GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF YUCCA MOUNTAIN

USING SURFACE-RUNOFF CHEMISTRY

Omar Al-Qudah1, John Walton1, Arturo Woocay1, and John Klenke2

1

Environmental Science and Engineering, University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), 500 W. University Ave., El Paso, TX,
79968. 2Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office (NWRPO) 2101 E. Calvada Blvd., Suite 100, Pahrump, NV
89048.
omal@miners.utep.edu, walton@utep.edu, awoocay@miners.utep.edu, jklenke@co.nye.nv.us

The Amargosa Desert regional groundwater studies

show that the surface runoff infiltration occurs in arroyos
following runoff producing storms, and this infiltration is
considered to be a major source of groundwater
recharge. The present study attempts to investigate how
water chemistry evolves during the surface runoff and
infiltration processes, on the western side of Yucca
Mountain. In this ongoing study, twenty surface runoff
samplers (SRSs) were installed at six different arroyos on
the western side of Yucca Mountain to capture the surface
runoff water. The sampling process included sediment,
precipitation, and SRS water samples. In total, eighteen
SRS, fifty eight sediment, and ten precipitation samples
were collected between February, 2009 and January,
2010. Analysis of chloride and the stable isotopes of
water show substantial overlap of values with underlying
groundwater consistent with the concept that infiltration
of surface runoff is a major contributor to groundwater
recharge in the study area. Groundwater ion
concentrations represent a large collage of infiltration
events occurring over time, and exact matches with
surface runoff samples are unlikely. The SRS design
proved its ability to function in arid weather conditions
and capture surface-runoff. Further sample collection,
statistical analysis, and infiltration modeling will be
required to fully describe the evolution of water chemistry
between infiltration and old groundwater.
I. INTRODUCTION
The climate, geology, hydrology and chemistry of
Yucca Mountain have been extensively studied by many
agencies and researchers. These studies indicate that
groundwater recharge occurs from infiltration of streamflow in the ephemeral arroyos and infiltration of
precipitation and runoff on the mountain ranges. Water
may infiltrate from melting snowpack in the mountains
primarily on volcanic or carbonate rocks or adjacent to
the mountains from streams flowing over alluvium (fans
and channels)1, and groundwater moves through
permeable zones under the influence of hydraulic
gradients from areas of recharge to areas of discharge in
IHLRWM 2011, Albuquerque, NM, April 10-14, 2011

the regional system. Water quality studies of

precipitation, surface water, and groundwater isotopic,
and common ion concentrations, in addition to the
computer simulation of the groundwater system in the
vicinity of the Amargosa Desert, Refs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
and 9, have concluded recharge water is entering the
groundwater system north of Yucca Mountain and have
determined that recharge from Fortymile Wash, Oasis
Valley, and Amargosa River is a significant source of
groundwater.
The groundwater below Yucca Mountain and in the
surrounding region flows generally south toward
discharge areas in the Amargosa Desert and Death
Valley10. The primary sources of groundwater recharge to
the regional system are infiltration on Oasis Valley, and
Timber Mountain to the north (Figure 1), this infiltration
is the precipitation that is not lost to evapotranspiration,
runoff, or change in the amount held in the soil or rock,
and makes it into the unsaturated zone flow system.
Recharge in the immediate Yucca Mountain vicinity is
low, consisting of water reaching Fortymile Wash as well
as precipitation that infiltrates into the subsurface10.
Direct recharge from precipitation is estimated to be less
than five millimeters per year. In the saturated zone,
downward flow through the tufts is believed to be of low
quantity, less than ten centimeters per year11,12. Water also
enters the regional flow system as through flow from
adjoining groundwater basins, predominantly from the
north, west, and east, but the amount of water coming into
the system laterally is estimated to be relatively small
(roughly ten percent) in comparison with that coming in
as recharge from the surface13.
Since 1997, approximately 250-groundwater samples
have been collected from wells throughout the Amargosa
Farms and Yucca Mountain area. The cation, anion, trace
element, and isotope analyses are entered into the USGS
hydrochemical and isotopic database, which also includes
more than 600 historical analyses of ground-water
samples from the Yucca Mountain region5,6. These
chemical and isotope analyses have been interpreted using
a variety of methods to help determine source areas, flow
directions, mixing relations, ages, and travel times.
664

Water samples from the Western Yucca Mountain

facies contain elevated Na, HCO3, SO4, F, U, and B as
compared to water from either the Eastern Yucca
Mountain or Fortymile Wash facies5,6, while Ca
decreases, relative to the eastern section14.This may be
due to longer flowpaths in the western section which
allow more water/rock interaction and hydrothermal
alteration of older volcanic rocks. Secondary
mineralization believed to have formed under closed
conditions15,12. Water samples from the Eastern Yucca
Mountain and Fortymile Wash facies are similar except
that water from the Eastern Yucca Mountain facies
contains slightly higher Na and HCO3 and water from the
Fortymile Wash facies contains higher Mg and K. Water
samples from the Bear Mountain and Amargosa River
facies are distinguished by higher concentrations of SO4,
HCO3, and U5,6. Water from the Amargosa River facies
contains higher concentrations of B, Na, and Li than
water from the Bear Mountain facies5,6. The Eastern
Amargosa River facies is the least distinct because of
mixing of water from Fortymile Wash, and Jackass Flats
which are the suspected source areas5,6.
Kerrisk16 described six active processes that may
control groundwater chemistry at Yucca Mountain, which
are: physical transport of dissolved species with water;
rock-water interactions; ion exchange; gas dissolutions;
mixing of different water compositions; and evaporation.
The ground water in the tufts is primarily a NaHCO3 type:
Na = 65-95 % of cations and HCO3 = 80 % of anions with
sub-equal Cl and SO417,12. Mineralogical studies of the
Yucca Mountain groundwater, Ref. 12, 18, 19, 20, and 21,
indicate that the Yucca Mountain groundwater is
supersaturated with respect to montmorillonites, illites,
chlorite, feldspars (albite), and talc. The ground water is
undersaturated with respect to analcime, anhydrite,
chrysotile, dolomite, fluorite, gypsum, halite, quartz,
sepiolite, and calcite. The eastern side of Yucca Mountain
is considered a calcic rich suite, and the western side an
alkali rich suite, with a potassic rich suite in the northern
end.
This study explores the relationship between rainfallrunoff and groundwater chemistry, during a flood event in
the Western Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and presents
evidence of runoff chemical signature on the infiltration
and groundwater recharge.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
Yucca Mountain (Figure 1) is located on federal land
in southern Nevada, north of the Amargosa Desert,
approximately 105 km northwest of Las Vegas, in the
Basin and Range province of the western United States,
within a zone between the Mojave Desert and the
southern boundary of the Great Basin Desert, and it's part
of the Amargosa River drainage basin which is the major
tributary drainage area to the Death Valley.
IHLRWM 2011, Albuquerque, NM, April 10-14, 2011

Yucca Mountain is a long, narrow ridge running

north and south, with a steep western slope and a more
gradual eastern slope10.The ridge rises 300 to 370 m
above the surrounding alluvial flats10.The mountain is an
irregularly shaped volcanic upland varying in elevation at
its crest from 1,500 m to 1,930 m above mean sea level
and characterized by approximately 650 m of relief. The
topography in the Yucca Mountain vicinity was shaped by
erosional processes on the eastward-slope of the
mountains and long faults and fault scraps that have
created a series of washes down-cut to varying degrees
into different bedrock formations10.
Yucca Mountain is composed of volcanic rocks
(tuffs) formed by eruptions of ash or magna from volcanic
vents to the north from approximately 14 to 11.5 million
years ago. Alternating layers the rock formed when it was
from volcanic ash millions of years ago. Welded tuff is
hard, dense fractured rock. Non-welded tuff is softer and
typically less fractured22.
The present climate in the Yucca Mountain vicinity is
considered arid to semiarid. The analysis of data from 114
weather stations measuring precipitation in the Yucca
Mountain region, providing at least eight years of
complete records10, indicates that the zones of maximum
precipitation are likely to correspond to the zones of
higher elevations in the mountain ranges. Annual
precipitation in the Yucca Mountain vicinity ranges from
a minimum of about 100 mm at low elevations in the
south to a maximum in excess of 300 mm at high
elevations in the north10. The amount that infiltrates into
the ground below the root zone is uncertain, but is thought
to be between 0.4 and 12 mm/yr on average.
III. METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this research included site
selection criteria, SRS design and construction, field
emplacement of SRSs, surface runoff sampling, and
samples analysis criteria as described in a previous
paper23 in detail.
This paper will be focused on the chemical analysis
results of precipitation, sediment, surface runoff, and
groundwater in the western face of Yucca Mountain.
Twenty surface runoff samplers were installed at ten
different locations in the western face of Yucca Mountain
to capture the surface runoff water which may be an
important source of groundwater recharge in the area. Site
SRS-17 is located in the tributary to the main drainage of
the east side of Bare Mountain, 1.16 km northwest of Red
Cone. Site SRS-18 is located in the Tributary of Windy
Wash .756 km northeast of Red Cone. Sites SRS-14A,
SRS-14B, and SRS-14C are located in the Tributary of
Windy Wash. Site SRS-11 is located in the Solitario
Canyon. Site SRS-19 is located in the Lower Solitario
Canyon southwest slope of Yucca Mountain.

665

Fig. 1. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) map for the study area shows the Locations of Yucca Mountain, Amargosa Desert
Region, Amargosa River, and Fortymaile Wash, NV. Blue circles represent the SRSs and red stars represent the selected
groundwater wells around SRSs.
Sites SRS-9 and SRS-10 are located in the area of
increased probability of runoff southeast of groundwater
well 13P. Finally, site SRS-26 is located in the Crater
Flats area, 1.77 km up-gradient from Hwy 95. Each
location includes two SRSs, one filled with washed silica
sand (WSB), and the other filled by natural alluvium
(NAB) from the same site. The samples collected from
these sites included sediment, precipitation, and SRS
IHLRWM 2011, Albuquerque, NM, April 10-14, 2011

runoff samples. Sediment samples were collected from

each site at the time of the SRS installation, and also
shortly after two storm events, one occurring in February
2009 and the other occurring in January 2010, SRS runoff
samples were collected from the WSBs, at each location,
following these storms. Additionally, after the January
2010 event precipitation samples were collected from the
rain gauges, at each site, along with a NABs runoff
666

samples from sites SRS-14B and SRS-19. In total, sixteen

SRS-WSB, two SRS-NAB, fifty eight sediment, and ten
precipitation samples were sampled during February,
2009 and January, 2010.
Groundwater chemistry data for 38 groundwater
wells around SRSs were obtained from Nye County
Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office (NWRPO)24 and
Los Alamos National Laboratory25 and compiled into a
single database. The chemical data includes Cl, SO4, total
alkalinity, Na, Ca, K, Mg, TDS, F, Si, 2H, and 18O.
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table I below shows The Universal Transverse
Mercator (UTM) geographic coordinate and elevation for
each location, in addition to the measured amount of
water accumulated in the rain gauges, WSBs, and NABs
of the site locations after two storm events occurred in the
study area in February 2009, and January 2010.
The rain gauges are simple collectors that are open to
the atmosphere. The simplicity of the samplers (low cost
rain gauges) was dictated by costs and logistics (potential
for vandalism). Rain gauge readings and chemistry were
subject to unknown amounts of evaporation prior to
collection so the readings should not be equated with
precipitation amount or initial chemistry. Because of the
dilute nature of the solutions, even subsequent to
evaporation, the precipitation water chemistry should
provide accurate measurements of a) relative abundance
of different elements (e.g., when normalized relative to
chloride) and b) an estimate of total mass loading of the
elements. The rain gauges included both wet-fall and dryfall since the last time they were emptied. All rain gauges
collected precipitation during the storm events. In general,
the precipitation cumulated in the rain gauges increases
with elevation as shown in the Table I below. Also, the
amount of precipitation cumulated in the rain gauges after
the January, 2010 storm is greater than the February, 2009
storm.
In February 2009, nine samples were collected from
WSBs, and the sample volumes vary between 700 mm
from site SRS-17 and 2100 mm from site SRS-19. The
NABs did not produce any sample during this period. In
January 2010, eight samples were collected from WSBs,
SRS-14B-WSB produced the greatest amount of water
(3120 mm) and SRS-26-WSB produced the least amount
of water (310mm). In the same time, the NAB produced
water in two locations SRS-14B and SRS-19 by amount
of 870 and 310 mm, respectively. It is not clear why SRS9 and SRS-14A produced water from WSBs in February,
2009 but it failed to produced any amount of water in
January, 2010 even the amount of precipitation in
January, 2010 was greater than the amount of
precipitation in February, 2009 in these locations. At the
time of sampling, type of sediment and thickness of the

IHLRWM 2011, Albuquerque, NM, April 10-14, 2011

sediment layer above each bucket indicated the presence

of surface water runoff in the study area.
Box plots (Figures 2-13) below show the major ion
concentrations in addition to TDS, 2H, and 18O
comparison between the SRS, precipitation, sediment, and
selected groundwater wells in the study area.
Figure 2, shows significant evaporative concentration
occurs between precipitation and groundwater (by a
magnitude of >3). Chloride is a conservative ion and thus
tracks evaporative concentration of the waters. Note that
the precipitation samples were subject to an unknown
amount of evaporation prior to sampling meaning the
initial concentrations were less than or equal to the
measured values. Chloride is highly soluble and has few
geologic sources, making it an excellent tracer of
evaporative concentration. Concentrations of chloride are
approximately similar in the SRS and groundwater, even
when the data shows that the groundwater has higher
salinity (TDS). The chloride trend can be described as
groundwater SRS > (precipitation & sediment). This is
consistent with the hypothesis that infiltration of surface
runoff from storms has been a dominant source of
groundwater in this area.
Figure 3, shows the box plots of alkalinity for each
group, alkalinity increases greatly between precipitation
and sediment, decreases slightly between sediment and
SRS, and then increases slightly when going from SRS to
groundwater. The alkalinity trend can be described as
groundwater sediment > SRS > precipitation. This may
be caused by precipitation and dissolution equilibrium of
calcium carbonate, carbonate rocks, and from silicate
mineral weathering reactions which increases both
sodium and alkalinity. The H2CO3 contributes H+, which
attacks silicate minerals resulting in the release of cations
(M+) and the formation of bicarbonate by the reaction:
(Silicate rock) (M+) + H2CO3
(Silicate rock) (H+) +
+
M + HCO3
Figure 4, shows the box plots of non carbonate
alkalinity for the different groups, non carbonate
alkalinity is approximately the same in the precipitation
and SRS and increases slightly in the sediment and
groundwater. The non carbonate alkalinity trend can be
described as groundwater sediment > (SRS &
precipitation). The non carbonate alkalinity forms 90%,
78%, and 60% of the total alkalinity in the groundwater,
sediment, precipitation, and SRS, respectively. Increasing
of non carbonate alkalinity in the groundwater may be
caused by silicate weathering.
Figure 5, shows the box plots of TDS for the different
groups, TDS increasing between precipitation and
sediment, and it is approximately the same between
sediment, SRS, and groundwater. The TDS trend can be
described as groundwater sediment SRS >
precipitation.

667

TABLE I. UTM geographic coordinate for each location, elevation, and the measured amount of water accumulated in the
rain gauges, WSBs, and NABs after two storm events occurred in February 2009, and January 2010.
Location
UTM-X
UTM-Y
Elevation
Collection
Cumulative
Amount of
Amount of
ID
(m)
Date
rain gauges
accumulated
accumulated
precipitation
water in WSB water in NAB
(mm)
(Liter)
(Liter)
SRS-10
543406.08
4065967.08
898.70
2/26/2009
36.83
1.02
0.00
SRS-9
543639.50
4066277.11
903.86
2/26/2009
36.83
0.80
0.00
SRS-18
538953.16
4072335.12
960.61
2/27/2009
41.91
1.35
0.00
SRS-17
536494.26
4073399.17
967.32
2/27/2009
40.64
0.70
0.00
SRS-14A 543694.94
4074326.15
1095.85
2/27/2009
45.72
1.99
0.00
SRS-14B 544246.33
4074709.07
1115.96
2/27/2009
48.26
1.83
0.00
SRS-14C 545003.71
4075215.60
1149.69
2/25/2009
49.53
1.50
0.00
SRS-19
545514.81
4074980.79
1154.89
2/27/2009
53.34
2.10
0.00
SRS-26
539577.63
4062613.80
810.50
1/27/2010
39.37
0.31
0.00
SRS-10
543406.08
4065967.08
898.70
1/28/2010
40.64
1.00
0.00
SRS-9
543639.49
4066277.11
903.86
1/28/2010
40.64
0.00
0.00
SRS-18
538953.16
4072335.12
960.40
1/29/2010
46.99
1.87
0.00
SRS-17
536494.26
4073399.16
966.19
1/29/2010
35.56
1.87
0.00
SRS-14A 543694.93
4074326.15
1094.32
1/29/2010
48.26
0.00
0.00
SRS-14B 544245.07
4074710.45
1114.77
1/29/2010
50.8
3.12
0.87
SRS-14C 545003.70
4075215.60
1148.40
1/29/2010
72.39
1.87
0.00
SRS-19
545514.81
4074980.78
1153.81
1/29/2010
63.5
1.87
0.31
SRS-11
546300.85
4076229.83
1212.12
1/29/2010
66.04
2.25
0.00
Figure 6, Shows the box plots of sulfate
concentrations for the different categories. Sulfate is
approximately the same between precipitation and
sediment, and increases slightly in the SRS, and
groundwater. The trend of sulfate can be described as
groundwater > SRS > (sediment & precipitation). The
increase in sulfate moving from surface runoff to
groundwater may be due to longer flow paths on the
western side of Yucca Mountain which allow more
water/rock interaction and hydrothermal alteration of
older volcanic rocks, i.e. secondary mineralization
believed to have formed under closed conditions.
Figure 7, Shows the box plots of calcium
concentrations in each group, with calcium increasing
between precipitation and sediment, and then decreasing
between sediment, SRS, and groundwater. The calcium
trend can be described as sediment SRS > (groundwater
& precipitation). Weathering causes enrichment of
calcium concentrations, in the form of CaCO3 originally
derived from carbonate rocks along the flow paths.
Figure 8, Shows the box plots of magnesium in the
different categories, with the trend being described as
SRS sediment > groundwater precipitation.
Decreasing of magnesium in the groundwater may be due
to longer flowpaths in the western section which allow
more water/rock interaction and hydrothermal alteration
of older volcanic rocks. Secondary mineralization
believed to have formed under closed conditions.
Figure 9, Shows the box plots of sodium
concentrations in the different categories. Sodium appears
IHLRWM 2011, Albuquerque, NM, April 10-14, 2011

to concentrate by evaporation and increase in amount

between precipitation, sediment, SRS, and groundwater.
Unlike chloride, sodium increases when moving from the
SRS to groundwater group. The sodium trend can be
described as groundwater > SRS sediment >
precipitation. Most of the alkalinity in the areas
groundwater is non-carbonate Na/HCO3, derived from
weathering of silicate rocks rather than dissolution of
carbonate rocks, and would account for this increase in
sodium. Sodium also may originate as a result of ion
exchange with calcium in infiltrating water.
Figure 10, Shows the box plots of potassium
concentration in the different categories, with potassium
increasing greatly between the precipitation and sediment
group, increasing slightly between sediment and SRS
groups, and then decreasing from the SRS to groundwater
group. The potassium trend can be described as sediment
SRS > groundwater > precipitation.
Figure 11, Shows the box plots of fluoride in the
different categories. The fluoride trend can be described
as groundwater > SRS sediment.
Figures 12 and 13, Show the box plots of 2H and
18
O in the SRS and groundwater respectively; 2H and
18O decrease between SRS and groundwater. Once
below the evaporation zone, recharging ground waters
generally do not undergo phase changes. Therefore,
oxygen and hydrogen isotopes do not experience further
fractionation and may be considered to be conservative in
the flow system. The measured values for the stable
isotopes of water are heavier for the limited WSB samples
668

relative to the groundwater. The importance of this

mismatch is unknown. The stable isotopes of water and
chloride behave differently as tracers of water movement

IHLRWM 2011, Albuquerque, NM, April 10-14, 2011

because, during complete evaporation after small

precipitation events, the chloride remains on the soil
surface while the isotopic signature is lost.

669

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Because the degree of evaporation is unknown the
changes in chemistry between precipitation and SRS
samples is best viewed in terms of the changes in
chemical signature rather than in terms of individual
concentrations. In non runoff producing storms the water
has time to react with soil minerals prior to evaporation.
When near complete evaporation of the water occurs the
isotopic signature of the water will be lost, but any
dissolved ions (and dry-fall) will remain in the shallow
soil and sediments. When surface runoff occurs the new
precipitation mixes with shallow soil moisture and
dissolves some of the precipitated salts in the desiccated
soil. The soil samples represent a leaching of the shallow
sediment in the stream bottom, but the most soluble salts
in these samples (e.g., chloride) may have been leached
by a runoff event prior to sampling. The soil leaching
process also provided less contact time between soil and
water than the infiltration process.
Chloride and the stable isotopes of water show
substantial overlap of values with underlying
groundwater, consistent with the concept that infiltration
of surface runoff is a major contributor to groundwater
recharge in the study area. Groundwater concentrations
represent a larger collage of infiltration events than have
been collected in the surface runoff sampling making an
exact match unlikely.
With the exception of fluoride, all other analytes are
higher in groundwater than the SRS samples. This is

IHLRWM 2011, Albuquerque, NM, April 10-14, 2011

consistent with dissolution and weathering of minerals

during and subsequent to the infiltration process, but not
with large amounts of additional evaporation prior to deep
infiltration. The influence of transpiration on the
chemistry of infiltrating water is more complicated than
that of evaporation given that chloride uptake differs
between plants; leading to a combination of evaporative
concentration at depth and transport to the surface with
eventual recycling in leaves and dead plant materials.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for this research was provided by Nye
County, NV through a grant from the US Department of
Energy office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. Roger McRae and the rest of the Nye
County Staff for assistance with sampler construction,
installation, and sampling. Dr. David Borrok (Geological
Department, UTEP) and Dr. Zhuping Sheng (Texas
Agrilife Research Center) and their research groups for
their help and support with chemical analysis. The Center
for Environmental Resource Management of The
University of Texas at El Paso for their funding and
support.
REFERENCES
1.

Faunt, C.C., Dagnese, F.A., and Obrien, G.M., 2004.

Death valley regional groundwater flow system,
Nevada and California-hydrogeologic framework and

670

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

transient groundwater flow model, U.S. Department

of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, scientific
investigations report 2004-5205.
Claassen, H.C., 1985. Sources and mechanisms of
recharge for groundwater in the West-Central
Amargosa
Desert,
Nevada,
geochemical
interpretation, U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 712-F, 31 p.
White, A.F., and Chuma, N.J., 1987. Carbon and
isotopic mass balance models of Oasis ValleyFortymile Canyon groundwater basin, Southern
Nevada, Water Res. Research, v. 23, no. 4, p. 571582.
Benson, L., and Klieforth, H., 1989. Stable isotopes
in precipitation and groundwater in the Yucca
Mountain Region, Southern Nevadapaleoclimate
implications, in Peterson, D.H., ed., aspects of
climate variability in the pacific and Western
Americas,
American
Geophysical
Union
Geophysical Monograph 55, p. 41-59.
Patterson, G.L. and Oliver, T.A., 2004. Trace and
minor elements in saturated-zone water near Yucca
Mountain, Nevada: Geological Society of America
annual meeting, Nov. 7-10, 2004, Vol.36, No. 5.
USGS,
Yucca
Mountain
Research,
2004.
Groundwater chemistry, <http://www.usgs.gov/>
Savard, C.S., 1994. Groundwater recharge in
Fortymile Wash near Yucca Mountain, Nevada,
1992-93, IHLRWM proceedings of the fifth annual
international conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May
22-26, 1994. American Nuclear Society and
American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 1805-1813.
Savard, C.S., and Beck, D.A., 1994. Transmission
losses in Fortymile Wash near Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, Eos, American Geophysical Union
Transaction, v. 75, no. 44, p. 283.
Savard, C.S., 1997. Estimated groundwater recharge
from streamflow in Fortymile Wash near Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey, water
resources investigation report 97-7273, pp. 1-30.
Sandia National Laboratories, YMP, 2008, Total
system
performance
assessment,
DOC.
20080312.0001/ MDL-WIS-PA-000005 REV00.
Montazer, P., and Wilson, W.E., 1984. Conceptual
hydrologic model of flow in the unsaturated zone,
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey,
water resources investigations report 84-4345, 55 p.
Matuska, N.A., Hess, J.W., 1989. The relationship
of the Yucca Mountain-repository block to the
regional groundwater system: a geochemical model,
NWPO-TR-011-89.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP), 2001. Public health and
environmental radiation protection standards for

IHLRWM 2011, Albuquerque, NM, April 10-14, 2011

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Yucca Mountain Nevada: background information

document for 40 CFR 197, EPA 402-R-01-005.
Blankennagel, R.K., and Weir, J. E. Jr., 1973.
Geohydrology of the eastern part of Pahute Mesa
Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-B, 35 p.
Moncure, G. K., Surdam, R. C., and McKague, H. L.,
1981. Zeolite diagenesis below Pahute Mesa,
Nevada Test Site, Clay and Clay Minerals, v.29, n.5,
p. 385-306.
Kerrisk, J.F., 1987. Groundwater chemistry at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, and vicinity, Los Alamos
National Laboratory Report LA-10929-MS, 118 p.
Ogard, A.E. and Kerrisk J. F., 1984. Groundwater
chemistry along flow paths between a proposed
repository site and the accessible environment, Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-10188-MS,
48 p.
Broxton, D.E., Bish, D. L., and Warren, R. G., 1987.
Distribution and chemistry of diagenetic minerals at
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada, Clays and
Clay Minerals, v. 35, no. 2, p. 89-110.
Broxton, D.E., Warren, R. G., Hagan, R. C. and
Luedemann, G., 1986. Chemistry of diagenetically
altered tufts at a potential nuclear waste repository,
Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada,
Los
Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-10802-MS,
160 p.
Al-Qudah, O.M., Woocay, A., and Walton, J.C.,
2010. Identification of probable groundwater paths
in the Amargosa Desert vicinity, Applied
Geochemistry Special Issue (in Press).
Al-Qudah, O.M., Woocay, A., and Walton, J.C.,
2008. Yucca Mountain region groundwater
geochemical data analyses, IHLRWMC, Las Vegas,
Nevada. La Grange Park, Illinois: American Nuclear
Society. September 7-11, 2008, p. 87-94. ISBN: 9780-89448-062-1.
Wilson, M. L., Swift, P. N., McNeish, J. A.,
Sevougian, S. D., 2001. Total-system performance
assessment for the Yucca Mountain site,
MOL.20020304.003 1.
Al-Qudah, O.M., Walton, J.C., and Woocay, A.,
2010. Tracking the chemical footprint of surfacerunoff infiltration on groundwater recharge in an arid
region, 2010 Waste Management Symposium,
Phoenix, AZ, March 7-11.
NWRPO (Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office),
2003. "Geochemistry data files." Nye County,
Nevada. http://www.nyecounty.com. Accessed June
2004.
LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), 2003.
"Regional groundwater hydrochemical data in the
Yucca Mountain are used as a direct Input to
ANLNBS-00021." LA0309RR831233.001, May,
2003.
671