Hydrogeologic Framework Model for the Saturated Zone Site Scale Flow and Transport Model REV 00, ICN 00

MDL-NBS-HS-000024
 
November 2004


1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this report is to document the 19-unit, hydrogeologic framework model (19-layer 
version, output of this report) (HFM-19) with regard to input data, modeling methods, 
assumptions, uncertainties, limitations, and validation of the model results in accordance with 
AP-SIII.10Q, Models. 
The HFM-19 is developed as a conceptual model of the geometric extent of the hydrogeologic 
units at Yucca Mountain and is intended specifically for use in the development of the Saturated 
Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]). Primary inputs to this model report 
include the GFM 3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]), borehole lithologic 
logs, geologic maps, geologic cross sections, water level data, topographic information, and 
geophysical data as discussed in Section 4.1. Figure 1-1 shows the information flow among all 
of the saturated zone (SZ) reports and the relationship of this conceptual model in that flow. The 
HFM-19 is a three-dimensional (3-D) representation of the hydrogeologic units surrounding the 
location of the Yucca Mountain geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level 
radioactive waste. 
The HFM-19 represents the hydrogeologic setting for the Yucca Mountain area that covers 
about 1,350 km2 and includes a saturated thickness of about 2.75 km. The boundaries of the 
conceptual model (shown in Figure 1-2) were primarily chosen to be coincident with grid cells in 
the Death Valley regional groundwater flow model (DTN: GS960808312144.003 
[DIRS 105121]) such that the base of the site-scale SZ flow model is consistent with the base of 
the regional model (2,750 meters below a smoothed version of the potentiometric surface), 
encompasses the exploratory boreholes, and provides a framework over the area of interest for 
groundwater flow and radionuclide transport modeling. In depth, the model domain extends 
from land surface to the base of the regional groundwater flow model (DAgnese et al. 1997 
[DIRS 100131], p 2). For the site-scale SZ flow model, the HFM-19 is clipped, reducing the 
vertical extent to the interpreted top of the water table. 
The HFM-19 grid consists of a rectangular array of nodes with a spacing of 125 meters discussed 
in Sections 4.1, 5, and 6.3, and this selection simplifies the available data near the repository and 
extrapolates from very widely spaced data in other areas of the model domain. The HFM-19 is 
assembled by using geometric gridding techniques and software (described in Sections 3 and 6.3) 
to fill the domain area with 3-D elements corresponding to the 19 hydrogeologic units of interest. 
The HFM-19 is limited by simplifications that accommodate computer mapping, framework 
modeling, and modeling limitations and contains an inherent level of uncertainty that is a 
function of data distribution and geologic complexity. Uncertainty and limitations are discussed 
in Section 6.4 and model validation is discussed in Section 7. 
The HFM-19 provides the hydrogeologically defined internal geometry for SZ flow and transport 
process models, which was used to assign unit numbers to nodes in a mesh for use in site-scale 
SZ flow and transport models. The Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]) directly uses the output of this report to provide the spatial boundaries for each 
of the hydrogeologic units. 

This model report is consistent with the definition of a conceptual model found in Section 3.9 of 
AP-SIII.10Q: 
Model, ConceptualA set of hypotheses consisting of assumptions, 
simplifications, and conceptualizations that describes the essential aspects of a 
system, process, or phenomenon [Quality Assurance Requirements and 
Description] (QARD). Such a model may consist of concepts related to 
geometrical elements of the object (size or shape); dimensionality (1-, 2-, or 3-D); 
time dependence (steady-state or transient); applicable conservation principles 
(mass, momentum, energy); applicable constitutive relations, significant 
processes, natural laws, and boundary conditions; and initial conditions. 
Conceptual models may be implemented into mathematical models. 
Parameters used in the other technical products include permeability, porosity, flowing interval 
spacing, distribution coefficients, and many others. The HFM-19 does not generate any of these 
parameter values. Rather, it provides a static 3-D; simplified conceptual model with geometric 
elements that represent the location of 19 differentiated hydrogeologic units in the SZ site-scale 
model domain. The hydrogeologic framework model (HFM) is a conceptual model because 
parameter values in the other technical products can be adjusted on a node-by-node or zonal 
basis as required in the specific technical product. For example, permeability zones can be 
created within a single hydrogeologic unit as necessary to represent the permeability data to 
reproduce observed water levels during model simulations. In this example, the HFM 
conceptual model provides the initial spatial bounds for the permeability parameter assigned and 
later modified or adjusted in the flow model analysis. 
This version of the report supercedes the analysis report, Hydrogeologic Framework Model for 
the Saturated-Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model (USGS 2003 [DIRS 165176]), and 
documents the activities in accordance with the Technical Work Plan for: Natural 
System - Saturated Zone Analysis and Model Report Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421], 
Section 2.1.1.1). Activities include regulatory, technical integration and data compliance issues 
in order to address Regulatory Integration Team evaluation comments. Specifically, this report: 
 
Documents the development of the HFM-19 as a conceptual model (Section 6), and 
clarifies that the numerical implementation of the HFM-19 is part of the validation of the 
site-scale SZ groundwater flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) 
 
Expands on the discussions in its predecessor report related to the: (1) adequacy, 
methodology, and data used during model development, and (2) justification of results 
(Sections 4.1 and 6) 
 
Includes discussion on its role in supporting arguments for related features, events, and 
processes (FEPs) (Section 6.2) that are identified in Table 2-1 of the technical work plan 
(TWP) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]) 
 
Expands the discussions of uncertainty and model limitations by documenting the 
inter-relationships among the HFM-19 and input models and any impacts of updates to 
these input models (i.e., geologic framework model (updated model discussed in this 
report) (GFM2000)), and evaluates the impact of new Nye County and Yucca Mountain 

borehole data that has been collected since initial issue of the predecessor analysis report 
in USGS (2003 [DIRS 165176]). 
The TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421], Section 3.5) lists requirement number PRD-002/T-014 
Performance Objectives for the Geologic Repository after Permanent Closure that is not 
addressed in the report. The performance objectives defined in 10 CFR 63.113 (10 CFR Part 63 
[DIRS 156605]) are related to the engineered barrier system and the human intrusion scenario. 
The engineered barrier system and human intrusion may include aspects of the geologic 
framework model, but are not directly related to the HFM-19 defined in this report. Thus, 
requirement number PRD-002/T-014, identified generically in the TWP (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421], Section 3.5), is not addressed in this report. 
NOTE This figure is a simplified representation of the flow of information among SZ reports. See the Document 
Input Reference System of each report for a complete listing of data and parameter inputs. This figure does 
not show inputs external to this suite of SZ reports. 
1-D=one-dimensional; SZ=saturated zone 
Figure 1-1. Relationships and Flow of Key Information among Reports Pertaining to Flow and Transport 
in the Saturated Zone 

DTN: GS010908314221.001 [DIRS 162874]. 
NOTE: The blue rectangle boundary labeled Site-Model Boundary is the site-scale SZ flow and transport models 
domain boundary. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator. 
Figure 1-2. Location Map of the Saturated Zone Site-scale Study Area and Associated Geographic 
Features 

2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
Development of this model report and the supporting modeling activities is subject to the Yucca 
Mountain Project (YMP) quality assurance program, as indicated in the Technical Work Plan 
for: Natural System - Saturated Zone Analysis and Model Report Integration (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421], Section 8), Work Package ARTM01. Approved quality assurance procedures 
identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421], Section 4) have been used to conduct and 
document the activities described in this model report. The TWP also identifies the methods 
used to control the electronic management of data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421], Section 8). 
This model report provides a conceptual framework for hydrologic units as part of the lower 
natural barrier that is important to the demonstration of compliance with the postclosure 
performance objectives prescribed in 10 CFR 63.113 (10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605]). 
Therefore, it is classified on the Q-List (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361]) as SC (Safety Category), 
reflecting its importance to waste isolation, as defined in AP-2.22Q, Classification Analyses and 
Maintenance of the Q-List. This report contributes to the analysis and modeling data used to 
support postclosure performance assessment; the conclusions do not directly impact preclosure 
engineered features important to safety, as defined in AP-2.22Q. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
The development of the HFM from input data to a 3-D volume-filled map representing these data 
use software designed specifically for use in visualizing data for subsurface geology. Software 
codes obtained from Software Configuration Management and used to support model 
development are shown in Table 3-1. These software codes were considered appropriate for the 
application, and were used only within their range of validation. 
3.1 SOFTWARE TRACKED BY CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT 
Petrosys V7.60d, STN: 10168-7.60d-00 (USGS 2001 [DIRS 148306]) has the ability to create 
regularly spaced grids from data representing irregularly spaced data points and can incorporate 
offsets in regularly spaced grids across faults. Petrosys was used to create structure contour 
maps to represent the tops of hydrogeologic units and the potentiometric surface. ERMA Site 
Geologist V6.0.1, STN: 10210-6.01-00 (USGS 2001 [DIRS 148986]) was used to evaluate data 
and tie cross section tops to the database of grid files. Stratamodel V4.1.1, 
STN: 10121-SAP-4.1.1-00 (USGS 2000 [DIRS 148985]) was used to consolidate the 19 model 
units, associated surfaces, and data files. These software codes were used for the Death Valley 
regional groundwater model studies, and the Stratamodel output files were converted for use by 
the flow model codes, which helped to provide consistency among the SZ hydrologic framework 
and flow models. Usage and limitations of the software are described during the explanation of 
HFM-19 development and methods in Section 6.3. 
Discrepancies between the installation of these software and their baseline dates occur because 
these software were used for model development prior to qualification completion. An impact 
analysis was conducted as part of the Site Recommendation inclusion process for Pre-Process 
Validation and Reengineering software and the appropriate documents are listed with discussion 
of each of the software used. 
Table 3-1. Software Used to Support Model Development 
Software Computer Platform, 
Software Name 
and Version 
Tracking 
Number 
Operating System, 
Compiler Description 
Petrosys V7.60da STN: 
10168-7.60d-00 
[DIRS 148306] 
Windows NT Workstation 
V.4 CPU ID#: 
15409290306 Location: 
San Diego Projects 
Office, USGS/WRD, San 
Diego, CA 
This software was used for gridding, 
contouring, plotting, and visualization of the 
data and for evaluation of results. 
ERMA Site STN: Windows NT Workstation This software was used for subsurface 
Geologist V6.0.1b 10210-6.0.1-00 
[DIRS 148986] 
V. 4 CPU ID#: 
15409290306 Location: 
San Diego Projects 
Office, USGS/WRD, San 
Diego, CA 
geological studies including data analysis, 
interpretation, gridding, and presentation 
functions. Tasks include creating, and 
manipulating 2-D and 3-D cross sections; 
posting data with attribute symbology; 
generating boring logs; and posting cross 
section horizons to maps. 

Table 3-1. Software Used to Support Model Development (Continued) 
Software Name 
Software 
Tracking 
Computer Platform, 
Operating System, 
and Version Number Compiler Description 
Stratamodel 
V4.1.1 c 
STN: 
10121-4.1.1-00 
SGI Indigo 2 IRIX 6.5 
Workstation CPU ID#: 
This software was used for consolidating the 
19 model units, associated surfaces, and 
[DIRS 148985] 15409290306 
Location: San Diego 
Projects Office, 
USGS/WRD, San Diego, 
CA 
data files. The final output file represents the 
3-D HFM-19 and used for visualization for 
this document. 
a 
Petrosys V7.60d was qualified and baselined 09/27/01. After qualification in September 2001, Rev 00 ICN 02 
(USGS 2003 [DIRS 165176]) of the report was developed and approved and the comparison confirmation 
methodologies (CCM) was performed and evaluated with no impact. The final qualification activity closed this 
issue for Site Recommendation. This software is considered adequate for License Application. See USGS 
(2003 [DIRS 171365]). 
b 
ERMA Site Geologist V6.0.1 was qualified and baselined 09/24/01. After qualification in September 2001, 
Rev 00 ICN 02 (USGS 2003 [DIRS 165176]) of the report was developed and approved and the CCM was 
performed and evaluated with no impact. The final qualification activity closed this issue for Site 
Recommendation. This software is considered adequate for License Application. See USGS (2003 
[DIRS 171366]). 
c 
Stratamodel V4.1.1 was in use before becoming fully qualified and baselined on 07/12/00. A comparison of 
unqualified and qualified software output was performed. No differences were found. All previous output 
generated from use of Stratamodel V4.1.1 prior to qualification was found acceptable. This software is 
considered adequate for license application. See USGS (2000 [DIRS 171368]). 
2-D=two-dimensional; 3-D=three-dimensional; CA=California; CCM=comparison confirmation methodologies; 
CPU=central processing unit; HFM=hydrogeologic framework model (19-layer version); ID=identification; 
STN=software tracking number; USGS=U.S. Geological Survey; WRD=Water Resources Division. 
3.2 EXEMPT SOFTWARE 
Commercial, off-the-shelf software used in support of this conceptual model is exempt from the 
requirements of LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management, but meets the acceptance criteria of 
being able to correctly maintain and produce grids and analysis results suitable for incorporation 
into this report. 
ARC/INFO V7.2.1 (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 157019]) is commercially available and 
exempt software manufactured by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ARC/INFO 
was used on a PC with Windows NT 4 operating system. It was used with standard functions for 
data maintenance and analysis, coordinate translation, plotting, and visualization of results for 
use in this document. As ARC/INFO is a commercial-off-the-shelf product and cannot be 
altered, the executable used on an interim unqualified basis is identical to the executable, which 
was qualified. No further confirmation or comparison is necessary (see Software Activity Plan 
for ARC/INFO V7.2.1 (BSC 2002 [DIRS 171369])). 

4. INPUTS 
4.1 DIRECT INPUT 
Data feeds to the HFM-19 include borehole lithologic logs, geologic maps, geologic cross 
sections, topographic information, geophysical data, and the geologic framework model 
GFM 3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]). In addition, geologic cross 
sections developed for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Restoration 
Program (ERP) for the Nevada Test Site (DTN: MO0106STRATHFM.024 [DIRS 155585]) are 
used as input data. The lower boundary of the HFM-19 was selected to be consistent with the 
lower boundary of the Death Valley regional groundwater flow model (DAgnese 
et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131], pp. 2 and 75). The potentiometric surface 
(DTN: GS000508312332.001 [DIRS 149947]) as documented in Water-Level Data Analysis for 
the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170009]), was used 
as a clipping surface to form the top of the HFM-19. These data constitute a necessary and 
sufficient data set with which to represent the 3-D conceptual model at the designated scale of 
resolution required for the flow and transport models. On this basis, these data were determined 
to be adequately justified for their intended use in the site-scale SZ flow and transport models. 
The selection of these data and groupings of the hydrogeologic units are addressed in 
Section 6.1. The accuracy and adequacy of these data are discussed in the following sections. 
The primary input data for the HFM-19 are stratigraphic contact data from boreholes, geologic 
cross sections, GFM 3.1, and the geologic map of the Yucca Mountain region, as listed in 
Table 4-1. The general locations of these input data for the site-scale SZ flow and transport 
model domain and encompassing regional area are shown in map view in Figure 4-1. The faults 
and hydrogeologic units that outcrop (at ground surface) in the site-scale model area are shown 
in Figure 4-2. Direct input data sets and associated data tracking numbers (DTNs) are listed in 
Table 4-1; the qualification status of the input sources are indicated in the Automated Technical 
Data Tracking database. The Data Qualification Report: Stratigraphic Data Supporting the 
Hydrogeologic Framework Model for Use on the Yucca Mountain Project (Wilson 2001 
[DIRS 155614]) qualifies and provides analysis for hundreds of stratigraphic data points used as 
inputs for the HFM-19. 
For each data set listed in Table 4-1, there is a description, associated DTN, and records package, 
if applicable. The direct input data are listed as DTNs in the second column along with their 
associated records package. The description for correlating data lithology to the appropriate 
HFM-19 hydrogeologic unit is listed in the table with two primary sources, the Final Scientific 
Notebook, SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453]), and the data qualification 
report by Wilson (2001 [DIRS 155614]). The general correlation of source lithology to HFM-19 
hydrogeology is given in Table 6-1 and the specific GFM 3.1 geologic unit correlation is given 
in Table 4-2. At times, the Wilson report and scientific notebooks refer to data by its author 
name; these are included in Table 4-1 along with the data descriptions. The affected unit for 
each data set is included in the last column of Table 4-1. The unit names correspond with the 
unit names as used in Table 2 of the Wilson report (note that the Wilson report names the lower 
volcanic confining unit as MVCU, and the older volcanic confining unit as LCVU). Appendix A 
has corresponding information and contains the direct input data listed in Table 4-1 organized by 
the HFM-19 unit they were used for. 

The lithologic correlation to HFM-19 units is given in general in Table 6-2 and specific to the 
GFM 3.1 in Table 4-2. 
Table 4-1. Input Data, Sources, and HFM-19 Unit Tops Directly Supported by Data 
Item 
Data Description 
and Source 
References* 
Direct Input 
DTN 
and Records Package 
Correlation of Data 
to HFM-19 Units* 
Affected 
Units 
(Wilson 
unit ID) 
1 Geologic Framework 
Model GFM 3.1 
(BSC 2001 
[DIRS 154622]) 
MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
(see Appendix B1 for the 
justification of the use of 
data) 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 16, and 56-66, Appendix C 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp, 
Tcb, Tct), 
MVCU 
2 Digital Elevation 
Model, (Turner et al, 
1996 [DIRS 171658]) 
GS000400002332.001 
[DIRS 148924] 
MOY-000242-15-02 
ACC MOL.20041013.0268 
(Death Valley East) 
N/A, 
used as top surface and to tie 
data to surface 
Alluvium, 
Playas, 
Amarls, 
Basalts, 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp, 
Tcb, Tct), 
MVCU, 
LVA, 
LVCU, 
Leaky, 
UCA, 
UCCU, 
LCA, 
LCA-T2, 
LCCU, 
Granites 
3 Water-level data 
analysis for the 
saturated zone site-
scale flow and 
transport model 
(USGS 2001 
[DIRS 154625]) 
GS000508312332.001 
[DIRS 149947] 
N/A, 
Used as truncating top surface 
for clipped version of HFM-19 
N/A 
Used to 
clip the 
model top 
for clipped 
version of 
HFM-19 
4 Geologic Map and 
Cross sections of the 
Yucca Mountain 
Region By Potter et 
al. (2002 
[DIRS 160060], Map 
I-2755) 
GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 242 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 20, 30, and 56 to 66, 
Appendix D-1 
Alluvium, 
Playas, 
Basalts, 
UVCU, 
UVA, LVA 
(Tcp, Tcb, 
Tct), LVCU, 
MVCU, 
Leaky, 
UCCU, 
LCA, 
LCA-T2, 
LCCU, 
Granites 
5 Yucca Mountain 
Project (YMP) 
Borehole Locations 
MO9906GPS98410.000 
[DIRS 109059] 
N/A, 
These x, y coordinates update 
various well locations 
N/A, 
No lithology 
in this data 
set. 

Table 4-1. Input Data, Sources, and HFM-19 Unit Tops Directly Supported by Data (Continued) 
Item 
Data Description 
and Source 
References* 
Direct Input 
DTN 
and Records Package 
Correlation of Data 
to HFM-19 Units* 
Affected 
Units 
(Wilson 
unit ID) 
6 Locations for the 
Felderhoff 5-1 and 
25-1 boreholes 
MO0007BLFHF525.000 
[DIRS 152892] 
N/A, 
Only x, y locations data used 
N/A, 
No lithology 
in this data 
set 
7 Lithologic data for 
Felderhoff 5-1 
borehole By Carr et 
al. 1995 
[DIRS 104671] 
MO0007LLGLOG51.000 
[DIRS 152894] 
MOY-001110-12-03 
ACC: MOL.20001114.0019 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p 31, 34-35, Appendix 
Table B-1 
Basalts, 
Leaky, LCA 
8 Lithologic data for 
Felderhoff 25-1 
borehole By Carr et 
al. 1995 
[DIRS 104671] 
MO0007LGLOG251.000 
[DIRS 152893] 
MOY-001110-12-04 
ACC: MOL.20001114.0021 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p 31, 34-35, Appendix Table 
B-1 
Basalts, 
Leaky, LCA 
9 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW 
UZ-N62 By Geslin et 
al. 1995 
[DIRS 103330] 
GS940208314211.002 
[DIRS 145577] 
MOY-000329-10-01 
ACC: NNA.19940323.0352 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
10 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW 
UZ-N27 By Geslin et 
al. 1995 
[DIRS 103330] 
GS940208314211.004 
[DIRS 145579] 
MOY-000518-01-03 
ACC: NNA.19940414.0082 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
11 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW 
UZ-N34 By Geslin et 
al. 1995 
[DIRS 103330] 
GS950108314211.009 
[DIRS 152556] 
MOY-000518-01-03 
ACC: MOL.19960219.0177 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
12 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW 
UZ-N35 By Geslin et 
al. 1995 
[DIRS 103330] 
GS940208314211.007 
[DIRS 155533] 
MOY-000303-04-15 
ACC: NNA.19940414.0078 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
13 Lithologic data for 
boreholes USW 
UZ-N57, -N58, -N59, 
and N61 By Geslin 
et al. 1995 
[DIRS 103330] 
GS940208314211.008 
[DIRS 145581] 
MOY-000807-02-17 
ACC: NNA.19940323.0344 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
14 Lithologic data for 
borehole UE-25 
UZN#63 By YMP 
1993 [DIRS 171575] 
GS940308314211.017 
[DIRS 155534] 
MOY-000518-01-01 
ACC: MOL.19941101.0064 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
15 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW 
UZ-N36 By YMP 
1992 [DIRS 171575] 
GS940308314211.018 
[DIRS 145589] 
MO-000322-17-05 
ACC: MOL.19941101.0062 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 

Table 4-1. Input Data, Sources, and HFM-19 Unit Tops Directly Supported by Data (Continued) 
Item 
Data Description 
and Source 
References* 
Direct Input 
DTN 
and Records Package 
Correlation of Data 
to HFM-19 Units* 
Affected 
Units 
(Wilson 
unit ID) 
16 Lithologic data for 
boreholes USW 
UZ-N15, -N16, 
and -N17 By YMP 
1993 [DIRS 171575] 
GS940308314211.019 
[DIRS 145591] 
MOY-000228-09-05 
ACC: MOL.19941101.0061 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
17 Lithologic data for 
USGS NWIS 
database boreholes 
See Appendix A for 
specific names 
MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 51 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table B-1 
UVA, 
UCCU 
18 Lithologic data for 
RF boreholes See 
Appendix A for 
specific names. 
By Gibson et al. 
1992 [DIRS 102323] 
MO0106STRATHFM.002 
[DIRS 155537] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 82 and 83, Appendix Table 
C-1 
UVA 
19 Lithologic data for 
Water resource 
wells See Appendix 
A for specific 
names. 
MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
MOY-010717-04-01 
ACC: MOL.20010725.0225 
and JOL.20010725.0225 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
pp. 90 and 92 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 19, 84 to 89, Appendix B, 
Table B-1 
Amarls, 
Leaky, LCA 
20 Lithologic data for 
boreholes USW G-3 
and USW GU-3 By 
Scott and 
Castellanos 1984 
[DIRS 101291] 
MO0106STRATHFM.004 
[DIRS 155539] 
MOY-010717-04-01 
ACC: MOL.20010725.0225 
and JOL.20010725.0225 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Table C-1, C-2, and 
C-3 C-5 and C-6 (for G-3) 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp), 
MVCU, 
LVA 
21 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW 
UZ-13 By Kume and 
Hammermeister 
1991 [DIRS 171582] 
MO0106STRATHFM.005 
[DIRS 155540] 
MOY-000303-04-15 
ACC: NNA.19940414.0078 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 82, Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
22 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW UZ-7 
By Kume and 
Hammermeister 
1991 [DIRS 171582] 
MO0106STRATHFM.006 
[DIRS 155541] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: MOL.20010731.0029 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 82, Appendix Table C-1 
UVA 
23 Lithologic data for 
borehole UE-25 
JF#3 By Plume and 
La Camera 1996 
[DIRS 141659] 
MO0106STRATHFM.007 
[DIRS 155542] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: MOL.20010731.0030 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 21 to 25, 89 to 90, 
Appendix Table B-1 
UVA, 
UVCU 
24 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW VH-1 
By Carr 1982 
[DIRS 101519] 
MO0106STRATHFM.008 
[DIRS 155543] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: NNA.19870518.0057 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 21 to 27, 90 to 91, 
Appendix Table B-1 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp, 
Tcb) 
25 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW VH-2 
By Carr and Parrish 
1985 [DIRS 101093] 
MO0106STRATHFM.009 
[DIRS 155544] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: HQS.19880517.1918 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-27, 90-91, Appendix 
Table B-1 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp, 
Tcb) 

Table 4-1. Input Data, Sources, and HFM-19 Unit Tops Directly Supported by Data (Continued) 
Item 
Data Description 
and Source 
References* 
Direct Input 
DTN 
and Records Package 
Correlation of Data 
to HFM-19 Units* 
Affected 
Units 
(Wilson 
unit ID) 
26 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW H-1 
By Rush et al. 1983 
[DIRS 107944] 
MO0106STRATHFM.028 
[DIRS 155589] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: NNA.19870519.0103 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Tables C-1, C-2, 
C-3, C-5, and C-6 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp), 
MVCU, 
LVA 
27 Lithologic data for 
borehole UE-25 p#1 
By Carr et al. 1986 
[DIRS 102046] 
MO0106STRATHFM.029 
[DIRS 155590] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: HQS.19880517.2633 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Tables C-1, C-2, 
C-3, C-5, and C-6 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp), 
MVCU, 
LVA, 
OVCU, 
LCA 
28 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW G-1 
By Spengler et al. 
1981 [DIRS 101297] 
MO0106STRATHFM.030 
[DIRS 155591] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: NNA.19870406.0222 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Tables C-1, C-2, 
C-3, C-5, and C-6 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp), 
MVCU, 
LVA 
29 Lithologic data for 
borehole USW G-2 
By Maldonado and 
Koether 1983 
[DIRS 101805] 
MO0106STRATHFM.031 
[DIRS 155592] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: NNA.19870506.0143 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
Appendix Tables C-1, C-2, 
C-3, C-5, and C-6 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp), 
MVCU, 
LVA 
30 Cross sections from 
Swadley and Carr, 
1987 [DIRS 101300] 
MO0106STRATHFM.010 
[DIRS 155545] TIC: 203089 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 5 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 20-22, Appendix Table-D-1 
Basalts, 
UVA, LVA 
(Tcp, Tcb) 
31 Cross sections from 
Maldonado, 1985 
[DIRS 104160] 
MO0106STRATHFM.011 
[DIRS 155546] TIC: 203087 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 4 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 20-22, Appendix Table D-1 
Basalts, 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp), 
MVCU, 
LVCU, 
UCCU 
32 Cross sections from 
McKay and Sargent 
1970 [DIRS 155611] 
MO0106STRATHFM.012 
[DIRS 155572] TIC: 212447 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 12 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA, LVA 
(Tcp) 
33 Cross sections from 
Sargent et al. 1970 
[DIRS 155615] 
MO0106STRATHFM.013 
[DIRS 155573] TIC: 212446 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 12 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp, 
Tcb, Tct), 
Leaky, LCA 
34 Cross sections from 
Orkild and OConner 
1970 [DIRS 106459] 
MO0106STRATHFM.014 
[DIRS 155755] TIC: 212359 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 11 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU 

Table 4-1. Input Data, Sources, and HFM-19 Unit Tops Directly Supported by Data (Continued) 
Item 
Data Description 
and Source 
References* 
Direct Input 
DTN 
and Records Package 
Correlation of Data 
to HFM-19 Units* 
Affected 
Units 
(Wilson 
unit ID) 
35 Cross sections from 
McKay and Williams 
1964 [DIRS 155612] 
MO0106STRATHFM.015 
[DIRS 155574] TIC: 212351 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 8 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 21, 22, and 32, Appendix 
Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LCA-t2, 
UCCU 
36 Cross sections from 
Lipman and McKay 
1965 [DIRS 104158] 
MO0106STRATHFM.016 
[DIRS 155575] TIC: 212352 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 8 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU 
37 Cross sections from 
Christiansen and 
Lipman (1965 
[DIRS 100566]) 
MO0106STRATHFM.017 
[DIRS 155610] TIC: 212357 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 9 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU 
38 Cross section from 
Byers et al. 1976 
[DIRS 103624] 
MO0106STRATHFM.018 
[DIRS 155579] TIC: 204573 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 4 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU 
39 Cross sections from 
Frizzell and Shulters 
1990 [DIRS 105454] 
MO0106STRATHFM.019 
[DIRS 155580] TIC: 200459 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 6 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp), 
MVCU, 
LVCU 
40 Cross section from 
Young 1972 
[DIRS 103023] 
MO0106STRATHFM.020 
[DIRS 155581] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: NNA.19870519.0070 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 14 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA 
41 Cross sections from 
USGS 1984 
[DIRS 101305] 
MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: NNA.19891009.0305 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 94 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp), 
MVCU, 
LVCU, 
Leaky, 
LCAt2, 
UCCU, 
LCA, LCCU 
42 Cross sections from 
Faulds et al. 1994 
[DIRS 105126] 
MO0106STRATHFM.022 
[DIRS 155583] TIC: 211484 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 95 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 20-22, Appendix Table D-1 
Basalts, 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVA (Tcp, 
Tcb, Tct) 
43 Cross sections from 
Moench 1965 
[DIRS 155613] 
MO0106STRATHFM.023 
[DIRS 155584] TIC: 250152 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 94 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 21, 22, and 36, Appendix 
Table D-1 
UVA, LCA, 
LCCU, 
UCCU 
44 Cross sections from 
NTS ERP 
DTN: GS000400002 
332.002 
[DIRS 149021] 
MO0106STRATHFM.024 
[DIRS 155585] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: MOL.20000619.0540 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 129-130 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 21-22, Appendix Table D-1 
UCA, 
UCCU, 
LCA, LCCU 

Table 4-1. Input Data, Sources, and HFM-19 Unit Tops Directly Supported by Data (Continued) 
Item 
Data Description 
and Source 
References* 
Direct Input 
DTN 
and Records Package 
Correlation of Data 
to HFM-19 Units* 
Affected 
Units 
(Wilson 
unit ID) 
45 Seismic refraction 
profiles from Oliver 
et al. 1995 
[DIRS 106447] 
MO0106STRATHFM.025 
[DIRS 155586] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: MOL.19980305.0122 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 131 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 33 to 34 
LCA 
46 Resistivity soundings 
from Greenhaus and 
Zablocki 1982 
[DIRS 105144]) 
MO0106STRATHFM.026 
[DIRS 155587] 
MOY-010731-30-01 
ACC: HQS.19880517.2687, 
Figure 2. 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 101 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 92 
LCA 
47 Cross sections from 
Scott and Bonk 1984 
[DIRS 104181] 
GS930283117461.001 
[DIRS 107027] 
MOY-940125-02-18 
ACC: HQS.19880517.1443 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 15 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 21 to 22, Appendix 
Table D-1 
UVA, 
UVCU, 
LVCU 
48 Regional 
Geophysical Lines 2 
and 3 from Brocher 
Brocher et al. 1996 
[DIRS 101495], 
Figures 16 and 17 
(see Appendix B, Section 
B.2 for the justification for 
use of data) 
Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
pp. 129 to 130 
Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], 
pp. 21 to 22, Appendix 
Table D-1 
LCA 
NOTE: Shorthand used: Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453] = SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 by Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614] = Data Qualification Report: Stratigraphic Data 
Supporting the HFM for Use on the YMP, by Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614]. 
* These columns are for informational purposes and are considered indirect input. 
DTN=data tracking number; ERP=Environmental Restoration Program; GFM=geologic framework model; 
HFM=hydrogeologic framework model (19 layer version); ID=identification; N/A=not applicable; NTS=Nevada 
Test Site; RF=repository facilities; USGS=U.S. Geological Survey; YMP=Yucca Mountain Project. 
4.1.1 Accuracy and Appropriateness of Use 
The HFM-19 was developed between 1990 and 2000. During this time, the identification of 
hydrogeologic units and data appropriate for the SZ flow and transport models evolved in 
definition and increased accuracy in response to analysis, evaluations, and availability of new 
data. The development of the HFM-19 is documented in the scientific notebook 
SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453]). The accuracy and appropriateness of 
the HFM-19 is achieved and documented in the scientific notebook as an iterative process. This 
process includes the steps of data acquisition, data analysis, two-dimensional (2-D) and 3-D 
gridding results, and evaluation of units representing the framework model. Each iteration is 
documented in the scientific notebook (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453]) by evaluation and review. 
The reviewers include management (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], pp. 39, 71, 89, 103, 156, 175, 
187), experts in field (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], pp. 107 to 109, 110, 281 to 282), the SZ flow 
modelers (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], pp. 161 to 172, 240 to 241), and YMP Branch data 
submittal (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], pp. 215 to 222), each followed by review responses and 
another iteration until completion. The accuracy and uncertainty of the resulting HFM-19 
depends on the accuracy of the data points used to identify top of units (discussed in this 
section), the software and methods used to interpolate and fill space between data points 

(discussed in Sections 3 and 6.3), and the grouping of stratigraphic units into hydrogeologic units 
(Section 6.1). The level of acceptable accuracy and the appropriateness is determined by the 
requirements of the flow model including domain size, resolution, and selection of units and 
features relevant to flow, and grid definitions as discussed in Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]), Sections 6.3 and 6.5, respectively. Accuracy checks and 
qualification efforts after the HFM-19 was clipped and used in the flow and transport models do 
not pertain to the HFM-19 elements above the water table that were removed and not used. 
4.1.1.1 HFM Cell Resolution 
The HFM-19 has grid cells of 125 meters on a side and variable vertical thickness as defined by 
the unit surfaces. This relatively small grid spacing over such a large area is predicated by flow 
model constraints requiring an equal or finer resolution of input than the computational flow grid 
using it, in order to be represented accurately. Tests conducted to determine an adequate 
resolution for computational flow (Bower et al. 2000 [DIRS 149161]) have shown that 
the 500-meter resolution used in the base-case model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) is sufficient to 
represent the stratigraphy accurately. Though the 125-meter resolution is not necessarily 
consistent with the resolution of geologic data, especially in areas outside the immediate site area 
or deep in the model, the 125-meter spacing does allow the location of faults at a greater 
accuracy than required by the flow model with the 500-meter spacing (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037], Section 6.5.3.2). In many areas, the geologic data are not detailed enough to 
support the 125-meter grid resolution. The result is a smoothly interpreted or interpolated 
surface at a resolution that is finer than required by the geologic data. This finer resolution does 
not add additional error to the gridding process. The resolution is too coarse to represent 
accurately some features such as faults, but provides enough detail to capture fault-induced 
truncation of hydrogeologic units by representing faults as planar interfaces between units 
(Section 5, Assumption 3). Both maps and cross sections were used to locate and incorporate 
chosen faults. The coverage of the input data over the site-scale and regional domains are shown 
in Figure 4-1. The process of building the HFM-19 from these data, and how these data were 
selected, is described in Section 6. 
4.1.1.2 Geologic Framework Model (GFM 3.1) 
As shown in Figure 4-1, the GFM 3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]) 
domain lies well within the HFM-19 domain and involves only the top units, from the lower 
volcanic aquifer, up to the upper volcanic confining unit (as shown in Table 4-2). The geologic 
framework model has stratigraphic layers at a resolution finer than HFM-19. The GFM was 
developed to support the site-scale unsaturated zone flow and transport models, providing further 
consistency between the SZ flow model and other flow models in larger and smaller domains. 
For unit tops where the GFM was used, the GFM grid points were resampled to the 125-meter 
grid resolution of the HFM-19, providing accurate and appropriate data input as discussed in 
Section 6.3.2. 

Table 4-2. Hydrogeologic Units and Corresponding GFM Units 
HFM-19 Unit ID and Names GFM 3.1 Unit Names 
15 - Upper Volcanic Confining Unit Calico, Calicobt 
14 - Lower Volcanic Aquifer  Prow Pass Tuff Prowlv, Prowlc, Prowmd, Prowuc, Prowuv, Prowbt 
13 - Lower Volcanic Aquifer  Bullfrog Tuff Bullfroglv, Bullfroglc, Bullfrogmd, Bullfroguc, Bullfroguv, Bullfrogbt 
12 - Lower Volcanic Aquifer - Tram Tuff Tramlv, Tramlc, Trammd, Tramuc, Tramuv, Trambt 
DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]. 
GFM=geologic framework model; HFM-19=hydrogeologic framework model 19 layer. 
Acceptable differences were identified between the depths of hydrogeologic unit contacts in the 
HFM-19 and GFM 3.1 borehole databases during the data qualification process (Wilson 2001 
[DIRS 155614], Section 3.4.2.1). Differences exceeding 9.1 meters were found for only 17 of 
the hundreds of data points used in constructing the hydrogeologic unit surfaces, and many of 
these can be attributed to changes in stratigraphic unit definitions that occurred since the 
HFM-19 database was compiled. According to Wilson (2001 [DIRS 155614], Section 3.4.6), 
most of the observed differences were minor and would not affect generalized uses of the data. 
Most of the larger differences were related to either variation in the application of the HFM-19 
unit top definitions or were the result of changes in stratigraphic contact definitions. Except for 
the relatively few cases that exceeded 9.1 m, the range of difference is less than the smallest 
vertical spacing of 10 meters in the flow grid, and much less than its horizontal spacing 
of 500 meters. 
4.1.1.3 Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Region 
The geologic map used in this analysis is contained in the qualified DTN: GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874]. Potter et al (2002 [DIRS 160060], pp. 1 to 2) note that this DTN was 
specifically prepared to support development of the site-scale SZ flow model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]). These data supercede the original maps (DTN: GS991208314221.001 
[DIRS 145263]) that were used in the earlier version of this report (USGS 2003 [DIRS 165176]). 
The original Potter map data used in the area of the SZ flow model domain are included 
unchanged in the superceding version of the data, which adds supplemental information to 
identify areas of uncertainty. These changes have no impact at the 125-meter resolution used in 
the HFM-19. 
4.1.1.4 Digital Elevation Model Data 
The digital elevation data are from 1:250,000-scale topographic maps, USGS 3-arc-second 1- by 
1-degree DEM files, with a grid spacing of approximately 90 meters 
(DTN: GS000400002332.001 [DIRS 148924]). All 1- by 1-degree DEMs have hypsographic 
information consistent with the planimetric features normally found on 1:250,000-scale 
topographic maps. The production criteria were to provide an absolute horizontal accuracy of 
a 130-meter circular error at 90 percent probability and relatively finer than the resolution of the 
HFM-19 grid cells and the flow model grids (Turner et al. 1996 [DIRS 171658], p. 7). 
The original production objective for the 3-arc-second digital elevation models (DEMs) was to 
provide an absolute vertical accuracy related to mean sea level of  30 meters with a 90 percent 
probability (Turner et al. 1996 [DIRS 171658], pp. 5 to 7). This absolute vertical accuracy may 

be too strict as a measure of vertical accuracy; however, 3-arc-second DEMs also are defined as 
having a root-mean-square-error of elevation values equal to one-third the contour interval and 
no errors greater than two-thirds the contour interval. Because the source maps in this region 
have contour intervals of about 30 or 60 meters (100 or 200 feet), corresponding root-mean-
square-error values no greater than 10 or 20 meters may be expected. The grid interpolation 
functions used to construct the 1-degree DEM gridded elevation values may favor values 
corresponding to contour-line elevations. Furthermore, USGS (1990 [DIRS 171634], p. 5) 
documentation concerning DEM data files state that the relative horizontal and vertical accuracy, 
although not specified, will in many cases, conform to the actual hypsographic features with 
higher integrity than indicated by the absolute accuracy. In other words, errors in the relative 
elevation of nearby features may be considerably less (on the order of 10 m) than their absolute 
elevation accuracy relative to mean sea level. 
4.1.1.5 Borehole Data 
The borehole data accuracy depends on the initial stratigraphic picks and borehole location. In 
general, these are much more accurate than the geologic cross section data. The location is given 
in degrees, minutes, and seconds of latitude and longitude. The accuracy of the location of a 
drill-hole depends on the method used to determine its location. For example, many wells are 
now located with Global Positioning System (GPS) and are fairly accurate. In the past, many 
boreholes were located on a topography map, by estimating the location from the surrounding 
features. These would probably be inherently less accurate. Borehole locations that provided 
unreasonable values (in comparison to nearby borehole locations) were found during the analysis 
process and not included in HFM-19 (see excluded data in Section 4.1.2). Note 
that x, y coordinate information for various wells have been updated with GPS and are contained 
in DTN: MO9906GPS98410.000 ([DIRS 109059]). These coordinates supercede only the 
location data of the previous DTNs. The borehole top altitudes were estimated at a vertical depth 
from the DEM for data model consistency, and provide a suitable degree of spatial resolution for 
the borehole locations. 
4.1.1.6 Geologic Cross Sections 
The geologic cross sections used (Table 4-1) were all at a scale of 1:100,000 or larger. The data 
are only accurate to the scale of the hard copy of the source data being digitized. Due to the 
digitization process, an additional small loss in accuracy may occur but is insignificant at the 
resolution used for the site-scale SZ flow model. The scanning process uses a resolution 
of 0.0013 in. This small error is equivalent to 3 in. on a cross section with a scale of 1:100,000. 
The cross sections are leveled and digitally referenced to the map traces. The geologic cross 
section files are referenced to their true location in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) 
coordinates. The cross sections are labeled with the appropriate hydrogeologic unit designation 
and are tied to the HFM-19 database as described in Section 6.3. Most of the cross sections are 
from qualified data sources in the form of formally reviewed and published USGS reports and 
maps. 

4.1.1.7 Water-Level Data 
All of the water-level data used in the development of HFM-19 are from 
DTN: GS000508312332.001 ([DIRS 149947]) which are used to develop the potentiometric 
surface shown in Section 6.3.4 (Figure 6-3) and are discussed in Water-Level Data Analysis for 
the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model (USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625]). These 
water level data were used as calibration targets for the development of the site-scale SZ flow 
model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.4.4). These data were used to form a clipping 
surface for the top of the HFM-19 to reduce the total size of the model for computational 
purposes. The clipping surface impacts the flow and transport models because the locations 
above this surface have been removed and cannot be used for water-level interpretations that rise 
above the clipped elements of HFM-19. The clipped version is considered the final version and 
is used in the flow and transport models. The unclipped version can be used instead, or the 
clipped version can be reconstructed without the clipping surface, using Stratamodel software. 
HFM-19 is submitted as both a clipped and unclipped version for use in flow models, see the 
Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Sections 6.4.4 and 6.4.5) for 
discussion of water table rise and alternate potentiometric surfaces. 
4.1.2 Excluded Data 
The building process for HFM-19 began with hundreds of wells, which were gridded and built 
into surfaces, incorporated into 3-D volume elements, and evaluated. This process was iterative 
and as results were evaluated, some data were removed from use in the final HFM-19. Early in 
the development process, some data were excluded because they provided duplicate information 
(or lumping of units into the hydrogeologic units) (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], pp. 63 and 69). 
Cross section units that were very small or very thin, relative to the domain scale, were omitted. 
In a few cases, boundaries of units were simplified or extended to meet units from other data 
sources. In places where two or more cross sections intersect, they were checked for 
consistency. In a few cases, the geologic interpretations shown on the cross sections did not 
agree because one cross section was greatly generalized relative to the other(s). In these cases, a 
decision was made to omit the more generalized cross section from the HFM-19 (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], p. 96). 
The data qualification report by Wilson (2001 [DIRS 155614], p. 114), recommended the 
removal of one data point from the borehole data associated with the original submission of 
DTN: GS950508312333.002 ([DIRS 105131]). Named as borehole AM-101 by Wilson, this 
single data point out of the hundreds used for this model was not traceable except by its latitude 
and longitude location of 116 26' 45" and 36 37' 14" (within 200 meters of Felderhoff 5-1 
borehole). The point is described as part of a group of five boreholes that were private water 
wells within lithologic logs prepared by the drillers (Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], p 108). This 
point has no effect on the model because the data point is consistent with the trend established by 
other boreholes in the area. This borehole does not control the configuration of this surface and 
is not used as direct input for HFM-19. 

4.1.3 New Data 
Creation of Alternative Conceptual Model hydrogeologic framework model (27 layer) 
(HFM-27)The regional scale hydrogeologic framework model was updated with new data to 
Hydrogeologic Framework Model for Site and Regional Saturated Groundwater Flow Models 
(Scientific Notebook) (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171040], pp. 29 to 31 and 49 to 61), which influences 
the site-scale HFM at the lower boundary and in the area of the Nye County Wells. In the 
immediate area of the site but at shallower depths, the GFM 3.1 
(DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]) has been revised to GFM2000 (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170029]; DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]). To assess the impact of 
GFM2000 on the site-scale HFM, an alternative HFM was created that included an increase in 
the number of hydrogeologic layers at shallow depths. This alternative HFM, called HFM-27, is 
discussed in Section 6.4.2 and Appendix B1 where the justification of GFM 3.1 for use in the 
HFM-19 of this report is discussed. 
The site-scale SZ flow and transport models use HFM-19 as the base-case definition of 
hydrogeology. The HFM-27 (DTN: GS021008312332.002 [DIRS 164363]) is used for alternate 
conceptual models, and as such, incorporates the new regional HFM [(Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171040]), GFM2000 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029]; and Nye County well data 
(Section 6.4.2)]. Alternate models using new data are used to evaluate the impact of new data on 
the HFM-19 and flow results (Section 6.4.2). Differences between the base-case 
(using HFM-19) and alternate models (using HFM-27) and their impact on flow modeling results 
are detailed in Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]). Transport 
results are discussed in Site-Scale Saturated Zone Transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170036]). None 
of the changes in this model report, qualification actions, or new data availability change the 
HFM-19 documented as the output DTN for this report (Section 9.5). 

Source: All input data in Table 4-1 except water level data, for illustration of data type relative to domain area. 
Figure 4-1. Locations for Geologic, Geophysical, and Borehole Data Listed in Table 4-1 Used in the 
Construction of the Site-Scale Hydrogeologic Framework Model 

DTN: GS010908314221.001 [DIRS 162874]. 
NOTE: Coordinates in meters (UTM, Zone 11, North American Datum 27). 
Figure 4-2. Generalized Surface Outcrop Map of Hydrogeologic Units with Major Structural Features and 
Lines of Cross Sections Specific to the Site-Scale SZ Flow Model Area 

4.2 CRITERIA 
The general requirements to be satisfied by the total system performance assessment (TSPA) are 
stated in 10 CFR 63.114 (10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605]). Technical requirements to be 
satisfied by the TSPA are identified in the Yucca Mountain Projects 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]). The pertinent requirements and criteria for this model report are summarized 
in Table 4-3. The TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421], Section 3.5) also lists requirement number 
PRD-002/T-014 Performance Objectives for the Geologic Repository After Permanent Closure 
that is not addressed in the report. The performance objectives defined in 10 CFR 63.113 
(10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605]) are related to the engineered barrier system and the human 
intrusion scenario. The engineered barrier system and human intrusion may include aspects of 
the geologic framework model, but are not directly related to the HFM-19 defined in this report. 
Thus, requirement number PRD-002/T-014, identified generically in the TWP (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421], Section 3.5), is not addressed in this report. 
Table 4-3. Project Requirements for This Model Report 
Requirement 
Number* Requirement Title* 10 CFR 63 Link YMRP Acceptance Criteria 
PRD-002/T-015 Requirements for 10 CFR 63.114 Section 2.2.1.3.8.3 Criteria 1-4 
Performance Assessment [DIRS 156605] 
Source: * Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]. 
 NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274] 
In this section, the acceptance criteria identified in Section 2.2.1.3.8.3 of the YMRP (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274]), are given 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 below. 
Where a subcriterion includes several components, only some of those components may be 
addressed. How these components are addressed is summarized in Section 8.3 of this report. 
It should be noted that assessment of which YMRP criteria apply has changed since publication 
of the TWP for this report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]), thus acceptance criteria listed here do not 
exactly match those in the TWP. Specifically, it has been determined that Acceptance 
Criterion 5 is not applicable to this report. In addition, Acceptance Criterion 3 Data Uncertainty 
is Characterized and Propagated Through the Model and Acceptance Criterion 4 Model 
Uncertainty is Characterized and Propagated Through the Model Abstraction are added because 
uncertainty in the HFM is addressed in this report and later propagated through the site-scale SZ 
flow model, SZ transport model, and SZ flow and transport model abstraction as summarized in 
Figure 1-1. 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
(1) Total system performance assessment adequately incorporates important 
design features, physical phenomena, and couplings, and uses consistent 

Acceptance Criterion 2: Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
and appropriate assumptions, throughout the flow paths in the SZ 
abstraction process. 
(2) The description of the aspects of hydrology, geology, geochemistry, 
design features, physical phenomena, and couplings, that may affect flow 
paths in the SZ, is adequate. Conditions and assumptions in the 
abstraction of flow paths in the SZ are readily identified, and consistent 
with the body of data presented in the description. 
(4) Boundary and initial conditions used in the total system performance 
assessment abstraction of flow paths in the SZ are propagated throughout 
its abstraction approaches. For example, abstractions are based on initial 
and boundary conditions consistent with site-scale modeling and regional 
models of the Death Valley groundwater flow system. 
(6) Flow paths in the SZ are adequately delineated, considering natural site 
conditions. 
(10) Guidance in NUREG1297 and NUREG1298 (Altman, et al., 1988a,b), 
or other acceptable approaches for peer review and data qualification is 
followed. 
(1) 
Geological, hydrological, and geochemical values used in the license 
application to evaluate flow paths in the SZ are adequately justified. 
Adequate descriptions of how the data were used, interpreted, and 
appropriately synthesized into the parameters are provided. 
(2) 
Sufficient data have been collected on the natural system to establish 
initial and boundary conditions for the abstraction of flow paths in the SZ. 
(3) 
Data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the SZ used in the 
total system performance assessment abstraction are based on appropriate 
techniques. These techniques may include laboratory experiments, site-
specific field measurements, natural analog research, and process-level 
modeling studies. As appropriate, sensitivity or uncertainty analyses, used 
to support the U.S. Department of Energy total system performance 
assessment abstraction, are adequate to determine the possible need for 
additional data. 
(4) 
Sufficient information is provided to substantiate that the proposed 
mathematical groundwater modeling approach and proposed model(s) are 
calibrated and applicable to site conditions. 

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. 
(3) Uncertainty is adequately represented in parameter development for 
conceptual models, process-level models, and alternative conceptual 
models, considered in developing the abstraction of flow paths in the SZ. 
This may be done through either sensitivity analyses or use of 
conservative limits. For example, sensitivity analyses and/or similar 
analyses are sufficient to identify SZ flow parameters that are expected to 
significantly affect the abstraction model outcome. 
Acceptance Criterion 4: Model Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through the 
Model Abstraction. 
(2) 
Conceptual model uncertainties are adequately defined and documented, 
and effects on conclusions regarding performance are properly assessed. 
For example, uncertainty in data interpretations is considered by analyzing 
reasonable conceptual flow models that are supported by site data, or by 
demonstrating through sensitivity studies that the uncertainties have little 
impact on repository performance. 
(3) 
Consideration of conceptual model uncertainty is consistent with available 
site characterization data, laboratory experiments, field measurements, 
natural analog information and process-level modeling studies; and the 
treatment of conceptual model uncertainty does not result in an 
under-representation of the risk estimate. 
(4) 
Appropriate alternative modeling approaches are consistent with available 
data and current scientific knowledge, and appropriately consider their 
results and limitations, using tests and analyses that are sensitive to the 
processes modeled. 
Additional criteria listed in Section 3 of the TWP includes Completion Criteria (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421], Section 3.4), which states that the scope of work should be in accordance with 
the scope of the work identified in the following TWPs: Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory 
Integration Evaluation of Analysis and Model Reports Supporting the TSPA-LA (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169377], Section 1) and Technical Work Plan for: Data Confirmation ProjectTechnical 
Product Review Process (Jaeger 2004 [DIRS 169937]). BSC (2004 [DIRS 169377]) was revised 
to BSC (2004 [DIRS 169653]), however Section 1 of the document remained unchanged. Thus, 
the revision did not impact the Completion Criteria listed in Section 3.4 of Technical Work 
Plan for: Natural System - Saturated Zone Analysis and Model Report Integration (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421]). These two TWPs also cover work required to enable the closure of condition 

reports assigned to specific reports. Boundary conditions are not discussed in this report as 
identified in Section 3.5 of the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421], Section 3.5) because boundary 
conditions do not apply to this model. As required per Section 3.3 of the TWP (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421]), the adequacy, precision and representativeness of the HFM-19 is provided 
through the justification of the input data used, see Sections 4.1 and 6.1, and the uncertainties 
associated with the model development are described in Section 6.4.3. 
4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
No codes, standards, or regulation requirements other than those identified in the Project 
Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], Table 2-3) and determined to 
be applicable (Table 4-3) were used in this model report. 

5. ASSUMPTIONS 
This section includes a description of assumptions used, in the absence of direct confirming data 
or evidence, to build the HFM-19. Other model assumptions in the conceptual model 
development are described in Section 6. The assumptions underlying the construction of the 
HFM-19 are methodological in nature and are imposed by the use of standard geologic gridding 
techniques using 3-D geometric elements to conceptualize stratigraphic and structural features. 
Hydrogeologic units are a simplification of geology done for inclusion into the database and 
mapping system and to accommodate groupings of geologic units thought to have similar 
hydrologic properties, see Section 6.1. Methods, based on the definition of hydrogeologic unit 
tops using surface, borehole, and geophysical data, are used to generate structure contour maps, 
which are the fundamental building blocks of the HFM-19. Specific techniques that are assumed 
to be applicable include the construction of model grids by interpolation and extrapolation with 
the use of minimum-curvature and first-order least-squares methods. The use of these techniques 
is described in Section 6 of this model report. The applicability of these techniques to the 
development of the HFM-19 is supported by the information currently available pertaining to the 
geologic setting of the Yucca Mountain site and region as described in the Yucca Mountain Site 
Description (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734]) and require no further confirmation. 
In addition to the above general methodological assumptions, the following specific assumptions 
apply to the construction of the HFM-19: 
1. 
A grid spacing of 125 meters provides adequate spatial resolution for the intended 
application of the HFM-19 as a conceptual hydrogeologic representation for site-scale 
SZ flow and transport models (Section 4.1). 
The 3-D site-scale flow model described in Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.5.3.2) is based on a numerical spacing 
of 500 meters. The HFM-19 grid must have 500-meter spacing or smaller to 
accurately map the shape of hydrogeologic units in the HFM-19 to the computational 
flow grid. Therefore, the HFM-19 grid provides sufficient resolution to permit the 
configuration of hydrogeologic units to be represented within the 3-D flow-model 
computational grid. This assumption does not require further confirmation. 
2. 
The spatial resolution of the DEM used to define the lateral extent of hydrogeologic 
units exposed at land surface provides a suitable degree of accuracy (Section 4.1). 
The DEM is defined on a rectangular grid with a nodal spacing of 90 m, which is well 
within the 125-meter nodal spacing of the grid used to construct the HFM-19. This 
assumption does not require further confirmation. 
3. 
High-angle faults included with the HFM-19 (Section 6.3.3) were represented as 
vertically oriented planar surfaces. 
Vertical faults are implemented in the HFM-19 to vertically offset hydrogeologic 
units. The need to represent faults at their appropriate angle or vertical is an issue of 
scale. The flow model has a horizontal resolution of 500-m, too coarse to capture the 

inclination of faults in this domain that mostly all dip at angles greater than 
60 degrees. For faults with a dip of 60 degrees (generally the shallowest dip of faults 
in the area), the horizontal displacement over 200 meters is only 115 meters, much less 
than the horizontal grid spacing of 500 meters used in the flow model. The flow 
model parameters are homogeneous within a grid cell and the vertical fault assumption 
is acceptable because it does not significantly impact parameters within a flow model 
cell. Because the dips available for faults vary within the domain and many have dips 
that change at an unknown rate with depth (Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain 
Region, Nye County, Nevada (Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060])), this is considered 
an acceptable simplification. Additionally, this representation is consistent with the 
site-scale SZ flow model, which represents faults explicitly as vertical features 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.3.2.2). Thrust faults (discussed in Section 6.3.3) 
are excluded in assumption concerning verticality. This assumption provides an 
adequate representation of faults within the HFM-19 for its intended use and requires 
no further confirmation. 

6. MODEL DISCUSSION
The HFM-19 is a 3-D static and geometric representation of the location and distribution of 
hydrogeologic units in the SZ of the Yucca Mountain area, developed for use in site-scale SZ 
flow and transport models. It is a conceptual model of the hydrogeology at Yucca Mountain, 
which describes a series of alternating volcanic aquifers and confining units above the regional 
carbonate aquifer. These hydrogeologic layers consist of one or more contiguous, geologically 
defined stratigraphic unit(s) that can be grouped into hydrogeologic units based on measured or 
inferred common hydrologic properties (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.5.2). The 
HFM-19 is assembled by using standard gridding techniques to fill the domain area with 
geometric elements corresponding to the hydrogeologic units. The locations and extent of the 
represented hydrogeologic units are determined from the input data. The gridding process uses 
interpolation and extrapolation to relate the geometrical elements to the controlling data within 
the domain. The result is generalized mapping of input data into a 3-D, volume filled grid with 
deformed cube shaped elements associated to their corresponding units with identification 
numbers 2 through 20 (Table 4-2 and Table 6-1). 
The HFM-19 is a conceptual model consistent with the definition in AP-SIII.10Q, Section 3.9. It 
is classified as a conceptual model based on the fact that: (1) it is a set of hypotheses consisting 
of assumptions, simplifications, and idealizations that describe the hydrogeology and structure 
within the site-scale SZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) and the site-scale SZ transport 
model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170036]) domain; and (2) this model consists of concepts related to 
geometrical elements of the model domain (size and shape) and to, dimensionality (3-D), and 
lack of time dependence (static model). This product does not provide any hydraulic parameters 
and cannot approximate a system behavior, process, or phenomenon. Though interpolation 
methods and calculations were used to describe the HFM-19, the resulting grid is static and fixed 
and cannot perform any of these functions. The site-scale SZ flow and transport models assign 
hydrogeologic properties to nodes in a coarser (500-meter resolution) SZ computational flow 
model grid. The site-scale SZ flow model grid is then combined with boundary conditions and 
other parameters for groundwater flow simulations. Sections 6.1 through 6.3 discuss the 
representation of geology, methods, and simplifications, used to build this conceptual model. 
Section 8 confirms that this is a representation of the hydrogeology. Section 6.5.3 of Saturated 
Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) describes how the HFM-19 and other 
inputs were used to assign hydrogeologic units and features, recharge fluxes, hydrogeologic 
properties, and boundary conditions to node points on a computational grid for the flow 
modeling process. 
As a conceptual model, HFM-19 does not consider alternate conceptual models, though the 
site-scale SZ flow model report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) does evaluate this conceptual model 
and alternate conceptual models used in the SZ flow model studies (see flowchart in Figure 1-1). 
This report does not discuss results of model testing, sensitivities, or calibration activities as 
these attributes do not apply to the HFM-19. Mathematical implementation of the HFM-19 
occurs when it is used within the flow and transport models for which it is intended. For 
discussion of the implementation, see the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]). 

6.1 HYDROGEOLOGIC REPRESENTATION 
The geologic setting, geologic history, stratigraphy, and structure of Yucca Mountain as 
represented in HFM-19 are summarized in Status of Understanding of the Saturated-Zone 
Ground-Water Flow System at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as of 1995 (Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], pp. 7 to 13). Yucca Mountain (Figure 1-2) is located in the Great Basin section 
of the basin and range physiographic province, and consists of a group of north-south-trending 
block-faulted ridges (Figure 4-2) that are composed of volcanic rocks of Tertiary age that may be 
several kilometers thick. Crater Flat, the basin to the west of Yucca Mountain, contains a thick 
sequence (about 2,000 m) of Tertiary volcanic rocks, Tertiary and Quaternary alluvium, and 
small basaltic lava flows of Quaternary age. The Solitario Canyon fault separates Crater Flat 
from Yucca Mountain (Figure 4-2). West of Crater Flat is Bare Mountain (Figure 1-2), which is 
composed of Paleozoic and Precambrian sedimentary and crystalline rocks. Fortymile Wash 
(Figure 4-2), a prominent topographic feature and an inferred structural trough, delimits the 
eastern extent of Yucca Mountain. East of Fortymile Wash are the Calico Hills, an assemblage 
of altered Tertiary volcanic rocks and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. Yucca Mountain terminates 
to the south in the Amargosa Desert, which contains near-surface deposits of interbedded 
Quaternary and Tertiary alluvial, paludal, and tuffaceous sediments. 
The basic hypothesis used to construct the HFM-19 is that the hydrogeologic units at Yucca 
Mountain form a series of alternating volcanic aquifers and confining units above the regional 
carbonate aquifer. The volcanic rocks can be either aquifers or confining units depending on 
their properties. Hydrologic properties of the volcanic rocks are governed by the mode of 
eruption and cooling, by the extent of primary and secondary fracturing, and by the degree to 
which secondary alteration has affected primary permeability (Laczniak et al. 1996 
[DIRS 103012]). Dense rocks with abundant fractures are characteristic of the volcanic-rock 
aquifers. These aquifers consist of welded-tuff sheets outside the calderas and lava flows and 
thick welded-tuff bodies within the calderas. The ability of these fractured rocks to form 
aquifers depends on the interconnectedness of these fractures. Generally, the confining units are 
formed by zeolitically altered nonwelded tuffs (Laczniak et al. 1996 [DIRS 103012]). These 
have eroded significantly since deposition. The volcanic rocks generally thin toward the south, 
away from their eruptive source areas in the vicinity of Timber Mountain (Figure 1-1). The 
volcanic aquifers and confining units are intercalated with undifferentiated valley-fill and the 
valley-fill aquifer to the south and southeast. Structural features define the eastern, western, and 
portions of the southern boundaries of Yucca Mountain (Figure 4-2). Depending upon the length 
of time between major volcanic eruptions, the volcanic rocks and valley-fill materials could have 
been deposited either on a planar surface unaffected by erosion and structural deformation, or on 
a preexisting topographic surface. Depositional units that are quickly buried by subsequent 
deposits generally have planar upper surfaces. 
In order to represent geologic heterogeneity introduced by stratigraphy in a groundwater flow 
system, geologic units traditionally are simplified into hydrogeologic units on the basis of similar 
hydrologic properties (Winograd and Thordarson 1975 [DIRS 101167]; and Laczniak et al. 1996 
[DIRS 103012]). The identification of hydrogeologic units for site-scale flow began in 1995 and 
started with large-scale regional scale domain encompassing an irregular shaped area in southern 
California and southern Nevada. Out of the defined hydrogeologic units in the region, some 
units did not occur in the study area and others were grouped with other units, resulting in 

10 hydrogeologic units to coarsely represent groundwater flow in the area. Where possible, 
hydrogeologic units identified by previous investigators (Luckey et al. 1996 [DIRS 100465; 
Winograd and Thordarson 1975 [DIRS 101167]; and Laczniak et al. 1996 [DIRS 103012]) were 
used. The formation of these hydrogeologic groupings is discussed by Faunt (2002 
[DIRS 171453], pp. 42 to 45 and 61). The decision was made to build a site-scale HFM with the 
same depth in units, but with boundaries closer to Yucca Mountain. The site-scale domain was 
selected to include hydrogeologic units relevant to flow from the repository to a compliance 
point about 18 km south of Yucca Mountain, near the Amargosa area. The units were regrouped 
to capture relevant hydrogeology within the small domain, but selected to be consistent with the 
previous set of investigators. This new domain was grouped into 15 units (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], pp. 122 to 125). Over the years and through iterations of data analysis, 
evaluations, and reviews of the constructed representation, the HFM evolved to the current 
version with 19 units (Table 4-1 and Table 6-1). The site-scale domain and the units occurring at 
the land surface are illustrated in the map of outcrop geology in Figure 4-2. The design of the 
HFM evolved to look at more detail in the volcanic aquifers at Yucca Mountain. In particular, 
the Crater Flat tuff was split into its members (Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram). In addition, 
more detail was added to the basement rocks to separate competent crystalline rocks from clastic 
rocks. As new information was developed to quantify the thrust fault geometry, the faulting 
there was incorporated by separating a thrusted carbonate block. Nineteen hydrogeologic units 
(model units 2 through 20 and base 1) are present in the model area (Figure 6-1; Table 6-1), 
though some cover only a small portion within the site-scale domain. Table 6-1 summarizes the 
hydrogeologic units and their correlation with the different hydrogeologic units in the model 
area. Figure 6-1 illustrates, by way of a fence diagram, the complex 3-D spatial relation among 
these units within the SZ of the model area. 
The geologic relations, both actual and inferred, are simplified in order to accommodate 
computer mapping, framework modeling, and groundwater flow modeling limitations. In 
simplifying units, emphasis was placed on maintaining a highly generalized structural and 
stratigraphic framework that incorporated previously described hydrogeologic units. The 
following criteria were used as guidelines in the simplification process: 
 
Major high-angle faults were simplified and represented as individual vertical fault 
planes (thrust faults are not included as vertical faults and are constructed similar to 
material units) 
 
Geologic units were grouped into the hydrogeologic units (Table 6-1) 
The site-scale domain was selected based on groundwater flow and radionuclide transport 
considerations as described in the site-scale SZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], 
Section 6.5.3.2). The HFM-19 represents the hydrogeologic setting for the Yucca Mountain area 
that covers about 1,350 km2 and includes a saturated thickness of about 2.75 km. 

Table 6-1. Hydrogeologic Units (HFM-19), Equivalent Investigated Units, and Associated Lithologies in 
the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain 
Hydrogeologic Unit 
number and name 
in HFM-19 (Age) 
Equivalent Units from Previous Investigations 
Winograd and 
Thordarson (1975 
[DIRS 101167]) 
Laczniak et al. (1996 
[DIRS 103012]) 
Table 1 
Luckey et al. (1996 
[DIRS 100465]) 
Type of Deposit or 
Lithology 
20 - Valley-fill 
aquifer 
(Q, T) 
Valley Fill 
(Valley-fill aquifer) 
Alluvial deposits 
(Valley-fill aquifer) Alluvium 
Alluvial fan, fluvial, 
fanglomerate, 
lakebed, eolian and 
mudflow deposits 
19 - Valley-fill 
confining unit 
(Q, T) 
Valley Fill 
(Valley-fill aquifer) 
Alluvial deposits 
(Valley-fill aquifer) Alluvium Playa deposits 
18 - Limestone 
aquifer 
(T) 
   
Lacustrine 
limestones, 
calcareous spring 
deposits 
17 - Lava-flow 
aquifer 
(Q,T) 
Basalt of Kiwi Mesa 
Basalt of Skull 
Mountain 
(Lava-flow aquifer) 
Basalt  
Basalt flows, dikes 
and cinder cones, 
latite dikes 
16 - Upper volcanic 
aquifer 
(T) 
Timber Mountain 
Tuff 
Paintbrush Tuff 
(Welded-tuff 
aquifer) 
Thirsty Canyon 
Group 
Timber Mountain 
Group 
Paintbrush Group 
(Welded-tuff and 
lava-flow aquifers) 
Paintbrush Group 
(Upper volcanic 
aquifer) 
Variably welded 
ashflow tuffs and 
rhyolite lavas 
(nonwelded tuffs) 
15 - Upper volcanic 
confining unit 
(T) 
Wahmonie 
Formation 
Salyer Formation 
Rhyolite flows and 
tuffaceous beds of 
Calico Hills 
(Lava-flow aquitard 
- Tuff aquitard) 
Volcanics of Area 
20 
Wahmonie 
Formation 
(Lava-flow 
aquifers) 
Calico Hills 
Formation 
(Upper Volcanic 
Confining Unit) 
Rhyolite lavas, 
volcanic breccias, 
nonwelded to 
welded tuffs, 
commonly 
argillaceous or 
zeolitic 
14 - Lower volcanic 
aquifer  Prow 
Pass Tuff 
(T) 
Grouse Canyon 
Member 
Tuff of Crater Flat 
(Tuff aquitard) 
Crater Flat Group 
Belted Range 
Group 
(Welded-tuff and 
lava-flow aquifers) 
Crater Flat Group 
(Lower Volcanic 
Aquifer) 
Variably welded 
ashflow tuffs and 
rhyolite lavas 

Table 6-1. Hydrogeologic Units (HFM-19), Equivalent Investigated Units, and Associated 
Lithologies in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain (Continued) 
Hydrogeologic Unit 
number and name 
in HFM-19 (Age) 
Equivalent Units from Previous Investigations 
Winograd and 
Thordarson (1975 
[DIRS 101167]) 
Laczniak et al. (1996 
[DIRS 103012]) 
Table 1 
Luckey et al. (1996 
[DIRS 100465]) 
Type of Deposit or 
Lithology 
13 - Lower volcanic 
aquifer  Bull Frog 
Tuff 
(T) 
Grouse Canyon 
Member 
Tuff of Crater Flat 
(Tuff aquitard) 
Crater Flat Group 
Belted Range 
Group 
(Welded-tuff and 
lava-flow aquifers) 
Crater Flat Group 
(Lower Volcanic 
Aquifer) 
Variably welded 
ashflow tuffs and 
rhyolite lavas 
12 - Lower volcanic 
aquifer - Tram Tuff 
(T) 
Grouse Canyon 
Member 
Tuff of Crater Flat 
(Tuff aquitard) 
Crater Flat GroupBelted Range 
Group(Welded-tuff and 
lava-flow aquifers) 
Crater Flat Group(Lower Volcanic 
Aquifer) 
Variably welded 
ashflow tuffs and 
rhyolite lavas 
11 - Lower volcanic Local informal units Tunnel Formation Flow Breccia Nonwelded tuff, 
confining unit 
(T) 
of Indian Trail 
Formation 
(Tuff aquitard) 
(Tuff confining unit) Lithic Ridge Tuff 
(Lower Volcanic 
Confining Unit) 
commonly 
zeolitized 
10 - Older volcanic 
aquifer 
(T) 
Tub Spring 
Member 
(Tuff aquitard) 
Volcanics of BigDome 
(Lava-flow and 
welded-tuff aquifer) 
 
Variably welded 
ashflow tuffs, 
rhyolite lavas 
9 - Older volcanic 
confining unit 
(T) 
? (Tuff aquitard)1 Older Volcanics 
(Tuff confining unit)  
Nonwelded tuff, 
commonly 
zeolitized 
8 - Undifferentiated 
valley-fill 
(T) 
Rocks of Pavits 
SpringHorse SpringFormation 
(Tuff aquitard) 
Pavits SpringFormation 
Horse SpringFormation 
Paleocolluvium 
 
Tuffaceous 
sandstone, tuff 
breccia, siltstone, 
claystone, 
conglomerate,
lacustrine 
limestone, 
commonly 
argillaceous or 
calcareous. 
Sedimentary 
breccia. 
7 - Uppercarbonate aquifer 
(Pz) 
TippipahLimestone 
(Upper carbonate 
aquifer) 
Bird SpringFormation 
(Upper carbonate 
aquifer) 
 
Limestone 
5 - Upper clastic 
confining unit 
(Pz) 
Eleana Formation 
(Upper clastic 
aquitard) 
Eleana Formation 
(Eleana confining 
unit)  
Siliceous siltstone, 
sandstone, 
quartzite,
conglomerate,
limestone 

Table 6-1. Hydrogeologic Units (HFM-19), Equivalent Investigated Units, and Associated 
Lithologies in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain (Continued) 
Hydrogeologic Unit 
number and name 
in HFM-19 (Age) 
Equivalent Units from Previous Investigations 
Winograd and 
Thordarson (1975 
[DIRS 101167]) 
Laczniak et al. (1996 
[DIRS 103012]) 
Table 1 
Luckey et al. (1996 
[DIRS 100465]) 
Type of Deposit or 
Lithology 
4 - Lower 
carbonate aquifer 
and 
6 - Lower 
carbonate aquifer 
thrust (Pz) 
Devils Gate 
Limestone 
Nevada Formation 
Ely Springs 
Dolomite 
Eureka Quartzite 
Pogonip Group 
Nopah Formation 
Dunderberg Shale 
Bonanza KingUpper Carrara 
Formation 
(Lower carbonate 
aquifer) 
Guilmette 
Formation 
Simonson Dolomite 
Sevy, Laketown, 
and Lone Mountain 
Dolomite 
Roberts Mountain 
Formation 
Dolomite of the 
Spotted Range 
Ely Springs 
Dolomite 
Eureka Quartzite 
Pogonip Group 
Nopah Formation 
Bonanza King 
Formation 
Upper Carrara 
Formation 
(Lower carbonate 
aquifer) 
Lone Mountain 
Dolomite 
Roberts Mountain 
Dolomite 
(Carbonate 
Aquifer) 
Dolomite and 
limestone, locally 
cherty and silty 
3 - Lower clastic 
confining unit(Pz, pC) 
Lower Carrara 
Formation 
Zabriskie Quartzite 
Wood Canyon 
Formation 
Lower Carrara 
Formation 
Zabriskie Quartzite 
Wood Canyon 
Formation 
Quartzite, siltstone, 
shale, dolomite 
Stirling Quartzite 
Johnnie Formation 
(Lower clastic 
aquitard) 
Stirling Quartzite 
Johnnie Formation 
Noonday (?)2 
Dolomite 
(Quartzite confining 
unit) 
 
2 - Granitic Granitic Stocks Granite Granodiorite and 
confining unit 
(T) 
(A minor aquitard)  quartz monzonite in 
stocks, dikes and 
sills 
? (Tuff Aquitard) - correlation of HFM unit 9 to stratigraphic units in Winograd and Thordarson is not clear, 
but would correlate with the Tuff Aquitard hydrogeologic unit. 
2 Noonday (?) Dolomite - is identified this way in Winograd and Thordarson (1975 [DIRS 101167], footnote 3 
of Table 1) and is reproduced here in the same way. 
--, no units identified; hydrologic-unit names listed in parentheses; (Q=Quaternary; T=Tertiary; 
Pz=Paleozoic; pC=Precambrian); HFM=hydrogeologic framework model 

The HFM-19 extends from UTM 533,340 meters to 563,340 meters (west to east) and 
4,046,782 meters to 4,091,782 meters (south to north), UTM Zone 11 (Figure 1-1). The base of 
the model was selected to be consistent with the base of the Death Valley regional groundwater 
flow model (DTN: GS960808312144.003 [DIRS 105121]) and propagates through the site-scale 
SZ flow (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) and transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170036]) models using 
HFM-19. The top of the model is ground surface. A smaller version of the HFM-19 is created 
by clipping the top of the model by a potentiometric surface (Figure 6-2). This was done to 
satisfy grid size restrictions in the flow codes and has no impact on the flow model since the site-
scale SZ domain is below this clipping surface (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], p. 130). 
The HFM-19 model documented in this report is built from geologic maps, geologic cross 
sections, borehole lithologic logs, digital elevation data, and the GFM 3.1 
(DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]). Geologic information, geologic cross 
sections developed for the ERP for the Nevada Test Site (DTN: MO0106STRATHFM.024 
[DIRS 155585]), and the results of geologic mapping and subsequent geologic cross section 
development (DTN: GS010908314221.001.001 [DIRS 162874]) were added to the input set. 
Data were selected for input into the model upon completion of an extensive literature search. 
The scientific notebook SNUSGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453]) documents the 
more than 100 references that were examined to determine the most appropriate data for the 
construction of the HFM-19. 
The HFM-19 is assembled by using standard gridding techniques to fill the domain area 
with 3-D elements corresponding to the hydrogeologic units. The locations and extent of the 
units are determined from boreholes, surface geologic maps, geologic cross sections, and 
geophysical surveys. The HFM-19 has 19 unit layers or sequences numbered sequentially from 
bottom to top starting with a base 1 and the bottom sequence 2. Base 1 is not used in the flow or 
transport models, but is needed by Stratamodel (USGS 2000 [DIRS 148985]), which requires the 
specification of a base unit. Each of the sequences (2 through 20) in the model corresponds to a 
hydrogeologic unit. The numbers representing the stacking order of the units in the site area are 
listed in Table 6-1 along with the unit names. Figure 6-1 shows these 19 sequences, which will 
represent the basis for hydrogeologic units in the flow and transport models. The HFM-19 has 
been clipped for this image. 

MDL-NBS-HS-000024 REV 00 6-8 November 2004 
UTM Northing 
Hydrogeologic Framework Model for the Saturated Zone Site Scale Flow and Transport Model 
masl 
masl 
UTM Easting 
Output DTN: GS030208312332.001. 
NOTE: Base of model coincides with bottom of regional model (DAgnese et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131], p. 2). 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; masl = meters above sea level. 
Figure 6-1. Fence Diagram Showing Cross-Sections along Dotted Lines Shown in Figure 4-2 

Source: DTNs: Water LevelsGS000508312332.001 [DIRS 149947]; DEMGS000400002332.001 [DIRS 148924]; 
FaultsGS010908314221.001 [DIRS 162874]. 
NOTES: Tertiary faults modified from DTN: GS991208314221.001 [DIRS 145263] (this DTN has been updated and 
is discussed in Section 4.1.1.3). Estimated potentiometric contour shows altitude of potentiometric 
surface; contour interval 25 m; datum is sea level. 748  boreholes = water-level altitude (m). X 
axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-2. Borehole Locations with Water-Level Altitudes, Potentiometric Surface Contours, and 
Location of Tertiary Faults in Saturated Zone Site-Scale Model Area 

6.2 FEATURES, EVENTS, AND PROCESSES CONSIDERED IN THE HYDROLOGIC 
FRAMEWORK MODEL 
As stipulated in the Technical Work Plan For: Natural System - Saturated Zone Analysis Model 
Report Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]) this model report addresses the SZ FEPs 
pertaining to the HFM-19 for the SZ site-scale flow and transport models that are included FEPs 
for the Total System Performance Assessment for the License Application (TSPA-LA) 
(Table 6-2). Table 6-2 provides a list of FEPs that are relevant to this model in accordance with 
their assignment in the license application FEP list (DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 
[DIRS 170760]). Specific reference to the various sections within this document where issues 
related to each FEP are addressed is provided in the table. Saturated zone FEPs that were 
excluded from TSPA-LA are described in Features, Events, and Processes in SZ Flow and 
Transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170013]). 
Table 6-2. Features, Events, and Processes Included in TSPA-LA and Relevant to this Model Report 
FEP No. FEP Name 
Sections 
Where 
Disposition 
is 
Supported 
FEP Topic Addressed in Other 
SZ Analysis or Model Reports 
1.2.02.01.0A Fractures 6.1, 6.3, 
6.3.3, 6.3.4, 
6.4 
Upstream Feedsa  N/A 
Corroboratingb  Saturated Zone 
In-Situ Testing (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170010]); 
Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
Model, (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]) 
Expanded Discussionc  
Probability Distribution for 
Flowing Interval Spacing, (BSC 
2004 [DIRS 170014]) 
1.2.02.02.0A Faults 4.1, 6.1, 
6.3.3, 6.3.4, 
6.3.5, 6.3.6, 
6.4, 8.0 
Upstream Feeds  N/A 
Corroborating  Saturated Zone 
In-Situ Testing (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170010]); 
Expanded Discussionc  
Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
Model, BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037] 
2.2.03.01.0A Stratigraphy 5.0, 6.1, 
6.3.2, 6.3.4, 
6.3.5, 8.0 
Upstream Feeds  N/A 
Corroborating  Saturated Zone 
In-Situ Testing (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170010]); 
Probability Distribution for 
Flowing Interval Spacing, (BSC 
2004 [DIRS 170014]) 
Expanded Discussionc  
Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
Model, (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]) 

Table 6-2. Features, Events, and Processes Included in TSPA-LA and Relevant to this Model Report 
(Continued) 
FEP No. FEP Name 
Sections 
Where 
Disposition 
is 
Supported 
FEP Topic Addressed in Other 
SZ Analysis or Model Reports 
2.2.03.02.0A Rock properties of host rock and other units 1.0, 6.1, 
6.3.3 
Upstream Feedsa  N/A 
Corroboratingb  Saturated Zone 
In-Situ Testing (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170010]) 
2.2.07.13.0A Water conducting features in the SZ 6.1, 6.3.3, 
6.3.6 
Upstream Feeds  N/A 
Corroborating  Saturated Zone 
In-Situ Testing (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170010]): 
Expanded Discussionc  
Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
Model, (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]) 
2.2.12.00.0B Undetected features in the SZ 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 
8.0 
Upstream Feeds  N/A 
Corroborating  Saturated Zone 
In-Situ Testing (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170010]); 
Probability Distribution for 
Flowing Interval Spacing, (BSC 
2004 [DIRS 170014]) 
Source: SZ report: BSC (2004 [DIRS 170010]). 
a 
Upstream Feeds  Aspects of the SZ FEP screening position adopted in this report are a result of SZ analyses 
performed in a directly upstream SZ model or analyses. N/A indicates no upstream feeds. Note: Figure 1-1 
does not indicate any upstream feeds to this report. 
b Corroborating  Corroborative aspect(s) of the FEP topic is (are) discussed in a relevant SZ analysis or model 
report.
c 
Expanded Discussion  The primary discussion of the FEP topic is discussed in the referenced SZ report. 
6.3 METHODS USED TO DEVELOP THE HYDROLOGIC FRAMEWORK MODEL 
The conceptual model was constructed to provide a characterization of the complex 3-D, 
heterogeneous, porous, and fractured media beneath Yucca Mountain for the site-scale SZ flow 
and transport models. The HFM-19 was developed to locate hydrogeologic units on a 500-meter 
computation grid used in site-scale SZ flow modeling (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]). As a result, 
the HFM-19 has simplifications that may restrict its use for other applications. These 
simplifications are documented in Section 6.4. 
The HFM-19 model domain is encompassed within the Death Valley regional flow model 
(DTN: GS960808312144.003 [DIRS 105121]). The site-scale covers a larger area than that of 
the 3-D GFM (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]) (Figure 4-1), developed to 
support the Yucca Mountain unsaturated-zone flow and transport models, and extends deeper 
into the SZ than the GFM. The conceptual model evolved based on the needs of the site-scale 
SZ flow model (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], p. 176), to include more detail within the Crater Flat 
tuff at Yucca Mountain that was split into its members (Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram). In 
addition, more detail was added to the basement rocks to separate out competent crystalline 
rocks from clastic rocks. As new information was developed to quantify the thrust fault 

geometry, the faulting in deep units was incorporated by separating out a thrusted carbonate 
block. These new surfaces resulted in the current version HFM with 19 hydrogeologic units. 
Development of an HFM began with the assembly of primary data: geologic maps and cross 
sections, borehole lithologic logs, and topography DEM. The merging of these diverse data 
types to form a single coherent 3-D digital representation was done using specialized geologic 
modeling software (discussed in Section 3). Software such as Stratamodel were used for the 
regional model studies, and the output files were converted for use by the flow model codes, and 
helped provide consistency between the SZ hydrologic framework and the site-scale SZ flow 
model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]). The methods used successfully and those that were 
discarded are discussed throughout the scientific notebook SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 
(Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453]). 
The input data evolved in a similar fashion over time, through an iterative process of gridding, 
visualization, analysis, and review as outlined in Section 4.1.1. Duplicate data and obviously 
unreasonable values were removed from the input data set. In general, the latest data are used as 
it is almost always based on the most recent and accumulated amounts of data. The data and 
resulting representation were reviewed and each iteration of the 3-D framework was built. The 
comments generated during these reviews helped identify software interpolations and techniques 
that needed adjustments. Each iteration and review is documented in the scientific notebook and 
includes reviews written by R.W. Spengler and J.B Czarnecki (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
pp. 107 to 109 and p. 110). The pages following the review include responses and changes made 
for the next iteration of development. Each iteration of analysis and review increases confidence 
in the accuracy of the hydrogeologic representation (see Section 4.1.1 for more on this iterative 
process). 
The following seven steps were used to build the final HFM-19. The first step was discussed in 
detail previously, while the last six steps are detailed in Section 6.3. 
1. 
Geologic units are classified into hydrogeologic units based on their hydraulic 
properties and lateral extent. In this study, the hydrogeologic units described by 
previous investigators were used, as shown in Table 6-1. 
2. 
DEM data are combined with hydrogeologic maps to provide a series of points in 3-D 
space locating outcrops of individual hydrogeologic units. 
3. 
Geologic cross sections and borehole lithologic logs are used to locate hydrogeologic 
units in the subsurface. 
4. 
Geologic maps and geologic cross sections are used to locate selected faults (discussed 
in Section 6.3.3). 
5. 
Structure contour maps for each hydrogeologic unit are developed by interpolating 
both surface and subsurface positions with Petrosys, which incorporates offsets of 
units across faults. 

6. 
An HFM is developed when the structure contour maps for the individual 
hydrogeologic units are combined, utilizing appropriate stratigraphic principles to 
control their sequence, thickness, and lateral extent. 
7. 
The potentiometric surface (DTN: GS000508312332.001 [DIRS 149947]) is used to 
clip the HFM-19. 
6.3.1 Surface Information 
The geologic map of Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]; DTN: GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874]) for the site model area was available in digital form. The geologic units were 
combined into hydrogeologic units (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], p. 242) and a new 2-D 
hydrogeologic map was created in ARC/INFO for visual aid. The surface hydrogeologic map 
(Figure 4-2) was created by lumping Potters geologic map into hydrogeologic units as described 
in the scientific notebook SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], p. 242) and 
was used for outcrop data and as a guide for the model building activities. 
To define the surficial 3-D extent of units exposed at the ground surface, the hydrogeologic map 
and the DEM were integrated. The digital elevation data are from 1:250,000-scale topographic 
maps with a grid spacing of approximately 90 meters (DTN: GS000400002332.001 
[DIRS 148924]). The DEM defined an array of points in which each point was located by its 
planar (x, y) coordinates and altitude (z). Points falling within each outcrop area were tagged 
with the corresponding hydrogeologic unit code, because the outcrop is the observed surface of 
that hydrogeologic unit. 
6.3.2 Subsurface Information 
The geologic cross sections (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1) used to construct the HFM-19 were all at 
a scale of 1:100,000 or larger. The detailed stratigraphy was simplified into the appropriate 
hydrogeologic units (Table 6-1). The simplified geologic cross sections were then digitized, 
merged, scaled, warped to fit their digitized traces, and accurately placed in 3-D space. 
A database was populated with the different hydrogeologic units. This database was then linked 
to the cross sections by pointing to each hydrogeologic unit top and keying in the appropriate 
hydrogeologic unit (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], pp. 113 to 120, pp. 248 to 251). 
Lithologic data for boreholes in the area (Table 4-1 and Appendix A) were used as the primary 
data set while the geologic cross sections were used to correlate and fill between the data points. 
Borehole lithologic units were grouped into the appropriate hydrogeologic units (Table 6-1). In 
order to be consistent with the other altitude data being used, the altitude of the top of each 
hydrogeologic unit was determined by subtracting its depth from the altitude interpolated from 
the DEM at the borehole location. Where necessary, units of feet were converted to meters using 
the following formula: 
Distance (ft) x 0.3048 (m/ft) = Distance (m) (Eq. 1) 
In the area covered by the site GFM 3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]) 
(Figure 4-1), the HFM-19 and the GFM 3.1 are reasonably consistent considering differences in 
size and control point spacing, (Section 4.1.1.2). The GFM was resampled to the coarser grid 

resolution of the HFM-19 and only the units corresponding with the tops of the HFM-19 were 
used (Table 4-2). The GFM surfaces for the Calico Hills formation, and the Prow Pass, Bullfrog, 
and Tram tuffs were used to refine the HFM-19 grid in the area covered by the site 3-D GFM 
(Table 6-1 and Table 4-2). For each group of units in a particular hydrogeologic unit, the highest 
altitude from each grid was taken to represent the top of the corresponding hydrogeologic unit 
for that cell. The GFM contains a surface representing the older volcanic rocks (see Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], p. 189 for a listing of GFM 3.1 surfaces included in the HFM-19). In some 
areas, this unit appears to equate with the older volcanic confining unit of the HFM-19, while in 
other areas it appears to be a different surface. As a result, these data are not incorporated. 
Although the GFM contains gravity data to help define the top of the Paleozoic rocks, the lower 
carbonate aquifer is not augmented by the data from the GFM. During the analysis of the input 
data, the version of the GFM did not agree with the seismic data (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], 
p. 154). This was a different interpretation than what the USGS had published for the top of the 
basement (lower carbonate aquifer in this area). The interpretations of the seismic line were 
chosen to use data that were continuous with regional interpretations (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], pp. 204 to 205). Because of the depth of the lower carbonate aquifer and lower 
clastic confining unit, the amount of data available for determining the location of these units 
was based more on geologic interpretations incorporated into cross sections and less on actual 
map outcrops and well logs (Figures 6-6o and 6-6p). 
6.3.3 Representation of Faults and Structures 
Information on faults used in the development of the HFM-19 includes fault trace maps showing 
where faults intersect the land surface, and faults shown on geologic cross sections. The trace of 
a fault is shown on a map and shows the surface exposure of a fault or where it is interpreted to 
project to the surface. A cross section indicates the dip, the trace of the fault with depth and how 
the feature is thought to change at depth. Faults in the model area can dip at almost any angle, 
but most are high-angle faults (greater than 60 ). Given software constraints for building features 
such as faults, and the flow model resolution of 500 meters (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], 
Section 6.5.3.2), the faulting and structures in the area were simplified. 
Faulting and fracturing at Yucca Mountain may act as preferred conduits or barriers to 
groundwater flow. Faults in relative tension are more likely to be conduits for groundwater, and 
faults in shear or compression are more likely to deflect or block groundwater movements. Due 
to the large number of faults in the modeled area and limitations in modeling technology, 
guidelines are needed to select the faults that can realistically be modeled. Selection of 
representative subsurface features included an understanding on how the various fault in the 
domain might impact the flow model. Juxtaposition by faulting or folding of low-permeability 
rocks against relatively high-permeability rocks often forms barriers to groundwater flow and 
prominent hydraulic discontinuities. In general, a fault can be a barrier to flow for two reasons: 
(1) 
juxtaposition of low-permeability materials against relatively high-permeability materials and 
(2) 
low permeability material (fault gouge) in the fault zone itself forming a barrier to flow 
across the fault. The first of these features is generally represented in the unit geometry defined 
in the HFM-19. Barriers, represented by low-permeability nodes, are the second type of feature. 

The faults selected to juxtapose units and form offsets in the structure contour maps are shown 
explicitly as major structural features in Figure 6-3. Faults and other structures used in the 
construction of the HFM-19 (by being used for offsets in structure contour map gridding) were 
taken as a subset of the faults identified by Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060], Map I-2755). 
This subset was subjective and done based on knowledge gained by field geologists familiar with 
the study area (Potter et al. 2002 [DIRS 160060]). Decisions on selection of faults were noted in 
the scientific notebook and include criteria based on offsets, length, and discussions with 
professional hydrogeologists (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], pp. 128, 172, 242 to 243, and 251). 
C. Potter was included in these discussions (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], p. 172) and provided 
the map used to define the fault locations for both the HFM-19 and the flow model 
(DTN: GS010908314221.001 [DIRS 162874]) by Potter et al (2002 [DIRS 160060]). They 
were also selected based on coincidence with hydrologic changes that include water level offsets 
across a feature (Solitario Canyon) and hydrochemical changes (Crater Flat) as shown in 
Figure 6-3. The vertical faults were not included as a geometric defined space as the units are, 
they were represented as planer surfaces that extend from the bottom of the model to the top 
surface. These vertical features act as interfaces that create unit offsets. A number of faults were 
selected to use for offsets on the grids (Figure 6-3). 
Vertical low-permeability geologic features are assumed to impede the horizontal flow of 
groundwater. In the flow model calibration, the barriers have a significant effect on heads and 
flows in that they support the hydraulic gradients implied by the hydraulic head observations. 
Other potential barriers may be found to be unimportant or adequately represented by the 
juxtaposition of hydrogeologic units. For example, if faulting results in highly permeable rock 
being truncated by low-permeability rock, the barrier to flow will be represented by this 
juxtaposition of the units and a separate low permeability feature is not necessary. 
Thrust faults are another subsurface feature that are a type of fault but treated separately from 
vertical faults. An area in the southwest corner of the model domain influenced by thrusting was 
identified (Figure 6-3). This area is coincident with an area of highly fractured carbonate rock 
and an area of high hydraulic conductivity and high flow rates in the Death Valley regional flow 
model (DTN: GS960808312144.003 [DIRS 105121]). Thrust faults were represented by 
repeating hydrogeologic units where these structural features were thought to be hydrologically 
important. This method is discussed in Section 6.3.4. 
Information on faults used in the development of the HFM-19 includes fault trace maps showing 
where faults intersect the land surface (Figure 6-3) (Potter et al. 2002 [DIRS 160060]). The 
Solitario Canyon, Crater Flat, Windy Wash, and Bare Mountain faults (Figure 6-3) are identified 
as major faults in the site-scale model region and are thought to affect groundwater flow. Other 
faults were represented implicitly by unit offsets and features such as thrusting (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], p. 251). In addition to faults built into the HFM-19, faults can be included as 
discrete features in the site-scale SZ flow and transport models. The site-scale SZ flow model 
calibration and alternate model studies add faults to the flow model as geometrically-defined 
explicit zones with distinct hydrological properties and complementary to the HFM-19. These 
include Crater Flat fault, Solitario Canyon fault, and U.S. Highway 95 fault (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037], Table 6-17 and Figure 6-37). 

6.3.4 Construction of Hydrogeologic Unit Contour Maps 
The HFM-19 is essentially a 3-D map of selected hydrologic units, whose fundamental building 
blocks are structure contour maps. To construct these maps, the different hydrogeologic unit 
tops must be interpolated and extrapolated from the available land-surface data and throughout 
the subsurface between the cross sections and boreholes. The emphasis in this step was to create 
structure contour maps in a consistent manner by interpolating and extrapolating from available 
data points. These data points included: (1) topographic elevations derived from DEM data 
within the outcrop areas of each hydrogeologic unit; (2) separate files defining the tops of each 
hydrogeologic unit supplied from the geologic cross sections; (3) altitudes of hydrogeologic unit 
tops from borehole lithologic logs; (4) geophysical evidence of unit tops from published sources; 
and (5) grid points from the GFM. The distribution of geologic, geophysical, and borehole-data 
locations is shown in Figure 4-1. The data sources for developing the structure contour maps are 
shown in Table 6-3. Maps showing the data used to construct each unit, as well as the 
distribution of the units, are presented in Figures 6-6a through 6-6q. The distribution of the 
valley-fill aquifer and confining unit is based only on the surface-based hydrogeologic map data 
shown in Figure 4-2. Figure 6-7 shows the top of the HFM-19 after the top has been clipped by 
the water table surface, note the actual distribution of the upper units in the HFM-19 are smaller 
after being clipped. 
Gridding fills space in the domain by creating a surface grid across an area based on the 
distributed input data Petrosys software, gridding techniques and fault-handling package was 
used to interpolate the hydrogeologic surfaces between existing geologic cross sections, borehole 
unit tops, surface exposure points, and points from the GFM. A grid design congruent with the 
computational grid of the regional groundwater flow model (DTN: GS960808312144.003 
[DIRS 105121]) was used. The HFM-19 grid, therefore, consists of a rectangular array of nodes 
with a nodal spacing of 125 m, which was chosen on the basis of flow modeling requirements 
(less than or equal to a 500-meter flow grid) as opposed to the best increment to accurately 
represent the data. This selection resulted in grids with 240 columns and 360 rows. This grid 
spacing simplifies the available data near the repository and extrapolates from very widely 
spaced data in other areas of the model domain. See Section 4.1 for more on grid resolutions. 
Many methods (both mathematical and interpretive) are available for use in creating geometric 
grids. This method uses a projected distance weighted average to obtain initial grid estimates for 
the input data. Once the initial estimation has been completed, the grid is allowed to converge to 
an optimum solution. This converging process (described below) fills in the missing values in 
the grid. Hence, the gridding process is a convergent technique that can be summarized in the 
following steps: 
1. 
The input data set to the gridding is extracted from the available information, taking 
only data that lies in the model domain. 
2. 
The specified grid cell size is doubled until the numbers of rows or columns in the area 
of interest is less than eight. This number is determined efficient and is part of the 
recommended gridding techniques in Petrosys software. 

3. 
The sampled data are used to derive values at each grid node using a projected 
distance weighted technique. Only values within one-half a grid cell size to the node 
are used in the calculation. If there are no data values within this distance, no value is 
assigned to the node. This forms the forced grid. 
4. 
The values at all the grid nodes are calculated using the hybrid grid algorithm 
(described below) and are placed in the working grid. 
5. 
The computed value is compared to the value in the forced grid. The difference 
between the two values is the difference between the input data and computed grid. 
Nodes, where there are no forced grid values, are ignored in this calculation. For 
comparison, the root-mean-square-error in DEM values as presented in Section 4.1.1.4 
is on the order of one-third the contour interval and no errors are greater than 
two-thirds the contour interval. For contour intervals of 30 or 60 m, the DEM 
root-mean-square-error values range from 10 to 40 meters. 
6. 
For all grid nodes, where there are values in the forced grid, the working grid is 
modified and the values changed to match those in the forced grid. 
7. 
The gridding iterates until the change in grid values becomes insignificant or a total of 
200 iterations are reached, whichever is less. This ends the first gridding pass. 
8. 
The grid cell size is halved, and the sampled data are again used to derive values at 
each grid node using a projected distance weighted technique. The slopes derived 
from the previous gridding pass are used in the calculation so that the slopes are 
preserved. These values then form the new forced grid. 
9. 
The working grid is updated with the information from the new forced grid. 
Gridding continues until the required cell size has been achieved (125 meters in this 
case). 
As mentioned in the steps above, a hybrid gridding technique, which uses two gridding methods, 
was used to construct a continuous grid or surface for each hydrogeologic unit with a set of 
points in x, y, z space. The hybrid method is a combination of the minimum curvature and a first 
order least squares. It uses first order least squares method within one grid cell of a fault and 
minimum curvature method to calculate all other nodes away from the fault. The minimum 
curvature method fits a minimum curvature spline through the data points either side of the point 
being determined. Hence, it preserves the rate of change of slope. The minimum-curvature 
method is commonly used with good results in geologic modeling, but in areas where faults are 
treated as opaque barriers between units, this method results in a spiked appearance. The first 
order least squares method appears to reduce the number of spikes near the faults, resulting in a 
more realistic looking surface. In regions of heavy faulting, such as Yucca Mountain, a 
combination of the methods appears to honor the data more accurately (USGS 2001 
[DIRS 148306]). In all cases, the preferred gridding method will depend on the data set and on 
the desired result. The final grid using one algorithm may look better to one interpreter, while 
another person may prefer the result obtained using another algorithm. In these heavily faulted 

datasets, the results of the hybrid grid algorithm appear to look better than those obtained using 
minimum curvature alone. 
Using a fault-handling package built into the gridding software, the fault traces (Figure 6-3) were 
used during the gridding procedure so that the altitude of a unit was not translated across a fault 
(Table 6-4). Where the grid crosses a fault, the grid is offset by the appropriate amount. The 
offset on the faults varies with location. Inherent in using fault traces is the simplification of 
these faults being traces of a vertical fault plane. Hence, the resulting structure contour maps 
contain a series of undulating surfaces broken by faults (Figures 6-6a through 6-6q). Because of 
the scale of the model, the intended use of the model, and data availability, grids of individual 
fault surfaces were not constructed. Even less is known about the dip and location of faults 
below the water table than the stratigraphy. Some of the offsets on the faults are preserved 
through changes in altitude of a given hydrogeologic unit. Given the depth and area over which 
the HFM-19 extends, and the lack of information in most of the modeled volume, this 
simplification provides a reasonable and usable framework for the flow and transport models. 
Though most selected faults are treated as vertical, there are types of fault features that, for 
gridding purposes, are treated similar to hydrologic units. Thrust faults are low angle reverse 
faults that can cause repeating hydrogeologic units that occur in the model area, but are difficult 
to represent in the software because geologic, structural, or stratigraphic surfaces stored as arrays 
cannot have multiple vertical coordinate (z) values. In order to deal with this difficulty, some 
simplifying techniques were used. Where units were repeated by thrust faults, such as the lower 
carbonate aquifer, two different grids were created for the same hydrogeologic unit. Repeating 
hydrogeologic structural unit altitude values were treated as defining unique additional 
hydrogeologic unit(s). A unit boundary map was then added to define an outline for the 
perimeter of the thrust sheet. Within this boundary, hydrogeologic structural elevation values 
were treated as defining unique additional hydrogeologic units. Where units were continuous 
across this boundary, values are the same on each side, making the boundary invisible for 
modeling purposes. 

Modified from DTN: GS010908314221.001 [DIRS 162874]. 
NOTE: X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. 
Y axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-3. Site Saturated Zone Model Extent and Locations of Proposed Hydrogeologic Zones and 
Faults 

Table 6-3. Data Sources for Hydrogeologic Units 
Hydrogeologic Unit 
Data Sources 
Geologic 
Cross 
Section1 
Lithologic 
Log2 
Geologic 
Map3 GFM 3.14 
ERP 
Geologic 
Cross 
Section5 
Geophysical 
Data6 
Valley-Fill Aquifer X 
Valley-Fill Confining Unit X 
Limestone Aquifer X 
Lava-Flow Aquifer X X X 
Upper Volcanic Aquifer X X X 
Upper Volcanic 
Confining Unit X X X X 
Lower Volcanic Aquifer 
Prow Pass Tuff X X X X 
Lower Volcanic Aquifer 
Bullfrog Tuff X X X X 
Lower Volcanic Aquifer 
Tram Tuff X X X 
Lower Volcanic 
Confining Unit X X X 
Older Volcanic Aquifer X 
Older Volcanic 
Confining Unit X X 
Undifferentiated Valley-
Fill X X X 
Upper Carbonate 
Aquifer X 
Lower Carbonate 
Aquifer (Thrust Plate) X X 
Upper Clastic Confining 
Unit X X X X 
Lower Carbonate 
Aquifer X X X X X 
Lower Clastic Confining 
Unit X X X 
Granitic Confining Unit X 
1 
2 
See Appendix A. 
3 
See Appendix A. 
DTN: GS000400002332.001 [DIRS 148924]; DTN: GS010908314221.001 [DIRS 162874]
4 DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769] 
5 DTN: MO0106STRATHFM.024 [DIRS 155585] 
6 DTN: MO0106STRATHFM.025 [DIRS 155586] and DTN: MO0106STRATHFM.026 [DIRS 155587] 
NOTE: GFM=geologic framework model; ERP=Environmental Restoration Program 

Table 6-4. Gridding Parameters 
Hydrogeologic Unit 
Clipping 
Distance (m)1 
Faults included 
in gridding 
Valley-Fill Aquifer 62.5 No 
Valley-Fill Confining Unit 62.5 No 
Limestone Aquifer 2,000 No 
Lava-Flow Aquifer 2,000 Yes 
Upper Volcanic Aquifer 5,000 Yes 
Upper Volcanic Confining Unit 5,000 Yes 
Lower Volcanic Aquifer Prow Pass Tuff 7,500 Yes 
Lower Volcanic Aquifer Bullfrog Tuff 10,000 Yes 
Lower Volcanic Aquifer Tram Tuff 7,500 Yes 
Lower Volcanic Confining Unit 7,500 Yes 
Older Volcanic Aquifer 5,000 Yes 
Older Volcanic Confining Unit 10,000 Yes 
Undifferentiated Valley-Fill 10,000 Yes 
Upper Carbonate Aquifer 2,000 Yes2 
Lower Carbonate Aquifer (Thrust Plate) 7,500 Yes3 
Upper Clastic Confining Unit 2,000 Yes2 
Lower Carbonate Aquifer None Yes2 
Lower Clastic Confining Unit None Yes2 
Granitic Confining Unit 6,000 Yes 
Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: Figures 6-6a through 6-6q
1 
Clipping distance is the distance beyond the data points which grid nodes are set 
to null values. 
2 Paleozoic fault was also included. 
3 Thrust fault unit extent was used. 
Where little data are available to determine the altitude of a hydrostratigraphic unit, the altitude 
of the unit top was extrapolated from the existing data points. The location of the data can be 
seen relative to each unit in Figures 6-6a through 6-6q. The white areas in the figures show 
where the grid values are null, and the unit does not exist. Boreholes, cross section data, GFM 
extent, and geologic map data are shown relative to the unit where they were used. Areas close 
to the repository and at shallower depths show good definition, areas beyond the GFM boundary 
and in the deeper units show sparse data distribution. The extrapolation is based on the hybrid 
gridding algorithm described above. 
The quality of individual structure contour maps depends on the quantity of the data points used 
to define them. Some of these hydrogeologic surfaces, such as that for upper volcanic aquifer, 
were relatively well defined by more than one data set (derived from surface information, 
lithologic logs, and geologic cross sections). Other structure contour maps, especially those for 
units with fewer outcrops, were less well defined and were extrapolated from sparse, interpretive 
data such as published geophysical interpretations. In areas with little or no data, gridding 
algorithms sometimes extrapolate unreasonably. Where no geologic interpretations were 
available to augment the data, the problems were handled in two ways: (1) a clipping distance 
(Table 6-4) was instituted that allowed the grid values to be null where the unit was thought not 

to exist, and (2) gaps that were filled between data extrapolations were kept. These areas were 
evaluated in the alternate HFM (HFM27) and are discussed in Section 6.4. Confidence in the 
resulting representation was established by the iterative process of data analysis during gridding 
and evaluation of the contour maps. 
6.3.5 Assembling the Hydrogeologic Framework Model 
The 3-D HFM-19 was constructed by combining the set of interpolated structure contour maps 
representing the tops of individual hydrogeologic units. Stratamodel stratigraphic geocellular 
modeling (USGS 2000 [DIRS 148985]) is a geologic modeling software product that uses its 
own geologic rules to help define the geographic extent and intersection of surfaces. The 
stratigraphic geocellular modeling (Stratamodel) software has been developed for modeling a 
sedimentary basin environment. It allows for the specification of sedimentary depositional units 
(onlap and proportional units), as well as the truncation of units and faulting. Although 
Stratamodel allows the incorporation of faults as individual surfaces in the sequence of events, 
because of the lack of geologic information at depth and complexity of the model area, this 
feature was not incorporated in the construction of the HFM-19. The sequence presented below 
describes the geologic rules used with this software. Basically, the HFM-19 is a 3-D cellular 
framework that defines the structural and stratigraphic nature of rock formations. The 
stratigraphic nature is defined by depositional pattern and cell layer resolution. Examples of the 
stratigraphic and structural complexities include: proportionally varying cell thickness, onlap or 
baselap, truncation, and faulting. 
Stratamodel was not designed to handle the time stratigraphic emplacement of intrusions. To 
include intrusions, they must be inserted into Stratamodel out of their correct stratigraphic order. 
The youngest intrusion must represent the oldest deposition surface. Therefore, the youngest 
intrusion is the first event sequence included in Stratamodel. While this does not affect the 
resulting model, it does affect the order the units are put into the model. The following sequence 
was used to build the 3-D HFM-19 for the site-scale SZ flow and transport models: 
1. 
To maintain consistency among the SZ models, the base is selected to be coincident 
with the base of the Death Valley regional flow model set at 2,750 meters below a 
smoothed version of the potentiometric surface (DAgnese et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131], 
pp. 2 and 75). This selected base is deep enough to encompass the flow model 
boundary set at 2,200 meters below the water table (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], 
Section 6.4.6.2.1). 
2. 
The granitic intrusions were input as the first geologic unit. 
3. 
The lower clastic confining unit was input. Where the granitic intrusions were above 
this grid, the unit was truncated. 
4. 
The remaining units (lower carbonate aquifer, upper clastic confining unit, upper 
carbonate aquifer, undifferentiated valley-fill unit, volcanic aquifers and confining 
units, basalt flows, and limestone aquifer) were entered in order by an onlap process 
onto the lower clastic confining unit and intrusions. Because the volcanic and 
sedimentary units fill in topographic lows, the onlap process of Stratamodel 
(USGS 2000 [DIRS 148985]) simulates this process. A special surface was placed at 

an appropriate location within the above general sequence to represent the 
thrust-faulted geometries. 
5. 
The valley-fill aquifer and confining units were emplaced in the valleys. 
6. 
The potentiometric surface (Figure 6-2) was then used as a truncation surface to clip 
the top of the HFM-19. 
The HFM-19 has volumetric units defined by the structure contour maps of individual 
hydrogeologic units. The hydrogeologic units are numbered consecutively in stratigraphic order 
from bottom to top (Table 6-1), beginning with sequence number 2 (Sequence 1 is the base and 
corresponds to the base of the larger SZ regional model). Only the hydrogeologic units and 
structures occurring above the bottom of the Death Valley regional SZ flow model and below the 
potentiometric surface are included in the HFM-19. Although the cells have uniform horizontal 
dimensions throughout the HFM-19, the number of cell layers may be controlled. In many 
locations, hydrogeologic units have a large thickness. 
The stratigraphy and structure represented in the HFM-19 are shown in a fence diagram view of 
the clipped site model (Figure 6-1). The resulting HFM-19 does not represent many small and 
even intermediate-scale features within the subsurface, which cannot be resolved within 
the 125-meter grid spacing. It does, however, represent the site-scale features accurately given 
the grid resolution, and captures details such as fault-induced truncation of hydrogeologic units 
providing substantial constraints for flow model development. 
6.3.6 Potentiometric Surface 
The potentiometric-surface map presented does not strictly represent the water table; it is used 
for HFM-19 only as a clipping surface of the top of the SZ flow model. Water level data are 
used differently in the flow model as important calibration targets, and to derive horizontal and 
vertical hydraulic gradients. The site-scale SZ flow model report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], 
Sections 6.4.4 and 6.4.5) discusses various interpretations (including perched) and use of water 
level data within the flow model. However, the potentiometric surface presented here is a 
reasonable representation of the water table for the following reasons: (1) at Yucca Mountain, 
water levels at most boreholes were measured in Tertiary volcanic rocks in the uppermost part of 
the SZ (Graves et al. 1997 [DIRS 101046], p. 1); (2) south of Yucca Mountain, boreholes 
penetrate the SZ to varying depths dependent upon the total depth of the borehole, but in this 
area most groundwater flow is believed to be nearly horizontal and available data indicate 
negligible vertical-head gradients; and (3) for the case of boreholes having multiple piezometers, 
only water levels from the uppermost saturated interval were used in the construction of the 
potentiometric-surface map. 
Because the potentiometric data dictate a complex 3-D flow system, a number of different 
conceptual models of the flow system are possible, as discussed in Water-Level Data Analysis 
for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170009], 
Section 6.5). In particular, the interpretation of the water table selected assumes a continuous 
system as opposed to one where the water levels are not well connected. Specifically, in this 
type of system, some of the water levels could be from a separated perched system or possibly 

even a more compartmentalized system (by faults or other features). Although the boreholes are 
open at different depths below the water table and are open to different geologic zones, water 
levels in most of the boreholes seem to represent a laterally continuous aquifer system 
(i.e., perched or semi-perched conditions are absent). This portrayal of the potentiometric 
surface at Yucca Mountain (Figure 6-2) is consistent with those referenced consequent to and 
including the early work by Robison in Ground-Water Level Data and Preliminary 
Potentiometric-Surface Maps, Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Nye County Nevada (Robison 1984 
[DIRS 144849]), which implies a hydraulically well-connected flow system within the SZ. The 
well-connected system may result from the presence of many faults and fractures in the volcanic 
part of the flow system (Tucci and Burkhardt, 1995 [DIRS 101060], p. 7). At the scale of the 
site model, the groundwater flow system behaves as a porous medium. Flow in the volcanic 
rocks occurs primarily in fractures and secondarily in the matrix of the rock. Therefore, the 
uppermost aquifer may be unconfined or confined depending upon the areal location of the point 
being measured (Tucci and Burkhardt 1995 [DIRS 101060], p. 7). 
The potentiometric surface was gridded using these water level data, then resampled 
to 125-meter spacing coincident with the HFM-19. The borehole locations from which 
potentiometric data were used in contouring are shown in Figure 6-2, which also shows the 
borehole elevations. For the case of boreholes having multiple piezometers, only data from the 
uppermost-completed borehole interval were used. Most of the boreholes are partially 
penetrating. No attempt was made to segregate and analyze water-level measurements 
associated with specific hydrogeologic units or fracture zones. Some water levels represent 
composite heads from multiple hydrogeologic units and fractures. Figure 6-2 shows the top of 
the HFM-19 as represented by the computer-generated potentiometric surface over the model 
area in which data from all available boreholes in and around the model area were used. The 
input water-level data used to construct the surface are discussed in the water level data analysis 
(USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625]), and were used as calibration targets in the development of the 
site-scale SZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.4.4). 
6.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
The HFM-19 is a conceptual model that provides a static representation of the geometry internal 
to the volume encompassed by the 3-D model domain of the site-scale SZ flow and transport 
models for the Yucca Mountain site. The HFM-19 is a conceptual model, not a numerical 
predictive model, so validation is achieved through the SZ flow and transport models that 
implement it. All appropriate data that were available to define the geometric relationships 
within the HFM-19 model domain are used in constructing the HFM-19. The hydrogeologic 
units consist of contiguous, geologically defined stratigraphic units that are grouped 
into 19 hydrogeologic units based on measured or inferred common hydrologic properties as 
shown in Table 6-1. The HFM-19 is assembled from the hydrogeologic units by using standard 
and acceptable techniques (Section 5) to interpolate and extrapolate the locations and extent of 
the hydrogeologic units based on data from boreholes, surface geologic maps, geologic cross 
sections, and geophysical surveys. 
Evaluation of the HFM-19 consists of comparing it to data and model sources, and checking that 
the representation is adequate for its intended use in flow and transport modeling (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], pp. 240 and 241). The accuracy of the HFM-19 is checked by comparing the 

model against the input data used to build it (Section 6.4.1). New data were added to HFM-19 
and the resulting HFM-27 can be used to evaluate the impact of this new data. Accuracy is 
checked by comparing changes in the source data and their impact on the reinterpreted HFM-27 
and on the flow and transport models results (Section 6.4.2). Section 6.4.3 discusses 
uncertainties in the HFM-19 and how they propagate to the flow and transport models. 
Adequacy for intended use is checked by evaluating data accuracy and the results from flow and 
transport modeling using the HFM-19 and the HFM-27 (Section 6.4.4). 
6.4.1 Evaluation of HFM-19 Construction and Data 
The model construction process can be checked by comparing input data (geologic cross section 
unit tops, unit tops from borehole lithologic logs, and geologic map unit tops) with grids 
representing tops of hydrogeologic units in the HFM-19. Specifically, a grid representing the top 
of a hydrogeologic unit was taken from the HFM-19. This grid was visually compared to the 
input data. Because of the inconsistent distribution of data, values of approximation varied over 
the model area. The unit tops of the HFM-19 and input data were checked to see if: 
1. 
Grid values approximated input data 
2. 
Extrapolation from data values is reasonable 
3. 
Grids were not clipped by another surface unreasonably where input data exist. 
These checks took place during reviews and confirm that the HFM-19 closely approximates the 
input data, as documented in the scientific notebook SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453]). These reviews are outlined in Section 4.1.1. The model is more accurate (near 
the repository and near the land surface) where more data exist. There is less control on 
extrapolation values further from data control points. The hydrogeologic unit tops have some 
truncations that result from lack of data and where search distances are exceeded in the gridding 
algorithms. These truncations and extrapolation effects are a part of the HFM-19 and should be 
taken into consideration by uncertainty analyses in flow modeling. Specifically, the contact 
between the volcanic rocks and the alluvium down gradient (south) from the repository should be 
examined as part of the flow modeling process. The approximate location of this uncertainty 
zone is shown in Figure 6-3 and is discussed in further detail in Section 6.4.3. 
Within the immediate repository area, the site GFM 3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769]) was used as the principal source of subsurface data for the upper volcanic 
confining unit and the Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs within the lower volcanic aquifer 
(Table 6-3). For these units, the GFM is effectively embedded within the HFM-19. However, 
because of differences between extrapolation techniques and data coverage, the process of 
embedding the GFM within the HFM-19 introduced discontinuities in some unit thicknesses 
across the GFM model boundaries. These discontinuities do not affect the flow model in any 
significant manner (see further discussion in Section 6.4.2 and Appendix B1). 
In areas where geologic data are sparse, the gridded surfaces cannot be checked against data. To 
resolve some of the extrapolation effects, resulting from structural control and depositional 
heterogeneity, the model was examined for geologic inconsistencies. The maps showing the 
distribution of the hydrogeologic units (Figures 6-6a through 6-6q) were inspected to determine 
whether the gridded surfaces were consistent with the input data and the site-scale geologic 

setting. These figures are a good tool for visually checking that the units of the HFM-19 are a 
reasonable representation. The units show a recognizable shape and topology that can be 
compared visually to revisions and similar views of related geologic models. Examination of 
Figures 6-6a through 6-6q and the actual HFM-19 show that in many areas the lack of 
hydrogeologic data or the presence of faulting causes a blocky or choppy appearance in the 
model. Where data show good coverage, units between models compare very closely; where 
data are sparse, units vary somewhat according to technique and interpretation. These sparse 
areas include the alluvium uncertainty zone and the deeper units representing the carbonate 
aquifers and the clastic confining units. 
Structures that are a part of the volcanic rocks within the HFM-19 include the Claim Canyon 
caldera and the Shoshone pluton, shown in Figure 6-3 (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], p. 251). 
These may be associated with zones of hydrothermally altered rocks having distinctly different 
hydrologic properties from those nominally associated with the volcanic rocks. These altered 
zones, therefore, may be hydrologically significant in controlling groundwater flow and recharge 
in the northern part of the model domain. At the time this model was constructed, available data 
were not sufficient to assess the potential effects of these zones of altered rocks and to 
incorporate these zones explicitly within the HFM-19. Similarly, the anomalous Fortymile Wash 
drainage shown in Figure 6-3 may be indicative of a structural feature that may affect 
groundwater flow and recharge but was not incorporated explicitly in the HFM-19. However, 
allowance for the potential effects of these features is incorporated into the site-scale SZ flow 
model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.5.3.4). 
By inspecting the HFM-19, it is determined that the grid conforms to input data in the area of the 
repository, with negligible grid effects along boundaries between dense and sparse data 
distributions. As the distance from the repository increases (both horizontally and vertically), the 
grid increment is much finer than the data resolution, so accuracy is difficult to measure. 
Inspections during the construction of the model and review by Wilson (2001 [DIRS 155614], 
p. 110) indicate that the HFM-19 agrees with the input data and is suitable for its intended use. 
The HFM-19 was examined and corrected for geologic inconsistencies; however, the model is 
not intended for precise geologic unit locations but does satisfy the intent to provide a reasonable 
and generalized representation that captures major hydrogeologic units affecting flow in the SZ 
within a resolution used by the SZ flow and transport models. 
6.4.2 Impact of New Data and Alternate Models 
The development of new geologic models was influenced by geologic observations from Nye 
County Early Warning Drilling Program (EWDP) wells and made available after HFM-19 was 
completed. These wells allow a better characterization of the thickness and lateral extent of the 
alluvial aquifer just north of U.S. Highway 95 (Figure 1-2). A revision to the HFM-19, is 
a 27-layer HFM-27 (DTN: GS021008312332.002 [DIRS 164363]) incorporating new Nye 
County data and the updated GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]). 
The HFM-27 is used for alternate conceptual models in the SZ flow and transport models, and 
thus enables an evaluation of the impact of new data and the represented hydrogeology. The 
HFM-19 has not changed as a result of new data and models and remains the base-case 
conceptual model for the site-scale SZ flow and transport models. 

The method to build the HFM-27 is the same as described in this document with some important 
differences. The units are grouped to resemble the new regional scale HFM2003 resulting in 
27-model units instead of 19, and the boundaries are extended vertically (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171040], pp. 46 to 47). Instead of an altitude near -2,750 m, the base of the regional 
model and HFM-27 is lowered to an altitude of -4,000 meters. This depth is interpreted to 
encompass nearly all of the aquifer units in the regional groundwater flow system (Sweetkind et 
al. 2001 [DIRS 159092]). The top of the HFM-27 is no longer clipped, but continues to the 
ground surface. The larger vertical representation allows flexibility for flow and transport 
models in defining the potentiometric and bottom level surfaces for the flow and transport 
models Memo Documenting Transmittal of Preliminary Site Saturated Zone Hydrogeologic 
Framework Model (HFM) (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 170974]). 
The HFM-27 uses new data to establish the thickness and locations of units in the area of the 
GFM2000 encompassing the repository site and incorporates data from Nye County EWDP 
boreholes EWDP-2DB and EWDP-19D1 (DTN: GS011008314211.001 [DIRS 158690]); 
EWDP-01DX, EWDP-02D, EWDP-03D, and EWDP-09SX (DTN: GS000808314211.005 
[DIRS 154685]) (blue crosses in Figure 6-4, also used in the flow model). The HFM-27 was 
made to match well data to within 10 meters and geologic contact data from the Nye County 
geologic cross sections, NYE-1, NYE-2 and NYE-3 (DTN: GS020208314211.002 
[DIRS 158689]), to within 25 meters (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171040], pp. 53 to 61). Although the 
Nye County Cross Sections have been revised since development of the HFM-27 
(DTN: GS031108314211.005 [DIRS 168526], revised geologic contact information within the 
cross sections fall within the 25 meters resolution of the HFM-27. Thus, the revision to the Nye 
County Cross Sections does not impact the HFM-27. 
Gridding improvements to the HFM-27, using newly developed hydrogeologic data and the 
GFM2000, significantly reduce the grid effects seen in the HFM-19, specifically in the Crater 
Flat Group. These improvements are evident when the HFM unit shapes and thicknesses are 
compared to the GFM in Figures C-1 through C-5 in Appendix C. These figures demonstrate 
that that the current revisions of the GFM and HFM resolve the major differences in the 
thickness of the hydrogeologic units in the northwest corner of the GFM domain. 
A comparison of the hydrogeologic units used in the computational grids for flow and transport 
as identified in HFM-19 and HFM-27 are shown in Figure 6-5. This figure shows the 
computational flow and transport model grids colored by hydrogeologic units using HFM-19 for 
the base-case model grid and HFM-27 for the alternate model grid. The view is planar with 
north at the top of the images. Both grids have been clipped at the potentiometric surface and 
show the hydrogeologic units colored by numbers 2 through 28. The base-case grid has been 
colored to approximate the units in the alternate grid (HFM-27). The shortened unit names are 
shown on either side of the color bar and indicate their approximate unit correlation. Three flow 
paths from each flow model are shown overlaying the top of the model for reference only and 
indicate the southern direction taken by the flow paths as they leave the repository. Major 
changes in the southern part of the HFM-27 are the depths and extent of the alluvial layers. The 
units for the northern part of the HFM-27 domain were changed mainly as a result of 
reinterpretation of geophysical data regarding the depth of the carbonate aquifer. The carbonate 
aquifer is no longer believed to intersect the northern boundary of the SZ site-scale flow model. 
Some units in the HFM-27 have been further subdivided. For instance, the upper volcanic 

aquifer of HFM-19 is congruent to the HFM-27 Timber Mountain and Paintbrush volcanic 
aquifers. Therefore, in the north, the Paintbrush volcanic aquifer replaces the similar but 
differently named upper volcanic aquifer as the dominant unit near the water table. The primary 
hydrogeologic units for flow remain comprised of the Crater Flat group: Prow Pass, Bullfrog, 
and Tram units (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.4.6.2.2.1). 
The impact of new data and updated models is evaluated by SZ flow modeling using the updated 
HFM-27 that incorporates the newer GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 
[DIRS 153777]), a new Death Valley regional groundwater model as discussed by Faunt (2002 
[DIRS 171040]), EWDP boreholes and cross sections. The flow model uses the HFM-19 as a 
base-case version flow model, and HFM-27 and explicitly defined geometric zones to examine 
multiple alternate flow models (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.4). Flow paths in the 
base-case model using HFM-19 trend in a southeasterly direction from the repository site. 
Alternate models using HFM-27 trend toward a more southern direction (Figure 6-5). Further 
analysis of the flow paths indicate that the fluid particles travel in the same units regardless of 
the underlying hydrogeologic representation. The flow for these models are predominantly to 
the Bullfrog tuff and the alluvial units, with some difference in degree of southerly direction and 
speed of flow paths influenced by added complexity and division of nearby units (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037], Sections 6.4.6.3.5 and 6.8.1). The flow paths do not reach the Carbonate 
Aquifer due to the effects of the vertical gradient as shown in the calibrated site-scale SZ flow 
model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2.3). 
6.4.3 Uncertainties 
For the HFM-19, uncertainty is an estimation of how closely the model matches the actual 
hydrogeologic setting of the site-scale SZ model area and the interpretations of the geologic 
setting it is built on. The primary factor affecting uncertainty in the HFM-19 is the distance from 
the grid points to the nearest input data, and the overall distribution of the input data over the 
site-scale domain. Hydrogeologic units near the surface are constrained by the hydrogeologic 
map (Figure 4-2). The horizontal distance from a data point shows part of the distribution of 
uncertainty where data distribution is shown relative to the unit (Figures 6-6a to 6-6q). Most of 
the borehole data are limited to very shallow depths (corresponding with high unit identification 
numbers), therefore, uncertainty increases with depth (low unit identification numbers). Hence, 
interpretations regarding deeper hydrogeologic units have more uncertainty associated with them 
than that associated with shallower hydrogeologic units. 
The sparseness of data contributes to uncertainty in the configuration of the unconformity 
between Tertiary and Paleozoic rocks. Figure 6-6o shows only limited data were available near 
the repository at these depths. Only one borehole (UE-25 p#1) in the vicinity of Yucca 
Mountain penetrates the contact between the Tertiary volcanic and underlying Paleozoic rocks, 
but Paleozoic rocks crop out in several areas surrounding Yucca Mountain (Figure 4-2). There 
are alternative interpretations of the location of the carbonate aquifers and clastic confining units 
in the subsurface between these known points. The configuration of these lower units rely on the 
gridding techniques outlined in Section 6.3.5 and include evaluations from on-site experts while 
the HFM-19 is being built (Section 4.1.1). 

() 
2DB 
3S 
9SX 
4P 
7S 
12P 
15P 
RepositoryOutline 
UTM-X (meters) 
4050000 
4055000 
4060000 
4065000 
4070000 
4075000 
4080000 
4085000 
4090000 
UTM-Ymeters1DX, 1S 
19P, 19D 
GFM Outline 
Highway 95 
535000 540000 545000 550000 555000 560000 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Table 6-18 and Figure 6-40. 
NOTE: This image identifies 3 borehole sets, those used in the HFM-19, HFM-27, and new wells used in the 
site-scale SZ flow model but not available in time for either HFM. The red crosses are borehole locations 
used in the SZ flow model and included in both HFMs, blue crosses represent new Nye County wells (NCEWDP) 
used in alternate flow models and HFM-27, green crosses are new Nye County wells not in either 
HFM, but used in the flow and transport models. UTM-X =UTM-Easting and UTM-Y =UTM-Northing. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-4. Site-Scale Map Showing Borehole Locations Used for the Saturated Zone Flow Base-Case 
(using HFM-19) and Alternate Flow Models (using HFM-27) 

Hydrogeologic Framework Model for the Saturated Zone Site Scale Flow and Transport Model 
MDL-NBS-HS-000024 REV 00 6-30 November 2004 
CF-Prow 14 -
CF-Tram 12 4060000 
UCCU 5 Model 
Materials 
Base-case Alternate 
LVCU 11 
OVA 10
OVCU 9 
UVF 8 - 
2 ICU 
- 3 XCU 
- 4 LCCU 
- 5 LCA 
- 6 UCCU 
- 7 UCA 
- 8 LCCUT1 
- 10 SCU 
- 12 OVU 
- 13 BRU 
- 17 WVU 
- 18 CHVU 
- 21 VSU 
- 23 LFU 
- 24 LA 
- 25 OACU 
- 26 OAA 
- 15 CFBCU 
- 9 LCA T1 
- 11 VSULow 
- 14 CFTA 
- 16 CFPPA 
- 19 PVA 
- 20 TMVA 
- 22 YVU 
- 27 YACU 
- 28 YAA 
p1 
p50 
p100 
40 Mile Wash 
HWY95 
20 Valley-fill 
Aquifer (Alluvium) 
16 Upper 
Volcanic Aquifer 
17 Lava-Flow 
Aquifer 
20 Valley-fill Aquifer 
(Alluvium) 
4 Lower 
Carbonate Aquifer 
8 Undifferentiated 
Valley Fill 
14 Prow 
15 
15 Upper 
Volcanic 
Confining 
Unit 
16 UVA 
12 Crater Flat 
Tram 
3 Lower 
Clastic 
Confining 
Unit 
8 Undifferentiated 
Valley Fill 
13 Bullfrog 
14 Prow 
15 Upper 
Volcanic 
Confining Unit 
9 Older 
Volcanic 
Confining 
Unit 
12 Crater 
Flat 
Tram 
13 
16 Upper 
Volcanic Aquifer 
5 Upper 
Clastic 
Confining Unit 
4 Lower 
Carbonate 
Aquifer 
15 Upper 
Volcanic 
Confining 
Unit 
14 Prow 
13 
12 
Alluvium 20 -
HWY95 
40 Mile Wash 
11 
p6 
21 Volcanic and 
Sedimentary 
Units (upper) 
26 Older 
Alluvial Aquifer 
23 Lavaflow 
24 Limestone Aquifer 
9 Lower Carbonate 
Aquifer Thrust 
5 Lower 
Carbonate 
Aquifer 
11 VSU 
Lower 
17 Wahmonie 
Volcanic Unit 
19 Paintbrush 
15 Crater Flat 
Bullfrog 
16 Prow 
21 Volcanic and 
Sedimentary 
Units (upper) 
14 Crater Flat Tram 
18 Calico Hills 
Volcanic Unit 
20 Timber Mountain 
Volcanic Aquifer 
6 Upper Clastic 
Confining Unit 
15 
8 
20 Timber Mountain 
p100 
p50 
19 Paintbrush 
Volcanic Aquifer 
14 
15 
16 
18 
20 Timber 
Mountain 
21 
4090000 
VF CU 19 4085000 
LA 18 LFA 
17 4080000 
UVA 16 UVCU 
15 -
UTM-Y (meters) 
4075000 
CF-Bull 13 4070000 
4065000 
LCA-T 6 UCA 
7 LCA 
4 LCCU 
3 4055000 
Granites 2 4050000 
535000 540000 545000 550000 555000 560000 535000 540000 545000 550000 555000 560000 
UTM-X (meters) 
Source: Base-case site-scale SZ flow model grid (HFM-19) DTN: LA0304TM831231.002 [DIRS 163788] (left), Alternate site-scale SZ flow model AM0 grid 
(HFM-27) DTN: LA0409GZ831231.001 [DIRS 171605]. 
NOTES: Selected flow paths. UTM-X =UTM-Easting and UTM-Y =UTM-Northing. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-5. Hydrogeology at the Water Table in Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Grids using HFM-19 and HFM-27 

Table 6-5. Correlation of Alternate Model HFM-27 and Base-Case HFM-19 Units 
Alternate Model (HFM-27) Base-Case Model (HFM-19) 
Abbreviation Hydrogeologic Name Unit Unit Hydrogeologic Name 
Base Base (-4000 m) 1 1 Base (bottom of regional flow model) 
ICU Intrusive Confining Unit 2 2 Granitic confining unit (granites) 
XCU Crystalline Confining Unit 3 3 Lower Clastic Confining Unit (lccu) 
LCCU Lower Clastic Confining Unit 4 3 Lower Clastic Confining Unit (lccu) 
LCA Lower Carbonate Aquifer 5 4 Lower Carbonate Aquifer (lca) 
UCCU Upper Clastic Confining Unit 6 5 Upper Clastic Confining Unit, Upper Clastic Confining 
Unit  thrust 2 (uccu,uccut2) 
UCA Upper Carbonate Aquifer 7 7 
LCCU_T1 Lower Clastic Confining Unit - 
thrust 
8 Lower Clastic Confining Unit - thrust 1 (lccut1) 
LCA_T1 Lower Carbonate Aquifer - 
thrust 
9 6 Lower Carbonate Aquifer thrusts 1 and 2 (lcat1, lcat2) 
SCU Sedimentary Confining Unit 
(none in site area) 
VSU Lower Lower Volcanic and 
Sedimentary Units 
11 8 Undifferentiated valley-fill (leaky) 
OVU Older Volcanic Units 12 9,10, 
11 
Older Volcanic Confining Unit, Older Volcanic Aquifer, 
Lower Volcanic Confining Unit (lvcu,lva,mvcu) 
BRU Belted Range Unit (none in 
site area) 
CFTA Crater Flat - Tram Aquifer 14 12 Lower Volcanic Aquifer Tram Tuff (tct) 
CFBCU Crater Flat - Bullfrog 
Confining Unit 
15 13 Lower Volcanic Aquifer Bullfrog Tuff (tcb) 
CFPPA Crater Flat - Prow Pass 
Aquifer 
16 14 Lower Volcanic Aquifer Prow Pass Tuff (tcp) 
WVU Wahmonie Volcanic Unit 17 15 Upper Volcanic Confining Unit (uvcu) 
CHVU Calico Hills Volcanic Unit 18 15 Upper Volcanic Confining Unit (uvcu) 
PVA Paintbrush Volcanic Aquifer 19 16 Upper Volcanic Aquifer (uva) 
TMVA Timber Mountain Volcanic 
Aquifer 
20 16 Upper Volcanic Aquifer (uva) 
VSU Volcanic and Sedimentary 
Units 
21 8 Undifferentiated valley-fill (leaky) 
YVU Young Volcanic Units (none in 
site area) 
LFU Lava flow Unit 23 17 Lava-flow Aquifer (basalts) 
LA Limestone Aquifer 24 18 Limestone Aquifer (amarls) 
OACU Older Alluvial Confining Unit 
(none in site area) 
OAA Older Alluvial Aquifer 26 20 Valley-fill Aquifer (alluvium), Undifferentiated valley-fill 
(leaky) 
YACU Young Alluvial Confining Unit 27 19 Valley-fill Confining Unit (playas) 
YAA Young Alluvial Aquifer 28 20 Valley-fill Aquifer (alluvium) 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Table 7.5-2. 
NOTE: These units do not have a one-to-one correlation. This table approximately relates HFM-27 hydrogeologic 
units to the base-case HFM-19. 
HFM=hydrogeologic framework model 
MDL-NBS-HS-000024 REV 00 6-31 November 2004 

An important consideration in understanding the SZ flow system is the relationship between flow 
in the fractured tuff aquifers immediately beneath and down gradient from Yucca Mountain, and 
the alluvial aquifer from which groundwater discharges in the Amargosa Valley. The 
approximate outline of the uncertainty zone associated with the contact between the volcanic 
rock and alluvium downgradient (south) from the repository is shown in Figure 6-3. 
Investigations performed as part of the Nye County EWDP better constrain the location of the 
tuff-alluvium contact and better characterize the thickness and lateral extent of the alluvial 
aquifer north of U.S. Highway 95 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170042], Section 6.5.2.2). More 
discussion of the impacts on groundwater flow paths due to uncertainty in the hydrogeologic 
conceptual model (for example the Large Hydraulic Gradient region) are presented in Saturated 
Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037] Sections 6.7 and 6.8). 
The site-scale SZ flow and transport models for which this framework is built, provides the best 
evaluation of uncertainty in the HFM-19. This HFM-19 provides the geologically defined 
internal geometry for flow and transport models and can be converted into a mesh for use in 
groundwater flow and transport modeling codes. The sparseness of data, the difference from 
scale of measurements to scale of model, and permeabilities of various units are inherited 
through the flow model and propagate to the output breakthrough curves (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170036], Section 6.5). The transport model finds that the radionuclide transit times are 
most sensitive to groundwater-specific discharge (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170036], Section 6.7.1), 
which is impacted by the uncertainty in the hydrogeology in the vertical direction inherent in the 
HFM-19 as discussed in Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], 
Section 6.8). 
The site-scale flow model indicates that as long as the horizontal spatial ambiguity in the 
location of hydrogeologic contacts is less than 250 meters (one half the horizontal grid cell size), 
there is essentially no impact on model specific discharge or flux calculations (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037], Section 6.8.5.1). Because flow leaving the repository area is confined to a few 
of the most permeable units, the vertical dimension of the computational flow grid deserves 
special consideration (vertical resolution is variable with the smallest spacing at 10 meters and 
located in the upper units). As reported in the site-scale SZ flow report (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037], Section 6.8.5.1), fluid leaves the repository area through the Bullfrog tuff and 
migrates to the south predominantly in alluvial units. Changing a single flow grid elements 
hydrogeologic designation, either to or from Bullfrog tuff would result in a change to the local 
specific discharge by no more than a factor of 50/300 (17 percent). This is well within the 
overall flow model tolerances. Unfortunately, the thin flow path between UTM northing 
coordinates 4,070,000 meters and 4,060,000 meters can be problematic. Here the fluid flow is 
vertically constrained to 100 meters. If the bottom contact of the Bullfrog tuff were to change in 
altitude (vertically) by 50 m, this could result in a change in the flow model to the specific 
discharge flux in that area of up to 50 percent. Because of the averaging effect across flow grid 
elements, a 50 percent regional change in a relatively small portion of the 0-km to 20-km 
compliance boundary affects model results only moderately and by no more than 25 percent 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.8.5.1). 
Uncertainty is an inherent part of the HFM-19 and its input data. Users of the HFM-19 should 
consider uncertainty when using the HFM-19 and determine whether the uncertainty described in 
the HFM-19 is appropriate to specific users. In both the SZ flow and alternate flow models 

(using HFM-19 and HFM-27 representations) the flow remains southerly and primarily through 
the Crater Flat units and the alluvium. Evaluations between the site-scale flow model and the 
alternative flow model indicate that uncertainty is reduced with new data and new framework 
models, making the HFM-19 the more conservative of the two HFMs. 
6.4.4 Adequacy and Intended Use 
The site HFM-19 is developed specifically as a hydrogeologic framework for the site-scale SZ 
groundwater flow and transport models. The HFM-19 is utilized in building a groundwater flow 
model mesh, for use in the flow model using the groundwater flow and transport modeling code, 
Finite Element Heat and Mass (FEHM) model (Zyvoloski et al. 1997 [DIRS 110491]; Zyvoloski 
et al. 1999 [DIRS 107889]). FEHM is a general-purpose unsaturated zone and SZ 
non-isothermal code built around unstructured control volume finite element numerical 
procedures. The flow and transport models use the one-phase, isothermal flow module and the 
particle-tracking module. Through the definition and assemblage of the hydrogeologic units 
integral to its construction, the HFM-19 provides an internally consistent, geometric 
representation of the spatial distribution of hydrogeologic units within the 3-D SZ flow and 
transport models domain. The hydrogeologic properties within the 3-D flow and transport model 
domains are thought, at least partially, to be controlled by the hydrogeologic units. This 
representation is founded on the underlying geologically defined stratigraphic and structural 
framework. Spatial resolution obtainable within the HFM-19 is limited by the lack of 
well-distributed subsurface data over most of the model domain and, consequently, the HFM-19 
must be considered to be a coarse-scale approximation rather than an accurate depiction of 
reality. The impact of course representation of faults on the flow model is discussed in Saturated 
Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.8.4). 
In the HFM-19 interpretation, the dominant high-angle faults were simplified to be vertical. 
Some of the offsets on the faults are preserved through changes in altitude of a given 
hydrogeologic unit. Given the depth to which the model extends and the lack of information in 
most of the modeled volume, this seems to be a rational simplification. Calibration of the SZ 
flow model using the HFM-19 results in a better understanding of the adequacy of the HFM-19 
for SZ flow modeling. Artificial effects such as blocky edges and discontinuities show little 
effect on the flow process. These effects are resolved with improved data and techniques in the 
revised HFM-27 and enhance the applicability of the HFM-19, but of more consequence are the 
actual definition of units, their thickness and the inclusion of additional faults and structures. 
Some of the near surface units that cover most of the model land surface area (Figure 4-2) only 
account for a small amount of the total model volume. Most of the borehole information is in the 
upper units and in the area removed from the HFM-19 with the clipping surface. Both of these 
data sets do, however, help define the areal extent of the hydrogeologic units. The 
hydrogeologic unit tops have some truncations that result from lack of data and where search 
distances are exceeded in the gridding algorithms. These truncations have not been removed. 
This should be taken into consideration by uncertainty analyses in flow modeling. Specifically, 
the contact between the volcanic rocks and the alluvium down gradient (Figure 6-3) from the 
repository should be examined. 

The significance of the HFM-19 is that it enables the computational grid of the SZ flow and 
transport models to be populated with an initial set of hydrologic-property values that, 
subsequently, can be refined through calibration of the flow model. The calibrated property sets 
are those that are used subsequently to generate the groundwater flow fields on which transport 
calculations to support TSPA is based. Uncertainties in the HFM-19 relate most importantly to 
the quantity and location of available data, and secondly to the interpretation of surfaces and the 
representation of important faults and structures. In the intended context of providing a set of 
initial approximations for the spatial distribution of hydrologic properties, the HFM-19 is 
considered to be appropriate and adequate for its intended use. Use of HFM-19 and the revised 
HFM-27 (DTN: GS021008312332.002 [DIRS 164363]) in site-scale flow and transport studies, 
has shown the HFM-19 to be a sufficient representation and consistent with expectations that 
groundwater originating near Yucca Mountain flows primarily through the Crater Flat units 
(Prow, Bullfrog, and Tram), and through the alluvial units. The use of the more complex 
representation in HFM-27 does add complexity to the flow system, providing more options for 
flow in the additional and refined units. This complexity produced slower groundwater flow 
during the calibration process using HFM-27. This makes the base-case flow model (using 
HFM-19), the more conservative of the two versions, requiring fewer controls and resulting in 
faster flow paths in both travel times and distance. These results are summarized in the 
comparisons of specific discharge discussed in the site-scale SZ flow model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037], Sections 6.6 and 7.2). 
Figures 6-6a to 6-6q illustrate the general shape and data coverage of units in the HFM-19. For a 
particular unit construction, the relative location of data sources and data types are shown in the 
legend (right side of each image). Each unit is viewed from above and is colored by the altitude 
of the unit top. Blank areas are regions where the grid values are null and the unit does not exist. 
The result is a recognizable unit shape, that when viewed in other models and grids with similar 
unit definitions, is a useful tool for visually checking and comparing units. These figures are 
also used to illustrate the data related to each particular unit and reveal the impact of geometric 
simplifications and data distribution. These figures provide a resource when calibrating the flow 
model in providing a sense of the subsurface data and represented hydrogeology. Data sources 
specific to each unit are listed in Appendix A, Tables A2 to A20. Two units (20 and 19) are not 
individually shown in the figures, but are shallow enough to be seen in Figure 6-7. Unit 20 is the 
valley fill aquifer and Unit 19 is the valley-fill confining unit, both list the geologic map in Potter 
et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060], Tables I-2 and I-3) as a single source. Note that the full list of data 
sources shown in Figures 6-6a to 6-6q are summarized in Table 4-1. 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-4. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6a. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 18 Limestone Aquifer and Data Distribution Used to 
Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-5. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. 
X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6b. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 17 Lava-Flow Aquifer and Data Distribution Used to 
Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-6. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. 
Y axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6c. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 16 Upper Volcanic Aquifer and Data Distribution Used to 
Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-7. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; GFM=geologic framework model 
Figure 6-6d. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 15 Upper Volcanic Confining Unit and Data Distribution 
Used to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-8. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; GFM=geologic framework model 
Figure 6-6e. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 14 Lower Volcanic Aquifer (Prow Pass Tuff) and Data 
Distribution Used to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by 
Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-9. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; GFM=geologic framework model 
Figure 6-6f. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 13 Lower Volcanic Aquifer (Bullfrog Tuff) and Data 
Distribution Used to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by 
Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-10. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; GFM=geologic framework model 
Figure 6-6g. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 12 Lower Volcanic Aquifer (Tram Tuff) and Data 
Distribution Used to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by 
Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-11. Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6h. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 11 Lower Volcanic Confining Unit and Data Distribution 
Used to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-12. Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6i. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 10 Older Volcanic Aquifer and Data Distribution Used to 
Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-13.
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6j. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 9 Older Volcanic Confining Unit and Data Distribution 
Used to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-14.
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6k. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 8 Undifferentiated Valley Fill and Data Distribution Used 
to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-15.
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; ERP=Environmental Restoration Program 
Figure 6-6l. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 7 Upper Carbonate Aquifer and Data Distribution Used to 
Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-18.
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6m. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 6 Lower Carbonate Aquifer Thrust and Data Distribution 
Used to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-16.
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; ERP=Environmental Restoration Program 
Figure 6-6n. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 5 Upper Clastic Confining Unit and Data Distribution Used 
to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-17.
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; ERP=Environmental Restoration Program 
Figure 6-6o. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 4 Lower Carbonate Aquifer and Data Distribution Used to 
Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-19.
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator; ERP=Environmental Restoration Program 
Figure 6-6p. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 3 Lower Clastic Confining Unit and Data Distribution Used 
to Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
Source: See Appendix A, Table A-20. 
NOTES: Altitude shown is for the top surface of the unit. X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y 
axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-6q. Map Showing Distribution of Unit 2 Granite Confining Unit and Data Distribution Used to 
Construct Surface (Unit Distribution is before Clipping by Potentiometric Surface) 

Output DTN: GS030208312332.001 
Source: See Table 4-1.
NOTE: X axis=longitude and UTM Easting in meters. Y axis=latitude and UTM Northing in meters. 
UTM=Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure 6-7. Map Showing all Units in the Final Hydrogeologic Framework Model Viewed from above and 
Clipped by the Potentiometric Surface 

7. VALIDATION 
The HFM-19 is a conceptual model that provides a static 3-D geometric idealization of the 
hydrogeologic units in the site-scale SZ domain. It is intended specifically for use in the 
site-scale SZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) and site-scale SZ transport model (BSC 
2004 [DIRS 170036]) and is not a numerical predictive model (Section 6). Confidence building 
and post-development model validation activities of the numerical models that implemented the 
conceptual model (i.e., the SZ flow and transport models) are described in Saturated Zone 
Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) and Site-Scale Saturated Zone Transport 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170036]). The SZ flow and transport models have been previously validated 
as a Level II model validation as described in Section 2.2.1.1 of the SZ TWP (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421]). Section 2.1.1.1 and Section 2.2.1.1 of the SZ TWP (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421]) require the update of the documentation of the development of the HFM-19 and 
are described in the Section 7.1. Section 2.2.1.1 of the SZ TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]) 
requires additional traceability and transparency of existing model validation and justification 
that generates confidence in the conceptual model. 
7.1 CONFIDENCE BUILDING DURING MODEL DEVELOPMENT TO ESTABLISH 
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND ACCURACY FOR INTENDED USE 
The following documents the decisions or activities that were performed to generate confidence 
during development of the HFM, per Section 5.3.2(b) of AP SIII.10Q. The development of the 
HFM-19 has been conducted according to these 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.10 Q, 5.3.2(b) (1) 
and AP-2.27Q, Planning for Science Activities, Attachment 3, Level I (a)]. 
Data were selected for input into the model upon completion of an extensive literature search. 
The scientific notebook SN USGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453]) documents the 
more than 100 references that were examined to determine the most appropriate data for the 
construction of the HFM-19. As discussed in detail in Section 4, inputs to the HFM-19 include 
borehole lithologic logs, geologic maps, geologic cross sections, topographic information, 
geophysical data, and the GFM (input model used in this report) (GFM 3.1) 
(DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]). In addition, geologic cross sections 
developed for the DOE ERP for the Nevada Test Site (DTN: MO0106STRATHFM.024 
[DIRS 155585]) are used as input data. The lower boundary of the HFM-19 is selected to be 
consistent with the lower boundary of the Death Valley regional groundwater flow model 
(DTN: GS960808312144.003 [DIRS 105121]). The potentiometric surface 
(DTN: GS000508312332.001 [DIRS 149947]) is used as a clipping surface to form the top of 
the HFM-19. These data constitute a necessary and sufficient data set with which to represent 
the 3-D conceptual model at the designated scale of resolution required for the flow and transport 
models. The selection of these data and groupings of the hydrogeologic units are addressed in 
Section 6.1. 
The primary input data for the HFM-19 are stratigraphic contact data from boreholes, geologic 
cross sections, GFM 3.1, and the geologic map of the Yucca Mountain region, as listed in 

Table 4-1. The general locations of these input data for the site-scale domain and encompassing 
regional area are shown in map view in Figure 4-1. The faults and hydrogeologic units that 
outcrop (at ground surface) in the site-scale area are shown in Figure 4-2. Direct input data sets 
and associated DTNs are listed in Table 4-1; the qualification statuses of the input sources are 
indicated in the Automated Technical Data Tracking database. The Data Qualification Report: 
Stratigraphic Data Supporting the Hydrogeologic Framework Model for Use on the Yucca 
Mountain Project (Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614]) qualifies and provides analysis for hundreds of 
stratigraphic data points used as inputs for the HFM-19. The selection and use of site-specific 
information adds confidence in the model. Thus, this requirement can be considered satisfied. 
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)]. 
Sections 1 and 6.1 explain how the boundaries of the HFM were established. The domain was 
selected based on groundwater flow and radionuclide transport considerations as described in the 
site-scale SZ flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.5.3.2). The HFM-19 represents 
the hydrogeologic setting for the Yucca Mountain area that covers about 1,350 km2 and includes 
a saturated thickness of about 2.75 km. The HFM-19 extends from 533,340 meters to 
563,340 meters (west to east) and 4,046,782 meters to 4,091,782 meters (south to north), UTM 
Zone 11 (Figure 1-1). The base of the model is selected to be consistent with the base of the 
Death Valley regional groundwater flow model (DTN: GS960808312144.003 [DIRS 105121]) 
and will propagate through the flow (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) and transport (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170036]) models using HFM-19. The top of the model is ground surface. A smaller 
version of the HFM-19 is created by clipping the top of the model by the potentiometric surface 
(Figure 6-2). This was done to satisfy grid size restrictions in the flow codes (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], p. 130) and has no impact on the flow model since the site-scale SZ domain is 
below this clipping surface. 
This model is static and provides a hydrogeologic definition that propagates through the 
abstraction process as part of the flow modeling process. A discussion of the convergence 
process used to develop the geometric grid used in the construction of the hydrogeologic contour 
maps is provided in Section 6.3.4. Discussion of HFM impact in process models is discussed in 
the SZ flow and transport models. Discussion about model runs and non-convergence runs are 
not relevant for this model report. 
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)]. 
For the HFM-19, uncertainty is an estimation of how closely the model matches the actual 
hydrogeologic setting of the site-scale SZ model area and the interpretations of the geologic 
setting it is built on. The primary factor affecting uncertainty in the HFM-19 is the distance from 

the grid points to the nearest input data, and the overall distribution of the input data over the 
site-scale domain. Hydrogeologic units near the surface are constrained by the hydrogeologic 
map (Figure 4-2). The horizontal distance from a data point shows part of the distribution of 
uncertainty where data distribution is shown relative to the unit (Figures 6-6a to 6-6q). Most of 
the borehole data are limited to very shallow depths (corresponding with high unit identification 
numbers), therefore, uncertainty increases with depth (low unit identification numbers). Hence, 
interpretations regarding deeper hydrogeologic units have more uncertainty associated with them 
than that associated with shallower hydrogeologic units. Detailed discussion of model 
uncertainties are provided in Section 6.4.3. A summary discussion on uncertainties and their 
impact is given in Section 8. 
4. Formulation of defensible assumptions and simplifications [AP-2.27Q, 
Attachment 3, Level I (b)]. 
Geologic relations have been simplified in order to accommodate computer mapping, framework 
modeling, and groundwater flow modeling limitations. In simplifying units, emphasis was 
placed on maintaining a highly generalized structural and stratigraphic framework that 
incorporated previously described hydrogeologic units. The following criteria were used as 
guidelines in the simplification process: 
 
Major high-angle faults were simplified and represented as individual vertical fault 
planes (thrust faults are not included as vertical faults and are constructed similar to 
material units) 
 
Geologic units were grouped into the hydrogeologic units (Table 6-1). 
Discussion of assumptions and simplifications are provided in Section 5 and throughout 
Section 6 in discussions of data selection and model methods. 
5. Consistency with physical principles, such as conservation of mass, energy, 
and momentum [AP-2.27Q, Attachment 3, Level I (c)]. 
Model grids were constructed using standard methods to generate structure contour maps, which 
were converted into a 3-D representation of the hydrogeologic units of the site-scale SZ (the 
HFM-19) by applying accepted geologic rules. The details of the methods are presented in 
Section 6.3. 
7.2 POSTDEVELOPMENT MODEL VALIDATION TO SUPPORT THE SCIENTIFIC 
BASIS OF THE MODEL 
The HFM is a conceptual model that is considered part of the SZ flow and transport flow model 
validation. Therefore, a discussion of confidence building of model after development is not 
included in this section. The site-scale SZ flow (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) and site-scale SZ 
transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170036]) models discuss confidence building after model 
development as described in the SZ TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]). 

7.3 VALIDATION SUMMARY 
The HFM is a conceptual model that is a part of the SZ site-scale flow (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]) and site-scale SZ transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170036]) models validation. 
Requirements for confidence building during model development have been satisfied. The 
HFM-19 model has been evaluated by comparing it to data and model sources, and checking that 
the representation is adequate for its intended use in flow and transport modeling (Faunt 2002 
[DIRS 171453], pp. 240 to 241). The accuracy of the HFM-19 is checked by comparing the 
model against the input data used to build it (Section 6.4.1). Accuracy can also be checked by 
comparing changes in source data and their impact as used in HFM-27 and its use in the flow and 
transport models (Section 6.4.2). Section 6.4.3 discusses uncertainties in the HFM-19 and how 
they propagate to the flow and transport models. Adequacy for intended use has been 
determined by evaluating data accuracy and the results from flow and transport modeling using 
the HFM-19 and the HFM-27 (Section 6.4.4). 

8. CONCLUSIONS 
8.1 SUMMARY OF MODELING ACTIVITY 
The HFM-19 model is an interpretation of surface and subsurface geologic and geophysical data 
that is based on fundamental geologic principles and the established geologic history of the 
Nevada Test Site and surrounding areas. It is an expression of the conceptual understanding of 
the geology of the Yucca Mountain area, created with the aid of computer software that imposes 
internal geometric consistency in the interpretations. 
The HFM-19 is a conceptual model that provides a static 3-D geometric idealization of the 
hydrogeologic units in the site-scale SZ domain and is intended specifically for use in the 
site-scale SZ flow (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) and site-scale SZ transport (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170036]) models. The HFM is not a numerical predictive model (Section 6). 
Mathematical implementation of the HFM-19 occurs when it is used as a basis for assigning 
hydrologic properties within the SZ site-scale flow model domain. Therefore, this product does 
not provide any hydraulic parameters and is intended only to provide a geometric representation 
of hydrogeology and structure for use as a conceptual model in Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]). Validation of the HFM-19 is considered part of the SZ 
site-scale flow and transport models that have been previously validated as a Level II model 
validation as described in Section 2.2.1.1 of the SZ TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]). 
The HFM-19 is appropriate for use in the site-scale SZ flow (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) and 
site-scale SZ transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170036]) models because its development was 
achieved utilizing standard geologic methods and software based on all appropriate data from the 
Yucca Mountain area. The locations and extent of the hydrogeologic units are determined from 
boreholes, surface geologic maps, geologic cross sections, and geophysical surveys. The lower 
boundary of the model is coincident with that of the regional flow model 
(DTN: GS960808312144.003 [DIRS 105121]). This boundary is generally consistent with no 
vertical flow in or out of the base of the site-scale model domain. The top of the HFM-19 is set 
to an updated potentiometric surface map (DTN: GS000508312332.001 [DIRS 149947]). The 
gridding process is a simplification and idealization relating geometrical elements to the 
controlling data within the domain. 
The hydrogeologic layers of the HFM-19 form a series of alternating volcanic aquifers and 
confining units and alluvium above the regional carbonate aquifer. These hydrogeologic regions 
consist of one or more contiguous geologically defined stratigraphic units that can be grouped 
into hydrogeologic units based on measured or inferred common hydrologic properties 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.5.2). The HFM-19 is assembled by using standard 
interpolation and extrapolation techniques to fill the domain area with elements corresponding to 
the hydrogeologic units. 

8.2 MODEL OUTPUTS 
8.2.1 Developed Output 
HFM-19 model development and construction is summarized in Section 6 and documented in 
scientific notebook SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2, V3 (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453]). The model files 
output from this report are available from the Technical Data Management System. The 
unclipped HFM-19, which is built to the ground surface, is output DTN: GS000508312332.002. 
The version clipped by the water table and used by the flow and transport models is output 
DTN: GS030208312332.001. The HFM-19 consists of digital files (site125.tfm, site125.tfb, 
site125.scf, V5-99) in binary Stratamodel format (USGS 2000 [DIRS 148985]). Note that the 
clipped HFM-19 includes, as its top surface, the water table definition used in the SZ flow and 
transport models. None of the changes in this report revision change the HFM-19 in these two 
output DTNs. 
8.2.2 Output Uncertainties and Limitations 
Geologic relations, both actual and inferred, are simplified in order to accommodate computer 
mapping, framework modeling, and groundwater flow modeling limitations. As a result, the 
model contains an inherent level of uncertainty that is a function of data distribution and 
geologic complexity. The major simplifications include the grouping of geologic units into 
hydrogeologic units (Table 6-1), and high-angle faults represented as individual vertical fault 
planes. As a result, many fault offsets are smoothed in the HFM-19. In the area of the GFM, the 
appropriate offsets on units, based on dipping faults, are retained. Section 5 describes 
simplifications of features and choices of grid resolution representing these features. These 
hydrogeological units and major structural features are adequately included in the TSPA through 
the SZ flow and transport models and SZ flow fields that support the TSPA. 
Model uncertainties in the HFM-19 can be attributed to interpretations and simplifications driven 
by the distribution and availability of data. The data distribution over the SZ area is uneven, 
much of the volume is unsampled, and many of the input files are interpretations. As a result, 
the expected error in the HFM-19 varies significantly over the model area. Some of the surfaces, 
such as that of the upper volcanic aquifer in the area of the repository, are relatively well defined 
by more than one data set (derived from the surface hydrogeologic unit map, borehole lithologic 
logs, and geologic cross sections). Others, especially the units that crop out less commonly, are 
less well defined and are extrapolated from sparse data. In the area of the repository the unit, 
locations are relatively well known. Even in this area, however, there is only one borehole that 
penetrates the Paleozoic rocks. Data uncertainty increases with depth and distance from the 
repository as data become sparse and the effects of faults deeper in the system become unknown. 
As a result, the model contains an inherent level of uncertainty that is a function of data 
distribution and geologic complexity. These data errors and limitations include the data poor 
regions of uncertainty in the deeper Paleozoic carbonate region, and the alluvial uncertainty zone 
south of the repository. 
Additional boreholes have been drilled by Nye County since the development of the HFM-19, 
primarily to characterize the contact between the valley-fill and the volcanic rocks in the 
southern portion of the model area. However, these new data did not eliminate all uncertainty in 

the location and character of this contact. The Nye County boreholes were being drilled at the 
time the HFM-19 was developed so the stratigraphic data were not available in time for model 
construction. As a result, generalized units such as undifferentiated valley-fill, valley-fill, 
and volcanic units are used in HFM-19 to describe near surface units that are particularly 
variable in lithologic characteristics and hydraulic properties. 
Uncertainties due to the development of the hydrogeologic units propagate through the flow and 
transport model abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170042]). Uncertainties in the HFM-19 relate 
most importantly to the quantity and location of available qualified data, and secondly to the 
interpretation of surfaces and the representation of important faults and structures. Evaluations 
between the base-case flow and transport models using the HFM-19 and alternate models using 
HFM-27 indicate that the use of HFM-19 is more conservative than HFM-27, (see Section 6.4.4 
of this report and Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 
6.4.7). Considering these constraints, and as shown by the flow and transport results, the 
HFM-19 is sufficiently accurate and adequate as a conceptual model for SZ site-scale flow and 
transport models. 
8.3 YUCCA MOUNTAIN REVIEW PLAN ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 
The main acceptance criteria identified in the YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]) that are 
associated with this report are included in this section. A list of the subcriteria relevant to this 
report, and a discussion of how these subcriteria are addressed, is also provided. Only those 
acceptance criteria that are applicable to this report (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 transport in the SZ. 
8.3.1 Flow Paths in the Saturated Zone 
This section describes how the acceptance criteria in the YMRP Section 2.2.1.3.8.3, Flow Paths 
in the Saturated Zone, are addressed by this report. 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration are Adequate. 
Subcriterion (1): Sections 1 and 6 describe the HFM as a conceptual model of the 
hydrogeologic units and major structural features in the SZ flow system. Section 5 describes 
simplifications of features and choices of grid resolution representing these features. These 
hydrogeological units and major structural features are adequately included in the TSPA through 
the SZ flow and transport models and SZ flow fields that support the TSPA. 
Subcriterion (2): Section 6.1 introduces the method and Table 6-1 shows the geologic 
groupings chosen for representing the geologic heterogeneity, which is introduced by 
stratigraphy, and influences the modeling of groundwater flow. Sections 3 and 6.3 identify the 
software and methods used to construct these groupings into the HFM. Section 4 describes the 
aspects of hydrology and geology that may affect flow paths in the SZ. These descriptions are 
adequate because they are based on a substantial amount of data. 

Subcriterion (4): Sections 1 and 6.1 explain how the boundaries of the model were established. 
The lower boundary of the model is consistent with the Death Valley regional groundwater flow 
model and the upper boundary is obtained by truncating the hydrogeologic layers at the 
potentiometric surface. Section 6.3.5 describes the steps taken to build the model beginning with 
the base and grid coincident to the regional model, building to the ground surface, and finishing 
the model with a clipping surface described in 6.3.6. These features propagate through the 
abstraction process as part of the flow modeling process. 
Subcriterion (6): Section 6.4.4 describes how the HFM-19 was developed specifically to 
support the modeling of flow and transport in the site-scale SZ. Because the HFM-19 adequately 
addresses natural site conditions, these conditions are adequately delineated in the flow paths in 
the site-scale SZ. 
Subcriterion (10): This model was developed in accordance with the Quality Assurance 
Requirements and Description (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171539]), which commits to these NUREGs, 
and the associated procedures as discussed in Section 2. Compliance with these procedures was 
determined through the quality assurance and other review programs. 
Acceptance Criterion 2: Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
Subcriterion (1): Section 4.1 describes the geological, hydrologic, and geochemical values, 
which were used in the license application to evaluate flow paths in the SZ, and shows why they 
are adequately justified. Data include stratigraphic contact data from boreholes, the lithographic 
logs, geologic cross sections, topographic information, geophysical data, and GFM 3.1. The 
lower boundary of the HFM-19 is consistent with the lower boundary of the Death Valley 
regional groundwater flow model. The accuracy of these data is discussed in Section 4.1 and 
appropriateness of these data is discussed in Section 6.1. 
Subcriterion (2): Section 4.1 describes the data collected on the natural system and used to 
determine the locations of the hydrogeologic surfaces, including the upper and lower boundaries 
of the SZ. The extent of the data sources listed in Table 4-1 shows that the data are sufficient to 
establish the boundaries, which support the abstraction of flow paths in the SZ. 
Subcriterion (3): Section 4.1 describes the standard and, therefore, appropriate techniques, 
which were used to develop the data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the SZ, 
which were used in the TSPA abstraction. 
Subcriterion (4): Section 5 describes the methodological assumptions and suitable grid 
resolution applied to construction of the HFM-19. Section 6.3 describes the mathematical 
methods used to substantiate the applicability of the groundwater modeling approach to site 
conditions. Model grids were constructed using the minimum curvature and first-order squares 
methods and the interpolation and extrapolation of stratigraphy through the use of borehole 
lithographic logs, geologic maps, developed geologic cross sections, and geophysical data. 
Standard methods were used to generate structure contour maps that were converted into a 3-D 
representation of the hydrogeology of the site-scale SZ and the HFM-19, by applying accepted 
geologic rules. 

Acceptance Criterion 3: Data Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through the Model 
Abstraction. 
Subcriterion (1): Section 6.4.3 explains that as long as the horizontal spatial ambiguity in the 
location of hydrogeologic contacts is less than 250 m, and given an adequate representation of 
the hydrogeology, there is essentially no impact on the specific discharge or flux calculations 
using the site-scale flow model. Section 6.4.3 also discusses the impact on low specific 
discharge that results from uncertainty in the vertical location of certain strata. 
Subcriterion (3): Section 6.4.1 evaluates the agreement between the HFM-19 and input data 
concluding that the HFM-19 inherits the uncertainty inherent in sparse data coverage at depth 
and away from the immediate site area. Section 6.4.3 describes how the uncertainty in the 
HFM-19 is propagated through the flow and transport models to the breakthrough curves used in 
the TSPA. Section 6.4.4 describes how uncertainty in the initial set of hydrologic property 
values in the HFM-19 is addressed through the calibration of the flow model when the HFM-19 
is used in the calculation of flow fields. 
Acceptance Criterion 4: Model Uncertainty Is Characterized and Propagated through the 
Model Abstraction. 
Subcriterion (2): Section 6.4.3 adequately defines and documents conceptual model 
uncertainties in the HFM-19. The increase in uncertainty about deeper hydrogeologic units with 
depth, the existence of alternative interpretations of the location of the carbonate aquifers and 
clastic confining units, and the alluvial uncertainty zone are acknowledged. The effects of these 
uncertainties on conclusions regarding performance are properly assessed in other reports, which 
address flow and transport in the SZ. 
Subcriterion (3): Sections 6.4.3 and 6.4.4 show that the conceptual model uncertainty is 
consistent with available site characterization data and field measurements, specifically the 
regional model and the Nye County data. 
Subcriterion (4): Sections 4.1 and 6.4.2 discuss an alternative model. It is consistent with 
available data and current scientific understanding because it is based on updates in the 
GFM2000 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029]) and regional model and the new data from Nye County 
EWDP. Because this alternative model was found not to significantly affect the flow paths in the 
SZ, the results and limitations of this alternative model are appropriately considered in the 
abstraction. 
This report includes the scope of work identified in Section 3.4 of the TWP (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 171421]). This scope of work is defined more specifically in action lists particular to this 
AMR. Successful completion of this work is evaluated during the AP-2.14Q, Document Review 
process. 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

9. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
9.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Bower, K.M.; Gable, C.W.; and Zyvoloski, G.A. 2000. Effect of Grid Resolution on 149161 
Control Volume Finite Element Groundwater Modeling of Realistic Geology. 
LA-UR-001870. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National Laboratory. 
TIC: 248256. 
Brocher, T.M.; Hart, P.E.; Hunter, W.C.; and Langenheim, V.E. 1996. Hybrid-Source 101495 
Seismic Reflection Profiling Across Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Regional Lines 2 and 
3. Open-File Report 96-28. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19970310.0094; MOL.19970310.0107. 
Brocher, T.M.; Hunter, W.C.; and Langenheim, V.E. 1998. Implications of Seismic 100022 
Reflection and Potential Field Geophysical Data on the Structural Framework of the 
Yucca Mountain-Crater Flat Region, Nevada. Geological Society of America 
Bulletin, 110, (8), 947-971. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 238643. 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Geologic Framework Model Analysis Model 154622 
Report. MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 00 ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: MOL.20010313.0505. 
BSC 2002. ARC/INFO V. 7.2.1 Software Activity Plan for Interim Use of Unqualified 171369 
Software to Support Site Recommendation (SR) Products. SDN: 10033-SAP-7.2.1-
01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20031014.0270. 
BSC 2004. Characterize Framework for Igneous Activity at Yucca Mountain, 169989
Nevada. ANL-MGR-GS-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20041015.0002. 
BSC 2004. Features, Events, and Processes in SZ Flow and Transport. 170013
ANL-NBS-MD-000002, Rev. 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). MDL-NBS-GS-000002 170029
REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040827.0008. 
BSC 2004. Probability Distribution for Flowing Interval Spacing. 170014
ANL-NBS-MD-000003 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040923.0003. 
BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: 168361
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
BSC 2004. Saturated Zone Flow and Transport Model Abstraction. 170042
MDL-NBS-HS-000021, Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 

BSC 2004. Saturated Zone In-Situ Testing. ANL-NBS-HS-000039, Rev. 01. 170010
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000011, Rev. 02. 170037
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Site-Scale Saturated Zone Transport. MDL-NBS-HS-000010, Rev. 02. 170036
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Natural System - Saturated Zone Analysis and 171421
Model Report Integration. TWP-NBS-MD-000002 REV 02 ICN 01. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040818.0004. 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Evaluation of Analysis 169377
and Model Reports Supporting the TSPA-LA. TWP-MGR-PA-000014 REV 00. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040408.0004. 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Evaluation of Analysis 169653
and Model Reports Supporting the TSPA-LA. TWP-MGR-PA-000014 REV 00 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040603.0001. 
BSC 2004. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and 170009
Transport Model. ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20041012.0002. 
BSC 2004. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 02 169734
ICN 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040504.0008. 
Byers, F.M., Jr.; Carr, W.J.; Christiansen, R.L.; Lipman, P.W.; Orkild, P.P.; and 103624
Quinlivan, W.D. 1976. Geologic Map of the Timber Mountain Caldera Area, Nye 
County, Nevada. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-891. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 204573. 
Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. 166275
TER-MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
Carr, M.D.; Waddell, S.J.; Vick, G.S.; Stock, J.M.; Monsen, S.A.; Harris, A.G.; Cork, 102046
B.W.; and Byers, F.M., Jr. 1986. Geology of Drill Hole UE25p#1: A Test Hole Into 
Pre-Tertiary Rocks Near Yucca Mountain, Southern Nevada. Open-File Report 
86-175. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: HQS.19880517.2633. 

Carr, W.J. 1982. Volcano-Tectonic History of Crater Flat, Southwestern Nevada, as 101519 
Suggested by New Evidence from Drill Hole USW-VH-1 and Vicinity. Open-File 
Report 82-457. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: NNA.19870518.0057. 
Carr, W.J. and Parrish, L.D. 1985. Geology of Drill Hole USW VH-2, and Structure of 101093 
Crater Flat, Southwestern Nevada. Open-File Report 85-475. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.1918. 
Carr, W.J.; Grow, J.A.; and Keller, S.M. 1995. Lithologic and Geophysical Logs of 104671 
Drill Holes Felderhoff Federal 5-1 and 25-1, Amargosa Desert, Nye County, Nevada. 
Open-File Report 95-155. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 218310. 
Christiansen, R.L. and Lipman, P.W. 1965. Geologic Map of the Topopah Spring NW 100566
Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-444. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 212357. 
DAgnese, F.A.; Faunt, C.C.; Turner, A.K.; and Hill, M.C. 1997. Hydrogeologic 100131
Evaluation and Numerical Simulation of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water 
Flow System, Nevada and California. Water-Resources Investigations Report 
96-4300. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980306.0253. 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2004. Quality Assurance Requirements and 171539
Description. DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040907.0002. 
Faulds, J.E.; Bell, J.W.; Feuerbach, D.L.; and Ramelli, A.R. 1994. Geologic Map of 105126
the Crater Flat Area, Nevada. Geophysical Investigations Map 101. Reno, Nevada: 
University of Nevada, Reno. TIC: 211484. 
Faunt, C. 2002. Final Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2-V3; 3D Saturated 171453
Zone Site Model. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-072-V2 & V3. Volume 2 
Pages 1-193. Volume 3 Pages 194-265, 274-283, 288-289. 
ACC: MOL.20020925.0165; MOL.20020925.0166. 
Faunt, C. 2002. Hydrogeologic Framework Model for Site and Regional Saturated 171040
Zone Groundwater Flow Models. Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-132-V1. 
ACC: MOL.20030904.0353; MOL.20030904.0354. 
Faunt, C.C. 2002. Memo Documenting Transmittal of Preliminary Site Saturated 170974
Zone Hydrogeologic Framework Model (HFM). Memorandum from C.C. Faunt 
(USGS) to R. Craig (USGS), March 31, 2002. ACC: MOL.20040802.0007. 
Frizzell, V.A., Jr. and Shulters, J. 1990. Geologic Map of the Nevada Test Site, 105454
Southern Nevada. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2046. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 200459. 

Geslin, J.K.; Moyer, T.C.; and Buesch, D.C. 1995. Summary of Lithologic Logging of 103330 
New and Existing Boreholes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, August 1993 to February 
1994. Open-File Report 94-342. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19940810.0011. 
Gibson, J.D.; Swan, F.H.; Wesling, J.R.; Bullard, T.F.; Perman, R.C.; Angell, M.M.; 102323 
and DiSilvestro, L.A. 1992. Summary and Evaluation of Existing Geological and 
Geophysical Data Near Prospective Surface Facilities in Midway Valley, Yucca 
Mountain Project, Nye County, Nevada. SAND90-2491. Albuquerque, New Mexico: 
Sandia National Laboratories. ACC: NNA.19910709.0001. 
Graves, R.P.; Tucci, P.; and OBrien, G.M. 1997. Analysis of Water-Level Data in the 101046 
Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1985-95. Water-Resources Investigations Report 964256. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19980219.0851. 
Greenhaus, M.R. and Zablocki, C.J. 1982. Schlumberger Resistivity Survey of the 105144 
Amargosa Desert, Southern Nevada. Open-File Report 82-897. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.2687. 
Jaeger, M.A. 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Data Confirmation ProjectTechnical 169937
Product Review Process. TWP-MGR-MD-000033 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040504.0005. 
Kume, J. and Hammermeister, D.P. 1991. Geohydrologic Data from Drill-Bit 171582
Cuttings and Rotary Cores from Test Hole USW UZ-13, Yucca Mountain Area, 
Nye County, Nevada. Open-File Report 90-362. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: NNA.19901015.0196. 
Laczniak, R.J.; Cole, J.C.; Sawyer, D.A.; and Trudeau, D.A. 1996. Summary of 103012
Hydrogeologic Controls on Ground-Water Flow at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 
Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations 96-4109. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. 
Geological Survey. TIC: 226157. 
Lipman, P.W. and McKay, E.J. 1965. Geologic Map of the Topopah Spring SW 104158
Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-439. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 212352. 
Luckey, R.R.; Tucci, P.; Faunt, C.C.; Ervin, E.M.; Steinkampf, W.C.; DAgnese, F.A.; 100465
and Patterson, G.L. 1996. Status of Understanding of the Saturated-Zone Ground-
Water Flow System at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as of 1995. Water-Resources 
Investigations Report 96-4077. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19970513.0209. 
Maldonado, F. 1985. Geologic Map of the Jackass Flats Area, Nye County, Nevada. 104160
Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1519. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological 
Survey. TIC: 203087. 

101805 
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. 
McKay, E.J. and Sargent, K.A. 1970. Geologic Map of the Lathrop Wells 
155611 
Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada. Map GQ-883. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Geological Survey. TIC: 212447. 
McKay, E.J. and Williams, W.P. 1964. Geology of the Jackass Flats Quadrangle, 155612
Nye County, Nevada. Map GQ-368. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. 
TIC: 212351. 
Moench, R.H. 1965. Structural Geology of the Southern Part of the Amargosa Desert 155613
and Vicinity. Technical Letter NTS-106. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
TIC: 250152. 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 163274
Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
Oliver, H.W.; Ponce, D.A.; and Hunter, W.C., eds. 1995. Major Results of 106447
Geophysical Investigations at Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Southern Nevada. Open-
File Report 95-74. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19980305.0122. 
Orkild, P.P. and OConnor, J.T. 1970. Geologic Map of the Topopah Spring 106459
Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada. Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-849. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.1368. 
Plume, R.W. and La Camera, R.J. 1996. Hydrogeology of Rocks Penetrated by Test 141659
Well JF-3, Jackass Flats, Nye County, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations 
Report 95-4245. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19970626.0500. 
Potter, C.J.; Dickerson, R.P.; Sweetkind, D.S.; Drake, R.M., II; Taylor, E.M.; Fridrich, 160060
C.J.; San Juan, C.A.; and Day, W.C. 2002. Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain 
Region, Nye County, Nevada. Geologic Investigations Series I-2755. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 253945. 
Robison, J.H. 1984. Ground-Water Level Data and Preliminary 144849 
Potentiometric-Surface Maps, Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Nye County Nevada. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4197. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19930629.0013. 

Rush, F.E.; Thordarson, W.; and Bruckheimer, L. 1983. Geohydrologic and 107944
Drill-Hole Data for Test Well USW H-1, Adjacent to Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 
Nevada. Open-File Report 83-141. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: HQS.19880517.1835. 
Sargent, K.A.; McKay, E.J.; and Burchfiel, B.C. 1970. Geologic Map of the Striped 155615
Hills Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada. Map GQ-882. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Geological Survey. TIC: 212446. 
Scott, R.B. and Bonk, J. 1984. Preliminary Geologic Map of Yucca Mountain, Nye 104181
County, Nevada, with Geologic Sections. Open-File Report 84-494. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.1443. 
Scott, R.B. and Castellanos, M. 1984. Stratigraphic and Structural Relations of 101291
Volcanic Rocks in Drill Holes USW GU-3 and USW G-3, Yucca Mountain, Nye 
County, Nevada. Open-File Report 84-491. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: NNA.19870519.0095. 
Spengler, R.W.; Byers, F.M., Jr.; and Warner, J.B. 1981. Stratigraphy and Structure 101297 
of Volcanic Rocks in Drill Hole USW-G1, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. 
Open-File Report 81-1349. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: NNA.19870406.0222. 
Swadley, W C and Carr, W.J. 1987. Geologic Map of the Quaternary and Tertiary 101300
Deposits of the Big Dune Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada, and Inyo County, 
California. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1767. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. TIC: 203089. 
Sweetkind, D.S.; Dickerson, R.P.; Blakely, R.J.; and Denning, P.D. 2001. Interpretive 159092
Geologic Cross Sections for the Death Valley Regional Flow System and Surrounding 
Areas, Nevada and California. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2370. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 251903. 
Tucci, P. and Burkhardt, D.J. 1995. Potentiometric-Surface Map, 1993, Yucca 101060
Mountain and Vicinity, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4149. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19960924.0517. 
Turner, A.K.; DAgnese, F.A.; and Faunt, C.C. 1996. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 171658 
File of Topographic Elevations for the Death Valley Region of Southern Nevada and 
Southeastern California Processed from U.S. Geological Survey 1-Degree Digital 
Elevation Model Data Files. Open-File Report 95-287. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19960812.0376. 
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 1984. A Summary of Geologic Studies Through 101305 
January 1, 1983, of a Potential High-Level Radioactive Waste Repository Site at 
Yucca Mountain, Southern Nye County, Nevada. Open-File Report 84-792. 
Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19891009.0305. 

USGS 1993. Digital Elevation Models, Data Users Guide 5. Reston, Virginia: U.S. 171634
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20040916.0100. 
USGS 2000. Software Activity Plan for Stratamodel SGM 4.1.1. SDN: 10121-SAP-171368
4.1.1-00. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20030927.0260. 
USGS 2001. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and 154625
Transport Model. ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 00 ICN 01. Denver, Colorado: U.S. 
Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20010405.0211. 
USGS 2003. Software Continuation Page, ERMA Site Geologist Version 6.01. 171366
Software Tracking Number: 10210-6.01-00. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: MOL.20031014.0286. 
USGS 2003. Software Continuation Page, Petrosys Version 7.60d. Software 171365
Tracking Number: 10168-7.60d-00. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20031020.0581. 
USGS 2003. Hydrogeologic Framework Model for the Saturated-Zone Site-Scale 165176
Flow and Transport Model. ANL-NBS-HS-000033 REV 00 ICN 02 Errata 1. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: DOC.20030319.0002; 
MOL.20011112.0070. 
Wilson, C. 2001. Data Qualification Report: Stratigraphic Data Supporting the 155614 
Hydrogeologic Framework Model for Use on the Yucca Mountain Project. 
TDR-NBS-HS-000013 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20010725.0225. 
Winograd, I.J. and Thordarson, W. 1975. Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical 101167 
Framework, South-Central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with Special Reference to 
the Nevada Test Site. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-C. Washington, 
D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. ACC: NNA.19870406.0201. 
YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1992. Yucca Mountain Site 171575 
Characterization Project Preliminary Field Composite Borehole Log. Drill dates 
August 3, 1992 - August 10, 1992. Borehole ID: USW UZN-63. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office. ACC: NNA.19940120.0256. 
Young, R.A. 1972. Water Supply for the Nuclear Rocket Development Station at the 103023 
U.S. Atomic Energy Commissions Nevada Test Site. Water-Supply Paper 1938. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19870519.0070. 

Zyvoloski, G.A.; Robinson, B.A.; Dash, Z.V.; and Trease, L.L. 1997. Summary of the 110491
Models and Methods for the FEHM ApplicationA Finite-Element Heat- and Mass-
Transfer Code. LA-13307-MS. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Los Alamos National 
Laboratory. TIC: 235587. 
Zyvoloski, G.A.; Robinson, B.A.; Dash, Z.V.; and Trease, L.L. 1999. Users Manual 107889
for the FEHM Application. STN: 10031-UM-2.00-00. Los Alamos, New Mexico: 
Los Alamos National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19990810.0038. 
9.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 156605
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
AP-2.14Q, Rev. 3, ICN 1. Document Review. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20030827.0018. 
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 5. Planning for Science Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20041014.0001. 
AP-SIII.2Q, Rev. 1, ICN 2. Qualification of Unqualified Data. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040127.0008. 
AP-SIII.10Q, Rev. 2, ICN 7. Models. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040805.0005. 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev.1, ICN 0. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040225.0007. 
9.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
GS000400002332.001. Digital Elevation Models Death Valley East Scale 1:250,000. 148924 
Submittal date: 04/12/2000. 
GS000400002332.002. Underground Test Area Subproject Phase I Data Analysis 149021 
Task, 1996. Submittal date: 04/18/2000. 

GS000508312332.001. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale 149947
Flow and Transport Model. Submittal date: 06/01/2000. 
GS000808314211.005. Interpretations of the Lithostratigraphy in Boreholes 154685
NC-EWDP-01DX, NC-EWDP-02D, NC-EWDP-03D, and NC-EWDP-09SX, 
Nye County Early Warning Drilling Program Phase I, FY 99. Submittal 
date: 08/14/2000. 
GS010908314221.001. Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Region, Nye County, 162874
Nevada. Submittal date: 01/23/2002. 
GS011008314211.001. Interpretation of the Lithostratigraphy in Deep Boreholes 158690
NC-EWDP-19D1 and NC-EWDP-2DB Nye County Early Warning Drilling Program. 
Submittal date: 01/16/2001. 
GS020208314211.002. Geologic Cross Sections Nye-1, Nye-2, and Nye-3, Southern 158689
Nye County Nevada. Submittal date: 02/25/2002. 
GS021008312332.002. Hydrogeologic Framework Model for the Saturated-Zone 164363
Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model, Version YMP_9_02. Submittal 
date: 12/09/2002. 
GS031108314211.005. Subsurface Geologic Interpretations Along Cross Sections 168526
Nye-1, Nye-2, and Nye-3, Southern Nye County, Nevada -- 2002. Submittal 
date: 11/21/2003. 
GS930283117461.001. Preliminary Geologic Map of Yucca Mountain, Nye County, 107027
Nevada, with Geologic Sections. Submittal date: 01/20/1993. 
GS940208314211.002. Table of Contacts in Boreholes USW UZ-N62. Submittal 145577
date: 02/01/1994. 
GS940208314211.004. Table of Contacts in Borehole USW UZ-N27. Submittal 145579
date: 02/10/1994. 
GS940208314211.007. Table of Contacts in Borehole USW UZ-N35. Submittal 155533
date: 02/10/1994. 
GS940208314211.008. Table of Contacts in Boreholes USW UZ-N57, UZ-N58, 145581
UZ-N59, and UZ-N61. Submittal date: 02/10/1994. 
GS940308314211.017. Table of Contacts for the Tiva Canyon Tuff in Borehole 155534
UE-25 UZN#63. Submittal date: 03/28/1994. 
GS940308314211.018. Table of Contacts for the Tiva Canyon Tuff in Borehole 145589
USW UZ-N36. Submittal date: 03/28/1994. 

GS940308314211.019. Table of Contacts for the Tiva Canyon Tuff in Boreholes 145591
USW UZ-N15, USW UZ-N16, and USW UZ-N17. Submittal date: 03/28/1994. 
GS950108314211.009. Stratigraphic Descriptions and Data for the Yucca Mountain 152556
Tuff in Boreholes NRG#2B, NRG-7/7A, SD-9, UZ-14, UZ#16, UZ-N11, UZ-N33, 
UZ-N34, UZ-N53, UZ-N54, UZ-N55. Submittal date: 01/27/1995. 
GS950508312333.002. Borehole Data for Hydrogeologic Framework Model 105131
Construction. Submittal date: 05/19/1995. 
GS960808312144.003. Hydrogeologic Evaluation and Numerical Simulation of the 105121
Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California, Using 
Geoscientific Information Systems. Submittal date: 08/29/1996. 
GS991208314221.001. Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Region. Submittal 145263
date: 12/01/1999. 
LA0304TM831231.002. SZ Site-Scale Flow Model, FEHM Files for Base Case. 163788
Submittal date: 04/14/2003. 
LA0409GZ831231.001. SZ Site-Scale Flow Model, FEHM Files for Alternate Model 171605
AM0. Submittal date: 09/09/2004. 
MO0007BLFHF525.000. Location of the Felderhof Federal 5-1 and 25-1 Boreholes, 152892
Amargosa Desert, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal date: 07/11/2000. 
MO0007LGLOG251.000. Lithologic and Geophysical Logs from the Felderhof 152893
Federal 25-1 Borehole, Amargosa Desert, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal 
date: 07/11/2000. 
MO0007LLGLOG51.000. Lithologic and Geophysical Logs from the Felderhof 152894
Federal 5-1 Borehole, Amargosa Desert, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal 
date: 07/11/2000. 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). Submittal 153777
date: 12/18/2000. 
MO0106STRATHFM.002. Lithologic Logs for RF Drillholes - Midway Valley 155537
Study Area, Nevada. Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.003. Various Nevada Division of Water Resources Logs. 155538
Submittal date: 06/21/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.004. Lithologic Description of Drill Hole USW GU-3 and 155539
USW G-3. Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 

MO0106STRATHFM.005. Lithologic Log for Test Hole USW UZ-13. Submittal 155540 
date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.006. Lithologic Log for Test Hole USW UZ-7. Submittal 155541 
date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.007. Lithologic Log of Borehole for Well UE-25 JF-3. 155542 
Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.008. Detailed Lithologic Log and Stratigraphic Description of 155543 
Drill Hole USW-VH-1. Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.009. Lithologic Log and Stratigraphic Description of Drill 155544 
Hole USW-VH-2. Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.010. USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1767. 155545 
Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.011. USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1519. 155546 
Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.012. USGS Quadrangle GQ-883. 155572 
Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.013. USGS Quadrangle GQ-882. 155573 
Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.014. USGS Quadrangle GQ-849. 155755 
Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.015. USGS Quadrangle GQ-368. 155574 
Submittal date: 06/26/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.016. USGS Quadrangle GQ-439. 155575 
Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.017. USGS Quadrangle GQ-444. 155610 
Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.018. USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-891. 155579 
Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.019. USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-2046. 155580 
Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.020. USGS Water Supply Paper 1938. 155581 
Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 

MO0106STRATHFM.021. USGS Open File Report 84-792. Submittal 155582 
date: 06/28/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.022. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Map 101. 155583 
Submittal date: 06/28/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.023. USGS Technical Letter NTS-106. 155584 
Submittal date: 06/28/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.024. Underground Test Area Cross Sections BS1, BS2, BS9, 155585 
CR4 and CR5. Submittal date: 06/28/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.025. USGS Open File Report 95-74. 155586 
Submittal date: 06/28/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.026. USGS Open File Report 82-897. 155587 
Submittal date: 06/28/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.028. Generalized Lithologic Log for Test Well USW H-1. 155589 
Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.029. Lithologic Log for Drill-Hole UE-25 P#1. 155590 
Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.030. Lithologic Log of Drill-Hole USW G-1. 155591 
Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
MO0106STRATHFM.031. Lithologic Description of Exploratory Drill Hole USW 155592 
G-2. Submittal date: 06/27/2001. 
MO0109STRATHFM.001. Depth to Contact Data Supporting the Hydrogeologic 156252 
Framework Model for Use on the Yucca Mountain Project (Revised September 
2001). Submittal date: 09/25/2001. 
MO0407SEPFEPLA.000. LA FEP List. Submittal date: 07/20/2004. 170760 
MO9901MWDGFM31.000. Geologic Framework Model. 103769 
Submittal date: 01/06/1999. 
MO9906GPS98410.000. Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) Borehole Locations. 109059 
Submittal date: 06/23/1999. 
9.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
GS030208312332.001. HFM Final Output - Hydrogeologic Framework Model for 
the Saturated-Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model. 
Submittal date: 02/10/2003. 

GS000508312332.002. Hydrogeologic Framework Model for the Saturated-Zone 
Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model. Submittal date 06/01/2000 (This version is 
before clipping by the potentiometric surface). 
9.5 SOFTWARE CODES 
CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Management & 157019
Operating Contractor) 2000. Software Code: ARCINFO. V7.2.1. SGI Irix. 10033-
7.2.1-00. 
USGS 2000. Stratamodel V4.1.1. 4.1.1. 10121-4.1.1-00. 148985
USGS 2001. Software Code: ERMA Site Geologist. V6.0.1. 10210-6.0.1-00. 148986
USGS 2001. Software Code: Petrosys. V7.60d. 10168-7.60d-00. 148306

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

APPENDIX A 
INPUT DATA SOURCES BY HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT 


The following tables show the unit-by-unit data sources for each affected unit. The specific data 
used are given by description and DTN. These data are summarized in Section 4.1 and listed in 
Table 4-1. Where data are part of a larger data set (as listed in Table 4-1), the shorthand name of 
the data set is included as part of the description. Table A-1 lists four data sources that are used 
throughout the full model and are not specific to a single unit; these are the DEM 
(DTN: GS000400002332.001 [DIRS 148924]), GFM 3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769]), Water-Level Data (DTN: GS000508312332.001 [DIRS 149947]), and YMP 
Boreholes (DTN: MO9906GPS98410.000 [DIRS 109059]). Note that the full list of data 
sources shown in these tables is summarized in Table 41. These tables are summarized from 
this report, the Scientific Notebook SN-USGS-SCI-072_V2, V3 (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453]), 
and the data qualification report by Wilson (2001 [DIRS 155614]). There is one table for each of 
the HFM-19 units and each is labeled with the HFM-19 name, unit number, and unit names as 
used in Table 2 of the Wilson report (note that the Wilson report names the lower volcanic 
confining unit as MVCU, and older volcanic confining unit as LVCU). 
Table A-1. General Input Data 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Digital Elevation Models Death Valley East Scale 1:250,000 GS000400002332.001 
[DIRS 148924] 
Geologic Framework Model, GFM 3.1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Water-Level Data Analysis for the SZ Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model GS000508312332.001 
[DIRS 149947] 
Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) Borehole Locations 
(GPS updated x,y coordinates supercede earlier locations in affected DTNs) 
MO9906GPS98410.000 
[DIRS 109059] 
GFM=geologic framework model; GPS=Global Positioning System 
Table A-2. Input Data for Valley-Fill Aquifer (Unit 20 Alluvium) 
Data Description 
Data Tracking Number 
Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Region in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
Table A-3. Input Data for Valley-Fill Confining Unit (Unit 19 Playas) 
Data Description 
Data Tracking Number 
Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Region in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
Table A-4. Input Data for Limestone Aquifer (Unit 18 Amarls) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for Collins well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Lithologic data for Heindel well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 

Table A-4. Input Data for Limestone Aquifer (Unit 18 Amarls) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for Vassar well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Lithologic data for Bettles well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Lithologic data for Finch well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Table A-5. Input Data for Lava-Flow Aquifer (Unit 17 Basalts) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Section b from Faulds et al. (1994 [DIRS 105126]) MO0106STRATHFM.022 
[DIRS 155583] 
Cross Section a from Swadley and Carr (1987 [DIRS 101300]) MO0106STRATHFM.010 
[DIRS 155545] 
Cross Section d from Maldonado (1985 [DIRS 104160]) MO0106STRATHFM.011 
[DIRS 155546] 
Geologic map and Cross Section b in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
Lithologic data for Nye County Land Company well MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Lithologic data for Felderhoff 5-1 borehole MO0007LLGLOG51.000 
[DIRS 152894] 
Lithologic data for Felderhoff 25-1 borehole MO0007LGLOG251.000 
[DIRS 152893] 
Locations for the Felderhoff boreholes MO0007BLFHF525.000 
[DIRS 152892] 
Table A-6. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 16 UVA) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Sections a and b from McKay and Sargent (1970 [DIRS 155611]) MO0106STRATHFM.012 
[DIRS 155572] 
Cross Sections a and b from Sargent et al. (1970 [DIRS 155615]) MO0106STRATHFM.013 
[DIRS 155573] 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from Orkild and OConner (1970 [DIRS 106459]) MO0106STRATHFM.014 
[DIRS 155755] 
Cross Sections a and b from McKay and Williams (1964 [DIRS 155612]) MO0106STRATHFM.015 
[DIRS 155574] 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from Lipman and McKay (1965 [DIRS 104158]) MO0106STRATHFM.016 
[DIRS 155575] 
Cross sections a and c from Christiansen and Lipman (1965 [DIRS 100566]) MO0106STRATHFM.017 
[DIRS 155610] 
Cross sections b and d from Maldonado (1985 [DIRS 104160]) MO0106STRATHFM.011 
[DIRS 155546] 
Cross Sections a and b from Swadley and Carr (1987 [DIRS 101300]) MO0106STRATHFM.010 
[DIRS 155545] 

Table A-6. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 16 UVA) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Section a from Byers et al. (1976 [DIRS 103624]) MO0106STRATHFM.018 
[DIRS 155579] 
Cross Section d from Frizzell and Shulters (1990 [DIRS 105454]) MO0106STRATHFM.019 
[DIRS 155580] 
Cross Section a from Young (1972 [DIRS 103023]) MO0106STRATHFM.020 
[DIRS 155581] 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from Scott and Bonk (1984 [DIRS 104181]) GS930283117461.001 
[DIRS 107027] 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from Faulds et al. (1994 [DIRS 105126]) MO0106STRATHFM.022 
[DIRS 155583] 
Geologic map and Cross Sections a, b, c, and d in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS GS010908314221.001 
160060]) [DIRS 162874] 
Cross Section j from Moench (1965 [DIRS 155613]) MO0106STRATHFM.023 
[DIRS 155584] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 a#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 a#4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 a#5 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 a#6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 a#7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 b#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#2 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 J#13 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 NRG#2 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 NRG#2a MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 NRG#2b MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 NRG#2c MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 NRG#2d MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 NRG#3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 NRG#4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 

Table A-6. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 16 UVA) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 NRG#5 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 p#1 MO0106STRATHFM.029 
[DIRS 155590] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#1 (RF Boreholes) MO0106STRATHFM.002 
[DIRS 155537] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#10 (RF Boreholes) MO0106STRATHFM.002 
[DIRS 155537] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#11 (RF Boreholes) MO0106STRATHFM.002 
[DIRS 155537] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#2 (RF Boreholes) MO0106STRATHFM.002 
[DIRS 155537] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#3 (RF and GFM) MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#4 (RF Boreholes) MO0106STRATHFM.002 
[DIRS 155537] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#5 (RF Boreholes) MO0106STRATHFM.002 
[DIRS 155537] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#8 (RF and GFM) MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 RF#9 (RF Boreholes) MO0106STRATHFM.002 
[DIRS 155537] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZ#16 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZ#4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZ#5 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #1 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #10 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #12 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #13 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #14 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #18 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #19 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #2 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #20 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #21 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #22 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 

Table A-6. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 16 UVA) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #23 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #29 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #3 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #30 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #4 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #5 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #56 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #6 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #7 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #8 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #9 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN #97 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN 60 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZN#63 GS940308314211.017 
[DIRS 155534] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-11 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT #5 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#12 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#13 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#14 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#15 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#16 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#17 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#18 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 

Table A-6. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 16 UVA) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25a #6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-1 MO0106STRATHFM.030 
[DIRS 155591] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-2 MO0106STRATHFM.031 
[DIRS 155592] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-3 MO0106STRATHFM.004 
[DIRS 155539] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW GU-3 MO0106STRATHFM.004 
[DIRS 155539] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-1 MO0106STRATHFM.028 
[DIRS 155589] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-5 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW NRG-6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW NRG-7/7a MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-12 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-13 MO0106STRATHFM.005 
[DIRS 155540] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-14 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-6s (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-7 MO0106STRATHFM.006 
[DIRS 155541] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N11 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N15 GS940308314211.019 
[DIRS 145591] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N16 GS940308314211.019 
[DIRS 145591] 

Table A-6. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 16 UVA) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N17 GS940308314211.019 
[DIRS 145591] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N24 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N25 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N26 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N27 GS940208314211.004 
[DIRS 145579] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N31 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N32 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N33 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N34 GS950108314211.009 
[DIRS 152556] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N35 GS940208314211.007 
[DIRS 155533] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N36 GS940308314211.018 
[DIRS 145589] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N37 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N38 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N40 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N41 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N42 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N43 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N44 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N45 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N46 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N47 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N48 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N49 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N51 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N52 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 

Table A-6. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 16 UVA) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N53 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N54 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N55 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N57 GS940208314211.008 
[DIRS 145581] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N58 GS940208314211.008 
[DIRS 145581] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N59 GS940208314211.008 
[DIRS 145581] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N61 GS940208314211.008 
[DIRS 145581] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N62 GS940208314211.002 
[DIRS 145577] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N65 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N68 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N69 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N70 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N71 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N72 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N73 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N74 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N75 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N76 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N80 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N83 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N84 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N86 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N88 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N89 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N94 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 

Table A-6. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 16 UVA) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N95 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-N96 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-10 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-2 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 J-11 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 J-12 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 JF#3 MO0106STRATHFM.007 
[DIRS 155542] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-29 UZN#91 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-29 UZN#92 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW VH-1 MO0106STRATHFM.008 
[DIRS 155543] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW VH-2 MO0106STRATHFM.009 
[DIRS 155544] 
GFM=geologic framework model; MWIS=National Water Information System; RF=repository facilities 
Table A-7. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Confining Unit (Unit 15 UVCU) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from Lipman and McKay (1965 [DIRS 104158]) MO0106STRATHFM.016 
[DIRS 155575] 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from Orkild and OConner (1970 [DIRS 106459]) MO0106STRATHFM.014 
[DIRS 155755] 
Cross sections a and c from Christiansen and Lipman (1965 [DIRS 100566]) MO0106STRATHFM.017 
[DIRS 155610] 
Cross Sections a and b from McKay and Williams (1964 [DIRS 155612]) MO0106STRATHFM.015 
[DIRS 155574] 
Cross Section a from Sargent et al. (1970 [DIRS 155615]) MO0106STRATHFM.013 
[DIRS 155573] 
Cross Section d from Frizzell and Shulters (1990 [DIRS 105454]) MO0106STRATHFM.019 
[DIRS 155580] 
Cross Section a from Byers et al. (1976 [DIRS 103624]) MO0106STRATHFM.018 
[DIRS 155579] 
Cross sections b and d from Maldonado (1985 [DIRS 104160]) MO0106STRATHFM.011 
[DIRS 155546] 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from Scott and Bonk (1984 [DIRS 104181]) GS930283117461.001 
[DIRS 107027] 
Cross Sections a and c from Faulds et al. (1994 [DIRS 105126]) MO0106STRATHFM.022 
[DIRS 155583] 

Table A-7. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Confining Unit (Unit 15 UVCU) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Geologic map in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
GFM Calico Hills surface MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 a#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 b#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#2 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 J#13 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 p#1 MO0106STRATHFM.029 
[DIRS 155590] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZ#16 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#12 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#14 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#16 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#17 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#18 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-1 MO0106STRATHFM.030 
[DIRS 155591] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-2 MO0106STRATHFM.031 
[DIRS 155592] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-3 MO0106STRATHFM.004 
[DIRS 155539] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW GU-3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-1 MO0106STRATHFM.028 
[DIRS 155589] 

Table A-7. Input Data for Upper Volcanic Confining Unit (Unit 15 UVCU) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-5 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW NRG-7/7a MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-9 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-14 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-11 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-2 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-12 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW VH-1 MO0106STRATHFM.008 
[DIRS 155543] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW VH-2 MO0106STRATHFM.009 
[DIRS 155544] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 JF#3 MO0106STRATHFM.007 
[DIRS 155542] 
Table A-8. Input Data for Lower Volcanic Aquifer  Prow Pass Tuff (Unit 14 LVA Tcp) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Sections b and c from Faulds et al. (1994 [DIRS 105126]) MO0106STRATHFM.022 
[DIRS 155583] 
Geologic map and Cross Sections a, b, and c in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
GFM Prow Pass surface MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 

Table A-8. Input Data for Lower Volcanic Aquifer  Prow Pass Tuff (Unit 14 LVA Tcp) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Description 
Cross Section a from Sargent et al. (1970 [DIRS 155615]) MO0106STRATHFM.013 
[DIRS 155573] 
Cross Section d from Maldonado (1985 [DIRS 104160]) MO0106STRATHFM.011 
[DIRS 155546] 
Cross Section d from Frizzell and Shulters (1990 [DIRS 105454]) MO0106STRATHFM.019 
[DIRS 155580] 
Cross Section a from Swadley and Carr (1987 [DIRS 101300]) MO0106STRATHFM.010 
[DIRS 155545] 
Cross Sections a and b from McKay and Sargent (1970 [DIRS 155611]) MO0106STRATHFM.012 
[DIRS 155572] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 a#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 b#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#2 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 c#3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 J#13 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 p#1 MO0106STRATHFM.029 
[DIRS 155590] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 UZ#16 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#17 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 WT#3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-1 MO0106STRATHFM.030 
[DIRS 155591] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-2 MO0106STRATHFM.031 
[DIRS 155592] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-3 MO0106STRATHFM.004 
[DIRS 155539] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW GU-3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-1 MO0106STRATHFM.028 
[DIRS 155589] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-5 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 

Table A-8. Input Data for Lower Volcanic Aquifer  Prow Pass Tuff (Unit 14 LVA Tcp) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Description 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW UZ-6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-1 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-2 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW WT-7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-12 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-9 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW VH-1 MO0106STRATHFM.008 
[DIRS 155543] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW VH-2 MO0106STRATHFM.009 
[DIRS 155544] 
Table A-9. Input Data for Lower Volcanic Aquifer  Bullfrog Tuff (Unit 13 LVA Tcb) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from Faulds et al. (1994 [DIRS 105126]) MO0106STRATHFM.022 
[DIRS 155583] 
Cross Section a from Swadley and Carr (1987 [DIRS 101300]) MO0106STRATHFM.010 
[DIRS 155545] 
Cross Section a from Sargent et al. (1970 [DIRS 155615]) MO0106STRATHFM.013 
[DIRS 155573] 
Geologic map and Cross Sections a, b, c, and d in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
GFM Bullfrog surface MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-12 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW VH-1 MO0106STRATHFM.008 
[DIRS 155543] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW VH-2 MO0106STRATHFM.009 
[DIRS 155544] 

Table A-10. Input Data for Lower Volcanic Aquifer  Tram Tuff (Unit 12 LVA Tct) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Sections b and c from Faulds et al. (1994 [DIRS 105126]) MO0106STRATHFM.022 
[DIRS 155583] 
Cross Section a from Sargent et al. (1970 [DIRS 155615]) MO0106STRATHFM.013 
[DIRS 155573] 
Cross Sections a, b, c, and d in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
GFM Tram surface MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW SD-7 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
GFM=geologic framework model 
Table A-11. Input Data for Lower Volcanic Confining Unit (Unit 11 MVCU) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Sections a, b, and c from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Section d from Frizzell and Shulters (1990 [DIRS 105454]) MO0106STRATHFM.019 
[DIRS 155580] 
Cross Section b from Maldonado (1985 [DIRS 104160]) MO0106STRATHFM.011 
[DIRS 155546] 
Geologic map in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 J#13 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 p#1 MO0106STRATHFM.029 
[DIRS 155590] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-1 MO0106STRATHFM.030 
[DIRS 155591] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-2 MO0106STRATHFM.031 
[DIRS 155592] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-3 MO0106STRATHFM.004 
[DIRS 155539] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-1 MO0106STRATHFM.028 
[DIRS 155589] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-3 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-4 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-6 MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769] 

Table A-12. Input Data for Older Volcanic Aquifer (Unit 10 LVA) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 p#1 MO0106STRATHFM.029 
[DIRS 155590] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-1 MO0106STRATHFM.030 
[DIRS 155591] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-2 MO0106STRATHFM.031 
[DIRS 155592] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW G-3 MO0106STRATHFM.004 
[DIRS 155539] 
Lithologic data for borehole USW H-1 MO0106STRATHFM.028 
[DIRS 155589] 
Table A-13. Input Data for Older Volcanic Confining Unit (Unit 9 LVCU) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Section c from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Section d from Frizzell and Shulters (1990 [DIRS 105454]) MO0106STRATHFM.019 
[DIRS 155580] 
Cross Section b from Maldonado (1985 [DIRS 104160]) MO0106STRATHFM.011 
[DIRS 155546] 
Cross Section c from Scott and Bonk (1984 [DIRS 104181]) GS930283117461.001 
[DIRS 107027] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 p#1 MO0106STRATHFM.029 
[DIRS 155590] 
Table A-14. Input Data for Undifferentiated Valley Fill (Unit 8 Leaky) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Section a from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Section a from Sargent et al. (1970 [DIRS 155615]) MO0106STRATHFM.013 
[DIRS 155573] 
Geologic map and Cross Sections a, b, c, and d in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS GS010908314221.001 
160060]) [DIRS 162874] 
Lithologic data for the Collins well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Lithologic data for the Heindel well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Lithologic data for the Bettles well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Lithologic data for Felderhoff 5-1 borehole MO0007LLGLOG51.000 
[DIRS 152894] 
Lithologic data for Felderhoff 25-1 borehole MO0007LGLOG251.000 
[DIRS 152893] 

Table A-15. Input Data for Upper Carbonate Aquifer (Unit 7 UCA) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Locations for the Felderhoff boreholes MO0007BLFHF525.000 
[DIRS 152892] 
Cross Section CR4 from NTS ERP DTN: GS000400002332.002 [DIRS 149021] MO0106STRATHFM.024 
[DIRS 155585] 
Table A-16. Input Data for Upper Clastic Confining Unit (Unit 5 UCCU) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Section b from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Section CR4 from NTS ERP DTN: GS000400002332.002 [DIRS 149021] MO0106STRATHFM.024 
[DIRS 155585] 
Cross Sections a and b from McKay and Williams (1964 [DIRS 155612]) MO0106STRATHFM.015 
[DIRS 155574] 
Cross Section b from Maldonado (1985 [DIRS 104160]) MO0106STRATHFM.011 
[DIRS 155546] 
Geologic map and Cross Sections c and d in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
Lithologic data for UE-25a#3 (NWIS) MO0109STRATHFM.001 
[DIRS 156252] 
Table A-17. Input Data for Lower Carbonate Aquifer (Unit 4 LCA) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Section b from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Sections BS1, BS2, BS9, CR4 and CR5 from NTS ERP MO0106STRATHFM.024 
DTN: GS000400002332.002 [DIRS 149021] [DIRS 155585] 
Cross Sections a, b, i, and j from Moench (1965 [DIRS 155613]) MO0106STRATHFM.023 
[DIRS 155584] 
Beatty, Fortymile Wash, and Amargosa seismic refraction profiles from Oliver et al. MO0106STRATHFM.025 
(1995 [DIRS 106447]) [DIRS 155586] 
Regional Geophysical lines 2 and 3 from Brocher et al. (1996 [DIRS 101495], (see Appendix B, 
Figures 16 and 17) Section B.2 for the 
justification for use of data) 
Cross Section a from Sargent et al. (1970 [DIRS 155615]) MO0106STRATHFM.013 
[DIRS 155573] 
Geologic map and Cross Sections a, b, c, and d in Potter et al. (2002 GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 160060]) [DIRS 162874] 
Resistivity soundings from Greenhaus and Zablocki (1982 [DIRS 105144]) MO0106STRATHFM.026 
[DIRS 155587] 
Lithologic data for borehole UE-25 p#1 MO0106STRATHFM.029 
[DIRS 155590] 
Lithologic data for Felderhoff 5-1 borehole MO0007LLGLOG51.000 
[DIRS 152894] 
Lithologic data for Felderhoff 25-1 borehole MO0007LGLOG251.000 
[DIRS 152893] 

Table A-17. Input Data for Lower Carbonate Aquifer (Unit 4 LCA) (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Locations for the Felderhoff boreholes MO0007BLFHF525.000 
[DIRS 152892] 
Lithologic data for the Spring Meadows, Inc. well (water resource wells) MO0106STRATHFM.003 
[DIRS 155538] 
Table A-18. Input Data for Lower Carbonate Aquifer Thrust Plate (Unit 6 LCA-t2) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Section b from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Section b from McKay and Williams (1964 [DIRS 155612]) MO0106STRATHFM.015 
[DIRS 155574] 
Geologic map and Cross Sections a and d in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 
Table A-19. Input Data for Lower Clastic Confining Unit (Unit 3 LCCU) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Cross Section b from USGS (1984 [DIRS 101305]) MO0106STRATHFM.021 
[DIRS 155582] 
Cross Sections BS1, BS2, BS9, CR4 and CR5 from NTS ERP MO0106STRATHFM.024 
DTN: GS000400002332.002 [DIRS 149021] [DIRS 155585] 
Cross Sections a, b, i, and j from Moench (1965 [DIRS 155613]) MO0106STRATHFM.023 
[DIRS 155584] 
Geologic map and Cross Sections a, b, c, and d in Potter et al. (2002 GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 160060]) [DIRS 162874] 
Table A-20. Input Data for Granitic Confining Unit (Unit 2 Granites) 
Data Description 
Data Tracking Number 
Cross Sections a, c, and d in Potter et al. (2002 [DIRS 160060]) GS010908314221.001 
[DIRS 162874] 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

APPENDIX B 
QUALIFICATION OF EXTERNAL SOURCES 


The justification and qualification of two data sets for intended use in this document is presented 
in this appendix. The first data set (DTN MO09901MWDGFM31.000) is the GFM that was 
superceded by the next generation of the GFM. The superceded DTN is justified for intended 
use in this document by following guidance in Section 5.2.1 l) of AP-SIII.10Q, Models. The 
justification is presented in Section B.1. 
The second data source provided unqualified data that have been used as direct input to this 
document. The inputs from this source are qualified in this appendix for intended use within the 
document using the criteria found in AP-SIII.10Q, Models, and AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of 
Unqualified Data. The following information is provided for the source data: the full reference 
citation, a description of the data that were used from the source, and the extent to which the data 
demonstrate the properties of interest. An independent evaluation was undertaken that 
documented that an acceptable methodology was used, that confidence in the results is 
warranted, and that the data have been used in similar applications. The qualification of these 
data is presented in Section B.2. 
B1. GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK MODEL 3.1 
Reference DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769] 
If the document and the product output have been superseded, procedure AP-SIII.10Q 
Section 5.2.1 l) provides the requirements necessary to justify the use of the data in this 
document. The justification requires that the reason for specific supersession must be 
considered. In addition, one or more of the following criteria must be addressed: 
 
Reliability of data source 
 
Qualifications of personnel or organizations generating the data 
 
Prior uses of the data 
 
Availability of corroborating data. 
The criteria described above meet the requirements of AP-SIII.10Q and are provided as 
justification that the data that have been used from these sources are considered to be qualified 
for intended use. 
Reason for SupersessionThis product (GFM 3.1 DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769]) was superceded by GFM2000 (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 
[DIRS 153777]) due to response to review comments. Revisions to the model are minor and are 
primarily in outlying areas. Changes between GFM 3.1 and GFM2000 include; changes in 
isochore grids for some units concerning the Crater Flat Group, Topopah Spring tuff, thickness 
of model unit RHHHtop and grid flexure at extreme north edge, Ghost Dance fault was 
modified at depth, improvements in fault displacements, an added fault between Fortymile and 
Paintbrush Canyon Faults, and the incorporation of additional borehole data. See report for full 
details, GFM2000 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029], Section 6.3.4). 
Description of UseWithin the immediate repository area (Figure 4-1), the site GFM 3.1 was 
used as the principal source of subsurface data for the Upper Volcanic Confining Unit and the 
Prow Pass, Bullfrog, and Tram Tuffs within the Lower Volcanic Aquifer (Table 6-3). For these 

units, the GFM is effectively embedded within the HFM in a relatively small area located 
immediately around the repository. Faults are defined separately in the HFM and are represented 
over the full site-scale domain. 
Justification of UseThe changes to GFM2000 improve the accuracy and location of units, 
especially in the area of the Crater Flat group, but do not change their definition in any 
significant way. The model report for GFM2000 (BSC 2000 [DIRS 170029], Section 6.3.4) 
describes the impact of these changes on SZ models, stating that For SZ models that use the 
entire GFM area, the changes would have minor impact because of the lower spatial resolution of 
those models and the lack of subsurface data in the affected areas. 
Updates to HFM-27, using newly developed hydrogeologic data and GFM2000, significantly 
reduce the grid effects seen in the HFM-19, specifically in the Crater Flat Group. The report 
summarizes that current revisions of the GFM and HFM resolve major differences in the 
thickness of the hydrogeologic units in the northwest corner of the GFM model domain. The 
report further notes that the HFM and GFM are different model interpretations of the Yucca 
Mountain area and have different intended applications within performance assessment. 
Therefore, these discontinuities do not affect the applicability of the HFM-19 in providing an 
appropriate hydrogeologic framework for the site-scale SZ flow model, and indicate that as data 
availability increases and input models evolve, any benefits will propagate through the HFM-19 
and thus the flow and transport models. Additional discussion of the grid discontinuity is given 
in Appendix C 
Changes to units used in the HFM-19 and the effect of the resulting representation in the flow 
model are discussed in Section 6.4. Alternate representations of units and their displacements 
due to faults, may be hydrologically significant in controlling groundwater flow and recharge in 
the flow model domain. However, the changes in the GFM 3.1 are too minor in respect to the 
full HFM-19 to show any obvious impact on the flow model. Additionally, allowance for the 
potential effects of features and faults are incorporated into the flow model with explicitly 
defined zones. These zone definitions are discussed in detail in Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.5.3). 
Reliability of Data SourceAs stated in the Technical Information form in this DTN, the 
GFM 3.1 is still valid, 12/18/2002, and requires no verification. Qualification work is a result of 
work reported in Wilson (2001[DIRS 155614]). The supersession does not reduce the adequacy 
of GFM 3.1 and its use in HFM-19. 
B2. REGIONAL GEOPHYSICAL LINES 2 AND 3 
Reference: Hybrid-Source Seismic Reflection Profiling Across Yucca Mountain, Nevada: 
Regional Lines 2 and 3 (Brocher et al. 1996 [DIRS 101495], Figures 16 and 17). 
Description of UseThe Brocher et al. interpretations of seismic line migration depth sections 
provide the stratigraphy to depths of 1000s of meters below sea level. The two cross sections 
(Brocher et al. 1996 [DIRS 101495], Figures 16 and 17) and the single available borehole, 
UE-25 #p1, provide depth information for the Paleozoic carbonate surface (top of Lower 
Carbonate Aquifer) in an east-west section across the southern end of the Yucca Mountain 

Repository. Note that Figure 6-6o shows how little data were available near the repository, the 
primary source for information here are the geophysical data. Little data are available to check 
that this representation is correct, but one borehole used in the GFM corroborated the location of 
this unit in the HFM (Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614], p 66). 
The two cross sections were digitized to provide control on the top of the Paleozoic carbonate 
aquifer. These two digitized cross sections were processed as were the other cross sections used 
in the analysis (Faunt 2002 [DIRS 171453], p 129). 
Extent to which the Data Demonstrate the Properties of InterestAt the time of building this 
model, data to define units in the deep units such as the Paleozoic rocks were sparse and little 
was approved for use. Cross sections were used as data sources, but are interpretive for the 
carbonate aquifer and other units at depth. These deep seismic cross-sections provide the data 
needed to construct the top of the Paleozoic units across the Yucca Mountain site. 
Data Collection and Interpretation MethodologyBrocher et al (1998 [DIRS 100022], p 952) 
provide the following summary of the data acquisition and processing: 
Brocher et al. (1996) described the acquisition and processing of the seismic 
reflection lines. Sources used to image the crust to a depth of about 24 km 
(two-way travel time of 8 s) included vibrator, Poulter (air blast) sources, and 
small shothole (minihole) pattern. Environmental, operational, and topographic 
limitations required using different sources; nonetheless, vibrator sources were 
used for nearly 80% of the survey. In addition, large (45 kg) shotholes every 
2 km were used to attempt to image the crust down to the Moho. All sources 
were recorded using a 480-channel receiver array. Spectra of the data indicate 
that the vibrator sources primarily produced useful data between 11 and 35 Hz. 
Poulter sources produced slightly lower frequency data, on average between 3 and 
30 Hz. 
A standard processing sequence for the seismic lines ended with poststack 
migration. Prior to merging the data derived from different seismic sources, a 
compensation filter was applied to the vibrator source data to transform its source 
signature from its initial zero phase wavelet into a minimum phase wavelet. 
Following this phase compensation, both the vibrator and explosion source data 
were deconvoluted using the same deconvolution operator. Stacking velocities 
picked continuously along the profile varied smoothly in time and distance along 
the profile. Velocities needed to convert the section to depth and for poststack 
migration were calculated from the stacking velocities. Reflector depths obtained 
using these velocity functions are comparable to those obtained using refraction 
velocities from a coincident seismic refraction line. 
The methodology for data collection and processing was subjected to external peer review as part 
of the journal publication process and found to be acceptable. 
Reliability of Data SourceThe geophysical data were collected by the USGS geologic division 
and were among the few accepted data available at depth (Figure 6-6o). The work of Brocher 

et al (1996 [DIRS 101495]) was later published in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of 
America (Brocher et al 1998 [DIRS 100022]). This later publication is cited in Geologic 
Framework Model (GFM2000) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029]) as a source for assessing the style of 
faults in the Yucca Mountain region. It is also cited in report Characterize Framework for 
Igneous Activity at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169989], Section 6.4.1 and 
Figure 6-6). In both cases, the work of Brocher at al (1998 [DIRS 100022]) is used as 
corroborating data supporting conclusions regarding the nature and depth of faulting. The work 
documented in Brocher et al (1996 [DIRS 101495] and 1998 [DIRS 100022]) has been cited in 
other project documents and is generally considered to be reliable. Since measured geophysical 
data are generally accepted, and the location of the Lower Carbonate is uncertain because of the 
scarcity of drill hole data, using these data for this purpose is appropriate and generally effective. 
SummaryThe seismic cross sections in Brocher et al. (1996 [DIRS 101495], Figures 16 and 
17) are shown to have been collected and analyzed by accepted methods. The interpretation of 
the data were later published in the peer-reviewed literature (Brocher et al., 1998 [DIRS 
100022]) and cited by several other project reports. The seismic cross sections are considered 
qualified for intended use within this document. 

APPENDIX C 
DISCUSSION OF DISCONTINUITIES BETWEEN THE HYDROGEOLOGIC 
FRAMEWORK MODEL AND GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK MODEL 


This appendix section presents maps showing vertical thicknesses (Figures C-1 through C-5) 
used to identify apparent discontinuities in unit thickness that occur as a result of differences 
between the GFM and HFM. The differences in the GFM and HFM are the result of the gridding 
techniques used to create the units in each of the models. The gridding of the GFM did not use 
data outside the GFM boundary; hence, extrapolation to the boundary differed from the HFM, 
which used data on both sides of the GFM boundary. Discontinuities occur near the 
northwestern boundary of the GFM and are nearly parallel to the boundary of the GFM. In 
Figures C-1 through C-3, discontinuities are not apparent in the Upper Volcanic confining unit, 
Prow Pass Unit, or the Bullfrog Unit. However, the Tram Tuff shows a large discontinuity as a 
result of a thickness difference (Figure C-4). 
In the Tram Tuff, a large discontinuity was identified in the northwest corner of the GFM area. 
In this area, the Tram Tuff pinches out to zero thickness in the GFM, but it becomes thicker in 
the HFM. This can be seen in Figure C-4 as an abrupt change in color (straight, north-south line 
in northwest corner and intersecting the upper horizontal portion of the white box signifying the 
GFM area) where the HFM shows a thickness of about 1,000 meters and the GFM shows a 
thickness of about 350 meters. The impact of the discontinuity on the groundwater flow away 
from the repository occurs west of the Solitario Canyon Fault in the region of the Large 
Hydraulic Gradient. Both features limit the impact on flow in the vicinity of the repository. This 
apparent discontinuity was identified (Wilson 2001 [DIRS 155614]), and Yucca Mountain 
Project personnel worked to ensure that units common to both models were handled in a uniform 
manner. The discontinuity was resolved within the HFM by adding contours with increasing 
elevation to the GFM and by continuing this incline in the HFM definition, resulting in a smooth 
transition from the lower Tram tuff thickness in the northeast corner to the greater thicknesses 
seen towards Claim Canyon Caldera and beyond the GFM boundaries. The current version of 
the HFM, HFM-27 (DTN: GS021008312332.002 [DIRS 164363]), is consistent with data from 
boreholes and is consistent with the current version of the GFM, GFM 2000 (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170029]). The smooth transition enhances the applicability of the HFM-27 in providing a 
hydrogeologic framework for the site-scale flow model. Figures C-4 and C-5 show the thickness 
of the Tram Tuff unit. HFM-27 (Figure C-5) shows a smooth transition from the GFM-defined 
thickness to the area outside of the GFM. In general, HFM-27 shows fewer anomalies (e.g., 
trenches and peaks). These features normally do not show up in 500-meter computational grids, 
but they are addressed and resolved in HFM-27 to create a smoother surface. 

Output DTN: GS030208312332.001. 
NOTES: The white rectangular box shows the GFM area, while the remainder of the figure shows the domain of the 
site-scale HFM. The shaded relief map used for the background shows where the hydrogeologic unit is 
pinched out to zero thickness by other units or is truncated by the water table surface (white area in 
northeast corner). SR/99 SZ Model refers to the TSPA Site Recommendation HFM model (HFM-19). 
UTM-X =UTM-Easting and UTM-Y =UTM-Northing. 
Figure C-1. Vertical Thickness of the Upper Volcanic Unit in the HFM-19 

Output DTN: GS030208312332.001. 
NOTES: The white rectangular box shows the GFM area, while the remainder of the figure shows the domain of the 
site-scale HFM. The shaded relief map used for the background shows where the hydrogeologic unit is 
pinched out to zero thickness by other units or is truncated by the water table surface (white area in 
northeast corner). SR/99 SZ Model refers to the TSPA Site Recommendation HFM model (HFM-19). 
UTM-X =UTM-Easting and UTM-Y =UTM-Northing. 
Figure C-2. Vertical Thickness of the Prow Pass Unit in the HFM-19 

Output DTN: GS030208312332.001. 
NOTES: The white rectangular box shows the GFM area, while the remainder of the figure shows the domain of the 
site-scale HFM. The shaded relief map used for the background shows where the hydrogeologic unit is 
pinched out to zero thickness by other units or is truncated by the water table surface (white area in 
northeast corner). SR/99 SZ Model refers to the TSPA Site Recommendation HFM model (HFM-19). 
UTM-X =UTM-Easting and UTM-Y =UTM-Northing. 
Figure C-3. Vertical Thickness of the Bullfrog Unit in the HFM-19 

Output DTN: GS030208312332.001. 
NOTES: The white rectangular box shows the GFM area, while the remainder of the figure shows the domain of the 
site-scale HFM. The shaded relief map used for the background shows where the hydrogeologic unit is 
pinched out to zero thickness by other units or is truncated by the water table surface (white area in 
northeast corner). SR/99 SZ Model refers to the TSPA Site Recommendation HFM model (HFM-19). 
UTM-X =UTM-Easting and UTM-Y =UTM-Northing. 
Figure C-4. Vertical Thickness of the Tram Unit in the HFM-19 

Source: DTN: GS021008312332.002 [DIRS 164363]. 
NOTES: The black rectangular box shows the GFM area with lower left coordinates of 544067 meters UTM 
Easting, 4070099 meters UTM Northing and upper right coordinates of 555341 meters UTM Easting, 
4085070 meters UTM Northing. White gaps appear where the hydrogeologic unit is pinched out to 
zero thickness by other units or is truncated by the water table surface. 
UTM = Universal Transverse Mercator 
Figure C-5. Vertical Thickness of the Bullfrog Unit in HFM-27