Features, Events, and Processes: System Level REV 02, ICN 00

ANL-WIS-MD-000019
  
October 2004 

1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this analysis report is to evaluate and document the inclusion or exclusion of the 
system-level features, events, and processes (FEPs) with respect to modeling used to support the 
total system performance assessment for the license application (TSPA-LA). A screening 
decision, either Included or Excluded, is given for each FEP along with the technical basis for 
screening decisions. This information is required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC) at 10 CFR 63.113 (d, e, and f) (DIRS 156605). 
The system-level FEPs addressed in this report typically are overarching in nature, rather than 
being focused on a particular process or subsystem. As a result, they are best dealt with at the 
system level rather than addressed within supporting process-level or subsystem-level analyses 
and models reports. The system-level FEPs also tend to be directly addressed by regulations, 
guidance documents, or assumptions listed in the regulations; or are addressed in background 
information used in development of the regulations. For included FEPs, this analysis 
summarizes the implementation of the FEP in the TSPA-LA (i.e., how the FEP is included). For 
excluded FEPs, this analysis provides the technical basis for exclusion from the TSPA-LA 
(i.e., why the FEP is excluded). The initial version of this report (Revision 00) was developed to 
support the total system performance assessment for site recommendation (TSPA-SR). This 
revision addresses the license application (LA) FEP List (DIRS 170760). 
1.1 PLANNING AND DOCUMENTATION 
Documentation requirements for this analysis report are described in the technical work plan 
entitled Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Team Revision of Features, Events, 
and Processes (FEPs) Analysis Reports Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170408]). There are no 
changes in the assigned system-level FEP list for TSPA-LA from that described in the technical 
work plan, aside from use of the updated FEP list (DIRS 170760). 
1.2 SCOPE 
The scope of this report is to describe, evaluate, and document screening decisions and technical 
bases for the system-level FEPs for TSPA-LA. For FEPs that are included in the TSPA-LA, this 
analysis report provides a TSPA-LA disposition, which is a consolidated summary of how the 
FEP has been included and addressed in the TSPA-LA model. In other FEP analysis model 
reports (AMRs), the disposition is a consolidated summary of how the FEP has been included 
and addressed in the TSPA-LA model, based on supporting technical analysis reports and model 
reports (collectively, AMRs) that describe the inclusion of the FEP. This approach works well 
for FEPs that focus on a particular process, interrelated processes, or a defined subsystem. By 
contrast, system-level FEPs are overarching and are not focused on a particular process or 
subsystem and, therefore, evaluation of the FEPs cannot be assigned or mapped to a specific 
AMR or set of AMRs. Consequently, in some cases the system-level FEP dispositions refer 
directly to the TSPA-LA or other higher-level supporting documentation, and no roadmap to 
supporting AMRs is provided. For system-level FEPs that are excluded from the TSPA-LA, this 
document provides the screening arguments identifying the bases for the screening decision 
(i.e., low probability, low consequence, or by regulation) and the technical basis supporting the 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 1-2 October 2004 
decision is discussed. References to project and non-project information supporting the 
exclusion are provided. 
In cases where a FEP covers multiple technical areas and is shared with other FEP AMRs, this 
analysis report provides only a partial technical basis for the screening decision as it relates to 
(generic name) concerns. The full technical basis for the shared FEPs is addressed, collectively, 
by all of the sharing FEP AMRs. Only one system-level FEP, FEP 1.1.11.00.0A, which 
addresses monitoring of the repository, is shared with another analysis report (Table 1-1). 
An overview of the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) FEP analysis and scenario development 
process is presented in The Development of the TSPA-LA Features, Events, and Processes 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706], Sections 2.4, 3, and 4), describing the TSPA-LA FEP identification 
and screening process that led to the development of the LA FEP List (DIRS 170760). Changes 
in the FEP list, FEP names, and FEP descriptions can also be traced through that report. The 
FEPs addressed in this report are a subset of the revised LA FEP List. These FEPs are listed in 
Table 1-1, and shared FEPs are indicated. 
The resulting system-level FEP list has been compared with the list of external hazards presented 
in MGR External Events Hazards Screening Analysis (BSC 2003 [DIRS 163999]), which deals 
with external events occurring within the operational and preclosure periods. Within the 
constraints of postclosure concerns, as opposed to preclosure considerations (e.g. FEPs do not 
address preclosure concerns, such as operations, unless they have a potential to influence 
postclosure conditions; timescales of concern for preclosure are on the order of 50 to 100 years, 
compared to the 10,000-year basis for postclosure considerations), the FEP lists were found to be 
consistent. 
Direct inputs supporting the screening decisions are listed in Section 4. Indirect inputs 
supporting the screening decisions are listed in Section 6.1. The individual FEP discussions 
providing identification (FEP number, name, and description) and screening (screening decision, 
screening argument, or TSPA disposition) information are in Section 6.2. Appendix A is a 
glossary. Appendix B provides qualification of non-project specific meteorite data for intended 
use with this document. Appendix C addresses the analysis for the timing of human intrusion. 
Appendix D addresses meteorite impact probabilities. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 1-3 October 2004 
Table 1-1. System-Level FEPs for TSPA-LA 
FEP 
Number FEP Name 
Addressed 
in Section Sharing FEP AMR 
Assessment Basis and Modeling Requirement FEPs (Section 6.2.1) 
0.1.02.00.0A Timescales of concern 6.2.1.1  
0.1.03.00.0A Spatial domain of concern 6.2.1.2  
0.1.09.00.0A Regulatory requirements and exclusions 6.2.1.3  
0.1.10.00.0A Model and data issues 6.2.1.4  
1.1.07.00.0A Repository design 6.2.1.5  
1.1.13.00.0A Retrievability 6.2.1.6  
2.1.01.04.0A Repository-scale spatial heterogeneity of emplaced waste 6.2.1.7  
Process and Site-Control FEPs (Section 6.2.2) 
1.1.05.00.0A Records and markers for the repository 6.2.2.1  
1.1.08.00.0A Inadequate quality control and deviations from design 6.2.2.2  
1.1.09.00.0A Schedule and planning 6.2.2.3  
1.1.10.00.0A Administrative control of the repository site 6.2.2.4  
1.1.11.00.0A Monitoring of the repository 6.2.2.5 Unsaturated Zone (UZ) 
1.1.12.01.0A Accidents and unplanned events during construction and 
operation 
6.2.2.6  
Human Intrusion FEPs (Section 6.2.3) 
1.4.02.01.0A Deliberate human intrusion 6.2.3.1  
1.4.02.02.0A Inadvertent human intrusion 6.2.3.2  
1.4.02.03.0A Igneous event precedes human intrusion 6.2.3.3  
1.4.02.04.0A Seismic event precedes human intrusion 6.2.3.4  
1.4.03.00.0A Unintrusive site investigation 6.2.3.5  
1.4.04.00.0A Drilling activities (human intrusion) 6.2.3.6  
1.4.04.01.0A Effects of drilling intrusion 6.2.3.7  
1.4.05.00.0A Mining and other underground activities (human intrusion) 6.2.3.8  
1.4.11.00.0A Explosions and crashes (human activities) 6.2.3.9  
3.3.06.01.0A Repository excavation 6.2.3.10  
Miscellaneous Geologic and Astronomic FEPs (Section 6.2.4) 
1.2.05.00.0A Metamorphism 6.2.4.1  
1.2.08.00.0A Diagenesis 6.2.4.2  
1.2.09.00.0A Salt diapirism and dissolution 6.2.4.3  
1.2.09.01.0A Diapirism 6.2.4.4  
1.5.01.01.0A Meteorite impact 6.2.4.5  
1.5.01.02.0A Extraterrestrial events 6.2.4.6  
1.5.03.01.0A Changes in the earths magnetic field 6.2.4.7  
1.5.03.02.0A Earth tides 6.2.4.8  
2.2.06.05.0A Salt creep 6.2.4.9  
2.3.13.03.0A Effects of repository heat on the biosphere 6.2.4.10  

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 1-4 October 2004 
1.3 SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS LIMITATIONS 
The intended use of this analysis report is to provide FEP screening information for a 
project-specific FEP database and to promote traceability and transparency for included and 
excluded FEPs. This analysis report is intended to be used as the source documentation for 
inclusion or exclusion of system-level FEPs for the TSPA-LA model. The following limitations 
apply to this analysis report: 
 Because this analysis report cites other AMRs and controlled documents as direct input, 
the limitations of this analysis report inherently include the limitations and constraints 
described in the cited documents. In particular, the results of the waste package 
degradation analyses (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169996], Sections 6.5 and 7.2) result from the 
use of representative thermal hydrologic history files produced to allow model runs to be 
exercised in the cited report. The actual drip shield and waste package degradation 
profiles used in the TSPA-LA model will make use of the actual thermal hydrologic 
history files appropriate for the repository. Because representative histories were used, 
significant differences in the degradation profile generated for TSPA-LA are not 
expected. 
 In the one case (Table 1-1) of a shared FEP (FEP 1.1.11.00.0A, Monitoring of the 
repository), the scope of this analysis report is focused on programmatic monitoring as 
described in the regulations. The full technical basis for this shared FEPs is addressed, 
collectively, by all of the sharing FEP AMRs. 
 For screening, the mean values of probabilities, mean amplitude of events, or mean 
value of consequences (e.g., mean time to waste package degradation) are generally used 
in this analysis report as a basis for reaching include-exclude decisions. Mean values are 
determined based on the range of possible values. 
 The results of the FEP screening presented here are specific to the repository design and 
processes for the YMP available at the time of the TSPA-LA. Changes in direct inputs 
(Section 4.1), baseline conditions used for this evaluation, or other subsurface conditions 
will need to be evaluated to determine whether the changes are within the limits stated in 
the FEP evaluations. Engineering and design changes are subject to evaluation to 
determine whether there are any adverse affects on safety, as codified at 10 CFR 63.73 
and in Subparts F and G (DIRS 156605). See also the requirements at 10 CFR 63.44 
(DIRS 156605). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 2-1 October 2004 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
Development of this analysis report and the supporting analyses are subject to the Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management quality assurance program as identified in the 
Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Team Revision of Features, Events, and 
Processes (FEPs) Analysis Reports (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170408], Section 8.1). 
The report contributes to the analysis and modeling used to support performance assessment. 
The system-level FEPs documented here involve investigations of items or barriers on the Q-list 
and have the potential to affect the calculation of the performance of the natural barriers and 
various engineered barrier system (EBS) components included on the Q-list. However, the 
system-level FEPs themselves do not qualify as Q-list items. The evaluations and conclusions 
do not directly affect engineered features important to safety, as defined in AP-2.22Q, 
Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. 
Approved quality assurance procedures were used to conduct and document the activities 
described in this analysis report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170408], Section 4.1). This work constitutes 
an analysis report, and the documentation was prepared according to AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific 
Analyses, and in accordance with related procedures and guidance documents as outlined in the 
technical work plan. The technical work plan also identifies applicable controls for the 
electronic management of data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170408], Section 8.4) during the analysis and 
documentation activities. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 2-2 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 3-1 October 2004 
3. COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND MODEL USAGE 
This analysis report uses no computational software; therefore, this analysis is not subject to 
software controls. The analyses and arguments are based on guidance and regulatory 
requirements, on the results of analyses presented and documented in other analysis reports, and 
on other technical literature. Software and models used in the supporting documents are cited for 
traceability and transparency purposes, but no software and models were used in the 
development of this report. 
This analysis report was developed using only commercial off-the-shelf software. Microsoft 
Word 2000 used for word processing is exempt from qualification requirements in accordance 
with LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management. The spreadsheet program Microsoft Excel 2000 
was used for calculations as described below. 
Data cited from outside source are qualified within this report in accordance with AP-SIII.9Q 
(Appendix B), and the meteoriterelated data are used in an analysis package (Appendix D) for 
determining the probability of meteorite impact and the resulting crater damage. The 
spreadsheets in Appendices B and D were written using the standard functions of commercial 
off-the-shelf software (Microsoft Excel 2000) and, therefore, are not required to be qualified in 
accordance with LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Section 2.1.6. Microsoft Excel 2000 was also used to 
graphically present the meteorite impact probability data and to provide equations and 
coefficients for a regression analysis using the standard graphical interface for adding trend lines 
to graphs. There were no applications (routines or macros) developed using this commercial 
off-the-shelf software. The information provided is sufficient to allow review and checking 
without recourse to the originator. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 3-2 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-1 October 2004 
4. INPUTS 
AP-3.15Q, Managing Technical Product Inputs, categorizes technical product input usage as 
either direct input or indirect input. Direct input is used to develop the results or conclusions in a 
technical product. Indirect input is used to provide additional information that is not used in the 
development of results or conclusions. Direct inputs are addressed in this section. Indirect 
inputs are addressed in Section 6.1.3. 
All direct inputs (data, parameters, and other information) used in this FEPs analysis are 
identified in Section 4.1. Direct inputs used in this analysis report were obtained from controlled 
source documents and other sources in accordance with AP-3.15Q. The FEP screening criteria 
(i.e., low probability, low consequence) described at 10 CFR 63 (DIRS 156605), along with the 
FEP screening criteria (i.e., by regulation) derived from the regulations, are identified in 
Section 4.2. Applicable codes and standards are identified in Section 4.3. 
4.1 DIRECT INPUTS 
The LA FEP List (DIRS 170760) was used as a direct input to provide the initial list of 
system-level FEPs for screening in this analysis report. An overview of the YMP FEP analysis 
and scenario development process is presented in The Development of the TSPA-LA Features, 
Events, and Processes (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706]), which describes the TSPA-LA FEP 
identification and screening process. As part of that process, the LA FEP List 
(DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 [DIRS 170760]) was developed. This DTN was used as an 
initial input to this analysis. The list of system-level FEPs, presented in Table 1-1, was derived 
from DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 (DIRS 170760) with subsequent modifications. For each 
FEP, the LA FEP List identifies a FEP analysis report or a set of sharing FEP analysis reports. 
Subsequent changes from the LA FEP List (numbers, names, or descriptions) are reflected in the 
information provided in Section 6.2 and are documented in the FEP History File in the FEP 
database (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706], Table 6-1). Other direct inputs used for the FEP screening 
analysis are listed in Table 4-1. Data from external sources are used as direct input and are listed 
in Table 4-1. Data from these sources have been justified per AP-SIII.9Q and are considered 
qualified for the intended use. These justifications are documented in Appendix B. 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
ASM International. 1990. Properties and 
Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and 
Special-Purpose Materials. Volume 2 of 
ASM Handbook. Formerly Tenth Edition, 
Metals Handbook. 5th Printing 1998. 
Materials Park, Ohio: ASM International. 
TIC: 241059. (DIRS 141615) 
p. 621 Established 
Fact 
Table C-2 Modulus of Elasticity 
for Titanium Grade 
24 
ASME (American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers) 1998. 1998 ASME Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel Code. 1998 Edition with 
1999 and 2000 Addenda. New York, 
New York: American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers. TIC: 247429. 
(DIRS 145103) 
Section II, 
Table 1 
Established 
Fact 
Table C-2 Tensile strength for 
Titanium Grade 24 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-2 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
p. 33 Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Penetration depth as 
a function of 
penetrator diameter 
Backman, M.E. and Goldsmith, W. 1978. 
The Mechanics of Penetration of 
Projectiles into Targets. International 
Journal of Engineering Science, 16, (1), 
1-99. New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255605. (DIRS 167628) 
p. 38, 
Equation 
6.2 
Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Poncelet Equation 
Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; 
Chenevert, M.E.; and Young, F.S., Jr. 
1986. Rotary Drilling Bits. Applied 
Drilling Engineering. SPE Textbook 
Series Volume 2. Pages 190-245. 
Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum 
Engineers. TIC: 250085. 
(DIRS 155233) 
Equation 
5.19, Q1 
Data Sections 
6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 
6.2.3.7; 
Appendices 
B and C; 
Tables B-1, 
B-2 
Penetration rate is 
inversely proportional 
to the square of the 
compressive strength 
of material being 
drilled, all other 
factors being equal 
Entire Data Section 
6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-20 
General reference to 
study of effects of 
past supernova 
explosion 
Brakenridge, G.R. 1981. Terrestrial 
Paleoenvironmental Effects of a Late 
Quaternary-Age Supernova. Icarus, 46, 
(1), 81-93. New York, New York: 
Academic Press. TIC: 255707. 
(DIRS 167873) Figure 1; 
pp. 83, 85, 
and 86 
Data Section 
6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-1 
Frequency, 
magnitude, and 
consequences of a 
supernova event 
Bredehoeft, J.D. 1997. Fault 
Permeability Near Yucca Mountain. 
Water Resources Research, 33, (11), 
2459-2463. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 236570. 
(DIRS 100007) 
p. 2460 Data Section 
6.2.4.8; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1; 
B-22 
Earth tide water level 
fluctuations in Well 
UE-25 p#1 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. 
Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters 
Report. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400-000-00A. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20040108.0001. 
(DIRS 166660) 
Figure 8-45 Data Figure C-1 Unconfined 
compressive strength 
and modulus of 
elasticity data for 
repository host 
horizon 
BSC 2003. Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application Methods 
and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 
REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031215.0001. 
(DIRS 166296) 
pp. 71 and 
73 
Data Section 
6.2.1.7 
Description of 
treatment of various 
waste forms as three 
generic waste form 
groups 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-3 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
pp. 77, 78, 
and 81 
Data Section 
6.2.1.7 
Description of 
treatment of waste 
form types in 
conjunction with 
varying seepage and 
thermohydrologic 
conditions 
Section 3.3 Data Section 
6.2.1.4 
TSPA-LA process for 
treating alternative 
conceptual models 
Section 3.4 Data Section 
6.2.1.4 
TSPA-LA process for 
treating abstractions 
Section 3.5 Data Section 
6.2.1.4 
TSPA-LA process for 
treating parameter 
uncertainty 
Section 5.1 Data Sections 
6.2.1.4, 
6.2.4.10 
Description of model 
components used to 
incorporate geologic, 
hydrologic, and 
geochemical data 
Section 5.1 Data Sections 
6.2.1.5, 
6.2.1.6 
Description of model 
components used to 
incorporate design 
elements, particularly 
models for EBS, 
Waste Form, and 
Waste Package 
BSC 2003. Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application Methods 
and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 
REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031215.0001. 
(DIRS 166296) 
(Continued) 
Section 7 Data Section 
6.2.1.4 
TSPA-LA process for 
model validation 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-4 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
Section 8.1 Data Section 
6.2.1.4 
TSPA-LA process for 
uncertainty analysis 
Sections 
1.3 and 9.1 
Data Section 
6.2.1.1 
10,000- and 
20,000- year periods 
used for TSPA-LA 
model. 
BSC 2003. Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application Methods 
and Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 
REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031215.0001. 
(DIRS 166296) 
(Continued) 
Sections 
5.1 and 9.1 
Data Section 
6.2.1.2 
Description of 
TSPA-LA model with 
regard to spatial 
domain of concern 
with dose calculated 
at 18 km from the 
repository 
Section 6.1 Data Section 
6.2.4.4 
Form of igneous 
intrusion will be in 
dikes rather than 
large diapirs 
BSC 2004. Characterize Framework for 
Igneous Activity at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. ANL-MGR-GS-000001 REV 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. (DIRS 169989) 
Table 7-1 Data Section 
6.2.3.3 
Probability of 
igneous intersection 
of the repository 
Section 
6.3.1 
Data Section 
6.2.4.4 
Regional setting of 
Yucca Mountain is 
extensional 
BSC 2004. Characterize Framework for 
Seismicity and Structural Deformation at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
ANL-CRW-GS-000003 REV 00 
Errata 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20000510.0175; 
DOC.20040223.0007. (DIRS 168030) 
Table 6 Data Section 
6.2.4.1 
Local cumulative 
fault slip rates 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking 
Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet. 
800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00D. Las 
Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040503.0018. 
(DIRS 169220) 
Directory; 
Table 5 
Data Appendix C, 
Table C-2 
References to DTNs 
for material 
properties for 
titanium, including 
corrosion rates 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Subsurface 
Facilities. 
800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20040309.0026. 
(DIRS 164519) 
Entire Data Sections 
6.2.3.9, 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix D; 
Table D-6 
Drift area design 
drawing, including 
drift end coordinates 
and thickness of 
overburden 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-5 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Typical 
Waste Package Components Assembly. 
800-IED-WIS0-00201-000-00E. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20040517.0007. 
(DIRS 169480) 
Directory: 
Material 
Characteristics 
Data Table C-2 Reference to DTN for 
material properties 
for Stainless Steel 
Type 316N and Alloy 
22 
BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. 
ANL-EBS-MD-000027, Rev. 03. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. (DIRS 166107) 
Tables E-6, 
E-7, E-8, 
E-9, E-10, 
E-14 
Data Section 
6.2.3.4; 
Appendix C, 
Table C-1 
Intact rock properties 
for host rock units 
Figure 6-1 Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix D 
Location of 
boreholes with 
respect to surface 
elevation and 
repository layout 
BSC 2004. Geologic Framework Model 
(GFM2000). MDL-NBS-GS-000002 
REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. (DIRS 170029) 
Table 6-2, 
Topopah 
Spring Tuff 
and 
Sections 6 
and 6.5.1.4 
Data Sections 
6.2.4.3; 
6.2.4.9 
Correlation of the 
repository host 
horizon with zones 
and subzones of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff 
and lithologic 
descriptions 
BSC 2004. Seismic Consequence 
Abstraction. MDL-WIS-PA-000003 
Rev. 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. (DIRS 169183) 
Sections 
6.3; 6.4; 6.5 
Data Section 
6.2.3.4; 
Appendix C 
Discussions of 
residual stress 
threshold and 
damage abstractions 
Figure 
6.1-1 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix D 
Grid cell size for the 
UZ flow model 
Sections 
6.1.2; 6.2.2 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix D 
Flow characteristics 
of the Paintbrush 
nonwelded tuff 
BSC 2004. UZ Flow Models and 
Submodels. 
MDL-NBS-HS-000006 REV 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. (DIRS 169861) 
Table 6.1-2 Data Section 
6.2.4.10 
Infiltration rates used 
in UZ flow modeling 
BSC 2004. WAPDEG Analysis of Waste 
Package and Drip Shield Degradation. 
ANL-EBS-PA-000001 REV 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. (DIRS 169996) 
Sections 
6.5, 7.2 
Data Sections 1.3, 
6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 
6.2.3.7; 
Appendix C 
Mean time of failure 
for drip shields and 
waste packages 
based on 
representative, but 
surrogate, water 
chemistries 
BSC 2004. Performance Confirmation 
Plan. TDR-PCS-SE-000001 Rev 04. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20040825.0002. 
(DIRS 170505) 
Entire Data Sections 
6.2.1.5, 
6.2.2.2, 
6.2.2.5 
General citation to 
performance 
confirmation plan 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-6 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. 
Project Requirements Document. 
TER-MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
(DIRS 166275) 
Entire Data Table 4-3; 
Sections 
4.2.1; 6.2.1.3 
Identifies and 
assigns requirements 
Figure 1 Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B 
Tables B-1, 
B-9, B-10; 
Appendix D 
Log of mass (m) to 
the log of the 
cumulative number 
(N) of interplanetary 
bodies of a mass 
equal to or greater 
than m coming to the 
earths atmosphere 
every year 
Ceplecha, Z. 1992. Influx of 
Interplanetary Bodies onto Earth. 
Astronomy and Astrophysics, 263, 
361-366. New York, New York: 
Springer-Verlag. TIC: 246784. 
(DIRS 135242) 
p. 362; 
Figure 1 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-1; 
Appendix D; 
Table D-1 
Compilation of flux 
data from multiple 
studies 
Figure 2; 
Table 4 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-11, B-13 
Relative percent of 
different types of 
meteorite material 
Ceplecha, Z. 1994. Impacts of 
Meteoroids Larger than 1m into the 
Earths Atmosphere. Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 286, (3), 967-970. 
New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. 
TIC: 246761. (DIRS 135243) pp. 967 to 
969; Tables 
1 and 3 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-15 
Bulk densities of 
meteorite materials 
CRWMS M&O 1998. Probabilistic 
Seismic Hazard Analyses for Fault 
Displacement and Vibratory Ground 
Motion at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Milestone SP32IM3, September 23, 
1998. Three volumes. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19981207.0393. 
(DIRS 103731) 
Section 4 Data Section 
6.2.4.5 
Magnitude of 
earthquakes 
considered as part of 
the expert elicitation 
and implicitly 
included with the 
resulting data 
Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and 
Robertson, P.B. 1977. Terrestrial Impact 
Structures: Principal Characteristics and 
Energy Considerations. Impact and 
Explosion Cratering, Planetary and 
Terrestrial Implications, Proceedings of 
the Symposium on Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, Arizona, 
September 13-17, 1976. Roddy, D.J.; 
Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. 
Pages 247-275. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 247237. 
(DIRS 135253) 
Figure 12 Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Relation of crater 
diameter to energy 
release 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-7 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
p. 250 Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-1 
Depth of exhumation 
by meteorites 
p. 262 Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Radius of overstress 
condition from 
Piledriver nuclear 
test 
Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and 
Robertson, P.B. 1977. Terrestrial Impact 
Structures: Principal Characteristics and 
Energy Considerations. Impact and 
Explosion Cratering, Planetary and 
Terrestrial Implications, Proceedings of 
the Symposium on Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, Arizona, 
September 13-17, 1976. Roddy, D.J.; 
Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. 
Pages 247-275. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 247237. 
(DIRS 135253) 
(Continued) 
pp. 261 to 
264 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B, 
Table B-1 
Depth of fracture 
zones for meteorites 
p. 168, 
Figure 6-3 
Data Section 
6.2.4.1; 
Tables B-1, 
B-5, B-6 
Pressure gradient is 
0.6 kbar/km; thermal 
gradient is 10C/km 
p. 566 Data Section 
6.2.4.1; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-5, B-6 
Conditions needed 
for onset of 
metamorphism 
include temperatures 
greater than 
150C to 200C; 
pressure = 0.5-1 
kbar; depth = 4-5 km 
Ehlers, E.G. and Blatt, H. 1982. 
Petrology, Igneous, Sedimentary, and 
Metamorphic. New York, New York: 
W.H. Freeman and Company. 
TIC: 255657. (DIRS 167802) 
pp. 684 and 
685 
Data Section 
6.2.4.1; 
Tables B-1, 
B-5, B-6 
Geothermal gradient 
is 10C to 25C/km 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-8 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
Ferguson, C.D. 2002. Mini-Nuclear 
Weapons and the U.S. Nuclear Posture 
Review. Monterey, California: Monterey 
Institute of International Studies, Center 
for Nonproliferation Studies. Accessed 
December 4, 2002. TIC: 253717. 
http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/ 
020408.htm. (DIRS 160988) 
Entire Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B, 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Limitations on 
weapons penetration 
depth 
Forrestal, M.J.; Longcope, D.B.; and 
Norwood, F.R. 1981. A Model to 
Estimate Forces on Conical Penetrators 
Into Dry Porous Rock. Journal of 
Applied Mechanics, 48, (1), 25-29. New 
York, New York: American Society of 
Mechanical Engineers. TIC: 255607. 
(DIRS 167630) 
p. 28 Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B, 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Penetration of 2.6 m 
into a welded tuff 
Grieve, R.; Rupert, J.; and Therriault, A. 
1995. The Record of Terrestrial Impact 
Cratering. GSA Today, 5, (10), 194-196. 
Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of 
America. TIC: 246688. (DIRS 135260) 
p. 194 Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B, 
Tables B-1, 
B-8; 
Appendix D 
Threshold for on-set 
of complex cratering. 
Grieve, R.A.F. 1998. Extraterrestrial 
Impacts on Earth: The Evidence and the 
Consequences. Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchinson, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and 
Rothery, D.A., eds. Geological Society 
Special Publication No. 140. 
Pages 105-131. London, England: 
Geological Society. TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 163385) 
p. 113; 
Figure 8 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-8; 
Appendix D 
Crater diameter to 
depth relationships 
p. 248, p. 
257 and 
Figure 8 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-1; 
Appendix D 
Size-frequency 
distribution of earth 
impact structures 
Grieve, R.F. 1987. Terrestrial Impact 
Structures. Annual Review of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences, 15, 245-269. Palo 
Alto, California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246788. (DIRS 135254) 
pp. 246 and 
249 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B, 
Appendix D 
Threshold diameters 
associated with 
simple and complex 
cratering 
Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1993. 
Fragmentation of Small Asteroids in the 
Atmosphere. The Astronomical Journal, 
105, (3), 1114-1144. Woodbury, New 
York: American Institute of Physics. 
TIC: 246798. (DIRS 135281) 
Figures 16 
and 17 
Data Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-8, B-18, 
B-19; 
Figures B-4a, 
B-4b, B-4c; 
Appendix D; 
Table D-4; 
Figures D-2a, 
D-2b 
Graphs of modeling 
results by others 
showing meteor radii, 
velocities, and 
resulting crater 
diameters. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-9 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
Figures 9, 
12, 18 
N/A Appendix D Figures indicating 
meteor radii and 
other non-crater 
consequences 
Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1993. 
Fragmentation of Small Asteroids in the 
Atmosphere. The Astronomical Journal, 
105, (3), 1114-1144. Woodbury, 
New York: American Institute of Physics. 
TIC: 246798. (DIRS 135281) 
(Continued) 
pp. 1140 
and 1142, 
Figures 9, 
16, 17, and 
18 
Data Assumption 
5.4; Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix D 
Crater diameters and 
other consequences 
resulting from initial 
meteor radii for 
differing initial 
velocities and 
compositions 
Eq. 8, 12, 
and 14 
Data Appendix B, 
Tables B-1, 
B-2; 
Appendix C 
Penetration rate 
inversely proportional 
to rock strength 
properties; Equations 
relating drillability, 
compressive 
strength, tensile 
strength and rate of 
penetration 
Kahraman, S.; Balci, C.; Yazici, S.; and 
Bilgin, N. 2000. Prediction of the 
Penetration Rate of Rotary Blast Hole 
Drills Using a New Drillability Index. 
International Journal of Rock Mechanics 
and Mining Sciences, 37, (5), 729-743. 
New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255709. (DIRS 167761) 
Equation 8 Data Sections 
6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 
6.2.3.7; 
Appendix B 
Equation indicating 
inverse relationships 
of rate of penetration 
to material properties 
p. 8-1 Data Section 
6.2.4.2; 
Tables B-1, 
B-7; 
Appendix B 
Rates of diagenetic 
processes 
p. 8-4 Data Section 
6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-7 
Other cements 
include iron, 
aluminum, and silica; 
and cementation 
process is reversible 
Krystinik, L.F. 1990. Early Diagenesis in 
Continental Eolian Deposits. Chapter 8 
of Modern and Ancient Eolian Deposits: 
Petroleum Exploration and Production. 
Fryberger, S.G.; Krystinik, L.F.; and 
Schenk, C.J., eds. Denver, Colorado: 
Society of Economic Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Section. 
TIC: 247781. (DIRS 135295) 
pp. 8-2 and 
8-3 
Data Section 
6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B, 
Tables B-1, 
B-7 
Increased diagenetic 
effects associated 
with deep burial 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-10 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
Lattman, L.H. 1973. Calcium Carbonate 
Cementation of Alluvial Fans in Southern 
Nevada. Geological Society of America 
Bulletin, 84, (9), 3013-3028. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 235904. (DIRS 129305) 
p. 3015 Data Section 
6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-7 
Specific reference for 
rates and process of 
calcium carbonate 
cementation in 
southern Nevada 
Lattman, L.H. and Simonberg, E.M. 1971. 
Case-Hardening of Carbonate Alluvium 
and Colluvium, Spring Mountains, 
Nevada. Journal of Sedimentary 
Petrology, 41, (1), 274-281. 
Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of Economic 
Paleontologists and Mineralogists. 
TIC: 223189. (DIRS 129306) 
p. 277 Data Section 
6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-7 
Specific reference for 
rate of cementation 
Lean, J. 1997. The Suns Variable 
Radiation and its Relevance for Earth. 
Annual Review of Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 35, 33-67. Palo Alto, 
California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 255614. (DIRS 167639) 
pp. 33 to 67 Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Tables B-1, 
B-20 
List of linkages 
between solar 
activity and earths 
atmospheric and 
climatic systems 
Maynard, N.C. 1995. Space Weather 
Prediction. Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 547-557. 
Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 253729. 
(DIRS 160888) 
pp. 547 to 
557 
Data Section 
6.2.4.6; 
Tables B-1, 
B-20 
List of engineered 
systems potentially 
affected by space 
weather 
MO0003RIB00071.000. Physical and 
Chemical Characteristics of Alloy 22. 
Submittal date: 03/13/2000. 
(DIRS 148850) 
Alloy 22 Data Section 
6.2.3.4; Table 
C-2 
Yield strength, 
tensile and modulus 
of elasticity 
MO0003RIB00073.000. Physical and 
Chemical Characteristics of 
TI Grades 7 and 16. Submittal 
date: 03/13/2000. (DIRS 152926) 
Titanium 
Grade 7 
and 16 
Data Section 
6.2.3.4; Table 
C-2 
Yield strength, 
tensile strength, and 
modulus of elasticity 
MO0003RIB00076.000. Physical and 
Chemical Characteristics of Type 316N 
Grade. Submittal date: 03/14/2000. 
(DIRS 153044) 
Stainless 
Steel Type 
316N 
Data Table C-2 Yield strength 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000. 
Lithostratigraphic Contacts from 
MO9811MWDGFM03.000 to be Qualified 
Under the Data Qualification Plan, 
TDP-NBS-GS-000001. 
Submittal date: 04/04/2000. 
(DIRS 152554) 
Depth of 
contacts for 
Paintbrush 
nonwelded 
unit (Tpp, 
Tpt, Tptrv3, 
Tptrv1) 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix D, 
Table D-7 
Contacts for 
Paintbrush 
nonwelded unit 
MO0311RCKPRPCS.003. Intact Rock 
Properties Data on Uniaxial and Triaxial 
Compressive Strength. Submittal 
date: 11/04/2003. (DIRS 166073) 
Uniaxial 
compressiv 
e strength 
Data Section 
6.2.3.4; Table 
C-1 
Uniaxial compressive 
strength for host 
horizon units 
MO0407SEPFEPLA.000. LA FEP List. 
Submittal date: 07/20/2004. 
(DIRS 170760) 
Entire Data Sections 1.1, 
1.2; Table 1- 
1; Sections 
4.1, 6.1.1 
Q source list for LA 
FEPs 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-11 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
Odenwald, S. 2003. Earth - Magnetic 
Field Poetry Space Science Education: 
Ask the Space Scientist 
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/ 
askmag.html. Washington, D.C.: 
National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. Accessed February 25, 
2003. TIC: 253712. (DIRS 160892) 
Entire Data Section 
6.2.4.7; 
Table B-1; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-21 
Information regarding 
various space/earth 
phenomena and 
coupling 
mechanisms and 
probable effects 
Patterson, W.J. 1974. Results and 
Analysis of Three Instrumented Projectile 
Penetration Tests at the Watching Hills 
Blast Range, Suffield, Alberta, Canada. 
EOS, Transactions, 56, (12), 1197. 
Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 255677. 
(DIRS 167805) 
Entire Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Penetration depths of 
9.08 m; 14.7 m; 
20.7 m into a glacial 
lake soil 
Reeves, C.C. 1976. Caliche: Origin, 
Classification, Morphology and Uses. 
Lubbock, Texas: Estacado Books. 
TIC: 245928. (DIRS 104303) 
p. 110 Data Section 
6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-7 
Reduction in vertical 
infiltration rates 
associated with 
cementation 
Shoemaker, E.M. 1983. Asteroid and 
Comet Bombardment of the Earth. 
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary 
Sciences, 11, 461-494. Palo Alto, 
California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246922. (DIRS 135308) 
pp. 464 and 
480 
Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Table B-1; 
Appendix D 
Composition and 
percentages of types 
of meteors - data for 
iron meteors 
Stix, G. and Yam, P. 2001. Facing a 
New Menace. Scientific American, 285, 
(5), 14-15. New York, New York: 
Scientific American. TIC: 254304. 
(DIRS 160994) 
p. 15 Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Energy release 
equivalents related to 
aircraft crashes 
Chapter 5, 
pp. 86 to 89 
Data Section 
6.2.4.2; 
Tables B-1, 
B-7 
Relation of 
cementation to 
climate factors 
Figure 9, 
p. 33 
Data Section 
6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, 
B-2 
Rates of SiO2 and 
CaCO3 accumulation 
pp. 31 to 33 Data Section 
6.2.4.2 
Conditions at Yucca 
Mountain favor SiO2 
cementation over 
CaCO3 
Taylor, E.M. 1986. Impact of Time and 
Climate on Quaternary Soils in the Yucca 
Mountain Area of the Nevada Test Site. 
Masters thesis. Boulder, Colorado: 
University of Colorado. 
TIC: 218287. 
(DIRS 102864) 
pp. 31 to 
33, Figure 
9, and 
Chapter 5 
Data Table B-1 Description of 
cementation 
processes in Yucca 
Mountain soils 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-12 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs Used for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input 
Input 
Category Used In Input Description 
Figure 1 Data Assumption 
5.4; 
Section 6.2.4. 
5; Table B-1 
Effects of meteorite 
impacts are spherical 
in nature 
p. 3 Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-1; 
Appendix D 
Extent of rock 
disruption produced 
by meteorite impact 
and diameter 
threshold for simple 
to complex cratering 
p. 44 Data Appendix B, 
Appendix D 
Cratering distribution 
curve 
Wuschke, D.M.; Whitaker, H.H.; Goodwin, 
B.W.; and Rasmussen, L.R. 1995. 
Assessment of the Long-Term Risk of a 
Meteorite Impact on Hypothetical 
Canadian Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal 
Vault Deep in Plutonic Rock. 
AECL-11014. Pinawa, Manitoba, 
Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada 
Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories. 
TIC: 221413. (DIRS 129326) 
pp. 4 and 26 Data Section 
6.2.4.5; 
Table B-1; 
Appendix D 
Information and 
formula for calculating 
impact probabilities 
Young, C.W. 1976. Status Report on 
High Velocity Soil Penetration Program. 
SAND76-0291. Albuquerque, New 
Mexico: Sandia Laboratories. 
ACC: MOL.20040407.0069. 
(DIRS 167806) 
Table II Data Section 
6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B, 
Tables B-1, 
B-3 
Penetration depth of 
67 m into hard playa 
soil 
NOTE: All non-project specific sources used as direct input have been justified for use within this 
document, as documented in Appendix B, and are therefore considered as qualified. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-13 October 2004 
The regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) also provide direct inputs to the FEPs 
screening process. By specifying characteristics, concepts, and definitions, the regulations serve 
as de facto inputs used for FEPs screening. The regulatory definitions and elucidation of the 
regulatory concepts pertaining to the reference biosphere, geologic setting, reasonably maximally 
exposed individual (RMEI), and human intrusion are explained in BSC (2004 [DIRS 168706], 
Section 4.1.3). For system-level FEPs, the inputs of interest include the reference biosphere, the 
geologic setting, and the RMEI. These definitions and concepts have implications for defining 
the areal extent of the accessible environment and the controlled area, plus the spatial 
relationship between the repository and the RMEI. The related regulatory citations are listed in 
Table 4-2. The application of these definitions and descriptions are discussed below. 
Table 4-2. Regulations Used as Direct Inputs for System-Level FEP Screening 
Source Input Input Category Used In Input Description 
10 CFR Part 
63 
Established Fact Sections 
6.2.1.3 
Reference to pertinent NRC 
regulations 
10 CFR 
Subpart D 
Established Fact Section 
6.2.2.6 
Requirements for audits, 
inspections, and notifications. 
10 CFR 63 
Subpart F 
Established Fact Sections 1.3, 
6.1.6, 6.2.1.5, 
6.2.2.2, 
6.2.2.5; 
Assumption 
5.5 
Regulatory requirements and 
specifications for a performance 
confirmation program to confirm 
design parameters and to 
ensure that the NRC is informed 
of changes needed in the 
design to accommodate actual 
field conditions 
10 CFR 63 
Subpart G 
Established Fact Sections 1.3, 
6.1.6, 6.2.2.2; 
Assumption 
5.5 
Regulatory requirements for a 
quality assurance program 
10 CFR 63.2 Established Fact Section 
6.2.4.10 
Regulatory definition for 
reference biosphere 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal 
of High-Level Radioactive 
Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Readily available. 
(DIRS 156605) 
10 CFR 63.2 Established Fact Sections 
6.2.4.3, 
6.2.4.4, 
6.2.4.9 
Regulatory definition of geologic 
setting 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-14 October 2004 
Table 4-2. Regulations Used as Direct Inputs for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Input Category Used In Input Description 
10 CFR 63.44 Established Fact Sections 1.3, 
6.1.6, 6.2.1.5, 
6.2.2.2, 6.2.2.5 
Assumption 5.5 
Regulatory requirement 
pertaining to modifications and 
deviations from the design 
10 CFR 63.73 
and 10 CFR 
63.73(a) 
Established Fact Sections 1.3, 
6.1.6, 6.2.2.2, 
6.2.2.5, 6.2.2.6; 
Assumption 5.5 
Regulatory requirement for 
reporting deficiencies of the 
site, design, or construction 
10 CFR 
63.102(j) 
Established Fact Sections 6.2.2.3, 
6.2.3.10 
Regulatory concept for use of 
a performance assessment 
10 CFR 
63.102(k) 
Established Fact Sections 6.2.2.1; 
6.2.2.4; 
Assumption 5.2 
Regulatory concept regarding 
consideration of institutional 
controls in performance 
assessment 
10 CFR 
63.111(e)(1, 2, 
and 3) 
Established Fact Section 6.2.1.6 Regulatory requirement for 
repository design to allow for 
retrieval 
10 CFR 
63.113(d) 
Established Fact Section 6.2.3.5 Regulatory requirement to 
evaluate human intrusion only 
through a stylized scenario 
10 CFR 
63.114(a) 
Established Fact Table 4-3; 
Sections 6.2.1.4, 
6.2.4.3, 6.2.4.4, 
6.2.4.9 
Regulatory requirement to 
include data that are related to 
the geology, hydrology, and 
geochemistry of Yucca 
Mountain and the surrounding 
region to the extent necessary 
and for the EBS 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of 
High-Level Radioactive Wastes 
in a Geologic Repository at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Readily available. 
(DIRS 156605) 
(Continued) 
10 CFR 
63.114(b) 
Established Fact Table 4-3; 
Section 6.2.1.4 
NRC requirement for 
performance assessment 
models pertaining to data, 
uncertainty, parameter ranges, 
probability distributions, and 
bounding values 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-15 October 2004 
Table 4-2. Regulations Used as Direct Inputs for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Input Category Used In Input Description 
10 CFR 
63.114(c) 
Established Fact Section 6.2.1.4 NRC regulation pertaining to 
consideration of alternative 
conceptual models of FEPs 
10 CFR 
63.114(d) 
Established Fact Table 4-3; 
Sections 4.2.3, 
6.1.2, 6.1.2.1, 
6.2.1.1 
Regulatory basis for low 
probability exclusion 
10 CFR 
63.114(e or f) 
Established Fact Table 4-3; 
Section 4.2.3, 
6.1.2 
Regulatory requirements to 
provide technical basis for 
exclusion based on low 
consequence 
10 CFR 
63.114(g) 
Established Fact Section 6.2.1.4 Requirement to provide 
technical basis for models 
10 CFR 
63.115(a) 
Established Fact Sections 6.2.4.3, 
6.2.4.4, 6.2.4.9 
Regulatory requirement to 
identify natural features of the 
geologic setting 
10 CFR 
63.131; 10 
CFR 
63.131(c); 10 
CFR 
63.131(d)(1) 
Established Fact Sections 6.1.6, 
6.2.2.5; 
Assumption 5.4 
Regulatory requirements 
pertaining to performance 
confirmation program and site 
monitoring 
10 CFR 
63.302 
Established Fact Section 6.2.3.5 Regulatory definition of human 
intrusion 
10 CFR 
63.302 
Established Fact Sections 4.1, 
6.2.1.2 
Regulatory definitions for 
accessible environment and 
controlled area 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of 
High-Level Radioactive Wastes 
in a Geologic Repository at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Readily available. 
(DIRS 156605) 
(Continued) 
10 CFR 
63.303 
Established Fact Sections 6.2.1.1; 
6.2.1.3 
Compliance to be based on 
mean of distribution of 
projected doses for 10,000 
years after disposal 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-16 October 2004 
Table 4-2. Regulations Used as Direct Inputs for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Input Category Used In Input Description 
10 CFR 
63.305(a) 
Established Fact Section 4.1 Regulatory requirement that 
FEPs describing the reference 
biosphere be consistent with 
present knowledge of the 
conditions in the region 
surrounding the Yucca 
Mountain site 
10 CFR 
63.305(b) 
Established Fact Section 4.1, 
6.2.4.10 
Regulatory requirement that 
the U.S. Department of 
Energy (DOE) should not 
project changes in the 
biosphere other than climate 
10 CFR 
63.305(c) 
Established Fact Sections 6.2.1.1, 
6.2.4.3, 6.2.4.4, 
6.2.4.9; 
Assumption 5.3 
Regulatory requirement that 
the DOE vary factors based 
upon cautious, but reasonable 
assumptions, consistent with 
present knowledge of factors 
that could affect Yucca 
Mountain over the next 
10,000 years 
10 CFR 
63.311(a) 
Established Fact Section 6.2.3.10 NRC preclosure exposure 
limits based on radiological 
exposure 
10 CFR 
63.312(a), 
63.315(b) 
Established Fact Sections 4.1; 
6.2.1.2 
Description of RMEI location 
10 CFR 
63.321 
Established Fact Table 4-3; 
Sections 6.2.1.1, 
6.2.3.2, 6.2.3.6, 
6.2.3.7; 
Appendix C 
NRC regulatory criteria under 
which human intrusion must 
be evaluated 
10 CFR 
63.322 and 
63.322(a, b, c, 
d, e) 
Established Fact Table 4-3; 
Sections 6.2.3.6, 
6.2.3.7, 6.2.3.8, 
6.2.3.9; 
Appendix C 
Regulatory requirements 
pertaining to the stylized 
human intrusion scenario 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of 
High-Level Radioactive Wastes 
in a Geologic Repository at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Readily available. 
(DIRS 156605) 
(Continued) 
10 CFR 
63.322(f) 
Established Fact Table 4-3; 
Sections 4.1, 
6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.7, 6.2.3.8, 
6.2.3.10 
Regulatory requirement that 
only radionuclides transported 
to the saturated zone (SZ) be 
considered 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-17 October 2004 
Table 4-2. Regulations Used as Direct Inputs for System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Input Category Used In Input Description 
10 CFR 
63.341 
Established Fact Sections 6.2.1.1 Requirement to provide peak 
dose after 10,000 years 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of 
High-Level Radioactive Wastes 
in a Geologic Repository at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Readily available. 
(DIRS 156605) 
(Continued) 10 CFR 
63.342 
Established Fact Table 4-3; 
Sections 4.2.3, 
6.2.3.3, 6.2.3.4; 
Appendix C 
Limited exclusion for unlikely 
FEPs in conjunction with 
human intrusion and with the 
groundwater protection 
standard 
66 FR 55732. Disposal of 
High-Level Radioactive Wastes 
in a Proposed Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, 
NV, Final Rule. 10 CFR Parts 2, 
19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 51, 60, 61, 
63, 70, 72, 73, and 75. Readily 
available. (DIRS 156671) 
10 CFR Part 
63, 
Supplementary 
information, 
3.10 Human 
Intrusion 
Standard, p. 
55761 
Established Fact Sections 6.2.3.1, 
6.2.3.2, 6.2.3.7, 
6.2.3.8, 6.2.3.10 
NRC stated intent that risks to 
intruders and public from 
cuttings not be considered 
40 CFR Part 
197; 
Supplementary 
Information p. 
32117 
Established Fact Section 6.2.1.2 U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) perspective on 
potential extent of controlled 
area 
66 FR 32074. 40 CFR Part 197, 
Public Health and Environmental 
Radiation Protection Standards 
for Yucca Mountain, NV; Final 
Rule. Readily available. 
(DIRS 155216) 
Supplementary 
Information p. 
32094 
Established Fact Section 6.2.1.2 EPA designation of the 
location of the RMEI 
The definitions and concepts discussed in BSC (2004 [DIRS 168706], Section 4.1.3.3) indicate 
that the RMEI is located no closer than 18 km to the south of the repository in the direction of 
groundwater flow and over a contaminated groundwater plume (10 CFR 63.312 [DIRS 156605]), 
and that the limit of the controlled area is no greater than 5 km from the repository in any other 
direction (10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]). The location of the RMEI and the associated 
distance from the repository is of primary interest in evaluating potential exposure risks from 
potential releases at the repository. The location of the RMEI is also important for determining 
exposure, and it is part of the technical basis for the included FEPs. The location and 
characteristics of the RMEI for the nominal scenario class also are used for the disruptive 
scenario classes. 
Furthermore, the reference biosphere must be consistent with present knowledge of conditions in 
the region, and changes in the biosphere (other than climate) from conditions at the time of 
license application submittal should not be projected (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706], Section 4.1.3.1; 
10 CFR 63.305(a) and (b) [DIRS 156605]). The geologic setting (geology, hydrology, and 
climate) may evolve based upon cautious, but reasonable assumptions, consistent with present 
knowledge of factors that could affect the system in the next 10,000 years (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168706], Section 4.1.3.2). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-18 October 2004 
The NRC juxtaposed geologic and hydrologic factors in the subsection addressing required 
characteristics of the reference biosphere, and it is inferred that the listed regulatory constraint of 
changes in the reference biosphere may also be applicable to conditions that may occur at Yucca 
Mountain. This approach agrees with the statement at 10 CFR 63.102(i) (DIRS 156605): 
Characteristics of the reference biosphere and the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual are to be based on current human behavior and biospheric conditions in 
the region, as described in 63.305 and 63.312. 
Specifically identified in the definition of the reference biosphere are changes to soil, 
topography, and flora. The application of this regulatory input specifically indicates that 
characteristics of the reference biosphere are to be based on biospheric conditions in the region. 
The restriction on consideration of changes in flora is applicable to discussions in 
Section 6.2.4.10 dealing with potential changes in ecological factors due to repository heat, and it 
provides a regulatory basis for excluding the consideration of changes. More strictly interpreted, 
this provision would only apply to the reference biosphere and not to the repository area. 
Because of regulatory positions (10 CFR 63.102(k) [DIRS 156605]) regarding the unreliability 
of institutional controls (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706], Section 4.1.3), for the system-level FEPs 
addressing administrative controls, and particularly their influence on the timing of human 
intrusion, the FEPs have been excluded by regulation from consideration in the human intrusion 
stylized analysis. 
With regard to human intrusion related FEPs, rather than speculating on the nature and 
probability of future intrusion, the NRC required that human intrusion be evaluated via a human 
intrusion stylized analysis. With regard to the timing of the human intrusion, the use of active 
and passive institutional controls (such as markers and an information repository) will reduce the 
potential for future human activity. However, it is not possible to make scientifically sound 
forecasts of the long-term reliability of such controls as previously discussed under institutional 
controls, so the affect of such controls on the timing of the human intrusion is not further 
considered. Additionally, 10 CFR 63.322(f) (DIRS 156605) and 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
(DIRS 165519) require that only radionuclides transported to the SZ be considered, which 
precludes the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or other human 
intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. With regard to the motivation of a 
human intrusion being intentional and deliberate versus inadvertent and accidental, 10 CFR 
Part 63 (DIRS 156605) is silent. Similarly, 40 CFR Part 197 (DIRS 165519) does not directly 
address the motivation or intentionality of the intrusion. However, the NRC states in the 
supplementary information to 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761) that the 
motives for a human intrusion are not likely to be economically motivated given knowledge of 
present conditions. The supplementary information for 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074 
[DIRS 155216], p. 32127) clarifies that consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs discussed in this analysis report are excluded 
based on the regulatory intent, and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of 
the regulatory requirements. The requirement considers only the stylized human intrusion 
(i.e., based on drilling techniques related to groundwater use) and the timing of such an event, 
regardless of the specific motivation or intentionality of the intruders. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-19 October 2004 
4.2 CRITERIA 
Criteria relevant to the FEP screening process are discussed in this section. These criteria stem 
from applicable regulations at 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) (and those incorporated from 
40 CFR Part 197 [DIRS 155216]), as identified in the Project Requirements Document (PRD) 
(Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]). These criteria find expression as specific acceptance 
criteria presented by the NRC in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 
[DIRS 163274], Sections 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.4, and 2.2.1.4.2.3). Correlations between the regulations 
and the Yucca Mountain Review Plan (YMRP) acceptance criteria are listed in Table 4-3. 
4.2.1 Project Requirements Document 
The PRD (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]) lists and categorizes regulatory 
requirements and other project requirements, and it provides a crosswalk to the YMP 
organizations responsible for ensuring that the criteria are addressed in the LA. The regulatory 
requirements include criteria relevant to performance assessment activities, in general, and to 
FEP-related activities as they pertain to performance assessment, in particular. A crosswalk 
between the regulatory requirements, the PRD, and the acceptance criteria in the YMRP 
(NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Sections 2.2.1.2.1.3 and 2.2.1.2.2.3) is presented in Table 4-3. 
Table 4-3. Relationships of NRC Regulations to the PRD and Acceptance Criteria from the YMRP 
10 CFR Part 63 
(DIRS 156605) 
PRD 
Canori and Leitner 
2003 
(DIRS 166275) 
YMRP 
NRC 2003 
(DIRS 163274) Description of the Applicable 
Regulatory Requirement or 
Acceptance Criterion Regulatory Citation 
Associated 
PRD 
Associated Criteria 
in the YMRP 
General Requirements and Scope Pertinent to FEP Screening 
Include data related to geology, 
hydrology, geochemistry, and 
geophysics 
63.114(a) 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
Acceptance Criterion 1 
Include information of the design of 
the EBS used to define parameters 
and conceptual models 
63.114(a) 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
Acceptance Criterion 1 
Account for uncertainties and 
variabilities in parameter values 
and provide the technical basis for 
parameter ranges, probability 
distributions, or bounding values 
63.114(b) 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
2.2.1.2.2.3 
Acceptance Criteria 
2 and 5 
FEP Screening Criteria 
Provide the justification and 
technical basis for excluding FEPs 
specifically excluded by regulation. 
Not Applicable Not Applicable 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
Acceptance Criterion 2 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-20 October 2004 
Table 4-3. Relationships of NRC Regulations to the PRD and Acceptance Criteria from the YMRP 
(Continued) 
10 CFR Part 63 
(DIRS 156605) 
PRD 
Canori and Leitner 
2003 
(DIRS 166275) 
YMRP 
NRC 2003 
(DIRS 163274) Description of the Applicable 
Regulatory Requirement or 
Acceptance Criterion Regulatory Citation 
Associated 
PRD 
Associated Criteria 
in the YMRP 
General Requirements and Scope Pertinent to FEP Screening 
FEP Screening Criteria (Continued) 
Provide the technical basis for 
either inclusion or exclusion of 
FEPs. Provide the justification and 
technical basis for those excluded 
based on probability. 
63.114(d) 
63.342 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
PRD-002/ 
T-034 
2.2.1.2.1.3 
Acceptance Criterion 2 
2.2.1.2.2.3 
Acceptance Criteria 
1 and 2 
Provide the technical basis for 
either inclusion or exclusion of 
FEPs. Provide the justification and 
the technical basis for those 
excluded based on lack of 
significant change in resulting 
radiological exposure or release to 
the accessible environment. 
63.114 
(e and f) 
63.342 
PRD-002/ 
T-015 
PRD-002/ 
T-034 
2.2.1.2.1.3 Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
2.2.1.2.2.3 
Acceptance Criteria 
1 and 2 
Human Intrusion Criteria 
Time of earliest penetration without 
recognition and basis 63.321(a) 
PRD-002/ 
T-029 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance Criterion 1 
Treatment if human intrusion 
results in RMEI exposure prior to 
10,000 years 
63.321(b)(1) 
PRD-002/ 
T-029 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance Criterion 2 
Treatment if human intrusion 
results in RMEI exposure post- 
10,000 years 
63.321 
(b)(2) 
PRD-002/ 
T-029 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance Criterion 2 
Required circumstances/ 
assumptions for human intrusion 
analysis 
63.322 
(a, b, c, d, e) 
PRD-002/ 
T-030 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance Criterion 2 
Consideration only via groundwater 
pathway 63.322(f) 
PRD-002/ 
T-030 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance Criterion 2 
No consideration of unlikely 
processes in combination with 
human intrusion 
63.322(g) 
PRD-002/ 
T-030 
2.2.1.4.2.3 
Acceptance Criterion 2 
4.2.2 Yucca Mountain Review Plan 
The NRC will be reviewing the LA. The basis of the review is described in the YMRP 
(NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.2), and the bases for acceptance are stated as 
acceptance criteria. In Table 4-3, YMRP acceptance criteria are correlated to the corresponding 
regulations and related PRD sections as they pertain to FEP-related criteria. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-21 October 2004 
The cited YMRP criteria are listed in Table 4-4. The YMRP acceptance criteria for FEP 
screening echo the screening criteria of low probability and low consequence, but also allow for 
exclusion of a FEP if the process is specifically excluded by the regulations (Section 4.2.3). 
4.2.3 FEPs Screening Criteria 
The criteria for determining low probability, low consequence, and by regulation 
exclusions are described below. 
Low Probability 
The low-probability criterion is stated in 10 CFR 63.114(d) (DIRS 156605): 
Consider only events that have at least one chance in 10,000 of occurring over 
10,000 years. 
and supported by 10 CFR 63.342 (DIRS 156605): 
DOEs [The Department of Energys] performance assessments shall not include 
consideration of very unlikely features, events, or processes, i.e., those that are 
estimated to have less than one chance in 10,000 of occurring within 10,000 years 
of disposal. DOEs assessments for the human-intrusion and ground-water 
protection standards shall not include consideration of unlikely features, events, 
and processes, or sequences of events and processes, i.e., those that are estimated 
to have less than one chance in 10 and at least one chance in 10,000 of occurring 
within 10,000 years of disposal. 
The low probability criterion for very unlikely events is stated as less than one chance in 
10,000 of occurring in 10,000 years (10-4/104 yr). As noted in Assumption 5.1, the 
low-probability criterion for very unlikely events corresponds to an annual-exceedance 
probability of 10-8. The criterion for unlikely events corresponds to an annual-exceedance 
probability of 10-5 to 10-8. 
Low Consequence 
The low consequence criterion is stated in 10 CFR 63.114 (e and f) (DIRS 156605): 
(e) Provide the technical basis for either inclusion or exclusion of specific features, 
events, and processes in the performance assessment. Specific features, events, 
and processes must be evaluated in detail if the magnitude and time of the 
resulting radiological exposures to the reasonably maximally exposed individual, 
or radionuclide releases to the accessible environment, would be significantly 
changed by their omission. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-22 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table 4-4. Relevant YMRP Acceptance Criteria 
YMRP Criterion Acceptance Criterion Description 
1. The Identification of 
a List of FEPs Is 
Adequate 
The safety analysis report contains a complete list of FEPs related to the geologic setting or the 
degradation, deterioration, or alteration of engineered barriers (including those processes that would 
affect the performance of natural barriers), that have the potential to influence repository performance. 
The list is consistent with the site characterization data. Moreover, the comprehensive features, events, 
and processes list includes, but is not limited to, potentially disruptive events related to igneous activity 
(extrusive and intrusive); seismic shaking (high-frequency-low magnitude, and rare large-magnitude 
events); tectonic evolution (slip on existing faults and formation of new faults); climatic change (change 
to pluvial conditions); and criticality. 
The DOE has identified all FEPs related to either the geologic setting or to the degradation, deterioration, 
or alteration of engineered barriers (including those processes that would affect the performance of 
natural barriers) that have been excluded. 
The DOE has provided justification for those FEPs that have been excluded. An acceptable justification 
for excluding FEPs is that either the FEP is specifically excluded by regulation; probability of the FEP 
(generally an event) falls below the regulatory criterion; or omission of the feature, and process does not 
significantly change the magnitude and time of the resulting radiological exposures to the RMEI or 
radionuclide releases to the accessible environment. 
Scenario Analysis 
and Event 
Probability: 
Scenario Analysis 
(from YMRP 
[DIRS 163274], 
Section 
2.2.1.2.1.3) 
2. Screening of the 
Initial List of FEPs Is 
Appropriate 
The DOE has provided an adequate technical basis for each FEP, excluded from the performance 
assessment, to support the conclusion that the FEP is specifically excluded by regulation, the probability 
of the FEP falls below the regulatory criterion, or omission of the FEP does not significantly change the 
magnitude and time of the resulting radiological exposures to the RMEI or radionuclide releases to the 
accessible environment. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-23 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table 4-4. Relevant YMRP Acceptance Criteria (Continued) 
YMRP Criterion Acceptance Criterion Description 
Events or event classes are defined without ambiguity and used consistently in probability models, such 
that probabilities for each event or event class are estimated separately. 
1. Events Are 
Adequately Defined Probabilities of intrusive and extrusive igneous events are calculated separately. Definitions of faulting 
and earthquakes are derived from the historical record, paleoseismic studies, or geological analyses. 
Criticality events are calculated separately by location. 
2. Probability Estimates 
for Future Events 
Are Supported by 
Appropriate 
Technical Bases. 
Probabilities for future natural events are based on past patterns of the natural events in the Yucca 
Mountain region, considering the likely future conditions and interactions of the natural and engineered 
repository system. These probability estimates have specifically included igneous events, faulting and 
seismic events, and criticality events. 
Scenario Analysis 
and Event 
Probability: 
Identification of 
Events with 
Probability 
Greater than 10-8 
per Year 
(from YMRP 
[DIRS 163274], 
Section 
2.2.1.2.2.3) 
5. Uncertainty in Event 
Probability Is 
Adequately 
Evaluated 
Probability values appropriately reflect uncertainties. Specifically: 
a. The DOE provides a technical basis for probability values used, and the values account for the 
uncertainty in the probability estimates; and 
b. The uncertainty for reported probability values adequately reflects the influence of parameter 
uncertainty on the range of model results (i.e., precision) and the model uncertainty, as it affects the 
timing and magnitude of past events (i.e., accuracy). 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-24 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table 4-4. Relevant YMRP Acceptance Criteria (Continued) 
YMRP Criterion Acceptance Criterion Description 
1. Evaluation of the 
Time of an Intrusion 
Event 
The technical basis and associated analyses adequately support the selection of time of occurrence of 
human intrusion, as specified at 10 CFR 63.321. 
The TSPA of human intrusion is performed separately from the overall TSPA, and meets the 
requirements for performance assessments, specified at 10 CFR 63.114. 
The TSPA for human intrusion is identical to the TSPA for individual protection, except that it assumes 
the occurrence of a postulated human intrusion event with characteristics, as defined at 10 CFR 63.322 
and excludes the consideration of unlikely natural FEPs. 
A sufficient number of realizations [have] been run using the total system performance code, to ensure 
that the results of the calculations are statistically stable. 
The estimated repository performance is reasonable and consistent with the analysis of overall 
repository performance and with the characteristics of the postulated intrusion event. 
Demonstration of 
Compliance with 
Post-closure 
Public Health and 
Environmental 
Standards 
Demonstration of 
Compliance with 
the Human 
Intrusion 
Standard 
(from YMRP 
[DIRS 163274], 
Section 
2.2.1.4.2.3) 
2. Evaluation of an 
Intrusion Event 
Demonstrates that 
the Annual Dose to 
the RMEI in Any 
Year during the 
Compliance Period 
Is Acceptable 
The annual dose curve for limited human intrusion confirms that the repository system meets 
performance objectives, specified at 10 CFR 63.321, for limited human intrusion events. 
NOTES: The YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.2.2.3) includes two additional criteria regarding the identification of events with 
probabilities greater than 10-8 per year. Acceptance Criteria 3 applies to probability models, which are not used for system-level FEP 
evaluations and the criterion is, therefore, not applicable. Acceptance Criteria 4 deals with probability model parameters, and is, therefore, not 
applicable. 
The criterion related to identification of Events with Probability Greater than 10-8 per Year and for the Human Intrusion standard were identified 
as applicable during the preparation of this report, and were not previously identified within the techncial work plan. This identification is based 
on the the results of analysis identifiying that some FEPs have low probabilities, but greater than 10-8 per year, and because the justification 
for excluding human intrusion based on timing of such an event were added to this report in Appendix C. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-25 October 2004 
(f) Provide the technical basis for either inclusion or exclusion of degradation, 
deterioration, or alteration processes of engineered barriers in the performance 
assessment, including those processes that would adversely affect the 
performance of natural barriers. Degradation, deterioration, or alteration 
processes of engineered barriers must be evaluated in detail if the magnitude and 
time of the resulting radiological exposures to the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual, or radionuclide releases to the accessible environment, would be 
significantly changed by their omission. 
and supported by 10 CFR 63.342 (DIRS 156605): 
DOEs performance assessments need not evaluate the impacts resulting from 
any features, events, and processes or sequences of events and processes with a 
higher chance of occurrence if the results of the performance assessments would 
not be changed significantly. 
Some FEPs have a beneficial effect on the TSPA, as opposed to an adverse effect. As identified 
in 10 CFR 63.102(j) (DIRS 156605), the concept of a performance assessment includes that: 
The features, events, and processes considered in the performance assessment 
should represent a wide range of both beneficial and potentially adverse effects on 
performance (e.g., beneficial effects of radionuclide sorption; potentially adverse 
effects of fracture flow or a criticality event). Those features, events, and 
processes expected to materially affect compliance with [10 CFR] 63.113(b) or be 
potentially adverse to performance are included, while events (event classes or 
scenario classes) that are very unlikely (less than one chance in 10,000 over 
10,000 years) can be excluded from the analysis.  
The YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1) states that: 
In many regulatory applications, a conservative approach can be used to decrease 
the need to collect additional information or to justify a simplified modeling 
approach. Conservative estimates for the dose to the reasonably maximally 
exposed individual may be used to demonstrate that the proposed repository 
meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations and provides adequate 
protection of public health and safety. The total system performance 
assessment is a complex analysis with many parameters, and the U.S. Department 
of Energy may use conservative assumptions to simplify its approaches and data 
collection needs. However, a technical basis that supports the selection of models 
and parameter ranges or distributions must be provided. 
Based on these statements, FEPs that are demonstrated to have only beneficial effects on the 
radiological exposures to the RMEI, or radionuclide releases to the accessible environment, can 
be excluded on the basis of low consequence because they have no adverse effects on 
performance. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 4-26 October 2004 
By Regulation 
The YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.2.1.3, Acceptance Criterion 2) allows for 
exclusion of a FEP if the process is specifically excluded by the regulations. To wit: 
The DOE has provided justification for those FEPs that have been excluded. An 
acceptable justification for excluding FEPs is that either the FEP is specifically 
excluded by regulation; probability of the FEP (generally an event) falls below the 
regulatory criterion; or omission of the feature, and process does not significantly 
change the magnitude and time of the resulting radiological exposures to the 
reasonably maximally exposed individual, or radionuclide releases to the 
accessible environment. 
4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
Applicable codes and standards include direct inputs (shown in Table 4-1) used for material 
properties for the EBSs discussed in Appendix C. These include: 
 ASM International (1990 [DIRS 141615], p. 621) 
 ASME (1998 [DIRS 145103], Section II, Table 1). 
The following source, which is used as indirect input and discussed in Appendix C, is pertinent 
to the evaluation of drilling technology used in groundwater exploration: 
 IADC (1992 [DIRS 155232]). 
The following applicable regulatory requirements are discussed in Sections 4.1 and 4.2: 
 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) 
 40 CFR Part 197 (DIRS 165519). 
Closely related discussions taken from the supplementary information sections of the following 
rule promulgations are used as direct input: 
 66 FR 55732 (DIRS 156671) 
 66 FR 32074 (DIRS 155216). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 5-1 October 2004 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
Assumptions used in FEP screening for the system-level FEPs are addressed in this section. 
Five general assumptions were used in screening the system-level FEPs. 
Assumption 5.1: For naturally occurring FEPs, it is assumed that regulations expressed as 
probability criterion can also be expressed as an annual exceedance probability, which is defined 
as the probability that a specified value (e.g., for ground motions or fault displacement) will be 
exceeded during one year. More specifically, a stated probability screening criterion of one 
chance in 10,000 in 10,000 years (10-4/104 yr) is assumed equivalent to a 10-8 annual-exceedance 
probability. Likewise, the stated definition of unlikely events as having one chance in 10 in 
10,000 years (10-1/104 yr) of occurring, and as used in assessments of human intrusion and 
ground-water protection standards, is assumed equivalent to a 10-5 annual-exceedance 
probability. 
JustificationThe definition of annual exceedance probability, and the following justification for 
this assumption, is taken from BSC (2004 [DIRS 169881], Glossary). 
The assumption of equivalence of annual-exceedance probability is appropriate if the possibility 
of an event is equal for any given year. This satisfies the definition of a Poisson distribution as 
a mathematical model of the number of outcomes obtained in a suitable interval of time and 
space, that has its mean equal to its variance (Merriam-Webster 1993 [DIRS 100468], 
p. 899). This is inferred to mean that naturally occurring, infrequent, and independent events, 
can be represented as stochastic processes in which distinct events occur in such a way that the 
number of events occurring in a given period of time depends only on the length of the time 
period. The use of this assumption is justified in Characterize Framework for Seismicity and 
Structural Deformation at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168030], Section 6.4.2), 
which indicates that assuming that the behavior of the earth is generally Poissonian or random is 
the underlying assumption in all probabilistic hazard analyses. 
For example, all meteorite impacts are considered as independent events with regard to size, 
time, and location. Although there may be cases where sufficient data and information exist to 
depart from this assumption, the Poisson model is generally an effective representation of nature 
and represents a compromise between the complexity of natural processes, availability of 
information, and the sensitivity of results of engineering relevance. Consequently, for geologic 
processes that occur over long time spans, assuming annual equivalence over a 10,000-year 
period (a relatively short time span for geologic-related events) is reasonable and consistent with 
the basis of probabilistic hazard analyses. Therefore, no further confirmation is required. 
UseThis assumption is used for FEPs: 
Changes in the earths magnetic field (1.5.03.01.0A) Section 6.2.4.8 
Meteorite impact (1.5.01.01.0A) Section 6.2.4.10 
Assumption 5.2: The analysis to determine the timing at which a human intrusion could occur 
without recognition by the drillers is based on physical principles and material properties 
(Appendix C). However, inherent in the analysis is the assumption that records and markers are 
lost, ignored, or otherwise ineffective in preventing or delaying the intrusion. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 5-2 October 2004 
JustificationThis assumption is intrinsic in the regulatory requirement to consider that a human 
intrusion occurs and for determining the earliest time for the intrusion. It is consistent with the 
regulatory requirement at 10 CFR 63.102(k) (DIRS 156605), which states it is not possible to 
make scientifically sound forecasts of the long-term reliability of institutional controls. It is 
also conservative and reasonable to assume that surface controls are lost at some time within the 
10,000-year regulatory time span. No further confirmation is required. 
UseThe assumption is used for FEPs: 
Administrative control of the repository site (1.1.10.00.0A) Section 6.2.2.3 
Records and markers for the repository (1.1.05.00.0A) Section 6.2.2.5 
Inadvertent human intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A) Section 6.2.3.2 
Drilling activities (human intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A) Section 6.2.3.7 
Mining and other underground activities (human intrusion) 
(1.4.05.00.0A) Section 6.2.3.9 
Assumption 5.3: It is assumed that potential naturally occurring events, but perhaps of different 
magnitude, have occurred at least once in the past within the geologic record used as the basis for 
determining that factors that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system over the next 
10,000 years. 
JustificationThis assumption is justified because it is consistent with the regulations used as 
direct input. At 10 CFR 63.305(c) (DIRS 156605), the DOE is directed to vary factors related to 
the geology, hydrology, and climate based upon cautious, but reasonable assumptions consistent 
with present knowledge of factors that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system over the 
next 10,000 years. The regulatory concepts for the reference biosphere and the geologic setting 
are discussed in Section 4.1. 
The implication of this assumption is that any discernible affects or processes related to past 
events on the site setting are reflected in the present knowledge of natural processes that form the 
basis of the TSPA. If the subject FEP phenomena are not reflected or discernible in the data 
used to describe past settings, then they are either of low consequence or of low probability and 
can be excluded from consideration. Because it is consistent with the regulations, no further 
confirmation is necessary. 
UseThis assumption is used throughout. It is particularly relevant to FEPs related to processes 
and phenomena that, speculatively, could affect future states of the system, but for which the 
magnitude or coupling to the effect on the repository is not well defined, or for which 
consequences in present time are known to be minor. These include FEPs such as: 
Earth tides (1.5.03.02.0A) Section 6.2.4.8 
Changes in the earths magnetic field (1.5.03.01.0A) Section 6.2.4.9 
Extraterrestrial events (1.5.01.02.0A) Section 6.2.4.10 
These types of events are known to occur. However, the effects of the phenomenon or the 
effects associated with varying magnitudes of the event type and probabilities are not well 
documented (e.g., effects of a supernova); the form of the coupling process is not well defined 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 5-3 October 2004 
(e.g., changes in the earths magnetic field); or the phenomenon has been shown to have no 
affect or insignificant affect at the present time (e.g., earth tides). 
Assumption 5.4: For the meteorite impact analysis, it is assumed that the initial entry velocity 
of meteors is 15 to 20 km/sec, that the initial entry angle is vertical, and that fracturing beneath 
an impact crater is cylindrical with depth. 
JustificationFor the meteorite analysis (discussed in Section 6.2.4.5 and provided in 
Appendix D), assumptions are made to ensure that the analysis is conservative in nature and that 
the range of uncertainty in values is covered. The justification for each segment of the 
assumption is as follows: 
Initial Entry Velocities Are 15 to 20 km/secA summary of velocity information from the 
reviewed literature is provided in Table 5-1 and supports the assumption. An assumption is 
necessary because the data are inadequate to develop a defensible distribution of velocities. 
Velocities of known meteoroids and comets range from 12.9 km/sec for meteorites (Chyba 1993 
[DIRS 135248], Table 1a) to over 80 km/sec for long period comets (Marsden and Steel 1994 
[DIRS 129308], pp. 233 to 236). However, the assumption of 15 to 20 km/sec, in addition to 
being conservative with respect to crater formation, are consistent with the average velocities of 
observed meteors (Chyba 1993 [DIRS 135248], Table 1a; Ceplecha 1994 [DIRS 135243], 
Table 2) with diameters of particular interest (i.e., producing craters with frequencies at or 
greater than the screening criterion). Because an equal weighting of occurrence of asteroidal and 
cometary compositions is assumed in Appendix D, the simple averaging shown in Table 5-1 is 
appropriate and self-consistent. The cited references are given in Table 5-1. Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281], p. 1116) also indicate that a velocity of 20 km/sec is typical of incoming 
meteors. These sources are used as direct input for the calculation presented in Appendix D. So 
the assumption of values of 15 km/sec and 20 km/sec would be consistent with the direct inputs. 
Therefore, no further confirmation of this assumption is necessary. 
Initial entry velocities are assumed to be 15 to 20 km/sec, regardless of the meteor composition 
or size. The distribution between asteroidal and cometary materials is provided in Appendix D 
(Table D-2), and at large mass (108 kg) is assumed equivalent. The assumption of a velocity 
(velocities have been measured to range from a few km/sec to upwards of 80 km/sec) is 
necessary because there is insufficient data to develop a distribution for possible velocities. The 
assumed velocities are justified because they generally are conservative and in agreement with 
available entry velocity data. For fragmented meteors, higher initial velocities tend to result in 
smaller meteorite-impact crater diameters (Hills and Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], p. 1140, 
Figure 17). The intuitive assumption of increased velocity leading to increased cratering is only 
correct if the metric is the equivalent radius of the crater produced if all of the impacting material 
were collected into a single body that hits the ground at a given impacted velocity (Hills and 
Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], p. 1140, Figure 16). Ram pressures on the meteor are a function of 
the velocity squared. After ram pressures exceed material strength properties, the meteor 
fragments, and the fragments disperse over a wider area (Hills and Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], 
Figures 3 and 9). Additionally, increased initial velocities also result in increased ablation in the 
atmosphere, resulting in a loss of mass (Hills and Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 6). As a 
result, for a given meteor below a certain initial radius (which is composition dependent, but 
generally on the order of 100 m) increased initial velocity leads to decreased impact velocity 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 5-4 October 2004 
(Hills and Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 10), and the mass of the largest resulting fragment 
markedly decreases for initial meteor radius of less than 100 m (Hills and Goda 1993 
[DIRS 135281], Figure 11). Decreased velocity and decreased mass of the largest fragment in 
turn lead to decreased individual crater radius. Velocities less than 15 km/sec would result in 
larger crater diameters. However, lower velocities are not considered because they would not be 
consistent with corroborating information. 
Table 5-1. Summary of Velocity Data from Reviewed Literature 
Velocity (km/s) 
Asteroids 
Long Period 
Comets 
Short Period 
Comets Not Specified Source 
20.3 Brown et al. 1998 (DIRS 162569), p. 294. 
20 60 40 - - Chapman and Morrison 1994 (DIRS 135245), p. 34 and 
Figure 1. 
14.3 Chyba 1993 (DIRS 135248), p. 701. Average value 
(excluding object 1991-VG as human artifact). 
13.3 Chyba 1993 (DIRS 135248), p. 701. Median value. 
20.8 45 38.5 Hughes 1998 (DIRS 162562), p. 35 and 37. 
20.7 
Ceplecha 1994 (DIRS 135243), Table 2; Chyba 1993 
(DIRS 135248), Table 1a. Derived average for 1 to 
10 m. 
15.8 
Ceplecha 1994 (DIRS 135243), Table 2; Chyba 1993 
(DIRS 135248), Table 1a. Derived average for 11 to 
60 m. 
58.2 Marsden and Steel 1994 (DIRS 129308), Table V. 
25 Grieve 1987 (DIRS 135254), p. 250. 
20.1 Shoemaker 1983 (DIRS 135308), p. 468. Weighted by 
probability. 
20.3 54.4 39.3 18.2 Average 
0.36 6.7 0.75 4.1 Standard deviation 
29.4 Average of all values regardless of type 
15.9 Standard deviation 
Initial Entry Angle Is Zero (Vertical)The initial entry is at zenith angle zero, or vertical, for 
all meteoroids. Due to a longer path length, more kinetic energy is absorbed in the atmosphere 
from meteoroids entering at nonzero zenith angles (Hills and Goda 1998 [DIRS 135291]), which 
would result in smaller crater diameters. Vertical entry (zero entry angle) is an upper-bounding 
value because all material entering the atmosphere with vertical entry is implicitly considered to 
have the potential to impact the earth surface, and the path length through which atmospheric 
effects occur is minimized. This assumption is needed because there is no direct input available 
relating flux and angle of entry. This assumption is conservative and no further confirmation of 
this assumption is necessary. 
Zone of Fracturing Is Cylindrical with Depth, Rather than ParabolicFor analysis purposes, 
the vertical extent of effects (e.g., exhumation or fracturing) is represented as a cylinder. The 
diameter of the cylinder is assumed to correspond to the crater diameter, and the depth 
corresponds to the depth of interest derived from the crater diameter. In reality, the effects are 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 5-5 October 2004 
more likely parabolic in nature (inferred from Wuschke et al. 1995 [DIRS 129326], Figure 1). If 
a parabolic zone is used, however, the depth of the effect becomes shallower with distance from 
the centerline of the crater. Consequently, the volume of material affected by meteorites 
impacting outside the boundary of the repository (i.e., with the centerline of the crater outside the 
repository but with crater diameters overlapping the boundary of the repository) would be 
smaller, and located in shallower geologic units. By assuming a cylindrical zone, the maximum 
depth of the effect (exhumation or fracturing) is applied throughout the area below the crater 
diameter and, thereby, conservatively considers a larger volume of the material overlying the 
repository. Therefore, no further confirmation of this assumption is necessary because the 
assumption is conservative. 
UseThis assumption is used in the meteorite impact analysis (Appendix D), which supports the 
discussion provided in: 
Meteorite impact (1.5.01.01.0A) Section 6.2.4.5 
These assumptions are used in calculating the probability of forming a crater of a given diameter, 
and to determine the crater diameter occurring at a 10-8 annual exceedance frequency. 
Assumption 5.5: It is assumed that the repository will be constructed, operated, and closed 
according to the regulatory requirements applicable to the construction, operation, and closure 
periods. Deviations from design will be detected and corrected. 
JustificationInherent in the approach to evaluating FEPs is the assumption that the repository 
will be constructed, operated, and closed according to the design used as the basis for the FEP 
screening and in accordance with NRC license requirements. This is inherent in performance 
evaluation of any engineering project, and design verification and performance confirmation are 
required as part of the construction and operation processes. Therefore, no further confirmation 
of the assumption is required 
Engineering and design changes are subject to evaluation to determine if there are any adverse 
affects on safety as codified at 10 CFR 63.73 and in Subparts F and G (DIRS 156605). See also 
the requirements at 10 CFR 63.32, 10 CFR 63.44, and 10 CFR 63.131 (DIRS 156605). 
These requirements require periodic and special reports regarding: 
 Progress of construction 
 Data about the site obtained during construction that are not within the predicted limits 
on which the facility design was based 
 Deficiencies in design and construction that, if uncorrected, could adversely affect safety 
in the future 
 Results of research and development programs conducted to resolve safety questions.

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 5-6 October 2004 
UseAny changes in direct inputs listed in Section 4.1, in baseline conditions used for this 
evaluation, or in other subsurface conditions will be evaluated to determine if the changes are 
within the limits stated in the FEP evaluations. This assumption is specifically used in FEPs: 
Repository design (1.1.07.00.0A) Section 6.2.1.5 
Inadequate quality control and deviations from design (1.1.08.00.0A) Section 6.2.2.2 
Monitoring of the repository (1.1.11.00.0A) Section 6.2.2.5 
Accidents and unplanned events during construction and operation 
(1.1.12.01.0A) Section 6.2.2.6 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-1 October 2004 
6. ANALYSES 
The system-level FEP analyses are discussed in this section. The methods and approach used for 
the FEP screening process are discussed in Section 6.1, and the screening documentation is 
presented in Section 6.2. 
6.1 METHODS AND APPROACH 
The identification and screening of a comprehensive list of FEPs potentially relevant to the 
postclosure performance of the Yucca Mountain repository is an ongoing, iterative process based 
on site-specific information, design, and regulations. FEP analysis uses the following definitions 
(NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Glossary): 
 Featurean object, structure, or condition that has a potential to affect disposal system 
performance. 
 Eventa natural or human-caused phenomenon that has a potential to affect disposal 
system performance and that occurs during an interval that is short compared to the 
period of performance. 
 Processa natural or human-caused phenomenon that has a potential to affect disposal 
system performance and that operates during all or a significant part of the period of 
performance. 
The FEP analysis for the TSPA-LA (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706]) is summarized in the following 
sections. 
6.1.1 System-Level FEPs Origin and Identification 
The first step of FEP analysis is FEP identification and classification, which addresses 
Acceptance Criterion 1 of the YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.2.1.3). The 
TSPA-LA FEP identification and classification process (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706], Section 3) 
produced a version of the LA FEP List (DIRS 170760) that is used as direct input to this 
system-level FEP analysis. Except for editorial corrections to FEP descriptions, changes to the 
LA FEP List from the information shown for the Data Tracking Number 
(DTN): MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 (DIRS 170760) are discussed below. 
As part of the TSPA-LA FEP evaluation (following TSPA-SR), FEP 3.2.10.00.0A (Atmospheric 
transport of contaminants) was removed from the system-level FEP list and reassigned 
elsewhere, and FEP 2.1.01.04.0A (Repository scale heterogeneity of waste) was assigned to the 
system-level FEP list. Two additional FEPs were added to the TSPA-LA FEP list. These 
two new FEPs address the effect of preceding disruptive events on determining the timing of 
human intrusion (1.4.02.03.0A, Igneous event precedes human intrusion; 1.4.02.04.0A, Seismic 
event precedes human intrusion). Consequently, 33 FEPs are identified as system-level FEPs for 
TSPA-LA, as noted and derived from the LA FEP List (DIRS 170760). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-2 October 2004 
6.1.2 FEPs Screening Process 
The second step of FEP analysis is FEP screening, which addresses Acceptance Criterion 2 of 
the YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.2.1.3). The TSPA-LA FEP screening 
process is described in BSC (2004 [DIRS 168706], Section 4). 
For FEP screening, each FEP is screened against the specified exclusion criteria (Section 4.2.3), 
summarized in the following three FEP screening statements: 
1) FEPs having less than one chance in 10,000 of occurring over 10,000 years may be 
excluded (screened out) from the TSPA on the basis of low probability 
(10 CFR 63.114(d) and 10 CFR 63.342 [DIRS 156605]). 
2) FEPs whose omission would not significantly change the magnitude and time of the 
resulting radiological exposures to the RMEI, or radionuclide releases to the accessible 
environment, may be excluded (screened out) from the TSPA on the basis of low 
consequence (10 CFR 63.114 (e and f) [DIRS 156605]). 
3) FEPs that are inconsistent with the characteristics, concepts, and definitions specified 
at 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) may be excluded (screened out) from the TSPA by 
regulation. 
A FEP need only satisfy one of the exclusion screening criteria to be excluded from TSPA. A 
FEP that does not satisfy any of the exclusion screening criteria must be included (screened in) in 
the TSPA-LA model. 
This analysis report documents the screening decisions for system-level FEPs. In cases where a 
FEP covers multiple technical areas and is shared with other FEP AMRs, this analysis report 
provides only a partial technical basis for the screening decision as it relates to system-level FEP 
issues. The full technical basis for the shared FEPs is addressed, collectively, by all of the 
sharing FEPs analysis reports. 
Documentation of the screening for each FEP is provided in Section 6.2. The following 
standardized format is used. For some FEPs, an optional supplemental discussion section may 
be provided to address pertinent background information. 
Section 6.2.x FEP Name (FEP Number) 
FEP Description: This field describes the nature and scope of the FEP under consideration. 
Screening Decision: Identifies the screening decision as one of: 
 Included 
 Excluded  Low Probability 
 Excluded  Low Consequence 
 Excluded  By Regulation. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-3 October 2004 
In a few cases, a FEP may be excluded by a combination of two criteria (e.g., Low Probability 
and Low Consequence). 
Screening Argument: This field is used only for excluded FEPs. It provides the discussion for 
why a FEP has been excluded from TSPA-LA. 
TSPA Disposition: This field is used only for included FEPs. It provides the consolidated 
discussion of how a FEP has been included in TSPA-LA, making reference to more detailed 
documentation in other supporting technical AMRs, as applicable. 
Supporting Reports: This field is only used for included FEPs. It provides the list of 
supporting technical AMRs that identified the FEP as an included FEP and contain information 
relevant to the implementation of the FEP within the TSPA-LA model. This list of supporting 
technical AMRs provides traceability of the FEP through the document hierarchy. For excluded 
FEPs, it is indicated as Not Applicable. 
6.1.3 Supporting AMRs and Inputs 
Per AP-SIII.9Q (particularly, Attachment 2, Section 6), direct inputs used in this AMR are 
identified in Section 4. Corroborative information is also cited to support the direct inputs. The 
sources of corroborative information (i.e., indirect input) are listed in Table 6-1. 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
10 CFR 63.102(j) Sections 4.2.3, 
6.2.1.6 
Regulatory concept for use of 
a performance assessment 
10 CFR 63.114 Tables 4-3, 4-4; 
Section 6.2.1.4 
Regulatory requirements 
pertaining to models and 
model documentation for 
performance assessment 
10 CFR 63.121 Sections 6.2.2.1, 
6.2.2.4 
Regulatory requirements 
pertaining to land ownership 
and site control 
10 CFR 63.133(d) Section 6.2.2.5 Regulatory requirement 
regarding confirmation of 
seals for boreholes, ramps, 
and shafts 
10 CFR 63.2 Sections 6.2.3.1, 
6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7, 
6.2.3.8, 6.2.3.9 
NRC definition of Performance 
Assessment including 
consideration of FEPs 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level 
Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository 
at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily 
available. (DIRS 156605) 
10 CFR 63.302 Sections 6.2.3.1, 
6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7, 
6.2.3.8, 6.2.3.9 
Regulatory definition for 
human intrusion 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-4 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
10 CFR 63.321(a) Sections 6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7; 
Appendix C 
Regulatory requirement to 
provide the analyses and the 
technical bases used to 
determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion 
10 CFR 
63.321(b)(1) 
Table 4-3; 
Sections 6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7; 
Appendix C 
Regulatory requirement to 
provide the results of the 
analysis for human intrusion 
10 CFR 
63.321(b)(2) 
Table 4-3; 
Sections 6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7; 
Appendix C 
Regulatory requirement to 
present the human intrusion 
dose analysis in the FEIS if it 
occurs post-10,000 years 
10 CFR 63.322(g) Table 4-3; 
Appendix C 
Regulatory exclusion of 
unlikely FEPs from the human 
intrusion scenario and 
groundwater protection 
standards 
10 CFR 
63.51(a)(3)(i, ii, iii) 
Sections 6.2.2.1, 
6.2.2.4 
Regulatory requirement for 
construction of markers, 
archiving records, and site 
control 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level 
Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository 
at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily 
available. (DIRS 156605) 
(Continued) 
10 CFR 63.72(a) 
and (b)(1 through 
11) 
Sections 6.2.2.1; 
6.2.2.4 
Regulatory requirements for 
construction of markers, 
archiving records, and site 
control 
40 CFR 197.26 Sections 4.1, 
6.2.3.5, 6.2.3.6, 
6.2.3.7, 6.2.3.8 
EPA-defined circumstances of 
human intrusion 
40 CFR 197. Protection of Environment: 
Public Health and Environmental Radiation 
Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Readily available. 
(DIRS 165519) 
40 CFR 197.26(e) Sections 4.1, 
6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7, 
6.2.3.8, 6.2.3.10 
EPA-specified condition that 
only release of radionuclides 
that occur as a result of the 
intrusion and that are 
transported through the 
resulting borehole to the SZ 
are projected 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-5 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
40 CFR Part 197, 
Supplementary 
Information, Item 3  
What is the 
Standard for Human 
Intrusion? p. 32105 
Sections 6.2.3.1, 
6.2.3.2, 6.2.3.8, 
6.2.3.9 
EPA response to comments 
regarding the human intrusion 
scenario 
66 FR 32074. 40 CFR Part 197, Public Health 
and Environmental Radiation Protection 
Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV; Final Rule. 
Readily available. 
(DIRS 155216) 
40 CFR Part 197; 
Psupplemenatry , 
Item 10. Is the 
Single Borehole 
Scenario a 
Reasonable 
Approach to Judge 
the Resilience of the 
Yucca Mountain 
Disposal System 
Following Human 
Intrusion? p. 32127 
Sections 4.1, 
6.2.3.1, 6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.8, 6.2.3.9 
EPA perspective on 
consideration of deliberate 
human intrusion 
10 CFR Part 63, 
Supplementary 
information, 3.10 
Human Intrusion 
Standard, p. 55761 
Sections 6.2.3.6; 
6.2.3.7 
NRC stated intent that a 
stylized human intrusion 
scenario be used 
10 CFR Part 63, 
Supplementary 
information, III. 
Public Comments 
and Response, 2.2 
Retrievability, Issue 
2, p. 55743 
Section 6.2.1.6 NRC statement that the 
retrievability requirement is not 
intended to facilitate recovery 
66 FR 55732. Disposal of High-Level 
Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, Final Rule. 
10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 40, 51, 60, 61, 
63, 70, 72, 73, and 75. Readily available. 
(DIRS 156671) 
10 CFR Part 63, 
Supplementary 
information, p. 
55761 
Sections 4.1, 
6.2.3.5; 
Appendix C 
NRC statements regarding 
documents indicating lack of 
mineral resources in vicinity of 
Yucca Mountain 
Entire Appendix B General reference to aircraft 
hazard analysis for nuclear 
power plants 
Abbas, H.; Paul, D.K.; Godbole, P.N.; and 
Nayak, G.C. 1996. Aircraft Crash Upon Outer 
Containment of Nuclear Power Plant. Nuclear 
Engineering and Design, 160, (1-2), 13-50. 
New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 255604. 
(DIRS 167627) 
Figures 9, 10, 11, 
and page 25 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-3, B-4 
Mass and velocity of three 
different aircraft 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-6 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
p. 223 Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
CaCO3 initially plugs porosity 
and permeability 
Arakel, A.V. 1996. Quaternary Vadose 
Calcretes Revisited. AGSO Journal of 
Australian Geology & Geophysics, 16, (3), 
223-229. Canberra, Australia: Australian 
Government Public Service. TIC: 255481. 
(DIRS 167623) 
p. 226 Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Rapid maturation of cemented 
soil profiles 
Entire Table B-20 General reference Arnold, N.F. 2003. Space Plasma Influences 
on the Earths Atmosphere. Philosophical 
Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 
Series A, Mathematical and Physical 
Sciences, 361, 127-132. London, England: 
Royal Society of London. TIC: 255613. 
(DIRS 167638) 
p. 127 Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B 
Discussion of cosmic ray 
influence on earths 
atmosphere 
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister, T., III, eds. 
1987. Marks Standard Handbook for 
Mechanical Engineers. 9th Edition. New York, 
New York: McGraw-Hill. TIC: 206891. 
(DIRS 103508) 
pp. 13-63 and 13-64 Appendix C Description of types of metal 
milling and related equipment 
Entire Table 6-1; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, B-3 
General reference to missile 
impact study 
Backman, M.E. and Goldsmith, W. 1978. The 
Mechanics of Penetration of Projectiles into 
Targets. International Journal of Engineering 
Science, 16, (1), 1-99. New York, New York: 
Pergamon. TIC: 255605. 
(DIRS 167628) 
pp. 32 and 38 Sections 6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, B-3 
Description of penetration into 
semi-infinite targets. 
Entire Appendix B; 
Tables B-8; 
B-10, B-16b; 
Figure B-1 
General reference 
p. 14 Tables 6-1; 
B-15, B-19; 
Figures B-4b, 
B-4c 
Density of comets; Resulting 
crater radii 
Bailey, M.E. and EmelYanenko, V.V. 1998. 
Cometary Capture and the Nature of the 
Impactors. Meteorites: Flux with Time and 
Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; Hutchison, R.; 
McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Geological Society Special Publication No. 
140. Pages 11-17. Bath, England: 
Geological Society of London. TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 162564) 
p. 15, Eq. 3; Eq. 4; 
Eq. 10 
Appendix B Distribution equations 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-7 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Baldwin, B. and Butler, C.O. 1985. 
Compaction Curve. American Association of 
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 69, (4), 
622-626. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American 
Association of Petroleum Geologists. 
TIC: 255917. (DIRS 167871) 
Figure 3 Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Reference to the 
Sclater-Christie sandstone 
compaction curve 
p. 137 Sections 6.2.4.1, 
6.2.4.2 
Definition of diagenesis 
p. 138 Section 6.2.4.4 Definition of diapirism 
Bates, R.L. and Jackson, J.A., eds. 1984. 
Dictionary of Geological Terms. 3rd Edition. 
Garden City, New York: Anchor 
Books/Doubleday. TIC: 206591. 
(DIRS 128109) p. 322 Section 6.2.4.1 Definition of metamorphism 
Entire Table B-2 Reference to textbook on 
material properties, including 
brittle and ductile properties 
p. 37 Appendix B Description of brittle and 
ductile relationship 
Beer, F.P. and Johnston, E.R., Jr. 1981. 
Mechanics of Materials. New York, New York: 
McGraw-Hill. TIC: 255414. (DIRS 166708) 
pp. 36, 68, 69, 101, 
and 584 
Appendix C Descriptions of characteristic 
strength relationships for 
brittle and ductile materials 
Berner, R.A. 1980. Early Diagenesis: A 
Theoretical Approach. Princeton, New Jersey: 
Princeton University Press. TIC: 241522. 
(DIRS 128110) 
Figure 3-2 Section 6.2.4.2 Porosity reduction with 
increasing compaction 
p. 233 Section 6.2.4.2 Definition of diagenesis Berry, L.G. and Mason, B. 1959. Mineralogy: 
Concepts, Descriptions, Determinations. 
San Francisco, California: W.H. Freeman and 
Company. TIC: 238767. (DIRS 135236) p. 240 Section 6.2.4.1 Description of conditions 
conducive to metamorphism 
Entire Tables 6-1; B-8 General reference Bevan, A.W.R.; Bland, P.A.; and Jull, A.J.T. 
1998. Meteorite Flux on the Nullarbor 
Region, Australia. Meteorites: Flux with Time 
and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; Hutchison, 
R.; McCall, G.J.H., and Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Geological Society Special Publication 
No. 140. Pages 59-73. 
Bath, England: Geological Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. (DIRS 162565) 
Table 4 Tables 6-1; B-14 Percent iron meteorite finds 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-21 
General reference to study 
Figure 11 Section 6.2.4.7 Anti-correlation of variation 
and pole reversals 
Biggin, A.J. and Thomas, D.N. 2003. 
Analysis of Long-Term Variations in the 
Geomagnetic Polodial Field Intensity and 
Evaluation of Their Relationship with Global 
Geodynamics. Geophysical Journal 
International, 152, (2), 392-415. Oxford, 
England: Blackwell Publishing. TIC: 255680. 
(DIRS 167876) pp. 409 to 412 Section 6.2.4.7 Frequency of pole reversals 
and intensity variations 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-8 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Bilgesu, H.I.; Tetrick, L.T.; Altmis, U.; 
Mohaghegh, S.; and Ameri, S. 1997. A New 
Approach for the Prediction of Rate of 
Penetration (ROP) Values. 1997 SPE 
Eastern Regional Meeting held in Lexington, 
Kentucky, October 22-24, 1997. SPE 39231. 
Pages 175-179. Richardson, Texas: Society 
of Petroleum Engineers. TIC: 255661. 
(DIRS 167782) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-2 
Review of factors affecting 
penetration rate 
Birkeland, P.W. 1974. Pedology, Weathering 
and Geomorphological Research. 1974. 
New York, New York: Oxford University 
Press. TIC: 241201. (DIRS 128113) 
p. 234 Section 6.2.4.2 Relationship between depth of 
calcareous horizons and 
precipitation 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-8 
General reference 
Figure 1 Appendix B; 
Figure B-1; 
Tables B-9, B-10 
Meteoroid flux data 
Bland, P.A.; Conway, A.; Smith, T.B.; Berry, 
F.J.; Swabey, S.E.J.; and Pillinger, C.T. 1998. 
Calculating Flux from Meteorite Decay Rates: 
A Discussion of Problems Encountered in 
Deciphering a 105-106 Year Integrated 
Meteorite Flux at Allan Hills and a New 
Approach to Pairing. Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, 
D.A.; eds. Geological Society Special 
Publication Mo. 140. Pages 43-58. Bath, 
England: Geological Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. (DIRS 162563) 
Figure 5 Appendix B; 
Table B-10; 
Figure B-1 
Meteoroid flux data 
Chapter 5 Appendix C; 
Table B-2 
Relation of abrasiveness to 
drillability, operation principles 
of drill bit tooth, lateral forces 
on drill bit, factors affecting 
rate of penetration 
Entire Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, B-2 
General reference to text on 
applied drilling engineering 
Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; 
Chenevert, M.E.; and Young, F.S., Jr. 1986. 
Rotary Drilling Bits. Applied Drilling 
Engineering. SPE Textbook Series Volume 2. 
Pages 190-245. Richardson, Texas: Society 
of Petroleum Engineers. TIC: 250085. 
(DIRS 155233) 
Section 5.1 Appendix C Discussion of type of bits used 
in rotary drilling 
Boyer, H.E. and Gall, T.L., eds. 1984. Metals 
Handbook. Desk Edition. 10th Printing 1997. 
Metals Park, Ohio: American Society for 
Metals. TIC: 250192. (DIRS 155318) 
Entire Appendix C Failure mechanisms for ductile 
material 
Bredehoeft, J.D. 1997. Fault Permeability 
Near Yucca Mountain. Water Resources 
Research, 33, (11), 2459-2463. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 236570. (DIRS 100007) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-22 
General reference 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-9 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-8; 
Figures B-1, B-3 
General reference 
Figure 4 and Eq. 3 Appendix B; 
Tables B-9, B-10 
Meteoroid flux data 
p. 294 Tables 5-1; B-15 Meteor velocities and 
densities 
Brown, P.; Spalding, R.E.; ReVelle, D.O.; 
Tagliaferri, E.; and Worden, S.P. 2002. The 
Flux of Small Near-Earth Objects Colliding with 
the Earth. Nature, 420, (6913), 294-296. 
London, England: Macmillan Journals. 
TIC: 254145. (DIRS 162569) 
p. 296 Appendix B Meteor percent-by-type 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. 
Requirements Management Plan. 
PLN-MGR-AD-000004 REV 01 ICN 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031212.0002. 
(DIRS 168577) 
Entire Section 6.2.1.3 Management Plan 
Entire Sections 6.2.1.1, 
6.2.1.2, 6.2.1.4, 
6.2.4.10 
Project document 
summarizing methods and 
approach for TSPA-LA model 
Section 5.1 Sections 6.2.1.2, 
6.2.4.10 
Method of modeling climate 
change 
BSC 2003. Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00 
ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20031215.0001. 
(DIRS 166296) 
Section 8.3 and 
Appendix D.3 
Sections 6.2.2, 
6.2.2.5, 6.2.2.6 
TSPA-LA process for 
addressing multiple barrier 
analysis and barrier 
neutralization analysis 
examples 
Figures 1 and B-4 Appendix D; 
Figures D-4a, 
D-4b 
Minimum overburden above 
the repository layouts 
BSC 2003. Underground Layout 
Configuration. 
800-P0C-MGR0-00100-000-00E. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20031002.0007. (DIRS 165572) 
Section 7.1.8; 
Figure 1 
Appendix D Minimum depth of overburden 
in emplacement area 
BSC 2004. Characterize Framework for 
Seismicity and Structural Deformation at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
ANL-CRW-GS-000003 REV 00 Errata 001. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20000510.0175; 
DOC.20040223.0007. (DIRS 168030) 
Section 6.4.2 Assumption 5.1 Justification for annual 
equivalence of 1  10-8 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-10 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
BSC 2004. Configuration Management Plan. 
PLN-MGR-AD-000003 REV 02. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040225.0010. (DIRS 168396) 
Entire Section 6.2.1.3 Management Plan 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Subsurface 
Facilities. 800-IED-WIS0-00103-000-00A. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040309.0028. (DIRS 168370) 
Entire Appendix D Drawing for subsurface 
facilities, including 
encompassed area 
BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. 
ANL-EBS-MD-000027, Rev. 03. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
(DIRS 166107) 
Section 6.4.2.4 Appendix C General reference regarding 
drift collapse with time in the 
lithophysal unit. 
BSC 2004. Geologic Framework Model 
(GFM2000). MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
(DIRS 170029) 
Table 6-2, Figures 
6-8 and 6-14, and 
Section 6.5.1.3 
Appendix D Lithologic descriptions 
BSC 2004. Initial Radionuclide Inventories. 
ANL-WIS-MD-000020 REV 01. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
(DIRS 170022) 
Sections 6.4.2 and 
6.6 
Section 6.2.1.7 Treatment of waste inventory 
heterogeneity 
BSC 2004. Seismic Consequence 
Abstraction. MDL-WIS-PA-000003 Rev. 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
(DIRS 169183) 
Entire Appendix C General reference to seismic 
damage abstraction 
BSC 2004. WAPDEG Analysis of Waste 
Package and Drip Shield Degradation. 
ANL-EBS-PA-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
(DIRS 169996) 
Section 6.3.8 Appendix C Early time failures of waste 
packages due to 
manufacturing defects 
BSC 2004. Yucca Mountain Site Description. 
TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 02 ICN 01. 
Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040504.0008. 
(DIRS 169734) 
Section 3.3.4 Sections 6.2.4.3, 
6.2.4.9 
Lithologic descriptions for 
Yucca Mountain 
Entire Attachment B; 
Tables B-8, 
B-19; Figure B-1; 
Appendix D; 
Table D-2 
General reference 
p. 361 Appendix B Meteoroid by percent type 
p. 364 Figures B-4b, 
B-4c, Table B-19 
Mass range where 
atmospheric shielding is 
partially or completely 
effective 
Ceplecha, Z. 1992. Influx of Interplanetary 
Bodies onto Earth. Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 263, 361-366. New York, 
New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 246784. 
(DIRS 135242) 
Tables 1 and 3 Appendix B Meteor information sources 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-11 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Entire Appendix B; 
Tables B-8, D-2 
Results of small meteoroid 
impact study 
Figure 3 Table B-19 Resulting impact velocities 
Ceplecha, Z. 1994. Impacts of Meteoroids 
Larger than 1m into the Earths Atmosphere. 
Astronomy and Astrophysics, 286, (3), 
967-970. New York, New York: 
Springer-Verlag. TIC: 246761. 
(DIRS 135243) Table 2 Table 5-1; 
Assumption 5.4; 
Appendix B 
Measured velocities of 
meteoroids 
Chadwick, O.A.; Nettleton, W.D.; and Staidl, 
G.J. 1995. Soil Polygenesis as a Function of 
Quaternary Climate Change, Northern Great 
Basin, USA. Geoderma, 68, (1-2), 1-26. 
New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 255603. 
(DIRS 167626) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Results of soil studies along a 
transect with significant 
elevation change, as a 
surrogate for climate variation 
Entire Tables B-8; 
Figure B-1 
General reference 
Figure 1 and p. 34 Table 5-1; 
Appendix B, 
Table B-10 
Meteor frequency and meteor 
velocities 
p. 33 Section 6.2.3.9 Energy of meteorite impacts 
and conversion factor for 
megatons to joules 
p. 34 Appendix B; 
Table B-15; 
Appendix D 
Range in meteor densities 
Chapman, C.R. and Morrison, D. 1994. 
Impacts on the Earth by Asteroids and 
Comets: Assessing the Hazard. Nature, 367, 
(6458), 33-40. New York, New York: Nature 
America. TIC: 246781. (DIRS 135245) 
pp. 33 and 34 Table B-19; 
Figure B-4b 
Thresholds for atmospheric 
penetration 
Entire Table B-8 General reference 
p. 701 Table 5-1; 
Tables B-10, 
B-19; 
Figures B-1, 
B-4b; 
Appendix D 
Meteor velocities and 
atmospheric penetration 
thresholds 
p. 703 Table B-14 Percentage of iron-nickel 
asteroids 
pp. 703 and 704 Table B-15, B-19 Densities of various types of 
meteorites 
Chyba, C.F. 1993. Explosions of Small 
Spacewatch Objects in Earths Atmosphere. 
Nature, 363, (6431), 701-703. London, 
United Kingdom: Macmillan Journals. 
TIC: 246762. (DIRS 135248) 
Table 1a Table 5-1; 
Assumption 5.4; 
Appendix D 
Diameters and velocities of 
observed space objects 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-12 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-20 
General reference to 
discussion of Earths response 
to space weather 
Cole, D.G. 2003. Space Weather: Its Effects 
and Predictability. Space Science Reviews, 
107, (1-2), 295-302. Dordrecht, The 
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 
TIC: 255616. (DIRS 167641) pp. 299 to 301 Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B 
List of engineered systems 
potentially affected by space 
weather 
Entire Section 6.2.4.10 General reference to plant 
survey information 
Executive 
Summary, Figure 9, 
Section 3.3 
Section 6.2.4.10 Discussions of relationships of 
transpiration, percent shrub 
cover, and temperature to 
percent shrub cover 
Figure 8; p. 41 Section 6.2.4.10 Soil temperature increases of 
the magnitude predicted are 
probably within the adaptive 
range of some plant species 
now at Yucca Mountain 
CRWMS M&O 1999. Final Report: Plant and 
Soil Related Processes Along a Natural 
Thermal Gradient at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
B00000000-01717-5705-00109 REV 00. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19990513.0037. (DIRS 105031) 
p. 46 Section 6.2.4.10 Effects of repository heating 
on biosphere; concerns with 
transition from perennial to 
annual plant species 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Site Recommendation 
Design Baseline. Technical Change Request 
T2000-0133. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS 
M&O. ACC: MOL.20000503.0159. 
(DIRS 150088) 
Entire Appendix D Historical repository design 
information 
Entire Appendix C General reference to 
TSPA-SR work 
Figure 4.4-11 Appendix C Plot of dose histories for 
human intrusion 
Section 3.4 Sections 6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7; 
Appendix C 
Longevity of waste packages 
and drip shields for TSPA-SR 
Section 4.4 Appendix C Discussion of stylized human 
intrusion analysis study 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Total System 
Performance Assessment for the Site 
Recommendation. TDR-WIS-PA-000001 
REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001220.0045. 
(DIRS 153246) (see footnote at end of table) 
Tables 4.4-1; 
4.4-11; 4.4-12 
Appendix C Human intrusion analysis 
assumptions for TSPA-SR 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-13 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Day, W.C.; Dickerson, R.P.; Potter, C.J.; 
Sweetkind, D.S.; San Juan, C.A.; Drake, R.M., 
II; and Fridrich, C.J. 1998. Bedrock Geologic 
Map of the Yucca Mountain Area, Nye County, 
Nevada. Geologic Investigations Series 
I-2627. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. ACC: MOL.19981014.0301. 
(DIRS 100027) 
Entire Sections 6.2.4.3, 
6.2.4.9 
Geologic map of Yucca 
Mountain region showing 
formations and structural 
features 
Entire Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, B-8 
General reference 
p. 247 and p. 270 Appendix B Resulting crater radius 
Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and Robertson, 
P.B. 1977. Terrestrial Impact Structures: 
Principal Characteristics and Energy 
Considerations. Impact and Explosion 
Cratering, Planetary and Terrestrial 
Implications, Proceedings of the Symposium 
on Planetary Cratering Mechanics, Flagstaff, 
Arizona, September 13-17, 1976. Roddy, D.J.; 
Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. Pages 
247-275. New York, New York: Pergamon 
Press. TIC: 247237. (DIRS 135253) 
p. 270 Appendix B; 
Figure B-4a, 
Table B-19 
Examples of crater diameters 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. 
Introduction and Site Characteristics. 
Volume 1 of Viability Assessment of a 
Repository at Yucca Mountain. 
DOE/RW-0508. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: MOL.19981007.0028. (DIRS 100548) 
Section 6.1 Section 6.2.4.2 Discussion of natural 
diagenetic processes at Yucca 
Mountain 
Entire Section 6.2.1.1, 
6.2.1.2, 6.2.3.2; 
Appendix C 
General reference for 
treatment of potential for 
hazards to the environment 
Section 5.7.1 Sections 6.2.3.2, 
6.2.3.6, 6.2.3.7; 
Appendix C 
Human intrusion scenario 
Section 5.9; p. 5-41 Section 6.2.4.10 Effects of repository heat on 
biosphere 
DOE 2002. Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye 
County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: MOL.20020524.0314; 
MOL.20020524.0315; MOL.20020524.0316; 
MOL.20020524.0317; MOL.20020524.0318; 
MOL.20020524.0319; MOL.20020524.0320. 
(DIRS 155970) 
Table 3-20 Section 6.2.4.2 Duripans present in soils at 
Yucca Mountain 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-14 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
p. 281 Table 6-1, 
Appendix C 
Discussion of the use of drill 
collars and stabilizers in the 
drill assembly 
p. 360 Appendix C Description of the use of 
drilling additives to address 
lost circulation 
pp. 278 to 286 Appendix C Discussion of direct rotary 
drilling methods and 
applicable conditions for use 
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. 
2nd Edition. St. Paul, Minnesota: Johnson 
Filtration Systems. TIC: 217555. 
(DIRS 116801) 
pp. 316 to 317; 
Figures 10.10 and 
10.54 
Appendix C Description and figures of 
specialized drilling tools 
Eghbal, M.K. and Southard, R.J. 1993. 
Micromorphological Evidence of Polygenesis 
of Three Aridisols, Western Mohave Desert, 
California. Soil Science Society of America 
Journal, 57, (4), 1041-1050. Madison, 
Wisconsin: Soil Science Society of America. 
TIC: 255602. (DIRS 167625) 
p. 1049 Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Description of aridisol 
pedogenesisis 
Eghbal, M.K. and Southard, R.J. 1993. 
Stratigraphy and Genesis of Durorthids and 
Haplargids on Dissected Alluvial Fans, 
Western Mojave Desert, California. 
Geoderma, 59, (1-4), 151-174. Amsterdam, 
The Netherlands: Elsevier. TIC: 255601. 
(DIRS 167624) 
pp. 170 and 171 Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Field studies addressing 
duripan formation 
Ehlers, E.G. and Blatt, H. 1982. Petrology, 
Igneous, Sedimentary, and Metamorphic. 
New York, New York: W.H. Freeman and 
Company. TIC: 255657. (DIRS 167802) 
Entire Appendix B General reference to textbook 
on metamorphism 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-22 
Water level fluctuations due to 
earth tides at the Nevada Test 
Site 
Fenelon, J.M. 2000. Quality Assurance and 
Analysis of Water Levels in Wells on Pahute 
Mesa and Vicinity, Nevada Test Site, Nye 
County, Nevada. Water-Resources 
Investigations Report 00-4014. Carson City, 
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20030904.0304. (DIRS 160881) 
p. 14 Section 6.2.4.8: 
Table B-22 
Water level fluctuation in wells 
due to earth tides 
Fridrich, C.J. 1999. Tectonic Evolution of the 
Crater Flat Basin, Yucca Mountain Region, 
Nevada. Chapter 7 of Cenozoic Basins of the 
Death Valley Region. Wright, L.A. and Troxel, 
B.W., eds. Special Paper 333. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 248054. (DIRS 118942) 
p. 189 Section 6.2.4.1 Discussion of the locus of 
subsidence in the Yucca 
Mountain region 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-15 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Glasstone, S. and Dolan, P.J., eds. 1977. 
Descriptions of Nuclear Explosions. Chapter 
II of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. 3rd 
Edition. Pages 26-79. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Defense and U.S. Department 
of Energy. ACC: MOL.20030925.0035. 
(DIRS 160992) 
Section 2.104 Appendix B, 
Table B-3 
Extent of effects of 
underground blast from the 
Rainer 1.7 kiloton blast 
Grattan-Bellew, P.E. and Vijay, M.M. 1986. 
Influence of Physical Properties of Rock on 
Rate of Penetration of a Water-Jet Drill. 
Canadian Mineralogist, 24, 323-328. Ottawa, 
Canada: Mineralogical Association of Canada. 
TIC: 255711. (DIRS 167786) 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-2 
Commonly measured rock 
properties and relationship to 
water-jet drilling 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-16a; 
Figure B-2; 
Appendix D: 
Figures D-1, D-3 
Review and update of 
terrestrial impact structures 
Grieve, R.; Rupert, J.; and Therriault, A. 1995. 
The Record of Terrestrial Impact Cratering. 
GSA Today, 5, (10), 194-196. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 246688. (DIRS 135260) 
p. 196 Appendix B Constant for distribution 
equation 
Grieve, R.A.F. 1998. Extraterrestrial Impacts 
on Earth: The Evidence and the 
Consequences. Meteorites: Flux with Time 
and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; Hutchinson, 
R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, D.A., eds. 
Geological Society Special Publication 
No. 140. Pages 105-131. London, England: 
Geological Society. TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 163385) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-8; 
Appendix D 
General reference for an 
updated meteor cratering 
study 
Entire Section 6.2.4.5: 
Appendix B: 
Tables B-8, 
B-16a; Figure 
B-2; Appendix D; 
Figures D-1, D-3 
General reference for impact 
cratering on earth 
Grieve, R.F. 1987. Terrestrial Impact 
Structures. Annual Review of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences, 15, 245-269. Palo Alto, 
California: Annual Reviews. TIC: 246788. 
(DIRS 135254) 
p. 250 Table 5-1 Meteor velocities 
Gronlund, L. and Wright, D. 2002. Earth 
Penetrating Weapons Global Security 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Union of 
Concerned Scientists. Accessed December 
10, 2002. TIC: 253714. 
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear 
_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=777 
(DIRS 160989) 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-3 
Information on penetration 
depth, current U.S. 
earth-penetrating weapons 
capabilities of Guided Bomb 
Unit series weapons. 
Hagan, M.E. 1995. Thermospheric 
Connections. Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 729-735. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 253731. (DIRS 160890) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-20 
Hypothetical complex coupling 
of the thermosphere, 
ionosphere, and 
magnetosphere 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-16 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Hartmann, W.K. 1966. Terrestrial and Lunar 
Flux of Large Meteorites Through Solar 
System History. Publication No. 3. Tempe, 
Arizona: Arizona State University, Center for 
Meteorite Studies. TIC: 254144. 
(DIRS 162567) 
Entire Table B-8 General reference 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-19; 
Appendix D; 
Figure D-3 
General reference to work on 
meteor fragmentation and 
cratering 
Figure 1 Appendix B; 
Table B-15 
Assumed densities for 
meteorites 
Figures 3, 6, 9, 10, 
and 11 
Assumption 5.4 Supporting figures that 
corroborate with work of 
others 
Figures 4; 6; 10; 11; 
12 
Table B-19 Atmospheric effects on 
meteors 
Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1993. 
Fragmentation of Small Asteroids in the 
Atmosphere. The Astronomical Journal, 105, 
(3), 1114-1144. Woodbury, New York: 
American Institute of Physics. TIC: 246798. 
(DIRS 135281) 
p. 1116 Table 6-1; 
Assumption 5.4 
Initial velocity of meteors 
Entire Assumption 5.4; 
Table B-8 
General reference for impact 
cratering studies 
p. 224 Appendix B Meteoroid composition 
p. 225; Figure 7 Table B-14 Iron meteors as percent of 
total 
Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1998. Damage 
from the Impact of Small Asteroids. Planetary 
and Space Science, 46, (2-3), 219-229. 
Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier. 
TIC: 246675. 
(DIRS 135291) 
p. 228 Appendix D Dissipation of energy into 
atmosphere and relationship 
to velocity and entry angle 
Hoffman, K.A. 1995. How are Geomagnetic 
Reversals Related to Field Intensity? Eos, 
Volume 76, July 18, 1995, p. 289. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. Accessed April 23, 2003. 
TIC: 253732. 
http://www.agu.org/sci-soc/hoffman.html 
(DIRS 160891) 
Entire Section 6.2.4.7; 
Appendix B, 
Table B-21 
Alternative interpretations of 
available data suggesting that 
the magnetic reversal may not 
reach completion 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-2 
Relationship of material 
strength properties to 
percussive drill performance 
Howarth, D.F.; Adamson, W.R.; and Berndt, 
J.R. 1986. Correlation of Model Tunnel 
Boring and Drilling Machine Performances with 
Rock Properties. International Journal of 
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & 
Geomechanics Abstracts, 23, (2), 171-175. 
New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255620. (DIRS 167645) 
Figure 2 Appendix B Correlation of saturated 
compressive strength to rate 
of penetration 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-17 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Entire Appendix B; 
Tables B-8, 
B-10, B-13, 
B-16b, B-19; 
Figure B-1 
General reference 
Figure 3 Appendix B; 
Table B-3 
Crater diameter - to - energy 
release relationships from 
work of others 
p. 31 Figure B-4c Crater diameter related to size 
of meteor event 
p. 31 and p. 37 Table B-19 Relation of meteor diameters 
to resulting crater diameters 
p. 34 Appendix D Crater diameter distribution 
curve 
p. 35 and p. 37 Table 6-1, Table 
5-1; Assumption 
5.4 
Meteor velocities 
p. 37 Appendix B; 
Table B-19 
Point cratering frequency from 
work of others 
p. 4, Equation 2 Appendix B Cratering distribution and 
mass flux equations 
pp. 34 and 40 Table B-15 Meteor densities 
Hughes, D.W. 1998. The Mass Distribution of 
Crater-Producing Bodies. Meteorites: Flux 
with Time and Impact Effects. Geological 
Society Special Publication No. 140. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and 
Rothery, D.A.; eds. Pages 31-42. Bath, 
England: Geological Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. (DIRS 162562) 
Table 2 Appendix B; 
Table B-12 
Source of distribution 
information from other authors 
Humphrey, J.D.; Ransom, K.L.; and Matthews, 
R.K. 1986. Early Meteoric Diagenetic Control 
of Upper Smackover Production, Oaks Field, 
Louisiana. The American Association of 
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 70, (1), 70-85. 
Tulsa, Oklahoma: American Association of 
Petroleum Geologists. TIC: 246098. 
(DIRS 118461) 
pp. 77 and 78 Section 6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Rates of diagenetic processes 
in the vadose zone 
Entire Tables B-5, B-6 General reference for 
metamorphic petrology text 
Hyndman, D.W. 1972. Petrology of Igneous 
and Metamorphic Rocks. International Series 
in the Earth and Planetary Sciences. 
New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 248141. (DIRS 150295) 
pp. 270 to 272 Tables B-5, B-6; 
Appendix B 
Conditions necessary for 
metamorphism and 
temperature and lithostatic 
gradients 
IADC (International Association of Drilling 
Contractors) 1992. Drilling Manual. 11th 
Edition. Houston, Texas: International 
Association of Drilling Contractors. 
TIC: 232344. (DIRS 155232) 
Entire Appendix C Classification chart for 
selection of roller bits 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-18 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Kahraman, S. 2002. Correlation of TBM and 
Drilling Machine Performances with Rock 
Brittleness. Engineering Geology, 65, (4), 
269-283. New York, New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255618. (DIRS 167643) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-2 
Correlation of rock brittleness 
properties to drill performance 
Entire Appendix B; 
Tables B-1, B-2 
General reference to a 
materials properties study 
Kahraman, S.; Balci, C.; Yazici, S.; and Bilgin, 
N. 2000. Prediction of the Penetration Rate of 
Rotary Blast Hole Drills Using a New Drillability 
Index. International Journal of Rock 
Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37, (5), 
729-743. New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255709. (DIRS 167761) 
Eq. 12; Eq 14; and 
Table 2 
Appendix B Equations indicating 
relationship of compressive 
and tensile strength of rock 
properties 
Entire Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-20 
General reference to paper 
addressing dose from 
extraterrestrial events 
pp. 491 and 492 Appendix B Magnitude and frequency of 
extraterrestrial events 
Karam, P.A. 2002. Gamma and Neutrino 
Radiation Dose from Gamma Ray Bursts and 
Nearby Supernovae. Health Physics, 82, (4), 
491-499. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. TIC: 255918. 
(DIRS 167872) 
Table 1 Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B 
Dose calculation for 
extraterrestrial events 
Kies, A.; Majerus, J.; and de Lantremange, 
N.D. 1999. Underground Radon Gas 
Concentrations Related to Earth Tides. Il 
Nuovo Cimento della Societ Italiana di Fisica, 
22C, (3-4), 287-293. Bologna, Italy: Editrice 
Compositori. TIC: 253721. (DIRS 160882) 
Entire Section 6.2.4.8; 
Appendix B 
Relationship of gas flux to 
earth tides and of small 
magnitude 
Entire Section 6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B, 
Table B-7 
General reference for early 
diagenetic rates and 
processes in eolian deposits 
Krystinik, L.F. 1990. Early Diagenesis in 
Continental Eolian Deposits. Chapter 8 of 
Modern and Ancient Eolian 
Deposits: Petroleum Exploration and 
Production. Fryberger, S.G.; Krystinik, L.F.; 
and Schenk, C.J., eds. Denver, 
Colorado: Society of Economic 
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky 
Mountain Section. TIC: 247781. 
(DIRS 135295) 
p. 8-8, Table 2 Section 6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B 
Cementation processes and 
associated minerals 
Lachenbruch, A.H. and Sass, J.H. 1978. 
Models of an Extending Lithosphere and Heat 
Flow in the Basin and Range Province. 
Chapter 9 of Cenozoic Tectonics and Regional 
Geophysics of the Western Cordillera. Smith, 
R.B. and Eaton, G.P., eds. Memoir 152. 
Pages 209-250. Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of America. TIC: 225059. 
(DIRS 142990) 
pp. 212 and 246 Section 6.2.4.4 Yucca Mountain south of 
areas with high heat flux 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-19 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Lattman, L.H. 1972. Relation of Caliche 
(Calcrete) Horizons to Alluvial Fan Processes 
in Southern Nevada. Abstracts with 
Programs - Geological Society of America, 4, 
(7), 574. Boulder, Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. TIC: 255828. 
(DIRS 167813) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Caliche formation and 
destruction is climate related 
Entire Section 6.2.4.2; 
Table B-7 
General reference rates and 
processes of calcium 
carbonate cementation in 
Southern Nevada 
Lattman, L.H. 1973. Calcium Carbonate 
Cementation of Alluvial Fans in Southern 
Nevada. Geological Society of America 
Bulletin, 84, (9), 3013-3028. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 235904. (DIRS 129305) pp. 3014 and 3022 Section 6.2.4.2 Specific references for rates 
and process of calcium 
carbonate cementation in 
southern Nevada 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
General reference to chapter 
on caliche 
Lattman, L.H. 1983. Effect of Caliche on 
Desert Processes. Chapter 4 of Origin and 
Evolution of Deserts. Wells, S.G. and 
Haragan, D.R., eds. 1st Edition. Albuquerque, 
New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. 
TIC: 255700. (DIRS 167815) 
pp. 107 and 108 Appendix B, 
Table B-7 
Net effect of cementation on 
infiltration and soil stability 
Entire Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-20 
General reference to solar 
linkage study and review 
Lean, J. 1997. The Suns Variable Radiation 
and its Relevance for Earth. Annual Review 
of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 33-67. 
Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 255614. (DIRS 167639) 
pp. 57 to 61 Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B 
List of systems affected by 
space weather 
Lennox, D. and Rees, A., eds. 1990. Janes 
Air-Launched Weapons. Alexandria, Virginia: 
Janes Information Group. TIC: 255862. 
(DIRS 167804) 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-3 
Specifications (mass, length, 
diameter, mass of warhead) 
for various air-launched 
weapons 
Machette, M.N. 1982. Morphology, Age, and 
Rate of Accumulation of Pedogenic CaCO3 in 
Some Calcareous Soils and Pedogenic 
Calcretes of Southwestern United States. 
Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society 
of America, 14, (4), 182-183. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 209942. (DIRS 167814) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
CaCO3 accumulation rates in 
the southwestern United 
States 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-20 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Entire Table B-8 General reference to asteroid 
probability impact study 
p. 235, Figure 4 Appendix D Calculated impacted 
probabilities for observed 
objects 
pp. 233 to 236 Assumption 5.4 Velocity of meteoroids 
Marsden, B.G. and Steel, D.I. 1994. Warning 
Times and Impact Probabilities for 
Long-Period Comets. Hazards Due to 
Comets and Asteroids. Gehrels, T., ed. 
221-237. Tucson, Arizona: University of 
Arizona Press. TIC: 246879. (DIRS 129308) 
Table V Table 5-1 Meteor velocity 
Maynard, N.C. 1995. Space Weather 
Prediction. Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 547-557. 
Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 253729. (DIRS 160888) 
Entire Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-20 
Description of various effects 
on earth from various 
space-related phenomena 
Melosh, H.J. 1989. Impact Cratering: A 
Geologic Process. New York, New York: 
Oxford University Press. TIC: 247750. 
(DIRS 146025) 
p. 35 Appendix B Hugoniot elastic limit for 
granodiorite 
Merriam-Webster. 1993. Merriam-Websters 
Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition. Springfield, 
Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. 
TIC: 8883. (DIRS 100468) 
p. 899, Poisson 
Distribution 
Assumption 5.1 Definition of a Poisson 
Distribution. 
Nelson, R.W. 2001. Low-Yield 
Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons. FAS 
Public Interest Report, 54, (1), 1-5. 
Washington, D.C.: Federation of American 
Scientists. TIC: 253719. (DIRS 160996) 
Entire Sections 6.2.3.9; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-3 
Information on long rod 
penetration 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-8; 
Figures B-1, B-2; 
Appendix D; 
Figures D-1, D-3 
General reference for 
planetary cratering studies 
p. 404; Figure 24 Appendix B Discussion of lower bound of 
Grieves distribution 
Neukum, G. and Ivanov, B.A. 1994. Crater 
Size Distributions and Impact Probabilities on 
Earth from Lunar, Terrestrial-Planet, and 
Asteroid Cratering Data. Hazards Due to 
Comets and Asteroids. Gehrels, T., ed. 
359-416. Tucson, Arizona: The University of 
Arizona Press. TIC: 246879. (DIRS 121510) 
Table IV Appendix B; 
Figure B-3; 
Tables B-9, 
B-10, B-16b, 
B-17; 
Appendix D 
Impact rates based on lunar 
data and adjusted for gravity 
differences 
Entire Table B-20 General reference Novotna, D. and Vitek, V. 1991. The 
Atmospheric Mean Energetic Level and 
External Forcing. Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 35, (1), 33-38. Prague, 
Czechoslovakia: Geophysical Institute of the 
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255610. (DIRS 167634) 
p. 35 Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B 
Discussion of potential climate 
forcing mechanisms 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-21 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Entire Sections 4.2; 
6.2.1.3 
NRC Review plan and 
associated Acceptance 
Criteria 
Glossary Section 6 Definitions of FEPs 
Section 2.2.1 Section 4.2.3 NRC perspective on use of 
conservative approach for 
modeling 
Section 2.2.1.2.1.3; 
Acceptance 
Criterion 1 
Tables 4-3, 4-4; 
Section 6.1.1 
Applicable acceptance criteria 
and relevant to performance 
assessment and/or FEPs 
considerations 
Section 2.2.1.2.1.3; 
Acceptance 
Criterion 2 
Tables 4-3, 4-4; 
Sections 4.2.3, 
6.1.2, 6.1.2.3 
Criterion allowing exclusion 
by regulation 
Section 2.2.1.2.2.3; 
Acceptance Criteria 
1, 2, 5 
Tables 4-3, 4-4 Applicable acceptance criteria 
and relevant to performance 
assessment and/or FEPs 
considerations 
Section 2.2.1.2.2.3; 
Acceptance Criteria 
3, 4 
Table 4-4 Criteria relevant to 
probabilistic model, but not 
relevant to FEPs evaluations 
per se 
Section 2.2.1.4.2.3; 
Acceptance Criteria 
1, 2 
Tables 4-3, 4-4 Criteria relevant to the human 
intrusion stylized analysis 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 
2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final 
Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
(DIRS 163274) 
Sections 2.2.1.2; 
2.2.1.4 
Section 4.2, 
4.2.2 
General reference to sections 
of the review plan with 
applicable criteria 
Palmer, S.N. and Barton, M.E. 1987. Porosity 
Reduction, Microfabric and Resultant 
Lithification in UK Uncemented Sands. 
Geological Society Special Publication, 36, 
29-40. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell 
Scientific Publications. TIC: 246095. 
(DIRS 118483) 
pp. 32 and 39; 
Figure 3 
Section 6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Discussion of porosity 
reduction of sands due to 
compaction during burial 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-22 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Entire Sections 6.2.4.7; 
Appendix B; 
Tables B-20, 
B-21 
General reference Pechala, F. 1985. The Effect of 
Extraterrestrial Interactions on Change of 
Tropospheric Circulation in the Polar Regions 
of the Earth. Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 29, (4), 405-412. Prague, 
Czechoslovakia: Geophycial Institute of the 
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255609. (DIRS 167633) p. 406 Section 6.2.4.7 Extraterrestrial event may 
trigger energy redistributions 
in the troposphere 
Entire Appendix B, 
Tables B-5, B-6 
General reference to geology 
text book 
Press, F. and Siever, R. 1978. Earth. 2nd 
Edition. San Francisco, California: W.H. 
Freeman and Company. TIC: 255856. 
(DIRS 167965) 
p. 296 Section 6.2.4.1; 
Appendix B, 
Tables B-5, B-6 
Geothermal and pressure 
gradients, and conditions 
needed for onset of 
metamorphism (about 300 
degrees C) 
p. 118 Appendix C Description of conditions that 
would cause a driller to adjust 
drilling parameters or stop 
drilling 
Putot, C.J.M.; Guesnon, J.; Perreau, P.J.; and 
Constantinescu, A. 2000. Quantifying Drilling 
Efficiency and Disruption: Field Data vs. 
Theoretical Model. SPE Drilling & 
Completion, 15, (2), 118-125. Richardson, 
Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 
TIC: 255897. (DIRS 167791) 
p. 123 Appendix C Description of relations 
between rate of penetration 
and degradation of drilling 
conditions in shale 
Entire Section 6.2.4.2; 
Appendix B 
General reference Reeves, C.C. 1976. Caliche: Origin, 
Classification, Morphology and Uses. 
Lubbock, Texas: Estacado Books. 
TIC: 245928. (DIRS 104303) 
pp. 7, 28, 29, 84 to 
87, and 110; 
Figure 4-10 
Section 6.2.4.2 Specific references for 
physical, chemical, and 
climatological factors affecting 
caliche formation 
Reid, G.C. 1995. The Sun-Climate Question: 
Is There a Real Connection? Review of 
Geophysics (Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 
535-538. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 253730. 
(DIRS 160889) 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-20 
Discussion of relationship of 
solar cycles to long-term and 
short-term weather and 
climate patterns 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-23 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Entire Tables B-5, B-6 General reference to paper 
addressing burial of paleosoils 
Retallack, G.J. 1991. Untangling the Effects 
of Burial Alteration and Ancient Soil 
Formation. Annual Review of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences. 19. 183-206. Palo Alto, 
California: Annual Reviews. TIC: 255912. 
(DIRS 167870) 
p. 200 Appendix B; 
Tables B-5, B-6 
Conditions needed for 
metamorphism 
Entire Appendix B; 
Tables B-8, B-13 
General reference 
FAQs 15 and 16 Appendix B Percent-by-type meteor data 
Richardson, J. and Bedient, J. 2001. 
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About 
Fireballs and Meteorite Dropping Fireballs. 
Geneseo, New York: American Meteor 
Society. Accessed April 22, 2003. 
TIC: 254120. 
http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireball/faqf.html 
(DIRS 162571) 
FAQs 15 and 16 Tables B-14, 
B-15 
Meteor densities 
Rozelot, J.P. 2001. Possible Links Between 
the Solar Radius Variations and the Earths 
Climate Evolution Over the Past Four 
Centuries. Journal of Atmospheric and 
Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 63, (4), 375-386. 
New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255615. (DIRS 167640) 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-20 
General reference to study of 
solar activity - earth climate 
linkages. 
Ruderman, M.A. 1974. Possible 
Consequences of Nearby Supernova 
Explosions for Atmospheric Ozone and 
Terrestrial Life. Science, 184, 1079-1081. 
Washington, D.C.: American Association for 
the Advancement of Science. TIC: 255914. 
(DIRS 167875) 
Entire Section 6.2.4.6; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-20 
Potential for supernova event 
to affect the ozone layer 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-7 
General reference to 
diagenesis paper on shallow 
buried sandstone 
Salem, A.M.K.; Abdel-Wahab, A.; and 
McBride, E.F. 1998. Diagenesis of Shallowly 
Buried Cratonic Sandstones, Southwest Sinai, 
Egypt. Sedimentary Geology, 119, (3-4), 
311-335. New York, New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255708. (DIRS 167869) 
pp. 319 to 331 Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Diagenetic history of a 
shallow-buried sandstone 
Sass, J.H.; Lachenbruch, A.H.; Dudley, W.W., 
Jr.; Priest, S.S.; and Munroe, R.J. 1988. 
Temperature, Thermal Conductivity, and Heat 
Flow Near Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Some 
Tectonic and Hydrologic Implications. 
Open-File Report 87-649. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203195. 
(DIRS 100644) 
pp. 38 and 39 Section 6.2.4.1 Geothermal gradients in deep 
boreholes 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-24 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Satchwell, R.M. 1994. An Experimental Study 
of the Effect of Bedding Plane Anisotrophy on 
the Rate of Penetration. Ph.D. dissertation. 
Laramie, Wyoming: University of Wyoming, 
Department of Chemical and Petroleum 
Engineering. TIC: 255659. (DIRS 167952) 
Eq. 6.4-1 Appendix B; 
Table B-2 
Equation for torque on drill 
string, including rock strength, 
and showing inverse 
relationship 
Savage, J.C.; Svarc, J.L.; and Prescott, W.H. 
1999. Strain Accumulation at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, 1983-1998. Journal of 
Geophysical Research, 104, (B8), 
17627-17631. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 245645. 
(DIRS 118952) 
p. 17627 Section 6.2.4.1 Strain accumulation rate at 
Yucca Mountain 
p. 468 Table 5-1 Meteor velocity 
p. 470 Table B-19; 
Figure B-4a 
Resulting crater diameters 
p. 473 Figure B-4b; 
Table B-19 
Resulting crater diameters 
p. 475 Figure B-4c; 
Table B-19 
Limit for non-fragmenting 
meteors 
p. 479 Figures B-4c; 
Table B-19 
Limits for non-fragmenting 
meteors 
Shoemaker, E.M. 1983. Asteroid and Comet 
Bombardment of the Earth. Annual Review of 
Earth and Planetary Sciences, 11, 461-494. 
Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246922. (DIRS 135308) 
p. 480 Table B-14 Composition and 
percent-by-type for iron 
Siddiqui, N.A. and Abbas, H. 2002. 
Mechanics of Missile Penetration into 
Geo-Materials. Structural Engineering and 
Mechanics, 13, (6), 639-652. Taejon, Korea: 
Techno-Press. TIC: 255608. (DIRS 167631) 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-3 
Rework of Forrestal et al. 
(1981 [DIRS 167630]). 
Suggests penetration depth of 
2.9 m 
Smith, R.P.; Jackson, S.M.; and Hackett, W.R. 
1998. Magma Intrusion and Seismic-Hazards 
Assessment in the Basin and Range 
Province. Proceedings Volume, Basin and 
Range Province (BRP) Seismic-Hazards 
Summit, Reno, Nevada, May 13-15, 1997. 
Miscellaneous Publication 98-2, 155-166. 
Salt Lake City, Utah: Utah Geological Survey. 
TIC: 246749. (DIRS 118967) 
p. 155; Figure 2 Section 6.2.4.4 Mechanisms and effects of 
dike formation in igneous 
intrusion 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-8 
General reference to article 
addressing meteorite impact 
hazard at nuclear facilities 
Solomon, K.A.; Erdmann, R.C.; and Okrent, D. 
1975. Estimate of the Hazards to a Nuclear 
Reactor from the Random Impact of 
Meteorites. Nuclear Technology, 25, 68-71. 
La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear 
Society. TIC: 241714. (DIRS 103697) 
Table I Appendix B, 
Tables B-9, 
B-10; Figure B-1 
Meteoroid flux information 
Stix, G. and Yam, P. 2001. Facing a New 
Menace. Scientific American, 285, (5), 14-15. 
New York, New York: Scientific American. 
TIC: 254304. (DIRS 160994) 
Entire Appendix B General reference including 
energy release from cruise 
missile 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-25 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Stuart, J.S. 2001. A Near-Earth Asteroid 
Population Estimate from the LINEAR Survey. 
Science, 294, (5547), 1691-1693. 
Washington, D.C.: American Association for 
the Advancement of Science. TIC: 254146. 
(DIRS 162568) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-8 
General reference 
Taylor, E.M. 1986. Impact of Time and 
Climate on Quaternary Soils in the Yucca 
Mountain Area of the Nevada Test Site. 
Masters thesis. Boulder, Colorado: University 
of Colorado. TIC: 218287. (DIRS 102864) 
Entire Appendix B General reference to Masters 
thesis done on Yucca 
Mountain soils 
Thrush, P.W., ed. 1968. Dictionary of Mining, 
Mineral, and Related Terms. Chicago, Illinois: 
Maclean Hunter Publishing Company. 
TIC: 207966. (DIRS 106989) 
pp. 30, 320, and 
699 
Section 6.2.4.2 Definitions of diagenesis, 
alteration, and metamorphism 
Warren, T.M. 1984. Factors Affecting Torque 
for a Roller Cone Bit. Journal of Petroleum 
Technology, 36, (10), 1500-1508. Dallas, 
Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers of 
AIME. TIC: 255859. (DIRS 167788) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-2 
Factors affecting torque on 
drill bit including rock 
properties 
Warren, T.M. 1987. Penetration-Rate 
Performance of Roller-Cone Bits. Drilling. 
SPE Reprint Series No. 22. Richardson, 
Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 
TIC: 250084. (DIRS 155234) 
Entire Appendix C Principles of drill bit operation 
for roller cone bit; Penetrate 
rate is inversely proportion to 
the square of the compressive 
strength of the material being 
drilled 
Wernicke, B.; Davis, J.L.; Bennett, R.A.; 
Elosegui, P.; Abolins, M.J.; Brady, R.J.; 
House, M.A.; Niemi, N.A.; and Snow, J.K. 
1998. Anomalous Strain Accumulation in the 
Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada. Science, 279, 
2096-2100. New York, New York: American 
Association for the Advancement of Science. 
TIC: 235956. (DIRS 103485) 
Entire Section 6.2.4.1 General reference for strain 
accumulation rate at Yucca 
Mountain 
Section 6.2 Appendix C TSPA-SR maximum mean 
dose assuming intrusion at 
100 years postclosure. 
Williams, N.H. 2001. Contract No. 
DE-AC08-01RW12101 - Total System 
Performance Assessment - Analyses for 
Disposal of Commercial and DOE Waste 
Inventories at Yucca Mountain - Input to Final 
Environmental Impact Statement and Site 
Suitability Evaluation REV 00 ICN 02. Letter 
from N.H. Williams (BSC) to J.R. Summerson 
(DOE/YMSCO), December 11, 2001, 
RWA:cs-1204010670, with enclosure. 
ACC: MOL.20011213.0056. (DIRS 157307) 
Section 6.4 Appendix C TSPA-SR sensitivity analysis 
for human intrusion 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-26 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Indirect Inputs Used in the Analysis of System-Level FEP Screening (Continued) 
Source Input Used In Input Description 
Wu, C. 2000. Powerful Explosive Blasts Onto 
Scene Science News Online. 
Washington, D.C.: Science Service. 
Accessed March 25, 2004. TIC: 255698. 
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000122 
/fob6.asp. 
(DIRS 167812) 
Entire Appendix B; 
Table B-3 
New explosive 
(octanitrocubane) may have 
twice the yield of 
trinitrotoluene (TNT) 
Entire Section 6.2.4.5; 
Appendix B; 
Table B-8; 
Figure B-2; 
Appendix D; 
Figures D-1, D-3 
General reference 
Equation 3 Table B-16a Cratering distribution equation 
Wuschke, D.M.; Whitaker, H.H.; Goodwin, 
B.W.; and Rasmussen, L.R. 1995. 
Assessment of the Long-Term Risk of a 
Meteorite Impact on Hypothetical Canadian 
Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Vault Deep in 
Plutonic Rock. AECL-11014. Pinawa, 
Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada 
Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories. 
TIC: 221413. (DIRS 129326) 
p. 26, Table 1 Appendix D Information for calculating 
impact probabilities 
Entire Appendix B, 
Table B-7 
Rate of diagenesis in coastal 
eolian deposits 
p. 1189 Appendix B; 
Table B-7 
Percent CaCO3 needed to 
initiate lithification 
Yaalon, D.H. 1967. Factors Affecting the 
Lithification of Eolianite and Interpretation of Its 
Environmental Significance in the Coastal 
Plain of Israel. Journal of Sedimentary 
Petrology, 37, (4), 1189-1199. Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: Society of Economic 
Paleontologists and Mineralogists. 
TIC: 255600. (DIRS 167622) p. 1194 Table B-7 Rate of lithification 
Zolensky, M. 1998. The Flux of Meteorites to 
Antarctica. Meteorites: Flux with Time and 
Impact Effects. Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Grady, M.M.; Hutchison, 
R.; McCall, G.J.H., and Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Pages 93-104. Bath, England: Geological 
Society of London. TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 162566) 
Entire Table B-8 General reference 
NOTE: DIRS 153246 was cancelled due to development of the TSPA-LA. The referenced document is the source of 
information generated for Site Recommendation and is therefore an appropriate historical reference. 
6.1.4 Qualification of Direct Inputs 
Because the system-level FEPs are overarching in nature and address processes and events that 
are not specific to the YMP, direct inputs were obtained from literature searches of 
peer-reviewed journals, other widely recognized scientific periodicals, compendiums of technical 
articles, and other sources such as technical handbooks and textbooks. Direct inputs from 
non-YMP sources are listed in Table 4-1. Evaluation and justification for the use of such direct 
inputs, per AP-SIII.9Q, is discussed in Appendix B, along with a description of the result of 
literature searches and discussions that substantiate and corroborate the input used in the various 
FEP discussions. Appendix B is divided based on subject matter and is used to provide the 
procedurally required information. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-27 October 2004 
6.1.5 Assumptions and Simplifications 
For included FEPs, TSPA dispositions may include statements regarding assumptions made to 
implement the FEP within the TSPA-LA model. Such statements describe the manner in which 
the FEP has been included; they are not used as the basis of the screening decision to include the 
FEP with the TSPA-LA model. 
Because individual FEPs are specific in nature, any discussion of applicable mathematical 
formulations, equations, algorithms, numerical methods, or idealizations or simplifications are 
provided within the discussions in Section 6.2 and subsections. 
6.1.6 Intended Use and Limitations 
The intended use of this analysis report is to provide system-level FEP screening information for 
a project-specific FEP database and to promote traceability and transparency regarding FEP 
screening. This analysis report is intended to be used as the source documentation for the FEP 
database (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706]). For included FEPs, this document summarizes and 
consolidates the method of implementing the FEP in TSPA-LA in the form of TSPA disposition 
statements. For excluded FEPs, this document provides the technical basis for the exclusion in 
the form of screening arguments. 
Inherent in this evaluation approach is the limitation that the repository will be constructed, 
operated, and closed according to the design used as the basis for the FEP screening and in 
accordance with NRC license requirements. This is inherent in the performance evaluation of 
any engineering project, and design verification and performance confirmation are required as 
part of the construction and operation processes. The results of the FEP screening presented here 
are specific to the repository design evaluated in this analysis report for TSPA-LA, particularly 
for FEPs related to explosions and meteorite impacts. 
Changes in the direct inputs (Section 4.1), in baseline conditions used for this evaluation, or in 
other subsurface conditions will need to be evaluated to determine if the changes are within the 
limits stated in the FEP evaluations. Engineering and design changes are subject to evaluation to 
determine if there are any adverse affects on safety as codified at 10 CFR 63.73 and in 
Subparts F and G (DIRS 156605). See also the requirements at 10 CFR 63.44 and 
10 CFR 63.131 (DIRS 156605). 
6.2 SYSTEM-LEVEL FEPS SCREENING AND ANALYSES 
The 33 system-level FEPs for TSPA-LA are addressed in this section. The FEPs are organized 
into four groups: assessment basis and modeling requirement FEPs (Section 6.2.1), process and 
site control FEPs (Section 6.2.2), human intrusion FEPs (Section 6.2.3), and miscellaneous 
geologic and astronomic FEPs (Section 6.2.4). Within each group, the FEPs are addressed in 
numeric order based on FEP number. 
There are four appendices to this analysis report. Appendix A is a glossary. Appendix B 
documents data qualification for the direct inputs being qualified and intended for use within this 
document. Appendix C is an analysis of the timing of human intrusion without recognition by 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-28 October 2004 
the intruder. Appendix D is an expanded discussion of meteorite-related FEPs, including the 
mathematical formulation for determining the probability of impacts and cratering effects. 
6.2.1 Assessment Basis and Modeling Requirement FEPs 
This set of FEPs is related to the regulatory framework, modeling, and design basis used for the 
performance assessment. All direct inputs used in this section originated from YMP-controlled 
sources or NRC regulations and are listed in Section 4. No further discussion beyond that 
provided in Section 4 is required. 
These assessment basis and modeling requirement FEPs are overarching and capture issues 
(a) common to multiple spatial regions or to the system in general, and/or (b) related to the 
assessment strategy or design in general rather than to a specific nominal and/or disruptive 
event/process. Therefore, the inclusion of these FEPs in TSPA-LA, as described in the 
respective TSPA Dispositions, is typically incorporated as part of general model 
conceptualization (e.g., temporal or spatial discretization method, parameter selection method) 
rather than as a specific parameter value or distribution, as is more typical of other, 
nonsystem-level FEPs. 
In particular, FEPs 0.1.09.00.0A (Regulatory requirements and exclusions) and 0.1.10.00.0A 
(Model and data issues) are not dispositioned in the TSPA as are other FEPs. Their inclusion in 
the analysis cannot be captured by a parameter, submodel, or calculation. Rather, they specify 
an approach that is to be used to define the overall methodology in development of the TSPA 
model. As such, their disposition in the TSPA is actually defined in the Total System 
Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296]), especially in Section 9. That document provides the top-level method and 
approach for conducting the TSPA-LA model development and analyses. It describes the 
upper-level approach and processes for developing and testing of the TSPA-LA model and its 
documentation. It also describes the systematic approach to collecting and utilizing information 
from the supporting organizations. 
6.2.1.1 Timescales of Concern (0.1.02.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the timescales of concern over which 
the disposal system may present a significant health or 
environmental hazard. 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Timescales of concern is included in the TSPALA by 
analyzing performance for a 10,000-year period, as 
required by the NRC. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-29 October 2004 
The timescale of concern has been set by the NRC at (10 CFR 63.303 [DIRS 156605]). That 
regulation states that compliance is to be based on the mean of the distribution of projected 
doses of DOEs performance assessments, which project the performance of the Yucca Mountain 
disposal system for 10,000 years after disposal. 
A 10,000-year timescale is consistent with the criteria established for low probability at 
(10 CFR 63.114(d) [DIRS 156605]). It is also consistent with 10 CFR 63.305(c) 
(DIRS 156605), which states that the DOE must vary factors relating to the geology, hydrology, 
and climate that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system in the next 10,000 years. 
A 10,000-year period is also specified as a basis of consideration at for treatment of the human 
intrusion stylized analysis (10 CFR 63.321 [DIRS 156605]). 
The NRC also requires that in the environmental impact statement, DOE provide peak dose 
information after 10,000 years following disposal (10 CFR 63.341 [DIRS 156605]). The 
regulation specifically states that no regulatory standard applies to the results of this analysis. 
As stated in the Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], Section 1.3), [t]he regulatory time period of analysis for 
the compliance evaluation is 10,000 years. However, the TSPA analyses are intended to extend 
beyond 10,000 to 20,000 years. This is intended to provide a basis for evaluating whether 
uncertainties in results after 10,000 years affect compliance during the regulatory performance 
period. Likewise, the FEPs for these analyses will not go beyond 10,000 years. Furthermore, 
[c]urrent plans are to analyze simulations up to 20,000 years, and to utilize 300 realizations per 
analysis. These plans may be modified for various reasons as the analyses progress (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296], Section 9.1). The TSPA for the FEIS evaluated doses over time periods up to 
one million years (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970]). 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.1.2 Spatial Domain of Concern (0.1.03.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the spatial domain of concern over 
which the disposal system may present a significant health 
or environmental hazard. 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Spatial domain of concern is included in the TSPALA 
by specifying the spatial boundary conditions for the 
various models used in the performance assessment and 
those used in the environmental impact statement. 
The spatial domain of concern is a function of the analysis being performed. The model-specific 
spatial domain considered in the TSPALA model differs according to the phenomenon being 
considered. For instance, the spatial domain of concern for a regional groundwater flow model 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-30 October 2004 
and the geologic setting is bounded on a regional scale, while the analysis of waste package 
damage occurs at the scale of a single waste package, with specific corrosion phenomena being 
considered at the fracture and pitting level. Individual model domains are described in the 
documentation of each component of the TSPA model and in individual AMRs. 
The spatial domain encompassed and evaluated explicitly in the TSPA model extends from the 
land surface through the UZ, through the repository, into the SZ, and laterally away from the 
repository to the location of the RMEI. This encompasses the eight primary model components 
and submodels described and illustrated in the Total System Performance Assessment-License 
Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], Section 5.1). 
Significant health or environmental hazards may not be present throughout the entire area, but 
the entire area is considered to be within the domain of spatial concern of the performance 
assessment. The potential for environmental impact has been addressed in the FEIS (DOE 2002 
[DIRS 155970]) and is not further addressed in the TSPA-LA. From a regulatory standpoint, the 
spatial domain of concern wherein there is a potential for a significant health or environmental 
hazard is primarily defined by the location of the RMEI. 
In practical application, this spatial domain could extend approximately 18 km in the direction of 
groundwater flow (generally to the south) and extends no more than 5 km from the repository 
footprint in any other direction (i.e., the spatial domain defines the extent of the controlled area 
to the location of the RMEI). As described in Section 4.1, and as specified at 10 CFR 63.312(a) 
(DIRS 156605), the RMEI is located at 18 km, and: 
Lives in the accessible environment above the highest concentration of 
radionuclides in the plume of contamination 
The accessible environment is defined at 10 CFR 63.302 (DIRS 156605) by the definition of the 
controlled area: 
Accessible environment means any location outside the controlled area. 
The controlled area is defined as (10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]): 
(1) The surface area, identified by passive institutional controls, that encompasses no 
more than 300 km2. It must not extend farther: 
South than 36 40' 13.6661. north latitude, in the predominant direction of 
groundwater flow; and 
Than 5 km from the repository footprint in any other direction; and 
(2) The subsurface underlying the surface area. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-31 October 2004 
The supplementary information in the regulations for 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074 
[DIRS 155216], p. 32117) states that: 
If fully employed by DOE, and based on current repository design, the controlled 
area could extend approximately 18 km in the direction of ground water flow 
(presently believed to be in a southerly direction) and extend no more than 5 km 
from the repository footprint in any other direction. 
The EPA indicates that the location of the RMEI would be 18 km south of the repository 
footprint (66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216], p. 32094). Accordingly, the Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], Section 9.1) 
states that, [t]he probabilistic simulations of the total system will be evaluated to determine the 
key factors contributing to the dose at 18 km. The basis for assuming the RMEI is located at 
18 km is described in the preceding text. 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.1.3 Regulatory Requirements and Exclusions (0.1.09.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses regulatory requirements and guidance 
specific to the Yucca Mountain repository. 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Regulatory requirements and exclusions is intrinsically 
Included in the TSPALA due to the governing nature of 
the federal regulations and the mandated licensing process. 
Federal regulations applicable to the long-term performance of the disposal system are 
described at 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) and incorporate the requirements of 
40 CFR Part 197 (DIRS 165519). Regulatory requirements and exclusions provide the 
framework within which the TSPA is conducted. They define the performance criteria and 
provide assumptions that must be used in the evaluation (e.g., timescale of concern, 
characteristics of the reference biosphere, specification of a human-intrusion stylized analysis, 
limits on release to the accessible environment). They provide guidance on the FEPs that must 
be considered (i.e., exclusion of low-probability and low-consequence events and processes) and 
limit the range of conditions that must be considered (e.g., consistent with present knowledge of 
natural processes). 
The various aspects of the repository (including design, construction, operation, and preclosure 
and postclosure performance) must be shown to comply with regulatory requirements. If not, the 
repository will not be licensed, construction may be prohibited, operations may be halted until 
deficiencies are corrected, or further operations or closure activities will be delayed until 
deficiencies are corrected. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-32 October 2004 
The NRC is responsible for determining compliance based upon the mean of the distribution of 
projected doses of DOEs performance assessments which project the performance of the Yucca 
Mountain disposal system for 10,000 years after disposal (10 CFR 63.303 [DIRS 156605]). 
The DOE must demonstrate a reasonable expectation that the postclosure individual-protection 
standard, human-intrusion standard, and ground-water protection standard will not be exceeded. 
Evaluation of compliance to these standards is a primary objective of the TSPA. 
The criteria and assumptions to be used in making the evaluation are provided in the various 
referenced sections at 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) and at 40 CFR Part 197 (DIRS 165519) 
and, as applicable to FEP screening, are listed in Section 4.2. These criteria and assumptions are 
regulatory requirements and have been incorporated into the TSPA model either using specified 
characteristics to guide selection of input parameters (such as the characteristics of the RMEI) or 
by consideration of a range of possible climatic and geologic settings consistent with present 
knowledge of natural processes. This approach is described in the Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]). 
In a more general sense, compliance with regulatory requirements has been identified in the PRD 
(Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275]). The PRD was developed as part of Configuration 
Management as described in the YMP Configuration Management Plan (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168396]). The PRD is used to implement the Requirements Management Plan 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 168577]). The PRD documents and categorizes the regulatory requirements 
and other project requirements, and it lists the various YMP organizations responsible for 
ensuring that the criteria have been addressed in the LA. The regulatory requirements include 
criteria relevant to performance assessment activities, and the regulatory requirements have been 
linked to specific technical activities being performed for the LA. These criteria find expression 
as specific acceptance criteria presented by the NRC in the YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]), 
which will be used by the NRC during the licensing process to evaluate whether regulatory 
requirements have been adequately addressed. 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.1.4 Model and Data Issues (0.1.10.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses issues related to modeling of the 
disposal system. Model and data issues are general (i.e., 
methodological) issues affecting the modeling process and 
data usage. Model issues include the approach and 
assumptions associated with the selection of conceptual 
models, the mathematical implementation of conceptual 
models, model geometry and dimensionality, models of 
coupled processes, and boundary and initial conditions. 
Data issues include the derivation of data values and 
correlations. 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-33 October 2004 
TSPA Disposition: Model and data requirements are addressed specifically at 
10 CFR 63.114 (DIRS 156605) and are included in the 
TSPA-LA as described in the Total System Performance 
Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]). 
The specifications at 10 CFR 63.114 (a, b, c, and g) (DIRS 156605) pertinent to this FEP include 
the following clauses: 
(a) Include data related to the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry (including 
disruptive processes and events) of the Yucca Mountain site, and the surrounding 
region to the extent necessary, and information on the design of the engineered 
barrier system, used to define parameters and conceptual models used in the 
assessment. 
(b) Account for uncertainties and variability in parameter values. Several kinds of 
uncertainties are distinguished and receive somewhat different treatments. In 
general, the TSPALA has grouped these as parameter uncertainty and model 
form uncertainty. The TSPA recognizes and accounts for parameter uncertainty, 
where appropriate, and intends to provide the regulators with a basis for a 
reasonable expectation of compliance. 
(c) Consider alternative conceptual models of features and processes. In many of 
the subsystems of the overall TSPA system, there are plausible alternative models 
or assumptions, which result in model form uncertainty. In some cases, these 
alternative models form a continuum, and sampling from the continuum of 
assumptions fits naturally within the Monte Carlo framework of sampling from 
probability distributions. In other cases, the assumptions or models are based on 
discrete choices. Two possible approaches to incorporating alternative models 
within the TSPA include 1) weighting all models into one comprehensive Monte 
Carlo simulation (lumping), or 2) keeping the discrete models separate and 
performing multiple Monte Carlo simulations for each discrete model (splitting). 
There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. A combination of 
the two approaches is being used. 
(g) Provide the technical basis for models used in the performance assessment such as 
comparisons made with outputs of detailed process-level models and/or empirical 
observations. Each of the models used in developing the TSPA has been 
documented according to project-specific quality assurance procedures for model 
development, validation, and use. Model selection, use, verification, and inputs 
are addressed in the individual modeling reports. 
The Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296]) outlines the use of various model components that consider the 
geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical data (Section 5.1), parameter uncertainty (Section 3.5), 
alternative conceptual models (Section 3.3), and abstractions (Section 3.4). The TSPALA 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-34 October 2004 
model validation approach is outlined in Section 7, and the approach for uncertainty analysis is 
provided in Section 8.1 of that document. 
Additionally, each of the models used in developing the TSPA is documented in a stand-alone 
modeling report per project-specific quality assurance procedures. The modeling reports address 
model selection, model development, verification, validation, inputs, and use. These modeling 
reports were prepared per the guidelines for model documentation and the specific guidance and 
criteria for the consideration of alternative conceptual models (including relationships to FEPs) 
and the treatment of uncertainty. The list of regulatory specifications for the performance 
assessment germane to model and data issues requires the consideration of data on the geology, 
hydrology, and geochemistry (including disruptive processes and events), consideration of 
uncertainty, the consideration of alternative conceptual models, and providing the technical basis 
of any models used. 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.1.5 Repository Design (1.1.07.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the consideration of the design of the 
repository and the ways in which the design contributes to 
long-term performance. The performance assessment must 
account for design features, material characteristics, and the 
ways in which the design influences the evolution of the 
in-drift environment. 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Repository design and potential design modifications are 
Included in the TSPALA because the repository design is 
the basis of the models used for the performance 
assessment. 
Examples of the approach for including design elements are outlined in the Total System 
Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296], Section 5.1). Particularly applicable to this FEP are the model components for 
the EBS, waste package and drip shield degradation, waste form degradation and mobilization, 
and EBS flow and transport. These model components take into account the physical 
dimensions, material characteristics, and evolution of the in-drift environment, all of which stem 
directly from design considerations. The design elements are included as nominal-scenario class 
parameters used to define the physical dimensions, characteristics, and long-term behavior of the 
waste form, waste packages, and EBS. Design modifications are required to be analyzed for 
potential affects. 
The incorporation of repository design information into the framework of the TSPA-LA model 
components has been accomplished using of a series of information exchange drawings (IEDs), 
which are cited as needed in the individual model AMRs. The drawings include information 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-35 October 2004 
regarding material characteristics and properties, component dimensions, and component 
performance under various conditions (e.g., corrosion rates, seismic response, and damage 
areas). The use of design drawings is discussed in the model AMRs as applicable. 
Inherent in the performance assessment modeling of engineered systems is that there are failure 
rates, or times-to-failure, associated with the systems, and that the engineered systems interact 
with the natural systems. Such baseline failure rates are identified in the related 
FEP 2.1.03.08.0A (Early failure of waste packages) and specifically include the consideration of 
manufacturing and welding defects within the waste package degradation analysis. Deficiencies 
beyond those specifically included in the cited FEP are addressed under FEP 1.1.08.00.0A 
(Inadequate quality control and deviations from design). 
Furthermore, 10 CFR Part 63 Subpart F (DIRS 156605) provides a list of specifications for a 
performance confirmation program to provide data related to conditions encountered and 
changes in those conditions, functioning of the natural engineered systems, and monitoring and 
testing. A performance confirmation plan is documented in BSC (2004 [DIRS 170505]). 
Modifications and deviations from the TSPA-LA design are subject to regulatory requirements 
that address deliberate changes and modifications. The manner in which the DOE must address 
changes, and by which the NRC is informed of the changes, is codified at 10 CFR 63.44 
(DIRS 156605). As indicated in 10 CFR 63.142 (d) (DIRS 156605), deviations from quality 
standards must be controlled. 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.1.6 Retrievability (1.1.13.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses design, emplacement, operational, or 
administrative measures that might be applied or 
considered to enable or ease retrieval of waste. There may 
be a requirement to retrieve all or part of the waste stored in 
the repository, for example, to recover valuable fissile 
materials or to replace defective waste packages. 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 
TSPA Disposition: Retrievability is a performance objective of the 
repository as specified at 10 CFR 63.111(e)(1, 2, and 3) 
(DIRS 156605), and features are included in the design to 
allow for retrievability. 
The regulation specifies that the repository be designed in such a way that it preserves the 
option of waste retrieval throughout the period during which wastes are being emplacedso that 
any or all of the emplaced waste could be retrieved on a reasonable schedule starting at any time 
up to 50 years after waste emplacement operations are initiated (10 CFR 63.111(e) 
(1, 2, and 3) [DIRS 156605]). This precludes further FEP consideration for resource recovery 
and retrieval past 50 years after waste emplacement (limitations are discussed in the 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-36 October 2004 
supplemental discussion below). Regardless, the repository design is part of the basis of the 
postclosure evaluation, and aspects of the repository design related to waste retrievability are, 
therefore, implicitly considered as part of the basis for the TSPA modeling and have been 
included, as noted in FEP 1.1.07.00.0A (Repository design). The design elements related to 
retrievability include dimensions of the drifts, design of the emplacement system, and waste 
package design. The incorporation of repository design information into the framework of the 
various TSPA-LA model components has been accomplished using of a series of IEDs, which 
are cited as needed in the individual model AMRs. The drawings contain information regarding 
material characteristics and properties, component dimensions, and component performance 
under various conditions (e.g., corrosion rates, seismic response, damage areas). 
Examples of the approach for including design elements is further outlined in the Total System 
Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296], Section 5.1). Particularly applicable to this FEP are the model components for 
the EBS, waste package and drip shield degradation, waste form degradation and mobilization, 
and EBS flow and transport. Retrievability is thereby implicitly Included in the TSPA. 
Supporting AMRs: None 
Supplemental Discussion: 
The objective of the performance assessment is to evaluate compliance with postclosure 
performance objective per 10 CFR 63.102(j) (DIRS 156605). The operational and administrative 
considerations of retrievability are a preclosure consideration and are, therefore, beyond the 
scope of the performance assessment. Furthermore, postclosure retrieval of wastes or other 
repository-system components for resource recovery was addressed by the NRC in the 
supplementary information for 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55743, 
Section III, Public Comments and Response, 2.2 Retrievability, Issue 2). To wit: 
As for longer retrieval periods [>50 years]the Commission has previously 
noted that its retrieval provision is not intended to facilitate recovery. Waste 
retrieval is intended to be an unusual event only to be undertaken to protect public 
health and safety. 
6.2.1.7 Repository-Scale Spatial Heterogeneity of Emplaced Waste (2.1.01.04.0A) 
FEP Description: Waste placed in Yucca Mountain will have physical, 
chemical, and radiological properties that will vary 
spatially, resulting in variation in the mass of radionuclides 
available for transport from different parts of the 
repository. 
Screening Decision: Included 
Screening Argument: Not Applicable 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-37 October 2004 
TSPA Disposition: Heterogeneity of the waste inventory is further discussed 
under FEP 2.1.01.03.0A. Heterogeneity is greater for DOE 
spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level radioactive waste 
(HLW) glass inventories than it is for commercial SNF 
(CSNF). 
At the repository scale, waste form degradation and mobilization in the TSPA-LA model is 
addressed using three generic waste forms: CSNF (which for modeling purposes also addresses 
naval SNF), DOE-owned SNF (DSNF), and DOE-owned HLW (DHLW) glass. These 
categories of waste will be placed in and disposed of in two types of waste packages: CSNF 
waste packages and codisposal waste packages, with the latter containing DSNF and DHLW 
glass. 
For scenarios in which only a few packages breach, package-to-package heterogeneity could be 
important in quantifying exposure of the RMEI. For the postclosure TSPA, however, these 
few-package scenarios are not significant to performance because only scenarios with many 
packages breached show calculated releases that approach the exposure limit. For 
multiple-package breach scenarios, package-to-package heterogeneity is directly addressed in the 
TSPA-LA using uncertainty parameters for the average inventory within the CSNF and 
codisposal packages (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170022], Sections 6.4.2 and 6.6). 
At the repository-scale, radionuclide dissolution and release depend more directly on infiltration 
than on the specific location within the repository, and therefore, waste forms are treated as 
generic categories (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], pp. 71 to 73). Within the TSPA-LA model, the 
generic waste types are coupled to spatial variations in infiltration properties rather than to a 
specific location (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], pp. 77 to 78). More specifically, the process of 
waste form degradation will be modeled by equations using empirical degradation rate formulas 
for the three generic waste form types: CSNF, DSNF, and DHLW. Output will be the mass of 
waste form exposed versus time and the volume of water in contact with the waste form versus 
time, which will be used to populate several waste form cells in the model that correspond to 
different waste form types and seepage cases. The amount of inventory that can ultimately enter 
each waste form cell will be a linear function of the number of packages emplaced for each 
generic waste type, seepage, and thermal hydrologic environment (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], 
p. 81). 
The potential effect of waste heterogeneity at the drift-scale is addressed by including various 
seepage and thermal hydrologic environments at the repository scale. Because repository-scale 
heterogeneities are addressed in the above manner, this FEP is considered as explicitly included. 
6.2.2 Process and Site-Control FEPs 
This set of FEPs addresses quality control processes, site-control and institutional-control related 
issues, and site operational concerns that may affect postclosure performance. All direct inputs 
used in this section originated from YMP-controlled sources or NRC regulations (Section 4). No 
further discussion beyond that provided in Section 4 is required. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-38 October 2004 
6.2.2.1 Records and Markers for the Repository (1.1.05.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the retention of records of the contents 
of the repository and markers constructed to inform future 
humans of the location and contents of the repository. 
Performance assessments must consider the potential 
effects of human activities that might take place within the 
controlled area at a future time when institutional controls 
and/or knowledge of the presence of a repository cannot be 
assumed. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Records and Markers for the Repository is excluded from 
the TSPALA by regulation. At 10 CFR 63.102(k) 
(DIRS 156605), the regulation addresses the use of 
institutional controls. The regulation requires that both 
passive and active institutional controls are to be 
maintained, but also indicates that it is not possible to make 
sound forecasts regarding their long-term reliability. 
The requirements for constructing monuments, preserving and archiving records, and oversight 
are listed at 10 CFR 63.51(a)(3)(i-iii), 10 CFR 63.72(a), and 10 CFR 63.72(b)(1-11) 
(DIRS 156605). Land ownership and control requirements are specified by 10 CFR 63.121 
(DIRS 156605). The markers and repository archives will persist for some portion of the 
regulatory period, but for the analyses, they are assumed ineffective, in accordance with the 
regulatory requirements (Assumption 5.2). 
At 10 CFR 63.102(k) (DIRS 156605), the NRC recognizes that institutional controls are 
expected to reduce significantly, but not eliminate, the potential for human activity that causes or 
accelerates the release of radioactive material. To eliminate further speculation on how to 
address the effectiveness of these controls the regulation states: 
However, because it is not possible to make scientifically sound forecasts of the 
long-term reliability of institutional controls, it is not appropriate to include 
consideration of human intrusion into a fully risk-based performance assessment 
for purposes of evaluating the ability of the geologic repository to achieve the 
performance objective. 
Accordingly, for the FEPs addressing administrative controls, and particularly their influence on 
human intrusion, the FEPs have been excluded, by regulation, from consideration in the human 
intrusion stylized analysis. 
The consideration of the timing of occurrence of human intrusion without recognition 
(Appendix C) is based only on the physical properties of the drip shields and waste packages past 
10,000 years, rather than on any consideration of effectiveness of administrative control, 
planning restrictions, repository markers, or an information repository. Although these 
institutional controls will be implemented, they do not influence the calculated timing or 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-39 October 2004 
determination of the likelihood of a human intrusion presented in Appendix C, and therefore 
there presence or absence makes no difference to the calculation of the resulting dose to the 
RMEI or to the release of radionuclides to the accessible environment as addressed by the 
TSPALA model. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.2.2 Inadequate Quality Control and Deviations from Design (1.1.08.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses issues related to inadequate quality 
assurance and control procedures and inadequate testing 
during the design, construction, and operation of the 
repository. It also includes inadequacy in the manufacture 
of the waste forms, waste packages, and engineered 
features. Lack of quality control could result in a poorly 
designed repository, unmodeled design features, deviations 
from design, material defects, faulty waste package 
fabrication, and faulty or non-design standard construction. 
All of these may lead to reduction in the effectiveness of 
the engineered barriers. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Inadequate Quality Control and Deviations from Design 
is excluded from the TSPALA based on low consequence 
because the regulatory requirements for performance 
confirmation (10 CFR 63 Subpart F [DIRS 156605]) and 
quality assurance (10 CFR Subpart G [DIRS 156605]) 
require that any deviation from design be evaluated for 
potential impact, and that significant deviations which are 
detected during the operational period be corrected 
(10 CFR 63.73a [DIRS 156605]). 
This FEP description is focused on the lack of quality control processes. As discussed in 
Section 6.1.6, inherent in the FEPs evaluation approach is the limitation that the repository will 
be constructed, operated, and closed according to the design used as the basis for the FEP 
screening and in accordance with NRC license requirements. This is an inherent limitation for 
performance evaluation of any engineering project, and design verification and performance 
confirmation are required as part of the construction and operation processes. Design 
verification during the operational period is the subject of an extensive Performance 
Confirmation Plan (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170505]). Furthermore, 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) 
provides a list of requirements that have been incorporated into the performance confirmation 
program to provide data related to encountered subsurface conditions, functioning of the natural 
and engineered systems, and monitoring and testing. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-40 October 2004 
Modifications and deviations from the TSPA-LA design are subject to regulatory requirements and 
review that address deliberate changes and modifications. The manner in which the DOE must 
address changes, and by which the NRC is informed of the changes, is codified at 10 CFR 63.44 
(DIRS 156605). As indicated in 10 CFR Subpart G (DIRS 156605), the quality control program 
(including design control, procurement and materials control, inspections, and handling, storage, 
and shipping controls) is to be applied to all systems, structures, and components important to 
safety and to design and characterization of barriers important to waste isolation. Furthermore, 
deviations from quality standards and the design basis must be controlled. 
At 10 CFR 63.73(a) (DIRS 156605), the NRC requires prompt notification if there is a 
significant deficiency found in (1) the characteristics of the Yucca Mountain site, or (2) the 
design and construction of the geologic repository area, including significant deviations from the 
design criteria and design bases stated in the application. Significant deviations that are detected 
during the operational period will be evaluated, and as needed, corrected. Any residual defects 
or fabrication or construction deficiencies, therefore, will be of a minor nature and will not lead 
to significant effects on the repository performance. Compliance with these requirements 
ensures a low consequence (it is unlikely that there will be significant effects from undetected 
deviations) in the event that the design is not followed. 
Regardless of the requirements of the quality assurance and performance confirmation programs, 
the TSPA allows for the possibility that engineered systems may not perform entirely as 
designed for the full 10,000 years through the probabilistic treatment of waste-package and drip 
shield degradation. Some qualitative understanding of the effect of deficiencies can be taken 
from the multiple barrier analyses to be performed as part of the TSPALA modeling activities 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], Section 8.3). The qualitative understanding can be further 
supplemented with a quantitative measure provided by barrier neutralization analyses as 
described in the Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach (BSC 2003 [DIRS 166296], Appendix D.3). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.2.3 Schedule and Planning (1.1.09.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses the sequences of events and activities 
occurring during construction, operation, and closure of the 
repository. Deviations from the design, construction, or 
waste emplacement schedule may affect the long-term 
performance of the disposal system. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Schedule and Planning is excluded from the TSPALA 
by regulation because the stated regulatory objective is 
postclosure performance assessment, whereas scheduling 
and planning are preclosure operational issues 
(10 CFR 63.102(j) [DIRS 156605]). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-41 October 2004 
Events related to changes in the construction, operation, or closure schedules are outside the 
scope of the TSPA and would need to be evaluated as design modifications, should they occur. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.2.4 Administrative Control of the Repository Site (1.1.10.00.0A) 
FEP Description: Administrative control can reduce the potential for 
detrimental or unplanned human activities within the 
controlled area that could inadvertently cause or accelerate 
the release of radioactive material. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Administrative control of the repository site is excluded 
from the TSPALA by regulation. At 10 CFR 63.102(k) 
(DIRS 156605), the regulations address the use of 
institutional controls. The regulations require that both 
passive and active institutional controls be maintained, but 
not relied upon for performance. 
The requirements for constructing monuments, preserving and archiving records, and oversight 
are listed at 10 CFR 63.51(a)(3)(i-iii), 10 CFR 63.72(a), and 10 CFR 63.72(b)(1-11) 
(DIRS 156605). Land ownership and control requirements are specified at 10 CFR 63.121 
(DIRS 156605). The markers and repository archives will persist for some portion of the 
regulatory period, but for the analyses, they are assumed ineffective (Assumption 5.2) in 
accordance with regulatory requirements. 
At 10 CFR 63.102(k) (DIRS 156605), the NRC recognizes that institutional controls are 
expected to reduce significantly, but not eliminate, the potential for human activity that causes or 
accelerates the release of radioactive material. To eliminate further speculation on how to 
address the effectiveness of these controls the regulation states: 
However, because it is not possible to make scientifically sound forecasts of the 
long-term reliability of institutional controls, it is not appropriate to include 
consideration of human intrusion into a fully risk-based performance assessment 
for purposes of evaluating the ability of the geologic repository to achieve the 
performance objective. 
Accordingly, for the FEPs addressing administrative controls, and particularly the influence on 
human intrusion, the FEPs are excluded, by regulation, from consideration in the human 
intrusion stylized analysis. 
On that basis, the consideration of the timing of occurrence of human intrusion without 
recognition (Appendix C) is evaluated only on the physical properties of the drip shields and 
waste packages past 10,000 years, rather than on any consideration of administrative control, 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-42 October 2004 
planning restrictions, repository markers, or an information repository. Although these 
institutional controls will be implemented, they do not influence the calculated timing or 
determination of the likelihood of a human intrusion, and, therefore, make no difference to 
determining the resulting dose to the RMEI or to the release of radionuclides to the accessible 
environment as addressed by the TSPALA model. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.2.5 Monitoring of the Repository (1.1.11.00.0A) 
FEP Description: Monitoring that is carried out during or after operations, for 
either operational safety or verification of long-term 
performance, has the potential to detrimentally affect 
long-term performance. For example, monitoring 
boreholes could provide enhanced pathways between the 
surface and the repository. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Monitoring of repository is excluded from the TSPALA 
based on low consequence stemming from the regulatory 
requirements that monitoring activities must not adversely 
affect the ability of the repository to meet the performance 
objectives and requirements for seal confirmation. 
The repository will be constructed, operated, and closed according to NRC license requirements 
during the preclosure period. Modifications and deviations from the design are subject to 
regulatory requirements that address deliberate changes and modifications (10 CFR 63.44 
[DIRS 156605]). Furthermore, at 10 CFR 63.73(a) (DIRS 156605), the NRC specifies prompt 
notification if there is a significant deficiency found in (1) the characteristics of the Yucca 
Mountain site, or (2) the design and construction of the geologic repository area, including 
significant deviations from the design criteria and design bases stated in the application. 
Significant deviations that are detected during the operational period will be evaluated and 
corrected, as needed. Any residual defects or fabrication or construction deficiencies, therefore, 
will be of a minor nature and will not lead to significant effects on the repository performance. 
Regulation 10 CFR Part 63, Subpart F (DIRS 156605) provides a list of requirements for a 
performance confirmation program to confirm design parameters and to ensure that the NRC is 
informed of changes needed in the design to accommodate field conditions. The Performance 
Confirmation Plan (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170505]) precludes significant effects from monitoring 
activities. A performance confirmation program is a regulatory requirement as specified at 
10 CFR 63.131 (DIRS 156605). The provisions of the requirement include 10 CFR 63.131(c) 
(DIRS 156605), which states that the program must include in situ monitoring, field and 
laboratory testing, and in situ experiments, as may be appropriate to provide the data required by 
paragraph (a) of the section. Consequently, the use of in situ monitoring and experimentation is 
anticipated. However, the regulation also states that any monitoring program must be 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-43 October 2004 
implemented so that it does not adversely affect the ability of the geologic and engineered 
elements of the geologic repository to meet the performance objectives (10 CFR 63.131(d)(1) 
[DIRS 156605]). 
All boreholes and monitoring wells will be drilled and sealed in accordance with regulatory 
requirements effective during the preclosure period. Confirmation that an adequate seal can be 
achieved is a regulatory requirement (10 CFR 63.133(d) [DIRS 156605]), which states that tests 
must be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of borehole, shaft, and ramp seals, before full 
scale operation proceeds to seal boreholes, shafts, and ramps. When properly sealed, there 
should be no pathway for unevaluated effect on groundwater flow systems, and boreholes should 
have no effect (i.e., are of low consequence) on the repository performance. 
Some qualitative understanding of the effect of any residual deficiencies can be taken from the 
multiple barrier analysis to be performed as part of the TSPALA modeling activities (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296], Section 8.3). This qualitative understanding can be supplemented with a 
quantitative measure provided by barrier neutralization analyses performed, as described in the 
Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296], Appendix D.3). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.2.6 Accidents and Unplanned Events during Construction and Operation 
(1.1.12.01.0A) 
FEP Description: The long-term performance of the disposal system might be 
seriously affected by unplanned or improper activities that 
take place during construction, operation, and closure of the 
repository 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Accidents and unplanned events during construction and 
operation is excluded from the TSPALA based on low 
consequence because regulatory requirements for 
performance confirmation and quality assurance require 
evaluation of any such events should they occur. 
The history of the development of this FEP indicates that the intent and scope of the FEP is to 
include the effects of unplanned events during the preclosure phase that have a long lasting 
effect, such as improper operation, handling accidents, and some aspects of sabotage. The 
objective of the TSPA is to evaluate postclosure compliance. Events related to changes in the 
construction, operation, or closure schedule are outside the scope of the TSPA. 
Operations will be conducted according to procedures acceptable to the NRC. At 10 CFR 63.73 
(DIRS 156605), the NRC requires prompt notification if there is a significant deficiency found in 
the characteristics, design, and construction of the geologic repository operations area that, were 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-44 October 2004 
it to remain uncorrected, could adversely affect safety in the future. This includes significant 
deviations from the design criteria and design bases stated in the application, construction 
authorization, or the license. If the repository does not meet regulatory criteria, it will not be 
licensed and waste will not be emplaced. Quality control procedures and performance 
confirmation are designed to detect operational events resulting in deviations from the repository 
design that might affect long-term performance. Any significant deviations would be detected 
during regulator audits and inspections per 10 CFR Part 63 Subpart D (DIRS 156605) and 
corrected before further work in the repository would be allowed to continue. Therefore, 
accidents and unplanned events during the operational phase would not have a significant effect 
on long-term performance and are excluded from the TSPALA based on low consequence. 
Sabotage is a form of deliberate human intrusion and has been excluded. Sabotage is more fully 
addressed in the FEPs 1.4.02.01.0A (Deliberate human intrusion) and 1.4.11.00.0A (Explosions 
and crashes [human activities]). Regardless of the type or cause of the event, some qualitative 
understanding of the potential effect of accidents and unplanned events can be taken from the 
multiple barrier analysis to be performed as part of the TSPALA modeling activities (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296], Section 8.3). This qualitative understanding can be supplemented with a 
quantitative measure provided by barrier neutralization analyses performed, as described in the 
Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2002 
[DIRS 166296], Appendix D.3). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3 Human Intrusion FEPs 
This set of FEPs is related to the potential for human intrusion into the repository. Direct inputs 
used in this section originating from YMP-controlled sources or NRC regulations are listed in 
Section 4 and its subsections and no further discussion beyond that provided in Section 4 is 
required for such sources. Non-YMP sources of direct input are also cited in Section 4. Such 
sources and corroborating information are discussed in Appendix B. 
6.2.3.1 Deliberate Human Intrusion (1.4.02.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Humans could deliberately intrude into the repository. 
Without appropriate precautions, intruders could 
experience high radiation exposures. Moreover, 
containment may be left damaged, which could increase 
radionuclide release rates to the biosphere. Motivation for 
deliberate human intrusion includes mining, waste retrieval, 
site remediation/improvement, archaeology, sabotage, and 
acts of war. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-45 October 2004 
Screening Argument: Deliberate Human Intrusion is excluded from the 
TSPA-LA human intrusion stylized analysis by 
regulation, which indicates that analysis of deliberate 
human intrusion and exposure of the intruders does not 
serve the intended purpose of the analysis (10 CFR Part 63, 
66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761, Supplementary 
Information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard), and that 
exposure of the intruder is not to be considered (10 CFR 
63.322(f) [DIRS 156605]). 
Human intrusion is defined as (10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]): 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
Performance assessment is defined (10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605]) as an analysis that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human intrusion 
from consideration in the TSPALA model, although other regulations provide the conditions for 
which human intrusion must be considered. 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional and deliberate or 
inadvertent and accidental, regulation 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) is silent. Similarly, 
40 CFR Part 197 (DIRS 165519) does not directly address the motivation or intentionality of the 
intrusion. However, supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 (DIRS 155216) clarify that 
consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the supplementary information to 
40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216], p. 32105, Item 3), the EPA, in response to 
comments regarding the human intrusion stylized analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the NAS [National Academy of Science] recommendations 
and we therefore retained our original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this at 66 FR 32127 (66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216], p. 32127, Item 10). The 
EPA explicitly states that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-46 October 2004 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs [the National Academy of Science] conclusion regarding intentional 
intrusion (NAS Report, p. 14). 
Additionally, specifications at 10 CFR 63.322(f) (DIRS 156605) and 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
(DIRS 165519) indicate that only radionuclides transported to the SZ need to be considered, 
precluding the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or other 
human intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The supplementary information 
to 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761, Supplementary Information, 3.10 
Human Intrusion Standard) is clear with the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS [National 
Academy of Science] concluded, and the Commission agrees, that analysis of the 
risk to the public or the intruders (i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill 
cuttings left unattended at the surface for subsequent dispersal into the biosphere 
would not fulfill the purpose of the human intrusion calculation because it would 
not show how well a particular repository site and design would protect the public 
at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard of particulate HLW left on the surface 
would be dominated by assumptions subject to significant speculation and 
uncertainty regardless of the particular site or design under evaluation. 
Additionally, the release to the surface represents a one-time release with no 
long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs are excluded based on regulatory intent and 
all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of the regulatory requirements to 
consider only the human intrusion stylized analysis and the timing of such an event 
(Appendix C). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3.2 Inadvertent Human Intrusion (1.4.02.02.0A) 
FEP Description: Humans could accidentally intrude into the repository. 
Without appropriate precautions, intruders could 
experience high radiation exposures. Moreover, 
containment may be left damaged, which could increase 
radionuclide release rates to the biosphere. Inadvertent 
human intrusion might occur during scientific, mineral or 
geothermal exploration. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-47 October 2004 
Screening Argument: Inadvertent Human Intrusion is excluded from the 
TSPALA based on regulation (10 CFR 63.321 
[DIRS 156605]) because inadvertent human intrusion 
without recognition by drillers before 10,000 years is not 
credible, and by regulatory intent, exposure to the intruders 
need not be considered. 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional and deliberate or 
inadvertent and accidental, 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) is silent. Similarly, 40 CFR Part 197 
(DIRS 165519) does not directly address the motivation or intentionality of the intrusion. 
However, the supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 (DIRS 155216) clarify that 
consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the supplementary information to 
40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216], p. 32105, Item 3), the EPA, in response to 
comments regarding the human intrusion stylized analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the NAS [National Academy of Science] recommendations 
and we therefore retained our original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this at 66 FR 32127 (66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216], p. 32127, Item 10). The 
EPA explicitly states that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs [National Academy of Science] conclusion regarding intentional intrusion 
(NAS Report, p. 14). 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs discussed in this analysis report are excluded 
based on regulatory intent, and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of the 
regulatory requirements to consider only human intrusion stylized analysis and the timing of 
such an event. 
At 10 CFR 63.321 (DIRS 156605), the NRC specifies the criteria under which human intrusion 
must be evaluated: 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-48 October 2004 
Furthermore, by way of explanation and corroboration, per 10 CFR 63.321(a) (DIRS 156605), 
the DOE must: 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion (see 10 CFR 63.322) without recognition by the 
drillers. 
If complete waste package penetration is projected to occur before or at the 10,000-year 
performance period, then the DOE is to provide a demonstration (10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) 
[DIRS 156605]) that: 
[T]here is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) as a 
result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after disposal. 
and, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) (DIRS 156605), 
If the exposure of the RMEI occurs after 10,000 years, or if the intrusion is 
projected to occur after 10,000 years, the results of the analysis and the bases of 
the analysis are to be provided in the environmental impact statement for Yucca 
Mountain. 
The drip shield and waste package barrier capability are based on the physical properties of the 
drip shield and waste packages. Degradation of these components with time (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169996], Sections 6.5 and 7.2) indicate that: 
 Because of the low corrosion rate of titanium alloy used for the drip shields, the initial 
breaches of the drip shields are not expected to occur until well after 10,000 years; more 
specifically, the modeling indicates approximately 40,000 years, with the median 
estimate of the mean time to initial breaching of drip shields at approximately 300,000 
years. 
 Because the corrosion rates of Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) used for the waste packages are 
so low, it is not expected that any waste packages will be breached by general corrosion 
during the first 10,000 years; models indicate that the time to initial breaching of the 
waste packages due to general corrosion is on the order of 100,000 years. 
The results of the waste package degradations analyses cited from BSC (2004 [DIRS 169996], 
Sections 6.5 and 7.2) result from the use of representative thermal hydrologic history files 
produced to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited report. The actual drip shield and 
waste package degradation profiles used in the TSPA-LA model will make use of the actual 
thermal hydrologic history files appropriate for the repository. Because representative histories 
were used, however, significant differences in the degradation profile generated for TSPA-LA 
are not expected. While general corrosion occurs gradually over time up to the time of failure, 
the oxidation process is a surface phenomenon, and the underlying metal retains its integrity and 
resistance to drilling. Although results show the potential for failures at early time, these failures 
are the result of localized corrosion and, although modeled in TSPA-LA as a patch, are not 
associated with degradation of a significant surface area with respect to potential interaction with 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-49 October 2004 
a rotary drill bit (Appendix C). Similarly, during the first 10,000 years, the material performance 
of the waste package would not be significantly degraded by stress corrosion cracking. 
Regardless of the localized corrosion effects or potential for stress corrosion cracking, the overall 
structural integrity of the waste package or drip shield, and the resistance, to drilling is 
maintained. This is corroborated by the TSPA-SR drip shield and waste package studies, which 
indicate long lifetimes for these components, with the first drip shield failures occurring after 
about 20,000 years (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 3.4). The first failures of the 
waste package outer material, Alloy 22, by general corrosion occurred after approximately 
30,000 years. 
Based on DOE analyses (Appendix C), the compressive strength and ductility of the metals from 
which the drip shields and waste package are fabricated differ significantly from the rock 
surrounding them and will remain largely intact through the 10,000-year regulatory period. 
Drillers would notice these differences in properties based on the rate of penetration. Rates of 
penetration range from inversely proportional to the square of the compressive strength of the 
material being drilled, to inversely proportional, all other factors being equal 
(Bourgoyne et al. 1986 [DIRS 155233], Eq. 5-19; Kahraman et al. 2000 [DIRS 167761], 
Equation 8). The compressive strength of the materials differ by a factor of two (Appendix C), 
suggesting that at a minimum, the rate of penetration would decrease by half or possibly to one 
fourth as the bit moved from the rock material to the engineered barrier, if in fact, the drill bit 
could penetrate the engineered barrier. Other effects would also be noticeable. A full discussion 
is provided in Appendix C. The drillers, therefore, should recognize that they have attempted to 
drill into some material other than rock for at least as long as the drip shields or waste packages 
are intact. 
Based on these analyses, and in accordance with 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) (DIRS 156605), the dose 
analysis of the stylized human intrusion case is not required for TSPA-LA because the human 
intrusion without recognition cannot occur prior to 10,000 years. Because the dose from the 
human intrusion was expected to occur after the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period, the 
human intrusion dose analysis for TSPA-SR was previously presented in the FEIS (DOE 2002 
[DIRS 155970], Section 5.7.1). Documentation of the human intrusion stylized analysis for the 
LA will include a description of the technical basis and analyses to support the determination of 
the time of occurrence of the human intrusion and an update to the human intrusion stylized 
analysis exposure determination. 
The requirements at 10 CFR 63.322(f) (DIRS 156605) and 40 CFR 197.26(e) (DIRS 165519), 
indicating that only radionuclides transported to the SZ need to be considered, preclude 
consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or other human intruders 
from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The supplementary information to 10 CFR 
Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761, Supplementary Information, 3.10 Human 
Intrusion Standard) is clear with the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS [The 
National Academy of Science] concluded, and the Commission agrees, that 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-50 October 2004 
analysis of the risk to the public or the intruders (i.e., drilling crew) from 
radioactive drill cuttings left unattended at the surface for subsequent dispersal 
into the biosphere would not fulfill the purpose of the human intrusion calculation 
because it would not show how well a particular repository site and design would 
protect the public at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard of particulate HLW 
left on the surface would be dominated by assumptions subject to significant 
speculation and uncertainty regardless of the particular site or design under 
evaluation. Additionally, the release to the surface represents a one-time release 
with no long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
Consequently, consideration of exposure to the intruders is specifically excluded. 
Therefore, consideration of inadvertent human intrusion is excluded from the TSPALA. 
Because the dose from human intrusion is expected to occur after the 10,000-year regulatory 
compliance period, the human intrusion stylized analysis is not required for TSPA-LA. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3.3 Igneous Event Precedes Human Intrusion (1.4.02.03.0A) 
FEP Description: An igneous event, such as a dike, could intersect the 
repository and significantly alter the material and structural 
properties of a drip shield and/or waste package. Because 
of the change in properties, an intruder, using groundwater 
exploration drilling techniques, may not be able to 
recognize that something other than naturally-occurring 
materials have been encountered. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: The probability of a dike intruding the repository has been 
determined to have a mean annualized probability of 
1.7  10-8 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169989], Table 7-1), but in no 
estimates reviewed to date has the probability of igneous 
activity within the repository footprint been calculated to be 
as high as 1  10-5. Therefore, it is an unlikely event, as 
defined in 10 CFR 63.342 (DIRS 156605), and need not be 
further considered in conjunction with human intrusion. 
The NRC indicates that unlikely FEPs (those estimated to have less than one chance in 10 and at 
least one chance in 10,000 years of occurring within 10,000 years of disposal, or roughly an 
annualized probability of 1  10-5 to 1  10-8) and very unlikely events (those with an annualized 
probability of less than 1  10-8) are to be excluded from the assessments for the human intrusion 
and groundwater protection standards (10 CFR 63.342 [DIRS 156605]). Consequently, this FEP 
is excluded based on the regulation. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-51 October 2004 
Furthermore, the existing disruptive events scenario class allows for an igneous event to occur, 
but assumes that all waste packages within an intruded drift are damaged such that the drip shield 
and waste package provide no further protection. Thus, all waste packages in the intruded drift 
can contribute radionuclides to a groundwater release pathway, using the nominal scenario 
groundwater transport mechanism. Under the requirements of the human intrusion analysis, it is 
assumed that only one package is penetrated and that transport occurs to the SZ via the borehole. 
Because of the increased source term associated with the igneous intrusion, the existing 
disruptive scenario probability weighted exposure to the RMEI is likely conservative compared 
to the release from a single waste package release postulated for the human intrusion stylized 
analysis. Although, the release through the borehole may provide for a decreased transport time 
from the UZ to the SZ, the potential source term for the human intrusion stylized analysis is 
many times less than that associated with just the naturally occurring igneous event. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3.4 Seismic Event Precedes Human Intrusion (1.4.02.04.0A) 
FEP Description: A seismic event could occur at the repository and 
significantly alter the material and structural properties of a 
drip shield and/or waste package. Because of the change in 
properties, an intruder, using groundwater exploration 
drilling techniques, may not be able to recognize that 
something other than naturally-occurring materials have 
been encountered. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence and By Regulation 
Screening Argument: The regulation requires that events with at least a 1 in 10 
chance in 10,000 years of occurring (i.e., roughly an 
annualized of 1  10-5 or greater) be considered as part of 
the human intrusion assessment, but events with less of a 
chance not be considered (10 CFR 63.342 [DIRS 156605]). 
Seismic events with an annualized probability of 1  10-5 are associated with the potential for 
onset of seismic-related damage to the drip shields and waste packages (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169183], Sections 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5). The onset of such events is associated with the 
potential for damage of limited surface areas on the engineered barriers (such as initiation of 
cracking or development of corrosion sites), although such sites will be filled with mineral 
precipitates and prevent advective flow. However, this does not necessarily indicate that the 
material properties (such as compressive strength) have been significantly altered or that the 
structural strength of the barriers has been significantly altered with respect to the potential for 
intrusion by drilling without recognition of the driller. As long as the materials retain their basic 
material characteristics (i.e., compressive strength in particular), the reaction of the drilling 
assembly will be such that a change in conditions will be recognized by a change in drilling 
conditions. As the damaged barrier is encountered, the drill bit will tend to seize or catch on 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-52 October 2004 
any fractures or cracks in the surface, and the operation will produce chatter at the surface, or 
at the extreme, result in the drill bit being unable to rotate as it entangles with the metals and 
alloys of the engineered barriers. Under these conditions, the difference in shear strengths and 
modulus of elasticity will be the determining factors in being able to determine the difference 
between naturally occurring materials and the engineered barrier materials. The difference in 
these properties for rock and the metals and alloys used in the engineered barriers are significant 
(Appendix C). 
The mean tensile strength and mean ultimate strength of the rock units range from 11.6 MPa to 
23.8 MPa, or approximately 7 to 50 percent of the corresponding mean compressive strength 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166107], Tables E-6 through E-10 and E-14; and MO0311RCKPRPCS.003 
[DIRS 166073]). These rock tensile strengths are, at a minimum, a factor of 14 less than those of 
the engineered barrier materials. Even conservatively assuming an equivalence of the yield 
strength of a ductile material to tensile or ultimate strength of brittle material generates a 
difference of a factor of much greater than 1.6 (i.e., the threshold for recognition of a change in 
penetration rates, as explained in Appendix C). Material properties for the engineered barriers 
are taken from MO0003RIB00071.000 (DIRS 148850), MO0003RIB00073.000 (DIRS 152926), 
and MO0003RIB00076.000 (DIRS 153044). The yield strength assigned to the engineered 
barrier materials is reported to range from 240 to 450 MPa for the stated offsets. A comparison 
of the ultimate and tensile strength to the rock units represents a minimum factor of 20 in 
material properties. Similarly, the mean modulus of elasticity for the rock materials is on the 
order of 6.9 to 33 GPa. Correspondingly, the reported shear modulus for the repository host 
horizon ranges from 0.42 to 8.21 GPa (or no greater than 1/3 of the maximum reported modulus 
of elasticity). By contrast, for the ductile alloys, the modulus of elasticity ranges from 
106 to 206 GPa, representing a minimum factor of 3.2 difference from the rock properties. 
Thus, the seismic events that must be considered (i.e., with annualized probabilities of 1  10-5 or 
greater) are of low consequence because they would not induce significant changes in the 
material properties of the host rock or the engineered barrier materials, and the penetration of 
such materials would still be recognizable. 
The NRC indicates that unlikely FEPs (those estimated to have less than one chance in 10 and at 
least one chance in 10,000 of occurring within 10,000 years of disposal, or roughly an annualized 
probability of between 1  10-5 and 1  10-8) and very unlikely events (those with an annualized 
probability of less than 1  10-8) are to be excluded from the assessments for the human intrusion 
and groundwater protection standards (10 CFR 63.342 [DIRS 156605]). Consequently, other 
seismic events of greater magnitude, which may occur less frequently but have the potential to 
result in increased damage, are excluded based on the regulatory proscription of considering such 
events. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-53 October 2004 
6.2.3.5 Unintrusive Site Investigation (1.4.03.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses airborne, geophysical, or other 
surface-based investigations of a repository site after its 
closure. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Unintrusive site investigation is excluded from the 
TSPALA based on the regulatory definition and requirements 
for the human intrusion analysis and on low consequence of 
unintrusive activities. 
By definition, unintrusive activities will have no discernible effect (i.e., are of low consequence) 
on the performance of the system. Human intrusion is defined as breaching of any portion of 
the Yucca Mountain disposal system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity 
(10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]). Because the methodologies listed in the description are 
unintrusive, there are no mechanisms for the activities of this FEP to breach the disposal system 
or negatively affect repository performance, and the FEP is, therefore, excludable by regulation 
and low consequence. 
Alternately, any human activity (including surface-based site investigations) or human-induced 
activity that has a significant negative affect (breach) on the barrier system is, by definition, 
human intrusion. The regulations at 10 CFR 63.113(d) (DIRS 156605) and 40 CFR 197.26 
(DIRS 165519) stipulate that human intrusion shall be considered only through the consideration 
of the human intrusion stylized analysis. 
Furthermore, the NRC, in the discussion regarding the timing and frequency of human intrusion 
(10 CFR Part 63, 66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761, Supplementary Information), states 
that some evaluations of the resource potential suggest that Yucca Mountain and the area 
around it does not represent an active candidate for either systematic or random exploratory 
drilling at this time. A list of citations for those studies is available in the regulation. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3.6 Drilling Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.04.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses any type of drilling activity in the 
repository environment. These activities may be taken with 
or without awareness of the presence of the repository and 
with or without consent of the repository licensee. Drilling 
activities may be associated with natural resource 
exploration (water, oil and gas, minerals, geothermal 
energy), waste disposal (liquid), fluid storage 
(hydrocarbon, gas), or reopening existing boreholes. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-54 October 2004 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Drilling activities (human intrusion) is excluded from the 
TSPA-LA based on regulation because consideration of 
only a stylized human intrusion is mandated at 
10 CFR 63.322 and 10 CFR 63.321 (DIRS 156605). 
Human intrusion is defined as (10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]): 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
Performance assessment is defined (10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605]) as an analysis that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human intrusion 
from consideration in the TSPALA model. However, there are specific regulatory provisions 
regarding consideration of human intrusion and drilling activities. To wit (10 CFR 63.322 
[DIRS 156605]): 
For the purposes of the analysis of human intrusion, DOE must make the 
following assumptions: 
(a) There is a single human intrusion as a result of exploratory drilling for ground 
water; 
(b) The intruders drill a borehole directly through a degraded waste package into the 
uppermost aquifer underlying the Yucca Mountain repository; 
(c) The drillers use the common techniques and practices that are currently employed 
in exploratory drilling for ground water in the region surrounding Yucca 
Mountain; 
(d) Careful sealing of the borehole does not occur, instead natural degradation 
processes gradually modify the borehole; 
(e) No particulate waste material falls into the borehole; 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-55 October 2004 
(f) The exposure scenario includes only those radionuclides transported to the SZ by 
water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, and transports 
radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ); and 
(g) No releases are included which are caused by unlikely natural processes and 
events. 
This is similar to the requirements at 40 CFR 197.26 (DIRS 165519), except that the EPA 
regulation does not specify item (e) and item (f) is replaced with the following language 
(40 CFR 197.26(e) [DIRS 165519]): 
Only releases of radionuclides that occur as a result of the intrusion and that are 
transported through the resulting borehole to the SZ are projected; 
Several concepts in this set of regulations are important to the evaluation of human intrusion 
FEPs. First, rather than speculating on the nature and probability of future intrusion, the NRC 
has required that human intrusion be evaluated via a human intrusion stylized analysis. 
Secondly, the regulation specifies that the stylized analysis must assume the intrusion is the 
result of exploring for groundwater. This is emphasized with the statement DOE must make the 
following assumptions (10 CFR 63.322 [DIRS 156605]). Therefore, all other types of drilling 
activities, by default, are excluded due to the regulatory-specified assumption. 
Additionally, the supplementary information to 10 CFR Part 63 ([DIRS 156605], p. 55761, 
Supplementary Information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard) indicates that the NRC intended 
the analysis to be based on a stylized analysis. Accordingly, the NRC specifies the criteria under 
which human intrusion must be evaluated (10 CFR 63.321 [DIRS 156605]): 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 
Furthermore, by way of explanation and corroboration, DOE must (10 CFR 63.321(a) 
[DIRS 156605]): 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion (see 10 CFR 63.322) without recognition by the 
drillers. 
And if complete waste package penetration is projected to occur before or at the 10,000-year 
performance period, then the DOE is to demonstrate that (10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) [DIRS 156605]): 
[T]here is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) as a 
result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after disposal. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-56 October 2004 
And, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) (DIRS 156605): 
If the exposure of the RMEI occurs after 10,000 years, or if the intrusion is 
projected to occur after 10,000 years, the results of the analysis and the bases of 
the analysis are to be provided in the environmental impact statement for Yucca 
Mountain. 
The drip shield and waste package barrier capability are based on physical properties of drip 
shields and waste packages. Degradation of these components with time is discussed in 
BSC (2004 [DIRS 169996], Sections 6.5 and 7.2), and the analyses indicate that: 
 Because of the low corrosion rate of titanium alloy used for the drip shields, the initial 
breaches of the drip shields are not expected to occur until well after 10,000 years; more 
specifically the modeling indicates approximately 40,000 years with the median estimate 
of the mean time to initial breaching of drip shields at approximately 300,000 years. 
 Because the corrosion rates of Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) used for the waste packages are 
so low, it is not expected that any waste packages will be breached by general corrosion 
during the first 10,000 years; models indicate that the time to initial breaching of the 
waste packages due to general corrosion is on the order of 100,000 years. 
The results of the waste package degradations analyses cited from BSC (2004 [DIRS 169996], 
Sections 6.5 and 7.2) result from the use of representative thermal hydrologic history files 
produced to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited report. The actual drip shield and 
waste package degradation profiles used in the TSPA-LA model will make use of the actual 
thermal hydrologic history files appropriate for the repository. Because representative histories 
were used, however, significant differences in the degradation profile generated for TSPA-LA 
are not expected. While general corrosion occurs gradually over time up to the time of failure, 
the oxidation process is a surface phenomenon, and the underlying metal retains its integrity and 
resistance to drilling. Although results show the potential for failures at early time, these failures 
are the result of localized corrosion and, although modeled in TSPA-LA as a patch, are not 
associated with degradation of a significant surface area with respect to potential interaction with 
a rotary drill bit (Appendix C). Similarly, during the first 10,000 years, the material performance 
of the waste package would not be significantly degraded by stress corrosion cracking. 
Regardless of the localized corrosion effects or potential for stress corrosion cracking, the overall 
structural integrity of the waste package and drip shield, and the resistance to drilling, is 
maintained. This is corroborated by the TSPA-SR drip shield and waste package studies that 
indicate long lifetimes for these components, with the first drip shield failures occurring after 
about 20,000 years (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 3.4). The first failures of the 
waste package outer material, Alloy 22, by general corrosion occurred after approximately 
30,000 years. 
Based on DOE analyses (Appendix C), the compressive strength and ductility of the metals from 
which the drip shields and waste package are fabricated differ significantly from the rock that 
would surround them and remain largely intact through the 10,000-year regulatory period. 
Drillers would notice these differences in properties based on the rate of penetration. Rate of 
penetration ranges from inversely proportional to the square of the compressive strength of the 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-57 October 2004 
material being drilled, to inversely proportional, all other factors being equal (Bourgoyne et al. 
1986 [DIRS 155233], Eq. 5-19; Kahraman et al. 2000 [DIRS 167761], Equation 8). The 
compressive strength of the materials differ by a factor of two (Appendix C), suggesting the at a 
minimum, the rate of penetration would decrease by half or possibly to one fourth as the bit 
moved from the rock material to the engineered barrier, if in fact, the drill bit could penetrate the 
engineered barrier. Other effects would also be noticeable. A full discussion is provided in 
Appendix C. The drillers, therefore, should recognize that they have attempted to drill into some 
material other than rock for at least as long as the drip shields or waste packages are intact. 
Based on these analyses, and in accordance with 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) (DIRS 156605), dose 
analysis of the stylized human intrusion case is not required for TSPA-LA because the human 
intrusion without recognition cannot occur prior to 10,000 years. Because the dose from the 
human intrusion was expected to occur after the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period, the 
human intrusion dose analysis for TSPA-SR was previously presented in the FEIS (DOE 2002 
[DIRS 155970], Section 5.7.1). Documentation of the human intrusion stylized analysis for the 
LA will include a description of the technical basis and analyses to support the determination of 
the time of occurrence of the human intrusion and an update to the human intrusion stylized 
analysis exposure determination. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3.7 Effects of Drilling Intrusion (1.4.04.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Drilling activities that intrude into the repository may 
create new release pathways to the biosphere and alter 
existing pathways. Possible effects of a drilling intrusion 
include interaction with waste packages, increased 
saturation in the repository leading to enhanced 
radionuclide transport to the SZ, changes to groundwater 
and EBS chemistry, and waste brought to the surface. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Effects of Drilling Intrusion is excluded from the 
TSPA-LA based on regulation because consideration of 
only a stylized human intrusion is mandated 
(10 CFR 63.322 and 10 CFR 63.321 [DIRS 156605]). 
Human intrusion is defined as (10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]): 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-58 October 2004 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
Performance assessment is defined (10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605]) as an analysis that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human intrusion 
from consideration in the TSPALA model. The NRC specifies the criteria under which human 
intrusion must be evaluated (10 CFR 63.321 [DIRS 156605]): 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 
Furthermore, by way of exploration and corroboration, the DOE must (10 CFR 63.321(a) 
[DIRS 156605]): 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion (see 63.322) without recognition by the drillers. 
If complete waste package penetration is projected to occur before or at the 10,000-year 
performance period, then the DOE is to demonstrate that (10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) [DIRS 156605]): 
[T]here is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) as a 
result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after disposal. 
And, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) (DIRS 156605): 
If the exposure of the RMEI occurs after 10,000 years, or if the intrusion is 
projected to occur after 10,000 years, the results of the analysis and the bases of 
the analysis are to be provided in the environmental impact statement for Yucca 
Mountain. 
Additionally, the requirements at 10 CFR 63.322(f) (DIRS 156605) and 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
(DIRS 165519), indicating that only radionuclides transported to the SZ need to be considered, 
preclude the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or other human 
intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The supplementary information to 
10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761, Supplementary Information, 
3.10 Human Intrusion Standard) is clear with the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-59 October 2004 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). The NAS 
[National Academy of Science] concluded, and the Commission agrees, that 
analysis of the risk to the public or the intruders (i.e., drilling crew) from 
radioactive drill cuttings left unattended at the surface for subsequent dispersal 
into the biosphere would not fulfill the purpose of the human intrusion calculation 
because it would not show how well a particular repository site and design would 
protect the public at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard of particulate HLW 
left on the surface would be dominated by assumptions subject to significant 
speculation and uncertainty regardless of the particular site or design under 
evaluation. Additionally, the release to the surface represents a one-time release 
with no long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
The drip shield and waste package barrier capability are based on the physical properties of the 
drip shield and waste packages. Degradation of these components with time is discussed in 
BSC (2004 [DIRS 169996], Sections 6.5 and 7.2), and the analysis indicates that: 
 Because of the low corrosion rate of titanium alloy used for the drip shields, the initial 
breaches of the drip shields are not expected to occur until well after 10,000 years; more 
specifically, the modeling indicates approximately 40,000 years, with the median 
estimate of the mean time to initial breaching of drip shields at approximately 300,000 
years. 
 Because the corrosion rates of Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) used for the waste packages are 
so low, it is not expected that any waste packages will be breached by general corrosion 
during the first 10,000 years; models indicate that the time to initial breaching of the 
waste packages due to general corrosion is on the order of 100,000 years. 
The results of the waste package degradations analyses cited from BSC (2004 [DIRS 169996], 
Sections 6.5 and 7.2) result from the use of representative thermal hydrologic history files 
produced to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited report. The actual drip shield and 
waste package degradation profiles used in the TSPA-LA model will make use of the actual 
thermal hydrologic history files appropriate for the repository. Because representative histories 
were used, however, significant differences in the degradation profile generated for TSPA-LA 
are not expected. While general corrosion occurs gradually over time up to the time of failure, 
the oxidation process is a surface phenomenon, and the underlying metal retains its integrity and 
resistance to drilling. Although results show the potential for failures at early time, these failures 
are the result of localized corrosion and, although modeled in TSPA-LA as a patch, are not 
associated with degradation of a significant surface area with respect to potential interaction with 
a rotary drill bit (Appendix C). Similarly, during the first 10,000 years, the material performance 
of the waste package would not be significantly degraded by stress corrosion cracking. 
Regardless of these localized corrosion effects or potential for stress corrosion cracking, the 
overall structural integrity of the waste package and drip shield, and the resistance to drilling, is 
maintained. This is corroborated by the TSPA-SR drip shield and waste package studies that 
indicate long lifetimes for these components, with the first drip shield failures occurring after 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-60 October 2004 
about 20,000 years (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 3.4). The first failures of the 
waste package outer material, Alloy 22, by general corrosion occurred after approximately 
30,000 years (this general corrosion duration did not consider the 5 cm of stainless steel beneath 
the Alloy 22). 
Based on DOE analyses (Appendix C), the compressive strength and ductility of the metals from 
which the drip shields and waste package are fabricated differ significantly from the rock that 
would surround them and would remain largely intact through the 10,000-year regulatory period. 
Drillers would notice these differences in properties based on the rate of penetration. Rates of 
penetration range from inversely proportional to the square of the compressive strength of the 
material being drilled, to inversely proportional, all other factors being equal 
(Bourgoyne et al. 1986 [DIRS 155233], Eq. 5-19; Kahraman et al. 2000 [DIRS 167761], 
Equation 8). The compressive strength of the materials differ by a factor of two (Appendix C), 
suggesting the at a minimum, the rate of penetration would decrease by half or possibly to one 
fourth as the bit moved from the rock material to the engineered barrier, if in fact, the drill bit 
could penetrate the engineered barrier. Other effects would also be noticeable. A full discussion 
is provided in Appendix C. The drillers, therefore, should recognize that they have attempted to 
drill into some material other than rock for at least as long as the drip shields or waste packages 
are intact. 
Based on these analysis, and in accordance with 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) (DIRS 156605), dose 
analysis of the stylized human intrusion case is not required for TSPA-LA because the human 
intrusion without recognition cannot occur prior to 10,000 years. Because the dose from the 
human intrusion was expected to occur after the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period, the 
human intrusion dose analysis for TSPA-SR was previously presented in the FEIS (DOE 2002 
[DIRS 155970], Section 5.7.1). Documentation of the human intrusion stylized analysis for the 
LA will include a description of the technical basis and analyses to support the determination of 
the time of occurrence of the human intrusion and an update to the human intrusion stylized 
analysis exposure determination. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3.8 Mining and Other Underground Activities (Human Intrusion) (1.4.05.00.0A) 
FEP Description: Mining and other underground human activities (e.g., 
tunneling, underground construction, quarrying) could 
disrupt the disposal system. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Mining and other underground activities (human 
intrusion) is excluded from the TSPALA and the 
human-intrusion stylized analysis based on regulation 
because consideration of only a stylized human intrusion is 
mandated at 10 CFR 63.322 (DIRS 156605). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-61 October 2004 
Human intrusion is defined as (10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]): 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity. 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
Performance assessment is defined (10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605]) as an analysis that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human intrusion 
from consideration in the TSPALA model. However, there are specific regulatory provisions 
regarding consideration of human intrusion. To wit (10 CFR 63.322 [66 FR 55732 
(DIRS 156671)]): 
For the purposes of the analysis of human intrusion, DOE must make the 
following assumptions: 
(a) There is a single human intrusion as a result of exploratory drilling for 
groundwater; 
(b) The intruders drill a borehole directly through a degraded waste package into the 
uppermost aquifer underlying the Yucca Mountain repository; 
(c) The drillers use the common techniques and practices that are currently employed 
in exploratory drilling for ground water in the region surrounding Yucca 
Mountain; 
(d) Careful sealing of the borehole does not occur, instead natural degradation 
processes gradually modify the borehole; 
(e) No particulate waste material falls into the borehole; 
(f) The exposure scenario includes only those radionuclides transported to the SZ by 
water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, and transports 
radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ); and 
(g) No releases are included which are caused by unlikely natural processes and 
events. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-62 October 2004 
This is similar to the requirements at 40 CFR 197.26 (DIRS 165519), except that the EPA 
regulation does not specify item (e) and item (f) is replaced with the following language 
(40 CFR 197.26(e) [DIRS 165519]): 
Only releases of radionuclides that occur as a result of the intrusion and that are 
transported through the resulting borehole to the SZ are projected. 
Several concepts in this set of regulations are important to the evaluation of human intrusion 
FEPs. First, rather than speculating on the nature and probability of future intrusion, the NRC 
has required that human intrusion be evaluated via a human intrusion stylized analysis. 
Secondly, the regulation specifies that the stylized analysis assume the intrusion is the result of 
exploration for groundwater. This is emphasized in regulations with the statement that 
DOE must make the following assumptions (10 CFR 63.322 [DIRS 156605]). Therefore, all 
other types of intrusion, including mining, by default, are excluded due to the 
regulatory-specified assumption. 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional and deliberate or 
inadvertent and accidental, 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) is are silent. Similarly, the 
regulations at 40 CFR Part 197 (DIRS 165519) does not directly address the motivation or 
intentionality of the intrusion. However, the supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 
clarify that consideration of deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the supplementary 
information to 40 CFR Part 197 (66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216], p. 32105, Item 3), the EPA, in 
response to comments regarding the human intrusion stylized analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the NAS [National Academy of Science] recommendations 
and we therefore retained our original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this (66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216], p. 32127, Item 10), explicitly stating that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs [National Academy of Science] conclusion regarding intentional intrusion 
(NAS Report, p. 14). 
Additionally, the requirements at 10 CFR 63.322(f) (DIRS 156605) and 40 CFR 197.26(e) 
(DIRS 165519), indicating that only radionuclides transported to the SZ must be considered, 
preclude the consideration of FEPs related to the exposure of the public, drillers, or other human 
intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The supplementary information to 
10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761, Supplementary Information, 
3.10 Human Intrusion Standard) is clear with the intent of the NRC: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-63 October 2004 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS [National 
Academy of Science] concluded, and the Commission agrees, that analysis of the 
risk to the public or the intruders (i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill 
cuttings left unattended at the surface for subsequent dispersal into the biosphere 
would not fulfill the purpose of the human intrusion calculation because it would 
not show how well a particular repository site and design would protect the public 
at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard of particulate HLW left on the surface 
would be dominated by assumptions subject to significant speculation and 
uncertainty regardless of the particular site or design under evaluation. 
Additionally, the release to the surface represents a one-time release with no 
long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs discussed in this analysis report are excluded 
based on the regulatory intent, and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of 
the regulatory requirements to consider only the stylized human intrusion and the timing of such 
an event (see also Assumption 5.2 regarding the loss of records and ineffectiveness of repository 
markers). 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3.9 Explosions and Crashes (Human Activities) (1.4.11.00.0A) 
FEP Description: Explosions or crashes resulting from future human 
activities may affect the long-term performance of the 
repository. Explosions may result from nuclear war, 
underground nuclear testing, or resource exploitation. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Explosions and Crashes (Human Activities) is excluded 
from the TSPALA based on regulation and low 
consequence because the type of phenomena listed 
primarily would have surficial effects, unless the repository 
was deliberately targeted, which is a specific form of 
deliberate human intrusion as is therefore excluded 
(10 CFR 63.322 [DIRS 156605]). Resource exploration, in 
the form of groundwater exploitation, is addressed as part 
of the human intrusion stylized analysis. 
The development history for this FEP indicates that several possible cases are covered by this 
FEP. These include surface detonation of nuclear or conventional weapons, aircraft crashes, 
subsurface explosion related to resource recovery, and nuclear detonation nearby in the 
subsurface. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-64 October 2004 
Human intrusion is defined as (10 CFR 63.302 [DIRS 156605]): 
Human intrusion means breaching any portion of the Yucca Mountain disposal 
system, within the repository footprint, by any human activity 
This is an important concept in that any human activity that has the potential to breach the 
disposal system is included within the regulatory intent regarding human intrusion. 
Performance assessment is defined (10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605]) as an analysis that: 
Identifies the features, events, and processes (except human intrusion), and 
sequences of events and processes (except human intrusion), that might affect the 
Yucca Mountain disposal system and their probabilities of occurring during 
10,000 years after disposal. 
From this statement stems a regulatory basis for excluding all FEPs that address human 
intrusion, including explosions and crashes, from consideration in the TSPALA model. 
However, there are specific regulatory provisions regarding consideration of human intrusion as 
a stylized analysis based on exploratory drilling for groundwater (10 CFR 63.322 
[DIRS 156605]). 
With regard to the motivation of a human intrusion being intentional and deliberate or 
inadvertent and accidental, 10 CFR Part 63 (DIRS 156605) is silent. Similarly, 40 CFR Part 197 
(DIRS 165519) does not directly address the motivation or intentionality of the intrusion. 
However, the supplemental discussions for 40 CFR Part 197 clarify that consideration of 
deliberate intrusion is not intended. In the supplementary information to 40 CFR Part 197 
(66 FR 32074 [DIRS 155216], p. 32105, Item 3), the EPA, in response to comments regarding 
the human intrusion stylized analysis, states: 
Comments we received proposing alternative drilling frequencies and intentions, 
such as deliberately drilling into the repository, did not provide a sufficient 
rationale to abandon the NAS [National Academy of Science] recommendations 
and we therefore retained our original framing for the scenario. 
The EPA amplifies this (66 FR 32127 [66 FR 32074 (DIRS 155216), p. 32127, Item 10]) stating 
that: 
Some comments suggested that there is a strong possibility for deliberate 
intrusion into the repository to access its content as possible resources. We 
believe that there is no useful purpose to assessing the consequences of deliberate 
intrusions because in that case the intruders would be aware of the risks and 
consequences and would have decided to assume the risks. This is consistent with 
NASs [the National Academy of Science] conclusion regarding intentional 
intrusion (NAS Report, p. 14). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-65 October 2004 
Consequently, all deliberate human intrusion FEPs discussed in this analysis report are excluded 
based on the regulatory intent, and all inadvertent intrusions are considered within the context of 
the regulatory requirements to consider only the human intrusion stylized analysis and the timing 
of such an event. 
With regard to explosions and crashes, the depth of the repository suggests that such events are 
of low consequence to repository performance. The minimum depth of the TSPA-LA repository 
(distance from the emplacement area to the overlying surface) is approximately 200 m. The 
overburden thickness from emplacement area to topographic surface is 215 m (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 164519]). A depth of 200 m will be used in the calculation to provide a small margin of 
conservatism. 
With regard to potential consequences of airplane crashes, surface detonation, and subsurface 
detonation, the results of the evaluation of meteorite impact cratering (Appendix C) are relevant, 
and direct inputs to the discussion are addressed in Appendix B. To be of consequence, the 
detonation or impact must be sufficient to exhume the waste, create fracturing to depth, or create 
a significant increase in fracturing over a widespread area such that infiltration patterns and rates 
are significantly altered. The analysis presented in Appendix D suggests that impacts resulting 
in craters with diameters on the scale of 80 to 100 m (262 to 328 feet) might be sufficient to lead 
to fracturing of the geologic units overlying the repository sufficient to increase infiltration. A 
crater with a diameter on the order of 300 m (984 feet) is needed to initiate fracturing to the 
depth of the repository, and a crater with a diameter on the order of 1 km (3,280 feet) is needed 
to exhume waste directly to the surface. Based on Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], 
Figure 12), such crater diameters, respectively, are associated with energy release on the scale of 
1012 to 1017 joules (200 tons to 20 megatons trinitrotoluene (TNT) equivalent based on a 
relationship of 1 megaton TNT = 4.2  1015 joules (J) per Chapman and Morrison (1994 
[DIRS 135245], p. 33). 
Such large-scale energy releases are not associated with surface impact of an aircraft or surface 
detonation of conventional ordnance because of insufficient energy release to the subsurface. By 
way of comparison, Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994], p. 15) suggest that kinetic energy of a 
Boeing 767 is on the order of 1 to 2 tons TNT. Stix and Yam also indicate that the potential 
explosive energy release from fuel on board a large jet passenger aircraft is on the order of 
90 tons TNT (or 180 tons for two jets) , though this would not all be focused into the subsurface. 
With regard to more conventional ordinance, Ferguson (2002 [DIRS 160988]) suggests that the 
conventional yield of a GBU-28 bunker buster bomb is on the order of 2 tons and with a 
limitation on penetration depth of approximately 30 m. With regard to earth-penetrating 
weapons, available direct inputs suggest that a penetration depth of 30 m is a reasonable 
maximum estimate. Backman and Goldstein (1978 [DIRS 167628], pp. 32 and 38) provide two 
direct inputs. For a 5,000-psi concrete (34.5 MPa), which is at the lower end of the range in rock 
compressive strengths at Yucca Mountain, the maximum penetration depth is given as 
25 penetrator diameters. If one assumes a 1-m diameter, then the maximum penetration depth is 
25 m. Backman and Goldstein (1978 [DIRS 167628], p. 38, Equation 6.2) also present the 
Poncelet equation that, for a 150 kg mass and entrance velocity of 400 m/sec, yields a maximum 
penetration depth of about 38 m. Other direct inputs include the empirical results of Patterson 
(1974 [DIRS 167805]), who reports maximum penetration depth of 20.7 m in an old glacial lake 
bed for a projectile with a 20.3 cm diameter and velocity of 150.9 m/sec; the results from Young 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-66 October 2004 
(1976 [DIRS 167806], Table II), who reports 67 m in hard dry playa lake soils, and those of 
Forrestal et al. (1981 [DIRS 167630], p. 28), who report 2.6 m into a welded tuff. 
Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], p. 262) suggest that in the 64-kt pile driver test, stresses at 
about 100 m (328 feet) were slightly less than that needed to propagate fractures in granodiorite. 
Consequently, energy releases of the magnitude required to induce fracturing to depths of 
interest (i.e., 80 to 100 m, 262 to 328 feet) or over a wide portion of the repository, would require 
intentional and targeted, deep penetrating, high-yield detonations. By regulatory definition, this 
is considered as deliberate human intrusion and is excluded under other FEPs. For generic, 
smaller scale crashes and explosions, the energy release is insufficient to significantly affect 
repository performance, and are, therefore, excluded based on low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.3.10 Repository Excavation (3.3.06.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Excavation of the repository and/or its contents may result 
in the production of tailings, which may subsequently 
release toxic contaminants. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Repository Excavation is excluded from the TSPALA 
based on regulation because the handling of excavation 
spoils during construction is primarily a preclosure 
operational concern, whereas the regulatory focus is on 
postclosure assessment. Furthermore, future mining of the 
repository for its waste content constitutes human intrusion 
and postclosure excavation of repository contents would 
constitute deliberate human intrusion. Additionally, the 
surface facilities will be removed and the surface restored 
prior to closure. 
By explanation of the concept of performance assessment, the NRC clarifies that a performance 
assessment is to demonstrate compliance with postclosure performance objectives 
(10 CFR 63.102(j) [DIRS 156605]). Given that excavation of the repository host horizon will 
occur at the outset of the construction phase, the creation and handling of excavation spoils is a 
preclosure concern. 
The NRC indicates that the preclosure requirement is to be based on protecting the RMEI against 
radiation exposures and releases of radioactive material (10 CFR 63.311(a) [DIRS 156605]). 
The regulation does not specify chemical toxicity as a preclosure performance criterion, nor does 
it require the estimation of health effects resulting from non-radiological toxicity. This is 
consistent with exclusion of FEP 3.3.07.00.0A (Non-radiological toxicity/ effects). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-67 October 2004 
Furthermore, future mining of the repository for its waste content constitutes human intrusion, 
and postclosure excavation of repository contents would constitute deliberate human intrusion, 
and is therefore excluded. The regulations at 10 CFR 63.322(f) (DIRS 156605) and 
40 CFR 197.26(e) (DIRS 165519), indicating that only radionuclides transported to the SZ must 
be considered, preclude the consideration of human-intrusion FEPs related to the exposure of the 
public, drillers, or other human intruders from cuttings, circulated materials, or tailings. The 
supplementary information to 10 CFR Part 63 (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761, 
Supplementary Information, 3.10 Human Intrusion Standard) states: 
Human intrusion has the potential for releasing particulate HLW to the surface 
with drill cuttings or providing a fast pathway for radionuclides to be transported 
to the SZ by water (e.g., water enters the waste package, releases radionuclides, 
and transports radionuclides by way of the borehole to the SZ). NAS [National 
Academy of Science] NAS concluded, and the Commission agrees, that analysis 
of the risk to the public or the intruders (i.e., drilling crew) from radioactive drill 
cuttings left unattended at the surface for subsequent dispersal into the biosphere 
would not fulfill the purpose of the human intrusion calculation because it would 
not show how well a particular repository site and design would protect the public 
at large. Rather, an analysis of the hazard of particulate HLW left on the surface 
would be dominated by assumptions subject to significant speculation and 
uncertainty regardless of the particular site or design under evaluation. 
Additionally, the release to the surface represents a one-time release with no 
long-term effect on the repository barriers. 
Within context, this statement is strictly directed towards concern with excavated waste rather 
than initial excavation tailings. However, the reasoning that materials left at the surface 
represent a one-time release with no long-term effect on the repository barriers is equally 
applicable to the initial excavation spoils. This is because spoils resulting from excavation of the 
repository would consist of naturally occurring materials. No chemical additives or 
chemical-based slurrying of the spoils will be used during excavation, and no organic materials 
(aside from the potential for trace amounts of machinery-related fluids such as lubrication oils, 
grease, or hydraulic fluids) will be introduced to the spoils and organic contaminants are, 
therefore, not of concern. Furthermore, the geologic materials at Yucca Mountain are not a 
economically feasible source of extractable metals or other mineral resources, and therefore the 
potential for leachate concentrations is not comparable to the potential to mine tailings associated 
with commercially viable mineral deposits. The spoils will be similar in mineralogic 
composition to naturally occurring alluvial materials already present in the washes and drainage 
channels existing at Yucca Mountain. Repository excavation is therefore excluded based on 
regulations and low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-68 October 2004 
6.2.4 Miscellaneous Geologic and Astronomic FEPs 
This set of FEPs is related to effects of heat on the biosphere, to the geologic setting, or to 
extraterrestrial processes and events. Direct inputs used in this section originating from 
YMP-controlled sources or NRC regulations are listed in Section 4, and no further discussion 
beyond that provided in Section 4 is required for such sources. Non-YMP sources of direct input 
are also cited in Section 4. Such sources and corroborating information are discussed in 
Appendix B. Non-YMP originating source information related to various FEPs such as 
diagenesis, extraterrestrial events, and earth tides are discussed in Appendix B. Source 
information specifically related to meteorite-impact analyses are specifically addressed in 
Appendix D. 
6.2.4.1 Metamorphism (1.2.05.00.0A) 
FEP Description: Regional metamorphism has the potential to affect the 
long-term performance of the repository if it occurs. 
Metamorphic activity is defined as solid state 
recrystallization changes to rock properties and geologic 
structures through the effects of heat and/or pressure. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Probability and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Metamorphism is excluded from the TSPALA based on 
low probability because the conditions and time required for 
metamorphic process near Yucca Mountain are such that 
metamorphism is not credible within a 10,000-year period, and 
based on low consequence because contact metamorphism may 
occur only over a limited area and at a low probability. 
For purposes of the FEP screening, the discussion is limited to regional scale and contact 
metamorphism. The definition of regional metamorphism applied herein refers to the processes 
by which rocks are changed by the action of heat and pressure at depths of a few kilometers 
beneath the surface of the earth (i.e., the onset of metamorphic conditions correspond to 
temperatures of 150C to 200C, pressures of 0.5 to 1 kilobars, and depths of 4 to 5 km (Ehlers 
and Blatt 1972 [DIRS 167802], p. 566). Alternately, metamorphism may occur near magmatic 
activity (referred to as contact metamorphism). Changes in sediments and rocks at lesser 
conditions are referred to as diagenesis. See FEP 1.2.08.00.0A Diagenesis, in Section 6.2.4.2. 
See also Bates and Jackson (1984 [DIRS 128109], pp. 137 and 322) and Berry and Mason (1959 
[DIRS 135236], p. 240) for additional definitions. 
Regional metamorphism depends on regional tectonic deformation at Yucca Mountain and is, 
therefore, dependent on the strain accumulation rates and slip rates. Savage et al. (1999 
[DIRS 118952], p. 17627) present an evaluation of the strain accumulation rate at Yucca 
Mountain during 1983 to 1998. Savage et al. (1999 [DIRS 118952], p. 17627) indicate that the 
strain rate in the Yucca Mountain area is low, equivalent to 2 nanostrain/yr. Savage et al. (1999 
[DIRS 118952]) also addressed alternative interpretations indicating higher strain rates on the 
order of 50 nanostrain/yr (Wernicke et al. 1998 [DIRS 103485]). Regardless of which strain 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-69 October 2004 
rates are used, the strain rate has resulted in cumulative fault slip rates of 0.001 to 0.03 mm/yr 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169881], Table 6). The strain rates and the local cumulative fault slip rates 
suggest that mechanisms leading to metamorphic activity (particularly deep burial) will occur at 
a slow rate. 
Conditions conducive to metamorphism include temperatures of 150C to 200C, pressures on 
the order of 0.5 to 1 kilobar, and depths of 4 to 5 km. The geothermal gradient at convergent 
plate boundaries may range from 10 to 25C per km (Ehlers and Blatt 1982 [DIRS 167802], 
pp. 684 and 685), while at Yucca Mountain, an extensional terrane, the geothermal gradient, 
measured in 300- to 600-m-deep borings at Yucca Mountain is approximately 30C/km 
(Sass et al. 1988 [DIRS 100644], pp. 38 and 39), which agrees with the temperature gradient 
indicated by Press and Siever (1978 [DIRS 167965], p. 298). A typical value for pressure 
gradients from geostatic loading is about 0.6 kilobar/km (Ehlers and Blatt (1982 [DIRS 167802], 
p. 169, Figure 6-3), although Press and Siever (1978 [DIRS 167965], p. 298) indicate a pressure 
gradient on the order of 0.2 bar/km. This suggests that at Yucca Mountain, the metamorphic 
regime may be present at depths of approximately 4 to 5 km. The rate of subsidence (vertical 
movement leading to deep burial) is controlled by movement along block-bounding faults and, at 
maximum, approximates the cumulative rate of fault slip at Bare Mountain and Yucca Mountain. 
The local cumulative fault slip rate is 0.001 to 0.03 mm/yr (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169881], Table 6). 
A slip rate of 0.03 mm/yr would result in a vertical movement of approximately 0.3 m (1 foot) in 
10,000 years. A 0.3-m (1-foot) vertical movement is insufficient to result in pressure and 
temperature conditions conducive to regional metamorphism at the repository elevation, which is 
much shallower than 5 km below the ground surface. Additionally, the locus of subsidence has 
moved to the southwest corner of the basin, away from Yucca Mountain (Fridrich 1999 
[DIRS 118942], p. 189). Because the repository block itself will not be significantly affected by 
the present subsidence rates within 10,000 years, this FEP is excluded based on low 
consequence. 
Contact metamorphism is by definition associated with igneous activity, which at Yucca 
Mountain is a localized rather than regional phenomenon. Further discussion is, therefore, 
beyond the scope of this FEP. Contact metamorphism is more fully addressed as part of the 
disruptive events FEP evaluation (FEP 1.2.04.02.0A, Igneous activity changes rock properties). 
In summary, regional metamorphism requires greatly increased pressure (generally resulting 
from burial on the order of kilometers), increased temperatures (greater than 150C to 200C), 
and long periods of geologic time (millions of years). At Yucca Mountain, development of these 
conditions depends on the rate of active tectonism and would require several million years to 
develop and is, therefore, of low probability within the next 10,000 years. Because the 
repository block will not be significantly affected, metamorphism does not provide a mechanism 
to affect dose within the repository performance period (10,000 years). Therefore, 
Metamorphism is excluded from the TSPALA based on low consequence. Contact 
metamorphism is addressed in a related FEP. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-70 October 2004 
6.2.4.2 Diagenesis (1.2.08.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses natural processes that alter the 
mineralogy or other properties of rocks after the rocks have 
formed under temperature- and pressure-conditions normal 
to the upper few kilometers of the earths crust. Diagenesis 
includes chemical, physical, and biological processes that 
take place in rocks after formation but before eventual 
metamorphism or weathering. This FEP refers to natural 
diagenetic processes only. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Diagenesis is excluded from the TSPALA based on low 
consequence because the diagenetic effects are generally 
favorable with regard to infiltration, reversible in nature, 
and occur over a prolonged time-scale. 
The time required for complete diagenesis in the shallow environment (extending from the 
surface to the downward limit of evapotranspiration) is potentially within the 10,000-year 
timescale of concern for the repository performance assessment (Lattman and Simonberg 1971 
[DIRS 129306], p. 277; and Krystinik 1990 [DIRS 135295], p. 8-1). Thus, diagenesis cannot be 
excluded based on low probability. 
The two primary mechanisms for early and shallow diagenetic changes are compaction and 
cementation. Initial compaction may reduce eolian sediments by as much as 20 to 30 percent 
(Krystinik 1990 [DIRS 135295], p. 8-2), but after the initial compaction, compaction does not 
become and important factor in diagenesis until the onset of grain deformation and pressure 
solution during deeper burial diagenesis (Krystinik 1990 [DIRS 135295], p. 8-3). The geologic 
setting of Yucca Mountain, however, is one of minimal subsidence rates (as discussed for 
FEP 1.2.05.00.0A, Metamorphism). Consequently, deep burial and significant compaction is not 
a credible diagenetic mechanism at Yucca Mountain within the 10,000-year repository 
performance period. 
Cementation, however, may be of interest. The predominance of SiO2 cements at Yucca 
Mountain is documented in Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864], Figure 9), who indicates that the 
accumulation rate of CaCO3, while occurring, is significantly less that that for SiO2. This is 
reflected in statements indicating that carbonate is primarily derived from airborne dust and the 
opaline SiO2 from in-place weathering of the parent material and that the cementation by opaline 
SiO2 is common in the study area and that opaline SiO2 accumulation in the soils is favored over 
that of CaCO3 (Taylor 1986 [DIRS 102864], pp. 31 to 33). Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864]) also 
indicates SiO2 cementation, with CaCO3 as accessory cement, is common in the study area. 
Furthermore, the presence of cements other than CaCO3, such as SiO2 in arid environments, is 
documented in Krystinik (1990 [DIRS 135295], p. 8-4). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-71 October 2004 
The net effects of shallow diagenesis and associated cementation are to stabilize the surface 
environment and decrease the net vertical infiltration rate (Reeves 1976 [DIRS 104303], p. 110). 
Whereas Reeves work focused primarily on CaCO3, but also addressed silicious cements, 
cementation in rhyolitic tuffs, absent a carbonate source, is not a significant process 
(Lattman 1973 [DIRS 129305], p. 3015). The predominance of SiO2 cements at Yucca 
Mountain is an important consideration because Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864]) indicates that in 
the soils studied, in the absence of effective precipitation or drainage to remove newly dissolved 
silica, it is precipitated elsewhere within the calcrete horizon, or CaCO3 preferentially 
precipitates after opaline silica bonds adjacent soil grains. Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864]) notes 
that this process may occur without necessarily plugging intervening pore spaces, as suggested 
by Reeves (1976 [DIRS 104303]). Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864], Chapter 5) also suggests that 
the cementation process, particularly for CaCO3 is reversible, and that the material can be 
redissolved and moved deeper into the soil profile. Modeling results discussed by Taylor (1986 
[DIRS 102864]) suggest that increased precipitation in the future may translocate CaCO3 
accumulations to greater depths, where precipitation is greater. Thus, for Yucca Mountain 
alluvial material, it can be concluded that the net effect of infiltration is either minimal or 
infiltration is likely decreased. 
Because the time frame of interest is 10,000 years, the potential for effects of climate change on 
shallow diagenesis must be considered. As direct input, Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864], 
Chapter 5) indicates silts that formed in alluvium and eolian fines of Holocene to early 
Pleistocene or late Pliocene age near Yucca Mountain are characterized by distinctive trends in 
the accumulation of secondary clay, CaCO3, and opaline SiO2 that correspond with the ages of 
the surficial deposits. However, there is no macro- or micromorphological evidence to suggest 
that silica cementation occurred under climatic conditions cooler and wetter than those of present 
climate. In contrast, Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864]) also states that accumulation rates of these 
materials during the Holocene can be attributed to several possible climatic scenarios associated 
with the Holocene-Pleistocene climate change, but suggest that precipitation has not been a 
limiting factor, and that climatic change was not sufficient to greatly decrease rates of 
accumulation. 
Consequently, climate change can be assumed to affect the rate and location of shallow 
diagenesis due to changes in temperature, precipitation, vegetation, and other less critical factors 
that control the rate and distribution of diagenetic changes such as cementation. The net effect, 
however, will be to vary the depth of the cemented horizons (due to dissolution and 
reprecipitation), change the composition of the cement materials (due to differing equilibrium 
conditions), and otherwise drive the diagenetic processes to differing endpoints and redistribute 
the areas affected, rather than eliminating the net effects of diagenesis. However, the effect of 
variability in rates and location of infiltration is already addressed in TSPA-LA by varying the 
infiltration rates associated with varying climatic conditions. The net effect of past diagenesis in 
the host rocks is included implicitly in the TSPALA through the assignment of models and 
parameters for flow and transport in the UZ and SZ. Mineralogic changes, if any, induced by the 
repository and occurring over the period of several hundreds of years due to thermal loading, 
would be of greater consequence at the repository depth than changes resulting near the surface 
from naturally occurring diagenetic processes in the vadose zone. Repository-induced changes 
(e.g., geochemical and thermal processes) are addressed by other FEPs and are beyond the scope 
of the naturally occurring process that is the focus of this FEP. Although the changes might be 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-72 October 2004 
similar due to increased temperatures, the naturally occurring changes at depth would occur over 
a period on the order of several thousand years rather than in several hundreds of years. 
Furthermore, uncertainty in rates and location of infiltration are already addressed in the 
TSPA-LA by varying the infiltration rates associated with the varying climatic conditions, which 
tends to dominate other flow rate uncertainties. This FEP, therefore, is excluded based on low 
consequence. 
A brief overview of some of the above listed information is provided in the Supplemental 
Discussion at the end of this section. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
Supplemental Discussion: 
IntroductionBates and Jackson (1984 [DIRS 128109], p. 137) define two types of diagenesis. 
Mineralogically, diagenesis is defined as the geochemical processes or transformations that 
affect clay minerals before burial in the marine environment. Sedimentologically, it is defined 
as all the changes undergone by a sediment after its initial deposition, exclusive of weathering 
and metamorphism. It includes those processes (such as compaction, cementation, replacement) 
that occur under conditions of pressure and temperature that are normal in the outer portion of 
the earths crust, and according to most United States geologists it includes changes occurring 
after lithification. Bates and Jackson (1984 [DIRS 128109], p. 137) further state [t]here is no 
universally accepted definition of the term, and no delimitation, e.g., with metamorphism. A 
prelithification definition has been used by Thrush (1968 [DIRS 106989], p. 320) and Berry and 
Mason (1959 [DIRS 135236], p. 233). Post-lithification changes in rock that change grain size, 
develop new minerals, or destroy previously existing minerals are typically considered to be 
alteration (Thrush 1968 [DIRS 106989], p. 30) or metamorphism (Thrush 1968 [DIRS 106989], 
p. 699) rather than diagenesis, although the terms are sometimes used interchangeably or in 
conjunction. 
Most of the literature on diagenesis focuses on sedimentary deposits and diagenetic processes 
that have occurred in clastic or carbonate sedimentary environments. The history of the studied 
deposits typically is characterized as fluvial or marine deposition (either as clastic deposition or 
chemical precipitation) during and followed by an extended period of deep burial (>1 km). The 
geologic system at Yucca Mountain, however, is characterized by erosion and exhumation of 
lithified igneous materials, rather than deposition and burial of clastic or carbonate sedimentary 
sequences. Consequently, for the evaluation of Yucca Mountain FEPs, diagenesis is expanded to 
include alteration of volcanic rocks at pressures and temperatures below metamorphic conditions 
and lithification processes that may occur in surficial deposits. 
Diagenesis of the volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain is discussed in the Viability Assessment of a 
Repository at Yucca Mountain (DOE 1998 [DIRS 100548], Section 6.1). The host rock unit at 
Yucca Mountain is a welded tuff. Diagenesis has modified these rocks in the past, and will 
continue to do so in the future. Diagenesis has resulted in the formation of secondary zeolite and 
clay minerals. Much of this change occurred shortly after deposition of the volcanic rocks. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-73 October 2004 
Change has continued at a slower rate throughout the last 10 million years, subsequent to 
deposition of the tuffs, and the products of past diagenesis in the welded tuffs are included 
implicitly in the TSPALA through the assignment of models and parameters for flow and 
transport in the UZ and SZ. 
Surficial Quaternary deposits occur at the Yucca Mountain site and in the region. These deposits 
result from the weathering of parent geologic material (rhyolitic tuffs), and subsequent erosion 
and redeposition. On Yucca Mountain, these surficial deposits are present as alluvial and 
colluvial fans and fan remnants and as deposits in stream channels. In the Amargosa Desert, 
they are present as valley-fill material. The primary lithification processes affecting these 
surficial deposits are compaction and cementation, which in turn decrease infiltration rates. The 
variance in infiltration rates based on soil types is currently incorporated into the infiltration 
model for the Yucca Mountain region. 
Compaction/ConsolidationThe primary diagenetic processes of concern at Yucca Mountain 
include compaction and cementation. Compaction due to burial can result in a decrease in 
porosity with time. Palmer and Barton (1987 [DIRS 118483], Figure 3 and pp. 32 and 39) 
indicate that compaction due to burial of uncemented Tertiary-age sands reduced the in situ 
porosity by about 12 to 13 percent of the initial porosity, while Berner (1980 [DIRS 128110], 
Figure 3.2) suggests that a 40 to 50 percent decrease is possible, assuming a consistent and 
continuing burial process. 
CementationA second diagenetic process of concern is cementation. In most arid and semi-arid 
environments, cementation occurs due to formation of calcium carbonate or other carbonate 
cements (Reeves 1976 [DIRS 104303], p. 7; Lattman 1973 [DIRS 129305], p. 3014). This may 
be expressed as formation of layers or fracture infills in the near-surface environment. However, 
the formation of carbonate cements depends on the presence of a source of the carbonate ion. 
Lattman (1973 [DIRS 129305]) conducted studies on fan deposits near Las Vegas, Nevada. The 
results indicate that alluvial fans in Nevada that consist of silicic igneous materials (such as those 
composed of rhyolite and rhyolitic tuffs) are almost always very poorly cemented, showing 
little more than a few scattered, coated pebbles in weak calcic horizons. Even where, as in 
Las Vegas Basin, large quantities of calcareous dust are available, the cementation is very weak 
(Lattman 1973 [DIRS 129305], p. 3022). 
Krystinik (1990 [DIRS 135295], p. 8-8), however, discusses the role of other cementitious 
materials during diagenesis of surficial (eolian) deposits in arid environments, and notes that 
weathering can reverse the previous effects of diagenesis by removing earlier cements and 
allowing deflation to occur (Krystinik 1990 [DIRS 135295], p. 8-3). Krystinik (1990 
[DIRS 135295], p. 8-4) indicates for eolian deposits, that in dry sand, diagenesis on the surface 
of active dunes occurs in the form of minor chemical degradation of grains, rock-flour mortar, 
and as amorphous silica, iron, and aluminum oxy-hydroxide grain coatings. Krystinik (1990 
[DIRS 135295]) also notes that observed cements in damp sand included amorphous iron silica, 
aluminum, and lesser percentages of calcite, smectite, and sodium carbonate. Krystinik (1990 
[DIRS 135295], pp. 8-4, 8-8, and Table 2) also notes that the solutes in water associated with 
these cements are remarkably similar to examples of water from granitic and igneous source 
terranes documented by others. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-74 October 2004 
Reeves (1976 [DIRS 104303], p. 28) indicates that indurated soil horizons, due principally to 
silica cementation, are termed duripans in the U.S. and silcrete or silcrust in Australia and 
other countries. Reeves (1976 [DIRS 104303], p. 29) also mentions that near-surface silica 
hardpans occur in granitic alluvium in the San Joaquin Valley, discusses the factors that favor 
silica versus carbonate cementation, and mentions that many carbonate caliches contain 
measurable quantities of silica. 
Duripans, or petrocalcic layers, are common in the soil descriptions presented in the FEIS 
(DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970], Table 3-20). It is possible that these deposits could experience 
additional cementation. The cementation of deposits mantling Yucca Mountain could affect 
future rates of moisture infiltration and cementation in deposits composing the alluvial aquifer 
downgradient of Yucca Mountain. As indicated above, however, increases in cementation tend 
to decrease the porosity and permeability of deposits. Thus, it is unlikely that cementation will 
significantly increase infiltration or flow rates. 
Rate of Diagenesis of Shallow DepositsStudies of the diagenesis and carbonate cementations of 
the Smackover Formation of Louisiana indicate that the rates of mineralogic stabilization were 
found to differ in the various diagenetic environments (Humphrey et al. 1986 [DIRS 118461], 
pp. 77 to 78). For the materials studied on various carbonate islands, however, mineralogic 
stabilization in the meteoric phreatic zone goes to completion within a few thousand years 
(Humphrey et al. 1986 [DIRS 118461]). They further state that rates of mineralogic stabilization 
in the shallow vadose zone (i.e., the downward limit of the zone of evapotranspiration) may be 
comparable to those of the meteoric phreatic environment. By contrast, Humphrey et al. (1986 
[DIRS 118461], p. 78) also cite studies from carbonate sequences that indicate incomplete 
diagenesis in the deep vadose zone even after 200,000 years. Although these rates are for 
geologic materials, environments of deposition, and climate significantly different than the 
alluvial materials in an arid environment present at Yucca Mountain, the study does provide an 
order of magnitude estimate for the timescale of concern. 
Dependence on ClimateThe ideal environment for caliche formation appears to be neither 
excessively arid nor excessively humid, and caliche formation can occur over a wide range of 
climatic conditions (Reeves 1976 [DIRS 104303], pp. 84 to 87). Reeves (1976 [DIRS 104303], 
p. 86) further states that: 
Certainly, the vast mineralogical differences between calcium carbonate and 
silica, yet the juxtaposition of both minerals in caliche, is prima facie evidence of 
significant changes in soil chemistry Because soil chemistry is affected by so 
many variables, such as temperature, parent material, vegetation, time and 
topography, it is impossible to describe a singular causative environmental factor 
for caliche formation. 
In addition, the depth to calcareous horizons (i.e., pedocals) is closely related to the amount and 
timing of precipitation, where increased precipitation generally results in a greater depth to the 
calcic horizon (Birkeland 1974 [DIRS 128113], p. 234; Reeves 1976 [DIRS 104303], 
Figure 4-10). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-75 October 2004 
6.2.4.3 Salt Diapirism and Dissolution (1.2.09.00.0A) 
FEP Description: This FEP addresses geologic processes primarily relevant 
to repositories located in salt deposits. Salt diapirism refers 
to the tendency of salt to flow under lithostatic loading 
when density and viscosity contrasts with surrounding 
strata are favorable. Salt domes are the best-known 
example of salt diapirism. Salt dissolution can occur when 
any soluble mineral is removed by flowing water. 
Large-scale dissolution is a potentially important process in 
rocks that are composed predominantly of water-soluble 
evaporite minerals, such as salt. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Salt Diapirism and Dissolution is excluded from the 
TSPALA based on regulatory requirements because salt 
deposits and evaporite deposits are not a geologic feature 
near the repository. 
The definition of geologic setting is the geologic, hydrologic, and geochemical systems of the 
region in which the geologic repository is or may be located (10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605]). 
Inclusion of this FEP would be outside the scope and intent stated at 10 CFR 63.21(c)(1) 
(DIRS 156605), which specifies consideration and description of features, events, and processes 
outside of the site to the extent the information is relevant and material to safety or performance 
of the geologic repository. Furthermore, at 10 CFR 63.114(a) and 10 CFR 63.115(a) 
(DIRS 156605), the regulatory requirements are to include data that are related to the geology, 
hydrology, and geochemistry (including disruptive events) of the Yucca Mountain Site, and the 
surrounding region to the extent necessary  and to identify  natural features of the geologic 
setting, that are considered barriers important to waste isolation. At 10 CFR 63.305(c) 
(DIRS 156605), the DOE is directed to vary factors related to the geology, hydrology, and 
climate based upon cautious, but reasonable assumptions consistent with present knowledge of 
factors that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system over the next 10,000 years. 
Evaporite deposits of sufficient volume to develop a diapir or to be of concern for dissolution have not 
been reported near Yucca Mountain. Rather, Yucca Mountain is located in the southwestern Nevada 
volcanic field and consists of tilted fault blocks composed of layered sequences of ash flow, ash-fall, 
and bedded tuffs of Miocene age (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029], Sections 6 and 6.5.1.4, and Table 6-2), 
as corroborated by BSC (2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 3.3.4) and as shown by Day et al. (1998 
[DIRS 100027]). Voluminous evaporite deposits do not exist near Yucca Mountain, and the repository 
is not planned for a salt dome or cavern. This feature and related process of lithologic flow are, 
therefore, inconsistent with the present knowledge of the geologic setting for Yucca Mountain. 
Therefore, Salt diapirism and dissolution is excluded from the TSPALA based on the regulation. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-76 October 2004 
6.2.4.4 Diapirism (1.2.09.01.0A) 
FEP Description: The process by which plastic, low density rocks (most 
commonly evaporites) may flow under lithostatic loading 
when density and viscosity contrasts with surrounding 
strata are favorable. Such a process would modify the 
groundwater flow regime and affect radionuclide transport. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Diapirism is excluded from the TSPALA based on 
regulatory requirements because geologic conditions 
suitable to diapirism are not present near the repository. 
In the broadest sense, diapirism encompasses the piercing or rupturing of domed or uplifted 
rocks by mobile core material, by tectonic stresses as in anticlinal folds, by the effect of geostatic 
load in sedimentary strata as in salt domes or shale diapirs, or by igneous intrusions, forming 
diapiric structures such as plugs (Bates and Jackson 1984 [DIRS 128109], p. 138). The concept 
of diapirism is usually applied to salt structures resulting from geostatic loading. 
FEP 1.209.00.0A (Salt diapirism) is addressed in Section 6.2.4.3 and is excluded by regulation. 
There is no past evidence of other forms of diapirism within the geologic setting at Yucca 
Mountain. 
Current tectonic stresses in the region are extensional (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168030], Section 6.3.1), 
and an extensional stress regime is not conducive to compression-related anticlinal folding and 
doming associated with diapirism. The geologic materials at Yucca Mountain are brittle 
(particularly the welded tuffs), and have exhibited deformation by faulting and jointing, or 
formation of breccias rather than diapirism. The volcanic rocks present at the site are not 
capable of ductile flow under the stresses and at the temperatures expected to result at the site 
due to geostatic loading and waste emplacement. In general, ductile behavior is associated with 
increased temperatures and increased hydrostatic pressures and is expected at deep levels of the 
crust of the earth and in the mantle. However, Yucca Mountain is located in an area of only 
moderate heat flow in the Southern Great Basin; it lies south of the regions that might be more 
conducive to diapirism as indicated by relatively high crustal heat flow (Lachenbruch and 
Sass 1978 [DIRS 142990], pp. 212 and 246). 
Therefore, further consideration of diapirism related to tectonic stresses and geostatic loading is 
precluded at 10 CFR 63.2, 10 CFR 63.21(c)(1), 10 CFR 63.114(a), 10 CFR 63.115(a), and 
10 CFR 63.305(c) (DIRS 156605) because the necessary geologic materials and stress 
environment do not occur at Yucca Mountain. 
Diapirism related to igneous intrusion is relevant to the disruptive scenario for igneous intrusion. 
Because of the stress regime at Yucca Mountain, an igneous event is most likely to be in the 
form of a dike(BSC 2003 [DIRS 169989], Section 6.1). Dikes would be oriented subparallel to 
the direction of existing groundwater flow and faults and fractures (and, therefore, have minimal 
effect on groundwater flow systems), as opposed to significant vertical changes due to uplift or 
doming events related to igneous-induced diapirism. By way of corroboration, Smith et al. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-77 October 2004 
(1998 [DIRS 118967], p. 155) point out that extension is accommodated in the upper crust by 
intrusion of vertical dikes perpendicular to the extension direction, with surface deformation 
possibly including open fissures, monoclines, normal faults, and grabens, and with surface uplift 
being approximately a few meters (Smith et al. 1998 [DIRS 118967], Figure 2). Therefore, the 
igneous aspect of diapirism is excluded based on low consequence. The potential for hydrologic 
response to igneous activity is more fully evaluated in the FEP 1.2.10.02.0A (Hydrologic 
response to igneous activity), which is shared by multiple FEPs AMRs. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.4.5 Meteorite Impact (1.5.01.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Meteorite impact close to the repository site might disturb 
or remove rock so that radionuclide transport to the surface 
is accelerated. Possible effects include alteration of flow 
patterns (faults, fractures), changes in rock stress, cratering, 
and exhumation of waste. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Probability and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Meteorite impact is excluded from the TSPALA based 
on low probability and low consequence. 
The FEP analysis depends on the probability of occurrence of various size impact craters, the 
area and relative dimensions of the repository footprint, and the depth of the repository below the 
ground surface. The probability of an impact crater of a given size occurring directly over or 
adjacent to the repository depends on the total flux of meteorites to the earth surface and the 
repository footprint area (or target area). The size of the crater of interest is determined by the 
depth from ground surface to the top of the repository, the depth of any intervening geologic 
layers of particular interest due to their physical or hydrologic properties, and the spatial 
relationship of crater diameter to the associated exhumation depth and fracture depth. The 
annualized probability threshold for consideration is 10-8 (Assumption 5.1). 
Detailed probability calculations, and a thorough discussion of meteorite impact probability and 
cratering information provide the technical basis for exclusion. These calculations and related 
detailed discussion are provided in Appendix D. The analysis is based on direct input for 
meteorite characteristics and cratering statistics, all of which were taken from published 
literature (Appendix B). 
The initial evaluation indicated that only simple cratering effects needed to be considered, due to 
the low probability of large crater diameters associated with complex cratering (Grieve 1987 
[DIRS 135254], p. 249; Grieve et al. 1995 [DIRS 135260], p. 184; Wuschke et al. 1995 
[DIRS 129326], p. 3). The relationship of energy release, crater diameter, and the spatial 
relationship of crater diameter to extent and depth of cratering effects was derived from a variety 
of sources, including: Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], pp. 250 and 261 to 264), Grieve (1998 
[DIRS 163385], p. 113 and Figure 3), and Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 3 and 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-78 October 2004 
Figure 1). Cratering rate distributions for the repository area were developed based on 
distributions and equations presented by Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254], pp. 249, 257, and 
Figure 8) and Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], pp. 4 and 26). Meteorite flux mass and size 
information was derived from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242], p. 362 and Figure 1), and these 
data were further refined by type of material and related densities (Ceplecha 1994 
[DIRS 135243], p. 967, Tables 1, 3, and 4, Figure 2; Shoemaker 1983 [DIRS 135308], pp. 464 
and 480). This was coupled with other data (Hills and Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], pp. 1140 
and 1142, Figures 9, 16, 17, and 18) to translate initial meteor radius to resulting crater radius 
and other effects to produce a distribution of crater diameters based on meteoroid flux to earth. 
These calculations are also based on a minimum depth to the repository of approximately 200 m 
(656 feet). The overburden thickness from the emplacement area to the topographic surface is 
215 m (705 feet) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519]). A depth of 200 m (656 feet) is used in the 
calculation to provide a small margin of conservatism. Also of interest is the minimum depth to 
a key geohydrologic unit, the Paintbrush non-wleded tuff. In the easternmost portion of the 
repository, the depth of the unit is approximately 60 m (196 feet) (Appendix D). This unit, 
however, is considerably deeper over the remainder of the repository due to topographic changes 
to the west. The unit outcrops west of the ridgeline of Yucca Mountain, but at a location not 
overlying the repository footprint. 
This FEP is excluded based on low probability for exhumation and fracturing to repository depth 
and based on low consequence for increased infiltration in the UZ that could result from a 
meteorite impact in the repository area or outcrop area adjacent to the waste emplacement area. 
Based on the TSPA-LA footprint design and using conservative assumptions for meteor entry 
velocity, the crater diameter (i.e., 20 to 80 m or 65 to 262 feet) that corresponds to the 10-8 
annualized exceedance probability is of insufficient size to exhume waste or produce a crater 
with fractures that reach the repository depth (Appendix D). Larger crater diameters occur less 
frequently and are of lower probability, and therefore are excluded from the TSPALA. Smaller 
crater diameters occur more frequently, but these are of insufficient size to result in direct 
exhumation or fracturing to the depth of the repository; therefore, these smaller craters are 
excluded for exhumation and fracturing to repository depth based on low consequence. 
Groundwater movement through specific rock units differ based on hydrogeologic properties of 
the rock units (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861], Sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.2). Water that infiltrates into 
the Tiva Canyon welded unit can be transported rapidly through fractures as deep as the 
underlying Paintbrush nonwelded unit. Due to high porosity and low fracture density, the 
Paintbrush unit tends to slow and divert the downward velocity of water flow compared to highly 
fractured units such as the Tiva Canyon unit. However, isotopic analysis of 36Cl has identified 
isolated pathways that provide relatively rapid water movement for small amounts of water 
through the Paintbrush nonwelded unit to the top of the underlying Topopah Spring welded unit. 
Due to increased fracturing in the Topopah Spring welded unit, water has the potential to travel 
more rapidly through the unit. Consequently, fracturing of the geologic units above the 
repository is of concern from the standpoint of altering flow paths because increased fracturing 
of the Paintbrush nonwelded unit could result in increased downward groundwater flux. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-79 October 2004 
Particular zones of interest include the Pah Canyon and Topopah Spring subzones of the 
Paintbrush nonwelded tuff. For this analysis, the depths of these units were obtained from 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (DIRS 152554) based on borehole locations within the repository area 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029], Figure 6-1). Depths are presented provided in Appendix D. The 
Paintbrush unit is present across the repository footprint and, generally, at depths substantially 
greater than 60 m at locations overlying the repository footprint. However, in the extreme 
eastern portion of the repository, the top of this unit can be at a depth of less than 60 m, and it 
outcrops to the west of the repository. 
Appendix D provides four similar probability curves (based on multiple sources) in the 
two figures, Figures D-7 (for the TSPA-LA emplacement area only) and Figure D-8 (for the 
Paintbrush nonwelded unit outcrop area). Similar curves are provided for corroborative purposes 
on Figures D-9 and D-10 for the TSPA-LA siting area and TSPA-SR repository footprint area 
The curves in the figures are based in part on the modeling results given in Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281], pp. 1140 and 1142, Figures 16 and 17). On each figure, one of the curves 
represents the annualized exceedance probability for crater diameters resulting from the largest 
meteorite fragment stemming from a meteor with an atmospheric entry velocity of 15 km/sec and 
a vertical atmospheric entry angle. Increased entry velocities and angles tend to dissipate more 
energy and mass into the atmosphere and thus result in decreased crater diameters, as explained 
in Appendix D. A distribution of entry velocities and angles is likely the reality, but the 
distribution of velocity and entry angles is currently not quantifiable. Therefore, an entry 
velocity of 15 km/sec and vertical entry angle are conservative and used as the basis for the FEP 
evaluation. The curve for an entry velocity of 15 km/sec indicates resulting crater diameters of 
about 80 m (262 feet) at the threshold probability, and smaller crater diameters at greater 
probability. 
The degree of conservatism in using a curve for an entry velocity of 15 km/sec and the largest 
resulting fragment can be qualitatively assessed by examining the remaining curves on 
Figure D-7. The remaining curves are for an atmospheric entry velocity of 20 km/sec; the 
Grieves curve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) and the Wuschke et al. curve (1995 [DIRS 129326]) are 
based on observed earth cratering diameter distributions. The curves indicate that cratering 
diameters ranging from 20 to 60 m (66 to 197 feet) occur at the threshold probability. 
The induced fracture depth from an 80-m (262-feet) diameter cratering event (i.e., a conservative 
estimate of the largest crater likely at the threshold probability of 10-8 events per year) would 
extend no deeper than about 60 meters (197 feet) based on fracture depth to crater diameter ratio 
of 0.76, which is discussed in Appendix D. More realistic crater diameters of 20 to 60 m 
(66 to 197 feet) suggest extended fracturing to depths of 45 m (148 feet) or less. Depths of less 
than 60 m (197 feet) would be of low consequence to inflow because they are too shallow to 
fracture the top of the units of interest. More frequent, but smaller diameter cratering events 
would correspondingly result in shallower fracturing depths. For most of the TSPA-LA 
repository footprint, the fracturing of the Paintbrush nonwelded unit can therefore, be excluded 
based on low probability because the probability of fracturing to depths of 60 m (197 feet) or 
greater (i.e., to the top of the unit) is less than 10-8 per year. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-80 October 2004 
For the easternmost portion of the repository, where the units of interest are shallower, the 
effects of meteorite impact are excluded on low consequence. As long as the consequences 
associated with 80-m-diameter or smaller craters (that is, the effects from a crater diameter 
occurring at an annualized exceedance probability equal to or greater than 10-8) are insignificant, 
this FEP can be excluded based on low consequence. To that end, an 80-m diameter crater 
encompasses an area of about 0.005 km2 compared to the total repository area (14 km2) used for 
the basis of the probability calculation, or approximately 0.04 percent of the land surface above 
the repository, with more frequent but smaller crater diameters encompassing lesser areas. 
Additionally, the smallest model grid block in the eastern part of the repository encompasses an 
area of approximately 0.01 km2 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861], Figure 6.1-1). Thus, the diameter of 
the meteorite crater coincident with a 10-8 annualized exceedance probability encompasses about 
one-half of a model grid block. Because only the eastern portion of the repository site is subject 
to such effects, because the curve for an entry velocity of 15 km/sec is a conservative assumption 
with regard to entry velocity and angle, and because of the minimal land surface affected 
(particularly as modeled for UZ flow), it is concluded that additional fracturing from meteorite 
impact occurring at an annual exceedance probability of 10-8 or greater would not significantly 
alter the modeled UZ flow conditions used for TSPA-LA. More frequent, but smaller-diameter 
cratering events would result in shallower fracturing depths. Because the depths do not extend to 
the top of the geologic units of interest, the more frequent events are also excluded based on low 
consequence. 
At an annualized probability of 10-8, the corresponding crater diameter resulting from impact of 
the largest meteor fragment is likely to range from about 0.02 km to about 0.08 km (20 to 80 m 
[66 to 262 feet]) (Appendix D). The radius of the associated debris swarm (i.e., the degree of 
scatter of all fragments, but with lesser cratering effects, if any, than the largest fragment) is 
about 0.4 to 0.5 km for a meteorite causing an 80-m (262-feet) diameter crater (Hills and 
Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 9). This suggests a debris field with a total encompassing 
cratering area of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 km2, but with a pock-marked surface where some 
portion of the area is affected, and some portion is not, depending on the number and size of 
fragments. Furthermore, some of the debris field may fall beyond the repository area, and many 
of the craters would be too shallow to significantly affect infiltration. Such an event would only 
be of concern for the easternmost portions of the repository because of the shallower depth of the 
units of concern. At most, consideration of a 0.5 to 0.8 km2 debris field or crater field, if totally 
encompassed within the repository footprint, would involve no more than 4 to 6 percent of the 
14 km2 surface area, or an equivalent of 50 to 80 of the more than 2,000 surface grid blocks 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861], Figure 6.1-1) used for the UZ infiltration modeling. This suggests 
that an argument for exclusion based on low consequence is appropriate, even if the entire debris 
field and crater field, rather than just the crater resulting from the largest fragment, is considered. 
Fracturing of the Paintbrush nonwelded unit above the repository is, therefore, excluded in part 
on low probability (for crater diameters larger than 80-m-diameter for most of the repository) 
and in part based on low consequence (for the easternmost portion of the repository and for 
crater diameters occurring with probability greater than the threshold probability). 
With regard to the Paintbrush hydrologic unit outcrop area on the western edge of the repository 
area, the probability threshold (Figure D-9) indicates that resulting crater diameters from the 
largest fragment at the threshold probability would be less than 0.02 km ( 20 m or 66 ft). This 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-81 October 2004 
decreased diameter at the threshold probability is due to the decrease in target area of the outcrop 
compared to that of the repository footprint. A 0.02-km diameter represents a surface area of 
about 0.0003 km2, or less than 0.002 percent, of the repository surface area and much less than a 
single UZ model grid block. With regard to a debris field, the width (i.e., the narrow dimension) 
of the outcrop area is no greater than 0.1 km, thus limiting the affected outcrop area to no more 
than 0.03 km2 as an upper bound for an event of any size. This would represent about 
0.2 percent of the repository surface area used for the calculation. Accordingly, meteorite impact 
in the outcrop area can also be excluded based on low consequence. 
Meteors that result in crater diameters of 80-m (corresponding with the threshold annual 
probability of 10-8) could trigger earthquakes with magnitudes ranging from Magnitude 5 to 
slightly less than Magnitude 7 (Hills and Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 18). Existing 
seismic analyses cover this range of magnitude (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 103731], 
Section 4). Therefore, a meteorite-caused earthquake is excluded based on low consequence 
because it would not provide a significant contribution to the earthquake hazard. Earthquake 
hazards are already included and probabilistically weighted in the TSPA-LA. The effects of 
changes in rock stress, such as those caused by seismic activity, are addressed in multiple FEP 
AMRs for FEPs 2.2.06.01.0A (Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of 
rock); 2.2.06.02.0A (Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of faults); and 
2.2.06.02.0B (Seismic activity changes porosity and permeability of fractures). 
Given that the FEP screening addresses postclosure issues, the effects of a near-surface explosion 
associated with a meteorite are also excluded based on low consequence because above-surface 
effects are not of concern for the subsurface postclosure repository. 
Because infiltration is not significantly affected and no fracturing or exhumation occurs down to 
the repository depth, there is no mechanism for the meteorite impact at the threshold annual 
probability or greater to affect groundwater flux through the repository horizon. Therefore, the 
dose and radionuclide release of radionuclides are not significantly changed. The hydrology 
aspects of the FEP, therefore, are excluded from the TSPALA based on low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.4.6 Extraterrestrial Events (1.5.01.02.0A) 
FEP Description: Extraterrestrial events (e.g., supernova, solar flare, 
gamma-ray burster, alien life forms) may affect long-term 
performance of the disposal system. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Extraterrestrial events are excluded from the TSPALA 
based on low consequence because the only identified 
mechanisms for affecting the repository (climate change 
and, hypothetically, microbial activity) are currently 
addressed in the TSPA-LA evaluation. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-82 October 2004 
Potential mechanisms linking the effect of extraterrestrial events to changes in behavior of 
engineered and natural systems of an underground repository are not well documented in the 
scientific literature. In the absence of reputable published work identifying specific mechanisms, 
evaluating the effect of such events on the postclosure repository performance requires 
speculation and conceptualization of possible linkages between the event and repository 
performance. 
In studies of the potential effects of Late Quaternary-Age supernova on the terrestrial 
paleoenvironment, over 120 radio-emitting galactic supernova remnants were cataloged 
(Brakenridge 1981 [DIRS 167873]). Using a value of 120 events in the past 15,000 years 
suggests a rate of approximately one event per 100 years. The largest of these peak fluxes was 
for the Vela supernova, which was calculated to have a peak flux of about 40,000 ergs/cm2. 
Supernova events release on the order of 1049 to 1050 ergs of gamma radiation, and Brackenridge 
asserts that such an event has the potential to cause ozone depletion in the atmosphere for two to 
six years and can create nitrogen-rich environments at the surface of the earth (Brakenridge 1981 
[DIRS 167873]). Observable effects are suggested to include kerogen rich sediments at 11 sites 
worldwide. Short-term terrestrial effects (i.e., on the scale of 1,000 years), speculatively, would 
have included global cooling. Brackenridge asserts that such events could result in increased 
ultraviolet-light penetration due to ozone layer depletion, increasing ultraviolet-light intensity 
by as much as 2 to 10 times the present level (Brakenridge 1981 [DIRS 167873]). Aside from 
potential effects on 14C dating, no other effects are discussed, and no subsurface effects are 
mentioned. This work is corroborated with regard to nitrogen enrichment and ozone depletion 
(Ruderman 1974 [DIRS 167875]) and climate linkage (Arnold 2003 [DIRS 167638]; Novotna 
and Vitek 1991 [DIRS 167634], p. 35). The frequency and energy release is corroborated by 
Karam (2002 [DIRS 167872]), who also addresses the effects of gamma ray bursters and 
calculates doses for supernovae and gamma ray bursters. Karam (2002 [DIRS 167872]) also 
substantiates the lack of subsurface effects due to shielding and indicates that there is a 10-8 
reduction in typical dose within the top 20 mm of rock (Karam 2002 [DIRS 167872], Table 1). 
Solar-related effects and correlation to changes in natural systems on earth are summarized in a 
conceptual statement by Lean (1997 [DIRS 167639]): Numerous associations are evident 
between solar variability and terrestrial parameters that range from the Earths surface to 
hundreds of kilometers above it, on the time scales from days to centuries. In particular, Lean 
(1997 [DIRS 167639]) points out the decadal cycles in sun activity are evident in temperatures at 
the earth surface and through the atmosphere. Lean (1997 [DIRS 167639]) also indicates that 
there is an apparent association of surface temperature with overall solar activity, but it is unclear 
whether variable solar radiation is responsible. According to Lean (1997 [DIRS 167639]), least 
certain is the extent to which tenths-percent changes in visible and infrared radiation modify 
global surface temperature and climate. There is a current inability to adequately quantify all 
climate and ozone forcings, which adds ambiguities to assessments of global change (Lean 1997 
[DIRS 167639], pp. 33 to 67). 
Some of the listed examples of extraterrestrial events (supernovae, solar flares, gamma-ray 
bursters) are credible and could result in an influx of solar radiation, space radiation, or cosmic 
rays onto the magnetosphere. Collectively, this can be referred to as space weather. Maynard 
(1995 [DIRS 160888]), in discussing the uses of space weather prediction, which is primarily 
focused on solar effects, lists several existing and potential customers and the basis of their need 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-83 October 2004 
for such information. The discussion of the type of operations affected and the problems 
encountered includes spacecraft operations, satellite operations, GPS-locating operations (which 
are satellite based), space object tracking, over-the-horizon radar operations, high frequency 
communications, telecommunications such as transatlantic fiber optic communications, 
geomagnetically induced currents in power transmission lines and transformers, applied direct 
currents for pipeline corrosion mitigation, and semi-conductor manufacturing (likely related to 
power line fluctuations). This list of systems is corroborated by Lean (2001 [DIRS 167639], 
pp. 57 to 61) and Cole (2003 [DIRS 167641], pp. 299 to 301). While these effects may be 
pertinent during operation of the repository or performance confirmation activities, they are 
unlikely to directly affect long-term performance of the postclosure repository. 
The effect of such past events is assumed (Assumption 5.3) to be reflected through the range of 
climatic properties, which were determined from field studies and observations that are included 
in the TSPA-LA. Because the existing data set includes the range of effects that have occurred 
in the past, the effects of future changes would be no greater than those already considered, and 
therefore, the initiating extraterrestrial events are considered to be of low consequence and are 
excluded. 
This FEP definition also includes the potential effects of alien life forms. Aside from the 
hypothetical potential for microbial influx via meteorites, the presence of alien life forms has not 
been verified or documented in the scientific literature, is considered to be overly speculative, 
and is not further evaluated. The potential for effects from alien life forms (other than microbial 
activity) is judged to be of low probability (not credible) based on the absence of verification of 
any such life forms in the scientific literature. If the extraterrestrial transfer of microbes is 
presumed, then introduction into the repository could be postulated, although assumptions of 
stoichiometry would be speculative. However, terrestrial microbial effects on the cladding, 
waste package, and drip shield are considered under a separate set of FEPs (2.1.02.14.0A, 
2.1.03.05.0A, 2.1.03.05.0B), and are assumed equivalent to potential extraterrestrial effects. As 
a result, the introduction of extraterrestrial microbes is excluded based on low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.4.7 Changes in the Earths Magnetic Field (1.5.03.01.0A) 
FEP Description: Changes in the earths magnetic field could affect the 
long-term performance of the repository. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Changes in the earths magnetic field is excluded from 
the TSPALA based on low consequence because no effect 
on the repository can be identified. 
Changes and fluctuations in the earths magnetic field are relatively common in geologic history. 
During the last 20 million years, the geomagnetic record shows at least 60 reversals, and the 
periodicity of the reversal is on the scale of a few hundred thousand years (Odenwald 2003 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-84 October 2004 
[DIRS 160892]). There has been a decrease in the earths magnetic intensity in the last few 
thousand years, and there is some evidence that a reversal may occur sometime during the next 
few to several thousand years (Odenwald 2003 [DIRS 160892]). The frequency of pole 
reversals, and the variation in field intensity with time, is corroborated by Biggin and Thomas 
(2003 [DIRS 167876], Figure 11) and Hoffman (1995 [DIRS 160891]). This suggests that this 
FEP, while unlikely, cannot be excluded based on low probability (Assumption 5.1). 
The potential mechanisms to link the effects of magnetic field changes to changes in behavior of 
engineered and natural systems are not well documented in the scientific literature. In the 
absence of reputable published work identifying specific mechanisms, evaluating the effect of 
changes on the postclosure repository performance requires speculation and conceptualization of 
possible linkages between the event and repository performance. 
From an operational and performance confirmation standpoint, difficulties with location 
positioning, communications, and electrical circuitry could be affected, but the timeframe of any 
reversal is well beyond the operational period. Odenwald (2003 [DIRS 160892]) indicates that 
there are no identifiable fossil mutations or extinctions associated with the previous reversals. 
No corroborating information regarding the possible effects of a pole reversal or intensity 
fluctuations was found in the literature search. Only two linkages to natural systems on earth 
were found. Pechala (1985 [DIRS 167633], p. 406) discusses the linkage between the magnetic 
field and tropospheric circulation, and indicates that some authors use the relationship as a basis 
for explaining past changes in climate. Biggin and Thomas (2003 [DIRS 167876], 
pp. 409 to 412) suggest that changes in the magnetic field result from global-scale tectonic 
processes such as slab subduction and mantel processes. 
Among the longer-term possible effects of changes in the magnetic field, only climate change 
has a reasonable possibility of affecting the repository. This hypothetically occurs through the 
complex coupling of the thermosphere, ionosphere, and magnetosphere (Pechala 1985 
[DIRS 167633]). However, no clear evidence exists that long-term climate change is connected 
with magnetic reversals, and, therefore, no basis exists for evaluating the range of possible future 
effects. As noted, changes in the magnetic field are common in geologic history. The effect of 
such past events is assumed (Assumption 5.3) to be reflected in the range of climatic properties, 
determined from field studies and observations, and such changes are included in the TSPA-LA. 
Because the existing data set includes the range of effects that have occurred in the past, the 
effects of future changes would presumably be no greater than those already considered, and 
therefore, they are of low consequence. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.4.8 Earth Tides (1.5.03.02.0A) 
FEP Description: Small changes of the gravitational field due to celestial 
movements (sun and moon) cause earth tides and may, in 
turn, cause pressure variations in the groundwater flow 
systems. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-85 October 2004 
Screening Decision: Excluded  Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Earth tides is excluded from the TSPALA based on low 
consequence because the magnitude of water level 
fluctuations is insignificant and effects are implicit in 
existing water level records. 
Earth tides are an ongoing phenomenon and are reflected as rhythmic, measurable pressure 
increases and decreases. At Yucca Mountain, the magnitude of the effect on water levels is on 
the order of centimeters. Earth tide fluctuations in borehole UE-25 p#1 are cited in non-YMP 
sources, and indicate a fluctuation of 2.05 cm (Bredehoeft 1987 [DIRS 100007], p. 2460). This 
is corroborated by water levels in boreholes at Paiute Mesa (on the Nevada Test Site). These 
water levels were analyzed for earth tide effects and the fluctuation due to earth tides was on the 
order of several hundredths of a foot (Fenelon 2000 [DIRS 160881], p. 14). Consequently, 
individual fluctuations are of low magnitude. Additional corroboration is from Kies et al. 
(1999 [DIRS 160882]) who state: tidal forces deform the earth; effects induced on fluids near 
the surface of the earth are documented by the observations of water level changes in wells. 
These changes are driven by alterations of the pore pressure induced by tidal deformation of 
porous and fluid-saturated crustal material. These pressure changes can result in related effects 
such as fluctuations in underground gas concentrations (Kies et al. 1999 [DIRS 160882]) and 
water level fluctuation in wells (Fenelon 2000 [DIRS 160881], p. 14). As noted by Kies et al. 
(1999 [DIRS 160882]), the strain variations induced by earth tides are small (less than on the 
order of 10-8), and their appearances are periodic and of known magnitude. Therefore, any 
significant cumulative effects of earth tides are reflected in the existing data for the 
hydrogeologic system (Assumption 5.3). Earth tides are of such a small magnitude that any 
effect on the flow system is of low consequence because the fluctuations are accounted for in the 
water level data used as the basis for the TSPA. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.4.9 Salt Creep (2.2.06.05.0A) 
FEP Description: Salt creep may lead to changes in the stress field, 
compaction of the waste packages, and consolidation of the 
long-term components of the sealing system. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation 
Screening Argument: Salt creep is excluded from the TSPALA based on 
regulatory requirements to consider data that are related to 
the geology of the site. Large volume salt and evaporite 
deposits are not present near the repository and, therefore, are 
not related to the geology of the site. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-86 October 2004 
The geologic setting is defined as (10 CFR 63.2 [DIRS 156605]): the geologic, hydrologic, and 
geochemical systems of the region in which the geologic repository is or may be located. 
Consideration of this FEP is outside the scope and intent stated at 10 CFR 63.21(c)(1) 
(DIRS 156605), which specifies consideration and description of features, events, and processes 
outside of the site to the extent the information is relevant and material to safety or performance 
of the geologic repository. Furthermore, at 10 CFR 63.114(a) and 10 CFR 63.115(a) 
(DIRS 156605), the regulatory requirements are to include data that are related to the geology, 
hydrology, and geochemistry (including disruptive events) of the Yucca Mountain Site, and the 
surrounding region to the extent necessary . The regulation further requires the project to 
identify  natural features of the geologic setting that are considered barriers important to waste 
isolation. At 10 CFR 63.305(c) (DIRS 156605), DOE is directed to vary factors related to the 
geology, hydrology, and climate based upon cautious, but reasonable assumptions consistent with 
present knowledge of factors that could affect the Yucca Mountain disposal system over the next 
10,000 years. 
Evaporite deposits of sufficient volume to result in salt creep have not been reported near Yucca 
Mountain. Rather, Yucca Mountain is located in the southwestern Nevada volcanic field and 
consists of tilted fault blocks composed of layered sequences of ash flow, ash-fall, and bedded 
tuffs of Miocene age (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170029], Sections 6 and 6.5.1.4 and Table 6-2). This is 
corroborated by BSC (2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 3.3.4) and Day et al. (1998 
[DIRS 100027]). Voluminous evaporite deposits do not exist near Yucca Mountain, and the 
repository is not planned for a salt dome or cavern. This feature and related process of salt creep 
are, therefore, inconsistent with the present knowledge of the geologic setting for Yucca 
Mountain. There are no rocks in the repository that are sufficiently plastic to creep in a manner 
similar to salt. Salt creep, therefore, is excluded based on regulations. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 
6.2.4.10 Effects of Repository Heat on the Biosphere (2.3.13.03.0A) 
FEP Description: Heat released from radioactive decay of the waste may 
increase the temperatures at the surface above the 
repository. This could result in local or extensive changes 
in the ecological characteristics. 
Screening Decision: Excluded  By Regulation and Low Consequence 
Screening Argument: Effect of repository heat on the biosphere is excluded 
from the TSPALA based on regulation and low 
consequence because the regulations preclude 
consideration of changes in flora and fauna and any such 
changes would likely have minimal impact on infiltration 
rates. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-87 October 2004 
The FEP description does not specify how a change in ecological factors at the ground surface 
might affect the performance of a repository located 200 m (656 feet) below ground surface. 
One feasible conceptual mechanism might be a change in infiltration due to a change in plant 
species. The effects of repository heat on the biosphere are summarized in the FEIS (DOE 2002 
[DIRS 155970], Section 5.9 and p. 5-41) based on work chiefly related to concerns with 
transition from perennial to annual plant species (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031], p. 46). 
However, at 10 CFR 63.305(b) (DIRS 156605), the NRC states that: 
DOE should not project changes in society, the biosphere (other than climate), 
human biology, or increases or decreases of human knowledge or technology. In 
all the analyses done to demonstrate compliance with this part, DOE must assume 
that all of those factors remain constant as they are at the time of submission of 
the license application. 
The definition of reference biosphere at 10 CFR 63.2 (DIRS 156605) specifically identifies flora 
as being a component of the reference biosphere. 
Reference biosphere means the description of the environment inhabited by the 
reasonably maximally exposed individual. The reference biosphere comprises the 
set of specific biotic and abiotic characteristics of the environment, including, but 
not necessarily limited to, climate, topography, soils, flora, fauna, and human 
activities. 
By implication, the DOE should not project changes in the biosphere (more specifically, flora) 
and must assume that the flora remains constant. Therefore, the effects of repository heat on the 
biosphere are excluded based on regulation. More strictly interpreted, these regulatory 
provisions would only apply strictly to the reference biosphere and not to the repository area. 
The effect of repository heat on the geosphere is addressed in FEP 2.2.10.12.0A (Geosphere 
dryout due to waste heat). The effects of climate change (FEP 1.3.01.00.0A) also are addressed 
separately. 
Furthermore, changes in infiltration due to changes in ecological factors are expected to be small 
in comparison to differences in infiltration resulting from use of the bounding infiltration cases 
resulting from changes in climate state, particularly if the ecological factor is primarily a shift in 
species rather than a shift in entire ecosystems. The range of average infiltration values 
considered is from 1.25 mm/year for the lower bound for present day climate to as much as 
31.69 mm/year for the upper bound of the glacial transition climate (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861], 
Table 6.1-2), which is an approximately 25 times increase between the lower bounding case and 
the upper bounding case used in the TSPA-LA. For the climate states considered, mean 
infiltration rates range from 4.43 to 17.02 mm/year, or an approximate increase of four times. 
Climate change and the effects on infiltration are addressed in the TSPA-LA as outlined in the 
Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and Approach (BSC 2003 
[DIRS 166296], Section 5.1), and infiltration rates include consideration of upper-bound, mean, 
and lower-bound rates. This FEP may also be excluded based on low consequence because the 
resulting change in infiltration rates are likely to be less than the range in infiltration rates due to 
climate changes that are already considered. This is because the shift in species would be 
transient, and would potentially reverse as the repository cooled with time. This is corroborated 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-88 October 2004 
by pre-1998 studies indicating that resulting temperature changes are within the adaptive range 
of some plant species now at Yucca Mountain (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031], Figure 8 
and p. 41). 
By way of corroborating the exclusion of this FEP, a potential effect of the repository heat is a 
shift in species at the surface, which could conceivably change the water infiltration rate. 
However, changes in infiltration rates are potentially affected by a number of factors 
(e.g., increases and decreases in vegetation and vegetation type, climate changes, slope, aspect, 
total precipitation, air temperature, runoff, solar heating, and characteristics of the soil matrix). 
The degree of the change in species due to change in temperature is discussed in Final 
Report: Plant and Soil Related Processes along a Natural Thermal Gradient at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031]) and is used as the basis for this 
corroborative argument and is as follows. 
During active transpiration periods, shrubs removed about 31 percent of the total precipitation 
that fell during the period studied (with a range of 12 to 54 percent at the seven study locations 
having a full range of plant species) (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031], Executive 
Summary), and total shrub cover at the sites ranged from about 8 to 16 percent (CRWMS 
M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031], Figure 9). An analysis of percent cover of shrubs and of soil 
temperature at a depth of 45 cm suggests that for each 1C increase in temperature, the percent 
cover of shrubs decreases by 1.2 percent and that the percent cover of annual grasses increases 
5.5 percent (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031], Section 3.3). The percent cover of the only 
grass species currently found at each of the study sites (Bromus rubens) increased by 2.3 percent 
with every 1C increase in temperature. The results of various analyses of the effects of 
repository heat on the near-surface soil layer of the biosphere are presented in the FEIS 
(DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970], Table 5-15 and p. 5-41). These results predict that the soil 
temperature near the root zone of the shrub increases by a maximum of 0.4C in wet soils and 
3C in dry soils. Further, they predict that at a soil depth of 2 m (7 feet), the soil temperature can 
increase by a maximum of 0.8C in wet soils and 6C in dry soils. Consequently, the 
temperature shift of concern can range between 0.4C and 6C. The resulting percent cover of 
shrubs could decrease by about 0.5 percent to 7.2 percent (i.e., 1.2 percent change/C, multiplied 
by the temperature change). 
As part of this corroborative analysis, these reported values (as shown in Table 6-2) are used to 
calculate the reduction in evapotranspiration based on existing evapotranspiration, shrub cover, 
and thermally driven changes in shrub cover. As shown in Table 6-2, dividing the 
evapotranspiration values (12 to 54 percent) by the range of existing shrub cover 
(8 to 16 percent) yields a ratio for percent evapotranspiration to percent shrub cover. 
Multiplying this ratio by the bounding values of the range in percent change in shrub cover 
(0.5 to 7.2 percent) yields a percent change in evapotranspiration due to potential change in the 
shrub cover. The reported values and calculations are consolidated in Table 6-2. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-89 October 2004 
Table 6-2. Approximate Percent Change in Evapotranspiration Due to Shift in Plant Species 
Percent 
Evapotranspiration 
from Shrubs (Range 
for Existing 
Conditions 
Percent Shrub 
Cover (Existing) 
Percent 
Evapotranspiration 
Divided by Percent 
Shrub Cover 
Change in 
Percent Shrub 
Cover 
Approximate 
Change in Percent 
Evapotranspiration 
12 (low) 8 1.5 0.5 0.8 
31 (mean) 8 3.9 0.5 2.0 
54 (high) 16 3.4 0.5 1.7 
12 (low) 8 1.5 7.2 11 
31 (mean) 16 1.9 7.2 14 
54 (high) 16 3.4 7.2 25 
This suggests that a shift away from shrub species could result in less than 1 percent to at most a 
25-percent decrease in transpiration of total precipitation, and the potential for a similar increase 
in infiltration due to the loss of shrub cover. These values are conservative in that they do not 
account for an offsetting contribution to evapotranspiration from the increase in annual grass 
percentages (i.e., 2.3 percent increase in annual grasses for each 1C in temperature). 
Additionally, the variation in surface soil temperatures at Yucca Mountain that are caused by 
elevation, slope, aspect, and other natural attributes suggest that soil temperature increases of the 
magnitude predicted are probably within the adaptive range of some plant species now at Yucca 
Mountain (CRWMS M&O 1999 [DIRS 105031], Figure 8 and p. 41). Thus, increases in 
infiltration likely would be less than those stated. 
TSPA Disposition: Not Applicable 
Supporting AMRs: None 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 6-90 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 7-1 October 2004 
7. CONCLUSIONS 
The system-level FEP screening decisions, and the basis for the Exclude decisions, are 
summarized in Table 7-1. 
Table 7-1. Summary of System-Level FEP Screening Decisions 
FEP Number FEP Name 
Screening 
Decision 
Decisions Basis for 
Exclude 
Addressed 
in Section 
0.1.02.00.0A Timescales of concern Included  6.2.1.1a 
0.1.03.00.0A Spatial domain of concern Included  6.2.1.2a 
0.1.09.00.0A Regulatory requirements and 
exclusions Included  6.2.1.3a 
0.1.10.00.0A Model and data Issues Included  6.2.1.4a 
1.1.05.00.0A Records and markers for the 
repository Excluded By Regulation 6.2.2.1b 
1.1.07.00.0A Repository design Included  6.2.1.5a 
1.1.08.00.0A Inadequate quality control and 
deviations from design Excluded Low Consequence 6.2.2.2b 
1.1.09.00.0A Schedule and planning Excluded By Regulation 6.2.2.3b 
1.1.10.00.0A Administrative control of the 
repository site Excluded By Regulation 6.2.2.4b 
1.1.11.00.0A Monitoring of the repository Excluded Low Consequence 6.2.2.5b 
1.1.12.01.0A 
Accidents and unplanned events 
during construction and 
operation 
Excluded Low Consequence 6.2.2.6b 
1.1.13.00.0A Retrievability Included  6.2.1.6a 
1.2.05.00.0A Metamorphism Excluded 
Low Probability 
Low Consequence 
6.2.4.1d 
1.2.08.00.0A Diagenesis Excluded Low Consequence 6.2.4.2d 
1.2.09.00.0A Salt diapirism and dissolution Excluded By Regulation 6.2.4.3d 
1.2.09.01.0A Diapirism Excluded By Regulation 6.2.4.4d 
1.4.02.01.0A Deliberate human intrusion Excluded By Regulation 6.2.3.1c 
1.4.02.02.0A Inadvertent human intrusion Excluded By Regulation 6.2.3.2c 
1.4.02.03.0A Igneous event precedes human 
intrusion Excluded By Regulation 6.2.3.3c 
1.4.02.04.0A Seismic event precedes human 
intrusion Excluded 
Low Consequence 
By Regulation 6.2.3.4c 
1.4.03.00.0A Unintrusive site investigation Excluded 
Low Consequence 
By Regulation 6.2.3.5c 
1.4.04.00.0A Drilling activities (human 
intrusion) Excluded By Regulation 6.2.3.6c 
1.4.04.01.0A Effects of drilling intrusion Excluded By Regulation 6.2.3.7c 
1.4.05.00.0A Mining and other underground 
activities (human intrusion) Excluded By Regulation 6.2.3.8c 
1.4.11.00.0A Explosions and crashes (human 
activities) Excluded 
By Regulation 
Low Consequence 6.2.3.9c 
1.5.01.01.0A Meteorite impact Excluded 
Low Probability 
Low Consequence 
6.2.4.5d 
1.5.01.02.0A Extraterrestrial events Excluded Low Consequence 6.2.4.6d 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 7-2 October 2004 
Table 7-1. Summary of System-Level FEP Screening Decisions (Continued) 
FEP Number FEP Name 
Screening 
Decision 
Decisions Basis for 
Exclude 
Addressed 
in Section 
1.5.03.01.0A Changes in the earths magnetic 
field Excluded Low Consequence 6.2.4.7d 
1.5.03.02.0A Earth tides Excluded Low Consequence 6.2.4.8d 
2.1.01.04.0A Repository-scale spatial 
heterogeneity of emplaced waste Included  6.2.1.7a 
2.2.06.05.0A Salt creep Excluded By Regulation 6.2.4.9d 
2.3.13.03.0A Effects of repository heat on the 
biosphere Excluded 
By Regulation 
Low Consequence 
6.2.4.10d 
3.3.06.01.0A Repository excavation Excluded 
By Regulation 
Low Consequence 
6.2.3.10c 
a Assessment Basis and Modeling Requirement FEPs (Section 6.2.1). 
b Process and Site Control FEPs (Section 6.2.2). 
c Human Intrusion FEPs (Section 6.2.3). 
d Miscellaneous Geologic and Astronomic FEPs (Section 6.2.4). 
The conclusions from this document (FEP screening decisions and supporting rationale) are 
considered technical product output with no assigned DTN. The FEP screening decision, 
TSPA-LA disposition (for included FEPs), or screening argument (for excluded FEPs), and any 
changes to the FEP name, number, and descriptions, will be incorporated in the Yucca Mountain 
TSPA-LA FEP database. This database will contain all Yucca Mountain FEPs considered for 
TSPA-LA with FEP number, name, description, and relevant FEP AMRs where specific FEPs 
are screened. The FEP database will also document screening decisions (include or exclude), 
screening arguments, and TSPA dispositions quoted from this and all other FEP AMRs. 
Documentation of the FEP database will be given in a separate technical (AP-3.11Q) report 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706]). All FEP information, including the 33 system-level FEPs 
considered in this report, will be submitted to technical data management system by the Yucca 
Mountain FEP database team as a final LA FEP DTN. These final data will be qualified as 
Technical Product Output from the AP-3.11Q report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168706]). The final FEP 
DTN will supersede all of the previous DTNs. It will then be citable by any downstream 
documents, such as the safety analysis report or AMR revisions. 
The relevant YMRP Acceptance Criteria and how they are addressed for the system-level FEPs 
AMR is shown in Table 7-2. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 7-3 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table 7-2. Relevant YMRP Acceptance Criteria and the System-Level FEPs AMR 
YMRP Criterion Acceptance Criterion Description How Addressed in this Analysis Report 
1. The Identification of a 
List of FEPs Is 
Adequate 
The safety analysis report contains a complete list of FEPs 
related to the geologic setting or the degradation, deterioration, 
or alteration of engineered barriers (including those processes 
that would affect the performance of natural barriers), that have 
the potential to influence repository performance. The list is 
consistent with the site characterization data. Moreover, the 
comprehensive features, events, and processes list includes, but 
is not limited to, potentially disruptive events related to igneous 
activity (extrusive and intrusive); seismic shaking 
(high-frequency-low magnitude, and rare large-magnitude 
events); tectonic evolution (slip on existing faults and formation 
of new faults); climatic change (change to pluvial conditions); 
and criticality. 
The list of system-level FEPs is presented in 
Section 1.2, and FEP descriptions are 
presented in Section 6.2. Description and 
origin of the system-level FEP list and 
descriptions are presented in Section 6.1.1. 
This analysis report does not address 
disruptive events or climatic change. 
The DOE has identified all FEPs related to either the geologic 
setting or to the degradation, deterioration, or alteration of 
engineered barriers (including those processes that would affect 
the performance of natural barriers) that have been excluded. 
The excluded system-level FEPs are listed in 
Table 7-1. 
The DOE has provided justification for those FEPs that have 
been excluded. An acceptable justification for excluding FEPs is 
that either the FEP is specifically excluded by regulation; 
probability of the FEP (generally an event) falls below the 
regulatory criterion; or omission of the feature, and process does 
not significantly change the magnitude and time of the resulting 
radiological exposures to the RMEI or radionuclide releases to 
the accessible environment. 
See the method and approach discussion 
provided in Section 6.1.2 and the individual 
justification (by regulation, low probability, low 
consequence) for excluding FEPs. The 
justification is also included in Table 7-1. 
Scenario 
Analysis and 
Event Probability: 
Scenario 
Analysis 
(from YMRP 
[DIRS 163274], 
Section 
2.2.1.2.1.3) 
2. Screening of the 
Initial List of FEPs Is 
Appropriate 
The DOE has provided an adequate technical basis for each 
FEP, excluded from the performance assessment, to support the 
conclusion that the FEP is specifically excluded by regulation, 
the probability of the FEP falls below the regulatory criterion, or 
omission of the FEP does not significantly change the magnitude 
and time of the resulting radiological exposures to the RMEI or 
radionuclide releases to the accessible environment. 
The individual FEP screening decisions and 
supporting technical bases are discussed in 
Section 6.2. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 7-4 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table 7-2. Relevant YMRP Acceptance Criteria and the System-Level FEPs AMR (Continued) 
YMRP Criterion Acceptance Criterion Description How Addressed in this Analysis Report 
Events or event classes are defined without ambiguity and used 
consistently in probability models, such that probabilities for each 
event or event class are estimated separately. 
See the FEP Description provided for each 
FEP in Section 6.2 and the cited supporting 
AMRs. 
1. Events Are 
Adequately Defined Probabilities of intrusive and extrusive igneous events are 
calculated separately. Definitions of faulting and earthquakes 
are derived from the historical record, paleoseismic studies, or 
geological analyses. Criticality events are calculated separately 
by location. 
This analysis report does not address igneous, 
seismic or criticality FEPs. This criterion is not 
applicable to this analysis report. 
2. Probability Estimates 
for Future Events Are 
Supported by 
Appropriate 
Technical Bases. 
Probabilities for future natural events are based on past patterns 
of the natural events in the Yucca Mountain region, considering 
the likely future conditions and interactions of the natural and 
engineered repository system. These probability estimates have 
specifically included igneous events, faulting and seismic events, 
and criticality events. 
Other future naturally occurring events (such 
as meteorite impact) are addressed in this 
analysis report. See FEP discussions in 
Section 6.2.4 for a list of naturally occurring 
FEPs that are addressed. This analysis report 
does not address igneous, seismic or criticality 
FEPs. 
Scenario 
Analysis and 
Event Probability: 
Identification of 
Events with 
Probability 
Greater than 10-8 
per Year 
(from YMRP 
[DIRS 163274], 
Section 
2.2.1.2.2.3) 
5. Uncertainty in Event 
Probability Is 
Adequately 
Evaluated 
Probability values appropriately reflect uncertainties. 
Specifically: 
a. The DOE provides a technical basis for probability values 
used, and the values account for the uncertainty in the 
probability estimates: and 
b. The uncertainty for reported probability values adequately 
reflects the influence of parameter uncertainty on the range of 
model results (i.e., precision) and the model uncertainty, as it 
affects the timing and magnitude of past events (i.e., 
accuracy). 
The technical basis and discussion of 
uncertainties used for exclusion of 
system-level FEPs are discussed in the 
subsections of Section 6.2 for the individual 
FEPs. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 7-5 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table 7-2. Relevant YMRP Acceptance Criteria and the System-Level FEPs AMR (Continued) 
YMRP Criterion Acceptance Criterion Description How Addressed in this Analysis Report 
1. Evaluation of the 
Time of an Intrusion 
Event 
The technical basis and associated analyses adequately support 
the selection of time of occurrence of human intrusion, as 
specified at 10 CFR 63.321. 
See the technical justification of timing as 
provided in Appendix C. See Section 6.2.3 for 
a discussion of human intrusion-related FEPs. 
The TSPA of human intrusion is performed separately from the 
overall TSPA, and meets the requirements for performance 
assessments, specified at 10 CFR 63.114. 
The TSPA for human intrusion is identical to the TSPA for 
individual protection, except that it assumes the occurrence of a 
postulated human intrusion event with characteristics, as defined 
at 10 CFR 63.322 and excludes the consideration of unlikely 
natural FEPs. 
A sufficient number of realizations [have] been run using the total 
system performance code, to ensure that the results of the 
calculations are statistically stable. 
The estimated repository performance is reasonable and 
consistent with the analysis of overall repository performance 
and with the characteristics of the postulated intrusion event. 
Demonstration of 
Compliance with 
Post-closure 
Public Health 
and 
Environmental 
Standards 
Demonstration of 
Compliance with 
the Human 
Intrusion 
Standard 
(from YMRP 
[DIRS 163274], 
Section 
2.2.1.4.2.3) 
2. Evaluation of an 
Intrusion Event 
Demonstrates that 
the Annual Dose to 
the RMEI in Any 
Year during the 
Compliance Period 
Is Acceptable 
The annual dose curve for limited human intrusion confirms that 
the repository system meets performance objectives, specified at 
10 CFR 63.321, for limited human intrusion events. 
See the technical justification of timing of 
earliest occurrence of human intrusion without 
recognition by the driller, provided in 
Appendix C. See Section 6.2.3 for a 
discussion of human intrusion-related-FEPs 
consistent with the requirements of 
10 CFR 63.321 and 10 CFR 63.322. A human 
intrusion analysis has been provided for a 
post-10,000 year human intrusion in the final 
environmental impact statement (FEIS) 
(DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970], Section 5.7.1). 
NOTE: The YMRP (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Section 2.2.1.2.2.3) includes two additional criteria regarding the identification of events with probabilities greater 
than 10-8 per year. Acceptance Criteria 3 applies to probability models, which are not used for system-level FEP evaluations and the criterion is, 
therefore, not applicable. Acceptance Criteria 4 deals with probability model parameters, and is, therefore, not applicable. 
The criterion related to identification of Events with Probability Greater than 10-8 per Year and for the Human Intrusion standard were identified as 
applicable during the preparation of this report, and were not previously identified within the techncial work plan. This identification is based on the the 
results of analysis identifiying that some FEPs have low probabilities, but greater than 10-8 per year, and because the justification for excluding human 
intrusion based on timing of such an event were added to this report in Appendix C. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 7-6 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-1 October 2004 
8. REFERENCES 
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Abbas, H.; Paul, D.K.; Godbole, P.N.; and Nayak, G.C. 1996. Aircraft Crash Upon 
Outer Containment of Nuclear Power Plant. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 160, 
(1-2), 13-50. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 255604. 
167627 
Arakel, A.V. 1996. Quaternary Vadose Calcretes Revisited. AGSO Journal of 
Australian Geology & Geophysics, 16, (3), 223-229. Canberra, Australia: Australian 
Government Public Service. TIC: 255481. 
167623 
Arnold, N.F. 2003. Space Plasma Influences on the Earths Atmosphere. 
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical 
and Physical Sciences, 361, 127-132. London, England: Royal Society of London. 
TIC: 255613. 
167638 
Avallone, E.A. and Baumeister, T., III, eds. 1987. Marks Standard Handbook for 
Mechanical Engineers. 9th Edition. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 206891. 
103508 
Backman, M.E. and Goldsmith, W. 1978. The Mechanics of Penetration of 
Projectiles into Targets. International Journal of Engineering Science, 16, (1), 1-99. 
New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 255605. 
167628 
Bailey, M.E. and EmelYanenko, V.V. 1998. Cometary Capture and the Nature of 
the Impactors. Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, D.A.; eds. Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Pages 11-17. Bath, England: Geological Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
162564 
Baldwin, B. and Butler, C.O. 1985. Compaction Curve. American Association of 
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 69, (4), 622-626. Tulsa, Oklahoma: American 
Association of Petroleum Geologists. TIC: 255917. 
167871 
Bates, R.L. and Jackson, J.A., eds. 1984. Dictionary of Geological Terms. 3rd 
Edition. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday. TIC: 206591. 
128109 
Beer, F.P. and Johnston, E.R., Jr. 1981. Mechanics of Materials. New York, 
New York: McGraw-Hill. TIC: 255414. 
166708 
Berner, R.A. 1980. Early Diagenesis: A Theoretical Approach. Princeton, 
New Jersey: Princeton University Press. TIC: 241522. 
128110 
Berry, L.G. and Mason, B. 1959. Mineralogy: Concepts, Descriptions, 
Determinations. San Francisco, California: W.H. Freeman and Company. 
TIC: 238767. 
135236 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-2 October 2004 
Bevan, A.W.R.; Bland, P.A.; and Jull, A.J.T. 1998. Meteorite Flux on the Nullarbor 
Region, Australia. Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H., and Rothery, D.A.; eds. Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Pages 59-73. Bath, England: Geological Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
162565 
Biggin, A.J. and Thomas, D.N. 2003. Analysis of Long-Term Variations in the 
Geomagnetic Polodial Field Intensity and Evaluation of Their Relationship with 
Global Geodynamics. Geophysical Journal International, 152, (2), 392-415. 
Oxford, England: Blackwell Publishing. TIC: 255680. 
167876 
Bilgesu, H.I.; Tetrick, L.T.; Altmis, U.; Mohaghegh, S.; and Ameri, S. 1997. A New 
Approach for the Prediction of Rate of Penetration (ROP) Values. 1997 SPE 
Eastern Regional Meeting held in Lexington, Kentucky, October 22-24, 1997. 
SPE 39231. Pages 175-179. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 
TIC: 255661. 
167782 
Birkeland, P.W. 1974. Pedology, Weathering and Geomorphological Research. 
1974. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. TIC: 241201. 
128113 
Bland, P.A.; Conway, A.; Smith, T.B.; Berry, F.J.; Swabey, S.E.J.; and Pillinger, C.T. 
1998. Calculating Flux from Meteorite Decay Rates: A Discussion of Problems 
Encountered in Deciphering a 105106 Year Integrated Meteorite Flux at Allan Hills 
and a New Approach to Pairing. Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, M.M.; Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Geological Society Special Publication Mo. 140. Pages 43-58. Bath, 
England: Geological Society of London. TIC: 254143. 
162563 
Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; Chenevert, M.E.; and Young, F.S., Jr. 
1986. Rotary Drilling Bits. Applied Drilling Engineering. SPE Textbook Series 
Volume 2. Pages 190-245. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 
TIC: 250085. 
155233 
Boyer, H.E. and Gall, T.L., eds. 1984. Metals Handbook. Desk Edition. 10th 
Printing 1997. Metals Park, Ohio: American Society for Metals. TIC: 250192. 
155318 
Brakenridge, G.R. 1981. Terrestrial Paleoenvironmental Effects of a Late 
Quaternary-Age Supernova. Icarus, 46, (1), 81-93. New York, 
New York: Academic Press. TIC: 255707. 
167873 
Bredehoeft, J.D. 1997. Fault Permeability Near Yucca Mountain. Water 
Resources Research, 33, (11), 2459-2463. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 236570. 
100007 
Brown, P.; Spalding, R.E.; ReVelle, D.O.; Tagliaferri, E.; and Worden, S.P. 2002. 
The Flux of Small Near-Earth Objects Colliding with the Earth. Nature, 420, 
(6913), 294-296. London, England: Macmillan Journals. TIC: 254145. 
162569 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-3 October 2004 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. MGR External Events Hazards Screening 
Analysis. ANL-MGR-SE-000004 REV 001. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20030728.0005. 
163999 
BSC 2003. Requirements Management Plan. PLN-MGR-AD-000004 REV 01 
ICN 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031212.0002. 
168577 
BSC 2003. Subsurface Geotechnical Parameters Report. 800-K0C-WIS0-00400- 
000-00A. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040108.0001. 
166660 
BSC 2003. Total System Performance Assessment-License Application Methods and 
Approach. TDR-WIS-PA-000006 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20031215.0001. 
166296 
BSC 2003. Underground Layout Configuration. 800-P0C-MGR0-00100-000- 
00E. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20031002.0007. 
165572 
BSC 2004. Characterize Framework for Igneous Activity at Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. ANL-MGR-GS-000001, Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. 
169989 
BSC 2004. Characterize Framework for Seismicity and Structural Deformation at 
Yucca Mountain, Nevada. ANL-CRW-GS-000003 REV 00 Errata 001. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20000510.0175; 
DOC.20040223.0007. 
168030 
BSC 2004. Configuration Management Plan. PLN-MGR-AD-000003 REV 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040225.0010. 
168396 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement 
Pallet. 800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00D. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: ENG.20040503.0018. 
169220 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Subsurface Facilities. 800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040309.0026. 
164519 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Subsurface Facilities. 800-IED-WIS0-00103-000-00A. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040309.0028. 
168370 
BSC 2004. D&E / PA/C IED Typical Waste Package Components Assembly. 
800-IED-WIS0-00201-000-00E. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: ENG.20040517.0007. 
169480 
BSC 2004. Drift Degradation Analysis. ANL-EBS-MD-000027 REV 03. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040915.0010. 
166107 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-4 October 2004 
BSC 2004. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). MDL-NBS-GS-000002 
REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040827.0008. 
170029 
BSC 2004. Initial Radionuclide Inventories. ANL-WIS-MD-000020 REV 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040921.0003. 
170022 
BSC 2004. Performance Confirmation Plan. TDR-PCS-SE-000001 REV 04. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040825.0002. 
170505 
BSC 2004. Seismic Consequence Abstraction. MDL-WIS-PA-000003, Rev. 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
169183 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Regulatory Integration Team Revision of 
Features, Events, and Processes (FEPs) Analysis Reports Integration. 
TWP-MGR-PA-000022 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040706.0006. 
170408 
BSC 2004. The Development of the Total System Performance Assessment-License 
Application Features, Events, and Processes. TDR-WIS-MD-000003, Rev. 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
168706 
BSC 2004. UZ Flow Models and Submodels. MDL-NBS-HS-000006, Rev. 02. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
169861 
BSC 2004. WAPDEG Analysis of Waste Package and Drip Shield Degradation. 
ANL-EBS-PA-000001, Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
169996 
BSC 2004. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 REV 02 
ICN 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20040504.0008. 
169734 
Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. 
TER-MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
166275 
Ceplecha, Z. 1992. Influx of Interplanetary Bodies onto Earth. Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 263, 361-366. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 246784. 
135242 
Ceplecha, Z. 1994. Impacts of Meteoroids Larger than 1m into the Earths 
Atmosphere. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 286, (3), 967-970. New York, 
New York: Springer-Verlag. TIC: 246761. 
135243 
Chadwick, O.A.; Nettleton, W.D.; and Staidl, G.J. 1995. Soil Polygenesis as a 
Function of Quaternary Climate Change, Northern Great Basin, USA. Geoderma, 
68, (1-2), 1-26. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 255603. 
167626 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-5 October 2004 
Chapman, C.R. and Morrison, D. 1994. Impacts on the Earth by Asteroids and 
Comets: Assessing the Hazard. Nature, 367, (6458), 33-40. New York, 
New York: Nature America. TIC: 246781. 
135245 
Chyba, C.F. 1993. Explosions of Small Spacewatch Objects in Earths 
Atmosphere. Nature, 363, (6431), 701-703. London, United Kingdom: Macmillan 
Journals. TIC: 246762. 
135248 
Cole, D.G. 2003. Space Weather: Its Effects and Predictability. Space Science 
Reviews, 107, (1-2), 295-302. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 
TIC: 255616. 
167641 
CRWMS (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System) M&O (Management and 
Operating Contractor) 1998. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analyses for Fault 
Displacement and Vibratory Ground Motion at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Milestone 
SP32IM3, September 23, 1998. Three volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS 
M&O. ACC: MOL.19981207.0393. 
103731 
CRWMS M&O 1999. Final Report: Plant and Soil Related Processes Along a 
Natural Thermal Gradient at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. B00000000-01717-5705- 
00109 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990513.0037. 
105031 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Site Recommendation Design Baseline. Technical Change 
Request T2000-0133. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.20000503.0159. 
150088 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Total System Performance Assessment for the Site 
Recommendation. TDR-WIS-PA-000001 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20001220.0045. 
153246 
Day, W.C.; Dickerson, R.P.; Potter, C.J.; Sweetkind, D.S.; San Juan, C.A.; Drake, 
R.M., II; and Fridrich, C.J. 1998. Bedrock Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain 
Area, Nye County, Nevada. Geologic Investigations Series I-2627. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19981014.0301. 
100027 
Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and Robertson, P.B. 1977. Terrestrial Impact 
Structures: Principal Characteristics and Energy Considerations. Impact and 
Explosion Cratering, Planetary and Terrestrial Implications, Proceedings of the 
Symposium on Planetary Cratering Mechanics, Flagstaff, Arizona, September 13-17, 
1976. Roddy, D.J.; Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. Pages 247-275. New York, 
New York: Pergamon Press. TIC: 247237. 
135253 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1998. Introduction and Site Characteristics. 
Volume 1 of Viability Assessment of a Repository at Yucca Mountain. 
DOE/RW-0508. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19981007.0028. 
100548 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-6 October 2004 
DOE 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the 
Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca 
Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. DOE/EIS-0250. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: MOL.20020524.0314; MOL.20020524.0315; MOL.20020524.0316; 
MOL.20020524.0317; MOL.20020524.0318; MOL.20020524.0319; 
MOL.20020524.0320. 
155970 
Driscoll, F.G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells. 2nd Edition. St. Paul, 
Minnesota: Johnson Filtration Systems. TIC: 217555. 
116801 
Eghbal, M.K. and Southard, R.J. 1993. Micromorphological Evidence of 
Polygenesis of Three Aridisols, Western Mohave Desert, California. Soil Science 
Society of America Journal, 57, (4), 1041-1050. Madison, Wisconsin: Soil Science 
Society of America. TIC: 255602. 
167625 
Eghbal, M.K. and Southard, R.J. 1993. Stratigraphy and Genesis of Durorthids and 
Haplargids on Dissected Alluvial Fans, Western Mojave Desert, California. 
Geoderma, 59, (1-4), 151-174. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255601. 
167624 
Ehlers, E.G. and Blatt, H. 1982. Petrology, Igneous, Sedimentary, and Metamorphic. 
New York, New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. TIC: 255657. 
167802 
Fenelon, J.M. 2000. Quality Assurance and Analysis of Water Levels in Wells on 
Pahute Mesa and Vicinity, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Water-Resources 
Investigations Report 00-4014. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20030904.0304. 
160881 
Ferguson, C.D. 2002. Mini-Nuclear Weapons and the U.S. Nuclear Posture 
Review. Monterey, California: Monterey Institute of International Studies, Center 
for Nonproliferation Studies. Accessed December 4, 2002. TIC: 253717. 
http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020408.htm. 
160988 
Forrestal, M.J.; Longcope, D.B.; and Norwood, F.R. 1981. A Model to Estimate 
Forces on Conical Penetrators Into Dry Porous Rock. Journal of Applied 
Mechanics, 48, (1), 25-29. New York, New York: American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers. TIC: 255607. 
167630 
Fridrich, C.J. 1999. Tectonic Evolution of the Crater Flat Basin, Yucca Mountain 
Region, Nevada. Chapter 7 of Cenozoic Basins of the Death Valley Region. Wright, 
L.A. and Troxel, B.W., eds. Special Paper 333. Boulder, Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. TIC: 248054. 
118942 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-7 October 2004 
Glasstone, S. and Dolan, P.J., eds. 1977. Descriptions of Nuclear Explosions. 
Chapter II of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. 3rd Edition. Pages 26-79. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Energy. 
ACC: MOL.20030925.0035. 
160992 
Grattan-Bellew, P.E. and Vijay, M.M. 1986. Influence of Physical Properties of 
Rock on Rate of Penetration of a Water-Jet Drill. Canadian Mineralogist, 24, 
323-328. Ottawa, Canada: Mineralogical Association of Canada. TIC: 255711. 
167786 
Grieve, R.; Rupert, J.; and Therriault, A. 1995. The Record of Terrestrial Impact 
Cratering. GSA Today, 5, (10), 194-196. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of 
America. TIC: 246688. 
135260 
Grieve, R.A.F. 1998. Extraterrestrial Impacts on Earth: The Evidence and the 
Consequences. Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchinson, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, D.A., eds. Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Pages 105-131. London, England: Geological Society. 
TIC: 254143. 
163385 
Grieve, R.F. 1987. Terrestrial Impact Structures. Annual Review of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences, 15, 245-269. Palo Alto, California: Annual 
Reviews. TIC: 246788. 
135254 
Gronlund, L. and Wright, D. 2002. Earth Penetrating Weapons Global Security 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed December 10, 
2002. TIC: 253714. 
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=777. 
160989 
Hagan, M.E. 1995. Thermospheric Connections. Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 729-735. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 253731. 
160890 
Hartmann, W.K. 1966. Terrestrial and Lunar Flux of Large Meteorites Through 
Solar System History. Publication No. 3. Tempe, Arizona: Arizona State University, 
Center for Meteorite Studies. TIC: 254144. 
162567 
Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1993. Fragmentation of Small Asteroids in the 
Atmosphere. The Astronomical Journal, 105, (3), 1114-1144. Woodbury, 
New York: American Institute of Physics. TIC: 246798. 
135281 
Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1998. Damage from the Impact of Small Asteroids. 
Planetary and Space Science, 46, (2-3), 219-229. Oxford, United 
Kingdom: Elsevier. TIC: 246675. 
135291 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-8 October 2004 
Hoffman, K.A. 1995. How are Geomagnetic Reversals Related to Field Intensity? 
Eos, Volume 76, July 18, 1995, p. 289. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. Accessed April 23, 2003. TIC: 253732. http://www.agu.org/scisoc/
hoffman.html. 
160891 
Howarth, D.F.; Adamson, W.R.; and Berndt, J.R. 1986. Correlation of Model 
Tunnel Boring and Drilling Machine Performances with Rock Properties. 
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics 
Abstracts, 23, (2), 171-175. New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 255620. 
167645 
Hughes, D.W. 1998. The Mass Distribution of Crater-Producing Bodies. 
Meteorites: Flux with Time and Impact Effects. Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Grady, M.M.; Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; and Rothery, 
D.A.; eds. Pages 31-42. Bath, England: Geological Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
162562 
Humphrey, J.D.; Ransom, K.L.; and Matthews, R.K. 1986. Early Meteoric 
Diagenetic Control of Upper Smackover Production, Oaks Field, Louisiana. The 
American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, 70, (1), 70-85. Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. TIC: 246098. 
118461 
Hyndman, D.W. 1972. Petrology of Igneous and Metamorphic Rocks. International 
Series in the Earth and Planetary Sciences. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 248141. 
150295 
IADC (International Association of Drilling Contractors) 1992. Drilling Manual. 
11th Edition. Houston, Texas: International Association of Drilling Contractors. 
TIC: 232344. 
155232 
Kahraman, S. 2002. Correlation of TBM and Drilling Machine Performances with 
Rock Brittleness. Engineering Geology, 65, (4), 269-283. New York, 
New York: Elsevier. TIC: 255618. 
167643 
Kahraman, S.; Balci, C.; Yazici, S.; and Bilgin, N. 2000. Prediction of the 
Penetration Rate of Rotary Blast Hole Drills Using a New Drillability Index. 
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 37, (5), 729-743. 
New York, New York: Pergamon. TIC: 255709. 
167761 
Kahraman, S.; Bilgin, N.; and Feridunoglu, C. 2003. Dominant Rock Properties 
Affecting the Penetration Rate of Percussive Drills. International Journal of Rock 
Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 40, (5), 711-723. New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255619. 
167644 
Karam, P.A. 2002. Gamma and Neutrino Radiation Dose from Gamma Ray Bursts 
and Nearby Supernovae. Health Physics, 82, (4), 491-499. Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. TIC: 255918. 
167872 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-9 October 2004 
Kies, A.; Majerus, J.; and de Lantremange, N.D. 1999. Underground Radon Gas 
Concentrations Related to Earth Tides. Il Nuovo Cimento della Societ Italiana di 
Fisica, 22C, (3-4), 287-293. Bologna, Italy: Editrice Compositori. TIC: 253721. 
160882 
Krystinik, L.F. 1990. Early Diagenesis in Continental Eolian Deposits. Chapter 8 
of Modern and Ancient Eolian Deposits: Petroleum Exploration and Production. 
Fryberger, S.G.; Krystinik, L.F.; and Schenk, C.J., eds. Denver, Colorado: Society 
of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Section. 
TIC: 247781. 
135295 
Lachenbruch, A.H. and Sass, J.H. 1978. Models of an Extending Lithosphere and 
Heat Flow in the Basin and Range Province. Chapter 9 of Cenozoic Tectonics and 
Regional Geophysics of the Western Cordillera. Smith, R.B. and Eaton, G.P., eds. 
Memoir 152. Pages 209-250. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 225059. 
142990 
Lattman, L.H. 1972. Relation of Caliche (Calcrete) Horizons to Alluvial Fan 
Processes in Southern Nevada. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of 
America, 4, (7), 574. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 255828. 
167813 
Lattman, L.H. 1973. Calcium Carbonate Cementation of Alluvial Fans in Southern 
Nevada. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 84, (9), 3013-3028. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 235904. 
129305 
Lattman, L.H. 1983. Effect of Caliche on Desert Processes. Chapter 4 of Origin 
and Evolution of Deserts. Wells, S.G. and Haragan, D.R., eds. 1st Edition. 
Albuequerque, New Mexico: University of New Mexico Press. TIC: 255700. 
167815 
Lattman, L.H. and Simonberg, E.M. 1971. Case-Hardening of Carbonate Alluvium 
and Colluvium, Spring Mountains, Nevada. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 41, 
(1), 274-281. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of Economic Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists. TIC: 223189. 
129306 
Lean, J. 1997. The Suns Variable Radiation and its Relevance for Earth. Annual 
Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 35, 33-67. Palo Alto, California: Annual 
Reviews. TIC: 255614. 
167639 
Lennox, D. and Rees, A., eds. 1990. Janes Air-Launched Weapons. Alexandria, 
Virginia: Janes Information Group. TIC: 255862. 
167804 
Machette, M.N. 1982. Morphology, Age, and Rate of Accumulation of Pedogenic 
CaCO3 in Some Calcareous Soils and Pedogenic Calcretes of Southwestern United 
States. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America, 14, (4), 
182-183. Boulder, Colorado: Geological Society of America. TIC: 209942. 
167814 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-10 October 2004 
Marsden, B.G. and Steel, D.I. 1994. Warning Times and Impact Probabilities for 
Long-Period Comets. Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids. Gehrels, T., ed. 
221-237. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. TIC: 246879. 
129308 
Maynard, N.C. 1995. Space Weather Prediction. Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 547-557. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 253729. 
160888 
Melosh, H.J. 1989. Impact Cratering: A Geologic Process. New York, 
New York: Oxford University Press. TIC: 247750. 
146025 
Merriam-Webster. 1993. Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition. 
Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster. TIC: 8883. 
100468 
Nelson, R.W. 2001. Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons. FAS Public 
Interest Report, 54, (1), 1-5. Washington, D.C.: Federation of American Scientists. 
TIC: 253719. 
160986 
Neukum, G. and Ivanov, B.A. 1994. Crater Size Distributions and Impact 
Probabilities on Earth from Lunar, Terrestrial-Planet, and Asteroid Cratering Data. 
Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids. Gehrels, T., ed. 359-416. Tucson, 
Arizona: The University of Arizona Press. TIC: 246879. 
121510 
Novotna, D. and Vitek, V. 1991. The Atmospheric Mean Energetic Level and 
External Forcing. Studia Geophysica et Geodaetica, 35, (1), 33-38. Prague, 
Czechoslovakia: Geophycial Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255610. 
167634 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review Plan, 
Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. TIC: 254568. 
163274 
Odenwald, S. 2003. Earth - Magnetic Field Poetry Space Science Education: Ask 
the Space Scientist http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/askmag.html. 
Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Accessed 
February 25, 2003. TIC: 253712. 
160892 
Palmer, S.N. and Barton, M.E. 1987. Porosity Reduction, Microfabric and Resultant 
Lithification in UK Uncemented Sands. Geological Society Special Publication, 36, 
29-40. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell Scientific Publications. TIC: 246095. 
118483 
Patterson, W.J. 1974. Results and Analysis of Three Instrumented Projectile 
Penetration Tests at the Watching Hills Blast Range, Suffield, Alberta, Canada. 
EOS, Transactions, 56, (12), 1197. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 255677. 
167805 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-11 October 2004 
Pechala, F. 1985. The Effect of Extraterrestrial Interactions on Change of 
Tropospheric Circulation in the Polar Regions of the Earth. Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 29, (4), 405-412. Prague, Czechoslovakia: Geophycial Institute of the 
Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. TIC: 255609. 
167633 
Press, F. and Siever, R. 1978. Earth. 2nd Edition. San Francisco, California: W.H. 
Freeman and Company. TIC: 255856. 
167965 
Putot, C.J.M.; Guesnon, J.; Perreau, P.J.; and Constantinescu, A. 2000. Quantifying 
Drilling Efficiency and Disruption: Field Data vs. Theoretical Model. SPE Drilling 
& Completion, 15, (2), 118-125. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum 
Engineers. TIC: 255897. 
167791 
Reeves, C.C. 1976. Caliche: Origin, Classification, Morphology and Uses. 
Lubbock, Texas: Estacado Books. TIC: 245928. 
104303 
Reid, G.C. 1995. The Sun-Climate Question: Is There a Real Connection? Review 
of Geophysics (Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 535-538. Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 253730. 
160889 
Retallack, G.J. 1991. Untangling the Effects of Burial Alteration and Ancient Soil 
Formation. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. 19. 183-206. 
Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews. TIC: 255912. 
167870 
Richardson, J. and Bedient, J. 2001. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) About 
Fireballs and Meteorite Dropping Fireballs. Geneseo, New York: American Meteor 
Society. Accessed April 22, 2003. TIC: 254120. 
http://www.amsmeteors.org/fireball/faqf.html. 
162571 
Rozelot, J.P. 2001. Possible Links Between the Solar Radius Variations and the 
Earths Climate Evolution Over the Past Four Centuries. Journal of Atmospheric 
and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 63, (4), 375-386. New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255615. 
167640 
Ruderman, M.A. 1974. Possible Consequences of Nearby Supernova Explosions for 
Atmospheric Ozone and Terrestrial Life. Science, 184, 1079-1081. 
Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 
TIC: 255914. 
167875 
Salem, A.M.K.; Abdel-Wahab, A.; and McBride, E.F. 1998. Diagenesis of 
Shallowly Buried Cratonic Sandstones, Southwest Sinai, Egypt. Sedimentary 
Geology, 119, (3-4), 311-335. New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 255708. 
167869 
Sass, J.H.; Lachenbruch, A.H.; Dudley, W.W., Jr.; Priest, S.S.; and Munroe, R.J. 
1988. Temperature, Thermal Conductivity, and Heat Flow Near Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada: Some Tectonic and Hydrologic Implications. Open-File Report 87-649. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 203195. 
100644 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-12 October 2004 
Satchwell, R.M. 1994. An Experimental Study of the Effect of Bedding Plane 
Anisotrophy on the Rate of Penetration. Ph.D. dissertation. Laramie, 
Wyoming: University of Wyoming, Department of Chemical and Petroleum 
Engineering. TIC: 255659. 
167952 
Savage, J.C.; Svarc, J.L.; and Prescott, W.H. 1999. Strain Accumulation at Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada, 1983-1998. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, (B8), 
17627-17631. Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union. TIC: 245645. 
118952 
Shoemaker, E.M. 1983. Asteroid and Comet Bombardment of the Earth. Annual 
Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 11, 461-494. Palo Alto, California: Annual 
Reviews. TIC: 246922. 
135308 
Siddiqui, N.A. and Abbas, H. 2002. Mechanics of Missile Penetration into 
Geo-Materials. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 13, (6), 639-652. Taejon, 
Korea: Techno-Press. TIC: 255608. 
167631 
Smith, R.P.; Jackson, S.M.; and Hackett, W.R. 1998. Magma Intrusion and 
Seismic-Hazards Assessment in the Basin and Range Province. Proceedings 
Volume, Basin and Range Province (BRP) Seismic-Hazards Summit, Reno, Nevada, 
May 13-15, 1997. Miscellaneous Publication 98-2, 155-166. Salt Lake City, 
Utah: Utah Geological Survey. TIC: 246749. 
118967 
Solomon, K.A.; Erdmann, R.C.; and Okrent, D. 1975. Estimate of the Hazards to a 
Nuclear Reactor from the Random Impact of Meteorites. Nuclear Technology, 25, 
68-71. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear Society. TIC: 241714. 
103697 
Stix, G. and Yam, P. 2001. Facing a New Menace. Scientific American, 285, (5), 
14-15. New York, New York: Scientific American. TIC: 254304. 
160994 
Stuart, J.S. 2001. A Near-Earth Asteroid Population Estimate from the LINEAR 
Survey. Science, 294, (5547), 1691-1693. Washington, D.C.: American 
Association for the Advancement of Science. TIC: 254146. 
162568 
Taylor, E.M. 1986. Impact of Time and Climate on Quaternary Soils in the Yucca 
Mountain Area of the Nevada Test Site. Masters thesis. Boulder, 
Colorado: University of Colorado. TIC: 218287. 
102864 
Thrush, P.W., ed. 1968. Dictionary of Mining, Mineral, and Related Terms. 
Chicago, Illinois: Maclean Hunter Publishing Company. TIC: 207966. 
106989 
Warren, T.M. 1984. Factors Affecting Torque for a Roller Cone Bit. Journal of 
Petroleum Technology, 36, (10), 1500-1508. Dallas, Texas: Society of Petroleum 
Engineers of AIME. TIC: 255859. 
167788 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-13 October 2004 
Warren, T.M. 1987. Penetration-Rate Performance of Roller-Cone Bits. Drilling. 
SPE Reprint Series No. 22. Richardson, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers. 
TIC: 250084. 
155234 
Wernicke, B.; Davis, J.L.; Bennett, R.A.; Elosegui, P.; Abolins, M.J.; Brady, R.J.; 
House, M.A.; Niemi, N.A.; and Snow, J.K. 1998. Anomalous Strain Accumulation 
in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada. Science, 279, 2096-2100. New York, 
New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science. TIC: 235956. 
103485 
Williams, N.H. 2001. Contract No. DE-AC08-01RW12101  Total System 
Performance Assessment  Analyses for Disposal of Commercial and DOE Waste 
Inventories at Yucca Mountain  Input to Final Environmental Impact Statement and 
Site Suitability Evaluation REV 00 ICN 02. Letter from N.H. Williams (BSC) to 
J.R. Summerson (DOE/YMSCO), December 11, 2001, RWA:cs-1204010670, with 
enclosure. ACC: MOL.20011213.0056. 
157307 
Wu, C. 2000. Powerful Explosive Blasts Onto Scene Science News Online 
Washington, D.C.: Science Service. Accessed March 25, 2004. TIC: 255698. 
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000122/fob6.asp. 
167812 
Wuschke, D.M.; Whitaker, H.H.; Goodwin, B.W.; and Rasmussen, L.R. 1995. 
Assessment of the Long-Term Risk of a Meteorite Impact on Hypothetical Canadian 
Nuclear Fuel Waste Disposal Vault Deep in Plutonic Rock. AECL-11014. Pinawa, 
Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Whiteshell Laboratories. 
TIC: 221413. 
129326 
Yaalon, D.H. 1967. Factors Affecting the Lithification of Eolianite and 
Interpretation of Its Environmental Significance in the Coastal Plain of Israel. 
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 37, (4), 1189-1199. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of 
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. TIC: 255600. 
167622 
Young, C.W. 1976. Status Report on High Velocity Soil Penetration Program. 
SAND76-0291. Albuquerque, New Mexico: Sandia Laboratories. 
ACC: MOL.20040407.0069. 
167806 
Zolensky, M. 1998. The Flux of Meteorites to Antarctica. Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact Effects. Geological Society Special Publication No. 140. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchison, R.; McCall, G.J.H., and Rothery, D.A.; eds. Pages 93-104. Bath, 
England: Geological Society of London. TIC: 254143. 
162566 
8.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
156605 
40 CFR 197. Protection of Environment: Public Health and Environmental 
Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
165519 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-14 October 2004 
66 FR 32074. 40 CFR Part 197, Public Health and Environmental Radiation 
Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, NV; Final Rule. Readily available. 
155216 
66 FR 55732. Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, Final Rule. 10 CFR Parts 2, 19, 20, 21, 30, 
40, 51, 60, 61, 63, 70, 72, 73, and 75. Readily available. 
156671 
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. 
170665 
AP-3.11Q, Rev. 4, ICN 1. Technical Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040217.0001. 
167799 
AP-3.15Q, Rev. 4, ICN 5. Managing Technical Product Inputs. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: DOC.20040812.0004. 
171273 
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. 
169197 
AP-SIII.9Q, Rev. 1, ICN 7. Scientific Analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040920.0001. 
171831 
ASM International. 1990. Properties and Selection: Nonferrous Alloys and 
Special-Purpose Materials. Volume 2 of ASM Handbook. Formerly Tenth 
Edition, Metals Handbook. 5th Printing 1998. Materials Park, Ohio: ASM 
International. TIC: 241059. 
141615 
ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) 1998. 1998 ASME Boiler and 
Pressure Vessel Code. 1998 Edition with 1999 and 2000 Addenda. New York, 
New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers. TIC: 247429. 
145103 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20041005.0008. 
171923 
8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
MO0003RIB00071.000. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Alloy 22. 
Submittal date: 03/13/2000. 
148850 
MO0003RIB00073.000. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Ti Grades 7 
and 16. Submittal date: 03/13/2000. 
152926 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-15 October 2004 
MO0003RIB00076.000. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Type 316N 
Grade. Submittal date: 03/14/2000. 
153044 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000. Lithostratigraphic Contacts from 
MO9811MWDGFM03.000 to be Qualified Under the Data Qualification Plan, 
TDP-NBS-GS-000001. Submittal date: 04/04/2000. 
152554 
MO0311RCKPRPCS.003. Intact Rock Properties Data on Uniaxial and Triaxial 
Compressive Strength. Submittal date: 11/04/2003. 
166073 
MO0407SEPFEPLA.000. LA FEP List. Submittal date: 07/20/2004. 170760 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 8-16 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 October 2004 
APPENDIX A 
GLOSSARY 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 October 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 A-1 October 2004 
Alluvial Fan A cone-shaped deposit of alluvium made by a stream where it 
runs out onto a level plain or meets a slower stream. The fans 
generally form where streams issue from mountains upon the 
lowland. 
Annual Exceedance 
Probability 
The probability that a specified value (such as ground motion or 
fault displacement) will be exceeded during one year. 
Asteroid A small planet with a diameter from a fraction of a mile to 
nearly 500 miles. 
Astronomical Unit A measure for distance within the solar system equal to the 
mean distance between earth and sun, that is, about 92,956,000 
miles (149,598,000 km). 
Bolide A meteor that show signs of explosion or fragmentation. 
Caliche A calcareous soil component typically forming a friable to hard, 
off-white, crudely layered interval near the surface of stony 
desert soils; several cm or more thick; old, thick caliche 
intervals (calcrete) have the texture and hardness of concrete 
aggregate. 
Colluvial Slope A hill slope mantled with loose, heterogeneous soil and rock 
fragments that are the result of weathering and accumulation by 
creep and unchanneled snowmelt or runoff. 
Comet A celestial body that consists of a fuzzy head usually 
surrounding a bright nucleus, that often, with the part of its orbit 
near the sun, develops a long tail which points away from the 
sun and that has an orbit varying in eccentricity between nearly 
round and parabolic. 
Diagenesis Processes involving physical and chemical changes in sediment 
after deposition that convert it to consolidated rock; includes 
compaction, cementation, recrystallization, and perhaps 
replacement. 
Diapir A dome or anticlinal fold, the overlying rocks of which have 
been ruptured by squeezing out of the plastic core material. 
Diapirs in sedimentary strata usually contain cores of salt or 
shale. Igneous intrusions may also show diapiric structure. 
Dike A tabular intrusion of magma that is at a high angle to layering 
in the intruded strata (i.e., vertical or subvertical at Yucca 
Mountain). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 A-2 October 2004 
Disruptive Event Scenario 
Classes 
The scenario class, or set of related scenario classes, that 
describes the behavior of the system if perturbed by disruptive 
events. The disruptive scenario classes contain all disruptive 
FEPs that have been retained for analysis. 
Disruptive FEP An included FEP that has a probability of occurrence during the 
period of performance less than 1.0 (but greater than the cutoff 
of 10-4/104 year). 
Event A natural or human-caused phenomenon that has a potential to 
affect disposal system performance and that occurs during an 
interval that is short compared to the period of performance. 
Excluded FEP A FEP that is identified by the FEP-screening process as 
requiring no further analysis in the quantitative TSPA, based on 
low probability, low consequence, or regulation. 
Expected FEP An included FEP that, for the purposes of the TSPA, is assumed 
to occur with a probability equal to 1.0 during the period of 
performance. 
Faulting Process of fracture and attendant slip along the fracture plane, 
or recurrent slip along such a plane. 
Feature An object, structure, or condition that has a potential to affect 
disposal system performance. 
Fireball A bright meteor with luminosity that equals or exceeds that of 
the brightest planets (generally magnitude of 3 or brighter). 
Folding Formation of folds expressed by geometric features that include 
fold limbs, fold axes, and axial planes. Large or systematic 
compressive and drag folds are results of tectonic activity. 
Fracture A brittle crack in rock. Groups of fractures in more or less 
regular orientation and spacing are joints. Fractures form by 
bending (shear joints) or tension or principal stress reduction 
(extension joints). Cooling joints are formed by tension exerted 
by contraction as a volcanic rock cools. 
Future A single, deterministic representation of the future state of the 
system. An essentially infinite set of futures can be imagined 
for any system. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 A-3 October 2004 
Gamma Ray Burst A burst of gamma rays from space lasting from a fraction of a 
second to many minutes. There is no clear scientific consensus 
as to their cause or even their distance. 
Geodetic Strain Rate Regional strain rate determined at the earths surface by 
repeated measurement of displacements of precisely located 
landmarks (monuments) embedded in the deforming medium. 
Graben A block, generally long compared to its width, that has been 
downthrown along faults relative to the rocks on either side. 
Gray A unit of radiation dose equal to 1 joule of energy deposited in 
1 kg of tissue or other material. The gray (Gy) is a Systeme 
International (SI) unit and is equal to 100 rad. 
Igneous Activity Any process associated with the generation, movement, 
emplacement, or cooling of molten rock within the earth or 
exterior to the earths surface. 
Included FEP A FEP that is identified by the FEP screening process as 
requiring analysis in the quantitative TSPA. 
Intrusive Event (with 
respect to repository 
performance) 
An igneous intrusion (such as a dike, dike system, or other 
magmatic body in the subsurface) that intersects the repository 
footprint at the repository elevation. 
Metamorphism Process by which consolidated rocks are altered in composition 
and texture, or internal structure, by conditions and forces not 
resulting simply from burial and weight of subsequently 
accumulated overburden. Pressure, heat, and the introduction of 
new chemical substances are the principal causes, and the 
resulting changes, which generally include the development of 
new minerals, are a thermodynamic response to a greatly altered 
environment. Diagenesis has been considered to be incipient 
metamorphism. 
Meteor One of the small particles of matter in the solar system 
observable directly only when it falls into the earths 
atmosphere where friction may cause its temporary 
incandescence. 
Meteorite A meteor that reaches the surface of the earth without being 
completely vaporized. 
Meteoroid A meteor particle itself without relation to the phenomena it 
produces when entering the earths atmosphere. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 A-4 October 2004 
Nominal Scenario Class The scenario class, or set of related scenario classes, that 
describes the expected or nominal behavior of the system as 
perturbed only by the presence of the repository. The nominal 
scenario class contains all expected FEPs that have been 
retained for analysis. 
Nonwelded Unit A volcanic ash, or tuff, that is crumbly or easily excavated 
because the component glass shards did not weld together 
during compaction of relatively cool ash, or ash having 
relatively sparse glass content. 
Paleoseismic Slip The amount of fault slip indicated by buried offset strata. 
Individual paleoearthquakes are indicated by discrete amounts 
of offset. 
Potentiometric Surface A notional surface representing the total head of groundwater as 
defined by the level at which such water stands in a well. The 
water table is a particular potentiometric surface. 
Process A natural or human-caused phenomenon that has a potential to 
affect disposal system performance and that operates during all 
or a significant part of the period of performance. 
Radionuclide Radioactive type of atom with an unstable nucleus that 
spontaneously decays, usually emitting ionizing radiation in the 
process. Radioactive elements are characterized by their atomic 
mass and atomic number. 
Seismic Activity Seismicity; the recurrence and distribution of earthquakes 
associated with a specified seismic source. 
Strain Rate The rate at which a unit of length is shortened or lengthened 
under a stress load, usually given in terms of inverse seconds. 
Strain rate is often expressed in units of mm/yr where an actual 
length difference, rather than a ratio, is calculated. 
Stylized Analysis An analysis using specified assumptions and requirements in 
lieu of speculation on the nature and probability of a subject 
event. 
Supernova A stellar explosion that takes place late in the life of a massive 
star. 
Tectonic Activity The dynamic manifestation of stress loads generated within the 
earths crust (e.g., igneous intrusion, earthquakes, uplift). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 A-5 October 2004 
Tectonic Deformation The suite of geological structures generated by body stresses 
exerted within the earths crust; such structures range in scale 
from microscopic (e.g., mylonite fabric) to regional (e.g., 
overthrust belts). Also, the process by which such structures 
together are formed. 
Tectonic Extension Stretching or extension of the crust as a result of deep-seated 
tectonic stress, such as back-arc spreading. 
Tectonic Process The dynamic evolution of structure generated through the 
buildup and relaxation of regional stress. 
Tectonism All movement of the crust at small scale produced by tectonic 
processes, including mountain building (orogeny), regional 
uplift, and subsidence; the general expression of tectonic 
processes through time and space. 
Water Table The surface of unconfined groundwater at which the pressure is 
equal to that of the atmosphere. 
Welded Unit A volcanic ash, or tuff, that is strongly indurated because hot 
glass shards partially melted together (welded) during 
compaction of the ash bed while the ash was still hot. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 A-6 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 October 2004 
APPENDIX B 
SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DATA FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES USED AS 
DIRECT INPUTS TO SYSTEM-LEVEL FEPS 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 October 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-1 October 2004 
B1. INTRODUCTION 
This appendix demonstrates the suitability of previously unqualified data for use in Section 6.2 
and Appendices C and D of this analysis report. It is not intended as stand-alone documentation 
separate from the main document. The data justified herein is intended for use only for features, 
events, and processes (FEPs) screening and, more specifically, for use within this work product. 
Data from external sources that do not meet the definition of Established Fact have been used 
as direct input to this document. The inputs from these sources are justified for use in this 
appendix and are considered qualified for intended use within the document using the criteria 
found in AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific Analyses. Accordingly, these data are assigned a Q status of 
qualified in the projects Document Input Reference System (DIRS) database. The evaluation 
criteria used for the following justification represent a subset of the methods and attributes 
required for qualification of data per AP-SIII.2Q, Qualification of Unqualified Data. The 
following information is provided for each source: 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. In addition, one or more of the following criteria is also 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.9Q and are provided as 
justification that the data that have been used from these sources are considered to be qualified 
for intended use. 
Section B2 of this appendix identifies the direct inputs, Section B3 addresses the methods used to 
demonstrate suitability, and Section B4 discusses the appropriate criteria. Accordingly, 
Section B5 provides the evaluation of the data, and contains the discussion wherein the direct 
inputs are corroborated and shown suitable for use. 
B2. DATA SETS FOR USE WITHIN THIS TECHNICAL PRODUCT 
The direct inputs being evaluated are identified in Table B-1. The table has been subdivided by 
FEP or FEP grouping, which will be treated separately within Section B5 of this appendix. Each 
item in the following table has been assigned an Item designator (Q) to facilitate traceability to 
the sources and factors tables that appear in Section B5 of this appendix. The tables in 
Section B5 of this appendix also address the corroborating information in tables presented in 
Section B5. Corroborating information has been identified in those tables with an Item 
designator (C), denoting that the item is being used for corroboration. 
The source column in Table B-1 provides the citation as it appears in the DIRS database and 
provides traceability through the Technical Information Center (TIC) number or DIRS numbers. 
The description column in the Table B-1 provides a brief description of the data being evaluated, 
by equation number, numeric value, or statement of the concept being used as the direct input. 
The direct input used in formulating a screening decision is listed along with the originating 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-2 October 2004 
citation or information is given in normal type immediately below the input. This information is 
repeated in the last column in the tables in Section B5. The citations provided in Table B-1 also 
appear within Table 4-5 of the main body of the report. The tables in Section B5 of the main 
body identify the associated sections of the main body of the report that utilize the input, so that 
information is not repeated here. 
The information used for direct input is also identified in Section 4 of the main body of this 
document, and supporting references are clearly identified in the various subsections of 
Section 6.2, as needed to provide the technical basis for exclusion of the FEP. 
Table B-1. Data Sets for Use within this Technical Product 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Timing of Human Intrusion Analysis 
Q1 Bourgoyne, A.T., Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; 
Chenevert, M.E.; and Young, F.S., Jr. 
1986. "Rotary Drilling Bits." Applied 
Drilling Engineering. SPE Textbook 
Series Volume 2. Pages 190-245. 
Richardson, Texas: Society of 
Petroleum Engineers. TIC: 250085. 
(DIRS 155233) 
The rate of drill penetration may range from inversely 
proportional to the square of the compressive strength to 
inversely proportional to the compressive strength of the rock. 
Equation 5-19 directly relates the square of the formation 
compressive strength to the rate of penetration and therefore 
allows a comparison of drilling behavior based on material 
properties. 
Q2 Kahraman, S.; Balci, C.; Yazici, S.; and 
Bilgin, N. 2000. "Prediction of the 
Penetration Rate of Rotary Blast Hole 
Drills Using a New Drillability Index." 
International Journal of Rock Mechanics 
and Mining Sciences, 37, (5), 729-743. 
New York, New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255709. 
(DIRS 167761) 
The rate of drill penetration may range from inversely 
proportional to the square of the compressive strength to 
inversely proportional. 
Equation 8 addresses the rate of penetration in terms of a 
drillability index, but provides a correlation of the index to 
unconfined compressive strength and to tensile strength in 
Equations 14 and 15. 
Explosions and Crashes 
Q3 Backman, M.E. and Goldsmith, W. 
1978. "The Mechanics of Penetration 
of Projectiles into Targets." 
International Journal of Engineering 
Science, 16, (1), 1-99. New York, 
New York: Pergamon. TIC: 255605. 
(DIRS 167628) 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
The relationships and equations giving depth of penetration are 
taken from p. 32, which provides information for a monobloc 
round-ended steel projectile with a length-to-diameter ratio of 
8, striking normally at 150 m/s. The stated relationship is a 
penetration depth into sand of 350 diameters, and for 
high-strength concrete (5,000 psi strength), a penetration depth 
of 25 diameters. A maximum penetration depth can be 
calculated by assuming a penetrator with a maximum diameter. 
The Poncelet equation (Equation 6.2 on p. 38) and factors from 
Table 2 for hard soils (95 percent sand and, 5 percent silt 
a8 = 15.7, a10 = 24.7) are provided and can be used to determine 
a maximum penetration depth. A maximum depth can be 
determined by assuming the mass associated with the 
penetrator with a maximum diameter. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-3 October 2004 
Table B-1. Data Sets for Use within this Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Q4 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and 
Robertson, P.B. 1977. "Terrestrial 
Impact Structures: Principal 
Characteristics and Energy 
Considerations." Impact and Explosion 
Cratering, Planetary and Terrestrial 
Implications, Proceedings of the 
Symposium on Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, Arizona, 
September 13-17, 1976. Roddy, D.J.; 
Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. 
Pages 247-275. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 247237. 
(DIRS 135253) 
The energy release required to create a crater with a diameter 
sufficient to fracture to 60 m or 200 m (i.e., the depths of interest) 
is on the order of 1012 to 1017 Joule. 
Figure 12 is used to relate energy release to crater diameter and 
hence to fracturing and cratering depth. 
The energy release from underground nuclear detonations 
results in fracturing to distances on the order of 100 meters or 
less. 
p. 262 indicates that the 64-kt Pile Driver test produced stresses 
at about 100 meters (328 feet) that were slightly less than those 
needed to propagate fractures in granodiorite. 
Q5 Ferguson, C.D. 2002. "Mini-Nuclear 
Weapons and the U.S. Nuclear Posture 
Review." Monterey, California: 
Monterey Institute of International 
Studies, Center for Nonproliferation 
Studies. Accessed December 4, 2002. 
TIC: 253717. 
http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020 
408.htm 
(DIRS 160988) 
The energy yield of conventional weapons is on the order of 
2 tons or less. 
This is based on direct input from this citation stating that an 
explosive capability of 2 tons is given for the GBU-28 explosive 
ordnance. 
Q6 Forrestal, M.J.; Longcope, D.B.; and 
Norwood, F.R. 1981. "A Model to 
Estimate Forces on Conical Penetrators 
Into Dry Porous Rock." Journal of 
Applied Mechanics, 48, (1), 25-29. 
New York, New York: American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers. 
TIC: 255607. 
(DIRS 167630) 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
Direct input from this paper indicate that experimental test results 
at the Sandia, Tonopah Test Range, Nevada indicate a 
penetrator; 1.52 m long, with outer diameter of 0.165 m and 
mass of 182 kg, with an initial velocity of 411 m/s penetrated to a 
depth of 2.6 m in unsaturated welded tuff 
Q7 Patterson, W.J. 1974. "Results and 
Analysis of Three Instrumented 
Projectile Penetration Tests at the 
Watching Hills Blast Range, Suffield, 
Alberta, Canada." EOS, Transactions, 
56, (12), 1197. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 255677. (DIRS 167805) 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
Provides empirical information on rock penetrations tests. 
Penetrators with a diameter of 15.24 cm and mass of 181.4 kg 
were fired with impact velocities of 93 m/sec, 122.8 m/s and 
150.9 m/sec and achieved penetration depths of 9.08 m, 14.7 m, 
and 20.7 m respectively. The target material was an old glacial 
lake bed. 
Q8 Stix, G. and Yam, P. 2001. "Facing a 
New Menace." Scientific American, 
285, (5), 14-15. New York, New York: 
Scientific American. TIC: 254304. 
(DIRS 160994) 
Kinetic energy for jet aircraft is approximately 2 tons TNT 
equivalent or less. 
This information provides energy release associated with a large 
jetliner (Boeing 767) crash. 
Q9 Young, C.W., 1976. Status Report on 
High Velocity Soil Penetration Program. 
SAND76-0291. Albuquerque, 
New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. (DIRS 167806) 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
Provides empirical information on soil penetration tests, Table II 
indicates that a penetrator with a weight of 320 lbs, and 6.0 inch 
diameter impacting with a speed of 2316 feet per second 
penetrated 220.5 feet (67 m) into a dry playa soil. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-4 October 2004 
Table B-1. Data Sets for Use within this Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Metamorphism 
Q10 Ehlers, E.G. and Blatt, H. 1982. 
Petrology, Igneous, Sedimentary, and 
Metamorphic. New York, New York: 
W.H. Freeman and Company. 
TIC: 255657. (DIRS 167802) 
The minimum conditions needed for onset of metamorphism are: 
T> 150-200C 
P = 0.5-1 kbar 
Depth = 4-5 km 
The range in geothermal gradients is 10 to 25C and the 
pressure gradient is approximately 0.6 kbar/km. 
From p. 566, the text states the minimum temperature at which 
typical regional metamorphic processes begin in sediments is 
about 150  200 degrees C, with pressures on the order of 
0.5-1 kbar and depth within the crust of about 4-5 km. At these 
pressures and temperatures diagenetic processes are 
complete. 
From p. 684-685, the range in geothermal gradients at 
convergent plate junctions is inferred typically to be between 
10 and 25 degrees C/km. 
From p 168, Figure 6-3, in the top 200 km of the crust, the 
pressure gradient is approximately 1 mbar per 1500 km (or about 
0.6 kbar per km) and the temperature gradient is approximately 
1000 degrees C per 100 kilometer or 10 degrees per kilometer. 
Diagenesis 
Q11 Krystinik, L.F. 1990. "Early Diagenesis 
in Continental Eolian Deposits." 
Chapter 8 of Modern and Ancient Eolian 
Deposits: Petroleum Exploration and 
Production. Fryberger, S.G.; Krystinik, 
L.F.; and Schenk, C.J., eds. Denver, 
Colorado: Society of Economic 
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, 
Rocky Mountain Section. TIC: 247781. 
(DIRS 135295) 
The time required for diagenesis is less than 10,000 years. 
p. 8-1 indicates that shallow diagenesis may achieve lithification 
within 5,000 years. 
Compaction does not generally become significant until deep 
burial has occurred. 
pp. 8-2 and 8-3 indicate that initial compaction can reduce 
porosity by 20-30 percent, but additional compaction is not 
significant prior to deep burial. 
Cements other than carbonate may develop in arid environments 
p. 8-4 indicates that iron, aluminum, and silica may be cementing 
agents in arid environments. 
Q12 Lattman, L.H. and Simonberg, E.M. 
1971. "Case-Hardening of Carbonate 
Alluvium and Colluvium, Spring 
Mountains, Nevada." Journal of 
Sedimentary Petrology, 41, (1), 
274-281. Tulsa, Oklahoma: Society of 
Economic Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists. TIC: 223189. 
(DIRS 129306) 
The time required for diagenesis is less than 10,000 years. 
p. 277 provides a bound on the rate of case-hardening and 
formation of calcretes in southeastern Nevada and suggests 
rates on the order of tens of years. 
Q13 Lattman, L.H. 1973. "Calcium 
Carbonate Cementation of Alluvial Fans 
in Southern Nevada." Geological 
Society of America Bulletin, 84, (9), 
3013-3028. Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 235904. (DIRS 129305) 
Cementation by CaCO3 is not a significant process in rhyolitic 
tuffs. 
p. 3015 of this paper discusses the role of carbonate cements for 
rhyolitic tuffs and indicates that carbonate cementation is not 
significant if a source of carbonate is not present. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-5 October 2004 
Table B-1. Data Sets for Use within this Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Diagenesis (Continued) 
Q14 Reeves, C.C. 1976. Caliche: Origin, 
Classification, Morphology and Uses. 
Lubbock, Texas: Estacado Books. 
TIC: 245928. (DIRS 104303) 
The net effect of cementation is to decrease infiltration rates. 
p. 110 indicates that a caliche horizon impedes the movement of 
both infiltration and capillary water and cites several supporting 
studies. 
Q15 Taylor, E.M. 1986. Impact of Time and 
Climate on Quaternary Soils in the 
Yucca Mountain Area of the Nevada 
Test Site. Master's thesis. Boulder, 
Colorado: University of Colorado. 
TIC: 218287. (DIRS 102864) 
p. 86 SiO2 cementation is not dependent on climatic conditions, 
but does exhibit distinctive trends that correspond with the ages 
of the surficial deposits. 
p. 87 Accumulation rates are attributable to several climatic 
scenarios, but changes were insufficient to decrease the rate of 
accumulation. 
p. 89 Modeling suggests that CaCO3 may translocate to greater 
depth with onset of greater precipitation. 
The preceding statements are taken from Chapter 5 of the 
citation. 
p. 33, Figure 9, accumulation rates for Yucca Mountain favor 
SiO2 over CaCO3, which is an accessory cement, and the 
cementation process is reversible. 
The preceding statements are taken from pp. 31-33, Figure 9, 
pp 86 to 89, and Chapter 5 of the citation. 
Meteorite Impact 
Q16 Ceplecha, Z. 1992. "Influx of 
Interplanetary Bodies onto Earth." 
Astronomy and Astrophysics, 263, 
361-366. New York, New York: 
Springer-Verlag. TIC: 246784. 
(DIRS 135242) 
Source of flux information for full range of masses 
p. 362 and Figure 1 
Q17 Ceplecha, Z. 1994. "Impacts of 
Meteoroids Larger than 1m into the 
Earth's Atmosphere." Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 286, (3), 967-970. 
New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. 
TIC: 246761. (DIRS 135243) 
Source of flux data based on percent composition and related 
densities. 
p. 967-969, Tables 1, 3, 4, Figure 2 
Q18 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; and 
Robertson, P.B. 1977. "Terrestrial 
Impact Structures: Principal 
Characteristics and Energy 
Considerations." Impact and Explosion 
Cratering, Planetary and Terrestrial 
Implications, Proceedings of the 
Symposium on Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, Arizona, 
September 13-17, 1976. Roddy, D.J.; 
Pepin, R.O.; and Merrill, R.B., eds. 
Pages 247-275. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. TIC: 247237. 
(DIRS 135253) 
Energy to crater diameter and cratering depth relationships. 
p. 250, pp. 261-264 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-6 October 2004 
Table B-1. Data Sets for Use within this Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Meteorite Impact (Continued) 
Q19 Grieve, R.F. 1987. "Terrestrial Impact 
Structures." Annual Review of Earth 
and Planetary Sciences, 15, 245-269. 
Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246788. (DIRS 135254) 
Cratering rate distribution based on observed earth cratering 
(i.e., proportional to Dcrater
-1.8) and threshold size for onset of 
complex cratering (4 km). 
p. 248, p. 257, Figure 8 
Q20 Grieve, R.; Rupert, J.; and Therriault, A. 
1995. "The Record of Terrestrial 
Impact Cratering." GSA Today, 5, (10), 
194-196. Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of America. 
TIC: 246688. (DIRS 135260) 
Onset of complex cratering occurs with crater diameters of 4 km. 
p. 194 
Q21 Grieve, R.A.F. 1998. "Extraterrestrial 
Impacts on Earth: The Evidence and 
the Consequences." Meteorites: Flux 
with Time and Impact Effects. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchinson, R.; McCall, G.J.H.; 
and Rothery, D.A., eds. Geological 
Society Special Publication No. 140. 
Pages 105-131. London, England: 
Geological Society. TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 163385) 
Crater diameter to depth of effect relationships. Depth of 
exhumation is approximately 0.28 Dcrater. 
p. 113, Figure 8 
Q22 Hills, J.G. and Goda, P.M. 1993. 
"Fragmentation of Small Asteroids in 
the Atmosphere." The Astronomical 
Journal, 105, (3), 1114-1144. 
Woodbury, New York: American 
Institute of Physics. TIC: 246798. 
(DIRS 135281) 
Modeling results demonstrating a variety of effects from 
meteorite impact including resulting crater diameters and related 
consequences. 
Figures 16 and 17 provide key meteor radius to crater diameter 
relationship information. 
Q23 Shoemaker, E.M. 1983. "Asteroid and 
Comet Bombardment of the Earth." 
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary 
Sciences, 11, 461-494. Palo Alto, 
California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246922. (DIRS 135308) 
Contribution of iron meteors to the total flux is about 5 percent. 
pp. 464 and 480 
Q24 Wuschke, D.M.; Whitaker, H.H.; 
Goodwin, B.W.; and Rasmussen, L.R. 
1995. Assessment of the Long-Term 
Risk of a Meteorite Impact on 
Hypothetical Canadian Nuclear Fuel 
Waste Disposal Vault Deep in Plutonic 
Rock. AECL-11014. Pinawa, 
Manitoba, Canada: Atomic Energy of 
Canada Limited, Whiteshell 
Laboratories. 
TIC: 221413. (DIRS 129326) 
Spatial relationships of crater diameter to extents and depth of 
fracturing (0.76 Dcrater) and exhumation (0.14 Dcrater). 
pp. 3 
Spatial extent of fracturing is assumed to be spherical. 
Figure 1 
Cratering rate data for the Canadian shield and application to a 
hypothetical Canadian repository. 
pp. 4 and 26 
Extraterrestrial Events 
Q25 Brakenridge, G.R. 1981. "Terrestrial 
Paleoenvironmental Effects of a Late 
Quaternary-Age Supernova." Icarus, 
46, (1), 81-93. New York, New York: 
Academic Press. TIC: 255707. 
(DIRS 167873) 
Frequency of supernova event (1 event per 100 years), 
magnitude (1050 ergs), and potential consequences of the event 
(nitrogen enrichments, ozone depletion, global cooling) due to a 
supernova event. 
p. 81-93 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-7 October 2004 
Table B-1. Data Sets for Use within this Technical Product (Continued) 
Item Source Description of Direct Input 
Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
Q26 Lean, J. 1997. "The Sun's Variable 
Radiation and its Relevance for Earth." 
Annual Review of Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 35, 33-67. Palo Alto, 
California: Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 255614. (DIRS 167639) 
Relationships exist between the decadal sun cycle, and overall 
solar activity and the earths surface temperature, and possible 
link from changes in IR and visible and IR radiation to changes in 
earths temperatures and climate. 
p. 33-67 
Q27 Maynard, N.C. 1995. "Space Weather 
Prediction." Reviews of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 1), 547-557. 
Washington, D.C.: American 
Geophysical Union. TIC: 253729. 
(DIRS 160888) 
List of engineered systems potentially affected by space 
weather. 
p. 547-557 
Earths Magnetic Field 
Q28 Odenwald, S. 2003. "Earth - Magnetic 
Field" Poetry Space Science Education: 
Ask the Space Scientist 
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a 
skmag.html. Washington, D.C.: 
National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration. Accessed February 25, 
2003. TIC: 253712. (DIRS 160892) 
The periodicity of pole reversals is on the scale of a few hundred 
thousand years to once every million years. 
There has been a decrease in the earths magnetic intensity in 
the last few thousand years, and some evidence that a reversal 
may occur sometime during the next few to several thousand 
years. 
There is no identifiable fossil evidence (such as mutation or 
extinctions) stemming from magnetic field changes. 
These statements are made within the citation. 
Earth Tides 
Q29 Bredehoeft, J.D. 1997. "Fault 
Permeability Near Yucca Mountain." 
Water Resources Research, 33, (11), 
2459-2463. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 236570. (DIRS 100007) 
Earth tides cause fluctuations in water levels at Yucca Mountain 
that are on the order of a few centimeters. 
p. 2460 give a value of 2.05 cm. 
B3. DEMONSTRATION OF SUITABILITY USING THE 
CORROBORATIVE METHOD 
The data to be evaluated have been extracted from nonproject specific sources and will be 
justified for use by the corroborating data approach. The corroborating data approach may be 
used when subject matter data comparisons can be shown to substantiate or confirm parameter 
values and may include comparisons of unqualified to unqualified data. The use of the 
corroborative data approach seems most feasible for judging correctness and reliability by 
comparing independently developed but related, data sets. This approach is also useful for 
justifying use of direct inputs and demonstrating suitability for use in the analysis. 
In this appendix, the indirect input is also referred to as corroborative-use-only information to 
help differentiate it from the direct input being justified for use. In some cases, a single source 
may provide both direct and indirect input. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-8 October 2004 
B4. EVALUATION CRITERIA 
The following criteria are established for qualifying these data through corroboration: 
1. Is there a sufficient quantity of corroborating data available for comparison? 
Table B-1 is organized by type of information to be evaluated, and each of the sources 
of data to be evaluated is listed. For each subject area, at least two, and preferably 
three or more, independent sources of information will be considered for 
corroboration. 
2. Can inferences drawn to corroborate these data be clearly identified, justified, and 
documented? 
For each source of information to be evaluated, the discussion will include a brief 
statement regarding the original purpose of the study, the method used to acquire the 
data, and any limitations germane to the corroboration of the data. Additionally, the 
basis for assuming adequacy for comparison (e.g., similar type study, update to 
previous study, compared to previous studies in related fields) will be stated. 
For quantitative inputs, corroboration will be shown either by graphical representation of the 
various data sets, or in table or text format, comparing the various values from the various 
sources. Corroboration will be considered acceptable, if singular values (e.g., mean velocity or 
percent by composition) are shown to be within two standard deviations of the mean value, with 
the mean and deviations developed by equal weighting of reported mean values from each 
source. This standard was chosen based on assuming a normal distribution of data. In a normal 
distribution, about 95 percent of the values should be within two standard deviations of the 
mean. In the case of probability distributions or equations based on probability distributions 
(e.g., mass flux or cratering rates), corroboration will be considered acceptable if the resulting 
probability distributions fall within two orders of magnitude for any given point in the 
distribution (e.g., for the probability of crater diameter of a given size). This large range of 
values is consistent with recognizing the large degree of uncertainty associated with small 
number of observations of extraterrestrial bodies known to date. 
For qualitative inputs addressing key concepts of an FEP, one or more corroborative information 
sources will be used to substantiate the direct input. The source(s) should not conflict with the 
direct input, and should be in general agreement. This standard may also be used when 
corroborating boundary conditions that define the conditions necessary for the initiation of an 
FEP (e.g., temperature and pressure conditions associated with the onset of metamorphism). For 
cases with only one available source of information, the appropriateness for use as direct input 
will be justified. 
Therefore, the use of broad acceptance criteria is justified, and in lieu of corroboration, a 
bounding or conservative value (with respect to inclusion of the FEP) may be recommended and 
considered as qualified under this exercise. Consistent with the intended use, some latitude is 
taken in applying these criteria and an adequate explanation or justification for variance from the 
above criteria is provided. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-9 October 2004 
For each FEP-specific data set within Section B3, the evaluation criteria to be applied 
(i.e., quantitative or qualitative) will be identified. 
B5. EVALUATION OF THE TECHNICAL CORRECTNESS OF THE DATA 
The technical correctness of the data (and the corroborating information) and hence its suitability 
to use was evaluated based on the factors listed in AP-SIII.9Q, Section 5.2.1 l), and discussed 
previously in the introduction to this appendix. 
Section B5 has been subdivided with direct input for each subject FEP (or grouping of FEPs) 
being accorded an individual subsection. The discussion of technical correctness for each 
FEP-specific data set is addressed in four parts. 
The first part (Section B5.x.1 Literature Search) discusses the scope of the literature review. The 
literature review involved a keyword search, and the number of returns or citations is given. 
The term citation is used in the generic sense and is not specific to either direct inputs or 
indirect inputs. Preliminary screening of citations based on title and available abstract 
information was done to help limit the number of citations to be evaluated, and goes to limiting 
further review to those citations that are related to the properties of interest. The direct inputs to 
be used were chosen after reviewing the list of selected citations and review of the technical 
content of the citations. 
The second part (Section B5.x.2 Evaluation of Factors) addresses the technical correctness of 
both the data being evaluated, and the corroborating information. The technical correctness of 
the data and corroborating information was evaluated based on the previous list of factors. In the 
summary tables, direct input citations are listed first and are followed by the corroborative 
citations. A single cited paper might serve as the source for multiple types of direct input and 
reference only information. The designator Q within the item identifier indicates the item is to 
be justified for use. If a direct item is also used to corroborate a different direct input, the Q 
value is listed as corroborating information for that use rather than assigning a C number and 
having a single citation with two designators. In some cases Q information is mutually 
corroborating (i.e., if there is little difference in the listed information) and in some cases a 
citation may be direct input in one instance, but is used only in a corroborative sense for other 
information. A C designator in the item identifier column indicates the item is used only to 
corroborate one or more data sets. 
The first column of the evaluation table addresses the factor Demonstrates Properties of 
Interest. For each source, the evaluation includes a brief statement regarding the original 
purpose of the study, its applicability, and any limitations germane to use of the information. 
The factor of Prior Use by Others is documented in column 2 of the table. Where possible, 
this was accomplished by checking against citations in the SciSearch database or Science 
Citation Index, which provide the number of other citations which cite back to the subject 
document. In some instances, the subject document was not found in the SciSearch database 
and the number of citations is not known. This is to be expected, as many of these particular 
articles (such as those related to drill performance) are directed towards technology or 
engineering application or the citation did not initially appear in publications routinely included 
in the SciSearch database (such as thesis and textbooks). The factor of reliability of the data 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-10 October 2004 
source is addressed in the third column (Prior Peer or Other Professional Review) by noting the 
type of originating document, with peer-reviewed journals being specifically noted. Items listed 
as technical journal denote that the use of peer-review prior to publishing has not been 
established. Textbooks are noted as such and are typically subject to an editorial and fact 
checking. Citations denoted as articles rather than papers denote information extracted from 
reputable sources, but the reported information has not been subjected to technical review. 
The reliability of the data source is also considered in Column 4 of the tables (Extent and 
Reliability of Documentation). This is a subjective evaluation, which was used in part to 
determine whether a citation should be used as a direct input, with preference as direct input 
given to those citations with moderate to high documentation levels. If information on 
equipment and procedures is provided in the citation, it is noted in this column. The fifth column 
(Importance of the Data) designates the citation as direct input or indirect input, based on its 
importance to the FEP analysis. 
By addressing the above listed factors for the corroborative information, the fourth factor 
(availability of corroborating data) is also addressed. However, the comparison of the direct 
input to the corroborative information requires more detail and it is specifically addressed under 
the third subsection (Section B5.x.3 Discussion) for each FEP-specific dataset. The discussions 
for each FEP may be subdivided by topic to facilitate corroboration of the direct inputs. 
The fourth part of each section (Section B5.x.4 Data Status and Limitations) provides 
recommendations regarding status of the direct input and any associated limitations and relates to 
suitability for use. 
B5.1 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR TIMING OF HUMAN 
INTRUSION-RELATED FEPS 
The difference in material properties of rock and the engineered barrier system and the effect on 
drilling parameters may allow recognition of penetration of the engineered barriers. The 
relationship being evaluated is that: 
The rate of drill penetration may range from inversely proportional to the square of the 
compressive strength to inversely proportional to the compressive strength of the rock. 
This range in relationship is documented in the direct inputs noted as Items Q1 and Q2 in 
Table B-1. The data are in the form of equations or functional relationships and are qualitative in 
nature. Therefore, the qualitative criteria for general agreement will be applied. Multiple 
sources corroborate the data. 
B5.1.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates, and on information directly relevant and applicable to the 
analysis. The intent of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed factors that 
would differentiate between drilling in naturally occurring materials and penetration of an 
engineered barrier. The keyword and subject based-searches utilized various AND 
combinations for the keywords drilling, rate, penetration, and factors in various 
combinations. The SciSearch database (limited to publication dates for 1980 to 2004) returned 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-11 October 2004 
a total of three records and the GeoRef databases (based on all records, including 2004) 
returned 46 records. Duplicate citations between the two databases were noted, and 12 citations 
were judged be potentially pertinent for the intended use and further evaluation. Based on 
existing references used for Total System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation 
(TSPA-SR), an electronic search of the eLibrary for the Society of Professional Engineers was 
also performed using the SPE Intelligent Search function with the input question of what factors 
affect rate of penetration and drilling parameters. The query was set at a 50 percent match and 
for a return of 200 citations, and no publication date limitation was imposed. From the list of 
returned citations, four additional citations were marked for further consideration. Additionally, 
previous discussions of the topic in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and 
TSPA-SR documentation were reviewed and citations in those sources were added to the list. 
Citations from these sources not selected for evaluation were discarded because they dealt with 
drilling techniques that are unlikely to be used in groundwater exploration, as required by the 
regulations. Some other reasons for discarding a citation is that the citation dealt with rock types 
that are not present at Yucca Mountain above the repository (e.g., shales and limestones), or the 
paper dealt with specific drilling conditions that were not of interest for shallow conditions. 
B5.1.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input, or as indirect input 
and corroboration of the direct input), the pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in 
Table B-2. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-00019 REV 02 B-12 October 2004 
Table B-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q1 
Q2, C2, C3, 
C4, C6 
Bourgoyne, A.T., 
Jr.; Millheim, K.K.; 
Chenevert, M.E.; 
and Young, F.S., 
Jr. 1986. "Rotary 
Drilling Bits." 
Applied Drilling 
Engineering. SPE 
Textbook Series 
Volume 2. 
Pages 190-245. 
Richardson, Texas: 
Society of 
Petroleum 
Engineers. 
TIC: 250085. 
(DIRS 155233) 
This textbook specifically 
addresses drilling 
engineering principles and 
application of the 
principles. Chapter 5 
specifically addresses the 
use of rotary drill bits and 
principles of operations, 
selection, and factors 
affecting their operation. 
Chapter 5 is directly 
applicable to techniques 
and practices commonly 
used in groundwater 
exploration drilling, which 
is a regulatory criterion for 
determining the timing of 
an intrusion without 
recognition. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Textbook 
written by two 
authors in 
petroleum 
engineering 
academia and 
two authors 
from the 
petroleum 
industry. This 
is a standard 
text for 
petroleum 
engineering 
curriculum. 
Moderate to High  This 
text provides a thorough 
discussion of rotary drill 
bit performance and 
provides a variety of 
equations used in 
industry to determine 
the rate of drill bit 
penetration. 
Direct Input  
The rate of drill 
penetration may range 
from inversely 
proportional to the square 
of the compressive 
strength to inversely 
proportional to the 
compressive strength of 
the rock. 
Equation 5-19 directly 
relates the square of the 
formation compressive 
strength to rate of 
penetration and therefore 
allows a comparison of 
behavior based on 
material properties. 
Indirect Input - Chapter 5 
also provides several 
discussions regarding 
drilling principles and 
practices that are useful 
for understanding the 
concepts behind drilling 
operations. These are 
discussed in Appendix C 
of this analysis report and 
are not further considered 
herein. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-00019 REV 02 B-13 October 2004 
Table B-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q2 Q1 and C1 
through C7 
Kahraman, S.; 
Balci, C.; Yazici, S.; 
and Bilgin, N. 2000. 
"Prediction of the 
Penetration Rate of 
Rotary Blast Hole 
Drills Using a New 
Drillability Index." 
International 
Journal of Rock 
Mechanics and 
Mining Sciences, 
37, (5), 729-743. 
New York, New 
York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255709. 
(DIRS 167761) 
Addresses the 
interaction of rotary 
drilling to rock 
properties. This paper 
precedes the paper by 
the same author and 
used as indirect input. 
The rock property used 
for correlation is the 
drillability index, which 
can be defined in terms 
of tensile strength and 
unconfined compressive 
strength. 
Six citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to High  A 
discussion of previous 
studies, field studies, 
and laboratory studies 
is provided. A 
schematic of the 
laboratory equipment is 
provided, and laboratory 
results are provided in 
graphical form. The 
mathematical 
development of the 
proposed model using 
the drillability index is 
provided. 
Direct Input  
The rate of drill 
penetration may range 
from inversely 
proportional to the square 
of the compressive 
strength to inversely 
proportional to the 
compressive strength of 
the rock. 
Eq. 8 of this paper 
addresses the rate of 
penetration in terms of a 
drillability index, but 
provides a correlation of 
the index to unconfined 
compressive strength and 
to tensile strength in 
Equations 14 and 15. 
C1 Not Applicable Beer, F.P. and 
Johnston, E.R., Jr. 
1981. Mechanics 
of Materials. 
New York, 
New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 255414. 
(DIRS 166708) 
This is a standard 
engineering text 
addressing mechanics 
of materials. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Textbook Moderate  This is a 
standard engineering 
text. 
Indirect Input  This text 
provides information on 
the relationship of brittle 
and ductile materials and 
the respective strength 
parameters. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-00019 REV 02 B-14 October 2004 
Table B-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C2 Not Applicable Bilgesu, H.I.; 
Tetrick, L.T.; 
Altmis, U.; 
Mohaghegh, S.; 
and Ameri, S. 
1997. "A New 
Approach for the 
Prediction of Rate 
of Penetration 
(ROP) Values." 
1997 SPE Eastern 
Regional Meeting 
held in Lexington, 
Kentucky, October 
22-24, 1997. SPE 
39231. 
Pages 175-179. 
Richardson, Texas: 
Society of 
Petroleum 
Engineers. 
TIC: 255661. 
(DIRS 167782) 
The paper provides a 
description of a neural 
network developed to 
estimate rates of 
penetration. It does not 
specifically link 
penetration rates to 
formation properties. It 
shows the rate of 
penetration rates based 
on neural networks of 
parameters, one of 
which is formation 
properties. 
Paper not listed 
in SciSearch 
Proceedings 
paper  not 
peer-reviewed 
Moderate  The paper 
does not provide any 
independent validation 
of the approach used 
for modeling. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides 
corroboration of the 
factors affecting rate of 
penetration. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-00019 REV 02 B-15 October 2004 
Table B-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C3 Not Applicable Grattan-Bellew, 
P.E. and Vijay, 
M.M. 1986. 
"Influence of 
Physical Properties 
of Rock on Rate of 
Penetration of a 
Water-Jet Drill." 
Canadian 
Mineralogist, 24, 
323-328. Ottawa, 
Canada: 
Mineralogical 
Association of 
Canada. 
TIC: 255711. 
(DIRS 167786) 
Addresses water-jetting 
drilling techniques, 
rather than rotary 
drilling. However, links 
performance to rock 
properties. 
Paper not listed 
in SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to Low  This 
paper provides a limited 
discussion of laboratory 
methods and provides 
optical micrographs to 
support the conclusions. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper indicates that 
commonly measured 
properties such as 
compressive strength, 
tensile strength, and 
porosity do not correlate 
with rate of water-jet 
penetration. This may 
limit the applicability of 
material properties being 
a defining factor for 
recognition to rotary 
drilling methods. 
C4 Not Applicable Howarth, D.F.; 
Adamson, W.R.; 
and Berndt, J.R. 
1986. "Correlation 
of Model Tunnel 
Boring and Drilling 
Machine 
Performances with 
Rock Properties." 
International 
Journal of Rock 
Mechanics and 
Mining Sciences & 
Geomechanics 
Abstracts, 23, (2), 
171-175. New 
York, New York: 
Pergamon. 
TIC: 255620. 
(DIRS 167645) 
This paper provides a 
link between rock 
material properties and 
drilling/tunneling 
machine performance. 
Provides correlation of 
rate of penetrations to 
three rock properties 
(compressive strength, 
saturated density, and 
P-wave velocity) and for 
three types of 
equipment (tunnel 
boring machine, 
diamond drilling and 
percussive drilling). 
13 citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate-This paper 
provides a cursory 
summary of testing 
equipment and 
methods, and provides 
testing results in table 
and graphical format. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper does not address 
material property strength 
on rotary drilling, but does 
confirm that the 
properties are germane to 
diamond and percussive 
drilling. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-00019 REV 02 B-16 October 2004 
Table B-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C5 Not Applicable Kahraman, S. 
2002. "Correlation 
of TBM and Drilling 
Machine 
Performances with 
Rock Brittleness." 
Engineering 
Geology, 65, (4), 
269-283. New 
York, New York: 
Elsevier. 
TIC: 255618. 
(DIRS 167643) 
This paper provides a 
link between a rock 
material property to 
drilling/tunneling 
machine performance 
and rotary drilling. It 
does confirm the 
relationships of rock 
properties to drilling 
performance. However, 
the definitions and 
assumptions regarding 
brittleness prevent its 
use for comparison to 
penetration rates in 
ductile materials. 
Six citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal paper 
Moderate to High This 
paper provides 
laboratory test data to 
support correlation of 
rate of penetration to 
various rock properties 
and cites to supporting 
papers that provide the 
laboratory methods. 
Indirect Input  Figure 5 
provides correlation of 
three brittleness indices 
to rate of penetration. 
Adequate correlation is 
shown for factors based 
on compressive strength 
and tensile strength. This 
can be used to 
corroborate other papers 
using compressive 
strength as a key factor. 
C6 Not Applicable Kahraman, S.; 
Bilgin, N.; and 
Feridunoglu, C. 
2003. "Dominant 
Rock Properties 
Affecting the 
Penetration Rate of 
Percussive Drills." 
International 
Journal of Rock 
Mechanics & 
Mining Sciences, 
40, (5), 711-723. 
New York, New 
York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255619. 
(DIRS 167644) 
This paper provides a 
link between rock 
material properties and 
performance of an 
alternate drilling 
method. While not 
directly applicable to 
rotary bit operation, it 
does confirm the 
relationships of rock 
properties to drilling 
performance. 
One citation in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to High - A 
discussion of previous 
studies and 
experimental studies 
are provided. 
Laboratory results are 
provided in tabular and 
graphical form along 
with a statistical 
analysis of the results. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper describes material 
property correlation to 
percussive drilling, rather 
than rotary drilling. 
However, the rate of 
penetration is correlated 
to the uniaxial 
compressive strength and 
tensile strength, but 
poorly correlated to the 
elasticity modulus for 
percussive drilling. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-00019 REV 02 B-17 October 2004 
Table B-2. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to the Timing of Human Intrusion (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C7 Not Applicable Satchwell, R.M. 
1994. An 
Experimental Study 
of the Effect of 
Bedding Plane 
Anisotrophy on the 
Rate of 
Penetration. Ph.D. 
dissertation. 
Laramie, Wyoming: 
University of 
Wyoming, 
Department of 
Chemical and 
Petroleum 
Engineering. 
TIC: 255659. 
(DIRS 167952) 
This work addresses 
the deviation effect of 
bedding plane 
anisotropies for three 
different bit types, 
including roller cone 
bits. 
Dissertations 
not listed in 
SciSearch 
Doctoral 
Dissertation 
Moderate  The 
documentation satisfies 
the requirements for a 
dissertation. 
Indirect Input  provides a 
summary overview of 
background information. 
Provides an equation 
(cited to Warren) that 
relates torque to rock 
strength and rate of 
penetration. This is used 
to corroborate the inverse 
proportionality of rock 
strength to rate of 
penetration. 
C8 Not Applicable Warren, T. M. 
1984. "Factors 
Affecting Torque for 
a Roller Cone Bit." 
Journal of 
Petroleum 
Technology, 36, 
(10), 1500-1508. 
Dallas, Texas: 
Society of 
Petroleum 
Engineers. 
TIC: 255859 
(DIRS 167788) 
This paper provides 
description relating 
torque to roller bit 
performance including 
the tendency for bit 
deviation from the 
vertical. 
Seven citations 
in SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate - The paper 
provides and equation 
and supporting 
discussions only. 
Indirect Input  
This is used to 
corroborate the inverse 
proportionality of rock 
strength to rate of 
penetration. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-18 October 2004 
B5.1.3 Discussion 
The information being justified for use is that: 
The rate of drill penetration may range from inversely proportional to the square of rock 
strength, to inversely proportional to the rock strength. 
This stems from the two equations cited as direct input. Items Q1 and Q2 are mutually 
corroborating, and Items C1 through C7 provide corroborating information for both direct inputs. 
Bourgoyne et al. (1986 [DIRS 155233], Equation 5-19) (Q1) indicates that the relationship of 
rate of penetration is inversely proportional to the square of compressive strength of the 
formation. The equation is given as: 
N 
d
W 
d
W 
S
K R 
t b b
o 
2 
2 . . 
.
. 
. .
.
. 
. .. 
. 
. .. 
. 
- = (Eq. B-1) 
where K = constant of proportionality, S = compressive strength of the rock, W = bit weight, 
W0 = threshold bit weight, db = bit diameter, all at time t, and N = rotary speed. All other factors 
being equal, this indicates that the rate of penetration (R) is affected in a manner inversely 
proportional to the square of the compressive strength. Bourgoyne et al. (1986 [DIRS 155233]) 
(Q1) cites to another author that indicates that the rate of penetration is directly proportional to 
K, which is a constant of proportionality that includes the effect of rock strength, although it does 
not indicate whether an inverse square relationship is represented in the value for K. 
Kahraman et al. (2000 [DIRS 167761], Equation 8) (Q2) mutually corroborates with 
Bourgoyne et al. (1986 [DIRS 155233]) (Q1). The equation used by Kahraman stems from the 
same source as that used by Bourgoyne et al. However, Kahraman expresses the equation in 
terms of a drillability index, which is then shown to have an inverse proportionality to 
compressive strength and tensile strength, rather than an inverse square relationship. The 
corroborating equation is given by Kahraman as: 
D 
NW PR 
a 
20 . 3 = 
(Eq. B-2) 
where PR = penetration rate, N = rotation speed, W = bit weight, a = the drillability index and 
D = the bit diameter. The drillability index, a is then expressed in terms of compressive strength, 
sc. Eq. 12 of Kahraman et al. (2000 DIRS [167761]) (Q2): 
sc 13 . 14 09 . 3 + = a (Eq. B-3) 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-19 October 2004 
A simple substitution of terms generates an equivalent equation: 
D 
NW PR 
c .. 
. 
.. 
. - 
= 
09 . 3 
13 . 14 
20 . 3 
s 
(Eq. B-4) 
Similarly, Eq. 14 of the same paper provides a correlation to tensile strength, in the form of 
sT 11 . 2 22 . 0 + = a (Eq. B-5) 
A simple substitution of terms generates an equivalent equation: 
D 
NW PR 
T .. 
. 
.. 
. - 
= 
22 . 0 
11 . 2 
20 . 3 
s 
(Eq. B-6) 
Thus from Bourgoyne et al. (1986 [DIRS 155233], Equation 5-19) (Q1), the relationship is 
shown to be inversely proportional to square of the compressive strength, and from 
Kahraman et al. (2000 [DIRS 167761], Equation 8) (Q2), the relationship is shown to be only 
inversely proportional to either the compressive strength or the tensile strength. How is it then 
that these two equations are considered mutually corroborative? 
Based on Equation B-4, a doubling of compressive strength from 20 to 40 MPa, and then from 
40 MPa to 80 MPa would, in the first instance, result in an approximate 4.4 times decrease in the 
rate of penetration (i.e., the inverse square relationship as suggested by Bourgoyne et al.). 
However, with progressive doubling from 40 MPa to 80 MPa, Equation B-4 gives about a 
2.5 times decrease in penetration rates. A third doubling of strength from 80 MPa to 160 MPa 
would result in a decrease of about 2.1 times, and a fourth doubling from 160 MPa to 320 MPa 
indicates a decrease of about 2.1 times. Similar relationships can be seen for the tensile strength. 
Based on Equation B-6, and assuming tensile strengths of 4, 8, 16, and 32 MPa, then the 
decrease in penetration rate, respectively, are factors of 3.1, 2.4, and 2.2. 
This suggests that the correlation proposed by Kahraman et al. (2000 [DIRS 167761], 
Equation 8) (and Equation B-2) is not a linear relationship throughout the range of possible 
values, and at lower values may approach an inverse square relationship. Kahraman notes that 
the proposed inverse relationship is based on a coefficient value for data points with compressive 
strengths greater than 40 MPa, because of poor correlation with experimental results at lower 
compressive strengths. If this equation were then applied to lower compressive strength 
materials, it would be expected that the estimated penetration rates would be understated. 
Bourgoyne does not discuss any upper limitations on the applicability of the equation based on 
rock strength. Thus, the two relationships are not contradictory and are mutually corroborative at 
least for the lower range of unconfined compressive strength and for tensile strength. 
Additionally, as discussed in Appendix C, Table C-1, the compressive strength of the repository 
host horizons is greater than 40 MPa, which better fits the conditions tested by Kahraman. 
Assuming the linear relationship from Kahraman is likely conservative because increases in 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-20 October 2004 
compressive strengths would not decrease penetration rates as significantly as assuming the 
inverse-squared relationship. 
The two equations (Eq. B-3 and B-5) from Kahraman are corroborated from four sources (Items 
C1, C5, C7, and C8). First, if the relationships are correct, then the ratio for compressive 
strength and tensile strength should be between a factor of ten and twenty. This is based on the 
general assumption that for brittle materials, that tensile strength should be about 10 to 
20 percent of the compressive strength. In general, brittle materials are significantly stronger in 
compression than in tension (Beer and Johnston 1981 [DIRS 166708], p. 37) (C1). For example, 
the tensile strength of concrete is about 10 to 20 percent of its compressive strength, and rock 
properties at the site (see Appendix C) also indicate a ratio of 10 to 20 for compressive strength 
to tensile strength. Assuming a hypothetical drillability index of one, and substituting into 
Equations B-3 and B-5, yields a ratio of sc/sT = 17.22/2.33 = 7.4. Assuming a drillability index 
of 100 yields a ratio of sc/sT = 323.13/24.11= 13.4. Therefore, the relationship between the 
equations is at least reasonable and internally consistent with the rock property used as the basis 
for the conclusions in Kahraman (2000 [DIRS 167761], Table 2) (Q2). 
A second line of corroboration is the relationships based on brittleness also proposed by 
Kahraman (2002 [DIRS 167643]) (C5). Because the data set is the same as that used for 
Kahraman (2000 [DIRS 167761]) (Q2), but the principles used to develop the relationships in the 
data are different, the later paper can be used to corroborate the first. In Kahraman 
(2002 [DIRS 167643]) (C5), the developed equations relate the rate of penetration to parameter 
values that incorporate both compressive strength and tensile strength of a material. Kahraman 
(2002 [DIRS 167643]) (C5) indicates the rate of penetration is correlatable to the brittleness B1, 
which is defined as the ratio of the compressive strength to the tensile strength; and to B2, which 
is the ratio of compressive strength minus tensile strength to the compressive strength plus the 
tensile strength. The equations developed use the ratio of parameters involving both the 
unconfined compressive strength and the tensile strength. Given that they are shown to correlate 
to penetration rates lends support to the appropriateness of the original equations 
(Equations B-3 and B-5), wherein the compressive strength and the tensile strength are related to 
the drillability coefficient and hence to the penetration rate. 
Thirdly, Satchwell (1994 [DIRS 167952], Equation 6-4-1) (C7), citing to Warren 
(1984 [DIRS 167788]) (C8) indicates that the bit torque is proportional to the penetration rate 
and to the rock strength: 
( ) 
N 
WR ER D 
T 
p 
p 
a 
2 
4 
1 2 - .. 
. 
.. 
. 
.. 
. 
.. 
. 
= 
(Eq. B-7) 
Isolation of the variable for penetration rate (R) indicates that the penetration rate (R) is inversely 
proportional to rock strength (E), rather than inversely proportional to the square of the rock 
strength (E). This further corroborates the results from Kahraman (2000 [DIRS 167761], 
Equation 8) (Q2). 
Further general corroboration for the direct input taken both Bourgoyne et al. (1986 
[DIRS 155233]) and for Kahraman (2000 [DIRS 167761]) (Q2) stem from the remaining 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-21 October 2004 
corroborative sources (C2, C3, C4, C6). Bilgesu et al. (1997 [DIRS 167782]) (C2) indicates that 
key factors in determining rate of penetration include weight on bit, rotary speed, pump rates, bit 
type, and formation hardness. Bilgesu et al. expresses the formation characteristics as formation 
drillability and formation abrasiveness. Grattan-Bellew and Vijay (1986 [DIRS 167786]) (C3), 
in evaluating water jetting, indicate that though not applicable to water-jet drilling, commonly 
measured physical properties of rock, for example, compressive strength, tensile strength, 
specific gravity, and porosity, do not correlate water-jet penetration. They indicate, however, 
that the mechanics of water jet drilling are different from rotary drilling (i.e., fracture 
propagation rather than cratering and chip formation), so the lack of correlation is to be expected. 
The dependency of rotary drill penetration on unconfined compressive strength also is 
corroborated from other multiple sources, though these are not directly applicable to rotary 
drilling. Howarth et al. (1986 [DIRS 167645], Figure 2) (C4) indicate that for percussion 
drilling, a doubling of the saturated compressive strength from 50 MPa to 100 MPa, the 
penetration rate fits a nonlinear curve and decreases from 100 mm/min to 50 mm/min. 
Howarth et al., however, demonstrated that there was no significant correlation to dry 
compressive strength for percussion drilling. Kahraman (2002 [DIRS 167643]) (C5) provides a 
list 10 papers by other authors to indicate that uniaxial compressive strength is the most widely 
used parameter for predicting the performance of tunneling machines and drilling rigs, though 
the exact relationship is not given or further discussed. Kahraman (2003 [DIRS 167644]) (C6), 
in contrast to Howarth et al. (1986 [DIRS 167645]) (C4), indicates that for percussive drills the 
relation of penetration rate to uniaxial compressive strength is a linear relationship. 
B5.1.4 Data Status and Limitations 
The stated relationship that the rate of drill penetration may range from inversely proportional to 
the square of the compressive strength to inversely proportional to the compressive strength of 
the rock stems from the two direct input sources listed in Section B5.1.2. The equations from 
those two direct inputs have been adequately corroborated from multiple sources, and all sources 
evaluated are in general agreement. Thus, the qualitative criteria for general agreement have 
been met. Corroboration of the direct input provides the required level of confidence that the 
data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP screening. The status of the stated 
relationship and the related direct inputs evaluated above should be considered as qualified for 
use within this technical product. However, limitations apply. 
The direct inputs are entirely adequate, based on compressive strength and tensile strength 
properties, to support a conceptual argument that significant changes in drill performance would 
occur and be recognized if a bit penetrates the drift wall or crown (naturally occurring material) 
and then encounters a metallic or alloy material used for the engineered barrier system. The 
exact relationship of unconfined compressive strength on the penetration rate, however, is not 
entirely certain. The relationship does not appear to be an inverse square relationship as 
suggested by Bourgoyne et al. (1986 [DIRS 155233]) (Q1) for greater material strengths, but 
does appears to be something less that that relationship. However, the corroborative information 
clearly suggests that an inverse square relationship likely represents the upper bound in the range 
of relationship. A more supportable position is that the relationship is inversely proportional. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-22 October 2004 
Accordingly, a limitation on use of the data is imposed: the upper bound of an inverse square 
relationship shown from Bourgoyne et al. (1986 [DIRS 155233]) (Q1) may be mentioned, but 
the FEP screening decision should be determined based on the better substantiated, but less 
dramatic change in rate of penetration suggested by Kahraman (2000 [DIRS 167761]) (Q2). As 
will be discussed in Appendix C of this analysis report, the rock and engineered barrier material 
strength unconfined compressive strengths are significantly greater than 40 MPa. Although both 
direct input relationships have been corroborated, the more linear relationship suggested by 
Kahraman for greater material strengths better addresses site conditions, and is more 
conservative. That is, a greater difference in material properties is required to induce a similar 
and noticeable change in drilling conditions and, thus, creates a more stringent threshold to use 
in FEPs screening. 
B5.2 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.4.11.00.0A EXPLOSIONS AND CRASHES (HUMAN ACTIVITY) 
This section addresses direct inputs related to the energy released and depth of effects resulting 
from explosions and crashes. The five following statements, and the supporting direct inputs, are 
being justified for use. 
 The energy release required to create a crater with a diameter sufficient to fracture to 
60 m or 200 m (i.e., the depths of interest) is on the order of 1012 to 1017 Joules. This 
information is taken from Item Q4 in Table B-1. 
 Kinetic energy for jet aircraft is approximately 2 tons TNT equivalent or less. This is 
taken from Item Q8 in Table B-1. 
 The energy yield of conventional weapons is on the order of 2 tons or less. This is taken 
from Item Q5 in Table B-1. 
 The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is approximately 30 m. 
This information is drawn from Items Q3, Q6, Q7, and Q9 in Table B-1. 
 The energy release from underground nuclear detonations results in fracturing to 
distances on the order of 100 meters or less. This information is taken from Item Q4 in 
Table B-1. 
The direct input being justified is in the form of equations or functional relationships, or they are 
empirical data. The objective is to justify input representing the maximum possible effects 
(i.e., upper bound of possible conditions) against a theoretical threshold of significance 
(i.e., minimum depth or energy release needed to be of significance). Therefore, the quantitative 
criteria will be applied, but conservative values will be recommended. 
B5.2.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed factors that would identify the 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-23 October 2004 
magnitude of various explosion and crash scenarios, and their effect in the subsurface. Various 
key-word searches based on the terms earth penetrating weapons, subsurface effects, 
explosions, and crashes were performed. In total, the SciSearch database (limited to 
publication dates for 1980 to 2004) returned no pertinent records and the GeoRef databases 
(based on all records including 2004) returned five pertinent records. Because of the sparse 
amount of information, the reference lists for these five citations were then reviewed to identify 
any other pertinent papers, and an Internet search was performed. The resulting citation list is 
provided in Table B-3. 
B5.2.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table B-3. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-24 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q3 Q6, Q7, Q9 and 
Q5, C11, C13, 
C14 
Backman, M.E. and 
Goldsmith, W. 1978. 
"The Mechanics of 
Penetration of Projectiles 
into Targets." 
International Journal of 
Engineering Science, 16, 
(1), 1-99. New York, New 
York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255605. (DIRS 
167628) 
Applicable  The 
entire paper is 
concerned with 
terminal ballistics 
and the penetration 
mechanics for 
various categories 
of targets and 
types of 
penetrators. Earth 
materials are 
discussed as 
semi-infinite 
targets and various 
factors are 
discussed. 
Equations for 
determining depth 
of penetration are 
provided. 
160 citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
Technical journal 
High  This is a summary 
work addressing a variety 
of projectile characteristics, 
target characteristics, and 
equations from a wide 
variety of sources. 
Extensively cited and 
extensive bibliography 
provided. 
Direct Input  
The maximum 
penetration depth of earth 
penetrating weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
The relationships and 
equations giving depth of 
penetration are taken 
from: 
p. 32, for steel projectile 
with a length-to-diameter 
ratio of 8, striking 
normally at 150 m/s. 
Penetration depth into 
sand of 350 diameters, 
and for high-strength 
concrete (5,000 psi 
strength), a penetration 
depth of 25 diameters. 
The Poncelet equation 
(Equation 6.2 on p. 38) 
and factors from Table 2 
for hard soils (95 percent 
sand and, 5 percent silt a8 
= 15.7, a10 = 24.7). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-25 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q4 C10, C11, C12 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, R.A.F.; 
and Robertson, P.B. 1977. 
"Terrestrial Impact Structures: 
Principal Characteristics and 
Energy Considerations." Impact 
and Explosion Cratering, 
Planetary and Terrestrial 
Implications, Proceedings of the 
Symposium on Planetary 
Cratering Mechanics, Flagstaff, 
Arizona, September 13-17, 
1976. Roddy, D.J.; Pepin, R.O.; 
and Merrill, R.B., eds. Pages 
247-275. New York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. 
TIC: 247237. 
(DIRS 135253) 
Figure 12 of this 
paper relates 
energy release to 
crater diameter. 
Diameter can 
then be equated 
to excavation 
and fracturing 
depth, which are 
of direct interest. 
The effects 
addressed in this 
paper have been 
used in other 
repository design 
considerations 
regarding 
meteorite impact. 
The energy 
release 
equations are 
often cited in 
other works in 
the subject area. 
Science Citation 
Index indicate 17 
citations 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited 
compendium of 
related works. 
Moderate  This paper 
provides a summary of 
characteristics of craters 
and respective dimension 
and compares cratering 
effects to those of nuclear 
testing. No information on 
procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
Direct Input  
The energy release 
required to create a 
crater with a diameter 
sufficient to fracture to 60 
m or 200 m (i.e., the 
depths of interest) is on 
the order of 1012 to 1017 
Joule. 
Figure 12 is used to 
relate energy release to 
crater diameter and 
hence to fracturing and 
cratering depth. 
The energy release from 
underground nuclear 
detonations results in 
fracturing to distances on 
the order of 100 meters 
or less. 
p. 262 indicates that the 
64-kt Pile Driver test 
produced stresses at 
about 100 meters (328 
feet) that were slightly 
less than those needed 
to propagate fractures in 
granodiorite. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-26 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q5 Q8, C13, C16. Ferguson, C.D. 2002. "Mini- 
Nuclear Weapons and the U.S. 
Nuclear Posture Review." 
Monterey, California: Monterey 
Institute of International Studies, 
Center for Nonproliferation 
Studies. Accessed December 
4, 2002. 
http://www.cns.miis.edu/pubs/ 
week/020408.htm. 
TIC: 253717. 
(DIRS 160988) 
This paper 
mentions and 
briefly discusses 
existing 
conventional and 
potential nuclear 
earth penetrating 
weapons. 
Article not listed 
in SciSearch 
This is 
essentially an 
editorial article 
from a public 
policy institute 
rather than a 
scientificallyoriented 
or 
technical article. 
Low  article provides a 
brief discussion of various 
weapons capability, but 
citations are primarily to 
policy and position papers 
rather than to technical 
papers. Weapons 
capabilities are provided 
only as attributed quotes. 
Direct Input  
The energy yield of 
conventional weapons is 
on the order of 2 tons. 
This is based on direct 
input from this citation 
stating that an explosive 
capability of 2 tons is 
given for the GBU-28 
explosive ordnance. 
Indirect Input  The 
depths stated in the 
paper may be biased to 
understating the potential 
depth of penetration. 
However, they do 
provide a minimum or 
lower bound of possible 
penetration depths. 
Used to corroborate 
depth of penetrations 
calculated based on 
Backman and Goldsmith 
and results of 
experimental test data 
from Forrestal et al., from 
Young, and from 
Patterson. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-27 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q6 Q3, Q7, Q8, 
Q9 and Q5 
C11, C14, C15 
Forrestal, M.J.; Longcope, D.B.; 
and Norwood, F.R. 1981. "A 
Model to Estimate Forces on 
Conical Penetrators Into Dry 
Porous Rock." Journal of 
Applied Mechanics, 48, (1), 
25-29. New York, New York: 
American Society of Mechanical 
Engineers. TIC: 255607. 
(DIRS 167630) 
This journal 
paper develops a 
model to predict 
the forces 
exerted on 
conical-nosed 
penetrators for 
normal impact 
into dry rock 
targets. Results 
of an 
experimental test 
into a tuff unit are 
cited as 
corroboration to 
the model 
results. The 
experimental 
results are 
directly 
applicable. 
14 citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal paper 
Moderate  Experimental 
test results for a conical 
penetrator into tuff are 
provided and a citation to a 
correspondence is given. 
Information on the projectile 
characteristics and the 
target material are provided 
and are adequate to judge 
comparability to Yucca 
Mountain geomaterials. 
Direct Input  
The maximum 
penetration depth of 
earth penetrating 
weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
Direct input from this 
paper (p. 28) indicates 
that experimental test 
results at the Sandia, 
Tonopah Test Range, 
Nevada indicate a 
penetrator; 1.52 m long, 
with outer diameter of 
0.165 m and mass of 182 
kg, with an initial velocity 
of 411 m/s penetrated to 
a depth of 2.6 m. in an 
unsaturated, welded tuff.

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-28 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q7 Q3, Q6, Q8, 
Q9 and Q5, 
C11, C14 
Patterson, W.J. 1974. "Results 
and Analysis of Three 
Instrumented Projectile 
Penetration Tests at the 
Watching Hills Blast Range, 
Suffield, Alberta, Canada." 
EOS, Transactions, 56, (12), 
1197. Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical Union. 
TIC: 255677. 
(DIRS 167805) 
This abstract 
provides results 
of experimental 
data for 
penetrators into 
geomaterials and 
the information is 
directly 
applicable. 
Abstract not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
This is 
information 
provide only in 
abstract form and 
was presumably 
not subject to 
peer-review 
Low  the nature of the 
publication and its 
presentation only in 
abstract form provides only 
the barest of 
documentation. 
Direct Input  
The maximum 
penetration depth of 
earth penetrating 
weapons is 
approximately 30 m 
Provides empirical 
information on rock 
penetrations tests. 
Penetrators with a 
diameter of 15.24 cm 
and mass of 181.4 kg 
were fired with impact 
velocities of 93 m/sec, 
122.8 m/s and 150.9 
m/sec and achieved 
penetration depths of 
9.08 meters, 14.72 
meters, and 20.7 m 
respectively. The target 
material was an old 
glacial lake bed. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-29 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q8 C9 Stix, G. and Yam, P. 2001. 
"Facing a New Menace." 
Scientific American, 285, (5), 
14-15. New York, New York: 
Scientific American. 
TIC: 254304. 
(DIRS 160994) 
This paper 
addresses airline 
security and 
screening issues. 
However, a 
sidebar column 
provides the 
results of 
calculations for 
various energies 
related to airliner 
impacts. 
One citation in 
SciSearch 
This article is 
extracted from a 
respected 
scientific journal, 
but is 
nontechnical in 
content and likely 
not peer 
reviewed. 
Moderate  The calculation 
results in the sidebar are 
straightforward calculations 
and the bases for the 
calculations are given. 
They are adequate for use 
in FEPs screening. 
Direct Input  Kinetic 
energy for jet aircraft is 
approximately 2 tons 
TNT equivalent or less. 
This information provides 
energy release 
associated with a large 
jetliner (Boeing 767) 
crash. 
Q9 Q3, Q7, Q9 
and C11, C14 
Young, C.W., 1976. Status 
Report on High Velocity Soil 
Penetration Program. 
SAND76-0291. Albuquerque, 
New Mexico: Sandia National 
Laboratories. 
ACC: MOL.20040407.0069 
(DIRS 167806) 
This is an 
investigation 
report prepared 
for Sandia 
Laboratories 
regarding earth 
penetration. It is 
applicable 
because it 
provides 
experimental 
data for the 
depth of 
penetration in 
soils. 
Paper not listed 
in SciSearch 
National 
laboratory report 
Moderate  Experimental 
results are discussed and 
provided. In particular, 
description of penetrators 
and targets are provided. 
Direct Input  
The maximum 
penetration depth of 
earth penetrating 
weapons is 
approximately 30 m. 
Provides empirical 
information on soil 
penetration tests. 
Table II indicates that a 
penetrator with a weight 
of 320 lbs, and 6.0 inch 
diameter impacting with 
a speed of 2316 feet per 
second penetrated 220.5 
feet (67 m) into a hard 
playa soil. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-30 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C9 Not Applicable Abbas, H.; Paul, D.K.; Godbole, 
P.N.; and Nayak, G.C. 1996. 
"Aircraft Crash Upon Outer 
Containment of Nuclear Power 
Plant." Nuclear Engineering 
and Design, 160, (1-2), 13-50. 
New York, New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255604. 
(DIRS 167627) 
This paper 
addresses 
aircraft impact on 
aboveground 
structures  
particularly 
containment 
buildings for 
nuclear power 
plants. Paper 
considers the 
linear mass 
density and 
crushing strength 
of a Boeing 
707-320, FB-111 
jet fighter, and 
the F4 Phantom 
jet fighter. 
Three citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal paper 
Moderate - This paper 
develops the equations 
needed to analyze reaction 
forces and stresses within a 
cylindrical containment 
building and provides a 
comparison to other similar 
types of studies. However, 
the reference list appears 
limited, and citations for the 
aircraft characteristics are 
not provided. 
Indirect Input  
Figures 9, 10, and 11 
and p. 25 provide linear 
mass densities for three 
types of aircraft. This 
can be used to calculate 
approximate kinetic 
energy of various aircraft. 
Input data by aircraft type 
include: 
Boeing 707-320: 
Velocity of 102.8 m/s, 
linear mass density of 
9,000 kg/m, total length 
of 40 m. 
FB-111: Velocity of 
108.2 m/sec, linear mass 
density of 9000 kg/m, 
total length of 22 m. 
F4 Phantom: Velocity of 
215.8 m/sec, linear mass 
density of 3500 kg/m, 
total length of 16 m. 
Provides corroboration 
for calculations cited 
from Stix and Yam. 
C10 Not Applicable Glasstone, S. and Dolan, P.J., 
eds. 1977. "Descriptions of 
Nuclear Explosions." Chapter II 
of The Effects of Nuclear 
Weapons. 3rd Edition. Pages 
26-79. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Defense 
and U.S. Department of Energy. 
ACC: MOL.20030925.0035. 
(DIRS 160992) 
This document 
provides and 
overview of the 
effects of nuclear 
weapons, 
including effects 
of underground 
detonations. 
This is a 
governmentsponsored 
document and 
was developed 
through 
interagency 
cooperation. 
Moderate  This document 
is a thorough overview of 
the topic, and technical 
discussion is provided. It 
summarizes the results of 
underground nuclear 
testing. 
Indirect Input  Section 
2.104 provides a 
description of fracturing 
related to the RAINIER 
test. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-31 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C11 Not Applicable Gronlund, L. and Wright, D. 
2002. "Earth Penetrating 
Weapons" Global Security 
Cambridge, Massachusetts: 
Union of Concerned Scientists. 
Accessed December 10, 2002. 
TIC: 253714. (DIRS 160989) 
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_se 
curity/nuclear_weapons/page.cf 
m?pageID=777 
This paper 
mentions and 
briefly discusses 
existing 
conventional and 
potential nuclear 
earth penetrating 
weapons. 
Article not listed 
in SciSearch 
This is 
essentially an 
editorial article 
from a public 
policy institute 
rather than a 
scientificallyoriented 
or 
technical article. 
Low  article provides a 
brief discussion of various 
weapons capabilities, but 
citations are primarily to 
policy and position papers 
rather than to technical 
papers. Weapons 
capabilities are provided 
only as attributed quotes. 
Indirect Input  The 
penetration depths stated 
in the paper may be 
biased to understating 
the potential depth of 
penetration. However, 
they do provide a 
minimum or lower bound 
of possible penetration 
depths. Containment 
depths for subsurface 
explosions are stated. 
Used to corroborate 
depth of penetrations 
calculated based on 
Backman and Goldsmith 
and results of 
experimental test data 
from Forrestal et al., from 
Young, and from 
Patterson, (i.e., reported 
penetrations of 6 m of 
concrete and 30 m of 
earth). Also used to 
indicate the depths 
required to contain an 
explosion (60 meters for 
a one-kiloton explosion, 
and 300 meters for a 
100-kiloton explosion). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-32 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C12 Not Applicable Hughes, D.W. 1998. "The Mass 
Distribution of Crater-Producing 
Bodies." Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact Effects. 
Geological Society Special 
Publication No. 140. Grady, 
M.M.; Hutchison, R.; McCall, 
G.J.H.; and Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Pages 31-42. Bath, England: 
Geological Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
This paper is 
directed to 
addressing 
factors that 
define basic 
relationships of 
meteor flux to 
cratering rates. 
However, the 
author takes an 
energy-based 
equation 
approach and 
provides a figure 
that summarizes 
the results of 
multiple studies 
that link energy 
releases to crater 
diameters. 
Paper not listed 
in SciSearch 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
the London 
Geologic Society 
(31 referees, 
including two 
whom are 
routinely cited in 
meteorite impact 
work). 
Moderate  Paper provides 
a good summary of 
preceding work by others 
and performs an evaluation 
of these various sets and 
ranges of equation. The 
figure of interest provides 
citations to the original 
source documentation of 
works by others. 
Indirect Input  Figure 3 
provides a direct 
comparison to works by 
Dence et al. and to works 
by others, and therefore 
provides a strong 
corroborative source 
indicating that use of the 
relationships proposed 
by Dence et al. are 
reasonable for use as 
direct input. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-33 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C13 Not Applicable Lennox, D.; Rees, A. (eds.) 
1990. Jane's Air-Launched 
Weapons. Alexandria, Virginia: 
Jane's Information Group. 
TIC: 255862 
Provides the 
best source of 
information from 
unclassified 
materials for 
weapons 
capabilities and 
descriptions. 
Not listed in 
SciSearch 
The Janes 
series of books 
are widely 
recognized as an 
acceptable 
source of 
unclassified 
information on 
weapons 
systems for most 
countries. 
Moderate to High  This 
highly respected series of 
books contain information 
collected from a variety of 
unclassified sources 
including government 
documents and vendor 
information. 
Indirect Input  the mass 
of the largest weapons of 
various types are taken 
from the appendix. A 
conservative assumption 
is made that the total 
mass is attributed to high 
explosives, and an 
equivalent energy 
release is calculated. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-34 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C14 Not Applicable Nelson, R.W. 2001. "Low-Yield 
Earth-Penetrating Nuclear 
Weapons." FAS Public Interest 
Report, 54, (1), 1-5. 
Washington, D.C.: Federation 
of American Scientists. 
TIC: 253719. 
(DIRS 160986) 
This paper 
mentions and 
briefly discusses 
existing 
conventional and 
potential nuclear 
earth penetrating 
weapons. 
Article not listed 
in SciSearch 
This is 
essentially an 
editorial article 
from a public 
policy institute 
rather than a 
scientificallyoriented 
or 
technical article. 
Low  article provides a 
brief discussion of various 
weapons capabilities, but 
citations are primarily to 
policy and position papers 
rather than to technical 
papers. Weapons 
capabilities are provided 
only as attributed quotes. 
Indirect Input  The 
depths stated in the 
paper may be biased to 
understating the potential 
depth of penetration. 
However, they do 
provide a minimum or 
lower bound of possible 
penetration depths. 
Containment depths for 
subsurface explosions 
are stated. 
Used to corroborate 
depth of penetrations 
calculated based on 
Backman and Goldsmith 
and results of 
experimental test data 
from Forrestal et al., from 
Young, and from 
Patterson. 
C15 Not Applicable Siddiqui, N.A. and Abbas, H. 
2002. "Mechanics of Missile 
Penetration into Geo-Materials." 
Structural Engineering and 
Mechanics, 13, (6), 639-652. 
Taejon, Korea: Techno-Press. 
TIC: 255608. 
(DIRS 167631) 
This paper 
reexamines the 
work by Forrestal 
and refines the 
model. 
No citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate - The reliability is 
comparable to that of 
Forrestal et al. 
Indirect Input  
This paper reexamines 
and modifies the 
approach taken by 
Forrestal et al. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-35 October 2004 
Table B-3. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Input to Explosions and Crashes (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C16 Not Applicable Wu, C. 2000. "Powerful 
Explosive Blasts onto Scene." 
Science News Online, 157, (4), 
54. TIC: 255698 
(DIRS 167812) 
This is a general 
news article 
dealing with 
development of a 
new explosive 
compound. This 
is pertinent to 
determining the 
equivalent 
energy released 
from a 
conventional HE 
warhead. 
Article not listed 
in SciSearch 
This article was 
taken from an 
Internet-based 
weekly science 
magazine. It has 
not been peerreviewed, 
but the 
contents of the 
article have been 
confirmed by 
finding a similar 
citation in a peerreviewed 
journal 
(Angewandte 
Chemi 
International). 
Low to Moderate  
Information is traceable to a 
somewhat obscure 
scientific journal, therefore 
reliability is established. 
However, the basis for 
statements regarding 
relative strength of the high 
explosive to TNT is not 
traceable. 
Indirect Input  Provides 
justification for 
assumption that the 
explosive yield of HE is 
no more than twice that 
of a comparable weight 
of TNT. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-36 October 2004 
B5.2.3 Discussion 
The following discussion has been subdivided by topic, with direct inputs grouped accordingly. 
The topics of discussion include energy release needed to fracture to depth, kinetic energy 
release from aircraft, conventional weapons yields, maximum depth of penetration, and 
fracturing effects from underground nuclear explosions. 
B5.2.3.1 Energy Release to Depth of Effect Relationships 
The relationship being justified is that: 
The energy release required to create a crater with a diameter sufficient to fracture to 60 m 
or 200 m (i.e., the depths of interest) is on the order of 1012 to 1017 Joule. 
This relationship is direct input from Item Q4, and is corroborated by the studies summarized in 
Item C12. 
Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], Figure 12) (Q4) provides a series of curves relating energy 
release to the surface to crater diameter that is used as direct input. The crater diameters of 
interest for impact to the repository are 80 m for fracturing to the depth of a key geologic unit (a 
depth of 60 m), on the order of 300 m for fracturing to repository depth and on the order of 
1,000 m for exhumation to repository depth (a depth of 200 m) as explained in Appendix D of 
this analysis report. For these depths, the curve from Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) 
indicates that energy releases at the surface on the order of 1012 to 1017 Joules or greater could 
potentially cause damage to the repository. 
The relationships presented in Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q4) are corroborated by a 
similar figure presented in Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], Figure 3) (C12). Hughes shows the 
Dence et al. curve in relation to similar curves developed by five other investigators. For the 
range of diameters of interest, the plot from Dence et al. is shown to be the least conservative 
(i.e., more energy required for a given diameter), with other investigators showing that a crater 
with a given diameter could be produced with less energy. The lowest most curve shown by 
Hughes requires approximately an order of magnitude less energy than that required by Dence 
et al. For a 1 km diameter crater, Dence et al. requires approximately 1023 ergs, while the 
lowermost curve requires 1022 ergs (equating to 1017 and 10 16 Joules respectively). At a 
diameter of 100 m, the required energies are 1020 ergs and 1019 ergs (1013 and 1012 Joules 
respectively). 
Use of the curve from Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], Figure 12) (Q4) with a stated range of 
1012 to 1017 Joules is corroborated by Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], Figure 3) (C12). However, 
because the values from Dence et al. are the least conservative, a limitation on the use of the data 
is discussed in Section B5.2.4.1. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-37 October 2004 
B5.2.3.2 Energy Released by Aircraft Impact 
The bounding condition being justified is that: 
Kinetic energy for jet aircraft is approximately 2 tons TNT equivalent or less. 
This value was taken as direct input from Item Q8 and is corroborated, based on three different 
aircrafts, using information from Item C9. 
Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994]) (Q8) provide, in a sidebar column, the results of 
calculations for energy released from a jet airliner crash (1 to 2 tons TNT equivalent), excluding 
the release from onboard fuel. In Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994]) (Q8), the stated mass of a 
Boeing 767, larger than the aircraft listed below and fully loaded, is listed as 412,000 pounds 
(186,880 kg), and the stated kinetic energy for a velocity of 530 mph (237 m/s) is given as the 
equivalent of 1 ton TNT. 
With regard to aircraft crashes and the associated energy release, an equivalent calculation for 
three types of aircraft used in analyzing the aircraft crash hazard for nuclear power plants is 
given for corroboration. In the corroborating source, Abbas et al. (1996 [DIRS 167627], 
Figures 9, 10, 11; and p 25) (C9) provide the information on mass distribution and velocity for 
various size aircraft. These can be used to determine the kinetic energy available upon impact. 
Table B-4. Corroborative Information for Determining Kinetic Energy of Various Aircraft 
Aircraft 
Type 
Velocity 
(m/s) 
Total 
Length 
(m) 
Linear Mass Density 
(kg/m) (approximate 
length and associated 
density) 
Mass 
(kg) 
Kinetic Energy 
(at stated velocity) 
Ke = 1/2mv2 
(kg-m2)/s2 or Joules 
TNT Equivalent 
(tons) 
(1 ton TNT = 4.2 x 
109 Joules) 
Boeing 
707-320 
102.8 40 0-15 m  2000 kg/m 
15-25 m  10,000 kg/m 
25-40 m  2000 kg/m 
30,000 
100,000 
30,000 
160,000 
8.5 x 108 
0.2 
FB-111 102.8 22 0-11 m  2000 kg/m 
11-15 m-9000 kg/m 
15-22 m-3000 kg/m 
22,000 
36,000 
21,000 
79,000 
4.2 x 108 0.1 
F4 
Phantom 
215.8 16 0-5 m 10,000 kg/m 
5-7 m 25,000 kg/m 
7-10m  40,000 kg/m 
10-16 m  20,000 kg/m 
5,000 
5,000 
12,000 
8,000 
30,000 
7.0 x 10 8 0.17 
If the stated velocity for the Boeing 707 and for the FB-111 is scaled upward to 236 m/s, then a 
factor of 2.3 is applied to the velocity. Given that the kinetic energy is a function of the square 
of the velocity, an increase of 2.3 times would increase the kinetic energy by 5.3 times, and the 
corresponding release in TNT equivalent would increase by that same factor. This would equate 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-38 October 2004 
to a release of approximately 1 ton from the Boeing 707-320, and less for the other aircraft 
shown. 
Thus, the energy release given by Stix and Yam is corroborated using equivalent information 
from Abbas et al. (1996 [DIRS 167627]) (C9), and the direct input is shown to be at the upper 
range of likely releases from aircraft impacts. 
B5.2.3.3 Energy Released by Targeted Weapons 
The direct inputs discussed in this section are used to determine whether the energy releases by 
targeted weapons are capable of affecting the repository at depth, based on the curve from 
Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], Figure 12) (Q4) described in Section B5.2.3.2 of this 
appendix. The condition being justified is that: 
The energy yield of conventional weapons is on the order of 2 tons. 
This is taken as direct input from Item Q5, and is corroborated by information presented in Q8, 
C13, and C16. 
The direct input is based on Ferguson (2002 [DIRS 160988]) (Q5), who states an explosive 
capability of 2 tons for the GBU-28. Based on corroborative sources, this direct input appears to 
be a reasonable representation of the upper end of yields from conventional weapons. 
Corroboration is based on information taken from Janes Air-Launched Weapons (Lennox and 
Rees 1990 [DIRS 167804]) (C13). This is the standard unclassified resource for weapons 
systems information. The appendices provide total mass and dimensions for missiles and bombs 
from all major countries, as well as the mass of warheads and mass of the munition in terms of 
high explosives, without specifying the type of high explosive. To convert to equivalence in 
TNT, a factor of 2 is assumed. This is based primarily on Wu (2000 [DIRS 167812]) (C16). Wu 
reports on the synthesization of a new explosive compound (octanitrocubane) that is stated to be 
twice as powerful as trinitrotoluene (TNT) and its thought to be 20 to 25 percent more effective 
than HMX (octagen), which is the state-of-the-art military explosive right now. The statement 
is attributed to a source at the Nation Institute of Standards and Technology. Accordingly, a 
factor of 2 is assumed to convert from mass of high explosive to equivalence of TNT. 
Further corroboration is provided by Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994], p. 15) (Q8), who 
indicate that the energy release for a U.S. cruise missile (with a conventional warhead) is 0.5 ton 
TNT equivalent. With regard to the reported TNT equivalent of 0.5 tons for a Tomahawk cruise 
missile with conventional warhead, Lennox and Rees report that the U.S. AGM-131 SRAM 
conventional warhead contains 250 kg of high explosive. Using the factor of 2-multiplier, this 
suggests that the yield cited by Stix and Yam above is correct. 
Additional corroborative information from Lennox and Rees (1990 [DIRS 167804]) (C13) 
indicates that the largest conventional warheads for air-to-surface missiles are listed as 1,000 kg 
HE, and are associated with the former USSR AS-4 and AS-6 air-to-surface missiles. This 
would be equivalent to 2,000 kg (or about 2 tons) TNT. With regard to bombs (such as the 
GBU-28), Lennox and Rees indicate that the total weight of Iraqs NASR-9000 is 9,000 kg. If 
all this mass were attributed to HE, then the TNT equivalent would be upwards of 9 tons of TNT. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-39 October 2004 
However, for most of the bombs listed by Lennox and Rees, the total weight is typically a few 
hundred to a thousand kg, suggesting that TNT equivalents of about 1 ton are more typical. 
Accordingly, a suggested value of 2 ton TNT equivalent for conventional ordnance is 
corroborated and considered suitable for use in FEP screening considerations. 
B5.2.3.4 Maximum Depth of Penetration 
Given that the repository is located no less than 200 m below the ground surface, the maximum 
depth of penetration of a projectile in dry rock is of particular interest. The condition being 
justified is that: 
The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons is approximately 
30 m. 
This stems from direct inputs either based on, or taken, from Items Q3, Q6, Q7, Q9 (which are 
all mutually corroborating) and are further corroborated either directly by, or using information 
from, Q5, C11, C13, C14, and C15. 
Direct input is taken from Backman and Goldsmith (1978 [DIRS 167628], pp. 32 through 38) 
(Q3) in the form of a table stating penetration depths in terms of projectile diameters, and in the 
form of the Poncelet equations and associated resistance constants for hard soil. Direct input is 
also taken from Forrestal et al. (1981 [DIRS 167630]) (Q6), Patterson (1974 [DIRS 167805]) 
(Q7), and from Young (1976 [DIRS 167806]) (Q9), which present results of experimental data in 
a variety of geomaterials. 
Backman and Goldsmith (1978 [DIRS 167628], p. 32) (Q3) indicates that for a round-ended steel 
projectile with a length to diameter ratio of 8, striking normally at 150 m/s, sand will be 
penetrated to a depth of 350 diameters, and high strength concrete (5000 psi compressive 
strength) will be penetrated to a depth of only 25 diameters. Given that samples of the volcanic 
tuff, with only a few exceptions, exhibit compressive strengths of well in excess of 50 MPa (or in 
excess of 7500 psi), as shown in Appendix C of this analysis report, a value associated with 5000 
psi concrete can be chosen as a conservative surrogate. However, to calculate a maximum 
penetration depth, a projectile diameter is needed. A maximum diameter of 1 meter is assumed 
based on information from the corroborating source, Lennox and Rees (1990 [DIRS 167804]) 
(diameter for the NASR 9000, C13). Accordingly, the maximum penetration depth will be on 
the order of 25 meters in the volcanic tuffs present at the site. 
Backman and Goldsmith (1978 [DIRS 167628], Eq. 6-2 and p. 38) (Q3) also cite to the Poncelet 
equation, which indicates that the depth of penetration (P) is dependent on two resistance 
constants a10 and a8. The equation is given as: 
.. 
. 
.. 
. 
+ = 
8 
2 
10 
10 
1 ln 
2 a
v a 
a
m P o (Eq. B-8) 
For this equation, P is the penetration depth in cm, m is the mass in kg, and vo is the impact 
velocity in m/sec. The resistance coefficients for hard soil are given as a8 = 15.7 and a10 = 24.7. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-40 October 2004 
Assuming a mass of 9,000 kg (again based on the maximum mass reported in Lennox and Rees 
(1990 [DIRS 167804]) (total mass for the NASR 9000, C13), and assuming a mid-range velocity 
of 411 m/sec, yields a penetration depth of 22.8 m (2,275 cm). 
These results based on the relationships and equations in Backman and Goldsmith and the 
experimental data from the following direct input sources are mutually corroborating. 
Experimental data from Young (1976 [DIRS 167806], Table II) (Q9) indicate a maximum 
penetration depth of 220 feet (67 meters) into hard playa lake soils composed of sand, silt, and 
clay. The compressive strengths of these materials ranged from approximately 300 psf to 
45,000 psf (13 to 312 psi). These tests were made with a 6-inch (0.15 m) diameter projectile. A 
significant increase in penetration depths in sandy soils versus rock is expected, as Backman and 
Goldsmith (1978 [DIRS 167628], p. 32) (Q3) indicate total penetration depth for sand is 
350 times the diameter, compared to 25 diameters for concrete-equivalent compressive strengths. 
Thus for a 0.15 m diameter projectile, a penetration depth of 53 m could be expected in sand. 
These results (i.e., 67 m from experimental data and 53 m by equation) are mutually 
corroborating with Patterson (1974 [DIRS 167805]) (Q7) by taking into account the difference in 
target materials. 
Patterson reports a penetration depths ranging from 9.08 meters of 20.7 m into a glacial lakebed, 
a harder geomaterial than that targeted by Young (1976 [DIRS 167806]). The Patterson tests 
were conducted using a penetrator of mass of 181.4 kg and diameter of 0.152 m. Initial 
velocities ranged from 93 m/s to 150.9 m/s. Backman and Goldsmith provide an intermediate 
value of 36 diameters for 2500 psi strength material. Applying the factors of 36 and 
350 diameters (to bound the potential depths of penetration) provides anticipated depth of 
penetration from 5.4 m to 52.5 m. Using Equation B-8 (the Poncelet equation from Backman 
and Goldsmith), the estimated depths of penetration would be 0.3 m to 38.5 m. In either case, 
the experimental results from Patterson are bracketed by the calculated depths based on 
Backman and Goldsmith, and taking into account the difference in geo-materials, substantiates 
the results from Young (1976 [DIRS 167806]). One further mutual corroboration can be made to 
the results of Forrestal et al. (1981 [DIRS 167630], p. 28) (Q6). 
Forrestal et al. report that penetration depth in an unsaturated, welded tuff achieved a penetration 
depth of only 2.6 m. This is significant in that the materials at Yucca Mountain are a series of 
unwelded and welded tuffs. This penetration depth was achieved using a penetrator of mass of 
182 kg and diameter of 0.165 m and initial velocity of 411 m/s. The measured depth of 
penetration was 2.6 m. Using these values, and substituting into the equations presented by 
Blackman and Goldsmith, provides estimated depths of penetration of 4.1 m using a penetration 
factor of 25 diameters. However, the unconfined compressive strength of welded tuff materials 
is on the order of 100 MPa or greater (14,500 psi) (see Appendix C of this analysis report for 
rock property information). This is about three times the compressive strength used to determine 
the factor of 25 diameters. Thus, an overestimate of penetration depth should be anticipated. 
Application of Equation B-8 suggests an anticipated depth of penetration of about 0.5 m. Thus, 
the experimental data (2.6 m) is bounded by the range (0.5 m to 4.1 m) in the calculated data, 
and they are considered corroborative. The results of Forrestal et al. are independently 
corroborated with the indirect input taken from the additional work of Siddiqui and Abbas 
(2002 [DIRS 167631]) (Item C15 above), who refined the theoretical estimated penetration depth 
to be 2.9 m. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-41 October 2004 
Given that the calculated depths and experimental depths have been shown to be corroborative, 
and given values for maximum penetration depths of 25 m (calculated for an assumed maximum 
diameter), 60.7 m (observed for hard playa soils), 20.7 m (observed for glacial lake bed), and 
2.6 m (observed for an unsaturated welded tuff), then the averaged value for depth of penetration 
is 29 m. Thus, the statement that The maximum penetration depth of earth penetrating weapons 
is approximately 30 m, is defensible and reasonable. This is particularly so, given that the 
penetration into a welded volcanic tuff was a factor of 10 less than that value of being used as 
bounding condition, and is probably more representative of site conditions than the other direct 
inputs. 
The direct inputs, and the calculated average, are corroborated from two additional sources used 
as indirect inputs (Items C11 and C14). Gronlund and Wright (2002 [DIRS 160989]) (C11) 
indicate that the U.S. arsenal includes two air dropped weapons that are capable of penetrating 
six meters of concrete or 30 meters of earth. Additionally, Nelson (2001 [DIRS 160986]) (C14) 
suggests a maximum penetration depth to be on the order of 100 feet (33 meters) based on long 
rod penetration, and projects that the maximum penetration depth can be no more than 10 times 
the length of the penetrator. These indirect inputs corroborate the direct inputs discussed above. 
B5.2.3.5 Fracturing Effects of Underground Nuclear Explosions 
The FEP description for explosions and crashes specifically mentions the potential for nuclear 
war and underground testing. Although, as discussed for the FEP, there is basis for a regulatory 
exclusion, direct inputs also indicate that these events would be of low consequence. The 
condition being justified is: 
The energy release from underground nuclear detonations results in fracturing to 
distances on the order of 100 meters or less. 
This is based on direct input taken from Item Q4, and is corroborated by Items C10 and C11. 
Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], p. 262) (Q4) provide the direct input by reference to the 64-kt 
Pile Driver test producing stresses at about 100 meters (328 feet) that were slightly less than 
those needed to propagate fractures in granodiorite. This is corroborated by two indirect input 
sources. Glasstone and Dolan (1977 [DIRS 160992], Section 2.104) (C10) describe the results 
of the RAINIER underground nuclear test. The authors indicate that the deep (240 meters, 
790 feet) underground detonation of the 1.7-kt event fractured the surrounding materials out to a 
radius of only 54 meters (180 feet)which is less than one drift spacing. In describing the 
penetration depth needed to contain an underground detonation, Gronlund and Wright (2002 
[DIRS 160989]) (C11) indicate a depth of 60 meters would contain a one-kiloton explosion, and 
300 meters would contain a 100-kiloton explosion. Thus, for detonation less than 100-kiloton, 
the stated condition is corroborated, as is the direct input taken from Dence et al. 
B5.2.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For quantitative data, the criteria regarding standard deviations and establishment of conservative 
bounding values have been satisfied. The above literature review and corroboration of the direct 
input provides a suitable level of confidence that the data are suitable for their intended use, 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-42 October 2004 
which is for FEP screening. The status of the direct input evaluated above should be considered 
as qualified for use within this technical product. However, some limitations apply. 
B5.2.4.1 Energy Release to Depth of Effect Relationships 
Use of the curve from Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], Figure 12) (Q4) with a stated range of 
1012 to 1017 Joules is corroborated by Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], Figure 3) (C12). However, 
the lower threshold for FEP screening should be based on 1012 Joules to ensure that the lower 
range of energy levels documented in corroborating sources cited by Hughes has been 
adequately addressed. 
B5.2.4.2 Energy Released by Aircraft Impact 
The energy release for a large jet aircraft given by Stix and Yam (2001 [DIRS 160994]) (Q8) has 
been corroborated and shown to be at the upper range of likely releases from aircraft impacts. 
However, it should be noted that the calculated energy release pertains only to kinetic energy, 
and does not consider other factors such as explosion of on-board fuel, detonation of on-board 
ordnance, or other factors. 
B5.2.4.3 Energy Released by Targeted Weapons 
Ferguson (2002 [DIRS 160988]) (Q5) states an explosive capability of 2 tons for the GBU-28. 
This value has been corroborated and is believed to be representative of possible energy releases 
from conventional weapons systems. However, the maximum potential release, though 
speculative, should be mentioned to ensure that conservative bounding values have been taken 
into account and used to address the range in uncertainty. 
B5.2.4.4 Maximum Depth of Penetration 
Based on these mutually corroborating and independently corroborating sources, a maximum 
depth of penetration of 30 m into volcanic tuffs should be used. The penetration factor of 
25 diameters reported by Backman and Goldsmith (1978 [DIRS 167628], p. 32) (Q3); the 
reported value of 67 m from Young (1976 [DIRS 167806], Table II) (Q9); the maximum value 
of 20.7 m from Patterson (1974 [DIRS 167805]); and the value of 2.6 m from Forrestal et al. 
(1981 [DIRS 167630], p. 28) (Q6) are mutually corroborating and are judged appropriate for use 
in FEP screening analysis. However, the value of 67 m represents conditions that are unlikely to 
be encountered at Yucca Mountain. Tests on material similar to that at Yucca Mountain yielded 
the value of only 2.6 m. Consequently, a conservative, but reasonable, bounding value for the 
maximum penetration depth at the site would be approximately 30 m, based on the cited source 
information and corroborating information used as indirect input. 
B5.2.4.5 Fracturing Effects of Underground Nuclear Explosions 
For detonation less than 100-kiloton, the stated condition is corroborated. Use of the 100-m 
fracturing extent should quote Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], p. 262) (Q3) directly to avoid 
uncertainty regarding a bound on the yield of the detonation. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-43 October 2004 
B5.3 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.2.05.00.0A METAMORPHISM 
The conditions being justified are stated in the form of boundary conditions required for the 
onset of regional metamorphism. 
The minimum conditions needed for onset of metamorphism are: 
T> 150-200C 
P = 0.5-1 kbar 
Depth = 4-5 km 
The range in geothermal gradients is 10 to 25 and the pressure gradient is 
approximately 0.6 kbar/km. 
The following statements are based on information taken from Item Q10, and are shown to be 
conservative bounding conditions by corroboration with Items C17, C18, and C19. 
For the FEPs analysis, all that is needed is to show that existing burial rates and geothermal 
gradients are insufficient to result in significant temperature and pressure increases. Therefore, 
the qualitative criteria for general agreement will be applied. The criteria specifically indicate 
that this standard may be used when corroborating boundary conditions that define the 
conditions necessary for the initiation of an FEP (e.g., temperature and pressure conditions 
associated with metamorphism). 
B5.3.1 Literature Search 
A review of available at-hand geology textbooks was conducted to verify conditions necessary 
for metamorphism to occur. The intent of the search was to verify that the conditions being used 
as direct input could be corroborated with other sources. In reviewing sources to be used for 
evaluating diagenetic effects, a third corroborating source was identified and has been evaluated. 
B5.3.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the justification (whether as direct input or indirect input 
and used for corroboration of the direct input), pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in 
Table B-5. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-44 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-5. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Metamorphism 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and 
Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q10 C17, C18, C19 Ehlers, E.G. and 
Blatt, H. 1982. 
Petrology, Igneous, 
Sedimentary, and 
Metamorphic. 
New York, New York: 
W.H. Freeman and 
Company. 
TIC: 255657. 
(DIRS 167802) 
This is a standard 
petrology textbook 
and contains 
applicable 
discussions and 
text. 
Not 
Applicable 
Textbook All that is needed 
here is a 
statement of 
temperature and 
pressure ranges 
that represent 
the onset of 
metamorphism. 
Direct Input - The minimum 
conditions needed for onset of 
metamorphism are: 
T> 150-200C 
P = 0.5-1 kbar 
Depth = 4-5 km 
p. 566 
The range in geothermal gradients 
is 10 to 25C and the pressure 
gradient is approximately 0.6 
kbar/km 
pp. 684-685 and p. 169, Figure 3. 
C17 Not Applicable Hyndman, D.W. 
1972. Petrology of 
Igneous and 
Metamorphic Rocks. 
International Series in 
the Earth and 
Planetary Sciences. 
New York, New York: 
McGraw-Hill. 
TIC: 248141. 
(DIRS 150295) 
This is a standard 
geology textbook 
and contains 
applicable 
discussions and 
text. 
Not 
Applicable 
Textbook All that is needed 
here is a 
statement of 
temperature and 
pressure ranges 
that represent 
the onset of 
metamorphism. 
Indirect Input  This text provides 
corroborative information for 
metamorphic conditions 
From p, 270 Temperatures of 
about 300 to 400 degrees C to 700 
to 800 degrees C. Geothermal 
gradients average about 15 to 25 
degrees C/km for margins, 
compared to about 10 degrees 
C/km for stable shield area. 
From p. 272, Pressures are 
uncertain but for most areas are 
estimated to range from about 
2,000 or 3,000 bars (or 
atmospheres). The normal load 
pressure at depth, resulting from 
the weight of overlying rocks, is 
about 285 bars/km. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-45 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-5. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Metamorphism (Continued) 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and 
Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C18 Not Applicable Press, F. and Siever, 
R. 1978. Earth. 2nd 
Edition. Chapters 11 
and 16. San 
Francisco, California: 
W. H. Freeman and 
Company. 
TIC: 255856. 
(DIRS 167965) 
This is a standard 
geology textbook 
and contains 
applicable 
discussions and 
text. 
Not 
Applicable 
Textbook All that is needed 
here is a 
statement of 
temperature and 
pressure ranges 
that represent 
the onset of 
metamorphism. 
Indirect Input  This text provides 
corroborative information for 
metamorphic conditions. 
From p. 298, As a sediment is 
buried, it becomes subjected to 
increasingly high temperatures  
on the average of 1C for each 30 
meters (100 feet) of depth  and 
high pressures  on the average 
about 1 atmosphere for each 4.4 
meters. The boundary between 
diagenesis and metamorphism is 
somewhat arbitrary, usually drawn 
at a temperature of about 300C. 
C19 Not Applicable Retallack, G. J. 1991. 
"Untangling the 
Effects of Burial 
Alteration and Ancient 
Soil Formation." 
Annual Review of 
Earth and Planetary 
Sciences. 
Weatherhill, G. 
Vol. 19, 183-206. 
Palo Alto, California: 
Annual Reviews Inc. 
TIC: 255912. 
(DIRS 167870) 
This paper focuses 
on defining and 
describing 
differences and 
effects associated 
with burial 
alteration and soil 
formation. 
Book not 
found in 
SciSearch 
 
This paper was 
extracted from 
a book series. 
Moderate  The 
paper is focused 
on distinguishing 
between burial 
alteration affects 
and 
characteristic of 
ancient soils. 
The paper 
provides a 
survey of 
applicable 
studies by 
others, and a 
lengthy citation 
list is provided. 
Indirect Input  The paper focuses 
on information for related to 
diagenesis effects. However, it 
also defines the onset of 
metamorphism. 
p. 200 in excess of 200C and 
depths greater than 7 km. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-46 October 2004 
B5.3.3 Discussion 
The direct input for this FEP is taken from Ehlers and Blatt (1982 [DIRS 167802]) (Q10), largely 
because the values they present suggest the least temperature, pressure and depth of burial 
needed for the onset of regional metamorphism (i.e., conservative bounding conditions for 
onset). Using it as the basis of the FEPs, screening is, therefore, conservative. It is corroborated 
by two other texts: Hyndman (1972 [DIRS 150295], p. 270 and 272) (C17) and Press and Siever 
(1978 [DIRS 167965], pp. 303) (C18), and from a third book source, Retallack (1991 
[DIRS 167870], p. 200) (C19). 
Table B-6. Comparison of Various Stated Conditions for Metamorphism 
Source 
Temperature 
Gradient Pressure Gradient 
Onset 
Temperature 
Onset 
Pressure Onset Depth 
Ehlers and Blatt 
1982 
TIC: 255657 
(DIRS 167802) 
(Q10) 
Approximately 
1000C per 100 
km or 10C/km 
(p. 169, 
Figure 6-3) 
Approximately 
1 Mbar per 
1500 km or 
equivalent of 
0.6 kbar/km 
(p. 169, Figure 6-3) 
150  200C 
(p. 566) 
Pressures 
on the order 
of 0.5-1 kbar 
(p. 566) 
Depth within 
the crust of 
about 4-5 km 
(p. 566) 
Hyndman 1972 
TIC: 248141 
(DIRS 150295) 
(C17) 
About 10C/km 
for stable shield 
area, and 
average about 15 
to 25C/km for a 
geosynclinal 
environment 
(p. 270) 
About 285 bars/km, 
or 0.28 kbar/km 
(p. 272) 
300 to 400C 
(p. 270) 
About 2,000 
or 3,000 
bars 
(or atm); 
equivalent to 
2 to 3 kbars 
(p. 272) 
Not Given 
Press and Siever 
1978 
TIC: 255856 
(DIRS 167965) 
(C18) 
Average of 1C 
for each 30 
meters (100 feet) 
of depth or about 
33C/km (p. 303) 
About 1 
atmosphere for 
each 4.4 meters, or 
about 0.3 kbars/km 
(p. 303) 
About 300C 
(p. 303) 
Not Given Not Given 
Retallack 1991 
TIC: 255912 
(DIRS 167870) 
(C19) 
Not Given Not Given In excess of 
200C 
(p. 200) 
Not Given Greater than 
7 km 
(p. 200) 
Ehlers and Blatt (1982 [DIRS 167802], p. 566) (Q10) indicate 0.5 to 1 kbar is necessary for the 
onset of metamorphism, which is clearly conservative compared to Hyndman (1972 
[DIRS 150295], p. 272) (C17), which indicates that 2 to 3 kbars of pressure are required. The 
onset temperature, 150  200C given by Ehlers and Blatt (1982 [DIRS 167802], p. 566) (Q10), 
is also clearly conservative and as much as one-half of that cited by the corroborating sources. 
Given the respective pressure gradients, Ehlers and Blatt (1982 [DIRS 167802], p. 566) (Q10) 
would suggest metamorphic onset at depths as little as 1 to 2 km, but also clearly indicate a 
burial depth of 4 to 5 km is needed. In any case, these conditions are clearly conservative 
compared to the temperature and pressures, and to the depth of 10 km, based on Hyndmans 
information. They are also clearly conservative compared to the 9 km depth based on the 
average thermal gradient, and they are conservative with respect to the onset temperatures 
presented by Press and Siever (1978 [DIRS 167965], p. 303) (C18). They are also more 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-47 October 2004 
restrictive than the conditions indicated by Retallack (1991 [DIRS 167870], p. 200) (C19) of 
greater than 200C and burial greater than 7 km. 
B5.3.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For qualitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. The above literature 
review and corroboration of the direct input provides an acceptable level of confidence that the 
data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP screening. The status of the direct input 
for metamorphism from Ehlers and Blatt (1982 [DIRS 167802], p. 566) (Q10) evaluated above 
should be considered as qualified for use within this technical product. Because they represent 
the lowest temperature and pressure required for the onset of metamorphism, no further 
limitation on their use is required. 
B5.4 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.2.08.00.0A DIAGENESIS 
Diagenesis is an ongoing process of chemical and physical changes to sediments undergoing 
compaction, cementation, and burial. The conditions being evaluated and the associated direct 
input are as follows: 
The time required for complete diagenesis to occur is less than 10,000 years: This is 
taken from Items Q11 and Q12. 
SiO2 cementation is not dependent of climatic conditions, but cementation does exhibit 
distinctive trends that correspond with the ages of the surficial deposits: This is taken 
from Item Q15. 
Accumulation rates are attributable to several climatic scenarios, but climate change was 
insufficient to significantly decrease the rate of accumulations: This is taken from Item 
Q15. 
CaCO3 may translocate to greater depths given greater precipitation, and cementation is a 
reversible effect: This is taken from Item Q15. 
Compaction does not become an important factor until the onset of deep burial: This is 
taken from Item Q11. 
The net effect of shallow diagenesis is to stabilize the surface environment and decrease 
the net infiltration rate: This is taken from Item Q14. 
Cementation by CaCO3 is not a significant process in rhyolitic tuff due to the lack of 
carbonate source material: This is taken from Items Q11, Q13, and Q15. 
Cements other than carbonate may develop: This is taken from Items Q11, Q13, and 
Q15. 
Accumulation rates for Yucca Mountain favor SiO2 over CaCO3, which is accessory 
cement: This is taken from Items Q13 and Q15. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-48 October 2004 
The data being evaluated include Items Q11 through Q15 in Table B-1. The data is in the form 
of conceptual statements and is generally qualitative in nature. Therefore, the qualitative criteria 
for general agreement will be applied. 
B5.4.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed factors that significantly affected 
rates of diagenesis in arid environments and that quantified the effects of diagenesis in the near 
subsurface (less than 1 km). The keyword and subject based searches utilized various AND 
combinations for the keywords diagenesis, caliche, silcrete, duricrust, duripans, 
effects, factors, and infiltration in various combinations. The SciSearch database 
(limited to publication dates for 1900 to 2004), for the search term diagenesis alone returned 
2,940 returns. Addition of the search term shallow restricted the search to 380 returns, and 
further restriction with effects generated one return; this was found to not be of particular 
interest. Use of the combined terms diagenesis and "effects yielded 423 returns. These 
423 returns were evaluated based on titles and available abstracts, and only two citations 
appeared applicable. Use of the individual search terms silcrete, duricrust, and duripans 
returned 26, 12, and 2 records, respectively. Only one of these citations was judged applicable. 
Using the GeoRef database, the search on diagenesis returned 37,855 records. Restricting 
the search by adding the term effects limited the search to 1900 returns. Further restriction by 
adding the term infiltration yielded only five records. These were reviewed by title and 
abstract, and none were found applicable. Other searches using various search terms such as 
calcrete, arid, cementation, duirpan, and polygenesis yield a few more useable 
citations. Searches on the term silcrete yield 352 returns, and addition of the word effects 
restricted the search and yielded only nine returns. A similar search for duricrust and effects 
yield 11 returns. These 11 records were reviewed by title and available abstract, and none were 
found to be applicable. The bibliographies of citations were then reviewed to identify other 
sources that might be of interest. The combined result of the searches and the preliminary 
review based on titles and abstracts is reflected in the lists of citations provided in Table B-7. 
Citations that were not selected for evaluation were discarded because they dealt with deep 
diagenetic processes, were focused on description of the characteristics and properties of 
formations not of particular interest to Yucca Mountain (such as marine deposits or large scale 
sedimentary and costal basin), or did not appear to characterize the net change in properties since 
initial disposition or describe factors that affected the rate and extent of the diagenetic process. 
Additionally, most of the papers available focused on the interrelationship between the formation 
properties and the potential impact on petroleum or natural gas exploration or production. 
B5.4.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table B-7. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-49 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q11 Q12, Q15, C20, 
C21, C23, C25, 
C28, C29, C30, 
C31 
Krystinik, L.F. 1990. 
"Early Diagenesis in 
Continental Eolian 
Deposits." Chapter 8 
of Modern and Ancient 
Eolian Deposits: 
Petroleum Exploration 
and Production. 
Fryberger, S.G.; 
Krystinik, L.F.; and 
Schenk, C.J., eds. 
Denver, Colorado: 
Society of Economic 
Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists, Rocky 
Mountain Section. 
TIC: 247781. 
(DIRS 135295) 
This information is 
taken from a chapter 
describing early 
diagenesis in 
continental eolian 
deposits and is 
directly applicable to 
diagenesis in arid 
environments. 
Book not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Special book 
publication 
Moderate  The text 
provides adequate 
citations to support the 
summary discussion of 
diagenetic processes, 
and provides summary 
tables and figures as 
needed. 
Direct Input The time required 
for complete diagenesis to 
occur is less than 10,000 years 
(p. 8-1) that lithification in 
desert environments can occur 
within 5,000 years, and 
Compaction does not become 
an important factor until the 
onset of deep burial: 
(pp. 8-2 and 8-3) that after 
initial settling compaction is not 
a significant diagenetic process 
until significant burial depth is 
achieved. 
Cementation by CaCO3 is not a 
significant process in rhyolitic 
tuff due to the lack of carbonate 
source material: 
Cements other than carbonate 
may develop. 
It also indicates (p. 8-4) 
that iron, aluminum, and silica 
may be the primary cements, 
rather than carbonate. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-50 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q12 Q11, C20, C25, 
C23, C31 
Lattman, L.H. and 
Simonberg, E.M. 1971. 
"Case-Hardening of 
Carbonate Alluvium 
and Colluvium, Spring 
Mountains, Nevada." 
Journal of Sedimentary 
Petrology, 41, (1), 
274-281. Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: Society of 
Economic 
Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists. 
TIC: 223189. 
(DIRS 129306) 
This paper describes 
field observations on 
carbonate alluvium 
and colluvium near 
Las Vegas, Nevada. 
Because of the field 
study location and 
the nature of the 
observations, the 
results are 
applicable, but likely 
overstate the case 
for igneous source 
materials. 
Paper not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  This paper 
addresses field 
observations rather than 
laboratory analysis. Field 
procedures are not 
discussed, and the 
number of supporting 
citations is limited. 
Direct Input  The time required 
for complete diagenesis to 
occur is less than 10,000 years. 
The paper indicates (p. 277) 
that case hardening can occur 
within a few tens of years. 
Q13 Q15 Lattman, L.H. 1973. 
"Calcium Carbonate 
Cementation of Alluvial 
Fans in Southern 
Nevada." Geological 
Society of America 
Bulletin, 84, (9), 
3013-3028. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. 
TIC: 235904. 
(DIRS 129305) 
This paper 
addresses 
cementation effects 
in alluvium and 
colluvium in 
southeastern 
Nevada. The author 
discusses these 
processes for basic 
and igneous material 
in the absence of a 
carbonate source, 
which is a directly 
applicable situation. 
Paper not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Low to Moderate  This 
paper addresses field 
observations rather than 
laboratory analysis. Field 
procedures are not 
discussed, but a 
bibliography of cited 
sources is provided. 
Direct Input  Cementation by 
CaCO3 is not a significant 
process in rhyolitic tuff due to 
the lack of carbonate source 
material (p. 3015) states that 
calcification is not a significant 
process for rhyolitic tuffs unless 
a source for carbonates is 
present. 
Q14 Q15, C20, C27 Reeves, C.C. 1976. 
Caliche: Origin, 
Classification, 
Morphology and Uses. 
Lubbock, Texas: 
Estacado Books. 
TIC: 245928. 
(DIRS 104303) 
This book was the 
only text found 
devoted to the 
formation of caliche 
and other duripans. 
Book not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Book High- This book is a 
survey and comparison 
of pertinent studies on 
calcrete, silcrete, and 
other duripans. 
Direct Input  The net effect of 
shallow diagenesis is to 
stabilize the surface 
environment and decrease the 
net infiltration rates. 
The book states (p. 110) that 
the net effect is to decrease 
infiltration. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-51 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q15 Q11, Q14, Q13, 
C22, C24, C26, 
C28, C30 
Taylor, E.M. 1986. 
Impact of Time and 
Climate on Quaternary 
Soils in the Yucca 
Mountain Area of the 
Nevada Test Site. 
Master's thesis. 
Boulder, Colorado: 
University of Colorado. 
TIC: 218287. 
(DIRS 102864) 
This is a Masters 
thesis focusing on 
correlation of soils 
characteristics to 
paleoclimate effects. 
Citation not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Thesis  not 
subject to 
peer-review, but 
subject to 
academic 
defense. 
Moderate to High - 
Because this is a 
Masters thesis, the 
degree of documentation 
is high, although the 
quality of the data has 
not been evaluated within 
the thesis itself. 
Direct Input  
SiO2 cementation is not 
dependent on climatic 
conditions, but cementation 
does exhibit distinctive trends 
that correspond with the ages of 
the surficial deposits (p. 86). 
Accumulation rates are 
attributable to several climatic 
scenarios, but climate change 
was insufficient to significantly 
decrease the rate of 
accumulations: (p. 89). 
CaCO3 may translocate to 
greater depths given greater 
precipitation, and cementation is 
a reversible effect (p.82). 
Cementation by CaCO3 is not a 
significant process in rhyolitic 
tuff due to the lack of carbonate 
source material. 
Cements other than carbonate 
may develop. 
Accumulation rates for Yucca 
Mountain favor SiO2 over Ca 
CO3, which is an accessory 
cement (p. 33). 
The relationships of CaCO3 and 
opaline Si02 for Yucca Mountain 
soils to climate change are 
provided (Chapter 5). 
Additionally, (Figure 9 and pp. 
31-33) the relative importance 
of Si02 over CaCO3 is 
discussed. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-52 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C20 Not Applicable Arakel, A.V. 1996. 
"Quaternary Vadose 
Calcretes Revisited." 
AGSO Journal of 
Australian Geology 
and Geophysics, 16, 
(3), 223-229. 
Canberra, Australia: 
Australian 
Government Public 
Service 
TIC: 255481 
(DIRS 167623) 
This paper describes 
the formation and 
distribution of 
calcretes in arid 
vadose zone of 
western Australia 
and is, therefore, 
potentially applicable. 
However, the focus is 
on establishing 
various soil profiles 
with respect to 
paleoenvironmental 
reconstruction and 
mineral exploration 
activities. 
Paper not 
listed in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal, but with 
restricted focus 
to Australian 
geology. 
Low to Moderate  This 
paper appears to be a 
survey of other studies 
done in the region and is 
focused on overarching 
trends in the information, 
rather than on detailed 
descriptions of factors 
and effects. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
provides corroboration for the 
conceptualization of initial 
plugging of porosity and 
permeability (p. 223), and for 
the rapid maturation of 
cemented soil profiles within a 
relatively short time (p. 226). 
C21 Not Applicable Baldwin, B. and Butler, 
C. O. 1985. 
"Compaction Curve." 
American Association 
of Petroleum 
Geologists Bulletin, 69, 
(4), 622-626. Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: American 
Association of 
Petroleum Geologists. 
TIC: 255917. 
(DIRS 167871) 
This paper provides 
compaction curves 
for sandstones and 
shales, and shows 
changes in solidity 
with burial depth. 
161 citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to High  This 
paper presents a brief 
review of earlier papers 
describing compaction 
curves and provides 
adequate citations. The 
paper compares the 
proposed curves to 
results of the other 
studies and discusses 
the implications of the 
results and the limitations 
of other types of curves. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
reproduces the Sclater-Christie 
sandstone curve (Figure 3), 
which shows the solidity 
(i.e., the complement of 
porosity) is nearly constant 
above about 100 m, and it 
approaches but never reaches 
100 percent. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-53 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C22 Not Applicable Chadwick, O.A.; 
Nettleton, W.D.; and 
Staidl, G.J. 1995. "Soil 
Polygenesis as a 
Function of Quaternary 
Climate Change, 
Northern Great Basin, 
USA." Geoderma, 68, 
(1-2), 1-26. New York, 
New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255603. 
(DIRS 167626) 
This paper describes 
a soil profile transect 
in the northern Great 
Basin, and shows the 
relationship between 
climate changes and 
pedogenic 
processes. 
Seven 
citations on 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal. 
Moderate to High  This 
paper provides an 
extensive set of tables 
that summarize various 
analysis done on soils 
collected along the 
transect. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
provides corroboration that 
climate change drives soil 
characteristics related to the 
presence and depth distribution 
of opaline silica and calcium 
carbonate. It also indicates that 
desert loess accumulation is 
episodic, accumulating more 
rapidly during interpluvial 
periods, and the resulting soil 
profiles have greater surface 
area, which tends to increase 
water retention and mineral 
weathering and decrease the 
depth of leaching for a given 
precipitation regime. 
C23 Not Applicable Eghbal, M.K. and 
Southard, R.J. 1993. 
"Stratigraphy and 
Genesis of Durorthids 
and Haplargids on 
Dissected Alluvial 
Fans, Western Mojave 
Desert, California." 
Geoderma, 59, (1-4), 
151-174. Amsterdam, 
The Netherlands: 
Elsevier. 
TIC: 255601. 
(DIRS 167624) 
This paper 
addresses 
geomorphology and 
soils in a desert 
environment of 
southwestern 
California that is 
similar in many ways 
to the Yucca 
Mountain Region. 
The paper reports 
results of a trench 
study through an 
alluvial fan sequence 
and associated soils 
and draws 
conclusions 
regarding the 
distribution of 
associated duripans. 
Five citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate to High  
Detailed soil profile 
descriptions are provided 
along with a summary of 
laboratory methods used 
for the analyses. The 
basis for conclusions is 
clearly stated. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
provides a corroborative value 
for rate of CaCO3 accumulation 
needed to form a duripan 
compared to estimated 
accumulation rates (pp. 
170-171) and attributes the 
excess accumulation to 
bioturbation. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-54 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C24 Not Applicable Eghbal, M.K. and 
Southard, R.J. 1993. 
"Micromorphological 
Evidence of 
Polygenesis of Three 
Aridisols, Western 
Mohave Desert, 
California." Soil 
Science Society of 
America Journal, 57, 
(4), 1041-1050. 
Madison, Wisconsin: 
Soil Science Society of 
America. 
TIC: 255602. 
(DIRS 167625) 
This paper 
addresses 
geomorphology and 
soils in a desert 
environment of 
southwestern 
California that is 
similar in many ways 
to the Yucca 
Mountain Region. 
The paper thoroughly 
describes results of a 
trench study through 
an alluvial fan 
sequence and 
associated soils and 
draws conclusions 
regarding the 
distribution of 
associated duripans. 
Seven 
citations in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate to High  
Detailed soil profile 
descriptions are provided 
along with a summary of 
laboratory methods used 
for the analyses. The 
basis for conclusions is 
clearly stated 
Indirect Input  One conclusion 
of this paper is that 
development of carbonate-freeargillic 
horizons probably 
occurred during pluvial periods, 
whereas calcification occurred 
during drier periods, and 
silicification appears to have 
been contemporaneous with 
both clay illuviation and 
calcification and, thus, may be 
related to pedochemical 
conditions rather than climate 
(p. 1049). 
C25 Not Applicable Humphrey, J.D.; 
Ransom, K.L.; and 
Matthews, R.K. 1986. 
"Early Meteoric 
Diagenetic Control of 
Upper Smackover 
Production, Oaks 
Field, Louisiana." The 
American Association 
of Petroleum 
Geologists Bulletin, 70, 
(1), 70-85. Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: American 
Association of 
Petroleum Geologists. 
TIC: 246098. 
(DIRS 118461) 
This paper discusses 
the effects of early 
meteoric diagenesis 
on a grainstone 
formation. The paper 
discusses rates of 
early meteoric 
diagenesis, and 
indicates that 
intervals that had 
been stabilized early 
were less susceptible 
to solution 
compaction that 
those intervals 
retaining significant 
proportions of 
unstable mineralogy. 
20 citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  Results of 
studies and some 
supporting information is 
provided, but analytical 
procedures are not 
provided or discussed. 
Indirect Input  provides a brief 
discussion (p. 77-78) of the rate 
of meteoric diagenesis in 
carbonate systems in the 
vadose zone. Shallow vadose 
diagenesis can reach 
completion within 10,000 years, 
while it may take an order of 
magnitude longer for the deep 
vadose zone. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-55 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C26 Not Applicable Lattman, L. H. 1972. 
"Relation of Caliche 
(Calcrete) Horizons to 
Alluvial Fan Processes 
in Southern Nevada." 
Abstracts with 
Programs-Geological 
Society of America, 4, 
(7), 574. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. 
TIC: 255828. 
(DIRS 167813) 
This abstract 
addresses the 
formation of 
extensive caliche 
layers in respect to 
changes in climate 
conditions. 
Abstract not 
found in 
SciSearch 
This information 
is provided only 
in abstract form 
and was 
presumably not 
subject to peerreview 
Low  Only the abstract 
is presented. Basis for 
conclusion is presumably 
on field observations, but 
no documentation is 
provided. 
Indirect Input  This abstract 
corroborates other betterdocumented 
sources that link 
diagenetic processes to climatic 
conditions. 
C27 Not Applicable Lattman, L. H. 1983. 
"Effect of Caliche on 
Desert Processes." 
Chapter 4 Origin and 
Evolution of Deserts. 
Wells, S. G.; Haragan, 
D. R. (eds.). 1st 
Edition. 101-109. 
Albuquerque, New 
Mexico: University of 
New Mexico Press. 
TIC: 255700. 
(DIRS 167815) 
This book addresses 
desert process, and 
the author of Chapter 
4 specifically 
addresses caliche 
formation in desert 
environments. 
Book not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Book published 
by the 
Committee on 
Desert and Arid 
Research of the 
Southwestern 
and Rocky 
Mountain 
Division of the 
American 
Associate for 
the 
Advancement of 
Science. 
Low to Moderate  This 
chapter summarizes 
results of studies and a 
bibliography of cited 
sources is included. 
However, no analytical 
information is provided. 
Indirect Input  This text 
corroborates statements by 
others that the rate of caliche 
formation depends on climate, 
parent material, supply of 
calcium carbonate and 
topography. It also 
corroborates statements that 
formation of caliche inhibits 
infiltration and tends to stabilize 
the surface (p. 107-108). 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-56 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C28 Not Applicable Machette, M. N. 1982. 
"Morphology, Age, and 
Rate of Accumulation 
of Pedogenic CaCO3 in 
Some Calcareous 
Soils and Pedogenic 
Calcrete of 
Southwestern United 
States." GSA 
Abstracts with 
Programs, 14, (4). 
Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of 
America pp 182-183. 
TIC: 209942. 
(DIRS 167814) 
This abstract 
addresses the 
accumulation rate of 
CaCO3 at various 
locations in Utah and 
New Mexico. 
Abstract not 
found in 
SciSearch 
This information 
is provided only 
in abstract form 
and was 
presumably not 
subject to peerreview 
Low  Only the abstract 
is presented. Basis for 
conclusion is presumably 
on field observations and 
laboratory analysis of soil 
samples, but no 
documentation is 
provided. 
Indirect Input  This abstract 
corroborates accumulation rates 
cited in better-documented 
journal papers. 
C29 Not Applicable Palmer, S.N. and 
Barton, M.E. 1987. 
"Porosity Reduction, 
Microfabric and 
Resultant Lithification 
in UK Uncemented 
Sands." Geological 
Society Special 
Publication, 36, 29-40. 
Oxford, United 
Kingdom: Blackwell 
Scientific Publications. 
TIC: 246095. 
(DIRS 118483) 
This paper 
addresses the extent 
of diagenetic change 
in Jurassic to Recent 
matrix-free, 
uncemented sands in 
the UK that are 
thought to have 
experienced only a 
relatively small depth 
(<1 km) of burial. 
However, materials 
are either beach 
material or from 
stable, shelf areas 
and are shallow 
water deposits. 
Paper not 
found in 
SciSearch 
This was 
extracted from a 
Special 
Publication 
Moderate to High  The 
characteristics of the 
studied materials are well 
documented. The 
methods used are 
mentioned, but not 
further discussed. 
Indirect Input  The results of 
this paper are used to 
corroborate the minimal effects 
of compaction at shallow burial 
depths (pp. 32 and 39). 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-57 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-7. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Diagenesis (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Item Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C30 Not Applicable Salem, A.M.K.; 
Abdel-Wahab, A.; and 
McBride, E.F. 1998. 
"Diagenesis of 
Shallowly Buried 
Cratonic Sandstones, 
Southwest Sinai, 
Egypt." Sedimentary 
Geology, 119, (3-4), 
311-335. New York, 
New York: Elsevier. 
TIC: 255708. 
(DIRS 167869) 
This paper is focused 
on description of 
sandstones 
deposited on the 
Arabian shield in 
fluvial and shallowmarine 
environments. 
However, the burial 
depth is suspected to 
be no more than 1.5 
to 2.5 km, so 
represent shallow 
burial effects. 
Two citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate to High  The 
paper is focused on 
description of the 
geologic materials. 
Procedures are briefly 
described, and analysis 
results are provided. 
Indirect Input  The paper 
provides examples of the 
occurrence of ferricrete and 
silcretes that represent incipient 
silcrete cement rather than 
normal burial quartz cement, 
and reduction in porosity by 
compaction was about 
19 percent 
(pp. 319-331). 
C31 Not Applicable Yaalon, D.H. 1967. 
"Factors Affecting the 
Lithification of Eolianite 
and Interpretation of Its 
Environmental 
Significance in the 
Coastal Plain of 
Israel." Journal of 
Sedimentary 
Petrology, 37, (4), 
1189-1199. Tulsa, 
Oklahoma: Society of 
Economic 
Paleontologists and 
Mineralogists. 
TIC: 255600. 
(DIRS 167622) 
This paper 
addresses the early 
diagenesis of eolian 
deposits in a coastal 
plain setting in 
southern Israel. 
Citation not 
found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  Sampling 
and analytical 
procedures are 
discussed and results are 
provided. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
provides corroboration for the 
rate of lithification (p. 1189) and 
indicates the percent of CaCO3 
needed to initiate lithification in 
coastal sands (p. 1194). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-58 October 2004 
B5.4.3 Discussion 
Corroboration of direct input is discussed under four general topics: the time required for 
diagenesis, the relationships between diagenesis and climate, the role of compaction, and the role 
of cementation. 
B5.4.3.1 Time Required for Diagenesis 
The conditions being justified and the associated direct input are as follows: 
The time required for complete diagenesis to occur is less than 10,000 years: This 
is taken from Items Q11 and Q12. Corroboration is given in Items C20, C23, 
C25, C28, and C31. 
Direct inputs related to the time required for complete diagenesis come from Krystinik (1990 
[DIRS 135295], p. 8-1) (Q11) and from Lattman and Simonberg (1971 [DIRS 129306], p. 277) 
(Q12), Krystinik states that cementing minerals can precipitate in quantities sufficient to lithify 
sand to friable sandstone in less than 5,000 years. Lattman and Simonberg cite several examples 
of roadcuts and gully banks that are case-hardened in the timeframe of a few tens of years. 
Corroborating sources include Arakel (1996 [DIRS 167623], p. 226) (C20), which indicates that 
rapid maturation of cemented soils profiles can occur within a relatively short time  within the 
context of the paper, a relatively short time is inferred to be within the time scale of 
10,000 years, though a quantitative statement is not made. Humphreys et al. (1986 
[DIRS 118461], pp. 76-78) (C25) provides citations for carbonate systems that indicate that 
diagenesis in shallow vadose zones subject to meteoric processes may reach completion within a 
few thousand years, but deeper vadose zone diagenesis may be much more prolonged. Machette 
(1982 [DIRS 167814]) (C28) and the paper by Eghbal and Southard (1993 [DIRS 167624], 
p. 170-171) (C23) provide CaCO3 accumulation rates that range from 0.03 g/cm2 to as great as 
0.26 g/cm2 per 1000 years. Yaalon (1967 [DIRS 167662], p.1189) (C31) indicates that as little 
as 8 percent CaCO3 is sufficient to initiate lithification. If one assumes a soil density of 
1.9 gm/cm3, then only 0.15 gm of CaCO3 is needed to initiate lithification. Depending on the 
accumulation rate, this could occur on the timescale of less than 1,000 years (assuming an 
accumulation rate of 0.26 g/cm2 per 1,000 years) to on the order of 5,000 years (assuming an 
accumulation rate of 0.03 gm/cm2). Thus, the direct inputs are corroborated by other sources. 
Diagenetic Effect Relationship to Climate 
The conditions being evaluated and the associated direct input are as follows: 
SiO2 cementation is not dependent on climatic conditions, but cementation does exhibit 
distinctive trends that correspond with the ages of the surficial deposits. This is taken 
from Item Q15. This is corroborated in Items C22, C24, and C26. 
Accumulation rates are attributable to several climatic scenarios, but climate change was 
insufficient to significantly decrease the rate of accumulations. This is taken from 
Item Q15. This is corroborated in Items C23 and C28. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-59 October 2004 
CaCO3 may translocate to greater depths given greater precipitation, and cementation is a 
reversible effect. This is taken from Item Q15 and corroborated by Items C22 and C26. 
Because the time frame of interest is 10,000 years, the potential for effects of climate change on 
shallow diagenesis must be considered. As direct input, Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864], 
Chapter 5) (Q15) indicates silts that formed in alluvium and eolian fines of Holocene to early 
Pleistocene or late Pliocene age near Yucca Mountain are characterized by distinctive trends in 
the accumulation of secondary clay, CaCO3, and opaline SiO2 that correspond with the ages of 
the surficial deposits. However, there is no macro- or micromorphological evidence that 
suggests that silica cementation occurred under climatic conditions cooler and wetter than those 
of present climate. In contrast, Taylor also states that accumulation rates of these materials 
during the Holocene can be attributed to several possible climatic scenarios associated with the 
Holocene-Pleistocene climate change, but suggest that precipitation has not been a limiting 
factor, and that climatic change was not sufficient to significantly decrease rate of accumulation. 
Taylor also suggests that the climatic change was the result of decreases in temperature rather 
than precipitation. Modeling results discussed by Taylor suggest that increased precipitation in 
the future may translocate CaCO3 accumulations to greater depths, where precipitation is greater. 
Taylor also suggests that the cementation process, particularly for CaCO3, is reversible, and that 
the material can be redissolved and moved deeper into the soil profile. 
The dependence of the accumulation depth of CaCO3, and the dependence of other diagenetic 
effects related to chemical changes is corroborated by several sources. Eghbal and Southard 
(1993 [DIRS 167625], p. 1049) (C24) suggest that, in the Mojave Desert, development of 
carbonate-free argillic horizons probably occurred during pluvial periods, whereas calcification 
occurred during drier periods. Silicification appears to have been contemporaneous with both 
clay illuviation and calcification and, thus, may be related to pedochemical conditions rather than 
to climate. This corroborates the results by Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864], Chapter 5) discussed 
above, and for a similar arid setting. Eghbal and Southard further unequivocally state that soils 
in arid regions are often polygenetically related to climatic variations. This trend for 
calcification is also corroborated in the abstract by Lattman (1972 [DIRS 167813]) (C26) in the 
statement that It is suggested that extensive calcrete layers in southern Nevada formed during 
and immediately following the onset of pluvial periods which were times of fan aggradation. 
They were generally destroyed during the interpluvial, which were times of fan stability or 
degradation. This statement also tends to suggest that calcification effects may be reversible, 
whereas silicification may be ongoing regardless of the climate state. Further corroboration is 
gained from Chadwick et al. (1995 [DIRS 167626]) (C22), which documents changes in soil 
profiles along a transect that reflect cooler and wetter conditions due to elevation changes. 
However, these serve as a surrogate for change in climate conditions. In particular, they 
observed that climatic extremes drive pedogenic processes that leave polygenetic imprints on 
soils of Pleistocene age. In particular, soils that are now dominated by opaline silica, carbonate, 
and smectite, contain evidence of earlier, more acidic, chemical environments conducive to 
dissolution of primary carbonate and formation of kaolinite. During interglacial times (i.e., drier 
and warmer), Chadwick et al. attribute the changes to more eolian activity and less effective 
moisture combining to decrease the depth of leaching, increase base cations, and modify the soil 
chemical environment in relict paleosols. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-60 October 2004 
This trend toward increased calcification during pluvial times is corroborated in the 
accumulation rates noted in the abstract by Machette (1982 [DIRS 167814]) (C28), who 
indicates that soils <25,000 years old have accumulation rates 2-3 times higher that older soils. 
This observation is attributed to less effective precipitation and vegetation cover in Holocene 
time, which is due in large part to a drier climate state. The increased accumulation rates of 
CaCO3 are also noted by Eghbal and Southard (1993 [DIRS 167624], p.170-171) (C23). 
Reversibility of cements is mutually corroborative with Krystinik (1990 [DIRS 135295], p. 8-4) 
(Q11), who clearly indicates that cementations processes are reversible. Indirect inputs also 
corroborate this aspect of cementation. Chadwick et al. (1995 [DIRS 167626]) (C22) note that 
climatic drying at the end of the Pleistocene decreased leaching depth by about 150 cm, and 
corroborates the changes modeled by Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864]). This trend for calcification 
during pluvial periods and decalcification during interpluvial periods is also corroborated in the 
abstract by Lattman (1972 [DIRS 167813]) (C26) mentioned above, and points to the 
reversibility of the calcification process at any given location. 
Compaction During Shallow Diagenesis 
The conditions being justified and the associated direct input are as follows: 
Compaction does not become an important factor until the onset of deep burial: 
This is taken from Item Q11. It is corroborated by Items C21, C29, and C30. 
The two primary mechanisms for early and shallow diagenetic changes are related to 
compactions and cementation. Krystinik (1990 [DIRS 135295], pp. 8-3 and 8-4) (Q11) indicates 
that early diagenesis begins at or near the depositional interface and entails weathering, 
compaction, cementation and numerous allied physical, chemical and biochemical processes, at 
temperature below 50 degrees C. As direct input, Krystinik notes that wind-laid sand can be 
deposited with up to 25-40 percent porosity and that early compaction reduces porosity to 
20-30 percent, depending upon sorting. Krystinik further states that Beyond increasing 
capillarity, compaction does not generally become an important factor in diagenesis until the 
onset of grain deformation and pressure solution during deeper burial diagenesis. By 
minimizing compaction, then, the primary means of diagenesis becomes cementation processes. 
By way of corroborating the role of compaction in early diagenesis, Palmer and Barton (1987 
[DIRS 118483], pp. 32 and 39) (C29) compare similar, uncemented sands of increasing ages and 
burial depth with porosities. In the first 169 meters of burial, the porosity of the sand decreases 
from 47.2 to 35.6 percent, but from 169 m to 780 meters, the compaction only decreased the 
porosity an additional 2 percent, for a total decrease of 13.6 percent. This corroborates 
Krystinik's assertion of an initial reduction of no more than few percent, followed by minimal 
effects. The lack of compaction during initial burial is also corroborated by the Sclater-Christie 
compaction curve given in Baldwin and Butler (1985 [DIRS 167871], Figure 3) (C21). The 
curve shows that change in porosity during the first 300 m of burial is insignificant, but becomes 
increasingly more important at greater depths, with changes of up to 50 percent porosity relative 
to the initial porosities occurring at depths approaching 10 km. However, Baldwin and Butler 
also caution that sandstones show considerable scatter in solidity-depth values and indicate that 
ranges in values of 25 percent are common. As a case-in-point, the work by Salem et al. (1998 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-61 October 2004 
[DIRS 167869], pp. 319-331) (C30) on cratonic sandstones indicates that sandstones undergoing 
burial between 1.5 and 2.5 km exhibited only a 19 percent total porosity loss due to compaction. 
The results of this work match well with the compaction curves of Baldwin and Butler for a 
1 to 2 km burial depth, and further corroborates Krystiniks assertion that compaction plays only 
a minor role during the early stages of shallow burial and diagenesis. 
Cementation During Shallow Diagenesis 
The conditions being justified, and the associated direct input, are as follows: 
 The net effect of shallow diagenesis is to stabilize the surface environment and decrease 
the net infiltration rate: This is taken from Item Q14 and is corroborated in Items C20 
and C27. 
 Cementation by CaCO3 is not a significant process in rhyolitic tuff due to the lack of 
carbonate source material: This is mutually corroborative for Items Q11, Q13, and Q15. 
 Cements other than carbonate may develop: This is mutually corroborative for Items 
Q11, Q13, Q15, and corroborated by Item C30. 
 Accumulation rates for Yucca Mountain favor SiO2 over CaCO3, which is an accessory 
cement: This is mutually corroborative with Items Q11, Q13, and Q15. 
With regard to the role of cementation in diagenesis and its effects, Reeves (1976 
[DIRS 104303], p. 110) (Q14) indicates that the net effects of shallow diagenesis and associated 
cementation is to decrease the net vertical infiltration rate and sites multiple studies to support 
that assertion. This net reduction in infiltration is corroborated by Lattman (1983 
[DIRS 167815], pp. 107-108) (C27) who states, The formation of caliche inhibits infiltration 
into a topographic surface. The degree of this inhibition is a function of density and induration 
of the caliche. Petrocalcic horizons, laminar layers, and case-hardened layers cause the greatest 
inhibition. It is also corroborated by Arakel (1996 [DIRS 167623], p. 223) (C20) who refers to 
progressive plugging of initial porosity/permeability zones. It should be pointed out that while 
this holds true for the carbonates, Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864]) (Q15) indicates that in the YMP 
soils studied, in the absence of effective precipitation or drainage to remove newly dissolved 
silica, it is precipitated elsewhere within the calcrete horizon, or CaCO3 preferentially 
precipitates after opaline silica bonds adjacent soil grains. Taylor notes that this process may 
occur without necessarily plugging intervening pores spaces. 
Taylor (1986 [DIRS 102864], Figure 9) (Q15) indicates that the accumulation rate of CaCO3, 
while occurring, is significantly less than that for SiO2. This is reflected in statements indicating 
that carbonate is primarily derived from airborne dust and the opaline SiO2 from in-place 
weathering of the parent material and that the cementation by opaline SiO2 is common in the 
study area and that opaline SiO2 accumulation in the soils is favored over that of CaCO3. Taylor 
also indicates SiO2 cementation is common in the study area, with CaCO3 as an accessory 
cement. The direct input from Taylor indicating the predominance of SiO2 over carbonate in the 
soil cements is mutually corroborative with direct input by Lattman (1973 [DIRS 129305], 
p. 3015) (Q13). In studies near Las Vegas, Lattman observed that calcium carbonate 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-62 October 2004 
cementation is not necessarily a significant cementation process in rhyolitic tuffs due to the lack 
of carbonate source materials. The above statements by Lattman and Taylors observations of 
the predominance of SiO2 cements mentioned above, is mutually corroborative with statements 
from Krystinik (1990 [DIRS 135295], p. 8-4) (Q11) that cements other than carbonate may 
develop, particularly iron, silica, and aluminum. Yaalon (1967 [DIRS 167622], p. 1189) (C31) 
corroborates this by indicating that one of the controlling factors in diagenesis of eolian sands is 
the original content of CaCO3. As a corroborative example from indirect input, the presence of 
cements other than carbonate in arid environments is proposed by Salem et al. (1998 
[DIRS 167869], pp. 319-331) (C30). In that particular study, the predominant cements 
stemming from the generally arid environment were iron and silica. 
B5.4.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For qualitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. The above literature 
review and corroboration of the direct input provides an acceptable level of confidence that the 
data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP screening. The status of the direct 
inputs for diagenesis evaluated above should be considered as qualified for use within this 
technical product. No limitations on use of the qualified data are needed. 
B5.5 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION OF DIRECT INPUT FOR FEP 1.5.01.01.0A 
METEORITE IMPACT 
The analysis for meteorite impact probability and consequence requires the use of direct input, 
cited from technical journals and other non-YMP originated sources, to represent the full range 
of the possible types and size of meteorites potentially striking the repository within a 
10,000-year time frame, and the resulting exhumation and fracturing depths and characteristics. 
This section provides a justification for use of the meteor-related direct input based on its 
adequacy and appropriateness for its intended use for FEPS screening. 
The general type of information and specific topics being addressed follows: 
 Meteoroid Flux Entering Earths Atmosphere 
- Flux data for a range of meteor masses: Taken from Item Q16. 
 Compositions and Material Properties of Meteoroids 
- Flux data, by meteor type and related densities: Taken from Item Q17 
- Values for percent of meteor that are of iron composition: Taken from Item Q23. 
 Crater Diameter Distributions and Rates 
- Crater rate distribution based on observed earth cratering: Taken from Item Q19 and 
Q20 
- Cratering rate data for the Canadian shield and application to a hypothetical Canadian 
repository: Taken from Item Q24. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-63 October 2004 
 Crater Dimensions as a Function of Meteor Type 
- Results of a model (by others) linking a variety of effects to initial meteor radius, 
including resulting crate diameters and related consequences: Taken from Item Q22. 
 Depth and Extent of Crater Features 
- Diameters associated with onset of complex cratering: Taken from Items Q19, Q20, 
and Q24 
- Crater diameter to depth of effect relationships: Taken from Items Q18, Q21, and 
Q24. 
The data being evaluated include Items Q16 through Q24 in Table B-1. The evaluation criteria 
for quantitative data are applied. Corroboration will be considered acceptable, if singular 
values (e.g., mean velocity or percent by composition) are shown to be within two standard 
deviations of the mean value, with the mean and deviations developed by equal weighting of 
reported mean values from each source. In the case of probability distributions or equations 
based on probability distributions (e.g., mass flux or cratering rates), corroboration will be 
considered acceptable if the resulting probability distributions fall within 2 orders of magnitude 
for any given point in the distribution (e.g., for the probability of crater diameter of a given size). 
B5.5.1 Literature Search 
A focused literature search was performed to identify past analyses of meteorite impact 
probabilities for underground facilities (particularly repositories); for current information and 
studies related to meteorite impact probabilities; for current information and direct input on 
meteor characteristics; and for information related to crater features and dimensions. The 
literature search was focused on recent papers and updates, and on information directly relevant 
and applicable to the analysis. The results of the literature search, using Internet based search 
engines and the GeoRef database, and after screening based on titles and abstracts, are given in 
Table B-8. 
B5.5.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input as data or as indirect 
input for corroboration), these factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table B-8. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-64 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q16 C32, C33, C35, 
C36, C37, C40, 
C42, C44 
Ceplecha, Z. 1992. 
"Influx of 
Interplanetary Bodies 
onto Earth." 
Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 263, 
361-366. New York, 
New York: 
Springer-Verlag. 
TIC: 246784. 
(DIRS 135242). 
This paper represents a 
compilation of results of 
studies by others 
addressing mass flux over 
a wide range of masses. 
The paper provides 
cumulative mass by 
number of events for 
meteoroids coming to the 
earths atmosphere. Also 
provides a means to 
relate mass to impact 
velocity at the surface if 
needed. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. 
However, 
subsequent 
related papers 
cite author. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
49 citations. 
This paper taken 
from a respected, 
peer-reviewed 
journal 
(Astronomy and 
Astrophysics). 
Moderate - Citation to the 
original sources are 
provided. Quality of 
derivation of conclusions 
regarding consequences 
is moderate but adequate 
for intended purpose of 
the paper, and supporting 
equations are provided. 
Does not rely solely on 
single method to 
determine flux, such as 
kinetic energy 
observations, and thus 
can be corroborated using 
multiple flux 
measurements methods. 
Direct Input  
Flux data for a range of 
meteor masses. 
Indirect Input  
Provides corroborativeuse 
only information for 
crater radius comparison. 
Q17 For percent by 
type: Q17 
(from an 
independent 
data set), C40, 
C43 
For densities: 
Q17 (from an 
independent 
data set), C32, 
C35, C36, C37, 
C39, C40, C45 
Ceplecha, Z. 1994. 
"Impacts of 
Meteoroids Larger 
than 1m into the 
Earth's Atmosphere." 
Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 286, 
(3), 967-970. New 
York, New York: 
Springer-Verlag. 
TIC: 246761. 
(DIRS 135243), Q17 
The paper focuses on 
determining differences in 
meteor compositions 
based on differences in 
atmospheric penetration 
based on photographed 
meteors and fireballs. 
This information is then 
categorized by type and 
bulk densities, and types 
are assigned a 
percentage basis. Paper 
is of interest primarily 
because it provides a 
distribution of meteors by 
type for meteoroids with 
diameters on the order of 
<1 to 10 m, which is within 
the range of interest for 
possible repository 
damage. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 17 
citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a 
respected, peerreviewed 
journal 
(Astronomy and 
Astrophysics). 
Moderate  The absence 
of the presentation of the 
original information and 
the process used to 
normalize for 
classification is lacking. 
Discussion of methods 
used to obtain the initial 
information is not 
provided. However, 
paper represents one of 
the few attempts to 
categorize small 
meteoroids by type. 
Direct Input  
Flux data, by meteor type 
and related densities. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-65 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q18 Q21, Q24 Dence, M.R.; Grieve, 
R.A.F.; and Robertson, 
P.B. 1977. "Terrestrial 
Impact Structures: 
Principal 
Characteristics and 
Energy 
Considerations." 
Impact and Explosion 
Cratering, Planetary 
and Terrestrial 
Implications, 
Proceedings of the 
Symposium on 
Planetary Cratering 
Mechanics, Flagstaff, 
Arizona, September 
13-17, 1976. Roddy, 
D.J.; Pepin, R.O.; and 
Merrill, R.B., eds. 
Pages 247-275. New 
York, New York: 
Pergamon Press. 
TIC: 247237. 
(DIRS 135253). 
This is a seminal work in 
the area of impact 
cratering and provides a 
listing and discussion of 
development of observed 
crater characteristics. 
Paper relates energy 
release and dissipation in 
the subsurface, which is a 
principal property of 
interest. 
The effects 
addressed in 
this paper have 
been used in 
other repository 
design 
considerations, 
and the energy 
release 
equations are 
often cited in 
other works in 
the subject area. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
17 citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited 
compendium of 
related work. 
The effects 
addressed in this 
paper have been 
used in other 
repository design 
considerations and 
the cratering rate 
is generally 
accepted due to its 
basis on observed 
features. 
Moderate  The paper 
provides a summary of 
characteristics of craters 
and respective 
dimensions and 
compares cratering 
effects to those of 
nuclear testing. No 
information on 
procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
Direct Input  
Crater diameter to depth 
of effect relationships. 
Indirect Input  
Provides corroborativeuse 
only information for 
crater radius related to 
iron meteors. 
Q19 Q20, Q24, C32, 
C35, C4, C42 
Grieve, R.F. 1987. 
"Terrestrial Impact 
Structures." Annual 
Review of Earth and 
Planetary Sciences, 15, 
245-269. Palo Alto, 
California: Annual 
Reviews. 
TIC: 246788. 
(DIRS 135254), Q19 
This is a seminal work in 
the area of impact 
cratering and lists 
observed craters, crater 
characteristics, and 
cratering rates. The paper 
provides relationships of 
crater diameter to crater 
depth and provides a 
cratering rate estimate for 
large-diameter craters that 
are generally used in 
hazard estimates. 
The effects 
addressed in 
this paper have 
been used in 
other repository 
design 
considerations 
and are heavily 
cited in other 
works in the 
subject area. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
23 citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a peerreviewed 
journal. 
The effects 
addressed in this 
paper have been 
used in other 
repository design 
considerations. 
Moderate  The 
documentation is 
somewhat limited, but is 
generally accepted as 
reliable and has been 
updated on a periodic 
basis. No information on 
procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
Direct Input  
Crater rate distribution 
based on observed earth 
cratering. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-66 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q20 Q19, Q24, C32, 
C35, 
C40, C42 
Grieve, R.; Rupert, J.; 
and Therriault, A. 1995. 
"The Record of 
Terrestrial Impact 
Cratering." GSA 
Today, 5, (10), 
194-196. Boulder, 
Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. 
TIC: 246688. 
(DIRS 135260) 
This is an update to the 
1987 paper by the primary 
author. It provides 
updated cratering 
information, refines the 
constants, and addresses 
the limits for simple and 
complex cratering. 
The effects 
addressed in 
this paper have 
been used in 
other repository 
design 
considerations 
and are heavily 
cited in other 
works in the 
subject area. 
Update to 
previous paper. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
seven citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a 
technical journal. 
Acknowledgments 
are given to peerreviewers 
on an 
earlier version of 
the document. 
Moderate to High  This 
paper provides a listing 
of observed cratering 
impact structures and 
their diameters and ages, 
allowing independent 
confirmation of the 
developed distribution. A 
thorough reference list is 
also provided. 
Direct Input  
Diameters associated 
with onset of complex 
cratering (4 km) (p. 194). 
Crater rate distribution 
based on observed earth 
cratering. 
Q21 Q18, Q24 Grieve, R.A.F. 1998. 
"Extraterrestrial 
Impacts on Earth: The 
Evidence and the 
Consequences." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchinson, R.; McCall, 
G.J.H.; and Rothery, 
D.A., eds. Geological 
Society Special 
Publication No. 140. 
Pages 105-131. 
London, England: 
Geological Society. 
TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 163385) 
This is an update and 
summary of previous 
papers and summarizes 
the results of studies to 
date, and provides a 
distinction of the cratering 
effect data based on 
craters in sedimentary and 
crystalline materials. 
This paper is 
focused on 
updating the 
state of 
knowledge 
regarding the 
number of 
craters, cratering 
mechanics, 
shock 
metamorphism, 
and effect of 
impacts on 
biological 
evolution. 
This paper was 
taken from a 
compendium 
addressing flux 
with time and 
impact effects. 
Moderate  This paper is 
focused on updating the 
state of knowledge and 
summarizing the 
corresponding findings, 
rather than reporting new 
results of research. An 
extensive reference list is 
provided. 
Direct Input  
Crater diameter to depth 
of effect relationships. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-67 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q22 Q16, Q18, Q23, 
(these Q items 
are not mutually 
corroborative 
back to Q22), 
C32, C36, C37, 
C40 
Hills, J.G. and Goda, 
P.M. 1993. 
"Fragmentation of 
Small Asteroids in the 
Atmosphere." The 
Astronomical Journal, 
105, (3), 1114-1144. 
Woodbury, New York: 
American Institute of 
Physics. TIC: 246798. 
(DIRS 135281). 
Paper focuses on 
evaluating effects of small 
asteroids impacting the 
Earth. Paper deals with a 
multitude of related 
consequences and serves 
to relate initial meteor 
diameters to crater 
diameters over the range 
of crater diameters of 
interest. The paper 
considers several 
interrelated physical 
phenomena to derive 
resulting crater diameters. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 81 
citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a peerreviewed 
journal. 
Moderate to High  Los 
Alamos National 
Laboratory prepared the 
work, and the 
development of the 
models is well 
documented and 
supporting equations are 
provided. No information 
is provided on quality 
control or development 
procedures. Results are 
presented for a variety of 
meteor types and for a 
wide range of velocities, 
which allows the paper to 
be corroborated from 
other multiple sources. 
Direct Input  
Crater Dimensions as a 
function of meteor type. 
Figures 16 and 17 
provide key meteor 
radius to crater diameter 
relationship information. 
Q23 Q23 
(independent 
data set) C34, 
C37, C39, C43 
Shoemaker, E.M. 1983. 
"Asteroid and Comet 
Bombardment of the 
Earth." Annual Review 
of Earth and Planetary 
Sciences, 11, 461-494. 
Palo Alto, California: 
Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 246922. 
(DIRS 135308). 
This paper focuses on the 
roles of asteroids and 
comet nuclei on the rate of 
crater formation. Includes 
a review of astronomic and 
geologic information and 
provides citations to 
support the summaries. 
This paper is applicable 
with regard to flux, 
composition, meteor size 
to-crater-diameter 
relationships, and 
cratering rate. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 94 
citations- 
This paper was 
taken from a peerreviewed 
journal. 
Moderate  Sources are 
fully documented. 
Assumptions and bases 
for conclusions are 
clearly outlined. No 
information is provided 
on procedures used or 
quality control. 
Direct Input  
Values for percent of 
meteor that are of iron 
composition. 
Indirect Input  
Provides corroborative 
only information for crater 
radius. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-68 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q24 Q18, Q19, Q20, 
Q21, C32, C35, 
C40, C42 
Wuschke, D.M.; 
Whitaker, H.H.; 
Goodwin, B.W.; and 
Rasmussen, L.R. 1995. 
Assessment of the 
Long-Term Risk of a 
Meteorite Impact on 
Hypothetical Canadian 
Nuclear Fuel Waste 
Disposal Vault Deep in 
Plutonic Rock. AECL- 
11014. Pinawa, 
Manitoba, Canada: 
Atomic Energy of 
Canada Limited, 
Whiteshell 
Laboratories. 
TIC: 221413. 
(DIRS 129326). 
This paper is directly 
applicable as it presents a 
well-documented 
evaluation equivalent to 
the evaluation needed for 
YMP. The paper provides 
a detailed analysis of the 
hazard and risk associated 
with meteorite impact 
above an underground 
repository. Assumptions, 
spatial relationships, 
mathematical formulations, 
and uncertainty analysis 
are all documented within 
the report. 
Paper was 
prepared by 
AECL Research 
to evaluate risk 
from meteorite 
impact on a 
hypothetical 
underground 
repository. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
no citations. 
The paper reports 
results of a 
specific technical 
analysis. No 
information on 
prior peer review is 
available. 
High  Citations are 
provided for all sources 
and uncertainty analyses 
are provided. Cites nonpeer 
reviewed work. 
Direct Input  
Cratering rate data for the 
Canadian shield and 
application to a 
hypothetical Canadian 
repository. 
C32 
Bailey, M.E. and 
Emel'Yanenko, V.V. 
1998. "Cometary 
Capture and the Nature 
of the Impactors." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, 
G.J.H.; and Rothery, 
D.A.; eds. Geological 
Society Special 
Publication No. 140. 
Pages 11-17. Bath, 
England: Geological 
Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 162564) 
Technically Adequate  
Paper is focused on 
addressing uncertainty in 
the number of particular 
type comets present and 
uses existing equations 
and information from 
others to develop the 
argument with regard to 
cratering rates. 
Paper provides 
information on 
diameter 
distributions, 
associated 
cratering rates, 
and provides 
input on 
assumed density 
of asteriods and 
comets. 
Low to 
Moderate. 
Provides an 
independent 
means to 
establish meteor 
diameter 
distribution and 
cratering rate. 
Provides 
densities. Used 
primarily as 
No prior use for 
repository design 
considerations. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 1 
citation. 
Taken from edited and 
refereed compendium 
from Geologic Society of 
London (31 referees, 
including two who are 
routinely cited in work of 
this nature). 
Indirect Input  
Low to Moderate  None 
beyond that provided in 
paper. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-69 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C32 
(Cont.) 
source of 
corroborativeuse-
only 
information for 
cratering rates. 
C33 Not Applicable Bland, P.A.; Conway, 
A.; Smith, T.B.; Berry, 
F.J.; Swabey, S.E.J.; 
and Pillinger, C.T. 
1998. "Calculating Flux 
from Meteorite Decay 
Rates: A Discussion of 
Problems Encountered 
in Deciphering a 105 
106 Year Integrated 
Meteorite Flux at Allan 
Hills and a New 
Approach to Pairing." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, 
G.J.H.; and Rothery, 
D.A.; eds. Geological 
Society Special 
Publication Mo. 140. 
Pages 43-58. Bath, 
England: Geological 
Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 162563). 
This paper is focused on 
identifying problems and 
methodologies for pairing 
of meteorite fragments. It 
addresses limitations with 
application of meteorite 
information to flux and 
composition 
determinations. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design Science 
Citation Index 
indicates one 
citation. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
the London 
Geologic Society 
(31 referees, 
including two who 
are routinely cited 
in work of this 
nature). 
Moderate  The paper 
cites heavily to other 
related studies and fully 
documents associated 
problems, uncertainties, 
and limitations of its 
applications. Cites and 
summarizes previous 
work of others and thus 
provides an independent 
source of information 
regarding falls to earth. 
Indirect Input  
Provides summary of 
multiple related flux 
studies and provides 
corroborative-use only 
information for flux 
evaluation. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-70 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C34 Not Applicable Bevan, A.W.R.; Bland, 
P.A.; and Jull, A.J.T. 
1998. "Meteorite Flux 
on the Nullarbor 
Region, Australia." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, 
G.J.H., and Rothery, 
D.A.; eds. Geological 
Society Special 
Publication No. 140. 
Pages 59-73. Bath, 
England: Geological 
Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 162565). 
This paper focuses on 
summarizing meteorite 
falls in Australia. It is 
based on collected 
specimens, and identifies 
limitations and potential 
biases of human 
collections and problems 
of the sample area are 
addressed. Addresses 
mass distribution and 
frequency of meteorite 
falls, and breaks out the 
falls on a percentage-bytype 
basis. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design 
purposes. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
one citation. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
Geologic Society 
of London (31 
referees, including 
two who are 
routinely cited in 
work of this 
nature). 
High  information is well 
characterized; limitations 
are fully acknowledged; 
information from related 
studies are provided for 
context; and differing 
interpretations are 
considered. 
Indirect Input  
Provides baseline 
corroborative-use only 
information for 
comparison of several 
meteorite falls with regard 
to frequency and type. It 
provides corroborative 
information for percent of 
iron meteors. 
C35 Not Applicable Brown, P.; Spalding, 
R.E.; ReVelle, D.O.; 
Tagliaferri, E.; and 
Worden, S.P. 2002. 
"The Flux of Small 
Near-Earth Objects 
Colliding with the 
Earth." Nature, 420, 
(6913), 294-296. 
London, England: 
Macmillan Journals. 
TIC: 254145. 
(DIRS 162569). 
The study is based on use 
of state-of-the-art 
U.S. Department of 
Defense and 
U.S. Department of Energy 
space-based systems in 
geostationary orbits, and 
represents eight years of 
collection efforts and 300 
samples representing 
between 60% and 80% 
earth coverage. The 
results represent in 
essence a whole earth 
detection using state-ofthe-
art satellite 
observation. Study is 
particularly targeted to the 
meteor diameters of 
interest. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design 
purposes. 
Paper was 
published in 
November 2002, 
and represents 
best direct 
measurement of 
flux into the 
atmosphere. 
Paper provides 
comparison to 
similar 
information from 
related 
programs. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
three citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a highly 
respected peer 
reviewed journal 
(Nature). 
High - Paper is well 
documented and cites 
many of the authors used 
for the evaluation. 
Assumed values are 
clearly identified. 
Uncertainty is estimated 
at less than 30%, which 
is the least uncertainty 
documented in studies of 
this type found during the 
literature survey. Also 
clearly states 
assumptions regarding 
velocities and assumed 
densities for meteorites 
and basis for 
assumptions. 
Indirect Input  
This paper represents the 
most current information 
of this type available and 
covers the range of 
interest with a reasonably 
large sample set. Used 
for corroboration of flux 
and crater rate 
distribution. Summary 
equation provided to 
determine flux rates 
based on meteoroid 
diameter and in terms of 
bolide energy. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-71 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C36 Not Applicable Chapman, C.R. and 
Morrison, D. 1994. 
"Impacts on the Earth 
by Asteroids and 
Comets: Assessing the 
Hazard." Nature, 367, 
(6458), 33-40. New 
York, New York: Nature 
America. 
TIC: 246781. 
(DIRS 135245) 
Paper provides a short 
review of past influx 
studies and discusses 
velocities and densities as 
well as rates and potential 
resulting hazards. Paper 
is focused on determining 
hazard of surface effects 
from asteroid impact. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 65 
citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a highly 
respected peerreviewed 
journal 
(Nature). 
Moderate  Basis of 
influx used in analysis of 
hazard is well 
documented. Assumed 
flux and justification is 
provided and uncertainty 
in assumed values is 
provided and stated as 
between a factor of 2 and 
5. Overly conservative 
values chosen for 
determining risk. 
However, the paper is 
focused on surface 
effects rather than 
cratering. 
Indirect Input  
This paper provides a 
good overall 
corroborative summary of 
influx information, and 
through Figure 1, links 
impact interval, diameter, 
and equivalent yield. It 
also provides several 
singular events and 
related probabilities that 
are corroborative-useonly 
information. 
C37 Not Applicable Chyba, C.F. 1993. 
"Explosions of Small 
Spacewatch Objects in 
Earth's Atmosphere." 
Nature, 363, (6431), 
701-703. London, 
United Kingdom: 
Macmillan Journals. 
TIC: 246762. 
(DIRS 135248). 
Paper provides a short 
review of past influx 
studies and discusses 
velocities, densities, and 
probabilities of impact. 
Paper presents results of 
direct observation of 
meteors and impact 
probabilities are 
discussed. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Cited by 
later papers and 
compared to 
updated 
information or 
information 
obtained by 
independent 
means. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 13 
citations 
This paper was 
taken from a highly 
respected peerreviewed 
journal 
(Nature). 
Moderate to High  The 
paper is based on 
original information 
obtained from an ongoing 
observation 
program and compared 
to results of similar 
programs. No 
information on 
procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
Indirect Input  
Paper provides 
corroborative information 
on observed velocities 
and influx of smalldiameter 
objects, which 
are of particular interest. 
Provides corroborative 
information on percent 
irons and densities, and 
provides corroborative 
information for 
determining resulting 
crater radius. 
C38 
Not Applicable Hartmann, W.K. 1966. 
Terrestrial and Lunar 
Flux of Large 
Meteorites Through 
Solar System History. 
Publication No. 3. 
Tempe, Arizona: 
Arizona State 
University, Center for 
Meteorite Studies. 
TIC: 254144. 
(DIRS 162567). 
The paper deals directly 
with earth cratering rates 
for larger scale (>1-km) 
craters. 
Not used for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates no 
citations. Author 
was cited for the 
WIPP meteorite 
analysis. 
No information on 
peer review 
process. 
Low to Moderate  Paper 
published by Arizona 
Statue Universitys 
Center for Meteorite 
Studies and therefore, 
considered reliable within 
context of the time of 
publishing. However, 
this paper is dated and, 
therefore, technical 
accuracy is limited. It 
provides a glimpse of 
Indirect Input  
This paper provides an 
initial baseline, but due to 
dated information and 
limited number of 
observations should not 
be given equal weight to 
papers of a similar 
nature. This source is 
not further considered in 
this evaluation. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-72 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C38 
(Cont.) 
early estimated cratering 
rates based on initial 
observations of earth and 
lunar cratering counts. 
C39 Not Applicable Hills, J.G. and Goda, 
P.M. 1998. "Damage 
from the Impact of 
Small Asteroids." 
Planetary and Space 
Science, 46, (2-3), 
219-229. Oxford, 
United Kingdom: 
Elsevier. 
TIC: 246675. 
(DIRS 135291). 
Addresses additional 
variables for considering 
effects of meteor impacts. 
This is a follow-on paper 
that addresses the 
potential for variation of 
impact effects due to initial 
entry angle. It is an 
expansion of the 
preceding paper by the 
same authors. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates three 
citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a peer - 
reviewed journal. 
Moderate to High  
Documentation is similar 
to that provided in the 
preceding paper. 
Indirect Input  
The results of the paper 
justify use of bounding 
conditions by establishing 
a worst case condition 
for angle of entry. It is 
not further considered in 
this analysis, but is used 
to support vertical entry 
as a bounding 
consideration. 
C40 Not Applicable Hughes, D.W. 1998. 
"The Mass Distribution 
of Crater-Producing 
Bodies." Meteorites: 
Flux with Time and 
Impact Effects. 
Geological Society 
Special Publication No. 
140. Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; McCall, 
G.J.H.; and Rothery, 
D.A.; eds. Pages 
31-42. Bath, England: 
Geological Society of 
London. TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 162562). 
Paper addresses three 
factors that define basic 
relationships of meteor flux 
to cratering rates. The 
analysis is applicable to 
very large diameter 
meteoroids. The paper 
uses a subset of highly 
defensible cratering 
information to perform an 
evaluation of various 
equations and related 
uncertainties. 
No prior use in 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates five 
citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
the London 
Geologic Society 
of London (31 
referees, including 
two who are 
routinely cited in 
work of this 
nature). 
Moderate  Paper 
provides a good 
summary of preceding 
work by others and 
performs an evaluation of 
these various sets and 
range of equations. This 
paper addresses three 
interrelated factors, the 
crater rate equation, the 
energy diameter 
equation, and the mass 
distribution equation. No 
documentation on 
procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
Indirect Input  
This paper primarily 
addresses large diameter 
meteors, which end up 
being excluded from 
consideration on a 
probability basis. 
However, the paper does 
provide corroborative 
use only information for 
influx, cratering rate, and 
meteor properties. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-73 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates Properties 
of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C41 Not Applicable Marsden, B.G. and 
Steel, D.I. 1994. 
"Warning Times and 
Impact Probabilities for 
Long-Period Comets." 
Hazards Due to 
Comets and Asteroids. 
Gehrels, T., ed. 
221-237. Tucson, 
Arizona: University of 
Arizona Press. 
TIC: 246879. 
(DIRS 129308) 
This paper directly 
addresses probability of 
intersection with earth and 
is, therefore, directly 
applicable. Paper focuses 
on determining the 
probability of impact from 
long period comets under 
varying sets of 
assumptions regarding 
orbital characteristics. The 
sources used in this 
analysis are well 
documented within the 
paper and the study 
addresses 411 observed 
long period comets. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates nine 
citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited 
compendium of 
related papers. 
Moderate to High  
Paper documents both 
the theory and practical 
application used to 
develop the probabilities 
of intersection. No 
documentation on 
procedures or quality 
control is provided. 
Indirect Input  
The paper is useful in 
defining the range of 
probabilities of long 
period comets over a 
range of assumptions 
regarding orbital 
characteristics and 
supports excluding 
impact from long period 
comets based on 
individual and mean 
impact probabilities. No 
further consideration in 
this evaluation. 
C42 Not Applicable Neukum, G. and 
Ivanov, B.A. 1994. 
"Crater Size 
Distributions and 
Impact Probabilities on 
Earth from Lunar, 
Terrestrial-Planet, and 
Asteroid Cratering 
Data." Hazards Due to 
Comets and Asteroids. 
Gehrels, T., ed. 
359-416. Tucson, 
Arizona: The 
University of Arizona 
Press. 
TIC: 246879. 
(DIRS 121510). 
This paper is directly 
applicable, and provides 
an alternative method (i.e., 
use of lunar cratering and 
from other planets) to 
evaluate cratering on 
Earth. Paper focuses on 
determining cratering rates 
for from lunar, terrestrial 
planet, and asteroid 
cratering. The sources 
and discussion of alternate 
interpretations are fully 
documented. No original 
information is developed in 
this paper. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design. Science 
Citation Index 
indicates 53 
citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from an 
edited 
compendium of 
related papers. 
Moderate to High  The 
methodology and 
assumptions used are 
fully documented within 
the paper. No 
information on quality 
control or procedures for 
the selection of craters is 
provided. 
Indirect Input  
This paper provides an 
independent evaluation 
based on lunar cratering 
rates that can be used as 
an upper bound to 
corroborate flux and 
cratering rates based on 
earth observations or 
derived from flux 
information. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-74 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C43 Not Applicable Richardson, J. and 
Bedient, J. 2001. 
"Frequently Asked 
Questions (FAQ) 
About Fireballs and 
Meteorite Dropping 
Fireballs." Geneseo, 
New York: American 
Meteor Society. 
Accessed April 22, 
2003. 
TIC: 254120. 
(DIRS 162571). 
This citation provides a 
range of information 
regarding general meteor 
properties and 
characteristics. The 
source, while not strictly 
scientific, serves as a 
general clearinghouse of 
information for use by the 
public. 
No prior use for 
repository 
design, and no 
information 
regarding review 
process. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
no citations. 
Not published  
downloaded from 
an Internet site. 
This citation is to 
the home page of 
the American 
Meteor Society, a 
nonprofit scientific 
organization 
established to 
encourage and 
support the 
research activities 
of both amateur 
and professional 
astronomers 
Low to Moderate  The 
FAQ page states that 
...all of the numbers are 
estimates, and subject to 
revision as our knowledge 
level increases. We have 
attempted to select the 
most representative 
values for each. There is 
no information on the 
extent of literature search 
or procedures used to 
derive the stated values. 
Citations regarding the 
stated properties are 
absent within the text, but 
a list of supporting 
references is provided. 
The stated values appear 
to have been based on 
generally reliable sources 
and agree in general with 
information from sources 
evaluated herein 
Indirect Input  
This cite provides 
corroborative-use-only 
information from a reliable 
Internet cite of a 
recognized scientific 
organization. Sufficiently 
reliable to use as 
corroborative source for 
meteor characteristics and 
addresses the possible 
range in values. 
C44 
Not Applicable Solomon, K.A.; 
Erdmann, R.C.; and 
Okrent, D. 1975. 
"Estimate of the 
Hazards to a Nuclear 
Reactor from the 
Random Impact of 
Meteorites." Nuclear 
Technology, 25, 
68-71. La Grange 
Park, Illinois: 
American Nuclear 
Society. 
TIC: 241714. 
(DIRS 103697). 
This paper is an early 
effort at linking meteorite 
impact damage via kinetic 
energy to the probability of 
impact for a nuclear 
facility. This paper 
focuses on probability 
estimates for meteorite 
impacts for nuclear 
reactors and takes into 
account blast effects from 
near misses. The paper 
is primarily focused on 
probability of a given size, 
rather than on 
consequence. 
Used in relation 
to nuclear siting 
programs, 
including 
preclosure 
external event 
hazard 
evaluation for 
YMP from 
meteorites. No 
information on 
verification is 
provided. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
two citations. 
This paper was 
taken from a 
journal sponsored 
by the American 
Nuclear Society. 
The type of review 
process used is 
unknown. 
Low to Moderate  The 
paper documents the key 
assumptions used and 
outlines the mathematics 
used to determine the 
probability. However, the 
basis for developing the 
damage-to-energy 
assumption and the basis 
supporting the mass 
influx, while cited, is not 
discussed. The 
assessment in meteorite 
hazard dates to 1968, and 
there has been significant 
progress since that time. 
No information is provided 
on procedures or quality 
control associated with 
Indirect Input  
This paper was previously 
used as the support for 
eliminating meteorite 
impact as a preclosure 
hazard at YMP. It 
provides the probability of 
small-body impacts and 
uses differing sources for 
flux. Therefore, it provides 
a corroborative estimate of 
the probability of impact 
for a range of various 
meteorite mass. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-75 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-8. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Meteorite Impacts (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication and 
Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C44 
(Cont.) 
the cited sources of 
information. 
C45 Not Applicable Stuart, J.S. 2001. "A 
Near-Earth Asteroid 
Population Estimate 
from the LINEAR 
Survey." Science, 
294, (5547), 
1691-1693. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Association 
for the Advancement 
of Science. 
TIC: 254146. 
(DIRS 162568). 
This paper reports results 
of a detailed near-space 
survey (LINEAR). The 
scope of the survey is 
described, as are biases 
and limitations of the 
study. Paper provides an 
estimate of flux of smallto 
medium- size, nearearth 
objects based on 
physical observation and 
represents current results. 
No prior use in 
repository 
design. Given 
the currency of 
the report, use by 
others is limited. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
seven citations. 
This paper was 
extracted from 
highly respected 
peer-reviewed 
journal (Science). 
High  This paper 
provides a detailed 
description of 
methodologies and 
assumptions used in 
calculating the flux 
distribution. The sample 
size used to derive a flux 
is approximately an order 
of magnitude larger than 
used for predecessor 
programs. 
Indirect Input  
This paper is of moderate 
use in that the magnitude 
observations are not 
linked to diameter of 
meteoroids and is not 
further evaluated. 
LINEAR is cited by Brown 
et al. and supports work of 
Bailey and EmelYanenko. 
C46 Not Applicable Zolensky, M. 1998. 
"The Flux of 
Meteorites to 
Antarctica." 
Meteorites: Flux with 
Time and Impact 
Effects. Geological 
Society Special 
Publication No. 140. 
Grady, M.M.; 
Hutchison, R.; 
McCall, G.J.H., and 
Rothery, D.A.; eds. 
Pages 93-104. Bath, 
England: Geological 
Society of London. 
TIC: 254143. 
(DIRS 162566). 
This paper is focused on 
the summary of meteorite 
falls in Antarctica. The 
results are based on 
collected specimens, and 
the limitations and 
potential biases of human 
collections, and problems 
of sample area are all 
addressed. It also 
addresses mass 
distribution and frequency 
of meteorite falls, and 
breaks out the falls on a 
percentage-by-type basis. 
No prior use for 
repository design 
purposes. 
Science Citation 
Index indicates 
one citation. 
Paper was 
extracted from an 
edited and 
refereed 
compendium of 
the London 
Geologic Society 
(31 referees, 
including two who 
are routinely cited 
in work of this 
nature). 
High  The study methods 
are well characterized and 
limitations are fully 
acknowledged. Related 
studies are discussed for 
context, and differing 
interpretations are 
considered. 
Indirect Input  
Provides baseline for 
comparison of several 
meteorite falls with regard 
to frequency and type. 
Not further considered in 
this evaluation. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-76 October 2004 
B5.5.3 Discussion 
The evaluation presented in this section compares direct input used as data to corroborating-use 
only information (indirect input) also taken from peer-reviewed journal papers or edited and 
refereed compendiums of relevant work. Comparisons of the information sets are shown by 
graphical representation, or are provided in tabular format, to allow ready comparison of the 
cited values from the various sources. Corroboration is considered achieved if a cited singular 
value (e.g., a cited percent by composition or density) is shown to be within one standard 
deviation of the mean value of the cited sources. In the case of distributions or distributions 
generated from equations (e.g., mass flux or cratering rates), corroboration is considered 
acceptable if the resulting distributions fall within one order of magnitude of the median for any 
given point in the distribution (e.g.,  one standard deviation of the median value for the 
probability of crater diameter of a given size). For information addressing meteor 
radius-to-crater radius relationships and crater diameter-to-depth of cratering effects, agreement 
within a factor of two is considered adequate for intended use. 
Consistent with the intended use for FEP screening, latitude in applying these criteria was taken 
in two instances. The first instance was for direct input representing percent by type and density. 
No exclusion of information was made for points falling more than one standard deviation from 
the mean. The exclusion would have affected at most a few of the points in each of the 
information sets, and retention helps reflect the entire range in reported values. The second 
instance occurred with regard to the direct input extracted from Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) for the meteor radius-to-crater radius relationships. The 
above-stated criteria did not seem applicable in a strict sense. Rather, examples and ranges or 
limits identified in the cited literature were plotted as corroborative-use-only, where feasible, 
against the curves taken from Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22). A standard of 
reasonable agreement in trends between the corroborative-use-only information was applied 
rather than application of a statistical basis because a point-by-point comparison was not feasible 
due to differing assumptions and basis of calculation. In some instances, the comparison is 
based on other figures provided in Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) that are not part 
of the direct input being evaluated. The inference is that if individual phenomena and processes 
(i.e., fragmentation and ablation) agree between the cited sources and Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) (Q22), then this supports the validity of the resultant cratering relationships that 
depend in part on those phenomena and processes. 
Because the data comes from a variety of sources, manipulation of the data was needed to 
provide direct comparison. Accordingly, supporting spreadsheets showing the calculations are 
provided. 
B5.5.3.1 Meteoroid Flux Entering Earths Atmosphere 
The data being justified in this section addresses: 
Flux data for a range of meteor masses. 
This direct information is taken from Item Q16, and is corroborated using other multiple sources 
including Items C32, C33, C35, C36, C37, C40, C42, and C44. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-77 October 2004 
The data from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242], p. 362 and Figure 1) (Q16) is used as direct 
input; all other listed sources are used for corroboration only. The basis for selecting Ceplecha 
as direct input is discussed below. Figure B-1 of this appendix provides a comparison of 
meteoroid influx information from multiple sources. Flux information presented by Ceplecha 
(1992 [DIRS 135242], Figure 1) (Q16) and corroborated by Bland et al. (1998 [DIRS 162563], 
Figure 1) (C33); Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569], Figure 4) (C35); Neukum and Ivanov (1994 
[DIRS 121510], Table IV) (C42); and Solomon (1975 [DIRS 103697], Table I) (C44) are of 
particular interest due to the completeness, range of mass considered, and varying methods of 
determination. The flux distribution for these sources is noted on Figure B-1 by the symbols 
with connecting lines. The information in Table B-9 has been grouped by diameter size to allow 
ease in comparing the relative cumulative number of events. 
The work by Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) is a compilation of the results of works of 
others and overlaps the corroborative work by Bland et al. (1998 [DIRS 162563]) (C33) by using 
common sources of information. The two works are based on direct observation of lunar 
microcraters and space probes, observations of the Spacewatch Telescope program, and by 
photographs of earth-crossing asteroids. In the case of Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16), 
however, the full range of flux for all masses is extended by the use of additional information 
garnered from space probes, radar-tracked meteors, and photographed and television-tracked 
meteors, all as identified in Ceplecha 1992 ([DIRS 135242], Table 1) (Q16). In the 
corroborative case of Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35), the results are independent from 
work of others, and the work was derived from observations using geostationary satellites 
monitored by the U.S. Department of Defense and DOE. The corroborative information from 
Neukum and Ivanov 1994 ([DIRS 121510], Table IV) (C42) is based on lunar cratering and, 
using the stated equivalent energy release, is directly comparable to that of Brown et al. (2002 
[DIRS 162569]) (C35). In the case of Solomon (1975 [DIRS 103697]) (C44), the corroborative 
distribution was cited as being based on historical evidence as well as current information on 
meteorite crashes - with current being circa 1968. However, the flux matches reasonably well 
with information circa 2001. 
Some mathematical manipulation of the data from the various sources was required to allow 
direct comparison between direct and indirect data sources. The numerical manipulations 
needed to convert to equivalent units for comparison along with additional supporting data used 
to construct Figure B-1 are presented in Table B-10. In the case of Ceplecha 
(1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) and the corroborative work by Bland et al. (1998 [DIRS 162563]) 
(C33), points were selected manually from the referenced figures. These papers provide 
information in terms of number of events by mass. To convert to equivalent diameters, a 
spherical body of density 3,000 kg/m3 was assumed, and appropriate unit conversions were 
performed. The assumed density was based on the conversion made in Brown et al. (2002 
[DIRS 162569]) (C35), which used the stated density. 
The graph for Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) was generated from Equation 3 of that 
paper and checked for internal consistency against Figure 4 of the same paper 
The corroborative flux from Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) was extracted 
directly from their Table IV, with the time between events converted to frequency per year. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-78 October 2004 
For Solomon (1975 [DIRS 103697]) (C44), the corroborative graph was generated by converting 
the mass intervals to equivalent diameters, and then the number of events of a given size or 
larger were summed to get the cumulative number of events for a given mass or larger. 
Other corroborative information is also shown on Figure B-1 as symbols without associated 
lines. This information was taken from peer-reviewed journal papers, but the source of the cited 
information was not provided, the source of the information was not transparent, or the 
information covered only a limited range. Other corroborative-use-only information is taken 
from studies cited by Bland et al. (1998 [DIRS 162563], Figure 5) (C33). Results from Bland 
et al. overlap with that shown on Figure 1 of the same paper, and provides estimates of flux 
based on meteorite fall studies from New Mexico and Australia. The author fully discusses the 
limitations of such estimates due to inherent limitations in sample collection and meteorite 
pairing. It also covers only a minimal range of small diameters. Additionally, for comparison 
purposes, the reported flux had to be scaled upwards by two orders of magnitude to represent 
whole-earth influx. 
Chapman and Morrison (1994 [DIRS 135245], Figure 1) (C36) is also a source of 
corroborative-use only information. In this case, the authors clarify the use of an average total 
impact flux from a single author (p. 34) and clearly indicate that they have not addressed the 
influx for objects in the <50-m diameter range, which is within the range of interest for the 
screening analysis. They cite uncertainty as a factor of 2 for objects >0.5 km, and a factor of 5 
for smaller objects capable of doing damage (i.e., inferred to mean surface effects rather than 
cratering). Furthermore, the method of acquisition is not transparent (though it is stated to have 
been based on work by Shoemaker et al., which is largely photographic). 
Corroborative-use-only information based on Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], Table 2) (C40) cites 
work by others, in particular it cites to previous work after Opik (1976). The nature of 
acquisition is not discussed. The 1976 publishing date for Opik suggests that the work may be 
dated regardless of the methodology used for acquisition. Accordingly, the information is 
treated as corroborative-use only. Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], p. 37) (C40) also references 
two other point values from work by others. These are shown on Figure B-1. They represent 
only single-point values and are not suitable for evaluation as influx distributions. Additionally, 
Hughes focus is on large-scale cratering (i.e., several km), which is not the primary focus of the 
screening analysis, but does address a portion of the flux distributions. 
Work by Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998 [DIRS 162564]) (C32) provides an assumed 
cumulative diameter distribution given in the form of an equation (Equation 3 of the cited paper), 
without providing justification for its assumption beyond previous work done by Bailey. 
Additionally, application of the equation is for the total distribution of near-earth asteroids, and 
does not specifically address the influx of those actually intercepting the earth. However, a mean 
probability value is given. For corroborative-use only, this mean value was applied to the 
number of asteroids of a given diameter to provide a number of asteroid events per year. Some 
support for the assumed equation comes from Stuart (2001 [DIRS 162568]) (C45), wherein the 
estimate of the total number of Near Earth Asteroids of 1-km diameter or greater is placed at 
1227 with an uncertainty range of 90 to +170 from the stated value. This agrees well with 
Baileys assumed values of 1,500. Stuart also cites other authors that place the cumulative 
number as low as 750 150. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-79 October 2004 
The direct input for the meteor analysis, and the information from the corroborative papers, are 
summarized in Table B-9. Numeric manipulations of that information, plus information from the 
other remaining corroborative papers, are shown in Table B-10. Figure B-1 provides a plot of all 
the corroborative information and corresponds with information in Table B-10. The evaluation 
criteria as previous discussed, allows acceptance if, for any given diameter, the reported values 
fall within one order of magnitude of the median value. As can be seen from Table B-9, and also 
by inspection of Figure B-1, the distribution from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) 
satisfies those criteria and the total range of values in the cumulative events does not exceed two 
orders of magnitude. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-80 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Flux of Meteoroids to Earth 
1 E - 10 
1 E - 09 
1 E - 08 
1 E - 07 
1 E - 06 
1 E - 05 
1 E - 04 
1 E - 03 
1 E - 02 
1 E - 01 
1 E+00 
1 E+01 
1 E+02 
1 E+03 
1 E+04 
1 E+05 
1 E+06 
1 E+07 
1 E+08 
1 E+09 
1 E+ 10 
1 E - 04 1 E - 03 1 E - 02 1 E-01 1 E+00 1 E+01 1 E+02 1 E+03 1 E+04 1 E+05 
Diameter of Meteoroids (m) 
N (Cumulative Number of Events Per Year 
of Given Diameter or Greater) for Earth 
Ceplecha (1992 [135242]) 
Bland et al. (1998, Figure 1: after 
others [162563]) 
Brown et al. (2002 [162569]) 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994, from 
lunar cratering [121510]) 
Solomon (1975, Table I [103697]) 
Yanenko (1998 
[162564]) 
Bland et al. (1998, Figure 5, after 
Zolensky for Roosevelt Co., NM 
[162563]) 
Bland et al. (1998, Figure 5, 
Nullabor [162563]) 
Bland et al. (1998, Figure 5, after 
Halliday [162563]) 
Chapman and Morrison 1994 
[135245] 
Chyba (1993, p. 701 point values 
[135248]) 
Hughes (1998, after Opik 1976 
[162562]) 
Hughes (1998, point values from 
Shoemaker and from Kresak 
[162562]) 
Bailey and Emel' 
NOTE: [XXXXXX] in legend denotes DIRS numbers. 
Figure B-1. Influx of Meteoroids to Earth 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-81 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-9. Meteoroid Influx Information 
DIRECT INPUT CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
Ceplecha 
(1992 [DIRS 135242], 
Figure 1) (Q16) 
Bland et al. 
(1998 [DIRS 162563], 
Figure 1) (C33) 
Brown et al. 
(2002 [DIRS 162569], 
Figure 2) (C35) 
Neukum and Ivanov 
(1994 [DIRS 121510], 
Table IV) (C42) 
Solomon 
(1975 [DIRS 103697], 
Table 1) (C44) 
D 
(meters) 
Cumulative 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year- 
Whole Earth 
D 
(meters) 
Cumulative 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year- 
Whole Earth 
D 
(meters) 
Cumulative 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year- 
Whole Earth 
D 
(meters) 
Cumulative 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year- 
Whole Earth 
D 
(meters) 
Cumulative 
Number of 
Events (N) 
Per Year- 
Whole Earth 
4.6E-06 3.2E+17 
2.1E-05 1.0E+17 
9.5E-05 1.0E+16 
4.3E-04 3.2E+13 
1.0E-03 4.7E+09 
5.0E-03 6.0E+07 
9.1E-03 3.2E+05 1.0E-02 9.3E+06 
2.0E-02 1.4E+06 
4.2E-02 3.2E+05 4.2E-02 1.0E+04 5.0E-02 1.2E+05 
8.9E-02 1.0E+05 1.0E-01 1.9E+04 8.6E-02 3.4E+03 
1.9E-01 1.6E+04 1.9E-01 1.0E+03 2.0E-01 2.9E+03 1.60E-01 3.7E+02 1.8E-01 1.1E+03 
4.1E-01 1.0E+04 5.0E-01 2.4E+02 3.9E-01 4.3E+02 
8.7E-01 1.6E+03 8.4E-01 1.1E+02 
1.9E+00 6.3E+02 1.0E+00 3.7E+01 1.8E+00 8.7E+00 
2.0E+00 5.7E+00 2.10E+00 4.1E+00 
4.0E+00 1.0E+02 3.8E+00 1.4E+00 
5.0E+00 4.8E-01 
8.5E+00 1.0E+01 8.2E+00 4.0E-01- 
1.0E+01 7.4E-02 
1.8E+01 1.0E-01 1.8E+01 1.0E+00 1.8E+01 8.3E-02- 
3.9E+01 1.0E-02 2.5E+01 6.2E-03 3.8E+01 1.5E-02- 
5.0E+01 9.6E-04 3.50E+01 6.3E-04 
8.3E+01 1.0E-03 8.3E+01 3.2E-03 8.0E+01 3.9E-03- 
1.8E+02 1.0E-04 1.0E+02 1.5E-04 1.92E+02 9.1E-06 1.7E+02 8.0E-04- 
2.5E+02 1.2E-05 
3.8E+02 1.0E-05 3.8E+02 3.2E-05 4.21E+02 3.9E-06 3.7E+02 1.7E-04- 
8.1E+02 3.2E-06 5.0E+02 1.9E-06 7.8E+02 3.8E-05- 
1.0E+03 2.9E-07 9.22E+02 1.9E-06 
1.7E+03 1.0E-06 1.7E+03 1.0E-06 1.7E+03 1.4E-05- 
3.7E+03 1.0E-07 2.60E+03 2.2E-07 3.6E+03 1.4E-06- 
7.9E+03 3.2E-08 7.9E+03 1.0E-07 5.70E+03 3.7E-08 7.7E+03 2.8E-07 
1.25E+04 6.6E-09 
1.98E+04 3.2E-09 1.6E+04 5.2E-08 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-82 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers 
Direct Input 
Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242], Figure 1) (Q17) 
Rows: 
A B C D E F G H 
Formulas 
(Given) POWER(10, A6) POWER(10,H6) (Assumed) B6/D6 E6*0.75/PI() F6^(1/3)*2 (Given) 
Log Mass (kg) Mass (kg) 
Number of Events 
Per Year Whole 
Earth Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (m3) D (meters) Log N 
-1 1.0E-01 3.2E+05 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 5.5 
0 1.0E+00 1.0E+05 3000 3.3E-04 8.0E-05 8.6E-02 5.0 
1 1.0E+01 1.6E+04 3000 3.3E-03 8.0E-04 1.9E-01 4.2 
2 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 3000 3.3E-02 8.0E-03 4.0E-01 4.0 
3 1.0E+03 1.6E+03 3000 3.3E-01 8.0E-02 8.6E-01 3.2 
4 1.0E+04 6.3E+02 3000 3.3E+00 8.0E-01 1.9E+00 2.8 
5 1.0E+05 1.0E+02 3000 3.3E+01 8.0E+00 4.0E+00 2.0 
6 1.0E+06 1.0E+01 3000 3.3E+02 8.0E+01 8.6E+00 1.0 
7 1.0E+07 1.0E-01 3000 3.3E+03 8.0E+02 1.9E+01 -1.0 
8 1.0E+08 1.0E-02 3000 3.3E+04 8.0E+03 4.0E+01 -2.0 
9 1.0E+09 1.0E-03 3000 3.3E+05 8.0E+04 8.6E+01 -3.0 
10 1.0E+10 1.0E-04 3000 3.3E+06 8.0E+05 1.9E+02 -4.0 
11 1.0E+11 1.0E-05 3000 3.3E+07 8.0E+06 4.0E+02 -5.0 
12 1.0E+12 3.2E-06 3000 3.3E+08 8.0E+07 8.6E+02 -5.5 
13 1.0E+13 1.0E-06 3000 3.3E+09 8.0E+08 1.9E+03 -6.0 
14 1.0E+14 1.0E-07 3000 3.3E+10 8.0E+09 4.0E+03 -7.0 
15 1.0E+15 3.2E-08 3000 3.3E+11 8.0E+10 8.6E+03 -7.5 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-83 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Corroborative Information 
Bland et al. (1998 [DIRS 162563], Figure 1) (C33) 
Rows 
A B C D E F G H 
Formulas 
(Given) 
POWER(10,A35)/ 
1000 POWER(10,H35) 3000 B35/D35 E35*0.75/PI() F35^(1/3)*2 (Given) 
Log Mass 
(g) Mass (kg) 
Number of Events 
Per Year Whole 
Earth Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 D (meters) Log N 
-10 1.0E-13 3.2E+17 3000 3.3E-17 8.0E-18 4.0E-06 17.5 
-8 1.0E-11 1.0E+17 3000 3.3E-15 8.0E-16 1.9E-05 17.0 
-6 1.0E-09 1.0E+16 3000 3.3E-13 8.0E-14 8.6E-05 16.0 
-4 1.0E-07 3.2E+13 3000 3.3E-11 8.0E-12 4.0E-04 13.5 
0 1.0E-03 3.2E+05 3000 3.3E-07 8.0E-08 8.6E-03 5.5 
2 1.0E-01 1.0E+04 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 4.0 
4 1.0E+01 1.0E+03 3000 3.3E-03 8.0E-04 1.9E-01 3.0 
10 1.0E+07 1.0E+00 3000 3.3E+03 8.0E+02 1.9E+01 0.0 
12 1.0E+09 3.2E-03 3000 3.3E+05 8.0E+04 8.6E+01 -2.5 
14 1.0E+11 3.2E-05 3000 3.3E+07 8.0E+06 4.0E+02 -4.5 
16 1.0E+13 1.0E-06 3000 3.3E+09 8.0E+08 1.9E+03 -6.0 
18 1.0E+15 1.0E-07 3000 3.3E+11 8.0E+10 8.6E+03 -7.0 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-84 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569], Equation 3, Figure 4) (C35) 
Cumulative diameter distribution equation 
log N = c - d log D 
where c = 1.568, and d = 2.70 
D = diameter in meters 
Rows: 
A B C D E 
Formulas: 
E60/1000 2.7*Log(E60) 1.568-B60 POWER(10,C60) (Given) 
Diameter 
Events Per Year 
(N) Diameter (D) 
(km) d log D c-dlogD Whole Earth (meters) 
0.000001 -8.10 9.7 4.7E+09 1.0E-03 
0.000005 -6.21 7.8 6.0E+07 5.0E-03 
0.00001 -5.40 7.0 9.3E+06 1.0E-02 
0.00002 -4.59 6.2 1.4E+06 2.0E-02 
0.00005 -3.51 5.1 1.2E+05 5.0E-02 
0.0001 -2.70 4.3 1.9E+04 1.0E-01 
0.0002 -1.89 3.5 2.9E+03 2.0E-01 
0.0005 -0.81 2.4 2.4E+02 5.0E-01 
0.001 0.00 1.6 3.7E+01 1.0E+00 
0.002 0.81 0.8 5.7E+00 2.0E+00 
0.005 1.89 -0.3 4.8E-01 5.0E+00 
0.01 2.70 -1.1 7.4E-02 1.0E+01 
0.025 3.77 -2.2 6.2E-03 2.5E+01 
0.05 4.59 -3.0 9.6E-04 5.0E+01 
0.1 5.40 -3.8 1.5E-04 1.0E+02 
0.25 6.47 -4.9 1.2E-05 2.5E+02 
0.5 7.29 -5.7 1.9E-06 5.0E+02 
1 8.1 -6.532 2.9E-07 1.0E+03 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-85 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510], Table IV) (C42) 
Rows 
A B C D 
Formulas 
(Given) 1/A88 Given (D) LOG(B88) 
Time 
Interval (yr) 
Number of Events 
Per Year Whole 
Earth 
Diameter (D) of 
Meteor (meters) Log N 
2.7E-03 3.7E+02 1.6E-01 2.6 
2.4E-01 4.1E+00 2.1E+00 0.6 
1.6E+03 6.3E-04 3.5E+01 -3.2 
1.0E+05 9.1E-06 1.9E+02 -5.0 
2.6E+05 3.9E-06 4.2E+02 -5.4 
5.3E+05 1.9E-06 9.2E+02 -5.7 
4.5E+06 2.2E-07 2.6E+03 -6.7 
2.7E+07 3.7E-08 5.7E+03 -7.4 
1.5E+08 6.6E-09 1.3E+04 -8.2 
3.1E+08 3.2E-09 2.0E+04 -8.5 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-86 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Solomon (1975 [DIRS 103697], Table I) (C44) 
Rows: 
A B C D E F G H I 
Formulas 
(Given) 
(A108*2000)*0.4 
54 (Assumed) B108/C108 D108*0.75/PI() (Given) 
(5.48 x 1015/1.05 
x 1014) x F108 
SUM(G108:G$12 
7) E108^(1/3)*2 
Weight 
(tons) Mass (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (m3) 
Number of 
Events (N) Per 
Year US 
Number of 
Events (N) Per 
Year Whole 
Earth 
Cumulative 
Number of 
Events (N) Per 
Year Whole 
Earth D (meters) 
1.0E-03 9.1E-01 3000 3.0E-04 7.2E-05 45.0 2.3E+03 3.4E+03 8.3E-02 
1.0E-02 9.1E+00 3000 3.0E-03 7.2E-04 12.0 6.3E+02 1.1E+03 1.8E-01 
1.0E-01 9.1E+01 3000 3.0E-02 7.2E-03 6.0 3.1E+02 4.3E+02 3.9E-01 
1.0E+00 9.1E+02 3000 3.0E-01 7.2E-02 2.0 1.0E+02 1.1E+02 8.3E-01 
1.0E+01 9.1E+03 3000 3.0E+00 7.2E-01 0.1 7.3E+00 8.7E+00 1.8E+00 
1.0E+02 9.1E+04 3000 3.0E+01 7.2E+00 0.0 1.0E+00 1.4E+00 3.9E+00 
1.0E+03 9.1E+05 3000 3.0E+02 7.2E+01 0.0 3.1E-01 4.0E-01 8.3E+00 
1.0E+04 9.1E+06 3000 3.0E+03 7.2E+02 0.0 6.8E-02 8.3E-02 1.8E+01 
1.0E+05 9.1E+07 3000 3.0E+04 7.2E+03 0.0 1.1E-02 1.5E-02 3.9E+01 
1.0E+06 9.1E+08 3000 3.0E+05 7.2E+04 0.0 3.1E-03 3.9E-03 8.3E+01 
1.0E+07 9.1E+09 3000 3.0E+06 7.2E+05 0.0 6.3E-04 8.0E-04 1.8E+02 
1.0E+08 9.1E+10 3000 3.0E+07 7.2E+06 0.0 1.4E-04 1.7E-04 3.9E+02 
1.0E+09 9.1E+11 3000 3.0E+08 7.2E+07 0.0 2.4E-05 3.8E-05 8.3E+02 
1.0E+10 9.1E+12 3000 3.0E+09 7.2E+08 0.0 1.3E-05 1.4E-05 1.8E+03 
1.0E+11 9.1E+13 3000 3.0E+10 7.2E+09 0.0 1.1E-06 1.4E-06 3.9E+03 
1.0E+12 9.1E+14 3000 3.0E+11 7.2E+10 0.0 2.3E-07 2.8E-07 8.3E+03 
1.0E+13 9.1E+15 3000 3.0E+12 7.2E+11 0.0 5.2E-08 5.2E-08 1.8E+04 
NOTE: Column G uses a scalar ratio of surface of whole earth to the U.S., with values for surface areas taken from Solomon 1974  therefore internally 
consistent with the number of events scaled back to whole world. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-87 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Other Corroborative Information 
Bailey and Emel'Yanenko (1998 [DIRS 162564]) (C32) 
(for 0.5 < d <10 km) 
Cumulative Diameter Distribution of Asteroids 
NA (>d) = 1500 
X {d/1 km}-2 
NOTE: The value of 1500 is given in the cited paper as a constant 
for the stated equation. 
N impact = NA x Mean Probability 
Rows 
A B C D E F G H 
Formulas 
(Given) (Given) A145^-2 B145*C145 Log(D145) (Given) A145*1000 (D145*F145) 
Diameter 
(d) (km) -1500 d-2 
Cumulative Number 
of Asteroids (NA) log NA 
Mean Probability of 
Asteroid Crossing Per 
Year Whole Earth 
Dmeteoroid 
(meters) 
Number of Impact 
Events (NImpact) Per 
Year Whole Earth 
0.5 1500 4.00 6000 3.8E+00 5.0E-09 500 3.0E-05 
1 1500 1.00 1500 3.2E+00 5.0E-09 1000 7.5E-06 
2 1500 0.25 375 2.6E+00 5.0E-09 2000 1.9E-06 
5 1500 0.04 60 1.8E+00 5.0E-09 5000 3.0E-07 
7 1500 0.02 31 1.5E+00 5.0E-09 7000 1.5E-07 
10 1500 0.01 15 1.2E+00 5.0E-09 10000 7.5E-08 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-88 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Other Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Bland et al. 1998 ([DIRS 162563], Figure 5) (C33) 
* A factor of 512 is applied here in Column H to scale up to whole earth impact. The 
information in Column B is based on a 106 km2 area, so the number of events has 
to be scaled upward to the whole earth surface. The earth's surface is 
approximately 5.12 x 108 km2, so dividing by a factor of 106 (the area for the cited 
number of events in this study) leaves a scaling factor of 512. 
Rows 
A B C D E F G *H 
Formulas 
(Given) (Given) A161/1000 (Assumed) C161/D161 E161*0.75/PI() F161^(1/3)*2 Log(B161*512) 
after Halliday 
Mass (g) N (for 106 km2) Mass (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (m3) D (meters) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth 
10 83 0.01 3000 3.3E-06 8.0E-07 1.9E-02 4.2E+04 
50 15 0.05 3000 1.7E-05 4.0E-06 3.2E-02 7.7E+03 
100 28 0.1 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 1.4E+04 
500 11 0.5 3000 1.7E-04 4.0E-05 6.8E-02 5.6E+03 
1000 9 1 3000 3.3E-04 8.0E-05 8.6E-02 4.6E+03 
2000 5 2 3000 6.7E-04 1.6E-04 1.1E-01 2.6E+03 
3000 3.5 3 3000 1.0E-03 2.4E-04 1.2E-01 1.8E+03 
5000 2.1 5 3000 1.7E-03 4.0E-04 1.5E-01 1.1E+03 
10000 1.2 10 3000 3.3E-03 8.0E-04 1.9E-01 6.1E+02 
for Nullabor 
Mass (g) N (for 106 km2) Mass/kg Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (m3) D (meters) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth 
10 35 0.01 3000 3.3E-06 8.0E-07 1.9E-02 1.8E+04 
50 15 0.05 3000 1.7E-05 4.0E-06 3.2E-02 7.7E+03 
100 9.2 0.1 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 4.7E+03 
500 3.7 0.5 3000 1.7E-04 4.0E-05 6.8E-02 1.9E+03 
1000 2.5 1 3000 3.3E-04 8.0E-05 8.6E-02 1.3E+03 
after Zolensky (Roosevelt County) 
Mass (g) N (for 106 km2) Mass/kg Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (m3) D (meters) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth 
10 930 0.01 3000 3.3E-06 8.0E-07 1.9E-02 4.8E+05 
50 400 0.05 3000 1.7E-05 4.0E-06 3.2E-02 2.0E+05 
100 270 0.1 3000 3.3E-05 8.0E-06 4.0E-02 1.4E+05 
500 110 0.5 3000 1.7E-04 4.0E-05 6.8E-02 5.6E+04 
1000 80 1 3000 3.3E-04 8.0E-05 8.6E-02 4.1E+04 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-89 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Other Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Chapman and Morrison (1994 [DIRS 135245], Figure 1) (C36) 
Rows 
A B C D 
Formulas 
(Given) 1/A197 (Given) LOG(B197) 
Time 
Interval 
(years) 
Number of Events 
(N) Per Year 
Whole Earth D (meters) Log N 
0.08 1.2E+01 3 1.1 
5 2.0E-01 10 -0.7 
100 1.0E-02 30 -2.0 
1000 1.0E-03 100 -3.0 
5.0E+04 2.0E-05 300 -4.7 
7.0E+04 1.4E-05 600 -4.8 
1.0E+05 1.0E-05 1000 -5.0 
5.0E+05 2.0E-06 1500 -5.7 
1.0E+06 1.0E-06 3000 -6.0 
6.0E+06 1.7E-07 5000 -6.8 
1.0E+08 1.0E-08 10000 -8.0 
Chyba 1993 (p. 701) (DIRS 135248), C37 
Rows: 
A B C D E F G H 
Formulas: 
(Given) (Given) 1/B219 (Assumed) A219/D219 E219*0.75/PI() F219^(1/3)*2 Log(C219) 
Mass (kg) Interval (yrs) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (m3) D (meters) Log N 
3.2E+07 21 0.05 3000 1.1E+04 2.5E+03 2.7E+01 -1.3 
1.0E+06 1 1 3000 3.3E+02 8.0E+01 8.6E+00 0.0 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-90 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-10. Spreadsheet Showing Numerical Manipulations of Information from Journal Papers (Continued) 
Other Corroborative Information (Continued) 
Hughes 1998 (DIRS 162562), C40 
after Kresak 1978 and after Shoemaker 1979 
Rows: 
A B C D E F G H 
Formulas: 
 (Given) (Given) (Given) (Assumed) C233/D233 F233*0.75/PI() 
(B233*1000) (for 
Kresak) F234^(1/3)*2 
(for Shoemaker) 
Source) Diameter (km) 
Number of Events (N) 
Per Year Whole Earth Mass (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 (m3) D (meters) 
Kresak 1978 1 6.67E-07     1000 
Shoemaker 
1979  3.50E-06 3.80E+11 3000 1.3E+08 3.0E+07 623 
after Opik 1976 (sum of frequencies in Table 2) 
Rows: 
A B C D 
Formulas: 
(Given) (Given) B245*1000 LOG (A245) 
Number of Events 
(N) Per Year 
Whole Earth Diameter (km) D (meters) log N 
4.6E-05 0.13 130 -4.3E+00 
1.7E-06 0.52 520 -5.8E+00 
7.4E-08 2.1 2100 -7.1E+00 
3.8E-09 8.5 8500 -8.4E+00 
2.3E-10 34 34000 -9.6E+00 
5.6E-11 68 68000 -1.0E+01 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-91 October 2004 
B5.5.3.2 Composition and Material Properties of Meteoroids Entering the Earths 
Atmosphere 
The following section addresses the flux in terms of percent by compositions and examines the 
range in possible density values. In this discussion, meteors are identified as stony, 
carbonaceous, cometary, asteroidal, chondrite, non-chondrite, carbonaceous chondrites, and 
ordinary chondrites. For this analysis comets classified as asteroidal include both stony and 
carbonaceous. Chondrite refers to a meteoric stone characterized by the presence of chondrules 
that are rounded granules of cosmic origin often found embedded in meteoric stones and 
sometimes free in marine sediments. Carbonaceous chondrites and ordinary chondrites are also 
considered asteroidal. 
The direct input justified includes: 
Flux data, by meteor type and related densities: 
The percent-by-type data is taken primarily from Item Q17 for diameters less than about 10 m, 
but an assumed value, based on the corroborative information, is used for the larger sizes. 
Corroborative information is taken from a table of independent information in Item Q17, and 
Items C40 and C43. The density values for two of the categories (cometary and stony) are taken 
from Item Q17, and the density for irons is taken from Item Q22. Corroborative information 
comes from separate citations with Item Q17, and other sources including Items C32, C35, C36, 
C37, C39, C40, and C45. 
Values for percent of meteor that are of iron composition: 
A value of five percent iron is taken from Item Q23, and corroborative information includes 
separate citations with Item Q23, and corroborative Items C34, C37, C39, and C43. 
Percent-by-Type 
The literature provides an intermixing of information on influx, on composition of observed 
fireballs, on percent composition of various meteorite finds, and on cratering rates by type of 
meteor. In only a few instances are distributions given based on meteoroid mass or size. The 
following summary tables attempt to sort and identify the percent-by-type based on information 
and descriptions provided in the cited sources. Because it constitutes only a few percentage of 
the total flux to earth, most authors do not address the percentage of iron and iron-stony material. 
For this analysis, however, it represents a significant potential for impact damage (due to lack of 
fragmentation in the atmosphere) and is addressed separately from the following discussion for 
cometary, carbonaceous, and stony materials. For direct input, the distribution proposed by 
Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (Q17) is used, along with an assumed equal 
distribution of asteroidal and cometary material for the large size ranges. These data are 
presented in Table 4 of the cited document and are provided in Table B-11. This information 
differs slightly from that taken Figure 2 of the same citation due to differences in mass and sizes 
used to choose points for the distribution. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-92 October 2004 
Table B-11. Distribution of Meteoroid Types 
Diameter of Incident Body (meters) 
Type of Incident Body 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 
Type I (Stony) - % 15 17 15 10 6 3 1 
Type II (Carbonaceous) - 
% 31 41 46 48 47 42 30 
Type III (Cometary) - % 54 42 39 42 47 55 69 
Source: Ceplecha 1994 (DIRS 135243), Table 4 (Q17). 
A value of five percent iron meteorites (based on Shoemaker 1983 [DIRS 135308], p. 480) 
(Q23) is used for the entire range of sizes. 
Corroboration of Percent of Comets, Carbonaceous, and Stony Materials 
With regard to the influx into the atmosphere, three corroborative sources of information present 
pertinent information. Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], Table 2) after Opik (1976) provides the 
cumulative frequency per year for asteroids and comets based on diameter of the incident body. 
Hughes does not clarify whether this is tied to cratering rates or represents influx to the 
atmosphere, but based on the nature of Opiks work, it is presumed here to represent influx. The 
information from Table 2 of Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) is provided in the first three 
rows of Table B-12. From that information, determining the percentage of cometary matter is a 
straightforward calculation for the given size ranges. 
Table B-12. Cumulative Annual Frequency of Asteroid and Comet Impacts on Earth 
Diameter of Incident Body (m) 
130 520 2,100 8,500 34,000 68,000 
Asteroid (impacts per 
year) 2.8 E-05 7.1 E-07 2.1 E-08 9.2 E-10 6.9 E-11 2.2 E-11 
Comet (impacts per 
year) 1.8 E-05 9.8 E-07 5.3 E-08 2.9 E-09 1.6 E-10 3.7 E-11 
Asteroid to Comet Ratio 1.58 0.72 0.39 0.32 0.43 0.57 
Total Impacts (per year) 4.6E-05 1.7E-06 7.4E-08 3.8E-09 2.3E-10 5.6E-11 
Percent Cometary 39.1% 57.6% 71.6% 76.3% 69.6% 66.1% 
Source: Hughes 1998 (DIRS 162562), Table 2 (C40). 
The table clearly reflects that bodies of increasing diameter (regardless of type) enter the 
atmosphere with decreasing frequency. For FEP screening, the threshold of occurrence is set at 
an annual equivalence of 10-8, so incident bodies of 8,500 m or greater diameter are not of 
interest (on a whole-earth basis), and the percent of cometary influx of interest is in the range of 
39 to 76 percent. 
Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) also cites works of others with regard to percent of 
cratering based on meteor type. In most cases, the division between stony and carbonaceous 
asteroids is not given, so it is assumed that they are equally distributed between the two groups. 
In addition, for cometary material, the division between short-period and long-period comets is 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-93 October 2004 
ignored, and the total percentage is given in Table B-13. All of the reported values from Hughes 
(1998 [DIRS 162562]) (C40) are reflected in statistical summary provided in Table B-13. 
For smaller bodies, Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Table 4) (Q17) provides a detailed 
breakdown by diameter for the size range of 0.1 to 10 m based on fireball observations and 
photographed meteors. The breakdown provided by Ceplecha is on fireball-types as described in 
Appendix D of this document, and Ceplecha assumes that Type I represents stony materials, 
Type II represents carbonaceous materials, and Type III represents cometary materials. Type I 
materials are likely asteroidal in origin, Type II are probably transitional, and Type III are 
generally assumed to be cometary (Richardson and Bedient 2001 [DIRS 162571], FAQ #15) 
(C43). The last column of Ceplechas Table 4 provides and division by type, which is from an 
independent data set, compared to what is shown in Table B-11. 
In FAQ #16, Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571]) (C43) do not provide citations for 
the given information on compositions, and do not provide distributions by size. However, they 
do indicate that most of the current information on meteoroids comes from photographic fireball 
studies with magnitude > 4 (whereas, the magnitudes reported by Ceplecha (1994 
[DIRS 135243], Table 2) (Q17) are general magnitude = 18. 
For the meteoroid population as a whole, the fainter the meteoroid population, the more likely it 
is cometary in origin. Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571]) (C43) provide the 
following: 
Cometary meteoroids: 95% 
Chondritic meteoroids: 5% 
Non-chondritic meteoroids: <1% 
However based on the population of observed meteors with magnitude > 4, Richardson and 
Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571]) (C43) provide the following: 
Type III  Cometary Meteoroids: 38% 
Type IIIa  low density comets: 9% 
Type IIIb  high density comets: 29% 
Type II  Carbonaceous Chondrites: 33% 
Type I  Ordinary Chondrites: 29% 
Non-chondritic meteoroids: <1% 
The lack of quantification of the respective percentages and the lack of explanation of the basis 
for the anecdotal statements precludes their considerations in the statistical basis or listing as 
corroborative data. 
A calculation of the mean and standard deviation of the percent-by-type distribution is shown in 
Table B-13. The information listed in Table B-13, which falls beyond one deviation from the 
mean value, except as noted, has been italicized. However, these point values represent the 
possible range in reported values despite their apparent unreasonableness. For analysis purposes, 
utilizing a preferred value or any combination of percent compositions that honors the means 
and standard deviations is considered appropriate. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-94 October 2004 
The following information will be used for direct input. Down to an initial meteor mass of 
approximately 108 kg (radius of 14 m for iron, 19 m for stony, and 28 m for carbonaceous 
meteors), the total flux is presumed to be comprised of 5 percent iron material regardless of 
initial meteor radius, and the remainder is divided equally between stony and carbonaceous 
material regardless of initial meteor radius. For initial meteor masses below 107 and down to 
10-1 kg (minimum radius of 0.014 m for iron, 0.019 m for stony, and 0.028 m for carbonaceous 
meteors), the total flux is presumed to be comprised of 5 percent iron materials regardless of 
initial meteor radius, and 2 to 18 percent stony material depending on initial meteor radius; and 
the remainder (93 to 77 percent) is attributed as carbonaceous/cometary material. These values 
fall within the mean value plus one standard deviation determined from the available literature, 
and are primarily based on Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2 and Table 4) (Q17) for the 
masses from 108 to 10-1 kg. The corroboration for an assumed 5 percent iron is presented below. 
Corroboration of Percent of Iron Meteoroids 
Because the iron and stony-iron meteorites are the least likely to be affected by atmospheric 
effects, and because of their increased density, the potential effects of iron meteors are 
considered separately by most authors from the of effects of asteroidal and cometary bodies. A 
listing of percentage of iron meteors in the meteoroid flux is provided below. Because of the 
durability of iron meteorites, both during meteor fall and through time in desert environments, 
meteorite falls are included in the following table as they likely represent an upper bound on the 
percent of iron meteors. The falls information differs from find information in that biases in 
collection are considered. Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571]) (C43) give the find 
percentage as 54 percentclearly representing a collection and identification bias for iron and 
iron-stony meteorites. Information including finds, therefore, has been omitted. 
The direct input in Table B-14 is used to calculate the mean value and standard deviation for iron 
meteoroids. Italicized values in Table B-14 indicate that the reported values fall outside of the 
calculated standard deviation. However, these point values should be retained for corroboration 
purposes because they represent the possible range in reported values, despite their apparent 
unreasonableness. For analysis purposes, utilizing a preferred value or any combination of 
percent compositions that honors the mean and standard deviations is considered appropriate. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-95 October 2004 
Table B-13. Summary Table for Percent by Type of Meteoroid 
Stony Carbonaceous Cometary Source 
DIRECT INPUT 
16 31 53 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 x 10-1 kg) 
16 34 50 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 kg) 
18 42 40 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 x 101 kg) 
14 47 39 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 x 10 2 kg) 
10 48 42 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 x 103 kg) 
8 46 46 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 x 104 kg) 
6 42 52 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 x 105 kg) 
4 30 66 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 x 106 kg) 
2 30 68 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Figure 2) (mass = 1 x 107 kg) 
47 26.5 26.5 Assumed for all masses > 1 x 107 kg 
CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
Data Segmented as Stony, Carbonaceous, and Cometary 
Stony Carbonaceous Cometary 
14.0 29.0 57.0 Average for following values 
13.1 27.2 32.9 Standard Deviation for following values 
8 54 38 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Table 4 last column, for 1 to 10 m) 
5 0 95 
Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571], for population as a 
whole) 
29 33 38 
Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571], observed meteors 
with magnitude > 4) 
CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
Data Segmented as Asteroidal and Cometary 
Asteroidal Cometary 
50.7 49.3 Average for following values 
22.0 22.0 Standard Deviation for following values 
60.9 39.1 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Opik 1976) 
42.4 57.6 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Opik 1976) 
28.4 71.6 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Opik 1976) 
23.7 76.3 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Opik 1976) 
30.4 69.6 Hughes (1998 (DIRS 162562], after Opik 1976) 
33.9 66.1 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Opik 1976) 
67 33 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Schultz 1988) 
70 30 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Wetherhill 1989) 
60 40 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Shoemaker et al. 1994) 
90 10 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], after Bailey 1991) 
47.2 51.1 Average for lumped corroborative values* 
23.6 23.6 Standard Deviation for lumped corroborative values* 
* Italicized values indicate that the reported value falls outside of the calculated standard deviation. 
NOTE: Asteroidal percentages should be roughly equivalent to stony plus carbonaceous percentages. Not all literature 
distinguishes by particular composition, so the values are shown as grouped in the source literature, and 
statistics are grouped accordingly. The final listed average and standard deviation assume that stony + 
carbonaceous percentage = asteroidal percentage, and lumps all as either asteroidal or cometary percentages. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-96 October 2004 
Table B-14. Summary Table for Percent of Iron Meteoroids 
Percent 
Iron 
Percent 
Stony Iron 
Total 
Percent Source 
DIRECT INPUT 
5.0 - - 5.0 Shoemaker (1983 [DIRS 135308], p. 480 assumed value of observed objects) 
CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
Average Values and Standard Deviation 
4.2 1.2 4.9 Average Value for All Corroborative Information 
3.5 0.9 4.0 Average Value (excluding outliers from Bevan and from Chyba) 
4.3 0.9 5.0 Standard Deviation for all Corroborative Information 
Individual Indirect Inputs 
4.8 1.1 5.9 Bevan et al. (1998 [DIRS 162565], Table 4 Modern Falls) 
15.1 2.7 17.8 Bevan et al. (1998 [DIRS 162565], Table 4 Australia) 
1.3 0.5 1.8 Bevan et al. (1998 [DIRS 162565], Table 4 Antarctica) 
1.5 0.4 1.9 Bevan et al. (1998 [DIRS 162565], Table 4 Nullarbor) 
1.9 0.7 2.5 Bevan et al. (1998 [DIRS 162565], Table 4 Sahara) 
3.5 - - 3.5 Hills and Goda (1998 [DIRS 135291], p. 225 and Figure 7) 
8 - - 8 Chyba (1993 [DIRS 135248], p. 703  meteorite falls) 
6 - - 6 Chyba (1993 [DIRS 135248], p. 703  main belt asteroids) 
0 - - 0 Chyba (1993 [DIRS 135248], p. 703  lunar source for Spacewatch objects) 
6 2 8 
Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571], FAQ #15  observed falls/fresh 
finds) 
1.5 - - 1.5 Shoemaker (1983 [DIRS 135308], p. 480 assumed lower value) 
3.0 - - 3.0 Shoemaker (1983 [DIRS 135308], p. 480 assumed lower value) 
NOTE: Italicized values indicate that the reported value falls outside of the calculated standard deviation for all 
corroborative information. 
Meteoroid Densities 
For the meteorite impact calculations, the densities used as direct input include 8 g/cm3 for 
metallic materials, which is consistent with Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 1) 
(Q22). This agrees with the average density for iron meteorites, and is within one standard 
deviation of the average value for iron plus stony irons, as shown in Table B-15. The density 
used as direct input for hard stone materials is 3.7 g/cm3 as taken from Ceplecha (1994 
[DIRS 135243], Table 1) (Q17) and is within one standard deviation of the average density for 
stony irons plus stony material plus carbonaceous material, as shown in Table B-15. The density 
for soft stone materials (carbonaceous and cometary materials) is 1.1 g/cm3 and is taken from 
Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242], Table 3, average bulk density) (Q16). This agrees with the 
group average for carbonaceous plus cometary material shown in Table B-15. The use of these 
values is consistent with the use of the meteorite influx and percent-by-type information from 
Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) and 1994 (DIRS 135243) (Q17), respectively. 
Corroborative information comes from Chapman and Morrison (1994 [DIRS 135245], p. 34) 
(C36), who give the possible range in densities as the total range in bulk density is about a 
factor of 10 (~8 g cm-3 for iron, down to < 1 g cm-3 for cometary ices). Other corroborative 
peer-reviewed papers provide or assume differing values. Corroborating data from these sources 
are summarized in Table B-15, and the mean values and standard deviations are calculated. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-97 October 2004 
Italicized values in Table B-15 indicate that the reported value falls outside of the calculated 
standard deviation for both the individual type of meteor and for the groupings by meteor type. 
However, these point values should be retained as corroborative information because they 
represent the possible range in reported values, despite their apparent unreasonableness. For 
analysis purposes, utilizing a preferred value or any combination of percent compositions that 
honors the mean and standard deviations is considered appropriate. Table B-15 shows that the 
values selected for direct input satisfies that requirement. The use of these values is consistent 
with the use of the meteorite influx and percent-by-type information from Ceplecha (1992 
[DIRS 135242]) and Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243]), respectively. 
B5.5.3.3 Crater Diameter Distributions and Rates 
This section justifies data being used to determine cratering distributions based on observed 
cratering information. The direct inputs include the following: 
 Crater rate distribution based on observed earth cratering: This information is taken 
from Items Q19 and Q20, which are mutually corroborative with Item Q24. 
 Cratering rate data for the Canadian shield and application to a hypothetical Canadian 
repository: This information is taken from Item Q24, which is mutually corroborative 
with Items Q19 and Q20. 
These distributions are corroborated by distributions given in Items C42, C32, C35, and C40. 
Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) (Q19) and Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) are used 
as direct input for the analysis. This is because the work by Grieve is widely cited for these 
types of studies, and the work by Wuschke et al. has previously been applied to a potential 
nuclear waste repository site. 
One of the corroborative sources, Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510], Table IV) (C42), is 
unique in that it estimates cratering rates for an atmosphereless earth based on lunar cratering 
data. They also present information on crater diameters, equivalent energy releases, and the time 
between events. Because it is for an atmosphereless earth, the distribution is very useful for 
corroboration and use as an upper bound, so it has been treated in more detail and is corroborated 
to Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) to further establish its corroborative use as an upper 
bound. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-98 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-15. Summary Table for Density of Meteors 
Cited Values for Density (g/cm3) Cited Sources 
Irons + Stony Irons Stony-Irons + Stony + Carbonaceous 
Carbonaceous + 
Cometary 
DIRECT INPUT 
8 Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 1  
assumed values) 
3.7 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Table 1) 
1.1 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Table 3) 
CORROBORATIVE INFORMATION 
7.0 3.4 1.1 Grouped Average Value 
1.4 1.4 0.8 Standard Deviation of Group 
8  5 7  2 2.6  0.2 Range of Values 
Irons 
(Siderites) 
Stony-Irons 
(Siderolites) 
Stony (Aerolites, Ordinary 
Chondrites, Achondrites, 
Enstaties, Type I Fireballs) 
Carbonaceous 
(Carbonaceous 
Chondrites, Type II 
Fireballs) 
Cometary 
(Type III 
Fireballs) 
8.0 6.0 3.5 2.2 0.7 Average Value By Specific Type 
0.1 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 Standard Deviation 
- - - - - - 2.0 0.6 
C32, Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998 
[DIRS 162564], p. 14, for long period comet or 
Halley-type object and for near-Earth asteroid) 
- - - - 3.4 2.6 - - Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569], p. 294, 
reported as 3,400 and 2,600 kg/m3) 
- - - - - - 2.0 0.75 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Table 1, 0.75 for 
Types IIIA, IIIAi, IIIA (C3)) 
- - - - - - 0.27 Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], Table 1, 0.27 for 
Type IIIB) 
8 - - - - - - 1 Chapman and Morrison (1994 [DIRS 135245], 
p. 34) 
3.5 2.2 1 Chyba (1993 [DIRS 135248], p. 703-704) 
- - - - 3 - - 0.5 Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 1  
assumed values) 
- - - 3.65 - - 1.3 
Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], p.34 and 40: 
Asteroids presumed to be of stony material and 
cited as 3650 kg m-3) 
- - - - - - - - 0.2 Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], p. 40) 
7.9 3.7 2 Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571], 
FAQ #16, densities reported in units of g/cc) 
- - 7 4 - - 0.8 
Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571], 
FAQ #16, densities reported in units of g/cc  
upper value for given ranges) 
- - 5 3 - - 0.3 
Richardson and Bedient (2001 [DIRS 162571], 
FAQ #16, densities reported in units of g/cc  
lower values for given ranges) 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-99 October 2004 
Grieve (1987) 
An applicable cumulative cratering rate can be derived from Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) 
(Q19), which is commonly used for this type of analysis. Based on observed earth crater 
diameters, Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) (Q19) indicates that the number of impact craters larger 
than a crater diameter D, produced per year per square km is inversely proportional to the 
apparent crater diameter to the 1.8 power (Grieve 1987 [DIRS 135254], p. 248, p. 257, and 
Figure 8) (Q19) and is given as: 
F(D) . D-1.8 (Eq. B-9) 
where F(D) is equal to the number of craters larger than a given diameter, produced per year per 
km2, as a function of diameter, D. 
Converting the proportionality into equation form gives: 
F(D) = K D-1.8 + B (Eq. B-10) 
Values for K and B can be derived form available observed cratering diameters. The constant 
B is zero since F(D) must approach zero as the crater diameter (D) becomes infinite. 
Grieve et al. (1995 [DIRS 135260], p. 196) fixes F(D) for D = 20 km at (5.5 + 2.7)10-15/km2/yr. 
So from Eq. B-10: 
F(20) = K(20)-1.8 = (5.5 + 2.7)10-15/km2/yr, (Eq. B-10a) 
which allows a value of (1.2 + 0.6) 10-12 to be assigned to K, and setting the equation for events 
per year per km2 in the form of 
F(D) = 1.2 x 10-12 x D-1.8 (Eq. B-10b) 
The given proportionality (D-1.8) applies for earth crater diameters greater than 10 km, per 
analysis by Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510], p. 404) (C42). The deviation from the 
proportionality below diameters of 10 km is shown for the distribution as plotted in Figure 8 of 
Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254], p. 257) (Q19) and varies noticeably from the higher frequency of 
smaller diameter craters observed on lunar and other planetary surfaces (Neukum and 
Ivanov 1994 [DIRS 121510], Figure 24) (C42). The slope change represents a decreased number 
of small crater observations and is explained by Grieve as atmospheric effects on small meteors, 
increased obscuration of smaller diameter craters by weathering and burial, and the implicit 
difficulty in identifying small diameter craters. 
For the purposes of the plot in Figure B-2, and calculations shown in Table B-15, the distribution 
was extended to the 10-m diameter, and for purposes of the analysis of probability, as discussed 
in later sections of this appendix, has been extended to 1-m diameter. This introduces an 
increased uncertainty (unquantified) in the cratering rate for small diameter (i.e., less than 
10 km) craters. However, it does compensate for the obscuration of small diameter craters, and 
is presumed to be conservative. The basis for the presumed conservatism is that the large 
diameter craters, from which the proportionality is extrapolated, result from fragmentation of 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-100 October 2004 
larger meteors, with the larger fragments less subject to atmospheric effects and dissipation than 
small meteors due to the initially greater mass, resulting in more and larger fragments impacting 
the earth surface. 
1.0E-15 
1.0E-14 
1.0E-13 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 
Crater Diameter D (km) 
Number of Craters per km2 per year 
of Diameter D or Larger 
Grieve 1998 and 1995 (corroborated 
for D > 10 km) [DIRS 135254, 
DIRS 135260] 
Grieve 1988 and 1995 (extrapolated 
for D < 10 km) [DIRS 135254, 
DIRS 135260] 
Wuschke et al. 1995 (corroborated for 
D > 0.5 km) [DIRS 129326] 
Wuschke et al. 1995 (extrapolated for 
D < 0.5km) [DIRS 129326] 
Neukum and Ivanov 1994 (for 
atmosphereless earth) [DIRS 121510] 
Figure B-2. Cratering Rate Distribution 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-101 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-16a. Cratering Rate Distribution for Direct Input 
Grieve 1987 (DIRS 135254), Q19 and 
Grieve et al. 1995 (DIRS 135260), Q20 Wuschke et al. 1995 (DIRS 129326), Equation 3, C32 
Crater Diameter (km) Annual Frequency/km2 Crater Diameter (km) Annual Frequency/km2 
0.01 4.8E-09 0.01 2.0E-08 
0.1 7.6E-11 0.1 2.0E-10 
1 1.2E-12 1 2.0E-12 
5 6.6E-14 5 8.0E-14 
10 1.9E-14 10 2.0E-14 
20 5.5E-15 20 5.0E-15 
Table B-16b. Cratering Rate Distributions Used for Corroborative-Use-Only 
Hughes 1998 (DIRS 162562), C40 Neukum and Ivanov 1994 (DIRS 121510), Table IV, C42 
Crater Diameter (km) Annual Frequency/km2 Crater Diameter (km) Annual Frequency/km2 
0.01 2.2E-08 0.01 7.1E-07 
0.1 2.2E-10 0.1 8.1E-09 
1 2.1E-12 1 1.2E-12 
5 8.4E-14 5 1.8E-14 
10 2.1E-14 10 7.6E-15 
20 5.2E-15 20 3.7E-15 
Bailey and EmelYanenko 1998 (DIRS 162564), C32 
(Assuming all cometary) (Assuming all asteroid) (Observed cratering) 
Diameter (km) Annual Frequency/km2 Diameter (km) Annual Frequency/km2 Diameter (km) Annual Frequency/km2 
0.1 1.4E-10 0.1 4.8E-10 0.1 2.4E-10 
1 2.1E-12 1 3.1E-12 1 2.4E-12 
5 1.1E-13 5 9.4E-14 5 9.4E-14 
10 3.0E-14 10 2.1E-14 10 2.4E-14 
20 8.4E-15 20 4.6E-15 20 5.9E-15 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-102 October 2004 
Wuschke et al. (1995) 
For Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 44) (Q24), the distribution is derived from subsets 
of the observed Earth cratering distribution used by Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]) (Q19). The 
equation is given as: 
. = 2.010-12D-2A a-1 (Eq. B-11) 
where . is the frequency of cratering events of diameter D (km) or larger represented on an 
annual basis (a) that occur in target area A (km2). Putting . = F(D) and setting A = 1 km2 sets 
this equation in a form similar to that for Grieve. 
F(D) = 2.010-12(D)-2 (Eq. B-11a) 
This denotes a slightly steeper slope compared to Grieve (2.010-12 compared to Grieves 
1.2 + 0.6 10-12). Wuschkes approach slightly decreases the annual frequency for a 20-km 
diameter crater (5.0 x 10-15 per km2 compared to the values from Grieve of 5.5 x10-15 km2). This 
difference is reflected in the plot in Figure B-2. 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994) 
This distribution was previously discussed in this appendix, and the meteor diameter distribution 
was shown to be adequate and appropriate for use as corroborative information for meteoroid 
flux. Neukum and Ivanovs distribution (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) is based on the lunar 
cratering rate, with the lunar crater diameter distribution adjusted for earth conditions by 
assuming an atmosphereless earth (i.e., not adjusted for ablation or atmospheric effects, but 
effects of gravity on crater diameters are considered). The corroborative information from 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) is given in Table B-17. 
Table B-17. Cratering Rate Distribution for Atmosphereless Earth 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510], Table IV, C42) 
Crater Diameter (km) Energy Release (MT) Time Interval (year) for Whole Earth 
0.01 2.65E-07 2.75E-03 
0.1 5.26E-04 2.42E-01 
1.0 2.58E+00 1.60E+03 
5 4.21E+02 1.10E+05 
10 4.43E+03 2.58E+05 
20 4.66E+04 5.25E+05 
To show adequacy and appropriateness, the corroborative work of Brown et al. (2002 
[DIRS 162569]) is used for comparison. The work by Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) 
is based on direct observation of bolide events (a bolide is a meteor that show signs of explosion 
or fragmentation), and the study uses observed energy releases in Earths atmosphere to 
determine flux. The work is described in more detail in this appendix and was previously 
evaluated based on meteor diameter equivalents. By showing corroboration between the energy 
releases directly observed by Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) and the theoretical 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-103 October 2004 
equivalents determined by Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42), the equivalent 
cratering rate provided in the Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) can be 
evaluated. In effect, this has already been achieved in that Neukum and Ivanov (1994 
[DIRS 121510]) (C42) relate the meteor diameter to crater diameters, and Brown et al. 
(2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35) and Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) were both 
shown to be adequate and appropriate for use as direct input for meteoroid flux. Regardless, the 
comparison of Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569], Figure 4) (C35) to Neukum and Ivanov (1994 
[DIRS 121510], Table IV) (C42) is shown on Figure B-3, with the Neukum and Ivanov (1994 
[DIRS 121510]) (C42) information converted from megaton (mt) to kiloton (kt) by multiplying 
by a factor of 103. The cratering rate distribution based on Neukum and Ivanov (1994 
[DIRS 121510], Table IV) (C42) represents and upper bound to the cratering rate distribution for 
smaller diameter craters, and is shown on Figure B-2 for comparison to other cratering rate 
distributions that are used as technical and corroborative information for the analysis. 
1 E-07 
1 E-05 
1 E-03 
1 E-01 
1 E+01 
1 E+03 
1 E+05
1 E-05 1 E-03 1 E-01 1 E+01 1 E+03 1 E+05 1 E+07 
Energy Release (kt TNT equivalent) 
Number of Events per Year (Whole Earth) 
Brown et al. 2002 [162569] Neukum and Ivanov 1994 (Table IV) [121510] 
Figure B-3. Frequency of Meteor Energy Release in Earths Atmosphere 
Given the previous comparison in this appendix and that on Figure B-3, the plot of Neukum and 
Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510], Table IV) (C42) falls within about one-half order of magnitude of 
the plot for Brown et al. (2002 [DIRS 162569]) (C35), the corroborative information in Table B-17 
is appropriate for its intended use. The use of this information, however, must recognize that it is 
for an atmosphereless earth and any calculations or use must be adjusted accordingly. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-104 October 2004 
Additional Corroborative Information 
The additional distribution equations represented on Figure B-2 and in Table B-16 includes 
distributions provided by equations in C32, Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998 [DIRS 162564], 
Equations 4 and 10, and p. 15) and by Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], Equation 2, p. 4) (C40). 
The equations from C32, Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998 [DIRS 162564]) for assumed 
cometary and asteroidal flux are based on kinetic energy of the meteor, material properties of the 
impacted surface, and associated scaling laws. Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998 [DIRS 162564]) 
is focused on large-scale diameter craters, and likely applies to crater diameters of 20 km or 
greater, although this is not specifically stated. 
The equation, assuming all impacts are cometary, is given (Bailey and EmelYanenko 1998 
[DIRS 162564], Eq. 10) (C32) in the form of: 
Nc (>D)  4.310-6 (D/20 km) -1.84 a-1 (Eq. B-12) 
where Nc is the number of cometary-cratering events of Diameter D or larger that occur per year 
and assumes that all influx is cometary in nature. Putting Nc (>D) = F(D), stating it on an annual 
basis, and dividing by the area of the earths surface (5.1 x 108 km2) sets this equation in a form 
similar to that for Grieve for annual frequency per km2: 
F(D) = 2.110-12 (D) -1.84 (Eq. B-12a) 
The equation assuming all impacts are asteroidal is given by Bailey and EmelYanenko (1998 
[DIRS 162564], Eq. 4) (C32) in the form of: 
Nc (>D)  2.3410-6 (D/20 km) 2.18 a-1 (Eq. B-13) 
where Nc is the number of asteroidal-cratering events of Diameter D or larger that occur per year 
and assumes that all influx is asteroidal in nature. Putting Nc (>D) = F(D), stating it on an annual 
basis, and dividing by the area of the earths surface (5.1 x 108 km2) sets this equation in a form 
similar to that for Grieve for annual frequency per km2: 
F(D) = 3.210-12 (D) 2.18 (Eq. B-13a) 
The observed cratering rate is given (Bailey and EmelYanenko 1998 [DIRS 162564], p. 15) as 
N = 310-6 D20
-2 a-1 (Eq. B-14) 
where N is the number of cratering events of Diameter D or larger that occur per year for the 
whole earth. Putting N = F(D), stating D20 as (D/20 km), restating it on an annual basis, and 
dividing by the area of the earths surface (5.1 x 108 km2) sets this equation in a form similar to 
that for Grieve for annual frequency per km2. 
F(D) = 2.4 10-12 (D) 2.18 (Eq. B-14a) 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-105 October 2004 
Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], Equation 2) (C40) is stated as strictly applying only to the range 
of diameters of 19 < D < 45 km, but allows that this could reasonably be stretched to 
1 < D < 500 km. It is derived from subsets of the cratering distribution used by Grieve (1987 
[DIRS 135254]) (Q19). The equation is given as: 
log.c = -11.67  (2.01) log D (Eq. B-15) 
where .c is the number of cratering events of diameter D (km) or larger that occur per year per 
km2. Putting .c = F(D) and simplifying the form to match that for the Grieve equation (Eq. 9a, 
this appendix) sets the equation to the form of: 
F(D) = 2.1 10-12 (D) 2.0 (Eq. B-15a) 
This information has been plotted to Figure B-2 and shown in Table B-16. Plots for these 
equations from the corroborative papers essentially are identical to that of Wuschke et al. (1995 
[DIRS 129326]) (Q24), as shown in Figure B-2. 
The adequate and appropriate direct input is listed in Table B-16. The plots of the 
corroborating distributions generally span about one order of magnitude or less. It is slightly 
greater for crater diameters of 0.1 km than for larger crater diameters. The plot of the Neukum 
and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) (C42) represents an absolute upper bound of event frequency 
(i.e., an atmosphereless earth which neglects effects of ablation and fragmentation). The 
Grieve distribution likely overestimates the number of small diameter craters due to 
extrapolation of a curve fitted to a 10-km crater diameter, for which atmospheric phenomena and 
obscuration of the crater are less significant than for smaller crater diameters. The number of 
observed small-diameter craters is substantially less than that projected by the plotted 
distributions. The crater diameter distribution extrapolated from the observations by Grieve, 
however, at least includes the effects of ablation and fragmentation as reflected for 
large-diameter craters. The slightly higher event frequency distribution derived from 
Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) may represent a more realistic distribution of actual 
size, and it has been applied for a hypothetical Canadian repository. Regardless, the range in the 
number of events per year for any given diameter generally falls within one order of magnitude 
and, therefore, the event frequency distributions derived from Grieve and from Wuschke et al. 
are adequate and appropriate for use as direct input. 
B5.5.3.4 Crater Dimensions as a Function of Meteor Type 
This section addresses data being used to develop a cratering rate distribution based on 
meteoroid flux. A direct input for that calculation is based on the results of non-YMP modeling 
done by others. The direct inputs include the following: 
Results of a model (by others) linking a variety of effects to initial meteor radius, 
including resulting crate diameters and related consequences. 
This information is taken from Item Q22, but is corroborated from a large number of sources 
including Items Q16, Q18, Q23, C32, C36, C37, and C40. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-106 October 2004 
The direct input that relates initial meteoroid diameter to crater diameter are extracted from Hills 
and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17). These figures represent the results of 
modeling documented in the peer-reviewed paper, and include a variety of atmospheric effects, 
including fragmentation of the meteors, changing velocity of dispersed fragments, radius of the 
debris cloud, energy dissipation in the atmosphere through velocity reduction and ablation and 
velocity. These relationships are shown on Figures B-4a, B-4b, and B-4c. 
Table B-18 presents the direct input taken from Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], 
Figures 16 and 17) for velocity curves of 15 km/s and 20 km/s for the various meteor types. It 
should be noted that relationships listed in Table B-18 for diameters in excess of 1,000 meters 
for iron, and in excess of about 300 m for hard stone and soft stone, were in fact extracted from 
Figure 16 of Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17). This is reflected on 
Figures B-4a, B-4b, and B-4c by the overlap of the curves. 
Also shown on the figures is corroborative-use-only information from other peer-reviewed or 
refereed papers that relate meteor radius to resulting crater radius. The relationships taken from 
Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) are being compared to 
corroborative-use-only information and statements by others regarding meteor-diameter to 
crater-diameter relationships, minimum sizes and conditions needed to penetrate the atmosphere, 
fragmentation heights, and other calculations regarding atmospheric effects. These comparisons 
are shown on the figures, where feasible, and are shown as wide bars for limits or boxes 
representing a range of stated effects. In some cases, the corroborative-use-only information is 
compared to other figures within Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) that address 
specific phenomena or processes other than crater diameter. The inference is that if individual 
components of the work by Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) can be shown to agree 
reasonably with works of others (e.g., decrease in velocity, range of explosive effects), then by 
inference, this further supports the defensibility of the relationship of initial meteor radius to 
crater radius given by Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22). Table B-19 provides a 
summary of the comparison to the corroborative-use-only information. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-107 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
1 E-01 
1 E+00 
1 E+01 
1 E+02 
1 E+03 
1 E+04 
1 E+05 
1 E+06
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 
Initial Meteor Radius (m) 
Resulting Crater Radius (m) 
15 km/sec - Largest 
Fragment 
20 km/sec- Largest 
Fragment 
15 km/sec - 
Integrated Radius 
20 km/sec - 
Integrated Radius 
Shoemaker 1983, p. 
470 [135308] 
Dence 1977, p. 270 
[135253] 
Dip in curves reflects 
atmospheric effects per 
Hills and Goda 1993, 
Figures 16 and 17 
[135281] 
NOTE: This figure represents a cross-plot of crater radius data provided in Table B-12 of this analysis report with corroborative information provided in 
Table B-13 of this appendix. The data from Table B-12 for iron meteors are shown as solid or dashed line symbols. Stand-alone symbols represent 
corroborative information from Table B-13. 
Figure B-4a. Resulting Crater Radius for Iron Meteors 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-108 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
1 E-01 
1 E+00 
1 E+01 
1 E+02 
1 E+03 
1 E+04 
1 E+05 
1 E+06
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 
Initial Meteor Radius (meters) 
Resulting Crater Radius (m) 
15 km/sec - Largest Fragment 
20 km/sec - Largest Fragment 
15 km/sec - Integrated Radius 
20 km/sec - Integrated Radius 
Ceplecha 1992, p. 364 - Zone of 
Partial Protection [135242] 
Chapman and Morrison 1994, p. 33- 
34 [135245], Minimum Energy 
Needed to Penetrate Low er 
Atmosphere 
Chyba 1993, p. 701 - Minimum 
Energy Needed to Threaten 
Surface [135248] 
Shoemaker 1983, p. 473 [135308] 
Shoemaker 1983, p. 479 [135308] 
Limit of Non-fragmenting Stony 
Meteors. 
Bailey and Emel'Yanenko 1998, p. 
14 [162564] 
Dip in curves reflects 
atmospheric effects per Hills 
and Goda 1993, Figures 16 
and 17 [135281] 
NOTE: This figure represents a cross-plot of crater radius data provided in Table B-12 of this analysis report with corroborative information provided in 
Table B-13 of this analysis report. The data from Table B-12 for hard stone meteors are shown as solid or dashed lined symbols. Stand-alone 
symbols, boxed areas, and shaded lines represent corroborative information from Table B-13. 
Figure B-4b. Resulting Crater Radius for Hard Stone Meteors 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-109 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
1 E-01 
1 E+00 
1 E+01 
1 E+02 
1 E+03 
1 E+04 
1 E+05 
1 E+06 
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 
Initial Meteor Radius (m) 
Resulting Crater Radius (m) 
15 km/sec - Largest Fragment 
20 km/sec - Largest Fragment 
15 km/sec - Integrated Radius 
20 km/sec - Integrated Radius 
Ceplecha 1992, p. 364 
[135242] Zone of Partial 
Protection 
Hughes 1998, p. 31 [162562] 
Shoemaker 1983, p. 475 
[135308] 
Shoemaker 1983, p.479 
[135308] Limit of Nonfragmenting 
Stony Meteors 
Bailey and Emel-Yanenko 
1998, p. 14 
Dip in curves reflects 
atmospheric effects per 
Hills and Goda 1993, 
Figures 16 and 17, 
[135281] 
NOTE: This figure represents a cross-plot of crater radius data provided in Table B-12 of this analysis report with corroborative information provided in 
Table B-13 of this analysis report. The data from Table B-12 for soft stone meteors are shown as solid or dashed lined symbols. Stand-alone 
symbols, boxed areas, and shaded lines represent corroborative information from Table B-13. Break in largest fragment curve due to differences 
in curves for Figures 16 and 17 in Hills and Goda 1993 for radii greater than 100 m. 
Figure B-4c. Resulting Crater Radius for Soft Stone Meteors 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-110 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-18. Initial Meteor Radius to Resulting Crater Radius for Use as Direct Input 
Iron Meteors Hard Stone Meteor Soft Stone Meteor 
R crater from Largest Fragment (m) R crater from Largest Fragment (m) R crater from Largest Fragment (m) 
R meteor (m) 15 km/s 20 km/s R meteor (m) 15 km/s 20 km/s R meteor (m) 15 km/s 20 km/s 
3100 170,000 200,000 4000 170,000 200,000 6000 210,000 300,000 
1400 70,000 90,000 1960 70,000 90,000 2800 100,000 130,000 
670 27,000 27,000 870 30,000 40,000 1300 43,000 70,000 
310 11,000 9,000 400 5,000 5,000 600 20,000 28,000 
140 4,500 3,000 190 800 700 280 1,000 1,000 
67 1,000 400 86 100 40 130 280 280 
31 200 60 50 10 0.1 60 3 0.2 
15 35 1 40 1 - - 40 0.1 - - 
14.5 32 0.7 30 0.1 - - 28 - - - - 
14 28 0.1 19 - - - - 13 - - - - 
6.7 3 - - 8.7 - - - - 6 - - - - 
5.5 2 - - 4 - - - - 2.8 - - - - 
3.1 5 - - 1.9 0.1 - - 1.3 - - - - 
2.8 100 - - 1.5 15 - - 0.60 - - - - 
1.4 40 0.1 0.90 10 0.1 0.30 0.1 - - 
1.2 40 40 0.87 7 3 0.28 0.2 - - 
0.67 14 10 0.40 0.8 0.3 0.13 0.1 - - 
0.31 4 3 0.19 0.2 0.1 - - - - - - 
0.14 0.6 0.2 0.09 0.1 - - - - - - - - 
0.07 0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 
R crater for Integrated Equivalent (m) R crater for Integrated Equivalent (m) 
R crater for Integrated Equivalent 
(m) 
R meteor (m) 15 km/s 20 km/s R meteor (m) 15 km/s 20 km/s R meteor (m) 15 km/s 20 km/s 
5,000 250,000 300,000 5,000 180,000 220,000 5,000 180,000 220,000 
1,000 45,000 55,000 1,000 35,000 45,000 1,000 35,000 45,000 
500 25,000 30,000 500 18,000 22,000 500 18,000 22,000 
100 5,000 6,500 200 7,000 9,000 200 6,000 8,000 
50 2,100 2,200 100 3,000 3,000 100 2,600 2,500 
15 500 10 80 2,000 1,700 80 1,600 800 
10 400 0.1 60 1,500 160 60 500 80 
6.0 180 - - 50 600 50 40 30 15 
5.0 10 - - 40 200 15 30 15 10 
4.0 10 - - 30 20 10 25 10 - -0.1 
3.0 110 - - 25 10 10 - - - - - - 
1.2 32 0.1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 
1.1 30 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - 
1.0 25 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - 
0.50 10 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - 
NOTE: - - Indicates that either there is no resulting crater due to fragmentation effects or the result radius is less than the scale used by Hills and Goda. For Figure 17 
the minimum radius plotted is 0.1 m and for Figure 16 is 0.01 km (10 m). Taken from Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 16 and 17) (Q22). 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-111 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 
Corroboration 
Statement 
Hughes (1998 
[DIRS 
162562], 
p. 31) (C40) 
Considering the typical 
impact velocities of asteroids 
and comets with Earth and 
the energy diameter 
equation mentioned above, 
the impacting objects have 
diameters that are between 
1/15 and 1/30 the diameter 
of the craters they produce, 
so 4-40 km craters are 
produced by 0.1-3 km 
meteors. 
Composition of 
asteroid/cometary probably 
is equivalent to soft stone. 
Meteor diameters of 0.1- 
3 km relate to meteor radius 
of 50 to 1500 m. Crater 
diameters of 4-40 km relate 
to radii of 2000 to 20,000 
meters. 
Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281], Figure 16) 
(Q22). The integrated crater 
radius for a 50-m meteor is 1 
to 2 km. The integrated crater 
radius for a 1500-m meteor is 
on the order of 50 km. 
Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281], 
Figure 17) (Q22). The 
radius of the largest 
fragment from a 50-m 
meteor yields a crater 
radius on the order of a 
few meters, and initial 
meter radius of greater 
than a few hundred 
meters is not provided. 
Hughes (1998 
[DIRS 162562]) (C40) is 
based on an 
energy-derived 
relationship that holds for 
large diameter meteors, 
but does not consider 
fragmentation effects. 
The integrated radius of 
Hills and Goda is similar 
to the box of the 
relationships suggested 
by Hughes. See 
Figure B-4c. 
Hughes (1998 
[DIRS 
162562], 
p. 37) (C40) 
When it comes to cratering 
potential, it is worth noting 
that an impacting shortperiod 
comet has a mean 
relative velocity of 38.5 
km/s, in comparison with a 
mean velocity of 20.8 km/s 
for an impacting asteroid. 
Crudely, the diameter of the 
resulting crater increases as 
the square root of the impact 
velocity. So a 1 km comet 
will produce a crater that is 
about 1.36 times bigger than 
that produced by a 1 km 
asteroid. 
The ratio of crater radius 
resulting from an asteroid 
(hard stone) with a radius of 
0.5 km (500 m) at a velocity 
of 20.8 km/s, to the crater 
radius from a cometary body 
with the same radius but a 
velocity of 38.5 km/s, is 
about 1.36. 
Hughes does not consider 
fragmentation effects. 
At a velocity of 20.8 km/s, a 
hard stone meteor with radius 
of 500 m yields a crater radius 
of about 20 km. A same-sized 
cometary meteor at a rate of 
40 km/s yields a maximum 
crater radius of about 12 km, 
although the curve is 
essentially vertical at that point 
suggesting complete 
fragmentation and 
disintegration of the meteor. 
The ratio of the crater radii is 
20/12 = 1.66, whereas the 
square root of the velocity ratio 
(40/20.8) is about 1.38. 
Meteor radii for stony 
materials are covered 
only up to 200 m, and 
no curve is shown for 
cometary material. 
The ratio suggested by 
Hughes holds in Hills and 
Goda for the integrated 
radius if fragmentation 
potential is ignored. This 
is not plotted on the 
figures. The results from 
Hills and Goda has a 
radius ration of about 1.66 
similar to the 1.38 ratio 
proposed by Hughes. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-112 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Shoemaker 
(1983 
[DIRS 
135308]) 
TIC: 246922 
p. 470 
p. 473 
p. 475 
p. 479 
If the rms impact velocity of 20 
km/s obtained from Earthcrossing 
asteroids is adopted 
for the projectile that formed 
Meteor Crater, a spherical 
asteroid of meteoritic iron about 
42 m in diameter has the kinetic 
energy required to form the 
initial 1.16-km-diameter crater. 
Applying Equation (2) to 
estimate the energy required to 
form a 10-km-diameter impact 
crater, we get 1.04 x 104 
megatons TNT; an asteroid with 
this kinetic energy and a density 
of 2.38 g/cm3 traveling at 20 
km/s has a diameter of 0.57 km. 
From Equation (2), using an 
estimated effective density of 
1.7 g/cm3, the diameter of an 
average C-type asteroid that will 
produce a 10-km crater is 
0.61 km. 
Because of the low strength, 
nearly all stony bodies less than 
150 m diameter are sheared 
apart by aerodynamic stress in 
the lower atmosphere. 
This equates to a 21-m initial 
meteor radius and a crater 
radius of about 600m for a 
velocity of 20 km/s. 
Equates to a 5,000-m crater 
radius and an initial meteor 
radius of 280 m for a density 
of 2.38 g/cm3. 
. 
Equates to a 5000-m crater 
radius and an initial meteor 
radius of 305 m for a density 
of 1.7 g/cm3. 
This corresponds to a limit 
on meteor radius of 75 m. 
Figure 16 indicates that an initial iron meteor of 21 m 
yields an integrated crater of about 500 m for a 
velocity of 20 km/s, and approximately 1000 m for 
15 km/s. 
This example plots between the resulting crater 
radius of the largest fragment and the integrated 
crater radius, on Figures 17 and 16 of Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22). 
This example also plots between the resulting crater 
radius of the largest fragment and the integrated 
crater radius, on Figures 17 and 16 of Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22). 
This threshold corresponds with the decrease in the 
integrated crater radius, which signifies significantly 
increased fragmentation. 
See Figure B-4a. The value 
from Shoemaker plots along 
the 15-km/s velocity curve 
for the integrated crater 
radius. 
See Figure B-4b. This point 
value plots between the 
largest fragment curve and 
the integrated crater radius 
curves. It is in agreement 
with Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) (Q22). 
See Figure B-4c. This point 
value plots between the 
largest fragment curve and 
below the integrated crater 
radius curves. It is in 
agreement with Hills and 
Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) 
(Q22). 
This limit is shown on 
Figures B-4b and B-4c as a 
vertical line, it corresponds 
with a steepening of the 
integrated radius curves, 
and the largest fragment 
curve. It is consistent with 
the results of Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281]) 
(Q22). 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-113 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Dence et al. 
(1977 [DIRS 
135253], p. 270) 
(Q18) 
The energy calculated for 
Brent would be delivered 
by an iron meteorite with 
a velocity of 15 km/s and 
diameter of 130 m. 
The diameter of the Brent 
crater is noted by Dence in 
Table 1 as 3.8 km or a radius 
of 1900 m from an impacting 
meteorite radius of 65 m at 
impact. We will neglect the 
effects of ablation on the 
initial meteor radius. 
The point value plots between the curve sets for the 
largest fragment and the integrated crater radius. 
See Figure B-4a. This point 
value supports the results of 
Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 
135281]) (Q22). The results 
from Hills and Goda bracket 
this example. 
Bailey and 
EmelYanenko 
(1998 
[DIRS 162564], 
p. 14) (C32) 
TIC: 254143 
 which shows that a 
long-period comet or 
Halley-type object has a 
diameter d = 1.8 km in 
order to produce a 20 km 
crater. 
This roughly corresponds to 
an initial soft stone radius of 
900 m and a crater radius of 
10,000 m. 
The point value was plotted for the both hard stone 
and soft stone rather than cometary material, and the 
Hills and Goda plot should plot as a larger crater due 
to the increase in density of stony meteors compared 
to cometary meteors. 
See Figures B-4b and B-4c. 
The corroborative-use-only 
point values plot below the 
curves from Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) 
as expected due to the 
difference in assumed 
densities. 
Ceplecha (1994 
[DIRS 135243], 
Figure 3) (Q17) 
This figure shows the 
resulting impact velocity 
for diameter (plotted as 
log d) for various initial 
entry velocities for a 
stony composition. 
Initial and resulting impact 
velocities are: 
For 5 m radius: 
Initial Impact 
15 km/s . 1 km/s 
20 km/s . 4 km/s 
25 km/s . 6 km/s 
30 km/s . 6 km/s 
For 50 m radius: 
Initial Impact 
15 km/s .14 km/s 
20 km/s .18 km/s 
25 km/s .23 km/s 
30 km/s .28 km/s 
Comparison here is made to Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281], Figure 10) (Q22), which is directly 
comparable. 
For 5-m radius: 
The impact velocity for all initial velocities is shown as 
0 km/s. 
For 50-m radius: 
Initial Impact 
15 km/s . 5 km/s 
20 km/s . 8 km/s 
The results of Hills and 
Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) 
(Q22) include all energy 
dissipation, not just ablation 
effects considered by 
Ceplecha and consequently 
showing a more marked 
decrease in velocity. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-114 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Ceplecha (1992 
[DIRS 135242], 
p. 364) (Q16) 
TIC: 246784 
Figure 4 (same as 
Figure 3 from Ceplecha 
1994, but expressed as 
log m rather than log d) 
also shows that 
protection by the Earths 
atmosphere against 
explosive impacts of 
stony bodies is effective 
only below 105 kg. For 
masses of 106 kg, the 
protection is partial, i.e., 
against high velocity 
bodies. Stony bodies 
more massive than 107 
kg impact the surface 
explosively for all initial 
velocities. For 
carbonaceous bodies the 
situation is similar except 
that the border is shifted 
two orders higher to 
larger masses with a 
steeper velocity gradient. 
Thus the protection 
against carbonaceous 
bodies is much more 
effective. Cometary 
bodies with masses 
under 3 x 1011 kg (initial 
velocity of 28 km/s) do 
not impact the Earth 
surface explosively. 
While bodies with mass 
of 1012 kg and greater 
do, although their 
terminal mass at impact 
is 4 x1010 kg and greater. 
Equivalent diameters are 
calculated assuming stony 
density of 3000 kg/m3, 
carbonaceous density of 
1100 kg/m3, cometary density 
of 500 kg/m3, and assuming 
spherical shape. Accordingly 
the equivalent meteor radii for 
explosive impact protection, 
partial protection, and no 
protection, respectively, are 
as follows: 
For stony material 
105 kg  2 m 
106 kg  4 m 
107 kg  9 m 
For carbonaceous materials: 
107 kg  13 m 
108 kg  28 m 
109 kg  60 m 
For cometary material: 
3 x 1011 kg  520 m 
1012 kg  780 m 
4x 1010 kg  270 m 
For cometary material: 
1012 kg  780 m 
4 x 1010 kg  270 m 
This suggests an ablation 
ratio of about 96 percent of 
the initial meteor mass. 
Given that Ceplecha bases his statement on velocity 
relationships and has linked that to ablation effects, 
corresponding velocity and ablation figures from Hills 
and Goda 1993 (DIRS 135281) (Q22) should also be 
used, which are Figures 10 and 6 respectively. 
For stony material, impact velocity drops to 4 km/s or 
less (the threshold used by Ceplecha 1992 
[DIRS 135242]) for all initial entry velocities if the 
meteor radius is less than 20 m, with some explosive 
impact damage from fragments possible if the radius is 
in the range of 1 to 3 m. Ablation has a significant 
effect for meteor radii less than 40 m and is largely 
ineffective for meteor radii greater than about 100 m. 
For soft stone (an assumed surrogate for 
carbonaceous), velocity drops to zero for all meteor 
radii less than about 30 m, and no protection from 
explosive impacts is provided if the meteor radius is 
greater than about 60 m. Ablation has a significant 
effect for meteor radii less than about 70 m, and is 
largely ineffective for meteor radii greater than about 
150 m. 
For cometary material, with initial velocities of 30 km/s, 
velocity drops to less than the explosive threshold at a 
meteor radius of about 300 m. 
For a given velocity of 30 km/s and an initial radius of 
780 m, Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281]) (Q22) 
predict an ablation fraction of about 0.2 or 20 percent 
(1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 6) (Q22). A 90-percent 
ablation occurs for cometary bodies of no larger than 
300- to 400-m radius per Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281], Figure 6) (Q22) for the stated velocity, 
and for a radii of 700 m at velocities in excess of 
50 km/s. 
As previously mentioned, 
the velocity curves for Hills 
and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) (Q22) 
include a greater reduction 
due to effects other than just 
ablation. Consequently, it is 
to be expected that the 
upper range will be greater 
than that given by Ceplecha, 
but should be on the same 
order of magnitude, which is 
the case. 
The limits proposed by 
Ceplecha are plotted on 
Figures B-4b and B-4c as a 
box, which falls in the 
shielding effect portion of 
the Hills and Goda curves. 
Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) (Q22) 
indicate significantly less 
ablation than Ceplecha 
(1992 [DIRS 135242])  the 
basis for the difference is not 
discernible from Ceplecha 
(1992 [DIRS 135242]). This 
may be in agreement if 
Ceplecha has misstated the 
velocity or based ablation on 
the final size. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-115 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-19. Comparison of Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) (Q22) to Corroborative-Use-Only Information (Continued) 
Citation Statement 
Restatement for 
Comparison Results from Hills and Goda 1993 Corroboration Statement 
Chapman and 
Morrison (1994 
[DIRS 135245], 
p. 33 and p. 34) 
(C36) 
Most projectiles <50 m in 
diameter, with energies 
<10 megatons dissipate 
the energy harmlessly in 
the upper atmosphere. 
The height of 
fragmentation depends 
primarily on the 
meteoroids physical 
strength; only the 
strongest iron meteoroids 
reach the ground in one 
piece. For non-iron 
meteoroids, the minimum 
energy required to 
penetrate to the lower 
atmosphere is 10 MT or 
50 m diameter for stony 
object hitting at 20 km/s. 
This corresponds to radii of 
<25 m and at a velocity of 
20 km/s. 
Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 6 and 
10) (Q22). For hard stone, impact velocity drops to 
4 m/s or less (the threshold used by Ceplecha (1992 
[DIRS 135242]) for all initial entry velocities if the 
meteor radius is less than 20 m, with some damage 
from fragments possible if the meteor radius is in the 
range of 1 to 3 m. Per Hills and Goda, ablation has a 
significant effect for meteor radii less than 40 m and is 
largely ineffective for meteor radii greater than about 
100 m. 
Additionally, Figure 4 of Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) (Q22) provides the height of half 
energy dissipation. This figure indicates half energy 
dissipation occurs in the atmosphere at heights greater 
than 5 km, for hard stone with initial radii less than 
20 m, and for soft stone with initial radii less than 
50 m. Figure 5 indicates that although all meteors of 
hard stone greater than about 1 m radius will break, 
significant dispersion of the fragments does not occur 
if the initial meteor radius is greater than about 25 m 
for the given velocity of 20 km/s. 
The statements by 
Chapman and Morrison 
(1994 [DIRS 135245]) 
support the findings by Hills 
and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) (Q22). This 
has been plotted on 
Figure B-4b as a vertical line 
representing the stated limit, 
and corresponds with the 
break in the Hills and Goda 
curve. 
Chyba (1993 
[DIRS 135248], 
p. 701) (C37) 
TIC: 246762 
Figure 1 shows that the 
Spacewatch objects with 
energies below 10 MT 
(at 13.3 km/s a stony 
asteroid approximately 
32 m in radius) do not 
threaten the surface. 
Directly comparable for 
radius, and velocity is less 
than 15 km/sec. 
The same values discussed for Chapman and 
Morrison (1994 [DIRS 135245]) apply here as well. 
The 11.2 km/s and 15 km/s velocity curves from Hills 
and Goda were considered surrogate velocities. 
Figure 4 indicates that for a radius of 32 m or greater, 
half dissipation occurs at heights greater than 4 km for 
the 11.2 km/s curve. Chyba is addressing 
atmospheric release and is not addressing potential for 
cratering impacts. 
The statement by Chyba 
supports the findings by Hills 
and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) (Q22). This 
corresponds with the break 
in the Hills and Goda curve. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-116 October 2004 
B5.5.3.5 Depth and Extent of Cratering Features 
The meteorite impact analysis must consider the spatial relationship of crater diameter and 
related phenomena such as exhumation and fracturing depth. Direct input pertaining to the 
spatial relationships of crater diameter to the extent of exhumation and depth of fracturing has 
been taken from existing published literature. Because these may be the best or only information 
available, and have been developed by others for analyzing similar problems, it is technically 
justified to use the values for formulation of the analysis. 
Diameters associated with onset of complex cratering. This information is taken from 
Items Q19, Q20, and Q24. These sources are mutually corroborating. 
Crater diameter to depth of effect relationships. This information is taken from Items 
Q18, Q21, and Q24. These sources are mutually corroborating. 
Simple and Complex Cratering 
The amount of kinetic energy acting in combination with the impacted rock properties 
determines the features, shape, size, and depth of any crater and any related cratering effects such 
as fracturing. The potential consequences are divided at the first level on the two basic types of 
observed cratering. Complex cratering involves the uplift and significant vertical displacement 
of a central portion of the crater. Complex cratering can be initiated with crater diameters 
greater than 2 km in sedimentary rocks; however, terrestrial simple craters may also exhibit 
crater diameters up to 4 km, which is the threshold for simple-to-complex cratering in crystalline 
rocks (Grieve 1987 [DIRS 135254], p. 249 [Q19], Grieve et al. 1995 [DIRS 135260], p. 194 
[Q20], and Wuschke et al. 1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 3 [Q24]). Complex cratering is typically 
associated with larger-scale (greater than 2- to 4-km-diameter) craters and several mechanisms 
are involved in their formation. The threshold for FEP screening based on probability is stated 
as an annualized equivalence of 110-8 events per year for the repository area. Based on the 
cratering rate distributions presented earlier in this appendix, a 2-km crater diameter event occurs 
10-12 times or less per year. Consequently, complex cratering features do not occur with 
sufficient frequency to be of concern for FEP screening and only simple cratering effects 
need be further evaluated. 
Depth and Extent of Exhumation 
The direct input for depth and extent of simple cratering exhumation come from three sources: 
Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18), Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24), and 
Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]). 
Wuschke et al. subdivide the total exhumed depth into two zones. The first zone is based on 
exhumation and ejection of materials from the crater. Wuschke et al. assign a depth value of 
10 percent (0.10) of the crater diameter for simple craters (Wuschke et al. 1995 [DIRS 129326], 
p. 3) (Q24). The second zone of exhumation extends below the first. It is defined by shattering 
and redistribution of material within the crater itself. Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 3) 
(Q24) suggest that the second zone extends to a depth of about 14 percent (0.14) of the crater 
diameter for simple craters. Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 3) (Q24) indicate that the 
depth of shock, compression, and displacement without redistribution is approximately 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-117 October 2004 
42 percent of the crater diameter, but does not specifically identify this as part of the true crater 
depth. 
The true crater depth is equivalent to an exhumation depth. Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385], 
p. 113) (Q21) expresses the true crater depth-to-crater diameter relationship for simple craters as 
an equation: 
dt =0.28 D 0.98 (Eq. B-16) 
where dt= true crater depth and D = the crater diameter, with dt and D in km. This suggests that 
the ratio of the true depth (dt) to crater diameter (D) decreases as the crater diameter increases. 
This equation yields calculated true depth-to-crater diameter ratios of 0.32 to 0.27 for a range of 
crater diameters of 0.001 km to 2 km, with a 2-km diameter representing the potential for onset 
of complex cratering. Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21) also suggests on Figure 8 that the 
depths of structures in sedimentary targets are shallower than for equivalent size structures in 
crystalline targets and attributes this to target rock effects as it pertains to variable rock strength 
in cratering mechanics. 
Combined, the relationships presented by Wuschke et al. and by Grieve suggest exhumation 
ratios ranging from 0.10 to as much as 0.33 of the crater diameter. These ratios are mutually 
corroborative with information from Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], pp. 247 and 270) (Q18). 
Dence et al. refer to the Brent crater, a simple crater with a crater diameter of approximately 
3.8 km, and suggest a meteorite of 130-m-diameter impacting the surface (i.e., the impacting 
diameter, not initial entry diameter) caused the crater. Dence et al. state that the peak pressure 
begins to drop at a depth of about 1.3 Dmeteorite and the excavation continues to a depth of about 
4.1 Dmeteorite, or a depth of about 533 m deep, which is 14 percent of the crater diameter. Dence 
et al. also indicate that there is further cavity expansion due to displacement of bedrock below 
the excavated cavity to give a total depth of 8 Dmeteorite, or a depth of 1,040 m, which is 
27 percent of the crater diameter. Based on this description, it appears that at least part of the 
second zone (i.e., extending to 14 percent of the crater diameter) described by Wuschke et al. 
(1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) corresponds with the depth of the transient cavity described by 
Dence et al. In a summary statement, Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], p. 250) (Q18) state 
the depth to the bottom of the lining (true depth) is typically one-third to one-quarter the 
diameter of the crater. 
A range of crater diameter-to-exhumation depth ratios of 0.10 to 0.32 is, therefore, adequate and 
appropriate for use as direct input. A depth of 200 m is used to evaluate the potential for damage 
at the repository depth. This gives a lower bound to the crater diameter of interest for 
exhumation of the repository of about 625 m (i.e., 200 m / 0.32). A key geologic unit is at 60 m 
depth. This gives an upper bound of concern of about 188m (i.e., 60 m / 0.32). 
Depth and Extent of Fracturing 
The ratio of crater diameter-to-fracture depth inferred from Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21), 
and the ratio stated in Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24), are used as direct input and 
are further evaluated in this section. These data are mutually corroborative with information 
taken from Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-118 October 2004 
As discussed in the previous section, Grieve places the depth of exhumation or true crater depth 
(dt) at no less than 0.27 D based on available field observations from some 14 sites, and possibly 
ranging as high as 0.32 D, where for both cases D is the crater diameter in km. This true depth 
represents the depth of exhumation and the onset of fracturing below the crater. 
Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 3) (Q24) indicate that the depth of shock, compression, 
and displacement without redistribution is approximately 42 percent of the crater diameter, but 
does not specifically identify this as part of the true crater depth. Wuschke et al. 
(1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) further states that an ancillary zone of fractured but stationary rock 
extends to a depth of 76 percent in plutonic rock for simple craters. 
Mutually corroborative information is derived from relationships provided in Dence et al. 
(1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18). Based on Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253]) (Q18), the lower 
limit of fracturing values is based on the Hugoniot Elastic Limit of 4.5 gigapascals (GPa) for 
granodiorite (Melosh 1989 [DIRS 146025], p. 35), which is a very low-porosity rock. From the 
Pile Driver nuclear test, it appears that fracturing was initiated when the shock wave pressure 
was reduced to 4.5 GPa. Fracturing ceased at depths corresponding to pressures of about 2 GPa, 
where the rock responds elastically (i.e., without permanent deformation or fracturing) 
(Dence et al. 1977 [DIRS 135253], p.261) (Q18). 
In the attenuation models, Dence et al. (1977 [DIRS 135253], p. 261) (Q18) relate pressure to the 
radius of the affected region by: 
P = a R-k . (Eq. B-17) 
The ratio of the pressures at 4.5 GPa and 2 GPa is, therefore, also the ratio of the powers of the 
respective radii, that is: 
P4.5 GPa/P2 GPa = [R2 GPa/R4.5 GPa]k , (Eq. B-18) 
or, 
R2 GPa = R 4.5 GPa (P4.5 GPa/P2 GPa)1/k . (Eq. B-18a) 
The radius (R4.5 GPa) for the onset of fracturing corresponds to the true crater depth (or 
exhumation depth) and, as described in Section B3.2.5.1, is stated by Dence et al. (1977 
[DIRS 135253], p. 250) (Q18) as one-third to one-half the crater diameter (D). Presuming ratios 
of 0.33 and 0.25 and substituting terms into Eq. 10a, then the radius (R2 GPa) of fracturing 
expressed as a function of crater diameter (D) may range from: 
R2 GPa = 0.33D (4.5 / 2)1/k . (Eq. B-18b) 
R 2 GPa = 0.25D (4.5 / 2)1/k . (Eq. B-18c) 
The k values (2, 3, and 4.5) for the models are based on fits to the Brent crater and the Piledriver 
nuclear test (Dence et al. 1977 [DIRS 135253], p. 261) (Q18). Insertion of the values for k 
provides a range in the relationship of fracture depth to crater diameter (D) of R = 0.5 D (for k=2 
and a ratio of 0.33 or .) to R = 0.3 D (for k=4.5 and a ratio of 0.25). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-119 October 2004 
As previously mentioned, Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 3) (Q24) indicates that the 
depth of shock, compression, and displacement without redistribution is approximately 
42 percent of the crater diameter, and an ancillary zone of fractured but stationary rock extends 
to a depth of 76 percent in plutonic rock for simple craters. 
Accordingly, the fracture depth could be a value of 0.3 D based on Equation B-18c and assuming 
k=4.5. This corresponds well to the depth of exhumation (0.27 to 0.3 D) suggested by Grieve 
(1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21) and based on simple crater observation. A value of 0.5 D based on 
Equation B-18c and assuming k=2 may be a more reasonable estimate of the depth of penetration 
by fractures. This also encompasses the zone of displacement (depth of 0.42 D) as identified by 
Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24). The value of 0.5 D is derived from possible 
models for the Brent crater, and as inferred from Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21), depths in 
sedimentary rocks tend to be shallower. At Yucca Mountain, however, the rock above and 
around the repository is layered welded and non-welded tuff, deposited in tilted strata. These 
tuffs are porous, but largely unsaturated. Therefore, the exhumation and fracturing depths in the 
tuffs are likely to be between that of sedimentary rock and granodiorite, and likely to be 
shallower at Yucca Mountain than in the granodiorite or plutonic rock used as the basis for this 
analysis for a given cratering event. However, a factor of 0.76 from Wuschke et al. (1995 
[DIRS 129326], p. 3) (Q24) is specifically identified as the zone of fracturing. No support for 
this depth is given beyond a reference, which appears in a proceedings paper. However, a value 
of 0.76 represents the largest ratio of fracturing depth to crater diameter proposed in the reviewed 
literature and is therefore used as a basis for FEP screening. 
The minimum depth of interest is 60 m, which is the top of a key hydrogeologic unit. Using the 
above relationships, then the minimum crater diameter of interest is on the order of 79 m 
(i.e., 60 m / 0.76). As described in Section B5.2, a depth of 200 m is used to evaluate the 
potential for fracturing to the repository depth. This gives an upper bound to the crater diameter 
of interest for fracturing of 263 m (i.e., 200 m / 0.76). 
B5.5.4 Data Status and Limitations 
The above literature review and corroboration of the direct input provides an acceptable level of 
confidence that the data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP screening. For 
quantitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. The direct inputs are 
considered acceptable because singular values (e.g., percent by composition) are shown to be 
within two standard deviations of the mean value, with the mean and deviations developed by 
equal weighting of reported mean values from each source. In the case of probability 
distributions or equations based on probability distributions (e.g., mass flux or cratering rates), 
direct inputs are acceptable because the resulting probability distributions fall within two orders 
of magnitude for any given point in the distribution (e.g., for the probability of crater diameter of 
a given size). 
In the case of determining crater diameter-to-depth of effect ratios, in lieu of corroboration, a 
bounding or conservative value (with respect to inclusion of the FEP) approach has been 
recommended, and the resulting values are considered as qualified under this exercise. The 
status of the direct inputs for diagenesis evaluated above should be considered as qualified for 
use within this technical product. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-120 October 2004 
The datasets that are considered as qualified for use within this technical product, and any 
limitations, are as follows: 
B5.5.4.1 Meteoroid Influx Entering Earths Atmosphere 
For the meteoroid flux, the mass influx derived by Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242], p. 362 and 
Figure 1) (Q16) is used. The comparison showed that distribution of meteor diameter (derived 
from the mass influx distribution) from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) (Q16) is generally 
conservative in that it represents the largest number of events within the primary range of interest 
(79 m to 625 m) for fracturing and exhumation. Therefore, no limitations are placed on this data. 
B5.5.4.2 Composition and Material Properties of Meteoroids Entering the Earths 
Atmosphere 
The following section addresses the flux in terms of percent by compositions and examines the 
range in possible density values. The qualified direct input includes: 
Percent-by-Type 
Down to an initial meteor mass of approximately 108 kg (radius of 14 m for iron, 19 m for stony, 
and 28 m for carbonaceous meteors), the total flux is presumed to be comprised of five percent 
iron material regardless of initial meteor radius, and the remainder is divided equally between 
stony and carbonaceous material regardless of initial meteor radius. For initial meteor masses 
below 108 and down to 10-1 kg (minimum radius of 0.014 m for iron, 0.019 m for stony, and 
0.028 m for carbonaceous meteors), the total flux is presumed to be comprised of five percent 
iron materials regardless of initial meteor radius, and 2 to 18 percent stony material depending on 
initial meteor radius; and the remainder (93 to 77 percent) is attributed as carbonaceous/cometary 
material. 
Meteoroid Densities 
For the meteorite impact calculations, the densities used for meteoroids are 8 g/cm3 for metallic 
materials, 3.7 g/cm3 for stony materials, and 1.1 g/cm3 for carbonaceous/cometary materials. 
These values fall within the mean value plus one standard deviation determined from the available 
literature and are used by Ceplecha (1994 [DIRS 135243], p. 967, Tables 1 and 3) (Q17). 
B5.5.4.3 Crater Diameter Distributions and Rates 
The distribution derived from Grieve et al. (1995 [DIRS 135260]) (Q20), and the distribution 
from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) represent a realistic case and are qualified 
for use. However, the extrapolation of the distribution from Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21) 
for very small crater diameters likely overestimates the number of small-diameter craters, due to 
extrapolation of a curve fitted to a 10-km crater diameter down to crater diameters on the meter 
scale. The number of observed small diameter craters as noted by Grieve is substantially less 
than that projected by the extrapolated distribution, and would in fact be the true lower bound. 
The number of observed small diameter craters is skewed because it does not account for 
atmospheric effects on small meteors, increased obscuration of smaller diameter craters by 
weathering and burial, and the implicit difficulty in identifying small diameter craters. The 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-121 October 2004 
crater diameter distribution observed by Grieve and based on large crater diameters, however, at 
least includes the effects of ablation and fragmentation as reflected for large diameter craters. 
The data derived from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) may represent a more 
realistic distribution of actual size and have been applied to a hypothetical Canadian repository. 
The plot of the corroborative Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) information represents 
a true upper bound (i.e., an atmosphereless earth which neglects effects of ablation and 
fragmentation). Because it is unrealistic due to an atmosphereless earth, it is discussed for 
corroborative purposes only, but it also provides a true upper bound. However, it should not be 
used to represent cratering on earth because it is not representative of surface conditions. 
B5.5.4.4 Crater Dimensions as a Function of Meteor Type 
The direct input used in this analysis that relate initial meteoroid diameter to crater diameter are 
extracted from Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) (Q22) and are given in 
Table B-18. 
B5.5.4.5 Depth and Extent of Cratering Features 
A range of crater diameter-to-exhumation depth ratios of 0.10 to 0.32 is used in the analysis, and 
is based on direct input provided in Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24) and Grieve 
(1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21). A minimum value for crater diameter-to-fracture depth ratios of 
0.32 is realistic based on Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) (Q21). Because the intended use is for 
FEP screening and analysis, the conservative value of increased fracturing depth to 0.76 of the 
crater diameter, as indicated by Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) (Q24), is examined to 
ensure that the range of uncertainty in relationships is covered. The use of this value based on 
effects in plutonic rock is somewhat contrary to the observation made by Grieve (1998 
[DIRS 163385], p. 113) (Q21) that depths in sedimentary rocks tend to be shallower than in 
plutonic rock. However, the use of these values is consistent with use of cratering rate and crater 
diameter distributions from these same sources. 
B5.6 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.5.01.02.0A EXTRATERRESTRIAL EVENTS (SECTION 6.2.4.6) 
This section addresses direct inputs used to determining the potential consequence of 
extraterrestrial events such as a solar flares, supernovae, and gamma bursters. The direct inputs 
being justified are as follows: 
 Frequency of supernova event (1 event per 100 years), magnitude (1050 ergs), and 
potential consequences of the event (nitrogen enrichments, ozone depletion, global 
cooling) due to a supernova event. This information is taken from Item Q25. 
 Relationship exists between the decadal Sun cycle, and overall solar activity and the Earths 
surface temperature, and possible link from changes in IR and visible and IR radiation to 
changes in earths temperatures and climate. This information is taken from Items Q26. 
 Types of engineered systems potentially affected by space weather. This information is 
taken from Item Q27. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-122 October 2004 
The data being evaluated include Items Q23 through 26 in Table B-1. The data is in the form of 
conceptual statements and is generally qualitative in nature. Therefore, the qualitative criteria 
for general agreement will be applied. Multiple sources are available to corroborate the data. 
B5.6.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify citations that identified possible effects to earth-based natural and 
engineered systems from such extraterrestrial events, and if possible, quantify the effect. The 
keyword and subject based searches utilized various AND combinations for the keywords 
space weather, extraterrestrial, supernova, effects, and earth. For the keyword space 
weather, the SciSearch database (limited to publication dates for 1900 to 2004) returned 
95 records. Upon examination of titles and abstracts, all of these records were found to be 
specific instances of space weather events, or to describe disturbances to specific engineered 
systems that were not relevant to postclosure repository performance and that were documented 
in other more generic papers that are referenced in the following evaluation. The term 
extraterrestrial yielded 160 returns and addition of the term effects limited the results to 
72 records. The combined search terms supernova, effects, and earth yielded nine returns, 
one of which was judged potentially relevant. A review of titles and available abstracts yielded 
the applicable citations that are listed in Table B-20. Similar searches of the GeoRef databases 
(based on all records including 2004) returned 58 records. Based on the titles and available 
abstracts, none of these citations appeared relevant. 
B5.6.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), pertinent factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table B-20. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-123 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q25 C47, C50, 
C51, C55 
Brakenridge, G.R. 1981. 
"Terrestrial 
Paleoenvironmental 
Effects of a Late 
Quaternary-Age 
Supernova." Icarus, 46, 
(1), 81-93. New York, 
New York: Academic 
Press. 
TIC: 255707. 
(DIRS 167873), Q25 
This paper 
discusses the 
frequency of 
gamma and X 
radiation incident 
upon the earth 
and discusses 
potential climate 
forcing 
mechanisms. 
The paper also 
proposes 
evidence that 
such events are 
recorded in 
paleosoil 
horizons. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  The paper 
quantifies the influx of 
radiation upon the earth 
from an extraterrestrial 
event and provides an 
indication of the 
frequency of such 
events. It also 
discusses potential 
climate forcing 
mechanisms and 
provides a brief 
description of studies 
identifying potential soil 
layers that recorded 
such an event. 
Direct Input  Frequency 
of a supernova event (1 
event per 100 years), 
magnitude (1050 ergs), 
and potential 
consequences of the 
event (nitrogen 
enrichments, ozone 
depletion, global cooling) 
Figure 1 and pp. 85-86. 
Q26 C49, C52, 
C53, and C54 
Lean, J. 1997. "The 
Sun's Variable 
Radiation and its 
Relevance for Earth." 
Annual Review of 
Astronomy and 
Astrophysics, 35, 33-67. 
Palo Alto, California: 
Annual Reviews. 
TIC: 255614. 
(DIRS 167639) 
This paper 
provides a 
summary of the 
current 
understanding of 
the Suns 
radiance 
variability and 
cycles and its 
linking to Earths 
global 
environment. 
40 citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Paper from 
book series 
Moderate to High  
Although a survey of 
related studies, the 
author provides 
numerous citations and 
provides graphs and 
plots to substantiate the 
discussion and 
conclusions. 
Direct Input  
Relationship exists 
between the decadal Sun 
cycle, and overall solar 
activity and the Earths 
surface temperature, and 
possible link from changes 
in IR and visible and IR 
radiation to changes in 
earths temperatures and 
climate. 
Indirect Input  The paper 
also briefly discusses the 
effects of space weather 
on spacecraft and 
communication systems 
and is therefore 
corroborative with other 
papers dealing more 
specifically with those 
issues. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-124 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
Q27 Q25 (but not 
mutually 
corroborative), 
C48 
Maynard, N.C. 1995. 
"Space Weather 
Prediction." Reviews of 
Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 
1), 547-557. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. 
TIC: 253729. 
(DIRS 160888), Q27 
This paper 
addresses a wide 
range of space 
weather related 
topics. Of 
particular 
applicability is 
the discussion of 
engineered 
systems 
potentially 
affected by 
space weather, 
including several 
ground-based 
systems. 
Nine 
citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  The cited 
portion of this paper 
provides a concise 
overview of documented 
disturbances in 
engineered systems and 
associated costs. 
Direct Input  
List of engineered 
systems potentially 
affected by space 
weather. 
C47 Not Applicable Arnold, N.F. 2003. 
"Space Plasma 
Influences on the 
Earth's Atmosphere." 
Philosophical 
Transactions of the 
Royal Society of 
London. Series A, 
Mathematical and 
Physical Sciences, 361, 
127-132. London, 
England: Royal Society 
of London. 
TIC: 255613. 
(DIRS 167638), C47 
This paper is 
targeted to 
providing a 
conceptual 
satellite-based 
investigation. 
However, the 
papers summary 
of various affects 
is adequate for 
corroborative 
support only. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
Journal 
Low  Only a limited 
reference is provided. 
The paper is largely 
qualitative and citations 
are provided to support 
development of a 
strawman satellite 
mission specification. 
Indirect Input  discussion 
of cosmic-ray influences, 
relativistic electrons, and 
auroral particles and 
magnetic fields influences 
on the atmosphere are 
briefly summarized. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-125 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C48 Not Applicable Cole, D.G. 2003. 
"Space Weather: Its 
Effects and 
Predictability." Space 
Science Reviews, 107, 
(1-2), 295-302. 
Dordrecht, The 
Netherlands: Kluwer 
Academic. 
TIC: 255616. 
(DIRS 167641), C48 
This paper is 
useful for 
corroborating 
other papers 
dealing with 
space weather 
effects as it cites 
to a separate set 
of references 
than those 
providing a fuller 
treatment of the 
subject. 
No citations 
in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Low  This paper is a 
cursory treatment of 
potential space weather 
effects. No 
mathematical treatment 
is provided, and no 
analytical results or 
measurements or 
provided. A short 
reference list is 
provided. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
addresses the potential 
linkages between space 
weather solar activity, the 
earths magnetosphere 
and ionosphere, and how 
space weather affects 
those natural systems and 
engineered systems 
operating in those 
environments. 
C49 Not Applicable Hagan, M.E. 1995. 
"Thermospheric 
Connections." Reviews 
of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, (Part 
1), 729-735. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. 
TIC: 253731. 
(DIRS 160890) 
This is a good 
concise summary 
of the potential 
connections 
between space 
and earth 
environs. 
One citation 
in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  This paper 
is a survey of work to 
date and a summation 
of collaborative efforts of 
various researchers. 
The discussion provides 
adequate citations to 
support assertions and 
conclusion. No 
mathematical treatment 
or analytical results are 
discussed in any detail. 
Indirect Input This paper 
provides a thorough 
survey of work addressing 
connections between the 
extraterrestrial 
environment and earth's 
atmosphere, 
magnetosphere, and 
ionosphere. 
C50 Not Applicable Karam, P. A. 2002. 
"Gamma and Neutrino 
Radiation Dose from 
Gamma Ray Bursts and 
Nearby Supernovae." 
Health Physics, 82, (4), 
491-499. Baltimore, 
Maryland: Lippincott, 
Williams, and Wilkins. 
TIC: 255918. 
(DIRS 167872), C50 
This paper 
provides specific 
dose information 
and is used to 
corroborate other 
papers 
addressing 
supernova 
effects. 
One citation 
in 
SciSearch 
Peerreviewed 
journal 
Moderate to High  This 
paper provides a 
calculation of dose 
stemming from 
extraterrestrial events. 
Base equations and 
assumed values are 
given. The discussions 
and conclusions are 
adequately documented 
and supporting citations 
are provided. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
provides a discussion of 
the frequency of 
supernovae and gamma 
ray bursts and quantifies 
the expected dose in the 
surface and subsurface. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-126 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C51 Not Applicable Novotna, D. and Vitek, 
V. 1991. "The 
Atmospheric Mean 
Energetic Level and 
External Forcing." 
Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 35, (1), 
33-38. Prague, 
Czechoslovakia: 
Geophycial Institute of 
the Czechoslovak 
Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255610. 
(DIRS 167634), C51 
This paper 
provides 
corroborative 
support for 
external forcing 
on earths 
atmosphere. 
However, it only 
provides a link to 
potential climate 
affects and not to 
subsurface 
affects. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peerreviewed 
journal 
High  The paper 
documents the 
mathematics leading to 
the conclusions of 
interrelationships to 
external forcing. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
develops a mathematical 
argument relating external 
forcing to changes in the 
earths atmospheres 
vorticity. It specifically lists 
potential forcing 
mechanisms including 
galactic cosmic rays, solar 
cosmic rays, and 
equivalent particles from 
other sources. It identifies 
galactic cosmic rays as 
the best candidate for 
forcing and suggests it 
may also influence cirrus 
cloud formation. 
C52 Not Applicable Reid, G.C. 1995. "The 
Sun-Climate Question: 
Is There a Real 
Connection?" Review 
of Geophysics 
(Supplement), 33, 
(Part 1), 535-538. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. 
TIC: 253730. 
(DIRS 160889), C52 
This is a good 
concise summary 
of the potential 
connections 
between space 
and earth 
environs. 
Five 
citations in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate  This paper 
is a survey of work to 
date and a summation 
of collaborative efforts of 
various researchers. 
The discussion provides 
adequate citations to 
support assertions and 
conclusion. No 
mathematical treatment 
or analytical results are 
discussed in any detail. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
provides a thorough 
survey of work addressing 
connections between the 
sun and earths climatic 
systems. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-127 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C53 Not Applicable Rozelot, J.P. 2001. 
"Possible Links 
Between the Solar 
Radius Variations and 
the Earth's Climate 
Evolution Over the Past 
Four Centuries." 
Journal of Atmospheric 
and Solar-Terrestrial 
Physics, 63, (4), 
375-386. New York, 
New York: Pergamon. 
TIC: 255615. 
(DIRS 167640), C53 
This paper 
provides 
corroboration of 
linkage of solar 
activity to earths 
climate. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peerreviewed 
journal 
Moderate  The paper 
provides an adequate 
statistical correlation of 
data to support its 
conclusions regarding 
connection between 
earths climate and solar 
irradiance and solar 
radius. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
investigates the effect of 
solar radius variance on 
Earths climate over the 
past four centuries. 
C54 Not Applicable Pechala, F. 1985. "The 
Effect of Extraterrestrial 
Interactions on Change 
of Tropospheric 
Circulation in the Polar 
Regions of the Earth." 
Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 29, (4), 
405-412. Prague, 
Czechoslovakia: 
Geophycial Institute of 
the Czechoslovak 
Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255609. 
(DIRS 167633) 
This paper 
provides 
corroborative 
support for 
external forcing 
on earths 
atmosphere. 
However, it only 
provides a link to 
potential climate 
affects and not to 
subsurface 
effects. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peerreviewed 
journal 
Moderate  The paper 
documents the 
mathematics leading to 
the conclusions of 
interrelationships to 
external triggering. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
is presented as a proof of 
extraterrestrial interactions 
functioning as triggering 
mechanisms in the 
process of redistribution of 
energy accumulated in the 
earths systems. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-128 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-20. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs to Extraterrestrial Events (Continued) 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability 
of Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C55 Not Applicable Ruderman, M. A. 1974. 
"Possible 
Consequences of 
Nearby Supernova 
Explosions for 
Atmospheric Ozone and 
Terrestrial Life." 
Science, 184, 
1079-1081. 
TIC: 255914. 
(DIRS 167875) 
Discussions in 
this paper are 
used to 
corroborate 
discussions by 
Brakenridge 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peerreviewed 
journal 
Moderate  The 
discussion is supported 
by citations, and the 
assumptions and 
reasoning are clearly 
stated. No analytical 
results or numerical 
models are discussed. 
Indirect Input  This paper 
provides a brief discussion 
of the potential for an 
extraterrestrial event to 
remove earths ozone 
cover and the potential 
consequences on 
terrestrial life. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-129 October 2004 
B5.6.3 Discussion 
The evaluation of results has been subdivided by topic. Direct Inputs include Items Q25, and 
Q26. Corroborative sources include Items C47 through C55. 
B5.6.3.1 Effects of Nonsolar Extraterrestrial Events (Supernovae, Gamma Ray Bursts, 
Cosmic Rays) 
The direct inputs being justified include the frequency, magnitude, and consequences associated 
with a supernova event. 
Frequency of a supernova event (1 event per 100 years), magnitude (1050 ergs), and 
potential consequences of the event (nitrogen enrichments, ozone depletion, global 
cooling). 
This information is taken from Item Q25, and is corroborated by Items C47, C50, C51, and C55. 
Brakenridge (1981 [DIRS 167873], Figure 1, p.83, and p. 85 and 86) (Q25) is being used as 
direct input. The paper discusses the potential effects of Late Quaternary-Age supernova on the 
terrestrial paleoenvironment. The paper indicates that over 120 radio-emitting galactic 
supernova remnants have been cataloged. Figure 1 of the paper provides a plot of the peak flux 
and the timing of the initiating supernova event. At least 24 significant (i.e., greater than 
500 erg/cm2) peaks were observed for events occurring within the 15,000 years before present. 
Using a value of 120 events in the past 15,000 years suggests a rate of approximately one event 
per 100 years. The most significant of these peak fluxes was for the Vela supernova, which was 
calculated to have a peak flux of about 40,000 ergs/cm2. The paper indicates (p. 83) that 
supernova events release on the scale of 1049 to 1050 ergs of gamma radiation. The paper asserts 
(pp. 85-86) that such an event has the potential to cause ozone depletion in earths atmosphere 
for a period of two to six years and created nitrogen-rich environments at the earths surface. 
Observable effects are suggested to include kerogen rich sediments at 11 sites worldwide. The 
effects are also stated to include short-term terrestrial global cooling (i.e., on the scale of 
1,000 years). The paper also asserts that such events could precipitate increased ultraviolet-light 
penetration by ozone layer depletion. The increased intensity could be as much as 2 to 10 times 
the present level. Aside for the potential impact on C14 dating, no other effects are discussed. 
Ruderman (1976 [DIRS 167875]) (C55) corroborates that ozone depletion in the atmosphere 
could occur and that nitrogen-enriched surface conditions could result. Ruderman also cites to 
work of others and corroborates that supernova explosions result in release of 10 48 to 1050 ergs. 
Ruderman briefly mentions that increased UV influx could have altered life through mutations or 
suppression. The paper mentions that there is no compelling fossil evidence for past biological 
cataclysms related to supernova events. 
Arnold (2003 [DIRS 167638], p. 127) (C47) also corroborates the assertions of Brakenridge. 
Arnold notes that considerable attention has been focused on the possibility that climate change 
may be attributable to variations in galactic cosmic-ray fluxes that are modulated by the 
heliospheric magnetic field. Arnold further discusses the interaction between cosmic rays and 
role of ionization trails in cloud formation. This suggests a possible climate modifying effect. 
Similarly, Novotna and Vitek (1991 [DIRS 167634], p. 35) (C51) also discuss external forcing 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-130 October 2004 
mechanisms and specifically mention, galactic cosmic rays, solar cosmic rays, and equivalent 
particle from other sources, with galactic cosmic rays being the best candidate for both 
short-term and long-range forcing. They also mention its role in cirrus cloud formation. 
Further corroboration comes from Karam (2002 [DIRS 167872]) (C50), who calculates the 
potential gamma and neutrino radiation dose resulting from supernovae and gamma ray bursts at 
and beneath the earths surface. Sea-level doses are calculated to have been about 1 Gray (Gy) 
every five million years and about 0.2 Gy every million years. Karam indicates that radiation 
levels, while not lethal may have been genetically significant. The paper corroborates 
Brakenridge further by indicating that supernovae release between 1042 Joules (1049 ergs) of 
gamma radiation supernovae are noted as occurring at a frequency of about 1 to 2 per century. 
Gamma ray bursts are noted to release the equivalent of about 1053 ergs and occur once every 
million to ten million years (Karam (2002 [DIRS 167872], p. 491-492) (C50). Karam further 
indicates that due to the relatively short outburst time, no more than one half of the earth would 
be exposed to radiation and the actual exposure will vary according to the location of the burst in 
the sky. By comparison, supernovae will irradiate the entire planet, although no single location 
would be subject to more than one-half of the integrated radiation because of the shielding 
provided by the earth. Karam (2002 [DIRS 167872], Table 1) (C50) indicates that at distances of 
for gamma ray bursts, the resulting dose at sea level would be on the order of 420 to 0.17 Gy 
from gamma ray bursts, and from 42 to 0.017 for supernovae, at distances of 1 and 
50 kiloparsecs, respectively. More importantly, the paper clearly indicates that there is a 
10-8 reduction in typical dose within the top 20 mm of rock, suggesting that dose (i.e., energy) 
at the repository depth from such events would be negligible (Karam 2002 [DIRS 167872], 
Table 1) (C50). 
B5.6.3.2 Solar-Related Effects 
This section specifically addresses the impact of solar events. The information being justified is 
conceptual in nature. 
Relationships exist between the decadal Sun cycle, and overall solar activity and 
the Earths surface temperature, and possible link from changes in IR and visible 
and IR radiation to changes in earths temperatures and climate. 
This information is taken from Items Q26 and is corroborated by Items C49, C52, C53, and C54. 
The conclusions from Lean (1997 [DIRS 167639]) (Q26) are in the form of a conceptual 
summary statement; Numerous associations are evident between solar variability and terrestrial 
parameters that range from the earths surface to hundreds of kilometers above it, on the time 
scales from days to centuries. In particular, Lean points out the decadal cycles in the Suns 
activity are evident in temperatures at the earths surface and through the atmosphere. Lean also 
indicates that there is also an apparent association of surface temperature with overall solar 
activity, but it is unclear weather the suns variable radiation is responsible. According to Lean, 
least certain is the extent to which tenths percent changes in visible and IR radiation modify 
global surface temperature and climate. Lean also mentions that there is a current inability to 
adequately quantify all climate and ozone forcings, which adds ambiguities to assessments of the 
global change. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-131 October 2004 
There are multiple corroborating sources to support Leans conclusions. Rozelot (2001 
[DIRS 167640]) (C53) indicates that regression analysis shows that, at least over the last 
four centuries, warmer and cooler periods on Earth are inversely correlated to changes in the 
Suns diameter. Pechala (1985 [DIRS 167633]) (C54) indicates that extraterrestrial interaction 
function as triggering mechanisms in the process of redistribution much large amounts of energy 
in the polar regions. The paper is primarily focused on energy releases from the sun and uses the 
examples of solar recurrences of differential rotation and changes in solar radiation, and the 
correlated response of earths atmosphere. Pechala also suggests that corpuscular radiation of 
galactic origin may also play an important part in modulation of transformation of energy 
through the atmosphere, particularly in the polar regions. Pechala also alludes to the complicated 
processes and interactions involved. A summary of thermospheric connections is presented in 
Hagan (1995 [DIRS 160890]) (C49). Hagan specifically mentions that zonal winds were found 
to increase with increased solar activity in the low latitudes; that natural variations in 
photoabsorption of solar radiations excite global-scale atmospheric solar tides whose periods are 
harmonics of a solar day and are commonly observed in the thermosphere. The papers by Hagan 
(1995 [DIRS 160890]) (C49) and by Reid (1995 [DIRS 160889]) (C52) also summarize recent 
studies linking the interaction of the earths magnetic field, the interplanetary magnetic fields, 
and the result on thermospheric heating and circulation. 
B5.6.3.3 Space Weather Effects 
This section addresses engineered systems that are potentially affected by extraterrestrial events. 
The direct input being justified is: 
List of engineered systems potentially affected by space weather. 
This information is taken from Item Q27, and is corroborated by Items Q26 and C48. 
Maynard (1995 [DIRS 160888]) (Q27) provides direct input in the form of an extensive list of 
engineered systems that are potentially or have been observed to be affected by space weather. 
The list includes spacecraft operations, satellite operations, GPS-locating operations (which are 
satellite based), space object tracking, over-the-horizon radar operations, high frequency 
communications, telecommunications such as transatlantic fiber optic communications, 
geomagnetically induced currents in power transmission lines and transformers, applied-DC 
currents for pipeline corrosion mitigation, and semi-conductor manufacturing (likely related to 
power line fluctuations). 
The list of affected systems is corroborated from two sources. Lean (1997 [DIRS 167639]) 
(Q26) was qualified above for statements regarding solar interaction. Additionally, the paper 
also provides a discussion of systems potentially affected by solar activities. Lean cites others 
who group the systems into communication, navigation, surveillance, and commerce. The 
discussion in Lean is focused on spacecraft and communications. The discussion of spacecraft 
focuses on the effects of solar drag and difficulties in locating spacecraft and associated debris, 
and the discussion on communications is focused on systems utilizing the ionosphere for signal 
transmission. Navigation systems (LORAN and OMEGA) are specifically mentioned, as are 
possible interferences with satellite-based positioning systems including Global Positioning 
Systems, Very Long Baseline Interferometery, and Satellite Laser Ranging. Corroboration is 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-132 October 2004 
also taken from Cole (2003 [DIRS 167641]) (C48). Cole mentions that space weather can affect 
the planning of space projects and impairment of satellite systems. Cole also mentions the 
potential impact to spacecraft through vehicle damage, deterioration of solar cells, 
semiconductor damage, and electric charging of spacecraft. Other disturbed systems listed by 
Cole include radio communication, and satellite and navigation. Ground level effects are listed 
as disturbances in terrestrial power systems and long pipe lines  specifically power lines, 
railway lines, steel pipelines, or telecommunication cables of long length. 
B5.6.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For qualitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. The above literature 
review and corroboration of the direct input provides an acceptable level of confidence that the 
data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP screening. The status of the direct 
inputs for extraterrestrial events evaluated above should be considered as qualified for use within 
this technical product. No limitations are needed for the intended use. 
B5.7 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.5.03.01.0A CHANGES IN THE EARTHS MAGNETIC FIELD 
This section addresses direct inputs addressing the potential consequences of changes in the 
earths magnetic field. There is abundant literature and modeling results regarding the 
fluctuation and changes in the field and possible causes, but little if any information on the 
potential effects on natural or engineered systems. The direct inputs listed below are taken from 
the only source found during the literature search. 
 The periodicity of pole reversals is on the scale of a few hundred thousand years to once 
every million years. 
 There has been a decrease in the earths magnetic intensity in the last few thousand 
years, and some evidence that a reversal may occur sometime during the next few to 
several thousand years. 
 There is no identifiable fossil evidence (such as mutation or extinctions) stemming from 
magnetic field changes. 
The data being justified includes Item Q28 in Table B-1. The direct input being qualified is in 
the form of conceptual statements and is generally qualitative in nature. Therefore, the 
qualitative criteria for general agreement will be applied. Only a few sources are available to 
corroborate the data regarding frequency. No sources were found to directly corroborate the 
discussion of potential affects on natural systems, nor were sources were found that contradict 
the information provided. 
B5.7.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed the frequency and potential effects 
of changes in earths magnetic field. The keyword and subject based searches utilized an 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-133 October 2004 
AND combination for the keywords geomagnetic and reversal. The SciSearch database 
(limited to publication dates for 1900 to 2004) returned 321 records. A search using the term 
pole reversal yielded 61 citations. Of those, a review of available title and abstracts resulted in 
locating only one applicable citation. No applicable citations were found in the GeoRef 
database. Most of the articles listed dealt with observation of variances in the magnetic field for 
particular geologic formation, discussed modeling of the earths magnetic field, or were 
addressing correlation of various observed geologic formations based on age, field intensity, or 
other nongermane issues. 
B5.7.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), these factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table B-21. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-134 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-21. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs Used for Changes in the Earths Magnetic Field 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Q28 C56, C57, C58 
Odenwald, S. 2003. 
"Earth - Magnetic Field" 
Poetry Space Science 
Education: Ask the 
Space Scientist 
http://image.gsfc.nasa.g 
ov/poetry/ask/askmag.h 
tml. Washington, D.C.: 
National Aeronautics 
and Space 
Administration. 
Accessed February 25, 
2003. 
TIC: 253712. 
(DIRS 160892) 
Information is 
taken from a 
response found 
on a public 
information FAQ 
page that 
addresses 
various questions 
regarding the 
earths magnetic 
field. 
Not 
Applicable  
This is a 
general 
information 
source and 
not 
ameneable 
for rigorous 
research 
activities. 
Not found in 
SciSearch. 
Internet FAQ 
page 
sponsored and 
supported by 
NASA. 
Low  The information is 
the best available result 
from Internet search and 
the only information found 
which directly addresses 
the issue of potential 
effects. 
Because it is a NASAsponsored 
site and 
because it is the best 
available information, the 
citation is used as direct 
input. 
Direct Input  
The periodicity of pole 
reversals is on the 
scale of a few hundred 
thousand years to 
once every million 
years. 
There has been a 
decrease in the earths 
magnetic intensity in 
the last few thousand 
years, and some 
evidence that a 
reversal may occur 
sometime during the 
next few to several 
thousand years. 
There is identifiable 
fossil evidence (such 
as mutation or 
extinctions) stemming 
from magnetic field 
changes. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-135 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-21. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs Used for Changes in the Earths Magnetic Field (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C56 Not Applicable Biggin, A.J. and 
Thomas, D.N. 2003. 
"Analysis of Long-Term 
Variations in the 
Geomagnetic Polodial 
Field Intensity and 
Evaluation of Their 
Relationship with 
Global Geodynamics." 
Geophysical Journal 
International, 152, (2), 
392-415. Oxford, 
England: Blackwell 
Publishing. 
TIC: 255680. 
(DIRS 167876) 
This paper 
provides a 
detailed and 
rigorous 
statistical 
analysis to 
determine 
whether intensity 
and pole 
reversals are 
correlatable. 
Three 
citations 
found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
High  The paper 
thoroughly documents the 
statistical analysis 
procedures and results 
are fully documented and 
transparent. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper indicates that the 
record is too sparse to 
definitively conclude 
anticorrelation, but the 
analysis does suggest 
an anticorrelation. It 
also provides some 
discussion linking 
geomagnetic 
phenomena to globalscale 
geodynamics. 
C57 Not Applicable Hoffman, K.A. 1995. 
"How are Geomagnetic 
Reversals Related to 
Field Intensity?" Eos, 
Volume 76, July 18, 
1995, p. 289 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. Accessed April 
23, 2003. 
TIC: 253732. 
http://www.agu.org/scisoc/
hoffman.html 
(DIRS 160891) 
This short paper 
addresses the 
potential 
relationships 
between 
magnetic field 
reversals and 
intensity and 
goes to 
addressing the 
probability of a 
magnetic pole 
reversal event 
within the next 
10,000 years. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Technical 
journal 
Low  Aside from the two 
graphs presented, no 
quantitative or analytical 
information is provided. 
Reference is made to 
various studies, but no 
reference to the studies is 
given. However, the 
author does have other 
works of similar nature in 
the technical literature. 
Indirect Input  The 
paper only provides a 
brief overview of the 
potential relationship 
between intensity and 
reversals. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-136 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-21. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs Used for Changes in the Earths Magnetic Field (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use by 
Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input Status 
C58* 
Not Applicable Pechala, F. 1985. 
"The Effect of 
Extraterrestrial 
Interactions on Change 
of Tropospheric 
Circulation in the Polar 
Regions of the Earth." 
Studia Geophysica et 
Geodaetica, 29, (4), 
405-412. Prague, 
Czechoslovakia: 
Geophysical Institute of 
the Czechoslovak 
Academy of Sciences. 
TIC: 255609. 
(DIRS 167633), C54 
This paper is 
presented as a 
proof of 
extraterrestrial 
interactions 
functioning as 
triggering 
mechanisms in 
the process of 
redistribution of 
energy 
accumulated in 
the earths 
systems. 
Not found in 
SciSearch 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  The paper 
documents the 
mathematics leading to 
the conclusions of 
interrelationships to 
external triggering. 
Indirect Input  This 
paper provides 
corroborative support 
for external forcing on 
earths atmosphere. 
However, it only 
provides a link to 
potential climate affects 
and not to subsurface 
affects. 
*C58 is also denoted as Item C54 in Table B-20. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-137 October 2004 
B5.7.3 Discussion 
The direct input from Odenwald (2003 [DIRS 160892]) (Q28) was taken from a National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration-sponsored site and is therefore considered reliable. It is 
the only source found that addresses the potential effect of magnetic reversal on earths natural 
systems. The direct input from that Internet site indicates that the frequency of magnetic pole 
reversals is on the timescale of a few hundred thousand and that 60 such reversals have occurred 
in the last 20 million years. Odenwald also indicates that polar wander occurs and that field 
intensity waxes and wanes and may range between zero and 1 gauss. This frequency and 
variations in intensity is corroborated by Biggin and Thomas (2003 [DIRS 167876], Figure 11) 
(C56), which shows that the number of reversals over 10 Myr periods (for the last 160 million 
years before present) varies from 0 to 50. This same figure also shows the variance in the mean 
dipole moment. The scale of frequency and variation in intensity is also indirectly corroborated 
by the discussion in Hoffman (1995 [DIRS 160891]) (C57), which states that a statistical model 
exists which shows following a reversal there exists a 5,000 year-long dead-time during which 
there is zero probability of another occurrence. Then the probability of reversal steadily 
increases with time, but only for some 45,000 years. 
Odenwald indicates that there are no identifiable fossil effects (i.e., mutations or extinctions) 
associated with the previous reversals. However, no corroborating information regarding the 
possible effects of a pole reversal or intensity fluctuations was found in the literature. The only 
related citations that were found address the interrelationship of earths magnetic field with 
influxing cosmic and solar rays and the potential cause of earths magnetic field changes being 
globalscale tectonic processes. Pechala (1985 [DIRS 167633]) (C58) indicates that the least 
controversial findings with regard to tropospheric circulation are with regard to the interrelations 
between the changes in magnetic pole position and intensity of the magnetic field, and changes 
of atmospheric circulation. Pechala indicates that some authors use the relationship as a basis for 
explaining past changes in earths climate. Biggin and Thomas (2003 [DIRS 167876]) (C56) 
propose a model that conceptualizes that global-scale tectonic processes such as slab subduction 
and related mantel processes and the cause for changes and variations in the earths magnetic 
field, rather than the reverse condition of changes in the earths magnetic field initiating such 
changes. 
B5.7.4 Data Status and Limitations 
For qualitative data, the criterion of general agreement has been satisfied. No contradictory 
information indicating significant change to regional or smaller scale geologic or hydrologic 
systems due to variations in the earths magnetic field, with the possible exception of a climate 
change relationship. The above literature review and corroboration of the direct input provides 
an acceptable level of confidence that the data are suitable for their intended use, which is for 
FEP screening. No limitations are needed for the intended use. The status of the direct inputs 
for Earths magnetic fields evaluated above should be considered as qualified for use within this 
technical product. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-138 October 2004 
B5.8 SUITABILITY DEMONSTRATION FOR DIRECT INPUTS FOR FEP 
1.5.03.02.0A EARTH TIDES 
This section addresses the direct input used to determine the magnitude of earth tides effects. 
The direct input being justified is as follows: 
Earth tides causes fluctuations in water levels at Yucca Mountain that are on the 
order of a few centimeters. 
The data being evaluated includes Item Q29 in Table B-1. The data is in the form observed 
fluctuations in water levels stemming from the subject FEP and are approximately 2 cm. This is 
corroborated in Items C59 and C60. 
The objective is to justify input representing the magnitude of the effect (i.e., upper bound of 
possible conditions) against a theoretical threshold of significance (i.e., distance between the 
existing water level and the repository). An order of magnitude understanding of the affect is 
sufficient. Therefore, the qualitative criteria of general agreement will be applied. 
B5.8.1 Literature Search 
A literature search was performed using SciSearch and the GeoRef databases and was 
focused on recent papers and updates directly relevant and applicable to the analysis. The intent 
of the search was to identify potential citations that addressed the measurable affects of earth 
tides, and not just the conceptualization and mechanisms of such tides that most of the available 
citations address. The keyword and subject based-searches utilized the search term earth tides. 
The SciSearch database (limited to publication dates for 1980 to 2004) returned 55 records, and 
only one applicable citation was found. Additionally, previous references used for TSPA-SR 
FEPs discussion were reviewed. 
B5.8.2 Evaluation of Factors 
For each of the sources to be used in the evaluation (whether as direct input or reference only and 
corroboration of the direct input), these factors are evaluated in tabular form in Table B-1. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-139 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-22. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs Used for Earth Tides 
Items 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
Q29 C59, C60 Bredehoeft, J.D. 1997. 
"Fault Permeability Near 
Yucca Mountain." Water 
Resources Research, 33, 
(11), 2459-2463. 
Washington, D.C.: 
American Geophysical 
Union. TIC: 236570. 
(DIRS 100007) 
This paper is 
focused on the 
effects of fault 
permeability at 
Yucca Mountain. 
However, earth 
tides and other 
water level 
fluctuations are 
specifically 
analyzed and the 
magnitude of the 
fluctuations are 
stated. This is 
not a projectcontrolled 
document. 
Not 
Available 
Peer-reviewed 
journal 
Moderate  The water 
level fluctuation data is not 
presented, but a 
supporting reference for 
the quantification is given. 
Direct Input  The data 
used is from a sitespecific 
well. The 
fluctuation in Well U-25 
pl is cited as being 
2.05 cm. 
C59 Not Applicable Kies, A.; Majerus, J.; and de 
Lantremange, N.D. 1999. 
"Underground Radon Gas 
Concentrations Related to 
Earth Tides." Il Nuovo 
Cimento della Societ 
Italiana di Fisica, 22C, (3-4), 
287-293. Bologna, Italy: 
Editrice Compositori. 
TIC: 253721. 
(DIRS 160882) 
This paper 
reviews 
observations on 
the influence of 
earth tides or 
radon gas 
release in an 
underground 
mine in 
Luxembourg. 
The mine is 
located in a 
gypsum deposit 
located 80 m 
below ground 
surface. 
Not 
Available 
Technical 
journal 
Moderate to High  The 
experimental methods and 
treatment of collected data 
are discussed, and 
supporting citations are 
given. 
Indirect Input  The 
paper is of interest but 
is not directly 
applicable because it 
does not address 
water level fluctuation 
and the geologic 
formation is 
significantly different. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-140 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table B-22. Sources and Factors Evaluation for Direct Inputs Used for Earth Tides (Continued) 
Item 
Corroborating 
Items Source 
1. 
Demonstrates 
Properties of 
Interest 
2. 
Prior Use 
by Others 
3. 
Type of 
Publication 
and Review 
4. 
Extent and Reliability of 
Documentation 
5. 
Proposed Input 
Status 
C60 Not Applicable Fenelon, J.M. 2000. Quality 
Assurance and Analysis of 
Water Levels in Wells on 
Pahute Mesa and Vicinity, 
Nevada Test Site, Nye 
County, Nevada. Water- 
Resources Investigations 
Report 00-4014. Carson 
City, Nevada: U.S. 
Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20030904.0304. 
(DIRS 160881) 
This paper 
reviews water 
level information 
from the Nevada 
Test Site and 
identifies the 
fluctuation of 
water levels due 
to earth tides. 
Not available USGS Report High  This paper is 
focused on quality 
assurance and the 
documentation is 
extensive for that reason. 
Indirect Input  The 
information is relevant, 
but site-specific 
information is 
available. Information 
from the Nevada Test 
Site indicates 
fluctuations of a few 
cm due to earth tides. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-141 October 2004 
B5.8.3 Discussion 
Direct input is taken from Bredehoeft (1997 [DIRS 100007]) (Q29). The earth tide fluctuation 
for Well UE-25 pl at Yucca Mountain is cited from non-YMP references as 2.05 cm. This low 
magnitude of water level fluctuation is confirmed by Fenelon (2000 [DIRS 160881]) wherein 
earth tide fluctuations at the Nevada Test Site are on the order of several hundredths of a foot 
(i.e., on the order of a few centimeters). Additional corroboration is given by Kies et al. 
(1999 [DIRS 160882]) (C59), which indicates that strain variations induced by earth tides are 
very small (less than on the order of 10-8), which would translate to minimal fluctuations in water 
levels. 
B5.8.4 Data Status and Limitations 
The above literature review and corroboration of the direct input provides a suitable level of 
confidence that the data are suitable for their intended use, which is for FEP screening. The 
direct input considered as qualified for use within this technical product is intended for use only 
in FEP screening. 
B6. DATA GENERATED BY THE EVALUATION 
No data was generated by this suitability demonstration effort. Calculations were performed as 
shown herein to allow corroboration of direct input to indirect inputs. However, the results of 
the calculations are not being qualified and are not to be used directly as data or serve as the sole 
basis for FEP screening decisions. 
B7. THE EVALUATION RESULTS 
The third section for each FEP dataset (Section B5.x.3) provides a comparison of the data being 
justified to the corroborative information. Any manipulations or calculations needed for the 
comparison are provided in that section of the discussion. In some case, this may be further 
subdivided by specific data topic. 
B8. CONCLUSION FOR/AGAINST CHANGING THE DIRECT INPUT STATUS 
This is addressed in Section B5.x.4 for each FEP-specific dataset. The fourth section of the 
discussion for each FEP dataset provides a statement of recommendation and a discussion of any 
specific limitations that apply. This is addressed for each FEP-specific data set under the 
heading Data Status and Limitation. 
The direct inputs listed and discussed above have been reviewed against the stated review 
criteria. In some cases, limitations have been applied. However, all the data evaluated satisfied 
the respective criteria and the status should be considered as qualified for use within this 
technical product. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 B-142 October 2004 
B9. LIMITS OR CAVEATS 
The intended use of the data justified herein is for use in FEP screening. For all data discussed in 
Section B5, the data provide a desired level of confidence that is suitable for the intended use. 
The data are considered qualified for use only within this technical product. These data should 
not be used or referenced by others as direct input without qualification external to this technical 
product. The fourth section of the discussion for each FEP dataset is Section B5 specifies any 
additional limitations that are applicable. This is addressed for each FEP-specific data set under 
the heading Data Status and Limitation. 
B10. IDENTIFICATION OF ANY SUPPORTING INFORMATION 
Supporting information (i.e., corroborating information) is identified in Section B5.x.2 of each 
FEP-specific data set. The table includes an appropriate reference identifier for each citation, 
such as an accession number, DIRS number, or TIC catalog number. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 October 2004 
APPENDIX C 
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR DETERMINING TIMING OF A 
HUMAN-INTRUSION WITHOUT RECOGNITION BY THE INTRUDER 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 October 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-1 October 2004 
C1. INTRODUCTION 
This appendix is related to FEP screening for human intrusion-related FEPs, as discussed in 
Section 6.2.3 and its subsections of the main body of this analysis report. The analysis provided 
in this appendix indicates that an unrecognized intrusion will not occur prior to 10,000 year 
following closure of the repository, and leads to the FEP decisions to exclude the human 
intrusion related FEPs from consideration in the TSPA-LA. This appendix is pertinent to 
evaluation of the following FEPs: 
FEP 1.4.04.00.0A Drilling activities (human intrusion) Section 6.2.3.6 
FEP 1.4.04.01.0A Effects of drilling intrusion Section 6.2.3.7 
The human intrusion FEP 1.4.11.00.0A Explosions and crashes (human activities) is more 
closely aligned with cratering/energy release equations associated with meteorite impacts. This 
FEP is addressed in Section 6.6.2.3.9 and Appendices B and D. 
Section C2 of this appendix addresses the purpose. Section C3 reviews the pertinent literature on 
factors that influence drilling conditions. Section C4 discusses regulatory and technical 
background information pertinent to the analysis. Section C5 brings forward pertinent points 
from Section C4 and places them in the context of the potential for waste package penetration by 
drilling. Discussions in Section C5 include an outline of drill bit and drilling operation principles 
and a discussion of bit operating conditions and changes in conditions that would signify that a 
significant change in subsurface conditions had occurred. These concepts are then related to a 
conceptual model of resulting conditions if the drip shield and waste package were encountered 
and the significant role that comparative material properties have in determining those 
conditions. Section C6 summarizes and supports the exclusion of the human-related FEPs, as 
referenced in Section 6.2.3 and subsections of the main body of this analysis report. 
C2. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this appendix is to document the analysis of whether a driller, using techniques 
and practices currently employed in exploratory drilling for groundwater in the region 
surrounding Yucca Mountain, would or would not recognize that a waste package had been 
penetrated, and to document whether such a condition could occur at or before 10,000 years, or 
at more than 10,000 years after disposal. 
Such an analysis and determination require definition and discussion of conditions that would 
cause recognition of such an event. Given that there is no regulatory definition or description of 
such conditions, the recognition would be based on drill performance characteristics observable 
at the surface. Such measures could be qualitative (e.g., smoothness of operation, excessive 
vibration or chatter) or could be quantitative (e.g., drill penetration rates rotation speed, readily 
observable or measurable change in drilling fluid circulation, or changes in machinery hydraulic 
pressures required to maintain an existing drilling condition). 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-2 October 2004 
C3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 
C3.1 RESOURCE POTENTIAL 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in the discussion regarding the timing and 
frequency of human intrusion (66 FR 55732 [DIRS 156671], p. 55761), states that some 
evaluations of resource potential suggest that Yucca Mountain and the area around it does not 
represent an active candidate for either systematic or random exploratory drilling at this time. 
A list of citations for those studies is available in the regulation. Furthermore, the elevation of 
the mountain, with the resultant greater depth to water compared to shallower groundwater wells 
that would be drilled to the south of the mountain, decreases the likelihood of groundwater 
exploration through the repository footprint. Regardless, the regulations specify evaluation of 
the timing of a human intrusion event and consideration of a stylized human intrusion based on a 
groundwater exploration assumption (10 CFR 63.322 [DIRS 156605]). 
C3.2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 
At 10 CFR 63.321 (DIRS 156605), the NRC specifies the criteria under which human intrusion 
must be evaluated: 
DOE must determine the earliest time after disposal that the waste package would 
degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without recognition by the 
drillers. 
Furthermore, per 10 CFR 63.321(a) (DIRS 156605), the DOE must: 
Provide the analyses and its technical bases used to determine the time of 
occurrence of human intrusion (see 63.322) without recognition by the drillers. 
In addition, if complete waste package penetration is projected to occur at or before 10,000 years 
after disposal, then per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) (DIRS 156605), the DOE is to provide a 
demonstration that: 
there is a reasonable expectation that the reasonably maximally exposed 
individual receives no more than an annual dose of 0.15 mSv (15 mrem) as a 
result of a human intrusion, at or before 10,000 years after disposal. 
And, per 10 CFR 63.321(b)(2) (DIRS 156605), if the exposure of the RMEI occurs more than 
10,000 years after disposal or if the intrusion is not projected to occur before 10,000 years after 
disposal, the results of the analysis and the bases of the analysis are to be provided in the 
environmental impact statement for Yucca Mountain as an indicator of long-term disposal 
system performance. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-3 October 2004 
C3.3 PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND 
C3.3.1 Results of Human Intrusion in Total System Performance AnalysisSite 
Recommendation 
The assumptions used in Total System Performance Assessment for the Site Recommendation 
(CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 4.4) for a stylized human intrusion into the 
repository are summarized in Table 4.4-1 of the TSPA-SR. The stylized human intrusion into 
the repository was assumed to occur 100 years following permanent closure. The TSPA-SR 
(Figure 4.4-11) shows 300 simulated annual dose histories along with some statistical measures 
of the annual dose distribution. The peak mean human intrusion annual dose during the first 
10,000 years after repository closure for the TSPA-SR model is approximately 0.008 mrem/yr, 
occurring at approximately 1,000 years. No annual dose for any of the 300 realizations exceeds 
0.5 mrem/yr over the first 10,000 years. TSPA-SR Figure 4.4-12 shows a comparison of the 
mean human intrusion annual dose curve from an intrusion at 10,000 years with the mean annual 
dose curve from the base case intrusion at 100 years. For the intrusion at 10,000 years, the peak 
mean annual dose over 100,000 years is less than that for the base case intrusion at 100 years. At 
100,000 years, the mean annual dose is nearly identical to the mean annual dose from the base 
case and is approximately 0.004 mrem/yr (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 4.4). 
C3.3.2 Results of Human Intrusion in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 
Two human intrusion scenarios were simulated and discussed in TSPA Report for Final 
Environmental Impact Statement and Suitability Evaluation (Williams 2001 [DIRS 157307], 
Section 6.4), a sensitivity analysis assuming one intrusion at 100 years after repository closure 
and a sensitivity analysis assuming intrusion at 30,000 years, the earliest time after disposal that 
the waste package would degrade sufficiently that a human intrusion could occur without 
recognition by the drillers. The results of the simulations for a human intrusion at 100 years after 
closure show a peak mean dose of 0.0048 mrem/yr over the period of regulatory compliance. 
The results of the 30,000-year simulation analyses are included in Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level 
Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970]). The 
result for an intrusion occurring at 30,000 years indicates a mean annual peak dose of 
0.002 millirem, occurring a short time after 100,000 years after repository closure. Again, 
because the DOE determined that an unrecognized human intrusion could not occur at or before 
10,000 years, the dose limits for the human intrusion do not apply in this suitability evaluation. 
Although some uncertainty exists about the timing of when penetrating a waste package would 
not be detected, the results above, based upon an assumption of penetration at 100 years, show 
that the resulting dose is orders of magnitude less than the applicable radiation protection 
standard. Therefore, even if penetration were much earlier than expected, the resulting doses are 
of little consequence for the suitability evaluation. 
In summary, the TSPA-SR (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246]) considered a stylized event 
occurring at both 100 and 30,000 years. The human intrusion stylized analysis occurring at 
30,000 years is provided in the FEIS (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970], Section 5.7.1). Both of these 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-4 October 2004 
evaluations showed that the dose following a stylized human intrusion remained below the 
regulatory limits, based on the TSPA-SR modeling results. 
Furthermore, the results of the previous TSPA-SR drip shield and waste package studies indicate 
long lifetimes for these components (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153246], Section 3.4), with 
the first drip shield failures occurring after about 20,000 years. The first failures of the waste 
package outer material, Alloy 22 (UNS N06022), by general corrosion occurred after 
approximately 30,000 years. The TSPA-SR results corroborate the drip shield and waste 
package barrier capability for consideration in TSPA-LA, which are based on the updated 
information for repository conditions and physical properties of the drip shield and waste 
packages and are described in the following section. 
C3.3.3 Total System Performance Analysis for License Application Waste Package 
Degradation Analysis Results 
Degradation of the engineered barrier components with time is discussed in BSC (2004 
[DIRS 169996], Sections 6.5 and 7.2), which indicates that: 
 Because of the low corrosion rate of titanium alloy used for the drip shields, the initial 
breaches of the drip shields are not expected to occur until well after 10,000 years; more 
specifically, the modeling indicates approximately 40,000 years, with the median 
estimate of the mean time to initial breaching of drip shields at approximately 300,000 
years. 
 Because the corrosion rates of Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) used for the waste packages are 
low, it is not expected that any waste packages would be breached by general corrosion 
during the first 10,000 years; models indicate that the time to initial breaching of the 
waste packages due to general corrosion is on the order of 100,000 years. 
Because the drip shields remain intact for a post-10,000-year period, concerns regarding 
penetration based on localized corrosion of the waste packages are also excluded during the 
initial 10,000-year period. 
The results of the waste package degradation analyses cited from BSC (2004 [DIRS 169996], 
Sections 6.5 and 7.2) result from the use of representative thermal hydrologic history files 
produced to allow model runs to be exercised in the cited waste package degradation 
(WAPDEG) report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169996]). The actual drip shield and waste package 
degradation profiles used in the TSPA-LA model will make use of the actual thermal hydrologic 
history files appropriate for the repository, which introduces some uncertainty in the exact 
calculated timing of the first failure of the drip shield and waste package. Because representative 
histories were used, however, significant differences in the degradation profile generated for 
TSPA-LA are not expected, and the initial model results are corroborated by the TSPA-SR 
results discussed in Section C3.3.2 of this appendix. 
While general corrosion occurs gradually over time up to the time of failure, the oxidation 
process is a surface phenomenon, and the underlying metal retains its integrity and resistance to 
drilling. For the drip shield, Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00D in D&E / PA/C IED 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-5 October 2004 
Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]) indicates that the 
total corrosion of the drip shield material in 10,000 years is approximately 1.6 to 2 mm. From 
Table 5 of Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00D (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]), the drip shield 
plates have an original thickness of 15 mm. General corrosion is insufficient to significantly 
compromise strength properties of the drip shield since the corroded depth is only 11 percent to 
13 percent of the original thickness. Although TSPA-SR results show some failures at early 
time, these failures are the result of manufacturing defects that increase susceptibility to stress 
corrosion cracking (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169996], Section 6.3.8), and are not associated with 
degradation of the overall structural integrity of the waste package, and the resistance to drilling 
is maintained. 
Barring volcanic events or seismic events of large magnitude, until a breach of the drip shield 
occurs, the structural integrity of the waste package itself is maintained and provides an 
additional barrier to borehole drill penetration. 
C3.3.4 Seismic Consequences Abstraction Analysis Results 
Igneous and seismic-related damage mechanisms are not included in the time to failure stated in 
Section C3.3.3 of this appendix, because the WAPDEG results cited are based on nominal 
scenario assumptions. 
Igneous disruptive events capable of causing significant damage are unlikely (i.e., igneous 
intrusion of the repository footprint has an annual probability of exceedance of less than 10-5 but 
greater than 10-8). Therefore, further consideration of an igneous event in consort with a human 
intrusion stylized analysis is excluded from consideration. The exclusion is consistent with 
requirements of 10 CFR 63.322 (g) (DIRS 156605), which exclude consideration of unlikely 
events in consort with a human intrusion event. 
The analyses for seismic damage to the drip shield and waste package are documented in Seismic 
Consequence Abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183]). The analyses indicate seismic events that 
may occur have the potential to lead to relatively minor drip shield damage due to seismic 
ground motion or due to induced rockfall, via imposed residual stresses in the drip shield. For 
the seismic analysis, the threshold for considering the potential for damage is reached if the 
residual stress from mechanical damage exceeds the residual stress threshold for the barrier. The 
presence of residual stress induced by seismic events and/or related rockfall may result in local 
barrier degradation from accelerated stress corrosion cracking. However, the morphology of the 
resulting crack network and the potential for mineral precipitation within the cracks will prevent 
advective flow through the drip shield and into a potentially breached waste package. 
While this criterion is appropriate for consideration to flow and transport aspects, it does not 
necessarily reflect changes to the effective material properties and may not constitute failure 
with respect to recognition of a change in conditions while drilling. Even with an imposed 
residual stress and even with minor amounts of corrosion and cracking, a rotating drill bit that 
encounters a metallic object will behave significantly different than when encountering 
naturally-occurring geologic materials, provided the drill bit encounters a patch of relatively 
intact material that is roughly the same diameter of the drill bit. This is because the failure mode 
and drill bit interaction is significantly different for rock and metals, as discussed below. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-6 October 2004 
Consequently, for human intrusion without recognition of waste package penetration, additional 
conditions would need to have occurred. These would include, but not necessarily be limited to, 
(1) a significant degradation of material strength due to excessive cracking, fracturing, or 
corrosion or (2) physical separation of the drip shields. 
In contrast, the seismic damage analysis results (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169183], Section 6.5) for the 
drip shield indicate that: 
 For ground motions roughly equated to a 5 x 10-4 per year annualized probability, no 
area of the drip shield exceeds the residual stress threshold of 50 percent of the yield 
strength of Titanium Grade 7 for degradation by stress corrosion cracking. 
 For ground motions roughly equated to a 10-6 per year annualized probability, the mean 
fraction damage area with the potential for stress corrosion cracking is 0.70 percent and 
the maximum fraction damage area is only 2.13 percent. There is no indication of 
separation of drip shields in the calculations for the 10-6 per year ground motion level. 
 For ground motions roughly equated to a 10-7 per year annualized probability, the 
analysis for an unfilled drift indicates separation of adjacent drip shields does not occur 
because the weight of the rubble from the drift collapse prevents the drip shields from 
separating. 
As explained in BSC (2004 [DIR 167780], Section 6.3.2), the residual stress threshold for failure 
of the drip shield by stress corrosion cracking was fixed by a lower bound of 50 percent of the 
yield strength of the drip shield plate material. With regard to the waste package, the residual 
stress threshold for the abstraction has been set at 80 to 90 percent of the yield strength of the 
waste package outer material. For the ground motion level equivalent to a 10-6 per year 
annualized probability, the mean value of damage fraction is 0.31 percent and a maximum value 
of 0.71 percent. A corroborating analysis based on the ground motion level equivalent to 10-5 
annualized probability indicates that at that ground motion level, the resulting damage area for 
waste packages is about 0.04 percent (BSC 2004 [DIRS 167780], Section 6.5.2). 
Consequently, with regard to the human intrusion stylized analysis in consort with a seismic 
event, it is concluded that seismic events occurring with an annual frequency of greater than 10-5 
are of insufficient magnitude to significantly alter material properties of the drip shield or impose 
damage to the waste packages. Furthermore, at 10-5 per year annualized probability, although 
the drip shield may be increasingly vulnerable, no separation has occurred, and the material 
properties of the waste package remain intact. Increased damage effects could potentially occur 
with less frequently occurring events, but the regulations at 10 CFR 63.322(g) and 
10 CFR 63.342 (DIRS 156605) specifically exclude consideration of unlikely events in consort 
with the human intrusion stylized analysis (i.e., unlikely events are those events with less than a 
10-5 per year annual frequency of occurrence). 
C4. POTENTIAL FOR WASTE PACKAGE PENETRATION BY DRILLING 
The following discussion presents several lines of evidence relevant to estimating the time when 
a human intrusion could occur, based upon the earliest time that current technology and practices 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-7 October 2004 
used for groundwater exploration could lead to waste package penetration without a recognition 
by a driller. 
There are a number of operational parameters that would indicate to a driller that down-hole 
conditions had changed, merit additional investigation, and possibly justify a bit run (the removal 
of the bit from the hole for review and grading). These include loss of circulation, decreased 
penetration rate, increased drill string and bit instability, and increased drill string torque caused 
by differing material properties. 
C4.1 INITIAL BIT SELECTION AND DRILLING PRINCIPLES 
Per the regulatory requirement discussed in Sections C3.1 and C3.2 of this appendix, the bases 
for the following discussions are focused on typical practices used in drilling water wells in 
southwestern United States. Generally speaking, the drill string assembly consists of the drill bit, 
a drill collar, the drill pipe, and in some instances, the use of stabilizers. 
As described in Driscoll (1986 [DIRS 116801], pp. 278 to 286) and Bourgoyne et al. (1986 
[DIRS 155233], Section 5.1), roller bits are typically used in drilling water wells due to their low 
cost and wide range of operational flexibility. Polycrystalline diamond cutter and diamond cutter 
drag bits typically are not used in water well drilling because of the high costs of these drill bits. 
Direct circulation hammer drills are sometimes used to drill brittle competent rock such as 
welded volcanic tuff, but they typically are inefficient in unconsolidated alluvium or incompetent 
rock formations. This limitation reduces the use of these drills in typical water well drilling. 
The discussions provided herein would be generally applicable to roller or hammer bits. 
The initial selection of bit type is typically based on what is known about the formation 
characteristics. The terms usually used by drilling engineers to describe the formation 
characteristics are drillability and abrasiveness. The drillability of the formation is a measure of 
how easy the rock formation is to drill. It is inversely related to the compressive strength of the 
rock, although other factors are also important. The abrasiveness of the formation is a measure 
of how rapidly the cutting surface of a bit will wear when drilling the formation. Although there 
are some exceptions, the abrasiveness tends to increase as the drillability decreases 
(Bourgoyne et al. 1986 [DIRS 155233], Chapter 5). 
The International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC 1992 [DIRS 155232]) has 
developed a classification chart for selection of roller bits. Using this classification chart, roller 
bits with characteristics of 7-1 or 7-2 (hard semi-abrasive and abrasive formations) would be 
selected for drilling through the welded geologic units at Yucca Mountain, based on 
geomechanical properties. Roller bits are designed to take advantage of brittle failure of the rock 
matrix to crush, break, and remove the rock in an efficient manner. The volume of rock that is 
newly fractured by a tooth depends on the geometry, rock properties, and tooth penetration depth 
below the rock surface. The force applied to the tooth is supplied by the drill string torque and 
the weight on the bit. The force applied to a particular situation determines the tooth penetration 
depth. The bit tooth penetrates into the rock until the resistant force offered back by the rock 
equals the force applied to the tooth. As a load is applied to a bit tooth, the pressure beneath the 
tooth increases until it exceeds the crushing strength of the rock and a wedge of finely powered 
rock is formed beneath the tooth. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-8 October 2004 
As the force of the tooth increases, the material in the wedge compresses and exerts high lateral 
forces on the solid rock surrounding the wedge until the shear stress exceeds the shear strength of 
the solid rock and the rock fractures. The rock may also exhibit ductility such that a greater 
tooth penetration is required to cause sufficient strain for chipping to occur (Warren 1987 
[DIRS 155234]). The tooth will penetrate until the shear stress on the tooth is balanced by the 
shear strength of the rock. 
These forces generate fractures that propagate along a maximum shear surface. As the force of 
the tooth increases above the threshold value, subsequent fracturing occurs in the region above 
the initial fracture, forming a zone of broken rock. The bit tooth moves forward until it reaches 
the margins of the wedge and/or fracture zone, and the process repeats (Bourgoyne et al. 1986 
[DIRS 155233], Chapter 5). The crushed and broken material is then removed from the boring 
using circulated drilling fluids (air, water, or admixtures thereof) that also provide cooling and 
cleaning for the drill bit. 
The drill collar is a heavy-walled length of drill pipe with a diameter less than the borehole 
diameter. If too much force is applied at the top of the drill stem, the drill pipe will bow and tend 
to cause the bit to cut off-center and, thereby, cause deviations in the borehole alignment. To 
compensate, drill collars are used to add weight to the lower part of the drill string assembly. 
This concentration of weight and the increased rigidity of the collars helps to keep the lower part 
of the drill assembly in alignment and provide weight to the bit to maintain appropriate 
penetration rate (Driscoll 1986 [DIRS 116801], p. 281). Drill collars may also be fitted with 
stabilizer devices that contact the borehole walls. The drill collars and stabilizers are used to 
maintain alignment of the drill string within the borehole and reduce vibration or wobble of the 
bit and the drill pipe that transfers the torque from the surface to the drill bit. 
C4.2 BIT OPERATING CONDITIONS AND CHANGE-IN-CONDITIONS 
Bit operating conditions (i.e., drilling fluid properties and circulation rates, drill string stability, 
bit weight, and rotary speed) affect the rate of penetration and the vibrations felt on the drill rig. 
These factors would be affected by the drilling assemblys entry into the emplacement drift, and 
the bit operating conditions would be significantly affected by the rounded geometry of the 
emplacement drift, drip shield, and waste package. 
The loss of drilling fluid circulation and the sudden drop in weight on the bit when the drill bit 
breaks through the top of the emplacement drift would provide initial indications that conditions 
had changed significantly. The loss of circulation would occur because of the flow of drilling 
fluids from the borehole and into the emplacement drift which, at 5.5 m diameter and on the 
scale of a kilometer in length, represents an essentially instantaneous increase in volume 
compared to the borehole volume. At that point, the driller would either try to continue drilling 
without compensating for the fluid loss in the hope of passing through the loss zone, would try 
various additives in the drilling fluid to try to seal the formation (Driscoll 1986 
[DIRS 116801], p. 360) or would have to pull the drill assembly and either change drilling 
methods or run casing to seal off the cavity. In the event of continued drilling, the encountering 
of the drip shield or waste package would prevent progress, and the lack of cooling from 
circulated fluids would eventually destroy the drilling bit and result in the drilling assembly 
being pulled from the hole (or otherwise cause the driller to consider alternative courses of 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-9 October 2004 
action). Given the volume difference between the borehole and the emplacement drift, it is 
implausible that any amount of additive would resolve the lost circulation problem, again leading 
the driller to some alternative course of action. Alternative courses of action, such as spot 
cementing through the loss zone or setting casing through the cavity, would involve pulling the 
drilling assembly from the borehole. In either scenario, the driller would then encounter 
continued volumetric problems or would encounter problems in trying to set casing due to the 
presence of the drip shield or waste package within the emplacement drift. If successful in such 
attempts, alternative scenarios involve progressing the boring without penetration of the drip 
shield (i.e., along the side of gap between the drip shield and drift wall) or have the potential for 
contacting the drip shield. 
In addition to loss of circulation, the space between the crown or sides of the emplacement drift 
(5.5 m) and the drip shield would cause the operating conditions to become unstable and would 
evidence themselves as a sudden increase in rotation speed as the weight on the drill bit was 
unloaded, sudden drop in the drill assembly (i.e., essentially free fall until the drip shield or 
invert of the drift was encountered), and or a significant increase in the amount of vibration at the 
surface. Any of these conditions would cause the destabilization of the drill bit (i.e., tend to 
allow the bit to change direction from the original concentric alignment) and would trigger a 
response by the driller to address the change in conditions. This is particularly true as drilling 
conditions would noticeably change (due to the difference in rock and alloy material properties) 
if the drilling assembly came in contact with the drip shield material as discussed in Section C4.4 
of this appendix. 
These various scenarios and alternatives assume that the drift has not collapsed. However, the 
lithophysal and fractured nature of some the Topopah Spring Tuff rock units could provide 
similar indications, or a rubble accumulation at a collapse point could limit the degree of lost 
circulation, and the various alternatives discussed above might allow the borehole to progress. 
Rubble material in a collapsed drift could reduce the degree of the effects on drilling but would 
likely not eliminate them. The drift stability through time has been examined in Drift 
Degradation Analysis (BSC 2004 [DIRS 166107]). The analysis indicates that during the 
regulatory period of 10,000 years, the ground support will completely lose its integrity, and drift 
degradation will occur due to strength decay of the rock mass within the lithophysal zone 
(BSC 2003 [DIRS 166107], p. 188). However, the collapse results in the bulking of, or increase 
in volume of the rock, as the rock mass disintegrates into a number of pieces, resulting in 
increased porosity and overall volume. The resulting bulk properties of the fill are different from 
that of the intact rock mass. Loss of drilling fluid circulation would still occur but perhaps could 
be accommodated by the driller. Additionally, the rubble pile of rocks would tend to move or 
shift under small loads, and the uneven loading on the drill bit would increase the lateral 
deviation forces (Bourgoyne et al. 1986 [DIRS 155233], Chapter 5). As such, even if the drifts 
collapse, the character of the rubble would be insufficient to stabilize the drill string. Severe 
wobbling bit action would result as the bit is rotated if the drill collars or stabilizers above the bit 
are not held in a concentric position in the borehole. 
C4.3 PENETRATION OF THE DRIP SHIELD AND WASTE PACKAGE 
To have any possibility of penetrating the drip shield or waste package, the drilling assembly 
would have to contact the surfaces in an essentially perpendicular orientation. In general, 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-10 October 2004 
deviation in alignment may be caused by the character of the subsurface material. This is 
because lateral deviation forces increase with relatively small changes in the contact angle 
between the bit and the drilled material (Bourgoyne et al. 1986 [DIRS 155233], Chapter 5). 
Deviations may also be caused by too much or too little weight on the drill bit and differences in 
the pull-down force applied to the drill pipe during rotary drilling. Additionally, the varying 
hardness of different materials being penetrated deflects the bit from a consistent alignment. 
Given that the top of the drip shield is curved and that most groundwater exploration holes are 
drilled in a near-vertical orientation (i.e., angle and directional drilling are possible but are not 
typically used for groundwater exploration purposes due to increased difficulty and cost), the 
drill bit would have to make contact at the relatively small areas that make up the apex of the 
drip shield or waste package, where the surfaces are essentially perpendicular to the drill bit 
orientation. Only the apex of the drip shield or waste package provides a perpendicular surface 
for which drip shield and waste package geometry would not increase the lateral deviation 
forces. 
If the drilling assembly contacts any location other than the relatively small areas that make up 
the apex of the drip shield or waste package, then the relatively small drill bit diameter and high 
rotational speeds and the increased strength of material used for the drip shield and waste 
package compared to the geologic materials (see Section C4.4 of this appendix) would result in 
large lateral deviation forces and uneven loading on the bit. In turn, this would lead to drilling 
assembly instability and the bit would essentially bounce and slide on the top or side of the 
engineered barriers and potentially cause the drill bit to slip off of the drip shield or waste 
package apex. Consequently, no penetration of the waste package would occur. Furthermore, 
any non-slip contact with the drip shield or the waste package would be accompanied by a 
noticeable increase in drill string torque and reduced rate of penetration as the bit teeth contacted 
the metallic alloy. At the surface, the driller would recognize these conditions as a lack of drill 
bit penetration and excessive vibration. High levels of vibration and correspondingly low rates 
of penetration, such as these observed with poorly designed bits when crossing hard and abrasive 
formations would prompt the driller to adjust the rotary speed and weight on bit that eliminates 
shock. In some cases, this could include removing the drilling assembly from the borehole to 
inspect the bit condition (Putot et al. 2000 [DIRS 167791], p. 118), which would increase the 
chance for recognition of excessive bit wear and possible recognition that a metallic object had 
been encountered. 
C4.4 COMPARATIVE MATERIAL STRENGTHS 
Assuming that the drilling assembly does not slide off the apex of the drip shield, then a 
significant change in downhole conditions would also be recognized because the failure 
mechanisms of brittle rock (such as that present at the repository host horizon) and ductile alloys 
(such as the drip shield and waste packages) differ significantly. These changes in failure 
mechanisms are so significant that specialized downhole techniques and tools are used to drill 
through metal. Milling produces a different failure mechanism than brittle failure that roller bits 
and hammer bits typically produce. Bits designed for drilling rock would not be efficient for 
drilling through metal and would likely be seriously damaged, and the milling techniques needed 
to bore metals (Avallone 1987 [DIRS 103508], pp. 13-63 to 13-64) are not used in rock drilling, 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-11 October 2004 
unless required for fishing operations or other specialized applications (e.g., Driscoll 1986 
[DIRS 116801], Figure 10.10 and Figure 10.54, pp. 316 to 319). 
Brittle materials are characterized by the fact that rupture occurs without any noticeable prior 
change in the rate of elongation. Thus, for brittle materials under tension, there is no difference 
between the ultimate strength and the breaking strength. Also, under tension, the strain at the 
time of rupture is much smaller for brittle than for ductile materials (Beer and Johnston 1981 
[DIRS 166708], p. 36). In general, brittle materials are weaker in tension than in shear (Beer and 
Johnston 1981 [DIRS 166708], p. 101), and brittle materials are significantly stronger in 
compression than in tension (e.g., the tensile strength of concrete is about 10 to 20 percent of its 
compressive strength; also see Table C-1 of this appendix for a comparison of rock strength in 
compression and tension). For brittle materials, strength is typically reported as compressive 
strength rather than tensile strength, while ductile material strengths are typically determined in 
tension. 
The ductility of a material, such as the alloys used for the drip shields and waste packages, is 
usually measured as the percent reduction in area (or the elongation that occurs during a tensile 
test. Ductile materials, with a minimum elongation in tensile testing, will not fail in service 
through brittle fracture (Boyer and Gall 1984 [DIRS 155318]), which is the failure mode 
exhibited by the repository host horizon materials. Also, for ductile metals, the compression 
strength is generally assumed equal to the tensile strength (Beer and Johnson 1981 
[DIRS 166708], p. 584). Generally speaking, values obtained for the yield strength and ultimate 
strength of a given material are only about half as large in shear as they are in tension, and the 
shear modulus is generally less than one-half, but more than one third, of the modulus of 
elasticity of that material (Beer and Johnston 1981 [DIRS 166708], pp. 68-69). 
Therefore, if the differences between milling and rotary drilling tools are ignored and rotary bits 
could be used to penetrate the engineered barriers, a measure for comparing strength properties 
between brittle and ductile materials is needed. One such parameter is a comparison of the 
modulus of elasticity of these differing materials. Because of the lack of elongation, the 
stress-strain diagram for brittle materials is generally linear, and the modulus of elasticity 
provides a convenient method for comparing material properties between brittle and ductile 
materials. This also suggests that comparison of tensile strength of brittle materials to yield 
strength of ductile materials may also be appropriate. Comparison of the compressive strength 
of rock materials and tensile strength of alloy is also appropriate. Furthermore, the reported 
shear modulus could be compared (if available) or a value of twice to three times the shear 
modulus could be compared to the modulus of elasticity. 
Various rock properties for materials at Yucca Mountain are shown in Figure C-1 and Table C-1, 
including uniaxial compressive strength and the modulus of elasticity (Youngs modulus), tensile 
strength, and ultimate strength. Based on the design drawings and data tracking numbers 
(DTNs) cited, the yield strength, tensile strength, and modulus of elasticity for the drip shield and 
waste package materials are shown in Table C-2. 
Studies that have been conducted to correlate operational parameters to rate of penetration of the 
drill bit indicate that the rate of penetration may range from inversely proportional to the square 
of the strength of the material being drilled to inversely proportional to strength of the material, 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-12 October 2004 
all other factors being equal (Bourgoyne et al. 1986 [DIRS 155233], Equation 5-19; 
Kahraman 2000 [DIRS 167761], Equations 8, 12, and 14). Putot et al. (2000 [DIRS 167791], 
p. 123) suggests, at least for balling tendencies in shales and for a given weight on bit, drilling 
performance collapses upon a doubling of the rotary speed. As shown in Appendix B, 
Section B5.1.3, penetration rate is directly proportional to rotary speed. Assuming that a change 
in the penetration rate by a factor of 1.5 or greater (increase) or 0.66 or less (decrease) (i.e., some 
condition occurring before performance collapse) would be sufficient to be noticed by a driller, 
a change in compressive strength of materials by a factor of 1.5 (or possibly less if one assumes 
the inverse square relationship presented by Bourgoyne et al. 1986 [DIRS 155233]) would cause 
a significant change in drilling conditions that would be recognized by the driller. 
Source: BSC 2003 (DIRS 166660), Figure 8-45. 
Figure C-1. Unconfined Compressive Strength vs. Youngs Modulus 50.8 mm Specimens, Saturated, 
Room Temperature, L:D = 2:1 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-13 October 2004 
Table C-1. Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Youngs Moduli by Rock Unit 
Rock Unit 
Uniaxial 
Compressive 
Strength Mean 
(MPa) 
Tensile Strength 
Mean; Range 
(MPa) 
Ultimate Strength 
Mean; Range 
(MPa) 
Shear 
Modulus 
(GPa) 
Elasticity 
(Youngs 
Modulus) 
Mean; Range 
(GPa) 
Topopah Springs Tuff  
upper lithophysal zone 
(Tptpul) 
39.0 - - 19.3; 
9.4  37.0 
- - 11.1; 5.0  
20.5 
Topopah Springs Tuff  
lower lithophysal zone 
(Tptpll) 
110.6 8.3; 3.2  14.3 23.8; 
13.3-32.2 
0.80 to 
8.21 
6.9; 5.0  9.2 
Topopah Springs Tuff  
middle nonlithophysal zone 
(Tptpmn) 
188.0 10.9; 4.3  16.8 212.8; 
16.08  360.0 
- - 
Topopah Springs Tuff  
lower nonlithophysal zone 
(Tptpln) 
136.1 7.9; 4.8  13.7 - - - - 
33.6; 16.6  
47.3 
Sources: Mean Uniaxial Compressive Strength Data based on data provided in DTN: MO0311RCKPRPCS.003 
(DIRS 166073) and Table E-14. 
Tensile Strength taken from BSC 2004 (DIRS 166107), Table E-7. 
Ultimate Strength taken from BSC 2004 (DIRS 166107), Table E-8. 
Shear Modulus estimated for rock mass qualities 1 through 5 and taken from BSC 2004 (DIRS 166107), 
Table E-10. 
Mean for Elastic Modulus (Youngs Modulus) based on data from BSC 2004 (DIRS 166107), Tables E-6 and 
E-9. 
The tables the follow indicate that the mean compressive strength of the rock material ranges 
from 39.0 MPa to 154.0 MPa. At room temperature, the tensile strength of the drip shield 
materials ranges from 345 MPa to 895 MPa. Thus, the factor of compressive strengths ranges 
from about 2.2 (345/154) to as great as 22.9 (895/39.0). The tensile strength of the waste 
package material at room temperature ranges from 550 MPa to 802 MPa. This represents factors 
of 3.6 (550/154) to as great as 205 (802/39.0). If one conservatively assumes the yield strength 
of the engineered barrier materials is comparable to rock compressive strength, the factors 
decrease. For the drip shield material at room temperature, the factor ranges from 1.8 (275/154) 
to 11.5 (450/39.0). For the waste package material at room temperature, the factors range from 
1.6 (240/159 to great as 10.3 (403/39.0). However, given that all waste packages include 
Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) material as outer barrier, the lower end of the range is bounded at a 
factor of 2.3 (358/154). Therefore, at room temperature, a minimum factor of two, and 
potentially much greater is present for at least one of the engineered barriers. If one assumes an 
inverse proportionality of rock strength to rate of penetration, the penetration rates would 
decrease by a minimum factor of 0.62 and, therefore, be recognizable, as previously discussed in 
Section C4.4. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-14 October 2004 
Table C-2. Material Properties for Drip Shield and Waste Package Fabrication 
Engineered Barrier Material Use 
Yield Strength 
at 0.2% Offset 
(MPa) 
Tensile Strength 
(MPa) 
Modulus of 
Elasticity 
(GPa) 
Titanium Grade 7a and Grade 16 
(at room temperature) 
Drip Shield 275 to 450 345 106.87 
Titanium Grade 7a and Grade 16 
(at 400oF/204oC) 
Drip Shield 138-152 207-228 - - 
Titanium Grade 24 Drip Shield - - 895b 113.8c 
Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) (at room 
temperature) 
Waste Package 358-403 765-802 206 
Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) (at 
400oF/204oC) 
Waste Package 262-303 662-701 196 
Type 316 N Grade Stainless Steel 
(minimum properties)e 
Waste Package 240 550 196 
a DTN: MO0003RIB00073.000 (DIRS 152926) for Titanium Grades 7 and 16. 
b Tensile Strength for Titanium Grade 24, ASME 1998 (DIRS 145103), Section II, Table 1. 
c Modulus of Elasticity for Titanium Grade 24, ASM International 1990 (DIRS 141615), p. 621. 
The source of values for Titanium Grades 7, 16, and 24 are given on Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00401-000-00D in 
D&E / PA/C IED Interlocking Drip Shield and Emplacement Pallet (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169220]). 
d DTN: MO0003RIB00071.000 (DIRS 148850) for Alloy 22 (UNS N06022). 
e DTN: MO0003RIB00076.000 (DIRS 153044) for Type 316N. 
The source of values for Alloy 22 and for Type 316N Grade is given on Drawing 
800-IED-WIS0-00201-000-00E in D&E / PA/C IED Typical Waste Package Components Assembly (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169480]). 
At elevated temperatures, such as those during the thermal period (e.g., 200oC), the strength 
properties of the drip shield material are reduced. The factor reduces in range from 1.3 
(207/154) to as great as 5.8 (228/39.0), based on compressive strength. However, the properties 
of the Alloy 22 (UNS N06022) outer barrier are not as significantly reduced. The factor for 
compressive strengths for the elevated temperature ranges from 4.3 (662/154) to 17.9 (701/39.0), 
and for yield strength is 1.7 (262/154) to 7.8 (303/39.0). Thus, a factor of at least 1.5 is 
maintained and changes in the rate of penetration would be noticeable, even at the elevated 
temperature. 
Furthermore, the mean tensile strength and mean ultimate strength of the rock units are reported 
to range from 11.6 MPa to 23.8 MPa (or approximately 8 to 22 percent of the corresponding 
mean compressive strength). These rock tensile strengths are, at a minimum, a factor of 14 less 
than those of the engineered barrier materials at room temperature. Even conservatively 
assuming an equivalence of the yield strength of a ductile material to tensile or ultimate strength 
of brittle material generates a difference of a factor of greater than 10. Similarly, the mean 
modulus of elasticity for the rock materials is on the order of 6.9 to 33 GPa. Correspondingly, 
the reported shear modulus for the repository host horizon ranges from 0.42 to 8.21 GPa (or no 
greater than 1/4 of the maximum reported modulus of elasticity). By contrast, for the ductile 
alloys, the modulus of elasticity ranges from 107 to 206 GPa, representing a minimum factor of 
3.2 different from the rock properties. These factors would be reduced at elevated temperatures. 
The discussion provided above would be applicable even if the drip shield or one of the materials 
used in the waste package were degraded to the point where structural integrity were lost or (in 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-15 October 2004 
the case of the drip shield) the interlock mechanism were bent and penetrated by the drilling 
assembly. 
C5. CONCLUSION 
The information presented in this appendix addresses the issue of when a human intrusion could 
occur based upon the earliest time that current technology and practices could lead to waste 
package penetration without the driller noticing waste package penetration. Conclusions based 
on information presented in this appendix suggest that a human intrusion event, if it were to 
occur during the time frame of regulatory compliance, would not happen without recognition. 
Selection of a bit for drilling involves knowledge of the characteristics of the rock. As indicated 
in Tables C-1 and C-2, there are significant differences between the tensile strengths and other 
material properties of the geologic units at Yucca Mountain and the materials for the drip shield 
and waste package. Because the materials used in the drip shield and waste packages have high 
tensile strengths, yield strengths, and increased modulus of elasticity compared to the host rock 
properties, the tooth of a roller bit cannot penetrate enough to cause sufficient strain for chipping 
to occur. Rather, if contact with the drip shield occurs, the rotation of the bit would result in a 
tearing or shearing action with associated and recognizable high torque values. Consequently, 
the ductility of the metals makes them nearly impenetrable by techniques used in drilling rock. 
Boring in metals typically utilizes a milling technique. The downhole milling tools needed to 
penetrate the drip shield and waste package are not typically used in groundwater exploration, 
and use of such tools would be a clear indicator of recognition of penetration of some type of 
metallic, anthropogenic structure. Furthermore, general corrosion failure of the drip shields is 
not expected to occur prior to 35,000 years, and the maximum corrosion depth in 10,000 years is 
predicted to be less than one-half the total thickness of the drip shield plates. Consequently, 
penetration of the drip shield or waste package without recognition by the driller prior to general 
corrosion failure of the engineered barriers is not feasible prior to the end of the 10,000-year 
regulatory period. Before this time, the presence of metallics will be recognizable to the driller, 
generally through loss of rate of penetration or significantly increased torque on the drill 
assembly. 
Because the evaluation for TSPA-SR indicated that the earliest time that current technology and 
practices could lead to waste package penetration without the driller noticing waste package 
penetration was after 10,000 years, the evaluation of the human intrusion stylized analysis was 
previously placed in the FEIS (DOE 2002 [DIRS 155970], Section 5.7.1) as required at 
10 CFR 63.321(b)(1) (DIRS 156605). The analysis and materials properties data for TSPA-LA 
do not lead to any significantly different conclusions regarding the timing of human intrusion. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 C-16 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 October 2004 
APPENDIX D 
SCIENTIFIC ANALYSES DISCUSSION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR 
METEORITE IMPACT AND CRATERING PROBABILITY AND CONSEQUENCE 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 October 2004 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-1 October 2004 
D1. INTRODUCTION 
This appendix supports the feature, event, and process (FEP) screening for meteorite impact, as 
summarized in Section 6.2.4.5 of the main body of this analysis report. It provides a detailed 
calculation and discussion regarding meteorite impact and provides the technical basis for 
exclusion based on probability for meteorite crater diameters larger than the threshold diameter 
associated with a frequency of one per 10,000 per 10,000 years. It also provides the technical 
basis for exclusion based on consequences for meteorite crater diameters smaller than the 
threshold diameter. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific Analyses, Attachment 3, allows for the use of appendices to the main body 
of the analysis report. To wit Supporting documentation, such as computer output, that are 
lengthy or cannot be conveniently included with the main text of the documentation may be 
included as appendices. This appendix is not intended to be used as stand-alone documentation 
separate from the main document. The application of the probability and consequence 
information described here in is intended for FEP screening purposes. Specifically, it is directly 
applicable to consideration of meteorite impacts, and indirectly may be applicable to other 
surface energy-release phenomena such as crashes and/or explosions and detonations. The FEP 
screening process is described in Section 6.1 of the main body of the analysis report and is not 
repeated in this appendix. 
Because of the length of the analysis, this appendix has been organized into sections. Section D2 
addresses the overall scientific approach and methods used in the analysis. Section D3 provides 
the calculation of the probability of intersection with the repository footprint based on meteoroid 
flux data and the repository-specific dimensions. A discussion of related uncertainties is also 
provided. Section D4 discusses the FEP implications of the results. 
D2. SCIENTIFIC APPROACH AND TECHNICAL METHODS 
The analysis of meteorite-impact probability and consequence is needed to perform FEP 
screening. The initial question is What is the probability of meteorite impact at the repository? 
The answer to the question is that the probability of impact of a meteorite of any size without 
regard to resulting consequence, at or near the repository, in 10,000 years, is approximately one. 
The initial question is incomplete, however, in that not all meteorites impact with energy 
sufficient to cause damage at the surface, to crater the surface, or otherwise affect the subsurface. 
Additionally, it is recognized that impacts near the repository, if of sufficient energy to cause 
damage, also need to be considered. Consequently, the question is refined to address the 
minimum size meteorite (or more precisely, the minimum resulting crater diameter) sufficient to 
affect repository performance, and the associated probability. The question is restated as What 
is the probability or consequence of damage to or impairment of repository performance 
stemming from meteorite impact in 10,000 years? 
The probability of an impact crater of a given size occurring directly over or adjacent to the 
repository is dependent on the total flux of meteorites to the earth surface and on the repository 
footprint area (or target area). The size of the crater of interest is determined by the depth from 
ground surface to the top of the repository and/or any intervening geologic layers of particular 
interest due to their physical or hydrologic properties, and the spatial relationship of crater 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-2 October 2004 
diameter to exhumation depth and fracture depth. Accordingly, this analysis report appendix 
specifically examines the target area to be considered and the probability of crater diameters 
sufficient to exhume waste, to fracture overlying rock units down to the repository depth, and to 
fracture to a depth less than the repository depth but sufficient to impair performance. 
Most authors express the target area as either the whole earths surface (5.1  108 km2) or some 
fraction thereof, such as only the landmass as in the case of meteorite fall studies, or probability 
per km2. In either case, to use the stated values in the literature, a first approximation of the 
target area can be used to scale probabilities. This approach is taken for Sections D3.1 and D3.2. 
Section D3.1 provides a first order approximation based on the probability of intersection from 
individual and known objects. This section only addresses individual objects and not the full 
range of potential meteorite sizes. It is, therefore corroborative, in nature and utilizes only 
indirect input. The results are not used as the basis of the FEP screening decision, but strengthen 
the results that are presented in Sections D3.2 and D3.3. Section D3.2 provides a first order 
approximation based on distributions developed from observed lunar and earth cratering data. 
Section D3.2 also develops a cratering rate distribution based on meteoroid flux, meteoroid 
properties, and crater relationship information. This first order approximation of probability 
based on footprint area slightly under-represents the probability of impact because it fails to 
consider the potential for near-miss impacts in which the center of a crater occurs outside the 
repository footprint, but a portion of the crater diameter extends within the boundary. At most, 
the target area would be expanded by adding one-half of the crater diameter (for the crater 
diameter that occurs at an annualized frequency of 10-8) to all four sides of the repository 
footprint (presuming a roughly rectangular footprint). Consequently, a more accurate 
representation of probability is achieved by expressing the area as a function of the two rectangle 
dimensions plus the crater diameter, coupling this to a known distribution, such as meteorite 
influx or cratering rate, and integrating the function over the range of possible values. 
Section D3.3 uses this approach and uses the distributions discussed in Section D3.2 and applies 
them to repository-relate target areas, including the TSPA-LA emplacement area footprint and to 
the geologic outcrop area of the Paintbrush unit. This results in a more detailed analysis that 
considers the repository footprint area and other key target areas (i.e., geologic unit outcrop). 
Corroborative analysis based on the TSPA-LA siting area and the TSPA-SR footprint is also 
provided for comparison. Each of the approaches used in Sections D3.1, D3.2, and D3.3 have 
inherent uncertainties, which are discussed in Section D3.4. 
The implications and conclusion from this analysis to be used in FEP screening of meteorite 
impact is discussed in Section D4 of this appendix. 
D3. METEORITE IMPACT ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONS 
This section provides an analysis of meteorite impact probability. The results of this analysis 
provide the technical basis used for screening the FEP, as described in Section 6.2.4.5 of the 
main body of the document. 
Direct inputs used in this section are addressed in Section 4 of the main body of this document as 
required by procedure AP-SIII.9Q. Data qualification for non-YMP sources used for direct 
inputs is provided in Section B5.5 of Appendix B of this document, which also provides the list 
of indirect inputs, as required by procedure AP-SIII.9Q. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-3 October 2004 
For the calculations provided in Section D3 of this appendix, metric units are used throughout, 
with distances and depths being expressed in either meters or kilometers. Densities are 
expressed as either kg/m3 or g/cm3. Energy release is expressed as either equivalent tonnage of 
TNT (i.e., as either kiloton or megaton) or as Joules. The conversion from number of events, 
whole earth to number events per km2 is simply division by the surface area of the earth 
(5.1 x 108 km2). 
Assumptions used in this analysis are identified under Assumption 5.4 of the main body of this 
document and are referenced within the following discussion as needed. Formulations, 
equations, algorithms, and numerical methods used are discussed when used, with equations 
being sequentially numbered throughout this appendix. Justification for use of the equations and 
relationships used is provided in Section B5.5 of Appendix B of this document. Multiple 
approaches and alternative methods were used in developing this analysis, and are described 
within this section. No modeling was performed for this analysis. The calculations were 
performed using simple spreadsheets, examples of which are provided as separate tables. 
For clarity, the following terms are used in the discussions. Meteoroid refers generically to a 
non-anthropogenic space object prior to entry to earths atmosphere, meteor refers to the object 
once it enters earths atmosphere and prior to impact, and meteorite refers to the object (or 
fragments of the object) impacting on (or in the case of aerial explosion, occurring near) the 
earths surface. The terms bolide and fireball are also used. A bolide is defined as a meteor that 
shows signs of explosion or fragmentation, and a fireball is defined as a bright meteor with 
luminosity that equals or exceeds that of the brightest planets (generally magnitude of 3 or 
brighter). 
D3.1 PROBABILITY OF IMPACT BASED ON INDIVIDUAL OBJECTS 
Various authors have calculated the probability of entry of known individual interplanetary 
bodies into the earths atmosphere. These probabilities are for any entry into the earths 
atmosphere. However, our interest is in the cumulative probability of impact of all objects, not 
just for individual objects, so the following information is considered as corroborative-use only. 
Chyba (1993 [DIRS 135248], Table 1a) addresses 12 objects with diameters of less than 50 m 
that have been observed to date. Excluding object 1991-VG (a suspected possible human 
artifact), the mean calculated probability of impact on the earths atmosphere for the known 
bodies is 29 per gigayear, suggesting rates on the order of 3  10-8 per year, or on the order of 
3 x 10-4 in 10,000 years (Chyba 1993 [DIRS 135248], p. 701) for the whole earth surface, and it 
is stated to be a factor of approximately seven greater than for other earth-crossing asteroids. 
Since impact is a spatially random process (Grieve 1987 [DIRS 135254], p. 257), dividing this 
value by the surface area of the earth (5.1108 km2), and multiplying by the maximum area of 
the repository footprint (18 km2), yields a probability of impact above the repository on the order 
of 1.110-15 per year, or approximately 10-11 in 10,000 years. 
Marsden and Steel (1994 [DIRS 129308], p. 235, Figure 4) provide the calculated 
atmospheric-entry probabilities, defined as crossing within 0.1 to 1 astronomical unit (AU) 
(1 =AU = 149,598,000 km) of earths orbit, for all observed long period comets (i.e., orbit 
duration of greater than 200 years). The greatest calculated probability is 2.6  10-7 per orbit and 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-4 October 2004 
the estimated mean impact probability is 2  10-9 to 3  10-9 per orbit. Dividing by the minimum 
orbital period of 200 years (by definition of a long-period comet) yields a maximum probability 
of approximately 1.3  10-9 per year, or on the order of 10-5 in 10,000 years for the whole earth. 
If one neglects atmospheric shielding effects, the probability of impact above the repository can 
be estimated by dividing the probability by 5.1  108 km2, the approximate surface area of the 
earth, and multiplying by the maximum repository footprint. This yields a maximum probability 
of approximately 4.5  10-17 per year or about 4.5 x 10-13 in 10,000 years. 
The probability of the impact of any individual, known object is, therefore, at least seven orders 
of magnitude less than the regulatory threshold of an annualized equivalence of about 10-8 or, 
more specifically, 10-4 in 10,000 years. 
D3.2 PROBABILITY OF IMPACT BASED ON OBSERVED CRATERING 
DISTRIBUTIONS 
The FEP screening considers the cratering rate distributions derived from Grieve et al. (1995 
[DIRS 135260]) that is based on world-wide cratering information (Section D3.2.1). It also 
considers the distribution from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]), which is based on 
cratering of the Canadian shield, and serves as a realistic case (Section D3.2.2). In addition, 
the analysis examines the distribution proposed by Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]), 
which is based on lunar cratering data (Section D3.2.3). Because this distribution was developed 
assuming an atmosphereless earth, it serves as an upper bound for earth cratering. However, 
this distribution is only used for corroboration purposes, as it is unrealistic to expect that the 
atmosphere has no effect on the cratering distribution. 
Existing distributions in the literature are stated, generally, to apply to crater diameters on the 
scale of kilometers, rather than within the primary range of interest for this analysis (79 to 625 m 
as discussed in Section D3.3.2). Accordingly, this analysis also develops an independent 
distribution based on meteor influx and couples that with work by Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281]) to derive a cratering distribution applicable to the smaller diameter range. This 
flux-derived distribution is developed based on meteoroid flux, meteoroid properties, and on 
meteoroid radius to crater diameter relationships (Section D3.2.4). 
The respective distributions based on observed earth and lunar cratering are shown in the 
following figure, Figure D-1 (and justified for use per Figure B-2 of Appendix B), and are 
described in the following subsections. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-5 October 2004 
1.0E-15 
1.0E-14 
1.0E-13 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 
Crater Diameter D (km) 
Number of Craters per km2 per year 
Grieve 1987 and 1995 (corroborated for D 
> 10 km) (DIRS 135254, DIRS 135260) 
Grieve 1987 and 1995 (extrapolated for D 
< 10 km) (DIRS 135254, DIRS 135260) 
Wuschke et al. 1995 (corroborated for D 
> 0.5 km) (DIRS 129326) 
Wuschke et al. 1995 (extrapolated for D 
< 0.5km) (DIRS 129326) 
Neukum and Ivanov 1994 (for 
atmosphereless earth) (DIRS 121510) 
Figure D-1. Cratering Rate Distribution from Three Sources 
D3.2.1 Grieve (1987) 
An applicable cumulative cratering rate (and one commonly used for these types of analyses) can 
be derived from Grieve (1987 [DIRS 135254]), Grieve et al. (1995 [DIRS 135260]), and 
Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]). The number of impact craters larger than a crater diameter D, 
produced per year per square km is proportional to the apparent crater diameter to the 1.8 power 
(Grieve 1987 [DIRS 135254], p. 257 and Figure 8). 
Using the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and the definition of F(D) provided in 
Equation B-9 of Appendix B of this analysis report, a distribution function for the frequency of 
impact for craters of a given diameter D can be found. 
By definition: 
8 
F(D) = . f(x)dx = K D-1.8 (Eq. D-1) 
0 
Therefore: 
f(D) = 1.8 K D-2.8 (Eq. D-2) 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-6 October 2004 
Equations D-1 and D-2 will be used later in this appendix to determine the frequency of impact 
cratering in the repository area. As shown in Section B5.5.3.3 of Appendix B (Equation B-10b), 
the value of K is fixed at 1.210-12, based on the frequency of earth craters with diameter of 20 
km or greater. That equation is restated here as: 
F(D) = 1.2 x 10-12 x D-1.8 (Eq. D-3) 
where F(D) is equal to the number of craters larger than a given diameter, produced per year per 
km2, as a function of diameter, D. A plot for this equation is provided in Figure D-1. 
Using a repository emplacement area of no greater than 11.9 km2 (see Section D3.3.1) then the 
cratering diameter of interest is that associated with an annualized probability of 8.410-10/km2 
(i.e., 8.4 x 10-10/km2 multiplied by an area of 11.9 km2 roughly equates to an annualized 
probability of 1 x10-8, which is the regulatory threshold for consideration). Based on 
Figures D-2a, D-2b, and D-3, this equates to a crater diameter of no more than 30 m. It should 
be noted that the Grieve distribution is routinely cited as being applicable only for crater 
diameters of greater than 20 km, although Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) support 
use of the distribution down to diameters of as low as 10 km. Given the distribution of crater 
diameters by Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]), it is conservative (in relation to observed craters) to 
extend the distribution to lesser diameters. This is because the extrapolation overstates the 
number of craters that would occur compared to the actual number observed to date. However, 
the number of observed small diameter craters is obscured by the ability to recognize such 
features and the destruction through time due to natural and anthropogenic processes, so the 
degree of true conservatism cannot be quantified. 
Using the exhumation and fracturing depth relationships described in Section D3.3.2, a crater 
diameter of 30 m could result in an exhumation depth on the order of 3 to 10 m, which is 
insufficient to exhume waste at the depth of the proposed repository (i.e., greater than 200 m 
below ground surface (BSC 2003 [DIRS 165572], Section 7.1.8). With regard to fracturing, the 
depth of fracturing could be as little as 10 m to as great as 23 m. These depths are insufficient to 
reach the repository depth or to significantly alter infiltration through the Paintbrush nonwelded 
unit. 
D3.2.2 Wuschke et al. (1995) 
A particular example of the use of Grieve distribution and the consideration of exhumation and 
fracturing depths is presented in Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]). The analyses presented 
therein was for a hypothetical depository deep in plutonic rock of the Canadian shield, located at 
least 500 m below ground surface with a total area of 4 km2. The curve from Wuschke et al., if 
comparable to the information used by Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562], p. 34), may only be valid 
down to diameters of 1 km. For Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 44), the distribution is 
derived from subsets of the observed earth cratering distribution used by Grieve (1987 
[DIRS 135254]). The equation (Equation B-11a in Appendix B of this document) is given as: 
F(D) = 2.010-12(D)-2 (Eq. D-4) 
This denotes a slightly steeper slope compared to Grieve (2.010-12 compared to Grieves 
1.2 + 0.6 10-12). Wuschkes approach slightly decreases the annual frequency for a 20-km 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-7 October 2004 
diameter crater (5.0 x 10-15 per km2 compared to the values from Grieve of 5.5 x10-15 km2). This 
difference is reflected in the plot in Figure D-1. 
The findings of this study are presented in Table 1 of Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], 
p. 26) and provide the annual probability and cumulative probability for 10,000 years for 
meteorite impact events. The results indicate that the annualized probability of impact for the 
Canadian repository design sufficient to cause damage by exhumation and fracturing is 
approximately 7.6 x 10-12 to 6.5 x 10-11 per year, respectively. This is associated with crater 
diameters of 7.6 to 0.66 km for exhumation and fracturing, respectively. Given the parameters 
used for the hypothetical Canadian repository (area of 4 km2 and depth of 500 m), the reported 
probabilities should be less than the probability of impact for the Yucca Mountain repository 
(depths greater than 200 m below the surface and total area not to exceed 11.9 km2 [BSC 2003 
(DIRS 165572), Section 7.1.8 and Figure 1, respectively]) for the same effects of exhumation 
and fracturing. For exhumation of the Yucca Mountain repository, the least frequent and 
maximum crater diameter that could cause such an event is a crater diameter of 2 km (i.e., 
200 m/0.10) and the most frequent would be a crater diameter of 625 m (200 m/0.32). Based on 
Figure D-3, and using a siting area of 11.9 km2, such events occur with annual frequencies on the 
order of 6 x 10-12 to 6 x 10-11, or about an order of magnitude more frequently than for the 
hypothetical Canadian design. For fracturing to repository depth, the crater diameter of interest 
is 263 m (i.e., 200 m/0.76). This occurs, based on Figure D-3, with an annual frequency of 
3.610-10, and again this is more frequent than predicted for the Canadian repository as expected. 
Using the probability threshold for the Yucca Mountain repository, the crater diameter associated 
with a 8.410-10 probability (i.e., 8.4 x 10-10/yr-km2 x 11.9 km2 = 1 x 10-8/yr) for the distribution 
from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) is no more than 60 m, and slightly greater than that 
from for Grieve distribution, as shown in Figure D-3. This results in a maximum exhumation 
depth of about 20 m and a maximum fracturing depth of about 46 m. These depths are 
insufficient to reach to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository depth or to significantly alter 
infiltration through the Paintbrush nonwelded unit. 
D3.2.3 Neukum and Ivanov (1994) 
The plot of the Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]) information represents a true upper 
bound (i.e., an atmosphereless earth which neglects effects of ablation and fragmentation). 
Because it is unrealistic due to an atmosphereless earth, it is discussed for corroborative 
purposes only, but it also provides a true upper bound. 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510], Table IV) provides a tabulation of impact 
accumulation rates and mean time intervals between impacts for earth, based on lunar craters and 
adjusted for gravity differences. This table includes the mean interval between events with 
energies equal to or greater than that required to form a crater of a given diameter. The 
cumulative cratering rate (or frequency) of such events can be derived from the calculated mean 
intervals by using the inverse of the mean interval. The frequency per-square-km of the earths 
surface can be derived by dividing the frequency by the area of earths surface. This curve 
represents an extreme upper bound for the cratering rate on earth in the range of crater diameters 
of interest as it accounts for gravity differences between the lunar and earth surfaces and includes 
data for small-diameter craters. It does not take into account atmospheric shielding effects, 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-8 October 2004 
which are known to exist and are significant in reducing crater frequency and size. The data 
used in plotting Figure D-1 is found in Section B5.5, Table B-17 of Appendix B. 
Given that the footprint area is no greater than 11.9 km2 as previously mentioned, then the 
cratering diameter of interest is that associated with an annualized probability of 8.410-10/km2 
(i.e., 8.4 x 10-10/km2 multiplied by an area of 11.9 km2 roughly equates to an annualized 
probability of 110-8, which is the regulatory threshold for consideration). Based on Figure D-1, 
this equates to a crater diameter of slightly less than 200 m. Using the exhumation depth 
relationship mentioned above, such a crater diameter could result in exhumation depths greater 
than 20 m and less than 64 m, which are insufficient to exhume waste at the depth of the 
proposed repository (i.e., greater than 200 m below ground surface (BSC 2003 [DIRS 165572], 
Section 7.1.8) or to exhume significant portions of the Paintbrush hydrogeologic unit. With 
regard to fracturing, the depth could be as little as 70 m to as great as 150 m. These depths are 
insufficient to reach to the proposed repository depth, although the values may represent depths 
that are sufficient to fracture to the Paintbrush nonwelded unit in the eastern portions of the siting 
area. Depending on the choice of factors (0.3 or 0.76), the fracturing may or may not be 
penetrate throughout the Paintbrush nonwelded unit in the emplacement area. However, it must 
be kept in mind that the stated values represent the worst-case model proposed in the literature 
for exhumation and fracturing, coupled with the upper bound for crater diameter distribution. 
They are not realistic in that they are based on an atmosphereless earth. 
D3.2.4 Probability of Impact Based on Meteoroid Influx and Meteoroid Characteristics 
The direct application of the Neukum and Ivanov cratering distribution is limited because it does 
not consider atmospheric shielding. The Grieve distribution and the Wuschke distribution are 
limited because they are applicable for large-diameter craters, but uncertain for small diameter 
craters. Consequently, to determine probabilities of meteorite-impact cratering damage, a 
cratering diameter distribution curve is developed based on cumulative meteoroid influx 
information developed during the 1980s and 1990s. The flux distribution is applied against 
information on percent by type and density of meteors to determine a flux by meteor size and 
type. The resulting meteor diameters are then coupled with direct input relating initial meteor 
radius to resulting crater size, and an effective cratering distribution is determined that accounts 
for atmospheric shield effects such as ablation and fragmentation. 
D3.2.4.1 Mass Flux of Meteoroids 
Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) has compiled flux information from a variety of authors for 
masses ranging from 10-21 to 1015 kg (46 orders of magnitude). This compilation is provided in 
graphical form (Ceplecha 1992 [DIRS 135242], Figure 1) as the log of the mass (m) to the log of 
the cumulative number (N) of interplanetary bodies of a mass equal to or greater than m coming 
to the earths atmosphere every year. The present analysis of probability, however, is only 
concerned with the range of bodies capable of creating craters in the earths surface. Selected 
values from the cited figure over the potential range of interest are provided in Table D-1, which 
describes the flux of material coming to the entire earths atmosphere. This information is 
provided on Figure B-1 of Appendix B of this analysis report. This direct input is justified for 
use in Section B5.5.3.2 and Table B-10 of Appendix B. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-9 October 2004 
Table D-1. Mass Flux Used as Direct Input 
Log Mass 
(kg) Mass (kg) 
Number of Events 
Per Year Whole 
Earth 
-1 1.0E-01 3.2E+05 
0 1.0E+00 1.0E+05 
1 1.0E+01 1.6E+04 
2 1.0E+02 1.0E+04 
3 1.0E+03 1.6E+03 
4 1.0E+04 6.3E+02 
5 1.0E+05 1.0E+02 
6 1.0E+06 1.0E+01 
7 1.0E+07 1.0E-01 
8 1.0E+08 1.0E-02 
9 1.0E+09 1.0E-03 
10 1.0E+10 1.0E-04 
11 1.0E+11 1.0E-05 
12 1.0E+12 3.2E-06 
13 1.0E+13 1.0E-06 
14 1.0E+14 1.0E-07 
15 1.0E+15 3.2E-08 
Source: Ceplecha 1992 (DIRS 135242), Figure 1. 
The mass distribution from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242], p. 362 and Figure 1) was chosen for 
use in this analysis because it provides a conservative estimate compared to influx determined 
from lunar cratering data or from direct observation of energy releases in earths atmosphere by 
geostationary satellites. The degree of conservatism is approximately one-half to one order of 
magnitude in terms of the number of events occurring for a meteor of a given diameter. For 
consistency and traceability, the use of a single distribution was preferred to construction of a 
fully conservative data set constructed by hand-picking the maximum values from the literature 
for any given meteor diameter. This distribution does not however, address the nature of the 
material, its velocity, atmospheric shielding effects, the frequency and size of material actually 
impacting the earths surface, or the resulting impact crater size. 
D3.2.4.2 Influx of Meteoroids Based on Percent by Type 
As defined by Chapman and Morrison (1994 [DIRS 135245], p. 34) and by Shoemaker (1983 
[DIRS 135308], p. 464), meteor composition is described as metallic (iron to iron-nickel, and 
relatively rare), stony (mixtures of iron and stony material, chondritictype S asteroids), or 
cometary (low-density silicates, organics and volatilestype C asteroids). The term 
carbonaceous is also used for those bodies that lie between stony and cometary bodies. The 
differences in composition also reflect differences in the structural make-up and strength of the 
meteors. 
Down to an initial meteor mass of approximately 108 kg (radius of 14 m for iron, 19 m for stony, 
and 28 m for carbonaceous meteors), the total flux is comprised of 5 percent iron material 
regardless of initial meteor radius, and the remainder is divided equally between stony and 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-10 October 2004 
carbonaceous material regardless of initial meteor radius. For initial meteor masses below 
108 and down to 10-1 kg (minimum radius of 0.014 m for iron, 0.019 m for stony, and 0.028 m 
for carbonaceous meteors), the total flux is comprised of 5 percent iron materials, regardless of 
initial meteor radius; 2 to 18 percent stony material depending on initial meteor radius; and the 
remainder (93 to 77 percent) is attributed as carbonaceous/cometary material. The bases for 
these values, and the qualification of this data, are discussed in Section B5.5.3.2 and Tables B-13 
and B-14 of Appendix B. The values are applied to the mass influx to derive at a number of 
events by type. The result distribution considering percent-by-type is provided in Table D-2. 
D3.2.4.3 Density and Initial Radii of Meteoroids 
For the meteorite impact calculations, the densities used for meteoroids are 8 g/cm3 for metallic 
materials, 3.7 g/cm3 for stony materials, and 1.1 g/cm3 for carbonaceous/cometary materials. The 
bases for these values are discussed, and the data justified for use, in Section B5.5.3.2 and 
Table B-15 of Appendix B. The use of these values is consistent with the use of the meteorite 
influx and percent-by-type information from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]) and Ceplecha 
(1994 [DIRS 135243]), respectively. 
The total range in bulk densities can vary from 8 g/cm3 to less than 1 g/cm3 for the metallic and 
cometary materials respectively (Chapman and Morrison 1994 [DIRS 135245], p. 34). The basis 
for these density values used in the analysis is discussed in Section B5.5.3.2 and Table B-15 of 
Appendix B. For the meteorite impact calculations, the densities used for meteoroids are 8 g/cm3 
for metallic materials, 3.7 g/cm3 for stony materials, and 1.1 g/cm3 for soft stone/carbonaceous/ 
cometary materials. 
By using the flux values from Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242]), described above and presented 
in Table D-2, and assuming spherical meteoroids with the density values listed above, the 
corresponding radius by meteoroid composition can be calculated. As used to determine the 
radius listed in Table D-3, the mass (m) of a sphere is: 
m = (4/3 p R3)( .) (Eq. D-5) 
where: 
m = mass (kg) 
. = density (kg/m3), which is 103 times g/cm3 
R = radius (m) 
and correspondingly: 
R = [(m / (4/3 p .)]1/3 (Eq. D-5a) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-11 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-2. Annualized Mass Influx and Percent by Type Allocation 
Log m 
(kg) Mass (kg) 
Log Ntotal, 
Annualized 
Number of 
Events (N), 
whole earth 
Ntotal Annualized 
Number of 
Events per km2 
Percent 
Iron 
Niron Annualized 
Number of Iron 
Events per km2 
Percent Hard 
Stone 
Nstone Annualized 
Number of Hard 
Stone Events per 
km2 
Percent Soft 
Stones and 
Comets 
Ncomet, Annualized 
Number of Soft 
Stone and Comet 
Events per km2 
-1 1.0E-01 5.5 6.2E-04 0.05 3.1E-05 0.16 9.9E-05 0.79 4.9E-04 
0 1.0E+00 5 2.0E-04 0.05 9.8E-06 0.16 3.1E-05 0.79 1.5E-04 
1 1.0E+01 4.2 3.1E-05 0.05 1.6E-06 0.18 5.6E-06 0.77 2.4E-05 
2 1.0E+02 4 2.0E-05 0.05 9.8E-07 0.14 2.7E-06 0.81 1.6E-05 
3 1.0E+03 3.2 3.1E-06 0.05 1.6E-07 0.10 3.1E-07 0.85 2.6E-06 
4 1.0E+04 2.8 1.2E-06 0.05 6.2E-08 0.08 9.9E-08 0.87 1.1E-06 
5 1.0E+05 2 2.0E-07 0.05 9.8E-09 0.06 1.2E-08 0.89 1.7E-07 
6 1.0E+06 1 2.0E-08 0.05 9.8E-10 0.04 7.8E-10 0.91 1.8E-08 
7 1.0E+07 -1 2.0E-10 0.05 9.8E-12 0.02 3.9E-12 0.93 1.8E-10 
8 1.0E+08 -2 2.0E-11 0.05 9.8E-13 0.47 9.2E-12 0.48 9.4E-12 
9 1.0E+09 -3 2.0E-12 0.05 9.8E-14 0.47 9.2E-13 0.48 9.4E-13 
10 1.0E+10 -4 2.0E-13 0.05 9.8E-15 0.47 9.2E-14 0.48 9.4E-14 
11 1.0E+11 -5 2.0E-14 0.05 9.8E-16 0.47 9.2E-15 0.48 9.4E-15 
12 1.0E+12 -5.5 6.2E-15 0.05 3.1E-16 0.47 2.9E-15 0.48 3.0E-15 
13 1.0E+13 -6 2.0E-15 0.05 9.8E-17 0.47 9.2E-16 0.48 9.4E-16 
14 1.0E+14 -7 2.0E-16 0.05 9.8E-18 0.47 9.2E-17 0.48 9.4E-17 
15 1.0E+15 -7.5 6.2E-17 0.05 3.1E-18 0.47 2.9E-17 0.48 3.0E-17 
NOTES: Based on Ceplecha (1992 [DIRS 135242] and 1994 [DIRS 135243]). 
Mass and associated number of events based on the direct input from Ceplecha 1992 (DIRS 135242) as discussed in Section B5.5.3.1 and Table B-10 
of Appendix B of this analysis report. Percent by type based on direct inputs given in Tables B-13 and B-14 of Appendix B of this analysis report. 

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

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-13 October 2004 
Table D-3. Annualized Number of Events by Meteor Type and Radius (Continued) 
Annualized 
Number of 
Events Nstone 
per km2 Mass m (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 
Initial Meteor 
Radius (m) 
Hard Stone Meteors (Continued) 
9.2E-15 1.00E+11 3700 2.7E+07 6.5E+06 1.9E+02 
2.9E-15 1.00E+12 3700 2.7E+08 6.5E+07 4.0E+02 
9.2E-16 1.00E+13 3700 2.7E+09 6.5E+08 8.6E+02 
9.2E-17 1.00E+14 3700 2.7E+10 6.5E+09 1.9E+03 
2.9E-17 1.00E+15 3700 2.7E+11 6.5E+10 4.0E+03 
Soft Stone Meteors 
Annualized 
Number of 
Events Ncomet 
per km2 Mass m (kg) Density (kg/m3) Volume (m3) R3 
Initial Meteor 
Radius (m) 
4.9E-04 1.00E-01 1100 9.1E-05 2.2E-05 2.8E-02 
1.5E-04 1.00E+00 1100 9.1E-04 2.2E-04 6.0E-02 
2.4E-05 1.00E+01 1100 9.1E-03 2.2E-03 1.3E-01 
1.6E-05 1.00E+02 1100 9.1E-02 2.2E-02 2.8E-01 
2.6E-06 1.00E+03 1100 9.1E-01 2.2E-01 6.0E-01 
1.1E-06 1.00E+04 1100 9.1E+00 2.2E+00 1.3E+00 
1.7E-07 1.00E+05 1100 9.1E+01 2.2E+01 2.8E+00 
1.8E-08 1.00E+06 1100 9.1E+02 2.2E+02 6.0E+00 
1.8E-10 1.00E+07 1100 9.1E+03 2.2E+03 1.3E+01 
9.4E-12 1.00E+08 1100 9.1E+04 2.2E+04 2.8E+01 
9.4E-13 1.00E+09 1100 9.1E+05 2.2E+05 6.0E+01 
9.4E-14 1.00E+10 1100 9.1E+06 2.2E+06 1.3E+02 
9.4E-15 1.00E+11 1100 9.1E+07 2.2E+07 2.8E+02 
3.0E-15 1.00E+12 1100 9.1E+08 2.2E+08 6.0E+02 
9.4E-16 1.00E+13 1100 9.1E+09 2.2E+09 1.3E+03 
9.4E-17 1.00E+14 1100 9.1E+10 2.2E+10 2.8E+03 
3.0E-17 1.00E+15 1100 9.1E+11 2.2E+11 6.0E+03 
NOTES: Number of events and mass taken from Table D-2 of this appendix. 
Densities taken from direct input in Table B-15 of Appendix B of this analysis report and converted from 
g/cm3 to kg/m3. 
D3.2.4.4 Atmospheric Shielding Effects 
Upon entering the earths atmosphere, a meteor is subject to multiple destructive processes 
including ablation and fragmentation caused by heating and differential stresses. These 
processes tend to dissipate energy into the atmosphere. The magnitude of the atmospheric 
dissipation of energy is a function of the radius and composition of the body, the initial entry 
velocity, and the angle of the entry. Hills and Goda (1998 [DIRS 135291], p. 228) provide a 
series of figures that show the fraction of energy dissipated into the atmosphere for various radii 
of meteors. The dissipation of energy is such a significant effect that, for a certain range of radii 
and initial velocities, the energy dissipation is total and no surface impact occurs. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-14 October 2004 
The relationship used in this analysis between initial meteoroid diameter and crater diameter is 
extracted from Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17). These figures 
represent the results of modeling that is documented in the peer-reviewed paper, and include 
atmospheric effects such as fragmentation of the meteors, changing velocity of dispersed 
fragments, radius of the debris cloud, and energy dissipation in the atmosphere through velocity 
reduction and ablation. These data are justified for use in Section B5.5.3.4 of Appendix B. 
The range of values bracketing this atmospheric shielding window varies depending on the 
composition of the meteor. Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], p. 1142) indicate that the 
threshold for impact to the surface corresponds to a critical radius of 100 m for a stony asteroid, 
and 500 m for a comet. For iron meteoroids with initial velocities of 20 km/s, the critical radius 
is 20 m to 30 m; however, for initial velocities of 11.2 - 15 km/s the critical radius is lowered to 
about 2 m. Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], p. 1140) indicate that meteors with initial radii 
of 1 to 5 m can form craters with radii of approximately 50 m to 100 m, if the initial velocity is 
below 15 km/s. 
This analysis considers cratering rates for assumed initial velocities of 15 and 20 km/s for all 
meteors regardless of composition or size. These values are at the lower end of the range of 
velocities specified by various authors. Given that lower initial values generally yield larger 
impact craters (Hills and Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 17), the assumption of velocities of 
15 and 20 will tend to slightly overestimate the probability of craters of a given size. Available 
velocity information is discussed in Table 5-1 of the main body of the report. However, as 
discussed for Assumption 5.4 of the main body of the document, velocities less than 15 km/sec 
would result in larger crater diameters. There is no indication in the literature of the frequency of 
occurrence of these very low velocity events, so lower velocities are not further considered 
because they would not be consistent with available corroborating information. 
Also, as discussed for Assumption 5.4, this analysis considers all objects to enter the atmosphere 
at zenith angle zero, and could potentially yield surface impacts. This is a conservative selection, 
since objects entering at nonzero zenith angles have more kinetic energy absorbed (Hills and 
Goda 1998 [DIRS 135291]) as discussed in Assumption 5.4 of the main body of the document. 
There are no data available relating flux and angle of entry. Furthermore, it is assumed per 
Assumption 5.4 that the zone of fracturing is cylindrical with depth, rather than parabolic. That 
is, the extent of the zone of fracturing is at the same depth at the edges of the crater as it is at the 
center. 
The modeling work by Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 17) relates initial meteor 
radius and initial velocity to the radius of the impact crater produced by the largest fragment (or 
the residual meteorite). Table B-18 of Appendix B of this analysis report provides the 
justification for using the relationship between meteor composition, initial meteor radius, initial 
velocity, and resulting crater radius. It was derived from the curves in Hills and Goda (1993 
[DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) by selecting the velocity curve and initial meteor radius, and 
reading the corresponding point for the resulting crater radius. Those data were combined with 
the data presented in Table D-3, to get a distribution for number of events by mass and type, 
which is shown in Table D-4, and plotted. Combined plots of these data for 15 km/s and 20 km/s 
are provided as Figures D-2a and D-2b. For events that would result in no crater, a minimum 
value of 0.1 m was assigned to aid in plotting and calculation. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-15 October 2004 
Table D-4. Annualized Number of Events by Type and Crater Radius 
Number of Events 
per km2 Mass m (kg) 
Initial Meteor 
Radius (m) 
Crater Radius (m) 
for 15 km/s 
Crater Radius (m) 
for 20 km/s 
Iron Meteor 
3.1E-05 1.00E-01 1.4 E-02 0.10 0.10 
9.8E-06 1.00E+00 3.1E-02 0.10 0.10 
1.6E-06 1.00E+01 6.7E-02 0.10 0.10 
9.8E-07 1.00E+02 1.4E-01 0.60 0.20 
1.6E-07 1.00E+03 3.1E-01 4.0 3.0 
6.2E-08 1.00E+04 6.7E-01 14 10 
9.8E-09 1.00E+05 1.4E+00 40 0.10 
9.8E-10 1.00E+06 3.1E+00 5.0 0.10 
9.8E-12 1.00E+07 6.7E+00 3.2 0.10 
9.8E-13 1.00E+08 1.4E+01 32 0.70 
9.8E-14 1.00E+09 3.1E+01 200 60 
9.8E-15 1.00E+10 6.7E+01 1,000 400 
9.8E-16 1.00E+11 1.4E+02 4,500 3,000 
3.1E-16 1.00E+12 3.1E+02 11,000 9,000 
9.8E-17 1.00E+13 6.7E+02 27,000 27,000 
9.8E-18 1.00E+14 1.4E+03 70,000 90,000 
3.1E-18 1.00E+15 3.1E+03 170,000 200,000 
Hard Stone Meteors 
9.9E-05 1.00E-01 1.9E-02 0.10 0.10 
3.1E-05 1.00E+00 4.0E-02 0.10 0.10 
5.6E-06 1.00E+01 8.6E-02 0.10 0.10 
2.7E-06 1.00E+02 1.9E-01 0.17 0.10 
3.1E-07 1.00E+03 4.0E-01 0.75 0.32 
9.9E-08 1.00E+04 8.6E-01 7.0 3.0 
1.2E-08 1.00E+05 1.9E+00 0.10 0.10 
7.8E-10 1.00E+06 4.0E+00 0.10 0.10 
3.9E-12 1.00E+07 8.6E+00 0.10 0.10 
9.2E-12 1.00E+08 1.9E+01 0.10 0.10 
9.2E-13 1.00E+09 4.0E+01 1.0 0.10 
9.2E-14 1.00E+10 8.6E+01 100 40 
9.2E-15 1.00E+11 1.9E+02 800 700 
2.9E-15 1.00E+12 4.0E+02 5,000 5,000 
9.2E-16 1.00E+13 8.6E+02 30,000 40,000 
9.2E-17 1.00E+14 1.9E+03 70,000 90,000 
2.9E-17 1.00E+15 4.0E+03 170,000 200,000 

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

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-17 October 2004 
1 E-18 
1 E-17 
1 E-16 
1 E-15 
1 E-14 
1 E-13 
1 E-12 
1 E-11 
1 E-10 
1 E-09 
1 E-08 
1 E-07 
1 E-06 
1 E-05 
1 E-04 
1 E-01 1 E+00 1 E+01 1 E+02 1 E+03 1 E+04 1 E+05 1 E+06 
Crater Radius (m) 
Number of Events Per Year per km
2 
Iron Meteors at 15 km/sec Hard Stone Meteors at 15 km/sec 
Soft Stone Meteors at 15 km/sec Total Number of Events by Crater Radius 
Dip in curves reflects atmospheric 
effects per Hills and Goda 1993, 
Figures 16 and 17 [135281] 
Figure D-2a. Total Number of Events by Type and Crater Radius (15 km/s) 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-18 October 2004 
1 E-18 
1 E-16 
1 E-14 
1 E-12 
1 E-10 
1 E-08 
1 E-06 
1 E-04 
1 E-01 1 E+00 1 E+01 1 E+02 1 E+03 1 E+04 1 E+05 1 E+06 
Crater Radius (m) 
Number of Events per Year per km
2 
Iron Meteors at 20 km/sec Hard Stone Meteors at 20 km/sec 
Soft Stone Meteors at 20 km/sec Total Number of Events by Crater Radius 
Dip in curves reflects atmospheric effects 
per Hills and Goda 1993, Figures 16 and 
17 [135281] 
Figure D-2b. Total Number of Events by Type and Crater Radius (20 km/s) 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-19 October 2004 
The difficulty with relating the impact events by mass and type (Table D-4) to a singular 
probability for a given crater diameter is that for a given initial velocity, meteors of equal initial 
radius but differing compositions result in different crater diameters. In addition, meteors with 
different initial radii but the same composition can result in equal crater diameters. A method 
was needed to determine the number of impact events resulting in crater diameter D by 
composition and to sum the number of possible events resulting in crater diameter D regardless 
of meteor composition or radius of the initial meteor. A graphical method was chosen to sum the 
number of cratering events of diameter D or larger. 
Once the curves for each of the three types of meteors were plotted, the cumulative number of 
cratering events was read for each composition for a range of crater radius from 0.1 m to 200 km. 
The total number of events for each crater radius size was manually summed (Table D-5). The 
total number of events by crater radius is shown on the Figures D-2a and D-2b. 
D3.2.4.5 Resulting Cratering Distribution 
The cratering distribution curves for 15 km/s and 20 km/s from Figures D-2a and D-2b based on 
the modeling results from Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17) are shown 
on Figure D-3. Figure D-3 allows comparison to the distribution curves derived from Grieve 
(1987 [DIRS 135254]); Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]); and for corroboration with 
Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]); all from Figure D-1. The cumulative curves from 
Figure D-2a and D-2b have been plotted as crater diameter (km), rather than crater radius (m), to 
allow comparison to the earlier figure. The translation from meteor radius to crater diameter, 
along with the total number of events for each crater diameter, are shown in Table D-5. There is 
good agreement in the curves for crater diameters greater than 10 km, which is the stated limit 
for Grieve distribution, and for the portion of the curves less than 0.02 km for V=15 km/sec, and 
for the portion of the curve less than 0.1 km for V=15 k/sec. However, the range of crater 
diameter of primary interest is roughly from 0.08 km to 0.6 km (79 m to 625 m) based both on 
the probability threshold and potential for effects on the repository. The distributions show the 
greatest divergence in this range. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-20 October 2004 
Table D-5. Annualized Total Number of Events by Crater Radius and Diameter 
Crater Radius (m) Crater Diameter D (km) 
Annualized Frequency (F) 
for V = 15 km/s 
Annualized Frequency (F) 
for V = 20 km/s 
1 0.002 8.5E-07 5.6E-07 
2 0.004 5.1E-07 4.3E-07 
3 0.006 4.3E-07 2.9E-07 
4 0.008 3.6E-07 1.7E-07 
5 0.010 3.2E-07 1.5E-07 
6 0.012 3.0E-07 1.4E-07 
7 0.014 1.9E-07 1.4E-07 
8 0.016 8.7E-08 1.3E-07 
9 0.018 8.2E-08 1.2E-07 
10 0.020 7.7E-08 6.2E-08 
20 0.040 3.4E-08 5.0E-13 
30 0.060 2.7E-08 4.3E-13 
40 0.080 9.8E-09 3.9E-13 
50 0.10 8.5E-13 3.7E-13 
60 0.12 7.3E-13 3.3E-13 
70 0.14 6.1E-13 2.8E-13 
80 0.16 5.4E-13 2.5E-13 
90 0.18 4.9E-13 2.2E-13 
100 0.20 4.5E-13 2.0E-13 
200 0.40 2.5E-13 1.5E-13 
300 0.60 1.6E-13 1.1E-13 
400 0.80 1.1E-13 7.5E-14 
500 1.0 7.3E-14 4.9E-14 
600 1.2 6.0E-14 3.9E-14 
700 1.4 4.7E-14 3.4E-14 
800 1.6 3.6E-14 2.6E-14 
900 1.8 3.1E-14 2.3E-14 
1,000 2.0 2.6E-14 1.9E-14 
2,000 4.0 1.5E-14 1.4E-14 
3,000 6.0 1.2E-14 1.1E-14 
4,000 8.0 9.8E-15 9.8E-15 
5,000 10 8.7E-15 9.0E-15 
6,000 12 8.1E-15 7.9E-15 
7,000 14 7.0E-15 7.5E-15 
8,000 16 6.6E-15 6.9E-15 
9,000 18 6.4E-15 6.5E-15 
10,000 20 6.1E-15 6.1E-15 
20,000 40 4.4E-15 4.6E-15 
30,000 60 2.7E-15 3.9E-15 
40,000 80 1.4E-15 3.0E-15 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-21 October 2004 
Table D-5. Annualized Total Number of Events by Crater Radius and Diameter (Continued) 
Crater Radius (m) Crater Diameter D (km) 
Annualized Frequency (F) 
for V = 15 km/s 
Annualized Frequency (F) 
for V = 20 km/s 
50,000 100 8.3E-16 1.9E-15 
60,000 120 5.5E-16 1.5E-15 
70,000 140 3.5E-16 1.2E-15 
80,000 160 2.5E-16 7.3E-16 
90,000 180 1.9E-16 5.0E-16 
100,000 200 1.6E-16 3.9E-16 
200,000 400 5.3E-17 8.2E-17 
NOTE: These are the supporting values used to plot Figure D-3. The two right hand columns represent the total 
number of cratering events per year per km2 for initial velocities of 15 km/s and 20 km/s respectively and 
were derived by summing the number of events from each meteor type for a given crater radius. 
1.0E-17 
1.0E-16 
1.0E-15 
1.0E-14 
1.0E-13 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 
Crater Diameter (km) 
Number of Events per Year per km2 
Grieve (1987 and 1995, 
extrapolated for D < 10 km) 
[DIRS 135254], 
[DIRS 135260] 
Wuschke et al. 1995 
(extrapolated for D, 0.5 km) 
[DIRS 129326] 
Neukum and Ivanov 1994 (for 
atmosphereless earth) [DIRS 
121510] 
Cratering Distribution for 15 
km/sec, after modeling by 
Hills and Goda 1993 
[DIRS 135281] 
Cratering distribution for 20 
km/sec, after modeling by 
Hills and Goda 1993 
[DIRS 135281] 
NOTE: This figure compares the results of the mass flux distributions given in Table D-5 to plots based on lunar 
cratering data (for an atmosphereless earth) and observed earth cratering data as previously provided in 
Figure D-1. 
Figure D-3. Comparison of Cratering Distribution Based on Meteoroid Flux to Cratering Distributions of 
Others 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-22 October 2004 
D3.3 PROBABILITY OF A CRATER DIAMETER OF INTEREST OCCURRING 
WITHIN THE REPOSITORY FOOTPRINT 
Figure D-3 represents the range of possible frequencies of impacts resulting in a given or larger 
crater diameter per km2. All frequency curves fall below the Neukum and Ivanov curve. This is 
to be expected since the curve derived from Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510], 
Table IV) is based on the lunar cratering rate and neglects any atmospheric shielding effects. 
The relationship of the Neukum and Ivanov curve to the other curves show that the Neukum and 
Ivanov curve is an upper bound within the range of interest. As discussed below, the bounding 
nature is used to divide the mass flux curves and to define the related coefficients and integration 
limits for those curves. The Neukum and Ivanov curve is not further used in the probability 
calculations, since it would unrealistically overestimate the frequency of occurrence. 
D3.3.1 Footprint 
To apply the distributions described above to the TSPA-LA repository, it is necessary to define 
the target area and the depths of interest, adjust the target area for near misses, and integrate 
the distributions over the range of possible crater diameters. 
D3.3.2 TSPA-LA Repository Footprint and Other Target Areas 
Potential target areas to be used for FEP screening, include the TSPA-LA emplacement area 
footprint and the outcrop of the Paintbrush geologic unit. For corroboration and sensitivity 
analysis the TSPA-SR footprint and the TSPA-LA siting area are also of potential interest. 
These various repository and siting area footprints are given on Figure D-4a. Figure D-4b show 
the outlines of the TSPA-LA siting area, the drift layout for the TSPA-LA, and nearby boring 
locations. Corroborative probability analyses are performed for the TSPA-SR footprint and for 
the TSPA-LA siting area. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-23 October 2004 
Source: 800-P0C-MGR0-00100-00E (DIRS 165572), 
Figure 1. 
Figure D-4a. TSPA-SR Repository Footprint and 
TSPA-LA Siting Area 
Source: 800-P0C-MGR0-00100-00E (DIRS 165572), 
Figure II-4. 
Figure D-4b. TSPA-LA Siting Area 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-24 October 2004 
D3.3.2.1 TSPA-LA Repository Footprint 
The analysis for TSPA-LA uses the footprint for the emplacement area for direct input. As 
represented in Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A from D&E / PA/C IED Subsurface 
Facilities (BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519]), the maximum extent of the drifts is shown in Table D-6. 
Table D-6. Drift End Coordinates 
Drift Number and Basis 
Drift End Coordinate 
(meters) 
(3-1W) northernmost drift end N236237 
(2-27) southernmost drift end N230944 
(3-2E) easternmost drift end E172231 
(4-20) westernmost drift end E170085 
This results in the following rough dimensions and total surface area. 
North/South Length (L) (236237 m-230944 m) = 5.3 km 
East/West Width (W) (172231m-170085m) = 2.2 km 
Approximate Area (A) 5.3 km x 2.2 km = 11.6 km2 
The measured distances are rounded upward to the nearest tenth of a kilometer, and the rounding 
is inconsequential because a rectangular repository area is used as a calculation simplification. 
Also, a 0.1 km was added to the repository length to add distance to account for the construction 
ramp location. Using the adjusted value of 5.4, the rectangular area is approximately 11.9 km2. 
Use of a rectangular area and adjustments of lengths as simplifications will result in an 
conservative overestimation of the repository emplacement area by a factor of about 2. In 
actuality, the area of the repository drifts, as seen in Figure D-2b is irregularly shaped. For the 
emplacement area shown on Figure D-4b and as given in Drawing 
800-IED-WIS0-00103-000-00A from D&E / PA/C IED Subsurface Facilities (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 168370]), the total of the emplacement area is given as 6,004,074 m2, or an equivalent 
6.0 km2. 
D3.3.2.2 Paintbrush Outcrop 
This target area is pertinent for TSPA-LA because the Paintbrush is a key geologic unit. For 
TSPA-SR, the area of the repository lying below the Paintbrush outcrop area along the western 
edge of the repository footprint was determined to be 1.1 km by 0.1 km (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170029], Table 6-2, Figures 6-8 and 6-14, and Section 6.5.1.3). This portion of the 
analysis was retained herein for completeness and traceability, although the change in repository 
footprint from TSPA-SR to TSPA-LA shifted the repository eastward, away and from beneath 
the outcrop. This change in footprints can be seen by comparing Figures D-4a and D-4b. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-25 October 2004 
D3.3.2.3 TSPA-LASiting Area 
A corroborative analysis is performed using estimated dimensions for the siting area as taken 
from Figure D-4a. Consideration of the entire siting area increases the general area and aids in 
determining the sensitivity of the analysis to changes in repository footprint design. Knowledge 
of such sensitivity may allow application of this analysis without revision in the event the 
repository footprint is changed. The reference drawing shows the extent of the entire siting area. 
The estimated dimensions are: 
North/South Length (L) (236500 m-230500 m) = 6.0 km 
East/West Width (W) (173000 m-170000 m) = 3.0 km 
Approximate Area (A) 6.0 km x 3.0 km = 18.0 km2 
D3.3.2.4 TSPA-SR Repository Footprint 
The corroborative analysis for the TSPA-SR repository footprint has been retained in this 
analysis report because the TSPA-SR design, less the contingency area, is roughly equivalent to 
the longest dimension of the repository footprint to be used as the basis of the TSPA-LA. This 
provides a basis for examining the sensitivity of the analysis to changes in relative dimensions. 
The area and depth of the TSPA-SR repository was based on the design provided in 
CRWMS M&O (2000 [DIRS 150088]). For TSPA-SR meteor evaluation, a conservative 
bounding assumption regarding the repository footprint was used and was based on the 
shallowest depth of the repository and the largest areal footprint. The TSPA-SR meteorite FEP 
evaluation assumed that the repository dimensions were: 
North/South Length (L) 8.6 km 
East/West Width (W) 1.3 km 
Approximate Area (A) 8.6 km x 1.3 km = 11.2 km2 
Minimum Depth 250 m 
This length and width for the drift layouts are shown in Figure D-4a and exclude turn outs for the 
access drifts. The lower block was not considered in the TSPA-SR evaluation. For this analysis, 
the length and width values are retained. However, the minimum depth of the emplacement area 
is assumed to be 200 m to ensure equivalence for comparison to the TSPA-LA design. 
D3.3.3 Depths and Crater Diameters of Interest 
The depths and crater diameters of interest include the diameter associated with the onset of 
complex cratering, the depth to the Paintbrush geologic unit, and the depth to the repository. 
D3.3.3.1 Simple and Complex Cratering 
The amount of meteor kinetic energy acting in combination with the impacted rock properties 
determines the features, shape, size, and depth of any crater and any related cratering effects such 
as fracturing. The potential consequences are divided at the first level based on two types of 
observed cratering. Simple craters consist of an elevated rim and central depression. Complex 
cratering involves the uplift and significant vertical displacement of the central portion of the 
crater. Complex cratering can be initiated with crater diameters of 2 km in sedimentary rocks; 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-26 October 2004 
however, terrestrial simple craters may also exhibit crater diameters up to 4 km, which is the 
threshold for simple-to-complex cratering in crystalline rocks based on the direct inputs justified 
for use in Section B5.5.3.4 of Appendix B (Grieve 1987 [DIRS 135254], p. 249; 
Grieve et al. 1995 [DIRS 135260], p. 194; Wuschke et al. 1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 3). The 
threshold for FEP screening based on probability is stated as an annualized equivalence of 
10-8 events per year for the repository area (Assumption 5.1 of the main body of this document). 
Based on the cratering rate distributions given in Figure D-3, a 2-km crater diameter occurs at a 
frequency of approximately 10-12 or less per year, which is four orders of magnitude less frequent 
than the threshold for consideration. Consequently, complex cratering features, which can onset 
at a crater diameter of 2 km, do not occur with sufficient frequency to be of concern for FEP 
screening. Because such large diameter craters are very unlikely events, complex cratering is not 
further considered in the FEP analysis. 
D3.3.3.2 Depth of the Paintbrush Unit and Related Crater Diameters 
Geologic information relevant to the assessment of the repository includes the thickness and 
continuity of the PTn unit lying above the repository unit (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169861], 
Sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.2). The large storage capacity and low fracture frequency of the highly 
porous PTn unit may effectively dampen transient pulses of infiltration and more evenly 
distribute the downward flow of water. However, isotopic (chlorine-36) analysis has identified 
isolated pathways that provide relatively rapid water movement for small amounts of water 
through the Paintbrush non-welded unit to the top of the underlying Topopah Springs welded 
unit. Geologic data indicate that the PTn ranges in thickness from greater than 165 m (541 feet) 
beneath northern Yucca Mountain to about 15 m (49 feet) in the south, with breaks in area 
coverage along the Solitario Canyon, Iron Ridge, and Dune Wash fault systems. The 
underground layout incorporates a minimum PTn thickness of 10 m (33 feet). However, the 
primary information relevant to this analysis is the depth of the PTn below the surface, because 
the depth to the top of the geologic unit is used to define the maximum crater diameter, or more 
specifically the associated depth of increased fracturing, that can occur without the potential to 
significantly change the subsurface hydrogeologic fracture properties. The depth of this unit, 
then, is of interest. 
Figures D-4b and D-5 references the location of various boreholes in relation to the repository 
footprint and the local coordinates. Starting with the borehole locations shown, the following 
inputs were used to determine the depth to sub-zones of the Paintbrush non-welded unit. The 
zones of interest include the Pah Canyon and Topopah Springs subzones of the Paintbrush 
non-welded tuff. The depths of lithostratigraphic contacts are taken from 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (BSC 2003 [DIRS 152554]) and are given in Table D-7. The data are 
arranged by increasing depth to the top of the Pah Canyon (Tpp) unit. 
Across most of the TSPA-LA repository footprint, the Tpp unit is at depths of 60 m or greater, 
based on the average and 50th percentile values for the depth to the top of the Tpp unit. At all 
locations given, with the exception of the locations USW WT-14, USW UZ-N31, UE-25 p #1, 
and USW UZ-N32 (shaded in Table D-7), the depth of the Tptrv3 unit is greater than 60 m. A 
range of exhumation depthtocrater diameter ratios of 0.10 to 0.33 is noted in Appendix B, and 
a value of 0.32 has been justified for use as direct input in Section B5.5.3.5 of Appendix B. 
These ratios are based on direct input provided in Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) and 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-27 October 2004 
Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]). A value for fracture depthtocrater diameter of 0.32 is realistic 
based on Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]). Because the intended use is for FEP screening and 
analysis, the conservative value of increased fracturing depth to 0.76 of the crater diameter, as 
indicated by Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]), is examined to ensure that the range of 
uncertainty in relationships is covered. The use of this value based on effects in plutonic rock is 
somewhat contrary to the observation made by Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385], p. 113) that depths 
in sedimentary rocks tend to be shallower than in plutonic rock. However, the use of these 
values is consistent with use of cratering rate and crater diameter distributions from these same 
sources. A more complete discussion is provided in Section B5.5.3.5 of Appendix B. 
Given a 60-m depth to a key hydrogeologic unit, and given the depthtocrater diameter ratios 
just stated, the crater diameters of concern for exhumation for the PTn unit ranges from 188 to 
600 m, and the crater diameters of interest with regard to fracturing is about 79 m. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-28 October 2004 
Source: BSC 2004 (DIRS 170029), Figure 6-1. 
Figure D-5. Boring Locations 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-29 October 2004 
Table D-7. Depth to PTn in the TSPA-LA Repository Area 
Pah Canyon Tuff 
nondivided (Tpp) 
Topopah Spring Tuff 
(Tpt) crystal-rich vitric 
nonwelded to partially 
welded zones (Tptrv3) 
Tpt, crystal-rich vitric 
densely welded zone 
(Tptrv1) 
Thickness 
(m) 
Statistic/Boring Depth from Surface (m) 
Summary Statistics 
Maximum 281.6 290.8 294.7 83.1 
Average 88 109 112 24 
50th Percentile 68 92 97 17 
Minimum 31.1 32.6 37.8 5.2 
By Boring 
USW UZ-14 31.1 81.7 86.1 55.0 
USW UZ-1 32.0 82.9 86.6 54.6 
USW WT-14 32.6 32.6 37.8 5.2 
USW UZ-N31 36.5 51.3 55.2 18.8 
UE-25 p #1 38.7 42.7 45.1 6.4 
USW UZ-N32 39.6 56.7 60.8 21.2 
USW G-1 41.1 80.8 82.3 41.1 
USW UZ-N37 45.2 74.6 78.2 33.1 
USW SD-9 47.4 77.9 81.8 34.4 
USW G-4 51.3 68.3 72.8 21.6 
UE-25 NRG #7/7a 52.4 86.7 90.3 37.9 
UE-25 UZ #4 53.0 101.5 105.2 52.2 
UE-25 NRG #6 53.3 74.6 79.2 25.9 
UE-25 a #5 54.9 79.9 84.4 29.6 
UE-25 a #6 56.7 70.0 73.7 17.0 
UE-25 UZ #5 56.7 105.2 108.1 51.4 
UE-25 UZ #16 57.5 66.1 69.9 12.4 
USW H-1 58.0 89.9 100.6 42.6 
USW UZ-N54 58.3 66.3 70.9 12.6 
USW UZ-N53 59.6 67.3 70.1 10.5 
UE-25 a #4 60.0 92.0 96.6 36.5 
UE-25 b #1 62.3 78.9 83.8 21.5 
USW UZ-7a 65.5 74.1 75.8 10.3 
UE-25 NRG #5 65.5 97.8 100.6 35.1 
USW H-4 65.8 73.8 76.5 10.7 
USW WT-17 66.1 73.8 75.6 9.4 
UE-25 a #1 66.5 81.3 84.0 17.5 
USW UZ-N55 67.5 71.1 74.4 6.8 
UE-25 a #7 69.0 89.0 92.8 23.8 
USW WT-2 75.3 82.6 85.3 10.1 
UE-25 c #3 82.6 87.2 90.8 8.2 
USW H-6 84.7 91.5 100.6 15.8 
USW SD-12 84.8 95.7 98.9 14.1 
UE-25 NRG #2b 87.0 - - - - - - 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-30 October 2004 
Table D-7. Depth to PTn in the TSPA-LA Repository Area (Continued) 
Statistic/Boring 
Pah Canyon Tuff 
nondivided (Tpp) 
Topopah Spring Tuff 
(Tpt) crystal-rich vitric 
nonwelded to partially 
welded zones (Tptrv3) 
Tpt, crystal-rich vitric 
densely welded zone 
(Tptrv1) 
Thickness 
(m) 
UE-25 c #2 87.2 93.3 96.0 8.8 
USW WT-11 87.5 93.6 96.6 9.1 
UE-25 c #1 91.4 97.2 100.3 8.8 
USW WT-4 98.8 135.3 139.0 40.2 
USW WT-12 103.3 110.3 112.5 9.1 
USW SD-7 104.5 117.1 117.7 13.2 
USW WT-15 113.4 132.9 134.7 21.3 
UE-25 NRG #4 114.3 145.4 147.8 33.5 
USW WT-7 119.2 126.5 131.7 12.5 
USW GU-3/G-3 119.4 127.3 130.4 11.0 
USW H-3 127.1 132.6 135.6 8.5 
USW WT-1 135.9 145.4 147.5 11.6 
USW UZ-6 137.2 145.8 149.0 11.9 
USW WT-13 140.2 149.4 151.8 11.6 
USW WT-16 140.8 176.8 181.1 40.2 
USW H-5 143.6 165.2 171.3 27.7 
USW WT-24 144.5 212.0 212.4 68.0 
USW G-2 150.6 230.2 233.7 83.1 
USW WT-18 151.5 210.9 213.7 62.2 
UE-25 ONC #1 189.3 196.0 199.3 10.1 
UE-25 J-13 198.1 207.9 210.6 12.5 
USW WT-10 281.6 290.8 294.7 13.1 
Source: DTN MO0004QGFMPICK.000 (BSC 2003 [DIRS 152554]). 
D3.3.3.3 Depth of the Repository Emplacement Area and Related Crater Diameters 
With regard to the depth of the repository emplacement area, the minimum stand-off distances 
given in Drawing 800-IED-WIS0-00101-000-00A from D&E / PA/C IED Subsurface Facilities 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 164519]) indicate that the overburden thickness from emplacement area to 
topographic surface is 215 m. A slightly shallower depth of 200 m will be used in the 
calculation to provide a small margin of conservatism and to allow for any future eastward 
extension or additions of drifts within the siting area. 
A range of exhumation depthtocrater diametertoratios of 0.10 to 0.33 is noted in 
Appendix B, and a value of 0.32 has been justified for use as direct input in Section B5.5.3.5 of 
Appendix B, as previously discussed. Because the intended use is for FEP screening and 
analysis, the conservative value of increased fracturing depth to 0.76 of the crater diameter, as 
indicated by Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]), is examined to ensure that the range of 
uncertainty in relationships is covered. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-31 October 2004 
Given the above ratios, the crater diameters of interest for impairing repository performance 
from exhumation to repository depth ranges from 625 m to about 2 km, and craters capable of 
fracturing to repository depth have diameters in excess of about 263 m. 
D3.3.4 Cratering Distributions Adjusted for Target Area 
The target area in each case is initially assumed rectangular in shape, with the dimensions 
described in Section D3.3.1 of this appendix. However, if a meteorite were to impact exterior to 
the repository boundary or an outcrop area, but within one-half of the crater diameter from the 
boundary, the repository could still potentially be affected. This affects the boundaries on each 
side of the repository and the outcrop. Assuming fracturing and exhumation effects are 
cylindrical below the entire crater, the target area can be expressed as: 
Area (A) = (L + 2 x D/2)(W + 2 x D/2) = (L+D)(W+D) (Eq. D-6) 
Equation D-6 further simplifies to 
Area (A) = LW + (L+W)D + D2 (Eq. D-6a) 
where: 
L = length of target area (km) 
W = width of target area (km) 
D = diameter of crater (km). 
Starting with Equation D-1, the overall annual probability of meteorite impacts that could disrupt 
or fracture the repository is given by the product of the frequency of impact and the target area 
integrated over the range of possible crater diameters: 
F = . f(D) A dD (Eq. D-7) 
From Equations D-2 and D-6a and with k equaling the power of the distribution for a given 
meteorite crater distribution: 
F = . (-k K Dk-1) (LW + (L+W) D + D2) dD (Eq. D-8) 
By removing the constants k and K and using the additive properties of integrals and exponents, 
the resulting integral is in the form of . un du 
F = -k K . (LWDk-1 + (L+W)Dk + D k+1) dD (Eq. D-8a) 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-32 October 2004 
Equation D-8a simplifies to: 
300 
F = -k K LW(D)k + (L+W)(D)k+1+ (D)k+2 (Eq. D-8b) 
k k+1 k+2 
D 
where: 
F = frequency of impacts per year capable of disrupting the repository 
K = the proportionality constant (from regression analysis) 
k = power of the distribution (from regression analysis) 
L = length of the repository (km) 
W = width of the repository (km) 
D = diameter of the crater (km). 
The lower limit to the integral is assumed to be 0.001 km (1 m), based on the need to capture 
very small crater diameters to evaluate the potential for impact in the PTn outcrop area. The 
choice is arbitrary based on the possible scale of interest, and larger or smaller values could have 
been chosen. The upper limit was set at 300 km, which corresponds to the largest recognized 
crater on the earths surface. A smaller limit could have been set, but would have reduced the 
cumulative frequency slightly. So long as the diameter is chosen such that the chosen crater 
diameter occurs at an annualized frequency well below the FEP screening threshold of 10-8, it 
makes only a minor difference in the resulting calculation. However, a 300 km crater diameter is 
the largest observed feature on earth, so it serves as a defensible upper bound. 
Equation D-4 is coupled with Equation D-6a to construct a distribution from the equation given 
by Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326], p. 4), and takes on the form of 
F(D) = 2.010-12 (D)-2 (L + D) (W + D) (Eq. D-9) 
D3.3.5 Calculation of Cratering Distribution for the Repository Footprint 
Equation D-8b is applied below for the target area for both the Grieve distribution and the 
distribution based on mass flux. The power of 1.8 and the value for K of (1.2 + 0.6)10-12 
shown in Equation D-3, are only applicable to the Grieve distribution and are used accordingly. 
As seen on Figure D-3, the cratering distribution derived from meteoroid flux (after Hills and 
Goda) has two primary components, an upper curve (for D < 0.1 km) and a lower curve (for 
D > 0.1 km), which are connected by an essentially vertical portion of the curve. Tables D-8a 
through D-8d provide the results of the regression analyses for the meteoroid flux distributions 
(i.e., for the upper and lower portions of the frequency curves for 15 and 20 km/s, respectively). 
Figures D-6a through D-6d provide representation of the analysis. Because of the offset in the 
cumulative-flux-derived frequency curves, the constant, K, was also determined for each portion 
of the curve for each velocity. Table D-9 provides example spreadsheet calculations for the 
results shown in Tables D-8a through D-8d. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-33 October 2004 
The slope of the distribution and the constant were applied to Equation D-8b for the upper and 
lower portion of the curves for the two atmospheric entry velocities (V=15 km/s and 20 km/s). 
The use of the two portions of the curve is justified because the lower portion of the meteoroid 
flux curve indicates a differing distribution as shown on Figure D-3. For the upper portion of the 
curves, the lower limit of the integral was taken to be a lower limit of 1 m, as previously 
described. The upper limit for the integral for the upper portion of the curves was selected based 
on the breakpoint in the curves for V=15 km/s and V=20 km/s (i.e., based on crater diameters of 
80 m and 20 m, respectively). These breakpoints also correspond to the curves approaching the 
distribution curve given by Neukum and Ivanov (1994 [DIRS 121510]). The Neukum and 
Ivanov curve was previously defined as an upper bound on crater diameter distribution based on 
lunar cratering data adjusted for atmosphereless earth. Use of an upper integral limit of 
300 km for the upper curves would result in a calculated annualized frequency of about 
310-8 for a crater diameter of 1 km. Figure D-3 clearly indicates that the value based on three 
different distribution curves should be on the order of 10-11 or 10-12, a three to four order of 
magnitude difference. For the lower portion of the curve, the lower integral limit was taken as 
the breakpoints (80 m and 20 m) in the curves, and an integral limit of a 300-km crater diameter 
was used, consistent with its application for the Grieve distribution. To address the break in the 
curve between the upper and lower limits, the calculation overlaps the upper limit for the upper 
curve respective to the lower limit in the lower curve. This allows for annual frequency of the 
breakpoint (80 m and 20 m, respectively) to be calculated. The upper limit of the integration is 
set at 100 m and 40 m respectively, as shown in Tables D-10a through D-10d. Using the 
breakpoint as the upper limit would cause the calculated frequency to be zero, because 
Equation D-8b is for the cumulative frequency and describes the annual frequency of the given 
diameter or larger. 
Tables D-10a and D-10b provide the annual probability calculations for cratering above the 
repository for the TSPALA emplacement area, and for the PTn Outcrop area. The results are 
shown in Figures D-6 and D-8, respectively. For corroborative and sensitivity analysis purposes, 
Table D-10c evaluates the probability for the TSPA-LA siting area, and for sensitivity analysis 
purposes, Table D-10d reassesses the TSPA-SR design. Results are shown for the TSPA-LA 
siting area and the TSPA-SR design in Figures D-9 and D-10, respectively. 
For the various repository footprint evaluations (Figures D-7, D-9, and D-10), the figures 
indicate the equivalent FEP screening probability threshold (i.e., an annualized equivalence of 
1  10-8), the crater diameters that are of interest with respect to fracturing of the Paintbrush 
hydrologic unit and to depth of the repository, and the crater diameters that are of interest with 
respect to exhumation of those same features. The diameters of interest for fracturing and 
exhumation overlap, depending on which feature is being considered and which 
diameter-to-depth factor is assumed. Figure D-8 provides the annual probability for cratering in 
the outcrop area, which is the same for the TSPASR and TSPALA designs, and the annualized 
probability for cratering within or near the outcrop area is shown. Because it is the outcrop area 
(i.e., exposure at the surface), any impact in the outcrop will result in exhumation and fracturing. 
Tables D-11 through D-14 provide example spreadsheet calculations for the results shown in 
Tables D-10a through D-10d, for the distribution curves. 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-34 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-8a. Regression Analysis for Crater Diameter D for Meteoroid Flux for Upper Portion of Curve (D < 0.1 km) and V = 15 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D15 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) 
[log (D) - log (D) 
mean] 
[log(D) - log 
(D)mean]2 [log(F) - log (F)mean] [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
0.002 8.5E-07 -2.70 -6.07 -0.84 0.71 0.79 -0.67 
0.004 5.1E-07 -2.40 -6.30 -0.54 0.29 0.57 -0.31 
0.006 4.3E-07 -2.22 -6.37 -0.36 0.13 0.49 -0.18 
0.008 3.6E-07 -2.10 -6.44 -0.24 0.06 0.42 -0.10 
0.01 3.2E-07 -2.00 -6.49 -0.14 0.02 0.37 -0.05 
0.012 3.0E-07 -1.92 -6.52 -0.06 0.00 0.34 -0.02 
0.014 1.9E-07 -1.85 -6.72 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 
0.016 8.7E-08 -1.80 -7.06 0.06 0.00 -0.20 -0.01 
0.018 8.2E-08 -1.74 -7.09 0.11 0.01 -0.22 -0.03 
0.02 7.7E-08 -1.70 -7.11 0.16 0.03 -0.25 -0.04 
0.04 3.4E-08 -1.40 -7.47 0.46 0.21 -0.61 -0.28 
0.06 2.7E-08 -1.22 -7.57 0.64 0.40 -0.71 -0.45 
0.08 9.8E-09 -1.10 -8.01 0.76 0.58 -1.15 -0.87 
Mean -1.86 -6.86 
Sum 2.45 -3.00 
Slope -1.23 
Slope = 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean]2 
NOTE: Values for D and for F are taken from Table D-7 of this appendix. 
Slope = k = -1.23: This is less steep than the Grieve slope of 1.8, 
which is based on observed earth cratering at crater diameters of 10 km 
and was extrapolated for smaller crater diameters. The slope of the Grieve 
distribution decreases for smaller crater diameters, but is recognized as likely 
underestimating the number of small diameter craters. 
Constant K = 7.0 E-10. 
Regression Analysis 
y = 7E-10x-1.23 
R2 = 0.926 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 
Crater Diameter (m) 
Frequency 
(events/km2-year) 
Figure D-6a. Regression Analysis for Upper Curve Portion 
(V = 15 km/s) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-35 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-8b. Regression Analysis for Crater Diameter D for Meteoroid Flux for Lower Portion of Curve (D > 0.1 km) and V = 15 km/s 
V = 15 km/sec: Lower Portion of Curve 
Crater Diameter 
D15 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) [log(D) - log (D) mean] 
[log(D) - log 
(D)mean]2 [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
[log(D) - log (D)mean] x 
[log(F) - log (F)mean] 
0.1 8.5E-13 -1.00 -12.07 -0.68 0.47 0.73 -0.50 
0.12 7.3E-13 -0.92 -12.14 -0.60 0.37 0.66 -0.40 
0.14 6.1E-13 -0.85 -12.21 -0.54 0.29 0.58 -0.31 
0.16 5.4E-13 -0.80 -12.27 -0.48 0.23 0.53 -0.25 
0.18 4.9E-13 -0.74 -12.31 -0.43 0.18 0.49 -0.21 
0.2 4.5E-13 -0.70 -12.34 -0.38 0.15 0.45 -0.17 
0.4 2.5E-13 -0.40 -12.60 -0.08 0.01 0.19 -0.02 
0.6 1.6E-13 -0.22 -12.80 0.09 0.01 -0.01 0.00 
0.8 1.1E-13 -0.10 -12.98 0.22 0.05 -0.18 -0.04 
1 7.3E-14 0.00 -13.14 0.32 0.10 -0.34 -0.11 
1.2 6.0E-14 0.08 -13.22 0.40 0.16 -0.43 -0.17 
1.4 4.7E-14 0.15 -13.33 0.46 0.21 -0.53 -0.25 
1.6 3.6E-14 0.20 -13.44 0.52 0.27 -0.64 -0.34 
1.8 3.1E-14 0.26 -13.51 0.57 0.33 -0.71 -0.41 
2 2.6E-14 0.30 -13.58 0.62 0.38 -0.79 -0.48 
Mean -0.32 -12.80 
Sum 3.19 -3.65 
Slope -1.14 
Slope = 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean]2 
NOTE: Values for D and for F are taken from Table D-7 of this appendix. 
Slope = k = -1.14: This is less steep than the Grieve slope of 1.8, which 
is based on observed earth cratering at crater diameters of 10 km and was 
extrapolated for smaller crater diameters. The slope of the Grieve 
distribution decreases for smaller crater diameters, but is recognized as 
likely underestimating the number of small diameter craters. 
Constant K = 7.0 E-14. 
Figure D-6b. Regression Analysis for Lower Curve Portion (V = 15 km/s) 
Regression Analysis 
y = 7E-14x-1.14 
R2 = 0.9894 
1.00E-15 
1.00E-14 
1.00E-13 
1.00E-12 
1.00E-11
0.1 1 10 
Crater Diameter (m) 
Frequency 
(events/km2-year) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-36 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-8c. Regression Analysis for Crater Diameter D for Meteoroid Flux for Upper Portion of Curve (D < 0.02 km) and V = 20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D20 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) [log(D) - log (D) mean] 
[log(D) - log 
(D)mean]2 [log(F) - log (F)mean] [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
0.002 5.6E-07 -2.70 -6.26 -0.66 0.43 0.49 -0.32 
0.004 4.3E-07 -2.40 -6.36 -0.35 0.13 0.38 -0.14 
0.006 2.9E-07 -2.22 -6.53 -0.18 0.03 0.22 -0.04 
0.008 1.7E-07 -2.10 -6.76 -0.05 0.00 -0.01 0.00 
0.01 1.5E-07 -2.00 -6.83 0.04 0.00 -0.08 0.00 
0.012 1.4E-07 -1.92 -6.85 0.12 0.01 -0.11 -0.01 
0.014 1.4E-07 -1.85 -6.87 0.19 0.04 -0.12 -0.02 
0.016 1.3E-07 -1.80 -6.89 0.25 0.06 -0.15 -0.04 
0.018 1.2E-07 -1.74 -6.91 0.30 0.09 -0.16 -0.05 
0.02 6.2E-08 -1.70 -7.21 0.34 0.12 -0.46 -0.16 
Mean -2.04 -6.75 
Sum 0.91 -0.78 
Slope -0.85 
Slope = 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean]2 
NOTE: Values for D and for F are taken from Table D-7 of this 
appendix. 
Slope = k = -0.85: This is less steep than the Grieve slope of 1.8, which is 
based on observed earth cratering at crater diameters of 10 km and was 
extrapolated for smaller crater diameters. The slope of the Grieve 
distribution decreases for smaller crater diameters, but is recognized as 
likely underestimating the number of small diameter craters. 
Constant K = 3.0 E-9. 
Figure D-6c. Regression Analysis for Upper Curve Portion (V= 20 km/s) 
Regression Analysis 
y = 3E-09x-0.85 
R2 = 0.9127 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 
Crater Diameter (m) 
Frequency 
(events/km2-year)

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-37 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-8d. Regression Analysis for Crater Diameter D for Meteoroid Flux for Lower Portion of Curve (D > 0.02 km) and V = 20 km/s 
Crater Diameter 
D20 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) [log(D) - log (D) mean] 
[log(D) - log 
(D)mean]2 [log(F) - log (F)mean] [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
0.04 5.0E-13 -1.40 -12.30 -0.93 0.86 0.62 -0.57 
0.06 4.3E-13 -1.22 -12.37 -0.75 0.57 0.55 -0.41 
0.08 3.9E-13 -1.10 -12.41 -0.63 0.39 0.51 -0.32 
0.1 3.7E-13 -1.00 -12.44 -0.53 0.28 0.48 -0.25 
0.12 3.3E-13 -0.92 -12.48 -0.45 0.20 0.44 -0.20 
0.14 2.8E-13 -0.85 -12.56 -0.38 0.15 0.36 -0.14 
0.16 2.5E-13 -0.80 -12.60 -0.33 0.11 0.32 -0.10 
0.18 2.2E-13 -0.74 -12.65 -0.27 0.08 0.27 -0.07 
0.2 2.0E-13 -0.70 -12.70 -0.23 0.05 0.22 -0.05 
0.4 1.5E-13 -0.40 -12.83 0.07 0.01 0.09 0.01 
0.6 1.1E-13 -0.22 -12.94 0.25 0.06 -0.03 -0.01 
0.8 7.5E-14 -0.10 -13.13 0.37 0.14 -0.21 -0.08 
1 4.9E-14 0.00 -13.31 0.47 0.22 -0.39 -0.18 
1.2 3.9E-14 0.08 -13.41 0.55 0.30 -0.50 -0.27 
1.4 3.4E-14 0.15 -13.47 0.62 0.38 -0.55 -0.34 
1.6 2.6E-14 0.20 -13.59 0.67 0.45 -0.67 -0.45 
1.8 2.3E-14 0.26 -13.63 0.73 0.53 -0.71 -0.52 
2 1.9E-14 0.30 -13.71 0.77 0.59 -0.80 -0.61 
Mean -0.47 -12.92 
Sum 5.37 -4.58 
Slope -0.85 
Slope = 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean] x [log(F) - log (F)mean] 
. [log(D) - log (D)mean]2 
NOTE: Values for D and for F are taken from Table D-7 of this appendix. 
Slope = k = -0.85: This is less steep than the Grieve slope of 1.8, which is 
based on observed earth cratering at crater diameters of 10 km and was 
extrapolated for smaller crater diameters. The slope of the Grieve distribution 
decreases for smaller crater diameters, but is recognized as likely 
underestimating the number of small diameter craters. 
Constant K = 5.0 E-14. 
Regression Analysis 
y = 5E-14x-0.85 
R2 = 0.9621 
1.0E-15 
1.0E-14 
1.0E-13 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
0.01 0.1 1 10 
Crater Diameter (m) 
Frequency 
(events/km2-year) 
Figure D-6d. Regression Analysis for Lower Curve Portion (V = 20 km/s) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-38 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-9. Example Spreadsheet Calculation for Regression Analysis 
Rows/ 
Columns C D E F G H I J 
2 V = 15 km/sec: Upper Portion of Curve 
3 
Crater Diameter 
D15 (km) Frequency (F) log(D) log(F) 
[log(D) - log 
(Dmean)] 
[log(D) - log 
(Dmean)]2 
[log(F) - log 
(Fmean)] 
[log(D) - log 
(Dmean)] x [log(F) - 
log (F)] 
4 
5 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C5) =LOG(D5) =E5-$E$19 =G5^2 =F5-$F$19 =I5*G5 
6 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C6) =LOG(D6) =E6-$E$19 =G6^2 =F6-$F$19 =I6*G6 
7 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C7) =LOG(D7) =E7-$E$19 =G7^2 =F7-$F$19 =I7*G7 
8 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C8) =LOG(D8) =E8-$E$19 =G8^2 =F8-$F$19 =I8*G8 
9 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C9) =LOG(D9) =E9-$E$19 =G9^2 =F9-$F$19 =I9*G9 
10 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C10) =LOG(D10) =E10-$E$19 =G10^2 =F10-$F$19 =I10*G10 
11 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C11) =LOG(D11) =E11-$E$19 =G11^2 =F11-$F$19 =I11*G11 
12 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C12) =LOG(D12) =E12-$E$19 =G12^2 =F12-$F$19 =I12*G12 
13 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C13) =LOG(D13) =E13-$E$19 =G13^2 =F13-$F$19 =I13*G13 
14 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C14) =LOG(D14) =E14-$E$19 =G14^2 =F14-$F$19 =I14*G14 
15 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C15) =LOG(D15) =E15-$E$19 =G15^2 =F15-$F$19 =I15*G15 
16 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C16) =LOG(D16) =E16-$E$19 =G16^2 =F16-$F$19 =I16*G16 
17 From Table D-5 From Table D-5 =LOG(C17) =LOG(D17) =E17-$E$19 =G17^2 =F17-$F$19 =I17*G17 
18 
19 Mean =AVERAGE(E5:E17) =AVERAGE(F5:F17) 
20 Sum =SUM(H5:H17) =SUM(J5:J17) 
21 Slope =J20/H20 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-39 October 2004 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 
Crater Diameter (km) 
Annualized Frequency (events per year) 
V=15 km/sec 
V=20 km/sec 
Wuschke et al. 
Distribution 
Grieve Distribution 
Crater Diameters of 
Concern for 
Fracturing Effects 
Crater Diameters of 
Concern for 
Exhumation Effects 
FEP Screening 
Probability 
Threshold 
Figure D-7. Annualized Frequency of Cratering above the Repository for the TSPA-LA Emplacement 
Area 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-40 October 2004 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 
Crater Diameter (km) 
Annualized Frequency (events per year) 
V=15 km/sec 
V=20 km/sec 
Grieve 
Distribution 
Wuschke et al. 
Distribution 
FEP Screening 
Probability 
Threshold 
Figure D-8. Annualized Frequency of Cratering above the Paintbrush Outcrop 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-41 October 2004 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 
Crater Diameter (km) 
Annualized Frequency (events per year) 
V=15 km/sec 
V=20 km/sec 
Wuschke et al. 
Distribution 
Grieve Distribution 
Crater Diameters of 
Concern for 
Fracturing Effects 
Crater Diameters of 
Concern for 
Exhumation Effects 
FEP Screening 
Probability 
Threshold 
Figure D-9. Annualized Frequency of Cratering above the Repository for the TSPA-LA Siting Area 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-42 October 2004 
1.0E-12 
1.0E-11 
1.0E-10 
1.0E-09 
1.0E-08 
1.0E-07 
1.0E-06 
1.0E-05 
1.0E-04
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 
Crater Diameter (km) 
Annualized Frequency (events per year) 
V=15 km/sec 
V=20 km/sec 
Wushke et al. 
Distribution 
Grieve Distribution 
Diameters of Concern 
for Fracturing Effects 
Diameters of Concern 
for Exhumation 
FEP Screening 
Probability Threshold 
Figure D-10. Annualized Frequency of Cratering above the Repository for the TSPA-SR Design 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-55 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-11. Spreadsheet Example: Calculation of Distribution Curves for V = 15 km/s 
Repository L= 8.6 W= 1.3 
From Regression Analysis Equation: K= '=Regression Analyses'!E20 k=='Regression Analyses'!E19 
K Coefficients for Power Distribution - Upper Curve 
D(15) =E3 =G3 =C6+1 =C6+2 Sum of Terms F 
0.001 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A8^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A8^$D$6)/$D$6 =A8^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C8:E8) =$C$6*B8*(F8-$F$23) 
0.002 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A9^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A9^$D$6)/$D$6 =A9^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C9:E9) =$C$6*B9*(F9-$F$23) 
0.005 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A10^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A10^$D$6)/$D$6 =A10^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C10:E10) =$C$6*B10*(F10-$F$23) 
0.007 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A11^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A11^$D$6)/$D$6 =A11^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C11:E11) =$C$6*B11*(F11-$F$23) 
0.009 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A12^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A12^$D$6)/$D$6 =A12^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C12:E12) =$C$6*B12*(F12-$F$23) 
0.01 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A13^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A13^$D$6)/$D$6 =A13^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C13:E13) =$C$6*B13*(F13-$F$23) 
0.02 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A14^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A14^$D$6)/$D$6 =A14^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C14:E14) =$C$6*B14*(F14-$F$23) 
0.03 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A15^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A15^$D$6)/$D$6 =A15^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C15:E15) =$C$6*B15*(F15-$F$23) 
0.04 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A16^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A16^$D$6)/$D$6 =A16^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C16:E16) =$C$6*B16*(F16-$F$23) 
0.05 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A17^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A17^$D$6)/$D$6 =A17^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C17:E17) =$C$6*B17*(F17-$F$23) 
0.06 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A18^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A18^$D$6)/$D$6 =A18^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C18:E18) =$C$6*B18*(F18-$F$23) 
0.07 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A19^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A19^$D$6)/$D$6 =A19^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C19:E19) =$C$6*B19*(F19-$F$23) 
0.08 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A20^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A20^$D$6)/$D$6 =A20^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C20:E20) =$C$6*B20*(F20-$F$23) 
0.1 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A23^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A23^$D$6)/$D$6 =A23^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C23:E23) =$C$6*B23*(F23-$F$23) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-56 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-11. Spreadsheet Example: Calculation of Distribution Curves for V = 15 km/s (Continued) 
From Regression Analysis Equation: K= ='Regression Analyses'!E45 k=='Regression Analyses'!E44 
K Coefficients for Power Distribution - Lower Curve 
D(15) =E26 =G26 =C28+1 =C28+2 Sum of Terms F 
0.09 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A30^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A30^$D$28)/$D$28 =A30^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C30:E30) =$C$28*B30*(F30-$F$45) 
0.1 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A31^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A31^$D$28)/$D$28 =A31^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C31:E31) =$C$28*B31*(F31-$F$45) 
0.2 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A32^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A32^$D$28)/$D$28 =A32^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C32:E32) =$C$28*B32*(F32-$F$45) 
0.3 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A33^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A33^$D$28)/$D$28 =A33^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C33:E33) =$C$28*B33*(F33-$F$45) 
0.4 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A34^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A34^$D$28)/$D$28 =A34^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C34:E34) =$C$28*B34*(F34-$F$45) 
0.5 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A35^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A35^$D$28)/$D$28 =A35^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C35:E35) =$C$28*B35*(F35-$F$45) 
0.6 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A36^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A36^$D$28)/$D$28 =A36^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C36:E36) =$C$28*B36*(F36-$F$45) 
0.7 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A37^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A37^$D$28)/$D$28 =A37^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C37:E37) =$C$28*B37*(F37-$F$45) 
0.8 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A38^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A38^$D$28)/$D$28 =A38^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C38:E38) =$C$28*B38*(F38-$F$45) 
0.9 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A39^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A39^$D$28)/$D$28 =A39^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C39:E39) =$C$28*B39*(F39-$F$45) 
1 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A40^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A40^$D$28)/$D$28 =A40^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C40:E40) =$C$28*B40*(F40-$F$45) 
2 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A41^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A41^$D$28)/$D$28 =A41^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C41:E41) =$C$28*B41*(F41-$F$45) 
3 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A42^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A42^$D$28)/$D$28 =A42^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C42:E42) =$C$28*B42*(F42-$F$45) 
5 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A43^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A43^$D$28)/$D$28 =A43^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C43:E43) =$C$28*B43*(F43-$F$45) 
10 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A44^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A44^$D$28)/$D$28 =A44^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C44:E44) =$C$28*B44*(F44-$F$45) 
300 =$B$28 =($C$1*$E$1*A45^$C$28)/$C$28 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A45^$D$28)/$D$28 =A45^$E$28/$E$28 =SUM(C45:E45) =$C$28*B45*(F45-$F$45) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-57 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-12. Spreadsheet Example: Calculation of Distribution Curves for V = 20 km/s 
Repository L= 8.6 W= 1.3 
From Regression Analysis Equation: K= ='Regression Analyses'!P20 k=='Regression Analyses'!P19 
D(20) K Coefficients for Power Distribution - Upper Curve 
=E3 =G3 =C6+1 =C6+2 Sum of Terms F 
0.001 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A8^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A8^$D$6)/$D$6 =A8^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C8:E8) =$C$6*B8*(F8-$F$15) 
0.003 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A9^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A9^$D$6)/$D$6 =A9^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C9:E9) =$C$6*B9*(F9-$F$15) 
0.005 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A10^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A10^$D$6)/$D$6 =A10^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C10:E10) =$C$6*B10*(F10-$F$15) 
0.006 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A11^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A11^$D$6)/$D$6 =A11^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C11:E11) =$C$6*B11*(F11-$F$15) 
0.008 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A12^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A12^$D$6)/$D$6 =A12^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C12:E12) =$C$6*B12*(F12-$F$15) 
0.01 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A13^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A13^$D$6)/$D$6 =A13^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C13:E13) =$C$6*B13*(F13-$F$15) 
0.02 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A14^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A14^$D$6)/$D$6 =A14^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C14:E14) =$C$6*B14*(F14-$F$15) 
0.04 =$B$6 =($C$1*$E$1*A15^$C$6)/$C$6 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A15^$D$6)/$D$6 =A15^$E$6/$E$6 =SUM(C15:E15) =$C$6*B15*(F15-$F$15) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-58 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-12. Spreadsheet Example: Calculation of Distribution Curves for V = 20 km/s (Continued) 
From Regression Analysis Equation: K= ='Regression Analyses'!P45 k=='Regression Analyses'!P44 
D(20) K Coefficients for Power Distribution - Lower Curve 
=E18 =G18 =C21+1 =C21+2 Sum of Terms F 
0.03 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A23^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A23^$D$21)/$D$21 =A23^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C23:E23) =$C$21*B23*(F23-$F$44) 
0.04 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A24^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A24^$D$21)/$D$21 =A24^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C24:E24) =$C$21*B24*(F24-$F$44) 
0.05 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A25^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A25^$D$21)/$D$21 =A25^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C25:E25) =$C$21*B25*(F25-$F$44) 
0.06 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A26^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A26^$D$21)/$D$21 =A26^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C26:E26) =$C$21*B26*(F26-$F$44) 
0.07 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A27^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A27^$D$21)/$D$21 =A27^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C27:E27) =$C$21*B27*(F27-$F$44) 
0.08 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A28^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A28^$D$21)/$D$21 =A28^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C28:E28) =$C$21*B28*(F28-$F$44) 
0.09 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A29^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A29^$D$21)/$D$21 =A29^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C29:E29) =$C$21*B29*(F29-$F$44) 
0.1 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A30^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A30^$D$21)/$D$21 =A30^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C30:E30) =$C$21*B30*(F30-$F$44) 
0.2 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A31^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A31^$D$21)/$D$21 =A31^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C31:E31) =$C$21*B31*(F31-$F$44) 
0.3 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A32^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A32^$D$21)/$D$21 =A32^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C32:E32) =$C$21*B32*(F32-$F$44) 
0.4 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A33^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A33^$D$21)/$D$21 =A33^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C33:E33) =$C$21*B33*(F33-$F$44) 
0.5 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A34^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A34^$D$21)/$D$21 =A34^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C34:E34) =$C$21*B34*(F34-$F$44) 
0.6 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A35^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A35^$D$21)/$D$21 =A35^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C35:E35) =$C$21*B35*(F35-$F$44) 
0.7 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A36^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A36^$D$21)/$D$21 =A36^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C36:E36) =$C$21*B36*(F36-$F$44) 
0.8 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A37^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A37^$D$21)/$D$21 =A37^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C37:E37) =$C$21*B37*(F37-$F$44) 
0.9 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A38^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A38^$D$21)/$D$21 =A38^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C38:E38) =$C$21*B38*(F38-$F$44) 
1 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A39^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A39^$D$21)/$D$21 =A39^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C39:E39) =$C$21*B39*(F39-$F$44) 
2 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A40^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A40^$D$21)/$D$21 =A40^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C40:E40) =$C$21*B40*(F40-$F$44) 
3 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A41^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A41^$D$21)/$D$21 =A41^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C41:E41) =$C$21*B41*(F41-$F$44) 
5 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A42^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A42^$D$21)/$D$21 =A42^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C42:E42) =$C$21*B42*(F42-$F$44) 
10 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A43^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A43^$D$21)/$D$21 =A43^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C43:E43) =$C$21*B43*(F43-$F$44) 
300 =$B$21 =($C$1*$E$1*A44^$C$21)/$C$21 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A44^$D$21)/$D$21 =A44^$E$21/$E$21 =SUM(C44:E44) =$C$21*B44*(F44-$F$44) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-59 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-13. Spreadsheet Example: Formulas for Calculating Grieve Distribution 
Repository L= 8.6 W= 1.3 
Grieve 
K k Coefficient for Power Distribution 
1.2 E--12 -1.8 =C4+1 =C4+2 
0.001 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A6^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A6^$D$4)/$D$4 =A6^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C6:E6) =$C$4*B6*(F6-$F$17) 
0.01 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A7^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A7^$D$4)/$D$4 =A7^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C7:E7) =$C$4*B7*(F7-$F$17) 
0.03 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A8^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A8^$D$4)/$D$4 =A8^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C8:E8) =$C$4*B8*(F8-$F$17) 
0.04 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A9^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A9^$D$4)/$D$4 =A9^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C9:E9) =$C$4*B9*(F9-$F$17) 
0.08 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A10^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A10^$D$4)/$D$4 =A10^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C10:E10)=$C$4*B10*(F10-$F$17) 
0.1 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A11^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A11^$D$4)/$D$4 =A11^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C11:E11)=$C$4*B11*(F11-$F$17) 
0.3 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A12^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A12^$D$4)/$D$4 =A12^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C12:E12)=$C$4*B12*(F12-$F$17) 
0.7 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A13^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A13^$D$4)/$D$4 =A13^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C13:E13)=$C$4*B13*(F13-$F$17) 
1 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A14^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A14^$D$4)/$D$4 =A14^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C14:E14)=$C$4*B14*(F14-$F$17) 
10 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A15^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A15^$D$4)/$D$4 =A15^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C15:E15)=$C$4*B15*(F15-$F$17) 
100 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A16^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A16^$D$4)/$D$4 =A16^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C16:E16)=$C$4*B16*(F16-$F$17) 
300 =$B$4 =($C$1*$E$1*A17^$C$4)/$C$4 =($C$1+$E$1)*(A17^$D$4)/$D$4 =A17^$E$4/$E$4 =SUM(C17:E17)=$C$4*B17*(F17-$F$17) 

ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-60 October 2004 
Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
Table D-14. Spreadsheet Example: Formulas for Calculating Wuschke et al. Distribution 
Frequency Calculation and Area Adjustment for Distribution per Wuschke et al. 
1995 
Repository L=8.3 W=1.3 
Crater Diameter (km) Adjusted L (km) Adjusted W (km) Adjusted Area (km2) D-2 Frequency per year 
0.001 =$C$3+A6 =$E$3+A6 =B6*C6 =A6^-2 =D6*E6*0.000000000002 
0.01 =$C$3+A7 =$E$3+A7 =B7*C7 =A7^-2 =D7*E7*0.000000000002 
0.03 =$C$3+A8 =$E$3+A8 =B8*C8 =A8^-2 =D8*E8*0.000000000002 
0.04 =$C$3+A9 =$E$3+A9 =B9*C9 =A9^-2 =D9*E9*0.000000000002 
0.08 =$C$3+A10 =$E$3+A10 =B10*C10 =A10^-2 =D10*E10*0.000000000002 
0.1 =$C$3+A11 =$E$3+A11 =B11*C11 =A11^-2 =D11*E11*0.000000000002 
0.3 =$C$3+A12 =$E$3+A12 =B12*C12 =A12^-2 =D12*E12*0.000000000002 
0.7 =$C$3+A13 =$E$3+A13 =B13*C13 =A13^-2 =D13*E13*0.000000000002 
1 =$C$3+A14 =$E$3+A14 =B14*C14 =A14^-2 =D14*E14*0.000000000002 
10 =$C$3+A15 =$E$3+A15 =B15*C15 =A15^-2 =D15*E15*0.000000000002 
100 =$C$3+A16 =$E$3+A16 =B16*C16 =A16^-2 =D16*E16*0.000000000002 
300 =$C$3+A17 =$E$3+A17 =B17*C17 =A17^-2 =D17*E17*0.000000000002 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-61 October 2004 
D3.4 UNCERTAINTY CONSIDERATIONS 
Uncertainties for the meteorite impact analysis include both epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. 
Aleatory uncertainties in the physical properties of observed objects (e.g., density, velocities, 
diameters, angle of entry) are inherent in assuming such values for calculating meteor radius. 
Epistemic uncertainties are reflected in the distributions used for the mass flux and for the 
percentage of types of meteors that occur within the entire population of possible earth 
interceptors. This is due to observations of only a limited number of objects over a very short 
period compared to that involved in determining crater rate distributions. 
The evaluation approach used to define the probability distribution can include consideration of 
probability of impact of known objects, probabilities based on empirical cratering observations 
from the lunar and earths surface, or determination of probabilities based on meteor flux to the 
earths atmosphere. The first option, impact of known objects, is only of limited use because 
space surveys are currently incomplete, and there are large uncertainties that influence the 
probability calculations. However, it does serve as a corroborative checkpoint for comparison 
for any other derived values. For the second option, empirical crater observations, uncertainties 
stem from uncertainty in the age of observed craters, uncertainties regarding overprinting from 
multiple impacts in a given area, and extrapolations required to account for differences in 
atmospheric and gravitational effects. In the case of earth cratering studies, the limitations also 
include the destruction of small diameter craters through time and/or limitations in identification 
of such features. For the last option, a crater distribution based on meteor flux, the analysis 
encounters uncertainties in accounting for multiple factors. These factors include the distribution 
of the mass and diameter of the meteoroids, the distribution in composition of meteoroids, the 
velocity of the meteoroids, their entry angle into the earths atmosphere, and effects encountered 
by the meteor during passage through Earths atmosphere (ablation and fragmentation). Each of 
the factors (mass or size, material, velocity, angle, and atmospheric effects) determines the 
kinetic energy with which the meteorite impacts the earth, and thereby influences the resulting 
crater diameter and depth. 
The curve derived from Grieve in Figure D-3 is based on extrapolation of observable earth 
cratering data, but its limitation is for crater diameters larger than 10 km. For this analysis, 
however, the slope of the Grieve distribution was assumed constant even for the smaller crater 
diameters. The extrapolation of the distribution from Grieve (1998 [DIRS 163385]) for very 
small crater diameters likely overestimates the number of small-diameter craters, and is therefore 
conservative (i.e., the number of small cratering events may be overestimated in the calculation) 
due to the extrapolation of the curve. The number of observed small diameter craters as noted by 
Grieves is substantially less than that projected by the extrapolated distribution, and would in 
fact be the true lower bound. The degree of conservatism, however, cannot be quantified 
because the number of observed small diameter craters is skewed because it does not account for 
atmospheric effects on small meteors, increased obscuration of smaller diameter craters by 
weathering and burial, and the implicit difficulty in identifying small diameter craters. The 
crater diameter distribution observed by Grieve and based on large crater diameters, however, at 
least includes the effects of ablation and fragmentation as reflected for large diameter craters. 
The curve from Wuschke et al. (1995 [DIRS 129326]) is based on a subset of the Grieve 
information and, if comparable to the information used by Hughes (1998 [DIRS 162562]) may 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-62 October 2004 
only be valid down to diameters of 1 km. The data derived from Wuschke et al. (1995 
[DIRS 129326]) may represent a more realistic distribution of actual size and has been applied to 
a hypothetical Canadian repository. 
Furthermore, the curves derived from the cumulative flux data in Figure D-3, and based on the 
modeling results from Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figures 16 and 17), are dependent 
on the assumptions regarding composition, assumed densities, and the relative composition of 
the cumulative flux. The cumulative flux curves overstate the frequency of impact resulting in a 
given crater diameter if the relative percent of iron meteorites is lower and/or the percent of 
carbonaceous meteorites is greater than that assumed. Also, these curves likely overstate the 
frequency because it is assumed that the entire flux enters earths atmosphere at angles that result 
in the least atmospheric dissipation. 
With regard to the flux of meteoroids to earth, the reported values of the cumulative number of 
events for a meteoroid of a given diameter or larger is provided in Figure B-1 of Appendix B of 
this analysis report and spans approximately two orders of magnitude, with the range in values 
decreasing slightly for meteor diameters on the order of 1,000 meters or greater. For the 
analysis, a conservative set of data for the range of interest was selected. Use of a different data 
set would likely result in a decreased rate of cratering of a given diameter, although the 
relationship is not linear due to atmospheric shield effects. 
There is a large uncertainty associated with the distribution of meteoroids based on composition 
as shown in Table B-13 of Appendix B. Selection of a distribution that prefers a cometary 
composition would tend to decrease the probability of given crater diameter due to the greater 
effect of atmospheric shielding effects on cometary and soft stone meteoroids for a given 
diameter. Similarly, decreased percentage of iron meteoroids (Table B-14 of Appendix B) 
would also tend to decrease the cratering rate for a given diameter because iron meteors are 
stronger and more dense that stony meteors of the same diameter and result in larger crater 
diameters. A reasonable, but conservative, value of 5 percent iron meteors was selected to 
minimize the effects of uncertainty in the percent irons. The selected value is thought 
conservative, because as shown in Table B-14 of Appendix B of this analysis report, the average 
of the reported values was 5 percent, but only 4 of 13 of the reported values exceeded 5 percent. 
These higher values are likely biased because they are based on meteorite finds and iron-type 
meteorites are more likely to be found. One value (17.8 percent) drives the average. Excluding 
the extreme value of 17.8 results in an average value of 3.9 percent. For the stony/cometary 
percentages, an equal distribution was used for larger diameters, and a decreased percentage of 
stony material was used for the small masses and diameters. Selection of a more equal 
distribution would increase the crater diameter rates, although the increase would not be linear 
due to the continued effects of atmospheric shielding effects (albeit shifted based on initial 
diameter). However, the use of the more conservative value of 5 percent for iron meteors may 
also compensate in part for a preferred cometary composition for smaller meteoroids. 
There is also uncertainty associated with meteoroid densities. In reality, meteoroid densities 
likely show some type of modal distributions based on parent bodies and origin, and vary 
according the range of compositions considered. The range of values from the literature search 
is provided in Table B-15 of Appendix B of this analysis report. To simplify the calculation, the 
compositions were binned into three types (metallic, stony, and carbonaceous) and reasonable 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-63 October 2004 
but conservative values for density were assigned for each type as previously. The calculation is 
structured in such a way that increases or decreases in assumed density would directly affect the 
calculated radius of a meteoroid of a given mass, with an increase in density leading to decreased 
equivalent meteoroid radius. A decrease in the density by a factor of two would increase the 
calculated meteoroid radius by a factor of only about 1.3. A decrease in initial meteoroid radius 
generally would result in a decreased resulting crater diameter. 
Additionally, there is little information regarding the distribution of initial velocities or entry 
angle of meteoroids impacting the earths surface, although upper and lower bounds for the 
distributions could be established. These uncertainties are addressed, by assuming conservative 
values for both factors, as described for Assumption 5.4. 
Regardless of the uncertainty in physical property distributions, the net effects of uncertainty are 
partially addressed by comparing the cratering distribution derived from meteoroid influx, to 
those derived based on lunar cratering rates and on observed earth cratering rates. The lunar-and 
earth-based cratering rates respectively represent a true upper bound, and a reasonable lower 
bound on cratering rates. These distributions of observed features reflect the net effect of all 
uncertainties in physical property distributions on the resulting crater diameter distributions. 
However, for crater diameters less than about 10 km, there is a high degree of uncertainty with 
regard to the actual cratering rate due to the inability to detect smaller scale features, and due to 
the destruction of smaller scale crater diameters by natural processes acting over prolonged time 
periods. 
D4. IMPLICATIONS FOR FEP SCREENING AND CONCLUSIONS 
The probability of the occurrence of crater diameters of interest (i.e., the diameters that define 
whether the repository is affected by direct exhumation, fracturing to repository depth, or 
fracturing of other overlying units of interest) is compared to the FEP screening threshold 
diameter of one chance in 10,000 of occurring in 10,000 years (or an annualized occurrence of 
10-8). If the probability of occurrence is less than this threshold, the effect can be excluded from 
further consideration in TSPA-LA. If not, then the effect is examined for significance. If it 
can be demonstrated that the omission of the effect would not significantly change radionuclide 
exposure or release to the accessible environment, then the effect can be excluded from further 
consideration in TSPA-LA. 
As shown on Figure D-7, the probability of the formation of crater diameters above or near the 
repository that is sufficient to result in exhumation and/or fracturing to the depth of the 
repository falls below the FEP screening probability threshold. Likewise, exhumation and/or 
fracturing to the top of the Paintbrush hydrologic unit above or near the repository is also 
excluded because the occurrence of such craters falls below the FEP screening probability 
threshold. This holds true for each of the cratering distributions considered for all but the 
easternmost portion of the repository. Figure D-8 addresses the potential for cratering in the 
Paintbrush hydrologic unit outcrop area, which is discussed separately. 
Figure D-7 indicates that at an annualized probability of 10-8, the corresponding crater diameter 
resulting from impact of the largest meteor fragment is likely to range from 20 to 80 m. The 
80-m diameter represents the minimum diameter needed to fracture to the depth of the PTn unit 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-64 October 2004 
in the easternmost portion of the repository, where the unit is shallowest, and is taken from the 
V=15 km/sec distribution curve. The other distribution curves indicate lesser crater diameters, 
suggesting that meteorite impact is of low consequence. An 80-m crater diameter corresponds to 
a maximum total surface area of about 0.005 km2, or about 0.04 percent of the repository surface 
area of 14 km2 for any crater resulting from the largest fragment (Hills and Goda 1993 
[DIRS 135281], Figure 17). Assuming a hard stone composition, this crater diameter is 
associated with an initial meteor radius on the order of 50 m to 100 m, based on Hills and Goda 
(1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 17), as reflected in Figure B-4b of Appendix B of this analysis 
report. Based on Hills and Goda (1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 9), the radius of the associated 
debris swarm (i.e., the degree of scatter of all fragments, but with lesser cratering effects, if any, 
than the largest fragment and thus incapable of fracturing to top of the PTn or deeper) is on the 
order of 0.4 to 0.5 km. This suggests a debris and/or crater field with a total encompassing area 
of approximately 0.5 to 0.8 km2, but with a pock-marked surface  some portion of the area is 
affected and some is not depending on the number of size of other fragments. This suggests that 
at most, only 4 to 6 percent of the total surface area of the repository (and likely significantly 
less) is even, potentially affected. This suggests that an argument for exclusion based on low 
consequence may also appropriate depending on modeling sensitivity and relative model grid 
size. 
With regard to the Paintbrush hydrologic unit outcrop area, the probability threshold is shown on 
Figure D-8. The figure indicates that resulting crater diameters at the probability threshold 
would be less than 20 m. This represents a surface area of less than 0.001 km2, or less than 
0.01 percent, of the repository surface area. The resulting effects from the radius of the debris 
swarm would be at the lower end of the scale of the effects just discussed. Although the total 
affected area would be about the same, the width of the outcrop area is no greater than 0.1 km, 
thus limiting the outcrop area affected by the debris swarm to no more than 0.03 km2. This 
would represent less than one-half percent of the repository surface area. Accordingly, this 
aspect of meteorite impact can also be excluded based on low consequence. 
Such meteors could results in earthquakes with Richter magnitudes ranging from Magnitude 5 to 
slightly less than Magnitude 7 (Richter Scale) (Hills and Goda 1993 [DIRS 135281], Figure 18). 
Existing seismic analyses cover this range of magnitude of events, so a meteorite-caused 
earthquake component would not provide additional significant hazard and is, therefore, 
excluded based on low consequence. 
A comparison of the annualized frequency curves for the three repository designs (Figures D-7, 
D-9, and D-10) indicate that there are only minor differences in probability estimates despite 
seemingly significant changes in the total area and the respective dimensions. The total footprint 
area varies from 11.2 km2 for the TSPA-SR design, to 1 km2 based on the TSPA-LA 
emplacement area, and as large as 18 km2 based on the TSPA-LA siting area. For sensitivity 
considerations, the probabilities derived for the Wuschke et al. distribution is further examined 
because it represents a constant slope in the distribution curve. For an 80 m diameter crater, the 
respective probabilities for the above-listed areas were calculated to be 3.7  10-9, 3.9  10-9, and 
4.6  10-9. Consequently, the range of total areas increased from the TSPA-SR repository 
footprint by factors of 1.25 and 1.6 respectively, but the probabilities increased by factors of 1.05 
and 1.24, respectively. And with respect to the TSPA-LA emplacement area, the siting area 
increases by a factor of 1.29 and the probability increased by a factor of about 1.18. Thus, 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-65 October 2004 
excluding consideration of the V=15 km/sec distribution curve, at least a doubling of the 
repository footprint area used for evaluating TSPA-LA would be needed before probability based 
on the Wuschke et al. distribution would be of concern. However, if the V=15 km/sec curve is 
limiting, then expansion of areas greater than that currently considered would dictate further 
evaluation of the consequence for potential fracturing of the PTn unit, and expansion of the 
repository into areas where the PTn was shallower than 60 m or non-existent would also 
require further examination. 

Features, Events, and Processes: System Level 
ANL-WIS-MD-000019 REV 02 D-66 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK