ML20206F024

Rev 1 of Irsr, Key Technical Issue:Structural Deformation & Seismicity

ML20206F024
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/30/1998
From:	NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
References
NUDOCS 9905050313
Download: ML20206F024 (180)

Text

I I

I I

ISSUE RESOLUTION STATUS REPORT I

I KEY TECHNICAL ISSUE:

STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION AND SEISMICITY I

I I

I Division of Waste Management I

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I

I l

Revision 1 l

SEPTEMBER 1998 l

w 8 ara wo PDR p

(jY

/{

gs Q

,I t

A c h 4 WT5

I I

I I

ISSUE RESOLUTION STATUS REPORT I

l KEY TECHNICAL ISSUE:

STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION AND SEISMICITY I

I I

I Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards I

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I

I l

Revision 1 l

SEPTEMBER 1998 I

I

I CHANGE HISTORY of" Issue Resolution Status Report, Key Technicalissue: Structural Deformation and Seismicity"

[ Boldface = major change in current revision)

Section/

lg Revision #

Paragraoh Data Modification

E O

n/a 4/98 n/a, initialissue 1

most 9/98 Minor editorial, format, style, consistency, section-number l

changes, or conform to new terminology, or new section titles

!I l

1 Acknowl.

9/98 Update 1

1 Quality 9/98 Update 1

3.2.1 G/98 Minor revision 1

3.2.1.1 9/98 Major revisions to reflect sensitivity studies completed after Rev.0

\\l l

lE 1

3.2.2 9/98 Minor revision l

1 3.2.2.1 9/98 Major revisions to reflect sensitivity studies completed B

after Rev.0 1

1 3.2.3 9/98 Major revision to support USFIC KTl l

1 3.2.4 9/98 Minor revision to clarify need for subissue to constrain hazards and risks I

1 4.0 9/98 Minor revisions: add period of performance to last l

sentence, para.1; add analysis of risk to last sentence, l

para.2; add global analogs to first sentence, para.3 1

4.1 9/98 Minor revision I

1 4.1.1 9/98 Minor revisions: add period of performance to sentence 2, para.1; add analog to sentence 2, para.2; shorten section

'I 1

4.1.1.2 9/98 Revision of Type I fault details to reflect new data and reformat of database, Appendix B 1

4.1.2 9/98 New section on fault displacement hazard (FDH) 1 4.1.2.1 9/98 New section of FDH acceptance criteria 1

4.1.2.2 9/98 New section of FDH technical bases I

I

r L

l Section/

l Revision #

Paraaraoh Daig Modification 1

4.2 9/98 New section on seismicity i

1 4.2.1 9/98 New section on seismic hazard (SH) i 1

4.2.1.1 9/98 New section of SH acceptance criteria 1

4.2.1.2 9/98 New section of SH technical bases I

i 1

4.3 9/98 New section on fracturing and structural framework of the geologic setting (FSF)

I 1

4.3.1 9/98 New section on FSF 1

4.3.1.1 9/98 New section on FSF acceptance criteria 1

4.3.1.2 9/98 New section on FSF technical bases 1

4.4.1.1 9/98 Minor revision: clarify Criteria 3,4 and 5 g

1 4.4.1.2 9/98 Add paragraphs: evaluation of viable tectonic models; E

role of faults in the distribution of dikes and volcanoes, planar versus listric fault geometries, and Geologic Framework Model 3.0 l

1 4.4.2 9/98 New section on crustal conditions (CC) 1 4.4.2.1 9/98 Minor new section on CC acceptance criteria TBD 1

4.4.2.2 9/98 New section on CC technical bases 1

5.1 9/98 New section 1

1 5.1.1 9/98 New section on faulting subissue analysis TBD 1

i 1

5.1.2.2 9/98 New section on resolved subissue of faulting causing waste package failures 1

5.1.2.3 9/98 New section on resolved subissue of faulting exhuming waste packages 1

5.1.2.4 9/98 Major revision reflecting resolution of four SCA items j

I 1

5.1.3.2 9/98 Revision of Type i fault details reflect new information in l

Appendix B 1

I I

W l

I Section/

Revision #

Paraaraoh Qata Modification 1

5.1.3.4 9/98 Major revision to reflect reduction of SCA open items from ten.to six 1

5.2 9/98 New section 1

5.2.1 9/98 New section on seismicity subissue analysis TBD 1

5.2.2.1 9/98 Major new section reflects resolution of probabilistic seismic hazard methodology 1

5.2.2.2 9/98 Major revision to reflect resolution of SCA item, Comment 67, omitted from Revision O.

1 5.2.3.1 9/98 Major revision to reflect seismic hazard open item status 1

5.2.3.2 9/98 Major new section to reflect ground motion and rockfall open item 1

5.3.1 9/98 New section to reflect analysis of subissue on FSF TBD 1

5.3.2 9/98 New section TBD 1

5.3.2.1 9/98 Major new section states there are no SCA items on FSF 1

5.3.3 9/98 New section on FSF open items TBD 1

5.4.1 9/98 New section to reflect analysis of CC TBD 1

5.4.2.2 9/98 Major new section reflects resolved item on DOE's Geologic Framework Model(GFM 3.0) 1 5.4.3.2 9/98 Major new section reflects open item on DOE's preferred I

tectonic model 1

5.4.3.3 9/98 Major new section reflects open item on DOE Integrated I

Site Models 1

5.4.3.4 9/98 Major new section reflects open item on crustal strain at Yucca Mountain

\\

i 1

6.0 9/08 Update references and combine into one section I

1 7.0/ App.B 9/98 Inserted data and new column on seismic sources considered by DOE's PSHA experts in B-1 thru B-4; added B 5 on seismic sources I

1

(__

Section/

Revision #

Paraaraoh Data Modification 1

7.0/ App.D 9/98 Major format change to numerical order; new categorization list (p. D-1); major revisions to reflect resolution of Comments 36,62,64,67 and 71 1

7.0/ App.E 9/98 Major new figures: E location map; E-2 and E Type I fault maps; major new tables: E geologic time scale; E stratigraphic nomenclature 1

7.0/ App.F 9/98 Major new tests and evaluations of Geologic Framework Model (GFM 3.0) 1 7.0/ App.G 9/98 Placeholder for ' Glossary of terms'- TBD

l TABLE OF CONTENTS Section ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv QUALITY OF DATA, ANALYSES, AND CODE DEVELOPMENT 1.0 I NTR O D U C TION...........................................

1 1

1.1 PURPOSE 1

1.2 SCOPE OF KEY TECHNICAL ISSUE 1

1.3 CONTENT OF ISSUE RESOLUTION STATUS REPORT SECTIONS.

2 2.0 ISSUE AND SUBISSUES STATEMENTS 3

3.0 IMPORTANCE OF SUBISSUES TO REPOSITORY PERFORMANCE.....

5 1

3.1 RELATIONSHIP OF SUBISSUES TO THE U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S REPOSITORY SAFETY STRATEGY 5

I 3.2 RELATIONSHIP AND IMPORTANCE OF SUBISSUES TO TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE 6

3.2.1 Faulting -What Are the Viable Models of Faults and Fault Displacements at Yucca Mountain?.

6 i

3.2.1.1 NRC/CNWRA Sensitivity Studies of Faulting 7

3.2.2 Seismicity - What Are the Viable Models of Seismic Sources I

and Seismic Motion at Yucca Mountain?..

12 3.2.2.1 NRC/CNWRA Sensitivity Studies of Seismicity 13 3.2.3 Fracturing and Structural Framework of the Geologic Setting

- What Are the Vaabte Models of Fractures at Yucca Mountain?

16 3.2.3.1 NRC/CNWRA Sensitivity Studies of Fracturing 16 3.2.4 Tectonics and Crustal Conditions - What are the Viable Tectonic McJels at Yucca Mountain?....

17 3.2.4.1 NRC/CNWRA Sensitivity Studies of Tectonics.

17 4.0 REVIEW METHODS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 18 1

4.1 FAULTING...

18 4.1.1 Type i Faults 19 4.1.1.1 Acceptance Criteria 19 I

4.1.1.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria 20 4.1.2 Fault Displacement Hazard 23 4.1.2.1 Acceptance Criteria.

24 4.1.2.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria

. 24 4.2 SEISMICITY 27 4.2.1 Seismic Hazard 28 4.2.1.1 Acceptance Criteria.

28 I

i

1 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Section 4.2.1.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria.

29 4.3 FRACTURING AND STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF THE GEOLOGIC SETTING...............

32 4.3.1 Viable Fracture Models............................

33 4.3.1.1 Acceptance Criteria......

34 4.3.1.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria 35 4.4 TECTONICS AND CRUSTAL CONDITIONS 40 4.4.1 Viable Tectonic Models......

40 4.4.1.1 Acceptance Criteria...

. 40 4.4.1.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria...

. 41 4.4.2 Crustal Conditions.......

48 4.4.2.1 Acceptance Criteria

. 48 4.4.2.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria 49 5.0 STATUS OF SUBISSUE RESOLUTION 52 5.1 FAULTING 52 5.1.1 Analysis of subissue resolution

. 52 5.1.2 Summary of items Resolved at the Staff Level 52 5.1.2.1 Type i Faults 52 5.1.2.2 Faulting Causing Waste Package Failures

. 53 5.1.2.3 Faulting Exhuming Waste Packages 53 5.1.2.4 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) Items.....

54 5.1.3 Summary of items Open and Path to Resolution.

54 5.1.3.1 Faulting.

54 5.1.3.2 Type 1 Faults..........

. 54 5.1.3.3 Fault Displacement Hazard 54 5.1.3.4 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) ltems 54 5.2 SEISMICITY.............

54 5.2.1 Analysis of Subissue Resolution 55 5.2.2 Summary of items Resolved at the Staff Level 55 5.2.2.1 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Methodology 55 5.2.2.2 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) ltems.

55 5.2.3 Summary of items Open and Path to Resolution 55 5.2.3.1 Seismic Hazard.........

55 5.2.3.2 Ground Motion and Rockfall..

. 56 5.3 FRACTURING AND STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF THE GEOLOGIC SETTING...................

56 5.3.1 Analysis of Subissue Resolution 56 5.3.2 Summary of items Resolved at the Staff Level 57 5.3.2.1 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) Items 57 5.3.3 Summary of items Open and Path to Resolution

. 57 5.4 TECTONICS AND CRUSTAL CONDITIONS...

57 5.4.1 Analysis of Subissue Resolution...............

57 ii i

l TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

Section 1,

5.4.2 Summary ofitems Resolved at the Staff Level.

57 5.4.2.1 Viable Tectonic Models 57 5.4.2.2 Geologic Framework Model Version 3.0 (GFM 3.0).

57 I

5.4.3 Summary of items Open and Path to Resolution...

58 5.4.3.1 Tectonics and Crustal Conditions..

58 5.4.3.2 DOE's " Preferred" Tectonic Model.

. 58 I

5.4.3.3 DOE Integrated Site Models (ISM) 59 5.4.3.4 Crustal Strain at Yucca Mountain...

59 5.4.3.5 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) items.....

. 60 I

5.4.3.6 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) -

Other Geoscience.

60

6.0 REFERENCES

CITED......

61 7.0 APPENDICES A) Flow-Down Diagram I

B) Classification of Quatemary Faults Within 100 Km of Yucca Mountain

1. Faults Classified as Type i by Both CNWRA and USGS i

2. Faults Classified as Type I by USGS But Not by CNWRA

3. Faults Classified as Type lil by Both USGS and CNWRA

4. Faults Classified as Type I by CNWRA But Not by USGS

5. Faults Used As Seismic Sources By Seismic Source Experts C) Classification of Tectonic Models at Yucca Mountain Vicinity

1. Summary of Viable Tectonic Models

2. Summary of Tectonic Models Considered Not Viable

3. Summary of Effects on Performance of Viable Tectonic Models D) Disposition of items on Structural Deformation and Seismicity from I

Site Characterization Analysis E) Figures and Tables Figure E-1 Regional Map of the Yucca Mountain Area I

Figure E-2 Location of Faults Between 10 km and 100 km of Yucca Mountain Figure E-3 Location of Faults at or near Yucca Mountain I

Table E-1 Geologic Time Scale Table E-2 Yucca Mountain Area Stratigraphy

^

F) Tests and Evaluations of DOE's Geologic Framework Model Version 3.0 (GFM 3.0)

Part 1.

Summary and Stratigraphic Analyses

[

Part ll.

Structural Geologic Analyses G) Glossary

[

iii w

F l

I lI t

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS lI l

This and the previous report were prepared jointly by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

and the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) staffs. Primary authors of l

the reports are Philip S. Justus (NRC), John A. Stamatakos (CNWRA) [co-leads), [and in alphabetical order) Rui Chen (CNWRA). David A. Ferrill (CNWRA), Abou-Bakr K. Ibrahim l

(NRC), H. Lawrence McKague (CNWRA), and Darrell Sims (CNWRA). The primary authors of l

Appendix F are Gerry L. Stirewalt (MANDEX, Inc.), Joseph H. Bangs (CNWRA), and l

Alan P. Morris (University of Texas - San Antonio).

The authors thank N. King Stablein (NRC), David J. Brooks (NRC), Charles B. Connor (CNWRA), Budhi Sagar (CNWRA), Michael Miklas (CNWRA), and James R. Firth (NRC) for their early, repeated, and useful reviews. Reviews by seven technical staff at Headquarters and CNWRA helped to improve the manuscript. Editorial and document preparation i

assistance by Donald Moore and Annette Mandujano (CNWRA) greatly improved the quality of the document. The patience and skills of Carrie Crawford (NRC)in coordinating, editing, and producing the manuscripts are greatly appreciated.

QUALITY OF DATA, ANALYSES, AND CODE DEVELOPMENT l

Data: CNWRA-generated original data contained in this report meet quality assurance (QA) requirements described in the CNWRA QA manual. Sources for other data should be I

consulted for determination of the level of quality of those data.

ANALYSES AND CODES: The software 3DSTRESS, Version 1.2, was used for some analyses in this report. Version 1.2 has recently been put under the CNWRA Technical iI Operations Procedure (TOP)-18. The TPA code, Version 3.1.1, was used for some analyses in this report. This code has not been placed under the CNWRA Technical Operations Procedure (TOP)-18.

l I

l

'g i

iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE Consistent with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations on prelicensing I

consultations and a 1992 agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), staff-level issue resolution can be achieved during the pre-licensing consultation period. However, such resolution at the stafflevel would not preclude the issue from being considered during the licensing proceedings. Issue resolution at the staff level during pre-licensing is achieved when j

I the staff has no further questions or comments (i.e., open items) at a point in time, regarding how the DOE program is addressing an issue. There may be some cases where resolution at the staff level may be limited to documenting a common understanding regarding differences in i

NRC and DOE points of view. Pertinent additionalinformation could raise new questions or comments regarding a previously resolved issue.

An important step in the staffs approach to issue resolution is to provide DOE with feedback regarding the adequacy of its program, before the viability assessment. Issue Resolution Status Reports (IRSRs) represent the primary mechanism that the staff will use to provide DOE I

feedback on the subissues making up the Key Technical Issues (KTis). IRSRs comprise:

(1) acceptance criteria that will be used by the staff to review the DOE license application and prelicensing submittals, as well as for indicating the basis for resolution of the subissue; and (2)

I the status of resolution, including where the staff currently has no comments or questions as well as where it does. Feedback is also contained in the staffs Periodic Progress Report, which summarizes the significant technical work toward resolution of all KTis during the preceding I

fiscal year (FY). Finally, open meetings and technical exchanges with DOE provide opportunities to: (1) discuss issue resolution; (2) identify areas of agreement and disagreement; and (3) develop plans to resolve such disagreements.

In addition to providing feedback, the IRSRs will be guidance for the staffs review of DOE's viability assessment. The staff also plans to use the IRSRs in the future to develop the Standard Review Plan for the repository license application.

This IRSR documents the status of resolution of seismotectonic subissues determined to have significance to performance evaluations of a candidate high level radioactive waste repository I

at Yucca Mountain. Parts of three of the subissues are resolved at the staff level, and the bases for such resolution are provided. For parts of those three subissues unresolved at the staff level, the bases for that status are provided along with at least one mechanism for achieving resolution. Further, this report ensures that: (1) all significant seismotectonic issues are identified and adequately characterized; and (2) that their significance is sufficiently understood and fully considered and used appropriately to evaluate long-term performance and as input to an adequate repository design by DOE.

1.2 SCOPE OF KEY TECHNICAL ISSUE

.I l

The scope of the Structural Deformation and Seismicity (SDS) Key Technical Issue includes the geologic features, events, processes, and conditions in and around the candidate repository I

that result from tectonic activities (except Igneous Activity, subject of a separate KTl), and that may affect or do affect evaluation of long-term performance. Subissues that may affect or do affect evaluation of natural and engineered barrier systems (EBS) and performance include: (1) lI

faulting; (2) seismicity; (3) fracturing and structural framework models; and (4) tectonics.

Matters that concem SDS effects on waste containment and isolation and repository design for

,g the pre-closure phase and on flow and transport in the post-closure are also within scope and 3

will be included in a subsequent report.

1.3 CONTENT OF ISSUE RESOLUTION STATUS REPORT SECTIONS This IRSR is organized to document the NRC staff's current position on resolution of the SDS KTl for the purpose of evaluating the performance of a repository at Yucca Mountain. The KTl I-will be considered resolved when allits ancillary subissues are resolved. Section 1,

" Introduction," describes the purpose and scope of this KTI. Section 2, " Issue and Subissue Statements," states the objectives of the KTl and defines the key issue and the subissues.

Section 3, "importance of Subissues to Repository Performance," provides a perspective on the role each subissue has in the Total System Performance Assessment (TSPA). A quantitative analysis of significance of several subissue components to dose is based on sensitivity analyses using NRC's Total Performance Analysis (TPA) code. Relationship of subissues to DOE's Repository Safety Strategy (RSS) is also discussed.

Section 4, " Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria," describes the minimum quantity, quality l

and level of detail of information required of DOE for NRC staff to evaluate the adequacy of DOE's proposed resolution of each subissue. The section explains why the information is lI required, and what methods NRC staff may use to determine whether the standard for resolution has been met. The criteria will be used to evaluate DOE's pre-licensing and licensing submittals. Section 5 " Status of Subissue Resolution," explains the bases for resolution of

'E Type I faults, effects of faulting and rockfall on waste packages, viable tectonic models and E

seismic hazard assessment methodology; Geologic Framework Model 3.0; and provides paths i

to resolution of open items. Open items will be tracked by the staff, and resolution will be documented in subsequent revisions of this IRSR.

l.

1 2

I I

r-I 2.0 ISSUE AND SUBISSUES STATEMENTS The primary objective of this KTl is to effect an evaluation of all aspects of the seismotectonic features, events and processes (FEPs) of the geologic setting of Yucca Mountain that have the potential to compromise the performance of the proposed repository. The secondary objective of this KTl is to develop review procedures to technically evaluate the adequacy of DOE's

.I characterization of key site-and regional-scale seismotectonic FEPs that may adversely affect performance.

The key technical issue to be resolved, broadly stated, is:

Structural deformation and seismicity (seismotectonic FEPs) that may significantly affect the

.I performance of a repository at Yucca Mountain are: (1) identified and adequately characterized; (2) their significance is sufficiently understood and fully considered; and (3) relevant interpretations (e.g., abstractions and models) are used appropriately to evaluate long term performance by DOE.

Subissues considered important to the resolution of this KTl include:

(i)

Faulting - What are the viable models of faults and fault displacements at Yucca l

Mountain?

(ii)

Seismicity - What are the viable models of seismic sources and seismic motion at Yucca Mountain?

(iii)

Fracturing and Structural Framework of the Geologic Setting - What are the viable models of fractures and structural controls of flow at Yucca Mountain?

(iv)

Tectonics and Crustal Conditions - What are the viable tectonic models and crustal l

conditions at Yucca Mountain?

This IRSR addresses:

l (i)

Faulting Components - Type i faults; Fault Displacement Hazard; Faulting Causing Waste Package Failure; Faulting Exhuming Waste Packages (ii)

Seismicity Components - Seismic Hazard; Ground Motion and Rockfall; Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Methodology; (iii)

Fracturing Components - Viable Fracture Models; Fracturing and Structural Framework of the Geologic Setting (iv)

Tectonics Components -Viable Tectonic Models; DOE's Preferred Tectonic Models; DOE Geologic Framework Models: Crustal Strain at Yucca Mountain I

)

3 I

This report summarizes the data and pertinent conclusions of numerous geologic and seismologic publications that are relevant to the seismotectonics and structural framework of Yucca Mountain.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

II l

iI 3.0 IMPORTANCE OF SUBISSUES TO REPOSITORY PERFORMANCE The Yucca Mountain site region (Figure E-1) has been seismically, tectonically and volcanically active on the timescale of a geologic repository. These seismotectonic activities could affect the stability of the repository and the geosphere part of the natural barrier system. For example, seismic and tectonic activities change the in situ stress field and generate faults and i

fractures (or change the properties and potential behavior of existing discontinuities) in ways that affect many aspects of flow of water, vapor, heat and magma, including fluctuations in the I

elevation of the water table. Changes to the system of discontinuities in and around a repository may be beneficial (e.g., dilation of a fracture zone may promote drainage around waste packages) or adverse (e.g., fault slip may focus flow quickly through a normally impermeable rock stratum) to waste containment and isolation; to repository (e.g.,

emplacement drift) design; and to long-term performance. Future changes attributable to seismotectonic activities could significantly influence the ability of a repository to isolate waste, I

or to perform in a reasonably predictable way. Therefore, continuing faulting and seismicity at Yucca Mountain and in the surrounding Yucca Mountain region could pose a potential risk to noncompliance with radiological safety, health, and environmental protection standards because of possible disruptions to surface and underground openings, including emplacement I

drifts and flow pathways.

3.1 RELATIONSHIP OF SUBISSUES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S l

REPOSITORY SAFETY STRATEGY DOE's RSS (Repository Safety Strategy-U.S. Department of Energy's Strategy to Protect Public Health and Safety After Closure of a Yucca Mountain Repository, Revision 1,1998) continues to rely on multiple barriers to limit radionuclide movement. Therefore, the integrity of the natural barrier system (NBS-Geosphere) would need to be understood. The subissues of I

faulting, seismicity, fracturing, and tectonic models focus on the NBS-Geosphere. In addition, the subissues of faulting and seismicity focus on part of the EBS - waste containment by waste packages. A primary goal of the RSS is the near-complete containment of rsdionuclides within waste packages for several thousand years. Therefore, the premature breach of containment by mechanical failure modes, such as direct disruption by faulting or by seismically induced rockfall (or fall of chunks of concrete liner) onto waste packages, would need to be examined.

Two (of four) key attributes identified by DOE as most important for predicting performance of the EBS and the NBS-Geosphere include: (1) limited water contacting waste packages; and (2)

I radionuclide concentration reduction during transport. Therefore, potential effects of changes to the system of discontinuities through which waters flow, such as fracture permeability, will need to be understood.

DOE stated that its RSS must address potential disruptions to the system that could release l

radionuclides directly to the accessible environment or otherwise adversely affect the

'g characteristics of the system (U.S. DOE,1998). DOE's strategy to address tectonic processes g

is based upon their likelihood and potential effects. DOE stated that it has initiated analyses through the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) and Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard Analysis (PFDHA) expert elicitation process to support assessment of the potential I

5

.I L

I effects of such disruptions (U.S. DOE,1998). It has enumerated two hypotheses to be tested:

(1) (Hypothesis No.16 )- the amount of movement on faults through the repository horizon will be too small to bring waste to the surface, and too small and infrequent to significantly impact containment during the next few thousand years; and (2) (Hypothesis No.17) - the severity of ground motion expected in the repository horizon for tens of thousands of years will only slightly increase the amount of rockfall and drift collapse (U.S. DOE,1998, p.15).

3.2 RELATIONSHIP AND IMPORTANCE OF SUBISSUES TO TOTAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE The staff is developing a strategy for evaluating the performance of a proposed repository at I

Yucca Mountain. As currently visualized by the staff, key elements of this strategy are defined as those elements necessary for DOE to demonstrate repository performance. These elements are illustrated in Appendix A. Acceptance criteria for abstracting each of these elements into an NRC determination of compliance are under development.

Structural deformation and seismicity, as defined by the prevailing tectonic, lithostatic, pore-I fluid, and thermal stresses interacting with the fractured rocks at Yucca Mountain, are important factors in evaluating repository design and performance because they can cause premature waste package failures and alter the flow regime. SDS is also a factor regarding assumptions about the future integrity of the NBS-Geosphere. Therefore, the acceptance criteria for the I

resolution of SDS KTl and subissues are designed to complement the broader-level acceptance criteria for the abstraction of the key elements of the repository subsystems in the TSPA flowdown diagram (Appendix A; and Total System Performance Assessment and Integration I

KTl/lRSR).

As highlighted in the flowdown diagram, SDS needs to be abstracted into five of the key elements of the EBS and NBS-Geosphere subsystems: (1) Mechanical Disruption of Waste Package - seismicity-induced; (2) Fracture vs. Matrix Flow; (3) Spatial Distribution of Flow; (4) Flow Rate in Production Zones - when structurally controlled; and (5) Volcanic Disruption of Waste Packages. Also, the SDS KTl and its effects are important factors that need to be abstracted to determine the defense-in-depth contributions of the EBS and NBS-Geosphere j

subsystems of the Total System (highlighted in Appendix A).

3.2.1 Faulting - What Are the Viable Models of Faults and Fault Displacements at Yucca Mountain?

A paramount observation of the geological setting of Yucca Mountain is the presence of numerous faults, including many with evidence of Quaternary displacement (e.g., United States Geological Survey (USG3),1996; Figures E-2 and E-3). The staff has determined that the potential effects of faults and faulting need to be abstracted into numerical performance assessment codes, specifically with regard to the following three key elements of the engineered and natural barrier subsystems: (1) mechanical disruption of waste packages; I

(2) structural control of ground water flow; and (3) structural influences on the spatial and temporal distribution of volcanism (Appendix A). This information needs to be considered because faults have the potential to directly intersect emplacement drifts and waste packages I

6 I

I I

or act as loci of rock failure, especially rockfall. Faults can also act as conduits or barriers to flow of water, vapor, magma, or heat, as evidenced or suggested by the many washes and spnng lines that follow surface fault traces and preferential magma conduits (Appendix C-3),

such as dikes intruded along faults and alignments of the Quaternary or older volcanoes in Crater Flat and the Amargosa Desert (Connor, et al.,1997).

3.2.1.1 NRC/CNWRA Sensitivity Studies of Faulting I

Of the three elements of the engineered and natural barrier subsystems listed previously, sensitivity to dose of faults and fault slip that directly rupture waste packages is currently being investigated. This investigation of waste package failure from faulting is based on performance I

assessment studies using the FAULTING Module computer code, Version 1.0 (Ghosh, et al.,

1997), which was adapted for use within the NRC and Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA) TPA code (Version 3.1.1; U.S. NRC,1998a,b). This investigation bears on I

DOE's Hypothesis No.16 (U.S. DOE,1998). Detailed sensitivity studies to address the other elements are ongoing, and results and conclusions from those studies will be presented in later revisions of the SDS IRSR. A summary of completed preliminary work follows:

Conceptual Model The FAULTING module was developed to assess the potential for direct disruption of waste I

packages from fault displacements in the proposed repository block.' The module evaluates the i

potential for direct waste package rupture from fault displacement along planar decoupled fault zones. The resulting number and time of waste package failures are then incorporated into the TPA code, in which the effect on individual dose is calculated.

To model faulting in the repository block, the FAULTING module generates a new fault based on a set of independent fault parameters sampled from probability distribution functions (PDFs) that describe faulting characteristics. Geometric parameters are fault-zone location, orientation, strike, length, width, and displacement. These parameters are sampled from probability I

distributions derived from geologic observations of surface exposures of faults at Yucca Mountain, mainly the Ghost Dance and Sundance faults (Scott and Bonk,1984; Scott,1990; Spengler, et al.,1994). Recurrence parameters include recurrence rate, time of faulting event, I

and cumulative displacement rate. These parameters were based on preliminary values derived for Yucca Mountain faults (e.g., Pezzopane,1995). Although, in nature, many of these geometric and recurrence properties may be related (e.g., longer faults seem to correlate with I

wider deformation zones or longer faults tend to be more active), for simplicity, they have been specified as independent parameters in the performance calculations conducted so far.

in the FAULTING module code, faults are considered as process zones or bands of I

deformation with finite width. Waste packages within these zones are considered damaged (failed), provided the fault slip exceeds a user-input threshold displacement value. It is assumed that in repository design, waste package emplacement in the proposed repository will I

be appropriately set back from those faults known to present a potential hazard (U.S. DOE, 1995). Thus, the FAULTING module essentially evaluates hazards related to faults not accounted for in the repository design such as: (1) new faults, those that may form during the I

7 I

I

period of concern; (2) hidden faults, those within the repository that are presently unknown and unmapped; or (3) underestimated faults, those mapped faults not considered significant during design or construction that turn out to pose a significant risk over the lifetime of the repository.

For simplicity, faults that fall into Categories 2 and 3 above will be referred to as underappreciated faults in this report.

P A second important simplification of the FAULTING module is that faults are generated randomly, independent of the notion of linked faulting between intrabasin secondary faults, l

principal block-bounding, and basin-bounding faults (see Section 4.1.2 for description of B

principal and secondary faults). This conceptualization is used because its implementation is straightforward and because no adequate model of how secondary faulting related to motion on I

principal faults had been developed when the code was first implemented. Planned revisions to the FAULTING module willincorporate recent concepts about en echelon faulting at Yucca Mountain (Ferrill, et al., in review, b) and recent numerical modeling results (Stamatakos, et al.,

1997b)

Recurrence Rate of Faulting Within the Repository Area A critical abstraction for the methodology in the FAULTING module is what staff refer to as effective recurrence - the estimated frequency of faulting events within the boundary of the repository. Calculating the effective recurrence interval within the repository boundary is not I

straightforward because faults that initiate outside the boundary of the repository may still have a portion of their process zor,e intertect the repository itself. Thus, to es!imate an effective recurrence rate, three add.tivnal values had to be determined: (1) the critical faulting region -

that area that houses all faults capable of intersecting the repository; (2) the recurrence rate of faulting in ihe critical faulting region; and (3) the percentage of faults in the critical faulting i

region that also intersec' the repository. Based on these three values, the effective recurrence s

rate for the repository can be estimated from the following five steps.

(1)

The critical faulting region is developed from the range of mapped fault lengths and orientations at Yucca Mountain (Scott and Bonk,1984; Simonds, et al.,1995a). From that data, nearly all faults have lengths of 30 km or shorter, or half lengths of 15 km or shorter. Fault orientations range between N55' W (azimuth 305*) and N25' E (azimuth 25'). Given these constraints, the size of the critical faulting region is defined as 15.2 km x 32.8 km, centered about the midpoint of the proposed repository.

(2)

Paleoseismic studies (e.g., USGS,1996)in the Yucca Mountain region (a region of approximately 15 x 15 km, with an area about 45 percent as large as the critical faulting region), document approximately 23 surface disrupting events in the last 150,000 yrs. This number leads to a recurrence interval of about 6,520 years (150,000 divided by 23).

(3)

This recurrence interval (6,250 yr) is for all faulting, principal and secondary. In the absence of data about how this faulting should be partitioned between the two types of faulting, it is simply and 8

r

I I

I conservatively assumed that half of this faulting occurs on new or underappreciated faults. This assumption leads to a recurrence rate for secondary faults of 13,000 yr (6,250 yr divided by 0.50).

(4)

This 13,000 yr recurrence intervalis for the 15 x 15 km area covered by 2

the paleoseismic studies. Because the area of the critical faulting region is approximately 2.2 times as large as the area covered by the paleoseismic studies, the recurrence interval for the critical faulting region I

scales to approximately 6,000 yrs (13,000 yrs divided by 2.2). This scaling assumes that faulting activity in the critical faulting region is similar to that in the area covered by the paleoseismic studies.

(5)

The stand alone version of FAULTING (Ghorh, et al.,1997) is then used to empirically estimate what percentage of fa Jits generated in the critical I

faulting region would actually intersect the rer.ository, given the 6,000-yr recurrence interval for the critical faulting regior. Preliminary modeling results indicated that an average of 3 percent of all simulated faults intersect the repository, based on up to 1,000,000 realizations. Thus, the recurrence for faults within the repository itself is about 200,000 yrs.

(6,000 divided by 0.03) or an annual probability (what can be referred to Model Conservatism Assumptions leading to overestimation of consequences of faulting:

(1)

Absolute probability of faul ting assumes up to 50 percent of faulting at the repository will occur on new or underappreciated faults. Most geological observations suggest that nearly all faulting will reactivato existing faults, i.e., those that are known and mapped (see, for example, Morris, et al.,

I.

1996). This conservative assumption is made to ensure that some pac'kage failures occur and to evaluate the consequences when some 4

faults might not be avoided.

(2)

Waste package failure mechanism assumes that after a minimum threshold displacement is exceeded, the entire waste package fails.

I.

Waste package failure is not linked to a common waste package failure mechanism used in other modules of the TPA code, for example, in EBSFAIL. In addition, all waste packages intersected by the fault zone I

are considered failed, instantaneously and completely. This conservative assumption is made, at present, because the forces that waste packages would encounter in an active fault zone are poorly understood.

(3)

Fault zone widths were based on observations of surface faults. More recent analyses from the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESF) show that I

faults narrow considerably with depth. Faults in the ESF, including 9

I I

1 I

exposures of the Ghost Dance and Sundance faults are 1 to 7 m wide (e.g., Sweetkind, et al.,1997b) compared to the 1-100+ m widths of I

those faults at the surface (e.g., Day, et al.,1997). This conservative assumption is made because the nature of faulting in the subsurface was not well established at the time this code was written.

(4)

Emplacement drifts are assumed to be randomly oriented. Current design, however, shows the emplacement drifts oriented roughly east-west, perpendicular to the dominant trend of Yucca Mountain faults.

However, if the actual emplacement drifts are designed to be subparallel to the fault trend, then, a much greater number of waste packages may be affected by each faulting event than currently estimated by the TPA code. This conservative assumption is made because final design of the repository is not known.

Assumptions leading to underestimation of consequences of faulting (1)

Lack of a link between faulting seismicity, and volcanism. In nature, volcanic eruptions are always accompanied by numerous pre-and syn-eruption earthquakes (Luhr and Simkin,1993; Fedotov and Markhinin, 1983). Similarly, all faulting events that will affect the proposed repository I

would be accompanied by significant seismicity. Such earthquakes would have a high-frequency component and strong ground motion I

component because the earthquakes would be centered very close,,if not directly underneath, the proposed repository. Also, current TPA code does not account for the cumulative effects of these repetitive processes.

I (2)

The TPA code restricts the number of faulting events to one per realization, irrespective of the recurrence interval selected.

(3)

Unaccounted for co-seismic slip on a new or an underappreciated fault generated by rupture on other existing faults. A new fault or an underappreciated fault is generated by the module without considenng i

the faults and fractures that already exist. In FAULTING, displacement on an existing fault does not affect other faults and fractures in the repository block. In nature, a slip on a fault may have the potential to cause sympathetic slips on other existing faults and fractures.

(4)

Additional faulting from underground excavation is not considered.

Regional earthquakes have been known to trigger faulting on so-called

" mining-induced faults" (e.g., Gay and Ortlepp,1979).

In summary, a number of critical assumptions and simplifications are inherent in the abstraction of the geological process of faulting into the numerical paradigm of the TPA code. In most l

cases, these assumptions and simplifications are conservative, in the sense that they overestimate the individual dose.

10 l

i

I E

Results of Sensitivity Studies and Future Work Sensitivity studies were carried out using TPA (Version 3.1.1). Details of the sensitivity studies will be discussed in Revision 2. Within the FAULTING module, the only input parameter that I

showed subsystem-level sensitivity was fault zone width. There was nearly a one-to-one correlation between the number of waste package failures and the width of the fault zone. In i

the analysis of variance, fault zone width was the only parameter to show statistically significant correlation with peak individual dose.

At the system level, studies show that the effect of faulting on repository performance was small, because of an assumed long recurrence rate, compared to other events (i.e. initial failure, excessive corrosion, rock fall from seismicity, and volcanism). Only in extreme cases, in which fault zones were wide (greater than 50 m) and the faulting event occurred early in the lifetime of the repository (prior to significant corrosion of the waste packages) were the effects of faulting cn dose deemed significant.

Based on these preliminary results and consideration of the conservatisms and nonconservatisms built into the FAULTING module, and subject to the following caveats, staff does not view this subissue as one that will significantly affect repository performance.

The following caveats, if borne out by further work, could alter this conclusion:

(1)

The regulatory period of performance of the proposed facility is significantly longer than 10,000 yrs. (e.g., more than 20,000 yrs.).

(2)

Non-mechanical waste package failure mechanisms, such as corrosion, are mitigated and are not the dominant failure modes.

(3)

The width of the fault process zones are significantly larger in the actual repository block than are currently estimated.

(4)

Recurrence interval of faulting is significantly underestimated. For example, recent global positioning satellite (GPS) results (Wemicke, et al.,1998) suggest that the strain rate for the Yucca Mountain region may be underestimated by an order of magnitude. If this result is established as anomalous (in the sense that future faulting at the site is expected to be greater than that predicted by the geological record), and it can be shown to directly influence the rate of faulting, then new faults can be expected to offset emplacement drifts and waste packages in the repository during the lifetime of the facility, or, if underappreciated faults, such as potential buried faults, are shown to be active and in the critica; faulting region.

(5)

Significant low-angle faulting is found in the repository. Recent excavation of Alcove 5 of the ESF revealed at least three subhorizontal 11

l fault zones'. Subborizontal faulting, if the faults are Type I and faulting

[..

occurs at the repository horizon level, could impact a significant number of waste packages.

(6)

Scoping analyses indicate that the effects on performance of the coupling of faulting and seismicity or volcanism are greater than when each event is considered separately.

7)

Significant changes are proposed for waste package strength, layout in drifts, quantity, and distribution within the repository.

s Faulting Exhuming Waste Packages Inherent in the DOE RSS is the proposition that cumulative slip on a fault through the repository could not bring waste packages to the surface (for example, see Hypothesis No.16 of U.S.

DOE,1998). Evaluations of cumulative slip of faults at Yucca Mountain by staff show that this

{'

proposition is correct; it is highly unlikely that waste packages in the emplacement drifts will be exhumed to the surface by faulting. First, the repository block lies between two large block-bounding faults (the Solitario Canyon and Bow Ridge faults). Transport of the waste packages f

to the surface would require a new block bounding fault to form within the repository block and L

for that new fault to accommodate all the extension (accumulate all the slip) at Yucca Mountain over the lifetime of the repository. Second, even if such a fault were to form,108 to 107 yrs.

would be required to exhume the waste package, given current estimates of slip rates of 0.1 to 0.01 mm/yr (based on paleoseismic data summarized in Table 4.2.1 of USGS,1996). Even higher rates of about 1.0 mm/yr, as proposed by Wemicke, et al. (1998) based on GPS results, would require 105 to 10' yrs. to exhume waste packages from the 300-m deep repository.

Therefore, the staff does not regard the possibility of waste package exhumation a credible scenario for repository failure and considers this question resolved.

(

3.2.2 Seismicity - What Are the Viable Models of Seismic Sources and Seismic Motion at Yucca Mountain?

Because Yucca Mountain lies within a seismically active region of the Basin and Range province, moderate to large earthquakes (magnitude 6.0 and larger) are likely to occur over the life span of the repository (USGS,1996). The principal effect of earthquakes in the region are vibratory ground motions at the repository site, (possibly in excess of 0.5 g), causing potential damage to facilities and structures, including waste packages and emplacement drifts. The staff have determined that the potential effects of seismicity need to be abstracted into

{

numerical performance assessment codes, specifically with regard to the following key elements of the engineered and natural barrier subsystems: (1) mechanical disruption of waste packages either by induced rockfall, secondary faulting, or repeated vibratory ground motion;

[

and (2) fracture dilation and redistribution of local stress field affecting flow (Appendix A). This information needs to be considered because seismicity-induced rockfall has the potential to Gray, M.B., Personal Communication to J. Stamatakos, May 6,1998 12 r

e

E directly rupture waste packages and, thus, allow premature release of radionuclides from the

[

repository. DOE has hypothesized that this is of little importance (U.S. DOE,1998, Hypothesis No.17, "The severity of ground motion expected in the repository horizon for tens of thousands of years will only slightly increase the amount of rockfall and drift collapse). Changes in the

(

flow of groundwater to and from the emplacement drifts also has the potential to alter waste package stability and the release of radionuclides to the accessible environment.

[

3.2.2.1 NRC/CNWRA Sensitivity Studies of Seismicity Of the elements of the engineered and natural barrier subsystems listed previously, sensitivity

(

of individual dose to seismicity-induced rockfall was preliminarily investigated by SDS staff.

This investigation of waste-package failure from seismicity is based on performance assessment studies using the SEISMO Module computer code, which was adapted for use

{

within the TPA code, Version 3.1.1. A summary of completed work follows:

Conceptual Model SEISMO (TPA Version 3.1.1; U.S. NRC,1998a,b) evaluates the potential for direct failure of the waste packages from rockfallinduced by vibratory ground motions. The code calculates waste f

package disruptions caused by rockfallinduced by earthquakes. Detailed descriptions of the L

SEISMO code are given in the RDTME IRSR and Manteufel, et al. (1997). Preliminary results are summarized here.

The seismic hazard curves give the annual probabilities of exceedence of peak ground motions for a user-defined set of selected ground accelerations. These probabilities are then converted into return periods, which form the basis of seismic events used in each TPA realization. Based on the mass of largest rockfall blocks and the strength of the waste packages, SEISMO then computes the waste package failures. The number of waste packages affected and timing of seismic events are then passed to other modules of the TPA (Version 3.1.1) cade, which calculate potential release and dose.

Inherent in the abstraction of the seismic hazard curves are assumptions about the degree of surface-to-subsurface attenuation of ground motion. In most cases, it was assumed that the level of peak ground motion at the repository horizon was half that for the surface. Recent numerical modeling by Ofoegbu and Ferrill (1998; Figure 7) suggests that for specific fault geometries (especially listric faults), the level of ground motion in the subsurface may be equal to that at the surface.

The seismic hazard curve developed for the ESF Design Study and summarized in Wong, et al.

(1996) was used as input to SEISMO. For bounding cases, two additional curves were generated based on upper and lower bounds of faulting activity from the paleoseismic record (Table 4.2.1 of USGS,1996) and using attenuation functions of Abrahamson and Silva (1997) and Sadigh, et al. (1997).

For each seismic event in the catalog, SEISMO calculates the areas of the repository expected to undergo rockfall and the size of the blocks that fall on the waste packages. Waste package

(

13

F failure is determined from a calculation of impact stress, based on the size of the blocks. If the impact stress exceeds the ultimate material strength of the waste package, then the waste package is assumed to fail.

To estimate the size of the rockfall blocks, SEISMO uses joint spacing information, abstracted into five rock categories (Brechtel, et al.,1995). The size of the block in each rock category is based on that joint spacing (cross-sectional area) and an estimated block height, based on the yield zone. Height of the yield zone and susceptibility of rockfall in each category is determined by the level of ground shaking.

Model Conservatism Assumptions leading to overestimation of consequences of seismicity (for SEISMO)

(1)

A waste package is treated as a simply supported beam in which no energy dissipation takes place at the point of impact, owing to local inelasfa deformation of the waste package material. In this treatment, the deformation of waste package is directly proportional to the magnitude of the dynamically applied force and the inertia of the waste package resisting an impact is neglected. The failure criterion used for assessing disruption of a waste package does not account for plastic deformation. Metal objects like the waste packages would probably sustain some level of plastic deformation without failure.

(2)

The entire waste package is disrupted once the ultimate material strength of the waste package is reached.

(3)

All waste packages under each rock condition are assumed to be disrupted at the same time if the impact stress of falling rock on waste packages owing to a particular earthquake condition exceeding the ultimate material strength of any of the waste packages.

(4)

Falling rocks have infinite strength (i.e., all energy generated through dynamic impact is transferred to the waste package). The effective stress on a waste package from a falling rock is less if the rock breaks on impact.

(5)

The thickness of yield zone, estimated from numerical modeling results using the UDEC computer code, is assumed to be the height of rock that will contribute to impact stress calculation. The other dimensions are controlled by joint spacing. This leads to an unrealistic number of large blocks falling on the waste packages.

(6)

The emplacement drifts remain unbackfilled, or unfilled by repeated rockfalls. Backfilled or rock-filled drifts would offer protection against the effects of additional rockfall.

Assumptions leading to underestimation of consequences of seismicity (for SEISMO) 14 i

-(1)

The absence of a link between seismicity and corrosion, seismicity and direct faulting of the repository, and seismicity and volcanic disruption of the repository.

(2)

The waste packages do not lose strength as they corrode. In the SEISMO analyses, waste package strength is assumed constant throughout the period of interest. In reality, seismicity-induced rockfall could enhance corrosion which, in tum, could lead to weaker and more susceptible waste packages.

(3) in the base case runs, it was assumed that ground motions at the repository depth was 50 percent of those at the surface. Recent numerical modeling suggest that for some fault geometries, there is no surface-to-subsurface attenuation of earthquake-induced ground motions (Stamatakos, et al.,1997b).

In summary, a number of critical assumptions and simplifications are inherent in the abstraction of the geological process of seismicity into the numerical paradigm of the TPA code. For SEISMO, most of these assumptions and simplifications are conservative, in the sense that they overestimate the number of waste-package failures. In fact, from the initial sensitivity studies, it was determined that several of the abstractions may have been unduly conservative, leading to unrealistic estimates of waste-package failure. For example, if a given category of rock failed, all waste packages emplaced in that portion of the repository within the given rock category were assumed to have failed. In addition, rockfall block sizes were constrained to have the maximum height of the yield zone. Therefore, initial sensitivity results from SEISMO using TPA Version 3.1.1 are considered, in general, very conservative and overestimate effects. The sensitivity to repository performance of rockfall continues to be evaluated.

1 i

Results of Sensitivity Studies and Future Work Results to date show that both the level of ground motion from earthquakes and the assumption used to predict the surface-to-subsurface attenuation of peak ground motion are important to performance. For example, higher ground motion accelerations led to a large increase in waste-package failures. The staff has performed preliminary studies of the effects of rockfall due to ground shaking on failure of waste package and has determined that this mechanism of potential release of radionuclides is of some significance within the limitations of the model proposed. These preliminary studies also showed that the size of the rockfall blocks is also important. Thus, abstractions of joint spacing and the height of the yield zone are additional parameters that must be continually evaluated. Steps are underway at NRC and CNWRA to address these parameters and DOE's Hypothesis No.17 (U.S. DOE,1998). Det?.ud sensitivity studies to address the other key elements of the natural barrier system m,ondary faulting or local perturbations of the stress field) are ongoing.

15

\\

3.2.3 Fracturing and Structural Framework of the Geologic Setting - What Are the Viable Models of Fractures at Yucca Mountain?

Observations and tests at the repository level of the ESF show that the site is highly fractured.

Pneumatic testing indicates that fractures are open and connected from depth to surface.

Chlorine-36 data indicate that some fractures conduct water to repository depths. Fracture flow is recognized by NRC and DOE as an operative process at YM. Given that fractures can conduct water, vapor, heat, and perhaps magma, it is necessary to understand the fracture systematics and characteristics. Fractures or their effects need to be abstracted into the following four key elements of the EBS and NBS subsystems: (1) mechanical disruption of waste package (seismicity, faulting, rockfall, and dike intrusion ); (2) spatial and temporal distribution of flow; (3) fracture versus matrix flow; and (4) flow rate in production zones - when structurally controlled (Appendix A). This information needs to be considered because they are likely to be loci of rock failure (e.g., rockfall), and be pathways or barriers (low permeability zones) to flow of fluids and heat (different hydraulic and thermal conductivity relative to rock matrix).

Depending upon the geometric characteristics of individual fractures (e.g., size, aperture, roughness) and fracture populations (e.g., population distributions and interconnectedness),

extent and type of fracture filling, and associated deformation and alteration along fracture or fault zones, fractures and faults may be either pathways or barriers with respect to flow.

Similarly, the role of fractures and faults in repository stability is dependent on the fracture characteristics. Documentation of general fracture pattems and characteristics and analysis of potential future changes to fractures are important to assessment of flow-and stability-related performance parameters at Yucca Mountain.

Fault zone architecture and related permeability structures may strongly control fluid flow into and out of the repository (e.g., Caine, et al.,1996). Fault zones with grain-size reduction, and mineral precipitation (by and large strain-softening mechanisms) generally contain core gouge zones with lower permeability and porosity than the adjacent protolith (e.g., Goddard and Evans,1995; Caine, et al.,1996). These faults would form barriers to flow. In contrast, faults with coarse-grained breccias and wida fault damage zones containing numerous subsidiary structures that bound the fault core gouge may have greater permeability and porosity than the protolith, thereby, enhancing fluid flow (e.g., Chester and Logan,1986). These faults would act as conduits to fluid flow. Faults commonly contain a less permeable core and a more permeable fault damage zone (Caine, et al.,1996). Such fault zones have enhanced permeability parallel to the fault, but reduced permeability perpendicular to the fault.

3.2.3.1 NRC/CNWRA Sensitivity Studies of Fracturing Sensitivity of dose to fracture flow in the UZ is being investigated by NRC staff via the TPA total system code. The TPA code will simulate focused fracture flow onto a fraction of waste packages (resulting in a lot of wetting of fewer waste packages). Such studies will be compared to the cases where infiltration is distributed across flow-zones (resulting in some wetting of all waste packages). This sensitivity study will be documented in FY99.

16 m

W

I I

l 3.2.4 Tectonics and Crustal Conditions - What are the Viable Tectonic Models at Yucca Mountain?

I Tectonic models are in and of themselves neither hazards nor enhancements, but they are prerequisites for evaluation of potential tectonic effects on the performance of the EBS and NBS-Geosphere. Tectonic models or their effects need to be abstracted into the following three I

key elements: (1) spatial and temporal distribution of flow; (2) flow rate in production zones -

when structurally controlled; and (3) volcanic disruption of waste packages (Appendix A). This information needs to be considered because it coe!d provide geological and geophysical limits on and attemative scenarios for tectonic hazards and risks.

3.2.4.1 NRC/CNWRA Sensitivity Studies of Tectonics The NRC staffs on-going sensitivity studies on seismicity that affect waste packages consider the range of maximum earthquakes most likely to be generated by the strains implied by the various viable tectonic models (Sections 3.2.2.1,4.4.2.2, and 5.4.3.4). This sensitivity study will I

be documented in FY99.

I I

I I

I I

I 17

I t

4.0 REVIEW METHODS AND ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA Resolution of the structural deformation and seismicity KTl requires data on and estimates of:

(1) the prevailing hydrostatic, lithostatic, thermal, and seismotectonic stresses; (2) future states

(

of such stresses and seismicity; and (3) the corresponding behavior of fractured, faulted, layered rocks in continual interactions with the variable stresses and strains and the hydrogeologic and potentialigneous systems. These data enable performance of the structural framework portion of the natural barrier system - geosphere to be evaluated. Also needed for resolution of the SDS KTl are data on and estimates of: construction-and thermally-induced I

perturbations of the structural framework of the rocks of the repository operations area. DOE is in the process of obtaining data on and estimates of all of the relevant FEPs and tectonic conditions. Such data or estimates, followed by issue resolution, will enable performance of the I

natural barrier system and the engineered barrier system within it to be evaluated for any phase or period of performance.

I NRC staff has determined that the seismotectonic activities that may significantly affect the i

future (10,000 to 100,000 years or more) performance of a repository at Yucca Mountain can be adequately identified and assessed by existing methods, models, and codes. With prudent projections of changes of processes and conditions and analyses of uncertainties attendant upon performance of engineered and natural systems, forward-modeled concepts of seismotectonic hazards and their effects can be reasonably applied to the analysis of risk.

Insights into the future structural defomiation and seismicity of the Yucca Mountain region will continue to emanate from field observations and measurements (including analogous systems around the globe), seismic and geodetic monitoring, scale model experiments, and 3D conceptual geologic and geophysical modeling. The NRC staffs review of DOE's conclusions about future seismotectonic behavior of the site will be based on the staffs professional judgment regarding the completeness and acceptability of DOE's data and interpretations.

I The staff will determine whether DOE has complied with the acceptance criteria described below for resolution of the structural deformation and seismicity issue and subissues. The staff I

will evaluate DOE's demonstration that it has identified and adequately characterized seismotectonic activities; has sufficiently understood and fully considered its significance; and appropriately used relevant interpretations (abstractions and models) to evaluate long-term performance. The staff will evaluate DOE's assumptions and projections by applying its standards of completeness, quality, consistency, and consideration of uncertainties.

Application of such standards of review is expected to result in NRC evaluations (and DOE I

assessments) that are technically defensible and, when uncertainties are appropriately considered, would be deemed to be reasonable and prudent.

4.1 FAULTING The general concept of faulting has been subdivided into two components: (1) Type I faults; and (2) fault displacement. Type I faults and fault displacement are generally investigated by I

deterministic methods. It is state-of-the-art to determine fault displacement in.zards by probabilistic methods of analysis. In this report, acceptance and review criteria are developed for: (1) identification of Type I faults and the catalog of known faults that could potentially affect I

repository design and performance (Section 4.1.1); (2) fault displacement and the probability of 18 I

i I

direct fault rupture of waste packages (Section 4.1.2); and (3) seismicity and the estimates of peak ground motions at the site from earthquakes (Section 4.2).

I Faults in and around Yucca Mountain have been identified and investigated by: (1) geologic mapping of surface exposures and underground openings (e.g., Day, et al.,1997);

(2) geophysical methods, including gravity, magnetics, electro-magnetics, seismic reflection, and hypocenter mapping (e.g., Langenheirn, et al.,1991; Brocher, et al., 1993,1996,1998; Oliver and Fox,1993; Harmsen,1994; Ponce and Oliver,1995; Majer, et al.,1997; Connor, et al.,1997); and (3) borehole imaging and logging (e.g., Carr,1992). Insights into faults and I

faulting in and around Yucca Mountain have been gained from: (4) 3D geologic framework models and balanced cross sections (Young, et al.,1992a; 1992b; Stirewalt and Henderson, 1995; Ferrill, et al.,1996b); (5) tectonic modeling (e.g., Schweickert and Lahren,1997);

I (6) numerical analyses of dynamic processes (Ofoegbu and Ferrill,1998); and (7) analog modeling (e.g., Rahe, et al.,1997).

4.1.1 Type i Faults Type I faults are defined as faults or fault zones that are subject to displacement and of sufficient length and located such that they: (1) may affect repository design and/or I

performance of structures, systems and components important to safety, containment or waste isolation (sseis/wi); and/or (2) may provide significant input into models used in the design or in the assessment of sscis/wi(McConnell, et al.,1992). The concept of Type I faults in this IRSR I

(McConnell, et al.,1992) applies only to those faults that can directly affect the geologic repository design or performance by ground motion or direct fault slip during the period of performance.

The definition of Type i faults applies only to faults that are both known and mapped. Faults that are blind or buried, hypothesized in tectonic models, or whose existence is otherwise I

inferred from geologic, geophysical, seismological, or analog data are not considered Type I faults because useful attributes, such as their location, extent, age of last movement, or geometry, cannot be cornpletely known. However, such faults may be considered in PSHA and performance assessment.

4.1.1.1 Acceptance Criteria (1)

Approved quality assurance and control procedures and standards were applied to collection; development; and documentation of data, methods, models, and codes.

(2)

If used, expert eficitations were conducted and documented in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1563 (Kotra, et al.,1996), or other accepted approaches.

(3)

Faulting component within the vicinity of Yucca Mountain was adequately determined. For example, has DOE investigated all known faults within an adequate distance (100 km) from the site to ensure that all candidate Type I faults I

have been investigated (USGS,1996)?

(4)

Maximum earthquake for each candidate Type I fault was adequately determined.

I For example, has DOE used an appropriate and adequate fault length vs.

19 I

magnitude relationship that tended not to underestimate the seismic hazard (USGS, 1996)?

(5)

Maximum trace length of each candidate Type I fault was measured from acceptable sources. For example, has DOE relied on appropriate primary map sources and adequate interpretations of segmented faults that tended not to underestimate the seismic hazard (USGS,1996)?

(6)

Peak ground motion acceleration for each Type I fault was adequately determined.

I For example, has DOE used appropriate and adequate attenuation models that tended not to underestimate the seismic hazard (USGS,1996)?

(7)

Shortest distance to site boundary of each Type I fault was adequately measured.

For example, has DOE used appropriate (the latest version of the smallest scale) primary geologic map and site-boundary sources (USGS,1996)?

(8)

Geologic age of last movement of each Type I fault was adequately determined.

For example, has DOE used appropriate and adequately conservative interpretations of evidence of Quaternary Period movement (USGS,1996)?

(9)

Potential for future slip was adequately determined. For example, when low potential for future slip on a Type I fault was determined, did DOE use appropriate magnitudes and orientations of principal stresses, fault-orientations, and adequately conservative interpretation of slip-tendency (USGS,1996)?

(10)

Minimum trace length for a Type i fault to be considered in a fault displacement hazard analysis was adequately determined. For example, has DOE used appropriate historic seismic records and surface-rupture data to determine the minimum surface-faulting earthquake and back-calculate the associated trace length (USGS,1996)?

4.1.1.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria DOE will release in 1998 the PSHA report (USGS 1998). The following is based on the I

preliminary PSHA report. The six expert teams for seismic source and fault-displacement considered two basic types of seismic sources, which were either fault or areal sources. The local and regional fault sources, while not identified as either NRC Type I faults or USGS I

relevant or potentially relevant faults in the report, were used in the manner consistent with the definition of Type I faults (McConnell et al.,1992). The teams, based on their experience and the input of experts, identified and characterized both local and regional faults. The six teams identified 30 local faults and 51 regional faults (USGS,1998, Table 4-2) that were used in the I

PSHA. Some of the seismic sources were formed by joining two or more individual faults together. Faults identified as seismic sources by the experts are indicated in the last column of the table in Appendix B. In that column, faults considered as seismic sources in the PSHA I

report (USGS,1998, Table 4-2) by one or more of the expert groups are indicated by a Y; faults considered as seismic sources when combined with other faults are indicated by a C; and faults not considered as seismic sources are indicated by an N.

I

r I

Results of the analysis of McKague, et al. (1996) reveal 78 Type I faults in the Yucca Mountain region (Appendix B-1, B-2, and B-4). USGS (1996, Table 11-1) tabulated 100 faults in the Yucca Mountain region, but these were not specifically subdivided into Type I faults. Of those faults tabulated by USGS,69 were categorized as relevant or potentially relevant (Appendices B-1 and B-2). USGS (1996) uses the terms " relevant" for faults that have documented Quaternary displacement and the earthquake generated on the fault could produce 84th I,

percentile peak acceleration greater than or equal to 0.1 g, and "potentially relevant" for faults that are considered subject to displacement on the basis of potential structural association with seismicity. The staff assumes these faults to be equivalent to Type I faults. Type I faults and I

relevant or potentially relevant faults are compiled in Appendices B-1, B-2, and B-4. Both compilations relied on essentially the same data sources (Simonds, et al.,1995a; Faulds, et al.,

1994; Frizzell and Schulters,1990; Scott and Bonk,1984; Piety,1996; and Nakata, et al.,

I 1982), and both studies assumed moment magnitude scales as a function of fault trace length, according to Wells and Coppersmith (1994).

j Evaluation of Type i Faults As shown in Appendix B, McKague, et al. (1996), USGS (1996), and the six DOE seismic 1

source teams reviewed over 115 faults in terms of their capability to affect the proposed I

repository (e.g., Appendix E, Figure E-2 and E-3). Of these faults,33 have been deemed incapable of affecting repository performance (Type til fault, Appendix B-3). Appendix: B-1 lists 36 faults classified as Type i by McKague, et al. (1996) and as relevant or potentially relevant I

by Pezzopane (USGS,1996); B-2 lists 33 faults classified as relevant or potentially relevant by Pezzopane (USGS, 1996),29 of these faults were classified as Type I faults by McKague, et al (1996); B-4 lists 13 faults classified as Type I by McKague, et al. (1996) but not considered by Pezzopane (USGS,1996); and B-5 lists 11 faults considered as seismic sources by the DOE experts but not considered by McKague, et al. (1996) or USGS (1996).

Of the 82 faults identified in Appendices B-1, B-2, and B-4,25 faults were not considered by the experts as seismic sources. One expert team (AAR team) justified not including 10 local faults on the basis of " lack of geomorphic expression in bedrock indicating significant Quaternary I

activity; Another expert team (RYA team) considered the Rocket Wash-Beatty Wash fault not relevant for the same reason. No justification was given for not considering the remaining 14 faults. All of them are regional faults located more than 38 km from the repository and with I

peak accelerations less than 0.14 g. except for the Sundance, Yucca Wash, Pagany Wash, and Sever Wash faults, which were considered as relevant or potentially relevant faults by USGS (1996) but not by McKague, et al., (1996). The Hunter Mountain fault and the Towne Pass I

fault, when combined with the Emigrant fault, were considered seismic sources (USGS,1998),

but not Type I faults (Appendix B-3) by McKague, et al. (1996) or relevant or potentially relevant by Pezzopane (USGS,1996).

The main differences between the NRC and USGS fault studies were interpretations of fault lengths in regions in which the mapped trace lengths are ambiguous and the choice of an appropriate attenuation function for identifying the 0.1-g criterion. A comparison of the two sets of fault data and predicted peak accelerations forms the basis for the subsequent discussion of the status of issue resolution regarding Type I faults. For simplicity, USGS relevant or potentially relevant faults are presumed to be Type I faults.

21 I

I Peak accelerations calculated by McKague, et al. (1996) and USGS (1996) differ by as much as several tenths of a g (Appendix B). Some of this difference is caused by application of different attenuation functions. For some faults, this difference is greater than can be accounted for by the attenuation function difference alone. In these cases, different interpretation of fault length that leads to a different estimate of the maximum earthquake is the source of the discrepancy. The discrepancy in length may result from obtaining the length from I

different technical sources (i.e., paper maps vs. electronic maps), or different interpretations of how discontinuous fault traces (blind, buried, or segmented) are linked.

I Fault lengths are often poorly determined. This results from variable scales of mapping, buried or otherwise obscured fault terminations or fault splays, obscured connections with other fault segments, and faults mapped by remote imaging. These factors contribute to variations in estimates of individual fault length, maximum capable earthquake, and peak acceleration at the Yucca Mountain site. Faults that yield peak ground motion values less than but near the 0.1 g minimum value (i.e.,0.09 g, or greater) should be carefully examined to ensure that alternative I

fault-length determinations would not lead to acceleration values above the 0.1 g threshold (McKague, et al.,1996).

McKague, et al. (1996; Figure 2-1) relied on the attenuation function of Campbell (1987),

because it yields the largest (most conservative) accelerations of the available published attenuation functions for the western United States, especially for near-field (within 10 km) faults. USGS (1996) provided two sets of attenuation functions to determine peak horizontal I

acceleration. The first function derived an average acceleration value based on equal weighting of attenuation equations of Campbell (1981), Idriss (1991), Joyner and Boore (1981) and Boore, et al. (1993). The second function was the Sea 96 equation based on a new formulation by Spudich, et al. (1997). The Sea 96 equation yields the smallest peak accelerations for near-field earthquakes and was not used by USGS. At distances greater than approximately 30 km, all the attenuation functions yield similar peak accelerations for a given moment magnitude earthquake and source-to-site distance.

McKague, et al. (1996) relied on the median value of the attenuation function of Campbell I

(1987). The USGS (1996) used different attenuation functions, and based its results on the 84th percentile value.

I Both McKague, et al. (1996) and USGS (1996) conclude that the faulting component of the geologic setting has a radius of 100 km around Yucca Mountain (Figures E-2, E-3). For fault displacement hazard analysis, both staff and the USGS (Seismotectonic Synthesis Report, Ch.11) agree that the controlled area constitutes the area of concern.

Both McKague, et al. (1996) and USGS (1996) used the Wells and Coppersmith (1994)

I equation to estimate the maximum earthquake for each fault in the faulting component and used the 0.1 g threshold ground motion value as suggested in NUREG-1451. USGS (1996) cites the minimum surface-rupture earthquake at Mw = 5.8 based on the Fort Sage 1950 event.

That value is reasonable and technically defensible given the historic seismic record. Both I

USGS (1996) and McKague, et al. (1996) use the same data sources (mainly Piety,1995) to determine the age of last motion on potential Type I faults.

I I

22 I

I DOE used less conservative ground motion attenuation functions (McKague, et al.,1996; Figure 2-1); however, this is in part compensated for by DOE's use of the more conservative

. 84th percentile peak acceleration. DOE has not considered in situ stress in its analysis of I

relevant or potentially relevant faults. In McKague, et al. (1996), the Pagany Wash, Sever Wash, and Yucca Wash faults were eliminated from the list of Type i faults based on their unfavorable orientation within the in situ stress field.

4.1.2 Fault Displacement Hazard The objective of fault displacement analyses is to evaluate the potential hazards of an intersection of an active fault with vital components of the repository system, especially waste packages. Yucca Mountain lies within the central Basin and Range Province of the North American Cordillera [for example, see Figure 1 of Wernicke (1992), p. 554). The region is characterized by complex interactions of strike-slip and extensional deformation, active since the onset of the Cenozoic 65 m.y. ago. The region remains tectonically active as indicated by numerous Quaternary faults (including Holocene) and volcanism and historic seismicity (including the 1992 Little Skull Mountain earthquake) (Ferrill, et al.,1996a).

For this evaluation of faulting, both principal (including sympathetic), secondary, and distributed I

faulting must be considered (as defined in dePolo, et al.,1991). Principal faulting refers to displacement along the main fault zone responsible for the release of seismic energy (i.e., an earthquake). At Yucca Mountain, principal faulting is assumed to occur only on primary faults, i

mainly block-bounding faults. In contrast, secondary faulting is defined as rupture of smaller faults that occur in response to the rupture in the vicinity of the principal fault. These two subsets of faults are not mutually exclusive. Faults capable of principal rupture themselves can undergo secondary faulting because of faulting on another primary fault. Because principal and secondary faults pose a potential risk to repository performance, both types must be considered by DOE in its analyses.

i The simplest approach for the evaluations of principal faulting, and one which was used predominantly before 1998 for siting of nuclear reactors and other critical facilities, is a deterministic analysis. In that approach, capable faults (10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A) are avoided by adequate set-back distances. This approach may not be appropriate for Yucca Mountain (as noted in Coppersmith,1996) because of the different performance requirements between a reactor and the repository and because the proposed repository is too large to reasonably expect that virtually all faults of concem can be avoided.

Probabilistic methods have also been developed to evaluate fault displacement hazards, especially for principal faults for which detailed paleoseismic data are available. These methods construct individual fault displacement hazard curves, analogous to probabilistic seismic hazard curves, for each principal fault (Youngs and Coppersmith,1985; USGS,1998).

Few techniques exist to evaluate the probability of secondary faulting (e.g., Coppersmith and Young,1992). Because of the complexity of fault analyses, it will be necessary for DOE to make assumptions and develop estimates of the future behavior of faults based on a variety of data and models. The staff will evaluate the DOE assumptions and projections by examining the completeness, quality, consistency, and appropriate consideration of uncertainty. Further, this evaluation willinclude assessment of deterministic and probabilistic analyses of principal fault displacement, as well as integration of these analyses with structural and tectonic models used to assess secondary faulting.

23

4.1.2.1 Acceptance Criteria (1)

Approved quality assurance and control procedures and standards were applied to collection, development, and documentation of data, methods, and codes.

(2)

If used, were expert elicitations conducted and documented in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1563 (Kotra, et al.,1996), or other accepted approaches?

(3)

The nature of faulting within the repository block (principal and I

secondary) was adequately evaluated from the range of possible interpretations. For example, were DOE's interpretations of trench investigations geologically consistent with the range of viable tectonic models (Section 4.4.1) and with interpretations of the crustal conditions of Yucca Mountain (Section 4.4.2)?

(4)

Models of fault geometry, kinematics, and mechanical behavior were consistent with existing geological and geophysical results, stress and strain considerations, and viable tectonic (Section 4.4.1) and structural models. For example, were projections of faults to depth compatible with data from seismic reflection surveys, borehole intersections, and structural theory?

(5)

Recurrence relationships for faulting were adequately derived fro,n paleoseismic, or historical earthquake data and consistent with recurrence models used to evaluate seismicity (Section 4.2.1). For I

example, was a record of long recurrence intervals between large-magnitude earthquakes determined from trenching studies consistent with a finding of long recurrence of large displacements?

4.1.2.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria Nature of Faulting at Yucca Mountain Yucca Mountain consists of a thick accumulation of volcanic tuff deposited on an irregular surface of eroded and deformed Paleozoic and Precambrian basement composed of highly facited und folded sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks. These tuffs were erupted from a series of Middle to Late Miocene (15 to 9 Ma) calderas that collectively form what has been defined as the southwestern Nevada volcanic field (see Sawyer, et al.,1994 for the most recent regional stratigraphy of the Miocene volcanic rocks in the Yucca Mountain region). Rocks of the Paintbrush Group, principally ash flows of the Topopah Spring Tuff (12.8 Ma) and Tiva Canyon Tuff (12.7 Ma) make up the main surface exposures of Yucca Mountain (Table E-2).

The Paintbrush Group tuffs rest on a sequence of older tuffs, including the Prow Pass and Bullfrog Members of the Crater Flat Group (Table E-2). Younger tuffs related to the Timber g

Mountain Group are locally exposed at Yucca Mountain in topographic lows between large block-bounding faults. This observation, along with evidence for growth faults in the Paintbrush 24

l I

rocks in Solitario Canyon (e.g., Carr,1990; Day, et al.,1997), suggests that faulting and tuff deposition were synchronous at Yucca Mountain. Trenching studies of the Solitario, Paintbrush Canyon, and Bow Ridge faults show sufficient evidence for multiple faulting events in the I

Quaternary (see Sections 4.6 and 4.7 of USGS,1996). Contemporaneous faulting and basaltic volcanism have been suggested by the presence of ash in Quaternary faults in the Crater Flat -

Yucca Mountain area (e.g., USGS,1996).

The majority of faults at Yucca Mountain are either north trending normal faults or northwest-trending dextral strike-slip faults. The larger faults in these two orientations bound the fault

]

blocks that underlie the study area. These two sets of faults are interpreted to be contemporaneous, based on mutual terminations and secondary structures between them, such as pull-apart basins (Day, et al.,1997). Some northwest trending faults are dominantly normal faults, accommodating extension in relay ramps between overlapping normal faults I

(Ferrill, et al., in review, b). Only four reverse faults with north-south or northeast-southwest strikes have been identified, but they are potentially key features for constraining the kinematic history of the region (Day, et al.,1997), and for identifying infiltration pathways (Levy, et al.,

I 1997). Much of the detailed fieldwork to study faults in the central block focused on the Ghost Dance and Sundance faults, which are close to the subsurface trace of the ESF (Spengler, et al.,1994: Potter, et al.,1996). These two faults may well be smaller scale analogues for the I

larger north-and northwest-trending faults (Day, et al.,1997).

Yucca Mountain itself consists of a sequence of north to north-northeast-trending, fault-bound ridges crossed by occasional northwest-trending, dextrai-strike-slip faults. Faults dip almost uniformly to the west and separate blocks of gentle to moderate east-dipping tuff strata. From north to south, both fault displacement and stratal tilt increases indicate progressively greater j

extension of the Crater Flat basin southward (e g. Scott,1990; Stamatakos, et al.,1997b). This pattern is most profound on the west flank of Yucca Mountain, which is defined by a series of left-stepping and north-trending en echelon faults. The southward increase in fault offset is coupled with greater block rotation, both horizontal and vertical (e g., Scott,1990). Work by the USGS (e.g., Hudson, et al.,1994; Minor, et al.,1997) suggests that this pattern of faulting, along with rotated paleomagnetic direction in the tuffs, resulted from a discrete period of I

extension followed by a discrete period of dextral shear, akin to an croclinal bending model.

More recent re-analyses of these data suggests an alternative explanation. The north to south displacement gradient and rotation of fault blocks is simply a result of increased rollover deformation in the hangingwall above a listric Bare Mountain fault (Section 4.4.1.2; Ferrill, et al.,

1996b; 1996c; Stamatakos and Ferrill, in press).

An en echelon pattern of faulting is best expressed along the western edge of Yucca Crest and the fault line escarpment that follows the west-dipping Solitario Canyon, Iron Ridge, and Stagecoach Road faults (see, for example, Simonds, et al.,1995a). The geometry of faults and ridges defines a scallop trend, composed of linear, north-trending fault segments connected by discrete curvilinear northwest-trending fault segments. For example, the ends of the northwest-trending curvilinear Iron Ridge fault bend to the northwest near its overlap with both the Stagecoach Road and Solitario Canyon faults. Yucca Mountain also contains numerous I

swarms of small northwest trending faults that connect the large north-trending faults. One example is at West Ridge, which is cut by numerous small faults that connect segments of the Windy Wash and Fatigue Wash faults. This geometry strongly suggests that the entire Yucca Mountain fault system is an en echelon branching fault system (Ferrill, et al., in review, b), in I

I

which faulting on the large block-bounding fault triggers relatively widespread, but predictable, secondary faulting on connecting and linking faults. Linkage of the en echelon system is either by lateral propagation of curved fault tips or formation of connecting faults that breach the relay ramps (Figure 1 of Ferrill, et al., in review, b; Peacock and Sanderson,1994; Trudgill and Cartwright,1994). More importantly, from this interpretation of en echelon faulting, it follows that locally developed faults and fractures were produced by local variations of the stress field (Section 4.3.1), rather than dramatic swings of the regional extension direction (Throckmo.on and Verbeek,1995). The amount, orientation, and degree of faulting directly depend on the relative position of the rock within the en echelon fault system, either in relay ramps that N

connect overlapping en echelon fault segments or in the hangingwall or footwall blocks of the E

block bounding faults.

Faulting Models from Tectonic Models As discussed in Section 4.4.1 and summarized in Appendix C, numerous tectonic models have been proposed to explain the structural evolution of Yucca Mountain. Faults at Yucca I

Mountain, for example, have been interpreted as the result of: (1) hangingwall deformation related to normal fault motion on a listric Bare Mountain fault (e.g., Ferrill, et al.,1996b);

(2) hangingwall deformation above a regional low-angle detachment system (Scott,1990; I

Hamilton,1988); (3) deformation of the margin of a pull-apart basin (Fridrich, in press); (4) listric faulting from a transtensional nappe deforming above the Amargosa Desert strike-slip shear system (Schweickert and Lahren,1997); and (5) domino-style block deformation related to I

extension of an elastic-viscous Crater Flat graben (Janssen,1995). These tectonic models can be used to estimate future fault activity at Yucca Mountain. For example, because a regional detachment system of the kind envisioned by Scott (1990) is assumed to have been truncated by a more recent uplift of Bare Mountain, faulting at Yucca Mountain is assumed to be relatively inactive. Attematively, very active strike-slip motion along the Amargosa Desert fault would predict relatively active faulting at Yucca Mountain.

In addition, the style (strike-slip or dip-slip) of faulting in the alternative tectonic models is important to evaluations of faulting data from the paleoseismic investigations. In trenches, I

typically only the vertical component of separation can be deduced from offset stratigraphic marker beds. If the style of faulting is dominantly dip-slip, then actual fault displacements, at least for the strand of the fault exposed in the trench, can be deduced from the paleaseismic I

data. In contrast, strike-slip separation is not readily apparent in trenches. If this style of faulting dominates, then the trenching data may grossly underestimate actual fault activity.

Deformation Mechanism and Fault Width The deformation mechanism in the fault zone is also an important feature of the faulting at Yucca Mountain. Catactasis is the general deformation mechanism that operates in these fault I

zones, and the details of the resulting cataclastic textures bear directly on SDS KTl subissues of faulting and fracturing. First, the nature of deformation in the fault zones strongly governs whether faults will narrow or widen with time. If the products of the deformation tend to produce I

fault zones that are more resistant to continued cataclasis (what can be considered strain distribution and strain hardening) than their protoliths, then renewed faulting will tend to break the wall rock and the fault zones will widen with time. In contrast, if the fault zone is easier to deform as faulting renews (strain localization and strain softening), then deformation in the fault 26 w

zones will tend to localize within a narrow portion of the fault zone. The result will be an intensely deformed fault-zone core with no increase in fault-zone width.

Recurrence

[

.- Recurrence relationships of faulting are generally derived from paleoseismic data of faults exposed in alluvial trenches. The objective of the trenching studies is to find datable stratigraphic markers offset by the fault and, from the age and amount of offset, determine the recurrence relationship for the fault. There are numerous potential sources of uncertainty associated with interpretations of fault slip histories from trenching studies (Ferrill, et al.,1996b) including:- (1) distributed faulting, in which the trench captures only a fractional component of the total slip; (2) blind faulting, in which the offset is restricted to the fault below the surface and, thus, no surface data are available for study; (3) oblique or horizontal slip in which the trench offset records only a small component of actual displacement; (4) inaccurate age estimates of h

the marker beds; and (5) variability of slip from event to event and along strike of the fault.

Recurrence data for faults are then used in conjunction with regional seismicity parameters

' such as frequency of earthquakes to develop probabilistic fault displacement hazard curves for

- each fault of interest. The curves are derived from two different approaches, defined as the

" faulting-occurrence" and " magnitude-occurrence" models (Comell and Toro in Hunter and Mann,1990). The first approach uses fault-specific data, such as cumulative displacement, -

fault length, paleoseismic data from trenches, and historic seismicity. The second relates the frequency of the fault's slip events to the frequency of earthquakes on the seismic sources defined in the seismic source models developed for the corresponding seismic hazard analysis.

DOE has used both approaches in its recent report on the probabilities of faulting and seismicity at Yucca Mountain (USGS,1998), Detailed analyses of its approaches and results will be reviewed and presented in subsequent SDS IRSR revisions.

Evaluation of Fault Displacement Hazard

[-

DOE will be submitting the results of the PSHA in 1998. After reviewing the PSHA, the staff will provide its comments and evaluations in Revision 2 of SDS IRSR.

(

4.2

. SEISMICITY Yucca Mountain lies within the central Basin and Range Province of the North American

[

Cordillera [see, for example, Figure 1 of Wemicke (1992), p. 554). The region is characterized by complex interactions of strike-slip and extensional deformation, active since the onset of the Cenozoic 65 m.y. ago. The region remains tectonically active, as indicated by numerous

[.

Quatemary faults (including Holocene), volcanoes, and historic seismicity (including the 1992 Little Skull Mountain earthquake).

{

in general, two approaches are considered acceptable by the staff to evaluate seismic hazards.

These approaches are based on deterministic and probabilistic methodologies. Until January 1997, deterministic methodology has been the traditional methodology for evaluations of

{

seismic hazards for construction and operation of nuclear facilities. Siting, review and acceptance criteria for these facilities are embedded in many existing NRC documents, such as 27 f

L

10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10. " Energy," 1998); and Section 2.5.1 (Basic Geologic and Seismic Information); 2.5.2 (Vibratory Ground Motion); and Section 2.5.3 (Surface Faulting) of the NRC Standard Review Plan (SRP) outlined in NUREG-0800 (U.S. NRC,1997a). Although the deterministic approach has worked reasonably well for the past three decades, this approach does not explicitly account for uncertainties in geological or seismological parameters. To incorporate such uncertainties, probabilistic methods have been developed to allow for proper uncertainty analyses (such as different interpretations and expert elicitations).

4.2.1 Seismic Hazard The PSHA methodology has been identified by NRC in 10 CFR 100.23 as an appropriate approach to address uncertainties associated with ground motion and fault displacement. DOE has outlined the methodology it intends to use for a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in #1 (U.S. DOE,1997a). This approach has been accepted, in principle, by NRC (Bell,1996). The methodologies recommended in the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee Report (SSHAC)(U.S. NRC,1997c) also offer acceptable approaches for evaluating the probabilistic seismic hazard at Yucca Mountain.

Specific acceptance criteria are described in this chapter from four basic technical aspects of a PSHA. These aspects include: (1) seismic source characterization; (2) earthquake recurrence characteristics; (3) ground motion attenuation; and (4) hazard calculations and presentation.

4.2.1.1 Acceptance Criteria (1)

Approved quality assurance and control procedures and standards were applied to collection, development, and documentation of data, methods, and codes.

(2)

If used, expert elicitations were conducted and documented in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1563 (Kotra, et al.,1996), or other accepted approaches.

(3)

Seismic sources were adequately determined to describe the potential sources of seismicity that will affect calculation of the peak and spectral ground motions for the lifetime of the repository. For example, determination of the seismic sources included: (a) adequate characterization of the geological and tectonic setting of the site and region; (b) enumeration of regional earthquakes in the available historic l

seismic record; (c) adequate evaluation of faults in the region (see Section 4.1.1 on Type i Faults), including correlation of earthquake activity with geologic structures or tectonic provinces; and (d) adequate estimation of the earthquakes' magnitude ranges and maximum vibratory ground motion anticipated at the site.

(4)

Descriptions of seismic activity and recurrence relationships of fault and tectonic sources were adequate to determine ground motion at Yucca Mountain. For example, determination of the seismic activity and 28 1

i recurrence rates included: (a) adequate characterization of the seismic activity rate for each source (areal or fault); (b) adequate determination of whether the seismic activity, especially the maximurn earthquakes, was temporally independent or occurs as clustered events; and (c) j development of an adequate recurrence rate-magnitude model for each source.

(5)

Ground motion attenuation estimates were determined to adequately estimate vibratory ground motions at the site. For example, determination of the ground motion included: (a) adequate knowledge of the site characteristics (such as amplification and shear wave velocities) considering uncertainties in site-specific geotechnical properties; and (b) adequate characterization of ground motion uncertainty (e.g., SSHAC; U.S. NRC,1997c).

(6)

If expert elicitations were not used, hazard calculations were adequately documented, coherent, and technically defendable. For example, implementation and integration included: principles and procedures for structuring and implementing the PSHA that are technically sound and consistent with those for the highest level of PSHA studies (e.g., SSHAC; U.S. NRC,1997c).

4.2.1.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria l

Geological and geophysical investigations to characterize the level of ground motion at Yucca Mountain from earthquakes have been ongoing for almost two decades. In addition, the Yucca Mountain project has benefited from several more decades of research and information from weapons testing activities at the Nevada Test Site. Much of the background information on faults, seismicity, faulting models, tectonics, and tectonic models is summarized in other sections of this report. In addition, DOE has recently concluded a PSHA detailed expert elicitation to determine the vibratory ground motion and probabilistic fault displacement hazard analysis for Yucca Mountain. Detailed comments on that elicitation and results from the PSHA will be presented in future versions of the IRSR. In this version of the IRSR, a brief outline of what the SDS staff considers important components of an adequate and sufficient PSHA are presented.

The list below highlights those data and interpretations considered by staff as most pertinent to the development and evaluation of seismicity at Yucca Mountain and resulting implications for repository performance. A detailed evaluation of the seismicity at Yucca Mountain will be in Revision 2.

Seismic Source Characterization A seismic source is a portion of the earth's crust that has relatively uniform seismicity characteristics (including earthquake potential), and is distinct from that of its neighbors.

Sources can be either fault or areal sources. Within a seismic source, the probability of earthquake occurrence and the size of the maximum magnitude are generally considered to be invariant. Characterization of the tectonic setting and identification of seismic sources are 29

l based on regional and site Deological and geophysical data, historical and instrumental r

seismicity data, regional stress field, and geological investigations of prehistoric earthquakes t

(U.S. NRC,1997b).

Aspects of seismic sources (e.g. Reiter,1991) to consider in seismic hazard analysis, particularly in support of Acceptance Criteria 3 and 4 are:

Earthquake potential of identified geological structures Earthquake potential of tectonic zones (i.e., regions of uniform earthquake characteristics)

(

Uncertainties associated with seismic source geometry (e.g., fault dip,

+

width, segmentation, depth of seismogenic crust)

Uncertainties in recurrence and recurrence models with regard to individual faults, clustered fault activity, or regional recurrence models Appropriate alternatives that allow incorporation of uncertainties about the geology and tectonic conditions into the overall calculation of the seismic hazard.

Aspects of seismic record (e.g. Richter,1958) to consider in seismic hazard analysis in support of Acceptance Criteria 3 and 4 include:

Coordinates of the epicenter Focus depth Time of event Highest intensity Magnitude (with appropriate designation of magnitude type)

Seismic moment

+

(

Distance to the site Strong motion recordings Co-seismic deformation (i.e., landslides, liquefaction, or fracturing)

Surface rupture information I

)

30 f

t

l

(

[:

Earthquake Recurrence Clearacteristics Earthquake recurrence relationships show the annual frequency of all earthquakes up to the maximum earthquake for each seismic source. These relationships are derived from f

esithquake catalog, paleoseismicity, and geological information. Typically, magnitude-recurrence models range between end-member exponential (Gutenberg and Richter,1954) and characteristic (Schwartz and Coppersmith,1984) models.

(

Aspects of earthquake recurrence (e.g., Reiter,1991) to consider in seismic hazard analysis, particularly in support of Acceptance Criteria 3 and 4 are:

Activity rate (or a value)

Slope of the regression (or b value)

Lower bound and upper bound earthquake magnitudes Shape of the recurrence curve (characteristic, logarithmic, or hybrid)

Potential for clustered activity Ground Motion Attenuation Ground motion attenuation models describe the relation among earthquake magnitude, distance from source to the site, and vibratory ground motion at the site. According to SSHAC (U.S. NRC,1997c), ground motion should be characterized by two basic aoproaches: (1) a spectrum of the naturallogarithm of the ground motion parameter determined as a function of magnitude and distance at multiple frequencies, and (2) the standard deviation (aleatory) of the naturallogarithm of the ground motion parameter. The standard deviation could be a function of magnitude, distance, and frequency level, as applicable. Ground motion should be characterized for both horizontal and vertical field-free ground motion response spectra at the ground surface and repository depth.

l.

Aspects of ground motion attenuation (e g. Reiter,1991) to consider in seismic hazard analysis I

in support of Acceptance Criteria 3 and 4 are:

Seismic source properties (e.g., focal mechanism, depth, directivity, or magnitude saturation effects)

Wave propagation between source and site Peak ground motion and the response spectrum Empirical or theoretical factors controlling the near-field region (typically within 10 km of the site) 31 f-L l

I Site-response models, especially surface-to-subsurface attenuation and amplification and deamplification characteristics Hazard Calculations and Presentation Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis is a powerful tool for incorporating uncertainties

.I associated with identifying and characterizing seismic sources and ground shaking. The PSHA will lead to identifying the ground motion hazard levels that will be used as the basis for development of seismic design basis input for Yucca Mountain.

Aspects of hazard calculations and presentation are.

i PSHA structure (National Research Council,1908)

+

Uncertainties, both aleatory and epistemic (SSHAC; U.S. NRC,1997c)

+

PSHA calculation and results (both total hazard with fractiles and uniform 1

hazard spectrum) (SSHAC; U.S. NRC,1997c)

Deaggregation of results (Bernreuter, et al.,1998)

Evaluation of Seismic Hazard I

DOE will submit the PSHA in 1998. The staff will review the PSHA and will provide its

{

comments and evaluation in Revision 2 of this IRSR.

I 4.3 FRACTURING AND STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF THE GEOLOGIC SETTING Fractures and fracture zones, and faults and fault zones provide the primary discontinuities, i.e.,

the structural framework, along which groundwater infiltration and percolation occurs in the unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain, and along which flow occurs in the saturated zone I

beneath Yucca Mountain and in the surrounding area (e.g., National Research Council,1996).

Furthermore, fractures and faults represent planes of weakness along which roof failure occurs leading to degradation of underground excavations and potentially causing damage to waste packages in the proposed repository. Consequently, it is important to constrain: (1) distribution and characteristics of existing fracture and fault populations; (2) processes of past fracture and fault formation and reactivation; (3) processes presently affecting fracture and fault properties (e.g., in situ stress field); and (4) potential future generation and reactivation of fractures and faults (e.g., by faulting and other strain release mechanisms). The following acceptance criteria ensures that an adequate geologic framework is available to the KTis that use fracture or fault discontinuities information either implicitly or explicitly (i.e, Repository Design and Thermal-Mechanical Effects - to evaluate rockmass properties and size of rockblocks for rockfall calculations; Unsaturated and Saturated Flow Under Isothermal Conditions - to evaluate water flow through fractures; Thermal Effects on Flow - to evaluate heat flow through fractures; igneous Activity - to evaluate magma and associated hydrothermal fluid flow through faults; Evolution of the Near Field Environment - to evaluate seepage and mineralization in fractures; Radionuclide Transport - to evaluate radionuclide retardation in fractures; and Container Life and Source Term - to evaluate fault disruption of waste packages). The staff will evaluate 32 I

r I

DOE's submittal to ensure that assumptions, quality, consistency, and consideration of uncertainty are adequately addressed.

4.3.1 Viable Fracture Models Fractures are surfaces along which rocks or minerals have broken and lost cohesion (Twiss j

I and Moores,1992). Extension fractures (Mode i fractures) are characterized by motion perpendicular to the fracture walls. Shear fractures (Mode 11 and ill fractures) are characterized by motion parallel to the fracture surface. Mode ll shear fractures are distinguished by motion I

perpendicular to the edge of the fracture, whereas, sliding on mode til shear fractures is parallel to the edge of the fracture. Fractures that display very small displacement normal to their surfaces and very little or no displacement parallel to their surfaces are called joints. Joints may originate in any of the above fracture modes. Fractures that have opened perpendicular to the fracture walls and that are filled with a mineral filling are termed filled (or partially filled) fractures or veins.

Joints in the cantral repository bbck may be divided by age and genesis into three groups:

(1) oldest cooling joints; (2) tectonic joints of intermediate age; and (3) youngest unloading J

joints (Barton and Larsen,1985; Barton and Hsieh,1989; Barton, et al.,1993; Sweetkind, et al.,

g 1995a; 1995b; Throckmorton and Verbeek,1995; Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud,1996). A total of eight joint sets have been identified between these origins and ages, but no exposure contains all eight sets. Cooling joints are distinguishable because they: (1) locally have degassing tubular structures (Barton, et al.,1984); (2) do not cut lithophysae; (3) have a smooth planar appearance; (4) have surface areas in excess of 100 m ; and (5) other joints 2

abut against them because they are older. Tectonic joints are distinguishable from cooling joints because they: (1) lack tubular structures; (2) cut lithophysae; (3) are not normally as smooth; (4) are commonly smaller, and (5), in many cases, abut against cooling joints. Not all tectonic joints terminate at cooling joints, which suggests that either the cooling joints were infilled with vapor phase minerals at the time of tectonic joint propagation, or that the crossing tectonic joints originated as shear fractures. Thus, some cooling joints were not voids that blocked propagation of tectonic joints. Finally, unloading joints are: (1) subhorizontal; (2) near

, surface; (3) rough and curviplanar; and (4) generally' terminate against cooling and ectonic joints.

I Fractures, including faults, impart a permeability characteristic to the rocks that may be measurect. A fault is a surface or thin tabular zone along which opposing sides have moved in a direction parallel to the surface or zone, across which, the displacement parallel to the zone is appreciably greater than the thickness of the zone, and in which, the deformation is greater than outside the zone (Twiss and Moores,1992; Groshong,1988). Fault zones commonly consist of a fault core within which most of the displacement is accommodated and a fault damage zone that consists of a network of subsidiary structures that bound the fault core I

(Caine, et al.,1996). Fault cores commonly have lower permeability than the protolith, because of grain size reduction and mineral precipitation. Fault damage zones commonly have enhanced permeability because of fracturing and faulting. Fault core and fault damage zone I

development is variable from fault to fault and along an individual fault (Caine, et al.,1996).

The following acceptance criteria are designed to ensure adequate characterization of existing I

fractures and their appropriate utilization in assessments of repository safety and performance.

r I

l 4.3.1.1 Acceptance Criteria (1)

Approved quality assurance and control procedures and standards were applied to collection, development, and documentation of data, methods, models, and codes.

(2)

If used, expert elicitations were conducted and documented in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1563 (Kotra,1996), or other accepted approaches.

(3)

Distribution and geometric characteristics (e.g., orientations, spacing, I

clustering, abutting relationships, interconnectedness, apertures, lengths) of fractures were adequately determined. For example, a comprehensive unit-by-unit description of fractures that captures lateral and vertical I

variability of fracture development and interconnectivity throughout the Tertiary volcanic rock sequence and pre-Tertiary rock sequence at Yucca Mountain should be estimated or bounded to reasonably assess aspects of fractures and faults that affect repository performance.

(4)

Origins of fractures were adequately defined. For example, DOE provided an adequate explanation of the mechanisms for fracture I

generation that include development of cooling joints, tectonic joints, and unloading joints that is consistent with evolution of the applicable regional and/or local stress field and detailed to the extent necessary to assess aspects of fractures and faults that affect repository performance.

(5)

Subsequent modifications of fractures by dissolution, precipitation, wall rock deformation, and other fracture-filling processes (e.g., deposition of water-entrained particles) were adequately constrained. For example, characteristics of fracture-filling materials that would affect fracture I

absorption of surface water, role of fractures as barriers to flow, isolation of fracture water from host rock due to armoring of wall rock surfaces by fracture coatings, and dissolution along fractures that may enhance I

hydraulic conductivity were estimated or bounded to reasonably assess aspects of fractures and faults that affect repository performance (see ENFE, RDTME, and RT KTis).

(6)

Potential current and future tectonically and thermally controlled alteration of fracture characteristics during the repository performance period were adequately defined and accounted for in process level models. For I

example, evaluations of structural and tectonic models for contemporary, or future changes to, fracture characteristics (e.g., increases and decreases in fracture apertures) caused by in situ stress, contemporary strain accumulation, seismic and aseismic deformation events, or differential thermal expansion and contraction were documented and propagated through flow and transport and total system models to the I

34 I

[

-I extent necessary to assess aspe::ts of fractures and faults that affect repository performance (see RDTME KTl).

4.3.1.2 Technical Basis for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria Fracturing at Yucca Mountain has been the subject of numerous focused investigations.

Revision i summarizes selected resuits.

Cooling joints form during thermoelastic contraction due to heat loss after deposition of the welded tuffs. During heat loss in the thick cooling units, isotherms are not arranged in a blanket-like manner parallel to the unit boundaries. Instead, some fluid circulation occurs, creating thermal plumes and sinks that would have locally affected joint intensity and orientation. Typically, igneous cooling joints form polygonal pattems in situations where the I

minimum and maximum horizontal stresses are near equal, and the rocks are not free to expand laterally, which is the " fixed-grip" situation (Engelder and Fischer,1996). Yet, the cooling joints in the welded tuffs of the Paintbrush Group are orthogonal (Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud,1996) with two joint sets subnormal to layering and one parallel to layering.

This deviation from typical geometry may be controlled by lateral thickness variations, i

paleotopography, differential compaction, tectonic stresses, and horizontal stresses that were significantly anisotropic. The setting was not " fixed-grip" but rather one of regional east-west extension during the Miocene (Zoback, et al.,1981; Scott,1990; Wemicke,1992; Ferrill, et al.,

1996b; Morris, et al.,1996; Day, et al.,1997). Thus, cooling joints at Yucca Mountain formed in a local stress field that was probably produced by a combination of sources, including thermoelastic cooling stresses, topographic stresses, lateral thickness variations, differential compaction, remote regional stress field, and stress perturbations around active faults (Engelder,1993).

Tectonic joint development did not necessarily postdate cessation of cooling joint formation by I

an extended period because the oldest tectonic joints (T1, Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud, 1995) strike north-south, are subnormal to layers and are attributed to the east-west horizontal extension during the Miocene. The next youngest joint set, northwest-trending T2 joints, would appear to require a regional stress field where minimum principal stress trended northeast-southwest. This stress-field geometry is undocumented by other geological features, and the existence of this set is not strongly supported (Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud,1995). Later in this report, it is concluded that at one site where T2 fractures are prominently noted (Pavement I

P2001, Sweetkind, et al.,1995b), the fractures are faults and not joints. T3 joints strike northeast-southwest and are related to the recent regional stress field where the minimum principal stress trends northwest (Sweetkind, et al.,1995b). The youngest tectonic joints are east-west trending T4 joints, which have a problematic tectonic origin as no regional stress field has been identified to account for north-south extension. As a result, Throckmorton and Verbeek (1995) snd Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud (1995) attributed fractures of this set to an unspecified surficial unloading event. However, many of the ridges and washes in the central block strike east-west (Day, et al.,1997), which is surprising if T4 fractures are the least important of the six subvertical sets of cooling and tectonic joints. This geomorphological trend, if the result of erosion-exploiting T4 joints, indicates that these joints are better developed than previously observed. Also, abundant east-west striking trending joints were a surprise j

discovery during boring of the ESF, where at a depth of 300 m, unloading joints are unlikely to l

form. Many of these fractures are interpreted as cooling joints. If true, then not all east-west i

35

[

[

trending joints are later-stage T4 tectonicjoints, and care should be used in identifying T4 joints

[

in the field, based on orientation alone. A possible tectonic rather than unloading origin for some T4 fractures would be as secondary structures accommodating north-south extension in the regions between two overlapping normal faults that strike north-south (Trudgill and Cartwright,1994; Peacock and Sanderson,1994; Ferrill, et al., in review). As previously

(

described, late subhorizontal joints with significant surface roughness and curviplanar form are attributed to erosional unloading (Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud,1995).

One important morphological aspect of the joint sets was first noted during pavement studies by Barton, et al. (1993). Joints do not have uniform spacing. Instead, some joints are closely spaced in " swarms" or " clusters" with fracture spacings of about 10 cm, The clusters are separated by large distances in excess of 10m, where joint spacing is in excess of 1 m.

Development of joint clusters clearly demonstrated that deformation in the rock was heterogeneously distributed in the rock during fracture formation. One type of cluster geometry

{

is best exemplified by the joints in the hangingwall of the Ghost Dance fault (Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud,1995). Surface mapping around the north-south striking Ghost Dance fault has identified a 50 m wide zone of highly fractured rock in the hanging wall of the fault

{

(Sweeikind and Williams-Stroud,1995). North-south striking joints and north northwest-south southeast striking joints are intensely developed with spacings of a few centimeters at distances up to 50 m from the main fault trace, which also strikes north-south. The deformation concentrator here appears to be partitioning of a small portion of the east-west regional extension that produced the fault into hangingwall deformation by joint formation, perhaps, in a dilational quadrant during fault displacement. The width of hanging-wall fault-damage zones is smaller in the ESF than at the surface. Fault footwalls typically show little or no increase in fracturing near faults (Sweetkind, et al.,1997a and b). Another type of cluster geometry is closely spaced cooling joints (Barton, et al.,1993). These extensive planar smooth fractures y

occur in sets of 6 to 12 fractures with spacings of about 25 cm and trace lengths typically in

[

excess of 10 m. Why cooling joints would be heterogeneously distributed in space is not well understood, but may be a function of thermal gradients during cooling.

(

The presence of clusters may indicate that the majority of cooling joints initially contained precipitated vapor phases, because, otherwise, these large fractures should generate significant stress shadows up to meters away. These shadows would prevent nearby initiation

(

of new joints, so joint spacings should be on the order of meters and not 10's of centimeters.

The spacings at a scale of 10's of centimeters would either be achieved by filling the joints so that they do not act as voids and do not generate stress shadows after formation, or by increasing the driving stress forjoint formation due to increased regional extension.

Overall fracture intensity of the PTn is lower than in the overlying and underlying welded tuffs of the Tiva Canyon Tuff and Topopah Springs Tuffs, respectively, and fractures are poorly connected within and between layers of the PTn (Sweetkind et al., 1996,1997a and b).

Extension fractures in the Ptn typically terminate at welding or lithologic breaks. Faults, which

(

typically originate as shear fractures capable of fracturing across discontinuities, are considered to be structural pathways through the PTn. The exposures of the PTn in the ESF have lower fracture densities than those observed on the surface (Rousseau, et al.,1996).

Characterization of fracture networks at Yucca Mountain is impaired by several important sampling biases that are common to fracture analyses. If left uncorrected, these sampling f

36 r

E biases lead to underepresentation of fracture intensity, porosity, permeability, and connectivity.

First, the lengths of the longest fractures in a population are often unconstrained because the ends of the fracture are often obscured. This bias can lead to underestimation of fracture I

connectivity. Second, the orientation of a 1-D sampling line (e.g. borehole or detailed line survey (DLS) scanline) or 2D sampling surface (e.g. pavement, roadcut) inherently biases sampling against discontinuities parallel to the sampling line or surface, in favor of sampling I

discontinuities at a high angle to the sampling line or surface. Mathematical corrections (Terzaghi 1965) can partially compensate for this sampling bias. Third, because measuring every fracture from microscale to megascale is impractical or impossible for large sample I

areas, fracture studies usually have a size (e.g. length) cutoff. Fractures smaller than a given dimension are not counted. Consequently, small fractures are underepresented in fracture characterization. This bias is pronounced in nonwelded, lithophysal, or densely fractured units because they often contain an abundance of small fractures. Exclusion of small fractures could I

lead to an underestimation of hydrologic properties such as porosity, permeability, and fracture connectivity in these units. Elimination of fractures less than 1 m also may modify fracture intensity interpretations near faults such as for the Ghost Dance Fault in the ESF, where the 1 m cutoff for trace length leads to extremely different fracture intensity estimates over a wide zone (Sweetkind, et al.,1997a and b).

In addition to sampling biases, fracture characterization based on existing studies is impaired because fracture data were collected from different sources including boreholes, pavements, and the ESF, and different information was collected from each of the three sets of studies.

The only observations censistent to all data sets are orientation and lithology (Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud,1996). Thus, combining the data sets for determining statistical distributions may not be entirely justifiable.

The list below highlights selected data and interpretations considered by staff as most pertinent to the development and evaluation of fracturing processes at Yucca Mountain and resulting I

implications for repository performance. A more detailed evaluation of the fracturing processes at Yucca Mountain will be in Revision 2.

Regional and Local Stratigraphic Elements Stratigraphic elements to consider in fracture models particularly in support of Acceptance Criteria 3 and 4 are:

Age of host geologic units, especially with respect to timing of fracture formation events (e.g., Sawyer, et al.,1994; Buesch, et al.,1996; Day, et al.,1997)

Host rock types (igneous rocks, lithified sedimentary strata, and unlithified I

sediments) in the saturated and unsaturated zone at Yucca Mountain, including lateral and vertical lithologic variations, such as degree of welding, lythophysal development, alteration, and pumice content of tuff (Sweetkind, et al.,1997a and b) that could potentially affect fracturing.

l 37

Host rock types in the Proterozoic and Paleozoic units of the subregional saturated zone, with particular emphasis on solubility features of Paleozoic carbonate units potentially related to karstic flow systems.

Regional, Subregional, and Local Structural and Tectonic Elements Regional and subregional structural and tectonic elements to consider in fracture models particularly in support of Acceptance Criteria 3,4, and 6 nre:

Evolution of regional stress field (e.g., Zoback, et al.,1981; Minor,1995; Minor, et al.,1997; Ferrill, et al.,1996b; Morris, et al.,1996)

Contemporary stress field (e.g., Stock, et al., 1985; 1986; Stock and Healy,1988; Zoback,1992; Zoback, et al.,1992; Wittmeyer and Ferrill,'

1994; Wittmeyer, et al.,1994; Barton, et al.,1995; Ferrill, et al.,1994; 1995a; 1996b; Morris, et al.,1996; also ef. Engelder,1993; Wesnousky and Jones,1994)

Geologic maps (e.g., Swadley and Parrish,1988; Frizzell and Shulters, 1990; Scott and Bonk,1984; Faulds, et al.,1994; Day, et al.,1997);

Scott,1990; Piety,1996; Simonds, et al.,1995a)

Structural cross sections (e.g., Scott and Bonk,1984; Scott,1990; Young, et al.,1992a; 1992b; 1993; Ferrill, et al.,1996b; Ofoegbu and Ferrill, 1995; 1996; 1998; Day, et al.,1997)

Structural and tectonic setting including known and interpreted regional and subregional scale structural features such as faults and folds, with emphasis on structural features (both emergent and buried) in Crater Flat (including the Bare Mountain fault), Yucca Mountain, Jackass Flat, and Amargosa Valley (Snyder and Carr,1982; Swadley, et al.,1984; Reheis, 1988; Scott,1990; Young, et al.,1992b; Ferrill, et al.,1995b; Menges, et al.,1995; Ferrill, et al.,1996a; 1996b; 1996c; Ferrill, et al.,1997; Stamatakos, et al.,1997b; Ofoegbu and Ferrill,1998; Stamatakos, et al.,

in press)

Geophysical data to constrain fault-related deformation (Brocher, et al, 1998, Majer, et al,1997)

Geodetic strain measurements (Gilmore,1992; Savage, et al.,1994; Ferrill, et al,1996b; Bennett, et al.,1997; Wemicke, et al.,1998)

Long-term strain and deformation estimates, including geologically derived strain and fault displacement estimates and paleoseismic (trenching) studies (e.g., Ferrill, et al.,1996a; 1996b; 1997; Stamatakos, et al.,1997b) 38 1

Local stress field including lithostatic, tectonic, topographic, and excavation-related stresses and fluid, pressure and effects on permeability (e.g., Whittmeyer and Ferrill,1994; Whittmeyer, et al.,1994; Barton, et al.,1995; Finkbeiner, et al.,1997)

Fracture and fault characteristics at Yucca Mountain, resulting from surface studies such as pavement mapping, outcrop investigations, subsurface studies such as borehole analyses, ESF mapping and scanline studies (Barton and Hsieh,1989; Carr,1992; Stuckless, et al.,

1992; Barton, et al.,1993; Carlos, et al.,1993; Lin, et al.,1993; Barton, et al.,1995; Chekuri, et al.,1995; Throckmorton and Verbeek,1995; Sweetkind, et al.,1995a; 1995b; 1996; 1997a; 1997b; Sweetkind and Williams-Stroud, 1995;1996; Paces, et al.,1996; Piety,1996; Potter, et al.,1996; Anna,1997; Anna and Wallman,1997)

Three-dimensional geometry of Yucca Mountain faults and fault blocks, intersection relationships of faults, and pattems of fault displacements (e.g., vertical and lateral gradients) (Scott,1990; Stamatakos and Ferri!!,

in press; Ferrill, et al., in review; also Gay and Ortlepp,1979; Allan,1989; Higgs, et al.,1991; Peacock and Sanderson, 1991; 1994: Scholz, et al.,

1993; Dawers and Anders,1995; Willemse, et al.,1996; Zhang and Sanderson,1996; Davies, et al.,1997; Ferrill and Morris,1997, Willemse, 1997; Yielding, et al.,1997; Alexander and Handschy,1998; Ferrill, et al.,

1998)

Partitioning of regional and subregional strain (Ferrill and Dunne,1989; Dunne and Ferrill,1995) among mechanisms such as seismic and aseismic slip on large faults (e.g., Pezzopane,1995; Ferrill, et al.,1996a; Stamatakos, et al.,1997a; Ofoegbu and Ferrill,1998), dilation and slip on fractures, small faults (Lienkaemper, et al.,1987), and bedding-parallel foliations and layering (Morris, et al.,1996; Ferrill and Morris,1997; Ferrill, et al.,1998), elastic deformation, and dike intrusion (Wernicke, et al.,1998; Connor, et al., in review)

Hydrologic features associated with structural features such as faults or fracture zones (Hill, et al.,1995; also Mozley and Goodwin,1995)

Topographic Elements Local topographic elements to consider in fracture models particularly in support of Acceptance Criteria 3,5, and 6 are:

Morphology of topographic surface (Henderson, et al.,1996)

Geometric relationship of topographic surface with respect to layering, foliations, and structural features (important for surficial and mass-wasting processes).

39 l

=

Depth

. Hydrologic, Geochemical, and Pneumatic Elements Hydrologic, geochemical, and pneumatic elements to consider in fracture models particularly in support of Acceptance Criteria 3,5, and 6 are:

Observations, measurements, and models of infiltration and subsurface flow processes (Montazer and Wilson,1984; Barton, et al.,1993; Flint and Flint,1995; Flint, et al.,1996; Stothoff, et al.,1997; also Ritzi and Andolsek,1992; Mayer and Sharp,1998)

Cl36 measurements in ESF (Levy, et al.,1997)

Air and seepage permeability measurements (Le Cain,1997; -Wang, et

=

al.,1997,1998)

Water table elevation data and their relationship to fracture systems (Czamecki, et al.,1997)

Saturated-zone tracer test and pump test results (Geldon, et al.,1997)

Evaluation of Viable Fracture Models

- TBD in 1999.

4.4 TECTONICS AND CRUSTAL CONDITIONS 4.4.1 Viable Tectonic Models Much of the specific technical criteria for tectonic model development and subsequent j

evaluation is predicated on how the models will be used in the evaluation of repository performance. Technical bases for review and acceptance criteria are primarily derived from consideration of the application of the models as tools to evaluate seismic sources, faulting probability, structural control of groundwater flow, long-term evolution of natural and engineered barriers, and related SDS subissues.

4.4.1.1 Acceptance Criteria (1)

Approved quality assurance and control procedures and standards were applied to collection, development and documentation of data, methods, models and codes.

(2)

If used, expert elicitations were conducted and documented in accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1563 (Kotra, et al.,1996), or other accepted approaches.

(3)

A suite of viable tectonic models for Yucca Mountain and surrounding region was developed from the numerous published tectonic models and supporting geological, geophysical and modeling data and results. The development of these models should 40

include: (1) a reasonable explanation of the bases for selection of viable tectonic models; (2) purposes of each model; and (3) demonstrations that each model is intemally consistent with the appropriate structural style and deformation mode and compatible with the tectonic framework of the southem Cordillera and Basin and Range province.

(4)

Viable tectonic models were consistent with existing geophysical, geological, seismological, and geodetic data, including reasonable explanations of how data that are inconsistent with the model are accounted for. For example, all appropriate data, (including but not restricted to: (1) geophysical: gravity, magnetics, paleomagnetics, seismic refraction / reflection, teleseismic; (2) geological: structural, geothermal, geochronological; (3) seismological: historical seismicity, crustal condition, paleoseismicity; and (4) geodetic: GPS, trilateration survey, level line survey) have been adequately evaluated, and include sufficient treatment of data inconsistences.

(5)

Viable tectonic models clearly depicted the tectonic, structural, and seismic elements and the uncertainties associated with the quantification of each element critical for the model's intended purpose. For exan:ple, scaling tools, including (but not restricted to) geologic maps, block diagrams, and resierable cross-sections have been adequately used; and reasonable interpretations of gectogic, geometric, kinematic, and mechanical relationships to constrain the key uncertaint;es have been adequately evaluated.

4.4.1.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria Geological and geophysical investigations to characterize the Yucca Mountain site have been ongoing for two decades.- In addition, the region he's been the subject of detailed geological and geophysical investigations related to: (1) weapons testing activities at the Nevada Test Site (NTS); (2) academic research in the Basin and Range; and (3) mineral and petroleum exploration. All of these efforts have provided DOE (and subcontractors) and NRC (and subcontractors) with a plethora of geological and geophysical data and interpretations.

- The list below highlights those data and interpretations considered by staff as most pertinent to the development and evaluation of viable tectonic models. Additional evaluation of this subissue will be in Revision 2.

Regional and Local Stratigraphic Elements Regional and local stratigraphic elements to consider in tectonic models are:

Archean and Proterozoic rocks (Table E-1) that make up the basement in the Yucca Mountain region (e.g., Bowring and Karlstrom,1990).

Neoproterozoic, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic rocks (Table E-1) that constitute the bulk of the seismogenic crust in the Yucca Mountain region (e.g., Comwall and Kleinhample, i

1961,1964; Stewart,1970; Comwall,1972; Monsen,1983; Poole, et al.,1992, and references therein; Stevens, et al.,1991; Trexler, et al.,1996).

41 i

Cenozoic sedimentary and igneous rocks that underlie most of the Quaternary basins

+

(Table E-1) and make up Yucca Mountain itself (e.g., Ransome, et al.,1910, Byers, et al.,1976; Christiansen, et al.,1977; Vaniman and Crowe,1981; Swadely, et al.,1984; Carr, et al.,1986a; Bradshaw and Smith,1994; Sawyer, et al.,1994; Connor and Hill, 1995; Crowe, et al.,1995; Bucsch, et al. 1996; Fleck, et al.,1996; Hill and Connor, 1996),

Regional and Local Tectonic Elements Regional and local tectonic elements to consider in tectonic models are:

Paleozoic and Mesozoic tectonic features including the Mississippian Antler (e.g., Nilsen and Stewart,1980; Burchfiel and Davis,1972; Oldow,1984), Permian Last Chance (Snow,1992a), Permian Sonoma (e.g., Gabrielse, et al.,1983), and Mesozoic Sevier (e.g., Armstrong,1968; Camilleri and Chamt erlain,1997) orogenies.

Oligocene and older (Table E-2 ) extensional features (e.g., Wemicke, et al.,1987; Hodges and Walker,1992; Axen, et al.,1993) including those presently exposed along the southwestem face of BM (Ferrill, et al., in review; Stamatakos and Ferrill,1996a).

)

Neogene (Table E-2) Tectonic features including: (1) plate motions (e.g., Atwater,1970; e

Dokka and Travis,1990; Bohannon and Parsons,1995; Dickenson,1996); (2) Walker Lane seismotectonics (Stewart,1988; Hardyman and Oldow,1991; Oldow, et al.,1994);

(3) Basin and Range detachment faulting (e.g., Anderson,1971; Wright and Troxel, 1973; Stewart,1978; Wernicke,1981; Burchfiel, et al.,1982,1987; Hamilton,1987; Wemicke, et al.,1988; Maldonado,1990); and (4) Basin and Range core complexes

-(e.g., Davis and Coney,1979).

Geometric Elements Geometric elements to consider in tectonic models are:

Seismic reflection data (Majer, et al.,1997; Brocher, et al., 1993,1996,1998; Young, et al.,- 1992a)

Gravity and aeromagnetic data (Snyder and Carr,1982; Kane and Bracken,1983; e

Langenheim, et al., 1991,1993; Ponce, et al.,1992; Oliver and Fox,1993; Langenheim and Ponce,1995; Ponce and Oliver,1995; Brocher, et al.,1996) s Ground magnetic data (Brocher, et al.,1996; Connor, et al.,1997; Stamatakos, et al.,

e 1997)

Geologic maps (Comwall and Kleinhample,1961; Nakata et al.,1982; Scott and Bonk, e

i 1984; Swadely and Parrish,1988; Frizzel and Shultars,1990; Maldonado,1990; Monsen, et al.,1992; Faulds, et al.,1994; Simonds, et al.,1995a; Day, et al.,1997)

Borehole data (e.g., Carr and Parrish,1985; Carr, et al.,1986b,1995) e 42

)

Structural cross-sections (Scott and Bonk,1984; Scott,1990; Young, et al.,1992b; Ferrill, et al.,1996b; Fridrich, in press)

Kinematic Elements Kinematic elements to consider in tectonic models are:

Vertical-axis rotation markers from paleomagnetism (Gillett and Van Alstine,1982; Nelson and Jones,1987; Rosenbaum, et al.,1991; Hudson,1992; Gillett and Geissman 1993; Holm, et al.,1993; Snow, et al.,1993; Zhang, et al.,1993; Hudson, et al.,1994, 1996; Sonder, et al.,1994; Ferrill, et al.,1995; Stamatakos and Ferrill,1996b; Fridrich, et al., in press: Stamatakos, et al., in review) and sedimentological markers (e.g., Snow and Prave,1994)

Exhumation and horizontal-axis tilting from radiogenic thermochronology studies (Noble, et al.,1989; Maldonado,1990; Noble, et al.,1991; Monsen, et al.,1992; Hoisch and Simpson,1993; Sawyer, et al.,1994; Ferrill, et al.,1996b; Weiss,1996; Hoisch, et al.,

1997, Ferrill, et al., in review), calcite-twin deformation studies (Ferrill, et al., in review; 1

Stamatakos and Ferrill,1996a), conodont color alteration indices (Grow, et al.,1994),

and paleomagnetic data (Stamatakos and Ferrill,1996b; Stamatakos, et al., in review)

Three dimensional (3D) motions from regional reconstructions based on palinspastic markers (Prave and Wright,1986; Stewart,1983; Snow and Wemicke,1989; Carr, 1990; Stevens, et al.,1991; Caskey and Schweickert,1992; Snow 1992a,1992b; Axen, et al.,1993; Snow,1994; Serpa and Pavlis,1996; Schweickert and Lahren,1997).

Fault displacement analyses (Wesnousky and Jones,1994; Minor,1995; Ofoegbu and Ferrill,1995; Ofoegbu and Ferrill, in press; Bruhn and Schultz,1996; Ferrill, et al.,

1996a; Piety,1996; Ferrill, et al.,1997; Stamatakos, et al.,1997).

Geodetic and GPS results (Gilmore,1992; Savage, et al.1994; Ferrill, et al.,1996b; Bennett, et al., in press).

Stress analyses (Stock, et al., 1985,1986; Zoback,1992; Zoback, et al.,1992; Bellier and Zoback,1995; Morris, et al.,1996) or seismic moment analysis (e.g., Smith, et al.,

1989; King, et al.,1994).

Palooseismic and Historical Seismic Elements Paleoseismic and seismic elements to consider in tectonic models are:

Historic seismicity in the Yucca Mountain region, including the Little Skull Mountain earthquake (e.g., Arabasz and Julander,1986; Harmson,1991; Rogers, et al.,1991; Smith and Arabasz,1991; Harmsen and Bufe,1992; Harmsen,1993,1994; Stover and Coffman,1993; Meremonte, et al.,1995).

43 f

Paleoseismic data from trenching studies along fault scarps and aerial photography analyses of surface deformation studies (Reheis, 1988,1994; Anderson and Klinger, 1994; Menges, et al.,1995; Pezzopane,1995; USGS,1996), including triggered and clustered seismicity (e.g., Anderson, et al.,1994; Bodin and Gomberg,1994).

I Viable Tectonic Models Review of the geologic literature by staff suggests that tectonic interpretations of the Yucca Mountain region can be organized into 11 tectonic models. Staff from NRC, CNWRA, DOE, I

USGS, and the State of Nevada met in San Antonio on May 7-8,1996, for an Appendix 7 meeting to discuss conceptual tectonic models. In this meeting, the 11 tectonic models proposed for the Yucca Mountain region were reviewed in the context of the most recent geological and geophysical data.

From discussions in the meetings, it was clear that 5 out of the 11 tectonic models were I

presently supported by the existing data (Appendix C-1). Although new data may promote one of the other six models currently considered not viable (Appendix C-2), the five models listed in Appendix C-1 form the bases for issue resolution at this time. In addition, there was no general consensus on which models are truly independent and which models may function as subsets I

of others in a broader sense, these five models can be considered in two general categories of deformation. The first three are dominantly related to extensional deformation and the latter are dominantly related to stnke-slip deformation. Moreover, the five models are not mutually I

exclusive. Locally, extensional-dominated deformation (within Crater Flat, for example) can exist within a larger region of trans-tensional deformation related to a pull-apart basin. The implications of the five viable models to repository performance subissues are summarized in Appendix C-3. Unless new data or scientific arguments can be developed to allow one or more of the models to become preferred, all five models should be used to bound the impact of faulting and seismicity on repository performance. DOE's PSHA expert elicitation process I

appears to be heading in the direction of consideration of an appropriate range of tectonic models.

I O' Leary (USGS,1996) proposed a reclassificahon of the 11 tectonic models and suggested the elastic-viscous model was the " preferred modet." O' Leary (USGS,1996), organized tectonic models into three generic classes, based on what O'Leay termed " bulk mechanical behavior" I

(USGS,1996, p. 8 51). These classes were simple shear, pure shear, and lateral shear. The caldera model of Carr (1982,1984.1988,1990, and Carr, et al.,1986a) was considered as a fourth unique model. The synclinorium model of Robinson (1985) was not discussed in USGS I

(1996). By simple shear, O' Leary (USGS,1996) actually refers to models that evoke some form of detachment faulting, that is the deep, intermediate, and shallow detachment models described in Appendices C-1 and C-2. By pure shear, O' Leary (USGS,1996), refers to models that evoke horsts and graben fault block models like the planar fault block and domino fault I

block models (Stewart,1978; Fridrich, in press). By lateral shear, O' Leary (USGS,1996) refers to strike-slip-dominated models like the Amargosa Snear model of Schweickert and Lahren (1997).

44

[

i l

In summary, O' Leary (USGS,1996), presents a USGS " preferred" model of planar, steeply-dipping faults. Fault blocks are considered to deform internally, and voids between fault blocks i

are allowed to be filled by a ductile (fluid) middle crust. The model is based on the boundary element modeling of Janssen (1995). In the model, the seismogenic crust is treated as a quasi-elastic layer resting on a viscous middle and lower crust. According to O' Leary (USGS,1996) the model addresses the following important geological and geophysical considerations:

I Faulting and basaltic volcanism are episodic and coupled.

l l3 The Crater Flat domain is essentially a half-graben with Yucca Mountain faults antithetic E

to the master BM fault.

I The vertical-axis rotations from strike-slip faulting are a secondary phenomena, related to a discrete period of oroclinal bending.

I

g Faults are planar to the base of the seismogenic crust and dip between 30" and 60*.

3 They are essentially linear cracks in which displacements are treated as stress perturbations.

Stress conditions at the base of the crust control distribution of basaltic volcanism.

Faulted blocks are in isostatic equilibrium.

Elastic behavior of the crust (brittle and ductile) during an earthquake with relaxation creep in lower crust between earthquakes.

}

Rollover into faults in Crater Flat, especially the Bare Mountain fault, is not a result of j

fault geometry but of elastic flexure of the hangingwall.

Evaluation of Viable Tectonic Models The following addresses the USGS (1996)

• preferred" model:

USGS (1996), following Fridrich, et al. (in press), further subdivides the Crater Flat domain by a I

subdomain boundary simply referred to as the " hinge line" (see Figure 8.6 in USGS,1996).

The hinge line is defined as both a conceptual and physical feature. It apparently follows a subtle, but sudden, decline in average elevation of Yucca Mountain blocks--lower to the I

southeast (Fridrich, et al., in press)-along a series of ridge terminat'ons, aligned fault splays, Z-shaped bends in the ridge crests, and several small-magnitude aeromagnetic anomalies (USGS,1996). Northeast of the line, fault blocks with relatively high relief are juxtaposed across steeply dipping faults with relatively small displacements. Southwest of the hinge line, I

fault blocks are more strongly tilted and juxtaposed across faults with shallower dips and greater displacement (Scott and Bonk,1984; Scott,1990; Day, et al.,1997).

Both Fridrich, et al. (in press) and USGS (1996) consider the amount of clockwise vertical-axis rotations indicated by anomalous paleomagnetic declinations in the tuffs (Rosenbaum, et al.,

l 1991; Hudson, et al.,1994) to be the most important indicator of the hinge line. Northeast of the line, clockwise vertical-axis rotations are limited to 20' or less. Southwest of the hinge line, J

l 45 I

I vertical-axis rotations range between 20* and 45* The vertical axis rotations are interpreted in terms of a discrete period of dextral, strike-slip strain following within about 1 m.y. of the major pulse of Crater Flat extension (Hudson, et al.,1996) or the result of " concentrated strain along bending beams" due to differential extension of southern Yucca Mountain (USGS,1996). Along with spatial and temporal variations in the amount of extension on faults, the significance of the paleomagnetic data is that the main locus of deformation in the Crater Flat domain has migrated to the southwest with time. The implication is that the hinge line effectively isolates Yucca Mountain in the northeast subdomain from active deformation in the southwest subdomain, thereby, reducing the risk of future seismicity and volcanism at Yucca Mountain.

Several aspects of the hinge-line argument are inconsistent with the available geological and geophysical data. First, structural and gravity data define a diffuse eastern margin of the Crater I

Flat half graben well east of the ridges that comprise Yucca Mountain proper (Ferrill, et al.,

1996b; Connor, et al.,1996). Within this half-graben, Yucca Mountain appears, in plan-view, as

" bow-shaped " convex toward the east. Similar to many curvilinear structural features I

worldwide, curvature alone is not indicative of horizontal bending of a previously more linear feature (e.g., Stamatakos and Hirt,1994), as supposed by the USGS (1996) explanation.

Numerous curved structural features are primary and simply reflect the interplay between local variations of the imposed deformation and lateral variations in crustal anisotropy (e.g., Marshak, 1988; Ferrill and Groshong,1993).

Second, the interpretation that all faults change strike northwest and southwest of the hinge line I

is misleading. In northern Crater Flat, the northeast-trending faults are an extension of the radial pattem of faulting in the region immediately surrounding the Miocene Timber Mountain and Rainier Mesa calderas. In southem Yucca Mountain, there are some northeast-trending faults, but many faults als o have north-south strikes, contrary to the USGS interpreted fauk map (compare Figure 4-1 and Figure 1; Fridrich, et al., in press).

Third, the interpretation that anomalous paleomagnetic declinations necessarily signify vertical axis rotations related to oroclinal bending is overly simplistic (e.g., Gray and Stamatakos,1998).

The rigorous test of vertical-axis rotetions resulting from oroclinal bending was defined in I

Schwartz and Van der Voo (1984). The test plots paleomagnetic declinations as a function of the orientation of structural trends. The assumption in an oroclinal bending model is that both prebending structures (in this case, normal faults) and corresponding paleomagnetic vectors will correlate if both were passively reoriented by vertical-axis rotations. A significant correlation between declination and strike with a slope of one implies bending of an originally linear feature (e.g., Van der Voo, et al.,1997). Significant correlations between declination and strike with a slope of less than one implies bending of an originally curved feature (e.g., Eldredge, et al.,

1985).

I Plots of the paleomagnetic declination versus strike of structural trends in Crater Flat and at Yucca Mountain based on available data do not support a simple orocline (vertical-axis rotation) model (Figure 2b, Stamatakos and Ferrill, in press), especially when compared to regions in which oroclinal bending is well established (cf. Figure 8 in Van der Voo, et al.,1997). The l

analysis of Stamatakos and Ferrill (in press) shows that the distribution of magnetic declinations

[

46 I

I recorded in the Tiva Canyon Tuff (Rosenbaum, et al.,1991) at Crater Flat and Yucca Mountain is independent of structural trend.

I An altemative explanation of the rotated paleomagnetic directions is that they resulted from differential displacement on listric normal faults (Figure 3a, Stamatakos and Ferrill, in press). In this geometry, hangingwalls rotate about a steeply inclined axis as displacement proceeds I

(Figure 3b, Stamatakos and Ferrill, in press). Faults that are incorporated into the hangingwalls of other faults may also rotate. Faults that form the ultimate footwall (not incorporated into a hangingwall of another fault) or faults that form after an initial period of extension may not I

necessarily be rotated (Figure 4c, Stamatakos and Ferrill, in press). This situation appears to mimic that at southern Yucca Mountain [ compare Stamatakos and Ferrill (in press), Figure 4c with Figures 1 and 2). In this interpretation, the increase in the amount of clockwise rotations indicated by the paleomagnetic declinations in southwestem Crater Flat result from lateral southward increases in displacement on Crater Flat faults, like the Solitario Canyon Fault (e.g.,

j Scott,1990). Moreover, this interpretation is entirely consistent with the observation that the greatest amount of extension is in the southern part of Crater Flat (e.g., Scott,1990; Ferrill, et al.,1996a; Stamatakos, et al.,1997b; Fridrich, in press).

i The Role of Faults in the Distribution of Dikes and Volcanoes l

Studies of dike and volcano alignments in Crater Flat and Amargosa Desert are being reviewed at CNWRA and NRC and will be presented in FY99.

I i

3 Planar versus Listric Fault Geometries The first-order structure of the Crater Flat-Bare Mountain region is the pronounced rol!over of the Miocene tuffs into the Bare Mountain fault (Young, et al.,1992b; Ferrill, et al.,1996b). This rollover defines the shape of the Crater Flat half-graben, in which the deepest portion of the I

Crater Flat basin is adjacent to the Bare Mountain fault (e.g., Snyder and Carr,1982; Ferrill, et al.,1996b). Rollover has long been recognized as the result of hangingwall deformation above a curved or listric fault (Groshang,1990). The exact geometry of rollover and fault shape depends on the nature of deformation in the hangingwall(Dula,1990), on the assumption that faulting is restorable because hangingwall volume is preserved during deformation.

I The altemative proposed by O' Leary (USGS,1996) supposes that elastic flexure of the hangingwall causes the roll-over geometry. The model does not consider surface geometry as a constraint to deformation kinematics. The ductile middle crust is allowed to fill voids in the subsurface where gaps open between fault blocks. Fault blocks can deform internally if space problems at the surface exist where fault blocks of different dip overlap. The potential mechanisms for internal block deformation, including increased fracturing, are not discussed.

I According to O' Leary (in USGS,1996), the model accounts for the observation that few, if any, historic earthquakes ruptured shallow-angle (detachment) normal faults, including the 1992

]

Little Skull Mountain earthquake, which appeared to have ruptured a steeply dipping fault near the base of the seismogenic crust.

I 47 i

I

Geologic Framework Model Version 3.0 (GFM3.0)

DOE's GFM3.0 is a significant update of the geologic framework model embedded in its Integrated Site Model(ISM) 2.0. GFM3.0 incorporated the Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Area (Day, et al.,1997), the revised lithostratigraphic nomenclature (Spengler and Buesch,1998), and the precise stratigraphic contacts mapped in the Exploratory Studies I

Facility. The GFM3.0 is DOE's stratigraphic and fault framework model shared by the following users: (1) unsaturated flow and transport; (2) saturated zone flow and transport; (3) near-field environment models; (4) repository design; (5) mineralogy; and (6) performance assessment (D. Bryan, Translation and Use of GFM3.0, Handout at DOE /NRC Quarterly Technical Meeting, June 18,1998). The SZ, Repository Design and PA groups will be relying on the stratigraphic and fault depictions for their assessments (ibid.). The staff has reviewed GFM3.0 for the purposes of evaluating its various uses by DOE and considering using it to enhance the staff's i

3D-modeling capability.

The staffs at CNWRA and NRC Headquarters, in coordination, conducted tests and evaluations of GFM3.0. Briefly, the staffs addressed the following questions: (1) Are the input data necessary and sufficient to define faults and stratigraphy in the model? (2) Do modeled fault traces and surfaces and stratigraphic boundary-surfaces match the field data? (3) Were the essential data bases provided by DOE with the model? (4) Are alternative representations - or interpretations - of stratigraphy and faults warranted? (5) is it possible to reasonably incorporate alternative interpretations of subsurface fault geometry into GFM3.0? and (6) What observations or limitations relative to representation of faults and stratigraphic horizons in GFM3.0 might require further explanations? Also, selected cross sections were assessed.

Overall, the staffs found GFM3.0 adequate for the purposes of: (1) depicting faults (42 are included), fault blocks (43 are included), stratigraphic horizons (50 surfaces are included) and the topographic surface at the scale of the repository site vicinity, and (2) providing a geologic framework for displaying and assessing the parameter distributions of other site characteristics.

The testing and assessment procedures, results and selected observations and limitations are presented in Appendix F.

As a result of the staff's favorable review of GFM3.0 and with consideration of the time and resources needed to develop a tool similar to GFM3.0, the staff will adopt and adapt GFM3.0 and updates, as needed, for its purposes of independent evaluation and aralyses of the Yucca Mountain site.

4.4.2 Crustal Conditions Crustal conditions characterize past, current, and predicted future stress and strain states and strain rates at the Yucca Mountain site and tectonic environs. Crustal conditions are critical to tectonic model development, fau!t slip, seismic motion, and development and reorientation of fractures. Technical bases for acceptance and review criteria are primarily derived from consideration of the application of crustal cor.ditions as tools to evduate seismic sources, faulting probability, structural control of groundwater flow, long-term evolution of natural and engineered barriers, and related SDS issues.

4.4.2.1 Acceptance Criteria TBD FY 1999.

48

4.4.2.2 Technical Bases for Review Methods and Acceptance Criteria Geologic stress components applicable to resolution of the SDS KTl are lithostatic, hydrostatic, thermal, and seismotectonic stress. The present and predicted future states, including occurrence, distribution, and mechanisms of strain accommodation and how these strains affect the Yucca Mountain site and tectonic environs, form the primary bases for review methods and acceptance criteria for crustal conditions.

Stress states in rock may be: (1) measured directly from fluid pressure, overcoring, borehole I

strain meters, hydro / gas-fracturing in well bores; (2) indirectly inferred from strain measurements, faults, fractures, overburden, dike orientations, earthquake focal mechanisms; or (3) abstracted from numerical and physical analogue models. Stress states determined from I

local in situ strain or stress measurements yield local values that are extrapolated over large volumes and may not reflect stress states at the larger scale. For example, upward scaling of locally determined stress and strain values may be affected by topography (Jaeger and Cook, I

1979; Stock, et al.,1985; Stock and Healy,1988), changes in lithology (Engelder,1993) or mechanical interactions between structures (Dupin, et al.,1993). As a result, regional stress fields determined from direct and indirect local strain or stress measurements require sampling in multiple and spatially distributed locations (Bellier and Zoback,1995; Minor,1995; Minor, et I

al.,1997).

Strain release in the upper crust may be local or regional in scale and induce a combination of seismic, microseismic, or aseismic responses. Seismic response results from significant displacement or rupture along discrete fault surfaces or fault zones and may result in regional or local uplift or subsidence or both, with present or subsequent effects upon groundwater levels. Displacement along faults may introduce fast communication pathways between previously discrete fluid reservoirs or conduits or create or sever conduits between fluid systems or aquifers (Allan,1989). Microseismic response may result from microcracking, formation or growth of fractures orjoints, or slip on small-scale faults. The introduction of new fractures or fracture sets may provide new fluid pathways that accelerate, retard, or redirect fluid flow (Finkbeiner, et al.,1997). Aseismic responses include positive or negative dilation of I

existing fractures or both, depending upon fracture orientations relative to the stress field (Engelder,1993). Preferential fracture dilation results in anisotropic changes in porosity and permeability. In every case, introducing fractures and faults reduces, to some degree, the bulk strength of coherent rock (Hoek and Brown,1980).

Geologic strain rates and related seismic hazard risk analyses are commonly determined by I

comparing the length of palinspastically restored or retro-deformed cross-sections with the present-day length along the same line of section, given the longevity of the regional deformation. One of the basic assumptions in this method, when applied to rocks deformed in the uppermost crust, is that all strain is accommodated by cross-section scale faulting.

l Estimates of regional extension based upon cross-section construction and restoration are minimum estimates of strain and do not account for the nonseismogenic strains accommodated I

by fractures, joints, small-scale faults, and microscale deformation (Wu,1993; Dunne and l

Ferrill,1995). Considering the contribution of fractures, small faults, dikes, and pressure solution features, it seems improbable that the total strain of the Yucca Mountain region is accommodated by seismogenic rupture on fault surfaces.

l 49 r=w

- - - - - - q Strain ratec are inherently sensitive to errors in estimation and timing of cumulative slip on faults. Estimates of slip on individual faults or fault systems as determined from neo-tectonic features, including techniques such as trenching, stream offset mapping and alluvial fan mapping, are considered minimum values (Reheis,1988; Klinger and Anderson,1994; Ferrill, et al.,1996a; 1997). Fault restoration models assume that deformation or slip rates are h

constant throughout the life of the developing structure. This assumption effectively smooths or 5

averages crustal deformation to a constant or fixed strain rate and cannot account for the likely episodic nature of many crustal scale deformation events. An average rate will neither I

distinguish nor accurately model areas where quiescence is interspersed with periods of strain rates that are relatively high when compared to the averaged or smoothed strain rate. For the same reasons, Global Positioning System (GPS) and other geodetic measurements of I

extension rates, gathered over the span of a few years or tens of years, represent only a small fraction of the life of crustal-scale structures and may not accurately reflect longer term rates of strain. Recent GPS and geodetic results from several locations, including the Yucca Mountain I

site, indicate possible anomalously high rates of strain (Wemicke, et al.,1998; Martinez, et al.,

1998; USGS,1998) with varying degrees of confidence (Gilmore,1992; Savage, et al.,1994).

Geodetic leveling surveys beginning in 1907 (Gilmore,1992) indicate subsidence in at least I

southern Crater Flat, across the eastward dipping, normal-slip Bare Mountain fault zone. East of the Bare Mountain fault, survey results indicate a 20-100 mm drop in elevation over a period of 69 years (Gilmore,1992), corresponding to throw rates wellin excess of those measured from paleoseismic data (e.g., Anderson and Klinger,1994). Slip rates on the Bare Mountain fault zone appear to increase southward concomitant with an increase in fault dip (Monsen, et al.,1992; Stamatakos, et al.,1997a). The change in slip rate and subsequent southward-increasing subsidence of Crater Flat is supported by studies of alluvial fan deposits along the eastem flank of Bare Mountain (Ferrill, et al.,1996a). Although the level-line results of Gilmore (1992) are not reflected in later surveys along a different line (USGS,1996), the earlier level I

line surveys present additional uncertainty about the nature and rate of faulting on the Bare Mountain fault.

I Although the USGS (1996) reports no changes in elevation due to displacement on the Bare Mountain Fault zone, its level line survey does not cross the southern portion of the Bare Mountain Fault zone. Instead, the survey deviates northward on the east side of the Bare I

Mountain Fault (benchmark S16, Figure 6-1) to cross Crater Flat to the northeast. The USGS (1996) does report negative height changes in the 1980-1984 survey with respect to the 1915 survey (Gilmore,1992). Considering the brief (4 yr) time span of the level-line surveys (USGS,

(

I 1996) and the deviation from the level line of the 1915 survey, sufficient evidence does not exist to negate the possibility of height change across the southem portion of the Bare Mountain Fault.

Large slip rates exist within 50-100 km to the west and southwest of the Yucca Mountain site.

{-

GPS surveys indW high slip rates on the Death Valley Fault and Hunter Mountain fault systems within tne Death Valley Shear Zone southwest of Yucca Mountain (Bennet, et al.,

1997) Rates on the Death Valley Fault alone are 3-5 mm/yr. If these rates persist or increase over time, the potential exists for multiple M, 6.5-7.5 seismic events in the next 10,000 yr (Bennet, et al.,1997). Seismic activity to the east of the Yucca Mountain site at Little Skull 50 i

i Mountain resulted in measurable changes in elevation related to the 1992 Little Skull Mountain earthquake (MS.4) (Savage, et al.,1994; USGS 1996).

l Wernicke, et al. (1998) document crustal scale elongation rates across Yucca Mountain that greatly exceed those inferred from the geologic record (Ferrill, et al.,1996a; 1997). These results are important because they provide alternative estimates to significant SDS and IA performance parameters including: (1) the frequency and magnitudes of earthquakes; (2) recurrence rates of faulting; and (3) probability of volcanism. Results from Wernicke, et al.,

(1998) suggest contemporary strain rates of 2 mm/yr across Yucca Mountain and Crater Flat in contrast to much smaller strain rates reported by Savage, et al., (1994). The strain rate reported by Wernicke, et al(1998)is more than ten times the strain rate estimated from the geological record of faulting and volcanism. Wernicke, et al. (1998) interpreted these " anomalous" rates to suggest an order-of-magnitude increase in seismic (including faulting) and volcanic hazards over the next 10 ka.

lg The results from the GPS survey require a serious examination of potentialimpact upon the

!3 Yucca Mountain site. However, assessing an increase in hazard of proportion equal to the increase in strain rate requires a series of suppositions that, at present, are either not supported lg by the structural setting at Yucca Mountain or are not addressed in the current tectonic models

!g or assessment of crustal conditions (Connor, et al., in review). Suppositions that must be l

evaluated before seismic and volcanic hazards and hydrogeologic effects can be considered l

using GPS-determined strain rates are:

1 (1) That high strain rates must persist on time scales (10'-10' yr) of duration sufficient to affect hazard estimates compared to estimates derived from the geologic record t

(10L10' yr)

(2) That episodic strain accumulations must directly correlate with episodic volcanic eruptions or increased seismicity (3) The degree to which strain is partitioned between seismic, microseismic, and aseismic responses (4) The effects of partitioned strain upon groundwater flow.

I Critical Elements to Consider in Crustal Conditions lI TBD FY 1999.

l Evaluation of Crustal Conditions TBD FY 1999.

I g

si

5.0 STATUS OF SUBISSUE RESOLUTION The Structural Deformation and Seismicity issue is an open item because the ancillary subissues are still under investigation. When the four subissues are adequately addressed by DOE, the SDS KTl will be resolved.

I 5.1 FAULTING The goal of the faulting analyses performed by DOE was to locate and characterize the properties of faults that may be significant to repository design and repository performance.

Faults (and fractures, discussed subsequently) constitute the principal structural weaknesses of the repository block, and the preferred pathways for heat and fluids through the natural barrier and engineered systems. With respect to design, DOE sought faults that might be seismogenic or able to intersect waste packages, in order to ascertain the faulting and seismic hazards for consideration as pre-and post-closure design bases. DOE intends to place its waste packages I

in positions that are setback from known faults. This consideration has already greatly influenced the repository boundary and layout plan for waste packap With regard to long-term performance, faults and recurrence of faulting are significant for their effects on waste I

package performance, such as by rockfall, and for possibly influencing the flow of groundwater, heat and magmatic fluids, such as by, providing conductive pathways or low permeability boundaries.

5.1.1 Analysis of Subissue Resolution

]

Criterion by criterion analysis of issue resolution TBD FY 1999.

5.1.2 Summary of items Resolved at the Staff Level 5.1.2.1 Type i Faults DOE (ref. Seismotectonic Synthesis Report, USGS,1996) uses the terms relevant and potentially relevant in describing faults. Relevant faults are defined as those having documented Quaternary displacement and the capability of the maximum magnitude earthquake on the fault to produce 84th percentile peak acceleration greater than or equal to 0.1 g. Potentially relevant faults are considered subject to displacement on the basis of potential structural association with seismicity. Therefore, the following items are resolved:

(a)

Seventy-eight specific faults are considered to be Type I faults by NRC staff (McKague, et al.,1996). These faults are listed in Appendices B-1, B-2, and B-4.

Appendix B-1 lists 36 faults that both DOE and NRC have defined as relevant or potentially relevant or Type 1, respectively. Appendix B-2 lists 33 faults that DOE defined as relevant or potentially relevant. The staff considers 29 of these to be Type I faults.

(b)

DOE's identification of 33 faults that do not need to be investigated in detail (Appendix B-3). Type ill faults are faults or fault zones that either are not subject to displacement, or, if subject to displacement, arc of such length or located in such I

I

I manner, that they will not affect repository design and/or performance (NUREG-1451; McConnell, et al.,1992).

I (c)

DOE's boundaries of areas to be investigated include: (1) the faulting component of the geologic setting has a radius of 100 km around the Yucca Mountain site center; and (2) the controlled area constitutes the area of regulatory concern about direct effects of fault displacement.

(d)

DOE's use of Wells and Coppersmith (1994) equation to estimate the maximum capable earthquake for each fault in the faulting component (e)

DOE's use of 0.1 g threshold ground motion at the site, as suggested in NUREG-1451 (McConnell, et al.,1992)

(f)

DOE's use of the 84th percentile peak ground acceleration value, which is more conservative than the median value used by McKague, et al (1996), as long as it compensates for DOE's use of non-conservative attenuation model (for faults closer than about 30 km to the site)

(g)

DOE's selection of the minimum surface-rupture earthquake of Mw = 5.8, based on the Fort Sage 1950 event. Staff considers that value reasonable in light of the historic record.

(h)

DOE's use of Piety (1995) as the principal source of data on age of faulting events younger than about 2 million years.

5.1.2.2 Faulting Causing Waste Package Failures 1

The following item is resolved with the caveats enumerated in Section 3.2.1.1:

l l

Faulting is not likely to cause sufficient waste package failures that would significantly affect I

repository performance (this appears to coincide with DOE's position), based on sensitivity studies described, with the caveats enumerated in Section 3.2.1.1.

5.1.2.3 Faulting Exhuming Waste Packages The following item is resolved (see discussion in Section 3.2.1.1):

Faulting through the repository horizon will not likely have single or cumulative displacements sufficient to cause exhumation of a waste package during the performance period.

Based on the conclusions in Section 3.2.1.1 above, the staff accepts DOE's Hypothesis No.16 "The amount of movement of faults through the repository horizon will be too small to bring waste to the surface, and too small and infrequent to significantly impact containment during the next few thousand years" (U.S. DOE,1998, p.15).

I g

53

r 5.1.2.4 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) Items

. Comments 36,62,64, and 71 on the characterization, location, and setback from significant faults are resolved (see Appendix D for resolution rationale).

5.1.3 Summary of items Open and Path to Resolution 5.1.3.1 Faulting I

Open item. The Faulting subissue - have faults and faulting that may significantly affect the performance of a repository been identified, characterized, and understood -is an open item because the PFDHA component has not been reviewed. When PSHA and Topical Report j

(TR#3) are reviewed, it is expected that the subissue will be resolved.

5.1.3.2 Type i Faults Open item. Thirteen specific faults listed in Appendix B-4, described by DOE (Simonds, et al.,

1995a) are considered Type i faults by NRC (McKague, et al.,1996), but not all of them (eight faults) have been considered to be of significance to design or performance by DOE experts.

I However, these eight candidate Type I faults and the mutually resolved Type i faults have been

)

brought to the attention of DOE's expert panelists (PSHA expert elicitation) who are evaluating them. Staff expect DOE's PSHA/PFOHA report and TR #3, both due in FY98, to contain DOE's evaluation of such potential Type I faults and re-evaluation of the accepted Type I faults (Appendices B-1, B-2, and B-4). Thus, staff expects to update status of remaining Type i faults in FY99, following review of PSHA/PFDHA and TR#3. Staff have found (McKague, et al.,1996) that the differences in DOE's and NRC's classifications of particular faults are rooted in just a few parameters, which can generally be resolved. The parameters are: (1) fault trace length; (2) attenuation function; ano (3) selection of median or 84th percentile for identification of 0.1 g

'I criterion. Resolution of significance of any specific faults that remain in contention should be discussed parameter by parameter with DOE experts, to constrain points of disagreement and mutually address those points.

5.1.3.3 Fault Displacement Hazard Status will be provided in Revision 2 of this IRSR in FY99.

5.1.3.4 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) Items To date, NRC staff has identified ten comments; four comments were resolved; and six remain unresolved (Numbers 48, 59,60,61,63, and 69) in the general area of faulting in the SCA of DOE's Site Characterization Plan (Appendix D).

I 5.2 SEISMICITY The goal of the ground motion analysis performed by DOE was to identify ground motion models for input in the PSHA. The ground motion evaluation involved collecting and interpreting data, proposing models, and examining geological and geophysical information.

The ground motion evaluation was performed through workshops and expert elicitation. Using I

I

r r

various information and available data, each expert developed a series of ground motion estimates for a defined suite of earthquake magnitudes and distances, fault geometries and fault styles. Each of the experts provided the aleatory and epistemic uncertainties associated with his estimates, and these estimates were discussed in several workshops; 5.2.1 Analysis of Subissue Resolution Criterion by criterion analysis of subissue resolution TBD FY 1999.

5.2.2 Summary of items Resolved at the Staff Level 5.2.2.1.

Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Methodology DOE's probabilistic approach to seismic hazard analysis (U.S. DOE,1997) was accepted in pnnciple by NRC staff (Bell,1996) for the evaluation of the seismic hazard and fault displacement hazard at Yucca Mountain (see DOE's TR #1). DOE decided, and the staff accepted, that the seismic hazard component of the ' Seismicity'subissue will be addressed through the issuance of three TRs (U.S. DOE,1997," Methodology to Assess Fault Displacement and Vibratory Ground Motion Hazards at Yucca Mountain)."

i The staff has conducted an acceptance review of TR #1 in accordance with NRC's Division of High-Level Waste Management Review Plan, dated February 1994. In a letter dated l

September 7,1994, the staff prov'ided its comments on TR #1. On January 29,1996, DOE provided responses to the staff comments. In a letter dated July 25,1996 (Bell,1996), the staff l

informed DOE that sufficient information had been provided to close all open issues related to TR #1. Because TR #1 is limited to describing the seismological assessment methodology, and l

l TR #2 (U.S. DOE,1997b), which also had been accepted by the staff, addressed "Preciosure Seismic Design Methodology for Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain," the staff decided to l

issue a Preliminary Evaluation Report after receiving TR #3, which will document the results of l

both PSHA and seismic design values needed for the design of the facilities.

5.2.2.2 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) items All SCA items on seismicity are resolved. NRC staff has resolved Comments 66 and 67 in the area of seismic motion. Comment 66 dealt with the 10,000-year, cumulative-slip earthquakes, and Comment 67 dealt with a magnitude 5.5 cutoff (see Appendix D for resolution rationale).

5.2.3 Summary of items Open and Path to Resolution 5.2.3.1 Seismic Hazard Open item. The seismicity subistue - what are the viable models of seismic sources and seismic motion at Yucca Mountain - will be addressed upon staff review of PSHA and TR #3 in FY99. Resolution of the probabilistic seismic hazard methodology component has been already documented in this IRSR (Section 5.2.2.1).

55

The seismic hazard analysis results reflect the interpretation of different experts of the seismic source characteristics and earthquake ground motions. Several workshops were held to address the needs of the experts. For example, one of the workshops was held to identify important issues related to: (1) seismic source characterization; (2) recurrence models; (3) fault segmentation, (4) multiple fault ruptures; and (5) fault geometry and kinematics. A second workshop goal was to address the methods and approaches to characterize seismic sources in the Yucca Mountain region and review new data available since the first workshop. Another workshop debated the tectonic models, characterization of the faulting in the repository block, and the maximum background earthquakes. In another workshop, the experts discussed the issue of how to apply ground motion estimates from regions other than Yucca Mountain.

Following the workshops, each of the ground motion experts documented the rationale behind his ground motion estimates. These estimates were discussed in a feedback workshop where the experts were informed of the implications of their interpretations of the ground motion estimates. Because earthquake data recorded in the Basin and Range Province are not sufficient to constrain an attenuation model for Yucca Mountain, the expert has to modify the western United States attenuation relations to the Yucca Mountain site. Also, there were not enough data to measure the damping (Kappa)in the shallow tuff at Yucca Mountain. In the DOE's Draft PSHA (USGS,1998), the experts used a value of 0.0186 sec for Kappa. As of mid-August 1998, the appropriate value of Kappa had not been presented to NRC by DOE. As presented by DOE in a Video Conference on June 18,1998, DOE indicated that it is planning additional experiments to reassess the near ground motion attenuation values, including spatial variabilities in the repository site area. Therefore, the matters of Kappa value and seismic hazard are unresolved. The staff will review the final PSHA and TR #3 when they are submitted by DOE and will provide comments in IRSR, Rev. 2.

5.2.3.2 Ground Motion and Rockfall Open item. Relationship between ground motion and the amount and characteristics of rockfall and drift collapse.

DOE's RSS (U.S. DOE,1998) Hypothesis No.17 states that, "The severity of ground motion in the repository horizon for tens of thousands of years will only slightly increase the amount of rockfall and drift collapse." DOE's analysis regarding this issue and how it will be treated in the disruptive events scenario has not been presented to the staff. The staff is performing sensitivity analyses and examining the significance of rockfall on the canisters. Preliminary results indicate that the number of container failures depends on the assumptions made regarding the location and properties of fractures in the rock, the strength of the canister, and the magnitude of ground motion. The staff will address and comment on the resolution of this issue after reviewing DOE's TSPA-VA.

5.3 FRACTURING AND STRUCTURAL FRAMEWORK OF THE GEOLOGIC SETTING Status will be provided in Revision 2 of this IRSR FY 1999.

5.3.1 Analysis of Subissue Resolution Criterion by criterion analysis of issue resolution TBD FY 1999 56 I

l

t i

l l

5.3.2 Summary of items Resolved at the Staff Level l-TBD in FY 1999.

1 5.3.2.1 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA)ltems l

There are no SCA open items on this subissue.

l 5.3.3 Summary of items Open and Path to Resolution TBD in FY 1999.

5.4 TECTONICS AND CRUSTAL CONDITIONS 5.4.1 Analysis of Subissue Resolution Criterion by criterion analysis of issue resolution TBD in 1999.

5.4.2 Summary ofitems Resolved at the Staff Level 5.4.2.1 Viable Tectonic Models The following items are resolved:

l l

(a)

DOE's general description of which tectonic models are currently viable and which l

are not viable: cf eleven tectonic models proposed, five were currently supported by l

existing data, i.e., are viable tectonic models (Appendix C-1), and six are not viable (Appendix C-2).

(b)

DOE's consideration that the Bare Mountain fault is the dominant or master dip-slip fault of the extensional half graben that characterized the CF-BM region.

(c)

DOE's consideration that the dominant mode of deformation is that of extension with secondary effects from strike-slip faulting.

(d)

DOE's concept of structural domains--regions that have a similar structural style and distinctive lithology evident at a scale of about 1:100,000 separated by discrete boundaries usually composed of faults or shear zones.

5.4.2.2 Geologic Framework Model Version 3.0 (GFM3.0)

The following item is resolved (see discussion in Section 4.4.1.2 and Appendix F):

57 i

c

DOE's GFM3.0 is an adequate tool for various site-scale analyses of stratigraphy, faults, fault blocks, and their relationship to typography and to the 3D distribution of parameters associated with hydrologic and rock properties. GFM3.0 is the framework for the soon-to-be-released Integrated Site Model Version 3.0 (ISM 3.0). The NRC staff have developed the capability to fully utilize GFM3.0 and will use it to conduct independent analyses and as a review tool for various DOE models that have incorporated GFM3.0. For example, the staff are prepared to review ISM 3.0 when it is issued in FY99.

5.4.3 Summary of items Open and Path to Resolution 5.4.3.1 Tectonics and Crustal Conditions Open item. The entire " Tectonics and Crustal Conditions" subissue is an open item because the PFDHA and PSHA components are not resolved. When the components are resolved, it is

[

expected that the subissue will be resolved.

5.4.3.2 DOE's " Preferred" Tectonic Model Open item. Staff does not consider the USGS (1996)" preferred" model to be a viable tectonic model because:

(

To get rollover similar to that observed in Crater Flat (Ferrill, et al.,1996b), the USGS (1996) model requires the addition of at least three blind faults with approximately 1 to 3 km of vertical separation; one in the center of Crater Flat (referred to in the model as the Crater Flat fault) and two on the boundaries of the model (west of Bare Mountain and east of Jackass Flat). In addition, blind faults must be active late in the y

deformation sequence to achieve the desired rollover (compare Figure 8.28a with t

8.28e in USGS,1996). NRC finds no geological or geophysical evidence for the existence of such blind faults.

Rollover in the USGS (1996) model requires an effective elastic thickness of the upper crust of only 2 km. Thicker crust, akin to a stiffer elastic beam, will not flex under nominal stress conditions. Seismic data, including the 1992 Little Skull f

Mountain earthquake (e.g., Harmsen,1994), suggest that the seismogenic crust is at least 15 km deep near Yucca Mountain.

f Boundary conditions between the ductile middle crust and the brittle upper crust in the USGS (1996) model are not described. Such boundary conditions are critical to the boundary element model and must be delineated to support this model.

There are several alternative explanations for the lack of historic earthquakes on shallow normal faults not considered by DOE (USGS,1996). One possibility is that slip rates on shallow-dipping portions of listric faults are aseismic, too slow to produce earthquakes (Ofoegbu and Ferrill, 1995,1996,1998). A second possibility is that because shallow-dipping faults are more efficiently oriented than steep faults to accommodate horizontal extension, seismic activity on detachment faults is rare compared to the relatively brief historic seismic record (Wemicke,1995).

58

=

Little Skull Mountain earthquake occurred in the footwall of the Crater Flat-Yucca Mountain fault system well east of any listric faults proposed in the detachment models. Therefore, the location of this earthquake has little bearing on the presence or absence of listric faults in the Yucca Mountain-Bare Mountain region.

1 Flexure of the stiff beams required to produce clockwise rotations of southern Yucca l

Mountain and, thereby, account for vertical-axis rotations indicated by the p

paleomagnetic data (e.g., Rosenbaum, et al.,1991) results in a plan-view geometry opposito to that observed in Crater Flat. In the USGS model (see Figure 8.32 in I

USGS 1W6), fault separation is greatest in northern Yucca Mountain, and parts of southam Yucca Mountain appear to form small thrust faults to accommodate the defarmation.

Consideration of this model alone is insufficient to bound or quantify uncertainty related to multiple barriers or repository performance.

Therefore, the " preferred" model is not a viable model for probability calculations (including PSHA and PVHA). Other viable tectonic models (Appendix C-1) used by DOE in arriving at its TSPA-VA, PVHA, and PSHA will be evaluated in the context of those assessments and analyses, which are due to be reviewed by staff after their release by DOE.

l 5.4.3.3 DOE Integrated Site Models Open item. The staff committed to meet DOE's request that NRC staff review and comment on DOE's integrated Site Geologic Framework Model ISM 2.0 (letter from N. Stablein to I

S. Brocoum dated December 15,1997). DOE specifically requested the staff to evaluate whether or not the ISM 2.0 model is suitable for its intended uses (letter from S. Brocoum to J. Greeves dated November 21,1997). Early in the staff review of ISM 2.0, DOE indicated that I

it was preparing ISM 3.0. The staff refocused on ISM 3.0 and is planning to review it in FY99.

Additional discussion of the change in focus from ISM 2.0 to ISM 3.0 is documented in a letter dated September 30.1998, from M. Bell to S. Brocoum.

5.4.3.4 Crustal Strain at Yucca Mountain I

Open item. The affects of crustal strain on repository design and performance remains to be determined (review of strain data, interpretations and potential effects on seismotectonic and volcanic hazards is summarized in Section 4.4.2.2). The path to resolution includes addressing the following matters:

(1)

Are the GPS data reliable?

Current plans call for parallel geodetic studies by the USGS and the Cal Tech group, working through the University of Nevada. These additional GPS studies are to include additional GPS campaigns that will re-occupy existing benchmarks, additional level-line surveys, and I

installation of a permanent GPS network. NRC and CNWRA will monitor the acquisition and interpretation of these data.

I se P

I (2)

How should GPS-derived rates be used to derive or modify existing seismic and volcanic hazard estimates at YM7 I

Given the observations of Wernicke, et al. (1998), the interpretation of high GPS strain rates in terms of hazards is critical to issue resolution. The recent CNWRA comment on the Wernicke, et al. (1998) paper (Connor, et al., in press) focused on the interpreted GPS-determined strain I

rates in terms of hazard. Fundamental assumptions both stated and inferred by Wernicke, et al. (1998) were discussed in the comment by CNWRA staff (Connor, et al., in review). Staff consider evaluation of these assumptions vitalif the issue is to be resolved. These assumptions are:

(a)

There is a direct, observable link between high crustal strain and the amount of volcanism and/or faulting in a given region, and all the GPS-determined strain will result in either large earthquakes or new volcanoes.

(b)

The episode of anomalous strain rate is long enough to affect hazard but short enough to be ambiguous in the longer-term geological record.

Current Operations Plans in both the SDS and IA KTls call for several technical investigations designed to reach issue resolution by examining these assumptions. These tasks include:

1 1.

Determining if there is a direct link between high strain rates and increased seismicity J

and volcanism. Approaches include: (1) field-based (including GPS survey) investigations in comparable geologic settings; and (2) analog and numerical modeling experiments to assess how strain may be distributed between mechanisms that i

contribute to the hazards (volcanoes and earthquakes) and mechanisms that do not (fractures, small faults, fault creep).

I Field-based investigations in regions with current high strain rate to assess the episodic 2.

nature of strain on time scales of 10' yr.

l Evaluation of the GPS strain rate (data reliability) and its effects upon seismic and volcanic hazard assessment are critical to issue resolution. Data reliability, the possible episodic nature of high crustal strain rates at YM, the duration of high strain-rate episodes, and the mechanisms of strain accommodation are vital components of resciution.

l 5.4.3.5 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA) Items To date, staff has identified four comments (Numbers 8,47,68, and 98)in the area of tectonic models that are open items (Appendix D).

5.4.3.6 Site Characterization Analysis (SCA)- Other Geoscience To date, NRC staff has identified two comments (Numbers 32 and 51) and one question (Number 8) in areas of geology and geophysics related to SDS KTl in the SCA of DOE's Site Characterization Plan. All are open items. (Appendix D, 'Other Geoscience'). ['Other Geoscience'is an arbitrary grouping of items from the SCA that are not specific to the four subissues categories).

60

l

6.0 REFERENCES

CITED Abrahamson, N.A., W.J. Silva, Empirical response spectral attenuation relations for shallow crustalearthquakes, Seismoloaical Research Letters 68.94-127,1997.

l Alexander, L.L., J.W. Handschy, Fluid flowin a faulted reservoir system: Fault trap analysis for the block 330 fieldin Eugene Island, south addition, offshore Louisiana, American Association l

of Petroleum Geoloaists Bulletin 82(3),387-411,1998.

A!!an, U.S., Modelfor hydrocarbon migration and entrapment within faulted structures, American Association of Petroleum Geoloaists Bulletin 73(7). 803-811,1989.

Anderson, R.E., Thin-skinned distension in Tertiary rocks of southwestem Nevada, Geoloaical Society of Americo Bulletin 82,43-58,1971.

Anderson. L.W., R.E. Kiinger, Preliminary evaluation of the Bare Mountain fault zone, Nye County, Nevada, Administrative Reoort in Sucoort of Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Activity E3.1.17.4 3. Denver, CO, Bureau of Reclamation,1994.

Anderson, J.G., J.N. Brune, J.N. Louie, Y. Zeng, M. Savage, G. Yu, Q. Chen, D. dePolo, Seismicity in the westem Great Basin apparently triggered by the Landers, Califomia l

earthquake, 28, June 1992, Bulletin of the Seismoloaical Society of America 84. 863-891, 1994.

Anna, L.O., Prehminary three-dimensional discrete fracture model of the Topopah Spring Tuffin the exploratory studies facility, Yucca Mountain area, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Engd, Lakewood, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1997.

Anna, L.O., P. Wallman, Characterizing the fracture network at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Part 2; Numorical simulation of flowin a three-dimensional discrete fracture network, Fractured Reservoirs: Descriotions. Predictions. and Aeolications: Rocky Mountain Association of Geoloaists 1997 Guidebook. Hoak, T.E., P.K. Blomquist, and A. Klawitter, e's, Denver, CO, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists,199-208,1997.

4 Arabas::, W.J., D.R. Julander, Geometry of seismically active faults and crustal deformation within the Basin and Range Province, northeastem Nevada. Extensional tectonics of the ig Southwestem United States: A Perspective on Processes and Kinematics, L. Mayer, ed,

3 Geoloaical Society of America Soecial Pacer 208. Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America, 43-74,1986.

Armstrong, R.L., Sevier orogenic belt in Nevada and Utah, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 79. 439-458,1968.

Atwater. T., Implications of piste tectonics for the Cenozoic tectonic evolution of westem North America, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 81. 3,513-3,536,1970.

61 L

Axen, G.J.. W.J. Taylor, J.M. Bartlet, Space-time pattems and tectonic controls of tertiary extension and magmatism in the Great Basin of the westem United States, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 105.56-76,1993.

Barton, C.C., E. Larsen, Fracta! geometry of two-dimension fracture networks at Yucca Mountain, Fundamentals of Rock Joints: Proceedinas of the Intemational Symoosium on Fundamentals of Rock Joints. O. Stephanson, ed, Sweden, Biorkliden. 77-84,1985.

Barton, C.C., P.A. Hsieh, Physical and Hydrologic-Flow Properties of Fractures, Washington, DC, American Geochvsical Union.1989.

Barton, C.C., E. Larsen, W.R. Page, T.M. Howard, Characterizing Fractured Rock for I

Fluid-Flow, Geomechanical, and Paleostress Modeling: Methods and Preliminary Results from Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Reoort 93-269. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1993.

Barton, C.A., M.D. Zoback, D. Moos, Fluid flow along potentially active faults in crystalline rock, Geoloav 23(8), 683-686,1995.

Barton, C.C.. T.M. Howard, E. Larsen, Tubular structures on the faces of coolingjoints-A new volcanic feature, EOS. Transactions of the American Geochvsical Union 65.1,148,1984.

Bell, M.J., Letter (July 25) to S. J. Brocoum, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D. C.,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1996.

Bellier, O., M.L. Zoback, Recent state of stress change in the Walker Lane Zone, westem Basin and Range province, United States, Tectonics 14.564-593,1995.

I Bennett, R.A., J.L. Davis, P. El6 segui, B.P. Wemicke, J.K. Snow, M.J. Abolins, M.A. House, G.L. Stirewalt, D.A. Ferrill, Globalpositioning system constraints on fault slip rates in the Death Valley region, Califomia and Nevada, Geoohvsical Research Letters 24. 3,037-3,076,1997.

Bemreuter, D. L., A. C. Boissonade, C. M. Short, Investigations of technique for the development of seismic design basis using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, NUREGICR-QHQS,1998.

Bodin G.E., J. Gomberg, Triggered seismicity and deformation between Landers, Califamia, and Little SkullMountain, Nevada, earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismoloaical Society of America 84.835-843,1994.

Bohannon, R.G, T. Parsons, Tectonic implications of post-30 Ma Pacific and North I

American relative plate motions, Geolocical Society of America Bulletin 107.937-959,1995.

Boore, D.M., W.B. Joyner, T.E. Fumal,1993, Estimation of Response Spectra and Peak I

Accelerations from Westem North American Earthquakes: An Interim Report, U S. Geo!aaical jiyrvey Ooen-File Reoort 93-509, Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey,1993.

62 I

I Bowring, S.A., K.E. Yarlstrom, Growth and stabilization of the Proterozoic lithosphere in the southwestern United States, Geoloov 18.1,203-1,206,1993.

i Bradshaw, T.K., E.I. Smith, Polygenetic Quatemary volcanism at Crater Flat, Nevada, Joumal of Volcanoloav and Geothermal Research 63.165-182,1994.

l Brechtel, C.E., M. Lin, E. Martin, D.S. Kessel, Geotechnical characterization of the north ramp of the exploratory studies facility, volume I ofll data summary, SAND 95-0488/1UC-814.

Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories,1995.

Brethauer, G.E., D.L. Healy, C.H. Miller, Statistical Analysis of the Gravity Method of Calculating the Depth of the Pre-Cenozoic Surfaces in Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site, Geolooical Prosoectina Vol. 29.31-38,1981 Brocher, T.M., M.D. Carr, K.F. Fox, P.E. Hart, Seismic reflection profiling across tertiary extensional structures in the eastem Amargosa Desert, Basin and Range Quadrangle, Nevada, i

Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 105.30-46,1993.

Brocher, T.M., P.E. Hart, W.C. Hunter, V.E. Langenheim, Hybrid-source seismic reflection profiling across Yucca Mountain, Nevada, regionallines 2 and 3, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Reoort 96-02. Menlo Park, CA, U.S. Geological Survey,1996.

Brocher, T.M., W.C. Hunter, and V.E. Langenheim, implications of seismic reflection and potential field geophysical data on the structure frame work of Yucca Mountain-Crater Flat Region, Nevada, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 110. 947-971,1998.

Bruhn, R.L., R.A. Schultz, Geometry and slip distribution in normalfault systems: Implications for mechanics and fault-related hazards, Journal of Geochvsical Research 101.3,401-3,412, 1996.

Buesch, D.C., R.W. Spengler, T.C. Moyer, J.K. Gelsin, Proposed Stratigraphic Nomenclature and Macroscopic Identification of Lithostratigraphic Units of the Paintbrush Group Exposed at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Reoort 94-469, Denver, CO, U.S.

Geological Survey,1996.

Burchfiel, B.C., G.A. Davis, Structural framework and evolution of the southem part of the Cordilleran orogeny, westem United States, American Journal of Science 272.97-118,1972.

Burchfiel, B.C., D.S. Cowen, G.A. Davis, Tectonic overview of the Cordilleran orogen in the westem United Status, The Cordilleran Oroaen. Conterminous U.S.: The Geoloov of North America Volume G-3. B.C. Burchfiel, P.W. Lipman, and M.L. Zoback, eds, Boulder, CO, i

Geological Society of America,407-479,1982.

Burchfiel, B.C., K.V. Hodges, L.H. Royden, Geology of Panamint Valley-Saline Valley pull-aparf system, Califomia, Palinspastic evidence forlow-angle geometry of a Neogene range-bounding fault, Joumal of Geoohvsical Research 93,10,422-10,426,1987.

63

' Byers, F.M., Jr., W.J. Carr, P.P. Orkild, W.D. Quintivan, K.A. Sargent, Volcanic Suites and Related Cauldrons of the Timber Mountain-Oasis Valley Caldera Complex, Southem Nevada, O S. Geoloaical Survey Profe=Monal Paoer 919. Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey,1976.

Caine, J.S., J.P. Evans, C.B. Forster, Fault zone architecture and permeability structure, Geoloav 24.1,025-1,028,1996.

Camilieri, P.A., K.R. Chamberlain, Mesozoic tectonics and metamorphism in the Pequop Mountains and Wood Hills region, northeast Nevada: Implications for the architecture and evolution of the Sevier orogen, Geoloaical Societv of America Bu!!stin 109. 74-94,1997.

{

Campbell, K.W., Near-source attenuation ofpeak horizontalacceleration, Bulleton of the Seismolooical Society of America 71: 2,039-2,070,1991.

Campbell, K.W., Predicting strong ground motion in Utah, Evaluation of Reaional and Urban Earthouakes and Risk in Utah, W.W. Hays, P.L. Gori, eds. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 87-58511 L1-L90, Washington, D.C:: U.S. Geological Survey,1987.

Carlos, B.A., S.J. Chipera, D.L. Bish, S.J. Craven, Fracture-lining manganese oxide minerals in silicic tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S.A., Chemical Geoloav 1Q7,47-69,1993.

Carr, W.J., Regional Structural Setting of Yucca Mountain Southwestem Nevada, and Late Cenozoic Rates of Tectonic Activityin Part of the Southwestem Great Basin, Nevada and Califomia, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 84-854. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1984.

Carr, W.J., Structures in continuously cored, deep dnllholes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, with notes on calcite occurrence, SAND 91-7037. Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratories, 1992.

Carr, W.J., Styles of extension in the Nevada test site region, southem Walker Lane belt; An integrated volcano-tectonic and detachment fault model, Geoloaical Societv of America Memoir 1Z6, Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America,283-303,1990.

Carr, W.J., Volcano tectonic history of Crater Flat, southwestem Nevada, as suggested by new evidence from drillhele USW-VH-1, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 82-457. Denver, CO, U.S.

Geological Survey,1982.

(^

Carr, W.J., Volcano-tectonic setting of Yucca Mountain and Crater Flat, southwestem Nevada in geologic and hydrologic investigations of a potential nuclear waste disposal site at

(-

Yveca Mountain, southem Nevada, M. Carr, and J. Yount, eds, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Bulletin 1Z9Q. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey, 35-49,1988.

Carr, W.J., L.D. Parrish, Geology of Drill Hole USW VH-2, and Structure of Crater Flat, Southwestem, Nevada, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 85-475 Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,

'1985.

64 e

r

I I

Carr, W.J., F.M. Byers, Jr., P.P. Orkild, Stratigraphy and Volcano-Tectonic Relations of Crater Flat Tuff and Some Older Volcanic Units, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survev

. Professional Paoer 1323. Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey,1986a.

Carr, W.C., S.M. Keller, J.A. Grow, Lithologic and Geophysical Logs of Drill Holes Felderhoff Federa! 5-1 and 25-1, Amargosa Deser1, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Reoort 95-115, Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1995.

Carr, W.J., S.J. Wadell, G.S. Vick, J.M. Stock, S.A. Monsen, A.G. Harris, B.W. Cork,

. I F.M. Byers, Jr., Geology of Drill Hole UE25p#1: A Test Hole into Pre-Tertiary Rocks Near Yucca Mountain, Southem Nevada, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 86-175. Denver, CO, U.S.

Geological Survey,1986b.

Caskey, S.J., R.A. Schweickert, Mesozoic deformation in the Nevada Test Site and vicinity:

Implications for the structural framework of the Cordilleran fold and thrust belt and Tertiary extension north of Las Vegas Valley, Tectonics 11.1,314-1,331,1992.

Chekuri, V.S., S.W. Tyler, J.W. Fordham, The role of fracture coatings on waterimbibition into unsaturated tuff from Yucca Mountain, Nevada Aaency for Nuclear Projects / Nuclear Waste Project Office NWPO-TR-024-95. Carson City, NV, Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects,1995.

Chester F.M., J.M. Logan, Composite planar fabric of gouge from the Punchbowl Fault, Cali/omia, Joumal of Structural Geoloav 9. 621-634,1986.

Christiansen, R.L., P.W. Lipman, W.J. Carr, F.M. Byers, Jr., P.P. Orkild, K.A. Sargent, Timber I

Mountain-Oasis Valley caldera complex of southem Nevada, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 88.943-959,1977.

Connor, C.B., B.E. Hill, Three nonhomogeneous Poisson models for the pmbability of basaltic volcanism: Application to the Yucca Mountain region, Nevada, n'turnal of Geoohvsical Research 100,10,107-10,125,1995.

Connor, C.B., J.A. Stamatakos, D.A. Ferrill, B.E. Hill, Technical Comment on Anomalous Strain Rates in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada by Wemicke, et al., Science. submitted, in review.

Connor, C.B., J.A. Stamatakos, D.A. Ferrill, B.E. Hill, S.B.L. Magsino, P. La Femina, R.H. Martin, Integrating structural models into volcanic hazard assessments: An example from Yucca Mountain, Nevada, EOS Transactions of the American Geoohvsical Union.

San Francisco Annual Meetino, Washington, DC, American Geophysical Union, F20,1996.

Connor, C.B., S. Lane-Magsino, J.A. Stamatakos, R.H. Martin, P.C. La Femina, B.H. Hill, I

S. Lieber, Magnetic surveys help reassess volcanic hazards at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. EOS.

Transactions of the American Geoohvsical Union 78. 73,77-78,1997.

1 Coppersmith, K.J., Update on data related to fault displacement and vibratory ground motion l

hazard at Yucca Mountain for use in EPRIperformance assessment, in Yucca Mountain total systern performance assessment, Phase 3, Prepared by Kessler, J., and R. McGuire, EP_El 65 I

I 1

TR-1071913055-02 Final Reoort. Palo Alto, CA, Electric Power Research Institute,11-1 to 11-15,1996.

Coppersmith, K.J., R.R. Youngs, Risk-Based Approach to High-Level Waste Repository Evaluation Plan 2. EPRI TR-100384.1992, l

l Cornwall, H.R., Geology and mineral deposits of Nye County, Nevada, Nevada Bureau E

of Mines and Geoloav Bulletin 77. Reno, NV, Nevada Bureau of Mines,1972.

I Cornwall, H.R., F.J. Kleinhample, Geology of the Bare Mountain Quadrangle, U.S. Geoloaical Quadranale Man GO-157. Scale 1:62,500, Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey,1961.

I Comwall, H.R., F.J. Kleinhample, Geology of the Bullfrog quadrangle and ore deposits related to the Bullfrog Hills caldera, Nye County, Nevada and Inyo County, Califomia, U S. Geoloaical Survey Professional Pacer 454-J. Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey,1964.

Crowe, B., F. Perry, J. Geissman, L. McFadden, S. Wells, M. Murrell, J. Poths, G.A. Valentine, L. Bowker, K. Finnegan, Status of volcanism for the Yucca Mountain site characterization i

project, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report 12908-MS. Los Alamos, NM, Los Alamos I

National Laboratory,2-18 to 2-21,1995.

Czamecki. J.B., C.C. Faunt, C.W. Gable, G.A. Zyvoloski, Hydrogeology and Preliminary Three-Dimensional Finite-element Groundwater Flow Model of the Site Saturate Zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Yucca Mountain Project Milestone Reoort SP23NM3. Denver, CO: U.S.

Geological Survey,1997.

j Davies, R.K., M Crawford, W.F. Dula, Jr., M. Cole, G. Dorn, Outcrop interpretation of seismic-scale normalfaults in southem Oregon: Description of structural styles and evaluation of subsurface interpretation methods, The Leadino Edae 16.1,135-1,141,1997.

Davis, G.A., P.J. Coney, Geologic development of the metamorphic core complexes, Geoloav 7.120-124,1979.

Dawers, N.H., M.H. Anders, Displacement-length scaling and fault linkage, Journal of Structural 6

Geoloov 17.607-614,1995.

Day, W.C., C.J. Potter, D.S. Sweetkind, R.P. Dickerson, C.A. San Juan, Bedrock geologic map 1

l, of the centralblock area, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U S. Geoloaical Survey Miscellaneous investiaations Series Mao 1-2601. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey, Scale 1:6000,1997.

l a

dePolo, C.M., D.G. Clark, D.B. Slemmons, A.R. Ramelli, Historical surface faulting in the Basin and Range Province, westem North America, Implications for fault segmentation. rournal of Structural Geoloov 13.123-126,1991.

Dickenson, W.R., Kinematics of Transrotational Tectonism in the Califomia Transverse Ranges and its Contribution to Cumulative Slip Along the San Andreas Transform Fault l

System, Geolooical Society of America Soecial Pacer 305. Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America,1996.

66

I Dokka, R.K., C.J. Travis, Role of the eastem Califomia shear zone in accommodating Pacific-North American plate motion, Geoohvsical Research Letters 17.1,223-1,326,1990.

Dula, W.F., Jr., Geometric models oflistric normal faults and rolloverfolds, American Association of Petroleum Geolocists Bulletin 75.1,609-1,625,1990.

Dunne, W.M., D.A. Ferri ll, Fractalstrain distnbution andits implicatio.n for cross-section balancing, Discussion, Joumal of Structural Geoloav 17.757-760,1995.

Dupin, J.-M., W. Sassi, J. Angelier, Homogeneous stress hypothesis and actual fault slip, a distinct element analysis, Joumal of Structural Geoloav 15,1,033-1,043,1993.

Earthfield Technology, Inc., Summary Report Magnetic and Gravity Study of the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, prepared for L. Berkeley Lab., November 1995.

Eldredge, S., V. Bachtadse, and R. Van der Voo, Paleomagnetism and the orocline hypothesis, Tectonochvsics 119.153-179,1985.

Engelder, T., Stress Regimes in the Lithosphere, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press 1993.

Engelder, T., M.P. Fischer, Loading configurations and driving mechanisms forjoints based on the Griffith energy-balance concept, Igetonochvsics 256,253-277,1996.

Faulds, J.E., J.W. Bell, D.L. Feuerbach, A.R. Ramelli, Geologic map of the Crater Flat Area, Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geoloav Mao 101. Scale 1:24,000, Reno, NV, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University of Nevada, Reno,1994.

Fedotov, S.A., Y.K. Markhinin, The Great Tolbachik Fissure Eruption, Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridae University Press.1983.

Fertill, D.A., A.P. Morris, Geometric considerations of deformation above curved normal faults and salt evacuation surfaces, The Leadino Edae 16.1,129-1,133,1997.

Ferrill, D.A, R.H. Groshang, Jr., Kinematic model for the curvature of the northem Subalpine Chain, France, Journal of Structural Geoloov 15.523-541,1993.

Ferrill, D.A., W.M. Dunne., Cover deformation above a blind duplex, an example from West Virginia, U.S.A., Joumal of Structural Geoloav 11.421-431,1989.

Ferri ll, D.A., J.A. Stamatakos, A.P. Morris, Structural controls on progressive deformation of the Yucca Mountain (Nevada) region, Geoloaical Society of America Abstracts with Programs 2B, A-192,1996c.

Ferrill, D.A., J.A. Stamatakos, D. Sims, Normal fault corrugation: Implications for growth and seismicity of active normal faults, Journal of Structural Geologv. In review, b.

67 I

I tl Ferrill, D.A., J.A. Stamatakos, H.L. McKague, Quatemary slip history of the Bare Mountain fault (Nevada) from the morphology and distribution of alluvial fan deposits, REPL Y, Geoloav 25,

.190,1997.

I Ferrill, D.A., A.P. Morris, D.B. Henderson, R.H. Martin, Tectonic Processes in the central Basin and Range region, NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Research at CNWRA, July-December 1994, B. Sagar, ed, San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, 121-139, 1995b.

l I

Ferrill, D.A., A.P. Morris, S.M. Jones, J.A. Stamatakos, Extensionallayer-parallel shear and normal faulting, Journal of Structural Geoloov 20. 355-362,1998.

'I Ferrill, D.A., A. P. Morris, J.A. Stamatakos, J.A. Sims, D.W. Sims, Crossing conjugate normal faults, IM 201402-47771-950 (invited manuscript to American Association of Petroieum Geologists Book, " Recognition and Characterization of Reservoir Scale Structures"),1998.

Ferrill, D.A., D.B. Henderson, J.A. Stamatakos, K.H. Spivey, A.P. Morris, Tectonic processes in the central Basin and Range, NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Research at CNWRA, January-June,1995, B. Sagar, ed, CNWRA 95-01S. San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear

'I Waste Regulatory Analyses,6.1-6.27,1995a.

Ferrill, D.A. S.R. Young, G.L. Stirewalt, A.P. Morris, D.B. Henderson, Tectonic processes in the I

central Basin and Range region, NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Research at Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, January-June 1994, B. Sagar, ed, CNWRA 94-015, San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, 139-160,1994.

I Ferrill, D.A., G.L. Stirewalt, D.B. Henderson, J.A. Stamatakos, K.H. Spivey, B.P. Wemicke, Faulting in the Yucca Mountain Region, CriticalReview and Analyses of Tectonic Data from the Central Basin and Rango, NUREGICR-6401. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1996b.

Feirill, D.A., J.A. Stamatakos, A.P Morris, R.D Donelick, A.E. Blythe, S.M. Jones, K.P. Spivey, Geometric, thermal, and temporal constraints on the tectonic evolution of Bare Mountain, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin. In review, a.

Ferrill, D.A., J.A. Stamatakos, S.M. Jones, B. Rahe, H.L. McKague, R.H. Martin, A.P. Morris, Quatemary slip history of the Bare Mountain fault (Nevada) from the morphology and distribution of alluvialfan deposits, Geoloav. 24. 559-562,1996a.

Finkbeiner, T., C.A. Bar'.on, M. Zoback, Relationships among in-situ stress, fractures and faults, and fluid flow, Monterey formation, Santa Maria Basin, Califomia, American Association of Petroleum Geoloaists Bulletin 81.1,975-1,999,1997.

Fleck, R.J., B.D. Turrin, D.A. Sawyer, R.G. Warren D.E. Champion, M.R. Hudson, S.A. Minor, I

Age and character of basaltic rocks of the Yucca Mountain region, southem Nevada, Journal of Geoohvsical Research 101.8,205-8,227,1996.

68 I

1 I

F I

Flint, A.L., J.A. Hevesi, L.E. Flint, Conceptualand NumericalModelofInfiltration for the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, U S Geolocical Survev Water Resources investiaation Reoort.

Milestone 3GU1623M. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1996.

Flint, L.E., A.L. Flint Shallowinfiltration processes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada-Neutron logging data 1984-93, U S. Geoloaical Survev Water-Resources investiaations Reoort 95-4035.

Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1995.

Fridrich, C.J., Tectonic evolution of the Crater Flat Basin, Yucca Mountain region, Nevada, I

Cenozoic Basins of the Death Valley Region, L. Wright, ed, Geoloaical Society of America Soecial Pacer. In press.

I Fridrich, C.J., J.W. Whitney, M.R. Hudson, B.M. Crowe, late Cenozoic extension, vertical axis rotation, and volcanism in the Crater Flat basin, southwest Nevada, Cenozoic basins of the Death Valley region, L. Wright and B Troxel, e's, Geoloaical Society of America Soecial Pacer.

In press.

Frizzell, V.A. Jr., J. Shulters, Geologic Map of the Nevada Test Site, Southem Nevada, I

U S. Geoloaical Survey Miscellaneous investications Series. Mao 1-2046, scale 1:100,000, Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1990.

Gabrielse, H., W.S. Snyder, J.H. Stewart, Sonoma orogeny and Permian to Triassic tectonism I

in westem North America, Geoloav 11.484-486,1983.

Gay, N.C., W.D. Outlepp, Anatomy of a mining-induced fault zone, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin. Part I. 90.47-58,1979.

Geldon, A.L., A.M.A. Umari, M.F. Fahy, J.D. Earle, J.M. Gemmell, J. Damell, Results of I

hydraulic and conservative tracer tests in miocene tuffaceous rocks at the C-Hole complex, 1995 to 1997, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,1997 Milestone Reoort SP23PM3.

Las Vegas, NV, U.S. Geological Survey,1997.

Ghosh, A., R.D. Mantoufel, G.L. Stirewalt, FAULTING Version 1.0- A code for simulation of direct fault disruption, Technical description and User's Guide, CNWRA 97-002, San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1997.

Ghosh, A., J. A. Stamatakos, S. Hsiung, R. Chen, A. H. Chowdhury, H. L. McKague, Key I

TechnicalIssue Sensitivity Analysis with SEISMO and FAULTO Modules within the TPA (Version 3.3.3) Code, CNWRA Intermediate Milestone 1402-471-710. San Antonio, TX: Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1998.

Gillett, S.L., D.R. Van Alstine, Remagnetization and tectonic rotation of Upper Precambrian and Lower Paleozoic strata from the Desert Range, southem Nevada, Journal of Geoohysical Research 87.10,929--10,953,1982.

il

.9

Gillett, S.L., J.W. Geissman, Regional Late Paleozoic remagnetization of shallow-water carbonate rocks in the Great Basin, The usefulness of ' micro"-fold tests from late compaction fabrics, Application of Paleomagnetism to Sedimentary Geology, Society for Sedimentarv Geoloov ISEPM) Sn= rial Pnhlie=6cn 49.129-147,1993.

Gilmore, T.D., Geodetic leveling data used to define historicalheight changes between Tonopah Junction and Las Vegas, Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Ranart 92-450.

Menlo Park, CA, U.S. Geological Survey,1992, Goddard, J.V., J.P. Evans, Chemical changes and fluid-rock interactions in faults of crystalline thrust sheets, northwestem Wyoming, USA, Joumal of Structural Geoloav 17. 533-547,1995.

Gray, M.B., Personal Communication to J. Stamatakos,1998. (Footnote 1)

{

Gray, M. B., J.A. Stamatakos, A new modelfor evolution of fold and thrust belt curvature from

. integrated structural and paleomagnetic results around the Pennsylvania Salient, Geoloav 25.

1,067-1,070,1998.

[

Groshong, Jr., R.H., Low-temperature deformation mechanisms and theirinterpretation, Geolooical Society of America Bulletin 100.1,329-1,360,1988.

Groshong, Jr., R.H., Unique determinations of normalfault shape from hanging-wallbed geometry in detached half grabens, Ecloane Geoloaica Helvetica 83. 455-471,1990.

Grow, J.A., C.E. Barker, A.G. Harris, Oiland gas exploration near Yucca Mountain, southem Nevada, Proceedings of Fifth Annual intemational Conference on High-Level Radioactive Waste Management, La Grange Park, IL, American Nuclear Society Intemational. 1,298-1,315, 1994.

Gutenberg, B., and C.F. Richter Seismicity of the Earth, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press,1954.

Hamilton, W.B., Crustal extension in the Basin and Range province, southwestem United States, Continenta/ Extensional Tectonics, M.P. Coward, J.F. Dewey, and P.L. Hancock, e's, London, England, Geciosul Society Soecial Pohlicationsji!B, 155-176,1987.

(

Hamilton, W.B., Detachment faulting in the Death Valley Region, Califomia and Nevada, Geologic and hydmlogic investigations of a potential nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain, southem Nevada, M.D. Carr and J.C. Yount, e's, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Bulletin 1Z9Q,51-85,1988.

Hardyman, R.F. J.S. Oldow, Tertiary tectonic framework and Cenozoic history of the central WalkerLane, Nevada, Geology and Ore Deposits of the Great Basin, G.L. Raines, R.E. Lisle, R.W. Schafer, W.H. Wilkinson, e's, Las Vegas, NV, Geoloaical Society of Nevada Svm_nasium Proceedings 1.279-301,1991.

(

.Harmsen, S.C., Seismicity andlocalmechanisms for the southem Great Basin of Nevada and Califomia in 1990, USGS Ooen-File Reoori 91-367. U.S. Geological Survey,1991, 70

Harmsen, S.C., Seismicity and local mechanisms for the southem Great Basin of Nevada and Califomia in 1991, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 92-340. U.S. Geological Survey,1993.

Harmsen, S.C., The Little Skull Mountain, Nevada, earthquake of 29 June 1992: Aftershock focalmechanisms and tectonic stress fieldimplications, Bulletin of the Seismolooical Societv of America 84.1,484-1,505, 1994.

Harmsen, S.C., C.G. Bute, Seismicity and focal mechanisms for the southem Great Basin of Nevada and Califomia,1987 through 1989, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 91-572, U.S. Geological Survey,1992.

Henderson, D.B., D.A. Ferrill, and K.C. Clarke, Mapping geological faults using image processing techniques applied to hill-shaded digital elevation models, Proceedinas of the lEEE Southwest Symoosium on Imaae Analysis. San Antonio, TX,1996.

Higgs, W.G., G.D. Wsiliams, C.M. Powell, Evidence for flexural shear folding associated with extension alfaults, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 103.710-717,1991.

Hill, B.E., C.B. Connor, Volcanic systems of the Basin and Range, NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Research at CNWRA, July-December,1995, B. Sagar ed, CNWRA 95-02S, San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,5-1 to 5-21,1996.

Hill, C.A., Y.V. Dublyansky, R.S. Harmon, C.M. Schluter, Overview of calcite / opal deposits at or near the proposed high-level nuclear waste site, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA, Pedogenic, hypogene, orboth? Environmentaf Geoloav 26. 69-88,1995.

Hodges, K.V., J.D. Walker, Extension in the Cretaceous Sevier orogeny, North American Cordillera, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 104.560-569,1992.

Hoek, E., E.T. Brown, Underground Excavations in Rock, The Institution of Minino and Metallurov. London, Hertford, England, Stephen Austin and Sons, Ltd,1980.

Hoisch, T.D., C. Simpson, Rise and tilt of metamorphic rocks in the lowerplate of a detachment fault in the Funeral Mountains, Death Valley, Califomia, Joumal of Gecohvsical Research 98, 6,805-6,827,1993.

Hoisch, T.D., M.T. Heizier, R.E. Zartman, Timing of detachment faulting in the Bullfrog Hills and Bare Mountain area, southwestem Nevada, inferences from *ArPAr, K-Ar, U-Pb, and fission track thermochronology, Journal of Geoohvsical Research 102.2,815-2,833,1997.

Holm, D.K., J.W. Geissman, and B. Wernicke, Tilt and rotation of the footwall of a majornormal t

fault system, Paleomagnetism of the Black Mountains, Death Valley extended terrain, Califomia, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 105.1,373-1,387,1993.

Hudson, M.R., Paleomagnetic data bearing on the origin of arcuate structures in the French Peak-Massachusetts Mountains area of southem Nevada, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 104.581-594,1992.

71

Hudson, M.R., D.A. Sawyer, R.G. Warren, Paleomagnetism and rotation constraints for the Miocene southwestem Nevada volcanic field, Tectonics 13.258-277,1994.

Hudson, M.R., S.A. Minor, C.J. Fridrich, The distribution, timing, and character of steep-axis rotations in a broad zone of dextral shearin southwestem Nevada, Geoloaical Society of America Abstracts with Proarams 28. Denver, CO, Geological Society of America, A451,1996.

Hunter, R.L., C.J. Mann, Techniques for determining probabilities of events and processes affecting the performance of repositories, SAND 83-1342. NUREGICR-3354. Albuquerque, NM, Sandia National Laboratory,1990.

Idriss, l.M., Earthquake ground motions at soft soil sites, 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthouake Enaineerino and Soil Dynamics 3. 2,265-2,272, 1991.

Jaeger, J.C., N.G.W. Cook, Funciamentals of Rock Mechanics, Chaoman and Hall. New York, NY,1979.

Janssen, B., Modelisation numerique de l' extension de la croute terrestre avec des examples du basin and range, Etats-Unis, These de doctorat. TUniversite Louis-Pasteur de Strasbourg, 1995.

a Joyner, W.B., D.M. Boore, Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, Califamia, earthquake, Bulletin of the Seismoloaical Society of America 71. 2,011-2,038,1981.

Kane, M.F., R.E. Bracken, Aeromagnetic map of Yucca Mountain and Surrounding Regions, Southwest Nevada, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 83-616, Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey, 1983.

King, G.C.P., R.S. Stein, J. Lin, Static stress changes and triggering of earthquakes, Bulletin of the Seismoloaical Society of America 84.935-953,1994.

Klinger, R.E.. L.W. Anderson, Topographic profiles and theirimplications forlate Quatemary activity on the Bare Mountain fault, Nye County, Nevada, Geoloaical Society of America Abstracts with Procrams, A63,1994.

Kotra, J.P., M.P. Lee, N.A. Eisenberg, A.R. DeWispelare, Branch technicalposition on the use of expert elicitation in the high-levelradioactive waste program, NUREG-1563, Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1996.

Langenheim, V.E., D.A. Ponce, Ground magnetic studies along a regional seismic-reflection profile across Bare Mountain, Crater Flat and Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USGS Ooen-Fife Reoort 95-834. U.S. Geological Survey,1995.

Langenheim, V.E., K.S. Kirchoff-Stein, H.W. Oliver, Geophysica/ investigations of buried volcanic centers near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Proceedinas of the Third Intemational Hiah 72

Level Radioactive Waste Manaaement Conference. La Grange Park, IL, American Nuclear Society, 1,840-1,846,1993.

I Langenheim, V.E., S.F. Carle, D.A. Ponce, J.D. Phillips, Revision of an Aeromagnetic Surveyin the Lathrop Wells Area, Nevada, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 91-46. Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey,1991.

Le Cain, G.D., Air-injection Testing in Vertical Boreholes in Welded and Nonwelded Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Rest;urces investiaation Reoort. 96-4262, 1997.

Levy, S.S., D.S. Sweetkind, D.S. Fabryka-Martin, P.R. Dixon, J.'.. Roach, L.E. Wolfsberg, D. Elmore, P. Sharma, Investigations of structural controls and mineralogic associations of Chlorine-36 fast pathways in the ESF, Los Alamos Milestone SP2301M4. Los Alamos, NM, Los Alamos National Labs,1997.

Lienkaemper, J.J., S.K. Pezzopane, M.M. Clark, M.J. Rymer, Fault fractures formedin association with the 1986 Chalfant Valley, Califomia, earthquake sequence, Preliminary report, Bulletin of the Seismoloaical Society of America 77ti),297-305,1987.

I Lin, M., M.P. Hardy, S.J. Bauer, Fracture analysis and rock quality designation estimation for the Yucca Mountain site characterization project, SAND 92-0449.1993.

Luhr, J.F., and T. Simkin, Paricutin, the Volcano Bom in a Mexican Comfield, Phoenix, AZ, Geosciences Press Inc.1993.

Magsino, S.L., C.B. Connor, B.E. Hill, J.A. Stamatakos, P.C. La Femina, D.W. Sims, R.H. Martin, Ground magnetic surveys in the Yucca Mountain Region, Nevada (1996-1997),

CNWRA 98-01, San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, 11-14,1998.

Majer, E.L., M. Feighner, L. Johnson, K. Lee, T. Daley, E. Karageorgi, P. Parker, T. Smith, I

K. Williams, A. Romero, T. McEvilly, Milestone OBB02. Results of Geophysical Surveys Along North-South and South ESF Alignment and Milestone OBB03. Summary Report, Interpretations of Multiple Geophysical Surveys, Berkeley, CA, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,1997.

Maldonado, F., Structuralgeology of the upperplate of the Bullfrog Hills detachment fault system, southem Nevada, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 102. 992-1,006,1990.

Manteufel, R.D., R.G. Baca S. Mohanty, M.S. Jarzemba, R.W. Janetzke, S.A. Stothoff, C.B. Connor, G.A. Cragnolino, A.H. Chowdhury, T.J. McCartin, T.M. Ahn, Total System I

Performance Assessment (TPA) Version 3,0 Code, Module Descriotion and User's Guide.

San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1997.

Marshak, S., Kinematics of orocline and arc formation in thin-skinned v aens, Tectonics 7.

73-86,1988.

73

E i

I I

- Martinez, L.J., C.M. Meertens, R.B. Smith, Rapid deformation rates along the Wasatch fault zone, Utah, from first GPS measurements with implication for earthquake hazard, Geoohysical Research Letters 25,567-570,1998.

Mayer, J.R., J.M. Sharp, Jr., Fracture control of regional groundwater flow in a carbonate aquiferin a semi-arid region, Geolooical Society of America Bulletin 110f2). 269-283,1998.

McConnell, K.l., M.E. Blackford, A.K. Ibrahim, Staff Technical Position on Investigations to Identify Fault Displacement Hazards and Seismic Hazan:fs at a Geologic Repository, NUREG-1451. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1992.

McKague, H. L., Identification of Type Il Faults in the Yucca Mountain Area, Rov 2, Letter j

Report, San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Regulatory Analyses,1996.

i McKague, H.L., J.A. Stamatakos, D.A. Ferrill, Type i Faults in the Yucca Mountain Region, CNWRA 96-007 Rev.1. San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, 1996.

Menges, C.W., J.W. Whitney, J.A. Coe, J.R. Wesling, F.H. Swan, E.M. Taylor, D.J. Ponti, Summary of paleoseismic investigations of the Paintbrush Canyon, Bow Ridge, and Stagecoach Road faults of eastem Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Reoort 95-738, Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1995.

Meremonte, M., J. Gomberg, E. Cranswick, Constraints on the 29 June 1992 Little Skull Mountain, Nevada, earthquake sequence provided by robust hypocenter estimate, Bulletin of the Seismoloaical Societv 85,1,039-1,049,1995.

Minor, S.A., Superposedlocaland regionalpaleostresses: Fault-slip analysis of neogene extensional faulting near coeval caldera complexes, Yucca Flat, Nevada, Journal of Geoohvsical Research 100,12,507-12,528,1995.

Minor, S.A., M.R. Hudson, C.J. Fridrich, Fault-slip data, paleomagnetic data, and paleostress f

analyses bearing on the neogene tectonic evolution of northem Crater Flat Basin, Nevada, M Geoloaical Survey Ooen File Reoort 97-285. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1997.

Monsen, S.A., Structural Evolution and Metamorphic Petrology of the Precambrian-Cambrian j

Strata, Northwest Bare Mountain, Nevada, M S. thesis, Davis, CA, University of California at Davis,1983.

I I

i Monsen; S.A., M.D. Carr, M.C. Reheis, P.A. Orkild, Geologic map of Bare Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U S. Geoloaical Survev Miscellaneous investiaations Series Mao 1-2201.

I Scale 1:24,000,1992.

Montazer, P., W.E. Wilson, Conceptual hydrologic model of flow in the unsaturated zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Water Resources investiaations Reoort 84-4345. Lakewood, CO, U.S.

Geological Survey,1984.

,g 74

Morris, A.P., D.A. Femil, D.B. Henderson, Slip-tendency analysis and fault reactivation, Geoloav 24, 275-278,1996.

l Moziey, P.S., L.B. Goodwin, Pattems of cementation along a Cenozoic normalfault: A record of paleoflow orientations, Geoloav 23, 539-542,1995.

i Nakata, J.K., C.M. Wentworth, M.N. Machette, Quatemary Fault Maps of the Basin and Range and Rio Grande Rift Provinces, Westem United States, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Reoort 82-579. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey, Scale 1:2,500,000,1982.

National Research Council, Commission of Physical Sciences, Mathematic, and Resources, Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.,1988.

National Research Council, Rock Fractures and Fluid Flow, National Academy Press, Washington, DC,1996.

Nelson, M.R., C.H. Jones, Paleomagnetism and crustalrotations along a shearzone, Las Vegas range, southem Nevada, Tectonics 6.13-33,1987.

Nilsen, T.J., J.H. Stewatt, The Antler Orogeny; Mid-Paleozoic tectonism in westem North America, Geoloov 8,298-302,1980.

Noble, D.C., S.I. Weiss, E.H. McKee, Magmatic and Hydrothermal Activity, Caldera Geology, and Regional Extension in the Westem Part of the Southwestem Nevada Volcanic Field, Geoloav and Ore Deoosits of the Great Basin, G.L. Raines, R.E. Lisle, R.W. Shafer and W.W. Wilkerson, e's. Reno, NV, Geological Society of Nevada, 913-934,1991.

Noble D.C., S.I. Weiss, S.M. Green, High-salinity fluid inclusions suggest that Miocene gold deposits of the Bare Mountain district, Nevada, are related to a large buried rare-metal rich magmatic system, Geoloaical Society of America Abstracts with Procrams 21. Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America, A123,1989.

Ofoegbu, G.I., D.A. Ferrill, Finite Element Modeling of Listric NormalFaulting, CNWRA 95-008.

San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1995.

Ofoegbu, G.I. D.A. Ferri ll, Mechanicalanalyses of a Yucca Mountain fault model, Proceedings of the Topical Meeting on Methods of Seismic Hazards Evaluation, Focus '95, La Grange Park, IL, American Nuclear Society, 115-124,1996.

Ofoegbu, G.I., D.A. Ferrilf, Mechanical analyses oflistric normal faulting with emphasis on seismicity assessment, Tectonochvsics 284. 65-77,1998.

Oldow, J.S., Spatial variability in the structure of the Roberts Mountain allochthon, westem Nevada, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 95.174-185,1984.

I Oldow, J.S., G. Kohler, R.A. Donelick, Late Cenozoic extensional transferin the Walker Lane strike-slip belt, Nevada, Geoloov 22. 637-640,1994.

j 75

]

)

E i

r I

Oliver, H.W., K.F. Fox, Structure of Crater Flat and Yucca Mountain, southeastem Nevada, as interpreted from gravity data, Proceedinas of the Fourth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, La Grange Park, IL, American Nuclear Society, 1,812-1,817,1993.

Paces, J.B., L.A. Neymark, B.D. Marshall, J.F. Whelan, Z.E. Peterman, Ages and origins of subsurface secondary minerals in the Exploratory Studies Facility (ESP), U.S. Geoloaical I

Survev-Yucca Mountain Project Branch 1996 Milestone Reoort 3GQH450M. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1996.

{

i Peacock, D.C.P., D.J. Sanderson, Displacements, segment linkage, and relay ramps in normal fault zones, Joumal of Structural Geoloav 13.721-733,1991.

l Peacock, D.C.P., D.J. Sanderson, Geometry and development of relay ramps in normal fault systems, American Association of Petroleum Geoloaists Bulletin 78.147-165,1994.

)

Pezzopane, S.K., Preliminary table of characteristics of known and suspected quatemary faults l

in the Yucca Mountain Region, U S. Geoloaical Survev Administrative Reoort, Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1995.

Piety, L.A., Compilation of known and suspected quatemary faults within 100 km of Yucca Mountain, Scale 1:250,000, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Ooen File Reoort 94-112, Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1996.

I Ponce, D.A., H.W. Oliver, Gravity investigations, Majorresults of geophysicalinvestigations at Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, southem Nevada, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 95-74. H.W. Oliver, D.A. Ponce, and W.C. Hunter, e's, Menlo Park, CA, U.S. Geological Survey,1995.

Ponce, D.A., S.B. Kohrn, S. Waddell, Gravity and magnetic data of Fortymile Wash, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 92-343, Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey,1992, i

Poole, F.G., J.H. Stewart, A.P. Palmer, C.A. Sandberg, R.J. Madrid, R.J. Ross, Jr., L.F. Hintze, i

M.M. Miller, C.T. Wrucke, Latest Precambrian to latest Devonian time; Development of a continentalmargin, The Cordilleran Orogen, Conferminous U.S., The Geoloav of North America Volume G-3. B.C. Burchfiel, P.W., Lipman, and M.L. Zoback, e's, Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America,407-479,1992.

Potter, C.J., W.C. Day, D.S. Sweetkind, R.P. Dickerson, Fault styles and strain accommodation in the Tiva Canyon Tuff, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, EOS. Transactions. American Geoohvsica]

Union 77t'7.1, S265,1996.

Prave, A.R., L.A. Wright, Isopach pattems in the Lower Cambrian Zabriskie Quartzite: How l

usefulin tectonic reconstructions?, Geoloav 14. 251-254,1986.

Rahe, B., D.A. Ferrill, A.P. Morris, Physical analog modeling of pull-apart basin evolution, I

.Tectonochvsics 285,21-40,1997.

Ransome, F.L., W.H. Emmcns, G.H. Gary, Geology and ore deposits of the Bullfrog District, Nevada, U S. Geoloaical Survev Bulletin 407.1910.

76

F

~

)

l Reheis, M.C., Holocene faulting along the central Fish Lake Valley Fault Zone, Califamia and Nevada, Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs-1994 Cordilleran Section Meeting, Boulder, CO, Geoloaical Society of America 26,83,1994.

Reheis, M.C., Preliminary study of quaternary faulting on the east side of Bare Mountain, Nye ll County, Nevada, Geologic and Hydrologic Investigations of a Potential Nuclear Waste Disposal lE Site at Yucca Mountain, Southem Nevada, M.D. Carr, J.C. Yount, e's, U.S. Geoloaical Bulletin 1210,103-112,1988.

Reiter, L., Earthquake hazard analysis, Issues and Insights, Columbia University Press. New York,1991.

j Richter, C. F., Elementary Seismology, W. H. Freeman. San Francisco, California,1958.

lg Ritzi, Jr., R.W., R.H. Andolsek, Relation between anisotropic transmissivity and azimuthal l

resistivity surveys in shallow, fractured, carbonate flow system, Ground Water 30(SL 774-780, 1992.

Robinson, G.D., Structure of Pre-Cenozoic rocks in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada - A potentialnuclear-waste disposal site, U S. Geoloaical Survey Bulletin 1647. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1985.

,I Rogers, A.M., S.C. Harmsen, E.J. Corbett, K. Priestly, D. dePolo, The seismicity of Nevada and some adjacent parts of the Great Basin, Neotectonics of North America, D.B. Slemmons, E.R.

l Engdalhl, M.D. Zoback, D.D. Blackwell, e's, Boulder, CO, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 1.153-184,1991.

Rosenbaum, J.G., M.R. Hudson, R.B. Scott, Paleomagnetic constraints on the geometry and timing of deformation at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Journal of Geoobysical Research 96.

I 1,963-1,979,1991.

E Rousseau, J.P., E.M. Kwicklis, D.C. Gillis, e's, Hydrology of the Unsaturated Zone, North Ramp Area of the Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Water Resources investiaations Reoort. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey Draft,1996.

Sabetta, F., A. Pugliese, Attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from Italian strong-motion records, Bulletin of Seismoloaical Society of America 77.1,491-1,513,1987.

Sadigh K., C.Y. Chang, J.A. Egan, F. Makdisi, R.R. Youngs, Attenuation relationships for g

shallow crustal earthquakes based on Califomia strong motion data, Seismoloaical Research

E Letters 68.180- 89.1997-Savage, J.C., M. Lisowski, W.K. Gross, N.E. King, J.L. Svarc, Strain accumulation near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 1983-1993, Journal of Geoohvsical Research 99.18,103-18,107,1994.

L Sawyer, D.R., R.J. Fleck, M.A. Lanphere, R.G. Warren, D.E. Broxton, M.R. Hudson, Episodic caldera volcanism in the miocene southwestem Nevada volcanic field: Revised stratigraphic lI 1

l i

framework, "ArPAr geochronology, and implications for magmatism and extension, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 106.1,304-1,318,1994.

Scholz, C.H., N.H. Dawers, J.-Z Yu, M.H. Anders, Fault growth and fault scaling laws, Preliminary results, Joumal of Geoohvsical Research 98. 21,951-21,961,1993.

Schwartz, D.B., K.J. Coppersmith, Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas Faults, Journal of Geonhvsical Research 89. 5,681-5,698, 1984.

Schwartz, S.Y., R. Van der Voo, Paleomagnetic study of thrust-sheet octation during foreland impingement in the Wyoming-Idaho overthrust belt, Joumal of Geochvsical Research 89.

10,077-10,086,1984.

Schweickert, R.A., M.M. Lahren, Strike-slip fault system in Amargosa Valley and Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Tectonochvsics 272, 25-41,1997.

Scott, R.B., Tectonic setting of the Yucca Mountain region, southwest Nevada, Geologl cal Society of America Memoir 176. Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America,251-282,1990.

Scott, R.B., J. Bonk, Preliminary geologic map uf Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada with geologic sections, scale 1:12000, USGS Ooen-File Reoort 84-494. Denver, CO, U.S.

Geological Survey,1984.

Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee, Recommendations forprobabilistic seismic hazard analysis, Guidance on uncertainty and use of Experts, NUREGICR-6372.1997.

Serpa, L. T.L. Pavlis, Three-dimensionalmodelof the late Cenozoic history of the Death Valley region, southeastem Califomia, Tectonics 15.1,113-1,128,1996.

Simonds, W.F., C.J. Fridrich, T.D. Hoisch, W.B. Hamilton, A synthesis of detachment fault studies in the Yucca Mountain region, Methods of Seismic Hazard Evaluation, Proceedinas of the Tonical Meetina on Methods of Seismic Harmrds Evaluation. Focus '95, La Grange Park, IL, American Nuclear Society. Inc.. 107-114,1996.

Simonds, W.F., J.W. Whitney, K. Fox, A~. Ramelli, J.C. Yount, M.D. Carr, C.D. Menges, R. Dickerson, R.B. Scott, Map of Fault Activity of the Yucca Mountain Area, Nye County, Nevada, scale 1:24,000, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Miscellaneous Investiaations Series Mao.1-

{

252Q, Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1995a.

' Smith, R.B., W.J. Arabasz, Seismicity of the intermountain seismic belt, Neotectonics of North America, D.B. Slemmons, E.R. Engdalbl, M.D. Zoback, and D.D. Blackwell, e's, Boulder, CO, Geolooical Society cf America Bulletin 1.185-228,1991.

Smith, R.B., W.C. Nagy, K.A. (Smith) Julander, J.J. Viveiros, C.A. Barker, D.G. Gants, Geophysical and tectonic framework of the eastem Basin and Range-Colurado Plateau-Rocky transition, Geophysical framework of the Continental United States, L.C. Pakiser, and i

)

78

[c

)

l W.D. Mooney, e's, Geoloaical Society of America Memoir 172. Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America,1989.

Snow, J.K., Large-magnitude Permian shortening and continental-margin tectonics in the southem Cordillera, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 104. 80 -105,1992a.

Snow, J.K., Mass balance of Basin and Range extension as a tool for geothermal exploration, Qagthermal Resources Council Transedions 18.23-30,1994.

l

. Snow, J.K.', Paleogeographic and structural significance of an upper Mississippian facies boundary in southem Nevada and east-central Califomia, (Discussion), Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 104.1,067-1,071,1992b.

Snow, J.K., A.R. Prave, Covariance of structural and stratigraphic trends: Evidence for anticlockwise rotation within the Walker Lane Belt Death Valley region, Califomia and Nevada, Tectonics 13.712-724,1994.

Snow, J.K, B. Wemicke, Uniqueness of geological correlations: An example from the Death Valley extended terrane, Geoloaical Societv of America B"Hatin 101.1,351-1,362,1989.

Snow, J.K., J.W. Geissman, B. Wemicks, Paleomagnetic data from Paleozoic sedimentary f

i rocks and Permo-Triassic intrusions, Death Valley area, southeast CA, Implications for l

Mesozoic and Cenozoic deformation, EOS Transactions. American Geoohvsical Union 74.

Washington, DC, American Geophysical Union,206,1993.

l Snyder, B.B.. W.J. Carr, Preliminary results of gravity investigations at Yucca Mountain and i

vicinity, southem Nye County, Nevada, U S. Geolooical Survey Ooen-File Reoort 82-701.

Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1982.

Sonder, L.J., C.H. Jones, S.L Saiyards, K.M. Murphy, Vertical axis rotations in the las Vegas shearzone, southem Nevada: Pleomagnetic constraints on kinemetics and dynamics of block rotations, Tectonics 13.769-788,1994.

Spengler, R.W., C.A. Braun, L.G. Martin, and C.W. Weisenberg, The Sundance Fault-A newly recognized shearzone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, United States Geoloaical Survey Ooen-File Report 94-49. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1994.

Spuduch, P. J.B. Fletcher, M. Hellweg, J. Boatwright, C. Sullivan, W.B. Joyner, T.C. Hanks, i

D.M. Boore, A. McGarr, L.M. Baker, A.G. Lindh, SEA 96-A newpredicative relation for carthquake ground motions in extensional tectonic regimes, Seismoloaical Research Letters 6.6,190-198,1997.

Stamatakos, J.A., A.M. Hirt, Paleomagnetic considerations of the development of the

\\

~ Pennsylvania salient in the central Appalachians Tectonochvsics 231 237-255 1994 Stamatakos, J.A., D.A. Ferri ll, Comment on ' Strike-slip fault system in Amargosa Valley and Yucca Mountain, Nevsda by R.A. Schweickert and M.M. Lahren, Tectonochvsics. In press.

79

)

i i

s k

)

Stamatakos, J.A. D.A. Ferrill, Paleomagnetism of Ordovician Pogonip Group Carbonates in southwestem Nevada, implications for tectonism of the Yucca Mountain region, ECG Transactions of the American Geoohvsical Union. San Francisco Annual Meetina. Washington, l-DC, American Geophysical Union, F173,1996.

Stamatakos, J.A., C.B. Connor, R.H. Martin, Quatemary basin evolution and basaltic volcanism of Crater Flat Nevada, from detailed ground magnetic surveys of the Little Cones. Joumal of Geology, v. 105, 319-3301997a.-

Stamatakos, J.A., D.A. Ferri ll, K.P. Spivey, Paleomagnetic constraints on the tectonic evolution of Bare Mountain, Nevada, Geoloaical Society of America Bullatin. In review.

Stamatakos, J.A., P.S. Justus, D.A. Ferrill, R. Chen, G.I. Ofoegbu, Structural deformation and seismicity, NRC Hiah-Level Radicar+ive Wasta Proaram Annual Prooress Reoort. Fiscal year 1996, Sagar, B., ed, NUREG/CR-6513. No.1. CNWRA 96-OIA. San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1997b.

Stevens, C.H., P. Stone, P. Belasky, Paleogeographic and structural significance of an Upper Mississippian facies boundary in southem Nevada and east-central Califomia, Geological Society of America Rulletin 103.876-885,1991.

Stewart, J.H.,' Basin-Range Structure in Westem North America, A Review, Cenozoic Tectonic and Reaional Geoohvsics of the Westem Cordillara. R.B. Smith and G.P. Eaton, e's, Boulder,

. CO, Geoloaical Society of America Memoir 152.1-31,1978.

Stewart, J.H., Tectonic of the Walker Lane belt, westem Great Basin - Mesozoic and Cenozoic deformation in a zone of shear, Metamorohism and Crustal Evolution of the Westem United States. Vol. Vll. W.G. Emst, ed, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall, Inc, 684-713,1988.

Stewart, J.H., Upper Precambrian and Lower Cambrian Strate in the Southem Great Basin, Califomia and Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Professional Paoer 620, Denver, CO, U.S.

1 Geological Survey,1970.

Stirewalt, G.L., D.B. Henderson, A three-dimensionalgeologicalframework modelfor Yucca Mountain, Nevada, with hydrologic application, Report to accompany 1995 model transfer to the i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CNWRA 94-023. San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1995.

Stock, J.M., J.H. Healy, Stress field at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Geologic and Hydrologic Investigations of a Potential Nuclear Waste Disposal Site at Yucca Mountain, Southem Nevada, M.D. Carr and J.C. Yount, e's, U S. Geoloaical Survey Bulletin 1790.87-94,1988.

Stock, J.M., J.H. Heafy, J. Soitek, L. Mastin, Report on telev' ewer and stress measurements in holes USW G-3 and UE-25pi, Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geoloalcal Survey Onen-File Report 86-369. Washington DC, U.S. Geological Su.~**y,1986.

80 1

L

{:

Stock, J.M., J.H. Healy, S.H. Hickman, M.D. Zoback, Hydraulic fracturing stress measurements at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and relationship to regional stress fields, Joumal of Geochvsical Research 90. 8,691-8,706,1985.

_ Stothoff, S.A., D. Or, D.P. Groeneveld, S.B. Jones, The effect of vegetation on infiltration in shallow soils underlain by fissured bedrock, San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1997, l'

Stover, C.W., J.L.'Coffman, Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (revised), LLL Geoloaical Survey Professional Paoer 1527. Menlo Park, CA, U.S. Geological Survey,1993.

Stuckless, J.S., Z.E. Peterman, R.M. Forester, J.F. Whelan, D.T. Vaniman, B.D. Marshall, E.M. Taylor, Cnaracterization of fault-filling deposits in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Waste Management 1992 Conference Proceedings, Tucson, AZ, March 1-5,1992, Tucson, AZ, Waste Management. 929-935,1992.

Suppe, J., Geometry and kinematics of fault-bend folding, American Joumal of Science. vol.

283, 684-721,1983.

Swedely, W.C., L.D. Parrish, Surficial geologic map of the Bare Mountain Quadrangle, Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Miscellaneous investiaations Series Man 1-1826. Denver, CO, U.S.

Geological Survey,1988.

Swedely, W.C., D.L. Hoover, J.N. Rosholt, Preliminary report on Late Cenozoic faulting and stratigraphyin the vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survey Onen File reoort 84-788. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1984.

l Sweetkind, D.S., S.C. Williams-Stroud, Characteristics of fracture at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Synthesis Report. U.S. Geological Survey,1995.

Sweetkind. D.S., S.C. Williams-Stroud, Controls on the genesis of fracture networks, Paintbrush Group, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, EOS. Transactions American Geoohvsical Union 76, F597, 1995.

Sweetkind, D.S., C.J. Potter, E.R. Verbeek, Interaction between faults and the fracture network at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, EOS. Transactions. American Geoohvsical Union 77(17L S266, 1996.

Sweetkind, D.S., D.L. Barr, D.K. Polacsek, L.O. Anna, Administrative reporf: Integrated l

fracture data in support ofprocess models, Yucca Mountain, Nevada,1997 Milestone Reoort SPG32M3, Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1997b.

{

Sweetkind, D.S., E.R. Verbeek, J.K. Geslin, T.C. Moyer, Fracture character of the Paintbrush Tuff Nonwelded Hydrologic Unit, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey

- Administrative Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Denver, CO, U.S. Geoloaical Survev.

1995a.

81 I

Sweetkind, D.S., L.O. Anna, S.C. Williams-Stroud, J.A. Coe, Characterizing the fracture network at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Part 1, Integration of field data for numerical simulations, Fractured Reservoirs, Characteligation and Modelina Guidebook-1997. Hoak, T.E.,

P.K. Blomquist, A. Klawitter, e's, Denver, CO, Rocky Mountain Association of Geolocists, 185-196,1997a.

Sweetkind, D.S., E.R. Verbeek, F.R. Singer, F.M. Byers, Jr., L.G. Martin, Surface fracture network at pavement P2001, Fran Ridge, Near Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, Administrative Report, Denver, CO, U S. Geoloaical Survev.1995b.

Terzaghi, R., Sources of Error in Joint Surveys, Geotechniaue. v.15, p. 287,1965.

j

'i Throckmorton, C.K., E.R. Verbeek, Joint networks in the TIVA Canyon and Topopah Spring Tuffs of the Paintbrush Group, southwestem Nevada, U.S. Geoloaical Survev Doen-File Reoort 25-2. Denver, CO, U.S. Geological Survey,1995.

Trexler, J.H., Jr., J.C. Cole, P.H. Cashman, Middle Devonian-Mississippian stratigraphy on and nearthe Nevada test site, Implications forhydrocarbon potential, American Association of Petroleum Geolocists 80.1736-1762,1996.

I Trudgill, B., J. Cartwright, Relay-ramp forms and normal-fault linkages, Canyonlands National Park, Utah, Geoloaical Society of America Bulletin 106.1,143-1,157, 1994.

Twiss, R.J., E.M. Moores, Structural Geoloav. New York, NY, W.H. Freeman and Company, 1992.

U.S. Department of Energy, Controlled Design Assumptions Document, Rev.2,11000 000 00-01717-4600-00032. December 19,1995.

U.S. Department of Energy, Methodology to Assess Fault Displacement and Vibratory ground motion Hazards at Yucca Mountain, YMfTR-002-NP. Revision 1. August 1997a.

U.S. Department of Energy, Preclosure Seismic Design Methodology for Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Tooical/Recort YMfTR-003-NP. Revision 2. August 1997b.

U.S. Department of Energy, Repository safety strategy, U.S. Department of Energy's strategy to protect public health and safety after closure of a Yucca Mountain repository, Revision 1, YMP/96-01. Rev.1. Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Energy,1998.

U.S. Geological Survey, Probabilistic seismic hazard analyses for fault displacement and vibratory ground motion at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Final Report, l.G. Wong and C. Stepp i

Report Coordinators, SP32fM3. WBS Number 1.2 3.2.8.3.6. Oakland, CA, U.S. Department of Energy,1998. [ PRELIMINARY]

U.S. Geological Survey, Seismotectonic framework and characterization of faulting at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Denver, CO, J.W. Whitnev. Reoort Coordinator. U.S. Geological Survey,1996.

82 I

I J

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Design response spectra for seismic design of nuclear powerplants, Reaulatory Guide 1.60, Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1973.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Identification and characterization of seismic sources and determination of safe shutdown earthquake ground motion, Reoulatory Guide 1.165.

Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1997b.

U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses for a I

Proposed HLWRepository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Using TPA 3.1: ConceptualModels and Data, NUREG-1668. Volume 1,1998a.

U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses for a I

Proposed HLWRepository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Using TPA 3.1: Results and Conclusions, NUREG-1668. Volume 2,1998b.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee, Recommendations for Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis: Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts, NUREG/CR-6372. Washington, DC,1997c.

I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Staff Analysis of Public Comment on Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 60: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in Geologic Repositones, NUREG-DSQs, Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1983.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard review plan for the review of safety analysis I

reports fornuclearpowerplants, NUREG-0800. Washington, DC, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1997a.

I Young, S.R., G.L. Stirewalt. A.P. Morris, Geometric Models of Faulting at Yucca Mountain, CNWRA 92-008.

I Van der Voo, R., J.A. Stamatakos, J.M. Par 6s, Kinematic constraints on thrust-belt curvature from syndeformationalmagnetizations in the Lagos del Valle Syncline in the Cantabrian Arc, Spain, Joumal of Geoohvsical Research 102.10,105-10,119,1997.

Vaniman, D.T. B.M. Crowe, Geology and Petrology of Basalts of Crater Flat, Applications to Volcanic Risk Assessm3nt for the Nevada Nuclear Waste Storage Investigations, Los Alamos National Laboratorv Reoort LA-8845-MS. Los Alamos, NM, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1981.

Wang, J.S.Y., P.J. Cook, R.C. Trautz, R. Salve, A. L. James, S. Finsterle, T. K. Tolunaga, I

R. Solbau, J. Clyde, Field Testing and Observation of Flow Paths in Niches, Phase I Status Report of the Dnft Seepage Test and Niche Moisture Study, Yucca Mountain Proiect Milestone SPC314M4. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA.,1997 l

Wang, J.S.Y., R. C. Trautz, P. J. Cook, S. Finsterle, A. L. James, J. Birkholzer, C. F. Ahlers, Testing and Modeling of Seepage into Drift input of Exploratory Study Facility Seepage Test I

l

'I

{

[

Results to Unsaturated Zone Models, Yucca Mountain Proiect Milestone SP33PLM4. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, CA,1998.

b Weiss, S.l., Hydrothermal activity, epithermal mineralization and regional extension in the southwestem Nevada volcanic field, Ph.D. dissertstiDD, Reno, Nevada, University of Nevada at Reno,1996.

Wells, D.L., K.J. Coppersmith, New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, and surface displacement, Bulletin of the Sci::ro;c*=' Society _gt Amanca 84. 974-1,002,1994.'

{

Wemicke, B.P., Cenozoic extensionaltectonics of the westem Cordillera, The Cordilleran Orogen, Conferminous U.S., The Geoloov of North America. B.C. Burchfiel, P.W., Lipman, and M.L. Zoback, e's, Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America, G-3, 553-581,1992.

Wemicke, B.P., Low-angle normalfaults and seismicity, A review, Joumal of Geoohysical Research 100,20,159-20,174,1995.

Wemicke, B.P., Low-angle normal faults in the Basin and Range province, Nappe tectonics in an extending orogen, Nature 291. 645-648,1981.

Wernicke, B.P., G.A. Axen, J.K. Snow, Basin and Range extensional tectonics at the latitude of Las Vegas, Nevada, GesiccicM Society of America Bulletin 100.1,738-1,757,1988.

Wemicke, B.,'J.L. Davis, R.A. Bennett, P. El6 segui, M.J.A. Bolins, R.J. Brady, M.A. House, N.A. Niemi, J.K. Snow, Anomalous strain accumulation in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada.

Science 279,2,096-2,100,1998.

Wemicke, B.P., R.L. Christiansen, P.C. England, L.J. Sonder, Tectonomagmatic evolution of Cenozoic extension in the North American Cordillera ContinentalExtensional Tectonics, M.P. Coward, J.F. Dewey, and P.L. Hancock, e's, London, England, Geolooical Society Soecial Publications 28. 203-221,1987.

Wesnousky, S.G., C.H. Jones, Oblique slip, slip partitioning, spatial and temporal changes in the regional stress field, and the relative strength of active faults in the Basin and Range, westem United States, Geoloov 22,1,031-1,034,1994.

Willemse, E.J.M., Segmented normalfaults: Correspondence between three-dimensional mechanicalmodels and field data, Joumal of Geoohvsical Remaarch 102. 675-692,1997.

Willemse, E.J.M., D.D. Pollard, A. Aydin, Three-dimensionalanalyses of slip distributions on normal fault arrays with consequences for fault scaling, Joumal of Structural Geo!mv 18.

295-309,1996.

Wittmeyer, G.W., D.A. Ferri l\\, Effect of contemporary regionalstress on the anisotropy of r

transmissivity in fractured rock aquifers, EOS. Transactions. American Geonhvsica! Union i'

75144), 258,1994.

f

.4 4

f

r Wsttmeyer, G.W., W.M. Murphy, D.A. Ferrill, Regionalhydrologic processes of the Death Valley Region, NRC High-Level Radioactive Waste Research at CNWRA, January-June 1994, B.

Sagar, ed, San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Reaulatorv Analyses. 189-212,1994.

Wong, l.G., S.K. Pezzopane, C.M. Menges, R.K. Green, R.C. Owittmeyer, Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the exploratory studies facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Proceedinas of the Tooical Meetino on Methods of Seismic Hazard Evaluations. Focus 95. La Grange Park, IL, American Nuclear Society. 51-63,1996.

Wright, L.A., B.W. Troxel, Shallow-fault interpretations of Basin and Range structure, southwestem Great Basin, Gravity and Tectonics. K.A. de Jong and R. Scholten, e's, New York, NY, John Wiley and Sons,97-407,1973.

Wu, S., Fractal strain distribution and its implications for cross-section balancing, Journal of Structural Geoloav 15.1,497-1,507,1993.

Yielding, G., B. Freeman, D.T. Needham, Quantitative fault sealprediction, American Association of Petroleum Geoloaists Bulletin 81(6). 897-917,1997.

Young, S.R., A.P. Morris, G.L. Stirewalt, Geometric analysis of attemative models of faulting at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, International Hiah-Level Radioactive Waste Manaaement Conference Proceedinas, La Grange Park, IL, American Nuclear Society, 1,818-1,825,1993.

Young, S.R., A.P. Morris, G.L Stirewalt, Preliminary StructuralInterpretation of Reflection Seismic Line AV-1, CNWRA 92-024. San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1992a.

Young, S.R., G.L. Stirewalt, A.P. Morris, Geometric models of faulting at Yucca Mountain, CNWRA.92-008. San Antonio, TX, Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses,1992b.

Youngs, R.R., K.J. Coppersmith, Implications of fault slip rates and earthquake recurrence models to probabilistic seismic hazard estimates, Bulletin of the Seismoloaical Society of America 75. 939-964,1985.

Zhang, X., D.J. Sanderson, Numericalmodeling of the effects of fault slip on fluid flow around extensionalfaults, Joumal of Structural Geoloov 18(1).109-119,1996.

Zhang, Y., S.L. Gillett, R.E. Karlin, R.A. Schweickert, Paleomagnetism of the Miocene dikes in Bare Mountain, southwestem Nevada, Implications for regional tectonics, Geoloaical Society of America Cordilleran and Rocky Mountain Section Meetinas Abstracts with Proarams 23tS).

Boulder, CO, Geological Society of America, A169,1993.

Zoback, M.L., and 36 project participants, World stress map maximum horizontal stress orientations, Joumal of Geoohvsical Research 97.11,703-11,728,1992.

Zoback, M.L., R.E. Anderson, G.A. Thompson, Cainozoic evolution of the state of stress and style of tectonism of the Basin and Range province of the westem United States, Philosoohical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. London, England, Royal Society of London, A300,407-434,1981.

85

l APPENDIX A

(

l

{

FLOW-DOWN DIAGRAM REVISED

(

(

l I

r L

m 3 e g

n i) ly l

~

i o

s t

" p s e s

e m

ns f p s

)

i i

l u

e l

u a

s m

E p

c d o 3

y o

n g u

e r

r l

fd r

l e

ol p t

i a

R l

c

- ' w n

e na c

u E

I

(

o c

ioc u

I I

I n

i I

d a

t r

t e

of a r t

i "t

uir m

a id u cc P

S l

a s of wt Dr L

S

'I O

e h

s.

I B

r q

Tt

[

k-n.

t.e

'- s nm e

-g s

e e 3

j _

- a e

'k d

ml f

d

' c oi e

s l

n r

a et c at p

n o u sy _

r

' e opn ee r

e o s o s p s

b sk t

ni t

' a r

d s

c a s i a d

w At r a a

e e n r

rl a f

e er

' o et i

ch J_

rD R T( _

nig E

al h

mg _

C 3

J m

ri YN E

3 n

o nu oh

)

R i

RA k

E d r

-i f

t io v r e t

c nt u i cl eh O Ml u

s I

no

- d u l pt i

I a p o

d n

a a

T RuR yi P

l, o

s

' r o

iod wn mt p

t r n S

I a pa d r

~ oa SOio O

et Zl r

' s d -

~ ' e r r s t u OF v E

G rSFT(

n a e en sp t t ie o

ea o yn PRd s

'

• z F

k-Rw si EEnoP(Q_

s l

I a

e t

3 j

od i

j t

nr v

t m

d r

'w u

r no o

at e

o o

r c

n ap n

ma e

f o

p nhz s

f f f r

ml wn

• o o

i t

n n nd w

ioex ioie aT Zoa ne n

r t

rK l

t s a UFT i

wi a e r g

t r

t d r r

( _

u ut

-b b e a r ut iay t

ib m at a

'u x a i

i t

c s d c r

t e a n s

s r

i Rf u i

i u n nm

" d l

3 d-I ws f

D 3

j oi e

E d

d R

e wS r

' y ;

i NE E

es r

rd od t

r EM o n s.

c r s

o ya d

l n

n.

r s nt a

e

-i )

F n

,t me oir

.i s

t t

rP ai i

s. i.

r r

T gr e

imW i el e

m e

I u

- ht p r. i.

d s i

.n GS na

' c a e

r

" iyn h g l

t 1 o EB i

cn c a y tca i

ur i t

NY r

- y p

,e

'i i

t d e t

m FESk-mt

" e i.

n c r dios i Aa

=a nm e t

at n nel

' i m i=.

d mn tyoe ab m

' i e ei e u e

-)

Sh t

r r

nr e al l r

S

- c

' ud

• et e tet TE e o n

'P u.a Rr s u o e

s s

[~ h f

n

( a "W

'Qww

[

ge t

o n

NT m

E lus o N Y i

a h

i om E S FD ta t

r T

c rf S

or OB S

h S

l M

Y at e T

E c up P U C

ebr e N

T l

L S

i t

E B

iat v h S SA A T n e E

ol OF YRS d

U T S S

m y m-CO M

STN e

c YE BS 0 r

OY ELF U B1 e ee m

t kt s

TS nf I

y KEOSAT

( os

I APPENDlX B I

I I

i l

I I

l CLASSIFICATION OF QUATERNARY FAULTS WITHIN 100 KM of YUCCA MOUNTAIN I

(REVISED 05/18/98)

I I

I I

I I

m dc t

ein o

mi sy n

re e

g s

dicGg Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y ier sg snSucUi N

osS g

Ca

s ltu m

a t

e f

t s

e e

) r r

n 0, Au e

t e

p e,

1 e

,xig u6 ys u6i h

m m n g9 d e g9 d F t

r fr o

m uia9 enb a9n n

)

hl K1 mo mK1 eo h

6 o

m r

t 9

C a uc,

oiuM p

m c

r

,pC 3 FSN(laABE it 9

1 FfaMla w

(

S d

G n

e U

io in S

m i

O Pe(

o t

k a b

n N

ar) m eeg l

e, S

c 0

1 5

0 c

I n

S c

1 2

2 3

4 1

n e

I A

0 0

0 0

0 0

p M

e M

o M

h z

et w

z O

e C

cln u) e P

Y a am c

R t F k r

y s

b o

io(

0 0

4 5

5 u

M T

Dt t

4 4

3 1

6 5

o n

A s

a L

e G

md ic v

U e

m le E

uu r

R mi s

t ly R

in ie xg s

A a a 4

5 1

6 1

1 la E

MM 6

7 7

6 6

7 a

it L

n C

s e

U a

to N

h 5

0 0

1 7

4 p

lt M

t )

1 3

6 2

5 d

ugm r

ank el 1

o Fe(

r L

eB tn d

a is v

n

)

e g

5 8

6 4

8 5

o

(

4 le 8

1 2

2 4

5 1

c r

n 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

s ki a

at

)

er C

a d

E Pe n

n O

le ia

)

M a

D c

d 9

8 6

7 5

9 89

)

(

c e

0 1

1 2

3 0

6 Y

A M

9 9

G 0

0 0

0 0

0 9

1 R

(

1(

E S

N et l.

E cln u)

G M

a t

F a am S

t F k e,

O i o(

8 8

4 4

5 5

s U

e T

Dt 3

3 3

1 8

5 in u

N g

E a

M e

K T

e c

c R

md r

M A

uu u

P mi oe t

y E

in sc xg r

b D.

c a a iu e

S.

MM 4

5 1

5 1

1 I

6 7

7 6

6 7

mo M

p U

s s y

T ic ei h

5 0

0 6

7 4

1 3

6 1

5 sm s

lt t )

a ugm 1

ank asi d

Fe(

se M

is da e

L as if s

lt n

e s a

s ia g

e a e

r u

w lc a

o n

e n

dd t

F a

a d

u n

a i

s M

t f

s s

p a

o o

R s e o

o o

l r

a e

g g-m e

M C

n u

d e

u M

k r

e od r r r r F

m ae ae e

c tt ci n

h r

a 1

N miv mia s

a la e

s v

)

n AR ARP A

B B

B

-B Yo m

(

• c t

3 dc t

ein o

mieS P r

n e s 8

dicG ierS9 N

Y Y

Y 9

snSuo U (1 N

osS Ca

s ltu s

a m

lt t

f

)

s E

ih d cl r

ic,n yd u

iu t.

t d

a dma e 3

e x

e imds f h o gna ndf t r e

a opi sFt n -

h S

dae a r sk nan a est r

.aoE eie t

G) netaBk oscicr yt i o d

ec o

t ah S8 et nis cdiPe c

U 9pRl.amreoafiet u

ivmt s

r t

r cit c,

n uinBu h

r o pd i n a ii w a

,s a

al l C

9pAv u

ogebisQaeMwcasiaF it nexed gutcs oso si g t

A In1((Aefa ni s

w d

n e

i in o

t ka b

O l

m a r )g N

ee I

Pe(

o S

c 6

1 3

1 c

s c

5 6

1 1

n t

A 0

M 0

0 0

e M

h O

et w

C cln u) e Y

a am c

R Fk r

t O

is o(

3 9

3 u

T Dt 2

A 2

2 4

os L

G md ic u

e m

E uu R

mi s

t R

in ie xg A

a a 9

1 4

8 s

E MM 5

6 6

6 a

L C

s U

a h

5 8

4 0

N lt t) 1 3

d ugm ank e2 -

Fe(

r L

eB ids n

)g 9

5 7

7 o

(

48 7

8 2

1 c

n 0

0 0

0 o

ki at

)

er C

a E

Pe n

O le ia

)

D c

d 8

2 7

0 8

(

c e

9 4

5 1

1 9

Y A

M G

0 0

0 0

1 R

(

E N

et S

E cl G

n u)

F a am S

Fk O

i o(

5 5

9 3

ts U

T Dt 2

2 2

4 E

in N

M e

e c

TR md r

A uu u

P mi oe t

E in sc xg r

D a a c

MM 9

2 7

8 iu S.

5 6

6 6

mos U

s ic ei ugm) 5 0

7 0

h l

1 2

3 sm t

t ank as i

Fe(

se L

as da es lt r

g e a ua g

F n

e n

dd i

g f

a g

ie r

o r

d p

a s

r b

n e

e i

S te od R

e m

mt e

p ci a

oin w

n r

s Y-N oo o

a a

n BP B

C C

o

• c

dc t

ein o

mieS3 n

re 3

s dicG ierS3 C

3 snSuoU1 N

osS Ca lts ua t

m s

la e

e n

f e9A.N m9 e

. te h

In n

sn o

r

)

r 8

h t

t

. d e

i i d t

F

) n me dn2d e

t h

)

)

a d

t F e,

, 2awd n

y1 r

dt Fr eb tg t t t

lea 1 le n h

e e

eat 1

s1

. olaCCnuamF Su6i r

F Nl la oeeatsedn se

.sei t

n Ce) m a

e F y(

t rl 1

r hi a a ), e g9 e et Fy 1 n v eidb1 eb2 o

sdrSEOweet r

m sedf rSa mdna1 i a1 e Ciiet r (

r (

et a9 h

rFFt r t r i oet h r

o ol vt r

h st l l

l 1 ul t

igu a s taudn t

l ao C

et nauDsthtauntaCu cmwF u

tauK(

cioCiwFo C g3 it nr h u r ael Cor a c or a i Fa2 oar an e fo C F C F ( S C F M l.a(F1 c pC F a r aSnNSnNFE w

Tfa i -

cCFiInt d

n e

it in o

ka b

N eeg m

ar)

O Pe(

o l

IS c

6 c

S c

3 A

0 n

IM e

M h

O w

et C

cl Y

n u) e a am c

R t F k r

O s o(

0 u

i T

Dt o

1 A

s LU c

e G

md im E

uu R

mi s

t R

in ie xg A

a a 3

s E.

MM 6

a tC s

U a

h 2

N lt t )

ugm d

1 ank e3 -

Fe(

r l

eB idsn

)g 9

o

(

48 7

C n

0 o

ki at er C

a

)E Po n

O lo la

)

D c

d 8

8

(

c o

4 9

Y A

M G

0 9

1 R

(

EN et S

E cl G

n u)

F a am S

tF k O

is o(

U T

Dt 6

n NE i

M e

T e

c R

md r

A uu u

P mi oe t

E in sc xg D.

r a a c

S.

MM 5

iu 6

mos U

s ic ei h

8 tugm sm t )

l 1

ank as Fe(

i L

se as da e s tl r

ua e a a

dd F

t f

l ise o

F r

n e

r e

m e

od ci t

a a

s C

N r

n Yo

• c 7

lllll

8llI i

lII dc t

e5 n 7i o

eNe s *t r

s n

dicGe iersg C

Y Y

Y v

Y Y Y Y y Y s

u n s oui osS N

g A

Ca

s ltua f

e.

s r

s t

ce) s e n

nu 6 ar a

3 e

e s ag9 u

9 d

h K(

is eig d

m aDa e

E t

1 F

ist n o

m dt t

aie a

sc.

lt o

e r

oMla ui i3 lt cn.

ui cFu h

C sh ad adVg it t

nR L

nt iGie FiMF w

n i

FiI E d

n e

io n

t i

ma b

N ar) eeg m

O Pe(

o l

ls c

2 9

5 9

9 1

2 8

2 8

c s

c 1

1 7

1 6

5 1

1 5

1 1

A 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

n tM e

M h

O et w

C cl Y

n u) e a am c

R t F k r

o is o(

0 7

9 4

u 7

2 4

4 T

Dt 5

3 2

4 0

3 5

4 3

2 2

o AL s

U c

e G

md im E

uu R

mi s

t R

in ie x g A

a a 2

4 8

5 2

2 3

8 1

0 5

s E

MM 7

6 6

7 6

6 7

6 6

6 6

a LC s

U a

N lt h 1

3 3

3 9

9 4

3 8

6 6

t )

6 1

3 2

d ugm 8

3 1

e4 1

an k Fe(

r 1

L e1 L

• 4 idsn 9

6 2

3 9

5 7

6 3

8 8

o 8

1 9

2 7

8 1

1 8

3 2

c

(

1 n

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

ki at er C

s

)E Pe O

l n

e ia

)

D c

d 2

9 6

4 8

2 1

0 0

3 7

8

(

c e

9 Y

A M

1 0

5 1

4 5

1 1

5 2

1 9

G 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 R

(

EN ot S

E

c. fu)

G F

am S

O V. F k

U o(

5 7

5 0

5 7

3 9

4 T

Ct 5

3 3

5 0

2 5

4 3

1 2

N M

in E

l e

T c

d R

md r

A uu u

P mi o e t

E in s c xg D.

a a c u r

M M 4

4 5

6 9

2 3

7 1

7 6

imo S.

7 6

6 7

5 6

7 6

6 6

6 U

s s

ieic h

0 3

7 5

5 9

4 5

8 7

0 ft 0

1 1

4 8

2 2

2 sm t )

ugm 1

1 ank as Fe(

i L

se as d a k

r n

e s t

e h

e e

e y

ia y

e a l

r u

y g

s e

g d

le a

F le n

a r

d n

n la n

la idd t

W C

e e

a o

le a

f l

R n

g R

W V

u a

o se o

V e

- o d

a a

a ig n

ona s ic e

a M

V n

e a

e c

t ed i

h y

re h

n u

a scnh R

s o

m n

w e

is ci d t

a n

w a

d M

e le t

r a

u h ab o

a e

i in s

a D

E F

F GDAW f

K K

M M

O n

r Yo

' c 1l

I

)!I ll{1ll

I iJ dc t

einmi s.3 o

r dicGg C

n e

e s

3 ier sg N

Y N Y

Y s

u Y

n s oui N

t os s Ca

s ltua t

f s

s n..

s e r

y e8s tn a

3 dym o

f r

r 9e) a u e

n am9c3 eb t

e d

dg h

m s e E

r a

n et elye ame1 i1 i

t icec. d -

nA isteF o

n d

sf t

m aie i

iaTbiu of t laEeY a n r

t c

sv o

uiCu neAsasck in a pO pR lt r

ci h

C adBa o ole t

ui 3

n i

Yoe cgus Dp adC it FiPF N c r R pb l FiSE w

aiQd(Ap s

i n

d n

e it in o

ka b

N ar) eeg m

O Pe(

o l

IS c

6 0

3 3

0 6

c s

c 6

1 2

2 1

7 i

A 0

0 0

0 0

0 n

M e

M h

O w

et C

cln u) a am e

Y Fk c

M R

t r

O is o(

u 6

5 9

2 T

Dt 4

4 2

1 5

1 o

AL s

U ic e

G md E

uu m

M R

mi R

in is t

xg e

A a a 7

7 0

5 1

6 s

E MM 6

6 7

6 7

6 a

L C

s U

a N

h 4

6 3

7 1

9 M

lt t )

2 2

4 1

5 1

d ugm ank e5 -

Fe(

r L

eB ids M

n

)g 7

4 5

9 7

4 o

(

48 9

1 3

3 1

9 c

n 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

ki ata

)

er C

E Pe n

O 8o a

m

)

D c

id 0

9 2

3 0

8 8

(

c e

6 0

2 2

1 5

99 Y

A M

G 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

R

(

EN et S

m E

cln u)

G F

a am S

t Fh O

T is U

oi 6

7 9

2 Dt N

4 4

2 1

5 1

M in E

e m

T e

c R

md r

A uu u

P mi oe t

E in s c xg D.

a a r

c M M 7

7 2

5 1

6 iu m

S.

6 6

7 6

7 6

mo U

s s

ic ei h

4 6

5 7

1 0

t t )

2 2

6 1

5 2

sm fugm ank as Fe(

i L

se as da m

t e

y e s h g lu t

t t

r a

r n y

a e a F

h oa le e

s dd f

s mNR la u

B ise t

o u

in y-in V

u t

a r n ehh o

io n n e r

t b

e bo r o ay od m

t y

oep k

k m

n t

f c

c ss c

it a

i n n

ci N

aa lullaa o

o aa r t loa l

s

- n a la PC PVH R

RWW SF SC Yo

• c y

I l

7 dc t

ein 1

o mi s *8 C

n re e

s dicG M

9 C

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

ier s9 s

u n s oU1 Y

osS N

f Ca

s ltu M

a e

f L,

s ag e

r s u r

o a

3-d is e E

diF h

n e

t aie is tai t

n o

t r

w c

t uiRu f

c uiW3 h

l C

adCg FiWE it ad n

i FiSF n

w de m)g in b

k N

a m

e O

Pe(

o s

c 0

0 9

1 9

0 1

c l

A S

c 3

1 1

/

1 6

1 1

n M

I A

0 0

0 N

0 0

0 0

M e

M h

O w

et C

cfn u) e Y

a am c

R t F k r

o(

A O

is M

1 u

T Dt 2

2

/

3 3

6 1

4 2

N 5

4 4

3 o

AL s

U G

md ic e

E uu m

R mi s

t M

R in ie x g A

a a 1

6 4

A s

/

1 8

8 5

E M M 6

6 6

N 7

6 6

6 a

LC s

U a

N h

8 2

5 A

0 8

1 7

M tl t )

2 1

/

6 2

3 1

d ugm N

e6 an k

Fe(

r L

eB disn M

)g 0

6 0

6 6

1 8

7 o

(

48 6

1 3

1 1

9 1

1 c

n 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

kiat er C

a

)E Pe n

O le ia

)

D c

d 6

0 8

0 0

6 1

0 8

(

c e

9 3

1 1

1 1

5 1

1 9

Y A

M G

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 R

(

EN et S

M E

cl G

n u)

F a am S

t F k O

i o(

o 2

2 3

3 5

0 6

s U

T Dt N

t 4

2 3

5 4

4 3

in E

M e

T e

c R

md r

A uu u

P mi oe t

E in sc xg r

D.

a a 2

6 4

2 1

7 8

5 ic u M M M

s.

6 6

6 6

7 6

6 6

mos U

iei s c h

9 2

5 9

0 5

2 7

sm t

t )

2 1

6 2

3 1

lugm ank as i

Fe(

se L

as d a e s t

l r

r h

e a u

k e

9 e

a h

a t

s a

k dd F

c e

e ce f

a P

in p

rin ie a

o o

W L

s r

e c

a o

Sa n

ed h

m S+

t y

a a

e t

t n d

c c

od m

ga ic ha ew eo in c

c ci s

su a

a o lo s

- n u

u N

SR T

W WR WM W

Y Y

t Yo

' c M

l ll dc t

t ein o

mi sy n

e, re e

g s

dicGg Y

N N

Y N

N N

Y Y

r is ersg u

u g

n s oui N

t g

os s aK Ca

s c

M ltua y

f b

s t

d r

I n

s el e

t t

e e

n u h

o of p

m a

h t

y ed o

T m

Gcnh o

ena s h

s C

a SDAW it eab a

w de d

n e

i n

f n

d io ib e

t k a e

N ar)

A A

A A

A A

A A

m 0

leg

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

e ra f

Pe(

N N

N N

N N

N N

o s

s c

c t

s c

u i

A n

l M

e a

M h

fe O

w et s

C cl e

Y n u) e h

a am A

A A

A A

A A

A c

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

R F k N

N N

N N

N N

N t

r t

f O

is o(

u o

T Dt o

9 A

s 2

L ly G

md ic U

e m

n E

uu t

s o

R mi A

A A

A A

A A

A ie

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

R in x g N

N N

N N

N N

N

)6 A

a a s

9 E

MM 9

L a

1 C

s

(

U a

S N

h A

A A

A A

A A

A G

lt t )

d

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

ugm N

N N

N N

N N

N e7 S

an k

U Fe(

r L

eB n

d i

is e

n n

)

a g

2 2

3 1

2 0

6 7

o

(

4 p

8 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

2 c

n o

o 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 z

ki z

at e

)

er C

a P

E Pe n

O l

a

)

e i

8 y

D c

d 7

7 8

6 7

6 6

7 b

(

c e

0 0

0 0

0 9

t Y

A M

0 1

1 9

n G

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 a

R

(

ve EN et S

le E

cl G

r n u)

F a am S

y t F k O

l o(

U la T

is W

it N

4 3

5 4

5 4

5 5

i 4

8 3

4 3

8 0

0 Dt n

n E

e M

e to T

e c

p R

md r

r A

uu u

o P

mi oe t

W E

in s c t

xg D.

r n

a a c u v

s.

MM 3

1 7

1 6

2 8

9 imo a

6 6

6 6

6 6

7 7

e U

s s le ieic r

h 2

7 6

7 1

9 5

8 W

is d a s

1 2

2 0

8 sm a

lt t )

ugm 2

2 as ank d

Fe(

i ie L

se as f

s k

k e s W

lt 9 f

n r

a.

lt e

e e

r

)

u s

ye ye e a k

lc6 a

d e

n ls t

a er er e k

dd i

n L

n s9 F

e e

H l

io e

e ia a

i d

nC nCa ie a

s o

H Ve vel u1 o

h g

p y

s r

r g

c c

n a(

e d

T o

d k

e eo h y od e

s y h a h a m

nh r

e cs k

o se s

F nie ci s

a f

t t

W a

e n

ir es cg p on a n a

l

)

a a

a d

r rFn DFeuV s

b r

u u

h a oia r a eu 2

N a

AW A

B B

CP CRP CV DF n

-B Yo

(

• c

~

J_

-L i

{

j jjllfjj ll l)lt1j1l\\ll!o.

dc t

ein o

mieS.n n

re s e

dicGg N

C Y Y

Y Y Y Y

ier sg snSuoUi N

r os s Ca

s ltu a

s e) in f

t t

r dl u6f dl tn e u g9 o n ns s

eu e

t e

aa9eiois na h

r o

oF m

ef m

dI K( s ne 1

t t

h a

r o

c ut r Gedcnh t

se

.an es.

o in pM laced s

h uld ena t

C o oyyt eiot eab a

NcTb eb omie SDAW it r

sf w

d n

e o

n it i

k a b

N ar)

A A

A A

A A

A A

m

)

e leg

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

K Pe(

N N

N N

N N

N N

o s

c C

S c

I A

n M

e M

h O

w et C

cln u) e a am A

A A

A A

A A

A Y

c

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

R t F k N

N N

N N

N N

N r

O is o(

u T

Dt o

A s

LUG md ic e

E uu m

A A

A A

A A

A A

s R

mi t

/

R in

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

ie x g N

N N

N N

N N

N A

a a s

E MM L

a C

s U

a N

h A

A A

A A

A A

A tf t )

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

d ugm N

N N

N N

N N

N e8 ank Fe(

r L

eB d

isn

)g 4

4 0

1 4

0 0

2 o

(

48 7

7 1

1 7

1 1

1 c

n 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

ki ata

)

er C

E Pe O

l n

e ia

)

D c

d 6

4 6

7 4

6 6

7 8

(

c e

9 4

4 0

0 4

0 0

0 Y

A M

9 G

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 R

(

EN et S

E cln u)

G F

a am S

t F k O

is o(

5 U

T Dt 1

0 8

7 5

N 1

2 8

6 0

5 6

9 n

EM i

e T

e c

R md r

A uu u

P mi o e t

E in s c xg D.

r a a c

S.

MM 8

6 1

8 6

6 8

7 iu 5

5 7

6 5

6 6

7 mo U

s s

ic ei h

4 3

8 8

3 0

1 5

t 5

2 2

3 8

sm t )

lugm ank as 1

Fe(

i L

se as da lt r

e s u

e r

e a

h a

h c

e a t

n e

es t

innt idd F

s w

ro a

e a

t t

f lo W

i a

se o

n nN D

in inn i

r v

va ai n

e et et my o

e Hh Pe r

e r y t

m e

g imla h

r r o uo aa ge s

p pn n ae d

a l

s t

t r

u aa l

o a

a u nu nn ci n

sn N

li a s

Y-DW D

ER EV G

G GM HMPv no

' c l

ll'

,I I{Illj(

ll)

{ll l

I{

l1 M

dc t

ein o

mieSy n

re s g

idicGg N

N N Y N

Y Y

M erSg snSuoU1 osS N

g Ca

s ltu M

n a

f s

e) n dl u6f i r

t t

e e u g9 o n ns a

e ois s

p h

r aa9 ei m

ef e

o t

m dI K (1 s amr g-m o

t c

ut t

u M

se

.an es.

r r i

o n pM laced uld e aeh h

r C

o oyyt eiot t

i emiav NcTbebomie SARP it r

sf w

d n

e o

it in b

k a ar)

A A

A A

A A

A m

N eeg l

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

O Pe(

N N

N N

N N

N o

ls c

c S

c M

I A

n M

e M

h O

w et C

cl Y

n u) e a am A

A A

A A

A A

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

c R

F k N

N N

N N

N N

r t

O is M

o(

u T

Dt o

A L

s UG md ic e

E uu m

R mi A

A A

A A

A A

t

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

is M

R in xg N

N N

N N

N N

e A

a a s

E MM L

a C

s U

a N

h A

A A

A A

A A

t t )

/

/

/

/

/

l d

ugm N

N N

N N

N N

e9

/

/

an k

Fe(

r L

eB d

is M

n

)g 0

3 0

1 7

2 0

o

(

40 1

1 1

1 7

1 1

c no 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

kiata

)

er C

E Pe n

O le ia

)

D c

d 6

8 6

6 6

8 6

8

(

c e

Y A

M 0

0 0

0 4

0 0

9 9

G 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 R

(

EN et S

E cln u)

G F

a am S

t F k O

is U

o(

7 1

8 7

5 0

8 T

Dt 6

6 4

5 2

7 4

N M

in E

e T

e c

R md r

A uu u

P mi o e t

E in xg sc D.

a a c

r S.

MM 8

0 2

0 8

2 2

imo u

6 7

6 6

5 7

6 U

s s

ieic h

8 3

0 1

4 0

9 t t )

2 4

1 2

7 sm lugm ank as Fe(

M i

L se as d a t

s y

e e s C

h l

F i

lle g

a u

g r

s g

a s

e a a

n id r

a R

n W

e ise dd f

p V

p M

i o

S y

r h

r p

y m

e n

r e

ny c

u S

n e

c e

a u

r u

od m

ae m

t

~

a ip r

kt g

h h

ci t

N da a

e a u a

a a

- s niV K

M OB P

P P

- n K

Yo

' c f

1

~

~

l l

f j{i l!

l$ll l{

l Ill ill9 dc ein t

mi sy o

re e

n g

s dicGg Y

Y N

N Y N Y Y

ier sg sn s uoU1 N

os s g

Ca

s ltu a

n s

h cl df u6f in f

s h

e) t t

t r

a u e u g9 o n ns e

dsso t

e En aa9eiois h

eu a.

ef K1 s amr o

r m

Oe nr cFm e

t r

t sib o m

Debt yed e idI c( ut t

pmingat n pM l. an es.

h n

se o

er d

s t

ace uld C

h oaat a oy o oyyt eiot Tr cPCSRS NcTbeb omie it e

r sf w

i d

n e

o it in k a b

N ar)

A A

A A

A A

A A

m eeg

/

/

/

O Pe(

N N

N N

N N

N N

o

/

/

/

/

/

l I

M i

A n

S c

c s

c M

e M

h O

w et C

cl Y

n u) a am A

A A

A A

A A

A e

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

c R

t F k N

N N

N N

N N

N r

s O

io(

T Dt u

A o

L s

U c

e G

md im E

uu M

R mi A

A A

A A

A A

A s

t

/

R in

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

ie x g N

N N

N N

N N

N A

a a s

E M M L

a CU sa h

A A

A A

A A

A A

N lt t )

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

ugm N

N N

N N

N N

N e1 d0 an k

Fe(

r -

L eB

~

id

~

s M

)

n g

0 0

7 2

2 6

1 6

o

(

48 0

1 7

1 1

6 1

1 c

no 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 ki at a

)

er C

E Pe n

O le ia M

)

D c

d 2

6 6

8 7

8 7

0 8

(

c e

6 0

4 0

0 3

0 1

99 Y

A M

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

GR 1(

EN et S

M E

cln u)

G F

a am S

F k O

tis o(

U T

Dt 4

9 3

5 5

0 7

3 n

5 0

9 6

3 NEM i

M e

T e

c R

md r

A uu u

P mi o e t

E inx g sc D.

a a r

c M M 8

4 8

6 8

1 iu 1

2 S.

6 7

5 6

6 5

7 6

mo U

s s

ic ei h

3 0

4 9

0 1

0 9

~

lt t )

3 0

1 3

6 sm ugm 1

an as k

Fe(

M i

L se as da W

lt e

r a

h h

e n

te es u

g r

r a

e e a F

h c

s g

a w

d dd s -

t a

i R

e u

Wd d

e t

f ise n

c n

n W

R d

n i

p o

b o imy e

a Pe Se n

r r

e r

e t y a le e

h o

m t

d g

t g d

t n

t in a

nl v

u to n

n s

W a

n ci s

aN aat o aa e

o p

u e

e s

PCSR PV S

S S

S WR WR a

a n

Yo

' c T

1

dc t

ein o

mieS) n re 8

s iers9 N

dicG 9

snSuoU(

N 1

osS Ca

s ltua f

n s

e) i e

r df u6f t

tn eug9 on ns e

aa9eiois h

r m

ef K1 stame o

t r

o idI c( ut m

a s.

h t

se 1

n pM la c a' c '

e of. ic C

o oyyt t

NcTbebcmin it si w

de no in it b

k a N

ar)

A m

eleg

/

O Pe(

N o

S c

c I

s c

i A

n M

e M

h O

w et C

cln u) e a am A

c Y

/

t F k N

R r

O is o(

u T

Dt o

A s

LU c

G md im e

E uu n

is A

R mi t

/

R ixg N

es A

a a E

M M a

LC s

U a

h A

N lt d1 t )

/

ugm N

e1 ank r -

Fe(L eB d

isn

)g 8

o 4

('

7 c

8 n

0 o

ki at C

a

)

er E

Pe n

O le ia

)8 D

c d

7 9

(

c e

4 Y

A M

9 G

0 1

R

(

E S

N et G

E cfn u)

F a am S

t F k U

O i o(

s T

Dt 5

in N

EM ec T

e r

R md u

A uu P

mi oe t

E in sc x g c u r

D.

a a M M 2

imo S.

6 s

U iei s c h

9 sm lt t )

ugm as ank i

Fe(

se L

as d a e s lt r

u h

e a a

s dd F

a ie s

W fo r

n e e

a od m

c ci a

c s

N u

n Y

Yo

' c

dc t

ein o

mieS*1 n

re 8

ds cG i

9 N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

ier s9 snSuoU(

N 1

osS Ca

s

)

lt 6

u 9

a f

9 s

r 1

tn e

(

e h

la m

to m

te o

h e,

C it u

w g

d a

e K

n c

o in M

it b

k a ar)

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A m

y N

eeg l

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

b O

Pe(

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N o

I s

S c

c lt S

c u

I A

n a

M e

l M

h f

i O

w et t

C cl e

n u) e a am A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

c p

Y

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

y R

t F k N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

r T

O is o(

u s

T Dt o

a A

s L

d U

c e

n G

md im a

E uu s

)

6 R

mi A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

ie t

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

9 R

in xg N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

9 A

a a s

1 E

MM a

(

L S

C s

G U

a U

ugm)

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A S

N lt h d2 t

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N e1 n

ank r -

i Fe(

L eB e

d n

i a

sn p

)'

o g

8 9

9 9

7 9

7 8

6 9

6 6

8 o

4 z

8 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

c

(

z n

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 e

o ki P

at C

a

)

er y

E Pe n

b O

le ia

)8 t

D c

d 5

5 6

5 5

5 4

5 4

6 4

4 5

n 9

(

c e

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 a

9 Y

A M

le G

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1

v R

(

e E

S rr N

et G

i E

cf ly n u)

F a am S

l t F k 5

0 U

a O

is o(

4 1

4 0

7 9

7 5

0 6

0 3

5 it T

Dt 7

5 8

8 8

5 8

6 9

6 7

1 1

n n

N e

E i

to M

ec p

T e

r r

R md u

o A

uu t

P nt oe i

n E

kn sc ng r

D.

c a

a a iu e

S.

MM 7

1 1

9 8

4 6

4 6

6 1

3 9

v 6

6 7

6 6

6 6

6 6

6 6

7 7

mo s

le U

s r

ic r

ei h

7 7

0 5

9 4

0 4

0 0

8 3

1 i

s t )

2 5

3 2

1 2

1 2

2 8

5 sm a

lt ugm 2

as ank i

d Fe(

se ie L

as f

da iss s

y es a

lt g

le r

lc a

ir u

e in la h

e a e

t

!s t

t r

u i

dd s

la l

F t

F a

la n

p g

V o

e ise y

o S

ia R

g a

t d

F n

i o

nS H

k r

C t

t f

r o

l g

s a

k n e u

a s

s n s e a

e e

d u

u a u gin u

k n t

a r y u

L y c

t in lo hl io od F

m in n

t t

ge e

ci r

l t

t fau e

ic a

n u

c cl cn n ls c

r 3

N o

o a

ae aa el a

h o h

h ma la is la a

s i

n

)

B B

C CM CRWH C

CM C

C EV F

FV G

-B Yo

• c

(

M dc t

ein o

mieSy n

redsicGg N

N N

C N

N N

N N

N N

g M

ier sg s

u n s oui N

g osS Ca

s ltu a

t a

f s

n n

t d

e a

r n

e h dg e

r e

r m

e wei h

dic nm t

ismcbeiE o

m M

o ns h

r t

C oiumhf Csscwfa it t u eooi w

d n

e it in o

M I

Pe(

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N o

b k a N

ar)

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A m

eeg O

l

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

S c

c s

c M

i A

n M

e M

h O

w et C

cln u) e a am A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

c Y

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

R t F k N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

r O

is o(

u T

Dt o

A s

LU c

e G

md im E

uu R

mi A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

ie t

s

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

R in xg N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

A a a s

E MM L

a C

s U

a N

h A

A A

A A

A A

A A

A A

lt t )

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

d3 ugm N

N N

N N

N N

N N

N N

e1 an k

F e(

r -

L e11 disn

)'g 9

8 7

9 6

8 7

7 9

8 6

o

(

48 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

c n

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 o

kiat

)

er C

a E

Pe n

O le ia

)

M D

c d

6 5

4 6

5 5

5 4

5 5

3 8

(

c e

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 9

Y A

M 9

G 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 R

(

EN et S

M E

cl G

n u)

F a am S

Fk O

t 6

6 U

T is o(

0 2

5 5

7 2

1 2

0 7

7 Dt 6

8 8

9 7

8 8

1 1

9 9

E in N

M e

T e

c R

md r

A uu u

P mi oe t

E in sc xg D.

r c

a a iu S.

MM 5

8 6

3 7

8 7

4 4

1 6

M 6

6 6

7 6

6 6

7 7

7 6

mos U

s ic ei h

6 1

0 5

7 3

4 0

1 6

2 1

3 2

8 2

3 2

1 9

5 2

sm lt t )

ugm 1

ank as M

i Fe(

se L

as daes t

e e

u g

g ls y

r l

i e

!e e a a

n n

l tr ta dd F

a a

H s

!a g

k n

e e

V a

r c

is e f

t o

la R l R

ia d

r r

m d

ot ot tet le d

D s

n e

a n e e

F ma m

a e

r r

r n

b h g n

a y

tee ci h

n cll od y

r n e

r o

o n os nu m

M t

a lo r e r a uo u

a oa w

a e

aa s

N n

G GC GE HM J

L NR O

P P

RV Yo M

' c

dc t

ein o

mieSr n

redicGa s

9 N

N N

N N

N N

C N

M ier s9 snSuoui N

f osS Ca

s ltua a

t f

s n

n r

t d

e a

r e

n e

h d g e

r m

e wei h

eiEnm.

o t

c di m

ismcb C

oiumh ft o

r h

ns u

it t

eooia CsscwF w

de n

n o

i it b

k a N

ar)

A A

A A

A A

A A

A m

O leg

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

e I

Pe(

N N

N N

N N

N N

N o

S c

C s

c i

A n

M e

M h

w O

et C

cf e

n u) a am A

A A

A A

A A

A A

c Y

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

R t Fk N

N N

N N

N N

N N

r O

s o(

u M

i T

Dt o

A s

LU c

G md im e

E uu s

A A

A A

A A

A A

A i

R mi t

M

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

xg N

N N

N N

N N

N N

e R

in s

A a a E

MM a

LC s

U a

h A

A A

A A

A A

A A

N t

d4 t )

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

lugm N

N N

N N

N N

N N

e1 ank r -

F e(

l e11 dis n

)g 8

5 6

9 7

7 7

9 5

o 48 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

c

(

n 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

o ki at C

a er

)E Pe n

O le i

5 3

4 5

4 4

4 6

3

)

a 8

D c

d 9

(

c e

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 Y

A M

9 G

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 1(

RE S

N et G

M E

cln u)

F a am S

Fk O

is 1

5 U

t o(

9 9

2 4

4 2

0 6

8 T

Dt 4

2 9

7 8

9 9

7 1

in N

EM e

M c

T e

r R

md u

A uu P

mi oe t

E in sc x g r

c D.

iu a a S.

MM 9

1 8

8 7

8 8

9 5

5 8

6 6

6 6

6 6

7 mo M

s U

s ic ei h

5 0

2 3

7 3

9 8

5 sm lt t )

2 2

3 2

3 2

3 1

ugm 4

1 as ank i

Fe(

se M

L as da d

es lt r

n a

a e

in s

a e a u

s s

a s

dd r

l k

t a

s F

s e

lain a

n ie n

n s

n P

ia ia n e f

ia n

wta lb ey b

M n

it o

d e

L o

u r

r o

o e

e et A

en enan od t

r t m

gn nu n

nu m

ele a

w ud u Ci i

n h oeo s

RM S

SM S

TV T

T T

WMCM

- n N

ao a

oo u

rl a

t t

h a k

i o

Yo M

• c

ll) dc t

ein o

mi s *1 re n

s e dicG8 9

N N

N N

N iers9 sn s uoU1 N

f os s Ca

s ltua f

p n

e s

E ci e.

e s

r t

t i n yd e

d n

imdlun x

h o S3 dae ao pi gna nder e

t r e

h a e se r

m E) netaf namyahew ec sE r sk t

t i

f osct ic m

O8 et et di e e o

domeoaf ue imt s imcr e

o D 9 pR l s sk opdi r r cit v

.t s

r u h

C 9pAv e ac exedgutnaiiwl a

s t

ut niug it n1 A h

l niOaeMfa ooeoi cs i((Aet Bagebi s

ncssF w

d n

e it in o

k a b

N ar) e eg m

O Pe(

o l

IS c

2 4

4 5

2 c

S c

3 4

4 4

4 I

A 0

0 0

0 0

n

)

S 6

I e

R 9

R h

9 O

w et 1

C cl S

Y n u)

(

a am ec R

tF k G

o(

w O

is S

T Dt 7

6 5

5 6

o U

A n

L t

s U

e G

m" ic i

7 n

E u

m e

R m

s p

ie R

m ;

i-ar A

a 6

1 9

9 9

s r

E R

5 6

5 5

5 a

e L

P CU s

y h

3 7

5 5

5 a

b N

lt t )

ugm d5 d

ank e1 e

Fe(

r -

r L

e eB d

d i

is sno g

A A

A A

A n

)

o

(

4

/

/

/

/

/

8 N

N N

N N

c c

n t

o o

ki n

ata

)

er C

t E

pe n

u O

le a

b D

c id 8

)

)

(

c e

A A

A A

A' 9

6 Y

A A

/

/

/

/

/

R N

N N

N N

9 9

G 9

1 R

1

(

(

EN et S

la E

cln u)

G t

F a am S

e, O

tF k o(

A A

A A

A U

s i

e T

/

/

/

/

/

Dt N

N N

N N

n u

N g

E i

I a

R e

K T

c R

mt c

r M

A u

u y

E im 1-P o e n

sc b

D.

a-A A

A A

A r

c I

I iu e

S.

R-

/

/

/

/

/

N N

N N

N mo p

U s

y s

T ieic h

A A

A A

A a

lt s

t )

/

/

/

/

/

sm ugm N

N N

N N

ank as d

Fe(

i e

L se i

as fis d a s

t e s a

l l

u r

c a

e a s

F dd 1

2 3

4 5

t f

ie l

o s

s s

s s

s r

r r

r r

u de d e de 4-e de n

r a

e nb nb nb eb onb e

o o

o d F

m o

a m m m m m m rm m m ci

)

iu iu iu L-u iu s

4 N

SN SN SN SN SN

- n 8

Yo

(

• c

.l:l dc t

ein -

no mi s e s dicg-C Y

Y ierg-sn s uou ;;

N osS ca

s ltua t

f t

s 5

t s

4 e,

.A a

3 e

2

e. ].A a

3 e

]

e~

}

]

s r

,;A a n3 e) tn 1

1 1

)

en.1 e)u6a di -

e ys d

g9d e2 E ysu6x d

h ys 6x mWF m

d g9d einE inE t

l i

rd 9 d l

l r

r ae ena9 e

o m

en a9n 9n t

1 t

r 1

a1 e r

o mo*K( el 2 r puicFu moK( el t

c - u moK( el t

r 1

t

- u h

m*c.padCg

.padpuiDg mc pu r

mc. pa c

Dg it r

r FSoiSMlaAFiNF oiM n

i oi FS[laAFiWF FSuliaAF' n

i i

w I

d n

e o

n G

i ke) b e es m

ar Pe(

o l

c 7

4 7

c c

4 6

4 n

A 0

0 0

e h

et w

cl Y

n u) e e am c

R t F k r

O ie o(

u T

Dt 6

2 4

o A

s LU G

m '-

ic E

u m

N m-is R

s 1

e i

A e-s 6

1 8

E M-1 6

5 a

LC s

U a

N h

8 8

4 t

I

)

ugn d6 l

anu e1 s

Fo(

r -

L eB idsn

)g A

A A

o

(

s

/

/

/

e N

N N

c n

mG o

e

)

or C

o E

Pe n

O l

a

)

e i

D c

d 8

(

c e

A A

A 9

Y A

M N

N N

9

/

/

/

G 1

R

(

E 9

et S

E cln u)

G F

e an Fu S

O ie t

A A

A U

t o(

/

/

/

T Dt N

N N

n N

E i

M e

T c

R m^

r A

u u

P m-oe E

sc lu D.

r s

A A

A c

iu A

/

/

/

S.

I-N N

N mo U

s s

ic ei h

A A

A t

sm s t )

/

/

I ugn N

N N

ane as t

Fe(

i L

se as daes tsu r

a e a e

e dd F

ta) n1 n2 ie re mF2 ur u

l s

r r

e er De)

De>

n e 1

m heF b1 b 2 od t

t smD sm ci t t WNm

- n aC e

e r

e u s

orN uW e

WN(

s NC(

Yo

• c l,l{ll!

I il1ll) l, dc t

ein o

mieSy n

re g

s dicGg ierSg N

N N

snSuoUi N

g osS Ca

s ltu a

)

n e

f s

E ci e.

e s

r t

x d-n yd e

d S

n imdltun igi gna nder e

h t r 3

o e

dae ao sk a e se r

m E) netaf f

inamyt ew ec sE t

esct ic di e e o

m O8 et ue do e

weoaf tet ah ivmt s imcr o

D 9pRl s sk Opdi r r ci

,t s

r u h

C 9pAa e ac c-xedgutnaiiwl s

ut niug niQaeMfa ooeoi it t

n1 A v

cs h

Aet Bla s

ncssF w

gebi i((

d n

e it in o

k a b

e r )g m

N e e O

Pe(

o l

IS c

7 4

9 c

S c

4 3

1 I

A 0

0 0

n AR e

AG h

O et w

C cl Y

n u) e a am c

R t F k r

O is o(

u 3

T Dt 4

7 1

o A

s LU c

e G

md im E

uu R

R imi is t

n ng e

A a a 8

8 6

s 8

E I

R R 5

5 5

a LC s

U a

h 4

4 3

N lt t )

ugm d7 an e1 k

Fe(

r -

L e31 ids g

A A

A n

)

o

(

4

/

/

/

8 N

N N

c n

o kiata er C

)E Pe n

O le a

)

D c

id 8

(

c e

A A

A 9

Y A

M N

N N

9

/

/

/

G 1

R

(

EN eR S

E cn u)

G F

a am S

t F k O

io(

A A

A U

s T

Dt N

N N

/

/

/

N I

in E

R e

T c

u4 m

R ru A

E im2 oe P

s c n

D.

r a-A A

A c

iu B

S.

R-N N

N mo

/

/

/

U s

s ic h

A A

A ei Rt sm

)

/

/

/

ugm N

N N

ank as Fe(

i L

se as daes t

lu r

a e a F

5 6

7 dd 1

1 1

ie to s

s s

s r

r r

de de

d. e n

r o

nb nb e

nm m m eb od m

o o

m ci e

w N

wu iu

u s

Y-SN SN SN no

• c

1I

)

i j!

i c

t min o

mieS-n e s dicG-ierS-C Y

snSuoUn N

osS Ce

s t

lu 4

a 8) sh t

s r

t

)

f e

9E e

)

ht e A 7

i t

9

,;A a

3 e

ut

,ix 1

n imt ola x

e e) 1 e

4 u6d ysu6x d

s y.

t i

h

,da m

EneieSF g9n d g9 d einE l

t r

r a

e o

ier e1 a9e e-.a9n m

Oet t

f cWr h

o pR n thte.mluK1 p m-s, K (1 el t

t t

t C

DpAe u

c pui alu sr oa c. A o ;-

.padWig r

p r

t n (A AiaCfaFFMla(

F 0 [M laAFiSF w

i d

n I

d n

e o

n i

i ka b

t a r )g m

N e e O

Pe(

o l

t c

9 0

c a

a c

3 4

m A

0 0

n m

e am h

O et w

C cl Y

n u) e e am c

R tFk r

O ie o(

u T

Dt 8

8 o

A s

LU c

n-i G

e' m

E u

R n^

is R

ie^

e n

s A

o 1

2 E

M-6 6

a LC s

U a

N h

8 0

tl t )

d8 1

ugm e1 an k Fe(

r -

L eB idsn

)s A

A o

(

4

/

/

8 N

N c

n o

niet

)

er C

a E

Pe n

O l

a e

)

i D

c d

8

(

c e

A A

9 Y

A M

N N

9

/

/

G 1

R

(

EN et S

E cl u)

G n an F

e Fu S

O t o(

A A

U t

e i

/

/

T Dt N

N i

N n

EM e

T c

m r

R u'

u AP m"

o e E

s c is D.

r e

A A

c iu S.

M-

/

/

N N

mo U

s s ic ei h

A A

Rt sm

)

/

/

ugn N

N onu as t

Fe(

i L

se as dae s t

a e

l y W) e a r

u r

d idd t

F a) iW n

f rF se o

CC WS r

n

(

e S

e m

h(

hh o

s d

t t

e ut u

ci a

t ola SF SW n

o s

I Y-o

• c i

I i'

l

.1

)

dc t

ein o

mi s.

r dicGsi n

e e

s iersg Y

Y Y

Y Y

e snSuoU1 N

osS Ca

s ltua en f

e s

8;8 mw 8:7 r

8;7 8;8 t

r 8

n e

9 e

n9 6 n94 n91 ao u

sh ig n91 h

m no9 4 no9 4 no9 4 s

9 no9 4 o

1 o

1 o

1 e

E,F iawEr t

1 o

1 o

m in e

n

,e iawEu yD D9 awEm t

n e

bV n

,e E

o awEu i

t

,r t

O ;1 h

.r t

8 u

O C

coOg coOq coOg a

3 coOg 1 4 L sDF it oh i

oh oh i

s 9

oh w

D LsDF LsDF L sDF Mai i

n m

d o

n e

r

~

o n

f it i

e ka b

u M

e leg m

t ar) lav K

Pe(

o S

c A

A A

A c

S c

/

/

/

/

m I

A N

N N

N n

u A

m H

e t

h ix O

et w

a C

cln u) e m

Y a am c

R t F k r

s o(

A A

A A

A u

O is i

/

/

/

/

/

d T

Dt N

N N

N N

o e

A s

t L

s U

im c

i e

G md l

h E

uu tg R

mi ie t

s n

n R

ixg A

A A

A A

s e

A a a

/

/

/

/

/

l E

MM N

N N

N N

a t

L lu C

s a

U a

F N

lt h A

A A

A A

t )

/

/

/

/

/

d9 ugm N

N N

N N

e1

)8 ank 9

Fe(

r -

L 9

eB d

1 is E

n

)

O g

A A

A A

A o

(

4

/

/

/

/

/

D 8

N N

N N

N c

n

(

o s

ki t

at er C

a r

)

e E

Pe n

p O

le ia

)

x D

c d

8 e

c e

A A

A A

A 9

(

e Y

A M

N N

N N

N

/

/

/

/

/

9 c

G 1

r R

u

(

E o

N et S

s ic n u)

G E

cl F

a am S

t F k m

O is o(

A A

A A

A U

s T

Dt N

N N

N N

n

/

/

/

/

/

ie N

s E

i M

e y

b T

c u^

0 u

m R

r s

A e

P lm" 7

2 o e c

E u

5 7

s c ru D.

r a-A 6

A A

iuc os S.

M-

/

/

/

N N

N mo c

U s

s i

ic m

h 0

7 5

9 ei i

lt t )

s 9

2 7

sm ugm e

ank as s

Fe(

i L

se sa as d

da e

t

)

e s s

u a

r l

u a

a d

p e a r

s F

r e

h o

dd r

t t

r t

f a

s a

h ise l

o l

C u

e a

n u

l t

r a

e i

(

B Dy L

o H

e F

m 5

t e

a h

9 st sl sn cid t

le e

t t

)

Y-s 5

N s

au aa ao A

H EB EV EC n

-8 o

(

• c

}II

IIlll

{

I lI lj dc ein t

mi s r o

re s e e n

dicGg Y

C C

Y Y

Y iersg snSuoUi N

r os s Ca

s ltua e

f s

8;7 m

7 t

1

1 r

n 8

8 61 8

e 9 3 n9 3 n9 4 n9 6 a

ft n 0" 9 n96 e

h sh u no9 4 t

4 no9 4 no9 4 no9 4 m

o 1

o 1

o 1

o 1

eica o

1 iMO m

.e in e

n. e i

e o

n

.e bl f

in. r t

Eu awEu it t

r

.r t

r ok awEr awEu yT a awEu h

t a

o u

c ig coOg coOg coOg a se C

coOg DF LsDF LsDF LsDFi map LsDFi it o

oh i

oh i

oh oh w

L d

n e

io in t

ka b

a r )g N

O l

m e e I

Pe(

o s

c A

A A

A c

s c

/

/

/

/

A N

N N

N n

tu e

M h

O w

et C

cl Y

n u) a am e

t Fk c

R o(

A A

A A

u r

O is

/

/

/

/

T Dt N

N N

N o

AL s

UG md ic e

E uu m

R mi ie t

s R

in xg A

a a A

A A

A s

/

/

/

E MM N

N N

N a

/

LC s

U a

h A

A A

A N

lugm N

N N

N e2 t

t )

/

/

/

d0

/

ank e

r -

F L(

eB disn

)g A

A A

A o

4

/

/

/

/

(

8 N

N N

N c

n ki o

at a

C

)

e r E

Pe n

M O

le ia

)

D c

d 8

(

c e

A A

A A

9 Y

A M

N N

N N

9

/

/

/

/

G 1

R E

(

N et S

M E

cln u)

G F

a am S

tF k O

is o(

A A

A A

U T

Dt N

N N

N

/

/

/

/

N M

in E

W e

T e

c R

md r

A uu 1

u E

lmi 0

7 o e t

P n

ug 7

5 sc D.

a a A

6 A

A r

c S.

MM iu W

/

/

/

N N

N mo U

s s

ic h

5 7

1 7

9 ei t

t )

1 4

3 1

4 sm lugm ank as Fe(

M i

L se as daes t

lu r

p s

r t

s m

n s

e e a a

o s

t F

c

/a a

li P

u M

dd t

e a

t i

f e

tnP C

Sn B

se o

p r

a n

e Se a e e

o h

h a

e r

a sn w

a un ic c

od m

g gn c

y t

t c

ci N

aa imo e

oa lo u

s Y-ER ET P

SC T

Y n

M o

• c U

I i

I I

APPENDIX C I

I I

I I

y c u ssie,c rios og recro~ic. o Dets 1 vucc.. ouer is vicis,1v I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I

'm M

ol a. c ola

.a sd dt e

eFl, s

l ls n gi ls ngt ltuen n uh nCi A o e. m.

A o e. a r

aca ar t

o r

ig( is) d M

. rt s9

.rt m

. sk rt a lt t

r ea e9 g

c Fus co cf e 7

i(

t oF s

t eai oo uicl

)

)

ich b

af 1

b a s ).

4 c a cs n ao.

)

g r

yd o ydi7 2 b b

e 9i ar t

2 9

c yl.

9 c s9 9ma lel e s n (e et a

emdt emf ism d

M

. p v

r, lapps d a ad(

cn Cd ic 9 ditia 9 di 9

1 x

b sa dee at 1

o1 a

1 sie

, r s

,et t

l t

v r a i

,roia

. oiyl.

l. sS mid Fed e

ei t t

la pS e

l t

t ej i

nF le lag ea t

i if t u. uM eS) v,

,b sa u.ae el C c eF n

l t f d co M

.8 c;

,. 8 e e wlao dn h n eS) 7 7

r f

u C

aino a

g)9 6

g )a 9 sj on in lt it o na1 e ua d oh lehi 9

n61 aM l

it i t r

uwh u6 b

t 9

u9.

d o or lu

. 1 1 a e6:

Oiu b

s a

c o9 l.

s1 o

,c yt f s Y, 9 a le, Y,9 l o

t

,d s

me a enm b 9

,t dl

,t

.gat vf ner l

eo a gl le9

. f lu gl e

s i

. ir eo e st L me l

eirl, mte erl,d1,

(

a e n h h eeo.

ef mr e t

( r e

(

i ec ef e i ml kcp uum i

r ah sFf a

M sFhh e h

r i

t s

n ct h nd cet o nl sqe at it es s ec ew t

t od r

onrh e wt Sdt nutec it a n

it A Ra ut ese o

e caBur c

Be r n

e mxk lp

, we i

m e s;feB es ; t s o3r.

so3fuh a et n.

.s got i

r l

s s

f k

c r ss iosid eas m

k7 k

. l i

M r

7 e o f

s a9 o (c sa 9 r t

ed ac e (h n o

r st st r

n a1 rB cin og s so t

C oa1, t le o

o iui el ml,nf.

n l

rb r

o qb p

a ed c cml rb c aet c t e rl l u eI r

r r

n e o a a

t xr z.

eSopo dSo o (e cRs e ad xpn dt t

t ai) r p e

e t

n n1 r

n s i e (T pb r

ul eg9 cl l

t

. iu i

(

cl Tui

-od f

t n rb ne ss ne ua i

c o9 r e add s n mfeq is d

ad dn eu la a ei icR a

n icc1 on r o sie e

la o r

r t r ah q bm e

enw bmt t

ee bpa.

muo t

t h s M

is t ht e lan9 p

k 4 eeO r

i s p

).

t t h r p) ei

)

d Aaig r

Aainq s6 aum3 osl ge u R p r )n h Rpr t

nu9 ae WaW6 WaW)6s ig p,

pmlnc r

p l

gid i

oh1 llb 2 n u

9e u.

h u a yio dqn Nl

,9 d Nll

,9 l

t u.

Cp g9 ee a M

s Cp g1 e el t

m t

a t r n 1 p r

e y h (el,k y h (e

,e d

h oe ct a.

r l

o

.d yt eu t )

t S

t t

leb mb f f d

bi sa6 bis la ba ea iweo

)

wnt wn m

s

,6 d

e s) y6 o

dt oew dt o t

M e ni o

e n i e, k de e9 n

se d 9 t

t eiu9 elysS s

a9 nr M

t t

e a r,l r

ear 6 t

t t

g1 t

l e(

n e c

os v e e r

t r

r rh b os ve o e al, smk e i mH1, t

t sanl pi rh w pmKi i

i o

pnsot pnsolo pocr n

cd la n

pisec a sec l

n

,.l.

r r e u eMe oteio p g ga u ob r a u ob h

xi t

Ci( m E a (e t nt l

e c

ScoBd ScoBb S g(F M

eT

)

)

d e

b) b )b n

2 b 2

lb 9 6 9 6

)

a s

s a

9 9 9 9 s

M e

9 9

e 5

)

i 1

1 V

c (1

(1 r

)

n

. (

. (

p 9

7 f

9 t 9 l

n 1

e9 o

e al lal i(

(

r r

a a

t t

k1 y

e et et n

ic(

r f

, e

, e a

e gl, gl, h

e en m

R nli nl ic s

r s

wre r

ir ur ur m

oe oe id n

hh r

a c a u

YF YF F

J SL S

M e

e s

a t

u 1

m na o

s t

r n

n t

t n

c olu C

a e e e

e t

s b

x N

d m

bp e

lat i

ga r

a F

i r o a e m

Fa Vn r

h r e h

p c e ar l

d e

GMh c GDhc eAn it b e

t r

n d

a t

~

t a t

s f

h pt f hpt al is a

ms e

o laiee laiee r lua la t

p M

HwDD HwDD CPB EG AD t

r e

p M

A M

t

.o d o no w ). la ia6i

,. r egnt e

e l.

)

nt it r

o e oai gi hk llob

,ne ubr ar

, s 6c u

9 r

r o

o p) a9s qte9 b

inp icc h9 r

h Yr e

r r o s1 e r

l, 1 e6 c ;gp lt dl l

, m9 o0f r

d u )g i b r

g si

. u r

9

, r nrl r

o. a oeah B 9lae a n Fl f lal it 1

t

( 9 ht slt f

a is i

u e

F x,

uu

. a ct o c

el.

1

,d x

gf ne n ).

eb; te a

tat ne oa l

e l, w9 2

t

,Mt 4

s ef ela dl d o u n (t s

(

iivrh e

oly o

s9 rB l

c af s

9 s9e ei laS rl ie s

r 1

l ic

,bb i

o1 h r

a op d

lt e e es(

r ca e t

r r

s gl b pu u

ui oF)

.t c

t a u bw

. ocF y. u o s

f q N ;6 o dl ri h (e a r mt l

f e aBd(

n e

. b r

a5 9 n ct (

f p e a a

o e

ing po a 9S n

t n

at nc is s n

,o lan a e u t

i c

g a9 t

gt,a )w lit e a lu oi 1 f a

.l af sg h

ici d 9 f

Gds a

cn y

1 l

le Budi a r

l e

ic ir vf t

a p

a r

arf ei y

t

l. rd

.o et s ).

s atuC M ).

m o

ma eae o aYicr n t

b eb e

el mt F dc B 6 ut 6 g

ing.

oed d g.

t t

ne m

a,mim n

uwd 9 sa9 nl s,

e c

9 sci9 d

ki a e, nn r

m it t o n ad1 n

lt

.i.h c

el a sh 1

v gsai it e s ac a

gn a

d u e d d d

a(

a m

mds ni la af c s e t

na o n n ot mmn e, d t

e n)Fl it l

e a

aa fi t c

o a ok a ek olir n o

n abC n e cmac l

y C

i )6 t

Ratde ig r i b it i t i n6 e

k1 9w, l

o mot m,. a s d obF y aSad i

o mi ler o t

9 l

akl, lo em n

kf e

d 9 n9 oli t

1 h r ci is r

n a1, s aar e

oDg egt r

nh i

,a a

at e

d r e g

e

.n in eS p v gC e

icl.

l t

r a aaF c n la bl k(

,M i dt F

l g)i c e er t

t r

l t

it a

m,edg aig n6 u t t a.

o.

a gM gB et eapn( a b

e e ms.

ly t

w9 n

mnemtar B (e f f

o9 it i

l,l e

se r

o s

V oml d

s o

i(

a euia(

ef n1 n if an emhd o r

n e

t garicm iMm n

las x ot o cyu k

,a e

ai gh o

b egs k

cta gF l

s t

t h nFoi h Bi h

h h sda h aelo N

it l

n n

it it p

t a ct d

wsbnc it tweio it dols e;o a t

a w

wei t

i wu we ni blc l,d l

t r

e d ooh o2 ol t

e t

t t

l r

t t t

s nR9r o n

,o n

nia nnni n

r r

v e

erl eegx emNh g r

e e ;9 h v em i

t t

sFiem smaa d

s61 c e sse is t

u co t

t t

s s

o m ). or s;s ish ml i

i9 n

isn me i n i

i f

s a

sib ml s

n9. r c l

e n

ns ncoc nn n a c u

n o1 la eo oc o

os e oaei oi6 r

9 eB c

ce v ct l t

o cm9h o

c. t hi cl r

r a ea e n

o n oi n

n C

nlaeTM I

vM n

I ph I dPv a1 Tt I

I I

s le do s

)

)

)

2 M

e 8 h

)

8

)

8 s 5

8 9

8 c

9i 8

r 7

9)

)9 c

n 1 r 9

1 4 01 i

)

9 n

e

, a 4

1 (9

9(

(

1 r

2P 8

e9 9n o

e 8

(

t f

9 d 9

n k1 t

1 o o

r c(

n) s a

imw lt 1

c e

1

(

(

a5 e

R n

t im

(

r i

w t

r r8 T

o o

r r r

b e

e aa9 a

o t

n ca o

CC1 C

R S

WS SH f

(

yra t

m i

s t

f R

m lt n

t e

r u

e n

u e

m a

a m

e m

t S

F m

r a

d w

iu h

a e

r o

c h

N la e

n im D

e n

o n

a c

2 a

t l

e t

C e

C e

h d

d G

n o

la r

c D

x o

e y

D w

id M

s h

S

-r n

p c

a a

la la i

c n

io lo n

w g

e lo a

u l

R S

c a

e h

pp C

K Y

P A

I'

,! )

IlI

,lIll 4

3 Ml. ela apg spet s

,dt g spt

- sl hy t

t Yuhceen lt l h u

g o n ali s ll euii i

a e

t t ust ho n

ni s

fhn e

oisin p

e u

t ir eic t

z k awiv

- a t

nr ads p af a

l Wesia e s,w Ff ie t

s eua kc e

e got n el t CMm vr al Mipuig et e n hq ina i

l (hcin d

r u a

d t h hl eBsot ro Y hiag At soe c

r c ei a

o u ht h enr po c haa uf Fth s, F n H po m a m fi iwe sTs r uhl t

t t

a r

gt in a

r s

in

.i Sy s s inng he l ep Cw ohu P h dtn al d es sgeya t

i nchasi e

t t it a oesiod sipp e

u Aioleb hadea nh ha nma r

n t

t pmlenh h Teddc et lt cf ehs f

tamlao et i

. r ui tx ct e

t

,uM al n pt nw ea at r r

i eeVe etac.

c r r yS s

r o

ompa i

n ao ul

.Y s

f ed) n nhas r

f t

F oia s hs ueI M'

.ks cnA-derC a et sa t

et uu)ine e a F

lt tBedehr lt t r r

u ep mgu oh H C ahoin u

f t 6l t

gp t

h r sout ef a e p9 a

f rf Fr oS e n t

t sh oo r

d d s

r t

iq

,ll h u9 o ml r

ei e pP a atol f

. a e h

l ai r

e a r,

pmb

,sd smeh nt l w

eleAmh t

t 1

s o o dme.

ase n pbH Ao nl n

t o

vs ia

.o n uihl e e s

pa a et e lpado aS dn il er csm oy st a pc cr ed r oi y

wnassre e a e n t

t r pP n a cu w

k et ud eot o hnma oa r

t e

h at e,s o bMnm.

wc ar st eFg r

a io t a m

t isneh a o ic c e

t ri r

o e

Mt upe e o d.i t r bt i vt s dnno ol f a

q uh g r smr u l

a uf Cg at eI af yur nn e

). p h egt o z l e

p aa at i

opp

.l r

it atso i d6a udaa ia s pd ef nt t

tr gaf s a

vf i hu9 araKola hf l lc c yen pt et o ahi ni lye o r

a Mesth n pi 9 m it dl t

el c e a

l c

iMuue swTt os awe eYt ee n1 g dg a

e ems e c

et l o pk sh

.n r

r f t s

nFox al. m dv( u a mYc i

ataMo c e eb t

uasat ed c

ek gb a t

n er s

n oCs ema sFt hr s pB s

ihecs t

irdse a

e o

f i

e e

Ceic l

l s

t f

eCh To k aet d

m

. ht a see a n

k eu t l s

.f amhr esuieb ar gyabr t

e erot y et erlek, e aeu c.

t

)

t m

cnde auur mh qt ics ese5le ug r

o aev s

nd s owea y

soc 9b qa M

o no eu oqge eet ae or rj hlun a amu 9a r mt o e ahopm t

r h

t t

v mi p n e

r n

c C

a ph ot ha s r

crt ae e (n gc af gw o1,o r n mitsnddrKo la e i

i d

l t

r n ah e

c s

ebmF n

eMoh t

n o

.v e

a c

wiv r

nnact cl a t a o

oyo dYma i niaf nt e

t s aeeMly gh ivc ne,ge t

f r sp domt ao c

r o s t

i e e dl oh air 0. lop e

et da xd;e n,

r ui lut s r

e i

i)t Fea

,a n pmt T

pan en5k cminCsm ooieg e

icu8ol i

x a

r s ysehsa9l u

f q eoe k g eg cmsns ine= dye t

9s d

e npsl t

t n r

t e

r oe ayde gr

.h k 1 s o5arha g p r

o l

eel u )y e

r b

it il nioWu dseb rf l

p1 mot m irM i

pd a a cl,l s a kt r a

j s

f lsa(t nak i

mo lt omro u nie n (- e d

t i

u p-mAu aeis s eo cs c

lne t

V r

poixMer r

oht o gr e e ai a

ecveYdea iahr osr f

r s s yf f

r f

daHt aal o m

nt sp l

- nFt mtpl o

r a f, F e a

ar e

t de oeenebfe ip ysSs o

e cf au a

n i Pe av e o es st h

oh e

nt l

r c

o d e gC t n

.eipa m ddcoe e ls n m gh eedm r

t ri h o ec s nP ab r

Mednthp ipo en r st k f r n

t u

t t

gd a t c eeDh lsuc h

a l

st io u

o oatups el s

Ybo oos dr st o

t e

m ps n3 s s f

l t

ymimg ba f nnl a

d e yi eao a e h gt Fr pi s g t

ar p n i ul sh l

r

nidsxh, t

rait iAgr g o

ecpwcge e i

s gi h o d Ce nsin aspet l

t ish e

u ens. hot hscepr lipnli ep edswi be aou ni l

p f

d r

slt mjs r

e eiardiv sh e gulult f

a r

ot d y

e ri odge e sce la o au s t, m mi a

n t ( a t

vf e g )r i cf a o

t

) kino r

r f

s v

n awt e oc nge s n

dt sMf pl uai h

n i

e5i t

ot o

a n t,ha d

t edivaemec rd f

e d

art s k

uYi l

s r

o yoy t s u i9tse p yaFl t e ha e n

r9 r i t

h t

s smel sem m i

cynh ox t

lit t

t s1 aed iiF b

t a s l

a r

t a

,nd b. C sma hu a

c leh vu eah bdn ai l

g et o s ed ie l.osip imen et mdoF.

nemt s, f

e ceal ca is n

o m

f s awf p a

s hi sr l

E a e oMmh et ot nMak ixain e t p iahu eC sk f

t u

g e

i n

i e ot o5 nip a pi o n t

x HdHBs(tdi PeteBmd Mter cs P1 od Rawciign fo m

y u

r m

a u

m lt m

e p

n u

e a

t r_

u m

n e

t rF r

b o

e e

a a

t S

a m

D p

r r r N

h h h

A G

ae t

e it c it lu u

h e a

es 3

wt w

l s

l n

nt P

o SD C

d e

r_

x o

eD e n c

b e be la is aa t

ss M

at am F

V oo id r s rh c

gg n

Ge Gc en i

aa r

r r t

e f d f a t is s

p lao lae r a la mm a

t r

p HM HD CB E

AA A

a r

i j(

!l

APPENDlX D i

SITE CHARACTERIZATION ANALYSIS COMMENTS REVISED l

I Site Characterization Analysis Open items Reconsidered Based on several meetings, workshops, field trips, and visits to the ESF, the staff considers that l

most of the SCA open-items are being considered by DOE. The staff believes that the recently-l-

collected data and the results of the several workshops that will be discussed in FY98 and l

FY99 reports will form suitable bases on which to reconsider SCA open items.

l i

j ltems are organized by Comment and Question, numerically, according to subissues in this IRSR, and 'Subissue: Other Geoscience.'

3 l

l Numbers in parentheses refer to pages in NUREG-1347, NRC Staff Site Characterization l

Analysis of the DCE's Site Characterization Plan, Yucca Mountain, NV,1989 l

FAULTING SUBISSUE Comment 36 Resolved l

Comment 48 Open l

Comment 59 Open l

Comment 60 Open Comment 61 Open Comment 62 Resolved Comment 63 Open i

Comment 64 Resolved j

Comment 69 Open j

Comment 71 Resolved j

i l

l SEISMICITY SUBISSUE Comment 66 Resolved Comment 67 Resolved FRACTURING SUBISSUE l

l l

None l

TECTONICS SUBISSUE l

l l

Comment 8 Open Comment 47 Open l

Comment 68 Open Comment 98 Open

+

OTHER GEOSCIENCES SUBISSUES Comment 32 Open Comment 51 Open Question 8 Open D-1

COMMENT 8 Alternative Tectonic Models

" Alternative tectonic models for the site do not appear to be fully integrated into the site characterization plan and as a result alternatives are apparently not considered in the preliminary performance allocations and the design of the Engineered Barrier System (EBS).

The site characterization program appears to be directed toward providing data that confirm the preferred tectonic model rather than determining what the '" preferred model"'should be."(p. 4-14)

RECOMMENDATIONS

• "Altemative tectonic models should be thoroughly integrated into preliminary performance allocations and the design of the EBS.* Consideration should be given to prioritizing investigations giving high priority to those investigations associated with tectonic features, events, or processes that could lead to the determination of whether the site has unacceptable adverse conditions, or to a substantial change in the site characterization program." (p. 4-16)

DISPOSITION Open. DOE is fully considering alternative tectonic models. Seismotectonic scenarios reports, TSPA-VA, PFDHA, and PSHA expert elicitation results will be reported in FY98 and FY99.

Resolution is pending review of the DOE reports.

COMMENT 32 Geophysical Data Integration "The program for geophysical integration as presented in the SCP is insufficiently described.

The correlation between the different geophysical investigations is not presented and, in addition, the approach that will be used to integrate the geophysical activities and how these different activities will complement each other does not appear to be discussed in the SCP." (p.

4-35)

RECOMMENDATIONS

• " integrate and evaluate existing geologic and geophysical data and provide overlays of the existing coverage and evaluations.

• Based on this integration, provide a coherent geophysical program to be implemented in the Yucca Mountain area that would provide sufficient characterization of the site."(p. 4-35)

DISPOSITION Open. DOE has completed reports on its geophysical surveys (seismic reflection, gravity, and magnetic data). The results were utilized in several workshops held during 1996 and 1997.

DOE submitted results of gravity and magnetic surveys of Yucca Mountain area (Earthfield D-2

Technology,1995). CNWRA recently collected gravity and magnetic data and plan to integrate the results from the different geophysical methods. The resolution of this issue is pending the outcome of staff reviews of the DOE reports and of the CNWRA results.

COMMENT 36 Faults in Perimeter Drift "The technical rationale for this investigation states that the perimeter drift defines an area of a significantly lower concentration of faults than has been mapped in surrounding areas.

However, based on other parts of the SCP, this concept may not be accurate. Further, there is no apparent indication that studies in the SCP address the potentialimpact on system performance of the presence within the perimeter drift (i.e., in emplacement areas) of a significant number of faults, some of which may be favorably oriented for failure under the present stress regime."

(4-38)

RECOMMENDATIONS

• " Rectify the apparent contradiction as to whether a zone of imbricate faulting is present within the perimeter drift.

• If the imbricate fauit zone is present within the perimeter drift, an assessment should be made to demonstrate that the requirements of 10 CFR 60.133(h) will be met." (p. 4-38)

DISPOSITION Resolved. DOE's ESF reports, Repository Safety Strategy, Total System Performance Assessment-Viability Assessment Plan, the plan to conduct perimeter drifting, and proposed enhanced drifting and drilling alleviate this concern. Also DOE ls planning to move the perimeter drift to a location west of Ghost Dance fault, leaving the imbricate fault zone outside the perimeter. No staff questions at this time.

COMMENT 47 Integrate Tectonics into PA "The approach to incorporating data derived in the postclosure tectonics program into an assessment of whether performance issues related to the waste package and engineered barrier system (EBS) requirements (10 CFR 60.113(a)) will be met is confusing and may result in an inaccurate assessment of performance."(p. 4.44)

RECOMMENDATION

• " Consideration should be given to establishing a direct path for the integration of data collected in the Postclosure Tectonics program into issues 1.4 (Will waste package meet the D-3 i

I performance objective) and 1.5 (Will the waste package and repository engineered barrier system meet the performance objective)."(p. 4-44)

DISPOSITION I

Open. DOE's Repository Safety Strategy, Seismotectonic Scenarios Report, and TSPA-VA will consider effects of seismotectonics on performance. Resolution is pending SDS and CLST review of the DOE reports.

COMMENT 48 Fault Slip Rate "The use of fault slip rates to determine the level of hazard posed to repository facilities by faults does not appear to be a conservative approach and may result in overly optimistic predictions about the effects of faulting on system performance."(p. 4-45)

RECOMMENDATIONS

• " Demonstrate that the use of slip rates for determining hazard does not provide overly optimistic predictions of the effects of faulting on repository performance.

• Consider alternative methods (e.g., maximum event offset) or a combination of methods (e.g.,

maximum event offset and slip rates) to assess the level of hazard to the surface facilities and EBS posed by faulting." (p. 4-45)

DISPOSITION Open. The results of DOE's consideration of slip rates will be presented in PSHA AND TR #3.

Resolution is pending reviews of the DOE reports.

COMMENT $1 Correlate Deep & Shallow Geophysical Surveys

" Geophysical survey programs as indicated in the SCP may not be sufficient to identify and characterize both the deep crustal and shallow geologic features and their interrelationship." (p.

4-47)

RECO.MMENDATIONS

• " Provide a geophysicalinvestigation program plan that is comprehensive, integrated and sufficient to identify and understand the interrelationships of the deep crustal structure and shallow geologic structural features, and to assure that no significant structural features have gone undetected.

D-4 I

'I

• Consider including a gridded program of exploratory surveys and measurements that would allow for cross-line correlations and more complete spatial definition of anomalies at the site and specifically at the locations of the exploratory shafts." (p. 4-47)

DISPOSITION Open. DOE collected more seismic reflection, gravity, and magnetic data since the issuance of the SCP (e.g., Earthfield Technology,1995). CNWRA also collected gravity and magnetic data in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. Staff expects that these data will be sufficient to characterize lI the shallow and deep structures and their interrelationship. The resolution of this issue is pending the outcome of the review of DOE's and CNWRA's reports due in FY98 and FY99.

lI COMMENT 59 Sequencing Fault Investigations "The information presented for the program of investigations for faulting does not allow the NRC staff to determine what investigations will actually be conducted. In addition, the sequencing of many geophysical and geologic activities related to faulting may lead to data collection activities that are inadequate to support assessments of performance and design bases." (p. 4-53) l RECOMMENDATION

• " Consideration should be given to re-examining the sequence of all activities dependent on input from other activitics." (p. 4-53)

DISPOSITION

'I Open. DOE's geological and geophysical site characterization activities that bear on fault characterization are largely completed. DOE collected several seismic reflection, gravity, and magnetic data. These sets of data were utilized in PSHA, PFDHA, and PVHA. CNWRA also collected several gravity and magnetic data to enhance the identification of buried volcanic cones and blind faults. Resolution is pending reviews of the DOE reports.

COMMENT 60 Fault Parameters

{

"The NRC staff does not consider that the basis and rationale for the design and performance parameters, characterization parameters, and goals proposed in the SCP for fault j

displacement, in particular for fault investigations for facilities important to safety (FITS), have been justified. The staff is concerned, as these values appear to be used to limit the exploration program prior to having sufficient data to evaluate the site." (p. 4-53)

RF. COMMENDATION

• " DOE needs to strengthen its justification for the design and performance parameters, characterization parameters, and goals for preclosure fault displacement as related to FITS, or revise these values. The justification should include a discussion of the interrelationship of the D-5 l

I I

characterization parameters, performance and design parameters, and goals with the design criteria and the performance objectives of 10 CFR Part 60." (p. 4-54)

DISPOSITION I

Open. DOE had held several workshops on PSHA and PFDHA to address this particular issue.

DOE will present the results in upcoming reports. Resolution is pending reviews of the upcoming reports.

COMMENT 61 Location of New Faults "The program of investigations for faulting appears to assume that any future faulting will follow old faulting pattems. The NRC staff considers that this in not a reasonably conservative assumption, and does not consider that this assumption is technically justified." (p. 4-55)

RECOMMENDATION I

• " DOE needs to review its assumptions used to plan the exploration program for FITS to assure unconservative assumptions, such as future faulting only occurring at the exact locations of past fauiiing, do not bias the program."(p. 4 55)

DISPOSITION I

Open. DOE recently presented its tectonic models and fault characterization for Yucca Mountain in several workshops. Resolution is pending reviews of the DOE reports.

COMMENT 62 Fault Standoff The information presented for the program of investigations for study of faulting at the surface

[

facilities does not allow the NRC staff to determine how DOE is proposing to use standoff 5

distances in designing the program of investigations and in performing the resultant design and analysis." (p. 4-56)

RECOMMENDATION

• " DOE needs to demonstrate that:

(i) the program of investigations for faulting at not near FITS will adequately evaluate all faults that have a potential of movement; and/or (ii) that the evaluation of the effects of faulting, taking into account the degree of resolution of the investigation, will not underestimate the effects, and D-6 I

(iii) the effect _of faulting will not compromise the ability of the FITS to meet the performance objectives." (p. 4-56)

DISPOSITION Resolved. DOE is planning to avoid areas where concentration of active faults are located and relocate the repository perimeter west of the Ghost Dance fault. DOE plans to design for faults that it can not avoid (U.S. DOE,1995, key 023). No staff questions at this time.

COMMENT 63 Integrating Fault Data "The information presented for the program of investigations for study of faulting at the surface facilities does not appear to have integrated pre-existing information and makes assumptions about pre-existing information and on-going investigations which the NRC cannot evaluate because the NRC has not seen the background information."(p. 4-56)

RECOMMENDATION

• " Prior to the NRC staff's being able to evaluate the program of site investigations, DOE needs to complete at least the planning step of integration of the site program. This should include not only a separate integration of drilling or a separate integration of geophysics, but a complete integration of the planned program ofinvestigations. This integration should show how ongoing activities and pre-existing information has been incorporated into the program and should demonstrate what assumptions are being made on the quahfication of pre-existing data."(p. 4-57) s DISPOSITION Open. The adequacy of DOE's fault characterization program is expected to be evaluated by reviews of DOE reports scheduled for FY98 and FY99.

COMMENT 64 Significant Faults "The characterization parameters for the identification and characterization of "significant Quaternary faults"in the area of the repository block do not appear to fulfill the requirements in 10 CFR 60, such as investigating and evaluating the effects of potentially adverse natural conditions." (p. 4-57)

D-7

RECOMMENDATION I

' * "The site characterization program and performance allocation process should be designed to assure that any fault that could have an adverse impact on waste isolation will be characterized." (p. 4-58)

DISPOSITION Resolved. Staff have resolved the disposition of potentially significant Quatemary faults I

(Section 5.1.1.1).

COMMENT 66 10,000-Year Earthquake "Since the 10,000-year cumulative slip earthquake (10-kyr CSE) methodology assumes that average cumulative slip over 10,000 years is released in a single event, it appears that recurrence is implied to be fixed at 10,000 years. It is questionable whether such a methodology can properly characterize fault activity and the related seismic activity in the site j

region." (p. 4-58)

RECOMMENDATION

• " Recurrence-rate estimates should be given special emphasis. In particular, differences I

between the true maximum magnitude and the 10-kyr CSE, based on evaluations of the recurrence interval associated with the maximum earthquake determined from magnitude-frequency relationships, should be thoroughly explained. The planned site characterization I

activities, which are designed to provide all types of information that are material to the characterization of seismic hazard, should be conducted in a manner that will allow for a clear comparison of the 10-kyr CSE methodology with other attemative methodologies."(p. 4-59)

DISPOSITION Resolved. DOE is not using the 10-Kyr CSE concept. DOE's current methodology presented I

in TRM1 (DOE,1997; YMP/TR-002-NP: Methodology to Assess Fault Displacement and Vibratory Ground Motion Hazards at YM, August,1997)is acceptable. No staff questions at this time.

I COMMENT 67 Magnitude 5.5 Cutoff "The data compiled accc,rding to Activity 8.3.1.17.4.1.2, i.e., having a magnitude cutoff of 5.5, may not be sufficient to support an evaluation of the effects of local site geology on surface and subsurface motions."

D-8 I

I

RECOMMENDATION

• 'The distinction between those parameters that are to be compiled for all recorded seismic events and those that are to be compiled for events greater than magnitude 5.5 should be dropped. If it is reasonable and practical, information for any of the 19 categories of parameters listed in Activity 8.3.1.17.4.1.2 should be compiled for earthquakes in the Yucca Mountain vicinity, without regard to their size." (P. 4-60)

DISPOSITION Resolved. In a letter dated August 15,1991 (D.E. Shelor to J. Lichen), DOE provided clarification as follows: smaller-magnitude earthquakes than 5.5 that may have an impact on the site will be considered in seismic analysis. This comment was closed by letter from R. Ballard to J. Holonich dated October 2,1991.

COMMENT 68 Detachment Fault Model "Other aspects of detachment faulting, in addition to those described in Section 8.3.1.17.4.5 regarding key questions to be answered on earthquake sources, do not appear to be treated as similarly potentially significant."(p. 4-60)

RECOMMENDATIONS

• "The significance of detachment faulting as a key element in assessing the potential for faulting at the site needs to be readdressed giving consideration to other key concerns related to detachment faulting.

• Consideration should be given to having the results of Study 8.3.1.17.4.5 input directly into postclosure tectonics performance issues."(p. 4-61)

DISPOSITION Open. DOE has considered detachments faults (U.S. Geological Society,1996). Fault models l

were discussed in several PSHA workshops. Resolution is pending review of DOE reports.

COMMENT 69 NW-Trending Faults "The SCP does not appear to integrate and synthesize data resulting from the planned activities characterizing northwest-trending faults." (p. 4-61)

D [

i

l

[

RECOMMENDATION f

• " Consideration should be given to specifically outlining a program of study to integrate and synthesize all activities that will collect data on northwest-trending faults." (p. 4-61)

DISPOSITION

(

Open. DOE provided a report on the integration of the different activities to characterize the N-W trending faults (USGS,1996). The results of this integration will be presented in DOE reports in FY98 and FY99. Resolution is pending the outcome of staff reviews.

l

{

COMMENT 71 Significant Fault "The tentative goal, design parameter, and expected value relating faulting (e.g., "significant

(-

Quaternary fault") and performance allocation for System Element 1.1.2 are not sufficient for adequately characterizing the hazard posed by faulting in the repository." (p. 4-61)

RECOMMENDATIONS

{

• " Consideration should be given to using alternative fault models as a conceptual basis for assessing the preclosure hazard to the repository."

• Demonstrate that from a scientific perspective, the program of drifting in the northern part of

(

the repository combined with the systematic drilling program and feature sampling program will provide the information necessary to ensure that conditions and processes encountered are representative of conditions and processes throughout the site and that potentially adverse conditions will be adequately investigated." (p. 4-62)

DISPOSITION

[

Resolved. The staff considers Type i faults to be significant faults. The staff now considers that DOE has adequately identified significant faults at Yucca Mountain and will continue to do so.

{

COMMENT 98 Alternative Conceptual Models

' Weighting alternative conceptual models according to the judgment that they are likely to be

[

correct and using such " probabilities" to weight consequences in the construction of the CCDF l

is not a conservative estimate of repository performance, nor is it an advisable approach for demonstrating compliance." (p. 4-78)

D-10 r

t

RECOMMENDATIONS

• "The SCP should recognize that the approach of incorporating alternative conceptual model likelihoods into the computation of the CCDF of cumulative releases of radionuclides may not provide information about repository performance in an acceptable format because uncer1ainties are not delineated distinctly.

• " Plan to incorporate considerat!on of unresolved attemative conceptual models into the CCDF in a conservative fashion by choosing the altemative that gives the poorest performance (greatest releases of radionuclides) or by some combination of the two attematives that ensures no underestimates of releases and develop the site characterization program accordingly."

(p. 4-79)

DISPOSITION Open. Based on expert elicitation, DOE will provide alternative models to be considered in the performance assessment. Different weights will be assigned to these models based on their credibility. The range in uncertainty in these models will be addressed in an upcoming DOE report. Resolution is pending the review of this report.

QUESTION 8 Variability of Modellnput "What measure of predictability will accompany the computer models, maps, and other illustrations? How will uncertainties be explicitly transmitted to the model users?"(p. 4-105)

RECOMMENDATION "SCP updates should describe how local variability in the data will be presented in the block model." (p. 4-106)

DISPOSITION Open. DOE's ISM 2.0 and related process models will address uncertainty in data and interpretations. DOE requested NRC feedback on the adequacy of ISM 2.0 for its intended purposes. Appendix 7 interactions were held in July and September,1997, to provide preliminary staff feedback and to brief staff on the operation of the ISM 2.0 code. DOE revised its request by submitting geologic framework model (GFM3.0) for staff review. A technical exchange on GFM3.0 was held in May 1997 by DOE to brief the staff on operation of GFM3.0 code. Resolution is pending staff's review of GPM 3.0.

D-11

l I

I I

I FIGURES AND TABLES I

I I

I E

E

[

E

I I

I l

I I

i Figure E-1. Regional map showing the topography and the location of geographic features near Yucca Mountain referenced in the text. The contour interval is 200m. Also shown are the Critical Faulting Region and the Yucca Mountain Region (shaded) where

{

the paleoseismic Investigations were conducted.

I I

I I

,I I

1

\\j\\

u \\; vi:\\

'\\.

,-o i

x Critical T

s.>

ii

! I'

' f .

Fauting O, I i '

j Ni Region,~ p 1

/j j ) j g,,

g, ('; '1

. fil !

i 1

1 I

'/

1, H

j (

j

/

[q i [$N [wlI)

I

, /,

(e/

m I

r i

y

/

A, i

1 v

!, V /Q l

U/

s e

O/

3

/

'^, a I

rdMoEaj6 P

7 mposed

, f/

epostory R

q\\ (yd7j

}/

(p Blads l

i N

N 1,%

d Jackass Flat (

7 0

,lll '

\\

8 Yucca Mountain g

Crater Rat

/(,n )

bRegion ll

/

L little SkuH Mtri

l I

'5 0'

' ),x.-

Earthquake j,,',

Epicenter / /(I

/

j

)

\\(\\

l Amargosa VaHey I

\\

{

l 000

<- NIS Boundary N

5 0

5 10 Kdometers Figure E-1 u

~

Figure E-2. Regional map showing locations of faults beyond 10 km radius of Yucca Mountain but within 100 km radius of Yucca Mountain. Locations of faults are from Nakata, et al. (1982); Sawyer, et al. (1995); and Piety,(1996). Fault names are as follows: AM - Ash Meadows; AR - Amargosa River; BLR - Belted Range; BM - Bare Mountain; BS - Beatty Scarp; CB - Carpetbag; CS - Cane Springs; DV - Death Valley; ER -

Eleana Range; FC - Furnace Creek; KR - Kawich Range; KW - Keane Wonder; MM - Mine Mountain; OSV - Oasis Valley; PRP - Pahrump; PVNH - Plutonium Valley-North Halfpint Range; RV - Rock Valley; SF - Sarcobatus Flat; TOL - Tolicha Peak; WAH - Wahmonie; WSM - West Spring Mountain ; YC - Yucca; and YCL - Yucca Lake fault. Map coordinates are Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 11.

NOTE: The following Type i faults do not appear on either Figures E-2 or E-3 because their locations were not available in electronic format; they will be included in Revision 2: Fish Lake Valley; Drill Hole Wash; Dune Wash; East Pintwater Range; Emigrant Valley North; Grapevine; Grapevine Mountain; Hunter-Panamint Valley; South Ridge; Spotted Range; Sundance; West Pintwater; West Specter Range; and Yucca Wash.

[

[

4180000 -

4160000 KR j'

fjg

)

4140000

---f.

OL SF YC f

}.

'C 4120000 R BW

'.PVNH

)

ll FC;.

OSy y

4100000 1,e /

g MM k

BS BM y

/

YCL -

4080000 -

k W [ C' l

4060000 -

KW RV RV(

,AM 4040000P WSM l

l M.

\\

4020000 AR g

/gg7fs pg4y

....AMs

\\

(

3980000 3960000 N

A I

i f

i f

I 440000 480000 520000 560000 600000 j

Figure E-2

[

Figure E-3. Locations of faults at or near Yucca Mountain from Simonds, et al. (1995) and Frizzell and Schulters (1990). Fault names are as follows: BC - Bonnie Claire; BP - Boomerang Point; BR - Bow Ridge; CFF - Crater Flat; FW - Fatigue Wash; GD -

Ghost Dance; IR - Iron Ridge; MVF - Midway Valley; NCF - Northern Crater Flat; PCB -

Paintbrush Canyon; PWF - Pagany Wash; SC - Solitario Canyon; SCF - Southern Crater Flat; SCR - Stagecoach Road; SW - Sever Wash; SWW - Southern Windy Wash; WD -

West Dune; WW Windy Wash; and YWF - Yucca Wash.- Number faults are the unnamed faults and refer to those described in Table E-2 and McKague, et al. (1996). Map coordinates are Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 11.

1

4092000 i

FW i

l 7

q I

8 6

5 4088000

\\

2 WW 4

3 ypp p___-

I ['s 4084000 2

i l

(

BC I

i

's N

NCF1) 4080000f pWP

}

, s BR

's l

SC GD M,VF k.

PBC,'

I l

NCF 12 I

D1 4076000.r iWW BP j

l i

4072000e ppy i

W2 4068000'-

l l Y5 Anv SW\\ 17 l

SCR 4064000 4'

N 4060000 A

536000 540000 544000 548000 552000 556000 0

5000 Meters Figure E-3

l Teble E 1. Geologic time scale (after Geologic Society of America,1983)

Era Period Epoch Age (Ma)

Cenozoic Quaternary Holocene 0.01 Pleistocene 1.6*

Tertiary Neogene Pliocene 5.3 Miocene 23.7 Paleogene Oligocene 36.6 Eocene 57.8 Paleocene 66.4 Mesozoic Cretaceous 144 Jurassic 208 Triassic 245 Paleozoic Permian 286 Pennsylvanian 320 Mississippian 360 Devonian 408 Silurian 438 Ordovician 505 Cambrian 570 Precambrian l

Proterozoic 2500 Archean 3800?

• 2 Ma is considered start of Quaternary for regulatory purposes.

l

I Table E-2. Yucca Mountain Area Stratigraphy (After Sawyer, et al.,1994)

Group Formation Age (Ma)

Alluvium Timber Mountain Group Rainier Mesa Tuff 11.6+/-0.03 Paintbrush Group Tiva Canyon Tuff 12.7+/- 0.03 Yucca Mountain Tuff Pah Canyon Tuff Topopr: vring Tuff 12.8+/- 0.03 Calico

.s Formation 12.9+/- 0.04 Crater Flat Group Prow Pass Tuff Bullfrog Tuff 13.25+/-0.04 Older Tuffs I.

Paleoznic and older rocks o wmaawannms I

I I

I I

I I

APPENDIX F I

I

.I I

I I

I TESTS AND EVALUATIONS OF DOE'S GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK MODEL VERSION 3.0 g

I i

I 4

1 I

I I

I I

APPENDIX F REVIEW OF U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S GEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK MODEL, VERSION 3.0 (GMF3.0)

{ Constructed using EarthVision software, Version 4.0, by R. Clayton, M&O, Las Vegas, Nevada)

The need to review GFM3.0, and a summary of events that led to the review, can be found in a letter from M. Bell to S. Brocoum dated September 30,1998, subject: " Review of U.S. DOE's GFM3.0 - A Step in the Review of DOE's ISM." The staff had committed to review DOE's ISM 2.0 by the end of FY98, at DOE's request. DOE notified the staff, early in its review, that ISM 3.0 was under development and would be issued at the end of the first quarter of FY99.

The staff were also informed that ISM 3.0 was to be based on GFM3.0 which was to be issued in the second quarter of FY98. Therefore, NRC refocussed its 3D model review resources from ISM 2.0, and targeted GFM3.0 to be reviewed as a necessary first step toward the goal of a review of ISM 3.0. This appendix provides a discussion and results of the GFM3.0 review.

OBJECTIVES OF THIS REVIEW I

(1) To test and evaluate GFM3.0 for DOE's purposes of representing site stratigraphy and faults as a framework for its Integrated Site Model, Version 3.0; I

(2) To evaluate GFM3.0 as a necessary step toward the evaluation of adequacy of DOE's ISM 3.0; and I

(3) To consider replacing NRC's EarthVision geologic site model with an adapted version of GFM3.0 as NRC's 3D-model of the site, for independent NRC analyses.

STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW AND CREDITS The review, tests, and evaluations of GFM3.0 were conducted cooperatively by staff from the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses (CNWRA), located in San Antonio, Texas, and from MANDEX, Inc., located at NRC Headquarters, under the direction of NRC staff. The review was organized as follows:

(1) Introduction and Summary of CNWRA and MANDEX Results (2) Part 1 - Analysis of Stratigraphic Horizons in GFM3.0 I

(i) Tests and Evaluation of Stratigraphy and Topography (3) Part II-Analysis of Faults in GFM3.0 I

(i) Tests and Evaluation of Faults and Fault Blocks (ii) Evaluation of Selected Geologic Cross Sections

!I e-,

a u

I

SUMMARY

OF QUESTIONS USED TO FOCUS THE ANALYSIS OF GFM3.0 The questions are enumerated here to introduce the scope of the analyses in Parts I and 11:

Are the data used for defining subsurface horizons (Pt.1, question (Q) 1) and faults at the surface and in the subsurface (Pt.II, Q 1) in GFM3.0 deemed appropriate and sufficient for these purposes?

Do the model horizon surfaces (Pt.1, Q 2) and fault traces and fault surfaces (Pt.ll, O 2) as modeled in GFM3.0 fit the input data?

Were all essential data for constructing GFM3.0 provided in the data files that accompanied the model (Pts. I and 11, O 3)7 Are alternative interpretations of data warranted (Pts. I and 11, Q 4)?

is it possible to incorporate reasonable alternative interpretations of subsurface fault geometry into GFM3.0, specifically the interpretation that certain faults are non-planar and merge with or terminate against major structures at depths of less than -8000 feet above the base of GFM3.0 (Pt.ll, Q 5)?

What observations were made relative to representation of horizons (not a separate question in Part I) and faults (Pt.ll, Q 6) in GFM3.0 that may require further explanation or clarification?

I

SUMMARY

OF OBSERVATIONS OF GFM3.0 Parts I and 11 describe both the merits and observations of GFM3.0. Some observations that may require explanation or clarification prior to completion of the staff review of ISM 3.0 in FY99 are as follows:

(1) Stratigraphy and the Paleozoic surface are not well constrained at depth or at the edges of the model; (2) Topographic elevations over about 85% of the model area have elevation differences of less than 5 meters (comparing two sources of elevation data). Such differences are not detrimental because topography was not used to control subsurface stratigraphy; (3) All stratigraphic borehole controls assume no deviation of boreholes from the vertical; (4) Mismatches between true and modeled elevations of subsurface horizons typically are less than 25 feet, although a few are greater than 50 feet. Possible explanations for these mismatches include new realizations of fault dips at depth, presence of unmapped faults, or results of sparse data; (5) A structure in Antler Wash shown on the USGS central block geologic map may need to be added to the model to help explain the hydrogeologic tracer data from C-wells; (6) The imbricate fault zone is presently modeled as a single fault. This representation may need to be changed if it is necessary to understand or explain phenomena in that zone; (7) Warping or folding of horizons in the hang;ngwall of faults is unexplained by the presence of planar faults; (8) Boomerang Point fault shows an apparent reversal of slip sense which may need to be explained; F-2

(9) Dune Wash fault is shown truncated against the Ghost Dance. fault in one cross section, but not in sections to the north or south, and the surface traces of the two faults do not appear to intersect. This observation may need to be explained; (10) Many faults are shown with increasing displacements with depth, suggesting that they are growth faults. This may need to be explained and compared with other DOE models of fault development. However, poorly constrained stratigraphic horizon data in the northern and southern edges of the model may be an important factor; (11) Complex fault interactions have been modeled at depth in some zones - a positive feature of the model. Some of the structural relationships shown, such as one fault ' beheading' u

another, has implications for understanding past, and perhaps future, faulting and may need to be explained in more detail.

SUMMARY

OF RESULTS The objectives of this review of GFM3.0, stated above, were met as follows, respectively:

1 The staff considers GFM3.0 to be adequate for representing the stratigraphy, faults, fault (1) blocks, geologic cross sections, and topography of Yucca Mountain at the site scale; (2) The staff considers GFM3.0 to be an adequate stratigraphic, fault and fault block I

framework for DOE's ISM 3.0, to the extent of the staff's understanding of the scope of ISM 3.0 (e.g., D. Bryan, Translation and Use of GFM3.0, Handout at DOE /NRC Quarterly Technical Meeting, June 18,1998).

(3) The staff considers an adapted version of GFM3.0 adequate for NRC's needs in conducting 3-D analyses of the Yucca Mountain site, including reviews of subsequent ISMS.

The staff have made certain observations of the model that may require explanation or clarification, particularly to enable the staff to fully evaluate ISM 3.0. The illustrated evaluations of stratigraphy (50 surfaces, including alluvium), faults (42 surfaces), fault blocks (43 included),

topography and geologic cross sections detailed in Parts I and ll of this appendix, in the I

following two parts, are the source for observations made during this review. The observations notwithstanding, GFM3.0 was considered adequate for its intended uses. Note that the following analyses were not performed for this review: (1) a critique of the quality assurance or quality control of data; and (2) a critique of the planar fault model used by DOE.

I

[

[

F-3

~

W i

r' i

l PART I - ANALYSIS OF STRATIGRAPHIC HORIZONS IN GFM3.0

1. Are the raw data appropriate and sufficient for defining subsurface horizons?

Horizons in GFM3.0 were derived from several data sources, including the EG&G digital topographic model (personal communication with R. Clayton, July 1998), the geologic map of Day and others (1997), well log horizon picks, and geophysical gravity data. These data were combined in an EarthVision geologic model that presents an interpretation of the stratigraphic units in the vicinity of the proposed repository. The relative!y small number of wells and limited geophysical data sets available to the modelers necessitates an increased level of reliance on the surface geologic map to establish shallow horizon relationships that are then confirmed at depth by geophysical well logs. The deeper model horizons, i.e., Tund and Paleozoic, are not l

well-sampled with boreholes and were, in part, interpreted from gravity measurements. Thus, any utilization of GFM3.0 horizon data in other modeling and/or design work should be undertaken with an understanding of the accuracy of the input data and the extent to which GFM3.0 honors these data.

This analysis of GFM3.0 assumes the well log horizon picks used in building the model have been qualified by an appropriate quality process. Thus, the question addressed in this analysis is whether there are sufficient data on which to build the subsurface horizons, and whether they have been honored. Figure 1 contains an image taken from GFM3.0 showing the location of l

the boreholes incorporated in the model. There is a higher density of wells in the center of the model than at the model edges. Thus, the stratigraphic units at the model boundaries are the result of data extrapolation calculations by the EarthVision software application used to create GFM3.0.

2. Do model horizon surfaces fit the data?

Prior to validating the horizon ties with the borehole picks, CNWRA performed a brief comparison of the DOE and CNWRA topography models. DOE has utilized a topography model produced by EG&G with a 100-foot grid node spacing. The CNWRA uses USGS 7.5 minute digital elevation models with a 30-meter grid node spacing. After making the appropriate coordinate system conversions, the CNWRA topography model was subtracted from the DOE model, yielding a difference plot shown in Figure 2. Approximately 85 percent of the elevation differences are less than 5 meters. These differences are not considered to be significant to GFM3.0 because the topography model is used to truncate stratigraphic units at the model surface. The topography was not used to control or influence the subsurface stratigraphy.

. A subsurface horizon tie analysis was performed by CNWRA to measure the agreement

' between borehole horizon picks and modeled horizon depths. The tie analysis compares the depth at which the borehole actually intersected a horizon and the modeled depth for that same coordinate. Borehole deviation logs were not available to CNWRA at the time this analysis was performed All comparisons assume undeviated wells. The data processing sequence used to generate the tie analysis was:

A. Extract individual horizon surfaces using the EarthVision, Geologic Structure Builder, Horizon Export utility.

B. Compute the borehole-horizon intersection coordinate for each well penetrating the horizon. Repeat this process for several horizons in the stratigraphic column.

i F-4

G F M With W *\\\\ L

\\

p slicediace' k

es

/,/-

's~

%s

/,-

~%

?e a

l i

s

,n, r

s s~

\\

N

/

jY

/

/

/

j O

i a

/

\\

1 W

2 maw ##

Nipoth:

1 inclinatW.

33.1 g front C#

$47g,0 I

T39000'0 g

u0 W^

r 1,

Fipre 1 Exarnple view ofGFM 3 0 with inpur borehole locations shown as gray cubes F-5 s

DOETop CNWRA Top

{

548000 552000 548000 552000 4 084e+06 -

~ 084e+06 4 084e+06 -

084e+06

+ j--h ' 4 08e+06 4.08e+06 -

4.0Be+ 06 4.08e606 -~

1l4,

lr 4.076e+06

. 076e+06 4.076e+06 I-

.076e+06 4.0720e 06 - :

.0720e06 4 0720e 06 0720e06 4

?_

.11ik 548000 552000 548000 552000 Difererwe 548000 552000 (M) 4.084e+06 -- [

.084e+06 k /'

hO 4.0Be+ 06

-4.08e+06 If5

,4 4

.s 50

[g

.076e+06

'2.5 4.076e+06

• k

,j d#

?

-12.5 4.072e+06 & b ; W

.072e+06 15.0

'O 548000 552000 Figure 2 - Comparison of the DOE and CNWRA digital elevation models 1

}

F-6

i C. Compare the extracted horizon elevations with the elevations picked from the well logs.

Table 1 contains the original well picks prcvided by DOE for the ten horizons used in this analysis. Table 2 contains the modeled horizon elevations, and Table 3 contains the difference between the well log picks and modeled elevations.

The results in Table 3 show discrepancies between the true and modeled elevations that are typically less than 25 feet. A few discrepancies greater than 50 feet warranted further 7

investigation to determine if the discrepancies are the result of insufficient data control,

[

inaccurate input data, or side effects from non-vertical faulting.

In computing the subsurface horizon models, EarthVision employs numerical algorithms that attempt to fit a surface to the control points established by the well log horizon picks and fault structures. The quality, number, and spatial distribution of data points all effect the accuracy with which the model surface fits the input data, in areas of poor data control, the software algorithms tend to produce smooth surfaces that follow general trends established by the sparse control points. Likewise, the software attempts to honor the majority of densely spaced data points, but outliers may have been disregarded by EarthVision if they fell outside the software parameter ranges specified by the DOE modelers. One approach to analyzing these discrepancies is to plot the model-well discrepancies on a three-dimensional representation of the horizon surface (Figure 3). This type of plot allows the viewer to examine the relationships

{

between model-well miss-ties, well density and spatial distribution, and faulting.

Figure 3 contains a 3-D view of the upper vitrified Tram unit with the model-well discrepancies f

plotted as color-filled contours. The legend on the left side of the plot defines the miss-tie range l

as plus/minus 100 feet. The gray boxes above the model surface represent the locations of the well log data that were used as control points for computing the horizon elevations. The red circular region in the vicinity of the C#2 well represents a model-well mismatch of -53 feet. This means the EarthVision software computed the elevation of the horizon to be 53 feet higher than the geologist picked the horizon location on the C#2 well logs. Only 14 well control points were available for the computation of this Tram unit, and Figure 3 illustrates that the C#2 well is not surrounded by wells having smaller model-well miss-ties. Thus, one cannot confidently say that the C#2 welllog pick is bad and has been disregarded by the EarthVision software as an outlier. A case could be made that: (1) the -53 foot C#2 discrepancy is the result of insufficient data to constrain the EarthVision software; or (2) that the fault structure in the GFM3.0 model has resulted in the C#2 well being located on the wrong side of a fault. Figure 3 shows the C#2 wellin very close proximity to the Midway fault, which may possibly be explained by an incorrect assumption that: (1) the C#2 well is not deviated; or (2) that the subsurface control on the Midway fault is incorrect.

Figure 4 shows discrepancies of +117 and -56 feet where the WT-7 and WT#14 wells intersect the Calico horizon near the SolWest and Paintbrush faults, respectively. Figure 5 also shows

+59 and -88 foot discrepancies for the WT-7 and WT#14 wells intersecting the Tptpfl unit.

Again, it may be possible to ascribe the discrepancies to incorrect borehole placement or inaccurate subsurface fault control. However, the -117 foot discrepancy for the WT#6 well in Figure 5 is not as easily explained because a fault surface is not present in the vicinity of the borehole. This disagreement may possibly be explained as a data outlier, poorly constrained software calculations, or the presence of an unmapped fault.

F-7

Table 1 - DOE Well Log Horizon Picks (ft)

}

1. w ellid IprptJ, l pbl4 Tpp Tptpui I ptpil I ptps J lac l epm Tctur

,Iund a#4 119 151 197 a#5 128 149 180 475 a#6 125' 144' 186' 422 b81 440' 765 1283' 1385' 1992 2883~ 3960 cW2 457 725 1205 1335 1773 2725 G.1 135' 457' 815 1287 1426 1920 2639 3558 G-2 225 235' 494' 977 1280 1634 1757 2705 3574 3982 G-3 348' 373' 392' 548' 830 1187' 1413 1663, 2637, 3876 G-4 '

!!8 141' 168' 420 774 1317 1409 1880 2756 il-1 538 897 1410 1505 1969 2730 3661

1. 13 370' 400' 417' 540 848 1894 1400 1640 2477 3637 il-4 174' 193' 216' 376' 703' 1185" 1317' 1746' 2664' 3819 H-S 404 438' 471' 741' 1088 1582 1705 2085 2742 3422 II-6 435 795 1213 1356 1602 2258 2878 J#13 '

587' 629' 650' 801' 1003' 1300 1482 1848 2358 3220 NRG#1 NRG#2 276

~

NRG#4 318' 338'

'375' 700 NRG#5 140 163 215 565 902 N RG-6 135

'159' 175'

~ 466

'810 NRG.7A '

70' 102'

'172' 518' 878' 1415' 1498 ONC#1 578' 597 621 810 1274' p#1 248 640 1090 1270 1535 2262 2863 SD-7 305' 326' 343' 490' 803' 1181 1406' 1765~ 2598 SD-9 ~

~

57' 92' 156' 473' 846' 1358' 1480' 1939 sD-12 240' 264' 278' 470' 787' 1278' 1412' l'787 UZ 1 105 470 830 UZ#4 71' 99 ' ' -

174'

~

l'Z#5 89 118 186 UZ-6 383 433 450 610 917 1333 1460 1750 UZ 7A

~164'

~ 198' 2i5' 607 UZ-14 1420' 1850' UIsl6 141 161 189 371 669 1108 1197 1571 WT.I 395' 431' 446' 5n' 888' 1299' 1384' WT2 193 227 247 421 727 1179 1319 1706 WT#3

~ll'

'189' 358' 1 60' WTW4 '

261' 281' 324' 660' 785' 1091' i156 WT#6 250' 303 383 WT7 344 370 391 546 959

.8287 1438 WT.10 863 887 924 1049 WTW11 M9~ ' ' 271'

'"287'

~~ 430" 782' 1058' '1208 WTW12 ~

297' 319' 339' 478' 760' 1151' 1276 WT813 ~

416' 440' 460' 630' 868 WT#14

~

' 275' '

534' 1024' 1210 WT#15 332 349 372 641 919 WT816

~ ' 368'

'386'

'462'

'830' 830'~

1013' ~ 1068 WTWl7 188 197 217 336 535 874 998 1318 WT#18 -

314 340 497 900 1170 1501 1620 F-8 l

1-Table 2 - GFM3.0 Horizon Picks Computed With EarthVision (ft)

1. n cilid Tpcps3 Tpbr4 Tpp Tptput Tptpil Tptpv3 Tac Tcpm Tctuv Tund s#4 125 7 153 2 199 7 548.2 889 1326 1399 2 1954 2879 3 3889 8 a#5 121.1' 143 173 7 466.2 804 4 1297.4 1375.1 1943.3 2869 7 3906 4 n#6 124.4 144 184.1 421.6 765.8 1301 2 1393 7 1929 2 2845 1 3905 4 h#1 227.2 212.7 248 8 491.6 816 4 1332.7 1435.1 2042.4 2903 2 3980 9 cs2 280.1' 299.7 322 2~

492 8 762.1' 1193 9' 1324 1' 17605' 2778 3 3410.9 G-1 36 8 38.7 120.1 473.1 832.4 1309 9 1446.9 1940 8 2671 3593 9 G-2 213.3 223 482 6 963 1263 6 1621 1743.1 2690.1 3552.1 3957 4 G3 350.7 375.1 394.2 550.3 832.9 1187.3 1412.7 1663 2636 3874 9 G-4 106 9 130 3 157.5 412.5 766.3 13106 1403 8 1872.8 2748 4 3755 6 11 1 39.1 71.9 169.7 520.9 879 1381 1486.7 1954.8 2716 3 3646.7 11-3 371.3 400.5 417.4 540 7 847.6 1200.1 1408 4 1649 2 2486 5 3649 6 11-4 171.2' 190.2' 213' ' 373 3' 7006' 1178 7 13098' 1738.2' 2650.3' 3804.5 11-5 434.7 468 3 502.6 772 6 1120.7 1574 6 1697.4 2075 3 2753.7 3447.9 11-6 241.7' ~ 263 5' 320.9' 486.1' 846' 1219 8 1362 3 1608.4' 226 i 2886.5 J#I3 633 6' 675 5' 696 4' 846 7 1049 3' 1296.5' 1478 8' 1844'4' 2352.3 3213 2 NRG#I 264' 280.4' 310 4 573 6' 796 I 11706' 1286 3 1975 8' 2833 6' 3757 NRG#2 238.7' 252 3' 277.8' 547.5' 764.4' 1126 6' 1228.1~ 1927.9 2830 9' 3796.9 NRG#4~

329 8' 349 4' 386' '708 2' 952 3' 1341I 1419.6' 2083 1 3082.7 " 4108 6

~

NRC85 135 2 161.8 213.1' 566.5 903.6 1329 1401.7 1963 2891.7 3900.7 NRG-6 127.6' 151.2' 167 I 460.8' 805.1' 1323.6' 1403 9' 1931 I 2848 6' 3877.3 NRG-7A '

60.5' 92.9' 165 9~

510.7' 871.3" 1411I 1497 5 1980.3" 2804.4' 3766 ONC#1 ' ' 568.2'

'5874' 610.9" 769 9' 970.8' 1111.7' '1246 8' 1722 7 2769 9' 3620.3 p#1

'111 1' 127.6' 146 9' 271.9' 667 I 1112.6' 1293 4 1554.4' 2272 I 2870.9 SD-7 324 7' 345'4' ~362.4 " 508.3 " 820 9 1195'

'1414' 1774 I 2595 I 3582.1 SD 9 ^ "

76 7' 110.1' 169I

'485.6' 854.7' 1366.1' 1482.8' 1943.6' 2764.6' 3701.3 SD-12 265.1" 289 9' 304.8' 4934' 808 6' 1290 I 1423.2' 1801I 2535' 3523 l'Z 1 24.7" ~ ' 32 9 ' '103.8 " ~ ~465I ' 825 9'

'1298~1420 5' '1858 3" 2520.6' 3382.6

~

l'ZW4 57 I 85.6' 160.7' 552 9 794.4' 1118 3' 1189 4' 1834 9" 2795 4' 3776.7 l'ZW5 '

93 4~

121.8' 188 2 576' " 816.8' 1131 2' 1201 9 1849 I 2821 3' 3809 l'Z-6' 3861' 435 3 4528' 612.7' ' 919 9' 1346.5' 1474 3' 1764' 2482' 3472.7 t'Z-74 107I 139 9' 157.9" 331.1' 623 1073 4' 1212.4' 1603 8' 2374.7' 3479 3 t'Z 14 ~

~ 72' 16.2' 85 8"

'450.5" ' 810.4~~ 1288 61407f 1837.9" ~ ' 2492" 3341.5 UZ#16 151i 170 9 198 9' 381I 678 6' 1072.1' 1204' 1584 9 2558 6' 3647.7 WTl 395 8 431.7 446.7

$92.7 887.5 1296.9 1382.4 1720.3 2658.7 3541.4 WT-2 210 4~

243 1 262 2 441.8~

747.4' 1187.9" 1318 2 ~ 1676 6"' 2408 6' 3420.1 WT#3 13.7 13,7 13.7 13.7 13 7 142 8 311.7 613 6 1244 2035 2 WTs4 285 5' 296 3 324 3 628 I 692 6' 10406' 1106 1 1850 4~ 2856 3' 3806 WTs6 250.5 250.5 250.5 338.8 367.2 316.4 397 1462.4 2238.1 2627.2 WT.7 -

359 1 384 7 406 3' 562.2 900 4' 1216.1' 1320 6' 1540.4' 2362.7' 3425.3 WT10 884 9' 908 9 945I 1070.7' 1469 4'

'1760' 1900 6' 2137.8' 2985 1' 4132.3 WT#ti 211.4' 243 1 259 3 401 6" '753.2' 1024 9' 1155 8' 1361 9 1526 6' 2596 6 f

WTW12 331.7 353.8 373.7 513.1 794.3 1181.3 1305.6 1521.7 2256 6 3123.2 WTal) 413 3' 437I 457' 627' 866' 1234 6' 1432I 1828 8' 2369 1 2949.1 WT#id 110.9 128.1 151 8 362.3 621 9 1079.7 1266 2 1769 8 2471.6 3054.1 WTW15 348 8 365.8 388 4 656.5 937.6 1312.9 1437 2262.5 2612.8 3079.2 Wisl6 341 5 359 6' 438" 821 I 821I 1001 I 1056.8~ 1890.9' 2543 1' 3178.5 WTWI7 '

189 3" 198.2' 218I 336.8' 535.8' 875I 999' 1318.8' ~ 2227.6' 3138.4 WT#18 326.7 352.7 506.5 899 8 1166 8 1503 1617 9 2245 3080 3976 F-9' r

b

Table 3 - Model Well Miss-Ties Computed By Subtracting The Model Horizon Elevations in Table 2 From Well Log Horizon Picks in Table 1 (ft)

1. wellid Tpepi3 Tpbt4 Tpp Tptput Tpfpil Tptps3 Tac Tcpm Tctuv Tund n#4

-7

-3

-3 n#5 7

6 6

9 a#6 0

0 2

0 b#1 52 51

-50

-50

-50 21 21 c#2

-36

-37 11 11 13

-53 G-1 15

-17 18

-23

-21

-21

-32

-36 G2 12 12 12 14 16 13 14 15 22 25 G-3

-3 3

-3 2

-3

-1 0

0 1

1 G4 11 11 11 8

8 6

6 7

7 11-1 17 18 29 18 14 13 15 II 3

-2

-1 0

-1 1

-6

-8

-9

-10

-13 11-4 3

3 3

3 2

6 7'

8 14 14 H5

-31

-31

-32 32

-33 7

8 10

-12

-26 11-6 51

-51 7

-6

-6

-6

-9 J#13.

-47

-47

-46

-46

-46 4

3 4

6 7

NRG#I NRCW2 38

NRG#4 12

-11

-11

-8 NRG#5 5'

1' 2

-2

-2 N RG-6 8

7 8

5 5

NRG-7A 9

9 6

8 6

4 1

ONC#1 10 10 10 40 27 psi

'.24

-27 ' '

23'

~ -23' 19'

'10'

-8 SD 7

-20

-20

-19 18

-18

-13

-8

-10 3

SD-9'

~

120'

-19 '

-14'

-13 '

-9'

-8~

-3' ~

-5'

~

SD12

-26

-26

-27

-23 22

-12

-12

-14 l'Z-1 1

4 4

l'Z#5

-4 4

-2 I"Z-6

-3

-3

-3

-3

-3

-14

-14 14 t'Z-7A 57 58 57 16 l'Z-14 13 12 t'Z#16 10' ~ '10'

~ ' 10'

-11'

-10' 35'

-7'

-14 WT-1

-1'

-1 "

-1~

O' 1'

2'

~ 2 WT-2

-17

-16 15 21 20

-9 1

29 WT#3

-3 46 46 46 WT84

-25

-15 0

32 92 50 50 WT86

~

'117

-13'

-14 WT7 15

-15

-15

-16 59 71 117 WT-10

-22

-22 22

-22 WTW11 28 28 28 28 29 33 52 WTW12 '

-35 "

-35 '

-35"

-35'

-34'

-30'

-30 WTW13 3'

3' 3'

3' 2

WT#14

' 87

' 88 '

-56'

-56 WTWIS 17 17 16

-16

-19 WT*16 27 26 24 9

9 12 11 WT#I7

~

-1'

-1'

-1*

-1~

-1' 1'

1

-1 WT*I8

-13'

-13'

-10' 0'

3'

-2 2

F-10

Tramuv 2-D Grid I

we wnn Diantcy TramuvJus

~

s ' / p /-

i i no

,,..',e '

s ~

1010 x

sao CN's N.,

/00 m

\\

'%~

5 $

l mo

\\

\\

\\

's,'s m no r

l"ao

',1

,/}#

/

\\/

l a

-10 0

,kq

[Y

-N o

-mo

-co s,)

.'N

,f/

gN4

'x]

-50 0

-6ao f'j i

s

-10.0

${

yblO 6

l

-mo Y$

-no

-two p

' j'*""# $1g gi q (,

'60 {;

t tallrytton:

20.9

'r~mw$.

'b50 Y

O Y

,Q n' b Z Imw cur:

ss39.s 6 960' L

l Figure 3 Tramuy model-well miss-tie analysis plot illustrating the ditTerence between the computed horizon and the picked well-log elevations using color coded contours l

l I

I F-11

c' Ca\\\\co 2-D Gdd

\\

\\

\\

pg,y l'"

'N ygTs3

/

t00.0

/

va0 N

$10 i

ta0 e

\\

'N

$0g

'\\

2a0 san

/f'

/

I 00

-30 0 N

yf Nr/

6a0 9

ig'

'%g.1 10.0 f

.s0.0 90.0 p

500.0 3 %

gf

/

E"Y t1

\\

utsY&'

'l ty D00

% A I D'3

1. 'rYY y7000.0

.$ehgb y

s' E f'*'" '#.

bely?

t t'

4 I

Figure 4 - Calico model well mise-tie analysis plot illustrunng the difference between the computed borizon and the picked well-log elevations using color coded contours I

I I

F-12

,/

TptPn 2-D Grid ppm og,pr : Wpaf***

WT.6

. / $~'.~

e

/

100 0

'w e0.0

/.

s, WT#Iz 50

~~~~

ta0 tia0

$0

~'~

40 N0 30

' /p sac

$0.0 f

20.0

-%0 Q

f

.co hl N

j

% gy.y

-sao

-60 0 fu1

.ta0 34 6pih 80.0

%y

,,ft 90.0

. #00.0 s.,

ps< p -

g%' N(

.hNp b E ex*00'" Yl6 j

ytauch:

stslip#,

28.9 6

4e x front cur:

Y3eooa0 g6g60 focao l

y Front cst.

Fro'" W, 553g.s

~

(N, $ I b.

I D'

Q Figure 5 - Tptpil model-well miss-tie analysis plot ilhistrating the difference between the computed horizon and the picked well-log elevations using color coded contours c

[

[

F-13 L

w

f

3. Were all essential data provided in the data files?

The original release of GFM3.0 omitted a small number of files used by the EarthVision Geologic Structure Builder to create 3-D model files and export individual 2-D horizons.

Subsequently, DOE provided these files, as well as the DOE topography model and well log horizon picks. All essential data required to manipulate and analyze GFM3.0 are available.

4. Are alternative interpretations of data warranted?

Construction of GFM3.0 was undenaken using a reference horizon-isochore approach to modeling the subsurface horizon relationships. Alternative approaches to developing GFM3.0, through the use of balanced cross-sections, are possible, but not warranted due to the relatively consistent and small discrepancies between the modeled horizons and the well log horizon picks.

In summary, as new data from wells and the ESF become available, GFM3.0 may be updated <

as required by the additional data. The integration of deviation data is recommended if the deviation togs identify lateral deviations of more than 10 feet. Some refinement of the fault surfaces may be warranted if model-well discrepancies persist once the deviation data has been analyzed and/cr incorporated in GFM3.0.

At this time, there are no major stratigraphic discrepancies that would preclude NRC or DOE from using GFM3.0.

i F44 1

l

PART 11 - ANALYSIS OF FAULTS IN GFM3.0

)

(1) Are the data used to define faults at the surface and in the subsurface in GFM3.0 deemed

)

appropriate and sufficient for this purpose?

Surface data - Fault trace information derived from the geologic map of Day, et al. (1997) was used to define locations of faulis at the surface in GFM3.0. Use of these data resulted in realistic representation of variations in strike of mapped faults and reasonable representation of strike of inferred faults beneath alluvium. Figure 1 illustrates the fault trace data from the original GFM3.0 database that were derived from the geologic map of Day, et al. (1997),

compared with locations of surface fault trace lines actually contained in GFM3.0.

Subsurface data - Since borehole control points generally do not exist for defining dips of faults in the subsurface at Yucca Mountain (YM), dip lines generated from surface measurements of fault dips were used in conjunction with surface fault trace information to construct 2-dimensional (2D) grid (.2grd) files for modeling fault surfaces at depth. The approach amounts to projecting surface dip measurements on faults to depth for specifying fault dips in the subsurface. Lacking borehole control data directly suggesting that faults were non-planar within the depth range covered by GFM3.0, this approach was used to represent major west-dipping, north-northeast striking, normal faults as essentially planar features extending to the base of f

GFM3.0 (i.e.,8000 feet below sea level). A planar fault modelis one possible interpretation suggested for subsurface geometry of west-dipping, north-northeast striking faults at YM (Brocher, et al,1998). This subsurface fault geometry for YM proper is derived from the l

regional tectonic model for planar faulting at depth. A regional alternative tectonic model related to development of faults which are curved (i.e., listric) at depth at YM (Young, et al, 1992) is not considered in GFM3.0. Point 6(d) discusses observations specifically related to l

this alternative tectonic model, however.

Northwest-trending, strike-slip faults are planar and essentially verticalin GFM3.0 Certain minor west-dipping faults that are planar in the model intersect major structures and are truncated at the line of intersection rather than extending to depth. East-dipping, planar faults also intersect west-dipping, normal faults and are truncated at the line of that intersection above the base of GFM3.0. Fault Splay S off the east side of the Solitario Canyon fault is modeled in GFM3.0 as genuinely non-planar with a geometry and line of intersection with the Solitario Canyon fault similar to that of modified fault surface Ironw3 generated for this review of GFM3.0 (See Questions 4 and 5 below).

In summary, the data used in GFM3.0 to define fault surfaces from ground level to depth were appropriate and sufficient for constructing faults in the model. Fault traces and dip lines were l

used to construct fault surfaces as 2D grid (.2grd) files because borehole information does not exist for defining dips of faults in the subsurface. Fault surfaces are commonly planar in GFM3.0 and clipped with polygon (. ply) files as appropriate for limiting extent of a fault based on length of its surface trace. Fault trace data (as a.dat file) and polygon files (as. ply files) were provided in the GFM3.0 digital database along with all 2D grid (.2grd) files constructed for fault surfaces. Dip line files v;3.s not provided but are available from DOE should it be desired to examine these data, it wn not necessary to peruse the dip line data files for this review of GFM3.0 since the fault surface dips modeled at depth reflect surface field measurements projected to depth.

F-15 t

Figure 1. Fault trace data points (yellow) from the original GFM3.0 database compared with fault trace lines (black) contained in GFM3.0

(

s q

' \\

1 k

(k h

'\\-

e sx 3 s,s

y. W 1 x

t N.

sN

-s

\\ w, j.-

. ' R'

\\'

\\

~

3-p4 x

.x M Q4rKey N, '

,,{-

\\

Display: GM3Bgls.s/hed.fac 9

Y f

f

\\.

//

d

\\,

1 Ji s

g s

\\

.. \\

a.

,i E

l i g

-3 y

('.

l

.\\

1 8

,,)

t g

f 4

Ij

\\',

g j

l Nx

.s 1

/

3 1

x

.3 g

r N

5e x

• \\

N g-

.s

\\

1. ~

g'

')

i ;

,A.

i1 A

lj W

E'

j E

k f \\j '

xl. 5

'~

h'J l,1 N.

• j2

/g e /'- .

I ",,

s m**

s ew sw Z exaggerathn: 1.0

~..

F-16

(2) Do fault traces and fault surfaces as modeled in GFM3 0 fit the input data?

Fault traces and fault surfaces included in GFM3 0 fit the field-based input data closely. Faults contaired in GFM3 0, generated as polygon-clipped'2D grids as described above under Question 1, generally match well with mapped fault traces (Figure 1) and known near-surface I

dip angles of faults. Because borehole data do not exist for construction of refined 2D grids for the fault surfaces, fault traces and dip lines were used to generate fault surfaces in the model with the result that major west-dipping normal faults are represented as planar structures I

extending to the base of the model at -8000 feet. (Howeve.r, see observations 6(f) and 6(h) below.)

(3) Were all data essential for constructing GFM3.0 included in the data files that accompanied I

the model?

All data essential for calculating 3D structure models (i.e., models illustrating fault surfaces, I

fault blocks, zone surfaces, and zone blocks), using Geologic Structure Builder (GSB), are available to NRC staff. The data were either included in the database originally or provided immediately by R. Clayton upon request when determined to be missing. Consequently, the master sequence (. seq) file developed by R. Clayton and provided with the original database was successfully used after minor editorial modifications to reconstruct faces files for fault surfaces and fault blocks, as well as zone surfaces and zone blocks in the Computenzed Risk I

Assessment and Data Analysis Laboratory (CRADAL) at NRC Headquarters. This.seg file contained information that defined 42 faults,43 fault blocks, and 50 stratigraphic honzons (including alluvium) for GFM3.0. The editorial changes to the original master sequence (. seq)

I file included renaming certain files and rearranging locations of others to be able to access those essential for construction of. faces files for fault surfaces and fault blocks. The complete set of data files may be accessed by NRC users, since these files occur in the GFM3.0 database in the CRADAL.

In summary, all data essential for constructing GFM3.0 were either included in the data files which originally accompanied the model or provided immediately by R. Clayton once I

determined to be missing. To determine that all data essential for constructing GFM3.0 were lodged in the database, recalculation of. faces files was undertaken for fault surfaces and blocks and zone surfaces and blocks using a master sequence (. seq) file that was only slightly I

modified from the original. Figures 2 through 4 illustrate reconstructed. faces files for fault surfaces and fault and zone blocks and also show the 42 faults,43 fault blocks, and 50 L

stratigraphic horizons included in GFM3.0.

(4) Are there alternative interpretations of the fault data suggesting that different representations of subsurface fault geometry may be reasonable to incorporate into GFM3.0?

The subsurface fault geometry represented in GFM3.0 exercises the interpretation that west-dipping, north-northeast trending faults are planar to depth. An alternative interpretation for subsurface fault geometry based upon concepts developed at CNWRA (Ferrill et al, in review, b) involves some structures developing as oblique faults in a relay ramp or as a connecting fault system, such that they merge with or terminate against major faults within the depth range of GFM3.0 (i.e., at some depth above -8000 feet). For example, faults ironw1, Ironw2, and F-17 m

L

Figure 2. Recalculated. faces file for fault surfaces showing that data in the GEM 3.0 database are complete and permit construction of this file I

-i,.

N z m gascokwxor Y

msplay: FaultSwtgis.fas S

N

. gl-4

\\q

/

/

A jlll1.,

h

/

3 E

\\

ff

/

Is W

hsh

'/

0

$},

E

,p l

1 n

~

.t Y

Y a

s g

$n 11 W

r L

5-Z enaggerathn: 1.0 E

F-18 r

M

l Figure 3. Recalculated. faces file for fault blocks showing that data in the GFM3.0 database are complete and permit construction of this file I

I I

ran enn cawxor Olsplay: faullBlockgls. faces i

I

^ """""%

')

as$

ii

==r

-I

=!

if 2:23 I

l!!

'M".,.

l 2:20 2:ijef n

en; l

I n

C n

2.:1'.'.,,,

n 2:@"'

n 2.".'."~'

n 2

I n!

2."a':'O' 02:"

n L"2l n

• • ':L n

22 0%

z enoveration: 1.o F-19

[

j Figure 4. Recalculated. faces file for zone blocks showing that data in

[

the GFM3.0 database are complete and pennit construction of this file s

(

[

[

f o,,,,,l%151*o's1*

1. 0 ad r,

U~~c e#

t li t

E n

u i 1

< i 5.

[

-W

(

\\L :#

t

[

F-20 l

r fronw3, between the Iron Ridge and Solitario Canyon faults at Yucca Mountain, are included in

~

GFM3.0 as planar structural features. These faults are alternatively interpreted by CNWRA staff as oblique faults in a relay ramp that merge with the Solitario Canyon fault at depth rather than extending to the base of GFM3.0 as plarar features (Ferrill, et al, in review, b).

in summary, all major and most minor faults included in GFM3.0 are represented as essentially planar structural features extending to the base of the model at -8000 feet. Fault Splay S off the Solitario Canyon fault is included as a truly non-planar feature that intersects the Solitario Canyon fault well above the base of GFM3.0. The interpretation that certain other faults may J

also be non-planar features at depth is a reasonable alternative model for subsurface fault geometry that was not considered in GFM3.0.

(5) Is it possible to incorporate reasonable alternative interpretations of subsurface fault geometry into GFM3.0, specifically the interpretation that certain faults are non-planar and merge with or terminate against major structures at depths of less than -8000 feet above the base of GFM3.07 Faults Ironwi, ironw2, and Ironw3, located in the southwestern corner of GFM3.0, were represented in the model as planar structures extending to the base of the model at 8000 feet. The subsurface geometry of fault ironw3 in the "Ironw" system was successfully modified to generate a non-planar fault that terminated at a depth no greater than -2000 feet against the Solitario Canyon fault. This test illustrates that it is practicable to alter subsurface I

geometry of faults in GFM3.0 for incorporating alternative interpretations of fault geometry.

Figure 5 illustrates the planar subsurface geometry of Ironw3 as originally represented in j

GFM3.0 along with non-planar fault Splay S. Figure 6 shows Ironw3 as modified for this test to terminate against the Solitario Canyon fault at a depth no greater than -2000 feet. Fault Splay S is included in the figure to show the similarity between the geometry of Splay S and modified Ironw3.

In summary, the result of this successful test illustrated by Figure 6 proves it is possible to modify GFM3.0 and incorporate alternative interpretations of subsurface fault geometry into the I

model. Although a detailed explanation of the steps necessary to generate modified fault surfaces is beyond the scope of this letter report, some words of caution are advised. When l

fault geometries are changed, before running the master sequence (. seq) file in GSB to

^

generate modified. faces files for structure models, it may be necessary to rebuild the fault tree or re-grid horizons in the fault blocks. In particular, if the number of fault blocks is either reduced or increased, as is likely when removing an existing fault or adding a new one in the model, rebullding the fault tree and re-gridding of horizons in the altered fault blocks are I

commonly necessary before the. seq file can be used in GSB to calculate. faces files for the l

suite of structure models (i.e., fault surfaces and blocks and zone surfaces and blocks).

(6) What observations were made relative to representation of faults in GFM3.0 that may require further explanation or clarification?

a.

No northwest-trending structure is included along Antler Wash in the vicinity of borehole H-4 where hydrologic testing suggested some type of connection between H-4 and the C wells, No northwest-trending fault was included in Antler Wash because

{

F-21 E

r

F-_

Figure 5. Planar fault Ironw3 (tan) as originally included in GFM3.0.

l Also shown are part of the Solitario Canyon fault (green) and Splay S

{

{

6000

/

{

4000 000 hoe ve)conwxer n

Olsplay: FaultSurfgls. faces

()

r ser i

l $

2000 r-(

F-400o -

=

ll

$5" 6000 '

TF igg 8000 E~

5 E-E CY n

Oc' 0

?

{

n Z eunggeration: 1.0 f

t F-22

E I Figure 6. Fault Ironw3 (tan) modified to intersect the Solitario Canyon

' fault (green) no deeper than -2000 feet. Original Splay S is also shown 1

6000-4000 2000

' oua v sla'L"ssa, 0

^~

as

=

,h 20 e

y.-

4090 ll 55"

-6000

. E" 8000 o

!!!g E.

5 i

E-it' 5

?

r.,

Z enaggeration: 1.0 F-23

geologic mapping did not delineate such a structure in rocks at the head of the wash, although a dashed symbol for a northwest-trending fault in Antler Wash is shown on the I

geologic map of Day, et al. (1997). This could be rectified by adding this fault to GFM3.0, although, from H-4 southeast to the C wells, major north-northeast trending faults also occur so that the hydrologic connection is possibly a complex one, at best.

b.

The imbricate fault zone is presently modeled as a single fault. This representation could also be changed in the modelif there is any need to capture more structural complexity in that zone.

c.

The Forty Mile Wash fault is included as a prominent structural feature in GFM3.0.

Although the presence of this feature and the logic for its inclusion in GFM3.0 has been discussed with R. Clayton, with the history that exists since it was first proposed by Young, et al (1992) based on interpretations from balanced cross sections, the acceptance of the structure by the USGS could perhaps be clarified.

From examination of nine (9) cross sections taken directly from GFM3.0 at traverse locations indicated in Figure 7, additional observations were also made as follows.

I (Note that the fault labeled as "EHF" in Figure 7 and subsequent cross sections is fault "BowEast" in GFM3.0.)

I d.

Folding developed in the hangingwall blocks of faults is generally attributed to a curved (i.e., listric) fault geometry at depth (Suppe,1983; Dula,1992). Sections 1 (Figure 8) and 8 (Figure 15) through the model appear to illustrate folding of units in hangingwall blocks although GFM3.0 is constructed with essentially planar faults. Explanation of why these units appear to be folded may be helpful. By some interpretations (e.g.,

Young,et al.,1992), at the depth to which the model was constructed (i.e.,8,000 feet below sea level), the Forty Mile Wash, Paintbrush Canyon, Midway Valley, and Bow Ridge faults would show curved trajectories.

e.

The Boomerang Point fault is shown as reversing displacement at depth in Sections 5 (Figure 12) and 6 (Figure 13). This may be due to model construction artifacts or potential uncertainty on the depth to the Paleozoic surface, so clarification may be helpful.

f.

The Dune Wash fault is shown to be truncated against the Ghost Dance fault in Section 5 (Figure 12) but not in Section 4 (Figure 11). This observation suggests a change in l

I dip or " flexing" of the Dune Wash fault so some clarification may be useful.

g.

Many faults are shown with displacements across the Paleozoic surface that are generally greater than the displacement of the base of the younger Trambt. The j

exceptions to this are the Solitario Canyon fault in Sections 2 (Figure 9), 3 (Figure 10),

4 (Figure 11), and 9 (Figure 16) and the Forty Mile Wash fault in Section 9 (Figure 16).

Increasing differential displacement with depth implies growth in at least the earlier Tertiary sequence, so it may be helpful to clarify whether implied growth is part of the j

l premise for GFM3.0. These displacements for the Solitario Canyon and Forty Mile i

Wash faults are at the northern and southern edges of the model where well control is F-24 l

l l

{

i

GFM version 3.0

)[,

~ w s

Y L*

%,d

~

' I '-l o

g.,y.1-k,j i g%,

d 6

)

Section 9

[f.k. '

4 i k

,,, "f l Section 8 l

y:

A V 9

,. ~

6 g

,),. 1 1'(

h1v ( /,-,p%e 6%g s

f y jy j.

.y

\\;

9 f

k '

s i Section 7 v

//

. Section 6

.h l

[.Y Y,.

. [/ / Jj Section 5

.,,.,. g

-1 y i

[./

4.,

j.h d,

j

'2 h h

Section 4 y(.

r-s s%

=

_p - (

..;.y

?l f

jdA

• i ! i '....

T.

\\. I x.". -

'iA b Section 3

,a Y

}<

'l 4

ft h,

.ijp Section 2 Figure 7 - Index map showing locations of sections I to 9 across GFM Version 3.0 as shown in figures 8 to 16.

E

{

F-25 W

W i

=i i

d 7

/,

0 iu 0

e e t

r a

cg 0

oi sF g

'0 sa ee 8

eS h

5 t

l nl d,

ia e

r.

ew b E" i 0

ug R

r s

t n i*p ai H/

0 vg a

m$

w rn g

1 0

ua ch gY

~

'5 t e n

)

a uh h $w 7

ot e u hn h E(

5 t

i i T

wn Fw Co 0

Psh 0

es ha 0

t g

f Q

'0 oin t

7 ll l ait 5

we gc n u d

igo 0

ap nr 0

ho 1

et

$ n.

0 ht r

n a

t n o

Ul

'5 e

a ni it p

ic c

e 6

NP i

gf e

nf F

5 iu

)

S C

ds loe

(

• ,en 0

fb u

st a

eo t

t 0

a n ry 0

sa t

um

'0 l

l 6

iFoW n

5 iM tceF s e 0

sh i

t h

0 To f

0

.e

'5 1 r u nt 5

o a iv t r 5

c u e c s

t sh s

g 0

oi rl

.~.

0 CS.n 0

- e o ni

'0 8at a 5

mlpco 5

ul x

t gurl i

ao f

Fff 0

g 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

6 2

2 4

6 0

~

Z*

t

1 smu m

un m

0 u

0 z

0

'0 s

8 y

u 5

a m

0 ma 0

0

'5 m

=

7 us 5

a 0

m 0

7

'0 u

0 m

[,

7 un 5

m 0

m 0

a 2

0 n

m it

'5 o

6 c

u e

n S

p 5

ue 0

s 0

n.o 0

i t

'0 ac mu 6

o l

n 5

or f

7 a

-~

e s

0 ru n

0 ig 0

F e

'5 e

m S

u 5

n 5

2 n

o m

i t

0 ce u

s s

0 ss 0

o

'0 C

r au 5

s 5

9

~

e r

n6 u

g 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

iF 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 4

2 2

4 6

8

,6 T

l l

l

J I

A1j/.-

t r

t O

\\

O E

\\.

C a

.O m"

O FWMF U

3 O

\\~ >y w

\\

1 O

g

\\

i O

y

..O G

4 s

\\

.B 3

pc \\

k p

O O

s*

%s FVM

(

--g g}

FRB Q

.G"$o N

W FWD

.z.

g ig

{?"

O i-9

- Og 4

o O

,,o FCS

%w

\\

6 3

O g

O o"

O FWG

\\

f

._O 2g 0

w E#

PRl\\

cs\\

O Rs a

FCS

_g h?

1

\\

,m T

u g'"

%.9 s

I e

O O

.O 51

~

kh O

3c G

08 0

ts

\\

5g l

\\

a e

Q q

9 9

Q q

q Q

• s o

o O

O O 8O 5g O

O O

O O

o O

9 DC y

l

\\

\\

l 3-28 l

a

..s i

\\

1 1

8 g

O g

..O s

ewur,.

0

<e

\\E ai

\\

\\

O w

i O

I 1

P

'I 4

w FCP \\

O O

n FVM{3 O

g O

i a

L FRB; k

8t 3

5 FW03 G

Q e

G fi \\

\\

\\

\\.

o 1 \\

FDG k k

. 0 O

\\-

G 3-t w

\\

w

FCS, O

aO E

.O 8

G d"' "

c

• 2

.z O

{p O

9*

G 3

p l

,\\

23 Q

g Q

&?e O

o O

Q O

a o

O o

O o

O 10 9

p 1

3'\\

\\

\\

?6

\\

i

\\

1 l) m,J

/

.n 0

Foi Pt 0

a Bc N

0 f o ol 0

r ho t f 8

pe7 5

de hr u tig 0

wF i

ese 0

n e eS 0

s

'5 ipy h

l 7

sp b

f a 5

o rg ei st a r

r et 0

vs k

el 0

r e dd 0

n o am

'0 t

h l

7 ug a

E f u 5

o Fr Dht i

Gsu 0

yo bu 0

lut 5

t n 0

i n

an o

J

'5 r

it f o u

c u$

Fc 6

Wl t

e s

S 5

u Daf G

foF s

u0 EW 0

hW m

tpD 0

e i

s k4 0

dw tao

'0 h

=

n 6

o )s i

5 ai t I cne uru s

rt g u

0 i

e u8 0

n(

gF s

r

~

'5 so it 0

a4 r n t

mu 5

lui tc l

m 5

5S ie n.

o) i3 t

0 c1 h

e e 0

sr N

'0 rF s u 0

sg r

oi Co 5

h s

f_

mr,O t- -

r(

l 5

a 2

~

1 ee es 0

0 0

0 0

utl gu 0

0 0

0 0

Ff i

a 0

0 0

0 0

r 6

2 4

6 8

,F f_

t l

'7~

. \\>

^

pwMF s

s O

s

^ O

'g

}

\\,

O 1

a

, 8{

ycf e.

..O {

\\

~

wa s

"~?

s s,8

_fh, nn, e 4

h E

i nc FWHD O

4

'{

m O

J A

i

.)g O

FDG i

4 M

O

\\

\\'

O i%

..O E

0 30 G

E FCS

{

\\

a O

m O

.s s

'O

\\

PB t k}

}

V w

$}

w

\\

i O

P

\\

..O s

O n

O i

0 C

i 9

ssO Q

g 88O O

O O

O 88

\\

\\

f

l

~

/

~

)

3 1

gy 0 er 0 ug 0 M

'0

(

6 8

sn 5

o i

t ces d

0 s

e s

0 o

_e=g-r 0 c

'5 in e

7

)

g r

5 e w

ug m

to 0 n o

0d 0

s t

[

'0 lu a

7 f e

5 s

e h

T n.

7

. o n

0 hi t g

/

0 pct a o

it e o 0

dl f'5 ao ce t r S

f 6 F 7 5Ce A5 Pr u hg t

i i

0 wF h

e 0FeVS 0

'0 M p.

fi od 6

p gu

.um 5

n i s

}*

ge rtean

^

o mi sm o er t e b

at r

d 5 sn t

t ue

~

5 m

l l

i g

5 7a

[

r nf ot il t u 0

c a e

0 sF s

0 s) o5

'0 r1Ce 5

[x

- f~

ru 5 4g i

1 F

e(

r 8 u

0 0

0 o

0 9

0 0

gd in 0

0 0

0 o

0 0

Fa 0

0 0

0 c

0 0

6 4

2 2

A 6

8 TC

I i

IIlli I'

9~~M J

n e

~

e 0 S 0

e.

2

=M c

0 a

. '0 fr u

1,

c. /

s 8

t 5

'u e~

a f

~

1 -

d e

0 ta 4e '^e i

- 0 co 0

ss

. '5 a

f

~

7 o

e 5

3, ru

.V tavr 0

u g

c 0

tu 0

o q,

/

'0 h

t i

7 w

5 F

/

W 7

M F

0 f

0 o

l 8

0 a

l n

g io

'5 w

g

$.Wu n_

6 t

u c

n m

u_

5 ig u

e n

S u

n m_

a k." m h

i e

i 0

h N

u t

0 n

0 i

s

'0 d

e

'I 6

b d

N

'5 l

5 e

d lo 0

g f

n 0

i t

~

a

~

0 r

tsu 5

l i

5 8

no i

tc O

e.

sn O

o si st O

oa rc

/

d Co l

/

5

- ro 5

5f 1

7 er e

^

r uu 0

0 0

o 0

0 0

0 gg ii 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

FF 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

6 4

2 2

4 6

8

-,S-f

l ll i

t I

ll

~

ee

\\~7 S

0

~

0 F

0 W

,'0 M

F 8

g Er n

5 o

y-a l

h t

0 p

1. x::-

'5 i

e 0

d h

0 t

w 7

g n

5 is a

7*

e

v r

w;o z

ce 0

d y

3r 0

dn

\\

. 0 a

'0 F

g V

7 M

5 g

.s n

/

o l

e 0

h a

/

t 0

pe 0

d

,~

'5 h

t 9

i 6

w no s

5 gn it i

c r

s e

ae S

$W 0

cr n

0 i

0 n

t e

'0 m

6 e

m l

c 5

a lps i

i d

0 g

~

0 n

i ta 0

.'5 l

r tsu 5

l i

5 9

io n

tc 0

e.

[

sn 0

o si st 0

oa

/

.'0 Co rc 7 5

- r l

o 5

6f

{-

1 7

e 1

r e r

uu 0

0 0

e 0

0 0

gg i i 0

0 0

0 0

0 FF 0

0 0

0 0

0 6

4 2

2 4

6 8

ll

[

minimal and may reflect sparse data. Effects of sparse data may also be reflected in GFM3.0 as greater discrepancies between the data and the extrapolations made by EarthVision software for depths to stratigraphic horizons (See Figure 5 in Part I).

Consider clarifying what uncertainties are associated with the estimates to the depth of the Paleozoic surface.

In Yucca Flat, the mean depth differences between depth estimates based on gravity and actual tags of the Paleozoic rock surface at 38 drill holes was 30m +/- 88m.

(Brethauer, et al.,1981). At Yucca Mountain, only a few boreholes can be used to define the Paleozoic surface. (Ue25 p-1 is the dnly borehole that penetrates this surface. A few other holes, such as G-1 and Gu-3, while not penetrating the surface do constrain its depth.) This information suggests that, as a minimum, only offsets greater than 100 m can be used as control for the location of faults intersecting the Paleozoic surface, and displacements of less than 100 meters may be artifacts of model construction. Consider clarifying whether artifacts of modeling are an influence in this case.

h.

Complex interactions between faults with opposing dip (e.g., Section 3, Figure 10) are likely in the Yucca Mountain area (Brocher, et al.1998) and may be important influences on groundwater flow (Ferrill, et al.1998). Variable displacement values between different units at the same position along a given fault and beheaded faults without a continuation across the offsetting fault are examples of complex fault interactions. Consider clarifying whether these complex interactions are real or modeling artifacts.

l l-l l

F-35 l

l

F'~~~

I APPENDIX G I

I I

GLOSSARY

[TO BE DEVELOPED FOR REVISION 2, FY99]

l 1

i l

I g