Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community Rev 00, ICN 00

ANL-NBS-MD-000006

February 2000

1. PURPOSE 
The purpose of this analysis is to quantify the annual volume of groundwater used by the farming 
community containing the critical group. The scenario defining the critical group and the 
farming community was provided by the DOE in their interim guidance (Dyer 1999). The 
underlying rational adopted by the DOE in their guidance is presented in the draft of the 
proposed 10 CFR Part 63 issued for public comment by the NRC (64 FR 8640). 
The requirement for determining the annual ground water usage arises as the NRC, in Section 
VI, Reference Biosphere and Critical Group for Yucca Mountain, of the Supplementary 
Information (64 FR 8640, p.8645/6), identifies an acceptable approximation to determine 
radionuclide dilution. This approximation is to derive radionuclide concentration in groundwater 
by dividing the annual mass of radionuclides crossing the 20-kilometer boundary by the annual 
volume of water used by the proposed farming community. 
Further, in their interim guidance, the DOE (Dyer 1999) at Sec. 114(b) placed the following 
caveat on any analyses supporting TSPA. Account for uncertainties and variabilities in 
parameter values and provide the technical basis for parameter ranges, probability 
distributions, or bounding values used in performance assessment. 
The activities described in this report were conducted in accordance with the Work Direction and 
Planning Document Titled Assessment of Groundwater Usage by the Average Member of the 
Critical Group.(CRWMS-M&O 1999b) The stated purpose (Purpose/Objective/Scope) was 
..to provide the RIP code custodian with a justifiable estimate of annual volumetric water usage 
by the hypothetical community containing the receptor (average member of the critical group) as 
specified by regulating agencies (currently draft 10CFR63)". 
To accomplish this objective, three tasks were identified during the planning phase. Once effort 
on this task was initiated it became apparent that the part of the proposed effort in tasks 1 and 2 
(..to predict consumption of locally grown foods and define the irrigation water requirements to 
grow these crops) was not necessary. The regulation permits performing the water usage 
assessment to be performed using current farming practices with the attendant, published, and 
accepted water withdrawal data. The analyses reported here to determine groundwater usage did 
not need to consider neither locally grown food nor the consumption habits of the local 
population. In addition, it was found (Section 6.3) that the volume of domestic water used 
(including drinking water) was insignificant when compared to agricultural water usage. Thus 
other than having a common basis of being based on the habits and characteristics of the local 
population, the water use estimate derived are independent of the effort defining the critical 
group. 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
This analysis was prepared in accordance with the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 
System (CRWMS) Management and Operating Contractor (M&O) Quality Assurance (QA) 
program. The information provided in this analysis will be used for evaluating the post-closure 
performance of the Monitored Geologic Repository (MGR) waste package and engineered

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 7 February 2000 
barrier segment. The Performance Assessment Operations (PAO) responsible manager has 
evaluated the technical document development activity in accordance with QAP-2-0 (Rev 5), 
Conduct of Activities. The QAP-2-0 activity evaluation (CRWMS M&O 1999a) has determined 
that the preparation and review of this technical document is subject to Quality Assurance 
Requirements and Description (DOE 2000) requirements. The effort reported in this AMR was 
conducted and documented in accordance with AP-3.10Q (Rev 1/ICN 1), Analyses and Models. 
The initial planning was conducted under AP-3.10Q (Rev 0). A work plan was developed, 
issued, and utilized in the preparation of this document (CRWMS M&O 1999b). Since the 
analysis does not involve any field activity, there is no determination of importance evaluation 
developed in accordance with NLP-2-0 (Rev 5), Determination of Importance Evaluations. 
There are no permanent items addressed in this AMR, so it is not subject to QAP-2-3 (Rev 10) 
Classification of Permanent Items. 
3. COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND MODEL USAGE 
No models were used or developed in this analysis. The only software used was an industry 
standard spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel). This spreadsheet was used as an aid in calculation; no 
routine, macros, or other application were developed or used. Use of this software in this 
manner is excepted from the requirements in AP-SI.1Q, Software Management. 
4. INPUTS 
Inputs to the analysis reported here consist of data from the federal government, the State of 
Nevada, and the CRWMS M&O. Criteria were obtained from the guidance from the DOE (Dyer 
1999), and the Federal Register carrying the proposed rule, 10 CFR Part 63, issued for public 
comment by the NRC (64 FR 8640). 
4.1 DATA AND PARAMETERS 
The data used in this analysis are discussed in the following subsections. To comply with the 
DOE guidance (Dyer 1999) at Sec. 115 (b)(2) the most recent data available at the initiation of 
this effort was used throughout the analysis. 
4.1.1 Groundwater Usage 
Groundwater usage for Amargosa Valley in 1997 was taken from data published by the State of 
Nevada (1997). This report is presented in Attachment II1. In the detailed listing in the 
Attachment, each entry was given a sequential identification number (1 to 132). This number 
allowed easy cross-referencing during the analysis and helped ensure all data had been entered. 
These data have been designated accepted data with AMOPE concurrence: OPE:ERC-2085. 
1 Review of the State Water Usage data indicated that the maximum annual irrigation rate assumed used is 5 
acre-feet per acre. Any systematic error in this value will propagate through all analyses reported in this AMR. The 
annual irrigation rate estimated in CRWMS M&O 2000 (Table 3 p. 19) for alfalfa, growing in Amargosa Valley, is 
more than 7.5 acre-feet per acre. Thus, it can be stated that any systematic error from use of the State published 
values will be conservative.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 8 February 2000 
4.1.2 Domestic Water Usage 
Additional information on domestic water usage was obtained form Nevada State Water Plan 
Part 2  Water Use and Forecasts March 1999, Nevada Division of Water Planning, Department 
of Conservation and Natural Resources. (State of Nevada 1999, Fig. 5-7). Specifically the 
value of 208 gallons per day per person was used from Fig. 5-7 under the entry for Nye County 
(NY) with a caption of Domestic Self Supplied Water Use/Person 1995 Self Supplied Domestic 
Use per Person. This existing datum was used in a confirmatory role and as such was not 
considered an accepted datum or a qualified datum. 
4.1.3 Demographics 
4.1.3.1 Detailed Demographics 1990 
Data defining the population in Amargosa Valley were taken from the 1990 Census (Bureau of 
the Census 1990). These data are accepted data with AMOPE concurrence: OPE:ERC-2084. A 
compilation of raw census data that was used in this work is reproduced in Attachment III. Of 
these data, the items identified in following sub-sections were used. 
4.1.3.1.1 Totals 
The relevant totals form the census data are provided in Table 1 
Table 1. Total Number of People and Households In Amargosa Valley from 1990 Census 
Persons Households 
724 236 
4.1.3.1.2 Age Distribution 
The age distribution from the census data on Amargosa Valley is reproduced in Table 2.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 9 February 2000 
Table 2. Amargosa Valley Population Age Distribution from the 1990 Census 
Age Population 
Under 1 year 8 
1 & 2 years 26 
3 & 4 years 9 
5 years 9 
6 years 0 
7 to 9 years 34 
10 & 11 years 48 
12 & 13 years 48 
14 years 26 
15 years 27 
16 years 9 
17 years 18 
18 years 0 
19 years 27 
20 years 27 
21 years 0 
22 to 24 years 0 
25 to 29 years 43 
30 to 34 years 62 
35 to 39 years 84 
40 to 44 years 43 
45 to 49 years 81 
50 to 54 years 60 
55 to 59 years 27 
60 & 61 years 0 
62 to 64 years 0 
65 to 69 years 0 
70 to 74 years 0 
75 to 79 years 8 
80 to 84 years 0 
85 years and over 0 
Total 724 
4.1.3.1.3 Household size distribution 
The household size distribution presented in the 1990 census is reproduced in Table 3.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 10 February 2000 
Table 3. Distribution of Household Size in Amargosa Valley from the 1990 Census 
Persons in household 
Number of Households with the 
Defined Number of Persons 
1 39 
2 79 
3 27 
4 48 
5 16 
6 18 
7 or more 9 
4.1.3.2 Demographics in 1997 
As discussed later in section 4.2.2.2, the primary intent of this AMR was to derive annual ground 
water usage based on a hypothetical farming community comprising of about 15 to 25 farms. 
However, as further discussed in 4.2.2.1, the hypothetical farming community has approximately 
100 residents. The data available to derive water usage estimates can support estimates based on 
either the number of farms or the number of residents. The primary model is based on farms 
while the alternative model is based on the number of people (and the number of residences in 
which they live). The alternative model requires additional input available in the 1990 census. 
To use the data, the numbers applicable to 1990 have to be scaled to 1997 to accommodate the 
growth in population of the Amargosa Valley. To scale the 1990 census data to the year for 
which the most recent water usage data were available (1997), the demographic data applicable 
to 1997 were taken from Table 2.4.2 (on p. 20) of the "Biosphere" Food Consumption Survey 
summary Findings and Technical Documentation (CRWMS M&O 1997). These existing data 
were used to evaluate alternative models. The models using these data were not used in the 
findings recommended for use in TSPA-SR. 
The data presented in the cited table that were used in this analysis were as shown in Table 4. 
Table 4. Data from the 1997 Survey used to Scale 1990 Census Data to be Applicable to the 1997 Water 
Usage Data 
Parameter Number 
Estimated Number of Households in Amargosa Valley 452 
Estimated Number of Resident Adults in Amargosa Valley 893 
4.1.4 Land Location 
In section 5.4.2 (Water Usage and Active Farms) the location of land associated with water 
withdrawal permits are given by Range, Township, Section. Rather than attempt to explain the 
details of this time proven system of land identification, the reader is referred to the sources used 
by the author. These sources are Death Valley Junction California-Nevada (36116-A1-TM- 
100) (USGS 1993a) and Beatty Nevada-California (36116-E1-TM 100) (USGS 1993b), where 
both publications are 1:100000-scale metric topographic maps. When consulting these 
references, the following facts should be remembered.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 11 February 2000 
Range, Township, and Section (R, T, & S) are defined by the State. For Nevada, the R, T, & S 
designators within Amargosa Valley terminate at the boundary with California. 
R & T, being based on a rectilinear grid, are designed for a flat earth. The finite diameter of the 
earth demands that the ideal rectangular grid must become distorted to fit reality. 
Agricultural usage of water is limited to the Nevada portion of the land shown on these maps. 
However, the NV-CA border does intersect some Sections where farming activities are 
conducted. 
4.2 CRITERIA 
4.2.1 Overview 
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRCs) Total System Performance Assessment and 
Integration (TSPA&I) Issue Resolution Status Report (IRSR) (NRC 1998) establishes generic 
technical acceptance criteria. These criteria are considered by the NRC staff to be essential to a 
defensible, transparent, and comprehensive assessment methodology for the repository system. 
These regulatory acceptance criteria address five fundamental elements of the DOE TSPA model 
for the Yucca Mountain site, namely: 
1. Data and model justification (focusing on sufficiency of data to support the 
conceptual basis of the process model and abstractions) 
2. Data uncertainty and verification (focusing on technical basis for bounding 
assumptions and statistical representations of uncertainties and parameter 
variabilities) 
3. Model uncertainty (focusing on alternative conceptual models consistent with 
available site data) 
4. Model verification (focusing on testing of model abstractions using detailed processlevel 
models and empirical observations) 
5. Integration (focusing on appropriate and consistent coupling of model abstractions). 
Relevant to the topic of this AMR, elements (1) through (4) of the acceptance criteria are 
addressed herein. Element (5) of the NRC acceptance criteria, which strictly applies to the 
completed synthesis of process-level models and abstractions, will be addressed separately in the 
TSPA-SR. 
This AMR was prepared to comply with the above NRC TSPA&I acceptance criteria. The water 
usage analysis is considered a part of the Biosphere effort to be reported in the Biosphere PMR. 
By the criteria discussed below in 4.2.2, this effort, like other biosphere AMRs uses the 
characteristics of the present day population in Amargosa Valley to generate results to be used in 
TSPA-SR. However, this effort is divorced (i.e., no common predecessor AMR) from the other 
Biosphere AMRs that are structured to develop the Biosphere Dose Conversion Factors 
(BDCFs). Initially it was thought that there would be a common tie with the critical group

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 12 February 2000 
through drinking/domestic water use. However, as is concluded in section 6.3, the total domestic 
water used by the hypothetical farming community is a small fraction of the total water used. In 
arriving at total water use, this domestic component is conservatively ignored. 
4.2.2 Regulatory Details 
At present, there is no legal definition of the criteria to be place on the disposal of high level 
waste in a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. When, after due process, 
Title 10 CFR Part 63 is enacted, the legal requirements will be incorporated into the Monitored 
Geologic Repository Requirements Document and will become the criteria on which the 
predicted performance f the repository will be gauged. Until this occurs there are no criteria. To 
allow progress to be made on this Water Usage AMR, the DOE Memorandum (Dyer 1999, 
section 115) and the proposed 10 CFR Part 63 (63.115) will be used as surrogate criteria. 
This AMR complies with the DOE interim guidance (Dyer 1999) and the specified 
Subparts/Sections of the proposed NRC high-level waste rule, 10 CFR Part 63 (64 FR 8640). In 
particular details given in Section 115 Characteristics of the Reference Biosphere and Critical 
Group and further discussed in the Supplemental Information VI, Reference Biosphere and 
Critical Group for Yucca Mountain, are applicable to this analysis. These criteria are more 
fully discussed below. 
4.2.2.1 DOE Guidance 
4.2.2.1.1 Section 115 
Section 115 of the draft of the interim guidance provided by DOE (Dyer 1999) provides the 
Characteristics of the Reference Biosphere and Critical Group. The applicable parts of this 
section are given below2. 
Sec. 115 Required characteristics of the reference biosphere and critical group. 
(a) Reference biosphere. (1) Features, events, and processes that describe the reference 
biosphere shall be consistent with present knowledge of the conditions in the region 
surrounding the Yucca Mountain site. 
(2) 
(b) Critical Group. (1) The critical group shall reside within a farming community located 
approximately 20 km south from the underground facility (in the general location of 
U.S. Route 373, near Lathrop Well, Nevada). 
(2) The behaviors and characteristics of the farming community shall be consistent with 
current conditions of the region surrounding the Yucca Mountain site. Changes over time in 
2 The sections of the interim guidance used in this AMR (Dyer 1999) are identical to those given by the NRC 
(64 FR 8640)

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 13 February 2000 
the behaviors and characteristics of the critical group including, but not limited to, land use, 
lifestyle, diet, human physiology, or metabolics; shall not be considered. 
(3) The critical group resides within a farming community consisting of approximately 100 
individuals, and exhibits behaviors or characteristics that will result in the highest expected 
annual doses. 
(4)  
4.2.2.1.2 Section 114 
At paragraph (b), this section specifies that the TSPA analysis shall, Account for uncertainties 
and variabilities in parameter values and provide the technical basis for parameter ranges, 
probability distributions, or bounding values used in the performance assessment. 
Furthermore paragraph (c) states that alternative conceptual models of features and processes 
that are consistent with available data . shall be considered. 
4.2.2.2 Supplementary Information to Part 63 
In section VI (Reference Biosphere and Critical Group for Yucca Mountain) of the 
Supplementary Information (64 FR 8640 p. 8645-6), the NRC provide their rationale behind the 
biosphere portion of proposed regulations for Yucca Mountain. In the discussion, NRC states 
that, It is reasonable to assume that a farming community of sufficient size (as opposed to a few 
isolated farms) would be needed to supply the range of locally grown food that is currently 
consumed in the Yucca Mountain region. Such a farming community of up to 100 individuals, 
residing on approximately 15 to 25 farm, is consistent with current conditions of the region 
(substantially more farms would increase water demand and further decease radionuclide 
concentration in pumped water; substantially fewer farms would restrict the availability of 
locally produced foods relative to the regional average). .. The Commission considers it 
desirable to constrain the determination of the contamination levels of locally produced foods 
because it is not possible to precisely determine concentrations in ground water at specific 
locations or to avoid speculation regarding individual farms and water withdrawal practices. 
The concentrations of radionuclides in the water used by a larger farming community, by 
contrast, can be determined by dividing the annual release of radionuclides to the location of the 
farming community by the annual water demands of the farming community. For a community 
of sufficient size, it can be assumed that water demand is large enough to capture the entirety 
of the contaminated plume. 
4.3 CODES AND STANDARDS 
No codes or standards apply to this analysis.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 14 February 2000 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
5.1 CONSERVATISM 
If a radionuclide reaches the location of the DOEs (and NRCs) hypothetical farming 
community, the predicted dose to the specified receptor (the average member of the critical 
group) is proportional to the radionuclide concentration in water withdrawn from wells. The 
predicted concentration of radionuclides in the water is itself inversely proportional the annual 
volume of water withdrawn. It is assumed that in the absence of accepted or qualified data 
needed to support a more refined approximation it is acceptable to use a simple approximation 
that is demonstrably conservative. In the case of this analysis, a conservative approximation is 
one that reduces annual water usage and thereby increases annual dose to the receptor. This 
assumption of conservatism is used to justify ignoring the small domestic use of water in 
estimating total water use. In addition, conservatism was a factor in recommending the use of 
unconsolidated farms as the basis for agricultural water usage. 
5.2 PLUME CAPTURE 
As directed by the DOE and NRC and repeated in section 4.2.2.1, it is assumed, for the 
hypothetical farming community of 100 people located near Lathrop Wells, that water demand is 
sufficiently large to capture the entirety of the contaminated plume. No TBV is required as 
this assumption was made at the behest of the regulator. This assumption provides a basis and 
justification the work presented in this report. Any alternative and more detailed approach 
would be subject to both much uncertainty and speculation. 
5.3 DEMOGRAPHICS 
5.3.1 Changes over time 
Accepted data used in this report are from (a) the 1990 census (section 4.1.3.1) and (b) the State 
published 1997 groundwater usage data for Amargosa Valley (section 4.1.1). Those analyses 
based upon the number of residences (sections 6.2.1.2 & 6.2.1.3.3) assumed that the average 
number of persons resident in a household did not change between 1990 and 1997 despite a large 
population increase in the region. The number of households was 236 in 1990 and this increased 
to an estimated 452 households in 1997. This information was used to evaluate alternative 
models. These alternative models were not used in assessing the water usage for TSPA-SR. 
Therefore, TBVs are not required. 
5.3.2 Characteristics of the Farming Community 
The interim guidance from DOE (Dyer 1999. Sec. 115(b)(3)) and the proposed rule for the 
repository at Yucca Mountain (64 FR 8640, 63.115(b)(3)), provide the scenario on which water 
usage is to be based. The scenario is that, the farming community is defined as consisting of 
approximately 100 individuals. In addition, at 115(b)(2) defines the critical group as residing in 
a farming community with behaviors and characteristics consistent with the current conditions 
surrounding the Yucca Mountain site. Thus if Amargosa Valley is considered to be a farming

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 15 February 2000 
community, it would be a simple matter to derive the annual water usage of the hypothetical 
farming community from the data available for the Amargosa Valley community. 
A review of the 1990 census data (given in Attachment III) indicated that only a small fraction of 
the community of Amargosa Valley were employed in farming activities. The data show that 
(item Persons) there were 724 persons residing in 236 households (item Households) in 
Amargosa Valley in 1990. Of these, only nine people were classed as being 16 years or older 
and employed in Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, (item Industry). Under item Farm selfemployed 
income in 1989 nine households were determined to have farm self-employed 
income. 
It can be shown that the Amargosa Valley in 1990 had only a small fraction of its residents 
employed in farming. If each self-employed household is assumed to have two agricultural 
workers, then about 27 people were employed on the land. This means that only about 3.7% of 
the population were engaged in farming in the 1989/90 time frame. 
A scenario based upon the above interpretation is evaluated in the AMR. However, the small 
fraction of the population in Amargosa Valley engaged in farming suggest that using the existing 
community as a surrogate for the farming community is not the intent of the proposed rule. 
In section VI (Reference Biosphere and Critical Group for Yucca Mountain) of the 
Supplementary Information3 (64 FR 8640. p. 8646) the following statement is made. Such a 
farming community of up to 100 individuals, residing on approximately 15 to 25 farms, is 
consistent with current conditions of the region (substantially more farms .). This indicates 
that the proposed farming community should be based on the existing farms in the areas (and not 
on the total population). It is assumed that this interpretation is correct. 
To generate estimates of annual water usage requires the assumption that the data generated in 
Amargosa Valley (by both the Census and the DOE Survey) can be used to derive the parameters 
needed to characterize the proposed hypothetical farming community. This assumption does not 
need a TBV as the statement by DOE (Dyer 1999) at Sec. 115(b)(2), reproduced above in section 
4.2.2.1.1, directs that this assumption be made. 
5.4 FARMS 
5.4.1 Farms and Inhabitants 
As discussed in 5.4.1 there are two possible interpretations of the intent of the interim guidance 
(Dyer 1999) and the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule (64 FR 8640). Both 
interpretations (100 individuals or 15 to 25 farms) are used in Section 6 to derive annual water 
usage. Both analyses are included to allow the impact of both interpretations to be evaluated. 
The recommendation of water usage in this AMR is based on the assumption that the 
Supplementary Information (64 FR 8640. p. 8646) directs the assessment to be made using a 
hypothetical farming community of about 15 to 25 farms. 
3 This information is not contained in the interim guidance from the DOE (Dyer 1999).

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 16 February 2000 
5.4.2 Water Usage and Active Farms 
With the available data, it was apparent that there were several possible ways of using the data to 
derive total water usage. Each approach had its own assumption(s). To demonstrate that 
alternative approaches had been investigated, the more obvious ones are discussed below. 
Whether of not the particular approach was used to derive water usage, the assumptions 
associated with the approach are discussed. 
5.4.2.1 Review of Raw Water Usage Data 
A review of the Groundwater Usage Data presented in Attachment II and discussed in 4.1.1 
yields some interesting and potentially relevant facts. The first is that many parcels of land with 
water rights showed zero water usage in 1997. Several other owners are reported to be irrigating 
only a small fraction4 of their land. By virtue of being allocated water rights, these areas should 
have been in agricultural production, at some time in the past. A potential approach to determine 
water usage for the farming community would be to consider all land in Amargosa Valley that 
has allocated irrigation water rights. This approach was considered speculative (irrigation rate 
and fraction of land under cultivation) and not consistent with current conditions. Thus, this 
approach was not used. Had the assumption been employed, it would have used farms with all 
land under production at a given time. This would yield a result that would not be conservative 
with regard to present day conditions (i.e., water usage would be over-estimated). The analyses 
undertaken were based on actual groundwater usage in Amargosa Valley as reported by the State 
for 1997. 
5.4.2.2 Minimum Viable Farm Size 
As stated in 4.2.2.1.1, the dose receptor (average member of the critical group) shall reside 
within a farming community at a specified location. In addition, the behaviors and 
characteristics of the farming community have to be consistent with current conditions of the 
region surrounding the Yucca Mountain site. Furthermore, changes over time (in particular of 
land use) shall not be considered. 
In the course of doing this work, the intent of the above was given some thought as to whether 
there should there be a minimum size (of land under cultivation) attributed to a farm within the 
farming community. To answer this question would require many years of historical water usage 
data to determine the changes over time of farming intensity in the region. Such an approach 
would appear to be at variance with the NRCs requirement that changes over time are not be 
considered. The present author is of the opinion that the NRCs intent was to avoid speculation 
on changes in the future after permanent closure. This is based on the logic that until a license is 
granted the clock has not started in terms of regulatory compliance. 
The current agri-business in Amargosa Valley is based on dairy farming. Cows and in particular 
cow food (growing alfalfa) are the present drivers in water use. Ironically, this farming niche 
4 Large area users tend to grow alfalfa using a center spigot which on a rectangular land ownership grid is only about 
78% efficient.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 17 February 2000 
carved out in rural Nevada to supply milk to California is based more on ancillary factors (such 
as permits, state regulations, tax considerations) rather than on agricultural conditions and 
climate beneficial to bovine well being. As the political and business climates could change 
rapidly and could have severe repercussions on the present local farming community, it was 
considered unwise to only consider the larger farms which may not be present at the time of site 
recommendation or license application (construction, receipt of waste, or closure). 
In an initial and unreported scoping analysis, the evaluation was performed as a function of cutoff 
size (i.e., irrigated acres) for farms. While this exercise was interesting, it did indicate that 
any numerical limit for such a cut-off, without further study on the historical economic viability 
of farms in the area, would be arbitrary and not conservative. Intuitively, it can be seen that 
ignoring small farms and estimating average farm usage from data on only large farms 
would lead to a systematic bias toward high volume usage. 
In light of the above logic and to avoid any accusation of bias, it was decided to embrace the 
conservative concept that all irrigation water users of record in 1997 were indeed farms. All 
these farms would be used to estimate water usage by the hypothetical farming community. This 
assumption was used in Sections 6 and 7. 
5.4.2.3 The Conservative Approach of One Water Permit - One Farm 
The accepted data identified in section 4.1.1 provides water usage listed by Permit and/or 
Certificate number. The data are tabulated sequentially by these numbers. In cases where the 
Owner of Record has multiple permits or certificates for a place of use (given by Range, 
Township, Section, 3, 3), these other permits or certificates are also defined. For this approach 
the assumption is made that each of the entries in the water usage report comprise a single 
farming unit. This is justified by virtue of the land in question being a single piece of real estate 
owned by one person. This assumption was used in Sections 6 and 7. 
5.4.2.4 Potential Farms  Adjacent Lands with a Single Owner 
When all the water usage data are reviewed (especially when sorted by Owner of Record), it is 
apparent that there are cases where one person (or group) owns other lands with the attendant 
water rights. Moreover, when reviewed more carefully (by range, township, section as 
mentioned in 4.1.4 some of these multiple areas owned by a single person are geographically 
adjacent. Thus, it could be claimed that in such cases, a single farming unit may be the 
consolidation of two or more land areas each with their own water permit(s). Such a 
consolidation would reduce the number of farming units as simply defined in 5.4.2.1. This act 
would increase the annual water usage by the average farm (same volume of water shared by 
fewer farms). In turn, this act of consolidation of the farmed areas would have the nonconservative 
affect of increasing the total water usage by the specified number of farms in the 
hypothetical community. To avoid the non-conservatism inherent in this approach, consolidation 
is only considered as a supportive analysis to demonstrate to the reader the impact of this 
approach on water usage. For this analysis, it is assumed that adjacent and used lands owned by

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 18 February 2000 
the same entity comprise a farm on which the water consumption per farm will be established. 
This assumption of farm consolidation was used in sections 6.2.1.3 et seq. 
6. ANALYSIS/MODEL 
Whenever there are sufficient data to justify a statistical analysis to allow upper and lower limits 
to be derived on estimated parameters this is done. This mandated requirement (Dyer 1999, 
Sec. 114) was discussed in 4.2.2.1.2. 
6.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 
Before looking at any water usage, some analyses are required on demographic data. To 
consolidate the demographic data in one location the base data from 4.1.3 are repeated here in 
Table 5. 
Table 5. Demographic Data for the Amargosa Valley from the 1990 Census and the 1997 Survey that 
were used in at least some of the Analyses in this Report 
1990 Census 1997 Survey 
Persons 724 Adults 893 
Households 236 Households 452 
6.1.1 Age Distribution 
The age distribution from the 1990 census and presented in 4.1.3.1.2 was imported into an Excel 
spreadsheet. The SUM function was used to calculate the number of residents of age 17 years 
and below in addition to those of age 18 years and above. A printout of this spreadsheet in 
reproduced in Attachment IV. An electronic read-only copy of the spreadsheet is attached to 
report. 
The results of this calculation was that there were 462 person of age 18 years or older (i.e., 
adults) resident in the Amargosa Valley in 1990. Using the total population data given in 6.1, 
shows that adults make up 63.8% of the population. 
6.1.2 Household Size Distribution 
The data giving the distribution of household size (number of residents) from the 1990 census 
and given in 4.1.3.1.3 were imported into an Excel spreadsheet. An additional column was 
inserted to accept the total number of people in that size of household. For each row this number 
was generated by taking the product of the number in the column showing the Number of 
Persons in the Household and the column giving the number of people. The columns giving 
the number of households and the number of people were each summed. It should be noted 
that the total population generated was slightly less (by 3) that the actual total given in 6.1. A 
correction could have been applied for this rounding error that arose by virtue of the last row 
being inclusive of the group with seven or more persons. Because the error is small (of the order 
of 0.4%, i.e., about three in 720) this correction was not applied. An additional justification for

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 19 February 2000 
not making the correction was that in the final step of the analysis an uncertainty value was to be 
determined which put the small correction in perspective. The average number of persons in a 
household was then determined by dividing the total number of households into the total number 
of people. The average number of person in a household in 1990 was 3.06. 
The next step was to calculate the standard deviation (s) of this household size distribution. This 
was performed in the spreadsheet using the following standard equation. A printout of the 
spreadsheet is shown give in Attachment IV. An electronic read-only copy of the spreadsheet is 
attached to report. 
. - = 
x 
x x x n SS 2 ) )( ( (Bulmer M. G. p. 57) 
) 1 ( - 
= 
n
SS 
s (Bulmer M. G. p. 130) 
where = SS the Sum of Squares 
= n the number of times there are x people in a household 
= x the average number people in a household 
The ith entry in this equation SS in shown in the appropriate row in the column titled Square of 
Difference. These squares were summed on the row titled Totals. Under the label SD is 
given the standard deviation (s) by taking the square root of the sum of squares divided by (n-1) 
[i.e., 235]. The standard deviation of the number of people in Amargosa Valley households for 
1990 was 1.67. 
6.1.3 Number of Households (Farms) in the Farming Community 
The DOE (Dyer 1999, Section 115) specified that the farming community should contain 
approximately 100 individuals (see 4.2.2.1.1). For the analysis in this section the number of 
people will be taken to be exactly 100. Using the estimate for the average number of people in 
Amargosa Valley household obtained in 6.1.2 of 3.06, then the expected number of households 
containing 100 people is 32.73. The Central Limits Theorem (Bulmer M. G. p. 115 et seq.) tells 
us that if n samples are drawn for a well behaved (i.e., moments are finite) distribution with an 
estimated mean of x and an estimated standard deviation of s, then the sum of the n samples 
will be approximately normal with a mean of x n and a standard deviation of n s . This 
assumption of normallity will break down only if n is small or if the underlying distribution is 
highly abnormal (Bulmer M. G. p. 120). The estimate of households arrived at above of 32.73 is 
sufficient large to provide a reasonable basis for an uncertainty analysis. As the distribution of 
the sum of 32.73 random samples is approximately normal, the 95% confidence interval can be 
estimated as being 1.96 times the expected standard deviation. The expected standard deviation 
of the population distribution is 9.53, so the 95% confidence interval is 18.68 above and below 
the mean of 100. With an average of 3.06 persons per household, the corresponding uncertainty 
in the number of households containing 100 people is therefore 6.12. So 100 people can be

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 20 February 2000 
expected to reside in somewhere between 26.62 and 38.85 households. These calculations are 
given in both the hard and soft copy of the spreadsheet. 
This estimate may seem at variance with 15 to 25 farms discussed in 4.2.2.2. However, the 
distribution of households and farms present in Amargosa Valley could readily accommodate 20 
farms with between 7 and 18 additional non-farm residences. Therefore, the values of farms and 
people used by NRC (64FR 8640, p.8645-6) appear to be reasonable. 
6.2 AGRICULURAL WATER USAGE 
6.2.1 Determination of Water Usage by Unit (Farm/Residence) 
As discussed in 4.2.2.2 and 4.2.2.1 and in 6.1 water usage can be determined by considering 
either Farms or population. As required by the regulations and discussed in 4.2.2.1.2, both 
interpretations will be evaluated. 
6.2.1.1 Water Usage Based on Individual Active Permits 
The conservative assumption discussed in 5.4.2.3, that each active water usage permit represents 
a farming unit as prescribed by NRC and discussed 4.2.2.2 is addressed in this section. The 
Water Usage sheet of the spreadsheet contains the numerical calculation described below. The 
results of each major step of the calculation are reproduced in Table 6. 
6.2.1.1.1 Data Sorting 
The groundwater usage data for Amargosa Valley discussed in section 4.1.1 and presented in 
Attachment II, were entered into a spreadsheet. These data from the spreadsheet are given in 
Attachment V. The second column of this spreadsheet was used to flag any mention in the 
original data that the usage was associated with a dairy. This was done for two reasons. First, 
some dairy use had been categorized as commercial (feed water for cattle is not irrigation water 
and is thus not categorized as irrigation). Second, the same data would be used in the later 
analysis where farms were consolidated and it was convenient to flag dairies to aid the process. 
An electronic copy of this spreadsheet is supplied with this report. The raw data as published 
by the State is on the first sheet (titled Raw Data) of the spreadsheet. Where the owner of 
record was not identified, the character ? was used. 
All the data were copied onto the second sheet (Labeled By Cat as an abbreviation for By 
Category) of the spreadsheet. The following actions were taken. 
a) The data were sorted by the water usage column to separate out those entries not using 
water. 
b) A new column (J) was used for the entry of 1, 0, or 1, depending on an evaluation of the 
water usage. The groups used were: (1) agricultural, (0) for infrastructure in the region 
(e.g., post office, hotels, laundromats, commercial properties, trailers, etc.), and (-1) for 
mining or other activities (wildlife refuge).

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 21 February 2000 
c) The data were sorted by this use identifier. Blank rows were introduced to enhance 
readability. 
d) The data in the agricultural category were then sorted by (1) the column containing the 
D for dairy identifier and (2) by owner of record (i.e., alphabetic). (Scanning this list 
it can be seen that there are several cases where the same owner of record owns and 
uses land within the same section or on adjacent sections. This is rationale for 
considering consolidation as an alternative approach for determining water usage.) 
e) The data from the active farms block of data (i.e., those with the use identifier of 1) were 
copied onto a new sheet Water Usage. A new column (A) was inserted and used to 
number each entry sequentially starting at 1. 
f) Unnecessary columns were deleted, leaving only the columns of entry number, Owner 
of Record, Irrigated Acres, and water usage Ac*Ft. 
6.2.1.1.2 Approach for Determining Agricultural Water Usage 
The approach, which is also used to evaluate the other approximations, is given below. The 
basis for step (f) is the Central Limits Theorem that was discussed in 6.1.3. If the true mean of 
the water usage distribution is , then we would expect the distribution of multiple 
measurements of x to be approximately normal with mean  and a standard deviation of 
n 
s 
. 
Therefore, the 95% confidence interval for  would be approximately n s x / 96 . 1  . 
(a) A confidence level is defined. For the purpose of all analyses presented here the 
confidence level was set to a value of 95%. In the spreadsheet the confidence level was a 
user definable variable to allow sensitivity studies to be undertaken as and when 
necessary. 
(b) From the confidence level value, the Excel function NORMSINV was used to define 
appropriate multiplier (this is the usual 1.96 for the 95% level). 
(c) The number of active farms were determined by using the Excel COUNT function. 
(d) The average annual water usage by the active farms was determined by using the Excel 
function AVERAGE. 
(e) The standard deviation of the average annual water usage by the active farms was 
determined by using the Excel function STDEV. 
(f) The statistical uncertainty (to the confidence level defined in (a)) was determined by 
taking the product of (1) the multiplier defined in (b) and (2) the standard deviation 
derived in (e), and dividing this number by (3) the square root of the number of active 
farms as determined in (c).

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 22 February 2000 
(g) The upper and lower limits to the average annual water usage was determined by adding 
and subtracting the uncertainty value determined in (f) to/from the measured mean values 
from (d). 
6.2.1.1.3 Result of the Calculation 
The results of the above steps for the 95% confidence interval are given in Table 6. 
Table 6. Estimates of Annual Water Usage per Farm based on 1997 Active Water Permits 
Parameter Value Unit 
Confidence Level (CL). 0.95 
1- CL 0.05 
CL Factor from Normal Distribution 1.96 
Number of Farming Units 112 "farms" 
Mean Water Usage 96.92 ac-ft/yr 
Standard Deviation (S. D.) of Water Usage 203.95 ac-ft/yr 
Uncertainty in Mean Water Usage 37.77 ac-ft/yr 
Upper Limit on Mean Water Usage 134.69 ac-ft/yr 
Expected Water Usage 96.92 ac-ft/yr 
Lower Limit on Mean Water Usage 59.15 ac-ft/yr 
The upper and lower limits for average water usage (given in Table 7) in conjunction with the 
specified number of farms (as given in 4.2.2.2) will be used section 7 to generate the limits for 
total annual water usage by the hypothetical farming community. 
6.2.1.2 Water Usage Based on the Total Number of Residences 
The methodology given in 6.2.1.1.1 was used to calculate the mean as well as the upper and 
lower bounds on annual water usage by individual households. To facilitate this without having 
to generate a new spreadsheet required adding the appropriate number of additional households 
so that of the total was equal to that reported in 4.1.3.2 (i.e., 452). Each of these additional 
households (from number 64 to 452) was assigned zero water usage (domestic usage is to be 
factored in later). The Water Usage sheet of the spreadsheet contains the steps performed. 
Each step of the calculation is reproduced in Table 7.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 23 February 2000 
Table 7. Estimates of Annual Water Usage per Household based on 1997 Active Water Permits 
Parameter Value Unit 
Confidence Level (CL). 0.95 
1- CL 0.05 
CL Factor from Normal Distribution 1.96 
Number of Residences 452 
Mean Water Usage 24.02 ac-ft/yr 
Standard Deviation (S. D.) of Water Usage 109.51 ac-ft/yr 
Uncertainty in Mean Water Usage 10.10 ac-ft/yr 
Upper Limit on Mean Water Usage 34.11 ac-ft/yr 
Expected Water Usage 24.02 ac-ft/yr 
Lower Limit on Mean Water Usage 13.92 ac-ft/yr 
The upper and lower limits for average water usage given in Table 7. These data in conjunction 
with the specified number of residences (derived in 6.1.3 for the number of people defined in 
4.2.2.1.1) could be used, if so desired, to generate the limits for annual water usage by the 
hypothetical farming community. 
6.2.1.3 Water Usage Based on Consolidated Farming Units 
As discussed in 5.4.2.4, review of the Ground Water Pumpage Inventory data shows that there 
are several instances of a single person owning and using two or more water allocations. Further 
inspection shows that these agricultural areas are in general either overlapping (in terms of being 
within the smallest area definable i.e., a 3 3 of a section) or in close proximity. This 
observation raises the possibility that such single owner agricultural lands are single farming 
units. If this were so, then the water consumption by the farming community defined by the 
NRC and discussed in 4.2.2.1.1 should be based on the average annual water usage of these 
larger consolidated units. This is not the preferred route because it is not demonstrably 
conservative. In addition, it would necessitate multiple TBV on ownership and usage. Never the 
less, this scenario was considered important as it provides insight into the impact of possible 
alternative approaches for the future. The approach was evaluated but at this stage was not put 
under QA program because of the many TBVs that would be necessitated. 
6.2.1.3.1 Data Sorting 
To evaluate water usage for this scenario the steps a) through d) described in 6.2.1 et seq. was 
followed. The analysis continued as described below. A copy of this spreadsheet data is given 
in Attachment VI. 
e) The data from the active farms block of data (i.e., those with the use identifier of 1) were 
copied onto a new sheet Farms Sub-totals.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 24 February 2000 
f) For each entry with a given name, the location (place of use) was checked to ensure that 
it was a reasonable assumption to consider each water usage location as part of a single 
farming unit. In the case of the De Lee Trust reference has to be made to the 
topographic maps discussed in 4.1.4 as the place of use of the multiple entries were on 
different sections, ranges and townships. The entries numbered 130 and 131 under the 
generic term dairy were because of location considered a part of Rockview Dairies. 
The No Permit unknown (?) users 128 and 129 were considered a single user (both in 
section 9 of R 49 T 17) and given designator ?1, while ? # 126 being in section 12 
was considered independent (and designated ?2). 
g) The Excel subtotal capability (under Data, Subtotals .) was used to insert the 
subtotals of Owner of Record at each change in Owner of Record. This is shown on 
sheet Farms Sub-totals. 
h) The whole of the sheet Farms Sub-totals were copied onto a new sheet ID Totals. 
i) The Excel Text function RIGHT was used in column K to select the five leftmost 
characters in the text in column D. 
j) The Excel IF statement was used in column L to insert a 1 if column K 
contained the text Total, otherwise a 0 was inserted. 
k) The result of these actions can be seen the sheet ID Totals. 
l) The whole of sheet ID Totals was copied and pasted (using Paste Special  Paste 
Values) onto a new sheet Sort by Total. 
m) To separate the TOTALS data for the individual data all data was sorted by the Excel 
sort function using column L descending as the sort criterion. 
n) The result of these actions can be seen the sheet Sort By Total. 
o) The Rows containing the Totals data were copied onto the sheet Water Usage 
p) The data were sorted by annual water usage. 
q) Each row was given an identification number corresponding to its position in the list. 
r) Unnecessary columns were deleted, leaving only the columns of entry number, Owner 
of Record, Irrigated Acres, and water usage Ac*Ft. 
6.2.1.3.2 Water Usage Based on Consolidated Active Farms 
The analysis for this evaluation follows that given in 6.2.1.1.1, and will not be repeated here. 
The details are shown on sheet Water Usage. 
The results of the above steps for the 95% confidence are given in Table 8.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 25 February 2000 
Table 8. Estimates of Annual Water Usage per Farm based on 1997 Active Water Permits with 
Consolidation of Farms 
Parameter Value Unit 
Confidence Level (CL). 0.95 
1- CL 0.05 
CL Factor from Normal Distribution 1.96 
Number of Farming Units 44 "farms" 
Mean Water Usage 246.7 ac-ft/yr 
Standard Deviation (S. D.) of Water Usage 497.72 ac-ft/yr 
Uncertainty in Mean Water Usage 147.07 ac-ft/yr 
Upper Limit on Mean Water Usage 393.77 ac-ft/yr 
Expected Water Usage 246.7 ac-ft/yr 
Lower Limit on Mean Water Usage 99.63 ac-ft/yr 
6.2.1.3.3 Water Usage Based on Consolidated Farms and the Total Number of Residences 
The approach adopted exactly followed the steps given in 6.2.1.2. The calculations are shown on 
sheet Water Usage. The results are given in Table 9 
Each step of the calculation is reproduced in Table 9. 
Table 9. Estimates of Annual Water Usage per Household based on 1997 Active Water Permits with 
Consolidation of Farms 
Parameter Value Unit 
Confidence Level (CL). 0.95 
1- CL 0.05 
CL Factor from Normal Distribution 1.96 
Number of Residences 452 
Mean Water Usage 24.02 ac-ft/yr 
Standard Deviation (S. D.) of Water Usage 170.23 ac-ft/yr 
Uncertainty in Mean Water Usage 15.69 ac-ft/yr 
Upper Limit on Mean Water Usage 39.71 ac-ft/yr 
Expected Water Usage 24.02 ac-ft/yr 
Lower Limit on Mean Water Usage 8.32 ac-ft/yr

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 26 February 2000 
6.2.2 Agricultural Water Usage by the Community. 
6.2.2.1 No Consolidation of Farming Units 
The total predicted annual groundwater usage depends on whether the community is defined by 
farms (15 to 25 from 4.2.2.2) or by the size of the community (approximately 100 people from 
4.2.2.1.1). The upper and lower limits for these two approaches are provided in Table 10. Note 
that the values shown in this table are based upon the expected number of units (farms or 
residences) and not upon the estimated limits of these parameters. Further discussions on this 
topic and the proposed sampling algorithm for use in the stochastic TSPA-SR code to include 
these variations are presented in section 7 for the recommended way forward. 
Table 10. Summary of Predicted Total Annual Agricultural Water Usage based on data with no 
Consolidation of Farming Units 
Basis Expected 
Number 
Lower Limit 
(acre-feet per year) 
Expected Value 
(acre-feet per year) 
Upper Limit 
(acre-feet per year) 
Population (100 people) 32.73 
Households 
456 786 1116 
Farms 20 Farms 1183 1938 2694 
6.2.2.2 With Consolidation of Farming Units 
When the possibility of the consolidation of the farming units is considered the expected annual 
agricultural water usage along with the associated lower and upper limits are given in Table 11. 
As could readily be predicted, the expected value of water usage based on population is identical 
for both the non-consolidated and consolidated case. (The total water usage is independent of 
how the individual farming units are grouped.) It is not immediately obvious why the 
uncertainty in usage for the consolidated case is larger than it was for the non-consolidated case. 
This arises because with fewer, but larger, farming units the standard deviation increases while 
the mean usage stays constant. Thus, there is a wider spread between the lower and upper limits. 
Table 11. Summary of Predicted Total Annual Agricultural Water Usage based on data with 
Consolidation of Farming Units 
Basis Expected Number Lower Limit 
(acre-feet per year) 
Expected Value 
(acre-feet per year) 
Upper Limit 
(acre-feet per year) 
Population (100 people) 32.73 Households 272 786 1300 
Farms 20 Farms 1993 4934 7875 
6.3 DOMESTIC WATER USAGE 
The groundwater usage data for the Amargosa Valley described in 4.1.1 indicates that domestic 
use accounted for 366 acre-feet in 1997.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 27 February 2000 
6.3.1 Domestic Water Usage by Household 
Using the estimated number of households of 452 (from 4.1.3.2), gives an estimate of annual 
domestic water usage of 0.81 acre-feet per household. A review of the State Data on water usage 
(see 4.1.1) indicates in the Remarks column that some water usage reported as used for 
irrigation and QM (quasi-municipal) was used for domestic purposes. This could imply that 
the usage categorized under Domestic may be an underestimate. Any such error would cause a 
conservative bias to the data. 
6.3.1.1 Alternative Calculation of Domestic Water Usage By Household 
To provide a check on the household usage of 0.81 acre-feet per year per household, the 
(existing) data identified in 4.1.2 can be used. For Nye County (within which Amargosa Valley 
lies), this usage of self-supplied water is 208 gallons per day per person. According to data 
identified in 4.1.3.2 there were 893 adults resident in the Amargosa Valley in 1997. Assuming 
the age distribution (adults to total population fraction of 63.8% from 6.1.1) from the 1990 
census data is valid in 1997, an estimate can be derived for domestic water use. This is done in 
the following steps. 
The 893 adults correspond to a total population of 1400 (i.e., 893 )0.638) 
At 208 gallons per day per person this comes to 2.91x105 gallons per day or 1.06x108 gallon per 
year (assuming 365.25 days per year). 
As this usage is for 452 household, the annual household usage is 2.4x105 gallons. 
As one million gallons is 3785 cubic meters, the household usage is 8.91x102 m3. (LaCamera et 
al. 1995, p. iv.) 
1233 m3 is one acre-foot, so the annual household usage is 0.72 acre-feet. (LaCamera et al. 1995, 
p. iv.). 
This estimate is in reasonable agreement with the value of 0.81 acre-feet per year derived from 
the Amargosa Valley data. If credit for domestic water usage is taken as part of the total water 
usage, then on the ground of being demonstrably conservative, it would be recommended that the 
lesser of these estimates is used. 
6.3.2 Domestic Water Usage per Person 
As reported in section 6.3 there were 366 acre-feet of groundwater used in 1997. This quantity 
of water was used by 1400 persons (6.3.1.1). Thus on average each person used 0.261 acre-feet 
for the whole of 1997. Therefore, the community of approximately 100 people will use 
approximately 26.1 acre-feet of groundwater per year.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 28 February 2000 
6.3.2.1 Alternative Calculation of Domestic Water Usage per Person 
As given in 6.3.1.1, the average domestic use of self-supplied water is 208 gallons per day per 
person. 
At this rate, the annual usage is 7.597x104 gallons per year per person. Using the same steps as 
in 6.3.1.1, the following statements can be made. 
As one million gallons is 3785 cubic meters, the annual per person usage is 287.6 m3. 
1233 m3 is one acre-foot, so the annual per person usage is 0.233 acre-feet. 
So the community of 100 people are expected to use 23.3 acre-feet per year for domestic 
purposes. 
6.3.3 Domestic Water Usage Summary 
From the above, a conservative estimate of domestic water usage for the farming community is 
23 acre-feet per year. This total domestic usage is less than 10% of even the lowest lower limit 
estimate for agricultural water usage. This domestic water usage is considered to be an 
insignificant contributor to water usage. 
7. CONCLUSIONS 
7.1 SUMMARY 
Four interpretations of the NRCs directive on the water usage in the reference biosphere have 
been evaluated. The four assessments were based on average water usage from nonconsolidation/
consolidation of existing farms and total water usage calculated from farms and 
populations. The evaluations led to differing results. No one result can be used in a 
confirmatory manner to justify the other(s). 
7.2 RECOMMENDATION 
7.2.1 Approach 
As discussed in 5.3.2, the 1990 census data indicates that fewer than 5% of the population 
residing in Amargosa Valley have reported income from farming (these people are either selfemployed 
or wage earners). For this reason, it is recommended that the interpretation of DOE 
and NRCs farming community should be based on farms and not on residents (in 32.73 
households). 
On the issue of whether to consider the existing farms to be consolidated, it would be definitively 
conservative to take each water permit as an independent farm. Using this estimate would 
provide some isolation from the effects of unforeseen events that could almost instantly change 
the character of the farming community in Amargosa Valley. That is if the large consolidated 
water users (i.e., the present day dairies) were to be replaced with independent small holdings

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 29 February 2000 
under the constraints of current water allocations, the average water usage by local farms would 
dramatically decrease. This would reflect in the total estimated water usage by the hypothetical 
community to shift to the non-consolidated farms value. Furthermore, as large volume dairy 
farming is relatively new to the area, a case could be argued that a true basis for the hypothetical 
community should be the historical water usage in the area. This would be based on the reported 
usage averaged over many years. 
If, as was done in this evaluation, only a single year of data were to be considered then 
consolidation of adjacent land with a common owner would seem logical. This approach does 
increase significantly the estimated water usage by the hypothetical farming community. 
However, to provide the Yucca Mountain repository with a fully defensible and conservative 
position, this route of invoking consolidation cannot be recommended. 
7.2.2 Recommended Annual Water Usage 
As discussed in 4.2.2.1.1, the NRC in their discussion of the draft regulation specified, for the 
reference biosphere, a farming community of up to 100 individuals, residing on approximately 
15 to 25 farms. Thus, the range of possible water usage values is greater than those shown in 
Table 10, which was constructed for 20 farms. To provide the reader with additional detail, the 
annual (agricultural) water usage in given in Table 12 as a function of number of farms. Note 
that credit for domestic usage has not been claimed as this would make only an insignificant 
perturbation on the total value and would necessitate carrying a TBV. 
Table 12. Total Estimated Annual Water Usage as a Function of Number of Farms 
Number of Farms Lower Limit 
(acre-feet per year) 
Expected Value 
(acre-feet per year) 
Upper Limit 
(acre-feet per year) 
15 887 1454 2020 
20 1183 1938 2694 
25 1479 2423 3367 
7.2.3 Integration into RIP 
A simple approach to incorporate a stochastic sampling routine to account for uncertainties for 
the annual water usage into RIP is presented here. This direct approach is thought preferable to 
attempting to develop and justify an approximating statistical probability function that is already 
available in the TSPA predictive code. The operations to be taken are as follows. 
a) Select a random number (R1) distributed uniformly over the interval -1 and 1. 
b) Determine the average annual agricultural water usage (A) for this realization 
( y uncertaint R mean A  + = 1 ) where mean and uncertainty are given in Table 6. This 
value represents an estimate of water usage over the 95%ile confidence limit range of the 
mean value.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 30 February 2000 
c) Select a random integer (R2) distributed uniformly from 15 to 25 representing the number 
of farms for this realization. 
d) Determine annual agricultural water usage (T) by taking the product of R2 and A. 
( A R T  = 2 ). This total value (T) will now reflect the independent stochastic nature of 
both the individual farm water usage and the number of farms to be considered. 
e) Convert T from acre-feet to m3 to use in determining the average annual concentration of 
radionuclides in the groundwater used in the biosphere dose calculations. 
7.3 QA BASIS 
The recommendations given in 7.2.3 for incorporating the analysis into the RIP code, accounts 
for uncertainty of water usage in the Yucca Mountain region and for the specified community 
size distribution. The numerical values recommended for RIP were derived from data 
determined to be accepted data that was subject to analysis that was shown to be conservative. 
Consequently, the recommended incorporation of water usage into RIP does not require any 
verification. 
As discussed in 6.2.1.3, there are alternative approaches for the analysis of the data. From an 
interpretation of NRCs intent, using the basis of farms is the better approach to the one based 
on households. The alternative approach using consolidated farms is superficially reasonable. 
This approach results in an increase in predicted water usage (over that recommended in 7.2.2 
and 7.2.3) of a factor of about 2.5. However, this approach would require justifying the validity 
of each consolidation. Although this basis for the consolidation may well be validated in the 
near future with the water usage estimates being judged as Qualified Data (QA), there is an 
attendant risk that conditions could change in the near future to the extent that the assumptions 
(on consolidation) would be no longer valid. Such an eventuality would necessitate a reevaluation 
of available water use data with the possibility of downward revision in projected 
water usage.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 31 February 2000 
8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
Bulmer, M.G. 1979. Principles of Statistics. 3rd Edition New York, New York: Dover. TIC: 
245835 
Bureau of Census 1990. "Amargosa Valley (Population & Demographics)." Washington D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. 
http://venus.census.gov/cdrom/lookup/lookup/CMD=LIST/DB=C90STF3A/LEV=STATE 
CRWMS M&O 1997. The 1997 Biosphere Food Consumption Survey - Summary Findings 
and Technical Documentation. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: 
MOL.19980202.0239. 
CRWMS M&O 1999a. Activity Evaluation, Conduct of Performance Assessment. Activity 
Evaluation September 30, 1999. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O ACC: 
MOL.19991028.0092 
CRWMS M&O 1999b. Work Package Direction and Planning Document for Assessment of 
Groundwater Usage by the Average Member of the Critical Group, Rev. 1. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.19990707.0098 
CRWMS M&O 2000. Identification of Ingestion Exposure Parameters. ANL-MGR-MD- 
000006 REV 00. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS M&O. ACC: MOL.20000216.0104 
DOE 2000. Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. DOE/RW-0333P, REV 9. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 
Management. ACC: MOL.19981028.0012. 
Dyer, J.R. 1999. Revised Interim Guidance Pending Issuance Of New U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) Regulations (Revision 01, July 22, 1999), for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. 
Letter from J. R. Dyer (DOE) to Dr. D.R. Wilkins (CRWMS M&O), September 3, 1999, 
OL&RC:SB-1714, with enclosure, Interim Guidance Pending Issuance of New NRC 
Regulations for Yucca Mountain (Revision 01). ACC: MOL.19990910.0079. 
LaCamera, R.J., Westenburg, C.L.; and Locke, G.L., 1995. Selected Ground-Water Data for 
Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada and Eastern California Through December 1995. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. MOL.19970411.0141. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1998. Issue Resolution Status Report Key Technical 
Issue: Total System Performance Assessment and Integration. Rev. 1. Washington, D.C.: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACC: MOL.19990105.0083. 
State of Nevada 1997. Ground Water Pumpage Inventory Amargosa Valley, Number 230. 21. 
Carson City, Nevada: Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water 
Resources. ACC: MOL.19990329.0141.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 32 February 2000 
State of Nevada 1999. Nevada State Water Plan Part 2  Water Use and Forecasts March 1999, 
Nevada Division of Water Planning, Part 2. Carson City, Nevada. Department of Conservation 
and Natural Resources, TIC: 244812. 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1993a. Map Showing the Locations of Data-Base Wells in the 
Death Valley Junction, NV, CA, Quadrangle (Draft). Denver, Colorado: USGS ACC 
MOL.19941214.0075 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1993b. Map Showing the Locations of Data-Base Wells in 
Beatty, Nevada, California, Quadrangle (Draft). Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19941214.0074 
CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
64 FR 8640. 1999. Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Proposed Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily Available. 
PROCEDURES 
AP-2.13Q, Rev. 0, Technical Product Development Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19990701.0617 
AP-3.1Q, Rev. 0, ICN 1. Conduct of Performance Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
MOL.19990304.0215. 
AP-3.10Q, Rev. 0. Analyses and Models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office 
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19990323.0105. 
AP-SI.1Q, Rev. 1 ICN 1. Software Management. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19990520.0164. 
NLP-2-0. Rev. 5. Determination of Importance Evaluations. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: 
MOL.19981116.0120 
QAP-2-0, Rev. 5. Conduct of Activities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office 
of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. ACC: MOL.19990702.0314.

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 33 February 2000 
9. ATTACHMENTS 
The attachments are listed as follows: 
Attachment Title 
I. Acronyms and Abbreviations 
II. Ground Water Pumpage Inventory Amargosa Valley, No. 230, 1997 
(State of Nevada 1997). Note in the list of individual water users, each 
entry was given a sequential identification number for this work. This 
number does not appear in the State data. 
III. 1990 Census Data (Bureau of Census 1990) 
IV. Spreadsheet - 
(a) Analysis of Age Distribution from 1990 Census Data and 
(b) Analysis of Household Size Distribution from 1990 Census Data 
V. Spreadsheet - Analysis of Water Usage - Farms not Consolidated 
VI. Spreadsheet - Analysis of Water Usage - Farms Consolidated

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 ATTACHMENT I February 2000 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
Ac Acre 
Ac-Ft Acre Feet 
AMOPE Assistant Manager Office of Project Execution 
CA California 
CFR Code of Federal Regulations 
CRWMS Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System 
DOE United States Department of Energy 
FR Federal Register 
Ft Feet (or foot) 
M&O Management and Operating Contractor 
MGR Mined Geologic Repository 
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
NV Nevada 
NY Nye County, Nevada 
PAO Performance Assessment Operations 
QA Quality Assurance 
TBD To be Determined 
TBV To be Verified 
TSPA Total System Performance Assessment 
TSPA-SR Total System Performance Assessment-Site Recommendation 
p. I-1

Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 Attachment II February 2000 
ATTACHMENT II 
GROUND WATER PUMPAGE INVENTORY 
AMARGOSA VALLEY, No. 230 
1997 
(State of Nevada 1997) 
p. II-1
























Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 Attachment III February 2000 
ATTACHMENT III 
1990 CENSUS DATA 
(Bureau Of Census 1990) 
p. III-1




Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 Attachment IV February 2000 
ATTACHMENT IV 
SPREADSHEET SHOWING 
ANALYSIS OF AGE DISTIBUTION 
FROM 1990 CENSUS DATA 
AND 
ANALYSIS OF HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION 
FROM 1990 CENSUS DATA 
(Bureau of Census 1990) 
p. IV-1



Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 Attachment V February 2000 
ATTACHMENT V 
SPREADSHEET 
ANALYSIS OF WATER USAGE 
FARMS NOT CONSOLIDATED 
p. V-1













Groundwater Usage by the Proposed Farming Community 
ANL-NBS-MD-000006 REV 00 Attachment VI February 2000 
ATTACHMENT VI 
SPREADSHEET 
ANALYSIS OF WATER USAGE 
FARMS CONSOLIDATED 
p.V I-1