the 
uppermost layer was used, in part, to represent the altered zone, or region of intense smectite 
and zeolite alteration that occurs in many boreholes at the contact of Tptpln and Tptpv3. 
Stratigraphic units Tptpv1 and Tpbt1 were combined into a single sequence in the mineralogic 
model (sequence 12) because of their similar character in many boreholes and because Tpbt1 is 
generally thin and not well represented in the mineralogic data. 
The Calico Hills Formation and the underlying bedded tuff are represented by sequences 11 and 
10, respectively. The Calico Hills Formation was further subdivided into four layers. The layers 
have distinct mineralogic abundances in the mineralogic model and were created to allow 
modeling of variable zeolitization with depth in the Calico Hills Formation. 

MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-5 September 2004 
Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-1. Shaded Relief View of Tpcpv1, Nonwelded Subzone of Vitric Zone of Tiva Canyon Tuff 

MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-6 September 2004 
Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-2. North-South Cross Section Through the Repository, Illustrating Sequences Used in Version 3.0 of the Mineralogic 
Model, Excluding the Paleozoic Sequence 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-7 September 2004 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-3. East-West Cross Section Through the Repository, Illustrating Sequences Used in 
Version 3.0 of the Mineralogic Model, Excluding the Paleozoic Sequence 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-8 September 2004 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-4. Schematic Stratigraphic Column Showing Relative Thicknesses of Units Listed in Table 1-1 
(Excluding Units Between Qal or QC and Tpc, and Paleozoic Units) 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-9 September 2004 
In Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model, the Prow Pass Tuff, Bullfrog Tuff, and Tram 
Tuff are each represented by six stratigraphic units (a total of 18 units). In the mineralogic 
model, these 18 units were combined into a total of four zeolitic or vitric and three devitrified 
nonzeolitic sequences. These sequences reflect the characteristic alternation at this depth 
between units that can be readily zeolitized and those that have devitrified to feldspar plus silica 
minerals and in which zeolitization does not occur. The uppermost, first zeolitic sequence is 
defined by the upper vitric subunit of the Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpuv). The word vitric and the 
symbol v are used in Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model to describe originally vitric 
units, even when these units may now be zeolitic. 
The upper vitric or zeolitic sequence in the Prow Pass Tuff is followed by a nonzeolitic sequence 
representing the devitrified center of the Prow Pass Tuff (TcpucTcplc). It includes the upper 
crystalline, middle densely welded, and lower crystalline subunits. The second zeolitic sequence 
includes the lower vitric portion of the Prow Pass Tuff (Tcplv), the bedded tuff of the Prow Pass 
Tuff (Tcpbt), and the upper vitric subunit of the Bullfrog Tuff (Tcbuv). This sequence is 
identified as TcplvTcbuv. The second nonzeolitic sequence consists of the devitrified Bullfrog 
Tuff and combines three subunits (Tcbuc, Tcbmd, and Tcblc). The third zeolitic sequence, 
labeled TcblvTctuv, includes the lower vitric and bedded tuff of the Bullfrog Tuff in addition to 
the upper vitric unit of the Tram Tuff. The final nonzeolitic sequence, TctucTctlc, includes the 
devitrified center of the Tram Tuff (Tctuc, Tctmd, and Tctlc). The final zeolitic sequence is the 
base of the Tram Tuff (Tctlv and Tctbt). Units older than the Tram Tuff are undifferentiated as 
Tund and have a variable zeolitic character. 
The lowermost sequence in the mineralogic model is the Paleozoic sequence, making a total of 
22 sequences. However, there are 26 distinct layers in the mineralogic model, including the 
subdivision of Tptpv3Tptpv2 into two layers and the Calico Hills Formation into four layers. 
The model contains 45,756 (186 by 246) grid nodes, which with 26 layers brings the total 
number of cells in the model to 1,189,656. Each cell contains 16 values, including percentage 
abundance for 10 mineral groups listed in Section 6.2.3, cell volume, cell location (x, y), 
elevation (z), sequence number, and layer number. Any cell in the model can be queried to 
obtain any of these values. Figure 6-2 illustrates a north-south cross section and Figure 6-3 
illustrates an east-west cross section through Yucca Mountain, showing the distributions and 
thicknesses of the sequences used as the framework of the mineralogic model (Table 1-1). 
To assess the differences between the geologic framework model Version 3.1 stratigraphy and 
the Mineralogic Model 3.0 sequences a comparison was made at all of the boreholes from which 
mineralogic data were obtained for the model. Because the boreholes are not located precisely at 
grid nodes, some differences between the predicted and actual elevations of contacts were 
expected. There is no impact to the mineralogic model, because mineralogic composition was 
the primary parameter used to adjust stratigraphic location of sample values. The elevations of 
the contacts between stratigraphic units were found to be within 3.3 ft (1 m) to 49 ft (15 m) of 
the Version 3.1 geologic framework model values detailed in a scientific notebook (Carey 1999 
[DIRS 138525], pp. 10 to 12, 199 to 221). These relatively low differences in contact elevations 
indicate a good comparison between the stratigraphy and mineralogic model sequences. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-10 September 2004 
6.2.3 Incorporation of Mineralogic Data from Boreholes 
Mineralogic data, including core samples and cuttings, are available for 24 boreholes in the form 
of data files providing the mineralogy as a function of sample depth or elevation. The cuttings 
were used in the mineralogic model based on the assumption presented in Section 5. Elevations 
assigned to cutting samples were the midpoints of the depth ranges from which the cuttings were 
collected. The borehole locations are shown on the map in Figure 6-5. Ten minerals groups or 
classes were incorporated in Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model: 
 Smectite + illite 
 Sorptive zeolites (the sum of clinoptilolite, heulandite, mordenite, chabazite, erionite, 
and stellerite) 
 Tridymite 
 Cristobalite + opal-CT 
 Quartz 
 Feldspars 
 Volcanic glass 
 Nonsorptive zeolite (analcime) 
 Mica 
 Calcite. 
The mineralogy (weight percent present for each of the 10 mineral groups), stratigraphy, and 
elevations of the samples collected from each of the 24 boreholes included in the mineralogic 
model are provided in a STRATAMODEL data input file in product output 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. Because boreholes UZN-31 and UZN-32 are separated by only 
74 ft (23 m), the mineralogical data from these boreholes were combined into a single borehole 
file (Carey 1999 [DIRS 138525], pp. 187 to 188). The model grid spacing is 200 ft., which is a 
larger distance than the distance between the two boreholes. Therefore, the data from the two 
boreholes can be combined without impact to the mineralogic model. A total of 23 borehole 
files were used in Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model. 
The borehole data files were imported into a process that involved mapping the elevations of the 
mineralogic samples onto the stratigraphic elevations obtained from Version 3.1 of the geologic 
framework model. The mineralogic model was constructed with the use of the numeric mean of 
all of the mineralogic data within a given sequence at each borehole. Inevitably, there were 
some discrepancies between elevations in the mineralogic data and the elevations predicted by 
STRATAMODEL and Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model. These discrepancies 
included mineralogic data from a given stratigraphic unit being assigned to the incorrect 
sequence in STRATAMODEL. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-11 September 2004 
There were three causes of these discrepancies: 
1. The boreholes are not located at grid nodes. The elevations calculated by 
STRATAMODEL for the stratigraphic contacts at the boreholes are based on an 
average of the nearest four grid nodes. The calculated value was in error where the 
average value differed from the true value because of uneven topography near the 
borehole. These occurrences are identified in Appendix E as too close to boundary. 
2. There are regions of some stratigraphic units where Version 3.1 of the geologic 
framework model does not precisely reproduce observed borehole contacts. In 
addition, three boreholes that were used in the mineralogic model were not used in the 
construction of Version 3.1 of the geologic framework model (a#1, UZN-31, and 
UZN-32) and one borehole in which only part of the stratigraphy was used (UZ-14). 
The geologic framework model stratigraphy provides contact information only for 
units below Tptpv2 in UZ-14. These discrepancies are similar in character to 
discrepancies described in No. 1, and are also identified in Appendix E as too close to 
boundary. 
3. There were a few places in which STRATAMODEL predicted the absence of a 
sequence at a particular borehole. This occurred where the surface defining the 
sequence was absent. For example, at borehole H-4, Tpcpv3 is absent; therefore, the 
entire sequence Tpcpv3Tpcpv2 was not present in the mineralogic model at H-4. 
There was also one location (WT-1) in which faulting caused the apparent removal of 
sequences in the mineralogic model. These discrepancies are identified in Appendix E 
as removed; unit X not present in mineralogic model, in which case the mineralogic 
sample was removed from the model. 
In correcting for these discrepancies, there are two possible approaches: (1) assume the correct 
elevations but possibly incorrect assignments of mineralogy to stratigraphy, or (2) assume the 
correct mineralogy associated with a mineral-stratigraphic unit but possibly incorrect elevations 
for the mineralogic data. The latter approach is known as modeling in stratigraphic coordinates 
and is based on the geologic principles presented in Section 5. The geologic principles result in 
the concept of vertical succession whereby mineralogic composition can be used as the basis for 
forming model sequences. This approach was used in the construction of Version 3.0 of the 
mineralogic model. The advantages of the stratigraphic coordinate system are that all 
mineralogic data are correctly associated with a sequence and that the stratigraphic relationship 
of data from differing boreholes is preserved. Therefore, mineralogic data were assigned to the 
correct sequence by small adjustments to apparent elevations, where needed. 
In addition, a detailed comparison of mineralogy and stratigraphy revealed some inconsistencies 
between stratigraphic and mineralogic assignments. For example, a sample near a contact, with 
mineralogy characteristic of a devitrified tuff, may have been placed in a vitric/zeolitic tuff when 
the data files were imported into STRATAMODEL. In this case, the sample elevation was 
adjusted to assign the mineralogy to the adjacent devitrified stratigraphic sequence. 
The details of the adjustments for each borehole are provided in Appendix E, Table E-1. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-12 September 2004 
6.2.4 Calculation of Mineral Distributions 
The final stage of the mineralogic model construction in STRATAMODEL is the distribution of 
the mineralogic data in three dimensions using the geologic principles presented in Section 5. 
This estimation can be accomplished by a number of methods, including geometric, 
distance-weighting, and geostatistical methods. In Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model, a 
distance-weighting method was used to estimate mineral distributions. The geologic Principle of 
Lateral Continuity allows for this type of estimation (Section 5). Geostatistical calculations were 
not conducted in this version of the model, but the data in Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model 
could be used for such calculations to provide a statistical framework for transport calculations. 
The 3-D mineral distributions were calculated using an inverse-distance-weighting function that 
operates solely within sequences (i.e., mineral abundances in a given sequence were calculated 
solely from mineralogic data within that sequence): 
W(r,R) = (1-r/R)2(R/r)X (Eq. 6-1) 
where 
W = weighting function 
r = distance between the interpolated point and a known value 
R = search radius 
X = power factor. 
This weighting function is provided by the STRATAMODEL software and yields, essentially, a 
1/rx weighting of the mineralogic data. At small values of r, the weighting function is 
approximately equal to (R/r)x, which is the same as a simple inverse weighting function, (1/r) x 
multiplied by a normalization factor, Rx. The advantage of the STRATAMODEL function is 
apparent at values of r that approach R: the STRATAMODEL weighting function goes to 0, 
while a simple inverse weighting function retains non-zero weighting at R. In other words, the 
STRATAMODEL weighting function provides a smooth transition in weighting between values 
of r less than R to values greater than R, but the simple inverse weighting function yields an 
abrupt transition from non-zero weights (r<R) to zero weights (r>R). In calculating the mineral 
abundance at a specified location, the weights are normalized so that the sum of the weight is 
equal to 1. 
In Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model, a power factor of X=4 was used. The choice of X=4 
was made based on an analysis of the mineralogic data as documented in a scientific notebook 
(Carey 1999 [DIRS 138525], pp. 222 to 246). Three possible choices were investigated in detail: 
X=2, X=4, and X=6. The advantage of X=4 was most apparent in the analysis of the predicted 
zeolite distribution in the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11; see Figures 6-11 through 6-15). 
A choice of X=2 allowed too much influence from distant boreholes such that substantial 
non-zero values of zeolite were predicted in the southwest region of the model. Such predictions 
differed from a basic mineralogic-data analysis, which indicated that there should be consistently 
low values of zeolite in the southwest. A choice of X=6 yielded low predicted values of zeolite 
in the southwest but also predicted very localized control of mineralogy. For example, the 
transition zone between zeolitic and non-zeolitic Calico Hills Formation was very narrow. This 
high degree of local control was not consistent with the mineralogic analysis. The choice of X=4 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-13 September 2004 
allowed for sufficient local control to yield low abundances of zeolite in the southwest, while 
avoiding severe localization of predicted values. 
The search radius, R, is also an important parameter and was set at 26,247 ft (8,000 m) to allow 
the mineralogic data to fill all of the model space in the Version 3.1 geologic framework model. 
6.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
The results for Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model are illustrated in cross sections and in map 
views of individual surfaces. Black areas on the map view figures indicate regions where a 
sequence is missing due to faulting or erosion. The location and extent of the north-south and 
east-west cross sections are shown in Figure 6-5 in relation to the repository. The mineralogic 
stratigraphy is labeled on cross sections provided in Figures 6-2 and 6-3. 
6.3.1 Model Limits and Illustration of Results 
In Figures 6-5 to 6-26 a color-coded key lists mineral abundance values in weight percent. 
Figure 6-5 shows the distribution of boreholes on which the mineralogic model is based. Colors 
in the background to this figure are keyed to the abundance of volcanic glass in 
sequence 20 (PTn unit). The sources of the mineralogic data are confined to the central portion 
of the model area; the mineralogic model results are poorly constrained outside of the subregion 
indicated by the black box in Figure 6-5. Also shown in Figure 6-5 are regions in which 
sequence 20 is absent as indicated by linear black areas. These regions occur in linear zones near 
faults, where the mineralogic model resolution of fault geometry is poor. Accurate mineralogic 
results should not be expected adjacent to faults. Sequence 20 is also absent in broad areas 
where it has been removed by erosion as indicated by broad black areas. Figure 6-5 illustrates 
the relatively small, central area in which mineralogic data are abundant, relative to the broader 
extent of the geologic framework model. This limitation should be kept in mind in considering 
the visualizations generated from the mineralogic model. 
6.3.2 Sorptive Zeolite Distribution 
Zeolite abundance is shown in Figure 6-6 as a range of colors from dark blue (0 percent) to red 
(20 percent or greater). Sorptive zeolites at Yucca Mountain play an important role in models of 
radionuclide retardation and thermohydrology and in repository design. Sorptive zeolites occur 
in variable amounts below the repository host horizon in four distinct stratigraphic groups 
separated by nonzeolitic intervals. The repository host horizon, as shown in Table 1-1, includes 
part of sequence 17 and all of sequences 14, 15, and 16. Zeolite distributions are displayed in 
Figures 6-7 and 6-8. Cross-sectional keys to sequence names and numbers are provided on 
Figures 6-2 and 6-3. The distribution of sorptive zeolites is closely related to the internal 
stratigraphy of the tuffs (also see Section 6.2.2). Sorptive zeolites occur within the upper vitric, 
basal vitric, and basal bedded tuff units of each formation of the Crater Flat Group (Tram Tuff, 
Bullfrog Tuff, and Prow Pass Tuff). The devitrified center of each formation in the Crater Flat 
Group lacks zeolites. The net result is a sequence of alternating zeolitic and nonzeolitic rocks. 
The highest stratigraphic level at which extensive zeolitization of vitric units occurs varies across 
the geographic extent of the mineralogic model. In the south and west, the first occurrence of 
abundant zeolites below the repository host horizon is in the lower vitric unit of the Prow Pass 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-14 September 2004 
Tuff (sequence 7). Toward the north and east, the first occurrence of abundant zeolites extends 
into the bedded tuff below the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 10), into the Calico Hills 
Formation (sequence 11), and ultimately to the lower vitric units of the Topopah Spring Tuff 
(Tptpv1, Tptpv2, and Tptpv3; sequences 12 and 13) (Figure 6-7). The position of the water table 
relative to zeolitized rocks is shown in Figures 6-9 and 6-10. These cross sections were 
truncated at the water table, which rises in elevation toward the north and the west. In the 
north-south cross section, zeolite-rich rocks separate the proposed repository host horizon 
(sequences 14, 15, 16 and part of 17) from the water table at all locations (Figure 6-9). Note the 
common occurrence of moderate-abundance zeolite units at the tops of the zeolite-rich units. In 
the east-west cross section, zeolites also occur between the repository host horizon and the water 
table, except in several down-dropped blocks to the east of the repository. These zeolite-free 
regions develop where faulting drops the Topopah Spring Tuff below the water table. 
The progressive development of zeolitization from northeast to southwest is illustrated in a series 
of map views through the Calico Hills Formation (Tac; Sequence 11) and into the upper vitric 
Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpuv; Sequence 9); see Figures 6-11 through 6-16. The transition zone 
between regions of high (greater than 5 percent) and low (0 to 5 percent) zeolite abundance is an 
important feature to model accurately because it may be a zone of enhanced radionuclide 
sorption below the repository. The presence of the zeolites clinoptilolite and mordenite is 
associated with increased radionuclide sorptive capacity (Vaniman and Bish 1995 
[DIRS 101496], pp. 537 to 538). However, the decreased permeability associated with 
zeolitization of moderately welded to nonwelded vitric tuff (Loeven 1993 [DIRS 101258], 
Table 6) may inhibit interaction between fluid-borne radionuclides and zeolites in the rock 
matrix. Within the transition zone, zeolites are present but the rock should be more permeable 
than completely zeolitized rock would be. This higher permeability may therefore allow the 
radionuclides better access to sorptive minerals. 
The transition zone is not easily characterized. There is a striking reduction in zeolite abundance 
from east to west in the upper half of the Calico Hills Formation, across a north-south boundary 
that is well defined in the region of boreholes WT-2 and UZ#16 (Figures 6-11 and 6-12). The 
location and abruptness of this transition are very poorly constrained to the north and west of H-5 
and moderately constrained to the south between WT-1 and G-3. In the lower half of the Calico 
Hills Formation (sequence 11), extensive zeolitization occurs in borehole SD-7 and moderate 
zeolitization occurs in SD-12 and H-6 (Figures 6-13 and 6-14). This leads to a complex 
transition zone, in which a high-zeolite peninsula extends westward from SD-7. The detailed 
sampling of SD-7 and SD-12 suggests a transition zone that may be quite heterogeneous both 
vertically and horizontally. In SD-7, sills of more than 25 percent zeolite alternate with largely 
vitric samples in the lower half of the Calico Hills Formation, suggesting an interfingered 
transition zone. In contrast, SD-12 shows a rather uniform development of increasing 
zeolitization with depth. These data indicate that the general reduction in zeolitization to the 
southwest may be strongly overprinted by patchy intervals of highly zeolitized Calico Hills 
Formation. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-15 September 2004 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-5. Map View of Volcanic Glass Distribution in PTn Unit, Tpcpv1Tptrv2 (Sequence 20) 
for Entire Version 3.0 of the Mineralogic Model 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-16 September 2004 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-6. Zeolite Distribution in North-South and East-West Cross Sections Through Center of 
Repository Block

MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 6-17 September 2004 
Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-7. Zeolite Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through the Repository Block 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-18 September 2004 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-8. Zeolite Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through the Repository Block 

MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-19 September 2004 
Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-9. Zeolite Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through the Repository Block and Above the Water Table 

MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-20 September 200 
Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
Output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-10. Zeolite Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through Repository Block and Above Water Table 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-21 September 2004 
The bedded tuff below the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 10, Tacbt) is zeolitized in boreholes 
SD-7, WT-2, SD-12, and H-5 (Figure 6-15). The transition zone to low zeolite abundance is 
confined to the southwest, around SD-6, H-3, and G-3. However, SD-6 contains about 
15 percent smectite and perhaps should be viewed as a part of the zone of abundant sorptive 
mineralogy. There are no data for this unit at H-6. 
The upper vitric Prow Pass Tuff (sequence 9, Tcpuv) has a zeolite distribution similar to that of 
Tacbt, except that there are data at H-6 with abundant zeolites (Figure 6-16). In addition, SD-6 
lacks both smectite and zeolites in sequence 9. 
Zeolitization is complete throughout the mineralogic model in sequence 7, which includes the 
lower vitric and bedded tuffs of the Prow Pass Tuff and the upper vitric unit of the Bullfrog Tuff. 
In general, the mineralogic model represents the transition zone as a rather sharp boundary 
modified by the local effects of particular boreholes. The southwest region as a whole is 
characterized by low zeolite abundances (less than 10 percent). Values near 0 percent in the 
Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11) are restricted to regions adjacent to nonzeolite-bearing 
boreholes such as G-3, H-3, and H-5. There is little control on the extrapolation of zeolite data 
in the northeast, northwest, and southeast regions of the mineralogic model. The predicted 
values of extensive zeolitization in the north are strongly influenced by boreholes such as G-2 
and G-1. Either of the regions distant from these boreholes may be characterized by more 
moderate values of zeolitization. 
The most abundant zeolites at Yucca Mountain are clinoptilolite and mordenite (Bish and 
Chipera 1989 [DIRS 101195], Appendix A). Major, stratigraphically continuous intervals of 
clinoptilolite occur in all boreholes, from about 330 ft to 500 ft (100 m to 150 m) above the water 
table to about 1,600 ft (500 m) below the water table. Heulandite is fairly common at Yucca 
Mountain but is combined with clinoptilolite in the XRD analyses because the two minerals have 
the same crystal structure. Mordenite often occurs along with clinoptilolite but is less abundant 
in boreholes to the south; for example, it is virtually absent in bulk-rock samples from borehole 
G-3. The nonsorptive zeolite analcime occurs as a higher temperature alteration product at 
greater depths, and its occurrence deepens stratigraphically from the Prow Pass Tuff in G-2 to 
the Tram Tuff in G-1 and older lavas in G-3. Except in the north, the depths of analcime 
occurrence are so great that little interaction with migrating radioactive waste is likely. 
Until core samples from borehole SD-7 were analyzed, chabazite was known only as a rare 
zeolite at Yucca Mountain. However, samples from the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11) in 
SD-7 contained significant amounts of chabazite (up to 9 percent) in an approximately 46-ft- 
(14-m-) thick zeolitized interval consisting principally of clinoptilolite + chabazite, overlying a 
clinoptilolite + mordenite zone (DTN: LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142]). This 
occurrence indicates that the sorptive zeolite assemblages may be more complex at the southern 
end of the exploratory block than previously predicted. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-22 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-11. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Upper Layer (Layer 14) of Calico Hills Formation 
(Tac, Sequence 11) 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-23 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-12. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Middle-Upper Layer (Layer 13) of Calico Hills Formation 
(Tac, Sequence 11) 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-24 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-13. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Middle-Lower Layer (Layer 12) of Calico Hills Formation 
(Tac, Sequence 11) 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-25 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-14. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Lower Layer (Layer 11) of Calico Hills Formation 
(Tac, Sequence 11) 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-26 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-15. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Bedded Tuff of Calico Hills Formation 
(Tacbt, Sequence 10) 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-27 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 
Figure 6-16. Zeolite Distribution in Map View of Upper Vitric Zone of Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpuv, 
Sequence 9) 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-28 September 2004 
In addition to clinoptilolite, mordenite, analcime, and minor chabazite, localized occurrences of a 
few other zeolites were found at Yucca Mountain. Stellerite is common in fractures of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff and is particularly common in both the fractures and matrix of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff in borehole UZ#16. Stellerite extends into the lower devitrified portion of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff (sequences 14 and 15) in borehole UZ-14, spanning an interval in which 
perched water was observed during drilling. Phillipsite is a rare zeolite at Yucca Mountain that 
was found only in the altered zone above the water table at the top of the basal vitrophyre of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff (Carlos et al. 1995 [DIRS 101326], pp. 39, 47). Laumontite occurs in very 
small amounts (less than 4 percent) in deep, altered tuffs in borehole p#1 and perhaps in G-1 
(Bish and Chipera 1989 [DIRS 101195]). Phillipsite and laumontite are so rare that it was not 
necessary to consider them in the estimation of zeolite volume for the mineralogic model. 
Erionite is another rare zeolite at Yucca Mountain and was at first observed only in the altered 
zone at the top of the Topopah Spring Tuff basal vitrophyre. However, it has since been found in 
significant quantities (up to 34 percent) in drill core from a 10-ft- (3-m-) thick sequence in the 
bulk rock underlying the Topopah Spring Tuff basal vitrophyre in borehole UZ-14 and in trace 
amounts (1 percent) in a breccia zone in the south ramp of the Exploratory Studies Facility. 
Although the occurrence of erionite is rather sporadic and, where found, its abundance is 
typically low, it is a significant health concern due to its known carcinogenicity. 
6.3.3 Smectite + Illite Distribution 
Smectite is a swelling clay with a high cation-exchange capacity. Where present in significant 
amounts, it can act as a relatively impermeable barrier to fluid flow. It effectively sorbs many 
cationic species, such as Pu(V) in biocarbonate water, and is therefore an important factor in 
calculations of radionuclide retardation (Vaniman et al. 1996 [DIRS 111128]). Illites are clays 
with a higher layer charge than smectites, reducing their effective cation-exchange capacity and 
eliminating their impermeable character. At greater depths, illite develops as a prograde product 
of smectite alteration, particularly in the northern and central portions of the mineralogic model 
(Bish and Aronson 1993 [DIRS 100006], pp. 151 to 155). 
Smectite + illite are present in low abundance throughout Yucca Mountain except in some thin 
horizons and at depth in the region of boreholes G-1 and G-2 (Figures 6-17 and 6-18). XRD 
analyses indicate smectite in virtually all analyzed samples, although typically in amounts less 
than 5 percent. Volumes of smectite + illite increase at depth, particularly in the fossil 
geothermal system. Above the water table, there are two zones of up to 75 percent smectite in 
the Paintbrush Group, one within the vitric nonwelded section above the Topopah Spring Tuff 
(PTn, sequence 20) and one at the top of the basal vitrophyre of the Topopah Spring Tuff (upper 
layer of sequence 13). These smectites typically have nonexpandable illite contents of 10 to 
20 percent (Bish and Aronson 1993 [DIRS 100006], pp. 151 to 152). Well beneath the water 
table (depths greater than 3,300 ft (1,000 m) below ground surface), the ancient (approximately 
10.7 million years ago) geothermal system generated abundant smectite + illite but with a much 
higher illite content (up to approximately 80-90 percent) (Bish and Aronson 1993 
[DIRS100006], Figures 3 and 4, pp. 152 to 153). However, the illitic clays occur at such great 
depths that they are of little importance for transport modeling at Yucca Mountain. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 6-29 
6.3.4 Volcanic Glass Distribution 
Volcanic glass is a highly reactive, metastable material that can react in the presence of water to 
form assemblages including zeolites and clays. The distribution of volcanic glass relative to the 
repository location is an important factor in evaluating possible repository-induced mineral 
reactions and assessing their impact on repository performance. Volcanic glass is almost entirely 
restricted to regions above the water table at Yucca Mountain (Figures 6-5, 6-19, and 6-20). The 
location of the water table is displayed in Figures 6-9 and 6-10. The most significant 
occurrences of volcanic glass are in the PTn unit (sequence 20), the lower vitrophyre of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff (top of sequence 13), and in vitric, zeolite-poor regions of the Calico Hills 
Formation (sequence 11) in the southwestern and western regions of the mineralogic model. The 
distribution of volcanic glass in the Calico Hills Formation is inversely correlated with zeolite 
abundance. In the transition zone between high- and low-abundance zeolite, volcanic glass and 
zeolite occur together. 
6.3.5 Silica Polymorph Distribution 
The common silica polymorphs at Yucca Mountain include quartz, cristobalite, opal-CT, and 
tridymite. These minerals could affect repository performance because of their chemical 
reactivity, mechanical response to temperature, and potential impact on human health during 
mining operations. Repository-induced heating may accelerate the chemical reactions of 
cristobalite, opal-CT, and tridymite to quartz, which is the stable silica polymorph. In addition, 
all of the silica minerals are susceptible to dissolution and precipitation reactions. Therefore, the 
potential exists for substantial redistribution of silica with resulting changes in the permeability 
and porosity of the matrix and fractures in the repository environment. The results of the 
mineralogic model, showing ambient conditions, can be used to model in 3-D the effects of 
thermal and geochemical reactions of metastable silica polymorphs on repository performance. 
Tridymite and cristobalite also undergo phase transitions between 100 and 275C (Thompson 
and Wennemer 1979 [DIRS 111126], pp. 1018 to 1025), which may have an impact on the 
mechanical integrity of the repository. The a to  reaction in cristobalite is of particular concern 
in thermal-load designs because of effects on porosity, permeability, and mechanical strength. 
Finally, the crystalline silica polymorphs (quartz, cristobalite, and tridymite) are all regulated 
health hazards. 
Cristobalite and tridymite are abundant in the repository host horizon. Opal-CT is usually found 
in association with sorptive zeolites. Tridymite occurs above the water table and primarily above 
the Repository Host Horizon, particularly in those parts of the Topopah Spring and Tiva Canyon 
Tuffs where vapor-phase crystallization is common (Figures 6-21 and 6-22). Pseudomorphs of 
quartz replacing tridymite in deep fractures and cavities are evidence of the instability of 
tridymite under low-temperature aqueous conditions. Tridymite occurrences have been 
interpreted as a possible limit on past maximum rises in the water table at Yucca Mountain 
(Levy 1991 [DIRS 100053], pp. 483 to 484). Volumes of exceptionally high tridymite content 
are restricted to the upper strata within the Tiva Canyon and Topopah Spring Tuffs but rarely 
exceed 20 percent. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-30 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-17. Smectite + Illite Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-31 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-18. Smectite + Illite Distribution and East-West Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-32 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-19. Volcanic Glass Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-33 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-20. Volcanic Glass Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-34 September 2004 
Cristobalite is typically a devitrification product that is found in virtually every sample above the 
water table. Opal-CT, which is a typical byproduct of zeolitization, is found below the water 
table before disappearing at depths at or below the Tram Tuff. Cristobalite and opal-CT are 
combined in the mineralogic model, partly because the extra analytical procedures necessary to 
distinguish them were not commonly applied to the borehole data, but also because the two 
minerals dissolve to similar aqueous silica concentrations. As is evident in Figures 6-23 and 
6-24, cristobalite and opal-CT are very abundant in the devitrified tuffs of the Paintbrush Group. 
Occurrences below the Paintbrush Group units are primarily opal-CT in tuffs containing 
abundant sorptive zeolites. Cristobalite and opal-CT disappear at depth and are replaced by 
quartz-bearing assemblages. 
Quartz is common in the lower Topopah Spring Tuff and is abundant at depth in the Crater Flat 
Group (Figures 6-25 and 6-26). 
6.4 UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS IN MINERALOGIC MODEL 
6.4.1 Uncertainties 
Several uncertainties are associated with the mineralogic model in regions distant from the 
boreholes. In particular, there are striking geographic differences in mineral abundances that 
relate to past geologic processes. These are most obvious in the stratigraphic depth of 
zeolitization increasing to the southwest (from the Calico Hills Formation to the Prow Pass Tuff) 
across the mineralogic model (Figures 6-11 to 6-16). Currently, the borehole data are not 
adequate for determining the precise location of the transition from vitric to zeolitic Calico Hills 
Formation. A consequence of this data inadequacy is the uncertainty associated with the trend of 
the transition to the north and west of borehole UZ-14 because of significant differences among 
UZ-14, G-2, and WT-24. There is also uncertainty related to the nature of the transition, that is, 
whether the depth to zeolitization decreases rapidly and smoothly along a well-defined front or 
whether zeolitized zones are interfingered with vitric zones along a highly irregular front. 
6.4.2 Model Limitations 
The most significant limitation of Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model is the scarce mineralogic 
data in the region beyond the western border of the repository. For example, an examination of 
Figure 4-1 demonstrates the importance of SD-6 in providing the only substantial quantity of 
mineralogic data along the western edge of Yucca Mountain. The uncertainty in the boundary 
regions of the mineralogic model is also elevated because of the limited number of sampling 
locations (see Figures 4-1 and 6-5). There is little impact if any to the users of the model 
because as documented in Section 1, they use the average mineral abundance layer values or the 
actual borehole mineral abundance data itself. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-35 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-21. Tridymite Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-36 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-22. Tridymite Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 6-37 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-23. Cristobalite + Opal-CT Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-38 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-24 Cristobalite + Opal-CT Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-39 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-25. Quartz Distribution in North-South Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-40 September 2004 
Output: DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
Figure 6-26. Quartz Distribution in East-West Cross Section Through the Repository 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-41 September 2004 
Fault zones are represented as steeply dipping but continuous stratigraphic units. As a 
consequence, mineralogic predictions in the immediate vicinity of the major fault zones 
(Solitario Canyon and Ghost Dance) are less accurate. The accuracy of the model is still 
adequate in the immediate vicinity of the fault zones, and the impact to the overall model is 
minimal. Again, there is little impact if any to the users of the model because as documented in 
Section 1, they use the average mineral abundance layer values or the actual borehole mineral 
abundance data itself. 
Quantitative mineralogic data from several boreholes were obtained primarily from cuttings 
rather than cores (all of WT-1 and WT-2, most of H-4, and significant portions of H-3, H-5, and 
p#1). Drill cuttings have a tendency to average mineral abundance over a finite depth range, and 
more consolidated rock fragments may be over-represented with respect to the softer, more 
friable rock fragments. The practice of washing cuttings before collection can actually remove 
specific mineral fractions (especially clays). These limitations can result in inaccurate mineral 
analyses and in variations in mineral abundance, becoming less distinct and spread over a greater 
vertical range. However, as documented in Appendices A through D this limitation does not 
significantly affect the mineralogic model as only 3 of the approximately 1,900 samples used in 
its construction could not be qualified due to concerns on the representativeness of its 
composition. 
The use of numeric means for the sequence at each borehole (Section 6.2.3) is assumed to be an 
adequate representation of the mineral abundances by sequence/layer. This assumption is based 
on there being vertical continuity of each model sequence/layer as discussed in Section 5. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 6-42 September 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-1 September 2004 
7. VALIDATION 
This section presents the validation of the mineralogic model by showing how the confidencebuilding 
criteria were satisfied during and after model development. Section 7.1 shows how the 
model development process satisfied the criteria in the technical work plan and AP-SIII.10Q. 
Section 7.2 provides a detailed discussion of the postdevelopment validation of the mineralogic 
model in accordance with the applicable criteria. 
The level of confidence required for the model validation activity for the mineralogic model has 
been determined from the guidelines in AP-2.27Q, Attachment 3, Levels of Models Importance, 
Validation, and Confidence to be Level I as documented in Technical Work Plan for: The 
Integrated Site Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Section 2.2.2). Because the mineralogic 
model does not provide any direct input to TSPA, its level of significance depends, in part, on its 
association with models that do provide input directly to TSPA. The mineralogic model (output 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001) provides the abundance and distribution of 10 minerals and 
mineral groups within 22 stratigraphic sequences in the Yucca Mountain area. The mineral 
abundance data from the mineralogic model, averaged for each of the 10 mineral groups by the 
mineralogic model layers, are used as direct input to develop heat capacity values in Heat 
Capacity Analysis Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170003]; DTN: SN0307T0510902.003 
[DIRS 164196]). The average rock grain heat capacity provided by 
DTN: SN0307T0510902.003 [DIRS 164196] for all mineralogic model layers is approximately 
1 J/gK (Joules/gram-degree Kelvin) within the parameter uncertainty that is represented by the 
associated standard deviation. The standard deviations for the average rock grain heat capacity 
range from approximately 0.10 to 0.20 J/gK as shown in Table 6.5 of the Heat Capacity Analysis 
Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170003]). Comparing the layers average rock grain heat capacity with 
their uncertainty indicates that differences in mineral abundances have a minimal impact on heat 
capacity values. 
The mineralogic model layer heat capacity values are then used by six model reports: In-drift 
Natural Convection and Condensation Model Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164327]), Drift 
Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]), Ventilation Model and Analysis Report 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169862]), Igneous Intrusion Impacts on Waste Packages and Waste Forms 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 168960]), Dike/Drift Interactions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170028]), and Multiscale 
Thermohydrologic Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169565]). Although these models require Level II 
or III validation as shown in Table 1 of AP-2.27Q, calculation results of such coupled processes 
models are not sensitive to variations in the heat capacities as demonstrated by comparative 
studies in the previous and current revisions of Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes 
(TH/THC/THM) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169866]) in which heat capacities are updated. Accordingly, 
Level I validation is appropriate for that intended use of the mineralogic model. 
Furthermore, the measured mineral abundance data for borehole USW SD-9 are used as direct 
input in Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169866]) and 
Drift-Scale THC Seepage Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169856]). The USW SD-9 data used in these 
coupled process models are discrete measurement values used to construct the mineralogic 
model, and are not the representation of the 3-D product output. The borehole mineral 
abundance data are then used to calculate mineral volume fractions and surface areas in the 
coupled process models. Uncertainties from use of these analytical results are associated with 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-2 September 2004 
the sampling and measurement uncertainties only and have no impact on the mineralogic model 
or its validation. Because of the relatively constant rock grain heat capacity values, variations in 
the mineralogic model are expected to have a minimal effect on the estimated mean annual dose 
(less than 0.1 mrem/year). In summary, Level I validation is appropriate for all intended uses of 
the mineralogic model. 
7.1 CONFIDENCE BUILDING DURING MODEL DEVELOPMENT TO ESTABLISH 
SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND ACCURACY FOR INTENDED USE 
For Level I validation, Section 2.2.2 of the technical work plan (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635]) 
specifies the following steps for Confidence Building During Model Development: The 
development of the model should be documented in accordance with the requirements of 
Section 5.3.2(b) of AP-SIII.10Q. Attachment 3 of AP-2.27Q also provides model validation 
guidance that is documented in Section 2.2.2 of the technical work plan. The development of the 
mineralogic model has been conducted according to all of the applicable criteria, as follows: 
1. Selection of input parameters and/or input data, and a discussion of how the selection 
process builds confidence in the model. [AP-SIII.10Q 5.3.2(b) (1) and AP-2.27Q Attachment 
3, Level I (a)] 
The selection of input data builds confidence in the mineralogic model because all input data 
have been obtained from controlled sources, and provide the parameters or mineral species or 
groups of interest (see Table 4-1, Section 4.1.1). In addition, the input data are based on the 
most direct analytical method available, XRD determinations of mineralogical abundances. 
Furthermore, two independent activities were conducted to qualify all of the input data 
(see Steinborn 2002 [DIRS 160702] and Appendices A through D). Only 6 of the 
approximately 1900 data points could not be qualified. 
2. Description of calibration activities, and/or initial boundary condition runs, and/or run 
convergences, simulation conditions set up to span the range of intended use and avoid 
inconsistent outputs, and a discussion of how the activity or activities build confidence in the 
model. Inclusion of a discussion of impacts of any non-convergence runs [AP-SIII.10Q 
5.3.2(b)(2) and AP-2.27Q Attachment 3, Level I (e)]. 
Calibration activities are described in Section 6.2.4. These activities build confidence in the 
mathematical model. Documentation of calibration runs is provided in Section 6.2.4. This 
discussion refers to the establishment of the power factor (X) in the calculation of mineral 
distributions. Of the three choices examined (X=2, 4, or 6) in the development of the model, 
the value of 4 was selected as it provided the realistic representation of the mineralogical 
variation. 
As described in the technical work plan, the mineralogic model does not provide simulation 
conditions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635] Section 2.2.2). 
3. Discussion of the impacts of uncertainties to the model results including how the model 
results represent the range of possible outcomes consistent with important uncertainties. 
[AP-SIII.10Q 5.3.2(b)(3) and AP-2.27Q Attachment 3, Level 1 (d) and (f)]. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-3 September 2004 
Discussion of model uncertainties is provided in Section 6.4. The principal uncertainty is the 
projection of mineralogic abundances into the model layers away from the borehole data 
sources. This uncertainty, however, is contained in the uncertainty of the downstream 
models that use the mineralogic model. There is little impact, if any, to the uses of the 
mineralogic model because as described in Section 1 and above in Section 7, the downstream 
products either use the layer averages of mineral abundance values or the measured borehole 
mineral abundance data directly. 
As described in the technical work plan (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Section 2.2.2), the 
mineralogic model does not provide model predictions (performance parameters) that 
incorporate a range of possible outcomes, consistent with important uncertainties; it is a static 
representational model. 
4. Formulation of defensible assumptions and simplifications. [AP-2.27Q Attachment 3 Level I 
(b)]. 
Assumptions are discussed in Section 5. The principal assumptions are the geologic 
Principles of Superposition and Original Horizontality, and Original Lateral Continuity and 
vertical continuity within a rock layer. Because these principles are generally applicable and 
there is no indication that there is anything unique about this site that would cause these 
principles not to be applicable, the application of these principles to this site is defensible. 
5. Consistency with physical principles, such as conservation of mass, energy, and momentum. 
[AP-2.27Q Attachment 3 Level I (c)] 
The mineralogic model is consistent with physical principles, and particularly geologic 
Principles of Superposition and Original Horizontality, and Original Lateral Continuity and 
vertical continuity within a rock layer. Because the mineralogic model is a static 
representational model that provides a 3-D representation of mineral abundances in the model 
volume, the consideration of dynamic principles such as conservation of mass, energy, and 
momentum does not apply in this case. 
7.2 CONFIDENCE BUILDING AFTER MODEL DEVELOPMENT TO SUPPORT 
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF THE MODEL 
Postdevelopment model validation consists of corroborating model results (output 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001) with acquired field data (XRD mineralogic abundance) not 
previously used to develop the model, following the guidelines provided in AP-SIII.10Q. 
Corroboration is performed on layers for which data are available. The basis for this validation 
is based on three geologic principles: Superposition, Original Horizontality, and Original Lateral 
Continuity (Jackson 1997 [DIRS 109119], p.362 and p. 361). Explanation of these principles 
and their application to this model are provided in Section 5. As discussed in Section 5 the 
postdevelopment model validation assumes that the mineral abundance results from boreholes 
can be compared because the rock layers are laterally continuous and that vertical continuity 
within each model sequence allows average mineral abundances to be determined for the 
sequences. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-4 September 2004 
The validation plan was to obtain existing corroborating mineralogic data from a borehole 
located in the zeolitic (northeast) region of the mineralogic model, and a second in the vitric 
(southwest) region (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Section 2.2.2). The specification of a zeolitic 
and vitric borehole was made to account for and recognize that some model layers have a 
bimodal composition. The bimodal composition could have had an affect on the results of the 
corroboration. Unfortunately, no independent data could be found from the vitric region for 
validation. The lack of a borehole for the vitric region of the model has little impact on the 
results of this validation activity. This is because the type of data and method of comparison 
between the independent data and model results are the same regardless of the boreholes 
location. Furthermore, use of heat capacity values (that are derived from the average mineral 
abundances) is based on the average layer value. The vitric and zeolitic heat capacity 
representations are not used. The reports citing these heat capacity values are: In-drift Natural 
Convection and Condensation Model Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164327], Section 6.3.5.2.2), 
Drift Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107], Table 2, Attachment V, Table V-16), 
Ventilation Model and Analysis Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169862], Table 4-13), Igneous 
Intrusion Impacts on Waste Packages and Waste Forms (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168960], Table 4-2), 
Dike/Drift Interactions (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170028], Table 4-2), and Multiscale 
Thermohydrologic Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169565], Table 4-1, Appendix IV Table IV-3a). 
Therefore, the corroboration performed for the zeolitic region of the model provides confidence 
in the entire model. 
Two data sets from the zeolitic zone of the model are available and suitable for corroboration 
DTN: LA9909PR831231.004 [DIRS 129623] and Maldonado and Koether 1983 [DIRS 101805], 
Table 4. The DTN: LA9909PR831321.004 [DIRS 129623] provides data from borehole 
UE-25 c#2 and Maldonado and Koether 1983 [DIRS 101805], Table 4 provides data from 
borehole USW G-2. Data from Maldonado and Koether 1983 [DIRS 101805] (USW G-2) 
provides more analyses; 28 versus 5 for DTN: LA9909PR831231.004 [DIRS 129623] (UE-25 
c#2). Also, Maldonado and Koether 1983 [DIRS 101805] provides more mineral groups that are 
equivalent to those defined by the mineralogic model (7 versus 6). Because 
DTN: LA9909PR831231.004 [DIRS 129623] had fewer analyses and appropriate mineral groups 
it was determined that Maldonado and Koether 1983 [DIRS 101805] (USW G-2) was more 
appropriate independent data source for model validation. 
Model validation is based on a comparison between the average mineral abundances for each 
model layer of the validating boreholes are compared to the mean value for the corresponding 
mineralogic model layer. If the borehole layer average is found to fall within the range defined 
by the average value and one standard deviation for the mineralogic model layers, then the 
validation is deemed successful (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Section 2.2.2). This validation 
criterion is appropriate because it is based on the basic geologic principles stated in Section 5 
used to construct the model (Superposition and Original Horizontality and Original Lateral 
Continuity, and vertical continuity within a rock layer). However, it must be noted that this 
validation criterion applies only if all of the data are indexed at the same percentage intervals and 
the number of mineral groups or species are comparable. Where these conditions are not met, 
the validation criterion must be adjusted suitably to take into account the deviations from these 
conditions. The mineralogic model layers average values and standard deviations are from the 
Heat Capacity Analysis Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170003], Tables 6.2 and 6.4). 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-5 September 2004 
Table 7-1 lists the data used for corroboration from borehole USW G-2 (Maldonado and Koether 
1983 [DIRS 101805], Table 4). Mineral abundances are expressed in weight percent with the 
values Tr meaning trace (<5 percent), <10 equal to 5-9 percent, and dashes (-) indicating no 
mineral detected. For the validation, the borehole mineral abundance values were averaged by 
layer. Where a value was reported as Tr, a numerical value of 2.5 was used; a value of 7 was 
used where <10 was reported in the borehole data. Table 7-2 shows the borehole data 
averaged by layer compared to Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model mineral abundance 
averages by layer. The mineral groups from Section 6.2.3 that were analyzed by Maldonado and 
Koether are: 
 Montmorillonite + Illite (Smectite + Illite) 
 Sorptive zeolites (the sum of clinoptilolite, heulandite, and mordentite) 
 Cristobalite + opal-CT 
 Quartz 
 Feldspar 
 Analcime (nonsorptive zeolite) 
 Illite-Mica (Mica) 
The selection of these seven groups was appropriate and adequate, because they are equivalent to 
the groupings that were used to construct the mineralogic model as documented in Section 6.2.3. 
The mineral comparison of Volcanic Glass vs. Amorphous (ash) are shown but not used for 
validation, because it appears that the two mineral analyses are not equivalent. This is based on 
the observation that when the model validation criteria for volcanic glass is compared to 
amorphous ash (Table 7-2) none of the values for the amorphous ash fall within the validation 
range. Furthermore, both the PTn layer and Tac layer are known to have high abundances of 
volcanic glass, 47.11 and 18.92 percent respectively. However, as shown in Table 7-2, the 
values for amorphous ash are 5.9 and 5.3 for the PTn and Tac layers. Based on these 
observations, the abundances for volcanic glass and amorphous ash are not equivalent. 
Over 65 percent (32 of 49 values) of the borehole data can be validated when compared to 
Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model mineral abundances within 1 standard deviation 
(Table 7-2, values in large bold type). Those values shown in brackets indicate that these mineral 
abundance values were shown as Tr (trace = <5 percent). To permit a numerical comparison 
with the mineralogic model layer abundances, a numerical value of 2.5 percent was assigned. 
A value of 2.5 percent was assumed, as it is half of 0 and 5 percent and, therefore, roughly 
equivalent to a trace value. If the range for the acceptance criteria for validation is changed to 
2 standard deviations, 80 percent of the borehole values (40 of 49) fall within the mineralogic 
model layer averages (Table 7-2), indicating that the validation data corroborate the model. 
The range for the acceptance criteria was changed from 1 to 2 standard deviations. This change 
is reasonable because: (1) As discussed previously, the independent corroborative data are not 
directly comparable to the input data of the mineralogic model; and (2) A normally distributed 
population 1 standard deviation encompasses 68 percent of the distribution, while 2 standard 
deviations encompasses 95 percent (Davis 1986 [DIRS 123714], Figure 2.12). The range for 
acceptance was changed to 2 standard deviations to see whether it would increase the number of 
acceptable samples, which it did. It is a reasonable assumption that the mineral abundances are 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-6 September 2004 
normally distributed, because it is a measured geologic parameter, the number of acceptable 
samples increased with the increase in standard deviation. This assumption is supported by the 
normal distribution observed for zeolite mineral abundances from Figure 6.5 of the Heat 
Capacity Analysis Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170003]). 
Furthermore, calculation of the mineralogic model unit-specific rock grain heat capacity is not 
sensitive to the mineral abundances of the individual minerals because (1) the minerals are 
summed in calculating the average heat capacity for the model layers and (2) the heat capacity 
values for the mineral groups are similar (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170003], Appendix A), resulting in 
model layer-averages of approximately 1 J/gK (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170003], Table 6.5) despite 
observed variations in the mean mineralogic values for the model layers (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170003], Table 6.2). The varying mineralogic abundances and constant heat capacity 
values indicates that the calculations of the layer heat capacity values are relatively insensitive to 
mineral abundances. Subsequent coupled process modeling (by comparing heat capacity values 
used in the previous and current versions of Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM) 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169866]) indicates that the thermal response is not sensitive to the variations 
in heat capacity values either. 
Before determining the results of this validation, the nature of this corroboration must be 
evaluated. First, the relative precision Maldonado and Koether (1983 [DIRS 101805]) data 
shown in Table 7-1 and the input data that are used to construct the mineralogical model listed in 
Table 4-1 differ. The mineral abundance values provided by Maldonado and Koether are 
indexed at 10 percent intervals. The mineralogical model input data are indexed at 1 percent 
intervals. This can be verified by viewing the product output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 and 
selecting the input file for a borehole, example file G2.well. Second, the number of mineral 
groups or species is not directly comparable; the mineralogic model is constructed based on 10, 
while the corroborative data set used provides 7. 
When these differences between the independent data set and the average value for the 
mineralogic model layers are taken into account, this validation was successful because it meets 
the validation criteria. The differences in precision between the input data used to construct the 
mineralogic model and the independent data set used for corroboration are expected to result in 
differences between the values because of the intrinsic differences between the two data sets. 
Therefore, it is appropriate to modify the validation criteria to two standard deviations because it 
still provides a relative indicator as to the relationship between the two data sets. Moreover, the 
result that 80 percent of the corroborating data fall within the two standard deviations validates 
the model under these circumstances. Despite the differences between the two data sets, the 
comparison indicates that the model results can be corroborated from the mineralogic model to 
the independent data set. 
7.3 VALIDATION SUMMARY 
The mineralogic model has been validated by applying acceptance criteria based on an 
evaluation of the models relative importance to the potential performance of the repository 
system. Activities for confidence building during model development have been satisfied 
(Section 7.1). Also, all postdevelopment validation requirements defined in the technical work 
plan (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Section 2.2.2) have been fulfilled (with justification for changes 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-7 September 2004 
in the validation criteria), including corroboration of model results with borehole mineral 
abundance data that were not used in the model development (Section 7.2). The model 
development activities and the postdevelopment validation activities described establish the 
scientific basis for the mineralogic model. No future activities need to be accomplished for 
model validation. The model validation activities have determined that the mineralogic model is 
adequate and sufficiently accurate with no limits or restrictions on its use for the stated and 
intended purpose. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-8 September 2004 
Table 7-1. XRD Analyses for Mineral Abundance of Core Samples from USW G-2 
MM3.0 
Layer Unita 
Sample 
Depth 
(m) 
Montmorillonite 
Illite-Mica 
Illite 
Quartz 
Feldspar 
Cristobalite-opal 
Amorphous (ash) 
Clinoptilolite 
Heulandite/ 
Clinoptilolite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Heulandite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Mordenite 
Mordenite/ 
Clinoptilolite 
Mordenite 
Analcime 
Tpp 170.7 <10 Tr - Tr 30 40 <10 10 - - - - - - 
Tpp 171.5 Tr Tr - - 30 30 <10 - 20 - - - - - 
Tpp 187.2 <10 Tr - Tr 50 20 Tr <10 - - - - - - 
PTn 
(seq. 20, 
layer 24) 
Tpp 205.7 20 Tr - - 20 10 <10 - - 30 - - - - 
Tac 539.6 Tr - - Tr 10 <10 <10 - - - 70 - - Tr 
Tac 569.9 Tr Tr - <10 10 <10 Tr - - - 70 - - - 
Tac 600.5 Tr Tr - Tr 10 <10 <10 - - - 70 - - - 
Tac 630.9 Tr Tr - Tr 20 <10 <10 - - - 60 - - - 
Tac 664.0 Tr Tr - Tr 10 <10 <10 - - - - 70 - - 
Tac 692.8 Tr Tr - - 30 <10 Tr - - - - - 50 - 
Tac 724.2 Tr Tr - <10 20 Tr <10 - - - 50 - - - 
Tac 
(seq. 11, 
layers 11, 
12, 13, 
14) 
Tac 753.2 Tr Tr - 10 30 Tr Tr - - - 40 - - - 
Tacbt 783.4 Tr Tr - 20 30 - Tr - - - - 30 - - Tacbt 
(seq. 10, 
layer 10) Tacbt 813.9 Tr <10 - 20 30 - Tr - - - - 30 - - 
Tcpm 878.2 
Tr Tr - 40 50 - Tr - - - - - - - 
Tcpuc- 
Tcplc 
(seq. 8, 
layer 8) Tcpm 898.6 <10 Tr - 20 60 - Tr - - - - - - - 
Tcplv 923.0 10 Tr - 30 40 - Tr - - - - Tr - - 
Tcplv 934.5 Tr Tr - Tr 20 10 20 - - - 40 - - - 
Tcplv 945.5 <10 - Tr - 20 20 20 - - - - 30 - - 
Tcplv 956.5 Tr - Tr 20 40 - Tr - - - - 20 - Tr 
Tcplv- 
Tcbuv 
(seq. 7, 
layer 7) 
Tcplv 983.7 <10 - <10 20 20 - Tr - - - 30 - - 10 
Tcbuc 1011.6 Tr Tr Tr 30 50 - Tr - - - - - - - 
Tcbm 1018.0 Tr Tr - 30 60 - Tr - - - - - - - 
Tcbm 1033.3 Tr Tr - 40 50 - Tr - - - - - - - 
Tcblc 1050.9 Tr Tr Tr 20 50 Tr Tr - - - - - - 10 
Tcbuc- 
Tcbmd- 
Tcblc 
(seq. 6, 
layer 6) Tcblc 1060.7 <10 Tr - 20 40 - <10 - - - - - 20 - 
Tctlv 1147.6 - <10 40 30 10 - <10 - - - - - - - Tctlv- 
Tctbt 
(seq. 3, 
layer 3) 
Tctlv 1182.6 - <10 30 30 10 - <10 - - - - - - - 
Sources: Sample Depth and Mineral Abundance source is Table 4 from Maldonado and Koether (1983 [DIRS 101805]) 
Mineral abundance is expressed in weight percent. Original estimated amounts were determined by Paul D. 
Blackmon, USGS. Tr, trace (<5 %), <10 = 5%-9%, dashes (-) indicate no mineral detected. 
NOTE: Shading indicates different mineralogical model sequences. 
a Stratigraphy (Unit) source is DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 (DIRS 103769). 

MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-9 September 2004 
Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
Table 7-2. Comparison of Mineral Abundance Values from USW G-2 Core Samples and Mineralogic Model 3.0 Layer Averages with 1 Standard 
Deviation 
MM3.0 
Layer 
Smectite + Illite Ave. 
Montmorillonite + 
Illite Ave. 
Sorptive Zeolites 
Ave. 
Sorptive Zeolites 
Ave. 
Cristobalite + Opal 
CT Ave. 
Cristobalite + Opal 
CT Ave. 
Quartz Ave. 
Quartz Ave. 
Feldspar Ave. 
Feldspar Ave. 
Analcime Ave. 
Analcime Ave. 
Mica Ave. 
Illite-Mica Ave. 
Volcanic Glass Ave. 
Amorphous (ash) 
Ave. 
PTn 
12.13 
4.93 9.1 1.68 
2.51 
16.8 
8.07 
5.51 
25.0 
1.30 
0.69 [2.5] 24.81 
13.0 32.5 0.00 
0.00 0 0.94 
0.50 [2.5] 
47.11 
18.3 
5.9 
Tac 
1.23 
0.75 [2.5] 39.66 
22.9 60.0 13.50 
5.77 
5.9 
6.03 
3.19 4.9 22.42 
8.37 17.5 0.00 
0.01 [2.5] 0.84 
0.95 [2.5] 
18.92 
24.1 
5.3 
Tacbt 
5.11 
3.18 2.5 22.39 
11.8 30.0 5.01 
3.76 
0 
16.69 
7.16 20.0 33.36 
5.20 30.0 0.00 
0.00 0 2.01 
1.33 
4.8 
14.49 
16.2 
2.5 
Tcpuc- 
Tcplc 
2.16 
1.23 
4.8 
0.46 
0.54 0 7.65 
5.33 
0 
25.76 
9.54 30.0 62.08 
4.56 
55.0 
0.00 
0.00 0 0.69 
0.77 [2.5] 
0.24 
0.58 
2.5 
Tcplv- 
Tcbuv 
4.87 
4.28 5.1 
47.64 
12.3 
30.0 
9.54 
2.94 
15.0 
8.83 
6.18 
18.1 
25.37 
3.46 28.0 2.29 
4.08 6.2 0.42 
0.37 [2.5] 
2.67 
3.69 
9.5 
Tcbuc- 
Tcbmd- 
Tcblc 
2.01 
1.30 3.1 0.22 
0.37 
20 
4.72 
4.47 2.5 28.16 
6.49 28.0 60.45 
5.13 
50.0 
0.00 
0.00 
10 
3.04 
2.22 2.5 
0.17 
0.28 
3.1 
Tctlv- 
Tctbt 
2.76 
2.30 
35.0 
0.60 
0.92 0 3.99 
5.24 0 28.66 
7.44 30 60.46 
4.83 
10 
0.03 
0.04 0 3.05 
1.81 
7 
0.00 
0.00 
7 
NOTES: Values in shaded columns are validation values from Maldonado and Koether (1983 [DIRS 101805]) and averaged by layers shown in Table 7-1. 
Values in the unshaded columns are the model layer average mineral abundance with 1 standard deviation from BSC 2003 (DIRS 170003). 
Mineral abundance is expressed in weight percent. Borehole values shown in large boldface validate the model. Underlined values are within 2 
standard deviations of model values. Those values shown in brackets indicate that these mineral abundance values were originally reported as 
Tr (trace = <5 percent). To permit a numerical comparison with the mineralogic model layer abundances a numerical value of 2.5 percent was 
assigned. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 7-10 September 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 8-1 September 2004 
8. CONCLUSIONS 
The mineralogic model (output DTN: LA9908JC831321.001) provides the abundance and 
distribution of 10 minerals and mineral groups within 22 stratigraphic sequences in the Yucca 
Mountain area. This product output is cited as direct input by the Heat Capacity Analysis Report 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170003]) and Near-Field Environment and Transport model reports. The 
geologic framework model provides the stratigraphic framework for the XRD quantitative 
analyses of mineral abundances for the 24 boreholes data sets. The mineralogic model is an 
interpretation, or static representation, that is constructed based on basic geologic principles. 
The model possesses an inherent level of uncertainty that is a function of data distribution and 
geologic complexity, and predictions or alternative interpretations that fall within the range of 
uncertainty are considered acceptable. Uncertainty in the model is mitigated by the application 
of three fundamental geologic principles; the Principles of Superposition, Original Horizontality, 
and Original Lateral Continuity. 
There are no confirmatory actions, such as compliance runs, additional sensitivity runs, and 
neutralization runs contained in this model report. 
8.1 LIMITATIONS 
Limitations that may be of importance to users of the mineralogic model are: 
 The model is divided into 22 sequences that correlate with the layers defined by the 
geologic framework model. Users that require specific mineral abundances may be 
required to examine the input data sets that are also provided by the product output 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. 
 Scarcity of mineralogic data in the western margin of the repository block, as well as in 
the boundary regions of the model. However, the manner in which the product output of 
the mineralogic model is used mitigates this limitation, as currently no users are 
concerned specifically about the mineralogic abundance near the model boundaries. 
 A 3-D inverse-distance-weighting method is used to project mineral abundances from 
the controlling borehole data within a given sequence or layer. This projection into the 
model layer is based on the geologic Principle of Original Lateral Continuity. 
8.2 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REVIEW PLAN CRITERIA 
The following information describes how this analysis addresses the acceptance criteria in the 
Yucca Mountain Review Plan (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.3.3.3). Only those 
acceptance criteria that are applicable to this report (see Section 4.2) are discussed. In most 
cases, the applicable acceptance criteria are not addressed solely by this report; rather, the 
acceptance criteria are fully addressed when this report is considered in conjunction with other 
analysis and model reports that describe phenomena affecting quantity and chemistry of water 
contacting engineered barriers and waste forms. Where a subcriterion includes several 
components, only some of those components may be addressed. How these components are 
addressed is summarized below. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 8-2 September 2004 
2.2.1.3.3: Quantity and Chemistry of Water Contacting Engineered Barriers and Waste 
Forms 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
Subcriterion (5): Sufficient technical bases and justification are provided in 
Sections 6.2 and 6.3 for mineralogical information developed in this model to 
support analysis of coupled thermal-hydrologic effects on seepage and flow for 
the total system performance assessment. The Mineralogical Model provides an 
interpretative structure of the geologic data developed from borehole samples and 
converts that data to a 3-D model of the mineral abundance at Yucca Mountain. 
Inputs to the model are discussed in Section 4.1. The model is developed in 
Section 6.2 and results are described in Section 6.3. Section 4.1 provides a list of 
inputs (Table 4-1). It also discusses mineralogic data, stratigraphic surfaces, and 
the stratigraphic framework developed from those surfaces. Appendices A 
through C discuss the qualification of some of the mineral abundance data from 
continuously cored boreholes and provide justification for their use. Section 6.2 
discusses the basic components of the 3-D Mineralogical Model, which are a 
stratigraphic framework, mineralogic data from boreholes, and 3-D modeling 
software. It also discusses use of an inverse-distance-weighting method to 
estimate mineral distributions. 
Subcriterion (8): Adequate technical bases are provided for determining the 
mineralogical information developed in this report. This information was 
developed from mineralogic data obtained from borehole samples (Sections 1 and 
6.2) and is based on quantitative XRD analyses (Sections 4.1 and 6.2) of the 
borehole material. This model produces a mineral abundance distribution, which 
affects heat capacity and thermal expansion of the various rock layers. These 
parameters support thermal-hydrologic analyses of the Yucca Mountain 
stratigraphy. 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
Subcriterion (1): The geological values provided in the 3-D stratigraphic 
framework by the Mineralogic Model are adequately justified through 
incorporation of site-specific information (Sections 6.2 and 6.3) and validation of 
the model (Section 7). Adequate descriptions of how the data from XRD analyses 
were incorporated and interpolated to prepare the 3-D stratigraphic framework are 
provided in Section 6.2. 
Acceptance Criterion 3, Data Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated Through 
the Model Abstraction. 
Subcriterion (1): The Mineralogical Model uses parameter values and assumed 
ranges that are technically defensible, reasonably account for uncertainties and 
variabilities, and do not result in an under-representation of the risk estimate. This 
is demonstrated by use of qualified XRD data, stratigraphy from the Geological 
Framework Model, and baselined modeling software to produce mineral 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 8-3 September 2004 
abundance estimates in a 3-D stratigraphic framework discussed in Sections 6.2, 
6.3, and 6.4. For example, in Section 4.1.1, minimum conservative values were 
assigned for trace XRD analyses. 
Subcriterion (4): An adequate representation of uncertainties in the 
characteristics of the natural system and their effects on the output of the 
Mineralogical Model is provided in Section 6.4. For areas where borehole data is 
sparse, there is no impact to downstream models because as documented in 
Section 1, those models use the average mineral abundance layer values or the 
actual borehole mineral abundance data itself. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 8-4 September 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 9-1 September 2004 
9. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
9.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Bish, D. 2001. TWS-ESS-1-7/86-35, Brinkman Sample Grinding Logbook. SN-LANLSCI-
015-V1. ACC: MOL.20010718.0254. 
169750 
Bish, D.L. 1989. Evaluation of Past and Future Alterations in Tuff at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada, Based on the Clay Mineralogy of Drill Cores USW G-1, G-2, and G-3. 
LA-10667-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: NNA.19890126.0207. 
101194 
Bish, D.L. and Aronson, J.L. 1993. Paleogeothermal and Paleohydrologic Conditions in 
Silicic Tuff from Yucca Mountain, Nevada . Clays and Clay Minerals, 41, (2), 148-161. 
Long Island City, New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 224613. 
100006 
Bish, D.L. and Chipera, S.J. 1988. Problems and Solutions in Quantitative Analysis of 
Complex Mixtures by X-Ray Powder Diffraction. Advances in X-Ray Analysis, 31, 295 
308. New York, New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation. TIC: 224378. 
103130 
Bish, D.L. and Chipera, S.J. 1989. Revised Mineralogic Summary of Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. LA-11497-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: NNA.19891019.0029. 
101195 
Bish, D.L. and Vaniman, D.T. 1985. Mineralogic Summary of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
LA-10543-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: 
MOL.19950412.0041. 
101196 
Broxton, D. 1990. Hurricane Mesa, Absaroka Mts., Wyo., Lathrop Wells Section, Nev., 
Sampling of Wt Holes Yucca Mt., Nev., Calico Hills Section in Paintbrush, Cny. Field 
Book No. 8152-60. ACC: MOL.19981006.0244. 
169640 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2002. Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Analysis Model 
Report. MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 00 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020423.0151. 
158730 
BSC 2004. Dike/Drift Interactions. MDL-MGR-GS-000005 REV 01. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
170028 
BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000027 REV 03. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
166107 
BSC 2004. Drift-Scale THC Seepage Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000001 REV 03. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
169856

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 9-2 September 2004 
BSC 2004. Heat Capacity Analysis Report. ANL-NBS-GS-000013 REV 01. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
170003 
BSC 2004. Igneous Intrusion Impacts on Waste Packages and Waste Forms. MDL-EBSGS-
000002 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040421.0002. 
168960 
BSC 2004. In-Drift Natural Convection and Condensation Model. 
MDL-EBS-MD-000001 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
164327 
BSC 2004. Mountain-Scale Coupled Processes (TH/THC/THM). 
MDL-NBS-HS-000007 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
169866 
BSC 2004. Multiscale Thermohydrologic Model. ANL-EBS-MD-000049 REV02. 
Las Vegas, NV: Bechtel SAIC Company.. 
169565 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: The Integrated Site Model. TWP-NBS-GS-000003 
REV 05. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040601.0002. 
169635 
BSC 2004. Ventilation Model and Analysis Report. ANL-EBS-MD-000030, Rev 04. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
169862 
BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
168361 
Buesch, D.C. and Spengler, R.W. 1999. Correlations of Lithostratigraphic Features with 
Hydrogeologic Properties, a Facies-Based Approach to Model Development in Volcanic 
Rocks at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Proceedings of Conference on Status of Geologic 
Research and Mapping in Death Valley National Park, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 9-11, 
1999. Slate, J.L., ed. Open-File Report 99-153. Pages 62-64. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. TIC: 245245. 
107905 
Buesch, D.C.; Spengler, R.W.; Moyer, T.C.; and Geslin, J.K. 1996. Proposed 
Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic Units 
of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 94-469. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970205.0061. 
100106 
Burns & McDonnell Engineering. 1959. Report on Development of Wells J-11 & J12, 
Jackass Flats, Nye County, Nevada. Kansas City, Missouri: Burns & McDonnell 
Engineering. ACC: MOL.19961209.0118. 
169662 
Buscheck, T.A. and Nitao, J.J. 1993. The Analysis of Repository-Heat-Driven 
Hydrothermal Flow at Yucca Mountain. High Level Radioactive Waste Management, 
Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 
26-30, 1993. 1, 847-867. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. 
TIC: 208542. 
109028

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 9-3 September 2004 
Byers, F. 1982. Trip to NTS, February 19-22, RE: Holes H-3, Yucca Mountain, NTS. 
Office memorandum from F. Byers (LANL) to ESS-1 and -2 NNWSI Group, February 
23, 1982, TWS-ESS-2-3/82-90. ACC: NNA.19900418.0142. 
169663 
Byers, F.M. 1983. Thin-Section Data Microprobe Data, UE25-1, Yucca Mtn. Nevada 
Test Site. TWS-ESS-1-6/83-20. ACC: NNA.19900404.0108. 
169692 
Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. 
TER-MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
166275 
Caporuscio, F.A. 1986. Scientific Notebook. Scientific Notebook Number S-4077. ACC: 
NNA.19900404.0106. 
169644 
Carey, J.W. 1999. Three-Dimensional Mineralogic Model of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Scientific Notebook LA-EES-1-NBK-99-001. ACC: MOL.19991028.0013. 
138525 
Carlos, B.A.; Chipera, S.J.; and Bish, D.L. 1995. Distribution and Chemistry of 
Fracture-Lining Minerals at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-12977-MS. Los Alamos, 
New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19960306.0564. 
101326 
Chipera, S.J. 1986. Scientific Notebook. Scientific Notebook Number S-9075. 
ACC: NNA.19900605.0236. 
169680 
Chipera, S.J. 1989. Scientific Notebook. Scientific Notebook Number S-10079. 
ACC: MOL.19980727.0642. 
169683 
Chipera, S.J. and Bish, D.L. 1988. Mineralogy of Drill Hole UE-25p#1 at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. LA-11292-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. ACC: NNA.19880607.0036. 
105080 
Chipera, S.J. and Bish, D.L. 1995. Multireflection RIR and Intensity Normalizations for 
Quantitative Analyses: Applications to Feldspars and Zeolites. Powder Diffraction, 10, 
(1), 47-55. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction 
Standards. TIC: 222001. 
105075 
CRWMS (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System) M&O (Management and 
Operating Contractor) 1997. Determination of Available Volume for Repository Siting. 
BCA000000-01717-0200-00007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19971009.0699. 
100223 
Davis, J.C. 1986. Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology. 2nd Edition. New York, New 
York: John Wiley and Sons. TIC: 214516. 
123714 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2004. Quality Assurance Requirements and 
Description. DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040823.0004. 
171386

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 9-4 September 2004 
Fenix & Scisson. 1988. Hole History Data NNWSI, J-12 Water Well. Mercury, Nevada: 
Fenix & Scisson. ACC: MOL.19961209.0119. 
169661 
Horton, D.G. 1990. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management (OCRWM) Acceptance of the Los Alamos National Laboratories 
(Los Alamos) Quality Assurance (QA) Program. Letter from D.G. Horton (DOE) to 
D.E. Shelor, December 21, 1990, OQA:NAV-1413, with enclosures. 
ACC: HQO.19910107.0034; HQO.19910107.0036. 
169954 
Jackson, J.A., ed. 1997. Glossary of Geology. 4th Edition. Alexandria, Virginia: 
American Geological Institute. TIC: 236393. 
109119 
Johnstone, J.K. and Wolfsberg, K., eds. 1980. Evaluation of Tuff as a Medium for a 
Nuclear Waste Repository: Interim Status Report on the Properties of Tuff. 
SAND80-1464. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia National Laboratories. 
ACC: NNA.19870406.0065. 
109037 
LA9909PR831231.004. Laboratory Data from C-Wells Core. Submittal 
date: 09/02/1999. 
129623 
LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory) 1992. SMF Specimen Custody Receipt, 
Shipment ID 0052, Shipping Date: January 3, 1992. Los Alamos, New Mexico: 
Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980330.0458. 
169718 
LANL 1997. SMF Speciman Removal Logs for SRR#: 01000038 and SRR#: 01000039. 
Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: DRC.19970818.0039. 
169667 
Levy, S.S. 1984. Petrology of Samples from Drill Holes USW H-3, H-4, and H-5, Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. LA-9706-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970729.0322. 
101392 
Levy, S.S. 1991. Mineralogic Alteration History and Paleohydrology at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. High Level Radioactive Waste Management, Proceedings of the 
Second Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 28-May 3, 1991. 1, 
477-485. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 204272. 
100053 
Levy, S.S. 1996. History of Mineralogic and Geochemical Alteration of Yucca 
Mountain. Scientific Notebook TWS-ESS-1-10/82-19. ACC: MOL.19990601.0176. 
106676 
Loeven, C. 1993. A Summary and Discussion of Hydrologic Data from the Calico Hills 
Nonwelded Hydrogeologic Unit at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. LA-12376-MS. 
Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: NNA.19921116.0001. 
101258

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 9-5 September 2004 
Maldonado, F. and Koether, S.L. 1983. Stratigraphy, Structure, and Some Petrographic 
Features of Tertiary Volcanic Rocks at the USW G-2 Drill Hole, Yucca Mountain, Nye 
County, Nevada. Open-File Report 83-732. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: NNA.19870506.0143. 
101805 
MO0101XRDDRILC.000. XRD Analyses of Drill Core from Boreholes UE J-13 and 
USW H6. Submittal date: 01/26/2001. 
169516 
Moyer, T.C. and Geslin, J.K. 1995. Lithostratigraphy of the Calico Hills Formation and 
Prow Pass Tuff (Crater Flat Group) at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File Report 94- 
460. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19941208.0003. 
101269 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
163274 
Rautman, C. and McKenna, S. 1998. Geostatistical Modeling of Porosity and Derivative 
Properties for Fiscal Year 1998. Scientific Notebook SNL-SCI-006. 
ACC: MOL.19981027.0187. 
107442 
SN0307T0510902.003. Updated Heat Capacity of Yucca Mountain Stratigraphic Units. 
Submittal date: 07/15/2003. 
164196 
Steinborn, T.L. 2002. Data Qualification Report: Mineralogy Data for Use on the Yucca 
Mountain Project. TDR-NBS-HS-000005 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20020807.0442. 
160702 
Thompson, A.B. and Wennemer, M. 1979. Heat Capacities and Inversions in Tridymite, 
Cristobalite, and Tridymite-Cristobalite Mixed Phases. American Mineralogist, 64, 
1018-1026. Washington, D.C.: Mineralogical Society of America. TIC: 239133. 
111126 
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 1995. Lithologic Log of Drill Hole USW WT-1. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19960110.0344. 
169694 
Vaniman D.T. and Bish, D.L. 1995. The Importance of Zeolites in the Potential High- 
Level Radioactive Waste Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Natural Zeolites `93: 
Occurrence, Properties, Use, Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the 
Occurrence, Properties, and Utilization of Natural Zeolites, June 20-28, 1993, Boise, 
Idaho. Ming, D.W. and Mumpton, F.A., eds. Pages 533-546. Brockport, New York: 
International Committee on Natural Zeolites. TIC: 243086. 
101496 
Vaniman, D. 1983. Volcanic Hazards Studies Book 2. Notebook Unique Identification 
Number: TWS-G6-8/79-50. ACC: MOL.20020826.0192. 
169665

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 9-6 September 2004 
Vaniman, D.; Bish, D.; Broxton, D.; Byers, F.; Heiken, G.; Carlos, B.; Semarge, E.; 
Caporuscio, F.; and Gooley, R. 1984. Variations in Authigenic Mineralogy and Sorptive 
Zeolite Abundance at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Based on Studies of Drill Cores USW 
GU-3 and G-3. LA-9707-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. ACC: NNA.19870519.0043. 
101363 
Vaniman, D.; Furlano, A.; Chipera, S.; Thompson, J.; and Triay, I. 1996. 
Microautoradiography in Studies of Pu(V) Sorption by Trace and Fracture Minerals in 
Tuff. Scientific Basis for Nuclear Waste Management XIX, Symposium held November 
27-December 1, 1995, Boston, Massachusetts. Murphy, W.M. and Knecht, D.A., eds. 
412, 639-646. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Materials Research Society. TIC: 233877. 
111128 
Whitfield, M.S., Jr.; Thordarson, W.; and Eshom, E.P. 1984. Geohydrologic and 
Drill-Hole Data for Test Well USW H-4, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. 
Open-File Report 84-449. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: NNA.19870407.0317. 
101366 
9.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
156605 
AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1 ICN 1. Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040714.0002. 
AP-2.27Q, Rev. 1, ICN 4. Planning for Science Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040610.0006. 
AP-3.15Q, Rev. 4, ICN 5. Managing Technical Product Inputs. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040812.0004. 
AP-SI.1Q, Rev. 2, ICN 1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: MOL.19991101.0212. 
AP-SIII.1Q, Rev 0, ICN 0. Scientific Notebooks. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: MOL.19990702.0311. 
AP-SIII.10Q, Rev. 002, ICN 006. Models. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040805.0005. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 9-7 September 2004 
LANL-YMP-QP-03.5, Rev 8. Documenting Scientific Investigations. 
Notebook 99-01. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
ACC: MOL.19971029.0005. 
QAP-2-0, Rev 5. Conduct of Activities. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19980826.0209. 
9.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
LA000000000086.002. Mineralogic Variation in Drill Core UE-25 UZ#16 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 03/28/1995. 
107144 
LA9910JC831321.001. Supplementary Mineralogical Data for Mineralogic Model 3.0. 
Submittal date: 10/29/1999. 
113496 
LADB831321AN98.002. Revised Mineralogic Summary of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Submittal date: 05/26/1998. 
109003 
LADV831321AQ97.001. Mineralogic Variation in Drill Holes. Submittal date: 
05/28/1997. 
107142 
LADV831321AQ97.007. Geotechnical Data Report: Hazardous Minerals. Submittal 
date: 01/27/1998. 
113499 
LADV831321AQ99.001. Quantitative XRD Results for the USW SD-6 and USW 
WT-24 Drill Core Samples. Submittal date: 04/16/1999. 
109044 
LAJC831321AQ98.005. Quantitative XRD Results for Drill Core USW SD-7, USW 
SD-9, USW SD-12 and UE-25 UZ#16. Submittal date: 10/27/1998. 
109004 
LASC831321AQ96.002. QXRD Analyses of Drill Core USW NRG-6 and USW 
UZ-14 Samples. Submittal date: 08/02/1996. 
109042 
LASC831321AQ98.001. Results of Real-Time Analysis for Erionite in Drill Hole 
USWWT-24, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 02/10/1998. 
109047 
LASC831321AQ98.003. Results of Real Time Analysis for Erionite in Drill Hole 
USW SD-6, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 06/11/1998. 
109043 
LASL831322AQ97.001. Updated Mineralogic and Hydrologic Analysis of the PTN 
Hydrogeologic Unit, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a Barrier to Flow. Submittal 
date: 10/09/1997. 
109045 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 9-8 September 2004 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000. Lithostratigraphic Contacts from 
MO9811MWDGFM03.000 to be Qualified Under the Data Qualification Plan, 
TDP-NBS-GS-000001. Submittal date: 04/04/2000. 
152554 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). Submittal date: 
12/18/2000. 
153777 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001. XRD Analyses of Drill Core from Boreholes UE-25 J-12, 
USW WT-1, USW H-3, USW H-4, USW WT-2, UE-25 P#1, AND USW H-5. 
Submittal date: 01/26/2001. 
169517 
MO0101XRDDRILC.002. XRD Analyses of Drill Core from Boreholes UE-25 A#1 
and USW G-2. Submittal date: 01/26/2001. 
163795 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001. XRD Analyses of Drill Core from Boreholes UE-25B#1, 
USW G-1, USW G-3, USW GU-3, and USW G-4. Submittal date: 01/26/2001. 
163796 
MO0106XRDDRILC.003. XRD Analyses of Drill Core from Borehole USW H-6. 
Submittal date: 06/08/2001. 
163797 
MO9510RIB00002.004. RIB Item: Stratigraphic Characteristics: Geologic/Lithologic 
Stratigraphy. Submittal date: 06/26/1996. 
103801 
MO9804MWDGFM03.001. An Update to GFM 3.0; Corrected Horizon Grids for Four 
Fault Blocks. Submittal date: 04/14/1998. 
109050 
MO9901MWDGFM31.000. Geologic Framework Model. Submittal date: 01/06/1999. 103769 
9.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
LA9908JC831321.001. Mineralogic Model MM3.0 Version 3.0. 
Submittal date: 08/16/99 
9.5 SOFTWARE CODES 
Landmark Graphics. 1998. Software Code: STRATAMODEL. V4.1.1. SGI. 
10121-4.1.1-00. 
153238 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 
APPENDIX A 
DATA QUALIFICATION REPORT: CUTTINGS MINERALOGY DATA 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-1 September 2004 
A1. INTRODUCTION 
A1.1 PURPOSE 
This data qualification report (DQR) uses the corroboration method according to Attachments 
2 and 3 of AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified Data, to evaluate the data in 
DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]. The data addressed in this DQR originally 
were part of DTN: LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142] or DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003]. These DTNs were evaluated by the technical assessment methods documented 
by Steinborn (2002 [DIRS 160702]). The data in these DTNs consisted of mineral abundances 
determined by quantitative X-ray diffraction analysis of drill core, sidewall core, and drill 
cuttings. As described by Steinborn, a decision was made to not attempt qualification of data for 
sidewall core or drill cuttings because of the uncertainty in identifying the stratigraphic location 
from which the samples were obtained. It was recommended that these samples be used only to 
corroborate assumptions or other data. 
The unqualified data considered in this DQR were directly used in the Mineralogic Model 
(MM3.0) Analysis Model Report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]), in which the mineral analyses are 
used to create three-dimensional representations of mineral distributions. The unqualified 
sidewall core and cuttings data provide mineralogic information for parts of the repository block 
and surrounding areas that otherwise would be unrepresented. In particular, many of these 
samples are from locations that are optimal to document lateral transitions in mineralogic 
assemblages. Three-dimensional representations of mineralogy and associated properties would 
be degraded by the omission of these data. Therefore, a qualification activity has been 
undertaken to assess the status of the specified data from sidewall core and cuttings. 
The purpose of this DQR is to recommend data that can be cited as qualified for use in the 
mineralogic model report. The appropriateness and limitations (if any) of the data with respect to 
intended use are addressed in this DQR. 
A1.2 SCOPE 
This DQR evaluates the data identified in Qualification Plan for Unqualified Mineralogical 
Model (MDL-NBS-GS-000003) Data, which is Appendix A of Technical Work Plan for: 
Integrated Site Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Appendix A). The data qualification plan 
identifies one unqualified DTN (MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]) containing or using 
acquired and developed mineral abundance data measured by investigators at Los Alamos 
National Laboratory (LANL). This DTN was created according to the recommendation of 
Steinborn (2002 [DIRS 160702]) that data from cuttings, sidewall samples, and intermittent core 
be segregated in a new, unqualified data package (Table A-1). 
The predecessor DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003] contains data that were 
published originally in a LANL report (Bish and Chipera 1989 [DIRS 101195]), plus additional 
data. A subset of the mineral abundance data in this DTN is used directly in mapping the 
distribution of a selected number of minerals and in correlation with rock properties for specific 
lithostratigraphic intervals. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-2 September 2004 
These data are generally unqualified because the data and/or the samples were acquired before 
issuance of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Quality Assurance 
Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171386]). Some of the data were acquired 
according to technical procedures that had not, at that time, been approved for Yucca Mountain 
Project work. Yucca Mountain Project approval was obtained for LANL in 1991 (Horton 1990 
[DIRS 169954]). The current qualification effort relies in part on the review of methods used for 
the X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses of core samples qualified by Steinborn (2002 
[DIRS 160702]). The methods used to analyze sidewall core and cuttings samples typically were 
the same as for core samples analyzed during the same time period. 
Table A-1. Source DTNs of MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517) and Their Relevant Contents 
LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142] Mineralogy of USW H-3 sidewall core and cuttings samples 
Mineralogy of UE-25 J-12 cuttings samples 
Mineralogy of USW H-3 sidewall core and cuttings samples 
Mineralogy of USW H-4 sidewall core and cuttings samples 
Mineralogy of USW WT-1 cuttings samples 
Mineralogy of UE-25 p#1 intermittent core, sidewall core, and 
cuttings samples 
Mineralogy of USW WT-2 intermittent core and cuttings samples 
LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003] 
Mineralogy of USW H-5 sidewall core and cuttings samples 
The current qualification activity also addressed whether the correct data sets were placed into 
DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]. The criterion was that all XRD data from 
sidewall core, drill cuttings, and intermittent core used as input to the mineralogic model report 
(BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]), and excluded from qualification by Steinborn 
(2002 [DIRS 160702]), should have been placed into the DTN. Identification of data used as 
input was based on the contents of DTN: LA9908JC831321.001, which contains the input files 
of mineralogic abundance data for the model. While it is true that the purpose of this 
qualification activity is to qualify data in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517] for 
any use on the Yucca Mountain Project, the specific data requirements of the mineralogical 
model must be addressed to provide maximum benefit. Appropriate recommendations will be 
made to achieve this goal. 
In the process of this qualification activity, it was found that DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] and its predecessor DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003] do not 
contain all of the cuttings and sidewall core mineralogical data that were inputs to 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 and the mineralogic model report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]). 
Sources of input to the mineralogical model also include DTN: LADV831321AQ97.001 
[DIRS107142] and DTN: LADV831321AQ97.007 [DIRS 113499], both of which are listed in 
the TDMS as qualified even though they contain data from unqualified cuttings samples. An 
additional data source was the unqualified DTN: LA9910JC831321.001 [DIRS 113496]. 
A1.3 BACKGROUND 
The DTNs in Table A-1 contain XRD data that were collected by LANL investigators beginning 
in the early 1980s and completed by 1986. Descriptions of the analytical methodologies for 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-3 September 2004 
these data can be found in published LANL documents (Levy 1984 [DIRS 101392]; Bish and 
Vaniman 1985 [DIRS 101196]; Chipera and Bish 1988 [DIRS 105080], and Bish and Chipera 
1989 [DIRS 101195]). Table A-2 is an excerpt from a data set in 
DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517). 
Table A-2. Sample Extraction from DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), SEP 
Table S01025_003, Illustrating the Data Type and Structure 
S01025_003 Data Report 
Table Description: 
Mineral Abundance data from X-Ray Diffraction analyses of sidewall and drill cuttings from 
USW H-3, 01/02/1981 to 11/01/1988. 
TDIF: 311749 
DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
FOOTNOTES: Sample Number indicates depth in feet. Mineral Abundance values are reported in 
weight percent. All uncertainty values are valid within two standard deviations. 
Clinoptilolite Abundance represents clinoptilolite/heulandite group mineral abundance. Opal-CT 
present in zeolitic tuff is reported as cristobalite. (SW) = sidewall core sample from Levy 
(1984 [DIRS 101392]). Tr. = trace (less than 0.5%).  indicates not detected. Blanks are 
intended. 
PARAMETERS: 
SMECTITE ABUNDANCE 
MICA GROUP ABUNDANCE 
CLINOPTILOLITE ABUNDANCE 
MORDENITE ABUNDANCE 
TRIDYMITE ABUNDANCE 
QUARTZ ABUNDANCE 
CRISTOBALITE/OPAL ABUNDANCE 
FELDSPAR ABUNDANCE 
GLASS ABUNDANCE 
HEMATITE ABUNDANCE 
HORNBLENDE ABUNDANCE 
SAMPLE 
NUMBER 
DEPTH 
(m) 
SMECTITE 
ABUNDANCE 
(%) 
SMECTITE 
UNCERTAINTY 
(+/-) 
MICA GROUP 
ABUNDANCE 
(%) 
MICA GROUP 
UNCERTAINTY 
(+/-) 
CLINOPTILOLITE 
ABUNDANCE 
(%) 
CLINOPTILOLITE 
UNCERTAINTY 
(+/-) 
470-480 143.3- 
146.3 
- 2 1 - 
520-530 158.5- 
161.5 
- - - 
1550(SW) 472.4 Tr. 1 1 2 3 
1800(SW) 548.6 2 3 1 1 60 10 
DTN=data tracking number; TDIF=technical data information form 
A2. QUALIFICATION METHODS 
The qualification method of corroboration is used in this DQR to determine the degree to which 
mineralogic data for the sidewall core and cuttings samples are consistent with qualified 
mineralogic information for the same stratigraphic units in nearby cored boreholes. The 
corroborating-data method involves comparing different data sets to evaluate the consistency of 
mineral content within lithostratigraphic units between the existing unqualified data and data that 
have been qualified under a qualification report or data with verified quality assurance status. In 
addition, inferences of similar primary texture, mineralogy, or mineralogical alteration between 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-4 September 2004 
cuttings data and the data from core samples were identified and documented wherever this 
information aided the corroboration process. 
The initial evaluation of data quality and correctness reviewed the uncertainties associated with 
collection of cuttings and sidewall-core samples. The principal uncertainty is in assigning depths 
to the cutting samples and sidewall-core samples. The existing data sets of cuttings and 
sidewall-core samples lack the visible record of continuous core needed to provide the highest 
level of confidence in the accuracy of recorded sampling depths. Uncertainties may also be 
associated with the subsampling of cuttings samples. Subsampling can be problematic because 
the samples commonly have mixed lithologies including rock types from depths shallower than 
the nominal sample depth. Records supporting the unqualified data and the adequacy of the 
procedures or methods used were reviewed and addressed in the evaluation of these data. Types 
of records examined included evidence of procedures in use when the samples were collected, 
sample collection and description records, XRD analysis records, and additional types of sample 
analyses that document sample integrity. 
A2.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA 
The types of geologic sample materials subject to qualification are identified for each borehole in 
Table A-3. The criteria of consideration in evaluating the qualification of the unqualified 
cuttings mineralogical data include the following conditions: 
 Do samples from a particular lithostratigraphic unit have mineralogic abundances 
similar to samples of the same unit from qualified borehole data sets? 
 Do samples from a succession of lithostratigraphic units show mineralogic changes 
between units that are consistent with changes observed in the qualified data sets? 
 Does at least some documentation exist for sample collection, sample description, or 
XRD analysis? 
 Is the XRD methodology used comparable to the methodology used to collect data for 
qualified data sets? 
These criteria were selected to incorporate the considerations in procedure AP-SIII.2Q, 
Attachments 2 and 3, plus data-specific considerations. 
This evaluation was primarily qualitative in nature because the number of cuttings or sidewall 
samples from certain drill holes is small and many lithostratigraphic units are represented by 
only one sample in a data set. The basic statistic for data comparisons is the raw data range 
representing the upper and lower bounds of mineral abundance in a lithostratigraphic unit. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-5 September 2004 
Table A-3. List of Boreholes in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), Material Type 
Analyzed, and Qualification Status of the Material 
Well Material Type Qualification Status 
UE-25 J-12 Cuttings Unqualified 
UE-25 p#1 Cuttings, Intermittent Core, Sidewall 
Core 
Unqualified 
USW H-3 Cuttings, Sidewall Core Unqualified 
USW H-4 Cuttings, Sidewall Core Unqualified 
USW H-5 Cuttings, Sidewall Core Unqualified 
USW WT-1 Cuttings Unqualified 
USW WT-2 Cuttings, Intermittent Core Unqualified 
A3. EVALUATION RESULTS 
The evaluation results are presented on a borehole-by-borehole basis in each of the following 
sections. Section A3.1 provides a comparison of samples analyzed between 
DTNs MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517], LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003], 
LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142], LADV831321AQ97.007 [DIRS 113499], 
LA9910JC831321.001 [DIRS 113496], and LA9908JC831321.001. Section A3.2 reviews the 
existing records pertinent to sample collection, description, and preparation for XRD analysis. 
Section A3.3 provides descriptions of the XRD methodologies used to analyze samples from the 
boreholes. Section A3.4 contains comparisons of mineralogical abundances between the 
unqualified data sets and qualified data sets from continuously cored boreholes. 
A3.1 DTN ANALYSIS CONTENTS 
This section provides comparisons of samples analyzed by quantitative XRD among DTNs 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517], LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003], 
LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142], LA9910JC831321.001 [DIRS 113496], and 
LA9908JC831321.001. A separate set of comparisons is made for each borehole data set to be 
evaluated. DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 contains the input files for the mineralogic model report 
(BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]), with sample locations and mineralogical abundances rendered in a 
form suitable for the model. The purpose of the comparisons is to confirm the identities of 
DTNs that are sources for the model input and assure that all necessary unqualified source data 
are included in the qualification effort. 
UE-25 J-12 
Table A-4 shows that the J-12 sample analyses in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] are derived completely and exclusively from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003]. They are not used as input to the mineralogic model and therefore are not in the 
DTN that provides input files for the model. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-6 September 2004 
Table A-4. Comparison for Equivalence of J-12 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 
169517] 
(depth interval in ft) 
LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 
109003] 
(depth interval in ft) LA9908JC831321.001 
620-630 620-630 
650-660 650-660 
710-720 710-720 
770-780 770-780 
860-870 860-870 
905-915 905-915 
983-992 983-992 
1067-1077 1067-1077 
1093-1097 1093-1097 
1107-1110 1107-1110 
1121-1126 1121-1126 
1136-1139 1136-1139 
No J-12 sample analyses as 
input 
UE-25 p#1 
Table A-5 shows that the UE-25 p#1 sample analyses in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] are derived completely from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003]. 
Inputs to the Mineralogical Model (MM3.0) (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]) in 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 are also derived from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003]. Two numbers (shown in bold type, corresponding to parts of the sampling 
depth intervals in meters) in DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003] are incorrect, and 
the errors also are present in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]. The errors are 
traceable to Bish and Chipera (1989 [DIRS 101195], p. 24, 26). These errors were fixed in 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 for the one erroneous sample-depth conversion included in that 
DTN. However, DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 contains one erroneous entry for this borehole. 
The entry for elevation 131.0-m/depth 3,225 ft (shown in bold type) does not correspond to an 
analyzed sample. The mineralogic data associated with this entry correspond with data for 
3,320-3,330-ft depth as listed in Bish and Chipera (1989 [DIRS 101195], p. 25) and in 
DTNs LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003] and MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]. 
The correct elevation would be -(33251239.37)+1114=100.5 m, where 1239.37 is the 
feet-to-meters conversion factor and 1114 is the ground-level elevation in meters of the borehole 
(DTN: LA9908JC831321.001). 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-7 September 2004 
Table A-5. Comparison for Equivalence of UE-25 p#1 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LA9908JC831321.001 
(midpoint elevation in m/depth in ft) 
200-210/61.8-64.0 200-210/61.8-64.0 1051.5/205 
260-270/79.2-82.3 260-270/79.2-82.3 1033.2/265 
280-290/85.3-88.4 280-290/85.3-88.4 1027.1/285 
410-420/125.0-128.0 410-420/125.0-128.0 987.5/415 
570-580/173.7-176.8 570-580/173.7-176.8 938.7/575 
810-820/246.9-249.9 810-820/246.9-249.9 865.6/815 
900-910/274.3-277.4 900-910/274.3-277.4 838.2/905 
1040-1050/317.0-320.0 1040-1050/317.0-320.0 795.5/1045 
1240-1250/378.0-381.0 1240-1250/378.0-381.0 reassigned to 730.0/1260 
1260-1270/384.0-387.1 1260-1270/384.0-387.1 728.4/1265 
1290/393.2 (sidewall core) 1290/393.2 (sidewall core) 720.8/1290 
1340-1350/408.4-411.5 1340-1350/408.4-411.5 704.0/1345 
1400/426.7 (sidewall core) 1400/426.7 (sidewall core) 687.3/1400 
1420/432.8 (sidewall core) 1420/432.8 (sidewall core) 681.2/1420 
1470/448.1 (sidewall core) 1470/448.1 (sidewall core) reassigned to 668.0/1463 
1590-1598/484.6-487.1 1590-1598/484.6-487.1 627.8/1595 
1640-1650/499.9-502.9 1640-1650/499.9-502.9 612.6/1645 
1690-1700/515.1-518.2 1690-1700/515.1-518.2 597.4/1695 
1730-1740/527.3-530.4 1730-1740/527.3-530.4 585.2/1735 
1790-1800/545.6-548.6 1790-1800/545.6-548.6 566.9/1795 
1830-1840/557.8-560.8 1830-1840/557.8-560.8 554.7/1835 
1870-1880/570.0-573.0 1870-1880/570.0-573.0 542.5/1875 
1920-1930/585.2-588.3 1920-1930/585.2-588.3 527.3/1925 
1970-1980/600.5-603.5 1970-1980/600.5-603.5 512.0/1975 
1990-2000/606.6-609.6 1990-2000/606.6-609.6 505.9/1995 
2030-2040/618.7-621.8 2030-2040/618.7-621.8 493.7/2035 
2070-2080/630.9/634.0 2070-2080/630.9/634.0 481.5/2075 
2120-2130/646.2-649.2 2120-2130/646.2-649.2 466.3/2125 
2150-2160/655.3-658.4 2150-2160/655.3-658.4 457.2/2155 
2210-2220/673.6-676.7 2210-2220/673.6-676.7 438.9/2215 
2240-2250/682.8-685.8 2240-2250/682.8-685.8 429.7/2245 
2280-2290/694.9-698.0 2280-2290/694.9-698.0 417.5/2285 
2330-2340/710.2-713.2 2330-2340/710.2-713.2 402.3/2335 
2370-2380/722.4-725.4 2370-2380/722.4-725.4 390.1/2375 
2410-2420/734.6-737.6 2410-2420/734.6-737.6 377.9/2415 
2460-2470/749.8-752.9 2460-2470/749.8-752.9 362.7/2465 
2510-2520/765.0-768.1 2510-2520/765.0-768.1 347.4/2515 
2570-2580/783.3-786.4 2570-2580/783.3-786.4 329.1/2575 
2630-2640/801.6-804.7 2630-2640/801.6-804.7 310.9/2635 
2650-2660/807.7-810.8 2650-2660/807.7-810.8 304.8/2655 
2690-2700/819.9-823.0 2690-2700/819.9-823.0 292.6/2695 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-8 September 2004 
Table A-5. Comparison for Equivalence of UE-25 p#1 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
(Continued) 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LA9908JC831321.001 
(midpoint elevation in m/depth in ft) 
2750-2760/838.2-841.2 2750-2760/838.2-841.2 274.3/2755 
2790-2800/850.4-853.4 2790-2800/850.4-853.4 262.1/2795 
2840-2850/865.6-868.7 2840-2850/865.6-868.7 246.8/2845 
2890-2900/880.9-883.9 2890-2900/880.9-883.9 231.6/2895 
2940-2950/896.1-899.2 2940-2950/896.1-899.2 216.4/2945 
2980-2990/908.3-911.4 2980-2990/908.3-911.4 204.2/2985 
3030-3040/923.5-926.6 3030-3040/923.5-926.6 188.9/3035 
3080-3090/938.8-941.8 3080-3090/938.8-941.8 173.7/3085 
3130-3140/954.0-957.1 3130-3140/954.0-957.1 158.5/3135 
3160-3170/963.2-966.2 3160-3170/963.2-966.2 149.3/3165 
3230-3240/984.5-987.6 3230-3240/984.5-987.6 128.0/3235 
3270-3280/996.7-999.7 3270-3280/996.7-999.7 115.8/3275 
3320-3330/1011.9-1015.0 3320-3330/1011.9-1015.0 131.0/3225 location is in error 
3370-3380/1027.2-1030.2 3370-3380/1027.2-1030.2 85.3/3375 
3410-3420/1039.4-1042.4 3410-3420/1039.4-1042.4 73.1/3415 
3453/1052.5 (core) 3453/1052.5 (core) 61.5/3453 
3480-3490/1060.7-1063.8 3480-3490/1060.7-1063.8 51.8/3485 
3510-3520/1069.8-1072.9 3510-3520/1069.8-1072.9 42.6/3515 
3550-3560/1082.0-1085.1 3550-3560/1082.0-1085.1 30.4/3555 
3560-3570/1085.1-1088.1 3560-3570/1085.1-1088.1 27.4/3565 
3590-3600/1094.2-1097.3 3590-3600/1094.2-1097.3 18.2/3595 
3630-3640/1106.4-1109.5 3630-3640/1106.4-1109.5 6.1/3635 
3650-3660/1112.5-1115.6 3650-3660/1112.5-1115.6 0.0/3655 
3660-3670/1115.6-1118.6 3660-3670/1115.6-1118.6 -3.1/3665 
3690-3700/1124.7-1127.8 3690-3700/1124.7-1127.8 -12.2/3695 
3720-3730/1133.9-1136.9 3720-3730/1133.9-1136.9 -21.4/3725 
3750-3760/1143.0-1146.0 3750-3760/1143.0-1146.0 -30.5/3755 
3790-3800/1155.2-1158.2 3790-3800/1155.2-1158.2 -42.7/3795 
3820-3830/1164.3-1167.4 3820-3830/1164.3-1167.4 -51.9/3825 
3860-3870/1176.5-1179.6 3860-3870/1176.5-1179.6 -64.1/3865 
3913/1192.7 (core) 3913/1192.7 (core) -78.7/3913 
3916/1193.6 (core) 3916/1193.6 (core) -79.6/3916 
3928/1197.3 (core) 3928/1197.3 (core) -83.3/3928 
3940-3950/1200.9-1204.0 3940-3950/1200.9-1204.0 -88.4/3945 
3980-3990/1213.1-1216.2 3980-3990/1213.1-1216.2 -100.6/3985 
4040-4050/1231.4-1234.4 4040-4050/1231.4-1234.4 -118.9/4045 
4070-4080/1240.5-1243.6 4070-4080/1240.5-1243.6 -128.1/4075 
4080-4090/1243.6-1249.1 4080-4090/1243.6-1249.1 Paleozoic unit not in model 
4170-4180/1271.0-1274.1 4170-4180/1271.0-1274.1 Paleozoic unit not in model 
4313-4318/1314.6-1316.1 4313-4318/1314.6-1316.1 Paleozoic unit not in model 
NOTE: Erroneous information is in bold type. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-9 September 2004 
USW H-3 
Table A-6 shows that the USW H-3 sample analyses in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] are derived from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 DIRS 109003], duplicated by 
data in LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142]. It also shows that some of the data used as 
input by Version 3.0 of the mineralogic model (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]) were derived only 
from DTN: LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142] and are missing from 
DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]. 
Table A-6. Comparison for Equivalence of USW H-3 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LADV831321AQ97.001 
[DIRS 107142] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LA9908JC831321.001 
(midpoint elevation in 
m/depth in ft) 
470-480/143.3-146.6 470-480/143.3-146.6 470-480/143.3-146.6 1338.4/475 
520-530/158.5-161.5 520-530/158.5-161.5 520-530/158.5-161.5 1323.2/525 
540-550/164.6-167.6 540-550/164.6-167.6 540-550/164.6-167.6 1317.1/545 
610-620/185.9-189.0 610-620/185.9-189.0 610-620/185.9-189.0 1295.7/615 
740-750/225.6-228.6 740-750/225.6-228.6 740-750/225.6-228.6 1256.1/745 
800-810/243.8-246.9 800-810/243.8-246.9 800-810/243.8-246.9 1237.8/805 
870-880/265.2-268.2 870-880/265.2-268.2 870-880/265.2-268.2 1216.5/875 
930-940/283.5-286.5 930-940/283.5-286.5 930-940/283.5-286.5 1198.2/935 
990-1000/301.8-304.8 990-1000/301.8-304.8 990-1000/301.8-304.8 1179.9/995 
1030-1040/313.9-317.0 1030-1040/313.9-317.0 1030-1040/313.9-317.0 1167.7/1035 
1100-1110/335.3-338.3 1100-1110/335.3-338.3 1100-1110/335.3-338.3 1146.4/1105 
1160-1170/353.6-356.6 1160-1170/353.6-356.6 1160-1170/353.6-356.6 1128.1/1165 
1270-1280/387.1-390.1 1270-1280/387.1-390.1 1270-1280/387.1-390.1 1094.6/1275 
1320-1330/402.3-405.4 1320-1330/402.3-405.4 1320-1330/402.3-405.4 1079.3/1325 
1360-1370/414.5-417.6 1067.1/1365 
1440-1450/438.9-442.0 1042.8/1445 
1480-1490/451.1-454.2 1030.6/1485 
1500-1510/457.2-460.2 1024.5/1505 
1550/472.4 (sidewall core) 1550/472.4 (sidewall core) 1550/472.4 (sidewall core) 1010.8/1550 
1655/504.5 (sidewall core) 1655/504.5 (sidewall core) 1655/504.5 (sidewall core) 978.7/1655 
1700/518.2 (sidewall core) 1700/518.2 (sidewall core) 1700/518.2 (sidewall core) 965.0/1700 
1800/548.6 (sidewall core) 1800/548.6 (sidewall core) 1800/548.6 (sidewall core) 934.6/1800 
1900/579.1 (sidewall core) 1900/579.1 (sidewall core) 1900/579.1 (sidewall core) 904.1/1900 
2400/731.5 (sidewall core) 2400/731.5 (sidewall core) 2400/731.5 (sidewall core) 751.7/2400 
2440/743.7 (sidewall core) 2440/743.7 (sidewall core) 2440/743.7 (sidewall core) 739.5/2440 
2490/759 (sidewall core) 2490/759 (sidewall core) 2490/759.0 (sidewall core) 724.2/2490 
NOTE: Blank boxes are intentional. 
USW H-4 
Table A-7 shows that the USW H-4 sample analyses in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] are derived completely and exclusively from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003]. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-10 September 2004 
DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517] data set and the data set in 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 that is output of the mineralogic model. 
Table A-7. Comparison for Equivalence of USW H-4 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LA9908JC831321.001 
(midpoint elevation in m/depth 
in ft) 
310-320/94.5-97.5 310-320/94.5-97.5 1152.5/315 
390-400/118.9-121.9 390-400/118.9-121.9 1128.1/395 
440-450/134.1-137.2 440-450/134.1-137.2 1112.9/445 
490-500/149.4-152.4 490-500/149.4-152.4 1097.6/495 
640-650/195.1-198.1 640-650/195.1-198.1 1051.9/645 
830-840/253.0-256.0 830-840/253.0-256.0 994.0/835 
910-920/277.4-280.4 910-920/277.4-280.4 969.6/915 
940-950/286.5-289.6 940-950/286.5-289.6 960.5/945 
1040-1050/317.0-320.0 1040-1050/317.0-320.0 930.0/1045 
1150-1160/350.5-353.6 1150-1160/350.5-353.6 896.5/1155 
1190-1200/362.7-365.8 1190-1200/362.7-365.8 884.3/1195 
1230-1240/374.9-378.0 1230-1240/374.9-378.0 872.1/1235 
1312/399.9 (sidewall core) 1312/399.9 (sidewall core) 848.6/1312 
1320-1330/402.3-405.4 1320-1330/402.3-405.4 844.6/1325 
1350-1360/411.5-414.5 1350-1360/411.5-414.5 835.5/1355 
1410-1420/429.8-432.8 1410-1420/429.8-432.8 817.2/1415 
1420/432.8 (sidewall core) 1420/432.8 (sidewall core) 815.7/1420 
1455/443.5 (sidewall core) 1455/443.5 (sidewall core) 805.0/1455 
1540-1550/469.4-472.4 1540-1550/469.4-472.4 777.6/1545 
1550/472.4 (sidewall core) 1550/472.4 (sidewall core) 776.1/1550 
1600-1610/487.7-490.7 1600-1610/487.7-490.7 770.0/1570* 
1640-1650/499.9-502.9 1640-1650/499.9-502.9 747.1/1645 
1656/504.8 (sidewall core) 1656/504.8 (sidewall core) 741.0/1665* 
1710-1720/521.2-524.3 1710-1720/521.2-524.3 725.8/1715 
1790-1800/545.6-548.6 1790-1800/545.6-548.6 701.4/1795 
1900-1910/579.1-582.2 1900-1910/579.1-582.2 667.9/1905 
1980-1990/603.5-606.6 1980-1990/603.5-606.6 643.5/1985 
* These samples were reassigned to different depths, as shown here and explained in the BSC report (2002 
[DIRS 158730], p. II-9). 
USW H-5 
Comparison of the data contents of DTNs MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517] and 
LA9908JC831321.001 indicated that there must be additional sources of input to the mineralogic 
model (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]) beside DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003] (the 
precursor of DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]). Two other DTNs were found to 
be input sources. DTN: LADV831321AQ97.007 [DIRS 113499] is listed in the Technical Data 
Management System as a qualified DTN even though it contains unqualified data from the USW 
H-5 cutting samples. This DTN is identified in the mineralogic model (BSC 2002 
[DIRS 158730]) as an input source. DTN: LA9910JC831321.001 [DIRS 113496] is listed as 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-11 September 2004 
unqualified in the Technical Data Management System and is not identified as an input source in 
the mineralogic model (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]). Table A-8 shows how the three DTNs, with 
some duplication, comprise the input to the mineralogical model. 
Table A-8. Comparison for Equivalence of USW H-5 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] 
and 
LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LA9910JC831321.001 
[DIRS 113496] 
(depth interval in ft/depth 
interval midpoint in m) 
LADV831321AQ97.007 
[DIRS 113499] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LA9908JC831321.001 
(midpoint elevation in 
m/depth in ft) 
40-50/13.7 1464.9/45 
50/15.2 1463.3/50 
110-120/35.1 1443.5/115 
160-170/50.3 1428.3/165 
190/57.9 1420.7/190 
230-240/71.6 1407.0/235 
320-330/99.1 1379.5/325 
380-390/117.3 1361.2/385 
420/128 reassigned to 
1353.0/412 
450/137.2 1341.4/450 
460-470/141.7 1336.8/465 
620-630/189.0-192.0 1288.1/625 
700/213.4 700/213.4 1265.2/700 
720-730/219.5-222.5 1257.6/725 
750-760/228.6-231.6 1248.5/755 
800-810/243.8-246.9 800-810/243.8-246.9 1233.2/805 
830-840/253.0-256.0 830-840/253.0-256.0 1224.1/835 
860-870/262.1-265.2 1214.9/865 
920-930/280.4-283.5 920-930/280.4-283.5 1196.6/925 
970-980/295.7-298.7 970-980/295.7-298.7 1181.4/975 
990-1000/301.8-304.8 1175.3/995 
1050/320 1050/320.0 1158.5/1050 
1090-1100/332.2-335.3 1144.8/1095 
1150-1160/350.3-353.6 1150-1160/350.5-353.6 1126.5/1155 
1200-1210/365.8-368.8 1111.3/1205 
1230-1240/374.9-378.0 1230-1240/374.9-378.9 1102.2/1235 
1290-1300/393.2-396.2 1290-1300/393.2-396.2 1083.9/1295 
1350-1360/411.5-414.5 1065.6/1355 
1380-1390/420.6-423.7 1380-1390/420.6-423.7 1056.4/1385 
1450-1460/442.0-445.0 1450-1460/442.0-445.0 1035.1/1455 
1490-1500/454.2-457.2 1490-1500/454.2-457.2 1022.9/1495 
1530-1540/466.3-469.4 1010.7/1535 
1590-1600/484.6-487.7 1590-1600/484.6-487.7 992.4/1595 
1610/490.7 1610/490.7 987.9/1610 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-12 September 2004 
Table A-8. Comparison for Equivalence of USW H-5 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
(Continued) 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] 
and 
LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LA9910JC831321.001 
[DIRS 113496] 
(depth interval in ft/depth 
interval midpoint in m) 
LADV831321AQ97.007 
[DIRS 113499] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LA9908JC831321.001 
(midpoint elevation in 
m/depth in ft) 
1630-1640/496.8-499.9 980.2/1635 
1650-1660/502.9-506.0 974.1/1655 
1666/507.8 (sidewall core) 970.8/1666 
1710-1720/521.2-524.3 955.8/1715 
1750/533.4 945.2/1750 
1762/537.1 (sidewall core) 941.5/1762 
1760-1770/538.0 940.6/1765 
1800/548.6 (sidewall core) 929.9/1800 
1820-1830/556.3 922.3/1825 
1852/564.5 (sidewall core) 914.1/1852 
1875/571.5 (sidewall core) 907.1/1875 
1890-1900/577.6 901.0/1895 
1900-1910/580.6 897.9/1905 
1910-1920/583.7 894.9/1915 
1917/584.3 (sidewall core) 894.3/1917 
1920-1930/586.7 891.8/1925 
1930/588.3 890.3/1930 
1950-1960/595.9 882.7/1955 
1966/599.2 (sidewall core) 879.3/1966 
1990-2000/608.1 Reassigned to 
879.2/1966.5 
2070-2080/632.5 846.1/2075 
2140-2150/653.8 Reassigned to 
830.0/2128 
2200/670.6 808.0/2200 
2230-2240/681.2 797.4/2235 
2260-2270/690.4 788.2/2265 
Note: Blank boxes are intentional. 
USW WT-1 
Table A-9 shows that the USW WT-1 sample analyses in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] are derived completely and exclusively from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003]. Inputs to the mineralogic model report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]) in 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 also are derived from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003]. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-13 September 2004 
Table A-9. Comparison for Equivalence of USW WT-1 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 
169517] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 
109003] 
(depth interval in ft) 
LA9908JC831321.001 
(midpoint elevation in 
m/depth in ft) 
440-450/134.1-137.2 440-450 1065.4/445 
500-510/152.4-155.4 500-510 1047.1/505 
550-560/167.6-170.7 550-560 1031.8/555 
640-650/195.1-198.1 640-650 1004.4/645 
690-700/210.3-213.4 690-700 989.2/695 
780-790/237.7-240.8 780-790 961.7/785 
840-850/256.0-259.1 840-850 943.4/845 
930-940/283.5-286.5 930-940 916.0/935 
1000-1010/304.8-307.8 1000-1010 894.7/1005 
1090-1100/332.2-335.3 1090-1100 867.2/1095 
1160-1170/353.6-356.6 1160-1170 845.9/1165 
1220-1230/371.9-374.9 1220-1230 827.6/1225 
1300-1310/396.2-399.3 1300-1310 * 
1320-1330/402.3-405.4 1320-1330 * 
1340-1350/408.4-411.5 1340-1350 * 
1380-1390/420.6-423.7 1380-1390 778.9/1385 
1410-1420/429.8-432.8 1410-1420 769.7/1415 
1470-1480/448.1-451.1 1470-1480 * 
1510-1520/460.2-463.3 1510-1520 * 
1550-1560/472.4-475.5 1550-1560 * 
1570-1580/478.5-481.6 1570-1580 * 
*Exclusion of these analyses is documented in the BSC report (2002 [DIRS 158730], p. II-12, II-13). 
USW WT-2 
Table A-10 shows that the USW WT-2 sample analyses in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 
[DIRS 169517] are derived completely and exclusively from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003]. Inputs to the mineralogic model report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]) in 
DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 are also derived from DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 
[DIRS 109003]. One sample number (shown in bold type, corresponding to the sampling depth 
interval in feet) in DTN: LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 109003] is incorrect, and the error is 
also present in DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517]. The sample number, 
420-450, does not conform to the typical ten-foot sampling interval for drill cuttings. 
Notebook entries documenting the collection, description, and receipt of the USW WT-2 samples 
from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Core Library confirm that the correct footage for the 
sample is 420-430 ft (Broxton 1990 [DIRS 169640], p. 58; Caporuscio 1986 [DIRS 169644], 
p. 128). The substitution of 450 for 430 appears to have been derived from a typographical 
error in Bish and Vaniman (1985 [DIRS 101196], p. 29) that was repeated in Bish and Chipera 
(1989 [DIRS 101195], p. 49). The conversion from depth in feet to depth in meters in the source 
documents and in the DTNs reflects the correct footage. The midpoint elevation for the sample 
used in DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 also is correct. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-14 September 2004 
Table A-10. Comparison for Equivalence of USW WT-2 Analyzed Samples Included in Data Packages 
MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 
169517] 
(depth interval in ft/m) 
LADB831321AN98.002 [DIRS 
109003] 
(depth interval in ft) 
LA9908JC831321.001 
(midpoint elevation in 
m/depth in ft) 
250-260/76.2-79.2 250-260/76.2-79.2 1223.2/255 
260-270/79.2-82.3 260-270/79.2-82.3 1220.1/265 
290-300/88.4-91.4 290-300/88.4-91.4 1211.0/295 
370-380/112.8-115.8 370-380/112.8-115.8 1186.6/375 
420-4501/128.0-131.0 420-4501/128.0-131.0 1171.4/425 
510-520/155.4-158.5 510-520/155.4-158.5 1143.9/515 
570-580/173.7-176.8 570-580/173.7-176.8 1125.6/575 
650-660/198.1-201.1 650-660/198.1-201.1 1101.3/655 
720-730/219.5-222.5 720-730/219.5-222.5 1079.9/725 
780-790/237.7-240.8 780-790/237.7-240.8 1061.6/785 
850-860/259.1-262.1 850-860/259.1-262.1 1040.3/855 
930-940/283.5-286.5 930-940/283.5-286.5 1015.9/935 
990-1000/301.8-304.8 990-1000/301.8-304.8 997.6/995 
1060-1070/323.1-326.1 1060-1070/323.1-326.1 976.3/1065 
1130-1140/344.4-347.5 1130-1140/344.4-347.5 955.0/1135 
1190-1200/362.7-365.8 1190-1200/362.7-365.8 936.7/1196 
1200-1210/365.8-368.8 1200-1210/365.8-368.8 933.6/1205 
1250-1260/381.0-384.0 1250-1260/381.0-384.0 918.4/1255 
1300-1310/396.2-399.3 1300-1310/396.2-399.3 903.1/1305 
1360-1370/414.5-417.6 1360-1370/414.5-417.6 884.8/1365 
1420-1430/432.8-435.9 1420-1430/432.8-435.9 866.6/1425 
1450-1460/442.0-445.0 1450-1460/442.0-445.0 857.4/1455 
1470-1480/448.1-451.1 1470-1480/448.1-451.1 851.3/1475 
1520-1530/463.3-466.3 1520-1530/463.3-466.3 836.1/1525 
1570-1580/478.5-481.6 1570-1580/478.5-481.6 820.8/1575 
1640-1650/499.9-502.9 1640-1650/499.9-502.9 799.5/1645 
1710-1720/521.2-524.3 1710-1720/521.2-524.3 778.2/1715 
1750-1760/533.4-536.4 1750-1760/533.4-536.4 766.0/1755 
1820-1830/554.7-557.8 1820-1830/554.7-557.8 744.6/1825 
1910-1920/582.2-585.2 1910-1920/582.2-585.2 717.2/1915 
2000-2010/609.6-612.6 2000-2010/609.6-612.6 689.8/2005 
2050.25/624.9 (core) 2050.25/624.9 (core) 2 
2053.7/626 (core) 2053.7/626 (core) 2 
2059.3/627.7 (core) 2059.3/627.7 (core) 2 
1The original collection and sample receipt notebook entries identify the footage of this sample as 420-430 ft. See 
text for further explanation. 
2These analyses from MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517) were also included in LA9908JC831321.001 but 
were assigned to slightly different depths, as explained in the BSC report (2002 [DIRS 158730], p. II-13). 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-15 September 2004 
A3.2 SAMPLE COLLECTION AND PREPARATION FOR XRD ANALYSIS 
A3.2.1 Samples from J-12 
The J-12 water well was spudded on August 4, 1957, and completed to a depth of 887 ft on 
October 9, 1957 (Fenix and Scisson, Inc., 1988 [DIRS 169661]). Records from Burns 
& McDonnell Engineering Company (1959 [DIRS 169662]) indicate that the hole was cased for 
the full 887-ft depth. The hole was recompleted in August 1968, to a depth of 1,139 ft. Fenix 
and Scisson, Inc. (1988 [DIRS 169661]) found that drilling records were not available for the 
deepening of the hole. Of the 12 sample analyses for J-12 samples contained in 
DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 [DIRS 169517], 5 samples are from depths corresponding to 
the initial well completion, and the remaining 7 samples are from depths associated with the 
deepening of the well. 
In the course of this qualification activity, no records were found to document LANL sampling 
of the J-12 cuttings, sample descriptions, or sample preparation for XRD analysis. Based on the 
lack of documentation and the fact that the J-12 data were not used in the mineralogic model 
report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]), a decision was made to not attempt qualification of this data 
set. 
A3.2.2 Samples from Other Drill Holes 
Records of sample collection, sample description, and sample preparation and analysis by XRD 
are partial to complete for samples from drill holes USW H-3, USW H-4, USW H-5, USW 
WT-1, USW WT-2, and UE-25 p#1. Table A-11 summarizes the records that have been 
identified. As noted by Steinborn (2002 [DIRS 160702]), it is likely that more records exist. 
Table A-11. Summary of Records for Sample Collection and XRD Analysis 
Drill Hole 
Sample Collection and Description 
Records 
Sample Preparation and XRD Analysis 
Records 
USW H-3 Byers 1982 [DIRS 169663]; Vaniman 
1983 [DIRS 169665], p. 84-85; Levy 1996 
[DIRS 106676], p. 1,4,21-23; LANL 1997 
[DIRS 169667] 
Levy 1996 [DIRS 106676], p. 4,10,23; 
Bish 2001 [DIRS 169750], p. 46 
USW H-4 Vaniman 1983 [DIRS 169665], p. 85-87; 
Levy 1996 [DIRS 106676], p. 23; 
Caporuscio, 1986 [DIRS 169644], p. 135 
Levy 1996 [DIRS 106676], p. 4,10 
USW H-5 Vaniman 1983 [DIRS 169665], p. 67- 
70,72-75,87-88; Levy 1996 [DIRS 
106676], p. 25; Caporuscio 1986 [DIRS 
169644], p. 135; LANL 1992 [DIRS 
169718] 
Levy 1996 [DIRS 106676], p. 10; Bish 
2001 [DIRS 169750], p. 45-46 
USW WT-1 Broxton 1990 [DIRS 169640], p.61-63; 
Caporuscio 1986 [DIRS 169644], p. 127 
no records found 
USW WT-2 Broxton 1990 1986 [DIRS 169640], p. 58- 
60; Caporuscio 1986 [DIRS 169644], p. 
128 
no records found 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-16 September 2004 
Table A-11. Summary of Records for Sample Collection and XRD Analysis (Continued) 
Drill Hole 
Sample Collection and Description 
Records 
Sample Preparation and XRD Analysis 
Records 
UE-25 p#1 Caporuscio 1986 [DIRS 169644], p. 131- 
133; Chipera 1986 [DIRS 169680], p.100 
Chipera 1986 [DIRS 169680], 
p.34,36,37,38,39,40,48,49,50, 
52,53,55,56,57,58,59,60,62,63,64,65,66,6 
8,69, 
101,102; Bish 2001 [DIRS 169750], p. 2- 
5; Chipera et al. 1989 [DIRs 169683], p. 
2,3 
A3.3 X-RAY DIFFRACTION METHODOLOGY 
X-ray diffraction analysis of the cutting samples, sidewall core samples, and intermittent core 
samples was conducted in the same time period as XRD analysis of samples from the 
continuously cored boreholes. The same analytical equipment and software were used. 
Documentation and evaluation of technical procedures found to be acceptable by Steinborn 
(2002 [DIRS 160702]) for qualification of XRD mineralogic data from core samples apply to the 
data under consideration here as well. Table A-12 identifies specific published sources of 
information about XRD analytical techniques for the borehole data sets considered for 
qualification. 
Table A-12. Published Sources on XRD Mineralogy for Unqualified Data Sets 
Borehole Published Information Source on XRD Methodology 
UE-25 p#1 Chipera and Bish (1988 [DIRS 105080]) for all samples 
USW H-3 Levy (1984 [DIRS 101392]) for samples 1550, 1655, 1700, 1800, 1900, 2400, 
2440, 2490; 
USW H-4 Levy (1984 [DIRS 101392]) for sidewall core samples 
USW H-5 Levy (1984 [DIRS 101392]) for samples 50, 190, 420, 450, 700, 1050, 1610, 1666, 
1750, 1762, 1800, 1852, 1875, 1917, 1930; 
USW WT-1 Bish and Chipera (1989 [DIRS 101195]) for all samples 
USW WT-2 Bish and Chipera (1989 [DIRS 101195]) for all samples 
A3.4 DATA CORROBORATION ANALYSIS 
The comparison of mineral abundance data between boreholes with unqualified cuttings and 
boreholes with qualified core was conducted with restrictions imposed by the nature of 
mineralogic variation within the study area and by certain characteristics of the data sets. 
Variations in mineralogy across the Yucca Mountain area reflect primary compositional 
differences between consecutive ash flows. Lateral and vertical variability in pyroclastic 
constituents of ash flows and in post-depositional cooling and crystallization history also affects 
the mineralogy. Superimposed upon the variations in primary pyroclastic and syngenetic 
(high-temperature post-depositional crystallization) mineralogy are mineralogic changes due to 
alteration. The most important alteration was zeolitic alteration of originally glassy tuff. 
Distribution of zeolitic alteration was affected by multiple episodes of tectonic tilting and past 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-17 September 2004 
variations in the position of the water table. A conceptual model that explains the 
interrelationship between these factors and the distribution of zeolitization is given by Levy 
(1991 [DIRS 100053]). 
Paired borehole mineralogy data sets of qualified core data and unqualified cuttings 
(plus sidewall core and intermittent core) data were selected on the basis of physical proximity 
plus comparable ground-level elevations of boreholes. These criteria were applied to minimize 
the effects of lateral and vertical mineralogical variability on the comparisons of mineralogy data 
sets. The comparisons of mineralogical data were made for individual lithostratigraphic units or 
successions of units, based on unit contacts from DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
[DIRS 152554]. This qualified DTN contains unit contacts for both the boreholes with qualified 
core and those with unqualified cuttings. Unit descriptions and abbreviations are listed in A-13. 
The locations of unit contacts in boreholes without continuous core were determined more from 
downhole logs than from cuttings data. Most of the contacts are located within ten-foot intervals 
represented by cuttings samples. These samples would therefore contain material from two 
adjacent lithostratigraphic units. In addition, some cuttings, sidewall, or intermittent core 
samples located near unit boundaries have mineralogic affinities to an adjacent unit rather than 
the unit to which they would belong simply on the basis of sample footage location. This 
phenomenon was recognized by the authors of the BSC report (2002 [DIRS 158730]), who 
omitted some sample data from their model or adjusted the footage of some samples to avoid 
placing mineralogic data in an inappropriate lithostratigraphic unit. Unit contacts in cored holes 
are not free of these potential discrepancies because contacts in cored holes may have been 
selected more on the basis of rock texture than of mineralogy. In this report, such discrepancies 
are addressed on an individual basis. 
Mineral-abundance data for lithostratigraphic units are presented as ranges bounded by the 
highest and lowest values. In general, neither the qualified nor the unqualified data sets contain 
enough analyses from any single lithostratigraphic unit to justify statistical comparisons of mean 
or standard deviation between borehole data sets. Borehole cuttings data sets typically contain 
four or fewer analyses for each unit. 
The listings of individual samples used for comparison between unqualified and qualified data 
sets are contained in Appendices A (unqualified data) and B (qualified data). Analyses of cavity 
fillings, fracture fillings, and inclusions were omitted from the comparisons because these 
samples do not represent the bulk mineralogy of the lithostratigraphic units in which they were 
collected. Calcite-rich samples in the qualified data sets were omitted from the comparisons, 
because these samples have an altered mineralogy and are not typical. In tables of this section 
where data are presented as ranges of mineral content, zeroes are substituted for not detected 
symbols present in the original DTN tables and in the appendices of this report. Symbols for 
approximate mineral content (e.g., ~1), also present in some of the original DTN tables in this 
section. In some comparison tables, mineral abundances for feldspar and silica minerals 
(tridymite, quartz, cristobalite, and opal) from the appendix have been combined to simplify the 
comparisons. 
Lithostratigraphic units and their abbreviations, as used in this report, are listed in Table A-13. 
The unit names and boundaries are taken from DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554]. 
The units are listed in order from lesser to greater depths and from younger to older ages. The 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-18 September 2004 
term, crystallized, as used in the lithostratigraphic unit descriptions, has a meaning equivalent 
to the term devitrified, which is in more common usage in the petrographic descriptions of 
core and cutting samples cited in this report. Devitrification refers here to the high-temperature 
crystallization of glassy tuffs to mineral assemblages dominated by anhydrous silica minerals 
and feldspar. 
Table A-13. Lithostratigraphic Unit Descriptions and Abbreviations 
Unit 
Abbreviation Lithostratigraphic Unit Description 
Tpc_un Tiva Canyon Tuff nondivided 
Tpcpv3 Tiva Canyon Tuff, crystal-poor vitric densely welded subzone 
Tpcpv2 Tiva Canyon Tuff, crystal-poor vitric moderately welded subzone 
Tpcpv1 Tiva Canyon Tuff, crystal-poor vitric nonwelded to partially welded subzones 
Tpbt4 Pre-Tiva Canyon Tuff bedded tuff 
Tpy Yucca Mountain Tuff nondivided 
Tpbt3 Pre-Yucca Mountain Tuff bedded tuff 
Tpp Pah Canyon Tuff nondivided 
Tpbt2 Pre-Pah Canyon Tuff bedded tuff 
Tptrv3 Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-rich vitric nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tptrv2 Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-rich vitric moderately welded zone 
Tptrv1 Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-rich vitric densely welded zone 
Tptrn Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-rich non-lithophysal zone 
Tptrl Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-rich lithophysal zone 
Tptpul Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor upper lithophysal zone 
Tptpmn Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor middle nonlithophysal zone 
Tptpll Topopah Spring Tuff crystal-poor lower lithophysal zone 
Tptpln Topopah Spring Tuff, crystal-poor lower nonlithophysal zone 
Tptpv3 Topopah Spring Tuff, crystal-poor vitric densely welded subzone 
Tptpv2 Topopah Spring Tuff, crystal-poor vitric moderately welded subzone 
Tptpv1 Topopah Spring Tuff, crystal-poor vitric nonwelded to partially welded subzones 
Tpbt1 Pre-Topopah Spring Tuff bedded tuff 
Tac Calico Hills Formation undifferentiated 
Tacbt Pre-Calico Hills Formation bedded tuff 
Tcpuv Prow Pass Tuff upper vitric (zeolitic) nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tcpuc Prow Pass Tuff, upper crystallized nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tcpm Prow Pass Tuff, crystallized moderately to densely welded zones 
Tcplc Prow Pass Tuff, lower crystallized nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tcplv Prow Pass Tuff, lower vitric (zeolitic) nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tcpbt Pre-Prow Pass Tuff bedded tuff 
Tcbuv Bullfrog Tuff upper vitric (zeolitic)nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tcbuc Bullfrog Tuff, upper crystallized nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tcbm Bullfrog Tuff, crystallized moderately to densely welded zones 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-19 September 2004 
Table A-13. Lithostratigraphic Unit Descriptions and Abbreviations (Continued) 
Unit 
Abbreviation Lithostratigraphic Unit Description 
Tcblc Bullfrog Tuff, lower crystallized nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tcblv Bullfrog Tuff, lower vitric (zeolitic) nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tcbbt Pre-Bullfrog Tuff bedded tuff 
Tctuv Tram Tuff, upper vitric (zeolitic) nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tctuc Tram Tuff, upper crystallized nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tctm Tram Tuff, crystallized moderately to densely welded zones 
Tctlc Tram Tuff, lower crystallized nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tctlv Tram Tuff, lower vitric (zeolitic) nonwelded to partially welded zones 
Tctbt Pre-Tram Tuff bedded tuff 
Tund lower Tertiary units undifferentiated 
Pz Paleozoic and older units 
Source: DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
UE-25 p#1 Compared with UE-25 UZ#16, USW SD-12, USW G-4, and USW G-1 
For purposes of corroboration, the mineralogical data from the upper part of p#1 were compared 
with qualified data from UE-25 UZ#16. This is the borehole closest to p#1 that has qualified 
data. The data are compared in Table A-14. Mineralogic data from the lower part of p#1 are 
compared with qualified data from USW G-1 (Table A-16). 
For the devitrified units of the Topopah Spring Tuff, ranges of mineralogic abundance in both 
boreholes generally overlap. The absence of either glass or major hydrous alteration products 
(smectite or zeolites) in the devitrified units is a common characteristic of both data sets. 
One cutting sample from the 1240-1250-ft depth in p#1 straddles the boundary between Tptpv2 
and Tptpv1 at 1243 ft. Data for this sample are listed in Table A-14 as Tptpv2/1. A downward 
transition from vitric to zeolitic tuff is located within the Tptpv2 + Tptpv1 interval in both 
boreholes. In UZ#16, the transition lies within Tptpv2. The transition cannot be specified as 
lying within Tptpv2 or Tptpv1 in p#1, but the absence of glass in the sample suggests the 
transition is within Tptpv2, in agreement with the UZ#16 data. 
A p#1 sidewall sample from 1,470-ft falls within the devitrified Tcpuc lithostratigraphic unit two 
feet below the boundary with the overlying vitric Tcpuv unit. This sample contains 39 percent 
mordenite plus minor smectite and therefore must have been partly vitric prior to the 
hydrous-mineral alteration. The mineralogy of the sample therefore represents a transition 
between Tcpuv and Tcpuc. The uppermost Tcpuc sample from UZ#16 contains 8 percent 
mordenite, which is the upper end of the smectite + mordenite range for UZ#16 samples in the 
Tcpuc and the only sample in that lithostratigraphic unit that contains mordenite. This similarity 
is corroborative of the location and mineralogy of the p#1 sample. 
The single p#1 sample analysis from the Tptpmn unit falls outside the range of UZ#16 values for 
the major constituents quartz, cristobalite, and feldspar. In Table A-15, this analysis is compared 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-20 September 2004 
to mineral-abundance ranges for tridymite, quartz, cristobalite, and feldspar in the Tptpmn unit 
of three qualified borehole data sets in addition to UZ#16. The feldspar content of the p#1 
sample is similar to values in USW G-4 but the cristobalite content falls far below the ranges of 
the other boreholes and the quartz content is slightly to substantially higher. Byers 
(1983 [DIRS 169692]) described a thin section of this sample (570-580-ft-depth, identified in his 
unpaginated notebook as P1-580) as a partially welded, devitrified ash-flow tuff. The Tptpmn 
unit is described by Buesch et al. (1996 [DIRS 100106]) as densely welded, devitrified tuffs. 
Based on the welding difference, it appears that the 570-580-ft sample does not represent the 
lithology of the Tptpmn unit. No documentation or sample remainder was found that could 
explain the origin of this atypical material. Therefore, it will be recommended that the data for 
this material be excluded from qualification. 
Table A-14. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, UE-25 p#1 and UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) 
Unit Smectite  
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz Cristobalite 
 Opal Feldspar Glass 
p#1 UZ1 
6 
p#1 UZ16 p#1 UZ 
16 
p#1 UZ 
16 
p#1 UZ1 
6 
p# 
1 
UZ1 
6 
p# 
1 
UZ 
16 
Tptrn 0 Tr.-5 0 0-0 14 3- 
22 
0 0-0 6 5-13 76 64- 
81 
0 0-0 
Tptpul 2-3 4-6 0-0 0-0 Tr.- 
4 
1- 
16 
3-9 2- 
11 
24- 
25 
17- 
29 
54 
-
71 
54- 
58 
0-0 0-0 
Tptpmn 2 3-4 0 0-0 Tr. Tr.- 
4 
30 6- 
23 
3 13- 
27 
67 54- 
57 
0 0-0 
Tptpll 1-2 1-6 0-0 0-0 0-0 1-7 27- 
36 
0- 
36 
1-5 5-26 59 
-
61 
50- 
58 
0-0 0-0 
Tptpln 0 2-6 0 0-0 0 0-5 27 14- 
31 
5 8-23 67 45- 
57 
0 0-0 
Tptpv2 2 10 0 2 20 17 49 
Tptpv2/1 1 54 0 Tr. 20 24 0 
Tptpv1 1 1 62 80 0 0 Tr. 3 23 13 14 8 0 0 
Tac Tr.- 
10 
1-19 34- 
56 
38-72 0-0 0-0 2- 
17 
3-9 0-22 10- 
26 
21 
-
39 
6- 
19 
0-9 0-0 
Tacbt 12 5-9 0 40-42 0 0-0 24 8- 
11 
0 20- 
27 
40 18- 
27 
22 0-0 
Tcpuc 39 3-8 0 0-0 0 0-0 25 17- 
41 
0 0-20 40 48- 
58 
0 0-0 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-21 September 2004 
Table A-14. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, UE-25 p#1 and UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) 
(Continued) 
Unit Smectite  
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz Cristobalite 
 Opal Feldspar Glass 
Tcpm 0 3-4 3 0-0 0 0-0 39 24- 
39 
0 0-14 60 58- 
62 
0 0-0 
Tcplc 5 6-7 0 0-0 0 0-0 37 11- 
20 
0 15- 
27 
58 55- 
56 
0 0-0 
Tcplv 3-7 3 40- 
60 
42 0-0 0 4- 
11 
5 14- 
17 
28 17 
-
25 
28 0-0 0 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144), 
LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004). 
Table A-15. Ranges of Mineral Content in the Tptpmn of UE-25 p#1, UE-25 UZ#16, USW SD-12, 
and USW G-4 (weight percent) 
Borehole Tridymite Quartz Cristobalite/Opal Feldspar 
UE-25 p#1 Tr. 30 3 67 
UE-25 UZ#16 Tr.-4 6-23 13-27 54-57 
USW SD-12 2-4 3-11 26-34 52-54 
USW G-4 0-17 3-4 13-28 62-68 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144), 
LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), LADV831321AQ97.001 (DIRS 107142), 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796) 
There is a substantial difference in the values for quartz and cristobalite/opal between the single 
p#1 sample and the UZ#16 samples in the Tcplc unit. The p#1 1,640-1,650-ft sample values 
(Table A-15) fall within the ranges for quartz and cristobalite/opal in the overlying Tcpm unit of 
both p#1 and UZ#16. It is noteworthy that the lowest analyzed sample in the UZ#16 Tcpm unit 
has quartz and cristobalite/opal values that are more typical of the underlying Tcplc unit. The 
larger UZ#16 data set shows a downward change from quartz >> cristobalite/opal to quartz 
= cristobalite/opal that is offset by about 20 ft above the unit boundary between Tcpm and Tcplc. 
In p#1, the same mineralogic change is present but is offset by about 10 ft below the unit 
boundary. Therefore, this particular discrepancy between the two mineralogy data sets exists 
because the lithostratigraphic unit boundaries were not picked on the basis of the mineralogic 
change. The p#1 data for the Tcpm and Tcplc units are corroborated by the UZ#16 data. 
Mineralogic data for the lower part of p#1, with the exception of Paleozoic-section samples, are 
compared with data from USW G-1 in Table A-16. Common aspects of both data sets are the 
presence of only small amounts of clay and zeolite in the devitrified units Tcbuc, Tcbm, Tcblc 
(not recognized in USW G-1), Tctuc, and Tctm. The originally vitric units Tcpbt, Tcblv, Tcbbt, 
Tctuv, and Tctlv have clay and zeolites as major constituents. 
Sample p#1 2030-2040, in the Tcbm unit, is listed as containing seven percent glass. The 
presence of glass in the middle of a ~300-ft-thick devitrified interval (Tcbuc-Tcbm-Tcblc) is 
unlikely. No thin section of this sample is available for examination. In the absence of 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-22 September 2004 
information to support the presence of glass in this sample, it will be recommended that the 
sample not be qualified. 
Table A-16. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, UE-25 p#1 and USW G-1 (weight percent) 
Unit 
Smectite  
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite 
 Analcime Tridymite Quartz 
Cristobalite 
 Opal Feldspar Glass 
p#1 G-1 p#1 G-1 p#1 G-1 p#1 G-1 p#1 G-1 p#1 G-1 p#1 G-1 
Tcpbt 24 9 45 33 0 0 12 2 0 8 18 41 0 0 
Tcbuc Tr.-5 1-3 0-9 0-0 0-0 0-0 27- 
45 
32- 
35 
0-0 Tr.-1 39- 
64 
62- 
67 
0-0 0-0 
Tcbm Tr.-2 Tr.-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 31- 
39 
32- 
36 
0-0 0-Tr. 59- 
65 
63- 
67 
0-7 0-0 
Tcblc 3 * Tr. * 0 * 29 * 0 * 61 * 0 * 
Tcblv 31 27- 
39 
14 40- 
48 
0 0-0 28 Tr.- 
3 
0 2-10 33 12- 
20 
0 0-0 
Tcbbt 10 14- 
26 
8 26- 
42 
0 0-0 29 12- 
21 
0 1-1 52 17- 
30 
0 0-0 
Tctuv 6-11 4-15 6-35 15- 
40 
0-0 0-0 22- 
32 
4- 
18 
0-0 4-8 32- 
45 
33- 
52 
0-0 0-0 
Tctuc 7 1-3 0 0-0 0 0-0 40 31- 
36 
0 0-1 49 62- 
64 
0 0-0 
Tctm 0-2 1-2 0-0 0-2 0-0 0-0 24- 
43 
30- 
36 
0-0 0-Tr. 51- 
77 
61- 
67 
0-0 0-0 
Tctlv 4-25 4-18 0-13 4-41 0-0 0-0 29- 
42 
18- 
38 
0-0 0-0 34- 
57 
20- 
43 
0-0 0-0 
*Tcblc is not recognized in USW G-1. 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796). 
The lowermost Tertiary unit, Tund, combines multiple pyroclastic deposits. In p#1, the Tund 
unit is 1217 ft thick, whereas in G-1 it is 2442 ft from the top of the unit to the depth of the 
lowest analyzed sample. This large difference of thickness precludes the use of a side-by-side 
mineralogic-abundance comparison between data sets for this unit. Instead, the comparison is 
based on general mineralogic similarities and on the vertical variations in illite/smectite 
interstratification in p#1 and G-1. 
Tund samples in p#1 and G-1 are similar in the lack of tridymite and cristobalite/opal. The only 
exception is one sample from near the top of Tund in G-1 that contains 6 percent 
cristobalite/opal. Chlorite is generally absent from rocks above the Tund and the upper Tund, 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-23 September 2004 
but is a common constituent in trace to minor quantities in the lower Tund of both borehole data 
sets. 
Investigations of illite/smectite interstratification in p#1 and G-1 are documented in Chipera and 
Bish (1988 [DIRS 105080]) and Bish (1989 [DIRS 101194]). These references describe the 
increasing proportions of illite with depth and its inferred correlation with increasing 
temperature. Ordering of the interstratifications changes with depth from random to more highly 
ordered. Chipera and Bish (1988 [DIRS 105080], p. 17) compared the suites of illite/smectite 
samples for p#1 and G-1 (also G-2), most of which represent the Tund, and found similar trends 
with increasing depth. They attributed the similarities to similar alteration histories. In 
particular, an inferred early higher-temperature alteration event with temperatures increasing 
with depth was recognized in both data sets. This suggests that the p#1 sample set reflects good 
depth control. 
No qualified data sets exist for comparison with the three lowermost samples from p#1 
representing the Paleozoic section. Therefore, these samples cannot be qualified by 
corroboration with qualified data. The Paleozoic section is not part of the mineralogic model 
report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]) and the data for these three samples are not used as input to 
the model. 
USW H-3 Compared with USW GU-3 
Two samples within two feet or less of a lithostratigraphic unit boundary, one from each 
borehole, were reassigned to an adjacent unit based on strong mineralogic affinity to that unit. 
Sample GU-3 1598.5 falls within the devitrified Tcpuc unit (upper boundary at 1,597-ft depth) 
but contains 45 percent glass. This sample was moved to the overlying vitric Tcpuv for the 
purpose of unit-to-unit mineralogic comparison. Sample H-3 1700 falls within the devitrified 
Tcplc unit two feet above the boundary with the underlying vitric Tcplv unit. The sample 
contains 15 percent glass and therefore was moved to the underlying unit. 
The succession of lithostratigraphic units shown in Table A-17 includes distinctive 
lithologic-unit transitions that correspond to mineralogic transitions. Mineralogic features 
common to both USW H-3 and USW GU-3 data sets include: 
 Restriction of detectable hornblende to the phenocryst-rich Tacbt. 
 Transition from Tcpuv to Tcpuc corresponds to a transition from glass bearing to 
non-glass-bearing mineral assemblages. 
 Transition from Tcplc to Tcplv corresponds to a transition from non-glass-bearing 
mineral assemblages to assemblages containing either glass or clinoptilolite derived 
from the alteration of glass. 
The raw-value ranges of mineral abundances within lithostratigraphic units are generally similar 
in USW H-3 and USW-GU-3. One difference is observed in the Tptpln unit. The H-3 samples 
have cristobalite heavily predominant over quartz, whereas the GU-3 samples show the opposite 
pattern. Both Tptpln sample sets are small, with two H-3 samples and three GU-3 samples. The 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-24 September 2004 
cristobalite > quartz pattern in the Tptpln unit is uncommon within the qualified data sets, but 
similar patterns are present in two samples from the lower Tptpln in USW SD-12 where this unit 
was very well sampled. Non-overlapping mineral-abundance ranges exist in the Tptpv3 data, but 
this unit typically shows high variability in mineral abundances. The mineralogic differences 
between the single H-3 sample and the GU-3 samples are attributable to a higher glass content in 
the H-3 sample. 
Table A-17. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW H-3 and USW GU-3 (weight percent) 
Unit Hornblende 
Clinoptiloli 
te Tridymite Quartz 
Cristobalite 
Opal Feldspar Glass 
H-3 GU- 
3 
H-3 GU- 
3 
H-3 GU- 
3 
H-3 GU- 
3 
H-3 GU-3 H-3 GU- 
3 
H-3 GU- 
3 
Tptrn 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 Tr.- 
13 
4-20 0-0 0-4 8- 
24 
5-20 76- 
77 
70- 
80 
0-0 0-0 
Tptpul 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 Tr.- 
21 
5-12 0-0 0-2 5- 
29 
22- 
22 
71- 
73 
65- 
70 
0-0 0-0 
Tptp 
mn 
0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0- 0-Tr. 0-6 2-4 1-6 26- 
27 
17- 
22 
68- 
69 
65- 
70 
0-0 0-0 
Tptpll 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-4 0-10 Tr.- 
29 
4- 
17 
3- 
24 
12- 
27 
66- 
72 
65- 
75 
0-0 0-0 
Tptpln 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-0 0-Tr. 0-0 2-2 17- 
35 
23- 
29 
3-10 67- 
74 
60- 
70 
0-0 0-0 
Tptpv 
3 
0 0-0 0 0-0 0 0-0 2 3-8 7 17- 
27 
19 35- 
35 
70 30- 
40 
Tptpv 
2 
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 5 12 23 40 70 45 
Tptpv 
1 
0 0-0 0 0-0 0 0-0 Tr. 4-7 Tr. 6-7 3 25- 
30 
97 55- 
65 
Tacbt 0-1 0-2 0-1 0-2 0-0 0-0 Tr-3 5- 
17 
1-5 4-6 11- 
47 
25- 
50 
34- 
81 
20- 
65 
Tcpuv 0 0-0 1 0-0 4 0-0 12 4-5 20 2-5 50 45- 
45 
10 45- 
45 
Tcpuc 0 0-0 2 0-0 7 0-15 10 2- 
20 
7 2-30 70 65- 
70 
0 0-0 
Tcpm 0 1 2 0 7 0 7 12 7 12 75 70 0 0 
Tcplv 0-0 0-0 2-60 30- 
70 
0-0 0-0 7- 
10 
4-7 0- 
15 
4-7 30- 
60 
19- 
40 
0- 
15 
0-38 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-25 September 2004 
Table A-17. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW H-3 and USW GU-3 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Unit Hornblende 
Clinoptiloli 
te Tridymite Quartz 
Cristobalite 
Opal Feldspar Glass 
Tcpbt 0 0 75 60 2 0 2 4 2 10 15 25 0 0 
Tcblv 0-1 0-0 65- 
75* 
40- 
50 
0-0 0-0 2-2 2-5 2-2 5-7 15- 
30 
35- 
45 
0-0 0-0 
Tctuv 0 0-0 70* 30- 
40* 
0 0-0 2 5-7 0 8-10 20 40- 
50 
0 0-0 
*includes mordenite. 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LADV831321AQ97.001 (DIRS 107142), 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796). 
USW H-4 Compared with USW SD-12, UE-25 UZ#16, and USW G-4 
Examination of the mineralogical data for H-4 and the three closest drill holes with qualified data 
revealed considerable variability. Because of this variability, it was determined that comparisons 
of data for the purpose of corroboration would have to include some input from all three 
qualified data sets. 
Preliminary examination of H-4 mineralogical data organized by lithostratigraphic unit identified 
one potential outlier sample analysis. The XRD analysis of Calico Hills Formation (Tac) sample 
H-4 1320-1330 indicates that it is composed exclusively of crystalline silica (dominantly quartz) 
and feldspar. This mineralogic composition closely matches the compositions of devitrified tuffs 
in the Prow Pass Tuff (e.g., H-4 1710-1720) and other devitrified tuffs. The Calico Hills 
Formation is not known to contain any fully devitrified intervals at Yucca Mountain, but it 
typically contains lithic clasts of densely welded, devitrified tuff in a matrix of glassy clasts or 
zeolitized glassy clasts. Moyer and Geslin (1995 [DIRS 101269]) specify the lithic-clast content 
of the upper part of the Calico Hills Formation as less than or equal to 5 percent, with 
presumably higher contents in localized lithic-clast swarms. 
At the time the H-4 1320-1330 sample was collected, the variations in lithology and mineralogy 
of the Calico Hills Formation were poorly known. The USGS drill hole report for USW H-4 
describes the Tuffaceous beds of Calico Hills (informal usage) as nonwelded to partly welded, 
devitrified and zeolitized, with possible silicification of the upper 11 m. The tuff is described as 
containing abundant rhyolitic lithic fragments (Whitfield et al. 1984 [DIRS 101366], p. 7). The 
notebook entry for the 1,320-1,330-ft sampling interval made at the time the LANL sample was 
collected from materials at the USGS Core Library describes it as silicified tuff of unknown 
origin (Vaniman 1983 [DIRS 169665]). The remnant of this sample was examined under the 
binocular microscope at LANL for the current investigation. It contained subequal portions of 
lithic clasts (dark densely welded, devitrified tuff) and zeolitic nonwelded tuff plus vitric 
nonwelded tuff. The aliquot of this sample submitted for XRD apparently contained little or 
none of the nonwelded tuff because the analysis shows no zeolite or glass content. Existing 
documentation of the dominant lithology of this rock unit suggests it is very unlikely that the 
source rock could have been composed only of devitrified tuff. Even a lithic-clast swarm, 
sampled over a 10-ft interval, would not yield a sample that is exclusively devitrified tuff. Based 
on the information cited here, H-4 1320-1330 data are omitted from the comparison of H-4 data 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-26 September 2004 
and qualified mineralogical data and a recommendation will be made that the data for this 
sample not be qualified. 
One sidewall sample, H-4 1656, nominally falls within Tcpuv but was reassigned to a lower unit 
whose boundary is six feet below the sample collection depth. The boundary separates vitric 
Prow Pass Tuff (Tcpuv) from underlying devitrified tuff (Tcpuc). Sample H-4 1656 is 
devitrified, but its cryptocrystalline texture differs from the coarser texture of a sample lower in 
the Tcpuc (Levy 1984 [DIRS 101392], p. 21) in ways that suggest it must be close to the 
vitric-devitrified boundary. 
Table A-18 compares the contents of the most abundant rock-forming minerals in the Tptpln of 
H-4 and three qualified borehole data sets. This lithostratigraphic unit consists of densely 
welded, devitrified tuff. The Tptpln intervals in all four boreholes are similar in containing little 
or no tridymite. The intervals are most notably different in their feldspar contents. H-4 and G-4 
have very similar ranges of feldspar content. SD-12 and UZ#16 also have very similar ranges of 
feldspar content, but these ranges do not overlap with the ranges for H-4 and G-4. The 
differences in feldspar content are matched by greater or lesser amounts of quartz or 
cristobalite/opal, although the abundance ranges for the two silica minerals show substantial 
overlap among all four data sets. This comparison show that the abundance ranges of tridymite, 
quartz, and cristobalite/opal in the three qualified borehole data sets are corroborative of the data 
from H-4. The feldspar data show that genuine variability exists among the qualified data sets 
but that at least one of the data sets is a good corroborative match to the H-4 data. 
Table A-18. Ranges of Mineral Content in the Tptpln of USW H-4, USW SD-12, UE-25 UZ#16, and 
USW G-4 (weight percent) 
Borehole Tridymite Quartz Cristobalite/Opal Feldspar 
USW H-4 0-0 6-15 18-23 64-70 
USW SD-12 1-3 7-24 15-30 53-57 
UE-25 UZ#16 0-5 14-31 8-23 45-57 
USW G-4 0-0 2-25 13-24 60-69 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LADV831321AQ97.001 (DIRS 107142), 
LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144), 
MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796). 
Mineralogic changes across unit boundaries are documented and compared in Table A-19. 
Characteristic mineralogic changes across boundaries, observed in H-4 plus at least one of SD-12 
and UZ#16, include the change from assemblages dominated by feldspar plus silica in the 
Tptprn-Tptpln to an assemblage with glass plus minor smectite and clinoptilolite in the Tptpv3. 
The Tpbt1-Tac-Tacbt sequence in the three drill holes consists of originally vitric tuffs in which 
the glass has been slightly to completely altered to clinoptilolite and smectite, with or without 
mordenite. The data for SD-12 and UZ#16 show that there is considerable lateral variability in 
the degree of alteration within specific units. The H-4 data for Tpbt1 more closely resemble 
SD-2 (persistence of glass), whereas the H-4 data are more similar to UZ#16 data in the Tac 
(complete alteration of glass). The single Tacbt sample from H-4 has alteration (presence of 
clinoptilolite, absence of glass) that generally falls within or close to the highly variable ranges 
of alteration in SD-12 and UZ#16. The values for feldspar+silica that are generally higher in the 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-27 September 2004 
Tacbt than in the Tac for all three drill holes reflect the higher phenocryst and lithic-clast content 
of the Tacbt (Vaniman et al. 1984 [DIRS 101363], p. 24-25). 
The mineralogic changes from Tcpuv downward to the devitrified sequence Tcpuc-Tcpm-Tcplc 
are the disappearance of clinoptilolite and the appearance of a mineral assemblage dominated by 
feldspar plus silica. For these changes, the H-4 data are consistent with the data from SD-12 and 
UZ#16. The downward change from the devitrified units to the Tcplv is marked in all three drill 
holes by the reappearance of clinoptilolite. 
Table A-19. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW H-4, USW SD-12, and UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) 
Unit 
Smectite 
 Mordenite Clinoptilolite Feldspar+Silica Glass 
H-4 SD- 
12 
UZ#1 
6 
H-4 SD- 
12 
UZ#1 
6 
H-4 SD- 
12 
UZ#1 
6 
H-4 SD- 
12 
UZ#16 
Tptpr 
n 
0 0-2 Tr.-5 0 0-0 0-0 96 95- 
100 
94- 
103 
0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpu 
l 
2-2 3-5 4-6 0-0 0-0 0-0 97- 
98 
92- 
98 
90- 
96 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptp 
mn 
2 3-5 3-4 0 0-0 0-0 98 93- 
96 
91- 
99 
0 0-0- 0-0 
Tptpll 1-3 2-5 1-6 0-0 0-0 0-112 95- 
99 
93- 
98 
88- 
100 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpl 
n 
1-2 0-4 2-6 0-0 0-1 0-142 97- 
99 
92- 
98 
84- 
97 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpv 
3 
0-20 0-2 0-73 0-5 0-0 0-4 30- 
49 
11- 
18 
8-23 30- 
70 
72- 
85 
0-82 
Tptpv 
2 
No samples in H-4 data set 
Tptpv 
1 
No samples in H-4 data set 
Tpbt1 2 2 81 5 1 83 42 12 11 50 85 0 
Tac 0-251 0-3 1-191 29- 
78 
1-10 38- 
72 
18- 
52 
9-35 22- 
54 
0-0 58- 
89 
0-0 
Tacbt 0 3-111 5-91 31 12- 
68 
40- 
42 
61 22- 
78 
53- 
58 
0 0-62 0-0 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-28 September 2004 
Table A-19. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW H-4, USW SD-12, and UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) 
(Continued) 
Unit 
Smectite 
 Mordenite Clinoptilolite Feldspar+Silica Glass 
Tcpuv 0 7 ------ 10 58 ------ 90 39 ------ 0 0 ------ 
Tcpuc 
Tcpm 
Tcplc 
0-3 Tr.-5 3-81 0-0 0-0 0-0 96- 
102 
89- 
99 
85- 
100 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tcplv 0-231 2-151 3 11- 
22 
10- 
65 
42 63- 
77 
38- 
84 
61 0-0 0-0 0 
= no samples analyzed from this unit. 
Tr. = trace amount present. 
Blanks are intentional. 
1 includes mordenite in at least one sample. 
2 the zeolite present is stellerite. 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LADV831321AQ97.001 (DIRS 107142), 
LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144). 
USW H-5 Compared with UE-25 UZ#16 and USW GU-3 
The dominant mineralogy of the Tpc_un unit of the Tiva Canyon Tuff in USW H-5 is compared 
with the mineralogy of two qualified data sets in Table A-20. For this devitrified-rock interval, 
there is a very close similarity in the raw-data ranges of mineral abundance between H-5 and 
GU-3. Comparison of H-5 data with data from UZ#16 shows a general similarity of mineralogic 
content, although UZ#16 has higher cristobalite/opal content and lower feldspar content. 
Table A-20. Ranges of Mineral Content in the Tpc_un of USW H-5, UE-25 UZ#16, and USW GU-3 
(weight percent) 
Borehole Tridymite Quartz Cristobalite/Opal Feldspar 
USW H-5 2-31 0-6 0-29 66-80 
UE-25 UZ#16 Tr.-7 Tr.-4 25-33 57-62 
USW GU-3 0-25 0-2 6-30 70-75 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LADV831321AQ97.007 (DIRS 113499), 
LA9910JC831321.001.001 (DIRS 113496), LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144), 
LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796) 
The H-5 data set contains no samples from Tpcpv3 or Tpcpv2. Mineralogic comparisons of 
units from the Tpcpv1 downward are complicated by large variations in secondary-mineral 
alteration, both within and between boreholes. For units affected by variable alteration, the 
corroboration of H-5 data is based on similarities of primary mineralogic or textural 
characteristics. 
Three samples from H-5 were recognized as having mineralogic compositions similar to the 
units directly above their nominal unit assignments based on depth. These reassignments are 
equivalent to changes made in the mineralogic model report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]). 
Sample H-5 1666 falls within the Tptpv2 unit beginning at 1659 ft. The published petrographic 
description of the highly altered sample indicates that it has a relict densely welded texture 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-29 September 2004 
characteristic of the Tptpv3 (Levy 1984 [DIRS 101392], p. 27). It was reassigned to Tptpv3 for 
the purpose of this qualification activity. The same reassignment was made by 
BSC (2002 [DIRS 158730]). 
The XRD analysis for sample H-5 1990-2000 contains 59 percent glass even though the recorded 
sample depth falls within the devitrified Tcpuc unit extending from 1,967-2,085-ft depth. This 
discrepancy was addressed in the BSC report (2002 [DIRS 158730]) by reassigning the sample 
to the overlying vitric Tcpuv. Examination of the sample remainder shows it to be composed of 
vitric tuff and devitrified tuff, with the vitric tuff predominant. Given that the nominal sample 
depth is more than 20 ft below the top of the devitrified Tcpuc unit, it is likely that this sample 
contains a very large impurity of vitric tuff from the overlying unit. It will be recommended that 
this sample and its associated XRD analysis be excluded from qualification. 
Sample H-5 2140-2150 was moved from the vitric Tcplv unit to the devitrified Tcplc unit whose 
lower boundary is located at 2,130-ft depth. The sample remainder contains a very small amount 
of residual glassy clasts, but the XRD analysis of the sample shows no glass content. Therefore, 
the sample was moved to Tcplc. 
The comparison of Tpcpv1 mineralogy for H-5 and UZ#16 shows similar smectitic alteration of 
still partly glassy tuff (Table A-21). The Tpy samples differ between the two borehole data sets 
in degree of smectitic alteration, but the samples share high glass content and very low content of 
feldspar and silica phenocrysts. Data for the Tpbt3 in H-5, UZ#16, and GU-3 all show smectitic 
alteration of vitric tuff with highly variable contents of feldspar and silica phenocrysts. The 
Tptrn, Tptrl, Tptpul, and Tptpmn are all devitrified tuff units with minor smectitic alteration. 
Samples from the Tptpll and Tptpln units of UZ#16 are unusual in containing modest amounts of 
the zeolite stellerite but otherwise are similar to the H-5 and GU-3 samples with slight smectitic 
alteration of devitrified tuff. Alteration in the Tptpv3 of both H-5 and UZ#16 is highly variable. 
In both holes, some samples contain substantial smectite and minor clinoptilolite and other 
samples contain mostly unaltered glass. The GU-3 samples are less altered but fall within the 
ranges of alteration for H-5 and UZ#16. 
Samples of Tac from H-5 and GU-3 are predominantly vitric with phenocrysts or lithic 
inclusions of silica+feldspar composition and minor alteration to smectite and clinoptilolite. 
Alteration of the Tacbt unit in H-5 is intermediate between UZ#16 and GU-3, but a somewhat 
higher content of silica+feldspar phenocrysts and lithic inclusions is a common attribute of all 
three borehole data sets. Mineralogic proportions in the Tcpuv are somewhat different between 
H-5 and GU-3 samples, although both sets are partly vitric. The higher silica+feldspar content of 
the GU-3 samples reflects their locations lower in the Tcpuv unit, probably transitional to the 
underlying devitrified tuff. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-30 September 2004 
Table A-21. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW H-5, UE-25 UZ#16, and USW GU-3 (weight percent) 
Unit 
Smectite 
 Mordenite Clinoptilolite Feldspar+Silica Glass 
H-5 UZ#1 
6 
GU-3 H-5 UZ#1 
6 
GU-3 H-5 UZ#1 
6 
GU-3 H-5 UZ#1 
6 
GU-3 
Tpcpv 
1 
15 8-14 ------ 0 0-0 ------ 45 4-29 ------ 40 63- 
82 
------ 
Tpy 0 9-12 ------ 0 0-0 ------ 3 0-3 ------ 96 85- 
91 
------ 
Tpbt3 14 6-18 4 0 0-0 0 14 11- 
29 
58 69 59- 
78 
40 
Tptrn Tr.-1 Tr.-5 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 90- 
100 
94- 
103 
95- 
99 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptrl 3 7 ------ 0 0 ------ 97 104 ------ 0 0 ------ 
Tptpu 
l 
0-5 4-6 0-0 0-0 94- 
100 
90- 
96 
0-0 0-0 
Tptp 
mn 
Tr.-3 3-4 0-0 0-0 91- 
97 
91- 
99 
0-0 0-0 
Tptpll 2-4 1-6 0-1 0-0 0-11* 0-0 95- 
100 
88- 
100 
96- 
100 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpl 
n 
Tr.-2 2-6 0-1 0-0 0-14* 0-0 95- 
99 
84- 
97 
97- 
98 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpv 
3 
0-50 0-73 2-2 0-10 0-4 0-0 10- 
57 
17- 
23 
60- 
65 
0-90 0-82 30-40 
Tptpv 
2 
Tptpv 
1 
No samples in H-5 data set 
Tpbt1 
Tac 0-3 1-19 0-1 0-6 38- 
72 
0-3 7-30 22- 
54 
36- 
46 
70- 
95 
0-0 55-65 
Tacbt 0-3 5-9 3-3 10- 
52 
40- 
42 
0-2 12- 
75 
53- 
58 
36- 
71 
0-78 0-0 20-65 
Tcpuv 3-5 ------ 2-4 0-51 ------ 0-0 15- 
17 
------ 52- 
54 
31- 
75 
------ 45-45 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-31 September 2004 
Table A-21. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW H-5, UE-25 UZ#16, and USW GU-3 (weight 
percent) (Continued) 
Unit 
Smectite 
 Mordenite Clinoptilolite Feldspar+Silica Glass 
Tcpuc 1 3-8 0-1 0 0-0 0-0 90 85- 
97 
88- 
97 
0 0-0 0-0 
Tcpm No samples in H-5 data set 
Tcplc 1 6-7 0 0 0-0 0 103 90- 
94 
101 0 0-0 0 
Tcplv Tr.- 
10 
3 0-3 60- 
64 
42 30- 
70 
28- 
39 
61 30- 
52 
0-0 0 0-38 
Tcpbt 13 ------ 0 56 ------ 60 34 ------ 39 0 ------ 0 
NOTES: 
= no samples analyzed from this unit. 
Tr. = trace amount present. 
Blanks are intentional. 
*The zeolite present is stellerite. 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LADV831321AQ97.007 (DIRS 113499), 
LA9910JC831321.001.001 (DIRS 113496), LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144), 
LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796). 
USW WT-1 Compared with UE-25 UZ#16 and USW GU-3 
Mineral abundances in WT-1 are compared with UE-25 UZ#16 and USW GU-3 in Table A-22. 
For the devitrified units Tptrn, Tptrl, Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln, the three data sets have 
very similar ranges of mineral abundances except for the presence of stellerite in the Tptpll and 
Tptpln of UZ#16. The vitric tuff of Tpbt3 has minor smectitic alteration and residual glass in all 
three data sets. The Tptpv3 samples from all three data sets are partly devitrified with variable 
contents of smectite and clinoptilolite. 
Sample WT-1 1570-1580 spans the interval from six to sixteen feet below the base of the Tac, 
which is the lowest recognized unit in WT-1 (see Table B-5). This makes it unclear which unit 
from a qualified data set should be used for comparison. The largest cuttings in the sample 
remainder have the appearance of a densely welded tuff, and the XRD analysis is consistent with 
this lithology. A USGS report (1995 [DIRS 169694], p. 6) shows that bit cutting samples from 
1560 ft to 1610 ft are contaminated with densely welded tuff fragments of Tiva Canyon Tuff that 
are larger than the other cuttings. Page 6 of this report also proposed that a fault exists from 
1540 to 1564 ft and that the unit below the Tac is the Bullfrog Tuff (Tcb). Because of the 
uncertainties in unit identification and sample integrity, it will be recommended that this sample 
be excluded from qualification. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-32 September 2004 
Table A-22. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW WT-1, UE-25 UZ#16, and USW GU-3 (weight percent) 
Unit 
Smectite 
 Mordenite Clinoptilolite Feldspar+Silica Glass 
WT-1 UZ#1 
6 
GU-3 WT-1 UZ#1 
6 
GU-3 WT-1 UZ#1 
6 
GU-3 WT-1 UZ#1 
6 
GU-3 
Tpbt3 5 6-18 4 0 0-0 0 24 11- 
29 
58 70 59- 
78 
40 
Tptrn 0-0 Tr.-5 0-1 0-0 0-0 0-0 95- 
100 
94- 
103 
95- 
99 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptrl No samples in WT-1 data set 
Tptpu 
l 
1-1 4-6 0-0 0-0 98- 
99 
90- 
96 
0-0 0-0 
Tptp 
mn 
1-1 3-4 0-0 0-0 98- 
99 
91- 
99 
0-0 0-0 
Tptpll 1-3 1-6 0-1 0-1 0-11* 0-0 95- 
98 
88- 
100 
96- 
100 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpl 
n 
0 2-6 0-1 0 0-14* 0-0 99 84- 
97 
97- 
98 
0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpv 
3 
1-2 0-73 2-2 2-14 0-4 0-0 83- 
98 
17- 
23 
60- 
65 
0-0 0-82 30-40 
Tptpv 
2 
1 2 2 29 10 0 70 39 56 0 49 45 
Tptpv 
1 
Tpbt1 
No samples in WT-1 data set 
Tac 8-18 1-19 0-1 25- 
40 
38- 
72 
0-3 46- 
56 
22- 
54 
36- 
46 
0-0 0-0 55-65 
below 
Tac 
3 5 92 0 
NOTES: 
------ = no samples analyzed from this unit. 
Tr. = trace amount present. 
Blanks are intentional. 
*The zeolite present is stellerite. 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144), 
LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796). 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-33 September 2004 
USW WT-2 compared with USW SD-12 and UE-25 UZ#16 
The upper boundary of unit Tcplv at 1,794 ft is the lowest recognized unit boundary in WT-2. In 
SD-12, about half a kilometer away (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730], p. 27), the Tcplv is 268 ft thick. 
Therefore, it is likely that the WT-2 samples from 1,820-1,830, 1,910-1,920, and 2,000-2,010 ft 
belong to the Tcplv unit. The WT-2 Tcplv unit in Table A-23 is represented by the summarized 
mineralogic data from these three samples. Mineralogic data for three WT-2 core samples from 
the lowermost ten feet of the borehole are compared to data for Tcb samples in SD-12. 
Mineral abundances in the Tptrn, Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, Tptpln, Tacbt, Tcpuc, Tcpm, Tcplv, 
and Tcb are similar in all three borehole data sets. Samples from the Tpbt2, Tptpv3, Tptpv2, and 
Tptpv1 units in WT-2 tend to have higher feldspar+silica and lower glass contents than the 
SD-12 and UZ#16 samples from the corresponding units. Some similar higher feldspar+silica 
values have been measured in qualified borehole data sets. For example, feldspar+silica values 
in the Tptpv3 of GU-3 are in the 60-65 weight percent range and are comparable to the 
48-69 weight percent values for WT-2. The feldspar+silica content of a Tptpv2 sample from 
GU-3 is 56 weight percent, comparable to 57 weight percent in WT-2. The sample remainders 
of the questioned analyses were examined for impurities and were estimated to contain less than 
5 volume percent of devitrified tuff impurities. Therefore, the differences among data sets are 
considered acceptable. 
Table A-23. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW WT-2, USW SD-12, and UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) 
Unit 
Smectite 
 Mordenite Clinoptilolite Feldspar+Silica Glass 
WT-2 SD- 
12 
UZ#1 
6 
WT-2 SD- 
12 
UZ#1 
6 
WT-2 SD- 
12 
UZ#1 
6 
WT-2 SD- 
12 
UZ#16 
Tpbt2 4-7 ------ 8-16 0-0 ------ 0-0 47- 
59 
------ 19- 
22 
30- 
50 
------ 58-71 
Tptrn 1-1 0-2 Tr.-5 0-0 0-0 0-0 97- 
97 
95- 
100 
95- 
99 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpu 
l 
1-3 3-5 4-6 0-0 0-0 0-0 98- 
99 
92- 
98 
90- 
96 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptp 
mn 
1-2 3-5 3-4 0-0- 0-0 0-0 96- 
98 
93- 
96 
91- 
99 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpll 1-2 2-5 1-6 0-0 0-0 0-11* 96- 
99 
93- 
98 
88- 
100 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpl 
n 
1-3 0-4 2-6 0-0 0-1 0-14* 96- 
98 
92- 
98 
84- 
97 
0-0 0-0 0-0 
Tptpv 
3 
1-2 0-2 0-73 1-1 0-0 0-4 48- 
69 
11- 
18 
8-23 30- 
50 
72- 
85 
0-82 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-34 September 2004 
Table A-23. Mineral-Abundance Ranges, USW WT-2, USW SD-12, and UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) 
(Continued) 
Unit 
Smectite 
 Mordenite Clinoptilolite Feldspar+Silica Glass 
Tptpv 
2 
2 Tr.-2 2 0 0-0 10 57 18- 
35 
39 40 65- 
80 
49 
Tptpv 
1 
1 0-8 1 1 0-3 80 58 7-22 24 40 74- 
93 
0 
Tpbt1 No samples analyzed in WT-2 
Tac 1-1 0-3 1-19 1-5 1-10 38- 
72 
59- 
66 
9-35 22- 
54 
30- 
40 
58- 
89 
0-0 
Tacbt 0-3 3-11 5-9 19- 
24 
12- 
68 
40- 
42 
71- 
78 
22- 
78 
53- 
58 
0-0 0-62 0-0 
Tcpuv No samples analyzed in WT-2 
Tcpuc 1 2-3 3-8 2 0-0 0-0 96 89- 
96 
85- 
97 
0 0-0 0-0 
Tcpm 1-1 Tr.-5 3-4 1-1 0-0 0-0 97- 
98 
91- 
99 
97- 
100 
0-0- 0-0 0-0 
Tcplc No samples analyzed in WT-2 
Tcplv 0-4 2-15 3 19- 
42 
10- 
65 
42 58- 
78 
38- 
84 
61 0-0 0-0 0 
Tcb 1-1 0-2 0-0 0-0 96- 
96 
95- 
98 
0-0 0-0 
NOTES: 
------ = no samples analyzed from this unit. 
Tr. = trace amount present. 
Blanks are intentional. 
*The zeolite present is stellerite. 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144), 
LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796) 
A4. CONCLUSIONS 
The data sets for boreholes UE-25 p#1, USW H-3, USW H-4, H-5, WT-1, and WT-2 are 
recommended for qualification with the exceptions noted below. Mineral abundances in these 
data sets generally show very good correspondence with abundances in the same 
lithostratigraphic units of qualified data sets. These data are qualified for use in the mineralogic 
model 3.0. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-35 September 2004 
Data for UE-25 J-12 should remain unqualified because no records were found to document 
collection, description, or analysis of the samples. These data are not input to the mineralogic 
model report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 158730]). 
The following errors were noted in these data: 
 Data from sample p#1 570-580 are excluded from qualification due to the questionable 
representativeness of the sample material. 
 Data for sample p#1 2030-2040, in the Tcbm unit, are excluded from qualification 
because the XRD analysis shows the sample containing seven percent glass. The 
presence of glass in the middle of a ~300-ft-thick devitrified interval 
(Tcbuc-Tcbm-Tcblc) is unlikely. 
 Data from samples p#1 4080-4090, 4170-4180, and 4313-4318 are excluded from 
qualification because they represent the Paleozoic section and no qualified data from 
Paleozoic samples exist for corroboration. 
 USW H-4 1320-1330 XRD data are not qualified due to unrepresentative subsampling 
for XRD analysis. 
 USW H-5 1990-2000 XRD data are not qualified due to the likely abundant presence of 
impurities from an overlying unit 
 The XRD data for sample USW WT-1 1570-1580 are not qualified due to the 
uncertainties in unit identification and sample integrity. 
There were roughly several thousand mineral abundance values used to construct Version 3.0 of 
the mineralogic model. The eight errors noted above constitute a very small and insignificant 
portion of the data. There is no significant impact to the model because of these errors. 
The Qualified status of LADV831321AQ97.001 [DIRS 107142] recommended by Steinborn 
(2002 [DIRS 160702]) is incorrect because the DTN contains cuttings data from borehole USW 
H-3 that remained unqualified. The qualification recommendation made by Steinborn 
(2002 [DIRS 160702]) was based on the qualification of the software POWD10. Steinborn 
(2002 [DIRS 160702]) did not examine the cuttings samples contained in the DTN. The 
qualification activity in this report includes cuttings data from borehole USW H-3, and the 
results qualify the DTN for use in this report. 
Similarly, the qualified status of LADV831321AQ97.007 [DIRS 113499] is incorrect because 
the DTN contains cuttings data from borehole USW H-5 that are still unqualified. The 
qualification activity in this report includes cuttings data from the borehole USW H-5, and the 
results qualify the DTN for use in this report. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 A-36 September 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 
APPENDIX B 
SELECTED MINERALOGIC-ABUNDANCE DATA FROM DATA SETS TO BE 
QUALIFIED 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-1 September 2004 
Table B-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 p#1 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
p#1 Tptrn 150-228 
p#1 200-210 -/- -/- 14 - 6 76 - 
p#1 Tptrl 228-248 
not analyzed 
p#1 Tptpul 248-493 
p#1 260-270 2/- -/- Tr. 3 24 71 - 
p#1 280-290 2/- -/- Tr. 5 25 68 - 
p#1 410-420 3/- -/- 4 9 24 59 - 
p#1 Tptpmn 493-640 
p#1 570-580 2/- -/- Tr. 30 3 67 - 
p#1 Tptpll 640-958 
p#1 810-820 2/- -/- - 27 5 59 - 
p#1 900-910 1/- -/- - 36 1 61 - 
p#1 Tptpln 958-1090 
p#1 1040-1050 -/- -/- - 27 5 67 - 
p#1 Tptpv3 1090-1200 
not analyzed 
p#1 Tptpv2 1200-1243 
partly sampled, see 
below 
p#1 Tptpv1 1243-1270 
p#1 1240-1250 1/- 54/- - Tr. 20 24 - 
p#1 1260-1270 1/- 62/- - Tr. 23 14 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-2 September 2004 
Table B-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 p#1 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
p#1 Tac 1270-1390 
p#1 1290 (sidewall core) 2/- 37/- - 3 22 39 - 
p#1 1340-1350 Tr./- 56/- - 2 20 21 - 
p#1 1400 (sidewall core) 10/- 34/- - 17 - 29 9 
p#1 Tacbt 1390-1441 
p#1 1420 (sidewall core) 12/- -/- - 24 - 40 22 
p#1 Tcpuv 1441-1468 
not analyzed 
p#1 Tcpuc 1468-1535 
p#1 1470 (sidewall core) 5/34 -/- - 25 - 40 - 
p#1 Tcpm 1535-1630 
p#1 1590-1598 - 3/- - 39 - 60 - 
p#1 Tcplc 1630-1680 
p#1 1640-1650 5/- -/- - 37 - 58 - 
p#1 Tcplv 1680-1790 
p#1 1690-1700 7/- 40/- - 11 17 25 - 
p#1 1730-1740 3/- 60/- - 4 14 17 - 
p#1 Tcpbt 1790-1826 
p#1 1790-1800 1/23 45/- - 12 - 18 - 
p#1 Tcbuv not present 
p#1 Tcbuc 1826-1953 
p#1 1830-1840 Tr./- -/- - 45 - 39 - 
p#1 1870-1880 3/- 9/- - 27 - 55 - 
p#1 1920-1930 5/- -/- - 28 - 64 - 
p#1 Tcbm 1953-2130 
p#1 1970-1980 Tr./- -/- - 35 - 61 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-3 September 2004 
Table B-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 p#1 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
p#1 1990-2000 1/- -/- - 39 - 60 - 
p#1 2030-2040 2/- -/- - 31 - 59 7 
p#1 2070-2080 Tr./- -/- - 39 - 59 - 
p#1 2120-2130 Tr./- -/- - 36 - 65 - 
p#1 Tcblc 2130-2162 
p#1 2150-2160 3/- Tr./- - 29 - 61 - 
p#1 Tcblv 2160-2240 
p#1 2210-2220 3/28 -/14 - 28 - 33 - 
p#1 Tcbbt 2240-2262 
p#1 2240-2250 7/3 -/8 - 29 - 52 - 
p#1 Tctuv 2262-2340 
p#1 2280-2290 6/- 31/4 - 22 - 32 - 
p#1 2330-2340 11/- 2/4 - 32 - 45 - 
p#1 Tctuc 2340-2395 
p#1 2370-2380 7/- -/- - 40 - 49 - 
p#1 Tctm 2395-2595 
p#1 2414-2420 Tr./- -/- - 43 - 51 - 
p#1 2460-2470 2/- -/- - 32 - 61 - 
p#1 2510-2520 - -/- - 24 - 77 - 
p#1 2570-2580 2/- -/- - 30 - 71 - 
p#1 Tctlc 2595-2616 
not analyzed 
p#1 Tctlv 2616-2863 
p#1 2630-2640 7/- -/- - 34 - 57 - 
p#1 2650-2660 15/- -/- - 31 - 51 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-4 September 2004 
Table B-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 p#1 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
p#1 2690-2700 4/- -/- - 34 - 56 - 
p#1 2750-2760 13/- 13/- - 32 - 35 - 
p#1 2790-2800 21/- 4/- - 29 - 39 - 
p#1 2840-2850 25/- -/Tr. - 42 - 34 - 
p#1 Tctbt not recognized 
p#1 Tund 2863-4080 
p#1 2890-2900 15/- -/- - 34 - 47 - 
p#1 2940-2950 4/- -/2 - 36 - 55 - 
p#1 2980-2990 6/- -/6 - 29 - 55 - 
p#1 3030-3040 11/- -/1 - 30 - 53 - 
p#1 3080-3090 15/- -/- - 44 - 34 - 
p#1 3130-3140 6/- 2/5 - 34 - 50 - 
p#1 3160-3170 13/- 3/11 - 37 - 39 - 
p#1 3230-3240 5/- Tr./19 - 38 - 37 - 
p#1 3270-3280 5/- 2/13 - 36 - 43 - 
p#1 3320-3330 25/- 4/- - 38 - 25 - 
p#1 3370-3380 22/- 2/- - 35 - 35 - 
p#1 3410-3420 7/- 3/6 - 35 - 44 - 
p#1 3453 (core) 6/- 2/13 - 38 - 39 - 
p#1 3480-3490 7/- 7/4 - 40 - 42 - 
p#1 3510-3520 11/- -/- - 37 - 49 - 
p#1 3550-4560 4/- -/- - 43 - 45 - 
p#1 3560-3570 7/- -/- - 42 - 49 - 
p#1 3590-3600 9/- -/- - 42 - 48 - 
p#1 3630-3640 19/- -/- - 32 - 41 1 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-5 September 2004 
Table B-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 p#1 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
p#1 3650-3660 19/- -/- - 29 - 42 1 
p#1 3660-3670 16/- -/- - 30 - 51 1 
p#1 3690-3700 15/- -/3 - 36 - 38 1 
p#1 3720-3730 20/- -/2 - 27 - 41 1 
p#1 3750-3760 15/- Tr./- - 33 - 36 - 
p#1 3790-3800 14/- -/- - 35 - 23 1 
p#1 3820-3830 9/- Tr./- - 44 - 19 - 
p#1 3860-3870 10/- -/- - 52 - 33 - 
p#1 3913 (core) 37/- -/- - 53 - - - 
p#1 3916 (core) 45/- -/- - 49 - - Tr. 
p#1 3928 (core) 40/- -/- - 18 - - - 
p#1 3940-3950 9/- -/Tr. - 39 - 44 - 
p#1 3980-3990 13/- 2/2 - 32 - 48 - 
p#1 4040-4050 16/- 2/Tr. - 29 - 29 - 
p#1 4070-4080 29/- 1/Tr. - 30 - 38 - 
p#1 Pz 4080 to bottom 
p#1 4080-4090 
p#1 4170-4180 
p#1 4313-4318 
These samples contain 80-93 % dolomite, 1-9 % smectite, 4-8 % quartz, and 3-4 % calcite. 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517); DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-6 September 2004 
Table B-2. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW H-3 (weight percent) 
Hornblende/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz 
CristobaliteOpa 
l Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
H-3 Tptrn 449-526.9 
H-3 470-480 -/- - 13 - 8 77 - 
H-3 520-530 -/- - Tr. - 24 76 - 
H-3 Tptpul 540-680.1 
H-3 540-550 -/- - 21 - 5 73 - 
H-3 610-620 -/- - Tr. - 29 71 - 
H-3 Tptpmn 680.1-848.1 
H-3 740-750 -/- - - 4 26 68 - 
H-3 800-810 -/- - Tr. 2 27 69 - 
H-3 Tptpll 848.1-1049.9 
H-3 870-880 -/- - - 29 3 66 - 
H-3 930-940 -/- - - 14 16 69 - 
H-3 990-1000 -/- - 4 Tr. 23 72 - 
H-3 1030-1040 -/- - Tr. 3 24 72 - 
H-3 Tptpln 1049.9-1194 
H-3 1100-1110 -/- - Tr. 2 23 74 - 
H-3 1160-1170 -/- - - 2 29 67 - 
H-3 Tptpv3 1194-1308 
H-3 1270-1280 -/- - - 2 7 19 70 
H-3 Tptpv2 1308-1341 
H-3 1320-1330 -/- - - 2 5 23 70 
H-3 Tptpv1 1341-1392 
H-3 1360-1370 -/- - - Tr. Tr. 3 97 
H-3 Tacbt 1437-1495 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-7 September 2004 
Table B-2. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW H-3 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Hornblende/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz 
CristobaliteOpa 
l Feldspar Glass 
H-3 1440-1450 -/- - - Tr. 5 11 81 
H-3 1480-1490 1/- 1 - 3 1 47 34 
H-3 Tcpuv 1495-1518 
H-3 1500-1510 -/- 1 4 12 20 50 10 
H-3 Tcpuc 1518-1640 
H-3 1550 (sidewall core) -/- 2 7 10 7 70 - 
H-3 Tcpm 1640-1690 
H-3 1655 (sidewall core) -/- 2 7 7 7 75 - 
H-3 Tcplc 1690-1702 
sample moved to Tcplv 
H-3 Tcplv 1702-1899.9 
H-3 1700 (sidewall core) 
moved to Tcplv 
-/- 2 - 10 15 60 15 
H-3 1800 (sidewall) -/- 60 - 7 - 30 - 
H-3 Tcpbt 1899.9-1907.1 
H-3 1900 (sidewall core) -/- 75 2 2 2 15 - 
H-3 Tcblv 2397-2449.1 
H-3 2400 (sidewall core) 1/- 75 - 2 2 15 - 
H-3 2440 (sidewall core) -/30 35 - 2 2 30 - 
H-3 Tctuv 2477-2567 
H-3 2490 (sidewall core) -/25 45 - 2 - 20 - 
Sources: DTN: LADV831321AQ97.001 (DIRS 107142); DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517);DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-8 September 2004 
Table B-3. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW H-4 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
H-4 Tptrn 254-376 
H-4 310-320 -/- - 11 - 10 75 - 
H-4 Tptpul 376-576 
H-4 390-400 2/- - 14 2 13 68 - 
H-4 440-450 2/- - 19 2 13 64 - 
H-4 490-500 2/- - 11 ~1 18 67 - 
H-4 Tptpmn 576-703 
H-4 640-650 2/- - - 4 26 68 - 
H-4 Tptpll 703-987 
H-4 830-840 3/- - 12 ~1 14 68 - 
H-4 910-920 ~1/- - - 11 20 67 - 
H-4 940-950 ~1/- - - 7 21 71 - 
H-4 Tptpln 987-1185 
H-4 1040-1050 ~1/- - - 6 23 70 - 
H-4 1150-1160 2/- - - 15 18 64 - 
H-4 Tptpv3 1185-1209 
H-4 1190-1200 -/- 5 - - 15 15 70 
H-4 1230-1240 20/- - - 4 20 25 30 
H-4 Tptpv2-1 1209-1312 
not sampled 
H-4 Tpbt1 1312-1317 
H-4 1312 (sidewall core) 2/- 5 - 10 7 25 50 
H-4 Tac 1317-1572 
H-4 1350-1360 - 78 - 3 9 10 - 
H-4 1410-1420 -/5 52 - 7 9 31 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-9 September 2004 
Table B-3. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW H-4 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
H-4 1420 (sidewall core) 2/- 70 - 2 2 25 - 
H-4 1455 (sidewall core) -/25 45 - 2 2 20 - 
H-4 1540-1550 3/16 29 - 11 10 31 - 
H-4 1550 (sidewall core) 2/- 75 - 1 2 15 - 
H-4 Tacbt 1572-1626.9 
H-4 1600-1610 -/- 31 - 17 9 35 - 
H-4 Tcpuv 1626.9-1662 
H-4 1640-1650 -/- 10 - 6 24 60 - 
H-4 Tcpuc 1662-1746 
H-4 1656 (sidewall core, 
moved from Tcpuv) 
-/- - - 2 35 65 - 
H-4 1710-1720 ~1/- - - 33 3 61 - 
H-4 Tcpm 1746-1820 
H-4 1790-1800 3/- - - 15 17 64 - 
H-4 Tcplc 1820-1840 
not sampled 
H-4 Tcplv 1840-2263.1 
H-4 1900-1910 -/- 22 - 5 16 56 - 
H-4 1980-1990 -/23 11 - 2 6 55 - 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517); DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-10 September 2004 
Table B-4. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW H-5 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
H-5 Tpc_un 0-404 
H-5 40-50 -/- - 31 Tr. - 66 - 
H-5 50 -/- - 17 - 2 80 - 
H-5 110-120 Tr./- - 17 - 13 68 - 
H-5 160-170 Tr./- - 13 - 20 70 - 
H-5 190 -/- - 2 - 23 75 
H-5 230-240 Tr./- - 10 1 22 69 - 
H-5 320-330 1/- - 3 6 22 69 - 
H-5 380-390 -/- - 2 - 29 68 - 
H-5 Tpcpv3 404-404 
H-5 Tpcpv2 404-420 
H-5 Tpcpv1 420-437.5 
H-5 420 15/- - - 1 12 32 40 
H-5 Tpbt4 437.5-438 
not sampled 
H-5 Tpy 438-457 
H-5 450 - - - 1 - 2 96 
H-5 Tpbt3 457-471 
H-5 460-470 14/- - - - 2 12 69 
H-5 Tpp-Tptrv1 471-564 
not sampled 
H-5 Tptrn 564-700 
H-5 620-630 1/- - 4 1 9 76 - 
H-5 700 Tr./- - 20 - 15 65 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-11 September 2004 
Table B-4. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW H-5 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
H-5 Tptrl 700-741 
H-5 720-730 3/- - 23 - 9 65 - 
H-5 Tptpul 741-988 
H-5 750-760 5/- - 17 1 17 62 - 
H-5 800-810 3/- - Tr. 2 24 72 - 
H-5 830-840 -/- - Tr. - 24 76 - 
H-5 860-870 4/- - 8 4 23 59 - 
H-5 920-930 2/- - Tr. 3 24 71 - 
H-5 970-980 2/- - Tr. 2 26 71 - 
H-5 Tptpmn 988-1088 
H-5 990-1000 3/- - 3 1 28 59 - 
H-5 1050 Tr./- - - 2 40 55 - 
H-5 Tptpll 1088-1450 
H-5 1090-1100 4/- - 4 4 26 61 - 
H-5 1150-1160 2/- - - 26 10 62 - 
H-5 1200-1210 3/- - 3 22 11 61 - 
H-5 1230-1240 2/- - - 7 23 69 - 
H-5 1290-1300 2/- - - 10 18 71 - 
H-5 1350-1360 2/- - 3 15 16 61 - 
H-5 1380-1390 2/- - - 15 20 65 - 
H-5 Tptpln 1450-1582 
H-5 1450-1460 Tr./- - - 20 8 71 - 
H-5 1490-1500 2/- - - 9 21 68 - 
H-5 1530-1540 1/- - - 21 14 60 - 
H-5 Tptpv3 1582-1659 
H-5 1590-1600 35/- 10 - - 17 40 - 
H-5 1610 -/- - - 1 2 7 90 
H-5 1630-1640 Tr./- - - 1 2 9 88 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-12 September 2004 
Table B-4. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW H-5 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
H-5 1650-1660 -/- - - 2 5 4 89 
H-5 1666 (sidewall core) 
(moved from Tptpv2) 
50/- 10 - 1 12 25 - 
H-5 Tptpv2-Tpbt1 1659-1705 
not sampled 
H-5 Tac 1705-1879.9 
H-5 1710-1720 3/- - - 5 5 20 70 
H-5 1750 -/- Tr.? - 2 5 5 85 
H-5 1762 (sidewall core) -/- - - 1 1 5 95 
H-5 1760-1770 -/- 6 - 3 4 6 81 
H-5 1800 -/- - - 2 2 10 85 
H-5 1820-1830 Tr./- 4 - 4 2 10 80 
H-5 1852 (sidewall core) -/- - - 2 - 7 90 
H-5 1875 (sidewall core) -/- Tr.? - 2 Tr.? 5 92 
H-5 Tacbt 1879.9-1944.9 
H-5 1890-1900 1/- 11 - 4 3 6 75 
H-5 1900-1910 Tr./- 10 - 3 1 8 78 
H-5 1910-1920 Tr./- 18 - 5 5 7 65 
H-5 1917 (sidewall core) -/- 25 - 30 10 35 - 
H-5 1920-1930 3/- 52 - 14 7 16 6 
H-5 1930 2/- 50 - 15 - 30 - 
H-5 Tcpuv 1944.9-1967 
H-5 1950-1960 3/- 51 - 2 5 8 31 
H-5 1966 (sidewall core) 5/- - - 2 - 15 75 
H-5 Tcpuc 1967-2085 
H-5 1990-2000 excluded 
from corroboration 
1/- 10 - Tr. 9 21 59 
H-5 2070-2080 1/- - - 29 3 68 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-13 September 2004 
Table B-4. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW H-5 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
H-5 Tcpm 2085-2113 
not sampled 
H-5 Tcplc 2113-2130 
H-5 2140-2150 moved from 
Tcplv 
1/- - - 27 7 69 - 
H-5 Tcplv 2130-2240.1 
H-5 2200 Tr./- 60 - 2 2 35 - 
H-5 2230-2240 2/8 64 - 4 16 8 - 
H-5 Tcpbt 2240.1-2263.1 
H-5 2260-2270 6/7 56 - 3 20 11 - 
H-5 Tcbuv 2263.1-2310 
not sampled 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517); DTN: LADV831321AQ97.007 (DIRS 113499); DTN: LA9910JC831321.001 (DIRS 113496); DTN: 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-14 September 2004 
Table B-5. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW WT-1 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
WT-1 Tpbt3 435-446 
WT-1 440-450 5/- - 8 - 4 12 70 
WT-1 Tpbt2 446-477 
not sampled 
WT-1 Tptrv3-Tptrv1 477-492 
not sampled 
WT-1 Tptrn 492-575 
WT-1 500-510 -/- - 11 - 12 72 - 
WT-1 550-560 -/- - 19 - 10 71 - 
WT-1 Tptrl 575-593 
not sampled 
WT-1 Tptpul 593-733 
WT-1 640-650 1/- - 11 9 16 62 - 
WT-1 690-700 1/- - - 19 19 61 - 
WT-1 Tptpmn 733-888 
WT-1 780-790 1/- - 3 25 9 61 - 
WT-1 840-850 1/- - 6 20 16 56 - 
WT-1 Tptpll 888-1187 
WT-1 930-940 3/- - 5 26 7 57 - 
WT-1 1000-1010 1/- - - 22 16 60 - 
WT-1 1090-1100 1/- - - 24 15 58 - 
WT-1 1160-1170 1/- 1 11 10 18 58 - 
WT-1 Tptpln 1187-1299 
WT-1 1220-1230 -/- - 5 27 8 59 - 
WT-1 Tptpv3 1299-1337 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-15 September 2004 
Table B-5. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW WT-1 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
WT-1 1300-1310 1/- 2 - 35 4 59 - 
WT-1 1320-1330 2/- 14 - 20 13 50 - 
WT-1 Tptpv2 1337-1368 
WT-1 1340-1350 1/- 29 - 10 9 51 - 
WT-1 Tptpv1 1368-1380 
not sampled 
WT-1 Tpbt1 1380-1384 
partly sampled, 1380-1390 
WT-1 Tac 1384-1564 
WT-1 1380-1390 -/12 40 - 8 7 31 - 
WT-1 1410-1420 -/8 40 - 3 8 40 - 
WT-1 1470-1480 -/18 25 - 10 7 39 - 
WT-1 1510-1520 -/10 43 - 8 5 33 - 
WT-1 1550-1560 -/12 40 - 14 7 26 - 
WT-1 no units defined below 
1564 
WT-1 1570-1580 -/3 5 - 26 9 57 - 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517); DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-16 September 2004 
Table B-6. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW WT-2 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
WT-2 Tpbt2 247-271 
WT-2 250-260 4/- - - 2 11 34 50 
WT-2 260-270 7/- - - 1 7 51 30 
WT-2 Tptrv3-1 271-285 
not analyzed 
WT-2 Tptrn 285-380 
WT-2 290-300 1/- - 10 - 9 78 - 
WT-2 370-380 <1/- - 19 1 5 72 - 
WT-2 Tptpul 421-590 
WT-2 420-450 1/- - 12 2 11 73 - 
WT-2 510-520 1/- - 13 3 21 62 - 
WT-2 570-580 3/- - 13 5 21 59 - 
WT-2 Tptpmn 590-727 
WT-2 650-660 2/- - 10 6 22 58 - 
WT-2 720-730 1/- - 10 8 19 61 - 
WT-2 Tptpll 727-1014 
WT-2 780-790 1/- - 6 21 10 59 - 
WT-2 850-860 1/- - 13 14 16 56 - 
WT-2 930-940 1/- - 13 11 17 57 - 
WT-2 990-1000 2/- - - 14 21 62 - 
WT-2 Tptpln 1014-1179 
WT-2 1060-1070 3/- - - 16 19 61 - 
WT-2 1130-1140 <1/- - - 13 15 70 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-17 September 2004 
Table B-6. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW WT-2 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
WT-2 Tptpv3 1179-1223 
WT-2 1190-1200 2/- 1 - 4 9 56 30 
WT-2 1200-1210 1/- 1 - 7 15 26 50 
WT-2 Tptpv2 1223-1264 
WT-2 1250-1260 2/- - - 9 12 36 40 
WT-2 Tptpv1 1264-1315 
WT-2 1300-1310 <1/- 1 - 10 12 36 40 
WT-2 Tptbt1 1315-1319 
not analyzed 
WT-2 Tac 1319-1521 
WT-2 1360-1370 <1/- <1 - 11 8 40 40 
WT-2 1420-1430 <1/- 4 - 11 4 50 30 
WT-2 1450-1460 1/- <1 - 14 8 44 30 
WT-2 1470-1480 <1/- 5 - 8 8 49 30 
WT-2 Tacbt 1521-1594 
WT-2 1520-1530 3/- 24 - 11 12 48 - 
WT-2 1570-1580 -/- 19 - 18 7 53 - 
WT-2 Tcpuv not recognized 
WT-2 Tcpuc 1594-1706 
WT-2 1640-1650 1/- 2 - 22 7 67 - 
WT-2 Tcpm 1706-1776 
WT-2 1710-1720 1/- <1 - 22 7 69 - 
WT-2 1750-1760 1/- 1 - 14 17 66 - 
WT-2 Tcplc 1776-1794 
not analyzed 
WT-2 Tcplv 1794-not defined 
WT-2 1820-1830 4/- 19 - 5 14 59 - 
WT-2 1910-1920 -/- 42 - 5 6 47 - 
WT-2 2000-2010 -/4 30 - 3 3 55 - 
WT-2 Tcb? 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 B-18 September 2004 
Table B-6. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW WT-2 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
WT-2 2050.25 (core) 1/- - - 18 9 69 - 
WT-2 2053.7 (core) 1/- - - 19 10 67 - 
WT-2 2059.5 (core) <1/- - - 21 9 66 - 
Sources: DTN: MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517); DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 
APPENDIX C 
SELECTED QUALIFIED MINERALOGIC-ABUNDANCE DATA 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-1 September 2004 
Table C-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
UZ#16 Tpc_un 39.5-140.8 
UZ#16 54.8-55.0 2/- - 4 2 28 61 - 
UZ#16 64.7-64.9 3/- - 7 4 25 62 - 
UZ#16 78.6-78.9 3/- - 3 1 30 59 - 
UZ#16 88.7-88.8 2/- - 3 1 31 59 - 
UZ#16 102.1-102.2 3/- - 3 Tr. 32 57 - 
UZ#16 112.5-112.7 3/- - 2 Tr. 32 58 - 
UZ#16 126.0-126.2 1/- 1 Tr. Tr. 33 59 - 
UZ#16 140.2-140.3 1/- - Tr. 2 32 58 - 
UZ#16 Tpcpv2 140.8-153 
not sampled 
UZ#16 Tpcpv1 153-160.7 
UZ#16 154.2-154.5 8/- - - - 12 17 63 
UZ#16 156.1-156.2 14/- - - Tr. Tr. 4 82 
UZ#16 Tpbt4 160.7-165.9 
UZ#16 165.1-165.3 6/- - - 5 2 16 71 
UZ#16 Tpy 165.9-173.4 
UZ#16 167.4-167.5 12/- - - - - 3 85 
UZ#16 171.3-171.5 9/- - - - - - 91 
UZ#16 Tpbt3 173.4-188.8 
UZ#16 174.9-175.1 11/- - - 1 2 8 78 
UZ#16 179.3-179.4 6/- - - 7 2 20 65 
UZ#16 183.9-184.1 18/- - - 2 1 19 59 
UZ#16 188.5-188.7 7/- - - Tr. 1 20 70 
UZ#16 Tpbt2 188.8-217 
UZ#16 190.4-190.5 16/- - - 2 1 19 58 
UZ#16 201.8-202.2 9/- - - 3 Tr. 19 64 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-2 September 2004 
Table C-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
UZ#16 211.4-211.6 8/- - - Tr. Tr. 19 71 
UZ#16 Tptrv3 217-228.1 
UZ#16 223.7-224.2 9/- 18 - - 15 55 - 
UZ#16 224.1-224.7 6/- 18 - 2 24 48 - 
UZ#16 227.0-227.2 5/- 17 - 1 34 41 - 
UZ#16 Tptrv2 228.1-229.4 
not sampled 
UZ#16 Tptrv1 229.4-238.9 
UZ#16 230.1-230.3 1/- - - Tr. 1 21 73 
UZ#16 234.1-234.2 Tr./- - - Tr. 2 38 58 
UZ#16 Tptrn 238.9-357.8 
UZ#16 249.8-250.0 1/- - 3 - 13 78 - 
UZ#16 269.2-269.8 1/- - 7 - 11 81 - 
UZ#16 290.8-291.2 1/- - 12 - 8 77 - 
UZ#16 309.1-309.5 Tr./- - 13 - 8 77 - 
UZ#16 331.7-332.2 1/- - 22 - 5 76 - 
UZ#16 348.7-349.7 5/- - 22 - 8 64 - 
UZ#16 Tptrl 357.8-371 
UZ#16 370.2-370.7 7/- - 22 3 8 61 - 
UZ#16 Tptpul 371-545 
UZ#16 391.6-392.0 6/- - 11 4 21 54 - 
UZ#16 412.7-413.0 4/- - 16 2 19 56 - 
UZ#16 435.1-435.5 4/- - 7 3 28 58 - 
UZ#16 458.6-458.9 4/- - 10 11 17 56 - 
UZ#16 484.4-485.7 4/- - 4 5 29 55 - 
UZ#16 509.6-510.0 4/- - 3 9 28 54 - 
UZ#16 533.3-533.6 4/- - 1 11 25 55 - 
UZ#16 Tptpmn 545-669 
UZ#16 552.9-553.3 3/- - Tr. 21 16 57 - 
UZ#16 577.3-577.6 3/- - 1 23 13 57 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-3 September 2004 
Table C-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
UZ#16 602.8-603.4 3/- - 3 12 27 57 - 
UZ#16 627.9-628.2 3/- - 1 10 26 56 - 
UZ#16 648.8-649.3 4/- - 4 6 27 54 - 
UZ#16 Tptpll 669-935 
UZ#16 674.2-674.7 5/- - 1 27 13 58 - 
UZ#16 701.5-701.9 3/- - 1 36 5 58 - 
UZ#16 726.1-726.4 1/- 2* 7 23 10 57 - 
UZ#16 751.4-751.7 3/- - 1 29 10 56 - 
UZ#16 773.0-773.4 1/- 3* 3 17 19 56 - 
UZ#16 797.0-797.2 1/- 1* 1 14 23 57 - 
UZ#16 820.6-820.9 3/- 1* 1 26 11 56 - 
UZ#16 843.0-843.5 3/- Tr.* 6 18 16 55 - 
UZ#16 862.4-862.7 2/- 5* 5 9 22 55 - 
UZ#16 876.8-877.1 3/- 11* 4 10 21 53 - 
UZ#16 896.2-896.6 4/- - 6 9 24 54 - 
UZ#16 910.2-910.4 6/- 2* 3 18 18 56 - 
UZ#16 925.4-925.7 4/- 5* 4 12 26 50 - 
UZ#16 Tptpln 935-1107.5 
UZ#16 940.0-940.4 4/- 1* Tr. 27 13 57 - 
UZ#16 954.3-954.7 3/- 2* 3 18 20 52 - 
UZ#16 970.9-971.4 5/- 2* 2 17 21 51 - 
UZ#16 984.2-984.8 4/- 4* 2 18 21 52 - 
UZ#16 1001.0-1001.6 5/- 4* 1 22 16 50 - 
UZ#16 1014.9-1015.0 6/- - 5 14 21 53 - 
UZ#16 1029.2-1029.5 5/- 14* 3 15 21 45 - 
UZ#16 1030.4-1030.6 4/- 8* 2 20 18 50 - 
UZ#16 1047.0-1047.3 4/- 2* 2 24 13 55 - 
UZ#16 1059.6-1059.8 5/- - 3 15 23 54 - 
UZ#16 1074.8-1075.1 4/- 1* 2 21 17 54 - 
UZ#16 1090.4-1090.6 4/- 2* 1 24 15 53 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-4 September 2004 
Table C-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
UZ#16 1104.1-1104.4 2/- - - 31 8 57 - 
UZ#16 Tptpv3 1107.5-1165.2 
UZ#16 1113.1-1113.2a 73/- 4 - Tr. 10 10 - 
UZ#16 1113.1-1113.2b 5/- - - 1 7 14 73 
UZ#16 1135.3-1135.6 3/- - - 1 9 7 80 
UZ#16 1149.2-1149.5 -/- - - 1 10 7 82 
UZ#16 1157.4-1157.6 1/- - - 1 12 10 75 
UZ#16 Tptpv2 1165.2-1178 
UZ#16 1166.5-1167.0 2/- 10 - 2 20 17 49 
UZ#16 Tptpv1 1178-1190 
UZ#16 1179.8-1180.5 1/- 80 - 3 13 8 - 
UZ#16 Tpbt1 1190-1197 
UZ#16 1190.2-1191.2 6/2 83 - 1 6 4 - 
UZ#16 Tac 1197-1455.4 
UZ#16 1202.8-1203.1 1/12 66 - 3 14 6 - 
UZ#16 1215.7-1216.0 1/11 72 - 3 12 7 - 
UZ#16 1235.5-1235.7 1/7 69 - 3 18 7 - 
UZ#16 1256.6-1256.9 8/- 72 - 3 10 12 - 
UZ#16 1261.0-1261.2a 1/- 66 - 3 22 11 - 
UZ#16 1275.7-1276.0 3/8 54 - 6 18 13 - 
UZ#16 1300.2-1300.3 9/5 58 - 5 20 10 - 
UZ#16 1305.0-1305.3 2/9 60 - 5 19 11 - 
UZ#16 1312.0-1312.4 3/12 54 - 4 18 11 - 
UZ#16 1335.4-1336.2 1/11 38 - 9 26 19 - 
UZ#16 1342.7-1343.0 3/16 55 - 3 19 10 - 
UZ#16 1362.3-1362.7 3/13 52 - 4 17 11 - 
UZ#16 1379.3-1379.5 3/9 60 - 4 21 9 - 
UZ#16 1417.5-1418.0 2/8 58 - 4 19 11 - 
UZ#16 1441.3-1441.8 2/12 65 - 3 17 6 - 
UZ#16 Tacbt 1455.4-1485 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-5 September 2004 
Table C-1. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole UE-25 UZ#16 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
UZ#16 1460.2-1460.7 5/4 42 - 8 27 18 - 
UZ#16 1476.7-1477.0 5/- 40 - 11 20 27 - 
UZ#16 Tcpuv 1485-1497.7 
not sampled 
UZ#16 Tcpuc 1497.7-1571 
UZ#16 1498.4-1498.9 -/8 - - 17 20 48 - 
UZ#16 1521.7-1522.2 3/- - - 41 - 54 - 
UZ#16 1539.3-1539.7 4/- - - 41 - 56 - 
UZ#16 1561.2-1561.7 4/- - - 39 - 58 - 
UZ#16 Tcpm 1571-1638 
UZ#16 1579.1-1579.9 3/- - - 38 - 59 - 
UZ#16 1600.2-1600.4 4/- - - 39 - 58 - 
UZ#16 1618.7-1619.2 3/- - - 24 14 62 - 
UZ#16 Tcplc 1638-1669.2 
UZ#16 1638.7-1639.2 7/- - - 20 15 55 - 
UZ#16 1655.5-1656.0 6/- - - 11 27 56 - 
UZ#16 Tcplv 1669.2-bottom 
UZ#16 1683.5-1684.0 3/- 42 - 5 28 28 - 
Sources: LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144), MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 
*Stellerite fracture fillings. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-6 September 2004 
Table C-2. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW G-1 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
G-1 Tcpbt 2154.9-2173.3 
G-1 2173 -/9 33 (c) - 2 8 41 - 
G-1 Tcbuv 2173.2-2337 
G-1 2190 4/- 51 (c) - 4 23 19 - 
G-1 2198 1/2 48 (c) - 4 20 20 - 
G-1 2256 -/44 Tr. (c) - 3 22 26 - 
G-1 2279 Tr./38 29 (c) - 3 8 21 - 
G-1 2290 2/43 31 (c) - 3 2 18 - 
G-1 2316 -/23 30 (c) - 19 - 27 - 
G-1 Tcbuc 2337-2461 
G-1 2401 3/- - - 35 Tr. 62 - 
G-1 2456 1/- - - 32 1 67 - 
G-1 Tcbm 2461-2547 
G-1 2486 1/- - - 33 - 67 - 
G-1 2499 Tr./- - - 32 Tr. 66 - 
G-1 2506 Tr./- - - 32 Tr. 63 - 
G-1 2544 Tr./- - - 36 Tr. 64 - 
G-1 Tcblc not recognized 
G-1 Tcblv 2547-2601.6 
G-1 2564 Tr./27 40 (c) - 3 10 20 - 
G-1 2600 -/39 48 (c) - Tr. 2 12 - 
G-1 Tcbbt 2601.6-2639.4 
G-1 2606 Tr./26 42 (c) - 12 1 17 - 
G-1 2607 -/21 26 (c) - 20 1 29 - 
G-1 2622 Tr./14 30 (c) - 21 1 30 - 
G-1 Tctuv 2639.4-2800 
G-1 2641 2/6 30/- - 4 7 44 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-7 September 2004 
Table C-2. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW G-1 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
G-1 2663 Tr./15 40/- - 5 4 33 - 
G-1 2734 Tr./4 31/- - 16 8 40 - 
G-1 2765 4/Tr. 15/- - 18 8 52 - 
G-1 Tctuc 2800-2840 
G-1 2804 1/- -/- - 31 1 62 - 
G-1 2805 3/- -/- - 33 1 62 - 
G-1 2820 1/- -/- - 36 Tr. 65 - 
G-1 2838 2/- -/- - 31 - 64 - 
G-1 Tctm 2840-2956 
G-1 2868 1/- -/- - 36 Tr. 63 - 
G-1 2884 2/- -/- - 34 - 64 - 
G-1 2915 2/- -/- - 36 - 61 - 
G-1 2932 1/- -/- - 36 - 64 - 
G-1 2937 2/- -/- - 35 - 63 - 
G-1 2948 2/- 2/- - 30 - 67 - 
G-1 Tctlc 2956-3005 
G-1 2966 1/- -/- - 36 - 67 - 
G-1 2981 3/- -/- - 37 - 58 - 
G-1 Tctlv 3005-3522 
G-1 3018 18/- -/4 - 33 - 34 - 
G-1 3079 11/- 13/5 - 36 - 34 - 
G-1 3167 10/- 19/5 - 31 - 31 - 
G-1 3288 17/- 40/1 - 18 - 20 - 
G-1 3401 4/- 10/2 - 38 - 43 
G-1 Tctbt 3522-3558.2 
G-1 3523 7/- 13/1 - 32 - 46 - 
Tund 3558.2-bottom of hole 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-8 September 2004 
Table C-2. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW G-1 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
G-1 3621 24/- -/- - 3 6 59 - 
G-1 3810 65/- -/- - - - 37 - 
G-1 3940 48/- 2/2 - 19 - 23 2 
G-1 4246 17/- -/6 - 38 - 38 - 
G-1 4400 7/- -/13 - 39 - 42 - 
G-1 4503 4/- -/19 - 39 - 37 - 
G-1 4555 21/- -/2 - 22 - 47 - 
G-1 4612 13/- -/7 - 34 - 41 - 
G-1 4626 4/- -/- - 42 - 52 - 
G-1 4652 7/- -/11 - 40 - 38 - 
G-1 4700 6/- -/7 - 46 - 40 - 
G-1 4750 8/- -/10 - 37 - 44 - 
G-1 4805 8/- -/9 - 38 - 43 - 
G-1 4848 6/- -/11 - 41 - 38 - 
G-1 4876 4/- -/4 - 45 - 45 - 
G-1 4912 7/- -/8 - 43 - 37 - 
G-1 4941 27/- -/7 - 27 - 25 - 
G-1 4958 8/- -/17 - 46 - 30 - 
G-1 4998 30/- -/3 - 39 - 27 - 
G-1 5026 5/- -/2 - 45 - 51 - 
G-1 5049 52/- -/- - 5 - 28 - 
G-1 5093 5/- -/2 - 39 - 47 Tr. 
G-1 5126 2/- -/15 - 50 - 33 Tr. 
G-1 5167 2/- -/14 - 46 - 40 Tr. 
G-1 5212 1/- -/16 - 48 - 38 Tr. 
G-1 5253 1/- -/27 - 36 - 35 - 
G-1 5296 2/- -/19 - 37 - 39 Tr. 
G-1 5310 29/- -/- - 23 - 52 - 
G-1 5311 6/- 1/- - 46 - 45 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-9 September 2004 
Table C-2. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW G-1 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite 
Clinoptilolite/ 
Analcime Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
G-1 5329 11/- 12/- - 40 - 40 Tr. 
G-1 5338 41/- 1/- - 28 - 26 - 
G-1 5348 9/- Tr./- - 35 - 44 - 
G-1 5378 46/- 15/- - 17 - 24 - 
G-1 5412 5/- 12/- - 40 - 40 Tr. 
G-1 5433 35/- 20/- - 9 - 27 Tr. 
G-1 5458 26/- 25/- - 18 - 28 - 
G-1 5477 5/- -/12 - 44 - 36 - 
G-1 5498 5/- -/17 - 38 - 41 - 
G-1 5534 38/- 20/4 - 8 - 24 - 
G-1 5560 5/23 23/- - 21 - 33 Tr. 
G-1 5596 2/- 1/7 - 34 - 50 Tr. 
G-1 5637 3/- -/16 - 38 - 42 1 
G-1 5679 20/- -/13 - 24 - 36 Tr. 
G-1 5699 5/- -/9 - 33 - 50 Tr. 
G-1 5746 12/- -/10 - 32 - 46 1 
G-1 5803 10/- -/- - 29 - 54 1 
G-1 5847 13/- -/- - 29 - 54 1 
G-1 5898 7/- -/12 - 42 - 34 - 
G-1 5947 12/- 2/15 - 28 - 34 1 
G-1 5980 14/- 4/- - 29 - 40 2 
Sources: MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796), MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-10 September 2004 
Table C-3. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW GU-3 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Hornblende Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
GU-3 Tpc_un 0-348.1 
GU-3 45.0 -/- - 6 - 17 75 - 
GU-3 79.0 -/- - 25 2 6 70 - 
GU-3 103.1 -/- - 7 2 20 70 - 
GU-3 196.3 -/- - - - 25 75 - 
GU-3 245.7 2/- - 3 2 25 70 - 
GU-3 303.6 <1/- - - - 25 75 - 
GU-3 316.8 -/- - - - 22 75 - 
GU-3 341.5 3/- - - - 30 70 - 
GU-3 Tpbt3 375.5-391.7 
GU-3 376.1 4/- - - 3 5 50 40 
GU-3 Tptrn 427.8-542 
GU-3 429.0 -/- - 4 4 20 70 - 
GU-3 430.5 -/- - 4 - 12 80 - 
GU-3 465.5 -/- - 10 - 9 80 - 
GU-3 482.0 -/- - 20 - 7 70 - 
GU-3 520.3 -/- - 20 - 5 70 - 
GU-3 525.3 ~1/- - 20 1 6 70 - 
GU-3 Tptpul 548-688 
GU-3 579.0 ~1/- - 12 - 22 65 - 
GU-3 633.4 ~1/- - 7 2 22 70 - 
GU-3 674.7 ~1/- - 5 2 22 70 - 
GU-3 Tptpmn 688-830 
GU-3 702.5 ~1/- - - 6 17 70 - 
GU-3 769.1 ~1/- - 6 ~1 22 65 - 
GU-3 Tptpll 830-1044 
GU-3 849.4 ~1/- - - 4 17 75 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-11 September 2004 
Table C-3. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW GU-3 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Hornblende Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
GU-3 910.5 ~1/- - - 4 27 65 - 
GU-3 924.3 ~1/- - 10 12 12 65 - 
GU-3 951.1 ~1/- - 5 8 17 70 - 
GU-3 954.8 ~1/- - - 17 12 70 - 
GU-3 1027 -/- - - 6 17 75 - 
GU-3 Tptpln 1044-1186.7 
GU-3 1061.0 -/- - - 20 7 70 - 
GU-3 1130.3 -/- - - 17 10 70 - 
GU-3 1175.0 ~1/- - - 35 3 60 - 
GU-3 Tptpv3 1186.7-1280 
GU-3 1195.7 2/- - - 3 27 35 30 
GU-3 1227 2/- - - 8 17 35 40 
GU-3 Tptpv2 1280-1317 
GU-3 1302.4 2/- - - 4 12 40 45 
GU-3 Tptpv1 1317-1406.3 
GU-3 1322.0 -/- - - 4 7 30 65 
GU-3 1344.8 -/- - - 7 7 30 55 
GU-3 1369.6 -/- - - 4 6 25 65 
GU-3 1394.5 -/- - - 4 6 30 65 
GU-3 1394.6 -/- - - 4 6 30 65 
GU-3 Tac 1412.5-1506.3 
GU-3 1415.5 -/- - - 5 6 35 55 
GU-3 1439.2 Tr./- - - 20 6 20 55 
GU-3 1439.5 ~1/- - - 5 6 35 55 
GU-3 1468.5 -/- - - 5 6 35 55 
GU-3 1493.7 ~1/- 2 - 5 6 25 65 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-12 September 2004 
Table C-3. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW GU-3 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Hornblende Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
GU-3 1498.3 -/- 3 - 7 6 25 65 
GU-3 Tacbt 1506.3-1553.9 
GU-3 1510.7 3/- - - 5 6 25 65 
GU-3 1537.5 3/2 2 - 17 4 50 20 
GU-3 Tcpuv 1553.9-1597 
GU-3 1571.6 2/- - - 4 5 45 45 
GU-3 1598.5 moved to 
Tcpuv 
4/- - - 5 2 45 45 
GU-3 Tcpuc 1597-1663 
GU-3 1603.0 -/- - - 2 30 65 - 
GU-3 1624.2 -/- - 7 20 2 70 - 
GU-3 1653.3 ~1/- - 15 15 3 70 - 
GU-3 Tcpm 1663-1744 
GU-3 1709.0 ~1/- - - 12 12 70 - 
GU-3 Tcplc 1744-1755 
GU-3 1744.0 -/- - - 6 25 70 - 
GU-3 Tcplv 1755-1992.3 
GU-3 1827.2 2/- 30 - 4 7 19 38 
GU-3 1874 -/- 50 - 7 5 40 - 
GU-3 1935.8 3/- 60 - 4 4 30 - 
GU-3 1986 -/- 70 - 4 6 20 - 
GU-3 Tcpbt 1992.3-1998.7 
GU-3 1993.1 -/- 60 - 4 10 25 - 
GU-3 Tcblv 2550.8-2617 
GU-3 2577.4 3/- 50 - 2 5 35 - 
GU-3 2615.3 2/- 40 - 5 7 45 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-13 September 2004 
Table C-3. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW GU-3 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Hornblende Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
GU-3 Tctuv 2637-2719 
GU-3 2656.6 4/- 30 - 5 8 50 - 
GU-3 2695.7 ~1/- 30 - 7 10 40 - 
Sources: MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796), MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 
Table C-4. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW G-4 (weight percent) 
Smectite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth Range 
in feet 
G-4 Tptpmn 674-774 
G-4 676 3 - 4 4 23 66 - 
G-4 694 3 - 17 4 13 62 - 
G-4 746 ~1 - - 3 28 68 - 
G-4 Tptpln 1127.9-1316.5 
G-4 1163 - - - 16 15 69 - 
G-4 1190 1 - - 25 13 60 - 
G-4 1244 1 - - 17 15 67 - 
G-4 1282 1 - - 16 18 65 - 
G-4 1283-1293E 1 - - 6 23 69 - 
G-4 1299 2 5 - 8 23 62 - 
G-4 1301 1 5 - 9 20 65 - 
G-4 1310 1 3 - 5 24 65 - 
G-4 1314* 45 28 - 2 14 11 
Source: MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796), MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
*This sample is excluded from the comparison with Tptpln in other drill hole samples because the presence of abundant smectite and clinoptilolite means it is from 
a localized alteration zone. 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-14 September 2004 
Table C-5. Selected Mineralogic-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW SD-12 (weight percent) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
SD-12 Tptrn 330.7-436.4 
SD-12 331.1 Tr./- - 4 5 25 63 - 
SD-12 337.8 1/- - 6 - 15 79 - 
SD-12 376.3 Tr./- - 13 - 9 77 - 
SD-12 395.9 -/- - 14 Tr. 7 74 - 
SD-12 419.8 2/- - 16 Tr. 10 74 - 
SD-12 Tptpul 470.2-663.7 
SD-12 489.6 4/- - 14 3 21 55 - 
SD-12 517.4 3/- - 9 1 27 56 - 
SD-12 534.7 4/- - 7 3 30 55 - 
SD-12 561.9 5/- - 7 3 28 54 - 
SD-12 580.7 5/- - 6 9 25 55 - 
SD-12 602.6 4/- - 8 12 23 55 - 
SD-12 629.7 4/- - 5 6 29 54 - 
SD-12 654.4 3/- - 7 15 19 56 - 
SD-12 Tptpmn 663.7-786.9 30 
SD-12 679.5-679.9 4/- - 2 8 53 - 
SD-12 706.0-706.1 5/- - 4 11 26 52 - 
SD-12 733.0-733.3 5/- - 3 5 34 54 - 
SD-12 759.8-760.1 4/- - 4 9 28 54 - 
SD-12 785.5-785.8 3/- - 4 3 34 54 - 
SD-12 Tptpll 786.9-1065.5 
SD-12 807.0 4/- - 3 10 27 53 - 
SD-12 831.4 4/- - 3 33 6 56 - 
SD-12 852.9 4/- - 14 13 16 55 - 
SD-12 881.1 3/- - 3 23 17 54 - 
SD-12 903.1 5/- - 4 12 25 54 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-15 September 2004 
Table C-5. Selected Mineral-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW SD-12 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
SD-12 929.9 4/- - 7 24 10 55 - 
SD-12 954.7 3/- - 4 16 22 54 - 
SD-12 979.7 2/- - 3 11 26 54 - 
SD-12 Tptpln 1065.5-1278.1 
SD-12 1160.8-1161.1 4/- - 1 21 20 55 - 
SD-12 1180.9-1181.1 4/- - 1 24 15 54 - 
SD-12 1200.2-1200.6 3/- - 2 17 24 54 - 
SD-12 1219.2-1220.2 4/- - 2 9 27 54 - 
SD-12 1240.4-1240.6 2/- - 2 16 23 57 - 
SD-12 1261.9-1262.1 3/- - 2 19 22 53 - 
SD-12 1271.1-1271.3 3/- - 3 7 30 53 - 
SD-12 1273.4-1273.45 -/- 1 2 7 29 56 - 
SD-12 Tptpv3 1278.1-1308 
SD-12 1278.5-1278.8 2/- - - 1 - 10 72 
SD-12 1291.4-1291.8 -/- - - 1 8 6 85 
SD-12 1301.0-1301.4 Tr./- - - Tr. 10 8 82 
SD-12 Tptpv2 1308-1337.5 
SD-12 1309.3 Tr./- - - 1 20 14 65 
SD-12 1319.0 Tr./- - - 1 18 15 66 
SD-12 1320.6 Tr./- - - 1 18 13 68 
SD-12 1333.2 2/- - - 1 8 9 80 
SD-12 Tptpv1 1337.5-1408.1 
SD-12 1342.1 Tr./- - - 1 4 4 91 
SD-12 1351.9 Tr./- - - 1 6 5 88 
SD-12 1361.9 -/- - - 1 3 4 92 
SD-12 1371.4 Tr./- - - 1 2 4 93 
SD-12 1381.1 1/- 2 - 1 4 5 87 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-16 September 2004 
Table C-5. Selected Mineral-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW SD-12 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
SD-12 1388.0 Tr./- 2 - 3 5 8 82 
SD-12 1399.2 1/- 3 - 5 5 12 74 
SD-12 1408.0 8/- 1 - 2 3 9 77 
SD-12 Tpbt1 1408.1-1411.5 
SD-12 1410.5-1410.6 2/- 1 - 2 3 7 85 
SD-12 Tac 1411.5-1599.5 
SD-12 1439.9-1440.1 -/- 1 - 2 2 6 89 
SD-12 1458.7-1458.9 Tr./- 4 - 2 2 5 87 
SD-12 1480.2-1480.5 Tr./- 4 - 4 4 9 79 
SD-12 1500.8-1501.0 1/- 5 - 4 4 7 79 
SD-12 1519.8-1520.1 2/- 5 - 6 12 17 58 
SD-12 1540.9-1541.3 2/- 10 - 5 9 10 64 
SD-12 1561.1-1561.3 3/- 3 - 3 5 8 78 
SD-12 1581.3-1581.6 2/- 9 - 4 5 7 73 
SD-12 Tacbt 1599.5-1648.4 
SD-12 1600.0-1600.3 4/- 12 - 7 5 10 62 
SD-12 1600.0-1600.3 7/4 51 - 2 30 8 - 
SD-12 1601.5-1601.8 5/- 68 - 4 15 6 - 
SD-12 1609.9-1610.4 3/- 30 - 11 7 11 34 
SD-12 1620.4-1620.6 4/- 59 - 8 18 14 - 
SD-12 1641.4-1641.7 9/- 14 - 8 25 45 - 
SD-12 Tcpuv 1648.4-1677 
SD-12 1656.3-1656.8 7/- 58 - 3 23 13 - 
SD-12 Tcpuc 1677-1787 
SD-12 1680.7-1680.9 2/- - - 35 - 54 - 
SD-12 1700.3-1700.6 3/- - 2 34 4 55 - 
SD-12 1720.1-1720.4 2/- - 3 32 2 56 - 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-17 September 2004 
Table C-5. Selected Mineral-Abundance Data for Drill Hole USW SD-12 (weight percent) (Continued) 
Smectite/ 
Mordenite Clinoptilolite Tridymite Quartz CristobaliteOpal Feldspar Glass 
Unit or Sample Depth 
Range in feet 
SD-12 1739.8-1740.2 2/- - 3 32 2 58 - 
SD-12 1760.0-1760.4 3/- - 3 30 2 60 - 
SD-12 1780.2-1780.4 2/- - - 26 10 60 - 
SD-12 Tcpm 1787-1842 
SD-12 1799.4-1800.0 2/- - 3 31 4 57 - 
SD-12 1821.2-1821.6 Tr./- - - 21 18 60 - 
SD-12 1840.6-1840.8 5/- - - 9 27 55 - 
SD-12 Tcplc 1842-1865 
SD-121860.0-1860.3 2/- - - 5 31 57 - 
SD-12 Tcplv 1865-2133 
SD-12 1874.4-1874.5 6/5 10 - 4 45 34 - 
SD-12 1891.6-1891.9 5/10 50 - 6 11 22 - 
SD-12 1911.8-1911.9 5/4 48 - 5 21 19 - 
SD-12 1929.7-1929.9 3/6 51 - 4 21 19 - 
SD-12 1950.0-1950.7 3/5 56 - 4 16 21 - 
SD-12 1972.1-1972.4 2/- 65 - 4 15 19 - 
SD-12 Tcb 2137.8-bottom 
SD-12 2148.6 2/- - - 26 13 56 - 
SD-12 2163.0 -/- - - 33 6 59 - 
Sources: LADV831321AQ97.001 (DIRS 107142), LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554). 
- = not detected; Tr. = trace amount much less than 1%. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 C-18 September 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 
APPENDIX D 
SOURCE DATA TRACKING NUMBERS FOR OUTPUT DTN: LA9908JC831321.001 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 
1 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 D-1 September 2004 
The following text illustrates the source relationship for the source of mineralogic model, 
Version 3.0, DTN: LA9908JC831321.001. This also demonstrates that all data provided by the 
source DTNs are qualified by Steinborn, T.L. (2002 [DIRS 160702]), and the qualification 
activities contained in Appendices A, B, and C of this report. 
LA9908JC831321.001Product output DTN from the mineralogic model (MM3.0) 
Listing of some DTNs from Table 4-1 that relate to the qualification activity in Appendices A-C 
of this report: 
1. LA000000000086.002 (DIRS 107144) Qualified, Verified using AP-3.15Q 
Procedure, Developed. 
2. LA9910JC831321.001 (DIRS 113496) Unqualified 
Qualified by activity contained in Appendices A-C, this report. 
3. LADB831321AN98.002 (DIRS 109003) Unqualified 
Separated into these five DTNs by Steinborn 2002 (DIRS 160702), Table 10: 
(a) MO0101XRDMINAB.001 (DIRS 163796), Boreholes: UE-25b#1, USW G-1, 
USW G-3, USW GU-3, and USW G-4, Qualified by Steinborn 2002. 
(b) MO0101XRDDRILC.000 (DIRS 169516), Borehole: UE-25 J-13 (not an input 
to MM3.0), Not qualified. 
(c) MO0106XRDDRILC.003 (DIRS 163797), Borehole: USW H-6, Qualified by 
Steinborn 2002. 
(d) MO0101XRDDRILC.002 (DIRS 163795), Boreholes: UE-25 a#1 and USW G-2, 
Qualified by Steinborn 2002. 
(e) MO0101XRDDRILC.001 (DIRS 169517), Cuttings, sidewall samples, and 
intermittent core samples. Qualified by activity contained in Appendices A-C, 
this report. 
4. LADV831321AQ97.001 (DIRS 107142), Qualified by activity contained in 
Appendices A-C, this report. 
5. LADV831321AQ97.007 (DIRS 113499), Qualified by activity contained in 
Appendices A-C, this report. 
6. LADV831321AQ99.001 (DIRS 109044), Qualified, Verified using AP-3.15Q 
Procedure, Acquired. 
7. LAJC831321AQ98.005 (DIRS 109004), Qualified, Verified using AP-3.15Q 
Procedure, Acquired. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 D-2 September 2004 
8. LASC831321AQ96.002 (DIRS 109042), Qualified, Verified using AP-3.15Q 
Procedure, Acquired. 
9. LASC831321AQ98.001 (DIRS 109047), Qualified, Verified using AP-3.15Q 
Procedure, Acquired. 
10. LASC831321AQ98.003 (DIRS 109043), Qualified, Verified using AP-3.15Q 
Procedure, Acquired. 
11. LASL831322AQ97.001 (DIRS 109045), Qualified, Verified using AP-3.15Q 
Procedure, Acquired. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 
APPENDIX E 
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND SUMMARY OF MINERALOGY 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 September 2004 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-1 September 2004 
E1. INTRODUCTION 
The stratigraphy of volcanic units at Yucca Mountain is complex, including both tuffs and lavas. 
However, within the areal extent of the mineralogic model, the only lavas of any significance 
occur within sequence 2 (Tundundifferentiated older Tertiary rocks). In the mineralogic 
model, lavas, flow breccias, and tuffs within this sequence are grouped together because there 
are insufficient data for subdivision. The consequences of this grouping are minimal because (1) 
these units, below the Crater Flat Group, are far enough below the water table to be of little 
consequence in transport and (2) mineral alteration at these depths is so pervasive that the 
original lithology has only a limited effect on the alteration products. Above sequence 2, 
however, there are clear and definitive relationships between the nature of the tuffs and the 
occurrence of alteration minerals (principally clays and zeolites). 
The tuffs above sequence 2 generally occur as ash-flow units with interspersed bedded tuffs. 
Within the area of the mineralogic model, the thicker ash flows generally have nonwelded to 
poorly welded exteriors at the margins of more welded interiors. Typically, where thicker than a 
few tens of meters, the welded ash-flow interiors have devitrified to a mineral assemblage 
consisting principally of feldspar plus anhydrous silica minerals. Above sequence 2 these 
devitrified zones rarely contain zeolites; where zeolites do occur in devitrified units, their 
abundance is low (generally less than 10 percent). In contrast, the nonwelded to poorly welded 
ash-flow margins and the bedded tuffs between ash flows are readily zeolitized, with typical 
zeolite abundances in the range of 25 to 80 percent below the water table and up to 
approximately 330 ft (100 m) above the water table. The relationships between marginal zones 
of initially vitric tuff and zeolitization strongly indicate that zeolites cannot become abundant 
unless vitric tuff was originally present. The same relationships also lead to distinct transitions 
between zeolitized and devitrified sequences, particularly within the tuffs of the Crater Flat 
Group (mineralogic model sequences 3 through 9). In these sequences, the transition from 
abundant zeolitization of the flow margins to the devitrified flow interiors is typically definitive 
and abrupt (within about 3.3 ft [1 m]). In places where this transition is definitive in the 
mineralogic data but inconsistent with the STRATAMODEL and the Geologic Framework 
Model version 3.1 sequence, the elevations of the mineralogic data were adjusted. This 
prevented dispersion of zeolites into devitrified units and mixing of devitrification mineralogy 
into zeolitized sequences. Adjustments are listed in Table E-1. 
From sequence 9 to sequence 13 in the mineralogic model (upper nonwelded Prow Pass Tuff to 
the moderately to densely welded lower vitric zone of the Topopah Spring Tuff), there is a 
highly variable transition between vitric and zeolitic lithologies. Because the initial tuff deposits 
in these sequences were all largely vitric, there are few stratigraphic controls over the extent of 
hydrous mineral alteration. However, the mineralogic data show that the bedded tuff below the 
Calico Hills Formation (sequence 10) is more readily altered to zeolite or smectite than the 
overlying ash flows (sequence 11). Conversely, sequence 11 is never significantly altered if the 
underlying bedded tuff is not significantly altered. At the top of this series of originally vitric 
sequences (sequence 13) is a common zone of smectite and zeolite alteration, with total hydrous 
mineral abundances ranging from a few percent to complete alteration of the upper few feet 
(decimeters) of the vitrophyre. In some places, this zone of alteration extends into the base of 
the overlying devitrified horizon (Tptpln, sequence 14). The elevations of mineralogic data 
corresponding to highly altered, basal Tptpln samples were adjusted to fall within the vitric 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-2 September 2004 
horizon (sequence 13) (Table E-1). This prevented dispersion of high zeolite and smectite 
abundances into the lower nonlithophysal zone (devitrification mineralogy) of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff (Table E-1). 
Sequences 14 through 18 of the mineralogic model make up the thick devitrified interior of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff. The upper boundary of unit 18 is defined by a transition from devitrified 
to vitric composition. Therefore, mineralogic data near the contact of sequences 18 (upper 
devitrified Topopah Spring Tuff) and 19 (upper vitrophyre of the Topopah Spring Tuff) were 
adjusted in some boreholes to prevent unrealistic distribution of abundant glass into the 
devitrified tuff or extensive devitrification into the vitrophyre (Table E-1). 
Sequence 20 in the mineralogic model incorporates all of the heterogeneous deposits from the 
zone of decreased welding at the top of the Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptrv2) through the 
nonwelded base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpcpv1). This interval is principally composed of 
initially vitric ash-flow and bedded deposits; however, it includes locally devitrified sequences in 
the Yucca Mountain Tuff and Pah Canyon Tuff in the north (e.g., in borehole G-2). In sequence 
20, glasses are predominantly altered to smectite, with only local occurrences of significant 
zeolitization (e.g., in borehole UZ#16). The transition to sequence 21, the moderately to densely 
welded vitric base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff, is gradational; sequence 21 is distinguished by an 
intermingling of vitric remnants, devitrification, and smectite alteration. The transition from 
sequence 21 to sequence 22, the devitrified interior of the Tiva Canyon Tuff, is distinguished by 
a sharp decrease in smectite and/or glass. Sequence 22 consists of devitrification minerals 
throughout the areal extent of the mineralogic model. The elevations of mineralogic data were 
adjusted where unrealistic glass abundances would have been introduced from sequence 21 and 
where alluvial or surface-alteration features would have been introduced from above (Table E-1). 
Alluvial and surface- weathering features are not currently included in the mineralogic model. 
E2. SUMMARY OF MINERALOGIC RELATIONS 
This section describes the mineralogy typical of each mineralogic model sequence and the 
rationale for modifying the elevations of sample data where such adjustments were deemed 
necessary. Modifications to the mineralogic data (as available in the TDMS) for the purpose of 
mineralogic model Version 3.0 are documented in Table E-1. 
E2.1 SEQUENCE 22: DEVITRIFIED TIVA CANYON TUFF (ALLUVIUMTpcplnc) 
The devitrified Tiva Canyon Tuff consists principally of feldspar and the anhydrous silica 
polymorphs (cristobalite, tridymite, and quartz). The primary distinction between this sequence 
and the underlying sequence in the mineralogic model is the absence of glass in sequence 22. A 
minor exception to this distinction is seen in borehole SD-6 at an elevation of 4,494.4 ft 
(1,369.9 m) above mean sea level (msl), where a sample from the base of sequence 22 contained 
7 percent glass, apparently representing a transitional lithology between the typical mineral 
properties of sequence 22 and the properties of underlying sequence 21. The sample collected at 
2.6 ft (0.8 m) below, in sequence 21, contained 54 percent glass; the elevation of this sample was 
adjusted downward in the mineralogic model (Table E-1). 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-3 September 2004 
As a devitrified unit, sequence 22 generally contains no zeolites. In one instance, the uppermost 
core sample from sequence 22 (in borehole SD-9 at an elevation of 4,217.8 ft (1,285.6 m) above 
msl) contained 29 percent zeolite (clinoptilolite). This sample was collected from a surface 
breccia that is not representative of sequence 22; this zeolite-bearing sample was therefore 
excluded from the mineralogic model. 
E2.2 SEQUENCE 21: DENSELY TO MODERATELY WELDED VITRIC BASE OF 
TIVA CANYON TUFF (Tpcpv3Tpcpv2) 
The densely to moderately welded vitric base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff is glass rich, with variable 
amounts of alteration to smectite. The greater welding of sequence 21 is the principal distinction 
between this sequence and the top of the underlying sequence (sequence 20). 
E2.3 SEQUENCE 20: PTn UNIT (Tpcpv1Tptrv2) 
The PTn unit is the least homogeneous sequence of the mineralogic model. The PTn includes the 
nonwelded base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff, the Yucca Mountain and Pah Canyon Tuffs with 
intercalated bedded tuffs, and the upper nonwelded portion of the Topopah Spring Tuff. Most of 
these units contain glass and variable amounts of smectite alteration. Alteration to zeolite is less 
common, although significant zeolitization occurs in G-2 and UZ#16 and there are minor 
occurrences of zeolite in boreholes SD-12, UZ-14, UZN-31, and UZN-32. Remnants of glass are 
almost pervasive, with the exception of those areas where the Yucca Mountain and/or Pah 
Canyon Tuffs are devitrified (boreholes G-2 and UZ-14), where smectite alteration and 
devitrification occur at the base of the PTn (boreholes SD-7 and UZ#16), and where glass was 
completely altered to smectite (some bedded tuffs in boreholes UZN-31 and UZN-32). 
E2.4 SEQUENCE 19: UPPER VITROPHYRE OF TOPOPAH SPRING TUFF (Tptrv1) 
High glass content (greater than 20 percent; generally greater than 75 percent) distinguishes 
sequence 19 (the upper vitrophyre of the Topopah Spring Tuff) from the underlying devitrified 
unit (Tptrn). This densely welded quartz-latitic glass is generally only slightly altered to smectite 
and rare clinoptilolite. In some instances, the depth assignments from the Geologic Framework 
Model version 3.1 placed samples that were largely devitrified and contained only small amounts 
of glass (in borehole SD-9 at an elevation of 4,001.3 ft [1,219.6 m] above msl, 7 percent glass) or 
samples that were fully devitrified and contained no glass (UZ#16 at 3,763.7 ft [1,147.2 m] 
above msl) into sequence 19. Because sequence 19 is defined as a vitrophyre, these samples 
were reassigned to sequence 18 in the mineralogic model. In another instance, a sample with 23 
percent glass (in borehole SD-12 at 4,011.8 ft [1,222.8 m] above msl) was assigned by GFM3.1 
to sequence 18, which is a devitrified unit. In this instance, the sample was reassigned to 
sequence 19 in the mineralogic model. 
E2.5 SEQUENCE 18: QUARTZ-LATITIC TO RHYOLITIC TRANSITION ZONE 
AND LITHIC-RICH ZONE OF TOPOPAH SPRING TUFF (TptrnTptf) 
This sequence within the Topopah Spring Tuff includes the transition from quartz-latitic 
composition (above) to rhyolitic composition (below). Mineralogically, this interval has a 
generally higher tridymite:quartz ratio than the underlying devitrified zones of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff. The upper part of the sequence contains small amounts of glass (less than 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-4 September 2004 
10 percent) in boreholes NRG-7a and SD-9. In one instance, the depth assignments from 
GFM3.1 placed a sample that was devitrified, had a high tridymite:quartz ratio, and was free of 
glass or hydrous alteration minerals (in borehole SD-6 at an elevation of 4,388.1 ft [1,337.5 m] 
above msl) in sequence 20. In this case, the sample was reassigned to sequence 18 in the 
mineralogic model. In another instance, a sample that was devitrified and contained no glass (in 
borehole G-2 at 4,327 ft [1,318.9 m] above msl) was assigned to sequence 19; this sample was 
reassigned to devitrified sequence 18 in the mineralogic model (Table E-1). 
E2.6 SEQUENCE 17: UPPER LITHOPHYSAL ZONE OF TOPOPAH SPRING TUFF 
(Tptpul) 
This sequence of devitrified rhyolitic tuff has a relatively constant feldspar content but highly 
variable ratios of tridymite:cristobalite:quartz. 
E2.7 SEQUENCE 16: MIDDLE NONLITHOPHYSAL ZONE OF TOPOPAH SPRING 
TUFF (Tptpmn) 
This sequence of devitrified rhyolitic tuff has a relatively constant feldspar content but highly 
variable ratios of tridymite:cristobalite:quartz. Small amounts of zeolite (stellerite) occur in the 
rock matrix in borehole UZ#16. 
E2.8 SEQUENCE 15: LOWER LITHOPHYSAL ZONE OF TOPOPAH SPRING 
TUFF (Tptpll) 
This sequence of devitrified rhyolitic tuff has a relatively constant feldspar content but highly 
variable ratios of tridymite:cristobalite:quartz. In borehole UZ#16, amounts of zeolite (stellerite) 
up to 11 percent occur in dispersed fractures and in the rock matrix. 
E2.9 SEQUENCE 14: LOWER NONLITHOPHYSAL ZONE OF TOPOPAH SPRING 
TUFF (Tptpln) 
This sequence of devitrified rhyolitic tuff has a relatively constant feldspar content but highly 
variable ratios of tridymite:cristobalite:quartz. In UZ#16, amounts of zeolite (stellerite) up to 
14 percent occur in dispersed fractures and in the rock matrix. The base of the sequence may 
contain low percentages of glass, smectite, and/or zeolite, transitional with the altered upper 
surface of sequence 13. In one instance, the Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 placed a 
sample that was devitrified and contained less than 2 percent hydrous alteration minerals (in 
borehole SD-9 at 2,915.8 ft [886.8 m] above msl) into the underlying vitrophyre sequence 13. In 
this case, the sample was reassigned to sequence 14 in the mineralogic model. In another 
instance, a devitrified sample with only 6 percent zeolite alteration (in borehole G-3 at an 
elevation of 3,666.3 ft [1,117.5 m]above msl) was assigned by the Geologic Framework Model 
version 3.1 to sequence 13; this sample was reassigned to sequence 14 in the mineralogic model. 
At borehole NRG-7a, the basal sample from Tptpln was altered to smectite and transitional to 
sequence 13 and was assigned to sequence 13. The remaining 11 samples from Tptpln were 
averaged into a single sample value (located at 2,834.6 ft [864.0 m] above msl) to preserve the 
stratigraphic relationships. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-5 September 2004 
E2.10 SEQUENCE 13: DENSELY TO MODERATELY WELDED VITRIC BASE OF 
TOPOPAH SPRING TUFF (Tptpv3Tptpv2) 
This sequence consists of the lower densely welded quenched-glass horizon (vitrophyre) and the 
underlying moderately welded glass of the Topopah Spring Tuff. In many boreholes, the upper 
few inches to feet (centimeters to decimeters) of this sequence are extensively altered to smectite 
and zeolites. The division of sequence 13 into two equal-thickness layers captures this alteration, 
in part, with the upper layer (17) having greater alteration than the lower layer (16). Generally, 
the glass contents in this sequence are high (70 to 100 percent), with the exception of smectite 
and zeolite alteration that can completely replace the glass at the sequence top or at depths 
throughout the sequence (in boreholes UZ-14 and WT-24). Zeolite alteration in sequence 13 
includes most of the occurrences of the mineral erionite (a carcinogen that poses an inhalation 
hazard) at Yucca Mountain. 
In some instances, the depth assignments from the Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 
placed samples with abundant smectite and zeolite into sequence 14 (Tptpln), which, as a 
devitrified sequence, should not be associated with large amounts of hydrous minerals. These 
instances are common and occur in G-1 at an elevation of 3,063.6 ft (933.8 m) above msl, in 
borehole G-2 at 3,463.2 ft (1,055.6 m) above msl, in borehole G-4 at 2,852 ft (869.3 m) above 
msl, in borehole NRG-7a at 2,795.2 ft (852.0 m) above msl, and in borehole UZ-14 at 3,147.3 ft 
(959.3 m) above msl. These samples were reassigned to sequence 13 in the mineralogic model. 
E2.11 SEQUENCE 12: NONWELDED TO BEDDED ZONE AT BASE OF TOPOPAH 
SPRING TUFF (Tptpv1Tpbt1) 
This sequence varies from highly zeolitized with no remnant glass in the northern and eastern 
parts of Yucca Mountain, to vitric and relatively unaltered in the west and south. Where the 
underlying Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11) is fully zeolitized, the transition from vitric to 
zeolitic properties usually occurs near the top of sequence 12 or in the lower part of sequence 
13 (in borehole WT-24). 
E2.12 SEQUENCE 11: CALICO HILLS FORMATION (Tac) 
As with sequence 12, the Calico Hills Formation (sequence 11) varies from highly zeolitized 
with no remnant glass in the northern and eastern parts of Yucca Mountain, to vitric and 
relatively unaltered in the west and south. Transitions from vitric to zeolitized properties within 
sequence 11 are highly variable, ranging from dispersion of low zeolite abundances (less than 
10 percent) across tens of meters (in borehole SD-12), to stacked sills of high zeolite abundance 
(up to 69 percent) between largely vitric layers (in borehole SD-7). Because the vitric:zeolitic 
ratios vary with depth in some parts of sequence 11, these variations are approximated by the 
subdivision of sequence 11 into four layers. One sample from borehole SD-12, collected at an 
elevation of 2,742.4 ft (835.9 m) above msl, contained a very sharp (centimeter-scale) transition 
between Tac and Tacbt. In this instance, the two parts of the sample (upper poorly zeolitic and 
glassy, lower zeolitic and without glass) are on opposite sides of the contact between sequence 
11 and sequence 10. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-6 September 2004 
There are no data for sequence 11 at a particularly crucial borehole (H-3). There are data for 
sequence 10 and sequence 12 at H-3, both of which are nonzeolitic and vitric in nature. The 
observed mineralogic relations at other boreholes demonstrate that if the upper part of sequence 
10 (the bedded tuff below the Calico Hills Formation) is vitric, sequence 11 is also vitric 
(in boreholes G-3, H-5, SD-6, and SD-12) (see Section 6.3.1). In the absence of mineralogic data 
for sequence 11 at H-3, the mineralogic model would predict abundant zeolite at borehole H-3 
(due in part to the influence of borehole SD-7). This prediction is viewed as unrealistic. 
Consequently, a synthetic datum was placed at borehole H-3 in sequence 11. Because the 
mineralogic values for borehole H-3 are most similar to those of borehole G-3, the mineralogic 
values of sequence 11 at borehole H-3 were assigned to be equal to the average values for 
sequence 11 at borehole G-3. 
E2.13 SEQUENCE 10: BEDDED TUFF BELOW CALICO HILLS FORMATION 
(Tacbt) 
Sequence 10, consisting of the bedded tuffs below the Calico Hills Formation, is invariably 
zeolitized where the overlying ash flows (sequence 11) are zeolitized; however, sequence 10 may 
also be extensively zeolitized (10-68 percent zeolite) where the overlying ash flows are poorly 
zeolitized (0-12 percent zeolite at boreholes H-5 and SD-12). In borehole SD-6, however, the 
greater alteration of the bedded tuff in sequence 10 is expressed by a higher smectite abundance 
rather than a difference in zeolitization. Because it more readily alters to sorptive minerals, 
sequence 10 is treated separately from the overlying Calico Hills ash flows in the mineralogic 
model. 
E2.14 SEQUENCE 9: UPPER NONWELDED ZONE OF PROW PASS TUFF (Tcpuv) 
Sequence 9 is vitric in boreholes to the south and west (G-3, H-3, and SD-6), both vitric and 
zeolitic in some transitional areas (H-5 and H-6), and zeolitized in the other boreholes for which 
data are available. In general, the zeolitization of the overlying bedded tuffs (sequence 10) is an 
indication of zeolitization in sequence 9, although the data from SD-6 indicate that the extensive 
formation of smectite (14-17 percent) in sequence 10 is not associated with any alteration in 
sequence 9. In some instances, the depth assignments from the Geologic Framework Model 
version 3.1 placed samples that were zeolitized or glassy and representative of sequence 9 (p#1 
at an elevation of 2,184.7 ft [665.9 m] above msl and H-5 at 2,855.9 ft [870.5 m] above msl) into 
underlying devitrified sequence 8. In these cases, the samples were reassigned to sequence 9 in 
the mineralogic model. 
E2.15 SEQUENCE 8: CENTRAL CRYSTALLINE (NONZEOLITIC) ZONES OF 
PROW PASS TUFF (Tcpuc Tcplc) 
The devitrified central crystalline portions of the Prow Pass Tuff contain feldspar, cristobalite, 
and quartz across most of Yucca Mountain. Tridymite also occurs in boreholes to the south (G-3, 
H-3, and SD-7), where the Prow Pass Tuff is well above the water table. Sequence 8 is generally 
distinguished from the overlying and underlying sequences by the absence of any glass or 
zeolites, although minimal zeolitization (8 percent) may occur in the uppermost part of sequence 
8 (UZ#16) or dispersed throughout (1 to 2 percent at H-3, p#1, and WT-2). The latter effect may 
be a product of sample impurity where cuttings were analyzed. In some instances, the depth 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-7 September 2004 
assignments from the Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 placed samples (a#1 at an 
elevation of 1,883.8 ft [574.2 m] above msl and H-5 at 2,706 ft [824.8 m] above msl) that were 
devitrified (zeolite-free) and representative of sequence 8 into sequence 7 (zeolitic). In these 
cases, the samples were reassigned to sequence 8 in the mineralogic model. 
E2.16 SEQUENCE 7: LOWER NONWELDED PROW PASS TUFF TO UPPER 
NONWELDED BULLFROG TUFF (TcplvTcbuv) 
Sequence 7 is fully zeolitized in all boreholes except at the very top of the sequence in a#1 and 
G-3. In G-3 the remnant glass at the top of sequence 7 occurs well above the water table; in a#1 
the remnant glass at the top of this sequence occurs below the water table. This is a rare instance 
of glass preservation in the saturated zone. The sorptive zeolites in sequence 7 are partially 
supplanted by analcime only in G-2. In some instances, the depth assignments from the 
Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 placed samples that were zeolitized and representative 
of sequence 7 into devitrified sequence 8 (SD-7 at an elevation of 2,604 ft [793.7 m] above msl 
and SD-9 at 2,258 ft [688.4 m] above msl). In these cases, the samples were reassigned to 
sequence 7 in the mineralogic model. In SD-7, two devitrified samples representative of 
sequence 6 (see below) were assigned by the Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 to 
sequence 7 (two samples from SD-7 at 2,292 ft [698.6 m] above msl); these samples were 
reassigned to sequence 6 in the mineralogic model. In one instance, the depth assignments from 
the Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 placed a devitrified sample (H-6 at 2,441.6 ft 
[744.2 m] above msl) into sequence 7. Because this sequence should contain only zeolitic or 
glassy samples, this sample was excluded from the mineralogic model. 
E2.17 SEQUENCE 6: CENTRAL CRYSTALLINE (NONZEOLITIC) ZONES OF 
BULLFROG TUFF (TcbucTcblc) 
The devitrified central crystalline portions of the Prow Pass Tuff contain abundant feldspar and 
quartz. Cristobalite occurs with quartz in G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, H-6, SD-7, and WT-2. Tridymite 
occurs only at the top of sequence 6 in G-3 and at more than one depth in SD-6, in both instances 
well above the water table. Zeolites are absent. In some instances, the depth assignments from 
the Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 placed in sequence 7 samples that were devitrified, 
contained no zeolites, and were representative of sequence 6 (SD-12 at an elevation of 2,193.9 ft 
[668.7 m] and 2,179.4 ft [664.3 m] above msl; and WT-2 at 2,217.8, 2,214.2, and 2,208.6 ft 
[676.0, 674.9, and 673.2 m] above msl). These samples were reassigned to sequence 6 in the 
mineralogic model. 
E2.18 SEQUENCE 5: LOWER NONWELDED BULLFROG TUFF TO UPPER 
NONWELDED TRAM TUFF (TcblvTctuv) 
Sequence 5 is completely zeolitized in all boreholes. The sorptive zeolites, however, are 
partially supplanted by analcime in G-2 and p#1. In some instances, the depth assignments from 
the Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 placed zeolitic or smectite-rich samples that are 
typical of sequence 5 (G-2 at an elevation of 1,643 ft [500.8 m] above msl; and G-3 at 2,307.4 ft 
[703.3 m] above msl) into the adjacent devitrified sequence (sequence 6). In such cases, the 
samples were reassigned to sequence 5 in the mineralogic model. In another instance, the depth 
assignments from the Geologic Framework Model version 3.1 placed samples that were 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-8 September 2004 
zeolitized and representative of sequence 5 into the underlying devitrified sequence 4 (SD-7 at 
1,850.4, 1,822.2, and 1.797.2 ft [564.0, 555.4, and 547.8 m] above msl). In these cases, the 
samples were also reassigned to sequence 5. 
E2.19 SEQUENCE 4: CENTRAL CRYSTALLINE (NONZEOLITIC) ZONES OF 
TRAM TUFF (TctucTctlc) 
The devitrified central crystalline portions of the Tram Tuff contain abundant feldspar and 
quartz. Minor amounts of cristobalite occur in G-1; major amounts of cristobalite occur in G3 
and H-6; and zeolites occur along with the devitrification products in G-3. 
E2.20 SEQUENCE 3: LOWER NONWELDED TRAM TUFF AND UNDERLYING 
BEDDED TUFF (TctlvTctbt) 
Sequence 3 was sampled in G-3, H-6, and p#1 (smectite + sorptive zeolite alteration), in G-1 
(smectite + sorptive zeolite + analcime alteration), and in b#1 and G-2 (smectite + analcime 
alteration). The clays represented by smectite + illite included a significant illite component in 
many of these occurrences. 
E2.21 SEQUENCE 2: UNDIFFERENTIATED LAVAS, FLOW BRECCIAS, BEDDED 
TUFFS, LITHIC RIDGE TUFF, SEDIMENTS, AND TUFF OF YUCCA FLAT 
(Tund) 
Sequence 2 incorporates a highly varied sequence of lithologies. Sorptive zeolites occur in some 
portions of this sequence; however, they are largely supplanted by analcime and authigenic albite 
(authigenic albite is included among the other feldspars in the mineralogic model). 
E2.22 SEQUENCE 1: PALEOZOIC ROCKS 
Paleozoic rocks were sampled only in p#1. These rocks contain no zeolites but do contain 
significant amounts of clay. Although the calcite abundances are low (3-4 percent), these rocks 
are rich in carbonates and contain up to 93 percent dolomite. The mineralogy of the Paleozoic 
sequence was not modeled in the mineralogic model. 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-9 September 2004 
Table E-1. Adjustments to Borehole Sample Elevations 
Borehole 
Original 
Elevation 
(meters 
above msl) 
Modified 
Elevation 
(meters above 
msl) Explanation 
1142.3 1147.0 Too close to boundary 
1114.9 1116.0 Too close to boundary 
860.4 854.0 Too close to boundary 
809.5 806.0 Too close to boundary 
785.4 783.0 Too close to boundary 
778.1 773.0 Too close to boundary 
643.3 637.0 Too close to boundary 
634.8 621.0 Too close to boundary 
574.2 Unchanged Assigned to sequence 7 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
8 
479.7 474.0 Too close to boundary 
a#1 
439.7 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
170.0 172.4 Too close to boundary 
-7.2 -13.0 Too close to boundary 
b#1 
-14.8 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
933.8 932.0 Assigned to sequence 14 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
13, Magic Zone 
G-1 
-496.7 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1318.9 1317.0 Assigned to unit 19 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
18 
1055.6 1048.0 Assigned to sequence 14 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
13, Magic Zone 
500.8 490.0 Assigned to sequence 6 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
5 
-14.3 Removed Spherulite sample not 
included 
G-2 
-272.8 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1420.3 Removed Vein sample 
1349.3 1347.0 Too close to boundary 
1348.9 1346.0 Too close to boundary 
1117.5 Unchanged Assigned to sequence 13 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
14 
1048.7 1047.0 Too close to boundary 
1019.6 1018.0 Too close to boundary 
992.9 Unchanged Assigned to sequence 10 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
9 
703.3 700.0 Assigned to sequence 6 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
5 
G-3 
-48.2 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
869.3 866.5 Assigned to sequence 14 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
13, Magic Zone 
452.6 448.0 Too close to boundary 
404.2 400.0 Too close to boundary 
G-4 
355.4 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
Addition 1054.0 Synthetic sample added to 
provide mineralogy for 
sequence 11 
Sample mineralogy the 
same as average values 
for sequence 11 in G-3 
H-3 
724.2 Unchanged Basal duplicate 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-10 September 2004 
Table E-1. Adjustments to Borehole Sample Elevations (Continued) 
Borehole 
Original 
Elevation 
(meters 
above msl) 
Modified 
Elevation 
(meters above 
msl) Explanation 
759.3 770.0 Too close to boundary 
743.8 741.0 Assigned to sequence 9 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
8 
H-4 
643.5 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1350.6 1353.0 Too close to boundary 
870.5 879.2 Assigned to sequence 8 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
9 
824.8 830.0 Assigned to sequence 7 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
8 
H-5 
788.2 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
744.2 Removed Sample mineralogy indicates 
problems with sample 
location 
H-6 
141.7 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1105.4 1110.0 Too close to boundary NRG-6 
912.1 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1260.5 Removed Sequence 21 does not exist 
in 
MM at this location 
1191.6 1192.0 Too close to boundary 
901.3 Combined Sample at 864.0 
894.0 Combined Sample at 864.0 
887.6 Combined Sample at 864.0 
880.3 Combined Sample at 864.0 
873.8 Combined Sample at 864.0 
867.8 Combined Sample at 864.0 
864.6 Combined Sample at 864.0 
861.6 Combined Sample at 864.0 
857.9 Combined Sample at 864.0 
854.9 Combined Sample at 864.0 
852.7 Combined Sample at 864.0 
Addition 864.0 Average of 11 samples from 
901.3 to 852.7 
852.7 851.0 Assigned to sequence 14 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
13, Magic Zone 
NRG-7a 
821.0 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
734.5 730.0 Too close to boundary 
665.9 668.0 Assigned to sequence 8 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
9 
-128.1 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
-131.1 Removed Sample of Paleozoic Not modeled in MM 
-158.5 Removed Sample of Paleozoic Not modeled in MM 
p#1 
-201.5 Removed Sample of Paleozoic Not modeled in MM 
1369.1 1368.2 Too close to boundary 
1369.0 1368.1 Too close to boundary 
1365.2 1363.7 Too close to boundary 
1364.4 1363.6 Too close to boundary 
1364.1 1363.5 Too close to boundary 
1337.5 1335.0 Assigned to sequence 20 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
18 
1054.2 1055.5 Too close to boundary 
SD-6 
1054.0 1055.4 Too close to boundary 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-11 September 2004 
Table E-1. Adjustments to Borehole Sample Elevations (Continued) 
Borehole 
Original 
Elevation 
(meters 
above msl) 
Modified 
Elevation 
(meters above 
msl) Explanation 
1033.9 1035.0 Too close to boundary 
1020.5 1022.0 Too close to boundary 
974.6 985.0 Too close to boundary 
973.6 984.0 Too close to boundary 
966.3 969.0 Too close to boundary 
844.0 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1245.8 1248.0 Too close to boundary 
1002.8 1003.4 Too close to boundary 
885.4, #1 886.5 Too close to boundary Sample #1 at this 
elevation adjusted 
885.4, #2 Removed Second sample at this depth 
removed 
Fracture sample 
793.7 788.0 Assigned to sequence 8 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
7 
698.6, 
both samples 
693.0 Assigned to sequence 7 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
6 
564.0 570.0 Assigned to sequence 4 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
5 
555.4 569.5 Assigned to sequence 4 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
5 
SD-7 
547.8 569.0 Assigned to sequence 4 by 
GFM3.1; also basal duplicate 
MM assigned to sequence 
5 
1286.1 Removed Breccia sample removed from 
MM 
1283.4 Removed Sequence 21 not present in 
MM 
1281.0 Removed Sequence 21 not present in 
MM 
1219.6 1218.2 Assigned to sequence 19 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
18 
886.8 890.0 Assigned to sequence 13 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
14 
688.4 685.0 Assigned to sequence 8 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
7 
SD-9 
625.3 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1222.8 1224.0 Assigned to sequence 18 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
19 
893.7, 
two samples 
894.4 Too close to boundary 
835.9, #1 837.0 Assigned to sequence 10 by 
GFM3.1 
Two samples at 835.9 
span sequence 11 and 
sequence 10 contact; MM 
assigned top sample to 
sequence 11 
668.7 652.0 Assigned to sequence 7 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
6 
SD-12 
664.3 651.0 Assigned to sequence 7 by 
GFM3.1 and basal duplicate 
MM assigned to sequence 
6 
1344.4 Removed Sequence 22 not present in 
MM 
UZ-14 
1338.9 Removed Sequence 22 not present in 
MM 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-12 September 2004 
Table E-1. Adjustments to Borehole Sample Elevations (Continued) 
Borehole 
Original 
Elevation 
(meters 
above msl) 
Modified 
Elevation 
(meters above 
msl) Explanation 
1263.8 1268.0 Too close to boundary 
1263.1 1267.0 Too close to boundary 
1262.5 1264.0 Too close to boundary 
1206.8 1212.0 Too close to boundary 
996.6 978.6 Too close to boundary 
990.3 978.4 Too close to boundary 
984.4 978.2 Too close to boundary 
959.3 955.0 Assigned to sequence 14 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
13, Magic Zone 
929.5 930.1 Too close to boundary 
917.4 922.2 Too close to boundary 
916.6 922.0 Too close to boundary and 
Basal duplicate 
1147.2 1145.0 Assigned to sequence 19 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
18 
1106.1 1102.0 Too close to boundary 
834.7, #2 Removed Lithic fragment not included in 
MM 
762.2 760.0 Too close to boundary 
UZ#16 
705.8 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1239.3 1266.0 Too close to boundary 
1238.6 1247.4 Too close to boundary 
1237.9 1247.4 Too close to boundary 
1237.1 1247.3 Too close to boundary 
1236.2 1247.1 Too close to boundary 
1235.5 1246.8 Too close to boundary 
1234.7 1241.6 Too close to boundary 
1217.2 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1216.4 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1215.7 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1214.8 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1214.2 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1213.4 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1212.7 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1211.9 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1211.2 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1210.7 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1209.8 1217.3 Too close to boundary 
1209.2 1217.2 Too close to boundary 
UZN-31 
1208.6 Unchanged Basal duplicate 
1236.9 1247.2 Too close to boundary 
1236.1 1247.0 Too close to boundary 
1235.6 1246.9 Too close to boundary 
1234.9 1246.8 Too close to boundary 
1234.2 1246.5 Too close to boundary 
1217.2 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1216.4 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1215.7 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1214.9 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1214.2 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
UZN-32 
1213.4 1217.9 Too close to boundary 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-13 September 2004 
Table E-1. Adjustments to Borehole Sample Elevations (Continued) 
Borehole 
Original 
Elevation 
(meters 
above msl) 
Modified 
Elevation 
(meters above 
msl) Explanation 
1212.8 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1211.9 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1211.1 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1210.4 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1209.5 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1208.8 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1208.0 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1207.3 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1206.5 1217.9 Too close to boundary 
1205.7 1217.1 Too close to boundary 
803.2 Removed Sequence 13 not present in 
MM 
797.1 Removed Sequence 13 not present in 
MM 
791.0 Removed Sequence 13 not present in 
MM 
751.4 767.0 Too close to boundary 
739.2 766.0 Too close to boundary 
Sequence 10 not present 
in MM 
727.0 765.0 Too close to boundary and 
basal duplicate 
WT-1 
720.9 Removed 
676.0 645.0 Assigned to sequence 7 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
6 
674.9 644.0 Assigned to sequence 7 by 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
6 
WT-2 
673.2 643.0 Assigned to sequence 7 by 
GFM3.1 and basal duplicate 
MM assigned to sequence 
6 
WT-24 735.0 Unchanged Assigned to sequence 11 in 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
10 

Mineralogic Model (MM3.0) Report 
MDL-NBS-GS-000003 REV 01 E-14 September 2004 
Table E-1. Adjustments to Borehole Sample Elevations (Continued) 
Borehole 
Original 
Elevation 
(meters 
above msl) 
Modified 
Elevation 
(meters above 
msl) Explanation 
730.2 Unchanged Assigned to sequence 11 in 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
10 
726.5 Unchanged Assigned to sequence 11 in 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
10 
725.5 Unchanged Assigned to sequence 11 in 
GFM3.1 
MM assigned to sequence 
10 
724.7 Unchanged Assigned to sequence 11 in 
GFM3.1 and basal duplicate 
MM assigned to sequence 
10 
NOTES: UZN-31 and UZN-32 were combined into a single borehole in the MM. The assignment of identical 
elevations to multiple samples (e.g., UZN-31 and UZN-32) causes no problems for the STRATAMODEL 
calculation of mineral abundances. There are several occurrences of two analyzed samples with the same 
elevation; they are referred to as #1 and #2, according to the order in which they are presented in the table. 
Addition = A sample at H-3 in the Tac was added, with mineralogy derived from the results of Tac in G-3. A sample 
at NRG-7a in Tptpln was added; it was derived from the average of 11 samples within Tptpln in NRG-7a. 
Assigned to sequence = Sample elevation adjusted (or in some cases not adjusted) to assign sample to a different 
mineralogic-stratigraphic sequence on the basis of sample mineralogy. 
Basal duplicate = The basal sample in all boreholes is duplicated per STRATAMODEL requirements. 
Combined = Eleven samples in NRG-7a, all from Tptpln, were averaged as a single sample located at 864.0 meters 
within Tptpln. 
GFM = geologic framework model 
Magic Zone = Refers to highly altered, smectite-rich samples occurring near the contact of Tptpln and Tptpv3. Such 
samples were assigned to the Tptpv3 sequence in the MM. 
MM = mineralogic model 
msl = mean sea level 
Removed = Some samples of fracture minerals, lithic fragments, etc. that are included in the technical database 
were not included in the MM. 
Too close to boundary = Sample elevation adjusted to keep samples in the correct mineralogic-stratigraphic 
sequence. 
Sequence x not present in MM = In some places, a stratigraphic sequence pinches out in the vicinity of a borehole 
and is not present in the MM.