Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of The Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

DOE/NV--477
UC-700
Nevada
Environmental
Restoration
Project
Regional Groundwater Flow

and Tritium Transport Modeling
and Risk Assessment of the
Underground Test Area,
Nevada Test Site, Nevada
October 1997
Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.
Environmental Restoration
Division
U.S. Department of Energy
Nevada Operations Office
This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.
Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific

and Technical Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831;
prices available from (423) 576-8401.
Available to the public from the National Technical Information

Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd.,
Springfield, VA 22161, telephone (703) 487-4650.
DOE/NV--477
UC-700
REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRITIUM

TRANSPORT MODELING AND RISK ASSESSMENT
OF THE UNDERGROUND TEST AREA,
NEVADA TEST SITE, NEVADA
DOE Nevada Operations Office

Las Vegas, Nevada
October 1997
Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.

REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRITIUM
TRANSPORT MODELING AND RISK ASSESSMENT
OF THE UNDERGROUND TEST AREA,
NEVADA TEST SITE, NEVADA
Approved by: -m&&&8 Date: /D/ %/,?7

Robert M. Bangerter, PrGect Mmcger
Underground Test Area Subproject .
dn, Project Manager
1 Nevada Environmental Restoration Project

Acknowledgments
This document presents the results of the data analysis activities conducted during the regional
investigation of the Underground Test Area Subproject. These activities have been led by
IT Corporation; Tetra Tech, Inc.; GeoTrans, Inc.; and Daniel B. Stephens Corporation; however,
the investigation could not have been completed without the cooperative efforts of many other
participants involved in work at the Nevada Test Site. Their organizations are listed here in
alphabetical order:
• Bechtel Nevada
• Desert Research Institute
• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• Los Alamos National Laboratory
• Professional Analysis, Inc.
• Raytheon Services Nevada
• U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Division
• U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division
• U.S. Geological Survey, Yucca Mountain Project
The data analysis activities have been reviewed by a panel of subject matter experts who
provided technical input that has been incorporated into the document packages. Their
invaluable contributions are reflected in this report. The reviewers and their respective
organizations are alphabetically listed as follows:
C Anthony Armstrong Oak Ridge National Laboratory

C Dave Burden U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
C Joe Downey Downey & Gutentag LLC
C Lynn Gelhar Massachusetts Institute of Technology
C Gerry Grisak Intera, Inc.
C Brad Hill Computer Data Sytems, Inc. - Kerr Lab
C Carla Johnson Brogan-Johnson Consultants
C Charles Menzie Menzie-Cura
C David Prudic U.S. Geological Survey
i
Abstract
The groundwater flow system of the Nevada Test Site and surrounding region was evaluated to
estimate the highest potential current and near-term risk to the public and the environment from
groundwater contamination downgradient of the underground nuclear testing areas. The highest,
or greatest, potential risk is estimated by assuming that several unusually rapid transport
pathways as well as public and environmental exposures all occur simultaneously. These
conservative assumptions may cause risks to be significantly overestimated. However, such a
deliberate, conservative approach ensures that public health and environmental risks are not
underestimated and allows prioritization of future work to minimize potential risks.
Historical underground nuclear testing activities, particularly detonations near or below the water
table, have contaminated groundwater near testing locations with radioactive and nonradioactive
constituents. Tritium was selected as the contaminant of primary concern for this phase of the
project because it is abundant, highly mobile, and represents the most significant contributor to
the potential radiation dose to humans for the short term. It was also assumed that the predicted
risk to human health and the environment from tritium exposure would reasonably represent the
risk from other, less mobile radionuclides within the same time frame. Other contaminants will be
investigated at a later date.
Existing and newly collected hydrogeologic data were compiled for a large area of southern
Nevada and California, encompassing the Nevada Test Site regional groundwater flow system.
These data were used to develop numerical groundwater flow and tritium transport models for
use in the prediction of tritium concentrations at hypothetical human and ecological receptor
locations for a 200-year time frame.
A numerical, steady-state regional groundwater flow model was developed to serve as the basis
for the prediction of the movement of tritium from the underground testing areas on a regional
scale. The groundwater flow model was used in conjunction with a particle-tracking code to
define the pathlines followed by groundwater particles originating from 415 points associated
with 253 nuclear test locations. Three of the most rapid pathlines were selected for transport
simulations. These pathlines are associated with three nuclear test locations, each representing
one of the three largest testing areas. These testing locations are: BOURBON on Yucca Flat,
HOUSTON on Central Pahute Mesa, and TYBO on Western Pahute Mesa.
ii
One-dimensional stochastic tritium transport simulations were performed for the three pathlines
using the Monte Carlo method with Latin hypercube sampling. For the BOURBON and TYBO
pathlines, sources of tritium from other tests located along the same pathline were included in the
simulations. Sensitivity analyses were also performed on the transport model to evaluate the
uncertainties associated with the geologic model, the rates of groundwater flow, the tritium
source, and the transport parameters.
Tritium concentration predictions were found to be mostly sensitive to the regional geology in
controlling the horizontal and vertical position of transport pathways. The simulated
concentrations are also sensitive to matrix diffusion, an important mechanism governing the
migration of tritium in fractured carbonate and volcanic rocks. Source term concentration
uncertainty is most important near the test locations and decreases in importance as the travel
distance increases. The uncertainty on groundwater flow rates is as important as that on matrix
diffusion at downgradient locations.
The risk assessment was performed to provide conservative and bounding estimates of the
potential risks to human health and the environment from tritium in groundwater. Risk models
were designed by coupling scenario-specific tritium intake with tritium dose models and cancer
and genetic risk estimates using the Monte Carlo method. Estimated radiation doses received by
individuals from chronic exposure to tritium, and the corresponding human health risks at
hypothetical point-of-use locations along each of the pathlines were calculated for six potential
land-use scenarios. Conservative land-use scenarios were postulated to ensure that the calculated
exposures would bound any realistic dose received by individuals.
Based on the human-health risk estimates, tritium exposures associated with the HOUSTON and
BOURBON pathlines do not present a human health hazard off the Nevada Test Site in the
present, the near term, or in the future. However, the estimates show that the TYBO pathline has
the greatest potential for off-site release with a projected groundwater discharge at Oasis Valley.
Using the most conservative scenario for tritium exposure demonstrates that dose could exceed
the 100-mrem/yr limit at locations along the TYBO pathline. However, the risk predictions for
the TYBO pathline are not supported by results from the current environmental monitoring
network. Water samples from the Oasis Valley springs and wells, west and south of Pahute
iii
Mesa, do not show tritium is present in levels above background. These monitoring results
confirm the premise that the conservative modeling approach was likely to overestimate tritium
transport. Results also indicate that ecological risks due to tritium exposure are not anticipated to
occur outside of federal lands.
iv
Table of Contents
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxviii
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1
ES.1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

ES.1.1 Project Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1
ES.1.2 Site Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-3
ES.1.3 Impact on Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6
ES.2.0 Site Physical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6

ES.2.1 Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6
ES.2.2 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8
ES.2.3 Surface Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8
ES.2.4 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-8
ES.2.5 Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-10
ES.2.6 Environmental Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-11
ES.2.7 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-13
ES.2.8 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-13
ES.2.9 Archaeological and Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-13
ES.3.0 Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-14
ES.4.0 Conceptual Regional Groundwater Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-16

ES.4.1 Groundwater Flow System Extent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-16
v
Table of Contents (Continued)
ES.4.2 Hydrogeologic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-16

ES.4.3 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-19
ES.4.4 Groundwater Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-20
ES.5.0 Numerical Regional Groundwater Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-21

ES.5.1 Numerical Model Set Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-21
ES.5.2 Model Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-22
ES.5.3 Groundwater Flowpath Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-23
ES.5.4 Sensitivity Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-23
ES.6.0 Transport Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-25

ES.6.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-25
ES.6.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-27
ES.7.0 Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-29

ES.7.1 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-30
ES.7.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-31
ES.8.0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-34
1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Project Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Site Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.2.1 Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.2.2 History of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.2.3 Underground Nuclear Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
1.2.4 Impact on Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6
1.3 Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
1.4 Regional Evaluation Completion Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7
1.5 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8
2.0 Site Physical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
vi
2.2 Topography and Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.3 Climate and Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
2.4 Surface Hydrology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.5 Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.5.1 Precambrian and Paleozoic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.5.2 Mesozoic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.5.3 Tertiary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.6 Hydrogeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
2.6.1 Hydrostratigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.6.2 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
2.6.3 Groundwater Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-14
2.7 Environmental Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2.7.1 Ecological Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16
2.7.2 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17
2.8 Demography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19
2.9 Archaeological and Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21
3.0 Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Contaminant of Potential Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.3 Investigation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.4 Hydrologic Modeling Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.4.1 Selected Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
3.4.2 Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.4.3 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.5 Risk Assessment Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.5.1 Human Health Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3.5.3 Selected Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
3.5.4 Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
3.5.5 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
3.6 Uncertainty Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
vii
4.0 Geologic Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Geologic Model Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.3 Approach Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
4.4 Geologic Data Compilation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4
4.5 Conceptual Geologic Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.5.1 Stratigraphic Cross Section Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.5.2 Hydrostratigraphic Unit Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5
4.5.3 Hydrostratigraphic Cross Section Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4.6 Digital Geologic Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4.6.1 Data Integration into ERMA® . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10
4.6.2 Construction of Surface Contour Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11
4.6.3 Gridding of Contoured Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12
4.6.4 Map Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
4.7 Geologic Uncertainty and Model Revisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13
5.0 Hydrologic Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.3 Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.3.1 Hydraulic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.3.2 Water-Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.3.3 Recharge and Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.4 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.5 Hydraulic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.5.1 Hydraulic Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.5.1.1 Data Compilation and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
5.5.1.2 Tested Interval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7
5.5.1.3 Hydrostratigraphic Unit Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.5.1.4 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-8
5.5.1.5 Distribution of Hydraulic Conductivity with Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9
5.5.2 Effective Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
5.5.2.1 Porosity Data From Tracer Migration Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12
viii
5.5.2.2 Fracture Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

5.5.2.3 Summary of Porosity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15
5.6 Water Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15
5.6.1 Data Compilation and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16
5.6.2 Identification of Predevelopment Hydraulic Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
5.6.3 Uncertainty Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-17
5.6.4 Site Hydrostratigraphic Unit Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-20
5.6.5 Dataset and Map Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21
5.7 Recharge and Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-21
5.7.1 Areal Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22
5.7.1.1 Maxey-Eakin Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-22
5.7.1.2 Modified ME Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24
5.7.1.2.1 Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-24
5.7.1.2.2 Preliminary Recharge Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-25
5.7.1.2.3 Recharge Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-26
5.7.2 Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30
5.7.2.1 Spring Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-30
5.7.2.2 Evapotranspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-32
5.7.3 Flow Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-36
6.0 Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 Groundwater Flow System Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 Regional Groundwater Flow System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.2.1 Hydrogeologic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.2.1.1 General Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.2.1.1.1 East of the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.2.1.1.2 North of the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.2.1.1.3 West of the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
6.2.1.1.4 Amargosa Desert and Death Valley Areas . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
6.2.2 Regional Groundwater Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12
6.2.2.1 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-14
6.2.2.2 Recharge Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15
6.2.2.3 Discharge Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-15
ix
6.2.2.4 Boundary Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

6.2.2.5 Groundwater Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
6.3 Groundwater Flow System at the NTS and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
6.3.1 Hydrogeologic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18
6.3.1.1 Yucca Flat and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-18
6.3.1.2 Southern NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-22
6.3.1.3 Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain Caldera Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-24
6.3.2 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-25
6.3.2.1 Yucca Flat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-27
6.3.2.2 Southern NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-28
6.3.2.3 Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain Caldera Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-29
6.4 Conceptual Model Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30
6.4.1 Geologic Model Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-30
6.4.2 Hydrologic Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-31
7.0 Numerical Groundwater Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.2 Modeling Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
7.2.1 Numerical Code Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
7.2.2 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.2.3 Modeling Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
7.3 Model Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.3.1 Model Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
7.3.2 Model Discretization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.3.3 Boundary Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
7.3.3.1 Recharge Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13
7.3.3.2 General-Head Boundary Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-13
7.3.3.3 Well Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15
7.3.3.4 Drain Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-16
7.3.4 Hydraulic Conductivity and Vertical Conductance Calculations . . . . . . . . . . 7-18
7.3.4.1 Hydraulic Conductivity Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19
7.3.4.2 Vertical Leakance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-20
x
7.4 Calibration Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-20

7.4.1 Development of Calibration Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-21
7.4.1.1 Target Hydraulic Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-22
7.4.1.2 Hydraulic Head Residuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-23
7.4.1.3 Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-28
7.4.2 Hydraulic-Conductivity Zonations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-29
7.5 Flow Model Results and Sensitivity Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-40
7.5.1 Distribution of Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-40
7.5.2 Hydraulic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-41
7.5.3 Hydraulic-Head and Residual Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-53
7.5.3.1 Hydraulic-Head Distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-53
7.5.3.2 Head Residual Distributions by Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-61
7.5.4 Boundary Flux Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-65
7.5.5 Particle-Tracking Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-67
7.5.6 Sensitivity Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-74
7.5.6.1 Special-Case Sensitivity Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-74
7.5.6.1.1 Geologic Model Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-75
7.5.6.1.2 Evaluation of Recharge Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-80
7.5.6.1.3 Hydraulic Conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-84
7.5.6.1.4 Summary of Special-Case Sensitivity Analyses . . . . . . . . 7-85
7.5.6.2 Sensitivity Analyses of Hydraulic Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-86
7.5.6.3 Particle-Tracking Results for Hydraulic
Parameter Sensitivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-88
7.6 Summary of Flow Model Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-93
7.6.1 Model Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-94
7.6.2 Model Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-95
7.6.3 Particle Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-96
7.6.4 Sensitivity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-96
8.0 Transport Parameters and Source Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.2 General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.3 Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
xi
8.4 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

8.5 Matrix and Bulk Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
8.5.1 Data Compilation and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
8.5.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
8.6 Dispersivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
8.7 Matrix Diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9
8.8 Tritium Source Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-10
8.8.1 Data Compilation and Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11
8.8.2 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-11
9.0 Transport Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.2 Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.2.1 General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
9.2.2 Transport Modeling Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
9.2.3 Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5
9.3 Data Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6
9.3.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6
9.3.2 Selection of Particle Starting Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7
9.3.3 MODPATH Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7
9.3.4 Identification of Hydrostratigraphic Units along a Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7
9.3.5 Calculation of Advective Velocity along a Flow Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10
9.3.6 Selection of Starting Locations for Regional Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12
9.3.7 Evaluation of Upgradient and Downgradient Nuclear Tests Along
the Same Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12
9.4 Transport Parameters and Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-14
9.4.1 Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-14
9.4.2 Dispersion Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-17
9.4.3 Advective Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-18
9.4.4 Diffusion Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-19
9.4.5 Fracture Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-19
9.4.6 Initial Tritium Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-20
xii
9.4.7 Correlation of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-21

9.4.8 Other Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-22
9.5 Transport Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-22
9.5.1 Pathlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-22
9.5.2 Tritium Transport Simulations - General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-26
9.5.3 Tritium Transport Simulations - BOURBON (Yucca Flat) . . . . . . . . . . . 9-27
9.5.4 Tritium Transport Simulations - HOUSTON (Central Pahute Mesa) . . . . 9-38
9.5.5 Tritium Transport Simulations - TYBO (Western Pahute Mesa) . . . . . . . 9-41
9.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-53
10.0 Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
10.2 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
10.3 Human Health Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2
10.3.1 General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2
10.3.2 Exposure Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3
10.3.2.1 Land Use Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3
10.3.2.2 Exposure Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4
10.3.2.2.1 Calculation of Tritium Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . 10-4
10.3.2.2.2 Calculation of Intakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-7
10.3.3 Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9
10.3.3.1 Dose Assessment Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-9
10.3.3.2 Dose Assessment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11
10.3.3.2.1 BOURBON Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11
10.3.3.2.2 HOUSTON Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12
10.3.3.2.3 TYBO Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-13
10.3.4 Risk Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-14
10.3.4.1 Risk Characterization Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15
10.3.4.2 Risk Characterization Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15
10.3.4.2.1 BOURBON Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15
10.3.4.2.2 HOUSTON Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-20
10.3.4.2.3 TYBO Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-21
10.4 Ecological Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-22
xiii
10.4.1 General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-22

10.4.2 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-23
10.4.2.1 Study Site Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-24
10.4.2.2 Exposure Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-27
10.4.2.3 Endpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-28
10.4.3 Exposure Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-29
10.4.4 Effect Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-29
10.4.5 Ecological Risk Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-31
10.5 Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-32
10.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-34
11.0 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1
11.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4
12.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
Appendix A - Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B - Comparison of Simulated and Observed Hydraulic Heads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Appendix C - Numerical Groundwater Flow Model Sensitivity Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . C-1
xiv
List of Figures
Number Title Page
ES-1 Area of Investigation Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2
ES-2 Location of Underground Test Areas and Testing Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-5
ES-3 Topographic Features of the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-7
ES-4 Schematic North-South Cross Section across the NTS Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-9
ES-5 Groundwater Flow within the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-12
ES-6 Nevada Test Site Regional Groundwater Flow System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-17
ES-7 Groundwater Pathlines from Selected Testing Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-28
1-1 Location of the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
1-2 Location of Underground Test Areas and Testing Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
1-3 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9
2-1 Nevada Test Site Area Designations, Principal Facilities, and Testing Areas . . . . . 2-2
2-2 Topographic Features of the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2-3 Localized Surface Drainage Basins Around the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
2-4 Locations of Springs at the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
2-5 Groundwater Flow within the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
xv
List of Figures (Continued)
Number Title Page
2-6 Long-Term Hydrologic Monitoring Program Off-Site Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15
2-7 Land Use around the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18
2-8 Population Distribution in Counties Surrounding the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . 2-20
3-1 Hydrologic Modeling and Risk Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
3-2 Area of Investigation Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
4-1 Area of the Geologic Model Surrounding the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4-2 Areas of Volcanic Hydrostratigraphic Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8
4-3 Aerial View of the LCCU Grid Surface: Viewed from the Southeast . . . . . . . . . 4-14
5-1 Relation Between Hydraulic Conductivity and Depth for Tests in the Alluvial Aquifer,
Volcanic Rocks, and the Lower Carbonate Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
5-2 Hydrograph Example Showing Stable and Unstable Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-18
5-3 Recharge Redistribution Areas in the Vicinity of the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . 5-27
5-4 Location of Springs and Evapotranspiration Areas in the

Nevada Test Site Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-31
6-1 Surficial Hydrogeologic Map of the NTS Region and NTS Regional
Groundwater Flow System Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3
6-2 Four East-West Cross Section Panels Showing the NTS and Area to the East:
Aerial View from the Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
xvi
Number Title Page
6-3 East-West Cross Section Panels of the Area North of the NTS:
Aerial View from the Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7
6-4 East-West Cross Sections Across the NTS and the Area West of the NTS:
Aerial View from the Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
6-5 Southwest-Northeast Cross Section from Death Valley to the Halfpint Range:
Aerial View from the Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-11
6-6 Southwest-Northeast Cross Section from Death Valley to the Mercury Ridge:
6-7 East-West Cross Section of North-Central Yucca Flat: Aerial View

from the South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-19
6-8 East-West Cross Section North of Yucca Flat: Aerial View from the South . . . . 6-21
6-9 North-South Cross Section Along the Western Boundary of the NTS:
6-10 Southwest-Northeast Cross Section from the Amargosa Desert Across

Pahute Mesa: Aerial View from the Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26
7-1 Location of Model Area Boundary and Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
7-2 Relationship of HSUs to Model Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
7-3 Location of Active, Inactive and Boundary Condition Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-12
7-4 Distribution of Residual Zones for the NTS Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-25
xvii
Number Title Page
7-5 Distribution of Conductivity for the LCA Hydrostratigraphic Unit . . . . . . . . . . . 7-30
7-6 Distribution of Conductivity Zones for the AA Hydrostratigraphic Unit . . . . . . . 7-31
7-7 Distribution of Conductivity Zones for the TMA, TC, TCB, TBA, BCU,
& BAQ Hydrostratigraphic Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-32
7-8 Distribution of Conductivity Zones for the VA Hydrostratigraphic Unit . . . . . . . 7-33
7-9 Distribution of Conductivity Zones for the LCCU Hydrostratigraphic Unit . . . . . 7-34
7-10 Distribution of Conductivity Zones for the VCU Hydrostratigraphic Unit . . . . . . 7-35
7-11 Distribution of Conductivity Zones for the VU Hydrostratigraphic Unit . . . . . . . 7-36
7-12 Distribution of Conductivity Zones for the TSDV Hydrostratigraphic Unit . . . . . 7-37
7-13 Areal Distribution of Recharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-42
7-14 Relationship of Hydraulic Conductivity to Depth for Alluvial Aquifers . . . . . . . . 7-45
7-15 Relationship of Hydraulic Conductivity to Depth for Volcanic Aquifers and Confining
Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-46
7-16 Relationship of Hydraulic Conductivity to Depth for the LCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-47
7-17 Distribution of the HSUs for Model Layer 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-50
7-18 Distribution of Transmissivity for Model Layer 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-51
7-19 Log Leakance Values for Active Model Cells in Model Layer 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-52
xviii
Number Title Page
7-20 Elevation of the Simulated Water Table for the Calibrated Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-54
7-21 Simulated Heads for Model Layer 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-57
7-22 Simulated Heads for Model Layer 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-58
7-23 Simulated Heads for Model Layer 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-59
7-24 Simulated Heads from the Calibrated Model versus Observed Heads . . . . . . . . . 7-62
7-25 Particle Pathlines from Fourteen Testing Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-69
7-26 Locations of Particles After 25 Years (Western Pahute Mesa Shots) and 100 Years
(All Others) for the Base Case and the Hydraulic Parameter Sensitivity Runs . . . 7-90
9-1 Illustration of a Nuclear Shot Below the Water Table . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8
9-2 Illustration of a Pathline Segment Through a Flow Model Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9
9-3 Groundwater Pathlines from Nuclear Test Locations Below the Water Table
for a 200-Year Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-13
9-4 Groundwater Pathlines, from Source to Receptor, Chosen for Transport

Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-15
9-5 Geologic Model Cross-Section Along the BOURBON Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-23
9-6 Geologic Model Cross-Section Along the HOUSTON Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-24
9-7 Geologic Model Cross-Section Along the TYBO Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-25
xix
Number Title Page
9-8 Concentration Contours Along the Pathline for KANKAKEE, BOURBON, and
MICKEY/TORRIDO (Tritium in Matrix and Fractures) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-29
9-9 Histogram of Tritium Concentration for All Realizations for the 30-Year Period
Around the Maximum Concentration at the 95 percent Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-31
9-10 Cumulative Density of Maximum Tritium Concentration at a Distance of 1 km

Along the Pathline Originating at BOURBON for Variation of
Individual Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-33
9-11 Cumulative Density of Maximum Tritium Concentration at a Distance of 10 km Along

the Pathline Originating at BOURBON for Variation of
9-12 Cumulative Density of Maximum Tritium Concentration at a Distance of 20 km Along

the Pathline Originating at BOURBON for Variation of
9-13 Results of Varying BOURBON Conceptual Model at the 95 Percent Level . . . . 9-37
9-14 Concentration Contours Along the HOUSTON Pathline

(Tritium in Matrix and Fractures) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-39
9-15 Histogram of Tritium Concentration for All Realizations for the 30-Year Period
Around the Maximum Concentration at the 95 percent Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-40

Along the Pathline Originating at HOUSTON for a Variation of
xx
Number Title Page


9-19 Concentration Contours Along the HOUSTON Pathline - Initial Tritium in

Fractures Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-45
9-20 Concentration Contours Along the Pathline for PEPATO, KASH, and TYBO
(Tritium in Matrix and Fractures) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-47
9-21 Histogram of Tritium Concentration for All 200 Realizations for the 30-Year
Period Around the Maximum Concentration at the 95 Percent Level . . . . . . . . . 9-48

Along the Pathline Originating at TYBO for Variation of


xxi
Number Title Page
9-25 Comparison of Concentration Contours Along the TYBO Pathline Base Case
and Tritium Source in Fractures at the 95 Percent Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-52
10-1 Simplified Ecological Exposure Pathway Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-25
xxii
List of Plates
Plate 1 - Precipitation Map for the Nevada Test Site Region

Plate 2 - Distribution of Groundwater Recharge in the Nevada Test Site Region,
Using Maxey-Eakin Coefficients
Plate 3 - Predevelopment Regional Water-Level Map
Plate 4 - Study Area Basemap
xxiii
List of Tables
Number Title Page
ES-1 Range of Hydraulic Parameters for Major Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-18
ES-2 Peak Tritium Concentrations At Selected Locations

Along the TYBO Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-29
ES-3 Maximum Simulated Distances of Regulatory Limits and Guidelines

Along the BOURBON Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-33
ES-4 Maximum Simulated Distances of Regulatory Limits and Guidelines

Along the HOUSTON Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-33
ES-5 Maximum Downgradient Locations of Regulatory Limits and Guidelines

Along the TYBO Pathline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-34
2-1 Pre-Tertiary Stratigraphic Correlation/Death Valley Drainage Basin . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2-2 Tertiary Stratigraphy of the NTS Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
4-1 Volcanic Hydrostratigraphy of the Southern NTS/Yucca Mountain Area . . . . . . . 4-7
4-2 Hydrostratigraphy of the Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain Caldera Complex . . . . . 4-7
4-3 Hydrostratigraphic Units/Geologic Model Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
5-1 Hydraulic Conductivity Summary Statistics Based on Well Averages

(Variable is Log[K] with K in meters per day) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5-2 Hydraulic Conductivity Decay Coefficients with Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
5-3 Effective Porosity Obtained From Tracer Migration Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-13
xxiv
List of Tables (Continued)
5-4 Fracture Porosity Obtained from the Study of Volcanic Core . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14
5-5 Precipitation Zones and Corresponding Coefficients for the ME Method . . . . . . 5-22
5-6 Areas of Potential Recharge Redistribution in the Nevada Test Site Region . . . . 5-28
6-1 Range of Hydraulic Parameters for Major Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
6-2 ET Discharge Data for the NTS Regional Groundwater Flow System . . . . . . . . . 6-16
6-3 Estimated Rates of Groundwater Inflow/Outflow for

Boundaries of the NTS Regional Groundwater Flow System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
6-4 Estimated Steady-State Groundwater Budget

for the NTS Regional Groundwater Flow System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-17
7-1 Elevations of Model Layers (Top to Bottom of Model) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
7-2 Calculation of Model Recharge Rate Based on Model Area

Discharge Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-14
7-3 Recharge Redistribution in Seven Hydrographic Areas in the Vicinity

of the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-15
7-4 Estimated and Target Ranges

in Discharge Fluxes for Eight Discharge Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-19
7-5 Calibration Criteria for Weighted Hydraulic-Head Residuals by Zone . . . . . . . . . 7-26
7-6 Comparison of Maxey-Eakin Coefficients and Coefficients Used

in the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-41
xxv
7-7 Final Hydraulic Parameters for the NTS Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-43
7-8 Summary Statistics for Hydraulic-Head Residuals by Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-64
7-9 Hydraulic Head Values used in the GHB and Well Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-65
7-10 Comparison of Target and Simulated Boundary Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-66
7-11 Estimated 25-Year (Western Pahute Mesa) and 100-Year (all Others)
Particle Travel Distances Derived from Calibrated Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-70
7-12 Change in Hydraulic-Head Residuals and Boundary Fluxes

Due to Different Geologic Model Interpretations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-76
7-13 Change in Hydraulic Head Residuals and Boundary Fluxes

Due to Recharge Distributions and Subsurface Inflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-77
7-14 Change in Hydraulic Head Residuals and Boundary

Fluxes Due to Large Changes in Hydraulic Conductivities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-78
7-15 Conductivity Parameters that Caused More than a 10% Change in the
25- or 100-Year Travel Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-89
8-1 Statistical Summary of Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5
8-2 Summary of Porosity Data for Major Hydrostratigraphic Units

as Compared to Work by Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
8-3 Longitudinal Dispersivity Information Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7
8-4 Matrix Diffusion Coefficients for Tritium in the Welded Tuff Aquifer . . . . . . . . . 8-10
xxvi
9-1 Effective Porosity Values for Each Hydrostratigraphic Unit

used to Calculate Travel Times Along Pathlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-11
9-2 Porosity Data and Uncertainty for Each HSU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-16
9-3 Correlation of Input Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-22
9-4 Approximate Distances Beyond Which Tritium Concentration

Does Not Exceed 20,000 pCi/L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-54
10-1 Land-Use Scenarios and Receptors Considered in the

Human Health Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-4
10-2 Estimated Dose for Potential Agricultural Scenario at the Nevada Test Site . . . 10-12
10-3 Estimated Dose for Potential Residential Scenario at the Nevada Test Site . . . . 10-13
10-4 Estimated Risk for Potential Agricultural Adult Scenario at the

Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-16
10-5 Estimated Risk for Potential Agricultural Child Scenario at the

Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-17
10-6 Estimated Risk for Potential Residential Adult Scenario at the

Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-18
10-7 Estimated Risk for Potential Residential Child Scenario at the

Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-19
xxvii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AFB Air Force Base

amsl Average mean sea level
BN Bechtel Nevada
BRT Belted Range Thrust
8 Lambda or conductivity decay coefficient
2
cm /s Square centimeters per second
EC Degree (s) Centigrade
EF Degree(s) Fahrenheit
% Percent
235
U Uranium
239
Pu Plutonium
1-D One-dimensional
3-D Three-dimensional
AA Alluvial Aquifer
ac-ft/y Acre-feet per year
AF Alkali Flat
AM Ash Meadows
Ariv or AR Amargosa River
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
B Bottom
BAQ Basal Aquifer
BARR Barrier
BCF Block-centered flow
BCU Basal Confining Unit
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CAB Citizens Advisory Board
C.I. Confidence Interval
cm Centimeter(s)
cm/d Centimeter(s) per day
cm/yr Centimeter(s) per year
CP Control Point
DCF Dose conversion factor
xxviii
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (Continued)
DEM Digital Elevation Model

DNA Deoxyribonucleic acid
DoD U.S. Department of Defense
DOE U.S. Department Energy
DOE/NV U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office
DTW Depth to water
DV or DVal Death Valley
DVS Death Valley Section
EM Eagle Mountain
EMSL-LV Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada
EOI Effective open interval
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER Environmental Restoration
ERDA U.S. Environmental Research and Development Administration
ERDBMS Environmental Restoration Data Base Management System
®
ERMA Environmental Resource Management Applications
ERP Environmental Restoration Program
ET Evapotranspiration
EYF Eastern Yucca Flat
FARM Amargosa Farm
FF Frenchman Flat
FFACO Federal Facility Agreement & Consent Order
FL Franklin Lake
ft Foot (feet)
ft/d Foot (feet) per day
2
ft /s Square feet per second
ft2/yr Square feet per year
3
ft /s Cubic foot per second
ft/yr Foot (feet) per year
ft2 Square foot (feet)
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
g Gram(s)
xxix
GHB General Head Boundary

GIS Geographic Information System
gal/min Gallon(s) per minute
gpd Gallons per day
GWSI Groundwater Site Inventory
Gy Gray
H Hydrogen
HA Hydrographic areas
HSU Hydrostratigraphic unit(s)
I Intrusives
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection
in. Inch(es)
in./d Inch(es) per day
INEL Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
IS Indian Springs
IT IT Corporation
J Joule
K Hydraulic conductivity calculation
keV Kiloelectron volts
kg Kilogram(s)
kg/d Kilogram(s) per day
Kh Horizontal hydraulic conductivity calculation
km Kilometer(s)
km/hr Kilometer(s) per hour
2
km Square kilometer(s)
Kvg Vertical hydraulic conductivity calculation
L/d Liter(s) per day
L/s Liter(s) per second
LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory
lbs/d Pounds per day
LCA Lower Carbonate Aquifer
xxx
LCA1 Lower Carbonate Aquifer-Upper Plate

LCA2 Lower Carbonate Aquifer-Lower Plate
LCA3 Lower Carbonate Aquifer-Yucca Flat Upper Plate
LCCU Lower Clastic Confining Unit
LCCU1 Lower Clastic Confining Unit - upper plate
LCCU2 Lower Clastic Confining Unit - lower plate
LCF Latent cancer fatality
LD Lethal dose
LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
LSE Land surface elevation
LTHMP Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program
LVVSC Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone
m Meter(s)
m/d Meter(s) per day
m/y Meter(s) per year
2
m Square meter(s)
2
m /yr Square meter(s) per year
3
m Cubic meter(s)
3
m /d Cubic meter(s) per day
m3/s Cubic meter(s) per second
MCL Maximum contaminant level
MCLG Maximum contaminant level goal(s)
ME Maxey-Eakin
MeV Megaelectron volt(s)
mi Mile(s)
2
mi Square mile(s)
mph Miles per hour
mrem/yr Millirem(s) per year
NAFR Nellis Air Force Range
NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection
NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife
NPS National Park Services
xxxi
NRTH Northern Area

NTS Nevada Test Site
NWIS National Water Information System
OV, OASI Oasis Valley
oz Ounce(s)
PAHR West of Pahranagat Valley
PCG2 Preconditioned conjugate - gradient solver
pCi/L PicoCurie(s) per liter
pCi/min PicoCurie(s) per minute
pCi/m3 PicoCurie(s) per cubic meter
PI Principle Investigator
PM Pahute Mesa
PP Pahrump Valley
PT Pahranagat Valley
PV Penoyer Valley
QA Quality Assurance
RD Radiation detriment
rad/d Rad(s) per day
RESRAD Residual radiation
RMS Root mean square
RWMS Radioactive Waste Management Site
SF Sarcobatus Flat
SHON Shoshone
SHRG Sheep Range
SPMT Spring Mountain
SPT Schuab Peak Thrust
SRT Specter Range Thrust
SWNVF Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field
T Transmissivity
TBA Welded Tuff (also Belted Range Aquifer)
TBAQ Welded tuffs above BCU
TC Tuff cone(s)
TCB Bullfrog Containing Unit (also Non-Welded Tuff)
xxxii
TCBCU Tuff cone basal confining unit (nonwelded tuffs)

TCI Total cancer incident
TCU Tuff Confining Unit
TD Total depth
TMA Timber Mountain Aquifer
TMBR Timber Mountain
TMAQ Uppermost Welded Tuff(s) (also Timber Mountain Aquifer)
TPTA Topopah Spring Tuff Aquifer
TPTC Paintbrush Tuff Cone
TS Tertiary sediments
TSDVS Tertiary Sediments, Death Valley Section
TTR Tonopah Test Range
U.S. United States
UCCU Upper Clastic Confining Unit
UGTA Underground Test Area
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
VA Volcanic Aquifer(s)
VCCU Volcaniclastic Confining Unit
Vcont Vertical leakance value
VCU Volcanic Confining Unit(s)
VTA Vitric Tuff Aquifer
VU Volcanic Undifferentiated
WLA Wahmonie Lava Aquifer
WP Working point
WPT Wheeler Pass Thrust
WT Water table
WTA Welded Tuff Aquifer
WUSE Water Use Database
WYF Western Yucca Flat
yr Year
F Micrometer
xxxiii
Executive Summary
ES.1.0 Introduction
This Executive Summary is a synopsis of the report entitled, Regional Groundwater Flow and
Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of the Underground Test Area, Nevada Test
Site, Nevada, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. The report contains the results of a
regional evaluation of the groundwater flow system encompassing the Nevada Test Site and the
highest, potential, current and near-term risk to the public and the environment from possible
groundwater contamination downgradient of the underground testing areas. The highest
potential risk is estimated by assuming that several unusually rapid transport pathways and
exposure factors are encountered simultaneously. These conservative assumptions ensure that
risk to the public and the environment are not underestimated; however, using this approach may
cause risks to be significantly overestimated.
ES.1.1 Project Background

Various types of underground nuclear tests were conducted at the Nevada Test Site (Figure ES-1)
in southern Nevada between 1951 and 1992 by the DOE and the U.S. Department of Defense.
These tests resulted in groundwater contamination in the immediate vicinity of the underground
test areas. To ensure protection of the public and the environment, the DOE Nevada Operations
Office established a long-term program in 1972 to detect the presence of any radioactivity that
may be related to nuclear testing activities.
Since 1972, groundwater has been monitored at various on-site and off-site locations. In 1994,
groundwater monitoring was conducted at 30 off-site locations around the Nevada Test Site.
Groundwater sampling results show that no contamination from the underground test areas has
been found at off-site locations. However, contamination has been found in groundwater
samples from wells located near the nuclear test locations on the Nevada Test Site (DOE, 1995),
and studies have raised the possibility of radionuclide movement (i.e., Borg et al., 1976;
Laczniak et al., 1996). The Pilot Study Risk Assessment for Selected Problems at the Nevada
Test Site (NTS) (Daniels, 1993) also predicted that tritium could migrate to Oasis Valley
(Figure ES-1) several decades after underground testing stopped. Based on these studies, the
DOE has initiated an investigation of the underground test areas to ensure protection of the
public and the environment.
ES-1
The purpose of the Underground Test Area Subproject investigation has been to define the
hydrologic boundaries encompassing groundwater resources that may be unsafe for domestic or
municipal use. The first part of the investigation was a regional evaluation which is the subject
of this report. The main objectives of the regional evaluation were to develop groundwater flow
and transport models representative of regional conditions, to use them to estimate any potential
immediate risks to human health and the environment, to identify significant data gaps, and to
provide focus and priorities for ongoing local investigations. The second part of the
investigation consists of several local studies, focused on estimating contaminant movement and
on developing boundaries that encompass the extent of contaminant migration from the
underground testing areas.
The regional evaluation consisted of data analysis, model development, model predictions, and
peer reviews. The peer review process was an integral step of the regional evaluation to ensure
the validity of the data analysis approach and the results. The peer reviewers included subject
matter experts in the fields of geology, hydrogeology, and risk assessment, and they provided
their feedback on the technical approach and results through meetings and formal comments.
Peer review comments were used to improve the technical approach and revise the models.
The results of this regional evaluation are presented in the report and documented in detail in
eight packages as follows: Regional Geologic Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996a);
Potentiometric Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996b); Groundwater Recharge and
Discharge Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996c); Hydrologic Parameter Data
Documentation Package (IT, 1996d); Transport Parameter and Source Term Data
Documentation Package (IT, 1996e); Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package
(IT, 1996f); Tritium Transport Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996g); and Risk Assessment
Documentation Package (IT, 1996h).
ES.1.2 Site Background

The Nevada Test Site is located in southern Nye County, Nevada, approximately 105 kilometers
(65 miles) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, and 360 kilometers (224 miles) southeast of Reno,
Nevada (Figure ES-1). The Nellis Air Force Range and the Tonopah Test Range surround the
Nevada Test Site, providing a 24- to 104-kilometer (15- to 65-mile) separation zone between
nuclear test areas and public lands. In combination, the Nellis Air Force Range, the Tonopah
Test Range, and the Nevada Test Site comprise one of the largest unpopulated land areas in the
United States, covering some 14,200 square kilometers (5,480 square miles).
ES-3
Between 1945 and 1962, atmospheric and underground tests were conducted at remote locations
in the United States and in the South Pacific. Extensive logistical planning and large shipments
of materials and test equipment were required to perform these tests in remote areas. To decrease
the amount of time required for a test at a remote location, the Nevada Test Site was selected as
the location meeting the criteria for atmospheric tests. It also proved ideally suited for
underground tests. Since July 1962, all nuclear tests conducted in the United States have been
underground, and most were at the Nevada Test Site (DOE, 1994).
The first underground nuclear test at the Nevada Test Site (RAINIER) was conducted on
September 19, 1957 (DOE, 1994). On August 5, 1963, the United States and the Soviet Union
signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty restricting all nuclear tests to the subsurface. Starting in
1992, a moratorium on nuclear testing was enacted by the United States, which halted nuclear
testing at the Nevada Test Site. As a result, no nuclear tests have been performed at the Nevada
Test Site since 1992; however, a state of readiness and capability to resume testing continues to
be maintained.
Underground nuclear testing conducted at the Nevada Test Site included a total of 908 tests in
shafts and tunnels at depths ranging from 27 to 1,452 meters (89 to 4,764 feet) below ground
surface. The underground nuclear tests were conducted at 878 locations, some of which
contained multiple tests (Figure ES-2). Of those, 717 were conducted in Yucca Flat, ten in
Frenchman Flat, 18 in western Pahute Mesa, 64 in central Pahute Mesa, 66 in the Rainier
Mesa/Shoshone Mountain area, and three in the Climax Mine area (Figure ES-2)
(FFACO, 1996). About one third of these tests were conducted near or below the water table
and have introduced contaminants into the NTS groundwater (IT, 1996g).
The total mass of radioactive elements that are present following an underground nuclear
detonation is called the radiologic source term. The minor portion of the radiologic source term
that is not tightly contained within the melted rock and metal residues, and which can be
dissolved or transported with groundwater, is called the hydrologic source term. Only limited
information based upon actual field data is available regarding the actual composition of the
hydrologic source term. The three predominant types of potential contaminants associated with
the source term are in situ material or those contained within the device which have not
undergone fission or thermonuclear reaction; direct products of the nuclear reactions, such as
fission products; and radionuclides produced by activation of the fuel, materials used within the
test, and those injected into the surrounding geologic layers during the nuclear test.
ES-4
During the nuclear test, large quantities of materials used to support the test were introduced into
the shafts or tunnels (Bryant and Fabrika Martin, 1991). These materials included steel used to
support the device, lead and magnetite used as shielding material, and cement and gravel used to
backfill the opening. In addition, nuclear devices commonly contained fissionable or fusionable
radioactive elements in the critical mass for detonation. These elements included uranium,
plutonium, tritium, and lithium. Small amounts of radiochemical detectors were also used.
Incomplete consumption of these radioactive materials during detonation from testing would
leave them within the subsurface for potential leaching to groundwater.
ES.1.3 Impact on Groundwater

During detonation of tests conducted at or below the water table, groundwater is evacuated from
the shot cavity and then seeps back into the cavity after the detonation. As the water seeps back
into the shot cavity and rubble chimney, leaching of radionuclides to the groundwater begins.
Radionuclides are also introduced into the groundwater through the prompt injection that occurs
during the detonation. Groundwater might also be impacted from tests conducted in the vadose
zone through leaching of radionuclides by downward percolating precipitation and surface runoff
through the rubble chimney. Tritium, one of the radionuclides, is commonly found in the
subsurface as unconsumed material from a fusion detonation. Tritium has been selected as the
contaminant of primary potential concern because it easily dissolves into water and can be readily
transported in the groundwater flow system.
ES.2.0 Site Physical Features

The Nevada Test Site (Figure ES-3) occupies an area of approximately 3,500 square kilometers
(1,370 square miles) with dimensions varying between 46 and 56 kilometers (28 to 35 miles) in
width (east to west) and 64 and 88 kilometers (40 to 55 miles) in length (north to south). The
general layout of the Nevada Test Site, including general topographic and physiographic
features, is shown in Figure ES-3.
ES.2.1 Topography
The topography of the Nevada Test Site is typical of the Basin and Range physiographic
province of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah and is characterized by north-south-trending mountain
ranges, separated by broad, gently sloping valleys. Land surface elevations vary from about
910 meters (2,980 feet) above mean sea level in the south and east of the Nevada Test Site to
2,100 meters (6,890 feet) in the mesa areas to the north and west (Figure ES-3). The slopes of
the upland areas are steep and dissected, whereas the slopes on the lower areas are gentle and
ES-6
covered with erosional debris from the adjacent highlands. The topography of the Nevada Test
Site has been affected by subsidence craters formed by the collapse of underground nuclear shot
cavities.
ES.2.2 Climate
The climate of the Nevada Test Site is characterized by limited precipitation, large diurnal
changes in temperature, and winds that are dependent on the season and location. Precipitation is
important because it contributes to groundwater recharge. At the Nevada Test Site, precipitation
is light and is dependent upon altitude. Average annual precipitation on the mesa tops (Pahute
Mesa) is about 23 centimeters (9 inches), which includes wintertime snow accumulations.
Lower elevation areas such as Frenchman Flat (Figure ES-3) receive approximately
15 centimeters (6 inches) of precipitation annually with occasional snow accumulations lasting
only a few days. The annual average temperature is 19ECentigrade (66E Fahrenheit) in the
Nevada Test Site area; however, the temperatures vary widely with altitude and seasons. The
movements of large-scale pressure systems control the seasonal changes in the wind direction
frequencies. Predominating winds are southerly during summer and northerly during winter.
ES.2.3 Surface Hydrology

There are no perennial surface water bodies on the Nevada Test Site; however, the intermittent
flow in the drainage channels caused by flash floods may be the source of small amounts of
groundwater recharge. The major drainages that exist within the Nevada Test Site discharge to
the Amargosa River and the Amargosa Desert. Other drainages terminate in playas. These
drainages discharge off the Nevada Test Site boundary only occasionally, during the infrequent
flash floods, particularly from Fortymile Canyon (Figure ES-3).
Discharge from springs at the Nevada Test Site is limited to nine minor perched springs in the
eastern and northern areas. This discharge exhibits significant seasonal and annual fluctuations
and either infiltrates or evaporates downgradient from the discharge points, located within the
Nevada Test Site boundary. These waters are not used as drinking water supply sources.
ES.2.4 Geology
The geology of the Nevada Test Site and surrounding area consists of three major geologic units:
Precambrian and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, Cenozoic volcanic tuffs and lavas, and late
Cenozoic alluvium-filling valleys between the nearby hills of Cenozoic and Paleozoic rocks.
A schematic, north-south geologic cross section of the Nevada Test Site region (Figure ES-4)
shows the distribution of the major geologic units and their typical structural relationships.
ES-8
The Precambrian and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks are thousands of feet thick and represent
major sequences of clastic and carbonate sedimentation. The Precambrian and lower Cambrian
section consists of clastic rocks; the middle Cambrian through Devonian section consists
predominately of carbonate rocks; the Mississippian section consists mostly of clastic rocks; and
the Permian/Pennsylvanian section consists of carbonate rocks. The lowermost clastic rocks
have been locally elevated structurally. Where elevated, the overlying carbonate units are thinner
or missing due to erosion. Isolated Mesozoic granitic plutons occur within the region. Regional
Cenozoic volcanic rocks are predominantly rhyolitic tuffs and lavas extruded from several
volcanic caldera centers located in and near the Nevada Test Site. Primary calderas that affect
Nevada Test Site geology are the Silent Canyon Caldera and the Timber Mountain Caldera
complexes. Volcanic units associated with the calderas vary widely in distribution, thickness,
lithology, and degree of welding. Volcanic rocks are thickest near their caldera sources.
The pre-Cenozoic surface, on which the oldest volcanics were deposited, had substantial
topographic relief (up to 600 meters [1,970 feet]) that was later filled in by volcanic extrusions.
Minor associated Cenozoic sedimentary rocks include conglomerates, tuffaceous sandstones,
lacustrine limestones, and claystones. Late Cenozoic alluvial materials that fill the valleys were
derived from surrounding highlands of sedimentary and volcanic rocks. These alluvial-fill
deposits are up to 900 meters (2,950 feet) thick.
ES.2.5 Hydrogeology
Major hydrogeologic units defined for the Nevada Test Site region include: clastic confining
units, carbonate aquifers, volcanic aquifers and confining units, and the Alluvial Aquifer
(Figure ES-4). The entire sequence of hydrogeologic units may be missing or may be repeated in
some of the Nevada Test Site areas due to lack of deposition, normal faulting, melting and
replacement from plutons or caldera formation, or thrust faulting.
Groundwater occurs in the Alluvial, Volcanic, and Carbonate Aquifers and within the Volcanic
and Clastic Confining Units (Figure ES-4). Generally, the aquifer units have transmissivities
greater than 2.5 meters per day (8.2 feet per day), and the aquitards have transmissivities less
than 2.5 meters per day (8.2 feet per day). The zones of saturation may be regional,
semiperched, or perched. Regional groundwater flow occurs primarily within the lower
carbonate and volcanic aquifers. Perched groundwater is found locally throughout the Nevada
ES-10
Test Site. Depths to groundwater beneath the Nevada Test Site vary greatly. In the southern part
of the test site, depth-to-water ranges from about 10 meters (33 feet) in upper Fortymile Wash to
157 meters (515 feet) beneath Frenchman Lake (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975), compared to
more than 610 meters (2,000 feet) at Pahute Mesa in the northern Nevada Test Site.
Groundwater flow within the Nevada Test Site subsurface is dependent on the regional flow
system. The regional groundwater flow system is the subject of this evaluation and is described
in detail in later sections of this document. A limited amount of groundwater recharge occurs in
areas of the Nevada Test Site, such as Pahute Mesa. No groundwater discharge from the regional
flow system occurs on the test site. The general groundwater flow directions within the Nevada
Test Site groundwater flow system is southerly (Figure ES-5). Groundwater flow in many areas
is structurally controlled by faults, fractures, and caldera formations associated with Tertiary
volcanics. Regional groundwater flow in Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat occurs within the
major Cenozoic and Paleozoic hydrogeologic units.
ES.2.6 Environmental Resources

The flora and fauna of the Nevada Test Site and surrounding environs is comprised of the desert
shrub associations typical of both the Mojave Desert and Great Basins. Extensive surveys have
been conducted at the Nevada Test Site to characterize the biota on site. Federally endangered or
threatened species within the area are limited to the peregrine falcon (endangered, Falco
Peregrinus); the Western snowy plover (threatened, Charadrius alexandrinus); the mountain
plover (candidate, Charadrius montanus); and the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). Several
formerly federally protected species also retain protection by the Bureau of Land Management
and the State of Nevada.
A greater number of endemic species are found in the off-site spring areas than on the Nevada
Test Site. The area of greatest endemism is Ash Meadows, a major discharge of the regional
groundwater flow system located in the Amargosa Desert. Federally endangered species and
threatened species within the off-site areas include pupfish species, one turtle species, and three
birds species. Numerous species that were formerly federally protected are also protected by
Nevada and California regulations, the National Park Service, and/or the Bureau of Land
Management.
ES-11
ES.2.7 Land Use
The Nevada Test Site is not open to public entry for purposes such as agriculture, mining,
homesteading, or recreation. Off-site land uses within a 200-kilometer radius of the Nevada Test
Site Control Point (CP-1) include farming, mining, grazing, camping, fishing, and hunting.
Natural resources at the Nevada Test Site are managed under a five-party cooperative agreement
among: the DOE Nevada Operations Office, the U.S. Air Force, the Nevada Department of
Wildlife, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
ES.2.8 Demography
There are no permanent residents at the Nevada Test Site. The population density within a
150-kilometer (94-mile) radius of the Nevada Test Site is about 0.5 persons per square kilometer
(1.3 persons per square mile), excluding Clark County which contains the City of
Las Vegas, NV. The estimated average population density for all of Nevada (including
Clark County) was 2.8 persons per square kilometer (7.2 persons per square mile) in 1990. In
comparison, the 48 contiguous states (1990 census) had population densities of approximately
29 persons per square kilometer (74 persons per square mile).
The off-site area within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the Nevada Test Site is predominantly rural.
Several small communities are located southwest of the Nevada Test Site, the largest being
Pahrump Valley. This growing rural community has an estimated population of 15,000 and is
located 80 kilometers (50 miles) south of the Nevada Test Site. The Amargosa farm area, with a
population of about 950, is located approximately 50 kilometers (31 miles) southwest of the
Nevada Test Site. The largest town closest to the Nevada Test Site is Beatty which has a
population of about 1,900 and is located approximately 65 kilometers (40 miles) west of the test
site.
ES.2.9 Archaeological and Historical Resources

Because readily available surface water was the most important, single determinant governing
the location of human occupation, historic sites are often associated with prehistoric ones, both
being situated near springs. As a consequence of this superposition of historic occupation,
disturbance of certain aboriginal sites by modern man occurred long before use of the area as a
nuclear testing facility. The larger valleys show little or no evidence of occupation, and these
areas comprise almost the entire floors of Yucca, Frenchman, and Jackass Flats. Testing and
associated operational activities have generally been most intense in those parts of the Nevada
Test Site where archaeological and historic sites are absent. In contrast, there are many
ES-13
archaeological sites at the Pahute and Rainier Mesas testing areas. In addition to the
archaeological sites, there are also some sites of historical interest at the Nevada Test Site. The
principal sites include the remains of primitive stone cabins with nearby corrals at three springs,
a natural cave containing prospector's paraphernalia in Area 30, and crude remains of early
mining and smelting activities.
ES.3.0 Technical Approach

As stated earlier, one of the main objectives of the regional evaluation was to develop hydrologic
and risk models capable of predicting the migration of tritium from the underground test areas
and the associated risks to human health and the environment. To achieve this objective, it is
important to understand three key elements: the volume and concentration of the tritium source
to groundwater, the migration process of tritium in groundwater, and the locations of potential
human and ecological receptors of the tritiated groundwater.
The transport of tritium in groundwater is primarily dependent on the groundwater flow system
and the migration pathways it provides to tritium. The process of tritium transport may not be
easily defined in complex groundwater flow systems such as that of the Nevada Test Site.
Numerical hydrologic models are usually used to help understand such complex flow systems
and predict the movement of contaminants within them. Two types of hydrologic models are
usually required. The first model calculates only the movement of water and is commonly called
a “flow model.” The second type of model is a “transport model” which computes
concentrations of dissolved radioactive contaminants traveling within the groundwater flow
system. Risk models are then used to evaluate the doses and corresponding risks to human
health and ecological receptors, based on the contaminant concentrations calculated by the
transport model.
The flow model incorporates information on the hydraulic conductivity (ability of geologic
media to transmit water), thickness and areal extent of hydrogeologic units, and the locations and
rates of recharge and discharge. A three-dimensional groundwater flow code was used to
simulate groundwater flow and the hydraulic head (water level) distribution. In addition, a
particle-tracking code was used to define the specific pathlines followed by water particles
originating from the test sites. The code uses information on layer geometry, boundary
conditions, specific discharge rates (rates of moving water), and effective porosities (void space
ES-14
through which water moves) to calculate the velocities and positions of particles at different
times. The code was used to compute and display pathlines originating from individual
underground nuclear testing locations.
The transport model uses the information on groundwater flow directions and rates derived from
the flow model in conjunction with parameters describing the processes affecting the movement
and distribution of dissolved contaminants to calculate the concentration of tritium in time and
space. The selected contaminant-transport code is one-dimensional and stochastic (accounts for
uncertainties in the data). This code can simulate physical and chemical processes that affect the
migration of tritium in groundwater. Physical processes include advection and dispersion.
Advection is the transport caused solely by the movement of the groundwater, whereas
dispersion is the spreading caused by varying velocity of water and subsequent mixing within a
porous medium. Chemical processes may affect the contaminant in groundwater and retard its
movement relative to groundwater. A chemical process that is important for tritium transport is
matrix diffusion. Matrix diffusion occurs in fractured geologic media and represents the local
diffusion of tritium from the water in the fractures into the surrounding geologic media. In
addition, tritium is a radioactive contaminant and is subject to radioactive decay. The transport
code was used to predict tritium concentrations at potential human and ecological receptor
locations, along three of the fastest groundwater pathlines.
Risk assessment quantifies the relationship between tritium in the environment and the effect it
has on human health and ecological receptors. The risk assessment process follows tritium from
an exposure location, through intake by receptors, and finally to extrapolation to the resultant
risk. The mechanisms that enable tritium to be transported through the environment and taken
up by receptors were evaluated and quantified. For the human health risk assessment, scenario-
specific tritium intake mechanisms were coupled with tritium dose models and with cancer and
genetic risk estimates. Analytical expressions from the peer-reviewed technical literature were
then used to develop a spreadsheet-based computer model to calculate dose and risk from
tritium-contaminated groundwater. To the extent possible, site-specific data were applied in the
analytical expressions and models. Statistical techniques were used to sample from an assigned
distribution covering the range of the probable values for each parameter in the model. For the
ecological risk assessment, published radiological dose models for fish and wildlife were used.
ES-15
Following the selection of the modeling approach, the necessary data relating to geology,
hydrology, tritium fate and transport, and risk were compiled and evaluated. The data were then
employed to develop and to use groundwater flow, transport, and risk models following the
approach described above. A very conservative approach was adopted during the development
of the models to ensure that the risk to the public and the environment was not underestimated.
Although the flow model was designed to represent the “most likely”conditions, only the fastest
groundwater pathways were selected for transport simulations. The transport model and risk
assessment were designed to represent conditions that were closest to a “worst-case” scenario.
The intent was to evaluate what might happen if the contamination migrated through the fastest
paths without dilution, at the highest possible rate and reached a hypothetical homesteader or
miner. In this sense, the models serve a useful purpose in bounding the risk so that local-scale
studies may be conducted without worry of near-term public health risks.
ES.4.0 Conceptual Regional Groundwater Flow Model

A good understanding of the conceptual regional groundwater flow system is the basis for the
numerical groundwater flow model. To develop such an understanding, existing geologic and
hydrologic data relevant to the Nevada Test Site region were collected, evaluated, and
incorporated in a comprehensive description of the groundwater flow system. The ranges of
uncertainties associated with the geologic and hydrologic data were also evaluated.
ES.4.1 Groundwater Flow System Extent

The Nevada Test Site regional groundwater flow system (Figure ES-6) covers approximately
26,200 square kilometers (10,200 square miles) of the Death Valley groundwater flow system
and includes parts of Clark, Lincoln, and Nye Counties in Nevada, and Inyo County, California.
The area is bounded by Death Valley, the Funeral Mountains, Bullfrog Hills, and the Cactus
Range on the west; by the Kawich, Reveille, and Quinn Canyon ranges on the north; by the
Timpahute, Pahranagat, and Sheep ranges on the east; and by parts of the Spring Mountains, the
Resting Spring Range, and the Greenwater Range on the south.
ES.4.2 Hydrogeologic Framework

The hydrogeologic framework consists of a description of those geologic units that host the
regional groundwater flow system. The description includes the geologic and hydraulic
properties of the hydrogeologic units hosting the groundwater flow system.
ES-16
To describe the geology, a digital geologic model was developed. The geologic model consists of
the regional distribution and thickness of the aquifers and confining units and their depths relative
to the hydrologic basement. The geologic model also incorporates major structural features of
the hydrogeologic units that control groundwater flow within the regional flow system and,
therefore, the migration of contaminants.
Hydraulic parameters consist of hydraulic conductivity and effective porosity which control the
amount of groundwater moving and its velocity. Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of the
ability of the hydrogeologic units to transmit water. Effective porosity is that portion of the void
space within a geologic unit through which groundwater moves. The actual (advective)
groundwater velocities are calculated by dividing the specific discharges calculated by the
groundwater flow model by the effective porosity. Data on hydraulic parameters were gathered
and evaluated to help describe the hydrogeologic framework of the groundwater flow system.
The most expansive aquifer within the regional flow system is the Lower Carbonate Aquifer. This
is the most important aquifer in the region because of its wide distribution and its high
transmissivities. The regional distribution and thickness of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer are
spatially variable and controlled by the structural position of the underlying extensive Lower
Clastic Confining Unit. The Lower Carbonate Aquifer is the most transmissive aquifer in the
region (Table ES-1). The Lower Clastic Confining Unit is generally considered impermeable
Table ES-1
Range of Hydraulic Parameters for Major Aquifers
Hydraulic Conductivity Effective Porosity

Aquifer Mean Range Range
(m/d)a (m/d) (%)
Alluvial Aquifer 8.44 0.00005-83 31-35
Volcanic Aquifers 1.18 0.0003-12 0.00001-0.006

Carbonate Aquifer 31.71 0.0008-1570 0.0006-10
a
m/d = Meters per day
although it may locally exhibit hydraulic properties consistent with an aquifer due to fracturing.
Other regional hydrogeological units include the Alluvial Aquifer and Volcanic Aquifers. The
hydraulic conductivity for the Alluvial Aquifer is smaller than that of the Lower Carbonate
Aquifer, but it is higher than that of the Volcanic Aquifers. The distributions and thicknesses of
ES-18
the Alluvial Aquifer and Volcanic Aquifers are highly variable throughout the region and are
assumed to be discontinuous. In most instances, the Alluvial Aquifer is confined to the basin in
which it resides by surrounding mountain ranges. In general, these two aquifers are considered
depositional elements overlying the regional flow system and only influence regional flow in
localized areas. Their ability to transmit water is less than that of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer.
ES.4.3 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement

Groundwater occurrence and movement may be defined based on existing water-level data, areas
of recharge and discharge, and major geologic features (for example, barriers to flow).
Within the Nevada Test Site region, groundwater occurs within alluvial, volcanic, and carbonate
geologic units. Saturated alluvial materials are present in central and southern Yucca Flat,
Frenchman Flat, and Jackass Flats on the Nevada Test Site and in the basins located throughout
the flow system. Saturated Tertiary volcanics are present in the western section of the region.
The underlying Lower Carbonate Aquifer is the principal aquifer of the flow system. The Lower
Carbonate Aquifer forms a nearly continuous aquifer across the region except where interrupted
by calderas, truncated by structural controls, or penetrated by intrusive rocks. Depths to
groundwater vary greatly across the Nevada Test Site region. Groundwater occurs at more than
610 meters (2,000 feet) beneath Pahute Mesa in the northern Nevada Test Site and flows to
springs at discharge areas in Oasis Valley, Ash Meadows, and Death Valley.
Within the Nevada Test Site regional groundwater flow system, groundwater flows in a general
southerly direction, from recharge areas located in the higher altitudes of mountain ranges, to
discharge areas downgradient. Recharge occurs in the northern and eastern portions of the flow
system (Grant Range, Kawich Range, Belted Range, Pahute Mesa, Sheep Range), and discharge
occurs in the south-southwest (Death Valley, Oasis Valley, Ash Meadows) and in Penoyer
Valley (Figure ES-6). Regional groundwater flow is through the Lower Carbonate Aquifer and
is influenced by local confining units and structural features that control the position of the
Lower Clastic Confining Unit. Local volcanic aquifers overlying the regional system are of
relative importance due to their influence on vertical flow gradients in selected areas (example:
the Nevada Test Site).
The direction of groundwater flow is locally influenced in areas where structural and geologic
conditions have controlled the distribution and thickness of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer. In
some areas of the regional flow system groundwater encounters structural and geologic
ES-19
conditions, such as structural highs of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit, that promote an upward
flow component. The upward flow component brings water to discharge at the surface in the
form of a wet playa or springs. The discharge is then lost from the flow system through
evapotranspiration. Such discharge characteristics are observed at Oasis Valley, Penoyer Valley,
and Amargosa Flat. Conversely, there is groundwater flow between basins in the form of
subsurface inflow and outflow. Ultimately, however, the groundwater is lost from the
groundwater flow system at other surface discharge areas located downgradient (example:
Death Valley).
ES.4.4 Groundwater Budget

An estimate of the groundwater budget is an important part of understanding and modeling the
regional groundwater flow system. The groundwater budget consists of an inventory of recharge
and discharge. Under natural steady-state conditions, the total amounts of groundwater recharge
and discharge to a given flow system are equal. Recharge and discharge occur either through the
external boundary of the groundwater flow system or the surface.
Groundwater recharge to and discharge from the regional groundwater flow system may occur
through its external boundary (Figure ES-6). There is no groundwater crossing the boundary by
underflow along much of its length. The areas where underflow occurs include the boundaries
with Pahranagat Valley, Sarcobatus Flat, Pahrump Valley, and the Amargosa Valley near Eagle
Mountain. The greatest underflow occurs between Pahranagat Valley and Desert Valley along
the southern part of the Pahranagat Range where it is estimated that the flux across the boundary
is approximately one-third of the discharge at Ash Meadows. Groundwater discharges from the
system as underflow in the vicinity of Eagle Mountain.
Water may also recharge or discharge from the groundwater flow system from the surface in the
form of areal recharge from precipitation or evapotranspiration in regional discharge areas.
Areas of recharge were mostly assumed to correspond to precipitation areas. The greatest
recharge occurs on the Spring Mountains in the south, followed by the Sheep Range to the east.
Other mountain ranges in the Nevada Test Site groundwater flow system are areas of moderate
recharge. Lower-elevation areas such as Death Valley are not recharge areas. However, in some
areas such as Fortymile Canyon, recharge is known to occur. Thus, some of the recharge
assumed to occur at higher elevations was redistributed to lower elevations in the vicinity of the
ES-20
Nevada Test Site. Eight surface-discharge areas were identified: Penoyer Valley, Indian
Springs, Oasis Valley, Alkali Flat (also known as Peter’s Playa), Ash Meadows, Franklin
Lake/Playa, Amargosa River, and Death Valley.
The estimated total amount of groundwater recharge to the Nevada Test Site regional
groundwater flow system ranges between 183 and 360 thousand cubic meters per year (54 and
106 thousand acre-feet per year). The total amount of groundwater discharge ranges between
136 and 306 thousand cubic meters per year (40 and 90 thousand acre-feet per year). The wide
ranges of these estimates demonstrate the associated uncertainties.
ES.5.0 Numerical Regional Groundwater Flow Model

The numerical regional groundwater flow model was designed to provide a basis for predicting
the movement of contaminants from the underground test areas on a regional scale. It was also
intended to provide a means for evaluating the range of uncertainty in these predictions due to
uncertainties associated with the geologic and hydrologic data. In the future, the model will also
be used to provide boundary conditions for more detailed models of the underground testing
areas that are consistent with the regional groundwater budget. The numerical groundwater flow
model was developed to represent the conceptual model discussed in the previous section. The
development of this mathematical representation of the flow model consists of four major steps:
model set-up, model calibration, identification of flow paths from the nuclear test locations, and
sensitivity analysis.
ES.5.1 Numerical Model Set Up

Model set up is the process of preparing the data in the format required by the computer code.
Model set-up includes: the statement of all assumptions, the definition of a spatial grid, the
assignment of appropriate boundary conditions, the assignment of hydraulic property
distributions over the grid, and the distribution of recharge and discharge areas and rates over the
grid.
The major assumptions used in development of the numerical groundwater-flow model include
the following:
• At the scale of the regional model, movement of water in fractured rock can be
adequately described by flow in porous media.
ES-21
• The geologic units represented in the model are homogeneous or can be divided into
homogeneous zones.
• The hydraulic conductivity is assumed to decrease in an exponential manner with

increasing depth with the same geologic unit.
• The model represents steady-state conditions representative of the flow system prior to
groundwater development and underground nuclear testing.
• Because of the steady state assumption, the volumetric recharge is based on estimates of
discharge from the groundwater flow system.
To set up the groundwater flow model, the geologic model domain was subdivided into a three-
dimensional grid consisting of 68 columns by 76 rows and 20 layers. The large number of layers
was necessary to accurately simulate the geologic complexity of the thinner, hydrologically
significant hydrostratigraphic units, primarily located in Pahute Mesa and Yucca Flat, and to
increase numerical accuracy. The grid was constructed to more accurately simulate the
hydrology of the areas of concern which include the underground testing areas and downgradient
regions. It was also aligned with the average fracture direction in the primary testing areas of
concern, Pahute Mesa and Yucca Flat (Figure ES-6).
Boundary conditions were specified to match communication of the Nevada Test Site
groundwater flow system with neighboring flow systems as described in the conceptual model.
Initial recharge areas were defined over the grid and assigned rates based on the estimates
described above. Areas where groundwater exits the flow system through springs and
evapotranspiration were also defined on the grid. The initial estimates of hydraulic
conductivities were assigned to each of the layers, based on the geologic unit distribution across
a given layer, using the data discussed above.
ES.5.2 Model Calibration

Once the computer flow model was set, the model calibration was initiated. Calibration is a
procedure used in modeling to ensure that the computer model is representative of the real
groundwater flow system. Model calibration is usually conducted by varying the hydraulic
conductivities and recharge rates within their limits of uncertainties in sequential steps. Each
step consisted of modifying hydraulic conductivity or recharge in a given area and then
comparing the water levels and fluxes to the corresponding observed data (Fluxes include
boundary inflow and outflow and evapotranspiration rates.). This step was repeated until the
ES-22
model results matched the observed data within a predetermined calibration criteria. These
criteria were different throughout the flow model area; they were strictest in areas of concern
such as the underground test areas.
The calibrated model provided a good match overall and accurately reproduced several observed,
prominent features of the hydrology of the Nevada Test Site and surrounding areas. The high
gradient between Emigrant Valley and Yucca Flat along the northern border of Yucca Flat was
present as was the high gradient north of the Yucca Mountain area. The higher water levels in
the western part of Yucca Flat above the Upper Clastic Confining Unit were present. A
moderately low gradient across Timber Mountain, increasing to the north beneath Pahute Mesa,
was well-simulated. The very low gradient throughout most of the area underlain by the Lower
Carbonate Aquifer was present as was the moderate gradient between the Penoyer and Desert
Valleys. The high gradient between the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley was reproduced
along with the recharge mounds in the Spring Mountains, the Sheep Range, the Kawich Range,
and the Grant Range. The eastward gradient present in the western part of the Pahute Mesa
testing area was not well-developed in the model although there was a slight gradient reversal
present in this area.
ES.5.3 Groundwater Flowpath Identification

The flowpaths of groundwater from selected nuclear test locations were identified with the
particle-tracking code. Particle-starting locations were chosen (415 of them) so that each testing
area (Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa, Yucca Flat, Climax Stock, Shoshone Mountain, and
Frenchman Flat) was represented. Results indicated that the particles originating in the Pahute
Mesa testing area discharge in Oasis Valley. Particles originating in the eastern testing areas
(Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat) discharge in Death Valley or the Amargosa Desert, but not at
Ash Meadows. Particles originating in other testing areas did not leave the Nevada Test Site.
ES.5.4 Sensitivity Analyses

Sensitivity analysis is useful in the calibration process and in evaluating the effect of parameter
uncertainty on the model results. A parameter is said to be very sensitive if a given change in its
value causes a large change in the model results. Conversely, a parameter is said to be
insensitive if a given change in its value causes little change in the model results. Extensive
sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of parameter uncertainty on water-
level and boundary flux responses and on particle-tracking results.
ES-23
Two types of sensitivity analyses were performed. The first type involved changing basic
assumptions of the model such as using different versions of the regional geologic model and
different recharge distributions. The second type was a systematic variation of the hydraulic-
conductivity parameters, which consisted of both increasing and decreasing the values.
The sensitivity analysis of the different geologic models confirmed that a barrier to flow in the
area of Calico Hills westward to Bare Mountain was needed to match estimated discharge rates at
Oasis Valley and observed gradients in that area. This barrier was based on structural
relationships associated with the Belted Range Thrust and alteration of volcanic rocks in the
Claim Canyon caldera segment and northern Yucca Mountain. This interpretation was consistent
with geologic and hydrologic information in the area. The changes in the geologic model near
Penoyer Valley resulted in an improvement in the hydrologic model; however, a lower hydraulic
conductivity for the Lower Carbonate Aquifer in the northeastern part of the model than in the
southern part was still needed to match water levels and estimated fluxes in that part of the
model.
The results from the recharge sensitivity analysis indicate the following:
C The model responds in an approximately linear fashion to identical relative changes in the
recharge rates and hydraulic conductivities.
C Travel distances for particles on Pahute Mesa increase several-fold when the recharge
rates and hydraulic conductances are increased, while the increases for particles from
other testing areas are moderate.
C Use of the Maxey-Eakin recharge model caused a greater percentage increase in

discharge in higher gradient areas upgradient of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit barrier
(example: Penoyer Valley).
C Redistribution of recharge to downstream areas on and near the Nevada Test Site has
little effect on water levels, discharge rates, and particle movement.
Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of uncertainty in the specified flux
boundary conditions and in changes to hydraulic conductivity values other than those that were
evaluated as part of the systematic analysis. The results were as follows:
C The travel distance in Frenchman Flat is sensitive to the hydraulic conductivity of the
Alluvial Aquifer in Frenchman Flat, but the travel distances are likely to be short for
reasonable values of hydraulic conductivity values at the surface.
ES-24
C Removing the low-conductivity zonation in the vicinity of Black Mountain also removed
the potentiometric trough near Area 20 on Pahute Mesa. This indicates that the low
conductivity zone can explain the presence of the trough, but there may be other
interpretations that would provide similar results.
The sensitivity analysis performed on 116 hydraulic conductivity values showed that the effect
on water levels and boundary fluxes was small. The response in an area was dependent on local
conditions such as the geometric relationships between hydrogeologic units and the three-
dimensional extent of the hydrogeologic unit.
ES.6.0 Transport Model

The purpose of the transport model was to predict the regional-scale migration of tritium in the
groundwater flow system away from selected underground test locations. The simulations were
limited to tritium because this radionuclide was produced in the greatest abundance during
underground nuclear detonations, and it is mobile in the groundwater environment.
Objectives of the transport model were as follows:
• Calculate the tritium concentration in groundwater downgradient from underground test

locations. These concentrations are used in the ecological and human health risk
assessment calculations to assess the potential risks over a 200-year time frame.
• Assess the impacts of flow and transport parameter uncertainty on the predicted
downgradient tritium concentration. Assess the impact of uncertainty in different input
parameters on the predicted tritium concentration.
ES.6.1 Approach
Groundwater pathways were determined by tracking the movement of groundwater through the
three-dimensional groundwater flow system starting at underground test locations that are at or
below the water table. The particle tracking computer code follows an imaginary particle as it
flows through the groundwater flow system. The code defines the groundwater flow paths by
summarizing the travel times and distances from each starting location for each of the pathlines.
Three nuclear test locations (TYBO, HOUSTON, and BOURBON) were selected for tritium
transport simulations to represent pathlines from Western and Central Pahute Mesa as well as
from Yucca Flat.
The tritium transport simulations along each of the selected pathlines were made under a
conservative assumption. Tritium was assumed to stay on the pathline from the nuclear test
ES-25
location, that is, no lateral dispersion of contaminants away from pathline nor dilution of
contaminants by converging pathlines at the discharge location occur during the migration
process. This simulates a fast-track fracture pathway or conduit in which contaminant
concentrations are constrained from lateral movement, representative of a conservative, or
pessimistic, scenario.
The steps in the simulation of tritium transport within the Nevada Test Site regional groundwater
flow system were:
• Calculate groundwater pathlines from underground test locations at or below the water
table using a three-dimensional groundwater flow model.
• Select three of the fastest pathlines which were closest to the southern edge of a test area
for transport simulations to represent each of the main underground test areas.
• Identify parameter uncertainty for flow and transport parameters.
• Determine the form of the source term and the uncertainty in values.
• Simulate the transport of tritium along the pathways in a manner that accounts for the
uncertainties in the data.
• Determine the downgradient distance beyond which tritium concentration does not
exceed the maximum 20,000 picoCuries per liter standard set by the State of Nevada for
drinking water after 200 years.
• Determine how uncertainty in selected input parameters impacts results.
• Provide conservative tritium concentrations at preselected downgradient locations for risk

assessment.
The transport model required the following parameters to be defined at each node: initial tritium
concentrations, radioactive decay coefficient, specific discharge, dispersivity, effective and
matrix porosity, and the effective diffusion coefficient.
The maximum flow path length was 99 kilometers, based on preliminary scoping simulations.
Assuming an initial cavity concentration of 1×109 picoCuries per liter, the concentration decays
to less than 20,000 picoCuries per liter in slightly less than 200 years.
ES-26
It was assumed that tritium was evenly spread over the entire rock volume occupied by a sphere
of radius equal to approximately two times the estimated cavity radius. This assumption allowed
for a prompt injection zone around the actual cavity and resulted in larger (and therefore
conservative) initial concentrations.
ES.6.2 Results
One-dimensional tritium transport simulations were performed along the three selected pathlines
named after three nuclear tests: BOURBON conducted at Yucca Flat, HOUSTON on central
Pahute Mesa, and TYBO on western Pahute Mesa (Figure ES-7). For each pathline, sources of
tritium from other nuclear tests located along or near the same pathline were included in the
simulations. The BOURBON pathline originates at the KANKAKEE test location and passes
through the BOURBON and MICKEY/TORRIDO test locations. The HOUSTON pathline
originates at the HOUSTON test location and does not pass through any other test location. The
TYBO pathline starts at the PEPATO test location and passes through the KASH and TYBO test
locations.
The transport simulations indicate that at many downgradient receptor locations, the range of
maximum tritium activity was quite large, often extending over five orders of magnitude.
Simulated tritium activities were high in the vicinity of the nuclear test locations for all three
pathlines, but were low outside of the Nevada Test Site boundary for the BOURBON and
HOUSTON pathlines. However, for the TYBO pathline, transport simulations based on
conservative assumptions indicate that the highest potential tritium concentration could have
reached the end of the TYBO pathline 14 years after the release of tritium, assuming that the time
of release occurred as early as 1975, immediately following the nuclear detonation. The TYBO
pathline results are summarized in Table ES-2.
Several other observations were made based on these transport modeling results:
• The regional geology, as depicted in the geologic model, is the dominant factor controlling
the horizontal and vertical position of paths.
• Matrix diffusion is an important mechanism governing the migration of tritium in fractured

carbonate and volcanic rocks.
• Source term concentration uncertainty is most important near the nuclear test locations
and decreases in importance as the travel distance increases.
• The recharge coefficient which accounts for the total groundwater flux uncertainty is as
important as matrix diffusion at downgradient locations.
ES-27
Table ES-2
Peak Tritium Concentrations
At Selected Locations Along the TYBO Pathline
5% Level 50% Level 95% Level

Distance
from 5% Peak
Location 50% Peak 95% Peak
PEPATO Time Concentration Time e Time f
a b c Concentration Concentration
(km) (yr) (yr) (yr)
(pCi/L)d (pCi/L) (pCi/L)
PEPATO 0 0
0.10 8.5×106 4.4×107 0 2.3×108
(Edge of cavity)
TYBO location
9.80 and Nevada Test 3 3.0×106 3 2.4×107 1 1.2×108
Site boundary
Nellis Air Force

31.80 91 <1.0 23 1.6×104 9 7.3×106
Range boundary
Oasis Valley
37.10 100 <1.0 26 8.6×103 13 6.2×106
discharge area
Note: Concentrations are based upon several pessimistic assumptions to assure conservative, bounding values for input into the risk
assessment.
a
km = Kilometers
b
yr = Year
c
The concentration level which 5% of the modeled values are at or below.
d
pCi/L = PicoCuries per liter
e
f
• A 95% peak concentration means that 95% of the model runs, or realizations, predicted
concentrations at that level or lower. It does not mean that there is 95 percent confidence
that concentrations will be that high.
• The results presented at the 50 percent level are conservative and likely to be an
overestimate of what will occur in reality. The results presented at the 95 percent level
were intended to provide a bounding result which is, in reality, somewhat improbable.
ES.7.0 Risk Assessment

Human health and ecological risk assessments were performed to provide a conservative and
bounding estimate of potential risks to human and ecological receptors of tritium released as a
result of the underground detonation of nuclear devices. The risk calculations were based on the
conservative estimates of tritium concentrations derived from the transport model, assuming no
dilution and no mixing (Section ES.6.0).
ES-29
ES.7.1 Approach
The risk assessment process followed tritium from its point of origin along the three primary
pathlines described in Section ES-7.0 (Figure ES-7), and evaluated the various mechanisms that
cause tritium to reach individuals, human populations and ecological receptors.
The human health risk assessment quantifies tritium intake, dose, and risk to individuals from
exposure to tritiated groundwater. It also illustrates the relationship between the concentration of
tritium in groundwater and the effects it is expected to have on human health due to potential
land-use scenarios for adults and children.
The conservative tritium concentration distributions simulated by the transport model were
applied to the human exposure model which describes the transport of tritium from groundwater
to environmental media and then to humans. Sixty exposure locations were selected along the
three selected pathlines for each of six potential future land uses at the Nevada Test Site. Types
of land uses considered are agricultural, industrial, mining, recreational, residential, and tourism.
The exposure scenarios used were assumed to occur as a result of lands being relinquished by the
DOE for public use. The selected scenarios were conservative in order to provide a pessimistic
bounding calculation of risk.
Once the tritium transport and human exposure mechanisms were determined, the tritium intake
mechanisms were defined. Tritium intake mechanisms considered in the human health
evaluation were inhalation, skin absorption, and ingestion of tritiated food, water, and soil.
Environmental transport media were air, water, soil, and food. The doses and resulting risk to
human health were then calculated using standard dose and risk models.
Risk models were designed by coupling scenario-specific tritium intake with tritium dose models
and cancer and genetic risk estimates. Calculations were performed on spreadsheets using Monte
Carlo analytical techniques. The technique uses a random-number generator to sample for the
distribution of parameter values ten thousand times while performing a calculation.
The ecological risk assessment consisted of an evaluation of the seeps, springs, and wells located
downgradient from underground test areas. It also described risks to ecological receptors,
defined the contaminant benchmark concentration that will preclude unacceptable risk to the
receptors, and compared the benchmark concentrations to predicted concentrations in the
groundwater.
ES-30
The problem formulation phase of the assessment included the identification of the constituent of
concern, the conceptual site model, exposure pathways, and ecological endpoints. The
ecological exposure characterization briefly identified contaminant flow and transport
phenomena, identified specific ecological receptors, and quantified exposure point concentrations
for both primary and secondary exposure pathways. The ecological effects characterization
examined quantitative links between contaminant concentrations and effects on receptors.
Finally, the risk characterization portion of the assessment described potential risks to ecological
receptors and populations of interest.
ES.7.2 Results
Estimated radiation doses received by individuals from chronic exposure to tritium and the risks
at the selected exposure locations along each of the pathlines were calculated, based on each
land-use scenario. The land-use scenarios were postulated to be very conservative to ensure that
the calculated exposures would bound any realistic dose received by individuals. For each
pathline, the selected exposure locations includes a point near the source, the point where the
pathline crosses the Nevada Test Site boundary, the point where the pathline crosses the Nellis
Air Force Range boundary, and the point of groundwater discharge to the surface in the case of
the TYBO pathline (Figure ES-7).
The most conservative results of all child and adult scenarios are presented for each pathline.
The results are presented in terms of maximum simulated distances to points along the pathlines
representing regulatory limits or guides.
The regulatory limits set by the State of Nevada and the Department of Energy are as follows:
C The 20,000 picoCuries per liter tritium concentration represents the maximum
concentration limit for Nevada Drinking Water Standards.
C The 100 millirem dose represents the maximum allowable dose limit set by the
Department of Energy.
Regulatory guidelines relating to Superfund sites were also used for comparison purposes only.
They do not constitute regulatory limits that are applicable to DOE operations in Nevada. These
guidelines are as follows:
C The 10-4 lifetime total cancer incidence represents the risk level above which an
immediate interim remedial action must be taken at Superfund sites.
ES-31
C The 10-6 lifetime total cancer incidence represents the risk level below which no corrective
action is needed at Superfund sites.
The results associated with the BOURBON and HOUSTON pathlines are presented in
Tables ES-3 and ES-4, respectively. The maximum distances of the regulatory limit points are
presented at the 5, 50, and 95 percent levels. A given level on a maximum distance signifies
that the subject regulatory limit will not be exceeded beyond that distance at the specified level.
The estimated doses and risks discussed are for the most limiting land-use scenarios.
For the BOURBON pathline (Table ES-3), the largest maximum distance of all four regulatory
limits is 15 km (9 mi) at the 5 percent level, 20 kilometers (12 miles) at the 50 percent level, and
50 kilometers (31 miles) at the 95 percent level. None of the regulatory limits are exceeded
outside of the Nevada Test Site boundary at any of the three levels.
For the HOUSTON pathline (Table ES-4), the largest maximum distance of all four regulatory
limits is 2 km (1.2 mi) at the 5 percent level, 15 kilometers (9 miles) at the 50 percent level, and
42 kilometers (26 miles) at the 95 percent level. The 10-6 total cancer incidence risk is exceeded
at all receptor locations for the agricultural and residential land-use scenarios. At the 50 percent
level, none of the regulatory limits are exceeded outside of the Nevada Test Site boundary. At
the 95 percent level, the maximum tritium concentration limit of 20,000 picoCuries per liter is
exceeded outside of federal lands, in the Amargosa Desert. This location is, however, within
three miles of the Nellis Air Force Range boundary. At the 95 percent level, the 10-6 total cancer
incidence risk is exceeded along the entire HOUSTON pathline. Based on the human-health risk
evaluation along the BOURBON and HOUSTON pathlines, tritium exposures do not present a
hazard to human health off the Nevada Test Site in the present, in the near-term, or in the future.
However, results associated with the TYBO pathline are quite different.
The results associated with the TYBO pathline are presented in Table ES-5. The maximum
distances range between 12.5 and 30 kilometers (8 and 19 miles) at the 50 percent level for all
limits except the 10-6 lifetime total cancer incidence risk. This limit is exceeded at all locations
on the pathline. At the 95 percent level, all of the regulatory limits are exceeded outside of the
Nevada Test Site and the Nellis Air Force Range at the Oasis Valley discharge area.
ES-32
Table ES-3
Maximum Simulated Distances of Regulatory Limits and Guidelines
Along the BOURBON Pathline
Regulatory Limit Distance Distance Distance

from Location from Location from Location
Origina Originc Origind
20,000-pCi/L 15 km Nevada 20 km Nevada 35 km Nevada Test

b b
tritium (9 mi) Test Site (12 mi) Test Site (22 mi) Site
concentration
100-millirem dose 12.5 km Nevada 12.5 km Nevada 17.5 km Nevada Test

(8 mi) Test Site (8 mi) Test Site (11 mi) Site
10-4 Lifetime Total 15 km Nevada 15 km Nevada 30 km Nevada Test

Cancer Incidence (9 mi) Test Site (9 mi) Test Site (19 mi) Site
Risk
10-6 Lifetime Total 15 km Nevada 17.5 km Nevada 50 km Nevada Test

Cancer Incidence (9 mi) Test Site (11 mi) Test Site (31 mi) Site
Risk
Note: The locations of the regulatory limits are based upon several pessimistic assumptions to assure conservative and bounding
values.
a
The distance from the origin which 5% of the simulated regulatory limits are at or below.
b
mi = Miles
c
d
Table ES-4
Maximum Simulated Distances of Regulatory Limits and Guidelines
Along the HOUSTON Pathline

From Location From Location From Location
20,000-pCi/L tritium 2 km Nevada 14 km Nevada 42 km Amargosa

concentration (1.2 mi)b Test Site (8.7 mi)b Test Site (26 mi) Desert
100-millirem dose 0.2 km Nevada 2 km Nevada 15 km Nevada Test

(0.12 mi) Test Site (1.2 mi) Test Site (9 mi) Site
10-4 Lifetime Total <0.1 km Nevada 9 km Nevada 35 km Nellis Air

Cancer Incidence Risk (<0.06 mi) Test Site (6 mi) Test Site (22 mi) Force Range
10-6 Lifetime Total <0.1 km Nevada 15 km Nevada 40 km Amargosa

Cancer Incidence Risk (<0.06 mi) Test Site (9 mi) Test Site (25 mi) Desert
values.
a
b
mi = Miles
c
d
ES-33
Table ES-5
Maximum Downgradient Locations of Regulatory Limits and Guidelines
Along the TYBO Pathline

from Location from Location from Location
20,000-pCi/L 14 km Nellis Air 30 km Nellis Air 37 km Oasis Valley

b b
tritium (9 mi) Force Range (19 mi) Force Range (23 mi) Discharge
concentration Area
100-millirem dose <1 km Nevada Test 12.5 km Nellis Air 37 km Oasis Valley
(<0.6 mi) Site (8 mi) Force Range (23 mi) Discharge
Area
10-4 Lifetime Total 12.2 km Nellis Air 19.6 km Nellis Air 37 km Oasis Valley
Cancer Incidence (7.6 mi) Force Range (2 mi) Force Range (23 mi) Discharge
Risk Area
10-6 Lifetime Total 12.2 km Nellis Air 37 km Oasis Valley 37 km Oasis Valley
Cancer Incidence (7.6 mi) Force Range (23 mi) Discharge (23 mi) Discharge
Risk Area Area
values.
a
b
mi = Miles
c
d
Two complementary radiological dose models were used to evaluate risk to fish and wildlife. A
tritium concentration of 9.32×107 picoCuries per liter was selected as the threshold level for
protection of pupfish eggs in the spring ecosystems. Also, a dose of 1 rad/day to pupfish and a
dose of 3.6 rad/day for the heron were calculated as exposure thresholds, both corresponding to a
tritium concentration of 3.37×109 picoCuries per liter in spring discharge or irrigation ditch
water. Estimated tritium concentrations, calculated through fate and transport modeling at the
95 percent level, were not projected to exceed 6.2×106 picoCuries per liter at the spring
discharge points.
ES.8.0 Conclusions
The major conclusions derived from the groundwater flow modeling, transport modeling, and risk
assessment are summarized in the following text.
ES-34
A numerical model was developed and calibrated for the Nevada Test Site regional groundwater
flow system. Particle-tracking simulations based on the calibrated flow model and sensitivity
analyses were then conducted which led to the following conclusions:
C Groundwater flow paths from the Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat underground test areas
discharge either in Death Valley or the Amargosa Desert, but not at Ash Meadows.
C Groundwater flow paths from the Pahute Mesa testing area discharge in Oasis Valley.
C Groundwater flow paths from other testing areas do not leave the Nevada Test Site.
C Simulated water levels and fluxes are very sensitive to the interpretation of major
geologic features.
C Generally, particle travel distances doubled or tripled at specified times in response to a

50 percent increase in recharge and conductivities. The effect was not as significant
when recharge and conductivities were decreased.
C The redistribution of recharge to low-lying areas did not have a significant impact on the
simulated water levels.
C The sensitivity analysis performed on 116 hydraulic conductivity values showed that the
effect on groundwater flow was small.
A stochastic numerical transport model was developed to simulate tritium transport in

groundwater along three of the fastest groundwater paths from the underground test areas: the
BOURBON, HOUSTON and TYBO pathlines. The simulated tritium concentrations along these
fastest pathlines are higher because lateral dispersion and dilution from adjacent clean water were
not considered. The major conclusions are as follows:
C Based on transport simulations along the BOURBON and HOUSTON pathlines, the
maximum concentration limit of 20,000 picoCuries per liter for tritium in groundwater
will not likely be exceeded outside of the Nevada Test Site.
C Based on transport simulations along the TYBO pathline and the incorporation of several
conservative assumptions, the maximum concentration limit of 20,000 pCi/L for tritium
in groundwater could be exceeded outside of the Nevada Test Site, at Oasis Valley.
ES-35
Near-term, bounding risks to human health and biota were calculated based on tritium migration
predictions from nuclear tests associated with the BOURBON pathline, the HOUSTON pathline,
and the TYBO pathline. The conclusions are as follows:
C In the near term, tritium migration from the HOUSTON and BOURBON nuclear test
locations does not contribute to human health hazards off the Nevada Test Site.
C As a result of the high ecotoxicological thresholds associated with tritium exposure,

future ecological risks are not anticipated to occur.
C As a result of the conservatively high estimates of tritium concentrations along the TYBO
pathlines, the calculated human health risks at receptor points along this pathline are
higher than 10-4.
In spite of this conclusion, the estimated risks from the TYBO pathline are not supported by
results from the existing environmental monitoring network. Long-term monitoring of water
samples from the Oasis Valley springs and groundwater wells west and south of the Pahute Mesa
do not show tritium levels above the background levels. As the transport model was intended to
predict contaminant levels if multiple pessimistic conditions existed, monitoring results support
the conclusion that tritium is migrating at a more normal, nonexceptional rate. In other words,
the monitoring results confirm the premise that the conservative modeling approach used was
likely to overestimate tritium transport.
ES-36
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to present the results of a regional evaluation of the highest,
potential, current and near-term risk to the public and the environment from possible groundwater
contamination downgradient of the underground testing areas of the Nevada Test Site (NTS).
The highest potential risk is determined by assuming that several unusually rapid transport
pathways and exposures factors are encountered at once. These assumptions ensure that risks to
the public and the environment are not underestimated; however, risks are likely to be significantly
overestimated using this approach.
1.1 Project Background

Various types of underground nuclear tests were conducted at the Nevada Test Site in southern
Nevada between 1951 and 1992 by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD). These tests resulted in groundwater contamination in the
immediate vicinity of these underground test areas. To ensure protection of the public and the
environment, the DOE Nevada Operations Office established a long-term monitoring program in
1972 to detect the presence of any radioactivity that may be related to nuclear testing activities.
Sampling results have shown that no contamination from the underground test areas has been
found at off-site locations. However, contamination has been found in groundwater samples from
wells located near the nuclear test locations on the Nevada Test Site (DOE, 1995), and studies
have raised the possibility of radionuclide movement (i.e., Borg et al., 1976; Laczniak et al.,
1996c). The Pilot Study Risk Assessment for Selected Problems at the Nevada Test Site (NTS)
(Daniels, 1993) also predicted that tritium could migrate to off-site areas several decades after
underground testing stopped. Based on these studies, the DOE Nevada Operations Office
initiated an investigation of the underground test areas to ensure protection of the public and the
environment.
The purpose of the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Subproject has been to define the regional
and site-specific hydrologic boundaries encompassing groundwater resources that may be unsafe
for domestic or municipal use. The first part of the project is a regional evaluation which is the
subject of this report. The main objectives of the regional evaluation were to develop
groundwater flow and transport models representative of regional conditions, to use them in
determining potential immediate risks to human health and the environment, and to provide focus
and priorities for ongoing local investigations. The second part of the investigation consists of
1-1
focus and priorities for ongoing local investigations. The second part of the investigation
consists of several local studies, focused on estimating contaminant movement and developing
boundaries that encompass the extent of contaminant migration from the underground testing
areas.
1.2 Site Background

Background information about the NTS is provided in this section, including its location, a
history of the operations conducted there, and a description of the underground test areas.
1.2.1 Site Location

The NTS is located in southern Nye County, Nevada, approximately 105 kilometers (km)
(65 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, and 360 km (224 mi) southeast of
Reno, Nevada (Figure 1-1). The Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) and the Tonopah Test Range
(TTR) surround the NTS, providing a 24- to 104 km (15- to 65-mi) separation between nuclear
test areas and public lands. In combination, the NAFR, the TTR, and the NTS comprise one of
the largest unpopulated land areas in the United States, covering some 14,200 square kilometers
(km2) (5,480 square miles[mi2]) (DOE, 1992a).
1.2.2 History of Operations

Although the NTS has been the site of various types of operations (DOE, 1992a), the focus of the
UGTA Subproject is the subsurface area and the associated sources of contamination to
groundwater. Thus, this history of operations at the NTS is presented with emphasis on
underground nuclear testing.
Between 1945 and 1962, atmospheric and underground tests were conducted at several remote
locations in the United States and in the South Pacific. Extensive logistical planning and large
shipments of materials and test equipment were required to perform these remote tests. To
decrease the amount of time required for an atmospheric nuclear test at a remote location, the
NTS was selected as the location which met the logistics criteria. It has also proved ideally suited
for underground tests (ERDA, 1977). Since July 1962, all nuclear tests conducted by the
United States have been underground, and most have been at the NTS (DOE, 1994).
The first underground nuclear test at the NTS (RAINIER) was conducted in a tunnel under the
Rainier Mesa on September 19, 1957 (DOE, 1994). Since 1962, nearly all tests have been
conducted in either the unsaturated or saturated zones of the subsurface through vertical shafts
1-2
drilled into either the valley floor of Yucca Flat, the top of Pahute Mesa, or in horizontal tunnels
mined into the face of Rainier Mesa (DOE, 1994). Beginning in 1992, a moratorium on nuclear
testing was enacted by the U.S. Government, which halted nuclear testing at the NTS. As a
result, no nuclear tests have been performed at the NTS since 1992; however, in the interest of
national defense, a state of readiness and the capability to resume testing continues to be
maintained.
1.2.3 Underground Nuclear Testing

Underground nuclear testing conducted at the Nevada Test Site included a total of 908 tests
conducted in shafts and tunnels at depths ranging from 27 to 2,452 meters (83 to 4,764 feet)
below ground surface. These underground tests were conducted at 878 locations, some of which
contained multiple tests (Figure 1-2). Of the 878 underground testing locations, 717 are in Yucca
Flat, 10 in Frenchman Flat, 18 in Western Pahute Mesa, 64 in Central Pahute Mesa, 66 in the
Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain area, and three in the Climax Mountain area (FFACO, 1996).
About one-third of the underground nuclear tests were conducted near or below the water table
(IT, 1996g).
In general, steps involved in conducting an underground nuclear test include test hole drilling and
preparation, nuclear device and rack emplacement, backfilling, device detonation, and re-entry
hole drilling (Bryant and Fabrika-Martin, 1991). During the device detonation, radioactive
material is released in the puddle glass, crushed zone, and chimney rubble. During detonation of
tests conducted at or below the water table, groundwater is evacuated from the shot cavity and
then slowly seeps back into the cavity after the detonation (Borg et al., 1976).
The total mass of radioactive elements that are present following an underground nuclear
detonation is called the radiologic source term. The minor portion of the radiologic source term
that is not tightly contained within the melted rock and metal residues, and which can be dissolved
or transported with groundwater, is called the hydrologic source term. Only limited information
based upon actual field data is available regarding the actual composition of the hydrologic source
term. The three predominant types of potential contaminants associated with the source term are:
in situ material or those contained within the device which have not undergone fission or
thermonuclear reaction; direct products of the nuclear reactions, such as fission products; and
radionuclides produced by activation of the fuel, materials used within the test, and materials
injected into the surrounding geologic layers during the nuclear test.
1-4
During the nuclear test, large quantities of materials used to support the test were introduced into
the shafts and tunnels (Bryand and Febrika Martin, 1991). These materials included steel used to
support the device, lead and magnetite used as shielding material, and cement and gravel used to
backfill the opening. In addition, nuclear devices commonly contained fissionable or fusionable
radioactive elements in the critical mass for detonation. These elements included uranium (235U),
plutonium (239Pu), tritium, and lithium. Small amounts of radiochemical detectors were also used.
Incomplete consumption of these radioactive materials during detonation from testing would
leave them within the subsurface for potential leaching to groundwater.
1.2.4 Impact on Groundwater

During detonation of tests conducted at or below the water table, groundwater is displaced from
the shot cavity and then seeps back into the cavity after the detonation. As the water seeps back
into the shot cavity and rubble chimney, leaching of radionuclides to the groundwater begins.
Radionuclides are also introduced into the groundwater through the prompt injection that occurs
during the detonation. Groundwater might also be impacted from tests conducted in the
unsaturated zone through leaching of radionuclides by downward percolating precipitation and
surface runoff through the rubble chimney. The types of contaminants present in the subsurface
as result of a nuclear test are briefly discussed in the following text.
Nuclear devices commonly contain fissionable or fusionable radioactive elements in the critical
mass for detonation. These elements include uranium, plutonium, tritium, and lithium. Also,
small amounts of radiochemical detectors (isotopes of uranium, plutonium, americium, or curium)
and radioactive tracers (yttrium, zirconium, thulium, and lutetium) have been used in the weapons.
Tritium is commonly found in the subsurface either as unconsumed material from a fusion
detonation, as a direct fission product, or from neutron activation. Tritium is important because it
easily dissolves into water and can be readily transported in the groundwater flow system. Borg
et al. (1976) estimated the cumulative amount of tritium deposited below or near the water table
to be about 3 kilograms (kg) at Yucca Flat and 10 kg at Pahute Mesa. The quantity of tritium at
Frenchman Flat is believed to be relatively smaller. This estimate is based upon a total of 78 tests
that had been detonated at or below the water table at that time (Borg et al., 1976).
1-6
1.3 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the regional evaluation described in this report was to assess the effects of the
underground testing on groundwater, including assessing the risk from tritium contamination.
The scope of the regional evaluation includes the development of hydrologic models and risk
models for the test site region. The scope also includes the use of the hydrologic and risk models
to make predictions, to understand the physical system and processes, and to prioritize further
UGTA activities. The hydrologic models were used to predict tritium transport in groundwater
and to identify the most important variables that affect the movement of tritium. Transport
predictions were used to identify the groundwater pathways and points of exposure to human and
ecological receptors. The risk models were used to evaluate risk to human health and to the
ecological receptors.
1.4 Regional Evaluation Completion Process

The process used to complete the regional evaluation consisted of several steps: regional
evaluation, documentation of approach and results, peer reviews, and incorporation of peer-
review comments. Peer review was an integral step of the process to ensure the validity of the
data analysis approach and subsequent results.
The regional evaluation consisted of data analysis, model development, and model predictions.
Various data relating to geology, hydrology, tritium fate and transport, and risk were compiled
and evaluated. The data were then used to develop groundwater flow, transport, and risk models.
The models were then used to assess both the current and potential impacts to groundwater. The
details of the technical approach that were used for data analysis are provided in Section 3.0 of
this report.
The preliminary results of the regional evaluation were peer-reviewed by subject matter experts in
the fields of geology, hydrogeology, and risk assessment. The peer reviewers provided their
feedback on the technical approach and the subsequent results through meetings and formal
comments. Based on the peer review comments, the data analysis and the models were revised
and submitted for another peer review. Based on the resulting comments, the data analysis and
models were revised to produced the results.
Following completion of the data analysis, the data, the approach used, and the results were
summarized in this report and documented in detail in eight packages as follows: Regional
Geologic Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996a); Potentiometric Data Documentation
1-7
Package (IT, 1996b); Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Data Documentation Package
(IT, 1996c); Hydrologic Parameter Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996d); Transport
Parameter and Source Term Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996e); Groundwater Flow
Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f); Tritium Transport Model Documentation Package
(IT, 1996g); and Risk Assessment Documentation Package (IT, 1996h).
1.5 Report Organization

This section outlines the contents of the entire report and summarizes the interrelationships
between the sections. Figure 1-3 depicts the sequence and relationship of the report sections
which are described as follows:
C Section 1.0 is the introduction to the report, presenting the NTS background, the purpose,
and the scope of the regional evaluation and the process used.
C Section 2.0 contains a description of the NTS and vicinity, including the physical
features.
C Section 3.0 describes the regional evaluation purpose and scope, objectives, and technical
approach. As a part of the technical approach, the hydrologic modeling needs and
processes are defined. Data storage and management and quality assurance issues are
introduced here; however, full details are provided in Appendix A.
C Section 4.0 includes the data compilation and evaluation activities associated with the
development of the geologic model. The data used, the methodology, and the
uncertainties are discussed.
C Section 5.0 details the assessment activities that include data compilation and evaluation of
hydrogeologic data associated with the groundwater flow model. Section 5.0 also
documents the specific methods and tasks of data evaluation leading to the modeling.
C Section 6.0 describes the conceptual groundwater flow model. Results from the geologic
and hydrogeologic data analysis (Sections 4.0 and 5.0) are integrated in the
conceptualization.
Sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 represent the information requirements for the development of the
numerical groundwater flow model.
C Section 7.0 presents a description of the numerical groundwater flow model including the
approach and assumptions, the results, and the associated uncertainties and limitations.
Information described in Sections 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0 was used to develop the numerical
model.
1-8
• Section 8.0 addresses assessment activities including the compilation and evaluation of
data associated with the tritium transport model. Section 8.0 also documents the specific
methods and tasks of data evaluation needed for the numerical transport model.
• Section 9.0 describes the numerical tritium transport model including the conceptual
model, approach and assumptions, results, and associated uncertainties and limitations.
The solute transport model uses velocities calculated along selected flow pathlines and the
data described in Section 8.0 to calculate solute concentrations along the pathlines.
• Section 10.0 explains the risk assessment process for human health and the environment.
Risk is calculated at potential receptor locations along the selected pathlines, using tritium
concentrations calculated by the transport model (Section 9.0). The approach,
assumptions, results, and associated uncertainties and limitations are discussed.
• Section 11.0 summarizes the report and includes the main conclusions.
• Section 12.0 is a list of the references cited in the report.
This document summarizes and discusses the results of the regional evaluation. The reader is
referred to the supporting data analysis documentation packages (IT, 1996a; 1996b; 1996c;
1996d; 1996e; 1996f; 1996g; and 1996h) for detailed technical discussions and a comprehensive
presentation of data and figures.
1-10
2.0 Site Physical Features
A description of the physical features of the Nevada Test Site and vicinity is presented in this
section with an emphasis on areas located hydraulically downgradient from the underground
testing areas. The physical features which relate to the scope of the regional evaluation in the
region include the extent of the area, topography and terrain, climate and meteorology, surface
water, geology, hydrogeology, environmental resources, demography, and archaeological and
historical resources. The geology and hydrogeology of the area are the subject of this regional
evaluation and are discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections. Two documents provided
the information contained in this section: Environmental Assessment for the Groundwater
Characterization Project, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada (DOE, 1992c) and the Nevada
Field Office Annual Site Environmental Report for 1994 (DOE, 1995).
2.1 Site Description

The Nevada Test Site (Figure 1-1) occupies an area of approximately 3,500 km2 (1,350 mi2) with
dimensions varying between 46 and 56 km (28 and 35 mi) in width (east to west) and 64 and
88 km (39 and 55 mi) in length (north to south) (DOE, 1995). Figure 2-1 shows the general
layout of the NTS, including general physiographic areas, locations of major facilities, and the
NTS-designated area numbers referenced in this report. The shaded areas in Figure 2-1 indicate
the principal underground nuclear testing areas.
2.2 Topography and Terrain

The topography of Nevada Test Site is typical of the Basin and Range physiographic province of
Nevada, Arizona, and Utah and is characterized by north-south-trending mountain ranges,
separated by broad, flat-floored, and gently-sloping valleys as shown in Figure 2-2. Land surface
elevations vary from about 910 meters (m) (2,985 feet [ft]) above mean sea level in the south and
east of the NTS to 2,100 m (6,888 ft) in the mesa areas to the north and west. The slopes of the
upland areas are steep and dissected, whereas the slopes on the lower areas are gentle and
alluviated with rock debris from the adjacent highlands (DOE, 1995).
The local topography of the NTS has been affected by nuclear testing, and the principal effect has
been the creation of numerous dish-shaped surface subsidence craters, particularly in Yucca Flat.
Most underground nuclear tests conducted in vertical shafts resulted in surface subsidence
2-1
craters when the overburden above a nuclear shot cavity collapsed and formed a rubble chimney
to the surface. A few craters have also been formed as a result of tests conducted on or near the
surface during atmospheric testing or by shallow depth-of-burial cratering experiments
(DOE, 1995).
2.3 Climate and Meteorology

The climate of the Nevada Test Site is characterized by limited precipitation, large diurnal changes
in temperature, and winds that are dependent on seasonality and location.
Although precipitation is limited, it is an important aspect of the NTS climate because it

contributes to groundwater recharge. Precipitation at NTS is typical of Southern Nevada where
precipitation is very light and dependent upon altitude. At the NTS, mesas receive an average
annual precipitation of 23 centimeters (cm) (9 inches [in.]), which includes wintertime snow
accumulations (DOE, 1995). The lower elevations receive approximately 15 cm (6 in.) of
precipitation annually with occasional snow accumulations lasting only a few days
(Quiring, 1968). The average annual precipitation distribution of the NTS region is presented
in detail in Section 5.0 of this report.
The annual average temperature is 19 degrees centigrade (EC) (66 degrees Fahrenheit [ EF]) in the
NTS area (NOAA, 1991); however, the temperatures vary with altitude and seasons. At an
elevation of 2,000 m (6,560 ft) above mean sea level in Area 20 on Pahute Mesa, the average
daily maximum/minimum temperatures are 4.4E/-2.2EC (39.9E/28.0EF) in January and
26.7E/16.7EC (80.1E/58.7EF) in July. At an elevation of 1,200 m (3,936 ft) above mean sea level
in Area 6 at Yucca Flat, the average daily maximum/minimum temperatures are 10.6E/-6.1EC
(51.1E/21.0EF) in January and 35.6E/13.9EC (96.1E/57.0EF) in July (DOE, 1995).
The movements of large-scale pressure systems control the seasonal changes in the wind direction
frequencies. Predominating winds are southerly during summer and northerly during winter. The
general downward slope in the terrain from north to south results in an intermediate scenario that
is reflected in the characteristic diurnal wind reversal from southerly winds during the day to
northerly winds at night. This north to south reversal is strongest in the summer and, on
occasion, becomes intense enough to override the wind regime associated with large-scale
pressure systems (DOE, 1995). At higher elevations in Area 20, the average annual wind speed is
17 kilometers per hour (km/hr) (11 miles per hour [mph]), and in Area 6 at Yucca Flat, the
average annual wind speed is 11 km/hr (7 mph) (DOE, 1995).
2-4
2.4 Surface Hydrology
There are no perennial surface water bodies on the Nevada Test Site; however, the intermittent
flow in the drainage channels caused by flash floods may be the source of small amounts of
groundwater recharge. There are six major drainages within the NTS that discharge to the
Amargosa River and to the Amargosa Desert, west and south, respectively, of the test site
(Figure 2-3); the other six major drainages terminate in valley-bottom playas (DOE, 1992c).
Drainages rarely discharge off the NTS boundary; however, infrequent flash floods occasionally
discharge from the NTS, particularly from Fortymile Canyon.
On the NTS, discharge from springs emanating from local perched groundwater systems is limited
to nine minor springs in the eastern and northern portions (Figure 2-4) and ranges from
approximately 0.014 to 2.2 liters per second (L/s) (0.22 to 35 gallons per minute [gal/min]).
Discharge from springs exhibits significant seasonal and annual fluctuations and either infiltrates
or evaporates downgradient from the outflow points. These waters are not used as drinking
water supply sources (DOE, 1992c).
2.5 Geology
The geology of the Nevada Test Site and the surrounding area is the product of a complex
history, marked by major structural events (ERDA, 1977). The historical events that shaped the
stratigraphy and structure of the region during the Precambrian, Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and
Tertiary geologic times are described in this section. For a view of the surficial geology of the
area, the reader is referred to the State of Nevada Geologic Map (Stewart and Carlson, 1977).
2.5.1 Precambrian and Paleozoic

The lowermost and oldest rocks in the NTS region are Precambrian in age. This region of the
western United States was a stable, continental margin from Late Precambrian time until Late
Devonian time (middle Paleozoic). During the period of Late Precambrian to Early Cambrian, a
thick section of sandstone and minor shales was deposited over the whole model area. A thick
section of predominately carbonate sediments from Late Cambrian to Late Devonian time was
deposited on top of those clastic rocks. During the Mississippian Era, uplift north and west of the
investigation area resulted in erosion and deposition of thick sandstones interfingering with marine
shelf shales in a foreland basin. During the Pennsylvanian Age, the basin was filled, and
2-5
shallow marine carbonates were deposited on the Mississippian clastics. More than 10,600 m
(34,700 ft) of Paleozoic and late Precambrian sediments were deposited over the model area.
This stratigraphic section is detailed, and regional stratigraphic correlations are shown in Table 2-1.
2.5.2 Mesozoic
During the Mesozoic Era, regional crustal shortening of the Sevier orogeny (mountain forming
process) produced large-scale, complex contractional features such as thrust fault systems, folds,
and wrench faults. The entire model area was affected by the contraction with regional
detachments and generally north-south-trending predominant thrust systems (Armstrong, 1968).
Locally the stratigraphic sections were repeated vertically because of thrusting. The Sevier
orogenic zone may have been extended prior to late Mesozoic time and the intrusion of granitic
plutons.
2.5.3 Tertiary
Following the Sevier orogeny, the highlands were severely eroded and late Precambrian clastic
rocks were exposed at the surface locally. Following erosion throughout most of the early
Tertiary Period, the area in and around the Nevada Test Site began to be pulled apart along
normal and strike-slip faults associated with the formative stages of the modern Basin-and-Range
structural province (Guth, 1981; Wernicke et al., 1988; Cole et al., 1989). Eruptions of the
Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field (SWNVF) occurred in the Middle Tertiary Period
(Sawyer et al., 1990; Warren et al., 1989). Successive eruptions produced no less than seven
large, partially overlapping calderas which were filled with lava flows and blanketed surrounding
Paleozoic and Precambrian rocks with vast deposits of tuff. Volcanic rocks now cover parts of
the NTS region.
Stratigraphic nomenclature of the SWNVF (Ferguson et al., 1994) is shown in Table 2-2. The
volcanic units in Table 2-2 are listed in relative depositional order with the oldest at the bottom of
the table. Volcanic units vary widely in distribution, thickness, lithology, and degree of welding
with respect to distance from their source caldera. At most localities, only a partial section is
present. North of the NTS, volcanic units other than those listed in Table 2-2 are present. For
simplicity, they were lumped together in the geologic model and are not detailed here.
2-8
Table 2-1
Pre-Tertiary Stratigraphic Correlation/Death Valley Drainage Basin
MONTGOMERY
NEVADA BARE CACTUS RANGE BELTED PAHRANAGAT SHEEP SPRING MOUNTAINS/ FUNERAL ESMERALDA
TEST SITE MOUNTAIN TRAPPMAN HILLS RANGE RANGE RANGE MOUNTAINS NOPAH RANGE MOUNTAINS COUNTY
a Pennsylvanian
PENNSYLVANIAN Tippipah Ls. Bird Spring Ls. Bird Spring Ls. Bird Spring Ls.
Ls. (undiff.)
Scotty Wash
b
MISSISSIPPIAN *Eleana Fm. Eleana Fm. Eleana Fm. Eleana Fm. Chainman Sh.c Chainman Sh.
& Chainman Perdido Fm.
Joana Ls. Joana Ls. Monte Cristo Ls. Monte Cristo Ls.
Shale Narrow Canyon
Pilot Sh. Tin Mountain Ls.
U. DEVON. Guilmette Ls. Rocks of Guilmette Ls. Guilmette Ls.

DEVONIAN
SILURIAN/
Simonson Fm. Simonson Fm. Sultan Ls. Guilmette Ls. Lost Burro Fm.
M. DEVON. Simonson Fm. Tarantula Canyon Simonson Fm. Simonson Fm.
Simonson Fm.
L. DEVON. Sevy Ds. d Lone Mountain Ds. Sevy Ds. Sevy Ds. Sevy Ds. Sevy Ds.
PALEOZOIC
SILURIAN Laketown Ds. Roberts Mountain Fm. Roberts Mountain Fm. Laketown Ds. Laketown Ds. Laketown Ds. Hidden Valley Fm. Hidden Valley Fm.
Laketown Ds.
UPPER
ORDOVICIAN
Ely Springs Dolostone

Eureka Quartzite
MIDDLE
Antelope Valley Ls.
2-9
Ninemile Fm. Pogonip Group Palmetto Fm.

LOWER
Goodwin Ls.
UPPER Nopah Formation
CAMBRIAN
Emigrant Fm.
Bonanza King Formation
MIDDLE
Carrara Formation Mule Springs Ls.

LOWER
Harkless Fm.
Wood Canyon Formation Poleta Fm.
PRECAMBRIAN
(PROTEROZOIC)
PRECAMBRIAN
Campito Fm.
Stirling Quartzite Deep Spring Fm.
Reed Ds.
Johnnie Formation Wyman Fm.
Older Precambrian Metamorphic Rocks
*In the southeastern portion of the NTS, the Mississippian section is represented by the Mercury Limestone which is correlative to the Monte Cristo Limestone.
The Upper Carbonate Aquifer consists of all Pennsylvanian strata, plus Mississippian sections that do not include Eleana Formation.
The Upper Clastic Confining Unit consists of the Eleana Formation.
The Lower Carbonate Aquifer consists of all Devonian, Silurian, and Ordovician strata, plus the Nopah Formation, the Bonanza King Formation, and the upper half of the Carrara Formation.
The Lower Clastic Confining Unit consists of the lower half of the Carrara Formation, the Wood Canyon Formation, and all Precambrian units. The predominantly clastic facies of Esmeralda
County is also included in the Lower Clastic Aquitard.
a
b Limestone
c Formation
d Shale
Dolomite
Table 2-2
Tertiary Stratigraphy of the NTS Region
Stratigraphy Stratigraphy
Stratigraphic Unit Stratigraphic Unit
Symbol Symbol
Volcanics of Fortymile Canyon Tf Bullfrog Tuff Tcb
Timber Mountain Group Tm Tram Tuff Tct
Ammonia Tanks Tuff Tma Belted Range Group Tb
Rainier Mesa Tuff Tmr Dead Horse Flat Formation Tbd
Tuff of Holmes Road Tmrh Grouse Canyon Tuff Tbg
Rhyolite of Sorugham Peak Tps Team Ridge Group Tr
Paintbrush Group Tp Tunnel Formation Tn
Tiva Canyon Tuff Tpc Volcanics of Quartz Mountain tq
Topopah Spring Tuff Tpt Volcanics of Big Dome Tu
Volcanics of Area 20 Ta Tub Spring Tuff Tub
Calico Hills Formation Tac Older Volcanics To
Volcanics of Area 20 Ta Tunnel Bed 2 Ton2
Wahmonie Formation Tw Yucca Flat Tuff Toy
Tuff of Mara Wash Tww Tunnel Bed 1 Ton1
Crater Flat Group Tc Redrock Valley Tuff Tor
Crater Flat Group Tc Fraction Tuff Tof
Prow Pass Tuff Tcp Paleocolluvium Tl
Source: Ferguson et al., 1994
Tertiary crustal extension and consequent normal faulting was greatest after eruption of the
SWNVF. The extension caused severe tilting, large vertical displacements, and lateral translation
of upper crustal fault blocks. Modern alluvial basins have been filled with as much as 1,200 m
(3,900 ft) of coarse gravels, sands, and localized deposits of playa silt and clay.
2.6 Hydrogeology
The Nevada Test Site groundwater flow system is part of the regional groundwater flow system
which is discussed in later sections. A description of the NTS regional groundwater flow system
is provided in Section 6.0. The NTS hydrostratigraphy and groundwater occurrence and
movement are presented followed by a description of the groundwater radiological monitoring
network.
2-10
2.6.1 Hydrostratigraphy
Geologic formations of hydrologic significance in the NTS subsurface and vicinity have been
grouped in seven major hydrogeologic units by Winograd and Thordarson (1975). These
hydrogeologic units are classified as either aquifers or aquitards. An aquifer is defined as a
saturated, permeable geologic unit that can transmit significant quantities of water under natural
hydraulic gradients, whereas an aquitard is defined as a saturated geologic unit that is incapable of
transmitting significant amounts of water under the same conditions (Freeze and Cherry, 1979).
As stated by Freeze and Cherry (1979), these definitions are fairly generic with respect to
transmissivity, so that the two terms may be used in a relative sense. Generally, the aquifer units
have transmissivities greater than 2.5 meters per day (8.2 feet per day [ft/d]), and the aquitards
have transmissivities less than 2.5 m/d (8.2 ft/d).
Winograd and Thordarson (1975) defined seven major hydrogeologic units (HSUs) within the
NTS region. These units include, from oldest to youngest: the Lower Confining Unit, the Lower
Carbonate Aquifer (LCA), the Eleana Confining Unit, the Upper Carbonate Aquifer, the Volcanic
Aquifers (VAs) and Volcanic Confining Units (VCU), and the Alluvial Aquifer (AA). The entire
sequence of hydrostratigraphic units may not be present or may be repeated in some of the study
areas due to lack of deposition, normal faulting, melting and replacement from plutons or caldera
formation, or thrust faulting. The LCA is the most extensive and transmissive aquifer in the
region. The VAs which control groundwater flow in the mesa areas are moderately transmissive.
The AA forms a discontinuous aquifer on the NTS.
The lower confining unit is generally present beneath the NTS except in caldera complexes. This
unit is designated as the basement rock. The LCA is also present beneath the NTS and the
vicinity, although it does not control regional groundwater flow beneath the saturated volcanics
within the caldera complexes. The Upper Confining Unit is present in the north-central section of
the NTS and restricts flow between overlying and underlying units; the degree of structural
continuity within the formation in areas of imbricate (overlapping) faulting has not been
determined. Saturated Tertiary volcanics are generally present in the western sections of the
NTS, and the presence of saturated alluvial materials is generally restricted to central and
southern Yucca Flat, Frenchman Flat, Jackass Flats, and the Amargosa Desert.
2.6.2 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement

Within the Nevada Test Site subsurface, groundwater occurs in the alluvial, volcanic, and
carbonate aquifers and within the Volcaniclastic Confining Units (VCCUs). The zones of
saturation may be regional, semiperched, or perched as defined by Winograd and
2-11
Thordarson (1975). Regional groundwater flow occurs primarily within the Lower Carbonate
and Volcanic Aquifers. Perched groundwater is found locally throughout the NTS and occurs
locally within the tuff aquitards wherever aquitards compose ridges or hills that lie above the
regional zone of saturation (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975). In the highlands, springs emerge
from perched groundwater lenses. Spring discharge rates are low, and this water is used only by
wildlife.
Depths to groundwater beneath the NTS vary greatly. In the southern NTS, depth-to-water
ranges from about 10 m (33 ft) in upper Fortymile Wash to 157 m (515 ft) beneath Frenchman
Lake (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975), compared to more than 610 m (2,000 ft) at Pahute Mesa
in the northern NTS. In the eastern portions of the NTS, the water table generally occurs in the
alluvium and volcanic rocks above the LCA.
Groundwater flow within the NTS subsurface is dependent on the regional flow system. The
regional groundwater flow system is the subject of this evaluation and is described in detail in
Section 6.0 of this report. Regional groundwater recharge and discharge are discussed in
Sections 5.0 and 6.0. A limited amount of groundwater recharge occurs in areas of the NTS,
such as Pahute Mesa. No groundwater discharge from the regional flow system occurs on the
NTS. General groundwater flow directions within the NTS groundwater flow system are
depicted in Figure 2-5. Groundwater flow in many areas is structurally controlled by faults,
fractures, and caldera formations associated with Tertiary volcanics. Regional groundwater flow
in Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat occurs within the major Cenozoic and Paleozoic
hydrostratigraphic units. The general groundwater flow direction is southerly. Winograd and
Thordarson (1975) hypothesized that groundwater from Cenozoic units flows between Yucca Flat
and Frenchman Flat through the underlying lower carbonate aquifer. In addition, horizontal
gradients within the saturated volcanic units exist and may indicate groundwater flow toward the
central areas of Yucca and Frenchman Flats prior to vertical infiltration.
Pahute Mesa is located in the northwestern part of the NTS (Figure 2-5). Groundwater in this
area occurs in volcanic aquifers and confining units and moves south and southwest through Oasis
Valley, Crater Flat, and western Jackass Flats (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973) toward points of
discharge in Oasis Valley, Alkali Flat, and Furnace Creek. The amount of recharge to Pahute
Mesa and the amount of flow to the discharge points are not accurately known. Vertical
gradients within Pahute Mesa suggest that flow may be downward in the eastern portion of the
mesa, but upward in the western part (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973).
2-12
The Rainier Mesa test area is located between Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa. Groundwater in this
area occurs in the volcanic aquifers and confining units, Lower Carbonate Aquifer, and tuffaceous
and Lower Clastic Confining Units (LCCU). The Volcanic Aquifer and Volcanic Confining Units
support a semiperched groundwater lens. Nuclear testing at Rainier Mesa was conducted within
the tuff confining unit. Studies conducted by Thordarson (1965) indicate that the perched
groundwater is moving downward into the LCA. Regional groundwater flow from Rainier Mesa
may be directed either toward Yucca Flat or, because of the intervening upper clastic aquitard,
toward the Alkali Flat discharge area to the south. Groundwater flow in the shallower units of the
NTS is generally toward major valleys, such as Yucca and Frenchman Flats, and includes a
downward hydraulic gradient component to the LCA.
2.6.3 Groundwater Radiological Monitoring

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) operates a nationwide Long-Term
Hydrological Monitoring Program (LTHMP) instituted by the U.S. Department of Energy,
Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) in 1972. Under the LTHMP, the EPA’s Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada (EMSL-LV), conducts radiological
monitoring of wells on the Nevada Test Site and of wells, springs, and surface water in areas
located outside and downgradient from the NTS (DOE, 1995). As of 1994, the LTHMP
monitoring locations off the NTS are presented in Figure 2-6.
All sampling locations on the NTS were selected by the DOE and are mainly sources of drinking
water. Samples are analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides by gamma spectrometry and for
tritium by the enrichment method. In samples collected in 1994, no gamma-emitting radionuclides
were detected. The highest tritium activity was detected in a sample from Well UE-5n. This
activity was 2.6x104 picoCuries per Liter (pCi/L) which is less than 33 percent (%) of the Derived
Concentration Guide for tritium. Several other wells have shown activities above the minimum
detectable concentration (DOE, 1995).
The sampling locations outside of the NTS include 23 water wells, seven springs, and one surface
water site. Except for three wells located in Penoyer Valley, all locations are sampled on a
monthly basis and are subjected to gamma-spectrometry. Tritium analysis is performed on a
2-14
semiannual basis. No gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in any of the samples in 1994.
Tritium has been detected at only three off-site locations over the last decade: Lake Mead Intake
located near Boulder City to the east of the NTS, Adaven Spring located near Adaven to the
northeast of the NTS, and Specie Springs located near Beatty to the west of the NTS. For all
three locations, the detected tritium activity represents negligible environmental levels that have
been decreasing over the last decade (DOE, 1995).
2.7 Environmental Resources

An understanding of the environmental resources of the Nevada Test Site region is important in
the risk evaluation. Environmental resources of the NTS described in this section include
ecological features, land use, demography, and archeological and cultural resources. The
discussion refers to locations that are physically on the NTS as “on site” and those areas outside
of NTS as “off site.”
2.7.1 Ecological Features

Ecological features are particularly important to the ecological risk evaluation. A summary
description of the biota of the Nevada Test Site region, with emphasis on the species of concern,
is provided. A detailed listing and discussion of the species is provided in the Risk Assessment
The flora of the NTS region is composed of the desert shrub associations typical of both the
Mojave and Great Basin Deserts or the transition desert between these two. The fauna of the
NTS region consists of various species of mammals, birds, and reptiles which inhabit the Nevada
Test Site and the off-site spring areas such as Ash Meadows, Oasis Valley, Furnace Creek, and
Amargosa Canyon. The area of greatest endemism is Ash Meadows. Microorganisms are known
to be present in the aquifers and aquitards beneath NTS. Work is in progress to identify these
organisms, and there is a possibility that unknown species may be present (Russell, 1996).
Federally endangered or threatened species within the area are limited to the peregrine falcon
(endangered, Falco Peregrinus); Western snowy plover (threatened, Charadrius alexandrinus);
mountain plover (candidate, Charadrius montanus); and desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).
Several formerly federally protected species also retain protection by the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) and the State of Nevada.
2-16
Federally endangered and threatened species within the off-site areas include one species of
endangered pupfish, one species of turtles, and three species of birds. Numerous species that
were formerly federally protected are also protected by Nevada and California regulations, the
National Park Service, and/or the BLM.
2.7.2 Land Use

The Nevada Test Site is not open to public entry for purposes such as agriculture, mining,
homesteading, or recreation. Figure 2-7 is a map showing the wide variety of off-site land uses
such as farming, mining, grazing, camping, fishing, and hunting, within a 200-km (124-mi) radius
of the NTS Control Point (CP-1). Natural resources at the NTS are managed under a five-party
cooperative agreement among: the DOE Nevada Operations Office, the U.S. Air Force, the
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS). Because of the nature of land use at the NTS over the last four
decades, it is unlikely that the area will be returned to public use in the foreseeable future
(DOE, 1992c).
The Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) was originally withdrawn from public use in 1940 for
training of World War II bomber pilots and crews. Those withdrawals were renewed by Congress
in 1986 for a period of 15 years. Buildings, roads, and targets at NAFR occur in limited
locations; thus, most of the land is not actually used by the Air Force, but simply provides a safety
buffer between Air Force activities and adjacent public land. No co-use of the lands for mining,
grazing, or other activities is currently allowed (DOE, 1992c).
Elevations west of NTS range from 85 m (279 ft) below mean sea level in Death Valley to
4,400 m (14,436 ft) above mean sea level in the Sierra Nevada Range, including parts of one
major agricultural valley. The areas south of the NTS are more uniform because the Mojave
Desert ecosystem (mid-latitude desert) comprises most of this portion of Nevada, California, and
Arizona. The areas east of NTS are primarily mid-latitude steppes with some of the older river
valleys, such as the Virgin River Valley and Moapa Valley, supporting irrigation for small-scale,
but intensive farming of a variety of crops. Grazing is also common in this area, particularly
toward the northeast. The area north of NTS is also a mid-latitude steppe where the major
agricultural activity is grazing of cattle and sheep. Minor agriculture, primarily the growing of
alfalfa hay, is found in this portion of the state within 200 km (124 mi) of CP-1 (DOE, 1992c).
2-17
Recreational areas lie in all directions around NTS and are used for such activities as hunting,
fishing, and camping.
In general, the camping and fishing sites to the northwest, north, and northeast are used in spring,
summer, and fall. Camping and fishing locations to the southeast, south, and southwest are used
throughout the entire year. The peak hunting season is from September through January
(DOE, 1992c).
2.8 Demography
The population distribution in counties surrounding the Nevada Test Site is presented in Figure 2-8.
Most of the numbers presented in this discussion and shown in Figure 2-8 are based on the
1990 census; updated numbers are provided where available.
There are no permanent residents at the NTS. Excluding Clark County (population over
1,032,161 in 1995) which has Las Vegas as its major population center, the population density
within a 150-km (93-mi) radius of the NTS is about 0.5 persons per square kilometer
(DOE, 1996c). In comparison, the 48 contiguous states (1990 census) had population densities
of approximately 29 persons per square kilometer. The estimated average population density for
Nevada in 1990 (including Clark County) was 2.8 persons per square kilometer (DOE, 1992c).
The off-site area within 80 km of CP-1 is predominantly rural. Several small communities are
located southwest of CP-1, the largest being Pahrump, NV. This growing rural community, with
an estimated population of 15,000, is located 80 km (50 mi) south of CP-1. The Amargosa farm
area, which has a population of about 950, is located about 50 km (31 mi) southwest of CP-1.
The largest town in the near off-site area is Beatty which has a population of about 1,900 and is
located approximately 65 km (40 mi) west of CP-1 (DOE, 1992c).
The Mojave Desert of California, which includes Death Valley National Monument, lies along the
southwestern border of Nevada in Inyo and San Bernardino counties (Figure 2-8). The National
Park Service has estimated that the population within the Monument boundaries ranges from a
minimum of 200 permanent residents during the summer months to as many as 5,000 tourists and
campers on any particular day during the major holiday periods in the winter months. As many as
30,000 visitors are in the area during “Death Valley Days” in the month of November. The
largest nearby populated area in this desert, nearly 28,000 people, is the Ridgecrest-China Lake
area (California), about 190 km (118 mi) southwest of the NTS. The
2-19
next largest, in the Barstow, California, area located 265 km (165 mi) south-southwest of the
NTS, had a 1991 population of 21,000. The Owens Valley, where numerous small towns are
located, lies 50 km (31 mi) west of Death Valley. The largest town in Owens Valley is Bishop,
located 225 km (140 mi) west-northwest of NTS, with a population of 3,500 (DOE, 1992c).
The extreme northwestern region of Arizona is mostly range land except for that portion in the
Lake Mead Recreation Area. In addition, several small communities lie along the Colorado River.
The largest towns in the area are Bullhead City, Arizona, 165 km (102 mi) south-southeast of
NTS, with a 1991 population estimate of 22,000, and Kingman, Arizona, located 280 km (174
mi) southeast of the NTS, with a population of about 13,000 (DOE, 1992d).
2.9 Archaeological and Historical Resources

Archaeological and historical resources are usually associated with locations where water was
naturally available. Human habitation of the Nevada Test Site area ranges from as early as 10,000
B.C. to the present. Various aboriginal cultures occupied the NTS area over this extended period
as evidenced by the presence of artifacts at many surface water sites and more substantial deposits
of cultural material in several rock shelters. This period of aboriginal occupation was sustained
primarily by a hunting and gathering economy based on using temporary campsites and shelters.
The area was occupied by the Paiute Indians in 1849 when the first known outside contact was
made (DOE, 1992c).
Because readily available surface water used to be the most important, single determinant
governing the location of human occupation, historic sites are often associated with prehistoric
ones, both being situated near springs. As a consequence of this superposition of historic
occupation, disturbance of certain aboriginal sites by modern man occurred long before use of the
area as a nuclear testing facility. The larger valleys show little or no evidence of occupation.
These areas comprise almost the entire floors of Yucca, Frenchman, and Jackass Flats. Thus,
testing and associated operational activities have generally been most intense in those parts of
NTS where archaeological and historic sites are absent. In contrast, there are many
archaeological sites at the Pahute and Rainier Mesas testing areas (DOE, 1992c).
In addition to the archaeological sites, there are also some sites of historical interest at NTS. The
principal sites include the remains of primitive stone cabins with nearby corrals at three springs, a
natural cave containing prospector’s paraphernalia in Area 30, and crude remains of early mining
and smelting activities (DOE, 1992c).
2-21
Prior to the NTS land withdrawal in 1941 as part of the Las Vegas Army Air Field School, the
area encompassed by NTS was used for mining, grazing, and hunting. Most mining at the NTS
was an outgrowth of the great gold and silver discoveries at Tonopah, Goldfield, Bullfrog, and
Rhyolite, Nevada, during the first decade of the twentieth century. In addition to the numerous,
uninventoried prospector and temporary mining camps that resulted from this activity, major
mining districts were established at Oak Springs, Mine Mountain, and Wahmonie (Nevada).
Ranching never occurred on a grand scale because of the isolation and extreme aridity of the NTS
area. However, small ranches that focused on gathering wild horses were established at the major
hot springs in the area, including Tippipah, Topopah, Cane, White Rock, Captain Jack, Oak, and
Tub Springs.
2-22
3.0 Technical Approach
Modeling and risk assessment approaches cover a wide range of data needs as well as the various
models used for specific types of parameters and objectives. The purpose of this section is to
describe the objectives of the regional evaluation, the contaminant of potential concern, and the
extent of the evaluation area. It also presents the specific technical approaches used to perform
the hydrologic and risk modeling. A flow diagram summarizing the technical approach is
presented in Figure 3-1.
3.1 Objectives
One of the main objectives of the regional evaluation was to develop hydrologic and risk models
capable of predicting the migration of tritium from the underground test areas and the associated
risks to human health and the environment. Specific goals of the regional evaluation included the
following items:
• Compilation of existing and newly acquired data for development of conceptual

hydrologic and risk assessment models
• Development of a numerical, three-dimensional groundwater flow model to evaluate the

regional conditions
• Development of a numerical solute transport model to evaluate the transport of tritium in

groundwater from the source areas to potential receptor locations
• Evaluation of the highest credible risk to human health and the environment from
contaminated groundwater beneath the Nevada Test Site
3.2 Contaminant of Potential Concern

As discussed in Section 1.2.4, the underground detonation of nuclear devices at the Nevada Test
Site has resulted in the release of a variety of radionuclides to the groundwater. However, tritium
was selected as the contaminant of potential concern for the regional evaluation because of its
abundance, its low attenuation in groundwater, and its radioactivity. Essentially, all of the
tritium released from the underground nuclear testing has formed water, either by oxidation or
exchange (Stead, 1963). In this form, tritium moves and behaves, both chemically and
physically, as water in the groundwater flow system. In the near term (within the next 200 years),
tritium is expected to be the only contaminant of concern.
3-1
3.3 Investigation Area
As described in Section 1.0, the smallest regional groundwater basin that fully encompasses the
groundwater flow system underlying the NTS is a portion of the Death Valley groundwater basin,
referred to as the NTS regional groundwater-flow system (Figure 3-2). The boundaries defined
by Waddell et al. (1984) for this flow system were used as the starting point.
The selected area of investigation is large enough to allow for potential expansion of the northern
and western groundwater flow system boundaries (Figure 3-2). This area covers a large part of
southern Nevada and part of Inyo County in eastern California and extends from Death Valley,
north to Antelope Valley and from the Palmetto Mountains, east to the Sheep Range, over an
area of 80,650 km2 (31,140 mi2).
3.4 Hydrologic Modeling Approach

Predicting the movement of contaminants in complex groundwater flow systems usually requires
the use of two different types of numerical models. The first type of model calculates only the
movement of water and is commonly called a flow model. The second type of model is a
transport model which computes concentrations of dissolved radioactive contaminants traveling
in subsurface media.
A flow model incorporates information about the hydraulic conductivity, thickness, and areal
extent of hydrogeologic units and the locations and rates of recharge and discharge of
groundwater. Flow models provide information on the directions and rates of groundwater flow.
The movement of groundwater is affected by the following:
• Types and thicknesses of the geologic units

• Hydraulic conductivities of the geologic units
• Distribution and rates of groundwater recharge
• Location of groundwater discharge areas
The hydrologic behavior of fractured media, such as those present within the investigation area,
may be modeled as the following: a porous-media equivalent, a network of discrete fractures,
and a dual-porosity media. Under the porous-media-equivalent approach, it is assumed that on
the scale being modeled, there is a large enough number of connected fractures to ensure that the
media behave as porous media. The discrete-fracture approach more closely simulates the
fractured media, but becomes computationally difficult when the number of fractures is large. It
models water and contaminant movement in individual fractures within a network of fractures.
3-3
The dual-porosity-media approach is an attempt to offset the problems associated with the other
two approaches and assumes that most of the fractured media can be modeled as a porous-media
equivalent and that only the large fractures need to be modeled as discrete fractures.
A groundwater flow system is said to be under steady-state conditions when the amount of water
that recharges the system is equal to the amount of groundwater that discharges from the system.
Under such conditions, the system is in equilibrium, and water levels are stable. Groundwater
flow systems under natural conditions are usually assumed to be under steady-state conditions;
groundwater flow systems that have been disturbed by man or major natural events are said to be
under transient conditions. In a transient groundwater flow system, the water levels and the
amount of groundwater in storage change with time. For example, man-imposed stresses (such
as pumping) cause a decrease in both storage and water levels. Underground nuclear testing may
also cause a transient response of the flow system. The assumption of steady-state conditions is
suitable when simulating the behavior of groundwater flow systems with negligible effects from
pumping or other transient stresses.
A transport model simulates the processes affecting the movement and concentration of
dissolved contaminants as follows:
• Advection (transport caused by movement of the water)
• Dispersion (spreading caused by varying velocity of water and subsequent mixing within
a porous medium)
• Chemical reactions (such as sorption, ion exchange, and precipitation or dissolution of

solids containing the contaminant)
• Diffusion into low-permeability materials or matrix diffusion
• Radioactive decay
The transport model includes equations to calculate changes in concentration due to these
processes with distance and time. The flow model provides the information needed to account
for the advective process in the transport model.
The selected approach was to develop a three-dimensional groundwater flow model using the
porous-media-equivalent assumption, to generate pathlines using the particle-tracking technique,
and to simulate one-dimensional tritium transport along the pathlines. The models selected to
3-5
implement this approach and their data requirements are presented in the following sections.
Their relationships are depicted in the flow diagram summarizing the technical approach
(Figure 3-2).
3.4.1 Selected Models

Three models were used to simulate groundwater flow, particle pathlines, and tritium
concentrations. A three-dimensional groundwater flow model, MODFLOW (McDonald and
Harbaugh, 1988), was first used to simulate groundwater flow and the hydraulic head
distribution. A particle-tracking code, MODPATH (Pollock, 1989), was then used to define the
specific pathlines of particles originating from the nuclear test cavities. Finally, MC_TRANS
(IT, 1996i), a one-dimensional contaminant-transport model, was used to predict tritium
concentrations along the pathlines and at potential ecological receptor locations.
MODFLOW was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the numerical simulation
of three-dimensional saturated groundwater flow in porous media, and it was designed to
simulate flow under both steady-state and transient conditions. By invoking an equivalent
porous media assumption, the code may also be used to simulate flow in fractured media.
MODPATH was developed by the USGS to compute and display three-dimensional pathlines
based on results of steady-state simulations using MODFLOW. The program uses information
about layer geometry, boundary conditions, and flux rates to calculate the velocities and
positions of particles at different times. MODPATH was used to compute and display pathlines
originating from individual underground nuclear testing locations throughout the weapons testing
areas. MODPATH also provided specific discharge distributions along the pathlines which were
used in the transport model.
MC_TRANS (IT, 1996i) was developed specifically for this project. This finite-element, one-
dimensional, radionuclide transport model is capable of simulating advection in a dual-porosity,
fractured system with dispersion, sorption, and first-order decay. The code may be used in a
deterministic or stochastic mode based on the Monte Carlo or the Latin hypercube sampling
techniques. It was used to simulate the concentrations of tritium downgradient from selected
nuclear test sites. The code was used in the stochastic mode to evaluate the uncertainties
associated with the predicted tritium concentrations.
3-6
3.4.2 Data Needs
Data needed to achieve the objectives of the regional data analysis are:
• Geologic and hydrologic data for regional groundwater flow and transport modeling
• Transport parameter and source data for tritium transport modeling
MODFLOW data requirements include geologic framework, hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic

head, and groundwater recharge and discharge data. Estimates of the uncertainties that are used
to define the input variable bounds and the output variable target ranges for use in the model
calibration process and the uncertainty evaluation are also needed. MODPATH data
requirements include layer geometry, boundary conditions, specific discharge rates calculated by
MODFLOW, and effective porosity data.
MC_TRANS requires transport parameter data, including matrix porosity, effective porosity,
dispersion, and tritium matrix diffusion data. Tritium source data needed for the transport model
include the initial spatial extent and concentration of the tritium source.
3.4.3 Implementation
The implementation of hydrologic modeling consists of developing a geologic model, setting up
the flow model using MODFLOW, calibrating the flow model, defining the groundwater flow
pathlines, and simulating tritium concentrations using the transport model.
Geologic data were compiled and incorporated into a comprehensive geologic model that
consists of hydrostratigraphic unit elevations, including major structural effects such as unit
displacements. Hydrologic data were collected and prepared for MODFLOW, MODPATH, and
MC_TRANS.
MODFLOW was set up to simulate groundwater flow in the fractured media of the NTS regional
groundwater flow system by invoking an equivalent porous media assumption. This assumption
implies that at the scale of the model, the hydraulic behavior of fractured geologic units is
analogous to that of porous media.
The model for the NTS regional groundwater flow system was developed through the process of
steady-state calibration. The calibration of the steady-state flow model was performed using the
trial-and-error technique. Transmissivities were first varied within predetermined bounds to
match the simulated heads and flux rates with predefined target values derived from observed
3-7
data. Second, the recharge rates and distribution were modified, as needed, to achieve a
reasonable calibration.
The groundwater flow model was calibrated to observed conditions using the trial-and-error
technique which consists of two major steps. First, the hydraulic conductivities were varied
within predetermined bounds to match the simulated hydraulic heads and boundary fluxes with
predefined target values derived from observed data. Second, the recharge rates and distribution
were modified, as needed, to satisfy a set of predetermined calibration criteria. After calibration
was achieved, MODFLOW data were used in MODPATH to identify the pathlines followed by
particles placed in selected shot cavities.
Groundwater pathlines were determined by tracking the movement of groundwater through the
three-dimensional system from underground test locations that are at or below the water table.
MODPATH was used to track an imaginary particle as it flowed through the system defined by
the flow model. The locations of the particle were recorded using the PATHLINE option.
Effective porosity values appropriate for each HSU along the pathline were assigned, and travel
times were calculated. Three shot locations (TYBO, HOUSTON, and BOURBON) were
selected to represent pathlines from each of the major testing areas, and the pathlines were
discretized for use by the transport model.
Concentrations of tritium were then simulated along the pathlines generated by MODPATH for
selected nuclear shots using MC_TRANS. Processes modeled for tritium include advection,
dispersion, and matrix diffusion. Matrix diffusion is thought to be an important process within
the geologic framework of NTS and vicinity because preliminary carbon-14 velocities are
significantly smaller than estimated advective velocities.
3.5 Risk Assessment Approach

Risk assessment quantifies the relationship between a contaminant in an environmental media
(e.g., tritium in groundwater) and the effect it has on human health and ecological receptors. The
general risk assessment process consists of the evaluation of tritium at an exposure location and
its intake by receptors and the computation of the resultant risk. The risk assessment describes
the mechanisms that enable tritium to be transported through the environment and taken up by
receptors. Though there are similarities in the general concepts, significant differences exist
3-8
between the methodologies for performing human health and ecological risk assessments. The
specific approaches and selected models for each type of assessment are discussed below.
3.5.1 Human Health Risk Assessment

The approach used in the human health risk assessment is based upon coupling three types of
models. The first model evaluates the circumstances under which intake of contamination by a
human receptor may occur and is called an intake model. The second model calculates the
amounts of contamination intake by humans and is called a dose model. The third model
calculates the risks associated with the doses to human receptors and is called a cancer and
genetic risk model.
The intake model describes the movement and concentration of tritium through the
environmental and biotic media and the tritium intake by the human dose receptor. It
incorporates information on the fraction of groundwater released to the atmosphere, soil, and
surface water as a function of the land use (e.g., agricultural, industrial, mining, residential,
recreational, and tourism). The tritium movement and concentration through the environmental
and biotic media and the resultant intake by individuals are affected by the following:
• The land-use scenario and type and quantity of groundwater use
• The fraction of the tritium taken up from the environmental media by crops, beef and
dairy cattle, and human dose receptors
• The consumption rates of the dose receptors (e.g., ingestion rate of drinking water,
inhalation rate of the contaminated air, and the incidental ingestion of contaminated soil
and dust)
The dose model calculates the radiological dose due to the tritium intake of the tissues. This
model calculates a tritium dose conversion factor which is used to calculate the committed
effective dose equivalent from all tritium intakes by the human dose receptor. The tritium dose
conversion factor calculation is affected by the following:
• The tritium quality factor, average energy of the tritium beta particle, the effective half-life
of tritium in the body, and the mass of soft tissue assumed for the human dose receptor
• The definition of dose as a function of energy deposited per unit mass of tissue
3-9
The risk model calculates the risk due to the dose received by the various types of tissue. Risk
may be calculated as the lifetime fatal cancer risk and genetic detriment. In addition, risk may be
calculated using the EPA slope factors. The following parameters that affect the calculated risk
received from an individual dose:
• The committed effective dose equivalent

• The total tritium intake
• The exposure duration
3.5.2 Ecological Risk Assessment

The ecological risk assessment was conducted following the general guidance of the Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II, Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1989).
This approach consists of the problem formulation, the ecological exposure characterization, the
ecological effects characterization, and the risk characterization.
The problem formulation includes identifying the constituent of concern, the conceptual site
model, exposure pathways, and ecological endpoints. The ecological exposure characterization
briefly identifies contaminant movement and specific ecological receptors, and it quantifies
exposure point concentrations for both primary and secondary exposure pathways. The
ecological effects characterization defines quantitative links between contaminant concentrations
and their effects on receptors. Finally, the risk characterization portion of the assessment
describes potential risks to ecological receptors and populations of interest.
The ecological risk assessment was performed using an indirect method. Instead of calculating
risk from dose values, toxicological benchmarks were used to estimate the tritium concentration
in groundwater that would result in a specific dose rate to the selected ecological receptors. The
toxicological benchmark is a maximum dose rate recommended by the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements’ (NCRP) Scientific Committee on the Effects of
Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms (NCRP, 1991 as cited in Kahn, 1992). This
benchmark is designed to ensure protection to aquatic and semiaquatic populations. The tritium
concentration in groundwater that would result in the toxicological benchmark dose rate is
known as the threshold value. The ecological risk assessment estimates the threshold value and
compares it to the modeled tritium concentration in groundwater where the selected ecological
receptors are located. The main ecological receptors selected include a generic pupfish, the
heron, and fish eggs.
3-10
The following parameters affect the calculated internal doses:
• The bioaccumulation factor and effective energy absorbed per unit activity for tritium in
the pupfish
• The intake rate of pupfish, bioaccumulation factor of tritium, tritium retention fraction,
and body mass of the heron
• The concentration of tritium in the fish egg
• The radius, tritium distribution, and bioaccumulation of tritium in the fish egg
The external dose from tritium to the pupfish, fish eggs, and heron was not considered because
the external dose rate from immersion and sediment is zero (Baker and Soldat, 1992).
Probabilistic methods for calculating risk were not used for the ecological risk assessment
because very limited data exist about the risk from radiation to aquatic and semiaquatic
ecological dose receptors. To account for the uncertainties associated with the various
parameters used, conservative end-point values and assumptions were used in the ecological risk
models.
3.5.3 Selected Models

Human health risk assessment was conducted using the GW.RISK code which implements the
three coupled models. GW.RISK is a series of linked spreadsheets written in Crystal Ball,
Version 4.0 (Decision Engineering, 1995). Existing dose models were used to implement the
ecological risk assessment approach.
The calculation of the tritium intake, dose, and risk for either the child or adult dose receptor
requires a set of seven linked spreadsheets for each of the 63 dose points. Five of the seven
spreadsheets are used to model the tritium transport, concentration, and intake by the dose
receptor; one is used to calculate dose and risk; and one provides the tritium concentration
distribution at the specific dose location. The calculational methodology and the parameter
values used in the spreadsheets are derived from the open scientific literature or are
recommended by scientific bodies such as the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements. The first five spreadsheets calculate the following:
• Tritium concentration in air and the inhalation intake of tritium contaminated air
• Ingestion intake of tritium-contaminated drinking water
3-11
• Dermal absorption of tritium from contaminated air and water
• Concentration of tritium in soil and the ingestion intake of tritium contaminated soil and
dust
• Tritium concentration in food and the intake from ingestion of the tritium contaminated
food
The sixth spreadsheet is used to calculate the dose due to the tritium intake and the resultant risk
from the tritium dose. The dose is calculated based upon the recommendation of the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP, 1978) and information found in the
open scientific literature. The lifetime cancer, lifetime genetic detriment, and lifetime cancer
incidence risk are calculated. The recommendations of the ICRP (1991) were used to calculate
the first two types of risk. The lifetime cancer incidence rate was calculated using the EPA slope
factor for tritium intake (EPA, 1995). The seventh spreadsheet contains the tritium concentration
distribution for a specific dose location simulated by MC_TRANS (IT, 1996i).
Parameter values used by the GW.RISK code to calculate the human exposure to tritium are
treated probabilistically, as are the hydrologic parameters. For example, the amount of water an
individual drinks each day was treated as a frequency distribution rather than as a single number.
Details for the human health risk assessment models are presented in Section 10.0 of this report.
Two complementary radioecological dose models were used in the evaluation of risk to
ecological receptors. An aquatic dose model created by Pacific Northwest Laboratory
(Baker and Soldat, 1992) was used to estimate the threshold concentration of tritium in water for
fish and wildlife. An aquatic dose model developed by Blaylock et al. (1993) was used to
estimate the maximum concentration of tritium in surface water below which fish eggs are
protected.
3.5.4 Data Needs

Data needed to achieve human health and ecological risk assessment objectives of the regional
evaluation are as follows:
• Parameters describing the lifestyle of the individuals participating in each land use
• Distribution coefficients describing the fraction of groundwater distributed to each

environmental and biotic medium
3-12
• Concentration factors for tritium in the environmental and biotic media
• Intake rates of the dose receptors for each environmental and biotic medium
• Dose and risk conversion factors for converting tritium intake to dose and dose to risk
GW.RISK data requirements include the following:
• Tritium concentration distribution at every receptor location
• Identification of the exposure pathways for individuals participating in each land use
• Climatography at the receptor location
• A description of the human activities associated with each land use
• The fraction of groundwater that is distributed to the soil, air, and surface water
• Transfer coefficients for tritium into soil, air, surface water, food plants, forage, milk,
and beef
• Tritium transfer coefficients from environmental and biotic media (e.g., food, air, water,
and soil) to the dose receptor for ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption
• Radiological and biological half-life of tritium and its beta energy spectrum
• Physicochemical attributes of tritium in humans
• Tritium dose conversion factors for adults and children
• Cancer and genetic risk factors for adults and children
The ecological risk assessment data needs require selection of the aquatic and semiaquatic
ecological dose receptors. Upon their selection, the bioaccumulation factors for tritium, effective
energy absorption factors, ingestion rate of environmental and biotic media, tritium concentration
in the environmental and biotic media, tritium retention factors, biological and physical decay
constants of tritium, exposure period, and the body mass of the selected aquatic and semiaquatic
dose receptors are needed.
3.5.5 Implementation
Available data were compiled and interpreted into a human health and ecological risk assessment
model. The human health risk assessment was performed using the GW.RISK code. The code
3-13
was used to calculate the tritium intake from ingestion, inhalation, and skin absorption; the
resultant dose from the tritium intake; and the estimated lifetime cancer and genetic risk due to
the tritium dose. GW.RISK was used to calculate these end points for six conservative land-use
scenarios: agricultural, residential, recreational, tourism, mining, and industrial. For the first
four land-use scenarios, GW.RISK was used to calculate the intake, dose, and risk for both
children and adults. For the last two land-use scenarios, adult end-point values were calculated.
For the ecological risk, available data were gathered to formulate the problem, characterize the
ecological exposure, the ecological effects and the risk to the selected ecological receptors. Risk
was assessed by estimating the threshold values for each receptor and comparing them to the
simulated tritium concentrations in groundwater where the selected ecological receptors are
located.
3.6 Uncertainty Analysis

The uncertainty analysis provides a quantitative method to gauge the credibility of decisions
made from the results of modeling. This section presents the approaches and methods used to
account for uncertainty. This analysis is an important activity in the overall modeling process
because the results help identify data gaps and prioritize data collection efforts. The purpose of
the uncertainty analysis is to provide information about the best estimate of the risk (e.g., the
excess cancer risk to this receptor is 3x10-8) as well as information about the range (e.g., there is
less than a 5 percent chance that the risk is higher than 4x10-6). Providing this type of
information requires estimating the uncertainty in the input parameters to the models, the risk
assessment parameters and calculations, and the estimated concentrations and risk.
Development of the flow and transport models involves two types of uncertainty. One
uncertainty is about the values of modeling parameters, such as thickness of a unit, hydraulic
conductivity, or effective porosity. The other uncertainty is about important features of the
geologic units, such as the uncertain western extent of the Eleana Formation (confining unit).
The models provide a technique for determining whether uncertainty in various parameters has a
significant impact on contaminant transport.
Several approaches are available for addressing uncertainty in parameter values. The best
approach involves estimating the frequency distribution of estimates of a particular parameter
and representing the degree of confidence placed in the estimate. For example, the frequency
3-14
distribution for the thickness of a unit at a particular location might be a normal distribution with
a mean of 100 m (328 ft) and a standard deviation of 10 m (33 ft). This distribution indicates
that there is much confidence in a thickness of 100 m (328 ft), but little confidence if the
thickness is less than 80 m (262 ft) or greater than 120 m (394 ft). This approach eliminates the
possibility of a negative value which would mathematically require negative concentrations of
the contaminant on the mineral surfaces. Theoretically, any frequency distribution can be
mathematically treated in the models.
Once the distributions of modeling parameters have been estimated, the next step is to evaluate
the effect of parameter uncertainty on predicted concentrations and associated risk. Several
approaches are possible: Monte Carlo, Latin hypercube, and nonrandom sampling. While the
details of these methods differ, the basic approach is to run the model thousands of times using
different values for parameters and to examine the resultant frequency distributions for the
decision variables (i.e., the key results). The parameter values are determined for use in the
model by statistical sampling from the estimated frequency distributions for the parameters. The
results reflect the characteristics of the groundwater system, the properties of the contaminants,
the uses of the groundwater, and the uncertainty about each of these.
Although the transport of tritium is simulated in one-dimension, it has a three-dimensional

character. However, the lateral dispersion of contaminants across the major transport direction
(pathline) is not accounted for by using this approach. This approach simulates a fast-track
pathway or conduit in which contaminant concentrations are constrained from lateral movement,
which is representative of a conservative (pessimistic) scenario.
The level of uncertainty in calculating the risk to individuals and human populations is a function
of the uncertainty in the models and parameter values used to determine tritium source terms;
groundwater concentration at exposure locations; and tritium intake, dose, and risk models.
Uncertainties in the models were expressed through the use of distributions of parameter values
instead of the use of single-point values. Parameter value distributions were chosen from the
peer-reviewed technical literature with an emphasis on site-specific data. Monte Carlo
techniques were applied to sample values several thousand times from the distributions for each
calculation.
3-15
The most significant sources of uncertainty in the human health risk assessment were:
• The distribution of tritium concentration in groundwater
• The lack of knowledge about the effect of nonexchangeable organic-bond tritium on the
rate of removal of tritium from the body and sensitive nuclear molecules
• The use of the linear non-threshold risk model in the risk coefficients
• The fact that there is no cancer risk or genetic risk information available about human
exposure to tritium.
The uncertainties that are associated with the assessment of ecological risks include the
radiological source term, the tritium concentration at exposure locations, the exposure models,
and the benchmark values used to evaluate risk. Probabilistic methods for calculating risk were
not used for the ecological risk assessment because very limited data exist about the risk from
radiation to aquatic and semi-aquatic ecological dose receptors. To account for the uncertainties
associated with the various parameters used, conservative end-point values and assumptions were
used in the ecological risk models.
The human health and ecological risk methodologies are designed to be conservative. Care was
taken in the design of the human health exposure scenarios for each land use to ensure that the
probability and quantity of tritium intake will encompass (bound) any realistic situation. The
exposure models and benchmark values used in the ecological risk assessment are conservative
in nature and may, therefore, actually be over-protective. Details on the human health and
ecological risk methodology, models, and parameter values may be found in Section 10.0 of this
report.
3-16
4.0 Geologic Data Analysis
A three-dimensional conceptualization of the geology and structure of the Nevada Test Site
region with emphasis on the NTS groundwater flow system was developed, based on the
evaluation of regional geologic data. It is referred to as the geologic model. The geologic model
provides the geologic framework for the NTS regional groundwater flow system. This section
presents a description of the objectives, geologic model domain, approach, geologic data
compilation, conceptual geologic model development, digital geologic model construction, and
the model uncertainties. The resulting geologic model was used in the description of the
conceptual groundwater flow model in Section 6.0 and is described in detail in the Regional
Geologic Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996a).
4.1 Geologic Model Domain

The selected geologic model domain is large enough to encompass the NTS regional
groundwater flow system or flow domain (Figure 4-1). The geologic model area extends over
approximately 28,000 km2 (11,000 mi2) and covers a large part of southern Nevada and some of
Inyo County, California. The geologic model area (Figure 4-1) is centered around the NTS and
ranges from Death Valley to the Pahranagat Valley and from the Sheep Range to Scotty’s
Junction.
The depth of the geologic model is expected to be less than about 10,000 m (32,800 ft) below sea
level. The vertical extent of the geologic model domain is described in terms of the geologic
units of the area described in Section 2.0. The domain includes the following rocks from older to
younger: several thousand feet of Precambrian and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, Cenozoic
volcanic tuffs and lavas in some areas, and late Cenozoic alluvium filling valleys between the
nearby hills of Cenozoic and Paleozoic rocks.
4.2 Objectives
The main objective of the geologic data analysis was to determine the regional distributions and
thicknesses of the aquifers and confining units and their depths relative to the hydrologic
basement.
4-1
A secondary objective was to have a basis for the estimation of hydrologic and attenuation
properties of the rocks through which water flows and radionuclides might migrate.
The specific objectives were as follows:
• Provide an understanding of the genesis of the geology so that reasonable prediction of

the distribution of various rock types may be made where geologic data are missing.
• Develop a three-dimensional model of the geology, based on available data (e.g., surface
maps, borehole information, and geophysics), and on sound and accepted geologic
principles and theories.
• Develop a digital estimate of the elevation of contacts between rocks of different

hydrologic and geochemical properties.
4.3 Approach Overview

The geologic model was based on an evaluation of existing data by a multiorganizational team of
geologists from: Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL), the USGS, and DOE. The methodology used consisted of data compilation,
conceptual geologic model development, and digital geologic model development. Existing
geologic data were compiled and evaluated by the team of geologists, and each participating
organization was assigned a geographic area corresponding to a portion of the geologic model
area described in Section 4.1.
The conceptual geologic model was also developed by the participating organizations. Detailed
structural cross sections were drawn to depict structural and stratigraphic features and then were
simplified to focus on hydrostratigraphic cross sections. In these hydrostratigraphic sections,
detailed stratigraphy was categorized in HSUs with only hydrologically significant structures
being depicted. The Geographic Information System-based Environmental Resources
Management Applications (ERMA®) computer system integrated the geologic data and digitized
the simplified cross sections.
The digital geologic model was prepared by geologists from IT Corporation (IT) and
GeoTrans, Inc. Maps indicating the geographic extent of each HSU were constructed, digitized,
and matched with cross section data. Structure contour maps of each hydrostratigraphic unit
were made by combining data from cross sections, surface geology, digital elevation models, and
unit extent maps. In the calderas of the SWNVF, elevations of hydrostratigraphic units were
4-3
provided in map and database form. The products of the geologic analysis are 2-km gridded
elevations of the surface of each of 20 hydrostratigraphic units.
Applicable procedures and geologic and hydrostratigraphic cross sections contributing to the
model are contained in the appendices to the Regional Geologic Model Documentation
Package (IT, 1996a) which presents all supporting documentation for the geological
interpretations included in the model. Gridded surface elevation data for the hydrostratigraphic
units are also included.
4.4 Geologic Data Compilation

The purpose of the geologic data compilation was to gather all available, existing geologic data
to develop the conceptual geologic model. Geologic data consisted of geologic maps, measured
stratigraphic sections, cross sections, geophysical data and interpretations, and existing and
Environmental Restoration (ER) borehole data.
Regional geologic data are mostly in the form of geological or geophysical reports or maps.
Each participant has been responsible for gathering all pertinent reports and maps of their
assigned area and for gaining an understanding of the structural and stratigraphic relationships.
These reports generally contain geologic maps, well data, or geophysical data and interpretations.
They may also contain measured stratigraphic sections and published cross sections. For the
NTS areas, existing and borehole data are available. References to reports, maps, and the
borehole data used by each participant are contained in Appendix C of the Regional Geologic
Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996a).
Stewart and Carlson’s regional “Geologic Map of Nevada, Southern Half” (1977) served as the
basis of regional structural and stratigraphic correlation. This map was used to correlate geology
between cross sections and to determine the surface distributions and elevations of
hydrostratigraphic units. A set of regional geologic cross sections by Grose (1983) served as a
guide for subsurface geologic interpretations in some areas. Regional subsurface geologic
interpretations (published by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology) were also aided by data
from a series of bouguer gravity maps which covered much of the area.
Thousands of boreholes have been drilled on the NTS; however, most are concentrated within
the underground testing areas or at Yucca Mountain. Borehole data were included in existing
underground testing area maps. Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) boreholes were
4-4
located to address high uncertainty subsurface geology. All pertinent ERP well data were
incorporated. In areas outside of the NTS, most borehole data are from water wells in alluvial
valleys; thus, they provide little bedrock information. There is a small number of petroleum
exploration wells in the geologic model area. Those data are included in the geologic model
either as data points on a cross section or as a control between cross sections. The petroleum
exploration wells, however, provided little stratigraphic differentiation other than an
alluvium/Paleozoic rock contact because paleontological information in the Paleozoic rocks was
rarely available.
4.5 Conceptual Geologic Model Development

The development of the conceptual geologic model consisted of constructing a set of
stratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic cross sections and defining hydrostratigraphic units.
4.5.1 Stratigraphic Cross Section Construction

Cross section locations were selected by group consensus with suggestions and approval of the
Principal Investigator (PI). Sections were generally oriented perpendicular to regional structural
trends to maximize structural relief. Three sections were oriented parallel to groundwater flow
directions from north of the NTS to Death Valley. Other sections were added during the task to
make accurately representative, complex structural and stratigraphic relationships. Cross section
locations are shown in Figure 4-1.
Cross sections were generally constructed at the most convenient scale, based on the scale of the
available maps for the area. Most regional sections were constructed at 1:100,000 or 1:125,000;
sections across Yucca Flat were constructed at 1:12,000 or 1:24,000.
Borehole data were incorporated into the geologic cross sections differently, depending on the
location. For cross sections located on the NTS, only pertinent boreholes were included or
projected onto cross sections. ERP boreholes were located to address high uncertainty
subsurface geology, and all pertinent ERP well data were incorporated. Data from some of the
petroleum exploration wells were also included as data points on cross sections; others were used
in the geologic model described in later sections.
4.5.2 Hydrostratigraphic Unit Definition

The hydrogeologic model is based on an understanding of the relationships of hydrostratigraphy.
Aquifer versus confining unit distinctions are generally related to observations and assumptions
4-5
of the degree to which stratigraphic units, as a whole, tend to be fractured (both primary and
tectonic fractures). Using well test data to support these assumptions, Winograd and
Thordarson (1975) grouped Paleozoic sedimentary formations into HSUs. These HSUs in the
Paleozoic rocks and alluvium include the Lower Clastic Confining Unit, the Lower Carbonate
Aquifer, the Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU), the Upper Carbonate Aquifer, and the
overlying Alluvium Aquifer.
Volcanic rocks of the SWNVF cover most of the Paleozoic rocks of the NTS in addition to major
portions of the regional geologic model area. The volcanic stratigraphy is very complex, and a
complete listing of volcanic stratigraphic units of the SWNVF can be found in Ferguson
et al. (1994). The most commonly occurring volcanic members and formations of the NTS are
listed in Table 4-1.
Unlike the Paleozoic strata, the volcanics had not been defined in terms of their
hydrostratigraphy prior to this study. Grouping the Tertiary volcanic rocks into a regional
hydrostratigraphic hierarchy proved to be very difficult, and considerable simplification was
required for modeling purposes. Because physical characteristics of the volcanic stratigraphy as
well as the amount of data available on the rocks vary within geographic areas, the
hydrostratigraphic differentiation varied across the region.
Four geographic areas in which the volcanic hydrostratigraphy was separately differentiated were
defined: regional volcanics outside of the NTS, the southern NTS, Yucca Flat, and Pahute
Mesa/Timber Mountain caldera complex. These areas are shown in Figure 4-2. Regional
volcanic stratigraphy outside the NTS has not been subdivided and is referred to as Volcanics
Undifferentiated (VU). The volcanic differentiation at the southern NTS and Yucca Flat are
detailed in Table 4-1. The differentiation scheme for volcanic rocks within the caldera complex
is detailed in Table 4-2.
Volcanic hydrostratigraphy differentiation within the SWNVF was developed as a structural

block model for this project; the rationale for the block model is presented in Appendix E-3 of
the Regional Geologic Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996a). The basis for the
differentiation is that volcanic stratigraphy and its physical features are related to its location
with respect to particular structural blocks and volcanic centers. The HSUs were defined on the
basis of their stratigraphic position within the volcanic pile, lithologic properties related to
depositional environment, post-depositional alteration, and degree of welding. The structural
4-6
Table 4-1
Volcanic Hydrostratigraphy of the Southern NTS/Yucca Mountain Area
Yucca Mountain/
Wahmonie Center Frenchman Flat
Jackass Flats
Volcanic Aquifer Tm Tm Tm
Tp Tp Tp
Tc Tw
Tc
Volcanic Confining Tn/To Tn/To Tw

Unit Tps Tps Tc
Tps
Table 4-2
Hydrostratigraphy of the Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain Caldera Complex
Hydrostratigraphic Unit Properties Stratigraphic Units
Timber Mountain Aquifer (TMA) Uppermost welded tuffs Tm, Tf, Tt, Tp
Paintbrush Tuff Cone, Laterally variable Tp, Ta/Tc

Calico Hills Tuff Cone (TC) tuffs and lava flows
Bullfrog Confining Unit (TCB) Non-welded tuff Tcb
Belted Range Aquifer (TBA) Welded tuffs above BCU Tb, Tub, Tcb, Tr
Basal Confining Unit (BCU) Non-welded tuffs Tn, Tub, To, Tr, Tq
Basal Aquifer (BAQ) Welded tuffs To, Tl, Tq
block model for the SWNVF covered an area larger than the Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain
caldera areas. Outside the caldera complex, the block model was used as guidance for mapping
volcanic HSUs, but structural relationships were taken from the hand-drawn cross sections.
Within the caldera complex, volcanic units have very low dips and were mapped as horizontal
layers.
A total of 26 regional HSUs were defined and mapped for the conceptual geologic model
(Table 4-3). For practical purposes, some adjacent volcanic layers were further grouped into
larger HSUs. The grouping included only volcanic layers having a limited extent in the Yucca
Flat/Frenchmen Flat area, the southern NTS area, and the tuff cone units in Pahute Mesa. Layers
4-7
Table 4-3
Hydrostratigraphic Units/Geologic Model Layers
Geologic
Consolidated Original
Model Description
Unit Unit
Layer
AA 20 AA Alluvial Aquifer
TMA 19 TMAQ-7 Uppermost Welded Tuffs
TPTC-6 Laterally Variable Tuffs and Lava Flows of Paintbrush
TC 18 Group Tuff Cone
TPTC-5 Laterally Variable Tuffs and Lava Flows of Calico Hills
TCB 17 TCBCU-4 Non-Welded Tuffs
TBA 16 TBAQ-3 Welded Tuffs Above BCU-2
BCU 15 BCU-2 Non-Welded Tuffs
BAQ 14 BAQ-1 Welded Tuffs
WTA Welded Tuff Aquifer
VTA Vitric Tuff Aquifer
TCU2 Zeolitized Tuff Confining Unit (Upper) Volcanic Tuff
VA 13
Aquifer
TPTA Topopah Springs Tuff Aquifer
WLA Wahmonie Lavas Aquifer
TCU1 Zeolitized Tuff Confining Unit (Lower)
VCU 12
VCCU Volcaniclastic Confining Unit (Volcanic Tuff Confining
Unit)
VU 11 VU Volcanics Undifferentiated
TSDVS 10 TS Tertiary Sediments
DVS Death Valley Section
LCA3 9 LCA3 Lower Carbonate Aquifer (Yucca Flat Upper Plate),
Upper Carbonate Aquifer in NTS Area
UCCU 8 UCCU Upper Clastic Confining Unit
LCA 7 LCA Lower Carbonate Aquifer
LCCU 6 LCCU Lower Clastic Confining Unit
LCA1 5 LCA1 Lower Carbonate Aquifer (Upper Plate)
LCCU1 4 LCCU1 Lower Clastic Confining Unit (Upper Plate)
LCA2 3 LCA2 Lower Carbonate Aquifer (Lower Plate)
LCCU2 2 LCCU2 Lower Clastic Confining Unit (Lower Plate)
I 1 I Intrusives
4-9
were consolidated according to the scheme outlined in Table 4-3, resulting in a total of 20 layers
that were used in the hydrogeologic model.
4.5.3 Hydrostratigraphic Cross Section Development

For each detailed cross section, a simplified version showing only hydrostratigraphic units and
larger structures was constructed. Geologic relationships in detailed cross sections, both
observed and inferred, were greatly simplified for model input in order to accommodate mapping
limitations inherent in having such a large map area and to be consistent with the level of detail
that could be incorporated into such a large groundwater flow model. In constructing the
simplified section, emphasis was placed on maintaining a highly generalized structure and
stratigraphic framework. The following guidelines were used in the simplification process:
• Geologic formations were grouped into hydrostratigraphic units developed by the

Geologic Data Analysis team and approved by the PI.
• Faults were eliminated if they had relatively moderate displacement along which different
hydrostratigraphic units were not juxtaposed.
• Overturned HSU layering was represented with vertical contacts to prevent vertically
repeated contacts.
• Relatively minor folds or structural distortions in an HSU surface or within an HSU were
smoothed.
• In some cases, thin units in the unsaturated zone were deleted.
• Larger fault displacements were treated as smoothed changes in the top of

hydrostratigraphic units instead of cross-cutting planes.
4.6 Digital Geologic Model Development

The development of the digital geologic model consisted of integrating data into the ERMA®,
constructing surface contour maps, gridding contoured surfaces, and generating maps.
4.6.1 Data Integration into ERMA®

The simplified hydrostratigraphic cross sections became geologic data for the digital geologic
model. The cross sections were scanned to produce raster images that were imported into
ERMA®. Raster images were registered in geographic location and in depth. Faults and the tops
of each HSU were digitized as separate files. Horizon tops were sampled at 100-m elevation
intervals, and cross sections were matched where two sections intersected. All digitized cross
4-10
sections were checked for accuracy, and records of digital files and any updates were made
according to applicable procedures.
HSU extent maps were also scanned, digitized, and checked. Extent map and cross section data
were posted together for comparison. Inconsistencies usually occurred between these two data
sets because of variations in simplification detail, especially when they were compiled from
source maps of different scale. Inconsistencies were corrected by the geologist authors, and
digital data were modified as necessary to match the reinterpretation.
In the southern part of the map area, the simplified hydrostratigraphic cross sections contain
vertically repeated HSUs due to thrust faulting. Because of operational constraints inherent in
the ERMA® computer mapping system, repeated layers in these thrust “windows” had to be
named and mapped separately. For example, the thrust windows contain LCCU2 (the lower
clastic confining unit) and LCCU1 (the overlying repeated layer). Topography was represented
in the model by 90-m (295-ft) gridded Digital Elevation Model (DEM) data which were resampled to a
2-km (1.25-mi) grid.
4.6.2 Construction of Surface Contour Maps

HSU surface elevation contour maps were made by combining the following data:
• Geologic data from cross sections

• Unit extent map data (to define areas where a unit does not exist)
• Elevations of hydrostratigraphic contacts at the surface
Surface hydrostratigraphy was compiled from the digital version of Stewart and Carlson’s
“Geologic Map of Nevada, Southern Half ” (1977). Geologic units on this map were combined
into hydrostratigraphic units as previously defined. This digital HSU map was then merged with
the DEM to determine surface elevations of the HSU contacts. All of the surface data were
posted together and contoured by computer.
Specific well data were not used as a separate database for HSU surface mapping, but well data
were included in cross section construction. Cross sections were specifically situated to tie
pertinent wells. Except at the NTS, most wells are in alluvium, and well data were considered in
constructing the isopach of alluvium. In some regional locations, specific well data were used as
control points by posting them to the appropriate maps.
4-11
Elevation data were contoured using the ERMA® system. A “convergent” algorithm was used
with an elongated north-south contouring grid which was selected because of the north-south
structural anisotropy of the Basin and Range structures and the close east-west proximity of the
data on east-west cross sections. Contour intervals and search radii varied with different
surfaces.
Computer contouring was used only as a guide. In areas with higher concentrations of data, the
computer-generated contours were generally thought to be acceptable. In areas with sparse data
and where the cross sections are relatively far apart, computer-generated contouring was poor or
incomplete. In the northern part of the map area, the cross sections were farther apart than the
search distance of the contouring routine, and no contours could be generated. Additionally,
sparse data tended to cause closed contours, “bulls eyes,” around the cross section data. Within
these problem areas, each surface map was contoured by hand. Hand-contouring was performed
while ensuring that contours followed structural trends and honored faults, surface data, and
cross section data. Regional structural contouring was guided by the isopach map of Cenozoic
units (Saltus, 1994) for consistency of Basin and Range structural trends.
4.6.3 Gridding of Contoured Surfaces

The main products of the regional geologic model are gridded digital-elevation data for each
HSU surface. Surface grids at 2-km spacing were generated from the surface contour maps. All
grids have the same origin, and each grid covers the entire map area regardless of the unit extent.
Grid nodes that fall outside the extent of an HSU have “void” values.
A problem was discovered with the gridding process within ERMA®. The ERMA® gridding
routine was used to smooth the contour data that were also smoothed as a result of the contouring
routine. Therefore, the calculated grid values were a second generation away from the original
data. Grid-elevation values, compared with posted cross section data, were locally different up to
300 m (984 ft). These errors were corrected by adding intermediate contours, regridding, and
manually editing grid node values to match data. Elevations across faults were notably smoothed
over and had to be manually edited to maintain fault offsets. Grid development is an iterative
exercise of plotting, checking against contours and adjacent surfaces, editing, and rechecking
until the grid values reasonably match the data and interpolations in between.
Surface grids within the caldera areas were handled differently. Contours were not generated for
the HSU surfaces. Instead, because of the very low dips, each layer within each structural block
4-12
was considered to be horizontal. Each structural block was given an elevation for each HSU,
which was applied to all grid nodes within the block.
4.6.4 Map Products

The products are the digital, two-dimensional, 2-km (1.25-mi) grids showing elevations of the
upper surface for each of the 20 HSUs. An isometric view of the LCCU is shown in Figure 4-3.
These grids were used as the basis of groundwater flow model discretization. The ERMA®
VOXEL Analyst was used to generate various views of the digital geologic model which were
used to describe the conceptual groundwater flow model in Section 6.0 of this document.
4.7 Geologic Uncertainty and Model Revisions

The geology of the Basin and Range Province is structurally complex. Any conceptualization of
subsurface geology, and therefore hydrologic properties, contains great uncertainties. In general,
uncertainty in subsurface interpretations increases with distance from surface outcrops and
boreholes and with surficial alluvium cover. The greatest density of subsurface borehole data is
in the NTS weapons testing areas such as Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa. Most boreholes in the
region surrounding the NTS penetrate only alluvium.
Uncertainties in the geologic interpretations have been reduced by peer input and review. In
hydrologically significant areas with highly uncertain geology, alternate interpretations were
presented for consideration during the groundwater flow model calibration.
During the course of groundwater flow model calibration, it was noted that in some locations, the
geologic model did not adequately simulate measured water levels. Usually a higher elevation
for confining units was locally needed to create the observed water levels. In such locations, the
uncertainty in the existing geological interpretation was considered, and alternate interpretations
were evaluated. Alternate interpretations were incorporated for the Emigrant Valley, Penoyer
Valley/Timpahute Range, Rainier Mesa, and Timber Mountain Caldera/Yucca Mountain areas.
The rationale for each of these alternate interpretations, with references, is documented in
Appendix G of the Regional Geologic Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996a). These areas
are also discussed in the following text.
Emigrant Valley, northeast of Yucca Flat, was underlain by the Lower Carbonate Aquifer in the
geologic model. This LCA allowed groundwater flow into Yucca Flat from the northeast
without a sufficient flow barrier to effect higher water levels in Emigrant Valley. Reexamination
4-13
of the local Emigrant Valley geology showed that Tertiary volcanic layers were locally deposited
directly on Sterling Quartzite and Wood Canyon Formations of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit.
The current interpretation is that the LCCU is exposed in a large, eroded, pre-Tertiary
uplift and is much nearer to the surface over a large area than was originally modeled. The
LCCU would immediately underlie the alluvium in the Emigrant Valley.
Penoyer Valley is northeast of Emigrant Valley and has a small outcrop of LCCU present in the
central portion of the valley. This outcrop, in conjunction with regional structural trends,
indicates that the structural uplift which brought LCCU to the surface in Emigrant Valley also
extends northeastward under Penoyer Valley. The original geologic model was revised to
incorporate this structural uplift.
Another area which required revision of the geologic interpretation is immediately north of
Yucca Mountain. Originally, the model did not affect higher water levels seen in wells north of
Yucca Mountain. Following discussions with USGS geologists, the model was changed to more
closely incorporate their structural interpretations and the rock properties evidenced in the field.
The Belted Range thrust fault system is interpreted to be present, passing north of Yucca
Mountain. This interpretation brings LCCU nearer the surface immediately north of Yucca
Mountain. Another modification is in the classification of the Timber Mountain Tuff as a
confining unit at that location. Field evidence indicates that the volcanic units inside and near
the ring fractures of the Timber Mountain Caldera are heavily altered and are confining units
instead of aquifers as initially modeled.
Tongue Wash is in the north-central part of the Nevada Test Site. Because of structural
complexities associated with the Belted Range thrust fault system and possibly the CP thrust
fault system in the area, the subsurface geology is highly uncertain. Devonian carbonate
outcrops in Tongue Wash could be either LCA exposed at the surface, or LCA3 carbonates
structurally positioned on top of UCCU. Because of the downward potentiometric gradient
recorded in nearby Well ER-12-1, the favored geologic interpretation in the model is that the
carbonates at the surface in Tongue Wash are hydrologically isolated from the LCA below and
are equivalent to LCA3.
4-15
5.0 Hydrologic Data Analysis
The purpose of the hydrologic data analysis was to prepare all necessary data (excluding
geologic data) necessary to set up the conceptual and numerical groundwater flow models. This
section presents the hydrologic data analysis objectives, the general approach and assumptions,
the data types and sources, and the specific steps taken in the generation of each required dataset.
This section was summarized from four of the documentation packages (IT, 1996b; 1996c;
1996d; and 1996e).
5.1 Objectives
The main objective of this analysis was to assemble all hydrologic datasets necessary for the
design of a steady-state, three-dimensional groundwater flow model of the NTS regional
groundwater flow system. In addition to the geologic framework described in Section 4.0, the
groundwater flow model requires information on the hydraulic properties of the hydrostrati-
graphic units, water levels, and recharge and discharge.
5.2 General Approach

Preparation of specific types of data needed for the groundwater flow model consisted of the
following tasks:
C Data Type Identification: Based on the technical approach described in Section 3.0, the
data needs were identified.
C Data Source Identification: Based on the data needs, the available major sources of data
and related information were located.
C Data Compilation and Evaluation: The data were compiled and evaluated for their
quality. The methods varied depending on the type of data.
C Data Analysis: The methods of data analysis also depended on their types. They are
presented in the subsections of Section 5.3. The major products derived from the analysis
include maps, figures, and tables summarizing the data.
5.3 Data Types

Types of hydrologic data needed for the flow modeling effort are the hydraulic properties of
rocks, hydraulic head data, and recharge/discharge data. These data types are briefly discussed in
the following sections.
5-1
5.3.1 Hydraulic Properties
Hydraulic properties needed for the groundwater flow modeling are the hydraulic conductivities
and effective porosities of the HSUs.
Hydraulic conductivity is a measure of the ability of a geologic medium (rock or soil) to transmit
water. Transmissivity is a related term and is the product of the hydraulic conductivity and
thickness of the geologic unit. Field tests generally measure the transmissivity of the tested
interval. Hydraulic conductivity is then commonly obtained by dividing the transmissivity value
by the length of the tested interval.
Effective porosity is that portion of the void space within a rock through which groundwater
moves. The actual or advective groundwater velocities are calculated by dividing the specific
discharges calculated by the groundwater flow model by the effective porosity. In granular
porous media such as the Alluvial Aquifer, the effective porosity is typically almost equal to the
total or bulk porosity. In fractured media such as the volcanic aquifers and the LCA, two
components of the porosity can be identified: a fracture porosity and a matrix porosity. Water
generally flows through the more permeable fracture openings rather than through the matrix.
Thus, the effective porosity of rocks where water flows primarily through the fractures is
approximately equal to the fractures, but not of the rock matrix.
5.3.2 Water-Levels
Water-level data are used to estimate observed hydraulic heads which are compared to those
simulated by the groundwater flow model during the calibration process. Hydraulic heads
provide a measure of the driving energy that causes groundwater to move through permeable
rocks. Hydraulic head is a measure of the potential energy of the water at one point. This energy
is due to the fluid pressure and the height of the point from an arbitrary datum, commonly mean
sea level. The water level measured in a well is the hydraulic-conductivity weighted average of
the open interval in the well. Water-level data are used to estimate directions of flow in
groundwater systems. The difference between the observed water levels and the hydraulic heads
calculated by the groundwater flow model helps indicate how well the model simulates the
groundwater flow system.
For the purposes of the steady-state groundwater flow model, the groundwater flow system is
assumed to be in equilibrium before human interference with the system. Human-imposed
5-2
stresses on the groundwater system within the study area include groundwater pumping and
underground nuclear testing at or below the water table.
The dataset includes all points where water-level elevations can be obtained, including boreholes,
mining shafts, and springs. Each water-level data point is referred to as a site and is defined by
its coordinates, predevelopment hydraulic head elevation, and assigned water-contributing
HSU(s). In addition, an estimate of the uncertainty associated with the hydraulic head elevation
at the site is needed for groundwater flow model calibration and uncertainty analysis purposes.
The water-level elevation data are used as calibration targets during the steady-state groundwater
model calibration. The estimate of measurement uncertainty in the form of a variance or
standard deviation is used during the calibration process. The bulk of the water-level data was
derived from boreholes and mining shafts. Land surface elevations at regional spring locations are
used as estimates of the hydraulic heads to supplement the dataset. The resulting data are
referred to as the observed hydraulic head dataset or target heads in the numerical groundwater
flow model section (Section 7.0). Specific data types compiled to build the hydraulic head
dataset include site information, depth-to-water data, well construction data, and well
stratigraphy or hydrostratigraphy.
5.3.3 Recharge and Discharge

Information about the volume of water moving through the groundwater flow system is needed
in developing a model of the system. Water enters the groundwater flow system in recharge
areas, moves through the system, and exits the system from discharge areas. Under steady-state
conditions, the amount of recharge equals the amount of discharge.
Recharge to a groundwater flow system occurs as areal recharge from precipitation and from
subsurface inflow from adjacent groundwater flow systems. Areal recharge from precipitation is
input to the groundwater flow model in the form of spatially distributed rates. The areal recharge
distribution and rates may not be directly and accurately measured for large areas. However,
they may be estimated using other specific types of data and acceptable scientific techniques.
Specific variables needed to estimate natural areal recharge are precipitation rates and
distribution, land surface elevation distribution, and the location and extent of potential valley-
floor recharge areas such as canyons.
5-3
Natural groundwater discharge occurs primarily from evapotranspiration (ET), spring discharge,
and subsurface underflow to adjacent groundwater flow systems located downgradient. Specific
types of data needed to estimate discharge are the following: ET area locations and rates; spring
locations, elevations, and discharge rates; and subsurface underflow locations and rates.
5.4 Data Sources

Data have been collected at the NTS for many years, and nearly all of the data used in the
modeling were obtained from existing sources which included databases of governmental
agencies and other DOE contractors. A significant amount of data were also obtained from
published and unpublished documents and from communications with scientists through
meetings and telecommunications. Data collected from ongoing and recently completed
Environmental Restoration field activities were also used.
The bulk of the data were obtained from the USGS National Water Information System/
Groundwater Site Inventory (NWIS/GWSI), Water Use Database (WUSE) (USGS, 1989), and
geochemistry databases. Other sources included the USGS Yucca Mountain Project, Las Vegas
Office of the Nevada District; Desert Research Institute; Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Environmental Restoration Program geologic and field activity reports; the National
Park Services (NPS); and various publications.
5.5 Hydraulic Properties

Available data on the hydraulic properties of the HSUs, including hydraulic conductivity and
effective porosity data, are presented in this section.
5.5.1 Hydraulic Conductivity

Information about hydraulic conductivity is provided from field tests in which water is injected
or withdrawn from wells, and the response of the water levels is measured. This section
describes the summary results of these tests, the results of analyses performed to generate
probabilistic distributions of hydraulic conductivity for each HSU, and the definition of the
relationship between hydraulic conductivity and depth.
5.5.1.1 Data Compilation and Evaluation

Published and unpublished formation hydrogeologic data were compiled. Published
transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity values derived from interpretation of aquifer tests,
packer tests, specific capacity, and laboratory data were compiled. Unpublished data and
5-4
interpretations were obtained from the USGS, the Desert Research Institute, and data collected
by IT Corporation as part of the Environmental Restoration Program.
Both published and unpublished categories of data often included raw or reduced drawdown and
recovery data and corresponding interpretations. Having the raw drawdown or recovery data was
important for assessing the adequacy of the interpretation and for data quality evaluation.
Nearly all of the formation hydrogeologic property data are collected from single-well tests.
These tests are most strongly affected by near-well conditions, particularly during the early part of
the test. The shorter the test, the more likely the data represent conditions near the well only.
Much of the early time data is of suspect quality and must be used with caution. The integrity of
the well itself and the adequacy of the well development are also often in question. These factors
cannot be quantitatively incorporated into the analysis, but they increase the uncertainty
associated with the measured hydraulic conductivity data.
The tested intervals of wells are defined as the perforated interval, sometimes extended for gravel
packs or the length of open hole. This measure of tested interval for a well does not account for
converging flow lines in the case of partial penetration and assumes that the integrity of grout
seals is intact. Thus, the reported test intervals are approximations.
Winograd and Thordarson (1975) note that the drawdown curves often show anomalous behavior
characterized by steep initial drawdown curves and recovery responses that do not match the
drawdown. They state that the causes of the rapid initial drawdowns are probably partial
penetration, a zone of reduced transmissivity surrounding the wellbore, or abnormally high head
losses due to flow through a small number of fractures. The true causes are not well known, but
anomalies decrease the confidence in some of the available data.
The reported or calculated values of transmissivity or hydraulic conductivity were qualitatively

ranked in terms of the relative confidence that might be expected. Confidence is a function of
the type of test, the quality of the data, and the method of analysis; therefore, confidence is a
reflection of how well the data fit the model used for interpretation and whether the model used
5-5
was appropriate. Based on the following criteria, confidence was ranked into high, medium, or
low:
• High:
- Good level of documentation
- Pumping aquifer test (using either the drawdown or recovery portion)
- Good test conditions with no pump failures or unusual fluctuations in the drawdown
- Good match of the theoretical model to the data over a significant number of data
values
• Medium:
- Data that cannot be ranked as either high or low. The medium classification does not
have specific criteria of its own, but rather serves to distinguish data that are neither
high or low. It is a broad category by design.
• Low:
- Unusual test conditions such as variable pumping rates, pump failures, temperature or
density fluctuations during the test that result in unusual water level responses, such
as rising water levels when they should be falling
- An incorrect method applied to the data. For example, the Theim method is not
applicable to a typical aquifer test under transient conditions.
- Values determined from early-time data that are very likely influenced by casing
storage, skin effects, etc.
- Specific capacity or relative-specific capacity data used to calculate transmissivity (T)

or hydraulic conductivity (K)
- Little or no documentation of the test method
Several sources of uncertainty are associated with a given value of hydraulic conductivity for a
particular location and HSU. These sources of uncertainty are as follows:
• Measurement errors in water levels and time

• Disturbances during testing
• Scientist subjectivity in the curve-fitting process
• Differing conceptual models (for example, single versus double porosity)
• Spatial variability
5-6
Errors due to time and water-level measurement inaccuracies are unimportant compared to the
other sources of error. Disturbances during testing include hydraulic perturbations caused by
nearby wells, earth tides, barometric fluctuations, unexpected pump failures, well construction,
or well development. The quantification of these uncertainties is difficult. However, if these
effects were noted in the documentation, the test result was given a lower confidence ranking.
To assess the uncertainty caused by scientists’ subjectivity of the curve fitting process, published
drawdown and recovery pumping test data were reanalyzed to obtain a verification of the
hydrologic parameter. The results of this exercise indicated that the derived hydraulic
parameters are within 10 to 20 percent; this source of error is, therefore, relatively small.
A limited analysis was performed to examine the effect of different conceptual models using the
Theis and double-porosity models and pumping data from five wells. The results suggest that
the choice of different interpretive models may result in differences of up to a factor of 3 in the
transmissivity obtained. Moench (1984) found that the difference in drawdown slopes resulted in
a difference factor of 10 in the calculated hydraulic conductivity. Thus, for aquifers that are
actually double-porosity in nature, the reported transmissivity values may be overestimated by a
factor that ranges from about 3 to 10.
Spatial variability is characterized as natural variability and is caused by aquifer heterogeneity.

The summary statistics for the HSUs with the largest number of values (AA and LCA) suggest a
standard deviation of about one order of magnitude. The spatial variability is at least four times
larger than the uncertainty due to different conceptual models, and it is many times larger than
the uncertainty caused by curve fitting subjectivity.
5.5.1.2 Tested Interval

The tested interval is important for several reasons. First, it is used to assign a hydrostratigraphic
unit to the value. Second, if the data are reported as a transmissivity, then the tested interval
thickness is needed to calculate hydraulic conductivity. The hydraulic conductivity is obtained
by dividing the transmissivity by the tested interval thickness which is defined by the top and
bottom of the tested interval.
The definition of the tested interval varied from well to well, but followed several basic criteria.
For an open-hole completion, the top of the tested interval was either the bottom of the casing or
the water table. The bottom of an open hole completion was typically chosen as the bottom of
5-7
the hole. In some cases, the top of the tested interval was extended a short distance above the
bottom of the casing to account for converging flow lines. For perforated completions, the top
and bottom perforations were used. If the water table occurred within the perforated interval, the
water table was chosen as the top of the tested interval. In a few cases, more than one perforated
interval was present. In those cases, the top of the uppermost perforation and the bottom of the
lowermost perforation were used.
5.5.1.3 Hydrostratigraphic Unit Assignment

The HSU is assigned on the basis of the tested, or open, interval and corresponding lithologic
and stratigraphic information available in the ER stratigraphic database or the published
literature. It is recognized that few wells fully penetrate any one HSU. More commonly, the
tested intervals cross more than one HSU or partially penetrate others. The assigned HSU
represents the predominant unit tested. Some wells have multiple, but separate, test intervals and
provide data for more than one HSU.
5.5.1.4 Statistical Analysis

The statistical analyses of the hydraulic conductivity data are important to the modeling effort.
Mean values of hydraulic conductivity per HSU will guide the initial values of hydraulic
conductivity in the model, modified as appropriate for regional variation. Similarity or
dissimilarity of the mean and standard deviation of hydraulic conductivity per HSU will aid the
process of categorizing the HSUs into a smaller number of model layers. The standard deviation
of hydraulic conductivity per HSU also serves as a measure of the spatial variability of hydraulic
conductivity and will be important for assessing the latitude with which hydraulic conductivity
values can be adjusted during calibration.
Statistical analyses were performed on a subset of the hydraulic conductivity data provided in
Appendix C of the Hydrologic Parameter Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996d). The
following two criteria were used to select this subset of data:
• Laboratory data were excluded from consideration because field-scale data were deemed
more representative of larger portions of the aquifer than the smaller scale tests.
• All measurements that rated as high or medium confidence were used. Data given a low
confidence ranking were excluded from the statistical analyses.
5-8
Means and variances were first calculated on a “per well” basis by assuming that the hydraulic
conductivity data are spatially, log-normally distributed. The geometric mean of the “per well”
data is given in Table 5-1. Another aspect complicated the calculation and interpretation of the
statistics. Many of the wells have multiple interpretations for the same drawdown or recovery
curve. In other cases, multiple intervals were tested in the same well. To account for these
complications, a weighted arithmetic mean was calculated for each HSU in each well. The
length of the tested interval was the weighting factor; thus, the means were transmissivity
weighted. The results of this statistical analysis are presented in the Hydrologic Parameter Data
Documentation Package (IT, 1996d).
Based on the results, the two most conductive HSUs are the AA and the carbonate aquifer (LCA,
LCA3). For those same two HSUs, the standard deviation ranged from 0.9 to 1.5, which implies
a range of values over four orders of magnitude, based on ± two standard deviations. This large
range suggests that over the study area, large variability in hydraulic conductivity can be
expected. Similar ranges of values for different rock types have been reported in Freeze and
Cherry (1979), indicating that the data from the NTS region are not unusual.
5.5.1.5 Distribution of Hydraulic Conductivity with Depth

The relationship between hydraulic conductivity and depth can help in estimating the total depth
of the groundwater flow system and the hydraulic conductivity of the deeper strata for which data
are not available. Data specific to the major types of geologic units were used to develop
relationships between hydraulic conductivity and depth for use in estimating the hydraulic
conductivities of the lower strata, thus the flow model layers. The relationships were developed
for the following three rock types that form the major aquifers: the Alluvial Aquifer, the
Volcanic Aquifer, and the Lower Carbonate Aquifer (Figure 5-1). The graphs exhibit similar
relationships between hydraulic conductivity and depth for the three rock types. Two features
are evident on these graphs. First, there is a trend of decreasing hydraulic conductivity with
depth, suggesting that a lower bound for the flow system can be defined on the basis of these
figures. Second, for depths of approximately 3,000 m (9,843 ft) and more, the extrapolated
hydraulic conductivity values are less than 10-7 meters per day (3.3 x 10-7 feet per day), which are
representative of virtually impermeable media.
5-9
Table 5-1
Hydraulic Conductivity Summary Statistics Based on Well Averages
(Variable is Log[K] with K in meters per day)
Standard
Hydrostratigraphic Unit Mean Variance Minimum Maximum Count
Deviation
Alluvial Aquifer 0.368 1.25 1.56 -3.96 1.56 21
Tertiary Sediments -0.810 NA NA -0.810 -0.810 1
Basal Aquifer -2.36 NA NA -2.36 -2.36 1
Lower Carbonate Aquifer 0.158 1.09 1.19 -1.45 2.86 22
Lower Carbonate Aquifer -
-0.555 1.81 3.28 -3.09 1.17 4
Upper Plate
Belted Range Aquifer/
0.870 NA NA 0.870 0.870 1
Basil Aquifer
Belted Range Aquifer -0.409 0.86 0.742 -1.39 0.615 5
Calico Hills Tuff Cone -0.982 0.08 0.00718 -1.04 -0.922 2
5-10
Calico Hills Tuff Cone/

-1.83 0.59 0.349 -2.36 -1.19 3
Belted Range Aquifer
Tuff Confining Unit -2.81 1.95 3.79 -5.11 -0.212 5
Timber Mountain Aquifer -0.555 NA NA -0.555 -0.555 1
Paintbrush Tuff Cone/
-0.521 NA NA -0.521 -0.521 1
Calico Hills Tuff Cone
Volcanics Undifferentiated -2.15 0.74 0.543 -3.28 -1.38 5
Welded Tuff Aquifer/
-1.30 1.31 1.71 -2.86 -0.0635 6
Tuff Confining Unit
Welded Tuff Aquifer/
Tuff Confining Unit/ -1.61 NA NA -1.61 -1.61 1
Lower Carbonate Aquifer
Welded Tuff Aquifer -0.599 1.15 1.33 -3.18 0.641 10
NA = Not Applicable
Other researchers have also estimated the depth of the flow system underlying the NTS.
Winograd and Thordarson (1975) state that fractures in the LCA are open to at least 1,300 m
(4,265 ft) below land surface. In the volcanics units on the mesas, Blankennagel and Weir
(1973) found that water leaks downward along fractures at depths greater than 2,500 m
(8,202 ft). Thus, the depth of 3,000 m (9,843 ft) estimated from the volcanic data is of a similar
magnitude to other studies.
A decreasing linear trend is observed in the logarithm of hydraulic conductivity with increased
depth; thus, hydraulic conductivity decreases exponentially with depth. The relationship is
provided by the following equation:
Kdepth ' Kh(10&8d) (5-1)
where:
Kdepth = horizontal hydraulic conductivity at specified depth (L/T);
Kh = horizontal hydraulic conductivity at land surface (L/T);
8 = Hydraulic conductivity decay coefficient (1/L); and
d = depth from land surface (L).
The rate of decrease of hydraulic conductivity with depth is determined by the value of 8, the
conductivity decay coefficient. The 8 values for the three aquifers are provided in Table 5-2.
The relationship in equation (5-1) with coefficients from Table 5-2 is shown in Figure 5-1.
5.5.2 Effective Porosity

In fractured geologic materials, the effective porosity is best measured via a tracer migration test.
However, because effective porosity values from tracer experiments are scarce for the
hydrostratigraphic units at the NTS, data on fracture porosity have also been used to estimate the
effective porosities of the HSUs.
5.5.2.1 Porosity Data From Tracer Migration Studies

To describe large-scale movement of solutes in the subsurface, the effective porosity is usually
obtained from tracer or solute migration experiments. Three studies of tracer or radionuclide
movement on or near the NTS have yielded estimates of the effective porosity and are
summarized in Table 5-3.
5-12
Table 5-2
Hydraulic Conductivity Decay Coefficients with Depth
Hydraulic Conductivity
Decay Coefficient (day-1)
at Land Surface meters per day (m/d)
Aquifer
Lower
Lower 95% Upper 95% Upper 95%
Mean 95% Mean
C.I. C.I. C.I.
C.I.
Alluvial 0.00724 0.00563 0.00402 6.04 21.18 74.25
Carbonate 0.00160 0.00102 0.00044 2.60 6.76 17.59
Volcanics 0.00306 0.00256 0.00205 2.15 7.75 27.87
C.I. = Confidence Interval
Table 5-3
Effective Porosity Obtained From Tracer Migration Experiments
Effective
Location Porosity Hydrostratigraphic Unit Reference
(%)
U.S. Geological Survey 10 Lower Carbonate Aquifer Leap and Belmonte (1992)
Amargosa Tracer
Calibration Site
Wells C and C-1 0.064 - 0.5 Lower Carbonate Aquifer Winograd and West (1962):
analysis using Welty and Gelhar
(1989)
Cambric Site 31 - 35 Alluvial Aquifer Burbey and Wheatcraft (1986)
Leap and Belmonte (1992) examined data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Amargosa Tracer
Calibration Site (south of the NTS) and determined an effective porosity of 10 percent for a
fractured 10-m thick interval of the Bonanza King dolomite of the LCA. Burbey and Wheatcraft
(1986) used an effective porosity of 32 to 36 percent for the alluvium at the Cambric Site in
Frenchman Flat. A preliminary assessment of the tracer experiment at Wells C and C-1
(Winograd and West, 1962) yielded effective porosity between 0.064 and 0.5 percent for the
Lower Carbonate Aquifer.
5-13
5.5.2.2 Fracture Porosity
The small number of tracer studies on the NTS limits the applicability of the data to the entire
study area. To supplement the tracer studies, data from the examination of fractures in core were
used to calculate fracture porosity values on the NTS. In addition, fracture porosity data from
sites outside the NTS were examined to determine if data from the NTS are representative. Two
recent studies of carbonate (IT, 1996j) and volcanic (IT, 1996k) core provided insights into
fracture porosity values.
Core from Well ER-6-2 (IT, 1996j) was examined and described with respect to fracture density
(number of fractures per 1.5-m [5-ft] interval), fracture aperture, and fracture dip angle. In the
analysis, only open fractures were included. Sealed fractures were excluded because they are
unlikely to transmit much water. The average fracture spacing along the borehole is 1.5 m
(4.8 ft). The mean dip angle is 81E, and the mean aperture is 0.9 millimeter (0.003 ft). Using the
fracture spacing along the borehole and the dip angle, the true fracture spacing is shown to be
0.22 m (0.7 ft). The fracture porosity is 4 x 10-3, which is estimated as the aperture divided by
the true spacing. This value compares well with the larger value obtained from the tracer test in
Wells C and C-1 in Table 5-3.
A similar study (IT, 1996k) of core from seven wells from Pahute Mesa was conducted to
characterize fractures in the volcanic units. A range of fracture porosities (calculated from
aperture, density, orientation, and percent open-area data) is presented in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4
Fracture Porosity Obtained from the Study of Volcanic Core
Hydrostratigraphic Unit Fracture Porosity Range
TMA 2.2 x 10-5 to 2.1 x 10-4
TC 2.6 x 10-6 to 4.7 x 10-4
TBAQ 1.2 x 10-5 to 4.4 x 10-5
BAQ 6.1 x 10-6 to 2.3 x 10-4
Several literature sources for fracture porosity were examined to determine if the data from the
NTS were consistent with other work from around the world. Lee and Farmer (1993)
summarized a large amount of information about fluid flow in fractured rocks. They showed that
5-14
fracture porosity typically ranges from 5 x 10-6 to 5 x 10-4 for clastic, metavolcanic, and
crystalline rocks. This range is similar to the ranges indicated in Table 5-4.
At the Stripa Site in Sweden, the flow porosity is in the range of 1 x 10-5 to 2 x 10-4
(Neretnieks et al., 1989). In the fractured basalts of eastern Washington state, Gelhar (1982)
measured a porosity of 4.3 x 10-4 using a two-well tracer test. For carbonate rocks, the measured
porosities tend to be larger. In the Culebra Dolomite of eastern New Mexico, a range of values
from 2 x 10-4 to 2 x 10-2 has been proposed (Tomasko et al., 1989).
5.5.2.3 Summary of Porosity Data

The effective porosity value for the Alluvial Aquifer ranges between 31 and 35 percent. This
range seems reasonable because the effective porosity is similar to the matrix and bulk values
obtained from core and geophysical log data discussed in Section 8.0.
The effective porosity of the LCA ranges between .01 and 1 percent. The lower-bound estimates
come from the fracture aperture data and may be as low as 0.01 percent. Upper-bound values
from the Amargosa tracer site are about 10 percent. Winograd and Thordardson (1975) also
assumed average effective fracture porosities ranging from 0.01 to 1 percent for the LCA beneath
Yucca Flat and the Specter Range. This range is similar to the porosity values assumed for the
Culebra Dolomite of New Mexico. The LCA value for effective porosity determined by Leap
and Belmonte (1992) is larger than would be expected for a fractured aquifer. The Well C and
C-1 values, although approximate, are closer to expectation. The 10 percent value may be
accurate for the Amargosa site, but it is unlikely to be representative for the NTS as a whole.
The Amargosa tracer site is a very thin (<10 m [32.8 ft]) aquifer about 200 m (656 ft) below land
surface; these conditions are not typical of the study area as a whole.
For the fractured volcanic rocks, a range of effective porosity values from 2 x 10-6 to 5 x 10-4
appears appropriate. This is a very large range, covering more than two orders of magnitude.
As a result, the uncertainty associated with predicting radionuclide velocity will be quite large.
5.6 Water Levels

In the evaluation of water-level data for the generation of a hydraulic head dataset, the following
steps were followed:
C Compile and evaluate the data.

C Perform a statistical analysis to identify stable trends.
5-15
C Evaluate the uncertainties associated with the hydraulic head values.
C Assign a hydrostratigraphic unit.
C Develop hydraulic head distribution maps.
5.6.1 Data Compilation and Evaluation

The level of detail in the analysis of water-level data depends on the scale of the modeled area.
The following assumptions, deemed appropriate for a regional evaluation, were made:
• Spatial variations in groundwater density do not cause a significant effect on the

hydraulic heads. Thus, no corrections were made on the hydraulic heads for density
variation due to changes in temperature or chemistry.
• The degree of deviation of the boreholes is negligible enough so that no correction is

necessary on the depth-to-water measurements for a regional scale study.
• No leakage occurs between hydrostratigraphic units within the casing in boreholes open
to multiple hydrostratigraphic units. Thus, observed hydraulic heads are representative of
the hydrostratigraphic units targeted for measurement.
The specific types of data associated with the hydraulic head dataset were obtained mainly from
the USGS/GWSI database (USGS, 1989) and loaded in the ER database. The NWIS/GWSI data
were complemented with data from the literature reviewed. Additional depth-to-water data were
obtained from the Yucca Mountain database and various other publications. Most of the
contributing units information was derived from USGS reports.
Three main categories of wells were identified during the compilation of depth-to-water and
ancillary data: wells with multiple measurements, wells with single measurements, and wells
without measurements.
The first category consists of wells not having any depth-to-water measurement available and
labeled “inadequate” for the statistical analysis. Wells eliminated from the statistical analysis
were those which had no depth-to-water measurements. Measurements were usually lacking if
the well was dry, obstructed, flowing, or destroyed.
The second category consists of sites having a single depth-to-water measurement. These wells
were usually private wells located outside of the NTS on nuclear test sites at which the
measurement was made prior to exploding the nuclear device.
5-16
The third category consists of wells with multiple measurements. For such sites, hydrographs
were examined to identify stable periods that would best represent predevelopment conditions.
A horizontal stable trend is defined as that part of the hydrograph that includes only cyclical
variations about a mean value (Figure 5-2). Such a stable trend is representative of steady-state
conditions. For a given site, data points which are anomalously low or high and those which are
not part of the stable portion of the hydrograph were excluded from the statistic analysis.
5.6.2 Identification of Predevelopment Hydraulic Heads

The method of defining the predevelopment water levels is dependent on the category of wells
used to derive hydraulic heads from depth-to-water values.
For sites with no depth-to-water measurements, an estimate of the water level was based on the
circumstance. If the well was dry or obstructed, a maximum head value was estimated to be the
elevation of the well’s total depth (TD) or the elevation of the depth at which the obstruction was
encountered. If the well was naturally flowing, a minimum value for the head was the land
surface elevation (LSE) at the well location.
For sites having a single record of hydraulic head, the measured value was selected to be the
steady-state hydraulic head for that site. The associated temporal variances are unknown for
such sites and are assigned an estimated value.
For sites with multiple head elevation records “consistent” with a stable trend, simple statistics
were performed to calculate mean water-level values and hydrograph variances for use in the
uncertainty estimate. The predevelopment water level was calculated as a simple average (mean)
representative of that location. For sites with multiple records, but no consistent trend, a spatial
evaluation was made to select the most likely value for head elevation at that location.
5.6.3 Uncertainty Evaluation

The two variables used to calculate the hydraulic head are depth-to-water (DTW) and land
surface elevation. Thus, the uncertainty associated with a mean hydraulic head value at a given
site stems from three main sources of error: the error associated with estimating the land surface
elevation, the error associated with depth-to-water measurements, and the error associated with
reducing the temporal water-level measurements to a mean value.
5-17
The USGS database provides an estimate of the land surface elevation accuracy based on the
method used, including topographic maps or surveying (both of which provide better accuracies).
These estimates are only gross indicators of the potential error based on the method of
estimation. For the purposes of this evaluation, they are assumed to represent the errors on LSEs
for sites reported in the NWIS database. These errors range between 0 and 70 m (0 and 230 ft).
The LSE errors for other sites are unknown.
The error associated with the depth-to-water measurements is generally less than 0.2 m (0.5 ft).
When averaging measurements, the error associated with taking individual depth-to-water
measurements is included within the fluctuations of the hydrograph.
The hydrograph error is dependent on the site under consideration and may be estimated from the
hydrograph variance. For flow model calibration purposes, estimates of the variances associated
with the hydraulic head values, rather than errors, are used to weigh the hydraulic heads. The
variance of the average hydraulic head value was calculated as the sum of the variances of the
two independent variables as follows:
2 2
F2H ' FLSE % FDTW (5-2)
Where:
F2H' = Variance associated with the average hydraulic head square meters (m2);
F2LSE = Variance associated with the land surface elevation (m2); and
F2DTW = Hydrograph variance of “consistent” measurements (m2).
For sites having a single measurement of DTW, temporal variances are unknown for such sites
and were assigned a “999” code value in the database. Thus, the total variance is unknown and
also is assigned a “999” code. For springs, the variance of the LSE is used as the total hydraulic
head variance. A total hydraulic head variance value of 100 m2 (1,072 square feet [ft2]) is
recommended for all hydraulic head values assigned a “999” code. This variance is equivalent to
an estimated error of +/- 20 m (65.6 ft) or plus or minus two standard deviations with a
95 percent confidence level.
5-19
5.6.4 Site Hydrostratigraphic Unit Definition
For most sites located on the Nevada Test Site, hydrostratigraphic information was derived using
a stratigraphic database developed during the course of this evaluation and the hydrostratigraphy
described in Section 4.0. For other sites, the hydrostratigraphic information was directly
obtained or derived from published and unpublished references.
An effective open interval (EOI) was defined for each site for which well construction data were
available. The definition of the EOI varied from well to well as a result of differences in well
construction and the water level, but followed several basic criteria. For an open-hole
completion, the top of the tested interval was either the bottom of casing or the water table. The
bottom of an open-hole completion was typically chosen as the bottom of the hole. For
perforated completions, the top and bottom of perforations were used. If the water table occurred
within the perforated interval, the water table was chosen as the top of the EOI. In some cases,
more than one perforated interval was present; in those cases, the top of the uppermost
perforation or water level and the bottom of the lowermost perforation were used.
The assignment of hydrostratigraphic units was dependent on the type of data available to define
the HSU. For most of the wells located on the Nevada Test Site, the stratigraphic units to which
the well was open were identified, using the EOI defined above; then the corresponding HSU
was identified, based on the relative estimated identified transmissivities. The HSU with the
highest transmissivity within the EOI was selected as the primary HSU for the well. Sources of
data were the ER stratigraphy database and publications.
For some of the wells, particularly those on the NTS and in Amargosa Desert, the HSUs tapped
by the wells were identified in USGS publications (Arteaga et al., 1991; La Camera and
Westenburg, 1994). For private wells located in the Amargosa Desert and Penoyer Valley, the
HSU was identified using lithologic or drillers’ logs. Most of these private wells were completed
in the Quaternary Alluvial Aquifer.
Numerous wells outside of the NTS were lacking the geology and well construction information
necessary to assign an HSU with confidence; however, their TDs were known. These wells with
their water-level elevations and TD were posted on isopach maps of the Alluvial Aquifer and
surficial geology maps. The well depth was then compared to the thickness of the alluvium at
that location. If the well depth was less that the thickness of the AA at that location, the well was
assigned the AA HSU. If no geology, well construction, and TD data were available, the HSU
5-20
was assigned, based on information from neighboring wells and water-level comparison to those
of neighboring wells.
5.6.5 Dataset and Map Generation

The generation of a potentiometric-level map was performed in three steps:
• Step 1: Contours were generated using the ERMA® automatic contouring software
package.
• Step 2: Groundwater flow controlling features such as topographic, geologic, or

structural controls and recharge and discharge areas were mapped on separate layers on
the Environmental Restoration Data Base Management System (ERDBMS) and
superposed on the head contour map.
• Step 3: The hydraulic head contours were modified by hand to account for the effect of
the controlling features and to interpolate the lines in areas where large data gaps exist.
A spatial data analysis was conducted during the generation of the regional composite
potentiometric map. The objective of the spatial analysis was to identify and flag spatial
“outliers” in the hydraulic head dataset. The hydraulic head dataset was evaluated to identify
those measurements that were not representative of regional conditions; these data were not
included on head contour maps. For example, water levels indicating perched conditions were
flagged as not being representative. These included many springs at higher elevations in the
northern part of the model area and in the Spring Mountains. Also excluded are measurements in
NTS wells made during or shortly after drilling when it was questionable whether water levels
had stabilized.
Several maps depicting the hydraulic head distributions for various areas were generated. The
regional water level map is presented and discussed in Section 6.0. All other maps and the
associated hydraulic head dataset have been provided in the Potentiometric Data Documentation
Package (IT, 1996b).
5.7 Recharge and Discharge

The development of the steady-state, three-dimensional groundwater flow model requires
knowledge about the recharge and discharge areas and rates of flow in the groundwater flow
system. Under natural steady-state conditions the major recharge component is from
precipitation, and discharge is by ET. Minor recharge and discharge to and from the NTS
5-21
regional groundwater flow system also occurs by underflow across the boundaries of the flow
system.
5.7.1 Areal Recharge

The distribution and rates of areal groundwater recharge from precipitation may not be directly
and accurately measured. Two major methods of estimating groundwater recharge from
precipitation have been documented in the literature. They consist of the Maxey-Eakin (ME)
Method (Maxey and Eakin, 1949) and related methods; and a method modified from that of
Maxey-Eakin by D’Agnese (1994). The ME method is a widely used empirical method which
estimates recharge directly from precipitation estimates. A modified ME method, which is based
on an updated precipitation map, was used in this evaluation.
5.7.1.1 Maxey-Eakin Method

Between 1947 and 1951, Maxey and Eakin developed a method of estimating recharge to
groundwater from precipitation The method was described in a report about groundwater in
White River Valley (Maxey and Eakin, 1949). Since then, this method has been used in several
studies in Nevada to estimate recharge on a basin scale (Eakin et al., 1951; Walker and Eakin,
1963; Malmberg, 1967; and Czarnecki, 1985).
In the ME method, recharge is estimated by assuming that a zone-specific percentage of

precipitation infiltrates to recharge the groundwater flow system. Based on precipitation, the
percentages assigned are the ME coefficients. These coefficients were determined by trial and
error balancing of recharge with estimates of groundwater discharge for 13 valleys in east-central
Nevada (Maxey and Eakin, 1949). In these studies, the precipitation zones were defined using a
precipitation map developed by Hardman (1936). The estimated ME coefficients are presented
in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5
Precipitation Zones and Corresponding Coefficients for the ME Method
Precipitation Zone Based on Rate ME Coefficient

(in centimeters per year) (% of precipitation)
>51 25
38-51 15
30-38 7
20-30 3
<20 0
5-22
In the ME method, recharge for a given groundwater basin is calculated using the following
equation:
R ' EriPi (5-3)
Where:
R = Total ME recharge for a given basin;
ri = ME recharge coefficient; and
Pi = Volume of precipitation for each delineated precipitation zone.
An evaluation of the ME method for calculating recharge to groundwater in Nevada was

performed by the Las Vegas Valley Water District (1992). Estimates of recharge made using the
ME Method were compared with recharge estimates obtained using computer models and other
methods such as water budget methods. The ME method showed good agreement with the other
methods, and it was concluded that the method provides a good approximation for recharge
(Las Vegas Valley Water District, 1992). However, the ME method has some limitations.
The ME method does not account for factors that may significantly affect infiltration such as
vegetation, rock type, relative topography (flat or steep slopes), and bedrock permeability. In the
ME method, precipitation zones of less than 20.3 cm (8 in.) of annual precipitation (Table 5-5)
are not generally considered groundwater recharge areas. However, over the NTS, recharge is
known to occur in these areas. For example, in Fortymile Canyon (Wash), Savard (1994) found
that recharge to groundwater occurs by infiltration along the stream beds. However, based on the
ME method, a zero recharge is assigned to these areas because the annual precipitation is less
than 20.3 cm (8 in.).
Thus, although the recharge estimated using the ME method may be appropriate for regional-
scale modeling, it may not be adequate for the NTS and vicinity in view of the future local
groundwater flow modeling to be performed for the weapons testing areas. It is important that
the regional groundwater flow model provides realistic head distributions in these areas to help
define the boundary conditions of these local models. Thus, a more accurate depiction of the
recharge distribution on the NTS and vicinity would be advantageous. Such recharge
distribution would include recharge to areas such as canyons and washes. This would allow for a
more detailed simulation of the hydraulic head distribution in the vicinity of the canyons and
washes of the Nevada Test Site.
5-23
5.7.1.2 Modified ME Method
The recharge distribution used in the regional groundwater flow model was constructed using a
modification of the ME method (1949). This method consisted of constructing an updated
precipitation map, estimating recharge using ME coefficients, and allocating a portion of the total
recharge within selected subbasins to low-lying areas.
5.7.1.2.1 Precipitation
The precipitation map was constructed using existing precipitation maps, satellite imagery
(BN, 1996), precipitation station data (Jacobson, 1996), and a Digital Elevation Model
(USGS, 1987). The method by which the precipitation map and grid file were constructed is
explained in detail in the following sections.
The Precipitation Map of Nevada (Hardman, 1965) was used as a basis for construction of the
precipitation map used in determining the recharge distribution by the modified ME method.
The Precipitation Map of Nevada was adapted by Hardman in 1965 from an earlier version
constructed in 1936 (Hardman, 1936). The map coverage includes the entire state of Nevada, but
does not include the Death Valley portion of the NTS regional groundwater flow system. To
complete this portion of the precipitation map, the Death Valley section of the precipitation map
developed by James (1993) was used.
The two maps were scanned and digitized to produce a combined map. The precipitation station
data were posted on the combined map; only those stations with greater than eight years of
record were posted.
Precipitation contours in selected areas were modified to incorporate the new data from the
selected precipitation stations. However, in most instances, the precipitation station data
validated the existing precipitation contours, and only minimal modifications were necessary.
The satellite imagery and digital elevation model data were consulted prior to modifying the
contours. Contour lines were only modified where there were sufficient data to substantiate any
changes.
The precipitation map was validated using the digital elevation model and satellite imagery. In
general, the contour shape coincided with the shape of the topographic features of the mountain
ranges. Due to the poor copy and large scale of the Hardman map (1965), the validation process
proved to be a very important step in constructing the digital precipitation map because an error
5-24
was introduced in the tracing and scanning of the maps developed by Hardman (1965) and
James (1993).
Products consisted of a 1- by 1-km (0.6- by 0.6-mi) digital precipitation grid and a map presented
in Plate 1. In addition, the hydrographic areas (HA) defined by Harrill et al. (1988) (Plate 1)
were used to estimate the total precipitation within each hydrographic area for comparison with
those published by Scott et al. (1971). The total precipitation was calculated for each
hydrographic basin located within the NTS groundwater flow system. This total of
12,481,935 cubic meters per day (m3/d) (3,693,973 acre feet per year [ac-ft/yr]) is comparable to
that derived from Scott et al. (1971) estimates for the same area which is 12,363,624 (m3/d)
(3,658,959 ac-ft/yr).
5.7.1.2.2 Preliminary Recharge Distribution

A preliminary recharge distribution was generated using the updated precipitation map and the
ME coefficients (Table 5-5). The resulting groundwater recharge map is presented in Plate 2.
The recharge rates were first calculated for each 1- by 1-km (0.6- by 0.6-mi) grid cell by
multiplying the corresponding precipitation value by the Maxey-Eakin coefficients shown in
Table 5-1. For the lower precipitation zone, recharge was calculated using a Maxey-Eakin
coefficient of 2 percent. Total recharge values for the groundwater flow system were also
calculated using the 1 and 3 percent ME coefficient for the lowest recharge zone to evaluate the
range of potential recharge. The corresponding recharge estimates and distribution are presented
in Plate 2.
The estimated total recharge for the NTS regional groundwater flow system is 233,447 m3/d
(69,097 ac-ft/yr). The discrepancies observed between the calculated values and the literature
values for some of the hydrographic areas may be due to two reasons. The first reason is that
literature values were derived for different studies and were derived using different ME
coefficients for the lower recharge zone, varying between 1 and 3 percent. The second reason
relates to the method used to calculate recharge from the 1- by 1-km precipitation grid, which can
introduce additional errors. The recharge range derived using the 1 and 3 percent ME coefficient
for the lower recharge zone is from 177,484 to 289,410 m3/d (52,526 to 85,650 ac-ft/yr).
5-25
5.7.1.2.3 Recharge Allocation
A method for determining a hydrogeographic area where recharge to groundwater may occur by
infiltration through canyons and washes was developed. The method consists of identifying
different types of recharge allocation zones corresponding to the canyons and washes and then
allocating portions of the total HA recharge to the identified zones.
A given hydrographic area may be subdivided into three types of recharge zones: A, B, and C.
The following are descriptions of each zone:
• Type A zone: Upgradient recharge areas that receive greater than 20.3 cm (8 in.) of
annual precipitation per year. This is where the majority of infiltration occurs.
• Type B zone: Canyon-wash recharge areas that receive less than 20.3 cm (8 in.) of
precipitation per year, but include alluvial fans and streams through which recharge may
occur
• Type C zone: Areas of no recharge that receive less than 20.3 cm (8 in.) of precipitation
per year, but contain no alluvial fans or stream reaches to facilitate infiltration
Ten hydrographic areas where type B zones occur have been identified on the NTS and vicinity.
The subject HAs are Topopah Wash, Beatty Wash, Thirsty Canyon, Lower Fortymile Canyon,
Upper Fortymile Canyon, Frenchman Flat, Yucca Flat, Silent Canyon, Kawich Valley South, and
Groom Lake (Figure 5-3).
Each HA has been further subdivided into Types A, B, and C. Type B areas are, in turn, further
subdivided into three types of recharge areas: B1, B2, and B3. Type B1 represents bottoms of
canyons and valleys; Type B2 represents mountain fronts; and Type B3 represents valley
bottoms. See Table 5-6 for more detailed descriptions.
For each hydrographic area where B-type areas are known to exist, a portion of the HA recharge
volume is redistributed from Type A areas to Type B areas. It is important to emphasize that the
total rate of recharge calculated for each area has not been modified; only the areal distribution is
modified.
5-26
Table 5-6
Areas of Potential Recharge Redistribution in the Nevada Test Site Region
Recharge Recharge Area

Description
Area Type Subtype
A Highlands where precipitation and climatic conditions are sufficient
Highland to create recharge by deep infiltration. This type was defined as
None
Recharge areas with precipitation above 20.3 centimeters per year (cm/yr).
Areas
Upland canyon and valley washes and stream reaches where runoff
periodically infiltrates through the stream bed and recharges the
groundwater. Type B1 subareas are more likely to be steeply
B1
dipping with thin sediments above bedrock. It is expected that
infiltration would be relatively small in B1 subareas. Type B1
subareas receive less than 20.3 cm/yr of precipitation.
Mountain front washes and stream reaches where runoff periodically
B infiltrates through the stream bed and recharges the groundwater. At
Canyon- type B2 subareas, the topography flattens, and sediments are
Wash B2 thicker and more abundant than in Type B1 areas. Water can be
Recharge stored in the sediment and allowed to infiltrate more readily than in
Areas B1 subareas. Type B2 subareas receive less than 20.3 cm/yr of
precipitation.
Valley bottom washes and stream reaches where runoff periodically
infiltrates through the stream bed and recharges the groundwater.
Type B3 subareas are at the distal end of the streams. They are
B3
typically low gradient, fan-like, and have the capacity to infiltrate
large quantities of water. However, B3 subareas rarely receive flow.
Type B3 subareas receive less than 20.3 cm/yr of precipitation.
C Lowlands and inter-stream areas where infiltration is assumed not to
Areas of occur. This type was defined as areas with precipitation below
None
No 20.3 cm/yr.
Recharge
5-28
The calculated total ME recharge rate (VT - total recharge rate in the basin) is redistributed from
Type A areas (VA) where recharge rates are greater than zero to Type B areas (VB) so that:
V T ' VA % VB (5-4)
Where:
VT = Total recharge rate;
VA = Recharge rate in Type A areas; and
VB = Recharge rate in Type B areas.
The redistribution factor, ", is a fraction of the total recharge (between 0 and 1) so that VA = "VT
and VB = (1-")VT. For example, if VT = 100 and " = .30, then VA = 30 and VB = 70.
For each hydrographic area, the recharge rates in Type B areas are further distributed to each
recharge subarea (B1, B2, and B3) based on fractions $, (, and * of recharge volume in B (VB),
so that the following relationships hold true:
$%(%*'1
(5-5)
Where:
$ = Fraction of VB assigned to Type B1 subareas;
( = Fraction of VB assigned to Type B2 subareas; and
* = Fraction of VB assigned to Type B3 subareas.
The areas of types B1, B2, and B3 are canyons or washes. Within a given HA, each of them is
subdivided into several reaches that are compatible with a selected grid. Recharge rates for each
reach are then obtained by dividing the recharge rate assigned to a given subarea type (B1, B2, or
B3) by the number of reaches available within a given hydrographic area.
A utility FORTRAN code was developed to implement the modified ME method. The code
requires the ME recharge distribution by HA; the spatial distribution of different types of
recharge areas described above; and values for ", $, (, and * based on estimates of recharge rates
at B-type and subtype areas. The code calculates a new recharge distribution in the form of a
5-29
grid that can be made compatible with the flow model grid, an important feature that allows
adjusting of the recharge grid during the calibration process. The code listing and Quality
Assurance (QA) requirements are provided in the Groundwater Flow Model Documentation
Package (IT, 1996f).
The recharge allocation coefficients ", (, $, and * are unknown because the amounts of recharge
that occur in Type B areas located in the different hydrographic areas are also largely unknown.
Arbitrary initial values must be assigned to these coefficients to generate the initial recharge grid.
They are to be adjusted during the groundwater flow model calibration process. The process and
the results are provided in the Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f).
5.7.2 Discharge
Groundwater discharge to the surface occurs through springs and by evapotranspiration.
Although spring discharge is important within the Death Valley groundwater basin, only a
negligible portion of it is discharged from the basin through surface flow in the Amargosa River
in the southern boundary of the NTS regional flow system. A flow rate of less than 0.03 cubic
meter per second (m3/s) (1 cubic foot per second [ft3/s]) was observed in the Amargosa River at
that location in 1992. The majority of the groundwater discharged by springs is effectively lost
from the groundwater basin through evapotranspiration in the vicinity of the springs. However,
spring discharge data were used to provide an estimate of ET losses in regional discharge areas.
5.7.2.1 Spring Discharge

Springs occur at numerous locations within the NTS flow system area (Figure 5-4). Springs
located on the NTS and the mountains are perched. Springs of importance to this study are
regional springs, defined as such because they originate from the regional groundwater system.
Within the NTS regional groundwater flow system, numerous regional springs occur in Ash
Meadows, Oasis Valley, and Death Valley. Average individual discharges for springs located
in major regional discharge areas such as Ash Meadows and Oasis Valley were calculated
and then summed up by area. The total spring discharge at Ash Meadows is 56,277 m3/d
(16,650 ac-ft/yr). This value is consistent with the previously reported value of 57,460 m3/d
(17,000 ac-ft/yr) (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975). The total spring discharge at Oasis Valley is
9,700 m3/d (2,870 ac-ft/yr). This discharge value is based only on available data and may
actually be larger.
5-30
5.7.2.2 Evapotranspiration
Discharge by evapotranspiration constitutes the majority of the total discharge from the NTS
groundwater flow system. Based on previous investigations, significant groundwater losses by
ET are known to occur in Death Valley, Oasis Valley, and areas of the Amargosa Desert.
The ET discharge areas were selected based on identification of vegetated areas and spring
locations on the corresponding USGS 1:24,000-scale (7½ minute) topographic maps. The
following eight areas were identified as surface discharge areas (Figure 5-4): Ash Meadows,
Oasis Valley, Death Valley, Franklin Lake Playa, Alkali Flat (Peters Playa), Penoyer Valley,
Amargosa River, and Indian Springs.
For each of these areas, an estimate of the evaporative loss is presented. It is assumed that only
evaporative losses are net losses from the groundwater flow system. Spring discharge alone may
overestimate groundwater discharge because some of that water may infiltrate back to the
shallow groundwater system. For several of the areas, the estimates are approximate with large
uncertainty that cannot be eliminated without additional investigation.
Ash Meadows
Estimation of evapotranspiration rates in the Ash Meadows area and vicinity is an ongoing
project conducted by the USGS Nevada District Office. This USGS study includes direct
measurements of temperature, solar radiation, heat flux, and depths to groundwater.
The preliminary result of ET rates in Ash Meadows ranges from 0.12 to 0.29 centimeters per day
(cm/d) (1.5 to 3.5 feet per year [ft/yr]). Based on these rates and an approximate value of
10 acres for the discharge area, Laczniak (1996a) estimated a range of 50,685 to 118,265 m3/d
(15,000 to 35,000 ac-ft/yr), including maximum uncertainty. He also commented that a narrower
range of 67,500 to 101,400 m3/d (20,000 to 30,000 ac-ft/yr) was more probable, based on a
narrower range of average ET rates between 0.16 to 0.25 cm/d (2 to 3 ft/yr) (Laczniak, 1996a).
Oasis Valley
The Oasis Valley groundwater discharge area is located to the west of the Nevada Test Site and
appears to be the discharge area of a portion of the groundwater in volcanic rocks on Western
Pahute Mesa (Figure 5-4). Malmberg and Eakin (1962) have estimated that evaporative losses
from the groundwater system in Oasis Valley are on the order of (7,000 m3/d) 2,000 ac-ft/yr.
5-32
Laczniak (1996a) believes that this estimate is too low and should be in the range of 17,000 to
27,000 m3/d (5,000 to 8,000 ac-ft/yr).
The discharge flux for Oasis Valley range estimates from 7,000 to 27,000 m3/d (2,000 to
7,700 ac-ft/yr). The low end of this range represents older estimates and appears to be too low.
The upper end is at present unsubstantiated by any data. Estimated total spring discharges (less
the Amargosa Narrows underflow) and the approximate ET rate times the area of vegetation
produce a narrower range of 13,000 to 17,000 m3/d (3,700 to 5,000 ac-ft/yr) that will be used as
a calibration target.
Death Valley
The Death Valley discharge area of interest is located in the central Death Valley subregion of the
Death Valley Groundwater Flow System (PAL Consultants, 1995). A number of estimates of the
evapotranspiration losses are available in Hunt et al. (1966) and Miller (1977). These
estimates are summarized in a report by PAL Consultants (1995) and range from 44,000 to
406,000 m3/d (13,000 to 120,000 ac-ft/yr); they cover slightly different areas of Death Valley
and represent total discharge regardless of source. The largest range of 44,000 to 80,000 m3/d
(13,000 to 23,500 ac-ft/yr) is from D’Agnese (1994) and is much larger than that presented by
other investigators (Hunt et al., 1966; Miller, 1977). However, his estimate is for central Death
Valley, and the discharge area included within the NTS regional groundwater flow system as
defined in this study does not extend across the entire central Death Valley subregion and does
not account for groundwater discharge originating from the Panamint Mountains located south of
Death Valley. Thus, the estimated range of this discharge should be smaller than the above
estimates.
Hunt et al. (1966) focused their work in the salt pan area of Death Valley and differentiated
components of groundwater that came from the east and west sides of the valley. In the
Hunt et al. study (page B-38, 1966), the total discharge of groundwater from the east side of the
valley for the Cottonball Basin, Furnace Creek Wash, Middle Basin (south of Furnace Creek
Wash), and Badwater Basin areas is given as 3,220 gallons per minute (17,500 m3/d or
5,200 ac-ft/yr). The total discharge from both sides of the valley is given as 8,000 gallons per
minute (43,600 m3/d or 12,900 ac-ft/yr). The discharge area of interest corresponds quite well
with the areas discussed in the Hunt et al. study except that the model does not include the
southern half of the Badwater Basin. The majority of the discharge in the Badwater Basin occurs
in the vicinity of Badwater, so little error is introduced by taking the values of Hunt et al. (1966).
5-33
The amount of uncertainty in these estimates is not known, but experience in Ash Meadows and
Oasis Valley suggests that a factor of two might be appropriate. Therefore, using the discharge
from the east side of Death Valley as given by Hunt et al. (1966) and assuming the uncertainty is
a factor of two, the calibration target for Death Valley is given by the range 8,750 to 35,000 m3/d
(2,590 to 10,350 ac-ft/yr).
Franklin Lake Playa

Evapotranspiration was studied in the Franklin Lake Playa (Alkali Flat) by Czarnecki (1990).
Measurements to estimate evapotranspiration were made between June 1983 and September 1984
using the eddy-correlation technique coupled with the energy-balance method.
The groundwater table in the vicinity of the playa ranges from 1 m (3.3 ft) above land surface to
3 m (9.8 ft) below land surface. Czarnecki (1990) used seven different techniques to estimate the
evapotranspiration rate from Franklin Lake playa. The estimates range from 0.06 to 1.7 cm/d
(0.02 to 0.7 inches per day [in./d]). Czarnecki (1990) considered the narrower range of 0.1 to
0.3 cm/d (0.04 to 0.1 in./d) from the energy-balance, eddy-correlation method to provide the
most reasonable and representative estimates of the ET rates. Taking the area of the playa
(14.2 km2 [5.5 mi2]) into consideration, the total discharge rates range from 14,200 to
42,600 m3/d (3,800 to 11,500 ac-ft/d). Czarnecki stated that an ET rate of 0.16 cm/d (0.06 in./d)
(22,700 m3/d [6,100 ac-ft/yr]) is representative of the average ET rate measured with the energy-
balance eddy correlation method (Czarnecki, 1990).
Alkali Flat (Peters Playa)

Alkali Flat or Peters Playa is a discharge area northeast of Ash Meadows referred to as “the
unnamed valley northeast of the spring line” by Winograd and Thordarson (1975). In their
report, Winograd and Thordarson (1975) described it as an area of some groundwater discharge,
but only crudely estimated the ET discharge to be less than 3,400 m3/d (1,000 ac-ft/yr).
The playa has an area of about 12.6 km2 (1.2 m) based on Figure 34 in the Winograd and
Thordarson study (1975), in which a circular area or radius 2 km (1.2 mi) was used to
approximate the playa extent. Recent drilling of well MSH-C in the northern portion of the playa
confirmed a generally upward hydraulic gradient. The water table may be within a few meters of
the land surface beneath much of the playa. If ET rates similar to Franklin Lake Playa are used,
then the discharge rate could range from 12,600 to 37,800 m3/d (3,400 to 10,200 ac-ft/yr). The
possible range of discharge rates is quite large with little data to reduce the uncertainty. A large
5-34
range of 3,000 to 35,000 m3/d (800 to 9,400 ac-ft/yr) is recommended for use in the groundwater
flow model calibration. Additional work would be required to reduce this range further.
Penoyer Valley
Penoyer Valley, also known as Sand Spring Valley, is located north-northeast of the NTS.
Van Denburgh and Rush (1974) investigated discharge in Penoyer Valley and determined the
evaporative discharge to be 13,500 m3/d (4,000 ac-ft/yr). Using Plate 1 of the report prepared by
Van Denburgh and Rush (1974), the discharge area is estimated to be 69 km2 (26.6 mi2), which
yields an average ET rate of 0.02 cm/d (0.008 in./d). This rate is substantially lower than the
rates for Ash Meadows or Oasis Valley, both of which are at lower elevations. The ET rate for
Penoyer Valley may be larger than 0.02 cm/d (0.08 in./d) if the recent data from Ash Meadows
are considered. In the latter case, older estimates appear to be too small by a factor of two. If
that pattern holds for Penoyer Valley as well, then the discharge could be as large as 27,000 m3/d
(7,990 ac-ft/yr). For the purposes of model calibration, a discharge range of 13,500 to
27,000 m3/d (3,990 to 7,990 ac-ft/yr) is recommended.
Amargosa River
Discharge of groundwater occurs along selected reaches of the Amargosa River. One area of
discharge is southwest of Ash Meadows where satellite photographs show vegetation. It is not
known how much water evaporates from this area. The evapotranspiration area is very small
compared to Ash Meadows, and presumably the total ET flux is also much less. It is difficult to
determine the relative areas, but from satellite images, the ET area for the Amargosa River
appears to be less than 5 percent of the ET area for Ash Meadows. Therefore, an estimate of the
ET flux is taken to be 5 percent of the range of values given for Ash Meadows. This yields
discharge values in the range of 3,400 to 5,100 m3/d (900 to 1,400 ac-ft/yr). These values should
be viewed as upper bounds when used as calibration targets.
Indian Springs
A small amount of groundwater discharge occurs in the Indian Springs area. The ET rate was
estimated using a measured discharge rate at the springs (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975).
Because ET estimates were not available for this discharge area, the upper estimate was
calculated by increasing the spring discharge rate by 80 percent to take ET effects into account.
5-35
5.7.3 Flow Boundaries
The boundary of the NTS regional groundwater flow was delineated to correspond to areas
where no flow occurs (such as groundwater divides). However, flow across the basin boundary
occurs in some areas. Four areas along the Death Valley groundwater basin boundary are known
to be flux boundaries. The first and most important area is along the northeastern boundary with
inflow occurring from Pahranagat Valley to Desert (Tickaboo) Valley. The second area is along
the western boundary of Pahrump Valley, and the third area is located at the southern boundary
by Eagle Mountain. The fourth area where flow might occur is on the western boundary with
potential inflow or outflow from Sarcobatus Flat into the Death Valley basin. Estimates of
subsurface flow across the boundaries of the Death Valley groundwater system are provided in
the following paragraphs.
Pahranagat Valley
The occurrence of subsurface inflow from Pahranagat Valley is supported by studies using
isotope and other chemical data (Thomas, 1988). Winograd and Thordarson (1975) also
postulated a groundwater underflow from Pahranagat Valley on the basis of potentiometric head
data, major geologic features, and the deuterium content of spring waters in both basins.
Winograd and Thordarson (1975) estimated that as much as 20,280 m3/d (5,400 ac-ft/yr) may
enter Desert (Tickaboo) Valley from Pahranagat Valley. The deuterium data have been
interpreted to suggest that 35 percent of the discharge at Ash Meadows comes from the
Pahranagat Valley. The uncertainty in this value is unknown, but can be estimated from the
deuterium data presented in Table 13 of the Winograd and Thordarson study (1975). Using the
given mean, standard deviation, and number of samples, a 95 percent confidence interval about
the mean value has been determined for each set of samples, assuming normally distributed
random variables. With the uncertainty in the mean values, the percentage of springflow at Ash
Meadows that is derived from Pahranagat Valley can be shown to vary from 8 to 60 percent.
Using the range of discharge values already provided for Ash Meadows (67,500 to 101,400 m3/d
[18,200 to 27,000 ac-ft/yr]), the range of values for inflow from Pahranagat Valley is given by
8 percent of 67,500 m3/d to 60 percent of 101,400 m3/d or 5,400 to 60,800 m3/d (1,500 to
15,400 ac-ft/yr).
Pahrump Valley
Several investigators, including Maxey and Jameson (1948), Malmberg (1967), Loeltz (1960),
and Hughes (1966) present estimates of groundwater movement from Pahrump Valley to
Ash Meadows that range from 10,000 to 43,900 m3/d (3,000 to 13,000 ac-ft/yr). Winograd and
5-36
Thordarson (1975) suggest, on the basis of the presence of the lower clastic aquitard between
Pahrump and Ash Meadows (a significant head difference and different geochemistry of the
water), that the discharge is much smaller. Using hydraulic parameters, they present a range of
values from 5 to 7,600 m3/d (1 to 1,400 gal/min). It would appear that the inflow from Pahrump
is small and probably balanced by the outflow near Eagle Mountain.
Sarcobatus Flat
Sarcobatus Flat is located to the west of Oasis Valley, and it is possible that there may be some
flux of groundwater between the two areas. Malmberg and Eakin (1962) examined the
groundwater resources of Oasis and Sarcobatus Valleys. In both valleys, the estimated discharge
by evapotranspiration and underflow far exceeds the local recharge. Malmberg and Eakin (1962)
suggest that the difference between recharge and discharge is made up by underflow from valleys
to the north such as Gold Flat and Stonewall Flat. There is no mention of underflow between
Oasis and Sarcobatus valleys. Regional potentiometric maps suggest that the boundary between
the two basins is a groundwater divide. Malmberg and Eakin (1962) present limited groundwater
level data to suggest that the direction of groundwater flow in Sarcobatus Flat is to the west. The
direction and amount of underflow between Oasis and Sarcobatus valleys is not known. It will
be assumed that the magnitude of underflow will be less than 1,700 m3/d (500 ac-ft/yr).
Therefore the range of values to use in the model will be -1,700 to 1,700 m3/d (-500 to
500 ac-ft/yr).
Eagle Mountain
The underflow occurs at Eagle Mountain, located southeast of Death Valley Junction and
between the Resting Spring and the Greenwater mountain ranges. The Eagle Mountain boundary
accounts for underflow in alluvium underlying the Amargosa River. Walker and Eakin (1963)
estimated the subsurface flow to be about 1,700 m3/d (500 ac-ft/yr). The uncertainty in this
estimate is unknown. This discharge is not mentioned in most other documents describing
groundwater flow in the Death Valley groundwater flow system with the exception of Harrill
(1986) who considered it in the context of a water balance for Pahrump Valley. The conclusion
to be drawn is that the flux is small and not considered a significant factor in the flow system.
For lack of a better estimate, the uncertainty will be assumed to be a factor of two. Therefore,
the range of values to be used for calibration is 850 to 3,400 m3/d (250 to 1,000 ac-ft/yr).
5-37
6.0 Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model
The conceptual groundwater flow model provides a comprehensive description of the Nevada
Test Site regional groundwater flow system based upon the geologic and hydrogeologic data
presented in Sections 4.0 and 5.0. This section discusses the groundwater flow system boundary,
the regional hydrogeologic framework and groundwater flow, the detailed hydrogeologic
framework and groundwater flow of the NTS, and the uncertainties regarding the conceptual
model.
6.1 Groundwater Flow System Boundary

The boundary for the NTS regional groundwater flow system has been modified from
Waddell et al. (1984) as a result of this evaluation. Plate 3 depicts the extent of this boundary.
The boundary has been delineated to match groundwater divides that occur along the crests of the
Sheep Range, Spring Mountains, Cactus Range, and Quinn Canyon Range. The boundary has
been further delineated by following selected groundwater flow lines between the Sheep Range
and the Spring Mountains, west from the Spring Mountains to the Resting Spring and
Greenwater Ranges to Death Valley. From Death Valley, the boundary follows selected flow
lines north to the Grapevine Mountains and continues north to the west of Bullfrog Hills and the
Cactus Range. From Cactus Range, the boundary continues east across the Kawich Range to
Railroad Valley and continues north to Garden Valley and then south to the Timpahute Range
and Pahranagat Range (Plate 3).
Those portions of the boundary based on groundwater flow lines are more uncertain than those
based on groundwater divides. Therefore, the locations of the western and northern portions of
the boundary are the most uncertain. Some uncertainty also exists regarding the location of the
boundary in the vicinity of the southern Sheep Range. The interpretation used in this model
incorporates the Sheep Range within the Death Valley flow system, while others
(e.g., Dettinger et al., 1995) have suggested that water recharged in the Sheep Range may,
instead, flow toward the Las Vegas Valley. Water-level data in this area can be interpreted both
ways, depending upon the configuration and properties of the Las Vegas Shear Zone. The Sheep
Range was included within the boundary because the top of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit is
highest near the crest of the Sheep Range and slopes to the west. This geometry favors flow to
the west rather than the south.
6-1
6.2 Regional Groundwater Flow System
The following interpretation of the hydrogeologic framework and groundwater flow within the
NTS regional groundwater flow system is presented at the regional scale to which the
groundwater flow model was constructed. The hydrostratigraphy and structural features that
comprise the hydrogeologic framework of the NTS regional groundwater flow system are
discussed in terms of the HSUs defined in Section 4.0. The interpretation includes discussions of
geologic structures that potentially influence groundwater flow and direction within the flow
system. Alternate interpretations are offered where applicable; however, the simpler structural
interpretations have been preferred due to the complexity of a model of this magnitude.
6.2.1 Hydrogeologic Framework

The regional hydrogeologic framework provides the foundation of the groundwater flow system
and is described in the following sections in general terms; then is discussed for selected areas
surrounding the NTS.
6.2.1.1 General Features

The Lower Carbonate Aquifer and Lower Clastic Confining Unit predominantly control regional
groundwater flow within the study area and, therefore, the transport of contaminants. The LCA
and LCCU are the most expansive HSUs within the NTS region. The LCA is the most important
aquifer due to its distribution and high hydraulic conductivity. The regional distribution and
thickness of the LCA is spatially variable and controlled by the structural position of the
underlying LCCU. Figure 4-3 is an isometric projection of the LCCU throughout the model area
and shows the structural highs and lows of the LCCU, implying the relative thickness of the
LCA. In general, the Lower Carbonate Aquifer is thin or missing on the structural highs and is
thickest in the structural lows. Outcropping locations of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit are
shown on Figure 6-1 as well as the surficial distributions of the LCA, LCCU, and other HSUs.
The map was constructed by stacking the grid of each HSU in stratigraphic sequence.
The hydraulic conductivity of the LCA is relatively high compared to that of the LCCU. The
LCCU is generally considered impermeable, although it may locally exhibit hydraulic properties
consistent with an aquifer due to fracturing. Table 6-1 summarizes the range of hydraulic
parameters for major aquifers of the NTS region. The range of hydraulic conductivity for
carbonate aquifers is large, representing interstitial porosity at the lower limit and fracture
6-2
Table 6-1
Range of Hydraulic Parameters for Major Aquifers
Hydraulic Conductivity
Effective Porosity
Aquifer Range
Mean Range (%)
(m/d)a (m/d)
Alluvial Aquifer 8.44 0.00006-83 31-35
Volcanic Aquifers 1.18 0.0003-12 0.00001-0.006
Carbonate Aquifers 31.71 0.0008-1,570 0.0006-10
a
m/d = Meters per day
porosity at the upper limit. The mean hydraulic conductivity for carbonate aquifers is also very
large, implying that groundwater flows predominantly through fractures. This is supported by
the small gradients observed between water-level wells completed in the Lower Carbonate
Aquifer.
Other major aquifers include the alluvial and volcanic aquifers. The hydraulic properties
estimated for these aquifers are presented in Table 6-1. The hydraulic conductivity for Alluvial
Aquifers is smaller than that of carbonate aquifers, but higher than that of volcanic aquifers. The
distribution and thicknesses of alluvial and volcanic aquifers are highly variable throughout the
region and are not interpreted to be continuous. In most instances, an Alluvial Aquifer is
confined to a basin by surrounding mountain ranges. In some basins, Alluvial Aquifers are
discontinuous due to structural controls elevating the bottom of the alluvium above the water
table. In general, alluvial and volcanic aquifers are considered depositional elements overlying
the regional flow system and only influence regional flow in localized areas.
As previously discussed, the distribution and thickness of the regional LCA is spatially variable
across the NTS regional groundwater flow system. This variability is controlled in large part by
the structural position of the LCCU. The following sections discuss the regional hydrogeologic
framework of selected areas surrounding the NTS: east, north, and west of the NTS, as well as
the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley areas.
6-4
6.2.1.1.1 East of the NTS
The hydrogeologic framework of the area east of the NTS, from the Halfpint Range east to the
Sheep Range and Pahranagat Range, is controlled by the structural configuration of the Lower
Clastic Confining Unit and overlying Lower Carbonate Aquifer. The LCA in this area is
comprised of interconnected erosional remnants of the LCA, preserved within Mesozoic-age
synclines. Thrust faulting in the area has tectonically thickened the LCA to an interpreted
thickness of 7,500 m (25,000 ft). Figure 6-2 is a series of east-west cross sections indicating the
structural highs of the LCCU and the interpreted thickness of the LCA east of the NTS. The
most prominent uplift is interpreted to extend from the Halfpint and Groom Ranges, north to the
Grant Range. The structural uplifts of the LCCU typically trend north-south.
Volcanic rocks are hydrologically important locally in the southern part of this area where
Tertiary sediments occur on the east flank of the Pintwater Range. These sediments are erosional
remnants of an exhumed early Tertiary basin, possibly greater than 400 m (1,300 ft) in thickness.
At the regional scale, these sediments are not hydrologically significant.
6.2.1.1.2 North of the NTS

A third of the NTS regional groundwater flow system lies north of the NTS, extending north
from the southern portions of the Kawich and Belted Ranges to the southern portions of Railroad
Valley and Grant Range. Structurally, the area is characterized by Mesozoic-age contractional
structures trending north-south, which have uplifted the LCCU and controlled the distribution
and thickness of the LCA. In localized areas, younger Basin and Range structures have modified
the regional structure. The structural trends of the LCCU for this area are depicted in Figures 4-3
and 6-3.
Figure 6-3 illustrates how the structural highs of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit influence the
distribution and thickness of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer in the northern portion of the model
area. In the east, the LCCU is structurally high in a long, north-south trending uplift that extends
from the Halfpint Range to the Grant Range. East of this structural high, the LCA is very thick
(up to 5,400 m [17,700 ft]). The increased thickness can be attributed to structural duplexing of
the LCA by Mesozoic thrust faults. Due to erosion and the depositional manner by which the
rock was formed, the LCA progressively thins to the west of the Halfpint and Grant Ranges.
6-5
From approximately the middle of the northern part of the model area, an east-to-west
carbonate/shale facies change progressively increases the relative amount of shale in the LCA.
The time-transgressive boundary of the LCCU/LCA climbs through the Paleozoic section with
shale increasing in the lower part of the LCA. The Lower Carbonate Aquifer shales out on the
northwestern side of the model area where it outcrops at the San Antonio Mountains. In this
area, the model interpretation includes no LCA in the subsurface. Instead, a thick section of
volcanics covers the Lower Clastic Confining Unit. Therefore, southernly flow of groundwater
in this area is impeded by the lack of LCA and the thick section of volcanics covering the LCCU.
Several igneous intrusives are also present in the area and are treated as vertical-sided blocks
penetrating all layers to the surface.
It is interpreted in the geologic model that the complete section of LCA is present in the
subsurface northwest of the NTS at Cactus Range. This interpretation is supported by the
occurrence of sporadic outcrops of the LCA in the Cactus Range. It is reasonable to assume that
the entire LCA section lies beneath this area, given the LCA outcrops and barring any unknown
structural features that might disprove this interpretation.
6.2.1.1.3 West of the NTS

West of the NTS, from western Pahute Mesa to Slate Ridge, the hydrogeologic framework is
characterized by structural uplifts of the LCCU and volcanic cover. The LCCU is exposed along
the western boundary of the geologic model area, while volcanic rocks cover the remainder of
the area between the western geologic boundary and western portion of Pahute Mesa. However,
there is a small outcrop of Devonian carbonate (upper portion of the LCA) exposed at the west
end of the Black Mountain caldera, just west of Pahute Mesa. There is a high uncertainty of how
much of the LCA exists under the volcanic cover, but barring any unknown structural features,
the LCA outcrop suggests that most of the LCA thickness might underlie the volcanics.
Therefore, the LCA has been interpreted to underlie the volcanic cover in this area west of the
Pahute Mesa Timber Mountain Caldera complex and north of Oasis Valley.
The geologic model interprets the presence of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer under the Cactus
Range, as discussed in Section 6.2.1.1.2, allowing for an LCA corridor from the northern part of
the model area, around the volcanic cover, to the west side of the NTS. The LCA corridor ends
at Bare Mountain where the Belted Range thrust system has erosionally truncated the LCA
against the structurally uplifted LCCU. This truncation, displayed in Figure 6-4, has created a
barrier to southernly flow coincident with the location of springs at Oasis Valley, implying
6-8
spring discharge from the regional LCA and volcanics of the Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain
caldera complex.
A local feature in the area is the Black Mountain Caldera. The caldera is not associated with a
gravity low (Saltus, 1994); therefore, it was not interpreted as a typical caldera with large vertical
displacements on bounding faults. As interpreted in the conceptual model, the Black Mountain
Caldera does not influence regional groundwater flow in the area.
6.2.1.1.4 Amargosa Desert and Death Valley Areas

As in other areas within the NTS groundwater flow system, the structural position of the Lower
Clastic Confining Unit also controls the distribution and thickness of the regional LCA in the
Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. The hydrogeologic framework of the Amargosa Desert area
is characterized by a complex geologic structure resulting from the offset of the Bare Mountain
Fault. The Bare Mountain Fault has subdivided the Amargosa Desert area into areas of
significantly different structure on the west and east sides of the fault. The Bare Mountain Fault
and separately defined thrust fault areas have uplifted the LCCU so that its structural position is
higher than that of the LCA. Therefore, groundwater flow in this area is generally impeded and
provided with an upward flow component by the structurally high LCCU.
The Bare Mountain Fault, located near the east side of Bare Mountain in Crater Flat, is a major
normal fault that strikes north-south from northern Crater Flat to the southern Amargosa Desert.
Figure 6-5 is an east-west cross section through the northern portion of the Amargosa Desert and
Yucca Mountain, and it illustrates the differences between the area west of the fault and the area
east of the fault. West of the Bare Mountain Fault, the LCCU is structurally high with surface
exposures in the Grapevine Mountains. The alluvial basin is interpreted to be shallow and
floored by the structurally high LCCU with a relatively thin veneer of Tertiary sediments beneath
the alluvium. East of the Bare Mountain Fault, the LCCU is dropped down by the fault where a
thick section of LCA is preserved. In the Yucca Mountain area, the LCA is covered by the
volcanics of the Volcanic Aquifer and Volcanic Confining Unit. The southern limit of the
Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field occurs south of the NTS and coincides with the position of
the Bare Mountain fault.
The Amargosa Desert area contains separately defined thrust fault systems in which the LCCU
has been lifted to a higher structural position than that of the LCA. The thrust zones trend to the
east-northeast (Figure 4-3) and are depicted in the cross sections of Figure 6-2. Uplift of the
6-10
LCCU in the hanging wall of each of the thrusts impedes groundwater flow, so that groundwater
flow through the LCA is laterally confined between thrust faults and is approximately parallel to
the cross section depicted in Figure 6-6.
Figure 6-6 is a northeast-southwest cross section extending from the Desert Range through
Mercury, Nevada, to the Furnace Creek area in Death Valley. Figure 6-6 depicts the gradual
westward erosional thinning of the LCA and the thick alluvium overlying the LCA in the
Amargosa Desert. South of the Funeral Mountains, the LCA is present, but has been tectonically
thinned and eroded during Tertiary extension. The Tertiary Sediments/Death Valley Section,
consisting of the Artist Drive, Furnace Creek, and Funeral Formations, directly overlies the LCA
and is interpreted to be a local confining unit. South of the Funeral Mountains, the TSDVS,
LCCU, and local intrusives comprise a barrier to southwestward groundwater flow into Death
Valley. In the Funeral and Grapevine Mountains, the barrier is comprised of structurally high
LCCU.
6.2.2 Regional Groundwater Flow

In the NTS region, groundwater occurs within alluvial, volcanic, and carbonate rocks and flows
from recharge areas located in the higher altitudes of mountain ranges to discharge areas
downgradient. Recharge occurs in the northern and eastern portions of the flow system
(Grant Range, Kawich Range, Belted Range, Pahute Mesa, Sheep Range), and discharge occurs
in the south-southwest (Death Valley, Oasis Valley, Ash Meadows) and Penoyer Valley. The
general direction of groundwater flow is from the northern and eastern recharge areas towards the
Death Valley and Ash Meadows discharge areas. Regional groundwater flow is through the
LCA and is influenced by local confining units (Upper Clastic Confining Unit and Tertiary
Sediments, Death Valley Section) and structural features that control the structural position of the
LCCU. Local volcanic aquifers overlying the regional system are of relative importance due to
their influence on vertical flow gradients in selected areas (e.g., the NTS).
The following sections discuss the regional groundwater flow system in terms of groundwater
occurrence and movement, recharge and discharge, boundary fluxes, and budget. Plate 3 is a
regional water-level map that was constructed using water-level and spring-elevation data from
selected wells and springs in the region. This map was developed to depict the flow
characteristics of the regional groundwater flow system, the flow system boundary, areas of
recharge and discharge, and structural controls. The map interpretation incorporated recharge
distribution data, digital elevation data, geologic model interpretations, and hydrostratigraphy.
6-12
6.2.2.1 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement
Saturated alluvial materials are present in central and southern Yucca Flat, Frenchman Flat, and
Jackass Flats on the NTS and in the basins located throughout the flow system. Saturated
Tertiary volcanics are present in the western section of the region. The underlying LCA is the
principle aquifer of the flow system. The LCA forms a nearly continuous aquifer across the
region except where interrupted by calderas, truncated by structural controls, or penetrated by
intrusive rocks. Depths to groundwater vary greatly across the NTS Region. Groundwater
occurs at more than 610 m (2,000 ft) beneath Pahute Mesa in northern NTS and flows from
springs at discharge areas in Oasis Valley, Ash Meadows, and Death Valley.
The general direction of groundwater flow in the regional flow system is from north to south and
east to southwest. Water-level data and elevation contours of Plate 3 depict this general trend.
The direction of groundwater flow is locally influenced in areas where structural and geologic
conditions have controlled the distribution and thickness of the LCA. In some areas of the
regional flow system, groundwater encounters structural and geologic conditions, such as
structural highs of the LCCU, that promote an upward flow component. The upward flow
component brings water to discharge at the surface in the form of a wet playa or springs. The
discharge is then lost from the flow system through evapotranspiration. Such discharge
characteristics are observed at Oasis Valley, Penoyer Valley, and Amargosa Flat. Conversely,
there is groundwater flow between basins in the form of subsurface inflow and outflow.
Ultimately, however, the groundwater is lost from the flow system at other surface discharge
areas located downgradient (e.g., Death Valley).
The general flow directions are consistent with the fact that groundwater moves from areas of
recharge to areas of discharge. Recharge on the higher elevations of the Spring Mountains,
Sheep Range, Kawich Range, and Grant Range have created groundwater mounds and large
hydraulic gradients between the ranges and valley floors. Hydraulic gradients are also indicative
of geologic conditions in selected areas.
Hydraulic gradients are very low to the east and west of the NTS, suggesting the presence of very
transmissive media (thick LCA). In other areas, the prevailing flow direction and hydraulic
gradients may locally be influenced by the structural position of geologic units with significantly
lower transmissivity than that of the regional LCA. If the low transmissive units are structurally
oriented so that they are perpendicular to flow, flow might be significantly altered, causing steep
hydraulic gradients (damming effect). If their structural orientation is parallel to the prevailing
flow direction, their effect may be insignificant. Structural uplifts of the LCCU and the
6-14
distribution of the UCCU have caused several of the observed steep gradients within the flow
system. Low permeability sediments along the Funeral Mountains (the TSDVS) have also
caused a steep hydraulic gradient between Amargosa Desert and Death Valley.
The effect of structure on regional flow patterns is significant in the Pahute Mesa/Timber
Mountain caldera complex, Yucca Flat, and the southwestern portion of the region where the
Furnace Creek Ranch fault is located (Plate 3). In the caldera complex, the extensive fault
system is important because the faults constitute secondary porosity through which the
groundwater flows. The Furnace Creek fault is interpreted to act as a conduit to groundwater
flow from the Amargosa Desert to Death Valley.
6.2.2.2 Recharge Estimates

The groundwater flow system of the NTS region exhibits several areas of recharge. Areas of
recharge to the north include Cactus Range, Kawich Range, Reveille Range, Quinn Canyon
Range, and Grant Range. Areas of recharge to the east include the Golden Gate Range,
Pahranagat Range, and Sheep Range. The Sheep Range and Spring Mountains provide a
significant amount of recharge to the flow system. Other areas of recharge include the mesas and
areas of higher elevation surrounding the NTS. Recharge might also occur along the canyons
such as Fortymile Canyon. The recharge distribution is depicted in Plates 2 and 3, and it is based
upon a Maxey-Eakin percentage of precipitation as described in Section 5.0. Based on this
distribution, the estimated total recharge for the NTS regional groundwater-flow system is
182,889 - 359,510 m3/d (54,118 - 106,382 ac-ft/yr).
6.2.2.3 Discharge Estimates

Discharge by evapotranspiration constitutes the majority of the total discharge from the NTS
regional groundwater flow system. As discussed in Section 5.0, significant groundwater losses
by evapotranspiration occur in eight areas within the flow system boundary: Ash Meadows,
Oasis Valley, Death Valley, Franklin Lake Playa, Alkali Flat (Peters Playa), Penoyer Valley,
Indian Springs, and the Amargosa River. At Ash Meadows, an upward component of
groundwater flow is evidenced by numerous springs originating from the Lower Carbonate
Aquifer and similar water-level elevations for closely spaced wells that were completed in both
the AA and the LCA. Table 6-2 presents evaporative losses estimated for each area. It is
assumed that only evaporative losses are net losses from the groundwater flow system.
For several areas, the estimated discharge is approximate with large uncertainty that cannot be
eliminated without additional investigation. Discharge may be overestimated for springs due to
6-15
Table 6-2
ET Discharge Data for the NTS Regional Groundwater Flow System
Estimated
ET Rate Approximate ET Depth to
Location Surface Area References
(cm/d) Discharge (m3/d) Water (m)
(km2)
Ash Meadows 34.0 - 36.4 0.19 - 0.30 67,000 - 101,400 5 - 10 Laczniak, 1996a and
1996b
Oasis Valley 8.9 0.2 17,000 - 27,000 2 - 10 Malmberg and Eakin,

1962; Laczniak, 1996a
Death Valley NA NA 17,500 - 60,200 0-5 Hunt et al., 1966;

PAL Consultants, 1995
Franklin Lake 14.2 0.1 - 0.3 14,200 - 42,600 (-1) - 3 Czarnecki, 1990
Playa
Alkali Flat 12.6 0.1 - 0.3 3,000 - 35,000 2-5 Winograd and
(Peters Playa) Thordarson, 1975;
Estimated this study
Penoyer Valley 69 0.02 - 0.04 13,000 - 27,000 2 - 10 Van Denburgh and

Rush, 1974; Estimated
this study
Amargosa 1.7 0.19 - 0.30 2,040 - 5,100 2-5 Estimated this study
River
Indian Springs NA NA 1,600 - 2,400 - PAL Consultants, 1995
the uncertainty regarding infiltration of the discharged groundwater back into the shallow depths
of the groundwater flow system.
6.2.2.4 Boundary Fluxes

As discussed in Section 5.0, four areas along the NTS regional groundwater flow system
boundary are known to be flux boundaries. The first and most important area is along the
northeastern boundary with inflow occurring from Pahranagat Valley to Desert (Tickaboo)
Valley. The second area is along the western boundary of Pahrump Valley. The third area is
located at the southern boundary of the flow system near Eagle Mountain. The fourth area is on
the western boundary with potential inflow or outflow from Sarcobatus Flat into the NTS
regional groundwater flow system. The subsurface inflow and outflow estimates are summarized
in Table 6-3. Negative values indicate flow out of the regional flow system, and positive values
indicate flow into the regional flow system.
6-16
Table 6-3
Estimated Rates of Groundwater Inflow/Outflow for
Boundaries of the NTS Regional Groundwater Flow System
Location Inflow/Outflow
Source
Boundary (m3/d)
Pahranagat Valley 5,400 to 60,800 Winograd and Thordarson (1975)
Pahrump Valley 5 to 7,600 Winograd and Thordarson (1975)
Sarcobatus Flat -1,700 to 1,700 Malmberg and Eakin (1962)
Eagle Mountain -850 to -3,400 Walker and Eakin (1963)
6.2.2.5 Groundwater Budget

Based on the analysis of recharge and discharge presented in Section 5.0, an approximate
groundwater budget (mass balance) for the NTS regional groundwater flow system has been
derived and is presented in Table 6-4. The estimates of ET discharge and boundary fluxes have
been calculated as the middle of the ranges provided in Tables 6-2 and 6-3, respectively. The
budget unbalance is due to the uncertainties associated with the available recharge and discharge
components of the budget.
Table 6-4
Estimated Steady-State Groundwater Budget
for the NTS Regional Groundwater Flow System
Recharge
Recharge from precipitation 177,484 - 289,410 m3/d
Subsurface inflow 5,405 - 70,100 m3/d
Total Natural Recharge 182,889 - 359,510 m3/d
Discharge
Surface discharge (ET and springs) 135,340 - 300,700 m3/d
Subsurface outflow 850 - 5,100 m3/d
Total Natural Discharge 136,190 - 305,800 m3/d
6.3 Groundwater Flow System at the NTS and Vicinity

Numerous drillholes and water-level wells penetrate the subsurface of the NTS, allowing for
detailed interpretations of the hydrogeologic framework and groundwater flow of the regional
6-17
groundwater flow system at the NTS and vicinity. The following discussion provides a more
detailed description of the conceptual model for the NTS and vicinity.
6.3.1 Hydrogeologic Framework

Due to the many underground nuclear tests at the NTS, the hydrogeologic framework of the
testing areas is an important factor when considering the introduction of contaminants into the
regional groundwater flow system. Numerous data from drillholes and wells have allowed for a
more detailed interpretation of the flow system in this area and further delineation of the Tertiary
volcanics. The volcanics of Yucca Flat and the southern NTS (Frenchman Flat and Yucca
Mountain) have been delineated into two separate units: the VA and the VCU. The volcanics
comprising the caldera complexes have also been delineated as described in Table 4-3. The
following sections present the hydrogeologic framework constructed for the underground testing
areas of Yucca Flat, southern NTS, and caldera complexes of Pahute Mesa and Timber
Mountain.
6.3.1.1 Yucca Flat and Vicinity

As discussed previously, the LCA is a regional aquifer whose distribution and thickness is
controlled by the structural position of the LCCU. A structural high of the LCCU at Halfpint
Range isolates northeast Yucca Flat and has exposed the LCA to erosional forces. The LCCU
has also been uplifted in western Yucca Flat by major thrust faulting (Belted Range thrust fault).
These structural features have in turn controlled the distribution and thickness of the LCA at
Yucca Flat.
In northeast Yucca Flat, the LCCU outcrops with the base of the LCA at the Halfpint Range.
The LCA dips away from the structural high towards Yucca Flat, but has completely eroded east
of the Halfpint Range in Emigrant Valley. Dipping westward into Yucca Flat, the LCA becomes
progressively thicker as distance from the structural high increases. The full thickness of the
LCA (approximately 4,000 m [13,000 ft]) is interpreted to occur near the center of Yucca Flat
(Figure 6-7).
The hydrogeologic framework in western and central Yucca Flat has been structurally modified
by major thrust faulting. Below the Tertiary volcanics (VA and VCU), the Belted Range thrust
fault system controls the HSU relationships between the Lower Clastic Confining Unit, the
Lower Carbonate Aquifer, the Upper Clastic Confining Unit, and the upper plate of the Lower
Carbonate Aquifer (LCA3). The nature of this thrust faulting and the distribution of the
6-18
UCCU (Eleana Formation and Chainman Shale) are not thoroughly understood
(Cole et al., 1994), but gross structural relationships can be depicted (Figure 6-7). The Belted
Range thrust-fault system dips to the west and strikes southwest from Rainier Mesa, west of the
Eleana Range where the UCCU is exposed at the surface. Northwest of the Eleana Range, near
Gold Meadows, the upper portion of the LCCU (Wood Canyon Formation) is exposed at the
surface and is penetrated nearby by Well ER-19-1 immediately beneath the volcanics. The
juxtaposition of the LCCU and the UCCU over a narrow geographic area is interpreted to be the
result of reverse displacement along the Belted Range thrust-fault system (Cole et al., 1994).
Consequently, the LCA has been truncated by the fault under Rainier Mesa on the east side, and
the LCCU is structurally high on the west side. These relationships are shown in Figure 6-7.
Simplification of the geologic model interprets the Belted Range thrust-fault system as vertically
displaced.
Overlying the UCCU are Pennsylvanian carbonate rocks which outcrop at Syncline Ridge of
western Yucca Flat. These carbonate rocks have been designated as the LCA3 to distinguish
them from the regional LCA underlying the UCCU (Figure 6-7). The LCA3 carbonates have
been interpreted to be remnants of a thrust sheet, named the CP Thrust, which is interpreted to
have been emplaced over the UCCU from the east (Caskey and Schweickert, 1992). The CP
thrust is rooted in Yucca Flat, but its geometry is unknown because it is buried beneath the
Tertiary volcanics and alluvium. The Upper Carbonate Aquifer was mapped with the LCA3
because of its similar position with respect to the LCA3.
The LCA and LCA3 have been confined by Tertiary volcanics. As stated previously, the
volcanic strata in Yucca Flat have been organized into two volcanic HSUs, the Volcanic Aquifer
and the underlying Volcanic Confining Unit. In general, the altered volcanic rocks (typically
zeolitized tuffs) are the confining units, and the unaltered rocks comprise the aquifers (welded to
densely welded tuffs). These two units have approximately the same distribution in Yucca Flat
and also occur as erosional remnants preserved in the deeper parts of the Tertiary basin. The
hydraulic properties of the VA are much less than those of the LCA or LCA3, but higher than
those of the VCU and UCCU.
Located in northern Yucca Flat is an intrusive (Climax Stock). Located between the two cross
sections shown in Figures 6-7 and 6-8, it intrudes the LCA. As modeled, the intrusive is a
narrow, steep-sided feature that is not considered to be a regional barrier to groundwater flow.
6-20
In summary, the LCA thins from east to west and is controlled by the structural position of the
LCCU in the northeast and the Belted Range thrust fault system in the west. The LCA3 is a
portion of the LCA that has been thrust upon the UCCU by the CP thrust fault system. The
Tertiary volcanics overlying the LCA3 and LCA have been organized into a Volcanic Aquifer
and Volcanic Confining Unit. In general, welded to densely welded tuffs comprise the VA,
while zeolitized tuffs comprise the VCU.
6.3.1.2 Southern NTS

Similar to the area of Yucca Flat and vicinity, lateral movement of groundwater at southern NTS
is generally restricted to the regional LCA which is controlled by the structural position of the
LCCU and the Belted Range thrust system. In the southeastern NTS, the LCA functions as a
continuous groundwater conduit extending from Yucca Flat, south under French Peak, and across
the southern NTS to Yucca Mountain. In addition, the VA and VCU are present and cover most
of the southern NTS from Frenchman Flat to Bare Mountain (Figure 4-1). In the western portion
of the NTS, north of Yucca Mountain, the VCU overlies the LCCU and inhibits groundwater
flow south from the Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain caldera complex.
The Belted Range thrust system has proved to be one of the most important hydrogeologic
features in the area of investigation because it has juxtaposed two regionally important confining
units (LCCU and UCCU), creating a significant barrier to groundwater flow in the south-central
NTS, north of Yucca Mountain. The Belted Range thrust system strikes southwestward from
Rainier Mesa in northern Yucca Flat to Bare Mountain where it is interpreted to connect with a
thrust fault exhibiting similar structural relationships (Caskey and Schweickert, 1992;
Cole et al., 1994). The trend of the Belted Range thrust system and the corresponding structural
uplift of the LCCU are depicted in Figure 4-3. This displacement is also depicted in Figures 6-7
and 6-9. The thrust system truncates the LCA with the LCCU north of a UCCU exposure in the
Calico Hills (between Yucca Mountain and Shoshone Mountain in Figure 4-1) where the UCCU
overlays the Lower Carbonate Aquifer.
Figure 6-9 is a north-south cross section through Yucca Mountain that depicts these interpreted
structural relationships. The LCA dips north at the southern NTS boundary and extends north to
where it is truncated and juxtaposed against the LCCU by the Belted Range thrust system. At
Yucca Mountain, the LCA is penetrated beneath the VA and VCU by Well UE-25p1 PTH.
There is little evidence suggesting that the groundwater flow barrier defined by the structural
positions of the LCCU and UCCU has been disrupted by Tertiary extensional faults that would
6-22
allow groundwater to flow south. One exception might be the Bare Mountain fault which has
positioned the Crater Flat Basin across the feature.
Also shown in Figure 6-9 are the VA and the VCU. The VCU occurs in deeper areas and is
generally overlain by the VA. Between northern Yucca Mountain and the Pahute Mesa/Timber
Mountain caldera complex, the volcanic rocks are zeolitized, even at the surface. The VA is not
present in this area, and the entire volcanic section is considered to be VCU. The VCU overlies
the LCCU and has created a barrier to groundwater flow to the south.
Because the Chainman Shale of the Upper Clastic Confining Unit is locally exposed in much of
the eastern and southern NTS, the underlying LCA is interpreted to be present. The LCA3 is
also present in the southern NTS where it locally overlies the UCCU. Distribution of the LCA3
in this area is generally coincident with that of the UCCU.
6.3.1.3 Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain Caldera Complex

As it is interpreted in the geologic model, the caldera complex is comprised of nested calderas
and horizontally layered HSUs. The caldera volcanics vary from aquifers comprised of rhyolitic
lava flows and densely to partially welded tuffs, to confining units comprised of non-welded and
zeolitized tuffs. Figure 6-9 demonstrates the structural relationships of the Timber Mountain
Caldera with HSUs in the neighboring calderas and surrounding areas. The cross section depicts
thick TC (Paintbrush Group and Calico Hills Formation) north of Timber Mountain in the
Area 20 Caldera and south of Timber Mountain in the Claim Canyon Caldera. The TC is
comprised of laterally variable tuffs and lava flows. As modeled, the Timber Mountain Caldera
is filled with the Timber Mountain Welded-Tuff Aquifer (TMA). The hydraulic properties of the
TMA, much like all of the caldera volcanics, are spatially variable. Inside the Timber Mountain
Caldera, the TMA is interpreted to have poor aquifer properties due to pervasive zeolitization,
and it was modeled as a confining unit. Extending radially from the caldera center, the
zeolitization becomes less pervasive until the TMA in the north is non-zeolitized, such as that
penetrated by Well PM-3.
To the south of the Timber Mountain Caldera lies the Claim Canyon Caldera where the Basal
Aquifer (BAQ) overlies a structural high of the LCCU created by the Belted Range thrust
system. This important hydrostratigraphic relationship is displayed in Figure 6-9. At the
southern portion of the Claim Canyon caldera, the BAQ is bounded by the UCCU and VCU and
is capped by a thick confining section of the Basal Confining Unit. The structural configuration
6-24
interpreted in the model forms a hydrologic barrier with this juxtaposition of Paleozoic and
Tertiary confining units. The barrier inhibits southernly flow of groundwater from Pahute Mesa;
instead, it directs flow to the southwest towards discharge areas in Oasis Valley.
Figure 6-9 also illustrates the three different nomenclature schemes used to differentiate HSUs
for the volcanics across the area. For example, at the northern boundary of the NTS, the TC and
TBA are in contact with Volcanics Undifferentiated. Similarly, at the southern edge of the Claim
Canyon Caldera, the TC and the BCU are bounded by the Volcanic Confining Unit. These are
actually the same stratigraphic units on either side of the boundary, but are shown as different
HSUs because different nomenclature schemes were used at the regional scale.
Figure 6-4 is a series of east-west cross section panels of the area west of the NTS (see
Figure 6-9 for HSU color labels). This section demonstrates the complex relationships of the
nested Grouse Canyon, Area 20, Timber Mountain, and other calderas. The Grouse Canyon
caldera is filled with a thick section of welded tuffs of the Belted Range Aquifer (shown in
orange). The inner collapse zone of the Grouse Canyon caldera is well-depicted with the large
vertical offset and thickest TBA. The Area 20 caldera collapse zone occurs west of the Grouse
Canyon caldera and is shown by the thicker tuff cones of the TC (shown in teal) which is
comprised of the Calico Hills Formation and the Paintbrush Group.
Figure 6-10 is a cross section of the area west of the NTS from Amargosa Desert through Oasis
Valley to eastern Pahute Mesa. As Figure 6-10 illustrates, aquifers of the caldera complex are
bounded in the east by the structurally high LCCU, the UCCU, and BCU. To the west, the Area
20 caldera is bounded by structurally high BAQ and BCU. The model interprets the BAQ to be
in contact with the LCA on the western margin of the Black Mountain caldera and interprets
aquifer communication across the Area 20 caldera wall between the TBA, BAQ, and the LCA.
As discussed previously, there is a high uncertainty regarding the BAQ thickness and the
presence and thickness of LCA in this area.
6.3.2 Groundwater Occurrence and Movement

Groundwater at the NTS occurs within the alluvium, volcanics, clastic confining units, and
regional carbonate aquifer. Perched groundwater is found locally throughout the NTS, and
occurs within tuff aquitards where they compose “ridges” or “hills” overlying the regional zone
of saturation (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975). Springs with low rates of discharge emerge
from these aquitards in the higher elevations of the northern NTS. Lateral flow of groundwater
6-25
at Yucca Flat and the southern NTS is generally through the regional LCA. The direction of
flow in this area is from the northern and eastern portions of the NTS towards discharge areas in
the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. Groundwater flow within the Pahute Mesa/Timber
Mountain caldera is driven by recharge in the northeastern portion of Pahute Mesa. Structural
controls created by the Belted Range thrust system impede southernly flow of groundwater from
the caldera complex. Instead, groundwater flows from recharge areas in the northeastern section
of Pahute Mesa to discharge areas in Oasis Valley. Numerous water-level wells at the NTS and
Yucca Mountain have provided hydrologic data, allowing for the following detailed discussion
of groundwater occurrence and flow at Yucca Flat, the southern NTS, and the Pahute
Mesa/Timber Mountain caldera complex.
6.3.2.1 Yucca Flat

In Yucca Flat, the depth-to-water ranges from approximately 160 m (525 ft) to 580 m (1,900 ft)
below the ground surface and occurs within the following HSUs: the Alluvial Aquifer, the
Volcanic Aquifer, the Volcanic Confining Unit, the upper plate of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer,
the Upper Clastic Confining Unit, and the regional Lower Carbonate Aquifer. The AA is
discontinuous and exists primarily in the center of Yucca Flat. The VA and VCU occur beneath
the AA and are saturated in the north and eastern two-thirds of the flat. The distribution of the
LCA3 is generally restricted to the eastern portion of the flat and is confined below by the
UCCU. The regional LCA occurs beneath the UCCU and VCU.
Lateral movement of groundwater in Yucca Flat is generally restricted to the LCA because of its
distribution, thickness, and high hydraulic conductivity. The hydraulic conductivity of the LCA is
spatially variable, but is much higher than other HSUs due to its high fracture porosity.
Groundwater flow within the LCA is influenced by the distribution of the LCCU, directing flow
towards the center of Yucca Flat where the LCA is interpreted to be the thickest. This scenario is
supported by water-level data collected from wells completed in the LCA. Wells U-10k #1 and
U-10l #1, located in northeast Yucca Flat, have water-level elevations of 735 m (2,412 ft). The
water-level elevation decreases from the higher elevations of northern Yucca Flat, where the
influence of the underlying LCCU is the greatest, to the central portion of Yucca Flat where
Well U-3cn #5 has a water-level elevation of 729 m (2,392 ft). The water-level elevation
continues to decrease to the south where Well WW-C-1 has an elevation of 725 m (2,379 ft) and
the LCA is presumed thickest.
6-27
The influence of the LCCU on water-levels is also suspected east of the LCCU structural high at
Emigrant Valley where water-level elevations from wells completed in the VU are much higher
than those wells completed in the VA or VCU in Yucca Flat (e.g., Watertown 1 WW at 1,204 m
[3,950 ft]; Watertown 2 WW at 1,079 m [3,540 ft]). In the volcanics, current water-levels have
been affected by underground nuclear testing, making it difficult to define steady-state
groundwater flow and direction.
Lateral movement of groundwater within the LCA3 is from the west towards Yucca Flat and is
controlled by the structural position of the UCCU. Well UE-2ce, completed in the LCA3 and
located at the western edge of Yucca Flat, has a water-level elevation of 1,052 m (3,451 ft). To
the east of Well UE-2ce, Well UE-2s, also completed in the LCA3, has a water-level elevation of
805 m (2,641 ft). The water-level elevations in these wells indicate flow to the east toward
Yucca Flat.
The water levels for the VA and VCU have been influenced by numerous underground nuclear
tests in the area. With only composite water levels typically available, the vertical gradients
between the VA and VCU are very difficult to define. At northern Yucca Flat, current water
levels from wells completed in the VA have lower elevations than surrounding wells completed
in the VCU. These water levels suggest vertical gradients in the upward direction, but are most
likely a result of underground nuclear tests in the area.
6.3.2.2 Southern NTS

In the southern NTS, groundwater occurs within the Alluvial Aquifer, the Volcanic Aquifer, the
Volcanic Confining Unit, and the regional Lower Carbonate Aquifer at depths ranging from 157
to 360 m (515 to 1,181 ft) below the ground surface. Shallow, perched water is found within the
tuff and lava-flow aquitards in the southwestern part of the valley. In Frenchman Flat, the water
table is considerably more shallow and stratigraphically higher than in Yucca Flat (Winograd and
Thordarson, 1975).
Lateral movement of groundwater in the southern portion of the NTS is generally restricted to
the regional LCA. The LCA functions as a groundwater conduit extending from Yucca Flat,
south under French Peak, and across the southern NTS towards Yucca Mountain to discharge
areas in Ash Meadows, the Amargosa Desert, and Death Valley. This “groundwater conduit” of
continuous LCA extends around the groundwater flow barrier of juxtaposed LCCU and UCCU
created by the Belted Range thrust system.
6-28
To the north of Yucca Mountain, the Belted Range thrust system has truncated the LCA with the
LCCU. The Volcanic Confining Unit overlies the LCCU north of the thrust and has created a
barrier to groundwater flow to the south. The groundwater flow barrier in this area is observed
with a steep gradient between water-level wells completed in the VCU and those completed in
the VA. Water-level data collected from Well USW G-2 and Well UE-25 WT 6, completed in
the VCU, have corresponding water-level elevations of 1,031 and 1,034 m (3,383 and 3,392 ft).
Just south of these wells at Yucca Mountain, Well UE-25 WT 16 and Well USW H-1 HTH,
completed in the VA, have corresponding water-level elevations of 738 and 731 m (2,421 and
2,398 ft). In this area, south of the Belted Range thrust system, it is interpreted that the LCA is
present beneath the UCCU where it remains continuous with the LCA underlying Yucca Flat and
Frenchman Flat.
6.3.2.3 Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain Caldera Complex

Groundwater in the Pahute Mesa/Timber Mountain caldera complex occurs in Volcanic Aquifers
and Volcanic Confining Units and is interpreted to flow southwest to discharge areas in Oasis
Valley, Alkali Flat, and Furnace Creek. Groundwater flow within the caldera complex is driven
by recharge in the east and subsurface inflow from the north. Groundwater flow is influenced by
the discontinuous nature of the caldera aquifers, and the structure created by overlapping and
intersecting caldera complexes and high angle basin and range faults (Laczniak et al., 1996).
Composite water-level data collected from wells in Pahute Mesa indicate lateral movement of
groundwater in a southwestern direction towards discharge areas in Oasis Valley. Vertical
movement of groundwater is difficult to define due to the lack of data and the complex structure
associated with the area. However, selected water-level data suggest that there is a downward
flow component in areas of recharge and an upward flow component downgradient near
discharge areas in Oasis Valley.
In the eastern portion of the caldera complex at Rainier Mesa, groundwater occurs in the
Volcanic Aquifer, zeolitized-tuff confining unit, the LCA3, UCCU, LCA, and LCCU. The
volcanic aquifer and confining units support a semiperched groundwater lens. Nuclear testing at
Rainier Mesa has been conducted within the tuff confining unit. Data from multiple completion
wells indicate that the perched groundwater is moving downward into the Lower Carbonate
Aquifer as reported by Thordarson (1965). Regional groundwater flow from Rainier Mesa may
be directed either toward Yucca Flat or, because of the intervening UCCU, toward the Alkali Flat
discharge area to the south.
6-29
6.4 Conceptual Model Uncertainties
The hydrogeology of the NTS regional groundwater flow system is complex. Interpretations of
the flow system contain great uncertainties regarding the geologic structure and distribution of
hydrostratigraphic units. Equally uncertain are estimates of groundwater recharge and discharge,
boundary fluxes, and delineations of the flow system boundary. Uncertainty is greatest where no
data exist to validate the conceptual model. Therefore, the greatest uncertainty lies in those areas
outside of the NTS where there are few geologic and hydrologic data available to validate the
interpretation. However, even on the NTS, where numerous hydrogeologic studies and a high
density of geologic and hydrologic data exist, the uncertainties are still high because of the
complexity of the hydrogeologic framework. The following sections discuss uncertainty in the
geologic model interpretation and hydrologic components of the conceptual model.
6.4.1 Geologic Model Uncertainties

The geology of the Basin and Range Province is structurally complex. Any conceptualization of
subsurface geology and, therefore, hydrologic properties contains uncertainties. In general,
uncertainty in subsurface interpretations increases with distance from surface outcrops and
boreholes and with superficial cover. There is naturally high uncertainty in the projection of
surface geologic interpretation to depths of 7,000 m (nearly 23,000 ft) into the subsurface where
data do not exist.
The areas of greatest uncertainty in the geology interpretation are those with extensive cover of
volcanic rocks and alluvium. The volcanic rocks hide the structural relationships of the regional
Lower Carbonate Aquifer and Lower Clastic Confining Units as well as the distribution of
underlying volcanic hydrostratigraphic units. The uncertainties have hydrological importance in
areas near the higher potentiometric gradient that crosses the NTS. The most hydrologically
significant areas of geologic uncertainty are:
• The area immediately north of Yucca Flat where the Paleozoic rocks are covered by
volcanic rocks of the Belted Range
• The large area of volcanic cover northwest of the NTS in the Gold Flat/Cactus Flat area
• The area between Pahute Mesa and Oasis Valley
• The relationship of the Belted Range thrust system with caldera units near Yucca
Mountain
6-30
In each of these areas, there is high uncertainty about the thickness of the volcanic units, the
nature of the volcanic units at depth, and the presence of the LCA underneath the volcanic rocks.
6.4.2 Hydrologic Uncertainties

Uncertainties regarding the NTS regional groundwater flow system result from a lack of
hydrogeologic data. Although there are numerous wells within the flow system boundary, most
wells were not constructed for the acquisition of hydrologic data. In addition, only a few wells
within the flow system boundary have estimates for hydraulic parameters. A number of factors
regarding components of the conceptual model have resulted in uncertainty in estimates of
recharge, discharge, and subsurface inflow and outflow at the flow system boundaries.
In many instances, the interpretation of the regional water-level table is based upon the geologic
model interpretation (Plate 3) due to the lack of adequate hydrologic data. For example, at the
NTS, most wells are completed across multiple HSUs and provide only composite water levels.
Wells off the NTS are typically completed in the alluvium and do not provide information or
data about the regional LCA. There is a large range of uncertainty in water-level elevations as a
result of estimates of land surface elevations for the many wells not surveyed and the inherent
error of depth-to-water measurements. This has introduced uncertainty in the depiction of a
steady-state flow system for the NTS region. Uncertainty is a result of the inability to validate
the interpretations of the potentiometric surface in these areas, and it is presented in detail in the
Potentiometric Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996b)
Hydraulic tests conducted in selected wells estimate the hydraulic parameters of the penetrated
HSUs. Results of the hydraulic testing only estimate the local properties of the tested HSUs.
These results have been extrapolated to incorporate the entire NTS regional groundwater flow
system. As evidenced by the hydraulic parameters presented in Table 6-1, hydraulic parameters
range in orders of magnitude and represent great hydraulic variability within HSUs. For
example, within the regional LCA the range of hydraulic conductivity is estimated to be between
0.0008 and 1570 m/d (0.003 and 5,150 ft/d), representing interstitial and fracture porosity.
Uncertainty regarding the hydraulic parameters estimated for HSUs are presented in greater
detail in the Hydrologic Parameter Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996d).
Recharge from precipitation, discharge by evapotranspiration, and subsurface inflow and outflow
at the flow system boundary are based upon literature review and selected station data. These
components of the conceptual model are uncertain due to the lack of adequate data needed to
6-31
validate the interpretation. The recharge distribution was developed from sparse precipitation
station data and highly interpretive precipitation contour maps. The boundaries of discharge
areas are relatively well-defined, but spring discharge volumes and evapotranspiration for these
areas are not. Subsurface inflow and outflow at flow system boundaries are estimated based
upon the local hydraulic gradients and the hydrogeologic framework. The uncertainty regarding
these components of the flow system are discussed in greater detail in the Groundwater
Recharge and Discharge Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996c).
6-32
7.0 Numerical Groundwater Flow Model
This section presents the objectives, approach, assumptions, development and results of the
regional three-dimensional groundwater flow model of the Nevada Test Site groundwater flow
system. The model integrates the hydrogeologic and hydrologic data presented in Sections 4.0
through 6.0 into a consistent, numerical interpretation of the natural groundwater flow system. It
should be noted that all references to the term “model” in this section refer to the numerical flow
model unless specifically stated otherwise. For more detailed technical discussions and a
comprehensive presentation of supporting data and figures, the reader is referred to the
Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f).
7.1 Objectives
The regional flow model was designed to provide a framework for regional contaminant
transport modeling and to provide a basis for future detailed modeling at the local scale. The
groundwater flow model uses the principle of conservation of mass (the governing equation of
flow through porous media) and Darcy’s Law to simulate a distribution of hydraulic heads that is
representative of actual conditions. The hydraulic conductivity and simulated hydraulic heads
are used to calculate groundwater flow paths which, in conjunction with porosity data, are used
to determine groundwater velocities along those paths. The distribution of velocities along flow
paths originating from the weapons testing areas was used to perform preliminary, conservative
regional-scale, one-dimensional transport simulations that, in turn, were used to quantify the
maximum credible risk to human health and the environment at downgradient receptors.
In addition to providing a framework for regional transport modeling, the three-dimensional

(3-D) groundwater flow model will also be used as a basis for future detailed modeling in the
individual weapons testing areas. Flux estimates are not well-known in the vicinity of the
weapons testing areas; however, fluxes are better known along the boundaries of the regional
model. The calibrated regional model provides internal flux values across model cell boundaries
that can then be used as boundary fluxes for the near-field models, thus ensuring that the near-
field models are consistent with the regional water budget. This provides a means to evaluate the
uncertainty in prediction of local-scale radionuclide transport resulting from the uncertainty in
the regional hydrologic parameters.
7-1
The regional flow model was designed and developed to evaluate flow directions and velocities
within and downgradient from the primary area of interest, the NTS. The model was not
developed to evaluate flow in areas distal from the NTS, such as in the Spring Mountains or the
Pahranagat Range. If more detailed hydrologic modeling is to be conducted in these areas,
detailed geologic data from the respective areas would first have to be integrated into the model.
The regional groundwater flow model was also not developed for detailed modeling on the near-
field scale. The geologic data have been grouped into 20 hydrostratigraphic units (Table 4-3)
that are appropriate for the regional scale modeling; however, more detailed geologic information
will be necessary for the near-field modeling. Additionally, the model assumes that its parameter
values provide good estimates of the average flow behavior within fractured rock, characterized
by the concept of the representative elementary volume (Bear, 1979). This concept, or
continuum approach, may not be valid on the local scale where fracture-flow characteristics
dominate the flow pattern.
Specific modeling objectives were to:
• Provide an integrated tool with which to understand the groundwater flow system in the
vicinity of the NTS.
• Identify flowpaths from weapons testing areas and calculate flow rates within and
downgradient from these areas for use in the evaluation of regional groundwater
contaminant transport.
• Provide a mechanism for determining the importance of regional-scale hydraulic

parameters on estimates of contaminant transport.
• Provide a three-dimensional framework on which to base more detailed models of the

weapons testing areas, so that the near-field models are consistent with the regional water
budget.
These objectives were met through development of the flow model, calibration of the model
based on criteria established for hydraulic heads and fluxes, sensitivity evaluations of hydraulic
parameters, and generation of pathlines and corresponding velocity distributions from selected
nuclear shots. The approach used to implement each of these steps is described in the following
sections of this report.
7-2
It is important to realize that the numerical groundwater flow model is only an approximation of
the groundwater flow system, and there is uncertainty in both the three-dimensional distribution
of the geologic units and their hydrologic properties. The values of parameters used in the
calibrated model result in a reasonable fit between modeled and measured hydraulic heads and
between modeled and measured/estimated discharge rates. However, different parameter values
may provide similar agreement between simulated and observed data, but result in different
estimates of radionuclide transport. The model provides a technique with which to evaluate the
uncertainty in these estimates.
7.2 Modeling Approach

This section provides a brief description of the numerical code used for the Nevada Test Site
regional model, the assumptions used in model development, and the input data required for the
model.
7.2.1 Numerical Code Description

The three-dimensional numerical code selected for the simulation of the groundwater flow
system is the finite-difference code, MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). The code
uses finite-difference equations to approximate the partial differential equation for 3-D
groundwater flow of constant density in a heterogeneous, anisotropic medium. The model uses
the Block Centered Flow (BCF2) package (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1991) to calculate
conductances and flow between adjacent cells. The BCF2 package has the capability of allowing
a model cell to resaturate, or “rewet,” if the water table drops below the bottom of a cell during
one iteration, but rises above the bottom in a subsequent iteration. This feature was required to
accurately model the extreme change in head values between the upgradient and downgradient
areas of the model.
The preconditioned conjugate-gradient solver, (PCG2) (Hill, 1990) was used to solve the system
of finite-difference equations. The solver has converged when the following two criteria are met:
the maximum absolute value in the change in hydraulic head between two successive iterations is
less than a specified convergence criterion, and the maximum absolute value of the flux residual
between successive iterations is less than a second specified convergence criterion. The
hydraulic head change convergence criterion used for the NTS model is 0.005 m (0.02 ft); the
flux residual criterion is 0.25 m3/d (0.07 ac-ft/d). These closure criteria resulted in mass balance
errors of less than 0.03 percent.
7-3
7.2.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions were used in development of the groundwater-flow model:
• At the scale of the regional model, movement of water in fractured rock can be
adequately described by a porous media model.
• Spatial variations in groundwater density due to changes in temperature or chemistry are

negligible.
• The system is laterally isotropic and vertically anisotropic.
• The geologic units represented in the model are homogeneous or can be divided into
homogeneous zones.
• The hydraulic conductivity is assumed to decrease in an exponential manner with

increasing depth.
• The model represents steady-state conditions representative of natural stresses to the

system prior to groundwater development and underground nuclear testing.
• Because of the steady-state assumption, the volumetric recharge is based on estimates of

discharge from the basin.
• Recharge can be adequately simulated by using a technique similar to that used by Maxey
and Eakin (1949) modified to account for runoff (recharge redistribution).
The assumptions on which a model is based are very important because they dictate when and
under what conditions the model can be applied. The assumptions listed above are described in
detail in the text where appropriate. Water-level data representative of pre-pumping, pre-nuclear
testing conditions were not always available. Therefore, the available data were augmented by
data collected during times that may not be representative of pre-anthropogenic (before human
influence), steady-state conditions. These data and the effect they may have on the “steady-
state” water levels on which the model calibration is based are summarized in Section 5.0. It is
believed that the water-level data selected for use in the study are generally representative of pre-
anthropogenic stress conditions.
7.2.3 Modeling Data Requirements

The characteristics of any groundwater flow system are determined by the spatial distribution of
the rocks present in the subsurface environment, their hydrologic properties, and the locations
and rates of fluxes at the system’s boundaries. The locations and rates of discharge of water
7-4
from the system are determined by these characteristics, as are the water levels throughout the
system. There were, therefore, three basic sets of information used as input to the model: the
geologic framework, the hydraulic properties of the rocks, and the locations and rates of fluxes
into the system. The physical locations of discharge areas are also required as model input, but
the discharge flux is determined by the model. These components are described in the following
text.
The comprehensive, regional 3-D geologic model developed specifically for this task has been
described in Sections 4.0 and 6.0 of this report. The digital geologic model is comprised of a set
of 20 two-dimensional arrays, each consisting of 140 rows and 114 columns. The arrays provide
the elevations for the tops of the 20 hydrostratigraphic units on a 2- x 2-km (1.2- x 1.2-mi) grid.
The second set of information required for the flow model is an estimate of the hydraulic
conductivity for each HSU. The approach taken was to initially assign a single hydraulic
conductivity value to all geologic units of similar origin. For example, there are several different
HSUs that are classified as welded-tuff aquifers. These rocks are considered to be of similar
origin and were initially assigned the same hydraulic conductivity value. During model
calibration, hydraulic conductivity values were modified as necessary to derive the best fit
between observed and model-generated data.
Areal variability exists within HSUs, especially if the units are widespread, such as the Lower
Carbonate Aquifer. Hydrostratigraphic units are divided into zones of differing hydrologic
properties when supported by hydrogeologic data or interpretations or when designation of a
separate area for sensitivity analysis was necessary.
Hydraulic-conductivity data collected at the Nevada Test Site indicate that conductivity values
decrease with depth. The relationships between depth and hydraulic conductivity for three
classes of HSUs (the Alluvial Aquifer, the Volcanic Aquifers, and the Lower Carbonate Aquifer)
were presented in Section 5.0. The values of the depth-decay coefficient, 8, for the volcanic
rocks and LCA (Table 5-2) were used in the model without modification. The value for 8 of the
AA was decreased from 0.00563 to 0.0037 m-1 (0.00172 to 0.00113 ft-1), which is the regression
value obtained after eliminating hydraulic conductivity values for the Faultless Site in the Hot
Creek area, located north of the model boundary.
7-5
The final data required as input to the flow model include information about fluxes into and out
of the system. The influxes include recharge from precipitation and underflow from areas
located outside of the model boundary. Discharges from the system include losses due to
evapotranspiration, spring flow, and underflow across model boundaries. Because the model is
simulating steady-state natural-stress conditions, losses due to pumping are not considered.
Because of the complexity of the geologic model and the large amounts of hydrologic data that
needed to be handled, the modeling effort was very dependent on many support programs
developed for the UGTA Subproject. Several of the support programs, called preprocessors,
were used to convert the geologic, hydrologic, and boundary flux data into input datasets used by
the flow model, and the flow model was run. Flow model results consisted of an areal
distribution of water levels (also called hydraulic heads, or heads) for each of the model layers
and calculated fluxes at each of the boundary condition cells. These model-calculated, or
simulated, hydraulic heads were then compared to a dataset consisting of observed, or target,
hydraulic heads that were representative of steady-state conditions. The model-simulated fluxes
were compared to measured and estimated boundary fluxes. Modeling parameters were then
adjusted, the model rerun, and simulated hydraulic heads and fluxes again compared to the
observed or target heads and fluxes. This process of adjusting modeling parameters to improve
the agreement between calculated and observed values is called “calibration.” Obtaining good
agreement to measured water levels within and downgradient from the testing areas was given a
higher priority than other areas located within the model boundary.
7.3 Model Development

The numerical groundwater flow model was based on the conceptual model described in
Section 6.0. The development of the numerical model consisted of delineating the model
boundaries, discretizing the model domain into a 3-D grid, defining boundary conditions, and
selecting calibration criteria.
7.3.1 Model Boundaries

The model boundaries correspond as much as possible to regional groundwater flow divides
identified in Section 6.0. The model covers approximately 25,400 km2 (9,806.9 mi2) of the
Nevada Test Site groundwater flow system and includes parts of Clark, Lincoln, and Nye
Counties in Nevada, and Inyo County, California. The model area is bounded by Death Valley,
the Funeral Mountains, Bullfrog Mountain, and the Cactus Range on the west; transects the
Kawich, Reveille, and Quinn Canyon ranges on the north; is bounded by the Timpahute,
7-6
Pahranagat, and Sheep ranges on the east; and includes parts of the Spring Mountains, Resting
Spring Range, and Greenwater Range on the south. The location of the model boundary is
shown in Figure 7-1.
7.3.2 Model Discretization

The modeled area must be discretized both laterally and vertically. The areal grid consists of
68 columns by 76 rows (Figure 7-1). The nonuniform grid includes 1.5- x 1.5-km (0.9- x 0.9-mi)
cells in the vicinity of the site, grading to a coarser spacing along the model boundaries where
detailed geologic and hydrologic data are sparse and where numerical accuracy is less important.
The origin for the grid is in the upper left-hand corner, corresponding to the Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) (NAD 27, Zone 11) coordinates 507,220 East and 4,231,307 North. The grid is
rotated 5 degrees clockwise about this point to align the columns with the average fracture
direction in the primary weapons testing areas, Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa. By orienting the
grid in this manner, the effects of anisotropy can be incorporated in subsequent, detailed models
of the testing areas.
Vertical discretization consists of dividing the model into layers. Model layers were selected
based on elevation where the top of each model layer was assigned a constant elevation value.
The hydraulic properties assigned to each cell are composites of the properties of all HSUs
present within that cell. Figure 7-2 illustrates this concept. Cell 1 in Model Layer 1 includes
portions or all of three HSUs (HSUs 1, 2, and 3), whereas Cell 2 in Model Layer 1 contains only
one HSU: HSU 3. The hydraulic properties assigned to Cell 2 will be equivalent to those of
HSU 3, whereas the hydraulic properties assigned to Cell 1 will represent a thickness-weighted
average of the properties of HSUs 1, 2, and 3.
This approach requires that many thin model layers be used to preserve the geologic complexity,
especially of thin, hydrologically significant HSUs. Model layers were, therefore, defined to
preserve the detail present in the geologic model, especially in the elevations in which weapons
testing occurred. HSUs with low conductivities were included explicitly in the model because of
the subsequent use of particle-tracking in evaluating contaminant transport. The elevations of the
tops and bottoms of the 20 model layers are presented in Table 7-1.
7.3.3 Boundary Conditions

Boundary conditions are used to identify areas where water enters or leaves the modeled system.
The following MODFLOW modules, or packages, were included in the NTS model to simulate
7-7
Table 7-1
Elevations of Model Layers
(Top to Bottom of Model)
Elevation
Model Layer
(m above amsla)
1 1,750 to 2,000
2 1,500 to 1,750
3 1,350 to 1,500
4 1,200 to 1,350
5 1,050 to 1,200
6 900 to 1,050
7 700 to 900
8 600 to 700
9 475 to 600
10 350 to 475
11 225 to 350
12 100 to 225
13 -50 to 100
14 -250 to -50
15 -500 to -250
16 -1,000 to -500
17 -1,500 to -1,000
18 -2,000 to -1,500
19 -3,000 to -2,000
20 -4,000 to -3,000
a
amsl = Average mean sea level
7-10
those fluxes: the Recharge, General-head boundary (GHB), Well, and Drain Packages. The
Recharge and Well Packages apply a specified flux boundary condition while the GHB and
Drain Packages apply head-dependent flux boundary conditions. For head-dependent flux
boundary conditions, the flux entering or leaving the system is a function of the difference in
hydraulic head between the head in the model cell and the head specified as part of the boundary
condition.
The GHB, well, and drain boundary condition cells are shown in Figure 7-3. The figure also
differentiates between active and inactive cells. Inactive cells fall outside of the hydrologic
boundary (Figure 7-1) and have no impact on flow within the model domain. Active cells are
cells for which hydraulic heads are calculated by the model.
A special case of the specified-flux boundary condition is the no-flow boundary where water is
not permitted to enter or leave the model cells across this boundary. No-flow boundaries are
implicitly defined between active and inactive cells everywhere along the model boundary where
drain, well, and GHB cells are not explicitly specified (Figure 7-3). These no-flow boundaries
represent both groundwater divides and flow lines that are coincident with the model boundary
as shown in Plate 3. Groundwater divides occur along the model boundary in the Sheep Range,
Spring Mountains, Cactus Range, the Quinn Canyon Range, and the Timpahute Range. The
remaining majority of the no-flow cells along the model boundary represent flow lines. Flow
lines that are coincident with the boundary are present (clockwise, from the southeastern corner
of Figure 7-3) between the Sheep Range and the Spring Mountains, across the Resting Spring
and Greenwater Ranges to Death Valley, from Death Valley across the Grapevine Mountains and
north along the eastern flanks of those mountains, across Bullfrog Mountain and north to the
Cactus Range, from the Cactus Range across the Kawich Range to Railroad Valley, and from the
Timpahute Range down the length of the Pahranagat Range. here it was evident that recharge
was occurring, the hydrologic model boundary was selected to be coincident with hydrographic
basin boundaries.
The location of the flow-system boundary in the vicinity of the southern Sheep Range is
uncertain. The interpretation used in this model incorporates the Sheep Range within the Nevada
Test Site flow system, while others (e.g., Dettinger et al., 1995) have suggested that water
recharged in the Sheep Range may flow toward the Las Vegas Valley. Water-level data can be
interpreted both ways, depending on the configuration of the shear zone and its properties on the
southern end of the Desert Range. The Sheep Range was included within the model because the
7-11
top of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit is highest near the crest of the Sheep Range, and it
slopes down to the west. This geometry favors flow to the west rather than to the south.
Additional water-level data would help resolve this area of uncertainty.
7.3.3.1 Recharge Package

Recharge to the groundwater flow system occurs either as infiltration from precipitation or as
underflow across upgradient model boundaries. The MODFLOW Recharge Package simulates
recharge from precipitation; underflow is simulated using either the GHB or well packages.
Measurements of recharge are difficult to obtain. As a result, recharge has been estimated using
an empirical model known as the Maxey-Eakin method (Maxey and Eakin, 1949) which was
discussed in Section 5.0. In the development of the regional flow model, the basic Maxey-Eakin
concepts were used, but the coefficients were adjusted to result in a total recharge flux that
approximated the total estimated discharge from evapotranspiration and the external boundary
fluxes. Target discharge ranges for all discharge areas were estimated based on a thorough
literature review; a target discharge rate (best estimate) for each area was selected based on the
literature review and discussions with subject matter experts from the USGS. Table 7-2 presents
the model target flux ranges, the target values selected for each flux area, and the total recharge
flux calculated from these estimates for the model area. Positive fluxes within the table indicate
discharge from the model, whereas negative fluxes indicate flow into the model.
As discussed in Section 5.0, precipitation within ten hydrographic subbasins on or within the
vicinity of the Nevada Test Site was redistributed from upland areas to downstream areas. The
redistribution percentages used in the flow model are listed in Table 7-3. It is important to
emphasize that redistribution did not modify the total volume of recharge calculated for each
subbasin, it only modified the areal distribution of the recharge.
7.3.3.2 General-Head Boundary Package

The model boundary was selected to correspond as much as possible to areas of groundwater
divides that are simulated as no-flow boundaries. However, in certain areas, no-flow boundaries
were not present. These areas represent sections of the boundary where groundwater is either
entering or exiting the model as underflow. These fluxes were simulated by applying constant
flux boundary conditions using the Well Package or head-dependent flux boundary conditions
using the GHB Package to the appropriate cells.
7-13
Table 7-2
Calculation of Model Recharge Rate
Based on Model Area Discharge Estimate
Target Discharge Target

Discharge Area Range Discharge Rate
(m3/d) (m3/d)
Alkali Flat (Peter’s Playa, [AF]) 5,000 - 7,300 6,100
Amargosa River (ARiv) 2,040 - 5,100 2,500
Ash Meadows (AM) 67,000 - 87,300 77,700
Death Valley (DV) 17,500 - 60,200 60,100
Franklin Lake/Alkali Flats (FL) 14,200 - 42,600 35,500
Oasis Valley (OV) 17,000 - 27,000 25,000
Penoyer Valley (PV) 13,000 - 27,000 20,300
Indian Springs (IS) 1,600 - 2,400 2,400
Eagle Mountain (EM) 850 - 3,400 3,400
Sarcobatus Flat (SF) (-1,700) - 1,700 0
Pahrump Valley (PP) (-5,000) - (-7,600) -5,000
Pahranagat Valley (PAHR) (-5,400) - (-60,800) -27,000
Total Estimated Recharge Rate: 201,000
General-head boundary conditions were used to simulate inflow from Pahrump Valley across the
Resting Springs Range and outflow near Eagle Mountain (Figure 7-3); initial boundary head
values were based on the potentiometric surface map developed of the study area (Plate 3). The
GHB boundary condition was selected because the amount of flux across the two boundaries is
not well-known, but hydraulic heads outside the model near these boundaries are reasonably
well-known. Additionally, the flux is expected to be low, based on the types of geologic units
present.
The General Head Boundary Package requires both hydraulic head values external to the
boundary cell and boundary conductances. The boundary conductance is calculated by
multiplying the boundary cell transmissivity by the cell horizontal dimension perpendicular to
the primary flow direction for the cell and dividing by half the cell dimension parallel to flow.
This procedure places a constant head value at the outer model boundary. The flux across the
7-14
Table 7-3
Recharge Redistribution in Seven Hydrographic Areas
in the Vicinity of the NTS
Percent of Type B Zone Subdivided

Redistribution
Among Three Subareasb
Hydrographic to Type B Zoneb
Areaa (percent) B1 B2 B3
Topopah Wash (227C) 20 10 70 20
Beatty Wash (228A) 20 50 40 10
Thirsty Canyon (228) 20 70 20 10
Lower Forty Mile (227B) 20 30 60 10
Upper Forty Mile (227A) 20 60 30 10
Frenchman Flat (160) 20 10 80 10
Yucca Flat (159) 20 20 40 40
Silent Canyon (147A) 20 40 40 20
Kawich Valley South (157A) 20 40 20 40
Groom Lake (158C) 20 40 20 40

a
Hydrographic areas are shown in Figure 5-3
b
Subareas are defined in Table 5-6.
boundary is then based on the difference between the boundary head and the head calculated at
the cell node by MODFLOW. The estimated boundary fluxes for the two GHB areas were
presented in Table 7-2.
7.3.3.3 Well Package

The Well Package, which stimulates constant-flux boundary conditions at individual cells, was
used to describe flow into the model west of Pahranagat Valley and to allow evaluation of inflow
or outflow at Sarcobatus Flat. The Well Package, rather than the General Head Boundary
Package, was used for more explicit control of the flux. The greatest underflow is projected to
occur between Pahranagat Valley and Desert Valley along the southern part of the Pahranagat
Range. Winograd and Friedman (1972) estimated that the flux across this boundary is
approximately one-third of the discharge at Ash Meadows; a similar estimate that approximately
40 percent of the Ash Meadows discharge originates as flux across the southern Pahranagat
Range was developed by Thomas (1996). Although these studies provide good initial estimates
7-15
for the boundary flux, it should be emphasized that information on the groundwater system near
Pahranagat Valley is limited. The Well Package was used at these cells to facilitate sensitivity
analyses of model results to these boundary fluxes.
For the boundary with Sarcobatus Flat, a zero-flux condition was used during calibration. This
assumption was also evaluated during sensitivity analyses. Sensitivity evaluations of flux
boundary conditions are presented in Section 7.5.6.1.
With the Well Package, the flux into or out of the model is specified for each boundary cell. A
preprocessor was written that calculates the flux for each cell in a vertical column of boundary
cells based on the following parameters: the assigned flux for the column of cells, the assigned
elevation of the water table, and the relative transmissivities of the cells in the column. The
assigned water table elevations for the boundary cells were based on the potentiometric surface
map developed of the study area (Plate 3). If the simulated water table is lower than the assigned
value, then upper cells with an assigned flux may become inactive, and the total boundary flux
will change. On the other hand, if the simulated water level is higher, the total flux will remain
the same, but no flux will be assigned for those cells above the assigned water table. A
postprocessor was written to sum the boundary fluxes for specified groups of cells as a quality
assurance check.
For the boundary with Pahranagat Valley, four vertical columns of cells were assigned a flux of
6,750 m3/d (1,998 ac-ft/y) each, resulting in a total flux into the model of 27,000 m3/d
(7,991 ac-ft/y). For the boundary with Sarcobatus Flat, seven columns of cells were used, but
the flux for each column was set to zero for the calibration process. The estimated boundary
fluxes for Pahranagat Valley and Sarcobatus Flat were presented in Table 7-2.
7.3.3.4 Drain Package

Groundwater can exit the system by underflow, simulated using the GHB Package, or as
discharge to the surface via springs or evapotranspiration. Eight areas were identified as surface-
discharge boundaries (Figure 7-3, “Drain Cells”). These areas include: Penoyer Valley to the
north of the test site; Indian Springs along the Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone; Oasis Valley to the
west of the Nevada Test Site in the vicinity of Beatty; Alkali Flat, also known as Peter’s Playa,
located northeast of the Ash Meadows discharge area; Ash Meadows; Franklin Lake Playa;
Amargosa River; and Death Valley.
7-16
Within the study area, water discharging from springs either reinfiltrates the groundwater system
a short distance downstream from the discharge point or is evaporated or transpired. Therefore,
water lost from the groundwater system through surface discharge is in the form of
evapotranspiration, and estimated ET rates were used for model calibration with one exception.
Water does exit the modeled system via surface discharge along the Amargosa River west of
Eagle Mountain. Streamflow measurements have not been located, but flow was visually
estimated in the fall of 1992 to be less than 0.03 cubic meters per second (one cubic foot per
second). Because this value was minimal compared to rates from the remaining discharge areas,
discharge across the model boundary due to streamflow in the Amargosa River was ignored.
Surface discharge from the model due to evapotranspiration losses could have been simulated
using either the ET or Drain Packages. The ET Package requires specification of an “extinction
depth” (the elevation below which ET does not occur), land-surface elevation, and an ET rate at
land surface. Modeled evapotranspiration linearly increases with the rise in the water table above
the extinction depth until land surface is reached, at which time a maximum evapotranspiration
rate is reached. The discontinuous function used to represent ET at land surface has been
problematic in previous studies (Prudic et al., 1993). Additionally, the function does not have
the flexibility of representing increasing discharge as water levels continue to rise above land
surface, which would be necessary to simulate the change from an ET to a spring discharge
mechanism. Therefore, evapotranspiration was handled using the Drain Package.
The Drain Package requires specification of a drain elevation. Discharge is zero when the
simulated hydraulic head is below the elevation of the drain and increases linearly as a function
of the conductance as the difference between the calculated hydraulic head and the drain
elevation increases. The drain elevation was initially set to an elevation approximately 5 m
(16.4 ft) below land surface elevation to approximate the ET extinction depth. The land surface
elevation used in the calculation of the drain elevation was the lowest point in each model cell
that fell within the discharge area.
The conductance values required for the Drain Package represent composite conductances due to
all hydraulic head losses resulting from converging flow in the discharge areas. Because
7-17
conductances are difficult, if not impossible, to measure, they were estimated using the following
formula:
Ai,j,k FluxD.A.
Condi,j,k ' ×
AD.A. (hi,j,k & di,j,k)
(7-1)
Where:
Condi,j,k = conductance of drain cell i,j,k [L2/T];
Ai,j,k = area of drain cell i,j,k [L2];
AD.A. = total area of specified discharge area (e.g., Oasis Valley, OV) [L2];
FluxD.A. = total estimated discharge flux from specified discharge area [L3/T];
hi,j,k = hydraulic head in drain cell i,j,k [L]; and
di,j,k = drain elevation in cell i,j,k [L].
In calculating the conductance using the above formula, the difference between the hydraulic
head in the boundary cell and the respective drain elevation was assumed to be 3.01 m (10 ft).
The estimated ranges in discharge fluxes for each of the eight discharge areas were discussed in
Section 5.0 and are presented in Table 7-4. Table 7-4 also provides target flux ranges for each of
the discharge areas. In some cases, the target flux range is narrower than the estimated range.
The target ranges for those areas were decreased, based on either review of literature values or
discussions with experts from the USGS in those specific areas and their most current estimates
of ET rates. The ranges were narrowed when possible to help provide more realistic goals during
model calibration. The target discharge value for each of the eight areas was presented in
Table 7-2.
The first seven entries in Table 7-4 represent estimated evapotranspiration rates. The lower
estimate for Indian Springs, the final entry in the table, represents a measured discharge rate at
the spring (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975). Because ET estimates were not available for this
discharge area, the upper estimate was calculated by increasing the spring discharge rate by
50 percent to incorporate effects of ET.
7.3.4 Hydraulic Conductivity and Vertical Conductance Calculations

The lateral and vertical distribution of the hydrostratigraphic units and their hydraulic
conductivity values help determine flow patterns and rates; therefore, it is extremely important to
7-18
Table 7-4
Estimated and Target Ranges
in Discharge Fluxes for Eight Discharge Areas
Estimated Target
Discharge Area Discharge Range Discharge Range
(m3/d) (m3/d)
Alkali Flat (or Peter’s Playa) 3,000 - 35,000 5,000 - 7,300
Amargosa River 2,040 - 5,100 2,040 - 5,100
Ash Meadows 67,000 - 101,400 67,000 - 87,300
Death Valley 17,500 - 60,200 17,500 - 60,100
Franklin Lake/Alkali Flats 14,200 - 42,600 14,200 - 42,600
Oasis Valley 17,000 - 27,000 17,000 - 27,000
Penoyer Valley 13,000 - 27,000 13,000 - 27,000
Indian Springs 1,600 - 2,400 1,600 - 2,400
map or translate these values as accurately as possible from the geologic grid to the flow model
grid. To accomplish this, several preprocessing programs were written. These programs,
described in the Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f, Appendix A)
translate information on the 3-D distribution of HSUs and their hydraulic conductivities into
transmissivity and vertical conductance values for each model cell.
7.3.4.1 Hydraulic Conductivity Parameters

The transmissivity is calculated at each cell on the uniform 2-km x 2-km (1.2-mi x 1.2-mi)
geologic grid for each model layer by summing the transmissivities of all hydrostratigraphic
units present in the cell. The transmissivity of each HSU within the cell is calculated by
integrating the product of the parameter, Kh (the horizontal hydraulic conductivity projected to
land surface), and the depth-decay function over the depth interval occupied by the HSU
(Equation 5-1). This process results in some averaging of hydraulic conductivity values;
however, model layer thicknesses were initially selected to represent the properties of
hydrologically important HSUs as much as possible to minimize this effect.
A preprocessing program is used to translate and rotate the hydrologic grid relative to the
geologic grid and to calculate values for the center of each active flow model cell using bilinear
7-19
interpolation. In this manner, each active cell within the flow model was assigned a Kh value in a
form consistent with the input data format required by MODFLOW.
7.3.4.2 Vertical Leakance

Vertical flow between model layers is described by the vertical conductance which is the product
of the vertical leakance (vcont parameter) of the cell and the cell area. The vcont value is
calculated between the center of each cell in the current layer (i,j,k) and the layer below it
(i,j,k+1, where the model layer increases with increasing depth). The vertical interval between
the two nodes is composed of n HSUs, with vertical hydraulic conductivities Kv1, Kv2...Kvn and
thicknesses )z1, )z2...)zn; vcont is then calculated from the following relationship:
1
vconti,j,k%1/2 '
)zg
j
n
g'1 Kvg
(7-2)
Where:
g = HSU designator [];
Kvg = vertical hydraulic conductivity of HSU layer g [L/T]; and
i,j,k+1/2 = vertical interval between nodei,j,k and nodei,j,k+1 [L].
The vertical hydraulic conductivity, Kvg , is the product of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity
value (determined by calculating the depth-corrected transmissivity of the HSU within the layer,
as described above, and dividing by the HSU thickness) and the anisotropy ratio specified for
each HSU. The anisotropy ratio is defined as the ratio of the vertical to horizontal hydraulic
conductivities. The HSUs within the lower half of the current model layer and the upper half of
the model layer below it are used to calculate vcont for the current layer. A more in-depth
discussion and examples for the vcont calculation are included in the Groundwater Flow Model
Documentation Package (IT, 1996f).
7.4 Calibration Process

Model calibration consists of iteratively adjusting various modeling parameters to develop an
acceptable agreement between the model-related values and those values measured in the
groundwater system. Modeling parameters are the model input values such as aquifer thickness,
horizontal hydraulic conductivity projected to land surface (Kh), and boundary conditions.
7-20
Agreement is desired for values such as hydraulic head, boundary fluxes, and general flow
direction. Steps taken to achieve calibration include the following tasks:
• Develop calibration criteria for the model.
• Assess the degree of agreement between simulated and measured water levels and
boundary fluxes within an estimated range of uncertainty specified by the calibration
criteria.
• Modify the hydraulic parameter values (Kh, vertical anisotropy, and 8), the boundary
conditions (recharge distribution, boundary heads, and Drain Package conductances), and
the geologic model to achieve the calibration criteria.
The following text discusses the calibration procedure used for the regional flow model. The
calibration was performed during three sequences. The initial model calibration sequence
identified four geographic areas where changes to the digital geologic model were necessary to
accurately simulate hydraulic head and flux distributions. The changes to the geologic model
were summarized in Section 4.0. The revised geologic model was incorporated into the model
during the second calibration sequence. An extensive peer review followed this calibration. The
reviewers suggested, among other things, that the recharge dataset be reevaluated. This
reevaluation concluded that the co-kriging process used in the earlier calibrations did not
satisfactorily represent the distribution of precipitation in the northern part of the model area. A
second precipitation dataset, based on older isohyetal maps of Nevada (Hardman, 1965) and on
eastern California precipitation data included in a newer map by James (1993), was developed.
The changes were used during the third and final calibration sequence. Sensitivity analyses were
performed following the second and third model calibration sequences. Results of the sensitivity
analyses were compared to the base cases for calibration sequences 2 and 3, termed “Base 2” and
“Base 3,” respectively.
7.4.1 Development of Calibration Criteria

The American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) has identified several methods for
evaluating the agreement between a model and the simulated flow system (ASTM, 1994). These
procedures include qualitative and quantitative comparisons between model results and:
• Measured water levels

• Water-balance information (recharge and discharge fluxes)
• Flow-direction information
• Flow-system hydraulic parameters
7-21
For the Nevada Test Site model, quantitative measures were designated to measure the goodness-
of-fit between simulated and measured hydraulic heads. Quantitative measures were not
calculated for the flux values, but the agreement between estimated and simulated fluxes was
carefully monitored during calibration for each of the discharge and external boundary areas.
Qualitative evaluations were used for the remaining two parameters since sufficient data were not
available for the two parameters at the scale of the model to provide a constraint to model
calibration.
7.4.1.1 Target Hydraulic Heads

One of the primary objectives of model calibration is to match simulated hydraulic heads
calculated by the model with the measured, or target, hydraulic heads. A listing of the target
heads is included in Appendix B. The list includes information on 928 wells or springs which fall
within the model grid (797 of these wells fall within the active region of the model grid). The
appendix also contains additional information necessary to calculate the statistical goodness-
of-fit parameters for the calibration effort. As would be expected, some wells penetrate more
than one model layer, and information on the completion interval is necessary for properly
evaluating the goodness-of-fit.
Prior to beginning the calibration, the water-level database was evaluated to identify those
measurements that were not representative of regional conditions. These data were not included
in the material presented in this report. For example, water levels indicating perched conditions
were flagged as not being representative. These included many springs at higher elevations in
the northern part of the model area and in the Spring Mountains. Also excluded are
measurements in NTS wells made during or shortly after drilling when it was questionable
whether water levels had stabilized.
Additional measurements were eliminated from the set of target heads during the calibration
process when inclusion of the measurement would bias the calibration process. For example, a
well high in the Spring Mountains had a measured head of 2,454 m (8,051.6 ft), considerably
higher than water levels at lower elevations. Neither the geologic nor hydrologic model was
constructed to model the hydrology of the Spring Mountains because heads in this area would
have little effect on predictions of transport from the weapons testing areas. Because of the high
residual (measured minus simulated hydraulic head) associated with this high head, the mean
residual and root mean square of the residuals would be greatly influenced by its inclusion in the
target head database. As the calibration process was based, in part, on minimizing the mean and
7-22
root mean square of the weighted head residuals, there would be a tendency to compensate for
this high residual by simulating heads higher than present in the more important wells at lower
elevations. To avoid this bias, the well was removed from the hydraulic head database. A
similar decision to eliminate measurements from the target head database was made for five
other wells. These wells are listed at the conclusion of Appendix B of the Groundwater Flow
Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f).
7.4.1.2 Hydraulic Head Residuals

There are several measures of fit that have been used in the modeling community. These are
calculated, in part, from the head residual which is defined for this model as the difference
between measured, or target, and model-calculated (simulated) hydraulic heads. A positive
residual indicates that the model-calculated head is less than the measured value. The goals of
calibration, with respect to water levels, are:
• Residual average close to zero

• Small residuals
• Normally distributed residuals, not spatially correlated
It is common to calculate weighted residuals, which consists of multiplying the residual by a

weighting factor that is indicative of the reliability of the measurement. The greater the
reliability of the measurement, the higher the weighting factor should be. The weighting factor
was calculated as the inverse of the square root of the total variance associated with the mean
value (in this case, hydraulic head) calculated for an observation point. For a low variance, the
weighting factor is high, and the reliability of the mean target value will be high. The total
variance was calculated as the sum of the variances associated with the elevation of the
observation point, the variation in depth-to-water measurements (as discussed in Section 5.0),
and the model error. The error associated with the model is difficult to quantify and is normally
ignored. In this model, a model variance of 1 m2 (10.72 ft2) was used with the expectation that
the model error is likely greater than this. For many wells, it was not possible to quantify the
measurement variance because needed information was lacking. These measurements were
assigned a variance of 100 m2 (1,072 ft2), which assumes that the combined error in the
measuring point elevation and depth-to-water measurements is about 10 m (32.8 ft).
It should be noted that the model calculates hydraulic head values at the center of each grid cell,
but the target wells are generally at locations other than the center of the cell. An interpolation
routine from the code MODFLOWP (Hill, 1992) was used to calculate head values for the
7-23
location of the well. Because the wells can extend over more than one model layer, the
simulated head is calculated as the transmissivity-weighted average head for the layers the well
penetrates. If the cell in which the measurement was made is dry, the hydraulic head in the layer
below is used in calculating the residual.
There are many different ways to measure the goodness-of-fit between simulated and measured
hydraulic heads. During model calibration, model fit was evaluated both by visual observation,
and by evaluation of quantitative calibration criteria. Qualitative evaluation consisted of
overlaying simulated heads and weighted residuals in a geographic information system (GIS) to
identify locations of high residuals. Quantitative measures of the overall goodness-of-fit
included generating the following items:
• Means of the weighted and nonweighted residuals for the overall model and for
designated zones (described below) within the model
• Root-mean-square (RMS) of the weighted and nonweighted residuals for the overall
model and for designated zones (described below) within the model
• Plots of measured versus simulated hydraulic head
Delineation of Residual Zones

Goodness-of-fit measures were developed for the overall model and were developed separately
for 15 different areas, termed “residual zones,” within the model. This approach allowed
emphasis to be placed on the model characteristics expected to be important to solute transport
from the testing areas. Each zone includes observation data from all model layers that fall within
the zone. The 15 zones are shown in Figure 7-4, and the calibration goals for each of the zones
are presented in Table 7-5. Areas such as the Spring Mountains and the area north of the NTS,
while important with respect to the value of the groundwater resource in general, were thought to
be less important with respect to solute transport than those areas within and downgradient from
the testing areas. In addition, there are fewer subsurface data available for these areas; thus, the
geologic model is correspondingly less well-defined. The goals are more stringent for the
weapons testing areas and those areas downgradient from them.
7-24
Table 7-5
Calibration Criteria for Weighted Hydraulic-Head Residuals by Zone
Residual Zone Residual Zone Mean Root Mean Square

Range in
Weighted of Weighted
Zone Measured Heads
Residual Residuals
Name Abbreviation (m)
(m) (m)
All 20 100 1687.4
1 Northern Area NRTH 100 150 202.7
2 Oasis Valley OASI 15 75 533.7
3 Pahute Mesa PM 25 35 230.7
4 Barrier BARR 300 350 565.3
5 W. Yucca Flat WYF 45 110 632.2
6 E. Yucca Flat EYF 35 80 101.3
7 Shoshone SHON 20 50 285.8
8 Death Valley DV 80 100 728.4
Lower Carbonate
9 LCA 5 40 205
Aquifer
SW. of Pahranagat
10 PAHR 40 40 15.3
Valley
11 Spring Mtn. SPMT 150 150 278.9
12 Sheep Range SHRG 100 100 39.9
13 Timber Mtn TMBR 100 100 220.7
14 Amargosa Farm FARM 10 50 58.3
15 Frenchman Flat FF 10 50 20.6
7-26
The 15 zones and their abbreviations used in the corresponding tables and figures are defined as
follows:
Zone 1: Northern Area (NRTH) - This zone consists of the area to the north of the Nevada
Test Site and extends eastward to the high-gradient area east of Penoyer Valley. It includes
several ranges where appreciable recharge occurs and high vertical gradients exist. The
geologic model is not sufficiently complex in these areas to match these vertical gradients,
and high residuals are expected and acceptable.
Zone 2: Oasis Valley (OASI) - This zone consists of the discharge area near Beatty and
upgradient areas west of Timber Mountain. This area was delineated as a separate zone
because of its importance as a possible downgradient receptor from the Pahute Mesa testing
area.
Zone 3: Pahute Mesa (PM) - This area has been designated as a residual zone because it is a
testing area from which radionuclide transport is of concern and because of the plan to
perform more detailed modeling of this area. By calibrating the regional model to result in a
“good fit” to hydraulic heads in this zone, subsequent development of the detailed model
using the regional model for establishing boundary conditions will be more successful.
Zone 4: Belted Range Barrier (BARR) - This zone is a high-gradient area associated with
the Lower Clastic Confining Unit northeast of the NTS. It has been designated as a residual
zone because of the anticipated difficulty in accurately matching heads in this area. The
important feature that needs to be simulated in the model is the existence of the high-gradient
zone, rather than closely matching the individual head measurements.
Zone 5 and 6: Western Yucca Flat (WYF) and Eastern Yucca Flat (EYF) - The Yucca
Flat testing area has been selected as an area of greater interest because it is also a testing area
from which radionuclide transport is of concern. However, because Yucca Flat has higher
heads in the western half (which is underlain by the Upper Clastic Confining Unit) than in the
eastern half, it is divided into two separate zones. The Western Yucca Flat residual Zone
is characterized by a wider range in heads and higher gradient than the Eastern Yucca Flat
Zone.
Zone 7: Shoshone Mountain (SHON) - This zone, located west of Yucca Flat, is an area
with relatively high water levels, presumably because of recharge in the area and the presence
of the UCCU underlying the volcanic rocks. It is designated as a separate residual zone in
order to prevent the heads in this area from affecting the residual statistics in Yucca Flat and
Frenchman Flat.
Zone 8: Death Valley (DV) - This residual zone extends from the Amargosa Desert west of
Death Valley Junction into Death Valley and includes the high-gradient area on the
northeastern side of Death Valley.
7-27
Zone 9: Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) - This zone is underlain by the LCA and is
generally characterized by low hydraulic gradients. It is the largest residual zone in the
model, extending from the Amargosa Desert eastward to nearly the Sheep Range. This zone
is separated from the Sheep Range, Spring Mountain, and Pahranagat Valley zones because
of their higher gradient and from the Frenchman Flat zone because of its importance as an
underground test area.
Zone 10: Southwest of Pahranagat Valley (PAHR) - This zone is east of the LCA residual
zone and is characterized by shallower LCCU and higher hydraulic heads than in the LCA
zone.
Zone 11: Spring Mountains (SPMT) - This zone covers the area south of and including the
Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone. The heads in this area are higher than those to the north
because of an apparent reduction in hydraulic conductivity associated with the shear zone.
Zone 12: Sheep Range (SHRG) - This zone is northeast of the Las Vegas Valley Shear
Zone between the Sheep Range and the Spring Mountains. Because of the geometry of the
LCCU and the high precipitation rate, the gradient within this zone is high.
Zone 13: Timber Mountain (TMBR) - The Timber Mountain zone lies between Pahute
Mesa on the north and the high-gradient area north of Yucca Mountain and Jackass Flats to
the south. The gradient within this zone is relatively low. It is separated from the Pahute
Mesa zone because of its lower gradient and the occurrence of testing beneath Pahute Mesa.
Zone 14: Amargosa Farm Area (FARM) - This residual zone is in the northern part of the
Amargosa Desert and contains a large number of target-head wells. It is defined as a separate
zone within the LCA to keep the area from dominating the statistical measures for the LCA
zone.
Zone 15: Frenchman Flat (FF) - The Frenchman Flat residual zone is separated from the
LCA zone because of its importance as an underground test area and the plan to perform
more detailed modeling of this underground test area.
7.4.1.3 Fluxes
The calibration procedure also compares computed fluxes with estimated and measured field
fluxes. MODFLOW calculates the boundary fluxes for all individual flux boundary cells.
Postprocessors were written to sum these fluxes for the eight internal discharge areas and the four
external flux boundaries so that simulated flux values could be compared to the target flux ranges
and flux values (Table 7-2). The calibration goal was to have the model-calculated fluxes fall
within the target flux range as close as possible to the target value.
7-28
7.4.2 Hydraulic-Conductivity Zonations
During the calibration process, it became clear that it would be necessary to subdivide some of the
hydrostratigraphic units into several conductivity zones in order to achieve an acceptable
calibration. Maps of the zones are presented in Figures 7-5 through 7-12, and a discussion of the
zonations by HSU is presented below.
Lower Carbonate Aquifer

The Lower Carbonate Aquifer was separated into nine zones (Figure 7-5). Zone LCA(1) covers
the eastern part of the NTS and the low gradient area to the east of the NTS. LCA(2) is a small
area upgradient of the Ash Meadows discharge area which has been proposed as being very
permeable based on the low gradients within this area and the high discharge at Ash Meadows
(Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; Waddell, 1982). Winograd and Thordarson (1975) had also
indicated that a barrier was present along the Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone (LVVSZ) (zone
LCA(3)) on the basis of a high gradient developed across it near Indian Springs. Zone LCA(4) is
beneath Jackass Flats, the Amargosa Desert, and Death Valley; model calibration indicates that a
different transmissivity is needed here than in LCA(1). The zone covering the northern half of
the model [LCA(5)] is defined to allow assignment of lower conductivities due to the greater
shale content in the Paleozoic section in the northern part of the model. Another facies change
occurs over a broad zone further to the west where there is a change to deep-water deposition.
This latter facies change is represented in the geologic model by modeling the lower, more
shaley, part of the lower carbonate section as LCCU. The sixth zone, LCA(6), represents the
Spring Mountains south of the Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone where a lower hydraulic
conductivity was needed to approximate heads in this area. However, there was no significant
attempt to match water levels at higher elevations in the Spring Mountains, and the geologic
model should be considered as approximate in this area. A seventh zone, LCA(7), is defined for
the carbonate rock west of Timber Mountain so that sensitivity testing could be performed with
respect to the presence of the LCA in this area. The eighth zone, LCA(8), is in the east central
part of the model (Desert Valley) where there is an increase in gradient coincident with an
increase in the shale content in the northeastern part of the model area, demonstrated by the Pilot
and Chainman Shales. The ninth zone, LCA(9), is at the southeastern end of the Funeral
Mountains. The properties of the LCA here have a significant impact on the simulated discharge
in Death Valley. This area is zoned separately from Zone 4 to allow their independent
adjustment.
7-29
Alluvial Aquifer
The Alluvial Aquifer is divided into six zones (Figure 7-6). There are four zones (1, 4, 5, and 6)
which represent coarser-grained alluvium and two (2 and 3) which represent finer-grained
alluvium. The identification and distribution of the fine-grained vs. coarse-grained deposits were
estimated from satellite imagery. Of the coarse-grained zones, Zone 1 represents all areas except
for Zone 4 (Yucca Flat), Zone 5 (Frenchman Flat), and Zone 6 (Amargosa Desert). These are
defined separately in order that sensitivity analyses could be performed for the respective areas.
The fine-grained zones are divided into Zone 2 (Amargosa Desert and Death Valley) and Zone 3
(other areas). The responses noted during the calibration process indicate that Zone 2 primarily
affects the rate of discharge at Ash Meadows and Alkali Flat, while Zone 3 affects the head
gradient across the Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone.
Timber Mountain Tuffs, Tuff Cone, Non-welded Tuffs, Welded Tuffs Above BCU, and
Welded Tuffs
The Timber Mountain Tuffs are zoned to allow for potential alteration effects on conductivity
within the Timber Mountain and Black Mountain Calderas (Figure 7-7). TMA(1) comprises the
extra-caldera tuffs. TMA(2), TMA(3), and TMA(4) form approximately concentric cylinders
with increasing radii from the center of the caldera. Zone 5 is in an area where TMA is absent,
but the TC associated with the Claim Canyon caldera segment south of Timber Mountain is
present. This zone [TC(5)] is altered in contrast to the TC that is present beneath Pahute Mesa
[TC(1)]. A sixth zone surrounding Black Mountain has been added to account for alteration
associated with heating during caldera formation. Hydrostratigraphic units TCB, TBA, BCU,
and BAQ were rezoned identically to the TMA/TC in order to include the Black Mountain
zonation.
Volcanic Aquifer
Three zones have been defined for the Volcanic Aquifer (Figure 7-8). VA(1) covers the southern
part of the Nevada Test Site, and VA(2) covers Yucca Flat. The distinction was initially made to
allow these two areas to be evaluated separately during the sensitivity analysis, but calibration
results indicated that a slightly lower conductivity was necessary for VA(2) than VA(1) to
improve the fit in Yucca Flat. A third zone beneath Crater Flat was defined to see if lower
conductivities would result in higher simulated heads beneath Crater Flat. This approach was not
successful, and the conductivities used in the current model for VA(3) are the same as those in
Zone 2.
7-38
Lower Clastic Confining Unit
The Lower Clastic Confining Unit has been divided into three zones (Figure 7-9). Zone 1 covers
most of the LCCU. The LCCU beneath and near the Sheep Range is designated as Zone 2 so
that a higher value of conductivity could be used to eliminate numerical problems associated
with the steep gradient and large grid spacing there. A third zone is beneath and near the
Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. Zone 3 was defined because adjusting the conductivity of
the LCCU at Beatty affects the discharge rate in Oasis Valley and because of reported higher
permeabilities encountered in a well drilled on the northeastern side of the Grapevine Mountains
to monitor effects of water use at the Bullfrog Mine. This zone lies within the area affected by
lateral shear related to Death Valley and Walker Lane tectonics; therefore, it may be more
fractured than other areas of the LCCU as a result.
Volcanic Confining Unit

The Volcanic Confining Unit, which underlies an area from Yucca and Frenchman Flats
westward beneath Crater Flat, has two zones defined (Figure 7-10). Nearly all of its occurrence
is in Zone 1. Beneath Frenchman Flat, an interpretation of aeromagnetic data by the
U.S. Geological Survey (Grauch and Hudson, 1995) indicates that the VCU is discontinuous
along a northwestward trend through Frenchman Flat. Zone 2 has been defined to allow
sensitivity analyses to be performed on particle movement beneath Frenchman Flat.
Volcanics Undifferentiated
The VU was separated into three zones (Figure 7-11). The first covers most of the model area.
The second is coincident with Zone 6 for the TMA and TC to allow for inclusion of effects
associated with Black Mountain. The third zone is the area between Pahute Mesa and Beatty to
allow for better matching of heads in this area without impacting the model to the north.
Tertiary Sediments/Death Valley Section

Two different stratigraphic units have been combined in the TSDV hydrostratigraphic unit in the
geologic model because they occur approximately at the same stratigraphic position and because
they do not overlap. Zone 1 of TSDV comprises the Tertiary Sediments, while Zone 2 comprises
the Death Valley sediments (Figure 7-12).
7-39
7.5 Flow Model Results and Sensitivity Analyses
This section summarizes the calibrated groundwater flow modeling results including the
distributions of areal recharge and hydraulic parameters, distributions of simulated hydraulic
heads and corresponding residuals, and simulated fluxes. An overlay (Plate 4) that shows the
study area general features in addition to the model boundary has been included to facilitate the
following discussions on the areal recharge and potentiometric contour maps as well as the
transmissivity and vertical leakance distribution maps. MODPATH particle-tracking results and
sensitivity evaluations are also presented.
7.5.1 Distribution of Recharge

The final recharge coefficients used in the recharge model are shown in Table 7-6; the table also
provides the Maxey-Eakin coefficients for comparative purposes. The corresponding recharge
flux for the Nevada Test Site recharge model is 204,080 m3/d (60,396.6 ac-ft/y). It should be
noted that this value is slightly different from that presented in Section 5.0 because the model
grid boundary is an approximation of the hydrologic boundary within which the recharge flux
was calculated. In Table 7-6, note that the lowest value below which precipitation is not
projected to occur has been decreased from 20 to 16 cm (7.9 to 6.3 in.). This change was made
to produce minor recharge in the higher areas of Yucca Flat, at Bullfrog Mountain, in the
Wahmonie area, and the Funeral Mountains where perched water is present.
The model coefficients in Table 7-6 correspond to initial estimates of recharge used in the model
(191,000 m3/d [56,525.6 ac-ft/y]); that estimate was later increased (to approximately
204,000 m3/d [60,372.9 ac-ft/y]) to account for larger estimated discharge fluxes in Oasis Valley
and Ash Meadows. The larger flux was incorporated into the model by uniformly increasing the
recharge at all model cells by a factor of 1.0678, the ratio between the final and initial recharge
estimates.
Figure 7-13 shows the distribution of recharge used in the model. Recharge primarily occurs in
the northern mountains (Kawich, Reveille, and Quinn Canyon Ranges); the mountains
immediately north and northwest of the NTS (Belted and Groom Ranges); Pahute Mesa,
Shoshone Mountain, and Timber Mountain on the NTS; the Sheep Range to the east; and the
Spring Mountains in the south. The effects of recharge redistribution from higher to lower
elevations in and close to the NTS are apparent. For example, the recharge that is shown in the
lower part of Fortymile Wash is due to this redistribution.
7-40
Table 7-6
Comparison of Maxey-Eakin Coefficients and Coefficients Used in the Model
Maxey-Eakina Model
Maxey-Eakin Coefficients
Precipitation Precipitation
Coefficients Used in Model
(cm) (cm)
(%) (%)
>50.8 25 >50.8 18
38.1 - 50.8 15 38.1 - 50.8 11
30.5 - 38.1 7 30.5 - 38.1 6
20 - 30.5 3 16 - 30.5 1.5
<20 0 <16 0
a
Source: Maxey and Eakin, 1949
7.5.2 Hydraulic Parameters

The final values for the hydraulic parameters included in the calibrated flow model for each
model layer are presented in Table 7-7. For each hydrostratigraphic unit or zone within an HSU,
there are three values that must be specified: the horizontal hydraulic conductivity projected to
land surface (Kh); the anisotropy ratio (Kv/Kh), here defined as the vertical hydraulic conductivity
divided by the horizontal hydraulic conductivity; and the exponential depth-decay parameter (8).
The larger the 8 value, the more rapidly the hydraulic conductivity decreases with depth. When
an HSU has been divided into different zones (e.g., the LCA), multiple sets of the three
parameters are listed. The HSU descriptions and names are included in Table 4-3.
Figures 7-14, 7-15, and 7-16 compare the horizontal hydraulic conductivity values used in the
model with conductivity values from aquifer tests for alluvium (AA), volcanic rocks, and
carbonate rocks, respectively. The upper line for the AA (Figure 7-14) represents the zones
(1, 4, 5, and 6) of coarse-grained deposits. The next lower line is the zone of finer-grained
sediments in the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. The hydraulic conductivities for Zones 2
and 6 were well-constrained by the calibration, but a correlation between the hydraulic
conductivity values for the AA and LCA units exists in this area. If a lower value were used for
the LCA, a higher one would be needed for the Alluvial Aquifer. Additionally, the simulated
heads and discharge rates are sensitive to the hydraulic conductivities of these two HSUs.
7-41
Table 7-7
Final Hydraulic Parameters for the NTS Flow Model
(Page 1 of 2)
Depth Decay
Model HSU & Kh Anisotropy Ratio
Parameter
Layer Zone No. (m/d)a (Kv/Kh)b
(8)c
20 AA
Zone 1,4,5,6 11.0 0.22 0.0037
Zone 2 4.40 0.16 0.0037
Zone 3 0.01 0.16 0.0037
19 TMA
Zone 1 35.0 0.08 0.0026
Zone 2 12.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 3 16.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 4 20.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 5 1.20 0.02 0.0026
Zone 6 0.20 0.02 0.0026
18 TC
Zone 1 35.0 0.08 0.0026
Zone 2 12.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 3 16.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 4 20.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 5 4.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 6 0.20 0.02 0.0026
17 TCB
Zone 1 0.30 0.02 0.0026
Zones 2-5 0.03 0.02 0.0026
Zone 6 0.02 0.02 0.0026
16 TBA
Zone 1 35.0 0.02 0.0026
Zones 2-5 2.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 6 0.2 0.02 0.0026
15 BCU
Zones 1-5 0.3 0.02 0.0026
Zone 6 0.2 0.02 0.0026
14 BAQ
Zone 1 35.0 0.02 0.0026
Zones 2-5 2.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 6 0.2 0.02 0.0026
13 VA
Zone 1 2.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 2 1.0 0.02 0.0026
Zone 3 8.0 0.02 0.0026
12 VCU
Zones 1,2 0.12 0.02 0.0026
7-43
Table 7-7
Final Hydraulic Parameters for the NTS Flow Model
(Page 2 of 2)
Depth Decay
Model HSU & Kh Anisotropy Ratio
Parameter
Layer Zone No. (m/d)a (Kv/Kh)b
(8)c
11 VU
Zone 194 1.5 0.02 0.0026
0.2 0.02 0.0026
Zone 2 0.4 0.02 0.0026
Zone 3
10 TSDVS
Zone 1 0.50 0.02 0.004
Zone 2 0.02 0.02 0.004
9 LCA3 0.1 0.02 0.001
8 UCCU 0.002 0.02 0.0015
7, 5, 3 LCA
Zone 1,2 110. 0.015 0.0010
Zone 3 0.01 0.015 0.0010
Zone 4 8.0 0.015 0.0010
Zone 5,8 0.8 0.015 0.0010
Zone 6 0.4 0.015 0.0010
Zone 7 2.0 0.020 0.0026
Zone 9 5.0 0.015 0.0010
6 LCCU
Zone 1 0.02 0.15 0.0012
Zone 2 0.20 0.15 0.0012
Zone 3 0.10 0.15 0.0012
4, 2 LCCU1
Zone 1 0.02 0.15 0.0015
Zone 2 0.20 0.15 0.0012
Zone 3 0.10 0.15 0.0012
1 I 0.001 0.5 0.0015
a
Meters per day
b
The parameter Kh is the horizontal hydraulic conductivity that is projected to occur at the land surface, or a depth of zero.
The parameter Kv is the vertical hydraulic conductivity that is projected to occur at the land surface, or a depth of zero.
c
The parameter 8 is the depth-decay coefficient.
7-44
Higher values of hydraulic conductivity have been measured for the Alluvial Aquifer than were
used in the calibrated model. The effects of using higher values of Kh for Yucca and Frenchman
Flat Zones 4 and 5, which are not as constrained by the calibration, were investigated through
sensitivity analysis and are discussed below. The two lower lines in Figure 7-14 represent areas
of low conductivities due to the formation of spring deposits. The values used in the model are
consistent with values found in the reference literature for fine-grained sediments.
Figure 7-15 shows the comparison between measured and model hydraulic conductivity vs.
depth for volcanic rocks. The lines represent the minimum and maximum values for both the
volcanic aquifers and confining units represented in the model. The lines fit nicely within the
measurements, but there are many measurements with higher conductivities than were used in
the model. The maximum Kh value (horizontal hydraulic conductivity projected to land surface)
of 35 m/d (114.8 ft/d) was derived through calibration. Because of the paucity of data on
conductivities for different volcanic aquifers, this value was assigned to all volcanic aquifers
within the Timber Mountain/ Pahute Mesa area for consistency. Higher Kh values could have
been assigned to individual units locally without significantly affecting regional model results;
however, increasing Kh values for all of the volcanic aquifers in the western part of the NTS
resulted in a significantly poorer model fit based on hydraulic head and flux residuals. There are
several possible reasons for the differences between the high sample hydraulic conductivity
measurements and the model values. These include:
• The aquifer-test results represent local effects rather than regional properties. The
thickness of the volcanic units and the corresponding degree of welding and fracturing
are greatly affected by pre-eruption topography and are, therefore, highly variable.
Further, the conductivity measured in an aquifer test is greatly affected by the properties
of fractures intercepted by the borehole, especially when the water level changes are
measured in the stressed well. Thus, it would be expected that there would be many
tests with higher conductivities than the regional average.
• The modeling results do not incorporate local barrier effects due to the presence of
faults. Detailed mapping of hydrologic heads on Pahute Mesa suggests that faults may
be barriers to flow in some areas. Moderately high gradients exist from one fault-
bounded block to another, and this is not incorporated in the regional model. The
model-determined properties would then account for these barriers, resulting in lower
simulated values for conductivity in comparison to those provided by aquifer tests.
The lines for the volcanic confining units in Figure 7-15 represent rocks that are nonwelded or
that have been altered.
7-48
The comparison for the LCA is presented in Figure 7-16; the lines for each of the nine LCA
zones are displayed. The lines for LCA(1) and (2) are at the upper end of the range in measured
values. Zone 2 is upgradient from Ash Meadows and is believed to be quite permeable as
indicated by the very low gradient through this area and the high discharge rate at Ash Meadows.
The measurements plotted at depths less than 200 m (656.2 ft) are from the tracer site located
south of Point of Rocks within this zone, so there is supporting evidence for the high
conductivity of Zone LCA(2). The remaining lines are consistent with the data. The values used
for LCA(6) and LCA(3) in the model produced reasonable agreement with measured hydraulic
head values, but the only basis for the value for LCA(3) was the need to simulate the observed
gradient along the shear zone; this value is lower than occurs in the field. LCA Zones 5 and 8
were initially assigned different values of Kh; however, the model fit was not improved, and the
two zones were reassigned the same values. Their values are the lowest of the LCA zones with
the exceptions of Zones 3 and 6. Zone 7 is the zone west of Timber Mountain where the
presence of LCA was predicted on the basis of an outcrop of Ordovician age. However,
interpretations of gravity data suggest that the pre-Tertiary rocks are shallower than portrayed in
the geologic model. Therefore, this zone was given properties similar to volcanic HSUs in the
area as can be seen by the greater slope on the line.
As an example of the hydraulic parameter values included in the calibrated model, the HSU,
transmissivity, and vcont (vertical leakance, defined in Section 7.3.4.2 and Equation 7-2)
distributions for Model Layer 8 are shown in Figures 7-17 to 7-19, respectively. The structure of
the geologic model, combined with the hydrologic properties of the HSUs, is apparent in the
figures. The Lower Carbonate Aquifer is present in the southeastern part of the model, extending
up into Yucca Flat. The LCA, readily apparent on the eastern side of the flat, is bounded to the
west by the Upper Clastic Confining Unit which is, in turn, flanked to the west by the Lower
Clastic Confining Unit and volcanics. The presence of the LCCU in this area is associated with
thrusting along the Belted Range Thrust. The structural outline of the lower-conductivity
volcanics associated with the Timber Mountain Aquifer and the Tuff Cone to the south of this
aquifer is apparent.
The transmissivity and vcont figures show the logarithm (base 10) of the values used in the
model. Although transmissivity and vcont data are calculated everywhere on the hydrologic
grids, the figures only show values for those cells that remained active after the model had
converged. If the water table is below the bottom of a cell, no value is shown. Thus, the figures
also portray the distribution of active, wet cells in the converged model.
7-49
Figures for the HSU, transmissivity, and vcont distributions for each of the model layers are
included in the Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f, Appendices D, E,
and F, respectively).
7.5.3 Hydraulic-Head and Residual Distributions

Simulated hydraulic head distributions and the corresponding residual hydraulic heads are
presented in Appendix B of this report and are discussed in the following text.
7.5.3.1 Hydraulic-Head Distributions

Figure 7-20 is a map of the simulated water table for the calibrated model. This map was
assembled by constructing an array of hydraulic heads where each entry in the array is the
calculated head in the uppermost model layer that is active for each cell. In Figure 7-20, a steep
gradient is present on the eastern side of Death Valley, caused by the Lower Clastic Confining
Unit in the Funeral Range and the Tertiary Sediment/Death Valley Section in the Greenwater
Range (see Plate 4). The Franklin Lake playa, also known as Alkali Flat, is present along the
southern edge of the model. The playa provides a place for water to exit the model, and the
650-m (2,132.7-ft) contour line shows convergence of flow to this area. A low hydraulic
gradient is present in the areas underlain by LCA(1) and LCA(2) and the western portions of
LCA(4) and LCA(9) (Figure 7-5) with the exception of western Yucca Flat. In this area, the
LCA(1) underlies the Upper Clastic Confining Unit which creates a higher water table because of
its low conductivity and a much steeper gradient.
A steep gradient is also present along the Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone, a result of the lower
conductivity used for LCA(3) and AA(2). South of the shear zone, heads rise because of the
recharge in the Spring Mountains and the lower conductivity value used for LCA(6). The area in
the western part of the Spring Mountains with a very high gradient has LCCU exposed at the
surface. A high gradient is needed to transmit the water that is recharged in the model. In the
field, this water probably travels as surface flow until encountering higher conductivity rocks.
A steeper gradient is also developed across the Desert Range because the LCCU is shallow along
its axis as well as in the Sheep Range because of shallow LCCU and local recharge. The
simulated hydraulic heads in this area are not reliable, but the estimated volume of recharge in
the Sheep Range is incorporated accurately in the model.
7-53
North of the junction of the Desert Range and the Pintwater Range, the hydraulic heads rise
above 800 m (2,624.8 ft). This gradient is caused by the lower conductivity associated with
LCA(8). There is a “ramp” in hydraulic heads as they increase to above 1,400 m (4,593.4 ft)
near Penoyer Valley. To the west of the ramp is a steep gradient caused by the LCCU
underlying the Groom Range in addition to a local recharge mound at the northern end of the
Groom Range.
The Nevada Test Site area is divided into three zones. The Lower Carbonate Aquifer underlies
the first zone which is distinguished by the low hydraulic gradient present beneath eastern Yucca
Flat, Frenchman Flat, Jackass Flats, and the Mercury area. This zone is separated from a second
zone (which consists predominantly of volcanic rocks in the northwestern part of the NTS) by a
third zone consisting of a pronounced high-gradient area that borders Yucca Flat on the east and
west and curves around until it is oriented approximately east-west beneath Calico Hills and
northern Yucca Mountain.
The high gradient east of Yucca Flat is caused by the structurally high Lower Clastic Confining
Unit that borders northeastern Yucca Flat. The LCCU is also structurally high west of Yucca
Flat (west of the trace of the Belted Range Thrust), but is located further west than the eastern
margin of the high-gradient area. The higher water levels beneath western Yucca Flat are caused
by the presence of the Upper Clastic Confining Unit which, in turn, causes a high vertical
gradient between the rocks which overlie it and the underlying Lower Carbonate Aquifer. The
overlying units include LCA3, several volcanic HSUs, and AA. The LCA3 is believed to consist
of several isolated blocks of both pre- and post-Mississippian carbonate rocks; however, it is
simulated as a single block within the model. When the LCA3 was assigned conductivity values
that are representative of carbonate rocks, the water levels in western Yucca Flat dropped
significantly. The calibrated model required a value much lower than expected for carbonate
rock. This suggests that the LCA3 is not as well-connected as represented in the digital geologic
model.
The high gradient across Calico Hills, northern Yucca Mountain, and northern Crater Flat is due
to a combination of factors. The LCCU is uplifted north of the Belted Range Thrust, which
prevents easy flow from the volcanic rocks southward into the LCA that underlies the UCCU to
the south of the thrust fault. Second, the UCCU is structurally high in Calico Hills and in the
northern part of Bare Mountain, helping to provide the barrier. Third, the volcanic rocks in the
Claim Canyon caldera segment north of Yucca Mountain and in the northern part of Yucca
7-55
Mountain have been altered and, thus, have a lower hydraulic conductivity than the volcanic
rocks further to the south.
The Timber Mountain area has a lower hydraulic gradient than is present farther to the north
beneath Pahute Mesa. There are two factors in the model which create this. Moderate
conductivity values were assigned to the thick sequence of volcanic rocks in the Timber
Mountain area in contrast to the inclusion of structurally offset interbedded units of both higher
and lower hydraulic conductivity values in Pahute Mesa. The second factor is the recharge
occurring at Timber Mountain, which reduces the gradient on the northern side of Timber
Mountain.
Beneath Pahute Mesa, the hydraulic gradient indicates that flow is generally to the southwest.
To the west of the mesa, the model hydraulic conductivity values in Black Mountain are
approximately two orders of magnitude lower than those of the volcanic aquifers present beneath
the Pahute Mesa testing area. This zonation resulted in higher simulated heads west of the
Boxcar Fault and the development of the potentiometric trough within Area 20. It is yet not
known whether or not this hypothesis is the correct explanation for the observed water levels.
The area north of the Nevada Test Site has moderate gradients with local divides due to recharge
along the Kawich Range and the northern part of the Quinn Canyon Range. These divides are in
agreement with the potentiometric map presented in Plate 3. The discharge area at Penoyer
Valley is evident by the bend in the 1,450 m (4,757.5 ft) contour line that indicates flow into the
discharge area from the south, west and north.
The hydraulic head distribution maps for Model Layers 5, 7, and 14 are reproduced in
Figures 7-21, 7-22, and 7-23, respectively. Hydraulic-head contours are not drawn in areas
where there are no active cells (e.g., where the bottoms of the cells are above the simulated water
table). The contour plots include posting of all target well locations that fall within the active
model domain. Single-layer and multiple-layer wells are identified with separate symbols on the
plots. The measured hydraulic head value in each multiple-layer observation well is posted on
each of the model layers over which the well is open. In areas with a dense population of points,
only selected heads have been posted to minimize overprinting of data values.
7-56
In Figure 7-21 (Model Layer 5, elevation range 1,050 to 1,200 m [3,445.1 to 3,937.2 ft]), the area
north and west of the NTS is saturated. Effects of recharge are noted in the Kawich Range
1,500-m contour (4,921.5 ft), beneath Shoshone Mountain, in the Sheep Range, and in the Spring
Mountains. To the west of Shoshone Mountain and north of Oasis Valley, the observed low
hydraulic gradient (Plate 3) is apparent. The discharge in Oasis Valley is reflected in the
contour lines in this layer. To the northeast of the NTS, the structural high present in the LCCU
within the Groom Range is evident. Along the perimeter of Yucca Flat, the steep hydraulic
gradient is apparent on the western side, but not to the north.
By Layer 7 (Figure 7-22), which includes the elevation range from 700 to 900 m (2,296.7 to
2,952.9 ft), many additional features are present. A steep gradient is present in the Sheep Range;
this is caused by the Lower Clastic Confining Unit rising steeply from the valley west of the
range to near the crest of the range over a short distance. A low gradient is present from
Amargosa Desert eastward to Indian Springs Valley, a result of the high transmissivity in LCA
Zones 1, 2, and 4 (Figure 7-5). Along the eastern edge of the model, the contours increase from
south to north, varying from 750 m (2,460.8 ft) just west of Pahranagat Valley to more than
1,400 m (4,593.4 ft) in the north; this is a result of the lower conductivity assigned to LCA
Zone 8. The low conductivity, needed to develop the gradient so that simulated heads would be
high enough in Penoyer Valley and in the areas to the west of the Pahranagat and Sheep Ranges,
is consistent with an increase in the shale content in the northeastern part of the model area. The
effect of the zonation along the Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone (LCA Zone 3) is apparent in the
750-m (2,460.8-ft) contour line, causing it to be oriented nearly east-west to the north of the
Spring Mountains.
On the Nevada Test Site, several features are noteworthy. A low gradient associated with the
LCA exists in the southern part of the NTS, extending up into the eastern part of Yucca Flat.
The steep hydraulic gradient to the north of Yucca Flat is now well-developed. The steep
gradient existing on the western part of Yucca Flat and westward toward the southeastern corner
of Rainier Mesa is caused by the presence of the Upper Clastic Confining Unit which also creates
a high vertical gradient between this layer and lower layers. The effect of recharge in Shoshone
Mountain is still apparent. The high gradients to the south and southwest of the caldera complex,
north of Yucca Mountain, are due to the presence of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit and
low-conductivity volcanic units. In the Yucca Mountain area, the high measured head of
1,031 m (3,382.7 ft) is not well-matched because of the steep gradient, but the high gradient itself
7-60
is well-defined, and the water level in Well UE-29a#2 in Fortymile Canyon north of the gradient is
well-matched (Appendix B).
In Model Layer 14 (Figure 7-23), the shelf caused by the UCCU is gone, and the low gradient
area associated with the LCA beneath Yucca Flat is present farther to the west. The high
gradient into Death Valley is well-defined, and an upward gradient is present below Franklin
Lake. At Yucca Mountain, a downward gradient is modeled; the 750-m (2,460.8-ft) contour line
is farther north in Layer 14 than it is in Layer 7. However, water-level data from USW-H1
(Appendix B) indicate that an upward gradient exists (Lobmeyer et al., 1995). The eastward
gradient across the proposed repository block is also not present in the modeling results. Thus,
the general features of the groundwater system near Yucca Mountain are modeled, but the
detailed features are not.
The simulated hydraulic head distribution maps for the 20 model layers, including posted target
head values, are included in Appendix G of the Groundwater Flow Model Documentation
Package (IT, 1996f).
The simulated heads for the calibrated model are plotted against observed heads in Figure 7-24.
The group of heads in the lower section of the graph represent Death Valley data. Following the
line upward, the tight grouping of points represent data from the Amargosa farm area. The
remainder of the line represents points from increasingly upgradient locations. Examination of
the figure indicates that the fit of the model to measured data is very good.
7.5.3.2 Head Residual Distributions by Zone

One of the primary goals of calibration is to minimize weighted residuals in the areas of interest
and to produce as small residuals as possible in the remaining areas. As explained in
Section 7.4.1.2, simulated heads were interpolated from the centroid of each model cell to the
target well location within the cell for each model layer in which the well is completed. The
interpolated heads in each model layer were then used to calculate a single, transmissivity-
weighted average head for the layers that the well penetrates. The residual was calculated as
measured minus the simulated, transmissivity-weighted average head. Finally, the weighted
residual was calculated by dividing the residual by the square root of the total variance for that
observation.
7-61
Quantification of the calibration criteria included minimizing the weighted means and the Root
Mean Square in each of the fifteen residual zones. The weighted and nonweighted means and
RMSs by zone are provided in Table 7-8. It should be noted that the RMS will be larger than the
standard deviation unless the mean-weighted residual is zero. The table also provides the range
in measured heads observed within each residual zone. Normalized weighted and nonweighted
means and RMSs can be calculated by dividing the zone parameters by the respective range in
heads.
The following discussion includes statements that the measured hydraulic heads within a residual
zone are either higher or lower than simulated hydraulic heads, based on whether the mean of the
weighted residuals is positive or negative. It should be emphasized that there are both positive
and negative residuals within each zone.
The mean-weighted residual for the 792 target heads is 7.9 m (25.9 ft). This is 0.47 percent of
the range in measured heads, which indicates that, overall, the model provides an excellent
approximation of regional hydraulic heads. The weighted root mean square of the residuals is
51.3 m (168.3 ft), which is approximately three percent of the range in measured heads. The
highest mean-weighted residual occurs in the Barrier Zone which includes the high hydraulic
gradient associated with the Lower Clastic Confining Unit. This zone was defined specifically
because of the anticipated difficulty in matching heads in this area, and higher residuals are,
therefore, not considered problematic. The Sheep Range Zone also has a high mean-weighted
residual. Heads in this zone can not be considered reliable because of the zonation of the LCCU
in this area to minimize convergence problems.
Observed hydraulic heads in the Northern Area Zone are slightly higher than simulated heads,
possibly due to perched zones or the lack of detail in the geologic model. However, given the
degree of refinement in the geologic model in this area, the fit to measured data is good. The
remaining zones that are upgradient and distal from areas of interest, southwest of Pahranagat
Valley Zone and Spring Mountains Zone, have satisfactory fits to measured data.
Mean residuals and RMS values within the LCA and Amargosa Farm Area are low, indicating a
good fit to observed data within the regional carbonate aquifer. These values are also low for the
Death Valley Zone, given the range in measured heads, which indicates that the geometry of the
hydraulic barrier between Death Valley and the Amargosa Desert across the Funeral Mountains
is reasonably well-defined.
7-63
Table 7-8
Summary Statistics for Hydraulic-Head Residuals by Zone
Mean RMS of Range in

Mean RMS of
Number of Weighted Weighted Measured
Zone Area Abbreviation Residual Residuals
Observations Residual Residuals Heads
(m) (m)
(m) (m) (m)
All 792 8.5 50.3 7.9 51.3 1687.4
1 Northern Area NRTH 61 -6.5 38.8 5.8 42.9 202.7
2 Oasis Valley OASI 81 43.8 82.4 38.3 72.2 533.7
3 Pahute Mesa PM 83 -10.2 37.3 -5.8 35.7 230.7
4 Barrier BARR 13 147.4 181.5 107.2 146.8 565.3
5 W. Yucca Flat WYF 24 40.4 129.0 70.4 139.5 632.2
6 E. Yucca Flat EYF 91 -1.1 21.5 1.3 22.9 101.3
7 Shoshone SHON 6 21.3 83.1 21.7 80.5 285.8
8 Death Valley DV 25 17.1 48.6 22.9 41.0 728.4
Lower Carbonate
9
Aquifer LCA 213 -1.0 19.7 -7.3 28.8 205.0
SW. of
10
Pahranagat Valley PAHR 5 -11.3 12.9 -9.9 11.4 15.3
11 Spring Mountains SPMT 23 -7.3 47.2 -1.7 53.3 278.9
12 Sheep Range SHRG 4 61.2 67.1 49.3 47.3 39.9
13 Timber Mountain TMBR 7 8.7 47.0 6.7 61.0 220.7
Amargosa Farm
14
Area FARM 139 6.5 10.1 6.3 9.0 58.3
15 Frenchman Flat FF 16 0.7 4.9 0.8 5.2 20.6
Note: Zones are shown in Figure 7-4.
The remaining seven zones (Oasis Valley, Pahute Mesa, Shoshone, Timber Mountain,
Frenchman Flat, Western Yucca Flat, and Eastern Yucca Flat) are all within or immediately
downgradient of underground nuclear testing locations. The model provides good-to-excellent
fits for the Oasis Valley, Pahute Mesa, Shoshone Mountain, Timber Mountain, and Frenchman
Flat Zones. Simulated hydraulic heads in the Oasis Valley Zone are, on average, lower than
measured heads. The area where most of the mismatch occurs is on the northern side of the
Grapevine Mountains and at Bullfrog Mountain where simulated water levels are too low.
Within and upgradient of the Oasis Valley discharge area within the valley, the match is
7-64
considerably better. Within the Timber Mountain Zone, the greatest mismatch is on the
northeastern side of the caldera at WW8 and TW-1, where simulated heads are lower than
measured ones. Agreement at the remaining five locations is much better. The fit in Frenchman
Flat is excellent.
Western Yucca Flat has a high mean-weighted residual. It is adjoined by the eastern Yucca Flat
Zone, which has a small mean-weighted residual. The WYF zone is structurally very complex,
and high lateral and vertical hydraulic gradients are present. Because of the geologic complexity
and the high gradients, heads are not easy to match in this area. The model was specifically
calibrated to produce a mean-weighted residual for EYF near zero because of the importance of
the flow paths from Yucca Flat southward into Frenchman Flat; however, this resulted in higher
residuals in WYF as well as numerical instability in the high vertical gradient areas in the WYF
and SHON residual zones. The instability is related to rewetting of model cells during the
iterative process of solving the model equations. If higher residuals had been acceptable in EYF,
the mean-weighted residual in WYF would have been lower, and the solution would have been
more stable in the WYF and SHON residual zones. The particle-tracking results for a particle
starting at Shoshone Mountain were very sensitive to this instability, but those for other particles
were not.
7.5.4 Boundary Flux Rates

The hydraulic head values specified for the GHB (Pahrump Valley and Eagle Mountain) and
Well Package (Pahranagat Valley and Sarcobatus Flat) boundary conditions for the calibrated
model are provided in Table 7-9. The GHB heads assume no vertical gradient along the
boundary, and the head values are consistent with the data provided in Plate 3. The elevations
and conductances included in the Drain Package for the calibrated model are provided in the
Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f, Appendix C).
Table 7-9
Hydraulic Head Values used in the GHB and Well Packages
Boundary
Boundary Area
Head (m)
Pahranagat Valley 965.0
Sarcobatus Flat 1215.0
Pahrump Valley 775.0
Eagle Mountain 599.0
7-65
The model-calculated flux values associated with the four external model boundaries (GHB and
Well Packages) and the eight surface-water discharge boundaries (Drain Package) are provided
in Table 7-10. Positive values indicate flux into the model by underflow across model
boundaries, while negative values indicate flux out of the model due to spring
discharge/evapotranspiration or underflow.
Table 7-10
Comparison of Target and Simulated Boundary Fluxes
Target Flux
Underflow or Discharge
Range Target Flux Rate Simulated Rate
Area
(m3/d) (m3/d) (m3/d)
Pahranagat Valley 5,400 to 60,800 27,000 27,000
Sarcobatus Flat -1,700 to 1,700 0 0
Pahrump Valley 5,000 to 7,600 5,000 1,720
Eagle Mountain -850 to -3,400 -3,400 -4,929

Alkali Flat (Peter’s Playa]) -5,000 to -7,300 -6,100 -5,233
Amargosa River -2,040 to -5,100 -2,500 -335
Ash Meadows -67,000 to -87,300 -77,700 -77,333
Death Valley -17,500 to -60,200 -60,100 -59,783
Franklin Lake/Alkali Flats -14,200 to -42,600 -35,500 -37,874
Oasis Valley -17,000 to -27,000 -25,000 -25,785
Penoyer Valley -13,000 to -27,000 -20,300 -19,106
Indian Springs -1,600 to -2,400 -2,400 -2,456
Overall, the calibrated model matches the target boundary fluxes very well. For example, the
target for Ash Meadows discharge was -77,700 m3/d (-22,995 ac-ft/y); the simulated discharge
was -77,332 m3/d (-22,886 ac-ft/y). Similarly, the target and simulated discharges for Oasis
Valley were -25,000 m3/d (-7,399 ac-ft/y) and -25,784 m3/d (7,631 ac-ft/y), respectively. The
simulated Death Valley discharge was 318 m3/d (94 ac-ft/y) lower than the target of -60,100 m3/d
(-17,786 ac-ft/y). Matches at Franklin Lake and Penoyer Valley are not as good, but are still
within 7 percent of the estimates.
7-66
In the smaller discharge areas, the simulated discharge rates are close to the targets, but the
percentage differences are greater than in the larger discharge areas. There are four areas where
the simulated flux was not within the target range. The poorest agreement is for the discharge at
the Amargosa River discharge area (which apparently has not previously been measured or
estimated). The simulated discharge was -334 m3/d (-99 ac-ft/y), while the estimated range
was -2,040 to -5,100 m3/d (-604 to -1,509 ac-ft/y), and the target was -2500 m3/d (-740 ac-ft/y).
However, to put these numbers in perspective, the target represents only 1 percent of the
estimated flux of water through the system.
At Eagle Mountain, the boundary flux was estimated to range from -850 to -3,400 m3/d
(-252 to 1,006 ac-ft/y) with a calibration target at the upper end. The simulated flux was
-4,928 m3/d (-1,458 ac-ft/y). The inflow from Pahrump Valley has been estimated to be between
5,000 and 7,000 m3/d (1,480 and 2,072 ac-ft/y); the simulated value was 1,719 m3/d (509 ac-ft/y).
The fourth area with the simulated flux outside the target range is Indian Springs. Its range of
estimates is from -1,600 to -2,400 m3/d (-473 to -710 ac-ft/y), with a target of -2,400 m3/d
(-710 ac-ft/y). The simulated value (-2,456 m3/d [-729 ac-ft/y]), although outside the range of
estimates, is very close to the target. The sum of the magnitudes of the difference between the
simulated value and the target value for these four areas is 7,031 m3/d (2,081 ac-ft/y) or 3 percent
of the total flux through the system.
In summary, the match of the simulated discharges to the targets is quite good. However, there is
considerable uncertainty in the estimated and target discharges for individual areas and for the
modeled area overall. Because of ongoing studies by the U.S. Geological Survey, the discharge
at Ash Meadows is fairly well-known, but still has an uncertainty of approximately 20,000 m3/d
(5,919 ac-ft/y); discharge in remaining areas is less well-known, especially in Death Valley.
Model users should be aware of the lack of good discharge measurements, and they should
interpret the results accordingly.
7.5.5 Particle-Tracking Results

The movement of contaminants in the groundwater system will be determined, in part, by the
direction and rates of groundwater migration from contaminant sources to downgradient
discharge areas. Particle tracking is a good method for evaluating the advective transport of
contaminants and is easily implemented using head and flux distributions from the calibrated
model. The computer code, MODPATH, Version 1.2 (Pollock, 1989) was used to calculate the
locations of the particles along flow paths, and it was also used to incorporate information from
7-67
the flow model into the subsequent transport calculations. The user starts the particles at desired
locations, and the program calculates and records their location through time.
The procedure used to select the particle starting locations is described in detail in Section 9.0 of
this report. As discussed in that section, 14 underground nuclear test locations were selected for
the particle-tracking analysis. The 14 starting locations generally included the fastest moving
particles from each of the testing areas: Pahute Mesa, Yucca Flat, Frenchman Flat, Rainier
Mesa, Shoshone Mountain, and the Climax Stock located on the northern boundary of Yucca
Flat. In Yucca Flat, particles were also selected to provide spatial coverage of the valley. It
should be emphasized that the working points for the tests in Shoshone Mountain, Rainier Mesa,
and Climax Stock were located above two-cavity radii of the water table; a single test from each
of these areas was selected and assumed to originate at the water table to evaluate possible
groundwater transport from these locations. This obviously does not take into account transport
times through the unsaturated zone and will, therefore, underestimate the amount of time for
contaminant migration from these three areas. The locations and names of the 14 selected tests
are presented in Figure 7-25 which also shows the pathlines from the starting locations to the
discharge points. It is very important to note that time information is not included as part of
Figure 7-25; several of the particles originate in very low conductivity units, and residence times
will be large.
To evaluate residence times, travel distances were calculated for the 14 particle-tracking
locations after 25, 50, 100, and 200 years, taking into account the estimates of the effective
porosities of the hydrostratigraphic units through which the particle migrates (Section 9.0).
Because of the numerical instability problems affecting the Western Yucca Flat and Shoshone
Mountain residual zones and the erratic particle-tracking results, the GUM DROP particle was
deleted from the travel-time analysis. The following discussion will focus on the 25-year travel
distance for particles originating on western Pahute Mesa and the 100-year travel distances for
the remaining particles. The 100-year travel distance is of interest because transport simulations
indicate that concentrations that are high enough to cause concern typically occur in less than
100 years. However, the four particles originating on Pahute Mesa reached the discharge area in
less than 50 years with one of the particles (from TYBO) discharging in less than 10 years.
Therefore, the 25-year travel distances for the western Pahute Mesa particle were used in the
sensitivity analysis. Table 7-11 shows the distances traveled by the 13 particles for the calibrated
7-68
Table 7-11
Estimated 25-Year (Western Pahute Mesa) and 100-Year (all Others)
Particle Travel Distances Derived from Calibrated Model
Particle Travel
Test Name and
Area Distance
Starting Location
(m)
Western Pahute Mesa BULLION (WP)a 6,493
Western Pahute Mesa DARWIN (B)b 4,947
Western Pahute Mesa PURSE (WP) 6,683
Western Pahute Mesa TYBO (WP) 30,918c
Central Pahute Mesa HOUSTON (B) 42,344
Rainier Mesa CLEARWATER 1,546

(WT)d
Climax Stock PILE DRIVER (WT) 15,446
Yucca Flat BOURBON (B) 28,763
Yucca Flat CORDUROY (WP) 29,843
Yucca Flat COULOMMIERS (B) 8,000
Yucca Flat CUMARIN (B) 20,112
Yucca Flat STRAIT (B) 11,809
Frenchman Flat DILUTED WATER (B) 40

a
WP = Working Point
b
B = Bottom of sphere (starting location for tests)
c
Reaches discharge point prior to 25 years
d
WT = Water Table
model at a time of 25 years (western Pahute Mesa particles) and 100 years (all remaining
particles).
It is very important to emphasize that the travel distances provided in Table 7-11 are the
estimated distances that a conservative particle would move. Contaminant particles will move
shorter distances because of attenuation processes which include sorption, ion exchange, and
precipitation reactions, diffusion, and radioactive decay. Assuming that diffusion of tritiated
water from the fractures into the rock matrix occurs, even tritium can be significantly retarded.
Therefore, the distance calculated for the movement of the particles at 25 or 100 years should not
be considered a reliable indicator of the rates of movement of contaminants. The effects of
retardation on contaminant migration are evaluated as part of the transport modeling
(Section 9.0).
7-70
Table 7-11 also indicates the starting locations for each of the tests. The starting points are at
one of four possible locations: the working point (WP); the water table (WT, applicable only for
those tests in Rainier Mesa and the Climax Stock where the working point is located more than
two cavity radii above the water table); at the top (T) of a sphere with a radius twice that of the
estimated cavity radius, centered on the working point; or at the bottom (B) of a sphere with a
radius twice that of the estimated cavity radius, centered on the working point. In no case was
the travel rate greatest at two cavity radii above the water table; therefore, “T” is not included as
a starting point location.
The following discussion on the particle-tracking results refers both to the particle pathways
shown in Figure 7-25 (no time component) and to the 25- and 100-year travel distances provided
in Table 7-11. The pathline for the particle originating on Shoshone Mountain (GUM DROP) is
shown on Figure 7-25, but the 100-year travel distance is not included in Table 7-11 due to the
instability problems referred to earlier.
Five particles were started from underground test locations on Pahute Mesa. Four of these
(DARWIN, PURSE, TYBO, and BULLION) originate on western Pahute Mesa, moving
southwestward to discharge locations in Oasis Valley. They begin in either the Timber Mountain
Aquifer or the Tuff Cone, but travel to the discharge area primarily in the TMA, discharging at
Oasis Valley above the contact with the subcropping Lower Clastic Confining Unit. The fifth
particle, HOUSTON, begins in Tuff Cone further to the east on central Pahute Mesa.
HOUSTON’s particle initially travels to the south along the east side of the Timber Mountain
resurgent dome in the TMA. Leaving the moat, it reenters TC and travels a short distance before
entering the Volcanic Confining Unit and the Volcanic Tuff Aquifer in northwestern Yucca
Mountain. Beneath southern Crater Flat, it enters the LCA, crosses beneath the Amargosa
Desert, and discharges into Death Valley through the Tertiary Sediments, Death Valley Section.
The BULLION, DARWIN, and PURSE particles have 25-year travel distances ranging from
about 5,000 to 6,600 m (16,405 to 21,655 ft). All three discharge at Oasis Valley prior to
50 years, while TYBO discharges before 10 years. The HOUSTON particle travels
approximately 42,340 m (138,917 ft) in 100 years, reaching the contact between TC and VCU
in northwestern Yucca Mountain.
Farther to the east, the particle originating on Rainier Mesa (CLEARWATER) begins in the
Lower Clastic Confining Unit. The 100-year travel distance is about 1.5 km (0.9 mi) (note: this
does not include the residence time within the unsaturated LCCU, which will be large). The
7-71
particle travels through the LCCU, non-welded tuffs (BCU), and welded tuffs (BAQ) prior to
entering the Timber Mountain Aquifer within the Timber Mountain moat. It travels southward
within the moat, crosses the Lower Clastic Confining Unit where the Belted Range thrust raised
these rocks, and moves through the LCA north of Calico Hills. It then passes through the Upper
Clastic Confining Unit down into the LCA (near the east side of Yucca Mountain) and remains
in the LCA until reaching the Funeral Mountains. It passes through the LCCU, the TSDV, and
finally discharges from the Alluvial Aquifer.
The PILE DRIVER test in the Climax Stock was located more than two-cavity radii above the
water table in intrusives located on the northern boundary of Yucca Flat. The hydraulic
conductivity of the intrusive is lower than that of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit, and the
transport distance should, therefore, be on the same order as that calculated for Rainier Mesa.
However, examination of Table 7-11 indicates that the calculated travel distance for PILE
DRIVER is approximately one order of magnitude greater than that for CLEARWATER. The
difference is due to the process used to translate geologic data from the geologic grid to the
hydrologic grid and the averaging of properties that sometimes results. In this case, the hydraulic
properties of the cell representing the starting point for PILE DRIVER are a combination of the
conductivities of the LCA and the intrusive, yielding a value considerably higher than that of the
intrusive alone. Therefore, the calculated transport distance is not reliable for a particle starting
within the intrusive body, but would be representative for a particle originating in the LCA in
northern Yucca Flat. The PILE DRIVER particle pathway originates in the intrusive, passes
through a small amount of UCCU, and enters the LCA beneath northern Yucca Flat. It travels
along the upper part of the LCA, passing beneath Massachusetts Mountain which separates
Yucca Flat from Frenchman Flat. Moving beneath the northwestern part of Frenchman Flat in the
Lower Carbonate Aquifer, it moves down Rock Valley and enters the Alluvial Aquifer near
Skeleton Hills. The particle continues to move southwestward to discharge at the Amargosa
River discharge area.
Five particles were started in Yucca Flat. The COULOMMIERS and CORDUROY particles
originate in the Volcanic Confining Unit and Lower Carbonate Aquifer, respectively, and have
similar flowpaths to the PILE DRIVER particle, discharging from the Alluvial Aquifer at the
Amargosa River discharge area. The BOURBON particle also starts within the LCA, but
migrates southward farther to the east than the previous two particles, discharging in the AA at
the Franklin Lake discharge area. The STRAIT particle moves eastward off the UCCU shelf
within the VCU before migrating downward into the LCA. Because of the distribution of the
7-72
LCA and UCCU in the central part and eastern side of Yucca Flat, the STRAIT particle is forced
to migrate deeper within the flow system prior to entering the regional carbonate aquifer. The
CUMARIN particle also begins in the VCU on the western side of Yucca Flat. Both the
STRAIT and CUMARIN particles travel within the LCA into the Amargosa Desert, but are not
captured by the Amargosa River discharge area. Instead, they move from the AA back into LCA
and TSDV and discharge in Death Valley.
The particle in northern Frenchman Flat (DILUTED WATER) begins in AA, traveling only a
few meters in 100 years. The particle migrates across the VCU and into the shallow part of the
LCA. Near the western edge of Frenchman Flat, its path nearly coincides with that of the
BOURBON particle, but is shallower, discharging at the Amargosa River discharge area.
The particle tracking results from Yucca Flat are different from earlier conceptual models that
indicated that the water from Yucca Flat discharges at Ash Meadows. The numerical model does
not support this conceptual model because of the inclusion of more detailed and recent geologic
information. First, the simulated flow paths appear to be sensitive to the configuration of the top
of the LCA, flowing through the shallower sections of the LCA. This is a consequence of the
depth-decay model for conductivity that was used in the flow model. Second, the southern part
of the Halfpint Range is underlain by the LCA which allows water flowing from the east to pass
beneath the southern part of Yucca Flat. This is shown in the abrupt change in the particle paths
toward the southwest. And finally, the older conceptual models were based on an interpretation
that the Eleana argillite was 2,500 to 3,000 m (8,202 to 9,843 ft) thick beneath western
Yucca Flat, which would tend to divert flow laterally around the Eleana, forcing it to the south
underneath Frenchman Flat.
A more recent study of these rocks by Cashman and Trexler (1994) has shown that there are two
distinct depositional environments present. This new interpretation places 1,000 to 1,500 m
(3,281 to 4,921.5 ft) of Eleana argillite west of a similar thickness of the Chainman shale. These
two units together comprise the UCCU. However, their position within the groundwater system
allows water in the LCA to flow beneath them much farther to the west than previously
interpreted. The net result is that water from the eastern part of the Nevada Test Site does not
appear to flow to Ash Meadows; it is prevented from doing so by flow within the Lower
Carbonate Aquifer coming from the east. Instead, this water discharges in the Amargosa Desert
or Death Valley.
7-73
The pathline results for the Yucca Flat particles indicate that the modeled flowpaths are greatly
affected by the three-dimensional configuration of the LCA and the distribution of low-
conductivity confining units. The details highlighted by the particle-tracking results would not
be apparent in a two-dimensional model or one based on a greatly simplified geologic model.
The results further demonstrate the need to develop an adequate understanding of the geology
within the testing areas if the details of transport are important at that scale.
7.5.6 Sensitivity Analyses

Sensitivity analyses were performed at the conclusion of model calibration. The objectives of
the sensitivity analysis were twofold:
• Evaluate the effects on model results of changes to the underlying geologic model and
other parameters integral to development of the modeling approach (e.g., recharge
redistribution to low-lying alluvial fans).
• Identify those hydraulic parameters (horizontal hydraulic conductivity, vertical

anisotropy, and depth-decay coefficients) to which the model results are sensitive and,
therefore, for which the model can provide information on the regional scale.
The effects of changes to the first set of parameters on model results cannot easily be evaluated
in the traditional sense, which consists of modifying parameter values by a given amount and
calculating the resultant change, or sensitivity, in heads or fluxes. For example, effects of
implementing changes to the geologic model cannot be assessed in this manner. However, the
effects on head and flux distributions due to modifications to the geologic model provide
important information on the conceptual and calibrated model. This latter group is termed
“special-case sensitivity analyses” and will be discussed first. Sensitivity analyses of the
hydraulic parameters will be presented second.
7.5.6.1 Special-Case Sensitivity Analyses

Four types of special-case sensitivity analysis were conducted as part of the last modeling
sequence. The first type of analysis was designed to evaluate the three geologic model
interpretations presented in Section 4.0. The second type of sensitivity analysis was designed to
test the effects of the assumptions made in the estimates of recharge rates and distribution. The
third type was designed to evaluate the uncertainties associated with underflow from Pahranagat
Valley and Sarcobatus Flat. The fourth and last type of special-case sensitivity analysis was
designed to evaluate changes in hydraulic parameters that were greater or otherwise different
from the systematic changes discussed later.
7-74
The results of these special-case sensitivity analyses (Tables 7-12, 7-13, and 7-14) are compared
to a selected base case. It should be emphasized that two different base cases were used. The
geologic model sensitivity simulations were compared to Base 2, while sensitivity simulations
for the current (third) modeling sequence are compared to Base 3. The sensitivity analysis
results are presented in terms of hydraulic head residuals and head-dependent boundary fluxes.
The hydraulic-head residual comparison is presented for each hydraulic-head residual zone
(Figure 7-4), whereas the boundary flux comparisons are made for each head-dependent
boundary.
Each of the three tables (Tables 7-12, 7-13, and 7-14) includes the following: changes in mean-
weighted head residuals and the percentage change in the root mean square of weighted residuals
for the 15 residual zones and the percentage change in discharge fluxes between the base
(calibrated) case and each sensitivity run for the 10 head-dependent flux boundaries. All mean
residual changes having an absolute value greater than or equal to 1 m (3.3 ft) are shaded in the
table; flux and RMS percentage changes (absolute value) greater than or equal to 10 percent are
also shaded. The discussion of the parameter sensitivities are grouped according to geologic
model interpretations, recharge model evaluations, boundary flux evaluations, and conductivity
evaluations. The effects of the parameter sensitivity runs on particle-tracking results are briefly
discussed; a more detailed discussion of particle-tracking results for the special-case sensitivity
runs are included in the Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f).
7.5.6.1.1 Geologic Model Interpretations

Sensitivity analysis to the geology is important because of the significant impacts of the geology
on hydraulic head and flux distributions and particle transport. Sensitivity analyses were
performed using three interpretations of the digital geologic model which were based on changes
made to the geologic model during the calibration process. The changes to the geologic model
are discussed in Section 4.0.
The results of the three sensitivity analyses (Table 7-12) are compared to the results of the
second calibration sequence (Base 2). The three sensitivity runs are identified in Table 7-12 by
the term “GEOL,” followed by the version number used internally for tracking changes to the
geologic model. The first of these three runs, GEOL_6, included the geologic interpretation at
the conclusion of the initial sequence of modeling. Based on those results, several areas within
the geologic model were revised. The second sensitivity run, GEOL_10, incorporated changes to
7-75
Table 7-12
Change in Hydraulic-Head Residuals and Boundary Fluxes
Due to Different Geologic Model Interpretations
7-12a - Means of Weighted Head Residuals (m)

Zone Base 2 Geol_6 Geol_10 Geol_12
OASI 12.30 -35.70 1.00 0.10

PM 4.00 42.10 10.00 2.10
BARR 79.00 -3.90 -2.30 0.50
WYF 35.00 105.90 111.50 -0.70
EYF -24.60 2.80 7.70 -0.10
SHON -9.00 -51.80 5.00 -0.20
DV -12.60 -0.60 0.00 -0.10
LCA -5.10 -11.40 -0.30 0.00
PAHR -13.60 -2.50 -0.60 0.00
SPMT 19.50 -1.90 0.50 -1.40
SHRG -45.70 -0.70 1.20 -1.90
TMBR 9.10 156.40 41.60 1.20
7-12b - Root Mean Square of Weighted Head Residuals

Base 2 Geol_6 Geol_10 Geol_12
Zone
(m) (% Base 2) (% Base 2) (% Base 2)
NRTH 61.00 8.69 5.57 1.48
OASI 43.80 62.79 2.28 -0.23
PM 35.00 66.57 8.57 -0.57
BARR 136.90 -1.97 -0.80 -0.07
WYF 80.70 154.77 143.74 -0.12
EYF 41.30 -16.46 -25.67 -0.24
SHON 43.50 169.89 -3.91 0.23
DV 48.00 2.92 1.88 0.00
LCA 17.20 136.05 0.00 0.00
PAHR 67.50 -1.19 -0.44 -0.15
SPMT 57.40 -2.96 -1.05 -0.35
SHRG 51.40 2.14 -0.58 -1.56
TMBR 50.50 244.95 53.47 -0.59
7-12c - Boundary Fluxes (m3/d)

Base 2 Geol_6 Geol_10 Geol_12
Zone
(m3/d) (% Base 2) (% Base 2) (% Base 2)
DVal -48327.00 0.95 -0.14 -0.19
OV -15874.00 -66.36 -11.43 0.86
ARiv -8508.00 19.95 2.82 0.19
AM -69006.00 18.04 3.36 0.13
FL -18088.00 5.88 0.86 0.06
AF -5956.00 55.94 10.86 0.40
PV -16138.00 -0.87 04.38 -2.21
IS -1984.00 6.70 1.01 0.05
PP 185.00 -5.41 -1.08 0.00
EM -5982.00 3.49 0.52 0.03
7-76
Table 7-13
Change in Hydraulic Head Residuals and Boundary Fluxes
Due to Recharge Distributions and Subsurface Inflow
Zone Base 3 Rech1.5x Rech0.75x Rch_hd0r Rch_hd.3r Rch_me SF_1700 PV_60000
NRTH 5.80 1.10 -0.60 -0.40 0.00 4.60 0.10 0.10

OASI 38.30 1.10 -0.40 -0.20 0.10 0.70 0.70 3.00
PM -5.80 1.50 -0.80 1.50 -1.70 8.10 0.70 0.00
BARR 107.20 -1.20 1.90 0.00 0.20 1.60 0.20 8.80
WYF 70.40 -3.00 2.40 5.00 2.00 0.80 1.30 1.50
EYF 1.30 -0.80 1.70 0.20 0.60 3.40 0.60 8.50
SHON 21.70 2.10 1.80 1.10 0.20 -12.70 0.30 6.50
DV 22.90 8.50 -4.30 0.00 0.10 3.50 0.00 1.10
LCA -7.30 0.70 -0.10 -0.10 0.20 -0.10 0.10 2.60
PAHR -9.90 -29.70 27.50 -0.10 -0.80 -24.70 0.00 94.80
SPMT -1.70 -0.10 0.40 0.00 0.10 -5.50 0.10 3.00
SHRG 49.30 -2.00 1.20 0.00 0.10 -6.20 0.00 7.00
TMBR 6.70 2.70 -1.10 5.20 -2.30 13.80 1.10 0.40
FARM 6.30 0.50 0.10 -0.20 0.10 -2.00 0.00 3.80
FF 0.80 -1.30 1.70 -0.10 0.20 -2.00 0.10 8.60
7-13b Root Mean Square of Weighted Head Residuals

Zone Base 3 Rech1.5x Rech0.75x Rch_hd0r Rch_hd.3r Rch_me SF_1700 PV_60000
NRTH 42.90 -0.23 0.00 0.93 -0.23 5.13 -0.47 0.00

OASI 72.20 -1.11 0.28 0.14 -0.14 -2.35 -0.42 -1.94
PM 35.70 0.84 -0.28 -0.84 0.56 5.60 0.28 0.00
BARR 146.80 0.54 -0.82 0.07 -0.14 0.00 -0.07 -3.95
WYF 139.50 0.07 -0.29 -2.72 -1.65 -25.16 -1.08 0.07
EYF 22.90 1.31 -0.87 0.44 0.44 13.97 0.87 3.06
SHON 80.50 2.86 -0.87 1.37 -0.25 1.37 0.37 -4.47
DV 41.00 -4.15 1.95 0.24 -0.24 7.07 0.00 -4.63
LCA 28.80 1.04 -0.69 -0.35 0.35 1.04 0.69 4.17
PAHR 11.40 72.81 235.96 -0.88 -7.02 29.82 -0.88 826.32
SPMT 53.30 -0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.69 0.00 -0.56
SHRG 47.30 4.23 -2.54 0.00 -0.21 13.32 0.00 -14.59
TMBR 61.00 0.16 0.33 -3.11 1.15 -3.28 0.00 0.49
FARM 9.00 -4.44 0.00 2.22 -1.11 18.89 0.00 -23.33
FF 5.20 7.69 1.92 1.92 0.00 13.46 0.00 80.77
7-13c Boundary Fluxes (m3/d)

Base 3 Rech1.5x Rech0.75x Rch_hd0r Rch_hd.3r Rch_me SF_1700 PV_60000
Zone
(m3/d) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3)
DVal -59782.87 48.14 -24.41 -0.03 0.02 29.54 0.01 0.61

OV -25784.95 47.18 -24.30 3.52 -1.95 46.01 5.63 0.22
ARiv -334.81 43.21 -19.14 -1.52 1.28 -4.41 0.65 40.00
AM -77332.51 41.55 -20.73 -0.45 0.50 20.34 0.25 20.08
FL -37873.70 41.04 -22.16 -0.11 0.09 22.30 0.05 2.89
AF -5232.56 1.86 16.87 -4.05 5.20 -47.23 2.64 294.65
PV -19105.90 45.57 -24.86 -1.59 -1.16 79.62 -0.70 0.73
IS -2456.55 46.65 -23.70 -0.04 0.11 -9.37 0.09 6.80
PP 1719.51 49.84 -24.93 -0.01 0.01 33.18 0.01 -0.54
EM -4928.82 84.89 -33.88 -0.04 0.04 49.07 0.02 1.22
* PP and EM are GHB Fluxes. The remaining zones display Drain Fluxes.
7-77
Table 7-14. Change in Hydraulic Head Residuals and Boundary
Fluxes Due to Large Changes in Hydraulic Conductivities
Zone Base 3 VCU_ZN2 LCA3_ZN1 AA_ZN4&5 TMA_ZN6
NRTH 5.80 0.00 -0.30 0.00 -16.10

OASI 38.30 0.00 -0.90 -0.10 8.10
PM -5.80 -0.20 -3.00 -0.10 -64.00
BARR 107.20 0.00 0.80 -0.10 -0.60
WYF 70.40 -43.10 -65.30 -1.50 -26.40
EYF 1.30 1.50 -5.90 -7.20 0.30
SHON 21.70 -0.60 -21.00 -0.80 -2.80
DV 22.90 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.90
LCA -7.30 0.00 -0.30 0.00 -1.90
PAHR -9.90 0.00 -0.60 -1.10 0.10
SPMT -1.70 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.20
SHRG 49.30 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
TMBR 6.70 -0.70 -9.40 0.20 -32.20
FARM 6.30 0.00 0.30 0.00 1.60
FF 0.80 0.40 0.70 -0.20 0.10
7-14b - Root Mean Square of Weighted Head Residuals (m)

Base 3 VCU_ZN2 LCA3_ZN1 AA_ZN4&5 TMA_ZN6
Zone
(m) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3)
NRTH 42.90 0.00 0.93 0.00 70.16

OASI 72.20 0.00 0.83 0.00 -16.07
PM 35.70 0.00 -1.12 -0.28 89.64
BARR 146.80 0.07 -0.34 0.07 0.14
WYF 139.50 3.58 75.13 7.46 -8.75
EYF 22.90 3.93 -3.93 0.00 0.87
SHON 80.50 -0.12 2.24 -0.25 -1.49
DV 41.00 0.00 -0.24 0.00 -3.41
LCA 28.80 -0.35 -4.51 -0.69 -17.01
PAHR 11.40 -0.88 -5.26 -8.77 0.00
SPMT 53.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SHRG 47.30 0.00 -0.63 0.00 0.00
TMBR 61.00 0.16 0.49 0.33 20.33
FARM 9.00 0.00 -2.22 0.00 -14.44
FF 5.20 0.00 0.00 1.92 0.00
7-14c - Boundary Fluxes (m3/d)*

Base 3 VCU_ZN2 LCA3_ZN1 AA_ZN4&5 TMA_ZN6
Zone
(m3/day) (% of Base 3) (% ob Base 3) (% of Base 3) (% of Base 3)
DVal -59782.87 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.74

OV -25784.95 -0.75 -9.91 -0.14 -7.48
ARiv -334.81 0.45 3.40 0.14 15.11
AM -77332.51 0.27 1.89 0.07 2.33
FL -37873.70 0.03 0.25 0.01 1.07
AF -5232.56 3.17 21.80 0.81 10.40
PV -19105.90 -1.05 -1.17 -0.36 -7.07
IS -2456.55 0.07 0.40 -0.09 0.27
PP 1719.51 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02
EM -4928.82 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.41
* PP and EM are GHB Fluxes. The remaining zones display Drain Fluxes.
7-78
the geology in the vicinity of Penoyer Valley and in the area north of Yucca Mountain
(Section 4.0). The changes implemented to the north of Yucca Mountain were necessary to
develop a barrier to flow that is expressed in the higher hydraulic gradients present in this area
(Figure 7-20). A final change to the geologic model making the Upper Clastic Confining Unit
continuous beneath Tongue Wash on Rainier Mesa is investigated in the GEOL_12 sensitivity
run.
The differences between the GEOL_06 and the Base 2 sensitivity runs are significant
(Table 7-12). The hydraulic heads in GEOL_06 are considerably lower in the Timber Mountain,
Pahute Mesa, and Western Yucca Flat residual zones than in Base 2. As a result of the lower
hydraulic heads on Pahute Mesa, groundwater beneath Sarcobatus Flat flows into the model
rather than out, which occurs in Base 2. In GEOL_06, more water moves through the area
extending from Calico Hills to Bare Mountain, and the discharge in Oasis Valley is much lower
than in the base case. The high gradient present in the northern part of Yucca Mountain is not
simulated. The discharge at Penoyer Valley is similar in the two runs, but the heads in the
northern Groom Range are considerably higher in the base case. This sensitivity run
demonstrates that the geologic model used during the initial calibration sequence was not
adequate to explain hydraulic head and flux distributions and needed modification.
Sensitivity run GEOL_10 produces a significantly better fit to hydraulic heads in Pahute Mesa,
Timber Mountain, and Penoyer Valley in addition to a greater discharge at Oasis Valley as a
result of the barrier north of Yucca Mountain. The model accurately simulates the high gradient
at northern Yucca Mountain. Particles originating on western Pahute Mesa migrate
southwestward to Oasis Valley rather than southward as they do in the GEOL_6 run. In addition
to simulating the Oasis Valley discharge rates, the remaining boundary fluxes for GEOL_10 are
also very similar to those calculated for Base 2 (Table 7-12). In the Penoyer Valley area,
extending the Lower Clastic Confining Unit northward from the Groom Range along the eastern
side of the valley improves model goodness-of-fit to hydraulic heads and discharge rates;
however, a low value for the Lower Carbonate Aquifer in the northeastern part of the model is
still necessary to maintain shallow heads in the valley.
Sensitivity run GEOL.10, while accurately calculating heads and fluxes over the majority of the
study area, resulted in a depression within the potentiometric surface beneath Rainier Mesa,
which is inconsistent with observed data. To address this, the UCCU was made continuous in
this area, (geologic model version 12, run GEOL_12). The differences in regional water-table
7-79
elevations and fluxes between this run and Base 2 are minor, but the hydraulic head differences
between sensitivity runs GEOL_10 and GEOL_12 in Western Yucca Flat are significant. The
base case interpretation provides a much better agreement with regional water-level data.
7.5.6.1.2 Evaluation of Recharge Estimates

Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the assumptions in the amount and distribution
of areal recharge from precipitation and by subsurface underflow. The sensitivity results, as
compared to Base 3 results, are presented in Table 7-13.
Areal Recharge
There were five sensitivity runs performed on the areal recharge dataset. The sensitivity runs are
identified in Table 7-13 by the term “RECH” or “RCH,” followed by an identifier to indicate the
change implemented in the dataset. The names of the five runs and the implemented change
include:
Rech1.5x - Recharge rate and Khs (horizontal hydraulic conductivity values projected to
land surface) increased by a factor of 1.5 times the corresponding values
included in Base 3
Rech0.75x - Recharge rate and Khs set to 0.75 times the corresponding values included in
Base 3 (25 percent decrease compared to Base 3)
Rch_hd0r - Same recharge rate as Base 3, but with no redistribution
Rch_hd.3r - Same recharge rate as Base 3, but with 30 percent redistribution versus
20 percent redistribution in Base 3
Rch_me - Maxey-Eakin recharge model, with the Khs increased by the Maxey-Eakin to
Base 3 recharge ratio
The first two sensitivity runs were conducted to determine whether hydraulic heads behave in a
linear fashion with respect to changes in recharge. It should be emphasized that some non-
linearity is to be expected, since drain and general-head boundary conductances and the
Well Package flux rates were not changed correspondingly. The next two runs were conducted
to evaluate the effect of recharge redistribution on heads and fluxes. The final run was included
in the sensitivity analysis to evaluate the effects of incorporating the classical Maxey-Eakin
approach (1949) on model heads and fluxes.
7-80
In run Rech1.5x, the changes in the mean-weighted head residuals with respect to Base 3 are
minor (Table 7-13) with the exception of the Pahranagat Valley and Death Valley residual zones
(Figure 7-4). The anomalous values associated with these zones are a result of not increasing
drain and GHB conductances and the Well Package flux rates by the 1.5 factor. With the
exceptions of Alkali Flat and Eagle Mountain fluxes, the increases in the flux rates were all
within the range of 41 to 50 percent (Table 7-13), which is similar to the increase in total flux
into the model (44 percent). The small increase in the Alkali Flat discharge (1.9 percent) is due
to the high negative sensitivity of this discharge area to the hydraulic conductivity of the
underlying LCA(2) (Figure 7-5). The large percentage increase in discharge at Eagle Mountain
(85 percent) resulted from increased inflow across Pahrump Valley due to the increase in LCCU
conductivity. In run Rech0.75x, where the recharge and Kh values were decreased by a factor of
0.25, the results are similar, but generally opposite in direction to run Rech1.5x.
Increasing recharge and conductivities by a factor of 1.5 had significant impacts on particle travel
distances (see Figure 7-25 for particle pathlines and Table 7-11 for base-case travel distances).
For most particles, the 50 percent increase caused a large increase in travel distance. Doubling or
tripling the travel distance at specified times was common. It is interesting to note that the
percent change in distance can vary widely at different times, resulting from movement of
particles through HSUs of different conductivities and effective porosities. Thus, those particles
which were less sensitive to changes after one time period may have significantly greater
sensitivities at other times. For example, the HOUSTON particle shows a very large increase in
the 25-year travel distance over Base 3, during which time it travels in the Timber Mountain
Aquifer, but only small increases at longer times after entry into the low-conductivity Volcanic
Confining Unit.
Travel distances are less sensitive to a reduction in recharge and conductivities than to increases
in these parameters. Typically, the percent reduction in travel distance was approximately the
same as percent reduction in recharge.
In Base 3, 20 percent of the recharge on and near the NTS was redistributed to downstream areas.
In sensitivity run Rch_hd0r, the total amount of recharge remained the same, but no water was
redistributed. The effects on hydraulic heads were minor, with less than 0.5-m (1.7-ft) change in
the mean-weighted residual in all residual zones except Timber Mountain, Pahute Mesa,
Shoshone Mountain, and Western Yucca Flat. Recharge in the first three zones increased since
water was not redistributed downgradient. It is likely that the changes in Western Yucca Flat are
7-81
due to numerical problems associated with the steep hydraulic gradient and may not be accurate.
The changes in simulated discharge were also minor. The discharge in Oasis Valley increased by
3.5 percent and the discharge in the Amargosa Desert decreased by a similar volume. Recharge
redistribution has only minor effects on particle movement.
In run Rch_hd.3r, recharge redistribution was increased from 20 to 30 percent. The changes to
heads and discharge fluxes are small and generally opposite in direction to those observed in
Rch_hd0r.
The final recharge sensitivity run, Rch_me, consisted of developing a recharge model using the
original Maxey-Eakin coefficients; these coefficients and the corresponding precipitation ranges
are listed in Table 7-6. The net recharge calculated for the modeled area by this method is
272,156 m3/d (80,543 ac-ft/y), compared with 204,080 m3/d (60,397 ac-ft/y) used in the base
case model. In order to compare Maxey-Eakin results with those of the base case, the Khs of all
hydrostratigraphic units were increased by a factor of 1.3336, the ratio of the Maxey-Eakin to
Base 3 recharge values. Again, boundary fluxes and conductances were not increased by an
equivalent amount, which accounts for the anomalously low mean head residual in the
Pahranagat Valley residual zone. Additionally, the Maxey-Eakin model does not include
redistribution, which accounts for the higher residual heads in the Northern Pahute Mesa, and
Timber Mountain residual zones. Overall, the Maxey-Eakin model resulted in an increase in the
simulated discharge rates at almost all discharge locations with greater increases in higher
gradient areas upgradient of the LCCU barrier (e.g., Penoyer Valley).
For particles starting on western Pahute Mesa (Figure 7-25), the approximately 33 percent
increase in recharge increases 25-year travel distances from 91 percent (BULLION) to
326 percent (DARWIN); these results are similar to the results of the Rech1.5x sensitivity run.
The 100-year travel distances for particles starting in Yucca Flat generally increase by less than
50 percent.
To summarize the recharge special-case sensitivity runs, when the recharge rate and Khs are
increased by the same factor, the resulting heads are similar to those of the base case, and the
fluxes increase nearly proportionately to the increase in the recharge, indicating that the model
behaves linearly. Except for the Alkali Flat discharge [due to its negative sensitivity to Kh of
LCA(2)], the discharge in low-gradient areas is affected less than discharge fluxes in high-
gradient areas. Using the Maxey-Eakin recharge method increases the recharge amount by
7-82
approximately one-third and produces simulated discharges that are higher than the target
discharge rates listed in Table 7-10. This indicates that the Maxey-Eakin model results in
discharge fluxes that are larger than estimated rates supported by existing data. Finally, changing
the distribution of recharge within and near the Nevada Test Site has little effect on simulated
heads and discharge fluxes since the total amount of recharge within the subbasins remains the
same.
Boundary Fluxes
There is a large uncertainty in the boundary flux estimates for both Sarcobatus Flat and
Pahranagat Valley. Two sensitivity runs were conducted to evaluate the effects of increasing the
boundary fluxes at Pahranagat Valley and Sarcobatus Flat on head distributions, discharge rates,
and particle travel distances. In run SF_1700 (Table 7-14), the flux at Sarcobatus Flat was
increased from 0 to 1,700 m3/d (0 to 503 ac-ft/y) (the upper end of the estimated range,
Table 7-10). Run PV_60000 increased the influx at Pahranagat Valley from 27,000 to
60,000 m3/d (7,990 to 17,756 ac-ft/y), again the upper end of the estimated range. These were
the only changes made for the respective runs; hydraulic parameters were not changed by
corresponding amounts.
The changes in simulated heads between Base 3 and SF_1700 are very minor. With the
exception of Oasis Valley, changes to the discharge fluxes are also minor. The discharge rate in
nearby Oasis Valley increased by 5.6 percent, which is approximately 85 percent of the
1,700 m3/d (503 ac-ft/y) increase in flux at Sarcobatus Flat. Increasing the influx beneath
Sarcobatus Flat had minimal impact on particle travel distances.
In sensitivity run PV_60000, the mean-weighted head in the Pahranagat Valley residual zone
increased nearly 95 m (311.7 ft); this is an artifact of not increasing the conductivity of adjoining
LCA zones by an equivalent amount. The increase in the mean-weighted head residual was less
than 10 m (33 ft) in the remaining 14 residual zones. With the increased flux across Pahranagat
Valley, discharges increased considerably at Ash Meadows (AM - nearly 47 percent of the
increase in Pahranagat Valley influx) and Alkali Flat (AF - also nearly 47 percent). Flux changes
elsewhere were minor. The increase in the Pahranagat Valley flux affected particle travel
distances in Yucca and Frenchman Flats, but had little effect on other particles.
7-83
7.5.6.1.3 Hydraulic Conductivity
Four special-case sensitivity analyses were conducted on specific hydraulic parameters. The
analysis names shown in Table 7-14 were selected to identify the hydrostratigraphic unit
evaluated in each model simulation and the hydraulic conductivity zone within each HSU that
was changed. For example, run VCU_ZN2 changed the hydraulic properties of Zone 2 in the
Volcanic Confining Unit (Figure 7-10). The names of the four sensitivity runs and the figures
that identify the zone locations for the corresponding HSUs include: VCU_ZN2 (Figure 7-10);
LCA3_ZN1 (LCA3 has only one zone); AA_ZN4&5 (Figure 7-6); and TMA_ZN6 (Figure 7-7).
The following discussion summarizes the results for each of the four sensitivity runs.
Sensitivity Run VCU_ZN2: In Frenchman Flat, recently interpreted aeromagnetic data suggest
that the volcanic rocks are not as continuous as incorporated in the geologic model, which would
cause greater hydrologic communication between the Alluvial Aquifer and the underlying LCA
than is currently represented in the geologic model. In run VCU_ZN2, the section of VCU in
question was replaced with parameter values corresponding to the LCA. The resulting flux
changes (Table 7-14) are very minor. The effect on heads is minor, with the exception of
Western Yucca Flat; this change is believed to be due to numerical instability in this area. The
travel distance for the DILUTED WATER particle, which originates in Frenchman Flat
(Figure 7-25), increased from 10 to 15 percent; however, the overall travel distance remains
small.
Sensitivity Run LCA3_ZN1: The Kh for LCA3 is significantly lower than for the other
carbonate rocks in the model. In run LCA3_ZN1, the Kh was increased from 0.05 to 1.0 m/d
(0.2 to 3.3 ft/d). The mean-weighted residuals decreased significantly in Western Yucca Flat,
Shoshone Mountain, and Timber Mountain, indicating that the low Kh value for LCA3 is
necessary to maintain higher heads in these zones. The low conductivity value probably
indicates that the LCA3 is not as continuous as represented in the geologic model. The major
changes in fluxes were decreases in the discharge at Oasis Valley (nearly 10 percent) and Alkali
Flat (22 percent increase). These changes indicate that the reduction in head in the above
residual zones moved the location of the water-table divide westward, diverting water from the
Oasis Valley system to the Ash Meadows system.
Sensitivity Run AA_ZN4&5: The Kh values for the coarser-grained zones in the Alluvial
Aquifer were determined from calibration and were primarily constrained by the gradient and
discharge rates in the Amargosa Desert. However, conductivity values for Zones 4 and 5
7-84
(Yucca and Frenchman Flats, respectively, Figure 7-6) were not constrained by the gradient and
discharge rates in the Amargosa Desert. In run AA_ZN4&5, the conductivity value for AA
Zones 4 and 5 was increased from 11 to 100 m/d (36 to 328 ft/d) (an 800 percent increase).
Resulting changes in head were minor except in Eastern Yucca Flat where the mean-weighted
residual decreased by 7.2 m (23.6 ft). The effects on boundary fluxes were very minor. The
travel distance for the DILUTED WATER particle (which remains entirely in AA[5] for
hundreds of years) increased approximately 600 percent, but was still less than 1 km (0.6 mi) at
200 years. Particles in Yucca Flat were also affected, but to a much smaller degree.
Sensitivity Run TMA_ZN6: A low conductivity zone was defined at the Black Mountain
Caldera to help develop the potentiometric trough present in Area 20 of the Nevada Test Site
(Figure 7-20). In run TMA_ZN6, the Kh values of the volcanics in this zone were increased to
those of the adjacent volcanic HSUs. The effect on heads was significant. Hydraulic heads in
the Pahute Mesa, Timber Mountain, Western Yucca Flat, and Northern zones decreased by tens
of meters, and the potentiometric trough was absent. With the reduction of heads in the north,
the discharge at Penoyer Valley decreased, resulting in increased discharge at Alkali Flat and
other areas in the Amargosa Desert as well as a lower discharge rate at Oasis Valley.
Because the conductivities in this zone were increased to those of adjacent volcanic HSUs, the
area across which the flux moves is greater, and the flow rates in the Pahute Mesa testing area are
decreased. This is illustrated by particle-tracking results for the particles originating on western
Pahute Mesa.
7.5.6.1.4 Summary of Special-Case Sensitivity Analyses

Overall, the largest effects on particle travel distances were related to the recharge rate (and
corresponding changes to hydraulic parameters) used in the model. Increases in the recharge rate
(and hydraulic parameters) caused significant increases in travel distances. Based on currently
available data, the discharge rates and, therefore, the calculated travel distances obtained in the
Base 3 model are considered to be more representative of study area discharge values than rates
calculated from either the Rech1.5x or Rch_me sensitivity runs; however, it must be emphasized
that there is a large uncertainty in discharge rates within the study area. For example, the current
estimates for discharge at Oasis Valley range from 17,000 to 27,000 m3/d (5,031 to
7,990 ac-ft/y). The Rech1.5x and Rch_me runs both result in simulated discharges of
approximately 38,000 m3/d (11,245 ac-ft/y), which are significantly higher than current
estimates.
7-85
Recharge redistribution and increased inflow at Sarcobatus Flat appear to have minimal impacts
on head distributions, discharge fluxes, and particle-tracking results within the saturated zone.
Increasing influx across Pahranagat Valley causes particles in Yucca and Frenchman Flats to
move further westward. Decreasing the flux across Pahranagat was not investigated, but this
may allow particles to discharge at Ash Meadows.
Changing the hydraulic conductivity values in the Black Mountain area caused significant
changes in travel distance for particles starting on Pahute Mesa, but had minimal effect
elsewhere. The movement of the DILUTED WATER particle in Frenchman Flat is significantly
affected by the hydraulic conductivity of the valley-fill materials and is only minimally impacted
by the continuity of the VCU beneath the basin. In all cases evaluated, however, its travel
distance was limited.
7.5.6.2 Sensitivity Analyses of Hydraulic Parameters

The sensitivity of simulated hydraulic heads and fluxes to hydraulic parameters were evaluated
by systematically changing individual hydraulic parameter values relative to the base case values
(Base 3). All Kh values (horizontal hydraulic conductivity projected to land surface) were
increased by 100 percent and decreased by 50 percent over Base 3 values, and the depth-decay
coefficients (8, ld) were increased and reduced by 10 percent over Base 3 values. Sensitivity
testing during the second model calibration sequence indicated a general insensitivity to the
anisotropy value, Kv, so those cases were not analyzed in the present model. There are
58 different Kh parameters and 58 individual 8 parameters, resulting in 116 sensitivity runs with
increased parameter values and an equal number of sensitivity runs with decreased values.
The mean-weighted residual and root mean square of the head residuals for each of the fifteen
residual zones (Figure 7-4) were recorded for each run, as were the boundary fluxes for the ten
different head-dependent flux areas. These data were then used to calculate the changes in these
values between the base case and the sensitivity runs. Table C-1 (Appendix C) presents the
changes in the mean-weighted residual (between the sensitivity run and the base case) per
residual zone as a function of the 100 percent increase and 50 percent decrease in Kh values and
the 10 percent increase and decrease in the 8 parameter values. Changes with absolute values
greater than or equal to one meter are shaded. A positive change indicates a general increase in
water levels within the zone. Table C-2 presents the percentage change in the RMS of the
weighted head residuals per zone for the same percentage changes in the parameter values listed
above. A positive change indicates an increase in the RMS; shading indicates a change with an
7-86
absolute value greater than or equal to 10 percent. The percentage changes in boundary flux
rates between the calibrated model and the sensitivity runs are provided in Table C-3. Positive
values indicate an increase in the recharge or discharge flux.
The convention used in naming the sensitivity run provides information on the parameter type (
Kh or 8), the HSU identifier, and the HSU zone number, if applicable. For example,
Kh_LCA(3) is the horizontal hydraulic conductivity parameter, projected to land surface, for
Zone 3 of the LCA.
The effects of the sensitivity runs on simulated heads within each of the 15 residual zones and on
the 10 head-dependent flux discharge areas are addressed in detail in the Groundwater Flow
Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f). The data have been included in Appendix C for
reference, and a brief summary of results is provided.
Examination of Table C-1 indicates that increases in conductivity values for certain
hydrostratigraphic units decrease hydraulic heads in residual zones in the vicinity of and
upgradient from those HSUs. This is because downgradient discharge areas (e.g., Death Valley,
Amargosa Desert, and Ash Meadows) control heads at the terminal points in the model. If
upgradient conductivities are increased and the recharge flux is held constant, then upgradient
hydraulic gradients will have to decrease to maintain mass balance, and the corresponding
hydraulic heads will decrease.
Tables C-1 to C-3 in Appendix C indicate that individually changing most of the hydraulic-
conductivity parameters produced only small, local effects in the water levels and boundary
fluxes because of the limited spatial distribution of the HSUs. The model was generally more
sensitive to changes in Kh than 8. An increase in Kh produces a similar change as a decrease in 8
for the same HSU because each produces an increase in the transmissivity.
The simulated heads in western Yucca Flat behave erratically; this behavior is associated with
the process used to simulate rewetting of the cells in this area. A high vertical gradient occurs
across the Upper Clastic Confining Unit, and the success of the model in rewetting cells that
become dry during the iterative model process appears to determine the value of the residuals. In
the second model calibration sequence, the model was specifically calibrated to result in
approximately equally weighted residuals in western and eastern Yucca Flat (WYF and EYF,
respectively). This resulted in higher simulated hydraulic heads throughout Yucca Flat, which
7-87
minimized the numerical instability associated with rewetting cells in Western Yucca Flat.
During the third model calibration sequence, the heads in eastern Yucca Flat were more
accurately simulated than in the second sequence because of the importance of gradients beneath
eastern Yucca Flat and flow paths from this area. This resulted in a good fit to Eastern Yucca
Flat hydraulic heads, but the resultant drop in water levels within Yucca Flat resulted in the
inconsistent results for WYF mentioned above.
7.5.6.3 Particle-Tracking Results for Hydraulic Parameter Sensitivities

Because a major goal of the regional flow modeling effort was to provide information to
facilitate analysis of contaminant transport from the weapons testing areas, it is important to
analyze the effects of the hydraulic parameter sensitivity changes on transport distances and
direction. This was done by running MODPATH 116 times using MODFLOW hydraulic head
and flux data from 116 separate sensitivity runs. The runs included the 100 percent increase in
Kh parameters and the 10 percent decrease in the depth-decay coefficients (8). For each of the
runs, the transport distances at times of 25, 50, 100, and 200 years from the start of the test for
thirteen of the fourteen particle-tracking locations were compiled. Results from GUM DROP
were not used because of the numerical sensitivity of the model in the Shoshone Mountain area
and the resulting impacts on particle tracking results. These data and the corresponding distance
for Base 3 are listed alphabetically by testing location in Appendix I of the Groundwater Flow
Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f).
The information contained in Appendix I (IT, 1996f) is unwieldy without some form of data
reduction. To facilitate evaluation of the information, the travel distances were tabulated, and the
percent change in distance between Base 3 and the sensitivity runs were calculated. All
parameters with percent differences greater than or equal to plus or minus 10 percent of Base 3
values have been grouped by testing location and regional area and are listed in Table 7-15.
Positive sensitivities are listed first from largest to smallest positive value. Parameters that fall
within this category result in longer transport distances than particles associated with the base
case. Negative sensitivities are listed second from largest negative value to smallest negative
value. Parameters that fall within this category result in shorter transport distances than travel
distances for the Base 3 run.
The 25-year (western Pahute Mesa) and 100-year (others) transport distances for the 116
hydraulic parameter sensitivity runs, plus the base case, are plotted for the thirteen testing
locations in Figure 7-26. The points are overlaid on the particle pathlines calculated for the
7-88
Table 7-15
Conductivity Parameters that Caused More than a 10% Change in the 25- or 100-Year Travel Distance
Parameters with Positive Sensitivity*:

Test DARWIN PURSE BULLION TYBO HOUSTON CLEARWATER PILE DRIVER BOURBON COULOMMIERS CORDURO CUMARIN STRAIT DILUTED WATER
Name Y
Area Pahute Pahute Pahute Pahute Pahute Rainier Climax Yucca Yucca Yucca Yucca Yucca Frenchman
Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Stock Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat
KH-TMA(1) KH-TMA(1) KH-TC(1) KH-VA(1) KH-VU(1) KH-VU(1) KH-VU(1) KH-VU(1) KH-VU(1) KH-AA(5)
KH-TMA(4) KH-TMA(4) KH-TBA(1)
KH-LCCU(1) LD-LCA(1) LD-LCA(1) LD-LCA(1)
KH-TMA(3) LD-VCU(1) KH-BCU(1) KH-AA(1) KH-AA(1)
LD-TMA(1) KH-LCA(1) KH-LCCU(1)
KH-VA(3) KH-LCA(2)
KH-TSDV(2) KH-BCU(1)
Parameters
Test DARWIN PURSE BULLION TYBO HOUSTON CLEARWATER PILE DRIVER BOURBON COULOMMIERS CORDURO CUMARIN STRAIT DILUTED WATER
Name Y
Area W. Pahute W. Pahute W. Pahute W. Pahute Pahute Rainier Climax Yucca Yucca Yucca Yucca Yucca Frenchman
Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Stock Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat Flat
LD-TMA(4) LD-TMA(1) LD-TC(1) KH-VCU(1) KH-UCCU KH-VU(1) LD-VU(1) LD-VU(1) KH-LCA(1)

7-89
LD-TMA(1) KH-TMA(1) KH-LCCU(1) LD-VU(1) KH-LCA(8) LD-AA(5)

LD-LCA(1) LD-LCCU(1)
LD-LCCU(1) LD-TMA(1)
LD-BCU(1) LD-AA(1)
*Sensitivities decrease from top to bottom in each list

Note - For western Pahute Mesa particles, the sensitivities were evaluated for the 25-year travel distance. For other particles, sensitivities were evaluated for the 100-year travel distance.
calibrated model (Figure 7-25). It should be remembered that the particle pathlines show flow
paths from testing locations to downgradient discharge areas independent of a time component.
Additionally, the calculated travel distances displayed in Figure 7-26 do not incorporate
retardation processes and will, therefore, overestimate the calculated travel distances
(Section 9.0).
The four particles starting on western Pahute Mesa (PURSE, DARWIN, TYBO, and BULLION)
traveled to the discharge area through the Timber Mountain Aquifer or Tuff Cone. For each of
the particles, the travel distance at 25 years was most sensitive to the Kh and/or 8 of the HSU in
which the particle started (Table 7-15). For example, the DARWIN particle started in TMA(1);
doubling the Kh of TMA(1) resulted in a 228 percent increase in the 25-year travel distance
(furthest point along DARWIN flowpath in Figure 7-26). The starting HSUs for PURSE and
BULLION are TMA(1) and TC(1), respectively (TYBO discharged in less than 25 years, and a
sensitivity could not be calculated). The 25-year travel distances are secondly most sensitive to
the hydrologic properties of the HSUs immediately downgradient from the originating HSU.
This sensitivity is usually greatly reduced when compared to the sensitivity of changes to the
originating HSU. For example, doubling the Kh of TC(1) (the second HSU encountered by the
DARWIN particle along its flowpath) resulted in a change in the absolute value of the flowpath
length of only 6 percent. The HOUSTON particle, which starts in the eastern part of Pahute
Mesa and has a significantly different path, is discussed below.
The 100-year travel distance for CLEARWATER, starting on Rainier Mesa, is not very sensitive
to any of the parameter changes evaluated. Even though the particle starts in the Lower Clastic
Confining Unit (LCCU[1]), doubling its Kh produced less than a 2 percent increase in the travel
distance, perhaps because it resulted in a longer flow path within the LCCU. It should be
emphasized that the working point is located more than two-cavity radii above the water table.
Travel in the unsaturated zone, in conjunction with migration through the LCCU, indicates that
this pathway is of minimal concern with respect to contaminant transport.
Four of the five particles originating within Yucca Flat (CORDUROY, COULOMMIERS,
CUMARIN, and STRAIT) all have positive sensitivities to the Kh of the Undifferentiated
Volcanics (VU[1]). The VU(1) is present north of Yucca Flat and provides the pathway for
underflow from Emigrant Valley into Yucca Flat; increasing its conductivity increases the
underflow and the 100-year travel distances about 20 to 35 percent. The 100- and 200-year
travel distances for the BOURBON particle, however, appear to decrease with an increase in Kh
7-91
of VU(1). The BOURBON particle migrates immediately below the contact between the
overlying VCU and the underlying LCA, and the apparent decrease in flowpath length is
probably due to an artifact of assigning effective porosity values to HSUs within the hydrologic
model.
The travel distance for the CUMARIN particle, the fifth Yucca Flat particle, is sensitive to a
larger number of parameters than the remaining Yucca Flat particles; the reason for this is not
clear. In Base 3, the particle appears to frequently move between the LCA and VCU due to an
artifact in assigning effective porosity values to HSUs within the hydrologic model; this behavior
was also noted in the BOURBON particle. The movement of the CUMARIN particle between
the LCA and VCU is not representative of the actual pathway of the particle since it would tend
to migrate within the LCA below the LCA/VCU contact. It is, therefore, possible that the large
number of sensitivities listed in Table 7-15 represent those parameters that affect the path length
of the particle within the VCU and are also an artifact of the model and not representative of
actual sensitivities.
When the 8 of LCA(1) is increased, indicating a greater reduction of conductivity with increasing
depth, the travel distances of the Yucca Flat particles increase. This change in 8 effectively
decreases the thickness of the LCA and forces flow into a thinner interval at the top of the LCA,
resulting in a net increase in velocity and travel distance.
The movement of the PILE DRIVER particle is sensitive to a large number of parameters. Those
with the greatest effect are those that control the flux across the barrier at the northern end of
Yucca Flat, including the Khs and 8s of the undifferentiated volcanics (VU[1]), Lower Clastic
Confining Unit (LCCU[1]), Non-Welded Tuffs (BCU[1]), and LCA(1). Doubling the Kh of the
Upper Clastic Confining Unit resulted in no movement of the particle, which suggests that the
originating cell desaturated.
The 100-year travel distance for the Frenchman Flat particle, DILUTED WATER, is increased
when the conductivity of Zone 5 of the Alluvial Aquifer (AA[5]), the originating HSU, is
increased or its 8 value is decreased. The travel distance is less sensitive to the Kh of Zone 1 of
the Undifferentiated Volcanics (VU[1]) than are particles within Yucca Flat, indicating that
underflow across the barrier north of Yucca Flat is not as important to Frenchman Flat particles
as the flux of water coming from the east. Because the DILUTED WATER particle does not
travel far from its original location in 100 years, it remains within the Alluvial Aquifer.
7-92
Increasing the LCA transmissivity reduces the gradient in the AA in northern Frenchman Flat
and reduces the particle velocity by approximately 45 percent.
Perhaps the most important aspect to note in Figure 7-26 is that, despite the large changes in
parameter values, nearly all particles representing the sensitivity runs plot on the pathlines
calculated for Base 3. For these particles, the assumption used in the transport modeling (that the
HSUs through which the particle passes for the base case can be used for the Monte Carlo runs)
is reasonable. The HOUSTON particle, however, varies from its base-case pathline. This
probably results from its proximity to the eastern boundary of the Oasis Valley groundwater
subbasin; changing the model parameters changes the location of the simulated subbasin
boundary. The approximate east-west alignment of the points for HOUSTON (Figure 7-26)
coincides with the contact between the Tuff Cone and Volcanic Confining Unit at the southern
edge of the Timber Mountain caldera.
The conductivity parameters that have the greatest effect on travel distance are not necessarily
the ones that have the greatest effect on location. This is well-illustrated with the HOUSTON
particle. The eastern-most point (Figure 7-26) is for the sensitivity run where the Kh of VCU(1)
was doubled. The VCU is part of the barrier at the northern end of Yucca Mountain; increasing
its conductivity allows more water to flow through this area and moves the HOUSTON pathline
eastward from the base case. The 100-year travel distance was increased 14.5 percent. The
western-most points are for doubling the Khs of Zone 1 of the Volcanic Aquifer [VA(1)] and the
Welded Tuff Aquifer [TBA(1)]. The 100-year travel distances were increased 13.9 and
12.5 percent, respectively. For those particles that lie along the base-case pathline, the
correspondence between the parameters which affect travel distance and the plotted particle
location is much closer. For example, the southern point for BULLION is the particle location
for the sensitivity case where the Kh of Zone 1 of the Tuff Cone [TC(1)] was doubled. This
resulted in nearly a 200 percent increase in the 25-year travel distance or a tripling of the distance
traveled.
7.6 Summary of Flow Model Results

This report documents the development, calibration, and results of a regional three-dimensional,
steady-state flow model of the Nevada Test Site regional groundwater flow system. The model
is designed to provide a basis for predicting the movement of contaminants from the
underground nuclear testing areas on a regional scale, constrained by estimates of the amount of
water moving through the groundwater system. It is also intended to provide a means for
7-93
evaluating the uncertainty in these predictions by allowing the easy modification of hydrologic
parameters. The model can also be used to supply boundary conditions for more detailed models
of the underground testing areas that are consistent with regional mass-balance information.
7.6.1 Model Design

The model is based on a complex geologic model of an even more complex geologic framework.
It incorporates extensive hydrologic data and uses water levels from more than 900 sampling
points. It was constructed to more accurately simulate the hydrology of the areas of concern,
including the weapons testing areas and downgradient regions, than areas that are distant from
the NTS. The modeling procedure was developed specifically to facilitate quality assurance
checks by minimizing data entry errors and allowing reproducibility of results.
The groundwater system was modeled using MODFLOW. The model grid consists of
68 columns by 76 rows and 20 layers. The large number of layers was necessary to accurately
simulate the geologic complexity of the thinner, hydrologically significant hydrostratigraphic
units, primarily located in Pahute Mesa and Yucca Flat, and to increase numerical accuracy. The
nonuniform grid is more finely spaced in the vicinity of the NTS and downgradient from it and is
rotated 5 degrees clockwise to match the orientation of the average fracture direction in the
primary testing areas of concern, Pahute Mesa and Yucca Flat. General-head boundary cells
were used to simulate underflow across model boundaries in the southern part of the model
where flux estimates are based solely on estimates of transmissivity and information of hydraulic
gradients. A constant-flux boundary condition was used at Pahranagat Valley where
geochemical data provide additional constraints on inflow rates. Drain cells were utilized to
simulate discharge due to springs and evapotranspiration.
Distribution of recharge was based on a modification of the Maxey-Eakin approach. The ME

coefficients imply that recharge does not occur when the annual precipitation is less than 20 cm
(8 in.). In the recharge model used for the flow model, the lower threshold was reduced to 16 cm
(6.3 in.), and coefficients lower than the ME coefficients were used. The net recharge to the
model was approximately 204,000 m3/d (60,373 ac-ft/y), compared with approximately
270,000 m3/d (79,905 ac-ft/y) for the ME recharge model. In addition, 20 percent of the recharge
water in the vicinity of the NTS was redistributed downstream to simulate infiltration along
stream channels and on alluvial fans. The ME recharge model was evaluated in later sensitivity
runs.
7-94
7.6.2 Model Calibration
This report primarily addresses the results from the final of three model calibration sequences.
Both hydraulic heads and fluxes were used as target criteria during model calibration. The target
heads consisted of 798 sampling locations within the active cells of the model domain. Fifteen
residual zones were defined for which the mean and RMSs of the weighted head residuals were
calculated for comparison with previously determined calibration criteria. This approach allows
flexibility in establishing calibration criteria to reflect the geohydrologic complexity and
available data for different areas, and it is more sensitive to mismatches than applying calibration
criteria on a model-wide basis.
The overall model has a mean-weighted residual of 7.9 m (25.9 ft) and an RMS of 51.3 m
(168.3 ft). The range in measured heads is nearly 1,690 m (5,545 ft), so the above values
represent 0.4 and 3.0 percent of the range, respectively. The individual head calibration criteria
were met in eleven of the fifteen zones. In two of the remaining four residual zones (LCA and
OASI), the criteria were very tight. The achieved mean-weighted residuals for the calibrated
model for these zones were 3.6 and 7.1 percent of the range in measured heads within the
respective zones. For the other two zones (WYF and SHON) the criteria could have been met,
but would have resulted in higher residuals in EYF. Because it was felt that minimizing Eastern
Yucca Flat residuals was essential due to the importance of flow paths from Yucca Flat into
Frenchman Flat, the EYF residual was minimized at the expense of higher residuals within
Shoshone Mountain and Western Yucca Flat.
Estimates of the boundary fluxes in twelve areas were also used to set additional calibration
goals. Discharge and recharge flux estimates within the model area are highly uncertain, and
target flux ranges were established for each of the twelve areas to incorporate this uncertainty.
The calibration goal was for the simulated fluxes to be within the range of estimates, but the
calibration was performed to minimize the deviation between the simulated flux and a value
considered to be the “best estimate” of the flux. The match to these target values is very good.
For the largest two discharge areas (Ash Meadows and Death Valley), the simulated values are
within 0.5 percent of their respective target values. The mismatch at Oasis Valley was only
3.1 percent. For four of the smaller discharge areas, the simulated values were outside the
respective target ranges. However, the sum of the absolute value of the deviations from the
target values for these areas was slightly over 7,000 m3/d (2,072 ac-ft/y) or about 3 percent of the
total flux through the system.
7-95
The calibrated model accurately simulates several observed hydrologic features present on the
Nevada Test Site. The high gradient between Emigrant Valley and Yucca Flat is present as is the
high gradient north of the Yucca Mountain area. The higher hydraulic heads in the western part
of Yucca Flat above the Upper Clastic Confining Unit are present. A moderately low gradient
across Timber Mountain, increasing to the north beneath Pahute Mesa, is well-simulated. The
potentiometric trough located in Area 20 on Pahute Mesa is also present.
7.6.3 Particle Tracking

As part of the application of the model, particle-tracking calculations using the computer code
MODPATH were performed. Additional postprocessing of the MODPATH results was done to
include the different effective porosities of the HSUs through which the particle traveled.
Particle starting locations were based on the locations of underground tests. From over 400
locations, which included tests where their working point was less than two cavity radii above
the water table, fourteen particles were selected. These were chosen so that each testing area
(Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa, Yucca Flat, Climax Stock, Shoshone Mountain, and Frenchman
Flat) was represented. Further, particles with rapid estimated movement in each testing area
were selected. Results indicate that particles originating in the Western Pahute Mesa testing area
discharge in Oasis Valley. Particles originating in the eastern testing areas (Yucca Flat and
Frenchman Flat) discharge in Death Valley or the Amargosa Desert, but not at Ash Meadows.
The geologic model contains no effective barrier to prevent water from leaving Yucca or
Frenchman Flats and traveling southwestward beneath Rock Valley and eastern Jackass Flats.
Without a large volume of water coming into and leaving Yucca Flat to overwhelm water from
the eastern part of the flow system, there is no reason to expect water from Yucca Flat or
Frenchman Flat to discharge at Ash Meadows.
7.6.4 Sensitivity Analysis

Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed on both water level and boundary flux responses
and on particle-tracking results. The sensitivity analysis was performed in two separate steps.
The first step involved changing basic assumptions of the model such as using different versions
of the digital geologic model and recharge models. The second step was a systematic variation
of the hydraulic parameters; the Kh (horizontal hydraulic conductivity projected to land surface)
values and depth-decay coefficients were both increased and decreased by specified amounts.
The sensitivity analysis of the different geologic models confirmed that a barrier to flow in the
area of Calico Hills westward to Bare Mountain is needed to match estimated discharge rates at
7-96
Oasis Valley and observed gradients in this area. This barrier is based on structural relationships
associated with the Belted Range Thrust and alteration of volcanic rocks in the Claim Canyon
Caldera segment and northern Yucca Mountain. This interpretation is consistent with geologic
and hydrologic information in the area. In addition, an interpretation that the UCCU is
continuous beneath Rainier Mesa is consistent with hydraulic-head observations in Well ER-12-1
(Appendix B) and provides better agreement with head data elsewhere. The changes in the
geologic model near Penoyer Valley resulted in an improvement in the hydrologic model, but
lower hydraulic conductivities for LCA rocks in the northern part of the model were still needed
to match water levels and estimated fluxes in that part of the model.
Sensitivity analyses were performed for several different recharge models. The results from the
recharge sensitivity models include the following:
• When the recharge rates and hydraulic conductivities are increased or decreased by the
same factor, the model behaves in an approximately linear fashion.
• Travel distances for particles on Western Pahute Mesa increase several-fold when the
recharge rates and hydraulic conductances are increased while the increases for particles
from other testing areas are moderate.
• Use of the Maxey-Eakin recharge model, and similarly increasing HSU hydraulic
conductivities by the Maxey-Eakin-to-base case recharge ratio, produces effects similar to
those described above. However, the distribution of the recharge differs. With the
Maxey-Eakin approach, there was a greater percentage increase in discharge in higher
gradient areas upgradient of the Lower Clastic Confining Unit barrier (e.g., Penoyer
Valley). The Maxey-Eakin model results in discharge fluxes that are larger than estimated
rates currently supported by existing data.
• Redistribution of recharge to downstream areas on and near the NTS has little effect on
water levels, discharge rates, or particle movement.
Other sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of uncertainty in the specified
flux boundary conditions and in changes to hydraulic conductivity values other than those that
were evaluated as part of the systematic analysis described in the following text. Findings from
these “special-case” sensitivities include:
• The transport distance in Frenchman Flat is sensitive to the conductivity of the Alluvial
Aquifer in Frenchman Flat, but the travel distances are likely to be short for reasonable
values of Kh.
7-97
• Removing the low-conductivity zonation in the vicinity of Black Mountain also removed
the potentiometric trough located at Pahute Mesa. This indicates that the low
conductivity zone can explain the presence of the trough, but there may be other
interpretations that would provide similar results.
A systematic sensitivity analysis was performed on the Kh and 8 values of the 58 different HSUs
as well as on the sensitivities to changes in boundary fluxes. The majority of results indicated
that increasing the conductivity value for a given HSU decreased heads in residual zones in the
vicinity or upgradient of that HSU. This is because downgradient discharge areas control heads
at the terminal point in the model; if upgradient conductivities increase and the recharge remains
the same, then resultant heads must decrease to maintain mass balance. Travel distances of
particles are generally most sensitive to changes in the hydraulic properties of the HSU in which
they start. The increase in travel distance, expressed on a percentage basis, is usually less than
the percentage change in Kh for the starting HSU. In some instances, however, the percentage
change in travel distances may be several times greater than the change in Kh. Sensitivity results
also indicated the following:
• Lower LCA conductivity values are necessary in the northern part of the model than
elsewhere to maintain necessary heads and fluxes;
• Particles originating on Western Pahute Mesa move quickly downgradient from the
starting locations, discharging to the south and southwest at Oasis Valley.
• Particles within Yucca Flat discharge in either the Amargosa Desert or Death Valley, but
not at Ash Meadows.
• Particles originating on Rainier Mesa or within Frenchman Flat do not migrate far from
their starting locations within the 200-year time period evaluated.
• Particle travel distance commonly increased significantly when recharge was increased,
suggesting that specific discharges increase downgradient.
• Despite the large changes in hydraulic parameter values, nearly all particles evaluated plot
on the pathlines calculated for the base case simulation.
In summary, the NTS regional groundwater flow model incorporates a significant amount of
detail at the regional scale and provides excellent agreement to observed head and flux data. The
model will be able to provide initial estimates of boundary fluxes for future local scale transport
modeling; however, the constraints placed by the regional model on hydrologically significant
parameters specific to each underground test area should be evaluated prior to local-scale
7-98
transport modeling. Additionally, the effects of the uncertainty in the regional model discharge
fluxes on the uncertainty in the boundary fluxes for each of the underground test area models
should also be evaluated.
7-99
8.0 Transport Parameters and Source Term
The rate at which radioactive contaminants move in a groundwater flow system is a function of
physical and chemical transport parameters such as porosity, dispersivity, sorption, matrix
diffusion, and radioactive decay. Contaminant migration in groundwater is also a function of
the contamination source. This section presents the objectives, general approach used, data
types needed, data sources, and the process used in the generation of the dataset necessary for
the modeling of tritium transport through the NTS regional groundwater flow system.
8.1 Objectives
The main objective of this task was to assemble all data necessary for the design of a one-
dimensional (1-D) tritium transport model within the regional groundwater flow system of the
NTS. In addition to data from the groundwater flow model, the tritium transport model required
information on transport parameters and source term. Further objectives were as follows:
• Assemble a dataset that provides representative values of matrix porosity of typical

geologic units of the NTS region.
• Assemble a dataset that provides representative estimates of dispersivity values of typical

geologic units of the NTS region.
• Compile readily available data on matrix diffusion of tritium.
• Estimate an average source term for tritium to be used in transport modeling.
8.2 General Approach

The general approach includes the following steps:
• Compile and qualify available porosity data.
• Perform statistical analysis to calculate mean porosity values and variances for
hydrostratigraphic units.
• Compile and summarize the existing dispersivity data.
• Compile and summarize the existing data on matrix diffusion.
• Estimate an unclassified value of the average tritium source term.
8-1
8.3 Data Types
Types of transport parameter data needed for modeling the migration of radionuclides include
dispersivity, adsorption, matrix diffusion and radioactive decay. These data types and the
corresponding processes are described in this section. Another important parameter that affects
the adsorption and diffusion processes, matrix porosity, is also discussed as well as the source of
contamination which also affects the migration of radionuclides in groundwater.
In fractured geologic media, the permeable fractures are separated by blocks of unfractured rock
material called matrix. Typically, the matrix porosity of granular materials is on the order of
25 to 40 percent, whereas fracture porosity ranges from less than 0.01 to 10 percent (Freeze and
Cherry, 1979). Radionuclides can diffuse into and sorb onto the rock matrix. Matrix porosity
affects the adsorption and diffusion processes. In unconsolidated porous media such as the
Alluvial Aquifer, the matrix porosity is equivalent to the effective porosity (see Section 5.0).
The spreading phenomenon of solutes in groundwater at a macroscopic level by the combined

action of mechanical dispersion and molecular diffusion is called hydrodynamic dispersion
(Van Der Heijde et al., 1988). Dispersion is a mixing process that causes dilution of the solute
(Freeze and Cherry, 1979), and it is normally simulated as a Fickian diffusion process using a
parameter called dispersivity to control the amount of spreading. Assessment of aquifer
dispersivity is essential for predicting contaminant plume migration in groundwater. The
dispersivities, both the longitudinal and transverse, are key input parameters to the governing
transport equation used to estimate the concentration distribution of a solute in groundwater
over time and space.
Adsorption occurs when a dissolved ion or molecule becomes attached to a preexisting solid
substrate. The process includes cation exchange, surface complexation, and size-selective
adsorption by zeolites. The adsorption process will not be discussed any further because tritium
does not adsorb to the rock matrix to a significant degree. Thus, the adsorption coefficient for
tritium is zero.
Matrix diffusion affects the rate of movement of contaminants in fractured media. It is a local
transport phenomenon of the contaminant from the fracture to the rock matrix. As water and
tritium flow along a fracture, a concentration gradient develops between the fracture and the
water in the rock matrix immediately next to the fracture. This concentration gradient will cause
tritium to diffuse from the fracture into the matrix where it remains for some period of time. At a
later time, after the tritium front in the fracture has passed, the concentration gradient reverses,
8-2
and tritium may move back into the fracture. During the time the tritium is in the matrix, the
water in the fracture continues to move. Therefore, the mechanism of matrix diffusion slows the
movement of the tritium with respect to the movement of the groundwater.
For radioisotopes such as tritium, radioactive decay is another process that affects the transport
of contaminants in groundwater. Radioactive decay is incorporated into the contaminant
transport code using a simple equation requiring the knowledge of the half-life of the
radioactive agent of concern and the time when decay was initiated. Tritium decays to helium
while emitting a beta particle; its radiological half-life is 12.3 years. The time when decay is
initiated is discussed in Section 9.0. No data compilation was required for these two variables.
The initial volume and concentration of the source contaminant are necessary in simulating the
transport of the contaminant in groundwater. Data relating to the Underground Test Area source
terms are generally classified. Specifically, inventories of individual shots are classified;
however, average tritium activities, which are unclassified, were available.
8.4 Data Sources

In general, sources of transport parameter data are limited. Sources of porosity data include a
variety of geophysical logs (neutron, resistivity, and sonic logs) which are available from
various reports and publications. The amount of site-specific dispersivity data available is
limited to data obtained from a few transport experiments conducted on the NTS. Other sources
of dispersivity data consist of only a few publications. Very little information was found to
define the matrix diffusion characteristics of tritium into porous media at the NTS. Only one
publication directly relevant to the diffusivity of tritium on NTS rocks was available (Triay et al.,
1993). Unclassified data relating to the radiologic source term were obtained from a Los Alamos
National Laboratory document (IT, 1996e).
8.5 Matrix and Bulk Porosity

Porosity is a significant component of the velocity of the groundwater and the tendency of the
radionuclide to diffuse from the fractures into the rock matrix. Effective porosity data derived
from tracer tests are discussed in Section 5.0. Matrix and bulk porosity data are discussed in this
section.

The porosity data were obtained from a variety of documents. The methods used to measure
porosity include laboratory measurements on cores and interpretations of geophysical logs. For
8-3
fractured consolidated geologic units, core data generally measure matrix porosity only because
of the limited size of the cores, often only a few centimeters in length. For granular material, the
matrix porosity may also be a reasonable estimate of the effective porosity.
A variety of geophysical logs (neutron, resistivity, and sonic) are used to determine the porosity
of the formation near the borehole. The measurement scale of the geophysical logs can extend
out to about a meter, depending on the type of log (Serra, 1984). The larger measurement scale
for the geophysical logs will likely encompass fractures in the formation. Thus, the bulk
porosity from the geophysical logs is more representative of the formation as a whole. In
granular materials, the bulk porosity is also a good estimate of the effective porosity, but may
not be as good a value in fractured media.
For many clastic hydrogeologic units, the matrix porosity is much larger than the fracture
porosity; thus, the bulk porosity is considered a good estimate of the matrix porosity in those
cases. In fractured units, the bulk porosity is still a good measure of formation porosity, but
may not be as useful for separating the porosity into matrix and fracture (or effective)
components. Data analysis results on bulk and matrix porosity studies are presented below.
8.5.2 Data Analysis

The porosity data from specific depths or locations, presented in the Transport Parameter and
Source Term Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996e), were statistically summarized per HSU.
Many records had multiple values of porosity obtained from different methods, such as multiple
geophysical logs. In those cases, all the values per record were averaged to yield a single value.
For each record, the average porosity was sorted by HSU and analyzed statistically to provide an
estimate of the mean and variance of the matrix, and the bulk and fracture porosity of each HSU.
The detailed matrix and bulk data are summarized in Table 8-1. These values can be generalized
even further by grouping the data into five generalized hydrogeologic units of Alluvial Aquifer
(AA), Volcanic Aquifers (BAQ, TBA, TMA, VTA, WTA, WLA), Volcanic Confining Units
(BCU, TCU, VCU), Carbonate Aquifer (LCA), and Clastic Aquitards (UCCU, LCCU). A
weighted average porosity for each of the generalized hydrogeologic units is obtained from the
mean values in Table 8-1, weighted by the number of data points (Table 8-2). These averages
are compared to those derived by other authors, such as Burkhard (1989) for Yucca Flat.
8-4
Table 8-1
Statistical Summary of Porosity
(Porosity is in percent)
Range of Values Number

Hydrostratigraphic Unit Type Mean Variance
min/max of Points
Alluvial Aquifer Bulk 36.3 79.8 10 - 49 126
Alluvial Aquifer Matrix 25.2 32.3 13.4 - 38.6 18
Basil Aquifer Bulk 14.3 20.9 8.5 - 23 9
Basil Aquifer Matrix 18.4 28.6 9.1 - 27.1 25
Basil Confining Unit Matrix 38.3 13.4 33.2 - 45.2 16
Belted Range Aquifer Bulk 28.4 66.6 19 - 39 7
Lower Carbonate Aquifer Bulk 11.7 0.3 11 - 12 3
Lower Carbonate Aquifer Matrix 3.8 7.5 0.3 - 9.9 18
Lower Clastic Confining

Matrix 3.3 6.5 0.2 - 10 31
Unit
Tuff Confining Unit Matrix 28.1 64 7.3 - 47.5 75
Topopah Spring Tuff

Matrix 23.7 NA NA 1
Aquifer
Timber Mountain Aquifer Bulk 16.2 132.5 3.4 - 58.3 332
Timber Mountain Aquifer Matrix 23.2 172.8 7 - 54 32
Upper Clastic Confining

Matrix 8.8 20.6 1.3 - 22.6 34
Unit
Vitric Tuff Aquifer Matrix 34 84.3 19.9 - 44 17
Welded Tuff Aquifer Matrix 20 138.1 1.4 - 65 639
Wahmonie Lava Aquifer Bulk 16 2.8 14 - 18.7 6
Wahmonie Lava Aquifer Matrix 27.4 13.8 22.3 - 33.5 13
Volcanic Confining Unit Matrix 16 13 9.2 - 23.5 28
8-5
Table 8-2
Summary of Porosity Data for Major Hydrostratigraphic Units
as Compared to Work by Others
Hydrostratigraphic Unit Porosity from this Study Porosity from Literaturea
Alluvial Aquifer 34.9 34.8

Volcanic Aquifer 19.1 36.2
Volcanic Confining Units 26.8 45.1
Carbonate Aquifer 4.9 2.5
Clastic Confining Units 6.2 3.6
a
Burkhard (1989)
Two major conclusions can be drawn from these statistical summaries. First, the alluvial and
volcanic units have significantly larger porosities than the Paleozoic carbonate and clastic units.
Second, the volcanic aquifers are less porous than the volcanic confining units. This is because
the volcanic aquifer units tend to be welded, which reduces the porosity.
8.6 Dispersivity
The available dispersivity measurements were obtained from transport experiments that have
been performed at or near the NTS. Additionally, other dispersivity data from the literature were
used to evaluate the range of variability.
The data relating to the three site-specific transport experiments have been analyzed by various
researchers to estimate longitudinal dispersivity values. The analysis methods used and results
are provided in detail in the Transport Parameter and Source Term Data Documentation
Package (IT, 1996e) and summarized in this section. The test data and results are presented in
Table 8-3 which provides the aquifer type and geology, test method, tracer type, analytical
method, and the derived dispersivities. The calculated site-specific dispersivity values range
between 0.6 and 30 m (2 to 98 ft) for test scales ranging between 30 and 120 m (98 and 394 ft).
A critical review of dispersivity observations from 59 different field sites, domestic and abroad,
was conducted by Gelhar et al. (1992). The review includes extensive tabulations of
information on site location, geology, descriptions of aquifer material, average aquifer saturated
thicknesses, hydraulic properties, effective porosity values, mean pore velocity values, flow
configuration, dimensionality of monitoring network, tracer type, method of data interpretation,
8-6
Table 8-3
Longitudinal Dispersivity Information Summary
Scale of Longitudinal
Test Analysis
Site Location Test Site Geology Test Dispersivity References
Method Method
(meters) (meters)
Amargosa Desert, near Cambrian Bonanza 122.8 Doublet Fitting of Grove’s curves 15 - 30.5 Leap & Belmonte, 1992
NTS King Dolomite recirculation
(fractured) (tritium, sulfur-
35, bromide)
Yucca Flat, NTS Fractured limestone 29.3 Radial Calculated by Welty and 0.6 - 1.4 Winograd & West, 1962
Converging Gelhar’s equation (calculation not included)
(fluorescein) test
at C and C-1
wells
Cambric site, Frenchman Tuffaceous alluvium 91.0 Radial 1. Welty & Gelhar Method 9.6 Thompson et al., 1990
Flat, NTS Converging (calculation not included)
with monitoring
8-7
the elutions of 2. Sauty’s Method 2.0 Burbey & Wheatcraft, 1986

tritium and 36Cl (Burbey & Wheatcraft)
at pumping well
RNM-2S 3. Sauty’s Method 9.1 Travis et al., 1983
(Travis el al.)
4. Sauty’s Method 15.1 Thompson, 1988;

(Ogard et al.) Ogard et al., 1988
overall scale of observation, and longitudinal and transverse dispersivities from original sources.
This information was used to classify the dispersivity data into three reliability classes. The
analysis indicated a trend of systematic increases of the longitudinal dispersivity with
observation scale, but the trend is much less clear when the reliability of the data is considered.
The longitudinal dispersivities ranged from 0.01 to 10,000 m (0.03 to 32,808 ft) for distances
ranging from 0.1 to 100,000 m (0.33 to 32,808 ft), but the largest distance with highly reliable
data was only 250 m (820 ft). The corresponding longitudinal dispersivity was only 4 m (13 ft).
Based on their review, Gelhar et al. (1992) concluded that dispersivity is scale-dependent. They
also concluded from the data that, overall, dispersivity values did not appear to differ with
lithology (porous versus fractured media).
The question of scale is still somewhat debated. The data summarized in Gelhar et al. (1992)
should not be interpreted to suggest that dispersivity simply increases with distance for any
particular plume. At two sites, Borden Air Force Base (AFB) (Canada) and Otis AFB
(Mississippi), the dispersivity was observed to increase for a limited distance and then reach an
asymptote (i.e., approach a constant value). Neuman (1990) believes that universal scaling is
operative over large distances and that dispersivity may increase significantly as plumes migrate
downgradient. The Neuman model yields ever increasing dispersivity values with travel
distance, which are not realistic for large distances. However, many examples exist of long
plumes that retain relatively modest dispersion, such as the Cape Cod sewage lagoon plume
discussed by LeBlanc (1984). For this work, the assumption is made that dispersivity will not
continue to increase as the length of transport increases, but rather, will reach an asymptotic
value (no greater than 1,000 m [3,200 ft]) that will apply over a large travel distance.
Several important conclusions related to the selection of longitudinal dispersivity and solute
transport modeling for the NTS can be drawn based on the existing data and literature:
• The longitudinal dispersivity apparently increases with scale (distance from the
contaminant source or the spacing between injection well and the monitoring well).
However, it is not clear how increases occur for an individual plume. Data suggest that
if dispersivity increases, it is not a smooth, monotonic function of travel distance.
• The dispersivity data derived from the NTS tracer tests are consistent with the range of
data summarized by Gelhar et al. (1992). However, the dispersivity values for the NTS
presented in Table 8-3 are too small to use in the regional transport simulations because
of the scale effect.
8-8
• The lithology, porous or fractured media, has no significant effect on the dispersivity
tested. In other words, dispersivities used for porous media can also be used in fractured
media.
Although the values of dispersivity derived from the NTS tracer studies are consistent with the
data summarized by Gelhar et al. (1992), they are not appropriate for the regional evaluation. At
the scale of the regional flow model, which is of the order of several tens of kilometers, larger
dispersivities are more appropriate. Dispersivities on the order of 10 to 1,000 m (30 to 3,200 ft)
have been used for the NTS region.
8.7 Matrix Diffusion

The main factor controlling the diffusion of tritium is the effective diffusion coefficient which is a
function of the tritium diffusion coefficient in water, the tortuosity of the matrix (length of the
flow path divided by the length of the sample), and the characteristics of fracture coatings. The
limited site-specific data on tritium diffusion available were supplemented by values from the
literature.
Very little information was found to define the matrix diffusion characteristics of tritium into the
geologic media of the NTS subsurface. Site-specific data on tritium matrix diffusion are
summarized in Table 8-4. The effective diffusion coefficient for tritium in the welded tuff
aquifer is on the order of 1.0 x 10-6 to 3.5 x 10-6 square centimeters per second (cm2/s)
(1.1 x 10-9 to 3.8 x 10-9 square feet per second [ft2/s]). However, the data summarized in
Table 8-4 are limited for several reasons. First, this represents a small set of data for only one
hydrostratigraphic unit. Second, the range of porosity values is narrow compared with all the
rock units at the NTS as a whole. Third, these tests were performed on fresh rock surfaces,
whereas most in situ fractures have some mineral coating, especially in the saturated zone.
Diffusion data obtained from the literature consisted of effective diffusion coefficient
measurements and values used in transport modeling studies. Feenstra et al. (1984) measured
diffusion through intact sandstone cores and obtained a range of values from 3.4 x 10-8 to
3.2 x 10-7 cm2/sec (3.7 x 10-11 to 3.4 x 10-10 ft2/sec) with a mean of 1.5 x 10-7 cm2/sec
(1.6 x 10-10 ft2/sec). In mudstone, Barone et al. (1992) measured a diffusion coefficient of
1.5 x 10-6 to 2.0 x 10-6 cm2/sec (1.6 x 10-9 to 2.2 x 10-9 ft2/sec). At the Grimsel site
(Switzerland), Hadermann and Heer (1996) obtained diffusion coefficients of 2.5 x 10-7 cm2/sec
(2.7 x 10-10 ft2/sec) to 1.7 x 10-6 cm2/sec (1.8 x 10-9 ft2/sec).
8-9
Table 8-4
Matrix Diffusion Coefficients for Tritium in the Welded Tuff Aquifer
Diffusion
Location Sample Porosity
Coefficient
Or Well Number (%)
(10-6 cm2/s)
USW G-4 737 7 2.2

USW GU-3 304#1 6 1.5
USW GU-3 304#2 6 1.6
USW GU-3 433 10 3.5
USW GU-3 1119 10 2.0
Topopah Outcrop NA 7 1.0
Source: Triay et al. (1993)
Harrison et al. (1992) modeled diffusion of organic contaminants into clay till in Canada. They
used effective diffusion coefficient values in the range of 1.5 x 10-6 cm2/sec (1.6 x 10-9 ft2/sec). In
modeling of diffusion of strontium and plutonium in fractured granite,
Krishnamoorthy et al. (1992) chose a range of values from 4.8 x 10-7 to 1.9 x 10-6 cm2/sec
(5.2 x 10-10 to 2.1 x 10-9 ft2/sec). Although not comprehensive, the literature values help to
bound the range of values that are plausible. The overall range of effective diffusion coefficient
is 3.4 x 10-8 to 2.0 x 10-6 cm2/s (3.7 x 10-11 to 2.2 x 10-9 ft2/sec).
Based on the majority of the available data, a range of effective diffusion coefficient values
ranging from 1.0 x 10-7 to 3.0 x 10-6 cm2/s (1.1 x 10-10 to 3.2 x 10-9 ft2/sec) is suitable for the
NTS region. However, as demonstrated by the limited dataset on tritium diffusion, the
uncertainties associated with this parameter are high.
8.8 Tritium Source Term

The tritium source term is part of the radiologic source term. Information on the radiologic
source terms is classified and cannot be obtained for any specific shot. However, from the
available data, an estimate of the radiohydrologic source term may be calculated for an average
shot. The data and method of analysis are described below.
8-10
The radiologic source term is the total inventory of radionuclides contained in the subsurface of
the NTS. This inventory is classified on a shot-by-shot basis; however, on a larger scale, the
inventory has recently been declassified. A declassified inventory is presented for two groups
of shots. The first group represents all shots on Pahute Mesa; the second group represents all
shots in areas of the NTS other than Pahute Mesa. The total activity of each of the fission and
fusion isotopes that are present in significant quantities in cavities deeper than 100 m (320 ft)
above the water table are totaled within each of the two groups.
While the radiologic source term provides information on the total inventory within the cavity,
not all of the inventory for most of the isotopes is available for dissolution and transport with
the groundwater flow system. This available inventory is called the radiohydrologic source term
or hydrologic source term. The type of data relating to the hydrologic source term and required
by the transport model is an activity per unit volume. Thus, an estimate of dissolution volume is
also required.
In the case of tritium, a simplifying assumption has been made that the radiologic source term
and the hydrologic source term are identical. The calculation of concentration requires only
information on the saturated volume of the cavities. However, if other isotopes (cesium,
strontium or plutonium) were to be modeled, the hydrologic source term would not be identical
to the radiologic source term. Assumptions would be required to determine the quantity of the
material contained within the glassy matrix of the shot melt, the leaching rates, the chemical
speciation of the isotopes, and other similar factors. Until additional information that will be
collected from the near-shot wells becomes available, reasonable estimates cannot be made on
many of the other isotopes.
The source of the unclassified radiologic source term was Los Alamos National Laboratory. The
unclassified information included data on fission and fission products (Pankratz, 1995), and
unclassified average cavity volumes were estimated from cavity radius data.
8.8.2 Data Analysis

Because tritium was the only isotope modeled, the transformation from radiologic to hydrologic
source term was a simple calculation. The only information required was an estimate of the
cavity volumes for each of the two areas. Because cavity radius data were available for each of
the shots, a volume was calculated for each cavity and totaled for the two areas. Each of the
8-11
radiologic source terms for tritium was divided by the calculated volume resulting in the
radiohydrologic source term. The values were 8.3 x 108 pCi/L for Pahute Mesa shots and
3.3 x 108 pCi/L for all other shots. Inherent in this calculation is the assumption that the
porosity of the cavity is equal to one. Assuming lower porosities will result in higher
concentrations.
The degree of uncertainty in the source term cannot be determined accurately from the
unclassified data. For this work, the uncertainty is estimated from data presented by
Daniels (1993) and Smith et al. (1996). For Tritium, concentrations as large as 7.56 x 109 pCi/L
have been reported. This large value is certainly unusual, but was chosen as an upper bound for
the simulations. The lower bound value for the simulations is approximately 7 x 106 pCi/L.
This large range of values is consistent with the limited, observed data.
8-12
9.0 Transport Model
The transport model was designed to predict the regional migration of tritium in a very
conservative manner. The transport model was used to calculate tritium concentrations in
groundwater at selected receptor locations downgradient from major underground testing areas of
the Nevada Test Site. The model serves as a tool to help guide future decisions with regard to
NTS Environmental Restoration.
9.1 Objectives
The purpose of the transport model is to predict the regional-scale maximum migration of tritium
in the groundwater flow system away from selected underground test locations. The simulations
are limited to tritium because this radionuclide was produced in the greatest abundance during
underground nuclear detonations and is mobile in a groundwater environment. The analysis is
regional in extent and is intended to provide tritium migration information at the scale of tens of
kilometers.
The tritium transport model objectives are as follows:
• Estimate the maximum extent of tritium contamination in groundwater moving through

the underground testing areas, using conservative assumptions.
• Calculate the tritium concentration in groundwater downgradient from underground test

locations. These concentrations are used in the ecological and human health risk
assessment calculations to assess the current and near term potential risks.
• Assess the impacts of flow and transport parameter uncertainty on the predicted
downgradient tritium concentration.
9.2 Technical Approach

The approach used to calculate the tritium concentration is presented in this section, followed by
a description of the modeling data requirements. A general approach, defining the types of
analyses, the steps involved, and the parameters needed is presented first. The transport
modeling approach provides the details of the modeling. The approach descriptions will help the
reader to understand the approximations inherent in the final results.
9-1
9.2.1 General Approach
A three-step modeling approach was used in this study. First, a three-dimensional model of the
groundwater flow system was developed from which groundwater flow paths were identified as
described in Section 7.0. Second, advective transport along selected pathlines was simulated
using a particle tracking technique, also as described in Section 7.0. This provided an assessment
of the relative amount of downgradient migration from each underground test location. Third,
tritium concentrations along three selected pathlines were simulated using a one-dimensional,
finite-element model.
The transport model simulates tritium concentration along a one-dimensional pathway defined by
the flow model. The one-dimensional, mobile/immobile, finite-element model, MC_TRANS,
accounts for advection, dispersion, radioactive decay, and diffusion between the mobile and
immobile phases. The mobile phase zone can be conceptualized as the portion of the aquifer
through which the water flow occurs. This mobile phase zone may consist of fractures or the
more permeable portions of a porous medium. The immobile phase zone is conceptualized as the
matrix between the fractures or mobile phase zones. Advection is allowed only in the mobile
phase zone. Uncertainty in model parameters is incorporated via either a Monte Carlo or Latin
hypercube sampling technique (Iman et al., 1980).
The steps involved in modeling the transport of tritium are as follows:
• Calculate groundwater pathlines from underground test locations at or below the water
table using the three-dimensional numerical groundwater flow model.
• Select three pathlines for transport simulations.
• Identify parameter uncertainty for flow and transport parameters.
• Determine the form of the source term and the uncertainty in values.
• Simulate the transport of tritium along the pathlines, accounting for uncertainty with a
Monte Carlo or Latin hypercube approach.
• Determine the downgradient distance beyond which tritium concentration does not exceed
20,000 pCi/L.
9-2
• Determine how uncertainty in selected input parameters impacts results.
• Provide tritium concentration data at preselected downgradient locations for risk

assessment. The downgradient locations are chosen to aid in the presentation of results
and to correspond to risk receptor locations.
9.2.2 Transport Modeling Approach

The hydrostratigraphic units of the Nevada Test Site groundwater flow system are quite variable,
ranging from low permeability clastic rocks to high permeability fractured carbonates. The
HSUs mapped in the geologic model are given in Table 4-3 for reference.
Some hydrostratigraphic units such as the alluvium can be treated as porous media while other
units such as the welded tuffs and carbonates are better represented by fracture flow. In the
fractured units, the matrix between fractures is porous and saturated with water. Diffusion of
tritium between the matrix and fracture is a mechanism that has been proposed by other
researchers (Grisak and Pickens, 1980; Harrison et al., 1992; and Maloszewski and Zuber, 1991)
to account for slower mean velocities of solutes relative to water. Therefore, a model was
required that allowed for matrix diffusion, advection, radioactive decay, and dispersion. In
addition, it was recognized that if other radionuclides were to be considered at a later time,
capabilities for adsorption and tracking of daughter products would also be required. A final
consideration was the desire to use a Monte Carlo approach using Latin hypercube sampling to
evaluate the impact of parameter uncertainty on the predicted tritium concentrations. The Latin
hypercube approach was selected for the regional simulations because it reduced the number of
realizations that were required and it incorporated correlation of parameters which was deemed
necessary in some cases.
Monte Carlo is a technique for modeling a real-world situation in which one or more of the input
parameters is either uncertain or may vary in a mathematically describable way. It employs
random sampling from probability distributions to assign values to the uncertain parameters in
the model. The Latin hypercube extension used in this study also allows for various parameters
to be evaluated using a statistical technique called rank correlation. The Monte Carlo technique
is typically used in cases where too many parameters are uncertain or the mathematics are too
complex to be solved analytically. In this case, the model that describes the transport of tritium
in the environment includes dozens of parameter values that are best described by probability
distributions rather than single values. The probability distributions might include the normal, l
og-normal, exponential, or one of a number of other mathematical expressions that meet the
9-3
requirements of a probability distribution function. The Monte Carlo simulation randomly
selects the parameter values from the corresponding probability distributions to obtain a single
model result (or realization) that is specific to that set of the parameter values. If parameters are
rank-correlated, the value of one parameter will depend on the randomly selected value of
another parameter. This process is then repeated over a large number of trials until the
probability distributions of the model results can be described.
Many of the physical processes (such as matrix diffusion and radioactive decay) may be
simulated using existing three-dimensional computer codes (e.g., SWIFT or its successors).
Unfortunately, these codes are typically very large, require large amounts of data, and are very
difficult to implement efficiently in a Monte Carlo framework at the regional scale. Modeling
the necessary transport mechanisms while providing a computationally efficient tool led to the
creation of a one-dimensional model with Monte Carlo capabilities. The choice of a numerical
approach over an analytical method was driven by the need to account for the complexity of the
NTS geology and hydrology.
The one-dimensional model, MC_TRANS, was developed to simulate the transport of chains of
dissolved chemical constituents within the groundwater system contained in fractured or porous
media where the diffusion of solute mass into matrix or dead-end pore space is an important
factor. The model can be used in a deterministic mode or probabilistic mode incorporating
hydrologic uncertainty through the Monte Carlo method. In the deterministic mode, the input
parameters are assigned fixed values, and a single solution is determined. In the probabilistic
mode, selected parameters are treated as random variables and are allowed to vary within limits
defined by the mean, standard deviation, and the probability distribution of the parameter. These
selected parameters are varied via a Latin hypercube sampling approach, and numerous solutions
are determined corresponding to the different parameter values.
The dual porosity representation of the groundwater system assumes complete mixing in the
matrix and a mass transfer coefficient controls interaction between fracture and matrix
(or interconnected and dead-end pore space) systems. The solutes are subject to advection,
sorption, and first order radioactive decay in the fracture (or interconnected pore space) and
sorption and first order radioactive decay in the matrix (or dead-end pore space) domain.
The Galerkin finite-element approach is used to solve the partial differential transport equations.
The source input may be a prescribed concentration or mass flux. Parameter uncertainty allows
9-4
for zonal variations of all input parameters using several types of statistical distributions. The
inclusion of flow model sensitivity coefficients allows flow model parameter uncertainty to be
incorporated in the transport simulations. A detailed documentation of the transport model
MC_TRANS, including the governing equations, is given in the Tritium Transport Model
documentation package (IT, 1996i).
The dual porosity formulation was chosen in favor of the discrete fracture/matrix formulation.
The simulation of fractured geologic units is easily accomplished with either formulation, but the
simulation of porous units (such as alluvium) is best accomplished with the dual porosity
formulation.
The one-dimensional approach, which has been chosen for its versatility and efficiency, does
have one drawback. The predicted concentrations will be overestimated because the effect of
three-dimensional dispersion is not considered. As shown later in the text, the additional dilution
due to three-dimensional dispersion is in the range of 5 to 200 times greater than in the case of
one-dimensional dispersion. Thus, it is likely that the actual tritium concentrations will be less
than those predicted with the one-dimensional approach.
9.2.3 Data Requirements

The transport model requires the following parameters to be defined at each node or element:
initial tritium concentration in the mobile and immobile regions, radioactive decay coefficient,
dispersivity, specific discharge, effective and matrix porosity, effective diffusion coefficient,
grid spacing and time step. Grid spacing ()x) is controlled by the grid Peclet Number,
Pe = )x/", where " is the dispersivity. Huyakorn and Pinder (1983) suggest that the Peclet
number be smaller than 2 to minimize numerical oscillations (overshoot and undershoot). For
this work, the criteria of Pe = 2.0 was implemented using the minimum value for dispersivity of
50 m (164.1 ft). This fixed the grid spacing to be no larger than 100 m (328.1 ft). The time step
is governed in part by the Courant Number, Cr = V )t/)x, where V is the velocity and )t is the
time step. Huyakorn and Pinder (1983) recommend a value of Cr less than one. However,
experience has shown that larger values of Cr can be used without introducing significant
numerical oscillations. The time step was adjusted to keep the Courant Number less than one for
most of the simulations.
The maximum length of any of the pathlines used in the transport simulations was no greater
than 99 km (61.5 mi), based on preliminary scoping simulations. The maximum simulation time
9-5
of 250 years was selected because it represents approximately 20 tritium half-lives. Assuming an
initial cavity concentration of 1 x 109 picoCuries per liter, the concentration decays below
20,000 pCi/L, the regulatory limit, in slightly less than 200 years. This source term value is
deliberately chosen to be larger than the average value provided in the Transport Parameter and
Source Term Documentation Package (IT, 1996e) in order to define an appropriate upper bound on
the simulation time.
9.3 Data Flow

The process of generating the tritium breakthrough curves involved six main tasks with several
smaller steps within each task. The tasks are:
• Select particle starting locations.

• Determine groundwater pathways.
• Identify effective porosity along the pathline.
• Identify parameter values and uncertainty.
• Define model grid system and create input files.
• Calculate tritium breakthrough curves along each path.
A complete description of each task is given in the Tritium Transport Model Documentation
Package (IT, 1996g). A brief description is provided in the following text.
9.3.1 Overview
Groundwater pathways are determined by tracking the movement of groundwater through the
three-dimensional groundwater flow system starting at underground test locations that are at or
below the water table. A particle tracking computer code, MODPATH (Pollock, 1989), takes the
output of the MODFLOW computer code and calculates the groundwater pathways. In
MODPATH, an imaginary particle is followed as it flows through the groundwater system as
defined by the numerical groundwater flow model. Using the PATHLINE output option of
MODPATH, the location coordinates of the particle in model space are recorded where the
particle crosses a grid cell boundary. Intermediate locations along the pathline within cells are
determined and compared with the geologic model to identify the hydrostratigraphic unit at each
intermediate location. Effective porosity values, appropriate for each hydrostratigraphic unit, are
assigned to each point along the pathline, and travel times are computed. The travel times and
travel distances from each starting location are summarized for each of the pathlines. Tritium
transport simulations were then performed for selected underground nuclear tests representative
9-6
of the major test areas. The pathlines were then discretized (broken into small segments) in
preparation for MC_TRANS transport simulations.
9.3.2 Selection of Particle Starting Locations

The first step in the selection process is to identify all the events that may have encountered the
water table. A database containing underground test location information was provided by
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The database was refined by the DOE and was
modified to include estimated water table elevations at each test location as determined by the
U.S. Geological Survey. Three vertical locations were identified for each nuclear test: the
working point and two locations, the first location at an estimated distance of two cavity radii
above and the second at an estimated distance of two cavity radii below the working point
(Figure 9-1). Each point was compared to the estimated water table elevation, and only those
points below the water table were selected as particle starting locations. If only the bottom point
was below the water table, then only one starting location would be used for that nuclear test. If
the top point was below the water table, then all three points were used as particle starting
locations. For this analysis, 415 flowpaths from 254 shots were examined.
9.3.3 MODPATH Simulations

The starting locations defined using the above-mentioned process were used in the particle
tracking code, MODPATH, to simulate the movement of particles through the groundwater flow
system. To define these pathlines, the required MODFLOW files from the calibrated flow model
were used along with a porosity of 1.0 for all points in the groundwater flow model domain. The
PATHLINE option of MODPATH generates an output file (pathline) giving the location and
travel time where a particle crosses a cell boundary. Because the porosity of 1.0 was used, the
distance traveled across a MODFLOW grid cell divided by the travel time is not the velocity, but
rather the specific discharge. The calculation of solute velocity is part of a later step.
9.3.4 Identification of Hydrostratigraphic Units along a Pathline

To determine the velocity along a pathline, it is necessary to assign an effective porosity value to
each point along the pathline. For the regional simulations, the effective porosity of each HSU is
treated as a spatially uniform value. Thus, the porosity at any point along the pathline is
uniquely defined by the hydrostratigraphic unit. Figure 9-2 is a schematic diagram of a pathline
segment through a model cell in which an HSU boundary is crossed. In this figure, the porosity
could differ in each HSU, and the velocity could change within the cell due to HSU changes.
9-7
Along each pathline segment, such as the one in Figure 9-2, points were located approximately
every 100 m (328.1 ft) laterally or 10 m (32.8 ft) vertically to allow for changes in the HSU.
The HSU for each point is assumed to extend to the midpoint between neighboring points. To
assign a porosity, the HSU at each point along the pathway was determined from the geological
model used in the regional groundwater flow simulations.
9.3.5 Calculation of Advective Velocity along a Flow Path

The velocity along each flow path is used to compute the travel time along each path. The paths
with the more rapid travel times were selected for transport simulations. It is recognized that
paths through the aquifer units will be more rapid than paths through the confining units.
Therefore the emphasis in this section is on the aquifer units.
The advective velocity at each point along the flow path was determined as the specific discharge
divided by the effective porosity at that point. The travel time between any two points is the
distance between points divided by the velocity. The cumulative travel time to any downgradient
point is determined by summing the travel times along the intermediate points. The effective
porosity at each point is defined as a function of each HSU. The effective porosity
corresponding to each HSU was discussed in Section 5.0 of this report and in the Transport
Parameter and Source Term Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996e).
For porous units such as alluvium, the effective porosity is assumed to be approximately equal to
the matrix or bulk porosity. For units such as the carbonates, that are dominated by fracture
flow, the effective porosity is more closely approximated by the fracture porosity. The effective
porosity values used for the pathline velocity calculations are given in Table 9-1. These values
have been optimized to emphasize the most important aquifer units. The Lower and Upper
Carbonate Aquifers and the Timber Mountain, Belted Range, and Basal Volcanic Aquifers are
given small effective porosities to correspond to fracture porosity values. Several of the volcanic
confining units were given smaller effective porosities than the matrix porosity values typically
associated with the effective porosity of porous units. These changes were made to reduce the
impact of a path that was predominantly in an aquifer unit, but may have crossed a small section
of confining unit. As noted in the Transport Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996g),
differences in the discretization of the geologic model and the groundwater flow model
occasionally led to a situation where a path appeared to enter a confining unit for a short distance
and then return to an aquifer. In many cases, the flow through the confining unit was
9-10
Table 9-1
Effective Porosity Values for Each Hydrostratigraphic Unit
used to Calculate Travel Times Along Pathlines
Effective
HSU No. Hydrostratigraphic Unit Abbreviation Source
Porosity
20 Alluvial Aquifer AA 0.30 Cambric Expmnt.
19 Timber Mountain Aquifer TMA 0.0005 Cubic Law Estimate
18 Tuff Cones TC 0.01 Professional Judgement
17 Non-Welded Tuffs TCBCU 0.06 Professional Judgement
16 Belted Range Aquifer TBAQ 0.0005 Cubic Law Estimate
15 Basal Confining Unit BCU 0.07 Professional Judgement
14 Welded Tuffs BAQ 0.0005 Cubic Law Estimate
13 Volcanic Tuff Aquifer VA 0.001 Professional Judgement
12 Volcanic Tuff Confining Unit VCU 0.03 Professional Judgement
11 Volcanics Undifferentiated VU 0.19 Professional Judgement
Tertiary Sediments/Death Cambric Expmnt.

10 TSDVS 0.30
Valley Section
9 Lower Carbonate Aquifer

(Yucca Flat Upper Plate),
LCA3 0.005 Cubic Law Estimate
Upper Carbonate Aquifer in
the NTS Area
8 Upper Clastic Confining Unit UCCU 0.02 Professional Judgement
7 Lower Carbonate Aquifer LCA 0.005 Cubic Law Estimate
6 Lower Clastic Confining Unit LCCU 0.01 Professional Judgement
5 Lower Carbonate Aquifer LCA1 0.005 Cubic Law Estimate

(Upper Plate)
4 Lower Clastic Confining Unit LCCU1 0.01 Professional Judgement

(Upper Plate)
3 Lower Carbonate Aquifer LCA2 0.005 Cubic Law Estimate

(Lower Plate)
2 Lower Clastic Confining Unit LCCU2 0.01 Professional Judgement

(Lower Plate)
1 Intrusives I 0.0005 Cubic Law Estimate
9-11
not physically realistic. Therefore, using a smaller effective porosity for some of the confining
units reduced the impact of the differences in discretization.
9.3.6 Selection of Starting Locations for Regional Modeling

The purpose of the regional transport modeling is to provide an assessment of the likely travel
distance for tritium over a period of approximately 200 years. Using this approach, travel
distances over a 100- and 200-year period were calculated for each underground test below the
water table. Figure 9-3 shows the pathlines for the nuclear tests at or below the water table for a
travel time of 200 years. The travel distances are summarized for each of the pathlines in the
Tritium Transport Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996g). The three nuclear tests chosen
for regional scale modeling are TYBO in Western Pahute Mesa, HOUSTON in Central Pahute
Mesa, and BOURBON in Yucca Flat. Shots with greater particle velocities, which were closer to
the southern boundary of an area, were given priority. However, other factors such as the
geology of the shot or the ability of the shot to represent a general flow area were also
considered.
The groundwater flow velocity along the paths originating from these three locations is greater
than the velocity along paths originating from most of the surrounding test locations; therefore,
the calculated tritium concentrations are significantly more conservative than average. The
selected paths will portray downgradient migration of tritium to distances greater than would be
expected from the majority of other test locations.
9.3.7 Evaluation of Upgradient and Downgradient Nuclear Tests Along the Same
Pathline
Prior to selecting the starting locations, an evaluation of upgradient and downgradient nuclear
tests along the three chosen pathlines was performed. If more than one nuclear test is along the
same pathline, the plume may overlap and lead to greater downgradient migration than if only
one nuclear test is considered. Two situations were considered: pathlines from upgradient
nuclear tests that pass through TYBO, HOUSTON, or BOURBON; and downgradient nuclear
tests that are along the pathline from TYBO, HOUSTON, or BOURBON. The determination of
whether a pathline intersected another nuclear test location is based on the size of plumes
originating from each of the nuclear tests and is presented in the Tritium Transport Model
Documentation Package (IT, 1996g).
For the TYBO location, two nuclear tests upgradient (KASH and PEPATO) were found to have
paths that passed very close to the TYBO working point. The location of KASH is 6.7 km
(4.2 mi) upgradient of TYBO, and PEPATO is 7.8 km (4.8 mi) upgradient. For BOURBON, one
9-12
nuclear test upgradient (KANKAKEE, 9 km [5.6 mi]) and one pair of nuclear tests downgradient
(MICKEY AND TORRIDO, 2.6 km [1.6 mi]) were determined as likely interacting plume
sources. An approximate assessment of the interaction of the plumes was performed by allowing
the TYBO path to originate at PEPATO with KASH and TYBO both included. Additionally, the
BOURBON path originated at KANKAKEE with BOURBON and MICKEY/TORRIDO
included downgradient. A more complete analysis of the interaction of plumes will be
performed as part of local-scale modeling at a later time. The three pathlines chosen for these
simulations beginning at PEPATO/TYBO, KANKAKEE/BOURBON, and HOUSTON are given
in Figure 9-4. The locations of the other nuclear tests (BOURBON, MICKEY/TORRIDO,
KASH, and TYBO) are also shown on Figure 9-4.
9.4 Transport Parameters and Uncertainty

Concurrent with the selection of the pathline starting locations, parameter values specific to the
transport model such as porosity, dispersivity, and tritium concentrations were tabulated and
uncertainties assigned. Three pieces of information are required for each parameter: the probability
distribution representing the parameter variability, the mean value, and the standard deviation.
Five options are available in the transport model to describe the probability distribution:
• Constant
• Normal
• Log-normal
• Uniform
• User-defined
A parameter that is constant is defined by a single value. An example is the radioactive decay
coefficient which is the same at all locations and all times for a specific radionuclide. The normal
distribution is defined by its mean and standard deviation. For a log-normally distributed parameter,
the transport model requires the mean of the log10 value and the standard deviation of the log10 value.
A uniform distribution is defined by the lower and upper bounds of the range of values. A user-
defined probability distribution may be derived based on site-specific data.
9.4.1 Porosity
The effective porosity (defined for the fractures or mobile phase) and the matrix porosity (defined
for the matrix between fractures, the immobile phase) are required for each HSU. The mobile
and immobile zone porosity information for each HSU is given in Table 9-2. These
9-14
Table 9-2
Porosity Data and Uncertainty for Each HSU
Mobile Phase Porosity Immobile Phase Porosity

HSU
Standard Standard
No. HSU Distribution Meana Distribution Mean
Deviationa Deviation
20 AA Uniform 0.25 0.35 None 0 0
19 TMA Log-normal -2.87 0.21 Uniform 0.08 0.50
18 TC Log-normal -2.87 0.21 Uniform 0.12 0.45
17 TCBCU Uniform 0.07 0.47 None 0 0
16 TBAQ Log-normal -2.87 0.21 Uniform 0.19 0.39
15 BCU Uniform 0.33 0.45 None 0 0
14 BAQ Log-normal -2.87 0.21 Uniform 0.09 0.27
13 VA Log-normal -2.87 0.21 Uniform 0.08 0.45
12 VCU Uniform 0.07 0.47 None 0 0
11 VU Uniform 0.01 0.36 None 0 0
10 TSDVS Uniform 0.25 0.35 None 0 0
9 LCA3 Log-normal -2.46 0.25 Uniform 0.01 0.15
8 UCCU Uniform 0.01 0.23 None 0 0
7 LCA Log-normal -2.46 0.25 Uniform 0.01 0.15
6 LCCU Log-normal -4.50 0.39 Uniform 0.01 0.09
4 LCCU1 Log-normal -4.50 0.39 Uniform 0.01 0.09
2 LCCU2 Log-normal -4.50 0.39 Uniform 0.01 0.09
1 I Log-normal -4.50 0.39 Uniform 0.001 0.01
a
For a log-normal distribution, the log10 mean and log10 standard deviation are presented. For a uniform distribution, the
mean and standard deviation represent the lower and upper bounds, respectively.
9-16
values differ somewhat from the values in Table 9-1 for several reasons. The values in Table 9-1
were optimized to accentuate the influence of aquifer units, whereas in Table 9-2 the effects of
high-porosity confining units were included explicitly. The effective porosity of the fractured
volcanic units were set to the same value because of the similarities in the fracture porosity of
those units.
The effective porosity of the fractured units was assumed to be log-normally distributed to avoid
the problem of negative values during Latin hypercube sampling while allowing for a rather large
range of variation. In addition, the effective porosity in fractured media is a function of the
fracture aperture which has been assumed to be log-normally distributed by other investigators
such as Long and Billaux (1987). The log10 standard deviation of 0.21 to 0.25 is based on the
criterion that the lower bound of the distribution should not produce a value so low as to be
physically unrealistic. The chosen range of variability is based, in part, on the sensitivity of the
calculated hydraulic conductivity to aperture where a factor of 25 change in aperture (and
effective porosity if the spacing is held constant at 1 meter) produces more than a three-order-of-
magnitude change in bulk hydraulic conductivity. The three-order-of-magnitude range in
hydraulic conductivity is consistent with measured data presented in both the Hydrologic
Parameter Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996d) and the Groundwater Flow Model
Documentation Package (IT, 1996f).
The effective porosity of the porous units and the matrix porosity of the fractured units were
characterized by a uniformly distributed porosity. The uniform distribution assigns equal
probability to all values, in contrast to a normal distribution which gives greater probability to
values near the mean. The uniform distribution was chosen to provide a greater emphasis to
values at the ends of the range of matrix porosity values.
9.4.2 Dispersion Coefficient

The dispersion coefficient in the mobile zone is the product of the dispersivity and the solute
velocity where the parameter required as input for the transport model is the dispersivity. For
these regional simulations, a mean dispersivity of 550 m (1,804.6 ft) and a range of 100 to
1,000 m (328.1 to 3,281 ft) was chosen for the carbonate aquifer and the volcanic aquifers. For
the Clastic and Volcanic Confining Units, the range of dispersivity values was 100 to 500 m
(328.1 to 1,640.5 ft) with a mean of 300 m (984.3 ft). The Alluvial Aquifer and the Death Valley
Sediments were given a range of 50 to 500 m (164 to 1,640.5 ft). The larger dispersivities of the
aquifer units reflect the larger fluxes in those units when compared with the confining units and
9-17
alluvium. The range of values is consistent with the range reported in the literature and
documented in Section 8.0 and in the Transport Parameter and Source Term Data
Documentation Package (IT, 1996e). Despite the wide range of values chosen, the model
predictions are not very sensitive to the value of the dispersivity as will be shown later when the
results of sensitivity analyses are presented.
9.4.3 Advective Velocity

The advective velocity is determined in the transport model as the specific discharge divided by
the effective porosity. The specific discharge is calculated from the calibrated regional
groundwater flow model. The variation in specific discharge along the flow path due to
variations in hydraulic conductivity and recharge are included in the transport model via flow
sensitivity coefficients determined from the groundwater flow model.
The uncertainty in hydraulic conductivity parameters is incorporated into the transport model via
the specific discharge. To do so, the sensitivity of the three components of the specific discharge
vector at each node in the flow model to changes in the hydraulic conductivity parameters of
each HSU (or zone) was determined. In the Latin hypercube portion of the transport model,
different hydraulic conductivity parameters were allowed to vary simultaneously, and the
resulting change in specific discharge was calculated as the sum of the parameters times the
sensitivities.
The hydraulic conductivity and the coefficient to decrease the conductivity with depth (8) of each
HSU or zone within each HSU were considered variable and were included in the flow parameter
sensitivity. A total of 117 parameters (58 HSUs or zones times two parameters plus the recharge
parameter) were included in the transport model. From the Hydrologic Parameter Data
Documentation Package (IT, 1996d), it is known that variations in hydraulic conductivity can be
quite large, up to four orders of magnitude in many HSUs. The large variation in measured
values is representative of local scale variation and likely does not reflect the range of variation
at the HSU scale as used in the flow model. Van Marcke (1983) addresses the question of
averaging spatially variable processes and shows that the variation of the averaged parameter is
smaller than the variation of the measured values. The range of variation of the hydraulic
conductivity is conservatively assumed to be about one order of magnitude for the transport
calculations. A corresponding log10 standard deviation of 0.25 was assigned for the log10
standard deviation of the horizontal hydraulic conductivity for all HSUs. The other flow
parameter was assigned a uniform distribution with a range of values consistent with the
9-18
uncertainty in the slope of the log hydraulic conductivity with depth as given in the Hydrologic
Parameter Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996d).
Finally, it is recognized that recharge is also uncertain. As recharge increases, more water will
flow through the groundwater flow system. To keep the model in calibration, the calibrated
hydraulic conductivity would need to increase a proportional amount to keep the hydraulic
gradient the same. Therefore, the dominant effect of changes in recharge can be approximated
by multiplying the specific discharge by a recharge factor. The recharge factor was allowed to
vary between 0.17 and 5.92, with 90 percent of the values between 0.4 and 2.6.
9.4.4 Diffusion Coefficient

The diffusion coefficient is an important parameter controlling the rate of mass transfer between
the mobile and immobile regions. The limited site-specific data as well as values from the
literature are available in the Transport Parameter and Source Term Data Documentation
Package (IT, 1996e).
The data that were available from NTS site measurements (Triay et al, 1993), as presented in
Section 8.0, represented diffusion experiments into fresh rock surfaces and probably overestimate
values that might occur under natural conditions. Natural fracture surfaces have mineral coatings
that may reduce the efficiency of diffusion into the rock matrix. Other published data, noted in
the Transport Parameter and Source Term Data Documentation Package (IT, 1996e), are
somewhat lower.
A range of values of 2.6×10-4 to 7.9×10-3 square meters per year (m2/yr) (0.003 to 0.08 square
feet per year [ft2/yr]) was used in the transport simulations. This range was intended to represent
a balance between NTS-specific data and published values from other sites. A log-normal
distribution was chosen to describe the variation in the diffusion coefficient with a log10 mean of -
2.84 and a log10 standard deviation of 0.24.
9.4.5 Fracture Spacing

The spacing of water conducting fractures has been estimated for both the carbonate aquifers and
several of the volcanic units. Two recent reports, one for the carbonates (IT, 1996j) and one for
the volcanics (IT, 1996k), summarize data on conducting fractures. The reports provide
9-19
information on apparent fracture spacing along the borehole and fracture dips. The true fracture
spacing is determined from the equation:
B ' B ) sin(90 & ") (9-1)
Where:
B = true fracture spacing [L];
B’ = apparent fracture spacing along the borehole [L]; and
" = dip angle of the fracture where 0 is horizontal and 90 is vertical.
If " = 90, then B is undefined because B’ is indeterminate.
Using ranges for the spacing and the dip angle from the above-cited reports, a range of values for
the true fracture spacing was defined. For the carbonates, the range of values is 0.03 to 1.5 m
(0.1 to 4.9 ft). For the fractured volcanics, excluding the tuff cones, fracture spacing values
range between 0.7 to 2.5 m (2.3 to 8.2 ft). For the tuff cones, a range of 0.3 to 1.3 m (1 to 4.3 ft)
was used. These ranges are all based on measured spacing of open fractures in core and from
measured dip angles.
9.4.6 Initial Tritium Concentrations

The initial concentrations of tritium for individual shots are classified data. However, averaged
values, which are not considered classified information, were obtained. Two average values
have been calculated and presented in Section 8.0: one for Pahute Mesa (8.31×108 pCi/L) and
one for all other shots (3.28×108 pCi/L). The averaged values were determined by summing the
total tritium inventory for all the shots in each region and dividing by the sum of the estimated
cavity volumes, assuming the cavities were spherical and that the porosity of the cavities was 1.0.
For the transport modeling, it was assumed that the tritium is evenly spread over the entire rock
volume occupied by a sphere of radius equal to approximately two times the cavity radius. This
assumption allows for a prompt injection zone around the actual cavity. Borg (1972) suggests that
the zone of pervasive fracturing around a nuclear test is about three times the cavity radius in the
horizontal direction and two times in the vertical direction. The assumption of two times will result
in larger initial concentrations which are believed to be conservative. The volume of the initial
region in the model is, thus, about eight times the cavity volume. To maintain a consistent
representation of the total mass of tritium, the initial tritium concentration for the simulations is
calculated as described in the Tritium Transport Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996g).
9-20
The initial concentration is placed in both the fractures and the matrix at the source. Thus, for the
purposes of the modeling, the sum of the fracture and matrix porosities will represent the porosity of
the initial contaminant volume. A sensitivity simulation will be presented later where all the tritium
was confined to the fractured region.
It is anticipated that there will be uncertainty in the source term concentration. The degree of
uncertainty is estimated from data presented by Daniels (1993) and Smith et al. (1996). For tritium,
concentrations as large as 7.56×109 pCi/L have been reported. This large value is certainly unusual,
but it was chosen as an upper bound for the simulations. The lower bound value for the simulations
is approximately 7×106 pCi/L. The initial condition is modeled with a log-normal distribution to
accommodate the large range in values.
9.4.7 Correlation of Parameters

The Latin hypercube sampling randomly selects parameter values for each realization. Typically, the
selection of one parameter value is statistically independent of another. In some cases, however, it is
necessary to correlate several parameters so that the value of one parameter is dependent on the value
of another.
Examples of such cases are the relationships between fracture porosity and fracture spacing, and
between fracture porosity and hydraulic conductivity. In the first example, fracture porosity can be
estimated as the fracture aperture divided by the fracture spacing. Therefore, as fracture spacing
increases, the fracture porosity tends to decrease. In this case, fracture porosity and fracture spacing
are inversely correlated. In the second example, fracture porosity increases if aperture increases or
spacing decreases. Both processes increase the cross-sectional area to flow and hydraulic
conductivity also increases. In this case, fracture porosity and hydraulic conductivity are positively
correlated.
In the transport simulations, the pairs of parameters shown on Table 9-3 were considered correlated.
The correlation coefficient for each pair of parameters is 0.80 or -0.80. The 80 percent level is
somewhat arbitrary but is based on a desire to have a relatively strong correlation among certain
parameters. The importance of correlation will be examined as part of sensitivity analyses that are
presented later.
9-21
Table 9-3
Correlation of Input Parameters
Parameter 1 Parameter 2 Correlation Coefficient
Effective porosity Hydraulic conductivity 0.8
Effective porosity Fracture spacing -0.8
Matrix porosity Diffusion coefficient 0.8
Hydraulic conductivity Conductivity-depth coeff. 0.8
9.4.8 Other Parameters

The half-life of tritium is well-known to be 12.3 years. The radioactive decay coefficient as used
in the modeling is calculated with the expression “ln(2)/half-life.” Using the half-life of tritium,
the radioactive decay coefficient is 5.64×10-2 (yr-1). This value is assumed constant throughout
the simulations.
9.5 Transport Calculations

MC_TRANS was used to simulate tritium movement along the three selected pathways defined
from the groundwater flow model. Some of those parameters were uncertain and were varied
using a Latin hypercube sampling technique. Receptor locations were specified for breakthrough
curve calculations at selected distances downgradient from the sources. For all three paths, the
first receptor location was within the source area.
An additional uncertainty that was not included in the transport calculations is the time that
tritium migration begins. Transport may start immediately following the detonation of the
nuclear device (the most conservative case) or be delayed by years, depending upon the integrity
of the cavity structure to groundwater flow. Because of this, the reader should be aware that
predicted arrival times at receptor locations will be affected by this lag. For the regional
simulations, the most conservative case of zero delay is assumed.
9.5.1 Pathlines
The three pathlines chosen for this study began at separate shot locations: one each on Western
Pahute Mesa (TYBO), Central Pahute Mesa (HOUSTON), and Yucca Flat (BOURBON). The
pathlines for these three locations are presented in the plan view in Figure 9-4. Figures 9-5
through 9-7 show the vertical position of the pathline and the hydrostratigraphy where the top
9-22
of each HSU is shown as a function of downgradient distance for shots BOURBON, HOUSTON,
and TYBO, respectively.
The BOURBON pathline begins in the Lower Carbonate Aquifer and is dominated by the
structural relationship of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer to other hydrostratigraphic units. The
Lower Carbonate Aquifer, being the most permeable HSU, is the primary conduit for flow.
The path closely follows the structural changes in the position of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer.
In Frenchman Flat (downgradient distance of 30 km [18.6 mi]), where the top of the Lower
Carbonate Aquifer is just above sea level, the pathline also goes near sea level. The pathline
rises up and over clastic units that have been uplifted in the vicinity of the Specter Range at the
northern edge of Amargosa Desert at a distance of about 60 km (37.3 mi). At 80 km (49.7 mi),
the pathline enters the Alluvial Aquifer of Amargosa Desert and remains in that unit until it
discharges in the vicinity of Ash Meadows.
The pathline from the BOURBON nuclear test location appears to leave the Lower Carbonate
Aquifer and enter into the overlying Volcanic Confining Unit at downgradient distances near
30 km (18.6 mi). This apparent skipping of the pathline in and out of a confining unit is artificial
and stems from the inclusion of geologic model details at scales smaller than the flow model
grids. These artificial conditions were corrected prior to transport modeling.
The path from the HOUSTON nuclear test location begins in the Tuff Cones, then enters the
Timber Mountain Aquifer at a downgradient distance of 6 km (3.7 mi). At 38.5 km (23.9 ft)
downgradient, the path leaves the Timber Mountain Aquifer and enters the Tuff cones again for
the next 4.1 km (2.5 mi). After that, the path enters the Volcanic Confining Unit for 11 km
(6.8 mi). The remainder of the flow path is through a variety of units on its way to Death Valley.
The pathline from TYBO moves downward from the point of origin to the discharge areas of
Oasis Valley. The flow path begins in the Timber Mountain Aquifer and remains in that unit for
30 km (18.6 mi) until it discharges at Oasis Valley.
9.5.2 Tritium Transport Simulations - General

Tritium concentrations were calculated at selected potential receptor points located on each
pathline downgradient from the shot, using the MC-TRANS computer code. These calculations
result in what are known as “breakthrough curves” which show the tritium concentration at a
specific location as a function of time. At each receptor point, a breakthrough curve is calculated
9-26
corresponding to different sets of input parameters for each of the Latin hypercube trials. Each
Latin hypercube trial results in a “realization” or a breakthrough curve for each downgradient
location. Two hundred realizations were performed for each pathline, resulting in 200
breakthrough curves for each location on the pathline.
The results of the transport simulations are presented in three different ways to summarize the
Latin hypercube simulations. First, contour plots of tritium concentration as a function of
downgradient distance and time are presented for different levels from 5 to 95 percent of the
realizations. To create these plots, the tritium concentration at each fixed location and time is
recorded for each realization. These values are then sorted from smallest to largest and
summarized in the form of contour plots at selected percentage levels. The levels can range from
0 to 100 percent and describe the percentage of realizations for which the tritium concentration
was less than the corresponding activity value. For example, if the 50 percent frequency value is
at 100 pCi/L, it means that 50 percent of the Latin hypercube trials for that location and time
resulted in tritium concentrations of less than 100 pCi/L. Contour plots were prepared which
show the tritium concentration as a function of distance and time for any selected percentage
level.
Histograms of all tritium values for the 30-year period surrounding the peak tritium
concentration at the 95 percent level and cumulative density plots of maximum tritium
concentration at each receptor location are also presented. For the maximum tritium
concentration plots, the maximum concentration at each downgradient receptor was recorded,
sorted from smallest to largest, and plotted as a cumulative density function to demonstrate the
range of possible outcomes. These latter figures were reserved for presentation of some of the
uncertainty analyses. The transport calculations are presented separately for each of the three
pathlines beginning with BOURBON.
9.5.3 Tritium Transport Simulations - BOURBON (Yucca Flat)

Contour plots of tritium concentration as a function of distance and time were created to depict
the model results. For each of the 200 realizations, the model calculates tritium concentrations at
fixed distances and times. Therefore, at each distance and time, there are 200 values, each
representing a different realization. These 200 values at each location in distance and time are
sorted from smallest to largest. The position of a value in the sorted list represents the
concentration for which a specified percentage of the realizations are smaller. For example, the
concentration between the 100th and 101st value represents the 50 percent level and indicates
that 50 percent of the realizations produced a larger value and 50 percent produced a smaller
9-27
value. At the 95 percent level, 95 percent of the realizations produced a smaller value and
5 percent a larger value. By choosing the same level (for example 95 percent) for all points in
distance and time, it is possible to contour tritium concentrations that represent the value for
which 95 percent of all realizations yielded a smaller value.
The 5, 50, 85, and 95 percent level contour plots for the pathline that originates at the
KANKAKEE nuclear test location and passes through the BOURBON and MICKEY/TORRIDO
nuclear test locations are shown on Figure 9-8. The 5 percent level (Figure 9-8a) represents the
cases of small initial concentration and smaller groundwater movement. The two source areas
are clearly seen on the figure: one for KANKAKEE and the other combination of BOURBON
and MICKEY/ TORRIDO. The 50 percent level is the median case and represents where one
half of the realizations produced smaller values and one half produced larger (Figure 9-8b). At
the 50 percent level, the distance to the 20,000 pCi/L point is approximately 20 km from
KANKAKEE or 10.5 km (6.5 mi) downgradient from BOURBON. At the larger levels, such as
95 percent (Figure 9-8d), the amount of downgradient movement as represented by the
20,000 pCi/L line is approximately 36 km (22.4 mi), which is greater than at the 50 percent level.
For reference, the 36 km (22.4 mi) distance is a point at the northern edge of Frenchman Flat,
well within the boundaries of the NTS. The 20,000 pCi/L contour reaches its maximum extent at
approximately 25 years from the time of release and then begins to recede gradually over the next
125 years.
As the tritium moves downgradient in the fracture flow system, some of it diffuses in the matrix.
As the main pulse of tritium moves farther downgradient, tritium in the matrix behind the pulse
will begin to diffuse back into the fractures. When the mass flux from diffusion into the fractures
is less than the mass loss due to radioactive decay, the boundary recedes.
A second method of presenting the results of the 200 realizations is with histograms of tritium
concentration. To support the human health risk assessment, the tritium concentration from all
200 trials was summarized in a noncontinuous histogram for the 30-year period (the exposure
time of the hypothetical future land user) surrounding the year when the maximum tritium
concentration occurred in the contour plot at the 95 percent frequency level. From Figure 9-8, it
can be seen that the time of peak concentration at any downgradient location generally decreases
as the level increases. This occurs because the higher level plots depict the more extreme cases
with larger tritium velocity. As a result, the tritium migrates further downgradient in a shorter
amount of time. Larger concentration values at any downgradient location occur at the
95 percent level than at the lower levels.
9-28
To be conservative in the analyses, the time of peak concentration used to choose the 30-year
interval for the histogram analysis was defined on the basis of the 95 percent level plots.
However, the interval chosen is not ± 15 years around the year of the maximum tritium
concentration. The interval chosen is -5 years to +25 years around the year of the maximum
concentration because the distribution of the tritium concentration is not symmetrical, but rather
it is skewed. A skewed distribution of contaminants in groundwater is typical in matrix
diffusion-dominated flow systems. Choosing the -5 to +25 years around the year of the
maximum tritium concentration in groundwater will ensure that the calculated dose and risk to
a potential dose receptor is conservative and bounding. The concentration values from each
realization over the 30-year period are used to create a non-continuous histogram of tritium
concentrations for each dose location along the flow path.
The histograms are a presentation of the relative frequency of occurrence of tritium concentration
in groundwater over the 30-year period surrounding the maximum tritium concentration. The
histogram approximates the distribution of tritium activity at a location resulting from inclusion
of parameter uncertainty in the groundwater transport model. The histogram lists the fraction of
realizations within a specific tritium concentration range. Each tritium concentration range is
known as a bin, with 25 bins used in the risk assessment. The smallest bin includes tritium
concentrations of less than 100 pCi/L, whereas the largest bin consists of tritium concentrations
ranging between 4.6×109 and 1.0×1010 pCi/L.
Figure 9-9 is the histogram of tritium concentration in the 30-year period around the peak for
each downgradient distance. Each tritium concentration bin represents approximately one-third
of an order of magnitude with the upper bound of the bin range presented on the axis. The
distances increase from back to front in the plot so that the histogram for the 0.1-km (0.6-mi)
distance is in the back of the figure. Yearly tritium concentration data over the 30-year period
are summarized for all realizations in each histogram. Thus, at each distance, there are 6,200
values summarized: 31 yearly values (including the two end points of the 30-year period) times
200 realizations. The smallest interval in Figure 9-9 is the interval of 100 to 220 pCi/L. Any
concentration less than 100 pCi/L is not plotted, but is included in the calculation of the
histogram frequencies. The relative frequency represents the proportion of 6,200 values that fall
within a particular tritium concentration range. The histogram defines the relative percentage of
the time that a particular range in tritium concentration will occur over the 30-year time period.
This representation captures all the uncertainty in the Latin hypercube simulations and provides a
balanced view of the true range of outcomes.
9-30
The results shown in the histograms are interesting from several aspects. Near the source, the
tritium concentrations are large and have a narrower range of values than at larger distances. At
a greater distance away from the source, nearly all the tritium concentration values fall below
100 pCi/L. For example, beyond 40 km (24.9 mi), more than 90 percent of the tritium values are
less than 100 pCi/L. At intermediate distances, the influence of parameter uncertainty is evident
by the wide range of tritium concentration values that occur. These results indicate that
parameter uncertainty has a significant influence on the predicted transport of tritium.
To investigate the role of individual parameters on the uncertainty, a series of sensitivity

simulations was performed. These simulations took two forms: one in which only a single
variable was allowed to vary and the other where all parameters varied, but a major component
of the conceptual model was changed.
In the first case, selected individual parameters were allowed to vary within the Latin hypercube
portion of MC_TRANS while all other parameters were set equal to their mean value. In
Figure 9-10, the cumulative density of maximum tritium concentration was plotted for each
parameter. This figure was developed by retaining the peak concentration that occurred at the
1-km (0.6-mi) downgradient distance for each of the 200 realizations. The 200 peak
concentration values were sorted from smallest to largest and assigned a number (n) from 1 to
200. The cumulative density function was calculated as (n/(200+1))×100 to plot the density as a
percentage. Each curve in Figure 9-10 represents the peak concentration for each of 200
realizations when only a single parameter was varied. The transport parameters that were varied
individually included: source term, dispersivity, effective porosity, matrix porosity, block width,
and diffusion coefficient. Additionally, the sensitivity of several flow parameters was also
examined.
Only the most significant flow sensitivity parameters were chosen to be included in the
sensitivity analyses. Of the 116 flow sensitivity parameters, the most sensitive were identified in
Section 7.0 in the flow model discussion. For the BOURBON path, the selected flow sensitivity
parameter was horizontal hydraulic conductivity, Kh, for the Volcanics Undifferentiated. The
final variable to be included in the sensitivity analyses was the recharge coefficient.
The results of the sensitivity runs are presented in Figures 9-10 through 9-12 for the
1-km (0.6-mi), 10-km (6.2-mi), and 20-km (12.4-mi) distances. The source term dominates the
uncertainty near the nuclear test location. Further downgradient, the most important parameters
9-32
are those related to matrix diffusion (matrix porosity, block width, and diffusion coefficient) and
the recharge coefficient. These results indicate that the uncertainty in the total amount of water
flowing through Yucca Flat and the diffusion properties of the Lower Carbonate Aquifer are
important contributors to the uncertainty in downgradient tritium concentration.
Additional considerations in the interpretation of the predicted concentrations revolve around

several key aspects of the conceptual model. Three aspects were investigated: the importance of
multiple nuclear tests along the same pathline, the influence of parameter correlation on the
results, and the resulting concentrations if all the initial tritium were in the fractures only.
The impact of multiple sources was investigated by simulating the transport from the location of
BOURBON alone and comparing the results to the previous simulations with multiple nuclear
tests. Figure 9-13a is the contour plot of tritium concentration from just the BOURBON nuclear
test at the 95 percent level. The maximum extent of the 20,000 pCi/L contour is about
22 km (13.7 mi). Recall that the BOURBON test is 9.5 km (5.9 mi) along the path given in
Figure 9-8d. If that distance is added to 22 km (13.7 mi), the distance is 31.5 km (19.6 mi). This
is about 4.5 km (2.8 mi) less travel distance than in the multiple source case. Part of the
difference is made up by the third source placed 2.6 km (1.6 mi) downgradient of BOURBON
in the original simulation (Figure 9-8a). This would suggest that the additive effect of multiple
tritium sources in these one-dimensional simulations may not be a significant factor in the
estimation of concentrations downgradient in the carbonate.
Not all parameters were allowed to vary independently of the other parameters. This second case
examined a scenario where all correlation among parameters was zero, thus allowing all
parameters to vary independently. At the 95 percent level (Figure 9-13b), this result produces a
maximum distance of about 17 km (10.6 mi), 5 km (3.1 mi) less than when correlation was
included (Figure 9-13a). This suggests that an increase in one parameter is offset by a decrease
in another when parameters are uncorrelated. This reduction is significant and indicates that
correlation of parameters cannot be ignored.
The final simulation examined the assumption that the initial tritium mass was distributed
between the fracture and matrix porosity. The matrix porosity is generally much larger than the
fracture porosity and serves as a storage reservoir for tritium. If all the initial tritium mass were
to be in the fractures alone, the concentration (mass/volume) would be much greater. To account
for the tritium mass in the fractures alone, the range of initial tritium concentration was
9-36
set to 3.0×108 to 1.0×1011 pCi/L. The large values were required to maintain the same initial
tritium mass as in the base case. Figure 9-13c is the 95 percent level for the case of tritium in
fractures alone. The maximum downgradient extent is 25 km (15.5 mi), about 3 km (1.9 mi)
larger than the base case. Additionally, the 20,000 pCi/L line persists over approximately a
50-year period at that distance; whereas, in the base case, the distance to the 20,000 pCi/L
concentration decreases shortly after reaching its maximum extent.
9.5.4 Tritium Transport Simulations - HOUSTON (Central Pahute Mesa)

The HOUSTON test is located on Central Pahute Mesa and was chosen to represent expected
migration of tritium from many of the nearby shots that will follow a path around the east side of
Timber Mountain (Figure 9-3). Recall from Figure 9-6 that the pathline from the HOUSTON t
est began in the Tuff Cones, then in succession entered the Welded Tuff Aquifer, the Tuff Cones
again, and then into the Volcanic Confining Unit.
The contours of the tritium concentration as a function of distance and time are given in
Figure 9-14 for the 5, 50, 85, and 95 percent levels. Again, the distance downgradient of the
20,000 pCi/L contour increases and the time of peak decreases as the percentage level increases.
The maximum distance to the 20,000 pCi/L contour at the 50 percent level is approximately
14 km (8.7 mi). At the 95 percent level, the rapid transport in the fractured Welded Tuff Aquifer
yields tritium at 20,000 pCi/L 42 km (26.1 mi) downgradient in less than 25 years from the time
of release. At approximately 45 km (28 mi), the pathline enters the Volcanic Confining Unit and
slows down substantially. This reduction in velocity, caused by the larger effective porosity of
the confining unit, allows radioactive decay to completely remove the tritium before appreciable
additional transport takes place. The simulated tritium concentration exceeds 20,000 pCi/L at all
dose receptor locations until 45 km (28 mi) along this pathline. The peak tritium concentration at
the 95th percent level in the HOUSTON pathline is expected to reach the NTS border in 16 years
and the western border of Nellis Air Force Range in 22 years, assuming that release of tritium to
the environment occurred immediately following detonation.
The histogram of tritium concentration along the pathline from the HOUSTON test is presented
in Figure 9-15. As before, these data represent all the concentration data for a 30-year period
which is determined from the 95 percent level tritium contour plot in Figure 9-14. The relative
proportion of tritium concentration values that are above 20,000 pCi/L decreases substantially as
the distance from the nuclear test location increases.
9-38
The sensitivity of the results to variability in different parameters is presented in Figures 9-16
through 9-18 for distances of 1, 5, and 20 km (0.6, 3.1, and 12.4 mi), respectively. The
parameters that are varied are the source term concentration, dispersivity, effective porosity,
matrix porosity, block width, and diffusion, recharge coefficient. In addition, sensitivity runs
were performed for four flow parameters: the hydraulic conductivity Zone 1 of the Tuff Cones,
that of the Welded Tuff Aquifer, the coefficients describing the decrease of hydraulic
conductivity with depth for Zone 1 of the Tuff Cones; and that of the Welded Tuff Aquifer. Near
the source the most important parameter is the source term concentration. Further downgradient,
at 5 km (3.1 mi), the importance of the source term concentration is similar to the diffusion
parameters (matrix porosity, block width, and diffusion coefficient) and the recharge coefficient.
At the 20-km distance, the variability in the diffusion parameters and the recharge dominate the
uncertainty in predicted values.
Figure 9-19 is a contour plot of tritium concentration for the case where the initial mass of
tritium was placed in the fractures only. This result is only slightly different from the base case
in Figure 9-14d in terms of maximum extent. The primary differences occur at early time near
the source where concentrations are much larger than in the base case.
For the pathline from Central Pahute Mesa, the most important aspect is that the paths do not
discharge into Oasis Valley, but pass through the Volcanic Confining Unit which substantially
slows the rate of migration and allows radioactive decay to remove the tritium.
9.5.5 Tritium Transport Simulations - TYBO (Western Pahute Mesa)

The TYBO pathline begins at the upgradient location of the PEPATO test, passes through the
KASH test location, and then through TYBO at a distance of 7.8 km (4.8 mi). The tritium
contour plots for the 5, 50, 85, and 95 percent levels are given in Figure 9-20. The pathway from
TYBO is entirely in the Welded Tuff Aquifer, and as a result, rapid fracture flow and transport
dominates the outcome. The discharge area of Oasis Valley is located at about 37 km (23 mi) on
these figures. At the 50 percent level, the distance to the 20,000 pCi/L contours is approximately
30 km (18.6 mi). The tritium concentrations at Oasis Valley do not exceed 20,000 p Ci/L. For
the larger percentage cases (85 percent, 95 percent), tritium concentrations discharging at Oasis
Valley are greater than 106 pCi/L spanning as many as 40 years. At the 95 percent level, the
tritium concentration at Oasis Valley exceeds 20,000 pCi/L from a time of just a few years
following release from the cavity until 115 years. The calculated tritium concentration for the
95th percent level exceeds the limit of 20,000 pCi/L at all dose receptor locations along this
9-41
pathline. Based on the simulations, the peak tritium concentration at the 95-percent level reaches
the NTS border (9.8 km [6.1 mi]) in two years, the northern edge of Oasis Valley (29.4 km
[18.3 mi]) in nine years, and the Nellis Air Force Range border (31.8 km [19.8 mi]) in ten years
from the time of the nuclear test.
The histogram of tritium values that fall within the 30-year period, as defined by the peak
concentrations in the 95-percent contour plot, are given in Figure 9-21. The range of tritium
concentrations at the downgradient discharge point (Oasis Valley at 37.1 km [23.2 mi]) is quite
large and encompasses values larger than 2.2×107 pCi/L. More than 27 percent of the values in
the histogram at Oasis Valley are above 20,000 pCi/L.
The sensitivity results for distances of 1, 10, and 30 km (0.6, 6.2, and 18.6 mi) are presented in
Figures 9-22 through 9-24. At a distance of 10 km (6.2 mi), the uncertainty in source term,
diffusion parameters, and the recharge coefficient are all of about equal importance. Source term
concentration dominates the uncertainty at 1 km (0.6 ft). By 30 km (18.6 mi), the recharge
coefficient and matrix diffusion parameters are more important than the source term.
Two other simulations to address the impact of multiple sources and initial tritium mass in the
fractures are shown in Figure 9-25. Figure 9-25a is a contour plot of tritium concentration for the
case of transport from TYBO alone with no other upgradient nuclear tests. The shorter pathline
means that the Oasis Valley discharge area is located about 30 km downgradient. Tritium
concentrations for the 95 percent level are nearly as large as in Figure 9-20d and remain above
20,000 pCi/L for approximately 100 years. Thus, the comparison of the one-source versus the
multiple-source cases suggests that the multiple sources are not the controlling factor in the large
tritium values predicted at Oasis Valley for the 95 percent level case. The final example is of all
the initial tritium mass in fractures case. This result, Figure 9-25b, yields tritium concentrations
in excess of 1x107 pCi/L at the discharge boundary which are larger than in the base case
(Figure 9-20d). Changes in the conceptual model of the source are important considerations in
the predictions.
All the simulations for the TYBO only nuclear test produce large tritium concentrations at the
Oasis Valley groundwater discharge area for the 95 percent level. At the 50 percent level
(Figure 9-20b), concentrations are between 1,000 and 10,000 pCi/L. These results must be
viewed in relation to the Latin hypercube methodology that was used. Many of the parameters
that govern the transport of tritium are uncertain. The parameter ranges that were used in this
9-46
study were intentionally quite large to ensure that the actual tritium transport does not fall outside
of the range of predicted concentrations. This means that the 5 percent level results should
predict less impact than reality, and the 95 percent level should predict greater impact than
reality.
The results from the PEPATO/KASH/TYBO simulations are used as an example. At the
95-percent level, the predicted tritium concentrations at Oasis Valley should have exceeded
1x106 pCi/L after about two years and remained above 1x106 pCi/L for nearly 40 years. The
time of travel in the simulations begins when the tritium begins to migrate away from a nuclear
test location. There is a lag time between when a nuclear test occurs and the time that
groundwater fills the cavity and begins to carry tritium downgradient. This time lag is unknown,
but is expected to be less than the 21 years since the TYBO nuclear test was conducted. If the
95 percent level contours were a reality, the concentration of tritium in Oasis Valley should have
reached 1x106 pCi/L by now. To date, no tritium concentrations above environmental levels
(approximately 50 pCi/L) have been detected at any monitoring site in Oasis Valley
(DOE, 1995). This suggests that the 85 percent and 95 percent results for Oasis Valley
overestimate concentrations that would occur in reality.
Another consideration in the interpretation of these results is the limitations of the one-
dimensional modeling approach. In the actual groundwater flow system, dispersion causes a
plume to disperse in three dimensions. The one-dimensional approach allows dispersion in one
direction only and, therefore, limits the amount of dilution that can occur. The amount of
additional dilution from a three-dimensional approach was estimated using the analytical model
AT123D (IT, 1996g). The additional dilution is likely to be on the order of a factor of 5 to 200.
An additional source of dilution occurs at the spring discharge locations. It is not clear how
much dilution may occur at the springs because different sources of water converge at the
discharge locations. Subsequent simulations to be performed as part of later scale investigations
will be designed to address questions of three-dimensional dilution.
9.6 Summary
One-dimensional tritium transport simulations were performed along three pathlines originating
from underground test locations: BOURBON, on Yucca Flat; HOUSTON, on Central Pahute
9-53
Mesa; and TYBO, on Western Pahute Mesa. Several observations can be made based on these
results:
• The regional geology, as depicted in the geologic model, is the dominant factor
controlling the horizontal and vertical position of paths.
• At many downgradient receptor locations, the range of maximum tritium concentration is

quite large, often exceeding over five orders of magnitude.
• Matrix diffusion is an important mechanism governing the migration of tritium in

fractured carbonate and volcanic rocks.
• Source term concentration uncertainty is most important near the nuclear test locations
and decreases in importance as the travel distance increases.
• The recharge coefficient which accounts for the total groundwater flux uncertainty is as
important as matrix diffusion at downgradient locations.
• The downgradient distances, beyond which tritium concentration does not exceed
20,000 pCi/L at the 5, 50 and 95 percent levels, are summarized in Table 9-4. These
distances are similar for the BOURBON and HOUSTON pathlines. For the TYBO
pathline, the 20,000 pCi/L concentration level ranges between 14 km (9 mi) at the
5 percent level and 37 km (23 mi) at the 95 percent level, at which point groundwater
is discharged to the surface (Oasis Valley discharge area).
• The results presented at the 95 percent level are expected to be an overestimate of what
will occur in reality.
Table 9-4
Approximate Distances Beyond Which Tritium Concentration
Does Not Exceed 20,000 pCi/L
Distance at 5 Distance at 50 Distance at 95

Nuclear Test Location
Percent Level Percent Level Percent Level
BOURBON Yucca Flat 15 km (9 mi) 20 km (12 mi) 35 km (22 mi)
Central Pahute 2 km (1.2 mi) 14 km (8.7 mi) 42 km (26 mi)

HOUSTON
Mesa
Western Pahute 14 km (9 mi) 30 km (19 mi) 37 km (23 mi)

TYBO
Mesa (Oasis Valley)
9-54
10.0 Risk Assessment
Risk assessment provides estimates relative to the radiological dose and associated risk due to
tritium contamination in the groundwater resulting from underground nuclear testing activities on
the NTS. The human health risk assessment provides a conservative and bounding estimate of
potential health risk to individuals from tritium in the groundwater. The ecological risk
assessment evaluates whether the tritium concentration in groundwater could adversely affect
aquatic and semiaquatic populations, groundwater microorganisms, and special status species.
The risks to hypothetical dose receptors located near the TYBO, HOUSTON, or BOURBON
pathlines were conservatively evaluated based on the tritium transport predictions described in
Section 9.0.
This section contains a summary of the human health and ecological risk assessments. The
objectives and general assumptions are described first, followed by descriptions of the human
health and ecological risk assessment. The associated uncertainties and conclusions are
discussed last. The approach and results are described in detail in the Risk Assessment
10.1 Objectives
The purpose of the risk assessment is to aid in evaluating the highest, credible current and near-
term risk to human health and the environment from underground nuclear testing at the NTS.
The objectives of the risk assessment are as follows:
• Determine if the conservative tritium concentrations predicted by the regional transport

model could result in estimated doses to individuals that exceed the regulatory limits.
• Estimate and evaluate the maximum risk associated with various hypothetical,
conservative land-use scenarios at several dose receptor locations along the fastest
transport pathlines.
• Evaluate the maximum risk to selected ecological receptors of contaminated

groundwater.
10.2 Assumptions
The human health and ecological risk assessments evaluate the relationship between the tritium
concentration in groundwater and the estimated effects it may have on human health and
10-1
ecological dose receptors. To ensure that risks are not underestimated, several conservative
assumptions were made.
A major assumption was that the probability of encountering groundwater contaminated to the
extent estimated (pessimistically) by the transport model is one (1). In other words, the chance
of encountering maximally contaminated water is 100%. However, note that in reality, the
probability of a well encountering such contamination is less than 1, maybe even close to zero,
because the flow path at the concentration used in the risk assessment has to be very narrow.
If the flow path were wider, thus, increasing the probability of drilling into it, concentrations
would drop rapidly owing to lateral dispersion (not accounted for in the transport model).
Therefore, predicted concentration (from the transport model) and the predicted chance of
encountering contamination (from the risk assessment) are, in fact, inversely correlated. In other
words, as one goes up, the other has to go down. In this study, both were assumed to be high.
This results in a purposefully significant overestimation of risk. Other specific assumptions that
add conservatism to the calculated risks are presented throughout the following text.
10.3 Human Health Risk Assessment

The general approach to human health risk assessment is briefly described in this section,
followed by descriptions of the three major components of the assessment: exposure assessment,
dose assessment, and risk characterization.

The human health risk assessment evaluates the mechanisms that enable tritium to be transported
to a human receptor under various land use scenarios. Human metabolic rates and consumption
rates of various foods and water are the links between the tritium source term in the groundwater,
the tritium concentration in a transport medium available to a human, and the actual intake and
subsequent dose to which the human body may be subjected. The exposure mechanisms involve
several environmental media: air, water, soil, and food. Once the exposure mechanisms are
determined, the dose and the resulting risk to human health are calculated.
The human health risk assessment was conducted to determine if the conservative, pessimistic
tritium concentrations predicted by the transport analyses (Section 9.0) could result in estimated
doses to individuals that exceed the limits established in DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation
Protection of the Public and the Environment (DOE, 1993). In addition, the risks associated
with each land-use scenario at appropriate dose receptor locations were estimated. The
10-2
computed risk addresses the lifetime fatal cancer risk and lifetime cancer incidence risk. The
lifetime fatal cancer risk is compared to values based on recommendations for protection to
members of the public promulgated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection
(ICRP, 1991). In addition, the lifetime risk of cancer incidence is compared to cancer estimates
using EPA slope factors which are required to be used for evaluation of risk at Superfund
hazardous waste sites.
This approach to the assessment of risk to human health was performed using the GW.RISK
code (IT, 1996h) for selected exposure locations along the groundwater pathlines from their point
of origin on the Nevada Test Site to potential off-site discharge areas.
The human health risk assessment consisted of the following steps:
• Conduct an exposure assessment which includes the identification of land use scenarios at
the exposure locations along the selected pathlines and calculation of the exposure, which
includes identification of the exposure pathway and scenario, identification of the
potential receptors, and the quantification of the tritium intake.
• Conduct a dose assessment which consists of a description of the toxicity of the

constituent of potential concern, and quantification of the dose associated with exposure
to the constituent of potential concern.
• Characterize risks to human health by calculating the risk values for each type of receptor
at each location along the three fastest pathlines.
10.3.2 Exposure Assessment

Exposure of human receptors to tritiated groundwater was assessed at the selected locations
along the three fastest pathlines described earlier. Exposure assessment consisted of identifying
potential future land uses and the associated tritium exposure scenarios.
10.3.2.1 Land Use Scenarios

The specific land uses considered were developed from input from stakeholder groups such as
the Citizens Advisory Board (CAB). The CAB requested that each land use be considered
independently to avoid assigning a subjective probability to each land use and potentially biasing
the results. Land uses evaluated in the risk assessment are shown on Table 10-1. For each
scenario, the tritium exposure mechanisms, intake, dose, and resultant risk to human health were
evaluated. The land uses evaluated in this assessment are discussed in greater detail in the Risk
Assessment Documentation Package (IT, 1996h).
10-3
Table 10-1
Land-Use Scenarios and Receptors Considered in the
Human Health Risk Assessment
Land-Use Scenario Receptor

Agricultural Adults/Children
Industrial Adults
Mining Adults
Recreational Adults/Children
Residential Adults/Children
Tourism Adults/Children
These land-use scenarios were formulated to be very conservative to ensure that the calculated
doses would bound any realistic dose received by individuals. For example, even scenarios that
are known to be highly unlikely in the near future on the Nevada Test Site, such as tourism, were
considered for added conservatism.
10.3.2.2 Exposure Scenarios

A description of the potential exposure scenarios, including the analytical methods for
calculating the tritium concentrations in the environmental transport media and the tritium intake
by humans, are presented in this section.
10.3.2.2.1 Calculation of Tritium Concentrations

The environmental transport media considered include air, water, soil, and food. Methods of
calculating tritium concentrations derived from tritiated groundwater in these media are
presented. The concentration of tritium in water is assumed to be equal to that of the
groundwater at the exposure location and is not further discussed in this section.
Tritium Concentration in Air

Atmospheric concentration of tritium contained in water vapor is calculated as a function of the
total groundwater production on the Nevada Test Site (2.46 × 106 m3/yr [1,995 ac-ft/yr]), the
tritium concentration in groundwater, the land area of the NTS (3.5 × 109 m2 [3.8 × 1010 ft2])
(DOE, 1996), and a mixing height of 2 m (6.6 ft) (Yu et al., 1993a).
10-4
Tritium Concentration in Soil
The model for calculating tritium concentration in soil was originally designed by Argonne
National Laboratory to determine the flux of contaminated surface water to the saturated zone
(Yu et al., 1993a). The model provides an appropriate relationship between the tritium
concentration in soil water and the tritium concentration in the soil.
The concentration of tritium in soil from tritiated irrigation water is calculated as a function of
the concentration of tritium in irrigation water, the retardation function for tritium in soil,
saturated water content in soil, the bulk density of soil, the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, a
soil-specific exponential parameter, the evapotranspiration coefficient of the soil, the NTS
precipitation rate, and the assumed irrigation rate.
The average evapotranspiration coefficient (unitless) was the value provided for southern Nevada
by Yu et al. (1993b), giving a normal distribution with a mean of 1.1 and a standard deviation of
0.2. The precipitation rate is based on NTS data and was fitted to a normal distribution with a
mean of 0.13 meters per year (m/yr) (0.4 ft/yr) and a standard deviation of 0.1. The irrigation
rate is based on the quantity needed to support agricultural activities. A normal distribution was
assigned with a mean of 1.2 m/yr (3.9 ft/yr), a standard deviation of 0.1, and a range of 1.0 to
1.8 m/yr (3.3 to 5.9 ft/yr). The range and distribution were selected based on the NTS rainfall
and temperature patterns and the way they affect the need for irrigation.
Tritium Concentration in Food

Methods of calculating tritium concentrations in foods such as food crops, beef, milk, and their
by-products are provided.
The tritium concentration in food crops is due to both tritium in irrigation water and tritium in
the air. The tritium concentration in food crops due to tritium in irrigation water is the product of
the tritium concentration in irrigation water and the mass fraction of hydrogen in food crops.
The mass fraction of hydrogen (H) in food crops was obtained from a report by Yu et al. (1993a).
This hydrogen fraction is conservative for many crops having significantly lower water content.
The concentration of tritium in food crops due to tritium in the atmosphere is adapted from the
methodology developed at the Savannah River Laboratory (Hamby, 1993). It is a function of the
tritium concentration in the atmosphere, the fraction of food crop that is water, the ratio of plant
tritium concentration to atmospheric tritium, and the annual average absolute humidity. The
value for the fraction of food crops that is water was obtained from a report by Yu et al. (1993a).
10-5
The ratio of plant tritium concentration to atmospheric tritium is modeled as a triangular
distribution with a peak of 0.8 and a range of 0.4 to 1.2 (Hamby, 1993). The annual, average
absolute humidity has been derived from temperature and relative humidity data provided by the
Las Vegas office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for Pahute Mesa,
Yucca Flat, and Mercury (Soule, 1995; 1996).
The concentration of tritium in beef and beef by-products includes contributions from tritium in
feed crops, drinking water, and ingested soil. The modeling of tritium concentration in beef is
based upon Savannah River Laboratory research (Hamby, 1993). The tritium concentration in
beef due to tritium in feed crops is a product of the equilibrium ratio of tritium in beef to the
cattle’s daily feed ingestion rate, the tritium concentration in cattle feed, and a correction factor
for the radiological decay of tritium during the time from slaughter to consumption. The
analytical variables were modeled as log-normal distributions.
The concentration of tritium in beef due to the cattle’s ingestion of drinking water is a product of
the tritium concentration in drinking water, the transfer coefficient from water to cattle, the beef
cattle water ingestion rate, and a correction factor for tritium decay for the time from slaughter to
consumption.
The concentration of tritium in beef due to cattle ingestion of soil is a product of the tritium
concentration in soil, the cattle soil ingestion rate, and the tritium transfer rate from soil to beef.
The ingestion rate of soil by cattle and dairy cows is from a review performed at the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) and is modeled as a normal distribution with a mean of
0.5 kilogram per day (kg/d) (11 pounds per day [lbs/d]) and a standard deviation of 0.08
(Rope and Adams, 1983). The tritium transfer coefficient from soil to beef was assumed to be a
normal distribution with a mean of 0.01 days per kilogram (d/kg) (0.005 days per pound [d/lb])
and a standard deviation of 0.001.
The total concentration of tritium in beef and its by-products is the sum of the contributions from
feed, drinking water, and soil. The concentration of tritium in beef is typically on the order of
the concentration in tritiated groundwater.
The concentration of tritium in milk and its by-products is calculated in a manner analogous to
the method used to calculate tritium concentration in beef. Dairy cows ingest tritium from feed,
drinking water, and soil. The most significant difference is that dairy cows ingest greater
10-6
quantities of water. In this risk assessment, a mean value of 27.7 gallons per day (gpd)
(105 liters per day [L/d]) was assumed with a standard deviation of 18.3 and a range from 13.2 to
42.3 gpd (50 to 160 L/d) (Yu et al., 1993b). The tritium concentration in milk is approximately
equal to the tritium concentration in groundwater.
10.3.2.2.2 Calculation of Intakes

Tritium may be taken into the body through inhalation or skin absorption of tritiated water vapor,
ingestion or skin absorption of tritiated water, and ingestion of contaminated soil or foods.
Exposure to Tritium in Air

Exposure to air contaminated with tritiated water vapor results in intakes of tritium both by skin
absorption and by inhalation.
The model used to calculate the intake of tritium due to skin absorption is that presented in ICRP
Publication 30, which is based on the investigations of Osborne (1966, 1968). Individuals are
assumed to absorb tritium water vapor through their skin at all times while on site. Absorption
of tritium through the skin is directly proportional to the tritium concentration in the air and
exposure time with a constant of proportionality of 0.01 picoCuries per minute per picoCuries
per cubic meters (pCi/min per pCi/m3) of tritium in the atmosphere.
Inhalation intakes are the product of the breathing rates, the time over which the activity takes
place, and the concentration of tritium in the atmosphere. Breathing rates are controlled
primarily by the amount of oxygen required in the metabolic conversion of food nutrients to the
energy to support the frequency and duration of various physical activities (McLean and
Tobin, 1987). Secondary influences are age, weight, gender, and health. Breathing rates coupled
to food-energy intakes needed to sustain the assumed physical activity levels for the land-use
scenarios for various age and gender groups are from Layton (1993). The mix of physical
activities used in this analysis was for individuals performing outdoor activities as recommended
in the Residual Radioactive Material Guideline (RESRAD) code manual (Yu et al., 1993b).
Exposure to Tritium in Water

Exposure of human individuals to tritiated water results in intakes of tritium both by skin
absorption and by ingestion.
10-7
The analytical expression that quantifies skin intake through wet skin is that of Osborne (1968)
and is a function of skin surface area, intake rate for skin, humidity of air at skin temperature,
specific activity of tritium in water vapor, intake rate due to the blotter effect, and exposure time.
The total skin intake of tritium is the sum of the intakes from the atmosphere and wet skin.
Individuals are assumed to shower, bathe, and otherwise get their skin wet with water having a
tritium concentration equal to that of groundwater.
The calculation method for ingestion intake of tritiated water is analogous to the method for
calculating the inhalation of tritium in air. It is the product of the drinking water ingestion rate,
the tritium concentration in drinking water, and the time that the tritiated water is being ingested.
The rate of drinking water ingestion was obtained from a study by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration’s total diet study (Pennington, 1983). Ingested tritiated water was assumed to be
completely and instantaneously absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and to mix rapidly with
the total body water so that, at all times following ingestion, the concentration of tritium in all
body fluids is equal. Tritiated water was assumed to then be uniformly distributed among all soft
tissue at any time following the intake.
Exposure to Tritium in Soil

Individuals are assumed to inadvertently ingest soil. The tritium intake from soil ingestion for
individuals is modeled like that for dairy and beef cattle. The average ingestion rate is 0.1 grams
per day (g/d) (0.004 ounces [oz.] per day) except for individuals in the agricultural, industrial,
and mining land-use scenarios who are assumed to ingest 0.48 g/d (0.02 oz. per day)
(Yu et al., 1993b). These ingestion rates are slightly higher than the guidance given by
EPA (1991a), but are justified due to the particularly dusty conditions in the desert.
Exposure to Tritium in Food

The intakes from tritium-contaminated food crops, beef, milk, and their by-products were
calculated using southern Nevada-specific consumption rates (Whicker et al., 1990). To provide
a thorough description of the potential tritium intake, the concentration of tritium in pork, eggs,
and poultry was assumed to be the same as in beef. For all land-use scenarios except agriculture,
individuals are assumed to receive 20 percent of their food from farms and ranches using tritiated
water for irrigation and drinking water. The individuals participating in the agricultural land-use
scenario were conservatively assumed to get all of their food from their farm and dairy
operations.
10-8
It was assumed that all food crops were irrigated with tritiated groundwater and that the fraction
of food grown on site is representative for rural areas in the vicinity of the NTS. The types and
amounts of food ingested are representative of average southern Nevada residents
(Whicker et al., 1990). It was also conservatively assumed that ingesting tritium-contaminated
food stuffs results in the tritium being absorbed across the gastrointestinal tract and rapidly and
uniformly mixing with the body fluids.
10.3.3 Dose Assessment

Dose assessment provides dose values that can be compared to benchmark values and/or can be
used to calculate risk values to human health. Tritium intake and dose for each scenario at each
dose receptor location were calculated. Descriptions of the specific approach used in dose
assessment and the resulting doses along the three selected pathlines are provided in this section.
10.3.3.1 Dose Assessment Approach

Descriptions of the radiological effects of tritium, tritium dosimetry theory, and the analytical
methods used in calculating tritium doses are provided in this section.
Tritium, an isotope of the element hydrogen, is both naturally occurring and manufactured. The
radiological half-life of tritium is 12.3 years (Unterweger et al., 1980), decaying to helium while
emitting a beta particle. Tritium beta particles, while of very low energy (18.6 × 10-2 mega-
electron volts [MeV] maximum, 5.7 × 10-3 MeV average), have enough energy to ionize and
excite molecules in their path. Tritium poses no direct external hazard. The penetration range in
tissue of the beta particles released during tritium decay is on the average less than
1 micrometer (µm), and the maximum range is only 6 µm (ICRP, 1983). Because of their small
range in tissue, the tritium betas cannot penetrate through an average size cell in the body nor
through the outer layer of dead skin cells. Therefore, the fundamental issue in tritium dosimetry
is its uptake and distribution within soft tissue in the body.
The amount of energy actually absorbed from radiation by living cells per unit mass of tissue is
known as the absorbed dose. The amount of internal radiation dose is a function of the type and
energy of the emitted radiation and the amount and distribution of the radiation in the body.
Tritium beta particles do not leave the organ in which they originate and, therefore, deposit all of
their energy in that organ. The quantitative measure of energy absorption is the Gray (Gy),
where 1 Gy is taken to represent one joule (J) of energy deposited per kilogram of material.
10-9
The dose is taken to be the average dose over a tissue or organ and is used as an indicator for the
probability of stochastic effects occurring after irradiation.
An example of a stochastic effect is cancer. The biological effects of radiation are brought about
through chemical changes in the cells caused by ionization, excitations, dissociations, and atom
displacements. When determining radiation effects on living organisms, it is necessary to
consider not only the total dosages of ionization produced within the organism, but also such
factors as the density of the ionization, the dose rate, the localization effect, and the rates of both
uptake and elimination of radioactive material.
The dose due to the tritium intakes was calculated by adding all intakes and multiplying the sum
by a dose conversion factor (DCF). The dose conversion factor is calculated using the definition
for absorbed dose stated above. The energy from the tritium beta is assumed to be absorbed in
the soft tissue of the body from which it is eliminated with an average half-time of 8.69 days.
The analytical expression for calculating the DCF is listed below:
(5.12x10 &5 x Q x E x f x Te )
DCF ' (10-1)
ln (2) x S
where:
DCF = Dose conversion factor from pCi intake to rem;
Q = Quality factor for tritium beta emissions (1);
E = Average energy of tritium betas (5.685E-3 MeV/disintegration);
f = Fraction of energy absorbed in soft tissue (10);
Te = Biological half-life in the body (8.692 days);
S = Soft tissue mass of the body (70,200 grams [g]); and
-5
5.12x10 = Unit conversion factor (rem × g/pCi × [MeV/disintegration] × day).
The biological half-life, Te, was modeled as a log-normal distribution with a geometric mean of
8.69 days with a geometric standard deviation of 0.27 for the adult dose receptor (Hamby, 1993).
For the child, the distribution is normally distributed with a mean of 4.95 days and a standard
deviation of 0.35 (Hill and Johnson, 1993). The mass of the soft tissue, S, was modeled for the
adult as a log-normal distribution with a geometric mean of 70,200 g (155 lbs) and a geometric
standard deviation of 0.14 (Hamby, 1993). The mass of soft tissue, S, for the child was modeled
10-10
at a constant, 30,000 g (Lioy et al., 1992). The tritium intakes for each land-use scenario from all
exposure mechanisms at each exposure location were summed and then multiplied by the DCF.
10.3.3.2 Dose Assessment Results

The dose assessment was performed for each receptor location on the three selected pathlines, for
each of the land use scenarios (Table 10-1) by comparing the calculated doses with the
requirements in DOE Order 5400.5 (DOE, 1993). The DOE Order 5400.5 requires that doses to
members of the public not exceed 100 millirems per year (mrem/yr) above natural background
level from DOE activities.
The calculated doses at the 5th, 50th and 95th percent levels at selected receptor locations along
the BOURBON, HOUSTON, and TYBO pathlines are presented. The estimated doses for the
agricultural and residential scenarios are listed in Tables 10-2 and 10-3. The agriculture and
residential land-use exposure scenarios were chosen because they resulted in the maximum dose.
The dose from the other four land-use exposure scenarios are significantly lower. Emphasis of
the following discussion is on whether the dose exceeds regulatory limits off the NTS.
10.3.3.2.1 BOURBON Pathline

Analysis of the BOURBON pathline demonstrates that the tritium concentration and radiation
dose do not exceed the limits established in DOE Order 5400.5 (DOE, 1993) at dose receptor
locations past the NTS boundary. Details on the radiation doses in regard to the BOURBON
pathline are discussed in this section.
The 5th and 50th percentile doses for the adult do not exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit at any dose
location beyond the NTS boundary. The maximum dose to the adult at the 5th and 50th
percentiles from the agriculture exposure scenario is less than 100 mrem/yr at distances past
12.5 km (7.8 mi) from the nuclear test location. The 95th percentile doses for the adult does not
exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit at locations beyond 17.5 km (10.9 mi).
The 5th and 50th percentile doses for the child do not exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit at any
locations past the NTS boundary. The maximum dose to the child at the 5th and 50th
percentiles, from the agriculture exposure scenario, is less than 100 mrem/yr at distance past
12.5 km (7.8 mi). The 95th percentile dose for the child does not exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit
at any dose receptor location past the NTS boundary. The maximum dose at the 95th percentile
10-11
is received in the agriculture scenario and does not exceed 100 mrem/yr at locations past 17.5 km
(7.8 mi).
10.3.3.2.2 HOUSTON Pathline

Analysis of the HOUSTON pathline demonstrates that the tritium concentration and radiation
doses do not exceed the limits established in DOE Order 5400.5 (DOE, 1993) at dose receptor
locations past the NTS and Nellis Air Force Range boundaries. At the 5th, 50th and 95th
percentile, the dose to the adult or child for all exposure scenarios did not exceed the limit of
100 mrem/yr at any dose receptor location past the NTS boundary (Tables 10-2 and 10-3).
Table 10-2
Estimated Dose for Potential Agricultural Scenario at the Nevada Test Sitea
Adult Annual Dose Child Annual Dose

(percentile) (percentile)
Distance
Location (mrem/yr)a (mrem/yr)
(kilometers)
5 50 95 5 50 95
BOURBON Pathline - Agricultural Scenario
0.1 KANKAKEE 3.2 × 101 7.1 × 102 1.3 × 104 3.1 × 101 6.8 × 102 1.3 × 104
10 BOURBON 2.1 × 101 4.1 × 102 4.0 × 103 2.0 × 101 3.9 × 102 3.7 × 103
70 NTS Boundary 2.4 × 10-4 2.2 × 10-3 5.5 ×10-3 2.4 × 10-4 2.1 × 10-3 4.7 × 10-3
HOUSTON Pathline - Agricultural Scenario
0.1 HOUSTON 9.2 × 101 1.1 × 103 1.2 × 104 9.0 × 101 1.0 × 103 1.2 × 104
30 NTS Boundary 3.7 × 10-4 3.3 × 10-3 6.7 × 100 3.5 × 10-4 3.1 × 10-3 6.3 × 100
40 Nellis Air Force 2.5 × 10-4 2.7 × 10-3 9.1 × 10-1 2.4 × 10-4 2.5 × 10-3 9.0 × 10-1
Range Boundary
TYBO Pathline - Agricultural Scenario

0 2 3 0 2 3
0.1 PEPATO 7.7 × 10 1.3 × 10 1.7 × 10 7.1 × 10 1.3 × 10 1.7 × 10
9.8 TYBO & NTS 1.7 × 101 3.7 × 102 2.6 × 103 1.7 × 101 3.5 × 102 2.5 × 103
Boundary
31.8 Nellis Air Force 5.7 × 10-4 1.3 × 10-1 1.8 × 102 5.2 × 10-4 1.2 × 10-1 1.7 × 102
Range Boundary
37.1 Oasis Valley 5.7 × 10-4 1.2 × 10-1 1.4 × 102 5.5 × 10-5 1.2 × 10-1 1.4 × 102
Discharge Area
a
mrem/yr = Millirems per year
10-12
Table 10-3
Estimated Dose for Potential Residential Scenario at the Nevada Test Sitea
Adult Annual Dose Child Annual Dose

(percentile) (percentile)
Distance (mrem/yr)a (mrem/yr)
Location
(kilometers)
5 50 95 5 50 95
BOURBON Pathline - Residential Scenario
0.1 KANKAKEE 2.1 × 101 4.5 × 102 8.2 × 103 1.2 × 101 2.4 × 102 4.4 × 103
10 BOURBON 1.2 × 101 2.5 × 102 2.7 × 103 6.6 × 100 1.4 × 102 1.4 × 103
70 NTS Boundary 1.6 × 10-4 1.4 × 10-3 3.7 × 10-3 8.6 × 10-5 7.6 × 10-4 1.8 × 10-3
HOUSTON Pathline - Residential Scenario
0.1 HOUSTON 5.8 × 101 6.8 × 102 7.9 × 103 3.3 × 101 3.7 × 102 4.1 × 103
30 NTS Boundary 2.3 × 10-4 2.1 × 10-3 4.3 × 100 1.3 × 10-4 1.1 × 10-3 2.3 × 100
40 Nellis Air Force Range 1.6 × 10-4 1.7 × 10-3 5.8 × 10-1 1.0 × 10-4 9.1 × 10-4 3.2 × 10-1
Boundary
TYBO Pathline - Residential Scenario
0.1 PEPATO 5.3 × 100 8.1 × 101 1.1 × 103 2.9 × 100 4.4 × 101 6.0 × 102
9.8 TYBO & NTS 1.2 × 101 2.4 × 102 1.7 × 103 6.8 × 100 1.3 × 102 9.1 × 102
Boundary
31.8 Nellis Air Force Range 3.4 × 10-4 6.0 × 10-2 1.2 × 102 1.9 × 10-4 3.1 × 10-2 6.4 × 101
Boundary
37.1 Oasis Valley 3.5 × 10-4 1.2 × 10-1 1.4 × 102 1.9 × 10-4 4.7 × 10-2 6.4 × 101
Discharge Area
a
10.3.3.2.3 TYBO Pathline

Analysis of the TYBO pathline indicates that tritium concentrations and radiation doses exceed
the 100 mrem/yr limit established in DOE Order 5400.5 (DOE, 1993) at dose receptor locations
downgradient of the NTS border.
At the 5th percentile, the 100-mrem/y limit was not exceeded past a distance of 0.1 km (0.06 mi)
for both of the agricultural and residential scenarios. However, for the agriculture exposure
scenario at locations less than 14.7 km (9.1 mi) and for the residential exposure scenario at
10-13
location less than 12.2 km (7.6 mi), the 50th percentile dose for the adult receptors exceeded the
100-mrem/yr limit. These include locations that are off the NTS but not beyond the Nellis Air
Force Range boundary. The 50th percentile dose did not exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit for any
other adult dose receptors at locations off the NTS.
At the 95th percentile, the 100-mrem/yr limit is exceeded at all dose receptor locations for the
agricultural exposure scenario. For the adult residential exposure scenario, the 95th percentile
dose exceeds 100-mrem/yr at locations beyond both the NTS and the Nellis Air Force Range
boundaries. The 95th percentile dose for the industrial, mining, and recreation exposure
scenarios exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit at locations off the NTS, but it is not exceeded beyond
the Nellis Air Force Range boundary. The 95th percentile dose for the adult tourist exposure
scenario does not exceed the 100 mrem/yr limit at locations beyond 2.9 km (1.8 mi) from the
TYBO test location; this is located on the NTS.
The dose to the child is slightly less than the dose to the adult at the 50th percentile for all
exposure scenarios. Despite the difference in dose, the location where the dose to the child is
less than 100 mrem/yr occurs close to the same location as for the adult.
10.3.4 Risk Characterization

The risk results are presented in terms of maximum simulated distances to points along the
pathlines representing regulatory guidelines relating to Superfund sites. The guidelines are as
follows:
• The 10-4 lifetime total cancer incidence represents the risk level above which an
immediate interim remedial action must be taken at Superfund sites.
• The 10-6 lifetime total cancer incidence represents the risk level below which no
corrective action is needed at Superfund sites.
These limits were used for comparison purposes only. They do not constitute regulatory limits
that are applicable to DOE operations in Nevada.
The calculated risks at the 5th, 50th and 95th percent levels at selected receptor locations along
the BOURBON, HOUSTON, and TYBO pathlines are presented. The estimated risks for the
10-14
agricultural and residential scenarios are listed in Tables 10-4 through 10-7. Again, the
agriculture and residential land-use exposure scenarios were chosen because they resulted in the
maximum doses and risks. The doses and risks from the other four land-use exposure scenarios
are significantly lower. Emphasis of the following discussion is on whether the risk exceeds 10-4
lifetime total cancer incidence.
10.3.4.1 Risk Characterization Approach

Risk is expressed as the lifetime probability of a latent cancer fatality (LCF), a total cancer
incidence (TCI), nonfatal cancer incidence, and a severe hereditary or genetic detriment. The last
two risks are combined in this analysis and defined as the radiological detriment. A risk factor is
a distribution that provides a numerical correlation between a dose and the effect the dose will
have on a person. Radiological risk factors are based largely on epidemiological data, primarily
from studies examining the radiological health effects of high doses and high dose rates of
external exposure. Risk is not a direct function of the absorbed dose. An absorbed dose can
result in different risk based upon the characteristics of the radiation and the type of tissue
irradiated. When comparing the relative toxicities or damage potential of different radiations,
equal energy absorption is assumed.
The predominant risk from radiation exposure is cancer incidence. Radiation-induced cancers
may have a latency period, that is, delayed onset, of 20 years or longer. Therefore, cancer death
is referred to as latent cancer fatality. The radiological risk estimates include the lifetime risk for
latent cancer fatality and the total cancer incidence.
10.3.4.2 Risk Characterization Results

This section describe the lifetime risks at the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles at locations along the
TYBO, HOUSTON, and BOURBON pathlines. The estimated risks for the agricultural and
residential scenarios are listed in Tables 10-4 through 10-7. Tables 10-4 and 10-6 list the risks to
adult receptors and Tables 10-5 and 10-7 list the risks to child receptors.
10.3.4.2.1 BOURBON Pathline

Analysis of the BOURBON pathline demonstrates that the lifetime cancer incidence risk does
not exceed 1 × 10-4 at any dose receptor location beyond the NTS boundary. Results are
summarized in Tables 10-4 through 10-7.
10-15
Table 10-4
Estimated Risk for Potential Agricultural Adult Scenario at the Nevada Test Sitea
Lifetime Fatal Lifetime Cancer Incidence

Cancer Risk (Slope Factor)
Distance (percentile) (percentile)
Location
(kilometers)
5 50 95 5 50 95
BOURBON Pathline
0.1 KANKAKEE 4.8 × 10-4 1.1 × 10-2 2.0 × 10-1 1.3 × 10-3 2.9 × 10-2 5.5 × 10-1
10 BOURBON 3.2 × 10-4 6.1 × 10-3 6.0 × 10-2 9.0 × 10-4 1.7 × 10-2 1.6 × 10-1
70 NTS Boundary 3.6 × 10-9 3.3 × 10-8 8.2 × 10-8 1.0 × 10-8 9.1 × 10-8 2.0 × 10-7
HOUSTON Pathline
10-16
0.1 HOUSTON 1.4 × 10-3 1.6 × 10-2 1.9 × 10-1 3.9 × 10-3 4.4 × 10-2 5.0 × 10-1
30 NTS Boundary 5.6 × 10-9 4.9 × 10-8 1.0 × 10-4 1.5 × 10-8 1.3 × 10-7 2.7 × 10-4
40 Nellis Air Force Range Boundary 3.6x10-9 4.0 × 10-8 1.4 × 10-5 1.0 × 10-8 1.1 × 10-7 3.9 × 10-5
TYBO Pathline
0.1 PEPATO 1.2 × 10-4 2.0 × 10-3 2.6 × 10-2 3.1 × 10-4 5.4 × 10-3 7.1 × 10-2
9.8 TYBO & NTS Boundary 2.6 × 10-4 5.5 × 10-3 3.8 × 10-2 7.2 × 10-4 1.5 × 10-2 1.1 × 10-1
31.8 Nellis Air Force Range Boundary 8.5 × 10-9 2.0 × 10-6 2.7 × 10-3 2.3 × 10-8 5.4 × 10-6 7.4 × 10-3
37.1 Oasis Valley Discharge Area 8.5 × 10-9 1.9 × 10-6 2.1 × 10-3 2.3 × 10-8 5.1 × 10-6 5.8 × 10-3
a
This table reflects potential risks for the Agricultural Exposure Scenario for an adult receptor.
b
Table 10-5
Estimated Risk for Potential Agricultural Child Scenario at the Nevada Test Sitea

Location
(kilometers)
5 50 95 5 50 95
BOURBON Pathline
0.1 KANKAKEE 1.4 × 10-4 3.1 × 10-3 5.7 × 10-2 2.9 × 10-4 6.4 × 10-3 1.2 × 10-1
10 BOURBON 9.1 × 10-5 1.7 × 10-3 1.7 × 10-2 2.0 × 10-4 3.6 × 10-3 3.5 × 10-2
70 NTS Boundary 1.1 × 10-9 9.5 × 10-9 2.1 × 10-8 2.2 × 10-9 2.0 × 10-8 4.3 × 10-8
HOUSTON Pathline
10-17
0.1 HOUSTON 4.1 × 10-2 4.6 × 10-3 5.2 × 10-2 8.4 × 10-4 9.4 × 10-3 1.1 × 10-1
30 NTS Boundary 1.6 × 10-9 1.4 × 10-8 2.8 × 10-5 3.3 × 10-9 2.9 × 10-8 5.9 × 10-5
40 Nellis Air Force Range Boundary 1.1 × 10-9 1.1 × 10-8 4.0 × 10-6 2.2 × 10-9 2.4 × 10-8 8.4 × 10-6
TYBO Pathline
0.1 PEPATO 3.2 × 10-5 5.7 × 10-4 7.4 × 10-3 6.7 × 10-5 1.2 × 10-3 1.5 × 10-2
a
This table reflects potential risks for the Agricultural Exposure Scenario for a child receptor.
Table 10-6
Estimated Risk for Potential Residential Adult Scenario at the Nevada Test Sitea

Location
(kilometers)
5 50 95 5 50 95
BOURBON Pathline
0.1 KANKAKEE 3.2 × 10-4 6.8 × 10-3 1.2 × 10-1 8.8 × 10-4 1.8 × 10-2 3.3 × 10-1
10 BOURBON 1.8 × 10-4 3.8 × 10-3 4.1 × 10-2 5.2 × 10-4 1.0 × 10-2 1.1 × 10-1
70 NTS Boundary 2.4 × 10-9 2.1 × 10-8 5.5 × 10-8 6.4 × 10-9 5.7 × 10-8 1.3 × 10-7
HOUSTON Pathline
10-18
0.1 HOUSTON 8.7 × 10-4 1.0 × 10-2 1.2 × 10-1 2.4 × 10-3 2.8 × 10-2 3.2 × 10-1
30 NTS Boundary 3.4 × 10-9 3.1 × 10-8 6.4 × 10-5 9.4 × 10-9 8.4 × 10-8 1.7 × 10-4
TYBO Pathline
0.1 PEPATO 7.9 × 10-5 1.2 × 10-3 1.7 × 10-2 2.2 × 10-4 3.3 × 10-3 4.6 × 10-2
a
This table reflects potential risks for the Residential Exposure Scenario for an adult receptor.
Table 10-7
Estimated Risk for Potential Residential Child Scenario at the Nevada Test Sitea

Location
(kilometers)
5 50 95 5 50 95
BOURBON Pathline
0.1 KANKAKEE 5.5 × 10-5 1.1 × 10-3 2.0 × 10-2 1.1 × 10-4 2.3 × 10-3 4.2 × 10-2
10 BOURBON 3.0 × 10-5 6.1 × 10-4 6.2 × 10-3 6.4 × 10-5 1.3 × 10-3 1.3 × 10-2
70 NTS Boundary 3.9 × 10-10 3.4 × 10-9 8.0 × 10-9 8.0 × 10-10 7.1 × 10-9 1.6 × 10-8
HOUSTON Pathline
10-19
0.1 HOUSTON 1.5 × 10-4 1.6 × 10-3 1.9 × 10-2 3.0 ×10-4 3.4 × 10-3 3.9 × 10-2
30 NTS Boundary 5.7 × 10-10 5.0 × 10-9 1.0 × 10-5 1.2 × 10-9 1.0 × 10-8 2.1 × 10-5
TYBO Pathline
0.1 PEPATO 1.3 × 10-5 2.0 × 10-4 2.7 × 10-3 2.7 × 10-5 4.1 × 10-4 5.6 × 10-3
a
This table reflects potential risks for the Residential Exposure Scenario for a child receptor.
The estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk to adults at the 5th and 50th percentiles does not
exceed 1 × 10-4 at dose receptor locations past 15 km (9 mi) for the agriculture exposure scenario.
The 95th percentile estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk to adults does not exceed 1 × 10-4 at
dose receptor locations for the agriculture exposure scenario beyond the NTS boundary. For all
exposure scenarios, the 95th percentile estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk for adults does
not exceed 1 × 10-4 at any dose receptor location beyond 30 km (19 mi) downgradient.
The lifetime radiation detriment and fatal cancer risk to adults at the 50th percentile do not
exceed 1 × 10-4 at any dose receptor location past the NTS boundary. The maximum lifetime
radiation detriment and fatal cancer risk to adults at the 50th percentile are from the agriculture
exposure scenario, and neither exceeds 1 × 10-4 at distances beyond 15 km (9 mi). At the 95th
percentile, the lifetime radiation detriment and fatal cancer risk do not exceed 1 × 10-4 at any
dose receptor locations beyond 30 km (19 mi).
The estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk to the child at the 5th, 50th and 95th percentile does
not exceed 1 × 10-4 for any dose receptor location past the NTS boundary. The maximum
estimated lifetime cancer incidence at the 95th percentile is from the agriculture exposure
scenario. The risk does not exceed 1 × 10-4 for distance beyond 25 km (15.5 mi).
The estimated lifetime fatal cancer risks to the child do not exceed 1 × 10-4 at the 5th, 50th and
95th percentile for any dose receptor location past the NTS boundary.
10.3.4.2.2 HOUSTON Pathline

Analysis of the HOUSTON pathline demonstrates that the estimated cancer incidence risks do
not exceed 1 × 10-4 for any dose receptor location beyond the Nellis Air Force Range boundary.
The risk for the HOUSTON pathline are discussed in this section. These details are summarized
in Tables 10-4 through 10-7.
At the 5th and 50th percentiles, the estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk to the adult or child
for all exposure scenarios did not exceed 1 × 10-4 at any location past the NTS boundary. At the
95th percentile, the estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk to the adult does not exceed 1 × 10-4
at locations past 35 km (21.7 mi), which is beyond the NTS boundary but still on the Nellis Air
Force Range. At the 95th percentile, the lifetime cancer incidence, lifetime fatal cancer, or
lifetime radiation detriment risk to the child does not exceed 1 × 10-4 at any dose receptor
location beyond the NTS for any exposure scenario. At the 95th percentile, the lifetime fatal
10-20
cancer risks to the adult and the child do not exceed 1 × 10-4 at any location beyond the Nellis Air
Force Range boundary.
10.3.4.2.3 TYBO Pathline

Analysis of the TYBO pathline indicates that the estimated cancer incidence risks exceed
1 × 10-4 for some land-use exposure scenarios at locations beyond the Nevada Test Site. Details
on the risk for the TYBO pathline are discussed in this section. Results are summarized in
Tables 10-4 through 10-7.
The estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk to the adult at the 5th percentile for the agricultural
and residential exposure scenarios exceeds 1 × 10-4 at all dose receptor locations within a
distance of 12.2 km (7.6 mi) of the nuclear test location. The estimated lifetime cancer incidence
risk to adults at the 50th percentile for the agricultural, residential, industrial, and mining
exposure scenarios exceeds 1 × 10-4 at all dose receptor locations on the NTS. This risk level is
also exceeded at dose receptor locations on the Nellis Air Force Range up to 24.5 km (15.2 mi),
but not at locations beyond the Nellis Air Force Range boundary. For the recreational and
tourism exposure scenarios at the 50th percentile, the cancer incident risk is less than 1 × 10-4 at
all locations past 19.6 km (12.2 mi) and 12.2 km (7.6 mi) respectively, within the Nellis Air
Force Range boundary. At the 95th percentile, the lifetime cancer incidence risk to adults
exceeds 1 × 10-4 for all exposure scenarios at all dose receptor locations beyond the Nellis Air
Force Range boundary except for tourism.
The estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk to the child at the 5th percentile exceeds 1 × 10-4 at
all dose receptor locations up to 2.9 km (1.8 mi) for the agricultural exposure scenario, and up to
0.1 km (0.06 mi) for all other scenarios. The estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk to the child
at the 50th percentile exceeds 1 × 10-4 at all dose receptor locations up to 19.6 km (12.2 mi) for
the agricultural exposure scenarios. For the child participating in the tourism exposure scenario
the estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk at the 50th percentile does not exceed 1 × 10-4 at any
dose receptor location. The 95th percentile estimated lifetime cancer incidence risk for the child
participating in the agriculture and residential exposure scenarios exceed 1 × 10-4 at all dose
receptor locations.
The lifetime fatal cancer risk and radiation detriment to the adult at the 5th and 50th percentiles
exceed 1 × 10-4 at locations past the NTS boundary, but within the Nellis Air Force Range
boundary. At the 95th percentile, the lifetime fatal cancer risk and radiation detriment to the
10-21
adult exceeds 1 × 10-4 at all locations beyond the Nellis Air Force Range boundaries for the
agriculture and residential exposure scenarios.
The lifetime fatal cancer risk and radiation detriment to the child participating in the agriculture
and residential exposure scenarios at the 5th and 50th percentiles exceeds 1 × 10-4 at all locations
on the NTS, but not beyond the Nellis Air Force Range boundary. At the 50th percentile, the
lifetime fatal cancer risk and radiation detriment to the child tourist is less than 1 × 10-4 at all
dose receptor locations. The lifetime fatal cancer risk and radiation detriment to the child at the
95th percentile exceeds 1 × 10-4 at all dose receptor locations past the NTS boundary and at all
locations for the agriculture and resident exposure scenario. At the 95th percentile, the lifetime
fatal cancer risk and radiation detriment to the child for the recreation and tourism exposure
scenarios do not exceed 1 × 10-4 at dose locations past the Nellis Air Force Range boundary.
10.4 Ecological Evaluation

This section contains an overview of the ecological risk assessment performed for the regional
evaluation of the Underground Test Area. The comprehensive ecological risk assessment is
contained within the Risk Assessment Documentation Package (IT, 1996h). The ecological risk
assessment is divided into site description, problem formulation, exposure characterization, and
risk evaluation.

The ecological risk assessment was conducted following the general guidance of the Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II, Environmental Evaluation Manual (EPA, 1989)
and is organized in a manner consistent with the format suggested in the Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment (EPA, 1992). The ecological risk assessment calculates the tritium
concentration in groundwater that would result in a specific dose rate to the selected ecological
receptors.
To estimate risk to these receptors, a toxicological benchmark was used. The toxicological
benchmark is a maximum dose rate recommended by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements Scientific Committee on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation on
Aquatic Organisms (NCRP, 1991 as cited in Kahn, 1992). This benchmark is expected to
provide protection to aquatic and semiaquatic populations. The tritium concentration in
groundwater that would result in the toxicological benchmark dose rate is known as the threshold
value. The ecological risk assessment estimates the threshold value and compares it to the
10-22
modeled tritium concentration in groundwater where the selected ecological receptors are
located.
Risk calculations are dependent upon many factors that are either not well quantified or vary
unpredictably over space and time. A degree of uncertainty is associated with each step of the
risk assessment. In this risk assessment, elements of uncertainty are described for each step in
the process, and uncertainty is considered in the final evaluation of risk. In addition, because a
large amount of uncertainty is associated with modeling groundwater flow, quantifying exposure,
and the estimating of dose and resultant risk, Monte Carlo analysis techniques have been
employed to quantitatively assess the effect of uncertainty on the modeling results.
The ecological risk assessment consisted of the following steps:
• Formulate the problem by identifying the constituent of concern, the study site, exposure
pathways, and ecological endpoints
• Characterize the ecological exposure by identifying contaminant transport, flow

phenomena, and specific ecological receptors and quantifying exposure point
concentrations for both primary and secondary exposure pathways
• Characterize the ecological effects by defining quantitative links between contaminant

concentrations and their effects on receptors
• Characterize the risk by describing potential risks to ecological receptors and populations
of interest.
10.4.2 Problem Formulation

Problem formulation is the first step of the ecological risk assessment process. The process
begins with the initial stages of characterizing exposure and describing the relationships among
assessment and measurement endpoints, data required, and methodology used to analyze the
data.
The UGTA study area is defined as impacted groundwater created by underground nuclear
testing. Therefore, any way in which the groundwater may contact an ecological receptor was
evaluated for the potential to present a risk to the NTS and surrounding ecosystems. Points of
contact were eliminated from further consideration where an element necessary to complete an
exposure pathway was determined to be lacking.
10-23
10.4.2.1 Study Site Identification
Site features that are important to the ecological risk evaluation include topography, groundwater
and surface hydrology, climate, and biota. These physical and biological characteristics of the
NTS region are summarized in Section 2.0 of this report. The biological characteristics are
described in greater detail in the Risk Assessment Documentation Package (IT, 1996h). These
characteristics provide the building blocks from which the conceptual model of the site was
developed. There are several areas where groundwater flowing under the NTS discharges to the
surface, downgradient from the NTS. These discharge areas were considered as study sites
where potential exists for the completion of a pathway from the contaminant source to an
ecological receptor. In addition, groundwater both on and off site was considered a study site for
groundwater microorganisms.
Conceptual Site Model

A conceptual site model (Figure 10-1) was developed describing sources of constituents present,
constituent release and transport mechanisms, potential routes of migration, and potential
ecological receptors.
Study Site Descriptions

Study sites consists of exposure points which correspond to areas on and downgradient from the
NTS where aquatic and semiaquatic biota may come in contact with tritium-contaminated
groundwater, originating from the underground test areas. These study sites consist of areas
where groundwater discharges to the surface under natural or man-made conditions. In addition,
all regional groundwater located on the NTS and downgradient from the underground test areas,
was considered a medium of concern for groundwater microorganisms.
On-Site Exposure Points

Although several springs exist on the NTS, they are known to originate from perched water
zones and not from the regional groundwater flow system (Laczniak et al., 1996).
Contamination associated with these springs is, therefore, not likely to be associated with
underground testing activities conducted at or below the water table. However, these springs
may be affected by nuclear testing conducted at the surface or in the unsaturated zone. Because
this report relates to the regional groundwater flow system, the NTS springs were not considered
as potential ecological exposure locations.
10-24
algae pupfish heron
direct ingestion ingestion

exposure
surface absorption
groundwater water
direct
exposure
groundwater
microorganism
Figure 10-1
Simplified Ecological Exposure Pathway Model
Animals inhabiting the NTS may, however, be exposed to contaminated groundwater under man-
made conditions, such as pumping of highly contaminated (above regulatory limits)
groundwater, and storing it in surface facilities that are accessible to wildlife, such as sumps.
Although these conditions are highly unlikely at the present time, they constitute one of the
future possibilities.
Off-Site Exposure Points

Several areas where the NTS regional groundwater flow system discharges through springs and
seeps constitute ecological exposure points outside of the NTS. These discharge areas are Ash
Meadows, Oasis Valley, Furnace Creek, and Amargosa Canyon.
Ash Meadows is a large, spring-fed lowland area where the NTS groundwater flow system is
known to discharge. Ash Meadows is a unique riparian ecosystem located in southwestern
Nye County, Nevada, and southeastern Inyo County, California. It is approximately 150 km
(90 mi) northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, at 670 m (2,200 ft) above sea level. The Ash Meadows
10-25
soils are silts and clays with slow internal drainage and high salt content, and the water table is
near the surface in much of the area. Approximately 25 springs exist in the northern and eastern
parts of Ash Meadows. Many of the springs are in lime-encrusted pools. There are also
numerous small streams, meadows with continuously moist soils, and groves of small ash trees,
hence the name Ash Meadows. Ash Meadows is characterized by more than thirty seeps and
springs which discharge in the range of 20 to 25 × 107 cubic meters (m3) (5.3 to 6.6 x 1010
gallons) of water annually (AMNWR, 1989). This discharge may be described as “fossil” water,
having taken over 10,000 years to reach its Ash Meadows destination (Baugh and Deacon,
1983). Aside from groundwater discharge, the only other source of water to this area is rain,
averaging less than 0.06 m (2.4 in.) per annum. As is typical of the desert environment, the
annual evaporation rate is quite high, averaging 2.5 m (8.2 ft) (Sada, 1990). This area supports a
wide variety of biota, including more than 25 endemic species.
Ash Meadows was designated as a National Wildlife Refuge in June 1984. That designation
followed decades of groundwater pumping and habitat destruction, to which it is believed the
extinction of two, and possibly more, species may be directly attributed. While the refuge
wholly encompasses much of the critical habitat for several of the sensitive species of the area,
many of the plant species are more widespread and are not entirely protected within the confines
of the refuge. In an uncommon arrangement, the refuge houses a small portion of the Death
Valley National Monument (the Devil’s Hole area) which was incorporated into the monument
in the late 1950s. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge at
Ash Meadows, and the U.S. Park Service has authority over the Devil’s Hole area.
The Oasis Valley and headwaters of the Amargosa River form the second largest spring-fed area
in the region, and vegetation is similar between the two areas. Oasis Valley is located in
southwestern Nevada, adjacent to the Nevada-California border. Both small and large springs
are found in Oasis Valley. The larger springs include the Beatty Springs which are used as the
municipal water supply for Beatty, an unnamed spring north of the Ranch Trueba headquarters,
Goss Springs, an unnamed spring at the Fleur-de-lis Ranch, and an unnamed spring in the
Amargosa Narrows just south of Beatty. Other springs include Indian Springs, Crystal Springs,
Long Spring, and several hot springs. The average depth to water below the land surface in areas
with phreatophyte vegetation (e.g., salt grass, Bermuda grass, greasewood, and salt brush) is 2 to
3 m (6.5 to 10 ft). The high rate of evaporation and poor drainage characteristics of the soil have
resulted in soils of high salinity, evidenced by soils encrusted by a salt efflorescence at the
surface (Malmberg and Eakin, 1962).
10-26
Furnace Creek
Springs in the Furnace Creek area of Death Valley include Travertine Springs and Texas Spring.
Travertine Springs consists of open soil ditches that collect the water and convey it to a concrete-
lined ditch and a sump intercepting water that is not collected by the ditch system. This water is
piped for human usage. Some of the water from the springs recharges the fan at Furnace Creek
Wash. The entrance of the Texas Spring tunnel consists of approximately 15 m (50 ft) of parallel
rock-retaining walls shored up by timber. As of 1974, plans existed to further alter the spring for
human usage (Douglas and Sanchez, 1974).
Amargosa Canyon
Amargosa Canyon along the Amargosa River may be an area that receives UGTA-impacted
groundwater. It is one of the three segments of the 264-km (164-mi) Amargosa River that
contains permanently flowing water. It lies approximately 65 km (40 mi) north of the town of
Baker in San Bernardino County, California. Just north of the canyon is Tecopa Hot Springs.
The flow entering the canyon emanates from subterranean flows where numerous minor springs
and seeps feed the river.
10.4.2.2 Exposure Pathways

By definition, the Underground Test Area has only one transport medium: groundwater. The
groundwater discharge areas form points of potential environmental contact for plant and animal
receptors. Still to be determined is whether there is a source and mechanism and whether there
may be an exposure route at the exposure point. Exposure routes by which fish and semiaquatic
wildlife, algea, and microorganisms may be exposed to contaminated groundwater are described.
Possible exposure routes by which fish and semiaquatic wildlife may be exposed to tritium from
the underground test areas include consumption of contaminated animal or plant tissues and
consumption of contaminated abiotic media (groundwater). However, because desert species are
often adapted to survive in water-limited environments, direct consumption of water was
considered a pathway of secondary importance and was not evaluated.
Some contaminants may be bioaccumulated in plants or animal tissues and passed through food
web interactions to higher trophic levels. The ability of contaminants to be passed from lower to
higher trophic levels is dependent on their flow inside the plant or prey animal. If the
contaminant is solely ingested and excreted by the prey, without absorption from the
gastrointestinal tract and storage in its tissues, then the exposure of higher trophic levels is
10-27
minimized. The dose received by the predator is dependent upon the contaminant concentration
in the prey, its ingestion rate, and the amount of contaminated matter consumed. This route of
exposure is believed to be the major exposure route for fish and semiaquatic receptors associated
with the underground test areas.
Algae have been studied at several of the natural springs, and these lower plants may directly
absorb tritium, as water would be absorbed, across the cellular membrane. Submerged portions
and the roots of vascular wetland plants may also be exposed to tritium either by absorption or
through root uptake. Exposure of algae to tritium was evaluated. Passive or active transport of
contaminants across cellular membranes is the route by which deep subsurface microorganisms
may be exposed to groundwater within aquifers. This pathway was also addressed.
10.4.2.3 Endpoints
This section contains a discussion of the assessment and measurement endpoints used. Some
individual organisms may be more sensitive to tritium than others; therefore, protection of
individuals would not be a practical goal. The exception is those instances where a special status
or protected species is involved. In this case, individual organisms must also be protected from
environmental perturbations. The overall assessment endpoint for this risk assessment is the
protection of aquatic and semiaquatic populations, groundwater microorganisms, and special
status individuals from adverse effects that may be associated with exposure to tritium in the
environment.
Adverse effects to biota were assessed or measured through the use of available groundwater and
surface-water monitoring data, flow and transport modeling results, and toxicity-based
benchmark toxicity values. Current monitoring data were used to address present impacts, and
data obtained through flow and transport modeling were used to evaluate potential future impacts
to aquatic and semiaquatic biota. Radiological benchmarks have been established for terrestrial
animal and plant populations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 1991, as cited
in Kahn, 1992) and for aquatic populations by the National Council for Radiation Protection and
Measurements (NCRP, 1991). In addition, radiation effects data were gleaned to obtain
benchmarks specific to sensitive life stages of protected species. Monitoring data and modeling
results were compared to the benchmark values. Adverse impacts were predicted to occur when
benchmarks were exceeded.
10-28
10.4.3 Exposure Assessment
To characterize the ecological exposure, the contaminant transport from groundwater to the
receptors, the specific receptors, and the tritium exposure models used are described.
Exposure point concentrations are tritium concentrations in both on- and off-site groundwater
wells. Concentrations of tritium in groundwater at surface discharge points were also used as
exposure point concentrations. In both cases, current concentrations were obtained from
monitoring data (maximum concentrations), and simulated concentrations (the 95 percent value
of each of the Monte Carlo realizations) were obtained the results of the transport model.
Four specific receptors were selected to evaluate possible adverse effects on biota that are closely
associated with the discharge points. These receptors are the great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
a predatory bird assumed to feed exclusively on fish; a generic pupfish (adult and eggs) to
represent the protected fish within the surface water systems; a generic algae that represents a
plant maximally exposed to surface water; and a generic groundwater microorganism to
represent the bacteria and protozoans in groundwater.
Two complementary radioecological dose models were used in the evaluation of risk to fish and
wildlife. An aquatic dose model created by Pacific Northwest Laboratory was used to estimate
the concentration of tritium in water necessary to produce a dose of 1 rad/d to the pupfish and a
dose of 0.1 rad/d to the heron (Baker and Soldat, 1992). In addition, an aquatic dose model
developed by Blaylock et al. (1993) was used to estimate the concentration in surface water that
would result in a dose of 0.04 rad/d to fish eggs. The external dose from tritium to the pupfish,
fish eggs, and heron was not considered because the external dose rate from immersion and
sediment is zero (Baker and Soldat, 1992). Consequently, tritium will not pose an external threat
to an organism. Exposure to tritium will, however, result in an internal dose to these receptors.
Tritium is a unique radioactive threat because it is found as part of the water molecule itself. The
tritium will, therefore, distribute itself uniformly and quickly throughout the body of an
organism. More comprehensive discussions of the models and their associated assumptions are
presented in the Risk Assessment Documentation Package (IT, 1996h).
10.4.4 Effect Assessment

Because tritium is a radionuclide, adverse effects associated with exposure to tritium will be
attributed to radiation. Tritium is not a chemically toxic compound. Consequently, the
discussion that follows will focus on the effects of radiation exposure.
10-29
The dosage and biological effectiveness of radiation due to tritium incorporated in biological
tissues has been studied primarily in laboratory animals and cell cultures, although some data
exist for aquatic organisms. A major concern for tritium is incorporation into deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA). The radioactive decay of tritium in a DNA molecule can result in breakdown or
rearrangement of the molecule, resulting in genetic or somatic defects. However, the ionizing
radiation of decaying tritium in cells is probably more likely (NCRP, 1979). Radiotoxic effects
of tritiated water exposure to embryos and fetuses are consistent with those expected from an
equivalent, absorbed dose of external radiation (NCRP, 1979). These effects include tumors
(NCRP, 1979) and chromosome aberrations (Straume and Carsten, 1993).
The radioactive hydrogen isotope tritium enters aquatic systems in the form of tritiated water.
Tritium can be exchanged just as hydrogen between the tissue-water compartment and the tissue-
bound compartment. Tritium bioaccumulation factors are approximately one (1), reflecting
equilibration between ambient water and tissue water. Another pathway for entry of tritium into
the nonexchangeable component for animals is the ingestion and incorporation of food molecules
containing nonexchangeable tritium. In studies on a herbivorous fish, calculations showed
60 percent of nonexchangeable hydrogen came from tissue-water hydrogen and 40 percent from
food. However, food-chain transfer of exchangeable tritium hydrogens is unimportant because
equilibrium conditions with ambient water exist in both consumer and food items, and turnover
occurs more rapidly than food intake. In plants, photosynthesis and other reduction reactions
incorporate tritium into the nonexchangeable component of plants (Vanderploeg et al., 1975).
Information regarding the responses of groundwater organisms to toxicants is very limited

(Notenboom et al., 1994). Such information is primarily focused on heavy metals and organic
contaminants. Because specific data on potential adverse impacts of radiation on groundwater
fauna could not be found in the open literature, impacts on UGTA groundwater receptors will be
assessed qualitatively based on information on radiation effects on freshwater microorganisms.
According to Whicker and Schultz (1982), ranges of acute lethal doses (LD) to bacteria and
protozoans are approximately 4,000 to 90,000 rads and 8,000 to 30,000 rads, respectively. The
lethal LD50 (dose at which 50 percent of exposed individuals die in 60 days) range for aquatic
microorganisms under acute radiation exposure is 10,000 to 500,000 rads (NCRP, 1991, as cited
in Kahn, 1992).
A dose rate of 1 rad/d was used as the toxicological benchmark for the protection of aquatic life
with emphasis on adult pupfish. This value has been recommended by the NCRP Scientific
10-30
Committee on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms (NCRP, 1991, as cited in
Kahn, 1992) and is expected to provide protection to aquatic populations. Radioecologists have,
however, shown differential sensitivities of fish to radiation as a function of age
(e.g., Polikarpov, 1966; NCRP, 1991). According to Ophel and his colleagues (IAEA, 1976),
teleost fish (bony fish), and their eggs and young in particular, are the most sensitive aquatic
organisms known. A compilation of LD50 data for rainbow trout (Salmo gaudnerii) exposed to
radiation during various stages of development indicate adult fish with an LD50 of 1,500 rad and
the egg at the one-cell stage (the most sensitive stage for this species) with an LD50 of 58 rad
(Polikarpov, 1966). Based on these studies, a benchmark for pupfish eggs was set at 26 times
less than the benchmark of 1 rad/d set for adult pupfish, or 0.04 rad/d. The lowest concentration
of tritiated water to which developing eggs have been exposed and biological effects reported is
1.0 x 1012 pCi/L (Strand et al., 1973). This value is associated with rainbow trout eggs exposed
six hours after fertilization, and a suppression of the immune response (antibody production) was
noted in fish fry.
A comparison of acute lethal doses to primitive plants, higher plants, bacteria, fish, and birds
indicates that algae and bacteria are considerably less sensitive to the adverse effects of radiation
than either birds or fish (Whicker and Schultz, 1982). Based on this information, the value of
1 rad/d is expected to provide sufficient protection to each of the aquatic receptor species
selected with the exception of fish eggs. Because the heron is a semiaquatic species, a more
conservative benchmark (pessimistic) value was used to provide sufficient protection to the bird.
The IAEA Committee on the Effects of Ionizing Radiations on Plants and Animals recommends
a dose of 0.1 rad/d for the protection of terrestrial populations (IAEA, 1992).
10.4.5 Ecological Risk Evaluation

To provide sufficient protection to pupfish (all life stages), heron, algae, and microorganisms that
may be exposed to tritium, the concentrations of tritium in groundwater should not exceed
9.32 x 107 pCi/L. This concentration would result in a dose of 0.028 rad/d to adult pupfish,
0.027 rad/d to pupfish eggs, and 0.1 rad/d to the heron that ingests the fish. In contrast, a dose of
1 rad/d to the pupfish and a dose of 3.61 rad/d to the heron would result from a tritium
concentration in water of 3.37 × 109 pCi/L. A concentration of 1.38 × 108 pCi/L was estimated
as the concentration of tritium in groundwater that would result in a dose of 0.04 rad/d to pupfish
eggs. Because this concentration would not offer suitable protection to the heron, the more
protective threshold concentration for the aquatic and semiaquatic receptors associated with the
springs, or 9.37 × 107 pCi/L, was used as the threshold value below which adverse impacts to
10-31
birds and fish would not be expected. Because algae and microorganisms are less sensitive to the
effects of radiation than fish and birds, protection of the pupfish and the heron should allow for
sufficient protection to algae, higher plants, and microorganisms exposed to tritium. The tritium
concentration of 9.32 × 107 pCi/L should, therefore, be the threshold concentration for protection
of the spring ecosystems.
The transport model results indicate that tritium concentrations in groundwater both on and off
site may exceed the toxicity-based benchmark set for heron by less than an order of magnitude.
For the TYBO groundwater pathline, potentially hazardous concentrations of tritium are
expected to occur from the TYBO nuclear test location to about 10 km (6.2 mi) downgradient.
This distance is off the NTS, but still within the Nellis Air Force Range. Along the HOUSTON
pathline, groundwater tritium concentrations in excess of 9.3 x 107 pCi/L are expected to occur
from the source to about 2 km (1.2 mi) downgradient from the HOUSTON nuclear test location.
Finally, tritium concentrations from the BOURBON pathline through Yucca Flat area to
Amargosa Valley/Ash Meadows are expected to exceed the toxicological benchmark for
groundwater microorganisms from the source to about 2 km (1.2 mi) downgradient. It is,
therefore, possible that future tritium concentrations in groundwater might adversely impact the
populations of groundwater organisms located within a few kilometers of the underground test
locations.
In contrast, transport modeling results indicate that tritium concentrations in excess of 9.3 x 107
pCi/L are not expected to reach the off-site springs. Concentrations at the three discharge points
modeled range from 8 × 106 pCi/L for the TYBO pathline down to 0.9 pCi/L for the BOURBON
pathline. Future concentrations of tritium at the surface water discharge points are, therefore, not
expected to adversely impact fish, heron, algae, or groundwater microorganisms.
10.5 Uncertainties
The results of any risk assessment contain uncertainties due to the following general sources:
• Parameter uncertainties
• Completeness uncertainties
• Model uncertainties
The parameter uncertainty, such as exposure and toxicity factors, contains a combination of
parameter uncertainty and model uncertainty. Parameter uncertainty is the dominant contributor
to the total uncertainty of an exposure estimate.
10-32
Completeness uncertainty relates to whether all major pathways, contaminants, and release
mechanisms have been included in the risk assessment. It is unlikely that a significant pathway
has been excluded altogether; more likely, a pathway may have been assumed to be present when
it actually is not. Completeness uncertainty is not expected to be a large contributor to the total
uncertainty of a given risk estimate.
Model uncertainties are the most difficult to address due to the unknown nature of its sources.
Examples of model uncertainties include the derivation of the latent cancer fatality and cancer
incidence risk responses in human health risk assessment and postulated mechanisms of action
used to quantify toxicity for the ecological risk receptors. Additional sources of model
uncertainty include dispersion estimates which are usually theoretical in nature, not analytical.
Two major types of uncertainties should be considered when reviewing the results of the
exposure assessment: uncertainties associated with determining the tritium concentration at the
receptor location (i.e., transport mechanism) and those associated with the assumptions used in
the exposure models. These uncertainties are described in the following paragraphs.
The uncertainties in the transport mechanisms were bounded by using Monte Carlo techniques,
applying Latin hypercube sampling of the distributions, and choosing the 95th percentile tritium
concentration distribution at all dose receptor locations.
Uncertainties associated with the assumptions used in the exposure models include the selecting
of the 95th percentile tritium concentration distribution as input, assuming a probability of one
for all land use exposure scenarios at all dose receptor locations, assuming a receptor inhabits a
single location for thirty years, and that the computed tritium concentration is accurately modeled
over the thirty year exposure time.
For exposure parameters such as exposure time, exposure frequency, and exposure duration, the
potential to overestimate is high, and the potential to underestimate risk is low. These qualitative
ratings are based on best professional judgment and do not represent actual quantitative analysis
of uncertainty. The greatest contributor to uncertainty in the tritium intake by the dose receptor
for each land use is associated with the uncertainty in the concentration of tritium in
groundwater.
10-33
10.6 Summary
Projected tritium concentrations in groundwater, the estimated radiation doses received by
individuals from chronic exposure to tritium, and the corresponding human health risks for six
potential land-use scenarios have been calculated. The land-use scenarios were formulated to be
very conservative to ensure that the calculated exposures would bound any realistic dose received
by individuals. Estimated doses and risks are summarized in Tables 10-2 through 10-7. These
calculations are representative of the conservative scenarios evaluated for tritium exposure.
Complete sets of dose and risk estimations for each of the land-use scenarios can be found in the
Risk Assessment Documentation Package (IT, 1996h).
The TYBO pathline has the greatest potential for off-site release, with a projected groundwater
discharge at Oasis Valley. Fate and transport calculations indicate that the peak tritium
concentration may have reached the end of the TYBO pathline 14 years after the release of
tritium. The time of release could have occurred in 1974. Therefore, the risk estimates
developed for the TYBO pathline may be considered to exist now, and they are bounded by the
95th percentile values.
The agriculture adult scenario is the most conservative of the four scenarios presented here. The
following summarizes the results of that scenario. The results focus on concentrations, doses,
and risks that are predicted to occur beyond the active control boundary, which for the TYBO
and HOUSTON pathlines is the Nellis Air Force Range boundary and for the BOURBON
pathline is the NTS boundary.
Along the TYBO pathline, concentrations are not predicted to exceed 20,000 pCi/L beyond the
Nellis Air Force Range boundary. Doses are predicted to exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit at the
95th percentile. Lifetime cancer incidence and fatal cancer risks are predicted to exceed the
10-4 level at the 95th percentile and the fatal cancer risk at the 50th percentile for the 10-6 level
are predicted for receptor locations beyond the Nellis Air Force Range boundary.
Along the HOUSTON pathline, concentrations at the 95th percentile are predicted to exceed the
20,000-pCi/L level beyond the Nellis Air Force Range boundary. Doses are not predicted to
exceed the 100-mrem/yr level beyond the boundary. Lifetime cancer incidence and fatal cancer
risk exceeding 10-6 at the 95th percentile level are predicted beyond the Nellis Air Force Range
boundary.
10-34
Along the BOURBON pathline, no concentrations exceeding 20,000 pCi/L, no doses exceeding
100 mrem/yr, and no cancer incidence or fatal cancer risks exceeding 10-6 are predicted to occur
beyond the NTS boundary.
Two complementary radiological dose models were used to evaluate risk to fish and wildlife.
A tritium concentration of 9.32 × 107 pCi/L was selected as the threshold level for protection of
pupfish eggs in the spring ecosystems. Also, a dose of 1 rad/d to pupfish and a dose of 3.6 rad/d
for the heron are calculated as exposure thresholds both corresponding to a tritium concentration
of 3.37 × 109 pCi/L in spring discharge or irrigation ditch water. Estimated tritium
concentrations, calculated through fate and transport modeling at the 95th percentile, were not
projected to go beyond 6.2 × 106 pCi/L at the spring discharge points.
The dose and risk calculations demonstrate the following:
• Within the next several years, quantifiable potential risks from long-term exposure of
tritium in groundwater were simulated to occur at receptor points along the TYBO
pathway.
• In the near term, tritium migration from HOUSTON and BOURBON do not contribute to
human health hazards off the NTS.
• As a result of the high ecotoxicological thresholds associated with tritium exposure,

future ecological risks are not anticipated to occur.
10-35
11.0 Summary and Conclusions
This report documents the results of the regional evaluation of groundwater flow, tritium
migration, and risk assessment performed for the underground test areas of the NTS. The
regional evaluation comprised data analysis and hydrologic and risk modeling, which were
necessary steps in developing an understanding of the migration of tritium in groundwater from
the underground test areas to potential human and ecological receptors. The hydrologic models
that were used to understand and predict the migration of tritium included a regional three-
dimensional groundwater flow model and a conservative (pessimistic), one-dimensional tritium
transport model. The risk evaluation was also conservative and focused solely on the human
health and ecological effects of tritium in the groundwater.
11.1 Summary
Historical testing activities, particularly nuclear tests conducted near or below the water table,
contaminated groundwater within the Nevada Test Site. Tritium was selected as the primary
contaminant of concern for this phase of the project because it is abundant, highly mobile, and
represents the most significant contributor to the dose for the short term. It was assumed that the
predicted risk to human health and the environment from tritium exposure would reasonably
represent the risk from other, less mobile radionuclides within the same time frame. Other
radionuclides will be investigated at a later date.
Existing and newly collected data were compiled for a large area of southern Nevada and
California, encompassing the NTS regional groundwater flow system. These data were used to
develop numerical groundwater flow and tritium transport models to be used in the prediction of
tritium concentrations at potential human and ecological receptor locations for a 200-year time
frame.
Groundwater velocities derived from the calibrated steady-state regional groundwater flow model
were used to predict the movement of contaminants from the underground testing areas on a
regional scale. The range of uncertainty in these predictions due to uncertainties associated with
the hydrologic parameters was also evaluated.
11-1
Sensitivity analyses were performed during the groundwater flow model calibration process to
evaluate basic flow model assumptions such as the geologic model, the recharge distributions,
and the hydraulic-conductivity parameters.
The sensitivity analyses of the different geologic models confirmed that a modeling barrier to
flow in the area of Calico Hills westward to Bare Mountain resulted in matching estimated
discharge rates at Oasis Valley and observed gradients in that area. In addition, an interpretation
that the Upper Clastic Confining Unit is continuous beneath Rainier Mesa was consistent with
water levels observed in this area and provided good agreement with water-level data near
Rainier Mesa and in western Yucca Flat. The sensitivity analysis performed on 116 hydraulic
conductivity values showed that the effect on water levels and boundary fluxes was small. The
response in an area was dependent on local conditions such as the geometric relationships
between hydrostratigraphic units and the three-dimensional extent of the HSU.
The numerical groundwater flow model results were also used in conjunction with a particle-
tracking code to define the pathlines followed by groundwater particles originating from
415 points associated with 253 nuclear test locations. The locations selected were BOURBON
on Yucca Flat, HOUSTON on Central Pahute Mesa, and TYBO on Western Pahute Mesa.
One-dimensional stochastic tritium transport simulations were performed for the three pathlines,
using the Monte Carlo method with Latin hypercube sampling. For the BOURBON and TYBO
pathlines, sources of tritium from other nuclear tests located along the same pathline were
included in the simulations. Sensitivity analyses were also performed on the transport model to
evaluate the uncertainties associated with the geologic model, recharge, the tritium source, and
the transport parameters.
For many of the downgradient receptor locations, the simulated range of maximum tritium
concentrations was quite large, often extending over five orders of magnitude. Simulated tritium
concentrations were high (5 x 108 pCi/L) in the vicinity of the nuclear test locations for all three
pathlines. For the BOURBON pathline, the simulated tritium concentration was low
(<100 pCi/L) outside the NTS boundary. For HOUSTON, the concentration 15 km (9 mi)
outside the Nevada Test Site boundary is less than 100 pCi/L. However, for the TYBO pathline,
transport simulations indicate that the peak tritium concentration reached the end of the TYBO
pathline 14 years after the release of tritium. The time of release might have been as early as
1974.
11-2
Based on sensitivity analysis, the regional geology as depicted in the geologic model is the
dominant factor controlling the horizontal and vertical position of transport pathways. Matrix
diffusion is an important mechanism governing the migration of tritium in fractured carbonate and
volcanic rocks. Source term concentration uncertainty is most important near the nuclear test
locations and decreases in importance as the travel distance increases. The recharge coefficient,
which accounts for the total groundwater flux uncertainty, is as important as matrix diffusion at
downgradient locations.
The risk assessment was performed to provide conservative and bounding estimates of the
potential risks to human health and ecological receptors from tritium in groundwater. Risk
models were designed by coupling scenario-specific tritium intake with tritium dose models and
cancer and genetic risk estimates using the Monte Carlo method.
Estimated radiation doses received by individuals from chronic exposure to tritium and the
corresponding human health risks at selected key point-of-use locations along each of the
pathlines were calculated for six potential land-use scenarios. Conservative land-use scenarios
were postulated to ensure that the calculated exposures would bound any realistic dose received
by individuals. For each pathline, the selected point-of-use locations corresponded to a point
near the source, the location where the pathline crosses the NTS boundary, the location where the
pathline crosses the Nellis Air Force Range boundary, and the point of discharge to the surface in
the case of the TYBO pathline only.
Based on the human-health risk estimates, tritium exposures associated with the HOUSTON and
BOURBON pathlines do not present a hazard to human health off the Nevada Test Site in the
present, the near term, or in the future. However, the estimates show that the TYBO pathline has
the greatest potential for off-site release with a projected groundwater discharge at Oasis Valley.
Using the most conservative scenario evaluating tritium exposure demonstrates that dose could
exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit at locations along the TYBO pathline.
For the TYBO pathline the limiting land-use scenarios resulting in the highest estimated risk and
dose are agriculture and residential. At the 50th percentile the estimated dose to adult and child
receptors do not exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit at locations beyond 12.2 km (7.6 mi) from the
PEPATO test location. This includes locations off the NTS, but not beyond the Nellis Air Force
Range boundary. The dose to the residential adult and child dose receptor, at the 50th percentile,
does not exceed the 100-mrem/yr limit at any location beyond the NTS boundary. At the 95th
11-3
percentile the estimated dose to dose receptors exceeds the 100-mrem/yr limit at locations
beyond the Nellis Air Force Range boundary.
For the TYBO pathline, the estimated lifetime total cancer incidence risk, at the 50th percentile,
does not exceed 10-4 at locations beyond 19.6 km (12.2 mi) for the adult and child dose receptors
engaged in the agriculture land-use scenario. This location is off the NTS, but is not beyond the
Nellis Air Force Range boundary. At the 95th percentile the estimated risk to all dose receptors
exceeds 10-4 at locations beyond the Nellis Air Force Range boundary.
Two complementary radiological dose models were used to evaluate risk to fish and wildlife.
A tritium concentration of 9.32 x 107 picoCuries per liter was selected as the threshold level for
protection of pupfish eggs in the spring ecosystems. Also, a dose of 1 rad/day to pupfish and a
dose of 3.6 rad/day for the heron were calculated as exposure thresholds, both corresponding to a
tritium concentration of 3.37 x 109 pCi/L in spring discharge or irrigation ditch water. Estimated
tritium concentrations, calculated through fate and transport modeling at the 95th percentile,
were not projected to exceed 6.2 x 106 pCi/L at the spring discharge points.
11.2 Conclusions
Near-term risks to human health and ecological receptors were conservatively calculated based
on tritium migration predictions from nuclear test locations associated with the BOURBON,
HOUSTON, and TYBO pathlines. The conclusions are as follows:
• In the near term, tritium migration from HOUSTON and BOURBON does not constitute
a human health hazard off the NTS.
• As a result of the high ecotoxicological thresholds associated with estimated tritium

exposure, future ecological risks are not expected to occur.
• Based on transport simulations and the incorporation of several conservative

assumptions, a potential risk from long-term exposure to tritium in groundwater may
exist at off-site receptor locations along the TYBO pathline.
The estimated risks from the TYBO pathline are not supported by results from the existing
environmental monitoring network. Long-term monitoring of water samples from the Oasis
Valley springs and groundwater wells west and south of the Pahute Mesa do not show tritium
levels above the background levels. As the transport model was intended to predict contaminant
11-4
levels if multiple, pessimistic conditions existed, monitoring results support the conclusion that
tritium is migrating at a more normal, non-exceptional rate. In other words, the conservative
assumptions used to predict tritium transport to Oasis Valley do not appear to be valid in reality.
11-5
12.0 References
AMNWR, see Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge.
ASTM, see American Society of Testing Materials.
American Society for Testing Materials. 1994. Standard Guide for Comparing Ground-Water
Flow Model Simulations to Site-Specific Information, D 5490-93. Philadelphia, PA.
Armstrong, R.L. 1968. “Sevier Organic Belt in Nevada and Utah.” In Geological Society of
America Bulletin, 79 (40): 429-458.
Arteaga, F.E., C.S. Savard, M.E. Johnson, and J.C. Stone. 1991. Hydrogeologic Data from
Selected Wells and Test Holes In and Adjacent to the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,
Through 1986, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 87-356.
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge. 1989. “An Oasis of Life in the Desert,” Fact Sheet.
Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, NV.
BN, see Bechtel Nevada.
Baker, D.A., and J.K. Soldat. 1992. Methods for Estimating Doses to Organisms from
Radioactive Materials Released into the Aquatic Environment, PNL-8150. Richland, WA:
Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
Barone, F.S., R.K. Rowe, and R.M. Quigley. 1992. “Estimation of Chloride Diffusion
Coefficient and Tortuosity Factor for Mudstone.” In ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 118 (7): 1031-1045.
Baugh, T.M., and J. Deacon. 1983. “Daily and Yearly Movement of the Devil’s Hole Pupfish,
Cyprinodon diabolis, Wales in Devil’s Hole, Nevada.” In Great Basin Naturalist, 43: 592.
Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of Groundwater. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bechtel Nevada. 1996. “Nevada Test Site Region Image Map,” SIGIS-NTS-96038.
Las Vegas, NV: Remote Sensing Laboratory.
Blankennagel, R.K., and J.E. Weir. 1973. Geohydrology of the Eastern Part of the Pahute
Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 712B.
12-1
Blaylock, B.G., M.L. Frank, and B.R. O’Neal. 1993. Methodology for Estimating Radiation
Dose Rates to Freshwater Biota Exposed to Radionuclides in the Environment,
ES/ER/TM-78. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Borg, T.Y. 1972. Extent of Prevasive Fracturing Around Underground Nuclear Explosions,
UCRL-73831. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
Borg, I.R., R.Stone, H.B. Levy, and L.D. Ramspott. 1976. Information Pertinent to the
Migration of Radionuclides in Ground Water at the Nevada Test Site, Part 1: Review and
Analysis of Existing Information, UCRL-52078. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory.
Bryant, E.A., and J. Fabrika-Martin. 1991. Survey of Hazardous Materials used in Nuclear
Testing, LA-12014-MS. Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Burbey, T.J., and S.W. Wheatcraft. 1986. Tritium and Chlorine-36 Migration from a Nuclear
Explosion Cavity, Publication No. 45050. Las Vegas, NV: Desert Research Institute.
Burkhard, N.R. 1989. Physical Properties in LLNL Yucca Flat Areas: The ROCK PILE
Concept. Livermore CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Cashman, P.H., and J.H. Trexler, Jr. 1994. “The Case for Two, Coeval, Mississippian Sections
at the Nevada Test Site.” In Geological Investigations of an Active Margin, 27th Annual
Meeting, San Bernardino, CA, March 21-23, 1994: 76-81. S. F. Mc Gill and T.M. Ross, eds.
Geological Society of America.
Caskey, S.J., and R.A. Schweickert. 1992. “Mesozoic Deformation in the Nevada Test Site and
Vicinity: Framework of the Cordilleran Fold and Thrust Belt and Tertiary Extension North of
Las Vegas Valley.” In Tectonics, 11 (6): 1314-1331.
Cole, J.C., R.R. Wash, and M.R. Hudson. 1989. “Structural Relations Within the Paleozoic
Basement of the Mine Mountain Block; Implications for Interpretation of Gravity Data in
Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site.” In Proceedings from the fifth Symposium on Containment of
Underground Nuclear Explosions, held on September 19-21, 1989 at Santa Barbara, CA,
CONF-8909163, 2: 431-456. Santa Barbara, CA: Mission Research Corporation.
Cole, J.C., J.H. Trexler, Cashman, P.H., and M.R. Hudson. 1994. “Structural and Stratigraphic
Relations of the Mississippian Rocks at the Nevada Test Site.” In Geological Investigations
of an Active Margin, 27th Annual Meeting, San Bernardino, CA, March 21-23, 1994: 66-75.
Cordilleran Section Guidebook. S.F. McGill and T.M. Ross, eds. Geological Society of
America.
Czarnecki, J.B. 1985. Simulated Effects of increased Recharge on the Ground-Water Flow
System of Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Nevada-California, U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report 84-4344.
12-2
Czarnecki, J. B. 1990. Geohydrology and Evapotranspiration at Franklin Lake Playa, Inyo
County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 90-356.
DOE, see U.S. Department of Energy.
DOE/NV, see U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office.
D’Agnese, F.A. 1994. “Using Geoscientific Information Systems for Three-Dimensional

Modeling of Regional Groundwater Flow Systems, Death Valley Region, Nevada and
California.” Unpublished PH.D. thesis. Golden, CO: Colorado School of Mines.
Daniels, J.I, ed. 1993. Pilot Study Risk Assessment for Selected Problems at the Nevada Test
Site (NTS), UCRL-LR-113891. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Decision Engineering. 1995. Crystal Ball Software, Version 4.0 for Windows. Denver, CO.
Dettinger, M.D., J.R. Harrill, and D.L. Schmidt. 1995. Distribution of Carbonate-Rock Aquifers
and the Potential for Their Development, Southern Nevada and Adjacent Parts of California,
Arizona, and Utah, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4146.
Douglas, C., and P. Sanchez. 1974. Potential Environmental Impacts of Proposed Water Supply
Systems in Furnace Creek and Cow Creek, Death Valley National Monument. National Park
Service.
EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ERDA, see U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration.
Eakin, T.E., G.B. Maxey, T.W. Robinson, J.C. Fredericks, and O.J. Loeltz. 1951. “Estimated
Annual Increment to Groundwater, in Contributions to the Hydrology of Eastern Nevada.”
In Water Resources Bulletin 12, 26-27. State of Nevada, Nevada State Engineers Office.
FFACO, see Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order of 1996.
Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. 1996. Agreed to by the State of Nevada, the
U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Defense.
Feenstra, S., J.A. Cherry, E.A. Sudicky, and Z. Hag. 1984. “Matrix Diffusion Effects on
Contaminant Migration from an Injection Well in Fractured Sandstone.” In Groundwater,
22 (3): 307-316.
Ferguson, J.F., A. H. Cogbill, and R. G. Warren. 1994. “A Geophysical-Geological Transect of

the Silent Canyon Caldera Complex, Pahute Mesa, Nevada.” In Journal of Geophysical
Research, 99 (B3): 4323-4339. American Geophysical Union.
12-3
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gelhar, L.W. 1982. Analysis of Two-Well Tracer Tests with a Pulse Input, RHO-BW-CR-131P.
Richland, WA: Rockwell Hanford Operations.
Gelhar, L.W., C. Welty, and K.R. Rehfeldt. 1992. “A Critical Review of Data on Field-Scale
Dispersion in Aquifers.” In Water Resources Research, 28 (7): 1954-1974.
Grauch, V.J.S., and M.R. Hudson. 1995. Preliminary Analysis of Major Structures and
Lithologic Boundaries for the Frenchman Flat Model Area. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological
Survey.
Grisak, G.E., and J.F. Pickens. 1980. “Solute Transport Through Fractured Media 1: The Effect
of Matrix Diffusion.” In Water Resources Research, 16 (4): 719-730.
Grose, T.L.T. 1983. Thirty-Two Geologic Cross-Sections, Clark, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral
and Nye Counties, Nevada, and Adjacent Areas in California, Open-File Report 83-13.
Carson City, NV: Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology.
Guth, P.L. 1981. “Tertiary Extension North of the Las Vegas Valley Shear Zone, Sheep and
Desert Ranges, Clark County, Nevada.” In Geological Society of American Bulletin, Part I,
92 (10): 763-771.
Hadermann, J., and W. Heer. 1996. “The Grimsel (Switzerland) Migration Experiment
Integrating Field Experiments, Laboratory Investigations and Modeling.” In Journal of
Contaminant Hydrology, 21: 87-100.
Hamby, D.M. 1993. “A Probabilistic Estimation of Atmospheric Tritium Dose.” In Health

Physics, 65 (6): 628-647. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Hardman, G. 1936. Nevada Precipitation and Acreages of Land by Rainfall Zones. Reno, NV:
U.S. Department of Agriculture Experimental Station, University of Nevada.
Hardman, G. 1965. Nevada Precipitation and Acreages of Land by Rainfall Zones. Reno, NV:
U.S. Department of Agriculture Experimental Station, University of Nevada.
Harrill, J.R. 1986. Ground-Water Storage Depletion in Pahrump Valley, Nevada-California

1962-1975, U.S, Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2279.
Harrill, J.R., J.S. Gates, and J.M. Thomas. 1988. “Major Ground-Water Flow systems in the
Great Basin Region of Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States,” U.S. Geological Survey Atlas
HA-694-C.
12-4
Harrison, B., E.A. Sudicky, and J.A. Cherry. 1992. “Numerical Analysis of Solute Migration
Through Fractured Clayey Deposits Into Underlying Aquifers.” In Water Resources
Research, 28 (2): 515-526.
Hill, M.C. 1990. Preconditioned Conjugate-Gradient 2 (PCG2), A Computer Program for

Solving Ground-Water Flow Equations, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources
Investigation Report 90-4048.
Hill, M.C. 1992. A Computer Program (MODFLOWP) for Estimating Parameters of a

Transient, Three-Dimensional, Ground-Water Flow Model Using Nonlinear Regression,
U.S. Geological Open-File Report 91-84.
Hill, R.L., and J.R. Johnson. 1993. “Metabolism and Dosimetry of Tritium. In Health Physics
65: 628-647. New York: Pergamon Press.
Hughes, J.L. 1966. Some Aspects of the Hydrology of the Spring Mountains and Pahrump
Valley, Nevada, and Environs, as Determined by Spring Evaluation. Reno, NV: McKay
School of Mines, University of Nevada-Reno.
Hunt, G.B., T.W. Robinson, W.A. Bowles, and A.L. Washburn. 1966. Hydrologic Basin Death
Valley, California, U.S. Geological Professional Paper 494-B.
Huyakorn, P.S., and G.F. Pinder. 1983. Computational Methods in Subsurface Flow.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
IAEA, see International Atomic Energy Agency.
ICRP, see International Commission on Radiological Protection.
IT, see IT Corporation.
Iman, R.L., J.M. Davenport, and D.K. Ziegler. 1980. Latin Hypercube Sampling (Program
User’s Guide), SAND79-1473. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.
International Atomic Energy Agency. 1976. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic

Organisms and Ecosystems, Technical Report Series No. 172. Vienna, Austria.
International Atomic Energy Agency. 1991. Airborne Gamma Ray Spectrometer Surveying,
Technical Reports Series No. 323. Vienna, Austria.
International Atomic Energy Agency. 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and
Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards, Technical Report
Series 332. Vienna, Austria.
12-5
International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1978. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides
by Workers, Publication 30, Part 1. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1983. Radionuclide Transformations:

Energy and Intensity of Emissions, Publication 38. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. 1991. 1990 Recommendations of the

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 60. New York, NY:
Pergamon Press.
IT Corporation. 1996a. Regional Geologic Model Documentation Package (Phase I Data

Analysis Documentation, Volume I). Prepared for DOE/NV. Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996b. Potentiometric Data Documentation Package (Phase I Data Analysis

Documentation, Volume II). Prepared for DOE/NV. Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996c. Groundwater Recharge and Discharge Data Documentation Package

(Phase I Data Analysis Documentation, Volume III). Prepared for DOE/NV.
Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996d. Hydrologic Parameter Data Documentation Package (Phase I Data

Analysis Documentation, Volume IV). Prepared for DOE/NV. Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996e. Transport Parameter and Source Term Data Documentation Package
(Phase I Data Analysis Documentation, Volume V). Prepared for DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996f. Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (Phase I Data

Analysis Documentation, Volume VI). Prepared for DOE/NV. Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996g. Tritium Transport Model Documentation Package (Phase I Data

Analysis Documentation, Volume VII). Prepared for DOE/NV. Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996h. Risk Assessment Documentation Package (Phase I Data Analysis

Documentation, Volume VIII). Prepared for DOE/NV. Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996i. MC_TRANS: A Stochastic Advective-Dispersive Transport Code for

Multiple Constituents in Dual Porosity or Fractured Geological Media. Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy. Las Vegas, NV.
IT Corporation. 1996j. Wells ER-6-1 and ER-6-2 Core Fracture Analyses and Geophysical Log
Comparisons, ITLV/10972/171. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Las Vegas, NV.
12-6
IT Corporation. 1996k. Underground Test Area Fracture Analysis Report: Analysis of
Fractures in Volcanic Cores from Pahute Mesa. Prepared for the U.S. Department of
Energy. Las Vegas, NV.
Jacobson, B. Desert Research Institute, Reno NV. 1996. Personal communication to O. Drici,
IT Corporation, Las Vegas, NV, regarding precipitation data, 20 September. Reno, NV.
James, J.W. 1993. Climate of the Death Valley Region, Nevada/California. Prepared for the
National Park Service. Reno, NV: State of Nevada, Office of the State Climatologist.
Kahn, B. 1992. “Ecological Risks Associated with Radioactive Material.” In Predicting

Ecosystem Risk, 289-326. Princeton, NJ: Scientific Publishing Co., Inc.
Krishnamoorthy, T.M., R.N. Nair, and T.P. Sarma. 1992. “Migration of Radionuclides from a
Granite Repository.” In Water Resources Research, 28 (7): 1927-1934.
La Camera, R.J., and C.L. Westenburg. 1994. Selected Ground-Water Data for Yucca Mountain
Region, Southern Nevada, and Eastern California, Through December, 1992,
U.S..Geological Open-File Report 94-54.
Laczniak, R.J. U.S. Geological Survey, Las Vegas, NV. 1996a. Personal communication to
O. Drici, IT Corporation, Las Vegas, NV, regarding groundwater discharge in Ash Meadows
and Oasis Valley, 13 February.
Laczniak, R.J. U.S. Geological Survey, Las Vegas, NV. 1996b. Personal communication to
R. Waddell, GeoTrans, Boulder, CO, regarding evapotranspiration study at Ash Meadows,
12 September.
Laczniak, R.J., J.C. Cole, D.A. Sawyer, and D.A. Trudeau. 1996. Summary of Hydrogeologic
Controls on Ground-Water Flow at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,
U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 96-4109. Carson City, NV.
Las Vegas Valley Water District. 1992. Evaluation of Maxey-Eakin Method for Calculating
Recharge to Ground-Water Basins in Nevada, Cooperative Water Project Report No. 7.
Las Vegas, NV.
Layton, D.W. 1993. “Metabolically Consistent Breathing Rates for Use in Dose Assessments.”
In Health Physics, 64 (1): 23-36. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Leap, D.I., and P.M. Belmonte. 1992. “Influence of Pore Pressure on Apparent Dispersivity of a
Fissured Dolomitic Aquifer.” In Groundwater, 30 (1): 87-95.
LeBlanc, D.R. 1984. Sewage Plume in a Sand and Gravel Aquifer, Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Supply Paper 2218.
12-7
Lee, C.H., and I. Farmer. 1993. Fluidflow in Discontinuous Rocks. London, UK: Chapman
and Hall.
Lioy et al. 1992. “Microenvironmental Analysis of Residential Exposure to Chromium-Laden

Waste in and Around New Jersey Homes.” In Risk Analysis 12(2): 287-299.
Lobmeyer, D.H., R.R. Luckey, G.M. O’Brien, and D.J. Burkhardt. 1995. Water Levels in
Continuously Monitored Wells in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1989, U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 93-098.
Loeltz, O.J. 1960. Abstract, “Source of Water Issuing from Springs in Ash Meadows Valley,
Nye County, Nevada.” In Geological Society of America Bulletin, 71 (12): 1917-1918.
Long, J.C.S., and D.M. Billaux. 1987. “From Field Data to Fracture Network Modeling: An
Example Incorporating Spatial Structure.” In Water Resources Research, 23 (7): 1201-1216.
Malmberg, G.T. 1967. Hydrology of the Valley-Fill and Carbonate-Rock Reservoirs, Pahrump
Valley, Nevada-California, U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1832.
Malmberg, G.T., and T.E. Eakin. 1962. Ground-Water Appraisal of Sarcobatus Flat and Oasis
Valley, Nye County and Esmeralda Counties, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Ground-
Water-Reconnaissance Series Report 10. Carson City, NV.
Maloszewski, P., and A. Zuber. 1991. “Influence of Matrix Diffusion and Exchange Reactions
on Radiocarbon Ages in Fissured Carbonate Aquifers.” In Water Resources Research,
27 (8): 1937-1945.
Maxey, G.B., and T.E. Eakin. 1949. Groundwater in White River Valley, White Pine, Nye and
Lincoln Counties, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Bulletin No. 8.
Maxey, G.B., and C.H. Jameson. 1948. Geology and Water Resources of Las Vegas, Pahrump
and Indian Spring Valleys, Clark and Nye Counties, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Bulletin No. 5.
McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh. 1988. “A Modular Three-Dimensional, Finite

Difference Ground-Water Flow Model.” In U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water
Resources Investigations, Book 6, Chapter A1.
McDonald, M.G., and A.W. Harbaugh. 1991. A Method of Converting No-Flow Cells to
Variable-Head Cells for the U.S. Geological Survey Modular Finite-Difference Ground-
Water Flow Model, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-356.
McLean, J.A., and G. Tobin. 1987. Animal and Human Calorimetry. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University.
12-8
Miller, G.A. 1977. Appraisal of the Water Resources of Death Valley California-Nevada,
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-728.
Moench, A.F. 1984. “Double-Porosity Models for a Fissured Groundwater Reservoir With
Fracture Skin.” In Water Resources Research, 20 (7): 831-846.
NCRP, see National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements.
NOAA, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 1979. Tritium in the Environment,
Report No. 62. Bethesda, MD.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. 1991. Effects of Ionizing

Radiation on Aquatic Organisms, Report No. 109. Bethesda, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1991. “Local Climatological Data-

Annual.” In Summaries for 1990, Part IV-Western Region. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce.
Neretnieks, I., H. Abelin, and L. Birgersson. 1989. “Some Recent Observations of Channeling
in Fractured rocks - Its Potential Impact on Radionuclide Migration.” In Proceedings of the
Conference on Geostatistical, Sensitivity, and Uncertainty Methods for Ground-Water Flow
and Radionuclide Transport Modeling, September 15-17, 1987, San Francisco, CA, 387-410.
Battell Press.
Neuman, S.P. 1990. “Universal Scaling of Hydraulic Conductivities and Dispersivities in

Geologic Media.” In Water Resources Research, 26 (8): 1749-1758.
Notenboom, J., S. Plénet, and M.J. Turquin. 1994. “Groundwater Contamination and its Impact
on Groundwater Animals and Ecosystems.” In Groundwater Ecology, 477-504.
J.D. Gilbert, D.L. Danielopol, and J.A. Stanford, eds. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ogard, A.E., J.L. Thompson, R.S. Rundberg, K. Wolfsberg, P.W. Kubik, D. Elmore, and
H.W. Bentley. 1988. “Migration of Chlorine -36 and Tritium from an Underground Nuclear
Test.” In Radiochimica Acta, 44/45: 213-217. Munich, Germany: R. Oldenbourg, Verlag.
Osborne, R.V. 1966. “Absorption of Tritiated Water Vapour by People.” In Health Physics,
12 (11): 1527-1538. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Osborne, R.V. 1968. “Intake of Tritium When Skin is Splashed With Tritiated Water.” In
Health Physics, 15 (2): 155-156. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
PAL Consultants. 1995. A Conceptual Model of the Death Valley Ground-Water Flow Systems.
Nevada, California. Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service.
12-9
Pankratz, M. Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1995. Personal Communication To J. Willie,
IT Corporation, regarding events that were detonated below or within 100 meters of the water
table at the Nevada Test Site. Los Alamos, NM.
Pennington, J.A.T. 1983. “Revision of the Total Diet Study Food List and Diets.” In Journal
of the American Dietetic Association, 82: 166-173.
Polikarpov, G.G. 1966. Radioecology of Aquatic Organisms. New York, NY: Reinhold Book
Division.
Pollock, D.W. 1989. Documentation of Computer Programs to Compute and Display Pathlines
Using Results from the U.S. Geological Survey Modular Three-Dimensional, Finite-
Difference Ground-Water Flow Model, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 89-381.
Prudic, D.E., J. R. Harrill, and T.J. Burbey. 1993. Conceptual Evaluation of Regional Ground-
Water Flow in the Carbonate-Rock Province of the Great Basin, Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent
States, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-170.
Quiring, R.F. 1968. Climatological Data Nevada Test Site and Nuclear Rocket Development
Station, Environmental Science Services Administration Research Report ERLTM-AR17.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Rope, S.K., and S.R. Adams. 1983. “Screening Levels for Radionuclides in Soil: Application
to Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Criteria.” In Proceedings of the Fourth
DOE Environmental Protection Information Meeting, CONF-821215. Denver, CO.
Russell, C.E. Desert Research Institute. 1996. Personal communication about Novel species in
aquifers and aquitards beneath the NTS.
Sada, D.W. 1990. Recovery Plan for the Endangered and Threatened Species of Ash Meadows,
Nevada. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Saltus, R. 1994. “Regional Map of Southern Nevada Showing Thickness of Cenozoic

Stratigraphy, Based on Gravity Interpretation,” scale 1:500,000, unpublished map.
U.S. Geological Survey.
Savard, C.S. 1994. “Groundwater Recharge in Fortymile Wash near Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, 1992-1993.” In High Level Radioactive Waste Management, 4: 1805-1813.
Sawyer, D.A., R.J. Fleck, M.A. Lanphere, R.G. Warren, and D.A. Broxton. 1990. “Episodic
Volcanism in the Southwest Nevada Volcanic field: New 40AR/39AR Geochronologic
Results.” In EOS Transactions, AGU, 71 (43): 1296.
12-10
Scott, B.R., T.J. Smales, F.E. Rush, and A.S. Van Denburgh. 1971. Water for Nevada,
Nevada’s Water Resources, State of Nevada Water Planning Report, Report No. 3. State of
Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources.
Serra, O. 1984. Fundamentals of Well Log Interpretation. Elsevier, NY.
Smith, D.K. et al., compilers. 1996. Hydrologic Resources Management Program FY1995
Progress Report. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Soule, D. Chief, Technical Support Branch, ARL/SORD. 1995. Personal communication about
temperature, relative humidity, and wind direction and speed for Pahute Mesa and
Frenchman Flat. Las Vegas, NV: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Soule, D., Chief, Technical Support Branch, ARL/SORD. 1996. Personal communication about
temperature, relative humidity, and wind direction and speed for Yucca Flat (Area 20).
Las Vegas, NV: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Stead, F.W. 1963. “Tritium Distribution in Groundwater and Large Underground Fusion
Explosions.” In Science, 142: 3596.
Stewart, J.H., and J.E. Carlson. 1977. “Geologic Map of Nevada, Southern Half, “Map 57,
scale 1;500,000, U.S. Geological Survey and the Nevada Bureau of Mines.
Strand, J.A., W.L. Templeton, and E.G. Tangen. 1973. “Accumulation and Retention of Tritium
(Tritiated Water) in Embryonic and Larval Fish, and Radiation Effect.” In Radionuclides in
Ecosystems, 1: 445-451, D.J. Nelson, ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission.
Straume, T., and A.L. Carsten. 1993. “Tritium Radiobiology and Relative Biological
Effectiveness.” In Health Physics, 65 (6): 657-672. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
Thomas, J.M. 1988. Delineation of Regional Flow Systems in Southern Nevada, Geological
Society of America, 20 (7).
Thomas, J.M. 1996. “Geochemical and Isotopic Interpretation of Groundwater Flow,

Geochemical Processes, and Age Dating of Groundwater in the Carbonate-Rock Aquifers of
the Southern Basin and Range.” A dissertation. Reno NV: University of Nevada-Reno.
Thordarson, W. 1965. Perched Ground Water in Zeolitized Bedded Tuff, Rainier Mesa and
Vicinity, Nevada Test Site, U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigation Report
TEI-862. Washington, DC.
12-11
Tomasko, D., M. Reeves, V.A. Kelley, and J.F. Pickens. 1989. “Parameter Sensitivity and
Importance for Radionuclide Transport in Double-Porosity Systems.” In Proceedings of the
Conference on Geostatistical Sensitivity, and Uncertainty Methods for Ground-Water Flow
and Radionuclide Transport Modeling, pp. 279-321, September 15-17, 1987,
B.E. Bufton, ed. San Francisco, CA: Battell Press.
Triay, I.R., K.H. Birdsell, A.J. Mitchell, and M.A. Ott. 1993. “Diffusion of Sorbing and Non-
Sorbing Radionuclides.” In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual International High Level
Radioactive Waste Management Conference, Las Vegas, NV, April 26-30, 1993, American
Nuclear Society, Inc., and American Society of Civil Engineers.
USGS, see U.S. Geological Survey.
Unterweger, M.P., B.M. Coursey, R.J. Shima, and W.B. Mann. 1980. “Preparation and
Calibration of the 1978 National Bureau of Standards Tritiated Water Standards.” In
International Journal of Applied Radiation Isotopes, 31: 611-614.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Interim Guidance for the Office of Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management (EM) Data Quality Objectives Process.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1992a. Nevada Field Office Annual Site Environmental Report
for 1991, DOE/NV/10630-33, 1 and 2. Las Vegas, NV: DOE/NV.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1992b. Announced United States Nuclear Tests, DOE/NV/209
(Rev. 12). Las Vegas, NV: DOE/NV.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1992c. Environmental Assessment for the Groundwater

Characterization Project, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, DOE/EA-0532.
Las Vegas, NV: DOE/NV.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1992d. Nevada Test Site Defense Waste Acceptance Criteria,
Certification, and Transfer Requirements, NV-325. Las Vegas, NV: DOE/NV.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1993. Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment,
DOE Order 5400.5, Change 2, January 7. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1994. Announced United States Nuclear Tests, DOE/NV-209
(Rev 14). Las Vegas, NV: DOE/NV.
U.S. Department of Energy. 1995. Nevada Field Office Annual Site Environmental Report for
1994, DOE/NV/11432-175. Las Vegas, NV: DOE/NV.
12-12
U.S. Department of Energy. 1996. The Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test
Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, DOE/EIS/0243, 1 and 2. Las Vegas, NV:
DOE/NV.
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Nevada Operations Office. 1977.
Final Environmental Impact Statement, Nye County, Nevada, ERDA-1551. Las Vegas, NV.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual, EPA/540/1-89/001. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B), Development of Risk-Based Preliminary
Remediation Goals, EPA/540/R-92/003. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund,
Vol. 1: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance - Standard Default
Exposure Factors, OSWER Directive 9285.6-03. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment,
EPA/630/R-92/00, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
FY-1995 Annual, EPA/540/R-95/036. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1987. Digital Elevation Models: U.S. Geological Survey, National
Mapping Program Technical Instructions Data User’s Guide 5.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1989. National Water Information System User’s Manual, Vol. 2,
Chapter 4, Ground-Water Site Inventory System, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 89-587, Version 90.1. S.B. Mathey, ed. Reston, VA.
Van der Heijde, P.K.M., A.I. El-Kadi, and S.A. Williams. 1988. Groundwater Modeling: an
Overview and Status Report, EPA600/2-89-028. Ada, Oklahoma: R.S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory.
Van Denburgh, A.S., and F.E. Rush. 1974. Water-Resources Appraisal of Railroad and
Penoyer Valleys, East-Central Nevada, Water-Resources Reconnaissance Series Report 60.
Vanderploeg, H.A., D.C. Parzyck, W.H. Wilcox, J.R. Kercher, and S.V. Kaye. 1975.
Bioaccumulation Factors for Radionuclides in Freshwater Biota, ORNL-5002.
Oak Ridge TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
12-13
Van Marke, E. 1983. Random Fields: Analysis and Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Waddell, R.K. 1982. Two-Dimensional Steady-State Model of Ground-Water Flow, Nevada

Test Site and Vicinity, Nevada-California, U.S. Geological Survey Water- Resources
Investigation Report 82-4085.
Waddell, R.K., J. H. Robison, and R.K. Blankennagel. 1984. Hydrology of Yucca Mountain and
Vicinity, Nevada-California: Investigative Results Through Mid-1983, U.S. Geological
Water-Resources Investigation Report 84-4267. Denver, CO.
Walker, G.E., and T.E. Eakin. 1963. Geology and Ground-Water of the Amargosa Desert,
Nevada-California, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Nevada, and
U.S. Geological Survey Ground-Water Resources - Reconnaissance Series Report 14.
Warren, R.G., D.A. Sawyer, and H.R. Covington. 1989. “Stratigraphy of the Southwestern
Nevada Volcanic Field.” In Proceedings from the Fifth Symposium on Containment of
Underground Nuclear Explosives, held on September 19-21, 1989 at Santa Barbara, CA.,
CONF-8909163, 2: 387. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
Welty, C., and L.W. Gelhar. 1989. Evaluation of Longitudinal Dispersity from Tracer Test
Data, R89-05. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wernicke, B., G.J. Axen, and J.K. Snow. 1988. “Basin and Range Extensional Tectonics at the
Latitude of Las Vegas.” In Geologic Society of America Bulletin, 100: 1738-1757.
Whicker, F.W., T.B. Kirchner, D.B. Breshears, and M.D. Otis. 1990. “Estimation of
Radionuclide Ingestion: The ‘PATHWAY’ Food Chain Model.” In Health Physics, Special
Issue, “Evaluation of Environmental Radiation Exposures from Nuclear Testing in Nevada,”
59 (5): 645-657. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Whicker, F.W., and V. Schultz. 1982. Radioecology: Nuclear Energy and the Environment,
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Winograd, I.J., and W. Thordardson. 1975. Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Framework,

South-Central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test
Site, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-C. Washington, DC.
Winograd, I.J., and I. Friedman. 1972. “Deuterium as a Tracer of Regional Ground-Water Flow,
Southern Great Basin, Nevada and California.” In Geological Society of America Bulletin,
83 (12): 3691-3708.
12-14
Winograd, I.J., and L.R. West. 1962. Preliminary Tracer Experiment to Demonstrate Hydraulic
Continuity Between Water Wells C and C-1, Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site, U.S. Geological
Survey Technical Letter, NTS-20.
Yu, C., A.J. Zielen, J.-J. Cheng, Y.C. Yuan, L.G. Jones, D.J. LePoire, Y.Y. Wang,
C.O. Loureiro, E. Gnanpragasam, E. Faillace, A. Wallo III, W.A. Williams, and H. Peterson.
1993a. Manual for Implementing Residual Radioactive Material Guidelines Using
RESRAD, Version 5.0, ANL/EAD/LD-2. Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory.
Yu, C., C. Loureiro, J.-J. Cheng, L.G. Jones, Y.Y. Wang, Y.P. Chia, and E. Faillace. 1993b.
Data Collection Handbook to Support Modeling the Impacts of Radioactive Material in Soil,
ANL/EAIS-8. Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory.
12-15
Appendix A
Quality Control
A.1.0 Quality Control
A Quality Assurance (QA) program has been developed for all activities performed under the
Environmental Restoration (ER) Project, including the UGTA project. QA measures taken to
control quality during the process of generating the products under the different data analysis
subtasks include data documentation evaluation, data quality evaluation, checking procedures,
software quality assurance, use of standard methodologies, technical and peer reviews, and
corroboration through the models.
A.1.1 Data Documentation Evaluation

During the documentation evaluation process of data, flags are assigned. The five levels of Data
Documentation Evaluation Flags (DDE_F) are briefly presented here:
Level 1: Data are collected in accordance with Nevada Environmental Restoration Project
(ERP) subproject quality assurance plans, approved Nevada procedures, and/or
participant-specific procedures. This ranking indicates that all supporting
documentation for the data is on file and is available for review by data users.
Level 2: Data are collected in accordance with approved plans and procedures as required
for Level 1, with the exception that one or more documentation requirements may
be deficient in some way. Examples of data documentation deficiencies may
include lost or destroyed field-data collection forms or data acquired using interim
or draft procedures.
Level 3: Data are collected using accepted scientific methodology (e.g., American Society
of Testing Materials [ASTM], EPA methods, USGS procedures) and
accompanied by supporting and corroborative documentation such as testing
apparatus diagrams, field or laboratory notes, and procedures. Documents
referenced to qualify submitted data under the Level 3 category are noted and
described in Part II of the Data Information Form (DIF).
Level 4: Data are collected by a participating Nevada ERP organization or another

organization not associated with the Nevada ERP prior to the issuance and
implementation of project-approved standard policies, procedures, or practices
governing data acquisition and qualification. The methods of data collection are
documented and traceable; however, the validity and prudency of data use or
compliance with referenced procedures is indeterminate. Supporting
documentation may or may not exist. Documentation provided to qualify
submitted data under Level 4 shall be noted and described in Part II of the Data
Information Form.
A-1
Level 5: Data are obtained under unknown, undesirable, or uncertain conditions. When
data documentation is unknown, any available supporting or helpful descriptions
of the intended use and conditions of data capture should be described and listed
in Part II of the Data Information Form.
A.1.2 Data Quality Evaluation

The criteria used to evaluate the different types of required data were dependent on the type of
data and the intended use of the data. Thus, various criteria were used to evaluate data quality.
The general procedure assigned one or more flags to each record compiled in the database,
indicating the data quality or suitability of the individual data record for the intended usage.
Subtask-specific data quality evaluation procedures are described in detail in the corresponding
subtask documentation package.
A.1.3 Checking Procedures

Various checking procedures were designed for quality control purposes. Checking procedures
applicable to the UGTA data analysis subtasks include those developed for transcription of data,
generation of figures, tables and logs, and performance of calculations. Data compiled by project
personnel were subjected to the checking procedures before being added to the ER database.
However, the bulk of the ER database is comprised of external digital databases developed by
agencies external to the UGTA project, mainly the National Water Information System (NWIS)
data from the USGS. Internal procedures do not govern other ER database participants;
therefore, their data were not subjected to the checking procedures described here.
A.1.4 Software Quality Assurance

Various computer codes were developed in-house to aid in the data analysis subtasks. Codes
developed specifically for the UGTA project were subjected to software quality assurance
requirements such as validation/verification, preparation of operating manuals, and
documentation of the theoretical basis for the calculations. Codes developed to load data and
perform unit conversion codes used on the ERDBMS were also checked.
A.1.5 Standard Methodologies

Only standard and widely accepted methodologies were used in the development of the
interpretive products. The various methodologies used are too numerous to list here; however,
they are described and referenced, where appropriate, in the sections discussing their use in the
data analysis process.
A-2
A.1.6 Technical and Peer Reviews
The review process constitutes an important measure of product quality, and was used
throughout the performance of the data analysis activities. The review process consists of both
technical and peer reviews. The technical review process is internal and is performed by
qualified personnel. The peer review process is intended to complement the technical review
process and is usually performed by individuals who are independent of the project.
Products generated under the Data Analysis Task were subjected to a continual review process to
identify any major flaws in the conceptual model of the groundwater flow system at an early
stage. The geologic cross sections and maps were subjected to technical and peer reviews
several times during their development.
The hydrogeologic cross sections were also subjected to technical and peer reviews during their
generation. The peer reviews were conducted during periodic meetings involving the
IT Corporation (IT) geologists and hydrogeologists and representatives from Raytheon Services
Nevada (RSN), the USGS, DRI, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Comments were recorded, evaluated, and incorporated
into the process of defining the hydrostratigraphy.
The map products were internally reviewed by project personnel and submitted for peer review
along with this documentation package. Following receipt of comments from the peer reviewers
about the documentation packages and the map products, comments were resolved either by
explanation or by modification of the products. Formal responses were prepared.
A.1.7 Corroboration of Data through the Models

This step was completed as the groundwater flow model was calibrated. During the calibration
process, interpretations were tested and modified as required. This step particularly applied to
the geologic model where extensive interpretation was necessary. The geologic model was
modified during the calibration of the flow model because the initial interpretations in some areas
did not allow for the duplication of the observed hydraulic heads within the existing levels of
uncertainties.
A-3
Appendix B
Comparison of Simulated and Observed Hydraulic Heads

Description of Appendix Contents
This appendix contains a comparison of the simulated and observed hydraulic heads for those
wells completed within the Nevada Test Site regional groundwater flow system. This dataset
were derived from various databases and reports. The data are presented in table form. The data
may be used in conjunction with Plate 3, using the map reference number. The table (Table B-1)
is provided on pages B-4 through B-70.
B-1
Table B-1
The following provides a description of each of the fields and the codes used in the table:
Map Ref. No Site reference number for cross-referencing between Table B-1 and
Plate 3.
Official ID Unique site identification number (may or may not be a USGS ID).
Common name REDBOOK reporting name for wells on the NTS.
Northing NAD 27, UTM Zone 11 coordinate, in meters
Easting NAD 27, UTM Zone 11 coordinate, in meters
Observed Hyd. Mean predevelopment hydraulic head, in meters above mean sea level
Head (amsl).
Simulated Hyd. Mean predevelopment hydraulic head simulated by the groundwater flow
Head model.
Weighted Residual The difference between observed and simulated hydraulic heads, weighted
by the inverse of the square root of the variance of the observed hydraulic
head.
B-2
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
Map Ref. Northing a Easting a Hyd. Head Hyd. Head Weighted
Official ID Common Name
No. (m) b (m) (m) (m) Residual
106 361158116240501 4006033.8 553820.5 584 605.6 -6.7
107 361158116240502 4006033.8 553820.5 579.9 605.5 -8
114 361210116225701 4006414 555516.4 607.2 605.1 0.6
115 361210116225702 4006414 555516.4 607.6 602.7 1.5
170 361406116173900 W-10 4010177.3 556166.4 605.5 606.8 -0.1
172 361413116221201 4010211 556615.5 605.8 606.4 -0.6
173 361413116221202 4010211 556615.5 606.3 606.4 -0.1
174 361413116221203 4010211 556615.5 606.7 606.4 0.3
178 361415116222101 4010271.3 556390.4 607.2 606.7 0.5
179 361415116222102 4010271.3 556390.4 607.2 606.7 0.4
180 361415116222103 4010271.3 556390.4 607.7 606.7 1
181 361415116230200 W-14 4010264.5 555367.1 608.9 607.7 1.2
183 361417116224001 4010329.8 555915.8 606.3 607.3 -1
198 361451116170800 GS-18 4011168.5 556983.7 607.1 607.6 0
202 361457116183400 W-13 4011122.8 554637.8 608 610.8 -0.3
217 361516116220101 GS-16 4012154 556877.4 608.4 609.3 -0.1
218 361516116220102 GS-17 4012154 556877.4 608.3 609.3 -0.1
230 361527116171300 GS-15 4012154 556877.4 608.3 609.3 -0.1
255 361553116212101 GS-5 4013300.5 557868.1 610.2 610.7 -0.1
256 361553116212102 GS-6 4013300.5 557868.1 610.4 610.7 0
267 361605116212701 GS-1 4013669.3 557715.9 611.6 611.3 0.2
268 361605116212702 GS-2 4013700 557715.7 611.4 611.3 0.1
275 361610116223701 GS-19 4013811.8 555968.3 607.6 613 -5.4
289 361627116221202 GS-14 4014339.8 556588.7 613 613.1 0
300 361640116315501 4014657.8 542041.2 613.3 653.2 -4
330 361745116215502 4016745.8 556997 617.6 617.4 0
339 361808116273501 4017402.8 548512.6 628.9 629.9 -0.9
346 361817116244701 DEATH VLY JCT W 4017704.5 552700.9 621.1 626 -4.9
353 361835116220301 4018223.5 556812.8 619.7 622.1 -0.7
354 361835116224501 4018278 555740 619.5 623.2 -0.4
356 361840116184001 GA-8K 4018617.3 560376.4 647.1 626.4 6.5
357 361840116184002 GA-8B 4018740 560300.8 651.9 626.7 7.8
358 361840116184003 GA-8C 4018771.5 560400.3 650 627 7.2
359 361840116184004 GA-8D 4018771.5 560400.3 649.7 627 7.1
360 361840116184005 GA-8E 4018772 560475.1 648.3 627.2 6.6
361 361840116184006 GA-8F 4018772.3 560525 646.2 627.2 5.9
362 361840116184007 GA-8M 4018772.3 560525 646.7 627.2 6
363 361845116193707 GA-8J RATHOLE 4018617.5 560426.3 651 626.5 7.6
394 361954116181201 GS-3 W 4020854.5 563028.6 648.2 652.5 -4.3
395 361954116181202 4020854.5 563028.6 692 648.1 33.7
398 362014116133901 GS-1 W 4021644 569554.6 716.2 693.2 23
399 362014116134902 4021644 569554.6 715.9 693.3 22.6
401 362033116255202 4021885 551055.2 628.1 635.3 -0.7
404 362113116160101 GS-2 DEEP 4022909 565805.5 694.8 687.9 2.1
405 362113116160102 GS-2 SHALLOW 4022909 565805.5 694.9 686.2 2.7
406 362120116162201 4023428.5 565253.2 693.4 683.3 1
a
UTM Coordinates; Zone 11; NAD 27
b
Meter(s) B-3
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
407 362140116261001 4023947 550594.5 625.1 639 -4.3
408 362142116154701 4024113 566120.3 701 689.1 1.2
409 362145116161301 4024200.5 565471.6 693.4 686.4 0.7
410 362153116171502 4024435.5 563924.7 672.6 674 -0.4
411 362154116162001 4024435.5 563924.7 674.2 674 0
413 362230116162001 Big Spring 4025554 565162.4 682.8 686.7 -0.4
414 362230116392901 TRAVERTINE POINT 1 W 4025394 530676.6 649.1 610.2 38.9
416 362250116175001 4026185.5 563039.7 671.9 673.5 -0.2
417 362250116175301 4026184.8 562964.9 671.2 672.9 -1.3
418 362250116265101 4026097.8 549560.4 641.5 643.3 -0.6
419 362250116265102 4026097.8 549560.4 642.2 643.3 -0.4
420 362252116425301 Navel Spring 4026055.5 525591.5 634 523.5 11
421 362303116174502 4026586.8 563161.4 674.7 676.5 -0.5
422 362314116160101 4026809 564056.7 687.3 684 0.3
423 362343116160802 4027837.3 565568.7 716.3 693.7 2.3
424 362343116160803 4027837.3 565568.7 716.3 693.7 2.3
425 362343116160805 4027837.3 565568.7 716.3 693.7 2.3
430 362358116163301 SPR MEADOWS 4 4028480 565015.9 702.9 693.9 2.8
431 362400116161701 4028298 565390.9 696.2 694.2 0.6
432 362401116181101 4028369.3 562500.7 685.8 680.3 0.6
433 362401116181102 4028369.3 562500.7 684.3 680.3 0.4
434 362401116181103 4028369.3 562500.7 685.8 680.3 0.6
435 362402116172201 4028409 563721 688.2 688.9 -0.1
437 362405116161305 4026999.8 564827.7 701 688.9 1.2
438 362406116154001 SPR MEADOWS 17 4028520.5 566286 706.2 697.1 2.8
439 362407116162401 4028267 565366.2 716.3 694.1 2.2
441 362408116154001 SPR MEADOWS 16 4028519.5 566136.5 705.2 696.8 2.6
442 362409116155601 SPR MEADOWS 2 4028269 565640.2 699.7 694.8 1.5
443 362410116160901 SPR MEADOWS 1 4028518 565962.2 705.7 696.1 3
444 362410116161002 POINT OF ROCKS SPR 4028514 565414.1 707.1 694.7 1.2
446 362415116270501 4028714.8 549196.6 650.7 648.2 0.2
447 362417116163600 POINT OF ROCKS S W 4028971.8 564837.8 707.3 694.6 12.7
448 362425116164901 4029123.5 564537.7 696.5 694.2 0.2
449 362425116181001 SPR MEADOWS 9 4029386 562493.3 678.1 684.1 -1.9
450 362432116165701 POINT OF ROCKS N W 4029337.8 564336.9 699.6 693.9 5.7
452 362443116263602 4029581.5 549914 650.8 650.2 0.1
453 362444116251001 4029871.5 552054.3 642.8 651.5 -0.9
457 362502116192301 CRYSTAL POOL 4030574 560592 669 673.7 -0.5
458 362505116223001 4035749 555777.1 661.7 672 -3.2
462 362521116160801 4030856.8 565545.8 715.8 702 4.3
464 362525116274301 NA-9 W 4030866.3 548238.1 665.2 653.4 11.8
465 362525116274302 4030866.3 548238.1 659.6 653.5 1.9
466 362525116274501 4030866 548188.3 662.2 653.4 0.9
467 362526116181801 4030987 562307.5 690.1 689.4 0.1
469 362529116155801 4031105 565793 718.4 701.7 1.7
470 362529116160501 SPR MEADOWS 12 4031041.5 565544.4 718.8 701.8 5.3
a
b
Meter(s) B-4
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
471 362529116171100 DEVILS HOLE W 4031121.5 563875.4 717.9 698.3 19.6
473 362532116172700 DEVILS HOLE 4031181 563576.1 718.3 697 21.3
475 362532116181501 4031172.3 562380.8 716.3 690.5 2.6
476 362535116244801 4031199.8 552594.1 670.6 655.4 1.5
477 362554116184101 4031845.5 561728.5 701 689.6 1.1
478 362554116204001 4031825 558765.6 662.6 666.4 -0.4
479 362555116205301 GARNERS W 4031853.5 558441.6 655.1 664.7 -9.6
480 362557116181301 4031943 562425.1 723.9 693.9 3
483 362627116213501 4033296.3 557635.3 659 666.4 -0.7
485 362648116201401 PETERSON 4033493 559401.5 673.7 679.1 -1.7
486 362648116274601 4033423 548149.1 676 660.7 1.5
487 362650116311501 4033457.3 542945.9 671.4 657.4 1.4
488 362702116322201 4033819 541276.3 671.2 657.5 11.2
489 362705116300901 4033927.8 544586.6 673.7 659.6 1.4
490 362705116315001 4033915.3 542072.4 673.3 658 1.5
491 362705116322301 4033911.3 541250.9 675.3 657.7 1.8
494 362715116322301 4034219.5 541249.5 673.3 658.4 6.7
495 362723116184101 4034587.8 561709 731.5 697.2 3.4
496 362725116305901 4034537.8 543338.8 673 660.2 8.2
497 362726116314401 4034563 542218.6 672.2 659.6 1.3
498 362727116322201 4034589.3 541272.6 670.9 659.3 1.2
499 362728116501101 TEXAS SPR 4034534 514664.3 121.9 87.6 3.4
501 362736116285701 4034892.5 546373.7 674.7 663.5 8.8
502 362736116285702 4034892.5 546373.7 675.4 663.9 8.5
503 362740116112601 4035142 573453.9 715.8 709 5.4
504 362745116204001 4035245 558742.3 680.3 677.5 0.3
506 362751116192701 LONGSTREET SPR 4035811.3 560430.8 704.1 693.5 1.1
509 362755116202001 4035556.5 559237.9 682.1 681.8 0.1
510 362757116202401 4035617.5 559138 679.1 682 -0.3
511 362757116202402 4035617.5 559138 680.6 681.7 -0.1
513 362809116213101 4035976 557468 664.8 675 -3.1
514 362811116202401 4036048.8 559135 679.3 682.9 -1
516 362830115270501 USAF W 2372-1 4037549.8 638942 904.5 944.6 -12.5
517 362835116192101 ROGERS SPR 4037136.3 560421.6 693.4 696.5 -0.3
518 362835116264101 Gilgans South Well 4036729 549748.3 673.9 672.2 0.5
520 362848116195901 4037193 559749.3 670.6 691.1 -2
521 362848116264201 GILGANS NORTH W 4037129 549621.6 673.3 673.4 -0.1
522 362848116291101 4037815.5 545586.7 683.6 672.4 1.1
523 362848116301501 4037717 544417.7 685.5 670.8 1.5
524 362850116202601 4037250 559077 680.9 688.1 -2.2
525 362852116281401 4037794.5 547428 686.6 673.9 7
526 362852116294901 4037812.8 545064.2 687.6 671.8 1.6
527 362856116284201 4037760 546731.6 685.8 673.3 6.8
528 362858116091501 4036946 575404.7 719.5 711.6 0.8
529 362858116091502 4037627 575771.9 719.4 712.3 0.7
530 362858116195301 ROGERS SPR W 4037410.5 559971.7 689.4 693.7 -4.3
a
b
Meter(s) B-5
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
531 362858116195302 4037472.5 560046 691.1 695.3 -1.3
533 362902116304701 4037528 543622.4 674.8 669.3 0.6
534 362905116092301 4037841 575571 719.3 712.4 0.7
535 362905116274001 4037645 548274.9 673.5 674.1 -0.1
537 362917116294601 4038520 544811.7 688.6 672.9 1.6
538 362917116304701 4037990 543620 683.5 670.6 1.3
539 362921116280401 4038596 547473.5 678 675.4 2
540 362921116302501 4038547.5 544164.7 688.2 672.3 1.6
542 362923116291101 4038647 545507.7 684.3 673.9 5.8
543 362924116203001 Fairbanks Spring 4038359 559019.7 685.8 692.3 -0.7
544 362925116253301 4038649.5 551429.1 675.9 678 -1
546 362929116085701 CHERRY PATCH W 4038586.3 576211.4 719.2 713.3 5.9
547 362930116295901 4038396.8 544812.3 676.2 672.7 0.4
549 362938116270001 4038667.5 549264.4 672.8 676.8 -2.2
551 362939116265401 4038699.3 549413.6 667.7 676.9 -0.9
552 362946116254101 4039387.8 551225.6 677 679.7 -0.3
553 362946116270301 4038910.8 548665.9 677.7 676.9 0.4
554 362946116302201 4039256.5 544235.6 688.4 673.7 7.9
555 362946116302301 4038886.8 544212.6 688.9 673 1.6
556 362946116302302 4038886.8 544212.6 686.7 673 1.4
557 362947116252001 MOUNTAIN VIEW HOMES 4038959.5 551750.7 673.8 679 -3.5
558 362957116254901 4039263.3 551027.4 673.7 679.2 -0.6
559 363002116304801 4039376.5 543588.2 680.6 673.2 0.7
560 363002116310701 4039374.3 543115.6 681.2 672.7 2.6
561 363005116291001 4039481.5 546025.7 683.1 675.9 0.7
562 363009116291101 4040219.3 545673.5 686.1 677 0.9
563 363009116302701 HALLOW W 4039595 544109.5 686.7 674.2 12.5
564 363011116280401 4040230 547663.4 681.3 678.7 1.3
565 363017116253001 4040221.3 551494.3 676 682 -3.1
566 363017116253002 4039882.3 551496.4 684.3 681.1 0.3
567 363020116290001 4039945 546272 681.5 677 0.5
568 363026116160401 4040255.3 565574.1 686.6 708.2 -6.7
569 363026116160402 4040255.3 565574.1 680.8 708.2 -8.5
570 363026116275601 4040138.8 547862.9 677.4 678.6 -0.1
571 363027116270001 4040177.5 549255.8 677.3 679.9 -0.3
573 363028116270201 4040208 549205.8 677.3 679.9 -1.4
574 363030116104501 4040472.8 573458.3 714.1 713.2 0.3
575 363030116280001 4040261.5 547762.8 685.5 678.8 0.7
576 363039116303501 4040518.3 543905.8 686.2 675.8 3.2
580 363045115280201 USAF ALPHA 2 4041684 637258.1 894.4 902.4 -6.3
581 363046116281401 4041183.8 547409.4 686.1 680.1 4.6
582 363046116285701 4041116.5 546340.3 687.2 679.1 2.5
583 363050116105001 4041057.5 573378.7 714.8 713.7 0.1
584 363053116271001 4040977 549002.5 677 681.2 -0.4
585 363053116272001 4040975.5 548753.7 681.6 681 0.4
586 363054116270401 4041008.8 549151.5 678.8 681.4 -0.3
a
b
Meter(s) B-6
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
587 363058116270501 4041131.8 549126 682 681.6 0.3
589 363109116252601 4041485 551586.3 677.7 684.9 -2.2
590 363109116253101 4042069.8 551458.4 687.6 686.1 0.2
591 363111116275601 4041525.3 547855.2 688.3 681.1 5.5
592 363111116290201 4041516.3 546213.8 692.5 679.6 1.3
593 363111116300001 4041878.5 544769.3 687.9 678.7 0.9
594 363115116242001 4041680 553226.6 704 688.1 1.6
595 363117116303601 4041689 543875 688.7 677.6 6.1
596 363120116300001 BETTLES 4041786 544769.8 687 678.6 8.4
597 363121116112301 4042006 572549.9 714.7 714.3 0
598 363129116241701 4042111.8 553298.6 677.2 689.3 -3.8
599 363129116242501 4042110.5 553099.7 674.9 688.9 -10.7
600 363129116252901 4042101 551508 677.3 686.2 -4.4
601 363132116285201 4042164.8 546459 685.3 680.8 0.4
602 363133116250101 4042228.5 552203.6 675.3 687.4 -1.2
603 363134116292001 4042222.5 545762.3 684.9 680.2 3.7
604 363135115281401 USAF ALPHA 3 4043220 636935.1 890.5 890.6 -0.1
605 363136116271501 4042608.8 548744.5 687.5 684 1.1
606 363138116142701 4042494.5 568243 701.2 713.4 -1.2
609 363138116252101 4042625 551554.6 692.2 687.4 4.1
610 363138116290201 4042164 546334.6 688.6 680.7 6.7
611 363138116310101 4042700.8 542875.1 688.8 677.9 1.1
612 363138116323801 4042629.3 540836.2 688 676.1 7.7
613 363140116275301 4042172.8 547926.3 687.9 682.3 5.3
614 363145116310601 4042548 543124.6 689.5 678 3.6
615 363148116251001 4042689.3 551977.1 676.1 688.1 -8.7
616 363155116323301 4042845.5 540959.5 689.5 676.5 1.3
617 363157116221201 4042870.5 556303 693.9 700.6 -5
618 363200116304401 4043353.3 543966 689.1 679.9 2.9
620 363200116323301 4042999.5 540958.8 693.7 676.7 1.7
621 363203116295801 4043604 544810.1 689.1 681.3 5.2
622 363205115335601 USAF W 2278-1 4044013.3 628415.4 941.3 967.3 -2.6
623 363205116271801 4043564 548788.9 687.9 685.8 1.1
624 363209116314001 4043283.3 542275.4 678.1 678.2 -0.1
625 363210116313801 4043314.3 542325 689.9 678.3 9.2
626 363211116294601 4043359.3 545109.8 689.5 681.2 2.6
627 363212115240301 SBH-1 S BLK HILLS-1 4044461.5 643158.9 882.2 834.1 26.5
628 363212116270401 4043567 549286.2 688.5 686.4 1.1
629 363213116133700 4043580.8 569204.3 719.7 715.4 1.3
630 363213116133800 TRACER W 3 4043580.5 569179.5 719.5 715.4 4.1
631 363213116133901 4043580.3 569154.6 719.4 715.4 1.2
632 363213116134001 4043580 569129.7 719.9 715.4 1.4
633 363214116284801 4043459.3 546551.5 688.2 683 2.1
634 363217116320001 4044049 541351.6 692.6 678.4 6
636 363223116292201 4044440.8 545700.9 690.2 683.6 0.7
637 363223116295501 4044310 544284.3 687.9 681.8 5
a
b
Meter(s) B-7
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
638 363223116303801 4044154.3 543936.9 690.7 681.1 3
639 363223116345901 4043691.8 537325.2 693.9 675.1 16.5
640 363225116260901 4044156.3 549954.2 688.1 688.5 -0.3
641 363225116282401 4044323.3 546770.6 687.6 684.7 0.3
642 363225116310901 4044211.5 543041.6 689.8 680.2 1
643 363230116260501 4043975 550601.7 686.5 689 -0.3
644 363231115322201 USBLM 4044849.8 630740.9 907.7 955.7 -48
645 363237116292901 4044162.5 545528.3 690.4 683 4.1
646 363238115464601 ARMY 3 4044766 609254.3 1014.7 1006.5 8.2
647 363243116354101 4044303.5 536278.3 687.8 675.4 1.2
648 363244116320701 4044911.5 541322.7 690.1 679.7 1
650 363248116302801 4044493.8 544059.6 685.9 681.8 0.4
651 363248116303101 4045325.5 543980.8 692.8 683 3.1
652 363250116251301 4044999.5 551888.4 700 693.4 5.1
653 363252116265001 4045170.3 549475.9 691.3 689.8 1.1
654 363252116292501 4044963.5 545524 691.4 684.2 2.2
655 363254116295501 4044959.5 544728.5 690 683.3 2.1
657 363255115515801 ARMY 2 4045195 601490.3 1010 1005.8 4.2
658 363256116282101 4045157.5 547213.5 687.4 686.7 0.6
659 363310116294001 USBLM W 4045178 545249.5 691.5 684.2 7.3
660 363316116362401 4045315.8 535205 688.9 676.3 9.7
661 363317116293001 4045980.3 545493.8 691 685.8 0.5
662 363332115244001 DR-1 4046789 642249.8 842.3 805.1 20.5
663 363332116323501 4045832.3 540522.8 692.1 680.3 7.5
664 363338116303101 4046034 543977.1 691.3 684.1 1.6
665 363340116332901 4046815.5 539971.3 694.1 681.2 4
666 363340116362801 4046424.5 535101.1 692.9 677.8 12
667 363342116325101 4046819.5 540791.5 693.9 681.9 3.7
668 363342116335701 4046842.8 539150.9 696.5 680.5 1.6
669 363342116345401 4046710 537038.7 690.7 679.1 7.4
670 363344116304501 4046496 543925 691.2 684.7 5.1
671 363346116322801 4046700.3 541612.3 694.2 682.5 3.7
672 363348116254901 4046380.8 550985.2 695 694.9 0.1
674 363348116292701 4046594.5 545117.7 691 686.4 3.3
675 363350116252101 4046880.5 552100.8 699.5 698.3 0.7
676 363354115400601 4047239.8 619167.8 970.2 964 0.6
677 363355116254901 4046596.5 550984 691.3 695.4 -2.6
678 363356115400501 INDIAN SPRS-3 4047301.8 619191.7 969.3 963 0.6
679 363356115400601 INDIAN SPRS-1 4047270.5 619167.3 969.3 963.6 0.6
680 363402116344201 4046744 537734.6 689.6 679.5 1
681 363405116321501 4047561.8 541384.5 705.6 683.5 6.6
683 363407115215301 COW CAMP 4048059.5 646331.5 865.8 813.7 28.7
684 363407116243501 4047683.5 552394.3 709 700.8 0.8
685 363407116273301 AMARGOSA VLY WATER 4046951.5 548396.8 701.3 691.6 1
686 363407116342501 4047668.3 537730.5 691.4 680.7 3.2
687 363409116233701 4047430.8 551351.8 713.2 697.9 1.5
a
b
Meter(s) B-8
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
690 363410116261101 4047055.5 550434.4 691.2 695.3 -0.4
691 363411116264701 4047666.5 549536.1 689.5 694.8 -0.5
692 363411116272901 AMARGOSA TWN COMPLEX 4047075.3 548495.5 688.9 692 -0.3
693 363415116275101 4047780.8 547944.7 696.2 692.3 0.4
694 363417116271801 4047260 548469.7 690.1 692.2 -1
696 363422115433701 CACTUS SPRG 3 4048031.5 613911.3 984.6 977.7 3.8
697 363428116234701 COOKS EAST W 4047631.8 554010.1 719.3 705.2 14.1
698 363428116240301 Cooks West W 4047629.5 553612.5 720.1 704.1 5
699 363428116281201 AMARGOSA WATER 4047593 547423.9 690.4 691.2 -0.1
700 363429116233401 4047664.8 554332.9 715.7 706.2 0.9
701 363429116315901 4047594.5 541781.9 690.8 683.9 3.7
702 363430115400501 4048349.5 619177.2 940.9 949 -0.8
703 363434116354001 DEFIR W 4048403 536658.6 692.4 681.1 11.3
704 363436116333201 4048449 540038.2 693 683.4 2.9
705 363436116342301 4048440.8 538199.2 706.9 682 7.5
706 363436116345901 4048375 537304.9 726 681.4 4.5
707 363437116010801 ARMY 6A 4048187.5 587783.8 735.8 735.2 0.6
708 363438116324601 4048082 540611.6 696.6 683.4 7.1
710 363440116282401 4047961 547123.7 686.4 691.3 -0.5
711 363442116363301 4047964.8 534970.5 689.1 679.6 0.9
712 363447115404601 USAF W 106-2 4048858.3 618076.4 934.1 947 -9.9
713 363452115404401 USAF W 62-1 4049014 618198.5 938.9 914 16.4
714 363452115405101 USAF W 3 4048918.5 617976.1 933.3 918.3 4.6
715 363454116314201 4048890.8 542198.2 693.4 686.1 5.8
716 363456116335501 4048998.5 538892.6 707.4 683.2 18.6
717 363500115400001 4046539.8 619799.1 958.9 969 -1
718 363503116284001 4048667.5 546722.1 693.6 691.8 1
719 363503116351501 4048620 536906.3 690.9 681.5 7
720 363508115391701 USAF MW-22 4049537 620353.9 932.5 924.7 7.8
721 363511116335101 4048875.5 538992.5 690.8 683.1 0.8
722 363514115475001 TW-4 4049553 607602.8 835.8 963.1 -127.3
724 363519116322001 4049935 541522.2 693.7 686.7 2.2
725 363521116352501 4049173.5 536655.4 691 682.1 6.5
726 363523116353701 4050004 536353.7 693.7 682.9 8.3
728 363527115510901 TW-10 4049893 602652.7 832.3 964.5 -13.2
729 363527116292501 4049401 545599.9 697.8 691.2 4.3
730 363529115391301 USAF MW-21 4050185.5 620444.2 930 855.8 74.2
731 363529115392101 USAF MW-20 4050182.8 620245.5 930 853.5 76.5
732 363530116021401 Army 1 WW 4049804 586127.1 721.7 721.2 0
733 363540116240801 4049847 553474.4 721.9 707.1 8.2
734 363549116305001 4050068 543484.4 695.9 689.1 2.1
736 363621116263201 4052320.3 549683.2 704.4 701.5 0.3
737 363709116264601 4052566 549532.7 704 701.4 0.3
738 363711116263701 4053645.5 549750 707.7 702.9 2.6
739 363742116263201 4054909.5 549866.8 706.7 704.3 1.6
740 363750115394099 S15E5621 4054522.5 619709 737.8 733.9 0.4
a
b
Meter(s) B-9
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
742 363815116175901 TW-5 4054685 562608.2 725.1 716.1 9
744 363830116241401 AIRPORT W 4054927.3 552821.9 705.4 710.1 -4.7
745 363835116234001 NDOT W 4055243.5 554136.1 705.4 712.9 -7.5
746 363836116234001 4055457.3 553811.9 702.8 712.4 -3.3
748 363840116233501 4055335.3 554011.4 701.6 712.7 -1.1
749 363840116234001 4055397.8 554135.2 705.6 713 -0.7
750 363840116235000 4055396 553886.8 704.1 712.5 -0.8
751 363907116235701 4056227 553707.8 718.4 712.8 0.6
752 363910115300099 S15E5817 4057200.5 634076.2 843 735.3 10.8
755 364141116351401 NA-6 W BGMW-10 4060510.8 527995.8 718.9 706.8 12.1
756 364141116351402 4060510.8 527995.8 722.5 707.8 3.1
757 364215116362701 S14 E47 25AAD 4062692.5 534410.7 716 707.2 0.9
758 364243116432401 4062750 524713.6 730.1 710.8 6
759 364246116445701 4062836 522406.1 743.2 711.8 9.8
760 364247116442301 4062869.3 523249.6 736.6 710.9 8
762 364457116231201 4067332.8 550736.8 729.7 721.3 0.8
763 364514116482901 4067384.3 517137.5 873.4 726 45.9
766 364534116065902 TW-F 4068347.3 578873.7 729.3 723.1 6.2
767 364550116472701 4068496.8 518672.5 799.6 730 7
768 364552116413301 4068582 527448.7 737.9 718.7 6
769 364554116232401 J-12 WW 4068773 554447.3 727.7 728.9 -1.2
772 364557116410901 MW 309 4068738 528043.3 751.5 718.5 33
773 364557116411101 MW 317 4068738 527993.7 751.3 718.5 32.8
774 364557116411201 4068737.8 527968.9 763.9 718.5 4.5
775 364557116411401 MW 311 4068737.5 527919.3 752 718.6 33.4
776 364557116411501 U.S. ECOLOCY - MW604 4068737.5 527894.5 746.1 718.6 2.7
777 364557116411801 MW 315 4068737.3 527820.2 751.8 718.7 33.1
778 364557116413701 U.S. ECOLOGY-W002 4068735.8 527349.1 738.3 719 1.9
779 364557116434501 4068726.3 524175.7 755.9 722.3 10.4
780 364559116521901 4068761.3 511432.7 1001.4 732.1 26.9
782 364600116412001 MW 314 4068829.5 527770.2 754 718.9 35.1
783 364600116413001 4068736.3 527522.6 751.3 718.9 3.2
785 364601116414101 U.S. ECOLOGY-W001 4068858.8 527249.5 744.4 719.3 2.5
786 364603116410801 MW 316 4068923 528067.4 757.3 718.8 38.5
787 364603116412101 MW 312 4068922 527745.1 760.3 719 41.3
788 364607116410701 MW 310 4069046.3 528091.8 759.7 719 40.7
789 364615116412401 MW 313 4069291.5 527669.6 761.2 719.7 41.5
790 364615116412402 U.S. ECOLOGY - MW600 4069291.5 527669.6 755.8 719.7 3.6
792 364635115572901 WW-5A 4070369 592986.3 725.8 728.4 -0.3
793 364649116280201 USW WT-11 4070426.5 547545.6 730.5 722.3 8.2
794 364656116261601 UE-25 WT 12 4070657.5 550171.8 729.4 730.6 -1.2
795 364706116170601 J-11 WW 4071056.5 563802.3 732.2 739.7 -7.5
796 364708115574401 WW-5C 4071750.5 592475.5 727.7 728.5 -0.7
797 364732116330701 USW VH-1 4071713 539979.3 779.4 722 57.4
798 364757116245801 UE-25 WT 3 4072548.5 552093.7 729.5 743.4 -13.9
799 364758116331701 USW VH-1 4072512.8 539727.7 789.4 723.9 6.6
a
b
Meter(s) B-10
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
800 364804115580801 WW-5B 4073101 591990 734.2 728.7 0.5
801 364805115580801 WW-5B 4073132 591989.6 734.2 728.7 5.5
802 364814116485401 4072929.3 516506.9 791.1 742.3 4.9
803 364822116262601 UE-25 WT 17 4073306 549908.4 729.6 744.8 -15.2
804 364825116290501 USW WT-10 4073376 545968.1 775.9 729 46.9
805 364828116234001 J-13 WW 4073515.8 554020.6 728.2 741.4 -13.2
807 364830115512601 TW-3 4074015.5 601942.7 728.7 731.6 -2.9
809 364844115541301 WW-1 4074398.5 597799.5 727.3 730.8 -0.3
810 364905116280101 USW G-3 4074617.5 547547 730.4 741.1 -10.7
811 364915115574101 UE-5n 4075296.3 592635.3 733.8 730 3.8
812 364916116265601 USW WT- 1 4074965.5 549155.4 730.5 752.4 -21.9
813 364922115580101 RNM-2S 4075475.8 592137.9 733.9 730 3.9
814 364923115575701 RNM-2 4075538.5 592236.3 733.8 730 3.6
815 364928115580101 RNM-1 4075691.5 592135.5 715.6 730.1 -14.5
816 364933116285701 USW WT- 7 4075472.5 546154.9 775.7 739.7 36
817 364938116252102 UE-25p 1 PTH 4075657.3 551504.9 752.3 719.7 32.6
818 364942116280001 USW H-3 HTH 4075757.5 547565.4 731.4 748.9 -16.7
819 364942116280002 USW H-3 HTH 4075757.5 547565.4 732.6 748.7 -16.1
820 364942116280003 USW H-3 HTH 4075757.5 547565.4 754.3 748.8 5.5
821 364942116280004 USW H-3 HTH 4075757.5 547565.4 731.1 748.7 -17.6
822 364942116280005 USW H-3 HTH 4075757.5 547565.4 772.2 748.9 23.3
823 364945116235001 UE-25 WT 13 4075825 553733.5 729 766.4 -37.4
824 364947116254300 UE-25c 1 HTH 4075931.3 550958.3 730.1 764.5 -3.4
825 364947116254301 UE-25c 2 HTH 4075869.8 550958.6 729.3 764 -3.5
826 365011115584701 UE-5c WW 4077004.3 590981.7 734.3 730.6 3.7
827 365023116271801 USW WT-2 4077027 548598.7 730.6 764.1 -33.5
828 365032116243501 UE-25 WT 14 4077328.3 552634.2 730 779.7 -49.7
829 365032116265401 USW H-4 HTH 4077307.5 549191.5 729.8 771.4 -41.6
830 365032116265402 USW H-4 HTH 4077307.5 549191.5 730 771 -41
831 365032116265403 USW H-4 HTH 4077307.5 549191.5 730.1 771 -40.9
832 365049116285501 USW H-6 HTH 4077814.5 546191.9 775.1 752.3 2.3
833 365049116285502 USW H-6 HTH 4077814.5 546191.9 775.8 752.6 23.2
834 365049116285503 USW H-6 HTH 4077814.5 546191.9 777.8 752.6 25.2
835 365049116285504 USW H-6 HTH 4077814.5 546191.9 775.5 752.6 22.9
836 365049116285505 USW H-6 HTH 4077814.5 546191.9 775.3 752.6 22.7
837 365105115565801 UE-5 PW-1 4078697.5 593663.4 733.7 731.9 1.8
838 365105116262401 UE-25a 1 4078328.8 549928.6 731 783.3 -52.3
839 365108116262301 UE-25b 1 HTH 4078421.3 549952.8 730.3 761.6 -31.3
840 365108116262302 UE-25b 1 HTH 4078421.3 549952.8 728.3 784.7 -56.4
841 365108116262303 UE-25b 1 HTH 4078421.3 549952.8 730.5 784.8 -54.3
842 365114116270401 USW G-4 4078600.3 548936.4 730.1 779.6 -49.5
843 365116116233801 UE-25 WT 15 4078692.8 554037.3 728.9 798.3 -69.4
844 365122116275501 USW H-5 HTH 4078839.8 547672 774.8 770.9 3.9
845 365122116275502 USW H-5 HTH 4078839.8 547672 775.2 770.8 4.4
846 365122116275503 USW H-5 HTH 4078839.8 547672 775.1 770.8 4.3
847 365140116260301 UE-25 WT 4 4079410.3 550442.2 730.6 797.1 -66.5
a
b
Meter(s) B-11
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
848 365147116185301 UE-25a 3 4079695.8 561088.1 748.3 815 -6.7
849 365152115565701 UE-5 PW-2 4080146 593672.2 733.5 732.3 1.2
850 365157116271201 USW H-1 HTH 4079924.3 548730.7 730.9 728.2 2.7
851 365157116271202 USW H-1 HTH 4079924.3 548730.7 784.9 792 -7.1
852 365157116271203 USW H-1 HTH 4079924.3 548730.7 731.1 791.4 -60.3
853 365157116271204 USW H-1 HTH 4079924.3 548730.7 730.1 791.3 -61.2
854 365157116271205 USW H-1 HTH 4079924.3 548730.7 730.4 791.3 -60.9
855 365201115581601 UE-5 PW-3 4080402 591713.1 733.5 732.1 1.4
856 365213115564401 UE-5f 4080796.8 593986.9 734.9 732.6 0.2
857 365239116020901 UE-5j 4081512.8 585932.2 848 744.3 10.4
858 365239116253401 UE-25 WT 16 4081232.5 551149.4 738.3 825 -86.7
860 365259115571601 UE-11a 4082205.5 593179.2 736.2 733 2.9
862 365322116273501 USW G-2 4082540 548146.4 1030.7 884.3 123.7
864 365340116264601 UE-25 WT 6 4083101.8 549356 1034.1 1108.5 -74.4
867 365412116013901 WW-4A 4084386 586645.6 844.4 744.8 99.6
868 365418116012601 WW-4 4084574.3 586965.5 843.3 744.8 93.9
869 365437116384401 S12 E48 07ad 4084775 531574.9 1174 868.1 30.6
870 365445116383901 GEXA W 3 4085020.5 531701.4 1194.8 878.3 316.5
871 365500116003901 WW-C-1 4085880.5 588115.2 724.6 744.3 -19.7
872 365502115134101 DDL-2 4086951.5 657846 940.5 940.3 0.1
873 365503116444101 4085546.5 522742.5 1027.2 971.1 5.6
874 365506115142499 S12E60 10AD 4087056.5 656775.9 925.2 939.8 -1.5
875 365508116003501 WW-C 4086128 588211.6 725.6 744.1 -17.6
876 365508116003502 WW-C 4086128 588211.6 724.7 744 -1.9
877 365517116365801 S12 E48 04ca 4086017.8 534193 990 890.8 9.9
878 365520116370301 GEXA W 4 4086108.3 534072.6 1009.2 908.5 100.7
879 365527116475301 BEATTY SUMMIT W 4086274.5 517990.2 1161.3 903.9 25.7
881 365550116091101 UE-14b 4087299.3 575432.5 819.1 851.7 -32.6
885 365636116430801 4088416 524169.4 1085.1 1039.2 4.6
887 365709116481101 BEATTY INDIAN SPR W 4089416.8 517538.4 1238.4 992.3 24.6
888 365711115115101 Desert Valley Well 4090978 660492.9 929.1 941.5 -1.2
889 365711115115201 DDL-1 4090977.8 660468.1 929.4 941.4 -9.5
890 365731116425501 4090114.3 525351.5 1085.1 1078.1 0.7
891 365740116043501 ER-6-2 4090753.8 582224.1 745 763.2 -1.8
892 365749116431101 4090667.8 524954.3 1085.1 1079 0.6
894 365804116432101 4091129.3 524705.6 1083.6 1081.5 0.2
895 365810116425101 4091869 524777.6 1097.3 1091.9 0.5
897 365821116343701 USW VH-2 4073212.5 537742.1 810.4 725.9 8.5
899 365849116002101 TW-B 4092811.3 587796 739.1 737.6 1.5
900 365856116453701 4093217.3 522029.7 1249.7 1097.8 15.2
904 365905116012001 UE-6e 4093419.8 587023.2 739.7 735.2 4.5
905 365905116012002 UE-6e 4093420 587023.2 739.4 738.4 1
906 365905116033201 UE-6d 4093386.8 583759.9 741.2 738 0.3
907 365930115075499 S11E61 4095376.3 666267.3 930.2 948.1 -1.8
910 365943116032901 WW-3 4094558.5 583822.4 730.1 744.2 -13.4
911 370002116430101 4094210.3 524573 1127.8 1122.6 0.5
a
b
Meter(s) B-12
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
912 370003116424501 4094800.5 526128.4 1188.7 1157.5 3.1
913 370005116040301 UE-1h 4095228.3 582975.4 743.1 737.5 5.6
914 370017116014201 U-3jg 4095632.8 586456.7 735.4 741.4 -5.7
916 370020116003701 U-3kv 4095742 588062.3 738.4 736.9 1.5
918 370053116002901 U-3ks 4096760.8 588249.3 736.9 736.9 0
920 370116115561301 ER-3-1-1 4097539.3 594564.2 729.2 735.7 -0.6
921 370116115561302 ER-3-1-2 4097539.3 594564.2 729.1 735.7 -0.7
922 370142116021100 WW-A 4099200.5 585728.5 732.1 751.3 -1.9
923 370142116021101 WW-A 4099200.5 585728.5 729.7 751.2 -18.8
925 370154116430201 4097786.5 525155.7 1204 1169.4 3.5
927 370208116092401 UE-16f 4098944.5 575007.8 1174.6 1079 9.6
928 370208116092402 UE-16f 4098944.5 575007.8 1306 1079 227
931 370214116021002 ER-3-2-2 4099232.5 585724.4 731.2 743.8 -1.3
933 370214116452701 4098424.5 521843.2 1213.1 1183 3
934 370218116033101 UE-1k 4099334.5 583725.8 745.9 759.2 -13.3
935 370246116064901 UE-1f 4100150.3 578826.3 1112.1 984.1 12.8
936 370253116055201 UE-1c 4100379.3 580232.2 886.7 835.5 51.2
937 370254116064201 UE-1b 4100398.5 578996.9 1105.9 980.9 125
938 370254116070601 UE-1a 4100393 578404 1145.6 981 164.6
940 370254116082002 UE-1L 4100376 576576.1 1199.8 1011.2 188.6
941 370301116065301 UE-1d 4100611.5 578723.2 1146 980.4 16.6
942 370301116185801 ER-30-1-1 4100465.3 560811.5 1280 1272.6 0.7
943 370301116185802 ER-30-1-2 4100465.3 560811.5 1280 1272.6 0.7
944 370311115591901 TH-9 4101031.8 589958.8 728.8 736.8 -0.8
945 370320116012001 U-3cn 5 4101708.8 586913.3 729 738.1 -9.1
946 370321115594201 TW-E 4101333.8 589362.7 748.2 736.9 11.3
947 370321115594202 TW-E 4101333.8 589362.7 743.7 736.9 6.8
949 370326116021101 U-3jn 1 4101449.8 585680.9 731.5 755.9 -23.3
950 370334116012100 U-3cn 5 HTH 4101709 586938 727.6 738.1 -10.5
952 370337116033001 UE-1q 4101769 583726.4 770.4 769.2 1.2
953 370337116033002 UE-1q 4101769 583726.4 739.5 761.9 -22.4
954 370338116011801 U-3cn 1 4101832.8 586986.1 732.8 739.1 -0.6
956 370339116011901 U-3cn 3 4101863.5 586961.2 732.5 739.3 -0.7
958 370348116024301 U-3mt 4102119.5 584883.8 771.1 761.6 9.5
959 370353116000601 U-3jq 1 4102313.5 588759.5 750.7 738.5 12.2
960 370353116020201 TW-7 4102284 585894.8 730.4 744.9 -14.5
961 370353116021401 U-3an 3 4102311.8 585598.2 724.1 738.3 -1.4
962 370355116013001 U-3cn 4 HTH 4102353.5 586684.4 732 742.1 -9.6
963 370406116095600 UE-16d WW 4102759.5 574307.2 1198.5 1379.1 -18.1
965 370411116025901 UE-3e 4102824.5 584481.6 770.1 766 4.1
969 370411116025905 UE-3e 4102824.5 584481.6 774.8 765.6 8.7
976 370411116025912 UE-3e 4-3 4102824.5 584481.6 771.3 766 5.3
977 370412115593601 UE-7aa 4102907 589494.2 729.6 737.3 -7.7
978 370412116095101 UE-16d WW 4102759.5 574307.2 1198.2 1273 -7.5
979 370418116044501 TW-D 4103326 582229.3 740.5 794.9 -5.4
980 370419116101700 UE-17a 4103158.8 574130.8 1236.9 1399.8 -162.9
a
b
Meter(s) B-13
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
981 370425116095801 UE-17a 4103158.8 574130.8 1237.2 1399.2 -162
982 370428116043001 TW-D 4103326 582229.3 740 796 -56
983 370434116040702 UE-4ae 4103516.5 582795.4 763.2 785.1 -13.1
984 370435116040701 U-4ak 4103547.5 582795.1 766.4 787.2 -19.8
985 370436116000201 U-7ca 4103639.8 588844.4 774.2 739.7 34.5
986 370444116001801 U-7bc 4103882 588446.8 757.4 739.8 17.6
987 370447116030501 U-7au 4103932.3 584322.3 764.3 767.9 -0.4
990 370451116024102 U-7cd 1 4104061.5 584913.7 820.9 762.2 58.7
991 370454116003201 U-7bd 4104186.5 588097.8 754.2 738.1 13.6
992 370501116041301 UE-4ah 4104347.5 582663.8 760.9 751.7 8
994 370509116040301 U-4au 4104595 582784.8 763.5 789.2 -25.7
996 370513116025101 U-4u PS 2A 4104735.5 584511.8 756.1 744.6 11.5
997 370514116000601 U-7cb 4104809.5 588733.3 761.9 739.6 22.3
998 370514116024101 U-7ba 4104770.3 584906.6 800.2 759.6 4.1
999 370520116025701 U-4u 4104951.3 584509.7 740.5 763.3 -2.3
1002 370547116041101 UE-4av 4105765 582674.6 795.6 790.5 0.5
1003 370547116041102 UE-4av 4105765 582674.6 777.5 749.7 2.8
1005 370547116041104 UE-4av 4105765 582674.6 794.5 790.2 0.4
1007 370556116000901 UE-7nS 4106103 588645.7 731.5 738.6 -7.1
1008 370556116025401 UE-4t 4106061.3 584572.6 775.3 758.4 1.7
1015 370601116030102 UE-4a 4106213.8 584398.3 773.6 739.3 34.3
1016 370601116030103 UE-4a 4106213.8 584398.3 772.9 746 26.9
1019 370605116012401 U-7cc 4106361.3 586791.4 825.4 739.1 86.3
1021 370608116043102 UE-4ab 4106407.5 582174.5 784.8 791.3 -6.2
1023 370616116090801 UE-17c 4106590.3 575335 1318.1 1169.7 148.4
1024 370626116015601 U-7a 4107000.3 585994.9 727.4 739.4 -1.2
1029 370645116031901 U-2gh 4107565 583940.4 793.5 766.5 27
1030 370648116473001 4107260.3 518513.3 1202.4 1229.5 -14.9
1031 370700116474001 4107629.5 518265.7 1220.4 1230.1 -1
1032 370704116474201 4107384 518784.5 1236.1 1229.5 0.7
1033 370712116073901 UE-2s 4108335.8 577515.9 805.1 961.9 -15.7
1034 370720116041601 U-2gk 4108629.8 582523.1 748.8 775.9 -27.1
1035 370723116033101 U-2bs 4108733.3 583632.7 763.1 767.7 -4.6
1036 370726116040302 UE-2ar 4108818 582842.1 746.7 771.6 -2.5
1037 370728116042001 U-2gf 4108875.5 582422 754.2 774.7 -19.5
1038 370736116050301 UE-2fb 4109111.5 581358.5 763.8 775.2 -10.9
1039 370737116035901 U-2v 4109157.8 582937.5 741.1 767.6 -2.6
1041 370741116194501 UE-18t 4109083.8 559593.4 1306.3 1282.6 2.4
1043 370758116040601 UE-2aw 4109803.3 582758.4 748.2 758.2 -8.8
1044 370802116050301 U-2dr 4109912.8 581350.8 748.4 771.3 -22.9
1045 370806116264001 UE-18r 4109757 549324.3 1271.9 1284.2 -12.3
1046 370815116032701 U-9ct 4110336.5 583715.5 787.9 751.3 28.9
1047 370819116022901 U-9 ITS UE-S-25 4110474.5 585169.9 740.3 741.6 -1.3
1049 370823116050001 UE-2dj 4110560.5 581418.6 745.7 760 -14.3
1052 370831116080701 UE-2ce 4110764 576802.7 1010.9 1022.3 -11.4
1055 370836116035001 U-2av 4110978 583141.6 740.7 749.1 -0.8
a
b
Meter(s) B-14
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
1056 370840116510101 TPJ-1 4110701.8 513300.5 1203.2 1234.9 -30.2
1057 370846116030851 U-9ca 1 4111296.5 584174.8 750.8 742.5 7.6
1059 370904116040301 U-2ei 4111837.8 582812.4 740.4 743.9 -3.5
1060 370909116041901 UE-2aa 4111988 582416.3 734.1 743.2 -0.9
1061 370909116041951 UE-2aa 4111988 582416.3 739.3 743.2 -3.9
1062 370910116045901 UE-2ax 2 4112009.3 581429.2 740.2 744.1 -0.4
1063 370917116023701 U-10l 1 4112259.5 584929.9 735 742.2 -4.8
1067 370929116132304 TW-1 4112483.8 568992 1271.6 1276.4 -0.5
1069 370929116132306 TW-1 4112483.8 568992 1276.8 1259.3 1.7
1070 370929116132307 TW-1 4112483.8 568992 1437.1 1297.4 139.7
1071 370929116132308 TW-1 4112483.8 568992 1437.3 1297.4 139.9
1072 370929116132309 TW-1 4112483.8 568992 1277 1259.3 17.7
1074 370929116132311 TW-1 4112483.8 568992 1429.6 1297.4 132.2
1075 370953116030801 U-10k 1 4113361.3 584154.1 734.5 742.7 -8.2
1076 370956116172101 WW-8 4113269.8 563115.4 1407.6 1298.6 109
1077 370958116051501 WW-2 4113484.5 581020.3 759.9 743.1 13.3
1078 370958116051503 WW-2 4113484.5 581020.3 760.2 743 12.4
1079 370958116051508 WW-2 4113484.5 581020.3 735.8 743 -0.7
1080 370958116051511 WW-2 4113484.5 581020.3 736.5 742.9 -0.6
1081 370958116051512 WW-2 4113484.5 581020.3 736.2 742.9 -6.3
1082 371014116051601 UE-8e 4113977.5 580990.9 785.8 743.6 42.2
1083 371014116051602 UE-8e 4113977.5 580990.9 785.8 743.5 42.3
1086 371043116142101 ER-19-1-1 4114754 567539.5 1325.9 1293.8 3.2
1090 371052116125201 U-12e.06-1 R/C 4115047.8 569735.6 1416.6 1348.9 57.3
1091 371106116110401 ER-12-1 4115501.5 572394.9 1302.4 1419.5 -11.7
1092 371108116045301 UE-10j 4115647 581542 735.2 743.5 -8
1094 371109116024702 UE-10 ITS 3 4115708.5 584648.4 762.2 743.5 17.8
1095 371123116025201 UE-10bf 4116138.5 584520.8 759.6 743.7 14.5
1096 371123116025202 UE-10bf 4116138.5 584520.8 763.9 743.7 15.1
1097 371131116021501 UE-10aa 4116425.5 585455 992.5 743.8 118.5
1099 371154116024601 UE-10 ITS 1 4117095.5 584659.2 996.7 744.1 230.6
1100 371154116024602 UE-10 ITS 1 4117095.5 584659.2 994.9 744.1 250.8
1101 371155116031401 UE-10 ITS 5 4117119.3 583968.6 757.3 744.1 12.6
1102 371155116031402 UE-10 ITS 5 4117119.3 583968.6 772.6 744.1 27.2
1110 371313116274201 U-20as 4119239.5 547765.3 1284.5 1316.5 -32
1111 371315116282701 U-20y 4119295 546655.9 1276.9 1313.7 -35.1
1112 371321116292301 ER-20-1 4119473.8 545271.1 1278.1 1307.5 -2.9
1113 371329116220301 UE-19fS 4119784.3 556116.7 1350 1350.1 0
1116 371332116254101 U-20be 4119842.5 550743.8 1303.8 1329.8 -26
1119 371339116221601 U-19az 4120090.3 555794.3 1424.6 1356.6 68
1122 371341116222901 U-19aq 4120149.8 555473.5 1429 1355.5 56.3
1126 371349116222001 U-19bh 4120397.8 555693.7 1423.3 1356.2 64
1127 371350116264701 U-20ax 4120387.5 549114.1 1329.7 1330.2 -0.5
1129 371352116281801 UE-20c 4120436.3 546871.4 1267.1 1324.4 -5.7
1130 371353116282501 U-20c 4120466 546698.7 1275.3 1323.3 -4.8
1131 371359116252301 U-20av 4120677.3 551182.3 1336.8 1339.8 -2.8
a
b
Meter(s) B-15
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
1132 371401116220601 U-19x 4120769.8 556036.2 1392 1361.8 3
1133 371401116252001 UE-20av 4120739.3 551255.9 1319.5 1340.7 -21.2
1134 371410116221301 U-19ae 4121046 555861.8 1369.8 1364 5.5
1136 371416116282201 U-20ao 4121175.3 546768.7 1317.3 1331.4 -1.4
1138 371421116333701 PM-3 4121289.8 539006.6 1331.3 1314.4 16.9
1139 371421116333702 PM-3 4121289.8 539006.6 1330.3 1311.1 19.2
1140 371421116333703 PM-3-1 4121289.8 539006.6 1329.8 1308 21.8
1141 371421116333704 PM-3-2 4121289.8 539006.6 1330.5 1314.4 16.1
1143 371425116210101 U-20n PS 1DD-H 4121478.3 551152.8 1324.7 1345.5 -20.8
1144 371425116251901 UE-20n 1 4121479 551276 1318.8 1349 -3
1145 371425116251902 UE-20n 1 4121479 551276 1349.4 1349.2 0.2
1147 371433116251301 U-20n PS 1DD-H 4121478.3 551152.8 1349.1 1345.5 3.5
1148 371434116251601 U-20a 2 WW 4121756.8 551348.2 1343.7 1352.3 -8.6
1149 371434116255101 U-20a 4121751.5 550485.9 1328.7 1349.3 -2.1
1150 371439115480001 Watertown 2 WW 4122428.5 606437.3 1079.3 953.4 12.6
1151 371440115483401 Watertown 1 WW 4122448.8 605599.3 1204.1 973.1 23.1
1153 371444116263001 U-20bf 4122054 549523.2 1338.1 1349.7 -11.6
1156 371452116284901 UE-20D 4122281 546097.3 1273.9 1342.7 -62.8
1157 371452116292101 U-20ak 4122276.8 545309 1278.5 1339.5 -61
1160 371452116293903 U-20bb 1 4122274.3 544865.5 1280.9 1336.5 -30.6
1161 371452116303301 U-20at 1 4122267.3 543535.2 1284.4 1329.7 -35.8
1163 371459116204801 UE-19i 4122600.8 557921 1396.3 1387.5 0.9
1164 371505116254501 U-20 WW 4122707.8 550628 1344.6 1360.2 -15.6
1165 371505116254502 U-20 WW 4122707.8 550628 1351.5 1360.3 -8.8
1167 371509116223601 U-19au 4122860.5 555283.1 1358.5 1380.3 -17.2
1168 371509116223602 U-19au 1 4122860.5 555283.1 1358.8 1380.3 -21.5
1169 371512116193101 U-19ab 4122984 559839.9 1495 1405.5 89.5
1170 371513116193001 U-19ab 2 4123015 559864.3 1497.8 1406 87.6
1172 371519116223301 U-19av 4123169 555355.1 1369 1383.3 -1.4
1173 371521116252001 U-20ah 4123204.5 551240.9 1354 1367.8 -13.2
1179 371537115555001 Watertown 4 WW 4124174 603064.5 1320.7 1081.4 23.9
1180 371539115500301 Watertown 3 WW 4124239.5 603384 1322.6 1084 23.9
1182 371542116251202 U-20bd 2 4123853 551433.9 1375.3 1375 0.3
1183 371542116251203 U-20bd 4123853 551433.9 1355.8 1374.9 -19.1
1184 371542116251301 U-20bd 1 4123852.8 551409.3 1355.5 1374.8 -19.3
1185 371545115495401 WNGM W 4124427.3 603603.4 1322.5 1089.6 23.3
1186 371547116292601 U-20bc 4123971 545176.7 1303.1 1363.1 -60
1188 371551116262501 U-20ai 4124119.5 549634.2 1356.2 1372.5 -15.6
1190 371554116185301 U-19c 4124285 560766.7 1429.2 1417.9 1.1
1192 371604116243801 U-20am 4124536 552267.1 1357 1383.2 -25
1193 371608116191001 UE-19c 4124713.5 560344.8 1428.9 1418.1 1.1
1194 371608116191002 UE-19c WW 4124713.5 560344.8 1431.1 1418.1 9.5
1195 371617116291701 UE-20f 4124896.5 545393.3 1322.9 1372.1 -40.2
1196 371617116291702 UE-20f 4124896.5 545393.3 1268.7 1373.8 -10.5
1197 371617116291801 U-20f 4124896.5 545368.8 1276.2 1373.9 -9.8
1198 371618116260201 UE-20h WW 4124985.5 550195.5 1355.5 1380.9 -17.5
a
b
Meter(s) B-16
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
1199 371620116213501 U-19bg 1 4125058.3 556771.1 1394.5 1401.4 -6.9
1202 371623116243701 UE-20ab 4125121.5 552288.1 1356.1 1387.9 -25.2
1204 371630116221202 U-19aS 4125360.5 555857.8 1392.7 1399.1 -0.6
1205 371632116211301 U-19ay 4125431.8 557310.4 1396.9 1405.7 -8.8
1207 371643116212001 U-19ar 4125769.5 557135.6 1398.9 1406.5 -0.8
1209 371648116242001 TW-9 4125894.5 552702 1349.2 1394 -4.5
1210 371649116242101 PM-1 4125925.3 552677.2 1354.5 1394.1 -36.2
1211 371649116242102 PM-1 4125925.3 552677.2 1359.3 1390.4 -31.1
1214 371658116244401 U-20aw 4126199 552109.1 1371.4 1395.3 -18.9
1220 371714116230301 U-19bk 4126708 554592.9 1427.8 1402.5 25.3
1225 371746116184601 U-19ba 4127737.8 560914 1488.8 1430.7 58.1
1230 371750116195901 UE-19e WW 4127848 559115.8 1432 1423.9 6.4
1231 371750116262701 U-20an 4127786.3 549563.3 1363.1 1402.2 -39.1
1233 371758116193601 UE-19z 4128098.5 559680.3 1429.7 1427.6 0.2
1234 371801116320301 UE-20j WW 4128080.3 541289.3 1412 1418.4 -0.6
1236 371802116320301 U-20m 4128111 541289.1 1412.1 1408.8 0.3
1237 371807116243001 U-20g 4128327.5 552440.5 1357.3 1409.6 -5.2
1239 371830116215301 UE-19gS WW 4129061.5 556300.8 1424.9 1417.8 6.8
1241 371836116215101 U-19g 4129246.5 556348.8 1424.2 1418.8 4.9
1242 371851116273801 U-20e 4129655.8 547804.5 1360.3 1412.3 -5.2
1243 371852116175701 UE-19b 1 WW 4129780.5 562105.3 1427.9 1436 -8.1
1244 371852116281701 U-20ar 1 4129681.3 546844.3 1364.4 1412.3 -47.9
1246 371901116272501 UE-20e 1 4129965.8 548122.8 1364.1 1414.3 -39.7
1247 371929116185501 U-19ai 4130910.3 560669.4 1429 1434.2 -4.1
1253 372034116222501 UE-19h 4132877.5 555487.8 1422.8 1427.1 -0.4
1254 372034116222503 UE-19h 4132877.5 555487.8 1472.2 1427.1 45.1
1255 372034116222504 UE-19h 4132877.5 555487.8 1423.1 1427.2 -4.1
1256 372042116340501 PM-2 4133027.5 538263.1 1443 1435.3 7.7
1258 372054116191901 U-19d 2 4133525.3 560060 1428 1434.7 -6.1
1277 372543116363501 GOLD FLAT 2 4142287 534534.1 1523 1451.8 56.3
1279 372642116281301 Gold Flat 1 4144165.5 546861.5 1421.2 1449.9 -2.9
1318 373624115434101 4162460.8 610611.9 1405.4 1435.1 -3
1320 373635115450101 4162807.3 608841.6 1406 1450.4 -4.4
1321 373704115465701 4163478 605890.2 1446 1453.5 -0.7
1322 373704115490401 4163467.5 602604.5 1428 1451.5 -2.3
1323 373708115482201 4163995.3 605368.6 1439.9 1452 -6.6
1325 373721115470102 4164421.5 607349.2 1442 1451.1 -0.9
1326 373721115473401 4164411 606540.2 1440 1451.5 -3.6
1327 373721115483901 4164390.5 604946.8 1438.8 1451 -5.4
1328 373729115442601 4164328.5 609679.8 1449.1 1445.3 0.4
1329 373729115454301 4164425 607618.8 1456 1450.9 0.5
1330 373741115480601 4164780.5 604083.7 1431 1450.4 -1.9
1335 373813115454001 4165747.3 607381 1463 1447.3 1.6
1336 373815115434601 4166034 610441.7 1450.8 1444.7 0.6
1337 373817115483301 4165818.5 603286.3 1449.3 1449.8 0
1338 373819115465201 4165820 605835.6 1449.6 1448.3 0.1
a
b
Meter(s) B-17
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
1340 373833115441101 USGS-MX 4166695.5 611486.8 1456.2 1443.5 1
1341 373838115424001 4166829.5 612269.4 1442.3 1442.7 0
1342 373851115472001 4167189 606847.6 1432.6 1446 -1.3
1343 373907115461701 4167432.8 606623.9 1447.1 1445.9 0.1
1344 373907115472901 4167663.8 605395.5 1450.5 1447.3 0.3
1345 373943115495701 4168534.8 601095.8 1444.2 1450.7 -0.6
1346 373944115454101 4168854.3 609252.2 1440.4 1443.6 -0.3
1348 373955115490201 4169199 602484.4 1447.2 1449.6 -0.2
1349 373955115512901 4169085 600721.5 1439.3 1450.9 -1.2
1350 373957115440501 4169323 609736.1 1448 1443.6 0.4
1352 374020115494101 4169680 601498.3 1445.3 1450.2 -0.5
1353 374024115502901 4171705.3 600738.6 1450.3 1450.6 0
1354 374029115501901 4169854.5 600638.6 1444.4 1450.8 -0.6
1356 374051115420802 4170989.8 614442.5 1446 1442.6 1.8
1357 374052115403001 4170787.3 615400.8 1445.1 1440.9 0.4
1359 374140115490401 4172185.3 602178 1445.8 1449.4 -0.4
1363 374230115491701 4174696.3 603322.3 1457.3 1450.1 0.7
1364 374241116264601 TTR CEDAR PASS R-1 W 4173731.8 548825 1608.1 1509.5 9.9
1366 374244115420801 4174481.3 612802.2 1443.3 1447.7 -0.4
1367 374247115433202 4174536.5 612336.2 1440.8 1447.6 -0.7
1368 374247115474001 4174340 604404.2 1446.8 1448.9 -0.2
1373 374345115415501 USGS-MX 4176356.8 614686.4 1446.3 1451.3 -0.5
1374 374356115422601 4176685.3 613922.9 1446.6 1452.1 -3
1376 374419115453001 4177333.3 609409.4 1464.6 1451.1 1.3
1379 374506116292300 TTR CEDAR PASS WW 4177627 545571.4 1568 1520 26.1
1380 374523115440901 USGS-MX 4179332.3 611365.3 1483.6 1457.4 2.1
1383 374530115455201 USGS-MX 4179514.3 608842 1446.4 1457.4 -1.1
1385 374536115445901 4179716.5 610136.5 1446.4 1458.2 -6.5
1387 374619116435401 TTR EH-4 4180339.5 523636 1567.4 1525.7 23
1393 374703116445701 TTR SANDIA MAIN WW 4181691.3 522091.1 1564.9 1524.9 4
1396 374725116452701 TTR SANDIA 2 4182367.5 521355.6 1564 1525.1 38.9
1397 374729115483301 USGS-MX 4183112.3 603388.1 1444.4 1465 -1.7
1398 374739116453401 TTR SANDIA 4 4182798.5 521183.3 1563.8 1525.3 38.5
1399 374806115413601 4184479.8 613595 1452.4 1464.7 -1.2
1402 374910116373001 TTR DEAD HORSE W 4185641.8 533009.1 1578.7 1527.7 28.1
1406 374946115460101 4187509.5 586463.3 1460.1 1520.7 -6.1
1411 375051115445301 4189742.8 608413.4 1451.8 1472.8 -2.1
1414 375103115463001 4189765 607777.6 1445.5 1472.9 -2.7
1430 375357115465101 4195106.5 584869 1456.6 1522.1 -6.6
1442 375751116030201 FALLINI BROS 4194324 583753.4 1469.1 1522.5 -53.4
1444 375820115442301 REPORT 60 P1 4161645.3 588966.4 1457.6 1465.1 -0.7
1446 375937115414701 USGS-MX 4205700.5 614472.4 1443.5 1535.9 -9.2
1450 380054115472601 USGS-MX 4207962.5 606172.6 1441.7 1569 -12.7
1457 380235115475501 USGS-MX 4211066 605425.2 1448.7 1593.4 -14.5
2279 ASH-B-1 ASH-B-1 4064213 529046.6 719.1 710.8 0.8
2280 ASH-B-2 ASH-B-2 4064213 529046.6 719.5 710.8 0.9
a
b
Meter(s) B-18
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
2283 BT004 4045680.8 508451.8 -79.3 -34.7 -4.5
2284 BT005 4041060.8 509948.7 -79.3 -33.2 -4.6
2285 BT006 4042909 509697.9 -79.3 -32.1 -4.7
2286 BT007 Salt 4042909.5 510195.2 -79.3 -30.3 -4.9
2287 BT008 4039523 512189.3 3.1 -10.2 1.3
2288 BT009 Cow 4039216.8 513433.6 61 28.8 3.2
2289 BT010 4040142.5 514427.2 158.5 59.4 9.9
2290 BT012 Nevares 4040144.5 515422.1 219.5 123.7 9.6
2291 BT013 Nevares 4040454 516167.8 158.5 118.6 4
2294 BT120 4088233 524240.4 1060.7 1037.1 2.4
2295 BT128 4089160.3 525227 1060.7 1062.3 -0.2
2296 BT139 4090699.5 524727.9 1082 1076 0.6
2298 BT172 4093783 525460.5 1112.5 1128.7 -1.6
2314 DV008 4009345 520968.9 -79.3 -65.7 -1.4
2316 DV010 4032748.3 514688.5 97.5 52.5 4.5
2317 DV011 Travertine 4032749.3 515186.4 97.5 65.6 3.2
2318 DV012 4033056.5 514688 97.5 54.7 4.3
2319 DV013 Travertine 4032749.5 515435.3 121.9 77.9 4.4
2320 DV016 4033057.8 515434.8 121.9 84.8 3.7
2321 DV017 DV Hotel Tunnel 4033978.8 513441.8 15.2 25.4 -1
2323 DV019 4033672.3 514438 48.8 52 -0.3
2324 DV021 4033672.8 514686.9 121.9 73.4 4.8
2325 DV022 4033980.5 514437.5 48.8 54 -0.5
2327 DV027 4037056.8 511197.5 -73.2 -38.4 -3.5
2328 DV030 4038597 510946.7 -73.2 -34 -3.9
2329 DV031 4038600 513185.8 30.5 22.7 0.8
2330 DV114 4028341.8 562771.2 684.3 682.4 0.2
2331 DV121 Last Chance 4023738.5 565296.9 686.7 684.2 0.3
2332 DV127 4032338.3 561497.2 702.6 690 1.3
2333 DV138 4032033.8 561997.4 709.6 692.1 1.8
2334 DV141 4031421 562499.8 713.2 692.2 2.1
2335 DV145 Big Spring 4025554 565162.4 682.5 686.7 -0.4
2336 DV154 Jack Rabbit 4027124 564773.2 691.9 689.1 0.3
2337 DV165 4024362.3 566289.2 693.4 690.1 0.3
2338 DV170 Bell 4038178.5 559465.1 692.5 693.3 -0.1
2339 DV180 4035417.8 561226.4 714.8 696.8 1.8
2340 DV204 4028668.3 565259.8 704.1 694.7 0.9
2341 DV212 Indian Rock (King) 4028670.3 565508.9 708.7 695.3 1.3
2342 ER-20-2-1S ER-20-2-1S 4118446.3 553210.3 1349.8 1325.4 2.4
2343 ETW-I-4 PW-1 4078907.3 515798.2 811.6 753.8 5.8
2344 ETW-II-1 PW-2 4078167.3 515601.5 780.8 752.4 2.8
2345 ETW-II-2 PW-3 4078171 517483.6 783.4 750.7 3.3
2346 ETW-II-5 PW-4 4076195.8 515828 779.9 748.6 3.1
2350 IS017 Indian 4046815.3 619567.7 967.7 958.7 0.9
2353 LWS-A-1 LWS-A-1 4045693 549021.7 693.6 690.2 0.3
2354 LWS-A-2 LWS-A-2 4045693 549021.7 685.8 690.2 -0.4
a
b
Meter(s) B-19
Table B-1
Observed Simulated
2355 MSH-C-1 MSH-C-1 4039731 565375.3 710.2 707.5 0.3
2356 MSH-C-2 MSH-C-2 4039731 565375.3 711.1 707.4 0.4
2357 PM011 4096243.8 523970.3 1133.9 1160.6 -2.7
2358 PM013 4095629 524466.4 1121.7 1148.4 -2.7
2359 PM015 Long Spring 4097787.5 524954.3 1182.6 1170 1.3
2360 PM018 4095325.3 525950.1 1170.4 1159.2 1.1
2373 UE-29a-1 UE-29a-1 4088340.8 555757.6 1191.6 1228.8 -35.5
2374 UE-29a-2 UE-29a-2 4088345.5 555749.1 1186.9 1223.6 -36.7
SM23-1 SM23-1 SM23-1 4055901 587967 724.8 723.3 0.2
a
b
Meter(s) B-20
Appendix C
Numerical Groundwater Flow Model

Sensitivity Analysis Results
Description of Appendix Contents
This appendix presents data from the numerical groundwater flow model sensitivity analysis.
The data are presented in three tables: Table C-1, Table C-2, and Table C-3. The tables provide
the results from numerous sensitivity runs for the Kh or 8 parameters types.
The convention used in naming the sensitivity run provides information on the parameter type
(Kh or 8), the HSU identifier, and the HSU zone number, if applicable. For example,
Kh_LCA(3) is the horizontal hydraulic conductivity parameter, projected to land surface, for
zone 3 of the LCA.
The following tables list the calibration zones for the sensitivity analyses.
Abbreviations for Zones Used in

Table C-1 and Table C-2
Residual Zone Identifier Residual Zone Name
NRTH Northern Area
OASI Oasis Valley
PM Pahute Mesa
BARR Barrier
WYF Western Yucca Flat
EYF Eastern Yucca Flat
SHON Shoshone
DV Death Valley
LCA Lower Carbonate Aquifer
Southwest of Pahranagat
PAHR
Valley
SPMT Spring Mountain
SHRG Sheep Range
TMBR Timber Mountain
FARM Amargosa Farm
FF Frenchman Flat
C-1
Abbreviations for Zones Used in
Table C-3
Boundary Flux Zone Boundary Flux Zone

Identifier Name
DV Death Valley
OV Oasis Valley
ARiv Amargosa River
AM Ash Meadows
FL Franklin Lake/Alkali Flats
AF Alkali Flats (Peter’s Playa)
PV Penoyer Valley
IS Indian Springs
PP Pahrump Valley
EM Eagle Mountain
The following are brief descriptions of the contents of each table in this appendix.
Table C-1: Changes in Mean Weighted Residuals Between Sensitivity Runs and
Calibration Run
Table C-1 presents the changes in the mean weighted residual (between the sensitivity run and
the base case) per residual zone as a function of the 100 percent increase and 50 percent decrease
in Kh values, and the 10 percent increase and decrease in the lambda parameter values. Changes
with absolute values greater than or equal to one meter are shaded. A positive change indicates a
general increase in water levels within the zone.
Table C-2: Percentage Change in Roots Mean Square of Mean Weighted Residuals
Between Sensitivity Runs and Calibration Run
Table C-2 presents the percentage change in the RMS of the weighted head residuals per zone.
A positive change indicates an increase in the RMS; shading indicates a change with an absolute
value greater than or equal to 10 percent.
C-2
Table C-3: Percentage Changes in Discharge Rates Between Sensitivity Runs and
Calibration Run
Table C-3 presents the percentage changes in boundary flux rates between the calibrated model
and the sensitivity runs. Positive values indicate an increase in the recharge or discharge flux.
The effects of the sensitivity runs on simulated heads within each of the 15 residual zones, and
on the 10 head-dependent flux discharge areas are addressed in detail in the Groundwater Flow
Model Documentation Package (IT, 1996f). The tables (Table C-1 thru C-3) are provided on
pages C-4 through C-27.
C-3
Table C-1
Changes in Mean Weighted Residuals Between Sensitivity Runs and Calibration Run
a
Calibration Zones and Base Data : NRTH OASI PM BARR WYF EYF SHON DV LCA PAHR SPMT SHRG TMBR FARM FF
Parameter % Change 5.80 38.30 -5.80 107.20 70.40 1.30 21.70 22.90 -7.30 -9.90 -1.70 49.30 6.70 6.30 0.80
Kh_I 100 -0.10 0.00 -0.20 0.10 2.50 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.10 -0.30 0.00 0.10
Kh_LCCU(1) 100 -1.90 1.10 -4.10 -1.00 -5.20 1.30 0.20 0.20 0.10 -3.90 -3.40 -0.90 -5.70 0.70 1.10
Kh_LCCU(2) 100 -0.10 0.00 -0.20 0.20 8.30 1.00 1.10 0.10 0.00 -28.20 -4.30 -12.40 0.00 0.00 0.20
Kh_LCCU(3) 100 0.00 -9.20 -0.30 -0.70 -42.40 0.90 -0.60 3.80 -1.30 -0.60 -0.20 -0.50 -0.80 -3.20 -0.90
Kh_LCA(1) 100 -0.20 -0.10 -0.50 -12.20 2.70 -8.30 -4.10 0.70 -0.10 -10.20 -4.30 -22.60 -0.60 0.40 -5.40
Kh_LCA(2) 100 0.00 -1.90 0.10 -5.00 -47.10 -4.20 -4.00 -0.50 -1.20 -2.50 -1.60 -2.70 0.10 -1.90 -5.50
Kh_LCA(3) 100 0.00 0.20 -0.10 0.70 2.40 0.90 1.10 0.10 0.20 -0.70 -18.50 -6.40 -0.20 0.20 0.60
Kh_LCA(4) 100 -0.10 -3.90 -0.30 -5.20 1.80 -4.60 -2.60 3.90 -2.20 -2.50 -1.60 -2.70 -0.50 -2.00 -5.60
Kh_LCA(5) 100 -4.50 0.20 -3.20 2.80 2.10 2.20 1.90 0.70 0.40 2.30 1.00 0.90 -1.60 0.60 1.80
Kh_LCA(6) 100 -0.10 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -3.10 0.60 1.80 0.00 0.00 -0.90 -4.40 0.30 -0.30 0.00 0.10
Kh_LCA(7) 100 -1.40 0.10 -2.80 0.10 2.60 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 0.00 -1.50 0.00 0.00
Kh_LCA(8) 100 -2.80 0.90 -0.50 0.70 3.30 2.60 2.00 0.30 0.80 -60.80 0.60 -0.10 -0.40 1.10 2.50
Kh_LCA(9) 100 -0.10 -3.90 -0.10 -1.80 8.80 -1.10 -0.80 8.30 -2.30 -0.90 -0.50 -1.00 0.00 -7.50 -2.00
Kh_UCCU 100 -0.20 -0.30 -0.90 0.40 -29.00 2.20 -4.30 0.00 -0.10 -0.80 0.10 0.10 -2.10 0.00 0.30
Kh_LCA3 100 -0.10 -0.10 -0.30 0.20 -46.40 0.10 -13.20 0.00 0.00 -0.90 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
Kh_TSDV(1) 100 0.00 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 2.90 0.40 0.70 0.10 0.10 -0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.20 -0.10 0.00
Kh_TSDV(2) 100 0.00 -0.70 -0.20 0.00 -42.50 1.60 -0.30 -3.70 -0.30 -0.20 0.00 -0.10 -0.80 -1.10 -0.20
Kh_VU(1) 100 -10.00 0.60 -5.10 3.40 -1.30 2.70 0.70 0.00 0.40 -0.70 0.80 0.70 -2.50 0.70 1.80
Kh_VU(2) 100 -0.10 0.00 -0.40 0.30 -41.80 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_VU(3) 100 -1.00 4.70 -6.20 0.30 -1.00 0.60 -2.90 0.50 0.00 -0.80 0.10 0.20 -10.70 0.90 0.30
Kh_VCU(1) 100 -0.40 8.80 -4.20 0.90 -6.90 -0.10 -4.90 0.50 5.20 -0.50 0.30 0.50 -15.50 1.50 0.90
Kh_VCU(2) 100 0.00 -0.10 -0.30 0.30 -39.80 2.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_VA(1) 100 0.10 -4.70 0.90 -0.10 4.10 0.10 -2.20 0.00 -6.20 -0.20 0.00 -0.10 6.00 -0.20 -0.30
Kh_VA(2) 100 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.20 -3.00 -1.80 -1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.00 0.10
Kh_VA(3) 100 0.00 -8.90 -0.20 0.20 -39.80 1.90 -1.30 0.10 -2.60 -0.10 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.40 0.00
Kh_BAQ(1) 100 -0.30 0.10 -2.10 0.20 1.20 0.70 1.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.40 0.00 0.10
Kh_BAQ(3) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 -43.20 0.70 -0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.00 0.10
Kh_BAQ(4) 100 -0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.20 -43.10 1.70 -0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.10
Kh_BAQ(5) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 -26.50 0.40 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.00 0.10
Kh_BAQ(6) 100 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.20 1.40 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.10 0.00 0.10
Kh_BCU(1) 100 -0.70 -0.10 -2.80 0.60 -1.30 0.70 0.70 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 -1.40 0.10 0.30
Kh_BCU(3) 100 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 -33.20 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(4) 100 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.30 -41.90 1.80 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
a
"Base Data" (bold) are the values from the calibration run (m); other values are expressed as the
difference relative to the calibration run (m) resulting from the % change in the parameter value. C-4
Table C-1
a
Kh_I
Kh_BCU(5) 100 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.30 -41.80 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
Kh_BCU(6) 100 -0.10 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -20.00 1.40 -0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 -0.60 0.00 0.10
Kh_TBA(1) 100 -1.00 -0.20 -3.20 0.40 -42.30 0.30 -0.40 0.30 0.00 -1.10 0.10 0.10 1.60 -0.10 0.10
Kh_TBA(3) 100 0.00 -0.10 -0.30 0.30 -42.30 1.80 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_TBA(4) 100 0.00 -0.10 -0.30 0.20 -43.90 1.80 -1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_TBA(6) 100 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.30 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
Kh_TCB(1) 100 -0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.30 -43.80 1.70 -0.40 0.00 0.00 -0.80 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
Kh_TCB(4) 100 -0.10 -0.10 -0.30 0.30 -42.80 1.80 -0.20 0.00 0.00 -0.80 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_TCB(6) 100 0.00 -0.10 -0.30 0.30 -39.80 2.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_TC(1) 100 -5.70 0.10 -15.80 -1.00 0.10 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.10 1.90 -0.10 -0.10
Kh_TC(3) 100 0.00 -0.10 -0.40 0.30 -44.30 1.80 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_TC(4) 100 -0.30 0.30 -2.70 0.20 0.70 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 -2.40 0.00 0.10
Kh_TC(5) 100 -0.10 0.60 -0.50 0.30 -41.90 1.90 1.50 0.10 0.30 0.00 0.10 0.10 -1.40 0.10 0.20
Kh_TC(6) 100 -0.10 -0.10 -0.70 0.20 -44.00 1.80 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
Kh_TMA(1) 100 -3.00 -0.40 -13.80 0.20 -4.60 1.20 -0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.20 0.10 0.10 -5.70 -0.10 0.10
Kh_TMA(2) 100 -0.20 -0.10 -2.00 0.10 1.30 0.40 -0.20 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.10 0.00 -3.80 -0.10 0.00
Kh_TMA(3) 100 -0.50 -0.40 -5.20 0.00 2.70 0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.30 -0.10 0.00 0.00 -7.30 -0.10 0.00
Kh_TMA(4) 100 -1.00 -0.40 -9.70 0.00 -3.60 0.50 0.30 0.00 -0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 -7.00 -0.10 0.00
Kh_TMA(6) 100 -0.40 0.00 -2.10 0.10 3.80 0.40 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.60 0.00 0.10
Kh_AA(1) 100 -12.00 -0.20 -1.60 -2.30 0.80 0.50 -2.20 -2.60 0.40 -2.10 -11.70 8.30 -2.70 1.40 -0.30
Kh_AA(2) 100 -0.10 -4.50 -0.40 -8.20 -4.90 -7.10 -5.80 -5.00 -4.40 -4.30 -2.60 -4.30 -0.70 -6.00 -8.90
Kh_AA(3) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 -43.40 0.70 -0.40 0.00 0.10 0.00 -1.60 -0.30 -0.30 0.00 0.20
Kh_AA(4) 100 0.00 0.20 -0.20 0.10 2.50 -2.20 -0.70 0.40 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 -0.40 -0.10 0.00
Kh_AA(5) 100 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -40.90 1.90 -1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(6) 100 -0.10 -7.80 -0.20 -3.00 4.80 -2.10 -1.00 -0.10 -2.20 -1.50 -0.90 -1.60 -0.20 -2.50 -3.20
ld_I 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -41.60 1.80 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_LCCU(1) 10 0.50 -0.20 1.30 0.20 3.90 0.10 0.30 0.00 0.00 -0.80 1.30 0.00 1.90 -0.20 -0.30
ld_LCCU(2) 10 -0.10 0.00 -0.40 0.10 4.30 1.40 -0.20 0.00 0.00 2.40 1.60 4.20 -0.50 0.00 0.10
ld_LCCU(3) 10 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.40 -10.00 0.80 0.40 -2.00 0.30 -0.70 0.50 -0.10 -0.10 0.70 0.30
ld_LCA(1) 10 0.10 0.00 -0.10 6.60 4.30 5.20 2.90 0.00 0.10 2.60 1.40 2.90 -0.10 -0.20 2.60
ld_LCA(2) 10 0.00 0.50 0.10 1.60 -32.60 1.80 0.30 0.20 0.40 -0.10 0.90 0.60 -0.10 0.50 1.60
ld_LCA(3) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.00 2.50 0.30 0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 3.80 0.70 -0.20 -0.10 0.00
ld_LCA(4) 10 0.00 0.60 -0.10 1.10 4.20 1.40 0.20 -1.40 0.40 -0.60 0.70 0.20 -0.20 0.20 1.00
a
Table C-1
a
Kh_I
ld_LCA(5) 10 1.20 0.30 0.70 -0.70 2.00 -0.10 0.40 0.00 -0.10 -0.90 0.30 -0.50 0.20 -0.20 -0.40
ld_LCA(6) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.30 0.20 -43.40 1.70 -0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 -0.50 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_LCA(7) 10 0.50 0.00 0.90 0.20 -1.00 0.90 1.80 0.00 0.10 -0.90 0.40 -0.20 0.10 0.00 0.10
ld_LCA(8) 10 0.50 -0.30 -0.20 0.00 -3.30 -0.10 1.50 0.00 -0.20 14.70 0.30 -0.40 0.20 -0.30 -0.50
ld_LCA(9) 10 0.00 1.00 -0.20 0.60 2.60 0.90 1.30 -2.20 0.60 -0.60 0.60 0.00 -0.30 2.10 0.60
ld_UCCU 10 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 7.90 0.40 1.70 0.00 0.10 -0.90 0.40 -0.20 0.10 0.00 0.00
ld_LCA3 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.60 0.60 1.90 0.00 0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10
ld_TSDV(1) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.30 -44.20 1.60 -0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.80 0.40 -0.20 -0.60 0.00 0.10
ld_TSDV(2) 10 0.00 0.10 -0.30 0.30 -41.70 2.00 -0.80 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.30 0.20
ld_VU(1) 10 2.70 -0.50 1.90 -0.90 2.20 -0.40 1.10 0.10 -0.20 -0.10 0.30 -0.50 1.50 -0.40 -0.50
ld_VU(2) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.20 0.50 -0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10
ld_VU(3) 10 0.10 -1.00 0.40 0.10 5.80 1.10 2.10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 0.70 -0.20 0.00
ld_VCU(1) 10 0.10 -2.60 0.90 -0.10 3.10 1.30 4.50 -0.10 -1.50 -0.10 0.40 -0.30 3.90 -0.40 -0.10
ld_VCU(2) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.90 0.40 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.40 -0.30 -0.20 0.00 0.00
ld_VA(1) 10 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.20 -27.10 1.30 5.20 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.40 -0.20 0.60 -0.10 0.10
ld_VA(2) 10 -0.10 0.00 -0.50 0.30 7.20 6.40 -0.80 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.50 0.00 -1.10 0.00 0.10
ld_VA(3) 10 0.00 3.40 -0.20 0.30 -39.80 2.00 -0.50 0.00 1.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 -0.10 0.10
ld_BAQ(1) 10 -0.20 0.00 -0.80 0.00 2.60 0.30 1.30 0.00 0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 1.40 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(3) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.70 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_BAQ(4) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 2.80 0.40 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_BAQ(5) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.60 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_BAQ(6) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -40.10 2.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.80 0.00 0.10
ld_BCU(1) 10 0.30 0.00 1.20 -0.10 5.00 0.30 -0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.90 0.40 -0.30 0.40 -0.10 0.00
ld_BCU(3) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 4.10 0.50 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_BCU(4) 10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -42.30 1.80 -0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.80 0.40 -0.20 -0.80 0.00 0.10
ld_BCU(5) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.70 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_BCU(6) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 4.20 0.50 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_TBA(1) 10 0.50 -0.10 2.00 0.00 -45.00 0.60 -0.20 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.30 -0.60 -0.10 0.00
ld_TBA(3) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.30 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TBA(4) 10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 -42.70 0.70 -0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_TBA(6) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -39.80 2.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.80 0.00 0.10
ld_TCB(1) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.60 1.90 -0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TCB(4) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.90 0.40 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.40 -0.30 -0.20 0.00 0.00
a
Table C-1
a
Kh_I
ld_TCB(6) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 2.80 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_TC(1) 10 3.30 0.10 9.50 0.50 2.50 0.60 0.30 0.10 0.00 -1.10 0.40 -0.20 -2.00 0.00 0.20
ld_TC(3) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.40 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TC(4) 10 0.10 -0.20 1.10 0.10 4.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TC(5) 10 0.00 -0.30 0.20 0.10 -35.00 0.20 -1.00 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 0.20 -0.10 0.00
ld_TC(6) 10 0.00 -0.10 0.00 0.20 -41.70 1.80 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TMA(1) 10 1.20 0.30 5.30 0.10 1.60 0.30 1.40 0.10 0.10 -1.20 0.40 -0.30 2.00 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(2) 10 0.10 0.00 0.90 0.20 4.90 0.50 0.20 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 1.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TMA(3) 10 0.00 0.40 1.10 0.10 4.30 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 3.20 0.00 0.10
ld_TMA(4) 10 0.40 0.40 3.70 0.10 3.00 0.40 -0.40 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 2.40 0.10 0.10
ld_TMA(6) 10 0.20 0.00 0.80 0.20 -43.30 0.70 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_AA(1) 10 3.30 -0.10 0.00 0.80 4.00 0.20 1.00 0.90 0.00 -0.20 3.10 -2.10 0.30 -0.20 0.00
ld_AA(2) 10 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 1.10 -41.60 2.60 0.00 0.90 0.50 -0.30 0.70 0.30 -0.70 0.70 1.00
ld_AA(3) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.20 2.80 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(4) 10 -0.10 0.00 -0.10 0.10 2.10 1.80 -0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10
ld_AA(5) 10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -44.00 1.80 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_AA(6) 10 0.10 1.30 0.20 0.50 -32.60 0.40 -0.40 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.40
Kh_I -50 -0.10 -0.10 -0.30 0.20 -42.00 1.90 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.90 0.00 0.10
Kh_LCCU(1) -50 1.00 -0.80 2.10 0.40 5.30 -0.20 1.50 -0.10 -0.10 0.70 2.30 0.60 3.10 -0.40 -0.50
Kh_LCCU(2) -50 0.00 -0.20 -0.10 0.10 2.60 0.30 1.00 0.00 -0.10 14.10 3.10 10.70 0.20 -0.10 0.00
Kh_LCCU(3) -50 0.00 2.60 0.10 0.60 -41.60 2.20 0.30 -2.50 0.30 -0.70 0.20 0.20 0.00 1.20 0.40
Kh_LCA(1) -50 0.10 0.00 0.20 21.40 5.40 17.60 7.40 -0.20 0.30 14.30 7.70 27.00 0.10 -0.60 9.90
Kh_LCA(2) -50 0.00 2.40 -0.10 7.20 3.50 7.60 6.40 0.70 1.50 2.20 2.40 4.00 -0.10 2.50 7.60
Kh_LCA(3) -50 -0.10 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 -0.20 0.20 1.60 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 12.20 3.80 -0.30 -0.20 -0.30
Kh_LCA(4) -50 0.00 3.00 -0.10 3.40 -2.70 3.50 4.10 -3.40 1.30 -0.10 1.20 1.80 0.00 1.30 3.50
Kh_LCA(5) -50 4.90 -0.70 3.20 -2.80 2.60 -1.40 -0.30 0.10 -0.50 -2.40 -0.40 -0.90 1.90 -1.00 -1.70
Kh_LCA(6) -50 0.00 -0.30 0.00 0.10 9.50 0.60 0.50 0.30 -0.10 0.20 6.50 -1.20 0.10 -0.20 0.00
Kh_LCA(7) -50 0.90 0.00 1.80 0.20 4.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.10 -1.10 0.10 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.10
Kh_LCA(8) -50 2.00 -0.80 0.10 -0.60 0.60 -1.30 -1.20 -0.20 -0.70 71.40 -0.40 -0.20 0.40 -0.90 -1.80
Kh_LCA(9) -50 0.00 2.80 0.10 1.60 3.50 1.80 1.90 -7.60 1.70 0.00 0.50 0.80 0.30 5.90 1.60
Kh_UCCU -50 0.10 0.30 0.80 -0.10 -31.40 -1.00 -8.50 0.00 0.20 -0.10 0.00 -0.10 1.70 -0.10 -0.10
Kh_LCA3 -50 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.10 11.10 0.60 3.40 0.00 0.10 -0.10 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00
Kh_TSDV(1) -50 0.00 0.10 -0.10 0.20 3.70 0.50 -0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 -0.10 0.00 0.10
a
Table C-1
a
Kh_I
Kh_TSDV(2) -50 0.00 0.40 0.10 0.30 -34.70 0.40 -0.20 3.60 0.30 -0.80 0.10 0.10 -0.10 0.70 0.20
Kh_VU(1) -50 8.10 -0.20 4.40 -3.00 6.90 -1.20 0.00 0.00 -0.30 -0.60 -0.30 -0.60 3.90 -0.60 -1.20
Kh_VU(2) -50 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.20 -44.00 1.80 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.60 0.00 0.10
Kh_VU(3) -50 0.60 -4.50 4.20 -0.10 4.40 -0.10 1.90 -0.30 0.10 -0.20 0.00 -0.10 8.50 -0.80 -0.20
Kh_VCU(1) -50 0.30 -9.80 3.30 -0.70 8.70 0.70 10.70 -0.40 -6.80 -0.50 -0.20 -0.40 17.20 -1.40 -0.80
Kh_VCU(2) -50 -0.10 0.00 -0.20 0.10 2.50 0.40 0.90 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.00 0.10
Kh_VA(1) -50 0.00 2.60 0.50 0.10 -45.80 0.60 -3.30 0.00 5.30 0.00 0.10 0.00 3.00 -0.20 0.10
Kh_VA(2) -50 -0.10 0.00 -0.40 0.30 -21.20 6.40 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 -1.20 0.00 0.20
Kh_VA(3) -50 0.00 8.10 -0.10 0.20 3.90 0.60 1.50 -0.10 2.50 0.00 0.10 0.10 -0.20 -0.40 0.20
Kh_BAQ(1) -50 -0.20 0.00 -0.10 0.10 6.30 0.40 0.90 0.00 0.00 -1.10 0.10 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_BAQ(3) -50 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -39.80 2.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_BAQ(4) -50 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -42.20 1.70 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.50 0.00 0.10
Kh_BAQ(5) -50 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 -33.40 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(6) -50 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -42.40 1.70 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
Kh_BCU(1) -50 0.30 0.00 1.40 -0.10 7.00 0.60 -0.40 0.00 0.00 -0.90 0.00 -0.10 0.30 -0.10 -0.10
Kh_BCU(3) -50 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 -33.10 0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.10 0.00 0.10
Kh_BCU(4) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 -44.30 0.80 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.00 0.10
Kh_BCU(5) -50 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.20 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.20 0.00 0.10
Kh_BCU(6) -50 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(1) -50 0.80 -0.10 3.20 -0.30 3.60 0.20 -0.30 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.60 -0.10 -0.10
Kh_TBA(3) -50 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.10 2.70 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.00 0.10
Kh_TBA(4) -50 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.20 -43.00 1.70 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.60 0.00 0.10
Kh_TBA(6) -50 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.20 1.90 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.20 0.00 0.10
Kh_TCB(1) -50 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.80 0.40 -0.40 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(4) -50 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -41.90 1.80 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.10
Kh_TCB(6) -50 0.00 -0.10 -0.30 0.30 -39.80 2.00 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_TC(1) -50 5.90 -0.40 13.60 0.60 3.40 0.90 0.20 0.00 -0.10 -1.00 0.10 0.10 -3.50 0.00 0.20
Kh_TC(3) -50 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.30 -43.50 1.70 -0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.60 0.00 0.10
Kh_TC(4) -50 0.20 -0.50 2.00 0.10 3.00 0.40 -0.30 0.00 -0.30 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.70 -0.10 0.00
Kh_TC(5) -50 0.00 -0.80 0.10 0.20 -39.40 2.00 -2.90 0.00 -0.40 -0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.00
Kh_TC(6) -50 0.00 -0.10 0.10 0.30 -42.50 1.80 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.80 0.00 0.10
Kh_TMA(1) -50 2.20 0.50 9.40 0.30 6.10 0.50 0.60 0.10 0.30 -1.10 0.50 -0.10 5.50 0.10 0.10
Kh_TMA(2) -50 0.10 0.00 1.50 0.20 3.40 0.40 0.20 0.00 0.10 -0.90 0.10 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.10
a
Table C-1
a
Kh_I
Kh_TMA(3) -50 0.20 0.40 3.60 0.20 5.60 0.40 1.00 0.10 0.20 -0.80 0.10 0.00 7.30 0.10 0.10
Kh_TMA(4) -50 0.80 0.10 8.50 0.10 7.90 0.50 1.70 0.40 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.00 8.20 -0.10 0.10
Kh_TMA(6) -50 0.30 0.00 1.40 0.20 -43.60 1.80 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.50 0.00 0.10
Kh_AA(1) -50 14.20 0.30 0.90 1.60 3.90 0.70 2.00 2.60 0.50 0.80 19.30 -7.00 1.40 -1.10 0.60
Kh_AA(2) -50 0.00 2.20 0.00 4.40 3.90 4.50 3.40 4.40 2.10 0.50 1.50 2.40 0.00 3.00 4.60
Kh_AA(3) -50 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.10 0.00 0.50 0.20 0.00 0.00 -0.10 1.00 0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(4) -50 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 -0.10 2.80 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.10 0.00 0.10
Kh_AA(5) -50 -0.10 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.80 1.90 -0.80 0.00 0.00 -0.80 0.10 0.00 -0.70 0.00 0.20
Kh_AA(6) -50 0.00 7.20 -0.10 2.20 3.80 2.40 1.90 -0.50 2.30 -0.50 0.70 1.10 -0.10 0.40 2.20
ld_I -10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 1.10 0.40 1.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_LCCU(1) -10 -0.80 0.10 -2.10 -0.40 1.20 1.00 -0.20 0.10 0.00 -0.90 -0.60 -0.50 -3.10 0.20 0.50
ld_LCCU(2) -10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 0.20 1.10 0.90 0.00 0.00 -7.50 -0.70 -3.50 0.00 0.00 0.10
ld_LCCU(3) -10 -0.10 -2.50 -0.30 0.00 -41.90 1.60 -1.10 2.00 -0.30 -0.10 0.30 -0.40 -0.90 -1.00 -0.20
ld_LCA(1) -10 0.00 -0.20 -0.20 -5.30 -1.00 -3.50 -1.50 0.10 -0.10 -2.90 -0.50 -3.10 0.20 0.20 -2.20
ld_LCA(2) -10 0.00 -0.50 -0.10 -1.30 3.90 -0.90 -1.70 -0.10 -0.30 -0.80 -0.10 -1.00 -0.30 -0.60 -1.50
ld_LCA(3) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.30 -43.20 1.80 -0.30 0.10 0.10 0.00 -3.30 -1.30 -0.70 0.00 0.20
ld_LCA(4) -10 -0.10 -1.00 0.00 -1.10 3.10 -0.70 0.40 2.00 -0.50 -0.40 0.00 -0.90 0.00 -0.30 -1.20
ld_LCA(5) -10 -1.20 0.00 -0.90 0.90 2.40 0.90 0.90 0.10 0.20 -0.60 0.60 0.00 -0.40 0.20 0.50
ld_LCA(6) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.20 -0.60 0.30 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.50 0.00 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_LCA(7) -10 -0.80 0.00 -1.70 0.10 3.60 0.50 0.80 0.00 -0.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.60 0.00 0.10
ld_LCA(8) -10 -0.80 0.30 -0.20 -0.20 4.00 1.10 1.20 0.10 0.30 -14.70 0.60 0.00 -0.40 0.30 0.80
ld_LCA(9) -10 -0.10 -1.50 -0.10 -0.50 1.20 -0.20 1.20 2.60 -0.70 -0.10 0.20 -0.60 0.10 -2.40 -0.60
ld_UCCU -10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.40 0.20 -2.70 0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_LCA3 -10 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.20 1.20 0.30 -0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.40 0.00 0.10
ld_TSDV(1) -10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -41.10 1.90 -1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TSDV(2) -10 0.00 -0.20 -0.10 0.10 3.90 0.40 -0.30 -1.10 -0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.30 -0.20 -0.50 -0.10
ld_VU(1) -10 -3.30 0.40 -2.30 1.00 3.80 1.40 1.10 0.10 0.10 -0.70 0.60 0.10 -1.20 0.30 0.70
ld_VU(2) -10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.30 0.30 -41.80 1.90 -0.80 0.00 0.00 -0.80 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_VU(3) -10 -0.20 0.90 -0.90 0.10 0.20 0.40 1.20 0.40 0.00 0.30 0.40 -0.20 -1.20 0.00 0.10
ld_VCU(1) -10 -0.10 2.80 -1.20 0.40 -27.90 -0.20 -3.60 0.20 1.60 -0.70 0.50 -0.10 -5.10 0.50 0.40
ld_VCU(2) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 2.60 0.40 -0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_VA(1) -10 -0.10 -1.00 -0.40 0.20 -3.90 0.80 -4.60 0.10 -1.60 -0.80 0.40 -0.20 -1.70 0.10 0.10
ld_VA(2) -10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 -30.30 -0.80 -0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.30 0.00 0.10
a
Table C-1
a
Kh_I
ld_VA(3) -10 0.00 -3.60 -0.20 0.20 -43.10 1.70 -0.60 0.10 -1.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.60 0.10 0.10
ld_BAQ(1) -10 -0.20 0.00 -1.40 0.10 1.80 0.40 -0.20 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 0.00 0.00 0.10
ld_BAQ(3) -10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -41.90 1.80 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_BAQ(4) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 1.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(5) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.60 0.40 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.30 0.00 0.10
ld_BAQ(6) -10 -0.10 0.00 -0.20 0.10 2.40 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.30 0.00 0.10
ld_BCU(1) -10 -0.50 -0.10 -2.10 0.50 4.10 0.90 0.70 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.50 -0.10 -1.20 0.10 0.30
ld_BCU(3) -10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 -48.10 0.60 -0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_BCU(4) -10 0.00 -0.10 -0.30 0.20 -39.30 2.10 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.80 0.00 0.10
ld_BCU(5) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.30 -41.70 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.80 0.00 0.10
ld_BCU(6) -10 -0.10 0.00 -0.20 0.10 2.40 0.40 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.30 0.00 0.10
ld_TBA(1) -10 -0.70 -0.20 -2.20 0.20 1.40 0.40 0.80 0.30 0.00 0.30 0.40 -0.20 1.10 -0.20 0.10
ld_TBA(3) -10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.90 1.80 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TBA(4) -10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.30 0.30 -41.50 1.90 -0.80 0.00 0.00 -0.80 0.40 -0.20 -0.80 0.00 0.10
ld_TBA(6) -10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.30 -41.30 1.90 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TCB(1) -10 -0.10 0.00 -0.10 0.10 1.70 0.40 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10
ld_TCB(4) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 -42.60 0.70 -0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.30 0.00 0.10
ld_TCB(6) -10 0.00 -0.10 -0.20 0.20 -44.10 1.80 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TC(1) -10 -3.50 0.10 -10.90 -0.30 3.00 0.20 1.30 0.00 0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.30 1.40 -0.10 -0.10
ld_TC(3) -10 -0.10 0.00 -0.30 0.10 3.60 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.40 0.00 0.10
ld_TC(4) -10 -0.20 0.10 -1.60 0.20 2.60 0.40 1.20 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.40 -0.20 -1.40 0.00 0.10
ld_TC(5) -10 0.00 0.20 -0.40 0.30 -42.10 1.90 0.40 0.10 0.20 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -1.10 0.00 0.10
ld_TC(6) -10 -0.10 -0.10 -0.50 0.20 -41.70 1.80 -0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.70 0.00 0.10
ld_TMA(1) -10 -1.50 -0.50 -7.00 0.30 1.00 0.60 0.40 0.00 -0.20 0.00 0.40 -0.10 -3.80 0.00 0.20
ld_TMA(2) -10 -0.20 -0.10 -1.20 0.10 3.00 0.40 0.70 0.00 -0.10 -0.90 0.40 -0.20 -2.30 0.00 0.10
ld_TMA(3) -10 -0.20 -0.20 -2.10 0.10 -0.50 0.30 -0.30 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 -3.40 -0.10 0.00
ld_TMA(4) -10 -0.40 -0.30 -3.90 0.10 -0.20 0.40 0.30 0.00 -0.10 -0.10 0.40 -0.20 -2.90 -0.10 0.10
ld_TMA(6) -10 -0.20 0.00 -0.80 0.20 -44.20 0.80 -0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.40 0.00 0.10
ld_AA(1) -10 -3.50 0.00 -0.30 -1.40 7.40 1.10 0.10 -1.10 0.00 -1.20 -2.30 1.60 -0.40 0.20 0.10
ld_AA(2) -10 0.00 -0.60 0.00 -0.80 -44.30 -0.10 -1.60 -0.90 -0.50 -0.60 0.10 -0.80 -0.30 -0.70 -1.00
ld_AA(3) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.60 0.50 -0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 -0.30 -0.20 0.00 0.10
ld_AA(4) -10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 -26.10 -0.90 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.20 -0.30 0.00 0.10
ld_AA(5) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.10 3.80 0.40 -0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 -0.30 -0.20 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(6) -10 -0.10 -1.50 -0.30 -0.20 -41.90 1.40 -1.20 0.10 -0.30 -0.30 0.30 -0.50 -0.80 -0.20 -0.40
a
Table C-2
Percentage Change in Roots Mean Square of Mean Weighted Residuals Between Sensitivity Runs and Calibration Run
Calibration Zones and Base Dataa: NRTH OASI PM BARR WYF EYF SHON DV LCA PAHR SPMT SHRG TMBR FARM FF
Parameter % Change 42.90 72.20 35.70 146.80 139.50 22.90 80.50 41.00 28.80 11.40 53.30 47.30 61.00 9.00 5.20
Kh_I 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.86 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_LCCU(1) 100 0.93 -1.94 -0.28 -0.34 -0.57 -0.87 -1.61 -0.98 -2.08 -30.70 -2.44 2.11 1.64 -5.56 0.00
Kh_LCCU(2) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 -11.18 1.75 0.37 0.00 -0.69 62.28 -1.50 27.48 0.49 0.00 0.00
Kh_LCCU(3) 100 0.00 15.10 -0.28 0.34 3.08 4.37 0.75 10.49 -3.13 -5.26 0.00 1.06 0.16 31.11 5.77
Kh_LCA(1) 100 0.23 0.28 0.00 5.65 -0.50 12.23 4.22 0.98 -0.69 -64.04 2.06 48.41 0.16 -3.33 55.77
Kh_LCA(2) 100 -0.23 1.25 0.00 2.38 7.60 6.11 3.35 2.20 -3.47 -21.05 0.56 5.50 0.33 16.67 57.69
Kh_LCA(3) 100 0.00 -0.14 0.00 -0.27 -1.51 0.44 0.12 -0.24 0.35 -6.14 -3.00 13.95 0.00 -2.22 0.00
Kh_LCA(4) 100 0.00 2.91 0.00 2.52 -0.65 5.68 3.98 -8.54 -3.82 -21.93 0.56 5.50 0.16 16.67 59.62
Kh_LCA(5) 100 -0.93 -0.28 -1.12 -1.09 -1.22 0.00 -0.62 0.98 0.00 18.42 0.38 -1.90 0.66 -3.33 1.92
Kh_LCA(6) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.43 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 -7.02 -3.56 -0.63 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_LCA(7) 100 5.36 0.00 -1.40 0.00 -1.29 0.44 0.12 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00
Kh_LCA(8) 100 -0.93 -0.69 -0.28 -0.89 -1.36 0.00 -1.37 -1.46 1.04 342.98 -0.38 0.63 0.16 -7.78 5.77
Kh_LCA(9) 100 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.89 -5.52 2.18 1.74 6.34 -2.43 -7.89 0.19 1.90 0.16 76.67 13.46
Kh_UCCU 100 0.23 0.14 -0.28 -0.20 -6.09 4.37 -1.86 0.00 -1.39 -7.02 0.00 -0.21 0.66 0.00 0.00
Kh_LCA3 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 10.18 -0.44 -0.37 0.00 -0.69 -7.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_TSDV(1) 100 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 -1.72 0.44 0.37 0.00 -0.35 -1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 1.92
Kh_TSDV(2) 100 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 3.15 4.37 0.00 15.12 -0.69 -1.75 0.00 0.21 0.16 10.00 1.92
Kh_VU(1) 100 18.41 -0.55 0.00 -1.63 -1.22 -0.44 -1.74 0.24 -0.69 -7.02 0.19 -1.48 1.48 -5.56 1.92
Kh_VU(2) 100 0.23 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 2.72 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_VU(3) 100 3.50 -8.59 -0.84 -0.14 0.00 0.44 -3.35 -1.46 -2.08 -7.02 0.00 -0.42 1.48 -8.89 0.00
Kh_VCU(1) 100 1.40 -6.65 -1.40 -0.41 2.44 -1.31 -3.60 -1.95 34.38 -4.39 -0.19 -1.06 -0.16 -12.22 0.00
Kh_VCU(2) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.36 4.80 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_VA(1) 100 -0.47 2.77 0.56 0.07 -1.86 0.44 10.56 0.24 -42.36 -1.75 0.00 0.21 4.26 1.11 1.92
Kh_VA(2) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.15 -3.06 1.49 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_VA(3) 100 0.00 11.22 0.00 -0.07 1.36 4.80 -0.75 -0.49 -15.63 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 -3.33 0.00
Kh_BAQ(1) 100 0.70 -0.14 0.56 -0.07 -2.08 1.31 0.62 0.00 0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 2.95 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(3) 100 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 5.45 1.31 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(4) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.73 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(5) 100 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.65 0.87 0.62 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(6) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.43 0.44 0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(1) 100 1.40 0.00 -0.28 -0.34 -1.86 0.00 0.00 -0.24 -0.35 0.00 0.00 -0.42 0.33 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(3) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8.10 -0.44 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.16 0.00 1.92
a
percentage difference from the calibration run resulting from the % change in the parameter value. C-12
Table C-2
Kh_I
Kh_BCU(4) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.08 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(5) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.72 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(6) 100 0.23 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 0.86 3.06 -0.25 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 -0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(1) 100 2.56 -0.14 1.40 -0.20 1.36 0.00 0.12 3.17 0.00 -9.65 0.00 -0.21 -1.48 1.11 0.00
Kh_TBA(3) 100 0.00 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 3.01 4.37 0.12 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 -0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(4) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 4.80 3.93 -0.62 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(6) 100 0.00 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 2.37 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(1) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 4.09 3.93 -0.37 0.00 0.00 -7.02 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(4) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 3.37 3.93 -0.25 0.00 -0.35 -7.02 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(6) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.36 4.80 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TC(1) 100 21.91 -0.28 10.08 0.20 -7.17 3.49 1.24 0.00 0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.21 0.98 1.11 1.92
Kh_TC(3) 100 0.00 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 5.02 3.93 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TC(4) 100 0.93 -0.28 -1.40 -0.07 -1.08 0.44 0.99 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48 0.00 0.00
Kh_TC(5) 100 0.00 -0.83 -0.28 -0.14 2.72 4.37 1.74 -0.24 1.74 -0.88 0.00 -0.21 0.33 -1.11 0.00
Kh_TC(6) 100 0.23 0.00 0.28 -0.07 4.87 3.93 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TMA(1) 100 11.19 -0.28 -0.84 -0.07 1.15 2.62 -0.62 0.00 -2.08 0.88 0.00 -0.21 3.11 1.11 0.00
Kh_TMA(2) 100 0.70 0.00 -1.12 0.00 -1.08 0.44 -0.12 0.00 -1.04 -0.88 0.00 0.00 2.46 1.11 0.00
Kh_TMA(3) 100 1.63 0.00 -0.84 0.00 -3.30 0.87 0.00 0.24 -1.74 -1.75 0.00 0.00 5.57 1.11 1.92
Kh_TMA(4) 100 3.50 -0.14 -1.68 0.00 2.29 0.87 -0.25 0.24 -1.39 -0.88 0.00 0.00 6.72 1.11 0.00
Kh_TMA(6) 100 1.63 0.00 0.84 -0.07 -1.00 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(1) 100 26.57 0.14 -0.56 0.14 -1.36 0.44 -1.37 5.85 -3.13 -17.54 -2.81 -17.55 1.15 -8.89 1.92
Kh_AA(2) 100 0.00 3.19 0.00 3.95 6.95 10.48 5.47 11.22 -2.78 -35.09 0.94 8.67 0.16 55.56 111.54
Kh_AA(3) 100 0.00 -0.14 0.00 -0.14 5.73 1.31 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.31 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(4) 100 0.00 -0.28 0.00 -0.07 2.72 -2.62 -0.25 2.68 -0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 1.11 0.00
Kh_AA(5) 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.08 4.37 -0.62 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 1.92
Kh_AA(6) 100 0.00 6.09 0.00 1.43 -2.44 3.49 2.61 0.24 -4.86 -13.16 0.19 3.17 0.16 16.67 26.92
ld_I 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.87 4.37 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_LCCU(1) 10 -0.47 0.28 0.28 0.07 -1.72 0.87 0.75 0.24 0.69 -7.02 1.13 0.00 -0.16 2.22 1.92
ld_LCCU(2) 10 0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -2.29 3.06 -0.12 0.00 0.00 18.42 0.94 -9.30 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_LCCU(3) 10 0.00 -2.91 0.00 -0.14 -18.14 0.87 0.00 -1.22 0.35 -6.14 0.38 0.21 0.00 -6.67 0.00
ld_LCA(1) 10 0.00 -0.14 0.00 -3.00 -2.65 0.00 -1.37 0.24 0.35 21.05 0.19 -5.92 0.00 2.22 5.77
ld_LCA(2) 10 -0.23 -0.42 0.00 -0.75 -8.39 0.00 -1.24 -0.73 0.69 -0.88 0.38 -1.06 0.00 -4.44 1.92
a
Table C-2
Kh_I
ld_LCA(3) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.86 0.44 0.12 0.00 0.00 -1.75 3.38 -1.48 0.00 1.11 1.92
ld_LCA(4) 10 0.00 -0.55 0.00 -0.48 -2.58 0.44 -0.87 2.68 0.69 -5.26 0.38 -0.42 0.00 -1.11 0.00
ld_LCA(5) 10 0.47 -0.42 0.28 0.27 -1.43 0.87 0.62 0.24 0.00 -7.89 0.56 1.06 0.00 2.22 1.92
ld_LCA(6) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 4.16 3.93 -0.25 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 1.88 1.06 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_LCA(7) 10 -2.33 0.00 0.56 -0.07 -0.72 1.31 0.87 0.00 0.00 -7.02 0.38 0.42 -0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_LCA(8) 10 0.23 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.07 0.87 1.24 0.24 -0.69 124.56 0.56 0.85 0.33 2.22 1.92
ld_LCA(9) 10 0.00 -0.69 0.00 -0.27 -0.86 0.44 0.12 1.46 0.69 -5.26 0.38 0.00 0.16 -17.78 0.00
ld_UCCU 10 -0.23 -0.14 0.00 0.00 -0.50 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.35 -7.89 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_LCA3 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.00 1.31 0.87 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_TSDV(1) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 5.38 3.49 -0.37 0.00 0.00 -7.02 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TSDV(2) 10 0.00 -0.14 0.00 -0.14 2.65 4.37 -0.62 -4.15 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.16 -3.33 0.00
ld_VU(1) 10 -2.80 0.00 0.28 0.48 -1.51 0.87 1.61 -0.49 -0.69 -1.75 0.56 1.06 -0.33 3.33 3.85
ld_VU(2) 10 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.94 0.44 -0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_VU(3) 10 -0.47 1.80 0.28 -0.07 -3.58 2.18 1.24 0.24 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 2.22 0.00
ld_VCU(1) 10 -0.47 1.94 0.56 0.07 -2.01 3.06 4.10 0.49 -9.72 -1.75 0.38 0.63 1.48 4.44 1.92
ld_VCU(2) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -2.51 0.87 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_VA(1) 10 0.00 -0.55 0.00 -0.07 1.08 2.62 2.11 0.00 13.19 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.66 1.11 0.00
ld_VA(2) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 -23.94 20.96 -1.24 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00
ld_VA(3) 10 0.00 -3.60 0.00 -0.14 1.36 4.80 -0.12 0.24 6.60 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 1.11 0.00
ld_BAQ(1) 10 0.47 -0.14 0.28 0.00 -2.58 0.44 0.75 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -3.28 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(3) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 2.65 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(4) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.86 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(5) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.44 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(6) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.58 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(1) 10 -0.70 -0.14 0.00 0.07 -2.37 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.89 0.38 0.63 0.00 1.11 1.92
ld_BCU(3) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -2.51 0.87 -0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(4) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 3.30 3.93 -0.25 0.00 -0.35 -7.02 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(5) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.65 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(6) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.36 0.44 0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TBA(1) 10 -1.40 0.00 -0.56 0.00 7.10 1.75 -0.12 0.00 -0.69 -0.88 0.38 0.63 1.15 1.11 1.92
ld_TBA(3) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.37 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TBA(4) 10 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 5.09 1.31 -0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -0.16 0.00 0.00
a
Table C-2
Kh_I
ld_TBA(6) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.36 4.80 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TCB(1) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.58 4.37 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TCB(4) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -2.51 0.87 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_TCB(6) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.51 0.44 0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(1) 10 -11.42 -0.14 5.04 -0.20 -1.72 0.44 -0.25 0.00 -0.69 -8.77 0.38 0.42 -0.33 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(3) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.44 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(4) 10 -0.47 0.14 0.84 -0.07 -2.01 0.44 -0.25 0.00 -0.69 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -0.49 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(5) 10 -0.23 0.28 0.00 -0.07 -6.45 0.00 -0.87 0.00 -1.04 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 1.11 0.00
ld_TC(6) 10 0.00 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 2.94 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(1) 10 -4.66 0.14 4.48 0.00 -1.22 0.44 0.99 0.00 0.35 -9.65 0.38 0.63 -0.82 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(2) 10 -0.47 0.00 0.56 -0.07 -2.72 0.87 0.12 0.00 0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -0.66 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(3) 10 -0.23 -0.42 1.40 -0.07 -1.94 0.44 0.12 0.00 0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -1.97 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(4) 10 -1.40 -0.28 3.08 -0.07 -2.08 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.69 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -2.13 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(6) 10 -0.70 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 5.59 1.31 -0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(1) 10 -4.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.15 0.87 0.62 -2.44 0.00 -1.75 2.25 4.44 0.33 2.22 0.00
ld_AA(2) 10 0.00 -0.28 0.00 -0.48 2.87 3.93 -0.87 -2.20 0.35 -3.51 0.38 -0.42 0.16 -5.56 0.00
ld_AA(3) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.51 0.44 0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.56 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(4) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.51 3.93 -0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(5) 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 4.87 3.93 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(6) 10 -0.23 -1.11 0.00 -0.20 -8.46 -0.44 -0.50 0.49 0.69 1.75 0.38 0.21 -0.16 1.11 0.00
Kh_I -50 0.00 0.00 -0.28 -0.14 2.87 4.37 -0.12 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_LCCU(1) -50 -0.47 1.25 0.56 0.20 -1.36 0.87 1.74 0.49 0.35 4.39 1.88 -1.48 -0.33 3.33 1.92
Kh_LCCU(2) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.65 0.44 0.50 0.00 -0.69 117.54 1.69 -23.47 0.49 1.11 1.92
Kh_LCCU(3) -50 -0.23 -6.65 0.00 -0.27 2.65 3.93 0.00 -4.88 0.00 -6.14 0.00 -0.42 0.16 -10.00 0.00
Kh_LCA(1) -50 -0.23 -0.14 0.00 -9.47 -7.81 20.52 -6.58 0.98 1.04 121.93 2.06 -54.55 0.16 4.44 103.85
Kh_LCA(2) -50 0.00 -1.66 0.00 -3.27 -4.23 3.06 -3.48 -3.17 4.51 16.67 -0.38 -8.03 0.16 -17.78 65.38
Kh_LCA(3) -50 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.50 0.87 1.12 0.24 -0.35 -1.75 12.95 -8.03 0.16 1.11 1.92
Kh_LCA(4) -50 0.00 -2.22 0.00 -1.57 -0.22 0.00 -0.99 8.29 3.47 -1.75 -0.19 -3.59 0.00 -11.11 13.46
Kh_LCA(5) -50 3.50 0.14 1.68 1.09 -1.72 1.75 1.86 4.88 -0.69 -20.18 0.19 1.90 -0.49 8.89 9.62
Kh_LCA(6) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -4.95 0.87 0.50 3.17 -0.35 1.75 10.32 2.54 0.16 2.22 0.00
Kh_LCA(7) -50 -3.73 -0.14 1.12 -0.07 -2.51 0.87 0.37 0.00 0.35 -9.65 0.00 0.00 -0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_LCA(8) -50 0.93 0.42 0.00 0.68 -1.51 1.31 1.12 0.98 -1.74 621.05 0.19 0.21 0.33 6.67 11.54
a
Table C-2
Kh_I
Kh_LCA(9) -50 -0.23 -2.08 0.00 -0.75 -1.43 0.00 -0.25 3.66 2.43 -0.88 -0.19 -1.69 0.16 -37.78 1.92
Kh_UCCU -50 -0.47 -0.28 0.28 0.07 -2.44 -1.31 -1.24 0.00 1.39 -1.75 0.00 0.21 -0.33 1.11 1.92
Kh_LCA3 -50 -0.23 -0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 2.18 1.37 0.00 0.69 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TSDV(1) -50 0.00 -0.14 0.00 -0.07 -0.93 0.44 -0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 -0.21 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TSDV(2) -50 -0.23 -0.28 0.00 -0.14 -6.74 0.00 -0.25 -9.02 0.35 -7.02 0.00 -0.21 0.00 -6.67 0.00
Kh_VU(1) -50 -5.13 -0.28 1.68 1.23 -2.72 2.18 1.99 -0.24 0.00 -5.26 0.19 1.27 -1.64 5.56 7.69
Kh_VU(2) -50 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 4.87 3.93 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_VU(3) -50 -2.56 8.59 3.36 0.07 -4.59 0.00 2.73 1.22 1.74 -1.75 0.00 0.21 -0.33 7.78 1.92
Kh_VCU(1) -50 -1.17 9.97 2.52 0.34 -4.16 2.62 15.40 1.95 -41.32 -5.26 0.00 0.85 9.67 12.22 3.85
Kh_VCU(2) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.86 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_VA(1) -50 -0.23 -1.52 0.28 -0.07 7.17 1.31 -7.20 0.24 42.71 -0.88 0.00 0.00 1.97 2.22 0.00
Kh_VA(2) -50 0.23 0.00 -0.28 -0.20 -12.54 20.96 -1.86 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 -0.21 0.49 0.00 0.00
Kh_VA(3) -50 0.00 -8.31 0.00 -0.07 -1.51 0.44 0.99 0.49 15.63 -0.88 0.00 -0.21 0.16 4.44 0.00
Kh_BAQ(1) -50 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3.66 0.44 0.50 0.00 0.00 -9.65 0.00 0.00 -5.41 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(3) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.36 4.80 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(4) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.15 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 -0.33 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(5) -50 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -7.81 -0.44 0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 -0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_BAQ(6) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.23 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(1) -50 -0.93 -0.14 0.28 0.07 -3.66 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7.89 0.00 0.21 0.00 1.11 1.92
Kh_BCU(3) -50 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -8.10 0.44 -0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(4) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 6.09 1.31 -0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(5) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.22 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(6) -50 -0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(1) -50 -2.33 0.00 -0.56 0.07 -1.22 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.75 0.00 0.00 0.98 1.11 1.92
Kh_TBA(3) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.79 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(4) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.51 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 -0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(6) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.65 0.44 0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(1) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -2.51 0.87 -0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(4) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.01 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(6) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.36 4.80 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TC(1) -50 -19.35 0.42 8.40 -0.27 -4.09 0.87 -0.50 0.00 -1.04 -8.77 -0.19 -0.21 -0.33 0.00 0.00
Kh_TC(3) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.87 3.93 -0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
a
Table C-2
Kh_I
Kh_TC(4) -50 -0.70 0.42 1.12 -0.07 -1.72 0.44 -0.99 0.00 -2.43 -0.88 0.00 0.00 -1.31 1.11 0.00
Kh_TC(5) -50 0.00 0.69 0.00 -0.07 1.15 4.80 -2.61 0.24 -2.78 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 1.11 0.00
Kh_TC(6) -50 0.00 0.00 -0.56 -0.07 3.44 3.93 0.25 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_TMA(1) -50 -8.16 0.28 10.08 -0.07 -3.37 0.44 0.87 -0.24 1.39 -9.65 0.38 0.21 -2.30 0.00 0.00
Kh_TMA(2) -50 -0.70 0.00 0.84 -0.07 -2.80 0.44 0.25 0.00 0.35 -7.02 0.00 0.00 -1.31 0.00 0.00
Kh_TMA(3) -50 -1.17 -0.14 3.36 -0.07 -3.15 0.44 0.75 -0.24 1.04 -7.02 0.00 0.00 -4.92 -1.11 0.00
Kh_TMA(4) -50 -3.26 -0.28 10.36 -0.07 -4.44 0.44 1.86 3.17 1.04 1.75 0.00 0.00 -6.39 1.11 0.00
Kh_TMA(6) -50 -1.40 0.00 -0.56 -0.07 4.01 3.93 -0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(1) -50 -9.79 -0.28 0.28 -0.27 -2.58 0.44 0.87 -2.68 2.78 5.26 18.20 15.22 -0.82 8.89 0.00
Kh_AA(2) -50 0.00 -1.39 0.00 -2.04 -2.80 0.00 -2.48 0.24 2.78 3.51 -0.38 -4.86 0.00 -20.00 25.00
Kh_AA(3) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.43 0.87 0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 -0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(4) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -3.37 6.55 0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(5) -50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 2.72 4.37 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -7.02 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(6) -50 0.00 -5.12 0.00 -1.02 -0.86 0.00 -0.99 3.41 4.86 -5.26 -0.19 -2.33 0.16 10.00 3.85
ld_I -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.22 0.44 0.50 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_LCCU(1) -10 0.47 -0.42 -0.56 -0.20 -0.86 0.00 -0.99 -0.24 -1.39 -8.77 -0.38 1.06 1.15 -1.11 0.00
ld_LCCU(2) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 0.29 2.18 0.37 0.00 -0.69 -53.51 0.00 7.61 0.49 0.00 0.00
ld_LCCU(3) -10 0.00 4.02 -0.28 0.07 2.80 4.37 -0.37 2.44 -1.04 -1.75 0.38 0.63 0.16 8.89 1.92
ld_LCA(1) -10 0.23 0.14 0.00 2.52 0.50 4.80 1.74 -0.24 -1.04 -24.56 0.75 6.55 0.49 -1.11 15.38
ld_LCA(2) -10 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.61 -2.44 1.75 0.62 0.73 -1.04 -7.02 0.56 2.11 0.00 4.44 9.62
ld_LCA(3) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 3.66 3.93 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.06 2.75 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_LCA(4) -10 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.54 -2.08 1.31 1.61 0.00 -1.39 -3.51 0.56 1.69 0.16 2.22 7.69
ld_LCA(5) -10 -0.70 0.00 -0.28 -0.34 -1.72 0.44 0.12 -0.24 0.00 -5.26 0.38 0.00 0.16 -1.11 0.00
ld_LCA(6) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.15 0.44 0.87 0.00 0.00 -0.88 -0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_LCA(7) -10 3.03 0.00 -0.56 -0.07 -2.01 0.87 0.25 0.00 -0.69 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.66 0.00 0.00
ld_LCA(8) -10 -0.23 -0.28 0.00 -0.20 -1.22 0.44 -0.12 -0.49 0.35 -48.25 0.38 0.00 0.16 -2.22 0.00
ld_LCA(9) -10 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.20 -2.58 0.87 1.49 2.68 -1.04 -0.88 0.56 1.06 0.00 23.33 3.85
ld_UCCU -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.93 0.44 -0.12 0.00 -0.35 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_LCA3 -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -3.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.35 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_TSDV(1) -10 0.00 0.14 0.00 -0.07 2.22 4.37 -0.62 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TSDV(2) -10 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 -1.94 0.87 0.00 5.37 -0.35 -1.75 0.38 0.63 0.16 4.44 1.92
ld_VU(1) -10 4.43 -0.42 -0.28 -0.61 -4.44 0.00 -0.25 0.00 -0.35 -6.14 0.38 0.00 0.82 -2.22 0.00
a
Table C-2
Kh_I
ld_VU(2) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 2.72 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -7.02 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_VU(3) -10 0.47 -2.08 -0.28 -0.07 -1.94 0.44 0.62 2.93 -0.35 1.75 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_VCU(1) -10 0.47 -2.22 -0.56 -0.20 -0.43 -0.87 -3.23 -0.73 10.07 -6.14 0.38 0.21 -0.98 -4.44 0.00
ld_VCU(2) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.15 0.44 -0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_VA(1) -10 0.00 0.69 -0.28 -0.07 1.29 1.31 -1.49 0.00 -12.85 -7.02 0.38 0.42 -0.49 0.00 0.00
ld_VA(2) -10 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 1.72 -1.75 0.75 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 -0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_VA(3) -10 0.00 4.16 0.00 -0.07 3.58 3.93 -0.37 -0.24 -7.29 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 -1.11 0.00
ld_BAQ(1) -10 0.47 -0.14 0.28 -0.07 -1.51 0.44 0.00 -0.98 0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 1.31 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(3) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.08 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(4) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.33 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(5) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.79 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BAQ(6) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.79 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(1) -10 0.93 0.00 -0.28 -0.27 -5.45 0.44 0.00 0.00 -0.35 0.00 0.38 0.21 0.33 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(3) -10 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 9.39 1.31 -0.12 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(4) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.28 -0.14 1.08 4.80 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(5) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 2.65 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_BCU(6) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -0.72 0.44 0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TBA(1) -10 1.63 -0.14 1.12 -0.07 -2.08 0.44 0.75 3.17 0.00 1.75 0.38 0.42 -0.98 1.11 0.00
ld_TBA(3) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 3.01 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TBA(4) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.14 2.80 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -7.02 0.38 0.42 0.33 0.00 0.00
ld_TBA(6) -10 0.00 0.00 -0.28 -0.07 2.37 4.37 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TCB(1) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.43 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_TCB(4) -10 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 5.23 1.31 -0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_TCB(6) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 4.95 3.93 -0.50 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(1) -10 13.29 -0.14 4.48 0.07 -2.37 0.87 1.24 0.00 0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.63 0.66 1.11 1.92
ld_TC(3) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.36 0.44 0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(4) -10 0.47 -0.14 -1.12 -0.07 -1.65 0.44 0.87 0.00 0.35 0.88 0.38 0.42 0.66 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(5) -10 0.00 -0.28 -0.28 -0.14 2.94 4.37 0.50 0.00 0.69 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(6) -10 0.00 0.00 0.28 -0.07 2.94 3.93 -0.37 0.00 -0.35 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.16 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(1) -10 5.59 0.14 -2.80 -0.14 -0.14 0.44 -0.25 0.00 -1.74 0.00 0.38 0.42 1.97 1.11 0.00
ld_TMA(2) -10 0.23 0.00 -0.84 -0.07 -1.22 0.44 0.25 0.00 -0.69 -7.89 0.38 0.42 1.48 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(3) -10 0.70 0.00 -1.40 0.00 -0.93 0.44 -0.12 0.00 -1.04 -0.88 0.38 0.42 1.64 1.11 0.00
a
Table C-2
Kh_I
ld_TMA(4) -10 1.40 -0.14 -2.24 -0.07 -0.79 0.44 0.12 0.00 -0.69 -0.88 0.38 0.42 2.46 1.11 0.00
ld_TMA(6) -10 0.70 0.00 0.28 -0.07 6.59 1.75 -0.37 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(1) -10 6.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5.81 1.31 0.00 3.17 -0.35 -9.65 -0.94 -3.38 0.16 -1.11 0.00
ld_AA(2) -10 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.41 6.45 2.18 0.25 2.20 -0.69 -6.14 0.56 1.48 0.00 6.67 5.77
ld_AA(3) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.72 0.44 -0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(4) -10 -0.23 0.00 0.00 -0.07 -1.36 -1.75 0.25 0.00 0.00 -0.88 0.38 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(5) -10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2.51 0.87 -0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(6) -10 0.00 1.11 0.00 0.14 2.80 4.37 -0.25 -0.49 -1.04 -2.63 0.56 1.06 0.16 0.00 1.92
a
Table C-3
Percentage Changes in Discharge Rates Between Sensitivity Runs and Calibration Run
Drain Fluxes GHB Fluxes
Calibration Zones and Base Dataa: DV OV Ariv AM FL AF PV IS PP EM
Parameter % Change -59782.87 -25784.95 -334.81 -77332.51 -37873.7 -5232.56 -19105.9 -2456.55 1719.51 -4928.82
Kh_I 100 0.04 -0.35 0.39 0.22 -0.02 2.54 -1.18 0.07 0.01 -0.03
Kh_LCCU(1) 100 0.15 -9.15 7.23 3.82 0.55 36.34 -7.84 -12.08 60.83 0.24
Kh_LCCU(2) 100 0.01 -0.38 0.92 0.52 0.07 6.06 -1.09 -18.23 0.02 0.03
Kh_LCCU(3) 100 16.91 -6.30 -39.34 -6.93 -2.58 -40.87 -0.82 -0.52 0.21 5.85
Kh_LCA(1) 100 0.85 -0.72 3.02 0.62 0.15 -2.84 -1.96 -17.44 0.01 0.06
Kh_LCA(2) 100 -0.30 -0.30 -15.27 6.78 -0.78 -82.59 -1.01 -3.24 2.32 -0.24
Kh_LCA(3) 100 0.04 -0.22 2.93 1.54 0.21 17.62 -0.87 -81.94 0.08 0.09
Kh_LCA(4) 100 7.41 -0.78 34.52 -4.54 7.22 -100.00 -1.15 -3.31 -2.50 38.92
Kh_LCA(5) 100 0.78 -2.38 5.25 3.93 0.36 49.09 -29.65 1.39 0.04 0.16
Kh_LCA(6) 100 0.01 -0.40 0.55 0.27 0.04 3.06 -1.04 -4.19 0.04 0.02
Kh_LCA(7) 100 0.01 0.55 0.22 0.09 0.02 0.97 -1.46 0.03 0.00 0.01
Kh_LCA(8) 100 0.18 -0.57 11.80 6.16 0.86 74.19 -47.24 1.03 0.02 0.36
Kh_LCA(9) 100 37.70 0.20 -100.00 -17.83 -10.24 -78.69 -1.31 -1.14 -0.46 -4.16
Kh_UCCU 100 0.01 -2.30 0.90 0.57 0.07 6.87 -1.32 0.13 0.01 0.03
Kh_LCA3 100 0.01 -0.80 0.54 0.30 0.04 3.41 -1.19 0.12 0.01 0.02
Kh_TSDV(1) 100 0.05 -0.29 1.62 -0.81 2.45 -3.13 -0.91 0.00 0.24 1.81
Kh_TSDV(2) 100 6.42 -0.88 -22.32 -2.75 -1.96 -9.45 -0.81 -0.07 -0.02 -0.43
Kh_VU(1) 100 0.07 -4.31 8.20 4.25 0.58 49.88 -26.77 0.67 0.04 0.25
Kh_VU(2) 100 0.01 -0.78 0.47 0.27 0.03 3.21 -1.09 0.11 0.01 0.01
Kh_VU(3) 100 0.41 -9.67 9.09 1.94 0.64 13.99 -1.48 0.19 0.02 0.25
Kh_VCU(1) 100 0.39 -20.99 14.14 4.00 0.99 35.32 -1.17 0.55 0.04 0.40
Kh_VCU(2) 100 0.01 -0.85 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.77 -0.79 0.11 0.01 0.01
Kh_VA(1) 100 -0.03 4.30 -1.29 -0.66 -0.09 -7.34 -0.82 -0.10 -0.02 -0.04
Kh_VA(2) 100 0.00 -0.35 0.30 0.17 0.02 1.99 -0.82 0.08 0.00 0.01
Kh_VA(3) 100 0.04 -0.70 3.59 0.30 0.25 -0.82 -0.78 0.05 0.00 0.09
Kh_BAQ(1) 100 0.01 -0.30 0.44 0.21 0.03 2.42 -1.22 0.10 0.00 0.01
Kh_BAQ(3) 100 0.00 -0.36 0.36 0.20 0.03 2.36 -1.03 0.10 0.00 0.01
Kh_BAQ(4) 100 0.01 -0.81 0.44 0.25 0.03 2.95 -0.85 0.12 0.01 0.01
Kh_BAQ(5) 100 0.00 -0.39 0.29 0.17 0.02 1.95 -0.76 0.10 0.00 0.01
Kh_BAQ(6) 100 0.00 -0.17 0.25 0.14 0.02 1.59 -0.83 0.09 0.00 0.01
a
"Base Data" (bold) are the values from the calibration run (m3/d); other values are expressed as the
Table C-3
Kh_I
Kh_BCU(1) 100 0.02 -2.30 1.42 0.78 0.10 9.12 -2.86 0.21 0.02 0.04
Kh_BCU(3) 100 0.00 0.10 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 -0.31 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00
Kh_BCU(4) 100 0.01 -0.80 0.41 0.24 0.03 2.80 -0.76 0.12 0.01 0.01
Kh_BCU(5) 100 0.01 -0.84 0.43 0.25 0.03 2.88 -0.73 0.11 0.01 0.01
Kh_BCU(6) 100 0.00 -0.67 0.38 0.22 0.03 2.61 -0.78 0.07 0.01 0.01
Kh_TBA(1) 100 0.69 0.65 -2.17 0.01 -0.20 2.90 -3.41 0.09 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(3) 100 0.01 -0.94 0.45 0.26 0.03 3.12 -0.79 0.08 0.01 0.01
Kh_TBA(4) 100 0.01 -0.75 0.40 0.23 0.03 2.74 -0.78 0.11 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(6) 100 0.01 -0.76 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.73 -0.76 0.10 0.01 0.02
Kh_TCB(1) 100 0.01 -0.76 0.48 0.27 0.04 3.18 -1.10 0.10 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(4) 100 0.01 -0.87 0.48 0.28 0.04 3.29 -1.06 0.09 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(6) 100 0.01 -0.85 0.42 0.25 0.03 2.91 -0.79 0.13 -0.01 -0.02
Kh_TC(1) 100 -0.01 4.44 -0.66 -0.32 -0.05 -3.68 -3.54 -0.07 0.00 0.00
Kh_TC(3) 100 0.00 -0.68 0.36 0.21 0.03 2.51 -0.75 0.08 0.00 0.01
Kh_TC(4) 100 0.01 -0.22 0.49 0.21 0.04 2.25 -1.29 0.06 0.01 0.04
Kh_TC(5) 100 0.02 -2.02 1.24 0.47 0.09 4.89 -0.81 0.08 0.01 0.01
Kh_TC(6) 100 0.01 -0.70 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.68 -0.80 0.13 0.01 -0.01
Kh_TMA(1) 100 -0.02 1.06 -0.36 0.16 -0.02 2.91 -2.80 0.07 0.00 0.00
Kh_TMA(2) 100 0.00 0.67 -0.10 0.00 -0.01 0.19 -0.94 0.02 0.00 -0.02
Kh_TMA(3) 100 -0.02 1.92 -0.90 -0.18 -0.06 -1.23 -1.29 0.01 0.00 -0.02
Kh_TMA(4) 100 -0.02 1.74 -0.72 -0.07 -0.05 0.18 -1.94 0.05 0.00 0.00
Kh_TMA(6) 100 0.00 -0.03 0.26 0.15 0.02 1.76 -1.11 0.05 1.36 80.73
Kh_AA(1) 100 3.93 0.68 12.13 3.81 -14.23 16.91 -18.69 -56.93 1.78 6.56
Kh_AA(2) 100 2.97 -0.93 28.02 -0.87 11.58 -100.00 -1.40 -5.09 0.01 0.02
Kh_AA(3) 100 0.01 -0.34 0.70 0.39 0.05 4.50 -0.72 -13.73 0.00 -0.08
Kh_AA(4) 100 0.71 -0.64 -2.06 -0.21 -0.20 -0.35 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01
Kh_AA(5) 100 0.01 -0.78 0.41 0.24 0.03 2.82 -0.79 0.11 10.66 87.81
Kh_AA(6) 100 -0.21 -0.63 -50.95 -17.33 40.19 -100.00 -1.16 -1.95 0.01 -0.07
ld_I 10 -0.01 -0.79 0.39 0.23 0.06 2.77 -0.76 0.11 0.01 0.04
ld_LCCU(1) 10 -0.03 2.66 -1.53 -0.80 -0.12 -8.06 0.91 3.49 -9.29 -0.05
a
Table C-3
Kh_I
ld_LCCU(2) 10 0.00 -0.62 0.28 0.17 0.02 1.96 -1.22 5.31 0.00 0.01
ld_LCCU(3) 10 -4.38 1.82 10.32 1.95 0.69 11.88 -1.11 0.21 -0.13 -1.41
ld_LCA(1) 10 -0.03 -0.19 -1.73 -0.19 -0.11 1.86 0.46 2.98 -0.01 -0.04
ld_LCA(2) 10 0.09 -0.08 4.42 -1.68 0.20 24.18 -0.68 1.07 -0.16 0.05
ld_LCA(3) 10 0.00 -0.25 -0.15 -0.07 -0.01 -0.86 -0.89 13.96 -0.02 0.00
ld_LCA(4) 10 -2.76 -0.17 -13.06 0.82 -3.22 46.86 0.06 0.64 0.06 -3.25
ld_LCA(5) 10 -0.02 0.27 -1.72 -0.96 -0.13 -11.48 7.07 -0.22 -0.03 -0.05
ld_LCA(6) 10 0.01 -0.83 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.75 -0.83 1.44 -0.01 0.01
ld_LCA(7) 10 0.01 -0.85 0.55 0.27 0.04 3.07 -0.94 0.11 0.00 0.02
ld_LCA(8) 10 -0.04 -0.17 -2.44 -1.23 -0.18 -14.58 9.69 -0.27 -0.04 -0.08
ld_LCA(9) 10 -9.69 -0.29 34.09 4.85 2.14 24.77 -0.83 0.39 0.03 0.85
ld_UCCU 10 0.00 0.11 0.26 0.12 0.02 1.36 -1.11 0.06 0.00 0.01
ld_LCA3 10 0.00 -0.11 0.25 0.13 0.02 1.55 -0.89 0.04 0.00 0.01
ld_TSDV(1) 10 -0.01 -0.69 0.36 0.43 -0.40 4.09 -1.08 0.08 -0.04 -0.34
ld_TSDV(2) 10 -2.01 -0.82 7.48 1.20 0.64 6.95 -0.85 0.15 0.01 0.19
ld_VU(1) 10 -0.02 2.65 -3.17 -1.34 -0.21 -15.04 6.44 -0.20 -0.04 -0.09
ld_VU(2) 10 0.00 -0.19 0.33 0.19 0.02 2.14 -1.17 0.09 0.00 0.01
ld_VU(3) 10 -0.05 1.15 -1.19 -0.11 -0.08 0.27 -0.84 0.08 0.00 -0.03
ld_VCU(1) 10 -0.09 5.44 -3.59 -0.86 -0.25 -6.80 -1.12 -0.04 -0.02 -0.10
ld_VCU(2) 10 0.00 -0.24 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.45 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00
ld_VA(1) 10 -0.01 0.19 -0.13 0.10 -0.01 1.58 -1.05 0.04 0.00 0.00
ld_VA(2) 10 0.00 -0.58 0.28 0.18 0.02 2.14 -0.89 1.56 0.00 0.01
ld_VA(3) 10 -0.01 -0.73 -0.69 0.20 -0.05 3.85 -0.78 0.08 0.00 -0.02
ld_BAQ(1) 10 0.00 0.34 0.21 0.10 0.02 1.12 -1.21 0.06 0.00 0.01
ld_BAQ(3) 10 0.01 -0.82 0.49 0.28 0.04 3.32 -1.06 0.09 0.00 0.02
ld_BAQ(4) 10 0.00 -0.37 0.33 0.18 0.02 2.11 -0.87 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_BAQ(5) 10 0.01 -0.76 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.70 -0.74 0.10 0.00 0.01
ld_BAQ(6) 10 0.01 -0.85 0.42 0.25 0.03 2.94 -0.78 0.09 0.00 0.01
ld_BCU(1) 10 0.00 0.73 -0.17 -0.09 -0.01 -1.10 -0.28 0.02 -0.01 -0.01
ld_BCU(3) 10 0.00 -0.27 0.29 0.16 0.02 1.89 -0.90 0.11 0.00 0.01
a
Table C-3
Kh_I
ld_BCU(4) 10 0.01 -0.85 0.49 0.29 0.04 3.36 -1.07 0.15 0.00 0.02
ld_BCU(5) 10 0.01 -0.79 0.45 0.27 0.03 3.17 -1.02 0.11 0.00 0.01
ld_BCU(6) 10 0.00 -0.31 0.30 0.17 0.02 1.94 -0.87 0.08 0.00 0.01
ld_TBA(1) 10 0.00 -0.13 -0.16 -0.04 -0.01 -0.37 0.48 0.06 0.00 0.00
ld_TBA(3) 10 0.01 -0.77 0.40 0.24 0.03 2.79 -0.74 0.10 0.00 0.01
ld_TBA(4) 10 0.00 -0.29 0.24 0.14 0.02 1.64 -0.69 0.05 0.00 0.01
ld_TBA(6) 10 0.01 -0.86 0.43 0.25 0.03 2.97 -0.78 0.10 0.00 0.01
ld_TCB(1) 10 0.01 -0.83 0.42 0.25 0.03 2.92 -0.77 0.08 0.00 0.01
ld_TCB(4) 10 0.00 -0.24 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00
ld_TCB(6) 10 0.00 -0.29 0.29 0.16 0.02 1.90 -0.90 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_TC(1) 10 0.01 -3.56 0.89 0.42 0.06 4.70 1.56 0.14 0.01 0.03
ld_TC(3) 10 0.01 -0.85 0.43 0.25 0.03 2.95 -0.77 0.06 0.00 0.01
ld_TC(4) 10 0.00 -0.10 0.10 0.10 0.01 1.34 -0.80 0.06 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(5) 10 -0.01 0.50 -0.19 0.01 -0.01 0.47 -0.79 0.07 0.00 0.00
ld_TC(6) 10 0.01 -0.78 0.40 0.24 0.03 2.78 -0.76 0.10 0.00 0.01
ld_TMA(1) 10 0.09 -0.87 0.67 0.13 0.05 0.82 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02
ld_TMA(2) 10 0.01 -0.56 0.39 0.19 0.03 2.11 -0.69 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_TMA(3) 10 0.01 -0.89 0.73 0.29 0.05 3.01 -0.96 0.10 0.00 0.02
ld_TMA(4) 10 0.02 -1.00 0.87 0.26 0.06 2.40 -0.59 0.06 0.00 0.02
ld_TMA(6) 10 0.00 -0.41 0.25 0.15 0.02 1.73 -0.60 0.06 0.00 0.01
ld_AA(1) 10 -1.68 -0.05 1.40 -0.16 0.07 -3.92 5.23 12.44 -0.05 0.03
ld_AA(2) 10 -1.12 -0.73 -8.73 -1.32 -1.65 52.72 -1.06 0.68 -0.07 -0.92
ld_AA(3) 10 0.00 -0.26 0.22 0.13 0.02 1.46 -0.81 1.66 0.00 0.01
ld_AA(4) 10 0.00 -0.17 0.33 0.18 0.02 2.06 -1.15 0.09 0.00 0.01
ld_AA(5) 10 0.01 -0.73 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.70 -0.77 0.10 0.00 0.01
ld_AA(6) 10 -0.02 0.30 4.65 2.22 -6.47 19.60 0.18 0.31 -0.60 -8.68
Kh_I -50 -0.02 -0.97 0.43 0.27 0.09 3.26 -0.83 0.12 0.01 0.07
Kh_LCCU(1) -50 -0.09 5.03 -3.75 -1.86 -0.29 -16.98 1.96 8.04 -36.67 -0.13
Kh_LCCU(2) -50 0.00 -0.12 -0.23 -0.09 -0.02 -1.00 -1.07 13.41 -0.01 -0.01
Kh_LCCU(3) -50 -10.13 9.89 18.12 3.17 1.18 17.17 -1.02 0.30 -0.32 -3.37
a
Table C-3
Kh_I
Kh_LCA(1) -50 -0.12 0.12 -5.02 -0.81 -0.33 1.70 0.27 26.55 -0.02 -0.13
Kh_LCA(2) -50 0.42 -0.14 20.94 -8.07 1.06 105.54 -0.74 4.79 -2.46 0.32
Kh_LCA(3) -50 -0.02 -0.40 -1.54 -0.79 -0.11 -9.15 -1.08 59.36 -0.06 -0.05
Kh_LCA(4) -50 -5.86 0.04 -30.50 -4.60 -6.10 204.73 -0.98 2.23 -0.16 -22.81
Kh_LCA(5) -50 1.00 3.54 -11.94 -4.38 -0.92 -48.85 25.44 -1.01 -0.18 -0.38
Kh_LCA(6) -50 0.68 0.48 -2.78 -0.30 -0.24 -0.49 -1.11 1.70 -0.07 -0.09
Kh_LCA(7) -50 0.00 -0.89 0.40 0.20 0.03 2.25 -0.36 0.05 0.00 0.01
Kh_LCA(8) -50 -0.13 0.11 -8.56 -4.26 -0.63 -51.84 32.97 -0.85 -0.20 -0.27
Kh_LCA(9) -50 -27.20 0.84 144.28 13.34 4.53 69.05 -1.07 0.97 0.02 1.79
Kh_UCCU -50 0.00 1.77 -0.29 -0.23 -0.02 -2.93 -0.59 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01
Kh_LCA3 -50 0.00 0.57 0.03 -0.01 0.00 -0.13 -0.71 0.02 0.00 0.00
Kh_TSDV(1) -50 -0.03 -0.18 -0.65 0.85 -1.65 4.93 -0.89 0.08 -0.18 -1.18
Kh_TSDV(2) -50 -4.42 -0.09 15.66 2.17 1.43 9.74 -0.79 0.20 0.02 0.44
Kh_VU(1) -50 -0.05 5.14 -5.73 -2.75 -0.40 -33.03 14.43 -0.63 -0.10 -0.17
Kh_VU(2) -50 0.01 -0.76 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.68 -0.76 0.12 0.01 0.01
Kh_VU(3) -50 -0.28 7.74 -7.00 -1.34 -0.49 -8.65 -0.65 -0.07 -0.02 -0.19
Kh_VCU(1) -50 -0.28 19.72 -12.51 -3.45 -0.88 -32.08 -0.85 -0.44 -0.10 -0.35
Kh_VCU(2) -50 0.01 -0.37 0.38 0.21 0.03 2.43 -1.17 0.11 0.00 0.01
Kh_VA(1) -50 -0.03 1.65 -1.25 -0.18 -0.09 -0.72 -1.00 0.05 0.00 -0.03
Kh_VA(2) -50 0.01 -1.13 0.68 0.37 0.05 4.36 -1.30 0.10 0.01 0.02
Kh_VA(3) -50 -0.04 -0.07 -3.04 0.05 -0.21 5.00 -0.87 0.11 0.01 -0.08
Kh_BAQ(1) -50 0.00 0.28 0.26 0.14 0.02 1.60 -1.46 0.02 0.00 0.01
Kh_BAQ(3) -50 0.01 -0.86 0.42 0.25 0.03 2.92 -0.78 0.12 0.01 0.01
Kh_BAQ(4) -50 0.01 -0.75 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.68 -0.75 0.12 0.01 0.01
Kh_BAQ(5) -50 0.00 0.02 0.18 0.10 0.01 1.14 -0.79 0.08 0.00 0.01
Kh_BAQ(6) -50 0.01 -0.75 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.71 -0.76 0.08 0.01 0.01
Kh_BCU(1) -50 0.00 0.79 -0.24 -0.14 -0.02 -1.57 -0.03 0.00 0.00 -0.01
Kh_BCU(3) -50 0.00 -0.14 0.23 0.13 0.02 1.49 -0.80 0.09 0.00 0.01
Kh_BCU(4) -50 0.00 -0.35 0.29 0.17 0.02 2.01 -1.03 0.09 0.00 0.01
Kh_BCU(5) -50 0.00 -0.25 0.29 0.16 0.02 1.88 -0.90 0.05 0.00 0.01
a
Table C-3
Kh_I
Kh_BCU(6) -50 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 -0.13 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00
Kh_TBA(1) -50 -0.01 0.52 -0.44 -0.23 -0.03 -2.57 1.01 -0.07 -0.01 -0.01
Kh_TBA(3) -50 0.00 -0.39 0.32 0.18 0.02 2.07 -0.87 0.06 0.00 0.01
Kh_TBA(4) -50 0.01 -0.71 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.65 -0.79 0.11 0.01 0.01
Kh_TBA(6) -50 0.00 -0.21 0.27 0.15 0.02 1.70 -0.83 0.05 0.00 0.01
Kh_TCB(1) -50 0.00 -0.25 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.45 0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.00
Kh_TCB(4) -50 0.01 -0.77 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.70 -0.76 0.12 0.01 0.01
Kh_TCB(6) -50 0.01 -0.86 0.42 0.25 0.03 2.94 -0.79 0.12 0.01 0.01
Kh_TC(1) -50 0.01 -5.46 0.83 0.50 0.06 6.00 3.38 0.13 0.01 0.03
Kh_TC(3) -50 0.01 -0.78 0.40 0.23 0.03 2.74 -0.75 0.11 0.01 0.01
Kh_TC(4) -50 -0.01 0.51 -0.22 0.03 -0.01 0.80 -1.01 0.08 0.00 -0.01
Kh_TC(5) -50 -0.02 0.66 -0.65 -0.05 -0.04 0.35 -0.76 0.08 0.00 -0.02
Kh_TC(6) -50 0.01 -0.93 0.45 0.26 0.03 3.08 -0.77 0.12 0.01 0.01
Kh_TMA(1) -50 0.09 -2.03 1.03 0.28 0.07 2.40 0.41 0.29 0.00 0.03
Kh_TMA(2) -50 0.01 -0.53 0.45 0.21 0.03 2.39 -0.94 0.10 0.00 0.01
Kh_TMA(3) -50 0.02 -1.62 1.19 0.44 0.08 4.44 -1.10 0.12 0.01 0.03
Kh_TMA(4) -50 0.69 -0.64 -2.27 -0.12 -0.20 1.18 -0.68 0.04 0.00 -0.08
Kh_TMA(6) -50 0.01 -1.02 0.47 0.27 0.03 3.12 -0.69 0.11 0.01 0.01
Kh_AA(1) -50 -2.84 -1.30 -2.14 -0.47 -0.68 -2.34 11.73 21.98 -0.92 -0.25
Kh_AA(2) -50 0.16 0.00 -58.83 -12.87 -10.67 275.34 -0.90 2.86 -2.55 -5.45
Kh_AA(3) -50 0.00 -0.29 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.43 -0.92 7.78 0.00 0.00
Kh_AA(4) -50 0.00 -0.18 0.27 0.15 0.02 1.73 -0.88 0.03 0.00 0.01
Kh_AA(5) -50 0.01 -0.82 0.48 0.28 0.04 3.24 -1.06 0.11 0.01 0.02
Kh_AA(6) -50 -0.09 0.48 27.75 11.29 -40.22 100.30 -1.04 1.37 -17.36 19.40
ld_I -10 0.03 -0.30 0.28 0.16 -0.01 1.92 -0.90 0.05 0.00 -0.02
ld_LCCU(1) -10 0.05 -4.43 2.85 1.51 0.21 16.06 -3.69 -4.13 10.98 0.09
ld_LCCU(2) -10 0.00 -0.29 0.40 0.24 0.03 2.90 -0.85 -4.92 0.00 0.01
ld_LCCU(3) -10 5.56 -3.07 -12.43 -2.00 -0.85 -9.71 -1.05 -0.04 0.12 1.84
ld_LCA(1) -10 0.04 -0.18 2.02 0.27 0.13 -1.28 -0.63 -2.46 0.00 0.05
ld_LCA(2) -10 -0.08 -0.32 -3.94 1.87 -0.18 -22.88 -0.08 -0.91 0.13 -0.05
a
Table C-3
Kh_I
ld_LCA(3) -10 0.01 -0.76 0.90 0.50 0.07 5.76 -0.79 -15.10 0.02 0.03
ld_LCA(4) -10 3.86 0.37 14.42 -1.26 3.82 -54.43 -1.26 -0.70 -0.29 3.62
ld_LCA(5) -10 0.03 -0.66 2.29 1.29 0.17 15.02 -9.02 0.44 0.02 0.07
ld_LCA(6) -10 0.00 -0.28 0.32 0.17 0.02 1.95 -0.76 -1.55 0.01 0.01
ld_LCA(7) -10 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.14 0.02 1.62 -1.44 0.04 0.00 0.01
ld_LCA(8) -10 0.06 -0.45 3.66 1.92 0.27 22.00 -14.04 0.50 0.03 0.11
ld_LCA(9) -10 11.59 0.43 -40.38 -5.39 -2.88 -25.61 -1.24 -0.32 -0.08 -1.14
ld_UCCU -10 0.01 -0.83 0.53 0.31 0.04 3.65 -1.24 0.07 0.00 0.02
ld_LCA3 -10 0.01 -0.42 0.38 0.21 0.03 2.48 -1.07 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_TSDV(1) -10 0.02 -0.81 0.51 0.06 0.60 1.84 -1.07 0.13 0.06 0.48
ld_TSDV(2) -10 2.60 -0.28 -8.83 -1.06 -0.77 -3.24 -0.84 0.00 -0.01 -0.23
ld_VU(1) -10 0.04 -2.27 3.35 1.74 0.25 19.89 -10.17 0.51 0.03 0.10
ld_VU(2) -10 0.01 -0.81 0.48 0.28 0.04 3.29 -1.08 0.11 0.00 0.02
ld_VU(3) -10 0.75 -1.62 -0.80 0.14 -0.10 2.75 -1.29 0.09 0.00 -0.04
ld_VCU(1) -10 0.11 -7.11 5.06 1.46 0.36 13.10 -1.14 0.27 0.02 0.14
ld_VCU(2) -10 0.00 -0.21 0.27 0.15 0.02 1.73 -0.89 0.11 0.00 0.01
ld_VA(1) -10 0.02 -1.46 1.12 0.42 0.08 4.38 -1.21 0.12 0.00 0.03
ld_VA(2) -10 0.00 -0.29 0.24 0.14 0.02 1.67 -0.69 0.09 0.00 0.01
ld_VA(3) -10 0.02 -0.69 1.48 0.25 0.10 1.47 -0.80 0.06 0.00 0.04
ld_BAQ(1) -10 0.04 -0.18 0.29 0.17 0.04 1.96 -1.22 0.10 0.00 0.02
ld_BAQ(3) -10 0.01 -0.77 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.73 -0.77 0.10 0.00 0.01
ld_BAQ(4) -10 0.00 -0.04 0.22 0.12 0.02 1.37 -0.87 0.09 0.00 0.01
ld_BAQ(5) -10 0.00 -0.31 0.31 0.17 0.02 1.99 -0.89 0.08 0.00 0.01
ld_BAQ(6) -10 0.01 -0.36 0.39 0.22 0.03 2.49 -1.19 0.13 0.00 0.01
ld_BCU(1) -10 0.02 -1.92 1.16 0.65 0.08 7.51 -2.36 0.21 0.01 0.04
ld_BCU(3) -10 0.00 -0.24 0.24 0.14 0.02 1.64 -0.77 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_BCU(4) -10 0.01 -0.96 0.48 0.28 0.04 3.28 -0.85 0.10 0.00 0.02
ld_BCU(5) -10 0.01 -0.85 0.43 0.25 0.03 2.91 -0.78 0.06 0.00 0.01
ld_BCU(6) -10 0.00 -0.39 0.32 0.18 0.02 2.07 -0.87 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_TBA(1) -10 0.69 0.58 -2.39 -0.11 -0.21 1.59 -2.46 0.08 0.00 -0.08
a
Table C-3
Kh_I
ld_TBA(3) -10 0.00 -0.76 0.38 0.22 0.03 2.63 -0.71 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_TBA(4) -10 0.01 -0.86 0.49 0.29 0.04 3.35 -1.06 0.13 0.00 0.02
ld_TBA(6) -10 0.01 -0.76 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.71 -0.75 0.09 0.00 0.01
ld_TCB(1) -10 0.00 -0.19 0.34 0.18 0.02 2.11 -1.19 0.11 0.00 0.01
ld_TCB(4) -10 0.00 -0.34 0.34 0.19 0.03 2.27 -1.03 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_TCB(6) -10 0.01 -0.73 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.68 -0.78 0.09 0.00 0.01
ld_TC(1) -10 -0.01 3.19 -0.51 -0.23 -0.04 -2.61 -2.54 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02
ld_TC(3) -10 0.00 -0.28 0.29 0.16 0.02 1.90 -0.89 0.07 0.00 0.01
ld_TC(4) -10 0.01 -0.25 0.34 0.16 0.02 1.83 -0.92 0.08 0.00 0.01
ld_TC(5) -10 0.01 -1.43 0.83 0.36 0.06 3.87 -0.80 0.11 0.00 0.02
ld_TC(6) -10 0.01 -0.75 0.39 0.23 0.03 2.73 -0.79 0.06 0.00 0.01
ld_TMA(1) -10 -0.01 -1.19 0.22 0.44 0.02 6.05 -1.91 0.17 0.01 0.01
ld_TMA(2) -10 0.00 0.22 0.14 0.11 0.01 1.43 -1.21 0.04 0.00 0.00
ld_TMA(3) -10 -0.01 0.66 -0.24 0.01 -0.02 0.57 -1.05 0.06 0.00 -0.01
ld_TMA(4) -10 -0.01 0.54 -0.41 0.05 -0.03 1.29 -1.18 0.10 0.00 -0.01
ld_TMA(6) -10 0.00 -0.16 0.22 0.13 0.02 1.53 -0.78 0.05 0.00 0.01
ld_AA(1) -10 1.99 -0.43 -1.51 0.49 -0.09 8.44 -8.06 -12.90 0.05 -0.04
ld_AA(2) -10 1.25 -0.38 10.53 2.01 1.93 -54.76 -0.76 -0.53 -0.24 1.07
ld_AA(3) -10 0.00 -0.20 0.33 0.18 0.02 2.13 -0.89 -1.69 0.00 0.01
ld_AA(4) -10 0.00 -0.31 0.27 0.16 0.02 1.82 -0.77 0.10 0.00 0.01
ld_AA(5) -10 0.00 -0.24 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.42 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.00
ld_AA(6) -10 0.02 -1.07 -4.94 -2.17 7.19 -19.90 -1.10 -0.21 0.50 10.18
a
Distribution List
Copies
Ralph Lightner 1 (CD ROM)

Office of Southwestern Area Program, EM-45
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
Robert M. Bangerter, Jr. 2 (1 Paper & 1 CD ROM)

DOE/Nevada Operations Office
Environmental Restoration Division
P.O. Box 98518, M/S 505
Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518
Runore Wycoff, Director 1 (CD ROM)

Waste Management Division
P.O. Box 98518, M/S 505
Steve Mellington 1 (CD ROM)

Environmental Restoration Division
P.O. Box 98518, M/S 505
Steve Lawrence 1 (CD ROM)

Engineering Division
P.O. Box 98518, M/S 505
Public Reading Room, Nevada 5

DOE/ Nevada Operations Office
2621 Losee Road
M/S NLV082
Las Vegas, NV 89030
U.S. Department of Energy 2 (CD ROM)

Office of Scientific and Technical Information
175 Oak Ridge Turnpike
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
Copies
U.S. Department of Energy 1

Technical Information Resource Center (TIRC)
P.O. Box 98518, M/S 505
Las Vegas, NV 89193
Ken Hoar 1 (CD ROM)

Environmental Protection Division
P.O. Box 98518, M/S 505
Russell Patterson 1 (CD ROM)

Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project Office (YMSCO)
1551 Hillshire Drive,
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Eleonor Handman 1 (CD ROM)

Library
U.S. Geological Survey
333 W. Nye Lane
Carson City, NV 89706
Doug Trudeau 1 (CD ROM)

Water Resources Division
6770 South Paradise Road
Las Vegas, NV 89119
Martha Garcia 1 (CD ROM)

Library
P.O. Box 25046
Denver, CO 80225-0046
District Ranger 1
U.S. Forest Service
Las Vegas District Office
2881 South Valley View Blvd., Suite 16
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Copies
Tim Mayer 1 (CD ROM)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Engineering
Eastside Federal Complex
911 NE 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97232-4181
Bureau of Indian Affairs 1

1677 Hot Springs Road
Carson City, NV 89706
Jack Norman 1 (CD ROM)

Bureau of Land Management
4765 Vegas Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89018
Lawrence Hancock 1
Bureau of Reclamation
P.O. Box 61470
Boulder City, NV 89006
Col. Mike Fukey 1 (CD ROM)

Nellis Air Force Base
Environmental Protection
99 ABW/EM
4349 Dusser Drive, Suite 1601
Nellis Air Force Base, NV 89101
Lt. Col. Chris Long 1 (CD ROM)

USAF/DOE Liaison
232 Energy Way
North Las Vegas, NV 89030
Honorable Richard Bryan 2

U.S. Senate
300 S. Las Vegas Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Honorable James A. Gibbons 2

U.S. House of Representatives
1116 Longworth
HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Copies
Honorable John Ensign 2

U.S. House of Representatives
1000 East Sahara Ave., Suite D
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Honorable Harry Reid 2

U.S. Senate
500 E. Charleston Blvd.
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Donald Garrepy 1 (CD ROM)

State of Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Federal Facilities
555 E. Washington, Suite 4300
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Paul Liebendorfer 1 (CD ROM)

State of Nevada
Division of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Federal Facilities
333 W. Nye Lane, Room 138
Carson City, NV 89706-0851
Dennis Bechtel 1
Clark County
Nuclear Waste Division of Comprehensive Planning
530 S. Grand Central, Suite 3012
Las Vegas, NV 89155
Governor Robert J. Miller 1

State of Nevada
555 E. Washington, Suite 1500
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Albert Douglas 1
City of Las Vegas
Office of Business and Development
400 Las Vegas Boulevard, South
Copies
Nick Stellavato 1 (CD ROM)

Nye County
Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office
P.O. Box 675
Mercury, NV 89023
Steve Bradhurst 1 (CD ROM)

Nye County Rural Consortium
c/o Janice Williams
P.O. Box 1767
Tonopah, NV 89049
Les Bradshaw 1 (CD ROM)

County Manager
Nye County
P.O. Box 153
Tonopah, NV 89049
Brad Mettam 1 (CD ROM)

Inyo County Water Department
163 May Street
Bishop, CA 93514
Bill Werrell 1 (CD ROM)

National Park Service
Death Valley Visitor Center
P.O. Box 579
Death Valley, CA 92328
Daniel McLouthlin 1 (CD ROM)

National Park Service
Water Rights Division
1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Michael DeLee 1
Avery Realty
1401 Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, NV 89114
Chuck Russell 1 (CD ROM)

Desert Research Institute
P.O. Box 19040, M/S 433
Copies
Don Baepler 1 (CD ROM)

Nevada Risk Assessment and Management
Program (NRAMP)
Harry Reid Center - UNLV
Las Vegas, NV 89154
James E. Kannard 1 (CD ROM)

Bechtel Nevada
P.O. Box 98521, M/S 022
Greenpeace 1
1436 U Street NW
Washington, DC 20009
Dale Schutte 2 (1 Paper & 1 CD ROM)

c/o Earl Dixon
Community Advisory Board (CAB)
Harry Reid Center - UNLV
Las Vegas, NV 89154
George B. Maxey 1 (CD ROM)

Desert Research Institute
Science Center
7010 Dandini Boulevard
Reno, NV 89512
Richard A. Nielsen 1
Citizens Alert
P.O. Box 1681
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Paul K. Ortego 1 (CD ROM)

Bechtel Nevada
2621 Losee Road
M/S NLV082
Las Vegas, NV 89030
Copies
Ward Hawkins 1 (CD ROM)

Los Alamos National Laboratory
P.O. Box 1663 - M/S D443
SM-30 Bikini Atoll Road
Los Alamos, NM 87545
Dave Smith 1 (CD ROM)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, M/S L-231
Livermore, CA 94551
Gayle Pawloski 1 (CD ROM)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, M/SL-231
Livermore, CA 94551
Kay Brothers 1 (CD ROM)

Southern Nevada Water Authority Resources
1001 S. Valley View Blvd
Las Vegas, NV 89107
Buqo, Thomas 1 (CD ROM)

P.O. Box 127
Blue Diamond, NV 89004
James C. Weeks 1 (CD ROM)

Beatty Water and Sanitation District
P.O. Box 99
Beatty, NV 89003
Ken Anderson 1
Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
1 Paiute Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89124
Janet Wille 1 (CD ROM)

IT Corporation
2621 Losee Road, B-1
N. Las Vegas, NV 89030

Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of The Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of The Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of The Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOE/NV--477

Regional Groundwater Flow

Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.

Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific

Available to the public from the National Technical Information

REGIONAL GROUNDWATER FLOW AND TRITIUM

DOE Nevada Operations Office

Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited.

Approved by: -m&&&8 Date: /D/ %/,?7

dn, Project Manager

1 Nevada Environmental Restoration Project

C Anthony Armstrong Oak Ridge National Laboratory

List of Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiv

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxviii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

ES.1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

ES.2.0 Site Physical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-6

ES.3.0 Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-14

ES.4.0 Conceptual Regional Groundwater Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-16

ES.4.2 Hydrogeologic Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-16

ES.5.0 Numerical Regional Groundwater Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-21

ES.6.0 Transport Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-25

ES.7.0 Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-29

ES.8.0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-34

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2.0 Site Physical Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.2 Topography and Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

3.0 Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

4.0 Geologic Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

5.0 Hydrologic Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.5.2.2 Fracture Porosity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-14

6.0 Conceptual Groundwater Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.2.2.4 Boundary Fluxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-16

7.0 Numerical Groundwater Flow Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.4 Calibration Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-20

8.0 Transport Parameters and Source Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.4 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

9.0 Transport Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.4.7 Correlation of Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-21

10.0 Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.4.1 General Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-22

11.0 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

12.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1

Appendix A - Quality Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Number Title Page

ES-1 Area of Investigation Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-2

ES-2 Location of Underground Test Areas and Testing Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-5

ES-6 Nevada Test Site Regional Groundwater Flow System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-17

ES-7 Groundwater Pathlines from Selected Testing Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-28

1-1 Location of the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

1-2 Location of Underground Test Areas and Testing Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

1-3 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

2-4 Locations of Springs at the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

Number Title Page

2-6 Long-Term Hydrologic Monitoring Program Off-Site Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15

2-7 Land Use around the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-18

3-1 Hydrologic Modeling and Risk Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

3-2 Area of Investigation Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4