Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model REV 02, ICN 00
 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034

October 2004

1. PURPOSE 
This report is an updated analysis of water-level data performed to provide the Saturated Zone 
Site-Scale Flow Model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) (referred to as the saturated zone (SZ) 
site-scale flow model or site-scale SZ flow model in this report) with the configuration of the 
potentiometric surface, target water-level data, and hydraulic gradients for calibration of 
groundwater flow models. This report also contains an expanded discussion of uncertainty in the 
potentiometric-surface map. The analysis of the potentiometric data presented in Revision 00 of 
this report (USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625]) provides the configuration of the potentiometric 
surface, target heads, and hydraulic gradients for the calibration of the SZ site-scale flow model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]). Revision 01 of this report (USGS 2004 [DIRS 168473]) used 
updated water-level data for selected wells through the year 2000 as the basis for estimating 
water-level altitudes and the potentiometric surface in the SZ site-scale flow and transport model 
domain based on an alternative interpretation of perched water conditions. That revision 
developed computer files containing: 
 Water-level data within the model area (DTN: GS010908312332.002) 
 A table of known vertical head differences (DTN: GS010908312332.003) 
 A potentiometric-surface map (DTN: GS010608312332.001) using an alternative 
concept from that presented by USGS (2001 [DIRS 154625]) for the area north of Yucca 
Mountain. 
The updated water-level data presented in USGS (2004 [DIRS 168473]) include data obtained 
from the Nye County Early Warning Drilling Program (EWDP) Phases I and II and data from 
Borehole USW WT-24. This document is based on Revision 01 (USGS 2004 [DIRS 168473]) 
and expands the discussion of uncertainty in the potentiometric-surface map. This uncertainty 
assessment includes an analysis of the impact of more recent water-level data and the impact of 
adding data from the EWDP Phases III and IV wells. 
In addition to being utilized by the SZ site-scale flow model, the water-level data and 
potentiometric-surface map contained within this report will be available to other government 
agencies and water users for groundwater management purposes. The potentiometric surface 
defines an upper boundary of the site-scale flow model and provides information useful to 
estimation of the magnitude and direction of lateral groundwater flow within the flow system. 
Therefore, the analysis documented in this revision is important to SZ flow and transport 
calculations in support of total system performance assessment (TSPA). 
The source data associated with this analysis include water-level data from boreholes within, and 
from one borehole (UE-25 J-11) adjacent to, the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area. 
The SZ site-scale flow and transport model area (Figure 1-1) is between a Universal Transverse 
Mercator (UTM) Easting of 533,340 m and 563,340 m and a UTM Northing of 4,046,782 m and 
4,091,782 m (Zone 11, North American Datum 1927). The following types of information were 
gathered: Borehole site name/identification (ID), location, land-surface altitude, water-level 
altitude, data source, reliability of data, minimum and maximum water levels (range), and open 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 1-2 October 2004 
interval monitored with the associated water-level altitude and type. Figure 1-2 is a map of the 
locations and names of the wells used in the creation of the potentiometric-surface map. 
Source: USGS (2001 [DIRS 154625], Figure 1-1). 
Figure 1-1. Location Map of the Study Area and Associated Geographic Features 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 1-3 October 2004 
Sources: GS010608312331.001 (Output of this analysis), DTN: MO0103COV01031.000 [DIRS 155271], DTN: 
MO0107COV01057.000 [DIRS 157194], DTN: MO0203GSC02034.000 [DIRS 168375], DTN: 
MO0206GSC02074.000 [DIRS 168378], DTN: 0307GSC03094.000 [DIRS 170556]. 
Figure 1-2. Location of Boreholes Used to Characterize the Potentiometric Surface in the Yucca 
Mountain Area 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 1-4 October 2004 
This report was conducted under Technical Work Plan for: Natural System - Saturated Zone 
Analysis and Model Report Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]). The Technical Work Plan was 
prepared in accordance with AP-2.27Q, Planning for Science Activities. No deviations from the 
Technical Work Plan were necessary to complete this revision of this report. 
The scope of the potentiometric-surface analysis includes: 
 Compilation of water-level data within the SZ site-scale flow model area through 2003. 
Included are (1) data from the original analysis (USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625]) with end 
dates from 1952 to 1999, depending on availability of data at the time, (2) data from the 
alternative interpretation conducted in 2001 (USGS 2004 [DIRS 168473]) with end 
dates in 2000 for the Nye County wells available at the time, (3) data from Yucca 
Mountain site wells through 2001 to assess temporal variability of water levels, and (4) 
data from the Nye County wells through 2003 to assess the impact of the new well 
locations. 
 Removal of duplicate measurements and sites. 
 Tabulation of measurement precision, where known. 
 Assessment of the general reliability of the data. 
 Tabulation of the range in water levels for use in uncertainty analyses. 
 Documentation of the applicable use of water levels (potentiometric surface 
development and/or SZ site-scale flow model calibration). 
 Generation of the potentiometric-surface map representative of the early 1990s (the time 
period of the regional-scale SZ flow model (DAgnese et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131]) that 
is used to provide boundary conditions to the SZ site-scale flow model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]). 
 Generation of a table of known vertical head differences within the SZ site-scale flow 
model area. These head differences provide additional calibration targets for the model. 
 The data used to create the potentiometric surface map is taken from USGS (2001 
[DIRS 154625]) with end dates in 1995 or 1996. An assessment is made of the impact 
of more recent data in the vicinity of the Yucca Mountain repository collected in 1999, 
2001, and 2003. The data for those wells is taken from USGS (2001 [DIRS 154625]) 
with end dates in 1995 or 1996. This assessment is intended to demonstrate that the 
more recent data does not alter the interpretation using the data from USGS (2001 
[DIRS 154625]). 
 Assessment of water-level uncertainty, discussion of the impacts of the uncertainty on 
the potentiometric surface, and comparison of the potentiometric surface from this 
analysis with surfaces generated by other analyses. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 1-5 October 2004 
In this analysis, the water-level data are used to generate a single representative potentiometric 
surface (Figure 6-1) for the SZ site-scale flow and transport model domain. This revision of the 
potentiometric surface represents an alternative concept from that presented in Revision 00 of 
this report (USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625]) of the northern part of Yucca Mountain, which has been 
termed the large hydraulic gradient (LHG) area (Ervin et al. 1994 [DIRS 100633], p. 7). The 
current concept assumes that water levels in Boreholes USW G-2 and UE-25 WT #6 represent 
perched conditions, and are not representative of the regional potentiometric surface. The 
regional potentiometric surface is thus located below the water levels measured in Boreholes 
USW G-2 and UE-25 WT#6. 
Recent geochemical analyses indicate that the perched water alternative hypothesis utilized in 
this document is consistent with observed geochemical parameters (Paces et al 2002 
[DIRS 158817], pp. 760 to 762; BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Appendix A). 
Limitations 
The target water levels identified via this analysis are applicable to the time period in the early 
1990s. Predevelopment water levels or expected water levels resulting from future climates are 
not addressed in this analysis. The potentiometric surface represents the top of the SZ only. The 
data were insufficient to define potentiometric surfaces deep within the SZ such as at the top of 
the carbonate aquifer or deep within the volcanic units. 
Role of the Potentiometric-Surface Analysis in SZ Flow and Transport 
Figure 1-3 shows the relationship of this report to other model reports that also pertain to flow 
and transport in the SZ. Figure 1-3 also shows the flow of key information among the 
SZ reports. It should be noted that Figure 1-3 does not contain a complete representation of the 
data and parameter inputs and outputs of all SZ reports, nor does it show inputs external to this 
suite of SZ reports. This water-level analysis is one of several analyses that provide input to the 
SZ site-scale flow model. The potentiometric-surface analysis provides the calibration target 
water levels for flow model calibration, an assessment of expected hydraulic gradients, and the 
configuration of the potentiometric surface that would be expected to be reproduced by the sitescale 
groundwater flow model. Specifically, the 2000 potentiometric surface described in USGS 
(2001 [DIRS 154625]) was used in the development of the SZ site-scale flow model and the 
2001 potentiometric surface described in USGS (2004 [DIRS 168473]) and in this report is used 
in the evaluation of an alternative conceptual model of the SZ site-scale flow model. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 1-6 October 2004 
NOTE: This figure is a simplified representation of the flow of information among SZ reports. See the DIRS report 
of each report for a complete listing of data and parameter inputs. This figure does not show inputs 
external to this suite of SZ reports. 
Figure 1-3. Generalized Flow of Information Among Reports Pertaining to Flow and Transport in the SZ 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 2-1 October 2004 
2. QUALITY ASSURANCE 
The scientific analyses documented in this report were evaluated in accordance with AP-2.27Q, 
Planning for Science Activities, and AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific Analyses, and were determined in the 
Technical Work Plan (TWP) (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421], Section 8.1) to be quality-affecting and 
subject to the requirements of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) Quality Assurance Requirements and Description 
(DOE 2004 [DIRS 171539]). Accordingly, efforts to develop this report have been conducted in 
accordance with the Office of Repository Development (ORD) quality assurance (QA) program 
using approved procedures identified in the TWP for: Natural System  Saturated Zone Analysis 
Model Report Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]). The work presented in this revision was 
documented in accordance with AP-SIII.9Q. 
This analysis report provides a hydrologic property of a category of the natural barrier system 
(the rock and alluvial material below and down gradient from the repository) that is important to 
the demonstration of compliance with the post-closure performance objectives prescribed in 
10 CFR 63.113. Therefore, it is classified on the Q-List (BSC 2004 [DIRS 168361]) as SC 
(Safety Category), reflecting its importance to waste isolation, as defined in AP-2.22Q, 
Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. The report contributes to the analysis 
data used to support postclosure performance assessment; the conclusions do not directly impact 
preclosure engineering features important to safety, as defined in AP-2.22Q. 
The majority of this analysis was performed as part of Revision 01 of this report (USGS 2004 
[DIRS 168473]) and is documented in a scientific notebook (Tucci 2001 [DIRS 155410]). 
Methods to control electronically managed data are documented in a scientific notebook 
(Tucci 2001 [DIRS 155410], pp. 8 and 77). Work performed on this revision was in accordance 
with requirements for electronic data as defined in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]). No 
deviations from the TWP were necessary to complete this work. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 2-2 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 3-1 October 2004 
3. USE OF SOFTWARE 
The water-level data were compiled and the potentiometric surface was constructed using a 
Geographic Information System (GIS), spreadsheet, and digitizing software. All of the software 
used in this analysis is controlled under LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management, but is 
considered exempt for application in this analysis. Exempt is defined to mean that the software 
shall be controlled under the Software Configuration Management (SCM) system, but are not 
required to be qualified or documented under the procedure, except as noted in LP-SI.11Q-BSC, 
Section 2.1. Two justifications are provided for exempting the software based on 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.6. First, the software is being used for visual display 
and graphical representation of data. Second, the calculations use standard functions of 
commercial off-the-shelf software programs. These calculations are not dependent on the 
software program used. Table 3-1 lists software used in this analysis that is considered qualified 
software in the centralized baseline. 
Table 3-1. Software Used to Support Analysis Activity 
Software 
Name Version 
Software Tracking 
Number 
Computer Platform, 
Operating System, Compiler Description 
EarthVision 
5.1 
STN: 10174-5.1-00 
Silicon Graphics (SGI) Octane 
running IRIX 6.5 Operating 
System 
CPU ID#: barcode 700800 
Location: Las Vegas, NV, YMP 
Project Offices 
Coordinate transformation 
Dynamic Graphics (2000 
[DIRS 167994]) 
NOTE: CPU = central processing unit, STN = Software Tracking Number. 
EarthVision Version 5.1 (STN: 10174-5.1-00) (Dynamic Graphics 2000 [DIRS 167994]) was 
used to transform coordinates from their original system to the UTM system used in this report. 
The application was within the range of use which is the set of real earth coordinates. The 
software was selected for use because it is known to project participants and is well respected in 
the scientific community. The coordinate transformation is a standard function of EarthVision 
and the application in this report is within the range of validation of the software. The location 
information is rounded to the nearest meter and any applications requiring more precise locations 
should not use the results in this analysis. 
ARCINFO Version 7.2.1 (STN: 10033 7.2.1-01) (USGS 2000 [DIRS 148304]), published by 
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., was used for plotting and visualization of 
analysis results. The range of validation for the ARCINFO application is the set of real numbers 
that define earth coordinate systems and elevations. Although this software is considered 
qualified in the centralized baseline, it is not qualified for use on SUN computers. The 
application of this software on a SUN computer is acceptable for this analysis because it is used 
in a way that exempts it per provisions in LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.6. This 
commercial off-the-shelf software is available for both personal computers (with Microsoft 
Windows operating systems) and workstations (with UNIX operating systems, including those 
from SUN). Only standard functions of this commercial off-the-shelf were used to perform 
plotting and visualization. The potentiometric surface shown on Figure 6-1 was hand-contoured, 
precluding the need for contouring software. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 3-2 October 2004 
ARCINFO Version 8.0.2 (exempt per LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Software Management) was used to 
create a graphical display in Postscript format from files output from ARCINFO version 7.2.1. 
This software application performed no other function than to create the visual/graphical display 
in other file formats, and so was exempt according to LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Section 2.1.2. 
CorelDraw 9, Version 9.337 (exempt per LP-SI.11Q-BSC) was used to create a graphical display 
in other graphics formats from the Postscript format generated by ARCINFO. This software 
application performed no other function than to create the visual/graphical display in other file 
formats, and so was exempt according to LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Section 2.1.2. 
Microsoft Excel 97 SR2 (exempt per LP-SI.11Q-BSC) was used to compile water-level data, and 
to compute average water levels using the AVERAGE function of the software. Conversion of 
feet to meters was often done within Excel, by using the equation (meters = feet * 0.3048). 
These simple conversions were spot checked with hand calculations. The original Excel 
spreadsheets (inputs) were obtained from the Technical Data Management System (TDMS) (see 
Table 4-1). The calculated average water levels (outputs) are listed in Appendix A, Table A-1, 
and are contained in DTN: GS010908312332.002. 
AutoCAD Map 2000, release 4 (exempt per LP-SI.11Q-BSC) was used to digitize the 
hand-drawn potentiometric contours presented on Figure 6-1. The output digitized contours 
were used as input to ARCINFO for plotting. The final plots were visually compared with the 
hand-drawn contours. 
Use of the software is documented in a scientific notebook (Tucci 2001 [DIRS 155410], pp. 6, 7, 
8, 18, 58, 70 and 77). For the software above not included in Table 3-1, the computer platform 
and operating system were not recorded. Personal communication with Patrick Tucci in 2004 
indicated that the computers used to do this work were replaced, but to the best of their 
knowledge, Intergraph TD-225 computers with Windows 2000 operating systems were used. 
No model was used to support this analysis. The potentiometric-surface analysis does not 
require modeling to generate the final products. All that is needed is algebraic manipulation of 
depth to water data and surface elevation data. Simple contouring of the plotted data forms the 
bulk of the analysis. No calibration or fitting of data as would be expected for a modeling 
analysis is needed for this report. 
Example calculations provided in the discussion of uncertainty were performed with a hand 
calculator and are fully documented in this report. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 4-1 October 2004 
4. INPUTS 
4.1 DIRECT INPUTS 
The data used to construct the potentiometric surface and to define water levels in selected 
boreholes for flow-model calibration were developed from measurements of water levels in 
boreholes throughout and adjacent to the SZ site-scale flow and transport model domain, through 
the year 2003. Included is (1) data from the original analysis (USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625]) with 
end dates from 1952 to 1999, depending on availability of data at the time, (2) data from the 
alternative interpretation conducted in 2001 (USGS 2004 [DIRS 168473]) with end dates in 2000 
for the Nye County wells available at the time, (3) data from Yucca Mountain site wells through 
2001 to assess temporal variability of water levels, and (4) data from the Nye County wells 
through 2003 to assess the impact of the new well locations. The data from items (1) and (2) are 
the basis for the potentiometric-surface map presented in this report. New water-level data in 
items (3) and (4) are examined in the uncertainty section to assess the possible impacts to the 
potentiometric surface. The data used to construct the potentiometric-surface map, together with 
assessments of their accuracy and reliability, are presented in Tables A-1 through A-8 of 
Appendix A. In general, these water-level measurements represent the configuration of the 
potentiometric surface in the upper part of the SZ, and no additional control is available from 
springs or other surface-water occurrences. For some of the wells, the open intervals are long 
and the measured water levels may not be representative of the upper part of the aquifer. The 
uncertainty associated with these long-open-interval wells is discussed in Section 6.5. 
These data are considered to be appropriate for their intended use in defining the upper boundary 
and determining lateral hydraulic gradients for the shallow portion of the SZ site-scale flow 
model. Some water levels not used in constructing the shallow potentiometric surface were 
obtained from deeper parts of the groundwater flow system and these data provide information 
on vertical hydraulic gradients that are important for calibration of the SZ site-scale flow model. 
Additional justification for the appropriateness of the data is documented in: 
 Section 5.1 (Assumptions  Water-Level Data), which addresses assumptions 
concerning the use of the data 
 Section 6.3 (Analysis  Water-Level Data), which discusses the analysis of the 
water-level data 
 Section 6.5 (Analysis  Uncertainty in the Potentiometric-Surface Elevation Map), 
which describes and quantifies the various possible sources of uncertainty in the water 
levels and how those uncertainties may impact the potentiometric-surface map 
 Section 7 (Conclusions), which summarizes the three products of this report; water-level 
data, vertical head differences, and the potentiometric-surface map. 
Water-level data as defined above for the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area were 
evaluated; however, some data were considered invalid. Data that were identified as invalid by 
the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2001 [DIRS 154625]) are not used in this revised 
analysis. Data that were considered for use in this analysis and documented in (USGS 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 4-2 October 2004 
[DIRS 168473]) were evaluated for validity and documented in a scientific notebook 
(Tucci 2001 [DIRS 155410]). Reasons for considering a water level invalid include short-term 
temporal fluctuations caused by seismic events, pumpage, equipment failure, or data collected 
prior to well development. Based on observations of water-level data at Yucca Mountain, water 
levels generally fluctuate less than 1 m, and more often, less than 0.5 m (Graves et al. 1997 
[DIRS 101046], Table 2). Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604]) presents an analysis of water-level data 
in the Yucca Mountain region through 1999 and showed that in only two cases is a temporal 
trend in water level observed. The temporal stability of the observed water levels is further 
confirmed in Table 6-3 where water levels, collected as recently as 2001, are compared with 
average values through 1995. Exceptions occur if a nearby well is pumped or if water levels are 
affected by seismic events. Most of the data that were considered invalid in this analysis 
consisted of data obtained before the well was developed, or were a result of known or suspected 
equipment failures. For example, water-level data are obtained from transducers set in discrete 
zones isolated by packers in Wells NC-EWDP-1S, NC-EWDP-3S, and NC-EWDP-9SX. 
Transducers are known to be subject to drift, failure, or electronic problems. Packers 
occasionally will fail to seal properly, causing an incomplete isolation of a zone, or can leak and 
fail as suggested by Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604], p. 55) for the lower interval of Borehole USW 
H-3. Transducer data were considered to be invalid if they indicated either slow drifting of water 
levels or sharp spikes. Such phenomena could be valid, but they would have to occur in more 
than one zone in a well and in more than one well to be considered valid. Such corresponding 
changes in other zones or wells rarely occurred, so that the anomalous data were considered 
invalid. 
Water-level data collected in 1999 and 2001 in existing or new wells were also examined to 
determine if temporal trends in water levels impact the potentiometric surface. This assessment 
is presented in Section 6.3 as part of the discussion of uncertainty. The potentiometric-surface 
map was created without using the data from seven Nye County EWDP wells or well clusters 
south of Yucca Mountain but north of U.S. Highway 95. These seven wells, or well clusters 
(NC-EWDP-18P, NC-EWDP-27P, NC-EWDP-16P, NC-EWDP-10, NC-EWDP-28P, 
NC-EWDP-22, and NC-EWDP-23P) occupy a large region between the relatively high well 
density near the Yucca Mountain repository and the wells along U.S. Highway 95 (Figure 1-2). 
The water-level data from the seven Nye County wells collected in 2003 were used as an 
independent data set to assess the uncertainty associated with interpolation of water levels 
between widely spaced water-level measurement locations. 
Groundwater flow may be affected by faults, which may act as barriers and/or conduits for flow. 
The locations of major faults in the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area were used to help 
guide the placement of potentiometric contours according to their assumed effect on groundwater 
flow (see Section 5.2). Fault locations and traces (Figure 6-1; DTN: GS991208314221.001 
[DIRS 145263]) were used as direct input data during construction of the potentiometric-surface 
map. The geologic map in DTN: GS991208314221.001 was superseded by 
DTN: GS010908314221.001 [DIRS 162874], which among other things, modified the location 
of the U.S. Highway 95 fault. The new location of the U.S. Highway 95 fault (see RPC Pkg ID 
MOY-000619-04-03, Accession # MOL.20020416.0184, Plate 1) will not lead to significant 
differences in the water-level contours presented on Figure 6-1. The contours are drawn to honor 
measured water-level data; the fault locations are used to guide the placement of contours. The 
data density from the Nye County wells is sufficient to constrain the location of contours around 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 4-3 October 2004 
the U.S. Highway 95 fault, thus the new fault location will not significantly alter the contour 
locations. Per AP-SIII.9Q, Scientific Analyses, the superceded data must be demonstrated to be 
suitable for the intended use in this document. The input source for the original and superseding 
DTNs is the U.S. Geologic Survey in both cases. The USGS has a long history of creating 
geologic maps and is considered a reliable source for geologic maps. Individual scientists with 
the USGS are qualified geologists, thus both products were created by qualified personnel. Both 
data sets are suitable for this analysis and the superceding DTN will not alter contours because of 
constraints imposed by measured water levels. Therefore, the superceded 
DTN: GS991208314221.001 is suitable for use in the report. 
One of the water-level data sets used in this analysis, DTN: GS950108312312.001 
[DIRS 150993] is superseded by DTN: GS950808312312.008 [DIRS 171370]. The former 
DTN is justified for use in this report for two reasons: (1) the superceding DTN corrects only 
one data point, the water level from Borehole USW H-1 Tube 3 for December 20, 1994, and 
(2) the difference in water level on that date will not impact the results as presented in this report. 
From Appendix A, Table A-2, the number of data points for Borehole USW H-1 Tube 3 is 108. 
The difference in water level for Borehole USW H-1 Tube 3 on 12/20/1994 between the two 
DTNs is 0.23 m. The mean water level presented in Table A-1 would change by an amount 
equal to 0.23 m/108 data points, or 0.002 m. The mean water level is reported to the nearest 
tenth of a meter, so the use of superseded DTN: GS950108312312.001 [DIRS 150993] is 
justified for use in this document. 
Another data set used in this analysis was superseded, but is suitable for use in this report. The 
DTN: MO0107COV01057.000 [DIRS 157194] has been superseded by 
DTN: MO0401COV03168.000 [DIRS 168534]. An Impact Review Action Notice 
(MOL.20040304.0206) documents there is no impact to the potentiometric-surface map. On a 
map such as Figure 6-1, 1 inch represents more than 6,000 meters of distance. A small 
difference in the lateral coordinate value would be a very small change on the figure. Consider a 
coordinate difference of 100 m. The map portrays features at a scale of 6,000 m to 1 inch; a 
coordinate difference of 100 m produces an error of less than 0.02 inch. Moving any data point 
this small amount on the map will not significantly change the contours. These small errors in 
coordinates lead to acceptably small errors, thus justifying use of the superceded data throughout 
this analysis. Per AP.SIII-9Q, the data in the superceded DTN has been demonstrated to be 
suitable for the intended use in this document. As noted above, the changes to the DTN do not 
impact the generated maps. The superceded data is suitable for the intended use of portraying 
water-level measurement locations on Figures 6-1 and 6-2. The superceding data set 
DTN: MO0401COV03168.000 [DIRS 168534] is used to provide updated coordinate locations 
in Appendix A. 
Specific direct input data sets, and associated DTNs, are listed in Table 4-1. The direct data are 
used to calculate the water-level elevation or provide data presented in one or more of the tables 
throughout the document. The qualification status of these input sources can be found in the 
Document Input Reference System (DIRS). 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 4-4 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Input Data Sources 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Water-Level Measurements at UE-25 C #2 and C #3, 1989 GS000408312312.001 
[DIRS 148696] 
Water-Level Altitude Data from the Periodic Network, January 1999 through 
March 1999 
GS000608312312.003 
[DIRS 155278] 
Revised Water-Level Altitude Data from the Periodic Network, First Quarter 1995 GS000608312312.004 
[DIRS 150724] 
Water density as a function of temperature 
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 66th Edition, Page F-10 
Weast (1985) 
[DIRS 111561] 
Water-Level Altitude Data, 1993 GS000708312312.005 
[DIRS 150945] 
Ground-Water Altitudes from Manual Depth-to-Water Measurements at Various 
Boreholes November 1998 through December 1999 
GS000808312312.007 
[DIRS 155270] 
Geohydrology of Rocks Penetrated by Test Well UE-25P#1 (UE-25P#1), Yucca 
Mountain Area, Nye County, Nevada  Table S97274_001 
GS920408312314.009 
Table S97274_001 
[DIRS 148168] 
See Appendix B for the 
justification of the use of 
data 
Geohydrologic Data and Test Results from Well J-13, Nevada Test Site, Nye 
County, Nevada  Table 97276_013 
GS930408312132.007 
Table S97276_013 
[DIRS 129625] 
See Appendix B for the 
justification of the use of 
data 
Water Levels in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1990-91 GS930408312312.015 
[DIRS 148665] 
Water Levels in Periodically Measured Wells in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 
19811987 
GS931008312312.025 
[DIRS 148668] 
Water-Level Altitude Data from the Periodic Network, Fourth Quarter, 1994 GS950108312312.001 
[DIRS 150993] 
Justified for use in this 
document 
See Section 4.1 
Potentiometric-Surface Map, 1993, Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Nevada GS950508312312.005 
[DIRS 105068] 
28 Water-Level Measurements from the Periodic Network, Third Quarter, 1995 
(7/1/95 - 9/30/95) 
GS960208312312.003 
[DIRS 148672] 
Analysis of Water-Level Data in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 19851995 GS960908312312.010 
[DIRS 105063] 
Water Level Altitude Data Collected at GEXA Well 4 and USW G-4 GS970600012847.001 
[DIRS 148646] 
Water Levels in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1996 GS980308312312.004 
[DIRS 155272] 
Water-Level Altitude Data, April - June 1999 GS990908312312.005 
[DIRS 155269] 
Water-Level Data for Yucca Mountain Region and Amargosa Desert GS991100002330.001 
[DIRS 122818] 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 4-5 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Input Data Sources (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Region GS991208314221.001 
[DIRS 145263] 
Justified for use in this 
document 
See Section 4.1 
Water-Table-Altitude Data for Well USW G-4, Yucca Mountain Area, Nye County, 
Nevada 
MO0008WTRALTG4.000 
[DIRS 155456] 
Locations and Elevations for Selected Wells in the Yucca Mountain Region and 
Amargosa Desert from the USGS NWIS Database 
MO0011ELLOCAMD.000 
[DIRS 153274] 
Coverage: BORES3Q MO0103COV01031.000 
[DIRS 155271] 
Coverage: NCEWDPS. Submittal date: 07/18/2001 
MO0107COV01057.000 
[DIRS 157194] 
Justified for use in this 
document 
See Section 4.1 
Coverage: NCEWDPS: Submittal date: 01/27/2004 MO0401COV03168.000 
[DIRS 168534] 
Water-Level Data From Westbay Instrumented Borehole NC-EWDP-1S MO0111DQRWLNYE.002 
[DIRS 157172] 
Water-Level Data From Westbay Instrumented Borehole NC-EWDP-3S MO0111DQRWLNYE.003 
[DIRS 157173] 
Water-Level Data From Westbay Instrumented Borehole NC-EWDP-9SX MO0111DQRWLNYE.004 
[DIRS 157174] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-4PA MO0112DQRWLNYE.005 
[DIRS 157175] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-4PB MO0112DQRWLNYE.006 
[DIRS 157176] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-7S MO0112DQRWLNYE.007 
[DIRS 157177] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-5SB MO0112DQRWLNYE.008 
[DIRS 157178] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-15P MO0112DQRWLNYE.009 
[DIRS 157179] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-12PA MO0112DQRWLNYE.010 
[DIRS 157180] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-9SX MO0112DQRWLNYE.011 
[DIRS 157181] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-12PB MO0112DQRWLNYE.012 
[DIRS 157182] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-12PC MO0112DQRWLNYE.013 
[DIRS 157183] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-19P MO0112DQRWLNYE.014 
[DIRS 157184] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-3S MO0112DQRWLNYE.015 
[DIRS 157200] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-3D MO0112DQRWLNYE.016 
[DIRS 157185] 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 4-6 October 2004 
Table 4-1. Direct Input Data Sources (Continued) 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-1DX MO0112DQRWLNYE.017 
[DIRS 157186] 
Well Completion Diagram For Borehole NC-EWDP-19D MO0112DQRWLNYE.018 
[DIRS 157187] 
Multi-Level Monitoring Port Depths In Nye County Boreholes NC-EWDP-1S, -3S, 
and -9SX 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
[DIRS 157188] 
Water-Level Depth Data For Nye County Boreholes NC-EWDP-2D and -2DB MO0112DQRWLNYE.020 
[DIRS 157199] 
Multilevel Piezometer Casing Log For Borehole NC-EWDP-9SX MO0112DQRWLNYE.021 
[DIRS 157189] 
Multilevel Piezometer Casing Log For Borehole NC-EWDP-3S MO0112DQRWLNYE.022 
[DIRS 157190] 
Multilevel Piezometer Casing Log For Borehole NC-EWDP-1S MO0112DQRWLNYE.023 
[DIRS 157191] 
Ground-Water Altitudes from Manual Depth-to-Water Measurements at Various 
Boreholes January through June 2001 
GS010808312312.003 
[DIRS 168536] 
EWDP Phase I Manual Water-level Measurements MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
[DIRS 157192] 
EWDP Phase II Manual Water-level Measurements MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
[DIRS 157193] 
USW SD-7 Structure Logs (48.5 to 2675.1) TM0000SD7SUPER.001 
[DIRS 168540] 
USW SD-9 Structure Logs (53.6 to 2223.1) TM0000SD9SUPER.002 
[DIRS 168542] 
USW SD-12 Structure Logs (5.3 to 2166.3) TM000SD12SUPER.003 
[DIRS 168543] 
The locations of boreholes, the water-level altitudes in these boreholes, and the potentiometric 
contours are shown on Figure 6-1. The borehole data are provided in Appendix A. 
4.2 CRITERIA 
The general requirements to be satisfied by the TSPA-LA are stated in 10 CFR 63.114 (10 CFR 
63 [DIRS 156605]). Technical requirements to be satisfied by the TSPA-LA are identified in the 
Yucca Mountain Project Requirements Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], 
Section 3). The pertinent project requirement for this report is number PRD-002/T-015, titled 
Requirements for Performance Assessment. 
The acceptance criteria that will be used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to 
determine whether the technical requirements that have been met are identified in the Yucca 
Mountain Review Plan, Final Report (YMRP; NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]). The acceptance 
criteria for this report corresponding to project requirement PRD-002/T-015 are summarized in 
Table 4-2. In no case does the analysis presented in this report completely address the YMRP 
acceptance criteria. The analysis does provide results necessary for other model reports that 
further address the YMRP acceptance criteria. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 4-7 October 2004 
Table 4-2. Regulatory Requirements Addressed in This Report 
10 CFR 63 
Citation 
YMRP Acceptance 
Criteriaa YMRP Acceptance Criteria Definitiona 
63.114(a-c),(g) 
2.2.1.3.8 AC1(2) The description of the aspects of hydrology, geology, geochemistry, 
design features, physical phenomena, and couplings, that may affect 
flow paths in the SZ, is adequate. Conditions and assumptions in the 
abstraction of flow paths in the SZ are readily identified, and consistent 
with the body of data presented in the description. 
63.114(a-c),(g) 2.2.1.3.8 AC1(4) Boundary and initial conditions used in the TSPA abstraction of flow 
paths in the SZ are propagated throughout its abstraction approaches. 
For example, abstractions are based on initial and boundary conditions 
consistent with site-scale modeling and regional models of the Death 
Valley groundwater flow system. 
63.114(e) 2.2.1.3.8 AC1(5) Sufficient data and technical bases to assess the degree to which FEPs 
have been included in this abstraction are provided. 
63.114(a),(g) 2.2.1.3.8 AC1(6) Flow paths in the SZ are adequately delineated, considering natural site 
conditions. 
63.114(a-c),(e-g) 2.2.1.3.8 AC1(10) Guidance in NUREG-1297 and NUREG-1298, or other acceptable 
approaches for peer review and data qualification is followed. 
63.114(a),(b) 2.2.1.3.8 AC2(1) Geological, hydrological, and geochemical values used in the LA to 
evaluate flow paths in the SZ are adequately justified. Adequate 
descriptions of how the data were used, interpreted, and appropriately 
synthesized into the parameters are provided. 
63.114(a),(b) 2.2.1.3.8 AC2(2) Sufficient data have been collected on the natural system to establish 
initial and boundary conditions for the abstraction of flow paths in the 
SZ. 
63.114(a),(b),(g) 2.2.1.3.8 AC2(3) Data on the geology, hydrology, and geochemistry of the SZ used in the 
TSPA abstraction are based on appropriate techniques. These 
techniques may include laboratory experiments, site-specific field 
measurements, natural analogue research, and process-level modeling 
studies. As appropriate, sensitivity or uncertainty analyses, used to 
support the DOE TSPA abstraction, are adequate to determine the 
possible need for additional data. 
a NRC 2003 [DIRS 163274]. 
4.3 CODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS 
No codes, standards, or regulations other than those identified in the Project Requirements 
Document (Canori and Leitner 2003 [DIRS 166275], Table 2-3) and determined to be applicable 
(Table 4-2) as identified in the TWP (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421], Section 3.0) were used in this 
analysis. The applicable requirements in 10 CFR Part 63 [DIRS 156605] are discussed in 
Section 4.2 above. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 4-8 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 5-1 October 2004 
5. ASSUMPTIONS 
5.1 WATER-LEVEL DATA 
In the analysis presented in this report, several assumptions are made. These assumptions follow 
established hydrologic practices for the determination of water-level altitudes to be used in the 
construction of a potentiometric-surface map and require no further confirmation. 
 Assumption: Where measurement location (vertical) is unknown, the midpoint of the 
open interval or applicable packed-off interval is representative of the measurement 
location for SZ site-scale flow modeling purposes. Most of the water levels used in this 
analysis are composite data for a long open or screened interval. In open boreholes, the 
midpoint can be calculated as the mean of the altitude of the bottom of the borehole and 
the altitude of the maximum water-level altitude. In packed-off intervals (screened 
intervals), the midpoint is calculated as the mean of the altitude of the bottom of the 
packed-off interval and the altitude of the top of the packed-off interval. Because this 
method is used for all boreholes that contributed water-level altitude data for this 
analysis, it provides a means for standardizing SZ measurement locations (Appendix A, 
Table A-5). This assumption is used throughout the revision. 
 Assumption: Water levels in Boreholes USW G-2, UE-25 WT #6, and NC-EWDP-7S 
are perched. Water levels in Boreholes USW G-2 and UE-25 WT #6, in the northern 
part of Yucca Mountain are assumed to represent perched conditions for the alternate 
concept of the large-hydraulic gradient area presented in this analysis. Czarnecki et al. 
(1997 [DIRS 141643], p. 27) present several lines of evidence to support this 
assumption. Water levels in Borehole NC-EWDP-7S in southern Crater Flat are also 
assumed to represent perched conditions. The water levels for Borhole NC-EWDP-7S 
are anomalously high (Figure 6-1; Appendix A, Table A-1), and no other hydrogeologic 
explanation other than perched conditions is plausible to explain such high water levels 
for this location. This assumption is used in Section 6.2. 
 Assumption: Water levels in Borehole USW WT-24 at approximately 840 m above sea 
level represent the regional potentiometric level. During drilling, a water-bearing 
fracture was encountered at about 760 m below land surface, and water rose in the 
borehole to an altitude of about 840 m above sea level. Drilling continued for another 
104 m below the water-bearing fracture without any significant change in the water level 
(Graves 2001 [DIRS 155942]). Because the potentiometric level persisted as the 
borehole was considerably deepened, and because the water level remained relatively 
stable after completion of the well, the 840 m level is assumed to represent the regional 
potentiometric level and not a perched level. This assumption is used in Section 6.2. 
5.2 POTENTIOMETRIC-SURFACE MAP 
 Assumption: Faults may act as barriers and/or conduits for groundwater flow. The 
concept used in the placement of potentiometric contours (Section 6.4, Figure 6-1) is 
that groundwater flow across a fault or fault zone is impeded by the fault, and 
groundwater flow parallel to a fault or fault zone is not impeded. The concept that faults 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 5-2 October 2004 
may act as barriers to or conduits for groundwater flow is pointed out by Freeze and 
Cherry (1979 [DIRS 101173], p. 474). Within the SZ underlying Yucca Mountain, this 
assumption is further justified by the observations of Luckey et al. (1996 
[DIRS 100465], pp. 25 and 56) that: (1) the Solitario Canyon fault along the west side 
of Yucca Mountain is an apparent barrier to flow from west to east across the fault and 
(2) where fault zones are intersected by boreholes, these zones act as conduits for flow 
and produce much of the water entering the boreholes (Luckey et al. 1996, 
[DIRS 100465], p. 37). 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-1 October 2004 
6. SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS DISCUSSION 
The water-level data and the resulting potentiometric-surface map provide important technical 
input for the development of the SZ site-scale flow model. The input data for this analysis are 
considered direct input as outlined in AP-3.15Q, Managing Technical Product Input. The data 
from the Nye County EWDP wells (Phases III and IV) used to assess uncertainty in the 
potentiometric gradient south of Well ER-25 J-12 did not provide direct information in the 
development of the results or conclusions and are considered indirect input in this analysis. The 
Nye County data provide an independent data set for assessment of the impact of new data (and 
by analogy the impact of the uneven spatial distribution of data). 
6.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE ANALYSIS 
The potentiometric surface is regarded as the top of the SZ. It defines the upper elevation where 
radionuclides enter the SZ and begin moving downgradient to the accessible environment. The 
potentiometric-surface analysis provides important information for the SZ site scale flow model. 
First, the potentiometric-surface analysis provides an assessment of the hydraulic gradient in 
both horizontal and vertical directions. The gradient information aids in the development of the 
conceptual model of groundwater flow. The water-level data, in conjunction with the geologic 
and hydraulic property data, help to assess expected properties of the hydrostratigraphic features 
of the flow system including the expected role of faults. Second, the water-level calibration 
targets are defined in this analysis and characterized by the corresponding open interval (top and 
bottom elevation) and average hydraulic head value. These hydraulic head values in 
three-dimensional space are the water-level targets for calibration of the SZ site-scale flow 
model. 
6.2 FEATURES, EVENTS, AND PROCESSES FOR THIS ANALYSIS REPORT 
As stipulated in Technical Work Plan For: Natural System - Saturated Zone Analysis Model 
Report Integration (BSC 2004 [DIRS 171421]) this report addresses the SZ FEPs pertaining to 
water-level data analysis that are included for TSPA-LA (Table 6-1). SZ FEPs that were 
excluded for TSPA-LA are described in Features, Events, and Processes in SZ Flow and 
Transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170013]). Table 6-1 provides a list of FEPs that are relevant to this 
analysis in accordance with their assignment in the LA FEP list (DTN: MO0407SEPFEPLA.000 
[DIRS 170760]). Specific reference to the various sections within this document where issues 
related to each FEP are addressed is provided in the table. The detailed discussion of these FEPs 
and their implementation in TSPA-LA are documented in the Features, Events, and Processes in 
SZ Flow and Transport (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170013]). 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-2 October 2004 
Table 6-1. Features, Events, and Processes Included in TSPA-LA and Relevant to This Report 
FEP No. FEP Name 
Sections Where Disposition 
is Supported 
FEP Topic Addressed in Other SZ 
Analysis or Model Reports 
1.3.07.02.0A Water table rise 
affects SZ 
Section 6.4 Upstream Feedsa - N/A 
Corroboratingb  BSC 2004 [DIRS 
170036] 
1.4.07.01.0A Water management 
activities 
Section 6.4 Upstream Feedsa - N/A 
Corroboratingb BSC 2004 [DIRS 
170042] 
1.4.07.02.0A Wells Sections 1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 
Appendix A 
Upstream Feedsa - N/A 
Corroboratingb - BSC 2004 [DIRS 
170042] 
a Aspects of the SZ FEP screening position adopted in this report are a result of SZ analyses performed in a directly 
upstream SZ model or analyses. N/A indicates there are no upstream feeds. 
b CorroboratingSZ analysis or model report that indirectly supports the FEP topic. 
NOTE: FEP=Features, Events, and Processes; SZ=Saturated Zone. 
FEP 1.3.07.02.0A, Water table rise affects SZ is only partially addressed in this report. The 
water-level analysis provides the current state that is used by other analyses to assess the water 
table rise from future climate changes. FEP 1.4.07.01.0A, Water management activities, are not 
directly quantifiable, but are implicitly incorporated in the calibrated heads of the SZ flow 
model. As the potentiometric-surface analysis provides the heads for the calibration, this work 
indirectly supports this FEP. FEP 1.4.07.02.0A, Wells, is partially addressed in this report by 
presenting the locations of known water extraction wells (drinking water wells or agricultural 
wells) and the current water-level surface resulting from both natural conditions and the wells. 
6.2.1 Scientific Analysis Assumptions 
As part of the analysis of the data, a number of assumptions are necessary to complete the 
analysis. These assumptions are based primarily on accepted and established hydrologic 
practice. In each case, the justification for the assumption is provided. 
 Assumption: Averaging water levels from the 1980s to 1990s and up to 2000 provide 
water-level altitudes representative of conditions that existed in early 1990s. The SZ 
site-scale flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]) uses groundwater fluxes from the 
Death Valley regional groundwater flow model (hereafter referred to as the regional 
model) (DAgnese et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131], pp. 48 to 49) as calibration targets for 
lateral flux boundary conditions. The simulated fluxes in the regional model represent 
average, assumed steady-state conditions from the early 1990s, not conditions for a 
specific year. Therefore, the water levels used to construct the potentiometric-surface 
for the site-scale model must, to the extent allowed by data availability, represent 
conditions consistent with the regional model that used water-level data (altitudes) 
representing the early 1990s. Water levels in boreholes located at Yucca Mountain 
generally have not fluctuated by more than one meter during the time period from 1985 
until 1995 (Graves et al. 1997 [DIRS 101046], Table 2). Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604]) 
extended the analysis through 1999 and showed that in nearly all cases, no temporal 
trend in water level is apparent. See Section 6.3 for a discussion of exceptions to this 
observation and the reasons why these exceptions are not important. Some of the 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-3 October 2004 
boreholes used in this analysis had no or very few water-level measurements taken 
during the 1980s and 1990s (Appendix A, Tables A-2 and A-4). For boreholes in this 
category, all available water-level altitudes, with the exception of anomalous ones noted 
in Appendix A, were used to calculate the mean water-level altitude (Appendix A, 
Table A-1). This is particularly so for boreholes located in the Amargosa Valley and 
Amargosa Desert (Figure 6-1). Boreholes listed in Appendix A, Table A-2 as unreliable 
(U) or assumed perched (P) are shown on Figure 6-1, but were not used to construct 
the potentiometric surface. This assumption is used in Section 6.1 and Appendix A, 
Table A-1. 
 Assumption: Mean water-level altitudes, even when influenced by groundwater 
withdrawal, represent water-level altitudes consistent with groundwater fluxes used in 
the SZ site-scale flow model. Some boreholes in the model area are pumped for 
commercial and domestic water supplies. Water-level altitudes in these and adjacent 
boreholes could be influenced by the effects of pumping. This condition is prevalent in 
the southern part of the SZ site-scale flow model area in the region of domestic and 
agricultural wells. The pumpage in the agricultural areas has been occurring over a long 
period of time (DAgnese et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131], pp. 49 to 50), thus the 
potentiometric surface in that region has had a long period of time to respond. The 
present water levels are representative of the long-term pumping condition. The mean 
water-level altitude, calculated by averaging available data, provides a datum point that 
is representative of the potentiometric surface for the time period representing the early 
1990s. The rationale is that average-annual pumping values were used in the regional 
model (DAgnese et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131], pp. 48 to 49) and average water levels will 
be consistent with the simulated conditions in the regional model. This assumption is 
used in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of this revision. 
 Assumption: It is assumed that the water level from the uppermost open interval from 
each borehole at each site, except those boreholes listed in Assumption 2 in Section 5.1, 
represents the potentiometric surface of the uppermost part of the SZ (i.e., the water 
table). Most boreholes have only one water-level measurement interval; however, 
several boreholes have two or more isolated measurement intervals (Appendix A, 
Table A-5). In most boreholes, the uppermost interval is where the water was first 
encountered in the borehole (excluding perched-water zones, where identified). The 
significance of this assumption is that the resulting configuration of the potentiometric 
surface helps to determine the magnitude and direction of lateral groundwater flow in 
the upper SZ, which is important in the evaluation of potential radionuclide transport 
downgradient from the repository. As noted in Section 6.3.1, the vertical hydraulic head 
differences observed in the model area are largest when associated with the underlying 
carbonate aquifer or with the deeper portions of multiple completions (Wells USW H-1, 
USW H-3, USW H-6, and UE-25 p#1). The upper portions of wells, even with multiple 
completions (see USW H-1) show small differences in water levels. These observations 
justify the use of the uppermost completion as representative of the water table because 
the observed water-level differences are small in the upper portion of the aquifer. This 
assumption is used in Section 6.4. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-4 October 2004 
 Assumption: Borehole locations used in this analysis, from 
DTN: MO0011ELLOCAMD.000 [DIRS 153274], are sufficiently accurate for the 
intended purpose. Borehole coordinates and altitudes from YMP (Yucca Mountain Site 
Characterization Project) boreholes in DTN: MO0011ELLOCAMD.000 [DIRS 153274] 
and in DTN: MO0107COV01057.000 [DIRS 157194], which only contains YMP 
boreholes, were compared. Differences in the northing and easting coordinates of as 
much as 82 m were observed by comparing the two DTNs. As explained in Section 4.1, 
these small differences in coordinate location produce acceptably small errors and either 
set of coordinates is justified for use in this analysis. The altitudes of the boreholes in 
the two data sets were identical. Borehole altitude is the most critical component of the 
borehole location used for calculating the water-level altitude. 
6.3 WATER-LEVEL DATA 
The water-level data for the potentiometric-surface analysis were compiled from project data 
sources and the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) water-level data. The 
majority of the data used in this analysis was collected on or before 1996 as presented in USGS 
(2001 [DIRS 154625]). This data set was updated in USGS (2004 [DIRS 168473]) using new 
(collected through December 2000) information from the Nye County EWDP boreholes 
(Phases I and II), data from Borehole USW WT-24, and from geologic mapping within the 
model area (DTN: GS991208314221.001 [DIRS 145263]). Water-level information and 
analyses used as direct input were compiled from the data sources listed in Table 4-1 of this 
revision. The results were assembled in tabular format for use as input to the SZ site-scale flow 
model (see Appendix A). Other data were used to support this analysis and are considered 
indirect input. The indirect input data are identified in Table 6-2. The indirect data support the 
analysis, discussion, or visualization of results, but are not used to generate results applied 
directly in the calibration of the Site-Scale Saturated Zone Flow Model (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037]). The indirect input includes water levels measured through 2001 from Yucca 
Mountain wells and the new Nye County water-level data (Phases III and IV) collected through 
2003 that are used in the discussion of uncertainty. One source of uncertainty in the 
potentiometric-surface map is the interpolation of contours between unevenly distributed data 
points. To assess this uncertainty, an independent data set, not used to create the original map 
was needed. The data from Nye County Phases III and IV wells are withheld from the creation 
of the potentiometric surface to provide the independent data necessary to assess the uncertainty. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-5 October 2004 
Table 6-2. Indirect Input Data Sources 
Data Description Data Tracking Number 
As-Built Survey of Nye County Early Warning Drilling Program (EWDP) Phase III 
Boreholes NC-EWDP-10S, NC-EWDP-18P, and NC-EWDP-22S - Partial Phase III 
List 
MO0203GSC02034.000 
[DIRS 168375] 
As-Built Survey of Nye County Early Warning Drilling Program (EWDP) Phase III 
Boreholes, Second Set 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
[DIRS 168378] 
As-Built Survey Of Nye County Early Warning Drilling Program Phase IV Boreholes 
EWDP-16P, EWDP-27P & EWDP-28P 
MO0307GSC03094.000 
[DIRS 170556] 
Digital Elevation Models Death Valley East Scale 1:250,000 GS0000400002332.001 
[DIRS 148924] 
Manual Water-Level Data for EWDP Phase I Wells from 05/0208/03, Phase II 
Wells from 05/0208/03, Phase III Wells from 11/0208/03, and Phase IV Wells 
from 01/0308/03 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
[DIRS 170539] 
Water-level information used in this analysis was derived from a variety of sources. The large 
areal extent of the SZ site-scale flow and transport model, and the long history of water-level 
data collection in this area, have resulted in similar (or in some cases duplicate) water-level 
information being contained in multiple data sources. If more than one site ID was found in 
NWIS for the same borehole, the site ID with the most measurements was used for calculating 
the average water-level altitude for the time period of interest providing that the data were of 
equal quality to the data excluded. If location, land-surface altitude, or depth-to-water for a 
borehole were not available, the site was not used. NWIS data are stored as depth-to-water 
measurements, not as water-level altitude, and in English units as opposed to metric units. 
Conversion from depth-to-water to water-level altitude was accomplished by subtracting the 
depth-to-water measurement from the land-surface altitude of the measurement location (the 
borehole and surface altitude). The resulting water-level altitude was converted from feet to 
meters by using the equation (meters = feet * 0.3048). 
Borehole information was examined to see if water levels potentially represented perched-water 
conditions. Professional judgment was used to determine whether water-level altitudes 
represented perched-water conditions, based on the following criteria: proximity to cold-water 
springs, proximity to recharge areas, steep or anomalous potentiometric-surface slope, 
anomalous water-level altitudes, statistical water-level variability, water chemistry, pumping 
history, and hydrographs (OBrien 1998 [DIRS 106918]). Potential perched-water levels 
identified during this analysis were flagged and identified as suspected perched or assumed 
perched (Appendix A, Tables A-2 and A-8). To prove perched-water occurrence unequivocally 
requires demonstrating partial saturation beneath a suspected perched-water body. 
Unfortunately, partial saturation could not be proved or disproved unequivocally with the 
available data for the boreholes in question, USW G-2, USW G-1, UE-29 a #2, UE-25 a #3, 
USW UZ-N91, UE-25 WT-18, UE-25 WT-6 (OBrien 1998 [DIRS 106918]), and NC-EWDP-7S 
(DTN: MO0112DQRWLNYE.007 [DIRS 157177]). The boreholes in question were either 
drilled using a water-based circulating fluid (altering the ambient moisture distribution) or were 
only completed a few tens of meters into the first zone of saturation (not deep enough to reach 
the partial SZ). In this analysis, only water levels for Wells USW G-2, NC-EWDP-7S, and 
UE-25 WT #6 are assumed to represent perched water areas because the water levels in those 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-6 October 2004 
three wells depart from water levels in other nearby wells (see Section 5.1, Assumption 2). 
Water levels in the remaining wells are consistent with the alternative concept of the LHG 
presented in this report and with the water level in Borehole USW WT-24. 
The data incorporated into the potentiometric-surface map for this revision are the same as in 
USGS (2004 [DIRS 168473]). Most data used in this report are from the period of 1985 to 1995 
as reported in USGS (2001 [DIRS 154625]). Exceptions such as the Nye County well data from 
1999 to 2000 are noted in Table A-4 of Appendix A. New data collected after 1995 were 
examined and determined to not impact the final product beyond the range of uncertainty 
presented in Section 6.5. Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604]) presents analysis of water levels in 
selected wells in 1999 and yearly average water levels in the same wells from 1985 to 1999. As 
a general rule, water levels after 1995 do not fall outside the range of values from previous years. 
Most of the wells in the study area have long-term hydrograph records that show little 
water-level fluctuation over time. Several exceptions are noted. First, the most recent water 
levels in Wells USW H-3 upper interval and USW H-3 lower interval are now similar, but were 
historically different by almost 20 m. It is suggested (Savard 2001 [DIRS 165604], p. 55) that 
the packer in Well USW H-3 failed and allowed the water levels in the two intervals to 
equilibrate. Therefore, the recent water levels in Well USW H-3 are not considered reliable. 
Another case where water levels have changed is in Well USW H-1, tubes 1 and 2. From 1985 
to 1999, water levels in Well USW H-1 tube 1 have risen almost 1 m, while in Well USW H-1 
tube 2, the water level has fallen about 1 m over that same period (Savard 2000 [DIRS 165604], 
pp. 48 to 53). As presented in Table A-5, tubes 1 and 2 of Well USW H-1 are the deep 
completions and are not used in mapping the shallow potentiometric surface. Thus, the changes 
in water level in these two tubes will not impact the potentiometric-surface map. The rise in 
water level in tube 1 might increase the vertical water-level difference presented in Table 6-4 by 
about 1 m, but this is only about a 2-percent change in the vertical head difference at location 
Well USW H-1 and is not considered significant because it will not alter any conclusions or 
analyses. 
An assessment corroborating the stability of the water levels is presented in Table 6-3. 
Columns 3, 6, and 7 of Table 6-3 contain the same average, minimum, and maximum water 
levels as presented in Table A-1. Column 4 contains average water levels from the 6-month 
period from January 3, 2001 to June 26, 2001 (calculated from the data in 
DTN: GS010808312312.003 [DIRS 168536]). Column 5 is the average water-level data for the 
12-month period of November 24, 1998, to December 22, 1999, (calculated as the mean of the 
data in DTN: GS000808312312.007 [DIRS 155270]). Compared with the average data through 
1995, the more recent water levels fall within the previous minimum and maximum water levels 
with several exceptions. For two of the wells, USW G-2 and UE-25 WT #16, the newer data fall 
outside the minimum or maximum value by about 0.2 m. A single data point with this small 
difference will change the average water level by less than 0.02 m. Another well with changes in 
water levels is USW H-1 tube 1 for 2001. According to Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604], 
Figure 39), the water levels in this well showed a trend of increasing average annual water levels 
from 1985 through 1999. The average water level in 2001 is slightly below any other year and 
may indicate a problem with the isolation of the interval or merely a long-term trend. Water 
levels in Well USW H-1 tube 2, also showed lower water levels in 2001 than in 1999. This 
decrease in water levels is consistent with the decreasing water trend noted by Savard (2001 
[DIRS 165604], Figure 41). The recent water levels in Well USW H-3, upper and lower, may 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-7 October 2004 
not be reliable as noted above due to possible packer failure. The impact of these trends in water 
levels will be discussed in Section 6.5. For nearly all the water levels, averaging the new data 
with the data used in this analysis would not have significantly altered the calculated average 
water level of the contours. 
Table 6-3. Comparison of Water-Level Values through 1995 to Average Values in 1999 and 2001 
Water Levels 
through 
1995 (meters above 
sea level) 
USGS Site ID 
Site 
Name 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
through 
1995 
(meters) 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
01/03/2001 to 
06/26/2001 
(meters) 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
11/24/1998 
to 
12/22/1999 
(meters) Minimum Maximum Source 
365629116222602 UE-29 
a #2 
1187.7 1186.38 1186.58 1186.2 1191.3 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365340116264601 UE-25 
WT #6 
1034.6 1034.9 1035.03 1033.3 1036.1 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365322116273501 USW 
G-2 
1020.2 1019.69 1019.43 1019.6 1020.6 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365239116253401 UE-25 
WT #16 
738.3 738.83 738.36 737.8 738.6 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365140116260301 UE-25 
WT #4 
730.8 730.92 730.83 730.3 731.2 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365116116233801 UE-25 
WT #15 
729.2 729.39 729.31 729 729.4 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365032116243501 UE-25 
WT #14 
729.7 729.75 729.7 729.3 730 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365023116271801 USW 
WT-2 
730.6 730.64 730.59 730.1 730.8 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364947116254401 UE-25 
c #2 
730.2 730.11 730.09 729.9 730.6 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364945116235001 UE-25 
WT #13 
729.1 729.3 729.23 728.5 729.4 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364933116285701 USW 
WT- 7 
775.8 776.03 775.95 775.5 776 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364916116265601 USW 
WT- 1 
730.4 730.42 730.32 730 730.5 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364828116234001 UE-25 
J -13 
728.4 Not provided 728.44 728.3 728.7 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
364825116290501 USW 
WT-10 
776 776.14 776.1 775.6 776.2 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364822116262601 UE-25 
WT #17 
729.7 729.78 729.68 729.5 729.8 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-8 October 2004 
Table 6-3. Comparison of Water-level Values through 1995 to Average Values in 1999 and 2001 
(Continued) 
Water Levels 
through 
1995 (meters above 
sea level) 
USGS Site ID 
Site 
Name 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
through 
1995 
(meters) 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
01/03/2001 to 
06/26/2001 
(meters) 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
11/24/1998 
to 
12/22/1999 
(meters) Minimum Maximum Source 
364757116245801 UE-25 
WT #3 
729.6 729.78 729.69 729.4 729.9 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364732116330701 USW 
VH-1 
779.4 779.48 779.49 779.3 779.6 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364656116261601 UE-25 
WT #12 
729.5 729.54 729.45 729.1 729.6 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364554116232400 UE-25 
J 12 
727.9 Not provided 727.97 727.8 728.2 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
365157116271202 USW H-1 
tube 1 
785.5 784.51 786 785 786.1 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365157116271203 USW H-1 
tube 2 
736 734.42 735.03 735.7 736.3 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365157116271204 USW H-1 
tube 3 
730.6 730.62 730.69 730.4 730.8 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365157116271205 USW H-1 
tube 4 
730.8 730.88 730.82 730.5 731 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365122116275502 USW H-5 
upper 
775.5 775.52 775.48 775 775.7 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365122116275503 USW H-5 
lower 
775.6 775.91 775.84 775 775.9 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365049116285502 USW H-6 
upper 
776 776.15 776.1 775.8 776.2 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365049116285505 USW H-6 
lower 
775.9 776.02 775.98 775.7 776.1 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
365032116265402 USW H-4 
upper 
730.4 Not provided 730.4 730.2 730.5 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
365032116265403 USW H-4 
lower 
730.5 Not provided 730.48 730.2 730.8 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
364942116280002 USW H-3 
upper 
731.5 732.06 731.86 731.1 731.9 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364942116280003 USW H-3 
lower 
755.9 732.24 732.09 747.4 760.3 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364938116252102 UE-25 
p #1 
(Lwr 
Intrvl) 
752.4 753.13 752.93 751.9 752.7 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-9 October 2004 
Table 6-3. Comparison of Water-level Values through 1995 to Average Values in 1999 and 2001 
(Continued) 
Water Levels 
through 
1995 (meters above 
sea level) 
USGS Site ID 
Site 
Name 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
through 
1995 
(meters) 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
01/03/2001 to 
06/26/2001 
(meters) 
Mean 
Water-level 
Altitude 
11/24/1998 
to 
12/22/1999 
(meters) Minimum Maximum Source 
365301116271301 USW 
WT-24 
840.1 840.61 840.29 839.7 840.7 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
364706116170601 UE-25 
J -11 
732.2 Not provided 732.26 732.1 732.4 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
365624116222901 USW 
UZ-N91 
1186.7 1187.03 1187.26 1185.6 1191.3 APPENDIX A 
GS000808312312.007 
GS010808312312.003 
Revision 01 of this report used the data from EWDP Phases I and II. Some additional Nye 
county wells (Phases III and IV) were drilled and unqualified water levels are currently available 
(DTN: MO0405NYE05819.215 [DIRS 170539]). The new wells (NC-EWDP Wells 10S, 10P, 
16P, 18P, 19IM1, 19IM2, 22PA, 22PB, 22S, 23P, 27P, and 28P) occupy eight locations located 
in the vicinity of Fortymile Wash north of U.S. U.S. Highway 95 (as shown on Figure 1-2). The 
data from these wells are addressed in Section 6.5. 
6.3.1 Qualification of Unqualified Data 
Two data sets were qualified for intended use within this document. The data are measured 
water levels in Wells UE-25 p#1 and UE-25 J-13. Both data sets are qualified using procedure 
AP-SIII.2Q and documented in Appendices B and C. 
6.3.2 Vertical Head Differences 
Within the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area, 17 boreholes monitor, or have 
historically monitored, water levels in more than one vertical interval (Table 6-4). The 
water-level data in Table 6-4 are compiled for the purpose of assessing vertical hydraulic head. 
The time frame of data in Table 6-4 is limited to ensure a direct comparison of the water levels in 
the different intervals. The data in Appendix A represent long-term average water levels used to 
construct the potentiometric-surface map. For some locations, the water-level data in Table 6-4 
do not match the data presented in Appendix A. In most cases, the vertical measurements were 
made during a short period of time when access to multiple zones within the borehole was 
available (the water supply Well UE-25 J-13 is an example). The data in Appendix A and 
Table 6-4 are justified for their respective purposes and do not need to be the same. 
The pattern of water-level differences identified for single years in Table 6-4 is repeated over 
longer periods of time as discussed by Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604], pp. 50 to 67) for Boreholes 
USW H-1, USW H-3, USW H-4, USW H-5, and USW H-6. The data for the Nye County 
EWDP wells are the same in Table 6-4 and Appendix A. Water-level data from these boreholes 
allow for the calculation of the difference in potentiometric heads at each monitored interval. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-10 October 2004 
Both upward (head increases with depth) and downward (head decreases with depth) vertical 
gradients have been observed. Fewer downward gradients (5) are observed than upward 
gradients (12). Upward vertical head differences range from 0.1 m to almost 55 m, and 
downward vertical head differences range from 0.5 to 38 m. The monitored intervals were 
selected to either monitor water levels between different geologic units or between different 
permeable intervals within the same geologic unit. 
Table 6-4. Vertical Head Differences 
Well 
Open 
Interval 
(meters 
below 
land surface) 
Potentiometric 
Level 
(meters above 
sea level) 
Head 
Difference 
deepest 
shallowest 
intervals 
(meters) Source Data Remarks 
USW H-1 tube 4 573673 730.94 54.7 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-1 tube 3 716765 730.75 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-1 tube 2 1097-1123 736.06 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-1 tube 1 17831814 785.58 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-3 upper 7621114 731.19 28.9 GS980308312312.004 1996 mean level 
(Graves 1998 
[DIRS 155411], p. 59) 
USW H-3 lower 11141219 760.07 GS980308312312.004 1996 mean level 
(Graves 1998 
[DIRS 155411], p. 59) 
USW H-4 upper 5251188 730.49 0.1 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-4 lower 11881219 730.56 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level, 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-5 upper 7081091 775.43 0.2 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level, 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-5 lower 10911219 775.65 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level, 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-11 October 2004 
Table 6-4. Vertical Head Differences (Continued) 
Well 
Open 
Interval 
(meters 
below 
land surface) 
Potentiometric 
Level 
(meters above 
sea level) 
Head 
Difference 
deepest 
shallowest 
intervals 
(meters) Source Data Remarks 
USW H-6 upper 533752 775.99 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level, 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-6 lower 7521220 775.91 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level, 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW H-6 11931220 778.18 
2.2 
GS931008312312.025 1/84-5/84 mean level, 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
UE-25 b #1 upper 4881199 730.71 GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level, 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
UE-25 b #1 lower 11991220 729.69 
-1.0 
GS930408312312.015 1991 mean level, 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
UE-25 p #1 
(volcanic) 
384500 729.90 GS920408312314.009 
Table S97274_001 
Uppermost interval 
value (Craig and 
Robinson 1984 
[DIRS 101040], 
Table 2) 
UE-25 p #1 
(carbonate) 
12971805 751.26 
21.4 
GS920408312314.009 
Table S97274_001 
Average of last 12 
entries (Craig and 
Robinson 1984 
[DIRS 101040], 
Table 2) 
UE-25 c #3 692753 730.22 GS930408312312.015 1990 mean level 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
UE-25 c #3 753914 730.64 
0.4 
GS930408312312.015 1990 mean level 
(Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], 
Table 3) 
USW G-4 615747 730.3 MO0008WTRALTG4.000 Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], Table 3 
USW G-4 747915 729.8 
-0.5 
MO0008WTRALTG4.000 Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], Table 3 
UE-25 J-13 upper 282451 728.8 GS930408312132.007 
Table S97276_013 
Thordarson 1983 
[DIRS 101057], 
Table 10 
UE-25 J-13 471502 728.9 
-0.8 
GS930408312132.007 
Table S97276_013 
Thordarson 1983 
[DIRS 101057], 
Table 10 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-12 October 2004 
Table 6-4. Vertical Head Differences (Continued) 
Well 
Open 
Interval 
(meters 
below 
land surface) 
Potentiometric 
Level 
(meters above 
sea level) 
Head 
Difference 
deepest 
shallowest 
intervals 
(meters) Source Data Remarks 
UE-25 J-13 585646 728.9 GS930408312132.007 
Table S97276_013 
Thordarson 1983 
[DIRS 101057], 
Table 10 
UE-25 J-13 8201063 728.0 
GS930408312132.007 
Table S97276_013 
Thordarson 1983 
[DIRS 101057], 
Table 10 
NC-EWDP-1DX 
(shallow) 
WT419 786.8 MO0112DQRWLNYE.017 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
5/992/00 
NC-EWDP-1DX 
(deep) 
658683 748.8 
-38.0 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.017 
8/992/00 
NC-EWDP-2D 
(volcanic) 
WT493 706.1 MO0112DQRWLNYE.020 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
1/99 
NC-EWDP-2DB 
(carbonate) 
820937 713.3 
7.2 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.020 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
11/15/0011/22/00 
NC-EWDP-3S 
probe 2 
103129 719.8 MO0112DQRWLNYE.015 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.003 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.022 
5/06/9912/06/00 
NC-EWDP-3S 
probe 3 
145168 719.4 MO0112DQRWLNYE.015 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.003 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.022 
5/06/9912/06/00 
NC-EWDP-3D WT762 718.3 
-1.5 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.016 
3/998/99 
NC-EWDP-4PA 124148 717.9 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.005 
1/13/0010/26/00 
NC-EWDP-4PB 225256 723.6 
5.7 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.006 
1/21/0010/26/00 
NC-EWDP-9SX 
probe 1 
2737 766.7 MO0112DQRWLNYE.011 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.004 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.021 
5/13/9912/06/00 
NC-EWDP-9SX 
probe 2 
4349 767.3 MO0112DQRWLNYE.011 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.004 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.021 
5/13/9912/06/00 
NC-EWDP-9SX 
probe 4 
101104 766.8 
0.1 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.011 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.004 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.021 
5/13/9912/06/00 
NC-EWDP-12PA 99117 722.9 2.2 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.010 
4/18/0011/15/00 
NC-EWDP-12PB 99117 723.0 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.012 
4/18/0011/15/00 
NC-EWDP-12PC 5270 720.7 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.013 
4/27/0011/15/00 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-13 October 2004 
Table 6-4. Vertical Head Differences (Continued) 
Well 
Open 
Interval 
(meters 
below 
land surface) 
Potentiometric 
Level 
(meters above 
sea level) 
Head 
Difference 
deepest 
shallowest 
intervals 
(meters) Source Data Remarks 
NC-EWDP-19P 109140 707.5 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.014 
3/13/006/17/00 
NC-EWDP-19D 106433 712.8 
5.3 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.018 
6/14/006/22/00 
Source: Output DTN: GS010908312332.003. 
NOTE: Negative value indicates downward gradient. 
Only two sites (UE-25 p #1 and NC-EWDP-2D/2DB see Table 6-4) provide information on 
vertical gradients between volcanic rocks and the underlying Paleozoic carbonate rocks. At Well 
UE-25 p #1, water levels currently are monitored only in the carbonate aquifer; however, 
water-level data were obtained from within the volcanic rocks as the borehole was drilled and 
tested (DTN: GS920408312314.009 [DIRS 148168]). At this site, water levels in the Paleozoic 
carbonate rocks are about 20 m higher than those in the overlying volcanic rocks. Borehole 
NC-EWDP-2DB penetrated Paleozoic carbonate rocks toward the bottom of the borehole 
(Spengler 2001 [DIRS 155823]). Water levels measured within that deep part of the borehole 
are about 8 m higher than levels measured in volcanic rocks penetrated by Borehole 
NC-EWDP-2D. 
Water levels monitored within the lower part of the volcanic-rock sequence at Yucca Mountain 
also are significantly higher than levels monitored in the upper part of the volcanics. Boreholes 
USW H-1 (tube 1) and USW H-3 (lower interval) both monitor water levels in the lower part of 
the volcanic-rock sequence and upward gradients are observed at these boreholes with head 
differences of 54.7 m and 28.9 m, respectively (Table 6-4). The gradient at Well USW H-3 is 
not precisely known, because the water levels in the lower interval had been continuously rising 
before the packer that separates the upper and lower intervals failed in 1996 (Graves 1998 
[DIRS 155411], pp. 58 to 61; DTN: GS980308312312.004 [DIRS 155272]). 
An upward gradient is also observed between the alluvial deposits monitored in Borehole 
NC-EWDP-19P and underlying volcanic rocks monitored in Borehole NC-EWDP-19D 
(Table 6-4). The vertical head difference at this site is 5.3 m; however, levels reported for 
NC-EWDP-19D represent a composite water level for both alluvium and volcanics, so that the 
true head difference between those units is not completely known. 
Downward gradients are observed within the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area 
(Table 6-4). The largest downward gradient is observed between the deep and shallow 
monitored intervals at Borehole NC-EWDP-1DX (head difference of 38 m). The depth to water 
at this site is shallow (17 m) and within Tertiary spring deposits. Other downward gradients are 
much smaller in magnitude. Vertical downward gradients were also observed at 
Well NC-EWDP-7S (see Section 6.4). 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-14 October 2004 
Five wells or well sites with more than two monitoring intervals (Table 6-4; Well USW H-1, 
Well USW H-6, Well UE-25 J-13, site NC-EWDP-3D/NC-EWDP-3S, and Well 
NC-EWDP-9SX) have head differences between the uppermost and lowermost monitored 
intervals and the intermediate intervals in which the gradients are both upwards and downwards. 
For example at Well USW H-1, the head difference between the uppermost (tube 4) and next 
lower interval (tube 3) is -0.2 m, indicating a small downward gradient; however, the head 
difference between tube 3 and the next lower interval (tube 2) is 5.3 m, indicating an upward 
gradient. 
Several reasons may be advanced to explain the small gradient reversals at some locations. First, 
small scale heterogeneity may be present that produces these small differences. The impact of 
these heterogeneities would be expected to be most important at small scales, but would be 
averaged out when viewed along the entire flow path of more than 18 km. Second, the small 
reversals may be due simply to measurement errors. Section 6.5 presents an analysis of 
numerous sources of error that could impact the measured values. Small differences, especially 
on the order of a few tenths of a meter, require careful analysis to ensure that such differences 
are not the result of errors. 
The confidence in the vertical hydraulic head differences is greatest for the locations with the 
largest head differences because these observed differences are much larger than any potential 
errors. As noted in Section 6.5, uncertainty in the water-level measurement may come from a 
variety of sources. As a result, there is less confidence in small head differences because the 
uncertainty in the water level may be larger than the head difference. 
6.3.3 Key Technical Issues (KTI) Related to Potentiometric Surface and Vertical 
Gradients 
Williams (2003 [DIRS 170977], Appendix C) provides a response to the additional information 
needed (AIN) request from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for KTI agreement 
Unsaturated and Saturated Flow Under Isothermal Conditions (USFIC) 5.08. The wording of 
these agreements is: 
USFIC 5.08 
 Taking into account the Nye County Information, provide the updated potentiometric 
data and map for the regional aquifer, and an analysis of vertical hydraulic gradients 
within the site-scale model. DOE will provide an updated potentiometric map and 
supporting data for the uppermost aquifer in an update to the Water-Level Data Analysis 
for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model report expected to be 
available in October 2001, subject to receipt of data from the Nye County program. 
Analysis of vertical hydraulic gradient will be addressed in the site-scale model and will 
be provided in the Calibration of the Site-Scale Saturated Zone Flow Model report 
expected to be available during FY 2002. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-15 October 2004 
USFIC 5.08 AIN-1 
 Incorporate data for Well SD-6, which was drilled several years ago and provided key 
information about hydraulic heads close to the Solitario Canyon fault, into the analysis 
of water levels near Yucca Mountain and provide the analysis for NRC review. The 
same data given in tables in the water-level report for other Wells should be provided for 
SD-6. 
 Provide a hydrogeologic interpretation for the high heads observed in Wells UZ-14 and 
H-5. 
 Provide an updated hydrogeologic interpretation for groundwater elevations in Wells 
G-2 and WT#6 (i.e., wells that define the LHG) based on newly available data from 
Well WT-24. 
 Provide the basis for assuming that the water level in Well NC-EWDP-7S represents 
perched water. 
Data for Well SD-6 
The water-level information for Borehole USW SD-6 is provided in 
two DTNs: GS000808312312.007 [DIRS 155270] and GS001208312312.009 [DIRS 171433]. 
The three water-level elevations in those two DTNs range from 731.10 to 731.70 m. A water 
level of 731.2 m was used as part of model validation in the calibration of the SZ site-scale flow 
model (BSC 2001 [DIRS 155974], pp. 48 to 51). This is a more direct use of Borehole USW 
SD-6 water-level data than is the incorporation of this information into the 
potentiometric-surface map (Figure 6-1). An argument presented by Williams (2003 
[DIRS 170977]) is that the SD-6 data would not have changed the potentiometric-surface map. 
This can be seen by observing the location of USW SD-6 on Figure 1-2 and noting that the 
contours on Figure 6-1 would not have changed with the addition of the new wells. The 
exclusion of Borehole USE SD-6 is justified on the basis of no impact. 
High heads in Wells USW UZ-14 and USW H-5 
The high potentiometric level in Borehole USW H-5 has been attributed to the presence of a 
splay of the Solitario Canyon fault penetrated by the borehole (Ervin et al. 1994 [DIRS 100633], 
pp. 9 to 10). This splay is believed to be an extension of the hydrologic barrier to west-to-east 
groundwater flow from Crater Flat (related to the Solitario Canyon fault). The high heads in 
Well USW H-5 (about 775 m) are related to heads in Crater Flat (ranging from 775 to 780 m), 
and this borehole defines part of the moderate hydraulic gradient along the western edge of 
Yucca Mountain. Borehole USW UZ-14 is in a transition zone between the large and moderate 
hydraulic gradient areas, and the high potentiometric level (about 779 m) is related to either of 
these areas. Rousseau et al. (1999 [DIRS 102097], p. 172) hypothesized that perched water in 
Borehole USW UZ-14 could be caused by a nearby projected growth fault that impedes 
percolation of water from the surface. This fault may also impede groundwater flow in the SZ. 
The high heads in Borehole USW UZ-14 also could be caused by the low-permeability rocks in 
the upper part of the SZ at that borehole. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-16 October 2004 
Update the hydrogeologic interpretation for water levels in Wells USW G-2 and UE-25 
WT#6 based on newly available data from Well USW WT-24 
The discussion of the interpretation of water levels in Wells USW G-2, UE-25 WT#6, and 
USW WT-24 is presented in Sections 5.1, 6.4 and 7.1.2. 
Basis for assuming that the water level in Well NC-EWDP-7S represents perched water 
The discussion of the perched water level in Well NC-EWDP-7S is presented at the end of 
Section 6.4. 
6.4 POTENTIOMETRIC-SURFACE MAP 
For SZ site-scale flow model construction purposes, the 2001 potentiometric-surface map 
(Figure 6-1) was created from the water-level data listed in USGS (2004 [DIRS 168473], Table 
I-1). Table I-1 of USGS (2004 [DIRS 168473]) uses the same input data as defined in Table A-1 
of this report except that DTN: MO0107COV01057.000 [DIRS 157194] is used instead of 
DTN: MO0401COV01368.000 [DIRS 168534]. The differences in data from USGS (2004 
[DIRS 168473]) and Table A-1 of this document are in the coordinate values due to revisions to 
a data set for the Nye County wells (see Section 4.1 for details). As explained in Section 4.1, the 
differences in coordinate values are acceptable because they do not impact the display of data in 
Figure 6-1. The 2001 potentiometric contours were hand-drawn by the USGS (2004 
[DIRS 168473], Figure 6-1) rather than computer-generated as in revision 00 of this report 
(USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625], Figure 1-2). This hand contouring allowed the Principal 
Investigator (PI) to locate the contours based on professional hydrologic judgment and 
experience. Hand contouring and machine contouring are both accepted methods to generate 
water-level contour maps. Machine contours are easily reproducible but may suffer from odd 
extrapolations to areas of limited data and may generate physically unrealistic contours if 
allowed to honor all data values, regardless of associated errors in the values. Acceptable 
machine contouring requires careful oversight by a hydrologist to prevent unrealistic results. 
The careful oversight of the machine contours in the initial 2000 potentiometric contour map 
(USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625], Figure 1-2) is evident because the map does not exhibit odd 
behavior. To achieve this level of oversight, a hydrologist must apply judgment to constrain the 
contouring. Thus, professional judgment is a necessary component of water-level contouring 
regardless of how the final contours are generated (machine or hand). Hand contouring is 
considered equivalent to machine contouring for this analysis because both involve the use of 
professional judgment. 
In accordance with the discussion in Section 6.2.1 (Assumption 3), the water-level altitude from 
the upper interval of each borehole was assumed to represent the potentiometric surface. Under 
this assumption, only water-level altitudes representing the uppermost aquifer system, typically 
the volcanic or alluvial system, were used to construct the map on Figure 6-1. Fault traces 
shown on Figure 6-1 represent the mapped surface expression of faults. 
The distribution of water-level data and the complex geology in the SZ site-scale flow model 
area allow for various interpretations of the configuration of the potentiometric surface 
(Luckey et al. 1996 [DIRS 100465], pp. 21 to 26). Several potentiometric-surface maps 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-17 October 2004 
(discussed in Section 6.5) have been developed that encompass Yucca Mountain and the 
surrounding vicinity, including the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area and the regional 
model area. Examination of other potentiometric-surface maps that fully or partially cover the 
SZ site-scale flow and transport model area reveals no major differences in the shape of 
potentiometric contour lines. This is not unexpected because similar, and in some cases the 
same, water-level data were used to create the potentiometric contour lines. By adhering to the 
rules that govern the construction of potentiometric contours, only a limited number of 
configurations of the water-level data are possible. The differences observed between existing 
potentiometric-surface maps and the one presented in this report can be attributed to map scale, 
potentiometric-contour intervals, changing concepts of potential perched water and the regional 
potentiometric surface in the LHG area, and more and newer water-level data. The 
potentiometric-surface map created for this report is an accurate interpretation based on the 
available water-level data through the year 1996 (the year 1998 for some wells in Amargosa 
Valley and the year 2000 for the EWDP wells), the geologic map of the Yucca Mountain region, 
the assumptions in Section 5, and the regional potentiometric surface. 
The potentiometric analysis provides supplemental justification for several FEPs. The 
potentiometric surface provides a snapshot of current water-level conditions. Analyses to 
address water table rise caused by increased infiltration in the future will use the present analysis 
as the starting point. At the present time there are no significant water management structures 
such as dams, reservoirs, or canals in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. The report has identified 
all the water-level observation points, including wells drilled for human consumption and 
agricultural use (Figure 1-2). The potentiometric-surface analysis identifies expected directions 
of groundwater flow from the repository to the accessible environment. The well locations 
presented in this report can be compared later to flow and transport model results to identify 
wells likely to be in the contaminant plume. There are no springs identified in the site-scale 
model area. The potentiometric surface is always below the land surface. Thus, there are no 
locations of natural discharge to the land surface in the site-scale model area. 
This analysis differs from that reported in Revision 00 of this report (USGS 2001 
[DIRS 154625], Figure 1-2) in several ways. The most significant difference is in the portrayal 
of the LHG area north of Yucca Mountain. The concept that water levels in Boreholes USW G-2 
and UE-25 WT #6 are considered to represent perched conditions (Assumption 2 in Section 5.1), 
is used to create the 2001 potentiometric surface in this revision. By not using the data from 
those two boreholes, the LHG is reduced from about 0.11 (Tucci and Burkhardt 1995 
[DIRS 101060], p. 9) to between 0.06 to 0.07, and the potentiometric contours are more widely 
spaced. Another significant difference is that potentiometric contours are no longer offset where 
they cross faults. Such offsets, which were shown in the 2000 map presented in Revision 00 of 
this report (USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625], Figure 1-2), would not be expected where the contours 
are perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to the fault trace. Direct evidence of offset, which 
would be provided by wells that straddle the fault, does not exist at Yucca Mountain. Faults 
were used, however, to help in the placement of contours that are oriented parallel or 
approximately parallel to faults. The concept used to represent the impact of faults on 
potentiometric contours is that groundwater flow across a fault (or fault zone) is impeded by the 
fault and that groundwater flow parallel to a fault is not impeded by the fault. The basis for this 
representation is discussed in Section 5.2. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-18 October 2004 
DTN: GS010608312332.001. 
Source: USGS 2004 [DIRS 168473]. 
Figure 6-1. 2001 Potentiometric-Surface Map, Assuming Perched Conditions North of Yucca Mountain, 
in the SZ Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model Area 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-19 October 2004 
The contour interval used in this analysis is somewhat different from Revision 00 of this report 
(USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625], Figure 1-2), which used a uniform contour interval of 25 m 
(USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625], Figure 1-2). The contour interval used on Figure 6-1 is variable, in 
which the interval is 50 m for contours greater than 800 m, and 25 m for contours less than 
800 m. Two additional contours, 730 and 720, are also included. The inclusion of those 
contours helps to visualize the effect of the fault along U.S. Highway 95 (Figure 6-1), south of 
Yucca Mountain, on the groundwater flow system. 
Potentiometric data indicate a complex three-dimensional flow system. Luckey et al. (1996 
[DIRS 100465], pp. 21 to 26, and 56) discuss different gradients and interpretations of the SZ 
site-scale flow system. Groundwater flow in the welded volcanic rocks occurs primarily in 
fractures and secondarily in the matrix of the rock (Ervin et al. 1994 [DIRS 100633], p. 8; 
Luckey et al. 1996 [DIRS 100465], pp. 17 to 21). Therefore, this flow system may result from 
the presence of faults and associated fracture zones occurring in the welded volcanic 
hydrogeologic units, rather than a system in which groundwater flow is through a porous 
medium. Depending upon where the potentiometric surface is located within the 
hydrostratigraphic sequence, it may be either confined or unconfined. Confined aquifers may 
exist where a relatively less permeable hydrogeologic unit, such as a clay bed or argillic volcanic 
unit, overlies a permeable hydrogeologic unit. An unconfined aquifer has no overlying relatively 
less permeable hydrogeologic unit, or if an overlying less permeable unit is present, the water 
level lies below the base of the less permeable unit. 
Many of the boreholes used in this analysis only partially penetrate a single hydrogeologic unit. 
In boreholes that do penetrate more than one hydrogeologic unit, no attempt was made to 
distinguish water-level measurements associated with specific hydrogeologic units or fracture 
zones. The water-level altitudes in some boreholes represent composite heads from multiple 
hydrogeologic units and fractures zones. Generally, water levels in the uppermost SZ appear to 
represent a laterally continuous, well-connected aquifer system (Tucci and Burkhardt 1995 
[DIRS 101060], p. 7). The impact on the potentiometric surface from boreholes that are open at 
different depth intervals and to different hydrogeologic units is discussed in relation to 
uncertainty in Section 6-5. 
Some of the major faults in the region are thought to affect water levels (Ervin et al. 1994 
[DIRS 100633], p. 9; Tucci and Burkhardt 1995 [DIRS 101060]; Luckey et al. 1996 
[DIRS 100465], pp. 21 to 26; DAgnese et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131]). As a result, several of 
these faults were selected to help interpret the water-level data used in the analysis (Figure 6-1). 
The selection was based on fault displacement of geologic units and extent of the fault, both 
laterally and vertically. The location of some of the major faults may explain the water-level 
altitudes in some of the boreholes and the resulting potentiometric-surface map. For example, an 
area termed the moderate hydraulic gradient is associated with the area adjacent to the 
Solitario Canyon fault, which is located along the west side of Yucca Mountain (approximately 
parallel to the 750-m and 775-m contours shown on Figure 6-1). Water-level altitudes to the 
west of the Solitario Canyon fault are more than 40 m higher than those to the east (Ervin et al. 
1994 [DIRS 100633], pp. 7 to 9; Tucci and Burkhardt 1995 [DIRS 101060], pp. 7 to 9). 
A moderate-to-LHG area southwest of Yucca Mountain also appears to be related to a fault that 
is approximately parallel to U.S. Highway 95 (Figure 6-1). 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-20 October 2004 
The potentiometric surface is characterized by four major regions that can be inferred from the 
potentiometric contours depicted on Figure 6-1: 
 A small-gradient (0.0001 to 0.0004; Tucci and Burkhardt 1995 [DIRS 101060], p. 9) 
area below Yucca Mountain, to the east, and to the southeast of Yucca Mountain where 
water levels range from about 728 to 732 m. Gradients in the Amargosa Desert, south of 
Yucca Mountain are also small (0.001 to 0.0004; water levels ranging from about 690 m 
to about 720 m) 
 A moderate-gradient (0.02 to 0.04; Tucci and Burkhardt 1995 [DIRS 101060], p. 9) area 
to the west of Yucca Mountain, where water levels range from about 740 m to 800 m 
 A moderate- to large-gradient (0.01 to 0.05) area southwest of Yucca Mountain (along 
U.S. Highway 95 near southern Crater Flat), where water levels range from 720 m to 
775 m 
 A large-gradient (0.06 to 0.07) area north of Yucca Mountain, where water levels range 
from about 738 m to 1188 m. This gradient assumes that water levels in Boreholes 
USW G-2 and UE-25 WT #6 represent perched conditions. The hydraulic gradient in 
the LHG area north of Yucca Mountain previously had been reported as about 0.11 
(Tucci and Burkhardt 1995 [DIRS 101060], p. 9). 
The potentiometric surface presented in this analysis and in previously published reports 
generally implies a hydraulically, well-connected flow system within the uppermost SZ (Tucci 
and Burkhardt 1995 [DIRS 101060]) as discussed above. 
A number of explanations have been proposed to explain the presence of the apparent LHG at 
the north end of Yucca Mountain. Explanations proposed for the LHG include: 
 Faults that contain nontransmissive fault gouge (Czarnecki and Waddell 1984 
[DIRS 101042], p. 19) 
 Faults that juxtapose transmissive tuff against nontransmissive tuff (Czarnecki and 
Waddell 1984 [DIRS 101042], p. 19) 
 The presence of a less fractured lithologic unit (Czarnecki and Waddell 1984 
[DIRS 101042], p. 19) 
 A change in the direction of the regional stress field and a resultant change in the 
intensity, interconnectedness, and orientation of open fractures on either side of the area 
with the LHG (Czarnecki and Waddell 1984 [DIRS 101042], p. 19) 
 The apparent large gradient actually represents a disconnected, perched- or 
semi-perched- water body, so that the high water-level altitudes are caused by local 
hydraulic conditions and are not part of the regional SZ flow system (Ervin et al. 1994 
[DIRS 100633]). 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-21 October 2004 
Fridrich et al. (1994 [DIRS 100575]) suggest two hydrogeologic explanations for the LHG: (1) a 
highly permeable buried fault that drains water from the volcanic rock units into a deeper 
regional carbonate aquifer or (2) a buried fault that forms a spill-way in the volcanic rocks. 
Their second explanation, in effect, juxtaposes transmissive tuff against nontransmissive tuff, 
and is therefore the same as (2) above. On a regional basis, other LHG areas are associated with 
a contact in the Paleozoic rocks between clastic, confining unit rocks and the regional carbonate 
aquifer; however, the cause and nature of the LHG near Yucca Mountain is not evident. Another 
alternative explanation for the LHG is the presence of the Claim Canyon Caldera. The Claim 
Canyon Caldera is an area of extensive hydrothermal alteration that may result in a generalized 
reduction in permeability in the hydrogeologic units. Under this scenario, the edge of the Claim 
Canyon Caldera lies north of the Yucca Mountain repository and leads to the LHG where the 
caldera rocks have been hydrothermally altered. 
There is no unequivocal explanation for the LHG. The presence of perched water at Boreholes 
USW G-2 and UE-25 WT#6 has not been proven. As noted above, several explanations for the 
LHG have been proposed, some of which include perched water. The potentiometric-surface 
map presented in this report updates water levels in the region of the Nye County wells, but is an 
alternative interpretation of the LHG region as presented in USGS (2001 [DIRS 154625]). An 
expert elicitation panel (CRWMS 1998 [DIRS 100353], Section 3.2.2) concluded that the 
existence of the LHG or perched conditions does not impact the performance of Yucca 
Mountain. The panel suggested that to understand the cause, a borehole could be drilled and 
tested, which led to the drilling of Borehole USW WT-24. Drilling, testing, and monitoring of 
Borehole USW WT-24, (Graves 2001 [DIRS 155942]) indicated the existence of perched 
conditions and a regional water-table elevation of about 840 m. After the water-bearing fracture 
was penetrated, the water level remained constant after the borehole was deepened by more than 
100 m, indicating the probability that the water level represents the regional potentiometric 
surface rather than another perched zone. However, because Borehole USW WT-24 is 
completed within the relatively low permeability Calico Hills Formation, as are Boreholes USW 
G-2 and UW-25 WT#6, it cannot be ruled out that the 840-m water level in Borehole USW 
WT-24 could represent a second perched zone. Because the water encountered was from a 
fracture below a long interval of dry rock, it may be more reasonable to conclude that the 
water level represents a regional potentiometric surface (connected by a network of 
water-bearing fractures within tight, dry rocks) rather than a second perched zone of saturated 
rocks. The perched and non-perched alternative interpretations were evaluated in the SZ 
site-scale flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.7) and found to yield similar flow 
fields. 
The water level in Well NC-EWDP-7S is assumed to be perched in this report (see Section 5.1 
and Table A-8). Water-level data in Well NE-EWDP-7SC located near Well NC-EWDP-7S 
provides an alternative interpretation of conditions at Well NC-EWDP-7S. The new water-level 
data from Nye County (DTN: MO0405NYE05819.215 [DIRS 170539]) for 2002 and 2003 
indicates a downward hydraulic gradient with a water-level difference of about 8.5 m between 
zones 1 and 3, and a difference of nearly 34 m between zones 1 and 4. Large downward 
gradients are observed between the deep and shallow monitored intervals at Borehole 
NC-EWDP-1DX (head difference of 38 m  see Table 6-4). The depth to water at both locations 
is anomalously shallow (7.7 m at 7SC and 16.9 m at 1DX) and may represent locally perched 
conditions or the presence of a low permeability confining unit close to the surface that 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-22 October 2004 
effectively impedes the downward migration of water to the more contiguous tuff and alluvium 
aquifers at greater depths. 
The water level in the upper zone of Well NC-EWDP-7SC and in Well NC-EWDP-7S are about 
830 m, well above the measured water levels surrounding wells (see Figure 6-1). If these wells 
are not assumed perched, the impact to the potentiometric-surface map is a bulls eye contour at 
this location. This bulls eye could slightly modify the 775-m and 750-m contours nearby, but 
would not change the contours along the flow path from the repository to Fortymile Wash. 
6.5 UNCERTAINTY IN THE POTENTIOMETRIC-SURFACE ELEVATION MAP 
If any radionuclides escape from the Yucca Mountain repository and migrate to the SZ, they are 
likely to travel near the water table (within the upper several hundred meters of the SZ). There 
are several reasons this will occur: (1) there is a predominant upward hydraulic gradient along 
most of the predicted transport path, and (2) the most transmissive volcanic subunits of the 
Crater Flat formation (the Prow Pass and Bull Frog subunits) are located several hundred meters 
below the water table. The pathways near the water table were presented in the groundwater 
flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Figure 6-43) and indicate that flow paths will penetrate 
no more than about 300 m below the water table. An alternative model of the flow system yields 
flow paths that may be as deep as 600 m below the water table. The potentiometric-surface map 
presented on Figure 6-1 is intended to represent the potentiometric surface at or near the water 
table and is expected to be most representative of horizontal hydraulic gradients in the shallow 
portion of the SZ. The uncertainty in the potentiometric-surface map is directly related to the 
accuracy of the water-level measurements, other factors that influence water levels such as 
barometric fluctuations, and the underlying conceptual model that guides the contouring process. 
Accuracy refers to the measurement of the water level and land surface elevation, both of which 
are needed to determine the water-level elevation. Other factors that may increase uncertainty 
refer to how well the measured water level represents the water levels near the top of the SZ. 
Several factors need to be considered: (1) water density variations, barometric and earth tide 
effects, and borehole deviation; (2) the vertical location of the open interval with respect to the 
shallow SZ; (3) temporal trends that would influence the final averaged water level; and (4) the 
extrapolation of contours lines to regions without measurements 
Measurement Accuracy 
The accuracy of the land surface elevation and the depth to water-level measurement are 
presented in Appendix A, Tables A-7 and A-8, respectively. The accuracy of the land surface 
(Table A-7) of the Nye County wells is listed as unknown. For the remainder of the wells, the 
accuracy of the land surface elevation for wells installed as part of the YMP is about 0.1 m, 
although seven of the wells are given an unknown accuracy. For many of the private wells in the 
Amargosa Farms area, the accuracy of the land surface varies from 0.1 m to as large as 3.0 m. 
The accuracy of the depth to water-level measurements is presented in Table A-8. Savard (2001 
[DIRS 165604], pp. 6 to 14) presents a discussion of the care that must be taken to minimize the 
measurement errors. The range in accuracy is from 0.01 ft (0.003 m) to the nearest foot (0.3 m). 
Excluding the Nye County wells, 13 measurement locations have a listed accuracy as unknown. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-23 October 2004 
Combining the uncertainty in the depth to water-level measurement and the land surface 
elevation, the accuracy of the water-level elevation ranges from 0.13 m to as large as 3.33 m. 
The small measurement error cases generally apply to the wells drilled specifically for the YMP. 
The largest measurement errors occur in the Amargosa Farms area. The impact of this 
measurement error is assessed using the YMP wells in the vicinity of the repository where the 
combined error is generally about 0.13 m. Even this small amount of measurement uncertainty 
could cause contour locations on Figure 6-1 to change. For example, one estimate of the 
hydraulic gradient in the vicinity of the repository is 0.00027 (based on water levels and 
coordinates of Wells USW G-4 and UE-25 WT #13 given in Table A-1 of Appendix A). The 
horizontal hydraulic gradient is the water-level difference measured in two different wells 
divided by the horizontal distance between the two wells. Consider an example where the 
water-level measurement error of 0.13 m is the same in both wells (thus maintaining the 
gradient). The corresponding change in horizontal location of a particular potentiometric 
contour will be 480 m, which is obtained by dividing the water-level change by the gradient 
(0.13 m/0.00027). If the error for each well is opposite in direction, the hydraulic gradient will 
change. In the example above, a 0.13 m error could increase the hydraulic gradient by 
15 percent or decrease it by 21 percent. In this example, the larger uncertainty of 3.33 m was not 
used because it is not representative of the vast majority of well locations in the low gradient 
region. 
The potential error in the contour location, due to measurement error, is inversely proportional to 
the hydraulic gradient. In a region of flat hydraulic gradient, the potential error is larger than in a 
region of steep hydraulic gradient. The impact of measurement error on the position of the 
potentiometric contour is also influenced by the number of nearby data points. A large change in 
the contour position (for example a nearly 1 km shift) is unlikely in a region where numerous 
water-level measurements are available to constrain the contour location because it is very 
unlikely that the measurement error in all the wells would be the same. However, in a portion of 
the study area where a contour location is based on one or two points, then the contour position 
is more uncertain. Fortunately, as can be seen on Figure 6-1, the region of shallow hydraulic 
gradient is also an area of numerous data points. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that 
measurement error will have a minor impact on the potentiometric contours on Figure 6-1. 
Other Factors 
The accuracy of measurement is only one of a number of factors that need to be considered. 
Even if measurements have zero error, the water levels may be influenced by various external 
factors such as barometric fluctuations and earth tides, water density variability, and borehole 
deviation. Fenelon (2000 [DIRS 160881], pp. 12 to 18) presents a careful discussion of these 
influences in the context of water levels measured on Pahute Mesa on the Nevada Test Site. In 
addition to these factors, the open interval and temporal trends in water levels also need to be 
considered. 
Barometric Fluctuations and Earth Tides 
Earth tides are diurnal fluctuations in water levels caused by the gravitation pull of the sun and 
moon. Barometric fluctuations are caused by successive weather systems that bring a variety of 
high and low pressure atmospheric conditions to an area. Both of these influences are most 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-24 October 2004 
prominent in confined aquifers and are generally minimal (but not necessarily zero) in 
unconfined or water table wells. Fenelon (2000 [DIRS 160881], p. 14) presents evidence that the 
earth tide effect was about one order of magnitude smaller than the barometric effect in Well 
PM-2 on Pahute Mesa. In addition, there is no evidence that short-term variations in barometric 
pressure and earth tides cause long-term (multiyear) fluctuations in water level. For long-term 
records such as the data in this report that extend over a 10-year period, the averaging process is 
expected to remove the effect of barometric and earth tide fluctuations. However, for wells 
screened over a large thickness of the aquifer with a single data point, such as USW G-1 in 
Table A-2, the uncertainty in the measured value caused by barometric fluctuation increases. If 
the primary contributing interval in a well such as Well USW G-1 is a confined interval, then 
barometric fluctuations may increase uncertainty by an amount equal to the barometric efficiency 
of the well divided by the specific weight of water times the difference in barometric pressure at 
the time of measurement and the long-term average barometric pressure. The barometric 
efficiency of Well USW G-1 is unknown, but according to Freeze and Cherry (1979 
[DIRS 101173], p. 234), the barometric efficiency typically falls in the range of 0.20 to 0.75. If 
the barometric pressure on the day of measurement is 0.5 inches of mercury different from the 
long-term average barometric pressure, the error in water level could be as large as 0.13 m if the 
barometric efficiency is 0.75. The deviation of barometric pressure of 0.5 inches of mercury 
falls within the range of barometric fluctuations as reported by the National Oceanic & 
Atmospheric Administration for the Las Vegas Valley from 1937 to 2001 
(http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Lasvegas.climate/page34.html). The uncertainty for short duration 
water-level records due to barometric fluctuations is unlikely to be larger than 0.13 m, which is 
similar in magnitude to the measurement error. As noted above, when other wells are nearby, 
the impact of uncertainty at one well location is diminished. 
Water Density (Water Temperature) 
Hydraulic head, as applied in most groundwater investigations, is the sum of an elevation head 
and a pressure head. The elevation head is usually defined as the elevation at the bottom of the 
open interval, referenced to mean sea level. The pressure head at the bottom of the open interval 
is the pressure divided by the specific gravity of water in the water column above. The specific 
gravity is defined as water density times the acceleration of gravity and it is typical to assume the 
acceleration of gravity is a constant. Fenelon (2000 [DIRS 160881], p. 11) notes that a number 
of factors may influence the density of water in the well including temperature, dissolved and 
suspended solids, nonaqueous phase liquids, compressibility of the water column, and gravity. 
Generally, temperature is the most important factor. 
The comparison of hydraulic head in different boreholes may require consideration of 
differences in temperature of the water column. Consider an example with two wells, one 
screened over the first 50 m of an aquifer with a temperature of 30C and a second screened over 
500 m with temperature variation from 30C at the water table to 40C at the bottom. To 
compare the measured water levels, the water level in the deeper well needs to be corrected. 
Assuming the temperature distribution is linear with depth, the mean temperature in the deeper 
well is 35C. If the bottom of the deep well is the location of highest permeability, the full 
length of the water column is used for the correction. Fenelon (2000 [DIRS 160881], p. 12) 
provides an equation for correcting the water level by correcting the length of the water column 
above the bottom of the open interval. The corrected water column length is the product of the 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-25 October 2004 
measured water column length times the ratio of the density at the measured temperature to the 
new or reference temperature. The water density at the reference temperature of 30C is 
0.99567 gm/mL and at the mean measured temperature of 35C is 0.99406 gm/mL (Weast 1985 
[DIRS 111561], p. F-10). Assuming the measured column length of 500 m, the correction from 
a mean temperature of 35C to a reference temperature of 30C yields a new water column 
length of 499.19 m. In this example, the deeper well water level would be lowered by about 
0.8 m to be comparable to the shallow well. The magnitude of the correction is directly 
proportional to the length of the water column and the magnitude of the temperature differences. 
Longer columns and larger temperature differences result in larger corrections. 
With respect to the potentiometric-surface map, the density changes as a result of temperature 
would be expected to be most important for wells with long open intervals such as USW G-1, 
USW G-2, and UE-25 J-13. A proper correction for density variation due to temperature 
requires a known temperature distribution and a clear idea of the interval, or intervals, that are 
most permeable and control the water level in the column. The density corrections may be 
complicated and can be difficult to quantify. This analysis points out the possible magnitude of 
error in a reported water level caused by temperature variations. This error may be important 
when comparing water levels measured in wells screened over different depth intervals. 
Five wells (USW G-1, USW G-3, USW H-4 upper, UE-25 J-13 and UE-25 b#1 upper) have long 
open intervals that may contribute to larger errors in water level. 
From the perspective of the vertical hydraulic head differences, the water levels from the deeper 
completion intervals are likely to exhibit larger uncertainties if the water levels are obtained as 
the depth to water in tubes open to the atmosphere and the completion interval. As noted in 
Table A-7 in Appendix A, most measurements in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain are made this 
way. If transducers are used to obtain pressure readings in sealed intervals, and pressure is 
measured directly, then the density correction is not needed. However, if the pressure is 
converted to hydraulic head, then temperature-dependent water density needs to be taken into 
account. This is the case for seven of the Nye County EWDP wells (see Table A-7). 
Borehole Deviation 
Boreholes are rarely perfectly vertical. If the borehole is not vertical, the measured depth to 
water is larger than the true vertical depth to water. This will result in a calculated water-level 
elevation that is too low. Fenelon (2000 [DIRS 160881], p. 10) found that typical borehole 
deviation corrections for wells on Pahute Mesa on the Nevada Test Site can range from 0 to 
0.5 ft (0.15 m). Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604], pp. 11 to 12) calculated a larger range of 0.012 to 
0.482 m for wells and boreholes associated with the YMP. Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604], p. 12) 
notes that borehole deviation corrections are performed on all wells for which gyroscopic 
surveys are available. Only Boreholes UE-25 J-11, UE-25 J-12, UE-25 J-13, UE-29 a #1, and 
UE-29 UZN #91 have no correction for borehole deviation. Borehole deviation does not appear 
to be a significant source of error in the potentiometric-surface map on Figure 6-1. 
Averaging Process 
The water-level elevation used in the potentiometric-surface analysis is the average of 
water-levels collected over a long period of time. The averaging process will generally average 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-26 October 2004 
out the periodic processes such as barometric fluctuation and earth tides. However, care must be 
taken when averaging water-level records that may have a temporal trend. One way to examine 
temporal trends is to examine the standard deviation of the water-level measurements. Graves 
et al. (1997 [DIRS 101046], Table 2) present the mean and standard deviation of water-level 
measurements from 36 open intervals in 28 wells. With the exception of the lower interval of 
Well USW H-3, most of the wells show a relatively small standard deviation. The 95-percentile 
confidence interval for the mean water level is estimated using the relationship 1.96 times the 
standard deviation divided by the square root of the number of data points. The largest 
95 percent confidence interval about the mean water level was 0.1 m. The majority of wells had 
a 95 percent confidence interval of less than 0.03 m. It appears that temporal trends in water 
levels do not contribute significant uncertainty to the potentiometric-surface map, if enough data 
are available to calculate a long-term average. However, for a single data point, greater 
uncertainty exists because an average value cannot be calculated. Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604]) 
presents annual average water-level values through 1999. In only two cases (not associated with 
packer failure) have temporal trends been noted. These were the deep completions in Well USW 
H-1 (tubes 1 and 2). All the shallow completions used to construct Figure 6-1 show small 
temporal fluctuations. Therefore, uncertainties caused by temporal variations are quite small. 
Data from New Wells 
To this point, the discussion has focused on sources of uncertainty related to existing wells and 
boreholes. Another key factor is the uneven distribution of water-level measuring points. In 
areas of the map (Figure 6-1) where data are sparse, the potentially large uncertainty in the 
potentiometric-surface contours is indicated by dashed contour lines. The uncertainty caused by 
interpolation (and often extrapolation) cannot be quantified unless new water-level observation 
wells are drilled. Fortunately, several new wells near the Fortymile Wash allow for an 
assessment of uncertainty along a portion of the flow path from the repository to the accessible 
environment. 
On Figure 6-1, there is a large gap of nearly 10 km between observed water levels in Well UE-25 
J-12 and the Nye County wells along U.S. Highway 95 (See Figure 1-2 for the well locations). 
Two contour lines (720 m and 725 m) are interpolated into that region. Twelve new wells were 
installed at eight locations as part of the Phases III and IV drilling for Nye County. The new 
well locations, land surface elevation, depth to water, and data source are presented in Table 6-5. 
The new well locations are shown on Figure 1-2. The associated new water levels are shown on 
Figure 6-2 along with the water-level contours from Figure 6-1 and an example of how those 
contours might change if the EWDP Phases III and IV data were added. Figure 6-2 is provided 
for use in this report only. It is not intended to be used by any downstream analyses and no 
output DTN has been generated. With the exception of Boreholes NC-EWDP-19M1 and 
NC-EWDP-19M2, the new wells fill gaps in the existing spatial distribution of data. The data 
from the Phases III and IV wells (DTN: MO0405NYE05819.215 [DIRS 170539]) is 
unqualified, but can be used to assess the magnitude of this uncertainty, at least in the vicinity of 
Fortymile Wash. Assessing the contours in Fortymile Wash, based on these new data, suggests 
the 720-m and 725-m contours in Fortymile Wash would be shifted to the south about 1.5 km. 
This shift to the south will steepen the hydraulic gradient in the alluvium in the region of 
Fortymile Wash, just north of U.S. Highway 95 by about 30 percent (using the 725-m contour 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-27 October 2004 
and the Washburn Well to calculate the gradient), and reduce the gradient south of Well UE-25 
J-12 by about 50 percent (using Well J-12 and the 725-m contour). 
Table 6-5. Water Levels for the Time Period of January 2003 to August 2003 Used for Assessment of 
New Data 
Date of Water 
Level 
Measurement Site Name 
Easting 
(UTM) 
Northing 
(UTM) 
Land-Surface 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Mean Waterlevel 
Altitude 
(meters) Source 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-10P, 
shallow 553149 4064916 903.6 727.0 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-10P, 
deep 553149 4064916 903.6 726.9 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
6/10/2003 NC-EWDP-10S, 
probe 1 553140 4064899 903.3 727.0 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0203GSC02034.000 
6/10/2003 NC-EWDP-10S, 
probe 2 553140 4064899 903.3 727.0 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0203GSC02034.000 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-18P 549416 4067233 964.5 727.5 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0203GSC02034.000 
7/10/2003 NC-EWDP-19IM1, 
probe 1 549317 4058290 819.1 710.2 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
7/10/2003 NC-EWDP-19IM1, 
probe 2 549317 4058290 819.1 710.6 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
7/10/2003 NC-EWDP-19IM1, 
probe 3 549317 4058290 819.1 710.9 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
7/9/2003 NC-EWDP-19IM1, 
probe 4 549317 4058290 819.1 711.6 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
7/9/2003 NC-EWDP-19IM1, 
probe 5 549317 4058290 819.1 712.4 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-19M2 549337 4058291 819.3 711.7 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-22PA, 
shallow 552020 4062038 868.6 724.9 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-22PA, 
deep 552020 4062038 868.6 724.8 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-22PB, 
shallow 552038 4062037 868.5 724.8 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-22PB, 
deep 552038 4062037 868.5 724.8 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
6/17/2003 NC-EWDP-22S, 
probe 1 552019 4062020 868.4 724.9 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0203GSC02034.000 
6/17/2003 NC-EWDP-22S, 
probe 2 552019 4062020 868.4 724.9 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0203GSC02034.000 
6/17/2003 NC-EWDP-22S, 
probe 3 552019 4062020 868.4 724.9 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0203GSC02034.000 
6/17/2003 NC-EWDP-22S, 
probe 4 552019 4062020 868.4 724.9 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0203GSC02034.000 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-28 October 2004 
Table 6-5. Water Levels for the Time Period of January 2003 to August 2003 Used for Assessment of 
New Data (Continued) 
Date of Water 
Level 
Measurement Site Name 
Easting 
(UTM) 
Northing 
(UTM) 
Land-Surface 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Mean Waterlevel 
Altitude 
(meters) Source 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-23P, 
shallow 553924 4059875 853.5 724.3 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
5/15/2003 NC-EWDP-23P, 
deep 553924 4059875 853.5 724.3 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0206GSC02074.000 
5/14/2003 NC-EWDP-16P 545665 4064263 880.6 a 729.4 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0307GSC03094.000 
5/14/2003 NC-EWDP-27P 544935 4065275 906.4 a 728.6 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0307GSC03094.000 
5/14/2003 NC-EWDP-28P 545746 4062393 843.5 a 729.3 
MO0405NYE05819.215 
MO0307GSC03094.000 
a Slab Elevation (not ground surface elevation). 
To the west, the three new wells (NC-EWDP-16P, 27P, and 28P) have lower water levels than 
were estimated during the creation of Figure 6-1. To account for the new data, part of the 730 m 
contour line would be moved to the west, almost as far as the Solitario Canyon fault. The new 
730-m contour line is more complex. In the south along U.S. Highway 95, a small region of 
higher water level extends from southern crater flat along U.S. Highway 95 toward Fortymile 
Wash. If the water level in Well NC-EWDP-7S is not considered perched, then a higher 
water-table mound could be drawn centered on Well NC-EWDP-7S and extending to the east. 
The assumption of perched water at Well NC-EWDP-7S does not alter the location of the revised 
730-m contour on Figure 6-2. North of the three new wells, the revised contour creates a more 
southerly hydraulic gradient near the southern end of Yucca Mountain. Finally, for the most 
part, the distance between the 730- and 725-m lines has increased for the area south and 
southeast of Yucca Mountain. This increased distance leads to a decrease in the hydraulic 
gradient in this region. 
This analysis suggests that the hydraulic gradient in the volcanic units beneath southern 
Fortymile Wash may be 50 percent less than initially estimated. In the alluvium near the 
accessible environment, the hydraulic gradient may be 30 percent larger than initially estimated 
from the interpolated contours on Figure 6-1. If hydraulic conductivity is unchanged, then the 
changes in the hydraulic gradient translate directly to changes in groundwater-specific discharge. 
Specific discharge can be calculated as the product of hydraulic conductivity and hydraulic 
gradient (Freeze and Cherry 1979 [DIRS 101173], p. 16). A 50 percent decrease in hydraulic 
gradient that reflects a hydraulic conductivity increase of 50 percent will produce no change in 
the specific discharge. With specific discharge 50 percent smaller along a large portion of the 
flow path along Fortymile Wash, the radionuclide transport times would be expected to be twice 
as long through that same region. Conversely, in the alluvium near U.S. Highway 95, the 
specific discharge could be 30 percent larger leading to a decrease in transport time in that 
region. On the other hand, the changes in hydraulic gradient resulting from the new well data 
may simply reflect heterogeneity in the hydraulic conductivity. Perhaps the hydraulic 
conductivity in the mid reaches of Fortymile Wash is 50 percent larger and the conductivity of 
the alluvium in the area of U.S. Highway 95 is 30 percent smaller than used in the calibrated 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-29 October 2004 
flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]). In that case, the updated hydraulic gradients would 
simply reflect the differences in hydraulic conductivity between the model and reality, but the 
specific discharge is unchanged. 
The uncertainty in the specific discharge, as indicated by the revised water-level contours, is 
much less than the range of uncertainty currently used in the SZ flow and transport model 
abstraction (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170042]). The uncertainty in specific discharge is implemented 
by a multiplication factor in the abstraction model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170042], Figure 6-15) 
where the base case specific discharge is assigned a multiplication factor of 1.0. The specific 
discharge multiplication factor is characterized by a cumulative probability density function with 
three probability regions. There is: 1) a 10 percent probability the specific discharge lies 
between 1/30 and 1/3 of the calibrated specific discharge from the SZ site-scale flow model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]); 2) an 80 percent chance it lies between 1/3 and 3 times the 
calibrated value; and 3) a 10 percent chance it lies between 3 and 10 times the calibrated value. 
The uncertainty in the potentiometric surface due to data gaps was shown to be in the range of 
30 percent to 50 percent in the Fortymile Wash region near U.S. Highway 95. This magnitude of 
uncertain is much less than the total range of uncertainty currently included in the groundwater 
flow and transport abstraction model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170042]). In addition, the uncertainty in 
the specific discharge from the change in contours lies within the range of 1/3 to 3 times the 
calibrated value where 80 percent of the realizations are expected to occur. 
The impact to the groundwater flow paths from the EWDP Phase III and IV well data is expected 
to be small. The modified contour lines would be consistent with more southerly flow paths, 
from the southern portions of the Yucca Mountain repository. In the vicinity of Fortymile Wash, 
the convergence of the flow lines would not change as a result of the relatively small shift in the 
contours. In all cases, the hydraulic gradient south and southeast of Yucca Mountain is smaller 
than on Figure 6-1. 
Open Interval 
To be representative of the shallow hydraulic head distribution, the open interval of the wells 
should be representative of the interval near the top of the aquifer. Table A-5 in Appendix A 
includes a listing of the top and bottom of the open interval for each well. Several wells have 
multiple completions that have been used to assess vertical gradients. Additionally, most wells 
are open at or near the water table. The length of the open interval varies greatly from well to 
well. Some wells are open to relatively narrow intervals such as UE-25 WT #14 where the 
length of the open interval is 52 m. Other wells are open over much longer intervals, such as 
USW G-3, with an open interval of 741 m. The longer screened wells (USW G-1, USW G-3, 
UE-25 J-13, USW H-4, USW G-4, USW H-3, USW H-6, UE 25 a#1, UE 25 b#1, UE 25 c#1, 
UE 25 c#2, and UE 25 c#3) are scattered throughout, or near, the low hydraulic gradient region 
and provide the opportunity to measure composite water levels and perhaps the ability to 
measure vertical flow caused by vertical hydraulic gradients. However, wells with longer open 
intervals add additional uncertainty to the potentiometric-surface map. 
As noted above, uncertainty in the water level is increased because of water temperature effects. 
Additionally, if there is vertical variation of hydraulic head with depth, the measured depth to 
water in the long-open interval wells may not represent the water table, but rather the hydraulic 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-30 October 2004 
head at some other depth in the aquifer. The composite water level in a long-screened well is 
representative of the most permeable zones in the well. If the most permeable zone is near the 
water table, then the water level in the long open interval well will likely be representative of the 
water table. However, if the most permeable zone is deeper in the well, then the water level in 
the well will be representative of the deep permeable zone. Without knowledge of the 
permeability distribution with depth, and the hydraulic head distribution with depth, it is difficult 
to quantify this uncertainty. Of the wells noted above, only USW G-1 and USW H-4 are located 
in close proximity to other wells. This proximity provides information to assess the potential 
errors. 
Consider Well USW G-1, with Wells USW UZ-14 and USW H-1 nearby. Well USW G-1 is 
open from 754.2 m to -503 m with a water level of 754.2 m. Well USW UZ-14 lies to the 
northwest of Well USW G-1, and is open near the water table and has a high water level of 
779.0 m. To the east of Well USW G-1, Well USW H-1 is completed in four intervals, the 
shallow interval of 730 m to 630 m has a water level of 730.8 m while the deepest interval 
of -480 m to -511 m has a water level of 785.5 m. The measured water level in Well USW G-1 
appears to be in a transition zone about midway between Well USW UZ-14 and the shallow 
interval of Well USW H-1. However, the 754.2-m value measured in Well USW G-1 is also 
about midway between the measured water levels in the deep and shallow completions of Well 
USW H-1. The long open interval of Well USW G-1 may be a composite water level in a region 
where water level varies with depth and may not representative of the water table. It is possible 
that the water level measured in Well USW G-1 may misrepresent the water table elevation by as 
much as 20 m or 25 m. Even if that is the case, the position of Well USW G-1 with respect to 
the nearby wells suggests that the influence on the potentiometric-surface contours would be 
very small because the water levels in Wells USW UZ-14 and USW H-1 are reliable. If the true 
water table elevation at location Well USW G-1 is actually closer to 730 m rather than the 
measured composite level of 754.2 m, the 750 m contour would shift to the west or northwest by 
perhaps a few hundred meters. This magnitude change is small considering the scale of the map 
on Figure 6-1. 
The other example is Well USW H-4 with nearby Wells USW SD-12, USW WT-2, and 
USW SD-7. Of the two completions in Well USW H-4, the shallow is open from 730.4 m to 
60.5 m with a water level of 730.4 m and the deep completion is open from 60.5 m to 29.5m with 
a water level of 730.5. The other wells are all completed near the water table and have measured 
water levels that range from 727.6 m to 730.6 m. Recall that Wells USW SD-12 and Well 
USW SD-7 have few measurements and are considered less reliable (see Tables A-2 and A-3 of 
Appendix A). However, the similarity of the water levels in all these wells suggests that the 
water level measured in Well USW H-4 is probably not influenced by the long open interval 
because there does not appear to be much of a difference in water level with depth in any of the 
nearby wells. 
The impact of different open intervals appears to be relatively small for several reasons. In the 
case of Well USW G-1, an error of as large as 20 m would impact the potentiometric-surface 
contour by a small amount because of control provided by other nearby wells. At Well 
USW H-4, there does not appear to be a significant difference in hydraulic head with depth, thus 
there would be little impact of the longer open interval from permeability or water-level 
fluctuations with depth. For the other wells, the fact that measured water levels are consistent 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-31 October 2004 
with other water levels in the area suggests that if errors in the water levels are due to the long 
open interval, the errors must be small (perhaps 1 m or less), or large discontinuities would be 
observed. 
Conceptual Model Uncertainty 
The final component to uncertainty in the potentiometric-surface map is the conceptual model. 
The conceptual model defines the intent of the map and thus controls how data will be 
interpreted and is tied to the assumptions presented in Section 5. The potentiometric map is 
intended to represent: 
 The average water-level conditions that existed in the early 1990s 
 The water levels in the shallow portion of the aquifer and not depth-averaged conditions 
 The regional potentiometric surface and not perched water 
 The role of faults  primarily as barriers to flow. 
Each of these will be discussed in turn. The selection of a time period eliminates the need to 
approximate predevelopment water levels. The assumption is made that current conditions will 
continue into the future, thus pumping effects in the southern portion of the model area are 
included in the water levels that are lower than predevelopment levels. Water levels collected 
from periods of time other than the early 1990s may introduce uncertainty into the 
potentiometric-surface map. For example, the water-level data obtained from the Nye County 
wells through December 2000 may introduce errors if water levels in the region are changing. 
Fenelon and Moreo (2002 [DIRS 164662]) examine water-level trends in the Yucca Mountain 
region from 1960 to 2000. For two wells located near the community of Amargosa Valley (near 
the intersection of U.S. Highway 95 and Nevada State Highway 373), a downward trend in water 
level of 1 foot (0.3 m) from 1992 to 2000 was observed in the Airport Well (Fenelon and Moreo 
2000 [DIRS 164662], Table 6 site AD-2). A second well, the NDOT well (Fenelon and Moreo 
2002 [DIRS 164662], Table 6, site AD-2a) does not exhibit a trend in water levels, but the 
variability in measured levels in that well spans a range of about 2 feet (0.61 m). Trends in other 
wells, such as UE-25 J-12 and UE-25 J-13 produce water-level changes of less than 0.5 ft 
(0.15 m) over the time frame of 1992 to 2000. It would appear that using a reference time of the 
early 1990s does not introduce significant uncertainty into the potentiometric map. 
The potentiometric-surface map is intended to represent the shallow portion of the flow system, 
but not perched water. From the data in Table 6-4, it is clear that vertical differences in 
hydraulic head exist in the Yucca Mountain vicinity. Excluding the Nye County wells for the 
moment, the hydraulic head variation with depth ranges from 0.1 m in Well USW H-4 to as 
much as 54.7 m in Well USW H-1. Two wells with long open intervals, USW G-1 and 
USW G-3 are both located in proximity to other wells with observed vertical head differences. 
The data from Wells USW G-1 and USW G-3 should be viewed skeptically because they may 
not be representative of the conditions in the shallow portion of the flow system. As noted in the 
previous sections, the error at Well USW G-1 could be as large as 20 m, but the impact of errors 
at Well USW G-1 on the potentiometric contours are expected to be very small because of the 
constraints provided by nearby wells. The similarity of water levels at Well USW G-3 and other 
nearby wells is an indication that the errors at Well USW G-3 are likely not as large as at Well 
USW G-1. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-32 October 2004 
DTN: MO0409SEPPSMPC.000 [OUTPUT]. 
Sources: USGS (2004 [DIRS168473]), DTNs: GS010608312332.001, MO0203GSC02034.000 [DIRS 168375], 
MO0206GSC02074.000 [DIRS 168378], MO0307GSC03094.000 [DIRS 170556]. 
Figure 6-2. Revised Potentiometric-Surface Map Showing Possible Changes After Including EWDP 
Phases III and IV Wells 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-33 October 2004 
Data from the Nye County wells can be grouped into two distinct regions. The data from wells 
in Fortymile Wash near U.S. Highway 95 indicate upward hydraulic gradients while the wells 
west of Fortymile Wash generally show a downward hydraulic gradient. The potentiometric 
surface in the vicinity of U.S. Highway 95 is represented by data from open intervals in the 
shallow portions of the aquifer. 
Several wells in the region, including Wells USW G-2 and UE-25 WT #6, are assumed to 
represent perched water conditions and are excluded from the potentiometric surface contouring. 
The assumption of perched water has a significant impact on the potentiometric surface. 
Consider Well UE-25 WT #6, where the measured water level is about 160 m above the 
expected regional potentiometric surface depicted on Figure 6-1. The potentiometric surface 
would be very different north of the repository location if the perched water levels were treated 
as part of the regional flow system. 
As noted in Section 5.2, faults may impact the flow of groundwater and hence also impact the 
contouring of the potentiometric surface on Figure 6-1. Faults may have no impact to flow or act 
as barriers to flow because of fault gouge or the juxtaposition of low permeability rocks against 
high permeability rocks. Faults also create zones of fracturing that may act as conduits for 
groundwater flow. As noted in Section 5.2, Assumption 2, some faults appear to exhibit both 
characteristics; acting as a barrier to flow across the fault, but as a conduit to flow along the fault. 
No consistent assumption regarding the role of faults was applied to the contour mapping. There 
are several reasons for this: (1) The hydraulic properties of individual faults are generally not 
known; (2) the orientation of the fault with respect to the regional flow system may heighten or 
lessen the impact; and (3) the distribution of data over the area limits the areas where the impact 
of faults would be apparent. 
The hydraulic properties of individual faults are not measured. If they were, it is likely that the 
hydraulic conductivity would be anisotropic, with different hydraulic conductivity values 
perpendicular and parallel to the fault. Additionally, the properties would likely be 
heterogeneous, thus, even if measurements were available for selected locations along some 
faults, extrapolation of those properties to the entire length of the fault or to other faults would be 
difficult. 
The orientation of a fault, regardless of its properties, may cause the fault to have no impact to 
the potentiometric surface. Consider a fault with hydraulic properties of a barrier, oriented such 
that the strike of the fault is parallel to the regional direction of flow. Water would flow parallel 
to the fault and no impact to the potentiometric surface would be observed. Similarly, a 
permeable fault oriented perpendicular to flow would also have a minimal impact on the 
potentiometric surface. Thus, faults of most concern would be barriers oriented perpendicular to 
flow and permeable faults oriented parallel to flow. Faults acting as barriers have been 
represented as steep water-level gradient zones along Solitario Canyon and U.S. Highway 95, 
south of Crater Flat, to account for the higher water levels in Crater Flat, yet reproduce the 
relatively flat potentiometric surface east of Solitario Canyon and in the Amargosa Desert. Other 
faults, especially those east of the Yucca Mountain crest, are not depicted as influencing the 
potentiometric-surface contours. This is not to suggest that these faults have no impact, rather it 
indicates the impact is not readily apparent given the magnitude of water levels and the density 
of data points. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-34 October 2004 
Another factor that will add uncertainty to the potentiometric-surface contours is the uncertainty 
in the assignment and juxtaposition of the underlying hydrogeologic units, as well as positioning 
and depth of faults. The extrapolation of water levels to areas without measurements relies on 
professional judgment, which includes assessing the material properties of the hydrogeologic 
units as they affect flow. Identification of the hydrogeologic rock types, fault extent, and depths 
is based on the hydrogeologic framework model (HFM), which is subject to interpretation and 
interpolation where data are not available. It is reasonable to expect the potentiometric-surface 
contours to have greater uncertainty in regions where the underlying HFM is also uncertain. One 
area of HFM uncertainty is the high-gradient region to the north, because there is not enough 
data to fully constrain the HFM in that region. 
These alternative conceptual models of the hydrogeologic system have led to the creation of 
alternative potentiometric-surface maps. To assess the importance of these alternatives, the SZ 
site-scale flow model (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Section 6.7) simulated the groundwater flow 
fields with different configurations of the potentiometric surface. Thus, the uncertainty due to 
different conceptual models has been incorporated in the SZ site-scale flow model. 
Summary of Potential Errors 
Table 6-6 presents a summary of the potential errors or corrections to water levels that may 
impact the water levels presented on Figure 6-1. The minimum error is on the order of 0.1 m. 
This represents a vertical well with careful measurements, surveyed wellhead elevation, 
short-screened interval near the water table, and a long record with no temporal trend. The other 
extreme is a deviated, long open interval well, with few water-level measurements, a temperature 
variation with depth, and a temporal trend. In this case, the error in water level could be as large 
as 1.61 m, or more, depending on the magnitude of the temperature correction and how well the 
composite water level represents the shallow portion of the aquifer. 
Table 6-6. Summary of Potential Uncertainties Impacting the Potentiometric-Surface Map 
Type of Error Minimum (meters) Maximum (meters) 
Measurement Error 0.1 0.33 
Barometric and Earth Tides 0 0.13 
Water Temperature 0 0.8 or more 
Borehole Deviation 0 0.15 
Temporal Trends 0.01 0.1 
Total 0.11 1.51 or more 
Implications of Uncertainty for the Potentiometric-surface Map 
A number of uncertainties have been identified that might impact the potentiometric-surface map 
presented on Figure 6-1. Items noted in Table 6-6 (measurement error, barometric and earth tide 
effects, water density, borehole deviation, and temporal trends) may introduce errors in water 
level from 0.1 m to more than 1 m. Errors of this magnitude will have a negligible effect in areas 
west of Solitario Canyon, north of the Yucca Mountain site, Jackass Flats, and south of 
U.S. Highway 95. These potential errors, however, would be much more important in the 
low-gradient area east of the Yucca Mountain crest and into Fortymile Wash. Water-level 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-35 October 2004 
contours could shift laterally up to several kilometers if the water levels were adjusted as much 
as 1 m up or down in several key wells. Even so, the general trend of higher water levels west of 
Solitario Canyon and lower water levels in Fortymile Wash would remain. Thus, the observation 
of flow from the repository to Fortymile Wash remains. Another key point is that in the low 
gradient area of the repository, water-level differences from well to well are typically only a few 
tenths of a meter. Given the uncertainties, it is not defensible to draw detailed resolution 
contours in the low gradient region in an attempt to match each of the individual water levels. 
Doing so would lead to local scale (on the order of 1 or 2 km) variations in the direction of the 
hydraulic gradient that may have no basis in reality. 
Other factors that may contribute more uncertainty include the long interval completions that 
may be measuring water levels at an unknown depth in the well. In a long completion, the 
composite water level represents the most permeable zone or zones in the well. The permeable 
zones may not necessarily occur at the shallow depths represented by the contours on Figure 6-1. 
Locations with significant hydraulic head differences with depth occur at several locations in the 
low gradient region. This suggests that measured hydraulic head in long open interval wells 
should be used with caution. 
Discussion of Alternative Potentiometric-Surface Maps 
The potentiometric-surface map presented by Czarnecki et al. (1997 [DIRS 141643], Figure 5) is 
identical in areal extent to the potentiometric-surface map developed for this revision 
(Figure 6-1). Examination of that potentiometric-surface map illustrates an alternative 
interpretation constructed from similar water-level data. Differences in the two maps occur at 
the boundaries of the maps, where there are little or no data; and where the potentiometric 
surface is influenced by major faults. The major difference in the shape of the potentiometric 
contours occurs in the northern and northwestern area of the maps. Czarnecki et al. (1997 
[DIRS 141643]) suggest a closing of the contour lines to the north of the LHG, water-level 
altitudes as much as 150 m shallower, and an east-west trend of the contours in southern Crater 
Flat. Other major differences occur south of Yucca Mountain, because Nye County EWDP data 
were not available to Czarnecki et al. (1997 [DIRS 141643]). 
Larger-scale potentiometric-surface maps (Ervin et al. 1994 [DIRS 100633], Plate 1; Tucci and 
Burkhardt 1995 [DIRS 101060], Figure 4; Lehman and Brown 1996 [DIRS 149173], Figure 16) 
cover only a small portion of the site-scale model area in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain. The 
potentiometric-surface map by Ervin et al. (1994 [DIRS 100633], Plate 1) has water-level 
contour intervals of 0.25 m. That map does not attempt to contour the areas of the LHG or the 
moderate hydraulic gradient to the west of the Solitario Canyon fault, but the general shape of 
the potentiometric contours is similar to the map constructed for this revision (Figure 6-1). The 
potentiometric-surface map by Tucci and Burkhardt (1995 [DIRS 101060], Figure 4) has contour 
intervals that vary from 0.5 m to 20 m. Comparing the same potentiometric contours (800-m and 
730-m contours) on that map and the map constructed for this revision reveals a similarity in 
shape, although the gradient in the LHG area in the Tucci and Burkhardt (1995 [DIRS 101060]) 
map is larger that the gradient presented in this revision. Other similarities include the steep 
gradient along Solitario Canyon and trough in the potentiometric surface along Fortymile Wash. 
The map by Lehman and Brown (1996 [DIRS 149173], Figure 16) presents an alternate concept 
of groundwater flow at Yucca Mountain, in which faults and fracture zones act as very 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-36 October 2004 
permeable conduits for flow. Although such features play an important role in the groundwater 
flow system at Yucca Mountain, the map is based on corrections to water levels that may not be 
valid due to the large open intervals in some of the wells (Graves et al. 1997 [DIRS 101046], 
Appendix A). The map that Lehman and Brown present in their report (1996 [DIRS 149173], 
Figure 16) is also somewhat spatially distorted, so that it cannot be directly compared to other 
potentiometric maps constructed for Yucca Mountain. 
The regional potentiometric surface of the Death Valley region (DAgnese et al. 1997 
[DIRS 100131], Plate 1) is at a much smaller scale than the potentiometric-surface map in this 
revision. The contour interval used by DAgnese et al. (1997 [DIRS 100131], Plate 1) is 100 m, 
resulting in only a few contour lines intersecting the SZ site-scale flow model area. As with the 
larger-scale potentiometric-surface maps, the same water-level contours that occur in the work of 
DAgnese et al. (1997 [DIRS 100131], Plate 1) and the potentiometric-surface map in this 
revision can be compared. This comparison reveals that the potentiometric contours on both 
maps are similar, although, because DAgnese et al. (1997 [DIRS 100131]) assume that water 
levels in Wells USW G-2 and UE-25 WT #6 represent regional levels, the gradient in the LHG 
area is larger than the gradient presented in this revision. 
Two recent alternative potentiometric-surface maps have been created as part of the ongoing 
work at Yucca Mountain. An alternative potentiometric-surface map was published by USGS 
(2001 [DIRS 154625]) and is shown on Figure 6-3. This map was created with a different 
conceptual model: (1) several faults were explicitly loaded into the gridding software and offsets 
of water level across the faults was allowed even for the case of the hydraulic gradient parallel to 
the strike of the fault, and (2) perched water levels in the northern portion of the area were 
assumed to represent the water table. The data used by the USGS (2001 [DIRS 154625]) to 
create the map are similar to the data used in the current report, and in many cases, the two maps 
are similar (e.g., consider the 750 m contour line). In general, the water-level contours from the 
repository to the Amargosa Desert are quite similar because there are numerous measured water 
levels to control the contour locations. However, in Crater Flat, north of Yucca Mountain, and in 
Jackass Flats, the water-level contours of both maps are quite different in some cases because of 
the limited number of water-level measurement points in those areas. In both maps, the direction 
of groundwater flow from the repository will be to the southeast toward Fortymile Canyon and 
then south to the Amargosa Valley. The impact of differences to water level contours in the 
outer areas on the groundwater flow paths from the repository is expected to be relatively small 
for several reasons. First, the flow paths in the repository area will be controlled by the local 
hydraulic gradient and hydraulic properties, both of which are constrained by site data. Second, 
the hydraulic properties in the outside areas are poorly constrained, thus there is significant 
latitude in the calibration process to adjust hydraulic parameters to match observed water-level 
contours. Third, corroborating evidence such as the analysis of water chemistry data (BSC 2004 
[DIRS 170037], Appendix A) indicates that the groundwater flow lines calculated by BSC (2004 
[DIRS 170037], Figure 6-43) are consistent with flow paths determined from the water chemistry 
data (BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037], Figure A6-62). The corroboration of the two analyses does not 
indicate that the contours provided on Figure 6-1 are exactly correct, rather, it means that the 
uncertainties in the water levels are not large enough to invalidate any of the 
potentiometric-surface maps. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-37 October 2004 
A second alternative water-level map of the portion of the study area near the repository was 
created to serve as the lower boundary condition for the unsaturated zone (UZ) flow model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 169855]). This map is shown on Figure 6-4. Near the repository, the map in 
this report (Figure 6-1) and Figure 6-4 are quite similar, but to the southeast and northwest, the 
two maps differ. In the high-gradient region, the water levels on Figure 6-4 are about 60 m 
higher at Well UE-25 WT #6 than they are on Figure 6-1. The Solitario Canyon fault is believed 
to act as a barrier to flow and the water-level contours on Figure 6-1 are drawn to reflect that 
expectation. On Figure 6-4, the role of the fault is not explicitly reflected in the contours and the 
gradient through the Solitario Canyon on Figure 6-4 is more gradual than on Figure 6-1. As 
noted by BSC (2004 [DIRS 169855], Section 6.4.2 and p. 6-45) the two-step process used to 
create Figure 6-4 may have produced deviations in water table elevation that are typically less 
than 5 m in the area of the repository. The two-step process used the irregularly spaced observed 
water-level data and the contours from Figure 6-1 of this report to create a coarse grid of 
regularly spaced (182.88-m by 182.88-m) data. This data set was then interpolated again onto a 
60.96-m by 60.96-m grid. The second grid was then edited to ensure no values less than 730 m. 
Therefore, the potentiometric-surface map on Figure 6-4 is expected to show deviations from 
that shown on Figure 6-1. 
Another consideration when examining the difference between the maps on Figure 6-4 and 
Figure 6-1 is the intended use of the map. The bottom of the UZ (Figure 6-4) is used to create 
the bottom of the UZ model grid and the primary concern is the depth to the water table from the 
repository level to the base of the UZ model. 
From the perspective of the groundwater flow system, the 730-m contour on Figure 6-4 indicates 
flow directions that vary locally more than 180, from north, to east, to south. As was noted 
earlier, uncertainty in the water levels could be larger than 1 m in the flat gradient region, 
however, the water-level differences from well to well are typically only a few tenths of 1 meter. 
The detail in the 730-m water-level contour on Figure 6-4 is inappropriate because of the 
uncertainty in the measurements. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-38 October 2004 
Source: USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625]. 
Figure 6-3. 2000 Potentiometric Surface used in the SZ Site-Scale Flow Model 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-39 October 2004 
Source: BSC 2004 [DIRS 169855], Figure 6-2. 
Figure 6-4. Plan-View Schematic Showing Boreholes, Contoured Water Table (Elevations in Meters), UZ 
Model Boundary, Repository Outline, ESF, and ECRB Cross-Drift 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 6-40 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 7-1 October 2004 
7. CONCLUSIONS 
7.1 SUMMARY 
An analysis of water levels measured in wells in and around the Yucca Mountain repository site 
was conducted to assess current water-level conditions, provide a potentiometric-surface map 
representative of the water table, and to provide target water levels for SZ site-scale flow model 
calibration. The analysis included an assessment of water-level data representative of the period 
of time in the early 1990s. The analysis included assessment of temporal trends, measurement 
errors, representativeness and vertical hydraulic head relationships. The water-level data are 
summarized into a series of tables that include the average water level to be used as calibration 
targets in SZ site-scale flow modeling. In addition, a potentiometric-surface map representative 
of conditions near the upper part of the SZ was created and presented on Figure 6-1. 
7.1.1 Water-Level Data 
Water-level altitudes in the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area range over 400 m. The 
data distribution generally is very uneven, and the hydraulic character of the formations and the 
location of recharge areas, both of which influence the water level, are variable. As a result, 
water levels vary significantly over the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area. 
Most of the water levels used in this analysis are composite levels in which water is produced 
from one or more hydrogeologic units or fracture zones as indicated in Appendix A, Table A-5, 
of this revision. Because of long open (uncased) or perforated/screened intervals, many 
boreholes intercept multiple permeable zones, resulting in a composite water-level altitude. 
Potential errors in the potentiometric surface can result from the use of data from wells 
completed in potentially perched-water bodies, and from inaccuracies in the borehole 
site-location, land-surface altitude, water-level measurements, water-level altitude calculation, 
barometric fluctuations, water density corrections, and temporal fluctuations. Evaluation of 
methodology accuracy is documented in Appendix A, Tables A-6, A-7, and A-8. This 
information may be used to evaluate the representativeness of the water-level altitudes used in 
this analysis and to determine whether or not these altitudes represent the potentiometric surface 
of the upper SZ. Additional discussion of uncertainty in Section 6.5 points out that measurement 
uncertainty is a small part of the total uncertainty in the potentiometric-surface map. 
In addition to measurement uncertainties, the range in water levels for a borehole can be used in 
the determination of an uncertainty of a mean water level at that site. Pumping is included in the 
flux rates used in the regional model (DAgnese et al. 1997 [DIRS 100131], p. 48); therefore, 
water levels that may be influenced by pumping are included in the SZ site-scale flow model 
(BSC 2004 [DIRS 170037]). Because of the uncertainties in water levels discussed in the 
previous paragraph, the range in water-level altitudes and the possible causes of that variability 
should be taken into account during SZ site-scale flow model calibration. The calculated 
average water levels from Table A-1 are available from the TDMS under 
DTN: GS010908312332.002. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 7-2 October 2004 
Vertical Head Differences 
Vertical head differences documented in Table 6-4 are variable throughout the SZ site-scale 
model area. The data are available in the TDMS under DTN: GS010908312332.003. Of the 
17 sites at which vertical gradients have been evaluated, most gradients (12) are upward, and 
fewer (5) are downward. No correlation is evident in the spatial location of boreholes and the 
location of upward or downward vertical gradients. The reason for this lack of spatial correlation 
is probably because of the wide variation in the monitored hydrogeologic units and depths of the 
monitored intervals. Gradients appear to be upward from the Paleozoic carbonate aquifer and 
from the deepest parts of the volcanic-rock aquifers where potentiometric levels may be 
influenced by the underlying carbonates. A significant downward gradient exists at Borehole 
NC-EWDP-1DX at a paleospring deposit south of Crater Flat. A slight downward gradient at 
Borehole UE-25 J-13 may be indicative of recharge to the groundwater system along Fortymile 
Wash; however, the gradient is so small that it might only be an artifact of errors in water-level 
measurements. 
7.1.2 Potentiometric-Surface Map 
The 2000 potentiometric surface map presented in Figure 6-3 (USGS 2001 [DIRS 154625]) was 
used in the development of the SZ site-scale flow model. The 2001 potentiometric surface 
shown on Figure 6-1 provides a contour-map representation of the potentiometric surface from 
water-level data that were developed for this report and that are available from the TDMS under 
DTN: GS010608312332.001. This 2001 potentiometric surface presents an alternate concept of 
the LHG area north of Yucca Mountain to that presented in Revision 00 of this report (USGS 
2001 [DIRS 154625]). In this revision, water levels in Boreholes USW G-2 and UE-25 WT #6 
are assumed to represent perched conditions and not regional potentiometric levels. If perched 
conditions do not actually exist at those boreholes and the water level in Well USW WT-24 also 
represents the regional potentiometric level, then the hydraulic gradient north of Yucca Mountain 
would be much greater than previously reported. 
The 2001 potentiometric surface developed from the input data sets listed in Table 4-1 
incorporates the potential errors and uncertainties identified in this revision. Hence, the accuracy 
of the potentiometric surface will vary spatially. In the repository area, the potentiometric 
surface may be characterized within one meter; however, in other areas within the SZ site-scale 
flow and transport model area, the uncertainty in water levels is much greater because of lack of 
data. Other sources of uncertainty include: (1) areas of perched-water, (2) water-level 
drawdown associated with pumping in the Amargosa Valley, and (3) the unknown effect of 
faults on water-level altitudes. The potentiometric surface presented herein does not strictly 
represent the water table, which is a concept reserved for the actual interface between the SZ and 
UZ. However, the potentiometric surface presented is a close and reasonable representation of 
the water table for the early 1990s (see Assumption 1 in Section 5.1). 
Large portions of the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area contain no water-level data, 
and potentiometric contours drawn through those areas (indicated by dashed contours on 
Figure 6-1) are speculative and subject to other equally valid interpretations. Recent wells 
drilled as part of the Nye County EWDP near Fortymile Wash, south of Well UE-25 J-12, 
suggest that if the new data were incorporated into the potentiometric-surface map, the contours 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 7-3 October 2004 
in that region may shift laterally about 1.5 km. The resulting map (Figure 6-2) depicts a change 
in horizontal hydraulic gradient of 30 to 50 percent, well within the range of uncertainty in 
specific discharge. Potential errors in the location of those contours will be represented in the SZ 
site-scale model in one of three ways: (1) as potential errors in the saturated thickness of the 
uppermost saturated unit, (2) by a difference in which geologic unit constitutes the uppermost 
saturated unit, or (3) variation in the specific discharge along the flow path. The potentiometric 
surface uncertainty varies across the study area and can be grouped into two regions; one near 
the repository and downgradient, and the other near the boundaries of the model area. 
The errors in the potentiometric surface will be larger in areas of less data (which are located 
near the western, northern, and eastern boundaries). The uncertainty in the potentiometric 
surface will lead to uncertainty in saturated thickness and uppermost saturated geologic units at 
the boundary of the model area. These uncertainties can be characterized by changes in the 
transmissivity of the model layers. Changes in transmissivity influence how much groundwater 
crosses the boundary into the model area. This uncertainty in the potentiometric surface at the 
boundary of the model is addressed in the SZ site-scale flow model via an analysis of the 
sensitivity and uncertainty to uncertainty in the boundary fluxes. The uncertainty in the 
potentiometric surface near the model boundaries will also impact the magnitude and direction of 
the specific discharge. This uncertainty in specific discharge in areas away from the repository is 
unlikely to cause significant uncertainty in the transport from the repository because the 
relatively high density of data near the repository provide sufficient data to constrain the flow 
system. 
In the vicinity of the repository and downgradient toward Amargosa Desert, the uncertainty in 
the water-level elevation are going to be on the order of a few meters at most. This small error 
will not be important to either the saturated thickness or the identification of the uppermost 
saturated unit. The largest impact will be associated with the magnitude and direction of the 
specific discharge. In this case, the specific discharge is strongly influenced by the data in the 
vicinity of the repository. As noted in this document, the uncertainty in the potentiometric 
surface may change the magnitude of the hydraulic gradient by up to 50 percent and may alter 
the direction of the hydraulic gradient over portions of the area. To accommodate this 
uncertainty, the SZ site-scale flow model will need to account for different possible flow paths 
from the repository to the accessible environment. 
The analysis of water levels presented in this report is adequate to define the shape of the 
potentiometric surface, the water levels appropriate for SZ site-scale flow model calibration, and 
the uncertainty associated with those water levels. The water levels are representative of the 
conditions near the top of the SZ for the period of the early to mid 1990s, the same time frame as 
the regional scale model (DAgnese 1997 [DIRS 100131]). The uncertainty in the 
potentiometric-surface analysis can be incorporated into the SZ site-scale flow model and the 
resulting site-scale flow and transport abstraction model. 
7.2 INCORPORATION OF THE YMRP ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA 
A list of the YMRP criteria that have been addressed in this report were presented in Section 4.2. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 7-4 October 2004 
2.2.1.3.8 Flow Paths in the Saturated Zone 
AC 1 (2) Adequacy of Descriptions of Flow Path Influences 
The detailed description of the potentiometric-surface map in Section 6.4 includes 
geologic information that shows how potentiometric-surface contours may be affected in 
the SZ. Hydraulic gradient (which along with anisotropy define the flow paths) are 
determined from the potentiometric-surface contours. 
AC1 (4) The Propagation of Initial and Boundary Conditions 
The potentiometric surface is used as the boundary condition for the SZ site-scale flow 
model. It defines the upper surface of the computational mesh and as the hydraulic head 
conditions on the boundary of the model. Section 6.4 presents the potentiometric surface 
and data points that are propagated to the other models. Section 6.5 presents the 
consistency of the map on Figure 6-1 with other site-scale and regional scale 
potentiometric data. 
AC 1 (5) Sufficiency of Bases for Including FEPs 
The analyses in this report provide support to the technical bases for the FEPs that are 
presented in other documents. Section 6.2 and Table 6-1 show that this work supports 
the technical bases of several FEPs. 
AC 1(6) Adequacy of Flow Path Delineation 
The discussion in Section 6.4 of the relation between the distribution of water-level data 
and the complex geology in the SZ site-scale flow and transport model area and the 
potentiometric-surface map shows how natural site conditions have been considered to 
adequately delineate the flow paths in the SZ. 
AC 1(10) Acceptable Approaches for Peer Review and Qualification 
This report was developed in accordance with the QARD (DOE 2004 [DIRS 171539]), 
which commits to NUREGs 1297 and 1298. Moreover, compliance with the DOE 
procedures which are designed to implement these commitments is verified by audits by 
QA and other oversight activities. Accordingly, the guidance in NUREGs 1297 and 1298 
has been followed, as appropriate. 
AC 2 (1) Justification of Values and Adequacy of Descriptions 
The description in Section 6.3 of how water-level data were collected shows that the 
values used to determine the potentiometric surface are adequately justified. The 
discussion in Section 6.4 on how the potentiometric-surface map was created and 
determined to be an accurate interpretation based on the available water-level data shows 
that the use, interpretation, and synthesis of the data was appropriate. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 7-5 October 2004 
AC 2 (2) Data Sufficiency 
The variety and quality of data sources described in Section 6.3 show that sufficient data 
were collected to determine the potentiometric surface. The water-level data for the SZ 
site-scale flow and transport model were compiled from project data sources and NWIS 
water-level data. 
AC 2 (3) Appropriateness of Data Techniques 
The discussion in Section 6.1 on (1) how water-level data were collected by compiling 
existing USGS data and measuring water levels in boreholes throughout and adjacent to 
the SZ site-scale flow and transport model domain; (2) the use of professional judgment 
guided by specific criteria to determine whether water-level altitudes represented 
perched-water conditions; and (3) the assessment of long-term hydrograph records on the 
fluctuation of water level over time shows that data are based on appropriate techniques. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 7-6 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-1 October 2004 
8. INPUTS AND REFERENCES 
The following is a list of the references cited in this document. Column 2 represents the unique 
six digit numerical identifier (the Document Input Reference System number), which is placed in 
the text following the reference callout (e.g., BSC 2001 [DIRS 155974]). The purpose of these 
numbers is to assist in locating a specific reference. Within the reference list, multiple sources 
by the same author (e.g., BSC 2001) are sorted alphabetically by title. 
8.1 DOCUMENTS CITED 
Blankennagel, R.K. 1967. Hydraulic Testing Techniques of Deep Drill Holes at 
Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site. Interagency Report: Special Studies I-1. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19870729.0095. 
103092 
BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2001. Calibration of the Site-Scale Saturated 
Zone Flow Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000011 REV 00 ICN 01. Las Vegas, Nevada: 
Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: MOL.20010713.0049. 
155974 
BSC 2004. Development of Numerical Grids for UZ Flow and Transport 
Modeling. ANL-NBS-HS-000015 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC 
Company. ACC: DOC.20040901.0001. 
169855 
BSC 2004. Features, Events, and Processes in SZ Flow and Transport. 
ANL-NBS-MD-000002, Rev. 03. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
170013 
BSC 2004. Q-List. 000-30R-MGR0-00500-000-000 REV 00. Las Vegas, 
Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: ENG.20040721.0007. 
168361 
BSC 2004. Saturated Zone Flow and Transport Model Abstraction. 
MDL-NBS-HS-000021, Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
170042 
BSC 2004. Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow Model. MDL-NBS-HS-000011, 
Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
170037 
BSC 2004. Site-Scale Saturated Zone Transport. MDL-NBS-HS-000010, 
Rev. 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
170036 
BSC 2004. Technical Work Plan for: Natural System - Saturated Zone Analysis 
and Model Report Integration. TWP-NBS-MD-000002 REV 02 ICN 01. 
Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. ACC: DOC.20040818.0004. 
171421 
Canori, G.F. and Leitner, M.M. 2003. Project Requirements Document. 
TER-MGR-MD-000001 REV 02. Las Vegas, Nevada: Bechtel SAIC Company. 
ACC: DOC.20031222.0006. 
166275

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-2 October 2004 
Craig, R.W. and Robison, J.H. 1984. Geohydrology of Rocks Penetrated by Test 
Well UE-25p#1, Yucca Mountain Area, Nye County, Nevada. Water-Resources 
Investigations Report 84-4248. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: NNA.19890905.0209. 
101040 
CRWMS M&O (Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: System Management 
and Operating Contractor) 1998. Saturated Zone Flow and Transport Expert 
Elicitation Project. Deliverable SL5X4AM3. Las Vegas, Nevada: CRWMS 
M&O. ACC: MOL.19980825.0008. 
100353 
Czarnecki, J.B. and Waddell, R.K. 1984. Finite-Element Simulation of 
Ground-Water Flow in the Vicinity of Yucca Mountain, Nevada-California. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4349. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19870407.0173. 
101042 
Czarnecki, J.B.; Faunt, C.C.; Gable, C.W.; and Zyvoloski, G.A. 1997. 
Hydrogeology and Preliminary Three-Dimensional Finite-Element Ground-Water 
Flow Model of the Site Saturated Zone, Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Milestone 
SP23NM3. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19990812.0180. 
141643 
D'Agnese, F.A.; Faunt, C.C.; Turner, A.K.; and Hill, M.C. 1997. Hydrogeologic 
Evaluation and Numerical Simulation of the Death Valley Regional 
Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California. Water-Resources 
Investigations Report 96-4300. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19980306.0253. 
100131 
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2004. Quality Assurance Requirements and 
Description. DOE/RW-0333P, Rev. 16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040823.0004. 
171539 
Ervin, E.M.; Luckey, R.R.; and Burkhardt, D.J. 1994. Revised 
Potentiometric-Surface Map, Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Nevada. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 93-4000. Denver, Colorado: 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: NNA.19930212.0018. 
100633 
Fenelon, J.M. 2000. Quality Assurance and Analysis of Water Levels in Wells on 
Pahute Mesa and Vicinity, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4014. Carson City, Nevada: 
U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20030904.0304. 
160881 
Fenelon, J.M. and Moreo, M.T. 2002. Trend Analysis of Ground-Water Levels 
and Spring Discharge in the Yucca Mountain Region, Nevada and California, 
19602000. Water-Resources Investigations Report 02-4178. Carson City, 
Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20030812.0306. 
164662

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-3 October 2004 
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A. 1979. Groundwater. Englewood Cliffs, 
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. TIC: 217571. 
101173 
Fridrich, C.J.; Dudley, W.W., Jr.; and Stuckless, J.S. 1994. Hydrogeologic 
Analysis of the Saturated-Zone Ground-Water System, Under Yucca Mountain, 
Nevada. Journal of Hydrology, 154, 133-168. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 
Elsevier. TIC: 224606. 
100575 
Graves, R.P. 1998. Water Levels in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1996. 
Open-File Report 98-169. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19981117.0340. 
155411 
Graves, R.P. 2001. Re: WT-24. E-mail from R.P. Graves (USGS) to P. Tucci 
(USGS), August 29, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010907.0002. 
155942 
Graves, R.P.; Tucci, P.; and OBrien, G.M. 1997. Analysis of Water-Level Data 
in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1985-95. Water-Resources Investigations 
Report 96-4256. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.19980219.0851. 
101046 
Lehman, L.L. and Brown, T.P. 1996. Summary of State of Nevada - Funded 
Studies of the Saturated Zone at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Performed by 
L. Lehman & Associates, Inc. Burnsville, Minnesota: L. Lehman and Associates. 
TIC: 231894. 
149173 
Luckey, R.R.; Tucci, P.; Faunt, C.C.; Ervin, E.M.; Steinkampf, W.C.; DAgnese, 
F.A.; and Patterson, G.L. 1996. Status of Understanding of the Saturated-Zone 
Ground-Water Flow System at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as of 1995. 
Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4077. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19970513.0209. 
100465 
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 2003. Yucca Mountain Review 
Plan, Final Report. NUREG-1804, Rev. 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. 
TIC: 254568. 
163274 
OBrien, G. 1998. Milestone SPH40NM4 (Level 4)  Memo to TPO: Possible 
Perched-Water Occurrences North of Yucca Mountain. Memorandum from 
G. OBrien (USGS) to R. Craig (USGS), September 28, 1998, with attachment, 
Perched-Water Analysis Death Valley Region. ACC: MOL.19981130.0221; 
MOL.19990113.0213. 
106918 
Paces, J.B.; Ludwig, K.R.; Peterman, Z.E.; and Neymark, L.A. 2002. 234U/238U 
Evidence for Local Recharge and Patterns of Ground-Water Flow in the Vicinity 
of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA. Applied Geochemistry, 17, ([6]), 751-779. 
New York, New York: Elsevier. TIC: 252809. 
158817

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-4 October 2004 
Rousseau, J.P.; Kwicklis, E.M.; and Gillies, D.C., eds. 1999. Hydrogeology of the 
Unsaturated Zone, North Ramp Area of the Exploratory Studies Facility, Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4050. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19990419.0335. 
102097 
Savard, C.S. 2001. Water Levels in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1999. 
Open-File Report 01-343. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20020513.0059. 
165604 
Spengler, R. 2001. Pz in NC-EWDP-2DB. E-mail from R. Spengler to 
P. McKinley, August 30, 2001. ACC: MOL.20010907.0001. 
155823 
Thordarson, W. 1983. Geohydrologic Data and Test Results from Well J-13, 
Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 
83-4171. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: NNA.19870518.0071. 
101057 
Tucci, P. 2001. Segment of SN-USGS-SCI-126-V1: Revision of Water Level 
AMR (ANL-NBS-HS-000034, Rev 00/ICN 01). Scientific Notebook 
SN-USGS-SCI-126-V1. ACC: MOL.20010712.0271. 
155410 
Tucci, P. and Burkhardt, D.J. 1995. Potentiometric-Surface Map, 1993, Yucca 
Mountain and Vicinity, Nevada. Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4149. 
Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.19960924.0517. 
101060 
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) n.d. Raw Data Field Notebook #1, Ue25P#1 
Book I of II Record. Denver, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. 
ACC: MOL.20000301.0894. 
171099 
USGS 2001. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
and Transport Model. ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 00 ICN 01. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20010405.0211. 
154625 
USGS 2004. Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow 
and Transport Model. ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 01, with errata. Denver, 
Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey. ACC: MOL.20020209.0058; 
MOL.20020917.0136; DOC.20040303.0006. 
168473 
Weast, R.C., ed. 1985. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 66th Edition. 
Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. TIC: 216054. 
111561 
Weir, J.E., Jr., and Nelson, J.W. 1976. Operation and maintenance of a deep-well 
water-level measuring device, the Iron Horse. Water-Resources Investigations 
76-27. 28 p. Denver, CO: U.S. Geological Survey. 
170983

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-5 October 2004 
Williams, N.H. 2003 Contract No. DE-AC28-01RW12101 - Transmittal of 
Report Technical Basis Document No. 11: Saturated Zone Flow and Transport 
Revision 2 Addressing Twenty-Five Key Technical Issue (KTI) Agreements 
Related to Saturated Zone Flow and Transport. Letter from N.H. Williams 
(BSC) to C.M. Newbury (DOE/ORD), September 30, 2003, MP: 
cg - 0930038958, with enclosure. ACC: MOL.20040105.0270. 
170977 
8.2 STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, AND PROCEDURES 
10 CFR 63. ENERGY: Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic 
Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Readily Available. 
156605 
AP-2.22Q, Rev. 1, ICN 1. Classification Analyses and Maintenance of the Q-List. 
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive 
Waste Management. ACC: DOC.20040714.0002. 
AP-2.27Q, Rev. 1, ICN 4. Planning for Science Activities. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040610.0006. 
LP-SI.11Q-BSC, Rev. 0 ICN 1. Software Management. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20041005.0008. 
AP-SIII.2Q, Rev 1, ICN 2. Qualification of Unqualified Data. Washington, D.C.: 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040127.0008. 
AP-SIII.9Q, Rev 1, ICN 7. Scientific Analyses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. 
ACC: DOC.20040920.0001. 
8.3 SOURCE DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
GS000400002332.001. Digital Elevation Models Death Valley East Scale 
1:250,000. Submittal date: 04/12/2000. 
148924 
GS000408312312.001. Water-Level Measurements at UE-25 C #2 and C #3, 
1989. Submittal date: 04/10/2000. 
148696 
GS000608312312.003. Water-Level Altitude Data from the Periodic Network, 
January 1999 through March 1999. Submittal date: 07/10/2000. 
155278 
GS000608312312.004. Revised Water-Level Altitude Data from the Periodic 
Network, First Quarter 1995. Submittal date: 06/27/2000. 
150724

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-6 October 2004 
GS000708312312.005. Water-Level Altitude Data, 1993. Submittal date: 
07/10/2000. 
150945 
GS000808312312.007. Ground-Water Altitudes from Manual Depth-to-Water 
Measurements at Various Boreholes November 1998 through December 1999. 
Submittal date: 08/21/2000. 
155270 
GS001208312312.009. Ground-Water Altitudes from Manual Depth-to-Water 
Measurements at Various Boreholes January through June 2000. Submittal 
date: 12/29/2000. 
171433 
GS010808312312.003. Ground-Water Altitudes from Manual Depth-to-Water 
Measurements at Various Boreholes, January through June 2001. Submittal 
date: 08/28/2001. 
168536 
GS010908314221.001. Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Region, Nye 
County, Nevada. Submittal date: 01/23/2002. 
162874 
GS920408312314.009. Geohydrology of Rocks Penetrated by Test Well 
UE-25p#1 (UE-25 p#1), Yucca Mountain Area, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal 
date: 04/27/1992. 
148168 
GS930408312132.007. Geohydrologic Data and Test Results from Well J-13, 
Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal date: 04/23/1993. 
129625 
GS930408312312.015. Water Levels in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1990- 
91. Submittal date: 04/28/1993. 
148665 
GS931008312312.025. Water Levels in Periodically Measured Wells in the 
Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1981-87. Submittal date: 04/23/1993. 
148668 
GS950108312312.001. Water-Level Altitude Data from the Periodic Network, 
Fourth Quarter 1994. Submittal date: 01/19/1995. 
150993 
GS950508312312.005. Potentiometric-Surface Map, 1993, Yucca Mountain and 
Vicinity, Nevada. Submittal date: 06/06/1995. 
105068 
GS950808312312.008. Water-Level Altitude Data from USW H-1, 12/20/1994. 
Submittal date: 08/30/1995. 
171370 
GS960208312312.003. 28 Water-Level Measurements from the Periodic 
Network, Third Quarter, 1995 (7/1/95 - 9/30/95). Submittal date: 02/20/1996. 
148672 
GS960908312312.010. Analysis of Water-Level Data in the Yucca Mountain 
Area, Nevada, 1985-1995. Submittal date: 09/19/1996. 
105063

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-7 October 2004 
GS970600012847.001. Water-Level Altitude Data at GEXA Well 4 and at USW 
G-4. Submittal date: 06/11/1997. 
148646 
GS980308312312.004. Water Levels in the Yucca Mountain Area, Nevada, 1996. 
Submittal date: 03/31/1998. 
155272 
GS990908312312.005. Water-Level Altitude Data, April - June 1999. Submittal 
date: 09/20/1999. 
155269 
GS991100002330.001. Water Level Data for Yucca Mountain Region and 
Amargosa Desert. Submittal date: 03/29/2000. 
122818 
GS991208314221.001. Geologic Map of the Yucca Mountain Region. Submittal 
date: 12/01/1999. 
145263 
MO0008WTRALTG4.000. Water-Table-Altitude Data for Well USW G-4, 
Yucca Mountain Area, Nye County, Nevada. Submittal date: 08/24/2000. 
155456 
MO0011ELLOCAMD.000. Locations and Elevations for Selected Wells in the 
Yucca Mountain Region and Amargosa Desert from the USGS NWIS Database. 
Submittal date: 11/06/2000. 
153274 
MO0103COV01031.000. Coverage: BORES3Q. Submittal date: 03/22/2001. 155271 
MO0107COV01057.000. Coverage: NCEWDPS. Submittal date: 07/18/2001. 157194 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.002. Water Level Data from Westbay Instrumented 
Borehole NC-EWDP-1S. Submittal date: 11/29/2001. 
157172 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.003. Water Level Data from Westbay Instrumented 
Borehole NC-EWDP-3S. Submittal date: 11/29/2001. 
157173 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.004. Water Level Data from Westbay Instrumented 
Borehole NC-EWDP-9SX. Submittal date: 11/29/2001. 
157174 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.005. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-4PA. Submittal date: 12/03/2001. 
157175 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.006. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-4PB. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157176 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.007. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-7S. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157177 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.008. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-5SB. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157178

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-8 October 2004 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.009. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-15P. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157179 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.010. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-12PA. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157180 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.011. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-9SX. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157181 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.012. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-12PB. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157182 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.013. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-12PC. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157183 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.014. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-19P. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157184 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.015. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-3S. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157200 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.016. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-3D. Submittal date: 12/04/2001. 
157185 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.017. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-1DX. Submittal date: 12/05/2001. 
157186 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.018. Well Completion Diagram for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-19D. Submittal date: 12/05/2001. 
157187 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.019. Multi-Level Monitoring Port Depths in Nye County 
Boreholes NC-EWDP-1S, -3S and -9SX. Submittal date: 12/05/2001. 
157188 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.020. Water Level Depth Data for Nye County Boreholes 
NC-EWDP-2D and -2DB. Submittal date: 12/05/2001. 
157199 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.021. Multilevel Piezometer Casing Log for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-9SX. Submittal date: 12/05/2001. 
157189 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.022. Multilevel Piezometer Casing Log for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-3S. Submittal date: 12/05/2001. 
157190 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.023. Multilevel Piezometer Casing Log for Borehole 
NC-EWDP-1S. Submittal date: 12/05/2001. 
157191 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.024. EWDP Phase I Manual Water Level Measurements. 
Submittal date: 12/06/2001. 
157192

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-9 October 2004 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.025. EWDP Phase II Manual Water Level Measurements. 
Submittal date: 12/06/2001. 
157193 
MO0203GSC02034.000. As-Built Survey of Nye County Early Warning Drilling 
Program (EWDP) Phase III Boreholes NC-EWDP-10S, NC-EWDP-18P, and 
NC-EWDP-22S - Partial Phase III List. Submittal date: 03/21/2002. 
168375 
MO0206GSC02074.000. As-Built Survey of Nye County Early Warning Drilling 
Program (EWDP) Phase III Boreholes, Second Set. Submittal date: 06/03/2002. 
168378 
MO0307GSC03094.000. As-Built Survey of Nye County Early Warning Drilling 
Program Phase IV Boreholes EWDP-16P, EWDP-27P & EWDP-28P. Submittal 
date: 07/14/2003. 
170556 
MO0401COV03168.000. Coverage: NCEWDPS. Submittal date: 01/27/2004. 168534 
MO0405NYE05819.215. Manual Water Level Data for EWDP Phase I Wells 
from 05/02 - 08/03, Phase II Wells from 05/02 - 08/03, Phase III Wells from 
11/02 - 8/03 and Phase IV Wells from 01/03 - 08/03. Submittal date: 05/20/2004. 
170539 
MO0407SEPFEPLA.000. LA FEP List. Submittal date: 07/20/2004. 170760 
TM0000SD7SUPER.001. USW SD-7 Structure Logs (48.5' to 2675.1'). 
Submittal date: 12/14/1995. 
168540 
TM0000SD9SUPER.002. USW SD-9 Structure Logs (53.6' to 2223.1'). 
Submittal date: 12/14/1995. 
168542 
TM000SD12SUPER.003. USW SD-12 Structure Logs (5.3' - 2166.3). Submittal 
date: 05/22/1996. 
168543 
8.4 OUTPUT DATA, LISTED BY DATA TRACKING NUMBER 
GS010608312332.001. Potentiometric-Surface Map, assuming perched 
conditions north of Yucca Mountain, in the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and 
Transport Model Area. Submittal date: 6/18/2001. 
GS010908312332.002. Borehole Data from Water-Level Data Analysis for the 
Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model. Submittal 
date: 10/02/2001. 
GS010908312332.003. Vertical Head Differences from Water-Level Data 
Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model. Submittal 
date: 09/28/2001. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 8-10 October 2004 
MO0409SEPPSMPC.000. Potentiometric-Surface Map Showing Possible 
Changes After Including EWDP Phases III and IV Wells. Submittal 
date: 09/29/2001. 
8.5 SOFTWARE CODES 
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) 2000. Software Code: ARCINFO. V7.2.1. 
10033-7.2.1-01. 
148304 
Dynamic Graphics 2000. Software Code: EARTHVISION. V5.1. SGI/IRIX 6.5. 
10174-5.1-00. 
167994 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 October 2004 
APPENDIX A 
BOREHOLE DATA 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-1 October 2004 
The following sections describe the information pertaining to terms used in Appendix A. 
USGS SITE IDENTIFICATION 
Unique site IDs are assigned to each borehole for which the USGS maintains water-level data. 
Boreholes that contain multiple monitoring zones are assigned a unique site ID for each of the 
different zones. The site IDs are different from the site ID for the entire borehole, but usually 
contain a portion of the borehole site ID. Where more than one site ID for a given borehole 
exists (multiple monitoring zones), the site ID for the entire borehole is used in Appendix A. 
Site Name 
Except for private wells, the common borehole site name available for a given site was recorded. 
The private wells have been given identifier PW-n, where n is an integer. The private wells 
identified in the appendices by PW are also identified the same way on the well location map 
(Figure 1-2). For comparison to the data sources where private well names are used, a list with 
the well name and the private well identifier is given in Table A-9. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-2 October 2004 
TABLE A-1: EASTING, NORTHING, LAND SURFACE ALTITUDE, MEAN 
WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE (DTN: GS010908312332.002) 
Easting and Northing 
Coordinates for boreholes used in this table are from DTNs: MO0011ELLOCAMD.000 
[DIRS 153274] (see Assumption 5.3), MO0103COV01031.000 [DIRS 155271], and 
MO0401COV03168.000 [DIRS 168534]. DTN: MO0107COV01057.000 [DIRS 157194] 
(which is superceded by DTN: MO0401COV03168.000) was used for coordinates as presented 
in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 and is justified for intended use in this document in Section 4.1. The 
Impact Review Action Notice (IRAN) 3505 (MOL.20040304.0206) indicates no impact to the 
figures in this document as a result of superceding the previous DTN. UTM easting and northing 
were calculated using EarthVision Version 5.1. The latitude/longitude, or state plane coordinate, 
was projected into UTM (meters, Zone 11, North American Datum 1927) coordinates and 
rounded to the nearest meter. 
Land-Surface Altitude Above Sea Level (meters) 
The land-surface altitudes for boreholes used in this analysis are from 
DTNs: MO0011ELLOCAMD.000 (see Assumption 5.3), MO0107COV01057.000, and 
MO0103COV01031.000. The altitude was converted from feet to meters by the following 
formula, where necessary: 
Altitude (ft)  0.3048 (m/ft) = Altitude (meters) 
For example, 2401.52 ft  0.3048 m/ft = 731.98 m 
The altitude was subsequently rounded to the nearest tenth of 1 meter for use in this table. 
Mean Water-Level Altitude Above Sea Level (Meters) 
Mean water-level altitudes were calculated as time averages over the period of available 
measurements. For the wells tabulated by Graves et al. (1997 [DIRS 101046], Table 2) and 
DTN: GS960908312312.010 [DIRS 105063], monthly mean water-level altitudes computed 
from hourly transducer data and periodic manual water-level altitude measurements were used to 
compute the mean water-level altitude. The mean water level for each site was not included in 
the work of Graves et al. (1997 [DIRS 10146]; DTN: GS960908312312.010), but was 
calculated based on the available record. An example calculation is: 
(730.98+731.07+731.09)/3 = 731.05 
The altitude was subsequently rounded to the nearest tenth of 1 meter for use in this table. 
In addition, the following exceptions were made when calculating the mean: 
 NDOT well: Deleted the 1972 measurement (2,291.8 ft) from the calculation of the 
average. It is anomalously low and not representative of average conditions in the 
borehole. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-3 October 2004 
 PW-16 well: Deleted the 1961 measurement (2,342.0 ft) from the calculation of the 
average. It is anomalously high and not representative of average conditions in the 
borehole. 
 PW-20 well: Deleted the 1958 measurement (2,362.0 ft) from the calculation of the 
average. It is anomalously high and not representative of average conditions in the 
borehole. 
 PW-30 well: Deleted the 1963 measurement (2,324.6 ft) from the calculation of the 
average. It is anomalously low and not representative of average conditions in the 
borehole. 
 PW-31 well: Deleted the 2 measurements of 2,333.8 ft (12/20/1961) and 2,335.3 ft 
(04/09/1991) from the calculation of the average. They are anomalously low and not 
representative of average conditions in the borehole. 
 PW-21 well: Used the data obtained after 1982 as being more representative of the 
calibration period. 
 Airport well: Deleted the 1964 measurement (2,348.8 ft) from the calculation of the 
average. It is anomalously high and not representative of average conditions in the 
borehole. 
 GEXA well 4: Deleted the 1991 measurement (3133.2 ft.) from the calculations of the 
average. It is anomalously low and not representative of average conditions in the 
borehole. 
 Nye County EWDP boreholes: Water-level measurements made prior to development 
of the well were not used to calculate the mean. Additionally, water-level measurements 
obtained by transducers that were believed to be unreliable (based on comparison to 
measurements in other zones within the borehole and/or comparison to other boreholes) 
were not used. Those individual unreliable measurements consist of thousands of data 
points and are too numerous to list here. 
Table A-1. Easting, Northing, Land Surface Altitude, Mean Water-Level Altitude 
(DTN: GS010908312332.002) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Easting 
(UTM) 
Northing 
(UTM) 
Land-surface 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Mean Water- 
Level Altitude 
(meters) 
365629116222602 UE-29 a#2 555753 4088351 1215.4 1187.7 
365520116370301 GEXA Well 4 534069 4086110 1198.1 1009.0 
365340116264601 UE-25 WT#6 549352 4083103 1314.8 1034.6 
365322116273501 USW G-2 548143 4082542 1554.0 1020.2 
365239116253401 UE-25 WT#16 551146 4081234 1210.9 738.3 
365208116274001 USW UZ-14 548032 4080261 1348.9 779.0 
365207116264201 UE-25 WT#18 549468 4080238 1336.4 730.8 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-4 October 2004 
Table A-1. Easting, Northing, Land Surface Altitude, Mean Water-Level Altitude 
(DTN: GS010908312332.002) (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Easting 
(UTM) 
Northing 
(UTM) 
Land-surface 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Mean Water- 
Level Altitude 
(meters) 
365200116272901 USW G-1 548306 4080016 1325.9 754.2 
365147116185301 UE-25 a#3 561084 4079697 1385.6 748.3 
365140116260301 UE-25 WT#4 550439 4079412 1169.3 730.8 
365116116233801 UE-25 WT#15 554034 4078694 1083.2 729.2 
365114116270401 USW G-4 548933 4078602 1269.5 730.6 
365105116262401 UE-25 a#1 549925 4078330 1199.2 731.0 
365032116243501 UE-25 WT#14 552630 4077330 1076.4 729.7 
365023116271801 USW WT-2 548595 4077028 1301.4 730.6 
364947116254300 UE-25 c#1 550955 4075933 1130.6 730.2 
364947116254501 UE-25 c#3 550930 4075902 1132.4 730.2 
364947116254401 UE-25 c#2 550955 4075871 1132.2 730.2 
364945116235001 UE-25 WT#13 553730 4075827 1032.5 729.1 
364933116285701 USW WT- 7 546151 4075474 1196.9 775.8 
364916116265601 USW WT- 1 549152 4074967 1201.4 730.4 
364905116280101 USW G-3 547543 4074619 1480.6 730.5 
364828116234001 UE-25 J-13 554017 4073517 1011.3 728.4 
364825116290501 USW WT-10 545964 4073378 1123.4 776.0 
364822116262601 UE-25 WT#17 549905 4073307 1124.0 729.7 
365821116343701 USW VH-2 537738 4073214 974.5 810.4 
364757116245801 UE-25 WT#3 552090 4072550 1030.0 729.6 
364732116330701 USW VH-1 539976 4071714 963.5 779.4 
364656116261601 UE-25 WT#12 550168 4070659 1074.7 729.5 
364649116280201 USW WT-11 547542 4070428 1094.1 730.7 
364554116232400 UE-25 J-12 554444 4068774 953.6 727.9 
364528116232201 UE-25 JF#3 554498 4067974 944.4 727.8 
364105116302601 Cind-R-Lite Well 544027 4059809 830.8 729.8 
363907116235701 PW-1 553704 4056228 819.9 718.4 
363836116234001 PW-2 553808 4055459 811.4 702.8 
363840116235000 PW-3 553883 4055398 813.8 704.1 
363840116234001 PW-4 554131 4055399 810.8 705.6 
363840116233501 PW-5 554008 4055337 811.4 701.6 
363835116234001 NDOT Well 553685 4055242 809.8 705.4 
363742116263201 PW-6 549863 4054911 795.5 706.7 
363830116241401 Airport Well 552818 4054929 804.3 705.3 
363815116175901 TW- 5 562604 4054686 931.5 725.1 
363711116263701 PW-7 549746 4053647 783.9 707.7 
363621116263201 PW-8 549679 4052322 774.2 704.4 
363549116305001 Nye County Development Co. 543481 4050069 742.2 694.3 
363523116353701 PW-9 536350 4050006 731.8 691.9 
363525116325601 PW-10 540673 4049994 735.2 694.3 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-5 October 2004 
Table A-1. Easting, Northing, Land Surface Altitude, Mean Water-Level Altitude 
(DTN: GS010908312332.002) (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Easting 
(UTM) 
Northing 
(UTM) 
Land-surface 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Mean Water- 
Level Altitude 
(meters) 
363519116322001 PW-11 541518 4049937 737.0 694.3 
363540116240801 PW-12 553471 4049848 771.1 722.1 
363527116292501 PW-13 545596 4049403 744.0 697.8 
363521116352501 PW-14 536552 4049329 730.1 690.1 
363456116335501 PW-15 538889 4049000 740.7 707.4 
363454116314201 PW-16 542194 4048892 733.7 694.1 
363503116351501 PW-17 536903 4048621 727.9 691.0 
363503116284001 PW-18 546718 4048669 740.7 693.6 
363436116342301 PW-19 538196 4048442 740.7 706.9 
363436116333201 PW-20 540035 4048450 731.5 693.7 
363434116354001 PW-21 536655 4048405 727.1 690.2 
363438116324601 PW-22 540608 4048083 727.9 695.2 
363442116363301 PW-23 534967 4047966 725.7 689.2 
363440116282401 PW-24 547120 4047963 731.5 686.4 
363415116275101 PW-25 547941 4047782 741.9 696.2 
363407116342501 PW-26 537727 4047670 723.3 691.4 
363407116243501 PW-27 552390 4047685 762.0 709.0 
363429116315901 PW-28 541778 4047596 729.1 690.4 
363405116321501 PW-29 541381 4047563 740.7 705.6 
363428116240301 PW-30 553609 4047631 754.3 720.1 
363428116234701 PW-31 554006 4047633 755.2 718.9 
363417116271801 Nye County Land Company 548466 4047261 740.7 690.1 
363411116272901 Amargosa Town Complex 548492 4047077 739.1 688.8 
363410116261101 Nye County Development Co. 550431 4047057 743.7 691.2 
363410116240301 PW-32 553612 4047076 748.6 717.4 
363410116240001 PW-33 553687 4047077 749.8 714.8 
363407116273301 Amargosa Valley Water 548393 4046953 737.9 701.3 
363342116335701 PW-34 539147 4046844 723.9 696.5 
363340116332901 PW-35 539968 4046817 724.2 694.2 
363342116325101 PW-36 540788 4046821 724.2 694.0 
363350116252101 PW-37 552097 4046882 746.8 699.5 
365157116271202 USW H-1 tube 1 548727 4079926 1303.0 785.5 
365157116271203 USW H-1 tube 2 548727 4079926 1303.0 736.0 
365157116271204 USW H-1 tube 3 548727 4079926 1303.0 730.6 
365157116271205 USW H-1 tube 4 548727 4079926 1303.0 730.8 
365122116275502 USW H-5 upper 547668 4078841 1478.9 775.5 
365122116275503 USW H-5 lower 547668 4078841 1478.9 775.6 
365108116262302 UE-25 b#1 lower 549949 4078423 1200.7 729.7 
365108116262303 UE-25 b#1 upper 549949 4078423 1200.7 730.6 
365049116285502 USW H-6 upper 546188 4077816 1301.8 776.0 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-6 October 2004 
Table A-1. Easting, Northing, Land Surface Altitude, Mean Water-Level Altitude 
(DTN: GS010908312332.002) (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Easting 
(UTM) 
Northing 
(UTM) 
Land-surface 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Mean Water- 
Level Altitude 
(meters) 
365049116285505 USW H-6 lower 546188 4077816 1301.8 775.9 
365032116265402 USW H-4 upper 549188 4077309 1248.5 730.4 
365032116265403 USW H-4 lower 549188 4077309 1248.5 730.5 
364942116280002 USW H-3 upper 547562 4075759 1483.2 731.5 
364942116280003 USW H-3 lower 547562 4075759 1483.2 755.9 
364938116252102 UE-25 p#1 (Lwr Intrvl) 551501 4075659 1114.2 752.4 
not available yet USW SD-7 548384 4076499 1363.1 727.6 
not available yet USW SD-9 548550 4079257 1303.4 731.1 
not available yet USW SD-12 548492 4077415 1323.7 730.0 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, shallow zone 536848 4062508 803.6 786.8 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, deep zone 536848 4062508 803.6 748.8 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 1 536851 4062504 803.8 787.1 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 2 536851 4062504 803.8 786.8 
363939116275401 NC-EWDP-2D 547823 4057170 801.2 706.1 
363940116275501 NC-EWDP-2DB 547800 4057195 801.3 713.3 
364054116321401 NC-EWDP-3D 541352 4059450 799.4 718.3 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 2 541349 4059450 798.8 719.8 
364332116332201 NC-EWDP-7S 539638 4064323 836.9 830.1 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 1 539118 4061010 797.3 766.7 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 2 539118 4061010 797.3 767.3 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 4 539118 4061010 797.3 766.8 
364137116351001 NC-EWDP-12PA 536985 4060772 774.7 722.9 
364138116351001 NC-EWDP-12PB 536952 4060799 774.7 723.0 
364139116351001 NC-EWDP-12PC 536951 4060814 774.5 720.7 
364011116294901 NC-EWDP-15P 544927 4058163 786.9 722.5 
364015116265301 NC-EWDP-19P 549329 4058292 819.2 707.5 
364014116265301 NC-EWDP-19D 549317 4058270 819.2 712.8 
365301116271301 USW WT-24 548697 4081910 1493.6 840.1 
363951116252401 NC-Washburn-1X 551545 4057569 824.1 714.6 
364706116170601 UE-25 J-11 563799 4071058 1049.5 732.2 
364237116365401 BGMW-11 534386 4062600 787.9 715.9 
363709116264601 PW-38 549529 4052567 775.7 704.0 
363409116233701 PW-39 551348 4047432 755.9 713.2 
363411116264701 PW-40 549532 4047668 745.2 689.5 
363428116281201 Amargosa Water 547420 4047594 738.2 690.4 
363429116233401 PW-41 554329 4047666 755.3 715.7 
363511116335101 PW-42 538989 4048877 729.4 690.8 
365624116222901 USW UZ-N91 555680 4088196 1203.0 1186.7 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-7 October 2004 
A2. TABLE A-2: NUMBER OF DATA POINTS USED, SOURCE, AND USE 
Number of Data Points Used 
The number of data points used to determine the mean in Table A-1. 
Source 
The DTN for the source from which the water-level data was used to determine the mean 
(Table A-1) and minimum and maximum (Table A-4) water-level altitude. 
Use 
The most appropriate use for each water level was identified as: 
 Potentiometric-surface map and calibration (WT). 
 Calibration (C). 
 Assumed to be perched (P). These water-level observations are not considered in 
construction of the potentiometric-surface map nor considered as calibration points. 
 Unreliable (U) and therefore not used in the construction of the potentiometric-surface 
map. These water-level observations are not recommended for use in SZ site-scale 
model calibration. 
A water-level measurement was identified as applicable for potentiometric-surface map 
construction if it was: 
 The water level from the upper interval (or only interval) from a borehole 
 The water-level interval in the shallow (uppermost) aquifer system, typically the 
volcanic- or alluvial-aquifer system. 
A water-level measurement was identified as unreliable on the basis of the criteria listed in 
Table A-3. In addition, the following boreholes contained in the Appendix were excluded from 
this analysis for the reasons stated below: 
 Boreholes PW-32 and PW-33 (ID numbers 363410116240301 and 363410116240001): 
The data for these boreholes consist of two water-level measurements in each borehole 
that span more than 20 years and differ by 6.9 m and 17.7 m, respectively. An average 
of the two values for each of these boreholes does not produce a water level that is 
representative of the early 1990s. The average is considered Unreliable. There are 
other boreholes nearby that have reliable water levels that are sufficient for the SZ 
site-scale modeling. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-8 October 2004 
 PW-2 well: Similar arguments apply here as for Boreholes PW-32 and PW-33. 
Water-level data from this borehole are not critical for model calibration because there 
are other boreholes nearby that have reliable water levels. 
 PW-9 well: Similar arguments apply as for Boreholes PW-32 and PW-33. Water-level 
data from this borehole are not critical for model calibration because there are other 
boreholes nearby that have reliable water levels. 
The remaining water-level data were labeled as suitable for calibration only. Calibration of the 
SZ site-scale model should be based on all water-level data except those labeled as 
unreliable (U). 
Clarification 
The data provided in DTN: GS991100002330.001 [DIRS 122818] are located in one of three 
records packages. Data for most wells are located in records package MOL.20000425.0964. 
Data for wells UE-29 a#2 and USW UZ-N91 are in records package MOL.20000609.0113. 
One additional data point for each of the two wells UE-25 a#1 and UE-25 c#1 is given in records 
package MOL.20000919.0380. 
Well UE-25 c#3  Data from four different source DTNs were combined. For 
DTN: GS000408312312.001 [DIRS 148696], only the four data points from the upper interval 
were used in the analysis. The other data from this DTN were not from the same interval as the 
later DTNs and could not be used. 
Table A-2. Number of Data Points Used, Source, and Use 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Number of 
Data Points Used Source Use 
365629116222602 UE-29 a#2 208 GS991100002330.001 WT 
365520116370301 GEXA Well 4 52 GS991100002330.001 WT 
365340116264601 UE-25 WT#6 117 GS960908312312.010 P 
365322116273501 USW G-2 28 GS960908312312.010 P 
365239116253401 UE-25 WT#16 123 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365208116274001 USW UZ-14 Estimate GS950508312312.005 WT 
365207116264201 UE-25 WT#18 38 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365200116272901 USW G-1 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
365147116185301 UE-25 a#3 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
365140116260301 UE-25 WT#4 131 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365116116233801 UE-25 WT#15 124 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365114116270401 USW G-4 29 GS931008312312.025 
GS970600012847.001 
GS991100002330.001 
WT 
365105116262401 UE-25 a#1 40 GS991100002330.001 WT 
365032116243501 UE-25 WT#14 135 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365023116271801 USW WT-2 106 GS960908312312.010 WT 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-9 October 2004 
Table A-2. Number of Data Points Used, Source, and Use (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Number of 
Data Points Used Source Use 
364947116254300 UE-25 c#1 3 GS991100002330.001 WT 
364947116254501 UE-25 c#3 8 GS960208312312.003 
GS000608312312.004 
GS000708312312.005 
GS000408312312.001 
WT 
364947116254401 UE-25 c#2 10 GS930408312312.015 
GS000608312312.004 
GS000708312312.005 
GS000408312312.001 
GS950108312312.001 
WT 
364945116235001 UE-25 WT#13 118 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364933116285701 USW WT- 7 113 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364916116265601 USW WT- 1 128 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364905116280101 USW G-3 113 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364828116234001 UE-25 J-13 121 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364825116290501 USW WT-10 132 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364822116262601 UE-25 WT#17 117 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365821116343701 USW VH-2 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
364757116245801 UE-25 WT#3 119 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364732116330701 USW VH-1 147 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364656116261601 UE-25 WT#12 123 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364649116280201 USW WT-11 119 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364554116232400 UE-25 J-12 100 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364528116232201 UE-25 JF#3 234 GS991100002330.001 WT 
364105116302601 Cind-R-Lite Well 62 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363907116235701 PW-1 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363836116234001 PW-2 2 GS991100002330.001 U 
363840116235000 PW-3 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363840116234001 PW-4 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363840116233501 PW-5 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363835116234001 NDOT Well 87 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363742116263201 PW-6 3 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363830116241401 Airport Well 90 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363815116175901 TW- 5 99 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363711116263701 PW-7 4 GS991100002330.001 U 
363621116263201 PW-8 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363549116305001 Nye County Development Co. 3 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363523116353701 PW-9 3 GS991100002330.001 U 
363525116325601 PW-10 6 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363519116322001 PW-11 4 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363540116240801 PW-12 22 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363527116292501 PW-13 2 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363521116352501 PW-14 63 GS991100002330.001 WT 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-10 October 2004 
Table A-2. Number of Data Points Used, Source, and Use (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Number of 
Data Points Used Source Use 
363456116335501 PW-15 4 GS991100002330.001 U 
363454116314201 PW-16 4 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363503116351501 PW-17 3 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363503116284001 PW-18 2 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363436116342301 PW-19 5 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363436116333201 PW-20 4 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363434116354001 PW-21 19 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363438116324601 PW-22 4 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363442116363301 PW-23 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363440116282401 PW-24 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363415116275101 PW-25 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363407116342501 PW-26 3 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363407116243501 PW-27 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363429116315901 PW-28 3 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363405116321501 PW-29 2 GS991100002330.001 U 
363428116240301 PW-30 3 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363428116234701 PW-31 88 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363417116271801 Nye County Land Company 2 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363411116272901 Amargosa Town Complex 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363410116261101 Nye County Development Co. 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363410116240301 PW-32 2 GS991100002330.001 U 
363410116240001 PW-33 2 GS991100002330.001 U 
363407116273301 Amargosa Valley Water 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363342116335701 PW-34 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363340116332901 PW-35 48 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363342116325101 PW-36 46 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363350116252101 PW-37 2 GS991100002330.001 U 
365157116271202 USW H-1 tube 1 101 GS960908312312.010 C 
365157116271203 USW H-1 tube 2 75 GS960908312312.010 C 
365157116271204 USW H-1 tube 3 108 GS960908312312.010 C 
365157116271205 USW H-1 tube 4 124 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365122116275502 USW H-5 upper 106 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365122116275503 USW H-5 lower 54 GS960908312312.010 C 
365108116262302 UE-25 b#1 lower 67 GS960908312312.010 C 
365108116262303 UE-25 b#1 upper 99 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365049116285502 USW H-6 upper 118 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365049116285505 USW H-6 lower 79 GS960908312312.010 C 
365032116265402 USW H-4 upper 128 GS960908312312.010 WT 
365032116265403 USW H-4 lower 101 GS960908312312.010 C 
364942116280002 USW H-3 upper 128 GS960908312312.010 WT 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-11 October 2004 
Table A-2. Number of Data Points Used, Source, and Use (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Number of 
Data Points Used Source Use 
364942116280003 USW H-3 lower 59 GS960908312312.010 
GS980308312312.004 
C 
364938116252102 UE-25 p#1(Lwr Intrvl) 120 GS960908312312.010 C 
not available USW SD-7 1 TM0000SD7SUPER.001: 
DRC.19960926.0376 
page 234 
U 
not available USW SD-9 1 TM0000SD9SUPER.002: 
DRC.19960819.0101 
page 88 
WT 
not available USW SD-12 1 TM000SD12SUPER.003: 
DRC.19960926.0180 
page 207 
WT 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, shallow 14 MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.017 
WT 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, deep 13 MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.017 
C 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 1 26816 MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.002 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.023 
WT 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 2 18783 MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.002 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.023 
C 
363939116275401 NC-EWDP-2D 2 MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.020 
WT 
363940116275501 NC-EWDP-2DB 2 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.020 
C 
364054116321401 NC-EWDP-3D 30 MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.016 
C 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 2 27991 MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.015 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.022 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.003 
WT 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 3 32124 MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.015 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.003 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.022 
C 
363925116241501 NC-EWDP-4PA 14 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.005 
WT 
363925116241401 NC-EWDP-4PB 6 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.006 
C 
364012116223401 NC-EWDP-5SB 11 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.008 
WT 
364332116332201 NC-EWDP-7S 3 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.007 
P 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-12 October 2004 
Table A-2. Number of Data Points Used, Source, and Use (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Number of 
Data Points Used Source Use 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 1 29059 MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.004 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.021 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.011 
WT 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 2 38706 MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.004 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.021 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.011 
C 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 4 38560 MO0112DQRWLNYE.019 
MO0111DQRWLNYE.004 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.021 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.011 
C 
364137116351001 NC-EWDP-12PA 25 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.010 
C 
364138116351001 NC-EWDP-12PB 25 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.012 
C 
364139116351001 NC-EWDP-12PC 26 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.013 
WT 
364011116294901 NC-EWDP-15P 12 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.009 
WT 
364015116265301 NC-EWDP-19P 9 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.014 
WT 
364014116265301 NC-EWDP-19D 5 MO0112DQRWLNYE.025 
MO0112DQRWLNYE.018 
C 
365301116271301 USW WT-24 11 GS990908312312.005 
GS000608312312.003 
GS000808312312.007 
WT 
363951116252401 NC-Washburn-1X 59 MO0112DQRWLNYE.024 WT 
364706116170601 UE-25 J-11 71 GS960908312312.010 WT 
364237116365401 BGMW-11 51 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363709116264601 PW-38 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363409116233701 PW-39 1 GS991100002330.001 U 
363411116264701 PW-40 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363428116281201 Amargosa Water 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363429116233401 PW-41 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
363511116335101 PW-42 1 GS991100002330.001 WT 
365624116222901 USW UZ-N91 209 GS991100002330.001 WT 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-13 October 2004 
A3. TABLE A-3: RELIABILITY OF MEASUREMENTS 
Reliability of Measurements 
Using professional judgment, an assessment of the overall reliability of the average water-level 
data to represent 1990s water levels (Table A-1) was made. The following categories were 
assigned: 
 Best (average water level documented by Graves et al. 1997 [DIRS 10146]; 
DTN: GS960908312312.010) 
 Reliable (all others not identified in the other three categories) 
 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 water-level measurements) or (latest measurement made 
prior to 1980) or (only data point available within a 5-km radius) 
 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements, all made prior to 1980). 
Table A-3. Reliability of Measurements 
USGS Site ID Site Name Reliability of Measurements 
365629116222602 UE-29 a#2 Reliable 
365520116370301 GEXA Well 4 Reliable 
365340116264601 UE-25 WT#6 Best 
365322116273501 USW G-2 Best 
365239116253401 UE-25 WT#16 Best 
365208116274001 USW UZ-14 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
365207116264201 UE-25 WT#18 Best 
365200116272901 USW G-1 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
365147116185301 UE-25 a#3 Less Reliable (only data points within 5-km radius) 
365140116260301 UE-25 WT#4 Best 
365116116233801 UE-25 WT#15 Best 
365114116270401 USW G-4 Reliable 
365105116262401 UE-25 a#1 Reliable 
365032116243501 UE-25 WT#14 Best 
365023116271801 USW WT-2 Best 
364947116254300 UE-25 c#1 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
364947116254501 UE-25 c#3 Reliable 
364947116254401 UE-25 c#2 Reliable 
364945116235001 UE-25 WT#13 Best 
364933116285701 USW WT-7 Best 
364916116265601 USW WT-1 Best 
364905116280101 USW G-3 Best 
364828116234001 UE-25 J-13 Best 
364825116290501 USW WT-10 Best 
364822116262601 UE-25 WT#17 Best 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-14 October 2004 
Table A-3. Reliability of Measurements (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name Reliability of Measurements 
365821116343701 USW VH-2 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
364757116245801 UE-25 WT#3 Best 
364732116330701 USW VH-1 Best 
364656116261601 UE-25 WT#12 Best 
364649116280201 USW WT-11 Best 
364554116232400 UE-25 J-12 Best 
364528116232201 UE-25 JF#3 Reliable 
364105116302601 Cind-R-Lite Well Reliable 
363907116235701 PW-1 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363836116234001 PW-2 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363840116235000 PW-3 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363840116234001 PW-4 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363840116233501 PW-5 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363835116234001 NDOT Well Reliable 
363742116263201 PW-6 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363830116241401 Airport Well Reliable 
363815116175901 TW- 5 Reliable 
363711116263701 PW-7 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363621116263201 PW-8 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363549116305001 Nye County Development Co. Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363523116353701 PW-9 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363525116325601 PW-10 Reliable 
363519116322001 PW-11 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363540116240801 PW-12 Less Reliable (latest measurement prior to 1980) 
363527116292501 PW-13 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363521116352501 PW-14 Reliable 
363456116335501 PW-15 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363454116314201 PW-16 Reliable 
363503116351501 PW-17 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363503116284001 PW-18 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363436116342301 PW-19 Reliable 
363436116333201 PW-20 Reliable 
363434116354001 PW-21 Reliable 
363438116324601 PW-22 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363442116363301 PW-23 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363440116282401 PW-24 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363415116275101 PW-25 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363407116342501 PW-26 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363407116243501 PW-27 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363429116315901 PW-28 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363405116321501 PW-29 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363428116240301 PW-30 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363428116234701 PW-31 Reliable 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-15 October 2004 
Table A-3. Reliability of Measurements (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name Reliability of Measurements 
363417116271801 Nye County Land Company Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363411116272901 Amargosa Town Complex Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363410116261101 Nye County Development Co. Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363410116240301 PW-32 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363410116240001 PW-33 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363407116273301 Amargosa Valley Water Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363342116335701 PW-34 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363340116332901 PW-35 Reliable 
363342116325101 PW-36 Less Reliable (latest measurement prior to 1980) 
363350116252101 PW-37 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
365157116271202 USW H-1 tube 1 Best 
365157116271203 USW H-1 tube 2 Best 
365157116271204 USW H-1 tube 3 Best 
365157116271205 USW H-1 tube 4 Best 
365122116275502 USW H-5 upper Best 
365122116275503 USW H-5 lower Best 
365108116262302 UE-25 b#1 lower Best 
365108116262303 UE-25 b#1 upper Best 
365049116285502 USW H-6 upper Best 
365049116285505 USW H-6 lower Best 
365032116265402 USW H-4 upper Best 
365032116265403 USW H-4 lower Best 
364942116280002 USW H-3 upper Best 
364942116280003 USW H-3 lower Best 
364938116252102 UE-25 p#1 (Lwr Intrvl) Best 
not available yet USW SD-7 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
not available yet USW SD-9 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
not available yet USW SD-12 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, shallow Reliable 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, deep Reliable 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 1 Reliable 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 2 Reliable 
363939116275401 NC-EWDP-2D Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363940116275501 NC-EWDP-2DB Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
364054116321401 NC-EWDP-3D Reliable 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 2 Reliable 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 3 Reliable 
363925116241501 NC-EWDP-4PA Reliable 
363925116241401 NC-EWDP-4PB Reliable 
364012116223401 NC-EWDP-5SB Reliable 
364332116332201 NC-EWDP-7S Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 1 Reliable 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 2 Reliable 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-16 October 2004 
Table A-3. Reliability of Measurements (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name Reliability of Measurements 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 4 Reliable 
364137116351001 NC-EWDP-12PA Reliable 
364138116351001 NC-EWDP-12PB Reliable 
364139116351001 NC-EWDP-12PC Reliable 
364011116294901 NC-EWDP-15P Reliable 
364015116265301 NC-EWDP-19P Reliable 
364014116265301 NC-EWDP-19D Reliable 
365301116271301 USW WT-24 Reliable 
363951116252401 NC-Washburn-1X Reliable 
364706116170601 UE-25 J-11 Best 
364237116365401 BGMW-11 Reliable 
363709116264601 PW-38 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363409116233701 PW-39 Unreliable (fewer than 5 measurements before 1980) 
363411116264701 PW-40 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363428116281201 Amargosa Water Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363429116233401 PW-41 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
363511116335101 PW-42 Less Reliable (fewer than 5 measurements) 
365624116222901 USW UZ-N91 Reliable 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-17 October 2004 
A4. TABLE A-4: EARLIEST YEAR OF MEASUREMENT, LATEST YEAR OF 
MEASUREMENT, MINIMUM WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE, AND MAXIMUM 
WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDE (DTN: GS010908312332.002) 
Earliest Year of Measurement/Latest Year of Measurement 
The earliest and latest year of reported measurement used in the calculation of the mean were 
determined and recorded. The data reported in GS960908312312.010 [DIRS 105063] were 
collected for the water-level monitoring studies being conducted as part of Yucca Mountain site 
characterization activities after 1986 under an approved quality assurance program. The data 
tabulated in GS960908312312.010 [DIRS 105063] were not checked for earlier or later 
measurements. 
Minimum Water-Level Altitude/Maximum Water-Level Altitude (Meters) 
The smallest and largest water-level altitudes for the data used to calculate mean water-level 
altitude were compiled and tabulated. The altitude was converted from feet to meters by the 
following formula, where necessary: 
Altitude (ft)  0.3048 (m/ft) = Altitude (meters) 
The altitude was rounded to the nearest tenth of 1 meter. 
Table A-4. Earliest Year of Measurement, Latest Year of Measurement, Minimum Water-Level Altitude, 
and Maximum Water-Level Altitude (DTN: GS010908312332.002) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Earliest Year 
of Measurement 
Latest Year 
of Measurement 
Minimum 
Water-Level 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Maximum 
Water-Level 
Altitude 
(meters) 
365629116222602 UE-29 a#2 1985 1996 1186.2 1191.3 
365520116370301 GEXA Well 4 1989 1996 995.3 1010.1 
365340116264601 UE-25 WT#6 1985 1995 1033.3 1036.1 
365322116273501 USW G-2 1992 1995 1019.6 1020.6 
365239116253401 UE-25 WT#16 1985 1995 737.8 738.6 
365208116274001 USW UZ-14 N/A N/A N/A N/A 
365207116264201 UE-25 WT#18 1991 1995 730.5 730.9 
365200116272901 USW G-1 1982 1982 754.2 754.2 
365147116185301 UE-25 a#3 1979 1979 748.3 748.3 
365140116260301 UE-25 WT#4 1985 1995 730.3 731.2 
365116116233801 UE-25 WT#15 1985 1995 729.0 729.4 
365114116270401 USW G-4 1983 1990 730.0 730.9 
365105116262401 UE-25 a#1 1982 1985 730.7 731.2 
365032116243501 UE-25 WT#14 1985 1995 729.3 730.0 
365023116271801 USW WT-2 1985 1995 730.1 730.8 
364947116254300 UE-25 c#1 1983 1984 730.1 730.3 
364947116254501 UE-25 c#3 1989 1995 730.1 730.3 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-18 October 2004 
Table A-4. Earliest Year of Measurement, Latest Year of Measurement, Minimum Water-Level Altitude, 
and Maximum Water-Level Altitude (DTN: GS010908312332.002) (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Earliest Year 
of Measurement 
Latest Year 
of Measurement 
Minimum 
Water-Level 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Maximum 
Water-Level 
Altitude 
(meters) 
364947116254401 UE-25 c#2 1989 1995 729.9 730.3 
364945116235001 UE-25 WT#13 1985 1995 728.5 729.4 
364933116285701 USW WT-7 1985 1995 775.5 776.0 
364916116265601 USW WT- 1 1985 1995 730.0 730.5 
364905116280101 USW G-3 1985 1995 730.0 730.8 
364828116234001 UE-25 J-13 1986 1995 728.3 728.7 
364825116290501 USW WT-10 1985 1995 775.6 776.2 
364822116262601 UE-25 WT#17 1985 1995 729.5 729.8 
365821116343701 USW VH-2 1983 1983 810.4 810.4 
364757116245801 UE-25 WT#3 1985 1995 729.4 729.9 
364732116330701 USW VH-1 1985 1995 779.3 779.6 
364656116261601 UE-25 WT#12 1985 1995 729.1 729.6 
364649116280201 USW WT-11 1985 1995 730.2 730.8 
364554116232400 UE-25 J-12 1989 1995 727.8 728.2 
364528116232201 UE-25 JF#3 1992 1998 727.3 728.1 
364105116302601 Cind-R-Lite Well 1992 1998 727.1 729.9 
363907116235701 PW-1 1961 1961 718.4 718.4 
363836116234001 PW-2 1964 1990 700.1 705.4 
363840116235000 PW-3 1955 1955 704.1 704.1 
363840116234001 PW-4 1952 1952 705.6 705.6 
363840116233501 PW-5 1955 1955 701.6 701.6 
363835116234001 NDOT Well 1991 1998 704.9 705.6 
363742116263201 PW-6 1953 1987 705.4 708.1 
363830116241401 Airport Well 1987 1998 705.2 705.5 
363815116175901 TW-5 1962 1998 724.8 729.2 
363711116263701 PW-7 1958 1962 706.1 709.3 
363621116263201 PW-8 1958 1958 704.4 704.4 
363549116305001 Nye County Development 
Co. 
1963 1987 691.3 695.9 
363523116353701 PW-9 1960 1984 688.4 694.0 
363525116325601 PW-10 1960 1987 691.4 696.3 
363519116322001 PW-11 1962 1987 693.5 696.1 
363540116240801 PW-12 1963 1973 721.5 726.0 
363527116292501 PW-13 1962 1987 696.9 698.7 
363521116352501 PW-14 1963 1998 689.7 692.0 
363456116335501 PW-15 1961 1962 707.1 707.7 
363454116314201 PW-16 1962 1987 693.2 696.2 
363503116351501 PW-17 1984 1987 690.5 691.3 
363503116284001 PW-18 1965 1987 692.2 694.9 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-19 October 2004 
Table A-4. Earliest Year of Measurement, Latest Year of Measurement, Minimum Water-Level Altitude, 
and Maximum Water-Level Altitude (DTN: GS010908312332.002) (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Earliest Year 
of Measurement 
Latest Year 
of Measurement 
Minimum 
Water-Level 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Maximum 
Water-Level 
Altitude 
(meters) 
363436116342301 PW-19 1959 1987 705.3 708.8 
363436116333201 PW-20 1962 1987 691.5 696.0 
363434116354001 PW-21 1987 1993 689.1 690.4 
363438116324601 PW-22 1961 1987 692.4 698.0 
363442116363301 PW-23 1982 1982 689.2 689.2 
363440116282401 PW-24 1962 1962 686.4 686.4 
363415116275101 PW-25 1958 1958 696.2 696.2 
363407116342501 PW-26 1958 1984 690.1 692.8 
363407116243501 PW-27 1962 1962 709.0 709.0 
363429116315901 PW-28 1965 1987 689.5 692.1 
363405116321501 PW-29 1960 1962 704.7 706.6 
363428116240301 PW-30 1987 1991 719.6 720.4 
363428116234701 PW-31 1987 1998 717.7 720.3 
363417116271801 Nye County Land 
Company 
1962 1984 688.3 691.9 
363411116272901 Amargosa Town Complex 1980 1980 688.8 688.8 
363410116261101 Nye County Development 
Co. 
1987 1987 691.2 691.2 
363410116240301 PW-32 1966 1987 714.0 720.9 
363410116240001 PW-33 1962 1987 705.9 723.6 
363407116273301 Amargosa Valley Water 1988 1988 701.3 701.3 
363342116335701 PW-34 1958 1958 696.5 696.5 
363340116332901 PW-35 1954 1987 692.4 696.2 
363342116325101 PW-36 1955 1974 692.7 695.1 
363350116252101 PW-37 1959 1962 698.5 700.4 
365157116271202 USW H-1 tube 1 1985 1995 785.0 786.1 
365157116271203 USW H-1 tube 2 1985 1995 735.7 736.3 
365157116271204 USW H-1 tube 3 1985 1995 730.4 730.8 
365157116271205 USW H-1 tube 4 1985 1995 730.5 731.0 
365122116275502 USW H-5 upper 1985 1995 775.0 775.7 
365122116275503 USW H-5 lower 1985 1995 775.0 775.9 
365108116262302 UE-25 b#1 lower 1985 1995 728.5 730.3 
365108116262303 UE-25 b#1 upper 1985 1995 730.5 730.8 
365049116285502 USW H-6 upper 1985 1995 775.8 776.2 
365049116285505 USW H-6 lower 1988 1995 775.7 776.1 
365032116265402 USW H-4 upper 1985 1995 730.2 730.5 
365032116265403 USW H-4 lower 1985 1995 730.2 730.8 
364942116280002 USW H-3 upper 1985 1995 731.1 731.9 
364942116280003 USW H-3 lower 1991 1996 747.4 760.3 
364938116252102 UE-25 p#1 (Lwr Intrvl) 1985 1995 751.9 752.7 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-20 October 2004 
Table A-4. Earliest Year of Measurement, Latest Year of Measurement, Minimum Water-Level Altitude, 
and Maximum Water-Level Altitude (DTN: GS010908312332.002) (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Earliest Year 
of Measurement 
Latest Year 
of Measurement 
Minimum 
Water-Level 
Altitude 
(meters) 
Maximum 
Water-Level 
Altitude 
(meters) 
not available yet USW SD-7 1995 1995 727.6 727.6 
not available yet USW SD-9 1994 1994 731.1 731.1 
not available yet USW SD-12 1995 1995 730.0 730.0 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, shallow 1999 2000 786.7 786.8 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, deep 1999 2000 748.7 748.9 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 1 1999 2000 787.1 787.2 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 2 1999 2000 786.7 786.9 
363939116275401 NC-EWDP-2D 1999 1999 706.1 706.2 
363940116275501 NC-EWDP-2DB 2000 2000 712.3 713.7 
364054116321401 NC-EWDP-3D 1999 2000 717.4 719.3 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 2 1999 2000 719.7 720.0 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 3 1999 2000 719.2 719.5 
363925116241501 NC-EWDP-4PA 2000 2000 717.1 718.7 
363925116241401 NC-EWDP-4PB 2000 2000 723.4 723.8 
364012116223401 NC-EWDP-5SB 2000 2000 723.4 723.6 
364332116332201 NC-EWDP-7S 2000 2000 829.9 830.2 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 1 1999 2000 766.6 766.7 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 2 1999 2000 767.2 767.4 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 4 1999 2000 766.7 766.8 
364137116351001 NC-EWDP-12PA 2000 2000 722.8 723.0 
364138116351001 NC-EWDP-12PB 2000 2000 722.9 732.2 
364139116351001 NC-EWDP-12PC 2000 2000 720.3 720.8 
364011116294901 NC-EWDP-15P 2000 2000 722.4 722.6 
364015116265301 NC-EWDP-19P 2000 2000 707.4 707.7 
364014116265301 NC-EWDP-19D 2000 2000 712.6 712.9 
365301116271301 USW WT-24 1999 1999 839.7 840.7 
363951116252401 NC-Washburn-1X 1999 2000 714.4 714.7 
364706116170601 UE-25 J-11 1989 1995 732.1 732.4 
364237116365401 BGMW-11 1989 1999 715.5 716.2 
363709116264601 PW-38 1987 1987 704.0 704.0 
363409116233701 PW-39 1962 1962 713.2 713.2 
363411116264701 PW-40 1987 1987 689.5 689.5 
363428116281201 Amargosa Water 1987 1987 690.4 690.4 
363429116233401 PW-41 1987 1987 715.7 715.7 
363511116335101 PW-42 1987 1987 690.8 690.8 
365624116222901 USW UZ-N91 1986 1996 1185.6 1191.3 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-21 October 2004 
A5. TABLE A-5: TOP OF INTERVAL, BOTTOM OF INTERVAL, AND MIDPOINT 
OF INTERVAL 
Top of Interval/Bottom of Interval (Meters) 
Where available, the altitude of the top and bottom of screened or packed-off intervals were 
used. If the altitude of the screened or packed-off interval was not available, the borehole was 
treated as an open borehole. If the altitude of the bottom of a borehole interval was not available, 
the altitude of the base of the borehole was used for the bottom of the interval. Likewise, if the 
altitude of the top of a borehole interval was not available, the maximum water level was used 
for the altitude of the top of the interval. The altitudes were converted from feet to meters by the 
following formula: 
Altitude (ft)  0.3048 (m/ft) = Altitude (meters) 
The altitude was rounded to the nearest tenth of 1 meter. 
Midpoint of Interval (Meters) 
Most of the water levels represent a composite water-level altitude for a borehole. Composite 
water-level altitudes refer to water levels derived from an open interval that may encompass one 
or more hydrogeologic units, in which any portion of the open interval may contribute to the 
water level. Because the altitude at which the hydraulic head measurement applies is uncertain, 
the midpoint of either the water column for open (uncased) boreholes or the midpoint of a 
screened or packed-off interval within the borehole is identified. The altitude of the midpoint of 
the interval was calculated by the following formula: 
Midpoint = (Top+Bottom)/2 
The altitude was rounded to the nearest tenth of 1 meter. 
Sources 
Sources are tabulated in Table A-2. 
Table A-5. Top of Interval, Bottom of Interval, and Midpoint of Interval 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Top of Interval 
(meters) 
Bottom of Interval 
(meters) 
Midpoint of Interval 
(meters) 
365629116222602 UE-29 a#2 1187.7 793.9 990.8 
365520116370301 GEXA Well 4 1008.0 710.5 859.2 
365340116264601 UE-25 WT#6 1034.6 931.8 983.2 
365322116273501 USW G-2 1020.2 748.0 884.1 
365239116253401 UE-25 WT#16 738.3 689.9 714.1 
365208116274001 USW UZ-14 915.9 670.9 793.4 
365207116264201 UE-25 WT#18 730.8 713.4 722.1 
365200116272901 USW G-1 754.2 -502.9 125.7 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-22 October 2004 
Table A-5. Top of Interval, Bottom of Interval, and Midpoint of Interval (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Top of Interval 
(meters) 
Bottom of Interval 
(meters) 
Midpoint of Interval 
(meters) 
365147116185301 UE-25 a#3 748.3 614.5 681.4 
365140116260301 UE-25 WT#4 730.8 687.3 709.0 
365116116233801 UE-25 WT#15 729.2 668.2 698.7 
365114116270401 USW G-4 730.1 354.2 542.2 
365105116262401 UE-25 a#1 731.0 436.9 584.0 
365032116243501 UE-25 WT#14 729.7 677.4 703.6 
365023116271801 USW WT-2 730.7 673.4 702.0 
364947116254300 UE-25 c#1 730.3 216.2 473.2 
364947116254501 UE-25 c#3 730.3 218.3 474.3 
364947116254401 UE-25 c#2 730.2 376.3 553.2 
364945116235001 UE-25 WT#13 729.1 678.5 703.8 
364933116285701 USW WT- 7 775.8 705.9 740.9 
364916116265601 USW WT- 1 730.4 686.4 708.4 
364905116280101 USW G-3 688.6 -52.4 318.1 
364828116234001 UE-25 J-13 707.7 1.8 354.8 
364825116290501 USW WT-10 776.0 692.4 734.2 
364822116262601 UE-25 WT#17 729.7 681.0 705.4 
365821116343701 USW VH-2 810.5 -244.8 282.8 
364757116245801 UE-25 WT#3 729.6 682.0 705.8 
364732116330701 USW VH-1 779.4 201.5 490.5 
364656116261601 UE-25 WT#12 729.5 675.7 702.6 
364649116280201 USW WT-11 730.7 653.1 691.9 
364554116232400 UE-25 J-12 712.6 606.6 659.6 
364528116232201 UE-25 JF#3 727.8 597.5 662.7 
364105116302601 Cind-R-Lite Well 729.8 690.6 710.2 
363907116235701 PW-1 718.4 676.4 697.4 
363836116234001 PW-2 702.8 648.3 675.6 
363840116235000 PW-3 704.1 659.9 682.0 
363840116234001 PW-4 705.6 690.4 698.0 
363840116233501 PW-5 701.7 656.9 679.3 
363835116234001 NDOT Well 705.3 658.9 682.1 
363742116263201 PW-6 706.7 621.8 664.3 
363830116241401 Airport Well 705.5 567.5 636.5 
363815116175901 TW-5 725.1 652.3 688.7 
363711116263701 PW-7 707.7 632.2 669.9 
363621116263201 PW-8 704.4 646.2 675.3 
363549116305001 Nye County Development Co. 694.4 582.8 638.6 
363523116353701 PW-9 691.9 655.6 673.8 
363525116325601 PW-10 694.3 659.0 676.7 
363519116322001 PW-11 694.4 615.1 654.7 
363540116240801 PW-12 722.1 676.4 699.2 
363527116292501 PW-13 697.8 637.4 667.6 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-23 October 2004 
Table A-5. Top of Interval, Bottom of Interval, and Midpoint of Interval (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Top of Interval 
(meters) 
Bottom of Interval 
(meters) 
Midpoint of Interval 
(meters) 
363521116352501 PW-14 690.2 653.9 672.0 
363456116335501 PW-15 707.4 649.9 678.6 
363454116314201 PW-16 698.1 605.0 651.6 
363503116351501 PW-17 691.0 679.1 685.1 
363503116284001 PW-18 693.6 679.7 686.7 
363436116342301 PW-19 706.9 664.5 685.7 
363436116333201 PW-20 699.0 640.1 669.5 
363434116354001 PW-21 691.3 650.9 671.1 
363438116324601 PW-22 695.2 630.3 662.8 
363442116363301 PW-23 689.2 664.8 677.0 
363440116282401 PW-24 686.4 642.8 664.6 
363415116275101 PW-25 696.2 650.5 673.3 
363407116342501 PW-26 691.4 617.5 654.5 
363407116243501 PW-27 709.0 625.5 667.2 
363429116315901 PW-28 690.4 637.7 664.0 
363405116321501 PW-29 705.7 648.6 677.1 
363428116240301 PW-30 717.2 663.1 690.2 
363428116234701 PW-31 718.8 668.1 693.4 
363417116271801 Nye County Land Company 690.1 740.7 715.4 
363411116272901 Amargosa Town Complex 688.9 647.7 668.3 
363410116261101 Nye County Development Co. 691.2 539.5 615.4 
363410116240301 PW-32 717.4 687.7 702.5 
363410116240001 PW-33 714.8 662.7 688.7 
363407116273301 Amargosa Valley Water 701.4 646.5 673.9 
363342116335701 PW-34 696.5 647.7 672.1 
363340116332901 PW-35 694.2 635.2 664.7 
363342116325101 PW-36 694.0 678.5 686.2 
363350116252101 PW-37 699.5 658.4 678.9 
365157116271202 USW H-1 tube 1 -480.0 -511.0 -495.5 
365157116271203 USW H-1 tube 2 206.0 180.0 193.0 
365157116271204 USW H-1 tube 3 587.0 538.0 562.5 
365157116271205 USW H-1 tube 4 731.0 630.0 680.5 
365122116275502 USW H-5 upper 775.5 632.9 704.2 
365122116275503 USW H-5 lower 632.9 259.9 446.4 
365108116262302 UE-25 b#1 lower 1.7 -19.3 -8.8 
365108116262303 UE-25 b#1 upper 730.7 1.7 366.2 
365049116285502 USW H-6 upper 776.0 549.8 662.9 
365049116285505 USW H-6 lower 549.8 81.8 315.8 
365032116265402 USW H-4 upper 730.4 60.5 395.5 
365032116265403 USW H-4 lower 60.5 29.5 45.0 
364942116280002 USW H-3 upper 731.5 422.2 576.9 
364942116280003 USW H-3 lower 422.2 264.2 343.2 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-24 October 2004 
Table A-5. Top of Interval, Bottom of Interval, and Midpoint of Interval (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Top of Interval 
(meters) 
Bottom of Interval 
(meters) 
Midpoint of Interval 
(meters) 
364938116252102 UE-25 p#1 (Lwr Intrvl) -129.8 -690.8 -410.3 
not available USW SD-7 727.6 547.7 637.7 
not available USW SD-9 731.1 625.6 678.3 
not available USW SD-12 730.0 663.4 696.7 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, shallow 786.8 384.6 585.7 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, deep 145.6 120.6 133.1 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 1 754.8 748.8 751.8 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 2 739.8 721.8 730.8 
363939116275401 NC-EWDP-2D 706.1 308.1 294.3 
363940116275501 NC-EWDP-2DB -18.7 -136 -77 
364054116321401 NC-EWDP-3D 718.3 37.4 377.9 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 2 695.8 669.8 682.8 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 3 653.8 630.8 642.3 
363925116241501 NC-EWDP-4PA 699.0 675.0 687.0 
363925116241401 NC-EWDP-4PB 598.0 567.0 582.5 
364012116223401 NC-EWDP-5SB 724.3 691.3 707.8 
364332116332201 NC-EWDP-7S 828.4 824.7 826.6 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 1 770.3 760.3 765.3 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 2 754.3 748.3 751.3 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 4 696.3 693.3 694.8 
364137116351001 NC-EWDP-12PA 675.7 657.7 666.7 
364138116351001 NC-EWDP-12PB 675.7 657.7 666.7 
364139116351001 NC-EWDP-12PC 722.7 704.7 713.7 
364011116294901 NC-EWDP-15P 725.9 707.9 716.9 
364015116265301 NC-EWDP-19P 710.2 679.2 694.7 
364014116265301 NC-EWDP-19D 713.2 386.2 549.7 
365301116271301 USW WT-24 840.1 629.8 734.7 
363951116252401 NC-Washburn-1X 696.1 677.8 687.0 
364706116170601 UE-25 J-11 721.2 653.3 687.2 
364237116365401 BGMW-11 715.9 631.0 673.4 
363709116264601 PW-38 704.1 775.7 739.9 
363409116233701 PW-39 713.3 695.0 704.1 
363411116264701 PW-40 689.5 694.1 691.8 
363428116281201 Amargosa Water 690.4 738.2 714.3 
363429116233401 PW-41 715.7 755.3 735.5 
363511116335101 PW-42 690.8 729.4 710.1 
365624116222901 USW UZ-N91 1186.8 1174.4 1180.6 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-25 October 2004 
A6. TABLE A-6: INTERVAL DESCRIPTION AND ACCURACY OF LOCATION 
Interval Description 
Where available, the interval type and description were compiled from the NWIS data files 
(DTN: GS991100002330.001 [DIRS 122818]) and from various Nye County datasets as 
identified in Table A-2. 
Accuracy of Location/Accuracy of Land-Surface Altitude (Meters) 
Location and land-surface altitude accuracy, where available, were compiled from the NWIS 
data files (DTN: GS991100002330.001 [DIRS 122818]). 
Sources 
Sources are tabulated in Table A-2. 
Table A-6. Interval Description and Accuracy of Location 
USGS Site ID Site Name Interval Description 
Accuracy 
of Location 
365629116222602 UE-29 a#2 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
365520116370301 GEXA Well 4 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
365340116264601 UE-25 WT#6 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 10 seconds 
365322116273501 USW G-2 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
365239116253401 UE-25 WT#16 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
365208116274001 USW UZ-14 Fractured Rock Openings Unknown 
365207116264201 UE-25 WT#18 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
365200116272901 USW G-1 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
365147116185301 UE-25 a#3 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
365140116260301 UE-25 WT#4 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
365116116233801 UE-25 WT#15 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
365114116270401 USW G-4 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
365105116262401 UE-25 a#1 Unknown +/- 1 second 
365032116243501 UE-25 WT#14 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
365023116271801 USW WT-2 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
364947116254300 UE-25 c#1 Composite interval - entire saturated section +/- 1 second 
364947116254501 UE-25 c#3 Composite interval - entire saturated section +/- 1 second 
364947116254401 UE-25 c#2 Upper interval - above inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
364945116235001 UE-25 WT#13 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
364933116285701 USW WT- 7 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
364916116265601 USW WT- 1 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
364905116280101 USW G-3 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
364828116234001 UE-25 J -13 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
364825116290501 USW WT-10 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
364822116262601 UE-25 WT#17 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
365821116343701 USW VH-2 Fractured Rock Openings  

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-26 October 2004 
Table A-6. Interval Description and Accuracy of Location (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name Interval Description 
Accuracy 
of Location 
364757116245801 UE-25 WT#3 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
364732116330701 USW VH-1 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
364656116261601 UE-25 WT#12 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
364649116280201 USW WT-11 Wire-Wound Screen +/- 1 second 
364554116232400 UE-25 J -12 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing  
364528116232201 UE-25 JF#3 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
364105116302601 Cind-R-Lite Well Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363907116235701 PW-1 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363836116234001 PW-2 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363840116235000 PW-3 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363840116234001 PW-4 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 minute 
363840116233501 PW-5 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363835116234001 NDOT Well Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363742116263201 PW-6 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363830116241401 Airport Well Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363815116175901 TW- 5 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
363711116263701 PW-7 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363621116263201 PW-8 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363549116305001 Nye County Development 
Co. 
Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363523116353701 PW-9 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 10 seconds 
363525116325601 PW-10 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363519116322001 PW-11 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363540116240801 PW-12 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 10 seconds 
363527116292501 PW-13 Unknown +/- 5 seconds 
363521116352501 PW-14 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363456116335501 PW-15 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 minute 
363454116314201 PW-16 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363503116351501 PW-17 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363503116284001 PW-18 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363436116342301 PW-19 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363436116333201 PW-20 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363434116354001 PW-21 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363438116324601 PW-22 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363442116363301 PW-23 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363440116282401 PW-24 Unknown +/- 1 minute 
363415116275101 PW-25 Unknown +/- 10 seconds 
363407116342501 PW-26 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 10 seconds 
363407116243501 PW-27 Unknown +/- 1 minute 
363429116315901 PW-28 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363405116321501 PW-29 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 10 seconds 
363428116240301 PW-30 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-27 October 2004 
Table A-6. Interval Description and Accuracy of Location (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name Interval Description 
Accuracy 
of Location 
363428116234701 PW-31 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363417116271801 Nye County Land 
Company 
Unknown +/- 1 minute 
363411116272901 Amargosa Town Complex Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363410116261101 Nye County Development 
Co. 
Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363410116240301 PW-32 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363410116240001 PW-33 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363407116273301 Amargosa Valley Water Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 1 second 
363342116335701 PW-34 Unknown +/- 10 seconds 
363340116332901 PW-35 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 5 seconds 
363342116325101 PW-36 Unknown +/- 10 seconds 
363350116252101 PW-37 Perforated, Porous, or Slotted Casing +/- 10 seconds 
365157116271202 USW H-1 tube 1 Tube 1 - deepest interval in piezometer +/- 1 second 
365157116271203 USW H-1 tube 2 Tube 2 - second deepest interval in 
piezometer 
+/- 1 second 
365157116271204 USW H-1 tube 3 Tube 3 - second shallowest interval in 
piezometer 
+/- 1 second 
365157116271205 USW H-1 tube 4 Tube 4 - shallowest interval in piezometer +/- 1 second 
365122116275502 USW H-5 upper Upper interval - above inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
365122116275503 USW H-5 lower Lower interval - below inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
365108116262302 UE-25 b#1 lower Lower interval - below inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
365108116262303 UE-25 b#1 upper Upper interval - above inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
365049116285502 USW H-6 upper Upper interval - above inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
365049116285505 USW H-6 lower Lower interval - below inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
365032116265402 USW H-4 upper Upper interval - above inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
365032116265403 USW H-4 lower Lower interval - below inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
364942116280002 USW H-3 upper Upper interval - above inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
364942116280003 USW H-3 lower Lower interval - below inflatable packer +/- 1 second 
364938116252102 UE-25 p#1 (Lwr Intrvl) Paleozoics units monitored +/- 1 second 
not available yet USW SD-7 Fractured Rock Openings Unknown 
not available yet USW SD-9 Fractured Rock Openings Unknown 
not available yet USW SD-12 Fractured Rock Openings Unknown 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, shallow Screen, above inflatable packer Unknown 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, deep Screen, below inflatable packer Unknown 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 1 Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 2 Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
363939116275401 NC-EWDP-2D Open Hole, No Screen Unknown 
363940116275501 NC-EWDP-2DB Open Hole, No Screen Unknown 
364054116321401 NC-EWDP-3D Open Hole, No Screen Unknown 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 2 Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 3 Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
363925116241501 NC-EWDP-4PA Screen, above inflatable packer Unknown 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-28 October 2004 
Table A-6. Interval Description and Accuracy of Location (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name Interval Description 
Accuracy 
of Location 
363925116241401 NC-EWDP-4PB Screen, below inflatable packer Unknown 
364012116223401 NC-EWDP-5SB Screen Unknown 
364332116332201 NC-EWDP-7S Screen Unknown 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 1 Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 2 Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 4 Screen, below inflatable packer Unknown 
364137116351001 NC-EWDP-12PA Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
364138116351001 NC-EWDP-12PB Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
364139116351001 NC-EWDP-12PC Screen, between inflatable packers Unknown 
364011116294901 NC-EWDP-15P Screen Unknown 
364015116265301 NC-EWDP-19P Screen Unknown 
364014116265301 NC-EWDP-19D Screen, various intervals Unknown 
365301116271301 USW WT-24 Open Hole, No Screen Unknown 
363951116252401 NC-Washburn-1X Screen Unknown 
364706116170601 UE-25 J-11 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
364237116365401 BGMW-11 Open Hole, No Screen +/- 1 second 
363709116264601 PW-38 Unknown +/- 1 second 
363409116233701 PW-39 Unknown +/- 1 minute 
363411116264701 PW-40 Unknown +/- 5 seconds 
363428116281201 Amargosa Water Unknown +/- 5 seconds 
363429116233401 PW-41 Unknown +/- 5 seconds 
363511116335101 PW-42 Unknown +/- 1 second 
365624116222901 USW UZ-N91 Open Hole, No Screen Unknown 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-29 October 2004 
A7. TABLE A-7: ACCURACY OF LAND-SURFACE ALTITUDE AND LATEST 
WATER-LEVEL MEASUREMENT METHOD DESCRIPTION 
Accuracy of Location/Accuracy of Land-Surface Altitude (Meters) 
Location and land-surface altitude accuracy, where available, were compiled from the NWIS 
data files (DTN: GS991100002330.001 [DIRS 122818]). 
Latest Water-Level Measurement Method Description 
Typical water-level measurement method was compiled from the NWIS data files 
(DTN: GS991100002330.001 [DIRS 122818]) and from the Nye County datasets listed in 
Table 4-1. 
Table A-7. Accuracy of Land-Surface Altitude and Latest Water-Level Measurement Method Description 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Accuracy of Land-Surface 
Altitude (meters) 
Latest Water-Level Measurement 
Method Description 
365629116222602 UE-29 a#2 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365520116370301 GEXA Well 4 0.1 Electric-tape measurement 
365340116264601 UE-25 WT#6 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365322116273501 USW G-2 0.1 Electric-tape measurement 
365239116253401 UE-25 WT#16 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365208116274001 USW UZ-14 Unknown Unknown 
365207116264201 UE-25 WT#18 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365200116272901 USW G-1 0.1 Unknown 
365147116185301 UE-25 a#3 0.1 Reported, method not known 
365140116260301 UE-25 WT#4 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365116116233801 UE-25 WT#15 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365114116270401 USW G-4 0.1 Manometer measurement 
365105116262401 UE-25 a#1 0.1 Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
365032116243501 UE-25 WT#14 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365023116271801 USW WT-2 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
364947116254300 UE-25 c#1 0.1 Analogue or graphic recorder 
364947116254501 UE-25 c#3 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
364947116254401 UE-25 c#2 0.1 Reported, method not known 
364945116235001 UE-25 WT#13 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
364933116285701 USW WT- 7 0.1 Manometer measurement 
364916116265601 USW WT- 1 0.1 Electric-tape measurement 
364905116280101 USW G-3 0.1 Unknown 
364828116234001 UE-25 J-13 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
364825116290501 USW WT-10 0.1 Electric-tape measurement 
364822116262601 UE-25 WT#17 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365821116343701 USW VH-2 Unknown Unknown 
364757116245801 UE-25 WT#3 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
364732116330701 USW VH-1 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
364656116261601 UE-25 WT#12 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-30 October 2004 
Table A-7. Accuracy of Land-Surface Altitude and Latest Water-Level Measurement Method Description 
(Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Accuracy of Land-Surface 
Altitude (meters) 
Latest Water-Level Measurement 
Method Description 
364649116280201 USW WT-11 0.1 Reported, method not known 
364554116232400 UE-25 J-12 0.1 Unknown 
364528116232201 UE-25 JF#3 0.1 Unknown 
364105116302601 Cind-R-Lite Well 0.1 Unknown 
363907116235701 PW-1 1.0 Reported, method not known 
363836116234001 PW-2 0.5 Electric-tape measurement 
363840116235000 PW-3 3.0 Reported, method not known 
363840116234001 PW-4 2.0 Reported, method not known 
363840116233501 PW-5 0.5 Reported, method not known 
363835116234001 NDOT Well 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
363742116263201 PW-6 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363830116241401 Airport Well 0.1 Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
363815116175901 TW- 5 0.1 Electric-tape measurement 
363711116263701 PW-7 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
363621116263201 PW-8 0.5 Reported, method not known 
363549116305001 Nye County Development 
Co. 
2.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363523116353701 PW-9 0.5 Unknown 
363525116325601 PW-10 0.5 Electric-tape measurement 
363519116322001 PW-11 2.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363540116240801 PW-12 1.0 Unknown 
363527116292501 PW-13 0.5 Electric-tape measurement 
363521116352501 PW-14 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363456116335501 PW-15 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363454116314201 PW-16 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363503116351501 PW-17 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363503116284001 PW-18 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363436116342301 PW-19 2.0 Electric-tape measurement 
363436116333201 PW-20 2.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363434116354001 PW-21 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
363438116324601 PW-22 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363442116363301 PW-23 0.5 Reported, method not known 
363440116282401 PW-24 0.1 Unknown 
363415116275101 PW-25 0.5 Reported, method not known 
363407116342501 PW-26 2.0 Unknown 
363407116243501 PW-27 1.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363429116315901 PW-28 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363405116321501 PW-29 2.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363428116240301 PW-30 2.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363428116234701 PW-31 0.1 Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
363417116271801 Nye County Land Company 0.1 Unknown 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-31 October 2004 
Table A-7. Accuracy of Land-Surface Altitude and Latest Water-Level Measurement Method Description 
(Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Accuracy of Land-Surface 
Altitude (meters) 
Latest Water-Level Measurement 
Method Description 
363411116272901 Amargosa Town Complex 0.5 Reported, method not known 
363410116261101 Nye County Development 
Co. 
0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363410116240301 PW-32 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363410116240001 PW-33 1.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363407116273301 Amargosa Valley Water 0.5 Reported, method not known 
363342116335701 PW-34 0.5 Reported, method not known 
363340116332901 PW-35 2.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363342116325101 PW-36 2.0 Unknown 
363350116252101 PW-37 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
365157116271202 USW H-1 tube 1 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365157116271203 USW H-1 tube 2 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365157116271204 USW H-1 tube 3 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365157116271205 USW H-1 tube 4 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365122116275502 USW H-5 upper 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365122116275503 USW H-5 lower 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365108116262302 UE-25 b#1 lower 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365108116262303 UE-25 b#1 upper 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365049116285502 USW H-6 upper 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
365049116285505 USW H-6 lower 0.1 Unknown 
365032116265402 USW H-4 upper 0.1 Unknown 
365032116265403 USW H-4 lower 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
364942116280002 USW H-3 upper 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
364942116280003 USW H-3 lower 0.1 Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364938116252102 UE-25 p#1 (Lwr Intrvl) 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
not available yet USW SD-7 Unknown Unknown 
not available yet USW SD-9 Unknown Unknown 
not available yet USW SD-12 Unknown Unknown 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, shallow Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, deep Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 1 Unknown Calibrated transducer 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 2 Unknown Calibrated transducer 
363939116275401 NC-EWDP-2D Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
363940116275501 NC-EWDP-2DB Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364054116321401 NC-EWDP-3D Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 2 Unknown Calibrated transducer 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 3 Unknown Calibrated transducer 
363925116241501 NC-EWDP-4PA Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
363925116241401 NC-EWDP-4PB Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364012116223401 NC-EWDP-5SB Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364332116332201 NC-EWDP-7S Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-32 October 2004 
Table A-7. Accuracy of Land-Surface Altitude and Latest Water-Level Measurement Method Description 
(Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Accuracy of Land-Surface 
Altitude (meters) 
Latest Water-Level Measurement 
Method Description 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 1 Unknown Calibrated transducer 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 2 Unknown Calibrated transducer 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 4 Unknown Calibrated transducer 
364137116351001 NC-EWDP-12PA Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364138116351001 NC-EWDP-12PB Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364139116351001 NC-EWDP-12PC Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364011116294901 NC-EWDP-15P Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364015116265301 NC-EWDP-19P Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364014116265301 NC-EWDP-19D Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
365301116271301 USW WT-24 Unknown Steel-tape measurement 
363951116252401 NC-Washburn-1X Unknown Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364706116170601 UE-25 J-11 0.1 Calibrated electric-tape measurement 
364237116365401 BGMW-11 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363709116264601 PW-38 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363409116233701 PW-39 0.1 Reported, method not known 
363411116264701 PW-40 0.1 Steel-tape measurement 
363428116281201 Amargosa Water 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
363429116233401 PW-41 1.0 Steel-tape measurement 
363511116335101 PW-42 0.5 Steel-tape measurement 
365624116222901 USW UZ-N91 Unknown Steel-tape measurement 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-33 October 2004 
A8. TABLE A-8: WATER-LEVEL MEASUREMENT ACCURACY AND PERCHED 
IDENTIFIER 
Water-Level Measurement Accuracy 
Water-level altitude accuracy, where available, was compiled from the NWIS data files 
(DTN: GS991100002330.001 [DIRS 122818]). 
Perched Identifier 
Potential perched-water levels identified during this analysis were flagged and identified as 
Suspected perched or Assumed perched. 
Table A-8. Water-Level Measurement Accuracy and Perched Identifier 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Water-Level 
Measurement Accuracy Perched Identifier 
365629116222602 UE-29 a#2 Nearest 0.01 feet Suspected perched 
365520116370301 GEXA Well 4 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365340116264601 UE-25 WT#6 Nearest 0.01 feet Assumed perched 
365322116273501 USW G-2 Unknown Assumed perched 
365239116253401 UE-25 WT#16 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365208116274001 USW UZ-14 Unknown 
365207116264201 UE-25 WT#18 Nearest 0.01 feet Suspected perched 
365200116272901 USW G-1 Unknown Suspected perched 
365147116185301 UE-25 a#3 Nearest foot Suspected perched 
365140116260301 UE-25 WT#4 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365116116233801 UE-25 WT#15 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365114116270401 USW G-4 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365105116262401 UE-25 a#1 Unknown 
365032116243501 UE-25 WT#14 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365023116271801 USW WT-2 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364947116254300 UE-25 c#1 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364947116254501 UE-25 c#3 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364947116254401 UE-25 c#2 Nearest foot 
364945116235001 UE-25 WT#13 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364933116285701 USW WT-7 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364916116265601 USW WT-1 Nearest 0.1 feet 
364905116280101 USW G-3 Unknown 
364828116234001 UE-25 J-13 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364825116290501 USW WT-10 Nearest foot 
364822116262601 UE-25 WT#17 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365821116343701 USW VH-2 Unknown 
364757116245801 UE-25 WT#3 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364732116330701 USW VH-1 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364656116261601 UE-25 WT#12 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364649116280201 USW WT-11 Nearest foot 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-34 October 2004 
Table A-8. Water-Level Measurement Accuracy and Perched Identifier (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Water-Level 
Measurement Accuracy Perched Identifier 
364554116232400 UE-25 J-12 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364528116232201 UE-25 JF#3 Unknown 
364105116302601 Cind-R-Lite Well Nearest 0.1 feet 
363907116235701 PW-1 Nearest foot 
363836116234001 PW-2 Nearest 0.1 feet 
363840116235000 PW-3 Nearest foot 
363840116234001 PW-4 Nearest foot 
363840116233501 PW-5 Nearest foot 
363835116234001 NDOT Well Nearest 0.01 feet 
363742116263201 PW-6 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363830116241401 Airport Well Nearest 0.01 feet 
363815116175901 TW- 5 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363711116263701 PW-7 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363621116263201 PW-8 Nearest foot 
363549116305001 Nye County Development Co. Nearest 0.01 feet 
363523116353701 PW-9 Nearest 0.1 feet 
363525116325601 PW-10 Nearest 0.1 feet 
363519116322001 PW-11 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363540116240801 PW-12 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363527116292501 PW-13 Nearest 0.1 feet 
363521116352501 PW-14 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363456116335501 PW-15 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363454116314201 PW-16 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363503116351501 PW-17 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363503116284001 PW-18 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363436116342301 PW-19 Nearest 0.1 feet 
363436116333201 PW-20 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363434116354001 PW-21 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363438116324601 PW-22 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363442116363301 PW-23 Nearest foot 
363440116282401 PW-24 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363415116275101 PW-25 Nearest foot 
363407116342501 PW-26 Nearest foot 
363407116243501 PW-27 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363429116315901 PW-28 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363405116321501 PW-29 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363428116240301 PW-30 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363428116234701 PW-31 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363417116271801 Nye County Land Company Nearest 0.1 feet 
363411116272901 Amargosa Town Complex Nearest foot 
363410116261101 Nye County Development Co. Nearest 0.01 feet 
363410116240301 PW-32 Nearest 0.01 feet 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-35 October 2004 
Table A-8. Water-Level Measurement Accuracy and Perched Identifier (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Water-Level 
Measurement Accuracy Perched Identifier 
363410116240001 PW-33 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363407116273301 Amargosa Valley Water Nearest foot 
363342116335701 PW-34 Nearest foot 
363340116332901 PW-35 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363342116325101 PW-36 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363350116252101 PW-37 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365157116271202 USW H-1 tube 1 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365157116271203 USW H-1 tube 2 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365157116271204 USW H-1 tube 3 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365157116271205 USW H-1 tube 4 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365122116275502 USW H-5 upper Nearest 0.01 feet 
365122116275503 USW H-5 lower Nearest 0.01 feet 
365108116262302 UE-25 b#1 lower Nearest 0.01 feet 
365108116262303 UE-25 b#1 upper Nearest 0.01 feet 
365049116285502 USW H-6 upper Nearest 0.01 feet 
365049116285505 USW H-6 lower Unknown 
365032116265402 USW H-4 upper Unknown 
365032116265403 USW H-4 lower Nearest 0.01 feet 
364942116280002 USW H-3 upper Nearest 0.01 feet 
364942116280003 USW H-3 lower Unknown 
364938116252102 UE-25 p#1 (Lwr Intrvl) Nearest 0.01 feet 
not available yet USW SD-7 Unknown 
not available yet USW SD-9 Unknown 
not available yet USW SD-12 Unknown 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, shallow Unknown 
364234116351501 NC-EWDP-1DX, deep Unknown 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 1 Unknown 
364233116351501 NC-EWDP-1S, probe 2 Unknown 
363939116275401 NC-EWDP-2D Unknown 
363940116275501 NC-EWDP-2DB Unknown 
364054116321401 NC-EWDP-3D Unknown 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 2 Unknown 
364054116321301 NC-EWDP-3S, probe 3 Unknown 
363925116241501 NC-EWDP-4PA Unknown 
363925116241401 NC-EWDP-4PB Unknown 
364012116223401 NC-EWDP-5SB Unknown 
364332116332201 NC-EWDP-7S Unknown Assumed perched 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 1 Unknown 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 2 Unknown 
364145116334401 NC-EWDP-9SX, probe 4 Unknown 
364137116351001 NC-EWDP-12PA Unknown 
364138116351001 NC-EWDP-12PB Unknown 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 A-36 October 2004 
Table A-8. Water-Level Measurement Accuracy and Perched Identifier (Continued) 
USGS Site ID Site Name 
Water-Level 
Measurement Accuracy Perched Identifier 
364139116351001 NC-EWDP-12PC Unknown 
364011116294901 NC-EWDP-15P Unknown 
364015116265301 NC-EWDP-19P Unknown 
364014116265301 NC-EWDP-19D Unknown 
365301116271301 USW WT-24 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363951116252401 NC-Washburn-1X Unknown 
364706116170601 UE-25 J-11 Nearest 0.01 feet 
364237116365401 BGMW-11 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363709116264601 PW-38 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363409116233701 PW-39 Nearest foot 
363411116264701 PW-40 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363428116281201 Amargosa Water Nearest 0.01 feet 
363429116233401 PW-41 Nearest 0.01 feet 
363511116335101 PW-42 Nearest 0.01 feet 
365624116222901 USW UZ-N91 Nearest 0.01 feet Suspected perched 
Table A-9. List of Private Wells and the Corresponding Symbol Name 
Private Well Name Private Well ID # Private Well Name Private Well ID # 
Ben Bossingham PW 1 Davidson Well PW 14 
Fred Cobb PW 2 Eugene J. Mankinen PW 15 
Bob Whellock PW 3 Donald O. Heath PW 16 
Louise Pereidra PW 4 Elvis Kelley PW 17 
Joe Richards PW 5 Manuel Rodela PW 18 
James H. Shaw PW 6 Charles C. DeFir Jr. PW 19 
Richard Washburn PW 7 William R. Monroe PW 20 
Richard Washburn PW 8 DeFir Well PW 21 
Fred Woolridge PW 9 Edwin H. Mankinen PW 22 
Fred J. Keefe PW 10 Bill Strickland PW 23 
Leslie Nickels PW 11 M. Meese PW 24 
L. Mason PW 12 Theo E. Selbach PW 25 
Unknown PW 13 C. L. Caldwell PW 26 
Leonard Siegel PW 27 Lewis N. Dansby PW 35 
James K. Pierce PW 28 Edwin H. Mankinen PW 36 
James K. Pierce PW 29 Willard Johns PW 37 
Cooks West Well PW 30 Richard Washburn PW 38 
Cooks East Well PW 31 L. Cook PW 39 
Lewis C. Cook PW 32 Unknown PW 40 
Lewis C. Cook PW 33 Lewis C. Cook PW 41 
Earl N. Selbach PW 34 Unknown PW 42 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 October 2004 
APPENDIX B 
QUALIFICATION OF WATER-LEVEL DATA

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-1 October 2004 
This appendix contains the qualification of two water-level data sets. Qualification of 
Water-level Data Collected in Well UE-25 p#1 is found immediately below and Qualification of 
Water-level Data Collected in Well UE-25 J-13 is found beginning on page B-6. The data from 
Well UE-25 p#1 is considered unqualified project data per AP-SIII.9Q and is qualified within 
this work product per AP-SIII.2Q to provide a desired level of confidence that the data are 
suitable for the intended use of determining vertical gradients. The data from Well UE-25 J-13 
was collected in 1963 and is considered data from an outside source per AP-SIII.9Q, 
Section 5.2.1 l. The decision was made to also qualify this data per AP-SIII.2Q to provide a 
consistent treatment of the two data sets. 
QUALIFICATION OF WATER-LEVEL DATA COLLECTED IN WELL UE-25 P#1. 
DTN: GS920408312314.009 Table S97274_001 
Data Set for Qualification 
The qualification of this data set is intended to provide a desired level of confidence that the data 
is suitable for the intended use of determining the vertical hydraulic head difference between the 
Paleozoic carbonate aquifer and the overlying Tertiary age aquifers at the UE-25 p#1 location. 
The Qualification Plan for this data is presented in Appendix C. 
The data set for qualification consists of 23 rows of data obtained from 
DTN: GS920408312314.009 Table S97274_001 and are shown in Table B-1. The data are 
water-level measurements collected during packer testing of Borehole UE-25 p#1. The static 
water level in each packed off interval of the borehole was recorded during the packer testing as 
part of the method to determine hydraulic properties of the different intervals in the borehole. 
The tested intervals and corresponding water-level data are separated into two groups, Tertiary 
Section and Paleozoic Section, representing the primary hydrogeologic unit of the tested interval. 
The data have been previously published by Craig and Robinson (1984 [DIRS 101040], Table 2). 
The data in the original field notebooks can be viewed in record MOL.20000301.0894, pp. 95 to 
100 and 298 to 314 (USGS n.d [DIRS 171099]). 
The water-level data are to be used in this water-level analysis report (Table 6-4) to document 
the vertical hydraulic head difference between the carbonate aquifer and the overlying volcanic 
aquifers. 
Table B-1. Water-Level Data from DTN: GS920408312314.009 Table S97274_001 
ROW # 
Water Table 
Altitude 
(masl) Location 
Depth Interval 
(meters) 
Depth to Water 
(meters) Comments 
1 729.9 UE-25 p#1 Static500 383.9 Tertiary section 
2 730.4 UE-25 p#1 500550 383.5 Tertiary section 
3 729.9 UE-25 p#1 550600 383.9 Tertiary section 
4 730.6 UE-25 p#1 739789 383.3 Tertiary section 
5 730.8 UE-25 p#1 764834 383.1 Tertiary section 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-2 October 2004 
Table B-1. Water-Level Data From DTN: GS920408312314.009 Table S97274_001 
(Continued) 
ROW # 
Water Table 
Altitude 
(masl) Location 
Depth Interval 
(meters) 
Depth to Water 
(meters) Comments 
6 732.7 UE-25 p#1 834904 381.1 Tertiary section 
7 731.7 UE-25 p#1 904974 382.2 Tertiary section 
8 733.0 UE-25 p#1 9741044 380.9 Tertiary section 
9 734.5 UE-25 p#1 10441114 379.4 Tertiary section 
10 752.2 UE-25 p#1 11101180 361.7 Tertiary section 
11 751.9 UE-25 p#1 12971308 362.0 Paleozoic section 
12 751.6 UE-25 p#1 12971338 362.3 Paleozoic section 
13 751.6 UE-25 p#1 13411381 362.3 Paleozoic section 
14 751.5 UE-25 p#1 13811420 362.4 Paleozoic section 
15 751.4 UE-25 p#1 14231463 362.5 Paleozoic section 
16 751.5 UE-25 p#1 14631509 362.4 Paleozoic section 
17 751.3 UE-25 p#1 15091554 362.6 Paleozoic section 
18 751.4 UE-25 p#1 15541585 362.5 Paleozoic section 
19 751.2 UE-25 p#1 15971643 362.7 Paleozoic section 
20 750.9 UE-25 p#1 16431689 363.0 Paleozoic section 
21 751.0 UE-25 p#1 16891734 362.9 Paleozoic section 
22 750.8 UE-25 p#1 17341780 363.1 Paleozoic section 
23 750.9 UE-25 p#1 17801805 363.0 Paleozoic section 
Method of Qualification 
The method chosen to qualify this data is the corroborating data method. This method is 
appropriate for this data set because corroborating data are available for comparison and 
inferences drawn to corroborate the unqualified data can be clearly identified, justified, and 
documented. 
The water-level data from Well UE-25 p#1 to be qualified (Table B-1) can be grouped into the 
Tertiary or Paleozoic section according to the rock unit of the tested interval. Corroborating data 
from the Tertiary section come from water-level measurements in six wells located from 600 m 
to 2,500 m away from Well UE-25 p#1. The six wells are UE-25c#1, UE-25c#2, UE-25c#3, 
UE-25 WT#13, UE-25 WT#14, and USW WT-1. The water-level data for these six wells is 
qualified and is documented in Table A-1 of this report. The water-level data from these 
six wells are appropriate for corroboration because they are located near Well UE-25 p#1 in the 
low-gradient region where water levels vary only a small amount spatially. The corroborating 
data are averages of measured water levels for periods of time from 1 to 10 years. The long-term 
average water levels and the similarity of water levels in the low-gradient region make the 
measured water levels in these six wells appropriate for corroborating the water levels in the 
Tertiary section of UE-25 p#1. 
Corroborating data for the Paleozoic section come from water-level measurements in Well 
UE-25 p#1 from the time period of 1985 to 1995 as documented in this report (Tables A-1 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-3 October 2004 
and A-4). These data are qualified and were obtained after Well UE-25 p#1 was completed and 
open only to the Paleozoic section. These corroborating data are appropriate because they were 
measured in the same well as the unqualified data, are qualified, and represent a long-term record 
of measurements. There is additional data available for corroboration from the U.S. Geological 
Survey NWIS Web database. This database contains data from October 1983 through 
February 2004. The data are unqualified, but are sufficient for corroborating purposes. 
Evaluation Criteria 
The water level as measured in the Tertiary section of Well UE-25 p#1 is considered 
corroborated if it falls within 1.5 m of the average water levels from the six corroborating wells. 
The 1.5-m criterion is the maximum water-level uncertainty as determined from the uncertainty 
analyses in Section 6.5. As seen in Figure 6-1, the potentiometric surface in this region has a 
low-hydraulic gradient, and there is a small range in average water levels among the 
six corroborating wells. Thus, this criterion provides a high degree of confidence that the data to 
be qualified are acceptable for estimating the vertical hydraulic head difference. 
The water level in the Paleozoic section is corroborated by other water-level measurements in the 
same well from the time period of 1983 to 2004. Again, the criterion for corroboration is that the 
unqualified data fall within 1.5 m of the corroborating water levels from the deep completion in 
well UE-25 p#1. The 1.5-m criterion is the maximum water-level uncertainty as determined 
from the uncertainty analyses in Section 6.5. 
Evaluation of the Technical Correctness of the Data 
In accordance with procedure AP-SIII.2Q (Qualification of Unqualified Data) the following 
steps are being taken to evaluate the technical correctness of this data set. First, an initial 
evaluation of the data quality and correctness will be presented by comparing the methods used 
to plan, collect, and analyze the data against accepted scientific practice. Second, the data 
corroboration approach will be used to compare the unqualified data to equivalent corroborating 
qualified data. 
The field operations associated with the drilling and testing of Borehole UE-25 p#1 are 
documented in the data record (USGS [n.d] [DIRS 171099]). The record contains 3,080 pages of 
information including field notebooks, time logs, and copies of the data collection forms and the 
hard copy of the data collected. The data of interest associated with packer testing are presented 
in Field Notebooks (USGS [n.d] [DIRS 171099], pp. 95 to 101 for the Tertiary section and 
pp. 293 to 315 for the Paleozoic section). The notebooks document the names of scientists and 
technicians performing the work, the date and time activities occurred, the type of data collected, 
method used to collect water-level data (transducer or float switch), and the data values 
themselves. Testing methods at the time of data collection were standardized as noted by 
Blankennagel (1967 [DIRS 103092]). Updates to equipment have occurred since 1967, but the 
Blankennagel reference demonstrates that the USGS has followed established procedures for 
many years. The analysis of the data is documented in the field notebooks and follows a 
standard approach of collecting a depth to water measurement from a reference point, then 
correcting that measurement for the distance of the measuring point above land surface. In 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-4 October 2004 
summary, the water-level data were collected by a well established and known agency (the 
USGS) using established USGS methods and were carefully documented in field notebooks. 
The water-level data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey during packer testing of Well 
UE-25 p#1 are deemed adequate for implementation of the corroborating data method of 
qualification. 
Tertiary Section: Ten water-level measurement intervals are presented from the static water 
position to a depth of 1,114 m. The only data point used in this report is the water level from the 
interval of static500 m because this value is expected to best represent the water table. From 
Table B-1, the water-level altitude for the interval of static500 m is 729.9 masl. 
The six wells nearest to UE-25 p#1 have been identified from Figure 1-2. These six wells are: 
UE-25 c#1, UE-25 c#2, UE-25 c#3, UE-25 WT#13, UE-25 WT#14, and USW WT-1. Table B-2 
contains the well name, depth interval, and water-level elevation for comparison to UE-25 p#1. 
The data for corroboration are taken from Tables A-1 and A-5 of this document. The interval 
identified in Table B-2 is modified from Table A-5 in two ways. First, the term static is used if 
the top of the interval is the measured water level. Second, the bottom of the interval is 
converted from elevation to depth by subtracting the interval-bottom elevation (Table A-5) from 
the land surface elevation in Table A-1. 
The corroborating wells are located from approximately 600 m to 2,500 m away from 
UE-25 p#1. The land surface elevation of the wells are all similar, with the elevation of 
UE-25 p#1 between the range of elevations of the corroborating wells. The intervals all begin at 
the static water table and extend downward. The lower depth of the corroborating well intervals 
ranges from 354 m to 914 m. In general, the completion intervals and land surface elevations of 
the UE-25 p#1 data and the corroborating data are similar. The measured water level in 
UE-25 #1 of 729.9 falls between the average water levels in the corroborating wells. In addition, 
the corroborating wells with higher land surface elevation also have a higher water-level 
elevation. The criterion of qualification of the water level in UE-25 p#1 is met because the water 
level is within 1.5 m of the corroborating data. Thus, there is consistency among all the wells 
that support the qualification of the shallow interval water level measured in Well UE-25 p#1. 
Table B-2. Corroborating Data for UE-25 p#1, Tertiary Section 
Well Name 
Interval (depth below land 
surface (meters)) 
Land Surface 
Elevation 
(meters) 
Water Level 
(meters) 
UE-25 p#1 Static500 1113.9 729.9 
UE-25 c#1 Static914 1130.6 730.2 
UE-25 c#2 Static756 1132.2 730.1 
UE-25 c#3 Static914 1132.4 730.2 
UE-25 WT#13 Static354 1032.5 729.1 
UE-25 WT#14 Static399 1076.4 729.7 
USW WT-1 Static515 1201.4 730.4 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-5 October 2004 
Paleozoic Section: Thirteen water-level measurements in the Paleozoic section are presented in 
Table B-1. Of those 13 measurements, the first two represent nearly the same interval. For the 
analysis of the water level in the Paleozoic section, the last 12 measurements are averaged and 
produce a value of 751.26 m, with a range of values from 750.8 m to 751.6 m. From Tables A-1 
and A-4, the average water level in the carbonate completion in Well UE-25 p#1 collected over 
the time period of 1985 to 1995 is 752.4 m with a range of values from 751.9 to 752.7. The 
difference in the average water levels is 1.14 m. Additional water-level information is available 
from the U. S. Geologic Survey NWIS Web Site (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis) for the 
carbonate completion of Well UE-25 p#1 (Site ID 364938116252102). Water levels in Well 
UE-25 p#1 in late 1983, throughout 1984, and into early 1985 range from 749.47 m to 752.1 m, 
similar to the values in Table B-1. Water levels appear to have risen since 1985, thus the 
difference of 1.14 m between the data in Tables B-1 and A-4 may be due, in part, to natural 
temporal variability in water levels. Nonetheless, the water level measured in the Paleozoic 
section during packer testing in 1983 (as presented in Table B-1) may be in error by 1.14 m 
based on average values. Even if the error is 1.14 m, the water levels for the Paleozoic section in 
Table B-2 are adequate for the intended purpose in this document because the difference is less 
than the 1.5 criterion defined for qualification. 
Evaluation of Results, Conclusion for Qualification, and Limitations 
The water-level difference between the Paleozoic section (carbonate aquifer) and the water table 
in the Tertiary section (volcanic aquifers) is given as 21.4 m in Table 6-4. Even if the values in 
Table B-2 are in error by 3 m (two times the criterion), it would produce only a 15-percent error 
in the calculated vertical hydraulic head difference. In fact, the error is less than 3 m based on 
the similarity of corroborating data in the Tertiary section and 1.14 m difference in the Paleozoic 
section. It is expected that the potential error in the UE-25 p#1 data produces between a 
5-percent and 10-percent error in the calculated vertical water-level difference. 
The conclusion of this qualification process is the water levels in Table B-1 for Well UE-25 p#1 
are adequate for the intended use in this document and should be considered qualified. 
The data as qualified are considered to be accurate with at most a 10-percent error. Future users 
of the data should be cognizant of this potential error. 
The qualification of this data is for use in this document only. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-6 October 2004 
QUALIFICATION OF WATER LEVEL DATA COLLECTED IN WELL UE-25 J-13. 
DTN: GS930408312132.007 TABLE S97276_013 
Data Set for Qualification 
The qualification of this data set is intended to provide a desired level of confidence that the data 
is suitable for the intended use of determining the vertical hydraulic head difference within the 
Tertiary age aquifers at the UE-25 J-13 location. The Qualification Plan for this data is 
presented in Appendix C. 
The data set for qualification consists of 13 rows of data obtained from 
DTN: GS930408312132.007 Table S97276_013 [DIRS 129625] and are shown in Table B-3. 
The data are water-level measurements collected during packer testing of Borehole UE-25 J-13. 
The static water level in each packed off interval of the borehole was recorded during the packer 
testing as part of the method to determine hydraulic properties of the different intervals in the 
borehole. 
The data in the above-referenced DTN and table have been previously published by Thordarson 
(1983 [DIRS 101057]), in Geohydrologic Data and Test Results from Well J-13, Nevada Test 
Site, Nye County, Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation 
Report 83-4171. ACC: NNA.19870518.0071. 
The water-level data are to be used in this water-level analysis report (Table 6-4) to document 
the vertical hydraulic head difference within the volcanic aquifers at the UE-25 J-13 location. 
Table B-3. Water-Level Data from DTN: GS930408312132.007 Table S97276_013 
ROW # 
Depth to 
Water 
(meters) Location 
Depth Interval 
(meters) Lithostratigraphy Test 
1 282.2 UE-25 J-13 282.2334.1 Topopah Spring 
Member 
 
2 282.5 UE-25 J-13 282.5451.1 Topopah Spring 
Member 
Pumping 1 
3 282.7 UE-25 J-13 282.7451.1 Topopah Spring 
Member 
Pumping 2 
4 282.5 UE-25 J-13 471.2502.0 Tuffaceous beds 
of Calico Hills 
Injection 19 
5 282.3 UE-25 J-13 471.2502.0 Tuffaceous beds 
of Calico Hills 
Swabbing 19 
6 282.4 UE-25 J-13 501.1562.1 Tuffaceous beds 
of Calico Hills and 
Prow Pass 
Member 
Injection 16 
7 282.2 UE-25 J-13 501.1562.1 Tuffaceous beds 
of Calico Hills and 
Prow Pass 
Member 
Swabbing 18 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-7 October 2004 
Table B-3. Water-Level Data from DTN: GS930408312132.007 Table S97276_013 (Continued) 
ROW # 
Depth to 
Water 
(meters) Location 
Depth Interval 
(meters) Lithostratigraphy Test 
8 282.0 UE-25 J-13 471.2612.6 Tuffaceous beds 
of Calico Hills, 
Prow Pass 
Member, and 
tuffaceous 
sandstone 
Swabbing 2 
9 282.4 UE-25 J-13 471.2612.6 Tuffaceous beds 
of Calico Hills, 
Prow Pass 
Member, and 
tuffaceous 
sandstone 
Swabbing 3 
10 282.1 UE-25 J-13 471.2661.4 Tuffaceous beds 
of Calico Hills, 
Prow Pass 
Member, 
tuffaceous 
sandstone, and 
Bullfrog Member 
Swabbing 6 
11 282.4 UE-25 J-13 584.6645.6 Prow Pass 
Member, 
tuffaceous 
sandstone, and 
Bullfrog Member 
Injection 15 
12 283.6+/-2* UE-25 J-13 772.7803.1 Tram Unit Swabbing 11 
13 283.3 UE-25 J-13 819.91063.1 Tram Unit, bedded 
tuff, and Tuff of 
Lithic Ridge 
Swabbing 20 
* Indicates nearly recovered to static water level after 270 minutes. 
Method of Qualification 
The method chosen to qualify this data is the corroborating data method. This method is 
appropriate for this data set because corroborating data are available for comparison and 
inferences drawn to corroborate the unqualified data can be clearly identified, justified, and 
documented. 
The water-level data from Well UE-25 J-13 to be qualified (Table B-3) represent different units 
within the Tertiary volcanic sequence at the J-13 location. Corroborating data from the Tertiary 
section come from water-level measurements in Well UE-25 J-13 from the time period of 1986 
to 1995 as documented in this report (Tables A-1 and A-4). These data are qualified and were 
obtained after Well UE-25 J-13 was completed. These corroborating data are appropriate 
because they were measured in the same well as the unqualified data, are qualified, and represent 
a long-term record of measurements. There is additional data available for corroboration from 
the USGS NWIS Web database. This database contains data from December 1962 through 
June 2004. These data are unqualified, but are sufficient for corroborating purposes. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-8 October 2004 
Evaluation Criteria 
The water level as measured in the Tertiary section of Well UE-25 J-13 is considered 
corroborated if it falls within 1.5 m of other water-level measurements in the same well from the 
time period of 1962 to 2004. The criterion for corroboration is that the unqualified data fall 
within 1.5 m of the corroborating water levels from completed Well UE-25 J-13. The 1.5-m 
criterion is the maximum water-level uncertainty as determined from the uncertainty analyses in 
Section 6.5. 
Evaluation of the Technical Correctness of the Data 
In accordance with procedure AP-SIII.2Q (Qualification of Unqualified Data) the following 
steps are being taken to evaluate the technical correctness of this data set. First, an initial 
evaluation of the data quality and correctness will be presented by comparing the methods used 
to plan, collect, and analyze the data against accepted scientific practice. Second, the data 
corroboration approach will be used to compare the unqualified data to equivalent corroborating 
qualified data. 
The data to be qualified are the static water levels measured during hydraulic testing and 
presented as the depth to water in DTN: GS930408312132.007 [DIRS 129625], 
Table S97276_013. The data were previously published by Thordarson (1983 [DIRS 101057], 
Table 10, p. 21). The data were obtained in 1962 and 1963 during the construction of Well 
UE-25 J-13. Established procedures for making these water-level measurements using a device 
called the Iron Horse are documented by Weir and Nelson (1976 [DIRS 170983]). Personnel 
performing this work had been involved with hydrology studies in Southern Nevada for a 
number of years. Therefore, the reliability of the data source and qualifications of personnel 
working for the USGS collecting the data are sufficient. The period of record for this well as 
provided by the USGS in the NWIS Groundwater Database spans the time frame of 
December 30, 1962, to June 29, 2004, and contains 253 water-level measurements. The range of 
hydraulic head values over this time period ranges from 728.0 m to 729.0 m above sea level 
(using the USGS depth to water values and land surface datum of 1011.3 m amsl  Table A-1). 
Savard (2001 [DIRS 165604], p. 73) presents analysis of water-level data and showed that 
average water-level elevation in the J-13 well over the period of 1986 to 1999 was about 
728.5 m. The water-level data reported in Table A-4 of this report cover the time period of 1986 
to 1995 and range from 728.3 m to 728.7 m. The data from DTN: GS930408312132.007, 
[DIRS 129625] Table S97276_013 fall within the range of values from 727.7 m to 729.3 m using 
the provided depth to water and land surface elevation from Table A-4 of 1011.3 m amsl. Based 
on the similarity of water levels measured in Well UE-25 J-13 during the packer testing and over 
the time period of 1962 to 2004, the data from DTN: GS930408312132.007, [DIRS 129625], 
Table S97276_013 are considered acceptable for use in this report. 
Evaluation of Results, Conclusion for Qualification, and Limitations 
The water levels measured in Well UE-25 J-13 have been shown to be very stable, varying over 
only 1 m from 1962 to 2004. The water levels measured during hydraulic testing in Well UE-25 
J-13 fall from 0.3 m below to 0.3 m above the range of values reported for this well. The 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-9 October 2004 
criterion for qualification of less than a 1.5 m difference between the unqualified data and the 
corroborating data has been met. 
The conclusion of this qualification process is the water levels in Table B-3 for Well UE-25 J-13 
are adequate for the intended use in this document and should be considered qualified. 
The data as qualified are considered to be accurate within about 1 m. Future users of the data 
should be cognizant of this potential error. 
The qualification of this data is for use in this document only. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 B-10 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 October 2004 
APPENDIX C 
DATA QUALIFICATION PLANS

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 C-1 October 2004 
This appendix contains the Data Qualification Plans for the qualification of water-level data from 
Wells UE-25 p#1 and UE-25 J-13. The plans were modified as noted in the hand written 
comments. The modifications were added to provide missing information or to clarify the 
existing text. 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 C-2 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 C-3 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 C-4 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 C-5 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 C-6 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 C-7 October 2004 

Water-Level Data Analysis for the Saturated Zone Site-Scale Flow and Transport Model 
ANL-NBS-HS-000034 REV 02 C-8 October 2004 
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK