Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) REV 02, ICN 00
 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002

August 2004 

1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this report is to document the geologic framework model, version GFM2000 with 
regard to input data, modeling methods, assumptions, uncertainties, limitations, and validation of 
the model results, and the differences between GFM2000 and previous versions. The version 
number of this model reflects the year during which the model was constructed. This model 
supersedes the previous model version, documented in Geologic Framework Model (GFM 3.1) 
(CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 138860]). 
The geologic framework model represents a three-dimensional interpretation of the geology 
surrounding the location of the monitored geologic repository for spent nuclear fuel and 
high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain. The geologic framework model encompasses 
and is limited to an area of 65 square miles (168 square kilometers) and a volume of 185 cubic 
miles (771 cubic kilometers). The boundaries of the geologic framework model (shown in 
Figure 1-1) were chosen to encompass the exploratory boreholes and to provide a geologic 
framework over the area of interest for hydrologic flow and radionuclide transport modeling 
through the unsaturated zone (UZ). The upper surface of the model is made up of the surface 
topography and the depth of the model is constrained by the inferred depth of the 
Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity. The geologic framework model was constructed from 
geologic map and borehole data. Additional information from measured stratigraphic sections, 
gravity profiles, and seismic profiles was also considered. 
The intended use of the geologic framework model is to provide a geologic framework over the 
area of interest consistent with the level of detailed needed for hydrologic flow and radionuclide 
transport modeling through the UZ and for repository design. The model is limited by the 
availability of data and relative amount of geologic complexity found in an area. The geologic 
framework model is inherently limited by scale and content. The grid spacing used in the 
geologic framework model (200 feet [61 meters]), discussed in Section 6.4.2, limits the size of 
features that can be resolved by the model but is appropriate for the distribution of data available 
and its intended use. Uncertainty and limitations are discussed in Section 6.6 and model 
validation is discussed in Section 7. 
This revision of this report was conducted in accordance with Technical Work Plan for: The 
Integrated Site Model, TWP-NBS-GS-000003 REV 05 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635]). There are no 
features, events, and processes associated with this report. 
The geologic framework model is one component of the integrated site model scope of work 
which has been developed to provide a consistent volumetric portrayal of the rock layers, rock 
properties, and mineralogy of the Yucca Mountain site. The integrated site model is also 
described in Yucca Mountain Site Description (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 3.3.1). The 
integrated site model scope of work consists of three components: 
 Geologic framework model 
 Rock properties model 
 Mineralogic model. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 1-2 August 2004 
Figure 1-1 shows the geographic boundaries of the geologic framework model and the other 
component models. Stratigraphic and structural contacts from the geologic framework model are 
used in the mineralogic model and rock properties model. The integrated site model scope of 
work merges the detailed project stratigraphy into model stratigraphic units that are most useful 
for the primary subsequent models and the repository design. The subsequent models include 
the hydrologic flow models and the radionuclide transport models. 
The intended customers of the geologic framework model product output (GFM2000, 
DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]) are Design and Engineering, the UZ Flow 
and Transport Teams, and the Saturated Zone (SZ) Flow and Transport Team. Additional users 
include the Near Field Environment and Transport Team and the Seismic Team. The following 
documents, updated from the list found in Technical Work Plan for: The Integrated Site Model, 
TWP-NBS-GS-000003 REV 05 (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635]), cite the geologic framework model 
as direct input. 
Stratigraphic and structural relationships are important to Design and Engineering documents, 
for example: Underground Layout Configuration (BSC 2003 [DIRS 165572]). The 
requirements for accuracy and precision for Design and Engineering were established by users of 
the geologic framework model [Data Qualification Report: Borehole Stratigraphic Contacts, 
Revision 01 (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 158094], p. 4)]. These requirements have been met by 
meeting the goals set forth within the discussion of uncertainty in Section 6.6. 
The Unsaturated Flow Teams use of the geologic framework model output extends through 
several individual model reports primarily as defined by Development of Numerical Grids for 
UZ Flow and Transport Modeling (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169855], Section 4.1). The justification for 
use of the geologic framework model, as an appropriate input to the UZ numerical grids, is 
provided in BSC (2004 [DIRS 169855], Section 4.1). 
The SZ model domain is a much larger area than that of the UZ model domain (Hydrogeologic 
Framework Model for the Saturated-Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170008], Figure 4-1). Consequently, the use of the geologic framework model output in 
the SZ demands less accuracy and precision than the geologic framework model output which is 
directly incorporated into BSC (2004 [DIRS 170008]). It should be noted that this report cites, 
as direct input, the previous version of the model GFM 3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769]). The justification for use of the geologic framework model, as an appropriate 
input to the SZ framework models, is provided in BSC (2004 [DIRS 170008], Section 4.1). 
In addition, product output from the geologic framework model is used as direct input in the 
following seismic and thermal modeling analysis. Stratigraphic contacts are used in Thermal 
Conductivity of the Potential Repository Horizon Model Report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169854]). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 1-3 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0002SPATOP00.01 Topography [DIRS 152643]. 
Figure 1-1. Area of Integrated Site Model Showing Model Boundaries 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 1-4 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 2-1 August 2004 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
Development of this report and the supporting modeling activities have been determined to be 
subject to the Yucca Mountains Projects (YMPs) quality assurance (QA) program, as indicated 
in (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Section 8.1, Work Package ARTM01). Approved QA procedures 
identified in the technical work plan (TWP) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635]) have been used to 
conduct and document the activities described in this report. The TWP also identifies the 
methods used to control the electronic management of data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], 
Section 8.4, Work Package ARTM01) during the model documentation activities. The controls 
for the electronic management of data were implemented and are discussed in Clayton (2001 
[DIRS 153713], p. 2). 
This report provides a three-dimensional stratigraphic and structural representation of Yucca 
Mountain, including the repository block that is important to the demonstration of compliance 
with the postclosure performance objectives prescribed in 10 CFR 63.113 [DIRS 156605]. This 
report addresses part of the natural barrier Surface Topography, Soils and Bedrock, which is 
classified in the Q-List (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361]) as Safety Category because it is important to 
waste isolation, as defined in AP-2.22Q, Classification Criteria and Maintenance of the 
Monitored Geologic Repository Q-List. The report contributes to the analysis and modeling data 
used to support performance assessment; the conclusions do not directly impact engineered 
features important to safety, as defined in AP-2.22Q. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 2-2 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 3-1 August 2004 
3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
GFM2000 was constructed using Software Code: EARTHVISION Version 5.1 (Dynamic 
Graphics 2000 [DIRS 167994]), which is commercially available software designed for 
three-dimensional geologic modeling. The software was developed by Dynamic Graphics, Inc., 
Alameda, California. Use of EARTHVISION Version 5.1 is documented in EARTHVISION 
V5.1, Validation Test Report Rev 00 (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 153526]). The software was 
obtained from Configuration Management, is appropriate for this application, and was used 
within the range of its validation. The software tracking number (STN) is 10174-5.1-00. 
Software and platform information is provided in Table 3-1. EARTHVISION Version 5.1 was 
used to construct the geologic framework model version GFM2000 using computer I.D. 700800 
located in the YMP facility at Summerlin in Las Vegas, Nevada. 
Table 3-1. Quality Assurance Information for Model Software 
Computer Type Software Name Version 
Platform/Operating 
System STN 
Silicon Graphics Octane EARTHVISION 5.1 SGI/IRIX 6.5 10174-5.1-00 
STN = software tracking number 
Many commercial modeling software packages are available for three-dimensional modeling, but 
EARTHVISION software was selected because of its capability to model complex geology 
including large numbers of faults and to incorporate complex geostatistical models of properties 
conformable to geologic boundaries. The advantages of EARTHVISION software for modeling 
include short computation times, which allow more model refinement without compromising 
accuracy; true fault displacement, which creates realistic geometries; flexible and accurate 
three-dimensional visualization; and the ability to incorporate rock properties distributions 
conformable to rock layer boundaries. The software does not have limitations that affect the 
geologic framework model or integrated site model. There are no negative impacts of using 
EARTHVISION software on the geologic framework model and its users. Individual 
EARTHVISION modules that were validated and available for use in the construction of the 
geologic framework model are listed in Appendix B. 
The electronic files for GFM2000 were submitted to the Technical Data Management System in 
EARTHVISION binary format or ASCII format, depending on the file type. Data files and 
instructions necessary to reconstruct GFM2000 are available in the Technical Data Management 
System (DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]). Reconstruction of GFM2000 or 
use of the EARTHVISION binary format files requires EARTHVISION software Version 5.1 or 
higher. Software-independent (ASCII) files containing all modeled horizons and faults are also 
provided in the Technical Data Management System under the same data tracking number 
(DTN) for input to other software used in subsequent modeling. The total size of the GFM2000 
binary and ASCII files is approximately 1,200 megabytes. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 3-2 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 4-1 August 2004 
4. INPUTS 
4.1 DIRECT INPUTS 
Direct inputs for the geologic framework model include borehole lithostratigraphic contacts, 
maps of geology and topography, and measured stratigraphic sections (transects of stratigraphy 
measured at the earths surface). In addition, interpretations from geophysical data were used to 
interpret structures beneath alluvium in Midway Valley. The sources of input data are listed in 
Table 4-1. The direct inputs for the GFM2000 are appropriate based on their qualification status, 
distribution within the modeled area, and because they provide parameters of interest as 
described in the following text. 
With the exception of a fault modeled under Fortymile Wash (see Section 6.2.2), the fault traces 
and displacements modeled in the geologic framework model are based on the bedrock geologic 
map of the Yucca Mountain area (DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). A horst was 
interpreted from gravity and magnetic profiles beneath Midway Valley, with vertical 
displacements of 246 feet (75 meters) on the faults bounding the structure [Preliminary Gravity 
and Magnetic Models Across Midway Valley and Yucca Wash, Yucca Mountain, Nevada 
(Ponce and Langenheim 1994 [DIRS 102333], p. 6, Paragraph 3, Sentence 5). The supporting 
data are located in DTN: GS940908314212.007 [DIRS 107084]. The location of this feature 
was integrated with geologic map information and input to the bedrock geologic map of the 
Yucca Mountain area, which was then included in the geologic framework model. 
Table 4-1. Direct Inputs 
Data Description Data Tracking Number Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Geologic Map GS980608314221.002 
[DIRS 107024] Measured section 
SC#1 
GS940708314211.035 
[DIRS 109063] 
Borehole 
Lithostratigraphic 
contacts 
MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
[DIRS 152554] Measured section 
PTn#1 
GS950108314211.001 
[DIRS 109064] 
SD-6 contacts SNF40060298001.001 
[DIRS 107372] Measured section 
PTn#2 
GS950108314211.002 
[DIRS 109065] 
Topography MO0002SPATOP00.001 
[DIRS 152643] Measured section 
PTn#3 
GS950108314211.003 
[DIRS 109066] 
ESF North Ramp 
geology 
GS960908314224.020 
[DIRS 106059] Measured section 
PTn#4 
GS950108314211.004 
[DIRS 109067] 
ESF South Ramp 
geology 
GS970808314224.016 
[DIRS 109061] Measured section 
PTn#5 
GS950108314211.005 
[DIRS 109068] 
Tertiary/Paleozoic 
unconformity 
LB980130123112.003 
[DIRS 109062] Gravity and 
magnetic models 
GS940908314212.007 
[DIRS 107084] 
Borehole locations, 
collar elevations 
MO9906GPS98410.000 
[DIRS 109059] ECRB Cross-Drift 
contacts 
GS981108314224.005 
[DIRS 109070] 
RF#3 contacts and 
location 
GS931008314211.036 
[DIRS 150006] RF#13 contacts MO0111GLOGRF13.001 
[DIRS 157305] 
RF#8 contacts GS931008314211.035 
[DIRS 150005] 
ECRB = Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block; ESF = Exploratory Studies Facility 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 4-2 August 2004 
All data from the 81 boreholes listed in DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554] were 
evaluated. Sixty-seven boreholes from DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554], and 
four others (SD-6, RF#3, RF#8, and RF#13) from DTNs: SNF40060298001.001 
[DIRS 107372], GS931008314211.036 [DIRS 150006], GS931008314211.035 [DIRS 150005], 
and MO0111GLOGRF13.001 [DIRS 157305] were used. The 14 boreholes not used from 
DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554] contained no information that could be used 
due to limited penetration. Borehole collar location data (DTN: MO9906GPS98410.000 
[DIRS 109059] and DTN: GS931008314211.036 [DIRS 109059]) were used to position the 
boreholes in the geologic framework model. No other borehole data for the modeled 
stratigraphic units are available in the modeled area. 
Data from the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) (DTN: GS960908314224.020 [DIRS 106059]; 
GS970808314224.016 [DIRS 109061]) were used to constrain the elevations of the horizons in 
the geologic framework model. 
Data from six measured stratigraphic sections have been incorporated into GFM2000 
(Figure 4-1). Measured section PTn#1 (DTN: GS950108314211.001 [DIRS 109064]) is located 
on the south face of Yucca Wash, north of the center of the ESF. Sections PTn#2-5 and SC#1 
(DTN: GS950108314211.002 [DIRS 109065], DTN: GS950108314211.003 [DIRS 109066], 
DTN: GS950108314211.004 [DIRS 109067], DTN: GS950108314211.005 [DIRS 109068], 
DTN: GS940708314211.035 [DIRS 109063]) are located on the Solitario Canyon face at Yucca 
Mountain, west of the ESF. The location and nature of this cross section information 
complimented other available data. 
A group of 44 measured sections [Pre-1992 Measured Sections In the Vicinity of Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada (Spengler and Kornreich 2000 [DIRS 153782])] are located primarily in and 
north of Yucca Wash (Figure 4-1). These data were not used as input to the model for two 
primary reasons. First, the data are not needed due to their location away from the repository 
area and their partial redundancy with the revised bedrock geologic map 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]), which provides better areal coverage. Second, 
they are located in an area of rapid lithologic change, and most cannot be confidently correlated 
to the borehole data. 
Because they cannot be confidently correlated to borehole data, using the 44 measured sections 
would add an unacceptable level of uncertainty to the model when compared to the value added. 
Because the measured sections are located away from the repository area and are in part 
redundant with the geologic map, they do not affect the critical characteristics or results of the 
geologic framework model, nor are the data directly relied upon to address safety and waste 
isolation issues. For these reasons, the 44 measured sections were not used in the geologic 
framework model. 
For data to be used as input to a geospatial model, the data must include location in space 
(x-y coordinates and elevation), three-dimensional geometry, and identity of faults and 
stratigraphic units, which is not generally provided by the data obtainable from surface 
geophysical methods at Yucca Mountain because of the complex geologic setting. In general, 
although gravity, aeromagnetic, and seismic reflection and refraction data are available, they do 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 4-3 August 2004 
not provide sufficient spatial information to be used as direct model input. These data are useful 
elsewhere in site characterization, including in the development of tectonic models. A summary 
of these data is presented in Major Results of Geophysical Investigations at Yucca Mountain and 
Vicinity, Southern Nevada (Oliver et al. 1995 [DIRS 106447]). 
The seismic reflection method is also limited in its ability to provide spatially located model 
input data because of the inherent complexity and heterogeneity of rock properties in the 
volcanic rocks at Yucca Mountain. Seismic reflection profiles [Implications of Seismic 
Reflection and Potential Field Geophysical Data on the Structural Framework of the Yucca 
Mountain-Crater Flat Region, Nevada, (Brocher et al. 1998 [DIRS 100022], pp. 947 to 971)] 
were examined qualitatively to formulate three-dimensional fault geometries and interpret tilted 
strata; that is, they provide information on the orientations of faults and strata but not precise 
depths or identifications of reflections. The qualitative information is valuable to constructing 
the geologic framework model because it provides guidance for two-dimensional subsurface 
geometries that are not available from other sources. 
Two potential sources of topographic data in the model area were evaluated for use in GFM2000. 
As discussed in Section 6.2.3, the topographic data from DTN: MO0002SPATOP00.001 
[DIRS 152643] were used in the GFM2000 as the topographic surface of the model. 
The depth to the top of Paleozoic strata (the Tertiary/Paleozoic unconformity) in the geologic 
framework model was obtained from a gravity inversion study (DTN: LB980130123112.003 
[DIRS 109062]). Because the gravity data cannot resolve displacements on individual faults at 
depth, this surface had to be modified for incorporation into the geologic framework model to 
portray vertical displacement along the faults modeled in the geologic framework model. The 
modified surface has the same basic shape as the original, but is faulted to conform to the rest of 
the stratigraphic package modeled in the geologic framework model. This modification was 
necessary to produce reasonable results in the geologic framework model and would have only 
positive impact on the geologic framework model and its users. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 4-4 August 2004 
Source DTNs: 
GS940708314211.035 Measured section SC#1 [DIRS 109063] GS950108314211.005 Measured section PTn#5 [DIRS 109068] 
GS950108314211.001 Measured section PTn#1 [DIRS 109064] MO0002SPATOP00.001 Topography [DIRS 152643] 
GS950108314211.002 Measured section PTn#2 [DIRS 109065] GS940908314212.007 Gravity and magnetic models 
[DIRS 107084] 
GS950108314211.003 Measured section PTn# [DIRS 109066] GS960908314224.020 ESF North Ramp [DIRS 106059] 
GS950108314211.004 Measured section PTn#4 [DIRS 109067] GS970808314224.016 ESF South Ramp [DIRS 109061] 
Figure 4-1. Locations of Measured Sections, Gravity Profiles, and Seismic Profiles 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 4-5 August 2004 
4.2 CRITERIA 
The acceptance criteria that will be used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), to 
determine whether the technical requirements, have been met and are identified in the Yucca 
Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (YMRP) (YMRP; NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). An 
evaluation of acceptance criteria against the use of the information in this model showed that 
criteria other than those discussed in the TWP should be addressed. The identification of the 
technical users and their specific use of the product output, rather than the intended use of the 
product output, was basis for this re-examination of the acceptance criteria. Section 1.5.3 of the 
YMRP does not apply by its terms (i.e., description of site characterization). Section 2.1.1.1, of 
the YMRP, Acceptance Criterion 1 (1), does not apply because it refers to adequacy of the 
description of the site location; and 5 (1) does not apply because it pertains to preclosure safety 
analysis. Selected portions of Sections 2.2.3.6.3, 2.2.3.7.3, 2.2.3.8.3, and 2.2.3.9.3 apply to the 
extent that site geology affects flow and radionuclide transport. This document is intended to 
address the following YMRP Acceptance Criteria: 
2.2.1.3.6.3 Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
(2) The aspects of geology, hydrology, geochemistry, physical phenomena, and 
couplings that may affect flow paths in the unsaturated zone are adequately 
considered. Conditions and assumptions in the abstraction of flow paths in the 
unsaturated zone are readily identified and consistent with the body of data 
presented in the description; 
Acceptance Criterion 2: Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
(2) The data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the unsaturated zone, 
are collected using acceptable techniques; 
2.2.1.3.7.3 Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
(2) The description of the aspects of hydrology, geology, geochemistry, design 
features, physical phenomena, and couplings, that may affect radionuclide 
transport in the unsaturated zone, is adequate. For example, the description 
includes changes in transport properties in the unsaturated zone, from water-rock 
interaction. Conditions and assumptions in the total system performance 
assessment abstraction of radionuclide transport in the unsaturated zone are 
readily identified, and consistent with the body of data presented in the 
description; 
Acceptance Criterion 2: Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
(3) Data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the unsaturated zone, 
including the influence of structural features, fracture distributions, fracture 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 4-6 August 2004 
properties, and stratigraphy, used in the total system performance assessment 
abstraction are based on appropriate techniques. These techniques may include 
laboratory experiments, site-specific field measurements, natural analogue 
research, and process-level modeling studies. As appropriate, sensitivity or 
uncertainty analyses, used to support the U.S. Department of Energy total system 
performance assessment abstraction, are adequate to determine the possible need 
for additional data. 
2.2.1.3.8.3 Flow Paths in the Saturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration Are 
Adequate. 
(2) The description of the aspects of hydrology, geology, geochemistry, design 
features, physical phenomena, and couplings, that may affect flow paths in the 
saturated zone, is adequate. Conditions and assumptions in the abstraction of flow 
paths in the saturated zone are readily identified, and consistent with the body of 
data presented in the description; 
Acceptance Criterion 2: Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
(3) Data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the saturated zone used in 
the total system performance assessment abstraction are based on appropriate 
techniques. These techniques may include laboratory experiments, site-specific 
field measurements, natural analogue research, and process-level modeling 
studies. As appropriate, sensitivity or uncertainty analyses, used to support the 
U.S. Department of Energy total system performance assessment abstraction, are 
adequate to determine the possible need for additional data; 
2.2.1.3.9.3 Radionuclide Transport in the Saturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 1: System Description and Model Integration Are 
Adequate. 
(2) The description of the aspects of hydrology, geology, geochemistry, design 
features, physical phenomena, and couplings, that may affect radionuclide 
transport in the saturated zone, is adequate. For example, the description includes 
changes in transport properties in the saturated zone, from water-rock interaction. 
Conditions and assumptions in the abstraction of radionuclide transport in the 
saturated zone are readily identified, and consistent with the body of data 
presented in the description; 
Acceptance Criterion 2: Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
(3) Data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the saturated zone, 
including the influence of structural features, fracture distributions, fracture 
properties, and stratigraphy, used in the total system performance assessment 
abstraction, are based on appropriate techniques. These techniques may include 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 4-7 August 2004 
laboratory experiments, site-specific field measurements, natural analogue 
research, and process-level modeling studies. As appropriate, sensitivity or 
uncertainty analyses used to support the U.S. Department of Energy total system 
performance assessment abstraction are adequate to determine the possible need 
for additional data. 
4.3 CODES , STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
No codes, standards, and regulations apply to this modeling activity, other than those identified 
in Section 4.2. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 4-8 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 5-1 August 2004 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
No assumptions were made with regard to a lack of input data, parameters or evidence for 
GFM2000. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 5-2 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-1 August 2004 
6. MODEL DISCUSSION 
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 [Episodic Caldera Volcanism in the Miocene Southwestern Nevada Volcanic 
Field: Revised Stratigraphic Framework, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology, and Implications for 
Magmatism and Extension (Sawyer et al. 1994 [DIRS 100075], pp. 1304 to 1318)]. Additional 
information regarding the geologic setting of the Yucca Mountain site and model area is 
provided in (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Chapter 3.3.1). The stratigraphic nomenclature used in 
this report is adapted from the YMP Reference Information Base (DTN: MO9510RIB00002.004 
[DIRS 103801]). 
This section describes the geologic framework model in terms of data reduction, model 
development, the modeling methodology, impacts of model changes on users, the model results, 
and the uncertainties and limitations of the model. Model validation is discussed in Section 7. 
The Nevada State Plane coordinates of the geologic framework model boundaries shown in 
Figure 1-1 are N738,000 to N787,000 feet (N224,943 to N239,878 meters) and E547,000 to 
E584,000 feet (E166,726 to E178,004 meters). 
As described in Section 4.1, the geologic framework model is based primarily on the geologic 
map of the Yucca Mountain area and data from boreholes (Table 4-1). Borehole locations are 
shown in Figure 6-1. For brevity, the location identifiers (e.g., USW and UE-25) of boreholes 
are not used in this report. The faults included in the geologic framework model, shown in 
Figure 6-2, were input from the geologic map. Locations of geophysical data and measured 
sections, described in Section 4, are shown in Figure 4-1. 
The geologic framework model, as described here, is appropriate for the intended use of 
providing a geologic framework, consistent with the level of detail needed, over the area of 
interest for unsaturated and saturated zone flow and radionuclide transport modeling and for 
repository design. The distribution of subsurface contacts is appropriately more dense in the 
areas of greatest interest, as discussed in Section 6.6. The model is limited by the availability of 
data and relative amount of geologic complexity found in an area. The grid spacing used in the 
geologic framework model (200 feet [61 meters]), discussed in Section 6.4.2, limits the size of 
features that can be resolved by the model. 
6.1 IMPACTS OF CHANGES TO THE GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK MODEL 
This section provides an overview of the potential impacts of changes to the geologic framework 
model from GFM 3.0 to GFM2000 on subsequent users. The changes to methodology and 
interpretations described in the following sections have negligible impact on all users of the 
geologic framework model, except specific aspects of repository design modeling. The impacts 
are negligible because even in the central part of the modeled area where data are most abundant, 
uncertainty of the geologic system is greater than the potential impacts of changes to modeling 
methodology (including data reduction, gridding, fault selection, modeling methodology, and 
interpretive constraints). See Section 6.6.1 for a discussion of geologic variability within the 
context of uncertainty. When comparing various geologic framework models, changes to the 
rock layer elevations in the repository area are very small in magnitude, rarely as large as 25 feet. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-2 August 2004 
Changes are primarily in the corner areas of the model. Therefore, impacts of the modeling 
process on subsequent users of the geologic framework model are of secondary importance to the 
uncertainty associated with the natural system. The discussions of impact in the following 
sections are based on these concepts. 
Source DTNs: MO0002SPATOP00.001 Topography [DIRS 152643]; MO9906GPS98410.000 Borehole locations 
[DIRS 109059]; GS931008314211.036 RF#3 location [DIRS 150006]. 
Figure 6-1. Locations of Boreholes, Exploratory Studies Facility, and Cross-Block Drift 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-3 August 2004 
Source DTNs: MO0002SPATOP00.001 Topography [DIRS 152643], GS980608314221.002 Geologic Map 
[DIRS 107024]. 
Figure 6-2. Surface Traces of Faults Modeled in Geologic Framework Model 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-4 August 2004 
All users of the geologic framework model, except repository design modeling, use a 
subsampling (abstraction) of the geologic framework model grids. The UZ and SZ model results 
are further abstracted for use in total system performance assessment (TSPA), so that impacts of 
changes to the geologic framework model on TSPA are further reduced. Therefore, impacts of 
nearly all aspects of the geologic framework model on its users are small except in repository 
design modeling. For repository design modeling, uncertainty (discussed in Section 6.6) is the 
overriding factor in assessing impact, and is estimated as the sum total of the effects of data, 
modeling methodology, interpretations, and heterogeneity of the natural system, and thereby 
encompasses and defines the potential maximum impact of the geologic framework model 
results. 
6.2 DATA REDUCTION 
6.2.1 Selection of Boreholes 
The primary input data for the geologic framework are stratigraphic contacts from boreholes and 
the geologic map of the Yucca Mountain area (Table 4-1). All data from the 81 boreholes listed 
in DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554] were evaluated. Figure 6-1 illustrates the 
locations of the 71 boreholes from which contact information was used. Sixty-seven of the 
boreholes are from DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554], and four others (SD-6, 
RF#3, RF#8, and RF#13) are from DTNs: SNF40060298001.001 [DIRS 107372], 
GS931008314211.036 [DIRS 150006], GS931008314211.035 [DIRS 150005], and 
MO0111GLOGRF13.001 [DIRS 157305]. The stratigraphic contact picks from 
DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554] each met the acceptance criteria of  5 to 
15 feet [Data Qualification Report: Borehole Stratigraphic Contacts, Revision 01 (CRWMS 
M&O 2000 [DIRS 158094], p. 4)]. The 14 boreholes not used from 
DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554] contained no information that could be used 
due to limited penetration. Data from sources outside the model boundaries cannot be directly 
input to the model; however, model units were developed to allow reasonable extrapolation to 
them. The offsite data include boreholes VH-1 [Volcano-Tectonic History of Crater Flat, 
Southwestern Nevada, as Suggested by New Evidence from Drill Hole USW-VH-1 and Vicinity 
(Carr 1982 [DIRS 101519], Table 2)], VH-2 [Geology of Drill Hole USW VH-2, and Structure of 
Crater Flat, Southwestern Nevada (Carr and Parrish 1985 [DIRS 101093], Table 2)], JF#3 
[Hydrogeology of Rocks Penetrated by Test Well JF-3, Jackass Flats, Nye County, Nevada 
(Plume and La Camera 1996 [DIRS 141659], Table 2)], and J#12 (Plume and La Camera 1996 
[DIRS 141659], Table 1). Distances from the model boundaries to these boreholes ranges from 
0.9 to 3.9 miles (1.4 to 6.3 kilometers). 
6.2.2 Selection of Faults 
Due to limited subsurface data, and the logistical complexity of modeling large numbers of fault 
blocks and stratigraphic units, all of the faults on the geologic map could not be modeled. 
Criteria were developed to determine which mapped faults would be included in the geologic 
framework model. Due to the large number of faults in the modeled area and limitations in 
modeling technology, guidelines are needed to select the faults that can realistically be modeled, 
consistent with the needs of the users of the outputs from this model. The fault selection 
guidelines presented herein were determined by a group of subject matter experts from the U.S. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-5 August 2004 
Geological Survey (USGS), M&O, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence Berkeley 
National Laboratory in an informal 1995 workshop. These experts determined the fault selection 
criteria needed to meet both the requirements of model users and provide a level of detail that 
was technically feasible to model while providing an adequate representation of the structure of 
Yucca Mountain. This workshop was informal, and as such was not documented. In general, if 
no downstream users needed a fault and omitting the fault did not adversely affect the geologic 
framework model, the fault was not modeled. In consideration of the impact that faults may have 
on repository design, more stringent criteria were developed for the repository area in the 
vicinity of the ESF. This iterative process involving early model results and YMP scientists was 
used to validate the criteria and ensure an adequate representation of the geology of Yucca 
Mountain. 
Final selection criteria were developed for two different areas based on the nature and 
availability of stratigraphic data. The first area, generally bounded by the Solitario Canyon fault, 
the northward projection of the Dune Wash fault, and the westward projections of the ESF north 
and south ramps is identified as in the vicinity of the ESF. The second modeled area is 
outside the vicinity of the ESF. 
In the vicinity of the ESF, the criteria are: 
 The mapped trace length is at least 1 mile (1.6 kilometers) and the maximum vertical 
displacement is at least 100 feet (30 meters) 
 The surface-mapped fault intersects the ESF or cross-block drift. 
Outside the vicinity of the ESF, the criteria are: 
 The mapped trace length is at least 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) and the maximum vertical 
displacement is at least 100 feet (30 meters) 
 Omitting the fault would produce an unacceptable mismatch between the model and the 
geologic map. 
As a result of the examination of early model constructions in the iterative process, an unmapped 
fault was added beneath Fortymile Wash, as shown on Figure 6-2, to account for geometric 
relations between outcrop data and boreholes WT#13, WT#15, and J-13. Location and extent of 
this fault have a high degree of uncertainty, which increases toward the south where data are 
sparsest. Interpretation of gravity and magnetic data in Fortymile Wash indicates that faults 
beneath the wash, if present, have vertical displacements that are small compared to the 
Paintbrush Canyon fault [Gravity and Magnetic Data of Fortymile Wash, Nevada Test Site, 
Nevada (Ponce et al. 1992 [DIRS 106561], pp. 6 to 7)]. This fault, as modeled in the geologic 
framework model, has a displacement of about 100 feet (30 meters), which is consistent with the 
above observations. 
Using the final selection criteria, 43 faults were included in the geologic framework model. The 
locations of fault traces (Figure 6-2) were established by the geologic map of the site area 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). Fault displacements were estimated from 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-6 August 2004 
borehole data (Table 4-1) and the geologic map. Fault displacements and geometries were 
iterated during technical reviews of each model version to incorporate feedback from YMP 
scientists. 
6.2.3 Selection of Topographic Data 
Two potential sources of topographic data in the model area were evaluated for use in 
GFM2000: a topographic grid (DTN: MO0002SPATOP00.001 [DIRS 152643]) and a USGS 
digital elevation model (DTN: MO0010COV00124.001 [DIRS 153783]). Table 6-1 shows the 
differences between the surveyed borehole collar elevations (DTN: MO9906GPS98410.000 
[DIRS 109059]) and surfaces generated from the topographic grid and the USGS digital 
elevation model data for 70 of the 71 boreholes. The results show that the topographic grid is in 
closer agreement with the borehole collar elevations (average difference: 0.4 feet [0.1 meters]) 
than the digital elevation model data (average difference: 8.5 feet [2.6 meters]). The 
topographic data from DTN: MO0002SPATOP00.001 [DIRS 152643] was therefore used in the 
GFM2000 as the topographic surface of the model. The largest errors in the grid occur on ridge 
tops and other places where abrupt elevation changes cannot be fully defined by the grid nodes 
(SD-9 and SD-12 [Table 6-1]; grid node spacing is 100 feet [30 meters]). The differences at 
borehole RF#13 were caused by addition of material at the ESF North Portal pad, which post 
dates the topographic grid and the digital elevation model and pre-dates borehole RF#13. 
Further analysis of the digital elevation model accuracy is not attempted here. The digital 
elevation model data were not used in modeling, but remain useful in geographic information 
systems applications and for plotting topographic maps where high precision is not required. 
Use of the topographic grid has negligible impact on the results of the geologic framework 
model because it is not used to constrain or define subsurface rock units; therefore, the 
differences between surveyed collar elevations and the topographic grid have no impact on the 
geologic framework model or its users. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-7 August 2004 
Table 6-1. Differences Between Surveyed Borehole Collar Elevations and the USGS Digital Elevation 
Model Data (DEM) and Topographic Grid Used in the Geologic Framework Model (Grid), 
in Feet 
Difference (feet) Difference (feet) 
Borehole 
Collar 
minus 
DEM 
Collar 
minus 
Grid 
Borehole 
Collar 
minus 
DEM 
Collar 
minus 
Grid 
a#1 6 -2 SD-7 -3 4 
a#4 10 -3 SD-9 22 9 
a#5 17 3 SD-12 20 11 
a#6 14 1 UZ-1 20 2 
a#7 4 -1 UZ#4 21 -3 
b#1 6 1 UZ#5 8 -5 
c#1 -7 -1 UZ-6 10 1 
c#2 -3 0 UZ-7a -1 -5 
c#3 -1 0 UZ-14 16 -1 
G-1 15 3 UZ#16 11 -3 
G-2 14 0 WT-1 3 -5 
G-3 20 2 WT-2 4 2 
G-4 12 0 WT#3 -1 -1 
H-1 7 -2 WT#4 10 -3 
H-3 0 0 WT#6 10 5 
H-4 21 -1 WT-7 11 2 
H-5 15 2 WT-10 4 -2 
H-6 19 -8 WT-11 0 -3 
J-13 11 -1 WT#12 -4 -6 
NRG#1 24 -3 WT#13 -1 -1 
NRG#2a 7 1 WT#14 -1 0 
NRG#2b -7 -2 WT#15 6 -1 
NRG#2c -5 0 WT#16 5 4 
NRG#2d -4 3 WT#17 11 -2 
NRG#3 11 -4 WT#18 21 -4 
NRG#4 15 -1 WT-24 11 -1 
NRG#5 2 -5 UZ-N11 18 6 
NRG-6 10 -6 UZ-N31 12 -4 
NRG-7A 20 -8 UZ-N32 3 -2 
ONC#1 10 2 UZ-N33 16 1 
p#1 -17 -2 UZ-N37 14 -2 
RF#3 -2 -2 UZ-N38 10 -1 
RF#8 16 2 UZ-N53 16 2 
RF#13 10 11 UZ-N54 7 -1 
SD-6 6 -1 UZ-N55 8 2 
Source for USGS DEM data: DTN: MO0010COV00124.001 [DIRS 153783]. 
Source for topographic grid: DTN: MO0002SPATOP00.001 [DIRS 152643]. 
Source for borehole collar elevations: DTN: MO9906GPS98410.000 
[DIRS 109059]. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-8 August 2004 
6.3 MODEL DEVELOPMENT: GFM1.0 TO GFM2000 
GFM2000 is the most current version of the geologic framework model. Each revision improved 
on the previous version and incorporated new data or was revised in accordance with technical 
review comments. Figure 6-3 summarizes the changes between model versions. The following 
sections describe the changes between versions. 
6.3.1 Changes From GFM1.0 to GFM2.0 
GFM1.0 (DTN: MO96071SM10MOD.001 [DIRS 109071]) provided an initial portrayal of 
the geologic framework, with simplified fault geometry for preliminary work. GFM2.0 
(DTN: MO9807MWDGFM02.000 [DIRS 109074]) improved on GFM1.0 by including dipping 
faults and additional rock units. 
6.3.2 Changes From GFM2.0 to GFM3.0 
The primary difference between GFM3.0 (DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001 [DIRS 109050]) 
and its predecessor (GFM2.0) was use of the bedrock geologic map of the Yucca Mountain area 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]) and a set of correlated and standardized borehole 
lithostratigraphic data (DTN: MO9811MWDGFM03.000 [DIRS 109006]). The geologic map 
provided wider, more accurate data coverage than was previously available for the construction 
of faults, reference horizons, and model isochores. The number of rock layers modeled also 
increased to meet the needs of model users. 
All model isochores and reference horizons were reconstructed on the basis of the new borehole 
and map data so that each rock layer in GFM3.0 was changed from that in GFM2.0. The 
Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity (top of Paleozoic) was also changed using a new surface 
derived from gravity data (DTN: LB980130123112.003 [DIRS 109062]). Specific changes 
from GFM2.0 to GFM3.0 include improved gridding parameters, revised reference horizon 
selection, use of the geologic map data, and improved configuration of faults in accordance with 
geologic map data. 
6.3.3 Changes From GFM3.0 to GFM3.1 
Geologic Framework Model, Version 3.1 (GFM3.1) was constructed to incorporate new data 
from boreholes SD-6 (DTN: SNF40060298001.001 [DIRS 107372]) and WT-24 
(DTN: SNF40060198001.001 [DIRS 107239]) and the cross-block drift excavated during the 
Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block (ECRB) Cross-Drift 
(DTN: GS981108314224.005 [DIRS 109070]). Figure 6-1 shows the locations of boreholes 
SD-6 and WT-24 and the ECRB Cross-Drift. In addition, GFM3.1 included a new fault (from 
DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]), which is located at the Prow (Figure 1-1) and is 
designated NW on Figure 6-2. The new fault was included to properly model the Calico Hills 
Formation and Prow Pass Tuff outcrops. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-9 August 2004 
Source: For illustrative purpose only. 
Figure 6-3. Changes Between Geologic Framework Model Versions 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-10 August 2004 
GFM3.1 was constructed with more curvature on the dominant faults to be consistent with cross 
sections published with the bedrock geologic map of the Yucca Mountain area 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]) and to account for field relations showing rotated 
hanging wall strata BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 3.5.4). The revised geometries include a 
slight decrease in fault dip with depth, resulting in fault planes that are slightly concave-upward 
to account for field relations. Planes of minor faults are depicted as planar. 
6.3.4 Changes From GFM3.1 to GFM2000 
GFM2000 was developed after all input data were qualified and to address alternative 
interpretations suggested in technical review comments on GFM3.1. The comments that were 
addressed concern depositional models for the Crater Flat Group and Topopah Spring Tuff, 
thickness of model unit RHHtop in the northwestern corner of the model area, and existence of 
one anomalous grid flexure at the extreme northern edge of the model area. As a result, isochore 
grids for some units have changed. No impact is anticipated on users of the geologic framework 
model because the changes are primarily in the outlying areas away from the primary area of 
interest in the vicinity of the ESF. For SZ models that use the entire geologic framework model 
area, the changes would have minor impact because of the lower spatial resolution of those 
models and the lack of subsurface data in the affected areas. 
GFM2000 also addresses review comments by NRC staff [Issue Resolution Status Report Key 
Technical Issue: Structural Deformation and Seismicity (NRC 1999 [DIRS 135621], p. E-2)], as 
follows: 
 Mismatches between observed contact elevations and model grids have been reduced 
(they cannot be completely eliminated due to limitations in the gridding method). 
 Inconsistent or incorrect fault displacements have been eliminated. 
 The Ghost Dance fault has been modified to truncate at depth against the west-dipping 
normal faults. 
 Relative amount of displacement between the Paleozoic and mid-Tertiary rock units was 
made more consistent and is discussed in Section 6.5.1.10. 
 A fault has been added between the Fortymile and Paintbrush Canyon faults, and is 
named Joey in the digital files (because it is located on Joey Ridge). Although it does 
not meet the trace length and displacement criteria described in Section 6.2.2, this fault 
was added to provide a closer match to the geologic map (the last fault inclusion 
criterion). 
 The input data are qualified. 
The impact of these changes is to improve the accuracy of the geologic framework model and to 
provide more clear explanations of modeled features. Because the additional fault is located 
outside the boundaries of the models for repository design and UZ hydrologic flow, no impact is 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-11 August 2004 
anticipated. The additional fault is unlikely to be included in the SZ models because of its 
limited areal extent and the large grid size of the SZ models, and so no impact is anticipated. 
GFM2000 also incorporates currently qualified borehole data that were omitted from previous 
model versions. The boreholes were included in GFM2000 based on comments from geologic 
framework model users and technical reviewers and include contacts in the UZN boreholes and 
in boreholes c#1, c#3, a#1, a#7, and UZ-1. The impacts of using all boreholes are twofold: first, 
the geologic framework model more closely matches the boreholes that had previously been 
omitted, provided they are not near other boreholes; and second, the geologic framework model 
cannot exactly match disparate borehole data that are located within about 200 feet (61 meters) 
of each other (1 grid node space) because some averaging of the data is performed in the 
gridding process. The affected boreholes include UZ-1 and UZ-14, the C-holes complex, the 
NRG#2 holes, a#1 and b#1, UZ-N31, UZ-N32, and UZ-N53, UZ-N54, and UZ-N55. No 
negative impact is anticipated on the geologic framework model or its users because the 
averaging errors are smaller than the tolerances required by geologic framework model users 
(see Section 7.1). All borehole data listed in Table 4-1 were used as input. No other borehole 
data for the modeled stratigraphic units are available in the modeled area. 
In addition, GFM2000 takes advantage of a modeling software enhancement in EARTHVISION 
Version 5.1 that improves the consistency of fault displacements with depth and calculates 
models in less time. This enhancement uses the same gridding algorithm but grids a horizon 
without the faults and then replaces the faults. As a result of these enhancements, the model is 
more accurate in its portrayal of fault displacements and more iterations were performed to 
produce a more accurate model. 
GFM2000 portrays the steeply dipping Ghost Dance-Abandoned Wash faults as secondary 
features that are truncated at depth by the west-dipping normal faults. This portrayal is more 
consistent with the cross sections published with the geologic map and with the portrayal of 
other steeply dipping faults in the modeled area. The change was applied by modifying the 
fault tree in the parameter (sequence) file, which defines the hierarchical relations between 
faults and determines which faults truncate which. No impact is anticipated on model users 
because the change occurs far below the repository level and far below the UZ and because this 
fault is too small to be used in the SZ models. 
6.4 METHODOLOGY 
The geologic framework model was constructed in the following general steps, which are 
discussed in detail in Scientific Notebook SN-M&O-SCI-028-V1 [Geologic Framework Model 
(GFM2000) (Clayton 2001 [DIRS 153713], pp. 5 to 28)]: 
1. Development of grid construction and contouring methodology 
2. Construction of faults 
3. Construction of reference horizons 
4. Construction of model isochores 
5. Assembly of faults and rock layers 
6. Assessment, iteration, and quality control. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-12 August 2004 
Table 6-2 presents the correlation between the stratigraphic units modeled in the geologic 
framework model and the YMP stratigraphy (DTN: MO9510RIB00002.004 [DIRS 103801]). 
Most of the geologic framework model units correlate with the YMP stratigraphy; however, two 
nonstratigraphic units were included in the model because of their significance to geologic 
framework model usersa low-density zone (TpcLD) and the Repository Host Horizon (RHH). 
The TpcLD occurs above the Tiva Canyon Tuff lower vitric units (Tpcpv3 and Tpcpv2). The 
RHH is the body of rock in which the repository is proposed to be excavated [Determination of 
Available Volume for Repository Siting (CRWMS M&O 1997 [DIRS 100223], pp. 43 to 50)], 
and it spans four lithostratigraphic zones (the lower part of the Tptpul, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and 
Tptpln). The model unit designated as RHHtop is within the lower part of the Topopah Spring 
Tuff upper lithophysal zone (Tptpul). This RHHtop unit is defined by a density log signature 
intermediate between the remainder of the upper lithophysal zone above and the middle 
nonlithophysal zone below. The RHH includes model units RHHtop, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and 
Tptpln. 
Table 6-2. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy 
Stratigraphic Unita Abbreviationa 
PTna 
and 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Alluvium and Colluvium Qal, Qc Alluvium 
Timber Mountain Group Tm 
Rainier Mesa Tuff Tmr 
Paintbrush Group Tp 
Post-tuff unit x bedded tuff Tpbt6 
Tuff unit xc Tpki (informal) Crystal-Rich 
Pre-tuff unit x bedded tuff Tpbt5 Tiva and 
Tiva Canyon Tuff Tpc Post-Tiva 
Crystal-Rich Member Tpcr 
Vitric zone Tpcrv 
Nonwelded subzone Tpcrv3 
Moderately welded subzone Tpcrv2 
Densely welded subzone Tpcrv1 
Nonlithophysal subzone Tpcrn 
Subvitrophyre transition subzone Tpcrn4 
Pumice-poor subzone Tpcrn3 
Mixed pumice subzone Tpcrn2 
Crystal transition subzone Tpcrn1 
Lithophysal zone Tpcrl 
Crystal transition subzone Tpcrl1 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-13 August 2004 
Table 6-2. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) 
Stratigraphic Unita Abbreviationa 
PTna 
and 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Crystal-Poor Member Tpcp 
Upper lithophysal zone Tpcpul 
Spherulite-rich subzone Tpcpul1 
Middle nonlithophysal zone Tpcpmn 
Upper subzone Tpcpmn3 
Lithophysal subzone Tpcpmn2 
Lower subzone Tpcpmn1 Tpcp 
Lower lithophysal zone Tpcpll 
Hackly fractured subzone Tpcpllh 
Lower nonlithophysal zone Tpcpln 
Hackly subzone Tpcplnh 
Columnar subzone Tpcplnc TpcLD 
Vitric zone Tpcpv 
Densely welded subzone Tpcpv3 Tpcpv3 
Moderately welded subzone Tpcpv2 Tpcpv2 
Nonwelded subzone Tpcpv1 Tpcpv1 
Pre-Tiva Canyon bedded tuff Tpbt4 Tpbt4 
Yucca Mountain Tuff Tpy Yucca 
Pre-Yucca Mountain bedded tuff Tpbt3 Tpbt3_dcd 
Pah Canyon Tuff Tpp PTn Pah 
Pre-Pah Canyon bedded tuff Tpbt2 Tpbt2 
Topopah Spring Tuff Tpt 
Crystal-Rich Member Tptr 
Vitric zone Tptrv 
Nonwelded subzone Tptrv3 Tptrv3 
Moderately welded subzone Tptrv2 Tptrv2 
Densely welded subzone Tptrv1 Tptrv1 
Nonlithophysal zone Tptrn 
Dense subzone Tptrn3 
Vapor-phase corroded subzone Tptrn2 
Crystal transition subzone Tptrn1 Tptrn 
Lithophysal zone Tptrl 
Crystal transition subzone Tptrl1 Tptrl 
Crystal-Poor Member Tptp 
Lithic-rich zone Tptpf or Tptrf Tptf 
Tptpul 
Upper lithophysal zone Tptpul RHH RHHtop 
Middle nonlithophysal zone Tptpmn 
Nonlithophysal subzone Tptpmn3 
Lithophysal bearing subzone Tptpmn2 
Nonlithophysal subzone Tptpmn1 Tptpmn 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-14 August 2004 
Table 6-2. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) 
Stratigraphic Unita Abbreviationa 
PTna 
and 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Lower lithophysal zone Tptpll Tptpll 
Lower nonlithophysal zone Tptpln Tptpln 
Vitric zone Tptpv 
Densely welded subzone Tptpv3 Tptpv3 
Moderately welded subzone Tptpv2 Tptpv2 
Nonwelded subzone Tptpv1 Tptpv1 
Pre-Topopah Spring bedded tuff Tpbt1 Tpbt1 
Calico Hills Formation Ta Calico 
Bedded tuff Tacbt Calicobt 
Crater Flat Group Tc 
Prow Pass Tuff Tcp 
Prow Pass Tuff upper vitric 
nonwelded zone (Tcpuv)e Prowuv 
Prow Pass Tuff upper crystalline 
nonwelded zone (Tcpuc)e Prowuc 
Prow Pass Tuff moderately densely 
welded zone (Tcpmd)e Prowmd 
Prow Pass Tuff lower crystalline 
nonwelded zone (Tcplc)e Prowlc 
Prow Pass Tuff lower vitric 
nonwelded zone (Tcplv)e Prowlv 
Pre-Prow Pass Tuff bedded tuff (Tcpbt) e Prowbt 
Bullfrog Tuff Tcb 
Bullfrog Tuff upper vitric nonwelded 
zone (Tcbuv)e Bullfroguv 
Bullfrog Tuff upper crystalline 
nonwelded zone (Tcbuc)e Bullfroguc 
Bullfrog Tuff welded zone (Tcbmd)e Bullfrogmd 
Bullfrog Tuff lower crystalline 
nonwelded zone (Tcblc)e Bullfroglc 
Bullfrog Tuff lower vitric nonwelded 
zone (Tcblv)e Bullfroglv 
Pre-Bullfrog Tuff bedded tuff (Tcbbt)e Bullfrogbt 
Tram Tuff Tct 
Tram Tuff upper vitric nonwelded 
zone (Tctuv)e Tramuv 
Tram Tuff upper crystalline 
nonwelded zone (Tctuc)e Tramuc 
Tram Tuff moderately densely welded 
zone (Tctmd)e Trammd 
Tram Tuff lower crystalline 
nonwelded zone (Tctlc)e Tramlc 
Tram Tuff lower vitric nonwelded 
zone (Tctlv)e Tramlv 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-15 August 2004 
Table 6-2. Correlation Chart for Model Stratigraphy (Continued) 
Stratigraphic Unita Abbreviationa 
PTna 
and 
RHHb 
Geologic 
Framework 
Model Unit 
Group 
Formation 
Member 
Zone 
Subzone 
Pre-Tram Tuff bedded tuff (Tctbt)e Trambt 
Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll 
Bedded tuff Tllbt 
Lithic Ridge Tuff Tr 
Bedded tuff Tlrbt 
Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll2 
Bedded tuff Tllbt 
Lava and flow breccia (informal) Tll3 
Bedded tuff Tll3bt Tund 
Older tuffs (informal) Tt 
Unit a (informal) Tta 
Unit b (informal) Ttb 
Unit c (informal) Ttc 
Sedimentary rocks and calcified tuff 
(informal) Tca 
Tuff of Yucca Flat (informal) Tyf 
Pre-Tertiary sedimentary rock 
Lone Mountain Dolomite Slm 
Roberts Mountain Formation Srm Paleozoic 
RHH = Repository Host Horizon 
NOTE: Shaded rows indicate header lines for subdivided units. 
a DTN: MO9510RIB00002.004 [DIRS 103801]. 
b CRWMS M&O 1997 [DIRS 100223], pp. 43-50. 
c Correlated with the rhyolite of Comb Peak (Buesch et al. 1996 [DIRS 100106], 
Table 2). 
d Includes rhyolite of Delirium Canyon north of Yucca Wash 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). 
e For the purposes of GFM2000, each formation in the Crater Flat Group was 
subdivided into six zones based on the requirements of the users of the geologic 
framework model. The subdivisions are upper vitric (uv), upper crystalline (uc), 
moderately to densely welded (md), lower crystalline (lc), lower vitric (lv), and 
bedded tuff (bt) (Buesch and Spengler 1999 [DIRS 107905], pp. 62-64). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-16 August 2004 
The geologic framework model stratigraphy was constructed by the thickness (or isochore) 
method, which consists of adding or subtracting (as appropriate) thicknesses from one or more 
reference horizons as illustrated in Figure 6-4. An isochore is a map or grid that represents the 
thickness of a geologic unit measured in the vertical direction, regardless of dip. This contrasts 
with an isopach, which is thickness of a unit measured perpendicular to bedding. Because the 
structural dips at Yucca Mountain are low (generally less than 10), an isochore is nearly 
identical to an isopach. This method was chosen for the following reasons: 
 In volcanic units, thickness tends to be systematically distributed over large areas as a 
function of factors including magma type, eruptive processes, wind speed and direction, 
preexisting topography, and erosion. Thicknesses directly reflect these processes and 
can, therefore, be constructed with the use of those processes as guides. 
 Because the volcanic strata at Yucca Mountain consist of many units that pinch out, are 
very thin, and/or have highly variable thicknesses (creating highly variable differences 
between the elevations of stratal tops and bottoms), the use of model isochores prevents 
the top and bottom grids from intersecting unintentionally. 
 Construction of stratigraphy by model isochores results in fewer thickness anomalies 
than the construction of each surface as an elevation grid. 
Source: For illustrative purpose only. 
NOTE: Isochores are added or subtracted from reference horizons to assemble the rock units in the model. 
Because the process does not cross faults, a shadow zone develops beneath dipping faults. 
Figure 6-4. Isochore Method 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-17 August 2004 
The alternative to the isochore method is construction of each horizon as an elevation surface. 
The principal drawback of that method is difficulty in maintaining parallelism of the horizons 
and preventing horizons from overlapping. Because many of the 50 modeled units at Yucca 
Mountain are very thin or pinch out, constructing the model by elevation surfaces would be 
unlikely to produce adequate results without intersecting or overlapping surfaces. The benefits 
of using the isochore method are an improvement to the internal consistency of the models 
representation of site geology and increased control by the geologist/modeler to produce results 
in accordance with the conceptual model. A potential drawback is decreased control over the 
details of isochores for composite units. For example, the thickness of the Topopah Spring Tuff 
is the cumulative thickness of 7 units, which were mapped individually, and the cumulative 
thickness map may contain abrupt contour changes. The abrupt contour changes may be visually 
unsatisfactory, but pose no technical impact on model results or subsequent model users because 
they are few in number and small in magnitude (much smaller than uncertainty). The impact of 
the isochore method on model results and model users is, therefore, positive in comparison to the 
alternative method. 
The model isochore maps illustrated in the following sections may contain artifacts of the 
modeling process. For this reason, the maps and grids from which the maps are derived are 
referred to as model isochores. Model isochores must include partial thicknesses caused by 
faulting in cases where the fault cannot be represented in the model. As illustrated in Figure 6-5, 
in a computer-based model around an unmodeled fault, a partial thickness is required during 
model construction to maintain true elevations of the units above and below. In general, a fault 
that cannot be mapped areally, cannot be modeled in three dimensions. In addition to the 
inclusion criteria, for a fault to be included in the model it must have a defined extent, strike, and 
dip. For a fault that intersects a borehole but is not mapped at the surface, extent, strike, and 
often dip are unknown. Where an unmapped, unmodeled fault displaces a unit in a borehole, 
resulting in a partial thickness in the borehole, the partial thickness must be used so that the 
remaining borehole data can be honored during model assembly (Figure 6-5). This result would 
be true for any modeling method used. The model isochore maps presented in this report are the 
maps used to construct the model, and therefore may contain artifacts of the modeling process 
like partial thicknesses as described in the preceding paragraph. In this regard, the model and its 
components including isochore maps, structure maps, and cross sections may differ from the 
results of traditional, two-dimensional field geology analyses in which the fit between data and 
surfaces is not rigorously defined in the third dimension (out of the plane of analysis). The 
three-dimensional model provides a more rigorous representation of subsurface geology than 
two-dimensional methods. 
At each step of the modeling process, iterations were performed until the component or assembly 
provided an adequate representation in accordance with the conceptual model. Reasons for 
iterations included unacceptable shapes, a need for additional interpretive constraints or 
modification of those existing, modification to match the geologic map, or modification to 
produce more accurate fault displacements. The more iterations that are performed on the model 
or its components, the greater the accuracy of the results may become. The impact of using more 
iterations in GFM2000 than in previous model versions is increased accuracy of the model 
results. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-18 August 2004 
6.4.1 Geologic Framework Model Conceptual Models 
As discussed in the following sections, interpretive constraints were used to guide the shapes of 
model isochores (thickness maps), which are the fundamental building blocks of the geologic 
framework model. The conceptual model described below was used to formulate the interpretive 
constraints based on the available data. 
Source: For illustrative purpose only. 
Figure 6-5. Schematic Cross Section Showing the Relation of Partial Thickness to Model Units 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-19 August 2004 
The conceptual model used to construct the geologic framework model considers that Yucca 
Mountain is composed of volcanic rocks deposited from variously located calderas or vent 
sources (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 2.3.5.1). The following geologic concepts were 
applied to construct the geologic framework model in accordance with the conceptual model: 
 Volcanogenic rocks generally thin away from their sources. 
 The major volcanic deposits at Yucca Mountain generally filled in preexisting 
topography (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 151945], p. 4.3-9), so that the top of a 
formation may have been originally more planar than the base. (CRMS M&O 2000 
[DIRS 151945] has been cited here and elsewhere when BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], with 
its more limited scope, does not include all previously cited information). 
 The top of a formation may have eroded after deposition (erosion rates on bedrock 
ridges, (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 2.3.5.1). 
 The lower vitric zones of the Topopah Spring and Tiva Canyon Tuffs blanketed 
preexisting topography and began the process of filling in topographic lows. 
 Topopah Spring Tuff lithophysal and nonlithophysal zones were produced by 
multiple processes (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 3.3.4.7.1) and, although 
approximating a stratiform geometry (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 151945], p. 4.5-4), 
these zones may have irregular thickness distributions. 
No alternatives to the concepts listed above have been proposed. The conceptual model was 
applied to guide the shape of each model isochore between and away from the locations of input 
data (i.e., to interpolate and extrapolate). Alternative conceptual models that might affect the 
geologic framework model would differ only in details specific to particular units or locations. 
For example, an alternative (hypothetical) conceptual model might predict that the Tram Tuff 
thickens toward Crater Flat rather than thinning as conceived in the present geologic framework 
model. The impact of an alternative conceptual model like this would be to change the 
elevations and thicknesses of units in outlying areas where no data existfew, if any, changes 
would occur in the vicinity of the ESF, which is the area of most interest to users of the geologic 
framework model, because the area is better constrained by borehole data. Uncertainty in the 
outlying areas is at least as great as the differences between potential alternative interpretations; 
therefore, the impacts of alternative conceptual models are unlikely to be significant to the 
geologic framework model or its users. 
6.4.2 Grid Construction 
The methodology for constructing GFM2000 included a combination of mathematical grid 
construction (gridding) and the application of interpretive constraints in accordance with the 
conceptual model. By using both, the model honors the measured data while allowing for 
interpretations in areas where data are sparse or where a grid generated by the model may 
initially conflict with the conceptual model or may be geologically unrealistic (that is, 
representing a feature in a way that is inconsistent with the way it is usually configured in 
nature). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-20 August 2004 
A grid is a systematic array of points, or nodes. In three dimensions, a grid forms a surface. 
Topography is an example of a surface that can be represented by a grid. Gridding is the process 
of creating a surface (grid) across an area based on widely and variably spaced input data. Many 
methods, both mathematical and interpretive, are available for use in creating surfaces in a 
model. Examples include triangulation, manual contouring, linear interpolation, geostatistical 
methods (including kriging), and various mathematical algorithms. The gridding method used in 
the geologic framework model is based on a minimum tension mathematical algorithm that 
calculates a surface passing through the input data and is an option in EARTHVISION. The 
minimum tension algorithm produces surfaces that have no abrupt flexures in the immediate 
vicinity of data, while still honoring all input data. Other gridding methods use other 
assumptions. Testing of the minimum tension algorithm during model construction and software 
qualification [Software Qualification Report (CRWMS M&O 1998 [DIRS 138515], pp. 9 and 
10)] indicated that it produces surfaces that are geologically realistic and closely honor the input 
data; it was selected for these reasons. The impact on the geologic framework model results of 
using other methods for creating grids or triangulated surfaces would be a slightly altered 
appearance of maps produced from the model and small differences in grid values at interpolated 
locations between data points. Significant differences would be unlikely, especially in the 
vicinity of the ESF where data are most abundant. The most significant differences produced by 
alternative methods would more likely be caused by interpretive differences rather than by the 
gridding algorithms, and would be restricted to outlying areas. Impacts of alternate gridding 
methods on geologic framework model users would be small compared to uncertainty; therefore, 
no practical impact would be anticipated. 
For every grid in the geologic framework model, the minimum tension algorithm is constrained 
by field data (from boreholes, tunnels, measured sections, or the geologic map) and interpretive 
constraints in the form of contour segments (discussed in the next section). Grid node spacing 
for all grids except topography is 200 by 200 feet (61 by 61 meters). During the initial stages of 
earlier model versions, this node spacing was determined to be the largest that would adequately 
represent the input data without compromising computation time. The topographic grid spacing 
is 100 by 100 feet (30 by 30 meters) to accurately represent details of the ground surface (which 
is known in more detail than underground surfaces) and to produce more accurate surface maps 
and obtain more accurate surface information from the model. 
In the geologic framework model, grids are the fundamental building blocks of the model. Grids 
were created to define fault planes, reference horizons, and model isochores. For fault planes 
and reference horizons, each node contains an elevation. For model isochores, each node 
contains a thickness value. The advantage of a grid over scattered data and manual forms of 
contouring and triangulation is that the grid can be operated on mathematically and can be used 
to apply mathematical or geological rules to interpolate a surface between data points or to 
extrapolate away from them. 
Minimum tension gridding begins with an initial grid estimate in which data nearest each grid 
node are sampled to calculate a value for the grid node. In the estimate, only the data nearest to 
the node are sampled. At each grid node, the data values are averaged using an inverse-distance 
weighting function, with weighting also dependent on the angular distribution of the data. 
Weighting is necessary to produce a grid that transitions smoothly from one data point to 
another. The weighted average at each grid node is the initial estimate and takes into account all 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-21 August 2004 
data provided for gridding (both field data and interpretive constraints, if provided). The initial 
estimated grid node values are then reevaluated by means of a biharmonic cubic spline function 
within EARTHVISION. This function distributes curvature across the surface rather than 
forming sharp flexures at data pointsthis is the primary characteristic of a minimum tension 
grid. The final step is refitting the grid to the field data (without the interpretive constraints) and 
a final distribution of curvature by the biharmonic cubic spline function. 
6.4.3 Interpretive Constraints 
As illustrated in Figure 6-6, interpretive constraints in the form of contour segments inserted into 
the model were used to control the shapes of grids in accordance with the conceptual model. 
The use of interpretive constraints results in a model that, in addition to honoring the data, 
applies basic geologic concepts to interpolate and extrapolate from the data. The interpretive 
constraints do not replace or alter data. The reference horizon, fault, and model isochore grids in 
the geologic framework model were calculated with the use of both field data and the 
interpretive constraints. None of the grids represent a purely mathematical representation of 
field data, but all were adjusted by interpretive constraints to produce results consistent with the 
geologic conceptual model. The impact of interpretive constraints is to produce a geologic 
framework model that more closely represents basic geologic concepts and the conceptual 
geologic model. The interpretive constraints may be found in the GFM2000 data submittal 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]). 
In the process of modeling, it was discovered that the minimum tension algorithm produces the 
most geologically reasonable and predictable results when the input data and interpretive 
contours are distributed more or less evenly across the model area. Therefore, interpretive 
contours were placed only in data gaps and never closer than about five grid nodes (1,000 feet 
[300 meters]) to input data. The wide distribution of interpretive contours also prevented 
unintended extrapolations. In this way, a balance was struck between the mathematical 
prediction of the gridding algorithm and geologic interpretation according to the conceptual 
model. 
The process for creating grids for faults, reference horizons, and model isochores consisted of the 
following steps: 
1. The field data were first gridded without any interpretive constraints. These results 
were analyzed to determine whether interpretive constraints were needed and to 
choose the most appropriate locations for their use. 
2. The grid was then modified by introducing interpretive contours, and regridding. 
3. The process was iterated until the grid adequately represented the conceptual model. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-22 August 2004 
6.4.4 Construction of Faults 
Grids representing faults were constructed primarily with the use of data from the geologic map, 
boreholes, and tunnel intercepts. Interpretive contours were used to create the dip of the fault 
plane consistent with input data, and the grid was calculated using the data plus interpretive 
contours. The interpretive contours were then modified as needed to produce consistent results. 
Seismic profile data (Brocher et al. 1998 [DIRS 100022], pp. 947 to 971) were examined to 
confirm the geometries of the Paintbrush Canyon and Solitario Canyon faults by comparison of 
the seismic data to a cross section through the model at the same location. High-resolution 
seismic reflection data [Surface Geophysics. Volume I of Synthesis of Borehole and Surface 
Geophysical Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and Vicinity (Majer et al. 1996 [DIRS 104685], 
maps)] were also examined to confirm stratal geometries. 
6.4.5 Construction of Reference Horizons and Model Isochores 
In geologic modeling, a reference horizon is an elevation grid that establishes the strike and dip 
of the rock layers and the displacement of rock layers along faults. Where the grid crosses a 
fault, the grid is displaced by the appropriate amount. The grid is constructed with the use of 
data from the geologic map, boreholes, and tunnels. Thicknesses (isochores) of other rock layers 
are then added to or subtracted from the reference horizon to create the other rock units in the 
model, as illustrated in Figure 6-4. The reference horizon and model isochore grids were 
constructed by the methods discussed in Section 6.4. 
The reference horizon was constructed for the base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff (top of Tpbt4, the 
pre-Tiva bedded tuff). This horizon was chosen because it is well constrained by geologic map 
and borehole data. It is also a major lithologic break that is readily correlated from one data set 
to another; thus, the available data are both widespread and consistent. The reference horizon is 
illustrated in Figure 6-7 as output from the assembled geologic framework model, which 
includes the effects of erosion at the ground surface and at the base of alluvium (the 
noncontoured areas in Figure 6-7). When the model is first constructed, the reference horizon is 
not eroded so that it can provide elevation constraints at all locations. The effects of erosion are 
calculated during model assembly. 
The Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity and the topography (see Table 4-1 for DTNs) were 
provided as elevation grids and no model isochores were constructed. The Tpcr/Tpcp boundary 
was constructed as an elevation grid directly from abundant geologic map data because it is 
severely eroded in the area and few borehole data are available, making model isochore mapping 
impractical. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-23 August 2004 
Source: For illustrative purpose only. 
NOTE: Obliterated text has no technical impact to the document. 
Figure 6-6. Example of Interpretive Constraints 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-24 August 2004 
6.4.6 Assembly of Faults and Rock Layers 
The reference horizon grids, model isochore grids, and fault grids were combined to produce the 
final model. In the combination, calculations were performed within the EARTHVISION 
software to determine the intersections of faults and rock units, and this information was stored 
with each grid. The final model consists of a grid for each rock unit in each fault block (a fault 
block is the volume of rock between faults) and a grid for each fault. The total number of grids 
in GFM2000 is 2,287 (50 units  44 fault blocks + 43 faults + 44 isochores = 2,287 grids). 
Information about how all the grids fit together was recorded in a parameter file called a 
sequence file, which is in plain text format. The sequence file can be used for subsequent 
analyses or operations on the model; it is included in the GFM2000 data submittal 
(DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]) as the file named GFM2000final.seq. 
The grids of faults and horizons comprise the model, and are the output that is used by geologic 
framework model users. Besides this output, a graphical construction called a faces model was 
also created to allow visual examination of the model in three dimensions on the computer. The 
term faces is an analogy to crystal faces, which form multiple layers comprising an ordered 
three-dimensional volume. The faces model uses the grids of reference horizons and faults to 
create a three-dimensional model for display. In the display, rock layers and faults can be shown 
individually or in any combination. Examples of three-dimensional views of the faces models 
are provided in Figures 6-8 (a vertical view) and 6-9 (a perspective view). The faces model is 
used for quality control, assessment of results, and production of illustrations, and is not used as 
input to any subsequent models. 
6.5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
The results of the geologic framework model provide a representation of the spatial position and 
geometry of rock units and faults. To fulfill the needs of users of the geologic framework model 
without the prohibitive length and repetition of explicitly discussing all 50 modeled units, this 
section discusses the model results in terms of rock units and faults that are important to other 
integrated site model component models (rock properties model and mineralogic model) and 
geologic framework model users. Some rock units are grouped into thermal-mechanical units, 
and others are discussed by depositional formation (Topopah Spring Tuff, Calico Hills 
Formation, etc.). The maximum and minimum thicknesses of rock units are discussed in terms 
of input borehole and geologic map data, not in terms of projected maxima and minima. On the 
thickness maps in this section, only boreholes that completely penetrate a unit and could be used 
as input are includedif a borehole is not shown on a map, it provided no input data for that 
map. The borehole thickness values were rounded to the nearest foot before subtraction to 
calculate the thickness value. As a result, subtraction using the decimals in the source data may 
differ from those on the map by 1 foot. This rounding was only performed during figure 
generation, and was not done in model construction. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-25 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-7. Elevation Map of Basal Tiva Reference Horizon 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-26 August 2004 
6.5.1 Interpretation of Rock Units 
This section describes the geometry and distribution of rock units in the geologic framework 
model that are important for the integrated site model, rock properties model, and mineralogic 
model, as well as the major direct and indirect users of the geologic framework model 
(repository design and hydrologic flow modeling through the UZ and the SZ). Each geologic 
formation is described, as well as the interval from the top of Tpcpv2 to the top of Tptrv1 (the 
Paintbrush nonwelded [PTn] unit), the undifferentiated older Tertiary unit (Tund), and the 
Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity. Subunits of the formations that are particularly important for 
geologic framework model users are also described. 
Regional stratigraphy and structure, deposition, origin, age, and lithology of the rock layers 
modeled in the geologic framework model are discussed in BSC (2004 [DIRS 169734], 
Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.4). 
6.5.1.1 Alluvium and Post-Tiva Units 
OverviewThe alluvium (Qal) and post-Tiva rock units (Table 6-2) in the geologic framework 
model account for a very small amount of the total model volume (much less than 1 percent), and 
they occur well above and outside the vicinity of the ESF. 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe distribution of modeled alluvium is illustrated in 
Figure 6-10. Alluvial thickness was interpreted with the use of the site area geologic map 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]) and available borehole lithologic log data 
(Table 4-1). Depth of alluvium in narrow washes was in part determined by projecting the 
bedrock slopes into the subsurface. This method produced good agreement with available 
borehole data. The areal extent of alluvium is well constrained by the geologic map, but 
borehole coverage is limited. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-27 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
NOTE: Vertical View of GFM2000. (Same area as Figure 1-1.) 
Figure 6-8. Model Surficial Geology 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-28 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-9. Perspective View of Model Showing Wedge of Post-Tiva Rocks in Solitario Canyon 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-29 August 2004 
Because the base of alluvium is an unconformity and is therefore likely to have significant relief, 
the map in Figure 6-10 has a high level of uncertainty. This uncertainty is unlikely to have 
adverse impact on geologic framework model users because alluvium is only a significant 
feature in infiltration modeling, where alluvium is modeled in thickness groups with limits of 
0.0, 1.6, 9.8, and 20 feet (0.0, 0.5, 3.0, and 6.0 meters) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], 
Section 7.1.3.4). Only a small percentage of the modeled alluvium is less than 20 feet (6 meters) 
thick. 
As shown in the map view (Figure 6-8), the post-Tiva rock units are only sparsely encountered in 
the modeled area. The distribution is based on the geologic map 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]) and borehole data (see Table 4-1). South of 
Yucca Wash, these units are typically preserved in wedges on the downthrown sides of faults. 
For example, in Figure 6-9, a wedge of the Tiva Canyon Tuff Crystal-Rich Member and 
post-Tiva unit is shown on the downthrown side of the Solitario Canyon fault. 
6.5.1.2 Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc) 
OverviewIn the geologic framework model, the Tiva Canyon Tuff (Table 6-2) consists of the 
Crystal-Rich Member (Tpcr, grouped with post-Tiva rocks) and the Crystal-Poor Member 
(Tpcp), which is undivided in the geologic framework model except for the three basal vitric 
subzones (Tpcpv1, Tpcpv2, and Tpcpv3) and a low-density zone (TpcLD). The densely welded 
vitric subzone (Tpcpv3) is referred to as the vitrophyre, which is a volcanic rock with a glassy 
groundmass. The Tiva Canyon Tuff makes up most of the exposed bedrock in the modeled area 
(Figure 6-8). 
Because the Tiva Canyon Tuff makes up most of the exposed bedrock on Yucca Mountain, it is 
important in hydrologic infiltration modeling. The distribution of the lower vitrophyre (Tpcpv3) 
may be important in hydrologic modeling because, like the other vitrophyres, the lower 
vitrophyre is one of the layers in the mountain having low porosity (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], 
Section 7.2.1.2). 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryBecause the top of the Tiva Canyon Tuff is extensively 
eroded in the model area, none of the input boreholes penetrate the entire formation, and a true 
thickness map cannot be produced. The Tiva Canyon Tuff is thickest in the center of the 
modeled area and thins to the east, west, and south. The distribution and thickness of Tpcpv3 are 
illustrated in Figure 6-11. The model interpretation for this unit is based on borehole data 
(see Table 4-1) and abundant geologic map data (DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). 
The crystal-poor densely welded vitric subzone (Tpcpv3) is present only in the southwestern part 
of the area and appears to be distributed as pods or in a web-like pattern (Figure 6-11). 
6.5.1.3 Paintbrush Nonwelded (PTn) Unit 
OverviewThe PTn unit is a grouping of rock layers that have similar physical properties, and is 
used in hydrologic and thermal-mechanical modeling. Stratigraphically, it consists of the rock 
units Tpcpv2, Tpcpv1, Tpbt4, Tpy, Tpbt3, Tpp, Tpbt2, Tptrv3, and Tptrv2 (Table 6-2). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-30 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-10. Model-Isochore Map of Alluvium 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-31 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-11. Model-Isochore Map of Tiva Canyon Tuff Crystal-Poor Member Vitric Zone Densely 
Welded Subzone (Tpcpv3) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-32 August 2004 
Because the mostly nonwelded rocks of the PTn unit are distinct from the welded rocks above 
and below, the distribution and thickness of the PTn unit are important in hydrologic modeling. 
The PTn unit has been hypothesized to cause lateral diversion of downward flow (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169734], Section 7.1.4.4). Modeling results support this hypothesis [FY 01 Supplemental 
Science and Performance Analyses, Volume 1: Scientific Bases and Analyses (BSC 2001 
[DIRS 155950] Section 3.3.3)]. 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe model interpretation for the PTn unit is based on 
input data from 51 boreholes that fully penetrate the unit (DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
[DIRS 152554]), measured section PTn#3 (DTN: GS950108314211.003 [DIRS 109066]), and 
abundant geologic map data (DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). Additional 
boreholes partially penetrate the PTn unit but do not provide information on total thickness. The 
major formations of the PTn unit, the Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy; Figure 6-12) and Pah Canyon 
Tuff (Tpp; Figure 6-13), both thicken dramatically to the north and northwest but are absent over 
the southern half of the modeled area. In the southern half of the modeled area, the PTn unit 
comprises bedded tuffs (Tpbt2, Tpbt3, and Tpbt4) and the vitric units of the lower Tiva Canyon 
Tuff (Tpcpv1 and Tpcpv2) and the upper Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptrv2 and Tptrv3). (Unit 
thickness data for Tpp in borehole UZ-N37 was inadvertently omitted in the preparation of the 
isochores illustrated in Figure 6-13. The difference between modeled thickness [63 feet] and 
borehole thickness [71 feet] is within the uncertainty for the model and results in no impact for 
users of the geologic framework model.) A model isochore map of the PTn unit is shown in 
Figure 6-14. In the vicinity of the ESF, the PTn unit is 67 to 387 feet (20.4 to 118.0 meters) 
thick and thickens rapidly to the north to 542 feet (165.2 meters) in borehole G-2. 
6.5.1.4 Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) 
OverviewThe Topopah Spring Tuff encompasses the RHH (identified in Table 6-2) as well as 
lithologically distinct units used in modeling rock properties, mineralogy, and hydrologic flow. 
The Topopah Spring Tuff is exposed locally in the northern, western, and southeastern parts of 
the modeled area, as can be seen in Figure 6-8. 
The Topopah Spring Tuff is important for the repository design because it encompasses the 
RHH. The distributions and thicknesses of the densely welded vitric subzones of the Topopah 
Spring Tuff are important for hydrologic modeling because their physical characteristics affect 
hydrologic flow (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 7.1.3.3). In addition, the distribution of the 
Topopah lower densely welded vitric subzone (Tptpv3) is important because it bounds the 
bottom of the RHH. The lithic-rich unit (referred to in the geologic framework model as Tptf) is 
important for the geologic interpretation of the Topopah Spring Tuff because it provides 
information on the transition from crystal-poor to crystal-rich units. 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe model interpretation for this formation is based 
on input data from 34 boreholes that fully penetrate the formation 
(DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554]), tunnel data (DTN: GS960908314224.020 
[DIRS 106059]; GS970808314224.016 [DIRS 109061]), and abundant geologic map data 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). Twenty-three additional input boreholes 
partially penetrate the formation but do not provide information on total thickness. North of 
Yucca Wash, the model was constructed using the geologic map data 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-33 August 2004 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]) and the conceptual model discussed in 
Section 6.4.1. Based on the input data, the Topopah Spring Tuff reaches a maximum thickness 
of more than 1,200 feet (365 meters) along a northwest-southeast axis located across the vicinity 
of the ESF (Figure 6-15). The Topopah Spring Tuff thins rapidly toward the northeast and 
pinches out at the far northeastern corner of the modeled area (DTN: GS980608314221.002 
[DIRS 107024]). To the southeast, the thickness diminishes to less than 750 feet (229 meters). 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-12. Model-Isochore Map of Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-34 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-13. Model-Isochore Map of Pah Canyon Tuff (Tpp) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-35 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-14. Model-Isochore Map of Paintbrush Nonwelded Unit (PTn) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-36 August 2004 
The crystal-rich densely welded vitric subzone (Tptrv1) near the top of the Topopah Spring Tuff 
is less than 10 feet (3 meters) thick over most of the modeled area, but is absent in a few isolated 
areas. The vitrophyre (densely welded vitric subzone) near the bottom of the formation (Tptpv3) 
is much thicker, ranging from 24 to 114 feet (7.3 to 34.7 meters) in the vicinity of the ESF and 
from 0 to 115 feet (0 to 35 meters) across the total modeled area (Figure 6-16). It pinches out 
only where the formation pinches out, in the northeastern corner of the modeled area. The 
thicknesses of both vitrophyre units vary by as much as 300 percent over distances as short as 
2,000 feet (610 meters). The thickness of Tptpv3 in the southwestern corner of the modeled area 
is unconstrained, but was extrapolated to allow projection to the 155-foot (47-meter) thickness 
observed in borehole VH-2 in Crater Flat (Carr and Parrish 1985 [DIRS 101093], Table 2), 
approximately 4 miles (6 kilometers) west-southwest of the boundary of the modeled area. 
The anomalously thin Tptpv3 in borehole WT-1 is due to faulting of the unit. The faulted 
thickness was used in the model so that all stratigraphic contacts could be honored; if a projected 
true thickness were used and no fault explicitly modeled at this rock layer, the model could not 
honor the rest of the stratigraphic contacts in the borehole. No fault was included at this rock 
layer because no spatial information about the fault is available. 
A xenolithic unit (defined in the geologic framework model as Tptf) (Figure 6-17) straddles the 
Topopah Spring Tuff Crystal-Rich/Crystal-Poor Member boundary [Proposed Stratigraphic 
Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Paintbrush 
Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (Buesch et al. 1996 [DIRS 100106], p. 41)]. This 
unit is present only in the vicinity of Yucca Wash and northward and has not been observed in 
the vicinity of the ESF. It reaches a maximum known thickness of 68 feet (21 meters) in 
borehole G-2. 
The RHH (identified in Table 6-2) includes model units RHHtop (representing the lower part of 
Tptpul), Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln within the Topopah Spring Tuff. The thickness of this unit 
mimics that of the total Topopah Spring Tuffit reaches a maximum thickness of more than 
750 feet (230 meters) along the same northwest-southeast axis (Figure 6-18). The thickness of 
the unit ranges from about 412 to 760 feet (126 to 232 meters) in the vicinity of the ESF and is 
modeled as decreasing to less than 200 feet (61 meters) to the southeast. 
6.5.1.5 Calico Hills Formation (Ta) 
OverviewThe Calico Hills Formation crops out in the northern part of the modeled area, as well 
as at one isolated exposure at Busted Butte near the southern boundary of the modeled area. 
The Calico Hills Formation is important for hydrologic and radionuclide transport modeling 
because it lies in the flow path between the repository and the water table 
(DTN: MO0106RIB00038.001 [DIRS 155631]). Over much of the modeled area, the formation 
has been altered to zeolites and clay minerals (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 3.3.4.6), 
which may retard certain radionuclides (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 7.9.2.3). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-37 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-15. Model-Isochore Map of Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-38 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-16. Model-Isochore Map of Topopah Spring Tuff Crystal-Poor Member Vitric Zone Densely 
Welded Subzone (Tptpv3) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-39 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-17. Model-Isochore Map of Topopah Spring Tuff Crystal-Poor Member Lithic-Rich Zone (Tptf) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-40 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-18. Model-Isochore Map of Repository Host Horizon 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-41 August 2004 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe model interpretation for this formation is based on 
input data from 28 boreholes that fully penetrate the formation (DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
[DIRS 152554]) and geologic map data (DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). 
Ten additional input boreholes partially penetrate the formation but do not provide information 
on total thickness. The Calico Hills Formation ranges in thickness from as little as 37 feet 
(11.3 meters) in the south to more than 1,500 feet (450 meters) in the northeast (Figure 6-19). In 
the northeast, geologic map data provide only a minimum thickness because the base of the 
formation is not exposed. In the vicinity of the ESF, the formation thickness ranges from 37 feet 
(11.3 meters) to 460 feet (140.2 meters). 
6.5.1.6 Prow Pass Tuff (Tcp) 
OverviewThe Prow Pass Tuff is present beneath the entire modeled area but is exposed at the 
surface in only one small outcrop in the northwestern corner of the modeled area. 
The Prow Pass Tuff is important for hydrologic and radionuclide transport modeling because, 
like the Calico Hills Formation, it lies in the flow path between the repository and the water table 
(DTN: MO0106RIB00038.001 [DIRS 155631]) and has in part been altered to zeolites and clay 
minerals (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 3.3.4.5.3), which may retard certain radionuclides 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 7.9.2.3). 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe model interpretation for this formation is based on 
input data from 21 boreholes that fully penetrate the formation (DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
[DIRS 152554]) and geologic map data for the lone outcrop in the modeled area 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). Seven additional input boreholes partially 
penetrate the formation but do not provide information on total thickness. The formation is 
thickest along a north-south axis through the center of the modeled area, reaching a maximum 
observed thickness of 636 feet (193.9 meters) in borehole H-4 (Figure 6-20). In the vicinity of 
the ESF, the formation ranges in thickness from 295 feet (89.9 meters) to 636 feet 
(193.9 meters). The formation is not present several miles northeast of the modeled area 
according to geologic map data [Geologic Map of the Timber Mountain Caldera Area, 
Nye County, Nevada (Byers et al. 1976 [DIRS 103624])], which show the Calico Hills Formation 
depositionally overlying rocks of Devonian age. A regional interpretation [Stratigraphic and 
Volcano-Tectonic Relations of Crater Flat Tuff and Some Older Volcanic Units, Nye County, 
Nevada (Carr et al. 1986 [DIRS 104670], Figure 15)] shows the pinchout in a similar location. 
However, the exact location at which the Prow Pass Tuff pinches out is unknown. 
6.5.1.7 Bullfrog Tuff (Tcb) 
OverviewThe Bullfrog Tuff is present beneath the entire modeled area and is the deepest 
stratigraphic unit exposed at the surface in the modeled area. It is exposed in only one small 
outcrop in the far northwestern corner of the modeled area. 
The Bullfrog Tuff is important for hydrologic and radionuclide transport modeling because, like 
the Calico Hills Formation and the Prow Pass Tuff, it lies in the flow path between the repository 
and the water table (DTN: MO0106RIB00038.001 [DIRS 155631]). In addition, the Bullfrog 
Tuff has, in part, been altered to zeolites and clay minerals (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-42 August 2004 
Section 3.3.4.5.2), which may retard certain radionuclides (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], 
Section 7.9.2.3). 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-19. Model-Isochore Map of Calico Hills Formation (Ta) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-43 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-20. Model-Isochore Map of Prow Pass Tuff (Tcp) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-44 August 2004 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe model interpretation for this unit is based on input 
data from 16 boreholes that fully penetrate the formation (DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
[DIRS 152554]) and the lone outcrop data from the geologic map (DTN: GS980608314221.002 
[DIRS 107024]). Six additional input boreholes partially penetrate the formation but do not 
provide information on total thickness. The Bullfrog Tuff model isochore is shown in 
Figure 6-21. The Bullfrog Tuff is thickest in the southwestern part of the central modeled area, 
reaching a maximum thickness of 618 feet (188.4 meters) in borehole G-3 (Figure 6-21). In the 
vicinity of the ESF, the formation ranges in thickness from 369 feet (112.5 meters) to 618 feet 
(188.4 meters). The formation is not present several miles northeast of the modeled area 
according to geologic map data (Byers et al. 1976 [DIRS 103624]). A regional interpretation 
(Carr et al. 1986 [DIRS 104670], Figure 6-12) shows the pinchout in a similar location. The 
exact location at which the Bullfrog Tuff pinches out is unknown. Units Tcblc and Tcblv in 
borehole J-13 are not present due to faulting. Therefore, the thickness of the Bullfrog Tuff at 
borehole J-13 (305 feet [93 meters]) shown in Figure 6-21 is not a true thickness, and the true 
(unfaulted) thickness of this unit in that area is not known. The increasing thickness in the 
southwestern corner of the model is based on a conceptual model in which the Bullfrog Tuff 
thickens into the Crater Flat basin, and is supported by data from offsite borehole VH-1 
(Carr 1982 [DIRS 101519], Table 2) which indicates a minimum thickness of 464 feet 
(141 meters). Total thickness is not defined because VH-1 bottoms in the formation and does 
not fully penetrate it. 
6.5.1.8 Tram Tuff (Tct) 
OverviewThe Tram Tuff is present beneath the entire modeled area but is not exposed in 
outcrop. The Tram Tuff is important for hydrologic and radionuclide transport modeling 
because, like the Calico Hills Formation, Prow Pass Tuff, and Bullfrog Tuff, it lies in the flow 
path between the repository and the water table (DTN: MO0106RIB00038.001 [DIRS 155631]). 
In addition, the Tram Tuff is, in part, altered to zeolitic clays (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], 
Section 3.3.4.5.1), which trap certain radionuclides (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 7.9.2.3). 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe model interpretation for this unit is based on input 
data from 11 boreholes that fully penetrate the formation (DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 
[DIRS 152554]). Five additional input boreholes partially penetrate the formation but do not 
provide information on total thickness. In the geologic framework model, the Tram Tuff is the 
thickest of the formations in the Crater Flat Group. It is thickest in a north-northeasterly trending 
axis over the central part of the modeled area (Figure 6-22) with a maximum thickness of 
1213 feet (369.7 meters) at borehole G-3. In the vicinity of the ESF, it ranges in thickness from 
670 feet (204.2 meters) to 1213 feet (369.7 meters). The formation is not present several miles 
northeast of the modeled area according to geologic map data (Byers et al. 1976 
[DIRS 103624]). A regional interpretation (Carr et al. 1986 [DIRS 104670], Figure 6-9) shows a 
thickness of more than 820 feet (250 meters) in northern Crater Flat northwest of the modeled 
area. In the northwestern part of the modeled area, thickness is constrained only by borehole 
G-2; however, this borehole may be located on a buried structural high and may not be 
representative of the regional trend. The thinning toward the southwest is based on the concept 
that the Tram Tuff is thickest along an axis trending northwest through borehole G-3, and is 
unconstrained by data. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-45 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-21. Model-Isochore Map of Bullfrog Tuff (Tcb) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-46 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-22. Model-Isochore Map of Tram Tuff (Tct) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-47 August 2004 
In Figure 6-22, the anomalously thin Tram Tuff at borehole p#1 (601 feet, 183.2 meters) is 
interpreted in the model to be due to faulting. The faulted thickness had to be used in the model 
so that all stratigraphic contacts would be honored. This is true for any faulted contact, not just 
for p#1. If a hypothetical true thickness were used for the Tram Tuff in borehole p#1 and no 
fault explicitly modeled there, the model would not match the rest of the stratigraphic contacts in 
the borehole. The thickened Tram Tuff would have forced the other contacts to be out of place. 
(As described in Section 6.4, the model is built by thicknesses, not elevations.) No fault was 
included to intersect this unit because no spatial information about the fault is available. An 
alternative interpretation is that this fault is the Paintbrush Canyon fault and the 
Tertiary-Paleozoic contact in borehole p#1 is not the Paintbrush Canyon fault. 
6.5.1.9 Older Tertiary Unit (Tund) 
OverviewThe Tertiary rocks older than the pre-Tram Tuff bedded tuff (Tctbt) are labeled as 
Tertiary undifferentiated (Tund) in the geologic framework model. Although this unit represents 
the greatest share of the modeled volume, it is the least known of all the Tertiary units because 
few boreholes penetrate it. 
The older Tertiary unit is important for hydrologic and radionuclide transport modeling because 
it lies in the flow path between the repository and the regional carbonate aquifer in the Paleozoic 
rocks below. It also makes up a large percentage of the SZ volume. 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe model interpretation for this unit is based on input 
data from 11 boreholes, only one of which fully penetrates the older Tertiary section 
(borehole p#1, DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554]). An elevation map of the top 
of this unit is provided as Figure 6-23. The unit thickness was not mapped because it is entirely 
dependent on the configuration of the Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity derived from gravity data 
(DTN: LB980130123112.003 [DIRS 109062]). 
6.5.1.10 Tertiary-Paleozoic Unconformity 
OverviewThe configuration of the unconformity between Tertiary and Paleozoic rocks is 
subject to several interpretations, as described in the following paragraphs. The nature of the 
geologic framework model is such that only one interpretation could be used, and the 
interpretation needed to cover the entire modeled area. These requirements limited the available 
sources to one, an interpretation of gravity data (DTN: LB980130123112.003 [DIRS 109062]), 
which is a recalculation of the Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity that was initially used in 
GFM2.0. The interpretation incorporated in the geologic framework model also had to be 
consistent with the other data from boreholes and the geologic map, which further narrowed the 
options. 
The elevation of the Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity is used in hydrologic modeling because it 
forms the top of the regional carbonate aquifer (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 8.2.2.1.5). 
Alternative interpretations are unlikely to be important because of the large vertical distance 
between the repository and the unconformityaccording to the GFM2000 interpretation, the 
unconformity occurs 8,000 to 11,000 feet (2,400 to 3,350 meters) below the ESF. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-48 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-23. Elevation Map of Top of Older Tertiary Units (Tund) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-49 August 2004 
Data Distribution and Unit GeometryThe Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity used in 
GFM2000, shown as an elevation map in Figure 6-24, is modified from an interpretation of 
gravity data (DTN: LB980130123112.003 [DIRS 109062]). The surface in the geologic 
framework model includes vertical displacements along the modeled faults, which were not 
included in the gravity interpretation. Fault displacements on the Tertiary-Paleozoic 
unconformity were constructed by matching the vertical displacements of the shallower modeled 
units and displacing the gravity interpretation. In the model area, only one boreholep#1 
penetrates the Paleozoic rocks which are encountered at an elevation of -425 feet (-130 meters) 
(DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554]); therefore, the model relies primarily on the 
gravity interpretation. 
The unconformity forms a high ridge beneath Busted Butte and Fran Ridge in the southeastern 
model area, falling away to deeper levels to the north and west. At its deepest point in the 
northwest, the unconformity is 13,000 feet (3,960 meters) below ground surface. At its 
shallowest point beneath Fran Ridge, it is 3,500 feet (1,070 meters) below ground surface. The 
deepening to the west can be explained by the combined down-to-the-west vertical displacement 
along several known north-trending Tertiary normal faults, but may also be enhanced by erosion 
and displacement on older, unknown faults. The deepening to the north may be a result of 
caldera deformation, deposition of the thick Tertiary volcanic pile, or prevolcanic deformation. 
Displacement of the unconformity along faults is generally depicted as equal to or greater than 
the displacement of the mid-Tertiary units to suggest multiple generations of faulting 
(CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 151945], p. 4.2-4). 
Discussion of Alternative InterpretationsSeveral interpretations of the Tertiary-Paleozoic 
unconformity in the vicinity of borehole p#1 have been made [DTN: LB980130123112.003 
[DIRS 109062]; Brocher et al. 1998 [DIRS 100022], Figures 7, 8, and 14; Report: Results of VSP 
Analysis in P#1 (Feighner et al. 1998 [DIRS 107428], Figure 7b)]. Although they are local 
interpretations, they coincide with part of the geologic framework model interpretation 
(Figure 6-25; adapted from DTN: LB980130123112.002 [DIRS 153784]). No definitive data, 
such as another borehole or conclusive geophysical data, are available to distinguish between the 
alternatives; available data permit a variety of interpretations. This section discusses the reasons 
for choosing the interpretations used in the geologic framework model over the others. 
The geologic framework model was constructed with the interpretation that the 
Tertiary-Paleozoic contact in borehole p#1 is the Paintbrush Canyon fault, as first interpreted in a 
USGS Open-File Report in which the fault was called the Fran Ridge fault [Geology of Drill 
Hole UE25p#1: A Test Hole Into Pre-Tertiary Rocks Near Yucca Mountain, Southern Nevada 
(Carr et al. 1986 [DIRS 102046], p. 24, Figure 6-10)]. However, because the borehole data are 
inconclusive, other interpretations are possible, including an unfaulted unconformity at the 
Tertiary-Paleozoic contact, correlation of the fault at the contact to a fault other than the 
Paintbrush Canyon fault, or placement of the Paintbrush Canyon fault higher in the borehole. 
On the other hand, an important observation is that the geologic map relations across the 
borehole p#1 vicinity (DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]) show approximately 
700 feet (210 meters) of vertical displacement along the Paintbrush Canyon fault and 400 feet 
(120 meters) of vertical displacement on the splay (labeled PJ in Figure 6-2) that arcs west of 
the hill south of borehole p#1. These relations require at least a 1,100-foot (330-meter) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-50 August 2004 
down-to-the-west vertical displacement in the immediate vicinity of borehole p#1. The 
interpretation from the borehole report was accepted for the geologic framework model because 
it is consistent with the geologic map data and formed a reasonable interpretation in three 
dimensions. The conclusion that the Tertiary-Paleozoic contact in p#1 is a fault rather than an 
unfaulted unconformity is strongly supported by the temperature log in p#1, which shows a 
prominent high-temperature anomaly in the contact zone that may be due to upwelling of warm 
water along the fault zone (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 151945] pp 9.3-46, 47). 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Figure 6-24. Elevation Map of Tertiary-Paleozoic Unconformity 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-51 August 2004 
An alternative interpretation of borehole p#1 data would be that the Paintbrush Canyon fault is 
intersected at the base of the Tram Tuff and there is no fault at the Tertiary-Paleozoic contact. 
This configuration is plausible if the Tertiary-Paleozoic contact in borehole p#1 is interpreted as 
an erosional surface and not as a fault. The contact is represented as a fault in the geologic 
framework model because this interpretation is more consistent with published interpretations of 
the borehole data (Carr et al. 1986 [DIRS 102046], p. 16, Figure 6-10) and it provides a fault dip 
that is consistent with the geologic map. 
The gravity and seismic interpretations summarized in Results of Gravity Modeling of the 
Paleozoic Basement (Majer et al. 1998 [DIRS 109472]) show the Tertiary-Paleozoic 
unconformity at shallow levels west of borehole p#1 (shown in Figure 6-25 as the red, orange, 
and blue lines), conflicting with the geologic map relations discussed previously. The 
interpretations do not allow for 1,100-foot (330-meter) vertical displacement on normal faults in 
the vicinity of borehole p#1. Because the geologic framework model could not be constructed 
with the use of the shallower interpretations and still be consistent with the data from the 
borehole and geologic map, the shallower interpretations were not used. To construct the 
Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity in the geologic framework model, it was necessary to modify 
the gravity interpretation (DTN: LB980130123112.003 [DIRS 109062]) to be consistent with 
fault location, displacement, and orientation data from borehole data and the geologic map. The 
gravity interpretation is shown in Figure 6-25 as the blue line. 
As shown in Figure 6-25, the geologic framework model interpretation is also consistent with the 
regional seismic profile (Brocher et al. 1998 [DIRS 100022], Figure 6-12) and closely resembles 
the deep seismic interpretation by extending the high-amplitude, subparallel reflections 
(interpreted here to represent lower Tertiary rocks) 2,000 feet (610 meters) farther east. 
Although available data do not provide a unique solution, the consistency of the geologic 
framework model interpretation with data from the borehole, geologic map, and seismic profile 
supports the interpretation. 
Impacts of Alternative InterpretationsThe alternative interpretations of the elevation of the 
Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity show marked vertical differences 6,500 to 10,000 feet (2000 to 
3000 meters) east of the ESF. The vertical differences between deep and shallow interpretations 
are on the order of 3,000 feet (900 meters) for a distance of 7,000 feet (2,133 meters) along the 
regional seismic profile west of borehole p#1 (Figure 6-25). Despite the large differences, which 
could place the Paleozoic rocks approximately 2,000 feet (600 meters) closer than currently 
modeled, no impact greater than the uncertainty discussed above is anticipated on subsequent 
models. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-52 August 2004 
Source: DTN: LB980130123112.002; Majer et al. 1996 [DIRS 104685], Figure 1a. 
Figure 6-25. Comparison of Geophysical and Geologic Framework Model Interpretations of 
Tertiary-Paleozoic Unconformity 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-53 August 2004 
6.5.2 Interpretation of Faults 
This section discusses the geometries of the faults depicted in the geologic framework model. 
The faults were constructed with the use of the criteria specified in Section 6.2.2 and the 
methodology described in Section 6.4.4, and were intended to be consistent with current YMP 
structural and tectonic models (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Sections 3.5.3 and 3.5.11). The 
patterns of faulting, structural domains, and relative ages of the faults are discussed in previous 
documents (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169734], Section 3.5.3). The particular features of the faults 
modeled in the geologic framework model are discussed in the following sections. Except where 
specifically noted, data for the following discussions are from the geologic map 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). 
6.5.2.1 Fault Curvature 
In the geologic framework model interpretation, the dominant faults were constructed as slightly 
curved (i.e., dip shallowing slightly with depth) in cross section to be consistent with data and 
cross sections from the geologic map. The faults could also have been depicted with greater or 
lesser curvature; however, in practical terms the uncertainty of fault geometries at depth is 
greater than the differences between geometric interpretations. There is, therefore, no practical 
impact of amount of fault curvature on subsequent users of the geologic framework model. 
6.5.2.2 Fault Patterns 
The north-trending fault system (Figure 6-2) dominates the model. The largest (approximate 
length times displacement) of these faults are the Solitario Canyon and Paintbrush Canyon faults, 
both of which displace strata down to the west by more than 1,400 feet (425 meters) 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]). The Windy Wash fault is as large but is present 
only in the far northwestern edge of the model. Other north-trending faults of note include the 
Fatigue Wash, Iron Ridge, and Bow Ridge faults, which form major topographic features in the 
modeled area. A system of faults beneath Midway Valley produces a series of small 
horst-graben bedrock structures now buried by alluvium (DTN: GS980608314221.002 
[DIRS 107024]). 
Prominent topographic features have also formed along northwest-trending faults in the site area. 
A series of northwest-trending faults is present in the prominent drainages (Drillhole, Pagany, 
and Sever Washes) in the north-central part of the area. The vertical displacements on these 
faults are small (less than 50 feet [15 meters]) (DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024], 
p. 11) and, therefore, are not significant in the model. In the southern part of the area, Dune 
Wash contains a complex pattern of intersecting north- and northwest-trending faults including 
the Dune Wash fault, which has a maximum vertical displacement of more than 200 feet 
(61 meters). The mapped pattern of faults in Dune Wash is complex, so much so that only a few 
of these faults could be included in the geologic framework model. The actual structure in Dune 
Wash is, therefore, more complex than represented in the geologic framework model. No impact 
is anticipated on geologic framework model users because Dune Wash is outside the repository 
design area, and details at this scale of complexity are not used in hydrologic modeling.

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-54 August 2004 
6.5.2.3 Features of Individual Faults 
The Paintbrush Canyon fault (Figure 6-2) is the longest of the faults in the geologic framework 
model and has the greatest Tertiary vertical displacement. The main strand of the fault passes 
along the west side of Fran Ridge. The report for borehole p#1 called this the Fran Ridge fault 
(Carr et al. 1986 [DIRS 102046], Figure 6-10) and indicated that it intersects borehole p#1 at the 
Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity. This is the interpretation used to construct the Paintbrush 
Canyon fault in the geologic framework model. The Paintbrush Canyon fault reaches its 
maximum vertical displacement of approximately 1,400 feet (425 meters) in the model area at 
the mouth of Dune Wash, where several faults intersect the Paintbrush Canyon fault and increase 
the total vertical displacement. 
The Solitario Canyon fault is a scissor fault that changes dip direction at Tonsil Ridge from 
west-dipping in the south to east-dipping in the north (DTN: GS980608314221.002 
[DIRS 107024]). The location of Tonsil Ridge is indicated in Figure 1-1. This dip change was 
generalized in the geologic framework model as a single surface to prevent geometric anomalies 
at depth. Interpretations from the model from Tonsil Ridge northward should take this 
generalization into account. The uncertainties regarding fault dips and locations at great depth 
are expected to outweigh the potential impacts of the generalization in subsequent models. 
The Bow Ridge fault (Figure 6-2) is also a scissor fault, with its hinge point covered by alluvium 
approximately at the mouth of Sever Wash. Outcrop and borehole data indicate that the fault 
passes between borehole WT#16 and the outcrop to the west, and that the apparent displacement 
is down-to-the-east. North of the hinge point, the Bow Ridge fault is called the Exile Hill 
fault in the geologic framework model (Figure 6-2). In this case, the geometry of the Bow Ridge 
 exile Hill system allowed construction of two grids, which intersect at a bend in the fault. 
Minor faults, such as the Ghost Dance, Abandoned Wash, and numerous faults around Dune 
Wash, appear to be secondary features that accommodated strain between the dominant faults. 
Their intersections with more dominant faults at depth are uncertain; however, the interpretation 
shown in the geologic framework model is that the Dune Wash, Bow Ridge, and Midway Valley 
faults intersect the Paintbrush Canyon fault at depth. The Ghost Dance and Abandoned Wash 
faults are truncated at depth by west-dipping normal faults. 
6.5.2.4 Faulting and Deposition 
In the geologic framework model, model isochore maps of the Paintbrush Group and older units 
do not show abrupt changes in thickness across faults, although some minor changes could be 
interpreted from the available data. Data distribution is too limited to allow systematic mapping 
of the thickness changes. Geologic map relations (DTN: GS980608314221.002 
[DIRS 107024]) show that isolated thickness changes across faults in Solitario Canyon and 
elsewhere are associated with faulting that occurred during the time span of pre-Tiva Canyon 
Tuff Paintbrush Group deposition (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 151945], pp. 4.6-12 to 4.6-13). 
The lateral extent of this faulting is obscured by deposition of the Tiva Canyon Tuff over most of 
the modeled area. The greatest fault displacement and tilting of the stratigraphic section 
occurred after the deposition of the Tiva Canyon Tuff (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 151945], 
p. 4.6-13). Undetected thickness changes are accounted for in the geologic framework model by 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-55 August 2004 
the estimation of uncertainty, and any that may be discovered by future data in the vicinity of the 
ESF are not anticipated to be of sufficient magnitude to impact geologic framework model users. 
Repository design would not be affected because the observed thickness changes do not occur in 
the RHH. 
6.6 UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS 
The methods and results discussed in this section and Section 7 (Validation) present practical 
methods that are based on procedural definitions and that are appropriate for the unique geologic 
setting and data distribution at Yucca Mountain. 
Because the geologic framework model exactly matches the measured lateral position of all input 
data (the x and y coordinates), and these are never altered or manipulated, the following 
discussion is limited to vertical uncertainty (elevation). 
6.6.1 Introduction to Uncertainty 
For the geologic framework model, uncertainty is an estimate of how closely the model matches 
the real world. In other words, uncertainty is an estimate of how well the subsurface is known. 
Uncertainty results from the interaction between geologic variability (heterogeneity), which is 
the variability of the natural system from place to place, and the ability of the modeling 
methodology to make accurate predictions based on available data. 
The following terms are defined for the discussion of uncertainty: 
Geologic variabilityThe actual change in the elevation or thickness of a rock layer from 
place to place. Geologic variability can only be sampled at point locations (boreholes or 
outcrops); it can never be completely known. 
Observed variabilityThe change in the elevation or thickness of a rock layer as 
measured at sampled locations (i.e., at boreholes and outcrops). This is always less than 
or equal to geologic variability. The likelihood that observed variability is equal to 
geologic variability increases with the amount of data. 
Figure 6-26 schematically illustrates the relations between data distribution, geologic variability, 
observed variability, and prediction error in the resulting model. The actual geologic surfaces 
are shown in black, and the modeled surfaces are shown in blue. Boreholes A through E 
represent the available borehole data. Based on the available data, the observed variability of 
each surface is labeled OV, and the actual or geologic variability is labeled GV. Observed 
variability is only equal to geologic variability when the distribution of data is adequate; 
otherwise, observed variability is always less than geologic variability. Borehole New 
represents a borehole drilled after construction of the model, and the difference between the 
elevations observed in the borehole and the predicted (modeled) elevations are the prediction 
error, PE. The estimated uncertainty discussed in the following sections attempts to capture 
the complex relations between these factors. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-56 August 2004 
For the upper surface in Figure 6-26, the available data fortuitously provided adequate 
distribution to estimate the actual geologic variability (the observed variability is nearly equal to 
the geologic variability), but not to model the actual spatial distribution of the surface. For the 
middle surface, the available data indicated a very small-observed variability, and even though 
geologic variability is considerably greater than observed variability, the prediction error at the 
new borehole location is very small simply by virtue of its location relative to the subsurface 
geology (i.e., the prediction error was small, but fortuitously so). For the lower surface, the 
prediction error was much greater than the previously observed variability. In this case, the new 
borehole provided a unique new measure of geologic variability for the lower surface that was 
not known from the previous distribution of data. The results of the new borehole data for the 
lower surface are twofold: first, the borehole reduced uncertainty locally by providing new data; 
and second, because it provides a new measure of variability, the new borehole data improves 
the estimation of uncertainty for the lower surface. 
As illustrated in Figure 6-26, evaluation of uncertainty is an assessment of the complex 
interaction between the variability of the geologic system, the modeling methodology, and the 
existing data. Uncertainty would be lowest in a site with little geologic variability and abundant 
data. Because geologic variability is high at Yucca Mountain (because of the geologic setting) 
and the available subsurface data are relatively sparse, the primary factor affecting the 
magnitude of uncertainty in the geologic framework model at any given location is distance from 
the datathe model matches the real world more closely in locations that are near the data, and 
matches progressively less with distance away from the data. Because borehole data are 
restricted in depth, uncertainty also increases with vertical distance below the bottoms of the 
boreholes as well as with horizontal distance away from them. Likewise, models of deeper rock 
units, for which there are fewer borehole penetrations, have greater uncertainty associated with 
them than do models of shallower rock units. Rock layers near the surface are constrained by 
observed variability portrayed on the geologic map, which provides extensive areal coverage and 
reduces uncertainty accordingly. 
Because of faulting and tilting of the rock layers in the modeled area, geostatistical techniques 
could not be used to estimate uncertainty in the geologic framework model. The structural 
features introduce geometrical trends and discontinuities that would invalidate the technique. 
Instead, practical methods that examine the total modeling process (including data distribution) 
and model results were used to estimate the amount of uncertainty associated with the geologic 
framework model. A test of the models ability to represent the real world would be acquisition 
of new data and a comparison to predictions from the model. Because new data are not available 
for this model revision, an alternative method was used to evaluate how well the modeling 
methodology predicts data that have been removed from the model. This is the jack-knife 
method described in Section 6.6.3. This method was chosen because it is a standard technique, it 
is appropriate to apply to the central part of Yucca Mountain, and it accounts for all sources of 
uncertainty and prediction errors. No alternative methods for estimating uncertainty in the 
geologic framework model have been proposed. Additional details of the jack-knife method, 
including tables and charts of results, are provided in Appendix A. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-57 August 2004 
Source: For illustrative purpose only. 
Figure 6-26. Schematic Cross Section Showing the Relation Between Geologic Variability, Observed 
Variability, and Prediction Error 
Because uncertainty is an inherent part of a geologic model, users of the geologic framework 
model must take uncertainty into account when using the geologic framework model, and 
determine whether the uncertainty described in this section is appropriate to specific users. The 
only anticipated impact of uncertainty in the geologic framework model would be on the models 
related to repository design if uncertainty exceeds specific design constraints or assumptions. 
For other geologic framework model users, uncertainty is not expected to exceed requirements of 
the users. 
6.6.2 Data Distribution 
The modeled area is divided into constrained and less constrained areas for the purposes of 
estimating subsurface uncertainty (Figure 6-27). Constrained areas are those between at least 
two boreholes or exposure (interpolation), and less constrained areas are those outside borehole 
control or exposure (extrapolation) or which are influenced by geologic complexity. Because an 
interpolation is constrained on at least two sides, the related uncertainty is generally less than that 
of an extrapolation. Note that the boundaries of the constrained and less constrained areas vary 
by depth because borehole depths vary as illustrated in Figure 6-27. For example, 54 boreholes 
penetrate unit Tpy, but only 11 penetrate to the base of unit Tct. Dune Wash, described in 
Section 6.6.4 and labeled in Figure 6-27, is less constrained because of localized geologic 
complexity. The other less constrained areas described in Section 6.6.4 and labeled on 
Figure 6-27 are less constrained because of alluvial cover and/or lack of subsurface data. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-58 August 2004 
An inherent feature of all three-dimensional geologic models is that the subsurface is only 
partially known; in other words, it is uncertain because of limited information. Knowledge of 
the subsurface is defined by the number and distribution of boreholes and tunnels. The input 
boreholes in the total modeled area are relatively few in number and are concentrated in 
locations nearest the vicinity of the ESF (Figure 6-1) and at sites that were selected in part for 
reasons other than geologic modeling, such as accessibility. Many large sections of the modeled 
area and many fault blocks contain no subsurface data; in these areas, uncertainty is high. For 
the modeled area at Yucca Mountain, approximately 1 percent of the subsurface volume (limited 
to the depth of the deepest borehole, 6,000 feet [1,830 meters] below ground surface) is within 
500 feet (150 meters) of a borehole or tunnel; therefore, uncertainty is pervasive in the geologic 
framework model. 
6.6.3 Uncertainty Estimates for Constrained Areas 
Uncertainty of subsurface rock layer elevations was estimated for the central part of Yucca 
Mountain in the vicinity of the ESF, which is a constrained area. 
Uncertainty was estimated by two jack-knife methods ["A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the 
Jackknife, and Cross-Validation." The American Statistician, 37 (Efron and Gong 1983 
[DIRS 103967])], which are discussed in more detail in Appendix A. The essential concept of 
the jack-knife method is to use part of the input data to predict the remaining data. By 
dividing the data into groups and repeating this procedure for various combinations of the data 
groups, an estimate can be made of the models ability to make accurate predictions (its ability to 
represent the real world). The estimated uncertainty is defined here as two standard deviations 
(95 percent confidence) above and below the mean of the prediction errors. The uncertainty 
represents a window above and below a modeled surface in which the actual surface is estimated 
to reside, based on a 95 percent level of confidence (i.e., the actual surface will occur within the 
uncertainty window 95 percent of the time). Statistics were calculated assuming normal 
distribution. 
The study area shown in Figure 6-28 was chosen for the uncertainty analysis because it is the 
least faulted portion of the model (and therefore is best suited to statistical analysis), and because 
it is of greatest importance to geologic framework model users, particularly subsurface 
repository design. Three horizons were chosen to represent shallow, intermediate, and deep data: 
the tops of model units Tpy, Tptrv1, and Tptpv3. Unit Tpy was chosen because it is the 
shallowest unit that is present in all boreholes in the area of interest. Unit Tptrv1 was chosen 
because it is a significant lithologic break between less-welded and densely welded rocks. Unit 
Tptpv3 was chosen because it forms the bottom of the RHH, and knowledge of its elevation is 
important to repository design and construction. The 18 boreholes within the selected study area 
that contain all 3 units were used in the uncertainty analysis. The boreholes and groupings are 
listed in Appendix A. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-59 August 2004 
Source: For illustrative purpose only. 
Figure 6-27. Maps of Constrained and Less Constrained Areas of GFM2000 for Selected Units 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-60 August 2004 
The borehole data were divided into 6 groups, each with 3 boreholes. The boreholes were 
grouped randomly. Three such random suites were created, resulting in 3 suites each containing 
18 boreholes in 6 groups of 3 boreholes. A fourth suite of borehole data (also with 6 groups of 
3 boreholes) was created by grouping the boreholes in order of date of drilling to evaluate the 
actual historical progression of predictions. Both of the methods discussed below were applied 
to each of the 4 suites. 
Two types of jack-knife estimations were performedsequential and cross-correlative. In the 
sequential method, the contacts from the first group of 3 boreholes was used to predict the 
contacts from second group and the errors were calculated. The first two groups were then 
combined to predict the third group, and so on until 5 groups predicted the sixth. This was 
repeated for all 4 suites. The prediction error was expected to decrease with the addition of each 
successive group to some minimum value that represents the ultimate ability of the model to 
predict the subsurface geology based on available data. Deviations from this trend can be 
interpreted to represent the effects of geologic variability. 
In the cross-correlation method, each group of 3 boreholes was omitted in turn, and the 
prediction errors for each omitted group were calculated. This was expected to provide an 
estimate of prediction error ranges and averages, and is useful for evaluating the characteristics 
of individual borehole data. Errors caused by geologic variability associated with particular 
borehole locations would be expected to be repeated in all 4 suites. 
Interpretive constraints were not used in the uncertainty estimations. The effects of interpretive 
constraints would be to reduce the initial prediction errors in the sequential method by limiting 
the poorly constrained grids (i.e., based on only 3 data points) to more realistic geometries. 
However, there is no a priori reason to assume that interpretive constraints would reduce 
prediction errors for the final sequential group or for the cross-correlative method, and so no 
adverse impact of this decision is anticipated. 
The results of the sequential and cross-correlative methods are summarized in Table 6-3. The 
uncertainties estimated for the three surfaces by the two methods are similar. The similarity of 
results is expected because of the similarity of the final prediction in the sequential method and 
the cross-correlation method (both are based on 15 values predicting 3 values). Because the 
cross-correlation method produces a larger number of predictions, however, the results for this 
method provide a more accurate estimation of uncertainty and are the values used to summarize 
uncertainty in the geologic framework model. 
As derived in Appendix A, the uncertainty estimations are dependent on the measured average 
spacing of the boreholes in the study area used in this analysis, which is typically 3280 feet 
(1000 meters); therefore, these values apply to locations at that distance from existing boreholes 
and tunnels. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-61 August 2004 
Source DTNs: MO0002SPATOP00.001 [DIRS 152643] Topography; MO9906GPS98410.000 [DIRS 109059 
Borehole locations. 
Figure 6-28. Map Showing the Study Area for Uncertainty Estimation 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-62 August 2004 
Table 6-3. Summary of Vertical Uncertainties (Elevation) Estimated by the Sequential and 
Cross-Correlation Jack-Knife Methods 
Method Tpy Tptrv1 Tptpv3 w/o WT#18a 
Sequential -34 to +45 feet 
(-10.4 to +13.7 meters) 
-38 to +48 feet 
(-11.6 to +14.6 meters) 
-75 to +79 feet 
(-22.9 to +24.1 meters) 
Cross-Correlation -42 to +58 feet 
(-12.8 to +17.7 meters) 
-49 to +55 feet 
(-14.9 to +16.8 meters) 
-76 to +80 feet 
(-23.2 to +24.4 meters) 
a For a complete discussion of this column see Sections A.2 and A.3 of Appendix A. 
For the previous model version (GFM3.1), the 95 percent confidence limit was not used, but 
rather an average of absolute value errors (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 138860], p. V-2). The 
higher uncertainty listed here represents a more conservative criterion. The variability 
represented by a 68 percent confidence interval (one standard deviation) would be half of the 
95 percent confidence interval in Table 6-4, and would be close to the uncertainties calculated 
for GFM3.1. 
The small decrease in uncertainty from unit Tpy to Tptrv1 shown on Table 6-4 (Table A-7) 
resulted from the large mean of prediction errors for unit Tpy (8 feet, 2.4 meters). Examination 
of the data indicates that the large mean was caused by the abrupt northward thickening (and 
resulting abrupt rise in the elevation of the top of the unit) of unit Tpy (Figure 6-12), which 
caused predictions to be low (positive errors). The Tpy uncertainty estimation illustrates that 
uncertainty is related to local geologic variability. Though the magnitude of the decrease is not 
significant, geologic framework model users should assess the uncertainty in relation to 
tolerances required in specific applications. No impact is anticipated on geologic framework 
model users because this unit occurs well above the RHH, and the difference in uncertainties is 
small compared to user tolerances. 
Table 6-4. Estimated Vertical Uncertainty (Elevation) from the Cross-Correlation Jack-Knife Method 
Unit Mean of Difference 
2 Standard Deviation 
(95% conf.) of Difference 
Uncertainty =mean  2 
Standard Deviation. 
Tpy 8 feet (2.4 meters) 50 feet (15.2 meters) -42 to +58 feet 
(-12.8 to +17.7 meters) 
Tptrv1 3 feet (0.9 meters) 52 feet (16.0 meters) -49 to +55 feet 
(-14.9 to +16.8 meters) 
Tptpv3 2 feet (0.6 meters) 78 feet (23.8 meters) -76 to +80 feet 
(-23.2 to +24.4 meters) 
Source: Table A-7. 
Ninety-five percent confidence means that the model is expected to predict the elevation of a 
horizon within the uncertainty window 95 percent of the time in the study area. For the base of 
the RHH, as an example, the estimated uncertainty is -76 to +80 feet (-23.2 to +24.4 meters) at a 
distance of about 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) from a borehole or tunnel. Uncertainty is expected to 
decrease as the model approaches a data location. Beyond 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) from a data 
location, uncertainty is greater and is bounded only qualitatively by the geologic conceptual 
model. As illustrated in Figure 6-26, uncertainty estimates for a geologic model are made with 
the acknowledgement that new data may reveal that geologic variability in the subsurface locally 
exceeds the uncertainty that was previously estimated based on available data. This would more 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-63 August 2004 
likely be true in the less constrained areas. Therefore, the uncertainty estimates described in this 
section apply only to relatively simple locations like the study area where faulting, tilting, and 
depositional complexities are minimal. 
In summary, the uncertainty estimations provide confidence that the geologic framework model 
represents the geology of the central part of Yucca Mountain within the windows presented. The 
results indicate that uncertainty varies spatially; therefore, it can only be reduced by acquiring 
new data (drilling new boreholes or tunnels), and uncertainty is only reduced locally around the 
new data. Larger uncertainties (and larger prediction errors) could result if the geologic system 
is more variable than the available data can adequately define, as illustrated in Figure 6-26. 
These conclusions may affect decisions regarding future data acquisition if the uncertainties 
estimated in this report are large in relation to the tolerances required in users of the geologic 
framework model. 
6.6.4 Uncertainty Estimates for Less Constrained Areas 
In addition to distance from data, other factors contribute to uncertainty in some parts of the 
modeled area. The factors include uncertain amounts of fault displacements, fault blocks in 
which no subsurface data are available, and structural complexity buried by alluvium. Each of 
these factors contributes to lack of knowledge of the subsurface and increases uncertainty. 
Because fault displacements in the subsurface are rarely known precisely, elevation data from 
one side of a fault cannot be used to predict elevations on the other side of the fault, and the 
uncertainty values presented in the previous section are not applicable. In addition, faulting at 
Yucca Mountain is commonly accompanied by tilting of the rock strata, which further reduces 
the predictability of elevations from one side of a fault to the other. For these reasons, the 
relatively unfaulted area in the vicinity of the ESF was chosen for the uncertainty evaluations 
described in the previous section. 
The less constrained areas are the northeastern corner of the modeled area, Midway Valley, 
Crater Flat, Jackass Flats, and the Dune Wash area (Figure 6-27). In addition, much of the 
subsurface in the corners of the model area is unconstrained by subsurface data and/or the 
bedrock is covered by alluvium. Collectively, these areas are called the less constrained areas 
because they are physically outside borehole control or because they are geologically complex 
and, therefore, highly variable. As illustrated in Figure 6-27, the extent of constrained area in the 
model decreases with depth as fewer boreholes penetrate the deeper horizons. Each of these 
areas is described below. 
Northeastern CornerThe greatest uncertainty in the model is associated with the northeastern 
corner of the modeled area. Uncertainty is unquantifiable from the lower Calico Hills Formation 
and below because the base of the Calico Hills Formation is not exposed in the area and no 
subsurface data are available. The northeast corner is an area of long distance extrapolation. 
Crater Flat, and Jackass FlatsCrater Flat and Jackass Flats are large areas covered by 
alluvium and are constrained only by widely scattered boreholes, so that structural details are not 
known with any degree of confidence. These are largely areas of long distance extrapolation. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-64 August 2004 
Midway ValleyStructure beneath Midway Valley is also covered by alluvium and qualitatively 
constrained only by geophysical profiles, which do not provide stratigraphic details or precise 
fault displacements. 
Dune WashThe uncertainty associated with the Dune Wash area is largely due to localized 
structural complexity, the details of which are buried by alluvium. Based on geologic mapping 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]), faults are likely to be present between boreholes 
WT-1 and WT#17 (shown on Figure 6-2), and between the boreholes and outcrop; consequently, 
little detail can be interpolated from one location to another. 
Older Tertiary and pre-Tertiary UnitsBecause of their great depth below ground surface and 
the minimal measured data available, the older Tertiary (Tund) and pre-Tertiary units have more 
uncertainty associated with them than the shallower Tertiary units (Figure 6-27). Therefore, 
these deeper units are also considered to be less constrained. The depth of the Tertiary-Paleozoic 
unconformity is constrained at only one datum (borehole p#1) and is extrapolated across the 
modeled area by means of a gravity model (DTN: LB980130123112.003 [DIRS 109062], 
Figure 3b). Because only the p#1 borehole provides data on the physical properties of the older 
Tertiary (Tund) and pre-Tertiary units for gravity calculations, vertical uncertainty for the depth 
of the unconformity is more than 3,280 feet (1,000 meters), except in the vicinity of 
borehole p#1. 
Because they are areas of extrapolation and are not near boreholes, the minimum uncertainty in 
the less constrained areas is equal to or greater than the estimated uncertainty in the constrained 
areas. Uncertainty for the less constrained areas cannot be calculatedthe jack-knife method 
could not be performed in an area of extrapolation, and the results would not be meaningful in an 
area that is structurally complex. Therefore, the maximum uncertainty in less constrained areas 
cannot be calculated, but can only be bounded qualitatively by the geologic conceptual model. 
Because the conceptual model constraints are not precise, nor are they quantifiable, no attempt is 
made here to bound maximum uncertainty in the less constrained areas. 
The greater uncertainty in poorly constrained areas does not impact the geologic framework 
model and integrated site model, but acquisition of new data could reduce uncertainty locally. 
Because the less constrained areas are located outside the planned repository area, no impact is 
anticipated for repository design and UZ hydrology models. Because SZ models, including 
those used in TSPA, use large grid cells and large groupings of stratigraphic units, no impact is 
anticipated for these models. 
6.6.5 Limitations and Alternative Interpretations 
Because each reference horizon and model isochore in the geologic framework model is an 
interpretation (except where coincident with data), each is nonunique, and other viable 
interpretations are possible where no data are located. All interpretations and predictions made 
by the geologic framework model include an uncertainty window, as described in the previous 
sections, and it is explicitly recognized that alternative interpretations that reside within this 
window would also be considered valid. Changes to the geologic framework model within the 
estimated uncertainty based on alternative interpretations or methods would not, therefore, be 
considered significant. A significant change to the geologic framework model (or a significant 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-65 August 2004 
alternative interpretation) would be one that exceeds the estimated uncertainty, which would be 
unlikely in the vicinity of the ESF where the model is most constrained by data. Because 
alternative interpretations within the uncertainty window would be equally valid, no impact of 
alternative interpretations is anticipated on the geologic framework model, integrated site model, 
or subsequent model users. Available alternative interpretations for specific model features in 
areas having no subsurface data are discussed below. 
It is recognized that by inclusion of different interpretations based in part on boreholes outside of 
the model area (VH-1, VH-2, J#12, and JF#3) and regional data, the methodology described in 
this report could generate viable alternative interpretations that differ from the interpretations 
presented by GFM2000. This is especially true in the less constrained areas of the model (the 
model boundaries, corners, and deeper stratigraphic units) where few or no data are present. 
However, GFM2000 was constructed to be consistent with offsite data (which by definition 
cannot be input to the model) and interpretations derived from regional data so that if the 
geologic framework model boundaries were extended to include those data, no significant 
changes would be required inside the present boundaries. Selection of different modeling 
techniques (i.e., computer triangulation, hand contouring, or geostatistical methods) could also 
result in viable alternative interpretations. In the vicinity of the ESF, where the model is most 
constrained by data, differences due to alternative interpretations would be sufficiently small to 
be insignificant to geologic framework model users (less than the estimated uncertainty). 
Examples of alternative interpretations are discussed below. 
The thickness of the Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) shown in Figure 6-15 could be alternatively 
interpreted using a conceptual model in which the thickness varies about some average between 
the vicinity of the ESF and Crater Flat as it was in GFM3.1 (DTN: MO9901MWDGFM31.000 
[DIRS 103769], Figure 20). The thickness of the Topopah Spring Tuff lower vitrophyre 
(Tptpv3) shown in Figure 6-16 could also be shown to vary about an average value in the 
southwest part of the model area using the same conceptual model, or by using a different 
interpolation method to include borehole VH-2, which is 3.9 miles (6.3 kilometers) outside the 
western edge of the model and penetrates a 155-foot (47-meter) -thick vitrophyre as discussed in 
Section 6.5.1.4. 
The thickness of the Tram Tuff (Tct) shown in Figure 6-22 could be interpreted differently in the 
vicinity of borehole G-2. This borehole appears to be located on a buried structural high because 
the Tram Tuff is dramatically thinner in this borehole than in the boreholes farther south. The 
orientation and extent of the structure is unknown. Using a different conceptual model for the 
structural high, the thickness in G-2 could be illustrated with closed contours instead of the axis 
of thinning shown. The orientation of the structural high could also be illustrated on this map by 
imparting a different trend to the contours based on a different structural conceptual model. 
The model is limited by the availability of data and relative amount of geologic complexity 
found in an area. More data will yield less uncertainty and fewer limits (Section 6.6.2). Less 
geologic complexity will yield less uncertainty and fewer limits. 
Finally, it should be noted that appropriate use of the geologic framework model is inherently 
limited by scale and content. The grid spacing used in the geologic framework model (200 feet 
[61 meters]), discussed in Section 6.4.2, limits the size of features that can be resolved by the 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 6-66 August 2004 
model. Users of the geologic framework model must also consider the data reduction discussed 
in Section 6.2 to determine whether the geologic framework model is appropriate for specific 
applications. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 7-1 August 2004 
7. VALIDATION 
The purpose of this section is to validate the geologic framework model by showing how the 
confidence building criteria were satisfied during and after model development for the geologic 
framework model. Section 7.1 shows how the model development process satisfied the criteria 
in the Technical Work Plan (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635]) and AP-SIII.10Q. Section 7.2 provides 
a detailed discussion of the post-development validation of the geologic framework model in 
accordance with the applicable criteria. 
The level of confidence required for the model validation activities for the geologic framework 
model has been determined from the guidelines in project procedure AP-2.27Q, Planning for 
Science Activities in Attachment 3, Levels of Model Importance, Validation, and Confidence, 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635] Section 2.2.1), to be Level I for the following reasons. Because the 
geologic framework model does not provide direct input to the TSPA, its level of significance 
depends, in part, on its association with models which do provide input directly to the TSPA. 
The geologic framework model is used to support the development of Development of Numerical 
Grids for UZ Flow and Transport Models, BSC 2003 [DIRS 160109], Hydrologic Framework 
Model for the Saturated Zone Site Scale Flow and Transport Model USGS 2001 [DIRS 158608], 
and Repository Design. The hydrogeological framework model and the numerical grids for UZ 
flow and transport models are then used for UZ and SZ flow and transport studies. AP-2.27Q, 
Attachment 3 lists UZ flow models as requiring Level I validation. Accordingly, Level I 
validation is appropriate for the geologic framework model. In addition, the hydrogeological 
framework model and the UZ numerical grids developed from the geologic framework model are 
also used for UZ transport models and SZ flow and transport models as requiring Level II 
validation. However, the geologic framework model is a static model that represents the 
stratigraphy and structure of the site. The UZ transport models and SZ flow and transport 
models are insensitive to the geologic framework model grid when compared to the UZ and SZ 
models overall uncertainty. Therefore, validation Level I applies. 
7.1 CONFIDENCE BUILDING DURING MODEL DEVELOPMENT TO ESTABLISH 
SCIENTIFIC BASIS AND ACCURACY FOR INTENDED USE 
For Level I validation, Section 2.2.1 of Technical Work Plan for: The Integrated Site Model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635]) specifies the following steps for Confidence Building During 
Model Development: The development of the model should be documented in accordance with 
the requirements of Section 5.3.2(b) of AP-SIII.10Q. Attachment 3 of AP-2.27Q also provides 
model validation guidance that is documented in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635] 
Section 2.2.1). The development of the geologic framework model has been conducted 
according to all of the applicable criteria, as follows: 
1. Selection of input parameters and/or input data, and a discussion of how the selection 
process builds confidence in the model. [AP-SIII.10Q 5.3.2(b) (1) and AP-2.27Q 
Attachment 3 Level I (a)] 
The selection of input data builds confidence in the geologic framework model 
because all input data have been obtained from controlled sources and provide 
appropriate data for use in construction of the model (see Table 4-1, Section 4.1). For 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 7-2 August 2004 
each type of input a discussion is provided that documents the data attributes and 
provides justification for their selection as model inputs. Explanations also are 
provided for the data sets that were excluded. All input data are qualified. Additional 
data reduction discussions related to the selection of boreholes, faults, and topographic 
data are found in Sections 6.2.1, 6.2.2, and 6.2.3, respectively 
For these reasons, the process for selecting input data meets the applicable criteria 
and, thus, builds confidence in the model. 
2. Description of calibration activities, and/or initial boundary condition runs, and/or 
run convergences, simulation conditions set up to span the range of intended use and 
avoid inconsistent outputs, and a discussion of how the activity or activities build 
confidence in the model. Inclusion of a discussion of impacts of any non-convergence 
runs [(AP-SIII.10Q 5.3.2(b)(2) and AP-2.27Q Attachment 3, Level I (e)]. 
Traditional calibration activities were not performed for this model. They were 
determined not to be necessary because the geologic framework model is static 
representational model. For the same reasons, no initial boundary condition runs, 
convergences, or simulation conditions were performed or deemed necessary. 
However, as described in detail in Section 6, a stepwise construction process based on 
generally accepted model construction techniques was applied to construct the 
geologic framework model consistent with available data. Section 6.4 describes the 
following model construction steps which provide confidence in the geologic 
framework model. These steps included the construction of geologic framework 
model stratigraphy by using the isochore method (Section 6.4), the use of interpretive 
constraints based on available data to guide the construction of the isochores 
(Section 6.4.1), the construction of a grid which honors the measured data while 
permitting the use of interpretations where data are sparse (Section 6.4.2), the 
construction of faults from the geologic map (Section 6.4.4), the construction of 
reference horizons and model isochores based on data from the geologic map, 
boreholes, and tunnels (Section 6.4.5), and finally, assembly of the faults and rock 
layers into a consistent model. 
The geologic framework model does not provide simulation conditions because it is 
a static representational model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], Section 2.2.1e). 
These activities show how the model construction meets the applicable criteria and 
builds confidence in the model. 
3. Discussion of the impacts of uncertainties to the model results including how the 
model results represent the range of possible outcomes consistent with important 
uncertainties. [(AP-SIII.10 Q 5.3.2(b)(3) and AP-2.27Q Attachment 3, Level 1 (d) and 
(f)]. 
The impacts of uncertainties and limitations on model results are discussed in 
Section 6.6. Uncertainty concerns are limited to vertical locations (elevation) because 
the geologic framework model was constructed to exactly match the measured lateral 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 7-3 August 2004 
positions of all input data. Uncertainty was evaluated by applying the recognized jack 
knife method. Uncertainty was characterized by demarcation of constrained and less 
constrained areas of the model (Figure 6.27). As illustrated by the figures and 
discussed in Sections 6.6.2, 6.6.3, and 6.6.4 the less constrained (areas of higher 
uncertainty) are in areas located away from the data sources. These areas of high 
uncertainty occur at the outer edge of the model, and in areas of the model segregated 
by faults. In addition, the predictive capability of the geologic framework model has 
been demonstrated by documenting the difference between predicted and measured 
stratigraphic contacts. Appendix C documents the confidence and uncertainty 
provided by the geologic framework model in constrained and less constratined areas 
and builds confidence in the model. 
For these reasons, the impacts of model uncertainty on model results and the range of 
outcomes consistent with important uncertainties have been adequately addressed to 
meet the applicable criteria and build confidence in the model. 
The geologic framework model does not provide model predictions (performance 
parameters) that incorporate a range of possible outcomes consistent with important 
uncertainties, because it is a static representational model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635], 
Section 2.2.1f). 
4. Formulation of defensible assumptions and simplifications. [AP-2.27Q Attachment 3 
Level I (b)]. 
Section 6.4.1 lists the generally accepted geologic concepts which were assumed to 
apply to the construction of the geologic framework model based on the data for the 
site. The demonstrated applicability of these concepts related to the deposition, 
erosion, and secondary processes for volcanogenic rocks builds confidence in the 
geologic framework model. 
5. Consistency with physical principles, such as conservation of mass, energy, and 
momentum. [AP-2.27Q Attachment 3 Level I (c)] 
The geologic framework model is consistent with physical principles. More 
importantly, the geologic framework model is consistent with geologic modeling 
principles as discussed in Section 6.4.1. The geologic framework model is a static 
representational model that provides a three-dimensional representation the structure 
and stratigraphy in the model volume. Therefore, principles governing transport 
phenomena such as the conservation of mass, energy, and momentum do not apply in 
this case. 
7.2 CONFIDENCE BUILDING AFTER MODEL DEVELOPMENT TO SUPPORT 
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF THE MODEL 
Level I requires that a single method of post development validation be conducted to establish 
that the needed level of confidence has been met for the model. The previous version of this 
model report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168029]) included a method of validation that demonstrated the 
adequacy of the geologic framework model in terms of matching available data and interpolating 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 7-4 August 2004 
or predicting new data (i.e. corroboration). Some of the review activities preceding the current 
Regulatory Integration Team activities suggested that the previous model validation was 
unsatisfactory because it did not specify explicit validation criteria. A description of the 
previous model validation activities is provided in Appendix C. In order to improve the 
validation of the geologic framework model, the Technical Work Plan for: The Integrated Site 
Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 169635]) directed that an independent technical review of the 
development, checking, and review of the model documentation be conducted. The independent 
technical review was completed and the results are discussed and summarized below. They 
show that the post-development activities build confidence in the geologic framework model. 
The criteria for the independent technical review were to determine the adequacy, accuracy, and 
completeness of the geologic framework model and to determine that the decisions and 
methodology used in the construction of the model are reasonable and defensible and where 
applicable follow standard industry or best practices. The review was performed by Paul White, 
[Independent Technical Assessment, Yucca Mountain Project, Geologic Framework Model: 
GFM2000 (White 2004 [DIRS 170329])] and is included as Appendix D. Paul White is a 
manager with Digital Graphics Inc. and has over twenty years experience in the analysis, 
mapping and modeling of geologic information, and is an expert in EARTHVISION software. 
The independent technical review was comprised of several elements. 
 An examination of each component of the modeling methodology described in 
Section 6.4 was conducted. Each procedure of the component modeling process and of 
the final modeling assembly was reviewed to verify that the EARTHVISION software 
was used and applied in accordance with best and standard practice. 
 The Scientific Notebook (SN-M&O-SCI-028-V1) (Clayton 2001 [DIRS 153713]) and 
the previous version of the model report (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168029]) were examined to 
evaluate modeling methodology and use of the software in the estimation of uncertainty. 
 Each of the geologic map fault trace data files were examined. Methods and scripts 
were examined to evaluate the projections of fault surfaces to depth. Fault surface 
contact data at depth and the fault gridding method and accuracy also were examined. 
The fault hierarchy that defines fault-to-fault relationships was examined. The 43 faults 
of the geologic framework model were found to be organized to accurately represent 
their truncation and age relationships. No faults were prematurely or incorrectly 
truncated by other intersecting faults. 
 For each of the 50 rock units the input borehole data files, measured section data files, 
and geologic map stratigraphic contact data files were examined. The gridding 
parameters used in calculating reference horizons and intermediate isochores were 
examined. All aspects of data manipulation completed to control stratigraphic throw 
across faults were examined. The surface elevation (topographic) data were also 
examined. The integration of borehole, cross section, geologic section surface contact 
and elevation data along with the EARTHVISION isochore gridding algorithm to 
maintain rock layer thickness consistent throughout the model area is the industry 
standard method of calculating a model of this type with the software. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 7-5 August 2004 
 The model assembly procedure of the 43 faults and 50 horizons that create the final 
model, a three-dimensional representation of geology and structure, was examined to 
ensure compliance with industry standard practices and application of the software. 
The conclusions of the independent technical review of the geologic framework model are found 
in White (2004 [DIRS 170329]). The model was planned and built using best and standard 
practices in the application of the EARTHVISION 3D modeling software. Every aspect of the 
model building exercise was performed using EARTHVISION in a reasonable, credible, 
defensible, and repeatable manner. The output product, a static three-dimensional model 
representing the geologic framework of the specified area, is adequate for its intended use and is 
accurate for its intended use and parameter uncertainty. The model is appropriate for its intended 
use on the YMP, and there are no limits or restrictions on model use with stated and intended 
uses for the project. Thus, this post-development independent technical review supports 
confidence in the GFM. 
Independent corroboration of this conclusion is provided in part by an NRC staff review of 
GFM 3.1, an earlier version of GFM 2000. (NRC 1999 [DIRS 135621], p. E-1). The NRC staff 
concluded that: (1) the level of detail and accuracy of the geologic framework model are 
adequate for the planned scope of the integrated site model and users of the geologic framework 
model; (2) the representation of faults is adequate for intended use (NRC 1999 [DIRS 135621], 
p. E-59); and (3) the representation of stratigraphy is adequate for intended use (NRC 1999 
[DIRS 135621], pp. E-20 and E-21). Confidence in the geologic framework model is further 
supported by the NRCs statement that it will adapt a version of GFM3.1 for its own use in 
conducting three-dimensional analyses of the Yucca Mountain Site, including reviews of 
subsequent geologic framework model versions (NRC 1999 [DIRS 135621], p. E-3). 
7.3 VALIDATION SUMMARY 
The geologic framework model has been validated by applying acceptance criteria based on an 
evaluation of the models relative importance to the potential performance of the repository 
system. Activities requirements for confidence building during model development have been 
satisfied (Section 7.1). Post development model validation criteria specified for this Level I 
model, as described in Technical Work Plan for: The Integrated Site Model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 169635] Section 2.2.1) and Section 5.3 of AP-SIII.10 Q, have been met as determined by 
the independent technical review. No future activities need to be accomplished for model 
validation. The independent technical review has determined that the geologic framework model 
is adequate and sufficiently accurate with no limits or restrictions on its use for the stated and 
intended purpose. The model development activities and the post-development validation 
activities prescribed establish the scientific bases for the geologic framework model. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 7-6 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 8-1 August 2004 
8. CONCLUSIONS 
The geologic framework model is one component of the integrated site model, which also 
includes the rock properties model and the mineralogic model. The geologic framework model 
provides a baseline representation of the locations and distributions of 50 rock layers and 
43 faults in the subsurface of the Yucca Mountain area for use in geoscientific modeling and 
repository design. The input data from geologic mapping and boreholes provide controls at the 
ground surface and to the total depths of the boreholes; however, most of the modeled volume is 
unsampled and uncertainty is high. The geologic framework model is an interpretative and 
predictive tool that provides a representation of reality within the estimated uncertainty. The 
computer files needed to reproduce the model results discussed in this report are compiled in 
DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777]. 
Estimated vertical uncertainty in the geologic framework model increases with distance from the 
data and is also a function of heterogeneity, which results from geologic processes like 
deposition, faulting, alteration, and erosion. Uncertainty in the model is reduced by the 
application of established geologic principles. 
The most uncertain areas in the model are the four corners, the less constrained areas, and the 
volume deeper than the borehole penetrations. For locations between boreholes in the central 
part of the model (the constrained areas), 95 percent of model predictions and acceptable 
alternative interpretations would be expected to lie within the uncertainty given in Table 6-4. 
Uncertainty increases from zero at data locations and the ground surface to the values given in 
Table 6-4 at a horizontal distance of approximately 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) from the data 
locations. Uncertainty is greater for deeper stratigraphic units because geologic variability 
increases and fewer data are available. These estimated uncertainty values represent the sum of 
the mean and two standard deviations (95 percent confidence interval) of prediction errors based 
on sequential and cross-correlation jack-knife uncertainty estimations. 
The geologic framework model portrays the distribution of rock layers that are of greatest 
interest to TSPA-related models and analyses, some of which are summarized here. The 
Paintbrush nonwelded (PTn) unit thickens dramatically to the northwest and thins southward 
throughout the vicinity of the ESF. The RHH is several hundred feet thick in the vicinity of the 
ESF. The Calico Hills Formation (Ta) thickens to an unknown maximum thickness toward the 
northeast. The Tertiary-Paleozoic unconformity, which is the top of the regional Paleozoic 
carbonate aquifer, is poorly constrained by data but appears to deepen dramatically from east to 
west in the vicinity of the ESF. This surface is between 8,000 and 11,000 feet (2,400 to 
3,500 meters) below the ESF. 
The independent technical review has determined that the geologic framework model is adequate 
and sufficiently accurate with no limits or restrictions on its use for the stated and intended 
purpose. 
The geologic framework model is intended to be used in a variety of YMP studies and activities. 
Because the geologic framework model is an interactive three-dimensional database and 
volumetric representation of Yucca Mountain, it is a useful tool for geoscientific analyses of all 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 8-2 August 2004 
types, including hydrologic modeling, confirmation test planning, site geotechnical analysis, 
uncertainty analysis, model integration, data analysis, and repository facilities design. However, 
users of the geologic framework model should consider the uncertainties and limitations of scale 
and content to determine whether the geologic framework model is appropriate to specific 
applications. 
No confirmatory actions, such as compliance runs, additional sensitivity runs, or neutralization 
runs are addressed by this report. 
8.1 CONCLUSIONS FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN REVIEW PLAN CRITERIA 
The following information describes how this analysis addresses the acceptance criteria in the 
Yucca Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274], Sections 2.2.1.3.6.3, 
2.2.1.3.7.3, 2.2.1.3.8.3, and 2.2.1.3.9.3). Only those acceptance criteria that are applicable to this 
report (see Section 4.2) are discussed. 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.6.3, Flow Paths in the Unsaturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 1, System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
Subcriterion (2): The geologic framework model provides a 
comprehensive model of the spatial position and geometry of rock units 
and faults at Yucca Mountain. This model is technically defensible and 
adequately considers geological aspects, physical phenomena, and 
geochemistry that may affect physical processes such as ground-water 
flow and radionuclide transport, both of which are inputs to safety 
analyses regarding repository performance and repository design as 
discussed in Section 6.1. The geologic framework model is a component 
of the integrated site model, which is used to develop a consistent 
volumetric portrayal of the spatial position and geometry of rock layers 
and faults at Yucca Mountain. Section 1 provides an overview of this 
process. The model development and evolution is described in Section 6.3 
and shows why the descriptions of aspects of geology that may affect flow 
paths in the unsaturated zone are adequate. Section 6.4 discusses 
adequacy of the methodology used to construct the geologic framework 
model, which includes the development of grid construction and 
contouring methodology, construction of faults, construction of reference 
horizons and model isochores, assembly of faults and rock layers, and 
assessment, iteration, and quality control. It also presents a correlation 
between the stratigraphic units modeled in the geologic framework model 
and the YMP stratigraphy (Table 4), which supports model adequacy. 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
Subcriterion (2): The Geologic Framework Model applies the data 
obtained from borehole samples, hydrostratigraphic contacts, maps of 
geology and topography, and measured stratigraphic sections that are 
discussed in Section 4.1 and listed in Table 2, Input Data. Acceptable 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 8-3 August 2004 
techniques were used to collect the data and those techniques are 
described in more detail in the individual reports cited in Table 2. This 
model supports site characterization of the unsaturated zone by 
interpolating and converting that data to a three-dimensional interpretation 
of the geology at Yucca Mountain. Inputs to the model are also discussed 
in Section 6.2. Section 6.2 describes data reduction including selection of 
boreholes, faults, and topographic data and provides further evidence of 
data sufficiency. 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.7.3, Radionuclide Transport in the Unsaturated 
Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 1, System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
Subcriterion (2): The geologic framework model provides a 
comprehensive model of the spatial position and geometry of rock units 
and faults at Yucca Mountain. This model is technically defensible and 
adequately considers geological aspects, physical phenomena, and 
geochemistry that may affect physical processes such as ground-water 
flow and radionuclide transport, both of which are inputs to safety 
analyses regarding repository performance and repository design as 
discussed in Section 6.1. The geologic framework model is a component 
of the integrated site model, which is used to develop a consistent 
volumetric portrayal of the spatial position and geometry of rock layers 
and faults at Yucca Mountain. Section 1 provides an overview of this 
process. The model development and evolution is described in Section 6.3 
and shows why the descriptions of aspects of geology that may affect flow 
paths in the unsaturated zone are adequate. Section 6.4 discusses 
adequacy of the methodology used to construct the geologic framework 
model, which includes the development of grid construction and 
contouring methodology, construction of faults, construction of reference 
horizons and model isochores, assembly of faults and rock layers, and 
assessment, iteration, and quality control. It also presents a correlation 
between the stratigraphic units modeled in the geologic framework model 
and the YMP stratigraphy (Table 4), which further supports model 
adequacy. 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
Subcriterion (3): The Geologic Framework Model applies the data 
obtained from borehole samples, hydrostratigraphic contacts, maps of 
geology and topography, and measured stratigraphic sections that are 
discussed in Section 4.1 and listed in Table 2, Input Data. Acceptable 
techniques were used to collect the data and those techniques are 
described in more detail in the individual reports cited in Table 2. This 
model supports site characterization of the unsaturated zone by 
interpolating and converting that data to a three-dimensional interpretation 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 8-4 August 2004 
of the geology at Yucca Mountain. Inputs to the model are also discussed 
in Section 6.2. Section 6.2 describes data reduction including selection of 
boreholes, faults, and topographic data and provides further evidence of 
data sufficiency. 
Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.8.3, Flow Paths in the Saturated Zone 
Acceptance Criterion 1, System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
Subcriterion (2): The geologic framework model provides a 
comprehensive model of the spatial position and geometry of rock units 
and faults at Yucca Mountain. This model is technically defensible and 
adequately considers geological aspects, physical phenomena, and 
geochemistry that may affect physical processes such as ground-water 
flow and radionuclide transport, both of which are inputs to safety 
analyses regarding repository performance and repository design as 
discussed in Section 6.1. The geologic framework model is a component 
of the integrated site model, which is used to develop a consistent 
volumetric portrayal of the spatial position and geometry of rock layers 
and faults at Yucca Mountain. Section 1 provides an overview of this 
process. The model development and evolution is described in Section 6.3 
and shows why the descriptions of aspects of geology that may affect flow 
paths in the unsaturated zone are adequate. Section 6.4 discusses 
adequacy of the methodology used to construct the geologic framework 
model, which includes the development of grid construction and 
contouring methodology, construction of faults, construction of reference 
horizons and model isochores, assembly of faults and rock layers, and 
assessment, iteration, and quality control. It also presents a correlation 
between the stratigraphic units modeled in the geologic framework model 
and the YMP stratigraphy (Table 4), which supports model adequacy. 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
Subcriterion (3): The Geologic Framework Model applies the data 
obtained from borehole samples, hydrostratigraphic contacts, maps of 
geology and topography, and measured stratigraphic sections that are 
discussed in Section 4.1 and listed in Table 2, Input Data. Acceptable 
techniques were used to collect the data and those techniques are 
described in more detail in the individual reports cited in Table 2. This 
model supports site characterization of the saturated zone by interpolating 
and converting that data to a three-dimensional interpretation of the 
geology at Yucca Mountain. Inputs to the model are also discussed in 
Section 6.2. Section 6.2 describes data reduction including selection of 
boreholes, faults, and topographic data and provides further evidence of 
data sufficiency. Acceptance Criteria from Section 2.2.1.3.9.3, 
Radionuclide Transport in the Saturated Zone 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 8-5 August 2004 
Acceptance Criterion 1, System Description and Model Integration Are Adequate. 
Subcriterion (2): The geologic framework model provides a 
comprehensive model of the spatial position and geometry of rock units 
and faults at Yucca Mountain. This model is technically defensible and 
adequately considers geological aspects, physical phenomena, and 
geochemistry that may affect physical processes such as ground-water 
flow and radionuclide transport, both of which are inputs to safety 
analyses regarding repository performance and repository design as 
discussed in Section 6.1. The geologic framework model is a component 
of the integrated site model, which is used to develop a consistent 
volumetric portrayal of the spatial position and geometry of rock layers 
and faults at Yucca Mountain. Section 1 provides an overview of this 
process. The model development and evolution is described in Section 6.3 
and shows why the descriptions of aspects of geology that may affect flow 
paths in the unsaturated zone are adequate. Section 6.4 discusses 
adequacy of the methodology used to construct the geologic framework 
model, which includes the development of grid construction and 
contouring methodology, construction of faults, construction of reference 
horizons and model isochores, assembly of faults and rock layers, and 
assessment, iteration, and quality control. It also presents a correlation 
between the stratigraphic units modeled in the geologic framework model 
and the YMP stratigraphy (Table 4), which supports model adequacy. 
Acceptance Criterion 2, Data Are Sufficient for Model Justification. 
Subcriterion (3): The Geologic Framework Model applies the data 
obtained from borehole samples, hydrostratigraphic contacts, maps of 
geology and topography, and measured stratigraphic sections that are 
discussed in Section 4.1 and listed in Table 2, Input Data. Acceptable 
techniques were used to collect the data and those techniques are 
described in more detail in the individual reports cited in Table 2. This 
model supports site characterization of the saturated zone by interpolating 
and converting that data to a three-dimensional interpretation of the 
geology at Yucca Mountain. Inputs to the model are also discussed in 
Section 6.2. Section 6.2 describes data reduction including selection of 
boreholes, faults, and topographic data and provides further evidence of 
data sufficiency. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 8-6 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 9-1 August 2004 
9. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
The following is a list of the references cited in this document. Column 2 represents the unique 
six digit DIRS number, which is placed in the text following the reference callout (e.g., CRWMS 
M&O 2000 [DIRS 144054]). The purpose of these numbers is to assist the reader in locating a 
specific reference. 
9.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Brocher, T.M.; Hunter, W.C.; and Langenheim, V.E. 1998. "Implications of 
Seismic Reflection and Potential Field Geophysical Data on the Structural 
Framework of the Yucca Mountain-Crater Flat Region, Nevada." Geological 
Society of America Bulletin, 110, (8), 947-971. Boulder, Colorado: Geological 
Society of America. TIC: 238643. 
100022 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. FY 01 Supplemental Science and 
Performance Analyses, Volume 1: Scientific Bases and Analyses. TDR-MGRMD-
000007 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: MOL.20010801.0404; MOL.20010712.0062; MOL.20010815.0001. 
155950 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Underground Layout Configuration. 800- 
P0C-MGR0-00100-000-00E. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
ENG.20031002.0007. 
165572 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Development of Numerical Grids for UZ 
Flow and Transport Modeling. ANL-NBS-HS-000015, Rev. 02. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
169855 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000), 
with errata. MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 01 [Errata 002]. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20020530.0078; DOC.20040128.0007; 
DOC.20040211.0003. 
168029 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Hydrogeologic Framework Model for the 
Saturated Zone Site Scale Flow and Transport Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000024, 
Rev. 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
170008 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 
REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: 
ENG.20040721.0007. 
168361 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Technical Work Plan for: The Integrated 
Site Model. TWP-NBS-GS-000003 REV 05. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20040601.0002. 
169635 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 9-2 August 2004 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Thermal Conductivity of the Potential 
Repository Horizon. MDL-NBS-GS-000005, Rev. 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. 
169854 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2004. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDRCRW-
GS-000001 REV 02 ICN 01. Two volumes. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel 
SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040504.0008; Replacement for 168845. 
169734 
Buesch, D.C. and Spengler, R.W. 1999. "Correlations of Lithostratigraphic 
Features with Hydrogeologic Properties, a Facies-Based Approach to Model 
Development in Volcanic Rocks at Yucca Mountain, Nevada." Proceedings of 
Conference on Status of Geologic Research and Mapping in Death Valley 
National Park, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 9-11, 1999. Slate, J.L., ed. Open-File 
Report 99-153. Pages 62-64. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 
245245. 
107905 
Buesch, D.C.; Spengler, R.W.; Moyer, T.C.; and Geslin, J.K. 1996. Proposed 
Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic 
Units of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open-File 
Report 94-469. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: 
MOL.19970205.0061. 
100106 
Byers, F.M., Jr.; Carr, W.J.; Christiansen, R.L.; Lipman, P.W.; Orkild, P.P.; and 
Quinlivan, W.D. 1976. Geologic Map of the Timber Mountain Caldera Area, Nye 
County, Nevada. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-891. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. TIC: 204573. 
103624 
Carr, M.D.; Waddell, S.J.; Vick, G.S.; Stock, J.M.; Monsen, S.A.; Harris, A.G.; 
Cork, B.W.; and Byers, F.M., Jr. 1986. Geology of Drill Hole UE25p#1: A Test 
Hole Into Pre-Tertiary Rocks Near Yucca Mountain, Southern Nevada. Open-File 
Report 86-175. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: 
HQS.19880517.2633. 
102046 
Carr, W.J. 1982. Volcano-Tectonic History of Crater Flat, Southwestern Nevada, 
as Suggested by New Evidence from Drill Hole USW-VH-1 and Vicinity. Open- 
File Report 82-457. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: 
NNA.19870518.0057. 
101519 
Carr, W.J. and Parrish, L.D. 1985. Geology of Drill Hole USW VH-2, and 
Structure of Crater Flat, Southwestern Nevada. Open-File Report 85-475. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: HQS.19880517.1918. 
101093 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 9-3 August 2004 
Carr, W.J.; Byers, F.M., Jr.; and Orkild, P.P. 1986. Stratigraphic and Volcano- 
Tectonic Relations of Crater Flat Tuff and Some Older Volcanic Units, Nye 
County, Nevada. Professional Paper 1323. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological 
Survey. TIC: 216598. 
104670 
Clayton, R.W. 2001. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). Scientific 
Notebook SN-M&O-SCI-028-V1. ACC: MOL.20010108.0015. 
153713 
CRWMS M&O 1997. Determination of Available Volume for Repository Siting. 
BCA000000-01717-0200-00007 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.19971009.0699. 
100223 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Data Qualification Report: Borehole Stratigraphic 
Contacts, Revision 01. TDR-NBS-GS-000007. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS 
M&O. ACC: MOL.20000424.0694. 
158094 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Geologic Framework Model (GFM3.1). MDL-NBS-GS- 
000002 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.20000121.0115. 
138860 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Yucca Mountain Site Description. TDR-CRW-GS-000001 
REV 01 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.20001003.0111. 
151945 
CRWMS M&O 2000. EARTHVISION V5.1, Validation Test Report Rev 00. 
STN: 10174-5.1-00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. 
ACC: MOL.20000927.0145 
153526 
Efron, B. and Gong, G. 1983. "A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife, 
and Cross-Validation." The American Statistician, 37, (1), 36-48. Washington, 
D.C.: American Statistical Association. TIC: 245820. 
103967 
Feighner, M.A.; Daley, T.M.; Gritto, R.; and Majer, E.L. 1998. Report: Results of 
VSP Analysis in P#1. Milestone SP3B6AM4. Berkeley, California: Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19980507.0948. 
107428 
Majer, E.L.; Feighner, M.; Johnson, L.; Daley, T.; Karageorgi, E.; Lee, K.H.; 
Williams, K.; and McEvilly, T. 1996. Surface Geophysics. Volume I of Synthesis 
of Borehole and Surface Geophysical Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and 
Vicinity. Milestone OB05M. Berkeley, California: Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. ACC: MOL.19970610.0150. 
104685 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 9-4 August 2004 
Majer, E.L.; Johnson, L.R.; Vasco, D.W.; and Parker, P. 1998. Results of Gravity 
Modeling of the Paleozoic Basement. Milestone SP3B6DM4. Berkeley, 
California: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. ACC: 
MOL.19980507.0940. 
109472 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1999. Issue Resolution Status 
Report Key Technical Issue: Structural Deformation and Seismicity. Rev. 2. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACC: 
MOL.19991214.0623. 
135621 
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 
Oliver, H.W.; Ponce, D.A.; and Hunter, W.C., eds. 1995. Major Results of 
Geophysical Investigations at Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Southern Nevada. 
Open-File Report 95-74. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: 
MOL.19980305.0122. 
106447 
Plume, R.W. and La Camera, R.J. 1996. Hydrogeology of Rocks Penetrated by 
Test Well JF-3, Jackass Flats, Nye County, Nevada. Water-Resources 
Investigations Report 95-4245. Carson City, Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19970626.0500. 
141659 
Ponce, D.A. and Langenheim, V.E. 1994. Preliminary Gravity and Magnetic 
Models Across Midway Valley and Yucca Wash, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Open- 
File Report 94-572. Menlo Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: 
MOL.19990406.0399. 
102333 
Ponce, D.A.; Kohrn, S.B.; and Waddell, S. 1992. Gravity and Magnetic Data of 
Fortymile Wash, Nevada Test Site, Nevada. Open-File Report 92-343. Menlo 
Park, California: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19920714.0032. 
106561 
Sawyer, D.A.; Fleck, R.J.; Lanphere, M.A.; Warren, R.G.; Broxton, D.E.; and 
Hudson, M.R. 1994. "Episodic Caldera Volcanism in the Miocene Southwestern 
Nevada Volcanic Field: Revised Stratigraphic Framework, 40Ar/39Ar 
Geochronology, and Implications for Magmatism and Extension." Geological 
Society of America Bulletin, 106, (10), 1304-1318. Boulder, Colorado: 
Geological Society of America. TIC: 222523. 
100075 
Spengler, R.W. and Kornreich, S.K. 2000. Pre-1992 Measured Sections In the 
Vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20001122.0097; MOL.19960123.0060. 
153782 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 9-5 August 2004 
White, P.L. 2004. Independent Technical Assessment, Yucca Mountain Project, 
Geologic Framework Model: GFM2000, May 17-28, 2004. Alameda, California: 
Dynamic Graphics. ACC: MOL.20040603.0242. 
170329 
9.2 CODES, STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
10 CFR 63. Energy: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily available. 
156605 
AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1, ICN 0. Classification Criteria and Maintenance of the Monitored Geologic 
Repository Q-List. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20030807.0002. 
AP-3.15Q, Rev. 4, ICN 4. Managing Technical Product Inputs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040510.0004. 
AP-SIII.10Q, Rev. 2, ICN 6. Models. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. DOC.20040805.0005. 
AP-2.27Q, Rev. 1, ICN 4. Planning for Science Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040610.0006. 
9.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
GS931008314211.035. Graphical Lithologic Log of Drill Hole RF-8 (UE-25 RF 
#8). Submittal date: 10/07/1993. 
150005 
GS931008314211.036. Graphical Lithologic Log of Borehole RF-3 (UE-25 
RF#3), Version 1.0. Submittal date: 10/07/1993. 
150006 
GS940708314211.035. Measured Stratigraphic Section on the East Side of 
Solitario Canyon (Section SC#1). Submittal date: 07/19/1994. 
109063 
GS940908314212.007. Preliminary Gravity and Magnetic Models Across 
Midway Valley and Yucca Wash, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Submittal date: 
09/23/1994. 
107084 
GS950108314211.001. Measured Stratigraphic Section on Isolation Ridge 
(Section PTN#1). Submittal date: 01/20/1995. 
109064 
GS950108314211.002. Measured Stratigraphic Section on the Eastern Side of 
Solitario Canyon (Section PTN#2). Submittal date: 01/20/1995. 
109065 
GS950108314211.003. Measured Stratigraphic Section on the Eastern Side of 109066 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 9-6 August 2004 
Solitario Canyon (Section PTN#3). Submittal date: 01/20/1995. 
GS950108314211.004. Measured Stratigraphic Section on the Eastern Side of 
Solitario Canyon (Section PTN#4). Submittal date: 01/27/1995. 
109067 
GS950108314211.005. Measured Stratigraphic Section on the Eastern Side of 
Solitario Canyon (Section PTN#5). Submittal date: 01/27/1995. 
109068 
GS960908314224.020. Analysis Report: Geology of the North Ramp - Stations 
4+00 to 28+00 and Data: Detailed Line Survey and Full-Periphery Geotechnical 
Map - Alcoves 3 (UPCA) and 4 (LPCA), and Comparative Geologic Cross 
Section - Stations 0+60 to 28+00. Submittal date: 09/09/1996. 
106059 
GS970808314224.016. Geology of the South Ramp  Station 55+00 to 78+77, 
Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain Project, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Submittal date: 08/27/1997. 
109061 
GS980608314221.002. Revised Bedrock Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain 
Area, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal date: 06/09/1998. 
107024 
GS981108314224.005. Locations of Lithostratigraphic Contacts in the ECRB 
Cross Drift. Submittal date: 11/30/1998. 
109070 
LB980130123112.002. Topography and Gravity Model Data; Comparison of 
Depth to Basement. Submittal date: 08/05/1998. 
153784 
LB980130123112.003. Figure 3B of Report, "Results of Gravity Modeling of the 
Paleozoic Basement". Submittal date: 10/20/1999. 
109062 
MO0002SPATOP00.001. Topographic Grid Data. Submittal date: 02/24/2000. 152643 
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 
MO0010COV00124.001. Coverage: YM24KFS2. Submittal date: 10/26/2000. 153783 
MO0106RIB00038.001. Water-Level Data and the Potentiometric Surface. 
Submittal date: 06/22/2001. 
155631 
MO0111GLOGRF13.001. Scientific Program Support Geologic Log for 
Borehole UE-25 RF#13. Submittal date: 11/26/2001. 
157305 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 9-7 August 2004 
MO9510RIB00002.004. RIB Item: Stratigraphic Characteristics: 
Geologic/Lithologic Stratigraphy. Submittal date: 06/26/1996. 
103801 
MO9607ISM10MOD.001. A 3-D Geologic Framework and Integrated Site 
Model of Yucca Mountain. Submittal date: 07/25/1996. 
109071 
MO9804MWDGFM03.001. An Update to GFM 3.0; Corrected Horizon Grids for 
Four Fault Blocks. Submittal date: 04/14/1998. 
109050 
MO9807MWDGFM02.000. ISM 2.0: A 3-D Geologic Framework and Integrated 
Site Model of Yucca Mountain. Submittal date: 04/03/1998. 
109074 
MO9811MWDGFM03.000. Input Data to Geologic Framework Model GFM3.0. 
Submittal date: 11/30/1998. 
109006 
MO9901MWDGFM31.000. Geologic Framework Model. Submittal date: 
01/06/1999. 
103769 
MO9906GPS98410.000. Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) Borehole Locations. 
Submittal date: 06/23/1999. 
109059 
SNF40060198001.001. Unsaturated Zone Lithostratigraphic Contacts in 
Borehole USW WT-24. Submittal date: 10/15/1998. 
107239 
SNF40060298001.001. Unsaturated Zone Lithostratigraphic Contacts in 
Borehole USW SD-6. Submittal date: 10/15/1998. 
107372 
9.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
MO0012MWDGFM02.002. Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000). 
Submittal date: 12/18/2000. 
153777 
9.5 SOFTWARE CODES 
Dynamic Graphics 2000. Software Code: EARTHVISION. V5.1. SGI/IRIX 6.5. 
10174-5.1-00. 
167994 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 9-8 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 August 2004 
APPENDIX A 
JACK-KNIFE UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 August 2004 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-1 August 2004 
The purpose of this appendix is to provide additional details of the jack-knife (e.g., Efron and 
Gong 1983 [DIRS 103967]) uncertainty estimation methods and results discussed in Section 6.6. 
Impacts of the estimations are discussed in Section 6.6. The sequential jack-knife method is 
discussed in Section A.2, and the cross-correlation method is discussed in Section A.3. 
The study area and boreholes used for this analysis are shown in Figure 6-28 (Section 6.6.3). 
Rationale for area and data selection are discussed in Section 6.6. The 18 boreholes were 
selected because they are the only ones in the area that contain data for all 3 selected horizons 
(Tpy, Tptrv1, and Tptpv3). The boreholes were divided into suites and groups as shown in 
Table A-1. 
Table A-1. Data Groups and Suites Used for Uncertainty Estimation 
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 
Suite A UZ#16 
G-1 G-4 
SD-6 UZ-6 
SD-12 
b#1 UZ-14 
NRG-7a 
SD-9 SD-7 
H-1 
H-4 H-5 
WT-2 
WT#18 
H-3 a#1 
Suite B a#1 H-4 
WT-2 
UZ#16 
H-1 H-3 
SD-7 H-5 
UZ-6 
G-1 G-4 
b#1 
SD-6 SD-9 
WT#18 
SD-12 UZ-14 
NRG-7a 
Suite C H-5 SD-6 
WT#18 
b#1 H-4 
NRG-7a 
H-3 SD-7 
UZ-14 
G-4 SD-12 
UZ-6 
a#1 H-1 
WT-2 
G-1 SD-9 
UZ#16 
Suite D a#1 b#1 
G-1 
H-1 H-3 
H-4 
H-5 G-4 
WT-2 
WT#18 UZ-6 
UZ#16 
UZ-14 
NRG-7a SD-9 
SD-12 SD-7 
SD-6 
To select the data suites and groups, the borehole identifiers were written on slips of paper and 
drawn at random. The groupings in suite D were determined by date of drilling (oldest in 
Group 1, youngest in Group 6). 
Surface and tunnel data were not used in this analysis because of the complexity of calculating a 
fully three-dimensional uncertainty analysis. Outcrop data introduce complex relations of 
projected dip, depth and configuration of erosion, line data with three dimensions (from outcrop), 
and faulting that would make the results of this analysis uninterpretable. The analysis was 
restricted to subsurface (borehole) data to reduce the problem to two dimensions, and was further 
simplified to remove the potential effects of faulting (by limiting the study area), which would 
introduce discontinuities that would invalidate the analysis. These simplifications are not 
anticipated to have any effect on uncertainty analysis in the repository area where the effects of 
faulting are minor and borehole data are relatively abundant, nor at RHH depths where outcrop 
data are not available in the study area. 
The statistical calculations discussed here were performed assuming normal distribution. 
Uncertainty is defined here as two standard deviations (95 percent confidence) above and below 
the mean of the prediction errors. The mean is nonzero, and is used in the sum to account for the 
specific geometries of the units in the study area, which can cause biases in the mean. For 
example, Figure A-1 shows that in the study area, the top of unit Tptpv3 has the form of a gentle 
syncline with an axis trending northwest, located near the north end of the ESF. Depth 
predictions based on a subset of the data from one limb of the syncline would not be expected to 
produce accurate predictions for data located on the other limb of the syncline; in fact, they 
would be expected to show a bias toward being uniformly low, and the resulting histogram of 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-2 August 2004 
prediction errors would be asymmetric. Including the mean in the estimation of uncertainty in 
part accounts for this asymmetry. The causes of asymmetry in the prediction error histograms 
are discussed case by case in the following sections. 
The uncertainty estimates in the following sections are based on the spacing of boreholes in the 
study area. Uncertainty is minimal at data locations, and increases to the estimated value at 
3,280 feet (1,000 meters). Uncertainties at greater distances are approximated by the results of 
the first 4 prediction groups in the sequential jack-knife method in which borehole spacings are 
greater, but specific results are not discussed here because they are not generally applicable to 
the vicinity of the ESF. 
As discussed in Sections 6.6 and 7 and illustrated in Figure 6-26, in a geologic setting as 
complex as Yucca Mountain, new data could provide information that would affect these 
estimates. Therefore, when new subsurface data are acquired, the effects on uncertainty should 
be examined. 
A.2 SEQUENTIAL JACK-KNIFE UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION 
The sequential jack-knife method simulates development of an exploratory (or site 
characterization) drilling program. Data from the first 3 boreholes were used to create a grid to 
predict the data from the second 3 boreholes. The prediction errors at the second 3 boreholes 
were calculated and tabulated. The data from all 6 boreholes were then combined to create 
another grid to predict the data from the third group of 3 boreholes. This process was repeated 
until data from the first 5 groups of boreholes were combined to create a grid to predict data from 
the final group. This method produces 5 groups of predictions in each of the 4 data suites for 
each unit (5 groups  3 boreholes  4 suites  3 units = 180 total predictions). Only the 
final predictions, however (for the final 3 boreholes in each suite), are applicable to the 
model results because they represent the actual borehole spacing and distribution in the geologic 
framework model (3 boreholes  4 suites = 12 predictions for each unit or 36 total predictions). 
Because of the small number of applicable prediction errors, only limited conclusions can be 
drawn from the results. The results of the sequential method are tabulated in Table A-2 and 
associated statistics are shown in Table A-3. 
As shown in Table A-2, in the final prediction group (Column Err5 in Table A-2), the largest 
error is associated with unit Tptpv3 in borehole WT#18 in Suite A (293 feet [89 meters]). The 
problem is less for the other units. This borehole is located farthest toward the northeast, where 
the results of the geologic framework model show that stratigraphic complexity is increasing in 
the Topopah Spring Tuff (Section 6.5.1.4). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-3 August 2004 
Source DTN: MO0012MWDGFM02.002 [DIRS 153777] 
Figure A-1. Elevation Map of Top of Topopah Spring Tuff Lower Vitrophyre (Tptpv3) 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-4 August 2004 
Table A-2. Results of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation 
Group Well ID 
Err1 
(feet) 
Err2 
(feet) 
Err3 
(feet) 
Err4 
(feet) 
Err5 
(feet) 
Unit Tpy 
A1 G-1 
A1 G-4 
A1 UZ#16 
A2 SD-6 465 
A2 SD-12 150 
A2 UZ-6 579 
A3 b#1 -210 28 
A3 NRG-7a 65 25 
A3 UZ-14 -38 0.1 
A4 H-1 -68 28 10 
A4 SD-7 306 -12 -8 
A4 SD-9 32 3 -3 
A5 H-4 20 3 2 2 
A5 H-5 264 -28 -19 -10 
A5 WT-2 157 -26 -25 -22 
A6 a#1 -227 -3 -27 -27 -28 
A6 H-3 660 -15 -8 11 -0.4 
A6 WT#18 -215 104 44 21 23 
B1 a#1 
B1 H-4 
B1 WT-2 
B2 H-1 475 
B2 H-3 189 
B2 UZ#16 -68 
B3 H-5 483 -13 
B3 SD-7 28 27 
B3 UZ-6 295 94 
B4 b#1 40 30 30 
B4 G-1 544 -21 -12 
B4 G-4 213 -9 -3 
B5 SD-6 367 89 49 49 
B5 SD-9 391 -10 2 2 
B5 WT#18 436 56 47 31 
B6 SD-12 77 -7 -8 -7 -11 
B6 NRG-7a 380 2 4 1 -3 
B6 UZ-14 633 -18 -4 16 16 
C1 H-5 
C1 SD-6 
C1 WT#18 
C2 b#1 -431 
C2 H-4 -461 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-5 August 2004 
Table A-2. Results of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation 
(Continued) 
Group Well ID 
Err1 
(feet) 
Err2 
(feet) 
Err3 
(feet) 
Err4 
(feet) 
Err5 
(feet) 
Unit Tpy (Continued) 
C2 NRG-7a -75 
C3 H-3 -155 85 
C3 SD-7 -351 11 
C3 UZ-14 176 5 
C4 G-4 -249 -20 -18 
C4 SD-12 -334 -57 -54 
C4 UZ-6 -39 37 16 
C5 a#1 -473 -26 -25 -27 
C5 H-1 27 -3 -4 -5 
C5 WT-2 -397 -47 -47 -22 
C6 G-1 89 -7 -9 -10 -7 
C6 SD-9 -73 -2 -2 3 3 
C6 UZ#16 -535 38 29 15 18 
D1 a#1 
D1 b#1 
D1 G-1 
D2 H-1 -25 
D2 H-3 714 
D2 H-4 207 
D3 H-5 226 -27 
D3 G-4 82 -28 
D3 WT-2 286 -68 
D4 WT#18 -95 49 31 
D4 UZ-6 607 18 97 
D4 UZ#16 235 31 22 
D5 UZ-14 9 21 16 15 
D5 NRG-7a -2 -7 1 -2 
D5 SD-9 62 -17 1 2 
D6 SD-12 253 -67 -6 -8 -8 
D6 SD-7 428 -37 28 17 17 
D6 SD-6 473 13 96 47 48 
Unit Tptrv1 
A1 G-1 
A1 G-4 
A1 UZ#16 
A2 SD-6 492 
A2 SD-12 174 
A2 UZ-6 612 
A3 b#1 -214 32 
A3 NRG-7a -100 -10 
A3 UZ-14 31 -6 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-6 August 2004 
Table A-2. Results of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation 
(Continued) 
Group Well ID 
Err1 
(feet) 
Err2 
(feet) 
Err3 
(feet) 
Err4 
(feet) 
Err5 
(feet) 
Unit Tptrv1 (Continued) 
A4 H-1 -112 -15 -15 
A4 SD-7 314 -27 -24 
A4 SD-9 5 -27 -15 
A5 H-4 35 10 8 8 
A5 H-5 293 -18 -2 5 
A5 WT-2 181 -24 -23 -15 
A6 a#1 -209 23 -7 -7 -8 
A6 H-3 673 -35 -29 10 1 
A6 WT#18 -371 -52 -72 -59 -54 
B1 a#1 
B1 H-4 
B1 WT-2 
B2 H-1 299 
B2 H-3 191 
B2 UZ#16 -76 
B3 H-5 413 73 
B3 SD-7 20 9 
B3 UZ-6 288 115 
B4 b#1 16 8 9 
B4 G-1 392 31 18 
B4 G-4 176 26 10 
B5 SD-6 334 125 33 35 
B5 SD-9 275 12 -10 -18 
B5 WT#18 149 -77 -56 -46 
B6 SD-12 70 7 -9 -10 -14 
B6 NRG-7a 248 8 2 -1 12 
B6 UZ-14 448 32 15 -17 -19 
C1 H-5 
C1 SD-6 
C1 WT#18 
C2 b#1 -257 
C2 H-4 -374 
C2 NRG-7a -4 
C3 H-3 -215 -10 
C3 SD-7 -348 -43 
C3 UZ-14 178 19 
C4 G-4 -138 -3 -3 
C4 SD-12 -279 -54 -42 
C4 UZ-6 -55 12 31 
C5 a#1 -283 -6 -8 -9 
C5 H-1 68 7 2 2 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-7 August 2004 
Table A-2. Results of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation 
(Continued) 
Group Well ID 
Err1 
(feet) 
Err2 
(feet) 
Err3 
(feet) 
Err4 
(feet) 
Err5 
(feet) 
Unit Tptrv1 (Continued) 
C5 WT-2 -350 -58 -36 -16 
C6 G-1 127 21 10 10 9 
C6 SD-9 -28 -17 -18 -18 -18 
C6 UZ#16 -462 6 7 1 1 
D1 a#1 
D1 b#1 
D1 G-1 
D2 H-1 -71 
D2 H-3 747 
D2 H-4 205 
D3 H-5 286 25 
D3 G-4 112 14 
D3 WT-2 309 -51 
D4 WT#18 -272 -53 -46 
D4 UZ-6 663 58 103 
D4 UZ#16 200 -9 -2 
D5 UZ-14 -2 -20 -17 -16 
D5 NRG-7a -26 5 -2 3 
D5 SD-9 57 -6 -19 -18 
D6 SD-12 286 -34 -3 -11 -10 
D6 SD-7 438 -44 13 6 6 
D6 SD-6 526 64 91 35 34 
Unit Tptpv3 
A1 G-1 
A1 G-4 
A1 UZ#16 
A2 SD-6 525 
A2 SD-12 175 
A2 UZ-6 679 
A3 b#1 -194 91 
A3 NRG-7a -163 -52 
A3 UZ-14 35 -13 
A4 H-1 -161 -43 -17 
A4 SD-7 400 21 24 
A4 SD-9 -24 -53 -24 
A5 H-4 28 8 3 3 
A5 H-5 302 -26 -29 -8 
A5 WT-2 197 -18 -16 -26 
A6 a#1 -186 82 -3 -2 -3 
A6 H-3 782 -27 -26 -44 -59 
A6 WT#18 -151 247 272 286 293 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-8 August 2004 
Table A-2. Results of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation 
(Continued) 
Group Well ID 
Err1 
(feet) 
Err2 
(feet) 
Err3 
(feet) 
Err4 
(feet) 
Err5 
(feet) 
Unit Tptpv3 (Continued) 
B1 a#1 
B1 H-4 
B1 WT-2 
B2 H-1 219 
B2 H-3 272 
B2 UZ#16 -21 
B3 H-5 324 44 
B3 SD-7 101 60 
B3 UZ-6 299 113 
B4 b#1 8 4 4 
B4 G-1 363 91 85 
B4 G-4 67 -46 -52 
B5 SD-6 288 104 35 50 
B5 SD-9 160 -42 53 -35 
B5 WT#18 384 231 242 279 
B6 SD-12 26 -18 -23 -12 -14 
B6 NRG-7a 125 -53 -56 -28 -27 
B6 UZ-14 437 121 114 -43 -58 
C1 H-5 
C1 SD-6 
C1 WT#18 
C2 b#1 -417 
C2 H-4 -398 
C2 NRG-7a -248 
C3 H-3 1 139 
C3 SD-7 -205 72 
C3 UZ-14 97 98 
C4 G-4 -314 -9 1 
C4 SD-12 -308 -63 -70 
C4 UZ-6 31 73 20 
C5 a#1 -426 1 3 1 
C5 H-1 -144 -12 -36 -35 
C5 WT-2 -323 -33 -62 -28 
C6 G-1 14 84 29 29 51 
C6 SD-9 -201 11 9 9 11 
C6 UZ#16 -430 47 29 10 8 
D1 a#1 
D1 b#1 
D1 G-1 
D2 H-1 -136 
D2 H-3 1000 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-9 August 2004 
Table A-2. Results of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation 
(Continued) 
Group Well ID 
Err1 
(feet) 
Err2 
(feet) 
Err3 
(feet) 
Err4 
(feet) 
Err5 
(feet) 
Unit Tptpv3 (Continued) 
D2 H-4 267 
D3 H-5 280 -65 
D3 G-4 42 -73 
D3 WT-2 412 -62 
D4 WT#18 -58 298 278 
D4 UZ-6 825 26 104 
D4 UZ#16 315 37 20 
D5 UZ-14 21 -30 -44 -51 
D5 NRG-7a -131 -57 -28 -40 
D5 SD-9 -19 -85 -35 -27 
D6 SD-12 336 -81 -15 -17 -18 
D6 SD-7 643 2 61 48 48 
D6 SD-6 605 3 96 44 41 
NOTE: Shaded boxes not required for sequential method. 
Table A-3. Statistics of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation Results 
Unit Groupa 
Min. 
(feet) 
Max. 
(feet) 
Number of 
values 
Mean 
(feet) 
Median 
(feet) 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
Mean - 2x 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
Mean + 2x 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
2 -461 714 12 143 170 375 -608 894 
3 -68 94 12 12 8 46 -80 103 
4 -54 97 12 9 4 36 -64 82 
5 -27 49 12 1 0 22 -43 45 
Tpy 
6 -28 48 12 6 1 20 -34 45 
2 -374 747 12 162 183 341 -520 843 
3 -51 115 12 14 12 46 -78 106 
4 -46 103 12 2 -3 39 -76 80 
5 -46 35 12 -7 -12 20 -47 32 
Tptrv1 
6 -54 34 12 -5 -4 21 -48 38 
2 -417 1000 12 160 197 433 -707 1027 
3 -73 139 12 29 52 78 -126 185 
4 -70 278 12 31 12 92 -153 216 
5 -51 279 12 7 -27 90 -173 186 
Tptpv3 
6 -59 293 12 23 3 93 -163 208 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-10 August 2004 
Table A-3. Statistics of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation Results (Continued) 
Unit Groupa 
Min. 
(feet) 
Max. 
(feet) 
Number of 
values 
Mean 
(feet) 
Median 
(feet) 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
Mean - 2x 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
Mean + 2x 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
2 -417 1000 12 160 197 433 -707 1027 
3 -73 139 12 29 52 78 -126 185 
4 -70 104 11 9 4 52 -95 113 
5 -51 50 11 -18 -27 28 -74 38 
Tptpv3 w/o 
WT#18 
6 -59 51 11 -2 -3 39 -79 75 
a Results of Suites A through D are combined. 
Shaded boxes not required for sequential method. 
As illustrated in Figure A-1, the strike and dip of the rock layers changes abruptly between 
borehole WT#18 and the remaining boreholes, so that grids (surfaces) projected from the other 
boreholes are less likely to accurately predict the WT#18 data. As shown in Table A-3 for 
sequential Group 6, without the anomalous borehole WT#18 predictions, the mean prediction 
error (of all 4 suites) for unit Tptpv3 is reduced from 23 feet (7.0 meters) to -2 feet (-0.6 meters), 
and the standard deviation from 93 feet (28.3 meters) to 39 feet (11.9 meters). Because WT#18 
is relatively distant from the ESF, these smaller numbers are more appropriate for the vicinity of 
the ESF. Because WT#18 is an actual part of the Yucca Mountain data, however, the larger 
numbers illustrate the degree to which uncertainty increases outside the study area. 
The influence of borehole WT#18 illustrates the limitation of these analyses to the geologically 
simplest part of the modeled area, where stratigraphic and structural complexities are fewest, and 
demonstrates that uncertainty increases significantly in other areas. This result also demonstrates 
the dependence of the sequential method results on the data groupings, in which one borehole 
can have a large influence. 
The sequential jack-knife prediction errors, from Group 6 (Table A-3), are summarized in 
Table A-4. 
Table A-4. Summary of Sequential Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation Results 
Unit Mean 2 Standard Deviation 
(95% conf.) Uncertainty 
Tpy 6 feet (1.8 meters) 40 feet (12.2 meters) -34 to +45 feet 
(-10.4 to +13.7 meters) 
Tptrv1 -5 feet (-1.5 meters) 43 feet (13.1 meters) -38 to +48 feet 
(-11.6 to +14.6 meters) 
Tptpv3 [w/ WT#18] 23 feet (7.0 meters) 185 feet (56.4 meters) -163 to +208 feet 
(-49.7 to +63.4 meters) 
Tptpv3 [w/o WT#18] -2 feet (-0.6 meters) 77 feet (23.5 meters) -75 to +79 feet 
(-22.9 to +24.1 meters) 
NOTE: Uncertainty is Mean - 2 Standard Deviation to Mean + 2 Standard Deviation 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-11 August 2004 
Because it is dependent on data groupings, the sequential jack-knife method is useful to evaluate 
actual exploratory drilling program results. As illustrated in Table A-2 (Suite D), the results for 
the data suite grouped by actual drilling date (the actual Yucca Mountain Site Characterization 
Project drilling program) are similar to the results for the other sample suites. 
A.3 CROSS-CORRELATION JACK-KNIFE UNCERTAINTY ESTIMATION 
In the cross-correlation jack-knife method, data from 15 boreholes are used to create a grid to 
predict the data from 3 boreholes that were omitted. Each group of 3 boreholes is 
omitted in turn, producing 6 groups of predictions for each of the 4 data suites for each unit 
(6 groups  3 boreholes  4 suites  3 units = 216 total predictions). For example, the errors for 
unit Tpy in Table A-5 for the boreholes in Group A1 (G-1, G-4, and UZ#16) are -7, -3, and 
19 feet (-2.1, -0.9, and 5.8 meters), respectively. These were calculated by gridding the data in 
Groups A2 through A6 and calculating the difference between the grid and the actual elevations 
in boreholes G-1, G-4, and UZ#16. The results of the cross-correlation method are tabulated in 
Table A-5 and associated statistics are shown in Table A-6. This method provides a larger 
number of relevant data for statistical analysis than the sequential method described above, and 
is less subject to the biases that can result from particular groupings of boreholes in the 4 data 
suites (in the sequential method, the final group has the largest influence). 
Table A-5. Results of Cross-Correlation Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation 
Group Well ID Tpy Err. (feet) 
Tptrv1 Err. 
(feet) 
Tptpv3 Err. 
(feet) 
A1 G-1 -7 11 48 
A1 G-4 -3 17 11 
A1 UZ#16 19 0.4 9 
A2 SD-6 103 90 98 
A2 SD-12 1 -2 -5 
A2 UZ-6 99 100 96 
A3 b#1 28 11 -0.3 
A3 NRG-7a -1 12 -28 
A3 UZ-14 16 -19 -58 
A4 H-1 2 -5 -56 
A4 SD-7 15 5 46 
A4 SD-9 5 -20 3 
A5 H-4 7 9 4 
A5 H-5 -9 6 -5 
A5 WT-2 -22 -15 -27 
A6 a#1 -28 -8 -3 
A6 H-3 -0.4 1 -59 
A6 WT#18 23 -54 293 
B1 a#1 -27 -9 1 
B1 H-4 3 7 4 
B1 WT-2 -21 -14 -27 
B2 H-1 3 -5 -56 
B2 H-3 -3 1 -58 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-12 August 2004 
Table A-5. Results of Cross-Correlation Jack-Knife Uncertainty 
Estimation (Continued) 
Group Well ID Tpy Err. (feet) 
Tptrv1 Err. 
(feet) 
Tptpv3 Err. 
(feet) 
B2 UZ#16 18 1 8 
B3 H-5 -14 1 -12 
B3 SD-7 20 9 50 
B3 UZ-6 36 38 42 
B4 b#1 28 10 4 
B4 G-1 -7 11 48 
B4 G-4 1 18 13 
B5 SD-6 59 45 64 
B5 SD-9 3 -19 -24 
B5 WT#18 22 -44 300 
B6 SD-12 -11 -14 -14 
B6 NRG-7a -3 12 -27 
B6 UZ-14 16 -19 -58 
C1 H-5 28 38 35 
C1 SD-6 68 58 78 
C1 WT#18 17 -58 287 
C2 b#1 27 11 -1 
C2 H-4 8 10 9 
C2 NRG-7a -1 12 -28 
C3 H-3 6 -15 -4 
C3 SD-7 18 4 48 
C3 UZ-14 16 -19 -58 
C4 G-4 -9 14 11 
C4 SD-12 -13 -11 -15 
C4 UZ-6 31 36 33 
C5 a#1 -27 -9 0.2 
C5 H-1 2 -6 -56 
C5 WT-2 -22 -16 -28 
C6 G-1 -7 9 51 
C6 SD-9 3 -18 11 
C6 UZ#16 18 1 8 
D1 a#1 -41 -7 29 
D1 b#1 -14 2 32 
D1 G-1 -7 11 49 
D2 H-1 3 -6 -56 
D2 H-3 0.2 -0.4 -57 
D2 H-4 9 10 8 
D3 H-5 -8 4 -3 
D3 G-4 0 22 23 
D3 WT-2 -23 -17 -29 
D4 WT#18 17 -57 287 
D4 UZ-6 26 35 30 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-13 August 2004 
Table A-5. Results of Cross-Correlation Jack-Knife Uncertainty 
Estimation (Continued) 
Group Well ID Tpy Err. (feet) 
Tptrv1 Err. 
(feet) 
Tptpv3 Err. 
(feet) 
D4 UZ#16 17 -1 6 
D5 UZ-14 15 -16 -52 
D5 NRG-7a -2 3 -42 
D5 SD-9 3 -18 -27 
D6 SD-12 -8 -10 -18 
D6 SD-7 17 6 41 
D6 SD-6 48 34 48 
Table A-6. Statistics of Cross-Correlation Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation Results 
Unit 
Min. 
(feet) 
Max. 
(feet) 
Number of 
valuesa 
Mean 
(feet) 
Median 
(feet) 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
Mean - 2x 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
Mean + 2x 
Standard 
Deviation 
(feet) 
Tpy -41 103 72 8 3 25 -42 58 
Tptrv1 -58 100 72 3 1 26 -50 55 
Tptpv3 -59 300 72 18 4 77 -136 172 
Tptpv3 w/o WT#18 -59 98 68 2 2 39 -77 80 
aResults of Suites A through D are combined. 
As discussed in the previous section, borehole WT#18 is located in a slightly different geologic 
setting than the rest of the boreholes used in this analysis, which resulted in singularly large 
prediction errors that biased the results. Borehole WT#18 is useful because it demonstrates that 
uncertainty increases outside of the immediate vicinity of the ESF, and that uncertainty varies 
from place to place in relation to the variability of the geologic system. Without borehole 
WT#18, the results of the cross-correlation jack-knife method are those shown in Table A-7, 
which are more applicable to the vicinity of the ESF. 
Table A-7. Summary of Cross-Correlation Jack-Knife Uncertainty Estimation Results 
Unit Mean 2 Standard Deviation 
(95% conf.) Uncertainty 
Tpy 8 feet (2.4 meters) 50 feet (15.2 meters) -42 to +58 feet 
(-12.8 to +17.7 meters) 
Tptrv1 3 feet (0.9 meters) 52 feet (15.8 meters) -49 to +55 feet 
(-14.9 to +16.8 meters) 
Tptpv3 2 feet (0.6 meters) 78 feet (23.8 meters) -76 to +80 feet 
(-23.2 to +24.4 meters) 
NOTE: Tptpv3 values without WT#18. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-14 August 2004 
The slight decrease in estimated uncertainty from unit Tpy to unit Tptrv1 is caused by the higher 
mean in unit Tpy. The higher mean is caused by the abrupt northward thickening of unit Tpy 
illustrated in Figure 6-12 (Section 6.5.1.3) and the resulting increase in the elevation of the top of 
the unit, which introduces a geometric bias into the data. The higher mean illustrates that 
uncertainty is related to local geologic variability. Although the magnitude of the decrease in 
uncertainty from unit Tpy to Tptrv1 is not significant, geologic framework model users should 
assess the uncertainty in relation to tolerances required in specific applications. 
Careful examination of the prediction errors suggests that the other greatest prediction errors for 
unit Tptpv3 (the values clustered near -60 feet in Table A-6, without WT#18) were caused by 
local variations in the geometry of the unit. The predictions were for boreholes H-1, H-3, and 
UZ-14 (Table A-5), which are located in the northwest and southwest corners of the study area. 
As illustrated in the central part of Figure A-1 near the ESF, a syncline in unit Tptpv3 is located 
between these boreholes, so that boreholes H-1, H-3, and UZ-14 are located on the limbs. This 
geometry caused projections made from one limb to the other to have a systematic error. These 
data were not excluded from the calculations because they are located in the immediate vicinity 
of the ESF and therefore represent an important component of the estimation of uncertainty in 
the area of interest. 
A.4 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 
Table A-8 shows a comparison of the results using the sequential and cross-correlation methods. 
It is significant to observe that the data distribution for all 3 horizons was identical. The 
observed increase in prediction errors for the deepest unit, Tptpv3, cannot be ascribed to a 
decrease in data density or to a difference in modeling methodology. The increase in prediction 
errors must be a result of an increase in the variability of the natural system (i.e., geologic 
variability) with depthmore precisely, with stratigraphic depth. Simple vertical distance from 
the current topographic surface could not alone account for increased prediction errors because 
no surficial data were used in this analysis, but rather the complexity of the geologic system must 
increase with depth. As stated in the conceptual model for Yucca Mountain (Section 6.4.1), the 
base of an eruptive formation is likely to be more irregular than the base of an interior unit of 
that same formation because the volcanic units at Yucca Mountain were deposited on preexisting 
topography and structure, and filled in topographic lows. Unit Tptrv1 is at the top of the 
Topopah Spring Tuff, and would therefore be more planar (with smaller prediction errors), and 
unit Tptpv3 is near the bottom, and would therefore be more irregular (with larger prediction 
errors) as observed. The conceptual model and uncertainty estimation results are in agreement. 
These results also suggest that uncertainty increases even further for deeper units (Calico Hills 
Formation and deeper) where geologic variability increases, unconformities occur, and data 
distribution is decreased. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-15 August 2004 
Table A-8. Comparison of Sequential and Cross-Correlation Method Results 
Sequential Cross-Correlation 
Tpy mean/median 6/1 feet (1.8/0.3 meters) 8/3 feet (2.4/0.9 meters) 
Tpy range -28 to 48 feet (-8.5 to 14.6 
meters) 
-41 to 103 feet (-12.5 to 31.4 meters) 
Tpy standard deviation 20 feet (6.1 meters) 25 feet (7.6 meters) 
Tptrv1 mean/median -5/-4 feet (-1.5/-1.2 meters) 3/1 feet (0.9/0.3 meters) 
Tptrv1 range -54 to 34 feet (-16.5 to 10.4 
meters) 
-58 to 100 feet (-17.7 to 30.5 meters) 
Tptrv1 standard deviation 22 feet (6.7 meters) 26 feet (7.9 meters) 
Tptpv3 mean/median 
without WT#18 
-2/-3 feet (-0.6/0.9 meters) 2/2 feet (0.6/0.6 meters) 
Tptpv3 range without 
WT#18 
-59 to 51 feet (-18.0 to 15.5 
meters) 
-59 to 98 feet (-18.0 to 29.9 meters) 
Tptpv3 standard deviation 
with/without WT#18 
93/39 feet (28.3/11.9 meters) 77/39 feet (23.5/11.9 meters) 
The results of the sequential jack-knife method indicate that uncertainty is reduced by increasing 
the density of boreholes, but with notable exceptions. If the subsurface rock layers and faults at 
Yucca Mountain were simple and uniform, prediction errors would asymptotically approach a 
small, finite value in each data suite, and would have small variability in the predictions for the 
5th (final) data groups. In several instances, mean prediction error increased when new data 
were added, particularly for units Tptrv1 and Tptpv3 whenever borehole WT#18 was added. 
As discussed in the previous sections, borehole WT#18 is located in a slightly more complex 
geologic setting than the other boreholes, and is more indicative of uncertainty outside the 
vicinity of the ESF. In other instances, however, prediction errors also increased when boreholes 
in the center of the area were added, including Suite D boreholes SD-6, SD-7, and SD-12 for unit 
Tptrv1, and Suite C boreholes G-1, SD-9, and UZ#16 for unit Tptpv3. These instances illustrate 
the wide range of prediction errors that can be expected for future data acquisition, even in the 
vicinity of the ESF. 
As shown in Table A-8, both methods resulted in similar estimates of uncertainty for the 
3 stratigraphic units. The results of the cross-correlation jack-knife method (with borehole 
WT#18 excluded) provide a larger sample population and statistics that are more meaningful for 
applications of the geologic framework model. For these reasons, the cross-correlation results 
are used as the final results for the estimation of uncertainty in the geologic framework model. 
The major conclusions of this activity are that 1) uncertainty varies spatially, 2) uncertainty can 
only be reduced by acquiring new data (drilling new boreholes or tunnels), and 3) uncertainty is 
only reduced locally around the new data. Uncertainty and prediction errors result from the fact 
that the geologic system is variable and the available data are finite. These conclusions may 
impact decisions regarding future data acquisition if the uncertainties estimated in this report are 
large in relation to the tolerances required in users of the geologic framework model. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 A-16 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 August 2004 
APPENDIX B 
VALIDATED EARTHVISION MODULES 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 August 2004 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 B-1 August 2004 
Appendix B consists of the list of EARTHVISION modules that were validated and available for 
use for the geologic framework model. This list of EARTHVISION modules is provided in 
response to CR-1132. Other EARTHVISION modules were used for graphics only or were not 
used. 
The following EARTHVISION modules were validated and available for use in constructing 
GFM2000: ev_2grid, ev_2mindist, ev_2trend, ev_3grid, ev_3mindist, ev_3points, ev_3trend, 
ev_arrow, ev_backijk, ev_backpropijk, ev_decimate, ev_distribgrid, ev_export, ev_fbsort, 
ev_fbzonelabel, ev_fbzonesort, ev_field, ev_fill, ev_filter, ev_fpfp, ev_fromproj, ev_hg, 
ev_hgandev_hgmk, ev_hgmk, ev_ht2gd, ev_ht2sh, ev_import, ev_inter, ev_isochore, ev_krig, 
ev_makefaults, ev_modeler, ev_pick, ev_plybld, ev_plybop, ev_plyhull, ev_propgrid, 
ev_propmap, ev_recast, ev_res2face, ev_rescue, ev_runres, ev_sec, ev_seq2mk, ev_seq2wfp, 
ev_seqexport, ev_seqgrid, ev_seqprop, ev_seqvol, ev_seqxform, ev_slice, ev_smooth, ev_stat, 
ev_surfclip, ev_surfhide, ev_toproj, ev_tree, ev_truedip, ev_vario, ev_vect2grid, ev_volume, 
ev_wellpath, ev_wellstrc, ev_wellx, ev_x2face, ev_xformdata, ev_zonealign, evarc. 
Not all modules that were validated and available for use were necessarily used. However, all 
validated modules are presented and documented for completeness. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 B-2 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 August 2004 
APPENDIX C 
PREVIOUS MODEL VALIDATION -- CONFIDENCE BUILDING ACTIVITIES 
DURING DEVELOPMENT

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 August 2004 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-1 August 2004 
The purpose of this section is to document the difference between the stratigraphic contacts 
predicted by the geologic framework model and those observed for the boreholes USW SD-6 and 
USW WT-24. As discussed in Section 6.3.3 inclusion of these boreholes was one of the primary 
changes from GFM 3.0 to 3.1. The following text was the model validation discussion from the 
previous version of this model report (BSC 2002 [DIRS 168029]). Although this comparison was 
presented without specifying explicit model validation criteria at that time, it is being retained as 
it documents the match between predicted and actual stratigraphic contacts for the constrained 
and less constrained areas of the model as discussed in Section 6.6.2 and 6.6.3. This comparison 
supports the evaluation of uncertainty and limitations that are inherent to the geologic framework 
model, and enhances model confidence during the model development. 
As defined by procedure AP-SIII.10Q, Models, model validation is a process used to establish 
confidence that a mathematical model and its underlying conceptual model adequately represent 
with sufficient accuracy the system, process, or phenomenon in question. Confidence for the 
geologic framework model is defined by the uncertainty discussed in Section 6.6. Adequate is 
defined in the context of validation to mean the geologic framework model represents the real 
world with the content needed for subsequent model users and to the degree of accuracy needed 
for subsequent model users. Content is discussed in Section 6.2, where it was stated that the 
geologic framework model contains all the units and faults needed in subsequent uses identified 
to date. The accuracy of the geologic framework model relative to available data is discussed in 
Section C.3. In addition, for the geologic framework model to be adequate, it must be 
demonstrated to be a reasonable representation of the geology at Yucca Mountain. In this 
context, reasonable means in accordance with well-known geologic principles. The 
discussion of validation that follows establishes the validity of the geologic framework model in 
terms of its adequacy. 
As discussed in Section 6.6 and illustrated in Figure 6-26, when new data are acquired, the 
variability of the geologic system may be discovered to locally exceed the estimated uncertainty 
(which is based on observed variability in the previously available data). Under such conditions, 
no change to modeling methodology could have reduced the prediction errors; the geology was 
simply not predictable to a high degree of accuracy based on existing data (see for example the 
lowest horizon in Figure 6-26). In such a case, the model would be considered to be valid 
despite large prediction errors. For an individual prediction (and the model component on which 
it is based) to be invalid, two conditions must exist: first, the prediction falls outside the 
uncertainty window; and second, a reasonable change in the conceptual model and/or 
methodology would have resulted in the prediction falling within the uncertainty window. 
Uncertainty is mitigated in the geologic framework model by the application of established 
geologic principles in the modeling methodology to interpolate between the data and extrapolate 
into unknown areas; thus, if a better interpolation could reasonably be made during modeling to 
predict a stratigraphic contact in a borehole, then the model stands in need of improvement. 
Uncertainty can never be eliminated; it can only be reduced locally by additional data. 
No known modeling methodology would have closely predicted each of the geologic (actual) 
surfaces in the schematic model illustrated in Figure 6-26, except fortuitously. The methodology 
that was applied was reasonable and adequate, given the available data, and yet did not closely 
predict the upper and lower surfaces. In the case of the upper surface, the prediction error was 
within the bounds of observed variability (which is used to estimate uncertainty), and so would 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-2 August 2004 
be deemed acceptable. The prediction for the lower surface, however, was outside the bounds of 
observed variability (and estimated uncertainty) for that surface, and so the following questions 
must be answered: 
 Was the prediction reasonable in the context of available data? 
 Could the prediction error have been minimized by reasonable improvement to modeling 
methodology? 
For the example, in Figure 28, the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the 
second is no. The model made reasonable predictions based on the available datawhat the 
new borehole provided was new and unique information indicating that the geologic variability 
of the lower surface was greater than previously known. The modeling methodology 
successfully accounted for available data, and no reasonable alternative methodology would have 
prevented the prediction errors. 
The definition of a valid geologic model, then, is one that: 
 Adequately matches available data 
 Applies reasonable methodology to interpolate between data (i.e., to make predictions). 
For modeling methodology, reasonable means in accordance with well-known geologic 
principles. These principles include observed geometries of volcanic deposition, geologic 
contouring principles, and established interpolation methods. 
The geologic framework model was validated by predicting the subsurface geology for two 
boreholes and one tunnel using GFM3.0 (DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001 [DIRS 109050]), 
and comparing the predictions to the actual results in GFM3.1 (DTN: 
MO9901MWDGFM31.000 [DIRS 103769]). Because the same data and methods were used in 
GFM2000, the previous validation applies equally to the latest model revision. No new data are 
available to apply the same kind of validation directly to GFM2000; however, the jack-knife 
uncertainty estimates described previously provide a useful comparison to the model validation 
results and show similar results. GFM2000 was also evaluated for a match to available (input) 
data, and the results are discussed in Section C.3. 
C.1 VALIDATION CRITERIA 
To assess whether the geologic framework model provides an adequate representation of the 
geology of the site, the validation criteria were formulated as follows: 
 The model would be considered valid if 95 percent of the prediction errors were less than 
the estimated uncertainty (as described in Section 6.6) and the model results adequately 
matched the available (input) data. An adequate match to input data was previously 
defined by the requirements of geologic framework model users, which is plus or minus 
15 feet (5 meters) for contact elevations (CRWMS M&O 2000 [DIRS 158094], 
Attachment II). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-3 August 2004 
 The model would be considered invalid if more than 5 percent of the prediction errors 
were greater than the estimated uncertainty and the causes of the errors were determined 
to be failure of the modeling methodology. For prediction errors greater than the 
estimated uncertainty, the results were analyzed for a cause. Where the cause was 
determined to be the inherent geologic variability of the natural system (i.e., the available 
data do not permit accurate definition of unit geometries), the results did not adversely 
affect the model validation because no reasonable modification of modeling methodology 
would have reduced the prediction error. Where the cause was determined to be a failure 
of the modeling methodology (i.e., an incorrect interpolation, conceptual model, or 
interpretive constraints), the faulty portion of the model would be deemed invalid. 
Because the geologic framework model was constructed by combining rock layer thicknesses, 
thickness predictions were given the greatest weight in evaluating the validation results and 
causes of prediction errors. 
Some anomalous (i.e., not accurately predicted) rock layer thicknesses, elevations, or structures 
were expected given the geologically complex setting of Yucca Mountain on the flank of a major 
caldera complex, where depositional patterns, erosion, alteration, and multiple generations of 
faulting have contributed to increase variability in the geologic system. 
Model validation is closely related to the estimation of uncertainty, which is discussed in 
Section 6.6. Details of the uncertainty estimation methods are provided in Appendix A. 
C.2 PREDICTIONS FOR BOREHOLES SD-6 AND WT-24 AND THE ECRB 
CROSS-DRIFT 
Predictions were made from version GFM3.0, which was completed before boreholes SD-6 and 
WT-24 and the ECRB Cross-Drift were constructed (Figure 6-1). The model was then updated 
to incorporate the new data in versions GFM3.1 and GFM2000. The predictions for SD-6 and 
the ECRB Cross-Drift illustrate the predictive capability of the model and uncertainty in an area 
constrained by borehole data, whereas the predictions for WT-24 do so for a less constrained 
area. 
C.2.1 Predictions for Borehole SD-6 
Table C-1 and Figure C-1 show the predicted stratigraphy for borehole SD-6 and the actual 
results. Of 26 predicted contact depths, 25 (96 percent) were less than the estimated 
uncertainties for units Tpy, Tptrvl, and Tptpv3 as presented in Table 6-3 for the cross-correlation 
method. The prediction error for unit Tcp, the Prow Pass Tuff, is equal to the estimated 
uncertainty. Because this unit is deeper than unit Tptpv3, for which uncertainty was estimated, 
the uncertainty window for this unit is likely greater than -76 to +80 feet (-23.2 to +24.3 meters) 
due to increased natural variability and fewer available data with depth. The nearest borehole to 
SD-6 is approximately 2700 feet (823 meters) away; a total of 9 boreholes are within 5000 feet 
(1524 meters) of SD-6. For model validation purposes, however, the uncertainty window for 
unit Tptpv3 was used for unit Tcp. The source of the prediction error was errors in thickness 
predictions for two units above Tcp. As listed in Table C-1, model unit Tptpv1 was 22 feet 
(7 meters) thinner than predicted and unit Ta + Tacbt was 24 feet (8 meters) thinner than 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-4 August 2004 
predicted. These two thickness errors caused the subsequent elevation prediction errors; in other 
words, a thickness error in one unit results in cumulative errors in the units below (because the 
model is built downward from the base of the Tiva Canyon Tuff). In this case, the thickness 
predictions were inaccurate, causing the elevation prediction to be inaccurate, and the source of 
the errors must be determined. Because the magnitudes of several prediction errors were a 
significant fraction of the uncertainty, the causes of these errors are evaluated, beginning with the 
shallowest unit. 
Table C-1. Predicted Versus Actual Contacts (Tops) in Borehole SD-6 
Unit 
Actual 
Depth 
(feet)a 
GFM3.0 
Predicted 
Depth 
(feet)b 
Difference 
in Depth 
(Predicted 
Minus 
Actual) 
(feet) 
Actual 
Unit 
Thickness 
(feet) 
GFM3.0 
Predicted 
Thickness 
(feet)b 
Difference 
in Thickness 
(Predicted 
Minus 
Actual) 
(feet) 
Tpcpv3 415 414 -1 0 0 0 
Tpcpv2 415 414 -1 14 15 1 
Tpcpv1 429 429 0 13 8 -5 
Tpbt4 442 437 -5 3 7 4 
Tpy 445 444 -1 21 13 -8 
Tpbt3 466 457 -9 14 22 8 
Tpp 480 479 -1 9 11 2 
Tpbt2 489 490 1 29 33 4 
Tptrv3 517 523 6 3 13 10 
Tptrv2 521 536 15 5 4 -1 
Tptrv1 526 540 14 2 3 1 
Tptrn 527 543 16 105 98 -7 
Tptrl 632 641 9 14 44 30 
Tptf 646 685 39 0 0 0 
Tptpul 646 685 39 134 96 -38 
RHHtop 780 781 1 73 106 33 
Tptpmn 853 887 34 142 118 -24 
Tptpll 995 1,005 10 310 308 -2 
Tptpln 1,305 1,313 8 151 164 13 
Tptpv3 1,456 1,477 21 47 49 2 
Tptpv2 1,503 1,526 23 17 26 9 
Tptpv1 1,520 1,552 32 32 54 22 
Tpbt1 1,552 1,606 54 9 11 2 
Ta+Tacbt 1,561 1,617 56 154 178 24 
Tcp 1,715 1,795 80 388 379 -9 
Tcb 2,103 2,174 71 Not fully penetrated 
a DTN: SNF40060298001.001 [DIRS 107372]. 
b DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001 [DIRS 109050]. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-5 August 2004 
Cumulative error in predicted elevations was introduced by an error in the predicted thickness of 
unit Tptrl, which was 30 feet (9.1 meters) thinner than predicted. This error propagated to the 
units below, and other predicted thickness errors (right-side column of Table C-1) contributed to 
cumulative elevation errors. Because the model was constructed using thicknesses, the most 
accurate evaluation of the predictions is an assessment of the predicted thickness errors, 18 of 
which are 10 feet (3 meters) or less. The errors for units Tptrl, Tptpul, RHHtop, Tptpmn, and 
Tptpv1 were both positive and negative (too thick and too thin), as would be expected if the units 
formed in response to multiple postdepositional processes within the larger depositional unit (the 
Topopah Spring Tuff) as has been proposed (Buesch et al. 1996 [DIRS 100106], pp. 9 to 12). 
For each of these units, the geologic variability is therefore expected to be high relative to the 
available data distribution, similar to the upper surface in Figure 6-26. It is significant to note 
that the total Topopah Spring Tuff thickness prediction for SD-6 was within 5 percent of actual 
(1,035 feet (315 meters) actual versus 1,083 feet (330 meters) predicted), suggesting that the 
observed thickness variations of the subunits are indeed largely a function of depositional and 
postdepositional processes operating within the formation (i.e., one type of geologic variability). 
As an example of the variability of units internal to the Topopah Spring Tuff, the thickness of 
Tptpv1 ranges from 71 feet (22 meters) at SD-12, which is 3,000 feet (914 meters) east of SD-6, 
to 28 feet (9 meters) at UZ-6, which is 2,800 feet (853 meters) to the south (data from 
DTN: MO0004QGFMPICK.000 [DIRS 152554]). The thicknesses of the other units are 
similarly variable. Therefore, the cause of the error in predicted thicknesses (and resultant 
elevation errors) for Tptpv1 and the other Topopah subunits in SD-6 is ascribed to geologic 
variability that could not have been mitigated by modification of the modeling methods. 
Evaluation of the thickness of unit Ta + Tacbt produced similar results. The Calico Hills 
Formation was 24 feet (7.3 meters) thinner than expected (Figure 6-19), which indicates that 
geologic variability was the cause of the prediction error, not modeling methodology. Unit Ta 
ranges from 37 feet (11 meters) to 202 feet (62 meters) thick in the boreholes nearest SD-6. 
The cumulative elevation error caused by the thickness predictions for Tptpv1 and Ta also 
affected the elevation prediction at the top of the Prow Pass Tuff, which was 80 feet 
(24.4 meters) higher than predicted. The Prow Pass Tuff was only 9 feet (2.7 meters) thicker 
than expected, suggesting that the borehole may be located on a structural high that formed after 
deposition of the Prow Pass Tuff but before deposition of the Calico Hills Formation. Again, 
this is an example of geologic variability that could not have been minimized by modifications of 
the modeling methodology because it could not be predicted on the basis of existing data. The 
Prow Pass Tuff thickness map is illustrated in Figure 6-20. The model shows no effect of 
possible pre-Calico structure on the RHH (Figure 6-18). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-6 August 2004 
Source: Table C-1. 
Figure C-1. Comparison of Predicted Versus Actual Contact Depths in Borehole SD-6 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-7 August 2004 
In summary, the model meets all validation criteria for the SD-6 predictions; the model is 
validated with an acknowledgement that significant geologic variability exists in the vicinity of 
SD-6. Where prediction errors are greater than the estimated uncertainty, the causes are 
attributed to geologic variability and the cumulative error propagation associated with model 
contact elevation estimates. In view of the high-observed variability of these units, the 
prediction errors could not have been minimized by reasonable modifications to modeling 
methodology. Because it is relatively well constrained by surrounding boreholes, borehole SD-6 
illustrates the predictive capabilities of the geologic framework model and the effects of geologic 
variability on model predictions in a constrained area. 
C.2.2 Predictions for Borehole WT-24 
Because borehole WT-24 was located on the fringes of the area constrained by boreholes when it 
was drilled, it provides an assessment of uncertainty for the geologic framework model in a less 
constrained area. In addition, WT-24 is located in an area that is more stratigraphically and 
structurally complex than borehole SD-6, so the predictions at WT-24 are expected to be less 
accurate (that is, the uncertainty is greater due to geologic complexity and lack of nearby 
subsurface data). The nearest borehole to WT-24 is approximately 3,200 feet (975 meters) away 
(borehole G-2; Figure 6-2) and no others are within 5,000 feet (1,500 meters). Even though 
prediction error is expected to be greater, for evaluation purposes the predictions were compared 
to the uncertainty for constrained areas discussed in Section 6.6.3. 
Table C-2 and Figure C-2 show the predicted stratigraphy for borehole WT-24 and the actual 
results. Twenty-three of 24 elevation prediction errors (96 percent) were less than the estimated 
uncertainty given in Table 6-3 for the cross-correlation method for units Tpy, Tptrvl, and 
Tptpv3, and the model is considered valid; however, it is readily apparent from Table C-2 that 
significant prediction errors exist, and the causes must be understood. 
Table C-2. Predicted Versus Actual Contacts (Tops) in Borehole WT-24 
Unit 
Actual 
Depth 
(feet)a 
GFM3.0 
Predicted 
Depth 
(feet)b 
Difference 
in Depth 
(Predicted 
Minus 
Actual) 
(feet) 
Actual 
Thickness 
(feet) 
GFM3.0 
Predicted 
Thickness 
(feet)b 
Difference 
in Thickness 
(feet) 
Tpcpv3 215 241 26 0 0 0 
Tpcpv2 215 241 26 40 5 -35 
Tpcpv1 255 246 -9 24 17 -7 
Tpbt4 279 263 -16 3 7 4 
Tpy 282 270 -12 83 88 6 
Tpbt3 365 358 -7 110 129 20 
Tpp 474 487 13 185 212 27 
Tpbt2 659 699 40 36 32 -4 
Tptrv3 695 731 36 0 7 7 
Tptrv2 695 738 43 2 4 2 
Tptrv1 697 742 45 0 2 2 
Tptrn 697 744 47 164 166 2 
Tptrl 861 910 49 24 5 -19 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-8 August 2004 
Table C-2. Predicted Versus Actual Contacts (Tops) in Borehole WT-24 (Continued) 
Unit 
Actual 
Depth 
(feet)a 
GFM3.0 
Predicted 
Depth 
(feet)b 
Difference 
in Depth 
(Predicted 
Minus 
Actual) 
(feet) 
Actual 
Thickness 
(feet) 
GFM3.0 
Predicted 
Thickness 
(feet)b 
Difference 
in Thickness 
(feet) 
Tptf 885 915 31 53 0 -53 
Tptpul 937 915 -22 181 28 -153 
RHHtop 1,118 943 -175 34 213 179 
Tptpmn 1,152 1,156 4 110 51 -59 
Tptpll 1,262 1,207 -55 363 398 35 
Tptpln 1,625 1,605 -20 55 0 -55 
Tptpv3 1,680 1,605 -75 41 44 3 
Tptpv2 1,721 1,649 -72 9 20 11 
Tptpv1 1,730 1,669 -61 22 26 4 
Tptbt1 1,752 1,695 -57 17 40 23 
Ta 1,769 1,735 -34 Not fully penetrated 
a DTN: SNF40060198001.001 [DIRS 107239]. 
b DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001 [DIRS 109050]. 
The prediction error for unit RHHtop was greater than the estimated uncertainties for unit Tptrvl 
above and unit Tptpv3 below, and was caused by an error in the predicted thickness for unit 
Tptpul. The mismatch for most units is the result of cumulative errors. The thicknesses of 3 
model units (Tpcpv2, Tpbt3, and Tpp) caused errors in the depth predictions for 16 units below, 
and additional thickness variability in the internal Topopah Spring Tuff units (Tptrl through 
Tptpln) caused additional errors. The causes of error in the isochores (thickness predictions) are 
discussed below, beginning with the shallowest unit. 
As illustrated in Figures 6-13 and 6-14, the PTn units, including the Pah Canyon Tuff (model 
unit Tpp), thicken rapidly toward the north in the area of WT-24. Without the constraint of 
WT-24, few data are available to constrain the thicknesses of these units in this area, and the 
thicknesses are not predictable to a high degree of accuracy. No reasonable conceptual model or 
known interpolation method could have been used to make an accurate prediction of Tpbt3 and 
Tpp thicknesses. In this context, the thickness prediction errors of only 20 feet (6 meters) and 
27 feet (8 meters) are acceptable. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-9 August 2004 
Source: Table C-2. 
Figure C-2. Comparison of Predicted Versus Actual Contact Depths in Borehole WT-24 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-10 August 2004 
As discussed for the borehole SD-6 predictions, units internal to the Topopah Spring Tuff (Tptf, 
Tptpul, RHHtop, Tptpmn, and Tptpln) and similar units in the Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpcpv2) were 
formed by multiple depositional and postdepositional processes (Buesch et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100106], pp. 9 to 12), which resulted in variable thicknesses that are not predictable to a 
high degree of accuracy based on the available data. This conclusion is supported by the 
observation that the predicted thicknesses for the units within the Topopah Spring Tuff and Tiva 
Canyon Tuff in WT-24 are both positive and negative (too thick and too thin) with a mean 
difference in thickness value of only -9 feet (-2.7 meters), suggesting that variability is internal to 
the larger formation. The model isochore map for the RHH (Figure 6-18), which includes units 
RHHtop, Tptpmn, Tptpll, and Tptpln shows that this interval changes thickness rapidly across 
the area of WT-24. The unit ranges in thickness from 502 feet (153 meters) to 760 feet 
(232 meters) in the nearest boreholes, and is constrained by geologic map data 
(DTN: GS980608314221.002 [DIRS 107024]) to pinch out at the northeast corner of the 
modeled area. In view of the steep thickness gradient and the variable nature of the subunits, it is 
concluded that the thickness prediction errors for these units and the elevation prediction for unit 
RHHtop could not have been minimized by reasonable modifications to modeling methodology. 
It is important to note that the Topopah Spring Tuff is 93 feet (28 meters) thicker than predicted, 
and that most of the difference is contributed by the 55 feet (17 meters) of Tptpln and 53 feet 
(16 meters) of Tptf, which were both predicted to be absent in the borehole based on existing 
data. Without these units, the predicted thickness of the formation was close to actual 
(1,057 - 108 = 949 feet (289 meters)) versus 964 feet (294 meters) predicteda difference of 
only 15 feet (4.6 meters), or within about 1.6 percentsuggesting that the overall modeling 
methodology is appropriate for the geology of the modeled area. The thickness variabilities 
observed were most likely caused by singular combinations of depositional and postdepositional 
processes that affected individual rock layers (i.e., variability of the natural system) within 
the formation. 
The bottom of the Calico Hills Formation (Ta) was not penetrated in borehole WT-24, even 
though drilling progressed to more than 300 feet (91 meters) below the predicted depth. No 
subsurface control exists for Ta thickness east of borehole G-2, and the bottom of Ta is not 
exposed anywhere to the northeast, so its maximum thickness is unknown. The poor subsurface 
constraints in the northern part of the modeled area do not permit definition of the maximum 
expected uncertainty for the thickness of the Calico Hills Formation in this area. 
In summary, despite some large prediction errors, the model predictions based on existing data 
for this poorly constrained region were reasonable, and the model meets all validation criteria for 
the WT-24 predictions. Because the borehole is located in a less constrained area on the flank of 
a caldera complex, the large prediction errors are not surprising. For the one prediction error that 
was greater than the estimated uncertainty for the underlying unit Tptpv3, the cause is ascribed to 
geologic variability that was not well constrained by available data. For this unit, prediction 
errors could not have been lessened by reasonable modifications to modeling methodology. 
Because it is not well constrained by surrounding boreholes, borehole WT-24 illustrates the 
magnitude of geologic variability expected to be found in less constrained areas, especially in the 
northern part of the modeled area. 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-11 August 2004 
C.2.3 Predictions for Enhanced Characterization of the Repository Block Cross-Drift 
Table C-3 shows predicted and actual locations of stratigraphic contacts for the ECRB 
Cross-Drift. The vertical differences between predicted and actual stratigraphic contacts 
accounted for tunnel alignment and stratal tilt. All three prediction errors were less than the 
estimated uncertainty for these horizons at this location for the subjacent unit Tptpv3 (shown in 
Table 6-3), and the model is considered valid. 
Table C-3. Locations of Predicted and Actual Stratigraphic Contacts for the ECRB Cross-Drift 
Contact Predicted Stationa Actual Stationb Vertical Difference 
Tptpmn (top) 10+78 meters 10+15 meters 23 feet (7 meters) 
Tptpll (top) 15+21 meters 14+44 meters 26 feet (8 meters) 
Tptpln (top) 24+10 meters 23+26 meters 75.5 feet (23 meters) 
a DTN: MO9804MWDGFM03.001 [DIRS 109050]. 
b DTN: GS981108314224.005 [DIRS 109070]. 
In the west end of the drift, faults with vertical displacements of 10 feet to greater than 16 feet 
(3 meters to greater than 5 meters) (not included in GFM2000) appear to have caused most of the 
difference between predicted and actual elevations for the Tptpln contact. Although the faults in 
the west end of the tunnel were not evident at the surface, they were anticipated in concept 
because it was known beforehand that structural deformation increases in proximity to the 
Solitario Canyon fault and that small faults could be present there. In the ECRB Cross-Drift, the 
Tptpln contact is within 650 feet (200 meters) horizontally of the Solitario Canyon fault. 
Because it is so close, the prediction error for the Tptpln contact can be explained in terms of 
geologic variability and could not have been reasonably expected to be minimized by 
modifications to modeling methodology. 
The predictions for the cross-block drift suggest that the geologic framework model will provide 
adequate predictions of subsurface stratigraphy for future repository tunneling, but that geologic 
variability is high on the western edge near the Solitario Canyon fault, and small faults like those 
in the cross-block drift could be encountered at other locations. In locations where uncertainty 
must be reduced for repository design or tunneling operations, the model validation results 
suggest that new boreholes would be required. 
C.3 MATCH TO AVAILABLE DATA 
Borehole contacts selected to provide a range of depths and because they are major lithologic 
horizons of interest to geologic framework model users were compared to the results of 
GFM2000, and the differences are tabulated in Table C-4. Existing EARTHVISION utilities 
were used to calculate the intersections between the borehole data and selected horizon grids 
from the model. Adequacy of the results was previously determined by the requirements of the 
geologic framework model users and is plus or minus 15 feet (5 meters) (CRWMS M&O 2000 
[DIRS 158094], Attachment II). As the results show, all contacts were matched within the 
uncertainty window. The large values at the C-holes complex were caused by the close spacing 
of these holes to one another relative to the grid node spacing (see Section 6.3.4). Other values 
greater than 2 feet (0.6 meters) are caused by proximity to faults or steep slopes. Borehole 
UZ-7a was not used in this analysis because it is located in the Ghost Dance fault zone, where 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-12 August 2004 
multiple fault strands preclude an accurate match between the geologic framework model and all 
data from the borehole. UZN holes were not used because they provide few contacts. 
Based on the match between available data and the geologic framework model results, the model 
is considered to be valid. 
Table C-4. Match of GFM2000 Output Model Grids to Input Unit Contacts in Major Boreholes 
Borehole Tpcpv2 Tpbt4 Tptrv3 Tptpmn Tptpv3 Ta Tcp Tcb Tct 
a#1 -2 -2 -2 -1 0 1 2 ND ND 
b#1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 
c#1 -3 0 -4 -4 2 11 13 4 ND 
c#2 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -2 0 ND 
c#3 3 0 3 11 5 -2 -12 -5 ND 
G-1 ND ND -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -3 
G-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
G-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
G-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 
H-1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 
H-3 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 
H-4 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 
H-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
H-6 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 
ONC#1 -1 -1 -1 2 ND 4 ND ND ND 
p#1 ND ND 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 
SD-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND ND 
SD-6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND ND 
SD-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 
SD-9 0 0 1 0 0 0 ND ND ND 
UZ-14 ND ND -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 ND ND 
UZ#16 1 1 0 0 0 0 ND ND ND 
UZ-1 ND ND 1 2 ND ND ND ND ND 
WT-10 0 0 0 0 ND ND ND ND ND 
WT-11 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND ND ND 
WT#12 0 0 0 1 1 1 ND ND ND 
WT#13 1 1 0 2 ND ND ND ND ND 
WT#14 ND ND ND 0 0 0 ND ND ND 
WT#15 -7 0 0 0 ND ND ND ND ND 
WT#16 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND ND ND 
WT#17 0 0 0 0 0 9 ND ND ND 
WT#18 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND ND ND 
WT-1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 ND ND ND 
WT-24 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND ND ND 
WT-2 -1 0 -1 1 0 0 ND ND ND 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-13 August 2004 
Table C-4. Match of GFM2000 Output Model Grids to Input Unit Contacts in Major Boreholes 
(Continued) 
Borehole Tpcpv2 Tpbt4 Tptrv3 Tptpmn Tptpv3 Ta Tcp Tcb Tct 
WT#3 ND ND ND ND 0 -4 -4 ND ND 
WT#4 1 1 1 1 1 1 ND ND ND 
WT#6 ND ND ND 1 1 1 ND ND ND 
WT-7 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 ND ND ND 
ND = no data. 
NOTES: Actual minus predicted elevations in feet. 
Large values for C-holes complex are caused by close hole spacing (see Section 6.3.4). 
C.4 VALIDATION RESULTS 
The predictions of subsurface geology made from the geologic framework model (GFM3.0) for 
boreholes SD-6 and WT-24 and the ECRB Cross-Drift, and the match of the GFM2000 model 
results to available borehole data were used to validate the geologic framework model. While 
two prediction errors were greater than the estimated uncertainty, no prediction errors were 
found that were caused by a deficiency in the modeling methodology. The model was also 
shown to provide an adequate representation of selected data within a window of 15 feet 
(5 meters). Therefore, the results provide confidence that the geologic framework model 
satisfies all validation criteria. Nevertheless, the magnitudes of some prediction errors were a 
significant fraction of the estimated uncertainty, but in each case the errors were caused by 
geologic variability and not by incorrect modeling methodology. These results indicate that the 
geologic framework model should be used with caution in applications that require errors less 
than the estimated uncertainty. The results of the validation are considered to demonstrate that 
the geologic framework model provides an adequate representation of the geology of Yucca 
Mountain. 
In addition, NRC staff performed an independent evaluation of GFM3.1 to 1) understand the 
main differences between model versions, 2) test and evaluate the adequacy of the geologic 
framework model for the U.S. Department of Energys purposes of representing site stratigraphy 
and faults as a framework for its integrated site model, and 3) consider replacing the NRCs 
Geologic Site Model with an adapted version of the geologic framework model as NRCs 
three-dimensional model of the site for independent NRC analyses (NRC 1999 [DIRS 135621], 
p. E-1). The staff concluded that 1) GFM3.1 was an improved representation of the geologic 
features of the site, 2) GFM3.1 is an interpretation of the geologic framework of Yucca 
Mountain that will continue to evolve as new data or improved or alternative interpretations are 
developed, and 3) the NRC will adapt a version of GFM3.1 for NRCs use in conducting 
three-dimensional analyses of the Yucca Mountain Site, including reviews of subsequent 
geologic framework model versions (NRC 1999 [DIRS 135621], p. E-3). The staff further 
concluded that the level of detail and accuracy of the geologic framework model are adequate for 
the planned scope of the integrated site model and users of the geologic framework model, the 
representation of faults is adequate for intended use (NRC 1999 [DIRS 135621], p. E-59), and 
the representation of stratigraphy is adequate for intended use (NRC 1999 [DIRS 135621], 
pp. E-20 and E-21). 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 C-14 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 August 2004 
APPENDIX D 
INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT, YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT, 
GEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK MODEL: GFM2000 MAY 17-28, 2004 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 August 2004 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 D-1 August 2004 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 D-2 August 2004 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 D-3 August 2004 

Geologic Framework Model (GFM2000) 
MDL-NBS-GS-000002 REV 02 D-4 August 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK