DOE/NV11718--747

Bechtel Nevada

Prepared by Bechtel Nevada

Post Office Box 98521

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

Prepared by Bechtel Nevada

Post Office Box 98521

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

Prepared by Bechtel Nevada

Post Office Box 98521

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

Prepared by Bechtel Nevada

Post Office Box 98521

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521

Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Nevada Operations Office

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718

Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Nevada Operations Office

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718

Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Nevada Operations Office

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718

Prepared for the

U.S. Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Nevada Operations Office

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718

NEVADA TEST SITE

ANNUAL

SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

FOR CALENDAR YEAR - 2001

October 2002

ANNUAL

SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

FOR CALENDAR YEAR - 2001

October 2002
DISCLAIMER

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily

constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S.

Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors.

This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available for sale to the public from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

Telephone: (800) 553-6847

Fax: (703) 605-6900

E-mail: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

Online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Available electronically at http://www.doe.gov/bridge.

Available for a processing fee to the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors,

in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

Telephone: (865) 576-8401

Fax: (865) 576-5728

E-mail: reports@adonis.osti.gov
DOE/NV/11718–747

NEVADA TEST SITE

ANNUAL SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2001

Editors: Yvonne E. Townsend and Robert F. Grossman

October 2002

Work Performed Under

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Energy

National Nuclear Security Administration

Nevada Operations Office

Prepared by:

Bechtel Nevada

Post Office Box 98521

Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8521
ii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
iii

AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

1.0 Summary

Donald M. Van Etten, BN

Robert F. Grossman, BN

2.0 Introduction

Brian Dozier, BN

Robert F. Grossman, BN

3.0 Compliance Summary

Elizabeth Calman, BN

Colleen M. Beck, DRI

Orin L. Haworth, BN

Alfred J. Karnes, BN

Patrick Matthews, BN

Mike O’keefe, BN

Phyllis M. Raddack, BN

Carlton Soong, BN

Cathy A. Wills, BN

4.0 Environmental Program Information

Kevin Campbell, BN

Brian Dozier, BN

Sigmund Drellack, BN

Dennis Gustafson, BN

Alfred J. Karnes, BN

Colleen Beck, DRI

5.0 Radiological Environmental

Programs

Paul Greger, BN

Robert F. Grossman, BN

Dennis Hansen, BN

William T. Hartwell, DRI

Robert Warren, BN

6.0 Nonradiological Environmental

Programs

Colleen M. Beck, DRI

Elizabeth C. Calman, BN

Alfred J. Karnes, BN

Phyllis Raddack

Cathy A. Wills, BN

7.0 Site Hydrology

Sigmund Drellack, BN

8.0 Groundwater Monitoring

Lloyd Desotell, BN

William T. Hartwell, DRI

9.0 Quality Assurance

Jerry Dugas, BN

Ted Redding, BN
iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The skill, dedication, and perseverance of Angela L. McCurdy in text processing and graphics 

support were crucial to the production of this report. Also, very crucial to the production of this

report was the graphics support provided by Ashley V. Housewright.
vi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Authors and Contributors .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . iii

Acknowledgments .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... v

Table of Contents .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... vii

List of Figures .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... xiii

List of Photographs .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... xiv

List of Tables .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . xv

Measurement Units and Nomenclature .......... .......... .......... .......... xvii

List of Acronyms and Expressions .......... .......... .......... .......... .... xix

1.0 Summary .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... 1-1

1.1 Environmental Management .......... .......... .......... .......... 1-1

Radiological Environment .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 1-2

Onsite Environmental Surveillance .......... .......... .......... ..... 1-2

Monitoring System Design .......... .......... .......... ....... 1-4

Offsite Environmental Surveillance .......... .......... .......... ..... 1-4

Low-Level Waste Disposal .......... .......... .......... .......... . 1-5

Nonradiological Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... . 1-5

1.2 Compliance Activities .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 1-6

1.3 Groundwater Protection .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 1-7

1.4 Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storage and Disposal .......... .......... . . 1-7

1.5 Quality Assurance .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 1-8

1.6 Issues and Accomplishments .......... .......... .......... ......... 1-8

Principal Compliance Problems for 2001 .......... .......... .......... . 1-8

Accomplishments for 2001 .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 1-9

1.7 Conclusion .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 1-9

2.0 Introduction .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 2-1

2.1 NTS Site Characteristics .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 2-1

2.2 Topography and Terrain .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 2-3

2.3 Precipitation .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 2-3

2.4 Temperature .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 2-3

2.5 Wind .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 2-5

2.6 Evaporation .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 2-5

2.7 Geology .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 2-5

2.8 Hydrogeology .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 2-7

2.9 Ecology .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 2-7

2.10 Cultural Resources .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 2-8

2.11 NTS Nuclear Testing History .......... .......... .......... .......... 2-8

2.12 Surrounding Areas .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 2-9

2.13 Demography .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 2-9

2.14 Mission and Nature of Operations .......... .......... .......... ..... 2-11

2.15 Stockpile Stewardship .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 2-11

2.16 Environmental Management .......... .......... .......... ......... 2-11

2.17 Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC) .......... .......... .......... 2-11
viii

Page

3.0 Compliance Summary .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... 3-1

3.1 Compliance Status .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 3-1

National Environmental Policy Act .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-1

Clean Air Act (CAA) .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 3-2

NTS NESHAP Asbestos Compliance .......... .......... ......... 3-2

Radioactive Emissions on the NTS .......... .......... .......... . 3-3

NTS Air Quality Permit Compliance .......... .......... .......... 3-3

Non-NTS Air Quality Permit Compliance .......... .......... ....... 3-4

Clean Water Act (CWA) .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 3-4

NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-4

Non-NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 3-5

Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) .......... .......... .......... ...... 3-6

NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-6

NTS Water Haulage .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 3-6

Non-NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 3-6

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) .......... .......... ... 3-6

NTS RCRA Compliance .......... .......... .......... ......... 3-7

Hazardous Waste Reporting for Non-NTS Operations .......... .......... 3-7

Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) .......... .......... .......... .... 3-7

NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-7

Non-NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 3-7

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

 (CERCLA)/Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) ........ 3-7

Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) .......... ....... 3-8

Remedial Activities - Surface Areas .......... .......... .......... 3-8

Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) ......... 3-10

Non-NTS Tier II Reporting Under SARA Title III .......... .......... 3-10

DOE Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management .......... .......... . . 3-10

State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act .......... ......... 3-11

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) .......... .......... .......... . . 3-12

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) .......... .... 3-12

Threatened and Endangered Species Protection .......... .......... .... 3-12

Historic Preservation .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-13

Section 106 Surveys .......... .......... .......... .......... . 3-13

Section 110 Surveys .......... .......... .......... .......... . 3-13

Mitigation of Adverse Effects to Significant Cultural Resources ........ 3-14

Monitoring of Cultural Resources .......... .......... .......... . 3-14

Curation of Archaeological Collections .......... .......... ....... 3-14

Consultation with Native Americans .......... .......... ......... 3-15

Migratory Bird Treaty Act .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 3-15

Executive Order (EO) 11988 Floodplain Management .......... .......... 3-16

Executive Order (EO) 11990 Protection of Wetlands .......... .......... . 3-16

3.2 Agreements with States and Agencies .......... .......... .......... . 3-16

3.3 Current Environmental Compliance Issues and Actions .......... ......... 3-17

Clean Air Act (CAA) .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 3-17

Non-NTS Air Quality Permits .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-17

Clean Water Act (CWA) .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 3-18
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ix

Page

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-18

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

 (CERCLA) .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 3-18

Pollution Prevention (P2) and Waste Minimization .......... .......... . . 3-18

Solid/Sanitary Waste .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 3-19

Radiation Protection .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-19

NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 3-19

Non-NTS BN Operations .......... .......... .......... ........ 3-19

Environmental Compliance Audits .......... .......... .......... ..... 3-20

Occurrence Reporting .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 3-20

Legal Actions .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 3-20

3.4 Permits For NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... ......... 3-20

4.0 Environmental Program Information .......... .......... .......... ......... 4-1

4.1 Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan .......... .......... . . 4-1

Air Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 4-1

Surface Water .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 4-2

Groundwater .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 4-3

Water Supply Wells .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 4-3

Permitted Facilities Wells .......... .......... .......... ........ 4-4

Aquifer Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 4-4

Vadose Zone Monitoring (VZM) .......... .......... .......... ........ 4-5

Biota Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 4-6

NTS Chukar Sampling Sites .......... .......... .......... ...... 4-8

Direct Radiation Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... . 4-8

4.2 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Program .......... .......... 4-8

Employee and Public Awareness .......... .......... .......... ....... 4-8

Pollution Prevention Accomplishments .......... .......... .......... . . 4.9

Volume and Toxicity Reduction .......... .......... .......... ....... 4-10

4.3 Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC) .......... .......... .......... 4-10

4.4 Radioactive Waste Management Sites .......... .......... .......... . 4-11

Disposal Activities .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 4-11

Storage Activities .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 4-12

4.5 Historic Preservation .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 4-12

4.6 Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program .......... .......... .... 4-13

4.7 Underground Test Area Project .......... .......... .......... ....... 4-14

4.8 Hydrologic Resources Management Program .......... .......... ...... 4-15

Mission .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 4-15

Program Activities .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 4-15

Hydrology and Radionuclide Investigations for Operations .......... . . 4-15

Long-Term Groundwater Stewardship .......... .......... ....... 4-16

4.9 NTS Well and Borehole Plugging Plan .......... .......... .......... . . 4-17

4.10 Industrial Sites Project .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 4-18

5.0 Radiological Environmental Programs .......... .......... .......... ....... 5-1

5.1 Air Surveillance Activities .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 5-1

Air Particulate Sampling .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 5-1
x

Page

Gross Alpha and Beta Results .......... .......... .......... .... 5-3

Plutonium Results .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 5-3

Americium Results .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 5-5

Uranium Results .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 5-5

Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides .......... .......... .......... ... 5-9

Tritium in Air .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 5-9

Tritium in Air Results .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 5-9

5.2 Environmental Dosimetry .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 5-12

Ambient Gamma Monitoring .......... .......... .......... ......... 5-12

 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Monitoring Data .......... .......... .... 5-13

5.3 Water Surveillance Activities .......... .......... .......... ......... 5-14

Containment Ponds .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 5-14

Sewage Lagoons .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 5-14

5.4 Biota Surveillance Activities .......... .......... .......... .......... 5-14

Routine Sampling of NTS Biota .......... .......... .......... ....... 5-14

Vegetation Sampling .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 5-17

Animal Sampling .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 5-18

Results .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 5-20

Plant Samples .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 5-20

Animal Samples .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 5-20

5.5 Radiological Dose Assessment .......... .......... .......... ....... 5-21

Radioactive Emissions .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 5-21

Laboratory Sources .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 5-22

Area Sources .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 5-22

Offsite Radiological Dose Estimates .......... .......... .......... ... 5-22

Dose from Airborne Emissions .......... .......... .......... ... 5-22

Dose from Consumption of Wild Game .......... .......... ....... 5-23

Total Offsite Dose to Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI) .......... . . 5-23

Collective Population Dose .......... .......... .......... ...... 5-24

Onsite Biota Doses .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 5-24

5.6 Community Environmental Monitoring Program .......... .......... ..... 5-26

Data Collection and Dissemination .......... .......... .......... .... 5-26

Community Environmental Monitors (CEMs) .......... .......... ....... 5-26

CEMP Air Surveillance Network (ASN) .......... .......... .......... . 5-26

CEMP Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD) Network .......... .......... 5-29

CEMP Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC) Network .......... .......... .... 5-29

Analytical Results .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 5-29

Procedures and Quality Assurance .......... .......... .......... 5-29

Standard Operating Procedures .......... .......... .......... . . 5-30

Field Quality Assurance Samples .......... .......... .......... . 5-30

Laboratory Quality Assurance Samples .......... .......... ...... 5-30

Air Sampling Results .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 5-30

Gross Alpha .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 5-30

Gross Beta .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 5-31

Gamma Spectroscopy .......... .......... .......... .......... 5-31

TLD Results .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 5-31

Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC) Results .......... .......... .......... 5-31
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi

Page

6.0 Nonradiological Environmental Programs .......... .......... .......... ..... 6-1

6.1 Water Surveillance .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 6-1

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) .......... .......... .......... ...... 6-1

Bacteriological Sampling .......... .......... .......... ......... 6-1

Organic Compound Analysis .......... .......... .......... ...... 6-2

Metal Analysis .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 6-2

Other Inorganic Chemical Analysis .......... .......... .......... . 6-2

Inspections .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... 6-2

6.2 Air Surveillance .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 6-2

Monitoring of NTS Operations .......... .......... .......... ......... 6-3

6.3 Ecological Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 6-3

Biological Surveys .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 6-3

Habitat Mapping .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... 6-5

Sensitive Species Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... 6-6

Sensitive Plants .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 6-6

Western Burrowing Owl .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 6-7

Bat Species of Concern .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 6-9

Wild Horses .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 6-9

Raptors .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 6-12

Monitoring Natural Water Sources .......... .......... .......... ..... 6-14

Monitoring Man-Made Water Sources .......... .......... .......... . . 6-14

7.0 Site Hydrology .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 7-1

7.1 Surface Water .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 7-1

7.2 Groundwater .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 7-1

7.3 Hydrologic Modeling .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 7-5

7.4 Hydrogeologic Framework for the NTS and Vicinity .......... .......... ... 7-6

Hydrogeologic Units of the NTS Area .......... .......... .......... ... 7-7

Hydrostratigraphic Units of the NTS Area .......... .......... .......... 7-7

Lower Clastic Confining Unit (LCCU) .......... .......... ......... 7-7

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) .......... .......... .......... ... 7-7

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) .......... .......... ......... 7-8

Lower Carbonate Aquifer, Upper Thrust Plate (LCA3) .......... ...... 7-8

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit (MGCU) .......... .......... ...... 7-8

Tertiary and Quaternary Hydrostratigraphic Units .......... .......... 7-8

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 7-8

Structural Controls .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 7-10

Hydraulic Properties .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 7-11

General Hydraulic Characteristics of NTS Rocks .......... ......... 7-11

Effect of Underground Nuclear Explosions on Hydraulic 

 Characteristics .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 7-11

7.5 Hydrogeology of the NTS Test Areas .......... .......... .......... . . 7-12

Frenchman Flat .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... 7-12

Geologic Overview of Frenchman Flat .......... .......... ....... 7-12

Hydrogeology Overview of Frenchman Flat .......... .......... ... 7-14

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction .......... .... 7-15

Yucca Flat .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 7-15
xii

Page

Geology Overview of Yucca Flat .......... .......... .......... . . 7-16

Hydrogeology Overview of Yucca Flat .......... .......... ....... 7-16

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction .......... .... 7-18

Pahute Mesa .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 7-18

Geology Overview of Pahute Mesa .......... .......... .......... 7-19

Hydrogeology Overview of Pahute Mesa .......... .......... ..... 7-21

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction .......... .... 7-21

Rainier Mesa .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 7-21

Geology Overview of Rainier Mesa and Shoshone Mountain .......... 7-22

Hydrogeology Overview of Rainier Mesa and Shoshone Mountain ...... 7-22

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction .......... .... 7-22

7.6 Conclusion .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 7-22

8.0 Groundwater Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 8-1

8.1 Introduction .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 8-1

8.2 Groundwater Monitoring Analytes .......... .......... .......... ...... 8-1

8.3 Groundwater Monitoring Results .......... .......... .......... ...... 8-5

Quality Assurance .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 8-5

Tritium .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 8-5

Onsite Supply Wells .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 8-5

Onsite Monitoring Wells .......... .......... .......... ......... 8-7

Offsite Locations .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 8-8

Gross Alpha .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 8-8

Onsite Supply Wells .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 8-8

Onsite Monitoring Wells/Offsite Locations .......... .......... ...... 8-9

Gross Beta .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 8-9

Onsite Supply Wells .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 8-9

Onsite Monitoring Wells/Offsite Locations .......... .......... ..... 8-9

Gamma Spectroscopy .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 8-9

Radium .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 8-10

Plutonium .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 8-10

Strontium .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 8-10

8.4 Summary of Groundwater Monitoring .......... .......... .......... . . 8-10

8.5 Groundwater Monitoring Oversight Activities .......... .......... ....... 8-10

Community Environmental Monitoring Program-Water Monitoring Project ..... 8-10

Sample Locations .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 8-10

Procedures and Quality Assurance .......... .......... .......... 8-11

Tritium Results .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 8-11

8.6 Vadose Zone Monitoring (VZM) .......... .......... .......... ....... 8-11

9.0 Quality Assurance .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 9-1

9.1 Policy .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 9-1

9.2 Overview of the Laboratory QA Program .......... .......... .......... . 9-1

9.3 Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) .......... .......... .......... 9-2

Representativeness .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 9-3

Comparability .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 9-3

Precision .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 9-3
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiii

Page

Accuracy .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 9-3

Blank Analysis .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 9-4

Interlaboratory Comparison Studies .......... .......... .......... ..... 9-4

9.4 Results for Duplicates, Laboratory Control Samples, Blank Analysis, and 

 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies .......... .......... .......... .... 9-4

Duplicates (Precision) .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 9-5

Laboratory Control Samples (Accuracy) .......... .......... .......... . 9-5

Blank Analysis .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . 9-5

Interlaboratory Comparison Studies .......... .......... .......... ..... 9-5

9.5 Estimates of Data Quality .......... .......... .......... .......... . . 9-5

References .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... . . R-1

Distribution List .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... D-1
xiv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Nevada Test Site Location in Nevada .......... .......... .......... 2-2

Figure 2.2 Nevada Test Site Operational Areas, Principal Facilities, and

 Testing Areas .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 2-4

Figure 2.3 Annual Climatological Wind Rose Patterns for the NTS - 2001 .......... . 2-6

Figure 2.4 Land Use Around the Nevada Test Site .......... .......... ........ 2-10

Figure 5.1 Air Sampling Network on or near the NTS - 2001 .......... .......... . 5-2

Figure 5.2 Time Series Plot of Alpha - 2001 .......... .......... .......... .... 5-4

Figure 5.3 Time Series Plot of Beta - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ..... 5-4

Figure 5.4 Time Series Plot of Plutonium in Air - 2001 .......... .......... ...... 5-5

Figure 5.5 Trend in Annual Averages for 239+240Pu Concentrations .......... ....... 5-6

Figure 5.6 Time Series Plot for 239+240Pu Annual Averages .......... .......... ... 5-6

Figure 5.7 Time Series Plot of 241Am in Air all Locations - 2001 .......... ......... 5-7

Figure 5.8 Time Series Plot 233+234U .......... .......... .......... .......... . 5-7

Figure 5.9 Time Series Plot 235+236U .......... .......... .......... .......... . 5-8

Figure 5.10 Time Series Plot 238U .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 5-8

Figure 5.11 Time Series Plot of Tritium in Air - 2001 .......... .......... ........ 5-10

Figure 5.12 Time Series Plot of HTO vs Temperature .......... .......... ...... 5-10

Figure 5.13 Time Series Plot of HTO vs Precipitation .......... .......... ....... 5-11

Figure 5.14 Trend in Annual Averages for HTO Concentrations Onsite .......... ... 5-11

Figure 5.15 Time Series Plot for Tritium in Air on the NTS .......... .......... ... 5-12

Figure 5.16 Historical Time Series of Boxplots of TLD Exposures .......... ....... 5-13

Figure 5.17 Surface Water Sampling Locations on the NTS - 2001 .......... ...... 5-15

Figure 5.18 NTS Onsite Surface Biota Radiological Monitoring 

 Sites - 2001 .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 5-16

Figure 5.19 Tippipah Spring Site Sampled for Biota - 2001 .......... .......... ... 5-18

Figure 5.20 E Tunnel Pond Site where Gamebirds were Collected - 2001 .......... . 5-19

Figure 5.21 CEMP, MET, PIC and Air Sampling Sites on or near the NTS - 2001 ..... 5-27

Figure 5.22 The CEMP Station at Beatty, Nevada .......... .......... ......... 5-28

Figure 6.1 Biological Surveys Conducted on the NTS - 2001 .......... .......... . 6-4

Figure 6.2 Known Owl Burrows on the NTS - 2001 .......... .......... ......... 6-8

Figure 6.3 Feral Horse Sightings and Horse Sign Observed on the NTS - 2001 ...... 6-11

Figure 6.4 Man-made Water Sources Monitored for Wild Llife Use and Mortality 

 on the NTS - 2001 .......... .......... .......... .......... ... 6-13

Figure 6.5 Natural Water Sources Sampled on the NTS - 2001 .......... ........ 6.15

Figure 7.1 Closed Hydrobasins on the NTS .......... .......... .......... .... 7-2

Figure 7.2 Natural Springs and Seeps on the NTS .......... .......... ......... 7-3

Figure 7.3 Groundwater Sub-basins on the NTS and Vicinity .......... .......... . 7-4

Figure 7.4 Generalized Geologic Map of the NTS and Vicinity .......... .......... 7-9

Figure 7.5 CAU’s and CAS’s on the NTS .......... .......... .......... ..... 7-13

Figure 7.6 Conceptual East-West Cross Section Through Frenchman 

 Flat Showing Sub-basins Formed by Fault Blocks .......... ......... 7-14
xvi

Page

Figure 7.7 Generalized West-East Hydrogeologic Cross Section Through Central

 Yucca Flat .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... 7-17

Figure 7.8 Generalized Geologic Cross Section through Pahute Mesa .......... ... 7-20

Figure 8.1 Areas of Potential Groundwater Contamination on the NTS .......... ... 8-2

Figure 8.2 NTS Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations - 2001 .......... ....... 8-3

Figure 8.3 NTS Offsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations - 2001 .......... ....... 8-4

Figure 8.4 Wells with a History of Detectable Tritium .......... .......... ....... 8-5

Figure 8.5 NTS Groundwater Monitoring Locations with a History 

 of Detectable Tritium - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ....... 8-6

Figure 8.6 Annual Averages of Gross Alpha in Supply Wells .......... .......... . 8-8

Figure 8.7 Annual Averages of Gross Beta in Supply Wells .......... .......... . . 8-9

Figure 8.8 Weighing Lysimeter and Precipitation Data from March 1994 

 through December 2001 .......... .......... .......... ........ 8-13

Figure 8.9 Soil Water Content in Pit 3 Waste Cover (North Site) using 

 an Automated TDR System .......... .......... .......... ...... 8-13

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

View of Shoshone Mountain .......... .......... .......... .......... ........ 1-12

Ranier Mesa .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 2-12

Frenchman Flat Under Water .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 3-26

Frenchman Flat in the Spring .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 5-54

Eleana Range .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ......... 7-32
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xvii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1 Radionuclide Emissions on the NTS - 2001 .......... .......... ...... 1-11

Table 1.2 NTS Radiological Dose Reporting - 2001 .......... .......... ........ 1-11

Table 3.1 Active Air Quality Permits - 2001 .......... .......... .......... .... 3-21

Table 3.2 Active Air Quality Permits for Non-NTS Facilities - 2001 .......... ....... 3-22

Table 3.3 Sewage Discharge Permits - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ... 3-22

Table 3.4 NTS Drinking Water System Permits - 2001 .......... .......... ...... 3-23

Table 3.5 Permits for NTS Septic Waste Hauling Trucks - 2001 .......... ......... 3-23

Table 3.6 Allowable take of Desert Tortoises and their Habitat Permitted by the

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for NTS Activities .......... .......... . . 3-23

Table 3.7 Permits Required for NTS Operations - 2001 .......... .......... ..... 3-24

Table 3.8 Quantity of Wastes Disposed of in Solid Landfills - 2001 .......... ...... 3-25

Table 3.9 Off-Normal Occurrences at NTS Facilities - 2001 .......... .......... . . 3-25

Table 4.1 Reduction in Volume of Hazardous Waste Generated at the

 Nevada Operations Office - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ... 4-19

Table 4.2 Reduction in Volume of Solid Waste Generated at the

 Nevada Operations Office - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ... 4-20

Table 4.3 Reduction in Toxicity of Waste Generated at the

 Nevada Operations Office - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ... 4-20

Table 5.1 Descriptive Statistics for Gross Alpha in Air (x 10-15 :Ci/L) - 2001 ......... 5-32

Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics for Gross Beta in Air (x 10-14 :Ci/L) - 2001 .......... 5-33

Table 5.3 Descriptive Statistics for 238Pu in Air (x 10-18 :Ci/mL) - 2001 .......... .... 5-34

Table 5.4 Descriptive Statistics for 239+240Pu in Air (x 10-18 :Ci/mL) - 2001 .......... . 5-35

Table 5.5 Descriptive Statistics for 241Am in Air (x 10-18 :Ci/mL) - 2001 .......... ... 5-36

Table 5.6 Descriptive Statistics for 233+234, 235+236,238U in Air (x 10-18 :Ci/mL) - 2001 ..... 5-37

Table 5.7 Descriptive Statistics for 137Cs in Air (x 10-16 :Ci/mL) - 2001 .......... .... 5-38

Table 5.8 Descriptive Statistics for Airborne Tritium Concentrations - 2001 .......... 5-39

Table 5.9 Descriptive Statistics for TLD Annual Exposures, (mR/yr) - 2001 .......... 5-40

Table 5.10 Listing of Atypical TLD Data Values - 2001 .......... .......... ....... 5-43

Table 5.11 Descriptive Statistics for Detected Radioactivity in E Tunnel Ponds

 Water and Sediment - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ........ 5-43

Table 5.12 Radionuclide Activities in NTS Biota Samples - 2001 .......... ......... 5-44

Table 5.13 Summary of Annual Radionuclide Emissions by Source

 (a) (Multiply Ci by 37 to obtain Gbq) - 2001.......... .......... ....... 5-46

Table 5.14 Hypothetical Dose for a Human Consuming Chukar from the E Tunnel

 Ponds and Estimates for Dose to Chukar at E Tunnel Ponds - 2001 ...... 5-47

Table 5.15 Summary of Gamma Exposure Rates (:R/hr) as Measured by PIC - 2001 . . 5-48

Table 5.16 Air Filter Analyses and Techniques .......... .......... .......... ... 5-49

Table 5.17 Results of Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Samples - 2001 ........ 5-49

Table 5.18 Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 2001 ....... 5-50

Table 5.19 Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 2001 ........ 5-51

Table 5.20 TLD Monitoring Results for Offsite Stations - 2001 .......... .......... . 5-52

Table 5.21 Average Natural Background Radiation for Selected U.S. Cities

 (Excluding Radon) .......... .......... .......... .......... .... 5-53
xviii

Page

Table 6.1 Frequency of Coliform Bacteria Monitoring for NTS Public 

 Water Systems .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 6-16

Table 6.2 Analyses of Well Water Samples - 2001 .......... .......... ......... 6-16

Table 6.3 Phase V Inorganic Chemicals (all results in mg/L) .......... .......... . 6-17

Table 6.4 Sensitive Species that are Protected Under State or Federal Regulations 

 Which are Known to Occur on or Adjacent to the NTS .......... ...... 6-18

Table 6.5 Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted on the NTS - 2001 .......... . 6-21

Table 6.6 Summary of Burrow use by Pairs of Owls on the NTS - 2001 .......... ... 6-23

Table 6.7 Number of Horse Observed on the NTS by Age Class, Gender, and

 Year Since 1995 .......... .......... .......... .......... ...... 6-23

Table 6.8 Raptor Species that Occur and Breed on the NTS .......... .......... . 6-23

Table 6.9 Summary of NTS Raptor Mortality Records from 1990 - 2001 .......... . . 6-24

Table 6.10 Seasonal Data from Selected Natural Water Sources on the NTS 

 Collected 2001 .......... .......... .......... .......... ....... 6-25

Table 7.1 Hydrogeologic Units of the NTS Area .......... .......... .......... 7-24

Table 7.2 Summary of Hydrologic Properties for Hydrogeologic Units at the 

 NTS .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... 7-25

Table 7.3 Information Summary of NTS Underground Nuclear Tests .......... ..... 7-26

Table 7.4 Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Frenchman Flat Area .......... ......... 7-27

Table 7.5 Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Yucca Flat Area .......... .......... ... 7-28

Table 7.6 Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley Area .......... 7-29

Table 8.1 Typical Sampling and Analysis Schedule for RREMP Groundwater 

 Monitoring .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... 8-14

Table 8.2 Summary of Tritium Results - 2001 .......... .......... .......... . . 8-15

Table 8.3 Summary of Gross Alpha Results - 2001 .......... .......... ........ 8-19

Table 8.4 Summary of Gross Beta Results - 2001 .......... .......... ......... 8-21

Table 8.5 Summary of Gamma Results - 2001 .......... .......... .......... . . 8-23

Table 8.6 Summary of 226Ra Results - 2001 .......... .......... .......... .... 8-24

Table 8.7 Summary of 228Ra Results - 2001 .......... .......... .......... .... 8-25

Table 8.8 Summary of 238Pu Results - 2001 .......... .......... .......... .... 8-26

Table 8.9 Summary of 239+240Pu Results - 2001 .......... .......... .......... . . 8-28

Table 8.10 Summary of 90Sr Results - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ..... 8-30

Table 8.11 Summary of the DRI Groundwater Monitoring Program - 2001 .......... . . 8-31

Table 8.12 Summary of the DRI Groundwater Tritium Results - 2001 .......... ..... 8-32

Table 9.1 Summary of Field Duplicate Samples - 2001 .......... .......... ...... 9-6

Table 9.2 Summary of Laboratory Control Samples - 2001 .......... .......... ... 9-7

Table 9.3 Summary of Laboratory Blank Samples - 2001 .......... .......... ..... 9-8

Table 9.4 Summary of Interlaboratory Comparison Samples for the Subcontract 

 Radiochemistry Laboratory - 2001 .......... .......... .......... ... 9-9

Table 9.5 Summary of Interlaboratory Comparison TLD Samples

 for the BN In-House Dosimetry Group - 2001 .......... .......... ... 9-10
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xix

MEASUREMENT UNITS AND NOMENCLATURE

Radioactivity data in this report are expressed in both traditional units (e.g., pCi/L) and

International System (abbreviated SI) units. These units are explained below.

background Ambient background radiation to which people are exposed. Naturally occurring

radioactive elements contained in the body, in the ground, and in construction

materials, cosmic radiation, and radioactivity in the air all contribute to an

average radiation dose equivalent to humans of about 350 mrem per year. In

laboratory measurements of radioactivity in samples, background is the activity

determined when a sample of distilled water is processed through the system

(Also called a blank).

becquerel Abbreviation Bq. The Bq is the SI unit for disintegration rate.

1 Bq = 1 disintegration per second.

concentration Activity per unit volume or weight. Usually expressed as :Ci/mL, pCi/m3 or pCi/g.

curie Abbreviation Ci. The historic unit for disintegration rate. 1 Ci = 3.7 x 10

10

disintegrations per second = 3.7 x 1010 Bq. The usual submultiples of Ci are

mCi (10-3 Ci or one thousandth Ci), :Ci (10-6 Ci or one millionth Ci), and pCi

(10-12 or one trillionth Ci).

EDE Effective dose equivalent - radiation dose corrected by various weighting factors

that relate dose to the risk of serious effects.

rem Rem (for roentgen equivalent man) is the unit for expressing dose equivalent, or

the energy imparted to a person when exposed to radiation. The commonly used

subunit is the millirem (10-3 rem or one thousandth rem), abbreviated mrem.

roentgen Abbreviation R. A unit expressing the intensity of X or ( radiation at a point in 

air. The usual unit is mR or 10-3 R (one thousandth R).

volume The SI unit for volume is m

3

 (cubic meter). Other units used are liter (L) and mL

(10-3 L or one thousandth liter). One cubic meter = 1,000 L, 1 L = 1.06 quarts.

The elements and corresponding symbols used in this report are:

Element Symbol Element Symbol

Actinium

Ac Iron Fe

Aluminum Al Krypton Kr

Argon Ar Lead Pb

Arsenic As Lithium Li 

Barium Ba Mercury Hg

Beryllium Be Nitrogen N

Bismuth Bi Oxygen O

Boron B Plutonium Pu

Cadmium Cd Potassium K

Calcium Ca Radium Ra

Cesium Cs Radon Rn

Chlorine Cl Selenium Se

Chromium Cr Silver Ag

Cobalt Co Strontium Sr

Copper C Thallium Tl

Europium Eu Thorium Th

Fluorine F Thulium Tm

Hydrogen H Tritium 3H

Iodine I Uranium U
xx

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xxi

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AA Alluvial Aquifer

AIP Agreement in Principle

AMEM Assistant Manager for Environmental Management

APCD Air Pollution Control Division

ASA Auditable Safety Analysis

ASER Annual Site Environmental Report

ASN Air Surveillance Network 

BCG Biota Concentration Guide

BDAC Biota Dose Assessment Committee

BEEF Big Explosives Experimental Facility

BEIDMS Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System

BN Bechtel Nevada 

CAA Clean Air Act

CADD Corrective Action Decision Document

CAP Corrective Action Plan

CAP88-PC Clean Air Package 1988 (EPA software program for estimating doses)

CAS Corrective Action Site

CAU Corrective Action Unit

CEDE Committed Effective Dose Equivalent

CEI Compliance Evaluation Inspection

CEM Community Environmental Monitor 

CEMP Community Environmental Monitoring Program

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGTO Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations

CP Control Point

CWA Clean Water Act

CX Categorical Exclusion

CY Calendar Year

DAC Derived Air Concentration

DAF Device Assembly Facility

DAS Disposal Authorization Statement

DCG Derived Concentration Guide

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOE/HQ DOE Headquarters 

DOE/NV DOE Nevada Operations Office

DQO Data Quality Objectives

DRI Desert Research Institute, University and Community College System, Nevada

DWR Division of Water Resources

EA Environmental Assessment

EDE Effective Dose Equivalent

EGIS Ecological Geographic Information System

EHS Extremely Hazardous Substances

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELU Ecological Landform Unit

EMAC Ecological Monitoring and Compliance
xxii

EML Environmental Measurements Laboratory (DOE) 

EO Executive Order

EODU Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Reporting and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ERA Environmental Resource Associates

ERP Environmental Restoration Project

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESHD Environment, Safety and Health Division

ET Evapotranspiration

FFACO Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act

FIFRA Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

FY Fiscal Year

GCD Greater Confinement Disposal

GIS Geographic Information System

HAER Historic American Engineering Record

HGU Hydrogeologic Unit

HRMP Hydrologic Resources Management Program

HSC Hazardous Materials Spill Center

HSU Hydrostratigraphic Unit

HTO Tritiated Water

ICMP Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

IT International Technology

JASPER Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LAO Los Alamos Operations (BN)

LCA Lower Carbonate Aquifer

LCA3 Lower Carbonate Aquifer, Upper Thrust Plate

LCCU Lower Clastic Confining Unit

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

LLW Low Level (Radioactive) Waste

LLWMU Low Level Waste Management Unit

LO Livermore Operations (BN)

MAPEP Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration

MEI Maximally Exposed Individual

MGCU Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit

MLLW Mixed Low Level Waste

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MQO Measurement Quality Objectives

MTRU Mixed Transuranic

NAC Nevada Administrative Code 

NAFR Nellis Air Force Range 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

NDOW Nevada Division of Wildlife
TABLE OF CONTENTS

xxiii

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NLV North Las Vegas

NLVF North Las Vegas Facility (BN)

NNSA/NV U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada 

Operations Office

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRS Nevada Revised Statues

NSHPO Nevada State Historic Preservation Office

NTS Nevada Test Site

NTSWAC Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria

OP Organizational Procedure

P2 Pollution Prevention

PA Performance Assessment

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PEP Performance Evaluation Program

PIC Pressurized Ion Chamber

PM-OV Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

PPOA Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments

QA Quality Assurance

QAP Quality Assessment Program

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

R-MAD Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly

RMP Resource Management Plan

RPD Relative Percent Difference

RREMP Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory (BN)

RWID Radioactive Waste Information Document

RWMBART Radioactive Waste Management Basis Assistance and Review Team

RWMS Radioactive Waste Management Site

RWMS-3 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 3

RWMS-5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 5

SAFER Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SCCC Silent Canyon Caldera Complex

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SWL Static Water Level

SWNVF Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field

TaDD Tactical Demilitarization Development

TCP Traditional Cultural Property

TCU Tuff Confining Unit

TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter

TMA Timber Mountain Aquifer

TMCC Timber Mountain Caldera Complex

TRU Transuranic 

TSA Topopah Spring Aquifer
xxiv

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TTR Tonopah Test Range

UCCU Upper Clastic Confining Unit

UGTA Underground Testing Area

U.S. United States

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

VCU Volcaniclastic Confining Unit

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VZM Vadose Zone Monitoring

WAMO Washington Aerial Measurements Operations (BN)

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

WVCU Wahmonie Volcanic Confining Unit

YF-LCU Yucca Flat Lower Confining Unit

YMP Yucca Mountain Project
SUMMARY

1-1

1.0 SUMMARY

Monitoring and surveillance, on and around the Nevada Test Site, (NTS) by

United States Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security

Administration Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV) contractors and NTS

user organizations during 2001, indicated that operations on the NTS were

conducted in compliance with applicable NNSA/NV, state, and federal

regulations and guidelines. All discharges of radioactive liquids remained

onsite in containment ponds, and there was no indication of migration of

radioactivity to the offsite area through groundwater. During 2001, no

accidental or unplanned releases occurred on the NTS. Oversite

surveillance by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) of the University and

Community College System of Nevada around the NTS indicated that

offsite airborne radioactivity from diffusion and evaporation of liquid

effluents was not detectable. Using the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency's (EPA’s) Clean Air Package 1988 model (CAP88-PC) and NTS

radionuclide emissions by the resuspension of soil and environmental

monitoring data, the effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally

exposed individual (MEI) offsite was calculated to be 0.17 mrem/yr. This

value is 1.7 percent of the federal dose limit prescribed for radionuclide air

emissions. A maximized estimate of the EDE to the MEI, from the

inhalation of NTS airborne emissions and the ingestion of wild life, was

calculated to be 0.24 mrem/yr (0.0024 mSv/yr), which is only 0.24 percent of

the 100 mrem/yr dose limit to the general public. The MEI receiving this

dose would also have received an external exposure of 394 mrem/yr from

natural background radiation. There were no nonradiological releases to

the offsite area. Hazardous wastes were shipped to approved offsite

disposal facilities. Compliance with the various regulations stemming

from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is being achieved and,

where mandated, permits for air and water effluents and waste

management have been obtained from the appropriate agencies. 

Cooperation with other agencies has resulted in 12 different agreements,

memoranda, and consent orders.

Biota Concentration Guides derived by the DOE Biota Dose Assessment

Committee were used to determine that the radiation doses to terrestrial

biota in all areas of the NTS are in compliance with a proposed DOE

regulatory standard for biota.

Support facilities at off-NTS locations have complied with the requirements

of air quality permits and state or local wastewater discharge and

hazardous waste permits as mandated for each location.

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The NNSA/NV is committed to increasing the quality of its management of NTS environmental

resources. This has been promoted by the establishment of an Environment, Safety and Health

Division under the purview of the Assistant Manager for Technical Services and by upgrading
1-2

the Environmental Management activities to the Assistant Manager level to address those

environmental issues that have arisen in the course of performing the original primary mission

of the NNSA/NV, i.e., underground testing of nuclear explosive devices. NNSA/NV

management has vigorously promoted the practice of pollution prevention, including waste

minimization and material recycling. 

Operational releases and seepage of radioactivity are reported soon after their occurrence. In

compliance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), as

set forth in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61, the accumulated annual emissions are

used as part of the input to the EPA’s CAP88-PC software program (DOE 1997b) to calculate

potential EDEs to people living beyond the boundaries of the NTS and the surrounding

exclusion areas.

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

Radiological effluents in the form of air emissions and liquid discharges are not normally

released into the environment as a routine part of operations on the NTS. Radioactivity in liquid

discharges released to onsite waste treatment or disposal systems (containment ponds) is

monitored to assess the efficacy of treatment and control and to provide an annual summary of

released radioactivity. Air emissions are monitored for source characterization and operational

safety as well as for environmental surveillance purposes.

Air emissions in 2001 consisted primarily of small amounts of tritium and plutonium that were

assumed to be released to the atmosphere and were attributed to:

! Diffusion of tritiated water (HTO) vapor from evaporation of HTO from tunnel and

characterization well containment ponds.

! Diffuse emissions calculated from the results of environmental surveillance activities.

! Resuspension of plutonium calculated by use of resuspension equations.

Diffuse emissions in 2001 included (1) HTO, only slightly above detection limits, from the

Radioactive Waste Management Site in Area 5 (RWMS-5), the E Tunnel Ponds, the SEDAN

crater in Area 10, and the SCHOONER crater in Area 20; and (2) resuspended 239+240Pu and

241Am from areas on the NTS, where it was deposited by atmospheric nuclear tests or device

safety tests in earlier years. Table 1.1 shows the quantities of radionuclides estimated to be

released from all sources. The radioactive materials listed in this table were not detected in the

offsite area above ambient radioactivity levels. No liquid effluents were discharged to offsite

areas.

ONSITE ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE

Environmental surveillance on the NTS is designed to cover the entire area with some

emphasis on areas of past nuclear testing and present operational activities. During CY 2001,

air monitoring was conducted for radioactive particulates and HTO vapor at a total of 29 and 19

locations, respectively. Beginning in July 2001, the sampling locations were changed to 16 and
SUMMARY

1-3

14 locations, respectively, to accommodate a change in strategy for demonstrating compliance

with NESHAPs as approved by the EPA. The changes maintained the monitoring of NTS

areas with potential emissions of radioactivity and designated the sampler locations at

SCHOONER, Gate 700 South, Mercury, Guard Station 510, Substation 3545, and Yucca as

NESHAP compliance stations. These six stations, although located on the NTS, will

conservatively represent offsite critical receptors. Grab samples were collected frequently from

water supply wells, water taps, containment ponds, and sewage lagoons. Gamma exposures

were measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), which were placed at 88 locations

on the NTS.

Data from these networks are summarized as annual averages for each monitored location. 

Those locations with concentrations above the NTS average are assumed to reflect onsite

emissions. These emissions arise from diffuse (areal) sources and from certain operational

activities (e.g., radioactivity buried in the low-level radioactive waste [LLW] site). 

Approximately 243 air samples were analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. All isotopes detected

by gamma spectroscopy were naturally occurring in the environment (40K, 7Be, and members of

the uranium and thorium series), except for 24 samples in which very low levels of 137Cs were

detected.

Gross alpha and beta analysis of the air samples yielded an annual mean for the network of 

6.6 x10-15 :Ci/mL (0.24 mBq/m3) and 1.9 x10-14 :Ci/mL ( 0.70 mBq/m3) respectively. Plutonium

analyses for all locations during 2001, of monthly NTS composited air filters, indicated an

annual network mean of 49 x 10

-18 :Ci/mL (1.8 :Bq/m3

) for 239+240Pu and 2.2 x 10-18 :Ci/mL

(0.082 :Bq/m3) for 238Pu.

Slightly higher concentrations were found in samples from certain areas, but they were

calculated to be only 0.02 percent or less of the Derived Air Concentration for exposure to

workers. Higher than background levels of plutonium are to be expected in some air samples

because fallout from atmospheric tests in the 1950s, and nuclear safety tests in the 1950s and

1960s dispersed plutonium over a small portion of the NTS’s surface.

Atmospheric moisture was collected for two-week periods at 19 locations on the NTS and

analyzed for HTO content. The annual network mean of 35 x 10-6 pCi/mL (1.3 Bq/m3) was

slightly lower than last year. The highest annual mean concentrations were at the SCHOONER

crater, SEDAN crater, and the E Tunnel pond in that order. The primary radioactive liquid

discharge to the onsite environment in 2001 was about 14 Ci (0.52 TBq) of tritium (as HTO) in

seepage from E Tunnel and from water pumped from wells into containment ponds. When

calculating the dose for the offsite public, it was assumed that all of the HTO had evaporated.

Surface water sampling was conducted at two containment ponds and the effluent for the 

Area 12 E Tunnel. A grab sample was taken from each of these surface water sites for

analysis of gross beta, tritium, gamma-emitters, and plutonium isotopes. Strontium-90 was

analyzed once per year for each location. Samples collected from the tunnel containment pond

contained detectable levels of radioactivity, as would be expected. Water samples were

collected from the sewage lagoons and contained background levels of gross beta, tritium,

plutonium, and strontium. 
1-4

Water samples from onsite supply wells and drinking water distribution systems were also

analyzed for radionuclides. The supply well average gross beta activity of 6.6 x 10-9 :Ci/mL

(0.25 Bq/L) was 2 percent of the Derived Concentration Guide for 40K (used for comparison

purposes); gross alpha was 5.05 x 10-9 :Ci/mL (0.19 Bq/L), which was 40 percent of the

drinking water standard; the concentrations of 3H, 90Sr, 239+240Pu, and 238Pu were all below their

respective minimum detectable levels. The radium concentrations in supply well samples were

less than Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements.

Monitoring of the vadose zone beneath the waste management sites in Areas 3 and 5 revealed

that wetting fronts extended only a few feet below the surface of these sites. Also, Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) monitoring wells, for sampling groundwater under

RWMS-5, indicated that contamination from mixed waste buried therein is not detectable in the

well samples.

Analysis of data from the TLD network showed statistically significant differences between both

locations and quarters, though the quarter-to-quarter variation was much less than the locationto-location variation. The Highest exposure rates were measured at areas associated with

historical surface tests. Eighty-three percent of the NTS locations had mean exposure rates

within the range measured offsite by DRI, with 93 percent of the NTS locations within the range

of background exposures measured across the United States (Bier III 1980). Overall mean

exposure rates on the NTS were very similar to those measured in past years.

Monitoring System Design

During 1998, in an effort to make the environmental surveillance system on the NTS more

efficient, it was redesigned. Using the Seven-Step Data Quality Objective (DQO) process,

published by EPA and information on the distribution and amount of radioactive sources on the

NTS, a “Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan” (RREMP) was developed (DOE

1998a). As a result of the DQO process, some monitoring was eliminated in 1999. The

number of air and TLD monitoring stations were reduced, and monitoring frequencies were also

changed in 1999. The monitoring was conducted in accordance with the Plan during 2001. 

OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE

Oversite radiological monitoring is conducted by public individuals in communities and at

ranches around the NTS and is coordinated by the DRI of the University and Community

College System of Nevada under contract with NNSA/NV. These programs consist of several

environmental sampling, radiation detection, and dosimetry networks as described below. A

network of 22 Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) stations were operated

continuously during 2001. During 2001, no airborne radioactivity related to current activities at

the NTS was detected on any sample from low-volume samplers. 

In 2001, external exposure was monitored by a network of 24 TLDs and pressurized ion

chambers (PICs) located in towns and communities around the NTS. The PIC network in the

communities surrounding the NTS indicated background exposures, ranging from 72 to 168

mR/yr, which were consistent with previous data and well within the range of background data

in other areas of the United States. The exposures measured by the TLDs were slightly less,

as has been true in the past.
SUMMARY

1-5

Although no radioactivity attributable to current NTS operations was detected by any of the

offsite monitoring networks, based on the NTS airborne releases, an atmospheric dispersion

model calculation (CAP88-PC) indicated that the maximum potential EDE to any offsite

individual would have been 0.17 mrem (1.7 x 10-3 mSv) at Springdale, and the dose to the

population within 80 km of the several emission sites on the NTS would have been 

0.44 person-rem (4.4 x 10-3 person-Sv), both of which were similar to last years. If one

assumes that the MEI at Springdale also ate the meat of wild life which had migrated off the

NTS after eating and drinking in radioactively contaminated areas, he could have received an

additional EDE of 0.07 mrem/yr (7.0 x 10-4 mSv/yr). These, added to the air pathway EDE,

give a total of 0.24 mrem/yr (2.4 x 10-3 mSv/yr). For comparison, the hypothetical person

receiving this dose would also have been exposed to 390mrem/yr (3.94 mSv/yr) from all

components of natural background radiation. A summary of the potential EDEs due to

operations at the NTS is presented in Table 1.2.

In compliance with the regulatory standards published by the DOE Biota Dose Assessment

Committee, the dose to terrestrial biota was calculated for the most contaminated NTS areas. 

All such areas were in compliance with the committee’s technical standard.

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL

Environmental monitoring at the RWMS, Area 3 (RWMS-3) has detected plutonium 

in air samples. However, the upwind/ downwind sampler results were equivalent, and

plutonium was detected in other air samples from Area 3, indicating that the source is

resuspended plutonium from areas surrounding RWMS-3. Elevated levels of plutonium have

been detected in air samples from several areas on the NTS where operational activities,

vehicular traffic, and high winds resuspend plutonium for detection by air sampling. The

presence of plutonium on the NTS is primarily due to atmospheric and safety tests conducted in

the 1950s and 1960s. These tests spread plutonium on surface soil in the eastern and

northwestern areas of the NTS (Figure 5.1, Chapter 5.0 displays these locations). 

Environmental monitoring at and around RWMS-5 indicated that HTO in air was detectable at,

but not beyond, the waste site boundaries. This monitoring included air sampling, water

sampling, and external gamma exposure measurement. Vadose zone monitoring for water

seepage is conducted beneath RWMS-3 and RWMS-5, as a method of detecting any

downward migration of waste. Also, three monitoring wells, installed to satisfy RCRA

requirements for a mixed-waste disposal operation at RWMS-5, have not yet detected any

migration of hazardous materials.

NONRADIOLOGICAL MONITORING

Nonradiological environmental monitoring of NTS operations involved only onsite monitoring

because there were no discharges of nonradiological hazardous materials to offsite areas. The

primary environmental permit areas for the NTS were monitored to verify compliance with

ambient air quality and the RCRA requirements. Air emissions sources common to the NTS

included particulates from construction, aggregate production, surface disturbances, fugitive

dust from unpaved roads, fuel burning equipment, open burning, and fuel storage facilities. 

NTS environmental permits active during 2001, which were issued by the state of Nevada or by

federal agencies, included one comprehensive air quality permit covering emissions from
1-6

construction of facilities, boilers, storage tanks, and surface disturbances; three onsite openburn variances; one offsite permit for surface disturbance (environmental restoration activities); 

six permits for onsite drinking water distribution systems; one permit for sewage discharges to

lagoon collection systems; four permits for seepage hauling; one incidental take permit for the

threatened desert tortoise; and one permit for the scientific collection and study of various

species on the NTS. Further, a RCRA permit has been obtained for general NTS operations

and for two specific facilities on the NTS.

Permits at non-NTS operations included 12 air pollution control permits, 3 sewage discharge

permits, and 2 hazardous material storage permits.

The only nonradiological air emission of regulatory concern under the Clean Air Act (CAA) has

been due to asbestos removal during building renovation projects and from insulated piping at

various locations on the NTS. During 2001, there were no projects that required state of

Nevada notifications. The annual estimate for non-scheduled asbestos demolition/renovation

projects for fiscal year 2001 was sent to EPA Region 9 in December 13, 2000.

RCRA requirements were met through an operating permit for hazardous waste storage and

explosives ordnance disposal. NTS operations also include mixed waste storage through a

Consent Agreement between NNSA and the state of Nevada.

As there are no liquid discharges to navigable waters, offsite surface water drainage systems,

or publicly owned treatment works, no Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollution Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permits were required for NTS operations. Under the conditions

of the state of Nevada operating permits, liquid discharges to onsite sewage lagoons are

regularly tested for biochemical oxygen demand, pH, and total suspended solids. In addition to

the state-required monitoring, these influents were also tested for RCRA related constituents as

an internal initiative to further protect the NTS environment. The State inspected permitted

sewage lagoons on April 3 and 4, 2001, with findings noted.

There were no formal state inspections of NTS equipment regulated by the state air quality

permit. 

In compliance with the SDWA and four drinking water supply system permits from the state, the

onsite distribution systems supplied by onsite wells are sampled either monthly or quarterly for

coliform bacteria and water quality parameters, depending on the status as a community or

non-community system. 

1.2 COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

NNSA/NV is required to comply with various environmental laws and regulations in the conduct

of its operations. Monitoring activities required for compliance with the CAA, CWA, SDWA,

Toxic Substance Control Act, and RCRA are summarized above. Endangered Species Act

activities include compliance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Biological Opinion on NTS Activities and the Biological Opinion on Fortymile Canyon Activities. 

NEPA activities include 1 Environmental Assessment, and 17 Categorical Exclusions. Of the

41 NEPA checklist completed, 29 projects were excluded because they had been considered in

the site-wide Environmental Impact Statement or the Record of Decision.
SUMMARY

1-7

Wastewater discharges at the NTS are not regulated under NPDES permits, because all such

discharges are to onsite sewage lagoons. Discharges to these lagoons are permitted under the

Nevada Water Pollution Control Act. Wastewater discharges from the non-NTS support

facilities (North LasVegas Facility, Remote Sensing Laboratory [RSL]-Nellis, RSL-Andrews, and

Special Technologies Laboratory) were within the regulated levels established by city or county

publicly owned treatment works. 

The National Historic Preservation Act directs federal agencies to consult with Native

Americans when NNSA/NV programs or activities at the NTS may impact their environmental

and cultural interests. In 2001, three surveys were conducted and one historical evaluation was

initiated. Consultations with several Native American tribes were conducted to determine

whether artifact collections should be repatriated. NNSA/NV published a book “American

Indians and the Nevada Test Site,” a Model of Research and Consultation (Stoffle et al., 2001). 

The Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program monitoring tasks, which were selected for

2001 included habitat mapping of the NTS, characterizing the natural wetlands on the NTS,

conducting a census of the horse population, surveying bat species, surveying for raptors, and

periodically monitoring man-made water sources to assess their effects on wildlife. Reviews of

spill test plans for the Hazardous Materials Spill Center were also conducted.

The annual compliance report for CY 2001 NTS activities was prepared and submitted to the

USFWS.

Pollution prevention activities conducted in CY 2001 at the NTS and its offsite facilities involve

active programs for recycling, material exchange, and waste minimization. 

1.3 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION

No radioactivity was detected above background levels in the groundwater sampling network

surrounding the NTS. Low levels of tritium, in the form of HTO, were detected in onsite wells

used only for monitoring purposes and not for drinking water.

Because wells that were drilled for water supply or exploratory purposes are used in the NTS

monitoring program, rather than wells drilled specifically for groundwater monitoring, a program

of well drilling for groundwater characterization at the NTS is underway. The design of the

program is for installation or recompletion of groundwater characterization wells at strategic

locations on and near the NTS. During 2001, two wells were completed in Frenchman Flats

area. Hydrological tests and sampling were completed at four wells drilled before CY 2000.

Related activities included studies of groundwater transport of contaminants (radionuclide

migration studies) and nonradiological monitoring for water quality assessment and RCRA

requirements.

1.4 RADIOACTIVE AND MIXED WASTE STORAGE AND

DISPOSAL

Two RWMSs are operated on the NTS: one each in Areas 3 and 5. During 2001, the RWMSs

received LLW generated at the NTS and other NNSA/NV facilities. Waste is disposed of in

shallow pits and trenches in RWMS-5 and in subsidence craters in RWMS-3.
1-8

At RWMS-5, LLW is disposed of in standard packages. Transuranic (TRU) and TRU mixed

wastes are stored on a curbed asphalt pad on pallets in over packed 55-gal drums and steel

boxes. These will be characterized prior to shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New

Mexico. The RWMS-3 is used for disposal of bulk LLW waste and LLW that is packaged,

including packages that are larger than the specified standard size used at RWMS-5.

Environmental monitoring, at both sites, included air sampling for radioactive particulates and

measurement of external exposure using TLDs. Water sampling and vadose zone monitoring

for moisture and hazardous constituents are conducted at the RWMS-5, as is monitoring for

tritium in atmospheric moisture. Environmental monitoring results for 2001 indicated that

measurable radioactivity from waste disposal operations was detectable only in the immediate

vicinity of the facilities.

Because the NTS is not a RCRA-permitted disposal facility, RCRA regulations require the

shipment of nonradioactive hazardous waste to licensed disposal offsite facilities. Therefore

hazardous waste is not disposed of onsite.

LLW is accepted for disposal only from generators (onsite and offsite) that have submitted a

waste application that meets the requirements of the Waste Acceptance Criteria document

(DOE 2002) and that have received NNSA/NV approval of the waste stream(s) for disposal at

the NTS.

1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE

It is the policy of the DOE NNSA/NV that all data produced for its environmental surveillance

and effluent monitoring programs be of known quality. Therefore, a quality assurance (QA)

program is used for collection and analysis of samples for radiological parameters to ensure

that data produced by the Bechtel Nevada (BN) Subcontracted Radiochemistry Laboratory

meets customer-and regulatory-defined requirements. Data quality is assured through processbased QA, procedure-specific QA, measurement quality objectives (MQOs), and performance

evaluation programs (PEPs). The QA program for radiological data consists of participation in

the Quality Assessment Program (QAP) administered by the DOE/NV Environmental

Measurements Laboratory (EML), the InterLaB RadCheMTM Proficiency Testing Program

directed by Environmental Resource Associates (ERA), the Radiochemistry Intercomparison

Program provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Mixed

Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) conducted by the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)

radiation measurement QA for the program is assessed by the BN Dosimetry Group’s

participation in the DOE/NV’s Laboratory Accreditation Program and intercomparisons provided

by the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) during the course of the year. 

1.6 ISSUES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS

PRINCIPAL COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS FOR 2001

! Results in 2001 for lead were found above the SDWA action level in the Area 12, Building

12-43 drinking water systems. The water is restructured to non-potable use until a remedy

is found for this situation. 
SUMMARY

1-9

ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 2001

! NEPA Environmental Evaluation Checklists were completed for 41 proposed projects.

! FFACO actions included preparing 16 Post-Closure Monitoring Reports, 11 Closure

Reports, and 6 Safer Plans.

! NNSA/NV executed its Implementation Plan for meeting the requirements of DOE Order

435.1 by the agreed-upon compliance date of March 5, 2001.

! NNSA/NV conducted three cultural resource surveys, two inventory projects, and one

historical evaluation at the NTS. This resulted in one site and two structures eligible for

National Register of Historic Places preservation.

! Ecology of the NTS, an Annotated Bibliography was brought up to date in 2001 to reflect all

Ecology related research on the NTS.

! There were nine Environmental Compliance Management Assessments of specific

operations, facilities, or projects. These assessments focused mostly on areas of major

environmental compliance.

! UGTA Project drilled two wells in Frenchman Flat: ER-5-3#3 and ER-5-4. In addition,

hydrologic tests and sampling were conducted at four wells: three wells at the ER-5-3 well

cluster and one well at ER-5-4.

! NTS Well and Borehole Plugging Project plugged 18 unused boreholes in Areas 2, 3, 4, 

and 9.

! Throughout 2001, NNSA/NV continued to maintain and update the “NNSA/NV Compliance

Guide” (Volume III), a handbook containing procedures, formats, and guidelines for

personnel responsible for NEPA compliance activities.

1.7 CONCLUSION

The environmental monitoring results presented in this report document that operational

activities on the NTS in 2001 were conducted so that no measurable radiological exposure

occurred to the public in offsite areas. Calculation of the highest individual annual dose that

could have been received by an offsite resident (based on estimation of onsite worst-case

radioactive releases [totals listed in Table 1.1] obtained by measurement or engineering

calculation and assuming the person remained outdoors all year) equated to 0.17 mrem to a

person living in Springdale, Nevada. If this same individual also was a hunter who ate a 

possession limit (12) of chukar which migrated from the NTS after drinking water from the 

E Tunnel ponds, he would also receive 0.07 mrem for a total of 0.24 mrem. This may be

compared to that individual's exposure to 154 mrem/yr from natural background radiation

(cosmic and terrestrial) as measured by the PIC instrument at Beatty, Nevada. When the

doses (NCRP 1996) from the inhalation of naturally occurring radon in air (200 mrem/yr) and

the internal radiation dose one receives from naturally occurring radionuclides in our body 
1-10

(40 mrem/yr) are included, the total natural background dose becomes 394 mrem/yr

(154+200+40). The collective population dose to residents residing within 80 km of the NTS

emissions was calculated as 0.44 person-rem/yr and compared to the population dose from the

natural environmental background, 13,940 person-rem/yr. The results of the dose calculations

are summarized in Table 1.2. 

There were no major incidents of nonradiological contaminant releases to the environment in

2001. Many contaminated sites are on schedule for remediation, and intensive efforts to

characterize and protect the NTS environment, implemented in 1990, were continued in 2001.

The Underground Testing Area program and other activities devoted to characterization and

protection of groundwater on and around the NTS continued on schedule.
SUMMARY

1-11

Table 1.1 Radionuclide Emissions on the NTS - 2001(a)

Radionuclide Half-life (years) Quantity Released (Ci)(b)

Airborne Releases:

3H 12.35 564(c)

239+240Pu 24065.(e) 3.2 x 10-1(d)

241Am 432.2 4.9 x 10-2(d)

(a) Assumes worst-case point and diffuse source releases; there were no unplanned

releases.

(b) Multiply by 37 to obtain GBq.

(c) Estimated from air sampling results and evaporation of water from containment ponds.

(d) Calculated from the resuspension of surface deposits.

(e) This is the half-life of 239Pu.

Table 1.2 NTS Radiological Dose Reporting - 2001

Pathway

Dose to Maximally

 Exposed Individual

Percent 

of DOE

100-mrem

Limit

Estimated Population

Dose

Population

within 80 km

Estimated

Natural

Radiation Dose

(mrem) (mSv) (person-rem) (person-Sv) (person-rem)

Air 0.17 0.0017 0.17 0.44 0.0044 38,403 13,940a

Air and

 Wild Life 0.24 0.0024 0.24 0.44 0.0044 38,403 13,940a

(a) Product of population within 80 km of NTS emissions and natural radiation dose (see

Section 5.5 of Chapter 5.0).
1-12

View of Shoshone Mountain (No Date Provided)
INTRODUCTION

2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The Nevada Test Site (NTS) environment is characterized by desert valley

and Great Basin mountain terrain and topography, with a climate, flora,

and fauna typical of the southern Great Basin deserts. The key features

that afford protection to the inhabitants of the adjacent areas from

potential exposure to radioactivity or other contaminants resulting from

operations on the NTS are restricted access, extended wind transport

times, bounded on three sides by United States Air Force lands, and the

general remote location of the NTS. Also, characteristic of this area are the

great depths to slow-moving groundwater and little or no surface water. 

Population density within 80 km of the NTS is only 0.5 persons/km2 versus

approximately 29 persons/km2 in the 48 contiguous states. The

predominant use of land surrounding the NTS is open range for livestock

grazing with scattered mining and recreational areas.

The NTS, located in southern Nevada was the primary location for the

testing of nuclear explosives in the continental United States from 1951 to

1992. Historically, nuclear testing has included, (1) atmospheric testing in

the 1950s and early 1960s; (2) underground testing in drilled, vertical holes

and horizontal tunnels; (3) earth-cratering experiments; (4) open-air

nuclear reactor and engine testing; and (5) eleven underground tests for

various purposes at other locations in the United States. 

NTS activities in 2001 continue to be diverse, with the primary role being to

help ensure that the existing United States stockpile remains safe and

reliable. Facilities that support this mission include the U1a Facility, Big

Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF), and Joint Actinide Shock Physics

Experimental Research (JASPER) Facility. Other NTS activities include

demilitarization activities, controlled spills of hazardous material at the

Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC), remediation of industrial sites,

processing of waste destined for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP),

disposal of radioactive waste, and environmental research. In addition

efforts continue to bring other business to the NTS, like aerospace and

alternative energy technologies.

2.1 NTS SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The NTS, located in Nye County, Nevada, as shown in Figure 2.1, has been operated by the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada

Operations Office (NNSA/NV), or its predecessors, as the on-continent test site for nuclear

explosives testing since 1951. The southeast corner of the NTS is about 88 km (55 mi)

northwest of the center of Las Vegas. By highway, it is about 105 km (65 mi) from the center of

Las Vegas to Mercury. The NTS encompasses about 3,561 km2 (1,375 mi2), an area larger

than the state of Rhode Island. The dimensions of the NTS vary from 46 to 56 km (28 to 35 mi)

in width (eastern to western border) and from 64 to 88 km (40 to 55 mi) in length (northern to

southern border). The NTS is surrounded on the east, north, and west sides by public

exclusion areas, called the Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) (see Figure 2.1). This area provides

a buffer zone varying from 24 to 104 km (15 to 65 mi) between the NTS and public lands. The 
Scotty's Junction

Amargosa Valley

Rachel

Pioche

Alamo

Goldfield

Sloan

Arden

Jean

Johnnie

Henderson

OO RR EE GG OO NN II DD AA HH OO

AA RR II ZZ OO NN AA

NN EE VV AA DD AA

CC AA LL II FF OO RR NN II AA

UU TT AA HH

Sparks

Battle Mountain

Indian Springs

Silver Springs

West Wendover

Zephyr Cove

Moapa Valley

Smith Valley

Winnemucca

Hawthorne

Kingsbury

Las

Vegas

Las

Vegas

Stateline

Wadsworth

Yerington

Caliente

Laughlin

Lovelock

Mesquite

Fernley

Pahrump

Tonopah

Beatty

Carlin

CARSON CITY

Dayton

Fallon

McGill

Minden

Owyhee

Schurz

Gabbs

Wells

Elko

Reno

Ely

I84

I5

I40

I15

I80

2-2

Figure 2.1 Nevada Test Site Location in Nevada

State Boundary Road

Interstate

Nevada Test Site

Nellis Air Force Range

Community

Nevada

Test

Site

Nellis Air

Force Range

0 50 100 200

Kilometers

0 12.5 25 50 75 100 125

Miles
INTRODUCTION

2-3

combination of the NAFR and the NTS is one of the larger unpopulated land areas in the United

States, comprising some 14,200 km2 (5,470 mi2). Figure 2.2 shows the general layout of the

NTS, including the location of major facilities and the NTS Area numbers referred to in this

report. The geographical areas previously used for nuclear testing are also indicated in 

Figure 2.2. Mercury, located at the southern end of the NTS, is the main base camp for worker

housing and administrative operations for the NTS.

2.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND TERRAIN

The NTS terrain is typical of much of the Basin and Range physiographic province in Nevada,

Arizona, and Utah. There are north to northeast trending mountain ranges separated by gentle

sloping linear valleys and broad flat basins at the NTS. The principal valleys within the NTS are

Frenchman Flat, Yucca Flat, and Jackass Flats, with the principal highlands consisting of

Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa, Timber Mountain, and Shoshone Mountain. A large portion of the

NTS ranges in elevation from about 914 to 1,219 m (3,000 to 4,000 ft) in the valleys to the

south and east to 1,676 to 2,225 m (5,500 to 7,300 ft) in the high country toward the northern

and western boundaries.

Surface drainage for Yucca and Frenchman Flats (east side of the NTS) are closed-basin

systems that drain onto the dry lake beds (playas) in each valley. The remaining area on the

western side of the NTS drains via arroyos and dry stream beds that carry water only during

unusually intense or persistent storms. There are no continuously flowing streams on the NTS. 

One notable feature of Yucca Flat is the formation of numerous dish-shaped surface

subsidence craters as a direct result of nuclear testing (other areas on the NTS are affected on

a much smaller scale). Most underground nuclear tests conducted in vertical shafts (also

cratering experiments or following some tunnel tests) produced surface subsidence craters that

occurred when the overburden above a nuclear cavity collapsed and formed a rubble "chimney"

to the surface.

2.3 PRECIPITATION

The NTS is between the northern boundary of the Mojave Desert and the southern limits of the

Great Basin Desert. This “Transitional Desert” is considered to be typical of either Dry 

Mid-latitude or Dry Subtropical climatic zones. The climate is characterized by low precipitation,

a large diurnal temperature range, a large evaporation rate, and moderate to strong winds.

Most precipitation in the Transitional Desert occurs in winter and summer. Winter precipitation

is generally associated with transitory low-pressure systems originating from the west and

occurring as uniform storms over large areas (snowfall to elevations below 5,000 feet in the

strongest of these storms). Summer precipitation is generally associated with convective

storms originating from the south or southwest and occurring as intense local storms. The

average annual precipitation ranges between three and ten inches, depending on elevation. 

Lower values of this range are typical in valleys, whereas higher values are typical in the

surrounding mountains. 

2.4 TEMPERATURE

Elevation influences temperatures on the NTS, with higher elevations having a higher sustained

cooler temperature and the lower elevations having a higher sustained warmer temperature. 

At an elevation of 2,000 m (6,560 ft) Pahute Mesa recorded a maximum temperature 

of 39 /C (102 /F) and a minimum temperature of -11 /C (11 /F). The average maximum

temperature was 16 /C (61 /F) and the average minimum was 5 /C (41 /F). In the Yucca Flat

basin at an elevation of 1,195 m (3,920 ft), the maximum temperature recorded was 
2 3

1 0

2 6

1 1

1 4

8

1 6

4

2 2

1 7

1 5

7

2

9

1 2

2 7

1 3

2 0 1 9

6

5

2 5

1 8

2 9

3 0

Control

Point

Control

Point

Area 12

Camp

Area 12

Camp

HAZMAT

Spill Center

HAZMAT

Spill Center

Area 3

RWMS

Area 3

RWMS

Area 5

RWMS

Area 5

RWMS

Mercury

95

373

160

2-4

Figure 2.2 Nevada Test Site Operational Areas, Principal Facilities and Testing Areas

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Principal Facility

Active Camp

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway

Nuclear Test Area (2000 meter buffer around nuclear tests)
INTRODUCTION

2-5

48 /C (118 /F) and the minimum temperature was -13 /C (8 /F). The average maximum

temperature was 23 /C (73 /F) and the average minimum was 3 /C (38 /F). The annual

average temperature in the NTS area is 19 /C (66 /F). Monthly average temperatures range

from 7 /C (44 /F) in January to 32 /C (90 /F) in July. 

2.5 WIND

Winds are primarily southerly during summer months and northerly during winter months. Wind

velocities tend to be greater in the spring than in the fall. At the Yucca Playa station, the

average annual wind velocity was 11 kph (7 mph); the maximum wind velocity was nearby at

the Meteorological Data Acquisition System Station 4 at 137 kph (85 mph). At Area 20 Camp

on Pahute Mesa, the average annual wind velocity was 16 kph (10 mph) miles per hour; the

maximum wind velocity was 83 kph (52 mph). The multi-year wind roses for selected locations

around the NTS are shown in Figure 2.3.

2.6 EVAPORATION

Evaporation at the NTS is high in the flats (Frenchman, Yucca, and Jackass) because of the

large incident solar radiation and wind. Potential evaporation is evaporation at a potential, or

energy-limiting rate; it is calculated using any of a number of available equations. The potential

evaporation usually exceeds ten times the annual precipitation on the valleys of the NTS.

2.7 GEOLOGY

The NTS is located in the south central part of the Great Basin section of the Basin and Range

physiographic province. The topography of this province is characterized by north- to

northeast-tending mountain ranges, separated by broad, linear valleys and is evident on the

eastern portion of the NTS. In the vicinity of the NTS, this series of ridges and valleys is locally

disrupted by a large volcanic plateau and an associated complex of overlapping collapse

calderas.

During the Paleozoic Era, the NTS region was part of the Cordilleran miogeosyncline, a

subsiding trough on the submerged western edge of the North American continent. This

miogeosyncline, extending from Mexico to Alaska, received thousands of feet of shallow water

deposition, derived from erosion of the nearby continental land mass. As a result, in excess of

30,000 feet of Paleozoic clastic and carbonate rocks was deposited in the NTS region. During

the Mesozoic Era, these rocks were complexly folded and thrust faulted in several periods of

compressional deformation. The CP Thrust and the Mine Mountain Thrust are the major thrust

faults formed during this time in the NTS region. These episodes of mountain building were

accompanied by intrusions of granitic plutons, which are represented by the Climax, Twin

Ridge, and Gold Meadows stocks on the NTS.

A major period of silicic volcanism began in the central portion of the Great Basin approximately

40 million years ago and spread outward through time. The dominant volcanic activity in the

NTS region began about 16 million years ago and continued at least until 0.25 million years

ago. A complex of six collapsed calderas, five of which overlaps, were active along the western
95

373

160

2-6

Figure 2.3 Annual Climatological Wind Rose Patterns for the NTS - 2001

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Wind Speed (knots)

20 - 29

15 - 19

10 - 14

5 - 9

1 - 4

2 5

2 2

2 7

2 6

1 4

2 9

5

3 0

1 8

6

1 6 1

4

1 1

3

7

9

1 0 8

2

2 0 1 9

1 2 1 5

2

2 1

1

2

1

1

1

Note: Wind rose

length indicates

the frequency

of that wind vector.

Percent calms in center.
INTRODUCTION

2-7

portion of the NTS between 16 and 6 million years ago. Ash flow tuffs that erupted from these

centers exceed 15,000 ft thickness under Pahute Mesa, a volcanic plateau in the northwestern

portion of the NTS. A transition to basalt eruptions occurred approximately six million years

ago.

The crustal extension which produced north- to northeast-tending normal faults began between

17 and 14 million years ago in southern Nevada. Uplift and subsidence along these faults

resulted in the present-day system of mountain ranges and topographically closed basins.

Alluvium and colluvium from the mountain ranges have filled the basins to depths of several

hundred meters or more.

Refer to Chapter 7.0 of this report for a detailed overview of the geology of the NTS. 

2.8 HYDROGEOLOGY

Depths to groundwater under the NTS vary from about 210 m (690 ft) beneath the Frenchman

Flat playa (Winograd and Thordarson 1975) in the southern part of the NTS to more than 700 m

(2,300 ft) beneath part of Pahute Mesa. In the eastern portions, the water table occurs

generally in the alluvium and volcanic rocks above the regional carbonate aquifer and is

characterized by regional flow from the upland recharge area in the north and east, towards

discharge areas at Ash Meadows and Death Valley. In the western portion of the NTS, the

water table occurs predominantly in volcanic rocks and moves in a southerly direction toward

Oasis Valley, Crater Flat, and/or western Jackass Flats. 

Groundwater is the only local source of drinking water in the NTS area. Drinking and industrial

water supply wells for the NTS produce from the lower and upper carbonate aquifers and the

volcanic and the valley-fill aquifers. Although a few springs emerge from perched groundwater

lenses at the NTS, discharge rates are low, and spring water is not used for NNSA/NV

activities. North and south of the NTS, private and public supply wells are completed primarily

in a valley-fill aquifers. 

2.9 ECOLOGY

The NTS is between the northern boundary of the Mojave Desert and the southern limits of the

Great Basin Desert. This “Transitional Desert” includes vegetation associations of both deserts. 

Communities of the Mojave Desert occur over the southern third of the NTS, on bajadas and

mountain ranges at elevations below about 4,000 feet. They are limited to areas with mean

annual minimum temperatures greater than 28o F and mean annual precipitation less than 

7.2 inches (O’Farrell and Emery 1976). Mojave Desert communities can have highly variable

floristic compositions, but all are dominated by creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) and variable

co-dominant shrubs. Shrub coverage varies from 7 to 23 percent for Mojave Desert

communities on the NTS (Beatley 1976). Above 5,000 feet, the vegetation mosaic begins to be

dominated by sagebrush associations of Artemisia tridentata and Artemisia arbuscula

subspecies nova. Above 6,000 feet, piñon pine and juniper mix with the sagebrush

associations, where there is suitable moisture for these trees.
2-8

Most mammals on the NTS are small and often nocturnal in habitat; hence, they are not often

seen by casual observers. Rodents are the most important group of mammals on the NTS,

based on distribution and relative abundance. Larger mammals include feral horses, mule

deer, mountain lions, bobcats, coyote, kit foxes, and rabbits, among others. Among other taxa,

the reptiles include the desert tortoise, more than 12 lizards, and 17 snakes, 4 of which are

venomous. Bird species are mostly migrants or seasonal residents. Most nonrodent mammals

have been placed in the "protected" classification by the state of Nevada. The Mojave

population of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, is listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. The habitat of the desert tortoises on the NTS is found in its southern

third, outside the recent areas of nuclear explosives test activities.

2.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Human habitation of the NTS area began at least as early as 10,000 years ago. Various

indigenous cultures occupied the region in prehistoric times. The survey of less than 5 percent

of the NTS area has located more than 2,000 archaeological sites, which contain the only

information available concerning the prehistoric inhabitants. The site types identified include

rock quarries, tool-manufacturing areas, plant-processing locations, hunting locales, rock art,

temporary camps, and permanent villages. The prehistoric people's lifestyle was sustained by a

hunting and gathering economy, which utilized all parts of the NTS. 

While major springs provided perennial water, the prehistoric people developed strategies to

take advantage of intermittent fresh water sources in this arid region. In the nineteenth century,

at the time of initial contact, the area was occupied by Paiute and Shoshone Indians. Prior to

1940, the historic occupation consisted of ranchers, miners, and Native Americans. Several

natural springs were able to sustain livestock, ranchers, and miners. Stone cabins, corrals, and

fencing stand today as testaments to these early settlers. The mining activities included two

large mines: one at Wahmonie, the other at Climax Mine. Prospector claim markers are found

in these and other parts of the NTS. Cane Springs was the last mining boom town in Nevada

and was a sizeable town in the years 1929 and 1930. Native Americans coexisted with the

settlers and miners, utilizing the natural resources of the region and, in some cases, working for

the new arrivals. They also maintained a connection with the land, especially areas important

to them for religious and historical reasons. These locations, referred to as traditional cultural

properties, continue to be significant to the Paiute and Shoshone Indians.

2.11 NTS NUCLEAR TESTING HISTORY

Between 1940 and 1950, the area now known as the NTS was under the jurisdiction of Nellis

Air Force Base and was part of the Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range. The NTS was

established in 1951 as the primary location for testing the Nation’s nuclear explosive devices. 

Tests conducted through the 1950s were predominantly atmospheric tests. These tests

involved a nuclear explosive device detonated while on the ground surface, on a steel tower,

suspended from tethered balloons, or dropped from an aircraft. Several tests were categorized

as "safety" experiments, including transport and storage tests, involving the destruction of a

nuclear device with nonnuclear explosives. Some of these tests resulted in dispersion of

plutonium in the test vicinity. One of these test areas lies just north of the NTS boundary, and

four others, involving transport/storage safety, lie at the north end of the NAFR. All nuclear

device tests are listed in DOE/NV Report NV-209 (DOE 2000b).
INTRODUCTION

2-9

The first underground test, a cratering test was conducted in 1951. The first test totally

contained underground was in 1957. Testing was discontinued during a moratorium that began

October 31, 1958, but was resumed in September 1961, after tests by the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics began. Since late 1962, nearly all tests have been conducted in sealed

vertical shafts drilled into Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa or in horizontal tunnels mined into

Rainier Mesa. Five earth-cratering (shallow-burial) tests were conducted over the period of

1962 through 1968 as part of the Plowshare Program that explored peaceful uses of nuclear

explosives. The first and largest Plowshare crater test, SEDAN (PHS 1963) was detonated at

the northern end of Yucca Flat on the NTS. There have been no United States nuclear

explosive tests since September 1992.

Other nuclear testing history at the NTS has included the Bare Reactor Experiment - Nevada

series in the 1960s. These tests were performed with a 14-MeV neutron generator mounted on

a 465-m (1,530-ft) steel tower, used to conduct neutron and gamma-ray interaction studies on

various materials. From 1959 through 1973, a series of open-air nuclear reactor, nuclear

engine, and nuclear furnace tests was conducted in Area 25, and a series of tests with a

nuclear ramjet engine was conducted in Area 26.

2.12 SURROUNDING AREAS

Figure 2.4 is a map of the offsite area showing a variety of lands uses and the various

governmental agencies responsible for managing the land. The lands, with the exception of the

Department of Defense and NNSA/NV, are open to a wide variety of uses such as farming,

mining, grazing, camping, fishing and hunting, within a 300-km (180-mi) radius of the Control

Point-1 (CP-1).

2.13 DEMOGRAPHY

The population of the area surrounding the NTS has been estimated by the Nevada State

Demographer Office and is predominantly rural. Nevada annual populations estimate for

Nevada counties, cities, and unincorporated towns is 2,066,831, with all but 641,108 residing in

Clark County. Excluding Clark County, the major population center, the population density

within a 150-km (90-mi) radius of the NTS is about 0.5 persons/km2. In comparison, the 48

contiguous states (1990 census) had a population density near 29 persons/km2. Several small

communities are located in the areas of (populations in parenthesis), Alamo (507), Amargosa

(1,271), Beatty (1,255), Goldfield (574), Indian Springs (1,387), Pahrump (26,399), and

Tonopah (3,086). The largest of these communities is Pahrump Valley, which is approximately

50 mi (80 km) south of the NTS CP-1, which is near the center of the NTS.

The Mojave Desert of California, which includes Death Valley National Monument, lies along

the southwestern border of Nevada. This area is still predominantly rural; however, tourism at

Death Valley National Park swell the population more than 5,000 on any particular day during

holiday periods during mild weather.

The extreme southwestern region of Utah is more developed than the adjacent portion of

Nevada. The largest community is St. George, located 220 km (137 mi) east of the NTS, with a

population of 49,600. The next largest town, Cedar City, with a population of 20,500, is located

280 km (174 mi) east-northeast of the NTS.
Winnemucca

Lovelock

Elko

Ely

Pioche

Goldfield

Tonopah

Bridgeport

Babbitt

Mariposa

Woodfords

Gardnerville

Fallon Austin Eureka

St. George

Parowan

Manderfield

Fillmore

Tooele

SALT

LAKE

CITY

SALT

LAKE

CITY

Bakersfield

Las Vegas

Kingman

Kanab

Panguitch

Junction

Richfield

Madera

Prescott

Fresno

Hanford

Visalia

Independence

Lakeview

Twin Falls Burley

Alturas

Reno

Virginia City

Weed Heights

CARSON CITY

Brigham City

Logan

Preston

Ogden

Bullhead City

Cedar City

OO RR EE GG OO NN II DD AA HH OO

AA RR II ZZ OO NN AA

NN EE VV AA DD AA

CC AA LL II FF OO RR NN II AA

UU TT AA HH

I84

I5

I40

I15

I80

2-10

Figure 2.4 Land Use Around the Nevada Test Site

Federal Managing Group

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Bureau of Land Management

Bureau of Reclaimation

Department of Defense

Forest Service

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Park Service

Other Agencies

Lakes and Reservoirs

Nevada

Test

Site

Nellis Air

Force Range

0 50 100 200

Kilometers

0 12.5 25 50 75 100 125

Miles
INTRODUCTION

2-11

The extreme northwestern region of Arizona is mostly rangeland, except for that portion in the

Lake Mead recreation area. In addition, several small communities lie along the Colorado

River. The largest towns in the area are Bullhead City, 165 km (103 mi) south-southeast of the

NTS, with a population estimate of 22,000, and Kingman, located 280 km (174 mi) southeast of

the NTS, with a population of about 13,000.

2.14 MISSION AND NATURE OF OPERATIONS

The present mission of the NNSA/NV is described by the following five statements:

! National Security: support the Stockpile Stewardship Program through subcritical and

other weapons physics experiments, emergency management, test readiness, work for

other national security organizations, and other experimental programs.

! Environmental Management: support environmental restoration, groundwater

characterization, and low-level radioactive waste management.

! Stewardship of the NTS: manage the land and facilities at the NTS as a unique and

valuable national resource.

! Technology Diversification: support nontraditional Departmental programs and

commercial activities which are compatible with the Stockpile Stewardship Program.

! Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: support the development of solar energy,

alternative fuel, and energy efficiency technologies.

2.15 STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP

There were two subcritical experiments which involved small amounts of special nuclear

material that does not reach the fissioning stage during the experiment. In addition, 19

experiments were conducted at the BEEF and construction was completed on JASPER.

2.16 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The Environmental Restoration efforts included remediating 50 industrial sites. The

Underground Test Area program drilled three holes and continued work on modeling efforts. 

Approximately 1,512,000 cubic feet of low-level waste were disposed of at the Area 3 and Area

5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (1113 shipments) from offsite generators. In addition,

for FY 2001 and the first quarter of FY 2002, 15,666 cubic feet of LLW were disposed of onsite. 

2.17 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL CENTER (HSC)

The NNSA/NV’s HSC is a research and demonstration facility available on a user-fee basis to

private and public sector test and training sponsors concerned with the safety aspects of

hazardous chemicals. The site is located in Area 5 of the NTS and is maintained by Bechtel

Nevada. The HSC is the basic research tool for studying the dynamics of accidental releases

of various hazardous materials. The facility was active for 37 weeks in Calendar Year 2001.
2-12

Rainier Mesa (No Date Provided)
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-1

3.0 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

Environmental compliance activities at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) during

calendar year (CY) 2001 involved the permitting and monitoring

requirements of numerous state of Nevada and federal regulations. 

Primary activities included the following: (1) National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) documentation preparation; (2) Clean Air Act (CAA)

compliance for asbestos renovation projects, radionuclide emissions, and

state air quality permits; (3) Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance involving

state wastewater permits; (4) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) compliance

involving monitoring of drinking water distribution systems; (5) Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) management of hazardous wastes;

(6) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) reporting; (7) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

management of polychlorinated biphenyls; (8) Endangered Species Act

(ESA) compliance involving the conduct of pre-construction and site-wide

surveys to document the status of state and federally listed endangered or

threatened plant and animal species; and (9) National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA) compliance for the protection of Cultural and Native American

Resources. There were no activities requiring compliance with Executive

Orders (EOs) on Flood Plain Management or Protection of Wetlands.

Throughout CY 2001 the NTS was subject to several formal compliance

agreements with various regulatory agencies. Agreements with Nevada

include a Memorandum of Understanding covering releases of

radioactivity; a Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO);

an Agreement in Principle covering environment, safety, and health

activities; a Settlement Agreement to manage mixed transuranic (TRU)

waste; and a Mutual Consent Agreement on management of mixed land

disposal restriction (LDR) wastes, among others. Emphasis on pollution

prevention and waste minimization at the NTS continued in 2001.

Compliance activities at non-NTS facilities of the U.S. Department of

Energy(DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations

Office (NNSA/NV) involved the permitting and monitoring requirements of

(1) the CAA for airborne emissions, (2) the CWA for wastewater

discharges, (3) SDWA regulations, (4) RCRA disposal of hazardous wastes,

and (5) hazardous substance reporting. Pollution prevention and waste

minimization efforts continued at all locations.

3.1 COMPLIANCE STATUS

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT

Rulings by the Council on Environmental Quality, “Regulations of the National Environmental

Policy Act” (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500 - 1508) require federal agencies

to consider environmental effects and values and reasonable alternatives before making a

decision to implement any major federal action that may have a significant impact on the human

environment.
3-2

Since November 1994, NNSA/NV has had full delegation of authority from the DOE

Headquarters (DOE/HQ) for Categorical Exclusion (CX) Determinations, Environmental

Assessments (EAs), issuing Findings of No Significant Impact, and floodplain and wetland

action documentation related to NNSA/NV proposed actions. 

The NNSA uses three levels of documentation to demonstrate compliance with NEPA: (1) an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a full disclosure of the potential environmental effects

of proposed actions and the reasonable alternatives to those actions; (2) an EA is a concise

discussion of proposed actions and alternatives and the potential environmental effects to

determine if an EIS is necessary; and (3) a CX is used for classes of action which have been

found to have no adverse environmental impacts, based on similar previous activities. 

NNSA/NV activities involved CXs, EAs, and an EIS during CY 2001. 

Completion of a NEPA Environmental Evaluation Checklist is required under the NNSA/NV

Work Acceptance Process Procedural Instructions (Carlson 2000) for all proposed projects or

activities. The Checklist is reviewed by the NNSA/NV NEPA Compliance Officer to determine

whether the project or activity is included in the NTSEIS and record of decision (ROD) or other

previously completed NEPA analysis. During CY 2001, checklists were completed for 41

proposed projects or activities at the NTS. Eleven of these 41 were exempted from further

NEPA analyses by being a CX; 29 were exempted due to previous analysis in the NTSEIS and

ROD; and, 1 was exempted due to previous NEPA analysis and determinations in an EA. An

EA for the Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC) in Area 5, at the NTS, was initiated in 2001

to more accurately reflect recent activities. The EA is still in progress. The previous EA for the

HSC was written in 1994.

Still pending is the following document developed by or with the NNSA/NV involvement:

! Kistler Aerospace Corporation in Areas 18 and 19 EA.

CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)

The CAA and the state of Nevada air quality control compliance activities were limited to

asbestos abatement, radionuclide monitoring, reporting under the National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), and air quality permit compliance requirements. There

were no criteria pollutants or prevention of significant deterioration monitoring requirements for

NTS operations.

NTS NESHAP Asbestos Compliance

The state Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations (Nevada Administrative Code

[NAC] 618.850, 1989) require that all asbestos abatement projects in Nevada, involving friable

asbestos in quantities greater than or equal to three linear feet or three square feet, submit a

Notification Form. However, federal facilities are exempt from this requirement, and notification

for asbestos abatement projects on the NTS is not necessary. Notification, however, is

required to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 for projects which disturb

greater than 260 linear feet or 160 square feet of asbestos-containing material, in accordance

with Title 40 CRF 61.145-146 (CFR 1989).
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-3

The annual estimate for non-scheduled asbestos demolition/renovation for fiscal year (FY) 2001

was sent to EPA Region 9 on December 13, 2000. There were no projects in FY 2001 that

required notification to EPA Region 9 for removal of 260 linear feet or 160 square feet or more

of asbestos-containing material.

Radioactive Emissions on the NTS

NTS operations were conducted in compliance with the NESHAP radioactive air emission

standards of Title 40 CFR 61, Subpart H. In compliance with those requirements, a report on

airborne radioactive effluents is provided to DOE/HQ and to EPA’s Region 9.

During CY 2001, the sources of emissions were identified as: (1) tritium gas released from Area

6 CP-50 equipment calibrations; (2) evaporation of tritiated water (HTO) from containment

ponds; (3) diffusion of HTO vapor from the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site

(RWMS-5), SEDAN crater in Area 10, SCHOONER crater in Area 20; and (4) resuspension of

plutonium and americium from contaminated soil at nuclear device safety test and atmospheric

test locations. As explained in the NESHAP report for 2001 (Grossman 2002), the airborne

emissions of HTO vapor from the containment ponds were conservatively reported as if all the

liquid discharges into the ponds had evaporated and become airborne. For HTO vapor

diffusing from the RWMS-5, SEDAN, and SCHOONER, and plutonium/americium particulate

resuspension from various areas on and near the NTS, the airborne effluents were

conservatively estimated from air sampling measurements and CAP88-PC calculations. 

From these conservative estimates of air emissions, the effective dose equivalent reported for

CY 2001 was calculated to be only 0.17 mrem (1.7 x 10-3 mSv), much less than the 10-mrem

limit that is specified in Title 40 CFR 61.

NTS Air Quality Permit Compliance

Compliance with air quality permits is accomplished by adhering to record keeping and

reporting requirements and through renewal and ongoing verification of operational compliance

with permit-specified limitations. A list of active NTS air quality permits appears in Table 3.1. 

Common air pollution sources at the NTS include aggregate production, surface disturbances,

fugitive dust from unpaved roads, fuel burning equipment, open burning, and fuel storage

facilities. 

Quantities of emissions from operations at the NTS are calculated and submitted each year to

the state of Nevada using forms provided by the state. The report also includes aggregate

production amounts, operating hours of permitted equipment, and surface disturbance

information for all disturbances of five acres or greater. During 2001, approximately 32 tons of

pollutants were estimated to be emitted from permitted operations at the NTS. The Air Quality

Permit Data Report was sent to the state of Nevada in February 2002.

One of the conditions of the permit is to allow the state of Nevada Bureau of Air Quality

personnel access to the NTS to conduct inspections of facilities and operations regulated by

state air permits. During 2001, there was one state inspection of NNSA/NV facilities

possessing air quality permits. There were no violations.
3-4

Monthly visible emission readings are a requirement of the NTS air quality operating permit,

AP9711-0549. The permit limits particulate emissions to 20 percent opacity, except at the Area

1 Aggregate Plant, where portions of the Plant have a limit of 10 percent. Certification of

personnel to perform valid visible emission opacity evaluations is required by the state, with

recertification required every six months. During 2001, four employees from Bechtel Nevada

(BN) were recertified, and several visible emission evaluations of permitted air quality point

sources were conducted. The opacity limit was exceeded once in 2001. A load that 

included a higher-than-normal volume of plastic materials was mistakenly burned in the 

Area 23 incinerator in November 2001. The resulting opacity (100 percent) exceeded the 

3-minute/hour limit allowed by the state. The state was immediately notified. No violations

were issued by the state.

Non-NTS Air Quality Permit Compliance

Under normal conditions, the six non-NTS facilities operated by the NNSA/NV do not produce

radioactive effluents. The six are, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and Remote Sensing

Laboratory (RSL) at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, Nevada; Special Technologies

Laboratory (STL) in Santa Barbara, California; Livermore Operations (LO) in Livermore,

California; Los Alamos Operations (LAO) in Los Alamos, New Mexico; and RSL Andrews Air

Force Base in Washington, D.C. The NLVF and RSL-Nellis are regulated for the emission of

criteria pollutants and maintain air quality operating permits for a variety of equipment that

mainly includes boilers and generators (Table 3.2). Twelve air quality operating permits and

one dust permit, issued by the Clark County Health District in Las Vegas, Nevada, were

required for operations at the NLVF and RSL-Nellis during 2001. There were no effluent

monitoring requirements associated with these permits.

No air permits were held or required for the LO, LAO, or RSL-Andrews facilities in 2001.

CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the CWA, establishes ambient water

quality standards and effluent discharge limitations, which are generally applicable to facilities

that discharge any materials into the waters of the United States (CFR 1977). Discharges from

NNSA/NV facilities are primarily regulated under the laws and regulations of the facility host

states. Monitoring and reporting requirements are typically included under state or local permit

requirements. A list of applicable permits appears in Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. There are no

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for the NTS, as there are no

wastewater discharges to onsite or offsite surface waters. 

NTS Operations

Discharges of wastewater are regulated by the state under the Nevada Water Pollution Control

Law (Nevada Revised Statutes 1977). The state of Nevada also regulates the design,

construction, and operation of wastewater collection systems and treatment works. 

Wastewater monitoring at the NTS was limited to sampling wastewater influents to sewage

lagoons and containment ponds. 

State general permit GNEV93001 (Table 3.3), which regulates the ten usable sewage treatment

facilities on the NTS, was issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)

and became effective on February 1, 1994. The general permit was renewed for five years on

December 7, 1999. The permit was structured to allow the NNSA more flexibility in bringing

new industrial processes on line. 
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-5

Downsizing of NTS operations has resulted in low flow conditions at several sewage lagoon

systems. Funding was approved for engineering design of septic tank/leachfield systems to

replace these sewage lagoons. Permits to construct new septic systems were issued for the

Area 12 Camp, Area 6 Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Construction Camp, Area 23

Gate 100, Area 5 RWMS, Area 6 Device Assembly Facility (DAF), Area 25 Central Support,

and Area 25 Radiological Control Point. Construction of these systems is scheduled to be

completed in 2002. 

Existing septic systems permitted in 2001 included Area 23 Wackenhut Services, Incorporated

Range, Area 6 Air Resources Laboratory, Area 22 Air Resources Laboratory, and Area 27 Able

Site (Table 3.3). 

The Area 23 sewage lagoon system proceeded with design changes to eliminate the six 

primary lagoons. Calculations indicated that the primary lagoons were no longer necessary due

to reduced influent from downsized worker populations. Design criteria and preliminary

drawings were submitted to the state, and the Operations and Maintenance Manual for the

lagoons was modified. Construction will be completed in 2002.

State inspections of the permitted sewage lagoons were conducted on April 3 and 4, 2001. No

findings were noted. All lagoons were being operated in a safe and compliant manner. Permit

requirements for quarterly, toxic, and groundwater monitoring were completed, and all

parameters were in compliance with permit limits.

Septic hauler permits for the NTS were renewed in 2001 (Table 3.5).

Non-NTS Operations

Three permits for wastewater discharges were held by non-NTS facilities. One permit is

required for the NLVF, and the STL holds wastewater permits for the Botello Road and Ekwill

Street locations (Table 3.3). Additionally, a new permit was issued to the RSL-Nellis. No

wastewater permits were required for the LO, LAO, or RSL-Andrews facilities in 2001.

The Wastewater Contribution Permit for NLVF (VEH-112) was renewed in 2001. This permit

expires in December 2006. In October 2001, self-monitoring was conducted, as required. Total

phosphorus levels were exceeded. Exceedence of phosphorus levels does not constitute a

non-compliance of the permit, but is a surcharge item. Resampling by the city of North Las

Vegas (NLV) indicated no exceedance of permit limits for phosphorus. Inspection of the

permitted facility by the city of NLV resulted in no findings; however, recommendations were

made concerning secondary containment for drummed liquids and berms to protect floor drains. 

All recommendations were implemented in a timely manner.

A new pretreatment permit (CCSD-080) was issued to NNSA/NV by the Clark County

Sanitation District pursuant to the Categorical Pretreatment regulations. The permit is good for

one year, beginning in June 2001, and covers wastewater discharge from the RSL-Nellis. Two

monitoring episodes were conducted in 2001, and both were in compliance with permit

requirements. 
3-6

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA)

NTS Operations 

The SDWA and state of Nevada regulations (NAC 445A) constitute the basis for drinking water

compliance at the NTS. The state of Nevada has enforcement authority for the SDWA and has

promulgated regulations covering operation and maintenance, water haulage, operator

certification, permitting, and SDWA monitoring requirements.

Until October 1, 2001, BN operated four public water systems for the NNSA/NV at the NTS. 

The permit for the Area 1 system (NY-5024-12NCNT) was discontinued at that time, because

there are no longer any active service connections in that system. Permits are renewed

annually in September. The water systems are monitored for coliform bacteria, volatile organic

chemicals, inorganic chemicals, synthetic organic compounds, and other water quality

parameters on a schedule established by the state of Nevada in accordance with federal

requirements. 

In 2001, the four systems were in compliance with SDWA monitoring requirements, with one

exception. During 2001, lead was found above the action level in one system. Corrective

action was initiated to resolve this problem (see Chapter 6.0 for details). Coliform bacteria were

detected in two water systems in June and July, but the samples were invalidated after an

investigation determined the contamination occurred after sample collection, due to poor 

handling procedures. The problems were corrected, and all samples since July have been

negative for coliform bacteria. All other monitoring results for 2001 were within regulatory limits

and are discussed in Chapter 6.0. 

NTS Water Haulage 

To accommodate the diverse and often transient field work locations at the NTS, a water

haulage program is used. To ensure potability of hauled water, permitted water hauling trucks

use a sanitary connection to obtain and deliver potable water from a permitted water system. 

In 2001, the NTS maintained two permitted water hauling trucks. Water hauling permits are

renewed annually at the same time as the regular water system permits (Table 3.4). 

Water hauling trucks are sampled monthly for coliform bacteria. Both trucks had positive

coliform bacteria samples in 2001, but confirmation samples and repeat monitoring all showed

no bacteria. Detailed information appears in Chapter 6.0.

Non-NTS Operations

All non-NTS operations receive municipal water and have no compliance activities under the

SDWA and state/local regulations.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)

RCRA (RCRA 1976) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 constitute the

statutory basis for the regulation of hazardous waste and underground storage tanks (USTs). 

Under Section 3006 of RCRA, the EPA may authorize states to administer and enforce

hazardous waste regulations. Nevada has received such authorization and acts as the primary
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-7

regulator for many NNSA/NV facilities. The Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA) of 1992

extends the full range of enforcement authorities in federal, state, and local laws for

management of hazardous wastes to federal facilities, including the NTS. 

NTS RCRA Compliance

In 2002, the NNSA/NV operated the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit and Explosive Ordnance

Disposal Unit in accordance with the RCRA Hazardous Waste Operating Permit issued in 2001. 

No violations were noted.

HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORTING FOR NON-NTS OPERATIONS

The NLVF, LO, STL, and LAO locations generate hazardous waste and have EPA Identification

numbers, but have no reporting requirements because they are operated as conditionally

exempt small quantity generators of hazardous waste. 

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (USTs)

NTS Operations

The NTS UST program has met regulatory compliance schedules for the reporting, upgrading,

or removal of documented USTs. During 2001, there were no regulated USTs removed or

upgraded, as all requirements had been satisfied in 1998.

The NNSA/NV operates one deferred UST and three excluded USTs at the DAF. The

NNSA/NV also maintains a fully-regulated UST that is not currently in service at the Area 6 

heli-pad. 

During 2001, one heating oil tank was removed, and the impacted soil from historic spills was

excavated. That removal reduces the number of unregulated underground heating oil tanks on

the NTS to eleven.

Non-NTS Operations

The RSL operates three fully-regulated USTs, one deferred UST, and two excluded USTs. In

November 2001, the Clark County Health District cited two of the tanks as out of compliance. 

Corrective actions were pursued, but not completed in 2001.

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND

LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)/SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND

REAUTHORIZATION ACT (SARA)

In April 1996, the NNSA/NV, Department of Defense, and the NDEP entered into a FFACO

pursuant to Section 120(a)(4) of CERCLA (CERCLA 1980) and Sections 6001 and 3004(u) of

RCRA (RCRA 1976) to address the environmental restoration of historic contaminated sites at

the NTS, parts of Tonopah Test Range (TTR), parts of the Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR), the

Central Nevada Test area, and the Project SHOAL area. Appendix VI of the FFACO describes

the strategy that will be employed to plan, implement, and complete environmental corrective

action at facilities where nuclear-related operations were conducted.
3-8

FEDERAL FACILITIES AGREEMENT AND CONSENT ORDER (FFACO)

Remedial Activities - Surface Areas

Environmental restoration activities continued at the NTS and TTR in calendar year 2001. 

These activities comply with the agreements specified in the FFACO signed between the

NNSA/NV and the NDEP and follow a formal work process beginning with a Data Quality

Objectives (DQO) meeting between NNSA, NDEP, and contractors. The purpose of the DQO

meeting is to define the scope of work, how the site characterization is to be done (sampling

strategy), and to develop the conceptual model for the site. The conceptual model defines the

nature and extent of waste in the subsurface and guides the investigation. A Corrective Action

Investigation Plan is prepared, providing the information on how the site is to be characterized. 

Site characterization is carried out and documented in the Corrective Action Decision Document

(CADD). This report provides the information that either confirms the conceptual model or

modifies it. If suitable information is available to make a decision, a remedial alternative is

selected from several alternatives identified for analysis that best provides site closure. In

some instances, additional site characterization may be required before the CADD can be

prepared.

If a site requires remediation, a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is prepared that provides the

necessary design and other information on the method of remediation. A CAP includes the

proposed methods to be used to close a site, quality control measures, waste management

strategy, design drawings (when appropriate), verification sampling strategies (for clean

closures) and other information necessary to perform the closure. Some sites also require a

Post Closure Plan as the site or parts of the site are closed in place. Information on inspections

and monitoring are provided in an Annual Post Closure Monitoring Report.

Once the closure has been completed, a Closure Report is prepared. This report provides

information on the work performed, results of verification sampling, as-built drawings 

(if appropriate), waste management, etc.

The NDEP is a participant throughout the remediation process. The Community Advisory

Board is also kept informed by NNSA/NV of the progress made.

Some sites are closed under the Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER)

process. These sites typically have suitable information available and can be remediated under

a shorter schedule. A SAFER plan is prepared providing the methods to be used to close the

site. After closure, a SAFER closure report is prepared that documents the work performed.

During CY 2001, all FFACO deadlines were met. The actions taken are summarized below:

! Annual Post-Closure Monitoring Reports were submitted to comply with the conditions of the

RCRA Part B Permit for the Area 2 Bitcutter Shop and Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory (LLNL) Post Shot Containment Building Injection Wells (corrective action unit

[CAU] 90), Area 23 Landfill Hazardous Waste Trenches (CAU 112), U3fi Injection Well 

(CAU 91), and Area 6 Decontamination Pond (CAU 92) RCRA Closure Units.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-9

! Several other CAUs also had Post-Closure Monitoring reports prepared. These were the

Area 12 Steam Fleet Operations Steam Cleaning Discharge Area (CAU 339), Roller Coaster

Sewage Lagoons, TTR (CAU 404), Roller Coaster RADSAFE Area, TTR (CAU 407), Area 3

Landfill Complexes, TTR (CAU 424), Cactus Springs Waste Trenches, TTR (CAU 426), 

Area 3 Septic Waste Systems 2 and 6, TTR (CAU 427), and Area 9 UXO Landfill, TTR,

(CAU 453).

! The closure report for CAU 110, Area 3 RWMS U3ax/bl Disposal Unit, was prepared and

approved by NDEP. 

! A SAFER plan for CAU 113, Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly Building,

was prepared and approved by the NDEP.

! A closure report for CAU 135, Area 25 Underground Storage Tanks, was prepared and

approved by the NDEP.

! The CAP for CAU 143, Area 25 Waste Dumps, was prepared and approved by the NDEP,

March 2001.

! A SAFER plan for CAU 230, Area 22 Sewage Lagoons and CAU 320, Area 22 Desert Rock

Airport Strainer Box, was prepared and approved by the NDEP.

! A closure report for CAU 230, Area 22 Sewage Lagoons and CAU 320, Area 22 Desert Rock

Airport Strainer Box, was prepared and approved by the NDEP.

! A closure report for CAU 240, Area 25 Vehicle Washdown, was prepared and approved by

the NDEP.

! A closure report for CAU 261, Area 25 Test Cell A Leachfield System, was prepared and

approved by the NDEP.

! A SAFER plan for the closure of CAU 326, Areas 6 and 27 Release Sites, was prepared and

approved by the NDEP.

! A SAFER plan for CAU 330, Areas 6, 22 and 23 Tanks and Spill Sites, was prepared and

approved by the NDEP.

! The draft closure report for CAU 343, Areas 1, 3, and 4 Housekeeping Sites, was prepared

and submitted for the NDEP approval.

! The closure report for housekeeping CAU 387, Spill Sites and Releases, was prepared and

approved by the NDEP.

! A SAFER plan for CAU 398, Area 25 Spill Sites, was prepared and approved by NDEP. 

! The closure report for CAU 417, The Central Nevada Test Area Surface, was completed and

approved by the NDEP.
3-10

! The closure report for CAU 407, The ROLLER COASTER Radsafe Area, was prepared and

approved by the NDEP.

! A closure report for CAU 428, Area 3 Septic Waste Systems one and five, TTR, was

prepared and approved by the NDEP. 

! The closure report of CAU 486, DOUBLE TRACKS RADSAFE Area, was prepared and

approved by the NDEP.

! A SAFER plan for the closure of CAU 499, Radar 24 Diesel Spill Site, was prepared and

approved by the NDEP.

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT

(EPCRA)

EPCRA compliance activities for 2001 included upgrading of the inventory system to

accommodate intranet data submittal, improved reporting, and standardization of hazard

classifications for chemicals reported. 

In March 2001, the Nevada Combined Agency Report was submitted to the state Fire

Marshall’s office by NNSA/NV. EPCRA compliance with Section 302 (Planning Notification)

and Sections 311-312 (Material Safety Data Sheet/Chemical Inventory) for the NTS, HSC,

NLVF, and the RSL was met. No planning thresholds were exceeded at these facilities. 

Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Program requirements were also met for these facilities. The

latter program covers extremely hazardous substances (EHSs).

A Toxic Release Inventory Report required by Section 313 of the SARA Title III must be

provided if the facility, any time in the prior CY, exceeds any Section 313 threshold for

manufacture, process, or other use. In CY 2000, no thresholds were exceeded, so no report

was required in 2001.

Non-NTS Tier II Reporting Under SARA Title III

The reports for the off-NTS Nevada facilities, RSL, and NLVF, are described under EPCRA

above.

Other non-Nevada operations either had no chemicals above reporting thresholds or submitted

their chemical inventories to the cities/counties as part of their business plans.

DOE ORDER 435.1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT

During the reporting period, NNSA/NV executed its Implementation Plan for meeting the

requirements of DOE Order 435.1 by the agreed-upon compliance date of March 5, 2001. 

Objectives in support of this plan include completion of activities for the review of processes

related to the development of an NNSA/NV Site-Specific Manual, finishing research in support 
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-11

of the identification of facilities and activities subject to 435.1, and finalizing the development of

an integrated Site-Wide Radioactive Waste Management Program requiring full implementation

by the established deadline.

In support of the above objectives, NNSA/NV held two Radioactive Waste Management Basis

Assistance and Review Team (RWMBART) meetings in January 2001 that were attended by

federal and contractor representatives appointed by the Assistant Manager for Environmental

Management (AMEM). The purpose of these meetings was to provide a background and

introduction to DOE Order 435.1, the NNSA/NV-specific DOE Order 435.1-1 manual, and

RWMBART requirements regarding the review of programmatic Radioactive Waste Information

Documents (RWIDs). Team members were provided with informational materials for review,

and each RWMBART member was assigned a number of action items to be completed in

support of Order compliance of March 5, 2001.

During the second quarter of CY 2001, the Maintenance and Operations Contractor performed

an internal assessment to determine its level of compliance with the requirements of DOE

Order 435.1-1. The assessment was also performed in anticipation of future DOE/HQ’s audits

of the NNSA/NV Radioactive Waste Management Program. As part of assessment closure,

issues and concerns were compiled and presented before the RWMBART. These items were

discussed in further detail and provided additional opportunities for program enhancements.

During the remainder of the CY, four additional RWMBART meetings were held in support of

DOE Order 435.1-1 and associated NTS waste management activities. These included

RWMBART review of RWIDs, submitted by the following programmatic entities: (1) waste

management, (2) environmental restoration, and (3) national laboratories. This information, as

approved by AMEM, includes documented revisions and changes which are maintained by the

Chairperson of RWMBART (also the Division Director, Waste Management Division).

In support of DOE Order 435.1-1 activities for calendar year 2002, plans include the

development of process enhancements to expand organizational roles and responsibilities in

support of Order compliance. This includes completion of a document revision to NNSA/NV

DOE Order 435.1-1 to incorporate lessons learned from the Maintenance and Operations

Internal Assessment, creation of RWID process approval and revision flow diagrams, and

discussions regarding optimal configuration management of RWIDs to ensure organizational

reliability and access. Other activities include additional RWMBART meetings as necessary to

review new or revised RWIDs.

STATE OF NEVADA CHEMICAL CATASTROPHE PREVENTION ACT

The state of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act of 1992 contains regulations for

facilities defined as Highly Hazardous Substance Regulated Facilities (NAC 1992). This law

requires registration of facilities storing highly hazardous substances above listed thresholds.

Reporting for this program is also covered by the Nevada Combined Agency Report discussed

under EPCRA above. 

A Chemical Catastrophe Accident Prevention registration form was submitted by NNSA/NV for

ammonia, chlorine, hydrogen chloride, nitrogen dioxide, oleum, sulfur dioxide, and thionyl

chloride in June 2001.
3-12

There were no reportable EHS chemicals at any other NNSA/NV facilities (NTS, RSL, NLVF) in

2001.

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)

The state of Nevada regulations implementing TSCA require transmittal of an annual report

describing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) control activities. There are no known pieces of PCB

Electrical Equipment (transformers/capacitors/regulators) at the NTS, and during 2000 there

was also no disposal of PCB equipment or fluids; therefore, no annual report was required in

2001 reporting PCB activity for 2000. 

FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA)

Pesticide usage included insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides. Insecticides were applied

twice a month at the food service and storage areas. Herbicides were applied once or twice a

year at NTS sewage lagoon berms. All other pesticide applications were on an as-requested

basis. General-use pesticides are used exclusively at the NTS. Contract companies applied

pesticides at all non-NTS facilities in 2001.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION

The ESA (CFR 1973) requires federal agencies to insure that their actions do not jeopardize the

continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat.

The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are the

only threatened species which occur on the NTS. No endangered animals and no threatened

or endangered plants are known to occur on the NTS. Consultation with the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) resulted in receipt of a non-jeopardy Biological Opinion in August

1996 for planned activities at the NTS for a ten-year period (USFWS 1996).

The Desert Tortoise Compliance Program implemented the terms and conditions of the USFWS

Biological Opinion and documented compliance actions taken by NNSA/NV. The terms and

conditions, which were implemented in 2001 included pre-construction tortoise clearance

surveys for 12 projects, onsite monitoring of construction for the 12 projects, and preparation of

an annual compliance report for the USFWS of NTS activities that were conducted in CY 2001. 

Project activities conducted in CY 2001 resulted in the loss of 22 acres of undisturbed tortoise

habitat. Since issuance of the first non-jeopardy Biological Opinion in 1992, no tortoises have

been accidentally injured or killed; no tortoises have been captured and displaced from project

sites; and a total of 198.6 acres of desert tortoise habitat has been disturbed as a result of NTS

activities (Table 3.6).

In October 2001, a team of volunteer biologists, led by the Southern Nevada Field Office of the

USFWS, captured, measured, and weighed desert tortoises within three 21-acre circular

enclosures in Rock Valley. The circular enclosures were constructed during 1962-1963 to

study the effects of chronic, low-level ionizing radiation on the desert flora and fauna. Over the

past decades, at least 24 tortoises have been found, individually marked, and periodically

measured. There are approximately 18 adult tortoises remaining in the enclosures. They are

considered captive by the USFWS and are not protected under the 1996 Biological Opinion. In

2001, one immature, seven adult male, and five adult female tortoises were captured,

measured, and weighed. 
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-13

The threatened bald eagle is an uncommon transient to the NTS and is not expected to be

impacted by NTS activities. No sitewide surveys to determine its distribution or abundance

have been conducted. Records of all bird sightings, which are made opportunistically, are

maintained to provide some data on the occurrence of various birds on the NTS. There were

no reported sightings of bald eagles on the NTS in 2001.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

The NHPA of 1966, the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and the regulations

related to these laws direct federal agencies to identify, inventory and manage the cultural

resources under their stewardship. The NHPA also requires consultation with interested

parties, especially Native Americans, in regard to historic preservation activities and proposed

decisions affecting cultural resources. 

Section 106 Surveys

As required under Section 106 of the NHPA, the NNSA/NV conducted cultural resources

surveys and historical evaluations prior to undertakings in order to determine if proposed

activities would adversely affect significant historic properties. Significant historic properties are

those sites, locations, and structures that are determined to be eligible to the National Register

of Historic Places (NRHP) through consultation between the NNSA/NV and the state of Nevada

Historic Preservation Office (NSHPO). Under the NHPA, all NNSA/NV cultural resources

reports and plans are reviewed by the NSHPO for compliance with the NHPA. All consultations

with the NSHPO were completed successfully, with reports finalized and distributed to the

Nevada State Cultural Resources Archives. 

There were three survey projects conducted in 2001.

! Four Seismic Refraction Lines and 34 Integrated Seismic Stations in Area 12 (22.7 acres)

One site eligible to the NRHP (preserved).

! Frenchman Flat Seismic Survey in Area 5 (2,287.6 acres)

Two structures eligible to the NRHP (preserved).

! Wind Farm Project in Areas 16, 29, and 30 (2,135 acres)

Forty-seven sites that may be eligible to the NRHP (consultation regarding eligibility to take

place in 2002).

One historical evaluation was initiated in 2001, a study of the T-3b FIZEAU Underground

Bunker in Area 3. This project will be completed in 2002.

Section 110 Surveys

Two inventory projects, meeting the requirements of the NHPA, Section 110, were conducted in

2001. These were surveys of the Bower Cabin site and the Whiterock Spring area. The Bower

Cabin site is a mining camp dating back to the early part of the twentieth century and identified

with the Oak Spring Mining District of Nye County. B.M. Bower and her family lived on the NTS
3-14

in the 1920s and worked the nearby El Picacho mines for several years. The cabin and one

ancillary structure are still standing but only the foundations of her writing studio and other

buildings remain. The technical report on the Bower Cabin is in draft final format with the site

being recommended as eligible to the NRHP.

The inventory at Whiterock Spring is a continuation of archaeological investigations at spring

locations on the NTS. The area is an ethnographically documented Shoshone residential base

with evidence of habitation dating back eight thousand years. From the 1880s through the

1930s, the spring was used by miners, ranchers, and Native Americans, with the ranchers

constructing dwellings and corrals. The draft technical report summarizing this work is in

progress.

Mitigation of Adverse Effects to Significant Cultural Resources

In cases when project activities will adversely affect properties eligible to the NRHP, actions to

mitigate the effects are required by law. During 2001, mitigation was completed for ten

buildings that are to be demolished and are eligible to the NRHP. In all ten cases, mitigation

consisted of preparing Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation for each

building. This documentation is prepared in consultation with the National Park Service and

upon acceptance, is archived in the Library of Congress to serve as the permanent record for

the buildings. 

HAER documentation was completed for five buildings within the Frenchman Flat Historic

District in Area 5, that are to be demolished in FY 2002. Four are pumping stations (Well 5

Booster Stations 1, 2, 3, and 4), and one is the switching station for the timing and firing of the

atmospheric tests (Building F-370). HAER documentation also was completed for the primary

buildings at the Reactor Maintenance Assembly and Disassembly (R-MAD) facility (Building

3110), Test Cell A (Building 3113/3113A), and Test Cell C (Building 3210) in Area 25; Pluto

(Building 2201) in Area 26; and Super Kukla (5400/5400A) in Area 27. R-MAD and the test

cells were used in the testing and development of nuclear reactors for rocket propulsion into

space. At the NTS, this research was conducted by the LANL from the late 1950s to the early

1970s. Building 2201 was the reactor disassembly building for the LLNL’s Pluto program work

that ran from the late 1950s to early 1960s. The goal of this project was to test and develop a

nuclear reactor for a ramjet propulsion system. The primary building at the Super Kukla facility

contained a nuclear reactor for testing nuclear device components for their response to neutron

burst exposure. It was built in 1964 and used by LLNL until 1979.

Monitoring of Cultural Resources

The Cultural Resources Management Plan for the NTS formalized a program that meets

requirements of the NRHP, which focuses on monitoring the condition of archaeological sites

and historic structures that have been determined to be eligible to the NRHP. Following the

monitoring of 11 locations in 2000, no formal monitoring was conducted in 2001. Monitoring will

be conducted again in 2002. 

Curation of Archaeological Collections

Under Title 36 CFR Part 79, a regulation for the NHPA, the NNSA/NV is required to maintain

the archaeological materials recovered from the lands under the control of the NNSA/NV in a

secure and environmentally-controlled facility. This curatorial facility houses more than a half

million artifacts. Most were collected during data recovery (mitigation) activities at NRHP

eligible sites. Site and survey records also are curated at this facility.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-15

Consultation with Native Americans

In the Fall of 2001, a two-day meeting of the representatives for the Consolidated Group of

Tribal Organizations (CGTOs) and the NNSA/NV was held in Las Vegas. The purpose of the

meeting was to identify potential future ethnographic projects and to discuss the issues of

concern to the CGTO. 

Ethnographic consultation with the CGTO, regarding the Wind Farm Project area, was initiated

in 2001 to determine if any of the proposed project locations are Traditional Cultural Properties

(TCPs) and if they are eligible to the NRHP as TCPs. Also, this consultation program was

designed to meet the NHPA Section 106 consultation directives.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) requires federal

agencies to consult with Native Americans regarding items in their artifact collections that may

qualify for repatriation to a tribe. NAGPRA consultations for the main NNSA/NV collection were

completed several years ago. Consultations have been completed for two collections, known

as the Worman and McKinnis collections with repatriation of requested objects rescheduled for

2002. In 2001, the consultations regarding collections from the Hot Creek Valley, collected

during DOE/NV activities in the 1960s, were completed with more items identified for

repatriation.

Also, NNSA/NV sponsored and published a book,”American Indians and the Nevada Test Site,

a Model of Research and Consultation” (Stoffle et al., 2001), that provides an overview of the

past ten years of consultations with the American Indians for NTS programs.

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act governs the taking, killing, or possession of migratory birds. All

but a few of the 239 species of birds which are known to occur on the NTS are protected under

this Act. Several buildings scheduled for demolition on the NTS were surveyed in 2001 to

determine the presence of roosting or nesting birds. A pair of breeding barn owls was found in

each of two buildings: Building 210 in Mercury and the R-MAD Decon building in Area 25. 

Demolition of both these buildings was postponed until all young owls had fledged from the

nests and no birds were present in the buildings. No migratory birds were known to have been

harmed during any demolition activities elsewhere on the NTS. 

During CY 2001, two mourning doves, two Gambel’s quail, and two chukar were collected and

sacrificed for radionuclide tissue analysis under the state of Nevada Division of Wildlife

Scientific Collection Permit Number S20571. One adult red-tailed hawk that was found dead in

Mercury near Building 550 was salvaged under this same state permit and taken to a

taxidermist for mounting and use in wildlife education. 

Sightings of dead birds are reported to biologists and are investigated to determine if NTS

facilities/activities need to be modified to reduce the incidence of bird mortality. Eight other

raptors and one game bird was found dead on the NTS in 2001: one juvenile barn owl that had

become trapped in a room in Building 210 in Mercury; one juvenile barn owl that had fallen to

the floor from its rafter nest in Building 210; one juvenile barn owl found in its nest in the R-MAD

Decon building in Area 25; one adult barn owl killed by a predator at the Area 6 LANL pond;

one adult American kestral that had flown into a power pole in Mercury; one juvenile greathorned owl found in a nest in a building in Area 3; one adult sharp-shined hawk found dead

outside Building 111 in Mercury; one adult golden eagle that was hit by a car in Area 3 when it
3-16

flushed from the roadside and flew over the road; and one Gambels’ quail killed by a car in 

Area 1. No mitigation actions were identified in 2001 that may reduce the incidence of bird

mortality on the NTS.

EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO) 11988 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

NTS design criteria do not directly address floodplain management; however, all projects are

reviewed for areas which would be affected by a 100-year flood pursuant to DOE Order

6430.1A (DOE 1989). There were no projects in 2001 that required consultation for floodplain

management. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO) 11990 PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

There were no projects in 2001 which required consultation for protection of wetlands. NTS

design criteria do not specifically address protection of wetlands; however, all projects are

reviewed pursuant to the requirements of DOE Order 5400.1 (DOE 1990a). Limited monitoring

of selected wetlands occurred during 2001 to further characterize the biological and physical

conditions at the five new wetlands discovered during 1998.

3.2 AGREEMENTS WITH STATES AND AGENCIES

During 2001, the NTS was subject to several agreements with regulatory agencies and states.

These agreements are listed below.

! an Interagency Agreement with EPA covering environmental monitoring, emergency

response, and related activities.

! a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA regarding NESHAP compliance.

! a MOU with Nevada covering releases of radioactivity.

! a MOU with Nellis Air Force Base for environmental restoration on the TTR.

! a FFACO with the state of Nevada on environmental restoration activities.

! a Consent Order under the FFCA with the state of Nevada regarding the storage of

restricted mixed waste streams on the NTS.

! an Agreement in Principle (AIP) with Nevada on environment, safety, and health oversight

activities.

! an AIP with Mississippi on environment, safety, and health oversight activities.

! an AIP with Alaska on environment, safety, and health oversight activities.

! a Settlement Agreement with Nevada concerning the of existing inventory of mixed TRU

waste.

! a Mutual Consent Agreement with Nevada on storage and management of newly

generated mixed LDR wastes on NTS.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-17

3.3 CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ISSUES AND

ACTIONS

There were numerous activities and actions relating to environmental compliance issues in

2001. These activities and actions are discussed below, grouped by general area of

applicability.

CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)

Under Title V, Part 70 of the CAA amendments, all owners or operators of Part 70 sources

must pay annual fees to the state that are sufficient to cover the costs of operating permit

programs. 

Sources such as the NTS that have a potential to emit 50 tons or more of any regulated

pollutant, except carbon monoxide, must pay an annual fee of $3,000. Sources that have a

potential to emit less than 25 tons per year, such as the Tactical Demilitarization Development

(TaDD) and Underground testing Area (UGTA) projects, must pay an annual fee of $250. 

Maintenance and emissions fees of approximately $3,000 were paid to the NDEP in June 2001.

The NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit (AP9711-0549) expires in 2002. In the Spring of

2001, preparation of the permit renewal application was initiated. Meetings were held with the

state to verify requirements. In the summer of 2001, a subcontractor was obtained to perform

air dispersion modeling, a new requirement for submittal of the application. Preliminary

approval of the dispersion model must be received prior to submittal of the final. A draft of the

dispersion model was submitted to the state and approved in the latter part of 2001. 

Preparation of the main portion of the application form was ongoing through the end of the 2001

calendar year.

During 2001, several open burn permits, know as Open Burn Variances, were issued by the

state for NTS activities. These variances included 01-33 for training fires, 01-128 for sensor

tests, and 01-136 for weapons of mass destruction training exercises. The Open Burn Variance

for the Area 27 burn box is now required to be renewed quarterly. Variances issued for the

burn box during 2001 included 01-29, 01-72, 01-96 and 01-146.

Storage of hazardous wastes at the NTS is regulated by Nevada Hazardous Materials Storage

Permit 13-00-0034-X, and the HSC has Permit 13-00-0037-X. These are issued by the state

Fire Marshall and are renewed annually when a facility makes a report required by the state’s

Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act (NAC 1992).

Table 3.7 contains a summary of the permits issued for NTS activities and for offsite activities

that support the NTS.

Non-NTS Air Quality Permits

Five air quality operating permits were active for emission units at the NLVF, and seven permits

were active for the RSL. These permits were issued through the Clark County Health District. 

Annual renewal is contingent upon payment of permit fees. Permits are amended and revised

only if the situation under which the permit has been issued changes. For the other non-NTS

operations, no air quality permits have been required, or the facilities have been exempted. 
3-18

During 1998 the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) of the Clark County Health District began

requiring an “Emissions Inventory” submittal for all permitted sources. The 1999 Emissions

Inventory was submitted by BN to the APCD on September 6, 2000. Submittal of an Emissions

Inventory was not required in 2001.

CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)

Low flows in several NTS sewage lagoons has reduced the efficiency of the lagoons to properly

treat effluents. In response, the NNSA/NV has requested funding to install septic tank systems

in these areas. 

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA)

One public water remains out of compliance with the Lead and Copper Rule. Several buildings

in this system have copper piping joined by lead solder. The state of Nevada has not initiated

any enforcement action, while the NNSA/NV has studied options to achieve compliance.

The cross-connection control program at the NTS is not well documented, and NNSA/NV was

not able to complete a Cross-Connection Control Plan, as required by state regulation. An

engineering study was completed, and modifications began on the backflow prevention

maintenance program.

SDWA Permits are listed in Table 3.4.

COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND

LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)

Other than the reporting covered in Section 3.1, there is no formal CERCLA program at the

NTS. The FFACO, with the state, may preclude the NTS from being placed on the National

Priority List. More of a RCRA approach in remediating environmental problems will be taken

under the FFACO.

POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2) AND WASTE MINIMIZATION

The CY 2001 P2, waste minimization, and recycling efforts for waste generated at the NTS,

NLVF, and offsite locations complied with DOE Order 5400.1 requirements for a P2 program. 

The NNSA/NV P2 program establishes a process to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste

generated at all locations and ensures that the proposed method of treatment and/or disposal

minimizes the present and future threat to human health and the environment. 

It is a priority of NNSA/NV to minimize the generation, release, and/or disposal of pollutants to

the environment by implementing cost-effective P2 technologies, practices, and policies in

partnership with government and industry. A commitment to P2, waste minimization, and

recycling manages operations in such a way as to minimize impact on the environment,

improve the safety of operations, and promote energy efficiency and the sustainable use of

natural resources. This commitment includes providing adequate administrative and financial

materials on a continuing basis to ensure source reduction, recycling, and affirmative

procurement goals are achieved.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-19

Chapter 4.0 provides a summary of the P2 program, P2 accomplishments achieved during 

CY 2001, and activities that achieved reduction in volume and toxicity of waste.

SOLID/SANITARY WASTE

During CY 2001, landfills were operated in Areas 6, 9, and 23. The amount of waste disposed

of in each is shown in Table 3.8, and their operating permits are in Table 3.7. State inspections

of permitted landfills were conducted in March 2001. No compliance issues were noted. 

In January 2001, NNSA/NV submitted modifications to the Area 9 landfill permit. The

modifications were made to allow the disposal of PCB Bulk Product Waste. The primary waste

to be disposed of is applied dried PCB paint, which is being generated from Environmental

Restoration projects. The modification was approved by the state in September 2001. 

Subsequent revisions were made to the applicable Operations and Maintenance Manual for the

landfill.

RADIATION PROTECTION

NTS Operations

Results of monitoring during 2001 indicated full compliance with the radiation exposure

guidelines of DOE Order 5400.5, "Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment", and

the Title 40 CFR 141 “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations”. Onsite air monitoring

results for the networks showed average annual concentrations ranging from 0.4 percent of the

DOE Order 5400.5 guidelines for HTO in air to 2.5 percent of the guidelines for 239+240Pu in air. 

Drinking water supplies on the NTS contained no man-made radioactivity above detection

limits, and levels of naturally occurring radioactivity were in compliance with the National

Primary Drinking Water Regulation.

Offsite monitoring in the vicinity of the NTS confirmed that emissions of radioactivity from the

NTS were less than 2 percent of the guideline set forth in Title 40 CFR 61, Subpart H 

(CFR 1989).

Non-NTS BN Operations

Results of environmental monitoring at the off-NTS operations performing radiological work

during 2001 indicate full compliance with the radiation exposure guidelines of DOE Order

5400.5. With one exception, no radioactive or nonradioactive surface water/liquid discharges,

subsurface discharges through leaching, leaking, or seepage into the soil column, well disposal,

or burial occurred at any of the BN operations. The exception was the NLVF Building A-1

radiation source well, in which water was found with concentrations of tritium that were above

the drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L. From a review of geologic reports, historical aerial

photos, Geoprobe borings, installation of temporary monitoring wells, and water analyses, the

tritium was concluded to be from past local operations and was not found in ground water

surrounding the facility. 

Use of radioactive materials is primarily limited to sealed sources. Facilities, which use

radioactive sources or radiation producing equipment, with the potential to expose the general

population or non-project personnel to direct radiation, are the Atlas NLVF A-1 Source Range,

Building C-3 (x-ray radiography operation), and the STL, during the operation of the sealed tube

neutron generator or during operation of the Febetron. Sealed sources are tested every six

months to ensure there is no leakage of radioactive material. Operation of any radiation
3-20

generating devices is controlled by BN procedures. At least two thermoluminescent dosimeters

(TLDs) are placed at the fence line of these facilities or where non-project personnel could be

for limited periods and are exchanged quarterly. The TLD results were consistent with previous

data indicating no exposures to the public from any of the monitored facilities.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AUDITS

There were nine Environmental Compliance Management Assessments of specific operations,

facilities, or projects for CY 2001. These assessments focused, in most cases, on one or two

major areas of Environmental Compliance; for example, hazardous waste or universal waste

management.

OCCURRENCE REPORTING

Occurrences are environmental, health, and/or safety-related incidents, which are reported in

several categories in accordance with the requirements of DOE Order O 232.1A, "Occurrence

Reporting and Processing of Operations Information," (DOE 1997a). The 11 reportable

environmental occurrences for 2001 on NTS facilities appear in Table 3.9. 

LEGAL ACTIONS

No legal actions were filed against NNSA/NV during 2001.

3.4 PERMITS FOR NTS OPERATIONS

Federal and state permits have been issued to NNSA/NV and to BN (Table 3.7). These permits

are required for the conduct of such NNSA/NV activities as hazardous and solid waste storage

and disposal for certain ecological studies, processes that emit air pollutants, tests at the HSC,

and for operations involving endangered species. All BN non-NTS facilities are located in

existing metropolitan areas and are not subject to the Endangered Species Act. Annual reports

associated with these permits are filed as stipulated in each permit.

The only RCRA permit in use at the NTS is the Hazardous Waste Management Permit 

NEV HW009. With this permit, hazardous waste generated at the NTS can be stored at the

Area 5 HWSU for up to one year. It is then shipped offsite for treatment and/or disposal. The

permit also allows for the thermal treatment (disposal) of explosives at the Area 11 Explosive

Ordnance Disposal Unit.

The NLVF has a Waste Generator number of 03990265X that covers generation and a 90-day

accumulation of hazardous waste. The waste is shipped offsite for final treatment and/or

disposal. 

NNSA/NV activities on the NTS comply with all terms and conditions of a desert tortoise

incidental take authorization issued in a Biological Opinion (File Number 1-5-96-F-33) from the

USFWS.

The Nevada Division of Wildlife issued a scientific collection permit, S20571, to BN that allows

collection of wildlife samples.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-21

Table 3.1 Active Air Quality Permits - 2001

Permit Description

Expiration

Date 

Annual

Reporting 

NTS Air Quality Permits

AP9711-0549 02/07/2002 February 1

Area 1 Facilities Shaker Plant Circuit

Rotary Dryer Circuit

Wet Aggregate Plant

Concrete Batch Plant

Sandbag Facility

Cedar Rapids Screen

Shotcrete Hopper/Conveyor

Cambilt Conveyor

Commander Crusher 

Kolberg Screen Plant

Area 3 Facilities Mud Plant

Area 5 Facilities Navy Thermal Treatment Unit

Area 6 Facilities Cementing Equipment (Silos)

Decontamination Facility Boiler

Diesel Fuel Tank

Gasoline Fuel Tank

Portable Field Bins

Portable Stemming Systems 1 & 2

Diesel Engines (11) 

Two-Part Epoxy Batch Plant

Area 12 Facilities Concrete Batch Plant

Area 23 Facilities Building 753 Boiler

Diesel Fuel Tank

Gasoline Fuel Tank

NTS Surface Disturbances

Incinerator (Wackenhut)

AP9711-0556 Area 5 HSC 10/20/2002 February 1

AP9711-0814 Area 11 TaDD Facility 07/21/2003 February 1

AP9711-0785 UGTA Surface Disturbance Permit 03/20/2003 February 1

00-24 Burn Variance, NTS (Training Fires) 03/09/2002 None

01-128 Burn Variance (Divine Invader Sensor Tests) 11/24/2001 None

00-136 Burn Variance (Weapons of Mass Destruction) 10/31/2002 None

Non-BN Operated NTS Air Quality Permits 

01-146 Burn Variance Area 27 (LLNL) 02/21/2002 None

BN Operated Off-NTS Air Quality Permits (TTR and NAFR) 

AP9711-0785 UGTA Class II Air Quality Permit 04/16/04 February 1
3-22

Table 3.2 Active Air Quality Permits for Non-NTS Facilities - 2001

Permit Description

Expiration

Date

Annual

Reporting

Remote Sensing Laboratory

A0034811 Excimer Laser, Lumonics, EX-700 None June 1

A34801 Boiler, Columbia, W1-180 None March 1

A34802 Boiler, Columbia, WL-90 None March 1

A34803 Heater, No. 2 National BD None March 1

A34804(a) Emergency Fire Control Pump Engine None June 1

A34804(b) Emergency Generator, Cummins None June 1

A34805 Spray Paint Booth None June 1

North Las Vegas Facility

A38701 Spray Paint Booth (A-16) None June 1

A38703 Emergency Generators (C-1) None June 1

A06503 Emergency Generator (A-1/A-5/B-2) None June 1

A06505 Aluminum Sander (A-16) None June 1

A06507 Trinco Dry Blaster (A-1) None June 1

Table 3.3 Sewage Discharge Permits - 2001

Permit No./Location Areas

Expiration

Date 

Reporting

Required

NTS Permits

GNEV93001 NTS General Permit 12/07/2004 Quarterly

NY-17-05704 X Tunnel Collection System 09/30/2002 None

 Off-NTS Permits

North Las Vegas Facility

 VEH-112 Class II Wastewater Contribution Permit 12/31/2006 Annually

Special Technologies Laboratory

 AII-204/Santa Barbara, California 12/31/2001

 III-331/Santa Barbara, California 12/31/2001

Remote Sensing Laboratory

CCSD# 080 Pretreatment Permit 6/30/2002 Quarterly

NY-1080 Area 23 WSI Septic Tank None None

NY-1081 Area 6 ARL Septic Tank None None

NY-1082 Area 22 ARL Septic Tank None None

NY-1087 Area 27 Able Site Septic Tank None None 
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-23

Table 3.4 NTS Drinking Water System Permits - 2001

Permit No. Area(s)

Expiration

Date

Reporting

Required

NY-5024-12CNT (dropped) Area 1 09/30/2001 None

NY-4099-12CNT Area 2 & 12 09/30/2002 None

NY-360-12CNT Area 5, 6, 22, 23 09/30/2002 None

NY-4098-12CNT Area 25 09/30/2002 None

NY-835-12H Sitewide Truck 09/30/2002 None

NY-836-12H Sitewide Truck 09/30/2002 None

Table 3.5 Permits for NTS Septic Waste Hauling Trucks - 2001

Permit Number Vehicle Identification Number

Expiration

Date

NY-17-03313 Septic Tank Pumper E-106785 11/30/2002

NY-17-03315 Septic Tank Pumper E-107105 11/30/2002

NY-17-03317 Septic Tank Pumper E-105918 11/30/2002

NY-17-03318 Septic Tank Pumping Subcontractor 11/30/2002

Table 3.6. Allowable take of Desert Tortoises and their Habitat Permitted by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service for NTS Activities

Type of Take

Allowable

Take Limit 

2001 Status of

Take Limit

Number of tortoises accidentally injured or killed as a

result of NTS activities per year

3 0

Number of tortoises captured and displaced from

NTS project sites per year

10 0

Number of tortoises taken in form of injury or

mortality on paved roads on the NTS by vehicles

other than those is use during a project

Unlimited 5

Number of total acres of desert tortoise habitat

disturbed during NTS project construction since 1992

3015 198.6
3-24

Table 3.7 Permits Required for NTS Operations - 2001

EPA Generator ID

NV3890090001 NTS Activities

NTS Permits

Permit No. Areas Expiration Date

NEV HW009 NTS Hazardous Waste Management (RCRA) 11/01/2005

SW 13 097 02 Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site Post Closure

SW 13 097 03 Area 9 U-10c Solid Waste Disposal Site Post Closure

SW 13 097 04 Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site Post Closure

13-00-0034-X NTS Hazardous Materials 02/29/2002

13-00-0037-X HSC Hazardous Materials 02/29/2002

S20571 Scientific Collection of Wildlife Samples 12/31/2002

1-5-96-F-33 USFWS -- Desert Tortoise Incidental Take

Authorization

12/31/2006

Off-NTS Permits

03-01-0265-X North Las Vegas Facility Hazardous Materials 02/29/2002

03-01-0266-X Remote Sensing Laboratory Hazardous Materials 02/29/2002

EPA Generator ID Numbers

NVD097868731 North Las Vegas Facility Activities, NV

CAL00177640 Santa Barbara Operations, CA

CAL00177642 Santa Barbara Operations, CA

CAL00197065 Livermore Operations, CA

NMD986670370 Los Alamos Operations, NM
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-25

Table 3.8 Quantity of Wastes Disposed of in Solid Landfills - 2001

Quantity (in tons)

Month Area 9 Area 23 Area 6

January - March 1254 203 2120

April - June 2385 204 4

July - September 2655 299 565

October - December 713 335 25

Totals 7007 1041 2714

Table 3.9 Off-Normal Occurrences at NTS Facilities - 2001

Date Report Number Description Status

03/20/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS

2001-0002

An instrument with a radioactive source was

improperly stored. Closed

04/10/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS 

2001-0004

A fuel line on diesel generator failed, and the

cleanup was reportable to the state of Nevada. Closed

05/03/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS 

2001-0006

Potential improper hazardous material shipment

concern when erroneous radioactive label

discovered on jar of elemental mercury. Closed

06/13/2001 NVOO-DTRA-NTS 

2001-0001

Personnel exposure to chemical while offloading

drum that was improperly loaded. Closed

06/28/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS

2001-0008

Personnel violated posting radiological

requirements at R-MAD. Closed

06/28/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS 

2001-0009

Historic heating oil spill at Area 23, Building 754,

resulting in state notification. Closed

07/12/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS 

2001-0010

Historic heating oil spill at Area 25, Building 156,

resulting in state notification. Closed

08/21/2001

NVOO-BNLV-NTS 

2001-0013

Near miss when worker picked up old brittle

tritium sampling line and only got one drop on his

face. Open 

08/21/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS

2001-0014 

Historic heating oil spill at Area 12, Bldg 12-16-1,

resulting in state notification.

Closed

09/27/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS

2001-0015

Concern over use of NE Electra radiological

instrument that was out of calibration. Open

11/16/2001 NVOO-BNLV-NTS

2001-0018

Near miss when two workers breached

radiological area boundary, but no contamination

was detected. Open
3-26

Frenchman Flat Under Water (No Date Provided)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM 

INFORMATION

Reported in this section are the environmental stewardship programs for

the Nevada Test Site (NTS). These programs are under the purview of the

Environment, Safety and Health Division (ESHD) of the U.S Department of

Energy (DOE), National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada

Operations Office (NNSA/NV) for environmental management and

compliance, field investigations for impact assessment, ecosystem

management, pollution prevention (P2), waste minimization, science, and

technology development.

4.1 ROUTINE RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

PLAN

The NNSA/NV manages the NTS in a manner that meets evolving NNSA missions and

responds to the concerns of affected and interested individuals and agencies. The Routine

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) addresses compliance with DOE Orders

and other drivers requiring routine effluent monitoring and environmental surveillance on the

NTS. The RREMP describes the objectives and design elements for all media: air, water, soil,

biota, and direct radiation sources. Existing and historical site information and regulatory

requirements were reviewed and site characteristics, transport and exposure pathways,

regulatory requirements, and historical data evaluated to support the monitoring designs. Both

onsite and offsite monitoring objectives are addressed under the RREMP. 

The RREMP identifies the requirements for radiological monitoring on and off the NTS and

focuses on the need to ensure that the public and the environment are protected, compliance

with the letter and the spirit of the law is achieved, and good land stewardship is practiced. The

monitoring plan uses a decision-based approach to identify the environmental data that are

collected and provides Quality Assurance, Analysis, and Sampling Plans, which ensure that

defensible data are generated. 

AIR MONITORING

Environmental monitoring includes the activities of environmental surveillance, effluent

monitoring, and operational monitoring. For air monitoring, the principal difference among

these three activities is the placement of the air sampling equipment. Environmental

surveillance targets ambient air, but not specific facilities, while effluent and operational

monitoring target facilities or activities. Effluent monitoring is directed at the measurement of a

specific emission point, while operational monitoring is used to assess total emissions from an

operating facility. The rationale, supporting the design of the air monitoring network for the

NTS, addresses these types of monitoring and is discussed thoroughly in the RREMP. 

The objective for the air monitoring network is to monitor all NTS radionuclide emissions above

some reasonable lower limit, such that no significant emission source that contributes to

calculable offsite exposures is ignored and to ensure that the NTS is in full compliance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act. The regulatory driver for this network includes Title 40 Code
4-2

of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAPs): Radionuclides,” Subpart H – “National Emission Standards for Emission of

Radionuclides Other Than Radon From Department of Energy Facilities.” Other drivers include

DOE Order 5400.1 – “General Environmental Protection Program,” DOE Order 5400.5 –

“Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment,” and DOE/EH-0173T – “Environmental

Regulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance.” These

documents prescribe dose limits and air monitoring requirements. 

To comply with the regulations listed above, a combination of approaches is used:

! Evaluating operational contributions through measurement of particulate-in-air and tritiumin-air emissions from such sources as the Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs)

in Areas 3 and 5, and the Waste Examination Facility.

! Monitoring air at locations on the NTS known to be contaminated with radionuclides in

order to evaluate the behavior of radionuclide emissions from those locations.

! Calculation of tritium in air based on the amounts of tritium in surface waters, confirmed

through the observed behavior of tritium in air near tritium sources. 

! Modeling particulate emissions in air using a soil resuspension model, based on the

observed behavior of particulate emissions in air and confirmed by particulate air

monitoring data from SCHOONER (Area 20), Gate 700 S (Area 10), Mercury (Area 23),

Guard Station 510 (Area 25), 3545 Substation (Area 16) and Yucca (Area 6).

! Calculating an effective dose equivalent for each specific emission source at the NTS,

using the CAP88-PC model as prescribed by NESHAPs, to provide dose calculations for all

populated locations within 80 km (50 mi) (the location of the general public is assessed

annually).

During the year 2001, no point sources qualified for offsite monitoring under NESHAPs

requirements (capable of emitting $1 percent of the standard); however, point sources are

continually evaluated for this potential. Accidental releases from facilities such as U-1a, 

Area 27, or the Device Assembly Facility will be monitored by the ambient monitoring network.

SURFACE WATER

The objectives of the routine radiological monitoring program for surface water are to

determine (1) if concentrations of radionuclides in surface water bodies at the NTS and its

vicinity are a threat to public health and the environment, and (2) if permitted facilities are in

compliance with permit discharge limits.

The surface water sample locations on the NTS include the E Tunnel containment ponds and

nine sewage lagoons. Offsite locations include nine natural springs. The criteria for selection

were based on the monitoring objectives. Water sources have been selected based on

potential for exposing the public, onsite biota, or the environment to significant levels of

radionuclides, or requirements for monitoring under existing state discharge permits. The

sources are as follows:

! Discharge from E Tunnel is collected in containment ponds and monitored under the

current state permit.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-3

! The nine sewage lagoons at the NTS receive effluents from sewage treatment plants

permitted by the state (Bechtel Nevada [BN] 1997). Radionuclide monitoring of these

lagoons is required under the current state permit.

Several offsite springs have historically been monitored and will continue to be monitored under

this program. Six of the historically monitored springs are included in this plan; three springs

not previously monitored will be added to the program; one for semiannual and two for annual

sampling. These springs are discharge sites for the local and regional aquifers, for which the

upgradient direction may be the underground testing area on Pahute Mesa. The offsite springs

chosen for the monitoring network are therefore used as groundwater monitoring points in this

hydrologic system. Continued monitoring will document and track trends in groundwater quality

downgradient of the underground nuclear test sites on the NTS. Levels of radionuclides at all of

the surface water sources mentioned above have consistently been below the Derived

Concentration Guides listed in DOE Order 5400.5 over recent years (DOE 1990b).

GROUNDWATER

The characteristics of regional and local groundwater regimes at the NTS and the sources of

radionuclides with potential impacts on groundwater are presented in Chapters 7.0 and 8.0 of

this report. Groundwater is monitored onsite and offsite to comply with several regulatory

drivers. 

The objectives of the routine radiological monitoring program for groundwater include:

! Water Supply Well Monitoring: Determine if onsite water supply wells are impacted from

radionuclides originating from NNSA operations on the NTS.

! Permitted Facilities Monitoring: Determine if there are groundwater impacts from

surface and shallow vadose zone sources of radionuclides on the NTS.

! Aquifer Monitoring: Determine if groundwater at the NTS and its vicinity is further

degraded as a result of the expansion of the radionuclide plumes associated with the

underground test areas.

! Water-level Information: Determine the potential impact of demand for groundwater

around the NTS on the long-term availability of water.

Water Supply Wells

Groundwater is the only local source of drinking water at the NTS and the surrounding area. 

The state permit for the NTS includes four drinking water supply systems that consist of ten

potable water wells. These wells are sampled to determine compliance with the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA) and Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), which include standards for

radionuclides. In addition to the onsite water supply wells, the network will include offsite water

supply and existing monitoring wells selected based on the following criteria: 

! Select point-of-use water supply wells downgradient of the NTS (in the general direction of

regional groundwater flow). Current site knowledge eliminates the possibility of transport of

radionuclides from source areas to wells upgradient of the NTS, or opposite to the general

direction of regional groundwater flow.
4-4

! Select wells close to the NTS boundary and in close proximity to the underground testing

areas.

! Give preference to community wells.

! Give preference to high-yield, high-volume wells.

! Give preference to wells with appropriate construction/condition.

! Select wells where access is possible.

! Consult with Community Environmental Monitoring Programs to ensure that the concerns of

local communities are addressed.

Permitted Facilities Wells

Five wells located at three facilities require routine groundwater monitoring under the terms of

permits issued by the state of Nevada. These facilities are the Area 5 RWMS (RWMS-5), the

Area 23 Infiltration Basin, and the Area 12 E Tunnel pond. 

The Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit located in the RWMS-5, currently under Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Interim Status, maintains compliance with Title 40 CFR

264/265 by monitoring three wells around the RWMS-5.

To comply with the groundwater protection requirements of the state General Permit

GNEV93001, a monitoring well was installed (SM-23-1) in 1996 for the Area 23 Infiltration

Basin.

Water Pollution Control Permit NEV96021, in compliance with the provisions of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act and NRS, allows NNSA/NV and the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency to manage and operate a system for the treatment and disposal of waste water

discharging from the portal of E Tunnel in Area 12 of the NTS. The effluent from the portal is

conveyed into six earthen impoundments for disposal by means of infiltration. 

Groundwater from the five permitted wells is sampled for the necessary constituents and at the

required frequency as stated in the permit.

Aquifer Monitoring 

The RREMP includes an interim effort to identify existing wells and boreholes (called point-ofopportunity wells), which are located downgradient of the Corrective Action Units (CAUs) and/or

are in the regional aquifer. Point-of-opportunity wells located within CAUs have been screened

based on the following criteria for their inclusion in the proposed network:

! Select point-of-opportunity wells downgradient of source areas.

! Give preference to wells within 1,000 m (3,280 ft) of underground tests, which are located

below or within two cavity radii of the water table.

! Select wells accessing relevant hydrostratigraphic units within structural blocks having an

upgradient source or sources.

! Give priority to wells in those transmissive units which also contain most of the underground

test locations.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-5

Wells screened have been further scrutinized to select those which would be most costeffective to monitor, with the following construction criteria:

! Give priority to wells with immediate access to the aquifer.

! Give priority to wells with diameters appropriate for sampling.

! Give priority to wells that are completed (developed, casing exists, etc.).

Point-of-opportunity wells are existing wells which, according to the present level of

understanding, appear to be at appropriate locations and completed in appropriate hydrostratigraphic units. It is important to note that the groundwater monitoring in the RREMP is an

interim program until the final CAU postclosure monitoring network can be designed and

implemented.

Hot wells, also referred to as source-term characterization wells, are those used to sample

groundwater from within or near the cavities produced by underground nuclear tests that were

conducted below the water table. These groundwater samples are used to define the

hydrologic source term (the type and concentration of radionuclides dissolved in groundwater,

or potentially available to groundwater). Source term information fulfills the requirement in DOE

Order 5400.1 to monitor the effects of NNSA/NV activities on the environment. This monitoring

allows estimates to be made of the rate of radionuclide migration from the underground nuclear

tests.

In addition to wells monitored for potential releases, water-level measurements will be

performed for each sampling event at all wells if practical (e.g., no downhole pump in well). 

There are wells onsite and offsite that are monitored only for water levels by the U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS). Data from these wells are analyzed for trends, impacts of water

usage, and used to calibrate groundwater flow models.

VADOSE ZONE MONITORING (VZM)

The vadose zone is being monitored at three general types of sites on the NTS: RWMSs 

(Areas 3 and 5); RCRA closure sites (Area 23 Hazardous Waste Landfill and U-3fi); and

permitted sanitary landfills (U-10c Landfill and the Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfill) in addition to, or

in lieu of, groundwater monitoring for the purpose of protecting groundwater resources. VZM at

these sites generally consists of monitoring changes in soil moisture.

VZM offers many advantages over groundwater monitoring including detecting potential

problems long before groundwater resources would be impacted, allowing corrective actions to

be made early, and being less expensive than groundwater monitoring. 

VZM at the RWMSs is driven by DOE Orders and conducted to confirm Performance

Assessment (PA) assumptions regarding the hydrologic conceptual models including soil water

contents, and upward and downward flux rates. VZM at RCRA closure sites and sanitary

landfills is driven entirely by agreements with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

(NDEP). Vadose zone monitoring at all NTS sites is also conducted to: 

! Demonstrate negligible infiltration of precipitation into zones of buried waste.

! Detect changing trends in performance.

! Establish baseline levels for long term monitoring. 
4-6

Compliance at the RWMSs is achieved by demonstrating that PA assumptions are valid, and

that there is negligible infiltration of precipitation into zones of buried waste. Compliance at the

RCRA sites and sanitary landfills is achieved by demonstrating that soil moisture levels remain

within limits agreed to with NDEP.

At the RWMSs, VZM is conducted by measuring all the water balance components at several

locations to account for some spatial variability and to apply that water balance to an entire

RWMS using a concept of surrogate sampling. This type of VZM is not leak detection, it is

performance monitoring. 

Water balance measurements activities include: 

! Meteorological monitoring to measure precipitation (the driving force for downward flow)

and to calculate potential evapotranspiration (the driving force for upward flow). 

! Lysimeters (weighing and drainage) to measure infiltration, soil water redistribution, baresoil evaporation, evapotranspiration, and deep drainage. 

! Neutron logging through access tubes to measure infiltration, soil water redistribution, and 

monitor a large spatial area (in some locations to depths of hundreds of feet).

! Automated VZM systems with in situ sensors (time domain reflectometry probes, and

heat dissipation probes) to measure soil water content and soil water potential over a large

spatial area, but usually to a limited depth.

! Soil-gas sampling for tritium to confirm PA assumptions and transport coefficients.

This strategy provides an accurate estimate of the RWMS water balance, including any

drainage through the RWMS waste covers, and therefore, potential recharge. Based on these

data, as well as other work (Tyler et al., 1996), there is essentially no recharge to the

groundwater under current conditions in the valleys of the NTS (including the RWMSs), and all

precipitation is effectively returned to the atmosphere by plant transpiration and soil

evaporation. 

The VZM strategy for the two RCRA closure sites and permitted sanitary landfills is similar to

the RWMS strategy and is based on monitoring soil moisture at points of opportunity. At these

sites, neutron logging is conducted in boreholes that were originally drilled for site

characterization purposes. Neutron logging at these sites provides data to confirm that there is

negligible infiltration of precipitation into zones of buried waste. 

A summary of some selected NTS VZM data can be found in Chapter 8.0.

BIOTA MONITORING

Historical radionuclide studies on the NTS focused on man-made transuranics and showed

declining concentrations in plants and animals over time (DOE 1992), although some plant and

animal samples still contain measurable levels (EG&G/EM 1993; U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency [EPA] 1996). These past studies indicate that significant radionuclide

damage to plants and animals on the NTS would occur only during atmospheric nuclear testing. 

Given the current NNSA/NV project and land use policy, it is unlikely that NTS radionuclide

contamination poses a significant threat to biota, although data to confirm this conclusion have

yet to be taken. Past studies, although limited in scope and area, indicate that radionuclides in

NTS plants and animals posed no significant threat of radiation exposure to the offsite public. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-7

Current NTS land use precludes the harvest of plants or plant parts (e.g., pine nuts, wolf

berries) for direct consumption by humans. Therefore, the primary potential exposure pathway

of radionuclides in NTS plants to the public is through ingestion of game animals. Game

animals (e.g., mourning doves, chukar, rabbits as surrogates for Deer) may eat contaminated

plants, seeds, or soil or they may drink contaminated water on the NTS and then travel offsite

where they are subsequently hunted by the public for food. The expected public dosage via

these pathways from NTS biota are well below established dose limits.

Offsite plants and animals, namely crops and livestock in neighboring communities, have 

also been monitored for years to document possible radionuclide exposure to the public 

(EPA 1978; EPA 1996). The only possible current pathway for radiation exposure through

crops is their uptake of radionuclides from soil which was contaminated during past

atmospheric tests. There are several communities to the north and east of the NTS 

(e.g., Rachel, Alamo, Hiko) that have received radioactive fallout in the past from these tests. 

Recent radioanalysis of selected fruits and vegetables from these communities has shown

levels of tritium, strontium, and plutonium near or below detection limits (EPA 1996). Livestock

or game animals within the same downwind fallout areas could ingest contaminated forage and

then be consumed by humans. Strontium levels in the bones of deer, cattle, and bighorn sheep

sampled in 1993 off the NTS were above detection limits, but have consistently decreased in

samples since the early 1960s since cessation of aboveground testing (EPA 1996). The edible

portions of these offsite animals historically contain nondetectable levels of radionuclides. 

However, strontium levels in milk from pasture-fed cows sampled from neighboring Nevada

ranches have been periodically measured at levels above detection limits (EPA 1996).

Given the assumption that there exists no significant risk to plants, animals, or the public

through the food chain from radionuclide contamination, it is still expedient to include biota

samples within the framework of this monitoring at the NTS for the following reasons:

! Some level of biota monitoring is needed to comply with DOE Order 5400.1.

! Biota monitoring data are needed to validate the integrity of land buffers. 

! Biota data will be needed to address current and future land-use issues. 

The NTS Biota monitoring effort is designed for radiological monitoring of NTS plants and

animals and focused on sampling those sites having the highest known concentrations of

radionuclides in other media. The intent is to concentrate monitoring efforts at sites where the

likelihood for radionuclides to enter plants and game animals is the highest on the NTS,

including:

! Runoff areas or containment ponds associated with underground or tunnel test areas. 

! Plowshare sites.

! Atmospheric test areas. 

! Atmospheric and underground safety experiment sites.

A control site for each contaminated site will be selected and will have similar biological and

physical features, but will have no history of radionuclide contamination from NNSA/NV

activities above worldwide levels of fallout. Measurements from the control sites will be used to

document radionuclide levels in biota from areas believed to be uncontaminated by past and

ongoing NNSA/NV activities and representative of background levels. 
4-8

NTS Chukar Sampling Sites

In the past, the Nevada Division of Wildlife (NDOW) has requested, and has been granted,

permission to trap and remove chukar from the NTS. The chukar are then released in areas

open to public hunting. Chukar are trapped by the NDOW at one to three of the numerous

natural springs on the NTS. Chukar trapped at these springs are not expected to be

contaminated, but they will be sampled from these springs for radiological analysis on a routine

basis. In 2001, two Chukar were trapped at the E Tunnel Pond site.

DIRECT RADIATION MONITORING

Direct radiation monitoring is used to detect radiation exposures caused by sources that emit

X rays, gamma rays, charged particles, and/or neutrons. Such monitoring can be done in real

time by use of appropriate survey meters or by pressurized ion chambers (PICs) to obtain 

exposure rate and by various types of solid-state dosimeters to obtain total exposure.

The objective of onsite Thermoluminescent Dosimeter (TLD) and PIC monitoring is to assess

the state of the NTS’s external radiation environment, detect changes in that environment, and

measure gamma radiation levels near and in contaminated areas on the NTS. The onsite

monitoring program will be used for trend analysis, in conjunction with fly-over data and

demarcation studies, and to comply with DOE Orders. The data from environmental TLDs may

also be used during future facility siting decisions. 

4.2 POLLUTION PREVENTION AND WASTE MINIMIZATION

PROGRAM

When economically feasible, source reduction is the preferred method of handling waste,

followed by reuse and recycling, treatment, and, as a last resort, land disposal. The NNSA/NV

systematic approach to source reduction is achieved by performing Pollution Prevention

Opportunity Assessments (PPOAs). The objective of a PPOA is to identify methods to reduce

energy consumption and/or eliminate waste streams via a planned and documented procedural

process. Subsequently, the technical and economical feasibility of options are evaluated, and

the most feasible option is selected for implementation. Options include product substitution,

process change (i.e., use of alternate equipment or procedure), and onsite and offsite recycling. 

When selecting which PPOA to perform, the goal is to reduce or eliminate the volume and/or

toxicity of waste. 

An effective method for reuse is the coordination of the material exchange program within

NNSA/NV, between NNSA/NV, other DOE sites, and other government agencies (e.g., EPA). 

Unwanted chemicals, supplies, and equipment are made available through electronic mail or

postings on the internet material exchange list so that individuals in need can obtain the items

at no cost. These materials are destined for disposal, either as solid or hazardous waste, as a

result of process modification, discontinued use, or shelf life expiration. Rather than disposing

of these items, the majority of them are provided to other employees for their intended purpose,

thus avoiding disposal costs and costs for new purchases. If items are not placed with another

user, they can be returned to the vendor to be recycled or reused.

EMPLOYEE AND PUBLIC AWARENESS

As stated in DOE Order 5400.1, chapter III-4c, NNSA/NV’s P2 program must include the

implementation of an employee awareness program. Employee awareness of P2 issues

throughout NNSA/NV is accomplished by dissemination of articles through both electronic mail
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-9

and NNSA/NV newsletters, the maintenance of a P2 intranet website, employee training

courses, and participation at employee and community events. These activities are intended to

increase awareness of P2 and environmental issues and their role in improving environmental

conditions in the workplace and community.

The following activities enhanced employee awareness of P2 practices:

! Family Day at the Nevada Test Site: The event included an exhibit of the various P2 and

Waste Minimization activities performed at the NTS; an interactive P2 question and answer

exhibit; literature containing P2 tips; literature about composting; and distribution of

promotional items made from recycled materials as daily reminders regarding the benefits

of recycling.

! Integrated Safety Management Day at the NTS and North Las Vegas Facility: The

event included an exhibit of various P2 success stories; an interactive P2 question and

answer exhibit; literature about various P2 and waste minimization issues; and distribution

of promotional items made from recycled materials as daily reminders regarding the

benefits of recycling.

! Earth Day: The event, sponsored by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, included an

exhibit on recycling; and distribution of promotional items made from recycled materials as

daily reminders regarding the benefits of recycling.

! Eco Jam: The event, sponsored by the city of Las Vegas, included an interactive P2

question and answer exhibit; an exhibit of various P2 success stories; literature about

various P2 and waste minimization issues; and distribution of promotional items made from

recycled materials as daily reminders regarding the benefits of recycling.

! Training: Employees are instructed in P2 and waste minimization policies and practices

during classroom training courses (e.g., Hazardous Waste Site General Worker Operator

and Emergency Response, Waste Management for the Generator, Rad Worker II, and

General Employee Orientation).

POLLUTION PREVENTION ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

The following list of activities were major P2/Waste Minimization accomplishments for Calendar

Year 2001:

! 80 cubic meters of Mixed Low Level Waste (MLLW) was generated at the NTS. Lead

contaminated metal and ash was segregated from the material and packaged in two 55

gallon drums (0.44 cubic meters). The drums were sent offsite for treatment and disposal. 

The remaining material was surveyed and found to be free of lead contamination. This

material was then disposed of as Low Level Waste (LLW) at the NTS LLW Disposal Facility.

This waste minimization effort reduced the toxicity of 79.56 cubic meters of MLLW to LLW

and resulted in considerable disposal costs savings.

! Through the material exchange program, approximately 171 mt of material and equipment

destined for disposal were reused. These materials included both hazardous and nonhazardous materials.
4-10

! Decommissioned buildings destined for disassembly and disposal were donated or sold to

other agencies/schools who disassemble and remove the buildings from the Site for reuse

at new offsite locations. Approximately 52 metric tons of waste was diverted from landfills

by this waste minimization effort.

! The NTS Area 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) obtained approximately 1,660

pounds (lbs) of reactive hazardous material (smoke grenades) that were destined for

treatment/disposal. The material was reused by finding another government agency that

could utilize the material as intended.

! The NTS Area 11 EODU obtained approximately 60 lbs of reactive hazardous material that

were destined for treatment/disposal. The material was reused by finding another

government agency that could utilize the material as intended.

! A new design for the management of investigation derived waste at NNSA/NV

Environmental Restoration (ER) sites reduces the amount of waste entering potentially

hazardous and radioactive waste streams at the source of generation. This new process

utilizes onsite inspection, survey, and testing to determine waste disposition. By instituting

this new method, the NNSA/NV will enhance work place safety, reduce potentially

hazardous and/or radioactive waste streams by an estimated 316 cubic meters over the five

year life cycle of the ER project.

VOLUME AND TOXICITY REDUCTION

An overview of the estimated volume reductions accomplished during CY 2001, through

implementation of P2/Waste Minimization activities, recycling, and material exchange, is shown

in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

An overview of the estimated toxicity reductions accomplished during CY 2001, through

segregation, is shown in Table 4.3.

4.3 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL CENTER (HSC)

Biological monitoring at the HSC is required for certain types of chemicals under the Center’s

Environmental Assessment. These chemicals have either not been tested before, have not

been tested in large quantities, or have uncertain modeling predictions of downwind air

concentrations. In addition, the NNSA’s ESHD has requested that BN monitor (downwind) any

test which may impact plants or animals outside the experimental area.

A document entitled “Biological Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Materials Testing at the

Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility on the Nevada Test Site” (BN 1996) has been

prepared that describes the conduct of field surveys used to determine test impacts on plants

and animals and verify that the spill program complies with pertinent state and federal

environmental protection legislation. The monitoring plan calls for the establishment of three

control transects and three treatment transects, which have similar environmental and

vegetational characteristics at three distances from the chemical release point. BN biologists

review spill test plans to determine if field monitoring along the treatment transects is required

as per the monitoring plan criteria. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-11

BN reviewed chemical spill test plans for one experiment: REOP-CHLOREP Special Equipment

and Techniques Mercury Workshop. Biota monitoring was not conducted for any of the

chemical tests at the HSC during 2001. No baseline monitoring was conducted at established

control-treatment transects near the HSC due to insufficient funding.

4.4 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT SITES

DISPOSAL ACTIVITIES

The Areas 3 and 5 RWMSs, at the NTS, are designed and operated for disposal of LLW from

onsite, NNSA offsite, and other offsite generators and mixed waste from onsite. All generators

of waste streams must first request to dispose of waste, submit an application for specific waste

streams, meet NTS Radioactive Waste Acceptance Criteria, and receive approval for disposal

by NNSA/NV. Waste Acceptance criteria are based on how well the site is predicted to perform

as described in Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis documents. Environmental

Monitoring collects data to determine if performance is as expected and to meet regulatory

compliance requirements. Disposal consists of placing waste in various sealed containers in

the unlined cells and trenches. Soil backfill is pushed over the containers in a single lift,

approximately 2.4 m (8 ft) thick, as rows of containers reach approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) below

original grade.

Waste disposal at the RWMS-5 has occurred in a 37-hectare (92-acre) portion of the site,

referred to as the LLW Management Unit (LLWMU), since the early 1960s. The LLWMU

consists of 23 landfill cells (pits and trenches) and 13 Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD)

boreholes. Four of the GCD boreholes were used to dispose of transuranic (TRU) waste and

are no longer active; five contain LLW and are no longer active; and the remaining four have

not been backfilled with soil. Of the 23 landfill cells, 5 are open for disposal of LLW, 1 is an

active mixed waste disposal unit, and 1 is used for disposal of asbestos-form LLW. The

remaining 16 landfill cells are covered and are no longer active (15 contain low-level radioactive

waste and 1 contains TRU waste). In CY 2001, the RWMS-5 received 454 shipments

containing 570,724 cubic feet of LLW and no shipments containing MLLW for disposal.

Key documents in place that are necessary for disposal operations to occur are as follows:

! A Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) was issued in December 2000 for RWMS-5.

! Performance Assessment for the RWMS-5 at the NTS, Nye County, Nevada, Revision 2.1,

January 1998.

! Composite Analysis for the RWMS-5 at the NTS, Nye County, Nevada, February 2000.

! NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria (NTSWAC) Revision 4, February 2002.

! Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan (ICMP) for the Areas 3 and 5 RWMSs at the NTS,

October 2000.

! Auditable Safety Analysis (ASA) for the Areas 3 and 5 RWMSs, August 2000.

Waste disposal cells within the RWMS-3 are subsidence craters resulting from underground

nuclear testing. Disposal operations began in the late 1960's. Of the seven craters within the

RWMS-3, three are active, two are closed, and two are not in use. In CY 2001, the RWMS-3

received 659 shipments containing 941,276 cubic feet of LLW for disposal.
4-12

Key documents in place that are necessary for disposal operations to occur are as follows:

! A DAS was issued in October 20, 1999, for the RWMS-3.

! Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for the RWMS-3 at the NTS, Nye County,

Nevada, Revision 2.0, September 1997. This document was revised in response to the

DAS conditions and submitted to the DOE Headquarters for review and approval. The

document is currently under review.

The NTSWAC, ICMP, and ASA are the same as described for RWMS-5.

STORAGE ACTIVITIES

The RWMS-5 stores LLW, MLLW, TRU, and Mixed TRU (MTRU) waste for characterization to

determine treatment and disposal options. TRU and MTRU waste is being characterized for

disposal at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. LLW and MLLW are being characterized

to determine treatment and disposal options. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 and the first quarter of 

FY 2002, 15,666 cubic feet of LLW were disposed of onsite, and no MLLW was disposed of

onsite. In the first quarter of FY 2001, 9.2 cubic feet of MLLW were shipped offsite for

treatment and disposal.

The NNSA/NV assesses the long-term performance of LLW disposal sites by conducting a PA. 

A PA is a systematic analysis of the potential risks posed by a waste disposal site to the public

and to the environment. 

4.5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, the Archeological Resources Protection

Act of 1979, and the regulations related to these laws directs federal agencies to identify,

inventory and manage the cultural resources under their stewardship. The NHPA also requires

consultation with interested parties, especially Native Americans, in regard to historic

preservation activities and proposed decisions affecting cultural resources. 

As required under Section 106 of the NHPA, in 2001, the NNSA/NV conducted three cultural

resource surveys, two inventory projects, and one historical evaluation at the NTS prior to

undertakings in order to determine if proposed activities would adversely affect significant

historic properties. Significant historic properties are those sites, locations and structures that

are determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) through consultation

between the NNSA/NV and the state of Nevada Historic Preservation Office (NSHPO). Under

the NHPA, all NNSA/NV cultural resource reports and plans are reviewed by the NSHPO for

compliance with the NHPA. All consultations with the NSHPO were completed successfully

with reports finalized and distributed to the Nevada State Cultural Resources Archives. 

In cases when project activities will adversely affect properties eligible to the NRHP, actions to

mitigate the effects are required by law. During 2001, mitigation was completed for ten

buildings that are to be demolished and are eligible to the NRHP. In all ten cases, mitigation

consisted of preparing Historic American Engineering Record documentation for each building. 

This documentation is prepared in consultation with the National Park Service and, upon

acceptance, is archived in the Library of Congress, to serve as the permanent record for the

buildings. 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-13

The field aspect of the program to monitor the historic properties on the NTS was initiated in

2000. The purpose of this program is to determine if NRHP eligible sites are being adversely

affected by natural and human activities. 

Since 1990, the NNSA/NV has been involved in consultations with Native American tribal

groups in Nevada, California, Arizona, and Utah, who have historical ties to NTS land. The

three major groups are the Western Shoshone, the Southern Paiute, and the Owens Valley

Paiute. 

4.6 ECOLOGICAL MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM

The Ecological Monitoring and Compliance (EMAC) Program provides ecological monitoring

and compliance support for activities and programs conducted at the NTS. It is designed to

ensure compliance with laws and regulations related to plants, animals, and ecosystems on the

NTS, and to provide information that can be used to predict and evaluate the potential impacts

of proposed projects and programs on species and ecosystems. There are four major

components of the program: (1) compliance with federal and state acts and regulations, 

(2) sensitive species and sensitive habitat monitoring, (3) ecosystem mapping, and 

(4) biological monitoring for specific NTS programs. 

Biological surveys are routinely conducted each year at proposed project sites on the NTS that

will cause disturbance of native soils and vegetation. These surveys identify the presence of

the threatened desert tortoise and breeding birds and identify any necessary mitigation to

comply with the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In CY 2001,

biological surveys for 26 projects were conducted. 

Long-term monitoring of several species considered sensitive by state or federal agencies are

conducted annually or periodically. In CY 2001, such monitoring was conducted for three

plants species, seven bat species, the western burrowing owl, feral horses, and raptors. 

Sensitive habitats monitored for wildlife use in CY 2001 included 12 natural seeps and springs,

and 54 man-made sumps and ponds. 

Digital mapping of vegetation associations and wildlife habitats and their linkage with animal

historical sightings and distribution data are ongoing efforts of EMAC. In CY 2001, efforts were

focused on the publication and distribution of the keystone document “Classification of

Vegetation of the Nevada Test Site,” (Ostler et al., 2000). This document was the product of

multiple years of field mapping. Another significant accomplishment within EMAC in CY 2001

was the compilation and publication of an annotated bibliography of all ecological research

conducted on the NTS: “Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: An Annotated Bibliography With

Narrative Summary, Keyword Index, and Species List,” (Wills and Ostler 2001). Both of these

documents will be valuable resources to current and future DOE NNSA/NV management and to

researchers utilizing the NTS as a National Environmental Research Park. 

Specific biological monitoring is conducted each calendar year under EMAC at the HSC on

Frenchman Flat for testing activities which may have an impact on downwind plants or animals. 

In CY 2001, no biological monitoring was recommended or conducted for tests conducted at the

HSC in 2001.
4-14

4.7 UNDERGROUND TEST AREA PROJECT

The Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project is the largest project in the Environmental

Restoration Division and addresses groundwater contamination resulting from past

underground nuclear testing conducted in shafts and tunnels by the NNSA/NV on the NTS. 

From 1951 to 1992, more than 800 underground nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS. 

Most of these tests were conducted hundreds of feet above the groundwater table; however,

over 200 of the tests were in proximity of, or within, the water table. This underground testing

was limited to specific areas of the NTS including Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa/Shoshone

Mountain, Frenchman Flat, and Yucca Flat. 

The UGTA Project collects data to define groundwater flow rates and direction to determine the

nature and location of aquifers (geologic formation of permeable rock containing or conducting

groundwater). In addition, project team members gather information regarding the hydrology

and geology of the area under investigation. Data from these studies will determine whether or

not radionuclides resulting from nuclear testing have moved appreciable distances from the

original test location. Numerous surface and subsurface investigations are ongoing to assure

that these issues are addressed.

Surface investigations include:

! Evaluating discharges from springs located downgradient of the NTS.

! Assessing surface geology.

Subsurface investigations include:

! Drilling deep wells to access groundwater hundreds to thousands of feet below the surface.

! Sampling groundwater to test for any radioactive contaminants.

! Assessing NTS hydrology and subsurface geology to determine possible

groundwater flow direction. 

A regional three-dimensional computer groundwater model (International technology [IT] 1996a)

has already been developed to identify any immediate risk and to provide a basis for developing

more detailed models of specific NTS test areas designated as individual CAUs. The regional

model constituted Phase I of the UGTA project. The CAU-specific models, of which up to four

are planned (geographically covering each of the six former NTS testing areas), comprise

Phase II. To date, one has been built: Frenchman Flat (IT 1998b). The Pahute Mesa and

Yucca Flat models are in progress. The more detailed CAU-specific groundwater-flow and

contaminant-transport models will be used to determine contaminant boundaries based on the

maximum extent of contaminant migration. The results of the individual CAU groundwater

models will be used to refine a monitoring network to ensure public health and safety.

In 2001, the UGTA Project drilled a total of two wells, both located on the NTS in Frenchman

Flat. The UGTA Project initiated a hydrogeologic investigation well drilling program for the

Frenchman Flat CAU in 2000 (IT 2000). The goal of this program is to collect additional

subsurface geologic and hydrologic data in the Frenchman Flat CAU, where ten underground

nuclear tests were conducted between 1965 and 1971 (DOE 2000b) (see Figure 7.5). Data
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-15

from these wells will allow for more accurate modeling of groundwater flow and radionuclide

migration in this former test area. Some of the new wells may also function as long-term

monitoring wells.

The two most recent wells drilled under the Frenchman Flat drilling program during 2001 were

Wells ER-5-3#3 and ER-5-4. Both of these wells were completed in the alluvial aquifer.

Preliminary (predevelopement) groundwater characterization samples were collected from each

of these wells. A small concentration of tritium (up to 5,028 pCi/l) was measured while drilling

through the 274.6 - 311.8 m (901 - 1,023 ft) depth interval. The origin of this tritium is 

believed to be the CAMBRIC underground nuclear test conducted at a similar depth in nearby

emplacement hole U-5e. No man-made radionuclides were detected while drilling 

Well ER-5-3#3.

Hydrological tests and sampling were conducted at four wells (three wells now at the ER-5-3

well cluster, and at ER-5-4) in 2001. Groundwater characterization samples were collected from

each of these wells, and no man-made radionuclides were detected during such testing. 

4.8 HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

The NNSA’s Hydrologic Resources Management Program’s (HRMP’s) primary responsibility is to

acquire hydrologic data and information of groundwater supplies to support ongoing activities and

to assist in planning new uses for the NTS. The main objective of this program is to provide a

sound technical basis for NTS groundwater use decisions regarding the quality and quantity of

water resources available on and around the NTS on a long-term scale.

MISSION

The mission of the HRMP is to support national security operations at the NTS by the

investigation of site hydrology, radionuclide migration, and protection of NTS water resources.

The HRMP meets these objectives through long-term research activities including data collection,

analysis, evaluation, modeling, and documentation. These activities provide reliable information

for decision-making on groundwater utilization, stewardship, and environmental protection. 

Research and technology development activities essential to the achievement of these goals are

an integral part of the HRMP.

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

Results of program activities are available as technical reports and documents. Project

participants also disseminate information and transfer technologies through publication in

technical reports and peer-reviewed journals, presentations at professional meetings and

symposia, and educational outreach activities.

Hydrology and Radionuclide Investigations for Operations

The HRMP assists the NNSA/NV in maintaining capabilities in hydrology and radiochemistry to

support test readiness and science-based stockpile stewardship through applied field and

laboratory studies of the occurrence, distribution, and movement of radionuclides in groundwater

at the NTS. Scientific expertise is utilized in the assembly, analysis, and evaluation of data to

produce requested hydrologic and radionuclide information. State of Nevada regulations require
4-16

NNSA/NV to provide detailed information on hydrologic conditions of the NTS. At the request of

NNSA/NV management, the HRMP gathers, analyzes, and transfers science-based information

to the state of Nevada and other external customers.

Hydrologic services, provided upon request to NNSA/NV programs, include depth-to-groundwater

estimates, water level measurements, containment evaluations, and determining emplacement

hole integrity. Technology development projects and research investigations are conducted to

address gaps in the capabilities and knowledge required to support safe conduct of operations for

stockpile stewardship, nuclear test readiness, and national security. Previous and current

activities include:

! determining the steady state and transient hydrologic conditions in the subsurface, such as,

location of groundwater table, perched water zones, and regions of enhanced permeability.

! using and developing state-of-the-art radiochemical instrumentation to analyze rocks and

water samples in order to predict the fate and transport of radioactive isotopes deposited from

subsurface experiments.

! achieving a more fundamental understanding of chemical fractionation in underground nuclear

tests through sample analysis and experimentation.

! investigating the subsurface geology and fracture propagation in the vicinity of underground

nuclear tests for containment issues.

! building public confidence by conducting public and government outreach and education

programs on the hydrologic environment and impact of nuclear testing on water resources at

the NTS.

! investigating the free water/bound water relationship in boreholes and cores.

Long-Term Groundwater Stewardship

A major element of the HRMP mission is the protection and long-term stewardship of NTS

groundwater resources. A range of activities including, monitoring of groundwater levels, quality

and consumption, monitoring well evaluation, and maintaining a wellhead protection program are

conducted to accomplish this element. HRMP supports groundwater flow model development for

both the Death Valley Region, which includes the NTS, and for the NTS itself, and will continue to

support refinement of these models. Based upon hydrologic investigations and modeling, HRMP

will evaluate proposed new groundwater uses on and near the NTS for their potential impacts on

NTS groundwater reserves, quality, flow paths, and radionuclide migration.

The HRMP protects NTS groundwater by implementing a well installation and maintenance

program to ensure:

! reliability of the potable water supply.

! optimal location, design, and construction of new potable water wells.

! long-term reliability of monitoring wells to supply representative water samples.

! integrity of emplacement and groundwater boreholes.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-17

The HRMP also provides assistance to NNSA/NV regarding the impact of NTS water usage on

offsite water supplies and springs, such as Devil’s Hole. In addition, the HRMP assists in

addressing compliance issues and is responsive to needs of NNSA/NV that result from state and

federal regulations not within the purview of other programs, or which may be well-addressed by

the capabilities of the HRMP. For example, implementation of the SDWA dictates substantial

compliance efforts both on and outside the boundaries of the NTS, a process to which HRMP can

provide valuable support.

HRMP also has a groundwater review and advice capability with a unique NTS perspective that is

invaluable to NNSA/NV. HRMP scientists conduct competent, informed, and independent

reviews of NNSA/NV groundwater-related program documents prior to their release to extensive

regulatory and public scrutiny. This capability enhances both the protection of NTS groundwater

resources and the accuracy and credibility of NNSA/NV program documentation.

4.9 NTS WELL AND BOREHOLE PLUGGING PLAN

Since the late 1950s, approximately 4,000 wells and boreholes have been constructed at the NTS

to support uses ranging from water supply wells to large-diameter nuclear device emplacement

holes. Most of the existing wells and boreholes were originally constructed to support the

Weapons Testing Program.

In 1997, the Nevada Division of Water Resources (DWR) issued revised regulations for waterwells and related drilling, which expanded its regulations to address a category of boreholes that

are drilled for purposes other than evaluating or producing water. In March 1998, a letter from the

NNSA/NV Manager to the President and General Manager of BN stated that compliance with the

revised DWR regulations will achieve the goal of protecting groundwater resources from

contamination, as well as satisfy state of Nevada and SDWA objectives. The NNSA/NV tasked

BN to develop a plan for the management of all existing wells and boreholes and the construction

of new wells and boreholes at the NTS in a manner that procedurally meets state regulations.

The result of this effort was the NTS Well and Borehole Management Plan.

This plan discusses the objectives/intent of the DWR regulations and how these objectives will be

applied to the management of the existing NTS well and borehole inventory and the construction

and management of future wells and boreholes. The objectives include the prevention of

contamination or waste of the groundwater resource during the drilling, construction, or plugging

of wells and boreholes; drilling, construction, and plugging programs designed to isolate zones of

poor-quality water from zones of good-quality water; isolation of artesian zones; and prevention of

surface contamination and unauthorized entry. A detailed strategy and process for plugging of

the existing unused wells and boreholes is provided within the plan because open wells and

boreholes represent a significant potential risk for impacting the quality of the groundwater

resource. The process produces a prioritized list of open NTS wells and boreholes that should be

plugged, with corresponding cost estimates and tentative schedules.

During Calender Year 2001, a total of 18 unused boreholes were plugged in Areas 2, 3, 4, and 9

under this plan. Additional unused or abandoned boreholes will be plugged each fiscal year

under this multi-year initiative.
4-18

4.10 INDUSTRIAL SITES PROJECT

The Industrial Sites Project includes areas located on the NTS and the Tonopah Test Range that

were used to support past testing operations. Over 1,500 of these historic areas, or industrial

sites, have been identified, verified, and inventoried for characterization, closure, and/or

restoration. Of these, nearly 750 sites have been formally closed. The remaining sites have

been grouped according to source of contamination, location, and other technical characteristics.

Industrial Sites Project activities focus on the characterization and applicable corrective actions for

these sites.

The Deactivation and Decommissioning process is also included under the Industrial Sites

Project. This process supports the cleanup of the six remaining surplus facilities transferred from

the NNSA/NV Defense Programs to the Environmental Restoration Division. These facilities

include the Pluto Facility; Super Kukla Facility; RMAD Facility; Engine Maintenance, Assembly,

and Disassembly Facility; Test Cell A; and Test Cell C.

Deactivation is the process used to remove radioactive, chemical, or other hazardous

contamination from facilities, structures, soils, or equipment. Methods of deactivation include

washing, scraping, or cleaning. Decommissioning involves stabilizing, reducing, or removing

radioactive and/or other types of contamination and can consist of dismantling a facility,

entombing or covering part or all of the facility, or converting a facility for other uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM INFORMATION

4-19

Table 4.1 Reduction in Volume of Hazardous Waste Generated at the Nevada Operations

Office - 2001

Waste Minimization

Category Activity

Volume

Reduction

Recycle/Reuse Project Lead acid batteries were shipped to an offsite

vendor for recycle. 26.59 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Lead scrap metal was sold for reuse/recycle

instead of disposed of as hazardous waste. 1.69 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project

Spent fluorescent light bulbs, mercury lamps, metal

hydride lamps, and sodium lamps were sent to an

offsite vendor for recycle.

2.66 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Bulk used oil was sent to an offsite vendor for

recycle. 89.73 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project

When the Analytical Laboratory at the NTS was

decommissioned, the material exchange program

was able to place miscellaneous hazardous

chemicals, destined for disposal, with new users.

1.11 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project

Three large barometers containing mercury,

destined for hazardous waste disposal, were

relocated to new users through the material

exchange program.

0.02 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Lead tire weights were reused instead of being

disposed of as hazardous waste. 0.64 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Rechargeable batteries were sent to an offsite

vendor for recycle. 0.26 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Liquid mercury was sent to an offsite vendor for

recycle. 0.01 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project

The NTS Area 11 EODU obtained reactive

hazardous material (smoke grenades) that was

destined for treatment/disposal. The material was

reused for its intended purpose by another

government agency.

0.75 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project

The NTS Area 11 EODU obtained reactive

hazardous material that was destined for treatment

/disposal. The material was reused for its intended

purpose by another government agency.

0.03 mt

Total 123.49 mt
4-20

Table 4.2 Reduction in Volume of Solid Waste Generated at the Nevada Operations

Office - 2001

Waste Minimization

Category Activity

Volume

Reduction

Recycle/Reuse Project

Decommissioned buildings destined for disassembly

and disposal were donated or sold to other

agencies/schools who disassemble and remove the

buildings from the Site for reuse at new offsite

locations.

52.19 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Mixed paper/cardboard was sent offsite for recycle. 420.14 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Aluminum cans were sent offsite for recycle. 1.35 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project #1 PET Plastic was sent offsite for recycle. 0.19 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Food waste from the cafeterias was sent offsite to be

reused as pig feed for a local pig farmer. 47.45 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Spent toner cartridges were sent offsite for recycle. 2.63 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Obsolete software, video tapes, and audio tapes were

sent offsite for recycle. 2.10 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Scrap ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycle. 101.30 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project Scrap non-ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for

recycle. 2.19 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project

When the Analytical Radiological Laboratory at the

NTS was decommissioned, the material exchange

program was able to place miscellaneous nonhazardous chemicals, supplies, and equipment,

4.26 mt

Recycle/Reuse Project

Non-hazardous chemicals, equipment, and supplies

were relocated to new users through the material

exchange program, diverting them from landfill

disposal. 

165.19 mt

Total 798.99 mt

Table 4.3 Reduction in Toxicity of Waste Generated at the Nevada Operations Office - 2001

Waste Minimization

Category Activity

Toxicity

Reductio

Segregation

80 cubic meters of MLLW was generated at the NTS.

Lead contaminated metal and ash was segregated from

the material and packaged in two 55-gallon drums (0.44

cubic meters). The drums were sent offsite for treatment

and disposal. The remaining material was surveyed and

found to be free of lead contamination. This material was

then disposed of as LLW at the NTS LLW Disposal Facility.

79.56 m

3

Total 79.56 m3
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-1

5.0 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL

PROGRAMS

The radiological environmental surveillance at the Nevada Test Site (NTS)

addresses compliance with U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) Orders, state

and federal regulations, stakeholder issues, and other drivers as defined in

the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP). The

radiological compliance monitoring brings together sitewide

environmental surveillance, site-specific effluent monitoring, and

operational monitoring conducted by various missions, programs, and

projects on the NTS. Monitoring used a decision-based approach to

identify the environmental data that must be collected and provided

Quality Assurance, Analysis, and Sampling Plans which ensure defensible

data are generated. Sampling and analysis plans provide for monitoring

five media in the environment onsite and offsite: air, water, soils (not

collected in 2000), plants, and animals. Oversite environmental

surveillance is conducted for stakeholders by Desert Research Institute

(DRI) of the University and Community College System of Nevada. This

program consists of a network of monitoring stations operated by offsite

residents. During 2001, no radioactivity related to current activities at the

NTS was detected by environmental surveillance programs. 

5.1 AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

The air surveillance network on the NTS monitors for radionulcides to demonstrate compliance

with the Clean Air Act (for a complete description, see Chapter 4.0). During CY 2001, air

monitoring was conducted for radioactive particulates and tritiated water (HTO) vapor at a total

of 29 and 19 locations, respectively. Beginning in July 2001, the sampling locations were

changed to 16 and 14 locations, respectively, to accommodate a change in strategy for

demonstrating compliance with National Emission Standards Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) as approved by the U. S. Environmental Protection agency (EPA) (EPA 2001). The

changes maintained the monitoring of NTS areas with potential emissions of radioactivity and

designated the sampler locations at SCHOONER, Gate 700 South, Mercury, Guard Station

510, Substation 3545, and Yucca as NESHAP compliance stations. These six stations,

although located on the NTS, will conservatively represent offsite critical receptors. The air

sampling locations and the ambient gamma radiation monitoring locations relative to the sites

with potential for airborne radioactive emissions are shown in Figure 5.1. 

In the following sections, each description of the sampling or monitoring method is followed by a

summary of the analytical results and a discussion of the results. The highest annual average

concentration for each radionuclide is compared to its derived concentration guide (DCG) for

the general public as specified in Federal regulations. This DCG is the concentration that will

deliver a 10 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent (EDE), assuming that the receptor resides at the

sampling location throughout the year. 

AIR PARTICULATE SAMPLING

A sample of airborne particulates is collected by drawing air through a 9-cm (3.5 in) diameter

Whatman GF/A glass-fiber filter at a constant flow rate of 85 L/min (3 cfm). The particulate filter 

is mounted in a filter holder that faces downward at a height of 1.5 m (5 ft) above ground. A

run-time clock measures the operating time. The run time, multiplied by 85 L/min yields the 
373

160

95

95

2 3

1 0

2 6

1 1

1 4

8

1 6

4

2 2

1 7

1 5

7

2

9

1 2

2 7

1 3

2 0 1 9

6

5

2 5

1 8

2 9

3 0

5-2

Figure 5.1 Air Sampling Network on or near the NTS - 2001

Air Particulate (AP) Sites

Tritium (HTO) Sites

Both HTO and AP Sites

TLD Sites

Atmospheric Nuclear Tests

Tunnel Portals and Vents

Pu Contamination > 10 pCi/g

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15Miles

Radioactive Waste Management Sites

Area 3 RWMS

Area 5 RWMS

Area 3

RWMS

Area 3

RWMS

Area 5

RWMS

Area 5

RWMS

(Sites indicated in GRAY were terminated this year.)
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-3

volume of air sampled, which is about 860 m3 (30,000 ft3) during a typical seven-day sampling

period. Flows and subsequent volumes are measured with a mass-flow meter which corrects

for variations in temperature and elevation on the NTS. 

The 9-cm diameter filters are analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity no sooner

than five days after collection to allow for the decay of naturally-occurring radon and its

progeny. The filters from four weeks of sampling were composited, analyzed by gamma

spectroscopy, and then analyzed for 239+240Pu and 241Am. To monitor for any potential

emissions from ordinance tests using depleted uranium, beginning in July, filter composites

from Guard Station 510, Substation 3545, and Yucca were also analyzed for uranium isotopes.

Although high-volume air sampling was terminated offsite last year, the Community

Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) continues to collect offsite data as oversite

verification of the results of the onsite source term monitoring.

Gross Alpha and Beta Results

Gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity measurements in airborne particulates are used as a

weekly screening of long-lived radionuclides in air. Descriptive statistics for the gross alpha and

gross beta results, in units of :Ci/mL of air, are given in Tables 5.1 and 5.2, respectively. The

variation in the gross alpha and gross beta radiation measurements during the year is shown in

time series plots in Figures 5.2 and 5.3, respectively. As seen in Figure 5.2, there is relatively

little variation in gross alpha among locations. The one high value is actually an average of a

higher measurement and its duplicate; the latter was not different from the remaining

measurements. There is a good deal of systematic week-to-week variation, but no particular

patterns during the year. The cause of the systematic variation is being investigated.

The gross beta results, shown in Figure 5.3, also show systematic week-to-week variation along

with little variation among locations. In addition to the week-to-week variation, however, there

are time trends within the year, peaking in late summer. The patterns for both gross alpha and

gross beta are consistent with those from 2000. Gross alpha measurements were slightly higher

in 2001 than in 2000 (median of location means was 5.8 in 2001 compared with 5.1 x10-15

:Ci/mL in 2000), whereas, gross beta measurements were slightly lower (median of means was

1.7 x10-14 :Ci/mL in 2001 compared with 2.0 x10-14 :Ci/mL in 2000).

Plutonium Results

Descriptive statistics for 238Pu are given in Table 5.3. 238Pu was detected above the minimum

detectable concentration (MDC) in only 8.6 percent of measurements overall. The highest mean

concentration was at Bunker T-4 (14 x 10-18 :Ci/mL or 0.51 :Bq/m3), which is surrounded by

areas with known deposits of radioactive fallout from past nuclear tests. This concentration was

0.14 percent of the DCG. Mean concentrations at other locations range from 0.2 to 5.6 x 10-18

:Ci/mL or 7.4 to 200 nBq/m3.

Table 5.4 gives descriptive statistics for 239+240Pu. Overall 42 percent of measurements were

above their MDCs; 75 percent or more measurements exceeded their MDCs at six locations 

(U-3ah/at N and S, U-3bh N and S, Bunker 9-300, and SEDAN north). The highest mean

concentration occurred at U-3ah/at S (3.0 x 10

-16 :Ci/mL or 11 :Bq/m3

); this is 70 percent of the

highest mean observed in 2000. The relatively high values for 239+240Pu occurred during the

summer months, as seen in the time series plots in Figure 5.4. When Figures 5.2 and 5.4 are

compared, the highest peak in plutonium concentration (U-3ah/at S) occurred on the same date

as the high gross alpha concentrations after allowing for the differences in sampling periods;

weekly for the gross alpha and monthly for the 239+240Pu.
5-4

Figure 5.2 Times Series Plot of Alpha - 2001

Figure 5.3 Times Series Plot of Beta -2001
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-5

Figure 5.4 Time Series Plot of Plutonium in Air - 2001

Figure 5.5 shows the trend in the highest annual station averages of 239+240Pu for 1991 to

2001and compares those values with the DCG. Figure 5.6 is a historical time series plot of the

annual mean concentrations of 239+240Pu for the years 1971-2001 at several locations with

extended data histories, focusing on locations at Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat where many

nuclear tests have been conducted in the past. The thick green line is a three-year moving

average of the average annual concentrations for the stations for which data are available for

each year; this shows the decreasing trend in 239+240Pu during this 31-year period. The

decrease is attributed to the termination of nuclear testing in 1992 and the general reduction of

field activities that can cause a resuspension of the plutonium in the surface soil. 

Americium Results

Descriptive statistics for 241Am are given in Table 5.5. Overall, 67 percent of observations

exceeded their MDCs; that proportion ranges from 100 percent at Bunker 9-300, Gate 700

South, and Sugar Bunker N to 25 percent at LITTLE FELLER 2 N, and is 75 percent or greater

at 12 of the 28 locations sampled. The highest annual mean concentration was at U-3ah/at S,

5.7 x 10-17 :Ci/mL (2.1 :Bq/m3), which is 2.9 percent of the DCG. The time series plots for

2001 (Figure 5.7) resemble those for 239+240Pu, as was the case with the 2000 data. The highest

peak (U-3ah/at S) in this figure occurred on the same date as the gross alpha peak in Figure 5.2.

Uranium Results

Table 5.6 presents the descriptive statistics for the uranium analyses performed on the monthly

filter composites from 3545 Substation, Yucca, and Guard Station 510. Concentrations of

233,234U and 238U exceeding their MDCs ranged from 67 to 100 percent and 83 to 100 percent,

respectively. All concentrations of 235,236U were below the MDCs of their measurements except

for the October composite from Guard Station 510,which had a value of 5.9 x 10-18 :Ci 

(0.22 :Bq/m3) and a MDC of 3.5 x 10-18 :Ci/mL (0.13 :Bq/m3). This value may be a statistical

anomaly because it is less than twice the MDC of the measurement and the MDCs for all of

these analyses varied considerable (3.4 to 180 x 10

-18 :Ci/mL or 0.13 to 6.7 :Bq/m3

). Since the

235,236U concentrations were not detectable at the other two stations and the 233,234U/238U ratios

for the three stations ranged from 0.9 to 1.3, all the concentrations were attributed to naturally

occurring uranium in the environment. Figures 5.8, 5.9, and 5.10 are time series plots of the

concentrations showing the variability over the six-month period.
5-6

Figure 5.5 Trend in Annual Averages for 239+240Pu Concentrations

Figure 5.6 Time Series Plot for 239+240Pu Annual Averages
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-7

Figure 5.7 Time Series Plot of 241Am in Air, all Locations - 2001

Figure 5.8 Time Series Plot of 233+234U
5-8

Figure 5.9 Time Series Plot of 235+236U

Figure 5.10 Times Series Plot of 238U
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-9

Gamma-Emitting Radionuclides

137Cs was the only man-made radionuclide detected in air particulate samples by gamma

spectroscopy. Its descriptive statistics are given in Table 5.7. Only 1 percent of measurements

exceeded their MDCs, slightly less than in 2000. The only locations at which concentrations

were above the MDCs of the measurements were U-3ah/at N, Bunker T-4, and E-MAD N. The

highest annual mean concentration was at Bunker T-4 (3.9 x 10-16 :Ci/mL or 0.14 :Bq/m3),

which was <0.01 percent of the DCG. 

The gamma spectroscopy analyses also detected naturally occurring 7Be in air at

concentrations (annual mean, all locations, 1.2 x 10

-13 μCi/mL or 4.4 mBq/m3

) which were at

comparable or somewhat lower levels than in 2000 (1.5 x 10-13 :Ci/mL or 5.6 mBq/m3). 

Differences in concentrations between locations were minor and far from statistically significant. 

There were some week-to-week differences. The biggest differences appear to be larger

reported MDCs during the first half of the year, which accounted for only 78 percent of all

analyses being above the MDC, whereas virtually 100 percent of the 7Be observations

exceeded their MDC during 2000. 

TRITIUM IN AIR 

Tritiated water vapor in the form of 3H

3HO or 3HHO (HTO) was monitored at 19 onsite 

locations. The samplers were operated at a constant flow rate of 0.6 L/min (1.25 ft

3

/hr) by

microprocessors, which summed the total volume sampled (about 11 m3 over a two-week

sampling period). At E Tunnel Pond 2 where grid electrical power was not available, a sampler

without constant flow capability that summed the air volume sampled with a dry-gas meter had

to be used because of the limited power provided by a solar photovoltaic system.

With either sampler, the HTO vapor was removed from the air stream by two molecular sieve

columns connected in series (one for routine collection and a second one to indicate if

breakthrough occurred during collection). These columns were exchanged biweekly. An

aliquot of the total moisture collected was extracted from the columns and analyzed for tritium

by liquid scintillation counting.

Tritium in Air Results

Overall 52 percent of HTO measurements exceeded their MDCs, up slightly from 49 percent in

2000. The proportion of those exceeding varied from 0 to 100 percent; locations exceeding by

100 percent were Bunker 9-300, SEDAN North, and SCHOONER and EPA FARM (Table 5.8). 

The proportion exceeding MDC was similar in 2001 and 2000 at most locations, except that the

proportion at BJY increased from 16 to 60 percent. Measurement levels at SCHOONER (mean

4.0 x 10-4 pCi/mL or 15 Bq/m3 ) far exceeded those at other locations (means from 7.3 x 10-8 to

1.3 x 10-5 pCi/mL or 2.7 mBq/m3 to 0.48 Bq/m3). 

Where HTO is present, concentrations increased during the spring months and decreased

during the fall ( Figure 5.11). As in 2000, this pattern is correlated with temperature (Figure

5.12). Also as in 2000, a dip in airborne tritium levels is observed at SCHOONER following

major precipitation events (Figure 5.13).

The mean concentration at SCHOONER was much higher than all other locations primarily

because the air sampler was only 269 m from the crater created by the test. The annual mean

concentration at SCHOONER was 4.0 percent of the DCG; however, the nearest member of

the general public is at Tolicha Peak, which is 20 mi (32 km) west-southwest from the

SCHOONER air sampler.

The historical trend in HTO concentrations, shown in Figure 5.14, illustrates the impact of

selection of sampling locations and equipment on annual average and maximum

concentrations. The most significant recent increase in both maximum and average 
5-10

Figure 5.12 Time Series Plot of HTO vs Temperature

Figure 5.11 Time Series Plot of Tritium in Air - 2001
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-11

Figure 5.13 Time Series Plot of HTO vs Precipitation

Figure 5.14 Trend in Annual Averages for HTO Concentrations Onsite
5-12

Figure 5.15 Time Series Plot for Tritium in Air on the NTS

concentrations occurred in 1998, when an air sampler was installed near the SCHOONER

crater. A contrasting view of historical trends is provided in Figure 5.15, which tracks the

median of the means of five locations that have been in continuous service since 1982, when

tritium in air data first appeared in NTS annual reports. The trend line (linear regression of log

HTO on year) shows that the median concentration decreases by 50 percent in around four

years (the radioactive half-life is 12 years).

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL DOSIMETRY

AMBIENT GAMMA MONITORING

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are used to measure ionizing radiation exposure. The

TLDs measure ionizing radiation from all sources, including natural radioactivity from cosmic or

terrestrial sources and from human-produced radioactive sources. At the end of 2001, there 

were a total of 79 active TLD locations (Figure 5.2). The TLD used was the Panasonic 

UD-814AS, consisting of four elements housed in an air-tight, water-tight, ultraviolet-lightprotected case. A slightly shielded lithium borate element is used to check low-energy radiation

levels and three calcium sulfate elements are used to measure penetrating gamma radiation. 

Two TLDs were deployed at each location, placed about one meter above the ground. All TLDs

were exchanged quarterly. 

TLD locations are classified into four categories: environmental, background, historical, and

waste operations (Table 5.9). Background locations are close to the perimeter of the NTS and

are known to be relatively free of man-made radionuclides. Operational locations are adjacent

to stored materials in Areas 3 and 5 and in the inactive Decontamination Facility locations. The

remaining TLDs are in the environmental class, with a few designated as historical because of

their extended data history.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-13

Figure 5.16 Historical Time Series of Boxplots of TLD Exposures

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETER MONITORING DATA

Descriptive statistics for exposure rates at each TLD location are listed in Table 5.9. Statistical

analyses were performed using log (TLD) data, since the data variation appeared proportional

to mean level, making the log the appropriate variance-stabilizing transformation. Statistically

significant differences were found among both locations and quarters, although the quarter-toquarter variation was much less pronounced than the location-to-location variation. As in 2000,

three locations associated (Table 5.10) with atmospheric tests in Yucca Flat (Stake A-9 in Area

4, Stake N-8 in Area 2, and RWMS South in Area 3) were identified as having mean exposure

rates distinctly higher than the remaining locations. An additional four locations (SEDAN west

in Area 10, Bunker 7-300 in Area 7, T Tunnel #2 Pond in Area 12, and U-3co North in Area 3)

had means somewhat higher than the remaining locations. These locations were also in Yucca

Flat and associated with surface tests except for T Tunnel #2 Pond in Area 12 which was

associated with an underground, tunnel test. Statistically significant differences remain among

the other locations, reflecting the high spatial variability of gamma radiation on the NTS.

The location-to-location differences are predominant in these data. To see if there were 

differences among TLD classes, a nested analysis of variance was performed. The conclusion

was that statistically significant differences among classes did exist, even when the top three or

all seven atypical locations were excluded. When those locations were included, the apparent

location-to-location variation within classes was inflated, masking the class-to-class variation

that is observed when those locations are omitted. 

After adjusting for location-to-location differences, differences among quarters remained;

however, these were smaller than those observed in 2000, with only a 2.3 percent difference

between the lowest (second) and highest (third) quarters.

The historical trend for environmental, background, and historical locations is shown in Figure 5.16.

The data are annual means for each location. For each year the bottom, middle, and top 

lines of the box represent the first quartile (twenty-fifth percentile), median, and third quartile, 

respectively. Lines extend to the lowest and highest values not categorized as outliers. Outliers

are denoted by an asterisk (the seven atypical locations were excluded from the figure). 
5-14

The boxplots for 2000 and 2001 are nearly identical, with median exposure rates slightly higher

than in previous years, due to the reduction of TLD locations at relatively lower exposure rate

areas.

5.3 WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

The surface waters that exist on the NTS are natural springs, containment ponds, and sewage

lagoons. Water samples were collected only from the containment ponds and sewage lagoons. 

The onsite springs were not sampled because they are fed by locally derived groundwater that

is not hydrologically connected to any of the aquifers that may be impacted by underground

nuclear tests. Figure 5.17 shows the locations of all the containment ponds and sewage

lagoons. No samples were collected from the Area 12 Sewage Lagoon or from the Area 25

Central Sewage Lagoon due to a lack of water. 

CONTAINMENT PONDS 

Grab samples were collected quarterly from the two containment ponds and once from the Area

12 E Tunnel ponds sediment. The descriptive statistics of the results are given in Table 5.11. 

As there was little difference between the results from the ponds and the effluent, the results

from the different sources were combined. Due to the levels of 3H, 90Sr, 137Cs, 238Pu, 239+240Pu,

and 241Am in the water, the containment ponds are fenced and posted with radiological warning

signs. Given that the ponds are readily available to wildlife, plants and animals are sampled to

better understand environmental impact. These results are discussed in the following section.

SEWAGE LAGOONS 

Each of the sewage lagoons is part of a closed system used for the evaporative treatment of

sanitary sewage. Water samples collected quarterly from the lagoons were analyzed by liquid

scintillation counting techniques for tritium and by gamma spectroscopy for other test-related

radioactivity. No test-related radioactivity was detected in any of the samples. Only the

naturally occurring radionuclides 40K, 212Pb, 214Pb, 234Th, and 238U were detected in a few

samples at concentrations near the MDCs of the measurements. 

5.4 BIOTA SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

ROUTINE SAMPLING OF NTS BIOTA

Biota sampling was conducted during 1999 and 2000 and is described fully in the Routine

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP). Draft sampling procedures for

vegetation and animals were developed to guide field sampling (ASL LID L-E10.6.P). Five sites

were selected for sampling over the next five years. These sites are E Tunnel Ponds,

Palanquin, SEDAN, T2, and Plutonium Valley. These sites are considered the most

contaminated sites in each of five contamination types on the NTS as described in the RREMP

(DOE 1998a). Plants and animals at each site will be sampled once each five years to confirm

low radionuclide levels (sites will be sampled more frequently and intensely if levels are found to

be higher than action levels). 

Monitoring continued in FY 2001 and was conducted at one contaminated location, E Tunnel

Ponds, and a control site, Tippipah Spring (Figure 5.18). Collection of samples for the routine

radiological monitoring of biota at the NTS commenced on July 12, 2001, and continued 
373

160

95

95

Area 12 Sewage

E Tunnel Containment Ponds

LANL Sewage

Yucca Lake Sewage

DAF Sewage

RWMS Sewage

Reactor Control Point Sewage

Central Support Sewage

Mercury Sewage

Gate 100 Sewage

5-15

Figure 5.17 Surface Water Sampling Locations on the NTS - 2001

Sewage Lagoon

Pond

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15Miles

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
373

160

95

95

Tippipah Spring

E-Tunnel Ponds

2 3

1 0

2 6

1 1

1 4

8

1 6

4

2 2

1 7

1 5

7

2

9

1 2

2 7

1 3

2 0 1 9

6

5

2 5

1 8

2 9

3 0

5-16

Figure 5.18 NTS Onsite Surface Biota Radiological Monitoring Sites - 2001

Biota Sampling Site

Alternative Control Site

Contaminated Site

Prefered Control Site

Atmospheric Nuclear Tests

Pu Contamination > 10 pCi/g

Man Made Isotopes > 27 μR/h

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-17

through October 1, 2001. A late summer to early fall sampling period corresponded to times of

the year when tritium levels have been seasonally highest on the NTS (Hunter and Kinnison,

1998). This appears to be due to reduced precipitation and increased evapotranspiration,

which results in a higher fraction of residual tritium in soil water than during winter or spring,

when there is greater non-tritiated water in the soil from precipitation. 

E Tunnel Pond (1,829 meters elevation, 6,000 feet elevation), located in Area 12 in the northern

part of the NTS was selected for monitoring because of its historically high levels of

contaminated water and soils (DOE 1998a). Bird trapping was conducted again at E Tunnel

pond in FY 2001 as in FY 2000 in an attempt to provide additional animal samples. Tippipah

spring was sampled as a control site during FY 2001(1,585 meters elevation; 5,200 feet

elevation). Whiterock Spring had been previously used as a control site, but results of limited

sampling in FY 2000 suggested that this site may have test related radionuclides. Vegetation

at the Tippipah Spring was previously described by Hansen and others (1997).

In addition, to ensure that radioactive concentrations in large game animals that may migrate

off the NTS do not pose a significant risk to humans potentially consuming them, regular biota

sampling at contaminated sites was supplemented with additional samples of large animals

(e.g., antelope) killed accidentally on NTS roads.

VEGETATION SAMPLING

Woody vegetation was primarily selected for sampling because it has been reported to have

deeper-penetrating roots with higher concentrations of tritium (Hunter and Kinnison, 1998). 

Additionally, this vegetation serves as a major source of browse for wildlife game animals that

might eat such vegetation and migrate offsite. Grasses and forbs were sampled where species

of woody plants were limited.

About 300 to 500 grams (10.6 to 17.6 ounces) of fresh-weight, green-leaf plant material were

collected from the current year’s growth. All plant samples consisted of a composite of material

from many plants in the area sampled. Plastic gloves were used by samplers and changed

between each sample collected. Green-leaf plant materials from shrubs and forbs were handplucked and stored in air-tight plastic bags. Grasses were sampled by cutting off plant material

with a clean utility knife blade. Samples were labeled and stored in an ice chest until delivered

to the laboratory (within two hours of collection). Plant samples were delivered to the laboratory

under standard chain of custody procedures and frozen until analyzed (DOE 1998a).

 

Plant samples were taken only at Tippipah Spring during FY 2001(Figure 5.19). Samples were

taken on October 1, 2001, and included representatives of the dominant annuals, grasses, and

shrubs. Samples included wetland species, as well as upland species. Wetland species

sampled included Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) and one dominant forb, hairy willowherb,

(Epilobium ciliatum). Upland Species included two woody shrubs, rubber rabbitbrush

(Ericameria nauseosa), four-wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia

stansburiana), and big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata). No trees were present at Tippipah

Spring. Approximate location of plant samples at Tippipah Spring was UTM Zone 11, 570810

Easting, 4099723 Northing.
5-18

Figure 5.19 Tippipah Spring Site Sampled for Biota - 2001

ANIMAL SAMPLING

State and federal permits were secured to take rabbits, Gambel’s quail, chukar, and mourning

doves during FY 2001. Animal trapping in FY 2001 consisted of about 20 trapping days. 

Trapping efforts were directed to mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), chukar (Alectoris

chukar), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii ), and

jackrabbits (Lepus californicus). Mourning doves are one of the few game animals that forage

on the NTS and migrate offsite; thereby providing a possible pathway of radionuclides in food to

man. The ecology of mourning doves is described elsewhere (Baskett, 1993). 

Traps were placed at two sites in FY 2001 to catch birds and rabbits. These sites included

Tippipah Spring, and E Tunnel Pond (Figures 5.19 and 5.20). At each site, a minimum of two

traps were set to different openings to allow rabbits or birds such as chukar, dove, or quail to

enter the traps. Trap locations were pre-baited from three to five days prior to setting traps, to

attract animals to each site. Pre-baiting consists of applying a large quantity of bait in the area

outside of traps to allow animals to consume bait and become adjusted to the presence of

traps. Dead shrubs and trees were also used to camouflage and cover the traps to provide

shade. Trapping was conducted throughout the month of July when birds were most abundant

and before numbers tapered off in early August when migration was in full swing.

Mourning doves and quail were trapped at Tippipah Spring at the same location where plants

were collected. Two chukars were collected at the E Tunnel Pond site (Figure 5.20). Trapping

location was UTM Zone 11, Easting 571740, Northing 4116080. No quail or doves were

observed at E Tunnel pond during trapping efforts in FY 2001. No rabbits were sampled at

either site.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-19

Figure 5.20 E Tunnel Pond Site where Gamebirds were Collected - 2001

Animals trapped were removed from traps by hand, killed, and carefully skinned before a meat

sample (e.g. breast meat of birds) was collected. Efforts were made to prevent dust on the fur

from getting onto the exposed meat during skinning of any animal. All meat samples were

taken by hand or with a scalpel while wearing clean plastic gloves. Gloves were changed

between samples to prevent any cross contamination. Meat samples were placed in a plastic

bag, labeled, and put on ice for transport to the laboratory for storage until analyzed. Bird

samples were typically small (30-50 grams). Meat samples of large mammals collected were

greater than 500 grams. 

Opportunistic sampling of one pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) roadkill occurred on

March 13, 2001, on the Mercury Highway (UTM Location-Easting 588220, Northing 4080380)

approximately one mile north of the Cane Spring Road intersection in Frenchman Basin. 

Field observations indicate doves arrive on the NTS during the month of April, and numbers

increase until about mid August, after which numbers begin to decline. It is reported that a

majority of mourning doves in Nevada migrate to south central Arizona during the winter 

(Baskett 1993). Chukar and quail are considered permanent residents of the NTS region. It is

not likely that chukar or quail migrate off the NTS in their lifetime because they are a short-lived

species. Most quail that were radio-marked near Yucca Mountain did not live longer than 15

months (TRW 1999). 
5-20

RESULTS

Plant Samples

Radionuclide activities detected in NTS Biota Samples in FY 2001 are shown in Table 5.12.

Strontium-90 was detected in only one sample of vegetation (fourwing saltbush) at Tippipah

Spring. The detected 90Sr activity was low and was 0.147 + 0.0579 pCi/g, with detection limits

of 0.0825 pCi/g. 

Tritium was detectable in only one vegetation sample (Stanburys cliffrose) at Tippipah Spring,

with very low activity levels of 319 +185 x 10-9 :Ci/mL (MDC of 301 pCi/L). Tippipah Spring

appears to be relatively free of radioactivity and is a good control site for biota sampling for

aquatic sites.

Animal Samples

Two mourning doves and two Gambel’s quail were collected from Tippipah Spring. Only one

sample from an adult dove (#2) had detectable quantities of man-made radionuclides in the

breast meat. The 238Pu activity from this individual dove was 0.0587 + 0.016 pCi/g with a

detection limit of 0.00936 pCi/g. This bird probably foraged in areas away from Tippipah Spring

where low levels of plutonium are known to be present in plants, soil, or water. Romney et al.,

(1970) found only trace amounts of Pu239 from the muscle tissue of small mammals and

jackrabbits sampled from plutonium contaminated areas on the NTS. The highest amounts of

Pu239 were found in the gastrointestinal tract, followed by the bone, and lungs of animals.

Two Chukars were collected for analyses at E Tunnel Ponds during FY2001. Both Chukars had

detectable quantities of 137Cs and tritium, while one additionally had 90Sr and 238Pu

(Table 5.12). The 238U concentration reported for the second chukar (Table 5.12) is reported for

informational purposes but is questionable because it was determined by gamma spectroscopy,

which is not as reliable for low uranium concentrations as alpha spectroscopy methods. Also,

samples of water and sediment from the E Tunnel Ponds taken in 2001 (Table 5.11), as well as

historically, have shown 238U to be at background levels and isotopic ratios not different from

natural sources and are therefore, considered to be natural uranium. The 137Cs concentrations

were 0.125 + 0.060 and 0.384 + 0.0748 pCi/g of wet tissue (MDC of 0.069 and 0.0587,

respectively). Tritium concentrations in water extracted from the muscle tissue were 247,000 ±

6500 x 10-9 and 213,000 ± 5620 x 10-9 :Ci/mL of extracted water (MDC’S of 889 and 823 pCi/L,

respectively). For comparison, the average concentration of tritium in water, for calendar year

2001, in the E Tunnel Ponds was 819,608 x 10-9 :Ci/mL (Table 5.11). Given the quantity of

tritium found in the chukars sampled, it is clear that the birds were using the E Tunnel Ponds as

a water source.

 

The 90Sr concentration measured in one chukar was 0.261 + 0.078 pCi/g (MDC of 0.0528). The

238Pu concentration was 0.00293 + 0.00329 pCi/g (MDC of 0.00293). E Tunnel Ponds water

samples taken during 2001 did not have detectable levels of 90Sr, and 238Pu was not measured

but for comparison, the average concentrations of 90Sr and 238Pu found in the E Tunnel Ponds

water sampled in 2000 were 0.96 ± 0.46 and 0.35 ± 0.22 pCi/L, respectively (BN 2001c). 

The pronghorn antelope road-kill sampled from Frenchman Flat during March 2001 had no

detectable man-made isotopes in the meat (Table 5.12).
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-21

5.5 RADIOLOGICAL DOSE ASSESSMENT

To assure that the general public and the environment do not receive radiation doses above the

limits specified in federal and state regulations or international recommendations, the following

radiological dose assessment for offsite residents and onsite biota is provided. This

assessment is based upon the pathways by which radionuclides on the NTS can reach and

deliver a dose to offsite residents, an estimate of the airborne emissions, the concentrations of

radioactivity measured in air and surface water samples (Section 5.1), and radiation dose

conversion factors specified by federal and international authorities. The pathways by which

radioactive emissions and effluents from the NTS can result in radiation doses to offsite

residents are:

! Inhalation of resuspended surface soil radioactively contaminated by past nuclear testing at

NTS and transported offsite by the winds.

! Inhalation of tritiated atmospheric moisture transported offsite by the winds from the

evaporation of the water discharged into containment ponds or ditches and the diffuse

transpiration of soil or vegetation moisture at the SEDAN site, the SCHOONER site and the

Area 5 Waste Management Facility.

! Ingestion of meat from migratory wild game animals which drink from surface waters and

eat vegetation containing test-related radioactivity while residing on the NTS.

! Ingestion of water potentially contaminated by underground deposits of radioactivity

created by past nuclear tests.

Since the migration of radioactivity in ground water has not been detected in the past nor in the

year 2001 (see Chapter 8.0), the pathways by which offsite residents could receive a radiation

dose from past or current activities on the NTS are limited to the first three pathways. The

radiation doses assessed herein are estimates based upon measurements of radioactivity in

surface water, air, and wildlife tissue and mathematical models that estimate emissions from

the resuspension of surface soils and relate the emissions to potential offsite radiation doses. 

The following sections identify the potential sources of onsite airborne emissions and liquid

effluents containing radioactivity, the estimated quantities released, and the atmospheric

diffusion model that is used for calculating the radiation effective dose equivalents (EDEs)

received by hypothetical offsite receptors. Although Federal regulations are for the EDE

received during the year, all dose factors used in the calculation of EDEs are for committed

effective doses; the calculated internal doses received up to 50 years depending upon the

biological half-life of the particular radionuclide delivering the dose. Also included is an update

of the assessment of radiation doses to terrestrial and aquatic biota that was begun in 2000. 

RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS

Known and potential sources of airborne emissions and liquid effluents containing radioactivity

are identified and listed in Table 5.13. All sources are on the NTS or Nellis Air Force Range

(NAFR) except for Building A-1, which is in North Las Vegas. A brief description of the methods

used for estimating the emissions is given below. More details about the sources and methods

used is reported separately (Grossman 2002). 
5-22

Laboratory Sources

The emissions for the laboratory sources reported in the past were based on the total quantities

found on inventory and assumed released into the air, although they were not. This year only

actual emissions are reported such as the 5.6 Ci of tritium gas that was consumed while

calibrating analytical equipment at Area 6 CP-50. 

The tritium emission for Building A-1 was estimated from tritiated atmospheric moisture

samples collected during the months of February and December and the rate by which air was

exhausted from the rooms. The assumed source of the tritium was the result of an accidental

release of 3H in July 1995 at a fixed radiation source range in the basement of Building A-1,

where residual contamination has persisted despite considerable efforts to remove it. 

Area Sources

The area sources in Table 5.13 are a summation of the estimated radionuclide emissions from

the individual areas on the NTS and from several contaminated sites on the NAFR (near

offsite). The major sources of tritium as HTO are attributed to the events SCHOONER 

(Area 20) and SEDAN (Area 10), the E Tunnel ponds (Area 12), a low-level waste burial pit in

Area 5 RWMS, and water pumped from Wells U-3cn PS#2 and ER-20-5 #3.

The emissions of HTO from SCHOONER, SEDAN, and Area 5 RWMS were estimated from the

annual average concentration of HTO at the nearest air sampling location and by backcalculating with CAP88-PC software (DOE 1997b) to determine what emission rate would be

required to produce the concentration average from the air sampling measurement. The

emission of HTO from the E Tunnel ponds was determined by multiplying the quarterly

measurements of HTO concentrations in the E Tunnel effluent by the water volume discharged

assuming that all the pond water evaporated. The emission from the two wells was estimated

from the concentration of HTO measured in the well water and the volume of water discharged;

all water was conservatively assumed to evaporate into the air. 

The emissions of 241Am and 239+240Pu were estimated for each NTS area for which an 

inventory was assessed by past in situ gamma spectroscopy measurements and soil sampling

(DOE 1991b). The inventoried amount on the ground surface in curies was used as input to a

resuspension model (NRC 1983) to estimate the emission rate. 

OFFSITE RADIOLOGICAL DOSE ESTIMATES

Dose from Airborne Emissions

The radiation doses to offsite residents from airborne emissions were estimated with CAP88-

PC software (Version 2.0), in accordance with Title 10 CFR, Part 61. The estimates are

described in detail in a report (Grossman 2002) to the Environmental Protection Agency. The

software required the following input:

! The annual emission rates calculated for each point/grouped source (Table 5.13).
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-23

! The estimated annual emission rates for each of the NTS areas with surface contamination

(Areas 1-11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, and 52 [NLVF]) (for brevity, total emissions

are summed for all areas in Table 5.13).

! Wind files that were constructed for Mercury, Area 12, Area 20, Yucca Flat, and Area 5

from wind rose and stability array data collected over a 10-year period.

! Location of populated areas within 80 km of the NTS sources of emissions.

The EDEs from each computer run for each emission source were summed for each populated

offsite location. The location at which a hypothetical receptor received the highest offsite dose

was Springdale, Nevada, where the CEDE was 0.17 mrem/yr. 

Dose from Consumption of Wild Game

Although hunting is prohibited on the NTS, there is the remote possibility that animals drinking

water and feeding on the NTS could migrate offsite where hunters could harvest them. No

human-made radionuclides were detected in the one pronghorn sampled on the NTS during

2001. Muscle tissue from the two chukars sampled during 2001 had detected tritium and 137Cs

with 90Sr detected in one sample (see section 5.4). Because the uranium source is natural, the

concentrations reported for U-238 in the chukar (Table 5.12) will not be used on dose

assessments. 

From hunting bag limits set by the state of Nevada 6 chukar per day with no more than 12

chukar in a hunter’s possession at any one time), and observed radionuclide concentrations, an

estimate of the Committed EDE (CEDE) to a hunter consuming 12 chukar was made. It was

assumed that the average weight of the sampled chukar breast tissue (100.9 g) was

representative for each of the 12 chukar consumed and that the measured moisture content of

the tissue (76 percent) was also representative. The CEDE was calculated using dose

conversion factors (DOE 1988) and the total activity consumed for each of the detected

radionuclides. The sum of the estimated CEDE (Table 5.14) for each radionuclide was 

0.07 mrem (7.0 x 10-4 mSv).

Total Offsite Dose to Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)

A summary of the NTS radiological doses for calendar year 2001 can be found in Chapter 1.0,

Table 1.2. Based upon the estimated airborne emissions of radioactivity from the NTS for all

possible sources, the maximally exposed individual (MEI) was calculated to be at Springdale,

Nevada, 58 km (36 mi) west-northwest of CP-1. The EDE to a hypothetical receptor at this

location was calculated to be 0.17 mrem/yr (1.7 x 10-3 mSv/yr), which is 0.17 percent of the 10

mrem/yr limit required by NESHAPs (CFR 1989). If the receptor at Springdale was the hunter

harvesting and ingesting the chuckars mentioned in the previous section, the person would

have received an additional 0.07 mrem/yr for a total EDE of 0.24 mrem/yr, which is 0.24

percent of the dose limit (DOE 1990b) to the general public. 

The Springdale dose is small compared to the gamma radiation background (154 mR/yr)

measured with a pressurized ion chamber (PIC) at Beatty (see Table 5.15) by the offsite CEMP 

(section 5.6). This radiation exposure in air measured by the PIC is approximately equivalent to

154 mrem/yr in tissue, but includes only the cosmic and terrestrial components of the natural

environmental background. The additional components of the background are the radiation
5-24

doses from the natural radionuclides

within the composition of our body,

primarily from 40K, and the radiation dose

that we receive from the inhalation of

naturally occurring radon gas (NCRP

1996). When all components of the

natural environmental background are

included in the total radiation dose that a

Springdale resident could receive, the

EDE from the calculated NTS emissions

is insignificant as shown in the diagram. 

Collective Population Dose 

The collective population dose, the product of a radiation dose and the estimated population

receiving it, was reported previously (Grossman 2002) for the estimated NTS emissions as 0.44

person-rem/yr within 80 km of the NTS points of emission. This dose is insignificant compared

to the population dose (13,940 person-rem/yr) for the same area from the natural environmental

background. The latter dose was estimated from the average of the annual gamma exposures

from cosmic and terrestrial radiations (123 mr/hr) reported for the 24 offsite PIC stations 

(Table 5.15) and the dose equivalents estimated by the National Council on Radiation

Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1996) for the remaining components of the natural

environmental background; the dose (40 mrem/yr) from the radionuclides that are naturally part

of the human body, primarily 40K, and the dose (200 mrem/yr) from the inhalation of naturally

occurring radon in the air we breathe. The gamma exposures in air measured by the PICs in

mR/yr are approximately equivalent to dose rates in mrem/yr; therefore the total dose from

environmental background was estimated as 363 mrem/yr (123 +40 + 200), which when

multiplied by the population (38,403) within 80 km of the points of emission results in a

collective population dose of 13,940 person-rem/yr. 

Onsite Biota Doses

The interim DOE Technical Standard, “A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to

Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota” (DOE 2000a) is being applied to the NTS to determine whether

DOE sponsored activities are meeting the dose limits to aquatic and terrestrial biota

recommended by the DOE Biota Dose Assessment Committee (BDAC). This technical

standard was derived to assist all DOE activities in complying with the dose limit to aquatic

organisms specified by Order DOE 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the

Environment” and the internationally-recommended dose limits for terrestrial biota. The intent

of the dose limits are to “protect the aquatic and terrestrial environment, including populations of

plant and animals, within and beyond the boundaries of DOE sites from impacts of routine DOE

activities” (DOE 2000a). The application of this technical standard will demonstrate whether:

! the absorbed dose to aquatic animals exceeds 1 rad/day (10mGy/day) from exposure to

radiation or radioactive material.

! the absorbed dose to terrestrial plants exceed 1 rad/day (10mGy/day) from exposure to

radiation or radioactive material.

! the absorbed dose to terrestrial animals will not exceed 0.1 rad/day (1mGy/day) from

exposure to radiation or radioactive material.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-25

The graded approach of this technical standard is a three-step process consisting of data

assembly, a general screening phase, and, if needed, a more detailed analysis phase. The

screening phase consists of determining whether the sum of the ratios of maximum

radionuclide concentrations in a medium such as soil or water to conservatively set biota

concentration guide (BCG) values is less than one. If it is, the absorbed dose to biota will be

less than the above prescribed limit for biota. As an aid to the screening phase, a set of

electronic spreadsheets (the RAD-BCG Calculator) was used with the technical standard

documentation to calculate and sum the concentration ratios. 

In 1999, a preliminary screening phase was completed for terrestrial biota on the NTS which

showed that the location with the highest radionuclide concentrations, Area 10, had a ratio of

only 0.325, based primarily upon the soil concentrations of 90Sr and 137Cs. Since this ratio was

less than one, the dose to terrestrial biota was less than 1 rad/day (10mGy/day). Soil

concentration data for this evaluation was based upon past surveys of NTS surface

contamination by in situ gamma spectroscopy measurements and soil sampling and analysis

(DOE 1991). 

No natural rivers or streams exist on the NTS, and no natural spring-fed ponds are known to be

contaminated but there is a set of tunnel drainage ponds at the Area 12 E Tunnel that have

existed for many years and support some aquatic organisms. Water and sediment samples

were collected from the E Tunnel ponds during 2001. Results from these (see section 5.3)

were input to the RAD-BCG Calculator, developed by DOE’s Biota Dose Assessment

Committee, to determine whether radionuclide concentrations were below those which may

result in a dose exceeding limits set to protect biota. Compliance is demonstrated by showing

the ratio of measured concentrations to conservatively estimated BCG is less than one. Three

runs were made with the RAD-BCG Calculator. Maximum radionuclide concentrations and a

full time resident scenario were input for the first screening which gave a sum of fractions of 2.0

with 137Cs in water accounting for approximately 93 percent of the total. More representative

average values and a 0.7 correction factor for time were then used which gave a sum of

fractions of 1.3. Again, 137Cs accounted for the majority at 94 percent. Both initial runs used

the default most conservative lumped parameters. A third run was made using average

concentration values and the 0.7 correction factor for time and allometric parameters which

gave a sum of fractions of 0.9, a level passing the screening phase. 

In all RAD-BCG Calculator runs, a riparian animal was listed as the organism with the most

limiting dose. At the E Tunnel ponds the only full time residents of the aquatic/riparian zone are

likely aquatic/emmergant insects (e.g. those in the Order Odonata). A number of animals,

however, use the ponds as an occasional or seasonal water source. These include small

mammals (e.g., rock squirrels, and mice), various passerine birds, swallows, mourning doves,

chukar, and mule deer. During 2001, two chukar trapped near the E Tunnel ponds contained

detectable radionuclides (see Section 5.4 and Table 5.12). Assuming the whole-body

concentrations were the same as those in the sampled muscle tissue, and using internal dose

conversion factors recommended by the BDAC, the average internal dose to the chukars was

estimated to be 0.003 rad/day (3.0 x 103-5 Gy/day) (Table 5.14). Using average water and

sediment concentrations and BDAC screening-level external dose coefficients, the external

dose was calculated to be 0.004 rad/d. The total dose to a chukar was estimated to be 0.007

rad/day. This value is below the dose limits specified by the technical dose standards for biota.
5-26

5.6 COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM 

The CEMP provides communities surrounding the NTS with radiological and weather data, and

is operated by the DRI of the University and Community College System of Nevada. During

calendar year 2001, there were 24 CEMP stations managed by DRI (Figure 5.21). Four

stations (Stone Cabin, Twin Springs, Nyala, and Garden Valley) were administered by EPA, but 

came under the purview of the CEMP in September of 2001. 

The CEMP stations include monitoring devices for direct measurement of gamma emitters and

high-energy beta particles such as TLDs and PICs, and low-volume particulate air samplers for

total suspended activity and radioactive particles. The PIC data are recorded in :R/hr, but no

attempt is made to equate this to a dose. The air sampler draws two cubic feet of air per

minute (at STP) through a paper filter. 

DRI has upgraded stations to enhance their technical capability as well as improve their service

to the public. The stations (Figure 5.22) are now equipped with a full suite of meteorological

equipment to measure air temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, incident solar

radiation, barometric pressure, and precipitation. 

DATA COLLECTION AND DISSEMINATION

All data collected by electronic sensors at the CEMP stations are stored in a datalogger.

Current data readings are displayed onsite and are updated every six seconds. Data are

transmitted by telephone landline, cellular phone, or GOES satellite when the preceding options

are not feasible. Data storage is designed to allow for 20 days of storage on the datalogger in

the event of communication loss. Collected data are transmitted once every three hours to the

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). The data from the stations are posted on a publicly

accessible WRCC web site at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp. 

COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORS (CEMs)

The primary objective of the CEMP is to involve residents of the communities surrounding the

NTS in offsite environmental monitoring. DRI employs local citizens, whose responsibilities

include monitoring the equipment, assisting with maintenance, and posting information on the

program and analytical results. The CEMs are also part of the chain of custody for the air

particulate samples, and are responsible for the weekly collection of air filters and for routing

them to DRI, where they are prepared for submission to an independent laboratory for analysis.

Through workshops, the CEMs are trained to independently verify the results of the

environmental monitoring, and become knowledgeable spokespersons on subjects ranging

from radiation detection to local environmental conditions. They become effective technical

liaisons between local and federal entities, helping to identify the environmental concerns of

people in their communities.

CEMP AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORK (ASN)

The inhalation of radioactive airborne particles can be a major pathway for human exposure to

radiation. The atmospheric monitoring networks are designed to detect environmental

radioactivity from both NTS and non-NTS activities, as well as natural sources. Data from

atmospheric monitoring can be used to determine the concentration and source of airborne

radioactivity and to project the fallout patterns and durations of exposure to the general public.
Tonopah

Goldfield

Sarcobatus Flats

Beatty

Amargosa Valley

Milford

Delta

Cedar City

St. George

Pioche

Caliente

Overton

Boulder City

Henderson

LAS VEGAS Pahrump

Indian Springs

Alamo

Medlin's Ranch

Rachel

Twin Springs Stone Cabin

Garden Valley

Nyala

OO RR EE GG OO NN II DD AA HH OO

AA RR II ZZ OO NN AA

NN EE VV AA DD AA

CC AA LL II FF OO RR NN II AA

UU TT AA HH

I84

I5

I40

I15

I80

5-27

Figure 5.21 CEMP, MET, PIC and Air Sampling Sites on or near the NTS - 2001

Air Surveillance Network

CEMP (Low-volume Air, MET, PIC and TLD)

MET, PIC and TLD Only

Nevada Test Site

Nellis Air Force Range

State Boundary

Primary Road

Interstate

Nevada

Test

Site

Nellis Air

Force Range

0 50 100 200

Kilometers

0 12.5 25 50 75 100 125

Miles

RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
5-28

Figure 5.22 The CEMP Station at Betty, Nevada
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-29

During calendar year 2001, the CEMP ASN consisted of 22 continuously operating low-volume

air sampling locations. Four additional locations at ranch sites previously administered by EPA,

came under the purview of the CEMP beginning in September 2001. Duplicate air samples are

collected from two routine ASN stations each week. The duplicate samplers are operated at

randomly selected stations for three months and moved to new locations.

The glass-fiber filters from the low-volume samplers are received at DRI, then prepared and

sent to an independent laboratory to be analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activity.

Samples are allowed to sit for 7 to 14 days after collection to allow time for the decay of

naturally occurring radon progeny. Upon completion of the gross alpha/beta analyses, the air

filter samples are returned to DRI to be recompiled on a quarterly basis for gamma

spectroscopy analysis.

CEMP THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETRY (TLD) NETWORK

External dosimetry is another of the essential components of environmental radiological

assessments. This is used to determine both individual and population exposure to ambient

radiation from natural or artificial sources. In calendar year 2001, the TLD program consisted of

24 fixed environmental monitoring stations. The primary purpose of the CEMP offsite

environmental dosimetry program is to establish dose estimates to populations living in the

areas surrounding the NTS. For quality assurance purposes, duplicate TLDs are deployed at

two randomly selected environmental stations. An average daily exposure rate was calculated

for each quarterly environmental exposure period, and the average of the four values was

multiplied by 365.25 to obtain the total annual exposure for each station. 

CEMP PRESSURIZED ION CHAMBER (PIC) NETWORK 

The PIC measures gamma radiation exposure rates, and because of its sensitivity may detect

low-level exposures that go undetected by other monitoring methods. PICs are in place at all

24 stations in the CEMP network. The primary function of the PIC network is to detect changes

in ambient gamma radiation due to human activities. In the absence of such activities, ambient

gamma radiation rates differ naturally among locations, as they may change with altitude

(cosmic radiation), radioactivity in the soil (terrestrial radiation), and may vary slightly within a

location due to weather patterns. Since the addition of a full suite of meteorological

instrumentation at the CEMP stations, variations in PIC readings caused by weather events

such as precipitation or changes in barometric pressure have become much more readily

apparent. These variations can be easily viewed by selecting the Time Series link from the

CEMP home page http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp after selecting a desired station, and then

selecting the desired variables.

ANALYTICAL RESULTS

Procedures and Quality Assurance

Several methods are used by DRI to ensure that air filter sample radiological results conform to

current quality assurance protocols. These methods include the use of standard operating

procedures, field duplicate samples, and laboratory quality assurance procedures.
5-30

Standard Operating Procedures

DRI standard operating procedures describe the methods, materials, and equipment required

for the collection and analysis of air filter samples. This includes equipment operation and

calibration procedures, sample collection technique, and preparation of samples for analysis by

an independent laboratory. Table 5.16 lists the types of analyses performed and methods

used.

Field Quality Assurance Samples

The collection of duplicate samples in the field is an important part of quality assurance

procedures. Two duplicate air samplers for the CEMP program are kept in the field at all times,

and are rotated among 20 stations on a quarterly basis. This results in the collection of up to

13 duplicate air filter samples for each station. The results of these sample analyses are used

to measure the repeatability of the collection and analytical technique. A summary of the

results is shown in Table 5.17. The average %RSD (Relative Standard Deviation) is a measure

of the precision of the analysis. This is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the

duplicate pair by the analytical mean then multiplying by 100 to obtain a percent.

Overall, the %RSD for all field duplicate analyses falls well within data quality objectives, only

slightly higher than the %RSD for the laboratory duplicate results. Gross alpha results from the

field duplicates individually show the most variation with about 5 percent of the duplicates

exceeding or showing borderline results in terms of data quality objectives. Given the fact that

equipment and field conditions are by far the most variable parameters in air sample collection,

these results are acceptable. The %RSD for all gross beta and gamma spectroscopy analyses

falls within data quality objectives.

Laboratory Quality Assurance Samples

Laboratory analyses were performed by Severn Trent Laboratories, St. Louis, Missouri. Quality

assurance controls consisted of published laboratory techniques, method blanks, control

samples, and duplicates. Method blanks consist of samples that are free of the analyte of

interest, and are used to determine if the laboratory itself is contributing to the analysis. Control

samples contain a known activity of the analyte and are used to assess the level of accuracy of

the analysis. Duplicates in the case of air filter samples are a second analysis of an individual

sample. These results indicate the repeatability of the analysis of interest. All gross alpha/beta

and gamma spectroscopy analyses fell within acceptable parameters.

AIR SAMPLING RESULTS

The CEMP ASN measures the major radionuclides that could potentially be emitted from

activities on the NTS, as well as naturally occurring radionuclides. The ASN represents the

possible inhalation exposure pathway for the general public. All glass-filter samples were

analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activity. Upon completion, the samples were returned

to DRI and compiled into quarterly composites. The quarterly composites were then analyzed

by high resolution gamma spectroscopy.

Gross Alpha

Gross alpha analysis was performed on all low-volume network samples. The annual average

gross alpha activity was 2.8 ± 0.7 x 10-15 :Ci/mL (1.0 ± 3 x 10 -4 Bq/m3). A summary of the

results is shown in Table 5.18. As in previous years, the results exceeded the analytical MDC

and overall showed similar values to previous years’ data.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-31

Gross Beta

Gross beta analysis was also performed on all low-volume network samples. As in previous

years, these results also exceeded the analytical MDC. The annual average gross beta activity

was 2.9 ± 0.2 x 10-14 :Ci/mL (1.1 ± 0.1 x 10-3 Bq/m3). A summary of the results is shown in 

Table 5.19. The results overall showed similar values to previous years' data.

Gamma Spectroscopy

Gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed on all samples from the low-volume network

samples. The air-filter samples were combined by station on a quarterly basis after gross

alpha/beta analysis. This results in the analysis of up to 13 air filters simultaneously for gamma

activity. All samples were gamma spectrum negligible (i.e., no gamma-emitting radionuclides

detected) relative to 137Cs, the main calibration point.

TLD RESULTS

There were 24 offsite environmental stations monitored with TLDs in 2001. The total exposure

for 2001 ranged from 71 mR (0.71 mSv) per year at Pahrump, Nevada, to 145 mR (1.45mSv) at

Garden Valley, Nevada, with a mean annual exposure of 106 mR (1.06 mSv) per year for all

operating locations. All results shown in Table 5.20 are consistent with recent years' results.

Overall, the 2001 results remain consistent with background levels observed in the United

States.

PRESSURIZED ION CHAMBER (PIC) RESULTS

The PIC data presented in this section are based on daily averages of gamma exposure rates

from each station. Table 5.15 contains the maximum, minimum, and standard deviation of daily

averages for the periods during 2001 when telemetry data were available. It also shows the

average gamma exposure rate for each station during the year, as well as the total mR/yr. The

mean ranged from 72 to 168 mR/yr. Background levels of environmental gamma exposure

rates in the United States (from the combined effects of terrestrial and cosmic sources) vary

between 49 and 247 mR/yr (BEIR III 1980). Averages for selected regions of the United States

were compiled by the EPA, and are shown in Table 5.21. The annual exposure levels observed

at the CEMP stations are well within these United States background levels.
5-32

Table 5.1 Descriptive Statistics for Gross Alpha in Air (x 10-15 :Ci/mL) - 2001

Area Location

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

%>

MDC

1 BJY 45 7.337 6.452 3.646 -0.132 18.653 95.6

2 2-1 Substation 26 6.859 5.810 3.248 3.257 14.290 92.3

3 Bunker 3-300 26 7.171 6.504 2.980 2.785 16.639 96.2

3 U-3ah/at N 46 6.986 6.456 3.021 2.084 17.081 95.7

3 U-3ah/at S 46 8.171 5.907 9.818 2.572 69.414 96.7

3 U-3bh N 45 6.586 5.979 2.841 2.330 15.011 91.1

3 U-3bh South 46 6.416 5.383 3.084 1.774 14.550 91.3

3 Well ER 3-1 25 6.443 5.825 2.621 2.485 13.273 92.0

4 Bunker T-4 24 6.255 5.808 3.254 0.864 15.612 87.5

5 DOD 45 6.497 5.806 3.076 2.127 14.659 90.0

5 RWM S 4 Northeast 33 6.515 5.968 2.505 3.375 13.567 100.0

5 RWM S 7 West 32 6.376 5.847 2.750 2.419 14.808 96.9

5 WEF Northeast 33 6.149 5.461 2.202 2.043 10.313 97.0

5 WEF Southwest 33 5.847 5.562 2.262 2.576 11.394 93.9

5 Sugar Bunker North 43 7.028 6.400 3.377 2.213 16.931 95.4

6 Yucca 26 7.285 6.158 3.705 2.206 19.210 92.3

7 UE7nS 46 7.004 6.806 3.104 1.291 15.617 94.6

9 Bunker 9-300 44 6.750 6.412 3.328 1.635 14.260 88.6

10 SEDAN North 24 6.685 5.648 3.077 1.483 13.677 91.7

10 Gate 700 South 43 6.043 5.160 3.247 1.382 14.316 90.7

15 EPA Farm 23 5.920 5.532 3.509 0.215 18.184 91.3

16 3545 Substation 41 5.761 5.032 2.847 1.602 15.110 92.7

18 Little Feller 2 N 26 6.700 6.634 3.339 1.510 16.100 92.3

20 CABRIOLET 20 5.628 4.446 3.005 1.801 11.570 85.0

20 SCHOONER 20 5.516 4.757 3.269 1.217 13.873 80.0

23 Mercury Track 20 5.360 4.826 3.876 0.120 15.736 75.0

25 E-MAD N 19 6.148 4.316 3.984 2.529 15.601 84.2

25 Guard Station 510 12 8.119 6.872 3.997 3.443 15.393 100.0

All Onsite Locations 912 6.605 5.847 3.769 -0.132 69.414 92.4
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-33

Table 5.2 Descriptive Statistics for Gross Beta in Air (x 10-14 :Ci/mL) - 2001

Area Location

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

%>

MDC

1 BJY 45 1.927 1.628 0.949 -0.291 4.084 93.3

2 2-1 Substation 26 1.598 1.511 0.719 0.518 4.099 100.0

3 Bunker 3-300 26 1.576 1.382 0.701 0.628 3.983 100.0

3 U-3ah/at N 46 1.901 1.686 0.843 0.765 3.970 100.0

3 U-3ah/at S 46 1.985 1.693 0.954 0.823 5.192 100.0

3 U-3bh N 45 1.856 1.698 0.752 0.850 3.951 100.0

3 U-3bh South 46 1.855 1.668 0.824 0.713 3.971 100.0

3 Well Er 3-1 25 1.583 1.523 0.762 0.415 4.306 96.0

4 Bunker T-4 24 1.444 1.492 0.628 -0.138 2.705 95.8

5 DOD 45 2.014 1.837 0.896 0.644 4.177 100.0

5 RWM S 4 Northeast 33 1.829 1.786 0.815 0.771 4.347 100.0

5 RWM S 7 West 32 1.835 1.695 0.853 0.451 4.334 96.9

5 WEF Northeast 33 1.809 1.610 0.799 0.809 3.882 100.0

5 WEF Southwest 33 1.816 1.608 0.836 0.832 3.985 100.0

5 Sugar Bunker North 43 2.110 1.915 0.989 0.583 4.708 100.0

6 Yucca 26 1.581 1.542 0.751 0.546 3.939 100.0

7 UE7nS 46 1.898 1.776 0.868 0.604 4.245 100.0

9 Bunker 9-300 44 1.938 1.698 0.782 0.997 3.927 100.0

10 SEDAN North 24 1.540 1.360 0.719 0.530 3.835 100.0

10 Gate 700 South 43 1.642 1.414 0.758 0.425 3.991 95.4

15 EPA Farm 23 1.345 1.383 0.640 -0.010 3.479 95.7

16 3545 Substation 41 1.768 1.717 0.750 0.480 4.019 100.0

18 LITTLE FELLER 2 N 26 1.562 1.484 0.702 0.328 3.694 100.0

20 CABRIOLET 20 2.264 2.165 0.764 1.433 3.749 100.0

20 SCHOONER 20 2.153 2.059 0.818 1.141 3.980 100.0

23 Mercury Track 20 2.338 1.974 1.213 0.154 5.411 95.0

25 E-MAD N 19 2.672 2.325 0.832 1.400 4.072 100.0

25 Guard Station 510 12 2.494 2.405 0.813 1.476 3.674 100.0

All Onsite Locations 912 1.856 1.692 0.853 -0.291 5.411 98.9
5-34

Table 5.3 Descriptive Statistics for 238Pu in Air (x 10-18 :Ci/mL) - 2001

Area Location

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

%>

MDC

1 BJY 12 2.76 2.30 4.28 -4.43 11.20 16.7

2 2-1 Substation 6 1.95 2.30 2.40 -1.29 5.54 0.0

3 Bunker 3-300 6 1.36 0.64 3.81 -2.38 8.47 16.7

3 U-3ah/at N 12 1.30 1.44 2.10 -1.42 4.59 8.3

3 U-3ah/at S 12 5.59 2.57 10.35 -0.78 37.04 12.5

3 U-3bh N 12 0.86 1.12 1.83 -2.74 3.41 0.0

3 U-3bh South 12 0.45 1.19 2.84 -4.18 4.70 0.0

3 Well ER 3-1 6 2.28 0.00 4.01 -1.01 8.53 0.0

4 Bunker T-4 6 13.67 7.34 16.35 1.43 46.15 33.3

5 DOD 12 0.71 0.30 1.60 -1.65 4.17 0.0

5 RWM S 4 Northeast 9 2.08 1.31 4.51 -2.99 12.29 11.1

5 RWM S 7 West 9 0.61 0.84 3.05 -3.30 5.25 11.1

5 WEF Northeast 9 1.07 1.60 1.98 -2.63 3.84 0.0

5 WEF Southwest 9 2.04 1.62 2.00 -0.52 6.40 0.0

5 Sugar Bunker North 3 1.83 3.75 3.35 -2.04 3.78 0.0

6 Yucca 12 1.29 0.55 3.18 -3.86 9.15 8.3

7 UE7nS 6 0.24 -0.38 2.51 -2.62 4.78 0.0

9 Bunker 9-300 12 3.02 2.08 3.23 -1.39 8.36 25.0

10 Sedan North 12 5.44 3.93 5.49 0.00 16.79 41.7

10 Gate 700 South 6 3.14 1.94 4.07 0.00 11.29 0.0

15 EPA Farm 6 0.90 0.94 3.80 -2.89 7.59 0.0

16 3545 Substation 6 0.60 0.70 1.01 -0.88 2.12 0.0

18 LITTLE FELLER 2 N 12 1.64 1.06 3.11 -1.39 10.90 8.3

20 CABRIOLET 6 2.37 1.81 3.12 -0.49 8.18 16.7

20 SCHOONER 12 1.27 0.71 1.95 0.00 6.98 0.0

23 Mercury Track 6 0.39 0.33 1.41 -1.38 2.58 0.0

25 E-MAD N 6 0.80 0.70 2.16 -1.75 4.24 8.3

25 Guard Station 510 6 1.16 0.00 2.28 -0.70 5.30 0.0

All Onsite Locations 243 2.15 1.28 4.87 -4.43 46.15 8.6
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-35

Table 5.4 Descriptive Statistics for 239+240Pu in Air (x 10-18 :Ci/mL) - 2001

Area Location

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

%>

MDC

1 BJY 12 83.56 18.84 144.56 0.95 454.40 58.3

2 2-1 Substation 6 5.07 6.07 5.25 -1.85 12.49 16.7

3 Bunker 3-300 6 36.15 22.46 36.98 2.87 84.66 50.0

3 U-3ah/at N 12 71.71 84.32 43.40 14.44 134.80 100.0

3 U-3ah/at S 12 302.29 39.01 753.61 5.03 2659.31 91.7

3 U-3bh N 12 44.40 22.02 81.46 1.04 298.36 75.0

3 U-3bh South 12 38.65 23.80 45.18 9.74 172.68 83.3

3 Well ER 3-1 6 5.22 4.96 5.08 0.00 13.36 33.3

4 Bunker T-4 6 49.98 17.83 70.17 6.14 186.91 66.7

5 DOD 12 1.66 1.16 2.21 -0.83 5.87 0.0

5 RWM S 4 Northeast 9 2.96 4.28 4.03 -3.08 9.32 11.1

5 RWM S 7 West 9 7.85 2.19 13.89 -1.21 41.73 22.2

5 WEF Northeast 9 3.12 2.39 2.69 0.00 9.11 33.3

5 WEF Southwest 9 7.41 5.22 12.81 -2.18 39.96 33.3

5 Sugar Bunker North 3 103.39 8.14 173.72 -1.87 303.89 66.7

6 Yucca 12 15.78 8.54 26.28 -1.14 96.44 29.2

7 UE7nS 6 6.29 4.06 6.12 1.30 16.97 16.7

9 Bunker 9-300 12 156.48 108.15 158.73 -2.63 503.94 83.3

10 Sedan North 12 173.45 27.71 350.98 5.49 1176.31 91.7

10 Gate 700 South 6 5.23 6.08 3.28 0.00 8.45 33.3

15 EPA Farm 6 6.05 5.17 4.79 1.44 14.01 0.0

16 3545 Substation 6 2.11 2.90 6.81 -10.57 9.55 0.0

18 LITTLE FELLER 2 N 12 4.31 3.05 5.70 -1.45 17.21 16.7

20 CABRIOLET 6 1.63 1.31 4.33 -3.88 8.48 0.0

20 SCHOONER 12 3.71 3.77 2.29 0.00 6.65 16.7

23 Mercury Track 6 -1.12 -0.61 2.74 -6.19 2.03 0.0

25 E-MAD N 6 2.73 2.95 1.96 0.00 4.67 8.3

25 Guard Station 510 6 1.89 2.99 2.71 -2.74 4.20 0.0

All Onsite Locations 243 49.31 6.45 200.59 -10.57 2659.31 42
5-36

Table 5.5 Descriptive Statistics for 241Am in Air (x 10-18 :Ci/mL) - 2001

Area Location

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum

%>

MDC

1 BJY 12 21.71 7.24 28.69 0.00 87.57 66.7

2 2-1 Substation 6 9.51 8.81 6.06 3.21 20.53 33.3

3 Bunker 3-300 6 14.58 10.67 12.81 2.02 38.88 83.3

3 U-3ah/at N 12 16.98 17.37 8.94 2.17 29.55 70.8

3 U-3ah/at S 12 57.00 21.34 114.66 4.61 415.95 91.7

3 U-3bh N 12 12.46 8.56 15.59 0.80 60.22 75.0

3 U-3bh South 12 13.90 9.48 13.66 2.15 53.70 83.3

3 W ell ER 3-1 6 9.94 6.82 8.46 4.21 26.72 50.0

4 Bunker T-4 6 18.92 13.87 19.16 3.34 56.23 83.3

5 DOD 12 6.22 4.88 4.89 0.00 17.07 41.7

5 RW MS 4 Northeast 9 6.12 6.61 2.60 2.46 10.04 66.7

5 RW MS 7 W est 9 7.81 7.10 4.95 2.86 19.08 44.4

5 W EF Northeast 9 7.39 7.35 2.75 4.06 10.93 66.7

5 W EF Southwest 9 8.63 5.58 7.63 2.41 25.62 55.6

5 Sugar Bunker North 3 51.33 51.27 17.63 33.74 68.99 100.0

6 Yucca 12 17.91 13.35 20.48 1.48 80.59 79.2

7 UE7nS 6 7.38 5.91 3.93 4.43 14.66 66.7

9 Bunker 9-300 12 32.92 26.45 24.53 6.57 75.98 100.0

10 SEDAN North 12 40.81 13.05 59.40 3.44 206.00 75.0

10 Gate 700 South 6 15.20 7.73 20.99 3.68 57.77 100.0

15 EPA Farm 6 9.53 7.82 6.01 2.33 17.01 50.0

16 3545 Substation 6 11.98 5.40 18.36 0.79 49.27 83.3

18 LITTLE FELLER 2 N 12 14.33 4.83 30.18 2.58 109.71 25.0

20 CABRIOLET 6 7.66 8.76 4.72 1.94 13.76 50.0

20 SCHOONER 12 10.34 6.85 9.56 3.12 35.58 66.7

23 Mercury Track 6 9.08 5.26 11.71 1.17 32.57 33.3

25 E-MAD N 6 9.07 7.55 5.62 4.23 18.47 33.3

25 Guard Station 510 6 7.03 4.88 4.86 3.39 16.18 83.3

 All Onsite Locations 243 17.03 8.27 33.56 0.00 415.95 66.7
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-37

Table 5.6 Descriptive Statistics for 233+234, 235+236, 238U in Air (x10-18 :Ci/mL)

Area Location Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

% >

MDC

Uranium-233,234

6 Yucca 122.4 117.2 44.8 62.6 194.8 91.7

16 3545 Substation 62.5 67.6 20.5 22.5 79.2 66.7

25 Guard Station 510 61.9 59.9 17.5 36.3 89.3 100.0

Uranium-235,236

6 Yucca 11.1 6.4 11.8 -0.1 31.6 0.0

16 3545 Substation 11.4 2.6 23.0 -0.8 58.3 0.0

25 Guard Station 510 9.2 5.8 10.3 -0.1 26.8 16.7(a)

Uranium-238

6 Yucca 94.2 94.1 43.8 38.6 167.0 91.7

16 3545 Substation 67.9 58.5 23.9 39.9 99.3 83.3

25 Guard Station 510 53.9 50.6 15.2 35.8 77.5 100.0

(a) One out of six analyses was above the MDC; however, this sample was considered a false positive

due to an uncertainty of ±90 percent in the measurem ent.
5-38

Table 5.7 Descriptive Statistics for 137Cs in Air (x 10-16 :Ci/mL) - 2001

Area Location

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

%>

MDC

1 BJY 12 0.16 1.13 4.18 -11.10 3.49 0.0

2 2-1 Substation 6 4.60 3.64 5.36 -1.50 14.07 0.0

3 Bunker 3-300 6 -1.20 0.03 3.49 -7.42 1.57 0.0

3 U-3ah/at N 12 0.71 0.60 3.60 -4.73 8.21 0.0

3 U-3ah/at S 12 1.08 -0.16 4.27 -2.89 12.76 0.0

3 U-3bh N 12 1.94 -0.11 4.70 -2.25 14.22 8.3

3 U-3bh South 12 0.58 0.52 2.92 -4.12 6.33 0.0

3 W ell ER 3-1 6 0.63 0.65 1.72 -1.78 3.01 0.0

4 Bunker T-4 6 3.94 3.81 9.31 -5.37 20.71 16.7

5 DOD 12 0.23 0.28 1.96 -2.96 3.28 0.0

5 RW MS 4 Northeast 9 0.66 -0.03 2.19 -2.25 4.57 0.0

5 RW MS 7 W est 9 -0.29 0.33 3.55 -6.17 5.02 0.0

5 W EF Northeast 9 0.86 0.00 3.38 -2.87 7.95 0.0

5 W EF Southwest 9 0.48 0.42 3.21 -4.49 6.94 0.0

5 Sugar Bunker North 3 -1.51 -1.30 0.44 -2.02 -1.23 0.0

6 Yucca 12 0.72 1.18 1.85 -2.44 3.31 0.0

7 UE7nS 6 -0.50 0.35 2.62 -5.36 2.14 0.0

9 Bunker 9-300 12 0.60 0.69 2.07 -1.79 4.45 0.0

10 SEDAN North 12 1.42 1.65 3.03 -1.78 8.00 0.0

10 Gate 700 South 6 -0.65 -0.74 1.10 -1.79 1.31 0.0

15 EPA Farm 6 1.95 1.58 5.34 -6.15 10.07 0.0

16 3545 Substation 6 0.02 0.06 1.86 -1.86 3.23 0.0

18 LITTLE FELLER 2 N 12 -0.17 0.00 2.05 -4.53 2.65 0.0

20 CABRIOLET 6 1.56 1.47 2.30 -1.10 5.29 0.0

20 SCHOONER 12 1.27 1.58 2.51 -2.84 6.89 0.0

23 Mercury Track 6 -0.27 0.19 2.08 -2.73 2.90 0.0

25 E-MAD N 6 1.91 2.10 1.59 -0.79 3.56 8.3

25 Guard Station 510 6 -0.58 -0.74 1.78 -2.27 1.75 0.0

 All Onsite Locations 243 0.75 0.42 3.38 -11.10 20.71 1.0
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-39

Table 5.8 Descriptive Statistics for Airborne Tritium Concentrations - 2001

3H Concentration (x 10-6 pCi/mL)

 Area Location

Number

 of Sample Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

 %>

MDC

Onsite Locations

1 BJY 26 1.48 1.35 1.38 -0.33 4.2 59.6

5 DOD 12 0.98 0.64 1.03 0 3.78 16.7

5 RWM S 4 Northeast 25 6.52 3.61 6.97 -0.12 21.86 76

5 RWM S 7 West 17 1.93 0.75 3.05 -0.48 11.81 35.3

5 RWMS 9 South 19 0.66 0.58 0.59 -0.27 1. 91 26.3

5 WEF Northeast 19 0.49 0.44 0.59 -0.45 1.8 5.3

5 Well 5B 11 -0.14 -0.28 0.34 -0.61 0.46 0

5 Sugar Bunker North 6 0.53 0.51 0.21 0.33 0.91 0

6 YUCCA 11 1.64 1.45 1.74 -0.01 6.16 54.6

9 Bunker 9-300 12 6.22 7.52 2.8 0.76 10.08 100

10 SEDAN North 22 13.07 8.33 12.23 1.62 42.29 100

10 Gate 700 South 13 0.89 0.99 0.53 0.06 1.85 46.2

12 E Tunnel Pond No. 2 26 10.71 6.74 9.29 0.41 24.99 84.6

15 EPA Farm 12 2.54 2.63 0.79 1.29 3.77 100

16 3545 Substation 13 0.92 0.39 1.73 -0.38 5.3 15.4

18 Little Feller 2N 12 0.3 0.6 0.53 -0.3 1.31 8.3

20 SCHOONER 24 399.39 330.62 366.53 18.68 1089.95 100

23 Mercury Track 13 0.07 -0.01 0.42 -0.86 0.71 0

25 Guard Station 510 13 0.86 0.27 1.65 -0.05 6.05 19.2

 All Onsite Locations 306 34.58 1.16 146.74 -0.86 1089.95 51.6
5-40

Table 5.9 Descriptive Statistics for TLD Annual Exposures, (mR/yr) - 2001

Area Location

Sample

Type

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

1 BJY (a) 3 102 102 1 101 103 

1 Bunker 1-300 (a) 4 130 130 2 128 133 

1 Sandbag Storage Hut (a) 4 119 119 3 116 122 

1 Stake C-2 (a) 4 123 124 4 119 127 

2 Stake L-9 (a) 4 189 188 8 180 200 

2 Stake M-140 (a) 4 141 140 4 136 145 

2 Stake N-8 (a) 4 716 710 24 694 749 

2 Stake Th-58 (a) 4 99 99 2 96 101 

3 A3 RW MS Center (d) 4 172 172 5 166 177 

3 LANL Trailers (a) 4 126 127 4 121 130 

3 RW MS East (d) 4 156 156 1 156 158 

3 RW MS North (d) 4 133 132 2 131 136 

3 RW MS South (d) 4 499 504 13 480 508 

3 RW MS W est (d) 4 134 134 1 133 134 

3 Stake A-6.5 (a) 4 155 156 3 150 157 

3 Stake OB-11.5 (a) 4 135 135 2 134 137 

3 Stake OB-20 (a) 4 93 93 2 91 96 

3 U-3co North (a) 4 235 234 3 233 240 

3 U-3co South (a) 4 173 172 2 171 175 

3 W ell ER 3-1 (a) 4 135 136 5 130 141 

4 Stake A-9 (a) 4 843 835 19 830 870 

4 Stake TH-41 (a) 4 117 117 3 114 119 

4 Stake TH-48 (a) 4 131 128 7 126 142 

5 3.3 Mi SE of Aggr. Pit (b) 4 80 65 30 63 125 

5 Bldg 5-31 (a) 4 126 126 3 124 130 

5 RW MS East Gate (d) 4 170 169 3 168 175 

5 RW MS Expansion NE* (d) 1 152 152 . 152 152 

5 RW MS Expansion NW* (d) 1 158 158 . 158 158 

5 RW MS NE Corner

(d) 4 126 126 0 126 127 

5 RW MS NW Corner (d) 4 140 140 5 136 145 

5 RW MS South Gate (d) 4 123 123 1 122 123 

5 RW MS SW Corner (d) 4 132 132 1 131 132 

5 W ater W ell 5B (c) 4 123 122 2 120 126 

5 W EF East (d) 4 132 132 1 131 133 

5 W EF North (d) 4 127 127 2 125 129 

5 W EF South (d) 4 133 133 2 131 135 

5 W EF W est (d) 4 143 142 2 141 145 

6 CP-6 (c) 4 75 75 2 73 77 

6 DAF East (a) 4 98 99 4 93 102 

6 DAF W est (a) 4 89 89 3 87 92 

6 Decon Facility NW (a) 4 125 124 3 122 129 

(a) Environmental Locations.

(b) Background Locations.

(c) Historical Locations.

(d) Waste Operations.

* Discontinued TLD measurements at this location after first quarter 2001.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-41

Table 5.9 (Descriptive Statistics for TLD Annual Exposures, [mR/yr] - 2001, cont.)

Area Location

Sample

Type

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

6 Decon Facility SE (a) 4 132 132 3 128 134 

6 Yucca Oil Storage

(a) 4 104 104 2 102 107 

7 Bunker 7-300 (a) 4 286 286 6 280 294 

7 Reitmann Seep (a) 4 132 133 3 127 134 

7 Stake H-8 (a) 4 141 141 1 140 142 

8 Road 8-02 (a) 4 136 136 3 134 139 

8 Stake K-25 (a) 4 109 109 1 109 110 

8 Stake M-152 (a) 4 177 177 3 174 181 

9 Bunker 9-300 (a) 4 131 132 2 128 133 

9 Papoose Lake Road (c) 4 85 86 2 83 87 

9 U-9cw South (a) 4 110 110 5 105 115 

9 V&G Road Junction (a) 4 120 120 2 119 123 

10 Circle & L Roads (a) 4 125 125 2 123 127 

10 Gate 700 South (c) 4 141 140 3 139 146 

10 Sedan East Visitor Box (a) 4 144 143 4 141 150 

10 Sedan West (a) 4 289 287 5 285 296 

11 Stake A-21 (a) 4 137 136 3 134 140 

12 Gold Meadows Spring* (b) 1 125 125 . 125 125 

12 T-Tunnel #2 Pond (a) 4 252 254 11 236 263 

12 Upper Haines Lake (a) 4 118 116 4 116 125 

12 Upper N Pond (a) 4 135 135 4 132 139 

15 EPA Farm (a) 4 119 118 2 118 121 

15 U-15e Substation (b) 4 101 101 1 100 102 

18 Stake A-83 (a) 4 152 151 6 147 161 

18 Stake F-11 (a) 4 160 158 9 152 172 

19 Gate 19-3P* (b) 1 153 153 . 153 153 

19 Stake C-27* (b) 1 152 152 . 152 152 

19 Stake P-41 (a) 4 178 177 4 174 182 

19 Stake P-77* (a) 1 154 154 . 154 154 

19 Stake R-26* (b) 1 164 164 . 164 164 

20 Stake A-118 (b) 4 161 160 7 153 170 

20 Stake J-31 (a) 4 195 198 8 183 202 

20 Stake J-41 (a) 4 145 145 5 141 151 

20 Stake LC-4* (b) 1 161 161 . 161 161 

22 Army #1 W ater W ell (b) 4 86 86 1 85 88 

23 Building 650 Dosim etry (c) 4 62 62 3 58 65 

23 Building 650 Roof* (c) 1 65 65 . 65 65 

23 Mercury Fitness Track (a) 4 84 84 2 82 87 

23 Post Office* (c) 1 78 78 . 78 78 

(a) Environmental Locations.

(b) Background Locations.

(c) Historical Locations.

(d) Waste Operations

* Discontinued TLD m easurem ents at this location after 1st Quarter 2001.
5-42

Table 5.9 (Descriptive Statistics for TLD Annual Exposures, [mR/yr] - 2001, cont.)

Area Location

Sample

Type

Number of

Samples Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Minimum Maximum

25 Gate 25-4-P (b) 4 144 144 1 143 145 

25 Guard Station 510

(b) 4 141 139 8 134 151 

25 Henre (c) 4 137 137 4 133 140 

25 Jckass Flats & A-27 Rds (b) 4 87 87 2 84 90 

25 NRDS W arehouse (c) 4 132 132 4 128 136 

25 Yucca Mountain (b) 4 146 146 4 140 150 

27 Cafeteria (c) 4 144 144 2 142 145 

30 Jct Cat Cnyon/Buggy Rd* (b) 1 193 193 . 193 193 

 Summary by Sample Type

 Environmental (a) 188 171 134 137 82 870 

 Background (b) 38 124 138 34 63 193 

 Historical (c) 34 110 125 32 58 146 

 Waste Operations (d) 58 165 134 93 122 508 

 All Locations 318 158 134 116 58 870 

(a) Environmental Locations.

(b) Background Locations.

(c) Historical Locations.

(d) Waste Operations

* Discontinued TLD m easurem ents at this location after 1st Quarter 2001.
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-43

Table 5.10 Listing of Atypical TLD Data Values - 2001

Area Location

Location

Mean

Mean for Other

Locations in Area

4 Stake A-9 (a) 843 124

2 Stake N-8 (a) 716 143

3 RWM S South (d) 499 138

10 SEDAN West (a) 289 137

 7 Bunker 7-300 (a) 286 137

12 T-Tunnel No. 2 Pond (a) 252 126

 3 U-3co North (a) 235 138

(a) Environmental Locations.

(b) Background Locations.

(c) Historical Locations.

(d) Waste Operations.

Table 5.11 Descriptive Statistics for Detected Radioactivity in E Tunnel Pond Water and 

Sediment - 2001

Media Radionuclide Mean Median

Standard

Deviation Min. Max.

%>

MDC

W ater 3H 818422 823430 13574 803780 824750 100

(x10-9 :Ci/mL) 137Cs 73.46 74 17.84 66.9 80.6 100

(N = 5) 234U 3.23 3.2 0.54 3.08 3.36 100

235U 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.03 0.13 100

238U 1.28 1.26 0.25 1.24 1.33 100

239+240Pu 3 2.98 0.5 2.77 3.3 100

241Am 0.19 0.2 0.06 0.18 0.2 100

Sediment 90Sr 3.27 0.84 5.03 0.65 8.31 67

(x10-9 :Ci/g)

137Cs 137.87 72.8 127.59 71.8 269 100

(N = 3) 234U 3.05 2.12 2.2 2.09 4.94 100

235U 0.12 0.14 0.22 0.01 0.2 33

238U 1.73 1.66 0.82 1.35 2.18 100

239+240Pu 7.04 3.31 8.06 2.92 14.9 100

241Am 0.62 0.24 1.04 0.11 1.52 67
5-4

4

 

Table 5.12 Radionuclide Activities in NTS Biota Samples - 2001

Concentration 

Scientific Name(a) %H20 x 10-9 :Ci/mL Concentration, pCi/g

Location Common Name Genus Species (%) Tritium(b) 137Cs 90Sr(b)

PLANT SAMPLES

 Tippipah Springs

1 Hairy willowherb Epilobium ciliatum 73.4 -73.5 ± 163(c) -0.0108 ± 0.101(c) 0.00355 ± 0.0427(c)

2 Hairy willowherb Epilobium ciliatum 73.5 -128 ± 164(c) 0.0294 ± 0.0982(c) 0.0365 ± 0.0476(c)

1 Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata 36.7 -101 ± 165(c) 0.148 ± 0.161(c) 0.0463 ± 0.0455(c)

2 Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata 50.6 109 ± 186(c) 0.0149 ± 0.0547(c) 0.0254 ± 0.0315(c)

1 Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens 43.1 22.7 ± 175(c) 0.00137 ± 0.0513(c) 0.00634 ± 0.0267(c)

2 Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens 38.3 -70.4 ± 168(c) 0.0107 ± 0.04(c) 0.147 ± 0.0759

1 Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa 54.2 -94.2 ± 178(c) 0.0205 ± 0.0665(c) 0.0223 ± 0.0229(c)

2 Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa 59.4 -1.9 ± 175(c) 0(c) 0.00654 ± 0.0264(c)

1 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 67.5 -97.5 ± 166(c) 0.116 ± 0.164(c) 0.0129 ± 0.0296(c)

2 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 55.9 25.9 ± 171(c) 0(c) -0.00591 ± 0.0366(c)

1 Stansbury cliffrose Purshia stansburiana 41.1 -24 ± 169(c) 0.0102 ± 0.0569(c) 0.00925 ± 0.0278(c)

2 Stansbury cliffrose Purshia stansburiana 43.8 319 ± 185 -0.0273 ± 0.0386(c) 0.0394 ± 0.0315(c)

ANIMAL SAMPLES

 Tippipah Springs

1 Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 69.6 -114 ± 169(c) 0.121 ± 0.0817(c) -0.0179 ± 0.0533(c)

2 Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 69.7 -20.3 ± 169(c) -0.0392 ± 0.112(c) 0.038 ± 0.0431(c)

1 Gambel's quail Callipepla gambelii 71.5 -28.7 ± 164(c) -0.0243 ± 0.0708(c) 0.0234 ± 0.0283(c)

2 Gambel's quail Callipepla gambelii (d) -29.7 ± 170(c) -0.0131 ± 0.054(c) 0.0177 ± 0.0251(c)

 E Tunnel Ponds

1 Chukar Alectoris chukar 74.3 213,000 ± 5,620 0.125 ± 0.0602 0.0234 ± 0.0408(c)

2 Chukar Alectoris chukar 76.9 247,000 ± 6,500 0.334 ± 0.0748 0.261 ± 0.078

 Roadkill Sample

Area 5 Mercury Highway Antelope Antilocapra americana 72.3 -601 ± 240(c) 0.00981 ± 0.0129(c) 0.0634 ± 0.0391(c)

 ± Error is the 2.0 Sigma Error, % H20 is the approximate percent water of sample on a dry weight basis, 40K is a naturally occurring radioisotope.

 (a) U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. The PLANTS database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. 

 (b) Activity levels result from subtracting background levels and may occasionally yield negative values.

 (c) Value was less than Minimum Detectable Activity.

 (d) Missing Data.
R

A

DIOLO

GIC

AL E

N

VIR

O

N

M

E

N

TAL P

R

O

G

R

A

M

S

5-4

5

Table 5.12 (Radionuclide Activities in NTS Biota Sam ples - 2001, cont.)

Scientific Name(a) %H20 Concentration, pCi/g

Location Common Name Genus Species (%) 238Pu(b) 239+240Pu(b) 241Am(b) 235U

238U

PLANT SAMPLES

 Tippipah Springs

1 Hairy willowherb Epilobium ciliatum 73.4 0.00394 ± 0.00472(c) 0(c) -0.339 ± 0.325(c) 0(c) 0(c)

2 Hairy willowherb Epilobium ciliatum 73.5 -0.00127 ± 0.00248(c) -0.00127 ± 0.00557(c) 0.0815 ± 0.491(c) 0.396 ± 0.0575(c) 0(c)

1 Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata 36.7 0(c) 0.00273 ± 0.00536(c) 0.0243 ± 0.172(c) 0(c) 0(c)

2 Big sagebrush Artemisia tridentata 50.6 0.00168 ± 0.00232(c) -0.00168 ± 0.00402(c) -0.127 ± 0.21(c) 0.0564 ± 0.527(c) 0(c)

1 Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens 43.1 0(c) 0.00084 ± 0.00366(c) 0.0516 ± 0.0443(c) -0.0283 ± 0.243(c) 0(c)

2 Fourwing saltbush Atriplex canescens 38.3 0.00184 ± 0.0108(c) 0.00551 ± 0.00807(c) -0.0599 ± 0.141(c) 0.225 ± 0.202(c) 0(c)

1 Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa 54.2 0.00081 ± 0.00158(c) 0(c) -0.0514 ± 0.196(c) 0.267 ± 0.359(c) 0(c)

2 Rubber rabbitbrush Ericameria nauseosa 59.4 0.0018 ± 0.00497(c) 0(c) 0.171 ± 0.341(c) 0.248 ± 0.295(c) 0(c)

1 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 67.5 0.00362 ± 0.0114(c) 0(c) -0.497 ± 0.606(c) 0 (c) 0(c)

2 Baltic rush Juncus balticus 55.9 0.00272 ± 0.00841(c) -0.00271 ± 0.00842(c) 0.274 ± 0.289(c) 0 (c) 0(c)

1 Stansbury cliffrose Purshia stansburiana 41.1 0.0025 ± 0.00712(c) 0(c) -1.32 ± 0.179(c) 0.081 ± 0.378(c) 0(c)

2 Stansbury cliffrose Purshia stansburiana 43.8 -0.0048 ± 0.00727(c) 0.00192 ± 0.00376(c) -0.0721 ± 0.138(c) 0.174 ± 0.229(c) 0(c)

ANIMAL SAMPLES

 Tippipah Springs

1 Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 69.6 -0.00241 ± 0.00414(c) 0(c) -0.0426 ± 0.313(c) 0.129 ± 0.651(c) 0(c)

2 Mourning dove Zenaida macroura 69.7 0.0587 ± 0.016 0.00487 ± 0.00576(c) 0.245 ± 0.36(c) 0.293 ± 0.523(c) 3.23 ± 5.73(c)

1 Gambel's quail Callipepla gambelii 71.5 0(c) 0(c) 0.0811 ± 0.212(c) 0.451 ± 0.325(c) 0(c)

2 Gambel's quail Callipepla gambelii (d) 0.00176 ± 0.00343(c) 0.00963 ± 0.00794(c) 0.0435 ± 0.181(c) 0.141 ± 0.44(c) 0.443 ± 2.53(c)

 E Tunnel Ponds

1 Chukar Alectoris chukar 74.3 -0.000733 ± 0.00428(c) 0.00146 ± 0.00454(c) -0.0199 ± 0.119(c) 0.0256 ± 0.2(c) 0.301 ± 2.24(c)

2 Chukar Alectoris chukar 76.9 0.00293 ± 0.00329 -0.00194 ± 0.00381(c) 0.206 ± 0.198(c) 0.262 ± 0.363(c) 4.25 ± 3.19

 Roadkill Sample

Area 5 Mercury Highway Antelope Antilocapra americana 72.3 0.00156 ± 0.00305(c) 0(c) -0.0507 ± 0.0431(c) 0.0216 ± 0.114(c) 0(c)

± Error is the 2.0 Sigma Error, % H20 is the approximate percent water of sample on a dry weight basis, 40K is a naturally occurring radioisotope.

(a) U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1996. The PLANTS database. National Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA. 

(b) Activity levels result from subtracting background levels and may occasionally yield negative values.

(c) Value was less than Minimum Detectable Activity.

(d) Missing Data.
5-46

Table 5.13 Summary of Annual Radionuclide Emissions by Source (a) (Multiply Ci by 37

to obtain Gbq) - 2001

Location

Source

Type Radionuclide

Half-Life

 (years)

Quantity

 (Ci)

Area 6, CP-50 Laboratory Point 3H 12.35 5.6

Area 52, Building A-1, North Las Vegas Point 3H 12.35 0.2

Onsite Area 3H

(b) 12.35 558

Total 3H 564

Onsite Area 239+240Pu(c) 24065 2.9 x 10-1

Near Offsite, NAFR Area 239+240Pu(c) 24065 3.2 x 10-2

Total 239+240Pu 3.2 x 10-1

Onsite Area 241Am(c) 432.2 4.7 x 10-2

Near Offsite, NAFR Area 241Am(c) 432.2 2.0 x 10-3

Total 241Am 4.9 x 10-2

(a) All locations on or near the NTS except Building A-1, which is in North Las Vegas.

(b) Emissions based on environmental air sampling data at (RWMS-5, SCHOONER and SEDAN), 

tritiated water discharged from the E Tunnel and tritiated water pumped from Wells U-3cn PS #2 

and ER-20-5 #3.

(c) Emission based upon resuspension model (DOE 1992).
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-47

Table 5.14 Hypothetical Dose for a Human Consum ing Chukar from the E Tunnel Ponds and Estimates

for Dose to Chukar at E Tunnel Ponds - 2001

Media Radionuclide

Average

Concentration

(pCi/g - wet)

CEDE

Factors

(mrem per pCi

consumed)(a)

 Dose

(mrem)

Chukar Breast

Tissue

3H 230(b) 6.3 x 10-8 0.018

137Cs 0.23 5.0 x 10-5 0.019

90Sr 0.14 1.3 x 10-4 0.029

Total Dose to

Human

Consuming 12

Chukar 0.07

Media Radionuclide

Average

Concentration

(pCi/g)

Dose

Factors/Coefficients(c)

(rad/d per pCi/g)

 Dose

(rad/day)

Chukar Breast

Tissue(d)

3H 175 1.07 x 10-5 0.0019

137Cs 0.23 1.59 x 10-3 0.0004

90Sr 0.14 2.15 x 10-3 0.0003

Total Internal

Dose to Chukar 0.003

Pond Water 3H 819.6 1.5 x 10-7 1.2 x 10-4

137Cs 7.2 x 10-2 2.0 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-6

239/240Pu 3.0 x 10-3 2.5 x 10-7 7.6 x 10-10

241Am 2.0 x 10-4 1.5 x 10-6 3.0 x 10-10

Sediment 90Sr 4.74 2.9 x 10-5 1.4 x 10-4

137Cs 170.65 2.0 x 10-5 3.4 x 10-3

239/240Pu 8.43 2.5 x 10-7 2.1 x 10-6

241Am 0.86 1.5 x 10-6 1.3 x 10-6

Total External

Dose to Chukar 0.004

Total Dose to

Chukar 0.007

(a) Dose Factors for human ingestion from DOE/EH-0071. It was assumed that a person ate 134 grams

of muscle tissue from each of 12 chukars.

(b) Concentration of tritium in water (pCi/mL) extracted from chukar tissue by vacuum distillation. 

Average muscle tissue water content, by weight, was 76 percent.

(c) Dose factors or coefficients for dose to chukar recommended by DOE's Biota Dose Assessment

Committee.

(d) Concentration in sampled breast meat (wet) assumed the same as whole chukar.
5-48

Table 5.15 Summary of Gamma Exposure Rates (μR/hr) as Measured by PIC - 2001

Sampling

Location Maximum Minimum

Standard

Deviation Average mR/Year

Alamo 18 12.6 1.02 14.6 128

Amargosa Center 15.9 11.7 0.23 12.4 108

Beatty 22.3 16 0.44 17.6 154

Boulder City 18.9 12.4 0.29 13.9 122

Caliente 21.2 11.2 0.43 16.7 146

Cedar City 15.9 8.6 0.51 10.1 88

Delta 16 10 0.35 11.8 104

Garden Valley 20.6 13.2 0.54 15.9 139

Henderson 19.7 8.6 0.38 15 131

Goldfield 19.6 12.1 0.62 14.9 130

Indian Springs 30.6 8.9 0.93 10.7 93

Las Vegas 14 10.6 0.22 11.2 98

Medlins Ranch 23.3 14.3 0.32 15.5 136

Milford 22.4 14.8 0.61 17.3 151

Nyala 16.3 11.5 0.52 12.9 113

Overton 16.9 7.6 0.38 10.6 93

Pahrump 11.9 6.8 0.26 8.2 72

Pioche 17.2 8.5 0.4 15.1 133

Rachel 19.4 9.2 0.42 15.1 133

St. George 12.6 7.2 0.59 8.5 75

Sarcobatus Flats 20.9 14.8 0.77 17.1 150

Stone Cabin 26.1 14.9 0.76 17 150

Tonopah 24.9 14.4 0.55 16.9 148

Twin Springs 43.3 17.4 0.78 19.2 168
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-49

Table 5.16 Air Filter Analyses and Techniques

Analyte

Collection

 Time

Minimum Holding 

Time Method

Gross Alpha 168 hours 168 hours DOE RP-710 mod

Gross Beta 168 hours 168 hours DOE RP-710 mod

Gamm a Spectroscopy Quarterly Composite None EPA 901.1 mod

Table 5.17 Results of Field and Laboratory Quality Assurance Samples - 2001

Analyte

Number of Field

Duplicates

Average

%RSD

Number of

Laboratory

Duplicates

Average

 %RSD

Gross Alpha 102 13.5 119 10.7

Gross Beta 102 4.5 119 2..8

Gamm a 7Be 8 10.3 8 9.2

Gamma 210Pb 8 4.2 8 0
5-50

Table 5.18 Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 2001

Concentration (10-15 :Ci/mL [37 :Bq/m3])

Sampling

Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean

Standard

Deviation

Alamo 52 7.4 1.4 3.7 1.6

Amargosa Center 52 7.9 1 3.5 1.9

Beatty 52 8.2 0.8 3.2 1.6

Boulder City 52 8.2 0.7 3.3 1.6

Caliente 52 5.8 1 2.7 0.9

Cedar City 52 7.6 1.1 4.1 1.8

Delta 50 5.1 1 2.2 0.8

Garden Valley 17 3.2 1 2 0.7

Goldfield 52 5.1 0.9 2.4 0.9

Henderson 52 6.8 0.4 2.8 1.4

Indian Springs 51 4.7 0.5 2.2 0.9

Las Vegas 52 8.4 1.4 3.5 0.9

Milford 52 5.8 1 2.6 0.9

Nyala 17 3.1 0.8 1.7 0.6

Overton 50 6.6 1 3 1.3

Pahrump 52 5.3 0.8 2.6 1.2

Pioche 52 4.3 1 2.2 0.8

Rachel 33 8.7 0.5 2.8 1.8

St. George 52 4.6 0.8 2.4 0.9

Stone Cabin 18 5.8 1.8 3.5 1.1

Tonopah 50 5.5 0.8 2.5 1.1

Twin Springs 17 3.6 1.1 2 0.7

Mean MDC = 6.8 x 10-16 :Ci/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 1.5 x 10-16 :Ci/mL
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-51

Table 5.19 Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 2001

Concentration (10-14 μCi/mL [0.37 mBq/m3])

Sampling

Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean

Standard

Deviation

Alamo 52 7.6 1.4 2.9 1

Amargosa Center 52 5.3 1.1 2.8 0.8

Beatty 52 4.9 1 2.7 0.7

Boulder City 52 5 1 2.8 0.8

Caliente 52 5.1 1.3 3 0.9

Cedar City 52 4.7 1.5 2.8 0.7

Delta 50 6 1.1 2.8 0.9

Garden Valley 17 4.2 1.6 3.2 0.7

Goldfield 52 5.5 1.2 2.7 0.8

Henderson 52 4.8 1.1 2.7 0.8

Indian Springs 51 4.4 1 2.6 0.8

Las Vegas 52 5.1 1.3 2.8 0.8

Milford 52 7.5 1.4 3.1 1.1

Nyala 17 3.9 1.9 2.7 0.6

Overton 50 4.8 1.3 2.9 0.8

Pahrump 52 5.2 1.1 2.6 0.8

Pioche 52 4.4 1 2.6 0.7

Rachel 33 4.8 0.6 2.9 0.9

St. George 51 5 1.4 2.9 0.9

Stone Cabin 18 5.2 1.7 3 0.9

Tonopah 50 4.9 1.2 2.7 0.8

Twin Springs 16 5.4 2.3 3.5 0.8

Mean MDC = 1.24 x 10-15 :Ci/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 0.11 x 10-15 :Ci/mL
5-52

Table 5.20 TLD Monitoring Results for Offsite Stations - 2001

Daily Exposure (mR)

Sampling 

Location Days Minimum Maximum Mean

Total (mR)

Exposure

Alamo 365 0.26 0.3 0.28 103

Amargosa Center 366 0.24 0.29 0.26 94

Beatty 365 0.33 0.43 0.38 138

Boulder City 366 0.24 0.28 0.26 94

Caliente 280 0.29 0.33 0.32 115

Cedar City 366 0.19 0.25 0.23 84

Delta 365 0.21 0.29 0.26 93

Goldfield 365 0.29 0.33 0.31 113

Garden Valley 98 N/A N/A 0.4 145

Henderson 366 0.27 0.3 0.29 107

Indian Springs 366 0.21 0.26 0.24 86

Las Vegas 366 0.18 0.23 0.21 77

Medlins Ranch 369 0.32 0.36 0.34 125

Milford 365 0.33 0.36 0.35 126

Nyala 100 N/A N/A 0.25 91

Overton 366 0.19 0.24 0.22 81

Pahrump 366 0.16 0.23 0.2 71

Pioche 365 0.2 0.29 0.26 94

Rachel 365 0.3 0.36 0.33 120

Sarcobatus Flats 370 0.35 0.37 0.36 133

St. George 365 0.17 0.22 0.21 76

Stone Cabin 99 N/A N/A 0.32 118

Tonopah 365 0.34 0.37 0.35 128

Twin Springs 98 N/A N/A 0.37 134
RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

5-53

Table 5.21 Average Natural Background Radiation for Selected U.S. Cities (Excluding Radon)

City Radiation (mrem/yr)

Denver, CO 164.6

Tampa, FL 63.7

Portland, OR 86.7

Los Angeles, CA 73.6

St. Louis, MO 87.9

Rochester, NY 88.1

Wheeling, WV 111.9

Richmond, VA 64.1

New Orleans, LA 63.7

Fort Worth, TX 68.7

Note: From http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp/Radiation.html (“Radiation in Perspective,” August 1990).
5-54

Frenchman Flat in the Spring (No Date Provided)
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-1

6.0 NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROGRAMS

The 2001 nonradiological monitoring program for the Nevada Test Site

(NTS) included onsite sampling of various environmental media and

substances for compliance with federal and state regulations or permits

and for ecological studies. The Ecological Monitoring and Compliance

(EMAC) program performed biological surveys at proposed construction

sites, ecosystem mapping/data management, monitoring of sensitive

species and unique habitats, and reviews of Hazardous Materials Spill

center (HSC) test plans. In 2001, nonradiological monitoring was

performed for six series of test involving 24 chemicals that were at the

HSC.

6.1 WATER SURVEILLANCE

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA)

Four public water system permits were maintained on the NTS (see Table 3.4) until October 1,

2001. At that time, the permit for the Area 1 public water system was dropped because of the

lack of active service connections. The two community water systems were converted to noncommunity water systems at that time to reflect changes in the use of facilities at the NTS. The

NTS also operates two permitted water hauling trucks. All other water systems on the NTS are

considered private water systems and are operated outside of the scope of state and federal

regulations.

In 2001, water sampling was conducted for analysis of coliform bacteria, volatile organic

compounds, inorganic chemicals, lead, copper, nitrates, and fluoride as required by the SDWA,

state of Nevada regulations, and the NTS Contaminant Monitoring Waivers. Samples were

collected from supply wells for nitrates, fluoride, volatile organic compounds, and inorganic

chemicals. Samples were also collected from taps within the drinking water distribution

systems for coliform bacteria, lead, and copper. All samples were collected in accordance with

accepted practices, and the analyses were performed by state-approved laboratories. 

Approved analytical methods listed in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A (NAC 1996)

and Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 141 were used. 

Bacteriological Sampling

All water distribution systems were tested either monthly or quarterly for coliform bacteria, with

the number of people being served determining the number of samples collected and the

frequency (see Table 6.1). If coliform bacteria are present, confirmation samples are collected,

and the source of contamination is determined by the water system operator. The NV000360

systems tested positive for coliform bacteria in June and July 2001, and positive for E. coli in

July 2001. All confirmation and repeat samples were negative. Investigation revealed sample

handling at the subcontracted laboratory to be the source of contamination. The laboratory

invalidated the samples, and the distribution systems did not exceed the Maximum contaminant

Level (MCL).
6-2

Samples from permitted water hauling trucks were analyzed monthly for coliform bacteria. The

sample from one truck tested positive for coliform bacteria in April, May, June, and July, while

the other truck tested positive in July. After each incident, the trucks were disinfected and

flushed. Repeat samples were all negative. It was determined that improper sample handling

after collection caused the positive results. The July samples were invalidated by the

subcontracted laboratory as explained above.

Organic Compound Analysis

In accordance with the monitoring waivers issued in 1996, the National Nuclear Security

Administration, Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV) collected Volatile Organic Compound

(VOC) samples in 2001. No VOCs were detected in NTS water supply wells. 

Metal Analysis

Samples were collected from taps in the Area 12 public water system (NY-4099-12C) in the

third quarter and analyzed for lead and copper. All results were below the action level of 1.3

mg/L for copper. Lead results, however, exceeded the 0.015 mg/L action level. The samples

were collected from the Miners’ Change House (Building 12-43), the Teamster Building

(Building 12-12), and from a hose connection outside Building 12-43. Lead solder is the cause

of the high concentration of lead. The NNSA/NV is in the process of determining a remedy for

this situation, but in the interim, the water is only being used for non-consumption purposes. 

Water for drinking is supplied from a lead-free source. 

Reduced monitoring for lead and copper is in effect in the other two water systems 

(NY-0360-12C and NY-4098-12NTNC).

Other Inorganic Chemical Analysis

To comply with a 1991 variance to the Area 25 water system permit, fluoride samples are

collected annually from the two wells in Area 25 (NY-4098-12NTNC) before July 31 to confirm

that the fluoride concentration is less than four parts per million. Samples taken from Area 25

Wells J-12 and J-13 in the first quarter of 2001 confirmed that the fluoride concentrations were

acceptable. 

During the first quarter of 2001, samples were collected from each supply well and analyzed for

nitrates and Phase V Inorganic Chemicals. All results were within acceptable limits. 

The results of inorganic analyses are shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3 respectively.

Inspections

The Nevada Bureau of Health Protection Services performed a formal inspection of the

permitted water hauling trucks and reported no findings or discrepancies.

6.2 AIR SURVEILLANCE

Air quality monitoring for the criteria pollutants is not required for the NTS. With the exception

of the air permit for the HSC, the permits issued by the state of Nevada require opacity and

material throughput measurements. The HSC received a waiver by the state from adhering to

opacity limits, due to the nature of its operations. Nonradiological monitoring is required by the

HSC’s air permit, and was conducted for six series of tests conducted at the HSC in 2001.
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-3

MONITORING OF NTS OPERATIONS

Routine nonradiological environmental monitoring on the NTS in 2001 was limited to the HSC

air permit requirements and asbestos sampling in conjunction with asbestos removal and

renovation projects, in accordance with occupational safety and National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants compliance. 

The HSC was established in Frenchman Flat in Area 5 as a basic research tool for studying the

dynamics of accidental releases of various hazardous materials and the effectiveness of

mitigation procedures. In addition to the state of Nevada air permit monitoring requirements,

offsite monitoring of HSC tests may be required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA). Prior to each HSC test series, and, at other tests in the series depending on projected

need, the documentation describing the tests are reviewed by the EPA to determine whether

appropriate air sampling equipment should be deployed downwind of the test at the NTS

boundary to measure chemical concentrations that may have reached the offsite area. During

2001, no monitoring was required.

6.3 ECOLOGICAL MONITORING

The EMAC program is designed to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations,

delineate and define NTS ecosystems, and provide ecological information that can be used to

predict and evaluate the potential impacts of proposed projects and programs on those

ecosystems. EMAC tasks conducted in 2001 included biological surveys for sensitive species

at proposed project locations, ecosystem mapping/data management, sensitive species and

habitat monitoring, and reviews of HSC test plans. 

BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS

Biological surveys are performed at proposed project sites where land disturbance will occur. 

The goal is to minimize adverse effects of land disturbance on sensitive plant and animal

species, their associated habitat, and important biological resources. Sensitive species include

those protected under state or federal regulations which are known or suspected to occur on

the NTS (Table 6.4). Important biological resources include such things as cover sites, nest or

burrow sites, roost sites, or water sources important to sensitive species. Survey reports are

written to document species and resources found and to provide mitigation recommendations.

Biological surveys for 26 projects were conducted in 2001 on or near the NTS (Figure 6.1,

Table 6.5). For some of the projects, multiple sites were surveyed. A total of 901.4 acres was

surveyed for the projects (Table 6.5).

Fifteen of the projects had sites within the range of the threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus

agassizii) (Figure 6.1). Sensitive species (or their sign) and important biological resources

found within proposed project boundaries included nesting barn owls, sensitive plant

populations, potential tortoise burrows, kit fox dens, predator burrows, Joshua trees, and cacti

(Table 6.5). A pair of breeding barn owls was found in each of two buildings scheduled for

demolition (Projects 01-06 and 01-18). A known population of Clokey’s eggvetch (Astragalus

oophorus var. clokeyanus) in Area 12 occurs within a proposed disturbance area for the U12v 
373

160

95

95

3 0

2 9

1 8

2 5

5

6

2 0 1 9

1 3

2 7

1 2

9

2

7

1 5

1 7

2 2

4

1 6

8

1 4

1 1

2 6

1 0

2 3

6-4

Figure 6.1 Biological Surveys Conducted on the NTS - 2001

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Survey Site

Survey Boundary

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-5

Tunnel Seismic Lines project (Project 01-23). A new population of Pahute Mesa beard tongue

(Penstemon pahutensis) was found in Area 12 on Rainier Mesa during surveys for the same

project. The most extensive surveys conducted were transect surveys along approximately 

160 miles of staked lines over an 8,700-acre area in Frenchman Flat where geo-seismic studies

were conducted (Project 01-21). Off-road driving will occur along these lines by trucks creating

seismic vibrations and by equipment trucks needed to place and retrieve geophones. Active

predator and kit fox burrows were the only significant resources found during these extensive

transect surveys. 

HABITAT MAPPING

In fiscal year (FY) 1996, efforts began to map wildlife and plant habitats of the NTS. Field data

were collected, analyzed, and preliminary maps created to show basic habitat features. 

Databases were developed and linked to geographic information system (GIS) maps to

facilitate creation of habitat-physical feature maps. Emphasis during 2001 was on publication of

the report describing the classification of vegetation on the NTS and on the compilation of

historical species-specific wildlife collection and sighting data from the NTS. 

The topical report “Classification of Vegetation on the Nevada Test Site” (Ostler et al., 2001)

was published and distributed in 2001. Ten vegetation alliances and twenty associations were

recognized as occurring on the NTS. Two major vegetation groups or ecoregions, Mojave

Desert and Great Basin Desert, are identified along with the broad Transition Zone between

these two ecoregions. Analysis of species diversity (richness or the number of species) of

perennial trees and shrubs is presented. Species richness of woody species was greatest in

the Great Basin Desert compared to associations in the Transition Zone and the Mojave Desert. 

Similar species diversity patterns were also observed for all combined perennial species on the

NTS. Several appendices are presented that provide details of vegetation on the NTS,

including lists of all species that have been recorded on the NTS and the vegetation alliances

where they are commonly found, relative abundance and frequency values for species in

vegetation alliances and associations, and species names and codes. 

This year, work started on entering location coordinates into the Ecological GIS (EGIS) fauna

database for historical animal sighting and specimen collection sites on the NTS. The data will

be used to link animal distribution data to the vegetation classification data gathered from

Ecological Landform Units (ELUs). A review of all published vertebrate and invertebrate

inventories and research performed on the NTS was conducted to identify geographical

information. Other sources searched included field notes from past and present researchers on

the NTS and collection records for vertebrate specimens maintained at the Brigham Young

University museum in Provo, Utah. Wildlife observations made by Bechtel Nevada (BN)

biologists or reported to Ecological Services by NTS workers are also maintained in the EGIS

animal database, and new wildlife observations were entered into the EGIS database as well. 

To date, thousands of data entries have been made. This work will continue next FY and

faunal distribution maps will begin to be produced. 

In support of the habitat mapping and general ecological monitoring tasks of EMAC, all 

ecology-related reports and publications from current and historical work conducted on the 

NTS were compiled and published in CY 2001 as “Ecology of the Nevada Test: An Annotated

Bibliography With Narrative Summary, Keyword Index, and Species List,” (Wills and Ostler

2001). This keystone document is an update of “The Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: A

Narrative Summary and Annotated Bibliography,” published over 25 years ago (O’Farrell and

Emery 1976). The original 1976 document summarized all readily-available publications and
6-6

reports through 1975 and provided a necessary focal point for the collection and integration of

NTS ecological information. Over the past 25 years, the need arose to update this original

annotated bibliography. 

SENSITIVE SPECIES MONITORING

There are 26 species which occur on the NTS that are considered sensitive because they are

either (1) candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), (2) considered

species of concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), (3) protected by other

federal acts, or (4) state-managed species of public interest. The goal of sensitive species

monitoring is to ensure their continued presence on the NTS by protecting them from significant

impacts due to actions of the NNSA/NV. A secondary goal is to gather sufficient information on

these species’ distribution and abundance on the NTS to determine if further protection under

state or federal law is necessary. 

SENSITIVE PLANTS

Thirteen sensitive plant species are known to occur on or near the NTS (Table 6.4). The

NNSA/NV has funded efforts to collect data on the status of these plants and produced

documents reporting their occurrence, distribution, and susceptibility to threats on the NTS

(Anderson et al., 1998; Blomquist et al., 1995;). In 1998, NNSA/NV prepared a Resource

Management Plan (RMP) which commits to protect and conserve these sensitive plant species

and to minimize cumulative impacts to them (DOE 1998d). In 2001, BN published and

distributed the “Adaptive Management Plan for Sensitive Plant Species on the Nevada Test

Site” (BN 2001b). This document presents the procedures of a long-term adaptive

management plan which will ensure that the RMP goals are met. It identifies the parameters

that are measured for all sensitive plant populations during long-term monitoring and the

adaptive management actions which may be taken if significant threats to these populations are

detected.

The management plan was implemented in 2001. A known population of the sensitive plant

Astragalus oophorus var. clokeyanus was visited on June 6, 2001. Ten plants were found,

most of which were, in a vegetative state although some had older fruits still attached. The

health of the plants looked good but a dirt road went through the population and appeared to be

getting increased use. This same population was found within the proposed project area for the

U12v Tunnel Seismic Lines project (Project 01-23) on June 26. Recommendations were made

to reroute a portion of the seismic line to avoid the population. 

The type population Astragalus beatleyae, on Pahute Mesa, was observed this year in June.

Plants had already completed flowering and many had set seed, although on closer analysis

most of the seed had been eaten by insects. Plants looked healthy, and there was no evidence

of any human disturbance or loss of the habitat.

An area along Orange Blossom road, that had a population of Camissonia megalantha in

previous years, was visited in July of 2001. No plants of this species were observed. This is

most likely a result of the low rainfall that occurred in 2001 and not because of any NNSA/NV

activities. The road had very little use for the past several years and there was no evidence of

new disturbances. It is common for annuals not to germinate in poor rainfall years such as

2001. No other populations of sensitive plants were monitored in 2001. 
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-7

WESTERN BURROWING OWL

The western burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia) is a species of concern which breeds on the

NTS. This owl occurs in all three eco-regions of the NTS: the Great Basin Desert, Transition

Zone, and the Mojave Desert. It occupies the burrows of predators (e.g., coyote, kit fox,

badger) and desert tortoises, as well as man-made structures such as buried pipes. Collection

of baseline data continued in calendar year 2001. Owl monitoring included visiting known

burrows monthly to detect owl activity, using still cameras at burrows to detect reproductive

activity, disturbance monitoring, and pellet analysis to determine the prey base. 

Eight new burrow sites were found in 2001. Figure 6.2 shows the distribution of 77 known owl

burrow sites. Fifty burrows are in disturbed habitat and 27 are in undisturbed habitat. It should

be noted that there may be one or more burrows or burrow entrances at any given burrow site. 

Sixty-nine burrows were monitored at least once a month in 2001. As in previous years, some

owls were present year round on the NTS. An increase in active owl burrows was observed

from mid March to early April. The number of active and inactive burrows is highest within the

Transition ecoregions of the NTS. The number of active burrows was highest in this region

from late February through late July. The number of active burrows dropped by half the amount

during late July to August. Changes in burrow use within this ecoregions this year suggest that

immigration occurred in late February to mid March and emigration occurred during late July to

August.

A total of 55 juvenile owls were detected from 11 breeding pairs (Table 6.6). The number of

young detected on the NTS in 2001 (55) was 28 percent higher than the number detected in

2000 (43). An average of 5.0 young per breeding pair was observed in 2001, compared to 3.4

and 5.6 young per pair observed during 1999 and 2000, respectively. 

To develop reasonable mitigation recommendations for land-disturbing projects in burrowing

owl habitat, it is important to know the level of disturbance owls tolerate without causing nest

abandonment. Two methods were used this year to continue to determine this disturbance

tolerance. One method involved setting traffic counters near active burrow nest sites and

recording the number of vehicle passes and the distance from the nest burrow to the road. The

second was measuring the distance at which owls flushed from observers as they approached

the owl by foot and in a vehicle. 

Data collected show that owls can breed successfully with several vehicles per day passing

within 10 to 269 m of a nest burrow. No correlation is evident between the number of vehicles

per day or distance to road and the number of young detected. The average flushing distance,

while an observer was approaching a burrow on foot, was 20 m (range 4 m to 70 m; [n=49]). 

The average flushing distance, while an observer was approaching or stopped near a burrow in

a vehicle, was 24 m (range 5 m to 80 m; [n=41]). These data suggest that burrowing owls are

fairly tolerant of human presence.

Analysis of burrowing owl pellets was completed in 2001. Approximately 314 samples

representing 1,800 pellets were analyzed by Oregon State University. Invertebrates

(predominately Orthopterans, Coleopterans, Solifugids, and scorpions) were the dominant prey

found within pellets sampled across all ecoregions of the NTS. Kangaroo rats (Dipodomys)

were the dominant rodent eaten. 

Differences among ecoregions are also evident. Percent frequency of scorpions, Hemipterans,

other rodents, Peromyscus, and Reithrodontomys tends to be highest in the Great Basin Desert

ecoregions; whereas percent frequency of Perognathinae and Dipodomys was highest in the

Mojave Desert and transition ecoregions, respectively.
373

160

95

95

3 0

2 9

1 8

2 5

5

6

2 0 1 9

1 3

2 7

1 2

9

2

7

1 5

1 7

2 2

4

1 6

8

1 4

1 1

2 6

1 0

2 3

6-8

Figure 6.2 Known Owl Burrows on the NTS - 2001

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15Miles

Historic Burrow

New Burrow

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-9

The percent frequency of Orthopterans, Coleopterans, Solifugids, and scorpions in the sampled

owl pellets decreased from fall to winter, whereas the percent frequency of rodents increased

from fall to winter. These data suggest that a seasonal shift in prey from invertebrates to

rodents from fall to winter occurs. Also, reptiles, pocket gophers (Thomomys), sagebrush voles

(Lemmiscus), and shrews (Soricidae) were only detected in pellets during spring and summer. 

BAT SPECIES OF CONCERN

To date, a total of 14 bat species has been documented on the NTS, of which 7 are species of

concern. They are the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), spotted bat

(Euderma maculatum), small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), long-eared myotis (Myotis

evotis), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), the long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), and the big

free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis). Monitoring to identify the distribution of these species

of concern continued in 2001 at 31 individual water sources including natural springs, sewage

lagoons, and man-made wells and sumps between April and September. Eleven water sources

were in the Great Basin Desert ecoregions, eight in the Transition ecoregions, and twelve in the

Mojave Desert ecoregions. 

A total of 292 bats representing 10 of the 16 species known to occur on the NTS were

captured. Of these, 78 bats representing six bat species of concern were trapped. Only the

Yuma myotis was not trapped or detected. Audible calls of the spotted bat were documented at

three sites. The majority (68) of the 78 bat species of concern were captured or detected in the

Great Basin ecoregions. 

Mines and tunnels are important or even critical habitats for some bat species. These manmade excavations can be used as day and night roosts, maternity colonies, and hibernacula. 

To determine which NTS mines and tunnels are being used by which bat species, the Anabat II

device (Titley Electronics, Ballina, Australia) was again used in 2001. Only one survey was

conducted in 2001 at G Tunnel. Very little bat activity was detected. No bats were captured,

and only eight computer files were recorded with the Anabat system. A few bats were also

detected with the NightSightTM camera flying around the portal entrance. Preliminary results

indicate that only the small-footed myotis was detected at G Tunnel.

Recorded ultrasonic vocalizations of bats collected over previous years continued to be

analyzed in 2001. Based on the analyses, the red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) was detected at

Gold Meadows Spring during June of 1999 and 2000. Very few records of this species have

been documented in Nevada, so this is a significant finding. 

WILD HORSES

Cattle and other livestock were removed from the NTS prior to testing of nuclear weapons in

1951, but a small herd of horses was not removed (Greger and Romney, 1994). There were

no efforts to monitor the size of that herd from 1951 through the 1970s, although O’Farrell and

Emory (1976) reported that “A band of about 20 mustangs is located in the vicinity of Rainier

Mesa.... Their numbers have not increased markedly over the last few years.” Wild horses

(Equus caballus) occur on the NTS, and ongoing monitoring of this species was conducted in

2001. Wild horses are protected on public lands under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and

Burro Act of 1971. This act calls for the management and protection of wild horses and burros

in a manner that is designed to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance.

Although the NTS is on land withdrawn from public use, the NNSA/NV is committed to this

same management goal on the NTS. In 1997, the DOE/NV signed a Five-Party Cooperative

Agreement with Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR), USFWS, U.S. Bureau of Land Management,

and the state of Nevada Clearinghouse. The goal of the agreement is to enhance management
6-10

of the natural resources within ecosystems on the NAFR, the NTS, and the Desert National

Wildlife Range. This agreement facilitates an ecosystem-based approach in the management

of free-roaming animals with large home ranges, such as wild horses. 

In 1989, a program was initiated to estimate the abundance of horses on the NTS annually by

identifying and photographing all horses seen during systematic surveys. That monitoring has

continued through 2001 and has provided excellent information on the abundance, recruitment

(i.e., survival of horses to reproductive age), and distribution of the horse population on the

NTS. Information on abundance and recruitment during 1990-1998 is summarized in Greger

and Romney (1999). In 2001, BN biologists determined horse abundance and recorded horse

sign along roads. Also, selected natural and man-made water sources were visited in the

summer to determine their influence on horse distribution and movements and to determine the

impact horses are having on NTS wetlands. 

The direct population count in FY 2001 was 37 horses (Table 6.7), and does not include foals. 

Eleven foals were observed with their mares, of which two were missing by the end of the

summer, and one was removed from the NTS by the Bureau of Land Management after its

mother was found dead of unknown causes. All four foals observed in 2000 survived to

yearlings. Two adult males (> 3 years old) that were observed on the NTS in FY 2000 were not

observed in FY 2001. One adult female horse with a foal died of unknown causes in May. 

From 1995 to 1998, the feral horse population declined 31 percent, from 54 to 37 adult horses

(Table 6.7). The population currently appears to be stable. Six of the 16 foals observed in

1999 and 2000 survived to yearlings during the past two years. This resulted in stabilizing the

horse population decline from the previous five years (1995-99). The addition of younger

horses increases the herd’s viability. The past population decline appeared to be the result of

(1) low recruitment due to very poor foaling rates and foal survival and (2) moderate adult

mortality. Over the past ten years, the causes of mortality among adults have included

predation (four observed), collisions with vehicles (two observed), and drownings (one

observed). An additional four adult horses have been found dead from unknown causes. 

Horse sign data collected during the road surveys and horse use at natural and man-made

water sources indicate that the 2001 NTS horse range includes Kawich Canyon, Gold

Meadows, Yucca Flat, southwest foothills of the Eleana Range, and southeast Pahute Mesa

(Figure 6.3). Overall, the annual horse range appears not to have changed greatly from last

year. During the summer, horses are dependent on Captain Jack Spring, the only known water

source in the Eleana Range (Figure 6.3). Man-made water sources on Yucca Flat have been

removed in past years, and the increased distances horses must travel back and forth to

Captain Jack Spring probably limits the herd’s grazing range to the north.

As in previous years, the NTS horse herd appears to consist of two components, one larger

group of horses (about 25 horses) that spends summers west of the Eleana Range and one

smaller group (12-13 horses) that summers east of the Eleana Range on Yucca Flat. These

groups of horses probably intermix during the winter in the Eleana Range. Approximately 30

horses were observed during the winter season (December-February) in the southern Eleana

Range and in lower elevation areas west of the Eleana Range in Areas 18 and 30. This

strongly suggests that horses do not move off the NTS during the winter.

The NTS horse population is dependent on several natural and man-made water sources in

Areas 18, 12, and 30 (Figure 6.3) during different seasons. Man-made water source availability

has not changed greatly on the NTS over the last four to five years. Wildhorse and Little

Wildhorse seeps, both located in Area 30, are important winter-spring water sources. Two

other natural water sources (Captain Jack Spring in Area 12, Gold Meadows Spring in Area 12)

and one man-made pond (Camp 17 Pond in Area 18) were used by horses this summer, as in

past years. Overall, Captain Jack Spring, Gold Meadows Spring, and Camp 17 Pond were the 
6

20 19

18

29

30

1

12

2

17 4

16

8

14

Camp 17 Pond

BUCKBOARD

MESA

ELEANA RANGE

RAINIER MESA

KA

WICH

CA

NYON

PAHUTE MESA

YUCCA

Little FLAT

Wildhorse

Seep

Little

Wildhorse

Seep

Captain

Jack

Spring

Captain

Jack

Spring

Gold Meadows Spring

Wildhorse

Seep

Wildhorse

Seep

6-11

Figure 6.3 Feral Horse Sightings and Horse Sign Observed on the NTS - 2001

0 2 4 8 12 16

Kilometers

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

Winter Sighting

Summer Sighting

Horse Sign

Horse survey road

Sign survey road

Estimated year-round range

Seeps and Springs

Ponds

NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
6-12

most important summer-fall water sources for horses based on the presence and quantity of

horse sign and trampled and grazed vegetation. Horses often use ephemeral water sources in

winter such as rock tanks and natural pools that collect water from rain and snowmelt. They

appear to be much less dependent on man-made sources in winter.

There are presently six man-made water sources within or on the edge of the annual horse

range and none of them were used by horses in 2001. Only two of these six water sources are

permanent year-round: the E Tunnel Containment Ponds and Area 12 Sewage Ponds. The

other water sources are semipermanent, plastic-lined sumps that occur at ER 19-1, ER 12-1,

U10j, and U2gg (see Figure 6.4); they contain water only in the winter and spring. No horse

sign have ever been found at the E Tunnel Containment Ponds or the Area 12 Sewage Ponds,

strongly suggesting that horses do not drink from them.

RAPTORS

Several raptors occur and breed on the NTS which are not protected under the ESA and are

not species of concern. They are, however, protected by the federal government under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by the state of Nevada. Raptors include all vultures, hawks,

kites, eagles, ospreys, falcons, and owls. Because these birds occupy high trophic levels of the

food chain, they are regarded as sensitive indicators of ecosystem stability and health. There

are nine raptors (Table 6.8 ) which are known to breed on the NTS; however, only a few

records exist of breeding raptors on the NTS or of their reproductive success, egg incubation

periods, and fledging times (time when young leave the nest). Surveys to locate raptor nests

and the number of breeding pairs of raptors began on the NTS in 1998 and were continued in

2001.

Twelve known raptor nests were visited from April through July to check for reproduction. Two

of these twelve nests were active this year, and five new nests were found in buildings. Two

active Great-horned owl nests were found in buildings in Yucca Flat and represent the first

breeding record for this species on the NTS. 

Three Barn Owl nests were found and monitored; one in Building 210 in Mercury, Area 23 and

two in the R-MAD Decon Building, Area 25. In Building 210, four chicks fledged, one chick fell

out of its nest and later died, and one fledged young apparently became entrapped in a small

room within the abandoned building and died. At the R-MAD building, one pair of Barn Owls

produced two clutches of young. Both buildings were demolished only after nests contained no

eggs, all chicks were fledged, and owls were flushed from the buildings. 

One active Red-tailed Hawk nest was found on the outside structure of a building at the

R-MAD facility. It was reported to biologists that a Red-tailed Hawk was nesting in Area 27 on

a power line pole nest which has been used for three consecutive years. One other known

Joshua tree nest in southeast Yucca Flat was used again this year by a breeding pair of Redtailed Hawks. 

Few raptor mortalities have been recorded at the NTS. Wildlife observations, made

opportunistically by biologists and other NTS workers, are maintained in a computerized

database. Accounts of injured and dead animals are also usually reported to biologists and are

stored in the same database. Over the last 11 years, from 1990-2001, 25 incidents of dead

raptors have been recorded on the NTS (Table 6.9). The known causes of death include seven

roadkills, three electrocutions, two suspected drownings, three predator kills, and one

entrapment in a building. Also, four chicks have been found dead in or at the base of a nest. 
373

160

95

95

3 0

2 9

1 8

2 5

5

6

2 0 1 9

1 3

2 7

1 2

9

2

7

1 5

1 7

2 2

4

1 6

8

1 4

1 1

2 6

1 0

2 3

6-13

NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

Figure 6.4 Man-made Water Sources Monitored for Wildlife Use and Mortality on the NTS - 2001

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Plastic-lined sump

Radioactive containment pond

Sewage treatment pond

Unlined well pond

Primary Road

Highway
6-14

MONITORING NATURAL WATER SOURCES

Natural wetlands and man-made water sources on the NTS provide unique habitats for mesic

and aquatic plants and animals and attract a variety of other wildlife. Natural NTS wetlands

may qualify as jurisdictional wetlands under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Characterization of

these mesic habitats to determine their status under the CWA and periodic monitoring of their

hydrologic and biotic parameters are components of the Ecological Monitoring program which

was started in 1997. Periodic wetlands monitoring may help identify annual fluctuations in

measured parameters that are natural and unrelated to activities of the NNSA/NV. Also, if a

spring classified as a jurisdictional wetland was unavoidably impacted by a NNSA/NV project,

mitigation for the loss of wetland habitat would be required under the CWA. Under these

circumstances, wetland hydrology, habitat quality, and wildlife usage data collected at the

impacted spring over several previous years can help to develop a viable mitigation plan and

demonstrate successful wetland mitigation.

Monitoring of selected NTS wetlands continued in 2001 to characterize seasonal baselines and

trends in physical and biological parameters. Twelve wetlands (Figure 6.5) were visited at least

once during the year to record the presence/absence of land disturbance, water flow rates, and

surface area of standing water (Table 6.10). No jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional wetlands on

the NTS were disturbed during 2001 and no U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit was

required. 

Mule deer sign were observed at 10 of the 12 wetlands visited (wetlands are listed in Table

6.10). Deer sign were not found at Wahmonie Seeps No. 1 and 3. Mountain lions frequented

three of the springs visited: Cane Spring, Tippipah Spring, and Topopah Spring. Mourning

Doves were the bird species most commonly observed at the springs, followed by House

Finches, Chukar, Black-throated Sparrows, and Gambel’s Quail.

MONITORING MAN-MADE WATER SOURCES

Man-made water sources are located throughout the NTS (Figure 6.4) and include 35 plasticlined sumps, 9 sewage treatment ponds, 8 unlined well ponds, and 2 radioactive containment

ponds. Several ponds or sumps are located next to each other at the same project site. Many

NTS animals rely on these man-made structures as sources of free water. Wildlife and

migratory birds may drown in steep-sided or plastic-lined sumps as a result of entrapment, or

ingest contaminants in drill-fluid sumps or evaporative ponds. Mitigation measures, required

under the Mitigation Action Plan for the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada

Test Site and Offsite Locations in the State of Nevada” (DOE 1996c), include placing flag lines,

fencing, or coverings over contaminated water sources to repel birds. Ponds are monitored to

assess their use by wildlife and to develop and implement mitigation measures to prevent them

from causing significant harm to wildlife.

During 2001, use of unlined sumps and ponds by waterfowl (ducks, shorebirds), passerine birds

(ravens, horned larks, house finches), and mammals, such as coyotes and deer, was common.

Only one man-made pond (Camp 17 Pond in Area 18) was used in 2001 by wild horses. Birds

were observed much less at the plastic-lined sumps compared to the unlined ponds. No dead

animals were recorded in any plastic-lined sumps during 2001. 
373

160

95

95

Reitmann

Whiterock

Gold Meadows

Captain Jack

Tippipah

Little Wildhorse

Topopah

Cane

Wahmonie 1 & 3

Pahute Mesa

Wildhorse

3 0

2 9

1 8

2 5

5

6

2 0 1 9

1 3

2 7

1 2

9

2

7

1 5

1 7

2 2

4

1 6

8

1 4

1 1

2 6

1 0

2 3

6-15

NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

Figure 6.5 Natural Water Sources Sampled on the NTS - 2001

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Ponds Seeps Springs Tanks NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

(Sampling locations are indicated in RED.) Highway
6-16

Table 6.1 Frequency of Coliform Bacteria Monitoring for NTS Public Water Systems

Public Water System/Permit Number Monitoring Frequency

NV0000360/NY-0360-12C Monthly - 3 Samples

NV0004098/NY-4098-12NTNC Quarterly - 1 Sample

NV0004099/NY-4099-12C Monthly - 1 Sample(a)

NY-5024-12NTNCb Quarterly - 1 Sample

NY-0835-12H Monthly - 1 Sample

NY-0836-12H Monthly - 1 Sample

(a) Beginning October 2001, monitoring frequency is quarterly because of a change in status to 

non-community system.

(b) Permit dropped September 30, 2001.

Table 6.2 Analyses of Well Water Samples - 2001

Water System/Well

Nitrates

(MCL(c) 10 ppm(a))

Fluoride

(MCL 4 ppm)

Lead

(action level .015

NV0000360

 Army Well

 Well 5B

 Well 5C

 Well 4

 Well 4A

 Well C-1

0.27

3.0

1.6

3.9

4.0

(b)

NV0004098

 Well J-12

 Well J-13

1.9

2.0

2.1

2.4

NV0004099

 Well 8 1.2

0.06

NV0005024

 Well UE16d

(b)

(a) Parts per million.

(b) Not detected.

(c) Maximum contaminant level.
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-17

Table 6.3 Phase V Inorganic Chemicals (all results in mg/L)

Public Water

System/Well Antimony Beryllium Cyanide Nickel Thallium

NV0000360

 Army Well

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a)

 Well 5b 0.0011

(a) (a) (a) (a)

 Well 5c 0.0012

(a) (a) (a) (a)

 Well 4

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a)

 Well 4a

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a)

 Well C-1 0.0013

(a) (a) (a) (a)

NV0004098

 Well J-12 0.0013

(a) (a) (a) (a)

 Well J-13

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a)

NV0004099

 Well 8

(a) (a) (a) (a) (a)

NV0005024

 Well Ue16d 0.0024 (a) (a) (a) (a)

(a) Not detected.
6-18

Table 6.4. Sensitive Species that are Protected Under State or Federal Regulations Which are

Known to Occur on or Adjacent to the NTS 

Plant Species Common Names Status (a)

Arctomecon merriamii Desert bearpoppy SOC 

Astragalus beatleyae Beatley’s milkvetch SOC 

Astragalus funereus Funeral Mountain milkvetch SOC 

Astragalus oopherus var.

clokeyanus

Clokey’s eg vetch SOC 

Camissonia megalantha Cane Spring evening primrose SOC 

Cymopterus ripleyi var. saniculoides Ripley’s spring parsley SOC 

Frasera albicaulis var. modocensis

(formerly Frasera pahutensis)

Modoc frasera SOC 

Galium hilendiae ssp. kingstonense Kingston Mountains bedstraw SOC 

Penstemon albomarginatus Whitemargin beard tongue SOC 

Penstemon fruticiformis var.

amargosae

Death Valley beard tongue SOC 

Penstemon pahutensis Paiute beard tongue SOC 

Phacelia beatleyae Beatley’s phacelia SOC 

Phacelia parishii Parish's phacelia SOC 

(a) Status Codes:

Endangered Species Act (ESA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

LT - Listed Threatened

PT - Proposed for listing as Threatened

<LE - Former listed endangered species

SOC - Species of concern

U.S. Department of Interior

H&B - Protected under Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act

EA - Protected under Bald and Golden Eagle Act

State of Nevada

NPT - Protected Threatened 

G - Regulated as game 

F - Regulated as fur-bearer 

P - Protected bird 

(b) Does not include all bird species that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or by the state. 

Additionally, there are 26 birds which have been observed on the NTS, which are all protected by the

state. 
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-19

Table 6.4. (Sensitive Species that are Protected Under State or Federal Regulations Which are

Known to Occur on or Adjacent to the NTS, cont. )

Reptile Species Common Names Status (a)

Gopherus agassizii Desert tortoise LT, NPT 

Sauromalus obesus Chuckwalla SOC 

Bird Species(b)

Athene cunicularia hypugea Western burrowing owl SOC, P 

Alectoris chukar Chukar G

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle EA, P 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk SOC, P 

Callipepla gambelii Gambel's quail G

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover PT, P 

Chlidonias niger Black Tern SOC

Empidonax wrightii Gray flycatcher SOC

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon <LE, P 

Ixobrychus exillis hesperis Western least bittern SOC, P 

Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla SOC

Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant G

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis SOC, P

(a) Status Codes:

Endangered Species Act (ESA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

LT - Listed Threatened

PT - Proposed for listing as Threatened

<LE - Former listed endangered species

SOC - Species of concern

U.S. Department of Interior

H&B - Protected under Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act

EA - Protected under Bald and Golden Eagle Act

State of Nevada

NPT - Protected Threatened 

G - Regulated as game 

F - Regulated as fur-bearer 

P - Protected bird 

(b) Does not include all bird species that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or by the state. 

Additionally, there are 26 birds which have been observed on the NTS, which are all protected by the

state. 
6-20

Table 6.4 (Sensitive Species that are Protected Under State or Federal Regulations Which are

Known to Occur on or Adjacent to the NTS, cont. )

Mammal Species Common Name Status (a)

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn antelope G

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Townsend’s big-eared bat SOC 

Equus asinus Burro H&B

Equus caballus Horse H&B

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat SOC, NPT

Felis concolor Mountain lion G

Lynx rufus Bobcat F

Myotis ciliolabrum Small-footed myotis SOC

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis SOC

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis SOC

Myotis volans Long-legged myotis SOC

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis SOC

Ovis canadensis nelsoni Desert bighorn sheep G

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer G

Sylvilagus audubonii Desert cottontail G

Sylvilagus nuttallii Mountain cottontail G

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox G

Vulpes velox macrotis Kit fox F

(a) Status Codes:

Endangered Species Act (ESA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

LT - Listed Threatened

PT - Proposed for listing as Threatened

<LE - Former listed endangered species

SOC - Species of concern

U.S. Department of Interior

H&B - Protected under Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act

EA - Protected under Bald and Golden Eagle Act

State of Nevada

NPT - Protected Threatened 

G - Regulated as game 

F - Regulated as fur-bearer 

P - Protected bird 

(b) Does not include all bird species that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or by the state. 

Additionally, there are 26 birds which have been observed on the NTS, which are all protected by the

state. 
6-21

N

O

N

R

A

DIOLO

GIC

AL E

N

VIR

O

N

M

E

N

TAL P

R

O

G

R

A

M

S

Table 6.5. Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted on the NTS - 2001

Project

Number Project

Important

Species/ Resources

Found

Area

Surveyed

(acres)

Proposed

Project Area in

Undisturbed

Habitat (acres)

Conservation

Recommendations

36896 Demolition of Decon Building at R-MAD Facility

 (CAU 254) 

Nesting barn owls 0 0 Monitor chicks, 

postpone demolition 

until chicks fledge

36897 Test Cell A Leachfield Remediation (CAU 261) None 0.2 0 None

36898 Soil Sampling at Area 22 Weather Station Fuel 

Storage (CAU 321)

None 0.5 0 None

36899 Remediation at Area 22 Sewage Lagoons and 

Desert Rock Airport Strainer Box (CAU

230/320)

Yucca, cacti 3.2 0.3 Avoid yucca and cacti

36900 U12 Tunnel Bat Survey None 0 0 None

36901 Construction of runway and pad on Yucca Lake None 21.7 7.9 None

36902 Reuse of Area 2 and Area 8 Borrow Pits None 12.6 0 None

36903 Erosion Control at Area 27 Landfill Potential tortoise 

burrows, quail, deer 

and predator signs

0.5 0.1 Avoid burrows 

01-14a G Tunnel Fungi Survey None 0 0 Identify fungi 

samples taken

01-14b RWMS Expansion Yucca, inactive predator

burrows

145.7 133 None, resources 

unavoidable

36905 Remediation at Area 3 Mud Plant and 

Camp (CAU 34)

Doves, raptor 3.7 0 Contact biologists if tamarisk

trees are to be removed

36906 Plugging of Existing Boreholes Buried pipes used by

burrowing owls

12.2 0.1 None

36907 Renovation of Mercury Highway None 0.1 0 None
6-2

2

Table 6.5. (Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted on the NTS - 2001, cont.)

Project

Number Project

Important

Species/ Resources

Found

Area

Surveyed

(acres)

Proposed

Project Area in

Undisturbed

Habitat (acres)

Mitigation

Recommendations

36908 Demolition of Building 210 in Mercury Nesting barn owls 0 0 Monitor chicks, postpone

demolition until chicks fledge

36909 Remediation at Area 2 Spill Site 02-99-01 (CAU

387)

Inactive predator

burrows 

0.01 0 None

36910 Characterization/Remediation at Area 3 Camp 

Injection Wells (CAU 322)

None 0.9 0 None

36911 Frenchman Flat Geo-Seismic Study 5 kit fox dens/burrow

sites, 14 predato

burrows

580 568 Avoid burrows 

36912 Rem ediation at Six Spill and Surface Debris

Sites (CAU 392)

None 5.1 0 None 

36913 U12v Tunnel Seismic Lines Astragalus oophorus

var. clokeyanus,

Penstem on pahutensis

33.6 9.7 Reroute line to avoid A.

oophorus var. clokeyanus

37287 Characterization/Remediation at Areas 25, 26,

and 27 Septic Systems (CAU 271)

Inactive tortoise burrow 9.4 1.7

37288 Plugging of 12 Existing Boreholes 3 predator burrows 10.9 0 Avoid burrows

37289 Closure Activities at E-MAD and R-MAD (CAU

143)

3 inactive predator

burrows

21.4 16.8 None

37290 Mercury Highway Culvert Repairs None 10.5 1 None

37291 Four New Septic Tanks - Areas 5, 6, 12, and 25 Yucca, cacti 22.3 8.3 Avoid mature yucca

37292 Charac terization/Rem ediation at Mud Pit

Disposal Sites (CAU 356)

Collapsed kit fox

burrow

6.1 0 None

37293 Surface Laid Cable in Area 25 None 0.8 0.8 None

Total 901.4 747.7
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-23

Table 6.6 Summary of Burrow use by Pairs of Owls on the NTS - 2001

Eco-region

Sites

Surveyed

Burrows With NonBreeding Pairs Burrows With

Breeding Pairs Juvenile Owls

Mojave Desert 4 0 2 6(3/burrow)

Transition 18 2 9 49 (1–8/burrow)

Great Basin Desert 1 0 0 0

Totals 23 2 11 55

Table 6.7 Number of Horse Observed on the NTS by Age Class, Gender, and Year Since 1995

Class/Age Number of Horses Observed

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Foals 1 1 3 8 5 11 11

Yearlings 3 0 0 0 0 4 2

Adults M

*

F M F M F M F M F M F M F

 2 Year Olds 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (2) 0 1 3

 3 Year Olds 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 > 3 Year 22 29 21 24 19 20 16 21 11 20 13 21 11 20

Total (excluding

foals) 54 46 40 37 31 38 37

 *M=male; F=female ** dead

Table 6.8 Raptor Species that Occur and Breed on the NTS

Raptor Species Common Name

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle

Asio otus Long-eared owl

Bubo virginianus Great horned owl

Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk

Falco mexicanus Prairie falcon

Falco sparverius American kestrel 

Speotyto cuniculaia Western burrowing owl

Tyto alba Barn owl
6-24

Table 6.9 Summary of NTS Raptor Mortality Records from 1990 - 2001 

Species Roadkill Electrocution

Suspected

Drowning Predation Entrapment

Chick

Mortality Unknown Totals

American kestrel 1 2 3

Barn owl 1 1 1 3 1 7

Golden eagle 1 1 2

Great-horned

Owl

3 1 1 5

Prairie falcon 1 1

Red-tailed hawk 2 1 1 1 5

Turkey vulture 1 1

Western

burrowing owl

1 1

Totals 7 3 2 3 1 4 5 25
NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS

6-25

Table 6.10 Seasonal Data from Selected Natural Water Sources on the NTS Collected - 2001

Water Source Date

Surface Area

of Water 

(m2)

(a)

Surface Flow

Rate (L/Min)(b) Disturbance at Spring

Cane Spring 8/12 13 1 None

Captain Jack Spring 9/13 20 1 Horse grazing and trampling 

vegetation

Gold Meadows Spring 7/16 240

c

Horse grazing and trampling

Gold Meadows Spring 8/28 600

c

Horse grazing and trampling

Little Wildhorse Seep 5/31 3

c

Horse grazing and trampling

Little Wildhorse Seep 8/28 0 0 Horse grazing and trampling

Pahute Mesa Pond 6/04 800 0 None

Pahute Mesa Pond 8/15 0 0 None

Reitmann Seep 8/15 0.5 0 None

Tippipah Spring 8/08 200 0.35 None

Topopah Spring 8/08 1.5 0.15 None

Wahmonie Seep 6/05 0 0 None No. 1

Wahmonie Seep 6/05 0 0 None No. 3

Whiterock Spring 8/15 10 3 None

Wildhorse Seep 5/31 15

c

Horse grazing and trampling

Wildhorse Seep 8/28 0 0 Horse grazing and trampling

(a) Square meters. 

(b) Liters per minute.

(c) Not measurable due to diffused flow.
6-26

U12N Overview of All Ponds from the Top of Muck Pile (March 13, 1989)
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-1

7.0 SITE HYDROLOGY

The hydrologic character of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and vicinity 

reflects the region’s arid climatic conditions and complex geology

(D’Agnese et al., 1997). The hydrology of the NTS has been extensively

studied for more than 40 years (U. S. Department of Energy [DOE] 1996c),

and numerous scientific reports and large databases are available. The

following sections present an overview of the hydrologic setting of the

NTS and vicinity, including summary descriptions of surface water and

groundwater, hydrogeologic framework, and finally brief descriptions of

the hydrogeology for each of the idle underground test areas on the NTS. 

For additional information regarding hydrogeology of the individual testing

areas on the NTS, refer to Chapter 7.0 of the NTS Annual Site

Environmental Report for calender year 2000 (BN 2001c). 

7.1 SURFACE WATER

The NTS is located within the Great Basin, a closed hydrographic province which comprises

several closed hydrographic basins (Figure 7.1). The closed hydrographic basins of the NTS

(most notably Yucca and Frenchman Flats) are subbasins of the Great Basin. Streams in the

region are ephemeral, flowing only in response to precipitation events or snowmelt. Runoff is

conveyed through normally dry washes toward the lowest areas of the closed hydrographic

subbasins and collects on playas. Two playas (seasonally dry lakes) occur on the NTS: 

Frenchman Lake and Yucca Lake, which lie in Frenchman and Yucca Flats, respectively. While

water may stand on the playas for a few weeks before evaporating, the playas are dry most of

the year. Surface water may leave the NTS in only a few places, such as Fortymile Canyon in

the southwestern NTS.

Springs that emanate from locally perched groundwater systems are the only natural sources of

perennial surface water in the region. There are 20 known springs or seeps on the NTS

(Hansen et al., 1997) (Figure 7.2). Spring discharge rates are low, ranging from 0.014 to 2.2

liters/sec (0.22 to 35 gal/min) (International Technology [IT] 1997). Most water discharged from

springs travels only a short distance from the source before evaporating or infiltrating into the

ground. The springs are important sources of water for wildlife, but they are too small to be of

use as a public water supply source.

Other surface waters on the NTS include man-made impoundments constructed at several

locations throughout the NTS to support various operations. These are numerous and include

open industrial reservoirs, containment ponds, and sewage lagoons (DOE 1998a). Surface

water is not a source of drinking water on the NTS.

7.2 GROUNDWATER

The NTS is located within the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, one of the major

hydrologic subdivisions of the southern Great Basin (Waddell et al., 1984; Laczniak et al.,

1996). Groundwater in southern Nevada is conveyed within several flow-system subbasins

within the Death Valley regional flow system (a subbasin is defined as the area that contributes

water to a major surface discharge area [Laczniak, et al., 1996]). Three principal groundwater

subbasins, named for their down-gradient discharge areas, have been identified within the NTS

region: the Ash Meadows, Oasis Valley, and Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek Ranch subbasins

(Waddell et al., 1984) (Figure 7.3). 
State Boundary

Nellis Air Force Range

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

C A L I F O R N I A

C A L I F O R N I A

C A L I F O R N I A

C A L I F O R N I A

N E V A D A

N E V A D A

N E V A D A

N E V A D A

Nellis Air Force Range

Nevada Test Site

Mercury Valley

Indian Springs Valley

Armargosa Desert

Crater Flat

Rock Valley

Frenchman Flat

Yucca Flat

Gold Flat Kawich Valley

Tikaboo

Valley

Tikaboo

Valley

Penoyer Valley

Oasis Valley

Sarcobatus

Flat

Sarcobatus

Flat

Cactus Flat

Stonewall

Flat

Stonewall

Flat

Death

Valley

Death

Valley

Fortymile Canyon

Buckboard Mesa Subdivision

Fortymile Canyon

Buckboard Mesa Subdivision

Fortymile Canyon

Jackass Flat Subdivision

Fortymile Canyon

Jackass Flat Subdivision

Emigrant Valley

Groom Lake Subdivision

Emigrant Valley

Groom Lake Subdivision

Emigrant Valley

Papoose Lake Subdivision

Emigrant Valley

Papoose Lake Subdivision

7-2

Figure 7.1 Closed Hydrobasins on the NTS

0 5 10 20 30 40

Kilometers 0 5 10 20

Miles

Legend
373

160

95

95

Cottonwood

Topopah

Reitmann

Wahmonie 1 - 4

Tippipah

Rattlesnake

Captain Jack

Rainier

Gold Meadows

John's

Tub

Tupapa

Pavits

Twin

Cane

Coyote

Whiterock

Wildhorse

Little Wildhorse

Oak

Yellow Rock

Frenchman

Flat

Frenchman

Flat

Jackass

Flat

Jackass

Flat

Yucca

Flat

Yucca

Flat

Yucca

Mountain

Yucca

Mountain

Timber

Mountain

Timber

Mountain

Pahute Mesa Black

Mountain

Black

Mountain

Emigrant

Valley

Emigrant

Valley

Mercury

3 0

2 9

1 8

2 5

5

6

2 0 1 9

1 3

2 7

1 2

9

2

7

1 5

1 7

2 2

4

1 6

8

1 4

1 1

2 6

1 0

2 3

7-3

SITE HYDROLOGY

Figure 7.2 Natural Springs and Seeps on the NTS

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Seep

Spring

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway
N e v a d a

C a l i f o r n i a

Furnace

Creek

Ranch

Discharge

Area

Alkali

Flat

Discharge

Area

Oasis

Valley

Discharge

Area

Ash

Meadows

Discharge

Area

Amargosa Valley

Indian Springs

Pahrump

Johnnie

Death Valley Junction, CA

Furnace Creek Ranch, CA

Beatty

Scotty's Junction

LAS VEGAS

Mercury 2 3

1 0

2 6

1 1

1 4

8

1 6

4

2 2

1 7

1 5

7

2

9

1 2

2 7

1 3

2 0 1 9

6

5

2 5

1 8

2 9

3 0

7-4

Figure 7.3 Groundwater Sub-basins of the NTS and Vicinity

Hydrologic Basin

Hydrologic Subbasin

Regional Groundwater Flow Direction

Discharge Area

State Boundary

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

0 10 20 40 60

Kilometers 0 5 10 20 30

Miles
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-5

The groundwater-bearing rocks at the NTS have been classified into several hydrogeologic

units, of which the most important is the lower carbonate aquifer, a thick sequence of

Paleozoic-age carbonate rock. This unit extends throughout the subsurface of central and

southeastern Nevada and is considered to be a regional aquifer (Winograd and Thordarson

1975; Laczniak, et al., 1996; IT 1996a). Various volcanic and alluvial aquifers are also locally

important as water sources.

The depth to groundwater in wells at the NTS varies from about 210 m (690 ft) below the land

surface under the Frenchman Flat playa in the southeastern NTS, to more than 610 m (2,000 ft)

below the land surface in the northwestern NTS, beneath Pahute Mesa (IT 1996b; Reiner et al.,

1995). Perched groundwater (isolated lenses of water lying above the regional groundwater

level) occurs locally throughout the NTS, mainly within the volcanic rocks.

Recharge areas for the Death Valley groundwater system are the higher mountain ranges of

central and southern Nevada, where there can be significant precipitation and snowmelt. 

Groundwater flow is generally from these upland areas to natural discharge areas in the south

and southwest. Groundwater at the NTS is also derived from underflow from basins upgradient of the area (Harrill et al., 1988). The direction of groundwater flow may locally be

influenced by structure, rock type, or other geologic conditions. Based on existing water-level

data (Reiner et al., 1995; IT 1996b; DOE 1998a) and flow models (IT 1996a; D’Agnese et al.,

1997), the general groundwater flow direction within major water-bearing units beneath the NTS

is to the south and southwest (Figure 7.3). 

Most of the natural discharge from the Death Valley flow system is via transpiration by plants or

evaporation from soil and playas in the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. Groundwater

discharge at the NTS is minor, consisting of small springs which drain perched water lenses

and artificial discharge at a limited number of water supply wells.

Groundwater is the only local source of potable water on the NTS. The ten potable water wells

that make up the NTS water system and supply wells for the various water systems in the area

(town of Beatty, small mines, and local ranches) produce water for human and industrial use

from the carbonate, volcanic, and alluvial aquifers. Water chemistry varies from a sodiumpotassium-bicarbonate type to a calcium-magnesium-carbonate type, depending on the

mineralogical composition of the aquifer source. Groundwater quality within aquifers of the

NTS is generally acceptable for drinking water and industrial and agricultural uses (Chapman

1994) and meets the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) drinking Water Standards

(Chapman and Lyles 1993; Rose et al., 1997; Bechtel Nevada [BN] 2001c).

7.3 HYDROLOGIC MODELING

The information in this section was compiled from various sources, as referenced throughout

the discussion. However, the basic approach to these discussions is based on that taken to

produce groundwater models for the various idle test areas at the NTS for the Underground

Test Area (UGTA) Program. 

The Environmental Restoration Division of the National Nuclear Security Administration,

Nevada Operation Office (NNSA/NV) initiated the UGTA project to study the effects of past

underground nuclear testing in shafts and tunnels on groundwater at the NTS and surrounding

areas. The multi-disciplinary UGTA investigation focuses on the geology and hydrology of the

NTS to determine how contaminants are transported by groundwater flow. A regional three-
7-6

dimensional computer groundwater model (IT 1996a; 1997) has already been developed to

identify any immediate risk and to provide a basis for developing more detailed models of

specific NTS test areas (designated as individual Corrective Action Units [CAUs]). The regional

model constituted Phase I of the UGTA project. The CAU-specific models, of which up to four

are planned (geographically covering each of the six former NTS testing areas), comprise

Phase II. To date one model has been built: Frenchman Flat (IT 1998b). The Pahute Mesa

and Yucca Flat models are in progress. The results of the UGTA modeling efforts will be used

to refine a monitoring network to ensure public health and safety.

Other hydrogeologic models for the area include those developed for the Yucca Mountain

Program (YMP) (YMP 1998) and the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system 

(D’Agnese et al., 1997). There are also site-specific models for the Radioactive Waste

Management Sites (RWMSs) in Frenchman Flat, Area 5 (Shott et al., 1998) and Yucca Flat,

Area 3 (BN 1997).

7.4 HYDROGEOLOGIC FRAMEWORK FOR THE NTS AND

VICINITY

When the need for testing nuclear devices underground was recognized in the 1950s, among

the first concerns was the effect testing would have on the groundwater of the area. One of the

earliest nuclear tests conducted below the groundwater table (BILBY 1963) was designed in

part to study explosion effects on groundwater and the movement in groundwater of radioactive

byproducts from the explosion. Since that time, additional studies at various scales have been

conducted to aid in the understanding of groundwater flow at the NTS. The current

understanding of the regional groundwater flow at the NTS is derived from work by Winograd

and Thordarson (1975), which was summarized and updated by Laczniak et al. (1996), and has

been developed further by the UGTA hydrogeologic modeling team (IT 1996c, 1998b; 

BN 2002c). 

Winograd and Thordarson (1975) established a hydrogeologic framework, incorporating the

work of Blankennagel and Weir (1973) who defined the first hydrogeologic units to address the

complex hydraulic properties of volcanic rocks. Hydrogeologic units (HGUs) are used to

categorize lithologic units according to their ability to transmit groundwater, which is mainly a

function of their primary lithologic properties, degree of fracturing, and secondary mineral

alteration. Hydrostratigraphic units (HSUs) for the NTS volcanic rocks were first defined during

the UGTA modeling initiative (IT 1996a). HSUs are groupings of contiguous stratigraphic units

that have a particular hydrogeologic character, such as aquifer (unit through which water moves

readily) or confining unit (unit that generally is impermeable to water movement) (see Seaber

[1988] for a discussion of hydrostratigraphy). The concept of HSUs is very useful in volcanic

terrains where stratigraphic units can vary greatly in hydrologic character both laterally and

vertically. 

The rocks of the NTS have been classified for hydrologic modeling using this two-level

classification scheme, in which HGUs are grouped to form HSUs (IT 1996a). An HSU may

consist of several HGUs but is defined so that a single general type of HGU dominates (for

example, mostly welded-tuff and vitric-tuff aquifers or mostly tuff confining units). The following

paragraphs summarize the current understanding of the hydrogeologic framework of the NTS,

first addressing HGUs, then describing the main HSUs. 
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-7

HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS OF THE NTS AREA

All the rocks of the NTS and vicinity can be classified as one of nine hydrogeologic units, which

include the alluvial aquifer, four volcanic hydrogeologic units, two intrusive units, and two

hydrogeologic units that represent the pre-Tertiary sedimentary rocks (Table 7.1).

The deposits of alluvium (alluvial aquifer) fill the main basins of the NTS and generally consist

of a loosely consolidated mixture of boulders, gravel, and sand derived from volcanic and

Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks (Slate et al., 1999). The volcanic rocks of the NTS and

vicinity can be categorized into four hydrogeologic units based on primary lithologic properties,

degree of fracturing, and secondary mineral alteration. In general, the altered (typically

zeolitized or hydrothermally altered near caldera margins) volcanic rocks act as confining units

(tuff confining unit), and the unaltered rocks form aquifers. The volcanic aquifer units can be

further divided into welded-tuff aquifers or vitric-tuff aquifers (depending upon the degree of

welding) and lava-flow aquifers. The denser rocks (welded ash-flow tuffs and lava flows) tend

to fracture more readily and therefore have relatively high permeability (Blankennagel and Weir

1973; Winograd and Thordarson 1975; Laczniak et al., 1996; IT 1997,1996c; BN 2002c).

The pre-Tertiary sedimentary rocks at the NTS and vicinity are also categorized as aquifer or

confining unit HGUs based on lithology. The silicic clastic rocks (quartzites, siltstones, shales)

tend to be aquitards or confining units, while the carbonates (limestone and dolomite) tend to be

aquifers (Winograd and Thordarson 1975; Laczniak et al., 1996). The Tertiary-age intracaldera

intrusives and Mesozoic-age granite intrusives are both considered to behave as a confining

unit due to low primary porosity, low permeability, and because most fractures are probably

filled with secondary minerals.

HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNITS OF THE NTS AREA

The rocks at the NTS and vicinity are grouped into roughly sixty HSUs. The more important

and widespread HSUs in the area are discussed separately, from oldest to youngest, in this

section. Additional information regarding other HSUs is summarized in tables introduced in

Section 7.5. 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit (LCCU)

The Proterozoic to Middle-Cambrian-age rocks are largely quartzite and silica-cemented

siltstone. Although these rocks are brittle and commonly fractured, secondary mineralization

seems to have greatly reduced formation permeability (Winograd and Thordarson 1975). 

These units make up the LCCU, which is considered to be the regional hydrologic basement 

(IT 1996a). The LCCU is interpreted to underlie the entire region, except at the calderas. 

Where it is in a structurally high position, the LCCU may act as a barrier to deep regional

groundwater flow. 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA)

The LCA consists of thick sequences of Middle Cambrian through Upper Devonian carbonate

rocks. This HSU serves as the regional aquifer for most of southern Nevada and locally may be

as thick as 5,000 m (16,400 ft) (Cole 1997; Cole and Cashman 1999). The LCA is present

under most of the area, except where the LCCU is structurally high and at the calderas. 

Transmissivities of these rocks differ from place to place, apparently reflecting the observed

differences in fracture and fault densities and characteristics (Winograd and Thordarson 1975). 
7-8

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU)

Upper Devonian and Mississippian silicic clastic rocks in the NTS vicinity are assigned to the

Eleana Formation and the Chainman Shale (Cashman and Trexler 1991; Trexler et al., 1996). 

Both formations are grouped into the UCCU. At the NTS this HSU is found mainly within a

north-south band along the western portion of Yucca Flat. It is a significant confining unit and in

many places form the footwall of the Belted Range and Control Point (CP) thrust faults. 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer, Upper Thrust Plate (LCA3)

Cambrian through Devonian, mostly carbonate rocks that occur in the hanging wall of the

Belted Range and CP thrust faults are designated as LCA3. These rocks are equivalent

stratigraphically to the LCA, but are structurally separated from the LCA by the Belted Range

thrust fault. The LCA3 is patchily distributed as remnant thrust blocks, particularly along the

western and southern sides of Yucca Flat (at Mine Mountain and the CP Hills), at Calico Hills,

and at Bare Mountain.

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit (MGCU) 

The Mesozoic era is represented at the NTS only by intrusive igneous rocks. Cretaceous-age

granitic rocks are exposed at two locations: in northern Yucca Flat area, at the Climax stock;

and the Gold Meadows stock, which lies 12.9 km (8 mi) west of the Climax stock, just north of

Rainier Mesa (Snyder 1977; Bath et al., 1983) (Figure 7.4). The two are probably related in

both source and time and may be connected at depth (Jachens 1999). Because of its low

intergranular porosity and permeability, and the lack of inter-connecting fractures (Walker

1962), the MGCU is considered a confining unit. The Climax and Gold Meadows intrusives are

grouped into the MGCU HSU. 

Tertiary and Quaternary Hydrostratigraphic Units

Tertiary- and Quaternary-age strata at the NTS are organized into dozens of HSUs. Nearly all

are of volcanic origin, except the alluvial aquifer, which is the uppermost HSU. These rocks are

important because (1) most of the underground nuclear tests at the NTS were conducted in

these units, (2) they constitute a large percentage of the rocks in the area, and (3) they are

inherently complex and heterogeneous. As pointed out in Section 7.4, the volcanic rocks are

divided into aquifer or confining unit according to lithology and secondary alteration.

More detailed information can be found in the documentation packages for the UGTA CAUscale hydrogeologic models (IT 1996a, 1998b; Gonzales and Drellack 1999; BN 2002c).

Alluvial Aquifer (AA)

The alluvium throughout most of the NTS is a loosely consolidated mixture of detritus derived

from silicic volcanic and Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks, ranging in particle size from clay to

boulders. Sediment deposition is largely in the form of alluvial fans (debris flows, sheet wash,

and braided streams) which coalesce to form discontinuous, gradational, and poorly sorted

deposits. Eolian sand, playa deposits and rare basalt flows are also present within the alluvial

section of some valleys. The alluvium thickness in major valleys (e.g., Frenchman Flat and

Yucca Flat) generally ranges from about 30 m (100 ft) to more than 1,138 m (3,732 ft) in the

deepest subbasins. 
373

160

95

95

Frenchman

Flat

Frenchman

Flat

Jackass

Flat

Jackass

Flat

Yucca

Flat

Yucca

Flat

Yucca

Mountain

Yucca

Mountain

Timber

Mountain

Timber

Mountain

Pahute Mesa Black

Mountain

Black

Mountain

Emigrant

Valley

Emigrant

Valley

Mercury

Ranier MesaRanier Mesa

3 0

2 9

1 8

2 5

5

6

2 0 1 9

1 3

2 7

1 2

9

2

7

1 5

1 7

2 2

4

1 6

8

1 4

1 1

2 6

1 0

2 3

7-9

Figure 7.4 Generalized Geologic Map of the NTS and Vicinity

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway

LITHOLOGIES

Quaternary

Playa Sediments

Quaternary

Basaltic Rocks

Quaternary-Tertiary

Alluvial Sediments

Tertiary

Volcanic Rocks

Mesozoic Granitic

Rocks

Paleozoic

and/or

PreCambrian

Sedimentary Rocks PRECAMBRIANPALEOZOIC

MESOZOIC CENOZOIC

N E V A D A

C A L I F O R N I A

SITE HYDROLOGY
7-10

The alluvial aquifer HSU is restricted primarily to the basins of the NTS (Figure 7.4). However,

because the water table in the vicinity is moderately deep, the alluvium is generally

unsaturated, except in the deep subbasins of some valleys. These sediments are porous and

thus, have high storage coefficients. Hydraulic conductivity may also be high, particularly in the

coarser, gravelly beds.

STRUCTURAL CONTROLS

Geologic structures are an important component of the hydrogeology of the area. Structures

define the geometric configuration of the area, including the distribution, thickness, and

orientation of units. Synvolcanic structures, including caldera faults and some normal faults had

strong influence on depositional patterns of many of the units. Juxtapositioning of units with

different hydrologic properties across faults may have significant hydrogeologic consequences. 

Also, faults may act as either conduits or barriers of groundwater flow, depending on the

difference in permeability between a fault zone and the surrounding rocks. This is partially

determined by whether the fault zone is characterized by open fractures, or if it is associated

with fine-grained gouge or increased alteration. 

Five main types of structural features exist in the area:

! Thrust faults (e.g., Belted Range and CP thrusts).

! Normal faults (e.g., Yucca and West Greeley faults).

! Transverse faults and structural zones (e.g., Rock Valley and Cane Spring faults). 

! Calderas (e.g., Timber Mountain and Silent Canyon caldera complexes).

! Detachment faults (e.g., Fluorspar Canyon - Bullfrog Hills detachment fault). 

The Belted Range thrust fault is the principle pre-Tertiary structure in the NTS region and thus,

controls the distribution of pre-Tertiary rocks in the area. The fault can be traced or inferred

from Bare Mountain just south of the southwest corner of the NTS area to the northern Belted

Range, just north of the NTS, a distance of more than 130 km. It is an eastward-directed thrust

fault that generally places late Proterozoic to early Cambrian rocks over rocks as young as

Mississippian. Several imbricate thrust faults occur east of the main thrust fault. Deformation

related to the Belted Range thrust fault occurred sometime between 100 and 250 Ma. Lesser

thrusts of similar age are mapped in the area (e.g., the CP and Spotted Range thrusts).

Normal faults in the area are related mainly to basin-and-range extension (e.g., Yucca fault in

Yucca Flat and West Greeley fault on Pahute Mesa). Most of them likely developed during and

after the main phase of volcanic activity of the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field (SWNVF)

(Sawyer et al., 1994). The majority of these faults are northwest- to northeast-striking, high

angle faults. However, the exact locations, amount of offset along the faults, and character of

the faults become increasingly uncertain with depth. 

Calderas are probably the most hydrogeologically important features in the NTS area. Volcanotectonic and geomorphic processes related to caldera development, result in abrupt and

dramatic lithologic and thickness changes across caldera margins. Consequently, caldera

margins (i.e., faults) separate regions with considerably different hydrogeologic character. At

least six major calderas have been identified in the SWNVF, a multi-caldera silicic volcanic field

that formed by the voluminous eruption of zoned ignimbrites between 16 and 7.5 million years

ago (Sawyer et al., 1994). From oldest to youngest the calderas are: Grouse Canyon, Area

20, Claim Canyon, Rainier Mesa, Ammonia Tanks, and Black Mountain calderas. A

comprehensive review of past studies and the evolution of concepts on calderas of the SWNVF

during the period from 1960 to 1988 is presented in Byers et al., (1989).
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-11

HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES

It is difficult to give precise hydraulic conductivity values for NTS HSUs because of their spacial

variability (aquifer heterogeneity). Volcanic rocks typically are extremely variable in lithologic

character both laterally and vertically, which accounts for some of the observed heterogeneity. 

In some areas, units of different character are so finely interbedded that they are assigned to a

composite unit (e.g., lava flows embedded within zeolitized bedded tuffs) whose overall

hydrologic properties are variable. Another cause of heterogeneity is the irregular distribution of

the effects of hydrothermal alteration. Hydraulic properties have rarely been measured for

specific HSUs, as borehole hydraulic test intervals tended to span HSU contacts. However,

laboratory and field measurements of hydraulic conductivity, flow rates, and temperature

profiles indicate that almost all of the groundwater at the NTS is moving through fractures

(GeoTrans 1995). 

General Hydraulic Characteristics of NTS Rocks

The characteristics of rocks that control the density and character of fractures are the primary

determinants of their hydraulic properties, and most hydraulic heterogeneity ultimately is related

to fracture characteristics such as fracture density, openness, orientation, and other properties. 

Secondary fracture-filling minerals can drastically obstruct the flow through or effectively seal an

otherwise transmissive formation (Drellack et al., 1997; IT 1996c). Fracture density typically

increases with proximity to faults, potentially increasing the hydraulic conductivity of the

formation; however, the hydrologic properties of faults are not well known. Limited data

suggest that the full spectrum of hydraulic properties, from barrier to conduit, may be possible

(Blankennagel and Weir 1973; Faunt 1998). Prediction of the influence of any fault on the

hydrologic system thus is made very difficult by the uncertainties associated with estimating the

hydraulic properties of that fault, complicated by the potential for the fault to juxtapose

permeable and less permeable water-bearing units.

Table 7.2 presents a summary of the hydrologic properties of NTS HGUs. The lowest

transmissivity values in volcanic rocks at the NTS are typically associated with non-welded ashflow tuff and bedded tuff (air-fall and reworked tuffs). Although interstitial porosity may be high,

the interconnectivity of the pore space is poor, and these relatively incompetent rocks tend not

to support open fractures. Secondary alteration of these tuffs (most commonly, zeolitization)

ultimately yields a very impermeable unit. As described in Section 7.4, these zeolitized tuffs are

considered to be confining units. The equivalent unaltered bedded and non-welded tuffs are

considered to be vitric-tuff aquifers and have intermediate transmissivities.

In general, the most transmissive rocks tend to be moderately to densely welded ash-flow tuffs

(welded-tuff aquifer), rhyolite lava flows (lava-flow aquifer), and carbonate rocks (limestone and

dolomite). Although their interstitial porosity is low, these competent lithologies tend to be

highly fractured, and groundwater flow through these rocks is largely through an interconnected

network of fractures (Blankennagel and Weir 1973; GeoTrans 1995).

Effect of Underground Nuclear Explosions on Hydraulic Characteristics

Underground nuclear explosions may affect hydraulic properties of the geologic medium (both

long-term and short-term effects). Effects include enhanced permeability from shock-induced

fractures, the formation of vertical conduits (e.g., collapse chimneys), and elevated water levels

(mounding and over-pressurization of saturated low-permeability units). However, these effects 
7-12

tend to be localized (Borg et al., 1976; Brikowski 1991; Allen et al., 1997), and usually are

addressed in the UGTA program on a case-by-case basis or in sub-CAU-scale models, rather

than in regional or CAU-level models. 

7.5 HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE NTS TEST AREAS

Most NTS underground nuclear detonations were conducted in three main test areas: (1) Yucca

Flat, ( 2) Pahute Mesa, and (3) Rainier Mesa (including Aqueduct Mesa). Underground tests in

Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa typically were conducted in vertical drill holes, whereas almost all

tests conducted in Rainier Mesa were tunnel emplacements. A total of 85 underground tests 

(85 detonations) were conducted on Pahute Mesa, including 18 high-yield detonations 

(200 kilotons [kt] or more). Rainier Mesa hosted 61 underground tests (62 detonations), almost

all of which were relatively low-yield (generally less than 20 kt) tunnel-based weapons-effects

tests. Yucca Flat was the most extensively utilized test area, hosting 659 underground tests 

(747 detonations), four of which were high-yield detonations (Allen et al., 1997). 

In addition to the three main test areas, underground nuclear tests were conducted in

Frenchman Flat (ten tests), Shoshone Mountain (six tests), the Oak Spring Butte/Climax Mine

area (three tests), the Buckboard Mesa area (three tests), and Dome Mountain (one test with

five detonations) (Allen et al., 1997). It should be noted that these totals include nine cratering

tests (13 total detonations) conducted in various areas of the NTS. Table 7.3 is a synopsis of

information about each underground test area at the NTS, and Figure 7.5 is a map showing the

areal distribution of underground nuclear tests conducted at the NTS.

The location of each underground nuclear tests is classified as a Corrective Action Site (CAS). 

These in turn have been grouped into six CAUs, according to the Federal Facilities Agreement

and Consent Order (FFACO 1996) between the DOE and the state of Nevada. In general, the

CAUs relate to geographical testing areas on the NTS (Figure 7.5). The hydrogeology of the

NTS idle test areas is summarized in the following sections. 

FRENCHMAN FLAT

The Frenchman Flat CAU consists of ten CASs located in the northern part of NTS Area 5 and

southern part of Area 11 (Figure 7.5). The detonations were conducted in vertical emplacement

holes and two mined shafts. Nearly all the tests were conducted in alluvium above the water

table.

Geologic Overview of Frenchman Flat

The stratigraphic section for the Frenchman Flat area consists of (from oldest to youngest)

Proterozoic and Paleozoic clastic and carbonate rocks, Tertiary sedimentary and tuffaceous

sedimentary rocks, Tertiary volcanic rocks, and Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium (Slate et al.,

1999). 

In the northernmost portion of Frenchman Flat, the middle to upper Miocene volcanic rocks that

erupted from calderas located to the northwest of Frenchman Flat unconformably overlie

Ordovician-age carbonate and clastic rocks. To the south, these volcanic units, including the 
2 3

1 0

2 6

1 1

1 4

8

1 6

4

2 2

1 7

1 5

7

2

9

1 2

2 7

1 3

2 0 1 9

6

5

2 5

1 8

2 9

3 0

95

373

160

7-13

Figure 7.5 CAUs and CASs on the NTS

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers

0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Underground Nuclear Test

CAU Boundary

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway

SITE HYDROLOGY

Frenchman Flat

CAU 98

(10 CASs)

Frenchman Flat

CAU 98

(10 CASs)

Rainier Mesa

Shoshone Mountain

CAU 99

(66 CASs)

Rainier Mesa

Shoshone Mountain

CAU 99

(66 CASs)

Climax Mine

CAU 100

(3 CASs)

Climax Mine

CAU 100

(3 CASs)

Yucca Flat

CAU 97

(717 CASs)

Yucca Flat

CAU 97

(717 CASs)

Central Pahute Mesa

CAU 101

(64 CASs)

Central Pahute Mesa

CAU 101

(64 CASs)

Western Pahute Mesa

CAU 102

(18 CASs)

Western Pahute Mesa

CAU 102

(18 CASs)
7-14

Ammonia Tanks Tuff, Rainier Mesa Tuff, Topopah Spring Formation, and Crater Flat Group,

either thin considerably, interfinger with coeval sedimentary rocks, or pinch out together 

(IT 1998b). Upper-middle Miocene tuffs, lavas, and debris flows from the Wahmonie volcanic

center located just west of Frenchman Flat dominate the volcanic section beneath the western

portion of the valley. To the south and southeast, most of the volcanic units are absent and

Oligocene to middle Miocene sedimentary and tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, which

unconformably overlie the Paleozoic rocks in the southern portion of Frenchman Flat, dominate

the Tertiary section (Prothro and Drellack 1997). In most of the Frenchman Flat area, upper

Miocene to Holocene alluvium covers the older sedimentary and volcanic rocks 

(Slate et al., 1999). Alluvium thicknesses range from a thin veneer along the valley edges to

perhaps as much as 1,158 m (3,800 ft) in north central Frenchman Flat.

The structural geology of the Frenchman Flat area is complex. During the late Mesozoic era,

the region was subjected to compressional deformation, which resulted in folding, thrusting,

uplift, and erosion of the pre-Tertiary rocks (Barnes et al., 1982). Approximately 16 million

years ago, the region has undergone extensional deformation, during which the present basinand-range topography was developed, and the Frenchman Flat basin was formed 

(Ekren et al., 1968). In the immediate vicinity of Frenchman Flat, extensional deformation has

produced east-northeast-trending, left-lateral strike-slip faults and generally north-trending

normal faults that displace the Tertiary and pre-Tertiary rocks. Beneath Frenchman Flat, major

west-dipping normal faults merge and are probably contemporaneous with strike-slip faults

beneath the southern portion of the basin (Grauch and Hudson 1995). Movement along the

faults has created a series of relatively narrow, east-dipping, half-graben subbasins elongated

in a northern direction (Figure 7.6). 

Hydrogeology Overview of Frenchman Flat

The hydrogeology of Frenchman Flat is fairly complex, but is typical of the NTS area. Many of

the HGU- and HSU-building blocks developed for the NTS vicinity are applicable to the

Frenchman Flat basin.

Figure 7.6 Conceptual East-West Cross Section Through Frenchman Flat Showing

SubBasins Formed by Fault Blocks 
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-15

The strata in the Frenchman Flat area have been subdivided into five Tertiary-age HSUs

(including the Quaternary/Tertiary alluvium) and three pre-Tertiary HSUs to serve as layers for

the UGTA Frenchman Flat CAU groundwater model (IT 1998b). In descending order these

units are: the AA, the Timber Mountain aquifer (TMA), the Wahmonie volcanic confining unit

(WVCU), the tuff confining unit (TCU), the volcaniclastic confining unit (VCU), the LCA, and the

LCCU (Table 7.4).

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction

The depth to the static water level (SWL) in Frenchman Flat ranges from 210 m (690 ft) near

the central playa to more than 350 m (1,150 ft) at the northern end of the valley. The SWL is

generally located within the AA, TMA, WVCU or TCU. In the deeper, central portions of the

basin, more than half of the alluvium section is saturated. Water-level elevation data in the AA

indicate a very flat water table (Blout et al., 1994; IT 1998b).

Water-level data for the LCA in the southern part of the NTS are limited, but indicate a fairly low

gradient in the Yucca Flat, Frenchman Flat, and Jackass Flats area. This gentle gradient

implies a high degree of hydraulic continuity within the aquifer, presumably due to high fracture

permeability (Laczniak et al., 1996). Furthermore, the similarity of the water levels measured in

Paleozoic rocks (LCA) in Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat implies that, at least for deep

interbasin flow, there is no groundwater barrier between the two basins. Inferred regional

groundwater flow through Frenchman Flat is to the south-southwest toward discharge areas in

Ash Meadows (Figure 7.3). An increasing westward flow vector in southern NTS may be due to

preferential flow paths subparallel to the east-northeast-trending Rock Valley fault 

(Grauch and Hudson 1995) and/or a northward gradient from the Spring Mountain recharge

area (IT 1996a; b).

Groundwater elevation measurements for wells completed in the AA and TMA are higher than

those in the underlying LCA (IT 1996b; 1998b). This implies a downward gradient. This

apparent semi-perched condition is believed to be due to the presence of intervening TCU and

VCU units. 

YUCCA FLAT

The Yucca Flat/Climax Mine CAU consists of 717 CASs located in NTS Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,

9, 10, and three CASs located in Area 15 (Figure 7.5). These tests were typically conducted in

vertical emplacement holes and a few related tunnels (Table 7.3).

The Yucca Flat and Climax Mine testing areas were originally defined as two separate CAUs

(CAU 97 and CAU 100) in the FFACO (1996) because the geologic frameworks of the two

areas are distinctly different. The Yucca Flat underground nuclear tests were conducted in

alluvial, volcanic, and carbonate rocks, whereas the Climax Mine tests were conducted in an

igneous intrusion in northern Yucca Flat. However, particle-tracking simulations performed

during the regional evaluation (IT 1997) indicated that the local Climax Mine groundwater flow

system merges into the much larger Yucca Flat groundwater flow system during the 1,000-year

time period of interest, so the two areas were combined into the single CAU 97. 

Yucca Flat was the most heavily used testing area on the NTS (Figure 7.5). The alluvium and

tuff formations provide many characteristics advantageous to the containment of nuclear

explosions. They are easily mined or drilled. The high-porosity overburden (alluvium and vitric

tuffs) will accept and depressurize any gas which might escape the blast cavity. The deeper 
7-16

tuffs are zeolitized, which creates a nearly impermeable confining unit. The zeolites also have

absorptive and “molecular sieve” attributes which severely restrict or prevent the migration of

radionuclides. The deep water table (503 m [1,650 ft]) provides additional operational and

environmental benefits.

This section provides brief descriptions of the geologic and hydrogeologic setting of the Yucca

Flat/Climax Mine area, as well as a discussion of the hydrostratigraphic framework. This

summary was compiled from various sources, including Gonzales and Drellack (1999),

Winograd and Thordarson (1975), Laczniak et al., (1996), Byers et al., (1989), and Cole (1997)

where additional information can be found. 

Geology Overview of Yucca Flat

Yucca Flat is a topographically closed basin with a playa at its southern end (Figure 7.4). The

geomorphology of Yucca Flat is typical of the arid, inter-mountain basins found throughout the

Basin and Range province of Nevada and adjoining states. Faulted and tilted blocks of

Tertiary-age volcanic rocks and underlying Precambrian and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks form

low ranges around the basin (Figure 7.4). These rocks also compose the “basement” of the

basin, which is now covered by alluvium. 

The Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks of the NTS area consist of approximately 11,300 m

(37,000 ft) of carbonate and silicic clastic rocks (Cole 1997). These rocks were severely

deformed by compressional movements during Mesozoic time, which resulted in the formation

of folds and thrust faults (e.g., Belted Range and CP thrust faults). During the middle Late

Cretaceous granitic bodies (such as the Climax stock in northern Yucca Flat) intruded these

deformed rocks (Maldonado 1977; Houser and Poole 1960). During Cenozoic time, the

sedimentary and intrusive rocks were buried by thick sections of volcanic material deposited in

several eruptive cycles from source areas (calderas) to the north and west. The volcanic rocks

include primarily ash-flow tuffs, ash-fall tuffs, and reworked tuffs.

Large-scale normal faulting began in the Yucca Flat area in response to regional extensional

movements near the end of this period of volcanism. This faulting formed the Yucca Flat basin,

and as fault movement continued, blocks between faults were down-dropped and tilted,

creating subbasins within the Yucca Flat basin. Over the last several million years, gradual

erosion of the highlands that surround Yucca Flat has deposited a thick blanket of alluvium on

the tuff section. 

The configuration of the Yucca Flat basin is illustrated on the generalized west-east cross

section shown in Figure 7.7. The cross section is simplified to show the positions of only the

primary hydrostratigraphic units in the region. This cross section provides a conceptual

illustration of the irregular Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks overlain by the Tertiary-age

volcanic units and the basin-filling alluvium at the surface. The main Tertiary-age, basinforming large-scale normal faults are also shown.

Hydrogeology Overview of Yucca Flat

All the rocks of the Yucca Flat study area can be classified as one of eight hydrogeologic units,

which include the alluvial aquifer, four volcanic hydrogeologic units, an intrusive unit, and two

hydrogeologic units that represent the pre-Tertiary rocks (Table 7.1).
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-17

Figure 7.7 Generalized West-East Hydrogeologic Cross Section Through Central Yucca Flat

The strata in the Yucca Flat area have been subdivided into eleven Tertiary-age HSUs

(including the Tertiary/Quaternary alluvium), one Mesozoic intrusive HSU, and six Paleozoic

HSUs (Gonzales and Drellack 1999). These units are listed in Table 7.5, and several of the

more important HSUs are discussed in the following paragraphs. The alluvium and pre-Tertiary

HSUs in Yucca Flat are as defined in Section 7.4. 

The hydrostratigraphy for the Tertiary-age volcanic rocks in Yucca Flat can be simplified into

two categories: zeolitic tuff confining units and (non-zeolitic) volcanic aquifers.

The Yucca Flat lower confining unit (YF-LCU) is an important HSU in the Yucca Flat region

(stratigraphically similar to the TCU in Frenchman Flat) because it separates the volcanic

aquifer units from the underlying regional LCA. Almost all zeolitized tuff units in Yucca Flat are

grouped within the YF-LCU, which comprises mainly zeolitized bedded tuff (air-fall tuff, with

minor reworked tuff). The YF-LCU is saturated in much of Yucca Flat; however, measured

transmissivities are very low. 

The YF-LCU is generally present in the eastern two-thirds of Yucca Flat. It is absent over the

major structural highs, where the volcanic rocks have been removed by erosion. Areas where

the YF-LCU is absent include the “Paleozoic bench” in the western portion of the basin. In

northern Yucca Flat the YF-LCU tends to be confined to the structural subbasins. Outside the

subbasins and around the edges of Yucca Flat the volcanic rocks are thinner and are not

zeolitized.

The unaltered volcanic rocks of the Yucca Flat area are divided into three Timber Mountain

HSUs. The hydrogeology of this part of the geologic section is complicated by the presence of

one or more ash-flow tuff units that are quite variable in properties both vertically and laterally. 
7-18

The Timber Mountain Group includes ash-flow tuffs that might be either welded-tuff aquifers or

vitric-tuff aquifers, depending on the degree of welding (refer to Section 7.4). In Yucca Flat

these units are generally present in the central portions of the basin. They can be saturated in

the deepest structural subbasins. 

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction

Water-level data are abundant for Yucca Flat, as a result of more than thirty years of drilling in

the area in support of the weapons testing program. However, water-level data for the

surrounding areas are scarce. These data are listed in the potentiometric data package

prepared for the regional model (IT 1996b; Hale et al., 1995).

The SWL in the Yucca Flat basin is relatively deep, ranging in depth from about 183 m (600 ft)

in extreme western Yucca Flat to more than 580 m (1,900 ft) in north-central Yucca Flat

(Laczniak et al., 1996; Hale et al., 1995). Throughout much of the Yucca Flat area, the SWL

typically is located within the lower portion of the volcanic section, in the YF-LCU. Beneath the

hills surrounding Yucca Flat, the SWL can be within the Paleozoic-age units, while in the deeper

structural subbasins of Yucca Flat, the Timber Mountain Tuff and the lower portion of the

alluvium are also saturated.

Fluid levels measured in wells completed in the AA and volcanic units in the eastern two-thirds

of Yucca Flat are typically about 20 m (70 ft) higher than in wells completed in the LCA

(Winograd and Thordarson 1975; IT 1996b). The hydrogeology of these units suggests that the

higher elevation of the water table in the overlying Tertiary rocks is related to the presence of

low permeability zeolitized tuffs of the YF-LCU (aquitard) between the Paleozoic and Tertiary

aquifers.

Based on the existing data and as interpreted from the regional groundwater flow model 

(DOE 1997c), the overall groundwater flow direction in the Yucca Flat area is to the south and

southwest (Figure 7.3). Groundwater ultimately discharges at Franklin Lake Playa to the south

and Death Valley to the southwest. 

PAHUTE MESA

The Western and Central Pahute Mesa CAUs, encompassing Areas 19 and 20 of the NTS,

were the site of 85 underground nuclear tests (DOE 2000b) (Figure 7.5). These detonations

were all conducted in vertical emplacement holes (Table 7.3). The Western Pahute Mesa CAU

is separated from the Central Pahute Mesa by the Boxcar fault and is distinguished by a relative

abundance of tritium (IT 1999b). For hydrogeologic studies and modeling purposes, these two

CAUs are treated together. 

Hydrogeologically, these CAUs are considered to be part of a larger region that includes areas

both within and outside the boundaries of the NTS, designated as the Pahute Mesa-Oasis

Valley (PM-OV) study area. Because most of the underground nuclear tests at Pahute Mesa

were conducted near or below the static water level, test-related contaminants are available for

transport via a groundwater flow system that may extend to discharge areas in Oasis Valley. 

So, like the testing areas of Frenchman Flat and Yucca Flat, a CAU-level hydrostratigraphic

framework model is also being developed for the PM-OV area to support modeling of

groundwater flow and contaminant transport for the UGTA program (BN 2002c). 
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-19

Geology Overview of Pahute Mesa

Pahute Mesa is a structurally high-volcanic plateau in the northwest portion of the NTS

(Figure 7.4). This physiographic feature covers most of NTS Areas 19 and 20, which are the

second most utilized testing areas at the NTS. Consequently, there are numerous drill holes

which provide a substantial amount of subsurface geologic and hydrologic information 

(BN 2002c; Warren et al., 2000a,b). Borehole and geophysical data indicate the presence of

several nested calderas which produced thick sequences of rhyolite tuffs and lavas. The older

calderas are buried by ash-flow units produced from younger calderas.

The Silent Canyon caldera complex (SCCC) lies beneath Pahute Mesa. This complex contains

the oldest known calderas within the SWNVF and is completely buried by volcanic rocks

erupted from younger nearby calderas.

The SCCC consists of at least two nested calderas, the Grouse Canyon caldera and younger

Area 20 caldera (13.7 and 13.25 million years old, respectively; Sawyer et al., 1994). 

Like the Silent Canyon caldera complex, the Timber Mountain caldera complex (TMCC)

consists of two nested calderas, the Rainier Mesa caldera and younger Ammonia Tanks

caldera, 11.6 and 11.45 million years old, respectively (Sawyer et al., 1994). However, unlike

the SCCC, the TMCC has exceptional topographic expression, consisting of an exposed

topographic margin for more than half its circumference and a well exposed central resurgent

dome (Timber Mountain, the most conspicuous geologic feature in the western part of the

NTS). The complex truncates the older Claim Canyon caldera (12.7 million years old; Sawyer

et al., 1994) in the southern portion of the model area.

The Black Mountain caldera is a relatively small caldera in the northwest portion of the Pahute

Mesa area. It is the youngest caldera in the area, formed as a result of the eruption, 9.4 million

years ago, of tuffs assigned to the Thirsty Canyon Group (Sawyer et al., 1994).

Underlying the Tertiary volcanic rocks (exclusive of the caldera complexes) are Paleozoic and

Proterozoic sedimentary rocks consisting of dolomite, limestone, quartzite, and argillite. During

Precambrian and Paleozoic time, as much as 9,600 m (31,500 ft) of these marine sediments

were deposited in the NTS region (Cole 1997). For detailed stratigraphic descriptions of these

rocks see Slate et al., (1999). 

The only occurrence of Mesozoic age rocks in this area is the Gold Meadows stock, a granitic

intrusive mass located at the eastern edge of Pahute Mesa, north of Rainier Mesa 

(Snyder 1977; Gibbons et al.,1963). 

The structural setting of the Pahute Mesa area is dominated by the calderas described in the

previous paragraphs. Several other structural features are considered to be significant factors

in the hydrology, including the Belted Range thrust fault (see Section 7.4), numerous normal

faults related mainly to basin-and-range extension, and transverse faults and structural zones. 

However, many of these features are buried, and their presence is inferred from drilling and

geophysical data. A typical geologic cross section for Pahute Mesa is presented in Figure 7.8. 

For a more detailed geologic summary, see Ferguson et al., (1994); Sawyer et al., (1994); and

BN (2002c).
7-20

Figure 7.8 Generalized Geologic Cross Section Through Pahute Mesa
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-21

Hydrogeology Overview of Pahute Mesa

The general hydrogeologic framework for Pahute Mesa and vicinity was established in the early

1970s by USGS geoscientists (Blankennagel and Weir 1973; Winograd and Thordarson 1975). 

As described in Section 7.4, their work has provided the foundation for most subsequent

hydrogeologic studies at the NTS (IT 1996a; BN 2002c). 

The hydrogeology of PM-OV area is complex. The thick section of volcanic rocks comprises a

wide variety of lithologies that range in hydraulic character from aquifer to aquitard. The

presence of several calderas and tectonic faulting further complicate the area, placing the

various lithologic units in juxtaposition and blocking or enhancing the flow of groundwater in a

variety of ways. 

All the rocks in the PM-OV area can be classified as one of nine hydrogeologic units, which

include the alluvial aquifer, four volcanic hydrogeologic units, two intrusive units, and two

hydrogeologic units that represent the pre-Tertiary rocks (Table 7.1).

The rocks within the PM-OV area are grouped into 46 HSUs for the UGTA framework model

(Table 7.6). The volcanic units are organized into 40 HSUs that include 16 aquifers, 13

confining units, and 11 composite units (comprising a mixture of hydraulically variable units). 

The underlying pre-Tertiary rocks are divided into six HSUs, including two aquifers and four

confining units. HSUs that are common to several CAUs at the NTS are briefly discussed in

Section 7.4.

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction

Water-level data are relatively abundant for the underground test area on Pahute Mesa in the

northwestern portion of the NTS, as a result of more than thirty years of drilling in the area in

support of the weapons testing program. However, water-level data for the outlying areas to

the west and south are sparse. These data are listed in the potentiometric data package

prepared for the regional model (IT 1996b) and the Pahute Mesa water table map (O’Hagan

and Laczniak 1996). 

The SWL at Pahute Mesa is relatively deep, at about 640 m (2,100 ft) below the ground

surface. Groundwater flow at Pahute Mesa is driven by recharge in the east and subsurface

inflow from the north. Local groundwater flow is influenced by the discontinuous nature of the

volcanic aquifers and the resultant geometry created by overlapping caldera complexes and

high angle basin and range faults (Laczniak et al., 1996). Potentiometric data indicate that

groundwater flow direction is to the southwest toward discharge areas in Oasis Valley and

ultimately Death Valley. 

RAINIER MESA

Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain CAU consists of 60 CASs on Rainier Mesa and six on

Shoshone Mountain, which are located in NTS Areas 12 and 16 respectively (Figure 7.5). 

Rainier Mesa and Aqueduct Mesa form the southern extension of the northeast trending Belted

Range (Figure 7.4). Together, these two mesas constitute the third major area utilized for

underground testing of nuclear weapons at the NTS between 1957 and 1992. Weapons effects

tests were conducted in horizontal, mined tunnels within these mesas, and two tests were 
7-22

conducted in vertical drill holes. All tests were conducted above the regional water table. 

Underground geologic mapping data from the numerous tunnel complexes, and lithologic and

geophysical data from dozens of exploratory drill holes, provide a wealth of geologic and

hydrologic information for this relatively small test area.

Geology Overview of Rainier Mesa and Shoshone Mountain

Both mesas are composed of Miocene age air-fall and ash-flow tuffs, which were erupted from

nearby calderas to the west and southwest. As in Yucca Flat, these silicic volcanic tuffs were

deposited unconformably on an irregular pre-Tertiary (upper Precambrian and Paleozoic)

surface of sedimentary rocks (Gibbons et al., 1963; Orkild 1963). The stratigraphic units and

lithologies are similar to those present in the subsurface of Yucca Flat (Section 7.5). Most of

Rainier Mesa and Shoshone Mountain consist of zeolitized bedded tuff, though the upper part

of this section is unaltered (vitric) in some areas. At both locations, the bedded tuffs are

capped by a thick layer of welded ash-flow tuff. The trace of the CP thrust fault extends

through the pre-Tertiary rocks of Rainier Mesa, and several high-angle, normal faults have been

mapped in the volcanic rocks at both test areas. Most of the tests in Shoshone Mountain and

Rainier Mesa tunnels were conducted in the tuff confining unit, though a few were conducted in

vitric bedded tuff higher in the stratigraphic section. 

Hydrogeology Overview of Rainier Mesa and Shoshone Mountain

Construction of UGTA CAU-level models for the Rainier Mesa and Shoshone Mountain test

areas has not yet begun. However, HGUs and HSUs in the Rainier Mesa and Shoshone

Mountain area are expected to be similar to those defined for the Yucca Flat area

(see Table 7.5).

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction

The SWL at Rainier Mesa is at a depth of about 258 m (846 ft), or about 1,847 m (6,061 ft)

elevation above Mean Sea Level and typically within the TCU. This anomalously high water

level relative to the regional water level reflects the presence of water perched above the

underlying tuff confining units (Walker 1962; Laczniak et al., 1996). Abundant water is present

in the fracture systems of some of the tunnel complexes at Rainier Mesa. This water currently

is permitted to flow from U12e Tunnel; however water has filled the open drifts behind barriers

built near the portals of U12n and U12t Tunnels.

The water level elevation at Shoshone Mountain is not known.

Regional groundwater flow from Rainier Mesa may be directed either toward Yucca Flat or,

because of the intervening UCCU, to the south toward Alkali Flat discharge area (Figure 7.3). 

The groundwater flow direction beneath Shoshone Mountain is probably southward as indicated

in Figure 7.3. 

7.6 CONCLUSION

The hydrogeology of the NTS and vicinity is complex and varied. Yet, the remote location,

alluvial and volcanic geology, and deep water table of the NTS provided a favorable setting for

conducting and containing underground nuclear tests. Its arid climate and its setting in a region 
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-23

of closed hydrographic basins also are factors in stabilizing residual surficial contamination from

atmospheric testing and are considered positive environmental attributes for existing radioactive

waste management sites. 

Average groundwater flow velocities at the NTS are generally slow, and flow paths to discharge

areas or potential receptors (domestic and public water supply wells) are long. The water table

for local aquifers in the valleys and the underlying regional carbonate aquifer are relatively flat. 

The zeolitic volcanic formations (TCU) separating the shallower alluvial and volcanic aquifers

and the regional carbonate aquifer (LCA) appears to be a viable aquitard. Consequently, both

vertical and horizontal flow velocities are low. Additionally, 14C dates for water from NTS

aquifers are on the order of 10,000 to 40,000 years old (Rose et al., 1997). Thus, there is

considerable residence time in the aquifers, allowing contaminant attenuating processes such

as matrix diffusion, sorbtion, and natural decay, to operate.

It is imperative that those responsible for developing viable monitoring programs understand

this unique hydrogeologic setting. As described in this chapter, a vast amount of hydrogeologic

data has been acquired in support of NTS programs over the last 40 years, and data continue

to be acquired. Now scientists are using these data to develop and improve models for

predicting groundwater flow and contaminant transport at the NTS. All of these resources,

including databases, groundwater flow models, and subject matter experts, were utilized during

the development of the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (RREMP)

(DOE 1998a). 

Another beneficial consequence of previous and current NTS activities is the availability of an

array of boreholes that penetrate the saturated zone. A significant number of these “holes of

opportunity” are in optimal locations, with appropriate well completions that provide access to

aquifers of interest. Selected monitoring wells and water supply wells, both on and off the NTS,

have been incorporated into a monitoring network for the RREMP. Additional wells will become

available as the UGTA characterization wells are phased into the RREMP. Analytical results

from routine sampling of these wells are reported in Chapter 8.0, “Groundwater Monitoring.” 

 

 

 
7-24

Table 7.1 Hydrogeologic Units of the NTS Area

Hydrogeologic Unit Typical Lithologies Hydrologic Significance

Alluvial Aquifer

(AA)

Unconsolidated to partially

consolidated gravelly sand,

eolian sand, and colluvium; 

thin, basalt flows of limited

extent

Has characteristics of a highly conductive

aquifer, but less so where lenses of clay-rich

paleocolluvium or playa deposits are present. 

Welded-Tuff Aquifer

(WTA)

Welded ash-flow tuff; vitric to

devitrified

Degree of welding greatly affects interstitial

porosity (less porosity as degree of welding

increases) and permeability (greater fracture

permeability as degree of welding increases).

Vitric-Tuff Aquifer

(VTA)

Bedded tuff; ash-fall and

reworked tuff; vitric

Constitutes a volumetrically minor hydrogeologic unit. Generally does not extend far

below the static water level due to tendency to

become zeolitized (which drastically reduces

perm eability) under saturated conditions. 

Significant interstitial porosity (20 to 40

percent). Generally insignificant fracture

permeability.

Lava-Flow Aquifer

(LFA)

Rhyolite lava flows; includes

flow breccias (commonly at

base) and pumiceous zones

(commonly at top)

Generally a caldera-filling unit. Hydrologically

complex; wide range of transmissivities;

fracture density and interstitial porosity differ

with lithologic variations.

Tuff Confining Unit

(TCU)

Zeolitized bedded tuff with

interbedded, but less

significant, zeolitized,

nonwelded to partially

welded ash-flow tuff

May be saturated but measured transmissivities are very low. May cause

accumulation of perched and/or semi-perched

water in overlying units.

Intracaldera Intrusive

Confining Unit

(IICU)

Highly altered, highly

injected/intruded country

rock and granitic material

Assumed to be impermeable. Conceptually

underlies each of the SWNVF calderas and

Calico Hills. 

Granite Confining

Unit

(GCU)

Granodiorite, quartz

monzonite

Relatively impermeable; forms local bulbous

stocks, north of Rainier Mesa and Yucca Flat;

may contain perched water.

Clastic Confining

Unit

(CCU)

Argillite, siltstone, quartzite

Clay-rich rocks are relatively impermeable;

more siliceous rocks are fractured, but with

fracture porosity generally sealed due to

secondary mineralization.

Carbonate Aquifer

(CA) Dolomite, limestone Transmissivity values differ greatly and aredirectly dependent on fracture frequency.

Note: Adapted from BN (2002c).
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-25

Table 7.2 Summary of Hydrologic Properties for Hydrogeologic Units at the NTS

Hydrogeologic Unit (a)

Fracture

 Density (b, c)

Relative Hydraulic

Conductivity (c)

Alluvial Aquifer Very low Moderate to very high

Vitric-Tuff Aquifer Low Low to moderate

Welded-Tuff Aquifer Moderate to High Moderate to very high

LavaFlow

Aquifer (d)

Pumiceous

Lava

Vitric Low Low to moderate

Zeolitic Low Very low

Stony Lava and Vitrophyre Moderate to high Moderate to very high

Flow Breccia Low to Moderate Low to moderate

Tuff Confining Unit Low Very low

Intrusive Confining Unit Low to Moderate Very Low

Granite Confining Unit Low to Moderate Very Low

Carbonate Aquifer Low to high

(variable) Low to very high

Clastic Confining Unit Moderate Very low to low (e)

(a) Refer to Table 7.1 for hydrogeologic nomenclature.

(b) Including primary (cooling joints in tuffs) and secondary (tectonic) fractures.

(c) The values presented are the authors’ qualitative estimates based on data from published (IT [1996c]

and Blankennagel and Weir [1973], Winograd and Thordarson [1975]) and unpublished sources (i.e.,

numerous Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory drill-hole characterization

reports).

(d) Abstracted from Prothro and Drellack, 1997.

(e) Fractures tend to be sealed by the presence of secondary minerals.

Note: Adapted from BN (2002c).
7-2

6

Table 7.3 Information Summary of NTS Underground Nuclear Tests

Physiographic

Area

NTS

Area(s)

Total Underground(a)

Test Dates

(a)

Depth of Burial

Range

Overburden

Tests detonations Media Comments

Yucca Flat 1, 2, 3,

4, 6, 7,

8, 9, 10

659 747 1951 - 1992 27 - 1219 m

(89 - 3999 ft)

Alluvium/Playa 

Volcanic Tuff 

Paleozoic rocks

Various test types and yields; almost all were vertical

emplacements above and below static water level.

Pahute Mesa 19, 20 85 85 1965 - 1992 31 - 1452 m

(100 - 4765 ft)

Alluvium (thin)

Volcanic tuffs &

lavas

Almost all were large-diameter vertical emplacements

above and below static water level; includes 19 highyield detonations.

Rainier/

Aqueduct Mesa

12 61 62 1957 - 1992 61 - 640 m

(200 - 2100 ft)

Tuffs with welded

tuff caprock

(little or no

alluvium)

Two vertical emplacements; all others were horizontal

tunnel emplacements above static water level; mostly

low-yield U.S. Department of Defense weaponseffects tests.

Frenchman Flat 5, 11 10 10 1965 - 1971 179 - 296 m

(587 - 971 ft)

Mostly alluvium

minor volcanics

Various emplacement configurations, both above and

below static water level. 

Shoshone Mtn. 16 6 6 1962 - 1971 244 - 640 m

(800 - 2100 ft)

Bedded Tuff Tunnel-based low-yield weapons-effects and Vela

Uniform tests. 

Oak Spring Butte

(Climax Area)

15 3 3 1962 - 1966 229 - 351 m

(750 - 1150 ft)

Granite Three tunnel-based tests above static water level.

(HARD HAT, TINY TOT, and PILE DRIVER).

Buckboard Mesa 18 3 3 1962 - 1964 # 27 m

(90 ft)

Basaltic Lavas Shallow, low-yield experiments (SULKY, JOHNNIE

BOY(b) and DANNY BOY); all were above static water

level.

Dome Mountain 30 1 5 03/12/1968 50 m

(165 ft)

Mafic Lava BUGGY (A, B, C, D, and E); Plowshare cratering test

of five-detonation horizontal salvo; all above static

water level.

(a) Source: U.S. Department of Energy (2000b).

(b) JOHNNIE BOY was detonated at a depth of 1.75 ft (essentially a surface burst) approximately one mile east of Buckboard Mesa.

Note: Source: Allen, et al., 1997.
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-27

Table 7.4 Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Frenchman Flat Area

Hydrostratigraphic Unit

(Symbol)

Dominant

Hydrogeologic Unit (a) Typical Lithologies

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA, minor LFA

Alluvium (gravelly sand); also includes

relatively thin basalt flow in northern

Frenchman Flat and playa deposits in southcentral part of basin.

Timber Mountain Aquifer

(TMA)

WTA, VTA

Welded ash-flow tuff and related nonwelded

and air-fall tuffs; vitric to devitrified.

Wahmonie Volcanic

Confining Unit (WVCU)

TCU, minor LFA

Air-fall and reworked tuffs; debris and breccia

flows; minor intercalated lava flows. Typically

altered: zeolitic to argillic.

Tuff Confining Unit (TCU) TCU

Zeolitic bedded tuffs, with interbedded but less

significant zeolitic, nonwelded to partially

welded ash-flow tuffs

Volcaniclastic Confining

Unit (VCU)

TCU, Minor AA

Diverse assemblage of interbedded volcanic

and sedimentary rocks including tuffs, shale,

tuffaceous and argillaceous sandstones,

conglomerates, minor limestones.

Upper Clastic Confining

Unit (UCCU)

CCU

Argillite, quartzite; present only in northwest

portion of model in the CP Basin

Lower Carbonate Aquifer

(LCA)

CA Dolomite and limestone; the “regional aquifer”

Lower Clastic Confining

Unit (LCCU)

CCU

Quartzites and siltstones; the “hydrologic

basement”

(a) See Table 7.1 for descriptions of hydrogeologic units.

Note: Adapted from IT, 1998b.
7-28

Table 7.5 Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Yucca Flat Area

Hydrostratigraphic Unit

(Symbol)

Dominant

Hydrogeologic Units (a) Typical Lithologies

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA, minor LFA Alluvium (gravelly sand); also

includes one or more thin basalt

flows, playa deposits and eolian

sands

Timber Mountain Upper Vitric-Tuff

Aquifer (TM-UVTA) WTA, VTA Includes vitric nonwelded ash-flowand bedded tuff

Timber Mountain Welded-Tuff

Aquifer (TM-WTA) WTA Partially to densely welded ash-flowtuff; vitric to devitrified

Timber Mountain Lower Vitric-Tuff

Aquifer (TM-LVTA) VTA Nonwelded ash-flow and bedded tuff;vitric

Yucca Flat Upper Confining Unit

(YF-UCU) TCU Zeolitic bedded tuff

Topopah Spring Aquifer (TSA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff; present only in

extreme southern Yucca Flat

Belted Range Aquifer (BRA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff

Belted Range Confining Unit (BRCU) TCU Zeolitic bedded tuffs

Pre-grouse Canyon Tuff Lava-Flow

Aquifer (Pre-Tbg-LFA) LFA Lava flow

Tub Spring Aquifer (TUBA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff

Yucca Flat Lower Confining Unit

(YF-LCU) TCU

Zeolitic bedded tuffs with interbedded

but less significant zeolitic,

nonwelded to partially welded ashflow tuffs

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit

(MGCU) GCU Granodiorite and quartz monzonite

Upper Carbonate Aquifer (UCA) CA Limestone

Lower Carbonate Aquifer - Yucca

Flat Upper Plate (LCA3) CA Limestone and dolomite

Lower Clastic Confining Unit - Yucca

Flat Upper Plate (LCCU1) CCU Quartzite and siltstone

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) CCU Argillite and quartzite

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) CA Dolomite and limestone; “regional

aquifer”

Lower Clastic Confining Unit

(LCCU) CCU Quartzite and siltstone; “hydrologicbasement”

(a) See Table 7.1 for description of hydrogeologic units.

Note: Adapted from Gonzales and Drellack, 1999.
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-29

Table 7.6 Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley Area

Hydrostratigraphic Unit

(Symbol)

Dominant

Hydrogeologic Unit(s)(a) Typical Lithologies

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA

Alluvium (gravelly sand); also

includes eolian sand

Younger Volcanic Composite Unit

(YVCM)

LFA, WTA, VTA

Basalt, welded and nonwelded ashflow tuff

Thirsty Canyon Volcanic Aquifer

(TCVA)

WTA, LFA, lesser VTA

Partially to densely welded ash-flow

tuff; vitric to devitrified

Detached Volcanics Composite

Unit (DVCM)

WTA, LFA, TCU

Complex distribution of welded ashflow tuff, lava, and zeolitic bedded tuff

Fortymile Canyon Composite Unit

(FCCM)

LFA, TCU, lesser WTA Lava flows and associated tuffs

Timber Mountain Composite Unit

(TMCM)

TCU (altered tuffs, lavas)

and unaltered WTA and

lesser LFA

Densely welded ash-flow tuff;

includes lava flows, and minor debris

flows.

Tannenbaum Hill Lava-Flow

Aquifer (THLFA)

LFA Rhyolitic lava

Tannenbaum Hill Composite Unit

(THCM)

Mostly TCU lesser WTA

Zeolitic tuff and vitric, nonwelded to

welded ash-flow tuffs

Timber Mountain Aquifer (TMA) Mostly WTA, minor VTA

Partially to densely welded ash-flow

tuff; vitric to devitrified

Subcaldera Volcanic Confining

Unit (SCVCU)

TCU

Probably highly altered volcanic rocks

and intruded sedimentary rocks

beneath each caldera

Fluorspar Canyon Confining Unit

(FCCU)

TCU Zeolitic bedded tuff

Windy Wash Aquifer (WWA) LFA Rhyolitic lava

Paintbrush Composite Unit

(PCM)

WTA, LFA, TCU

Welded ash-flow tuffs, rhyolitic lava

and minor associated bedded tuffs

Paintbrush Vitric-tuff Aquifer

(PVTA)

VTA Vitric, nonwelded and bedded tuff

Benham Aquifer (BA) LFA Rhyolitic lava

Upper Paintbrush Confining Unit

(UPCU)

TCU Zeolitic, nonwelded and bedded tuff

(a) See Table 7.1 for definitions of hydrogeologic units.
7-30

Table 7.6 (Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley Area, cont.)

Hydrostratigraphic Unit

(Symbol)

Dominant

Hydrogeologic Unit(s)(a) Typical Lithologies

Tiva Canyon Aquifer (TCA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff

Paintbrush Lava-Flow Aquifer

(PLFA)

LFA

Lava; moderately to densely welded

ash-flow tuff

lower Paintbrush Confining Unit

(LPCU)

TCU Zeolitic nonwelded and bedded tuff

Topopah Spring Aquifer

(TSA)

WTA Welded ash-flow tuff

Yucca Mountain Crater Flat

Composite Unit (YMCFCM)

LFA, WTA, TCU

Lava; welded ash-flow tuff; zeolitic,

bedded tuff

Calico Hills Vitric-tuff Aquifer

(CHVTA)

VTA Vitric, nonwelded tuff

Calico Hills Vitric Composite

Unit (CHVCM)

VTA, LFA

Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff;

vitric to devitrified

Calico Hills Zeolitized

Composite Unit (CHZCM)

LFA, TCU

Rhyolitic lava and zeolitic nonwelded

tuff

Calico Hills Confining Unit

(CHCU)

Mostly TCU, minor LFA Zeolitic nonwelded tuff; minor lava

Inlet aquifer (IA) LFA Lava

Crater Flat Composite Unit

(CFCM)

Mostly LFA, intercalated

with TCU

Lava and welded ash-flow tuff

Crater Flat Confining Unit

(CFCU)

TCU Zeolitic nonwelded and bedded tuff

Kearsarge Aquifer (KA) LFA Lava

Bullfrog Confining Unit (BCU) TCU Zeolitic, nonwelded tuff

Belted Range Aquifer (BRA) LFA and WTA, with Lava and welded ash-flow tuff

(a) See Table 7.1 for definitions of hydrogeologic units.
SITE HYDROLOGY

7-31

Table 7.6 (Hydrostratigraphic Units of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley Area, cont.)

Hydrostratigraphic Unit

(Symbol)

Dominant

HydrogeologicUnit(s)(a Typical Lithologies

Pre-Belted Range Composite Unit

(PBRCM)

TCU, WTA , LFA Zeolitic bedded tuffs with

interbedded but less significant

zeolitic, nonwelded to partially

welded ash-flow tuffs

Black Mountain Intrusive Confining

Unit (BMICU)

IICU

These units are presumed to be

present beneath the calderas of

the SWNVF. Their actual

character is unknown, but they

may be igneous intrusive rocks or

older volcanic and pre-Tertiary

sedimentary rocks intruded to

varying degrees by igneous rocks.

Ammonia Tanks Intrusive Confining

Unit (ATICU)

IICU

Rainier Mesa Intrusive Confining Unit

(RMICU)

IICU

Claim Canyon Intrusive Confining Unit

(CCICU)

IICU

Calico Hills Intrusive Confining Unit

(CHICU)

IICU

Silent Canyon Intrusive Confining Unit

(SCICU)

IICU

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit

(MGCU)

GCU

Granodiorite and quartz

monzonite; Gold Meadows Stock

Lower Carbonate Aquifer - Thrust

Plate

CA Limestone and dolomite

Lower Clastic Confining Unit - 

Thrust Plate

CCU Quartzite and siltstone

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) CCU Argillite and quartzite

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) CA

Dolomite and limestone; “regional

aquifer”

Lower Clastic Confining Unit (LCCU) CCU

Quartzite and siltstone; “hydrologic

basement”

(a) See Table 7.1 for definitions of hydrogeologic units.
7-32

Eleana Range (No Date Provided)
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-1

8.0 GROUNDWATER MONITORING

Groundwater monitoring on and near the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is of

particular importance due to the existing and potential groundwater

contamination resulting from historical underground nuclear testing

activities. Sixty groundwater monitoring locations both onsite and offsite

were sampled for radioactivity by Bechtel Nevada (BN) in Calendar Year

(CY) 2001. All analytical results received for tritium, the primary target

analyte, were below Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulatory standards,

while the vast majority were below measurable levels. Results received in

2001 were of high quality and continue to indicate that radionuclides have

not traveled significant distances from underground test areas. Activities

conducted within the Underground Testing Area (UGTA) program for year

2001 are described in Chapter 4.0 of this report.

8.1 INTRODUCTION

There have been 828 underground nuclear tests conducted at the NTS. Approximately one

third of these tests were detonated near or below the water table (U.S. Department of Energy

[DOE] 1996b; DOE 2000b). This legacy of nuclear testing has resulted in the contamination of

groundwater in some areas. Figure 8.1 indicates the locations of underground nuclear tests

and areas of potential groundwater contamination. To safeguard the public’s health and safety

and comply with applicable federal, state, and local environmental protection regulations as well

as the DOE directives, groundwater on and near the NTS is monitored for radioactivity. 

Monitoring in the past has been conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others. In 1998, BN was

tasked by the DOE, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office

(NNSA/NV) to establish and manage the NTS Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring

Plan (RREMP), a single integrated and comprehensive monitoring program. The RREMP

details groundwater monitoring objectives, regulatory drivers, and quality assurance protocols,

which are also summarized in Chapter 4.0.

The NTS groundwater monitoring network consists of a variety of monitoring locations to

determine if and to what extent aquifers have been impacted by radionuclides originating from

activities on the NTS. These locations include onsite supply wells, wells specifically designed to

monitor groundwater, natural springs, domestic offsite wells and point of opportunity locations.

The onsite and offsite locations sampled in 2001 along with the predicted groundwater flow

paths are presented in Figures 8.2 and 8.3, respectively. The NTS groundwater monitoring

locations are located in a complex hydrogeologic setting as described in Chapter 7.0.

8.2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING ANALYTES

The analytes of interest for groundwater monitoring are based on the radiological source term

from historical nuclear testing, regulatory/permit requirements, and characterization needs. 

Typical analyses are presented in Table 8.1 and include both radiological and chemical

parameters to assess impacts to aquifers from past nuclear testing and to characterize the

groundwater system. The sampling frequency presented in Table 8.1 is based on well type and

location. The isotopic inventory remaining from nuclear testing is presented in the NTS

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE 1996c) and a recent Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory (LLNL) document (Smith 2001). Many of the radioactive species generated from

subsurface testing have very short half-lives, sorb strongly onto the solid phase or are bound

into what is termed “puddle glass” and are not available for groundwater transport in the near

term (Smith 1993; Smith et al., 1995). Tritium is the radioactive species created in the greatest

quantities and is widely believed to be one of the most mobile. Tritium is therefore the primary

target analyte and represents the greatest concern to users of groundwater on and around the

NTS for at least the next 100 years due to its high mobility and concentration (DOE 1996c;

International Technology [IT] 1997).
2 3

1 0

2 6

1 1

1 4

8

1 6

4

2 2

1 7

1 5

7

2

9

1 2

2 7

1 3

2 0 1 9

6

5

2 5

1 8

2 9

3 0

95

373

160

8-2

Figure 8.1 Areas of Potential Groundwater Contamination on the NTS

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers

0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Underground Nuclear Test

Underground Test Area

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway
373

160

95

95

WW-2 WW-8

TW-D

J-13

PM-1

J-12

UE-1q

HTH #1

WW-5B

UE-5c

WW-5C

UE-7ns

ER-6-1

U-19bh

UE-18r

UE-16d

ER-20-1

SM 23-1

UE5 PW-3 UE5 PW-2

ER-20-2 #1

Army Well #1

WW-C1

UE5 PW-1

WW-4 &

WW-4A

WW-4 &

WW-4A

WW-A

ER-19-1

UE25p #1

UE25WT #6

8-3

GROUNDWATER MONITORING

Figure 8.2 NTS Onsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations - 2001

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Monitoring Locations

Corrective Action Unit Boundary

NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Highway

Predicted Regional Groundwater Flowline
373

374

160

95

95

95

C A L I F O R N I A

C A L I F O R N I A

N E V A D A

N E V A D A

PM-3

Longstreet Spring

Big Spring

Peacock Ranch

Revert Spring

Crystal Trailer Park

Tolicha Peak

ER-OV-01 &

ER-OV-06a

ER-OV-01 &

ER-OV-06a

ER-OV-03c &

ER-OV-03c2

ER-OV-03c &

ER-OV-03c2

ER-OV-02

ER-OV-03a &

ER-OV-03a3 &

Spicer Springs

ER-OV-03a &

ER-OV-03a3 &

Spicer Springs

ER-OV-04a

Beatty Water and Sewer

Low Level Waste Site (US Ecology)

Cind-R-Lite Mine

Last Trail Ranch

De Lee Ranch

Cooks Ranch Well #2

Fairbanks Spring

ER-OV-05

Roger Bright Ranch

Longstreet Casino Well #1

Fire Hall #2 Well

Crystal Pool

Amargosa Valley RV Park

School Well

Beatty

8-4

Figure 8.3 NTS Offsite Groundwater Monitoring Locations - 2001

0 5 10 20 30 40

Kilometers 0 5 10 20

Miles

Monitoring Locations

BN

BN and DRI

Area of Regional Evapotranspiration

Corrective Action Unit Boundary

Nellis Air Force Range

State Boundary

Predicted Regional Groundwater Flowlines
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-5

Figure 8.4 Wells with a History of Detectable Tritium

The majority of tritium results presented in this chapter are from enriched samples. Tritium

samples are enriched to achieve a very low detection limit. The enrichment process

concentrates tritium in the samples to give an effective minimum detectable concentration

(MDC) of near 10 pCi/L whereas the MDC for a standard (non-enriched) tritium analysis ranges

from 200-400 pCi/L. The uncertainty/error values presented in the summary tables at the end

of this chapter represent the counting uncertainty/error of the analytical method. Although the

uncertainty associated with the enrichment process has not yet been quantified, it is estimated

to be up to 20 percent and is not encompassed by the counting uncertainty/error. It is therefore

important to note that the total or system error associated with the enrichment and analysis

process for tritium samples is somewhat higher than the values presented in the summary

tables.

8.3 GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS

QUALITY ASSURANCE

The results are discussed below.

TRITIUM

Onsite Supply Wells

Quarterly samples for tritium analyses were collected from the water supply wells in 2001 with

all results below the MDC. The only onsite water supply well with a history of validated

detections for tritium is Water Well C-1. This well was injected with approximately 0.1 to 0.2

Curies of tritium by a researcher conducting a tracer test in 1962 (Lyles 1990). All data

collected to date indicate that the current onsite water supply network has not been impacted by

subsurface nuclear testing. 

Figure 8.4 is a time series plot of tritium concentrations for locations which have a history of

detectable tritium and were sampled in 2001. This plot illustrates the decrease of the annually

averaged tritium concentrations in Well C-1 over time. Figure 8.5 shows the locations of the

wells presented in Figure 8.4.
373

160

95

95

WW-C1

(<10 pCi/L)

WW-C1

(<10 pCi/L)

UE-7ns

(201.0 pCi/L)

UE-7ns

(201.0 pCi/L)

PM-1

(224.0 pCi/L)

PM-1

(224.0 pCi/L)

U-19bh

(44.0 pCi/L)

U-19bh

(44.0 pCi/L)

WW-A

(573.0 pCi/L)

WW-A

(573.0 pCi/L)

3 0

2 9

1 8

2 5

5

6

2 0 1 9

1 3

2 7

1 2

9

2

7

1 5

1 7

2 2

4

1 6

8

1 4

1 1

2 6

1 0

2 3

8-6

Figure 8.5 NTS Groundwater Monitoring Locations With a History of Detectable Tritium - 2001

0 5 10 20 30

Kilometers 0 2.5 5 10 15

Miles

Monitoring Locations

Corrective Action Unit Boundary NTS Operational Areas

NTS Boundary

Primary Road

Predicted Regional Groundwater Flowline Highway
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-7

Analytical results for all tritium samples are presented in Table 8.2. This table shows all results

were well below the regulatory standard of 20,000 pCi/L and MDC.

Onsite Monitoring Wells

Of the 19 onsite monitoring wells sampled in year 2001, only 5 had results above the MDC for

tritium. These locations are Wells PM-1, UE-7nS, U-19bh, Ue25p#1, and Water Well A. These

wells, with the exception of Ue25p#1, are located within 1 km of underground nuclear tests and

are shown in Figure 8.5. The uncertainty of the Ue25p#1 result encompasses the MDC. This

well is located over 15 miles from the nearest underground test and does not have a history of

detectable tritium.

Well PM-1, located on Pahute Mesa, has a history of tritium concentrations near 200 pCi/L over

the last ten years. This well has an unslotted casing from ground surface to a depth of 2,300 m

and an open hole from 2,300 - 2,356 m below ground surface. Sampling depths have

historically ranged from 3 - 100 m below the static water level (~643 m below ground surface).

In 2001, samples were collected throughout the borehole profile to identify where the tritium

was entering the borehole. Results from the profile sampling showed a decreasing tritium

concentration with depth indicating that the tritium is entering the borehole near the water table. 

Future studies are being proposed to investigate current borehole conditions at this location.

Potential sources of the tritium detected in Well PM-1 include the FARM (U-20ab), GREELEY

(U-20g), and KASSERI (U-20z) underground nuclear tests. The FARM test, although believed

to be downgradient, is the closest test detonated near or below the water table to PM-1. The

GREELEY and KASSERI tests were of relatively large magnitude and detonated 2,429 and 

1,196 m, upgradient of PM-1, respectively. 

Well UE-7nS was drilled 137 m from the BOURBON underground nuclear test (U-7n)

conducted in Yucca Flat in 1967. This well was routinely sampled between 1978 and 1987 and

again since 1992. In year 2001, approximately 200 pCi/L of tritium was detected in water

samples from Well UE-7nS. This result is consistent with the trend of decreasing

concentrations seen in recent years; however, Finnegan and Thompson (2002) reported 

increased tritium concentrations at this location after repeated runs downhole with a bailer.

They suggest that the turbulence from the repeated bailer runs may be mixing in higher tritium

concentrations from below, but caution that more data is necessary to confirm this hypothesis. 

Well UE-7nS is the second known site on the NTS where the regionally important carbonate

aquifer has been impacted by radionuclides from nuclear testing (Smith et al., 1999). Well 

UE-2ce is the first known location on the NTS where the regionally important carbonate aquifer

has been impacted. This well is located less than 200 m from the NASH test (conducted in

Yucca Flat in 1967) and is not currently configured for sampling. 

Well U-19bh is an inventory emplacement borehole on Pahute Mesa, which is currently used for

sampling. This location has a tritium concentration slightly above the MDC. The origin of the

tritium is unclear. Investigations at this location suggest that the water in this borehole is from a

perched aquifer (Brikowski et al., 1993). There were several nuclear detonations conducted

near the U-19bh borehole; however, identifying the likely source of tritium is particularly difficult

due to a lack of data regarding the perched system. Results from a tracer test conducted in 

Well U-19bh (Brikowski et al., 1993) indicate that there is little flow across the borehole. These

results therefore indicate that the water chemistry of the borehole may not be representative of

the aquifer; however, due to the presence of tritium, the data is presented as a point of interest.

Water Well A, located in Yucca Flat, has had measurable tritium since the late 1980's.

Measured concentrations in 2001 are lower than those reported in 1999 and may indicate the

beginning of a downward trend at this location. Water Well A is completed in alluvium and

located within 1 km of 14 underground nuclear tests, most of which appear to be upgradient of

Well A. 

It is significant to note that radionuclide contamination has not been detected in Well U-3cn #5.

This well is completed in the regionally significant carbonate aquifer 60 m from the BILBY 

(U-3cn) test. BILBY was conducted in 1963 in a zeolitic volcanic tuff confining unit (section 7.4)

less than 120 m above the carbonate aquifer.
8-8

Figure 8.6 Annual Averages of Gross Alpha in Supply Wells

Figure 8.4 is a time series plot of tritium concentration for locations sampled in 2001 with a

history of detectable tritium. Data presented in Figure 8.4 prior to 1999 for Wells PM-1, 

UE-7nS, and Water Well A are annual averages obtained from EPA. Figure 8.5 shows the

locations of wells with detectable tritium from samples collected in CY 2001. Results for all

onsite monitoring well samples are presented in Table 8.2.

Offsite Locations

Thirty offsite locations were sampled for tritium analyses in 2001 (see Figure 8.3). All results

were below the MDC and are presented in Table 8.2.

GROSS ALPHA

Onsite Supply Wells

Quarterly samples were collected from the supply wells for gross alpha analyses in CY 2001. 

All results were below the regulatory standard of 15 pCi/L, with the exception of the fourth

quarter result from Water Well C-1, which slightly exceeded the standard, with a value of 

17 pCi/L. A field duplicate was also collected with a result of 13 pCi/L. SDWA regulations

require annual averages to be below the standard; therefore, the well was within compliance for

2001 when the quarterly results were averaged. In addition to man-made radionuclides, many

naturally occurring minerals/elements contribute to alpha radiation (e.g. minerals containing

uranium). These elements are more abundant in volcanic source rocks. Therefore, wells

producing water from these rocks will likely have relatively higher gross alpha values. Results

of all gross alpha analyses for samples collected in 2001 are presented in Table 8.3.

Figure 8.6 shows the annual averages of gross alpha analyses for the supply wells from the

past ten years. This figure illustrates that the regulatory standard for gross alpha has not been

exceeded since 1991.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-9

Figure 8.7 Annual Averages of Gross Beta in Supply Wells

Onsite Monitoring Wells/Offsite Locations

During 2001, 13 onsite monitoring wells and 16 offsite locations were sampled for gross

alpha analyses. All samples were below the regulatory standard with the exception of onsite

Well UE-25P #1, which slightly exceeded the regulatory standard and is used solely as a

monitoring location. Table 8.3 presents all gross alpha results for samples collected in 2001.

GROSS BETA

Onsite Supply Wells

Results for all gross beta analyses collected from the supply wells in 2001 were well below the

drinking water standard of 50 pCi/L. Figure 8.7 is a plot of historical gross beta annual

averages. This plot indicates that the gross beta concentrations within the water supply wells

are stable, and there is no indication of significant increasing trends. Actual gross beta values

for CY 2001 analyses are presented in Table 8.4.

Onsite Monitoring Wells/Offsite Locations

During 2001, samples were collected for gross beta analyses from 14 onsite monitoring wells

and 23 offsite locations. All results were below drinking water standards and are presented in

Table 8.4.

GAMMA SPECTROSCOPY

Ten supply wells, 17 onsite monitoring locations, and 25 offsite locations were sampled for

gamma-emitting radionuclides in 2001. Nine locations had detectable concentrations of

radionuclides. Results are presented in Table 8.5. All gamma results, when accounting for

analytical uncertainty, encompass their MDCs.
8-10

RADIUM

During 2001, one onsite monitoring well, one offsite location, and ten supply wells were

sampled for radium analyses. Results from all sampling locations were below the drinking

water standard of 5 pCi/L for the combined 226Ra and 228Ra concentrations. Results from 

CY 2001 radium analyses are presented in Tables 8.6 and 8.7.

PLUTONIUM

Eight supply wells, 14 onsite monitoring locations, and 26 offsite locations were sampled for

238Pu and 239+240Pu in 2001. All plutonium results were below the MDC and are presented in

Tables 8.8 and 8.9.

STRONTIUM

During 2001, one onsite monitoring well, one offsite location, and eight supply wells were

sampled for 90Sr analyses. All 2001 results were below the MDC and are presented in 

Table 8.10.

8.4 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER MONITORING

In 2001, 60 groundwater monitoring locations were sampled for radioactivity. Of the 60

locations sampled, there were no results which exceeded the SDWA regulatory limit for the

primary target analyte, tritium. In fact, over 90 percent of the locations sampled had tritium

concentrations below measurable levels. Additionally, analytical data received in 2001 are of

high quality, in good agreement with historical data, and indicate that radionuclides have not

traveled significant distances from underground testing areas.

8.5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM - WATER

MONITORING PROJECT

The Desert Research Institute (DRI) was tasked by the DOE, during fiscal year 2001, to provide

independent verification of the tritium activity within some of the offsite groundwater wells and

water supply systems in areas surrounding the NTS. Samples collected by DRI personnel

provide not only an independent measure of the levels of radioactivity within these wells, but, in

some cases, a direct comparison to the results obtained by the RREMP. 

The sole analyte for this project was tritium. Tritium is one of the most abundant radionuclides

generated by an underground nuclear test, and since it is incorporated into the water molecule

itself, it is also one of the most mobile. 

Sample Locations

Sixteen wells, three water supply systems, and one spring were sampled during the period of

March 6 to June 19, 2001. Sample locations were selected based upon input from the

Community Environmental Monitors (DRI employees living within each community and acting

as a liaison between DOE sponsored environmental monitoring programs and the local

populace). All wells were sampled utilizing down hole submersible pumps. Samples from

water supply systems were collected via discharge from a faucet connected to that system. 

The spring was sampled by hand at its orifice. Each well was pumped a minimum of 10 to 15

minutes prior to sampling to purge water from the pump tubing and well annulus. This process

insured that the resultant sample was representative of local groundwater. Table 8.11 lists all

of the wells, the date they were sampled, and the sampling method . The locations of the wells,

spring, and municipal water supply sample points are also presented in Figure 8.3.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-11

Procedures and Quality Assurance

DRI utilized several methods to ensure that radiological results reported herein conform to

current quality assurance protocols. This was achieved through the use of standard operating

procedures, field quality assurance samples, and laboratory quality assurance procedures. 

DRI’s standard operating procedures are detailed instructions that describe the method and

materials, using step-by-step instructions, that are required to decontaminate and operate the

sample equipment, collect field water quality samples, and protect the samples from tampering

and environmental conditions that may alter their chemistry. 

The second tier of quality assurance utilized on this project consisted of field quality assurance

samples. The intent of these samples and procedures was to provide direct measures of the

contribution of radioactive material that was derived from the bottles, sampling equipment, and

the environment to the activity of tritium measured within the samples. In addition, duplicate

samples were collected to establish a measure of the repeatability of the analysis. Field quality

assurance samples were collected solely to support the interpretation of the tritium samples. 

Six samples (30 percent of the sample load) were collected for the purposes of meeting field

quality assurance requirements. Laboratory quality assurance controls consisted of the

utilization of published laboratory techniques for the analysis of enriched tritium, method blanks,

laboratory control samples, and laboratory duplicates. The laboratory quality assurance

samples provide a measure of the accuracy and limit of detection of the reported results.

Analysis of field and laboratory quality assurance samples indicate a high degree of confidence

can be associated with all of DRI’s FY 2001 results.

Tritium Results

The results of tritium analyses from the DRI Tritium Laboratory are presented in Table 8.12. 

Tritium activities averaged 6.4 pCi/L and ranged from <1 to 34 pCi/L. All sample analyses were

well below the safe drinking water limit of 20,000 pCi/L. The highest activities were associated

with samples collected from Henderson and Boulder City. The water in these samples

originated from Lake Mead. Slightly elevated tritium activities in Lake Mead are well

documented by previous investigations and are due to residual tritium persisting in the

environment that originated from atmospheric nuclear testing.

8.6 VADOSE ZONE MONITORING (VZM)

As explained in Chapter 4.0 of this report, the vadose zone is monitored at three general types

of sites on the NTS: Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs), Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act closure sites, and permitted sanitary landfills. Vadose zone monitoring

(VZM) is conducted at various locations in addition to, or in lieu of, groundwater monitoring for

the purpose of protecting groundwater resources. 

A VZM data set has been collected for the past eight years at the Area 5 weighing lysimeter

facility. This facility consists of two weighing lysimeters located about 400 m (1312 ft)

southwest of the Area 5 RWMS. Each lysimeter consists of a steel box 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, filled

with soil and having an area of 2 m x 4 m (6.6 ft x 13 ft). Each lysimeter is mounted on a

sensitive scale, which is continuously monitored using an electronic loadcell. One lysimeter is

vegetated with native plant species at the approximate density of the surrounding desert, and

one lysimeter is kept bare to simulate the bare operational waste covers at the Area 5 RWMS. 

The facility has been in continuous operation since March 1994 and has provided data to

support the important assumption made in the Area 3 and Area 5 Performance Assessments of

no downward movement of water beyond plant rooting depths. This facility has also provided

data to justify other NTS closure covers (DOE 2000c; d). 

Total soil water storage is illustrated in Figure 8.8 for the period of March 1994, through

December 2001. Daily precipitation totals are also illustrated in Figure 8.8. The soil water

storage increases, early in the data record for the vegetated lysimeter, were due to irrigations to
8-12

ensure that transplanted vegetation survived. Note the steep decrease in soil water storage in

the vegetated lysimeter following high-rainfall periods. Also note that the vegetated lysimeter is

considerably drier than the bare-soil lysimeter, despite the paucity of plants in the vegetated

lysimeter (about 15 percent cover). No drainage has ever been measured from the permeable

bottoms of either lysimeter to date. However, volumetric water content at a depth of 170 cm

(5.6 ft) in the bare-soil lysimeter has increased from about 9 to 14 percent since the facility was

installed. 

In addition to the weighing lysimeter facility, a drainage lysimeter facility was installed next to

the U-3ax/bl disposal unit at the Area 3 RWMS. This facility is instrumented with soil water

content and matric potential sensors and will be used to test the effectiveness of different

surface treatments in support of long-term waste cover design.

In addition to lysimeter facilities, vadose zone monitoring of waste cell covers and floors using

automated systems has been conducted at the Area 5 RWMS since late 1998. Soil water

content at various depths with time is illustrated in Figure 8.9 for an automated waste cover

monitoring system on the cover of Pit 3 at the Area 5 RWMS. Note the depth of infiltration has

not exceeded 90 cm (3 ft) before that water was returned to the atmosphere by evaporation. 

For further details on, and data from, the RWMS VZM program, refer to “NTS 2001 Waste

Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites,” 

(BN 2002b).
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-13

Figure 8.8 Weighing Lysimeter and Precipitation Data from March 1994 through 

 December 2001

Figure 8.9 Soil Water Content in Pit 3 Waste Cover (North Side) using an Automated 

 TDR System
8-14

Table 8.1 Typical Sampling and Analysis Schedule for RREMP Groundwater Monitoring

Sample Location Type Analysis Sample Frequency Regulatory Driver

Onsite

Locations

Potable water supply well within CAU Ie & II Quarterly 40 CFR 61 and DOE Order 5400

III & IV Annually “

Other potable water supply well I & II Quarterly DOE Order 5400 Series

III & IV Annually “

CAU non-potable water supply well Ie Quarterly DOE Order 5400 Series

II, III, & IV Annually “

Other non-potable water supply well I Semiannually DOE Order 5400 Series

II, III, & IV Biennially “

Monitoring Well (Non-water supply) I Annually DOE Order 5400 Series

II, III, & IV Biennially “

Source Characterization Well(a) I, II, III, & IV Biennially(b) DOE Order 5400 Series

New Wells Ie, II, III, & IV Quarterly(c) DOE Order 5400 Series

Offsite

Locations(d)

Group A locations

(Oasis Valley and vicinity)

Ie, IIg Quarterly 40 CFR 61 and DOE Order 5400

II, III+ Annually “

Group B locations (more distant) I, IIg Semiannually DOE Order 5400 Series

Group C locations (most distant) I, IIg Annually DOE Order 5400 Series

New locations Ie, II, III+, IV First sample 40 CFR 61 and DOE Order 5400

(a) Source Characterization Wells are currently known as the Hot Well Network. Additional sampling parameters may be specified for each hot well.

(b) Biennial frequency can be modified for well-specific sampling program.

(c) After four quarterly samples are acquired, sampling parameters and frequency will be based on the well type.

(d) Offsite locations include both drilled wells and natural springs.

Note: All parameters and frequencies of analysis are subject to revision after data are acquired and reviewed, if justified.

Corrective Action Units (CAUs) are as defined by Underground Testing Area (UGTA) Project (IT, 1996c).

Type I Analysis include Standard Tritium; at select wells enriched tritium analysis (Type Ie) will be performed.

Type II Analysis include Gross Alpha and Gross Beta. For drinking water wells, also includes Ra-226 & 228 analyses. Type IIg analysis includes only 

Gamma emitters.

Type III Analysis include Gamma emitters, Plutonium. Type III+ analysis includes Type III plus Sr-90.

Type IV Analysis include pH, Specific Conductivity, Temperature, Principal Cations/Anions, Total Dissolved Solids, Alkalinity, and Bicarbonate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-15

Table 8.2 Summary of Tritium Results - 2001

Area Location Date Sampled

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Supply Wells

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-02-06 -10.95 (a) 11.40 7.85 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-04-03 -5.16

(a) 11.55 8.81 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-07-31 -5.80

(a) 10.14 6.57 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-10-30 -3.24

(a) 18.98 10.94 pump

05 W ater Well 5B (b) 2001-10-30 -10.65 (a) 17.34 11.01 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-02-06 -12.61 (a) 11.26 7.73 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-04-03 -2.99

(a) 10.05 6.50 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-07-31 -3.83

(a) 10.05 7.85 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-10-31 -2.03

(a) 17.34 11.65 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-02-06 -8.74

(a) 10.92 7.43 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-04-03 -3.30

(a) 11.08 7.34 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 5.00 (a) 10.00 6.33 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 (b) 2001-07-31 0.51 (a) 10.10 7.12 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-10-30 -2.25

(a) 17.85 10.07 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-02-06 -13.30 (a) 10.41 7.01 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-04-03 -3.12

(a) 10.47 7.32 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-07-31 2.64 (a) 10.13 6.17 pump

06 W ater Well #4A (b) 2001-07-31 -1.77

(a) 10.18 5.93 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-10-30 -7.63

(a) 17.34 9.86 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-02-06 -10.31 (a) 32.16 6.70 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-04-03 5.88 (a) 9.84 6.59 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-07-31 7.55 (a) 9.91 6.13 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-10-30 3.83 (a) 17.72 9.56 pump

16 UE-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-02-06 -11.38 (a) 11.84 5.87 pump

16 UE-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-04-03 -3.12

(a) 10.47 5.23 pump

16 UE-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-07-31 8.06 (a) 9.95 5.07 pump

16 UE-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-10-30 -5.90

(a) 17.72 7.72 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-02-06 -13.25 (a) 10.35 6.00 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-04-03 -6.10

(a) 10.21 8.46 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-07-31 4.29 (a) 10.00 6.19 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-10-30 -5.14

(a) 17.85 10.37 pump

18 W ater Well 8 (USGS HTH-8) (b) 2001-10-30 -6.16

(a) 17.09 8.51 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-02-06 -7.36

(a) 11.52 5.97 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 -5.82

(a) 9.78 7.23 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.00 (a) 10.43 5.65 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 -6.66

(a) 17.59 8.83 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 -11.79 (a) 10.52 8.49 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 -1.50

(a) 10.05 7.11 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 5.56 (a) 10.19 6.48 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell (b) 2001-08-01 5.09 (a) 10.19 8.80 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 -0.65

(a) 18.12 10.53 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 -10.98 (a) 11.43 17.41 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 -4.95

(a) 11.08 21.08 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 -1.39

(a) 9.72 23.61 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell (b) 2001-08-01 1.42 (a) 10.38 8.96 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 -3.54

(a) 17.09 48.23 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell (b) 2001-10-31 -0.35

(a) 12.89 11.23 pump

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
8-16

Table 8.2 (Sum mary of Tritium Results - 2001, cont.)

Area Location

Date 

Sampled

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Monitoring

1 UE-1q 2001-01-31 -5.67

(a) 11.52 7.41 bailer

02 W ater W ell 2 (USGS HTH #2) 2001-09-05 -2.94

(a) 10.44 8.62 bailer

02 W ater Well 2 (USGS HTH #2) (b) 2001-09-05 0.96 (a) 10.71 9.35 bailer

03 USGS W ater W ell A 2001-02-20 568.08 10.61 10.47 bailer

03 USGS W ater Well A (b) 2001-02-20 561.58 10.99 6.11 bailer

04 USGS Test W ell D 2001-01-31 -5.55

(a) 11.35 6.75 bailer

05 UE-5c W ater W ell 2001-04-04 -12.66 (a) 12.03 8.59 pump

05 UE-5c W ater W ell 2001-10-30 0.85 (a) 18.98 13.86 pump

05 UE5PW -1 (b) 2001-05-29 -17.95 (a) 12.79 8.63 pump

05 UE5PW -1 2001-10-03 -4.10

(a) 16.40 9.56 pump

05 UE5PW -1 (b) 2001-10-03 -1.76

(a) 16.64 9.70 pump

05 UE5PW -2 2001-05-29 -12.33 (a) 13.16 6.46 pump

05 UE5PW -2 (b) 2001-05-29 -10.67 (a) 13.05 7.29 pump

05 UE5PW -2 2001-10-03 0.00 (a) 16.89 29.92 pump

05 UE5PW -2 (b) 2001-10-03 -5.64

(a) 16.77 12.33 pump

05 UE5PW -3 2001-05-29 -7.72

(a) 13.20 7.09 pump

05 UE5PW -3 (b) 2001-05-29 -17.14 (a) 13.30 6.70 pump

05 UE5PW -3 2001-10-03 1.90 (a) 16.52 10.00 pump

05 UE5PW -3 (b) 2001-10-03 3.01 (a) 16.52 11.56 pump

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 -5.01

(a) 30.56 5.46 bailer

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 -6.77

(a) 10.32 5.91 bailer

07 UE-7nS 2001-02-28 201.47 10.78 7.55 bailer

07 UE-7nS (b) 2001-02-28 191.92 10.00 7.12 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 -8.65

(a) 11.30 6.23 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 -6.15

(a) 10.09 6.38 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 -6.25

(a) 10.23 7.13 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 -7.50

(a) 9.82 6.14 bailer

18 UE-18r 2001-05-01 -14.77 (a) 12.62 5.79 bailer

18 UE-18r 2001-05-01 -16.12 (a) 12.50 8.57 bailer

19 U-19BH 2001-05-07 38.86 13.26 5.08 bailer

19 U-19BH (b) 2001-05-07 44.19 14.49 6.97 bailer

19 ER-19-1 2001-05-31 -6.42

(a) 11.01 5.05 bailer

19 ER-19-1 2001-05-31 -1.04

(a) 11.40 7.25 bailer

20 ER-20-1 2001-07-02 -6.07

(a) 11.21 6.31 bailer

20 ER-20-1 (b) 2001-07-02 -0.96

(a) 11.06 6.73 bailer

20 ER-20-2 #1 2001-07-25 -3.72

(a) 11.16 16.19 bailer

20 W ELL PM-1 2001-06-20 224.30 18.22 6.07 bailer

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 1.54 (a) 10.32 6.42 pump

25 UE-25 WT #6 2001-08-14 0.27 (a) 10.64 10.57 bailer

25 UE-25 WT #6 (b) 2001-08-14 3.17 (a) 10.77 10.58 bailer

25 UE-25P #1 2001-08-16 11.22 10.18 9.15 bailer

25 UE-25P #1 (b) 2001-08-16 12.41 9.82 7.65 bailer

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-17

Table 8.2 (Sum mary of Tritium Results - 2001, cont.)

 Area Location

Date 

Sampled

Result

 (pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Amargosa Valley RV Park 2001-11-28 7.85 (a) 25.65 11.2 pump

95 Amargosa Valley RV Park (b) 2001-11-28 0.85 (a) 26.38 11.52 pump

95 Beatty Water and Sewer 2001-11-29 -18.96 (a) 26.13 12.26 pump

95 Beatty Water and Sewer (b) 2001-11-29 1.21 (a) 24.95 9.91 pump

95 Big Springs 2001-07-23 -2.75

(a) 10.09 15.50 grab

95 Big Springs (b) 2001-07-23 -1.29

(a) 10.30 5.97 grab

95 Cind-R-Lite Mine 2001-11-29 -6.63

(a) 24.95 11.08 pump

95 Cook's Ranch Well #2 2001-11-28 -0.43

(a) 26.73 10.91 pump

95 Crystal Pool 2001-07-23 -2.79

(a) 10.23 5.58 grab

95 Crystal Pool (b) 2001-07-23 -3.21

(a) 10.09 5.69 grab

95 Crystal Trailer Park 2001-11-28 -14.48 (a) 26.38 13.24 pump

95 Crystal Trailer Park (b) 2001-11-28 -13.31 (a) 22.34 12.10 pump

95 De Lee Ranch 2001-11-28 -5.99

(a) 18.52 6.91 pump

95 ER-OV-01 2001-04-24 -18.33 (a) 12.12 11.80 bailer

95 ER-OV-01 (b) 2001-04-24 -20.35 (a) 13.43 10.35 bailer

95 ER-OV-01 2001-10-17 -5.01

(a) 17.23 9.15 bailer

95 ER-OV-01 (b) 2001-10-17 -9.85

(a) 17.74 10.44 bailer

95 ER-OV-02 2001-04-23 -12.64 (a) 12.50 6.02 bailer

95 ER-OV-02 2001-10-16 -3.50

(a) 17.23 7.80 bailer

95 ER-OV-02 (b) 2001-10-16 -3.45

(a) 16.99 8.53 bailer

95 ER-OV-03A 2001-10-15 -8.79

(a) 17.23 9.65 bailer

95 ER-OV-03A (b) 2001-10-15 -8.67

(a) 16.99 9.51 bailer

95 ER-OV-03A3 2001-10-15 4.08 (a) 15.26 11.53 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C 2001-04-24 -21.78 (a) 13.30 5.09 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C 2001-10-16 -1.22

(a) 17.23 8.58 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C (b) 2001-10-16 -7.59

(a) 17.23 8.51 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 2001-04-24 -14.23 (a) 12.56 5.86 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 2001-10-16 -6.39

(a) 16.09 8.48 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 (b) 2001-10-16 -7.30

(a) 17.23 10.43 bailer

95 ER-OV-04A 2001-10-17 -2.96

(a) 16.76 7.31 bailer

95 ER-OV-04A (b) 2001-10-17 -10.70 (a) 17.11 7.46 bailer

95 ER-OV-05 2001-10-17 -6.93

(a) 18.27 10.23 bailer

95 ER-OV-05 (b) 2001-10-17 4.59 (a) 17.36 9.29 bailer

95 ER-OV-06A 2001-04-24 -18.39 (a) 13.26 5.65 bailer

95 ER-OV-06A (b) 2001-04-24 -16.60 (a) 13.15 6.38 bailer

95 ER-OV-06A 2001-10-17 -8.61

(a) 17.74 11.68 bailer

95 ER-OV-06A (b) 2001-10-17 -4.10

(a) 17.87 10.07 bailer

95 Fairbanks Spring 2001-07-23 5.05 (a) 11.11 8.94 grab

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
8-18

Table 8.2 (Sum mary of Tritium Results - 2001, cont.)

Area Location

Date 

Sampled

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Offsite Wells and Springs, cont.

95 Fairbanks Spring (b) 2001-07-23 2.87 (a) 10.66 6.52 grab

95 Last Trail Ranch 2001-11-28 2.90 (a) 18.23 11.84 pump

95 Last Trail Ranch (b) 2001-11-28 -2.85

(a) 18.52 14.77 pump

95 Peacock Ranch 2001-07-30 -4.17

(a) 10.19 5.97 grab

95 Roger Bright Ranch 2001-06-14 -1.00

(a)

11.50 5.55 pump

95 School Well 2001-11-28 -5.69

(a)

18.52 8.72 pump

95 School Well (b) 2001-11-28 -6.90

(a)

17.81 8.39 pump

95 Spicer Ranch 2001-07-30 -2.73

(a)

10.45 5.91 grab

95 Spicer Ranch (b) 2001-07-30 -6.05

(a)

10.23 5.67 grab

95 Tolicha Peak 2001-11-29 -0.63

(a)

17.25 8.13 pump

95 U.S. Ecology 2001-11-29 -6.19

(a)

20.00 9.66 pump

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-19

Table 8.3 Summary of Gross Alpha Results - 2001

Area Location

Date

Sampled

Result

(pCi/L

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Supply Wells

05 W ater W ell 5 B 2001-02-06 3.88 1.12 2.56 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-07-31 1.88 (a) 2.46 1.61 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-10-30 5.4 1.6 1.4 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-02-06 3.49 1.81 2.81 pump

05 W ater W ell 5Cc 2001-07-31 6.31 3.88 2.63 pump

05 W ater W ell 5Cc 2001-10-31 11 1.5 2 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-02-06 7.67 1.24 2.75 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 12 3.49 3.63 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-10-30 7.1 1.2 1.5 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-02-06 8.59 1.82 5.11 pump

06 W ater Well #4Aa 2001-07-31 8.53 3.33 2.9 pump

06 W ater Well #4Aa 2001-10-30 8.3 1.6 1.8 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-02-06 12.1 1.56 6.8 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-07-31 13.5 2.51 3.45 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-10-30 17 2.1 3 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-02-06 4.11 1.27 4.6 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-07-31 8.47 2.68 2.75 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-10-30 8.5 1.6 1.8 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-02-06 0.736 (a) 0.93 0.764 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-04-03 0.621 (a) 1.4 0.887 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-07-31 -1.49

(a) 2.02 1.08 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-10-30 -0.75

(a) 1.8 0.98 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-02-06 3.17 1.14 1.57 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 3.88 3.42 2.23 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 3.8 1.3 1.1 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 1.25 (a) 1.48 1.01 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 0.983 (a) 1.2 0.946 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.331 (a) 1.76 1.03 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 2 1.2 0.84 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 1.4 1.19 1.08 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 0.565 (a) 1.56 0.976 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 1.3 (a) 1.37 0.936 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 0.98 (a) 1.5 0.9 pump

Onsite Monitoring Wells

1 UE-1q 2001-01-31 6.77 1.52 4.58 bailer

02 W ater W ell 2 (USGS HTH #2) 2001-09-05 11 3.2 3.3 bailer

03 USGS W ater W ell A 2001-02-20 0.83 (a) 1.01 0.769 bailer

04 USGS Test W ell D 2001-01-31 0.665 (a) 0.914 0.728 bailer

05 UE5PW -1 2001-10-03 4.5 1.4 1.3 pump

05 UE5PW -2 2001-10-03 3.7 1.7 1.3 pump

05 UE5PW -3 2001-10-03 3.4 1.6 1.2 pump

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 3.41 1.34 1.79 bailer

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 4.93 1.61 3 bailer

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
8-20

Table 8.3 (Sum mary of Gross Alpha Results - 2001, cont.)

Area Location

Date

Sampled

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Monitoring Wells, cont.

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 -0.211 (a) 1.6 0.762 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 1.27 (a) 2.39 1.59 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 0.687 (a) 2.14 1.23 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 1.32 (a) 2.03 1.32 bailer

20 ER-20-1 2001-07-02 0.897 0.874 0.591 bailer

20 ER-20-2 #1 2001-07-25 7.36 2.78 2.72 bailer

20 ER-20-2 #1 2001-07-25 7.36 2.78 2.72 bailer

20 ER-20-2 #1 2001-07-25 7.36 2.78 2.72 bailer

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 3.91 1.09 2.55 pump

25 UE-25 WT #6 2001-08-14 17 6.9 4.9 bailer

25 UE-25P #1 2001-08-16 16 1.4 2.9 bailer

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Beatty Water and Sewer 2001-11-29 10.4 1.15 1.89 pump

95 Big Springs 2001-07-23 3.03 2 1.48 grab

95 Cind-R-Lite Mine 2001-11-29 4.73 1 1.13 pump

95 Crystal Pool 2001-07-23 3.75 2.96 2.13 grab

95 ER-OV-03C 2001-10-16 9.8 0.96 1.7 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 2001-10-16 7.6 0.93 1.4 bailer

95 ER-OV-06A 2001-10-17 8.3 1.9 1.9 bailer

95 Fairbanks Spring 2001-07-23 4.16 3.88 2.37 grab

95 Longstreet Casino Well #1 2001-07-23 3.94 2.25 1.74 pump

95 Longstreet Spring 2001-07-23 2.42 2.12 1.43 grab

95 Peacock Ranch 2001-07-30 0.862 (a) 2.45 1.48 grab

95 Revert Spring 2001-07-30 7.97 3.18 2.82 grab

95 Roger Bright Ranch 2001-06-14 7.24 3.49 3.57 pump

95 Spicer Ranch 2001-07-30 14.9 3.81 3.6 grab

95 Tolicha Peak 2001-11-29 3.62 1.03 0.956 pump

95 U.S. Ecology 2001-11-29 7.31 1.92 1.79 pump

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-21

Table 8.4 Summary of Gross Beta Results - 2001

Area Location

Date

Sampled 

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Supply Wells

5 W ater W ell 5B 2001-02-06 9.78 1.93 1.92 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-04-03 11.8 2.66 2.65 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-10-30 10 1.4 1.8 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-02-06 8.51 2.22 1.89 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-04-03 8.85 2.73 2.19 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-10-31 7.7 1.4 1.4 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-02-06 7.47 1.84 1.57 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-04-03 7.99 1.66 1.54 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-10-30 5.1 1.3 1.1 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-02-06 7.97 2.13 2.04 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-04-03 4.96 2.56 1.87 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-10-30 6.1 1.4 1.2 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-02-06 16.2 2.37 2.98 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-04-03 4.17 3.03 2.31 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-10-30 15 2.1 2.5 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-02-06 3.53 2.47 2.09 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-04-03 0.906

(a)

2.5 1.47 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-10-30 8.3 1.4 1.5 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-02-06 4.34 1.82 1.75 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-04-03 2.37 2.25 1.47 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-10-30 2.8 1.4 0.95 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-02-06 5.68 1.68 1.35 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 1.99 1.92 1.22 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 5.8 1.3 1.2 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 7.92 2.24 1.86 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 4.62 1.68 1.33 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 5.6 1 1 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 4.58 1.95 1.44 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 4.32 1.68 1.37 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 4 1.3 1 pump

Onsite Monitoring

1 UE-1q 2001-01-31 12.5 2.11 2.2 bailer

2 W ater W ell 2 (USGS HTH #2) 2001-09-05 8.2 3.2 2.4 bailer

3 USGS W ater W ell A 2001-02-20 6.66 1.91 1.58 bailer

04 USGS Test W ell D 2001-01-31 9 1.79 1.79 bailer

05 UE5PW -1 2001-10-03 3.7 1.8 1.2 pump

05 UE5PW -2 2001-10-03 6.3 1.7 1.4 pump

05 UE5PW -3 2001-10-03 2.5 1.7 1.1 pump

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 9.73 2.4 2.26 bailer

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 15.3 2.46 3.42 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 1.29 (a) 2.69 1.61 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 2.35 2.17 1.38 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 1.33 (a) 2.13 1.29 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 0.019 (a) 2.37 1.35 bailer

18 UE-18R 2001-05-01 3.44 1.6 1.08 bailer

18 UE-18R 2001-05-01 6.8 1.66 1.29 bailer

20 ER-20-1 2001-07-02 3.64 1.08 0.483 bailer

20 ER-20-2 #1 2001-07-25 7.33 1.84 0.876 bailer

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 13.1 1.93 2.28 pump

25 UE-25 WT #6 2001-08-14 17 6.9 4.9 bailer

25 UE-25P #1 2001-08-16 9.1 1.8 1.8 bailer

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
8-22

Table 8.4 (Sum mary of Gross Beta Results - 2001, cont.)

Area Location

Date

Sampled

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

 (pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling 

Method

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Amargosa Valley Rv Park 2001-11-28 1.86 0.971 0.655 pump

95 Beatty Water and Sewer 2001-11-29 11.5 1.48 1.89 pump

95 Big Springs 2001-07-23 5.26 1.39 0.693 grab

95 Cind-R-Lite Mine 2001-11-29 4.28 1.33 1.05 pump

95 Cook's Ranch Well #2 2001-11-28 10.6 1.55 1.8 pump

95 Crystal Pool 2001-07-23 7.17 2.1 0.898 grab

95 Crystal Trailer Park 2001-11-28 6.84 1.1 1.2 pump

95 De Lee Ranch 2001-11-28 6.98 1.01 1.18 pump

95 ER-OV-03C 2001-10-16 2.8 1.1 0.81 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 2001-10-16 3.6 0.99 0.81 bailer

95 ER-OV-06A 2001-10-17 13 2 2.2 bailer

95 Fairbanks Spring 2001-07-23 3.82 2.28 0.992 grab

95 Fire Hall #2 W ell 2001-11-28 11.9 2.08 2.14 pump

95 Last Trail Ranch 2001-11-28 10.8 2.53 2.21 pump

95 Longstreet Casino Well #1 2001-07-23 7.14 1.69 0.858 pump

95 Longstreet Spring 2001-07-23 10.1 1.52 0.75 grab

95 Peacock Ranch 2001-07-30 7.34 1.49 0.717 pump

95 Revert Spring 2001-07-30 3.04 2.35 1.08 grab

95 Roger Bright Ranch 2001-06-14 10.6 5.68 1.47 pump

95 Roger Bright Ranch - (b) 2001-06-14 13.1 2.26 0.661 pump

95 School W ell 2001-11-28 8.56 1.06 1.39 pump

95 Spicer Ranch 2001-07-30 5.57 2.17 1.39 grab

95 Tolicha Peak 2001-11-29 6.04 1.34 1.22 pump

95 U.S. Ecology 2001-11-29 11.4 2.18 2.14 pump

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-23

Table 8.5 Summary of Gamma Results - 2001

Area Location

Date 

Sampled Analyte

Result

 (pCi/L)

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Supply Wells

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 Thorium-234 213 200 227 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 Uranium-238 213 200 227 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 Lead-212 6.54 6.4 9.45 pump

Onsite Monitoring Wells

05 UE5PW -2 2001-10-03 Lead-214 23.9 21.4 12.1 pump

05 UE5PW -3 2001-10-03 Lead-214 29.3 19.6 11.4 pump

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 Potassium-40 95.4 66.9 77.4 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 Actinium-228 28.8 20 27.4 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 Cesium-137 8.2 6.69 6.21 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 Lead-212 8.2 4.91 8.38 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 Lead-212 17.4 11.6 13.2 bailer

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 Lead-212 7.36 7.13 8.96 pump

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Cook's Ranch Well #2 2001-11-28 Bismuth-214 13.9 12.3 8.19 pump

95 Fairbanks Spring 2001-07-23 Potassium-40 33 29.2 34 grab

 
8-24

Table 8.6 Summary of 226Ra Results - 2001

Area Location

Date

 Sampled

Result

 (pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Supply Wells

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-02-06 0.224 (a) 0.632 0.362 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-04-03 0.561 0.109 0.295 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-07-31 0.136

(a)

0.421 0.235 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-10-30 0.32

(a)

0.4 0.26 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-02-06 0.313

(a)

0.329 0.263 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-04-03 0.27

(a)

0.358 0.25 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-07-31 -0.114

(a)

0.536 0.224 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-10-31 0.39 0.21 0.19 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-02-06 0.378 0.348 0.293 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-04-03 0.66 0.36 0.35 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 0.476 0.395 0.314 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-10-30 0.1

(a)

0.45 0.25 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-02-06 0.245 0.111 0.197 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-04-03 0.184

(a)

0.648 0.36 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-07-31 0.474

(a)

0.608 0.406 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-10-30 0.21

(a)

0.32 0.2 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-02-06 0.656 0.508 0.43 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-04-03 0.602 0.36 0.322 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-07-31 1.91 0.471 0.566 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-10-30 1.6 0.33 0.39 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-02-06 0.448 0.33 0.305 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-04-03 0.366

(a)

0.48 0.321 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-07-31 0.863 0.472 0.414 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-10-30 1.3 0.55 0.44 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-02-06 0.178

(a)

0.534 0.302 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-04-03 0.493 0.379 0.309 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-07-31 0.238

(a)

0.428 0.27 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-10-30 0.06

(a)

0.43 0.23 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-02-06 0.53 0.519 0.39 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 0.601 0.399 0.358 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 1.2 0.682 0.705 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 0.29

(a)

0.45 0.28 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 0.18

(a)

0.483 0.278 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 0.416 0.374 0.289 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell (b) 2001-04-04 0.526

(a)

0.629 0.444 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.18

(a)

0.542 0.306 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 0.14

(a)

0.23 0.15 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 0.042

(a)

0.39 0.184 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 0.262

(a)

0.528 0.32 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0

(a)

0.343 0.145 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 0.1

(a)

0.29 0.17 pump

Onsite Monitoring

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 2.35 1.56 1.41 pump

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Roger Bright Ranch 2001-06-14 0.397 (a) 0.867 0.519 pump

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-25

Table 8.7 Summary of 228Ra Results - 2001

Area Location

Date

 Sampled

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Supply Wells

5 W ater W ell 5B 2001-02-06 0.149 (a) 0.913 0.534 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-04-03 0.215

(a)

0.887 0.521 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-07-31 1.32 0.873 0.511 pump

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-10-30 0.16

(a)

0.94 0.56 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-02-06 -0.182

(a)

0.878 0.503 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-04-03 0.395

(a)

0.913 0.546 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-07-31 1.09 0.948 0.555 pump

5 W ater W ell 5C 2001-10-31 0.94 0.93 0.59 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-02-06 -0.0655

(a)

0.823 0.477 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-04-03 0.849

(a)

1.01 0.628 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 1.17 0.908 0.543 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-10-30 0.94 0.88 0.56 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-02-06 0.0398

(a)

0.903 0.525 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-04-03 -1.78

(a)

1.29 0.779 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-07-31 2.36 0.972 0.643 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-10-30 0.61

(a)

0.9 0.56 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-02-06 0.343

(a)

0.642 0.389 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-04-03 0.913 0.861 0.628 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-07-31 2.7 1.1 0.712 pump

06 W ater Well C-1 2001-10-30 0.91

(a)

0.92 0.58 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-02-06 0.654

(a)

0.799 0.501 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-04-03 0.408

(a)

0.961 0.573 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-07-31 2.72 0.879 0.76 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-10-30 0.7

(a)

0.99 0.62 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-02-06 0.0894

(a)

0.877 0.511 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-04-03 0.824

(a)

0.886 0.571 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-07-31 0.458

(a)

1.18 0.711 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-10-30 0.07

(a)

0.96 0.57 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-02-06 0.756

(a)

0.827 0.529 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 1.15

(a)

1.72 1.06 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.829

(a)

1.26 0.698 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 1.2 1.1 0.72 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 -0.233

(a)

1.21 0.698 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 0.32

(a)

1.12 0.656 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 1.02

(a)

1.02 0.565 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 0.06

(a)

1 0.61 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-02-07 0.274

(a)

1.09 0.643 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-04-04 0.595

(a)

0.868 0.536 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.662

(a)

0.825 0.47 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-10-31 0.77

(a)

0.98 0.61 pump

Onsite Monitoring

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 0.751

(a)

1.02 0.628 pump

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Roger Bright Ranch 2001-06-14 3.02 1.1 1.28 pump

(a) Below detectable limit

(b) Field duplicate
8-26

Table 8.8 Summary of 238Pu Results - 2001

 Area Location

Date

Sampled

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

 Onsite Supply Wells

05 W ater W ell 5B 2001-07-31 0.00453

(a)

0.0068 0.00628 pump

05 W ater W ell 5C 2001-07-31 0

(a)

0.00728 0 pump

06 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 0

(a)

0.00609 0 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-07-31 0.00213

(a)

0.0064 0.00418 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-07-31 0

(a)

0.00739 0 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 -0.00473

(a)

0.0227 0.00655 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.00408

(a)

0.00611 0.00565 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.00225

(a)

0.00674 0.0044 pump

Onsite Monitoring Wells

1 UE-1q 2001-01-31 0.0126 (a) 0.0482 0.0247 bailer

02 Water Well 2 (USGS HTH #2) 2001-09-05 0.011

(a)

0.028 0.016 bailer

04 USGS Test Well D 2001-01-31 0

(a)

0.0186 0 bailer

05 UE5PW-1 2001-10-03 0.0015

(a)

0.02 0.0087 pump

05 UE5PW-1 2001-10-03 0.003

(a)

0.028 0.013 pump

05 UE5PW-2 2001-10-03 -0.0003

(a)

0.024 0.0098 pump

05 UE5PW-2 2001-10-03 -0.018

(a)

0.044 0.015 pump

05 UE5PW-3 2001-10-03 -0.001

(a)

0.029 0.012 pump

05 UE5PW-3 2001-10-03 -0.0012

(a)

0.022 0.0081 pump

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 0.0421

(a)

0.0575 0.0391 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 0.00698

(a)

0.0457 0.0242 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 -0.00804

(a)

0.0208 0 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 -0.00804

(a)

0.0285 0 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 0.000036

(a)

0.0242 0.0158 bailer

18 UE-18r 2001-05-01 0.00451

(a)

0.0345 0.0153 bailer

18 UE-18r 2001-05-01 0.0238

(a)

0.0304 0.022 bailer

20 ER-20-1 2001-07-02 -0.00709

(a)

0.0543 0.0139 bailer

20 ER-20-2 #1 2001-07-25 0

(a)

0.00873 0 bailer

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 0

(a)

0.0215 0 pump

25 UE-25 WT #6 2001-08-14 0.016

(a)

0.058 0.032 bailer

25 UE-25 WT #6 2001-08-14 -0.011

(a)

0.048 0.015 bailer

25 UE-25P #1 2001-08-16 0.004

(a)

0.026 0.012 bailer

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Amargosa Valley RV Park 2001-11-28 0.00831 (a) 0.0312 0.0167 pump

95 Beatty Water And Sewer 2001-11-29 0.0022

(a)

0.0196 0.00891 pump

95 Big Springs 2001-07-23 0.00833

(a)

0.0125 0.0115 grab

95 Cind-R-Lite Mine 2001-11-29 0.00412

(a)

0.0165 0.00887 pump

95 Cook's Ranch Well #2 2001-11-28 -0.00627

(a)

0.0316 0.0103 pump

95 Crystal Pool 2001-07-23 0.0147

(a)

0.0205 0.0144 grab

95 Crystal Trailer Park 2001-11-28 -0.0104

(a)

0.0454 0.0162 pump

95 De Lee Ranch 2001-11-28 0

(a)

0.0323 0.0138 grab

95 De Lee Ranch 2001-11-28 -0.00117

(a)

0.0269 0.0106 grab

95 ER-OV-01 2001-10-17 0.0039

(a)

0.0078 0.0078 bailer

95 ER-OV-01 2001-10-17 0

(a)

0.041 0.017 bailer

95 ER-OV-02 2001-10-16 -0.0041 (a) 0.023 0.0064 bailer

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-27

 Table 8.8 (Summary of 238Pu Results - 2001, cont.)

 Area Location Date

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Offsite Wells and Springs, cont.

95 ER-OV-03C 2001-10-16 -0.019 (a) 0.045 0.013 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 2001-10-16 0.0043 (a) 0.019 0.0098 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 2001-10-16 0.006

(a)

0.026 0.014 bailer

95 ER-OV-06A 2001-10-17 -0.001

(a)

0.024 0.0086 bailer

95 Fire Hall #2 Well 2001-11-28 -0.00295

(a)

0.0297 0.0113 pump

95 Longstreet Casino Well #1 2001-07-23 0

(a)

0.0468 0 pump

95 Longstreet Casino Well #1 2001-07-23 0.00385

(a)

0.0235 0.0104 pump

95 Longstreet Spring 2001-07-23 0.0281

(a)

0.0557 0.0329 grab

95 Peacock Ranch 2001-07-30 0.000841

(a)

0.0326 0.0114 pump

95 Revert Spring 2001-07-30 0.0033

(a)

0.0202 0.00895 grab

95 School Well 2001-11-28 -0.00176

(a)

0.0165 0.00593 pump

95 Spicer Ranch 2001-07-30 0.0153

(a)

0.0347 0.0204 grab

95 Spicer Ranch 2001-07-30 0.0111

(a)

0.0295 0.0163 grab

95 Tolicha Peak 2001-11-29 -0.00951

(a)

0.0415 0.0148 pump

95 U.S. Ecology 2001-11-29 0

(a)

0.0056 0.0056 pump

95 U.S. Ecology 2001-11-29 -0.00621 (a) 0.0285 0.0071 pump

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate
8-28

Table 8.9 Summary of 239+240Pu Results - 2001

 Area Location

Date

Sampled

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Supply Wells

5 W ater W ell 5B 2001-07-31 0

(a) 0.00679 0 pump

5 W ater W ell 5C 2001-07-31 -0.00243 (a) 0.0186 0.0048 pump

6 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 0

(a)

0.0155 0.0056 pump

06 W ater W ell #4A 2001-07-31 0.00213

(a)

0.0064 0.0042 pump

16 Ue-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-07-31 0.00637 0.00637 0.0072 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-07-31 0.00246

(a)

0.00738 0.0048 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.00237

(a)

0.0181 0.008 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0

(a)

0.00611 0 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.00225

(a)

0.0172 0.0076 pump

Onsite Monitoring

1 UE-1q 2001-01-31 0

(a) 0.0482 0.0175 bailer

02 W ater W ell 2 (USGS HTH 2001-09-05 0.0043

(a)

0.017 0.0093 bailer

03 USGS W ater W ell A 2001-02-20 -0.00875

(a)

0.0419 0.0121 bailer

03 USGS W ater W ell A 2001-02-20 0

(a)

0.062 0.0225 bailer

04 USGS Test W ell D 2001-01-31 -0.0062

(a)

0.0594 0.0211 bailer

05 UE5PW -1 (b) 2001-10-03 0.0008

(a)

0.015 0.0061 pump

05 UE5PW -1 2001-10-03 -0.0044

(a)

0.024 0.0066 pump

05 UE5PW -2 (b) 2001-10-03 0.004

(a)

0.021 0.011 pump

05 UE5PW -2 2001-10-03 0.003

(a)

0.0064 0.0064 pump

05 UE5PW -3 (b) 2001-10-03 -0.003

(a)

0.024 0.0084 pump

05 UE5PW -3 2001-10-03 0.0009

(a)

0.018 0.007 pump

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 0.0256

(a)

0.0489 0.0308 bailer

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 -0.00598

(a)

0.0458 0.0117 bailer

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 0.00563

(a)

0.0169 0.0111 bailer

06 ER-6-1 2001-02-21 1.31E-09

(a)

0.042 0.0152 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 0.00948 (a) 0.0142 0.0132 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 0.0014

(a)

0.0348 0.0121 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 -0.00493

(a)

0.0475 0.0097 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 0.00326

(a)

0.0499 0.0199 bailer

17 USGS HTH #1 2001-04-19 0

(a)

0.0186 0 bailer

18 UE-18r 2001-05-01 0.0165

(a)

0.0253 0.0172 bailer

18 UE-18r 2001-05-01 2.68E-10

(a)

0.0344 0.0125 bailer

18 UE-18r 2001-05-01 -0.00792

(a)

0.0379 0.011 bailer

18 UE-18r 2001-05-01 0.0029

(a)

0.032 0.015 bailer

19 ER-19-1 2001-05-31 0.0113

(a)

0.0288 0.0166 bailer

19 ER-19-1 2001-05-31 -0.00768

(a)

0.0424 0.015 bailer

19 ER-19-1 2001-05-31 0

(a)

0.015 0 bailer

19 ER-19-1 2001-05-31 0.00592

(a)

0.0453 0.0201 bailer

19 U-19bh 2001-05-07 4.04E-10

(a)

0.0324 0.0133 bailer

20 ER-20-1 2001-07-02 0.00709

(a)

0.0213 0.0139 bailer

20 ER-20-2 #1 2001-07-25 0.00582

(a)

0.0222 0.0114 bailer

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 0.00716

(a)

0.0215 0.0141 pump

25 UE-25 WT #6 2001-08-14 0

(a)

0.02 0.02 bailer

25 UE-25 WT #6 (b) 2001-08-14 -0.0026

(a)

0.025 0.0089 bailer

25 UE-25P #1 2001-08-16 0.0062 (a) 0.0063 0.0086 bailer

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-29

Table 8.9 (Summ ary of 239+240Pu Results - 2001, cont.)

 Area Location Date

Result

(pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error 2

(sigma)

Sampling

Method

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Amargosa Valley RV Park 2001-11-28 -0.00227 (a) 0.0212 0.0076 pump

95 Beatty Water And Sewer 2001-11-29 -0.00331

(a)

0.0196 0.0056 pump

95 Big Springs 2001-07-23 -0.00339

(a)

0.0299 0.0066 grab

95 Big Springs (b) 2001-07-23 0

(a)

0.0109 0 grab

95 Cind-R-Lite Mine 2001-11-29 0.00118

(a)

0.0165 0.0067 pump

95 Cook's Ranch Well #2 2001-11-28 0.0107

(a)

0.0176 0.0129 pump

95 Crystal Pool 2001-07-23 -0.00764

(a)

0.0419 0.0106 grab

95 Crystal Pool (b) 2001-07-23 -0.00284

(a)

0.0482 0.0219 grab

95 Crystal Trailer Park 2001-11-28 -0.00521

(a)

0.0343 0.0114 pump

95 De Lee Ranch 2001-11-28 -0.000641

(a)

0.0228 0.0082 pump

95 De Lee Ranch (b) 2001-11-28 0.00583

(a)

0.00588 0.0081 pump

95 ER-OV-01 (b) 2001-10-17 -0.0023

(a)

0.022 0.0078 bailer

95 ER-OV-01 2001-10-17 -0.0032

(a)

0.028 0.01 bailer

95 ER-OV-02 2001-10-16 0.001

(a)

0.018 0.0072 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C 2001-10-16 0.002

(a)

0.026 0.012 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 (b) 2001-10-16 0

(a)

0.028 0.011 bailer

95 ER-OV-03C2 2001-10-16 0.0012

(a)

0.02 0.0082 bailer

95 ER-OV-06A 2001-10-17 0.008

(a)

0.019 0.012 bailer

95 Fairbanks Spring 2001-07-23 -0.00419

(a)

0.0371 0.0082 grab

95 Fairbanks Spring (b) 2001-07-23 -0.00256

(a)

0.0225 0.005 grab

95 Fire Hall #2 Well 2001-11-28 0.00118

(a)

0.0166 0.0067 pump

95 Last Trail Ranch 2001-11-28 0.00122

(a)

0.0172 0.007 pump

95 Longstreet Casino Well #1 2001-07-23 0.0156

(a)

0.0467 0.0306 pump

95 Longstreet Casino Well #1 (b) 2001-07-23 0.00326

(a)

0.00977 0.0064 pump

95 Longstreet Spring 2001-07-23 0.00488

(a)

0.0147 0.0096 grab

95 Longstreet Spring (b) 2001-07-23 0.00108

(a)

0.0268 0.0108 grab

95 Peacock Ranch 2001-07-30 0

(a)

0.0136 0 grab

95 Peacock Ranch (b) 2001-07-30 0

(a)

0.0109 0 grab

95 Revert Spring 2001-07-30 -0.00928

(a)

0.0389 0.0105 grab

95 Revert Spring (b) 2001-07-30 0.0033

(a)

0.0201 0.009 grab

95 Roger Bright Ranch 2001-06-14 0.00779

(a)

0.0117 0.0108 pump

95 School Well 2001-11-28 0.00117

(a)

0.0165 0.0067 pump

95 Spicer Ranch 2001-07-30 0.000877

(a)

0.0347 0.0122 grab

95 Spicer Ranch (b) 2001-07-30 -0.0054

(a)

0.0295 0.0075 grab

95 Tolicha Peak 2001-11-29 0.00204

(a)

0.0313 0.014 pump

95 U.S. Ecology 2001-11-29 0

(a)

0.0056 0.0056 pump

95 U.S. Ecology (b) 2001-11-29 0.00138 (a) 0.0194 0.0079 pump

(a) Below detectable limit

(b) Field duplicate.
8-30

Table 8.10 Summ ary of 90Sr Results - 2001

Area Location

Date 

Sampled

Result

 (pCi/L)

Lab.

Qualifier

MDC

(pCi/L)

Error

(2 sigma)

Sampling

Method

Onsite Supply Wells

5 W ater W ell 5B 2001-02-06 -0.107 (a) 0.456 0.199 pump

5 W ater W ell 5B 2001-04-03 -0.216 (a) 0.439 0.254 pump

5 W ater W ell 5B 2001-07-31 0.166

(a)

0.46 0.278 pump

5 W ater W ell 5C 2001-07-31 0.228

(a)

0.398 0.253 pump

6 W ater W ell #4 2001-07-31 0.0984

(a)

0.472 0.28 pump

6 W ater W ell #4A 2001-07-31 0.11

(a)

0.343 0.205 pump

6 W ater Well C-1 2001-02-06 -0.0354

(a)

0.391 0.172 pump

6 W ater Well C-1 2001-07-31 0.0596

(a)

1.06 0.443 pump

16 UE-16d Eleana W ater W ell 2001-07-31 0.42

(a)

1 0.478 pump

18 W ater W ell 8 (USGS HTH-8) 2001-07-31 0.192

(a)

0.342 0.218 pump

22 Army #1 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.26

(a)

0.599 0.365 pump

25 J-12 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.312

(a)

0.526 0.339 pump

25 J-13 W ater W ell 2001-08-01 0.0159

(a)

0.697 0.407 pump

Onsite Monitoring

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 0.168 (a) 0.439 0.214 pump

23 SM-23-1 2001-02-12 0.168

(a)

0.439 0.214 pump

Offsite Wells and Springs

95 Roger Bright Ranch 2001-06-14 -0.832 (a) 4.97 2.87 pump

(a) Below detectable limit.

(b) Field duplicate.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING

8-31

Table 8.11 Summary of the DRI Groundwater Monitoring Program - 2001

Monitoring Location Date

Sampling

Method

Alamo city water supply system - source of

water is municipal well field

2001-03-06 By hand from distribution system

Amargosa school well 2001-05-23 By hand from well head

Beatty Water and Sanitation - municipal well 2001-05-23 By hand from well head

Boulder City water treatment plant - source of

water is Lake Mead

2001-04-04 By hand at treatment plant

Caliente municipal water supply well 2001-03-13 By hand from well head

Cedar City municipal water supply well located 8

mi west of town

2001-03-15 By hand from well head

Delta municipal well 2001-03-14 By hand from well head

Goldfield Utilities Klondike #2 located 12 miles

north of town

2001-03-07 By hand from well head

Henderson CCSN, source of water is municipal

water system originating at Lake Mead

2001-05-16 By hand from distribution system

Indian Springs municipal well 2001-03-29 By hand from well head

Las Vegas Valley Water District #103 2001-06-19 By hand from well head

Medlin Ranch spring located 11 miles west of

ranch house

2001-03-06 Sampled by hand at spring orifice

Overton municipal water supply well located 18

miles north west of town

2001-03-14 By hand from well head

Pahrump municipal well 2001-04-04 By hand from well head

Pioche municipal well located 1⁄2 mile east of

town

2001-03-29 By hand from well head

Rachel - Little Ale Inn well 2001-03-13 By hand from well head

St. George municipal water supply 

well located 15 mi north of town

2001-03-06 By hand from well head

Terrell Ranch house well 2001-03-15 By hand from well head

Tonopah Public Utilities well field located 12

 miles from town

2001-03-07 By hand from well head
8-32

Table 8.12 Summary of DRI Groundwater Tritium Results - 2001

Sample Point

Results

(pCi/L)

Uncertainty 

(2 Std Deviation pCi/L)

Minimum

 Detection Limit

(pCi/L)

Alamo city water supply system - source

of water is municipal well field 7 9 0.78

Amargosa school well 3 6 0.78

Beatty Water and Sanitation - municipal

well 3 6 0.82

Boulder City water treatment plant -

source of water is Lake Mead 34 10 0.82

Caliente municipal water supply well 12 10 0.78

Cedar City municipal water supply well

located 8 mi west of town 1 8 0.85

Delta municipal well 1 9 0.85

Goldfield Utilities Klondike #2 located 12

miles north of town <1 8 0.78

Henderson CCSN, source of water is

municipal water system originating at

Lake Mead 34 9 0.82

Indian Springs municipal well 2 8 0.82

Las Vegas Valley Water District #103 <1 7 0.78

Medlin Ranch spring located 11 miles

west of ranch house 13 8 0.78

Milford municipal water supply well

located 1 mi south of town <1 8 0.78

Overton municipal water supply well

located 18 miles NW of town 1 6 0.82

Pahrump municipal well 1 6 0.85

Pioche municipal well located 1⁄2 mile

east of town

<1 9 0.78

Rachel - Little Ale Inn well <1 7 0.78

St. George municipal water supply well

located 15 mi north of town 9 7 0.85

Terrell Ranch house well <1 8 0.78

Tonopah Public Utilities well field located

12 miles from town <1 8 0.78
QUALITY ASSURANCE

9-1

9.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE

It is the policy of the U. S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security

Administration Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV) that all data produced

for its environmental surveillance and effluent monitoring programs be of

known quality. Therefore, a quality assurance (QA) program is used for

collection and analysis of samples for radiological parameters to ensure

that data produced by the Bechtel Nevada (BN) Subcontracted

Radiochemistry Laboratory meets customer-and regulatory-defined

requirements. Data quality is assured through process-based QA,

procedure-specific QA, measurement quality objectives (MQOs), and

performance evaluation programs (PEPs). The QA program for

radiological data consists of participation in the Quality Assessment

Program (QAP) administered by the NNSA/NV Environmental

Measurements Laboratory (EML), the InterLaB RadCheMTM Proficiency

Testing Program directed by Environmental Resource Associates (ERA),

the Radiochemistry Intercomparison Program provided by the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Mixed Analyte

Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) conducted by the Idaho

National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 

Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) radiation measurement QA for the

program is assessed by the BN Dosimetry Group’s participation in the

NNSA/NV’s Laboratory Accreditation Program and intercomparisons

provided by the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)

during the course of the year. 

9.1 POLICY

Environmental surveillance, conducted onsite by BN, is governed by the NNSA/NV QA policy as

set forth in DOE Order 414.1A (DOE 1999). The Order outlines ten specific elements that must

be considered for compliance with the QA policy. These elements are:

1. Program

2. Personnel Training and Qualification

3. Quality Improvement

4. Documents and Records

5. Work Processes

6. Design

7. Procurement

8. Inspection and Acceptance Testing

9. Management Assessment

10. Independent Assessment

9.2 OVERVIEW OF THE LABORATORY QA PROGRAM

The Subcontracted Radiochemistry Laboratory implements the requirements of the DOE Order

O 414.1A through integrated quality procedures. The quality of data and results is ensured

through both process-based and procedure-specific QA. BN is assured of quality data from the 
9-2

subcontracted laboratory through both a review of the subcontracted laboratory’s QA Plan by

BN as well as the subcontracted laboratory’s successful participation in the NNSA’s

Environmental Management Consolidated Audit Program.

Procedure-specific QA begins with the development and implementation of Organizational

Procedures (OPs) and Operating Instructions (OIs), which contain the analytical procedures

and required quality control samples for a given analysis. Personnel employed by the

subcontracted laboratory are trained and qualified to perform a given analysis, including the

successful analysis of a quality control sample. Analysis-specific operational checks and

calibration standards traceable to either the NIST or the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) are required. Quality control samples, e.g., spikes, blanks, laboratory control samples

(LCS), and replicates, are included for each analytical procedure. Compliance with analytical

procedures is measured through procedure-specific assessments or surveillances.

An essential component of process-based QA is data review and verification to assess data

usability. Data review requires a systematic, independent review against pre-established

criteria to verify that the data are valid for their intended use. Data verification ensures that the

reported results correctly represent the sampling and/or analyses performed and includes

assessment of quality control sample results. Data processing by Environmental Technical

Services (ETS) personnel ensures that analytical results meet project requirements. Data

checks are made by ETS for internal consistency, proper identification, transmittal errors,

calculation errors, and transcription errors. Data validation ensures that the reported results

correctly represent the sampling and/or analyses performed, determines the validity of the

reported results, and assigns data qualifiers (or “flags”), if required. Data validation is an

analyte and sample specific process that extends the evaluation of data beyond method,

procedural, or contractual compliance to determine the analytical quality of a specific data set. 

The goals of data validation are to evaluate the quality of the data, ensure that all project

requirements are met, determine the impact on data quality of those requirements that were not

met, and document the results of the data validation. Data validation is performed on

approximately 20 percent of laboratory data (10 percent using laboratory reported calibration

data, QC results, and sample results; and 10 percent recalculating the laboratory results using

submitted raw data to verify laboratory reported results). Validation is conducted by the ETS

Organization using OPs and OIs in conjunction with applicable project specific work plans, field

sampling plans, QA project plans, analytical method references, and laboratory statements of

work. 

Process-based QA programs also include periodic operational checks of analytical parameters

such as reagent water quality and storage temperatures. Periodic calibration is required for all

measuring equipment such as analytical balances, analytical weights, and thermometers. 

The overall effectiveness of the QA program is determined through systematic assessments of

analytical activities. Systematic problems are documented and corrective actions tracked

through System Deficiency Reports. 

9.3 MEASUREMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES (MQOs)

MQOs are commonly described in terms of representativeness, comparability, precision,

accuracy, blank analysis, and interlaboratory comparison studies. Definite numerical goals may

be set and quantitative assessments performed for these components of the data.
QUALITY ASSURANCE

9-3

REPRESENTATIVENESS

Representativeness is the degree to which a sample is truly representative of the sampled

medium; i.e., the degree to which measured analytical concentrations represent the

concentrations in the medium being sampled (Stanley and Verner 1985). 

Representativeness also refers to whether the locations and frequency of sampling are such

that calculational models will lead to a correct estimate of potential effective dose equivalent to

a member of the public when measured radioactivity concentrations are put into the model. An

environmental monitoring plan for the, “Nevada Test Site Routine Radiological Environmental

Monitoring Plan” (DOE 1998a) has been established to achieve representativeness for

environmental data. Factors which were considered in designing this monitoring plan include

locations of known and potential sources, historical and operational knowledge of isotopes and

pathways of concern, hydrological, and topographical data, and locations of human populations.

COMPARABILITY

Comparability refers to the degree of confidence and consistency in the laboratory’s analytical

results, or defined as "the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another"

(Stanley and Verner 1985). To achieve comparability in measurement data, sample collection

and handling, laboratory analyses, and data analysis and validation are performed in

accordance with established Ops and OIs. Standard reporting units and a consistent number of

significant digits are used. Instruments are calibrated using NIST-traceable sources. Extensive

QA measures are used for all analytical processes. 

PRECISION

Precision refers to "the degree of mutual agreement characteristic of independent

measurements as the result of repeated application of the process under specified conditions"

(Taylor 1987). Practically, precision is determined by comparing the results obtained from

performing the same analysis on split samples, or on duplicate samples taken at the same time

from the same location, maintaining sampling and analytical conditions as nearly identical as

possible. Precision for samples is determined by comparing results for duplicate samples of

particulates in air, tritiated water vapor, TLDs, and of some types of water samples. 

ACCURACY

Accuracy refers to how well we can measure the true value of a given quantity and can be

defined as "the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value of the

quantity of concern" (Taylor 1987). For practical purposes, assessments of accuracy for the

Subcontract Radiochemistry Laboratory are done by performing measurements on a LCS which

is sometimes called a Blank Spike Sample. A LCS is a control sample of known composition,

which is analyzed using the same sample preparation, reagents, and analytical methods as

employed for the project samples.

The accuracy of these measurements, which is assumed to extend to other similar

measurements performed by the laboratory, may be defined as the ratio of the measured value

divided by the true value, expressed as a percent. The control limits (in percent) for accuracy

that is monitored by using LCS results, are 80 to 120 percent, except for gross alpha and beta

which are 50 to 120 percent.
9-4

BLANK ANALYSIS

A blank analysis is an artificial sample designed to monitor the introduction of artifacts into the

measurement process. There are several types of blanks which monitor a variety of processes:

! A laboratory blank is taken through sample preparation and analysis only. It is a test for

contamination in sample preparation and analysis.

! A trip blank is shipped to and from the field with the sample containers. It is not opened

in the field and, therefore, provides a test for contamination from sample preservation, site

conditions, and transport as well as sample storage, preparation, and analysis.

! A field blank is opened in the field and tests for contamination from the atmosphere as

well as from sample preservation, site conditions, transport, sample storage, preparation,

and analysis.

! A rinsate blank is taken from water used to decontaminate sampling equipment and is

used to test for contamination from sampling equipment, site conditions, transport, sample

storage, preparation, and analysis.

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON STUDIES

The Subcontracted Radiochemistry Laboratories analyze special QA samples that are prepared

using stringent quality control, by laboratories which specialize in preparing such samples. The

values of the activities of these samples are not known by the staff of the Subcontracted

Laboratory until several months after the measurements are made and the results sent back to

the QA laboratory. These sample values are unknown to the analysts and serve to measure

the capability of a laboratory for analyzing an analyte in a specific matrix.

The interlaboratory comparison studies that the Subcontracted Radiochemistry Laboratory

participate in are the QAP administered by the NNSA EML, the InterLaB RadCheMTM

Proficiency Testing Program directed by ERA, the Radiochemistry Intercomparison Program

provided by the NIST and the MAPEP conducted by the INEEL.

The capability of the BN Dosimetry Group’s TLD program is tested during the course of the year

by their participation in the Battelle PNNL performance evaluation study program. They are

also tested every two or three years by the NNSA’s Laboratory Accreditation Program. This

involves a three-part, single blind performance testing program followed by an independent

onsite assessment of the overall program.

9.4 RESULTS FOR DUPLICATES, LABORATORY CONTROL

SAMPLES, BLANK ANALYSIS, AND INTERLABORATORY

COMPARISON STUDIES

A brief discussion of the year 2001 results for duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank

analysis, and interlaboratory comparison studies are provided within this section. Summary

tables are also included.
QUALITY ASSURANCE

9-5

DUPLICATES (PRECISION)

A field duplicate is a sample collected, handled, and analyzed in the same fashion as the

primary sample. The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between the field duplicate result and

corresponding field sample result is a measure of the variability in the process caused by the

sampling uncertainty (matrix heterogeneity, collection variables, etc.) and measurement

uncertainty (field and laboratory) used to derive the final result. The average absolute RPD,

expressed as a percentage, was determined and listed in Table 9.1.

LABORATORY CONTROL SAMPLES (ACCURACY)

The LCS results obtained for 2001 are summarized in Table 9.2. The LCS results were

satisfactory with no more than two results being out of control for any given analysis/matrix

category for the year.

BLANK ANALYSIS

The laboratory blank sample results obtained for 2001 are summarized in Table 9.3. The

laboratory blank results were satisfactory with no more than one result being out of control for

any given analysis/matrix category for the year.

INTERLABORATORY COMPARISON STUDIES

The interlaboratory comparison sample results obtained for 2001 are summarized in Tables 9.4

and 9.5.

Table 9.4 shows the summary of interlaboratory comparison sample results for the

Subcontracted Radiochemistry Laboratory. The Subcontractor participated in the InterLaB

RadCheMTM Proficiency Testing Program directed by ERA, the QAP administered by EML, and

the MAPEP conducted by INEEL. The Subcontractor performed very well during the year by

passing 102 out of 108 parameters analyzed. 

Table 9.5 shows the summary of interlaboratory comparison sample results for the BN in-house

Dosimetry Group. They participated in the Battelle PNNL performance evaluation study

program during the course of the year. The Dosimetry Group performed very well during the

year by passing 17 out of 18 TLDs analyzed. The only outlier was a S60/Cf-252 UN. Mixture

(1:3), which was within the test range of 0.03 to 5 rem.

9.5 ESTIMATES OF DATA QUALITY

The measurement quality as discussed in Section 9.3 indicates that representativeness,

comparability, and quality control of the data reported are acceptable. Also, data completeness

for this data set met or exceeded completeness goals so these data are acceptable for their

intended use.
9-6

IFD - FSI Absolute RPD = X 100 (FD + FS)/2

Table 9.1 Summary of Field Duplicate Samples - 2001

Analysis Matrix 

Number(a)

Samples

Reported

Number(b)

Reported

above DL

Average Absolute(c)

RPD of those

 above DL (%)

Gross Alpha Air 85 79 21.6

Gross Beta Air 85 85 10.5

239+240Pu Air 24 14 64.4(d)

Gamma - Be7 Air 18 14 17.7

Tritium Air 49 28 15.4

Uranium 234 Air 6 6 24.9

Uranium 238 Air 6 5 14.4

Gross Alpha Water 1 1 NR (e)

Gross Beta Water 1 1 21.1

239+240Pu Water 18 2 7.73

Gamma - Cs137 Water 3 2 11.1

Tritium Water 46 7 7.87

90Sr Water 2 0 NA

226Ra Water 1 0 NA

228Ra Water 0 NA NA

TLDs Ambient

Radiation

472 472 3.17

NA = Not Applicable

NR = Not Reported

(a) Represents the number of field duplicates reported for the purpose of monitoring precision. 

If an associated field sample was not processed, the field duplicate was not included here.

(b) Represents the number of field duplicate results reported above the detection limit

(detection limit is not applicable for TLD).

(c) Reflects the Average Absolute RPD calculated for those field duplicates reported above the

detection limit. The Absolute RPD calculation is as follows:

Where: 

FD = Field Duplicate result

FS = Field Sample result

(d) The magnitude is due largely to three individual results at 194.4 percent, 143.0percent, and

127.1 percent. Calculated without these points, the Average Absolute RPD is 37.3

percent. These RPD values are likely due to the heterogeneity of the samples.

(e) Data Quality Assessment determined the single field duplicate did not meet minimum

quality standards for reporting.
QUALITY ASSURANCE

9-7

Table 9.2 Summary of Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) - 2001

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS

Results Reported

Number Within

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 46 46

Gross Beta Air 46 46

239+240Pu Air 26 26

Gamma Air 40 38

Tritium Air 33 32

Gross Alpha Water 13 11

Gross Beta Water 13 13

239+240Pu Water 12 12

Gamma Water 14 12

Tritium Water 52 51

90Sr Water 5 5

226Ra Water 5 4

228Ra Water 6 6

Tritium Soil 1 1

Gamma Soil 8 7

90Sr Soil 4 3

239+240Pu Soil 4 4

(a) Control limits are as follows: 80 to 120 percent for all analyses and matrices except for

gross alpha and beta which are 50 to 120 percent.
9-8

Table 9.3 Summary of Laboratory Blank Samples - 2001

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank

Results Reported

Number Within

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 136 136

Gross Beta Air 136 136

239+240Pu Air 27 27

Gamma Air 62 62

Tritium Air 10 10

Gross Alpha Water 20 20

Gross Beta Water 20 20

239+240Pu Water 20 20

Gamma Water 25 25

Tritium Water 72 72

90Sr Water 9 9

226Ra Water 6 6

228Ra Water 7 7

Gross Alpha Soil 1 1

Gross Beta Soil 1 1

90Sr Soil 1 1

239+240Pu Soil 7 7

Gamma Soil 18 18

Tritium Soil 1 1

(a) Control limit is less than detection level.
QUALITY ASSURANCE

9-9

Table 9.4 Summary of Interlaboratory Comparison Samples for the Subcontract

Radiochemistry Laboratory - 2001

Analysis Matrix 

Number of

Results Reported

Number Within

Control Limits(a)

ERA Results

Gross Alpha Water 8 8

Gross Beta Water 8 8

Gamma Water 8 8

Tritium Water 4 4

90Sr Water 8 8

226Ra Water 8 7

228Ra Water 8 8

EML Results

Gross Alpha Air 2 2

Gross Beta Air 2 2

239+240Pu Air 3 3

Gamma Air 2 2

Gross Alpha Water 3 3

Gross Beta Water 3 3

239+240Pu Water 2 2

Gamma Water 3 3

Gamma Soil 3 3

239+240Pu Soil 3 3

90Sr Soil 3 3

Gamma Vegetation 3 3

239+240Pu Vegetation 3 3

90Sr Vegetation 3 3

MAPEP Results

Gamma Water 3 0 

239+240Pu Water 3 3

90Sr Water 3 2

Gamma Soil 3 3

239+240Pu Soil 3 3

90Sr Soil 3 2

(a) Control limits are determined by the individual interlaboratory comparison study.
9-10

Table 9.5 Summary of Interlaboratory Comparison TLD Samples for the BN in-house

Dosimetry Group - 2001

Analysis Matrix

Number of

Results Reported

Number Within

Control Limits(a)

TLDs Ambient Radiation 18 17

(a) Control limits are determined by the Battelle PNNL performance evaluation study program.
REFERENCES

R-1

REFERENCES

Allen, B. M., S. L. Drellack, Jr., and M. J. Townsend, 1997, “Surface Effects of Underground 

Nuclear Explosions,” DOE/NV/11718-122, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Anderson, M., P. Bourgeron, M. T. Bryer, R. Crawford, L. Engelking, D. Faber-Langendoen,

M. Gallyoun, K. Goodin, D. H. Grossman, S. Landall, K. Metzler, K. D. Patterson,

M. Pyne, M. Reid, L. Sneddon, and A. S. Weakley, 1998, “International Classification of

Ecological Communities: Terrestrial Vegetation of the United States. Volume II. The

National Vegetation Classification System,” List of types. The Nature Conservancy,

Arlington, VA.

Barnes, H., E. B. Ekren, C. L. Rodgers, and D. C. Hedlund, 1982, “Geology and Tectonic Maps

of the Mercury Quadrangle, Nye and Clark Counties, Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey,

Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Series Map I-1197, scale 1:24,000.

Bath, G. D., C. E. Jahren, J. G. Rosenbaum, and M. J. Baldwin, 1983, “Geologic and

Geophysical Investigations of Climax Stock Intrusive, Nevada: Magnetic Investigations,” in

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-377, p. 40-57. Denver, CO.

Baskett, T. S., M. W. Sayre, R. E. Tomlinson, and R. E. Mirarchi (Compilers and editors), 1993,

“Ecology and Management of the Mourning Dove,” The Wildlife Management Institute,

Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Beatley, J.C., 1976, “Vascular Plants of the Nevada Test Site and Central-Southern Nevada:

Ecological and Geographic Distributions,” TID-26881. Springfield, Virginia: National

Technical Information Service, Office of Technical Information, Energy Research and

Development Administration. TIC 204727.

Bechtel Nevada, 1996, “Biological Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Materials Testing at the

Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility on the Nevada Test Site,” Ecological Sciences,

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Division, Bechtel Nevada, 

Las Vegas, NV.

Bechtel Nevada, 1997, “Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for the Area 3

Radioactive Waste Management Site at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,”

Revision 2, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Bechtel Nevada, 1998, “Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 1998

Report,” DOE/NV/11718--255, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, October, 1998.

Bechtel Nevada, 2001a, “2000 Waste Management Monitoring Report, Area 3 and Area 5

Radioactive Waste Management Sites, Nevada Test Site,” DOE/NV/11718--582, Bechtel

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Bechtel Nevada, 2001b “Adaptive Management Plan for Sensitive Plant Species on the Nevada

Test Site,” DOE/NV11718–507, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Bechtel Nevada, 2001c, “Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year

2000,” DOE/NV/11718-605, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.
R-2

Bechtel Nevada, 2002a, “Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Groundwater

Monitoring Data Report - 2001,” DOE/NV/11718–694, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Bechtel Nevada, 2002b, “Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive

Waste Management Sites - 2001” DOE/NV/11718–718, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Bechtel Nevada, 2002c, “A Hydrostratigraphic Framework Model of the Pahute Mesa - Oasis

Valley Area, Nye County, Nevada,” DOE/NV/11718--646, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

BEIR III, 1980, “The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation:

1980,” Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation III, National Academy

Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418.

Blankennagel, R. K. and J. E. Weir, 1973, “Geohydrology of the Eastern Part of Pahute Mesa,

Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 712-B.

Blomquist, K. W., T. A. Lindemann, G. E. Lyon, D. C. Steen, C. A. Wills, S. A. Flick, and

W. K. Ostler, 1995, “Current Distribution, Habitat, and Status of Category 2 Candidate Plant

Species on and Near the U.S. Department of Energy's Nevada Test Site,” EGG 11265-1149,

EG&G Energy Measurements, Las Vegas, NV, December 1995.

Blout, D. O., D. P. Hammermeister, K. A. Zukosky, and K. D. Donnelson, 1994, “Site

Characterization Data from the Area 5 Science Boreholes, Nevada Test Site, Nye County,

Nevada,” Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., Las Vegas, NV.

Borg, I. Y., R. Stone, H. B. Levy, and C. D. Ramspott, 1976, “Information Pertinent to the

Migration of Radionuclides in Groundwater at the Nevada Test Site, Part 1: Review and

Analysis of Existing Information,” UCRL-52078, Part 1, 216 pp. Livermore, CA: Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory.

Brikowski, T. H., 1991, “The Hydrology of Underground Nuclear Tests: The Effect of CollapseChimney Formation,” Publication No. 45090, Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV.

Brikowski, T.H., J.B. Chapman, B.F. Lyles, and S. Hokett, 1993, Origin of Elevated Water

Levels Encountered in Pahute Mesa Emplacement Boreholes: Preliminary Investigations,

Desert Research Institute Publication No. 45123, Las Vegas, NV.

Byers, F. M., Jr., W. J. Carr, and P. P. Orkild, 1989, “Volcanic Centers of Southwestern

Nevada: Evolution of Understanding, 1960-1988,” Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 94,

no. 5, pp. 5,908-5,924.

Carlson, K. A., 2000, “DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) Compliance Program,” Letter to Bechtel Nevada Distribution, U.S. Department

of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas,

NV, February 25, 2000.

Cashman, P. H., and J. H. Trexler, Jr., 1991, “The Mississippian Antler foreland and continental

Margin in Southern Nevada–The Eleana Formation Reinterpreted,” in J. D. Cooper and C. H.

Stevens, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the Western United States II, Society of

Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, v. 67, p 271-280.
REFERENCES

R-3

Chapman, J. B., 1994, “Classification of groundwater at the Nevada Test Site,” Desert

Research Institute Report 45069 [DOE/NV/10384-28]. 

Chapman, J. B. and B. F. Lyles, 1993, “Groundwater Chemistry at the Nevada Test Site: Data

and Preliminary Interpretations,” Desert Research Institute Report 45100

[DOE/NV/10845-16].

Code of Federal Regulations, 1973, “Threatened and Endangered Species Regulations,” Title 

50, Parts 17.11 and 17.12, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1977, “Clean Water Act Regulations,” Title 40, Parts 110 to 136.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1989, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants,” Title 40, Part 61, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Cole, J. C., 1997, “Major Structural Controls on the Distribution of Pre-Tertiary Rocks, Nevada

Test Site Vicinity, Southern Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-533.

Cole, J. C., and P. H. Cashman, 1999, “Structural Relationships of Pre-Tertiary Rocks in the

Nevada Test Site Region, Southern Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper

1607, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980, 

42 U.S. Code 9601 et seq.

D’Agnese, F. A., C. C. Faunt, A. K. Turner, and M. C. Hill, 1997, “Hydrogeologic Evaluation and

Numerical Simulation of the Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and

California,” U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4300,

Denver, CO.

Drellack, S. L., L. B. Prothro, K. E. Roberson, B. A. Schier, and E, H. Price, 1997, “Analysis of

Fractures in Volcanic Cores from Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site,” DOE/NV/11718-160,

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Drellack, S. L. and L. B. Prothro, 1997, “Descriptive Narrative for the Hydrogeologic Model of

Western and Central Pahute Mesa Corrective Action Units,” Geology/Hydrology Group,

Geotechnical Services, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

EG&G/EM, 1993, “Yucca Mountain Biological Resources Monitoring Program: Annual Report

FY92,” Report No. EGG 10617-2195.

Ekren, E. B., C. L. Rogers, R. E. Anderson, and P. P. Orkild, 1968, “Age of Basin and Range

Normal Faults in Nevada Test Site and Nellis Air Force Range, Nevada,” in Nevada Test

Site, The Geological Society of America, Inc., Memoir 110, pp. 247-250.

Faunt, C. C., 1998, “Effect of Faulting on Ground-water Movement in the Death Valley Region,

Nevada and California,” U.S. Geological Survey Report WRI 95-4132, U.S. Geological

Survey Denver, CO.
R-4

Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO), 1996, An FFACO Among the State 

of Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Defense, May 1996.

Ferguson, J. F., A. H. Cogbill, and R. G. Warren, 1994, “A Geophysical-Geological Transect of

the Silent Canyon Caldera Complex, Pahute Mesa, Nevada,” Journal of Geophysical

Research, v. 99, n. 33, pp. 4323-4339.

FFACO, see Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order.

Finnegan, D. L., and J. L. Thompson, 2002, “Laboratory and Field Studies Related to 

Radionuclide Migration at the Nevada Test Site in Support of the Underground Test Area

and Hydrologic Resources Management Projects”, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los

Alamos, NM.

GeoTrans, Inc., 1995, “A Fracture/Porous Media Model of Tritium Transport in Underground

Weapons Testing Areas, Nevada Test Site,” 62 pp., Boulder, CO.

Gibbons, A. B., E. N. Hinrichs, W. R. Hansen, and R. W. Lemke, 1963, “Geology of the Rainier

Mesa Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-215, scale

1:24,000, Washington, DC.

Gonzales J. L. and S. L. Drellack, 1999, “Addendum to the Descriptive narrative for the

Hydrogeologic Model of the Yucca Flat Corrective Area Unit: Northern Extension,” Bechtel

Nevada, Las Vegas NV. 

Grauch, V. J. S., and M. R. Hudson, 1995, “Preliminary Analysis of Major Structures and

Lithologic Boundaries for the Frenchman Flat Model Area,” U.S. Geological Survey, 

Denver, CO.

Greger, P. D. and E. M. Romney, 1994, “Trends in Wildlife Utilization of Water Source and

Adjacent Habitats at the Nevada Test Site 1989-91. In: Status of the Flora and Fauna on the

Nevada Test Site 1989-91,” Compiled by R. B. Hunter, DOE/NV/11432--57.

Greger, P.D., and E.M. Romney. 1999 “High Foal Mortality Limits Growth of a Desert Feral 

Horse Population in Nevada, Great Basin Naturalist,” DOE/NV/11718--594.

Grossman, R. F., 2002, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Submittal

2001,” Report DOE/NV/11718–719, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Hale, G.S., D.A. Trudeau and C.S. Savard, 1995, “Water-Level Data from Wells and Test Holes

Through 1991, and Potentiometric Contours as of 1991 for Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site,

Nye County, Nevada”, Water-Resources Investigations report 95-4177, U.S. Geological

Survey, Denver, CO.

Hansen, D. J., P. D. Greger, C. A. Wills, and W. K. Ostler, 1997, “Nevada Test Site Wetlands

Assessment,” DOE/NV/11718--124, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, May 1997.

Harrill, J. R., J. S. Gates, and J. M. Thomas, 1988, “Major Groundwater Flow Systems in the

Great Basin Region of Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States,” Hydrological Investigations Atlas

HA-694-C, scale: 1:1,000,000, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO.
REFERENCES

R-5

Houser, F. N. and F.G. Poole, 1960, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Climax Stock and

Vicinity, Nye County, Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey Map I-328, scale 1:4,800,

Washington, DC.

Hunter, Richard B. and Robert R. Kinnison, 1998, “Tritium in Vegetation on the Nevada Test 

Site,” United States Department of Energy, December 1998, Nevada Test Site Routine

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan, Appendices, DOE/NV/11718--244. Bechtel

Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.

IT Corporation, 1996a, “Regional Geologic Model Data Documentation Package (Phase I, Data

Analysis Documentation, Volume I, Parts 1 and 2),” ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV.

IT Corporation, 1996b, “Potentiometric Data Task Documentation Package (Phase I, Data

Analysis Documentation, Volume II),” ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV.

IT Corporation, 1996c, “Hydrologic Parameters Data Documentation Package (Phase I, Data 

Analysis Documentation, Volume IV)”, ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV.

IT Corporation, 1997, “Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (Phase I, Data 

Analysis Documentation, Volume VI),” prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy, Nevada

Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

IT Corporation, 1998a, “Western Pahute Mesa - Oasis Valley Hydrogeologic Investigation Wells

Drilling and Completion Criteria,” Report ITLV/13052-049, International Technology

Corporation, Las Vegas, NV.

IT Corporation, 1998b, “Corrective Action Unit 98: Frenchman Flat Data Analysis Task

(Hydrostratigraphic Model Documentation Package, Volume I),” DOE/NV/13052-044, Las

Vegas, NV.

IT Corporation, 1999a, “Western Pahute Mesa - Oasis Valley ER-18-2 Well Data Report,”

Report ITLV/13052-073, International Technology Corporation, Las Vegas, NV.

IT Corporation, 1999b, “Corrective Action Investigation Plan for Corrective Action Units 101 and

102: Central and Western Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nevada,” prepared for the U.S.

Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, DOE/NV-516, Las Vegas, NV.

IT Corporation. 2000, “Frenchman Flat Hydrogeologic Investigation Wells Drilling and

Completion Criteria”, ITLV/13052-094. Las Vegas, NV.

Jachens, R.C., 1999, Written communication, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA.

Laczniak, R. J., J. C. Cole, D. A. Sawyer, and D. A. Trudeau, 1996, “Summary of 

Hydrogeologic Controls on Ground-Water Flow at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County,

Nevada,” Water Resources Investigation Report 96-4109, U.S. Geological Survey, Carson

City, NV.

Lyles, B.F., 1990, “Tritium Variations in Groundwater on the Nevada Test Site,” Desert

Research Report 45086 DOE/NV/10384--380.
R-6

Maldonado, F., 1977, “Summary of the Geology and Physical Properties of the Climax Stock,

Nevada Test Site,” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-356, 25 pp., Denver, CO.

National Council on Radiation Protection, 1996, “A Guide for Uncertainty Analysis in Dose and

Risk Assessments Related to Environmental Contamination,” NCRP Commentary No. 14,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Nevada Administrative Code, 1989, “Abatement of Asbestos,” Chapter 618.850 et seq.

Nevada Administrative Code, 1992, “Regulation of Highly Hazardous Substances,”

Chapter 459. et seq.

Nevada Administrative Code, 1996, “Public Water Systems,” Chapter 445A, 800 - 955.

Nevada Revised Statutes, 1977, “Nevada Water Pollution Control Law,” Title 40,

Chapter 445A.300 - 730.

O'Farrell, T. P. and L. A. Emery, 1976, “Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: A Narrative Summary 

and Annotated Bibliography,” Report NVO-167, Desert Research Institute, University of

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

O’Hagan, M. D., and R. J. Laczniak, 1996, “Ground-water Levels Beneath Eastern Pahute 

Mesa and Vicinity, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey

Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4042, 1 sheet.

Orkild, P. P., 1963, “Geologic Map of the Tippipah Spring Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada,”

U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-213, scale 1:24,000, Washington, DC.

Ostler, W.K., Hansen, D.J., D.C. Anderson and D.B. Hall, 2001, “Classification of Vegetation 

on the Nevada Test Site -2000,”. DOE/NV/11718--477, Bechtel Nevada Ecological Services,

Las Vegas, NV.

Prothro, L. B., and S. L. Drellack, 1997, “Nature and Extent of Lava-Flow Aquifers Beneath

Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site,” Bechtel Nevada Report DOE/NV11718–156.

Reiner, S. R., G. L. Locke, and L. S. Robie, 1995, “Ground-Water Data for the Nevada Test Site

and Selected Other Areas in South-Central Nevada, 1992-1993,” U.S. Geological Survey

Open-File Report 95-160.

Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA), 1976, as amended, 42 U.S. Code 6901.

Romney, E. M., H. M. Mork, and K. H. Larson, 1970, “Persistence of Plutonium in Soil, Plants 

and Small Mammals,” Health Physics,19:487-491.

Rose, T. P., J. M. Kenneally, D. K. Smith, M. L. Davisson, G. B. Hudson, and J. H. Rego, 1997,

“Chemical and Isotopic Data for Groundwater in Southern Nevada,” Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory Report UCRL-ID-128000, Livermore, CA.
REFERENCES

R-7

Sawyer, D. A., R. J. Fleck, M. A. Lanphere, R. G. Warren, and D. E. Broxton, 1994, “Episodic 

Caldera Volcanism in the Miocene Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field: Revised Stratigraphic

Caldera Framework, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology and Implications for Magmatism and

Extension,” Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, n. 10, pp. 1304-1318.

Scoggins, W. A., 1983, “Environmental Surveillance Report for the Nevada Test Site, January

1982 through December 1982,” DOE/NVO-410-76, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co.,

Inc., Las Vegas, NV.

Scoggins, W. A., 1984, “Environmental Surveillance Report for the Nevada Test Site, January

1983 through December 1983,” DOE/NVO-10327-4, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co.,

Inc., Las Vegas, NV.

Seaber, P. R. 1988. “Hydrostratigraphic Units,” in W. Back, J. S. Rosenshein, and

P. R. Seaber, eds., Hydrogeology, Geological Society of America, The Geology of North

America, v. 0-1, pp. 9-14, Boulder, CO.

Shott, G. J., L. E. Barker, S. E. Rawlinson, M. J. Sully, and B. A. Moore, 1998, “Performance

Assessment for the Area5 RWMS at the NTS, Nye County, Nevada,” Revision 2.1, Bechtel

Nevada, DOE/NV/11718–176.

Slate, J. L., M. E. Berry, P. D., Rowley, C. J. Fridrich, K. S. Morgan, J. B. Workman, 

O. D. Young, G. L. Dixon, V. S. Williams, E. H. McKee, D. A. Ponce, T. G. Hildenbrand, W.

C. Swadley, S. C. Lundstrom, E. B. Ekren, R. G. Warren, J. C. Cole, R. J. Fleck, M. A.

Lanphere, D. A. Sawyer, S. A. Minor, D. J. Grunwald, R. J. Laczniak, C. M. Menges, J. C.

Yount, and A. S. Jayko, 1999, “Digital Geologic Map of the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity,

Nye, Lincoln, and Clark Counties, Nevada, and Inyo County, California,” U.S. Geological

Survey Open-File Report 99–554–A.

Smith, D. K.,1993, “A Review of Literature Pertaining to the Leaching and Sorption of

Radionuclides Associated with Nuclear Explosive Melt Glasses,” UCRL-ID-113370,

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

Smith, D. K. and J.L. Thompson, 1995, “Uncertainties Associated with the Definition of a 

Hydrologic Source Term for the Nevada Test Site” UCRL-ID-120322, Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

Smith, D. K., S. B. Kersting, J. M. Keneally, T. P. Rose, G. B. Hudson and G. F. Eaton, 1999,

“Radionuclide Migration Studies: FY 1998 Progress Report,” Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

Smith, D. K., 2001, “Unclassified Radiologic Source Term for Nevada Test Site Areas 19 and

20,” UCRL-ID-141706 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

Snyder, R. P., 1977, “Geology of the Gold Meadows Stock, Nevada Test Site,” U.S. Geological

Survey Report 474-179, 10 pp., Denver, CO.

Stanley, T. W. and S. S. Verner, 1985, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Quality

Assurance Program,” in J. K. Taylor and T. W. Stanley (eds.), Quality Assurance for

Environmental Measurements, ASTM STP-867, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
R-8

Stoffle, R.W., M .N. Zedeno, and D. B. Halmo, 2001, “American Indians and the Nevada 

Test Site,” A Model of Research and Consultation. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. 

Taylor, J. K., 1987, “Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements,” Chapter 4, Lewis

Publications.

Thordarson, W., 1965, “Perched Ground Water in Zeolitized Bedded Tuff, Rainier Mesa and

Vicinity, Nevada Test,” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report TEI-862.

Trexler, J. H., Jr., J. C. Cole, and P. H. Cashman. Nov., 1996, “Middle Devonian-Mississippian 

Stratigraphy On and Near the Nevada Test Site: Implications for Hydrocarbon Potential,”

AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 11. 1736- 1762. Tulsa, OK: American Association of Petroleum

Geologists.

TRW, July 1999, “Survival, Movements, and Nesting Activity of Gambel’s Quail at Yucca 

Mountain, Nevada,” Report B00000000-01717-5705-00071.

Tyler, S. W., J. B. Chapman, S. H. Conrad, D. P. Hammermeister, D. O. Blout, J. J. Miller, M. J. 

Sully, and J. M. Ginanni, 1996, “Soil-Water Flux in the Southern Great Basin, United States:

Temporal and Spatial Variations over the Last 120,000 Years,” Water Resources Research

32(6): 1481-1499.

U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1996, “The Plants Database,” National Plant Data Center, 

Baton Rouge, LA. 

U. S. Department of Energy, 1988, “Internal Dose Conversion Factors for Calculation of Dose to

the Public,” DOE/EH-0071, Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health, 

Washington, D. C. 20545.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1989, “General Design Criteria,” DOE Order 6430.1A.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990a, “General Environmental Protection Program,” DOE Order

5400.1.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990b, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment,”

DOE Order 5400.5.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991, “Radionuclides in Surface Soil at the Nevada Test Site,”

Report DOE/NV/10845--02, Water Resources Center Publication #45077, Desert Research

Institute, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1992, “Summary of the Nevada Applied Ecology Group and

Correlative Programs,” DOE/NV--357, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996a, “Nevada Test Site, Site Treatment Plan,” Report

DOE/NV-397, Rev. 2, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996b, “Shaft and Tunnel Nuclear Detonations at the Nevada Test

Site: Development of a Primary Database for Estimation of Potential Interactions with the

Regional Groundwater System,” Report DOE/NV-464, Nevada Operations Office,

Las Vegas, NV.
REFERENCES

R-9

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996c, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test

Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada,” Report DOE/EIS-0243, Nevada

Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996d, “Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting,”

DOE Order O 231.1, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997a, “Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations

Information,” DOE Order O 232.1A, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997b, “CAP88-PC Version 2 User's Guide,” ER-88/GTN,

Germantown, Maryland.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997c, “Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport

Modeling and Risk Assessment of the Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada,”

DOE/NV–477, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998a, “Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan,”

Report DOE/NV/11718--244, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998b, “Semi-Annual Report of the Department of Energy, Office 

of Environmental Management, Quality Assessment Program,” Report EML-596, QAP 48,

Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, New York, NY.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998c, “Semi-Annual Report of the Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Management, Quality Assessment Program,” Report EML-600, QAP 49,

Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, New York, NY.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998d, “Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan”, 

Report DOE/NV--518, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, December 1998.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1999, “Quality Assurance,” DOE Order O 414.1A,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000a, “A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota,” DOE/NV/11718--231, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000b, “United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September

1992,” Report No. DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 15), Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000c, “Closure Plan for Corrective Action Unit 110: Area 4 RWMS

U-3ax/bl Disposal Site, Nevada Test Site, Nevada,” DOE/NV--647, Environmental

Restoration, August 2000.

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000d, “Corrective Action Plan for Corrective Action Unit 417:

Central Nevada Test Area, Nevada,” DOE/NV--588, Environmental Resoration, April 2000. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002, “Waste Acceptance Criteria,” Report NTSWAC (Rev. 4),

Waste Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
R-10

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978, “Fruit and Vegetable Radioactivity System 

Nevada Test Site Environs,” EMSL-LV-0539-13, Monitoring Operations Division,

Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, “Quality Management Plan,” Report EPA/600/X96-024, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2001, “Test Methods for Measuring Radionuclide 

Emissions from Stationary Sources,” Title 10 Code of Regulations, Part 61, Appendix B,

Method 114, July 1, 2001 Edition.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996, “Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Nevada Test 

Site Activities,” File No. 1-5-96-F-33, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.

U.S. Public Health Service, 1963, “Project SEDAN, Final Off-Site Report,” AEC Report 

PNE-200F, Offsite Radiological Safety Organization, U.S. Public Health Service, 

Las Vegas, NV.

Waddell, R. K., J. H. Tobison, and R. K. Blankennagel, 1984, “Hydrology of Yucca Mountain 

and Vicinity, Nevada-California Investigative Results through Mid-1983,” U.S. Geological

Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 84-4267, 72pp, Denver, CO.

Walker, G. E., 1962, “Groundwater in the Climax Stock, Nevada Test Site, Nye County,

Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey Trace Element Investigations Report TEI-813, 48 pp., 

Washington, DC.

Warren, R. G., G. L. Cole, and D. Walther, 2000a, “A Structural Block Model for the ThreeDimensional Geology of the Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field,” Los Alamos National

Laboratory Report LA-UR-00-5866.

Warren, R. G., D. A. Sawyer, and F. M. Byers, Jr., and J. C. Cole, 2000b, “A Petrographic/

Geochemical Database and Stratigraphic and Structural Framework for the Southwestern

Nevada Volcanic Field,” Internet address: http://queeg.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/geochem/swvnf/,

LANL Report LA-UR-00-3791.

Wills, C.A. and W. Kent Ostler 2001, “Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: An Annotated

Bibliography,” DOE/NV/11717--594, Bechtel Nevada Ecological Services, Las Vegas, NV. 

Winograd, I. J. and W. Thordarson, 1975, “Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Framework,

South-Central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test

Site,” U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-c, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C.

Yucca Mountain Project Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, 1998, “Viability 

Assessment for a Repository at Yucca Mountain,” at http://ymp.gov/reference/va/sd.htm.
DISTRIBUTION

D-1

DISTRIBUTION LIST

DOE/HQ

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs (NA-10 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-1 FORS), U.S. Department 

of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (10)

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-1 FORS), Forrestal, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Director, National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Principal Deputy Administrator for National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-2 FORS), 

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 

20585

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment (EH-4 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and Budget (EM-10 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C.

20585 (3)

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Site Closure (EM-30 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Project Completion (EM-40 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Director, Air, Water and Radiation Division (EH-412 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (10)

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Science and Technology (EM-50 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

NNSA/NV

Manager, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Deputy Manager, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505
D-2

Office of Chief Counsel, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Assistant Manager for Technical Services, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8518, M/S 505

Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8518, M/S 505

Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las

Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Assistant Manager for Business & Financial Services, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration P. O. Box 98518, Las

Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Office of Public Affairs, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, 

M/S 505 (2)

Director, Waste Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, 

M/S 505

Deputy Assistant Manager for Technical Services, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department 

of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Environment, Safety and Health Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department 

of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Environmental Restoration Division, Nevada Operations Office, Nevada Operations 

Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box

98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, National Security Support Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-

8518, M/S 505

B. Hurley, Environment, Safety and Health Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Technology Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505
DISTRIBUTION

D-3

Director, Stockpile Stewardship Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Emergency Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Site Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 701

Departments of Environment and Health

Heather Elliott, Nevada State Clearinghouse, Capitol Complex, 209 E. Musser St.,

Carson City, NV 89710 (15)

Director, Environmental Improvement Division, Department of Health and Environment, 

1190 Saint Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87503

Director, Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control Division, Department of Health, 

4210 E. 11th Avenue, Denver, CO 80220

Director, Bureau of Radiation and Occupational Health, 288 N. 1460 West, P. O. Box 16690, 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690

Director, Division of Air Quality, State Department of Health, 150 N. 1950 West, 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Director, Health Department, 88 E. Fiddlers Canyon, Suite 8, Cedar City, UT 84720

Director, Santa Barbara Health Care Services, 315 Camino Del Remedio, Santa Barbara, CA 

93110

Director, Division of Radiological Health, State Board of Health, P. O. Box 1700, Jackson, MS 

39215-1700

LANL

C. F. Eberhart, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P. O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 

87545, M/S F670 (2)

D. L. Finnegan, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P. O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 

87545, M/S J514

H. G. Jenkins, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P. O. Box 0, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 900 (3)

LLNL

R. C. Higgs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P. O. Box 45, Mercury, NV 89023, 

M/S 777

J. M. Haeberlin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P. O. Box 45, Mercury, NV 89023, 

M/S 777
D-4

SNL

D. D. Thompson, Sandia National Laboratories, P. O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023,

M/S NTS944 (2)

James H. Metcalf, Sandia National Laboratories, P. O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023,

M/S NTS944

Roger Smith, Sandia National Laboratories, P. O. Box 871, Tonopah, NV 89023

S. E. Lacy, Sandia National Laboratories, P. O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-0184

DTRA

L. J. Ashbaugh, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, P. O. Box 98539, Las Vegas, NV 89193-

8518, M/S 573

DRI

Colleen M. Beck, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

M/S 505

David Shafer, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120,

M/S 505 (3)

William Hartwell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

DRI M/S 505

Marg Herndon, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

DRI M/S 505

Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc.

Paul Gretsky, Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., P. O. Box 93838, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-3838, M/S NLV439 

June Simms, Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., P. O. Box 93838,

 Las Vegas, NV 89193-3838, M/S NLV439 (2)

BN

Manager, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV001

Manager, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV

89193-8521, M/S NLV102 (2) 

Manager, Waste Management Program, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV080

B. Calman, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV080
DISTRIBUTION

D-5

O. L. Haworth, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS110

D. A. Nichols, Defense and Civil Projects, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV103

W. K. Ostler, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV081

LIBRARIES

Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Technical Center, U.S. Department of Energy,

P. O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 (electronic copy)

Technical Library, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Public Reading Facility, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, NLV040

UNLV Library Government Documents, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, P. O. Box 457013, 

Las Vegas, NV 89154-7013

UNR Getchell Library, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557-0044

Alamo Branch Library, P. O. Box 239, Alamo, NV 89001

Amargosa Valley Library District, HCR 69, P. O. Box 401-T, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020

Beatty Library District, P. O. Box 129, Beatty, NV 89003

Boulder City Library District, 813 Arizona Street, Boulder City, NV 89005

Caliente Branch Library, P. O. Box 306, Caliente, NV 89009

Goldfield Public Library, P. O. Box 430, Goldfield, NV 89013

Henderson District Public Library, 280 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015

Indian Springs Library, P. O. Box 629, Indian Springs, NV 89018

Lincoln County Library, P. O. Box 330, Pioche, NV 89043

Moapa Valley Library, P. O. Box 397, Overton, NV 89040

Pahrump Library District, 2101 E. Calvada Boulevard, Pahrump, NV 89048

Tonopah Library District, P. O. Box 449, Tonopah, NV 89049

White Pine County Library, 950 Campton Street, Ely, NV 89301
D-6

Cedar City Public Library, 136 W. Center Street, Cedar City, UT 84720-2597

Delta City Library, 76 N. 200 W. Delta, UT 84624-9440

Milford Public Library, P. O. Box 579, Milford, UT 84751-0579

Washington County Library, 50 S. Main Street, St George, UT 84770-3490

CTLP

Clark M. Hardy, P. O. Box 394, Alamo, NV 89001

Dell Sullivan, P. O. Box 182, Alamo, NV 89001

Michelle R. DeLee, HCR 69, Box 264, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020

John C. Lisle, P. O. Box 357, Beatty, NV 89003

Richard A. Johnson, P. O. Box 626, Beatty, NV 89003

Bradford M. Benson, 606 Lake Superior Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005

Brent H. Perkins, P. O. Box 495, Caliente, NV 890087

Donald Newman, 141 Sunbow, Cedar City, UT 84720

Thomas S. Judd, 850 North 500 W., Delta, UT 84624

Beverly Jean DeWyze, P. O. Box 295, Delta, UT 84624

Diane Shimp, P. O. Box 9, Goldfield, NV 89013

Charles R. Meek, 3228 La Mancha Way, Henderson, NV 89014

Kenneth F. McFate, P. O. Box 373, Indian Springs, NV 89018

Don M. Curry, 8207 Burnt Sienna, Las Vegas, NV 89123

David J. Peltz, 311 Queensbridge Way, Henderson, NV 89014

Dale E. Jenson, 402 West 500 S, Box 25, Milford, UT 84751

Morden Leon Guy, P. O. Box 369, Milford, UT 84751

Nicklas J. Bowler, P. O. Box 368, Logandale, NV 89021

Jack W. Nelson, P. O. Box 232, Logandale, NV 89021

Albert J. Gillannotti, P. O. Box 145, Pahrump, NV 89041
DISTRIBUTION

D-7

Ruth Agee, Star Route, Box 52, Alamo, NV 89001

Scott Mortenson, 143 S. Main, St. George, UT 84770

Curt Walker, 239 South 169 E., Ivins, UT 84738

Mark E. Howard, P. O. Box 935, Tonopah, NV 89049 

Ted Charles Sauvageau, P. O. Box 1674, Tonopah, NV 89049

Miscellaneous

Michael Dwyer, Las Vegas District Manager BLM, 4765 Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89108

J. R. Dryer, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, 1551 Hillshire Dr., Suite A, 

Las Vegas, NV 89134

Richard Martin, Superintendent, Death Valley National Monument, P. O. Box 579,

Death Valley, CA 92328

Richard Birger, Project Leader, Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1500 N. Decatur,

Las Vegas, NV 89108

E. W. Chew, U.S. Department of Energy, 785 Doe Place, Idaho Falls, ID 83402, M/S 4149

Mason and Hanger, Environmental Protection Department, Silas-Mason Co., Inc., Pantex

Plant, P. O. Box 30020, Amarillo, TX 79177

E. A. Hopper USAF/EV, 4551 Devlin Drive, Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, NV 89191-6828

Ann-Marie Choephel, Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, P. O. Box 1767, 

Tonopah, NV 89049

Steve Deandi, Western Governmental Association, 223 Old P. O. Road, Boulder, CO 80302

Diane Watson, Waste Policy Institute, Savannah River Research Campus, 227 Gateway Drive,

Aiken, SC 29803

Roy Clifford, Stone Cabin Ranch, P. O. Box 48, Tonopah, NV 89040

Joe and Sue Fallini, Twin Springs Ranch, HC 76, Box 1100, Tonopah, NV 89040

Mike Heizer, Complex 1, P. O. Box 33, Hiko, NV 89017

Steve Medlin, Medlin Ranch, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001

Norman Sharp, Nyala Ranch, HC 76, Box 900, Tonopah, NV 89040

Joan Terrell, Sarcobatus Flat Ranch, P. O. Box 454, Goldfield, NV 89013
D-8

Helen Uhalde, Uhalde Ranch, P. O. Box 88, Ely, NV 89301

Wayne Bliss, Professional Analysis, Inc., Las Vegas, NV 89030, M/S 422

Dong Phung, Professional Analysis, Inc., Las Vegas, NV 89030, M/S 422

N. W. Golchert, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439

David & Natalie Spicer, P. O. Box 897, Beatty, NV 89003

Dan Levitt, 3300 N. Tenaya Way, #2091, Las Vegas, NV 89129