0

5

Environmental Rep

Nevada Test Site Nevada Test Site T S 
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 

United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors. 

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.gov

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

Available electronically at http://www.osti.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--1214-ATT A 

DOE/NV/25946--007-ATT A 

Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2005 

Senior Author: Cathy A. Wills 

Technical Editor: Angela L. McCurdy 

October 2006 

Work Performed Under 

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718 

and 

Contract No. DE-AC52-06NV25946 

Prepared for: 

U. S. Department of Energy 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Nevada Site Office 

Prepared by: 

National Security Technologies 

Post Office Box 98521 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 i

ES Executive Summary 

The Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 (NTSER) was prepared to meet the information needs of the public and 

the requirements and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for annual site environmental reports. It 

was prepared by Bechtel Nevada (BN) and finalized by its successor contractor, National Security Technologies. This 

Executive Summary presents the purpose of the document, the major programs conducted at the Nevada Test Site 

(NTS), NTS key environmental initiatives, radiological releases and potential doses to the public resulting from site 

operations, a summary of non-radiological releases, implementation status of the NTS Environmental Management 

System, a summary of compliance with environmental regulations, pollution prevention and waste minimization 

accomplishments, and significant environmental accomplishments. Much of the content of this Executive Summary 

is also presented in a separate stand-alone pamphlet titled Nevada Test Site Environmental Report Summary 2005 produced 

to provide a more cost-effective and wider distribution of information contained in the NTSER to interested DOE 

stakeholders. 

Purpose of the NTS Environmental Report 

This NTSER was prepared to satisfy DOE Order 231.1A, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting. Its purpose is to 

(1) report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements, (2) present results of environmental 

monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents, (3) report estimated radiological doses to the public from 

releases of radioactive material, (4) summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance and actions taken in 

response to them, (5) describe the NTS Environmental Management System and characterize its performance, and 

(6) highlight significant environmental programs and efforts. This report meets these objectives for the NTS and its 

three Nevada satellite sites mentioned below. 

Major Site Programs and Facilities 

The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) directs 

the management and operation of the NTS and seven satellite sites across the nation. The NTS is located about 

105 kilometers (km) (65 miles [mi]) northwest of Las Vegas. The seven satellite sites include three sites in Nevada 

(North Las Vegas Facility, Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility, and the Remote Sensing Laboratory – Nellis) and four sites in 

other states (Remote Sensing Laboratory – Andrews in Maryland, Livermore Operations in California, Los Alamos 

Operations in New Mexico, and Special Technologies Laboratory in California). Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, 

and Sandia National Laboratories are the principal organizations that sponsor and implement the nuclear weapons 

programs at the NTS. In 2005, BN was the Management and Operations contractor accountable for the successful 

execution of work and ensuring that work was performed in compliance with environmental regulations. The NTS 

and its seven satellite sites all provide support to enhance the NTS as a site for weapons experimentation and nuclear 

test readiness. The three major NTS missions include National Security, Environmental Management, and 

Stewardship of the NTS. 

Facilities that support the National Security mission of keeping the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons safe and reliable 

include the U1a Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility, Device Assembly Facility, and Joint Actinide Shock 

Physics Experimental Research (JASPER) Facility. Facilities that support the Homeland Security program include the 

new Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex which is expected to be operational in 

October 2006. 

Other Key Initiatives 

Apart from the major site programs, other NTS activities include demilitarization activities, controlled spills of 

hazardous material at the Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC) for research purposes, 

processing of waste destined for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico, or the Idaho National 

Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho; and environmental research. 
Executive Summary 

ii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Environmental Performance Measure Programs 

During the conduct of the major programs and other key initiatives mentioned above, NNSA/NSO complies with 

applicable environmental and public health protection regulations and strives to manage the land and facilities at the 

NTS as a unique and valuable national resource. For the identification of NTS environmental initiatives, BN relied 

upon BN’s Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS), contractual Work Smart Standards (WSS), and the 

Environmental Management System (EMS). The ISMS is designed to ensure the systematic integration of 

environment, safety, and health concerns into management and work practices so that NTS missions are 

accomplished safely and in a manner which protects the environment. Implementation of an ISMS at the NTS was 

verified by NNSA/NSO in July 2001. NNSA/NSO oversees ISMS implementation through the Integrated Safety 

Management Council. Each Council member performed a self-assessment in September 2005 and verified that ISMS 

continues to be effectively implemented at the NTS.

WSS are an integral part of the ISMS whereby hazards and environmental aspects of work are identified and standards 

of operation are established that are specific to the work environment, its associated hazards, and its threats to the 

environment. WSS are developed at the management level with the most expertise in the work. NNSA/NSO 

approved the initial complete set of BN WSS in September 1996. The approved WSS identify within each BN 

program, the contractual commitment to meet applicable laws, regulations, and policies which protect the public and 

the environment. Compliance with WSS is tracked through management assessments. 

In 2000, Executive Order (EO) 13148, Greening of the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management was 

issued. This EO requires all federal agencies to adopt an environmental management system (EMS). EMSs are 

designed to incorporate concern for environmental performance throughout an organization, with the ultimate goal 

being continual reduction of the organization's impact on the environment. DOE requires contractors who operate 

DOE sites to develop an EMS and expects full integration of EMS into their ISMS by December 2005. Full 

implementation of the NTS EMS was completed, and NNSA/NSO made the Self Declaration to NNSA 

Headquarters on December 15, 2005. 

Performance Measures 

Performance measures are used to evaluate the achievement of organization or process goals and to identify the need 

to institute changes in an organization or process. The NTS performance measures, defined from the WSS, relate to 

protection of the environment and the public from effects of NTS operations. These performance measures apply to 

several programs and processes. They include: (1) the potential radiological dose received by the public; (2) the 

identification, notification, and mitigation of spills and releases to the environment; (3) the reduction in the generation 

of wastes; and (4) compliance with applicable environmental protection regulations. The performance measures 

tracked by each process or program (e.g., air quality protection) are consolidated and presented in this report in 

Section 2.0, Compliance Summary. As part of implementing EMS, BN identified Objectives and Targets which were 

reviewed and approved by the Executive Safety Committee. These additional Targets (Table 17-1) will be tracked and 

reported beginning in 2006 in addition to those measures presented in Section 2.0. 

Offsite Monitoring for Radiological Releases into Air 

An oversight radiological air monitoring program is run by the Community Environmental Monitoring Program 

(CEMP) and is coordinated by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) of the Nevada System of Higher Education under 

contract with NNSA/NSO (Section 6.0). Its purpose is to provide monitoring for radionuclides that might be 

released from the NTS. A network of 27 CEMP stations, located in selected towns and communities within 386 km 

(240 mi) from the NTS, was operated during 2005. The CEMP stations monitored gross alpha and beta radioactivity 

in airborne particulates using low-volume particulate air samplers, penetrating gamma radiation using 

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), gamma radiation exposure rates using pressurized ion chamber (PIC) 

detectors, and meteorological parameters using automated weather instrumentation. One new station was added at 

Mesquite, Nevada in the fall of 2005 and supplied about two months’ data for this report concerning background 

gamma radiation; however, data related to low-volume particulate air sampling will not be available until 2006. 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 iii

No airborne radioactivity related to historic or current NTS operations was detected in any of the samples from the 

CEMP particulate air samplers during 2005. Gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity was detected at all CEMP 

stations at levels which were consistent with previous years and which reflect radioactivity from naturally-occurring 

radioactive materials (Section 6.1.1). The mean annual gross alpha activity across all sample locations was 

1.80 ± 0.54 x 10-15 microcuries per milliliter (μCi/mL). The mean annual gross beta activity across all sample locations 

was 2.08 ± 0.17 x 10-14 μCi/mL. No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected. 

TLD and PIC detectors measure gamma radiation from all sources: natural background radiation from cosmic and 

terrestrial sources and man-made sources. The offsite TLD and PIC results remained consistent with previous years’ 

background levels and are well within background levels observed in other parts of the United States. The highest 

total annual gamma exposure measured offsite, based on PIC data, was 183.96 milliroentgen per year (mR/yr) at 

Milford, Utah. The lowest offsite gamma exposure rate measured was 74.55 mR/yr at Pahrump, Nevada 

(Section 6.1.3). 

Onsite Monitoring and Estimating of Radiological Releases into Air 

Estimates of radionuclide emissions from the following sources were used to compute total air emissions from source 

locations on the NTS. Those emissions and locations identified for 2005 included: (1) tritium gas released at Building 

650 in Area 23 during equipment calibration (0.000014 curies per year [Ci/yr]), (2) the evaporation of tritiated water 

discharged from E Tunnel in Area 12 (17 Ci/yr) and a post-shot well (U-20n PS #1DD-H) in Area 20 (3.5 Ci/yr), 

(3) the evaporation of tritiated water removed from the basement of Building A-1 at the North Las Vegas Facility 

(NLVF) and transported to the NTS for disposal in the Area 5 Sewage Lagoon (0.00037 Ci/yr), (4) the evaporation 

and transpiration of tritiated water from soil and vegetation, respectively, at sites of past nuclear tests and from the 

Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) (57 Ci/yr) and the Area 5 RWMS (8.9 Ci/yr), and (5) the resuspension of surface soil containing americium-241 (241Am) and plutonium-239+240 (239+240Pu) from past nuclear 

testing over numerous areas of the NTS. Total tritium emissions from all sources was estimated to be 170 Ci in 2005, 

and those for plutonium and americium were 0.29 and 0.047 Ci, respectively. The methods used to estimate these 

quantities each year include the use of annual field air and water monitoring data, historical soil inventory data, and 

accepted soil re-suspension and air transport models. 

Total NTS Radiological Atmospheric Releases for 2005 (Ci/yr)

3

H 85Kr 

Noble 

Gases 

(T1/2<40 

days) 

Short-Lived 

Fission and 

Activation 

Products 

(T1/2<3 hr) 

Fission 

 and 

Activation 

Products 

(T1/2>3 hr) 

Total 

Radioiodine 

Total 

Radiostrontium 

Total 

Uranium Plutonium 

Other 

Actinides Other 

170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 

(239+240Pu) 

0.047 

(241Am) 

0 

A network of 19 air sampling stations (3 having low-volume particulate air samplers, 1 having a tritium water vapor 

sampler, and 15 having both) and a network of 109 TLDs were used to monitor diffuse onsite radioactive emissions 

in 2005. Several human-made radionuclides from legacy contamination were measured in air samples at levels above 

their minimum detectable concentrations (MDCs) in 2005: 241Am; tritium (3H); and plutonium-238 (238Pu) and 

239+240Pu (Section 3.1.4). These were attributed to the resuspension of contamination in surface soils from legacy sites 

and to the evaporation and transpiration of tritium from the soil, plants, and containment ponds at legacy sites. The 

highest mean level of 241Am (229. 6 ± 273.8 x 10-18 μCi/mL] was detected at Bunker 9-300 in Area 9, a vacant 

building located within an area of known soil contamination from past nuclear tests. The highest mean level of 

tritium (330.5 ± 7.4 x 10-6 picocuries [pCi]/mL) was detected at Schooner, site of the second-highest yield Plowshare 

cratering experiment on the NTS where tritium-infused ejecta surrounds the crater. The highest mean levels of 

plutonium isotopes in air were at Bunker 9-300 (19.7 ± 26.3 x 10-18 and 1526 ± 1277 x 10-18 μCi/mL for 238Pu and 

239+240Pu, respectively). The relatively high plutonium values occur most often at the Bunker 9-300 air sampling 
Executive Summary 

iv Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

station due to historical nuclear testing in Area 9 and surrounding Areas 3, 4, and 7. Uranium isotopes are also 

measured in air samples collected in areas where depleted uranium ordnance have been used or tested. However, the 

samples’ isotopic ratios were close to what one would expect from naturally-occurring uranium in soil with possibly a 

slight contribution of enriched depleted uranium; the ratios did not resemble those expected from depleted uranium 

(Section 3.1.4.4). 

Gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity was detected at all stations on the NTS (Section 3.1.4.6). The average gross 

alpha activities ranged from 15.29 ± 2.24 to 54.68 ± 8.54 x 10-16; the highest seen at Bunker 9-300. The average gross 

beta activities ranged from 17.29 ± 1.45 to 22.51 ± 0.47 x 10-15 μCi/mL; the highest seen at Sugar Bunker, an 

unoccupied structure used during past nuclear testing, located about 1 km (0.6 mi) south-southwest of the Area 5 

Radioactive Waste Management Complex. 

Both 239+240Pu and tritium continue their overall declining trends at the air sampling locations (Sections 3.1.4.3 and 

3.1.4.5). Tritium in air concentrations have decreased since the cessation of testing in 1992. The average trend line 

varies from NTS Area to Area; it shows an average decrease ranging from 52 percent since 1992 in Area 1 to 99.7 

percent in Areas 23 and 25. The only exception to this trend has been Schooner in Area 20 (Section 3.1.4.3), at which 

sampling began relatively recently. 239+240Pu concentrations have likewise decreased; the average decline since 1992 

ranges from 38 percent in Areas 1 and 3 to 91 percent in areas 18, 19, and 20. The downward trends in plutonium 

concentrations are attributed to its dispersal by the wind and weathering in the soil, where it becomes bound to less 

mobile particles. 

The highest estimated mean annual gamma exposure measured at a TLD station on the NTS was 834 ± 26 mR/yr at 

Schooner, one of the legacy Plowshare sites on Pahute Mesa. The lowest was 60 ± 2 mR/yr in Mercury at the fitness 

track (Section 5.3). The mean annual gamma exposure at 17 TLD locations near the Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs was 

147 ± 1 mR. At the 35 TLD locations near known legacy sites (including Schooner), it was 277 ± 2 mR. At the 10 

TLD locations in uncontaminated sites away from all current operations, it was 119 ± 1 mR. 

Offsite Radiological Monitoring of Water 

Offsite water monitoring conducted by BN and DRI through the CEMP verifies that there has been no offsite 

migration of man-made radionuclides from NTS underground contamination areas. 

In 2005, BN conducted radiological monitoring of 27 offsite wells and 3 offsite springs. The wells included 9 private 

domestic wells, 6 local community wells, and 12 NNSA/NSO wells drilled for hydrogeologic investigations including 

groundwater flow modeling. All of the BN-sampled wells and springs are in Nevada within 19 mi from the western 

and southern borders of the NTS. The DRI, through the CEMP, sampled 25 offsite water locations in 2005. They 

included 4 springs, 18 wells, and 3 surface water bodies located in selected towns and communities within 240 mi 

from the NTS. One site, the Beatty Water and Sewer well, is sampled by both BN and DRI. 

CEMP and BN water samples are both analyzed for tritium. To be able to detect the smallest possible amounts of 

tritium in offsite water supplies, enriched tritium analyses were run on all samples. The MDC for tritium using this 

enrichment process was approximately 23 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) for both the BN and the CEMP samples. 

Without enrichment, the MDC for tritium typically ranges from 200-400 pCi/L. To put these values in perspective, 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) for tritium is 

20,000 pCi/L. 

BN offsite water samples are also analyzed for man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides that would signify 

contamination from nuclear testing and for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity to determine if alpha or beta 

radioactivity at any well or spring is increasing over time. 

CEMP results in 2005, as in past years, continue to verify that no contaminated groundwater has migrated beyond the 

NTS boundaries into surrounding water supplies used by the public (Section 6.2). Measured tritium concentrations 

from the wells ranged from -7 to 8 pCi/L. For the springs and surface waters, they ranged from -2 to 24 pCi/L. As 

in previous years, samples from Boulder City and Henderson municipal water supplies contained tritium at levels 

barely above detection. These two municipal water systems obtain water from Lake Mead, which has documented 

levels of residual tritium persisting in the environment that originated from global atmospheric nuclear testing. 

Similarly, the results of BN offsite water monitoring verified that there has been no offsite migration of man-made 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 v

radionuclides from NTS underground contamination areas. None of the offsite springs or the offsite public or 

domestic water supply wells had levels of tritium above their detection limits. Measured tritium levels in the sampled 

drinking water wells ranged from -8.4 to 7.6 pCi/L (Section 4.1.4). For the three offsite springs they ranged from -

1.4 to 11 pCi/L (Section 4.1.5). BN measured tritium above detection limits in only 2 of the 12 offsite NNSA/NSO 

monitoring wells: ER-OV-03A and ER-OV-03C2. Tritium levels in both of these was 24 ± 12 pCi/L (Section 4.1.4). 

This level is within the range of concentrations indicative of analytical background levels for tritium (20 to 39 pCi/L) 

(Section 4.1.3). No offsite wells or springs contained any man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides. 

All offsite well and spring samples contained detectable gross alpha and gross beta activity (Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.5). 

The levels of activity in offsite drinking supply wells and springs were all less that the EPA limits set for drinking 

water. One NNSA/NSO offsite monitoring well (ER-OV-02) had gross alpha levels of 16 to 24 pCi/L which were 

above the EPA drinking water limits of 15 pCi/L, but this well does not supply drinking water. The detectable gross 

alpha and gross beta radioactivity in all of the offsite spring and well samples is most likely from natural sources. 

Onsite Radiological Monitoring of Water 

In 2005, the onsite water monitoring network was comprised of 10 potable water supply wells, 18 monitoring wells, 3 

natural springs, 1 tritiated water containment pond system, and 2 sewage lagoons. The 2005 data continue to indicate 

that underground nuclear testing has not impacted the NTS potable water supply network. All of the water samples 

from the ten supply wells had non-detectable concentrations of tritium and man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides 

(Section 4.1.6). The gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity detected in potable water supply wells represent the 

presence of naturally-occurring radionuclides. 

Five of the 18 monitoring wells sampled had detectable levels of tritium ranging from 21 ± 13 to 492 ± 31 pCi/L, all 

well below the MCL of 20,000 pCi/L (Section 4.1.7). Three of these wells (U-19BH, WW A, and Well PM-1) are each 

within 1 km (0.6 mi) of an historical underground nuclear test; all have consistently had detectable levels of tritium in 

past years. Their tritium levels are still less than 3 percent of the EPA MCL for drinking water of 20,000 pCi/L, and 

no trend of rising tritium concentrations in these wells have been observed since 2000. The other two monitoring 

wells with detectable tritium (ER-19-1 and UE-25P #1) had levels just above their MDCs. 

Most groundwater and spring samples on the NTS had gross alpha and gross beta levels above detection limits but 

below the EPA limits for drinking water. Three onsite monitoring wells (U-19BH, UE-25 WT #6, and ER-19-1) 

showed either gross alpha and/or gross beta levels above the EPA drinking water limits, but none of these wells 

supply drinking water. The gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity is most likely from natural sources. 

Three onsite springs were sampled in 2005 (Section 4.1.8). None of them are discharge points from a regional aquifer 

but are perched water tables from surface infiltration of precipitation. Tritium was detected at very low 

concentrations at White Rock Spring (46 ± 14 pCi/L) and is believed to come from known surface contamination 

from previous nuclear testing. Gamma spectroscopy detected the man-made fission product cerium-144 (144Ce) in the 

water sample collected from Tub Spring although no other man-made radionuclides were detected in the sample. 

Five constructed basins collect and hold water discharged from E Tunnel in Area 12 where nuclear testing was 

conducted in the past. Tunnel effluent water and sediment samples are analyzed for tritium, gross alpha, gross beta, 

and other radionuclides. Most samples had detectable radionuclide concentrations in 2005 (Section 4.1.9). The 

average tritium concentration in tunnel effluent water was 600,000 pCi/L, lower than the limit allowed under a 

discharge permit (1,000,000 pCi/L). Gross alpha and gross beta values in 2005 were also less than their permitted 

limits: 13 pCi/L with a permissible limit of 35 pCi/L for gross alpha and 77 pCi/L with a permissible limit of 

100 pCi/L for gross beta. 

Neither of the two onsite sewage lagoons had detectable levels of tritium (Section 4.1.10). 

Tritiated water is pumped into lined sumps during studies conducted by the Underground Test Area Project. Suitable 

wells are being drilled and existing wells re-completed in the vicinity of certain underground tests and at other 

locations on the NTS designated by hydrologists. During these drilling operations, if the tritium level exceeds 

200,000 pCi/L, contaminated water is pumped from the wells and diverted to lined containment ponds (sumps), as 

required by the state. During 2005, water containing tritium was pumped from Well U-20n PS #1DD-H into a lined 

sump; preliminary analysis measured appoximately 37,000,000 pCi/L of tritium (Section 4.1.11). 
Executive Summary 

vi Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Radiation Dose to the Public from the NTS 

Background Gamma Radiation - Background gamma radiation exposure rates on the NTS were measured at ten 

TLD stations located away from radiologically contaminated sites; these ranged from 65 to 161 milliroentgen per year 

(mR/yr) during 2005 (Section 5.3). This equates to an annual estimated background external dose of 65 to 161 

millirem per year (mrem/yr) to a hypothetical person residing at those locations all year. In comparison, DRI 

measured background radiation at offsite locations which ranged from 59 mR/yr at Pahrump, Nevada, to 184 mR/yr 

at Milford, Utah. 

Drinking Water - Man-made radionuclides from past nuclear testing have not been detected in offsite groundwater 

in the past or during 2005 (Section 4.1). The only pathways, therefore, by which the offsite public could receive a 

radiation dose from NTS operations are from inhalation, ingestion, and direct external exposure to gamma radiation

Inhalation - The radiation dose limit to the general public via just the air transport pathway is established by the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean Air Act to be 10 mrem/yr. 

The EPA, Region IX, has approved the use of six air sampling stations on the NTS (called “critical receptor” stations) 

to verify compliance with the NESHAP dose limit. These six stations are part of the 19 stations in the NTS air 

sampling network and they are located near legacy sites of contamination and along the NTS boundaries. The 

following human-produced radionuclides were detected at three or more of the critical receptor samplers in 2005: 

241Am, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, and 3H (tritium). Concentrations of these radionuclides at each of the stations indicated that 

the NESHAP dose limit to the public was not exceeded. The Schooner critical receptor station in the far northwest 

corner of the NTS experienced the highest concentrations of radioactive air emissions (Section 3.1.5), yet an 

individual residing at this station would experience a dose from air emissions of only 2.3 mrem/yr, 23 percent of the 

admissible does limit. No one resides at this location, and the dose at offsite populated locations 20-80 km (12-50 mi) 

from the Schooner station would be much lower due to wind dispersion. 

Ingestion of Radionuclides in Game Animals - Game animals from different contaminated NTS sites are trapped 

each year and analyzed for their radionuclide content. These results are used to construct worst-case scenarios for the 

dose to hunters who might consume these animals if the animals moved off the NTS. NTS game animals include 

pronghorn antelope, mule deer, chukar, Gambel’s quail, mourning doves, cottontail rabbits, and jackrabbits. In 2005, 

both mourning doves and jackrabbits were sampled at the Sedan crater, and mourning doves were sampled at a sump 

in which tritium-contaminated water from well U-19ad was pumped and stored. Based on these samples, the highest 

annual dose to a member of the public was estimated to be 0.32 mrem (0.0032 millisieverts), assuming that this person 

eats 20 jackrabbits from the Sedan site. This hypothetical dose is only 0.32 percent of the annual dose limit for 

members of the public. To put this dose into perspective, it is 1.5 times lower than the dose from cosmic radiation 

received by an individual while on a one-hour airplane flight at 39,000 feet (0.5 mrem). 

Direct Radiation - Direct gamma radiation exposure to the public from NTS operations in 2005 was negligible. 

Areas accessible to the public had exposure rates comparable to natural background rates, with one exception. The 

TLD location on the west side of the parking area at Gate 100, the NTS entrance gate, had an estimated annual 

exposure of 220 mR. It is likely that low-level radioactive waste shipments parked there prior to entering the NTS 

were responsible for this elevated exposure. That exposure would be 155 mR above the estimated exposure at the 

nearest background location, or 59 mR above the highest estimated background exposure. These exceedence values 

straddle the allowable dose of 100 mrem during the year, established by DOE Order 5400.5; however, nobody resides 

or remains full-time in the truck parking area. 

The great majority of the NTS is bounded by the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). Military or other 

personnel on the NTTR who are not classified as radiation workers would also be subject to the 100 mrem annual 

dose limit for members of the public. Military personnel could be exposed to direct radiation from legacy sites in 

Frenchman Lake playa. A TLD location near the NTS boundary with NTTR in the Frenchman Lake playa had an 

estimated annual exposure during 2005 of 391 mR (down from 411 mR in 2004). The resulting dose of 

approximately 230 to 326 mrem, depending on which background radiation value is used, would exceed the 100 mrem 

dose limit to a hypothetical person residing year-round at this location; again, however, there are no living quarters or 

full-time personnel in this vicinity. 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 vii

2005 Changes in Reporting Radiation Dose to the Public 

DOE Order 5400.5 requires all DOE and NNSA sites to estimate each year the radiation dose to the public from all 

possible exposure pathways. Those dose estimates are presented each year in this report. Dose is to be presented as: 

(1) the effective does equivalent (EDE) to the maximally-exposed individual (MEI) residing within an 80-km (50-mi) 

radius of the site, and (2) the population dose, or the collective EDE for all individuals combined who reside within 

the 80-km radius (expressed as person-rem/yr). DOE Order 5400.5 specifies that dose calculations be performed 

using standard EPA or DOE dose conversion factors or analytical models prescribed in regulations applicable to site 

operations. The use of several EPA-approved air transport models are prescribed for use in evaluating compliance 

with the NESHAP limits for radiological air emissions. In previous years, the EPA-approved air transport model 

called Clean Air Package 1988 (CAP88-PC) has been used to calculate the EDE to the MEI and the collective 

population dose (person-rem/yr, product of dose times population at location of dose estimate) attributed to NTS air 

emissions. Previously, these two dose calculations were combined with dose estimates from other potential pathways 

(e.g., consumption of game animals) to report public dose from all pathways and to assess compliance with the DOE 

dose limit of 100 mrem/yr from all pathways (over and above background). 

Region IX of the EPA approved the use of six “critical receptor” air sampling stations on the NTS to evaluate 

NESHAP compliance instead of using the estimated public dose calculated by the CAP88-PC model. The reasoning 

for this change was that the doses to the MEI offsite reported in the past were consistently very low (<0.2 mrem/yr) 

and were from diffuse sources, primarily from the resuspension of radioactively-contaminated soil from legacy sites 

containing 241Am, 238Pu, and 239+240Pu. Also, current NTS projects having the potential for airborne emissions are 

required to use high efficiency particulate air filters and stack monitoring and have not produced any emissions. Since 

the cessation of nuclear testing in 1992, no emissions other than those from diffuse legacy deposits have occurred. 

Because of this, the EPA concurred that a more accurate measure of offsite public exposure to emissions from legacy 

sites would be the continuous data collected from the critical receptor stations and not the dose estimate generated 

from the CAP88-PC model that relies on indirect data such as measures of soil contamination at legacy sites collected 

in the 1980s. 

Beginning with this report, data from the six critical receptor stations will be used in lieu of computing an EDE to the 

MEI from diffuse legacy contamination using the CAP88-PC air transport model. This change was approved by 

DOE (DOE, 2004e). Furthermore, DOE also approved the discontinuance of reporting collective population dose 

to those residing within 80 km (50 mi) of the NTS. Existing 2005 radiological monitoring data from air sampling 

stations, TLD stations, groundwater monitoring wells, and game animals indicate that the dose to the public living in 

communities surrounding the NTS are not expected to be higher than the previous 10 years and are expected to be 

less than 1 percent of the 100 mrem/yr dose limit. 

Onsite Non-Radiological Releases into Air 

There were no discharges of non-radiological hazardous materials to offsite areas in 2005. Therefore, only onsite 

non-radiological environmental monitoring of NTS operations was conducted. Air quality was monitored on the 

NTS throughout the year as required by state of Nevada permits for those operations that release criteria air 

pollutants, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or toxic and hazardous chemicals. The NTS has been issued a Class II air 

permit from the state of Nevada. Class II permits are issued to facilities which emit small quantities of air pollutants 

within a year (less than 100 tons of each criteria air pollutant, or 10 tons of any one HAP, or 25 tons of any 

combination of HAPs). 

An estimated 3.66 tons of criteria air pollutants were released on the NTS in 2005. They included particulate matter 

equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) (Section 3.2.1). The majority of these emissions (1.94 tons) was VOCs. Total air emissions of 

lead, also a criteria pollutant, were 14.55 pounds (Section 10.3). The quantity of HAPS released in 2005 was 0.05 tons. 

No emission limits for any criteria air pollutants or HAPS were exceeded. On June 8, the state of Nevada conducted 

an inspection of the following facilities regulated by the NTS air quality permit: the Area 1 Aggregate Plant and the 

Area 23 Incinerator. During the inspection, the incinerator failed its performance emission testing and was 

immediately shut down. No other exceedances were observed during the state inspection. 
Executive Summary 

viii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Asbestos is a HAP of regulatory concern on the NTS. In 2005, all materials containing regulated asbestos that were 

removed from NTS facilities were disposed of in the Mercury landfill. Large quantities of asbestos were removed 

during renovation of the A-1 Building at the NLVF and during demolition of the Test Cell A Facility in Area 25 of 

the NTS. EPA was notified of both of these projects (Section 3.2.8). The Mercury landfill documented receipt of 

2 tons of such material in 2005. 

A combined total of 3 tests consisting of 19 releases of hazardous chemicals were conducted at the Area 5 and the 

Area 25 Test Cell C NPTEC facilities in 2005 (Section 3.2.5). An annual report of the types and amounts of 

chemicals released and the test plans and final analysis reports for each chemical release were submitted to the state of 

Nevada. No ecological monitoring was performed since each test posed a very low level of risk to the environment 

and biota. 

Onsite Non-Radiological Releases into Water 

There are no liquid discharges to navigable waters, offsite surface water drainage systems, or publicly owned treatment 

works resulting from operations on the NTS. Therefore, no Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits are required for NTS operations. 

In 2005, industrial discharges on the NTS were limited to two operating sewage lagoon systems, the Area 6 Yucca 

Lake and Area 23 Mercury systems. Under the conditions of state of Nevada operating permits, liquid discharges to 

these sewage lagoons are tested quarterly for biochemical oxygen demand, pH, and total suspended solids. Annually, 

sewage lagoon pond waters are sampled for a suite of toxic chemicals. In 2005, quarterly and annual analyses of 

sewage influent and pond waters, respectively, both showed that all water measurements were within permit limits 

(often below detection levels) with one exception. One measure of 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand, Mean Daily 

Load was exceeded at the Area 6 Yucca Lake Sewage lagoons in the first quarter. Subsequent samples in the second 

quarter showed that the lagoons were once again in compliance (Section 4.2.3). 

Onsite Non-Radiological Drinking Water Quality 

NNSA/NSO operates a network of nine permitted wells that comprise three permitted public water systems on the 

NTS; these supply the potable water needs of NTS workers and visitors. In addition, three private water systems are 

maintained but are not regulated under state permit. NNSA/NSO hauls potable water for use in decontamination 

and sanitation for work locations at the NTS that are not part of a public water system. Monitoring results indicate 

that water samples from the three public water systems and from the potable water hauling trucks met the National 

Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards in 2005 with one exception. The Area 12 water system (PWS 

NV0004099) exceeded the action level for lead (0.046 milligrams per liter [mg/L]; with action level of 0.015 mg/L) 

(Section 4.2.1). The state was notified and more frequent monitoring of this system was initiated to more closely 

monitor the system’s lead levels. The Area 12 buildings were last occupied in March 2005, and there are no 

immediate plans to use this camp in 2006. 

Non-Radiological Releases into Air and Water at the NLVF 

Like the NTS, the NLVF is regulated for the emission of criteria air pollutants and HAPs. An air quality operating 

permit is maintained for a variety of equipment at the NLVF. There are no monitoring requirements associated with 

the permit. The Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM), formerly the 

Clark County Health District (CCHD), requires submittal of an annual emissions inventory. The combined quantity 

of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted at the NLVF in 2005 was 1.391 tons; they ranged from 0.001 tons for 

HAPS to 0.916 tons for nitrous oxides (Appendix A, Section A.1.3). 

Water discharges at the NLVF are regulated by a permit with the City of North Las Vegas (CNLV) for sewer 

discharges and by temporary NPDES discharge permits with the state for discharging pumped groundwater onsite for 

irrigation and dust suppression. The NPDES permits were obtained for a groundwater characterization and 

dewatering project at the facility. Self-monitoring and reporting of the levels of non-radiological contaminants in 

sewage and industrial outfalls is conducted. In 2005, contaminant measurements were below established permit limits 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 ix

in all water samples from NLVF outfalls and all sludge and liquid samples from sand/oil interceptors except in water 

samples from two outfalls where total dissolved solids (TDS) exceeded permit limits (Appendix A, Section A.1.1). In 

response to these exceedances, a Salinity Control Plan discussing steps taken to reduce the TDS levels was written and 

submitted to CNLV. CNLV conducted an annual inspection in September 2005 that resulted in no findings or 

corrective actions. 

Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization (P2/WM) Activities 

P2/WM activities result in reductions to the volume and/or toxicity of waste actually generated onsite. In 2005, a 

lead-shielded room in Building 23-600, used in the past to store radioactive sources, was converted into office space. 

Through segregation, approximately 13,800 metric tons (mtons) (15,180 tons) of potential hazardous waste (concrete 

with lead shielding) was eliminated. The lead shielding was segregated from the concrete and sent to the BN scrap 

metal salvage group for recycle. The Material Exchange Program reused 2.2 mtons (2.4 tons) of non-hazardous 

chemicals, equipment, and supplies. The NTS Calibration Lab eliminated a small hazardous waste stream by replacing 

a hazardous freon cleaning solvent used to clean pressure gauges with a non-hazardous solvent. Other significant 

waste reduction efforts continued in 2005, such as sending bulk used oil to an offsite vendor for recycling (166.3 mtons 

[182.9 tons]) and offsite recycling of mixed paper and cardboard (509.8 mtons [560.8 tons]). Overall, a reduction of 

13,992 mtons (15,391.2 tons) of hazardous wastes and 1,194.4 mtons (1,313.9 tons) of solid wastes was realized in 

2005. No reductions in radioactive wastes occurred in 2005 (Section 11.0). 

Accidental or Unplanned Environmental Releases or Occurrences 

In 2005, there were no reportable accidental or unplanned environmental releases or occurrence on the NTS or at any 

of the NTS satellite facilities. 

Compliance with Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

A summary of NNSA/NSO’s compliance with over 100 applicable environmental laws, regulations, and policies are 

presented in Section 2.0 of this NTSER. The major categories of these drivers are listed below. Where compliance 

for a category was not 100 percent, all of the non-compliance incidents are noted. 

Environmental Compliance Summary for the NTS in 2005 

Category Non-Compliance Incidents 

Air Quality Three pieces of equipment failed their performance emissions test and 

were shut down (Section 3.2.2). 

Water Quality and Protection Limits for lead were exceeded in Area 12 public water system 

(Section 4.2.1.1). Limits for total dissolved solids were exceeded in 

sewage outfalls at NLVF (Section A.1.1.1). 

Radiation Dose Protection None 

Radioactive and Non-Radioactive Waste 

Management and Environmental Restoration 

None 

Hazardous Materials Control and Management None 

Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization One Executive Order 13101 goal (Section 11.1) and four Secretary of 

Energy's P2 Leadership goals (Section 11.4) were not met. 

Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource 

Protection 

None 

Conservation and Protection of Biota and 

Wildlife Habitat 

11 accidental bird deaths attributable to NTS activities (e.g., roadkill); 

represented 9 species protected as migratory birds (Section 13.3.5.1). 
Executive Summary 

x Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Significant Environmental Accomplishments 

Environmental Restoration - The cleanup of sites contaminated by past DOE operations and the hydrogeological 

investigations supporting characterization of underground nuclear contamination areas are the most significant 

environmental work performed by NNSA/NSO each year. The DOE, U.S. Department of Defense, and the State of 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection identify a work scope and milestone schedule for the cleanup and safe 

closure of the contaminated above-ground sites and for the field investigations and model development necessary to 

characterize the underground sites. A total of 49 contaminated above-ground sites was closed safely in 2005. 

Extensive progress was made towards the development of hydrologic models describing groundwater flow and 

possible radionuclide transport from the primary underground sites into the groundwater underlying public lands 

outside the boundaries of the NTS. This involved well development, aquifer testing, groundwater characterization 

sampling, and the completion of several technical data documentation packages and modeling approach/strategy 

documents. 

Pollution Prevention - BN received three NNSA Pollution Prevention Awards for P2 activities in 2005. BN’s 

Pollution Prevention Team was awarded an Environmental Stewardship Award for developing a Material Exchange 

Program that utilizes an interactive web site where employees from different organizations can “shop” for used items 

and add items they no longer need to the list of available items. This reduces the amount of waste that would be 

slated for the NTS landfill. Two NNSA Best-In-Class Awards for 2005 went to recognize the efforts of the JASPER 

team to eliminate the generation of low-level, mixed transuranic waste, and to the Fleet Fuel Efficiency Team’s 

proposal to use B-20 Bio-diesel, E-85 Ethanol/Gasoline mixtures and “Micro” vehicles resulting in reductions in the 

amount of petroleum usage at the NTS. 

Waste Management - In 2005, the primary sewage lagoon in Area 23 was lined, thus preventing any infiltration from 

that basin. This is one of the first lagoons in Nevada to be lined with geosynthetic clay and high density polyethylene 

liners. 

Ecological Monitoring - A total of 25.5 acres of habitat within the range of the federally threatened desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii) was disturbed on the NTS in 2005; however, no desert tortoises were accidentally injured or killed 

from project activities. Two projects to restore native vegetation to disturbed tortoise habitat were implemented. 

Five major wildland fires occurred on the NTS in 2005 which burned a total of 13,000 acres. BN biologists prepared 

written assessments for soil stabilization and revegetation for these NTS fires. BN biologists also participated in two 

emergency stabilization planning meetings with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Nevada Division of Wildlife, and the U.S. Geological Survey to assess the impacts of the large wildfires in southern 

Nevada and to develop emergency stabilization plans for controlling erosion. BN biologists provided a presentation 

on revegetation in the Mojave Desert including techniques, species selection, timing, and irrigation. 

 

A West Nile Virus Sampling Program on the NTS continued in 2005 with guidance from the CCHD. BN biologists 

conducted 16 trapping sessions at 10 sites on the NTS. A total of 77 mosquitoes of three different species was 

collected. None of the mosquitoes tested positive for the West Nile virus. 
 Acknowledgements 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xi 

Acknowledgements 

Environmental Technical Services (ETS) of Bechtel Nevada (BN) is responsible for production of this document for 

the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). 

Environmental monitoring and compliance data were gathered through the combined efforts of several BN 

organizations in addition to ETS: Environmental Services, Radioactive Waste Operations, Solid Waste Operations, 

Environmental Restoration, Ecological Services, Radiological Control, Occupational Safety & Health, and Contractor 

Assurance & Compliance. The Water Resources and Cultural Resources divisions of the Desert Research Institute 

(DRI) contributed data for offsite water and air monitoring and cultural resource protection. Stoller-Navarro Joint 

Venture (SNJV) provided schedule and progress data for environmental restoration projects. Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory (LLNL) provided tritium data for certain onsite wells. The Air Resources Laboratory, Special 

Operations and Research Division (ARL/SORD) provided summary descriptions of NTS climate, and the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) provided water level and usage data for selected wells. My thanks go to each of the 

authors and contributors who are listed below from these organizations. Your help during the writing and review 

phases were greatly appreciated. 

Chapter Authors and Contributors

Executive Summary

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

1.0 Introduction

Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

2.0 Compliance Summary

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

 Troy S. Belka, BN 

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

 Douglas K. Clark, BN 

 Andrea L. Gile, BN 

 Dennis L. Gustafson, BN 

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Madelyn A. Hayes, BN 

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

 Alfred J. Karnes, BN 

 Coby P. Moke, BN 

 Teresa M. Morgan, BN 

 Paul K. Ortego, BN 

 Phyllis M. Radack, BN 

 Stuart E. Rawlinson, BN 

 Glenn Richardson, BN 

 Carlton Soong, BN 

 Janene L. VanDeroef, BN 

 Tammy H. Wallace, BN 

 Karen E. Williams, BN 

3.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological

 Air Monitoring

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

 Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat 

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Teresa M. Morgan, BN 

 Tammy H. Wallace, BN 

4.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological

 Water Monitoring 

 Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat 

 David B. Hudson, BN 

 Coby P. Moke, BN 

 Paul K. Ortego, BN 

 Phyllis M. Radack, BN 

 Carlton Soong, BN 

 Janene L. VanDeroef, BN 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

5.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring

 Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

6.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring

 of Air and Water

 William T. Hartwell, DRI 

 Craig Shadel, DRI 

 Charles E. Russell, DRI 
Acknowledgements 

xii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

7.0 Radiological Biota Monitoring

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

8.0 Radiological Dose Assessment

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

 Phillip D. Worley, BN 

9.0 Waste Management and

 Environmental Restoration

 Troy S. Belka, BN 

 Tamiko Y. Brown, SNJV 

 Douglas K. Clark, BN 

 Carol F. Dinsman, SNJV

Michelle A. Hallmark, BN 

 Carlton Soong, BN 

 Glenn Richardson, BN 

 Karen E. Williams, BN 

10.0 Hazardous Materials Control and

 Management

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

 Madelyn A. Hayes, BN 

 Coby P. Moke, BN 

11.0 Pollution Prevention

 Alfred J. Karnes, BN 

12.0 Historic Preservation and Cultural

 Resources Management

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

 Barbara A. Holz, DRI 

13.0 Ecological Monitoring

 David C. Anderson, BN 

 Paul D. Greger, BN 

13.0 Underground Test Area Project (continued)

 Derek B. Hall, BN 

 Dennis J. Hansen, BN 

 W. Kent Ostler, BN 

14.0 Underground Test Area Project

 Sigmund L. Drellack, BN 

15.0 Hydrologic Resources Management

 Program

 Bruce W. Hurley, NNSA/NSO 

 Robert P. Graves, USGS 

16.0 Meteorological Monitoring

 Darryl Randerson, ARL-SORD 

17.0 Environmental Management System

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

18.0 Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 Jerry J. Dugas, BN 

 Theodore J. Redding, BN 

19.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program

 Craig Shadel, DRI 

Appendix A: NTS Satellite Facilities

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

Sigmund L. Drellack, BN 

Madelyn A. Hayes, BN 

 Coby P. Moke, BN 

Ronald W. Warren, BN 

Appendix B: Glossary 

 Modified from Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 2003 

Environmental Report 

ETS Support Staff 

The following individuals within ETS are responsible year-in and year-out for the numerous tasks that are integral to 

the collection, quality assurance, and quality control of much of the environmental data reported in this environmental 

report. These are the “behind the scenes” folks. Thank you all for your efforts in the following areas. 

Administration of the Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System (BEIDMS) for 

Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (RREMP), Clean Water Act (CWA)

and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Projects:

Elizabeth Burns 

Robert G. Peppard 

Coordination of Field Sampling Operations for RREMP, CWA, and SDWA Projects:

Terrance P. Sonnenburg 
 Acknowledgements 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xiii 

Field Sampling for RREMP, CWA, and SDWA Projects:

Martin D. Cavanaugh 

Paul D. Greger 

David D. Rudolph 

Matthew O. Weaver 

Alan O. Wittig 

Laboratory Operations Supporting RREMP Screening and Sample Processing:

Lynn N. Jaussi 

 

Sample Management Supporting the BN Subcontracting of Environmental Analytical Services:

Catherine D. Castaneda 

Theodore J. Redding 

 

RREMP Data Verification,Validation, and Review:

Elizabeth Burns 

Robert F. Grossman 

David B. Hudson 

Ronald W. Warren 

 

Quality Assurance Oversight of the RREMP:

Jerry J. Dugas 

Report Production and Distribution Support Personnel 

Lastly, my appreciation goes to the following individuals who were responsible for improving the quality, appearance, 

and timely production and distribution of this report: 

Ashley Cushman of BN Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a GIS specialist who worked with all the authors to 

produce the high-quality GIS-generated maps and figures. 

Charles Davis of EnviroStat provided support for the statistical analyses and interpretation of NTS radiological 

monitoring data collected by ETS. 

Tom Fitzmaurice of BN Environmental Restoration provided his artistic talents to produce the drawing of possible 

pathways of radiological exposure to the public presented in the NTSER Summary. 

Kurt Jahn and Mark Shaw of Technical Publications and Graphic Services/Office Services (TPGS/OS) are thanked 

for producing high-quality hard copies and compact discs of the NTSER and the NTSER Summary under a 

tight production schedule. 

Mary Johnson of TPGS/OS oversaw the U.S. Government Printing Office subcontract, the print production 

schedule, the acquisition of all printing and mailing supplies, and the timely distribution of all of the NTSER 

products. 

Fina Martinez-Myers of TPGS/OS provided a thorough review of this document to ensure spelling, format, grammar, 

references, tables, figures, acronyms, table of contents, etc., were all in order. Any mistakes a reader may find 

are to be marveled at, given the quantity Fina found which were corrected. 

A very special thank you is reserved for Angela McCurdy of BN TPGS/OS. She is the word processing 

specialist responsible for the final layout and format of the NTSER and the covers. Her skill and dedication 

applied to this project year after year are acknowledged. Thank you, Angela.
Acknowledgements 

xiv Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xv 

Table of Contents 

ESExecutive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... i

 Purpose of the NTS Environmental Report..................................................................................... i

 Major Site Programs and Facilities..................................................................................................... i

 Other Key Initiatives............................................................................................................................ i

 Environmental Performance Measure Programs............................................................................ ii

 Performance Measures........................................................................................................................ ii

 Offsite Monitoring for Radiological Releases into Air................................................................... ii

 Onsite Monitoring and Estimating of Radiological Releases into Air ........................................ iii

 Offsite Radiological Monitoring of Water ...................................................................................... iv

 Onsite Radiological Monitoring of Water........................................................................................ v

 Radiation Dose to the Public from the NTS .................................................................................. vi

 2005 Changes in Reporting Radiation Dose to the Public .......................................................... vii

 Onsite Non-Radiological Releases into Air.................................................................................... vii

 Onsite Non-Radiological Releases into Water..............................................................................viii

 Onsite Non-Radiological Drinking Water Quality ......................................................................viii

 Non-Radiological Releases into Air and Water at the NLVF ....................................................viii

 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization (P2/WM) Activities................................................. ix

 Accidental or Unplanned Environmental Releases or Occurrences ........................................... ix

 Compliance with Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Policies.............................................. ix

 Significant Environmental Accomplishments ................................................................................. x

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................................................ xi 

Table of Contents.......................................................................................................................................................... xv 

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................................xxiii 

List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................................................xxv 

1.0 Introduction and Helpful Information .......................................................................................................1-1 

 1.1 Site Location......................................................................................................................................1-1 

 1.2 Environmental Setting......................................................................................................................1-1 

 1.3 Site History.........................................................................................................................................1-4

 1.4 Site Mission........................................................................................................................................1-4

 1.5 Primary Operations and Activities .................................................................................................1-5

 1.6 Populations Near the NTS ..............................................................................................................1-7 

 1.7 Understanding Data in this Report ................................................................................................1-7 

 1.7.1 Scientific Notation ..............................................................................................................1-7 

 1.7.2 Unit Prefixes.........................................................................................................................1-7 

 1.7.3 Units of Radioactivity .........................................................................................................1-8 

 1.7.4 Radiological Dose Units.....................................................................................................1-8 

 1.7.5 International System of Units for Radioactivity and Dose ...........................................1-8 

 1.7.6 Radionuclide Nomenclature ..............................................................................................1-9 

 1.7.7 Units of Measurement ........................................................................................................1-9 

 1.7.8 Measurement Variability.....................................................................................................1-9 

 1.7.9 Mean and Standard Deviation.........................................................................................1-10 

 1.7.10 Standard Error of the Mean.............................................................................................1-10 

 1.7.11 Median, Maximum, and Minimum Values ....................................................................1-10 

 1.7.12 Less Than (<) Symbol ......................................................................................................1-11 
 Table of Contents

xvi Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

 1.7.13 Negative Radionuclide Concentrations..........................................................................1-11 

 1.7.14 Understanding Graphic Information .............................................................................1-11 

2.0 Compliance Summary....................................................................................................................................2-1 

 2.1 Air Quality..........................................................................................................................................2-1 

 2.1.1 Compliance Issues...............................................................................................................2-2 

 2.1.2 Compliance Reports............................................................................................................2-2 

 2.1.3 Compliance Status...............................................................................................................2-3 

 2.2 Water Quality and Protection .......................................................................................................2-6 

 2.2.1 Compliance Issues...............................................................................................................2-7 

 2.2.2 Compliance Reports............................................................................................................2-7 

 2.2.3 Compliance Status...............................................................................................................2-7 

 2.3 Radiation Dose Protection ............................................................................................................2-10 

 2.3.1 Compliance Reports..........................................................................................................2-10 

 2.3.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-11 

2.4 Radioactive and Non-Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental 

Restoration .........................................................................................................................2-12 

 2.4.1 Compliance Reports..........................................................................................................2-13 

 2.4.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-13 

 2.5 Hazardous Materials Control and Management.........................................................................2-16 

 2.5.1 Compliance Report ...........................................................................................................2-17 

 2.5.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-17 

 2.6 National Environmental Policy Act.............................................................................................2-19 

 2.7 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization...........................................................................2-20

 2.7.1 Compliance Issues.............................................................................................................2-20 

 2.7.2 Compliance Reports..........................................................................................................2-20 

 2.7.3 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-20 

 2.8 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Protection..........................................................2-23 

 2.8.1 Reporting Requirements...................................................................................................2-24 

 2.8.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-24 

 2.9 Conservation and Protection of Biota and Wildlife Habitat ....................................................2-25 

 2.9.1 Compliance Issues .......................................................................................................... 2-26 

 2.9.2 Compliance Reports..........................................................................................................2-26 

 2.9.3 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-26 

 2.10 Environmental Management System ...........................................................................................2-29 

 2.10.1 Compliance Reports..........................................................................................................2-29 

 2.10.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-29 

 2.11 Occurrences, Unplanned Releases, and Continuous Releases .................................................2-30 

 2.11.1 Compliance Status ...........................................................................................................2-30 

 2.12 Summary of Permits .......................................................................................................................2-31 

3.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring..................................................................................3-1 

 3.1 Radiological Air Monitoring............................................................................................................3-1 

 3.1.1 Monitoring System Design.................................................................................................3-2 

 3.1.2 Air Particulate and Tritium Sampling Methods..............................................................3-4 

 3.1.3 Presentation of Air Sampling Data...................................................................................3-5

 3.1.4 Air Sampling Results from Environmental Samplers ....................................................3-5 

 3.1.4.1 Americium-241..................................................................................................3-5 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xvii 

 3.1.4.2 Cesium-137 ........................................................................................................3-7 

 3.1.4.3 Plutonium Isotopes...........................................................................................3-7 

 3.1.4.4 Uranium Isotopes............................................................................................3-11 

 3.1.4.5 Tritium ..............................................................................................................3-13 

 3.1.4.6 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta.........................................................................3-16 

 3.1.5 Air Sampling Results from Critical Receptor Samplers...............................................3-18 

 3.1.6 Air Sampling Results from Point-Source (Stack) Sampler ..........................................3-19 

 3.1.7 Emission Evaluations for Planned Projects ..................................................................3-19 

 3.1.8 Unplanned Releases ..........................................................................................................3-19 

 3.1.9 Total NTS Radiological Atmospheric Releases ............................................................3-19 

 3.1.10 Environmental Impact......................................................................................................3-20 

 3.2 Non-Radiological Air Quality Assessment..................................................................................3-21 

 3.2.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants .........................3-22 

 3.2.2 Performance Emission Testing and State Inspection..................................................3-25 

 3.2.3 Production Rates/Hours of Operation..........................................................................3-25 

 3.2.4 Opacity Readings...............................................................................................................3-26 

 3.2.5 NPTEC Reporting ............................................................................................................3-26 

 3.2.6 Tactical Demilitarization Development Project (TaDD) Reporting .........................3-27 

 3.2.7 ODS Recordkeeping.........................................................................................................3-27 

 3.2.8 Asbestos Abatement .........................................................................................................3-28 

 3.2.9 Fugitive Dust Control.......................................................................................................3-28 

 3.2.10 Environmental Impact......................................................................................................3-29 

4.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring.............................................................................4-1 

 4.1 Radiological Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring ........................................................4-1 

 4.1.1 Water Monitoring Locations .............................................................................................4-4 

 4.1.2 Water Sampling/Analysis Methods ..................................................................................4-4 

 4.1.3 Presentation of Water Sampling Data..............................................................................4-7 

 4.1.4 Results from Offsite Wells.................................................................................................4-7 

 4.1.5 Results from Offsite Springs ...........................................................................................4-10 

 4.1.6 Results from NTS Potable Water Supply Wells ...........................................................4-12 

 4.1.7 Results from NTS Monitoring Wells..............................................................................4-15 

 4.1.8 Results from Onsite Springs............................................................................................4-17 

 4.1.9 Results from NTS E Tunnel Ponds ...............................................................................4-18 

 4.1.10 Results from NTS Sewage Lagoons ...............................................................................4-20 

 4.1.11 UGTA Wells ......................................................................................................................4-21 

 4.1.12 Environmental Impact......................................................................................................4-23 

 4.2 Non-Radiological Drinking Water and Wastewater Monitoring .............................................4-24 

 4.2.1 Drinking Water Monitoring.............................................................................................4-24 

 4.2.1.1 Water Quality of PWS and Permitted Water Hauling Trucks..................4-24 

 4.2.1.2 Sanitary Survey of PWS and Inspection of Permitted Water 

 Hauling Trucks ................................................................................................4-29 

 4.2.2 Domestic Wastewater Monitoring..................................................................................4-30 

 4.2.3 Industrial Wastewater Monitoring ..................................................................................4-30 

 4.2.3.1 Quarterly Analysis of Influent Water Quality.............................................4-32 

 4.2.3.2 Annual Analysis of Toxicity of Sewage Lagoon Pond Waters.................4-32 

 4.2.3.3 Sewage System Inspections............................................................................4-33 

5.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring.........................................................................................................................5-1 
 Table of Contents

xviii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

 5.1 Measurement of Direct Radiation ..................................................................................................5-1 

 5.2 TLD Surveillance Network Design................................................................................................5-2 

 5.2.1 Data Quality .........................................................................................................................5-2 

 5.2.2 Data Reporting ....................................................................................................................5-4 

 5.3 Results ................................................................................................................................................5-4 

 5.3.1 Potential Exposure to the Public along the NTS Boundary.........................................5-7 

 5.3.2 Exposure Rates at RWMSs................................................................................................5-8 

 5.3.2.1 Area 3 RWMS....................................................................................................5-8 

 5.3.2.2 Area 5 RWMS....................................................................................................5-9 

 5.3.3 Exposures from NTS Operational Activities..................................................................5-9 

 5.3.4 Exposure to NTS Plants and Animals .............................................................................5-9 

 5.3.5 Exposure Rate Patterns in the Environment over Time.............................................5-10 

 5.4 Environmental Impact ...................................................................................................................5-11 

6.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water...............................................................................6-1 

 6.1 Offsite Air Monitoring.....................................................................................................................6-1 

 6.1.1 Air Particulate Sampling Results .......................................................................................6-4 

 6.1.1.1 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta...........................................................................6-4 

 6.1.1.2 Gamma Spectroscopy.......................................................................................6-7 

 6.1.2 TLD Results.........................................................................................................................6-7 

 6.1.3 PIC Results...........................................................................................................................6-8 

 6.1.4 Environmental Impact......................................................................................................6-10 

 6.2 Offsite Surface and Groundwater Monitoring ...........................................................................6-11 

 6.2.1 Sample Locations and Methods ......................................................................................6-11 

 6.2.2 Procedures and Quality Assurance .................................................................................6-11 

 6.2.3 Results of Surface Water and Spring Discharge Monitoring ......................................6-14 

 6.2.4 Results of Groundwater Monitoring ..............................................................................6-14 

 6.2.5 Environmental Impact......................................................................................................6-14 

7.0 Radiological Biota Monitoring......................................................................................................................7-1 

 7.1 Species Selection ...............................................................................................................................7-1 

 7.2 Site Selection......................................................................................................................................7-2 

 7.3 Sampling Methods ............................................................................................................................7-4 

 7.3.1 Plants.....................................................................................................................................7-4 

 7.3.2 Animals .................................................................................................................................7-4 

 7.4 Results.................................................................................................................................................7-5 

 7.4.1 Plants.....................................................................................................................................7-5 

 7.4.2 Animals .................................................................................................................................7-5 

 7.5 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................................7-5 

8.0 Radiological Dose Assessment ....................................................................................................................8-1 

 8.1 Radiological Dose to the Public......................................................................................................8-1 

 8.1.1 Possible Exposure Pathways to the Public......................................................................8-1 

 8.1.2 Dose to the Public from NTS Air Emissions.................................................................8-2 

 8.1.3 Dose to the Public from Ingestion of Wild Game from the NTS...............................8-3 

 8.1.4 Dose to the Public from Drinking Contaminated Groundwater.................................8-5 

 8.1.5 Dose to the Public from Direct Radiation Exposure along NTS Borders................ 8-5 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xix 

 8.1.6 Dose to the Public from Release of Property Containing Residual 

 Radioactive Material............................................................................................................8-5 

 8.1.7 Total Offsite Dose to the MEI from all Pathways.........................................................8-6 

 8.1.8 Collective Population Dose ...............................................................................................8-8 

 8.2 Dose to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota ...........................................................................................8-9 

 8.2.1 2005 Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment....................................................................8-10 

 8.2.2 Environmental Impact......................................................................................................8-11 

9.0 Waste Management and Environmental Restoration ...............................................................................9-1 

 9.1 Radioactive Waste Management.....................................................................................................9-1 

 9.1.1 Maintenance of Key Documents ......................................................................................9-2 

 9.1.2 Characterization of LLW and LLMW..............................................................................9-2 

 9.1.3 Disposal of LLW and LLMW ...........................................................................................9-3 

 9.1.4 TRU Waste Operations......................................................................................................9-4 

 9.1.5 Assessments .........................................................................................................................9-4 

 9.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring for LLW Pit P03U.................................................................9-4 

 9.1.7 Vadose Zone Monitoring...................................................................................................9-5 

 9.1.7.1 Area 3 RWMS Drainage Lysimeter Facility...................................................9-5 

 9.1.7.2 Area 5 RWMS Weighing Lysimeter Facility..................................................9-5 

 9.1.7.3 RWMS Waste Cover Automated Monitoring...............................................9-6 

 9.1.7.4 RWMS Supplemental Automated Monitoring..............................................9-6 

 9.1.7.5 Gas-phase Tritium Monitoring .......................................................................9-6 

 9.1.7.6 Radon Flux.........................................................................................................9-6 

 9.2 Hazardous Waste Management ......................................................................................................9-7 

 9.2.1 Hazardous Waste Storage Unit and Satellite Accumulation Areas ..............................9-7

 9.2.2 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit..................................................................................9-7

 9.3 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Management.........................................................................9-8 

 9.4 Environmental Restoration - Remediation of Historic Contaminated Sites............................9-8 

 9.4.1 Corrective Actions...............................................................................................................9-8 

 9.4.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections.......................................................................9-9 

 9.5 Solid and Sanitary Waste Management........................................................................................9-13 

 9.5.1 Landfills ..............................................................................................................................9-13 

 9.5.2 Sewage Lagoons.................................................................................................................9-13 

10.0 Hazardous Materials Control and Management ......................................................................................10-1 

 10.1 TSCA Program................................................................................................................................10-1 

 10.2 FIFRA Program ..............................................................................................................................10-2 

 10.3 EPCRA Program.............................................................................................................................10-2 

 10.4 Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act..........................................................................10-3 

11.0 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization ........................................................................................11-1 

 11.1 P2/WM Goals and Components .................................................................................................11-1 

 11.2 Major P2/WM Accomplishments and Awards..........................................................................11-2 

 11.3 Waste Reductions............................................................................................................................11-2 

 11.4 Secretary of Energy’s P2/WM Leadership Goals ......................................................................11-3 
 Table of Contents

xx Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

12.0 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management..................................................................12-1 

 12.1 Cultural Resources Surveys, Inventories, Historical Evaluations, and Associated 

 Activities ...................................................................................................................................12-1 

 12.1.1 Cultural Resources Surveys..............................................................................................12-2 

 12.1.2 Cultural Resources Inventories .......................................................................................12-2 

 12.1.3 Evaluations of Historic Structures..................................................................................12-2 

 12.1.4 Associated Cultural Resources Activities.......................................................................12-3 

 12.1.4.1 Adverse Effect Assessments and Mitigation Activities .............................12-3 

 12.1.4.2 General Reconnaissance/Archival Research ..............................................12-3 

 12.1.4.3 Reports..............................................................................................................12-4 

 12.2 Curation............................................................................................................................................12-5 

 12.3 American Indian Program .............................................................................................................12-5 

13.0 Ecological Monitoring .................................................................................................................................13-1 

 13.1 Desert Tortoise Compliance Program.........................................................................................13-1 

 13.2 Biological Surveys at Proposed Project Sites ..............................................................................13-3 

 13.3 Important Species and Habitat Monitoring ................................................................................13-9 

 13.3.1 Sensitive Plants ..................................................................................................................13-9 

 13.3.1.1 Astragalus beatleyae.............................................................................................13-9 

 13.3.1.2 Astragalus funereus..............................................................................................13-9 

 13.3.1.3 Entosthodon planoconvexus............................................................................... 13-11 

 13.3.2 Important Bat Species.................................................................................................... 13-11 

 13.3.2.1 Night Monitoring of Water Sources and Potential Roost Sites ............ 13-11 

 13.3.2.2 Documented Day Roosts in NTS Buildings ............................................ 13-11 

 13.3.2.3 Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Seasonal Bat Activity at 

 Camp 17 Pond..................................................................................... 13-11 

 13.3.3 State-Protected Small Mammals................................................................................... 13-13 

 13.3.4 Wild Horses..................................................................................................................... 13-13 

 13.3.5 Birds ................................................................................................................................. 13-15 

 13.3.5.1 Bird Monitoring and Mortality................................................................... 13-15 

 13.3.5.2 Western Burrowing Owl Monitoring........................................................ 13-16 

 13.3.6 Natural and Human-Made Water Sources.................................................................. 13-18 

 13.4 Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program................................................................................ 13-18 

 13.4.1 Egg Point Fire................................................................................................................. 13-18 

 13.4.2 Habitat Restoration at CAU 110, U-3ax/bl Closure Cover..................................... 13-19 

 13.5 Ecosystem Mapping and Data Management ........................................................................... 13-20 

 13.6 Biological Monitoring of the NPTEC ...................................................................................... 13-20 

14.0 Underground Test Area Project .................................................................................................................14-1 

 14.1 Aquifer Tests ...................................................................................................................................14-1 

 14.2 Groundwater Sampling ..................................................................................................................14-1 

 14.3 3D Hydrostratigraphic Framework Models................................................................................14-1 

15.0 Hydrologic Resources Management Program..........................................................................................15-1 

 15.1 Program Goals and Activities .......................................................................................................15-1 

 15.1.1 Hydrology and Radionuclide Investigations for Operations ......................................15-1 

 15.1.2 Long-Term Groundwater Stewardship..........................................................................15-2 

 15.2 2005 Field Monitoring....................................................................................................................15-2 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xxi 

 15.2.1 Water Levels and Temperature .......................................................................................15-2 

 15.2.2 Water Usage .......................................................................................................................15-3 

16.0 Meteorological Monitoring..........................................................................................................................16-1 

 16.1 Meteorological Monitoring Goals ................................................................................................16-1 

 16.2 MEDA Station Locations..............................................................................................................16-1 

 16.3 MEDA Station Instrumentation...................................................................................................16-1 

 16.4 Rain Gauge Network......................................................................................................................16-3 

 16.5 Data Access......................................................................................................................................16-3 

17.0 Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System.............................17-1 

 17.1 Previous Work on EMS and ISMS Integration..........................................................................17-2 

 17.2 2005 Status of EMS ........................................................................................................................17-2 

 17.3 Elements of Bechtel Nevada’s EMS ............................................................................................17-5 

 17.3.1 NTS Environmental Policies.........................................................................................17-5 

 17.3.2 Environmental Aspects and Impacts...........................................................................17-5 

 17.3.3 Legal and Other Requirements .....................................................................................17-5 

 17.3.4 Objectives, Targets, and Programs...............................................................................17-6 

 17.3.5 Resources, Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities...................................................17-6 

 17.3.6 Competence, Training, and Awareness........................................................................17-6 

 17.3.7 Communication and Community Involvement..........................................................17-6 

 17.3.8 Documentation and Control of Documents ..............................................................17-7 

 17.3.9 Operational Control........................................................................................................17-7 

 17.3.10 Emergency Preparedness and Response .....................................................................17-7 

 17.3.11 Monitoring and Measurement.......................................................................................17-7

 17.3.12 Evaluation of Compliance .............................................................................................17-7 

 17.3.13 Nonconformity and Corrective and Preventive Actions ..........................................17-7 

 17.3.14 Control of Records .........................................................................................................17-8 

 17.3.15 Internal Audit ..................................................................................................................17-8 

 17.3.16 Management Review.......................................................................................................17-8 

18.0 Compliance Quality Assurance ..................................................................................................................18-1 

 18.1 Data and Measurement Quality Objectives ................................................................................18-1 

 18.1.1 Precision .............................................................................................................................18-2 

 18.1.2 Accuracy .............................................................................................................................18-2 

 18.1.3 Representativeness ............................................................................................................18-2 

 18.1.4 Comparability.....................................................................................................................18-3 

 18.2 Sampling Plan ..................................................................................................................................18-3 

 18.2.1 Sample Packages................................................................................................................18-3 

 18.2.2 Database Support ..............................................................................................................18-3 

 18.2.3 Training...............................................................................................................................18-4 

 18.3 Laboratory Sample Analyses .........................................................................................................18-4 

 18.3.1 Procurement.......................................................................................................................18-4 

 18.3.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment .................................................................................18-4

 18.3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan................................................................................18-5 

 18.3.3.1 LQAP Requirements ......................................................................................18-5 

 18.3.3.2 LQAP Management Responsibilities ...........................................................18-6 

 18.3.3.3 Additional Subcontract Requirements .........................................................18-6 

 18.4 Data Management Procedures......................................................................................................18-7 
 Table of Contents

xxii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

 18.5 Data Review and Systematic Assessments ..................................................................................18-8 

 18.5.1 Data Checks .......................................................................................................................18-8 

 18.5.2 Data Verification ...............................................................................................................18-8 

 18.5.3 Data Validation..................................................................................................................18-8 

 18.5.4 Data Quality Assessment .................................................................................................18-9 

 18.6 Results...............................................................................................................................................18-9 

 18.6.1 Field Duplicates.................................................................................................................18-9 

 18.6.2 Laboratory Control Samples............................................................................................18-9 

 18.6.3 Blank Analysis................................................................................................................. 18-11 

 18.6.4 Inter-laboratory Comparison Studies.......................................................................... 18-12 

19.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP..................................................................................19-1 

 19.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs).................................................................................................19-1 

 19.2 Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) .................................................................................19-1 

 19.3 Sampling QA Program...................................................................................................................19-1 

 19.4 Laboratory QA Oversight..............................................................................................................19-2 

 19.4.1 Procurement.......................................................................................................................19-2 

 19.4.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment .................................................................................19-2

 19.4.3 Laboratory QA Program..................................................................................................19-3 

 19.5 Data Review.....................................................................................................................................19-3 

 19.6 QA Program Assessments.............................................................................................................19-4 

 19.7 2005 Sample QA Results ...............................................................................................................19-4 

 19.7.1 Field Duplicates (Precision).............................................................................................19-4 

 19.7.2 Laboratory Control Samples (Accuracy)........................................................................19-4 

 19.7.3 Blank Analysis....................................................................................................................19-5 

 19.7.4 Inter-laboratory Comparison Studies.............................................................................19-6 

Appendix A Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities....................................................................................................A-1 

Appendix B Glossary..................................................................................................................................................B-1 

 Appendix C Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................................................C-1 

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

 Distribution List .......................................................................................................................................................DL-1 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xxiii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. NTS vicinity map................................................................................................................................. 1-2 

Figure 1-2. Major topographic features of the NTS........................................................................................... 1-3 

Figure 1-3. NTS operational areas, principal facilities, and past nuclear testing areas .................................. 1-6

Figure 1-4. Data plotted using a log scale .......................................................................................................... 1-12 

Figure 1-5. Data plotted using a linear scale .......................................................................................................1-12 

Figure 3-1. Radiological air sampling network on the NTS in 2005.................................................................3-3 

Figure 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2005..............................................................3-6 

Figure 3-3. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2005 ...............................................................3-8 

Figure 3-4. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2005........................................................3-10 

Figure 3-5. Long-term trends in average annual mean 239+240Pu for NTS area groups.................................3-11 

Figure 3-6. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2005 and Pahute Mesa air 

 temperature .........................................................................................................................................3-14 

Figure 3-7. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2005 and Pahute 

 Mesa precipitation..............................................................................................................................3-14 

Figure 3-8. Average long-term trends in tritium at locations on the NTS having at least 

 7 years of data.....................................................................................................................................3-15 

Figure 3-9. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2005 ...........................................................3-17 

Figure 3-10. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2005 .............................................................3-18 

Figure 3-11. Criteria air pollutants released on the NTS since 1996 .................................................................3-24 

Figure 4-1. Areas of potential groundwater contamination on the NTS ........................................................ 4-2 

Figure 4-2. RREMP well monitoring locations sampled on and off the NTS in 2005 ................................. 4-5 

Figure 4-3. RREMP spring and surface water monitoring locations sampled on and off the 

 NTS in 2005 ......................................................................................................................................... 4-6 

Figure 4-4. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite wells from 2000 to 2005......................................... 4-9

Figure 4-5. Tritium concentrations in offsite wells from 2000 to 2005......................................................... 4-10 

Figure 4-6. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite springs from 2000 to 2005................................... 4-11 

Figure 4-7. Tritium concentrations in offsite springs from 2000 to 2005..................................................... 4-12 

Figure 4-8. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in NTS potable water supply wells from 2000 to 2005 .... 4-14 

Figure 4-9. Tritium concentrations in NTS potable water supply wells from 2000 to 2005...................... 4-14 

Figure 4-10. Concentrations of tritium in wells with a history of detectable levels ....................................... 4-17

Figure 4-11. Tritium concentration in E Tunnel Ponds from 1995 to 2005................................................... 4-20 

Figure 4-12. UGTA Project wells on and off the NTS...................................................................................... 4-22 

Figure 4-13. Drinking water systems on the NTS............................................................................................... 4-25 

Figure 4-14. Active permitted sewage disposal systems on the NTS............................................................... 4-31 

Figure 5-1. Location of TLDs on the NTS.......................................................................................................... 5-3 

Figure 5-2. Annual exposure rates in and around the Area 3 RWMS plus background during 2005......... 5-8 

Figure 5-3. Annual exposure rates around the Area 5 RWMS plus background during 2005..................... 5-9 

Figure 5-4. Trend in direct radiation exposure measured at TLD locations................................................. 5-10 

Figure 6-1. 2005 CEMP Air Surveillance Network ............................................................................................ 6-2 

Figure 6-2. CEMP station at Mesquite, Nevada.................................................................................................. 6-3 

Figure 6-3. Historical trend for gross alpha analysis for all CEMP stations ................................................... 6-5 

Figure 6-4. Historical trend for gross beta analysis for all CEMP stations ..................................................... 6-6 

Figure 6-5. Historical trend for TLD analysis for all CEMP stations.............................................................. 6-8 
 Table of Contents

xxiv Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 6-6. The effect of meteorological phenomena on background gamma readings ........................... 6-10 

Figure 6-7. 2005 CEMP water monitoring locations ...................................................................................... 6-13 

Figure 7-1. Radiological biota monitoring sites on the NTS and sites sampled in 2005 ..............................7-4 

Figure 8-1. Estimated radiation dose from NTS air emissions to the offsite MEI from 1992 to 2004....8-7 

Figure 8-2. Comparison of radiation dose to the MEI and the natural radiation background....................8-8 

Figure 8-3. Collective population dose within 80 km of NTS emission sources from 1992 to 2004.........8-8 

Figure 13-1. Desert tortoise distribution and abundance on the NTS and locations of clearance 

 surveys conducted in 2005 ..............................................................................................................13-2 

Figure 13-2. Three great-horned owl chicks at Wild Wing Project, Inc. .......................................................13-7 

Figure 13-3. Location of biological surveys conducted on the NTS in 2005 ................................................13-8 

Figure 13-4. Sensitive plant populations monitored on the NTS in 2005................................................... 13-10 

Figure 13-5. Sites monitored for bat activity in 2005 on the NTS ............................................................... 13-12 

Figure 13-6. Feral horse range on the NTS and sighting locations of horses and horse sign 

in 2005............................................................................................................................................. 13-14 

Figure 13-7. Number of bird deaths recorded on the NTS by year and by cause ..................................... 13-16 

Figure 13-8. Western burrowing owl family, Yucca Flat................................................................................ 13-16 

Figure 13-9. Known western burrowing owl distribution on the NTS and burrow sites 

where motion-activated cameras were set up and/or trapping occurred............................. 13-17 

Figure 13-10. Plant density on seeded and non-seeded sites on the upper slopes of 

 Egg Point fire site .......................................................................................................................... 13-19 

Figure 13-11. Plant density on seeded and non-seeded sites on the lower slopes of 

Egg Point fire site .......................................................................................................................... 13-19 

Figure 13-12. Percent plant cover on Uax/bl closure cover ........................................................................... 13-19 

Figure 14-1. Location of UGTA Project model areas.......................................................................................14-2 

Figure 16-1. Example of a typical MEDA station with a 10-meter tower.................................................... 16-1

Figure 16-2. MEDA station locations on and near the NTS .......................................................................... 16-2 

Figure 16-3. Climatological rain gauge network on the NTS.......................................................................... 16-4 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xxv 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Unit prefixes...........................................................................................................................................1-7

Table 1-2. Units of radioactivity.............................................................................................................................1-8

Table 1-3. Units of radiological dose.....................................................................................................................1-8

Table 1-4. Conversion table for SI units ...............................................................................................................1-8

Table 1-5. Radionuclides and their half-lives........................................................................................................1-9

Table 1-6. Metric and U.S. customary unit equivalents.....................................................................................1-10 

Table 2-1. NTS compliance status with applicable air quality regulations .......................................................2-4 

Table 2-2. NTS compliance status with applicable water quality and protection regulations .......................2-8 

Table 2-3. NTS compliance status with regulations for radiation protection of the public 

and the environment...........................................................................................................................2-11 

Table 2-4. NTS compliance status with applicable waste management and environmental 

restoration regulations ........................................................................................................................2-14 

Table 2-5. NTS compliance status with applicable regulations for hazardous substance 

control and management....................................................................................................................2-18 

Table 2-6. NTS NEPA compliance activities conducted in 2005 ...................................................................2-19 

Table 2-7a. NTS compliance status with applicable pollution prevention/waste minimization 

regulations.............................................................................................................................................2-21 

Table 2-7b. NTS compliance status with the Secretary of Energy’s pollution prevention 

and energy efficiency leadership goals..............................................................................................2-22 

Table 2-8. NTS compliance status with historic preservation regulations.....................................................2-24 

Table 2-9. NTS compliance status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations...........................2-27 

Table 2-10. NTS compliance status with Environmental Management System regulations .........................2-29 

Table 2-11. Environmental permits required for NTS and NTS site facility operations ...............................2-31 

Table 3-1. Regulatory concentration limits for radionuclides in air ..................................................................3-4 

Table 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2005...............................................................3-6 

Table 3-3. Concentrations of 137Cs in air samples collected in 2005.................................................................3-7 

Table 3-4. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2005.................................................................3-8 

Table 3-5. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2005 ...........................................................3-9 

Table 3-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2005.........................................3-11 

Table 3-7. Mean uranium isotope ratios from air samples collected in 2005 ................................................3-12 

Table 3-8. Expected ratios of uranium isotopes by type of source.................................................................3-13 

Table 3-9. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2005 ...........................................................3-13 

Table 3-10. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2005.............................................................3-16 

Table 3-11. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2005...............................................................3-17 

Table 3-12. Sum of percents of compliance levels for radionuclides detected at critical 

 receptor samplers.................................................................................................................................3-18 

Table 3-13. Radiological atmospheric releases from NTS for 2005 ................................................................ 3-20 

Table 3-14. Tons of criteria air pollutant emissions released on the NTS in 2005 .........................................3-23 

Table 3-15. Criteria air pollutants and HAPS released on the NTS since 1996...............................................3-24

Table 3-16. Emission performance testing in 2005 .............................................................................................3-25 

Table 3-17. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC in 2005 ................................3-27 

Table 3-18. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 25 Test Cell C 

 Facility in 2005.....................................................................................................................................3-27 
 Table of Contents

xxvi Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 4-1. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite wells in 2005............................. 4-8 

Table 4-2. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite springs in 2005 ....................... 4-11 

Table 4-3. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS potable water 

supply wells in 2005 ........................................................................................................................... 4-13 

Table 4-4. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring wells in 2005 ........ 4-16 

Table 4-5. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for onsite springs in 2005........................ 4-18 

Table 4-6. Radiological results for E Tunnel Pond effluent pertaining to Water Pollution Control 

Permit NEV 96021............................................................................................................................. 4-18 

Table 4-7. Routine radiological water monitoring results for E-Tunnel Ponds in 2005............................. 4-19 

Table 4-8. Tritium water monitoring results for NTS sewage lagoons in 2005 ........................................... 4-21 

Table 4-9. Tritium concentrations in UGTA..................................................................................................... 4-21 

Table 4-10. Radiochemistry analysis results from UGTA well samples analyzed in 2005............................ 4-21 

Table 4-11. Water quality monitoring parameters and sampling design for NTS public drinking water 

systems ................................................................................................................................................. 4-26 

Table 4-12. Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2005.......................... 4-28 

Table 4-13. Water quality analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon influent waters in 2005 ......................... 4-32 

Table 4-14. Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2005.............................. 4-33 

Table 5-1. Annual direct radiation exposure rates measured at TLD locations on the NTS in 2005......... 5-4 

Table 5-2. Summary statistics for 2005 annual direct radiation exposure by TLD location type................ 5-7 

Table 6-1. Gross alpha results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005............................. 6-4 

Table 6-2. Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005............................... 6-5 

Table 6-3. TLD monitoring results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005 .................... 6-7 

Table 6-4. PIC monitoring results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005 ...................... 6-9 

Table 6-5. Average natural background radiation for selected U.S. cities (excluding radon)..................... 6-10 

Table 6-6. CEMP water monitoring locations sampled in 2005..................................................................... 6-12 

Table 6-7. Tritium results for CEMP offsite surface water and spring discharges in 2005........................ 6-14 

Table 6-8. Tritium results for CEMP offsite wells in 2005 ............................................................................. 6-15 

Table 7-1. Plant species sampled at Sedan and the Sedan control site in 2005 ...............................................7-4 

Table 7-2. Radionuclide concentrations in plants from Sedan and the Sedan control site in 2005 .............7-6 

Table 7-3. Radionuclide concentrations in animals from Sedan and the Sedan control site in 2005...........7-7 

Table 8-1. Hypothetical annual dose to a human consuming the maximum number of NTS 

game animals based on animals sampled in 2005............................................................................ 8-4 

Table 8-2. Hypothetical dose to an individual from consuming one jackrabbit or one dove 

from sample locations on the NTS.................................................................................................... 8-4 

Table 8-3. Allowable total residual surface contamination................................................................................ 8-6 

Table 8-4. Estimated radiological dose to the general public from 2005 NTS operations........................... 8-7 

Table 8-5. Biota dose assessment to terrestrial biota from temporary water source created on the 

NTS in 2005 ........................................................................................................................................ 8-10 

Table 8-6. Site-specific dose assessment results for terrestrial plants and animals sampled 

on the NTS.......................................................................................................................................... 8-10 

Table 9-1. Key documents required for Area 3 RWMS and Area 5 RWMS operations............................... 9-2 

Table 9-2. Results of groundwater monitoring of UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE PW-3 in 2005........... 9-4 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 xxvii 

Table 9-3. Hazardous waste managed at the NTS in 2005................................................................................ 9-7 

Table 9-4. Environmental restoration activities conducted in 2005............................................................... 9-10 

Table 9-5. Quantity of solid wastes disposed in NTS landfills in CY 2005 ...................................................9-13 

Table 11-1. Volumes of waste reduced through P2/WM activities by year.....................................................11-2

Table 11-2. Volumes of waste reduced through recycling and reuse activities in 2005..................................11-3 

Table 12-1. Summary data for cultural resources surveys, inventories, and historical 

evaluations conducted in 2005...........................................................................................................12-3 

Table 12-2. Short reports, historical evaluations, technical reports, and letter reports 

prepared in 2005 ..................................................................................................................................12-4 

Table 12-3. Culturally affiliated tribes and organizations in the CGTO...........................................................12-6 

Table 13-1. Compliance limits and status for NTS operations in tortoise habitat..........................................13-3 

Table 13-2. Important plants which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS ....................................13-4 

Table 13-3. Important animals which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS .................................13-5 

Table 13-4. Summary of 2005 biological survey results ......................................................................................13-7 

Table 13-5. Number of individual horses observed on the NTS by age class, gender, and year ............... 13-13 

Table 13-6. Records of bird mortality and injury on the NTS in 2005.......................................................... 13-15 

Table 17-1. BN environmental objectives and targets identified in 2005 to be tracked in 2006.................. 17-3 

Table 18-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for compliance monitoring in 2005 ................................ 18-10 

Table 18-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for 2005 ............................................................ 18-11 

Table 18-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for 2005........................................................................... 18-11 

Table 18-4. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison samples of the subcontract radiochemistry 

laboratories for compliance monitoring in 2005.......................................................................... 18-12 

Table 18-5. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison TLD samples for the BN Radiological Health 

Dosimetry Group in 2005............................................................................................................... 18-12 

Table 19-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for oversight monitoring in 2005 .......................................19-5 

Table 19-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for oversight monitoring in 2005.....................19-5 

Table 19-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for oversight monitoring in 2005 ...................................19-6 

Table 19-4. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison samples of the subcontract radiochemistry 

laboratory for oversight monitoring in 2005...................................................................................19-6 

Table 19-5. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison TLD samples of the subcontract dosimetry 

group for compliance monitoring in 2005.......................................................................................19-6 
Table of Contents

xxviii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 1-1

1.0 Introduction and Helpful Information 

1.1 Site Location 

The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) directs 

the management and operation of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) which is located in Nye County in south-central 

Nevada (Figure 1-1). The southeast corner of the NTS is about 88 kilometers (km) (55 miles [mi]) northwest of the 

center of Las Vegas in Clark County. By highway, it is about 105 km (65 mi) from the center of Las Vegas to 

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

administrative operations for the NTS. 

The NTS encompasses about 3,561 square kilometers (km2) (1,375 square miles [mi2]). It varies from 46 to 56 km 

(28 to 35 mi) in width from west to east and from 64 to 88 km (40 to 55 mi) from north to south. The NTS is 

surrounded on all sides by federal lands (Figure 1-1). It is bordered on the southwest corner by the Yucca Mountain 

Project Area, on the west and north by the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), on the east by an area used by 

both the NTTR and the Desert National Wildlife Range, and on the south by Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands. The combination of the NTTR and the NTS represents one of the larger unpopulated land areas in the United 

States, comprising some 14,200 km2 (5,470 mi2). 

1.2 Environmental Setting 

The NTS is located in the southern part of the Great Basin, the northern-most sub-province of the Basin and Range 

Physiographic Province. The NTS terrain is typical of much of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, 

characterized by generally north-south trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. These mountain ranges and 

valleys, however, are modified on the NTS by very large volcanic calderas (Figure 1-2). 

The principal valleys within the NTS are Frenchman Flat, Yucca Flat, and Jackass Flats (Figure 1-2). Both Yucca and 

Frenchman Flat are topographically closed and contain dry lake beds, or playas, at their lowest elevations. Jackass 

Flats is topographically open, and surface water from this basin flows off the NTS via the Fortymile Wash. The 

dominant highlands of the NTS are Pahute Mesa and Rainier Mesa (high volcanic plateaus), Timber Mountain 

(a resurgent dome of the Timber Mountain caldera complex), and Shoshone Mountain. In general, the slopes of the 

highland areas are steep and dissected, and the slopes in the lowland areas are gentle and less eroded. The lowest 

elevation on the NTS is 823 meters (m) (2,700 feet [ft]) in Jackass Flats in the southeast, and the highest elevation is 

2,341 m (7,680 ft) on Rainier Mesa in the north-central region. 

The topography of the NTS has been altered by historic U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) actions, particularly 

underground nuclear testing. The principal effect of testing has been the creation of numerous collapse sinks 

(“craters”) in Yucca Flat basin and a lesser number of “craters” on Pahute and Rainier Mesas. Shallow detonations 

were also performed during Project Plowshare to determine the potential uses of nuclear devices for large-scale 

excavation. 

The reader is directed to Appendix A of the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 (DOE, 2005a) where the 

geology, hydrology, climatology, ecology, and cultural resources of the NTS are described. That appendix has also 

been included as a separate file on the compact disc of this 2005 report. 
Introduction

1-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 1-1. NTS vicinity map
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 1-3

Figure 1-2. Major topographic features of the NTS
Introduction

1-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

1.3 Site History 

The history of the NTS, as well as its current missions, directs the focus and design of the environmental monitoring 

and surveillance activities on and near the site. 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 1950 to be the primary location for testing the nation’s nuclear explosive devices and supported nuclear 

testing from 1951 to 1992. The NTS currently conducts only subcritical nuclear experiments. Fact sheets on many of 

the historical tests and projects mentioned below can be found at http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/factsheets.aspx. 

Atmospheric Tests - 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, dropped from an aircraft, or placed on a rocket. Several tests were categorized as “safety experiments”, and 

“storage-transportation tests”, involving the destruction of a nuclear device with non-nuclear explosives. Some of 

these tests resulted in the dispersion of plutonium in the test vicinity. One of these test areas lies just north of the 

NTS boundary at the south end of the NTTR, and four others involving storage-transportation are at the north end 

of the NTTR. These test areas have been monitored for radionuclides in the past (1996 – 2000) in support of 

remediation projects, two of which were completed. The three remaining sites will be monitored again once 

restoration of these sites begins. All nuclear device tests are listed in United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through 

September 1992 (DOE, 2000a). 

Underground Tests - The first underground test, a cratering test, was conducted in 1951. The first totally-contained 

underground test 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. From 1951 to 1992, a total of 828 underground nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS. 

Approximately one third of these tests were detonated near or below the water table; this has resulted in the 

contamination of groundwater in some areas. In 1996, DOE, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the state of 

Nevada entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order which established Corrective Action Units 

(CAUs) on the NTS that delineated and defined areas of concern for groundwater contamination. 

Cratering Tests - 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 highest yield 

Plowshare crater test, Sedan (U.S. Public Health Service, 1963) was detonated at the northern end of Yucca Flat on 

the NTS. The second highest yield crater test was Schooner, located in the northwest corner of the NTS. From these 

tests, mixed fission products, tritium, and plutonium were entrained in the soil ejected from the craters and deposited 

on the ground surrounding the craters. 

Other Tests - Other nuclear-related experiments at the NTS have included the BREN series (Bare Reactor 

Experiment - Nevada series) in the early 1960s conducted in Area 4. These tests were performed with a 14-million 

electron volt neutron generator mounted on a 465-m (1,527-ft) steel tower to produce neutron and gamma radiation 

for the purpose of estimating the radiation doses received by survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The tower was 

moved in 1966 to Area 25 and used for conducting Operation HENRE (High Energy Neutron Reactions 

Experiment), jointly funded by the DoD and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to provide information for the 

AEC’s Division of Biology and Medicine. From 1959 through 1973, a series of open-air nuclear reactor, nuclear 

engine, and nuclear furnace tests were conducted in Area 25, and a series of tests with a nuclear ramjet engine were 

conducted in Area 26. Erosion of metal cladding on the reactor fuel released some fuel particles that caused negligible 

deposition of radionuclides on the ground. Most of the radiation released from these tests was gaseous in the form of 

radio-iodines, radio-xenons, and radio-kryptons. 

1.4 Site Mission 

NNSA/NSO directs the management and operation of the NTS and seven satellite sites across the nation. Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratory are the 

principal organizations that sponsor and implement the nuclear weapons programs at the NTS. In 2005, Bechtel 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 1-5

Nevada (BN) was is the Management and Operations contractor who was accountable for the successful execution of 

work and ensuring that work was performed in compliance with environmental regulations. The seven satellite sites 

of the NTS include the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility (CLVF), Remote Sensing 

Laboratory (RSL)–Nellis, RSL–Andrews, Livermore Operations, Los Alamos Operations, and Special Technologies 

Laboratory. These sites all provide support to enhance the NTS as a site for weapons experimentation and nuclear 

test readiness. This report addresses environmental monitoring and compliance only at the NTS and its three Nevada 

satellite sites: NLVF, CLVF, and RSL-Nellis (see Appendix A). The three major NTS missions include National 

Security, Environmental Management, and Stewardship of the NTS. The programs which support these missions 

include Stockpile Stewardship, Homeland Security, Test Readiness, Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, 

and Facilities and Infrastructure. 

1.5 Primary Operations and Activities 

NTS activities in 2005 continued to be diverse, with the primary role being to help ensure that the existing U.S. 

stockpile of nuclear weapons remains safe and reliable. Facilities that support this national security mission include 

the U1a Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility, Device Assembly Facility, and Joint Actinide Shock Physics 

Experimental Research (JASPER) Facility (Figure 1-3). Facilities that support the Homeland Security program 

include the new Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex (Rad/NucCTEC) (Figure 1-3) 

which is expected to be operational in October 2006. Facilities that support the Waste Management Program include 

the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) and the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site 

(RWMS) (Figure 1-3). Other NTS activities include demilitarization activities; controlled spills of hazardous material 

at the Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC) (Figure 1-3); remediation of industrial sites; 

processing of waste destined for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico or the Idaho National 

Laboratory in Idaho Falls, Idaho; disposal of radioactive and mixed waste; and environmental research. 

NTS Missions and Programs 

National Security 

Stockpile Stewardship Program – Conducts high-hazard operations in support of defense-related nuclear and 

national security experiments. 

Homeland Security Program – Provides support facilities, training facilities, and capabilities for government 

agencies involved in counterterrorism activities, emergency response, first responders, national security technology 

development, and nonproliferation technology development. 

Test Readiness Program – Maintains the capability to resume underground nuclear weapons testing, if directed. 

Environmental Management 

Environmental Restoration Program – Characterizes and remediates the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons 

and other testing at the NTS and at offsite locations, and develops and deploys technologies that enhance 

environmental restoration. 

Waste Management – Manages and safely disposes of low-level waste received from DOE- and DoD-approved 

facilities throughout the U.S. and mixed low-level waste generated in Nevada by NNSA/NSO, and safely manages 

and characterizes hazardous and transuranic wastes for offsite disposal. 

Stewardship of the NTS 

Facilities and Infrastructure – Maintains the buildings, roads, utilities, and facilities required to support all NTS 

programs and to provide a safe environment for NTS workers. 
Introduction

1-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 1-3. NTS operational areas, principal facilities, and past nuclear testing areas 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 1-7

1.6 Populations Near the NTS 

The population of the area surrounding the NTS (see Figure 1-1) is predominantly rural. The population estimates 

for Nevada communities has been estimated by the Nevada State Demographer Office up through July 1, 2005 

(Hardcastle, 2006). The annual population estimate for Nevada counties, cities, and unincorporated towns is 

2,518,869, with all but 722,489 residing in Clark County. The total population estimate for Nye County is 41,302 and 

includes the communities of Amargosa Valley (1,383), Beatty (1,032), Gabbs (312), Manhattan (124), Pahrump 

(33,241), Round Mountain (744), and Tonopah (2,607). The largest of the Nye County communities is Pahrump 

Valley, which is approximately 50 mi (80 km) south of the NTS Control Point facility located near the center of the 

NTS. Neighboring Lincoln County to the east of the NTS includes a few small communities including Alamo (428), 

Caliente (1,015), Panaca (562), and Pioche (698). Neighboring Clark County is the major population center of Nevada 

and has an estimated total population of 1,796,380. Mesquite, on the northwest border of Arizona, has a population 

of over 16,400. 

The Mojave Desert of California, which includes Death Valley National Park, lies along the southwestern border of 

Nevada. This area is still predominantly rural; however, tourism at Death Valley National Park swells the population 

to more than 5,000 on any particular day during holiday periods when the weather is mild. 

The extreme southwestern region of Utah is more developed than the adjacent portion of Nevada. The population 

estimates for Utah communities are based on projections by Utah’s Associations of Government and Governor’s 

Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis (2000). The largest community is St. George, 

located 220 km (137 mi) east of the NTS, with a population of 56,497. The next largest town, Cedar City, is located 

280 km (174 mi) east-northeast of the NTS and has a population of 24,410. 

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 an estimated population of 38,210, and Kingman, located 

280 km (174 mi) southeast of the NTS, with an estimated population of 25,860 ( July 1, 2005 population estimates, 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2006). 

The offsite population density within an 80-km radius of all emission sources of radioactivity on the NTS is about 

1.0 persons/km2 (2.6 persons/mi2). In comparison, the 48 contiguous states have a population density of about 

36 persons/km2 (94 persons/mi2) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). 

1.7 Understanding Data in this Report

1.7.1 Scientific Notation 

Scientific notation is used in this report to express very large or very small numbers. A very small number is 

expressed with a negative exponent, for example 2.0 x 10-5. To convert this number from scientific notation to a 

more traditional number, the decimal point must be moved left by the number of places equal to the exponent (5 in 

this case). The number thus becomes 0.00002. 

Very large numbers are expressed in scientific notation with a positive exponent. The decimal point should be moved 

to the right by the number of places equal to the exponent. 

The number 1,000,000,000 could be presented in scientific 

notation as 1.0 x 109. 

1.7.2 Unit Prefixes 

Units for very small and very large numbers are commonly 

expressed with a prefix. The prefix signifies the amount of the 

given unit. For example, the prefix k, or kilo-, means 1,000 of a 

given unit. Thus 1 kg (kilogram) is 1,000 g (grams). Other 

prefixes used in this report are listed in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1. Unit prefixes 

Prefix Abbreviation Meaning 

mega- M 1,000,000 (1 x 106) 

kilo- k 1,000 (1 x 103) 

centi- c 0.01 (1 x 10-2) 

milli- m 0.001 (1 x 10-3) 

micro- μ 0.000001 (1 x 10 -6) 

nano- n 0.000,000,1 (1 x 10-9) 

pico- p 0.000,000,000,0001 (1 x 10-12) 
Introduction

1-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

1.7.3 Units of Radioactivity 

Much of this report deals with levels of radioactivity in various 

environmental media. The basic unit of radioactivity used in this report is 

the curie (Ci) (Table 1-2). The curie describes the amount of radioactivity 

present, and amounts are usually expressed in terms of fractions of curies in 

a given mass or volume (e.g., picocuries per liter). The curie is historically 

defined as the rate of nuclear disintegrations that occur in 1 g of the 

radionuclide radium-226, which is 37 billion nuclear disintegrations per 

second. For any other radionuclide, 1 Ci is the quantity of the radionuclide 

that decays at this same rate. Nuclear disintegrations produce spontaneous 

emissions of alpha or beta particles, gamma radiation, or combinations of 

these. 

1.7.4 Radiological Dose Units 

The amount of ionizing radiation energy absorbed by a living organism 

is expressed in terms of radiological dose. Radiological dose in this 

report is usually written in terms of effective dose equivalent and 

reported numerically in units of millirem (mrem) (Table 1-3). 

Millirem is a term that relates ionizing radiation to biological effect or 

risk to humans. A dose of 1 mrem has a biological effect similar to the 

dose received from an approximate 1-day exposure to natural 

background radiation. An acute (short-term) dose of 100,000 to 

400,000 mrem can cause radiation sickness in humans. An acute dose 

of 400,000 to 500,000 mrem, if left untreated, results in death 

approximately 50 percent of the time. Exposure to lower amounts of 

radiation (1,000 mrem or less) produces no immediate observable effects, but long-term (delayed) effects are possible. 

The average person in the United States receives an annual dose of approximately 300 mrem from exposure to 

naturally produced radiation. Medical and dental x-rays, air travel, and tobacco smoking add to this total. 

The unit “rad,” for radiation absorbed dose, is also used in this report. The rad is a measure of the energy absorbed 

by any material, whereas a rem relates to both the amount of radiation energy absorbed by humans and its 

consequence. A roentgen (R) is a measure of radiation exposure. Generally speaking, one roentgen of exposure will 

result in an effective dose equivalent of 1 rem. Additional information on radiation and dose terminology can be 

found in the Glossary (Appendix B). 

1.7.5 International System of Units for Radioactivity and Dose 

In some instances in this report, radioactivity and radiological 

dose values are expressed in other units in addition to Ci and 

mrem. These units are the becquerel (Bq) and the millisievert 

(mSv), respectively. The Bq and Sv belong to the International 

System of Units (SI), and their inclusion in this report is 

mandated by DOE. SI units are the internationally accepted 

units and may eventually be the standard for reporting both 

radioactivity and radiation dose in the United States. One Bq is 

equivalent to one nuclear disintegration per second. 

The unit of radiation absorbed dose (rad) has a corresponding 

SI unit called the gray (Gy). The roentgen measure of radiation 

exposure has no SI equivalent. Table 1-4 provides the 

multiplication factors for converting to and from SI units. 

Table 1-2. Units of radioactivity

Symbol Name 

Ci curie 

cpm counts per minute 

mCi millicurie (1 x 10-3 Ci) 

μCi microcurie (1 x 10-6 Ci) 

nCi nanocurie (1 x 10-9 Ci) 

pCi picocurie (1 x 10-12 Ci) 

aCi attocurie (1 x 10-18 Ci) 

Table 1-3. Units of radiological dose 

Symbol Name 

mrad millirad (1 x 10-3 rad) 

mrem millirem (1 x 10-3 rem) 

R roentgen 

mR milliroentgen (1 x 10-3 R) 

μR microroentgen (1 x 10-6 R) 

Table 1-4. Conversion table for SI units 

To Convert 

From To Multiply 

By 

becquerel (Bq) picocurie (pCi) 27 

curie (Ci) becquerel (Bq) 3.7 x 1010 

gray (Gy) rad 100 

mrem msievert (mSv) 0.01 

msievert (mSv) mrem 100 

picocurie (pCi) becquerel (Bq) 0.03704 

rad gray (Gy) 0.01 

sievert (Sv) rem 100 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 1-9

1.7.6 Radionuclide Nomenclature 

Radionuclides are frequently expressed with the one- or two-letter 

chemical symbol for the element. Radionuclides may have many 

different isotopes, which are shown by a superscript to the left of the 

symbol. This number is the atomic weight of the isotope (the number 

of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom). Radionuclide 

symbols, many of which are used in this report, are shown in Table 1-5 

along with the half-life of each radionuclide. The half-life is the time 

required for one-half the radioactive atoms in a given amount of 

material to decay. For example, after one half-life, half of the original 

atoms will have decayed; after two half-lives, three-fourths of the 

original atoms will have decayed; and after three half-lives, seveneighths of the original atoms will have decayed, and so on. The 

notation 236+238Ra and similar notations in this report (e.g., 239+240Pu) 

are used when the analytical method does not distinguish between the 

isotopes, but reports the total amount of both. 

1.7.7 Units of Measurement 

Both metric and non-metric units of measurement are used in this 

report. Metric system and U.S. customary units and their respective 

equivalents are shown in Table 1-6 on the following page. 

1.7.8 Measurement Variability 

There is always uncertainty associated with the measurement of 

environmental contaminants. For radioactivity, a major source of 

uncertainty is the inherent randomness of radioactive decay events. 

Uncertainty in analytical measurements is also the consequence of 

variability related to collecting and analyzing the samples. This 

variability is associated with reading or recording the result, handling 

or processing the sample, calibrating the counting instrument, and 

numerical rounding. 

The uncertainty of a measurement is denoted by following the result 

with an uncertainty value which is preceded by the plus-or-minus 

symbol, ±. This uncertainty value gives information on what the 

measurement might be if the same sample were analyzed again under 

identical conditions. The uncertainty value implies that approximately 

95 percent of the time the average of many measurements would give a 

value somewhere between the reported value minus the uncertainty 

value and the reported value plus the uncertainty value. 

If the reported concentration of a given constituent is smaller than its 

associated uncertainty (e.g., 40 ± 200), the sample may not contain that 

constituent. Such low concentration values are considered to be below 

detection, meaning the concentration of the constituent in the sample 

is so low that it is undetected by the method and/or instrument.

Table 1-5. Radionuclides and their half-

 lives 

Symbol Radionuclide Half-Life (a)

241Am americium-241 432.2 yr 

7Be beryllium-7 53.44 d 

14C carbon-14 5,730 yr 

134Cs cesium-134 2.1 yr 

137Cs cesium-137 30 yr 

51Cr chromium-51 27.7 d 

60Co cobalt-60 5.3 yr 

152Eu europium-152 13.3 yr 

154Eu europium-154 8.8 yr 

155Eu europium-155 5 yr 

3H tritium 12.35 yr 

129I iodine-129 1.6 x 107 yr 

131I iodine-131 8 d 

40K potassium-40 1.3 x 108yr 

85Kr krypton-85 107 yr 

212Pb lead-212 10.6 h 

238Pu plutonium-238 87.7 hr 

239Pu plutonium-239 2.4 x 104 yr 

240Pu plutonium-240 6.5 x 103 yr 

241Pu plutonium-241 14.4 yr 

226Ra radium-226 1.62 x 103 yr 

228Ra radium-228 5.75 yr 

220Rn radon-220 56 s 

222Rn radon-222 3.8 d 

103Ru ruthenum-103 39.3 d 

106Ru ruthenum-106 368.2 d 

125Sb antimony-125 2.8 yr 

113Sn tin-113 115 d 

90Sr strontium-90 29.1 yr 

99Tc technetium-99 2.1 x 105 yr 

232Th thorium-232 1.4 x 1010 yr 

U (b) uranium total - - - (c)

234U uranium-234 2.4 x 105 yr 

235U uranium-235 7 x 108 hr 

238U uranium-238 4.5 x 109 yr 

65Zn zinc-65 243.9 d 

95Zr zirconium-95 63.98 d 

(a) From Shleien, 1992 

(b) Total uranium may also be indicated by 

 U- natural (U-nat) or U-mass 

(c) Natural uranium is a mixture dominated by 238U,

 thus the half-life is approximately 4.5 x 109 years

 
Introduction

1-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

 Table 1-6. Metric and U.S. customary unit equivalents 

1.7.9 Mean and Standard Deviation 

The mean of a set of data is the usual average of those data. The standard deviation (SD) of sample data relates to the 

variation around the mean of a set of individual sample results; it is defined as the square root of the average squared 

difference of individual data values from the mean. This variation includes both measurement variability and actual 

variation between monitoring periods (weeks, months, or quarters, depending on the particular analysis). The sample 

mean and standard deviation are estimates of the average and the variability that would be seen in a large number of 

repeated measurements. If the distribution shape were “normal” (i.e., shaped as ), about 67 percent of the 

measurements would be within the mean ± SD and 95 percent would be within the mean ± 2 SD. 

1.7.10 Standard Error of the Mean 

Just as individual values are accompanied by counting uncertainties, mean values (averages) are accompanied by 

uncertainty. The standard deviation of the distribution of sample mean values is known as the standard error of the 

mean (SE). The SE conveys how accurate of an estimate the mean value is based on the samples that were collected 

and analyzed. The ± value presented to the right of a mean value is equal to 2 x SE (2 multiplied by the SE). The ± 

value implies that approximately 95 percent of the time the average of many calculated means will fall somewhere 

between the reported value minus the 2 x SE value and the reported value plus the 2 x SE value. 

1.7.11 Median, Maximum, and Minimum Values 

Median, maximum, and minimum values are reported in some sections of this report. A median value is the middle 

value when all the values are arranged in order of increasing or decreasing magnitude. For example, the median value 

in the series of numbers, 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 6, is 4. The maximum value would be 6 and the minimum value would be 1. 

Metric Unit 

U.S. Customary 

Equivalent Unit U.S. Customary Unit Metric Equivalent Unit 

Length 

 1 centimeter (cm) 0.39 inches (in.) 1 inch (in.) 2.54 centimeters (cm) 

 1 millimeter (mm) 0.039 inches (in.) 25.4 millimeters (mm) 

 1 meter (m) 3.28 feet (ft) 1 foot (ft) 0.3048 meters (m) 

 1.09 yards (yd) 1 yard (yd) 0.9144 meters (m) 

1 kilometer (km) 0.62 miles (mi) 1 mile (mi) 1.6093 kilometers (km) 

Volume 

 1 liter (L) 0.26 gallons (gal) 1 gallon (gal) 3.7853 liters (L) 

 1 cubic meter (m3) 35.32 cubic feet (ft3) 1 cubic foot (ft3) 0.028 cubic meters (m3) 

 1.35 cubic yards (yd3) 1 cubic yard (yd3) 0.765 cubic meters (m3) 

Weight 

 1 gram (g) 0.035 ounces (oz) 1 ounce (oz) 28.6 gram (g) 

 1 kilogram (kg) 2.21 pounds (lb) 1 pound (lb) 0.373 kilograms (kg) 

 1 metric ton (mton) 1.10 short ton (2,000 lb) 1 short ton (2,000 lb) 0.90718 metric ton (mton) 

Geographic area 

 1 hectare 2.47 acres 1 acre 0.40 hectares 

Radioactivity 

 1 becquerel (Bq) 2.7 x 10–11 curie (Ci) 1 curie (Ci) 3.7 x 10–10 becquerel (Bq) 

Radiation dose 

 1 rem 0.01 sievert (Sv) 1 sievert (Sv) 100 rem 

Temperature 

 °C = (°F – 32)/1.8 °F = (°C x 1.8) + 32 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 1-11

1.7.12 Less Than (<) Symbol 

The less than (<) symbol is used to indicate that the actual measured value may be smaller than the number given. 

For example, <0.09 would indicate that the actual value is less than 0.09. In this report, < is often used in reporting 

the amounts of non-radiological contaminants in a sample when the amounts are less than the analytical laboratory’s 

reporting limit for that contaminant in that sample. For example, the measurement of benzene in sewage lagoon 

pond water is reported as <0.005 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which implies that the actual amount of benzene 

present, if any, was unable to be determined below this level given the sample and analysis methods used. For some 

constituents the notation “ND” is also used to indicate that the constituent in question was not detected. The 

measurements of radionuclide concentrations are reported whether or not they are below the usual reporting limit (the 

minimum detectable concentration or MDC [see Glossary, Appendix B]). 

1.7.13 Negative Radionuclide Concentrations 

There is always a small amount of natural radiation in the environment. The instruments used in the laboratory to 

measure radioactivity in environmental media are sensitive enough to measure the natural, or background, radiation 

along with any contaminant radiation in a sample. To obtain a true measure of the contaminant level in a sample, the 

natural, or background, radiation level must be subtracted from the total amount of radioactivity measured by an 

instrument. Because of the randomness of radioactive emissions and the very low concentrations of some 

contaminants, it is possible to obtain a background measurement that is larger than the actual contaminant 

measurement. When the larger background measurement is subtracted from the smaller contaminant measurement, a 

negative result is generated. The negative results are reported because they are useful when conducting statistical 

evaluations of the data. 

1.7.14 Understanding Graphic Information 

Some of the data graphed in this report are plotted using logarithmic, or compressed, scales. Logarithmic (log) scales 

are used in plots where the values are of widely different magnitudes at different locations and/or different times. 

Log scales use equal distances to represent equal ratios of values, whereas in linear scales equal distances represent 

equal differences in values. For example, a log scale would use the same distance to represent a change from 2 to 4 as 

a change from 10 to 20 or a change from 700 to 1,400. 

For example, compare Figure 1-4 and Figure 1-5. Figure 1-4 shows long-term trends in mean 3H concentrations. The 

use of the log scale for the concentration (vertical) axis allows the variation in measurements in all areas of the NTS to 

be seen for the entire time history. Figure 1-5 contains the same data, but uses a linear scale for the concentrations. 

In Figure 1-5 only the variation in the highest values (pre-1987 values from Area 23) can be seen clearly; nearly all of 

the rest of the values are smudges along the bottom of the graph. 
Introduction

1-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

3

H Annual M e an Long-Te rm Tre nds

All Locations With at Least 7-Year Histories Since 1987

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

A 1

A 5 RWMS

A10,12,15

A20

A23,25

CL

 

 Figure 1-4. Data plotted using a log scale 

Figure 1-5. Data plotted using a linear scale 

3

H Annual M e an Long-Te rm Tre nds

All Locations With at Least 7-Year H istories Since 1987

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

A 1

A 5 RWMS

A 10,12,15

A20

A23,25

CL
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-1 

2.0 Compliance Summary 

Environmental regulations pertinent to operations on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and its Nevada satellite facilities 

(North Las Vegas Facility [NLVF], Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility, and Remote Sensing Laboratory [RSL]-Nellis) are 

listed in this Compliance Summary. They include federal and state laws, state permit requirements, Executive Orders 

(EOs), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Orders, and state agreements. They dictate how the U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) conducts operations on and off 

the NTS to ensure the protection of the environment and the public. The regulations are grouped by topic. A 

compliance status table is presented for each topical group of regulations. Each table lists those measures or actions 

which are tracked or performed annually to ensure compliance with a regulation. A description of the field 

monitoring efforts, actions, and results which support the data in each table can be found in subsequent sections of 

this document, as noted in the “Reference Section” column of each table. Non-compliance incidents or compliance 

issues, if any, are included in the topical subsections along with a listing of compliance reports generated during or for 

the reporting year. The last table presented in this section is a list of all environmental permits for the NTS and its 

satellite facilities for 2005. 

2.1 Air Quality 

Clean Air Act (CAA), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) – Under 

Title III of the CAA, NESHAP was established to control those pollutants that might reasonably be anticipated to 

result in either an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating but reversible illness. 

Industry-wide national emissions standards were developed for 22 of the 189 designated hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs). Radionuclides and asbestos were among the 22 HAPs for which standards were established. NESHAP 

compliance activities at the NTS and satellite facilities are limited to radionuclide monitoring and reporting and 

notification of asbestos abatement. 

CAA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) – Title I of the CAA established the NAAQS to limit 

levels of pollutants in the air for six “criteria” pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, 

lead, and particulate matter. Title V of the CAA authorizes the states to implement permit programs in order to 

regulate emissions of the criteria pollutants. At the NTS there is one main permit that regulates operations and 

emissions from aggregate-producing facilities, fuel-burning equipment, fuel storage, project-specific activities 

associated with the Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC), Test Cell C Facility, and the Tactical 

Demilitarization Development Project (TaDD). Detonations conducted at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility 

(BEEF) and the Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) are also included in the permit. Nevada air quality 

permits specify emission limits for criteria pollutants (except ozone and lead) that are based on published emissions 

values for other similar industries and on operational data specific to the NTS. Lead is considered a HAP as well as a 

criteria pollutant. Emissions from lead are reported, if they occur, as part of the total HAPs emissions rather than as a 

separate criteria pollutant. Quantities of NAAQS and HAPS emissions from operations at the NTS are calculated and 

submitted each year to the state of Nevada. The NTS air permit also specifies recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements, performance testing requirements, visible emissions (opacity) limits for equipment or facilities, opacity 

field monitoring requirements, and certification requirements for personnel conducting opacity monitoring. 

State of Nevada regulations prohibit the open burning of combustible refuse and other materials unless specifically 

exempted by an authorized variance (Nevada Administrative Code [NAC] 445B.22067). At the NTS, Open Burn 

Variances are routinely obtained for fire extinguisher training and various emergency management exercises. 

The NTS satellite facilities discussed in Appendix A operate under air quality permits that require the annual reporting 

of hours of operation, emissions quantities of criteria pollutants and HAPs, and summaries of significant malfunctions 

and repairs. 
Compliance Summary

2-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

CAA, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) – The NSPS were established by Title I of the CAA to set 

minimum nationwide emission limitations of regulated air pollutants (HAPs and criteria pollutants mentioned above) 

and for various industrial categories of facilities. The state of Nevada has adopted the NSPS and regulates emissions 

from subject facilities through state law (NRS 445B as codified in NAC 445B). At the NTS, some of the screens and 

conveyor belts that were manufactured after August 1981 are subject to NSPS under the category of Nonmetallic 

Mineral Processing Plants. Some of the bulk fuel storage tanks constructed after July 1984 must also comply with 

NSPS requirements. The NSPS imposes more stringent standards, including a reduced allowance of visible emissions 

(opacity) than under NAAQS. NSPS compliance activities on the NTS are reported to the state of Nevada. No NTS 

satellite facilities are subject to the NSPS regulations. 

CAA, Stratospheric Ozone Protection – Title VI (Section 608) of the CAA establishes production limits and a 

schedule for the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). ODS are defined as those substances that are 

known or could reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. Under Section 608, 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations through 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 82 that include: (1) maximizing recycling of ozone-depleting compounds during servicing and disposal of 

air conditioning and refrigeration equipment; (2) establishing requirements for recycling and recovery equipment, 

technicians, and reclaimers; (3) requiring the repair of substantial leaks in certain air conditioning and refrigeration 

equipment; and (4) establishing safe disposal requirements. While there are no reporting requirements for ODS, 

recordkeeping to document the usage of ODS and technician certification is required. Under Section 608, the EPA 

may conduct random inspections to determine compliance.

At the NTS, refrigerants containing ODS are mainly used in air conditioning units in vehicles, buildings, refrigerators, 

water fountains, vending machines, and laboratory equipment. Halon 1211 and 1301, now classified as ODS, have 

been used in the past in fire extinguishers. Self-assessments are conducted periodically to document adherence to 

Title VI of the CAA.

Other NTS Air Quality Permit Requirements – Under Title V, Part 70 of the CAA amendments, all owners or 

operators of Part 70 sources must pay annual fees to the state of Nevada. Any source which has the potential to emit 

45.4 metric tons (mtons) (50 tons) or more of any regulated air pollutant, except carbon monoxide, must pay an 

annual fee of $3,000. Any source that has the potential to emit less than 22.7 mtons (25 tons) per year of any 

regulated air pollutant, except carbon monoxide, must pay an annual fee of $250. NTS operations are subject to these 

fees for the emission of criteria pollutants. In addition to permit fees, NNSA/NSO must allow the state of Nevada 

Bureau of Air Pollution Control to conduct inspections of NTS facilities and operations that are regulated by state air 

quality permits. 

Section VII of the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit, No. AP9711-0549.01 Surface Area Disturbance Conditions

requires implementation of an ongoing program to control fugitive dust using the best practicable methods. 

2.1.1 Compliance Issues

Three pieces of equipment permitted under the NTS air permit failed their performance emission tests: the Area 23 

Incinerator, a Device Assembly Facility (DAF) generator, and an Area 6 dual-stack generator. The state’s Bureau of 

Air Pollution Control was notified of all the equipment failures and the equipment was shut down. Corrective actions 

were taken to either replace, repair, or retest the equipment (see Section 3.2.2). Any environmental effects of excess 

emissions from the failed equipment prior to their shutdown is expected to have been negligible because the 

equipment are used so infrequently. 

2.1.2 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for NTS operations in 2005 in compliance with air quality regulations: 

• National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Calendar Year 2005 (submitted to EPA Region IX) 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-3 

• Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form, submitted to EPA Region IX 

• Calendar Year 2005 Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Form, submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection 

• Quarterly Class II Air Quality Report, submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

• NPTEC Pre-test and Post-test Reports, submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

The following reports were generated for operations at NTS satellite facilities in 2005 in compliance with air quality 

regulations: 

• Clark County Air Emission Inventory for North Las Vegas Facility, submitted to the Clark County Department of Air 

Quality and Environmental Management 

• Clark County Air Emissions Inventory for Remote Sensing Laboratory, submitted to the Clark County Department of Air 

Quality and Environmental Management 

2.1.3 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-1 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with air quality and protection regulations at the NTS 

and its satellite facilities in 2005. 
Compliance Summary 

e status with applicable air quality regulations 

tions Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2005 Section Reference (a) 

from all radioactive air emissions 10 mrem/yr (b) (0.1 mSv/yr) 

Compliant - <10 mrem/yr (b) 

based on sample data from 6 critical receptor air sampling 

stations 

3.1.5 

the number of linear feet (ft) or square feet (ft2) of 

rom a facility exceeds limit 260 linear ft or 160 ft2 (c)

Compliant - EPA notified for 

1 NTS and 1 NLVF project 

where limits would be 

exceeded 

3.2.8 

ment plans, data records, and activity/ maintenance 

For up to 25 or 75 years Compliant 3.2.8 

s of calculated emissions at the NTS to the state of 

Due 30 days after end of quarter Compliant 3.2.1 

calculated emissions at the NTS to the state of 

Due March 1 Submitted March 7, 2006 3.2.1 

el used, hours of operation, and rate of 

uction by permitted equipment/facility at the NTS 

Limit varies (d) Compliant 3.2.3 

h criteria pollutant produced by permitted 

 NTS based on calculations 

PTE (e) varies Compliant 3.2.1; Table 3-12 

mission tests on permitted equipment Once during the life of the permit (once every 5 years) Compliant - 3 pieces of equipment failed tests and shut down 3.2.2 

gs from permitted equipment/facility at the NTS Quarterly Compliant 3.2.4 

ions from permitted equipment/facility at the NTS 20% Compliant - 0 to 15% for 8 facilities 3.2.4 

nalysis reports for tests at NPTEC facilities and 

micals released during the year to the state Annual report due March 1 Compliant 3 tests conducted 3.2.5; Table 3-17; Table 3-18 

calculated emissions at the NLVF and the RSL-Nellis 

Due March 31 Submitted March 22, 2006 A.1.3; A.3.2 

h criteria pollutant produced by permitted 

 NTS based on calculations PTE (e) varies Compliant Table A-4; Table A-8 
Compliance Summary

ce status with applicable air quality regulations (continued) 

tions Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2005 

Section 

Reference(a)

gs from permitted equipment/facility Quarterly Compliant 3.2.4 

ions from permitted equipment/facility 10% Compliant < 10% for 1 facility 3.2.4 

c Ozone Protection 

n certification records, approvals for ODS-containing 

overy, and applicable equipment servicing records NA(f) Compliant 3.2.7 

ermit Regulations

 land disturbing activities NA Compliant 3.2.9 

f Air Pollution Control access to conduct inspections 

ns regulated by state air permits NA Compliant Inspection conducted in June 3.2.2 

ocument that describe how compliance summary data were collected

r; mSv/yr = millisievert per year

linear meters (m) or 14.9 m2

 for each piece of permitted equipment/facility 

e quantities of criteria pollutants that each facility/piece of equipment would emit annually if it were operated for the maximum number of hours specified 
Compliance Summary

2-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

2.2 Water Quality and Protection 

Clean Water Act (CWA) –Prohibits the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S. without a 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The CWA also gives the EPA, or the approved 

state environmental control agency, the authority to implement pollution control programs. The CWA sets water 

quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. At the NTS, CWA regulations are followed through 

compliance with permits issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and the Nevada State 

Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services (BHPS) for wastewater discharges and disposal of wastewater 

from facilities. NTS operations do not require any NPDES permits. Three NPDES permits have been issued to 

NNSA/NSO for the discharge of pumped groundwater at the NLVF (see Appendix A). 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – Protects the quality of drinking water in the U.S. It authorizes the EPA to 

establish safe standards of purity and requires all owners or operators of public water systems to comply with 

National Primary Drinking Water Standards (health-related standards). State governments, which assume this power 

from the EPA, also set Secondary Standards which are related to taste, odor, and visual aspects of drinking water. 

Nevada state law pertaining to public water systems (NAC 445A) ensures that such water systems meet the EPA 

water quality standards specified under the SDWA. 

NAC 445A - Water Controls (Public Water Systems) – Enforces the SDWA requirements and sets standards for 

permitting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, certification of operators, and water quality of public water 

systems (PWSs). The NTS has three PWSs and two potable water hauler trucks which BHPS regulates through the 

issuance of permits. Although the SDWA sets drinking water standards for radionuclides, the state of Nevada does 

not require radionuclide monitoring of drinking water on the NTS because the NTS does not have a “community 

water system” (i.e., a PWS having at least 15 service connections and used by year-round residents). However, all 

potable water supply wells are monitored on the NTS for radionuclides in compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 

Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (see Section 2.3). 

NAC 444 and 445A - Water Controls (Water Pollution Control) – Regulates the collection, treatment, and disposal 

of wastewater and sewage at the NTS. The requirements of this state regulation are issued in permits for E Tunnel 

effluent waters, sewage lagoons, septic tanks, and septic hauler contractors and pumpers. Perched groundwater which 

seeps out of E Tunnel in Area 12 is contained and monitored annually for radiological contaminants and quarterly for 

non-radiological contaminants as required under an NDEP permit issued to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

(DTRA). NNSA/NSO holds a general permit issued by NDEP covering two active and nine inactive sewage lagoon 

systems. Water quality and toxicity of the active sewage lagoons are monitored quarterly and annually, respectively, to 

meet permit requirements. The 21 septic systems on the NTS each process less than 5,000 gallons per day (gal/d) 

(18,927 liters/day), therefore they are not regulated by NDEP. The BHPS regulates the NTS septic systems as 

commercial individual systems which treat domestic sewage only in quantities less than 5,000 gal/d. The BHPS does 

not require collection or analysis of sewage samples from these septic systems. The BHPS also regulates the permits 

that NNSA/NSO holds for four septic tank pumpers and one septic tank pumping contractor. 

Discharges of sewage and industrial wastewater from the NLVF are required to meet permit limits set by the 

City of North Las Vegas. Discharges of wastewater from RSL-Nellis are required to meet permit limits set by the 

Clark County Water Reclamation District. 

NAC 534 - Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulations for Water Well and Related Drilling – Regulates 

the drilling and construction of new wells and the reworking of existing wells in order to prevent the wasting of 

underground waters and their pollution or contamination. Two site operations that are affected by this state 

regulation are the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project and the Borehole Management Project. New water wells 

are drilled for ongoing UGTA investigations of site-specific hydrogeologic characteristics, underground source terms, 

and contaminant movement through groundwater. Over 1,100 existing boreholes on the NTS are being plugged 

according to these regulations, under the Borehole Management Project. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-7 

2.2.1 Compliance Issues 

All drinking water and wastewater samples in 2005 met regulatory water quality standards with two exceptions: 

(1) the Area 12 PWS exceeded the drinking water standard for lead (see Section 4.2.1.1), (2) and the levels of total 

dissolved solids (TDS) in two of the three sewage outfalls at NLVF exceeded the permit limits (see Appendix A,

Section A.1.1.1). 

2.2.2 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for NTS operations in 2005 in compliance with water quality regulations: 

• Quarterly Monitoring Report for Nevada Test Site Sewage Lagoons submitted to NDEP (in compliance with permit 

GNEV93001) 

• Results of water quality analyses for PWSs were sent to the state throughout the year as they were obtained from 

the laboratory. 

• Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021, Quarterly Monitoring Report (for E Tunnel effluent monitoring) submitted 

to NDEP 

• Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021 Quarterly Monitoring Report and Annual Summary Report for E Tunnel Waste 

Water Disposal System (DTRA, 2005) 

The following reports were generated for operations at the NTS satellite facilities in 2005 in compliance with water 

quality regulations: 

• Self-Monitoring Report for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s North Las Vegas Facility: Permit VEH-112 

submitted to the City of North Las Vegas 

• Quarterly reports titled Remote Sensing Laboratory Self Monitoring Report- Permit No. CCWRD-080 submitted to the 

Clark County Water Reclamation District 

• Two additional monitoring reports titled Remote Sensing Laboratory Additional Monitoring Reports - Permit No. 

CCWRD-080 submitted to Clark County Water Reclamation District 

• Reports of groundwater discharge volumes for NLVF temporary NPDES permits TNEV2004364, 

TNEV2005437, and TNEV2006369 submitted each month to NDEP 

2.2.3 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-2 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with air quality and protection regulations at the NTS 

and its satellite facilities in 2005. 

 
Compliance Summary 

iance status with applicable water quality and protection regulations 

/Action Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2005 Section Reference(a) 

ct and Nevada Water Controls (NAC 445A - Water 

 Systems) 

mples containing coliform bacteria 3 per month 0 4.2.1.1; Table 4-10 

thetic organic Phase II and V contaminants in all PWSs Limit varies(c) Compliant 4.2.1.1; Table 4-10 

nfection byproducts in all PWSs 0.06-0.08 mg/L <0.002 – 0.0151 4.2.1.1; Table 4-10 

rganic Phase II and V contaminants in all PWSs Limit varies Compliant 4.2.1.1; Table 4-10 

ondary standards in all PWSs Limit varies 

Compliant for all standards 

except for lead in the Area 12 

PWS 

4.2.1.1; Table 4-10 

nstruction, maintenance, and operation regulations 

NA(d) Compliant - -

o conduct inspections of PWS and water hauling trucks NA Compliant 4.2.1.2 

ES/State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

volume of pumped groundwater discharged at the 

NA Compliant Appendix A, A.1.1.2; Table A-3 

evada Water Pollution Controls - Sewage Disposal 

posal) 

construction/operation requirements for new systems 

n 23 septic system permits, 5 septic tank pumper 

 tank pumping contractor permit 

NA Compliant 4.2.3 

evada Water Pollution Controls (NAC 445A - Water 

gical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), total suspended 

in one sewage lagoon water sample sampled quarterly

BOD5: varies 

TSS: no limit pH: 6.0 - 9.0 S.U.

Compliant – Samples collected in Jan., Apr., Jul, and Oct. 

4.2.3.1; 

Table 4-11

ontaminants in the filtrate from one sewage lagoon 

ually from each of two permitted facilities Limit varies Compliant - concentrations within limits 4.2.3.2; Table 4-12 

or of active sewage lagoon systems Weekly Compliant 4.2.3.3or of inactive sewage lagoon systems Quarterly Compliant 4.2.3.3
Compliance Summary

ce status with applicable water quality and protection regulations (continued) 

ction Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2005 Section Reference(a)

da Water Pollution Controls (NAC 445A - Water 

ued)

oring reports for 2 active sewage lagoons (for Areas 6 

Due end of Jan., Apr., 

Jul., Oct. Compliant - -

onduct inspections of active sewage lagoon systems NA Compliant - Inspection conducted June 2005 4.2.3.3

m (3H), gross alpha (α), and gross beta (β), (in 

/L]), and 16 non-radiological contaminants/water 

Tunnel effluent water samples collected quarterly 

3H: 1,000,000 pCi/L 

α: 35 pCi/L 

β: 100 pCi/L 

Non-rad: Limit varies

3H: 600,000 pCi/L 

α: 13 pCi/L 

β: 77 pCi/L 

Non-rad: Compliant 

4.1.6: 

Table 4-6 

ntaminants in water samples from three NLVF sewage 

nd liquid samples from the NLVF sand/oil interceptor Limit varies

All samples compliant except 

for TDS at Outfall B and 

Outfall C2 

A.1.1.1; 

Table A-2 

ntaminants in water samples from sewage outfall at 

Limit varies Compliant A.3.1; Table A-7 

n of Water Resources Regulations for Water Well 

lling license for personnel supervising well 

oning NA

Compliant - 5 licensed 

personnel supervised well 

activities 

- - 

d affidavits of responsibility for plugging NA Compliant - 3 notices of intent 

with 0 affidavits were filed 

- - 

ction requirements/waivers NA 

Compliant - 3 new wells 

constructed for UGTA Project; 

78 boreholes plugged for 

Borehole Management Program 

- - 

rds and submit required reports NA Compliant - - 

s document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

fic for each contaminant; see referenced tables for specific limits 
Compliance Summary

2-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

2.3 Radiation Dose Protection 

Clean Air Act (CAA), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) – NESHAP 

(40 CFR 61 Subpart H) establishes a radiation dose limit of 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) (0.1 millisievert per year 

[mSv/yr]) to individuals in the general public from the air pathway. Sources of radioactive air emissions on the NTS 

include: (1) evaporation of tritiated water (HTO) from containment ponds; (2) diffusion of HTO vapor from the soil 

at Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex, Sedan crater, and Schooner crater; (3) release of tritium gas 

during calibration of analytical equipment at Building 650 in Area 23; and (4) re-suspension of plutonium and 

americium from contaminated soil at nuclear device safety test and atmospheric test locations. NESHAP also 

specifies “Concentration Levels for Environmental Compliance” (abbreviated as CLs) for radionuclides. A CL is the 

annual average concentration of a radionuclide that could deliver a dose of 10 mrem/yr. The CLs are provided for 

facilities which use air sampling at offsite receptor locations to demonstrate compliance. 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141), promulgated 

by the SDWA, requires that the maximum contaminate level goal for any radionuclide be zero. But, when this is not 

possible (e.g., in groundwater containing naturally-occurring radionuclides), the SDWA specifies that the 

concentration of one or more radionuclides should not result in a whole body or organ dose greater than 4 mrem/yr 

(0.04 mSv/yr). Sources of radionuclide contamination in groundwater at the NTS are the underground nuclear tests 

detonated near or below the water table. 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program – Requires federal facilities to: (1) conduct environmental 

monitoring to detect, characterize, and respond to releases from DOE activities, (2) assess impacts, (3) estimate 

dispersal patterns in the environment, (4) characterize the pathways of exposure to members of the public, 

(5) characterize the exposures and doses to individuals and to the population, and (6) evaluate the potential impacts to 

the biota in the vicinity of a DOE activity. Such releases, exposures, and doses apply to radiological contaminants. 

DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment – This Order and its flow-down 

procedural standards establishes requirements for: (1) measuring radioactivity in the environment, (2) applying the 

ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) process to all operations, (3) using mathematical models for estimating 

radiation doses, (4) releasing property having residual radioactive material, and (5) maintaining records demonstrating 

compliance with the requirements. This Order sets a radiation dose limit of 100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr) above 

background levels to individuals in the general public from all pathways of exposure combined. It also provides the 

derived concentration guides (DCGs) for all radionuclides. The DCGs are the annual average concentrations of a 

radionuclide that could deliver a dose of 100 mrem/yr. The DCGs are provided as reference values to use in 

radiological protection programs at DOE facilities. The NESHAP CLs mentioned above are more conservative than 

one-tenth of the DCGs because they are computed with different dose models. 

DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002, A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and 

Terrestrial Biota – Provides methods, computer models, and guidance in implementing a graded approach to 

evaluating the radiation doses to populations of aquatic animals, terrestrial plants, and terrestrial animals residing on 

DOE facilities (DOE, 2002a), A dose limit of 1 rad per day (rad/d) (10 milligray [mGy]/d) for terrestrial plants and 

aquatic animals, and of 0.1 rad/d (1 mGy/d) for terrestrial animals is specified by this DOE standard. Dose rates 

below these levels are believed to cause no measurable adverse effects to populations of plants and animals. 

DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management – Ensures that all DOE radioactive waste is managed in a 

manner that is protective of the worker, public health and safety, and the environment. It directs how radioactive 

waste management operations are conducted on the NTS. These requirements are summarized in Section 2.4. The 

manual for this Order (DOE M435.1-1) specifies that operations at the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Sites (RWMSs) must not contribute a dose to the general public in excess of 25 mrem/yr. 

2.3.1 Compliance Reports 

In compliance with NESHAP under the CAA, the report National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 

Calendar Year 2005, was submitted to EPA Region IX in June 2006. This Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 was 

generated to report 2005 compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE-STD-1153-2002. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-11 

2.3.2 Compliance Status 

Table 2-3 presents a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with radiation protection regulations at the NTS and its 

satellite facilities in 2005. 

Table 2-3. NTS compliance status with regulations for radiation protection of the public and the 

environment

Compliance Measure Compliance Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2005 

Section 

Reference(a)

 Clean Air Act - NESHAP 

 

Annual dose to the general public from all radioactive 

air emissions 

10 mrem/yr 

(0.1 mSv/yr) 

<10 mrem/yr(b) 

based on sample 

data from 6 

critical receptor 

air sampling 

stations 

3.1.5 

 Safe Drinking Water Act 

 Annual dose to the general public from drinking 

water 

4 mrem/yr 

(0.04 mSv/yr) 

0 mrem/yr(b)

(0 mSv/yr) 

4.1.4; 

Table 4-1 

 DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public 

 and the Environment 

 

 Annual dose above background levels to the general 

public from all pathways 

100 mrem/yr 

(1 mSv/yr) 

0.52 mrem/yr 

(0.0052 mSv/yr) 

8.1.7; Table 8-4;

A.1.5; Table A-5 

Total residual surface contamination of property 

released offsite (in disintegrations per minute per 

100 square centimeters [dpm/100 cm2]) 

300–15,000 dpm/100 cm2 

depending on 

radionuclide 

Compliant 

No detectable 

releases 

8.1.5 

DOE STD 1153-2002, A Graded Approach for Evaluating 

Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota 

 

 Absorbed radiation dose to terrestrial plants 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) 

<1 rad/d 

(<0.01 Gy/d) 

8.2 

 Absorbed radiation dose to aquatic animals 1 rad/d <1 rad/d 8.2 

 

Absorbed radiation dose to terrestrial animals 0.1 rad/d 

(1 mGy/d) 

<0.1 rad/d 

(<1 mGy/d) 

8.2 

DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management 

 

Annual dose to the general public due to RWMS 

operations 

25 mrem/yr

(0.25 mSv/yr) Compliant(c ) 5.3.2 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program 

Conduct radiological environmental monitoring NA(d) Compliant 3.1; 4.1; 5.0; 

6.0; 7.0 

Detect and characterize radiological releases NA Compliant 3.1; 4.1; 5.0; 6.0; 

Table 3-12 

 Characterize pathways of exposure to the public NA Compliant 8.1.1 

Characterize exposures and doses to individuals, the 

population, and biota NA Compliant 8.1.6; 8.1.7; 8.2 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected. 

(b) Migration of radioactivity in groundwater to offsite wells has never been detected. 

(c) Nearest populations to the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs are Amargosa Valley (55 km away) and Cactus Springs (36 km away), 

respectively. They are too distant to receive any radiation exposure from operations at the sites. 

(d) Not applicable. 
Compliance Summary

2-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

2.4 Radioactive and Non-Radioactive Waste Management and 

Environmental Restoration 

10 CFR 830: Nuclear Safety Management – Establishes requirements for the safe management of work at DOE’s 

nuclear facilities. It governs the possession and use of special nuclear and byproduct materials. Part 830 also covers 

activities at facilities where no nuclear material is present such as facilities that prepare the non-nuclear components of 

nuclear weapons, but which could cause radiological damage at a later time. It governs the conduct of the 

“management and operating contractor and other persons at DOE nuclear facilities” (including visitors to the facility). 

When coupled with the Price-Anderson Amendments Act (PAAA) of 1988 (Section 234A to the Atomic Energy 

Act), it provides DOE with authority to assess civil penalties for violation of rules, regulations, or orders relating to 

nuclear safety by contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers who are indemnified under PAAA. 

DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management – Ensures that all DOE radioactive waste is managed in a 

manner that is protective of the worker, public health and safety, and the environment. Activities conducted on the 

NTS subject to this Order include: (1) characterization of low level radioactive waste (LLW) and low level mixed 

radioactive waste (LLMW) generated by DOE within the state of Nevada; (2) disposal of LLW and LLMW at the 

Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs; (3) characterization, visual examination, and repackaging of transuranic (TRU) waste at 

the Waste Examination Facility south of the Area 5 RWMS; and (4) loading of TRU waste at the Area 5 RWMS for 

shipment to Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory. 

Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 (42 U.S.C. Sect. 2011 et seq.) – Ensures the proper management of source, 

special nuclear, and byproduct material. At the NTS, AEA regulations are followed through compliance with 

DOE Order 435.1 and 10 CFR 830. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – Ensures the safe and environmentally responsible 

management of hazardous (see Glossary, Appendix B) and non-hazardous solid waste. RCRA 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, the EPA authorizes Nevada to administer and enforce 

hazardous waste permits for many NNSA/NSO facilities. In November, Nevada renewed the RCRA Part B Permit 

(NEV HW 0021) regulating hazardous waste management activities at the NTS. The permit regulates the operation 

of the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) in Area 5, the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) in Area 11, 

and authorizes the disposal of LLMW in the Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) at the Area 5 RWMS. The 

permit also prescribes post-closure monitoring for five closed waste sites that were closed under RCRA as Corrective 

Action Units (CAUs) (see Section 9.4.2). 

The NTS has five USTs which are either (1) fully regulated under RCRA and registered with the state (1 tank); 

(2) regulated under RCRA and registered with the state of Nevada, but deferred from leak detection requirements 

(1 tank); or (3) excluded from federal and state regulation (3 tanks). The NTS UST program reports, upgrades, and 

removes USTs in accordance with regulatory compliance schedules. 

RCRA also requires generators of hazardous waste to have a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and 

toxicity of such waste. These requirements and NTS compliance with them are addressed under the Pollution 

Prevention and Waste Minimization sections of this report (Section 2.7, Section 11.0). 

The specific Nevada laws which govern hazardous waste management operations under Permit NEV HW009 are 

Disposal of Hazardous Waste (NRS 459-400–459.600), Facilities for Management of Hazardous Waste 

(NAC 44.842–444.8482), Disposal of Hazardous Waste (NAC 444.850–444.8746), and Limitations on Issuance of 

Permits (NAC 444.960). 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)/Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) – Provides a framework for the cleanup of waste sites containing 

hazardous substances and an emergency response program in the event of a release of a hazardous substance to the 

environment. No hazardous waste cleanup operations on the NTS are regulated under CERCLA; they are regulated 

under RCRA instead. The only requirements of CERCLA applicable to NTS operations pertain to an emergency 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-13 

response program for hazardous substance releases to the environment (see Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act in Section 2.5). 

Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) – Extends the full range of enforcement authorities in federal, state, and 

local laws for management of hazardous wastes to federal facilities, including the NTS. The FFCA of 1992, signed by 

NNSA/NSO and the state of Nevada, requires the identification of existing quantities for mixed waste, the proposal 

of methods and/or technologies of mixed waste treatment and management, the creation of enforceable timetables, 

and the tracking and completion of deadlines. 

Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) – Pursuant to Section 120(a)(4) of CERCLA and to 

Sections 6001 and 3004(u) of RCRA, the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, and the state of 

Nevada entered into a FFACO in May 1996. The FFACO addresses the environmental restoration of historically 

contaminated sites at the NTS, parts of Tonopah Test Range (TTR), parts of the Nevada Test and Training Range 

(NTTR), the Central Nevada Test Area, and the Project SHOAL Area. Under the FFACO, hundreds of sites on and 

off the NTS have been identified for cleanup and closure. Individual sites are called Corrective Action Sites (CASs). 

Multiple CASs are often grouped into CAUs.

40 CFR Subchapter I, Parts 239-299: Solid Wastes – At the NTS, these federal solid waste management 

regulations are followed through compliance with permits issued by the NDEP. 

NAC 444.570-7499 – Solid Waste Disposal Controls – Enforces the federal regulations pertaining to solid wastes 

(40 CFR Subchapter I, Parts 239-299). This Nevada regulation sets standards for solid waste management systems, 

including the storage, collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. The NTS has four 

active and one inactive permitted landfills. The Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Unit (P07U) is 

inactive. Active units include the Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site, Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site, and Area 

23 Solid Waste Disposal Site. These landfills are designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and monitored in 

adherence to the requirements of their state-issued permits. 

2.4.1 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were prepared in 2005 or 2006 to comply with environmental regulations for waste 

management and environmental restoration operations conducted on the NTS in 2005. All CAU or CAS reports 

prepared in 2005 as per the FFACO schedule are presented in Table 9-4 of Section 9.4.1. 

• Annual Asbestos Disposal Report (for the Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site P06U)

• Quarterly LLW/MLLW Disposal Reports (for all active LLW and mixed waste disposal cells) 

• Biannual Neutron Monitoring Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 9 10c and Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfills 

• Nevada Test Site 2005 Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (Bechtel 

Nevada [BN], 2006a)

• Post-closure monitoring reports for the five RCRA Part B-identified CAUs 

• January-June 2005 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• July-December 2005 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• 2005 Annual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfill and Area 9 U10c 

Landfills 

• Nevada Test Site 2005 Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (BN, 

2006b) 

2.4.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-4 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with waste management and environmental restoration 

regulations at the NTS in 2005.
Compliance Summary

e status with applicable waste management and environmental restoration regulations 

tion Compliance Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2005 

Section 

Reference(a)

ies 

ance of proper conduct of operations documents required for 

or disposal/characterization/storage of radioactive waste 

Six types of guiding documents 

required Compliant 9.1.1; Table 9-1 

ve Waste Management

Acceptance Criteria for radioactive wastes received for 

3 and 5 RWMSs NA(b) Compliant 9.1.1; Table 9-1 

at Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs 

Not required by Order - 

Performed to validate 

performance assessment criteria 

of RWMSs 

Conducted 9.1.6 

W at Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs (in cubic meters [m3]) No limit Area 3: 9,615 m3

Area 5: 36,828 m3

9.1.3 

 Recovery Act (as enforced through permits issued by the state 

 (SC), total organic carbon (TOC), total organic halides (TOX), 

eneral water chemistry parameters in groundwater sampled 

s UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3 to verify performance of 

sposal Unit (P03U) 

pH: 7.6 to 9.2 

SC: 0.440 mmhos/cm(c)

TOC: 1 mg/L 

TOX: 50 μg/L(d)

H3: 2,000 pCi/L 

Compliant 

9.1.6; 

Table 9-2; 

4.1.7; 

Table 4-4; 

dioactive hazardous waste stored at the HWSU 61,600 liters 

(16,280 gallons) 

Compliant 9.2; 

Table 9-3 

of volume of wastes received at the HWSU to the state of 

Due April, July, October, 

January 

Compliant 9.2 

osive ordnance wastes detonated at the EODU (in kilograms 

45.4 kg (100 lbs) at a time, not to 

exceed 1 detonation event/hour 

0 kg 9.2; 

Table 9-3 

MW at Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) (in cubic meters 

 

20,000 m3 (260,159 yd3) 0 m3 9.2; Table 9-3 
Compliance Summary

e status with applicable waste management and environmental restoration regulations (continued) 

tion Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2005 Section Reference(a) 

 Recovery Act (as enforced through permits issued by the state 

monitoring for RCRA closure sites: Area 23 Hazardous Waste 

ubsidence Crater A23: semi-annually using NL(e) U3ax/bl: continuous using TDR(f) Compliant 9.4.2 

nspection of Area 2 Bitcutter Containment and Area 6 Decon 

NA Compliant 9.4.2 

port on USTs NA Compliant 9.3 

nt and Consent Order 

year work scope for site characterization, remediation, and 

42 CAUs identified for some phase of action; 56 CASs were closed Compliant All milestones were met 9.4.1; Table 9-4 

g and inspections of closed sites 28 sites required monitoring/ inspecting Compliant 9.4.2 

Waste Disposal Controls 

me of waste disposed each calendar year Area 5 P06U - No limit Area 6 - No limit Area 9 - No limit Area 23 - 20 tons/d Compliant 9.5; Table 9-5 

r the Area 6 Hydrocarbon and Area 9 U10c Solid Waste disposal 

Annually using NL(e) Compliant 9.5.1 

s document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

 per centimeter 

iter 

h access tubes 

try sensors 
Compliance Summary

2-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

2.5 Hazardous Materials Control and Management 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – Requires testing and regulation of chemical substances that enter the 

consumer market. Since the NTS does not produce chemicals, compliance with TSCA is primarily directed toward 

management of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The regulations implementing TSCA for the state of Nevada 

contain record keeping requirements for PCB activities (NAC 444.9452). At the NTS, remediation activities and 

maintenance of fluorescent lights can result in the disposal of PCB-contaminated waste and light ballasts. Disposal of 

these items on the NTS is regulated. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – Sets forth procedures and requirements for 

pesticide registration, labeling, classification, devices for use, and certification of applicators. The use of certain 

pesticides (called “restricted-use pesticides”) are regulated. The use of non-restricted-use pesticides (as available in 

consumer products) is not regulated. On the NTS, only non-restricted-use pesticides are applied under the direction 

of a state of Nevada certified applicator. Pesticide applications in food service facilities are subcontracted to statecertified vendors who provide these services.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) – This act is a free-standing provision 

under Title III of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III) amendments to 

CERCLA. It requires that federal, state, and local emergency planning authorities be provided information regarding 

the presence and storage of hazardous substances and their planned and unplanned environmental releases, including 

provisions and plans for responding to emergency situations involving hazardous materials. EO 12856, Federal 

Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements, requires all federal facilities to comply with the 

provisions of EPCRA. Under EPCRA, NNSA/NSO is required to submit reports pursuant to Sections 302, 304, 

311, 312, and 313 of SARA Title III described below.

Section 302-303, Planning Notification – Requires that the state emergency response commission and the 

local emergency planning committee be notified when an extremely hazardous substance (EHS) is present at 

a facility in excess of the threshold planning quantity. An inventory of the location and amounts of all 

hazardous substances stored on the NTS and its satellite facilities is maintained. Inventory data are included 

in an annual report called the Nevada Combined Agency (NCA) Report. Also, NNSA/NSO monitors 

hazardous materials while they are in transit on the NTS through a hazardous materials notification system 

called HAZTRAK®. 

Section 304, Extremely Hazardous Substances Release Notification – Requires that the local emergency 

planning committee and state emergency response agencies be notified immediately of accidental or 

unplanned releases of an EHS to the environment. Also, the national response center is notified if the release 

exceeds the CERCLA reportable quantity for the particular hazardous substance. 

Section 311-312, Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)/Chemical Inventory – Requires facilities to 

provide applicable emergency response agencies with MSDSs, or a list of MSDSs for each hazardous 

chemical stored on site. This is essentially a one-time reporting unless chemicals or products change. Any 

new MSDSs are provided annually in the NCA Report. Section 312 requires facilities to report maximum 

amounts of chemicals onsite at any one time. This report is submitted to the State Emergency Response 

Commission, the Local Emergency Planning Committee, and the local fire departments. 

Section 313, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting – Requires facilities to submit an annual report 

entitled “Toxic Chemical Release Inventory, Form R” to the EPA and to the state of Nevada if annual usage 

quantities of listed toxic chemicals exceed specified thresholds. Lead releases on the NTS above threshold 

limits are reported to the EPA and the State Emergency Response Commission in the TRI, Form R report. 

NAC 555 – Control of Insects, Pests, and Noxious Weeds – Provides regulatory framework for certification of 

several classifications of registered pesticide and herbicide applicators in the state of Nevada. The Nevada 

Department of Agriculture (NDOA) administers this program and has the primary role to enforce FIFRA in Nevada. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-17 

Inspections of pesticide/herbicide applicator programs are carried out by NDOA. Restricted-use pesticides are not 

used by BN at the NTS. 

NAC 444 – Polychlorinated Biphenyls – This code incorporates by reference the federal requirements for the 

handling, storage, and disposal of PCBs at the NTS. 

State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act – This state act directed the NDEP to develop and 

implement an accident prevention program which was named the Chemical Accident Prevention Program. The act 

requires registration of facilities storing EHSs above listed thresholds. A report is submitted to the NDEP if any 

storage quantity thresholds are exceeded.

2.5.1 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for 2005 NNSA/NSO operations on the NTS and its satellite facilities in 

compliance with hazardous materials control and management regulations: 

• Nevada Combined Agency Report - Calendar Year 2005, submitted to state and local agencies 

• Toxic Release Inventory Report, Form R for CY2005 Operations, submitted to the EPA and to the state of Nevada 

• Calendar Year (CY) 2005 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Report for the Nevada Test Site (NTS), submitted to 

NNSA/NSO (no longer required to be submitted to the EPA)

2.5.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-5 for a summary of how NNSO/NSA complied with regulations for hazardous materials control and 

management at the NTS and its satellite facilities in 2005.
Compliance Summary

nce status with applicable regulations for hazardous substance control and management 

Action Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2005 

Section 

Reference(a)

 Act (TSCA) and 

d Biphenyls

isposal of PCB materials Required if >50 ppm(b) PCBs Compliant – disposed of 16 55 gallon drums offsite 10.1 

isposal of PCB materials Allowed if <50 ppm PCBs Compliant – no onsite storage or disposal 10.1 

duct waste containing PCBs generated 

site operations 

Case-by-case approval by 

NDEP Compliant - No BPW disposal 10.1 

uantities of PCB liquids and materials 

ng previous calendar year Due July 1 of following year Compliant - submitted 2005 report in April 2006 10.1 

cide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and 

cts, Pests, and Noxious Weeds

cted-use pesticides are conducted under 

n of a state-certified applicator NA(c) Compliant - no restricted-use pesticides were applied 10.2 

cation of onsite pesticide and herbicide 

NA Compliant 10.2 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 

nning Notification NCA Report due in March for previous calendar year Compliant - submitted 2005 report February 23, 2006; no EHS thresholds exceeded 10.3; A.1.4; A.3.3 

elease Notification Notification Report due immediately after a release Compliant - no releases occurred 10.3; A.1.4; A.3.3 

SDS/Chemical Inventory NCA Report due in March for previous calendar year Compliant - submitted 2005 report February 23, 2006 10.3; A.1.4; A.3.3 

porting TRI Report, Form R due July 1 for previous calendar year Compliant - submitted June 22, 2006 - lead was the only reportable substance 10.3; A.1.4; A.3.3 

 Catastrophe Prevention Act 

with the state if EHSs are stored above 

ntities 

NDEP-CAPP(d ) Report due 

June 21, 2006 

Compliant – no threshold quantities 

exceeded, no report submitted 10.4 

s document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

ention Program 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-19 

2.6 National Environmental Policy Act

Before any project or activity is initiated at the NTS, it must be evaluated for possible impacts to the environment. 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies are required 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. NNSA/NSO uses four levels of documentation to 

demonstrate compliance with NEPA: 

• Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – a full disclosure of the potential environmental effects of proposed 

actions and the reasonable alternatives to those actions 

• Environmental Assessment (EA) – a concise discussion of proposed actions and alternatives and the potential 

environmental effects to determine if an EIS is necessary 

• Supplement Analysis (SA) – a collection and analysis of information for an action already addressed in an existing 

EIS or EA used to determine whether a supplemental EIS or EA should be prepared, a new EIS or EA should be 

prepared, or no further NEPA documentation is required 

• Categorical Exclusion (CX) – a category of actions which do not have a significant adverse environment impact 

based on similar previous activities, and for which, therefore, neither an EA nor an EIS is required 

A NEPA Environmental Evaluation Checklist (Checklist) is completed for all proposed projects or activities on the 

NTS, as required under the NNSA/NV Work Acceptance Process Procedural Instructions (Carlson, 2000). The 

Checklist is reviewed by the NNSA/NSO NEPA Compliance Officer to determine whether the activity’s 

environmental impacts have been addressed in existing NEPA documents. If a proposed project has not been 

covered under any previous NEPA analysis and it does not qualify as a CX, then a new NEPA analysis is performed. 

The NEPA analysis may result in preparation of a new EA or a new SA to the existing programmatic NTS EIS 

(DOE, 1996a). The NEPA Compliance Officer must approve each Checklist before a project proceeds. Table 2-6 

presents a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with NEPA in 2005 for 83 projects. 

Table 2-6. NTS NEPA compliance activities conducted in 2005 

Results of NEPA Checklist Reviews / NEPA Compliance Activities 

30 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis because they were of CX status. 

42 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis due to their inclusion under previous analysis in the NTS EIS 

(DOE, 1996a) and its Record of Decision. 

3 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis due to their inclusion under previous analysis in an SA to the NTS 

EIS to address the increase in activities associated with the National Center for Combating Terrorism & Counterterrorism 

Training and related activities (DOE, 2003a). 

1 project was reviewed which was not adequately addressed in existing NEPA analysis and resulted in the preparation of 

an EA: Environmental Assessment for Large-Scale, Open-Air Explosive Detonation DIVINE STRAKE at the Nevada Test Site 

(DOE, 2005b). The Record of Decision will be made in early 2006. 

2 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis due to their inclusion under previous analysis in the Final

Environmental Assessment for Activities Using Biological Simulants and Releases of Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site (DOE, 

2004a). 

3 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis due to their inclusion under previous analysis in the Environmental 

Assessment for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Hazardous Materials Spill Center, Nevada Test Site (DOE, 2002b). 

1 project was exempted from further NEPA analysis due to its inclusion under previous analysis in the Environmental 

Assessment for Aerial Operations Facility Modifications (DOE, 2004b). 

1 project was exempted from further NEPA analysis due to its inclusion under previous analysis in 

the Environmental Assessment for the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex (DOE, 2004c). 
Compliance Summary

2-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

2.7 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) – Through 42 USC 6922 (b)(1) of RCRA, generators 

of hazardous waste are required to have a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of such 

waste to the degree determined by the generator to be economically practicable. The EPA was required to develop a 

list of types of commercially-available products (e.g., copy machine paper, plastic desk top items) and then specify that 

a certain minimum percentage of the product type’s content be comprised of recycled materials if they are to be 

purchased by a federal agency (e.g., all federally-purchased copy machine paper must be comprised of a minimum of 

30 percent recycled paper). It then requires federal facilities to have a procurement process in place to ensure that 

they purchase product types which satisfy the EPA-designated minimum percentages of recycled material. 

EO 13101, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition – 

Requires federal facilities to incorporate waste prevention and recycling into daily operations. It requires federal 

facilities to maintain an affirmative procurement process that ensures that 100 percent of products purchased which 

are found on the EPA-designated product list contain recycled material at the EPA-specified minimum content. The 

Secretary of Energy’s goal is for DOE sites to become 100 percent compliant with this EO by the end of 2005. 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program – Requires federal facilities to implement an 

Environmental Management System (EMS) that includes pollution prevention. The EMS must be fully integrated 

into the site Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS). 

NDEP Hazardous Waste Permit Number NEV HW0021 – This state permit requires NNSA/NSO to maintain 

an Annual Waste Minimization Summary Report in the Facility Operating Records. This report should include a 

description of the efforts taken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated as per RCRA, 

42 USC 6922 (b) (1), as well as a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually achieved during 

the year in comparison to previous years to the extent such information is available for the years prior to 1984. 

Secretary of Energy’s Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency Leadership Goals – On November 12, 1999, 

the Secretary of Energy set numerous pollution prevention and energy efficiency goals that each DOE site was 

required to meet by the end of 2005. They included goals for: (1) reducing wastes, (2) increasing recycling and 

purchases of recycled materials, and (3) reducing ODS and greenhouse gasses. Table 2-7b presents the status of site 

compliance with the first two groups of goals. DOE has developed new pollution prevention (P2 goals) for 2006 and 

beyond. 

2.7.1 Compliance Issues 

One EO 13101 goal and four of the six Secretary of Energy’s Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency Leadership 

Goals were not met at the NTS in 2005. They are shown in Tables 2-7a and 2-7b and are discussed in Section 11. 

2.7.2 Compliance Reports 

The compliance reports generated in 2005 to comply with pollution prevention and waste minimization (P2/WM) 

directives are presented in Table 2-7a. 

2.7.3 Compliance Status 

See Tables 2-7a and 2-7b for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with P2/WM regulations in 2005. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-21 

Table 2-7a. NTS compliance status with applicable pollution prevention/waste minimization regulations 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance

Limit/Goal 

Compliance 

Status 2005 

Section 

Reference (a)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) 

 Have a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and 

toxicity of generated hazardous waste to the degree it is 

economically practicable 

NA(b) Compliant 11.1 

 Have a process in place to ensure that EPA-designated-list 

products are purchased containing the minimum content of 

recycled materials 

NA Compliant 11.1 

EO 13101, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, 

Recycling and Federal Acquisition 

 Incorporate waste prevention and recycling into daily operations NA Compliant 11.1 

 Percent of all purchased items which contain the minimum 

content of recycled material as specified on the EPA-designated 

product list 

100% 90% 11.1 

 Submit a calendar year RCRA/EO 13101 Report to 

DOE/Headquarters (HQ) by entering the site’s data into the 

DOE/HQ electronic database 

Due 

December 31, 

2005 

Submitted 

December 15, 

2005 

- - 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program 

 

Implement an EMS that includes pollution prevention 

Implement by 

December 31, 

2005 

Compliant 

December 15, 

2005 

17.0 

 Submit a fiscal year Waste Generation and Pollution Prevention 

Progress Report to DOE/HQ that includes annual recycling totals 

and waste minimization accomplishments by entering the site’s 

data into the DOE/HQ electronic database 

Due 

December 3, 

2005 

Submitted 

November 15, 

2005 

11.3 

Submit a calendar year Waste Minimization Summary Report to 

NDEP 

Due by 

March 1, 2006 

Submitted 

February 23, 

2006 

11.3 

Secretary of Energy's P2 Leadership Goals 

See Table 2-7b See Table 2-7b 

Non-compliant 

with Goals 2, 3, 

4, and 6 

11.4

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected

(b) Not applicable
Compliance Summary

2-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Table 2-7b. NTS compliance status with the Secretary of Energy’s pollution prevention and energy efficiency 

leadership goals 

 Leadership Goal 

1993 

Baseline 

CY 2005 

Goal 

CY 2005 

Status 

CY 2005 

Reduction 

Goal 1. Reduce waste from routine operations by 

the following percentages for each waste type by 

2005, using a 1993 baseline: 

 Hazardous by 90% 3,724 mtons(a) 372 mtons 23.2 mtons 99.2% 

 Low Level Radioactive by 80% 0 m3 (b) 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

 Low Level Mixed Radioactive by 80% 0 m3 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

 Transuranic (TRU) by 80% 0 m3 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

Goal 2. Reduce solid waste from routine 

operations by 75% by 2005, using a 1993 baseline 

13,735 

mtons 

3,434 

mtons 

5,380 

mtons 

61% 

Goal 3. Reduce releases of toxic chemicals subject 

to Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting by 90% 

by 2005, using a 1993 baseline 

0 pounds 

(lbs) reported 

No 

reduction 

possible( c ) 

5,485.7 lbs 

reported 

No reduction 

possible

 Waste 

Generated 

Waste 

Recycled 

CY 2005 

Reduction 

Goal 4. Recycle 45% of solid waste from all operations by 2005 and 

50% by 2010 

17,767 

mtons 

1,194 

mtons 

6.7% 

 

Waste 

Disposed 

Waste 

Reduced 

CY 2005 

Reduction 

Goal 5. Reduce waste resulting from cleanup, stabilization, and 

decommissioning activities by 10% on an annual basis 

11,800 

mtons 

14,308 

mtons 

55% 

 CY 2005 

Goal 

CY 2005 

Status 

Goal 6. Increase purchases of EPA-designated items with recycled content to 

100%, except when not available competitively at a reasonable price or when 

items do not meet performance standards 

100% 90% 

(a) metric tons, 1 mton = 1.10 ton 

(b) cubic meters, 1 m3 = 1.35 yd3

(c) No measurable reduction can be reported because no waste of this type was reported on the NTS in 1993 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-23 

2.8 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Protection 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended – This Act presents the goals of federal participation in 

historic preservation and delineates the framework for federal activities. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take 

into account the effects of their undertakings on properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to consult with interested parties. The Section 106 process involves the 

agency reviewing background information, identifying eligible properties for the NRHP within the area of potential 

effect through consultation with the Nevada Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), making a determination of effect 

(when applicable), and developing a mitigation plan when an adverse effect is unavoidable. Determinations of 

eligibility, effect, and mitigation are conducted in consultation with the SHPO and, in some cases, the federal 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 110 sets out the broad historic preservation responsibilities of 

federal agencies and is intended to ensure that historic preservation is fully integrated into the ongoing programs of all 

federal agencies. It requires federal agencies to develop and implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan, to 

identify and evaluate the eligibility of historic properties for long-term management as well as for future projectspecific planning; and to maintain archaeological collections and their associated records at professional standards. At 

the NTS, a long-term management strategy includes: (1) monitoring NRHP-listed and eligible properties to determine 

if environmental or other actions are negatively affecting the integrity or other aspects of eligibility and (2) taking 

corrective actions if necessary. 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment – Reinforces the obligation of federal 

agencies to conduct adequate surveys to locate any and all sites of historic value under their jurisdiction. 

Archeological Resources and Protection Act of 1979 – The purpose of this act is to secure, for the present and 

future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public and 

Indian lands, and addresses the irreplaceable heritage of archaeological sites and materials. It requires the issuance of 

a federal archaeology permit to qualified archaeologists for any work that involves excavation or removal of 

archaeological resources on federal and Indian lands and notification to Indian tribes of these activities. Unauthorized 

excavation, removal, damage, alteration, or defacement of archaeological resources is prohibited, as is the sale, 

purchase, exchange, transport, receipt of, or offer for sale of, such resources. Criminal and civil penalties apply to 

such actions. Information concerning the nature and location of any archaeological resource may not be made 

available to the public unless the federal land manager determines that the disclosure would not create a risk of harm 

to the resources or site. The Secretary of Interior is required to submit an annual report at the end of each fiscal year 

to Congress which reports the scope and effectiveness of all federal agencies’ efforts on the protection of 

archaeological resources, specific projects surveyed, resources excavated or removed, damage or alterations to sites, 

criminal and civil violations, the results of permitted archaeological activities, and the costs incurred by the federal 

government to conduct this work. All archaeologists working at the NTS must have qualifications that meet federal 

standards and must work under a permit issued by NNSA/NSO. In the event of vandalism, NNSA/NSO would 

need to investigate the actions.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 – This law established the government policy to protect and 

preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional 

religions, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. Locations exist on the NTS that have religious significance to 

Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute; visits to these places involve prayer and other activities. Access is provided 

by NNSA/NSO as long as there are no safety or health hazards. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 – This act requires federal 

agencies to identify Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural 

patrimony in their possession. Agencies are required to prepare an inventory of human remains and associated 

funerary objects, as well as a summary with a general description of sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and 

unassociated funerary objects. Through consultation with Native American tribes, the affiliation of the remains and 

objects are determined and the tribes can request repatriation of their cultural items. The agency is required to publish 

a notice of inventory completion in the Federal Register. The law also protects the physical location where human 
Compliance Summary

2-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

remains are placed during a death rite or ceremony. The NTS artifact collection is subject to NAGPRA and the 

locations of American Indian human remains at the NTS must to be protected from NTS activities. 

2.8.1 Reporting Requirements 

NNSA/NSO submits Section 106 cultural resources survey reports and historical evaluations to the Nevada SHPO 

for review and concurrence. Mitigation plans and mitigation documents also are submitted to the Nevada SHPO and 

some types of documents go to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Park Service. 

Reports containing restricted data on site locations are not available to the public. Some technical reports, however, 

are available to the public upon request and can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service. The 

2005 reports submitted to agencies are discussed in Chapter 12. 

2.8.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-8 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with historic preservation and cultural resource 

protection regulations on the NTS in 2005. 

Table 2-8. NTS compliance status with historic preservation regulations 

Compliance Action 

Compliance 

Status - 2005 

Section 

Reference(a)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 

EO 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

Maintain and implement NTS Cultural Resources Management Plan Compliant - - 

Conduct cultural resources pre-activity surveys, inventories and 

evaluations of historic structures Conducted for 7 projects 12.1; Table 12-1 

Make determinations of eligibility to the National Register 3 determinations were 

made 

12.1.3; 

Table 12-1 

Make assessments of impact to eligible properties All eligible sites are 

avoided by NTS activities 12.1.3 

Manage artifact collection as per required professional standards Compliant 12.2 

Archaeological Resources and Protection Act of 1979 

Conduct archaeological work by qualified permittees Compliant - - 

Determine if archaeological sites have been damaged None damaged 12.1.4.1 

Complete and submit Secretary of the Interior Archaeology 

Questionnaire Completed 12.1.4.3 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Allow American Indians access to NTS locations for ceremonies 

and traditional use Access provided 12.3 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Consult with affiliated Native American Indian tribes regarding 

repatriation of cultural items Completed 12.2 

Protect Native American Indian burial locations on NTS Compliant 12.2 

Overall Requirement

Consult with tribes regarding various cultural resources issues Compliant 12.3 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-25 

2.9 Conservation and Protection of Biota and Wildlife Habitat 

Endangered Species Act – Section 7 of this act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. The 

threatened desert tortoise is the only animal protected under the ESA which may be impacted by NTS operations. 

NTS activities within tortoise habitat are conducted so as to comply with the terms and conditions of Biological 

Opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to NNSA/NSO. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) – Prohibits the harming of any migratory bird, their nest, or eggs without 

authorization by the Secretary of the Interior. All but five of the 239 bird species observed on the NTS (Wills and 

Ostler, 2001) are protected under this act. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to prevent direct harm to 

protected birds, nests, and eggs. 

Bald Eagle Protection Act – Prohibits the capture or harming of bald and golden eagles without special 

authorization. Both bald and golden eagles occur on the NTS. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to 

prevent direct harm to eagles and their nests and eggs. 

Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404, Wetlands Regulations – Regulates land development affecting wetlands by 

requiring a permit obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to discharge dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States, which includes most wetlands on public and private land. NTS projects are 

evaluated for their potential to disturb wetlands and their need for a Section 404 permit application. Based on recent 

rulings, no natural NTS wetland may meet the criteria of a “jurisdictional” wetland subject to Section 404 regulations. 

However, final determination from the USACE regarding the status of NTS wetlands has yet to be received. 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act – Forbids a person to knowingly disturb or injure vegetation or kill 

vertebrate or invertebrate animals or their nests or eggs on any National Wildlife Refuge lands unless permitted by the 

Secretary of the Interior. The boundary of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR), land administered within 

this System, is approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) downwind of the NPTEC in Area 5. Biological monitoring is conducted 

to verify that approved tests conducted at the NPTEC do not disperse toxic chemicals that could harm biota on the 

DNWR. 

EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands – Requires governmental agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the 

agency’s responsibilities, including managing federal lands and facilities. Projects are evaluated for their potential to 

disturb the more than 20 natural water sources on the NTS. NTS wetlands are monitored to document their status 

and use by wildlife, even though they may not meet the criteria for “jurisdictional” status under the CWA. 

EO 11988, Floodplain Management – Ensures protection of property and human wellbeing within a floodplain and 

protection of floodplains themselves. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes guidelines and 

specifications for assessing alluvial fan flooding. NNSA/NSO generally satisfies EO 11988 through 

DOE Order 420.1, Facility Safety, and invoked standards. DOE Order 420.1 and the associated implementation guide 

for mitigation of natural phenomena hazards call for a graded approach to assessing risk to all facilities (structures, 

systems, and components [SSC]) from potential natural hazards. Chapter 4 of DOE Standard 1020 

(DOE-STD-1020-2002) provides flood design and evaluation criteria for SSC. Evaluations of flood hazards at the 

NTS are generally conducted to ensure protection of property and human wellbeing. 

EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds – Directs federal agencies to take 

certain actions to further implement the MBTA if agencies have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on 

migratory bird populations. It also directs federal agencies to support the conservation intent of the MBTA and 

conduct actions, as practicable, to benefit the health of migratory bird populations. NTS projects are evaluated for 

their potential to impact such bird populations. 

EO 13112, Invasive Species – Directs federal agencies to act to prevent the introduction of, or to monitor and 

control, invasive (non-native) species, to provide for restoration of native species, and to exercise care in taking 

actions that could promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. Land-disturbing activities on the NTS have 
Compliance Summary

2-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

resulted in the spread of numerous invasive plant species. Habitat reclamation and other controls are evaluated and 

conducted when feasible to control such species and meet the purposes of this EO. 

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act – Requires the protection, management, and control of wild horses and 

burros on public lands and calls for the management and protection of these animals in a manner that is designed to 

achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. Wild horses on the NTS may wander off the NTS onto 

public lands and therefore are protected under this act. This act makes it unlawful to harm wild horses and burros. 

Five-Party Cooperative Agreement – Agreement between NNSA/NSO, NTTR, FWS, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and the state of Nevada Clearinghouse that calls for cooperation in conducting resource 

inventories and developing resource management plans for wild horses and burros and to maintain favorable habitat 

on federally withdrawn lands for these animals. BLM considers NTS a zero herd-size management area. 

NNSA/NSO consults with BLM regarding any issue of NTS horse management. 

NAC 503.010-503.104 - Protection of Wildlife – Identifies Nevada animal species, both protected and un-protected, 

and prohibits the harm of protected species without special permit. Over 200 bird species and 1 bat species on the 

NTS are State-protected. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to prevent direct harm to protected birds, 

nests, eggs, and protected bats. 

NAC 527.270 - Protection of Flora – Requires that the State Forester Firewarden determine the protective status of 

Nevada plants and prohibits removal or destruction of protected plants without special permit. Currently, no 

State-protected plant species are known to occur on the NTS. Annual reviews of the protection status of NTS plants 

are conducted. 

2.9.1 Compliance Issues 

Eleven of 12 deaths among migratory birds recorded in 2005 were related to NTS activities (see Table 13-6). They 

included nine species of migratory birds. The major cause of mortality was being hit by vehicles on roads (eight road 

kills). No feasible mitigation actions were identified or taken to reduce future bird mortality from these causes. 

2.9.2 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were prepared in 2005 to meet requirements of the regulations or to document compliance 

activities: 

• Annual Report of Actions Taken Under Authorization of the Biological Opinion on Nevada Test Site Activities (File No. 1-5-

96-F-33) – January 1, 2005 Through December 31, 2005, submitted to the FWS Southern Nevada Field Office in 

January 2006 

• Annual Report of Actions Taken Under Authorization of the Biological Opinion on Chemical Release Tests at the Nevada Test 

Site (File No. 1-5-05-F-455) – July 20, 2005 through August 31, 2005, submitted to the FWS Southern Nevada 

Field Office in October 2005 

• Annual Report for Handling Permit S26952 for 2005, submitted via email to Nevada Division of Wildlife (Maureen 

Hullinger) on January 31, 2006 

• Annual Report for Federal Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit MB008695-0, submitted via FAX to FWS Portland 

Office in January 2006 

• Annual Report for Federal Migratory Bird Special Purpose Possession Permit (Dead Permit) MB037277-0, submitted via FAX 

to FWS Portland Office in January 2006 

2.9.3 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-9 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with regulations related to the conservation and 

protection of biota and wildlife habitat on the NTS in 2005.
Compliance Summary

e status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations 

tion 

Compliance 

Limit 

Compliance 

 Status - 2005 

Section 

Reference(a)

996 Opinion for NTS Programmatic Activities 

dentally injured or killed due to NTS activities, per year 3 0 13.1 

ured and displaced from project sites, per year 10 0 13.1 

n since 1992 by way of injury or mortality on NTS paved roads 

ose in use during a project Unlimited 1 13.1 

) of desert tortoise habitat disturbed during NTS project 

3,015 ac 265.70 ac 13.1 

conditions of the Biological Opinion during construction and 

s NA(b) Compliant 13.1 

ys at proposed project sites to assess presence of protected 

NA 

Compliant 

88 surveys conducted for 

36 projects 

13.2 

005 Opinion for NPTEC Test Cell C Activities

es that may be captured and moved as a result of project 

1 0 13.1 

n in the form of indirect mortality through predation by ravens 0 0 13.1 

n indirectly in the form of harm as a result of release of 

micals <5 0 13.1 

Bald Eagle Protection Act; and 

f Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds

ggs harmed by NTS project activities 0 15 bird nests removed from buildings, 11 bird deaths 13.2; Table 13-4; 13.3.5.1; Table 13-6 

ystem Administration Act 

 nests, or eggs killed and amount of vegetation disturbed or 

the Desert National Wildlife Range) as a result of NTS activities 

0 0 13.6 

nd Burro Act and 

eement 

ed or killed due to NTS activities 0 0 13.3.4 

ng resource inventories and developing resource management 

NTTR, and the Desert National Wildlife Range NA NTS annual horse inventory conducted 13.3.4; Figure 13-6 
Compliance Summary 

e status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations (continued) 

tion Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2005 Section Reference(a) 

gement

aluations NA 

Evaluations were conducted for: (1) Corrective Action Unit 383,  E Tunnel and vicinity (2) Area 12 Camp (3) Proposed fire station in Area 6 (4) Proposed fire station in Area 23 

-- 

4-Wetlands Regulations and 

lands

urbed by NTS activity NA 12 natural wetlands surveyed – none disturbed by NTS activity 13.3.6 

getated with native plant species on occasion to mitigate for 

 lieu of payment), to stabilize soil, and to prevent invasion 

NA 

No revegetation conducted, previously revegetated Egg Point Fire area and closure cover for U-3ax/bl disposal unit were monitored 

13.4 

AC 527.270 - Nevada Protective Measures for 

d animals harmed or killed and number of state-protected 

d due to NTS activities 0 11 bird deaths recorded 13.3; Table 13-6 

ocument that describe how compliance summary data were collected 
 Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-29 

2.10 Environmental Management System 

EO 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management – Requires federal 

facilities to have an EMS that considers potential environmental impacts in all aspects of its work. This is especially 

important in the work planning and budgeting stages. Pollution prevention, eliminating potential wastes, and 

recycling materials must always be addressed when planning work. The EO requires that the EMS be in place by 

December 31, 2005. 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program – Requires each DOE facility to implement an EMS which 

is a continuing cycle of planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and actions undertaken to 

achieve environmental goals. The objectives are to implement sound stewardship practices that are protective of the 

air, water, land, and other natural and cultural resources impacted by DOE operations, by which DOE cost-effectively 

meets or exceeds compliance with applicable environmental, public health, and resource protection laws, regulations, 

and DOE requirements. The EMS must be fully integrated into each DOE site’s ISMS by December 31, 2005. 

2.10.1 Compliance Reports 

NNSA/NSO submitted quarterly reports to DOE/HQ in 2005 regarding progress towards meeting interim goals that 

were established to help facilities meet the December 31, 2005 deadline. NNSA/NSO made the Self Declaration to 

NNSA/HQ on December 15, 2006 that the requirements of DOE Order 450.1 had been implemented. 

2.10.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-10 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with EMS regulations. 

Table 2-10. NTS compliance status with Environmental Management System regulations 

Compliance Measure/Action Compliance Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2005 

Section 

Reference(a)

EO 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in 

Environmental Management

 

 

 

Have an EMS in place December 31, 2005 Compliant 17.0 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program 

 

Incorporate the EMS into the site's ISMS December 31, 2005 Compliant 17.0 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe compliance summary data 
Compliance Summary

2-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

2.11 Occurrences, Unplanned Releases, and Continuous Releases 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) – Continuous release 

reporting under Section 103 requires that a non-permitted hazardous substance release that is equal to or greater than 

its reportable quantity be reported to the National Response Center. The EPA requires all facilities that release a 

hazardous substance meeting the Section 103(f) requirements to report annually to EPA and perform an annual 

evaluation of releases. CERCLA requirements applicable to NTS operations also pertain to an emergency response 

program for hazardous substance releases to the environment (see discussion of Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act in Section 2.5). 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) – This act is described in Section 2.5. See 

Table 2-5 for summary of compliance to EPCRA pertaining to unplanned environmental releases of hazardous 

substances. 

40 CFR 302.1 – 302.8: Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification – Requires facilities to notify 

federal authorities of spills or releases of certain hazardous substances designated under CERCLA and the CWA. It 

specifies what quantities of hazardous substance spills/releases must be reported to authorities and delineates the 

notification procedures for a release that equals or exceeds the reportable quantities. 

DOE Order 231.1A, Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting – This Order includes the requirement for 

reporting environmental occurrences. Along with DOE M 231.1-2, Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations 

Information, it requires the establishment and maintenance of a system for reporting operations information related to 

DOE-owned and leased facilities, for processing that information to identify the root causes of environmental 

occurrences, and for providing appropriate corrective action for such occurrences. 

NAC 445A.345–445.348 - Notification of Release of Pollutant – Requires state notification for the unplanned or 

accidental releases of specified quantities of pollutants, hazardous wastes, and contaminants. 

Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001 – This general wastewater discharge permit issued by the 

state to the NTS specifies that no petroleum products will be discharged into treatment works without first being 

processed through an oil/water separator or other approved methods. It also specifies how NNSA/NSO shall report 

each bypass, spill, upset, overflow, or release of treated or untreated sewage. 

Other NTS Permits/Agreements – As with General Permit GNEV93001, there are other state permits and 

agreements cited in previous subsections of this chapter (e.g., FFACO) that specify that accidents or events of noncompliance must be reported. These include events that may create an environmental hazard. 

2.11.1 Compliance Status 

There are no continuous releases on the NTS or at its satellite facilities. 

In 2005, no reportable environmental occurrence happened at the NTS or at its satellite facilities. 
 Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-31 

2.12 Summary of Permits 

Table 2-11 presents the complete list of all federal and state permits active in 2005 that have been issued to 

NNSA/NSO and to BN for NTS, NLVF, and RSL-Nellis operations and which have been referenced in previous 

subsections of this chapter. The table includes those pertaining to air quality monitoring, operation of drinking water 

and sewage systems, hazardous materials and hazardous waste management and disposal, and endangered species 

protection. Reports associated with these permits are submitted to the appropriate designated state or federal office. 

Copies of reports may be obtained upon request. 

Table 2-11. Environmental permits required for NTS and NTS site facility operations 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Air Quality NTS 

AP9711-0549.01 NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit June 25, 2009 Annually 

05-15 NTS Burn Variance (Training Fires) March 12, 2006 None 

NLVF

Facility 657, Mod. 2 Clark County Authority to Construct/Operating Permit for a 

Testing Laboratory None March 

RSL-Nellis 

Facility 348, Mod. 1 Clark County Authority to Construct/Operating Permit for a 

Testing Laboratory None March 

NTS Drinking Water 

NY-0360-12NTNC Areas 6 and 23 September 30, 2006 None 

NY-4098-12NTNC Area 25 September 30, 2006 None 

NY-4099-12NTNC Area 12 September 30, 2006 None 

NY-0835-12NP NTS Water Hauler #84846 September 30, 2006 None 

NY-0836-12NP NTS Water Hauler #84847 September 30, 2006 None 

NTS Septic Systems and Pumpers 

NY-1076 Septic System, Area 6 (Airborne Response Team Hangar) None None 

NY-1077 Septic System, Area 27 (Baker Compound) None None 

NY-1106 Septic System, Area 5 (Building 05-08) None None 

NY-1079 Septic System, Area 12 (U12g Tunnel) None None 

NY-1080 Septic System, Area 23 (Building 1103) None None 

NY-1081 Septic System, Area 6 (CP-170) None None 

NY-1082 Septic System, Area 22 (Building 22-01) None None 

NY-1083 Septic System, Area 5 (Radioactive Material Management Site) None None 

NY-1084 Septic System, Area 6 (Device Assembly Facility) None None 

NY-1085 Septic System, Area 25 (Central Support Area) None None 

NY-1086 Septic System, Area 25 (Reactor Control Point) None None 

NY-1087 Septic System, Area 27 (Able Compound) None None 

NY-1089 Septic System, Area 12 (Camp) None None 

NY-1090 Septic System, Area 6 (LANL Construction Camp Site) None None 

NY-1091 Septic System, Area 23 (Gate 100) None None 

NY-1103 Septic System, Area 22 (Desert Rock Airport) None None 

NY-1110-HAA-A Individual Sewage Disposal System, A-12, Bldg. 12-910 None None 

NY-1112 Commercial Sewage Disposal System, U1a, Area 1 None None 

NY-1113 Commercial Sewage Disposal System, Area 1, Building 121 None None 
Compliance Summary

2-32 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 2-11. Environmental permits required for NTS and NTS site facility operations (continued) 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

NTS Septic Systems and Pumpers (cont.) 

NY-1124 Commercial Individual Sewage Disposal System, NTS, 

Area 6, Permit to Operate None None 

NY-1128 Commercial Individual Sewage Disposal System, NTS, 

Area 6, Yucca Lake Project, Permit to construct None None 

NY-17-03313 Septic Tank Pumper E 106785 November 30, 2006 None 

NY-17-03315 Septic Tank Pumper E 107105 November 30, 2006 None 

NY-17-03317 Septic Tank Pumper E-105918 November 30, 2006 None 

NY-17-03318 Septic Tank Pumping Contractor (one unit) November 30, 2006 None 

NY-17-06838 Septic Tank Pumper E-105919 November 30, 2006 None 

NY-17-06839 Septic Tank Pumper E-107103 November 30, 2006 None 

Wastewater Discharge NTS 

GNEV93001 Water Pollution Control General Permit August 5, 2010 Quarterly 

NEV96021 Water Pollution Control for E-Tunnel Waste Water Disposal 

System and Monitoring Well ER-12-1 September 25, 2007 Quarterly 

NLVF 

VEH-112 NLVF Wastewater Contribution Permit December 31, 2006 Annually 

TNEV2004364 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit May 21, 2005 Monthly 

TNEV2005437 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit December 6, 2005 Monthly 

TNEV2006369 NLVF Temporary Authorization to Discharge June 6, 2006 Monthly 

 

RSL-Nellis 

CCWRD-080 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit June 30, 2006 Quarterly 

Hazardous Materials NTS 

2287-5146 NTS Hazardous Materials February 28, 2006 Annually 

2287-5147 Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex February 28, 2006 Annually 

NLVF 

2287-5144 NLVF Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2006 Annually 

RSL-Nellis 

2287-5145 RSL Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2006 Annually 

NTS Hazardous Waste 

NEV-HW0021 NTS Hazardous Waste Management Permit (RCRA) November 17, 2005 Biennially 

NTS Disposal Sites 

SW 13 000 01 Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site Post-closure(a) Annually 

SW 13 097 02 Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site Post-closure Annually 

SW 13 097 03 Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site Post-closure Annually 

SW 13 097 04 Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site Post-closure Annually 
 Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 2-33 

Table 2-11. Environmental permits required for NTS and NTS site facility operations (continued) 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Endangered Species/Wildlife/Special Use 

File No. 1-5-96-F-33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Desert Tortoise Incidental 

Take Authorization (Biological Opinion for Programmatic 

NTS Activities) 

December 31, 2006 Annually 

File No. 1-5-05-F-455 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Desert Tortoise Incidental 

Take Authorization (Biological Opinion for Chemical 

Release Tests at the NPTEC Area 25 Test Cell C Facility)

None specified Annually 

MB008695-0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Migratory Bird Scientific 

Collecting Permit December 31, 2005 Annually 

MB037277-0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Migratory Bird Special 

Purpose Possession – Dead Permit December 31, 2005 Annually 

S26952 Nevada Division of Wildlife - Scientific Collection of 

Wildlife Samples December 31, 2005 Annually 

SUP LAME 25AO 1324 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service 

Special Use Permit – issued for fly-over missions by RSLNellis over Lake Mead National Recreation Area to establish 

a natural environmental background radiation reference 

standard test line for equipment calibration. 

December 31, 2007 None 

Required 

(a) Permit expires 30 years after closure of the landfill 
Compliance Summary

2-34 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-1

3.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

Section 3.1 of this chapter presents the results of radiological air monitoring conducted on and off the Nevada Test 

Site (NTS) to ensure compliance with radioactive air emission standards (see Section 2.1). Sources of radioactive air 

emissions from the NTS include evaporation of tritiated water from containment ponds; diffusion of tritiated water 

vapor from the soil at Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs), Sedan crater, and Schooner 

crater; release of tritium gas during equipment calibrations at Building 650 in Area 23; and resuspension of plutonium 

and americium from contaminated soil at historical nuclear device safety test locations and atmospheric test locations. 

In 2005, radiological monitoring was conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN) Environmental Technical Services. The 

concentrations of radioactivity in air samples are used to assess radiological dose to the general public in the vicinity of 

the NTS. The assessed dose to the public from all pathways of exposure (i.e., air, water, direct radiation exposure, and 

consumption of game animals) is presented in Section 8.0 (Radiological Dose Assessment). 

An oversight monitoring program has been established by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) to monitor radionuclide contamination of air within communities 

adjacent to the NTS. This independent oversight program is managed by the University of Nevada’s Desert Research 

Institute (DRI) of the Nevada System of Higher Education. DRI’s 2005 air monitoring results are presented in 

Section 6.0. 

Section 3.2 of this chapter presents the results of non-radiological air quality assessments conducted on the NTS to 

ensure compliance with current air quality permits (see Section 2.1). NTS operations which are potential sources of 

non-radiological air pollution include aggregate production, surface disturbance (e.g., construction), release of fugitive 

dust from driving on unpaved roads, use of fuel-burning equipment, open burning, venting from bulk fuel storage 

facilities, and releases of various chemicals during testing at the Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex 

(NPTEC). Air quality assessments were conducted by BN Environmental Services (ES). 

3.1 Radiological Air Monitoring 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, and the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) require air monitoring for 

radiological emissions at the NTS. Radiological air monitoring is conducted to ensure that no significant emission 

source that contributes to calculable offsite exposures is ignored and that the NTS is in full compliance with the 

requirements of DOE Order 5400.5 and the CAA. To accomplish this, an air surveillance network comprised of air 

particulate samplers and samplers for tritium in atmospheric moisture has been established. The objectives and design 

of the network are described in detail in the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b). 

The network monitors airborne radioactivity near NTS sites at which radioactivity from past nuclear testing was 

deposited on and in the soil, at NTS operating facilities that may produce radioactive air emissions, and along the 

boundaries of the NTS. Data from all sampling stations are analyzed to meet the specific goals listed below. 

Also listed below are the monitored analytes that comprise the base data needed to perform dose assessments. They 

are concentrations of the radionuclides or radioactivity which are most likely to be present in the air as a result of past 

or current NTS operations. These analytes were selected based on the results of NTS inventories of radionuclides in 

surface soil (McArthur, 1991), and upon their volatility and availability for resuspension. Uranium is included on this 

list because depleted uranium (see Glossary, Appendix B) ordinances are used during exercises in Areas 20 and 25. It 

is analyzed for in air samples only from selected sampling locations in the vicinity of these areas. Gross alpha and 

gross beta readings are also used in air monitoring as a rapid screening measure and for looking at trends in gross 

radioactivity concentrations. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

3.1.1 Monitoring System Design 

Environmental Samplers – There are 19 sampling stations referred to as environmental samplers. They include 3 

stations which have only low-volume air particulate samplers, 1 which has only a tritium sampler, and 15 which have 

both air particulate and tritium samplers (Figure 3-1). They are located throughout the NTS in or near diffuse 

radiation sources. The sources include areas with (1) radioactivity in surface soil that can be resuspended by the wind, 

(2) tritium that transpires or evaporates from plants and soil at the sites of past nuclear cratering tests, and (3) tritium 

that evaporates from ponds receiving tritiated water either pumped from contaminated wells or directed from tunnels 

that cannot be sealed shut. Sampling and analysis of air particulates and tritium were performed at these stations as 

described in Section 3.1.2. Radionuclide concentrations measured at these stations are used for trending, determining 

ambient background concentrations in the environment, and monitoring for unplanned releases of radioactivity. Air 

concentrations approaching 10 percent of the NESHAP Concentration Levels for Environmental Compliance (CLs) 

(second column of Table 3-1) are investigated for causes so that they may be mitigated to avoid exceeding regulatory 

dose limits. 

Critical Receptor Samplers – Six of the 15 samplers which have combined air particulate and tritium sampling 

stations are located near the boundaries and the center of the NTS and are approved by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX as critical receptor samplers (Figure 3-1). Radionuclide concentrations measured 

at these six stations are used to assess compliance with the NESHAP dose limit to the public of 10 mrem/yr (0.1 

mSv/yr). Analysis of air particulate and tritium data obtained at these six stations was performed as described in 

Section 3.1.2 below. The annual average concentrations from each station were then compared with the 

concentration limits listed in Table 3-1. To be in compliance with NESHAP, the annual average concentrations must 

be less than the concentration limits in Table 3-1. If multiple radionuclides are detected at a station, then compliance 

with NESHAP is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions, determined by dividing each radionuclide’s 

concentration by its concentration limit and then adding the fractions together, is less than 1.0.

Radiological Air Monitoring Goals Analytes Monitored 

Americium-241 

(241Am) 

 

Cesium-137 (137Cs) 

Tritium 

(3H) 

Plutonium-238 (238Pu)

 

Plutonium- 239+240 

(239+240Pu) 

Uranium-233+234 

(233+234U) 

Uranium-235+236 

(235+236U) 

Uranium-238 

(238U) 

Gross alpha 

radioactivity 

Gross beta 

radioactivity 

Measure radionuclide concentrations in air at or near historic or current 

operation sites which have the potential to release airborne radioactivity 

to (1) detect and identify local and site-wide trends, (2) identify 

radionuclides emitted to air, and (3) detect accidental and unplanned 

releases. 

Determine if radioactive air emissions from past or present NTS activities 

result in a radiation dose to any member of the public that exceeds the 

NESHAP standard of 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) (0.1 millisievert per 

year [mSv/yr]).

Provide point source operational monitoring as required under NESHAP 

for any facility that has the potential to emit radionuclides into the air 

which could cause a dose greater than 0.1 mrem/yr (0.001 mSv/yr) to any 

member of the public. 

 

Provide data to determine if radioactive air emissions from past or 

present NTS activities result in a radiation dose to any member of the 

public from all pathways (air, water, food) that exceeds the DOE 

Order 5400.5 standard of 100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr). 

239+240Pu, 233+234U, and 235+236U are reported 

as the sum of isotope concentrations since 

the analytical method cannot readily 

distinguish the individual isotopes. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-3

Figure 3-1. Radiological air sampling network on the NTS in 2005
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 3-1. Regulatory concentration limits for radionuclides in air 

 Concentration ( x 10-15 microcuries/milliliter [μCi/mL]) 

Radionuclide 

NESHAP Concentration Level for 

Environmental Compliance (CL)(a) Derived Concentration Guide (DCG)(b)

241Am 1.9 2 

137Cs 19 40,000 

3H 1,500,000 10,000,000 

238Pu 2.1 3 

239Pu 2 2 

233U 7.1 9 

234U 7.7 9 

235U 7.1 10 

236U 7.7 10 

238U 8.3 10 

Note: Both the CL and DCG values represent the annual average concentration which would result in a 

committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) of 10 mrem/yr which is the federal dose limit to the 

public from all radioactive air emissions. When they differ, the CLs are more conservative than the 

DCGs. They are computed using different dose models. 

(a) From Table 2, Appendix E of 40 CFR 61, NESHAP, 1999 

(b) From Chapter 3 of DOE Order 5400.5, 1990, see Glossary, Appendix B for definition 

Point–Source (Stack) Sampler – Only one facility on the NTS, the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental 

Research (JASPER) facility in Area 27 (Figure 3-1), requires stack monitoring because it has the potential to emit 

airborne radionuclides that could result in an offsite radiation dose ≥ 0.1 mrem/yr. Air emissions from the facility are 

filtered through a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 

performs stack monitoring down-stream of the filter. Environmental sampling of air particulates adjacent to the 

facility is performed as stated in Section 3.1.2. If air concentrations of any man-made radionuclide were found above 

the minimum detectable concentration (MDC), (see Glossary, Appendix B) then an assessment of offsite dose to the 

public would be performed to determine NESHAP compliance and LLNL would investigate the cause of the 

emission and implement corrective actions. 

3.1.2 Air Particulate and Tritium Sampling Methods 

A weekly sample of airborne particulates was collected from each air sampling station by drawing air through a 

10-centimeter (cm) (4-inch [in.]) diameter glass-fiber filter at a constant flow rate of 85 liters per minute (L/min) (3 

cubic feet per minute). The particulate filter is mounted in a filter holder that faces downward at a height of 1.5 

meters (m) (5 feet [ft]) above ground. A run-time clock measures the operating time. The run time, multiplied by 

85 L/min yields the volume of air sampled, which is about 860 cubic m (m3) (30,000 cubic ft [ft3]) during a typical 

seven-day sampling period. The air sampling rates were measured at the start and end of each sampling period with a 

mass-flow meter. 

The 10-cm diameter filters were analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity after a five-day holding time to 

allow for the decay of the progeny of naturally-occurring radon and thoron. The filters from four weeks of sampling 

were composited, analyzed by gamma spectroscopy, and then analyzed for 239+240Pu and 241Am by alpha spectroscopy 

after radiochemical separation. To monitor for any potential emissions from tests using depleted uranium, the filter 

composites from Yucca (Area 6), Substation 3545 (Area 16), Gate 20-2p (Area 20), Gate 510 (Area 25), and Able Site 

(Area 27) were also analyzed for uranium isotopes by alpha spectroscopy. 

Tritiated water vapor in the form of 3H3HO or 3HHO (collectively referred to as HTO) was sampled continuously 

over two-week periods at each tritium sampling station. Tritium samplers were operated with elapsed time meters at a 

constant flow rate of 566 cubic centimeters per minute (1.2 ft3 per hour). The total volume sampled is determined 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-5

from the product of the sampling period and the flow rate (about 11 m3 [14.4 cubic yards] over a two-week sampling 

period). The HTO 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 first column and analyzed for 

tritium by liquid scintillation counting. In all cases measured activity in units per sample are converted to units per 

volume of air prior to analysis and reporting in the following sections. 

Routine quality control air samples (e.g., duplicates, blanks, and spikes) are also incorporated into the analytical suites 

on a frequent basis. The reader is directed to Section 18.0 for a discussion of quality assurance/quality control 

protocols and procedures utilized for radiological air monitoring. 

3.1.3 Presentation of Air Sampling Data 

The annual average concentration for each radionuclide at each sampling location is presented in data tables in the 

following results sections. The annual average concentration for each radionuclide was calculated from uncensored 

analytical results for individual samples; i.e., values less than the sample-specific MDC were included in the 

calculation. A column is included in each table indicating the percentage of the analytical results that were greater 

than their analysis-specific MDCs. 

Annual average concentrations are also expressed in the tables as percentages of the CL (the second column of 

Table 3-1). In graphs of concentration data, the CL or some percentage of the CL is included as a green horizontal 

line. The CL for each radionuclide was used instead of the DCG, as it was always the lesser of the two for those 

radionuclides for which these limits differed. The CL (or fraction thereof) is shown in graphs for reference only and 

not to demonstrate compliance with NESHAP dose limits; assessment of compliance is based upon annual average 

concentrations, not upon the single measurement results shown in the graphs. 

For convenience in reporting, values shown in the tables in the following result sections are frequently formatted to a 

greater number of significant digits than can be justified by the accuracy of the measurements, which is typically two 

significant figures (e.g., 2500, 25, 2.5, or 0.025). 

3.1.4 Air Sampling Results from Environmental Samplers 

With the exception of tritium concentrations at two air sampling stations near the Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Complex (RWMC) during one two-week sampling period (see Section 3.1.4.5), all elevated radionuclide 

concentrations in the 2005 air samples shown in the tables and graphs are attributed to the resuspension of legacy 

contamination in surface soils and to the evaporation and transpiration of tritium from the soil and plants at sites of 

past nuclear tests and of low-level radioactive waste burial. 

3.1.4.1 Americium-241 

During 2005, 35 percent of 241Am measurements exceeded their MDCs (see Table 3-2). This is slightly lower than for 

2004 (41 percent) and slightly higher than for 2003 (29 percent). The mean concentration over all locations was 

23 x 10-18 μCi/mL, which is somewhat higher than in recent years. This increase comes from elevated concentrations 

in the late summer at a few locations in Areas 1, 3, and 9, most notably Bunker 9-300; see Figure 3-2. The annual 

mean concentration at Bunker 9-300 was 230 x 10-18 μCi/mL, which is 12 percent of the compliance limit. 

Bunker 9-300 measurements in 2004 were in turn elevated compared with those in 2003. These increased 

measurements (as well as those of 238Pu, 239+240Pu, and gross alpha) are attributed to increased field activity resulting in 

resuspension of soils containing legacy plutonium contamination. 

 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2005 

 241Am (x 10-18 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

 % of 

CL (a) Median SD (b) Min (c) Max (d)

 Mean 

 MDC 

% > 

MDC 

1 BJY 12 32.58 1.7 13.97 57.29 -2.98 205.74 9.20 50.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 12 37.08 2.0 18.95 42.69 1.62 154.00 9.47 75.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 38.34 2.0 31.29 30.10 1.25 106.00 9.03 83.3 

3 U-3bh N 12 11.77 0.6 9.78 10.16 -3.23 33.60 9.98 50.0 

3 U-3bh S 12 10.38 0.5 11.47 9.49 -3.49 25.67 9.23 58.3 

5 DoD 12 2.19 0.1 1.77 3.33 -1.10 11.50 8.64 16.7 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 3.58 0.2 3.29 5.52 -7.26 17.60 10.94 16.7 

6 Yucca 12 4.43 0.2 2.29 4.91 -0.25 13.32 9.41 25.0 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 229.56 12.1 97.07 254.13 7.74 709.00 11.21 91.7 

10 Gate 700 S 12 3.18 0.2 3.94 2.60 -1.84 7.12 8.84 16.7 

10 Sedan N 12 19.75 1.0 10.78 22.40 -4.21 65.40 10.21 41.7 

16 3545 Substation 12 1.50 0.1 1.68 2.50 -4.19 4.88 8.44 16.7 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 3.72 0.2 2.55 4.17 -0.71 11.02 8.92 25.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 1.45 0.1 1.40 2.99 -3.11 7.89 7.33 8.3 

20 Schooner 12 4.76 0.3 2.89 6.39 -0.17 24.30 9.95 16.7 

23 Mercury Track 12 1.64 0.1 1.61 1.96 -2.38 5.05 8.69 12.5 

25 Gate 510 12 4.01 0.2 2.29 4.44 -1.20 11.56 7.49 16.7 

27 ABLE Site 12 1.69 0.1 -0.09 6.20 -6.27 18.34 10.03 8.3 

All Environmental Samplers 216 22.87 1.2 3.66 79.58 -7.26 709.00 9.28 35.0 

27 JASPER Stack 12 4.46 0.2 6.96 18.23 -20.85 33.12 104.51 0.0 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample-specific MDC. 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 3-1). 

(b) Standard deviation (c) Minimum (d) Maximum

Note: The CL for 241Am is 1,900 x 10-18 μCi/mL. 

Figure 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2005 

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations.

The orange-shaded location is a point-source sampler station.

Non-shaded locations are environmental sampler stations.

241Am

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

01-Jan-05

02-Apr-05

02-Jul-05

01-Oct-05

01-Jan-06

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

BJY

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

Bunker 9-300

Sedan N

Other

20% of CL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-7

3.1.4.2 Cesium-137 

During 2005, no 137Cs measurements exceeded their MDCs. Mean values for all environmental locations were near or 

slightly below zero. No plot is provided because of the low measurement levels (Table 3-3). 

Table 3-3. Concentrations of 137Cs in air samples collected in 2005

3.1.4.3 Plutonium Isotopes 

During 2005, 14.4 percent of 238Pu measurements exceeded their MDCs, a slightly higher proportion than in 2004. 

The overall mean concentration (2.9 x 10-18 μCi/mL) is modestly higher than in 2004 as well. This increase is due to 

the increased concentrations measured at Bunker 9-300 in Area 9; the annual mean at that location increased from 

5.6 to 19.8 x 10-18 μCi/mL; the means for 241Am, 239+240Pu, and gross alpha also increased at that location. The 

Bunker 9-300 mean is still only 0.9 percent of the CL (see Table 3-4 and Figure 3-3).

 137Cs (x 10-16 μCi/mL) 

Number 

NTS of Mean % >

Area Location Samples Mean 

% of 

 CL (a) Median SD (b) Min (c) Max (d) MDC MDC

1 BJY 12 0.67 0.4 -0.56 3.92 -2.44 12.30 7.38 0.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 12 -0.22 -0.1 0.24 2.18 -4.27 3.67 7.41 0.0 

3 U-3ah/at Ss 12 -0.58 -0.3 -0.55 2.54 -5.88 2.49 7.63 0.0 

3 U-3bh N 12 -0.59 -0.3 -0.18 3.55 -8.07 5.90 7.88 0.0 

3 U-3bh S 12 0.28 0.1 -0.78 2.46 -2.62 4.82 7.48 0.0 

5 DoD 12 -0.54 -0.3 -0.63 2.41 -5.05 5.39 7.09 0.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 -0.52 -0.3 -0.68 3.16 -6.15 5.77 8.51 0.0 

6 Yucca 12 -1.69 -0.9 -1.45 2.61 -8.22 2.33 7.25 0.0 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 0.71 0.4 0.44 2.74 -2.99 6.51 7.26 0.0 

10 Gate 700 S 12 -0.27 -0.1 0.80 2.80 -6.14 3.19 7.49 0.0 

10 Sedan N 12 0.64 0.3 0.99 1.94 -2.66 3.37 7.12 0.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 0.79 0.4 -0.47 3.61 -4.33 8.21 7.36 0.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 11 -0.90 -0.5 -0.20 2.68 -5.35 3.97 6.73 0.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 0.23 0.1 0.02 1.98 -2.25 4.83 7.48 0.0 

20 Schooner 12 0.03 0.0 -0.10 2.80 -4.33 3.96 7.24 0.0 

23 Mercury Track 10 -0.79 -0.4 -0.04 2.72 -6.89 2.78 8.09 0.0 

25 Gate 510 11 -0.51 -0.3 -1.17 2.15 -2.90 4.94 7.84 0.0 

27 ABLE Site 11 0.06 0.0 -0.24 2.68 -5.45 4.82 7.12 0.0 

All Environmental Samplers 211 -0.17 -0.1 -0.35 2.74 -8.22 12.30 7.46 0.0 

27 JASPER Stack 12 -10.04 -5.3 -9.72 25.41 -61.75 27.66 98.29 0.0 

Note: The CL for 137Cs is 190 x 10-16 μCi/mL.

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations. 

The orange-shaded location is a point-source sampler station. 

Non-shaded locations are environmental sampler stations. 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample-specific MDC. 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 3-1). 

(b) Standard deviation (c) Minimum (d) Maximum 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 3-4. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2005

 238Pu (x 10-18 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median SD (b) Min (c)

Max 

(d)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

1 BJY 12 3.71 0.2 2.48 8.45 -4.86 28.65 14.24 4.2 

3 U-3ah/at N 12 3.63 0.2 3.38 4.57 -1.96 12.90 9.78 33.3 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 5.97 0.3 6.16 4.95 -0.53 13.80 9.82 25.0 

3 U-3bh N 12 1.67 0.1 1.95 3.38 -3.97 7.61 11.38 16.7 

3 U-3bh S 12 1.67 0.1 1.29 2.83 -2.96 7.04 13.39 8.3 

5 DoD 12 2.21 0.1 0.29 4.99 -1.85 16.85 12.88 12.5 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 1.08 0.1 0.90 4.09 -4.65 9.53 18.25 8.3 

6 Yucca 12 1.54 0.1 0.88 3.25 -2.78 8.55 9.51 12.5 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 19.70 0.9 10.27 21.55 0.00 59.90 10.08 58.3 

10 Gate 700 S 12 0.99 0.0 -0.22 5.76 -4.68 17.10 15.92 4.2 

10 Sedan N 12 3.11 0.1 3.02 9.61 -23.06 14.20 17.39 25.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 2.87 0.1 1.31 5.01 -6.25 10.66 13.23 8.3 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 1.05 0.0 0.41 7.67 -14.35 20.49 11.05 8.3 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 -0.68 0.0 -0.48 1.60 -3.86 1.12 9.99 0.0 

20 Schooner 12 2.79 0.1 1.39 6.05 -4.50 18.80 12.80 25.0 

23 Mercury Track 12 -1.28 -0.1 -0.20 8.16 -25.59 6.61 15.37 8.3 

25 Gate 510 12 1.08 0.1 0.00 3.72 -4.17 9.42 9.88 0.0 

27 ABLE Site 12 -0.13 0.0 0.00 3.04 -6.71 5.21 11.23 0.0 

All Environmental Samplers 216 2.83 0.1 0.92 8.39 -25.59 59.90 12.57 14.4 

27 JASPER Stack 12 -8.99 -0.4 -4.74 11.28 -31.71 3.40 116.80 0.0 

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations. 

The orange-shaded location is a point-source sampler station.

Non-shaded locations are environmental sampler stations.

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample-specific MDC. 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 3-1). 

(b) Standard deviation (c) Minimum (d) Maximum

Note: The CL for 238Pu is 2,100 x 10-18 μCi/mL. 

Figure 3-3. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2005

238Pu

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

01-Jan-05

02-Apr-05

02-Jul-05

01-Oct-05

01-Jan-06

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

BJY

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

Bunker 9-300

Sedan N

Other

2% of CL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-9

The isotopes 239+240Pu (analytical methods cannot readily distinguish between these two) are of greater abundance and 

hence greater interest. Overall, 51.5 percent of measurements exceeded their MDCs, similar to the proportions in the 

past few years. The overall mean (148 x 10-18 μCi/mL) is considerably higher than in 2004 (48 x 10-18 μCi/mL), which 

is in turn slightly higher than 2003 but about the same as 2002. As with 241Am and 238Pu, this increase is attributed to 

resuspension of soil in Areas 1, 3, and 9. The annual mean at Bunker 9-300, the highest location, was 

1524 x 10-18 μCi/mL; this is 76 percent of the CL (see Table 3-5 and Figure 3-4 for 239+240Pu). 

Table 3-5. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2005 

 239+240Pu (x 10-18 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median SD (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

1 BJY 12 266.79 13.3 103.50 533.49 7.01 1926.48 13.19 91.7 

3 U-3ah/at N 12 225.61 11.3 120.41 254.11 5.84 897.00 10.70 91.7 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 280.75 14.0 211.54 248.71 2.97 843.00 11.18 83.3 

3 U-3bh N 12 71.47 3.6 45.64 60.02 7.02 179.00 13.06 91.7 

3 U-3bh S 12 78.00 3.9 86.89 63.05 3.80 195.50 12.94 75.0 

5 DoD 12 5.59 0.3 3.27 14.99 -6.83 50.80 14.48 16.7 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 26.15 1.3 13.14 42.60 0.46 153.00 11.76 50.0 

6 Yucca 12 16.08 0.8 7.50 25.01 -4.46 88.90 9.91 37.5 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 1525.80 76.3 767.68 1585.42 57.13 4130.00 10.87 100.0 

10 Gate 700 S 12 21.00 1.1 11.62 31.10 -0.88 114.20 13.42 45.8 

10 Sedan N 12 121.87 6.1 42.40 166.31 -6.58 456.00 18.07 75.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 3.23 0.2 3.30 2.69 0.00 7.99 13.57 0.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 15.16 0.8 9.92 16.04 -1.37 47.63 11.16 66.7 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 1.88 0.1 2.16 3.69 -6.20 6.67 9.55 20.8 

20 Schooner 12 2.56 0.1 2.47 8.95 -18.57 22.60 13.01 16.7 

23 Mercury Track 12 0.30 0.0 0.35 5.98 -12.77 8.78 15.17 16.7 

25 Gate 510 12 2.99 0.1 2.24 4.44 -3.14 14.23 6.99 25.0 

27 ABLE Site 12 2.48 0.1 3.00 3.11 -4.40 6.60 10.06 16.7 

All Environmental Samplers 216 148.21 7.4 7.83 521.80 -18.57 4130.00 12.17 51.2 

27 JASPER Stack 12 14.02 0.7 6.02 54.33 -96.35 142.26 107.06 0.0 

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations.

The orange-shaded location is a point-source sampler station.

Non-shaded locations are environmental sampler stations.

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample-specific MDC. 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 3-1). 

(b) Standard deviation 

(c) Minimum 

(d) Maximum 

Note: The CL for 239+240Pu is 2,000 x 10-18 μCi/mL. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 3-4. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2005 

The time series plots for 241Am, 238Pu, and 239+240Pu at Bunker 9-300 in Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 are highly correlated. 

This is because 241Am is the long-lived daughter product obtained when 241Pu (a short-lived isotope created along with 

the more common Pu isotopes) decays by beta emission. Hence both 239+240Pu and 241Am (and also 238Pu) tend to be 

found together in particles of Pu remaining from past nuclear tests. The half-life of 241Pu is 14.4 years, whereas that 

of 241Am is 433 years; consequently the concentrations of 241Am in NTS soils will gradually increase for about 80 years 

and then decrease. These isotopes are made airborne by soil disturbances. 

Figure 3-5 shows long-term trends in 239+240Pu annual mean concentrations at locations with at least 14-year data 

histories since 1971. Estimated average annual rates of decline for the groups of NTS areas shown in that figure 

range from 3.6 percent for Areas 1 and 3 to 17.2 percent for Areas 18, 19, and 20. The slowest rates of decline of 

locations currently monitored are 1.5 percent per year at U-3ah/at N and 1.6 percent per year at Bunker 9-300. Rates 

at other locations range up to 9.8 percent per year. These rates are all considerably faster than can be attributed to 

radioactive decay, as the half-lives of 239Pu and 240Pu are 24,110 and 6537 years, respectively. The decreases are 

therefore attributed to immobilization of Pu particles in soil and/or decrease in activities that result from soil 

resuspension. (The half life of the relatively less abundant 238Pu is 88 years.) 

239+240Pu

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

01-Jan-05

02-Apr-05

02-Jul-05

01-Oct-05

01-Jan-06

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

BJY

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

Bunker 9-300

Sedan N

Other

CL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-11

239+240Pu Trends by Area Group

Average Trend Lines for Locations With at Least 14-Year Histories

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Annual Mean (x 10 -18 μCi/mL)

A1,3

A2,4,12,16

A5 non-RWMC

A5 RWMC

A6,11

A7,9,10,15

A18,19,20

A23

A25,27

10% of CL

Figure 3-5. Long-term trends in average annual mean 239+240Pu for NTS 

area groups 

3.1.4.4 Uranium Isotopes 

Uranium analyses were performed for samples from only those locations in Areas 20 and 25 where depleted uranium 

ordinances have been used during exercises. The annual mean concentrations for uranium isotopes, measured in air 

samples collected at these locations and analyzed by radiochemistry, are shown in Table 3-6. Note that the scale 

factor in Table 3-6 is the same for 233+234U and 238U, but an order of magnitude lower for 235+236U. Ninety-eight and 

100 percent of the 233+234U and 238U measurements exceeded their MDCs, respectively; that proportion is 53 percent 

for 235+236U. These are very close to the 2004 proportions. Mean concentrations of these isotopes are likewise very 

similar to those for 2004, but higher than the mean values for the preceding three years. The mean concentrations 

remain less than 3 percent of the CLs for 233+234U and 238U, and at most 0.3 percent of the CL for 235+236U. 

Table 3-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2005 

 233+234U (x 10-17 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median SD (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

6 Yucca 12 17.75 2.5 18.28 4.13 11.60 26.59 3.60 91.7 

16 3545 Substation 12 18.77 2.6 17.55 3.35 14.65 24.30 2.36 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 18.55 2.6 18.71 4.69 12.05 25.30 1.86 100.0 

25 Gate 510 12 19.54 2.8 18.51 5.08 15.81 34.41 2.43 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 12 18.28 2.6 18.25 2.71 13.21 21.95 1.96 100.0 

 All Locations 60 18.58 2.6 18.19 3.99 11.60 34.41 2.44 98.3 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 3-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2005 (continued) 

The ratios of the isotope concentrations are given in Table 3-7, and Table 3-8 presents the expected values of those 

ratios for uranium from different sources. Means of both the 238U/233+234U and 238U/235+236U ratios are below the 

expected value for natural uranium in the direction of enriched uranium, the former slightly and the latter 

considerably. Because of the larger degree of uncertainty associated with measurements of the very low 

concentrations of 235+236U, the former mean ratio is taken to be a more reliable indication of the source of the 

uranium, which appears to be largely natural with perhaps a small proportion of enriched uranium present. 

Table 3-7. Mean uranium isotope ratios from air samples collected in 2005 

NTS Estimated Mean Isotope Ratios 

Area Location 238U / 233+234U 238U / 235+236U 

6 Yucca 1.046 16.29 

16 3545 Substation 0.972 11.69 

20 Gate 20-2P 0.889 20.83 

25 Gate 510 0.962 12.30 

27 ABLE Site 0.984 15.02 

 All Locations 0.969 15.37 

 235+236U (x 10-18 μCi/mL)

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

6 Yucca 12 18.38 0.3 12.10 17.45 3.85 70.43 27.82 45.8 

16 3545 Substation 12 18.51 0.3 17.78 8.62 7.56 37.97 19.64 58.3 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 15.47 0.2 15.15 9.33 1.53 30.47 17.98 54.2 

25 Gate 510 12 20.64 0.3 15.93 15.89 8.82 62.36 21.28 62.5 

27 ABLE Site 12 13.00 0.2 11.63 8.53 -3.66 29.07 16.66 45.8 

 All Locations 60 17.20 0.2 14.50 12.44 -3.66 70.43 20.68 53.3 

 238U (x 10-17 μCi/mL)

6 Yucca 11 18.57 2.2 18.80 2.34 13.67 21.55 2.43 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 17.99 2.2 18.26 1.94 14.86 22.30 2.09 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 15.86 1.9 17.25 2.99 10.30 19.40 2.15 100.0 

25 Gate 510 12 18.17 2.2 18.30 3.55 11.58 23.69 2.45 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 12 17.89 2.2 18.28 2.27 14.63 21.15 1.52 100.0 

 All Locations 59 17.68 2.1 18.00 2.76 10.30 23.69 2.12 100.0 

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations.

Non-shaded locations are environmental sampler stations.

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC.

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 3-1).

(b) Standard deviation

(c) Minimum

(d) Maximum

Note: The CL for 233+234U is about 710 x 10-17 μCi/mL.

Note: The CL for 235+236U is about 7,100 x 10-18 μCi/mL. 

Note: The CL for 238U is 830 x 10-17 μCi/mL. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-13

Table 3-8. Expected ratios of uranium isotopes by type of source 

Expected Isotope Ratios Source 238U / 233+234U 238U / 235+236U 

Natural ~1 ~21 

Enriched ~0.1 ~5 

Depleted ~1 ~62 

3.1.4.5 Tritium 

Measurements of tritium in air vary widely across the NTS. Overall 46 percent of 3H measurements are above their 

MDCs; this proportion ranges from 100 percent at Schooner, 92 percent at E Tunnel Pond, and over 60 percent at 

U-3ah/at S, DoD, and Sedan N to less than 10 percent at Little Feller 2 N and Gate 510. The spatial patterns are very 

similar to those observed in 2004 with two exceptions to be discussed below. See Table 3-9 for summary statistics. 

The highest mean concentration was found at Schooner (331 x 10-6 pCi/mL). The next highest is 9.2 x 10-6 pCi/mL 

at Sedan N, considerably lower. These data are shown in Figure 3-6. Note that the Schooner values are plotted at 

one-tenth their actual values in order to allow the variation at other locations to be visible. The Schooner annual 

mean is 22 percent of the CL. The mean concentrations at other locations are at most 0.6 percent of the CL. 

Table 3-9. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2005 

 3H Concentration (x 10-6 pCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

 CL (a) Median SD (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean 

MDC 

% >

MDC

1 BJY 25 1.23 0.1 0.94 0.96 -0.13 2.90 1.03 56.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 24 1.59 0.1 1.32 1.28 -0.35 3.91 1.08 66.7 

3 U-3bh N 26 1.12 0.1 1.05 0.93 -0.36 3.14 1.08 38.5 

5 DoD 25 3.25 0.2 1.48 9.25 -0.27 47.40 1.21 70.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 26 2.70 0.2 1.67 5.70 -0.29 30.10 1.17 61.5 

6 Yucca 26 0.49 0.0 0.57 0.49 -0.44 1.51 1.08 19.2 

9 Bunker 9-300 26 2.84 0.2 2.37 2.49 -0.62 7.17 1.03 69.2 

10 Gate 700 S 25 0.72 0.0 0.55 0.58 -0.25 1.84 1.02 36.0 

10 Sedan N 26 9.20 0.6 7.01 8.76 0.00 28.41 1.02 76.9 

12 E Tunnel Pond 2 24 2.94 0.2 3.11 1.57 0.11 5.65 0.97 91.7 

16 3545 Substation 26 0.29 0.0 0.20 0.50 -0.59 1.37 0.99 19.2 

18 Little Feller 2 N 26 0.26 0.0 0.36 0.46 -0.61 1.20 0.97 7.7 

20 Gate 20-2P 26 0.37 0.0 0.30 0.44 -0.28 1.32 0.95 19.2 

20 Schooner 26 330.54 22.0 155.50 360.38 11.13 1049.90 0.96 100.0 

23 Mercury Track 26 0.42 0.0 0.50 0.53 -0.68 1.56 1.07 15.4 

25 Gate 510 26 0.28 0.0 0.34 0.45 -0.62 1.17 1.16 3.8 

 All Environmental Samplers 409 22.74 1.5 0.85 120.09 -0.68 1049.90 1.05 46.6 

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations.

Non-shaded locations are environmental sampler stations.

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample-specific MDC. 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 3-1). 

(b) Standard deviation 

(c) Minimum 

(d) Maximum 

Note: The CL for 3H is 1,500 x 106 pCi/mL . 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

 Figure 3-6. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2005 

 and Pahute Mesa air temperature 

The tritium found at Schooner, Sedan N, and E Tunnel Pond comes primarily from tritium used in past nuclear tests. 

During detonations, the 3H is oxidized into tritiated water, which remains in the ejecta from the craters and the rubble 

in tunnel shafts until it evaporates. The rate of evaporation increases as the temperature increases during the summer 

months, with some lag to allow for heating of the soil; conversely, rainfall can temporarily suppress the evaporation by 

saturating the soil and diluting the surface moisture with rain water. Figure 3-6 shows the relationship between 3H 

measurements and the average daily temperature at Pahute Mesa, where Schooner is located; Figure 3-7 shows the 

time and amount of precipitation events in that area. 

Figure 3-7. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2005 

and Pahute Mesa precipitation

3

H and Pahute Mesa Temperature

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

01-Jan-05

02-Apr-05

02-Jul-05

01-Oct-05

01-Jan-06

Collection Date

x 10-6 pCi/mL

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

oF

Schooner x 0.1

Sedan N

DoD

Sugar Bunker N

Other

5% of CL

Temperature

3

H and Pahute Mesa Precipitation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

01-Jan-05

02-Apr-05

02-Jul-05

01-Oct-05

01-Jan-06

Collection Date

x 10-6 pCi/mL

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

inches

Schooner x 0.1

Sedan N

DoD

Sugar Bunker N

Other

5% of CL

Precipitation
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-15

During the final two-week period of 2005, elevated measurements of 3H occurred at Sugar Bunker N and DoD 

(Figures 3-6 and 3-7). These corresponded in time with the discovery of a low-level waste container with a 3/8- x 8-

in. hole in its side at the Area 5 RWMS. Radiological contamination was discovered around the container. No 

personnel contamination occurred and all standard procedures were followed to prevent the further release of 

radioactivity from the breached container. The event did not meet the reporting criteria for environmental 

occurrences according to DOE M 231.1-2, Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations Information. It is anticipated 

that the environmental tritium levels will return promptly to their ambient values. However, these elevated values did 

boost the yearly mean values for those locations somewhat over their 2004 values, but not substantially above the 

mean values obtained at Bunker 9-300 and E Tunnel Pond, and well below the mean values obtained at Sedan N and 

Schooner. 

Figure 3-8 shows long-term trends for the annual means of all locations with at least seven-year histories since 1987, 

color-coded by NTS area. The early observations between 1982 and 1987 were obtained from previous annual 

reports, in which a number of values were reported as “<xx”, where xx was an average of actual values (when 

measurements were above their sample-specific MDCs) and of sample MDC values (when measurements were below 

their MDCs). Beginning with 1988, the current practice of using all measured values whether above the MDC or not 

was adopted. The air sampler at Schooner was added in 1998; it first appeared in these long-term trend plots in the 

2004 NTS environmental report (DOE, 2005a). 

At most locations, the 3H measurements have been decreasing fairly rapidly from year to year; the average decline rate 

is 16.4 percent per year across all locations. This varies from 5.5 percent per year at BJY in Area 1 to an average of 

36 percent per year in Areas 23 and 25. The exception is Schooner, where on average it has been increasing at an 

average rate of 12 percent per year. 

During 1998 a more efficient sampling system (molecular sieve) was incorporated. The trend plots and decline rates 

presented here are not adjusted for the impact of this more efficient system. If they were, the decline rates would 

average around 19 percent per year, ranging from 12 percent at BJY to 36 percent in Areas 23 and 25 (data from these 

areas pre-date this change). The rate of increase at Schooner would fall to around 8 percent per year. 

Figure 3-8. Average long-term trends in tritium at locations on the 

NTS having at least 7 years of data 

3

H Annual Mean Long-Term Trends

All Locations With at Least 7-Year Histories Since 1987

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

A1

A5 RWMC

A10,12,15

A20

A23,25

CL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

3.1.4.6 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta 

The concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected from all environmental 

samplers in 2005 are shown in Tables 3-10 and 3-11 and Figures 3-9 and 3-10. Since these radioactivities include 

naturally-occurring 40K, 7Be, uranium, thorium, and the daughter isotopes of uranium and thorium in unknown 

proportions, a meaningful CL can not be constructed. These analyses are useful in that they can be performed by 

field personnel at NTS five days after collection to identify any increases requiring investigation. 

Overall, 37 percent of gross alpha measurements exceeded their MDCs, somewhat higher than in 2004. The overall 

mean measurements are about the same as in 2004, however. The biggest increase in measurements over 2004 is 

found at Bunker 9-300; this corresponds to the increased concentrations of 241Am, 238Pu, and 239+240Pu present during 

the summer. This increase reverses the generally decreasing trend since 2001 at this location. 

With the exception of the specific peaks associated with locations identified in color in Figure 3-9, the dominant 

feature of the gross alpha data is the way in which the measurements for all locations tend to rise and fall in parallel. 

This phenomenon has become rather less pronounced in recent years than it was previously. Also, the proportions of 

values exceeding their MDCs and the mean values have generally both declined since 2001, with the exception of the 

anomalies occurring in 2005 at the stations identified in color in Figure 3-9. 

Nearly all of the gross beta measurements exceeded their MDCs in 2005, as in 2004. The mean value is near the 

same, and there are few outstanding values to highlight in Figure 3-10. The week-to-week parallel variation is much 

more pronounced with gross beta than with gross alpha, continuing the pattern of prior years. 

Table 3-10. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2005 

The orange-shaded location is a point-source sampler station.

Non-shaded locations are environmental sampler stations.

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample-specific MDC. 

(a) Standard deviation (b) Minimum (c) Maximum 

 Gross Alpha (x 10-16 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean Median SD (a) Min (b) Max (c)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC

1 BJY 52 26.29 25.02 21.99 -3.33 147.61 25.91 49.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 52 28.88 29.62 18.72 -4.44 107.49 25.43 55.8 

3 U-3ah/at S 52 34.50 31.16 21.77 -2.29 96.72 25.59 63.5 

3 U-3bh N 52 20.02 20.31 12.37 -3.94 47.91 25.39 32.7 

3 U-3bh S 52 20.66 18.88 12.61 -3.33 46.65 25.40 36.5 

5 DoD 52 19.83 19.27 10.92 -2.26 40.26 25.49 36.5 

5 Sugar Bunker N 48 40.20 43.43 21.57 -1.10 82.70 27.97 66.7 

6 Yucca 52 20.94 21.04 10.48 -4.45 49.02 25.31 34.6 

9 Bunker 9-300 52 54.68 31.28 59.67 0.00 281.55 25.33 61.5 

10 Gate 700 S 51 16.08 15.83 9.46 -2.22 36.82 26.27 18.6 

10 Sedan N 52 20.76 20.79 14.11 -1.12 69.83 25.39 32.7 

16 3545 Substation 52 16.49 16.64 11.63 -13.41 39.73 25.31 23.1 

18 Little Feller 2 N 50 17.04 16.93 9.65 -4.54 37.85 25.47 28.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 51 15.29 15.06 9.15 -3.38 37.58 25.90 19.6 

20 Schooner 51 17.33 15.56 10.31 1.14 40.16 25.42 31.4 

23 Mercury Track 51 15.42 14.67 9.78 -3.48 39.78 25.94 19.6 

25 Gate 510 50 16.80 16.70 10.73 -3.31 40.61 25.14 28.0 

27 ABLE Site 52 16.32 17.60 10.54 -4.54 41.74 26.16 23.1 

All Environmental Samplers 924 23.18 19.81 21.96 -13.41 281.55 25.70 36.7 

27 JASPER Stack 47 76.08 12.67 252.44 -214.25 1410.79 425.18 6.4 

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations.
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-17

Table 3-11. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2005 

 Gross Beta (x 10-15 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean Median SD (a) Min (b) Max (c)

Mean 

MDC 

% >

MDC

1 BJY 52 18.30 18.81 6.36 5.45 36.10 4.14 100.0

3 U-3ah/at N 52 18.80 18.71 6.44 6.17 35.64 4.04 100.0

3 U-3ah/at S 52 19.05 18.51 6.65 5.72 35.73 4.07 100.0

3 U-3bh N 52 18.35 17.83 6.34 4.76 35.32 4.03 100.0

3 U-3bh S 52 18.63 18.47 6.55 5.94 34.86 4.04 100.0

5 DoD 52 19.79 19.55 7.05 6.83 42.19 4.05 100.0

5 Sugar Bunker N 48 22.51 20.95 8.08 7.23 46.63 4.46 100.0

6 Yucca 52 19.15 18.73 6.62 6.66 36.48 4.03 100.0

9 Bunker 9-300 52 18.04 17.77 6.35 3.86 35.30 4.03 98.1

10 Gate 700 S 51 18.25 18.20 6.33 5.79 36.46 4.20 100.0

10 Sedan N 52 17.92 17.85 5.95 4.95 33.37 4.04 100.0

16 3545 Substation 52 17.29 17.33 5.73 6.56 31.02 4.03 100.0

18 Little Feller 2 N 50 17.47 17.16 5.76 5.13 31.95 3.99 100.0

20 Gate 20-2P 51 17.76 17.34 6.15 5.12 33.10 4.06 98.0

20 Schooner 51 18.22 17.31 7.02 4.38 38.57 3.99 100.0

23 Mercury Track 51 18.65 18.48 6.73 6.40 42.48 4.13 100.0

25 Gate 510 51 18.51 18.54 6.46 3.65 40.61 4.18 98.0

27 ABLE Site 52 17.98 18.52 6.73 5.75 38.63 4.15 100.0

All Environmental Samplers 925 18.58 18.38 6.56 3.65 46.63 4.09 99.7

27 JASPER Stack 47 -13.14 -6.03 65.15 -295.23 147.20 68.36 4.3

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations. 

The orange-shaded location is a point-source sampler station.

Non-shaded locations are environmental sampler stations. 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample-specific MDC. 

(a) Standard deviation (b) Minimum (c) Maximum

Figure 3-9. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2005 

Gross Alpha

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

01-Jan-05

02-Apr-05

02-Jul-05

01-Oct-05

01-Jan-06

Collection Date

x 10-15 μCi/mL

BJY

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

Bunker 9-300

Sedan N

Other
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 3-10. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2005 

3.1.5 Air Sampling Results from Critical Receptor Samplers 

The following radionuclides were detected at three or more of the critical receptor samplers: 241Am, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 

233+234U, 235+236U, 238U, and 3H (tritium) (see Tables 3-2, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-9, respectively). All concentrations of 

these radionuclides were well below their CLs. The uranium isotopes are attributed to naturally-occurring uranium 

(see Section 3.1.4.4). The concentration of each measured radionuclide (excluding uranium, since it has been 

determined to be of natural origin) at each of the six critical receptor samplers was divided by its respective CL 

(see Table 3-1) to obtain a “fraction of CL.” These fractions were then summed for each location. The sum of these 

fractions at each critical receptor sampler is less than 1.0 (Table 3-12). The NESHAP dose limit to the public of 

10 mrem/yr was not exceeded. A hypothetical individual residing at Schooner would receive a CEDE of 

2.3 mrem/yr. 

Table 3-12. Sum of percents of compliance levels for radionuclides detected at critical receptor samplers 

Radionuclides Included in 

Sum of Percents(a)

NTS 

Area Location 

Sum of Fractions of Compliance 

Levels (CLs) 

6 Yucca 0.012 

10 Gate 700 S 0.013 

16 3545 Substation 0.004 

20 Schooner 0.23(b)

23 Mercury 0.002 

241Am, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 3H 

25 Gate 510 0.004 

(a) 233+234U, 235+236U, and 238U are not included in sum of percents. All or nearly all uranium detected in air 

particulate samples was determined to be naturally-occurring, based on the isotopic ratios. 

(b) This equates to a hypothetical receptor at this location receiving a CEDE of 2.3 mrem/yr. 

Gross Beta

0

1

2

3

4

5

01-Jan-05

02-Apr-05

02-Jul-05

01-Oct-05

01-Jan-06

Collection Date

x 10-14 μCi/mL

Sugar B

Schooner

Sugar B
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-19

3.1.6 Air Sampling Results from Point-Source (Stack) Sampler 

The 2005 air samples from the stack sampler at the JASPER facility contained no man-made radionuclides above their 

MDCs (see Tables 3-2 through 3-5). The HEPA filters at the facility appeared to function as intended; therefore, no 

radionuclide emission rate or offsite dose was calculated for this potential NTS radiation source (see Section 8.0). 

3.1.7 Emission Evaluations for Planned Projects 

In 2005, several planned projects were evaluated to determine if they have the potential to release airborne 

radionuclides which would expose the public to a dose greater than 0.1 mrem/yr (0.001 mSv/yr). For any project or 

facility with this potential, the EPA requires point-source operational monitoring like that conducted at the JASPER facility. 

These projects are listed below. Evaluations were performed using the EPA-approved atmospheric diffusion model 

called the Clean Air Package 1988, Versions 2.0 or 3.0 (CAP88-PC). CAP88-PC computes the CEDE (see Glossary, 

Appendix B) for an offsite maximally exposed individual (MEI) from air emissions, in mrem/yr. The CEDE to the 

MEI for all these projects were well below the limit of 0.1 mrem/yr. The detailed air emission dose evaluations for each 

project are presented in Grossman (2006). 

• Use of special nuclear materials at the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex 

under construction in Area 6 

• Removal of approximately 12,600 m3 of soil from the CLEAN SLATE II site at the Tonopah Test Range 

• Demolition of a radiation shield wall at the Area 25 Test Cell A facility 

• Release of radioactive material at the Area 25 MX Race Track (project is now scheduled for 2006 in Area 14) 

• Removal and burial at the NTS of several cubic meters of soil near the Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and 

Disassembly facility in Area 25 which contains 90Sr, 137Cs, 234U, and 235U 

• Series of experiments by the Dense Plasma Focus project in Area 11, Building 11-103 

• Installation and use of a down-draft table in Building 6-353 at the Area 6 Device Assembly Facility (DAF) for 

the assembly of diagnostic packages containing 239+240Pu 

3.1.8 Unplanned Releases 

During June 2005, 31 wild fires were started by lightning strikes on the NTS in portions of Areas 14, 25, 27, 29, and 

30 (BN, 2006c). High-volume air samplers were deployed at appropriate areas to supplement the routine air sampling 

network. No man-made radionuclides were detected in any of the air samples above concentrations normally 

observed. These fires did not occur in areas with the highest concentrations of legacy radioactivity in soil. An 

evaluation was performed to estimate the onsite and offsite radiation doses that could occur if the fires spread into an 

area of high surface contamination, such as the SMOKY site in Area 8. The estimated radiation dose 4 kilometers 

(km) (2.5 miles [mi]) downwind of the SMOKY site would be 1 mrem, and the highest offsite dose would only be 

about 0.1 mrem at 40 km (24.8 mi) from the SMOKY site. This finding helps alleviate apprehensions that 

radioactivity released from wild fires on the NTS would result in hazards offsite. 

3.1.9 Total NTS Radiological Atmospheric Releases 

Each year, all existing operations and new construction projects and modifications to existing facilities involving the 

use of radioactive materials are reviewed to identify those operations that can result in airborne emissions of 

radioactivity. The following are measured or calculated to obtain the total annual quantity of radiological atmospheric 

releases from the NTS: 

• The quantity of tritium gas released during the calibration of laboratory equipment 

• The quantity of tritium released through evaporation from containment ponds or open tanks, estimated from the 

measured tritium concentrations in water discharged into them and assuming that all water is completely 

evaporated during the year 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

• The quantity of tritium released from the Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs and from Schooner and Sedan crater sites, 

estimated using: (1) the EPA-approved atmospheric diffusion model called CAP88-PC, and (2) the annual mean 

concentration of tritium in air measured by environmental air samplers at locations near these sources 

• The quantity of other radionuclides resuspended in air from areas of known soil contamination, calculated from 

an inventory of radionuclides in surface soil determined by the Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program 

(McArthur, 1991), a re-suspension model (Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC], 1983), and equation 

parameters derived at the NTS (DOE, 1992) 

Emission sources identified in 2005 were: 

• The release of tritium during the calibration of equipment at Building 650, Area 23 

• The evaporation of tritiated water discharged from E Tunnel and a post-shot well (U-20n PS #1DD-H) 

• The evaporation of tritiated water removed from the basement of Building A-1 at the North Las Vegas Facility 

and transported to the NTS for disposal in the Area 5 Sewage Lagoon 

• The evaporation and transpiration of tritiated water from soil and vegetation, respectively, at sites of past nuclear 

tests and from the Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs 

• The re-suspension of surface soil contaminated by past nuclear testing at NTS 

Table 3-13 presents the radionuclide emission rates (in Ci/yr) at these identified source locations. Brief descriptions 

of the methods used for estimating these quantities are given in the table footnotes. More detailed descriptions are 

reported in Grossman (2006). In the last row of the table, the total amounts of 241Am and 239+240Pu emissions from 

soil re-suspension are presented. They are the sum of emission rates computed for each area of the NTS with surface 

contamination (Areas 1-11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 30). Other radionuclides (60Cs, 90Sr, 137Cs, 152Eu, 154Eu, 

155Eu, and 238Pu), although found in surface soils during past radiation surveys, were not included since combined, 

they contributed only ten percent or less to the total MEI dose. 

 Table 3-13. Radiological atmospheric releases from NTS for 2005 

Source Radionuclide Emission Rate (Ci/yr) 

Area 23 Building 650 3H 0.000014(a)

Area 12 E Tunnel Ponds 3H 17(b)

Well U-20n PS #1DD-H 3H 3.5(b)

Area 5 Sewage Lagoon 3H 0.00037(b)

Area 3 RWMS 3H 57(c) 

Area 5 RWMS 3H 8.9(c)

Area 10 Sedan 3H 45(c)

Area 20 Schooner 3H 40(c)

All Sources Total 3H 170 

Grouped NTS Areas Total 241Am 0.047(d)

Grouped NTS Areas Total 239+240Pu 0.29(d)

(a) Quantity of tritium gas released during the calibration of laboratory equipment. 

(b) Estimated from 3H concentration in water discharged into containment ponds or open tanks, assuming all water completely evaporated. 

(c) Estimated from calculations with CAP88-PC and annual mean concentration of 3H in air measured by air sampling at a location near the 

emission source. 

(d) Calculated from inventory of radionuclides in surface soil determined by Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program (McArthur, 

1991), a re-suspension model (NRC, 1983), and equation parameters derived at the NTS (DOE, 1992).

3.1.10 Environmental Impact 

The concentrations of man-made radionuclides in air on the NTS were all less than the regulatory concentration limits 

specified by federal regulations. Long-term trends of 239+240Pu and tritium in air continue to show a decline with time. 

Nearly all radionuclides detected by environmental air samplers in 2005 appear to be from legacy deposits of 

radioactivity on and in the soil from past nuclear tests. There was no significant contribution to radioactive air 

emissions from NTS operational facilities in 2005. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-21

3.2 Non-Radiological Air Quality Assessment 

Non-radiological air quality assessments1 are conducted to document compliance with current state of Nevada air 

quality permits that regulate specific operations or facilities on the NTS. The state of Nevada has adopted the CAA 

standards which include NESHAP, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) (see Section 2.1). Therefore, requirements set forth in the NTS air permit issued by 

the state are also in compliance with these national standards. Specifically omitted from this section is NESHAP 

compliance for radionuclide emissions, which is presented in Section 3.1. In 2005, assessments, facility/equipment 

monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting activities related to air quality on the NTS were conducted by BN ES 

personnel to meet the program goals shown in the table below. BN ES personnel collected and tracked the 

compliance measures shown in the table below. 

There is one current NTS air quality permit, which is listed below along with the NTS facilities it regulates. 

NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit AP9711-0549.01 

• Over 30 facilities/pieces of equipment in Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 23 

• NPTEC in Area 5 

• Test Cell C Facility in Area 25 

• Big Explosives Experimental Facility 

• Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit 

In June 2004, a Class II/Temporary General Air Quality Operating Permit was issued for the placement of a 

screening and crushing plant in Area 6 at the NTS. In August 2005, the screening and crushing plant was added 

to the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit. The Class II/Temporary General Air Quality Operating 

Permit was then cancelled. 

 

1The word “assessment” versus “monitoring” is used in this section. Adherence to most non-radiological air quality standards on

the NTS does not require field collection and analysis of air samples (activities called “monitoring” in this report). Instead, 

adherence to NTS air quality permits for non-radiological emissions usually involves the review of records, gathering of 

operational information, visible emissions evaluations, and calculation of emissions. 

Air Quality Assessment Program Goals Compliance Measures 

Ensure that NTS operations comply with all the 

requirements of current air quality permits issued by the 

state of Nevada for NTS operations. 

Ensure that air emissions of criteria pollutants (sulfur 

dioxide [SO2]), nitrogen oxides[NOX], carbon monoxide 

[CO], volatile organic compounds ([VOCs], and particulate 

matter do not exceed limits established under NAAQS. 

Ensure that NTS operations comply with the asbestos 

abatement reporting requirements under NESHAP. 

Document usage of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to 

comply with Title VI of the CAA. 

Tons of emissions of criteria pollutants produced annually

 

Gallons of fuel burned annually 

Hours of operation of equipment per year 

Rate at which aggregate and concrete is produced 

Quarterly opacity readings 

Pounds of chemicals released from Non-Proliferation Test 

and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC) facilities 

Amount of asbestos in existing structures removed or 

scheduled for removal 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Facilities regulated by the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit must adhere to the recordkeeping and 

operational requirements specified in the permit. Compliance is verified by conducting periodic site walk-downs, 

observations of equipment while in operation, and a review of the records associated with each permitted facility. A 

description of the various activities performed or measures tracked in order to meet permit requirements and the 

results of 2005 air quality activities are described below. 

3.2.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Along with each air quality permit issued, there is an Air Emissions Inventory which lists all permitted facilities and 

equipment and the quantities of criteria pollutants (see Glossary, Appendix B) as well as Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(HAPs) that each facility/piece of equipment would emit annually if it were operated for the maximum number of 

hours specified in the air permit. These quantities are known as the “Potential to Emit” (PTE). Lead is considered a 

HAP as well as a criteria pollutant. Emissions from lead are reported as part of the total HAPs emissions rather than 

as a separate criteria pollutant. Compliance with permits involves documenting that the PTE for all facilities or 

equipment is not exceeded. Quantities of emissions of criteria pollutants and non-radiological HAPs produced by 

each permitted facility are determined through calculations that take into account the number of operating hours, 

emissions controls, number of gallons of fuel burned, number of tons of material that were produced, and emission 

factors. Emission factors are representative values that relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere to 

an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. These factors are generally expressed as the weight of the 

pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume, distance, or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant; e.g., pounds of 

particulates emitted per ton of aggregate material produced. Emission factors have been developed for many different 

types of industries and activities and are published by the EPA in a document titled Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors (EPA, 1995). The emission factors that were used in the NTS air quality operating permits are derived from 

this source and from the state’s listing of “default emission factors.” 

Each year, the state issues to NNSA/NSO Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Forms for the NTS air permit to 

NNSA/NSO. These forms are used to report the actual hours of operation, gallons of fuel burned, etc. for each 

permitted facility/piece of equipment. Using these data and emission factors furnished by the state, emissions of the 

criteria pollutants and HAPs are calculated and reported along with the other required information mentioned above. 

The forms wee completed by BN ES personnel and returned to NNSA/NSO for submittal to the state. The state 

uses the submitted information to determine annual maintenance and emissions fees and to document compliance 

with emission limits. 

Unless specifically exempted, the open burning of any combustible refuse, waste, garbage, or oil; or for salvage 

operations, is prohibited. Open burning for other purposes, including personnel training, is allowed if approved in 

advance by the state (Nevada Administrative Code 445B.22067). Approval is denoted by the issuance of an Open 

Burn Variance prior to each burn. An exception to this is the Open Burn Variance issued to NNSA/NSO for fire 

extinguisher training at the NTS. This Open Burn Variance is renewed annually and requires 24-hour advance 

notification to the state prior to each burn. There are approximately 60 fire extinguisher training sessions conducted 

throughout the year. Quantities of criteria pollutants produced by open burns are not required to be calculated. 

In 2005, examination of records for permitted facilities and equipment indicated that all operational parameters were 

being properly tracked. Table 3-14 presents the calculated tons of emissions of criteria pollutants from NTS facilities 

that were operational during 2005. The PTEs for each facility are shown in Table 3-14 and were derived from the 

limits set forth in the NTS air quality permits. Approximately 3.66 tons (3.32 metric tons [mtons]) of criteria 

pollutants were emitted from NTS facilities and equipment during 2005. The majority of these emissions were VOCs 

from the NPTEC facilities. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 criteria air pollutant emissions released on the NTS in 2005 

Calculated Tons(a) of Emissions 

Particulate 

Matter 

(PM10)(b)

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) 

Nitrogen 

Oxides (NOx) 

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2) 

Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) 

Actual PTE(c) Actual PTE Actual PTE Actual PTE Actual PTE 

 0.37 6.14 NA(d) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

h Plant 0.14 2.04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

nt 0.28 18.54 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

s 0 3.06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

rushing 

0.01 0.16 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 fired) 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 

ssors 0 0.54 0 1.66 0 7.72 0 0.51 0 0.61 

ors 0.04 3.34 0.15 10.24 0.69 17.87 0.04 3.13 0.05 2.16 

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 2.0 

e Tank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.68 3.92 

age Tank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.02 0.02 

0 3.00 0 3.26 0 3.02 0 3.00 0.19 10 

s 

0 0.21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Pollutant 0.84 36.90 0.15 15.16 0.69 28.63 0.04 6.64 1.94 18.71 

missions 3.66 Actual, 106.04 PTE 

y tons by 0.9072 

equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 

the quantity of criteria pollutant that each facility/piece of equipment would emit annually if it were operated for the 

r of hours at the maximum production rate specified in the air permit 

ause the permit does not regulate the emissions of this pollutant for this facility 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 3-15 and Figure 3-11 show the tons of air pollutants released on the NTS since 1996. These numbers were 

derived from the Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Forms that are required to be submitted to the state 

annually. Prior to calendar year (CY) 2000, HAPS were not included in the Reporting Forms. HAPs are now 

reported for chemical releases and detonations; although HAPs are emitted from some other facilities and equipment, 

the quantities are negligible. Specific HAPs are not identified in the Reporting Forms. The quantity of HAPs released 

in 2005, as calculated in the Reporting Forms, was 0.05 tons (Table 3-15). 

The Calendar Year 2005 Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Form, containing the calculated emission totals for 2005 

was submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) on March 7, 2006. 

Table 3-15. Criteria air pollutants and HAPS released on the NTS since 1996 

 Total Emissions (tons/yr)(a)

Pollutant 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Particulate Matter (PM10)(b) 2.89 1.67 1.11 1.7 1.46 2.05 3.61 2.39 0.94 0.84 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.04 5.28 1.85 1.87 2.76 4.84 4.6 1.79 0.24 0.15 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 0.16 19.79 7.57 8.07 12.75 22.23 21.09 8.11 1.01 0.69 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.3 0.85 0.37 0.42 0.98 1.68 1.62 0.76 0.12 0.04 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 2.82 0.94 11.76 1.99 1.89 2.01 2.1 1.21 4.60 1.94 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) NR NR NR NR 0.01 0.03 0.01 0 0.41 0.05 

(a) For mtons, multiply tons by 0.9072 

(b) Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter

(c) Not reported

Figure 3-11. Criteria air pollutants released on the NTS since 1996 

Total Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants

0

5

10

15

20

25

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Tons

PM10

CO

NOx

SO2

VOCs
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-25 

3.2.2 Performance Emission Testing and State Inspection 

The NTS air permit requires performance emission testing of equipment that vents emissions through stacks (called 

“point sources”). The testing was a new requirement of the June 2004 renewed NTS air permit, and testing was 

initiated in June 2005. The tests must be conducted once during the five-year life of the NTS air permit for each 

specified source. Testing is conducted by inserting a probe into the stack while the equipment is operating to 

determine if the emissions are in compliance with the air permit limits. Visible emissions readings must also be 

conducted by a certified evaluator during the tests (see Section 3.2.4 for additional information). Three point source 

pieces of equipment failed the tests conducted in 2005 (Table 3-16). The Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control 

was notified of all equipment failures. The equipment was shut down and cannot be used again until it is repaired and 

retested. 

On June 8, the state of Nevada conducted an inspection of the Area 1 Aggregate Plant and the Area 23 Incinerator, in 

part, to observe the performance emission testing of these point sources. During the inspection, the incinerator, 

which failed the testing, was immediately shut down. A feasibility study was conducted and it was determined that it 

was not cost efficient to have the incinerator repaired and retested. The existing incinerator will be taken off the NTS 

air permit. No other exceedances were observed during the state inspection. 

Table 3-16. Emission performance testing in 2005 

Month and Point Sources Tested Results Corrective Action 

June 2005: 

 Area 1 Aggregate Plant Baghouse Passed None required 

 Area 3 Portable Stemming Baghouse Passed None required 

 Area 23 Incinerator Failed Shut down, to be removed from air permit, may be replaced 

 Device Assembly Facility (DAF) generator 

 (emission unit S2.107) 

Passed None required 

 DAF generator (emission unit S2.108) Failed Shut down, repaired, retested in March 2006, passed test 

 Area 6 dual-stack generator 

 (emission unit S2.105) 

Failed Shut down, to be repaired, scheduled for retesting in 

April 2006 

September 2005: 

 Area 6 Cementing Services Baghouses Passed None required 

 Area 1 Batch Plant Baghouse Passed None required 

3.2.3 Production Rates/Hours of Operation 

Compliance with operational parameters such as production rates and hours of operation is verified through an 

examination of the data generated by each facility owner for the annual report to the state. The number of hours that 

equipment operates throughout a year is determined either by reading meters that are located on each piece of 

equipment or by recording the operating hours in a logbook each time the equipment is operated. Permit 

requirements specific to each piece of equipment dictate the frequency in which readings are obtained. Production 

rates for construction facilities such as the aggregate-producing plant are calculated using the hours of operation and 

amount of material produced. Logbooks are maintained to record this information. Gallons of fuel used are 

calculated preferably by recording tank levels each time that the tank is filled. If this is not possible, then calculations 

are performed by using industry standards and the hours of operation. 

Production rates and hours of operation were computed for all permitted facilities in order to calculate the tons of air 

pollutants emitted in 2005, as shown in Table 3-15 above. The records examined for all permitted equipment and 

facilities indicated that the production rates, hours of operation, and gallons of fuel used by each were within the 

specified permit limits. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

3.2.4 Opacity Readings 

Under Title 40 CFR Part 60, personnel that conduct visible emissions evaluations to satisfy the opacity requirements 

for a facility or piece of equipment must be certified semi-annually by a qualified organization. A form similar to one 

appearing in Title 40 CFR Part 60 for conducting visible emissions evaluations is used to record and document the 

readings. The form requires that weather conditions, wind speeds, and other factors that could affect the readings be 

recorded. Visual readings are taken every 15 seconds. A minimum of 24 consecutive readings is required for a valid 

reading. The average of the 24 readings must not exceed the permit-specified limit (20 percent for NAAQS, 

10 percent for NSPS) to remain in compliance. The NTS air quality operating permit requires that readings be 

obtained once each quarter that the equipment is used. This applies to construction equipment only. No readings are 

required to be recorded for other permitted equipment such as the generators, compressors, and boilers. However, in 

order to determine compliance with either the 10 or 20 percent opacity limit, which is imposed on all equipment 

except operations pertaining to detonations or chemical releases, visual readings are taken on occasion but not 

recorded. 

During 2005, five BN personnel were certified by Carl Koontz Associates to conduct visible emissions evaluations 

(opacity readings). Opacity readings were obtained for the following NTS permitted facilities regulated under the 

NAAQS opacity limit of 20 percent: Area 23 Incinerator, Area 1 Concrete Batch Plant, Area 1 Wet Aggregate Plant, 

Area 6 Storage Silos, and the Portable Field Bins. Readings for these facilities ranged from 0 to 10 percent, all below 

the air quality permit limits of 20 percent. Readings were also obtained during performance emissions testing as a 

requirement of the NTS air quality operating permit for the facilities listed above as well as for the two Area 6 DAF 

diesel generators and an Area 6 dual-stack diesel generator. Readings for these facilities were below the 20 percent 

limit and ranged from 0 to 15 percent opacity. 

Equipment on the NTS that is regulated by the stricter 10 percent opacity limit includes miscellaneous conveyor belts, 

screens and hoppers, and also the Area 1 pugmill. None of this equipment was operated during 2005, so no opacity 

readings were required. 

3.2.5 NPTEC Reporting 

The NTS air quality operating permit for both the Area 5 NPTEC and the Area 25 Test Cell C facility requires, in 

addition to annual reporting, the submittal of test plans and final analysis reports to the state for each chemical release. 

Test plans provide detailed information regarding the types and quantities of chemicals to be released, a description of 

how they will be released, and environmental and chemical hazards. The Area 5 NPTEC and Area 25 Test Cell C 

facilities, by their nature as research facilities, provide no air quality controls. The impact of the chemical releases at 

both facilities is minimized by controlling the amount and duration of each release. When chemical release tests are 

conducted, plumes pass through an instrument array and impacts are confined to a defined area. Predictions of 

impacts for each test are reliable because of extensive meteorological data that are available on wind direction, wind 

speed, standard deviation of wind direction, vertical turbulence, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. In 

turn, post-release monitoring is used to document the degree of actual impact. Following each release, a completion 

report is submitted that documents the test dates, chemicals, and quantities that were actually released. 

In 2005, 3 chemical tests consisting of 19 releases were conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC and the Area 25 Test Cell C 

facility. They included: 

• Side Car Project (3 releases at Area 5 NPTEC) 

• Scorpion Project/Roadrunner IIIC (5 releases at Area 5 NPTEC, 2 releases at Area 25 Test Cell C facility) 

• Shrike Project (9 releases at Area 5 NPTEC) 

A completion report was submitted to NNSA/NSO for transmittal to NDEP’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control at the 

conclusion of each test. Tables 3-17 and 3-18 summarize the total quantities of all chemicals released during tests in 

2005. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-27 

Table 3-17. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC in 2005 

Chemical Total Amount Released (lbs)(a)

Dimethyl methylphosphonate 8.8 

Ammonia 7 

Carbon tetrachloride 75 

Diethyl ethylphosphonate 15 

Dimethyl methylphosphonate 6 

Ethyl acetate 16.52 

Freon 134A 6 

Isobutene 5 

Isopropanol 8 

Isopropyl alcohol 29 

Malathion 4.4 

Methanol 26 

Methyl acetate 8 

Methyl salicylate 8 

n-Butanol 5 

Nitric oxide 28.54 

Propylene 36 

Sodium cyanide 40 

Sulfur hexafluoride 71 

Thionyl chloride 43.04 

Triethyl phosphate 152 

(a) 1 pound (lb) = 0.456 kilograms (kg) 

Table 3-18. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 25 Test Cell C 

facility in 2005 

Chemical Total Amount Released (lbs)(a)

Ammonia 3.2 

Calcium hypochlorite 73.5 

(a) 1lb = 0.456 kg 

3.2.6 Tactical Demilitarization Development Project (TaDD) Reporting 

The TaDD is located in Area 11 at the NTS. This facility was developed as a prototype of a portable burn facility to 

dispose of unneeded Shillelagh tactical military rocket motors. As such, TaDD was added to the NTS air quality 

operating permit because of the emissions generated during each burn. Emissions are controlled by a baghouse, 

HEPA, and ultra high-efficiency filters. Permit requirements include annual reporting of hours of operation and 

emissions and an opacity limit of 20 percent. 

The TaDD facility has not been used due to lack of funding. It is listed in the renewed air permit with zero allowable 

operating hours and is expected to be removed from the air permit in 2006. 

3.2.7 ODS Recordkeeping 

ODS recordkeeping requirements applicable to NTS operations include maintaining, for a minimum of three years, 

evidence of technician certification, recycling/recovery equipment approval, and servicing records for appliances 

containing 22.7 kg (50 lbs) or more of refrigerant. Compliance with recordkeeping and certification requirements for 

the use and disposition of ODS is verified through periodic assessments. The assessments include a records review 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-28 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

and interviews with managers and technicians associated with the use, disposition, and purchase of refrigerants. 

Under Section 608 of the CAA, EPA may conduct random inspections to determine compliance. 

From an assessment conducted in CY 2002, it was determined that the regulatory requirements of Title VI 

(Section 608) of the CAA for the protection of stratospheric ozone were generally being met. No assessment was 

conducted in 2005. An ODS Management Plan was scheduled to be written in 2005 to develop and implement a 

program and procedures to maximize the use of safe alternatives to ODS due to their required phase-out. This plan 

has been rescheduled to be written in 2006. 

3.2.8 Asbestos Abatement 

A NESHAP notification is submitted annually to the EPA for the next calendar year. This notification provides an 

estimate of the quantities of asbestos-containing materials that are expected to be removed from small projects: 

removal of less than 79.2 linear meters [260 linear feet] or less than 14.9 square meters (m2) (160 square feet [ft2]). 

These projections are submitted to EPA in an Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form. A Notification of 

Demolition and Renovation Form is also submitted to EPA at least 10 working days prior to the start of each project 

if either (1) no asbestos is present in a facility scheduled for demolition, or (2) if quantities of asbestos-containing 

materials to be removed are estimated to exceed 79.2 linear meters or 14.9 m2. The recordkeeping requirements for 

asbestos abatement activities on the NTS include maintaining the following records for the following number of 

years: 

• Asbestos air and bulk sampling data records (collected during asbestos removal projects) up to 75 years 

• Asbestos abatement plans up to 25 years 

• Operations and Maintenance activity records up to 75 years 

• Location-specific records of asbestos-containing materials for a minimum of 75 years 

Compliance with recordkeeping requirements is verified through periodic internal assessments. The assessments 

include a records review and interviews with managers and technicians associated with asbestos abatement. 

NNSA/DOE informal reviews are performed periodically. 

An Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form was submitted to the EPA on November 30, 2004 which 

projected that 45.7 linear meters (150 linear feet) and 23.2 m2 (250 ft2) of asbestos-containing material would be 

removed from small projects from NTS facilities in 2005. However, there were two big asbestos abatement projects 

that arose: the A-1 Building renovation in Area 24 (North Las Vegas Complex) for which 2,600 ft2 of asbestoscontaining materials were removed, and Building 3113 (Test Cell A Facility) in Area 25 for which 5,000 linear feet of 

asbestos-containing materials were removed prior to demolition of that building. A Notification of Demolition and 

Renovation Form was submitted to EPA within 10 working days prior to the start of each project. The rest of the 

asbestos abatement activities throughout the NTS complex were minor in scope, involving the removal of amounts 

below the reporting threshold. Asbestos abatement records continued to be maintained as required. 

3.2.9 Fugitive Dust Control 

Section VII of the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit, No. AP9711-0549.01, Surface Area Disturbance Conditions

states that "Permittee may not cause or permit the construction, repair, demolition, or use of unpaved or untreated 

areas without first putting into effect an ongoing program using the best practical methods to prevent particulate 

matter from becoming airborne.” Methods that are typically used to control fugitive dust include presoaking, using 

water sprays, using dust palliatives, gravelling or paving haul routes, revegetating, reducing vehicle speeds, and either 

covering stockpiles or watering them. At the NTS, the main method of dust control is the use of water sprays. 

During 2005, BN personnel conducted several fugitive dust readings of operations throughout the NTS that included 

that U10c landfill, the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex and the Area 5 RWMS. 

No excessive fugitive dust was noted. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 3-29 

3.2.10 Environmental Impact 

In order to be considered a Class II or “minor” source of pollutants for air permitting purposes, a facility’s annual 

emissions must not exceed 100 tons of any one criteria pollutant, or 10 tons of any one HAP, or 25 tons of any 

combination of HAPS. During 2005, NTS activities produced a total of only 3.66 tons of criteria pollutants and 

0.05 tons of hazardous air pollutants (see Table 3-15). These small quantities had little, if any, impact to air quality on 

the NTS and at offsite locations. Emissions of pollutants for 2005 were significantly less than those generated during 

the heightened activity that occurred in the years prior to the nuclear weapons testing moratorium. 

Impacts of the chemical releases during tests at the NPTEC are minimized by controlling the amount and duration of 

each release. Biological monitoring at the NPTEC is performed whenever there is a risk of significant exposure to 

downwind plants and animals from the planned tests (see Section 13.5). BN biologists review all chemical release test 

plans to determine the level of field monitoring needed for each test. To date, chemical releases at the NPTEC have 

used such small quantities (when dispersed into the air) that downwind test-specific monitoring has not been 

necessary. No measurable impacts to downwind plants or animals have been observed. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-1 

4.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water 

Monitoring 

This chapter presents radiological and non-radiological monitoring results for surface water and groundwater from on 

and off the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Surface water and groundwater includes natural springs, drinking water, 

non-potable groundwater, and water discharged into domestic and wastewater systems on the NTS. In 2005, several 

programs or projects were involved in water monitoring. These included: (1) routine radiological monitoring 

conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN) Environmental Technical Services (ETS) under the Routine Radiological 

Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], 2003b), (2) water quality assessments of 

permitted water systems conducted by BN Environmental Services (ES), and (3) water sampling and analysis 

conducted by the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project. Water monitoring is conducted to comply with 

applicable state and federal regulations (see Section 2.2) as well as to address the concerns of stakeholders who reside 

within the vicinity of the NTS. 

Section 4.1 presents the concentrations of radioactivity in water samples. These data are used to calculate radiological 

dose to the general public residing near the NTS via drinking water; these results are provided in Section 8.0 

(Radiological Dose Assessment). 

The Community Environmental Monitoring Program was established by the U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) to independently monitor radionuclide 

contamination of offsite springs and water supply systems. This independent oversight program is managed by the 

Desert Research Institute (DRI). DRI’s 2005 monitoring results for surface and groundwater are presented in 

Section 6.2. 

Section 4.2 of this chapter presents the results of non-radiological monitoring of drinking water and domestic and 

industrial wastewaters on the NTS. 

4.1 Radiological Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring 

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 (DOE, 1996; DOE, 2000a). This legacy of nuclear testing has resulted in the 

contamination of groundwater in some areas. The Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order established 

Corrective Action Units (CAUs) that delineated and defined areas of concern for groundwater contamination on the 

NTS (DOE, 1996a). Figure 4-1 shows 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 DOE directives, groundwater on and near the NTS is monitored for 

radioactivity. Monitoring in the past was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Geological Survey, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others. In 1998, BN was tasked by NNSA/NSO to establish and 

manage an NTS integrated and comprehensive radiological environmental monitoring program. The RREMP (DOE, 

2003b) describes groundwater monitoring objectives, regulatory drivers, and quality assurance protocols. 

The purpose of radiological water monitoring is to determine whether concentrations of radionuclides in groundwater 

and surface water bodies at the NTS and its vicinity pose a threat to public health or the environment. Toward this 

end, the monitoring program collects and analyses water samples to meet the goals shown below. 

In addition to RREMP-driven monitoring, the UGTA Project (see Section 14.0) collects data from wells to define 

groundwater flow rates and directions to determine the nature and location of aquifers. Data from these studies are 

used to determine whether radionuclides from nuclear testing have moved appreciable distances from original test 

locations. Groundwater sampling and radiological analysis results for 2005 from UGTA wells are presented in 

Section 4.1.11 of this chapter. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 4-1. Areas of potential groundwater contamination on the NTS
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-3 

The selection of analytes for groundwater monitoring under the RREMP (DOE, 2003b) is based on the radiological 

source term from historical nuclear testing, regulatory/permit requirements, and characterization needs. The isotopic 

inventory remaining from nuclear testing is presented in the most recent environmental impact statement for NTS 

activities (DOE, 1996a) and in 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 “melt glass” and are not available for groundwater transport in the near 

term (Smith, 1993; Smith et al., 1995). Tritium (3H) is the radioactive species created in the greatest quantities and is 

widely believed to be the most mobile. Tritium is therefore the primary target analyte; it 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, 1996a; International Technology Corporation, 1997). 

Tritium analyses are done on all water samples. Analyses for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity and gammaemitting radionuclides are also conducted on all water samples as rapid screening measures. Gross alpha and gross 

beta radioactivity can include activity from both natural and man-made radionuclides, if any are present. Naturallyoccurring deposits of certain minerals in water can contribute to both alpha radiation (e.g., isotopes of uranium and 

radium-226 [226Ra]) and beta radiation (e.g., radium-228 [228Ra] and potassium-40 [40K]). The analyses for gammaemitting radionuclides by gamma spectroscopy can identify the presence of specific man-made radionuclides (e.g., 

americium-241 [241Am], cesium-137 [137Cs], cobalt-60 [60Co], and europium-152 and -154 [152Eu and 154Eu]) as well as 

natural radionuclides (e.g., actinium-228 [228Ac], lead-212 [212Pb], 40K, uranium-235 [235U], and thorium-234 [234Th]). 

Specific analyses for 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 14C, 90Sr, 99Tc, 241Am, and uranium isotopes are performed on selected water 

samples to help characterize sampled locations. Radium analyses were discontinued in 2005 because previous analyses 

indicate 226Ra is not a major source of measured gross alpha activity and 228Ra is not a major source of measured gross 

beta activity. Water analyses also include chemical parameters to characterize the groundwater chemistry and 

hydrology, but these measures are not presented in this report. 

Radiological Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring 

Program Goals Analytes Monitored 

Tritium (3H) Determine if radionuclide concentrations of offsite and onsite water 

supply wells exceed the safe drinking water standards established by the 

EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act or the dose limits to the general 

public set by DOE Order 5400.5. Gross alpha radioactivity 

Determine if radionuclide concentrations in surface waters on the NTS Gross beta radioactivity 

expose terrestrial and aquatic animals to doses which exceed those set by 

DOE (DOE-STD-1153-2002) to protect wildlife populations. Gamma-emitting radionuclides

Plutonium-238 (238Pu) Determine if permitted facilities on the NTS are in compliance with 

permit discharge limits for radionuclides. Plutonium-239+240 (239+240Pu)

Carbon-14 (14C) 

Strontium-90 (90Sr) 

Determine if radionuclide concentrations in onsite and offsite natural 

springs and non-potable water wells (monitoring wells), including those 

within CAUs, indicate that NNSA/NSO activities have had an impact on 

the environment. Strict drinking water standards are often used as a 

monitoring action level for this determination. 

Technetium-99 (99Tc) 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

4.1.1 Water Monitoring Locations 

The NTS groundwater and surface water monitoring network consists of a variety of locations that include onsite 

supply wells, domestic offsite wells, wells specifically designed to monitor groundwater, onsite and offsite natural 

springs, onsite containment ponds, and point-of-opportunity locations. The monitoring network is located in a 

complex hydrogeologic setting (see Attachment A, Site Description, included on the compact disc version of this 

report). The RREMP (DOE, 2003b) identifies a groundwater monitoring network of 78 wells to be sampled at 

frequencies ranging from once every three months to once every three years. Two of the wells, ASH-B 

Piezometer #1 and ASH-B Piezometer #2, are actually separate pieziometers within the same borehole. There are 

also nine additional wells (six offsite and three onsite) not identified in the RREMP which have been added to the 

network and which are sampled opportunistically or under the suggestion of NNSA/NSO. One additional offsite 

well, called Fuller, was sampled for the first time in 2005. Of all these 87 wells, 71 have been sampled at least once 

since 1999. These 71 include 32 offsite wells, 10 onsite potable water supply wells, and 29 onsite monitoring wells 

(Figure 4-2). Those wells not sampled since 1999, but identified in the RREMP, include 14 onsite monitoring wells 

and 1 offsite well that have not been sampled because they are either not accessible, are used for other purposes, are 

blocked, provide water samples that are of poor quality or are contaminated (disqualifying them from monitoring), or 

contain waters with known high levels of radiological contamination which are not expected to change. 

In 2005, a network of 55 groundwater locations was sampled (Figure 4-2) and included: 

• 27 offsite wells 

• 10 onsite potable water supply wells (9 of which are permitted) 

• 18 onsite monitoring wells (3 are compliance wells for the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site and 1 was 

a compliance well for the Area 23 sewage lagoon) 

The RREMP identifies seven offsite springs that have been sampled over the years at intervals which range from once 

a year to once every three years (Figure 4-3). Three onsite springs were opportunistically sampled in 2005. The 

RREMP also identifies one containment pond system and three sewage lagoons that are sampled at intervals of once 

every three months to once a year. Only two of the three sewage lagoons are currently active (Yucca and A23). 

The surface water monitoring locations sampled in 2005 (Figure 4-3) included: 

• 3 offsite springs 

• 3 onsite springs 

• 1 NTS operations-related containment pond system (E Tunnel ponds) 

• 2 onsite sewage lagoons 

Four UGTA Project wells were sampled and analyzed for radionuclides in 2005 and are briefly discussed in 

Section 4.1.11 below. 

4.1.2 Water Sampling/Analysis Methods 

Water sampling methods are based, in part, on the characteristics and configurations of the sample locations. For 

example, wells with dedicated pumps may be sampled from the associated plumbing (e.g., spigots) at the wellhead, 

while wells without pumps may be sampled via a wireline bailer or a portable pumping system. Grab samples are 

typically obtained from the springs. 

Some of the monitoring program wells are constructed with multiple strings of casing/tubing or multiple completion 

zones comprised of discrete intervals of slotted casing which access different horizons of the penetrated hydrostratigraphic units. Multiple-depth samples were obtained from three wells with such configurations in 2005: 

• 590, 622, 649, and 701 meters (m) (1,935, 2,040, 2,130, and 2,300 feet [ft]) below ground surface (bgs) in HTH #1 

• 518 and 649 m (1,700 and 2,130 ft) bgs in UE-18r 

• 475 and 608 m (1,560 and 1,994 ft) bgs in PM-3 

• 826 and 1000 m (2,710 and 3,280 ft) bgs in ER-19-1 

• 114 and 312 m (375 and 1025 ft) bgs in ASH-B (ASH-B Piezometer #2 and ASH-B Piezometer #1) 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-5 

Figure 4-2. RREMP well monitoring locations sampled on and off the NTS in 2005 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 4-3. RREMP spring and surface water monitoring locations sampled on and off the NTS in 2005 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-7 

Sampling frequencies and requisite analyses for routine radiological water monitoring are based on the location and 

type of the sampling point as defined in the RREMP (DOE, 2003b). During each monitoring year, not every water 

sample is analyzed for every analyte, per the design criteria of the RREMP. In 2005, tritium analyses were performed 

on all samples. Analyses for the other analytes listed were performed only on specific samples based on the 

probability of their detection at the sampled location or on whether they had been screened for previously at that 

location. 

To achieve a sufficiently low detection limit, most tritium analyses were conducted after the samples underwent an 

enrichment process. The enrichment process concentrates tritium in a sample to provide an effective minimum 

detectable concentration (MDC) (see Glossary, Appendix B) for the sample-specific laboratory analysis. Samplespecific MDCs for laboratory analysis, reported in each results table, ranged from 13 to 35 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) 

with an average of 22.3 pCi/L. The MDC for standard (non-enriched) tritium analyses typically ranges from 

200-400 pCi/L. 

Routine quality control samples (e.g., duplicates, blanks, and spikes) are also incorporated into the analytical streams 

on a frequent basis. The reader is directed to Section 18.0 for a thorough discussion of quality assurance/quality 

control protocols and procedures utilized for radiological water monitoring. 

4.1.3 Presentation of Water Sampling Data 

The following sections present only concentrations that were above the MDC for gamma-emitting radionuclides, 

plutonium, 14C, 90Sr, and 99Tc. Concentration values of gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium, whether they are below or 

above the sample-specific MDCs, are presented for all water samples in the data tables. 

The uncertainty values presented in the data tables of this chapter represent the counting uncertainty (“error”) of the 

analytical method. This does not include the uncertainty associated with sample collection or the preparation and 

concentration of tritium during the enrichment process. A statistical analysis of all background samples analyzed 

between 1999 and 2005 was conducted to obtain an estimate of the tritium decision level (LC) (see Glossary, 

Appendix B). The background samples included those from wells with no known tritium. The analysis suggests an 

LC for tritium of approximately 20 pCi/L. When measured tritium data from sample blanks analyzed during that 

period were added to the background well samples, the Lc increases curiously to 25 pCi/L. When only the sample 

blanks are retained in the analysis, the LC increases to around 39 pCi/L. These analyses indicate that measured tritium 

levels in the blanks are higher than tritium levels in the well samples. In computing these LC values, ETS requires 

there be 99 percent confidence that the sample contains tritium above background. Moreover, about 1 percent of the 

background data values were found to be atypical and were deleted from the computation; this suggests that sporadic 

anomalies may be an inherent feature of the tritium sampling, enrichment, and analysis process. 

All values shown in the tables in the following results sections are formatted to two significant figures based on the 

accuracy of the measurements (e.g., 2500, 25, 2.5, or 0.025). 

4.1.4 Results from Offsite Wells 

The 27 offsite locations sampled in 2005 included 9 private domestic wells, 6 community wells, and 12 NNSA/NSO 

wells related to NTS activities. The 2005 data indicate that groundwater at the offsite locations has not been impacted 

by NTS nuclear testing operations. 

All but two of the tritium levels in samples from offsite wells were less than the MDC. One duplicate sample from 

well ER-OV-03C2 was slightly above the sample-specific MDC, but its other duplicate sample collected on the same 

date was below its MDC (Table 4-1). A sample from well ER-OV-03A was also slightly above its sample-specific 

MDC for tritium (Table 4-1). Both of the results are between the background-sample-based LC of 20 pCi/L and the 

LC based on the background and the blank samples of 25 pCi/L. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 4-1. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite wells in 2005 

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

Amargosa Valley RV Park 9/27/2005 6.0 ± 2.9 (3.0) 13 ± 3.8 (6.9) 1.3 ± 14 (23)

Ash-B Piezometer #1 9/20/2005 0.30 ± 0.72 (1.6) 4.1 ± 1.4 (2.5) 17 ± 13 (20)

Ash-B Piezometer #2 9/20/2005 1.6 ± 1.2 (2.1) 5.5 ± 1.5 (2.5) -1.1 ± 12 (20)

Ash-B Piezometer #2 FD(e) 9/20/2005 NA(f) NA 16 ± 12 (20)

Ponderosa Dairy 9/27/2005 1.9 ± 1.2 (1.9) 8.2 ± 2.1 (3.6) 3.5 ± 14 (24)

Beatty Water And Sewer 9/27/2005 14 ± 4.4 (3.6) 10 ± 3.4 (6.1) 7.2 ± 14 (24)

Beatty Water And Sewer FD 9/27/2005 NA NA 2.8 ± 15 (24)

Cind-R-Lite Mine 9/27/2005 5.9 ± 2.4 (2.1) 5.2 ± 2.5 (4.8) 2.5 ± 14 (24)

Cind-R-Lite Mine FD 9/27/2005 NA NA -2.3 ± 14 (24)

Cook'S Ranch Well #2 9/27/2005 5.1 ± 2.3 (3.6) 10 ± 2.5 (4.2) 6.5 ± 15 (24)

Crystal Trailer Park 9/27/2005 2.7 ± 1.6 (2.1) 7.3 ± 2.5 (4.4) -8.4 ± 14 (24)

De Lee Ranch 9/27/2005 1.9 ± 1.1 (1.6) 5.8 ± 2.1 (3.6) 3.3 ± 14 (24)

De Lee Ranch FD 9/27/2005 1.6 ± 1.2 (2.2) 7.7 ± 2.2 (3.6)

ER-OV-01 10/25/2005 9.2 ± 2.3 (1.9) 9.3 ± 1.7 (2.4) 5.4 ± 10 (17)

ER-OV-01 FD 10/25/2005 NA NA 5.1 ± 12 (20)

ER-OV-02 3/29/2005 16 ± 2.9 (0.96) 6.0 ± 1.5 (1.7) 0.00 ± 15 (26)

ER-OV-02 9/19/2005 23 ± 2.9 (1.6) 13 ± 2.0 (2.7) 11 ± 12 (20)

ER-OV-02 FD 9/19/2005 24 ± 3.7 (1.5) 14 ± 2.6 (4.0) NA

ER-OV-03A 9/19/2005 14 ± 2.2 (1.5) 8.3 ± 1.8 (2.6) 24 ± 12 (19)

ER-OV-03A3 9/19/2005 NA NA 16 ± 13 (20)

ER-OV-03C 9/19/2005 9.0 ± 1.4 (0.89) 2.1 ± 0.91 (1.5) 9.9 ± 12 (20)

ER-OV-03C2 9/18/2005 7.9 ± 1.7 (2.0) -0.37 ± 1.0 (1.9) 4.0 ± 12 (20)

ER-OV-03C2 FD 9/18/2005 NA NA 24 ± 14 (21)

ER-OV-04A 3/29/2005 3.3 ± 1.3 (1.7) 7.2 ± 1.9 (2.7) 2.7 ± 15 (26)

ER-OV-04A 10/26/2005 5.2 ± 1.6 (2.1) 8.3 ± 1.6 (2.4) 4.1 ± 11 (18)

ER-OV-04A FD 10/26/2005 NA NA 3.6 ± 11 (18)

ER-OV-05 10/26/2005 3.0 ± 1.2 (1.5) 10 ± 1.6 (2.1) 9.0 ± 11 (18)

ER-OV-05 FD 10/26/2005 2.7 ± 0.99 (0.85) 8.6 ± 1.4 (1.7) NA

ER-OV-06A 10/25/2005 10 ± 2.1 (1.9) 7.3 ± 1.4 (2.2) 8.7 ± 11 (18)

ER-OV-06A FD 10/25/2005 8.9 ± 1.9 (1.4) 10 ± 1.6 (2.0) NA

Fire Hall #2 Well 9/27/2005 1.0 ± 0.99 (1.8) 10 ± 1.8 (2.9) -2.7 ± 14 (24)

Fire Hall #2 Well FD 9/27/2005 2.2 ± 1.4 (1.8) 13 ± 2.5 (3.7) NA

Last Trail Ranch 9/27/2005 6.7 ± 3.0 (3.8) 14 ± 3.4 (5.5) 2.1 ± 14 (24)

Longstreet Casino Well #1 9/27/2005 2.2 ± 1.3 (1.5) 9.1 ± 1.9 (2.7) 0.38 ± 14 (23)

Fuller 9/27/2005 7.0 ± 3.3 (4.0) 15 ± 3.8 (6.1) -5.4 ± 14 (24)

PM-3 (1560 ft bgs) 7/19/2005 6.0 ± 1.3 (0.90) 19 ± 3.4 (1.9) 9.3 ± 12 (20)

PM-3 (1560 ft bgs) FD 7/19/2005 4.0 ± 1.0 (0.84) 9.6 ± 2.1 (2.0) NA

PM-3 (1994 ft bgs) 7/19/2005 2.9 ± 0.88 (0.90) 16 ± 2.8 (1.6) 10 ± 12 (21)

Roger Bright Ranch 9/27/2005 4.6 ± 2.1 (3.4) 17 ± 2.7 (4.1) -7.9 ± 14 (24)

School Well 9/27/2005 2.6 ± 1.4 (1.9) 13 ± 2.5 (3.8) 4.5 ± 14 (24)

Tolicha Peak 12/12/2005 NA NA 2.5 ± 15 (25)

Tolicha Peak FD 12/12/2005 NA NA -4.4 ± 10 (17)

U.S. Ecology 9/27/2005 7.3 ± 2.7 (3.3) 12 ± 2.6 (4.4) 7.6 ± 14 (24)

U.S. Ecology FD 9/27/2005 NA NA 1.6 ± 14 (24)

Yellow-shaded results are any which are equal to or greater than the EPA-designated levels shown below for each analyte:

(a) ±2 standard deviations

(f) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample 

(b) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha (α) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Green-shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample-specific MDC)

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-9 

Gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity were detected in most offsite well samples in 2005 (Table 4-1). 

Well ER-OV-02 had gross alpha levels above 15 pCi/L, the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking 

water. Similar gross alpha levels have been measured previously in this well although the 2005 levels are 

approximately half the levels measured in 2004. This offsite monitoring well does not supply drinking water. It 

produces water from a volcanic aquifer that may have relatively higher quantities of natural alpha-yielding elements in 

the host rock. The gross alpha levels are attributed to the decay of naturally-occurring uranium and local variation in 

mineralogy due to hydrothermal alteration in the volcanic host rock. No man-made radionuclides were detected by 

gamma spectroscopy in any of the water samples from this well or from any other offsite wells. 

Among the 27 offsite wells which have been sampled at least once since 1999, there are no detectable trends in gross 

alpha or gross beta activity (Figure 4-4) or in tritium concentrations (Figure 4-5) from 2000 to 2005. Most measured 

gross alpha and gross beta levels have been below the EPA MCL for drinking water, and most measured tritium 

concentrations have been below their MDCs. 

 

Figure 4-4. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite wells from 2000 to 2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06

Activity (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha

Gross Alpha MCL = 15 pCi/L

Gross Beta

Gross Beta Level of Concern = 50 pCi/L
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

-30.0

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate Lc = 25 pCi/L

Figure 4-5. Tritium concentrations in offsite wells from 2000 to 2005 

4.1.5 Results from Offsite Springs 

Peacock Ranch Spring, Spicer Ranch Spring, and Revert Spring were sampled in 2005. All three springs are near 

Beatty, Nevada. Detectable concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta were present in water collected from the 

springs, although all concentrations are below the EPA MCL for drinking water (Table 4-2). The measurable gross 

alpha and gross beta radioactivity is likely from natural sources. 

No detectable concentrations of tritium were found in any of the samples (Table 4-2). No analysis for man-made 

gamma-emitting radionuclides were performed in 2005. 

Among the seven offsite springs that have been sampled at least once since 1999, there are no detectable trends in 

gross alpha or gross beta activity (Figure 4-6) or in tritium concentrations (Figure 4-7) from 2000 to 2005. Alpha and 

beta levels have all been below the EPA MCL for drinking water, and tritium concentrations have all been below the 

MDCs. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-11 

 Table 4-2. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite springs in 2005 

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

Peacock Ranch 9/27/2005 5.2 ± 1.6 (2.3) 13 ± 1.9 (3.0) -1.4 ± 14 (23)

Peacock Ranch FD (e) 9/27/2005 -0.81 ± 14 (23)

Revert Spring 9/27/2005 10 ± 2.8 (2.3) 5.4 ± 2.5 (4.8) 0.61 ± 14 (23)

Spicer Ranch 9/27/2005 14 ± 3.0 (3.1) 7.6 ± 2.4 (4.4) 11 ± 14 (24)

Spicer Ranch FD 9/27/2005 11 ± 3.1 (2.9) 12 ± 2.9 (4.5)

Green-shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample-specific MDC)

(a) ±2 standard deviations

(b) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha (α) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

(f) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample 

NA

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

NA(f) NA

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06

Activity (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha

Gross Alpha MCL = 15 pCi/L

Gross Beta

Gross Beta Level of Concern = 50 pCi/L

Figure 4-6. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite springs from 2000 to 2005 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate Lc = 25 pCi/L

Figure 4-7. Tritium concentrations in offsite springs from 2000 to 2005 

4.1.6 Results from NTS Potable Water Supply Wells 

Results from the ten potable NTS water wells sampled in 2005 continue to indicate that nuclear testing has not 

impacted the NTS potable water supply network. All 2005 water samples from the supply wells had non-detectable 

concentrations of tritium. 

Prior to 1994, WW C-1 (also known as Water Well C-1) had a history of validated tritium detections because this well 

was injected with approximately 0.1 to 0.2 curies of tritium in 1962 by a researcher conducting a tracer test 

(Lyles, 1990). Since 1995, tritium concentrations in WW C-1 have remained below their MDCs. 

The radiological analytes that were principally detectable in 2005 in the potable water supply wells are gross alpha and 

gross beta radioactivity. This activity likely represents the presence of naturally-occurring radionuclides, since there 

was a general lack of corresponding detectable man-made radionuclides in the samples (Table 4-3). None of these 

detectable radiological analytes exceeded EPA-established Levels of Concern or the established MCLs for drinking 

water (Table 4-3). 

No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in the potable water supply well samples. 

These ten NTS potable water supply wells have all been sampled routinely since 1999. No detectable trends in gross 

alpha or gross beta activity (Figure 4-8) or in tritium concentrations (Figure 4-9) have been found from 2000 to 2005. 

The Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services (BHPS) independently sampled all of the 

NTS potable water supply wells at least once during 2005 at the same time as BN ETS personnel collected samples. 

The state of Nevada sample results also indicate that man-made radionuclides are at or below MDC and that 

naturally-occurring radioactive materials, such as thorium and uranium decay chain radionuclides, are within normal 

ranges (BHPS, 2006a; 2006b; 2006c). 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-13 

Table 4-3. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS potable water 

supply wells in 2005 

Monitoring 

Location 

Date

Sampled

Army #1 WW 1/19/2005 2.1 ± 0.95 (1.2) 5.9 ± 1.6 (2.3) -6.5 ± 12 (22)

4/13/2005 4.8 ± 4.5 (6.8) 2.4 ± 1.6 (2.2) 5.3 ± 15 (26)

7/13/2005 2.8 ± 0.89 (1.0) 6.0 ± 1.6 (2.1) 3.3 ± 12 (21)

10/19/2005 0.3 ± 1.4 (2.5) 2.9 ± 0.76 (1.1) -2.8 ± 7.5 (13)

10/19/2005 FD(e) NA(f) NA 5.3 ± 10 (17)

J-12 WW 1/19/2005 0.57 ± 0.67 (1.3) 3.5 ± 1.4 (2.3) -1.1 ± 12 (21)

4/13/2005 -0.046 ± 1.7 (3.3) 3.9 ± 1.1 (1.2) 4.8 ± 14 (23)

4/13/2005 FD -2.9 ± 2.5 (3.7) 2.0 ± 0.91 (1.2) 5.0 ± 14 (24)

7/13/2005 1.4 ± 0.43 (0.47) 5.0 ± 1.1 (1.1) 7.8 ± 11 (19)

10/19/2005 1.1 ± 1.2 (2.0) 2.5 ± 0.67 (0.77) 1.6 ± 16 (27)

J-13 WW 1/19/2005 0.55 ± 0.67 (1.3) 3.4 ± 1.4 (2.4) -0.88 ± 12 (22)

1/19/2005 FD 0.54 ± 0.67 (1.4) 4.2 ± 1.5 (2.4) -3.3 ± 12 (22)

4/13/2005 2.8 ± 2.4 (3.5) 3.4 ± 1.1 (1.1) 4.5 ± 13 (22)

7/13/2005 0.57 ± 0.32 (0.47) 4.1 ± 0.94 (1.1) 3.3 ± 11 (19)

10/19/2005 0.98 ± 1.2 (1.9) 2.3 ± 0.43 (0.52) -0.83 ± 10 (17)

UE-16D WW 1/18/2005 3.8 ± 0.89 (0.74) 7.0 ± 1.4 (1.2) -1.9 ± 12 (20)

4/12/2005 5.0 ± 4.5 (6.4) 7.0 ± 2.5 (2.9) -5.7 ± 16 (28)

7/12/2005 3.7 ± 1.1 1.2 6.6 ± 1.9 (2.5) 7.5 ± 14 (24)

10/18/2005 3.9 ± 1.5 2.1 3.7 ± 0.71 (0.91) 2.4 ± 10 (17)

WW #4 1/18/2005 5.9 ± 1.6 1.2 4.9 ± 1.5 (2.3) -7.8 ± 13 (24)

1/18/2005 FD 5.6 ± 1.6 1.3 5.7 ± 1.7 (2.4) 1.9 ± 13 (24)

4/12/2005 3.6 ± 4.1 (6.5) 4.3 ± 1.7 (2.1) 19 ± 16 (26)

7/12/2005 3.4 ± 0.79 (0.62) 5.5 ± 1.2 (1.3) 7.7 ± 14 (24)

10/18/2005 10 ± 1.9 1.7 4.5 ± 0.7 (0.67) 6.4 ± 10 (17)

WW #4A 1/18/2005 7.0 ± 1.9 1.2 5.2 ± 1.6 (2.4) 1.0 ± 12 (20)

4/12/2005 2.9 ± 4.6 (7.7) 3.8 ± 1.4 (1.6) 11 ± 15 (26)

7/12/2005 4.6 ± 0.93 (0.45) 4.0 ± 0.98 (1.2) 12 ± 14 (24)

10/18/2005 2.5 ± 1.2 1.9 3.5 ± 0.49 (0.60) -1.7 ± 10 (17)

WW 5B 1/18/2005 3.3 ± 1.3 1.3 12 ± 2.6 (2.7) -6.3 ± 13 (24)

4/12/2005 4.8 ± 3.8 (5.5) 5.9 ± 2.0 (2.3) -8.0 ± 15 (26)

4/12/2005 FD 6.7 ± 4.5 6.2 7.9 ± 1.8 (1.7) 0.00 ± 13 (23)

7/12/2005 3.9 ± 0.91 (0.69) 12 ± 2.3 (1.5) 3.3 ± 12 (21)

10/18/2005 -0.44 ± 1.5 (2.6) 6.0 ± 0.50 (0.51) 2.2 ± 10 (17)

WW 5C 1/18/2005 6.7 ± 1.3 (0.73) 5.8 ± 1.4 (1.5) -7.5 ± 11 (20)

4/12/2005 5.1 ± 5.5 (8.7) 5.2 ± 1.8 (2.0) 4.6 ± 13 (22)

7/12/2005 6.3 ± 1.4 (0.95) 7.2 ± 1.7 (1.9) 6.5 ± 12 (21)

7/12/2005 FD NA NA 6.7 ± 12 (21)

10/18/2005 7.6 ± 1.8 2.2 3.7 ± 0.83 (1.1) 3.3 ± 10 (17)

WW 8 2/23/2005 0.27 ± 0.61 (1.3) 2.6 ± 1.3 (2.3) -28 ± 19 (35)

4/12/2005 0.35 ± 1.3 (2.5) 2.1 ± 0.94 (1.2) -6.0 ± 17 (29)

7/12/2005 0.82 ± 0.32 (0.41) 3.6 ± 0.88 (1.0) 0.00 ± 14 (24)

7/12/2005 FD NA NA -3.7 ± 13 (23)

10/18/2005 -0.09 ± 0.95 (1.8) 2.2 ± 0.66 (0.82) 6.7 ± 10 (17)

WW C-1 1/18/2005 9.3 ± 1.9 (0.99) 13 ± 2.5 (2.1) 1.6 ± 12 (20)

4/12/2005 6.7 ± 7.1 (11) 13 ± 3.7 (3.9) -2.7 ± 15 (26)

7/12/2005 10 ± 2.2 1.5 15 ± 3.2 (3.2) 0.00 ± 13 (24)

(a) ±2 standard deviations

(b) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha (α) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

(f) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample 

Green-shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample-specific MDC)

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06

Activity (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha

Gross Alpha MCL = 15 pCi/L

Gross Beta

Gross Beta Level of Concern = 50 pCi/L

 Figure 4-8. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in NTS potable water supply wells from 2000 to 2005 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05 Jul-05 Jan-06

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate Lc = 25 pCi/L

 Figure 4-9. Tritium concentrations in NTS potable water supply wells from 2000 to 2005 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-15 

4.1.7 Results from NTS Monitoring Wells 

Analytical results from the network of onsite monitoring wells (see Figure 4-2) indicate that migration of radionuclides 

from the underground test areas is not significant. Four onsite monitoring wells (PM-1, U-19BH, UE-7NS, and 

WW A) are known to have detectable concentrations of tritium, although they are all well below the EPA MCL of 

20,000 pCi/L (Table 4-4). Note that no tritium analysis was performed for UE-7NS in 2005. Each of these wells is 

located within 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 miles [mi]) of a historical underground nuclear test. These wells are discussed 

below, and their historic tritium concentrations are shown in Figure 4-10. 

There were also measured tritium levels above the MDC from two other monitoring wells. The duplicate sample 

from ER-19-1 at 826 m (2,710 ft) bgs had a tritium level above the MDC but the grab sample collected at the same 

time had a measured tritium level below the MDC. The measured tritium level at UE-25P #1 is very slightly above 

the MDC but well below the measured tritium levels in the four wells with detectable tritium levels. This low tritium 

level is probably not significant (Table 4-4). 

Tritium was not detectable in other samples from onsite monitoring wells during 2005 (Table 4-4). 

Well PM-1 – This well is located in the Central Pahute Mesa CAU. It is constructed with unslotted casing from the 

surface to 2,300 m (7,546 ft) bgs and is an open hole from 2,300 to 2,356 m (7,546 to 7,730 ft) bgs. Results from 

depth profile sampling below the static water level in 2001 show a decreasing tritium concentration with depth, 

indicating that tritium is entering the borehole near the static water level at approximately 643 m (2,109 ft) bgs. 

Potential sources include the underground nuclear tests FARM (U-20ab), GREELEY (U-20g), and KASSERI 

(U-20z). The FARM test is closest to PM-1 but is believed to be downgradient from PM-1. The GREELY test is 

2,429 m (7,969 ft) upgradient from PM-1, and the KASSERI test is 1,196 m (3,924 ft) upgradient from PM-1. 

Well U-19BH – This well is located in the Central Pahute Mesa CAU. It is an inventory emplacement borehole. 

There were several nuclear detonations conducted near U-19BH, but the source of the tritium in the borehole is 

unclear. Previous investigations suggest that the water in the well originates from a perched aquifer, but 

identifying the likely source of tritium is difficult due to a lack of data regarding the perched system (Brikowski et 

al., 1993). The results from a tracer test conducted in the well indicate that there is minimal flow across the 

borehole (Brikowski et al., 1993). The lack of measurable flow in the well suggests that the chemistry of the water 

sampled from the borehole may not be representative of the aquifer. The data are provided as a point of interest 

due to the detection of tritium. 

Well UE-7NS – This well is located in the Yucca Flat CAU and was drilled 137 m (449 ft) from the BOURBON 

underground nuclear test (U-7n) which was conducted in 1967. This well was routinely sampled between 1978 

and 1987, with the resumption of sampling in 1991. Tritium levels in this well have been decreasing in recent years 

(Figure 4-10). Well UE-7NS is the second known location on the NTS where the regionally important lower 

carbonate aquifer (LCA) has been impacted by radionuclides from nuclear testing (Smith et al., 1999). The first 

location where the LCA has been impacted by radionuclides from nuclear testing is Well UE-2CE. Well UE-2CE 

is located less the 200 m (656 ft) from the NASH test, which was conducted in Yucca Flat in 1967. Well UE-2CE 

is not currently configured for routine sampling. 

Well WW A – This well is completed in alluvium in the Yucca Flat CAU (see Figure 4-2). It is located within 1 km 

(0.6 mi) of 14 underground nuclear tests, most of which appear to be upgradient of the well. The well has had 

measurable tritium since the late 1980s. The marked increase between 1985 and 1999 suggests inflow of tritium to 

this well from the HAYMAKER underground nuclear test (U-3aus) conducted in 1962, 524 m (1,720 ft) north of 

Well WW A. This well, which supplied non-potable water for construction, was shut down in the early 1990s. 

The concentrations measured in 2005 at WW A indicate a slight downward trend since 1999 (Figure 4-10). 

Detectable concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta were present in water collected from NTS onsite monitoring 

wells. The low measurable gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in these wells is likely from natural sources. 

Elevated levels of dissolved solids in the sample from ER-19-1 at 2710 ft bgs affected the gross beta result as 

evidenced by the high measurement error and MDC. The high levels of gross alpha and gross beta activity in 

U-19BH are likely related to contamination. No man-made radionuclides were detected by gamma spectroscopy 

analyses at concentrations above their respective MDCs in any of the NTS monitoring wells in 2005. Low levels of 

naturally-occurring 40K were detected in a sample from ER-19-1 at 2,710 ft bgs. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 4-4. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring wells in 2005

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

ER-19-1 (2710 ft bgs) 8/17/2005 4.2 ± 2.4 (3.4) 195 ± 32 (6.6) 9.1 ± 12 (20)

ER-19-1 (2710 ft bgs) FD(e) 8/17/2005 NA(f) NA 21 ± 13 (20)

ER-19-1 (3280 ft bgs) 8/17/2005 1.1 ± 0.59 (0.83) 31 ± 5.1 (1.5) 12 ± 12 (20)

ER-20-1 7/26/2005 9.0 ± 1.7 (0.70) 16 ± 3.0 (2.1) 16 ± 13 (20)

ER-20-1 FD 7/26/2005 3.5 ± 0.91 (0.85) 6.8 ± 1.5 (1.5) NA

ER-20-2 #1 7/20/2005 5.5 ± 1.3 (1.1) 10 ± 2.1 (1.9) 2.6 ± 10 (18)

ER-20-2 #1 FD 7/20/2005 2.9 ± 0.90 (0.94) 5.6 ± 1.7 (2.2) NA

SM-23-1(g) 8/16/2005 0.30 ± 1.5 (2.5) 5.0 ± 0.77 (0.97) 12 ± 13 (20)

U-19BH 3/23/2005 42 ± 6.9 (0.68) 58 ± 9.3 (1.5) 46 ± 18 (28)

UE-18R (1700 ft bgs) 3/16/2005 5.2 ± 1.0 (0.49) 3.3 ± 0.85 (1.0) -5.4 ± 16 (28)

UE-18R (2130 ft bgs) 3/16/2005 10 ± 1.8 (0.59) 4.6 ± 1.0 (1.0) -2.7 ± 16 (28)

UE-18R (2130 ft bgs) FD NA NA -2.7 ± 16 (28)

UE-1Q 2/9/2005 8.1 ± 1.7 (1.3) 7.3 ± 0.90 (0.9) -5.7 ± 17 (29)

UE-1Q FD 2/9/2005 5.7 ± 1.4 (1.3) 7.0 ± 0.91 (0.97) NA

UE-25 WT #6 8/30/2005 17 ± 8.1 (12) 8.5 ± 2.7 (3.8) 12 ± 12 (20)

UE-25 WT #6 FD 8/31/2005 NA NA 12 ± 12 (20)

UE-25P #1 8/31/2005 5.1 ± 1.6 (1.9) 3.6 ± 0.58 (0.61) 26 ± 13 (20)

UE-25P #1 FD 8/31/2005 5.8 ± 1.5 (2.0) 3.6 ± 0.44 (0.48) NA

UE5 PW-1(h) 4/19/2005 4.8 ± 1.7 (2.2) 5.3 ± 2.0 (3.5) 3.7 ± 13 (20)

UE5 PW-1 FD 4/19/2005 3.4 ± 1.5 (2.2) 5.9 ± 1.7 (2.6) NA

UE5 PW-1 10/11/2005 NA NA 14 ± 14 (23)

UE5 PW-1 FD 10/11/2005 NA NA 3.9 ± 14 (23)

UE5 PW-2(h) 4/19/2005 3.9 ± 1.4 (1.7) 2.8 ± 2.0 (3.7) 3.8 ± 13 (20)

UE5 PW-2 FD 4/19/2005 5.8 ± 1.7 (1.7) 5.9 ± 2.0 (3.4)

UE5 PW-2 10/11/2005 NA NA 0.81 ± 14 (23)

UE5 PW-2 FD 10/11/2005 NA NA 10 ± 14 (23)

UE5 PW-3(h) 4/19/2005 3.1 ± 1.3 (1.7) 3.9 ± 1.8 (3.2) 3.6 ± 12 (19)

UE5 PW-3 FD 4/19/2005 4.5 ± 1.8 (2.8) 4.3 ± 2.1 (3.8) NA

UE5 PW-3 10/11/2005 NA NA 4.8 ± 13 (22)

UE5 PW-3 FD 10/11/2005 NA NA -14 ± 13 (23)

UE-7NS 5/3/2005 0.11 ± 0.40 (1.0) 3.6 ± 1.5 (2.6) N/A

HTH #1 (1935 ft bgs) 3/15/2005 1.6 ± 0.42 (0.37) 1.8 ± 0.64 (0.89) 2.5 ± 15 (26)

HTH #1 (2040 ft bgs) 3/15/2005 1.9 ± 0.48 (0.42) 1.4 ± 0.65 (0.98) -16 ± 15 (27)

HTH #1 (2130 ft bgs) 3/16/2005 1.2 ± 0.42 (0.51) 1.5 ± 0.65 (0.96) -2.4 ± 14 (25)

HTH #1 (2300 ft bgs) 3/15/2005 1.6 ± 0.47 (0.48) 0.97 ± 0.62 (0.97) -11 ± 16 (28)

HTH #1 (2300 ft bgs) FD 3/15/2005 NA NA -5.1 ± 15 (26)

TWD 2/9/2005 1.3 ± 0.97 (1.5) 4.3 ± 0.81 (1.1) -2.6 ± 15 (26)

WW A 2/8/2005 2.5 ± 1.1 (1.4) 5.2 ± 0.87 (1.1) 461 ± 28 (26)

WW A FD 2/8/2005 NA NA 492 ± 31 (30)

WW 2 2/8/2005 8.3 ± 2.0 (1.5) 5.8 ± 0.86 (0.99) -5.6 ± 16 (29)

WELL PM-1 7/20/2005 0.16 ± 0.52 (0.89) 5.2 ± 1.4 (1.7) 179 ± 21 (21)

WELL PM-1 FD 7/20/2005 0.30 ± 0.50 (0.84) 5.6 ± 1.6 (2.1) NA

Green-shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample-specific MDC)

Yellow-shaded results are any which are equal to or greater than the EPA-designated levels shown below for each analyte:

(a) ±2 standard deviations

(b) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha (α) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

(f) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample 

(g) Compliance well for Area 23 sewage lagoon 

(h) Compliance well for validation of waste pit P03U at Area 5 RWMS (see Section 9.1.6)

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Gross β ±

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-17 

Figure 4-10. Concentrations of tritium in wells with a history of detectable levels 

4.1.8 Results from Onsite Springs 

Three onsite springs, Gold Meadows Spring, Tub Spring, and White Rock Spring, were sampled in 2005. These 

springs are derived from perched water tables resulting in highly variable discharge rates. These perched water tables 

result from surface infiltration of precipitation and are not discharge points from a regional aquifer (Hansen et al., 

1997). 

Detectable concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta were present in water collected from the springs, although all 

concentrations are below the EPA MCL for drinking water (Table 4-5). The measured levels of gross alpha and gross 

beta radioactivity are likely from natural sources. 

No detectable concentrations of tritium were found in samples from Gold Meadows Spring or Tub Spring, but 

tritium was detected in the sample from White Rock Spring (Table 4-5). Tritium has been detected previously in a 

vegetation sample from White Rock Spring (DOE, 2001a). Although the exact source of tritium in White Rock 

Spring is unknown, this spring is located near areas of known surface contamination from previous nuclear testing. 

Gamma spectroscopy detected levels above the MDC for 234Th at Gold Meadows Spring, 214Bi at Tub and White 

Rock springs, and 224Ra at Tub and White Rock springs. All of these gamma-emitting radionuclides are naturallyoccurring: 234Th and 214Bi are in the uranium decay series and 224Ra is in the thorium decay series. A low level of 

cerium-144 [144Ce] (a man-made fission product) was also detected at Tub Spring but no other man-made 

radionuclides were detected in this sample. 

 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Tritium Concentration (pCi/L)

PM-1 U-19BH

WW A UE-7NS

MCL (20, 000 

Ci/L)

Effective MDC (25 pCi/L)
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 4-5. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for onsite springs in 2005 

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

Gold Meadows Spring 7/19/2005 4.3 ± 1.4 (1.9) 17 ± 0.86 (0.57) 14 ± 9.8 (16)

Tub Spring 7/20/2005 6.3 ± 1.4 (1.7) 7.3 ± 0.63 (0.55) 16 ± 12 (19)

White Rock Spring 7/20/2005 5.8 ± 1.3 (1.4) 9.1 ± 0.67 (0.53) 46 ± 14 (20)

Green-shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample specific MDC)

(a) ±2 standard deviations

(b) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha (α) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA-established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Gross β ± Uncertainty 

(MDC) (pCi/L)(c)

4.1.9 Results from NTS E Tunnel Ponds 

Five primary basins were constructed to collect and hold water discharged from the E Tunnels in Area 12 where 

nuclear testing was conducted in the past (see Figure 4-3). The water is perched groundwater that has percolated 

through fractures in the tunnel system. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) conducts monitoring of 

effluent waters from E Tunnel to determine if radionuclides and non-radiological contaminants exceed the allowable 

contaminant levels regulated under a state water pollution control permit (NEV 96021), which is issued to DTRA. 

During October 2005, a DTRA contract company sampled the tunnel effluent near where water is discharged. Also 

during October BN personnel sampled tunnel effluent, water from Pond 5, and sediment from the basin of Ponds 4 

and 5. Effluent water was analyzed by DTRA for tritium, gross alpha, and gross beta (Table 4-6) and for 16 nonradiological contaminants and water quality parameters (DTRA, 2005). All other samples were analyzed by BN for 

tritium (water samples only), gamma-emitting radionuclides, plutonium, 90Sr, and 241Am (Table 4-7). 

Table 4-6. Radiological results for E Tunnel Pond effluent pertaining to Water Pollution Control 

Permit NEV 96021 

Parameter Permissible Limit (pCi/L) Average Measured Value (pCi/L)

Tritium 1,000,000 600,000 

Gross Alpha 35 13 

Gross Beta 100 77 

Source: Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021 Quarterly Monitoring Report and Annual Summary Report 

 for E Tunnel Waste Water Disposal System (DTRA, 2005) 

Whiterock Spring 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-19 Table 4-7. Routine radiological water monitoring results for E-Tunnel Ponds in 2005 Sample 3H ± Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 90Sr ± Uncertainty (MDC) 137Cs ± Uncertainty (MDC) 238Pu ± Uncertainty (MDC) 239+240Pu ± Uncertainty (MDC) 241Am ± Uncertainty (MDC) Water - Concentration units are pCi/L Influent to Pond 5 610,000 ± 12,000 (490) 0.25 ± 0.20 (0.39) 70 ± 7.4 (2.9) 0.32 ± 0.085 (0.049) 4.1 ± 0.48 (0.029) 0.19 ± 0.091 0.25 Pond 5 Water 620,000 ± 12,000 (500) 0.53 ± 0.27 (0.46) 83 ± 11 (3.8) 0.34 ± 0.090 (0.033) 4.0 ± 0.50 (0.041) 0.28 ± 0.11 0.53 Pond 5 Water FD(b) 610,000 ± 12,000 (490) -0.11 ± 0.27 (0.68) 69 ± 8.3 (3.2) 0.46 ± 0.098 (0.047) 4.0 ± 0.40 (0.035) 0.22 ± 0.10 -0.11 Sediment - Concentration units are pCi/gram Pond 3 Sediment NA(c) 0.72 ± 0.17 (0.21) 29 ± 2.3 (0.081) 0.10 ± 0.028 (0.0053) 1.3 ± 0.14 (0.014) 0.20 ± 0.043 (0.012) Pond 4 Sediment NA 0.52 ± 0.11 (0.10) 140 ± 1.2 (0.23) 0.34 ± 0.062 (0.013) 2.8 ± 0.32 (0.013) 0.28 ± 0.054 (0.0059) Pond 4 Sediment FD NA 1.5 ± 0.20 (0.17) 140 ± 12 (0.25) 0.32 ± 0.055 (0.016) 2.6 ± 0.29 (0.010) 0.26 ± 0.050 (0.016) Pond 5 Sediment NA -0.071 ± 0.052 (0.16) 28 ± 2.4 (0.11) 0.016 ± 0.013 (0.019) 0.14 ± 0.036 (0.013) 0.024 ± 0.014 (0.012) Green-shaded results are considered detected (results greater than the sample-specific MDC) (a) ± 2 standard deviations (b) FD = Field duplicate (c) Not applicable: tritium is not measured in samples which do not contain water 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

All samples had radionuclide concentrations above their MDC (Table 4-6), with tritium being the highest. While 

tritium concentrations in pond water and tunnel effluent were elevated, they were about 40 percent lower than the 

limit allowed under permit NEV 96021 for that discharge system (Table 4-5). Tritium was found in all tunnel effluent 

and pond water samples at concentrations slightly lower than previous years’ samples (Figure 4-11). Concentrations 

of 90Sr, 137Cs, plutonium, and 241Am were at levels comparable with the past two years. 

Due to the elevated concentrations of radionuclides in the E Tunnel containment ponds, the ponds are fenced and 

posted with radiological warning signs. Given that the ponds are available to wildlife, animals are also sampled under 

RREMP monitoring to assess potential radiological doses to wildlife and to humans consuming game animals (see 

Section 7.0 and Section 8.0). 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Jan-95 Jan-96 Jan-97 Jan-98 Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06

Tritium Concentration ( x 106 pCi/L)

Pond Influent

Pond Water

Figure 4-11. Tritium concentration in E Tunnel Ponds from 1995 to 2005 

4.1.10 Results from NTS Sewage Lagoons 

Each sewage lagoon at the NTS is part of a closed system used for the evaporative treatment of sanitary sewage. 

Sewage storage and treatment at the NTS has transitioned from lagoons to septic systems at several locations in recent 

years. Two permitted sewage lagoons remain: Area 6 Yucca and Area 23 Mercury (A23) (see Figure 4-3). The 

permits for these lagoons do not require that the water or sediments be monitored for radioactivity (see Section 4.2.4). 

However, to more completely demonstrate the proper management of effluents on the NTS, limited radiological 

analyses are conducted for these lagoons under the RREMP (DOE, 2003b). 

The lagoon water samples were analyzed for tritium using standard (un-enriched) analyses and by gamma 

spectroscopy for other radionuclides. No tritium was detected at concentrations above MDCs in the lagoon water 

samples (Table 4-8) and no man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-21 

Table 4-8. Tritium water monitoring results for NTS sewage lagoons in 2005 

Monitoring Location Date Sampled 

3H ± Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 

(pCi/L) 

 Area 23 Mercury 1/5/2005 -302 ± 219 (371) 

 4/12/2005 -99.2 ± 215 (363) 

 7/13/2005 -120 ± 227 (382) 

 10/5/2005 34.9 ± 120 (204) 

 Area 6 Yucca 1/5/2005 -249 ± 219 (371) 

 4/12/2005 -99.2 ± 216 (363) 

 7/13/2005 225 ± 236 (382) 

 10/5/2005 107 ± 125 (205) 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

4.1.11 UGTA Wells 

The UGTA Project drilled three new Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain investigation wells in 2005: ER-12-3, 

ER-12-4 and ER-16-1 (Figure 4-12). The first two wells were in Area 12 (Rainier Mesa) and the third in Area 16 

(Shoshone Mountain). Well development and testing of the first two wells were conducted. The groundwater 

production rate of the third well was too low to conduct well development and testing. A multi-agency team 

consisting of personnel from Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture (SNJV), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), DRI, 

and LLNL collected groundwater samples from the Area 12 wells. During development and sampling, water 

temperature, pH, and conductivity were measured. Samples were then analyzed for selected radionuclides as well as 

gross alpha and gross beta. Groundwater data are maintained in the UGTA Project geochemical database by SNJV, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. Preliminary tritium analysis results for ER-12-3 and ER-12-4 are shown in Table 4-9. These two 

wells are classified as not contaminated, and groundwater from them 

was pumped into unlined sumps. 

The UGTA Project also sampled cavity well U-20n PS #1DD-H, 

the CHESHIRE test cavity (Figure 4-12). Groundwater from this 

well was pumped into a lined sump. Preliminary results show 

expected levels of radionuclides for post-shot wells, and tritium 

concentrations of about 37,000,000 pCi/L. Final laboratory 

analytical results and reports from LANL and LLNL are pending. 

In 2005, water sample analyses were completed for four UGTA Project wells (Figure 4-12) that were sampled at the 

end of 2004 (Table 4-10). 

 Table 4-10. Radiochemistry analysis results from UGTA well samples analyzed in 2005 

 UGTA Well (Date Sampled) 

Radionuclide (pCi/L) 

ER-12-1 

(12/08/2004) 

ER-20-5 #1 

(11/30/2004) 

ER-20-5 #3 

(11/29/2004) 

U-3cn PS#2 

(12/09/2004) 

3H 3.24 38,000,000 113,000 7,900,000 

14 C 0.034 224 2.73 372 

36Cl 0.00046 3.57 0.0131 25.5 

99 Tc NM (a) 0.35 0.017 62.6 

129I NM 0.19 0.0014 0.259 

234U 1.43 13.83 4.83 9.77 

235U 0.042 0.22 0.09 0.16 

238U 0.868 4.71 1.88 3.44 

239+240Pu NM 0.42 <0.04 <0.01 

 Source: Zavarin, 2006 (a) Not measured

Table 4-9. Tritium concentrations in UGTA

 wells sampled in 2005 

UGTA Well 3H (pCi/L) 

ER-12-3 0.5 

ER-12-4 89.7 

U-20n PS #1DD-H 37,000,000 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 4-12. UGTA Project wells on and off the NTS 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-23 

4.1.12 Environmental Impact 

The tritium data provide no evidence that radionuclides have traveled significant distances from underground testing 

areas or to offsite water supply wells or springs. None of the offsite springs or the offsite public or domestic water 

supply wells had detectable levels of tritium. Among the 12 offsite NNSA/NSO monitoring wells sampled in 2005, 

all but two had non-detectable concentrations of tritium. The two exceptions came from monitoring wells 

ER-OV-03C2 and ER-OV-03A, and their tritium levels, though considered detectable, were within the range of 

concentrations indicative of analytical background levels for tritium. 

Even on the NTS, groundwater monitoring results indicate that migration of radionuclides from the underground test 

areas is not significant. Groundwater from four monitoring wells on the NTS is known to consistently have tritium at 

levels above detection, and they are each within 1 km (0.6 mi) of an historical underground nuclear test. They have 

the highest levels of tritium of all wells monitored under the RREMP program. Their concentrations of tritium are 

still less than 3 percent of the EPA MCL for drinking water of 20,000 pCi/L, and no trend of rising tritium 

concentrations in these wells have been observed since 2000. 

None of the groundwater samples from drinking water supply wells on the NTS had tritium levels above their MDCs 

in 2005. 

No man-made radionuclides were detected by gamma spectroscopy in any offsite or onsite wells monitored under the 

RREMP. 

In contrast to the onsite and offsite groundwater wells monitored under the RREMP, the contaminated post-shot 

wells on the NTS sampled and analyzed by the UGTA Project in 2005 had tritium concentrations that were between 

5 times to 19 hundred times higher than the EPA MCL for drinking water of 20,000 pCi/L. 

Most RREMP groundwater and spring samples both on and off the NTS had gross alpha and gross beta levels above 

detection limits but below the EPA limits for drinking water. The detectable gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity 

is likely from natural sources. Of the groundwater and springs that have been sampled routinely since 1999, no 

detectable trends in gross alpha or gross beta activity or tritium concentrations have been found. 

Three onsite springs were sampled in 2005. Very low levels of tritium (46 pCi/L) were detected in the White Rock 

Spring water sample, and the source is expected to be surface contamination from past nuclear testing in the region. 

Gamma spectroscopy analysis detected the man-made fission product 144Ce in the water sample collected from Tub 

Spring, but no other man-made radionuclides were detected in the sample. This finding is currently unexplainable. 

Further monitoring of this spring in subsequent years will determine the validity of the gamma spectroscopy analysis. 

Neither White Rock or Tub springs are discharge points from a regional aquifer, but instead are perched water tables 

from surface infiltration of precipitation. 

The radiological impact to water resources from current and past activities on the NTS is groundwater contamination 

from man-made radionuclides within the UGTA Project CAUs shown in Figure 4-1. The current NTS activity of 

containing tritium-contaminated waters in lined sumps (as for the UGTA Project post-shot wells) and in the E Tunnel 

ponds exposes NTS wildlife to tritium in their drinking water or aquatic habitat. The effect on wildlife to this 

radiological exposure is addressed in Section 8.2 of this report and in previous annual environmental reports (DOE, 

2004d; 2005a). 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

4.2 Non-Radiological Drinking Water and Wastewater Monitoring 

The quality of drinking water and wastewater on the NTS is regulated by federal and state laws. The design, 

construction, operation, and maintenance of many of the drinking water and wastewater systems are regulated under 

state permits. BN was tasked with ensuring that such systems meet the applicable water quality standards and permit 

requirements (see Section 2.2). The NTS non-radiological water monitoring goals are shown below. BN ES 

personnel met these goals by conducting field water sampling and analyses, performing assessments, and maintaining 

documentation. The major compliance measures/actions that BN ES personnel monitor/performed on the NTS are 

also shown below. This section describes the results of 2005 monitoring. Radiological monitoring of drinking water 

on and off the NTS was presented in the preceding Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.6. 

4.2.1 Drinking Water Monitoring 

Nine permitted wells supply the potable water needs of NTS operations (Figure 4-13); these are grouped into three 

PWSs (Figure 4-13) that were operated by BN for NNSA/NSO in 2005. The PWSs are operated in accordance with 

the requirements in NAC 445A under permits issued by the BHPS, which are renewed annually. There are also four 

private water systems which are not subject to NAC 445A. To adhere to new, lower allowable drinking water 

concentrations for arsenic, the Army #1 and 5C wells were taken off the Area 23 and 6 PWS in 2005. WW C-1 was 

taken off the same PWS due to elevated total dissolved solids and the water’s hardness (see discussion below in 

Section 4.2.1.1). The permit for the effected PWS (NV0000360) will be revised in 2006 upon BHPS’s approval of 

water project completion reports documenting deactivation of the wells. 

4.2.1.1 Water Quality of PWS and Permitted Water Hauling Trucks 

The three PWS must meet water quality standards for National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards. 

The PWS must also meet other standards and conditions listed in the regulations relating to design, operation, and 

maintenance. For work locations at the NTS that are not part of a public water system, NNSA/NSO hauls potable 

water for use in decontamination and sanitation. The NTS uses two water tanker trucks which are permitted by the 

BHPS to haul water to a public water system. Normal use of these trucks involves hauling to private water systems 

and to hand-washing stations at construction sites, activities which are not subject to permitting. NNSA/NSO, 

however, retains the permits in case of emergency. These permits are also renewed annually. The two permitted 

Non-Radiological Water Monitoring Goals Compliance Measures/Actions 

Ensure that the operation of NTS public water systems 

(PWS) and private water systems provide high-quality 

drinking water to workers and visitors of the NTS. 

Determine if NTS PWS are operated in accordance with the 

requirements in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A 

under permits issued by the state. 

Determine if the operation of commercial septic systems to 

process domestic wastewater on the NTS meets operational 

standards in accordance with the requirements NAC 445A 

under permits issued by the state. 

Determine if the operation of industrial wastewater systems 

on the NTS meets operational standards of federal and state 

regulations as prescribed under the GNEV93001 state permit. 

Number of PWS samples containing coliform 

bacteria 

Concentration of synthetic organic Phase II and V 

contaminants, inorganic Phase II and V 

contaminants, disinfection byproducts, and 

secondary standards in PWS samples 

Measurements of 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand 

(BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH in 

sewage lagoon water 

Inspection of sewage lagoon systems 

Concentrations of 16 contaminants/water quality 

parameters in E Tunnel effluent water 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-25 

Figure 4-13. Drinking water systems on the NTS 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

potable water-hauling trucks are subject to water quality standards for coliform bacteria. Table 4-11 lists the water 

quality parameters monitored in 2005, sample frequencies, and sample locations. The largest PWS (Area 23 and 6) 

serves the main work areas of the NTS. It was monitored monthly for coliform bacteria at nine locations approved 

by the BHPS within the distribution systems. The two smaller systems (Area 12 and Area 25) were monitored 

quarterly for coliform bacteria. At all building locations, the sampling point for coliform bacteria is one of the sinks 

within one of the building’s bathrooms. Monitoring for other contaminants took place at the eight points of entry to 

the PWSs. Although not required by regulation or permit, the private water systems were monitored quarterly for 

coliform bacteria to ensure safe drinking water. All potable water-hauling trucks were monitored monthly for 

coliform bacteria. 

All water samples were collected in accordance with accepted practices and the analyses were performed by 

state-approved laboratories. Approved analytical methods listed in NAC 445A and Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 141 were used by the laboratories. 

Table 4-11. Water quality monitoring parameters and sampling design for NTS public drinking water systems 

PWS Contaminant 2005 Monitoring 

Requirement Monitoring Locations 

Coliform Bacteria 36 samples (3 buildings/ 

month and 4 samples/ 

building) 

Buildings 5-7, U1H restroom, 6-609, 

6-900, 22-1, 23-180, 23-701, 23-777, 

23-1103 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals - 

Phase II and V 

4 samples (1/entry point) Four Entry Points: Army Well Tank, 

Mercury N. Tank, 4/4A S. Tank, C-1 

Wellhead 

Disinfection By-Products 3 samples Buildings 6-900, 22-1, and 23-180 

Inorganic Chemicals - Phase II 4 samples (1/entry point) Four entry points (shown above) 

Fluoride 

 (an Inorganic Phase II 

 Chemical) 

5 samples (1/entry point) Four entry points (shown above) and 

Bldg. 6-900 

Arsenic (an Inorganic Phase V 

 Chemical) 

4 samples (1/entry point) Four entry points (shown above) 

Area 23 and 6 

Lead and Copper 

 (Secondary Standards 

 contaminants) 

10 samples Buildings 5-7, CP-214, CP-41, 23-117, 

23-143, 23-531, 23-532, 23-535, 23-614, 

23-652

Coliform Bacteria 4 samples (1/quarter) Building 12-45 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals - 

Phase II and V 

1 sample Entry point Area 12 S. Tank 

Disinfection By-Products 1 sample Building 12-30 

Inorganic Chemicals - Phase II 1 sample Entry point Area 18 Wellhead 8 (a)

Arsenic (an Inorganic Phase V 

 Chemical) 

1 sample Entry point Area 18 Wellhead 8 (a)

Secondary Standards 1 sample Entry point Area 12 S. Tank 

Area 12 

Lead and Copper 

 (Secondary Standards 

 contaminants) 

5 samples (1/building) Buildings: 12-31, 12-35, 12-34, 12-35, 

12-910 

Coliform Bacteria 4 samples (1/quarter) Building 25-4320 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals - 

Phase II and V 

1 sample Entry point J-11 Tank 

Disinfection By-Products 1 sample Building 4320 

Inorganic Chemicals - Phase II 1 sample Entry point J-11 Tank 

Area 25 

Arsenic (an Inorganic Phase V 

 Chemical) 

1 sample Entry point J-11 Tank 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-27 

Table 4-11. Water quality monitoring parameters and sampling design for NTS public drinking water systems 

 (continued) 

PWS Contaminant 2005 Monitoring 

Requirement Monitoring Locations 

Area 25 (cont.) Lead and Copper 

 (Secondary Standards 

 contaminants) 

5 samples (1/building) Buildings 25-3123, 25-4314, 25-4117, 

25-4221, 25-4320 

Truck 

Water-Hauling 

Truck 84846 

Coliform Bacteria 12 samples (1/month) From water tank on truck after filling at 

Area 6 potable water fill stand 

Water-Hauling 

Truck 84847 

Coliform Bacteria 12 samples (1/month) From water tank on truck after filling at 

Area 6 potable water fill stand 

(a) Water sample taken from Area 18 Wellhead 8 instead of Area 12 S. Tank due to tank refurbishment. 

On January 22, 2001, the EPA adopted a new standard for arsenic in drinking water at 10 parts per billion (ppb), 

replacing the old standard of 50 ppb. The rule became effective on February 22, 2002, and the date by which systems 

must comply with the new standard was January 23, 2006. Arsenic levels in three of the NTS permitted water wells 

(Army #1 WW, WW 5C, and WW C-1) are known to have arsenic levels above this standard. The source of the 

arsenic is suspected to be natural deposits in the earth1

. In preparation for the compliance deadline, Army #1 WW 

and WW 5C began to be deactivated or removed from the NTS PWSs. In 2005, they were removed from the Area 23 

and 6 PWS. Water from WW C-1 had already been diverted from entering the same PWS for the past several years 

because of elevated total dissolved solids (TDS) levels and hardness. ES is preparing water completion reports 

documenting the removal of these three permitted wells from the PWS. BHPS will review and approve these reports, 

after which the PWS permits will be revised. These approvals and permit revisions are anticipated to occur in 2006. 

In 2005, monitoring results indicated that the PWS and the permitted water-hauling trucks complied with National 

Primary Drinking Water Quality Standards (Table 4-12) with one exception. The Area 12 water system 

(PWS NV0004099) exceeded the action level for lead. BHPS was notified of this in the Third Quarterly Monitoring 

Report submitted in October 2005. This system had maintained compliance with the lead action levels during 

previous annual monitoring. ES will revert to semi-annual monitoring of this system to more closely monitor lead 

levels. The Area 12 buildings were last occupied in March 2005, and there are no immediate plans to use this camp in 

2006. As required by 40 CFR 141.85(c)(5), public information on lead will be distributed to potential camp occupants. 

 

1

The most likely source for the arsenic in groundwater from 5C WW (31 ppb) in Frenchman Flat is the Wahmonie volcanic 

center immediately west of Frenchman Flat. It is not uncommon for volcanic rocks in the western U.S. to be naturally elevated in 

arsenic (BN, 2004a). Hydrothermal mineralization processes that resulted in the enrichment of gold and silver in this once 

marginal mining district (circa 1905 and 1928) (Cornwall, 1972) also are responsible for the anomalously high arsenic content in 

this area (Castor et al., 1989). Detritus eroded from the Wahmonie hills and deposited as alluvial sediments has carried this 

high arsenic signature into western Frenchman Flat. Groundwater subsequently picks up some of the naturally-occurring 

elements from the aquifer matrix (in this case, sediments of the alluvial aquifer) including arsenic.

An explanation for the slightly elevated arsenic level in Army #1 WW (11 ppb) is not so clear as this well produces from the 

regional carbonate aquifer. Groundwater flow paths are from the NE to the SW in this vicinity (Laczniak et al., 1996; BN, 

2005a). It would not be unexpected for groundwater to pick up some arsenic as it moves past the Wahmonie volcanic center and 

other volcanic aquifers located generally upgradient of Army #1 WW.
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-28 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 4-12. Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2005 

 Results (milligrams per liter [mg/L]) 

Contaminant 

Maximum 

Contaminant 

Level (mg/L) 

Area 23 and 6 

PWS (a)

Area 12 

PWS 

Area 25 

PWS 

Coliform Bacteria (b)

Coliforms 

present in 1 

samples/month 

Absent in all 

samples 

Absent in all 

samples 

Absent in all 

samples 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals – Phase II 

 Alachlor 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Aldicarb 0.003 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 

 Aldicarb sulfoxide 0.004 <0.0005 <0.0005 <0.0005 

 Aldicarb sulfone 0.002 <0.0007 <0.0007 <0.0007 

 Atrazine 0.003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Carbofuran 0.04 <0.0009 <0.0009 <0.0009 

 Chlordane 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Dibromochloropropane 0.0002 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 

 2, 4-D 0.07 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Ethylene dibromide 0.00005 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 

 Heptachlor 0.0004 <0.00004 <0.00004 <0.00004 

 Heptachlor epoxide 0.0002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 

 Lindane 0.0002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 

 Methoxychlor 0.04 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 

 Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.0005 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 

 Pentachlorophenol 0.001 <0.00004 <0.00004 <0.00004 

 Toxaphene 0.003 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 

 2, 4, 5-TP 0.05 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

Synthetic Organic Chemicals – Phase V 

 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 <0.00002 <0.00002 <0.00002 

 Dalapon 0.2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 

 Di (2-ethylhexyl) adipate 0.4 <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 

 Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006 <0.0006 <0.0006 <0.0006 

 Dinoseb 0.007 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Diquat 0.02 <0.0004 <0.0004 <0.0004 

 Endothall 0.1 <0.009 <0.009 <0.009 

 Endrin 0.002 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 

 Glyphosate 0.7 <0.006 <0.006 <0.006 

 Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Oxamyl (Vydate) 0.2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 

 Picloram 0.5 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Simazine 0.004 <0.00007 <0.00007 <0.00007 

Disinfection Byproducts 

 Total Trihalomethanes: 

 (bromodichloromethane, chloroform, 

 dibromochloromethane, 

 trichlorofluoromethane) 0.08 0.0023-0.0063 0.0151 0.0028 

 Haloacetic Acids (HAA5): 

 (monochloroacetic acid, 

 dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic 

 acid, mono-bromoacetic acid, 

 dibromoacetic acid) 0.06 <0.002-<0.002 0.0037 <0.002 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-29 

Table 4-12. Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2005 (continued) 

 Results (mg/L) 

Contaminant 

Maximum 

Contaminant 

Level (mg/L) 

Area 23 and 6 

PWS (a)

Area 12 

PWS 

Area 25 

PWS 

Inorganic Chemicals – Phase II 

 Fluoride 2.0 0.84-2.0 0.87 1.2 

 Barium 2.0 0.0027-0.097 <0.002 0.120 

 Cadmium 0.005 <0.001-<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 

 Chromium 0.1 0.0084-0.005 0.0033 0.030 

 Mercury 0.002 <0.0001-<0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 

 Selenium 0.05 <0.002-0.002 <0.002 <0.002 

 Nitrate 10 as (N) 0.078 - 4.2 1.2 2.1 

 Nitrite 1 as (N) NA(c) <0.40 NA 

Inorganic Chemicals – Phase V 

 Arsenic 0.05 0.0067-0.012 <0.002 0.011

Secondary Standards 

 Aluminum 0.2 NA 0.0038 NA 

 Chloride 250.0 NA 7.1 NA 

 Copper 1.3 0.300 0.130 0.019 

 Iron 0.3 NA 0.079 NA 

 Lead 0.015 0.013 0.046 0.003 

 Magnesium 125.5 NA 1.3 NA 

 Manganese 0.05 NA 0.027 NA 

 Silver 0.1 NA <0.0025 NA 

 Sulfate 250.0 NA 16 NA 

 Zinc 5.0 NA <0.005 NA 

 

 Color 15.0 color units NA 6 color units NA 

 Foaming Agents 0.05 NA <0.02 NA 

 Odor 3.0 threshold odor 

number (TON) NA <1.0 TON NA 

 pH 6.5 - 8.5 NA 7.71 NA 

 TDS 500 NA 150 NA 

Highlighted cells indicate those water quality results which exceeded maximum contaminant levels 

(a) Coliform bacteria were not present in any samples collected from Water-Hauling Trucks 84846 and 84847 nor 

from the following private water systems: JASPER Compound, U3ah/at Complex, Area 6 Weather Station, 

and G Tunnel Office 

(b) Multiple samples analyzed at Area 23 and 6 PWS throughout the year. Results show lowest and highest 

concentration of contaminant among samples analyzed. 

(c) NA = Not applicable 

4.2.1.2 Sanitary Survey of PWS and Inspection of Permitted Water-Hauling Trucks 

The BHPS conducts a periodic sanitary survey of the permitted PWS. A sanitary survey consists of an inspection of 

the wells, tanks, and other visible portions of the PWS to ensure that they are maintained in a sanitary configuration. 

As non-community water systems, the minimum survey frequency for a sanitary survey is five years. The BHPS has 

been performing the survey more frequently, however. The BHPS inspects the two water-hauling trucks annually at 

the time of permit renewal to make sure they still meet the requirements of NAC 445A. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

The BHPS conducted a sanitary survey of the PWS in 2005. No significant deficiencies were noted, and correction of 

non-significant deficiencies are in progress. BHPS conducted an annual inspection of the permitted water-hauling 

trucks in 2005; no findings were noted. 

4.2.2 Domestic Wastewater Monitoring 

To obtain a permit for a proposed new NTS septic system, an assessment is conducted to ensure that the sources 

producing discharges are domestic in nature. BN (or the current Management and Operation contractor) and the 

state of Nevada conduct this assessment. After the design of a new system is completed, a permit package is 

submitted through NNSA/NSO to the state. Subsequent to state approval, a “permit to construct” is issued. After 

construction, the state conducts a final inspection. Upon approval, the state issues a “permit to operate.” 

Existing septic systems that are not permitted may be permitted by submitting a narrative describing facility 

operations, flow test results, tank and leach field sizing, engineering drawings, personnel numbers, existing flow 

(volume) information, and a fixture count. The application is reviewed by the state and an onsite inspection is 

conducted by BHPS. Approval results in the issuance of a “permit to operate.” 

There are seven active septic systems being used in place of inactive lagoons on the NTS (Figure 4-14). These are 

inspected periodically for sediment loading and are pumped as required. A state-permitted septic pumping contractor 

is used. The state conducts onsite inspections of pumper trucks and pumping contractor operations. 

ES personnel perform management assessments of permitted facilities and services to determine and document 

adherence to permit conditions. The assessments are performed according to existing directives and procedures. 

In 2005, the following compliance actions relating to domestic wastewater on the NTS occurred: 

• One new septic system was permitted at the NTS. This system was for Area 16 Department of Homeland 

Security (Permit NY-1124). 

• A septic system design was initiated for Area 6 ART Hangar. The final permit package submittal will be 

completed in 2006. 

• A septic tank pumping contractor permit (NY-17-03318), septic tank pump truck permits (NY-17-03313, 

NY-17-03315, NY-17-03317, NY-17-06838), and a septic tanker permit (NY-17-06839) were approved by the 

state and renewed in November 2005. 

4.2.3 Industrial Wastewater Monitoring 

Industrial discharges on the NTS were limited to two operating sewage lagoon systems in 2005: Area 6 Yucca Lake 

and Area 23 Mercury (these lagoon systems also receive domestic wastewater) (Figure 4-14). The Area 6 Yucca Lake 

system consists of two primary lagoons and two secondary lagoons. All lagoons in this system are lined using 

compacted native soils that meet the state of Nevada requirements for transmissivity (10-7centimeters per second). 

The Area 23 Mercury system consists of one primary lagoon, a secondary lagoon, and an infiltration basin. In 2005, a 

project was completed that lined the primary lagoon using a geosynthetic clay liner and a high-density polyethylene 

liner. On August 5, 2005, the Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001 was reissued, and the new 

permit has reduced monitoring requirements and does not require the sampling of well SM-23-1. A project has been 

initiated to line the secondary lagoon in 2006. 

Both sewage systems are monitored quarterly for influent quality and annually for influent toxicity. The locations 

where water samples were collected for analysis within each sewage system include: 

• Each influent headwork for systems where there is direct access to influent flows 

• Each pond near the lagoon’s inlet for systems where there is no direct access to influent flows 

• Each infiltration basin at a place where a sample most closely representing the infiltrating waste water can be 

collected 

Composite samples were collected over a period of 8 hours at the Area 6 Yucca Lake and Area 23 Mercury systems. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-31 

 Figure 4-14. Active permitted sewage disposal systems on the NTS 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-32 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

All water samples were collected in accordance with accepted practices, and the analyses were performed by 

state-approved laboratories. Approved analytical methods listed in NAC 445A and Title 40 CFR 141 were used by 

the laboratories. 

4.2.3.1 Quarterly Analysis of Influent Water Quality 

A composite sample from each influent headwork was collected quarterly. The composite sample was analyzed for 

three parameters: 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH (Table 4-13). The 

compliance limits for these parameters, established under Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001, are 

shown in Table 4-13. All quarterly monitoring results for BOD5, TSS, and pH for sewage system influent waters were 

within permit limits in 2005 with one exception. One BOD5 Mean Daily Load was exceeded at the Area 6 Yucca Lake 

Sewage lagoons in the first quarter. The weekly inspection reports were examined and there were no problems observed with 

respect to odor or color, and no septic conditions were observed. The second quarter samples were collected early and placed 

on a rush turn-around time. These results showed that the lagoons were once again in compliance and no other action was 

taken by BN nor requested by the state of Nevada.

Table 4-13. Water quality analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon influent waters in 2005 

4.2.3.2 Annual Analysis of Toxicity of Sewage Lagoon Pond Waters 

A grab sample from the Area 23 Mercury primary lagoon and an equal-volume composite sample from the two Area 6 

Yucca Lake primary lagoons were collected in July. 

Each grab and composite sample was filtered, the solids discarded, and the filtrate analyzed directly, using methods of 

analysis cited in EPA Publication SW-846. Each sample was analyzed for those contaminants listed in Table 4-14. 

The limits for these contaminants are also specified under state permit; they are the same limits specified in 

40 CFR 261.24, Table 1, Maximum Concentration of Contaminants for the Toxicity Characteristic. Annual 

monitoring of Area 6 Yucca Lake and Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoon waters adjacent to lagoon inlets showed that 

no contaminants exceeded permit limits (Table 4-14). 

 Minimum and Maximum Values from Quarterly Samples 

Parameter Units Area 6 Yucca Lake Area 23 Mercury 

BOD5 52.0 - 310 45.4 - 140 

BOD5 Permit Limit 

mg/L 

No Limit No Limit 

BOD5 Mean Daily Load (a) 1.91 – 9.56 7.85 – 26.5 

BOD5 Mean Daily Load Limit 

kg/d 

8.66 37.5 

TSS 89.9 - 161 42.0 – 59.6 

TSS Permit Limit 

mg/L 

No Limit No Limit 

pH 7.69 – 8.71 7.18 – 8.30 

pH Permit Limit 

S.U. (b)

6.0 – 9.0 6.0 – 9.0 

(a) BOD5 Mean Daily Load in kilograms per day (kg/d) = (mg/L BOD x liters per day (L/d) average flow x 3.785)/106

(b) Standard units of pH 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 4-33 

Table 4-14. Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2005 

Contaminant Limit(a) (mg/L) Area 6 Yucca 

(mg/L) 

Area 23 Mercury 

(mg/L) 

Benzene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Chlordane 0.03 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Chlorobenzene 100 < 0.005 < 0.005

Chloroform 6.0 < 0.005 < 0.005

Cresol (Total) 200 < 0.010 < 0.010

2,4-D 10 0.0019 < 0.001

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 < 0.010 < 0.010

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

1,1-Dichlorethylene 0.7 < 0.005 < 0.005

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13 < 0.010 < 0.010

Endrin 0.02 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Heptachlor 0.008 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 < 0.010 < 0.010

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 < 0.010 < 0.010

Hexachloroethane 3.0 < 0.010 < 0.010

Lindane 0.4 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 

Methoxychlor 10 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

Methylethyl Ketone 200 < 0.010 < 0.010

Nitrobenzene 2.0 < 0.010 < 0.010

Pentachlorophenol 100 < 0.025 < 0.025 

Pyridine 5.0 < 0.010 < 0.010

Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 < 0.005 < 0.005

Toxaphene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Trichloroethylene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 400 < 0.025 < 0.025

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2.0 < 0.010 < 0.010

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 1.0 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

Vinyl Chloride 0.2 < 0.010 < 0.010

Arsenic 5.0 0.0083 0.0142 

Barium 100 0.0239 0.0805 

Cadmium 1.0 < 0.0003 < 0.0003 

Chromium 5.0 0.0018 0.0017 

Lead 5.0 < 0.0025 0.0068 

Mercury 0.2 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 

Selenium 1.0 < 0.0049 < 0.0049 

Silver 5.0 < 0.0009 < 0.0009 

(a) Source: 40 CFR 261.24, Table 1 

4.2.3.3 Sewage System Inspections 

The sewage system operators inspect active systems weekly and inactive lagoon systems quarterly. State of Nevada 

inspections of active and inactive lagoon systems are conducted annually. Operators inspect for abnormal conditions, 

weeds, algae blooms, pond color, abnormal odors, dike erosion, burrowing animals, discharge from ponds or lagoons, 

depth of staff gauge, crest level, excess insect population, maintenance/repairs needed, and general conditions. 

In 2005, there was one notable inspection finding at the Area 23 lagoons. The lagoons had a problem related to the 

flow meters located at the influent headworks. The problem was investigated and determined to be caused by several 

scheduled power outages at the NTS during the third quarter. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

conducted an annual inspection of active and inactive sewage lagoon systems on June 29 and 30, 2005. The inspection found no problems with the field maintenance program in keeping the lagoons, sites, and access roads functional.
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-34 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 5-1

5.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment and 

DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management have requirements to protect the public and environment from 

exposure to radiation (see Section 2.3). Energy from radionuclides present in the Nevada Test Site (NTS) 

environment could potentially be deposited inside humans and animals through inhalation and ingestion. Section 3.1

and Section 4.1 present the results of monitoring radionuclides in air and water on the NTS. Monitoring results are 

used to estimate internal radiation dose to the public via inhalation and ingestion. Energy absorbed from radioactive 

materials residing outside the body results in an external dose. In 2005, external dose was measured under the Direct 

Radiation Monitoring Program of Bechtel Nevada (BN) Environmental Technical Services. This section presents the 

results of monitoring direct ionizing radiation on the NTS from all sources, including natural radioactivity from 

cosmic or terrestrial sources and from man-made radioactive sources. These data are then used to document and 

trend gamma radiation exposure rates on the NTS. 

Direct radiation monitoring is conducted to assess the state of the external radiation environment, detect changes in 

that environment, and measure gamma radiation levels near potential exposure sites. DOE Order 450.1, Environmental 

Protection Program states that environmental monitoring should be conducted to detect, characterize, and respond to 

releases from DOE activities, assess impacts, and estimate dispersal patterns in the environment. In addition, 

DOE Order 5400.5 states that “it is also an objective that potential exposures to members of the public be as low as is 

reasonably achievable (ALARA)”. The specific goals for the direct radiation monitoring program are shown below. 

Direct Radiation Monitoring Program Goals

Assess the proportion of dose to the public which comes from background radiation versus NTS operations 

Measure the potential external dose to a member of the public in order to determine if the total dose (internal and 

external) exceeds 100 millirem per year (mrem/yr) (1 millisievert [mSv]/yr), the dose limit of DOE Order 5400.5 

Determine if radiation levels from the Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs) are likely to result in a dose 

exceeding the 25 mrem/yr (0.25 mSv/yr) dose limit to members of the public as specified in DOE M 435.1-1 

Monitor operational activities involving radioactive material, radiation-generating devices, or accidental releases of 

radioactive material to ensure exposure to members of the public are kept ALARA as stated in DOE Order 5400.5 

Determine if the absorbed radiation dose from external radiation exposure to NTS terrestrial plants and aquatic 

animals is less than 1 rad per day (1 rad/d) (0.01 gray [Gy]/d), and if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS terrestrial 

animals is less than 0.1 rad/d (1 milligray [mGy]/d) (limits prescribed by DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE Standard 

DOE-STD-1153-2002) 

Determine the exposure rates through time at various soil contamination areas to fulfill the requirements of DOE 

Order 450.1 to characterize releases in the environment 

An oversight monitoring program has been established by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office to independently monitor direct radiation within communities adjacent to the 

NTS. This independent oversight is provided through the Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) 

and managed by the Desert Research Institute (DRI). DRI’s 2005 direct radiation monitoring results are presented in 

Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3. 

5.1 Measurement of Direct Radiation 

Direct radiation is exposure to electromagnetic (i.e., gamma and X-ray) radiation. Electromagnetic radiation is able to 

travel long distances through air and to penetrate living tissue causing ionization within the body tissues. In contrast, 

alpha and beta particles do not travel far in air (a few centimeters for alpha and about 10 meters (m) (32.8 feet [ft]) for 
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

beta particles). Alpha particles deposit only negligible energy externally; they rarely penetrate the outer dead layer of 

skin. Beta particles are generally absorbed in the immediate layers of skin below the outer layer. 

Direct radiation exposure is usually reported in the unit milliroentgen (mR), which is a measure of exposure in terms of 

numbers of ionizations. Generally, the dose resulting from an exposure from the most common external radionuclides 

can be approximated by equating a 1 milliroentgen (mR) exposure with a 1 mrem (0.01 mSv) dose. 

5.2 TLD Surveillance Network Design 

Monitoring is performed on the NTS because some NTS areas have elevated radiation levels resulting from one or 

more of the following: (1) historical weapons testing, (2) current and past radioactive waste management activities, 

and (3) current operational activities involving radioactive material or radiation-generating devices. A surveillance 

network of thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) sampling locations has been established on the NTS. The objectives 

and design of the network are described in detail in the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) 

(DOE, 2003b). For more details on sampling and analysis methods, the reader is encouraged to refer to the RREMP. 

TLDs measure ionizing radiation exposure from all sources, including natural and man-made radioactivity. The TLD 

used is the Panasonic UD-814AS, which consists 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. The average of 

three calcium sulfate elements is used to measure penetrating gamma radiation. 

A pair of TLDs is placed at 1.0 ± 0.3 m (28 to 51 inches [in.]) above the ground at each monitoring location and is 

exchanged for analysis quarterly. The quarterly analysis of TLDs is performed using automated TLD readers that are 

calibrated and maintained. In 2005, TLD calibration and maintenance was performed by the BN Radiological Control 

Department (RCD). Reference TLDs are exposed to 100 mR from a 137Cs radiation source under tightly controlled 

conditions. These are then read along with TLDs collected from the environment to calibrate their response. 

In 2005, there were 109 active environmental TLD locations on the NTS (Figure 5-1). They include the following 

numbers and types of locations: 

• Background (B) – 10 locations where radiation effects from NTS operations are negligible. 

• Environmental 1 (E1) – 41 locations where there is no measurable radioactivity from past operations but which 

are of interest due to either (1) the presence of personnel or the public in the area or (2) the potential for receiving 

radiation exposure from a current operation. 

• Environmental 2 (E2) – 35 locations where there is measurable added radioactivity from past operations and the 

locations are of interest due to (1) the potential for personnel to be in the area and (2) the need to monitor 

exposure trends in the area. Some locations fitting this description are grouped with the WO category below. 

• Waste Operations (WO) – 17 locations in and around the Area 3 RWMS and the Area 5 RWMS. 

• Control (C) – 6 locations in Building 650 in Mercury. Control TLDs are kept in stable environments and are used 

as a quality check on the TLDs and the analysis process. 

5.2.1 Data Quality 

Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols, including data quality objectives, have been developed and 

are maintained as essential elements of direct radiation monitoring, as directed by the RREMP. The QA/QC 

requirements established for the monitoring program include the use of sample packages to thoroughly document 

each sampling event, rigorous management of databases, and completion of essential training. Agreement between 

the results provided by the paired TLDs at each location was very good, with an average relative percent difference 

between measurements of 2.5 percent for 2005. Quarterly results from Control TLDs were not significantly different 

from those of previous years. These exhibited quarter-to-quarter coefficients of variation ranging from 6.1 to 

10.1 percent and averaging 8.2 percent in 2005. This is a measure of the inherent variation associated with the TLD 

sampling process; values for control locations ranged from 1.2 to 10.0 percent in recent years. The RCD maintains 

certification through the DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program for dosimetry. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 5-3

Figure 5-1. Location of TLDs on the NTS 
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

5.2.2 Data Reporting

Direct radiation is reported as exposure per unit of time. TLD analysis results are maintained in a database as 

mR per day (mR/d), calculated by dividing the measured mR exposure per quarter for each TLD by the number of 

days in the quarter. For annual reporting purposes, these are multiplied by 365. The estimated annual exposure is the 

average of the four quarterly annualized values; this is used to determine compliance with federal annual direct 

radiation exposure limits. 

5.3 Results 

Estimated annual exposures for all TLD locations are summarized in Table 5-1; summary statistics for the five 

location types are given in Table 5-2. During 2005, the average of the estimated annual exposures at background 

locations was 119 mR; these ranged from 65 to 161 mR over the ten background locations (Table 5-2). A 95 percent 

prediction interval (PI) for annual exposures based on these background location values is 40.5 to 197.3 mR. 

For comparison, the CEMP estimated the annual exposure in Las Vegas, Nevada (at 2,040 ft elevation) was 97 mR 

during 2005 (see Table 6-3). Estimated exposures at CEMP locations ranged from 82 mR at Pahrump (2550 ft 

elevation) to 155 mR at Twin Springs (5055 ft elevation). There is a generally increasing relationship between 

exposure and elevation, with a correlation coefficient around 0.45. For comparison, the NTS background locations 

with lowest and highest estimated exposures are at elevations 3,569 ft and 5,700 ft respectively. Exposure estimates at 

all locations include the contribution from natural sources. Dose limits prescribed by DOE orders only apply to 

exposures above background levels. 

Table 5-1. Annual direct radiation exposure rates measured at TLD locations on the NTS in 2005 

 Estimated Annual Exposure (mR/yr) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number of 

Quarters Mean(b) Median(b) SD(b) Min(b) Max(b)

5 3.3 Mi SE of Aggregate Pit B 3 65 62 6 61 72

14 Mid-Valley ETLD B 4 146 145 7 140 155

16 Stake P-3 B 4 121 119 4 118 127

20 Stake A-112 B 4 161 160 8 154 171

20 Stake A-118 B 4 157 157 5 151 161

22 Army #1 Water Well B 4 85 85 2 83 87

25 Gate 25-4-P B 4 133 132 2 131 136

25 Station 510 B 4 130 131 4 124 132

25 Jackass Flats & A-27 Roads B 3 82 81 2 80 85

25 Skull Mtn Pass B 4 109 109 2 107 112

23 Bldg 650, Rm 142, Pig, C 4 27 26 2 25 30

23 Bldg 650, Rm 142, Pig, NE C 4 26 25 2 25 28

23 Bldg 650, Rm 142, Pig, NW C 4 26 25 3 25 31

23 Bldg 650, Rm 142, Pig, SE C 4 26 25 2 25 30

23 Bldg 650, Rm 142, Pig, SW C 4 26 25 3 25 30

23 Building 650 Dosimetry C 4 61 60 4 58 66

1 BJY E1 4 121 120 2 119 124

1 Sandbag Storage Hut E1 4 116 116 3 111 119

1 Stake C-2 E1 4 121 120 4 118 126

2 Stake M-140 E1 4 133 132 7 127 143

2 Stake TH-58 E1 4 96 94 6 92 105

3 LANL Trailers E1 4 123 123 2 120 125

3 Stake OB-20 E1 4 90 89 4 87 97

3 Well ER 3-1 E1 3 128 126 6 124 135
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 5-5

Table 5-1. Annual direct radiation exposure rates measured at TLD locations on the NTS in 2005 (continued) 

 Estimated Annual Exposure (mR/yr) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number of 

Quarters Mean(b) Median(b) SD(b) Min(b) Max(b)

4 Stake TH-41 E1 4 113 113 4 109 118

4 Stake TH-48 E1 4 122 122 3 118 125 

5 Water Well 5B E1 4 114 114 4 109 120 

6 CP-6 E1 4 71 71 3 69 75 

6 DAF East E1 4 97 96 3 94 101 

6 DAF North E1 4 104 102 3 101 108 

6 DAF South E1 4 137 136 5 133 143 

6 DAF West E1 4 85 84 3 82 89 

6 Decon Facility NW E1 4 129 130 5 124 134 

6 Decon Facility SE E1 4 133 132 6 128 141 

6 Stake OB-11.5 E1 4 130 128 5 127 138 

6 Yucca Compliance E1 4 93 93 4 89 98 

6 Yucca Oil Storage E1 4 100 99 4 98 106 

7 Reitmann Seep E1 3 127 124 5 123 133 

7 Stake H-8 E1 4 130 129 5 125 137 

9 Papoose Lake Road E1 4 91 89 5 86 97 

9 U-9cw South E1 4 106 105 3 103 111 

9 V & G Road Junction E1 4 115 114 3 112 119 

10 Gate 700 South E1 4 133 132 2 132 137 

11 Stake A-21 E1 4 132 131 5 127 138 

12 Upper N Pond E1 4 131 130 6 126 139 

16 3545 Substation E1 4 144 142 5 141 151 

18 Stake A-83 E1 4 147 145 5 143 154 

18 Stake F-11 E1 4 146 146 7 137 155 

19 Stake P-41 E1 4 164 163 4 160 169 

20 Stake J-41 E1 4 140 139 6 136 149 

23 Gate 100 Truck Parking 1 E1 4 220 221 151 65 374 

23 Gate 100 Truck Parking 2 E1 4 68 68 8 61 75 

23 Mercury Fitness Track E1 4 60 60 3 57 64 

25 HENRE E1 4 125 125 3 121 128 

25 NRDS Warehouse E1 4 125 125 3 122 129 

27 Cafeteria E1 4 115 114 2 114 119 

27 JASPER-1 E1 4 115 114 3 113 118 

1 Bunker 1-300 E2 4 126 126 3 122 130 

1 T1 E2 4 313 309 14 302 334 

2 Stake L-9 E2 4 174 172 7 169 184 

2 Stake N-8 E2 4 582 581 13 566 598 

3 Stake A-6.5 E2 4 142 142 2 141 145 

3 T3 E2 4 408 410 7 398 413 

3 T3 West E2 4 390 391 11 377 402 

3 T3A E2 4 472 472 4 468 477 

3 T3B E2 4 502 501 9 492 513 

3 U-3co North E2 4 203 206 9 190 211 

3 U-3co South E2 4 150 150 4 146 155 

4 Stake A-9 E2 4 725 721 14 714 744 

5 Frenchman Lake E2 4 391 391 10 381 400 

7 Bunker 7-300 E2 4 257 255 8 250 269 

7 T7 E2 4 120 119 4 116 126 
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Table 5-1. Annual direct radiation exposure rates measured at TLD locations on the NTS in 2005 (continued) 

 Estimated Annual Exposure (mR) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number of 

Quarters Mean(b) Median(b) SD(b) Min(b) Max(b)

8 Baneberry 1 E2 4 418 416 12 406 434 

8 Road 8-02 E2 4 130 126 11 122 145 

8 Stake K-25 E2 4 105 105 1 103 106 

8 Stake M-152 E2 4 166 163 7 161 176 

9 B9A E2 4 133 133 3 130 138 

9 Bunker 9-300 E2 4 125 124 3 123 130 

9 T9B E2 4 574 572 10 563 587 

10 Circle & L Roads E2 4 121 121 1 120 121 

10 SEDAN East Visitor Box E2 4 135 134 3 132 139 

10 SEDAN West E2 4 249 250 4 244 253 

10 T10 E2 4 272 273 3 268 275 

12 T-Tunnel #2 Pond E2 4 258 254 11 249 274 

12 Upper Haines Lake E2 4 110 109 6 105 118 

15 EPA Farm E2 4 114 114 2 112 115 

18 JOHNNIE BOY North E2 4 145 143 5 141 152 

20 PALANQUIN E2 4 249 249 5 243 254 

20 SCHOONER-1 E2 4 834 835 21 810 855 

20 SCHOONER-2 E2 4 292 293 7 283 299 

20 SCHOONER-3 E2 4 143 142 3 142 147 

20 Stake J-31 E2 4 171 169 5 167 177 

3 A3 RWMS Center WO 4 144 145 3 140 147 

3 A3 RWMS East WO 4 148 148 2 144 149 

3 A3 RWMS North WO 4 126 125 2 124 129 

3 A3 RWMS South WO 4 390 390 6 382 396 

3 A3 RWMS West WO 4 130 130 3 128 133 

5 A5 RWMS East Gate WO 4 127 128 12 113 139 

5 A5 RWMS Expansion NE WO 4 143 143 4 138 148 

5 A5 RWMS Expansion NW WO 4 145 145 3 142 149 

5 A5 RWMS NE Corner WO 4 126 126 3 124 129 

5 A5 RWMS NW Corner WO 4 125 126 3 122 128 

5 A5 RWMS South Gate WO 4 112 112 3 109 115 

5 A5 RWMS SW Corner WO 4 126 125 3 125 131 

5 Building 5-31 WO 4 115 116 8 107 122 

5 WEF East WO 4 133 133 8 126 143 

5 WEF North WO 4 135 137 15 117 150 

5 WEF South WO 4 144 142 15 128 164 

5 WEF West WO 4 129 129 6 124 134 

(a) Location types: 

 B = Background locations 

 C = Control locations 

 E1 = Environmental locations with exposure rates near background but monitored for potential for increased 

 exposure rates due to NTS operations 

 E2 = Environmental locations with measurable radioactivity from past operations, excluding those designated "WO" 

 WO = Locations in or near waste operations 

(b) Mean, median, standard deviation (SD), minimum, and maximum values from quarterly estimates. In general, each 

quarterly estimate is the average of two TLD readings per location. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 5-7

 Table 5-2. Summary statistics for 2005 annual direct radiation exposure by TLD location type 

 Estimated Annual Exposure (mR) 

Location Type 

Number of 

Locations Mean(a) Median(a) SD(a) Min(a) Max(a)

Background (B) 10 119 125 33 65 161 

Control (C) 6 32 26 14 26 61 

Environmental 1 (E1) 41 119 122 28 60 220 

Environmental 2 (E2) 35 277 203 188 105 834 

Waste Operations (WO) 17 147 130 63 112 390 

All Locations 10 119 125 33 65 161 

(a) Mean, median, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum values from annual estimated exposures 

5.3.1 Potential Exposure to the Public along the NTS Boundary 

Most of the NTS is not accessible to the public, as only the southern portion of the NTS boundary borders public 

land. Therefore, the only place the public has potential for exposure to direct radiation from the NTS is along the 

southern boundary. 

Gate 100 is the primary entrance point to the NTS. The outer parking areas are accessible to the public. Trucks 

hauling radioactive materials, primarily low-level radioactive waste being shipped for disposal in the RWMSs, often 

park outside Gate 100 while waiting for entry to the NTS. Two TLD locations were established in October 2003 to 

monitor this truck parking area. The TLD on the north end of the parking area (Gate 100 Truck Parking 2) had an 

estimated annual exposure of 68 mR, with quarterly estimates varying between 61 and 75 mR, all within the range of 

background exposures observed at the NTS. 

The TLD location on the west side of the parking area (Gate 100 Truck Parking 1) had an estimated annual exposure 

of 220 mR, however, with quarterly estimates decreasing from 374 mR in the first calendar quarter to 65 mR in the 

fourth quarter. The first two quarterly values are outside the background-based PI; the last two values are within the 

PI for background. This reverses the increasing trend observed during the latter part of 2004. It is likely that waste 

shipments entering the NTS are responsible for these changes. A hypothetical individual residing at that location 

24 hours a day for the entire year would have received a total exposure of 220 mR, resulting in an external dose of 

about 101 mrem above the NTS-wide background mean level of 119 mR. That exposure would be 155 mR above the 

estimated exposure at the nearest background location, or 59 mR above the highest estimated background exposure. 

These values straddle the allowable dose of 100 mrem during the year, established by DOE Order 5400.5; however, 

nobody resides or remains full-time in the truck parking area. 

While the public has access only to the southern portions of the NTS borders, other people may have access to other 

boundaries of the NTS. The great majority of the NTS is bounded by the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR). 

Military or other personnel on the NTTR who are not classified as radiation workers would also be subject to the 

100 mrem annual dose limit for members of the public. The only place a soil contamination area crosses a boundary 

with NTTR is in the Frenchman Lake region of Area 5 along the southeast boundary of the NTS. A TLD location 

was established in July 2003 near the NTS boundary in the Frenchman Lake playa. The estimated annual exposure at 

Frenchman Lake during 2005 was 391 mR (down from 411 mR in 2004). The resulting above background dose of 

approximately 230 to 326 mrem (depending on which background value is used) would exceed the 100 mrem dose 

limit to a hypothetical person residing year-round at this location; again, however, there are no living quarters or fulltime workers in this vicinity. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Area 3 Estimated Annual Exposures

0

200

400

600

800

Exposure Rate (mR/yr)

Background Locations

Environmental 1 Locations

Environmental 2 Locations

Waste Operation Locations

Prediction Interval for Background

All 

Background

Locations

Inside

RWMS

RWMS

Boundary

Outside

RWMS

5.3.2 Exposure Rates at RWMSs 

The Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1 (DOE, 2001b), states that low-level waste disposal facilities 

shall be operated, maintained, and closed so that a reasonable expectation exists that annual dose to members of the 

public shall not exceed 25 mrem. Given that the RWMSs are located well within the NTS boundaries, there are no 

members of the public which could access these areas for significant periods of time. However, exposures are 

measured by TLDs located at the RWMSs to show the potential dose to a hypothetical person residing year-round at 

each RWMS. 

5.3.2.1 Area 3 RWMS 

The Area 3 RWMS is located in Yucca Flat. Between 1952 and 1972, 60 nuclear weapons tests were conducted within 

400 m of the Area 3 RWMS boundary. Fourteen of these tests were atmospheric tests which left radionuclidecontaminated surface soil and, therefore, elevated radiation exposures across the area. Waste pits in the Area 3 

RWMS are subsidence craters from seven subsurface tests that are being filled with low-level radioactive waste. These 

are then covered with clean soil; this results in lower exposures inside the Area 3 RWMS compared with the average 

exposures at the fence line or in Area 3 outside the fence line. 

Annual exposures during 2005 in and around the Area 3 RWMS are shown in Figure 5-2. The exposures measured 

inside Area 3 RWMS and three of four measurements at the boundary were within the range of background 

exposures. The estimated exposure above the range of NTS background levels at one location on the RWMS 

boundary is associated with historic above-ground nuclear weapon test locations. Given this, current Area 3 RWMS 

operations would have contributed negligible external exposure to a hypothetical person residing at the Area 3 RWMS 

boundary during 2005. 

Figure 5-2. Annual exposure rates in and around the Area 3 RWMS plus 

background during 2005 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 5-9

5.3.2.2 Area 5 RWMS 

The Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC), consisting of the Area 5 RWMS along with ancillary 

support facilities, is located in the northern portion of Frenchman Flat. Twenty-five nuclear weapons tests were 

conducted within 6.3 kilometers (km) (3.9 miles [mi]) of the Area 5 RWMC between 1951 and 1971. Fifteen of these 

were atmospheric tests and, of the remaining ten, nine released radioactivity to the surface which contribute to 

exposures in the area. No nuclear weapons testing occurred within the boundaries of the Area 5 RWMC itself. 

During 2005, estimated annual exposures at Area 5 RWMC TLD locations were within the range of exposures 

measured at NTS background locations (Figure 5-3). The one exposure rate measured outside the RWMC in Area 5 

that was higher than background levels was within 0.5 km (0.3 mi) from 6 atmospheric tests in Frenchman Lake Playa. 

Figure 5-3. Annual exposure rates around the Area 5 RWMS plus background 

during 2005 

5.3.3 Exposures from NTS Operational Activities 

During 2005, there were 41 TLDs in locations where there is negligible radioactivity from past operations but which 

are of interest due to either the presence of personnel or the public in the area or due to the potential for receiving 

radiation exposure from current operations (E1 locations). The estimated mean annual exposure at these locations 

was 119 mR, virtually the same as the mean estimated annual exposure at background locations (see Table 5-2). The 

estimated annual exposures at nearly all E1 locations were within the background-based PIs; therefore, annual 

exposures were not different between B and E1 locations. The only exception was the Gate 100 Truck Parking #1 

location discussed previously. 

5.3.4 Exposure to NTS Plants and Animals 

The TLD location with the highest annual exposure (Schooner-1) had its highest measured exposure rate of 

2.34 mR/d during the second quarter (855 mR/yr, see Table 5-1). At an elevation near the ground (e.g., 3 cm 

[1.2 in.]), the exposure would be about four times higher than at the 1-m (3.3-ft) height where TLDs are placed. 

Therefore, the daily exposure rate near the ground surface at the Schooner-1 location would be less than 10 mR/d. 

Area 5 Estimated Annual Exposures

0

200

400

600

800

Exposure Rate (mR/yr)

Background Locations

Environmental 1 Locations

Environmental 2 Locations

Waste Operation Locations

Prediction Interval for Background

All 

Background

Locations

RWMC

Boundary

Outside

RWMC
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005

Exposure Rate (mR/yr)

Control Locations

Background Locations

Environmental 1 Locations

Environmental 2 Locations

Waste Operation Locations Stake A-9

Schooner 1

Stake N-8

RWMS S

U-3 CO S (old)

U-3 CO N (old)

Generally, the dose resulting from an exposure from the most common external radionuclides can be approximated by 

equating a 1 mR exposure with a 1 mrad (0.01 mGy) dose. Therefore, this would result in an external dose that is 

approximately 10 percent of the most stringent dose rate to biota, which is the 0.1 rad/d limit to terrestrial animals 

mandated by DOE-STD-1153-2002. Hence, doses to plants and animals from external radiation exposure at NTS 

monitoring locations are low compared with the mandated dose limit.

5.3.5 Exposure Rate Patterns in the Environment over Time 

DOE Order 450.1 states that environmental monitoring should be conducted to characterize releases from DOE 

activities. Continued monitoring of exposures at locations of past releases on the NTS helps to do this. Small 

quarter-to-quarter changes are normally seen in exposure rates from all locations. In 2005, for example, the second 

quarter was higher than the others. The differences were statistically significant (p=0.000) for all location types, but 

fairly small (an average 5.6 percent difference between the second quarter and the other quarters for B locations, 

16.9 percent for C locations, 6.6 percent for E 1 locations [with Gate 100 Truck Parking 1 omitted], and 4.4 percent 

for E2 locations). For WO locations, the second quarter was an average 7.4 percent higher than the third and fourth 

quarters; the first quarter values were also higher than the third and fourth quarter, but not quite so much as the 

second quarter. The mildly elevated first quarter WO values were at the Area 5 RWMC. 

Long-term trends are displayed in Figure 5-4 for all active locations by type. The Schooner-1 TLD location, 

established in 2003, has the highest exposure of any current NTS location. It is located approximately 100 m from the 

edge of the crater created by the Schooner test. The next two highest exposures shown in Figure 5-4, at Stake A-9 

and Stake N-8, continue to decrease by 4.3 and 5.3 percent per year, respectively; these correspond to half-lives of 

about 16 and 13 years. The next four highest exposures shown are at T-Tunnel #2 Pond, Bunker 7-300, Sedan West, 

and Stake J-31, which are decreasing by 4.3, 2.8, 4.4, and 6.0 percent per year since 1989, respectively. All six of these 

locations are in the E2 category at known contaminated sites, with the predominant photon-emitting radionuclides 

being 137Cs, 60Co, 152Eu, and 241Am. The observed decreases are due to a combination of natural radioactive decay and 

the dispersal of radionuclides in the environment. Exposures at all other locations with long-term data have been 

relatively stable over time, indicating little added radioactivity at those locations (Figure 5-4). 

Figure 5-4. Trend in direct radiation exposure measured at TLD locations 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 5-11

5.4 Environmental Impact 

Direct radiation exposure to the public from NTS operations in 2005 was negligible. Radionuclides historically 

released to the environment on the NTS have resulted in localized elevated exposures. These areas of elevated 

exposure are not open to the public nor are there personnel working in these areas full-time. Overall exposures at the 

RWMSs appear to be generally lower inside or at the boundary compared with those outside the RWMSs. This is 

likely due to the presence of radionuclides released from historical testing distributed throughout the area around the 

RWMSs, compared with the clean soil used inside the RWMSs to cap waste pits. The external dose to plants and 

animals at the location with the highest measured exposure was a small fraction of the dose limit to biota; hence no 

detrimental effects to biota from external radiation exposure are expected at the NTS. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

5-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 6-1 

6.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and 

Water 

Community oversight for the Nevada Test Site (NTS) is provided through the Community Environmental 

Monitoring Program (CEMP) whose mission is to monitor and communicate environmental data that are relevant to 

the safety and well-being of participating communities and their surrounding areas. Previously, the CEMP network 

functioned as a first line of offsite detection of potential radiation releases from underground nuclear tests at the NTS, 

and it can be outfitted to fulfill this role again should underground testing resume. It currently exists as a nonregulatory public informational and outreach program, although quarterly reporting of monitoring data is furnished to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX as a supplemental requirement to NTS onsite monitoring. The 

CEMP is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office 

(NNSA/NSO), and is administered and operated by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) of the Nevada System of 

Higher Education. 

Monitored and collected data include, but are not necessarily limited to, background and airborne radiation data, 

meteorological data, and tritium concentrations in community and ranch drinking water wells. Network stations, 

located in Nevada and Utah, are managed by local citizens, many of them high school science teachers, whose routine 

tasks are to maintain the equipment, collect air filters, and route them to the DRI for analysis. These Community 

Environmental Monitors (CEMs) are also available to discuss the monitoring results with the public and to speak to 

community and school groups. DRI’s responsibilities include maintaining the physical monitoring network through 

monthly visitations by environmental radiation monitoring specialists, who also participate in training and interfacing 

with CEMs and interacting with other local community members and organizations to provide information related to 

the monitoring data. DRI also provides public access to the monitoring data through maintenance of a project Web 

site at <http://www.cemp.dri.edu/>. A detailed historical background of the CEMP can be found at 

<http://www.cemp.dri.edu/CEMPhist.html> along with more detailed descriptions of the various types of sensors 

found at the stations and on outreach activities conducted by the CEMP. 

6.1 Offsite Air Monitoring 

During 2005, 27 CEMP stations managed by DRI comprised the Air Surveillance Network (ASN) (Figure 6-1). One 

new station installed at Mesquite, Nevada in the fall of 2005 has supplied about two months’ data for this report 

concerning background gamma radiation. However, data related to low volume particulate air sampling will not be 

available until calendar year 2006. The ASN stations include various equipment, as described below. The Mesquite, 

Nevada CEMP station is shown in Figure 6-2.

CEMP Low-Volume Air Sampling Network - During 2005, the CEMP ASN included continuously operating lowvolume particulate air samplers located at 24 of the 27 CEMP station locations. No low-volume air samplers were 

located at Medlins Ranch, Warm Springs Summit, or Mesquite Nevada during 2005. Duplicate air samples were 

collected from up to three ASN stations each week. The duplicate samplers are operated at randomly selected 

stations for three months (one calendar quarter) before being moved to a new location. 

Glass-fiber filters from the low-volume particulate samplers are collected by the CEMs, mailed to DRI, then prepared 

and forwarded to an independent laboratory to be analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activity. Samples are held 

for a minimum of seven days after collection to allow for the decay of naturally- occurring radon progeny. Upon 

completion of the gross alpha/beta analyses, the filters are returned to DRI to be composited on a quarterly basis for 

gamma spectroscopy analysis. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 Figure 6-1. 2005 CEMP Air Surveillance Network 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 6-3 

Figure 6-2. CEMP station at Mesquite, Nevada 

CEMP TLD Network – Thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) is another of the essential components of 

environmental radiological assessments. This is used to determine both individual and population external exposure 

to ambient radiation from natural and artificial sources. In 2005, the TLD network consisted of fixed environmental 

TLDs at 26 of the 27 CEMP stations (see Figure 6-1). A TLD is not currently deployed at Warm Springs Summit due 

to limited access during the winter months. The TLD used was a Panasonic UD-814AS. Within the TLD, a slightly 

shielded lithium borate element is used to check low-energy radiation levels while three calcium sulfate elements are 

used to measure penetrating gamma radiation. For quality assurance (QA) purposes, duplicate TLDs are deployed at 

three randomly-selected environmental stations. An average daily exposure rate was calculated for each quarterly 

exposure period. The average of the quarterly values was multiplied by 365.25 days to obtain the total annual 

exposure for each station. 

CEMP PIC Network – The pressurized ion chamber (PIC) detector 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 27 stations in the CEMP network (see Figure 6-1). 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 vary naturally among locations reflecting differences in altitude (cosmic radiation), radioactivity in the 

soil (terrestrial radiation), and slight variations at a single 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 are more readily identified. These variations can be easily 

viewed by selecting the Time Series Graph link from the CEMP home page, < http://www.cemp.dri.edu/>, after 

selecting a desired station and then selecting the desired variables. 

CEMP Meteorological (MET) Network – Because changing weather conditions can have a significant effect on 

measurable levels of background radiation, meteorological instrumentation is in place at each of the 27 CEMP 

stations. The MET network includes sensors that measure air temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, solar 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

radiation, barometric pressure, precipitation, and soil temperature and moisture data. All of these data can be 

observed real-time at the onsite station display, and archived data are accessible by accessing the CEMP home page at 

<http://www.cemp.dri.edu/>.

6.1.1 Air Particulate Sampling Results 

A sample of airborne particulates from a CEMP ASN station is collected by drawing air through a 2-inch 

(5-centimeter) diameter glass-fiber filter at a constant flow rate of 2 cubic feet (ft3) per minute (86.6 liters per minute) 

at standard temperature and pressure. The actual flow rate and volume is measured and recorded with an in-line airflow calibrator. The particulate filter is mounted in a filter holder that faces downward at a height of 5 ft (1.5 meter 

[m]) above the ground. The total actual volume collected ranges from approximately 19,000 to 28,000 ft3 (538 to 793 

cubic meters [m3]) depending on the elevation of the station and changes in air temperature and/or pressure. 

6.1.1.1 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta 

Gross alpha and beta analysis in airborne particulate samples are used to screen for long-lived radionuclides in the air. 

The mean annual gross alpha activity across all sample locations was 1.80 ± 0.54 x 10-15 microcuries per milliliter 

(μCi/mL) (6.66 ± 1.99 x 10-5 Becquerels [Bq]/m3) (Table 6-1). Most of the results for 2005 exceeded the analytical 

minimum detectable concentration (MDC) (see Glossary, Appendix B) and, overall, are similar to results from 

previous years. Figure 6-3 shows the long-term maximum, mean, and minimum alpha trend for the CEMP stations as 

a whole. 

Table 6-1. Gross alpha results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005 

Concentration (x 10-15 μCi/mL [3.7 x 10-5 Bq/m3]) 

Sampling Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Alamo 52 2.59 1.01 1.17 5.63 

Amargosa Valley 52 1.68 0.75 0.72 3.81 

Beatty 52 1.79 0.93 0.57 4.65 

Boulder City 52 3.22 1.29 1.11 7.63 

Caliente 52 2.37 1.22 0.21 5.99 

Cedar City 52 2.11 0.83 0.46 4.51 

Delta 52 1.56 0.77 0.83 5.17 

Ely 50 1.39 0.56 0.19 2.59 

Garden Valley 52 1.46 0.59 0.52 3.63 

Goldfield 51 1.70 0.72 0.56 3.90 

Henderson 50 1.58 0.60 0.53 3.09 

Indian Springs 49 1.38 0.56 0.56 3.35 

Las Vegas 52 2.61 1.13 0.80 6.30 

Milford 51 1.62 0.68 0.63 4.65 

Nyala Ranch 52 1.08 0.37 0.42 1.69 

Overton 52 1.96 0.93 0.82 4.49 

Pahrump 52 1.62 0.65 0.66 3.34 

Pioche 50 1.29 0.56 0.48 3.51 

Rachel 48 1.63 0.98 0.49 6.08 

Sarcobatus Flats 52 2.84 1.23 1.04 5.70 

Stone Cabin Ranch 52 1.42 0.46 0.64 2.39 

St. George 52 1.57 0.64 0.61 3.30 

Tonopah 51 1.53 0.63 0.38 3.06 

Twin Springs 51 1.30 0.54 0.51 2.86 

Network Mean = 1.80 ± 0.54 x 10-15 μCi/ml 

Mean MDC = 0.67 x 10-15 μCi/mL Standard Error of Mean MDC = 0.12 x 10-15 μCi/mL 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 6-5 

Figure 6-3. Historical trend for gross alpha analysis for all CEMP stations 

The mean annual gross beta activity across all sample locations was 2.08 ± 0.17 x 10-14 μCi/mL 

(7.70 ± 0.62 x 10-4 Bq/m3) (Table 6-2). Most of these results also exceeded the MDC, and are similar to previous 

years’ data. Figure 6-4 shows the long-term maximum, mean, and minimum beta trend for the CEMP stations as a 

whole. 

Table 6-2. Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005 

Concentration (x 10-14 μCi/mL [3.7 x 10-4 Bq/m3]) 

Sampling Location 

Number of 

Samples Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Alamo 52 2.18 0.68 1.26 4.79 

Amargosa Valley 52 2.17 0.62 1.13 4.64 

Beatty 52 2.15 0.68 1.02 4.77 

Boulder City 52 2.40 0.87 1.31 5.34 

Caliente 52 2.21 0.70 1.13 4.30 

Cedar City 52 2.04 0.56 1.01 3.76 

Delta 52 2.16 0.75 1.07 4.97 

Ely 50 1.87 0.51 0.99 2.86 

Garden Valley 52 1.97 0.61 0.81 3.73 

Goldfield 51 2.06 0.72 1.03 5.25 

Henderson 50 2.11 0.68 1.28 4.72 

Indian Springs 49 1.96 0.54 1.08 4.02 

Las Vegas 52 2.22 0.69 1.08 4.33 

Milford 51 2.17 0.76 0.99 4.84 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

x 10-15 μCi/mL

Max

Mean

Min

Year
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Table 6-2. Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005 (continued) 

Concentration (x 10-14 μCi/mL [37 μBq/m3]) 

Sampling Location 

Number of 

Samples Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Nyala Ranch 52 1.73 0.55 0.73 3.09 

Overton 52 2.27 0.72 1.30 4.26 

Pahrump 52 2.06 0.61 1.11 4.05 

Pioche 50 1.75 0.49 0.92 2.89 

Rachel 48 2.10 0.69 0.92 4.13 

Sarcobatus Flats 52 2.32 0.86 1.70 5.37 

Stone Cabin 52 1.85 0.48 0.96 3.01 

St. George 52 2.19 0.79 1.11 4.69 

Tonopah 51 1.95 0.65 0.99 4.28 

Twin Springs 51 1.97 0.69 0.96 3.92 

Network Mean = 2.08 ± 0.17 x 10-14 μCi/mL 

Mean MDC = 0.12 x 10-14 μCi/mL Standard Error of Mean MDC = 0.02 x 10-14 μCi/mL 

Figure 6-4. Historical trend for gross beta analysis for all CEMP stations 

The overall gross alpha results show a generally increasing trend from 1995 to 2001 before trending downward the 

last four years. Likewise, the gross beta results show a similar trend beginning in 1998. These trends are also reflected 

by most of the stations on an individual basis. Although this trend merits further evaluation, it may likely be explained 

as being a result of persistent drought conditions throughout the southwest and Great Basin states. Drought in these 

regions has existed to varying degrees since 1996. These dry conditions could be directly responsible for an increase 

in suspended air particles collected by the air-sampling network. The apparent spikes in the maximum trend lines for 

gross alpha and beta are the result of a single analysis for that year. These analyses occurred prior to the CEMP being 

directed by DRI, so specific information is not available. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

x 10-14 μCi/mL

Max

Mean

Min

Year
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 6-7 

6.1.1.2 Gamma Spectroscopy 

Gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed on all samples from the low-volume air-sampling network. The filters 

were composited by station on a quarterly basis after gross alpha/beta analysis. As in previous years, all samples were 

gamma spectrum negligible with respect to man-made radionuclides (i.e., gamma-emitting radionuclides were not 

detected). In most of the samples, naturally occurring 7Be was detected above the analytical MDC. This radionuclide 

is produced by cosmic ray interaction with nitrogen in the atmosphere. The mean annual activity for 7Be for the 

sampling network was 75.3 ± 28.1 x 10-15 μCi/mL. 

6.1.2 TLD Results 

TLDs measure ionizing radiation from all sources, including natural radioactivity from cosmic or terrestrial sources 

and from man-made radioactive sources. The TLDs are mounted in a plexiglass holder approximately 1 m above the 

ground, and are exchanged quarterly. TLD results are not presented for Warm Springs Summit at this time since its 

access is limited in the winter months. This does not allow for a proper quarterly change of the TLD as required. 

The total annual exposure for 2005 ranged from 82 milliroentgens (mR) (0.82 millisieverts [mSv]) at Pahrump, 

Nevada, to 155 mR (1.55 mSv) at Twin Springs, Nevada, with a mean annual exposure of 120 mR (1.20 mSv) for all 

operating locations. Results are summarized in Table 6-3 and are consistent with previous years’ data. Figure 6-5 

shows the long-term trend for the CEMP stations as a whole. 

Table 6-3. TLD monitoring results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005 

Sampling Daily Exposure (mR) 

Location 

Number of 

Days Mean Minimum Maximum 

Total Annual 

Exposure (mR) 

Alamo 364 0.31 0.29 0.35 114 

Amargosa Valley 362 0.30 0.29 0.33 109 

Beatty 364 0.39 0.37 0.43 143 

Boulder City 358 0.30 0.27 0.34 111 

Caliente 357 0.35 0.33 0.39 128 

Cedar City 356 0.26 0.24 0.29 97 

Delta 357 0.27 0.24 0.30 99 

Ely 364 0.29 0.28 0.31 105 

Garden Valley 356 0.41 0.39 0.43 149 

Goldfield 364 0.34 0.32 0.37 126 

Henderson 358 0.33 0.30 0.37 121 

Indian Springs 362 0.29 0.27 0.33 106 

Las Vegas 369 0.27 0.23 0.30 97 

Medlin's Ranch 364 0.38 0.36 0.40 137 

Milford 357 0.40 0.39 0.43 147 

Nyala Ranch 364 0.32 0.29 0.34 116 

Overton 356 0.25 0.23 0.30 93 

Pahrump 363 0.23 0.20 0.26 82 

Pioche 364 0.32 0.29 0.36 118 

Rachel 364 0.36 0.33 0.39 133 

Sarcobatus Flats 364 0.40 0.39 0.42 147 

Stone Cabin Ranch 364 0.38 0.36 0.40 139 

St. George 357 0.25 0.23 0.29 91 

Tonopah 363 0.33 0.33 0.39 134 

Twin Springs 363 0.40 0.40 0.44 155 

Overall Annual Mean = 120 mR
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Figure 6-5. Historical trend for TLD analysis for all CEMP stations 

As with the gross alpha and beta results, the TLD data also shows a generally increasing trend from 1996 to 2002 

before showing a slight decrease the last three years. This again may be consistent with drought conditions observed 

in the regions around the monitoring network. As the soil becomes drier due to lack of precipitation, the naturallyoccurring radionuclides may more easily escape into the atmosphere as part of the increased suspended particle load. 

This could result in an increase in natural radioactivity detected by the TLD. As with the gross alpha and beta results 

further evaluation is needed. 

6.1.3 PIC Results 

The PIC data presented in this section are based on daily averages of gamma exposure rates from each station. 

Table 6-4 contains the maximum, minimum, and standard deviation of daily averages (in microroentgens per hour 

[μR/hr]) for the periods during 2005 when telemetry data were available. It also shows the average gamma exposure 

rate for each station during the year (in μR/hr) as well as the total annual exposure (in mR per year [mR/yr]). The 

Mesquite station was installed in November 2005, and therefore includes data from November and December only. 

The exposure rate ranged from 74.55 mR/yr (0.75 mSv) in Pahrump to 183.96 mR/yr (1.84 mSv) in Milford, Utah. 

Background levels of environmental gamma exposure rates in the United States (from 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 6-5. The annual exposure levels observed at the CEMP 

stations in 2005 are well within these United States background levels. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

mR/yr

Max

Mean

Min

Year
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 6-9 

Table 6-4. PIC monitoring results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2005 

(a) Includes only two months’ data (November and December) 

Daily Average Gamma Exposure Rate (μR/hr) 

Sampling Location Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Annual 

Exposure 

(mR/yr) 

Alamo 13.39 0.26 12.50 14.27 117.25 

Amargosa Valley 12.56 0.16 11.98 13.13 109.98 

Beatty 13.35 0.94 9.83 16.86 116.90 

Boulder City 14.83 0.20 14.24 15.41 129.87 

Caliente 15.38 0.32 14.49 16.26 134.69 

Cedar City 10.91 0.24 10.00 11.81 95.53 

Delta 10.40 0.32 9.34 11.45 91.06 

Ely 12.00 0.33 10.59 13.41 105.12 

Garden Valley 16.90 1.09 13.66 20.14 148.04 

Goldfield 14.40 0.43 12.59 16.20 126.10 

Henderson 15.15 0.17 14.48 15.82 132.71 

Indian Springs 11.37 0.20 10.75 11.98 99.56 

Las Vegas 10.72 0.14 9.99 11.44 93.86 

Medlin's Ranch 16.59 0.34 15.46 17.72 145.33 

Mesquite (a) 11.63 0.22 11.16 12.10 101.88 

Milford 21.00 0.36 19.84 22.16 183.96 

Nyala Ranch 13.05 0.42 11.79 14.31 114.32 

Overton 9.90 0.27 9.18 10.62 86.72 

Pahrump 8.51 0.50 7.05 9.97 74.55 

Pioche 14.99 0.32 13.71 16.26 131.27 

Rachel 14.83 0.45 13.52 16.14 129.91 

Sarcobatus Flats 17.14 0.38 16.07 18.21 150.15 

Stone Cabin Ranch 16.03 0.76 13.56 18.49 140.38 

St. George 9.17 0.30 8.30 10.04 80.33 

Tonopah 15.36 0.47 13.59 17.12 134.51 

Twin Springs 19.20 0.60 16.92 21.48 168.19 

Warm Springs Summit 19.23 0.55 17.57 20.89 168.45 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Source: <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp/Radiation.html.> “Radiation in Perspective,” August 1990 

 (Access Date: 3/22/2005) 

6.1.4 Environmental Impact 

Results of analyses conducted on data obtained from the CEMP network of low-volume particulate air samplers, 

TLDs, and PICs showed no measurable evidence at CEMP station locations of offsite impact from radionuclides 

originating on the NTS. Activity observed in gross alpha and beta analyses of low-volume air sampler filters was 

consistent with previous years’ results and are within the range of activity found in other communities of the 

United States which are not adjacent to man-made radiation sources. Also, no man-made gamma-emitting 

radionuclides were detected. Likewise, TLD and PIC results remained consistent with previous years’ background 

levels and are well within average background levels observed in other parts of the United States (see Table 6-5). 

Occasional elevated gamma readings (10–50 percent above normal average background) were always associated with 

precipitation events and/or low barometric pressure. Low barometric pressure can result in the release of 

naturally-occurring radon and its daughter products from the surrounding soil and rock substrates. Precipitation 

events can result in the “rainout” of globally-distributed radionuclides occurring as airborne particulates in the upper 

atmosphere. Figure 6-6, generated from the CEMP Web site, illustrates an example of this phenomenon. 

 Figure 6-6. The effect of meteorological phenomena on background gamma readings 

City Radiation (mR/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 

Table 6-5. Average natural background radiation for selected U.S. cities (excluding radon) 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 6-11 

6.2 Offsite Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 

During 2005, the DRI was tasked by NNSA to provide independent verification of the tritium activity within some of 

the offsite groundwater wells, surface waters, and springs used for water supplies in areas surrounding the NTS. 

Samples collected by DRI personnel provide a direct comparison to the results obtained by the RREMP (Section 4.1) 

in some cases. 

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 a constituent of the water molecule itself, it is also one of the most mobile. 

6.2.1 Sample Locations and Methods 

During the period of July 12 to September 22, 2005, 4 springs, 18 wells, and 3 surface water bodies were sampled 

either directly or through municipal water supply systems. Sample locations were selected based upon input from the 

CEMs and local ranch owners participating in the CEMP project. All wells were sampled utilizing downhole 

submersible pumps. Samples from surface water bodies were obtained via discharge from a faucet or valve connected 

to water supply system that pumps that body of water. Springs were sampled by hand at the orifice, along surface 

drainage, or from the water supply system connected to the spring discharge. Each well was pumped a minimum of 

5 to 15 minutes prior to sampling to purge water from the pump tubing and well annulus. This process ensured that 

the resultant sample was representative of local groundwater. Table 6-6 lists all of the sample points, their locations, 

the date they were sampled, and the sampling method. The locations of the sample points are shown in Figure 6-7.

6.2.2 Procedures and Quality Assurance 

DRI utilized several methods to ensure that radiological results reported herein conform to current QA protocols (see 

Section 19.0 for a detailed description of the CEMP QA program). This was achieved through the use of standard 

operating procedures (SOPs), field QA samples, and laboratory QA procedures. DRI’s SOPs are detailed procedures 

that describe the method and materials, using step-by-step instructions, which are required to collect field water 

quality samples and protect the samples from tampering and environmental conditions that may alter their chemistry. 

The second tier of QA utilized on this project consisted of field QA 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. Duplicate 

samples were collected to establish a measure of the repeatability of the analysis. Matrix spike duplicates were also 

collected to ensure no other parameters in the sample water were present that could cause erroneously high or low 

tritium values. Twelve samples (32 percent of the sample load) were collected for the purposes of meeting field QA 

requirements. Laboratory QA 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 QA 

samples provide a measure of the accuracy and the confidence of the reported results. 

Enriched tritium analyses were run on all water samples. The decision level (LC) (see Glossary, Appendix B) of 

tritium ranged from 7.31 to 10.91 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The LC is the result that must be exceeded before there 

is a 95 percent confidence that the sample contains radioactive material above background. The MDC (see Glossary, 

Appendix B) for tritium was approximately 23 pCi/L. BN reports that the MDC for enriched tritium analyses for the 

RREMP water samples is also approximately 23 pCi/L (see Section 4.1.2). 
 

6-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 200 5

Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water Table 6-6. CEMP water monitoring locations sampled in 2005 Monitoring Location Description Latitude Longitude Date Sampled Sample Collection Method Adaven Springs 38 08.25 -115 36.20 7/13/2005 By hand from stream discharging from spring orifice Alamo city water supply system - source of water is municipal well field 37 21.74 -115 10.14 9/13/2005 By hand from municipal water well Amargosa Valley school well 36 34.16 -116 27.66 9/22/2005 By hand at wellhead Beatty Water and Sewer - municipal well 36 54.94 -116 45.65 9/22/2005 By hand at wellhead at utility headquarters Boulder City – at Hemingway Park from municipal water distribution system 35 59.74 -114 49.90 8/17/2005 By hand from a drinking fountain inside Hemingway Park. Water originates from Lake Mead. Caliente municipal water supply well 37 36.93 -114 30.98 9/13/2005 By hand at well in municipal well field (sampled new well location this year) Cedar City municipal water supply well #7 10 miles west of town 37 39.39 -113 13.14 9/15/2005 By hand at wellhead Delta municipal well 39 21.59 -112 34.65 9/14/2005 By hand at well head Ely municipal water source 39 13.80 -114 54.01 7/13/2005 By hand from spring discharge used as municipal water supply 

Goldfield Municipal Water Supply well about 12 mi north  of town 37 52.40 -117 14.96 8/10/2005 By hand at wellhead Henderson CCSN - source of water is municipal water  system originating at Lake Mead 36 00.43 -114 57.95 8/17/2005 By hand from faucet inside college building; water originates from Lake Mead. Indian Springs municipal well 36 34.15 -115 40.25 9/22/2005 By hand at wellhead (sampled new well location this year) Las Vegas Valley Water District #103 36 13.94 -115 15.13 9/20/2005 By hand at wellhead Medlin’s Ranch - spring 11 mi west of ranch house 37 24.10 -115 32.25 7/12/2005 By hand at kitchen faucet Milford municipal well 38 22.88 -112 59.78 9/14/2005 By hand at wellhead of recently drilled well Nyala Ranch water well 38 14.93 -115 43.72 7/12/2005 By hand from front yard hose faucet at house Overton water well located at Arrow Canyon about 10 mi  west of town 36 44.06 -114 44.87 9/20/2005 By hand at wellhead Pahrump municipal utility well #11 36 12.32 -115 59.12 9/20/2005 By hand at wellhead (sampled new well location this year) Pioche municipal well located 1 mile east of town 37 56.98 -114 25.78 9/13/2005 By hand at wellhead Rachel - Little Ale Inn well 37 38.79 -115 44.75 7/12/2005 By hand from bar faucet inside Lil Ale Inn Restaurant Sarcobatus Flats well 37 16.78 -117 01.92 8/9/2005 By hand at wellhead St. George Quail Creek Reservoir 37 10.43 -113 23.96 9/15/2005 By hand at water treatment plant. Water originates from Quail Creek Reservoir Stone Cabin Ranch Spring 38 12.44 -116 37.91 7/12/2005 By hand from kitchen faucet at ranch house Tonopah public utilities well field located 10 mi from town 38 11.68 -117 04.70 8/10/2005 By hand at wellhead Twin Springs Ranch Well 38 12.21 -116 10.55 7/12/2005 By hand from front yard hose faucet at house Note: Sample locations were resurveyed in 2004 using global positioning satellite data. The following sample locations were moved in 2005: Caliente was moved 224 m based on 

request by the CEM, Ely monitoring point was added to the monitoring network, Indian Springs was moved approximately 1.4 km on request by the CEM, Milford was moved 2.0 km to a recently drilled well on request by the CEM, Pahrump was moved 112 m on request by CEM, St. George was moved 22 km to the water treatment plant at Quail Creek Reservoir on request by the CEM, Origin of Twin Springs Ranch water has, in the past, been erroneously reported as being from a spring on location. In actuality, water originates from a well drilled near the spring. All updated sample locations are shown in Figure 6-7. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 6-13

Figure 6-7. 2005 CEMP water monitoring locations 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

6.2.3 Results of Surface Water and Spring Discharge Monitoring 

Measured tritium (3H) concentrations from the springs and surface waters ranged from -2 to 24 pCi/L (Table 6-7). 

Three of the samples, Ely, Stone Cabin Ranch, and St. George, yielded results that were indistinguishable from 

background (i.e., ≤ LC). The Adaven Springs sample and Medlin’s Ranch were above background (i.e., ≥ LC), yet the 

activity was too low to quantitatively distinguish from background at 95 percent confidence (i.e, < MDC). Boulder 

City and Henderson had tritium activities that were sufficiently high to quantify above background with 95 percent 

confidence (i.e., ≥ MDC). The water in these samples originated from Lake Mead. Slightly elevated tritium activities 

in Lake Mead are well documented by previous investigations (DOE, 2002c; DOE, 2003c; DOE, 2004d; DOE, 

2005a) and are due to residual tritium persisting in the environment that originated from global atmospheric nuclear 

testing. All tritium results were well below the safe drinking water limit of 20,000 pCi/L. All sample results, with the 

exception of Ely, were statistically similar to results reported by DRI in the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 

2004 (DOE, 2005a). Ely was added as a monitoring point in 2005. The greatest apparent change was for Adaven 

Springs, which was measured as 16 ± 20 pCi/L in 2003, 12 ± 22 in 2004, and 20 ± 17 pCi/L in 2005. The degree to 

which the mean value of Adaven Springs fluctuates from year to year is consistent with its relatively high level of 

uncertainty. 

Table 6-7. Tritium results for CEMP offsite surface water and spring discharges in 2005 

Monitoring Location 

3H ± Uncertainty(a)

(pCi/L) 

LC

(pCi/L) 

Adaven Springs 20 ± 17 10 

Ely Municipal Water Source – springs 3 to 4 miles west of town -2 ± 25 10 

Medlin's Ranch - spring located 11 miles west of ranch house 10 ± 18 7 

Stone Cabin Ranch 2 ± 20 7 

Boulder City – Source of Water is Lake Mead 24 ± 24 10 

Henderson – Source of Water is Lake Mead 24 ± 24 8 

St. George – Source of Water is Quail Creek Reservoir 8 ± 19 11 

 (a) ± 2 standard deviations 

6.2.4 Results of Groundwater Monitoring 

The results for the 18 groundwater tritium analyses from the DRI Tritium Laboratory are presented in Table 6-8. The 

measured activities ranged from -7 to 8 pCi/L. All of the samples yielded results that were statistically 

indistinguishable from background (≤LC) and were well below the safe drinking water limit of 20,000 pCi/L. No 

statistically significant trends were evident when the results were compared to samples taken in previous years. 

6.2.5 Environmental Impact 

Results of the CEMP tritium analyses conducted on selected offsite groundwater wells and water supply systems 

surrounding the NTS showed no evidence of tritium migration offsite via groundwater. Most of the samples analyzed 

were below the LC for tritium (see Tables 6-7 and 6-8). The greatest observed activities, (24 pCi/L for both 

Henderson and Boulder City) were well below the safe drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 6-15

 Table 6-8. Tritium results for CEMP offsite wells in 2005 

Monitoring Location 

3H ± Uncertainty(a) 

(pCi/L) 

LC 

(pCi/L) 

Alamo City -4 ± 23 8 

Amargosa Valley -3 ± 15 10 

Beatty -3 ± 18 10 

Caliente 8 ± 21 8 

Cedar City 3 ± 20 10 

Delta -8 ± 20 11 

Goldfield 0 ± 19 10 

Indian Springs -5 ± 13 10 

Las Vegas -5 ± 23 11 

Milford 1 ± 20 8 

Nyala Ranch 0 ± 16 7 

Overton -4 ± 16 11 

Pahrump -5 ± 20 11 

Pioche -7 ± 23 8 

Rachel -1 ± 19 7 

Sarcobatus Flats -3 ± 14 10 

Tonopah -4 ± 20 10 

Twin Springs Ranch -2 ± 20 7 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 7-1 

7.0 Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Historical atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and outfalls from underground nuclear tests provide a source of 

radiation contamination and exposure to Nevada Test Site (NTS) plants and animals (biota). U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment requires that all DOE sites monitor 

radioactivity in the environment to ensure that the public does not receive a radiological dose greater than 

100 millirems per year (mrem/yr) from all pathways of exposure, including the ingestion of contaminated plants and 

animals. 

Current NTS land use precludes the harvest of plants or plant parts (e.g., pine nuts and wolf berries) for direct 

consumption by humans. Therefore, the ingestion of game animals is the primary potential biotic pathway for 

radionuclide contamination from the NTS to the public. Game birds and game mammals that occur on the NTS may 

travel off the site and become available, through hunting, for consumption by the public. Game animals are therefore 

monitored under the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b). In 2005, Bechtel 

Nevada Environmental Technical Services conducted the monitoring. 

Game animals and plants are sampled annually from known contaminated sites on the NTS to estimate hypothetical 

doses to hunters (i.e., the public), measure the potential for radionuclide transfer through the food chain, and 

determine if NTS plants and animals themselves are exposed to radiation levels harmful to their populations. This 

section describes the biota monitoring program designed to meet public and environmental radiation protection 

regulations (see Section 2.3) and presents the results of field sampling and analyses in 2005. The reader is directed to 

the RREMP (DOE, 2003b) for a more detailed description of monitoring design and methods. The estimated 

radiological dose, both to humans consuming game animals from the NTS and to biota found in contaminated areas 

of the NTS, that was calculated based on 2005 monitoring data is presented in Section 8.0. 

Radiological Biota Monitoring Goals Analytes Measured in 

Plant and Animal Tissues

Determine if the potential dose to humans consuming game animals from the NTS 

is less than 100 mrem/yr, the limit set by DOE Order 5400.5 

Determine if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS biota is less than the following 

limits set by DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002: 

 < 1 rad/day for terrestrial plants and aquatic animals 

 < 0.1 rad/day for terrestrial animals 

Americium-241 (241Am) 

Cesium-137 (137Cs) 

Tritium (3H) 

Plutonium-239+240 (239+240Pu) 

Strontium-90 (90Sr) 

Uranium isotopes 

7.1 Species Selection 

The goal for vegetation monitoring is to sample the most contaminated plants within the NTS environment. 

Contaminated plants are generally found inside demarcated radiological areas near the “ground zero” locations of 

historical above-ground nuclear tests. The plant species selected for sampling represent the most dominant plant life 

forms (e.g., trees, shrubs, herbs, or grasses) at these sites. Woody vegetation (i.e., shrubs versus forbs or grasses) is 

primarily selected for sampling because such vegetation is reported to have deeper penetrating roots and higher 

concentrations of tritium (Hunter and Kinnison, 1998). Additionally, this vegetation serves as a major source of 

browse for game animals that might eat such vegetation and potentially migrate offsite. Grasses and forbs are also 

sampled when present, however, because they are also a source of food for wildlife. Plant parts collected for analysis 

represent new growth over the past year. 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Three criteria were used to determine which animal species to monitor for assessing potential dose to the public: 

1) the species should have a relatively high probability of entering the human food chain; 2) the species should have a 

home range which overlaps a contaminated site and, as a result, have the potential for relatively high radionuclide 

body burdens from exposure to contaminated soil, air, water, or plants at the contaminated site; and 3) the species 

should be sufficiently abundant at a site to acquire an adequate tissue sample for laboratory analysis. These criteria 

limited the candidate game animals on the NTS to those listed below. 

Candidate NTS Game Animals Monitored 

Birds Small Mammals Large Mammals 

Mourning dove 

 (Zenaida macroura) 

Cottontail rabbit 

 (Sylvilagus audubonii) 

Mule deer 

 (Odocoileus hemionus)

Chukar 

 (Alectoris chukar) 

Jackrabbit 

 (Lepus californicus) 

Pronghorn antelope 

 (Antilocapra americana) 

Gambel’s quail 

 (Callipepla gambelii) 

Mule deer and pronghorn antelope are only collected as the opportunity arises if they are found dead on the NTS 

(e.g., from accidentally being hit by a vehicle). Tissues from other game species, such as predators, may be collected 

opportunistically as well. 

No native fish or amphibians are found in surface waters of the NTS. There is no potential radiological dose pathway 

directly from NTS aquatic animals to humans. No aquatic invertebrates or non-native fish or amphibians are sampled 

for radionuclide tissue analyses. 

7.2 Site Selection 

The monitoring design focuses on sampling those sites having the highest known concentrations of radionuclides in 

other media (e.g., soil and surface water) and sites that have relatively high densities of candidate game animals. 

Currently, five sites are selected for regular monitoring; each site is sampled at least once every five years. These sites 

are E Tunnel Ponds, Palanquin, Sedan, T2, and Plutonium Valley (Figure 7-1). The control site selected for each 

contaminated site has similar biological and physical features. Control sites are sampled to document radionuclide 

levels representative of background. In 2005, the Sedan site and its control were sampled. Other sites may be 

monitored if new sites become radiologically contaminated or if contamination conditions change (e.g., through the 

addition of water pumped from contaminated ground water or from soil disturbance). In 2005, one such new site was 

monitored. Below is a brief description of the sites monitored during 2005. 

Sedan – The Sedan test was conducted July 6, 1962 in the northern portion of Area 10. This cratering experiment 

displaced 12 million tons of earth and formed a 390 meter (m) (1,280 foot [ft]) diameter by 97 m (320 ft) deep 

depression in the desert floor. The purpose of the test was to determine if nuclear devices could be used as cratering 

or earth-moving mechanisms. Contaminants resulting from this test were primarily tritium (3H), 90Sr, 137Cs, 239+240Pu, 

and 241Am. A control area for Sedan is located about 20 kilometers (km) (12.6 miles [mi]) southwest of the sample site 

near a spring in Area 16. Any of the candidate game species is likely to be present at Sedan the control site. 

U-19ad Sump – During 2004, a new well (U-19ad PS#1A) was drilled into the cavity of the underground nuclear test, 

CHANCELLOR, which was detonated September 1, 1983. This well will be used by the Underground Test Area 

Project to support the NNSA’s continuing characterization and long-term monitoring efforts. Over 200,000 gallons 

of water were pumped from this well late in 2004 and water remained in the sump, available for wildlife use, through 

2005. The tritium concentration of the pumped groundwater held in the sump was 22,000,000 pCi/L (DOE, 2005a). 

Biota sampling efforts in 2005 focused on collecting mourning doves as they were expected to be the most exposed of 

game birds and have the highest potential for transport to offsite hunters. 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 7-3 

Figure 7-1. Radiological biota monitoring sites on the NTS and sites sampled in 2005 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

7.3 Sampling Methods 

During 2005, biota samples were successfully collected at Sedan, the Sedan control site, and the U-19ad Sump. 

Sample methods and the numbers and types of samples collected are described below. 

7.3.1 Plants 

Plant sampling occurred June 28 and 29, 2005. At each site, two samples of each plant species shown in Table 7-1 

were collected. These species represent the dominant shrubs, forbs, and grasses present at each site. Each sample 

consisted of about 300 to 500 grams (10.6 to 17.6 ounces) of fresh-weight plant material and consisted of a composite 

of material from many plants of the same species in the sample area. Only current year’s growth was collected from 

each plant and consisted of new green leaves and stems. Green leaves and stems from shrubs and forbs were handplucked and stored in airtight plastic bags. Rubber gloves were used by samplers and changed between each 

composite sample collected. Samples were labeled and stored in an ice chest. Within four hours of collection, the 

samples were delivered to the laboratory. Water was separated from plant samples by distillation. Water and dried 

plant tissues were submitted to a commercial laboratory for analysis of radionuclides. Water from plants was analyzed 

for tritium and dried plant tissue was analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides, 90Sr, uranium, plutonium, and 

241Am. 

Table 7-1. Plant species sampled at Sedan and the Sedan control site in 2005 

Plant Common Name 

Name 

Abbreviation(a) Plant Scientific Name Sedan Sedan Control Site

Indian ricegrass ACHY Achnatherum hymenoides X 

Desert needlegrass ACSP Achnatherum speciosum X 

Basin big sagebrush ARTR Artemisia tridentata X 

Four-wing saltbush ATCA Atriplex canescens X 

Glaucus willowherb EPGL Epilobium glaberrimum X 

Rubber rabbitbrush ERNA Ericameria nauseosus X X 

Baltic rush JUBA Juncus balticus X 

Hoary tansyaster MACA Machaeranthera canescens X 

Desert bitterbrush PUGL Purshia glandulosa X 

Small wirelettuce STEX Stephanomeria exigua X 

(a) Plant name abbreviation used in the sample results table (Table 7-2) 

7.3.2 Animals 

State and federal permits were secured to trap and analyze rabbits, Gambel’s quail, chukar, and mourning doves 

during 2005 as well as to sample road-killed, large game animals. Animal trapping took place late June through 

August. Live-traps were run for 84 trap-nights. Three jackrabbits and three mourning doves were trapped at Sedan, 

two cottontail rabbits were trapped at the Sedan control site, and four mourning doves were trapped by the U-19ad 

Sump. 

Opportunistic sampling of two large predators occurred during 2005. These were of one mountain lion which had 

died of natural causes in Area 7 and one bobcat which was hit by an automobile on Mercury Highway in Area 5. Only 

muscle tissue samples were taken from these animals. 

In the laboratory, animal specimens were separated into two samples: a muscle tissue sample and a sample 

representing the whole body minus the portion of muscle (body fraction). All samples, except the two rabbits from 

the Sedan control site, were individually homogenized using an industrial meat grinder and food processor. The 

rabbits from the control site were composited and homogenized. Water was distilled from the samples and submitted 

to a laboratory for tritium analysis. Past results have shown no difference in tritium concentrations in water from 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 7-5 

muscle tissue versus the rest of the body. Therefore, there was only one water sample for each animal (water from 

muscle and the body fraction were combined). The dried tissue samples were also submitted, muscle tissue and body 

fraction separately, to a laboratory for analysis of gamma-emitting radionuclides, 90Sr, uranium, plutonium, and 241Am. 

7.4 Results 

7.4.1 Plants 

Concentrations of man-made radionuclides detected in 2005 NTS plant samples are shown in Table 7-2. Uranium 

was detected but at levels and isotopic ratios consistent with natural uranium. All plant samples from Sedan had 

detectable concentrations of man-made radionuclides. These radionuclides were 3H, 90Sr, 137Cs, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, and 

241Am. Only two samples from the Sedan control site had concentrations of man-made radionuclides slightly higher 

than the minimum detectable concentration (MDC). Given the low concentrations, analysis uncertainty, and the fact 

that about 5 percent of all samples can be expected to be a false positive, there is question whether these results were 

true detections. 

7.4.2 Animals 

Man-made radionuclides were detected in all animals collected from the contaminated sites Sedan and U-19ad Sump; 

trace 137Cs was detected in the body fraction of rabbits collected from the Sedan control site; and tritium was detected 

in the mountain lion sampled from Area 7 (Table 7-3). Uranium was detected but at levels and isotopic ratios not 

different from those expected with natural uranium. Tritium had the highest concentrations of all detected 

radionuclides with 137Cs following at much lower concentrations. As expected, most plutonium was detected in the 

body fraction of animals as plutonium tends to concentrate in bone tissue or be bound with soil in the gut rather than 

in muscle tissue. 

7.5 Environmental Impact 

As expected, higher concentrations of radionuclides were detected in biota sampled at Sedan and the U-19ad Sump. 

These locations contained radioactivity associated with historic testing of nuclear weapons. While these radionuclides 

were detected, they pose negligible risk to humans. The potential dose to a person hunting and consuming these 

animals is well below dose limits to members of the public (see Section 8.1.4). Also, radionuclide concentrations were 

below levels considered harmful to the health of the plants or animals as the dose resulting from observed concentrations were less than 1 percent of dose limits set to protect populations of plants and animals (see Section 8.2). 
7-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Radiological Biota Monitoring Table 7-2. Radionuclide concentrations in plants from Sedan and the Sedan control site in 2005 Radioncuclide Concentratons ± Uncertainty(a) Sample 3H(b) 90Sr(c) 137Cs(c) 238Pu(c) 239+240Pu(c) 241Am(c) Sedan ACHY #1 68,000 ± 1,800 0.17 ± 0.056 0.86 ± 0.16 0.011 ± 0.0086 0.081 ± 0.024 0.023 ± 0.017 ACHY #2 64,000 ± 1,700 0.64 ± 0.098 0.99 ± 0.32 0.021 ± 0.013 0.15 ± 0.032 0.023 ± 0.018 ACSP #1 97,000 ± 2,500 0.52 ± 0.063 0.35 ± 0.22 0.0076 ± 0.0087 0.046 ± 0.017 0.034 ± 0.023 ACSP #2 57,000 ± 1,500 0.46 ± 0.068 0.29 ± 0.21 0.0030 ± 0.0077 0.060 ± 0.021 0.0098 ± 0.013 ERNA #1 2,800,000 ± 72,000 0.17 ± 0.027 0.37 ± 0.084 0.0010 ± 0.0055 0.043 ± 0.014 0.0078 ± 0.010 ERNA #2 1,100,000 ± 27,000 0.43 ± 0.038 0.29 ± 0.073 0.0061 ± 0.0068 0.040 ± 0.014 0.0097 ± 0.0090 

 MACA #1 120,000 ± 3,100 0.034 ± 0.025 0.52 ± 0.20 0.10 ± 0.022 1.8 ± 0.16 0.33 ± 0.072  MACA #2 140,000 ± 3,700 0.011 ± 0.027 0.80 ± 0.17 0.082 ± 0.021 0.62 ± 0.081 0.18 ± 0.052  STEX #1 200,000 ± 5,300 0.86 ± 0.055 0.71 ± 0.16 0.010 ± 0.0098 0.020 ± 0.011 0.0080 ± 0.0095  STEX #2 570,000 ± 15,000 1.2 ± 0.065 0.16 ± 0.29 0.011 ± 0.0094 0.023 ± 0.012 0.014 ± 0.012 

% Above MDC: 100% 80% 90% 40% 100% 60% 

Average MDC: 960 0.058 0.16 0.013 0.014 0.013 

 Sedan - Control  ARTR #1 170 ± 170 0.012 ± 0.014 0.021 ± 0.046 -0.00077 ± 0.0033 -0.00078 ± 0.0039 0.00042 ± 0.0016  ARTR #2 290 ± 170 0.011 ± 0.014 0.014 ± 0.041 0.0031 ± 0.0057 0.0015 ± 0.0061 -0.00089 ± 0.0033  ATCA #1 40 ± 140 0.014 ± 0.034 -0.0058 ± 0.029 -0.0020 ± 0.0039 0.00063 ± 0.0053 -0.0034 ± 0.0037  ATCA #2 150 ± 150 0.028 ± 0.040 0.062 ± 0.079 0.0027 ± 0.0070 0.0055 ± 0.0072 0.0047 ± 0.0071  EPGL #1 0 ± 140 -0.042 ± 0.032 0.015 ± 0.084 -0.0022 ± 0.0054 0.0050 ± 0.0058 0.0063 ± 0.0092  EPGL #2 130 ± 160 0.011 ± 0.025 0.060 ± 0.14 0.0023 ± 0.0045 0.0030 ± 0.0066 -0.0025 ± 0.0038  ERNA #1 25 ± 140 0.011 ± 0.016 -0.0038 ± 0.041 0.0074 ± 0.0097 0.00092 ± 0.0041 -0.0019 ± 0.0031  ERNA #2 17 ± 140 0.013 ± 0.016 0.097 ± 0.064 -0.00070 ± 0.0047 0.00063 ± 0.0054 0.0032 ± 0.0065  JUBA #1 180 ± 160 0.0054 ± 0.014 0.078 ± 0.095 -0.000016 ± 0.0038 -0.000031 ± 0.0053 -0.0016 ± 0.0043  JUBA #2 310 ± 170 0.0038 ± 0.016 -0.15 ± 0.18 0.00066 ± 0.0067 0.0021 ± 0.0054 -0.00015 ± 0.0046  PUGL #1 120 ± 150 -0.0088 ± 0.017 -0.031 ± 0.045 -0.00079 ± 0.0034 -0.00079 ± 0.0034 -0.0035 ± 0.0046  PUGL #2 160 ± 150 -0.0019 ± 0.024 0.039 ± 0.088 -0.000045 ± 0.0062 -0.0015 ± 0.0041 -0.0035 ± 0.0042 

% Above MDC: 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 

Average MDC: 260 0.041 0.11 0.014 0.013 0.013 

Green-shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the sample-specific MDC). (a) 

± 2 standard deviation 

(b) picocuries per gram liter water from sample (c) picocuries per gram gram dry weight of sample 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 7-7

Radiological Biota Monitoring

 Table 7-3. Radionuclide concentrations in animals from Sedan and the Sedan control site in 2005 

 Radioncuclide Concentratons ± Uncertainty(a) 

 Sample 3H(b) 137Cs(c) 238Pu(c) 239+240Pu(c) 241Am(c) Sedan  Dove #1 (muscle) 0.20 ± 0.17 0.0029 ± 0.0070 0.012 ± 0.0099 0.0055 ± 0.0072  Dove #1 (body fraction) 1,400 ± 220 1.00 ± 0.27 0.012 ± 0.0088 0.059 ± 0.021 0.015 ± 0.011  Dove #2 (muscle) 0.31 ± 0.12 -0.0015 ± 0.0052 0.011 ± 0.0090 0.0018 ± 0.0036  Dove #2 (body fraction) 7,800 ± 430 3.2 ± 0.14 0.0043 ± 0.0063 0.046 ± 0.018 0.016 ± 0.010  Dove #3 (muscle) 0.71 ± 0.16 -0.0015 ± 0.0041 0.0059 ± 0.0082 -0.0034 ± 0.0032  Dove #3 (body fraction) 560 ± 220 4.5 ± 0.21 0.0069 ± 0.0060 0.051 ± 0.018 0.015 ± 0.013  Jackrabbit #1 (muscle) 0.29 ± 0.046 0.0026 ± 0.0036 0.0013 ± 0.0068 0.0038 ± 0.0083  Jackrabbit #1 (body fraction) 97,000 ± 2,500 0.80 ± 0.11 0.0028 ± 0.0061 0.076 ± 0.018 0.014 ± 0.0087  Jackrabbit #2 (muscle) 0.50 ± 0.074 0.0053 ± 0.0075 0.011 ± 0.0090 0.0019 ± 0.0051  Jackrabbit #2 (body fraction) 290,000 ± 7,600 1.1 ± 0.11 0.0018 ± 0.0062 0.054 ± 0.015 0.015 ± 0.0078  Jackrabbit #3 (muscle) 0.79 ± 0.11 0.00075 ± 0.0053 0.0075 ± 0.0059 -0.00060 ± 0.0072  Jackrabbit #3 (body fraction) 78,000 ± 2,100 1.00 ± 0.087 0.0049 ± 0.0069 0.047 ± 0.015 0.012 ± 0.0079 

% Above MDC (Average MDC): 100% (547) 92% (0.083) 17% (0.010) 50% (0.013) 42% (0.011) 

 Sedan - Control  2 Cottontail rabbits (muscle) 0.0034 ± 0.056 -0.00081 ± 0.0053 0.0049 ± 0.0060 0.0028 ± 0.0052  2 Cottontail rabbits (body fraction) -120 ± 200 0.125 ± 0.0904 0.0013 ± 0.0043 0.0050 ± 0.0070 0.0025 ± 0.0090 

% Above MDC (Average MDC): 0% (360) 50% (0.077) 0% (0.011) 0% (0.011) 0% (0.013) 

 U-19ad Sump  Dove #1 (muscle) -0.081 ± 0.15 0.010 ± 0.012 0.0060 ± 0.010 -0.0066 ± 0.0058  Dove #1 (body fraction) 360 ± 210 0.13 ± 0.13 0.0019 ± 0.0064 0.0094 ± 0.0097 0.0065 ± 0.0095  Dove #2 (muscle) 16 ± 1.4 -0.0016 ± 0.0053 0.0047 ± 0.0069 0.0066 ± 0.0062  Dove #2 (body fraction) 2,400,000 ± 62,000 8.3 ± 0.27 0 ± 0.0053 0.017 ± 0.012 0.00027 ± 0.0086  Dove #3 (muscle) 0.91 ± 0.24 0 ± 0.0040 0.010 ± 0.012 0.011 ± 0.0092  Dove #3 (body fraction) 730,000 ± 19,000 0.60 ± 0.13 -0.0013 ± 0.0068 0.0092 ± 0.0069 0.0018 ± 0.0058  Dove #4 (muscle) 7.7 ± 0.90 0 ± 0.0030 -0.0015 ± 0.0052 -0.0080 ± 0.0071  Dove #4 (body fraction) 1,600,000 ± 42,000 5.5 ± 0.50 0.0040 ± 0.0045 0.0079 ± 0.0090 0.0015 ± 0.0080 

% Above MDC (Average MDC): 100% (2100) 75% (0.14) 0% (0.12) 25% (0.014) 13% (0.015) 

 Area 7 Mountain lion (muscle) 3,900 ± 414 0.095 ± 0.12 0.0046 ± 0.0093 0.0032 ± 0.0034 0.0069 ± 0.0072  Area 5 Bobcat (muscle) -30 ± 92 0.20 ± 0.16 0.0019 ± 0.0085 0 ± 0.0054 0.0012 ± 0.0051 

% Above MDC (Average MDC): 50% (260) 0% (0.15) 0% (0.012) 0% (0.014) 0% (0.014) 

Green-shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the sample-specific MDC). (a) 

± 2 standard deviation 

(b) picocuries per liter water from sample; (c) picocuries per gram dry weight of sample 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 8-1 

8.0 Radiological Dose Assessment 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program and DOE Order 5400.5, 

Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (see Section 2.3) require DOE facilities to estimate the radiological 

dose to the general public and to plants and animals in the environment caused by past or present facility operations. 

This chapter uses data gathered by Bechtel Nevada (BN) in 2005 and radiation surveys in the past that inventoried the 

radionuclide content of Nevada Test Site (NTS) surface soils to estimate these radiological doses with the aid of 

mathematical models. The data used are presented in Sections 3.0 through 7.0 of this report and include the 2005 

results for onsite compliance monitoring of air, water, direct radiation, and biota, and the offsite monitoring results of 

air, direct radiation, and water conducted under the Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP). The 

specific goals for the dose assessment component of radiological monitoring are shown below along with the 

compliance measures which are calculated in order to accomplish these assessment goals. 

Radiological Dose Assessment Goals Compliance Measures 

Determine if the maximum radiation dose to a member of the 

general public from airborne radionuclide emissions at the NTS is 

less than the Clean Air Act, National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) limit of 10 millirems per year 

(mrem/yr) (0.1 millisieverts [mSv]/yr) 

Determine if the total radiation dose to a member of the general 

public from all possible pathways (direct exposure, inhalation, 

ingestion of water and food) as a result of NTS operations is less 

than the limit of 100 mrem/yr established by DOE Order 5400.5 

Determine if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS biota is less than 

the following limits set by DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE Standard 

DOE-STD-1153-2002: 

 < 1 rad/day for terrestrial plants and aquatic animals 

 < 0.1 rad/day for terrestrial animals 

Annual average concentrations of 

radionuclides at six NTS critical-receptor air 

sampling locations compared to the 

Concentration Levels for Environmental 

Compliance, Table 2, Appendix E, 

40 CFR 61 (NESHAP) 

Committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) 

for an offsite resident from all pathways, in 

mrem/yr (or mSv/yr) 

Absorbed dose to onsite plants and animals, 

in rad/day 

8.1 Radiological Dose to the Public 

Several steps are taken to compute radiological dose to the public from all pathways. This section briefly describes 

these steps, identifies how field monitoring data interface with other NTS data sources (e.g., radionuclide inventory 

data) to provide input to the dose estimates, and presents the results of each step. 

8.1.1 Possible Exposure Pathways to the Public 

As prescribed in the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b), BN routinely sampled 

air, groundwater, and biota to document the amount of radioactivity in these media and to provide data that can be 

used to assess the radiation dose received by the general public. 

The potential pathways by which a member of the general public residing offsite might receive a radiation dose 

resulting from past or present NTS operations include: 

1. Inhalation of, ingestion of, or direct external exposure to airborne radionuclide emissions transported offsite 

by wind 

2. Ingestion of meat from wild game animals which drink from surface waters and eat vegetation containing 

NTS-related radioactivity 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

3. Drinking contaminated water from underground aquifers containing radionuclides which have migrated from 

the sites of past underground nuclear tests 

4. Exposure to direct radiation along the borders of the NTS 

5. Exposure to direct radiation from the release of property (e.g., equipment, building materials) containing 

residual radioactive material 

In 2005, only the wind transport pathway (pathway 1) and the ingestion of wild game (pathway 2) were considered 

possible pathways of exposure to the public residing offsite. The subsections below address all of the potential 

pathways and their contribution to public dose estimated for 2005. 

8.1.2 Dose to the Public from NTS Air Emissions 

Six air particulate and tritium sampling stations located near the boundaries and the center of the NTS are approved 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX as critical receptor samplers to demonstrate 

compliance with the NESHAP public dose limit from air emissions of 10 mrem/yr. Analysis of air particulate and 

tritium data obtained at these six stations was performed in 2005 (Section 3.1.5). To be in compliance with NESHAP, 

the annual average concentration of an airborne radionuclide must be less than its NESHAP Concentration Level for 

Environmental Compliance (CL) (see Table 3-1 of Section 3.1.1). The CL for each radionuclide represents the annual 

average concentration of that radionuclide in air which would result in a CEDE of 10 mrem/yr. If multiple 

radionuclides are detected at a station, then compliance with NESHAP is demonstrated when the sum of the fractions 

(determined by dividing each radionuclide’s concentration by its concentration limit and then adding the fractions 

together) is less than 1.0. 

The following radionuclides were detected at three or more of the critical receptor samplers: americium-241 (241Am), 

plutonium-238 (238Pu), plutonium-239+240 (239+240Pu), uranium-233+234 (233+234U), uranium-235+236 (235+236U), 

uranium-238 (238U), and tritium (3H) (Section 3.1.5). All concentrations of these radionuclides were well below their 

CLs. The uranium isotopes are attributed to naturally-occurring uranium. The concentration of each measured 

radionuclide (excluding uranium, since it has been determined to be of natural origin) at each of the six critical 

receptor samplers was divided by its respective CL to obtain a “fraction of CL”. These fractions were then summed 

for each location and all were less than 1.0 (see Table 3-12, Section 3.1.5). As in previous years, the 2005 data from 

the six critical receptor samplers show that the NESHAP dose limit to the public of 10 mrem/yr was not exceeded. 

The Schooner critical receptor station in the far northwest corner of the NTS had the highest concentrations of 

radioactive air emissions, yet an individual residing at this station would experience a dose from air emissions of only 

2.3 mrem/yr, 23 percent of the admissible does limit. No one resides at this location, and the dose at offsite 

populated locations 20-80 kilometers (km) (12–50 miles [mi]) from the Schooner station would be much lower due to 

wind dispersion. 

 

In previous years (1992 – 2004), the air transport model called Clean Air Package 1988 (CAP88-PC) was used to 

calculate the dose to the public from NTS air emissions, including diffuse emissions from legacy soil contamination.

Beginning in 2005, BN discontinued using CAP88-PC to estimate public dose from ongoing legacy-related airborne 

radionuclide sources on the NTS (Grossman, 2006). The EPA approved this action in 2001 (EPA, 2001) and DOE 

concurred (DOE, 2004e). The air sampling data from the critical receptor stations provide a more accurate and 

conservative estimate of potential dose to the public than the CAP88-PC model for the following reasons. The 

annual dose to the offsite public from NTS emissions, as shown in all past reports, comes from diffuse sources, 

primarily from the re-suspension of radioactively-contaminated soil from legacy sites containing 241Am, 238Pu, 

239+240Pu, and the evaporation of tritiated water or diffusion of tritiated water vapor from ponds and soils at legacy 

sites and waste management sites (see Table 3-13, Section 3.1.9). The critical receptor air sampling stations can detect 

these emissions of airborne radionuclides at very low levels (less than 1 percent of their CL). These levels would 

reflect the most accurate real-time presence of airborne radionuclides at each station and, in a sense, would be 

assessing the potential dose to a person residing at each station (a conservative assessment since the onsite stations are 

much closer to NTS emissions than any offsite location where the public might reside). In contrast, the CAP88-PC 

model computes offsite dose (called the CEDE to the maximally-exposed individual [MEI]) based on indirect data 

such as annually-monitored NTS wind pattern data, a soil re-suspension mathematical model, and estimates of 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 8-3 

radionuclide concentration levels in soils based on field surveys that were conducted in the 1980s. 

New planned projects, however, will continue to be evaluated each year for NESHAP compliance by running the 

CAP88-PC model (see Sections 3.1.7–3.1.9). No planned projects evaluated in 2005, or new activities executed and 

monitored in 2005, produced airborne emissions which resulted in a calculated dose that would be a noticeable 

addition to the dose from legacy soil contamination (0.2 mrem/yr). 

8.1.3 Dose to the Public from Ingestion of Wild Game from the NTS 

There are few data suggesting that NTS small game animals travel offsite and become available to hunters. However, 

they are sampled on the NTS near contaminated areas as a conservative (worst case) estimate of the levels of 

radionuclides that hunters may consume if game animals did leave the NTS and were harvested. Radiation doses 

from the ingestion of game animals presented here are calculated from measurements of the radionuclide 

concentrations in animals trapped near sites where the soil, vegetation, and/or water sources are known to be 

contaminated with radioactivity from past nuclear tests (see Section 7.0). 

Man-made radionuclides were detected in all animals collected from the Sedan and U-19ad Sump locations (see 

Table 7-3, Section 7.0). Of the radionuclides detected, tritium concentrations were the highest, followed by 137Cs at 

much lower concentrations. 238Pu, 239+240Pu, and 241Am were also detected at relatively low levels. No man-made 

radionuclides were detected in muscle tissue from rabbits collected from the Sedan control site or in the bobcat 

collected opportunistically along Mercury Highway in Area 5. Tritium was, however, detected in the mountain lion 

which died of natural causes and was found in Area 7. Because of these very low and below detection level 

concentrations, no potential dose was calculated from consuming rabbits from the Sedan control site, the bobcat, or 

the mountain lion. The potential dose from consuming animals sampled from Sedan and the U-19ad Sump were 

calculated using the following assumptions: 

• One individual consumed 20 doves or 20 jackrabbits over the year (these numbers are the possession limits set 

for these species by the Nevada Division of Wildlife)

• Each game animal that an individual consumed contained the average concentration of radionuclides detected in 

muscle tissue for that species sampled 

• The amount of dove meat an individual consumed per animal was the average weight of the dove breast muscle 

samples at each site 

• The amount of rabbit meat consumed was the average weight of muscle on the animals sampled 

• The moisture content of game meat consumed was equivalent to the average moisture content measured in 

muscle tissue samples 

The CEDE was calculated using dose conversion factors (DOE, 1988) multiplied by the total activity estimated to be 

consumed for each of the detected radionuclides. The resultant potential doses from consuming mourning doves and 

jackrabbits are shown in Table 8-1. 

Radionuclides contributing most to dose were 239+240Pu, 137Cs, and tritium. Though tritium had, by far, the highest 

concentrations, it only emits low energy beta particles and has a short biological half-life. Tritium therefore has a very 

low dose conversion factor and results in a relatively low committed dose (Table 8-2). The higher total dose from 

consuming jackrabbits from Sedan is primarily a result of the assumption that the quantity of jackrabbit meat 

consumed is greater than that of dove meat consumed (see footnotes d, e, and f of Table 8-1). 

The highest CEDE from game animals sampled during 2005 was 0.32 mrem (0.0032 mSv) which is only 0.32 percent 

of the annual dose limit for members of the public. This dose is also conservative in that it assumes 20 animals with 

average concentrations were consumed. It is highly unlikely, given the distances from these locations to areas where 

animals may be hunted, that 20 animals from these locations would be hunted. It is not as unlikely, however, that an 

individual would hunt and consume one of these individuals. The maximum potential dose from consuming an 

individual animal sampled during 2005 would be 0.0005 mrem for doves from Sedan, 0.02 for jackrabbits from Sedan, 

and 0.009 mrem for doves from the U-19ad Sump (Table 8-1). To put these potential doses in perspective, the dose 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

from naturally-occurring cosmic radiation received during a one-hour airplane flight at 39,000 feet is about 0.5 mrem 

(0.005 mSv) or about 1.5 times higher than the highest committed dose that would result from consuming even 

20 game animals sampled during 2005. 

Table 8-1. Hypothetical annual dose to a human consuming the maximum number of NTS game animals 

 based on animals sampled in 2005 

Location and Samples 

Average Radionuclide 

Concentrations (a)

Dose Conversion 

Factor (mrem/pCi 

ingested)(b)

Committed 

Effective Dose 

Equivalent 

(mrem) 

Total 

Dose 

(mrem 

CEDE) 

Sedan 

 Dove 3H 3,200 pCi/L 0.000000063 0.000068 

 137Cs 0.41 pCi/g(c) 0.000050 0.0026 

 238Pu 0.00097 pCi/g(c) 0.0038 0.00048 0.0098 

 239+240Pu 0.0094 pCi/g(c) 0.0043 0.0052 

 

Weight of muscle 

consumed = 464 g (d)

241Am 0.0024 pCi/g(c) 0.0045 0.0014 

 

 Jackrabbit 3H 160,000 pCi/L 0.000000063 0.080 

 137Cs 0.53 pCi/g(c) 0.000050 0.084 

 238Pu 0.0029 pCi/g(c) 0.0038 0.036 0.32 

 239+240Pu 0.0065 pCi/g(c) 0.0043 0.090 

 

Weight of muscle 

consumed = 11,360 g (e)

241Am 0.0017 pCi/g(c) 0.0045 0.024 

U-19ad Sump 

 Dove 3H 1,200,000 pCi/L 0.000000063 0.030 

 137Cs 6.1 pCi/g(c) 0.000050 0.046 

 238Pu 0.0025 pCi/g(c) 0.0038 0.0015 0.082 

 239+240Pu 0.0052 pCi/g(c) 0.0043 0.0034 

 

Weight of muscle 

consumed = 540 g (f)

241Am 0.0027 pCi/g(c) 0.0045 0.0018 

(a) Negative values were set to zero prior to obtaining average 

(b) Dose conversion factors for human ingestion are from DOE (1988) 

(c) pCi/g dry weight; average water content = 72% by weight 

(d) Assumed breast meat from 20 mourning doves was consumed and each breast weighed 23.2 g 

(e) Assumed all meat from 20 jackrabbits was consumed and the meat on each weighed 568 g 

(f) Assumed breast meat from 20 mourning doves was consumed and each breast weighed 27 g 

 

 Table 8-2. Hypothetical dose to an individual from consuming one jackrabbit or one dove from sample 

locations on the NTS 

Species / Location CEDE (mrem) 

Mourning dove/Sedan 0.0005 

Jackrabbit/Sedan 0.02 

Mourning dove/U-19ad Sump 0.009 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 8-5 

8.1.4 Dose to the Public from Drinking Contaminated Groundwater 

The migration of radioactivity in groundwater has not been detected in the past or in 2005 (see Section 4.1). 

Therefore drinking contaminated groundwater is not a possible pathway of exposure to the public residing offsite. 

8.1.5 Dose to the Public from Direct Radiation Exposure Along NTS Borders 

The direct exposure pathway from gamma radiation to the public is monitored annually (see Section 5.0). In 2005, the 

only place where the public has the potential to be exposed to direct radiation along the borders of the NTS is along 

the southern boundary, namely at Gate 100, the primary entrance point to the site. Trucks hauling radioactive 

materials, primarily low-level radioactive waste being shipped for disposal at the Area 3 and 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Sites, park outside Gate 100 while waiting for entry approval. Only during these times is there a 

potential for exposure to the public. However, no member of the public resides or remains full-time at the Gate 100 

truck parking area. 

8.1.6 Dose to the Public from Release of Property Containing Residual 

Radioactive Material 

DOE’s radiation protection framework and dose limits are centered around an “all sources and all pathways” 

philosophy. In addition to radiological air and water discharges to the environment reported in Sections 3.1 and 4.1, 

respectively, the release of property off of the NTS which contains residual radioactive material is another type of 

release to the environment and potential contributor to the dose received by the public. This section describes release 

criteria, materials released during the reporting year, and the resultant dose to the public as a result of any releases. 

No vehicles, equipment, structures, or other materials are released from the NTS unless the amount of radiological 

contamination on such items is less than the authorized limits specified in the NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual 

(Table 8-3) (DOE, 2000b). These limits are taken from DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the 

Environment. Items proposed for unrestricted release must be surveyed to document compliance with the release 

criteria. The detailed survey requirements are contained in BN’s Organization Instruction OI 0441.212, Controlled and 

Unrestricted Release. 

In 2000, DOE placed a moratorium on the release of scrap material from radiological areas for recycling. This 

moratorium is still in effect. Government vehicles and equipment are routinely released or excessed when they are no 

longer needed by NTS projects or if they are required to be replaced. They are permitted to be released based on a 

combination of process knowledge and direct and indirect surveys such that the release criteria of Table 8-3 are met. 

BN Radiological Control does not authorize the release of materials off the NTS that have detectable radioactivity 

above background levels, however, even if these levels are less than the criteria levels shown in Table 8-3. During 

2005, no vehicles, equipment, or other materials with detectable residual radioactivity were released. 

Due to the potential for contamination of building structures that once housed uncontained contamination, the 

surveys for release of structures are not in a procedure. Instead, the criteria for unrestricted release of structures with 

potential or actual residual radioactivity are determined through agreements between the affected stakeholders, 

e.g., DOE and the state of Nevada. There were no releases of such structures in 2005. 

NTS materials released for unrestricted use in 2005 contained no detectable radioactivity, therefore, radiological dose 

to the public from such materials is assumed to be negligible. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 8-3. Allowable total residual surface contamination 

 Residual Surface Contamination (dpm/100 cm2) (a)

Radionuclide Removable 

Total 

(Fixed & 

Removable) 

Maximum Allowable 

Fixed & Removable 

Transuranics, 125I, 129I, 226Ra, 227Ac, 228Ra, 228Th, 

230Th, 231Pa 20 100 300 

Th-natural, 90Sr, 126I, 131I, 133I, 223Ra, 224Ra, 232U, 

232Th 200 1,000 3,000 

U-natural, 235U, 238U and associated decay 

products, alpha emitters 1,000 5,000 15,000 

Beta-gamma emitters (radionuclides with 

decay modes other than alpha emission or 

spontaneous fission) except 90Sr and others 

noted above 

1,000 5,000 15,000 

Source: DOE, 2000b 

(a) disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters 

8.1.7 Total Offsite Dose to the MEI from all Pathways

DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment establishes a radiation dose limit to a member of 

the general public from all possible pathways as a result of DOE facility operations. This limit is 100 mrem/yr over 

and above background radiation and includes the air transport pathway, ingestion pathway, and direct exposure 

pathway. For 2005, the only two possible pathways of public exposure to man-made radionuclides from current or 

past NTS activities included the air transport pathway and the ingestion of game animals. The doses from these two 

pathways are combined below to present an estimate of the total 2005 dose to the MEI residing offsite. 

The dose estimate for an offsite MEI is expected to be no greater than 0.2 mrem/yr (Figure 8-1). If the offsite MEI is 

assumed to eat 20 jackrabbits from the Sedan sample location (see Table 8-1), this individual would receive an 

estimated additional 0.32 mrem/yr (0.0032 mSv/yr) dose. The total CEDE to this MEI would be 0.52 mrem/yr 

(0.0052 mSv/yr) (Table 8-4). The total dose of 0.52 mrem/yr is 0.52 percent of the DOE limit of 100 mrem/yr and 

0.15 percent of the total dose the MEI receives from natural background radiation (340 mrem/yr) (Figure 8-2). 

Natural background radiation consists of cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation, radiation from radionuclides (primarily 

potassium-40 [40K]) within the composition of the human body, and radiation from the inhalation of naturallyoccurring radon and its progeny. The cosmic and terrestrial components of background radiation (100 mrem/yr) 

shown in Figure 8-2 were estimated from the annual mean radiation exposure rate measured with a pressurized ion 

chamber (PIC) at Indian Springs by the CEMP (99.56 milliroentgens per year [mR/yr], see Table 6-4 in Section 6.0). 

The radiation exposure in air measured by the PIC in units of mR/yr is approximately equivalent to the unit of 

mrem/yr for tissue. The portion of the background dose from the internally deposited, naturally-occurring 

radionuclides and from the inhalation of radon and its daughters shown in Figure 8-2 were estimated as 40 mrem/yr 

and 200 mrem/yr, respectively, using the approximations by the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) 

(NCRP,1996). 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 8-7 

Figure 8-1. Estimated radiation dose from NTS air emissions to the offsite 

MEI from 1992 to 2004 

Table 8-4. Estimated radiological dose to the general public from 2005 NTS 

operations 

Pathway 

Dose to MEI 

(mrem/yr) (mSv/yr) 

Percent of DOE 

100-mrem/yr Limit 

Air (a) 0.2 0.002 0.2 

Water (b) 0 0 0 

Wildlife ( c) 0.32 0.0032 0.32 

Direct (d) 0 0 0 

All Pathways 0.52 0.0052 0.52 

(a) Assumed from historical data from 1992 to 2004. 

(b) Based on all offsite groundwater sampling in 2005 (see Sections 4.1 and 5.2). 

(c) Assumes that the MEI consumes 20 jackrabbits from the Sedan sample location 

 (see Table 8-2). 

(d) Based on 2005 gamma radiation monitoring data (see Sections 5.0, 6.1), 2005 property 

 release tracking information (Section 8.1.6), and previous years’ CAP88-PC dose estimates. 

 

 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Calendar Year

CEDE, mrem/yr

0.012 0.0038 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.090 0.092 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.11 0.10 0.12

NESHAP Standard 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

person-rem/yr

Figure 8-2. Comparison of radiation dose to the MEI and the 

natural radiation background (percent of total) 

8.1.8 Collective Population Dose 

The collective population dose to residents within 80 km (50 mi) of the NTS emission sources was not estimated in 

2005 because this assessment depends upon CAP88-PC estimations which were not calculated. The collective 

population dose has been below 0.6 person-rem/yr for the period 1992 to 2004 (Figure 8-3). DOE approved the 

discontinuance of reporting collective population dose because it is so low for the NTS. DOE recommended, 

however, that the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office should 

consider reporting it once again if ever it exceeds 1.0 person-rem/yr (DOE, 2004e). 

Figure 8-3. Collective population dose within 80 km of NTS 

emission sources from 1992 to 2004 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 8-9 

8.2 Dose to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program requires DOE facilities to evaluate the potential impacts of 

radiation exposure to biota in the vicinity of DOE activities. DOE Standard 1153-2002, A Graded Approach for 

Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota (DOE, 2002a) was developed by DOE’s Biota Dose 

Assessment Committee to assist in such an evaluation. The following radiological dose limits were established (DOE, 

2002a). Dose rates equal to or less than these are expected to have no direct, observable effect on plant or animal 

reproduction: 

• 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day) for aquatic animals 

• 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day) for terrestrial plants 

• 0.1 rad/day (1 mGy/day) for terrestrial animals 

The goal for the NTS biota dose assessment component of radiological monitoring is to determine if the established 

dose limits shown above are exceeded at the NTS using the graded approach for dose evaluation described in 

DOE Standard 1153-2002. The standard also provides concentration values for radionuclides in soil, water, and 

sediment that are to be used as a guide for determining if biota are potentially receiving radiation doses that exceed the 

limits. These concentrations are called the Biota Concentration Guide (BCG) values. They are defined as the 

minimum concentration of a radionuclide that would cause dose limits to be exceeded using very conservative uptake 

and exposure assumptions. 

The graded approach is a three-step process consisting of a data assembly step, a general screening step, and an 

analysis step. The analysis step consists of site-specific screening, site-specific analysis, and site-specific biota dose 

assessment. The following information is required by the graded approach: 

• Identification of terrestrial and aquatic habitats on the NTS that have radionuclides in soil, water, or sediment 

• Identification of terrestrial and aquatic biota on the NTS that occur in contaminated habitats and which are at 

risk of exposure 

• Measured or calculated radionuclide concentrations in soil, water, and sediment in contaminated habitats on the 

NTS that can be compared to BCG values to determine the potential for exceeding biota dose limits 

• Measured radionuclide concentrations in NTS biota, soil, water, and sediment in contaminated habitats on the 

NTS to estimate site-specific dose to biota 

A comprehensive biota dose assessment for the NTS using the graded approach was reported in the NTS 

Environmental Report 2003 (DOE, 2004d). This dose assessment demonstrated that the potential radiological dose to 

biota on the NTS was not likely to exceed dose limits. No data exist to suggest that NTS surface contamination 

conditions have changed, therefore, the terrestrial biota dose evaluation conclusion remains the same for 2005. 

There was, however, one new temporary water source created in late 2005 which contained radioactivity. This was a 

lined sump that received water pumped from an UGTA Project well near the underground nuclear weapons test 

CHESHIRE in Area 20. This well, U-20n PS #1DD-H, is discussed in Section 4.1.10. Because this water source will 

dry up in a matter of months, it is not considered aquatic nor riparian habitat (there is no vegetation growing on the 

edge of the plastic-lined pond). It is, however, a water source available for terrestrial animals living in the area. 

Tritium is the predominant radionuclide in this water. Tritium concentrations were compared with the BCG value for 

tritium and found to be more than six times lower (Table 8-7). Given this difference, the dose limit for terrestrial 

biota that may drink from this sump is not expected to be exceeded. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 8-5. Biota dose assessment to terrestrial biota from temporary water source created on the NTS in 2005 

Sump Water 

Source 

3H Sample 

Concentration 

(x 108 pCi/L)

BCG for 3H in Water for 

Terrestrial Biota 

(x 108 pCi/L) 

Ratio of Maximum 3H 

Sample Concentration to 

BCG(a) 

U-20n PS #1DD-H 0.377(b) 2.31 0.16 

(a) Per the graded approach (DOE, 2002a), biota dose limits are not exceeded if the sum of fractions of the maximum 

radionuclide concentrations divided by the radionuclide’s BCG value is less than 1.0. 

(b) Source: Ortego, 2006 

8.2.1 2005 Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment 

Most of the graded approach for assessing dose to biota is based on radionuclide concentrations in soil, water, and 

sediment. The site-specific biota dose assessment phase however, centers on the actual collection and analysis of 

biota. This section presents estimates of site-specific doses to biota from two locations on the NTS where plants 

and/or animals were sampled in 2005. 

Animal samples were collected from two contaminated sites: the Sedan site in Area 10 and the U-19ad Sump in 

Area 19. Plant samples were collected from the Sedan site, but not at the U-19ad Sump. Sampling methods and 

radionuclide concentrations in these 2005 samples are presented in Section 7.0. 

Internal dose coefficient factors, discussed in the graded approach methodology (Section 2, Module 3 of DOE, 

2002a), were used with the measured concentrations found in the biota samples (see Section 7.0) to obtain dose rate 

estimates for both plants and animals. The external dose rate at the Sedan site was taken as the maximum quarterly 

exposure rate measured at three thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) locations in the area (TLD locations Sedan 

West, Sedan East Visitor Box, and T10) (see Section 5.0). This exposure rate (275 mR/yr) was measured at a height 

of 1 meter above the ground. To adjust the rate to a height of 10 centimeters above the ground, where plants and 

small mammals would be exposed, this rate was multiplied by a factor of 1.8. The adjusted exposure rate, 495 mR/yr, 

was then converted to a dose rate of 495 millirads per year (mrad/yr) assuming 1 mR = 1 mrad. Because there were 

no measured exposure rates at the U-19ad Sump, the external dose rate at this location was estimated by taking the 

tritium concentration in water and the external dose coefficient listed in Table 2.2 (Section 2, Module 3 of DOE, 

2002a). External dose rate estimates were then added to the internal dose rate estimates to obtain a total dose rate 

estimate for plants and animals at each location. 

Average doses were estimated to be 0.0016 rad/day for animals and 0.0024 rad/day for plants at Sedan and 

0.0060 rad/day for doves at the U-19ad Sump (Table 8-6). Dose from internal radionuclides accounted for about 

10 percent of the total for animals while it accounted for about 40 percent for plants; this difference attributable 

primarily to the higher concentrations of 239+240Pu and 241Am in the plants. The total estimated dose rates are 

≤ 6 percent and 0.2 percent of the dose limits, respectively, for terrestrial animals and plants. 

Table 8-6. Site-specific dose assessment results for terrestrial plants and animals sampled on the NTS 

Location Estimated Radiological Dose (rad/day) 

 To Animals To Plants(a)

Internal External Total Internal External Total 

Sedan Doves 0.00015 0.0014 0.0016 0.0010 0.0014 0.0024 

 Jackrabbits 0.00016 0.0014 0.0016 

U-19ad Sump Doves 0.00034 0.0057 0.0060 (not sampled) 

DOE Dose Limit: 0.1 1 

(a) For list of plant species sampled, see Table 7-1 of this report 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 8-11 

8.2.2 Environmental Impact 

Based on the graded approach for assessing potential dose to biota, plants and animals on the NTS are not expected 

to be exposed to significantly large radiological doses that may be detrimental to their populations. Work will 

continue to refine this dose assessment, especially in the area of defining dose evaluation areas. Boundaries of plant 

and animal populations intersecting contaminated areas will be further evaluated in an attempt to ensure that potential 

populations within currently defined areas are not missed.
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 9-1 

9.0 Waste Management and Environmental Restoration 

Several federal and state regulations govern the safe management, storage, and disposal of radioactive, hazardous, and 

solid wastes generated or received on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) for the purpose of protecting the environment and 

the public (see Section 2.4). This section describes both the waste management and environmental restoration 

operations conducted under the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site 

Office (NNSA/NSO) Environmental Management Program and summarizes the activities performed in 2005 to meet 

all environmental/public safety regulations. The goals of the program are shown below. The compliance measures 

and actions tracked and taken to meet the program goals are also listed. 

9.1 Radioactive Waste Management 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management requires that DOE radioactive waste 

management activities be systematically planned, documented, executed, and evaluated. Radioactive waste is managed 

to protect the public, the environment, and workers from exposure to radiation from radioactive materials and to 

comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations; Executive Orders; and DOE directives. The 

major tasks within Radioactive Waste Management include: 

• Characterization of LLW and LLMW that has been generated by the DOE within the state of Nevada 

• Disposal of LLW and LLMW at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) comprised of the 

Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) and the Area 5 RWMS 

• Characterization, visual examination, and repackaging of TRU waste at the Waste Examination Facility (WEF) at 

the RWMC 

• Loading of TRU waste at the Area 5 RWMS for shipment to either the WIPP or INL 

Waste Management and 

Environmental Restoration Goals Compliance Measures/Actions 

Manage and safely dispose of the following wastes 

generated by NNSA/NSO and the U.S. Department of 

Defense (DoD) operations: 

 Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) 

 Low-level radioactive mixed waste (LLMW) 

 Hazardous waste (HW) 

Continue to characterize, inspect, repackage, load, and 

ship transuranic (TRU) wastes stored on an interim 

basis at the NTS to either the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico or to the Idaho 

National Laboratory (INL) 

Characterize and remediate historic sites contaminated 

by NNSA/NSO testing activities 

Manage and safely dispose of solid/sanitary wastes 

generated by NNSA/NSO

Completion/maintenance of documents required for a 

Class II Nuclear Facility Establishment of Waste 

Acceptance criteria for radioactive wastes received for 

disposal/storage 

Volume of disposed LLW 

Volume of stored non-radioactive hazardous waste 

Volume of disposed LLMW 

Weight of approved explosive ordnance wastes detonated 

Vadose zone monitoring 

Groundwater monitoring 

Site characterization, remediation, closure, and postclosure site monitoring 

Weight and volume of solid waste disposed 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

9.1.1 Maintenance of Key Documents 

Table 9-1 lists the key documents which must be current and in place at each RWMS for disposal operations to occur. 

In 2005, all of these key documents were maintained and two were revised. 

Table 9-1. Key documents required for Area 3 RWMS and Area 5 RWMS operations 

Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) 

 Disposal Authorization Statement for Area 5 RWMS, December 2000 

 Disposal Authorization Statement for Area 3 RWMS, October 1999 

Performance Assessment (PA) 

 Performance Assessment for Area 5 RWMS, Revision 2.1, January 1998 

 Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for Area 3 RWMS, Revision 2.1, October 2000 

Composite Analysis (CA) 

 Composite Analysis for Area 5 RWMS, February 2000 

 Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for Area 3 RWMS, Revision 2.1, October 2000 

NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria (NTSWAC) 

 NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria, Revision 6, October 2005. 

 (This document was revised to incorporate requirements for accepting LLMW generated outside Nevada.) 

Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan (ICMP) 

 Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan for the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs, September 2001 

Auditable Safety Analysis (ASA) 

 Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for the NTS Area 5 RWMC, Revision 1, November 2004 

 DSA for the NTS Area 3 RWMS, Revision 1, March 2005 

 Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) for the Area 5 RWMC LLW Activities, Revision 3, November 2004 

 TSR for the Area 5 RWMC TRU Waste Activities, Revision 3, November 2004 

 TSR for the Area 3 RWMS, Revision 1, March 2005 

9.1.2 Characterization of LLW and LLMW 

Waste Generator Services (WGS) characterizes LLW and LLMW generated by the DOE within Nevada, primarily at 

the NTS. Characterization is performed utilizing either knowledge of the generating process or sampling and analysis. 

Following the characterization of a waste stream, a Waste Profile is completed for approval by an appropriate disposal 

facility. The Waste Profile delineates the pedigree of the waste, including but not limited to a description of the waste 

generating process, physical and chemical characteristics, radioactive isotopes and their quantities, and detailed 

packaging information. WGS then packs and ships approved waste streams in accordance with Department of 

Transportation requirements to either the Area 3 or Area 5 RWMS or to an offsite treatment, storage, and disposal 

facility. 

In 2005, LLW and MW were characterized by WGS for the following waste stream categories: 

• Lead Solids • Miscellaneous Debris 

• Sealed Sources • Compactable Trash 

• Dip Tanks and Miscellaneous Debris • Condensate Water 

• Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and • Contact Water 

 Dissassembly (EMAD) Remediation Waste 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 9-3 

9.1.3 Disposal of LLW and LLMW 

The RWMC operates as a Category II Nuclear Facility. The RWMC, which includes the Area 3 and the Area 5 

RWMSs, is designed and operated to perform three functions: 

• Dispose of LLW from NNSA/NSO activities performed on and off the NTS and from other offsite generators 

in the state of Nevada. 

• Dispose of DOE LLW from around the DOE complex, primarily from the cleanup of sites associated with the 

manufacture of weapons components. 

• Dispose of LLMW from around the DOE complex. 

All generators of waste streams must first request to dispose of waste, submit a request to NNSA/NSO requesting to 

ship waste to the NTS for disposal, submit profiles characterizing specific waste streams, meet the NTS Radioactive 

Waste Acceptance Criteria, and receive programmatic approval from NNSA/NSO. The NTS Radioactive Waste 

Acceptance Criteria are based on how well the site is predicted to perform in containing radioactive waste and 

ensuring that the environment and the public will not be exposed to significant radiation. The NNSA/NSO assesses 

and predicts the long-term performance of LLW disposal sites by conducting a Performance Assessment (PA) and a 

Composite Analysis (CA). A PA is a systematic analysis of the potential risks posed by a waste disposal site to the 

public and to the environment. A CA is an assessment of the risks posed by all wastes disposed in a LLW disposal 

site and by all other sources of residual contamination that may interact with the disposal site. PA and CA documents 

are developed as a result of these activities. The RWMC receives LLW generated within the DOE complex from 

numerous DOE sites across the United States, LLW from DoD sites that carry a national security classification, and 

LLMW generated within the DOE complex for disposal or indefinite storage. 

Disposal consists of placing waste in unlined cells and trenches. Soil backfill is applied over the waste in a single lift, 

which is approximately 2.4 meters (m) (8 feet [ft]) thick, as rows of containers reach approximately 1.2 m (4 ft) below 

the original grade. The Area 5 RWMS includes 81 hectares (ha) (200 acres [ac]) of existing and proposed disposal cells 

for burial of both LLW and LLMW, and approximately 202 ha (500 ac) of land available for future radioactive 

disposal cells. Waste disposal at the Area 5 RWMS has occurred in a 37 ha (92 ac) portion of the site since the early 

1960s. The Area 5 RWMS consists of 31 disposal cells (pits and trenches) and 13 Greater Confinement Disposal 

(GCD) boreholes (listed below). This site is used for disposal of waste in drums or boxes. Existing cells are expected 

to be filled and closed by 2010, and new cells extending to the north and west are expected to close by 2021. LLW 

and LLMW disposal services are expected to continue at Area 5 RWMS as long as the DOE complex requires the 

disposal of wastes from the weapons program. 

 31 Disposal Cells at Area 5 RWMS: 13 GCD Boreholes at Area 5 RWMS:

6 active which receive standard LLW 4 inactive (open but have not received any waste) 

1 active and permitted to receive asbestos-form LLW (P06U) 4 closed containing TRU waste 

1 active and permitted by the State to receive LLMW (P03U) 5 closed containing LLW 

1 inactive (open but has not received any waste) 

21 closed (containing waste and backfilled) containing LLW 

1 closed (containing waste and backfilled) containing 

 asbestiform LLW (P07U) 

The Area 3 RWMS consists of seven craters making up five disposal cells. Each subsidence crater was created by an 

underground weapons test. This site is used for disposal of bulk LLW waste, such as soils or debris, and waste in 

large cargo containers. Disposal operations at the Area 3 RWMS began in the late 1960s. Waste disposal services at 

Area 3 RWMS will continue as long as the DOE requires such services. The site consists of the following seven 

craters: 

 3 Active Disposal Cells: 2 Closed Cells: 2 Undeveloped Cells:

 U3ah/at U3ax/bl U3az 

 U3bh U3bg 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

In November, Nevada renewed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B Permit (NEV HW 

0021) which authorizes the disposal of LLMW at the Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U). No LLMW was 

disposed at the Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) in 2005. 

In 2005, the Area 5 RWMS received shipments containing 36,828 cubic meters (m3) (48,169 cubic yards [yd3]) of LLW 

for disposal. The Area 3 RWMS received shipments containing 9,615 m3 (12,576 yd3) of LLW. The majority of 

disposed LLW was shipped from offsite. A total of 806 m3 (1.055 yd3) of LLW disposed in 2005 was generated 

onsite. 

In 2005, the Area 5 RWMS received and disposed of 73.75 tons (net weight), of asbestos-form LLW at P06U. 

9.1.4 TRU Waste Operations 

The Transuranic Pad Cover Building (TPCB) at the Area 5 RWMC is a RCRA Part B interim status facility designed 

for the safe storage of TRU waste generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the 1970s. The TPCB 

accepts no other wastes. The TPCB stores TRU waste until it is characterized, visually examined, and repackaged at 

the WEF at the Area 5 RWMC. Once repackaged, the TRU waste is loaded at the mobile loading unit for shipment 

either to the WIPP at Carlsbad, New Mexico for disposal or to INL for further processing. Current agreements 

between NNSA/NSO and WIPP plan for TRU waste shipments to be completed by March 2005. In 2005, TRU 

wastes stored at the TPCB continued to be characterized, visually inspected, repackaged, loaded, and shipped for 

disposal. 

9.1.5 Assessments 

In 2005, assessments were conducted at the RWMC in accordance with Bechtel Nevada (BN) Procedure 

OP-NOPS.003 Nuclear Operations Conduct of Operations. Schedules for BN management self-assessments (MSAs) were 

included in the Support Execution Plans for each facility. In addition to the MSAs performed internally at the 

RWMC, assessments were performed periodically by other BN organizations, NNSA/NSO, and the Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board. The results of each assessment were logged for DOE/NSO in the BN tracking system known 

as CaWeb. In 2005, MSAs were conducted monthly at the RWMC. 

9.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring for LLW Pit P03U 

P03U is operated according to RCRA Interim Status standards for the disposal of mixed LLW. Title 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 265 (Groundwater Monitoring) Subpart F (40 CFR 265.92) requires groundwater 

monitoring to verify the performance of P03U to protect groundwater from buried radioactive wastes. Wells 

UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3 are monitored for this purpose; these wells comprise 3 of the 14 onsite 

monitoring wells sampled periodically for radionuclide analyses of groundwater (see Section 4.1.7). Investigation 

levels (ILs) for five indicators of groundwater contamination (Table 9-2) were established by NNSA/NSO and the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for these three wells in 1998. Further groundwater analyses 

will be required if a parameter’s IL is exceeded. In 2005, none of the water samples collected semi-annually from the 

wells had contaminant levels above their ILs (Table 9-2). General water chemistry parameters are also monitored; all 

sample analysis results are presented in BN (2006a). Table 4-4 of Section 4.1.7 presents the tritium results for 

UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3. 

Table 9-2. Results of groundwater monitoring of UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE PW-3 in 2005 

Parameter Investigation Level (IL) Sample Levels 

pH < 7.6 or > 9.2 S.U. 8.27 to 8.47 S.U. 

Specific conductance (SC) 0.440 mmhos/cm 0.352 to 0.377 mmhos/cm 

Total organic carbon (TOC) 1 mg/L <0.5 – 0.65 

Total organic halides (TOX) 50 μg/L < 5.0 – 6.5 μg/L 

Tritium (3H) 2,000 pCi/L -4.76 – 8.82 pCi/L 

Source: BN, 2006a 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 9-5 

9.1.7 Vadose Zone Monitoring 

Monitoring of the vadose zone (unsaturated zone above the water table) is conducted at the RWMC to demonstrate 

that: (1) the PA assumptions at the RWMSs are valid regarding the hydrologic conceptual models used, including soil 

water contents, and upward and downward flux rates and (2) that there is negligible infiltration of precipitation into 

zones of buried waste at the RWMSs. Vadose zone monitoring (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. All VZM conducted in 

2005 continued to demonstrate that there is negligible infiltration of precipitation into zones of buried waste at the 

RWMC and that the performance criteria of the waste disposal cells are being met to prevent contamination of 

groundwater and the environment. A few components of the VZM monitoring program implemented in 2005 are 

presented below. For more details on the program refer to the Nevada Test Site 2005 Waste Management Monitoring 

Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (BN, 2006b). 

9.1.7.1 Area 3 RWMS Drainage Lysimeter Facility 

In December 2000, a Drainage Lysimeter Facility was constructed immediately northwest of the U-3ax/bl disposal 

unit at the Area 3 RWMS. The facility consists of eight cylindrical drainage lysimeters, each 3.1 m (10.0 ft) in diameter 

and 2.4 m (8.0 ft) deep. Each lysimeter is filled with native soil and packed to mimic the U-3ax/bl soil cover. Each 

lysimeter has eight Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) probes to measure moisture content depth profiles paired 

with eight heat dissipation probes to measure soil water potential depth profiles. Measured water contents at the 

bottom of the lysimeters and drainage from the lysimeters provide an indirect measure of potential drainage from the 

U-3ax/bl soil cover. The lysimeter facility was constructed to fulfill data needs including reducing uncertainty in the 

expected performance of monolayer-evapotranspiration closure covers under various surface vegetation treatments 

and climatic change scenarios such as increased rainfall. 

There are three surface vegetation treatments subject to two climate treatments on the lysimeters. The three surface 

vegetation treatments are bare soil; natural plant recolonization (primarily by invader species Salsola tragus [prickly 

Russian thistle], Halogeton glomeratus [halogeton], and Sisymbrium alitissimum [tumblemustard]); and revegetation with 

former plant community species (primarily Atriplex confertifolia [shadscale], Krascheninnikovia lanata [winterfat], Ephedra 

nevadensis [Nevada ephedra], and Achnatherum hymenoides [Indian ricegrass]). The bare soil lysimeters mimic operational 

waste covers, the invader species lysimeters mimic operational waste covers that are not maintained, and revegetation 

lysimeters mimic final closure covers. The climate treatments are natural precipitation and three times the amount of 

natural precipitation. The increased precipitation lysimeters receive natural precipitation and are irrigated at a rate 

equal to two times natural precipitation. 

No drainage occurred from any of the four non-irrigated lysimeters, but moisture accumulated at the bottom of the 

bare-soil lysimeter and the revegetated lysimeter. There was drainage from every irrigated lysimeter, but the vegetated 

lysimeters had much less drainage than the bare soil lysimeter. Measured volumetric water contents confirm that 

vegetation effectively removes moisture from the lysimeters, helping prevent deep percolation of infiltrated 

precipitation. 

9.1.7.2 Area 5 RWMS Weighing Lysimeter Facility 

The Area 5 Weighing Lysimeter Facility consists of two precision weighing lysimeters located about 400 m (0.25 mi) 

southwest of the Area 5 RWMS. Each lysimeter consists of a 2 x 4-m (6.6 x 13-ft) by 2-m (6.6-ft) deep steel box filled 

with soil. The load cells in each lysimeter can measure approximately 0.1 millimeters (mm) (0.004 inches [in.]) of 

precipitation or evapotranspiration. One lysimeter is vegetated with native plant species at the approximate density of 

the surrounding desert, and one lysimeter is kept bare to simulate operational waste covers at the Area 5 RWMS. The 

load cells have been monitored continuously since March 1994, providing an accurate dataset of the surface water 

balance at the Area 5 RWMS. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

The weighing lysimeter data represent a simplified water balance: the change in soil water storage is equal to 

precipitation minus evaporation (E) on bare lysimeters, or precipitation minus evapotranspiration (ET) on vegetated 

lysimeters. The water balance is simplified because no drainage can occur through the solid bottoms of the lysimeters 

and because a 2.5 centimeters (cm) (1 in.) lip around the edge of the lysimeters prevents run-on and runoff. No water 

has ever accumulated at the bottom of the vegetated lysimeter. Heavy precipitation and low E rates during the period 

from October 2004 to February 2005 combined with initially higher water contents, resulted in water accumulating at 

the bottom of the bare lysimeter starting in March 2005. Long-term numerical simulations (30 years) using a unit 

gradient bottom boundary were used to determine the amount of drainage that would have occurred if water could 

drain from the lysimeters. These simulations indicate an average of 1.0 cm/year of water reaches the bottom of the 

bare lysimeter and that essentially no water reaches the bottom of the vegetated lysimeter (Desotell et al., 2006). 

9.1.7.3 RWMS Waste Cover Automated Monitoring 

Automated monitoring systems are installed in the operational covers on Pit 3 (P03U), Pit 4 (P04U), Pit 5 (P05U), the 

floor of Pit 5 underneath the waste, and the closure cover on U-3x/bl. These monitoring systems measure moisture 

content depth profiles with TDR probes. The system at Pit 5 also has heat dissipation probes to measure water 

potential depth profiles. The precipitation events, beginning in October 2004, infiltrated into the operational covers 

of Pits 3, 4, and 5, and percolated below the deepest probes at 180 cm (71 in.) in March 2005. This moisture is below 

the range of substantial surface evaporation, and the observed gradual drying at these locations is most likely due to 

downward percolation. This is the deepest observed moisture percolation in the operational covers. Precipitation 

percolated to 152 cm (60 in.) in the U-3x/bl closure cover by March 2005 but was removed to the atmosphere by ET 

in six months. The measurements in the floor of Pit 5 do not show any evidence of water movement. 

9.1.7.4 RWMS Supplemental Automated Monitoring 

Additional automated data-acquisition stations are maintained to provide ancillary data in support of the more direct 

monitoring of RWMS disposal units and the lysimeters in Areas 3 and 5. These stations include meteorological 

towers that continuously measure precipitation, air temperature, humidity, wind speed, wind direction, barometric 

pressure, and solar radiation. Data are also obtained from a flume north of the Area 3 RWMS and one northwest of 

the Area 5 RWMS for assessing, in part, the potential for surface water runoff near the RWMSs. An automated 

system has also been deployed within a subsidence crater in Area 3 (U3-bw) to study the potential for infiltration into 

the underlying chimney. 

9.1.7.5 Gas-phase Tritium Monitoring 

Tritium monitoring is conducted via soil gas sampling at Well GCD-05U, one of the 13 GCD boreholes at the Area 5 

RWMS. Radioactive wastes were buried in this borehole from 36 to 20 m (119 to 65 ft) below the surface. The 

borehole was then backfilled with clean soil. Monitoring provides a direct measure of changes in tritium activity with 

depth due to degradation of waste containers, advection, and diffusion. The 16-year trend in results indicates that 

upward migration of tritium through the soil from the buried waste is extremely slow. The tritium concentrations 

from sample ports adjacent to the buried waste at depths of 20, 26, 33, and 36 m (65, 85, 110, and 119 ft) have 

increased by a factor of three since 1990, with the highest concentration of 381 microcuries per cubic meter (μCi/m3) 

of soil gas measured at 26 m (85 ft) in September 2001. Tritium concentrations have remained constant and low at 

about 0.01 μCi/m3 in soil gas samples taken above the tritium source at depths of 3, 6, 9, and 12 m (10, 20, 30, and 

40 ft). 

9.1.7.6 Radon Flux 

Radon flux measurements were taken at the Area 5 RWMS at P01U, on the north end of P13U, and on the north end 

of P14U during 2005. Electrets inserted in domes (Rad Elec, Inc.) measure radon flux from the ground. All radon 

flux measurements from the covers are not higher than those from undisturbed or control locations. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 9-7 

9.2 Hazardous Waste Management 

Hazardous wastes (HW) (see Glossary, Appendix B) regulated under RCRA are generated at the NTS from a broad 

range of activities including onsite laboratories, paint shops, vehicle maintenance, communications and photo 

operations, and environmental restoration of historic contaminated sites (see Section 9.3). HW exclude radioactive 

wastes by definition; a waste which is both hazardous and radioactive is termed a mixed waste. All HW are presently 

transported to approved offsite RCRA HW treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. The RCRA Part B Permit 

(NEV HW 0021) regulates the operation of the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) in Area 5 and the Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) in Area 11. The volume of HW managed (i.e., temporarily stored or detonated [in 

the case of explosive ordnance]) at each of these units per quarter is reported to the state of Nevada. NNSA/NSO 

pays fees to the state of Nevada based on the weight of HW managed. 

9.2.1 Hazardous Waste Storage Unit and Satellite Accumulation Areas 

The permit allows NNSA/NSO to store HW that have been generated at the NTS in containers on a pad specifically 

designed for waste storage. The HWSU is a pre-fabricated, rigid steel framed, roofed shelter which is permitted to 

store a maximum of 61,600 liters (16,280 gallons) of approved waste at a time. HW generated at BN restoration sites 

off the NTS (e.g., at TTR) or generated at the North Las Vegas Facility are direct-shipped to approved disposal 

facilities. HW generated at restoration sites, or other project sites, on the NTS may also be direct-shipped if the 

volume capacity of the HWSU is near its permitted limits. The permit allows satellite accumulation areas (SAAs) at 

restoration sites for the temporary storage of HW prior to shipment directly offsite or to the HWSU. 

In 2005, a total of 38,228 pounds (lbs) of HW were received at the HWSU for temporary storage and 27,172 lbs were 

shipped offsite from the HWSU (Table 9-3). Quarterly reports of these waste quantities were submitted on time to 

NDEP. The HW managed at the HWSU in 2005 included drums of liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (see 

Section 10.1). In 2005, a total of 27,140 lbs of HW were shipped offsite from SAAs. No HW storage limits were 

exceeded. 

9.2.2 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 

The RCRA Hazardous Waste Operating Permit also covers operations at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 

(EODU) in Area 11. Conventional explosive wastes are generated at the NTS from tunnel operations, the NTS firing 

range, the resident national laboratories, and other activities. The permit allows NNSA/NSO to treat explosive 

ordnance wastes, which are hazardous wastes as defined under 40 CFR (Sections 261.21, 261.23, 261.24, and 261.33), 

by open detonation in a specially constructed and managed area designed for the safe and effective treatment of 

explosive HW. The permit allows a maximum of 45.4 kilograms (kg) (100 lbs) of approved waste to be detonated at a 

time, not to exceed one detonation event per hour. 

In 2005, no explosive ordnance were detonated at the EODU (Table 9-3). Quarterly reports were submitted on time 

to NDEP. During the first and second quarters of 2005, the quantities reported to the state in the quarterly reports 

were for the total weight of HW stored at the HWSU. Fees to the state of Nevada are based on HW received each 

quarter, not the amounts still being stored after receipt. Therefore, beginning in the third quarter of 2005, only the 

quantities received each quarter were reported to the state of Nevada and fees based on these quantities were paid. 

 Table 9-3. Hazardous waste managed at the NTS in 2005 

Permitted Unit Waste Received Waste Shipped 

Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) 38,228 lbs(a) 27,172 lbs(a) 

NTS satellite accumulation areas (SAAs) ND(b) 27,140 lbs 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) 0 kg 0 kg 

(a) The permitted storage limit for HW at the HWSU is 61,600 liters (16,280 gallons); however, the reporting units are 

pounds, on which quarterly fees to the state of Nevada are based. 

(b) Amount of HW received annually over all SAAs is not documented. Each SAA receives up to 55 gallons of HW 

and up to 1 quart of acute HW prior to shipment of wastes directly offsite or to the HWSU. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

9.3 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Management 

By 1998, the NTS UST program met all regulatory compliance schedules for the reporting, upgrading, or removal of 

documented USTs. The NNSA/NSO operates one deferred UST and three excluded USTs at the Device Assembly 

Facility. The NNSA/NSO also maintains a fully-regulated UST at the Area 6 helicopter pad which is not in service. 

9.4 Environmental Restoration - Remediation of Historic 

Contaminated Sites 

In April 1996, the DOE, DoD, and the state of Nevada entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent 

Order (FFACO) to address the environmental restoration of historic contaminated sites at the NTS, parts of TTR, 

parts of the Nellis Air Force Range (now known as the Nevada Test and Training Range, the Central Nevada Test 

Area, and the Project Shoal Area. These sites, known as Corrective Action Sites (CASs), may be contaminated with 

both radioactive and non-radioactive wastes. Appendix VI of the FFACO describes the strategy that will be 

employed to plan, implement, and complete environmental corrective actions at facilities where nuclear-related 

operations were conducted. Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture conducts most site characterization activities, while BN 

Environmental Restoration conducted site restoration, soil remediation, and some facility decontamination and 

decommissioning activities in 2005. 

9.4.1 Corrective Actions 

The corrective action strategy is based on four steps: (1) identifying the CASs, (2) grouping the CASs into Corrective 

Action Units (CAUs), (3) prioritizing the CAUs for funding and work, and (4) implementing the corrective action 

investigations (CAIs) and/or corrective actions, as applicable. CASs are broadly organized into the following four 

categories based on the source of contamination: 

• Industrial Sites – CASs located on the NTS and TTR where activities were conducted that supported nuclear 

testing activities 

• Underground Test Area (UGTA) Sites – CASs located where underground nuclear test have resulted or might 

result in local or regional impacts to groundwater resources 

• Soil Sites – CASs where tests have resulted in extensive surface and/or shallow subsurface contamination 

• Nevada Off-Sites – Additional CASs associated with underground nuclear testing at the Project Shoal Area and 

the Central Nevada Test Area, located in northern and central Nevada, respectively 

Identifying CASs – The first step in the strategy is to identify CASs potentially requiring CAIs and/or corrective 

actions. As CASs are identified, a literature search may be completed and each CAS is verified on aerial photographs 

or in the field to confirm its condition and location. A data repository has been created containing or referencing all 

information currently available for each CAS. 

Grouping CASs into CAUs – A CAU may have several CASs or only one. In addition to the four categories noted 

above, criteria for grouping CASs into CAUs include the following: 

• Potential source of contamination 

• Agency responsible for cleanup of the CAS 

• Function of the CAS and the nature of the contamination 

• Geographic proximity of CASs to one another 

• Potential for investigation or cleanup of grouped CASs to be accomplished within a similar time frame 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 9-9 

Implementing Corrective Action Investigations and/or Corrective Actions – When a CAU is assigned priority 

and funding, environmental restoration activities follow a formal work process beginning with a Data Quality 

Objectives (DQO) meeting between the NNSA/NSO, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, NDEP, and contractors. 

If existing information about the nature and extent of contamination at the CASs is insufficient to evaluate and select 

preferred corrective actions, a CAI will be conducted. A Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) is prepared that 

provides a conceptual model of the site and defines how the site is to be characterized in conformance with the DQO 

process. 

Site characterization is performed in the field and documented in a Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD). 

This document provides the information that either confirms or modifies the preliminary conceptual model. If 

suitable information is available to make a decision, a remedial action alternative is selected that best provides site 

closure. In some instances, additional site characterization may be required before the CADD can be prepared. 

If a site requires a closure action, a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is prepared that will implement the recommended 

remedial action/closure alternative. A CAP is comprised of the following elements for site closure which include: a 

detailed scope of work, target field schedule, quality control measures, waste management strategy, design 

specifications/drawings (when applicable), verification sampling strategies (for clean closures), and other information 

necessary for satisfying the specific closure requirements. Some sites also require a Post Closure Plan as the site or 

parts of the site are closed in place. Information on field inspections, types of monitoring, monitoring frequency, and 

maintenance/repairs 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 scope 

of work performed, results of verification sampling, as-built drawings, waste management, and post closure 

requirements for closed-in-place sites, etc. Some sites are closed under the Streamlined Approach for Environmental 

Restoration (SAFER) process identified in the FFACO. These sites typically have enough information available to 

remediate the site within a a shorter duration. For such sites, a SAFER plan is prepared that will implement the plan 

for site closure. After closure, a SAFER closure report is prepared that documents the scope of work performed. 

The NDEP is a participant throughout the remediation process. The Community Advisory Board (CAB) is also kept 

informed by NNSA/NSO of the progress made. The Board’s comments are strongly considered before final 

prioritization of corrective actions. A public participation working group made up of representatives from DOE, 

DoD, the state of Nevada , and the CAB meets twice a year to discuss quarterly progress, upcoming environmental 

restoration activities, priority-setting activities established under the FFACO, and the level of public involvement 

required. 

Table 9-4 lists the 42 CAUs for which some step of the site remediation process was completed in calendar year 2005. 

All 2005 milestones were met. A total of 49 CASs were closed, either under the SAFER process or the standard 

closure process. For DOE UGTA CAUs, 2005 milestones included well development and testing of new wells, 

model calibration and development, data documentation and evaluations, and completion of draft and final reports. 

9.4.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections 

There are nine sites on the NTS for which remediation was indicated or completed under RCRA regulations prior to 

enactment of the FFACO. Eight have been closed and are referred to as historic RCRA closure units. For the ninth 

site, the Area 5 Retired Mixed Waste Pits and Trenches, the NDEP has determined that NNSO/NSA shall close the 

site (in the future) subject to the conditions of 40 CFR 265.310. Three of the eight RCRA closure units require no 

further post-closure monitoring (Area 23 Building 650 Leachfield, Area 6 Steam Cleaning Effluent Ponds, and Area 2 

U-2bu Subsidence Crater). Three of the eight closed units require periodic site inspections only (Area 2 Bitcutter 

Containment, Area 6 Decon Pond, and Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well), and two currently require post-closure 

inspections as well as VZM. VZM for the Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well is no longer conducted because the most 

recent monitoring results demonstrated continuing stable conditions at the site. The two sites still requiring VZM, 

and the methods prescribed by state permit at each site, are: 

 
9-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 Table 9-4. Environmental restoration activities conducted in 2005 CAU CAU Description Number of CASs Milestone Due Date Date Submitted Date NDEP Approved DOE Industrial Sites – Defense Project 219 Septic Systems and Injection Wells 6 CAIP to State 02/28/05 01/25/05 02/02/05 300 Surface Release Areas 7 CADD to State 11/13/05 03/15/05 03/18/05 322 Areas 1 & 3 Release Sites and Injection Wells 3 CAP to State 10/31/05 09/01/05 09/14/05 357 Mud Pits and Waste Dump 14 Closure Report to State 05/01/05 04/22/05 05/11/05 390 Areas 9, 10, and 12 Spill Sites 4 Closure Report to State 11/30/05 10/19/05 10/27/05 395 Area 19 Spill Sites 9 Closure Report to State 10/31/05 10/20/05 11/02/05 530 LANL Preshot Mud Pits 54 SAFER Plan to State 09/15/05 07/19/05 08/08/05 531 LANL Postshot Mud Pits 13 SAFER Plan to State 09/15/05 07/19/05 08/08/05 532 LLNL Preshot Mud Pits 78 SAFER Plan to State 09/15/05 07/19/05 08/08/05 533 LLNL Postshot Mud Pits 69 SAFER Plan to State 09/15/05 07/19/05 08/08/05 534 Exploratory/Instrumentation Mud Pits 39 SAFER Plan to State 09/15/05 07/19/05 08/08/05 535 Mud Pits/Disposal Areas 15 SAFER Plan to State 09/15/05 07/19/05 08/08/05 536 Area 3 Release Site 1 CAP to State 09/30/05 08/25/05 08/31/05 540 Spill Sites 9 SAFER Plan to State 12/31/05 11/30/05 12/27/05 555 Septic Systems 5 CAIP to State 02/28/06 12/27/05 01/09/06 Defense Threat Reduction Agency/DOE - Industrial Sites 383 Area 12 E-Tunnel Sites 3 CADD to State 03/31/05 03/09/05 03/18/05 DOE Industrial Sites – Environmental Restoration Project (ERP) 137 Waste Disposal Sites 8 CAIP to State 02/28/06 12/01/05 12/19/05 140 Waste Dumps, Burn Pits, and Storage Area 9 Closure Report to State 09/30/05 09/01/05 09/07/05 165 Area 25 and 26 Dry Well and Washdown Areas 8 Closure Report to State 01/31/06 12/05/05 12/20/05 214 Bunkers and Storage Areas 9 CAP to State 05/31/05 04/01/05 04/12/05 224 Decon Pad and Septic Systems 9 CADD to State 08/31/05 05/03/05 05/11/05 274 Septic Systems 5 CAIP to State 11/30/05 08/11/05 08/19/05 286 Lead/Chemical/Spill Sites and Material Dumps 9 Closure Report to State 09/30/05 08/15/05 08/31/05 309 Area 12 Muckpiles 3 CADD to State 02/28/06 12/23/05 01/10/06 309 Area 12 Muckpiles 3 Closure Report to State 02/28/06 12/23/05 01/10/06 489 WWII UXO Sites (TTR) 3 SAFER Plan to State 08/30/05 06/07/05 06/15/05 511 Waste Dumps (Piles & Debris) 9 CADD to State 01/31/06 12/12/05 01/03/06 511 Waste Dumps (Piles & Debris) 9 Closure Report to State 01/31/06 12/12/05 01/03/06 516 Septic Systems and Discharge Points 6 CAP to State 09/30/05 09/01/05 09/12/05 

Waste Management and Environmental Restoration
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 9-11

Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Table 9-4. Environmental restoration activities conducted in 2005 (continued) 

CAU CAU Description Number of CASs Milestone Due Date Date Submitted Date NDEP Approved 

 DOE Industrial Sites – ERP cont. 

528 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Contamination 1 CAP to State 08/31/05 06/16/05 07/05/05 543 Liquid Disposal Units 7 CADD to State 10/31/05 09/14/05 09/26/05 551 Area 12 Muckpiles 4 CADD to State 09/30/05 07/07/05 07/25/05 552 Area 12 Muckpile and Ponds 1 Closure Report to State 09/30/05 09/01/05 09/23/05 552 Area 12 Muckpile and Ponds 1 CADD to State 09/30/05 09/01/05 09/23/05 554 Area 23 Release Site 1 CADD to State 09/30/05 07/18/05 07/19/05 554 Area 23 Release Site 1 Closure Report to State 09/30/05 07/18/05 07/19/05 

 DOE Soils Sites - ERP 

413 Clean Slate II Plutonium Dispersion (TTR) 1 CADD to State 01/31/05 01/04/05 03/09/05 

 DOE UGTA Sites 

97 Yucca Flat/Climax Mine 720 Complete Earth Vision base model 03/30/05 03/23/05 03/24/05 97 Yucca Flat/Climax Mine 720 

Complete the Hydrology Phase I Analyses & Evaluation 09/30/05 09/29/05 09/30/05 

98 Frenchman Flat 10 

Complete Frenchman Flat Phase II Flow Model 09/30/05 09/29/05 09/30/05 

99 Rainier/Shoshone 66 Complete Drilling Phase I 09/29/05 09/29/05 09/30/05 

101 Central Pahute Mesa 64 

Submit Draft Contaminant Boundary Phase I Flow Model Report 07/31/05 06/14/05 08/12/05 

102 Western Pahute Mesa 18 

Submit Draft Contaminant Boundary Phase I Flow Model Report 07/31/05 06/14/05 08/12/05 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

CAU 110, U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater – Post-closure inspections are performed quarterly and consist of visual 

observations to check that the cover is intact. The U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater cover is designed to limit infiltration 

into the disposal unit and is monitored using TDR soil water content sensors buried at various depths within the 

waste cover to provide water content profile data. The soil water content profile data are used to demonstratewhether 

the cover is performing as expected. Annual reports of post-closure monitoring include monthly precipitation data 

for the reporting period and are submitted to NDEP by the last day of August. 

CAU 112, Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches – Soil moisture monitoring data are collected and analyzed 

semiannually (January and July); site inspections are conducted quarterly. Soil moisture data are obtained from 

30 neutron access tubes specified in the permit. Annual reports of post-closure monitoring include monthly 

precipitation data for the reporting period and are submitted to NDEP by the last day of January. 

All required VZM and inspections of closed sites were conducted in 2005 as specified by RCRA permit or by each 

site’s closure report. VZM results for the RCRA closure sites CAU 110 and CAU 112 indicated that surface water is 

not migrating into buried wastes. VZM reports were submitted to the state of Nevada prior to their due dates. 

The sites at which physical inspections were conducted in 2005 are: 

CAU 90 Area 2 Bitcutter Containment 

CAU 91 Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well 

CAU 92 Area 6 Decon Pond Facility 

CAU 110 Area 3 U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater 

CAU 112 Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches 

CAU 143 Area 25 Contaminated Waste Dumps 

CAU 254 Area 25 R-MAD Decontamination Facility 

CAU 261 Area 25 Test Cell A Leachfield 

CAU 262 Area 25 Septic Systems and UDP 

CAU 271 Areas 25, 26, and 27 Septic Systems 

CAU 333 U-3auS Disposal Site 

CAU 335 Area 6 Injection Well and Drain Pit 

CAU 339 Area 12 Fleet Operations Steam Cleaning Effluent 

CAU 342 Mercury Fire Training Pit 

CAU 400 Bomblet Pit and Five Points Landfill (TTR) 

CAU 404 Roller Coaster Lagoons and Trench (TTR) 

CAU 407 Roller Coaster RadSafe Area (TTR) 

CAU 417 Central Nevada Test Area -Surface 

CAU 423 Area 3 Underground Discharge Point, Building 0360 (TTR) 

CAU 424 Area 3 Landfill Complexes (TTR) 

CAU 426 Cactus Spring Waste Trenches (TTR) 

CAU 427 Area 3 Septic Waste Systems 2, 6 (TTR) 

CAU 453 Area 9 UXO Landfill (TTR) 

CAU 487 Thunderwell Site (TTR) 

CAU 357 Mudpits and Waste Dump 

CAU 529 Area 25 Contaminated Materials 

CAU 552 Area 12 Muckpiles and Ponds 

CAU 554 Area 23 Release Sites 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 9-13

9.5 Solid and Sanitary Waste Management 

9.5.1 Landfills

The NTS has three landfills for solid waste disposal that are regulated and permitted by the state of Nevada (see 

Table 2-11 for list of permits). No liquids, hazardous waste, or radioactive waste are accepted in these landfills. They 

include: 

• Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site – accepts hydrocarbon-contaminated wastes, such as soil and absorbents. 

• Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site – designated for industrial waste such as construction and demolition 

debris. 

• Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site – accepts municipal-type wastes such as food waste and office waste. 

Regulated asbestos-containing material is also permitted in a special section. The permit allows disposal of no 

more than an average of 20 tons/day at this site. 

These landfills are designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and monitored in adherence to the requirements of 

their state-issued permits. The NDEP visually inspects the landfills and checks the records on an annual basis to 

ensure compliance with the permits. 

The vadose zone is monitored at two of the permitted sanitary landfills: the Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site and 

the Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site. VZM is performed in lieu of groundwater monitoring to demonstrate 

that contaminants from the landfills are not leaching into the groundwater. In previous years, semiannual reports 

containing VZM data, rainfall data, and conclusions were sent to the state of Nevada, as specified in the landfill 

permits. In July 2004, the state of Nevada granted a reduction in the frequency of VZM at these landfills. Monitoring 

now takes place annually instead of semiannually. VZM of the Area 6 and Area 9 landfills in 2005 indicated that there 

was no soil moisture migration and therefore no waste leachate migration to the water table. 

The amount of waste disposed of in each solid waste landfill in 2005 is shown in Table 9-5. An average of 

2.1 tons/day was disposed at the Area 23 landfill, well within permit limits. State inspections of the three permitted 

landfills were conducted in March 2005. No out-of-compliance issues were noted. 

 Table 9-5. Quantity of solid wastes disposed in NTS landfills in calendar year 2005 

Metric Tons (Tons) of Waste 

Area 6 Hydrocarbon 

Disposal Site 

Area 9 U10c Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

Area 23 Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

215 (237) 14,056 (15,446) 681 (749) 

9.5.2 Sewage Lagoons 

The NTS also has two state-permitted sewage lagoons that were operated by BN Waste Management in 2005, as were 

the solid waste landfills. They are the Area 6 Yucca Lake and Area 23 Mercury lagoons. The operations and 

monitoring requirements for these sewage lagoons are specified by Nevada water pollution control regulations. 

Because of this, the discussion of their operations and compliance monitoring are presented in Section 4.2.3. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 Hazardous Materials Control and Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 10-1 

10.0 Hazardous Materials Control and Management 

Hazardous materials used or stored on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) are controlled and managed through the use of a 

Hazardous Substance Inventory database. Bechtel Nevada (BN), the Management and Operations contractor in 2005, 

and all other U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office 

(NNSA/NSO) subcontractors who use or store hazardous materials utilize this database and are required to comply 

with the operational and reporting requirements of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); 

and the Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Act (see Section 2.5). Chemicals to be purchased are subject to a requisition 

compliance review process. BN’s Environmental Services personnel reviewed each chemical purchase to ensure that 

restricted chemicals were not purchased when less hazardous chemical substitutes were commercially available. 

Requirements and responsibilities for the use and management of hazardous/toxic chemicals were provided in 

company documents and were aimed at meeting the goals shown below. The reports or activities that are prepared or 

performed annually to document compliance with hazardous materials regulations are also listed below. 

10.1 TSCA Program 

There are no known pieces of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing electrical equipment (transformers, 

capacitors, or regulators) at the NTS; however, sometimes during demolition activities, old hydraulic systems are 

found to contain PCB liquids. The TSCA program consists mainly of properly characterizing, storing, and disposing 

of various PCB wastes generated through remediation activities and maintenance of fluorescent lights. The 

remediation waste is generated by BN and Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture at Corrective Action Sites during 

environmental restoration activities (see Section 9.4) and during maintenance activities and building decontamination 

and decommissioning activities performed by BN. These activities can generate PCB-contaminated fluids and bulk 

product waste containing PCBs. 

Waste classified as bulk product waste generated on the NTS can be disposed of onsite in the U10c landfill with prior 

state of Nevada approval. PCB-containing light ballasts removed during normal maintenance can also go to an onsite 

landfill, but when remediation or upgrade activities generate several ballasts, these must be disposed of offsite at an 

approved PCB disposal facility. Soil and other materials contaminated with PCBs must also be sent offsite for 

disposal. 

Hazardous Materials Control 

and Management Goals Compliance Activities/Reports 

Use of Hazardous Substance Inventory database

Annual TSCA report 

FIFRA management assessments

Minimize the adverse effects of improper 

use, storage, or management of 

hazardous/toxic chemicals 

Annual EPCRA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Report, 

Form R 

Annual Nevada Combined Agency (NCA) Report 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)-

Chemical Accident Prevention Program Annual 

Registration Form 

Ensure compliance with applicable 

federal and state environmental 

regulations related to hazardous materials 

Use of electronic hazardous material tracking database 

called HAZTRAK 
Hazardous Materials Control and Management

10-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

During 2005, 15 drums of liquid PCB generated from draining hydraulic systems prior to building demolition, and 

1 drum of clothing and rags contaminated from draining the systems were shipped offsite for disposal. Offsite 

disposal was required because the drums contained more than 50 parts per million (ppm) of PCB. 

When PCB equipment or PCB fluids are managed during a calendar year, NNSA/NSO has been submitting an annual 

report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by July 1 of the following year. In 2003, NNSA/NSO 

determined that annual reports were not required to be sent to regulators since the NTS is not considered a 

commercial storer or disposer of PCBs. On April 24, 2006, an Annual Report was generated for calendar year 2005, 

but was not sent to outside regulators. 

There were no TSCA inspections by outside regulators performed at the NTS in 2005. 

10.2 FIFRA Program 

BN Environmental Services performed the following oversight functions to ensure FIFRA compliance: (1) screened 

all purchase requisitions for restricted-use pesticides; (2) reviewed operating procedures for handling, storing and 

applying pesticide products; and (3) conducted facility inspections for unauthorized pesticide storage/use. On the 

NTS, pesticides are applied under the direction of a state of Nevada certified applicator. This service was provided by 

BN Solid Waste Operations (SWO). BN SWO maintained appropriate Commercial Category (Industrial) 

certifications for applying restricted-use pesticides, but only non-restricted pesticides were used. Pesticide applications 

in food service facilities are subcontracted to state-certified vendors. 

BN SWO did not purchase any restricted-use pesticides during 2005. The SWO procedure for pesticide application 

was updated in 2003, and training is provided to affected personnel annually. Certifications were kept current in 2005 

for Industrial Category application(s) of restricted-use pesticides. Facility inspections were conducted and indicated 

that there were no restricted-use pesticides being used or stored in violation of federal/state requirements. There was 

one FIFRA inspections by an outside regulator during 2005, with no findings. 

10.3 EPCRA Program 

In response to the EPCRA requirements, all chemicals that are purchased are entered into a hazardous substance 

inventory database and assigned specific hazard classifications (e.g., corrosive liquid, flammable, diesel fuel). Annually, 

this database is updated to show the maximum amounts of chemicals that were present in each building at the NTS, 

the Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) (see Section A.1.4), and 

the Remote Sensing Laboratory (see Section A.3.3). This information is then used to complete the Nevada Combined 

Agency (NCA) Report. This report provides information to the state of Nevada, community, and local emergency 

planning commissions on the maximum amount of any chemical, based on its hazard classification, present at any 

given time during the preceding year. This report also provides the commissions with new chemicals or chemical 

classes that were not previously onsite. The State Fire Marshall then issues permits to store hazardous chemicals on 

the NTS, as well as at the RSL and the NLVF. 

In 2005, the chemical inventory at NTS facilities was updated and submitted to the state of Nevada in the NCA 

Report on February 23, 2006. No accidental or unplanned release of an extremely hazardous substance (EHS) 

occurred on the NTS in 2005. 

The hazardous substance inventory database is also used to complete the TRI Report, Form R. This report provides 

EPA and the State Emergency Response Commission information on any toxic chemical that enters the environment 

above a given threshold. It also provides these agencies with the amounts of toxic chemicals that are recycled. 

NNSA/NSO submitted this report for calendar year 2005 to EPA on 

June 22, 2006. Lead was the only listed toxic chemical released into the NTS environment in 2005 that was 

reportable. Lead releases at the NTS consisted of 5,485.7 pounds from ammunition fired at the Mercury Firing Range 

and air releases of 7.47 pounds from ammunition and 7.08 pounds from solders. Lead, which either is recovered 
 Hazardous Materials Control and Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 10-3 

during site remediation activities or is excess to NTS operational needs (e.g., lead bricks, lead shielding), is sent offsite 

for recycling or proper disposal. A total of 31,575 pounds was sent offsite for recycling and 104,838 pounds sent off 

for disposal. 

There were no EPCRA inspections by outside regulators performed at the NTS in 2005. 

HAZTRAK is a tracking system that monitors hazardous materials while they are in transit. When a truck 

transporting hazardous material enters the NTS, all information concerning the load is entered into the tracking 

system. Once the delivery is complete, the information provided at the time of entry is removed from the tracking 

system. 

10.4 Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act 

If EHSs are stored in quantities which exceed threshold quantities established by the NDEP, then NNSA/NSO 

submits a report notifying the state of Nevada. During 2005, no NTS facility stored EHSs in quantities which 

required state notification. Therefore, no Nevada Chemical Accident Prevention Program Report was prepared 

regarding calendar year 2005 NTS operations. 
Hazardous Materials Control and Management

10-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 11-1 

11.0 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

The U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) has 

pollution prevention (P2) and waste minimization (WM) initiatives. These initiatives establish a process to reduce the 

volume and toxicity of waste generated by the NNSA/NSO on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and its satellite facilities. 

They also ensure that proposed methods of treatment, storage, and disposal of waste minimize potential threats to 

human health and the environment. These initiatives also address the requirements of several federal and state 

regulations applicable to operations on the NTS (see Section 2.7). The following information provides an overview of 

the P2/WM goals, major accomplishments during the reporting year, a description of efforts undertaken by Bechtel 

Nevada (BN) during 2005 to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated by the NNSA/NSO, and a summary 

of the Secretary of Energy’s P2/WM goals and NNSA/NSO’s status towards reaching those goals. 

11.1 P2/WM Goals and Components 

It is the priority of NNSA/NSO to minimize the generation, release, and disposal of pollutants to the environment by 

implementing cost-effective P2 technologies, practices, and policies. A commitment to P2 minimizes the impact on 

the environment, improves the safety of operations, improves energy efficiency, and promotes the sustainable use of 

natural resources. This commitment includes providing adequate administrative and financial materials on a 

continuing basis to ensure goals are achieved. When economically feasible, source reduction is the preferred method 

of handling waste, followed by reuse and recycling, treatment, and as a last resort, landfill disposal. 

Source Reduction – Source reduction is the minimization or elimination of waste before it is generated by a project 

or operation. Examples of source reduction include chemical substitution, process modification, and segregation. 

NNSA/NSO’s Integrated Safety Management System requires that every project/operation address waste 

minimization issues during the planning phase and ensure that adequate funds are allocated to perform any identified 

waste minimization activities. 

To minimize the generation of waste, project managers are required to incorporate waste minimization into the 

planning phase of their projects. Waste generating processes must be assessed to determine if the waste can be 

economically reduced or eliminated. Waste minimization activities that are determined to be cost effective should be 

incorporated into the project plan and adequate funding allocated to ensure their implementation. 

Recycling – For wastes that are generated, an aggressive recycling program is maintained. Items recycled through the 

NNSA/NSO recycling program include paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, toner cartridges, inkjet cartridges, tires, 

used oil, food waste from the cafeteria, plastic, scrap metal, rechargeable batteries, lead-acid batteries, alkaline 

batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, mercury lamps, metal hydride lamps, sodium lamps, and electronic media (diskettes, 

audio and video tapes, backup tapes, reel-to-reel tapes, etc.). 

An effective method for reuse is the coordination of the Material Exchange Program. Created in 1998, the Material 

Exchange Program diverts supplies, chemicals, and equipment from landfills. Unwanted chemicals, supplies, and 

equipment are made available through electronic mail or postings on the intranet Material Exchange Database 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 for recycle/reuse, or given to other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites, other government agencies, or 

local schools. 

Affirmative Procurement - As required by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Section 42 Unites 

States Code (USC) 6962, the NNSA/NSO maintains an Affirmative Procurement process that stimulates a market for 

recycled content products and closes the loop on recycling. RCRA section 42 USC 6962 requires the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a list of items containing recycled materials that should be 

purchased. The EPA is also required to determine what the minimum content of recycled material should be for each 

item. Once this EPA-designated list was developed, federal facilities were required to ensure that a process was in 

place for purchasing the EPA-designated items containing the minimum content of recycled materials. Executive 

Order 13101, Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition went one step further and 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

11-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

requires federal facilities to ensure that 100 percent of purchases of items from the EPA-designated list contain 

recycled materials at the specified minimum content. Of the items NNSA/NSO currently purchases from the EPAdesignated list, about 90 percent of those purchases contain recycled materials. 

Assessments – P2 assessments are conducted twice a year. These assessments look at facilities or processes 

throughout the complex and focus on what waste streams are generated, what waste minimization activities are 

practiced, if there is room for improvement, and if these activities are tracked and reported in order to document that 

a waste minimization program is in place and operating. The assessments also look for new P2 opportunities. 

Employee and Public Awareness – The NNSA/NSO P2 and WM initiatives also include an employee and public 

awareness program. Awareness of P2/WM issues is accomplished by dissemination of articles through both 

electronic mail and the NNSA/NSO site newsletters, the maintenance of a P2/WM intranet Web site, employee 

training courses, and participation at employee and community events. These activities are intended to increase 

awareness of P2/WM and environmental issues and point out the importance of P2/WM for improving 

environmental conditions in the workplace and community. 

11.2 Major P2/WM Accomplishments and Awards 

In 2005, a source room in Building 23-600 was converted into office space. Through segregation, approximately 

13,800 metric tons (mtons) (15,180 tons) of potential hazardous waste (concrete with lead shielding) was eliminated. 

The lead shielding was segregated from the concrete and sent to the BN scrap metal salvage group for recycle. The 

concrete was sampled, found to be clean, and placed in 23 55-gallon drums for disposal in the NTS sanitary landfill. 

The NTS Calibration Lab eliminated a small hazardous waste stream in 2005 by replacing a hazardous freon cleaning 

solvent used to clean pressure gauges with a nonhazardous solvent, 3M Novec HFE-71DE. The new solvent is low 

in toxicity, non-ozone-depleting, has a low global warming potential, and is listed as “acceptable without restriction” 

under the EPA’s Significant New Alternatives Policy program. 

The Material Exchange Program reused 2.2 mtons (2.4 tons) of solid waste in 2005. 

NNSA/NSO received three NNSA Pollution Prevention Awards for P2 activities in 2005. BN’s Pollution Prevention 

Team was awarded an Environmental Stewardship Award for developing a Material Exchange Program that utilizes 

an interactive website where employees from different organizations can “shop” for used items and add items they no 

longer need to the list of available items. This reduces the amount of waste that would be slated for the NTS landfill. 

Two NNSA Best-In-Class Awards for 2005 went to recognize the efforts of the Joint Actinide Shock Physics 

Experimental Research (JASPER) team (from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and BN) to eliminate the 

generation of low-level mixed transuranic waste, and to the BN Fleet Fuel Efficiency Team’s efforts to use B-20 Biodiesel, E-85 Ethanol/Gasoline mixtures, and “Micro” vehicles resulting in reductions in the amount of petroleum 

usage at the NTS. 

11.3 Waste Reductions 

P2/WM techniques and practices are implemented for all activities that may generate waste. These P2/WM activities 

result in reductions to the volume and/or toxicity of waste actually generated onsite. Table 11-1 compares the 

amounts of radioactive, hazardous, and solid wastes reduced in 2005 to prior years. 

Table 11-1. Volumes of waste reduced through P2/WM activities by year 

Calendar 

Year 

Radioactive Waste 

Reduced (m3)(a) 

Hazardous Waste 

Reduced (mtons)(b)

Solid Waste Reduced 

(mtons)

2005 0 13,992 1,194.4 

2004 0 114.8 1,437.5 

2003 40.0 207.3 1,547.2 

2002 63.2 177.2 904.2 

2001 79.6 123.5 799.0 

(a) 1 m3 = 1.3 yd3 (b) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 11-3 

Table 11-2 shows a summary of the estimated volume reductions of hazardous and solid waste accomplished during 

2005 through just recycling and reuse activities (i.e., not including reductions from reducing volumes of waste 

generated). An estimated 191.7-mtons (218.9-tons) reduction of hazardous waste including RCRA, Toxic Substance 

Control Act, and state-regulated hazardous waste; and a 1,194.5-mtons (1,313.9-tons) reduction of solid waste 

(sanitary waste) occurred in 2005 from recycling and reuse. 

Table 11-2. Volumes of waste reduced through recycling and reuse activities in 2005 

 Activity 

Volume 

Reduction 

(mtons)(a)

Hazardous Waste

 Bulk used oil was sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 166.3 

 Lead scrap metal was sold for reuse/recycling 14.3 

 Lead acid batteries were shipped to an offsite vendor for recycling 7.5 

 Spent fluorescent light bulbs, mercury lamps, metal hydride lamps, and sodium lamps 

 were sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 2.6 

 Lead tire weights were reused instead of being disposed as hazardous waste 0.7 

 Rechargeable batteries were sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 0.2 

 Hazardous chemicals were relocated to new users through the Material Exchange 

 Program, diverting them from landfill disposal 0.1 

Total 191.7 

Solid Waste

 Mixed paper and cardboard was sent offsite for recycling 509.8 

 Scrap ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycling 463.2 

 Tires were sent to a vendor for recycling 103.0 

Food waste from the cafeterias was sent offsite to be reused as pig feed for a local pig 

 farmer 55.4 

 Scrap non-ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycling 30.5 

Shipping materials including pallets, styrofoam, bubble wrap, and shipping containers 

 were reused 20.4 

 Cardboard was sent offsite for recycle 6.2 

 Spent toner cartridges were sent offsite for recycling 2.9 

Nonhazardous chemicals, equipment, and supplies were relocated to new users through 

 the Material Exchange Program, diverting them from landfill disposal 2.1 

 Aluminum cans were sent offsite for recycling 0.6 

 Electronic media were sent offsite for recycling 0.2 

 Number 1 plastic was sent offsite for recycling 0.1 

 Glass was sent offsite for recycling 0.1 

Total 1,194.5

(a) 1 mton = 1.1 ton

11.4 Secretary of Energy’s P2/WM Leadership Goals 

On November 12, 1999, the Secretary of Energy set numerous P2 and energy-efficiency goals that each DOE site is 

required to meet. They are presented below along with a discussion of NNSA/NSO’s performance towards meeting 

them. A tabulated summary of the goals and their compliance status at the NTS is presented in Chapter 2.0, 

Compliance Summary (Table 2-7b). 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

11-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

• Goal 1. Reduce waste from routine operations by 2005, using a 1993 baseline, for the following waste 

types: 

– Hazardous by 90 percent 

– Low Level Radioactive by 80 percent 

– Low Level Mixed Radioactive by 80 percent 

– Transuranic (TRU) by 80 percent 

NNSA/NSO generated 3,724 mtons (4,096 tons) of hazardous waste in the 1993 baseline year. During 2005, 

NNSA/NSO generated only 23.2 mtons (2.55 tons), for a reduction of 99.2 percent, easily meeting the 90-percent 

goal. 

The 1993 baselines for routine radioactive low-level waste, mixed waste, and TRU waste were all 0 m3, making 

this goal impossible to meet for any time in the future if such wastes, regardless of their quantities, were generated 

on the NTS. The JASPER project began generating TRU waste in 2004. For P2 purposes, however, such waste 

is not documented until it is received by Waste Management for disposal, and JASPER TRU waste has yet to be 

sent to Waste Management. It will be sent when enough has been generated to cost effectively ship it to the 

disposal facility. 

• Goal 2. Reduce solid waste from routine operations by 75 percent by 2005 and 80 percent by 2010, using 

a 1993 baseline. 

The 1993 baseline for solid waste generation is 13,735 mtons (15,108 tons). NNSA/NSO generated 5,380 mtons 

(5,918 tons) of solid waste in 2005 for a reduction of 61 percent, not quite meeting the goal of 75-percent 

reduction.

• Goal 3. Reduce releases of toxic chemicals subject to Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) 

reporting by 90 percent by 2005, using a 1993 baseline. 

Before 2001, NNSA/NSO was not required to submit a TRI Report, Form R to the EPA. Effective 

January 1, 2001, the EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead, a toxic chemical subject to TRI reporting, to 

100 pounds (lbs) (45 kilograms [kg]). NNSA/NSO has since reported lead releases from ammunition at the 

security contractor firing range on the NTS. Since 0 lbs of lead were reported released in 1993, the baseline year, 

it is impossible to meet the 90-percent reduction goal. Lead releases at the NTS consisted of 5,485.7 lbs 

(2,488.3 kg) from ammunition fired at the Mercury Firing Range and air releases of 7.47 lbs (3.39 kg) from 

ammunition and 7.08 lbs (3.21 kg) from solders. 

• Goal 4. Recycle 45 percent of solid waste from all operations by 2005 and 50 percent by 2010. 

NNSA/NSO recycled 6.7 percent of solid wastes generated by all operations in 2005. Annual budget constraints 

and budget prioritization in past years as well as in 2005 have made meeting this goal difficult; it is less costly to 

dispose solid wastes onsite than to fund recycling efforts. 

• Goal 5. Reduce waste resulting from cleanup, stabilization, and decommissioning activities by 10 

percent on an annual basis. 

In 2005, NNSA/NSO generated 26,108 mtons (28,719 tons) of clean-up/stabilization waste. Through P2/WM 

activities, NNSA/NSO reduced clean-up/stabilization wastes by 14,308 mtons (15,739 tons), resulting in a 

55-percent reduction. This easily met the annual reduction goal. 

• Goal 6. Increase purchases of EPA-designated items with recycled content to 100 percent, except when 

not available competitively at a reasonable price or if items do not meet performance standards. 

In 2005, 90 percent of NNSA/NSO purchases of EPA-designated items met the EPA requirements for 

containing recycled materials, not quite meeting the goal of 100 percent. 

 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 12-1

12.0 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources 

Management 

The historic landscape of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) contains archaeological sites, buildings, structures, and places of 

importance to American Indians and others. These are referred to as “cultural resources”. U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program requires that NTS activities and programs comply with all 

applicable cultural resources regulations (see Section 2.8) and that such resources on the NTS be monitored. The 

Cultural Resources Management (CRM) program has been established and is implemented by the Desert Research 

Institute (DRI) on the NTS to meet this requirement. The CRM program is designed to meet the specific goals 

shown below. 

In order to achieve the program goals and meet federal and state requirements, the CRM program is multi-faceted and 

contains the following major components: (1) surveys, inventories, and historical evaluations; (2) curation of 

archaeological collections; and (3) the American Indian Program. The guidance for the CRM program work is 

provided in the Cultural Resources Management Plan for the Nevada Test Site (Drollinger et al., 2002). Historic preservation 

personnel and archaeologists of DRI who meet the Secretary of the Interior standards conduct the work and the 

archaeological efforts are permitted under the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). 

A brief description of the CRM program components and their 2005 accomplishments are provided in this chapter. 

The methods used to conduct surveys, inventories, and historical evaluations in support of NTS operations were 

summarized in the 2003 NTS Environmental Report (NTSER) (DOE, 2004d). The reader is directed to Appendix A, 

Section A.5 of the 2004 NTSER (DOE, 2005a) for a summary of the known human occupation and use of the NTS 

from the Paleo-Indian Period, about 12,000 years ago, until the mining and ranching period of the twentieth century, 

just before NTS lands were withdrawn for federal use. For convenience, an electronic file of this Appendix A from 

the 2004 NTSER is included on the compact disc for this 2005 NTSER and is called Attachment A. 

12.1 Cultural Resources Surveys, Inventories, Historical Evaluations, 

and Associated Activities 

Cultural resources surveys are conducted at the NTS to meet the requirements of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) and the ARPA. The surveys are completed prior to proposed projects that may disturb or otherwise 

alter the environment. The following information is maintained in databases: 

Cultural Resources Management Program Goals 

Ensure compliance with all regulations pertaining to cultural resources on the NTS (see Section 2.8) 

Inventory and manage cultural resources on the NTS 

Provide information that can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed projects and programs to 

cultural resources on the NTS and mitigate adverse effects 

Curate archaeological collections in accordance with 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 79 

Conduct American Indian consultations related to places and items of importance to the Consolidated Group 

of Tribal Organizations 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

12-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

• Number of cultural resources surveys conducted 

• Location of each survey 

• Number of acres surveyed at each project location 

• Types of cultural resources identified at each project location 

• Number of cultural resources determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

• Eligible properties avoided by project activities 

• Cultural resources requiring mitigation to address an adverse effect 

• Final report on results 

12.1.1 Cultural Resources Surveys 

In 2005, six surveys were conducted: Fire Station No. 2 Project, Fire Break for a Fiber Optic Line Project, the Truck 

Parking Area, the Revegetation of Two Study Plots, the Area 22 Borrow Pit and Access Road, and the Area 6 Borrow 

Pit Expansion. The only cultural resources identified within these project areas were two isolated artifacts found by 

the survey of the revegetation study plots. The Area 6 Borrow Pit Expansion area was adjacent to two fenced 

locations that contain wooden benches that had been used for viewing atmospheric nuclear tests and determined 

eligible to the NRHP (see Section 12.1.2). As a result, it was recommended that the project area be modified to avoid 

any potential impact to the bench locations. 

12.1.2 Cultural Resources Inventories 

One cultural resources inventory was conducted for the sets of benches from which atmospheric nuclear tests were 

observed at the NTS between 1951 and 1962 (Jones, 2005a). Six sets of benches were examined. Three sets had 

previously been determined eligible to the NRHP; two are part of the Frenchman Flat Historic District and the other 

one is at News Nob. These benches were recorded in more detail than during previous efforts. Three other sets of 

benches were also documented. One set is on the west side of Frenchman Flat and two sets are at the southwest end 

of Yucca Flat. All three of these sets are now eligible to the NRHP. The benches are constructed of wood and 

consist of a seat, support posts, and bracing. They are set up in parallel rows. 

12.1.3 Evaluations of Historic Structures

One historical evaluation was conducted in 2005 for the buildings within the Pluto Control Facility in Area 26. The 

Pluto Control Facility was one of three facilities in the Pluto Complex. The facility was in operation from 1958 to 

1964 to develop and test nuclear reactors for ramjets to be used in long-range, low-altitude missiles for the U.S. 

Department of Defense. The building numbers and names include: 2101, the Control Building; 2102, the Assembly 

and Shop Building; 2103, the Critical Assembly Building (also known as the Hot Critical Experiment Building or the 

Hot Box); 2106, an open interior warehouse; and 2107, the Delta Reduction Building. 

As summarized in Table 12-1, a total of 70.12 hectares (ha) (173.9 acres [ac]) were examined during cultural resources 

surveys, inventories, and historical evaluations. No prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were studied for 

inclusion to the NRHP. Four nuclear testing-related structures were documented and their determinations are 

pending. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 12-3

Table 12-1. Summary data for cultural resources surveys, inventories, and historical evaluations conducted 

in 2005

Area Surveyed 

Survey/Inventory/Historic 

Evaluation 

Prehistoric/Historic 

Sites Found 

Structures 

Evaluated 

Sites 

Determined 

NRHP 

Eligible Acres Hectares 

Fire Station No. 2 0 0 0 7.0 3.0 

Fire Break for a Fiber Optic Line 0 0 0 25.0 10.0 

Truck Parking Area 0 0 0 4.1 1.66 

Re-vegetation of Two Study Plots 0 0 0 18.4 7.3 

Historical Evaluation of the Pluto Control 

Facility 1 4 Pa 25.5 10.33 

Area 22 Borrow Pit and Access Road 0 0 0 3.84 1.5 

Proposed Borrow Pit Expansion in Area 6 0 0 P 88.74 35.8 

Inventory of Historic Benches 0 3 3 1.32 .53 

Totals 1 7 3 173.9 70.12 

(a) P = determination is pending 

12.1.4 Associated Cultural Resources Activities

12.1.4.1 Adverse Effect Assessments and Mitigation Activities 

There were no determinations of adverse effect to cultural resources in 2005. No mitigation activities were 

undertaken or were in progress. 

12.1.4.2 General Reconnaissance/Archival Research 

General reconnaissance and other activities were also conducted in 2005 and included five field reconnaissance and 

two archival research projects. One field visit was to record Magazine 802 and a nearby unnumbered magazine in 

Area 5. The second field visit was to accompany NTS personnel to nine corrective action sites (CASs) within 

Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 537 in Areas 2, 3, 5, 18, and 19. DRI was requested to make recommendations 

regarding the historical importance of the materials scheduled for removal at these CASs. Three of the CASs 

(02-01-02, 03-23-06, and 19-19-01) did not contain historic materials and six of the sites (05-19-02, 18-99-01, 

18-99-02, 18-99-04, 18-99-05, and 18-9907) are associated with historic events. The third field project was a 

preliminary assessment for five tunnel sites (U12b, U12e, U12n, U12t and U16a) and two vertical shaft sites (U15a 

and U15e) regarding their historical importance and potential eligibility to the NRHP. 

The other two field visits were for monitoring purposes. The first involved nine properties eligible to the NRHP. 

The NHPA requires federal agencies to identify and maintain the integrity of historic properties under their 

jurisdiction. Historic properties have been deemed so through consultation between the U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) and the Nevada State Historic 

Preservation Office and include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and objects, and historic buildings, 

structures, and objects. The purpose of the monitoring program is to periodically document that the historic 

properties, traditional cultural properties, and American Indian sacred sites on the NTS retain their integrity and 

NRHP eligibility. Monitoring the condition of cultural resources is an integral part of the NNSA/NSO historic 

preservation program. Two of the prehistoric sites were not visited due to access problems. The sites monitored are 

temporary American Indian camps and a tool manufacturing area. All of the sites were in a very good state of 

preservation. The second monitoring effort was for two prehistoric sites near Underground Test Area Project wells. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

12-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

The monitoring was conducted during and after construction activities to ensure the sites were avoided by 

construction activities. All construction remained within the area of potential effect and the sites retain their integrity. 

Two projects required archival research but no field visits. One was a 8,392-ha (20,738- ac) area impacted by the Air 

Force Wildfire (BTH 2) that occurred on June 4-8, 2005. Background research was conducted on the DRI 

Geographic Information System to determine the number of previously recorded sties and surveys that had been 

conducted within the area. It was determined that 19 Class III Cultural Resource Inventories were performed 

covering a total of 266.0 ha (657.4 ac) or 3.17 percent of the burned area. These inventories were on the NTS and in 

the Yucca Mountain Project Area. The inventories located 44 sites with seven eligible to the NRHP (Holz and Rager, 

2005). The second project was a historical statement regarding CAU 210, CAS 10-23-01 (twisted metal tower 

fragment). The tower fragment was in an isolated location not near any roads. Based on the absence of other items, 

this place was not used to discard unwanted materials. Therefore, it is assumed that the force from an atmospheric 

test explosion blew this tower fragment to its present location near the Teapot craters (Beck, 2005). 

12.1.4.3 Reports 

Four survey reports, two historical evaluations, and one letter report were completed and are listed in Table 12-2. Site 

location information is protected from public distribution and those reports containing such data are not available to 

the public. Technical reports can be obtained from the DOE’s Office of Scientific and Technical Information at 

email address <http://www.osti.gov/bridge>. 

The data on NTS archaeological activities also were provided to DOE Headquarters in the formal Archeology 

Questionnaire for transmittal to the Secretary of the Interior and, ultimately, to the U.S. Congress as part of the 

Secretary of the Interior’s Annual Archeology Report to Congress. 

Table 12-2. Short reports, historical evaluations, technical reports, and letter reports 

prepared in 2005 

Project Report No. 

Author(s) 

(see References) 

Fire Station No. 2 SR082905-1 Holz, 2005a 

Fiscal Year 2005 Monitoring Report LR042105-1 Holz, 2005b 

Inventory of Historic Benches SR020904-1 Jones, 2005a 

Fire Break for Fiber Optic Line SR082905-2 Jones, 2005b 

Truck Parking Area SR102605-1 Jones, 2005c 

Re-vegetation of Two Study Plots SR120805-1 Jones, 2005d 

Magazine 802 and Unnumbered Magazine LR030305-1 Jones, 2005e 

Borrow Pit Expansion SR112304-2 Jones, 2005f 

Monitoring of Underground Test Area Well Pad LR091405-2 Jones, 2005g 

Tippipah Spring SR051302-1 Jones, 2005h 

Yucca Lake Historic District TR102 Jones et al., 2005 

Nine Corrective Action Sites LR071305-1 Jones and Holz, 2005 

Tunnels U12b, U12e, U12n, U12t, and U16a, and 

Shafts U15a and U15e 

LR100605-1 Drollinger, 2005a 

Historical Evaluation Pluto Control Facility HE041305-1 Drollinger, 2005b 

Borrow Pit and Access Road SR122704-1 Drollinger, 2005c 

Nineteen Artifacts for the Atomic Testing Museum LR011005-1 Drollinger, 2005d 

Historical Significance of CAU20, CAS-10-23-01 LR121705-1 Beck, 2005 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 12-5

12.2 Curation 

The NHPA requires that archaeological collections and associated records be maintained at professional standards; 

the specific requirements are delineated in 36 CFR Part 79, Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered 

Archeological Collections. Requirements for curation of the NTS archaeological collection include the following: 

• Maintain a catalog of the items in the NTS collection 

• Package the NTS collection in materials that meet archival standards (e.g., acid-free boxes) 

• Store the NTS collection and records in a facility that is secure and has environmental controls 

• Establish and follow curation procedures for the NTS collection and facility 

• Comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

In the 1990s, the NNSA/NSO completed the required inventory and summary of NTS cultural materials accessioned 

into the NTS Archaeological Collection and distributed the inventory list and summary to the tribes affiliated with the 

NTS and adjacent lands. Consultations followed, and all artifacts the tribes requested were repatriated to them. This 

process was completed in 2002; it will be repeated for any new additions to the NTS collection in the future. The 

known locations of American Indian human remains at the NTS continued to be protected from NTS activities in 

2005. 

The NTS Archaeological Collection contains over 400,000 artifacts and is curated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. 

The curation procedures provide guidelines to follow in order to comply with 36 CFR Part 79 (Drollinger, 2004). In 

2005, a review of the documents in the curation archives was initiated. This review was undertaken to identify records 

for disposal, such as draft documents and records no longer pertinent to the cultural resources program. This effort 

was combined with a reorganization of the archives that is in progress. In regard to the artifact collection, one change 

implemented was to organize the collection overall by provenience, that is by site. Previously, items were organized 

according to artifact types, such as chipped stone, ground stone, pottery, etc.; but now, these items have been grouped 

together whenever possible on the shelves according to their origin (Drollinger, 2005e). Archival plastic carton boxes 

were ordered to replace the current cardboard boxes. This type of box will be more protective of the artifact 

collections in regard to accidents, such as water damage, and to nesting insects. They are also less likely to deteriorate 

due to handling and age. As part of the curation activities, assistance was provided to the Atomic Testing Museum 

for the loan of the McGuffin collection and historic artifacts from ranching and mining sites from the NTS artifact 

collection as well as various activities in support of the American Indian display in the Atomic Testing Museum

including creating a photographic record of the display items (Drollinger, 2005d).

12.3 American Indian Program 

The NNSA/NSO has had an active American Indian Program since the late 1980s. The function of the program is to 

conduct consultations between NNSA/NSO and NTS-affiliated American Indian tribes. Such consultation occurs 

through the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO). The CGTO is comprised of 16 groups of 

Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone, along with the Las Vegas Indian Center, a 

Pan-Indian organization (see Table 12-3). A history of this program is contained in American Indians and the Nevada 

Test Site, A Model of Research and Consultation (Stoffle et al., 2001). The goals of the program are to: 

• Provide a forum of the CGTO to express and discuss issues of importance 

• Provide the CGTO with opportunities to actively participate in decisions that involve places and locations that 

hold significance for them 

• Involve the CGTO in the curation and display of American Indian artifacts 

• Enable the CGTO and its constituency to practice their religious and traditional activities 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

12-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Table 12-3. Culturally affiliated tribes and organizations in the CGTO

Ethnic Group Tribe/Band 

 

Southern Paiute Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

 Colorado River Indian Tribes 

 Kaibab Paiute Tribe 

 Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 

 Moapa Paiute Tribe 

 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

 Pahrump Band of Paiutes 

 

Western Shoshone Duckwater Shoshone Tribe 

 Ely Shoshone Tribe 

 Timbisha Shoshone Tribe 

 Yomba Shoshone Tribe 

 

Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone Benton Paiute-Shoshone Tribe 

 Big Pine Paiute Tribe 

 Bishop Paiute Tribe 

 Fort Independence Indian Tribe 

 Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe 

Pan-Indian Organization Las Vegas Indian Center 

In 2005, two field visits were made to the NTS by ethnographers with representatives from the CGTO, accompanied 

by one or two archaeologists. The first trip was a four-day scoping trip in late May and early June to visit several sites 

within the Timber Mountain Caldera that could have importance to the CGTO. Representatives from each of the 

ethnic groups participated in the field trip. Seven locations were visited with the representatives examining each 

location to identify those most appropriate for immediate study. The places they reviewed included Scrugham Peak, a 

geoglyph (rock alignments), rockshelters, an obsidian quarry, Cat Canyon, and the BUGGY site. The BUGGY site 

was a point of interest because a large archaeological site that no longer exists was identified and recorded at this 

location prior to the BUGGY event. The second fieldtrip was for three days in late September. The ethnographers 

conducted in-depth interviews with elders and cultural specialists from the ethnic groups at five of the sites visited in 

May. 

In 2003, the CGTO established an Atomic Testing Museum (ATM) subgroup to work with the museum on the 

content of a planned exhibit for the NTS American Indian history, culture, and views regarding the NTS landscape. 

In 2004, the subgroup, facilitated by NNSA/NSO, finalized the concept for the exhibit. In early 2005, recently made 

American Indian items that represent traditional life ways were loaned to the museum for the display with the 

subgroup completing the exhibit in time for the opening of the ATM. 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-1

13.0 Ecological Monitoring 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program requires ecological monitoring and 

biological compliance support for activities and programs conducted at the DOE facilities. The Bechtel Nevada (BN) 

Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program (EMAC) provides this support for the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The 

major sub-programs and tasks within EMAC include: (1) the Desert Tortoise Compliance Program, (2) biological 

surveys at proposed construction sites, (3) monitoring important species and habitats, (4) the Habitat Restoration 

Program, (5) ecosystem mapping and data management, and (6) biological impact monitoring at the 

Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC). A brief description of these program components and 

their 2005 accomplishments are provided in this chapter. More detailed information may be found in the most recent 

annual EMAC report (BN, 2006c) which is distributed to several federal and state natural resource agencies. EMAC 

annual reports are available electronically at <http://www.osti.gov/bridge>. 

13.1 Desert Tortoise Compliance Program 

The desert tortoise inhabits the southern one-third of the NTS at fairly low estimated densities (Figure 13-1). This 

species is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In December 1995, the U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) completed consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning the effects of NNSA/NSO activities on the desert tortoise, as described 

in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE, 1996a). 

A final Biological Opinion (Opinion) (FWS, 1996) was received from the FWS in August 1996. The Opinion 

concluded that the proposed activities on the NTS were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Mojave 

population of the species and that no critical habitat would be destroyed or adversely modified. The Opinion 

established compliance limits for the numbers of accidentally injured and killed tortoises, captured and displaced 

tortoises, and acres of tortoise habitat that can be disturbed. All terms and conditions listed in the Opinion must be 

followed when activities are conducted within the range of the desert tortoise on the NTS. 

A separate Opinion was issued to NNSA/NSO by the FWS in June 2005 for proposed chemical release studies which 

fall outside the scope of activities covered under the 1996 Opinion. This Opinion, Proposed Chemical Release Tests at the 

Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, File No. 1-5-05-F-455 (FWS, 2005), prescribes terms and conditions to ensure 

that tortoises are protected from harmful chemicals. No habitat destruction is proposed by the studies. 

The Desert Tortoise Compliance Program within EMAC was developed to implement the terms and conditions of all 

Opinions issued to NNSA/NSO by the FWS, to document compliance actions taken, and to assist NNSA/NSO in 

FWS consultations. 

Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Goals 

Ensure compliance with all state and federal regulations and stakeholder commitments pertaining 

to NTS flora, fauna, wetlands, and sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats (see Section 2.9) 

Delineate NTS ecosystems 

Provide ecological information that can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed 

projects and programs on NTS ecosystems and important plant and animal species 
Ecological Monitoring

13-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 13-1. Desert tortoise distribution an

d abu

nda

nce

on the N

T

S an

d locatio

ns of clearance surveys co

nducted in 2005
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-3

In 2005, biologists conducted desert tortoise clearance surveys at 27 sites for 18 proposed projects. Only one inactive 

tortoise burrow was found. It was examined with a fiber-optic scope, determined to be empty, and crushed within 

24 hours of the start of construction. On-site construction monitoring was conducted by a designated environmental 

monitor at all sites, where required. 

A total of 10.33 hectares (ha) (25.53 acres [ac]) of tortoise habitat were disturbed in 2005. No desert tortoises were 

accidentally injured or killed, nor were any captured or displaced from project sites. A cumulative total of 107.52 ha 

(265.70 ac) of tortoise habitat on the NTS has been disturbed since the desert tortoise was listed as threatened in 

1992. During 2005, none of the threshold levels for compliance measures established by the FWS in the 1996 or 2005 

Opinions were exceeded (Table 13-1). In January 2006, NNSA/NSO submitted a report to the FWS Southern 

Nevada Field Office that summarized tortoise compliance activities for the 1996 Opinion conducted on the NTS 

from January 1 through December 31, 2005. In February 2006, a report was sent to the same FWS office 

documenting compliance activities for the 2005 Opinion. 

Table 13-1. Compliance limits and status for NTS operations in tortoise habitat 

Compliance Measure Threshold 

Value 

2005 

Value 

1996 Opinion for NTS Programmatic Activities: 

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 in use during a project Unlimited 1 

Number of total ha (ac) of desert tortoise habitat disturbed during NTS project 

construction since 1992 1,220 (3,015) 107.52 (265.70) 

2005 Opinion for NPTEC Test Cell C Activities:

Number of desert tortoises that may be captured and moved as a result of project activities 1 0 

Number of tortoises taken in the form of indirect mortality through predation by ravens 0 0 

Number of tortoises taken indirectly in the form of harm as a result of release of 

potentially harmful chemicals <5 0 

Mitigation for the loss of tortoise habitat is required under the terms and conditions of the 1996 Opinion. The 

Opinion requires NNSA/NSO to perform either of two mitigation options: (1) pre-pay Clark County $1,600/ha 

($648/ac) of habitat disturbed, or (2) revegetate disturbed habitat following specified criteria. Since 1992, 

NNSA/NSO has been using the balance of $81,000 that NNSA/NSO deposited into the Clark County Desert 

Tortoise Habitat Conservation Fund Number 236-8290 to pre-pay for the future disturbance of 101 ha (250 ac) of 

tortoise habitat on the NTS. During 2005, this pre-paid fund would have been exhausted; however, NNSA/NSO 

submitted plans to revegetate 8.14 ha (20.11 ac) of tortoise habitat in lieu of paying the mitigation fee. This left a total 

of 2.19 ha (5.42 ac) remaining in the mitigation bank. Projects that propose to disturb tortoise habitat are now 

directed to pay the fee to Clark County or revegetation is conducted. In 2005, biologists prepared two site specific 

plans to revegetate the 8.14 ha mentioned above as mitigation for three projects. These plans were approved by FWS 

in December 2005. Revegetation was started in 2005 and will continue in 2006. 

13.2 Biological Surveys at Proposed Project Sites 

Biological surveys are performed at proposed project sites where land disturbance will occur. The goal is to minimize 

the adverse effects of land disturbance on important plant and animal species and their associated habitat, important 

biological resources (i.e., nest sites, active tortoise burrows), and wetlands. Biological surveys comply with the terms 

and conditions of the 1996 Opinion and with the mitigation measures specified in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE, 1996a) and its Record of Decision. 
Ecological Monitoring

13-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Species considered important include those protected or managed under federal or state regulations, plants listed on 

the Nevada Natural Heritage Program’s Nevada At-Risk Plant and Lichen Tracking List (called “sensitive” plants), 

animals listed on Nevada Natural Heritage Program’s Nevada At-Risk Animal Tracking List (called “sensitive 

animals), and bats assigned a high or moderate risk assessment designation under the Nevada Bat Conservation Plan 

(Altenbach et al., 2002). The important species known to occur on the NTS include 19 plants and 48 animals 

(Tables 13-2 and 13-3). All of these species are evaluated for their inclusion in long-term monitoring activities on the 

NTS. Important biological resources include such things as cover sites, nest or burrow sites, roost sites, wetlands, or 

water sources important to sensitive species. The biological survey parameters which are documented include: 

• Number of biological surveys conducted 

• Number of hectares/acres surveyed per proposed project 

• Types and numbers of important species and biological resources found 

• Mitigation recommendations and actions taken to protect species/resources 

Table 13-2. Important plants which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS 

Flowering Plant Species Common Name Status(a)

Arctomecon merriamii White bearpoppy S, IA 

Astragalus beatleyae Beatley’s milkvetch S, A 

Astragalus funereus Black woolypod S, A 

Astragalus oopherus var. clokeyanus Clokey’s egg milkvetch S, A 

Camissonia megalantha Cane Spring suncup S, IA 

Cymopterus ripleyi Ripley’s springparsley S, IA 

Eriogonum concinnum Darin’s buckwheat S, A 

Eriogonum heermannii var. clokeyi Clokey’s buckwheat S, A 

Frasera albicaulis var. modocensis(b) Pahute green gentian or Modoc elkweed S, IA 

Galium hilendiae ssp. kingstonense Kingston Mountain bedstraw S, IA 

Hulsea vestita ssp. inyoensis Inyo hulsea S, IA 

Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa Whitefeather ivesia S, A 

Lathyrus hitchcockianus Hitchcock’s peavine S, A 

Penstemon pahutensis Pahute penstemon S, IA 

Phacelia beatleyae Beatley’s phacelia S, A 

Phacelia mustelina Weasel phacelia S, IA 

Phacelia parishii Parish's phacelia S, IA 

Sclerocactus polyancistrus Mojave fishhook cactus S, IA 

Moss Species 

Entosthodon planoconvexus Planoconvex entosthodon S, E 

(a) Status Codes: 

 State of Nevada

 S – Listed on Nevada Natural Heritage Program’s Nevada At-Risk Plant and Lichen Tracking List 

 Long-term Sensitive Plant Monitoring Status under EMAC

A - Active: currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

 IA - Inactive: not currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

 E - Evaluate: species for which more information on distribution, abundance, and susceptibilities to threats 

 on the NTS must be gathered before deciding to include in long-term monitoring activities 

(b) Nevada Natural Heritage Program calls this plant Frasera pahutensis 

Note: The state of Nevada protects all cactus, yucca, and “Christmas trees” from unauthorized collection on public lands. Such plants 

are not protected from harm on private lands or on withdrawn public lands such as the NTS. 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-5

Table 13-3. Important animals which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS 

Mollusk Species Common Names Status (a)

Pyrgulopsis turbatrix Southeast Nevada springsnail S, A 

Reptile Species 

Eumeces gilberti rubricaudatus Western red-tailed skink S, E 

Gopherus agassizii Desert tortoise LT, NPT, S, IA 

Bird Species(b) 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk S, NPS, IA 

Alectoris chukar Chukar G 

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle EA, NP 

Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western burrowing owl S, NP, A 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk S, NP, IA 

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk S, NP, A 

Callipepla gambelii Gambel's quail G 

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover PT, NP 

Chlidonias niger Black tern S, NP, IA 

Coccyzus americanus Western yellow-billed cuckoo S, NPS, IA 

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon <LE, S, NPE, IA 

Gavia immer Common loon S, NP, IA 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus Bald eagle LT-PD, EA, S, NPE, IA 

Ixobrychus exillis hesperis Western least bittern S, NP, IA 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike NPS 

Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher NPS 

Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla S, NP, IA 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis S, NP, IA 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow NPS 

Mammal Species 

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat M, NP, A 

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn antelope G 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Townsend’s big-eared bat S, H, NPS, A

Equus asinus Burro HB 

Equus caballus Horse HB 

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat S, M, NPT, A 

Felis concolor Mountain lion G 

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat M, A 

Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat S, H, NPS, A 

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat M, A 

Lynx rufus Bobcat F 

Microdipodops megacephalus Dark kangaroo mouse NP 

Microdipodops pallidus Pale kangaroo mouse NP 

Myotis californicus California myotis S, M, A 
Ecological Monitoring

13-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 13-3. Important animals which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS (continued) 

Mammal Species (continued) Common Name Status(a)

Myotis ciliolabrum Small-footed myotis S, M, A 

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis M, A 

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis S, H, NP, A 

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis M, A 

Ovis canadensis nelsoni Desert bighorn sheep G 

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer G 

Pipistrellus hesperus Western pipistrelle M, A 

Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s cottontail G 

Sylvilagus nuttallii Nuttall’s cottontail G 

Tadarida brasiliensis Brazilian free-tailed bat NP 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox F 

Vulpes velox macrotis Kit fox F 

(a) Status Codes: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act

 LT - Listed Threatened 

 PT - Proposed for listing as Threatened 

 PD - Proposed for delisting 

 <LE- Former listed endangered species 

 U.S. Department of Interior

 HB - Protected under Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act 

 EA - Protected under Bald and Golden Eagle Act 

 

State of Nevada

 NPE - Species protected as endangered under Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 503 

 NPT - Species protected as threatened under NAC 503 

 NPS - Species protected as sensitive under NAC 503 

 NP - Species listed as protected under NAC 503 

 S - Listed on Nevada Natural Heritage Program’s Nevada At-Risk Animal Tracking List

 G - Regulated as game species 

 F - Regulated as fur-bearer species 

 

 Long-term Sensitive Animal Monitoring Status under EMAC

A - Active: currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

IA - Inactive: not currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

 E - Evaluate: species for which more information on distribution, abundance, and susceptibilities to threats 

 on the NTS must be gathered before deciding to include in long-term monitoring activities 

 Nevada Bat Conservation Plan – Bat Species Risk Assessment Designations

 H - High: species imperiled or at high risk of imperilment and having the highest priority for funding, planning, 

 and conservation actions 

 M - Moderate: species which warrant closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions and lacking 

 meaningful information to adequately assess species’ status 

(b) All bird species on the NTS are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act except for the following five species: 

 Gambel’s quail, chukar, English house sparrow, rock dove, and European starling 

 Also, the state of Nevada protects all birds that are protected by federal laws in addition to the species listed in this 

 Table. 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-7

In 2005, surveys at 88 sites for 36 projects were conducted. These sites included 20 old buildings scheduled for 

demolition which were surveyed for the presence of active bird nests and bat roosts. The summary of survey 

results are shown in Table 13-4. No wetlands or important species were impacted by these projects except for two 

barn owl (Tyto alba) eggs and four great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) eggs which were removed from nests in 

buildings scheduled for demolition. They were taken to Wild Wing Project, Inc. in Las Vegas, a state of Nevadaapproved wildlife rehabilitation organization. The barn owl eggs were not viable, and three of the great-horned owl 

eggs hatched. The young owls were reared and released to the wild (Figure 13-2). Some resources used by 

important species were impacted: 15 empty bird nests were removed from buildings which were demolished. 

Biological survey sites for 2005 are shown in Figure 13-3. 

 Table 13-4. Summary of 2005 biological survey results 

Measure Result 

Number of biological surveys 

conducted 88 for 36 projects 

Area surveyed Total: 296.10 ha (731.68 ac) 

Undisturbed habitat: 119.71 ha (295.81 ac) 

Previously-disturbed habitat: 176.39 ha (435.87 ac) 

Important species/biological 

resources found 

2 raptor nests with 6 eggs; 6 passerine bird nests with over 20 eggs 

1 raptor nest with 3 chicks; 3 passerine bird nests with 7 chicks 

1 active bird nest (unknown eggs/nestlings) 

15 empty bird nests 

1 potential tortoise burrow used by burrowing owl 

1 kit fox dens 

6 predator burrows 

Mitigation actions taken Removed empty bird nests prior to building demolitions 

Postponed one building repair until eggs hatched and nestling fledged 

Took 2 great-horned owl eggs and 3 great-horned owl chicks to Wild Wing Project, 

Inc. with FWS approval prior to building demolitions that could not be postponed 

Ensured no birds or bats were present prior to building demolitions 

Avoided potential tortoise burrow occupied by burrowing owl 

Avoided kit fox/predator burrows or verified they were inactive prior to construction 

Figure 13-2. Three great-horned owl chicks at Wild Wing Project, Inc. 

(Photo by Lisa Ross, May 2005) 
Ecological Monitoring

13-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

 Figure 13-3. Location of biological surveys conducted on the NTS in 2005 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-9

13.3 Important Species and Habitat Monitoring 

Over the last three decades, NNSA/NSO has taken an active role in collecting or supporting the collection of 

information on the status of important plants and animals and their habitat on the NTS and has produced numerous 

documents reporting their occurrence, distribution, and susceptibility to threats on the NTS (see Ecology of the Nevada 

Test Site: An Annotated Bibliography [Wills and Ostler, 2001]). In 1998, NNSA/NSO prepared a Resource Management 

Plan (DOE, 1998). One of the many natural resources goals stated in the plan is to protect and conserve sensitive 

plant and animal species found on the NTS and to minimize cumulative impacts to those species as a result of 

NNSA/NSO activities. The EMAC goals of species and habitat monitoring on the NTS are to: 

• Ensure that impacts caused directly by NTS projects can be detected, quantified, and managed so that a species’ 

occurrence on the NTS is not threatened by such projects 

• Ensure adherence to state and federal regulations aimed at protecting wild horses, migratory birds, wetlands, and 

wildlife habitat 

Data collected for monitored species include: 

• Distribution on the NTS 

• Relative abundance, density, or population size on 

the NTS 

• Susceptibility to threats from NTS projects 

• Location of nest burrows, nests, or roost sites of 

sensitive animals 

• Location of preferred habitats 

• Incidence and cause of mortality 

In 2005, the major accomplishments under this EMAC task are presented below. Detailed descriptions of these 

actions and results can be found in Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Calendar Year 2005 Report (BN, 2006c). 

13.3.1 Sensitive Plants 

Known populations and potential habitat of two sensitive plant species were visited in 2005 (Figure 13-4). The 

species were Astragalus beatleyae and Astragalus funereus, both herbaceous perennials. Evaluation surveys were also 

conducted for Entosthodon planoconvexus, a non-vascular plant. All sites monitored in 2005 showed no signs of human 

disturbance. 

13.3.1.1 Astragalus beatleyae 

Six of the 14 A. beatleyae populations on the NTS were selected and surveyed. All 14 of the known NTS populations 

had last been visited in 2002. A representative number of the permanent transects established at each site during 

earlier studies were sampled. Monitoring was completed in May and June when plants were in flower and setting 

seed. The density of A. beatleyae, averaged over the six sites, was 0.67 plants per square meter (plants/m2), similar to 

what they were in 1991 for the same six sites (0.73 plants/m2) (Blomquist et al., 1995), and higher than for all other 

years when plant density was monitored at these sites. 

13.3.1.2 Astragalus funereus 

The two known population locations of A. funereus on the NTS, one on the southern slopes of French Peak and one 

on the southeastern slopes of Shoshone Mountain, were surveyed. About 240 plants were found at the French Peak 

population in June. Estimates in previous years ranged from 170 to 287 plants (Blomquist et al. 1995). About 

20 plants were found at the Shoshone Mountain site in 2005. Surveys in 1991 and 1992 at this location reported 

about 30 individuals. In the future, permanent plots will be established at each population site, including known sites 

off the NTS, and densities will be estimated within each plot. This will facilitate comparisons between years and 

provide a more accurate assessment of species status from year to year. The western slope of Shoshone Mountain, 

where A. funereus plants have been reported to occur in the past (but not confirmed by specimen collection and 

identification), was also surveyed in 2005. As in past years, no individuals of A. funereus were found. It was 

determined that reports of A. funereus in this area were in error. 
Ecological Monitoring

13-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 13-4. Sensitive plant populations monitored on the NTS in 2005
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-11

13.3.1.3 Entosthodon planoconvexus 

In May 2005, a former collection site of the moss E. planoconvexus was surveyed. A specimen of this species, which 

resides in the University of Nevada, Las Vegas herbarium, was collected in the 1970s in Rock Valley in Area 25 along 

north-facing limestone foothills of the Specter Range, at an elevation of 1149 m (Stark et al., 2002). Several 

collections of mosses were made in this area in May, one of which appears to be E. planoconvexus. The specimen will 

be verified in 2006 by taxonomic experts. 

13.3.2 Important Bat Species 

As mentioned in Section 13.2, bat species considered important include those protected or managed under federal or 

state regulations, species listed on Nevada Natural Heritage Program’s Nevada At-Risk Animal Tracking List (called 

“sensitive”), and species assigned a high or moderate risk assessment designation under the Nevada Bat Conservation 

Plan (Altenbach et al., 2002). The majority of the bat species known to occur on the NTS (13 out of 15) are 

important species, and 6 of the 13 important species are state-protected (see Table 13-3). A noteworthy change in 

Table 13-3 from 2004 is that the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), and Brazilian freetailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis) became Nevada Protected species under NAC 503, and the Townsend’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii) and the western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), became Nevada Protected-Sensitive species under 

NAC 503. 

13.3.2.1 Night Monitoring of Water Sources and Potential Roost Sites 

In 2005, night monitoring surveys for bats were conducted at seven water sources and five potential roost sites 

(Figure 13-5) to help identify the distribution of important bat species and their roosts on the NTS. Bat monitoring 

involves a variety of techniques including direct capture with mist nets, recording ultrasonic echolocation calls using 

the Anabat IITM system (Titley Electronics, Ballina, Australia), recording bat activity with a special night vision camera 

equipped with NightSightTM technology attached to a camcorder, and observing bat activity with night vision goggles. 

Bats were detected at all seven water sources. A total of 13 bat species (including 11 important species were detected 

acoustically. Only one bat was captured: a juvenile, male, long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) at Rainier Mesa Pond in 

June, suggesting that this species (not an important species) breeds on the NTS. Bat activity was detected at each of 

the five potential roost sites monitored in 2005. A total of nine species, including seven important species, were 

detected acoustically across the five sites. E and N Tunnels were determined to be day roosts. T and V Tunnels and 

the shaft above V Tunnel were determined to be night roosts/foraging sites. No new maternity roosts of important 

species were identified. Of the 15 known bat species to occur on the NTS, all but the silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris 

noctivagans) and the Townsend’s big-eared bat were detected during 2005 monitoring activities. The reader is directed 

to the 2005 EMAC annual report (BN, 2006c) for details on monitoring activities and results. 

13.3.2.2 Documented Day Roosts in NTS Buildings 

Reports of bats found in buildings during biological surveys and bats found by others in buildings are documented to 

augment knowledge about bat roosting sites on the NTS. In 2005, a total of 14 bats were found roosting in or around 

5 buildings (3 in Mercury, 1 in Area 5, and 1 in Area 6) (Figure 13-5). Eleven bats were either California or smallfooted myotis, two were California myotis (Myotis californicus), and one was a Townsend’s big-eared bat. 

13.3.2.3 Passive Acoustic Monitoring of Seasonal Bat Activity at Camp 17 Pond 

 

In order to learn more about long-term bat activity over different seasons and years, a passive acoustic monitoring 

system was installed at Camp 17 Pond (Figure 13-5) on September 22, 2003, and continued to be operated during 

2005. To date, the winter (December – February) data show that silver-haired bats, small-footed myotis, and longlegged myotis are active at this pond over winter months. Winter activity of these species had previously not been 

documented based on capture data (O’Farrell, 2005). The data also show that bat activity was highest in December 

and steadily declined to its lowest level in February. Previous capture data for this region
Ecological Monitoring

13-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 13-5. Sites monitored for bat activity in 2005 on the NTS 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-13

showed that bats were not active greater than four hours after sunset during winter months (O’Farrell, 2005). The 

passive acoustic data, however, show that 37.6 percent of all winter bat activity (2,402 of 6,395 minutes) occurred 

greater than four hours after sunset. This system will continue to be used to collect data which is published and 

shared with regional bat conservation biologists and organizations. 

13.3.3 State Protected Small Mammals 

Each year the Nevada Natural Heritage Program’s Nevada At-Risk Animal Tracking List and the NAC 503 are 

reviewed to identify changes in the status of animals known to occur on the NTS. A noteworthy change was the 

addition of the dark kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus) and the pale kangaroo mouse (Microdipodops pallidus) to 

the list of Nevada Protected species under NAC 503. As a result, small mammal trapping was initiated in 2005 to help 

assess these species’ distribution and abundance on the NTS. With the assistance of Dr. John Hafner, BN biologists 

visited the typically sandy habitats of the NTS in Areas 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 where these two species of kangaroo 

mice have been periodically trapped from 1959 to 1990. Nine trap sites were selected in Areas 17, 18, 19, and 20. 

Trapping was conducted for one night at each of the nine sites on August 1 and 2 and October 25 for a total of 1,395 

trap nights (i.e., the number of total traps multiplied by the number of total nights trapping is conducted). A total of 

330 rodents representing 9 species was captured. However, neither the dark nor the pale kangaroo mouse was 

captured. Trapping efforts will continue during 2006. 

13.3.4 Wild Horses 

An annual horse census was conducted by driving selected roads along the boundaries of the suspected annual horse 

range in the northern portion of the NTS (Figure 13-6). Forty-nine adult horses and five foals were counted in 2005. 

Five horse bands (composed of stallions, subordinate males, females, and their offspring) were observed. The bands 

ranged in size from 3 to 13 individuals excluding foals. The population showed a moderate increase in number over 

last year due to the survival of several younger-aged horses (yearlings and 2 year olds) (Table 13-5).

Table 13-5. Number of individual horses observed on the NTS by age class, gender, and year 

 
Ecological Monitoring

13-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 Figure 13-6. Feral horse range on the NTS and sighting locations of horses and horse sign in 2005 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-15

13.3.5 Birds 

13.3.5.1 Bird Monitoring and Mortality 

All but 5 of the 239 bird species observed on the NTS are migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act or are regulated by the state of Nevada as game birds (see footnote b of Table 13-3). No field surveys for raptor 

nests were conducted in 2005. Raptor breeding is periodically monitored at least once every five years. Opportunistic 

sightings of birds in 2005, including raptors, raptor nests, and any reported or observed bird mortalities, were entered 

into wildlife databases. As mentioned in Section 13.2, two active great-horned owl nests were found during surveys of 

buildings scheduled for demolition. Short-eared owls (Asio flammeus) were observed in three locations on the NTS 

this year representing the first observations of this species on the NTS in over 20 years. 

Bird mortality is recorded as a measure of potential impacts that NNSA/NSO activities may have on protected birds. 

In 2005, 12 bird deaths were documented and all but one death (of unknown cause) was human-related (Table 13-6). 

The majority was roadkills. In May, NTS workers reported an injured red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) to BN 

biologists. In September, NTS workers brought an injured barn owl to BN biologists, and in early December workers 

reported an injured juvenile golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). All three of these birds were presumed to have been hit 

by vehicles. Biologists responded immediately to each report and transported each bird to a North Las Vegas animal 

hospital for examination and treatment. The red-tailed hawk was cared for by the Wild Wing Project, Inc. and later 

released near Corn Creek on the Desert National Wildlife Range. Both the barn owl and the juvenile golden eagle, 

however, were euthanized because their injuries were too severe to repair. 

No feasible mitigation actions were identified in 2005 that may reduce the incidence of bird mortality on the NTS. 

The overall reported number of bird deaths on the NTS related directly to NTS activities over the past 15 years is low 

and the causes are varied (Figure 13-7). 

 Table 13-6. Records of bird mortality and injury on the NTS in 2005 

Species Cause of Death 

 Electrocution Road Kill Unknown Injury 

Barn owl (Tyto alba) 1(a) 

Common loon (Gavia immer) 1 

Common raven (Corvus corax) 3 1 

Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale) 1 

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 2(b) 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 1 

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 1 (c)

Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) 1 

White-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys) 1 

Total 3 8 1 1 

(a) Taken to veterinary clinic for treatment, euthanized due to severity of injury 

(b) One eagle found injured, taken to veterinary clinic for treatment, euthanized due to severity of injury 

(c) Taken to veterinary clinic for treatment, rehabilitated at Wild Wing Project, Inc. and released 
Ecological Monitoring

13-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Number of Dead Birds

Roadkill

Electrocution

Entrapment

Drowning

Predation

Disease

Chick Mortality

Unknown

 Figure 13-7. Number of bird deaths recorded on the NTS by year and by cause 

13.3.5.2 Western Burrowing Owl Monitoring 

Western burrowing owl monitoring in 2005 entailed 

monitoring reproduction with remote cameras 

(Figure 13-8) and trapping owls at their burrows. 

Eighteen burrow sites were sampled between May 31 

and August 10, 2005, and 11 breeding pairs were 

documented. A total of 58 young were detected for an 

average of 5.3 young owls per pair. Four non-breeding 

pairs were also documented. 

Trapping was conducted for the first time in 2005 to 

assist Dr. Courtney Conway of the University of Arizona 

who had asked BN biologists for help in gathering data. 

Dr. Conway is evaluating migratory linkages of western 

burrowing owls in western North America through a 

U.S. Department of Defense Legacy-funded project. 

Traps were set out at ten burrow sites in July. Twenty-one juveniles and one adult owl were captured and banded. 

Feather samples were taken from all captured owls and blood samples were taken from 16 owls. Information from 

this cooperative effort will give BN biologists a greater understanding of this owl’s residency and migratory status on 

the NTS. It may also help determine where owls from the NTS are wintering. Trapping will continue over the next 

two to three years. 

Also, five new burrow sites were found on the NTS. There are 126 known western burrowing owl locations (30 owl 

sightings and 96 burrow sites) on the NTS (Figure 13-9). 

Figure 13-8. Western burrowing owl family, Yucca Flat 

(Photo by automatic camera, June 9, 2005) 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-17

Figure 13-9. Known western burrowing owl distribution on the NTS and burrow sites where motionactivated cameras were set up and/or trapping occurred 
Ecological Monitoring

13-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

13.3.6 Natural and Human-Made Water Sources 

Natural wetlands (e.g., vegetated seeps and springs) and man-made water sources (e.g., sumps and sewage lagoons) 

provide unique habitats for vegetation and wildlife. NTS wetlands are monitored and are protected when feasible as 

unique and important habitats for plants and wildlife per the intent of Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands. Characterization of these mesic habitats and periodic monitoring of their hydrologic and biotic parameters 

was started in 1997. Monitoring will help identify annual fluctuations and ranges in measured parameters that are 

natural versus those related to NNSA/NSO activities. 

Monitoring activities in 2005 included: (1) documenting surface area, surface flow, observed disturbances, and wildlife 

use at 12 selected natural wetlands, and (2) documenting wildlife use and mortality observed at 12 natural wetlands, 

39 plastic-lined sumps, 3 unlined well ponds, and 2 radioactive containment ponds. Sizes of wetlands monitored 

varied greatly from very small areas (<1 m2) to moderately sized springs and playa ponds (>23,000 m2). Surface flow 

rates were low (<3.6 liters per minute) at all wetlands where flow was measurable. Disturbances noted at the 12 

natural wetlands were trampling and grazing of vegetation by horses at six sites. No NNSA/NSO projects disturbed 

these natural water sources. Overall, 4 mammal species and 27 species of birds were detected at water sources in 

2005. Detailed results are reported in Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Calendar Year 2005 Report 

(BN, 2006c). 

13.4 Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program 

The native vegetation and wildlife habitat at disturbed NTS sites are sometimes restored by seeding and/or planting 

native plant species. This effort is called revegetation. NNSA/NSO evaluates revegetation as a potential method to 

stabilize soils at a site based on site size, future use, nature of soils, annual precipitation, slope, aspect, and site location 

(DOE, 1996a). Revegetation supports the intent of EO 13112, Invasive Species, which is to prevent the introduction 

and spread of invasive (non-native) species and restore native species to disturbed sites. To date, the majority of 

NNSA/NSO projects for which revegetation has been pursued are abandoned industrial or nuclear test support sites 

that have been characterized and remediated under the Environmental Restoration (ER) Program. Also, the ER 

Program has funded revegetation of soil closure covers to protect against soil erosion and water percolation into 

buried waste. In 2003, a wildland fire burn site in Area 12 (Egg Point Fire burn site) was revegetated to help minimize 

soil erosion and the invasion of non-native species which would make the site more prone to future wildland fires. In 

addition to conducting all revegetation efforts on the NTS, the Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program conducts 

short- and long-term monitoring of revegetated sites. The summary of this program’s goals are to: 

• Design and implement site-specific revegetation plans at approved disturbed sites. 

• Monitor the short- and long-term outcome of revegetation efforts. 

• Monitor the long-term outcome of natural vegetation succession at disturbed sites where revegetation has not 

occurred. 

• Develop a site-wide habitat restoration plan based on evaluations of past revegetation efforts, natural succession 

processes, and wildlife habitat requirements. 

• Monitor the effectiveness of revegetation to restore wildlife habitat. 

13.4.1 Egg Point Fire 

Vegetation monitoring of the Egg Point Fire burn site has been conducted annually since 2003 to assess the recovery 

of the vegetation from the effects of the fire and to evaluate the revegetation techniques used in restoration efforts. 

In 2005, the non-seeded area was sampled for comparison to adjacent seeded areas. On the upper slope, the density 

of perennial plants on the non-seeded area was less than one-tenth of the density on the seeded area (Figure 13-10). 

On the lower slope, the density of perennial plants on the non-seeded area was one-third of the density on the seeded 

areas (Figure 13-11). Results of all monitoring conducted in 2005, including overall plant densities by life form 

(grasses, forbs, shrubs) and plant cover measurements are reported in the annual EMAC report (BN, 2006c). 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 13-19

0

5

10

15

20

25

%

Perennial

Cover

Annual

Cover

Total Plant

Cover

PERCENT PLANT COVER

April 2002

June 2003

May 2004

May 2005

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

Plants/m 2

Shrubs Grasses Forbs Perennial

Species

Plant Density

Seeded vs Non-Seeded Areas

Non Seeded

Seeded

13.4.2 Habitat Restoration at CAU 110, U-3ax/bl Closure Cover 

A closure cover for the U-3ax/bl disposal unit in Area 3 of the NTS was approved and constructed in the fall of 2000. 

Immediately after the construction of the closure cover, the reestablishment of a cover of native vegetation was 

initiated. The success of the reseeding effort on the closure cover has been evaluated each year since 2001. In 2005, 

53 one-meter quadrats were sampled on the closure cover and 10 were sampled in the non-seeded areas along the 

periphery of the closure cover. Plant density in 2005 was 5.1 plants/m2, which represents a slight increase over the 

previous two years. Based on revegetation efforts in similar ecoregions, a goal of 12 percent plant cover after five 

years was set for this closure cover. The five-year goal was met in 2005. Actual total plant cover is 20 percent and the 

majority (17 percent) is attributable to seeded perennial native plants (Figure 13-12). 

With the establishment of vegetation on the 

closure cover came a corresponding influx 

of small mammals and small mammal 

burrows. A concern was expressed that the 

closure cover structure may be 

compromised with the burrowing animals. 

In April 2005, an initiative began with the 

objective of removing burrowing animals 

from the closure cover. A total of 102 small 

mammal traps were used to capture a total 

of 190 animals over six trap nights in April, 

three in June, and three in September. All 

animals were relocated approximately 

5 miles (mi) from the site. Seventy-five 

percent of the animals captured and 

relocated were Merriam’s kangaroo rats 

(Dipodomys merriami), 25 percent were deer 

mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), and one longtailed pocketmouse (Chaetodipus formosus) was 

captured. 

 Figure 13-10. Plant density on seeded and non-seeded 

sites on the upper slopes of Egg Point fire 

site 

 Figure 13-11. Plant density on seeded and non-seeded 

sites on the lower slopes of Egg Point 

fire site 

Figure 13-12. Percent plant cover on Uax/bl closure cover

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Plant/m 2

Shrubs Grasses Forbs Total

Perennials

Plant Density

Seeded vs Non-Seeded Areas

Non Seeded

Seeded
Ecological Monitoring

13-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

13.5 Ecosystem Mapping and Data Management 

BN biologists began comprehensive mapping of plant communities and wildlife habitat on the NTS in 1996. Data 

were collected describing selected biotic and abiotic habitat features within field mapping units called Ecological 

Landform Units (ELUs). ELUs are landforms (Peterson, 1981) with similar vegetation, soil types, slope, and 

hydrology. Boundaries of the ELUs were defined using aerial photographs, satellite imagery, and field confirmation. 

ELUs are considered by NTS biologists to be the most feasible mapping unit by which sensitive plant and animal 

habitats can be described. In December 2000, a topical report describing the classification of habitat types on the 

NTS was published and distributed (Ostler et al., 2000). Ten vegetation alliances and 20 associations were recognized 

as occurring on the NTS. In 2005, efforts continued to update and improve this habitat data. Efforts were focused 

on the tasks listed below in support of ecosystem mapping and data management of all NTS geospatial ecological 

data. The reader is directed to the 2005 annual EMAC report (BN, 2006c) which describes these efforts and results. 

• Consolidation of data tables into a comprehensive database 

• Sampling of selected ELUs for canopy cover data 

• Vegetation survey for determining wildland fire hazards 

• Coordination with ecosystem management agencies and scientists 

13.6 Biological Monitoring of the NPTEC 

Biological monitoring at NPTEC on the playa of Frenchman Lake in Area 5 will be performed as an EMAC task 

whenever there is a risk of significant exposure to downwind plants and animals from planned test releases of 

hazardous materials. The Desert National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR) lies just east of the NTS border, approximately 

5 kilometers (km) (3 mi) downwind from the NPTEC. The National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act forbids the 

disturbance or injury of native vegetation and wildlife on any National Wildlife Refuge lands unless permitted by the 

Secretary of the Interior; the DNWR is administered within this System. Biological monitoring is conducted to verify 

that approved tests do not disperse toxic chemicals that could harm biota on DNWR. This is also a requirement of 

the facility’s Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DOE, 2002b). 

An unpublished BN document titled Biological Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Liquefied Gaseous Fuels 

Spill Test Facility on the Nevada Test Site, prepared in 1996 and updated in 2002, describes how field surveys will be 

conducted to meet the following two goals: (1) document significant impacts of chemical testing on plants and 

animals and (2) verify that NPTEC operations comply with the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (see 

Section 2.9). Monitoring will entail sampling established transects both downwind and upwind of the NPTEC. Since 

1996, the majority of chemical releases being studied at the center have used such small quantities that downwind 

test-specific monitoring has not been necessary. The parameters to be measured whenever transects must be sampled 

will include: 

• Number and type of dead animals observed 

• Number and type of wildlife observed 

• Presence of observed vegetation damage 

In 2005, BN reviewed chemical spill test plans for the following two activities: Divine Shrike and Scorpion. 

Chemicals were released at such low volumes or low toxicity that there was no need to monitor downwind transects 

for biological impacts. Baseline monitoring was conducted at established control-treatment transects near the 

NPTEC in April-May and September-October. This monitoring noted the condition of plants and the presence of 

wildlife sign during the period of vegetative growth and following summer drought, respectively. No differences in 

biota were noted along downwind (treatment) versus upwind (control) transects. Baseline monitoring data are 

collected to document any cumulative impacts over time of test center activities on biota downwind of the facility. 

These data are made available to neighboring land managers on request. 
Underground Test Area Project 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 14-1 

14.0 Underground Test Area Project 

The Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project is the largest project in the Environmental Restoration Project. It 

addresses groundwater contamination resulting from past underground nuclear testing conducted in shafts and 

tunnels on the Nevada Test Site (NTS). From 1951 to 1992 more than 800 underground nuclear tests were 

conducted at the NTS (U.S. Department of Energy, 2000a). Most of these tests were conducted hundreds of feet 

above groundwater; however, over 200 of the tests were within or near the water table. 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 formations 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 are used to produce hydrogeologic models that will be used to predict groundwater flow and contaminant 

transport. Numerous surface and subsurface investigations are ongoing to ensure 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 radioactive contaminants 

• Assessing NTS hydrology and subsurface geology to determine possible groundwater flow direction 

14.1 Aquifer Tests 

There were no aquifer/tracer testing activities conducted during 2005. 

14.2 Groundwater Sampling 

Well development, testing, and sampling operations were conducted at the ER-12-3 and ER-12-4 investigation wells. 

Groundwater samples were also collected from cavity well (or “Hot Well”) U-20n PS #1DD-H. The results of 

sampling in 2005 are presented in Section 4.1.11 of this report along with all other radiological groundwater 

monitoring results. 

14.3 3-D Hydrostratigraphic Framework Models 

A regional three-dimensional (3-D) computer groundwater model (International Technology Corporation, 1996) has 

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. For Phase II, four CAU-specific models are planned, geographically covering each of the six 

former NTS testing areas (Figure 14-1). To date, three models have been built: Frenchman Flat (BN, 2005a), Pahute 

Mesa-Oasis Valley (BN, 2002d) and Yucca Flat-Climax Mine (BN, 2006). A model for the Rainier Mesa-Shoshone 

Mountain CAU is in progress. These 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 the Routine Radiological Environmental 

Monitoring Plan groundwater monitoring network to ensure public health and safety. 
Underground Test Area Project 

14-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 14-1. Location of UGTA Project model areas 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 15-1 

15.0 Hydrologic Resources Management Program 

The primary responsibility of the Hydrologic Resources Management Program (HRMP) is to provide the U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) with hydrologic 

data and information on groundwater supplies to support ongoing and future activities at the Nevada Test Site (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 the NTS, and the potential impacts of large-scale water 

withdrawals from or near the groundwater basins of the NTS. Participants in the HRMP include Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Desert 

Research Institute. 

15.1 Program Goals and Activities 

The goal 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 this goal through long-term 

research activities including data collection, analysis, evaluation, modeling, equipment development, 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. 

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. 

15.1.1 Hydrology and Radionuclide Investigations for Operations 

The HRMP assists NNSA/NSO 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 NNSA/NSO to provide detailed information on hydrologic conditions of the NTS. At the request of 

NNSA/NSO 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/NSO 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 the location of the 

groundwater table, perched water zones, and regions of enhanced permeability 

• Using and developing state-of-the-art radiochemical instrumentation to analyze rock and water samples to assist 

in predicting the fate and transport of radioactive isotopes deposited from subsurface experiments 

• Supporting the development of enhanced borehole radionuclide monitoring and sampling equipment capability 

• 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 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

15-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

• Building public confidence by conducting public and government outreach and education programs on the 

hydrologic environment and the impact of nuclear testing on water resources at the NTS 

• Investigating the free water and bound water relationships in boreholes and cores 

15.1.2 Long-Term Groundwater Stewardship 

A major element of the HRMP mission is the protection and long-term stewardship of NTS groundwater 

resources. Numerous activities are conducted to accomplish this element. These include the following: monitoring 

of groundwater levels, quality and consumption; evaluating monitoring wells; maintaining a wellhead protection 

program; and utilization of groundwater modeling to evaluate water resource availability and the impacts of potential 

groundwater withdrawals. HRMP supports the development and ongoing refinement of groundwater flow models 

for both the Death Valley Region (which includes the NTS) and for the NTS specifically. 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. 

The HRMP also provides assistance to NNSA/NSO 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 the needs of NNSA/NSO 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 Safe 

Drinking Water Act 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/NSO. HRMP scientists conduct competent, informed, and independent reviews of NNSA/NSO 

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/NSO program documentation. 

15.2 2005 Field Monitoring 

The USGS Water Resources Division collects, compiles, stores, and reports hydrologic data used in determining the 

local and regional hydrogeologic conditions in and around the NTS for HRMP and for the UGTA Project. 

Hydrologic data are collected quarterly or semi-annually from wells within three monitoring networks: the 

Environmental Restoration program (ERP) Network, the NTS Network, and the Regional Network. The ERP 

Network includes wells owned by ERP/UGTA both on and off the NTS. The NTS Network is comprised of all 

remaining wells on the NTS which are of importance for NTS site modeling activities. The Regional Network 

includes wells located in the regional area surrounding the NTS which also are of interest for site modeling activities. 

15.2.1 Water Levels and Temperature 

By the end of 2005, the USGS monitored water levels in approximately 181 wells on and off the NTS. They included 

75 wells in the ERP Network, 41 in the NTS Network, and 65 in the Regional Network. Also during 2005, annual 

temperature data were collected from wells at 1.5 and 16.8 meters (5 and 55 feet) below the water surface. All water 

level and temperature data are posted on the USGS/NNSA web site at http://nevada.usgs.gov/doe%5Fnv/. The 

water level data is also published in the USGS Nevada Water Science Center Annual Water-Resources Data Report 

available at http://nevada.usgs.gov/. 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 15-3 

15.2.2 Water Usage 

Groundwater use from water supply wells on the NTS is collected using flow meters which are read monthly by the 

NTS M&O subcontractor and then reported to the USGS WRD. The principal water supply wells monitored include 

Army #1 WW, J-12 WW, J-13 WW, UE-16d WW, WW #4, WW #4A, WW 5B, WW 5C, WW 8, and WW C-1. The 

USGS compiles the annual water use data and reports annual withdrawals in millions of gallons. Discharge data from 

these wells for 2005 have been compiled, processed, and entered onto the USGS/NNSA Web site at

http://nevada.usgs.gov/doe_nv/wateruse/wu_map.htm. Discharge from these wells during 2005 was approximately 

269 million gallons. 

Water-use data is also published in the USGS Nevada Water Science Center Annual Water-Resources Data Report on 

a Water-Year calendar (October through September). The Water-Year 2005 report is available at 

http://nevada.usgs.gov/ and will include monthly water-use data for each well listed from October 2004 through 

September 2005. 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

15-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Meteorological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 16-1

16.0 Meteorological Monitoring 

16.1 Meteorological Monitoring Goals 

Meteorological and climatological data are collected on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) by the Air Resources Laboratory, 

Special Operations and Research Division (ARL/SORD). Data are collected through the Meteorological Data 

Acquisition (MEDA) system, a network of approximately 30 mobile meteorological towers located primarily on the 

NTS. The MEDA system became operational in 1981, replacing an older system. MEDA is used to measure, 

transmit, and display vital meteorological data to SORD meteorologists and U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) customers. These data are used daily for 

operational support to a wide variety of projects on the NTS and from the climatological database for the NTS. The 

data are also used in safety analysis reports, emergency response activities, radioactive waste remediation projects, 

environmental reports, and consequence assessments. Section A.3 of Appendix A from the Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2004 (DOE, 2005a) presents descriptive NTS climatological data collected by the MEDA system. 

Appendix A from that 2004 environmental report is included on the compact disc of this 2005 report for easy 

reference (it is called Attachment A on the compact disc). 

16.2 MEDA Station 

Locations 

A standard MEDA unit consists of an 

enclosed trailer, a portable 10-meter (m) 

(32.8-feet [ft]) tower, an electric generator 

(when needed), a microprocessor, and a 

microwave radio transmitter (Figure 16-1). 

Locations of the MEDA stations are shown 

in Figure 16-2. All towers were sited 

according to standards set by the Federal 

Meteorological Handbook No. 1 (NOAA, 

1995) and the World Meteorological 

Organization (WMO, 2002) so as not to be 

influenced by natural or man- made 

obstructions or by heat dissipation and 

generation systems. MEDA station locations 

are based on the following criteria: 

(1) availability of power, (2) access by road, 

(3) line-of-sight to a microwave repeater, and 

(4) project support. A primary goal of the 

network is to provide details in the surface 

wind field for emergency response activities 

related to the transport and dispersion of 

hazardous materials. Another primary goal is 

to provide data used in computing off-site 

radiological dose estimates. 

16.3 MEDA Station 

Instrumentation 

MEDA station instrumentation is located on 

booms oriented into the prevailing wind 

direction and at a minimum distance of two 

tower widths from the tower. Wind 

Figure 16-1. Example of a typical MEDA station with a 

 10-meter tower 
Meteorological Monitoring

16-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 Figure 16-2. MEDA station locations on and near the NTS 
Meteorological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 16-3

direction and at a minimum distance of two tower widths from the tower. Wind direction and speed are measured at 

the 10-m (32.8-ft) level, in accordance with the American National Standard for Determining Meteorological Information at Nuclear Facilities American Nuclear Society, 2000) specifications. Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and 

atmospheric pressure measurements are taken at approximately the 2-m (6.6-ft) level so as to be within the surface 

boundary layer. Observations are collected and transmitted every 15 minutes on the quarter hours. Wind data are 

5-minute averages of speed and direction. The peak wind speed is the fastest instantaneous gust measured within the 

15-minute time interval. Temperature, relative humidity, and pressure are instantaneous measurements. 

16.4 Rain Gauge Network 

ARL/SORD also operates and maintains a climatological rain gauge network on the NTS. This network consists of 

17 Belford Series 5-780 Universal Precipitation Gauges (Figure 16-3). These are strip chart recorders that are read at 

least every 30 days. Once read and checked, the data are entered into the SORD precipitation climatological database. 

Data are recorded as daily totals. Under special circumstances, 1- to 3-hour totals can be obtained. 

16.5 Data Access 

The meteorological parameters measured at each station are listed on the SORD website 

<http://www.sord.nv.doe.gov> along with other information. MEDA data are also processed and archived in the 

ARL/SORD climatological database. Climatological data summaries are posted on the ARL/SORD website under 

the Climate section. SORD meteorologists provide specially tailored climatological summaries by request through 

NNSA/NSO. For new NTS projects and facility modifications which may produce radiological emissions, wind data 

from the MEDA stations are used to calculate radiological doses to members of the public residing near the NTS 

(see Section 3.1.7). 
Meteorological Monitoring

16-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure 16-3. Climatological rain gauge network on the NTS 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 17-1 

17.0 Integrated Safety Management System and 

Environmental Management System 

A plan to integrate environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) management programs at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) 

was developed and initiated at the NTS in 1996. The NTS Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) is designed 

to ensure the systematic integration of ES&H concerns into management and work practices so that missions are 

accomplished safely. The term safety is used synonymously with environment, safety, and health throughout the NTS ISMS 

implementation policies to encompass protection of the public, the workers, and the environment. The seven guiding 

principles of ISMS and the five core functions are presented below. 

The use of an ISMS helps ensure that (1) all levels of program organizations are accountable for environmental 

protection, (2) all projects are planned with ES&H concerns in mind, and (3) continuous improvements in program 

implementation occur. 

Bechtel Nevada’s (BN’s) implementation of an ISMS at the NTS was verified by the National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) in July, 2001. NNSA/NSO oversees ISMS implementation 

through the ISM Council. Each Council member performed a self-assessment in September 2004 and verified that 

the ISMS was being effectively implemented at the NTS. 

Work Smart Standards (WSS) are an integral part of the ISMS whereby hazards and environmental aspects of work 

are identified and standards of operation are established that are specific to the work environment, its associated 

hazards, and its threats to the environment. BN WSS were approved at the management level with the most expertise 

in the work. NNSA/NSO approved the initial complete set of BN WSS in September, 1996. The approved WSS 

identified within each program of BN, the contractual commitment to meet applicable laws, regulations, and policies 

which protect the public and the environment. Compliance with WSS was tracked through management assessments. 

In 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 13148, Greening of the Government Through Leadership in 

Environmental Management. This EO requires all federal agencies to adopt an environmental management system 

(EMS). An EMS is a globally embraced business management practice that allows an organization to strategically 

address its environmental, health and safety matters. EMSs are designed to incorporate concern for environmental 

performance throughout an organization, with the ultimate goal being continual reduction of the organization's 

impact on the environment. EMS implementation reflects accepted quality management principles based on the 

“Plan, Do, Check, Act” model, using a standard process to identify goals, implement them, determine progress, and 

make improvements to ensure continual improvement. 

Seven Guiding Principles Five Core Functions 

Line management is directly responsible for the protection of the public, 

the workers, and the environment 

Clear roles and responsibilities for ES&H are established and maintained 

Personnel competence is commensurate with their responsibilities 

Resources are effectively allocated to address ES&H, programmatic, and 

operational considerations with balanced priorities 

ES&H standards and requirements are established that ensure adequate 

protection of the employees, the public, and the environment 

Administrative and engineering controls to prevent and mitigate ES&H 

hazards are tailored to the work being performed 

Operations are authorized 

Define the scope of work 

Identify and analyze the hazards 

and environmental aspects 

associated with the work 

Develop and implement hazard 

and aspect controls 

Perform work within the 

controls 

Provide feedback on the 

adequacy of the controls for 

continuous improvement 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

17-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

EO 13148 applies to most of the NNSA as well as to DOE and NNSA contractors. The U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) required contractors who operate DOE sites to develop an EMS and expected full integration of their EMS 

into their ISMS by December 2005. This chapter, written in April 2006, reflects the status of EMS and ISMS while 

BN was the Management and Operation contractor. 

17.1 Previous Work on EMS and ISMS Integration 

BN’s EMS is modeled after ISO 14001 and was developed to satisfy the requirements of DOE Order 450.1 

Environmental Protection Program. In 2000, BN developed the BN Process Description PD-0442.001, “Environmental 

Management System Description” (EMS Description) which describes how each of the 17 elements of ISO 14001 is 

addressed, including controlling documents and organizations. The EMS Description is a roadmap to all the 

environmental processes and governing documents in the different EMS elements. The EMS Description is revised 

as needed to reflect system improvements, updated procedures, and the blending in of DOE Order 450.1 

requirements. 

After DOE Order 450.1 was approved in 2003, BN evaluated it and identified Order requirements that were not fully 

implemented on the NTS. These were primarily in the pollution prevention areas, where DOE funding has been 

greatly reduced in the last few years. There were also areas such as resource protection from wildland and operational 

fires that are not traditionally thought of as environmental programs that had to be included in the EMS. A table was 

prepared that lists all the requirements in the Order and identifies how each requirement is or will be met and what 

organization is responsible for implementation and/or oversight. During 2003, progress was made in the areas of 

aspect identification and mitigation. An outside consultant evaluated BN’s progress toward satisfying each of these 

requirements in 2004. The final report verified the progress that was made and provided suggestions for satisfying the 

last few requirements. 

BN has an Environmental Policy that was updated in 2004 to reference DOE Order 450.1 as a driver and model for 

the EMS. The BN ISMS Program Plan was updated in 2004 to specify that the EMS and DOE Order 450.1 are the 

methods by which the environmental part of ISMS is implemented. An example of how this is being accomplished is 

that aspect identification and mitigation were incorporated into a hazard analysis procedure that is required for Work 

Execution Plans. Goal setting is also included in the planning phase of performing work. Each year BN has several 

environmental goals identified in the Contractor Performance and Fee Award Program. These are measurable goals 

where performance is tracked and reported to ensure the maximum chance for successful completion. Affirmative 

Procurement goals are also tracked and reported annually. During 2004 a committee was formed that represented all 

programs. This committee identified priority areas of improvement (Objectives) and began to identify organization 

specific goals (Targets) within these priority areas. These were reviewed and approved by the Executive Safety 

Committee. 

During 2004, the employee environmental awareness program was expanded. Copies of the revised Environmental 

Policy were mailed to all mail stops and posted on many bulletin boards, as well as on the BN intranet home page. 

Articles about the new policy and the EMS were put in employee publications, and a section on environmental issues 

was added to the project manager training course. 

17.2 2005 Status of EMS 

During 2005, the Objectives and Targets which were identified, reviewed, and approved by the Executive Safety 

Committee were assigned to specific BN organizations for tracking and reporting beginning in 2006 (Table 17-1) 

(in addition to those measures presented in Section 2.0). The Integrated Safety Management Council, led by NSO and 

having representatives from all NTS contractors and national laboratories, coordinated the effort to gather EMS 

implementation status from each organization. A matrix of requirements and applicability for each organization was 

made, and how that organization met the applicable requirement was documented. This matrix showed that full 

implementation of DOE Order 450.1 is complete, and NNSA/NSO made the Self Declaration to DOE 

Headquarters on December 15, 2005. The environmental performance measures tracked in 2005 are shown in all 

tables in Section 2.0, Compliance Summary. 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 17-3

Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System

Table 17-1. BN environmental objectives and targets identified in 2005 to be tracked in 2006 

Environmental 

Aspect Objectives Targets Goals Measures to Track 

Mitigate environmental impacts of new activities 

Maintain compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) without creating project delays 

80% of NEPA checklists to be submitted to the NNSA/NSO NEPA Compliance Officer for NEPA evaluation at least two weeks prior to scheduled project start 

Number of NEPA checklists and submittal dates 

Disturbances to Natural and Cultural Resources Mitigate 

environmental impacts of approved activities 

Revegetate disturbed desert tortoise habitat on the NTS in lieu of paying habitat loss fee to Clark County 

Revegetate one acre for each acre disturbed 

Acres disturbed and revegetated 

Reduce paper use by using double-sided printers and copiers 

BN organizations with high volume paper use will be identified, doublesided printing will be promoted within these target organizations, metrics to track solid waste reduction will be developed 

Identify organizations, conduct targeted promotions, and develop waste reduction metric to track 

To be determined 

Waste Generation 

Institute affirmative procurement 

Implement a system to ensure purchased items conform to the Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for products that contain recovered and recycled materials 

Educate all BN buyers to recognize affected items and actions to take to achieve Investigate implications and possible rework of Just-In-Time procurement contracts Modify the procurement system to make recycled products the default choice 

Number of procurement system procedural revisions Number of buyers who have received awareness training Number of contract revisions 

Industrial Chemical Use and Storage 

Reduce chemical waste 

Plan for implementing a chemical pharmacy system for HazMat 

Assess the hazardous materials program Develop plan for centralization of system for purchasing chemicals 

To be determined 
17-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System

Table 17-1. BN environmental objectives and targets identified in 2005 to be tracked in 2006 (continued) 

Environmental 

Aspect Objectives Targets Goals Measures to Track 

Industrial Chemical Use and Storage 

Reduce chemical waste 

Enhance Requisition Compliance Reviews (RCRs) to identify purchase requests for “excess” chemical purchases 

Train at least three Environmental Services personnel to recognize “excess” chemical purchase requests 

Number of RCRs for chemicals vs. number of RCRs that received extra scrutiny Volume of chemicals that were not approved for purchase 

Groundwater Contamination 

Protect groundwater quality 

Plug boreholes in accordance with the Borehole Management Plan 

Meet schedule in Plan Number of boreholes 

plugged 

Increase the percentage of sedan/ minivans/light duty trucks/ minitrucks vs. sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and large pickup trucks used solely for people transport 

Determine current use ratio of sedan/minivan/light duty truck/minitruck vs. SUV/large truck and increase the ratio by 20% 

Ratio of sedans/minivans/ light duty trucks/ minitrucks vs. SUVs/large trucks rented from Fleet Services 

Promote increased use of alternative fuels 

Increase use of petroleum-based fuels by 20% 

Gallons of gasoline and alternative fuel used in government vehicles within Fleet Services 

Natural Resource Use 

Reduce consumption of petroleum-based fuels 

Purchase vehicles that accept alternative fuels 

75% of new vehicles ordered must accept alternative fuel 

Percentage of alternative fuel vehicles received based upon total number of vehicles received per quarter 

Liquid Effluents and Disposal Systems 

Manage North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) pumped groundwater 

Develop a system to collect and manage NLVF groundwater after pumping 

Use 50% of water for beneficial use such as irrigation 

Volume of groundwater pumped and volume of groundwater used for onsite irrigation 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 17-5 

17.3 Elements of Bechtel Nevada’s EMS 

17.3.1 NTS Environmental Policies 

The BN Environmental Policy is a statement of BN’s intentions and principles regarding overall environmental, 

safety, security, and health performance. It provides a framework for planning and action. The BN Environmental 

Policy contains the following key goals and commitments: 

• Protect the environment by meeting all applicable DOE Orders and federal, state, and local environmental 

laws and regulations. 

• Evaluate activities to identify potential environmental impacts, and then take mitigative actions to eliminate 

or minimize the hazards. 

• Establish objectives and targets in order to continually improve the environmental program. 

• Protect valued natural resources and support waste minimization and pollution prevention activities. 

• Communicate and instill an organizational commitment to environmental excellence in company activities. 

17.3.2 Environmental Aspects and Impacts 

When operations have an environmental aspect, BN implements the EMS to minimize or eliminate any potential 

impact. BN evaluates its operations by performing a Hazard Assessment, identifies the aspects of operations that can 

impact the environment, and determines which of those potential impacts are significant. The Hazard Assessment 

requires the activity manager to go through a series of questions that identify potential environmental impacts. The 

assessment also lists available mitigations, such as training and applicable procedures and guidance. The completed 

hazard assessment is then reviewed, and when approved by ES&H, becomes part of the authorization basis for 

performing the work. BN has determined that the following aspects of its operations have the potential to affect the 

environment: 

• Waste generation 

• Waste disposal 

• Atmospheric emissions 

• Liquid effluents and disposal systems 

• Industrial chemical use and storage 

• Natural resource use – fuel, electricity, and water consumption 

• Disturbances to historical and cultural resources 

• Environmental noise 

• Disturbances to natural resources (e.g., endangered species/sensitive habitats) 

• Groundwater contamination 

17.3.3 Legal and Other Requirements 

To implement the compliance commitments of the BN Environmental Policy and to meet its legal requirements, BN 

has a procedure in place to review changes in federal, state, or local environmental regulations and to communicate 

those changes to affected staff. These regulatory changes frequently require amendments to operating permits, 

modifications to record keeping or hours of operation, revisions to procedures, and upgraded training. 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

17-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

17.3.4 Objectives, Targets, and Programs 

Objectives and Targets are developed by BN on a fiscal year (FY) basis (October 1 through September 30) by 

prioritizing environmental aspects. Objectives to improve performance with respect to these aspects are then 

established. Finally Targets to meet the Objectives are suggested. The potential Objectives and Targets are then 

presented to the Executive Safety Council for final selection and approval. BN also works with NNSA/NSO to 

clearly define expectations and performance measures. Objectives and Targets, established in FY 2005 and to be 

initiated and implemented in FY 2006, are described in Table 17-1. Organizations within BN are assigned 

responsibility for Targets, and develop action plans detailing how they will achieve their objectives and targets and 

commit the necessary resources to successfully implement them. 

Several Environmental Management Programs exist throughout the company. These programs are discussed in 

sequential sections of this report: 

• Environmental Compliance – Section 2.0 

• Air Quality Protection – Section 3.0 

• Groundwater Protection – Section 4.0 

• Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring – Sections 3.1, 4.1, 5.0, 7.0, and 8.0 

• Waste Management and Environmental Restoration – Section 9.0 

• Hazardous Materials Control and Management – Section 10.0 

• Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization – Section 11.0 

• Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management – Section 12.0 

• Ecological Monitoring – Section 13.0 

• Underground Test Area Project – Section 14.0 

• Hydrologic Resources Management Program – Section 15.0 

• Meteorological Monitoring – Section 16.0 

17.3.5 Resources, Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities 

All employees at BN have specific roles and responsibilities in key areas, including environmental protection. 

Employee-stop-work authority applies to potential environmental issues as well as health and safety problems. 

Job-specific environmental training is identified for workers and included on their company-required training matrix. 

Environmental Services technical support personnel assist the line organizations with developing and meeting their 

environmental responsibilities. 

17.3.6 Competence, Training, and Awareness 

Extensive training on EMS requirements has been provided to staff whose responsibilities include environmental 

protection. The training program includes general environmental awareness for all employees, regulatory compliance 

training for selected staff, and specific courses for managers, internal assessors, and operations personnel whose work 

can impact the environment. 

17.3.7 Communication and Community Involvement 

BN communicates environmental issues to employees through e-mails, articles in newsletters, safety meetings, and 

pre-task briefings. BN assists NNSA/NSO in soliciting input from interested external parties such as community 

members, activists, civic organizations, Indian tribes, elected officials, and regulators. This is accomplished primarily 

through Community Advisory Board (CAB) meetings. The CAB is comprised of 10-15 volunteer Nevada citizens 

who represent rural and urban areas. CAB meetings occur monthly and focus on the Environmental Management 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 17-7 

program and projects onsite. EM also sponsors a Speakers Bureau which provides representatives to give 

presentations to schools, groups, or organizations and sponsors community exhibits and displays for communicating 

NTS environmental issues and interacting one-on-one with the public. 

17.3.8 Documentation and Control of Documents 

BN has comprehensive environmental documents as part of the EMS which detail information on regulatory 

requirements, site-wide operating procedures, and work control procedures on how to control processes and perform 

work at BN in a way that protects the environment. The BN document control system ensures effective management 

of procedures and other requirements documents. When facilities require additional procedures to control their work, 

document control protocols are implemented to ensure that workers have access to the most current versions of 

procedures. 

17.3.9 Operational Control 

Operations are evaluated through Hazard Assessments for the adequacy of current controls to prevent or minimize 

impacts to the environment. When required, task-specific procedures or work plans are developed. As needed, 

additional administrative or engineered controls are identified, and plans for upgrades and improvements are 

developed and implemented. Lessons learned are incorporated into work processes to continually improve 

environmental performance. 

17.3.10 Emergency Preparedness and Response

BN has an emergency preparedness and response program and specialized onsite staff to provide timely response to 

hazardous materials releases or other environmental emergencies. This program includes procedures for preventing, 

as well as responding to, emergencies. 

17.3.11 Monitoring and Measurement 

BN has an extensive network of environmental compliance programs with defined monitoring, surveillance, and 

compliance and performance measures tracking (see Section 2.0, Compliance Summary). These programs help ensure 

the effectiveness of controls, adherence to regulatory requirements, and timely identification and implementation of 

corrective measures for all work performed by BN for NNSA/NSO. In addition to BN monitoring programs, an 

oversight program called the Community Environmental Monitoring Program, established by NNSA/NSO, monitors 

air and groundwater within communities adjacent to the NTS. Onsite and offsite monitoring and surveillance results 

are reported to regulatory agencies and are summarized annually in this report, the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report. 

In addition, BN tracks and trends its progress and performance in achieving environmental objectives and 

performance measures which are not strictly compliance-driven (see Table 17-1). 

17.3.12 Evaluation of Compliance 

BN has procedures for periodically evaluating its compliance with relevant environmental regulations. Line managers 

and facility managers periodically inspect their operations and facilities. BN Environmental Services also performs 

regulatory assessments in a particular topical area to verify the compliance status of multiple organizations, or a 

comprehensive assessment of a particular organization. Lastly, external regulatory agencies and/or technical experts 

frequently conduct independent audits of compliance. 

17.3.13 Nonconformity and Corrective and Preventive Actions 

BN continues to improve processes that identify and correct problems. Lessons Learned and Root Cause Analyses 

are used in an attempt to prevent recurrences of environmental problems, and an electronic Web-based system is used 

to identify and track corrective actions. 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

17-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

17.3.14 Control of Records 

EMS-related records, including audit and training records, are maintained according to federal standards to ensure 

integrity, facilitate retrieval, and protect them from loss. 

17.3.15 Internal Audit 

BN has used internal staff and subcontractors to identify the EMS elements that are fully implemented and those that 

still require strengthening. This is an ongoing activity intended to continually improve the environmental program. In 

addition, compliance with regulatory requirements is verified through routine inspections, operational evaluations, and 

periodic audits.

17.3.16 Management Review 

The BN General Manager for ES&H will ensure periodic review of the EMS to ensure its continuing suitability, 

adequacy, and effectiveness. The review process will be scheduled in the BN ES&H Execution Plan and 

documented. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 18-1

18.0 Compliance Quality Assurance 

The Bechtel Nevada (BN) Quality Assurance Program (QAP) establishes the requirements necessary to comply with: 

(1) Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements; (2) U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) Order 414.1A, Quality Assurance; (3) contractual Work Smart Standards; and (4) other relevant 

requirements documents for the operation, process, or program to which they apply. The BN QAP requires a graded 

approach to quality for determining the level of rigor that effectively provides assurance of performance and 

conformance to requirements. 

In the conduct of environmental management activities employing sampling and analysis, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA)-developed Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process is generally used to provide the quality 

assurance (QA) structure for designing, implementing, and improving upon environmental monitoring efforts. 

Sampling and Analysis Plans are developed prior to performing an activity to ensure complete understanding of the 

data use objectives. Personnel are trained and qualified in accordance with company and task-specific requirements. 

Access to sampling locations is coordinated with operations conducting work at or having authority over those 

locations in order to de-conflict activities and communicate hazards to better ensure successful execution of the work 

and the safety and health of sampling personnel. Sample collection activities adhere to organization instructions 

and/or procedures that are designed to ensure that samples are representative and data are reliable and defensible. 

Sample shipments onsite and to offsite laboratories are conducted in accordance with the U.S. Department of 

Transportation and International Air Transport Association regulations, as applicable. Quality Control (QC) in the 

analytical laboratories is maintained through adherence to standard operating procedures that are based on 

methodologies developed by nationally-recognized organizations such as the EPA, DOE, and American Standard for 

Testing and Materials International. Key quality-affecting procedural areas cover sample preparation, instrument 

calibration, instrument performance checking, testing for precision and accuracy, and laboratory data review. BN data 

users perform review as required by the project-specific objectives before they are used to support decision making. 

The Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b) provides a formalized process to ensure 

that all sampling and analytical objectives are appropriate, economically feasible, reliable, and defensible within its area 

of application. 

Elements of the QAP are listed below. A discussion of these program elements follows, together with the results of 

the 2005 assessment. 

• Data and Measurement Quality Objectives are developed to ensure that clear goals and objectives are 

established for data collection, analyses, and projected data use. 

• A Sampling Plan is developed to ensure that an appropriate plan of action is developed to execute scope in 

accordance with DOE, administrative, or legal requirements such as environmental, safety, and health concerns. 

• Laboratory Sample Analyses are implemented to ensure that analysis of samples for required parameters meet 

BN, customer, and regulatory-defined requirements. 

• Data Management Procedures are used to ensure that all data are readily retrievable, protected through a 

system of checks and balances, and defensibly archived. 

• Data Review and Systematic Assessments are made to ensure that analytical data quality are improved and 

enhanced, and to adequately assess procedures, identify nonconforming items, implement corrective actions, 

monitor for corrective action effectiveness, and provide feedback and lessons learned. 

18.1 Data and Measurement Quality Objectives 

The DQO process is a strategic planning approach used to plan a data collection activity. It provides a systematic 

process for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where 

to collect samples, tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.

Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) can generally be considered as DQOs for the analytical process. MQOs 

provide direction to the laboratory concerning performance objectives or requirements for specific method 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

performance characteristics. Default MQOs are established in the subcontract, but may be altered on a project-byproject basis in order to satisfy the DQOs. MQOs may generally be described in terms of precision, accuracy, 

representativeness, completeness, and comparability requirements. The following discussion includes brief statements 

on these terms as they apply to the overall monitoring effort to provide correlation with laboratory efforts. The 

RREMP (DOE, 2003b) provides additional discussions on monitoring, precision, accuracy, representativeness, 

completeness, and comparability. 

18.1.1 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 sample 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 related to the overall monitoring effort is evaluated by comparing results for field duplicate samples of 

particulates in air, tritiated water vapor, thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), and some water samples. Precision 

related to laboratory operations is evaluated by comparing the agreement of laboratory duplicates/replicates with 

established control limits. The laboratory is directed in the subcontract to establish and maintain precision control 

limits for various matrices and analytes. Control limits may be specified in the subcontract or by the specific method, 

but are more commonly generated and maintained by the laboratory in order to develop controls specific to their 

operations. In most cases, however, laboratory specific limits should not be less stringent than those published in the 

standard methods. 

18.1.2 Accuracy 

Accuracy refers to “the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value of the quantity of 

concern” (Taylor, 1987), and may be defined as the ratio of the measured value divided by the true value, expressed as 

a percent. Accuracy related to the overall monitoring effort is evaluated by comparing field sample results with 

historic data to determine whether the data points fall within acceptable statistical trends, or by other criteria. 

Accuracy related to laboratory operations is monitored by performing measurements and evaluating results of control 

samples containing known quantities of the analytes of interest. Control samples are analyzed using the same sample 

preparation and analytical methods as employed for project samples. The subcontract may provide required control 

limits or may direct the laboratory to establish control limits. Control limits may be specified for a specific analytical 

method, but may be generated and maintained by the laboratory in order to develop controls specific to their 

operations. In cases where a laboratory is authorized to establish in-house limits, those limits may not be less 

stringent than those published in the standard methods. Compliance with accuracy control limits is usually required in 

order for data to be considered acceptable for use in further analyses. 

18.1.3 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). From a sample collection standpoint representativeness is managed through sampling plan design and 

execution. Representativeness related to laboratory operations is managed primarily through direction to the 

laboratory. For example, sample of a heterogeneous matrix (soil, sludge, solids, etc.) should be homogenized prior to 

aliquoting for preparation or analysis. Water samples are generally considered homogeneous unless observation 

suggests otherwise. Individual and composite air samples are necessarily homogenized by the laboratory during the 

preparation process. Field sample duplicate analyses are additional controls allowing the evaluation of sample 

representativeness and medium heterogeneity. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 18-3

18.1.4 Comparability 

Comparability refers to “the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another” (Stanley and Verner, 

1985). Comparability from an overall monitoring perspective is ensured by sampling design, sample collection and 

handling, laboratory analyses, and data review which are performed in accordance with established Organization 

instructions (OIs) and Organization procedures (OPs) and standardized methodologies. Comparability regarding 

laboratory operations is managed through direction to the laboratory requiring that standard methods will be used 

when available. When a standard method is not available, or when analytes may be determined by multiple 

techniques, equivalent QA controls must be applied; in these cases, more attention should be paid to review in order 

to draw conclusions on comparability. 

18.2 Sampling Plan 

Quality assurance in field operations includes development of an execution sampling plan, sampling assessments, 

surveillances, and oversight. Key elements of this plan include: (1) development of a sample package, (2) data 

management, and (3) appropriate training. 

18.2.1 Sample Packages 

For each data collection activity, a Sample Package is prepared containing the data quality objectives, execution 

sampling plan or statement of work (SOW), OIs, and field logs. Sample packages must be prepared prior to 

conducting any sampling and may include the following items: 

• Checklists to include: 

– Routing list showing all personnel who must review and approve the sample package 

– Pre-job and post-job checklists describing personal protective equipment, safety, etc. 

– Sample package task lead summary 

– Requested analyses 

– Performance evaluation or certification for all labs that do the requested analyses 

– Signature page which documents signatures of all personnel associated with the work 

• Field logs for all samples required to be taken 

• Work Package, including a “Traveler” form (a work notification and authorization tool), if required 

• Specific, detailed work instructions 

• Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals that are being used for the job 

• Authorization Basis Documents including Execution Plans (Facility, Project, Support) that apply to the sampling 

effort as well as Real Estate/Operations Permits that identify U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada Site Office real property assets and operations involved in the sampling effort 

• Chains-of-custody forms 

This managed approach to sampling ensures that the sampling is traceable and enhances the value of the final results 

to project managers. The sample package also ensures that the sampler is prepared for the sampling event. The 

manager or QA Officer routinely performs assessments or surveillances of each type of sampling event to ensure that 

samplers are adhering to the OIs and sampling protocol and that the OIs represent what is actually being done. 

18.2.2 Database Support 

Database support includes the Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System (BEIDMS) for field data 

and laboratory results. In addition, completed Sample Packages, analysis results, data review checklists, etc., are 

optically scanned and entered into the Optix database to enhance accessibility to these documents. The Optix system 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

is used for scanning, long-term storage, and retrieval of the sample package as a graphic image. Data obtained in the 

course of executing field operations are entered into the sample package during field work, and then in the BEIDMS 

after completion of the field activities. 

18.2.3 Training 

BN ensures that all personnel are properly trained and qualified prior to doing work under the RREMP. 

BN-provided training is documented and maintained in the company tracking system (currently the PLATEAU 

system). In addition, an organizational training matrix is maintained to efficiently identify training required for each 

individual and their current status. 

18.3 Laboratory Sample Analyses 

Because most of the laboratory sample analyses are not done internally, but through subcontracts for laboratory 

services, BN ensures that DOE Order 414.1A, Quality Assurance requirements are met by structuring subcontracts for 

services that emphasize quality assurance. This is accomplished through a multifaceted approach that focuses on 

three areas: (1) Procurement, (2) Initial and Continuing Assessment, and (3) a Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

(LQAP). 

18.3.1 Procurement 

Laboratory services are procured through subcontract. The subcontract specifies the requirements and technical 

specifications needed to determine compliance with those requirements and to evaluate overall performance of the 

subcontractor. Subcontracts are established through a competitive bid process and a formal request for proposal 

(RFP) process. They are awarded on a “best value” basis. The RFP generally requires a prospective vendor to submit 

a proposal. Successful proposals include: 

• All procedures pertinent to subcontract scope 

• An Environmental, Safety and Health Plan 

• Examples of deliverables, both hardcopy and electronic 

• Proficiency testing (PT) results from previous year participation in recognized PT programs 

• Resumes of those conducting the work 

• A description of the facility or its design 

• Accreditations and certifications 

• Licenses 

• Audits performed within the last year by the DOE Consolidated Audit Program (DOECAP), other DOE sites, or 

other audits covering comparable scope and acceptable to BN 

• Past performance surveys 

• A LQAP 

• Pricing 

Proposal evaluations are conducted and scored as detailed in the RFP. Pricing evaluation is performed by the 

procurement representative separately from the technical evaluation. The BN technical evaluation team does not 

receive pricing information. Rather, it bases its evaluation solely on technical capability, ensuring that the technical 

evaluation is not biased by pricing. 

18.3.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment 

An initial assessment is made during the RFP process above, including a pre-award audit. If an acceptable audit has 

not been performed within the past year, BN will consider performing an audit (or participating in a DOECAP audit) 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 18-5

of those laboratories awarded the contract. However, in no instance does BN initiate work with a laboratory without 

approval of BN personnel authorized for ensuring vendor acceptability. A continuing assessment consists of the 

ongoing monitoring of a laboratory’s performance against contract terms and conditions, of which the technical 

specifications are a part. Tasks supporting continuing assessment are: 

• Tracking schedule compliance. 

• Review of analytical data deliverables (Appendix F of DOE, 2003b). 

• Conducting regular audits or participating in evaluation of DOECAP audit products. 

• Monitoring for continued successful participation in PT programs. The subcontract requires or suggests 

participation in the following PT programs: 

– National Institute of Standards and Technology Radiochemistry Intercomparison Program 

– Studies equivalent to the former EPA Water Pollution and EPA Water Supply programs that support 

certification by the state of Nevada for analyses performed in support of Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking 

Water Act monitoring 

• Monitoring of the lab’s adherence to the LQAP. 

18.3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

Each laboratory must develop a LQAP. The LQAP is a statement of the laboratory’s policies and approach to the 

implementation of DOE Order 414.1A for ensuring the generation of quality data. Elements of the plan include: 

(1) LQAP requirements, (2) LQAP management responsibilities, and (3) additional subcontract requirements. 

18.3.3.1 LQAP Requirements 

The LQAP must do the following: 

• Establish that senior management shall be responsible for the scope of the LQAP and implementing, assessing, 

and continually improving an effective quality system. 

• Designate an individual responsible for developing, implementing, and routinely monitoring the LQAP program. 

• Describe the organizational structure, functional responsibilities, levels of authority, and interfaces for those 

managing, performing, and assessing the work. 

• Define the organization's policies regarding, and its commitment to, ethical standards, client confidentiality, and 

the implementation of safety and quality standards. 

• Establish that line management shall be responsible for achieving quality in specific activities. 

• Establish that all personnel, including samplers, field analysts, laboratory technicians, scientists, researchers, 

principal investigators, operators, craftspeople, clerical/support staff, and internal auditors shall retain 

responsibility for the quality of their work. 

• Establish that regulatory actions toward the organization or its parent corporation shall be reported immediately 

to cognizant management and affected clients. This includes actions, such as suspension of contracts with other 

federal agencies, notices of investigations, and legal actions against the organization or its personnel. 

• Establish that functional responsibilities shall include the following activities as a minimum: 

– Participating with the client for planning and developing analytical work scope 

– Training and personnel development 

– Preparing, reviewing, approving, and issuing instructions, procedures, schedules, and procurement 

documents; identifying and controlling hardware and software 

– Managing and operating facilities 

– Calibrating and controlling the equipment used to measure and test 

– Conducting investigations and improving methods 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

– Acquiring, evaluating, and reporting data 

– Performing maintenance, repair, and improvements 

– Controlling records 

18.3.3.2 LQAP Management Responsibilities 

QA and/or QC positions shall report to the highest level of management (e.g., manager or director). The QA 

program identifies personnel positions that are given the responsibility and authority to do the following: 

• Stop unsatisfactory work. The plan shall identify the chain of command through which any employee may initiate 

a stop-work order where detrimental ethical, contractual, quality, safety, or health conditions exist. 

• Initiate action to prevent reporting laboratory results from a measurement system that is out of control. 

• Prevent further reporting of measurements until corrective action has been completed. 

• Identify any method or procedure that poses quality problems. 

• Recommend, initiate, or provide solutions through designated channels and monitor effectiveness of corrective 

actions. 

18.3.3.3 Additional Subcontract Requirements 

Additional requirements are placed on the laboratory through the subcontract. Compliance with these requirements is 

verified through Initial and Continuing Assessment. These requirements include the following items. 

Personnel Training and Qualification – The laboratory organization shall be clearly structured with well-defined 

responsibilities for each individual in the management system. This system shall ensure that sufficient resources are 

maintained to perform the requirements specified in the subcontract. Personnel performing services specified by the 

subcontract SOW and personnel performing QA activities shall receive suitable and timely training in such things as 

technical skills, laboratory analytical methods, QC procedures, safety policies, and waste management practices and 

essential elements of the QA Program prior to performing work. Records of the training shall include descriptions of 

the training provided, attendance sheets, training logs, and personnel training records. 

Quality Improvement – A system shall be established and implemented to identify, document, correct, and prevent 

quality problems; this system shall be subject to ongoing documented review by management to assess its 

effectiveness.

Documents and Records – Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, 

or drawings that include quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria that can be used to determine whether activities 

are satisfactorily accomplished. Revisions to instructions, procedures, and drawings that affect the process or are 

technical in nature shall receive the same level of review and approval by the affected parties as the original document. 

Editorial changes may be made to instructions, procedures, and drawings without review and approval. Document 

control shall include measures by which documentation can be controlled, tracked, and updated in a timely manner to 

ensure that applicability and correctness are established. Control measures shall be used to ensure that documents are 

reviewed for adequacy, approved for release by authorized personnel, and distributed to and used at the location of 

the prescribed activity. 

Work Processes – Work shall be performed to established technical standards and administrative controls. Work 

shall be performed under controlled conditions using approved instructions, procedures, or instructions. Analytical 

procedures shall be listed by method number and matrix. Any method variances employed by the laboratory shall be 

documented. The laboratory shall specify protocols for reporting any incident that delays sample processing for a 

period of time, affects holding times, or delays work, and also specify the corrective action implemented. Examples 

of forms used to document out-of-control events are to be provided in the LQAP. 

Analysis of QC Samples and Documentation – A summary of QC procedures and documentation to be employed 

in the day-to-day operation of the laboratory shall be included. The discussion will emphasize the following as they 

relate to the different QC levels: 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 18-7

• Analysis of method and reagent blanks 

• Analysis of duplicates, spiked samples, spiked laboratory blanks, and reference or control standards such as EPA, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, or other recognized authority check standards 

• The criteria used to establish warning and control limits for the above types of QC samples 

• Documentation and examples of control data and control charts 

• The frequency of analyzing blanks and other QC samples 

• How data from QC samples are reported and reviewed 

• Who reviews and makes decisions relative to QC data 

Procurement – A process shall be established and implemented to control purchased items and services; this process 

shall be subject to ongoing review by management to assess its effectiveness. Subcontract documents require that 

suppliers of all tiers comply with technical and QA requirements, including but not limited to standards, measuring 

and test equipment, calibration services, and analytical test activities. Contracted items and services that have the 

potential to affect the quality of analytical tests shall be controlled to ensure conformance with contractual 

requirements. Such control shall include one or more of the following: source evaluation and selection 

(pre-performance/pre-award survey), source verification, audit, and examination of items or services before use. 

Procurement documents shall specify the quality system elements for which the supplier is responsible and how the 

supplier's conformance to the customer's requirements will be verified. Procurement documents shall be reviewed 

for accuracy and completeness by qualified personnel prior to release. Changes to procurement documents shall 

receive the same level of review and approval as the original documents. 

Inspection and Acceptance Testing – Inspection and acceptance testing of items, services, and processes shall be 

conducted using established acceptance and performance criteria. Equipment used for inspection and testing shall be 

calibrated and maintained. There shall be a current list of available (on hand) equipment types, models, and years 

along with a general description of the facility. General information shall be included as to who performs major, 

preventative, and day-to-day equipment maintenance and how this maintenance is documented. A schedule of 

preventive maintenance activities shall be developed and the performance of preventive maintenance shall be 

documented. A documented inventory of critical spare parts and/or equipment necessary to minimize the downtime 

of measurement systems related to analytical test samples that have a holding time of 48 hours or less shall be 

maintained. A documented evaluation of the usage of such inventory shall be performed at least annually. Control 

processes shall be maintained for all instrument spikes, replicates/splits, blanks, and other standards. 

Management Assessment – A method shall be established whereby management with executive authority assesses 

the adequacy of the QAP at least annually to ensure its continuing suitability and effectiveness in satisfying the 

requirements of the SOW and the supplier's stated policies and objectives. The method shall include provisions for 

reporting the results of management assessments, including the distribution of those reports. Problems that hinder 

the organization from achieving its objectives shall be identified and corrected. 

Independent Assessment – Designated persons or organizations shall be responsible for ensuring that an 

appropriate QAP is established and for verifying that activities affecting the quality of the services specified in the 

SOW have been correctly performed. Such person or organization shall have sufficient authority, access to work 

areas, and organizational freedom necessary to independently assess all activities affecting quality and to report the 

results of such assessments. Persons conducting independent assessments shall be technically qualified and 

knowledgeable in the areas assessed. Assessment results shall be documented, reported to, and reviewed by the level 

of management with authority to affect any necessary corrective actions. Assessments shall be conducted of 

subcontractors that perform work affecting the integrity of analytical results and to assure continued conformance to 

contractual requirements. 

18.4 Data Management Procedures 

The RREMP describes the need for and the details of the collection and analysis of environmental data to support 

various drivers at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). A data management system is essential for understanding and 

sustaining the quality of data collected under the program, allowing programs to identify data gaps or data 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

requirements for other environmental efforts, and eliminating unnecessary duplication of data collection efforts. 

Because decisions are based on environmental data, and the effectiveness of operations is measured at least in part by 

environmental data, reliable and accurate records of defensible environmental data are essential. Detailed records that 

must be kept include temporal, spatial, numerical, geotechnical, chemical, and radiological data, and all sampling and 

analytical procedures used. Failure to maintain these records in a secure but accessible form may result in exposure to 

legal challenges and the inability to respond to demands from regulators and third parties. 

BEIDMS is a hierarchical relational database management system developed by Bechtel Environmental, Inc. that is 

designed to achieve standardization and integrity in managing environmental data. The primary objective of BEIDMS 

is to store and manage unclassified environmental data that are directly or indirectly tied to field sampling events. This 

includes information on construction, analytical, geotechnical, and field parameters at the NTS. Database integrity 

and security are enforced through the assignment of role memberships and the provision of available menu items. 

18.5 Data Review and Systematic Assessments 

The final element of the process-based QA is the review of data and systematic assessments than can be used to 

evaluate data quality and usability. Four components of this review and assessment are: data checks, data verification, 

data validation, and data quality assessment. A description of these components follows. 

18.5.1 Data Checks 

Data checks are conducted to ensure the accuracy and consistency of data collected during field operations prior to 

and upon data entry into the BEIDMS. 

18.5.2 Data Verification 

Data verification is defined as a subcontract compliance and completeness review to ensure that all laboratory data 

and sample documentation are present and complete. Sample preservation, sample temperature, chain-of-custody, 

and other field sampling documentation shall also be reviewed during the verification process. Data verification 

ensures that the reported results entered in BEIDMS correctly represent the sampling and/or analyses performed and 

includes evaluation of quality control sample results. A Tier I review form and/or a Verification Checklist is 

completed for all data packages. 

18.5.3 Data Validation 

Data validation is the process of reviewing a body of analytical data to determine if it meets the data quality criteria 

defined in OIs. Data validation ensures that the reported results correctly represent the sampling and analyses 

performed, determines the validity of the reported results, and assigns data qualifiers (or “flags”), if required. The 

process of data validation consists of: 

• Evaluating the quality of the data to ascertain whether all project requirements are met. 

• Determining the impact on data quality of those requirements that are not met, if any. 

• Verifying compliance with QA requirements. 

• Checking QC values against defined limits. 

• Applying qualifiers to analytical results in BEIDMS for the purpose of defining the limitations in use of the 

reviewed data. 

• Documenting the results of the data validation. 

It is the goal to conduct data validation on 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). OIs and OPs, applicable project-specific work plans, field sampling 

plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, analytical method references, and laboratory SOW may all be used in the 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 18-9

process of data validation. Documentation of data validation includes: checklists, qualifier assignment, and summary 

forms. 

18.5.4 Data Quality Assessment 

Data Quality Assessment (DQA) is the scientific evaluation of data to determine if data obtained from environmental 

data operations are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use. DQA requires a systematic 

review against pre-established criteria to verify that the data are valid for their intended use. DQA is conducted by the 

technical lead and is the final review performed. 

The overall effectiveness of the QA program is determined through systematic assessments and surveillances of the 

plan execution work flow (e.g., sampling plan development and execution, chain of custody, sample receiving, 

shipping, subcontract laboratory analytical activities, and data review) as well as the program requirements. 

Deficiencies are addressed on an assessment/surveillance checklist, and if warranted, will be tracked for corrective 

action and disposition (e.g., using the CaWeb Issues Tracking System). 

18.6 Results 

A brief discussion of the 2005 results for field duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank analysis, and interlaboratory comparison studies are provided within this section. Summary tables are also included. Based on 

implementation and evaluation of the QA/QC program and the results presented below, it can be concluded that the 

analytical data reported in the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 are reliable and of high quality. 

18.6.1 Field Duplicates 

Field duplicates obtained at nearly the same locations and times as their primary samples are used to evaluate the 

precision of the data. A field duplicate is 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 the 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 18-1. The relative error ratio (RER) is the 

standardized absolute difference between the sample and its field duplicate. The RER compared to the RPD is a 

more appropriate monitor of precision near the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) and provides a better 

indicator of precision anomalies that may need to be further evaluated. 

18.6.2 Laboratory Control Samples 

Laboratory control samples (LCS) are used to evaluate analytical accuracy by the subcontract laboratory. The 

analytical accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value. Samples of known 

concentration are analyzed using the same methods as used for the project samples. The results are determined as the 

measured value divided by the true value, expressed as a percent. To be considered valid, the results must fall within 

established control limits (or percentage range) for further analyses to be performed. The LCS results obtained for 

samples analyzed in 2005 are summarized in Table 18-2. The LCS results were satisfactory with no more than one 

result being out of control for any given analysis or matrix category for the year. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Table 18-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for compliance monitoring in 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Samples 

Reported(a) 

Number of 

Samples 

Reported above 

MDC(b)

Average Absolute 

RPD of those 

above MDC (%)(c)

Average 

Absolute 

RER(d)

Gross Alpha Air 103 20 5.3 0.3 

Gross Beta Air 103 102 2.5 0.4 

241Am, Alpha Air 26 2 27.1 3.7 

241Am, Gamma Air 27 0 NA NA 

7Be Air 29 24 1.9 0.4 

238Pu Air 27 0 NA NA 

239+240Pu Air 27 6 19.9 3.4 

Tritium Air 53 33 3.3 0.6 

241Am Soil 1 1 1.9 0.3 

238Pu Soil 1 1 1.1 0.2 

239+240Pu Soil 1 1 0.5 0.3 

90Sr Soil 1 1 24.8 3.2 

241Am, Alpha Water 1 0 NA NA 

241Am, Gamma Water 18 0 NA NA 

Gross Alpha Water 20 13 8 0.9 

Gross Beta Water 20 18 6.6 0.8 

238Pu Water 1 0 NA NA 

239+240Pu Water 1 0 NA NA 

90Sr Water 1 0 NA NA 

Tritium Water 26 4 5.1 0.8 

TLDs Ambient 

Radiation 432 432 2.5 NA 

(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 in this table.

(b) Represents the number of field duplicate - field sample result sets reported above the MDC. The MDC does not apply to 

TLD measurements. If either the field samples or its duplicate was reported below MDC, the precision was not 

determined. 

(c) Reflects the average absolute RPD calculated for sample and field duplicate pairs reported above the detection limit. 

 The absolute RPD is calculated as follows: 

 

 

Where: FD = Field duplicate result 

FS = Field sample result 

(d) Relative error ratio (RER) determined by the following equation is used to determine whether a sample result and the 

associated field duplicate result differ significantly when compared to their respective uncertainty (standard deviation). 

The RER is calculated for all sample and field duplicate pairs reported without regard to the MDC. 

 

Where: S = Sample result 

 D = Duplicate result 

 TPUS = Total propagated uncertainty of the field sample 

 TPUD = Total propagated uncertainty of the field duplicate 

100 %

( ) / 2

| | X

FD FS

FD FS Absolute RPD

+

− =

( )( ) 2 2

| |

TPU S TPU D

FS FD Absolute RER

+

− =
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 18-11

 Table 18-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

239+240Pu Air 18 18 

241Am Air 27 27 

137Cs Air 14 14 

60Co Air 14 14 

Gross Alpha Water 11 11 

Gross Beta Water 11 11 

239+240Pu Water 6 6 

Tritium Water 51 51 

90Sr Water 6 6 

241Am Water 8 8 

137Cs Water 9 9 

60Co Water 9 9 

90Sr Soil 5 5 

239+240Pu Soil 13 13 

241Am Soil 21 21 

137Cs Soil 12 12 

239+240Pu Air 18 18 

241Am Air 27 27 

(a) Control limits are 70 to 130 percent for all analyses 

18.6.3 Blank Analysis 

Blank analysis and control samples are used to evaluate overall laboratory procedures including sample preparation 

and instrument performance. Laboratory blank sample analyses are essentially the opposite of control samples 

discussed in Section 18.6.2. These samples do not contain any of the analyte of interest. Results of these analyses are 

expected to be “zero,” or more accurately, below the detection limit of a specific procedure. The laboratory blank 

sample results obtained for 2005 are summarized in Table 18-3. 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. 

 Table 18-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gamma Air 29 28 

239+240Pu Air 29 28 

241Am Air 52 50 

Gross Alpha Water 19 19 

Gross Beta Water 19 18 

239+240Pu Water 11 11 

Gamma Water 19 18 

Tritium Water 58 56 

90Sr Water 13 13 

241Am Water 20 19 

226Ra Water 1 1 

228Ra Water 1 1 

241Am Soil 31 31 

(a) Control limit is less than MDC
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

18.6.4 Inter-laboratory Comparison Studies 

Table 18-4 shows the summary of 2005 inter-laboratory comparison sample results for the subcontract radiochemistry 

laboratories. The subcontractors participated in the InterLaB RadCheMTM Proficiency Testing Program directed by 

Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) and the Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) 

conducted by the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory of the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory. The subcontractors performed very well during the year by passing 80 out of 81 

parameters analyzed. 

Table 18-5 shows the summary of interlaboratory comparison sample results for the BN Radiological Health 

Dosimetry Group. This internal evaluation was based on National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP) criteria. The Dosimetry Group participated in the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

performance evaluation study program during the course of the year. The Dosimetry Group performed very well 

during the year by passing 33 out of 33 TLDs analyzed. 

 Table 18-4. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison samples of the subcontract radiochemistry 

laboratories for compliance monitoring in 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

ERA Results

Gross Alpha Water 8 8 

Gross Beta Water 7 6 

Gamma Water 7 7 

Tritium Water 7 7 

89Sr Water 7 7 

90Sr Water 7 7 

226Ra Water 8 8 

228Ra Water 8 8 

MAPEP Results

Gamma Water 1 1 

239+240Pu Water 1 1 

90Sr Water 1 1 

Gamma Soil 1 1 

239+240Pu Soil 1 1 

90Sr Soil 1 0 

(a) Control limits are determined by the individual interlaboratory comparison study 

Table 18-5. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison TLD samples for the BN Radiological 

Health Dosimetry Group in 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

TLDs Ambient Radiation 33 33 

(a) Based upon NVLAP criteria; absolute value of the bias plus one standard deviation < 0.3. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 19-1

19.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP 

The Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) was 

followed for the collection and analysis of radiological air and water data presented in Section 6.0 of this report. The 

CEMP QAPP ensures compliance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 414.1A, Quality Assurance which 

implements a quality management system ensuring the generation and use of quality data. This QAPP addresses the 

following items previously defined in Section 18.0: 

• Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) 

• Sampling plan development appropriate to satisfy the DQOs 

• Environmental health and safety 

• Sampling plan execution 

• Sample analyses 

• Data review 

• Continuous improvement 

19.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) 

The DQO process is a strategic planning approach that is used to plan data collection activities. It provides a 

systematic process for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy. These criteria include when 

and where samples should be collected, how many samples to collect, and the tolerable level of decision errors for the 

study. DQOs are unique to the specific data collection or monitoring activity, and are further explained in 

Appendices A through E of the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (DOE, 2003b). 

19.2 Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) 

MQOs are basically equivalent to DQOs for analytical processes. The MQOs provide direction to the laboratory 

concerning performance objectives or requirements for specific method performance characteristics. Default MQOs 

are established in the subcontract, but may be altered in order to satisfy changes in the DQOs. The MQOs for the 

CEMP project are described in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability 

requirements. These terms are defined and discussed in Section 18.1 for onsite activities. 

19.3 Sampling QA Program 

Quality Assurance (QA) in field operations for the CEMP includes sampling assessments, surveillances, and oversight 

of the following supporting elements: 

• The sampling plan, data quality objectives, and field data sheets accompanying the sample package 

• Database support for field and laboratory results, including systems for long-term storage and retrieval 

• A training program to ensure that qualified personnel are available to perform required tasks 

Sample packages include the following items: 

• Station manager checklist confirming all observable information pertinent to sample collection 

• An Air Surveillance Network Sample Data Form documenting air sampler parameters, collection dates and times, 

and total sample volumes collected 

• Chains-of-custody forms 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

19-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

This managed approach to sampling ensures that the sampling is traceable and enhances the value of the final data 

available to the project manager. The sample package also ensures that the station manager Community 

Environmental Monitor (CEM) (see Section 6.0 for description of CEMs) has followed proper procedures for sample 

collection. The CEMP Project Manager or QA Officer routinely performs assessments of the station managers and 

field monitors to ensure that standard operating procedures and sampling protocol are being followed properly. 

Data obtained in the course of executing field operations are entered in the documentation accompanying the sample 

package during sample collection and in the CEMP database along with analytical results upon their receipt and 

evaluation. 

Completed sample packages are kept as hard copy in file archives. Analytical reports are kept as hard copy in file 

archives as well as compact disk-read only memory by calendar year. Analytical reports and databases are protected 

and maintained in accordance with Desert Research Institutes (DRI’s) Computer Protection Program. 

19.4 Laboratory QA Oversight 

CEMP ensures that DOE Order 414.1A, Quality Assurance requirements are met with respect to laboratory services 

through review of the vendor laboratory policies formalized in a Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan (LQAP). CEMP 

is assured of obtaining quality data from laboratory services through a multifaceted approach involving specific 

procurement protocols, the conduct of quality assessments, and requirements for selected laboratories to have an 

acceptable QA program. These elements are discussed below. 

19.4.1 Procurement 

Laboratory services are procured through subcontracts. The subcontract establishes the technical specifications 

required of the laboratory and provides the basis for determining compliance with those requirements and evaluating 

overall performance. The subcontract is awarded on a “best value” basis as determined by pre-award audits. The 

prospective vendor is required to provide a review package to CEMP that includes the following items: 

• All procedures pertinent to subcontract scope 

• ES&H Plan 

• LQAP 

• Example deliverables (hard copy and/or electronic) 

• Proficiency testing (PT) results from the previous year from recognized PT programs 

• Resumes 

• Facility design/description 

• Accreditations and certifications 

• Licenses 

• Audits performed by an acceptable DOE program covering comparable scope 

• Past performance surveys 

• Pricing 

CEMP evaluates the review package in terms of technical capability. Vendor selection is based solely on these 

capabilities and not biased by pricing. 

19.4.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment 

An initial assessment of a laboratory is managed through the procurement process above, including a pre-award audit. 

Pre-award audits are conducted by CEMP (usually by the CEMP QA Officer). In no instance shall CEMP initiate 

work with a laboratory without approval of the CEMP Program Manager. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 19-3

A continuing assessment of a selected laboratory involves ongoing monitoring of a laboratory’s performance against 

the contract terms and conditions, of which technical specifications are a part. Tasks supporting continuing 

assessment are: 

• Tracking schedule compliance 

• Review of analytical data deliverables 

• Monitoring of the lab’s adherence to the LQAP 

• Conducting regular audits 

• Monitoring for continued successful participation in approved PT programs 

19.4.3 Laboratory QA Program 

The laboratory policies and approach to the implementation of DOE Order 414.1A must be verified in a LQAP 

prepared by the laboratory. The elements of a LQAP required for the CEMP are similar to those required by Bechtel 

Nevada for onsite monitoring, and are described in Section 18.3.3. 

19.5 Data Review 

Essential components of process-based QA are data checks, verification, validation, and data quality assessment to 

evaluate data quality and usability. 

Data Checks – Data checks are conducted to ensure accuracy and consistency of field data collection operations 

prior to and upon data entry into CEMP databases and data management systems. 

Data Verification – Data verification is defined as a subcontract compliance and completeness review to ensure that 

all laboratory data and sample documentation are present and complete. Sample preservation, chain-of-custody, and 

other field sampling documentation shall be reviewed during the verification process. Data verification ensures that 

the reported results entered in CEMP databases correctly represent the sampling and/or analyses performed and 

includes evaluation of quality control (QC) sample results. 

Data Validation – Data validation is the process of reviewing a body of analytical data to determine if it meets the 

data quality criteria defined in operating instructions (OIs). 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. The process of data validation consists of: 

• Evaluating the quality of the data to ensure that all project requirements are met 

• Determining the impact on data quality of those requirements if they are not met 

• Verifying compliance with QA requirements 

• Checking QC values against defined limits 

• Appling qualifiers to analytical results in the CEMP databases for the purposes of defining the limitations in the 

use of the reviewed data 

OIs. procedures, applicable project specific work plans, field sampling plans, QAPPs, analytical method references, 

and laboratory statements of work may all be used in the process of data validation. Documentation of data 

validation includes checklists, qualifier assignments, and summary forms. 

Data Quality Assessment – Data Quality Assessment (DQA) is the scientific evaluation of data to determine if the 

data obtained from environmental data operations are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended 

use. DQA review is a systematic review against pre-established criteria to verify that the data are valid for their 

intended use. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

19-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

19.6 QA Program Assessments 

The overall effectiveness of the QA program is determined through management and independent assessment as 

defined in the CEMP QAPP. These assessments evaluate the plan execution work-flow (sampling plan development 

and execution, chain-of-custody, sample receiving, shipping, subcontract laboratory analytical activities, and data 

review) as well as program requirements as it pertains to the organization. 

19.7 2005 Sample QA Results 

QA procedures were performed by the CEMP, including the laboratories responsible for sample analyses. These 

assessments ensure that sample collection procedures, analytical techniques, and data provided by the subcontracted 

laboratories comply with CEMP requirements. Data was provided by Severn Trent Laboratories (gross alpha/beta 

and gamma spectroscopy data), Global Dosimetry Solutions (thermoluminescent dosimeter [TLD] data), and DRI 

(tritium data). A brief discussion of the 2005 results for field duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank analysis, 

and interlaboratory comparison studies are provided along with summary tables within this section. The 2005 CEMP 

radiological air and water monitoring data themselves are presented in Section 6.0. 

19.7.1 Field Duplicates (Precision) 

A field duplicate is a sample collected, handled, and analyzed following the same procedures as the primary sample. 

The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between the field duplicate result and the 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 arrive at a final result. The average 

absolute RPD, expressed as a percentage, was determined for the calendar year 2005 samples and is listed in 

Table 19-1. An RPD of zero indicates a perfect duplication of results of the duplicate pair, whereas an RPD greater 

than 100 percent generally indicates that a duplicate pair falls beyond QA requirements and are not considered valid 

for use in data interpretation. These samples are further evaluated to determine the reason for QA failure and if any 

corrective actions are required. Overall, the RPD values for all analyses indicate very good results, with only one 

alpha duplicate exceeding an RPD of 100 percent. 

19.7.2 Laboratory Control Samples (Accuracy) 

Laboratory control samples (a.k.a. matrix spikes) are performed by the subcontract laboratory to evaluate analytical 

accuracy, which is the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value. Samples of known 

concentration are analyzed using the same methods as employed for the project samples. The results are determined 

as the measured value divided by the true value, expressed as a percent. To be considered valid, the results must fall 

within established control limits (or percentage range) for further analyses to be performed. The laboratory control 

samples (LCS) results obtained for 2005 are summarized in Table 19-2. The LCS results were satisfactory with only 

3 percent of the beta control samples falling outside of control parameters for the air sample matrix. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 19-5

Table 19-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for oversight monitoring in 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Samples 

Reported(a) 

Number of 

Samples 

Reported 

above MDC(b)

Average Absolute 

RPD of those 

above MDC (%)(c)

Gross Alpha Air 147 144 29.1 

Gross Beta Air 147 147 7.5 

Gamma - Beryllium-7 Air 9 8 17.1 

Tritium Water 4 1 16.6 

TLDs Ambient 

Radiation 12 12 6.2 

(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 in this table. 

(b) Represents the number of field duplicate - field sample result sets reported above the minimum detectable 

concentration (MDC) (MDC is not applicable for TLDs). If either the field sample or its duplicate was reported 

below the detection limit, the precision was not determined. 

(c) Reflects the average absolute RPD calculated for those field duplicates reported above the MDC. 

 The absolute RPD calculation is as follows: 

Where: FD = Field duplicate result 

 FS = Field sample result 

 Table 19-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for oversight 

monitoring in 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 106 106 

Gross Beta Air 106 103 

Gamma Air 8 8 

Tritium Water 13 13 

(a) Control limits are as follows: 80 to 134 percent for gross alpha; 74 to 121 percent for 

gross beta; 80 to 114 percent for gamma (137Cs, 60Co, 241Am); 80 to 120 percent for 

tritium. 

19.7.3 Blank Analysis 

Laboratory blank sample analyses are essentially the opposite of control samples discussed in Section 19.7.2. These 

samples do not contain any of the analyte of interest. Results of these analyses are expected to be ‘zero,’ or more 

accurately, below the MDC of a specific procedure. Blank analysis and control samples are used to evaluate overall 

laboratory procedures, including sample preparation and instrument performance. The laboratory blank sample 

results obtained for 2005 are summarized in Table 19-3. The laboratory blank results were satisfactory with only 

3 percent of the alpha and beta blank samples outside of control parameters for the air sample matrix. 

100 %

( ) / 2

| | X

FD FS

FD FS Absolute RPD

+

− =
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

19-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005

Table 19-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for oversight 

monitoring in 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 106 103 

Gross Beta Air 106 102 

Gamma Air 8 8 

Tritium Water 5 5 

(a) Control limit is less than the MDC. 

19.7.4 Inter-laboratory Comparison Studies 

Inter-laboratory comparison studies are conducted by the subcontracted laboratories to evaluate their performance 

relative to other laboratories providing the same service. These types of samples are commonly known as ‘blind’ 

samples, in which the expected values are known only to the program conducting the study. The analyses are 

evaluated and, if found satisfactory, the laboratory is certified that its procedures produce reliable results. The 

inter-laboratory comparison sample results obtained for 2005 are summarized in Tables 19-4 and 19-5. Note: the 

DRI tritium laboratory did not participate in any of these programs. 

Table 19-4 shows the summary of inter-laboratory comparison sample results for the Subcontract Radiochemistry 

Laboratory. The Laboratory participated in the Quality Assurance Program administered by the Environmental 

Measurements Laboratory (EML) and the Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) for gross alpha, 

gross beta, and gamma analyses. The subcontractor performed very well during the year by passing all of the 

parameters analyzed. 

Table 19-5 shows the summary of the in-house performance evaluation results conducted by the Subcontract 

Dosimetry Group. This internal evaluation was based on National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NELAP) criteria and was performed biannually. The Dosimetry Group performed very well during the year passing 

20 out of 20 TLDs analyzed. 

Table 19-4. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison samples of the subcontract 

radiochemistry laboratory for oversight monitoring in 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

MAPEP and EML Results 

Gross Alpha Air 6 6 

Gross Beta Air 6 6 

Gamma Air 4 4 

(a) Control limits are determined by the individual inter-laboratory comparison study. 

Table 19-5. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison TLD samples of the subcontract 

dosimetry group for compliance monitoring in 2005 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

TLDs Ambient Radiation 20 20 

(a) Based upon NELAP criteria; absolute value of the bias plus one standard deviation < 0.3. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 A-i 

Appendix A 

A.0 Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-ii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 A-1

A.0 Appendix A: Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities 

This appendix provides a general description of the three Nevada Test Site (NTS) satellite facilities in Nevada which 

support work on the NTS and all environmental monitoring and compliance activities conducted in 2005 related to 

these facilities. The NTS and these facilities are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). They include the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), 

Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility (CLVF), and Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL)-Nellis. They are all located in Clark 

County (Figure A-1). 

A.1 North Las Vegas Facility 

The NLVF is a fenced complex comprised of 31 buildings which houses much of the NTS project management, 

diagnostic development and testing, design, engineering, and procurement. The 80-acre facility is located along 

Losee Road, a short distance west of Interstate 15 (Figure A-1). The facility is buffered on the north, south, and east 

by general industrial zoning. The western border separates the property from fully developed, single-family 

residential-zoned property. The NLVF is a controlled-access facility. 

Environmental compliance and monitoring activities associated with this facility in 2005 included the maintenance of 

four wastewater permits, one air quality operating permit, one hazardous materials permit (Table A-1), and the 

monitoring of tritium in air and ambient gamma-emissions to comply with radiation protection regulations. 

Table A-1. Environmental permits for NLVF in 2005 

Permit Number Description Expiration Date Reporting

Wastewater Discharge 

VEH-112 NLVF Wastewater Contribution Permit December 31, 2006 Annually 

TNEV2004364 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit May 21, 2005 Monthly 

TNEV2005437 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit December 6, 2005 Monthly 

TNEV2006369 NLVF Temporary Authorization to Discharge June 6, 2006 Monthly 

Air Quality 

Facility 657, Mod. 2 

Clark County Authority to 

Construct/Operating Permit for a Testing 

Laboratory 

None March 

Hazardous Materials 

2287-5144 NLVF Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2006 Annually 

A.1.1 Compliance with Water Permits 

Wastewater permits for NLVF include: (1) a Class II Wastewater Contribution Permit with the City of North Las 

Vegas (CNLV) for sewer discharges and (2) three temporary discharge permits to support groundwater 

characterization and dewatering issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). 

Discharges of sewage and industrial wastewater from NLVF are required to meet permit limits set by the CNLV. 

These limits support the permit limits for the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) operated by the City of 

Las Vegas. Regulations for wastewater discharges are codified in the municipal codes for both cities. Groundwater 

discharges are state-regulated by the NDEP, and are used onsite for dust suppression and landscape irrigation. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure A-1. Location of NTS satellite facilities
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 A-3

A.1.1.1 Wastewater Contribution Permit VEH-112 

This permit specifies concentration limits for contaminants in domestic and industrial wastewater discharges. 

Self-monitoring and reporting of the levels of non-radiological contaminants in sewage and industrial outfalls is 

conducted. In 2005, contaminant concentrations (in milligrams per liter [mg/L]) were below established permit limits 

(Table A-2) in all water samples from NLVF outfalls and all sludge and liquid samples from NLVF sand/oil 

interceptors except for total dissolved solids (TDS) samples collected from Outfall B and C2. In response to these 

exceedances, Bechtel Nevada (BN) wrote a Salinity Control Plan (SCP) discussing steps taken to reduce the TDS 

levels. The SCP was submitted to CNLV within the required timeframe and additional samples will be collected and 

results reported by May 22, 2006. CNLV conducted an annual inspection on September 13, 2005 that resulted in no 

findings or corrective actions. In compliance with this permit, the following report summarizing wastewater 

monitoring was generated for NLVF operations and was submitted on October 17, 2005 to CNLV: Self-Monitoring 

Report for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s North Las Vegas Facility: Permit VEH-112. 

Table A-2. Results of 2005 monitoring at NLVF for Wastewater Contribution Permit VEH-112 

Contaminant 

Permit Limit 

 (mg/L) 

Outfall A 

(mg/L)

Outfall B 

(mg/L)

Outfall C2 

(mg/L)

Ammonia 61 8.0 13 1.7 

Barium 13.1 0.143 0.196 0.188 

BOD 600 58 260 18 

Cadmium 0.15 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 0.0026 

Chromium (hexavalent) 0.10 < 0.01 0.013 < 0.01

Chromium (total) 5.60 < 0.0007 < 0.0007 0.0119 

Copper 0.60 0.155 0.207 0.198 

Cyanide (total) 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 

Lead 0.20 < 0.0029 < 0.0029 0.0295 

Nickel 1.10 0.0043 0.0061 0.0128 

Oil & Grease (animal or vegetable) 250 < 2.5 2.5 < 2.5 

pH (Standard Units) 5.0 – 11.0 7.45 7.09 7.55 

Phenols 33.6 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Phosphorus (total) 14.0 2.3 5.1 1.9 

Silver 2.70 < 0.0008 0.0014 0.0017 

TDS (total dissolved solids) 1200 885 1260 1360 

TSS (total suspended solids) 750 40.6 91.2 100 

Zinc 8.20 0.219 0.207 0.261 

Ammonia 61 8.0 13 1.7 

Barium 13.1 0.143 0.196 0.188 

Yellow-shaded results are any which are equal to or greater than the permit limit. 

A.1.1.2 NPDES Permits TNEV2004364, TNEV2005437, and TNEV2006369

Temporary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System permits covered the groundwater characterization study and remedial dewatering operation conducted in 2005 

at the NLVF (see Section A.1.2 below). Each permit was valid for a period of six months. In 2005, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed the state of Nevada that they were in direct violation of the Clean 

Water Act by issuing the temporary permits allowing pumped groundwater to be discharged to the CNLV storm 

water drainage system. In response, the active permit was amended to only allow discharge of the groundwater onsite, 

and the subsequent temporary permits issued for the remainder of 2005 also only allowed onsite discharge. The water 

is used onsite for irrigation and dust control. The volume of water pumped is reported monthly to the state per the 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

requirements of each permit (Table A-3). In 2006, BN will apply for a permanent individual NPDES permit with the 

state of Nevada and EPA Region 9 which will allow discharge of pumped groundwater into the CNLV storm water 

drainage system. 

Table A-3. NPDES/SPDES Non-Compliances 

Permit Type Outfall Parameter 

Number

of Permit 

Exceedances 

Number of 

Samples 

Taken 

Number of 

Compliant

Samples 

Percent 

Compliance 

Date(s) 

Exceeded 

Description 

/Solution 

TNEV 

2004364 

2005437 

2006369 

001 Discharge 

volume NA 12 (1/month) 12 100 NA NA 

NA = not applicable 

Note: These permits only allow onsite discharge of groundwater. 

A.1.2 Groundwater Control Study and Dewatering Operations 

Rising groundwater below Building A-1 at the NLVF intruded into the elevator pit in 1999. Between November 1999 

and January 2001, the water level in a well installed in the basement of Building A-1 rose at a rate of 0.61 meters (m) 

(2 feet [ft]) per year (BN, 2001), and slowed to less than 0.3 m (1.0 ft) per year by the end of 2003 (BN, 2003). Sealing 

of the elevator pit and interim pumping at the nearby basement sump slowed the encroaching water. However, if the 

water level is not lowered, it could jeopardize the integrity of deep-footed infrastructure (e.g., elevator pits, utility 

trenches, foundation footers, etc.). Subsequent groundwater studies have guided the current dewatering initiative. 

These hydrogeologic investigations and initial dewatering efforts were reported in the 2004 NTS environmental report 

(U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], 2005a). Work performed in 2005 is summarized here following a brief review of 

the rising groundwater situation and past efforts to understand and remediate the problem. More detailed 

information regarding this project, including figures and data presentations, is reported in annual summary reports 

(e.g. BN, 2003; 2004b; 2005b). 

A.1.2.1 Review and Past Work 

In 2002 and 2003, BN conducted a groundwater control study. This comprehensive investigation included the 

installation of 25 wells (Figure A-2), soil and water sampling, hydrologic testing, and rudimentary modeling 

(BN, 2003). The study indicated a complex hydrogeologic setting, and implicated multiple factors for the rise of the 

water table. The preliminary geologic interpretation of borehole data indicates that these fine-grained sediments 

represent a low-energy, mid-valley alluvial and fluvial environment. Individual lithologic units of sand, silt, and clay 

are complexly interbedded and several normal faults have been mapped in the vicinity. 

The near-surface (unconfined) water table at the NLVF was encountered in the depth range of 3.8 to 14.9 m (12.6 to 

49 ft). Artesian water flow of 3.0 to 7.6 liters per minute (lpm) (0.8 to 2 gallons per minute [gpm]) was encountered at 

two wells. 

Water chemistry reveals that this water is not related to the near surface “nuisance water” commonly supplied by 

excessive irrigation, but is from a deeper alluvial aquifer. The hydrogeologic setting suggests that the source of this 

rising groundwater is water flowing upward along local faults from deeper confined aquifer(s) (Figure A-3). This 

condition is considered a long-term adjustment that can be attributed to a combination of causes, including a seasonal 

water injection program conducted by the Southern Nevada Water Authority and shifting of regional pumping centers 

away from the vicinity of NLVF.
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 A-5 Figure A-2. Monitoring wells and hydrologic test wells constructed at the North Las Vegas Facility 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 Figure A-3. Southwest-northeast hydrogeologic cross section A-A’ through wells NLVF-12, -15, Basement Sump, NLVF-16, -17, and -13 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 A-7

On May, 18, 2004, two shallow hydrologic characterization wells, proximal to Building A-1, NLVF-12s and 

NLVF-13s (Figures A-2 and A-4), were converted into dewatering wells to remediate the rising groundwater below 

Building A-1. The objective of this dewatering effort was to lower the water level 1.2 m (4 ft) (or 1 ft below the 

lowest building footing) within two years. 

Depth-to-water in the A-1 Basement Sump is plotted versus time (date) in Figure A-5. The low water levels depicted 

on the far left side of Figure A-5 reflect continued pumping of the A-1 Basement Sump well. The A-1 Basement 

Sump pump was turned off on May 22, 2004 several days after the two dewatering wells came on-line. At this point, 

the A-1 Basement Sump well could be used to monitor progress of the dewatering operation. Figure A-5 shows a 

steady decrease in the water level at the A-1 Basement Sump well due to pumping at Wells NLVF-12s and NLVF-13s 

up to about December 20, 2004. After this date, the water level at the A-1 Basement Sump well has been gradually 

rising, possibly due to recharge associated with the higher than normal precipitation for the July 2003 to April 2005 

period (http://www.wrcc.dri.edu). It is interesting to note that the static water level at a majority of the NLVF 

monitoring wells (Figure A-2) has been gradually rising since the network was installed. 

Plans to add at least two new wells to the remedial dewatering system and the resumption of pumping at the 

Building A-1 Basement Sump well were initiated at this time. While waiting for an appropriate long-term discharge 

permit, options for on-site water disposal, as required under the provisions of the Temporary Discharge Permits 

issued by NDEP, were studied, and several were put in place. The interim disposal methods are watering for dust 

control, irrigation of landscape, and evaporation of the Building A-1 Basement Sump well water. Since data gathered 

to date suggests that dewatering (pumping) may need to be continued indefinitely, permanent options for on-site use 

or disposal of produced water are being considered (BN, 2005c). 

A.1.2.2 Work Conducted in 2005 

Based on recommendations using data collected from the NLVF Groundwater Control Program (BN, 2003; 2004b; 

2005b), three new shallow dewatering wells were drilled in July and August, 2005. The three new wells, designated 

NLVF-15, NLVF-16, and NLVF-17, are located along the north side of Building A-1 (Figures A-2 and A-4). The 

three wells were drilled with a 34.3-centimeter (cm) (13 1⁄2-inch [in.]) auger bit to a total depth of between 15.2 to 

16.8 m (50 to 55 ft) and completed with 10.2-cm (4-in.) inside diameter polyvinyl chloride casing. 

All three wells have a single 9.1-m (30-ft) long slotted section and are completed in the same, shallow, clayey, sandysilty aquifer as the two existing dewatering wells, NLVF-12s and NLVF-13s (Figure A-3). Preliminary results from 

short-term step drawdown aquifer tests conducted in the three new wells suggest that discharge rates from 2.6 to 

3.8 lpm (0.7 to 1.0 gpm) may be sustained. BN Construction personnel performed the drilling and well construction 

activities; BN Geotechnical Sciences personnel conducted geologic and hydrologic data collection and analysis. 

Groundwater monitoring activities for the dewatering project include periodic water-level measurements at all 

accessible wells at NLVF (including continuous measurements at the A-1 Basement Sump well), total discharge 

volume, and specific groundwater chemistry analyses conducted quarterly and annually at the active dewatering wells. 

The quarterly water samples are analyzed for tritium and for the standard field parameters pH, conductivity, 

temperature, and turbidity. 

In addition to the quarterly sampling, water samples from selected wells were collected and analyzed in 2005 for a fullsuite analysis. The parameters analyzed included metals, ions, alkalinity, TDS, tritium, volatile organic carbon (VOC) 

(including trihalomethanes), total organic carbon (TOC), coliform, turbidity, and field parameters pH, temperature, 

and specific conductance. This information was used to help characterize the groundwater and are reported in the 

2006 dewatering initiative report (BN, 2006e). The presence or absence of particular constituents, or overall chemical 

signature, could suggest or confirm source(s) of the rising near-surface groundwater. Analytical results from the 

sampled wells meet the Safe Drinking Water Standards. These analyses were as expected and compare well with 

previous sampling events. Water analysis results are maintained in the Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data 

Management System database. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Figure A-4. Location of existing and new (2005) dewatering wells around Building A-1 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 A-9

Figure A-5. A-1 Basement Sump well transducer data 

 

The total quantity of water produced/discharged is reported monthly to the NDEP, Bureau of Water Pollution 

Control in Carson City, Nevada in accordance with the governing discharge permits. Well NLVF-12s has been 

pumping approximately 31,605 liters (L) (8,350 gallons [gal]) per month in the year since it was installed, and 

Well NLVF-13s has pumped about 141,559 L (37,400 gal) per month. The average combined discharge from both 

dewatering wells is about 173,164 L (45,750 gal) per month. 

A.1.2.3 Future Work 

Project work plans include the installation of electric submersible pumps in the new dewatering wells, construction of 

a permanent water distribution system, and the acquisition of a long-term discharge permit. The long-range plan is to 

use the pumped water onsite for landscape irrigation, dust control, and possibly in existing cooling towers. To bring 

the expanded dewatering operation on-line quickly, some portion of the produced water may be disposed directly into 

the existing storm-water conveyance system or the sanitary sewer, but this action will be dependent on the terms or 

the final discharge permit. Continued monitoring of water levels and water chemistry at selected wells is also planned. 

A.1.3 Compliance with Air Quality Permits 

The NLVF is regulated for the emission of criteria pollutants (see Glossary, Appendix B) and hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs). They include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), 

VOCs, and any of 189 defined HAPs. Air quality operating permits are maintained for a variety of equipment that 

includes boilers, emergency generators, and a paint spray booth. There are no monitoring requirements associated 

with these permits. The air permits for NLVF were issued in the mid 1980s and early 1990s through the Clark 

County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM), formerly the Clark County Health 

District. Separate permits were maintained for equipment located at the NLVF. In 2005, during a modification to 

add a diesel generator to the Losee Road permit, all three permits were combined into a single site-wide NLVF permit 

(“Facility 657”). This was done in order to bring the permits up to date with Clark County’s new permitting format. 

The Facility 657 permit was modified once during 2005 to change the operating status of most of the diesel generators 

from emergency to primary use so that the generators could be used during planned power outages. The new permit 

has no expiration date and will be renewed automatically each year upon payment of permit fees. It is revised only if 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

the situation under which the permit was issued changes. The DAQEM requires submittal of an annual emissions 

inventory. The estimated quantities of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted in 2005 are shown in Table A-3. The 

emissions inventory for 2005 was reported to DAQEM on March 22, 2006. 

Table A-4. Tons of criteria air pollutant and HAPs emissions estimated for NLVF in 2005 

Criteria Pollutant (Tons/yr)(a) 

Facility at NLVF CO NOx PM10(b) SO2 VOC 

HAPs 

(Tons/yr) 

Atlas Facility 0.067 0.252 0.001 0.004 0.007 0.00011 

Losee Facility 0.179 0.611 0.107 0.040 0.050 0.0009 

Nevada Support Facility 0.014 0.053 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.00007 

 Total by Pollutant 0.260 0.916 0.110 0.045 0.059 0.00108 

Total Emissions 1.391 

(a) 1 ton equals 0.91 metric tons 

(b) Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 

A.1.4 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations 

In 2005, the chemical inventory at NLVF was updated and submitted to the state in the Nevada Combined Agency 

(NCA) Report on February 23, 2006, as per the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Permit 2287-5144 

(see Section 2.5, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act for description of content, purpose, and 

federal regulatory driver behind the NCA Report). No accidental or unplanned release of an extremely hazardous 

substance (EHS) occurred at NLVF in 2005. Also, no annual usage quantities of toxic chemicals kept at NLVF 

exceeded specified thresholds (see Section 2.5 concerning Toxic Chemical Release Inventory, Form R ). 

A.1.5 Compliance with Radiation Protection Regulations 

A.1.5.1 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

The Clean Air Act, Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61, Subpart H (NESHAP) requires managers of DOE 

facilities to perform an assessment of all radionuclide air emissions caused by their operations and to estimate the 

radiation dose that a member of the public could receive from them. NESHAP establishes a dose limit for the 

general public to be no greater than 10 millirems per year (mrem/yr). Building A-1’s basement was contaminated with 

tritium in 1995 when a container of tritium foils was opened, emitting about 1 Curie of tritium (DOE, 1996b). 

Complete cleanup of the tritium was unsuccessful due to the tritium being absorbed into the building materials. This 

has resulted in a continuous but decreasing release of tritium into the basement air space, which is ventilated to the 

outdoors. Since 1995, a dose assessment has been performed every year for this building. Two air samples were 

collected from the basement in 2005 (from April 4 to April 18 and from September 13 to September 21). As in 

previous years, the calculated radiation dose to the nearest member of the general public, located 100 m northwest of 

the building vent pipe, was less than 2 microrems/yr. 

A.1.5.2 DOE Order 5400.5 

DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment specifies that the radiological dose to a member 

of the public from radiation from all pathways must not exceed the 100 mrem/yr as a result of DOE activities. This 

dose limit does not include the dose contribution from natural background radiation. The facilities at NLVF where 

radioactive sources are used or where radiation-producing operations are conducted which have the potential to 

expose the general population or non-project personnel to direct radiation are the Atlas A-1 Source Range Laboratory 

and the Building C-3 High Intensity Source Building. BN’s Environmental Technical Services (ETS) conducted direct 

radiation monitoring at the site. ETS utilized thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) to monitor external gamma 

radiation exposure near the boundaries of these NLVF facilities. The methods of TLD use and data analyses are 

described in Section 5.0 of this report. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 A-11

In 2005, two TLD stations were placed along the perimeter fence and one was placed in a control location. The 

annual exposure rates estimated from measurements at those NLVF locations are summarized in Table B-5. These 

exposures were all less than the 100 mrem/yr dose limit. 

 Table A-5. Results of 2005 direct radiation exposure monitoring at NLVF 

 Gamma Exposure (mR/yr) 

Location 

Number of 

Samples Mean Median Minimum Maximum 

Control 4 66 62 60 81 

North Fence of A-1 4 67 63 60 83 

North Fence of Bldg C-3 3 74 70 64 86 

A.2 Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility 

The CLVF Facility is located at the Flynn Gallagher Corporate Center on West Cheyenne Avenue in northwest 

Las Vegas. It is comprised of five buildings which house engineering, procurement, and administrative functions. 

Access to the facility requires proper identification, badging, and a security access card. Facility and infrastructure 

maintenance is provided by the facility owner. No environmental monitoring or compliance activities are conducted 

at or for this facility. 

A.3 Remote Sensing Laboratory - Nellis 

RSL-Nellis is approximately 13.7 kilometers (km) (8.5 miles [mi]) northeast of the Las Vegas city center, and 

approximately 11.3 km (7 mi) northeast of NLVF. It occupies six facilities on approximately 14 secured hectares 

(35 acres) at the Nellis Air Force Base. The six NNSA/NSO facilities were constructed on property owned by the 

U.S. Air Force (USAF). There is a Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Air Force and the NNSA/NSO 

whereby the land belongs to the USAF, but is under lease to the NNSA/NSO for 25 years (as of 1989) with an option 

for a 25-year extension. The facilities are owned by NNSA/NSO. RSL-Nellis provides emergency response 

resources for weapons-of-mass-destruction incidents. The laboratory also designs and field tests counterterrorism/intelligence technologies and has the capability to assess environmental and facility conditions using 

complex radiation measurements and multi-spectral imaging technologies. 

Environmental compliance and monitoring activities at RSL-Nellis in 2005 included maintenance of a wastewater 

contribution permit, an air quality permit, and a hazardous materials permit (Table A-5). Sealed radiation sources are 

used for calibration at RSL-Nellis, but the public has no access to any area which may have elevated gamma radiation 

emitted by the sources. Therefore, no environmental TLD monitoring is conducted. However, dosimetry monitoring 

to ensure protection of personnel who work within the facility is performed. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

 

Table A-6. Environmental permits for RSL-Nellis in 2005 

A.3.1 Compliance with Wastewater Contribution Permit CCWRD-080

Discharges of wastewater from RSL - Nellis are required to meet permit limits set by the Clark County Water 

Reclamation District (CCWRD). These limits support the permit limits for the POTW operated by Clark County. 

The wastewater permit for this facility requires quarterly monitoring and reporting. Table A-6 presents the mean 

concentration of outfall measurements collected once per quarter in 2005. All contaminants in the outfall samples fell 

below permit limits. Quarterly reports were submitted on March 14, May 10, September 7, and December 7, 2005 to 

the CCWRD. The CCWRD also conducted two inspections of RSL-Nellis in 2005. The inspections resulted in no 

findings or corrective actions for the facility. 

Table A-7. Mean concentration of outfall measurements at RSL-Nellis in 2005 

Contaminant/Measure Permit Limit Outfall 

 mg/L 

Ammonia NL(a) 12.18 

Cadmium 0.35 0.0007 

Chromium (Total) 1.7 0.0013 

Copper 3.36 0.237 

Cyanide (Total) 1 < 0.02 

Lead 0.99 0.0036 

Nickel 10.08 0.0036 

Phosphorus NL 6.0 

Silver 6.3 0.0252 

TDS NL 1293 

TSS NL 69.55 

Zinc 23.06 0.482 

 Standard Units 

pH 5.0 – 11.0 5.0 – 11.0 

 Degrees Fahrenheit 

Temperature 140 140 

(a) No limit listed on permit 

A.3.2 Compliance with Air Quality Permits 

RSL-Nellis is regulated for the emission of criteria pollutants and HAPs. Air quality operating permits are maintained 

for a variety of equipment. There are no monitoring requirements associated with these permits. The air permits for 

RSL-Nellis were issued in the mid 1980s and early 1990s through the DAQEM. Separate permits were maintained for 

each piece of equipment at the RSL. In 2005, following a request by NNSA/NSO to cancel the air permit for the 

Excimer Laser because it is no longer used, Clark County mistakenly cancelled all of the RSL permits, which included 

a water heater, generators, and other equipment. The County then reinstated the permits (except for the Excimer 

Permit Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Wastewater Discharge 

CCWRD-080 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit June 30, 2006 March, May, 

September, December 

Air Quality 

Facility 348, Mod. 1 

Clark County Authority to 

Construct/Operating Permit for a 

Testing Laboratory 

None March 

Hazardous Materials 

2287-5145 RSL-Nellis Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2006 Annually 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 A-13

Laser) and took the opportunity to combine all of them into a single combined permit “Facility 348”) using the newer 

format. The Facility 348 permit was modified once during 2005 due to the addition of a vapor degreaser at the RSL. 

The permit has no expiration date and is renewed automatically each year upon payment of permit fees. It is revised 

only if the situation under which the permit was issued changes. The DAQEM requires submittal of the annual 

emissions inventory. The estimated quantities of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted at RSL-Nellis in 2005 are 

presented in Table A-7. Natural gas consumption is also reported as per the requirements of the new consolidated air 

permit issued for the RSL. The emissions inventory for 2005 was reported to DAQEM on March 22, 2006.

Table A-8. Summary of air emissions for RSL - Nellis in 2005 

Criteria Pollutant (Tons/yr)(a) 

CO NOx PM10(b) SO2 VOC 

HAPs 

(Tons/yr) 

Natural Gas 

Consumption (ft3) (c)

 0.375 0.718 0.039 0.013 0.044 0.008 6,567,300 

Total Emissions 

of Pollutants 1.197 

(a) 1 ton equals 0.91 metric tons 

(b) Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 

(c) Cubic feet 

A.3.3 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations 

In 2005, the chemical inventory at RSL-Nellis was updated and submitted to the state in the NCA Report on February 

23, 2006, as per the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Permit 2287-5145 (see Section 2.5 of this report for 

description of content, purpose, and federal regulatory driver behind the NCA Report). No accidental or unplanned 

release of an EHS occurred at RSL-Nellis in 2005. Also, no annual usage quantities of toxic chemicals kept at RSLNellis exceeded specified thresholds (see Section 2.5 concerning Toxic Chemical Release Inventory, Form R).
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix B - Glossary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 B-1

Appendix B: Glossary 

A Absorbed dose: the amount of energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation per unit mass of irradiated 

material, in which the absorbed dose is expressed in units of rad or gray (l rad equals 0.01 gray). 

Accuracy: the closeness of the result of a measurement to the true value of the quantity measured. 

Action level: defined by regulatory agencies, the level of pollutants which, if exceeded, requires regulatory action. 

Aerosol: a gaseous suspension of very small particles of liquid or solid. 

Alluvium: sediment deposited by flowing water. 

Alpha particle: a positively charged particle emitted from the nucleus of an atom, having mass and charge equal 

to those of a helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons), usually emitted by transuranic elements. 

Ambient air: the surrounding atmosphere, usually the outside air, as it exists around people, plants, and 

structures; not considered in monitoring purposes when immediately adjacent to emission sources. 

Analyte: the specific component measured in a chemical analysis. 

Anion: a negatively charged ion, such as Cl–. 

Aquifer: a saturated layer of rock or soil below the ground surface that can supply usable quantities of ground 

water to wells and springs, and be a source of water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses. 

Aquitard: a low-permeability geologic formation that bounds an aquifer. 

Atom: the smallest particle of an element capable of entering into a chemical reaction. 

B Background: as used in this report, background is the term for the amounts of chemical constituents or 

radioactivity in the environment which are not caused by NTS operations. 

Becquerel (Bq): the SI unit of activity of a radionuclide, equal to the activity of a radionuclide having one 

spontaneous nuclear transition per second. 

Beta particle: a negatively charged particle emitted from the nucleus of an atom, having charge, mass, and other 

properties of an electron, emitted from fission products such as 137Cs. 

Biochemical (biological) oxygen demand (BOD): a measure of the amount of dissolved oxygen that 

microorganisms need to break down organic matter in water; used as an indicator of water quality. 

C CAP88-PC: computer code required by the EPA for modeling air emissions of radionuclides. 

Chain-of-custody: a method for documenting the history and possession of a sample from the time of its 

collection, through its analysis and data reporting, to its final disposition. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): a codification of all regulations promulgated by federal government 

agencies. 

Collective population dose: the sum of the total effective dose equivalents of all individuals within a defined 

population. The unit of collective population dose is person-rem or person-sievert. Collective population dose 

may also be referred to as “collective effective dose equivalent” or simply “population dose.” 
Appendix B - Glossary

B-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Committed dose equivalent: the dose equivalent to a tissue or organ over a 50-year period after an intake of a 

radionuclide into the body. Committed dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem or sievert. 

Committed effective dose equivalent: the sum of the committed dose equivalents to various tissues in the 

body, each multiplied by an appropriate weighting factor representing the relative vulnerability of different parts 

of the body to radiation. Committed effective dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem or sievert. 

Compliance Level (CL): stands for the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance. The CL value represents the annual average 

concentration which would result in a dose of 10 mrem/yr, which is the federal dose limit to the public from all 

radioactive air emissions. 

Cosmic radiation: radiation with very high energies originating outside the earth’s atmosphere; it is one source 

contributing to natural background radiation. 

Criteria pollutants: those air pollutants designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as potentially 

harmful and for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards under the Clean Air Act have been established to 

protect the public health and welfare. These pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, lead, and particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 

The state of Nevada, through an air quality permit, establishes emission limits on the NTS for SO2, NOX, CO, 

PM10, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Ozone is not regulated by the permit as an emission as it is 

formed in part from NOX and VOCs. Lead is considered a hazardous air pollutant (HAP) as well as a criteria 

pollutant, and lead emissions on the NTS are reported as part of the total HAP emissions. Lead emissions above 

a specified threshold are also reported under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act. 

Curie (Ci): a unit of measurement of radioactivity, defined as the amount of radioactive material in which the 

decay rate is 3.7 × 1010 disintegrations per second or 2.22 × 1012 disintegrations per minute; one Ci is 

approximately equal to the decay rate of one gram of pure radium. 

D Daughter nuclide: a nuclide formed by the radioactive decay of another nuclide, which is called the parent. 

Decision level: the counts of radioactivity (or concentration level of a radionuclide) in a sample that must be 

exceeded before there is a specified level of confidence (typically 95 or 99 percent) that the sample contains 

radioactive material above the background; also known as the Critical Level (LC).

Depleted uranium: uranium having a lower proportion of the isotope 235U than is found in naturally occurring 

uranium. The masses of the three uranium isotopes with atomic weights 238, 235, and 234 occur in depleted 

uranium in the weight-percentages 99.8, 0.2, and 5 × 10–4, respectively; see Table 3-7 and related discussion. 

Derived Concentration Guide (DCG): concentrations of radionuclides in water and air that could be 

continuously consumed or inhaled for one year and not exceed the DOE primary radiation dose limit to the 

public of 100 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent. 

Dose: the energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation; the unit of absorbed dose is the rad, equal to 

0.01 joules per kilogram for irradiated material in any medium. 

Dose commitment: the dose that an organ or tissue would receive during a specified period of time (typically 50 

or 70 years) as a result of one year’s intake of one or more radionuclides. 

Dose equivalent: the product of absorbed dose in rad (or gray) in tissue and a quality factor representing the 

relative damage caused to living tissue by different kinds of radiation, and perhaps other modifying factors 

representing the distribution of radiation, etc., expressed in units of rem or sievert. 

Dosimeter: a portable detection device for measuring the total accumulated exposure to ionizing radiation. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 B-3

Dosimetry: the theory and application of the principles and techniques of measuring and recording radiation 

doses. 

Downgradient: in the direction of groundwater flow from a designated area; analogous to downstream. 

E Effective dose equivalent (EDE): an estimate of the total risk of potential effects from radiation exposure, it is 

the summation of the products of the dose equivalent and weighting factor for each tissue. The weighting factor 

is the decimal fraction of the risk arising from irradiation of a selected tissue to the total risk when the whole body 

is irradiated uniformly to the same dose equivalent. These factors permit dose equivalents from non-uniform 

exposure of the body to be expressed in terms of an effective dose equivalent that is numerically equal to the dose 

from a uniform exposure of the whole body that entails the same risk as the internal exposure. The effective dose 

equivalent includes the committed effective dose equivalent from internal deposition of radionuclides and the 

effective dose equivalent caused by penetrating radiation from sources external to the body, and is expressed in 

units of rem or sievert. 

Effluent: used in this report to refer to a liquid discharged to the environment. 

Emission: used in this report to refer to a vapor, gas, airborne particulate, or radiation discharged to the 

environment via the air. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): a detailed report, required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act, on the environmental impacts from a federally-approved or funded project. An EIS must be prepared by a 

federal agency when a “major” federal action that will have “significant” environmental impacts is planned. 

F Federal facility: a facility that is owned or operated by the federal government, subject to the same requirements 

as other responsible parties when placed on the Superfund National Priorities List. 

Federal Facility Agreement (FFA): a negotiated agreement that specifies required actions at a federal facility as 

agreed upon by various agencies (e.g., EPA, DOE, DoD). 

Federal Register: a document published daily by the federal government containing notification of government 

agency actions, including notification of EPA and DOE decisions concerning permit applications and 

rule-making. 

Fiscal year: NNSA/NSO’s fiscal year is from October 1 through September 30. 

G Gamma ray: high-energy, short-wavelength, electromagnetic radiation emitted from the nucleus of an atom, 

frequently accompanying the emission of alpha or beta particles. 

Gray (Gy): the SI unit of measure for absorbed dose; the quantity of energy imparted by ionizing radiation to a 

unit mass of matter, such as tissue. One gray equals 100 rads, or 1 joule per kilogram. 

Gross alpha: the measure of radioactivity caused by all radionuclides present in a sample which emit alpha 

particles. Gross alpha measurements reflect alpha activity from all sources, including those that occur naturally. 

Gross measurements are used as a method to screen samples for relative levels of radioactivity. 

Gross beta: the measure of radioactivity caused by all radionuclides present in a sample which emit beta 

particles. Gross beta measurements reflect beta activity from all sources, including those that occur naturally. 

Gross measurements are used as a method to screen samples for relative levels of radioactivity. 

Groundwater: all subsurface water. 

H Half-life: the time required for one-half the radioactive atoms in a given amount of material to decay; for 

example, after one half-life, half of the atoms will have decayed; after two half-lives, three-fourths; after three 

half-lives, seven-eighths; and so on, exponentially. 
Appendix B - Glossary

B-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Hazardous waste: hazardous wastes exhibit any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, or EP-toxicity (yielding excessive levels of toxic constituents in a leaching test), but other wastes that do 

not necessarily exhibit these characteristics have been determined to be hazardous by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). Although the legal definition of hazardous waste is complex, according to EPA, the 

term generally refers to any waste that, if managed improperly, could pose a threat to human health and the 

environment. 

High-efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA): a throwaway, extended-media, dry-type filter used to capture 

particulates in an air stream; HEPA collection efficiencies are at least 99.97 percent for 0.3 micrometer diameter 

particles. 

Hydraulic gradient: in an aquifer, the rate of change of total head (water-level elevation) per unit distance of 

flow at a given point and in a given direction. 

Hydrology: the science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of natural water systems. 

I Inorganic compounds: compounds that either do not contain carbon or do not contain hydrogen along with 

carbon, including metals, salts, various carbon oxides (e.g., carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide), and cyanide. 

In situ: in the natural or original position. Generally refers to measurements taken in the environment or to the 

treatment of contaminated areas in place without excavation or removal. 

Interim status: a legal classification allowing hazardous waste incinerators or other hazardous waste 

management facilities to operate while EPA considers their permit applications, provided that they were under 

construction or in operation by November 19, 1980 and can meet other interim status requirements. 

Isotopes: forms of an element having the same number of protons in their nuclei, but differing numbers of 

neutrons. 

L Less than detection limits: a phrase indicating that a chemical constituent or radionuclide was either not 

present in a sample, or is present in such a small concentration that it cannot be measured as significantly 

different from zero by a laboratory’s analytical procedure and, therefore, is not identified at the lowest level of 

sensitivity. 

Low level radioactive waste (LLW): waste defined by DOE Order 5820.2A, which contains transuranic 

nuclide concentrations less than 100 nCi/g. 

Lower limit of detection: the smallest concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected in a sample at a 

95 percent confidence level. 

Lysimeter: an instrument for measuring the water percolating through soils and determining the dissolved 

materials. 

M Maximally exposed individual (MEI): a hypothetical member of the public at a fixed location who, over an 

entire year, receives the maximum effective dose equivalent (summed over all pathways) from a given source of 

radionuclide releases to air. Generally, the MEI is different for each source at a site. 

Maximum contaminant level (MCL): the highest level of a contaminant in drinking water that is allowed by 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation. 

Minimum detectable concentration (MDC): also known as the lower limit of detection, the smallest amount 

of radioactive material in a sample that can be quantitatively distinguished from background radiation in the 

sample with 95 percent confidence. 

Metric units: Metric system and U.S. customary units and their respective equivalents are shown in Table C-6. 

Except for temperature for which specific equations apply, U.S. customary units can be determined from metric 

units by multiplying the metric units by the U.S. customary equivalent. Similarly, metric units can be determined 

from U.S. customary equivalent units by multiplying the U.S. customary units by the metric equivalent. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 B-5

Mixed waste (MW): waste that has the properties of both hazardous and radioactive waste. 

N National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs): standards found in the Clean Air 

Act that set limits for hazardous air pollutants. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): federal regulation under the Clean Water Act 

that requires permits for discharges into surface waterways. 

Non-point source: any nonconfined area from which pollutants are discharged into a body of water 

(e.g., agricultural runoff, construction runoff, and parking lot drainage), or into air (e.g., a pile of uranium tailings). 

O Offsite: for effluent releases or in the nuclear testing area, offsite is any place outside the NTS and adjacent 

NTTR. 

Onsite: for effluent releases or in the nuclear testing area, onsite is any place inside the NTS and adjacent NTTR. 

P Part B Permit: the second, narrative section submitted by generators in the RCRA permitting process that 

covers in detail the procedures followed at a facility to protect human health and the environment. 

Parts per billion (ppb): a unit of measure for the concentration of a substance in its surrounding medium; for 

example, one billion grams of water containing one gram of salt has a salt concentration of 1 ppb. 

Parts per million (ppm): a unit of measure for the concentration of a substance in its surrounding medium; for 

example, one million grams of water containing one gram of salt has a salt concentration of 1 ppm. 

Perched aquifer: an aquifer that is separated from another water-bearing stratum by an impermeable layer. 

Performance standards (incinerators): specific regulatory requirements established by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency limiting the concentrations of designated organic compounds, particulate matter, and 

hydrogen chloride in incinerator emissions. 

pH: a measure of hydrogen ion concentration in an aqueous solution. Acidic solutions have a pH from 0 to 7; 

basic solutions have a pH greater than 7; and neutral solutions have a pH of 7. 

Pliocene: a geological epoch of the Tertiary period, starting about 12 million years ago. 

PM-10: fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns. 

Point source: any confined and discrete conveyance (e.g., pipe, ditch, well, or stack). 

Q Quality assurance (QA): a system of activities whose purpose is to provide the assurance that standards of 

quality are attained with a stated level of confidence. 

Quality control (QC): procedures used to verify that prescribed standards of performance are attained. 

Quality factor: the factor by which the absorbed dose (rad) is multiplied to obtain a quantity that expresses (on a 

common scale for all ionizing radiation) the biological damage to exposed persons, usually used because some 

types of radiation, such as alpha particles, are biologically more damaging than others. Quality factors for alpha, 

beta, and gamma radiation are in the ratio 20:1:1. 

Quaternary: the geologic era encompassing the last 2–3 million years. 

R Rad: the unit of absorbed dose and the quantity of energy imparted by ionizing radiation to a unit mass of matter 

such as tissue; equal to 0.01 joule per kilogram, or 0.01 gray. 
Appendix B - Glossary

B-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Radioactive decay: the spontaneous transformation of one radionuclide into a different nuclide (which may or 

may not be radioactive), or de-excitation to a lower energy state of the nucleus by emission of nuclear radiation, 

primarily alpha or beta particles, or gamma rays (photons). 

Radioactivity: the spontaneous emission of nuclear radiation, generally alpha or beta particles, or gamma rays, 

from the nucleus of an unstable isotope. 

Radionuclide: an unstable nuclide. See nuclide and radioactivity. 

Rem: a unit of radiation dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent describing the effectiveness of a type of 

radiation to produce biological effects; coined from the phrase “roentgen equivalent man,” and the product of the 

absorbed dose (rad), a quality factor (Q), a distribution factor, and other necessary modifying factors. One rem 

equals 0.01 sievert. 

Risk assessment: the use of established methods to measure the risks posed by an activity or exposure by 

evaluating the relationship between exposure to radioactive substances and the subsequent occurrence of health 

effects and the likelihood for that exposure to occur. 

Roentgen (R): a unit of measurement used to express radiation exposure in terms of the amount of ionization 

produced in a volume of air. 

S Sanitary waste: most simply, waste generated by routine operations that is not regulated as hazardous or 

radioactive by state or federal agencies. 

Saturated zone: a subsurface zone below which all rock pore-space is filled with water; also called the phreatic 

zone. 

Sensitivity: the capability of methodology or instrumentation to discriminate between samples having differing 

concentrations or containing varying amounts of analyte. 

Sievert (Sv): the SI unit of radiation dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent, that is the product of the 

absorbed dose (gray), quality factor (Q), distribution factor, and other necessary modifying factors; 1 Sv equals 

100 rem. 

Source term: the amount of a specific pollutant emitted or discharged to a particular medium, such as the air or 

water, from a particular source.

Specific conductance: the measure of the ability of a material to conduct electricity; also called conductivity. 

Subcritical experiment: an experiment using high explosives and nuclear weapon materials (including special 

nuclear materials like plutonium) to gain data used to maintain the nuclear stockpile without conducting nuclear 

explosions banned by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 

Surface impoundment: a facility or part of a facility that is a natural topographic depression, man-made 

excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials, although it may be lined with man-made 

materials. The impoundment is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes, or wastes containing free 

liquids, and is not an injection well. Examples of surface impoundments are holding, storage, settling and 

aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons. 

Système International d’Unités (SI): an international system of physical units which include meter (length), 

kilogram (mass), kelvin (temperature), becquerel (radioactivity), gray (radioactive dose), and sievert (dose 

equivalent). 

T Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD): a device used to measure external beta or gamma radiation levels, and 

which contains a material that, after exposure to beta or gamma radiation, emits light when processed and heated. 
Appendix B - Glossary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 B-7

Total dissolved solids (TDS): the portion of solid material in a waste stream that is dissolved and passed 

through a filter. 

Total organic carbon (TOC): the sum of the organic material present in a sample. 

Total organic halides (TOX): the sum of the organic halides present in a sample. 

Total suspended solids (TSS): the total mass of particulate matter per unit volume suspended in water and 

wastewater discharges that is large enough to be collected by a 0.45 micron filter. 

Transpiration: a process by which water is transferred from the soil to the air by plants that take the water up 

through their roots and release it through their leaves and other aboveground tissue. 

Tritium: a radioactive isotope of hydrogen, containing one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus, which decays 

at a half-life of 12.3 years by emitting a low-energy beta particle. 

Transuranic waste (TRU): material contaminated with alpha-emitting transuranium nuclides which have an 

atomic number greater than 92 (e.g., 239Pu), half-lives longer than 20 years, and are present in concentrations 

greater than 100 nCi/g of waste. 

U Uncertainty: the parameter associated with a sample measurement that characterizes the range of the 

measurement that could reasonably be attributed to the sample. Used in this report, the uncertainty value is 

established at ± 2 standard deviations.

Unsaturated zone: that portion of the subsurface in which the pores are only partially filled with water and the 

direction of water flow is vertical; is also referred to as the vadose zone. 

V Vadose zone: the partially saturated or unsaturated region above the water table that does not yield water to 

wells. 

Volatile organic compound (VOC): liquid or solid organic compounds that have a high vapor pressure at 

normal pressures and temperatures and thus tend to spontaneously pass into the vapor state. 

W Waste accumulation area (WAA): an officially designated area that meets current environmental standards and 

guidelines for temporary (less than 90 days) storage of hazardous waste before off-site disposal. 

Wastewater treatment system: a collection of treatment processes and facilities designed and built to reduce 

the amount of suspended solids, bacteria, oxygen-demanding materials, and chemical constituents in wastewater. 

Water table: the water-level surface below the ground at which the unsaturated zone ends and the saturated 

zone begins, and the level to which a well that is screened in the unconfined aquifer would fill with water. 

Weighting factor: a tissue-specific value used to calculate dose equivalents which represents the fraction of the 

total health risk resulting from uniform, whole-body irradiation that could be contributed to that particular tissue. 

The weighting factors used in this report are recommended by the International Commission on Radiological 

Protection. 

Wind rose: a diagram that shows the frequency and intensity of wind from different directions at a specific 

location.
Appendix B - Glossary

B-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 C-1 

C.0 Appendix C: Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AA alluvial aquifer 

ac acres 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

241Am americium-241 

ARL Air Resources Laboratory 

ASER Annual Site Environmental Report 

ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act 

ASA Auditable Safety Analysis 

ASN Air Surveillance Network 

ASTM American Standard for Testing and Materials 

ATM Atomic Testing Museum 

BCG Biota Concentration Guide 

Be beryllium 

BEEF Big Explosives Experimental Facility 

BEIDMS Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System 

bgs below ground surface 

BHPS Bureau of Health Protection Services 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BN Bechtel Nevada 

BOD biological oxygen demand 

BP before present 

BREN Bare Reactor Experiment Nevada 

Bq Becquerel 

Bq/m3 Becquerels per cubic meter 

°C degree Celsius 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

ca. circa, meaning “approximately” 

CA Composite Analysis 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAB Community Advisory Board 

CADD Corrective Action Decision Document 

CAI corrective action investigation 

CAIP Corrective Action Investigation Plan 

CAP Corrective Action Plan 

CAPP Chemical Accident Prevention Program 

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

CAS Corrective Action Site 

CAU Corrective Action Unit 

CCHD Clark County Health District 

cc/min cubic centimeters per minute 

CCWRD Clark County Water Reclamation District 

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent 

CEM Community Environmental Monitor 

CEMP Community Environmental Monitoring Program 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

cfm cubic feet per minute 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CG cloud-to-ground 

CGTO Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 

Ci curie 

Ci/yr curies per year 

cm centimeter(s) 

CL Compliance Level (used in text for the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Pollutants Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance) 

CLVF Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility (BN) 

CNLV City of North Las Vegas 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 C-3 

Co cobalt 

CO carbon monoxide 

CP Control Point 

cpm counts per minute 

CRM Cultural Resources Management 

Cs cesium 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CX categorical exclusion 

CY calendar year 

d day 

DAF Device Assembly Facility 

DAQEM Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (Clark County) 

DAS Disposal Authorization Statement 

DCG Derived Concentration Guide 

D&D Deactivation and Disposal 

DNWR Desert National Wildlife Refuge 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOE/HQ DOE Headquarters 

DQA Data Quality Assessment 

DQO Data Quality Objectives 

DRI Desert Research Institute 

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EDE effective dose equivalent 

EHS extremely hazardous substances 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ELU Ecological Landform Unit 

EM environmental monitor 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

EMAC Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 

E-MAD Engine Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly 

EML Environmental Measurements Laboratory 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EO Executive Order 

EODU Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Reporting and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ER Environmental Restoration 

ERP Environmental Restoration Project 

ES Environmental Services (BN) 

ES&H Environment, Safety, and Health 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ET evapotranspiration 

ETS Environmental Technical Services (BN) 

°F degree Fahrenheit 

FD field duplicate 

FFACO Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order 

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act 

ft foot or feet 

ft2 square feet 

ft3 cubic feet 

ft3/hr cubic feet per hour 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY fiscal year 

g gram(s) 

gal gallon(s) 

gal/d gallons per day 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 C-5 

GCD Greater Confinement Disposal 

GIS Geographic Information System 

gpm gallons per minute 

GPS global positioning satellite 

Gy gray 

Gy/d gray per day 

ha hectare 

3H tritium 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HC hard copy 

HDP heat dissipation probe 

HENRE High Energy Neutron Reactions Experiment 

HEPA high efficiency particulate air 

hr hour 

HRMP Hydrologic Resources Management Program 

HTO tritiated water 

HW hazardous waste 

HWSU hazardous waste storage unit 

ICMP Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan 

IL investigation level 

in. inch(es) 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

ISMS Integrated Safety Management System 

IT International Technology Corporation 

JASPER Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research 

K potassium 

kg kilogram(s) 

kg/d kilograms per day 

km kilometer(s) 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

km2 square kilometer(s) 

kmh kilometer(s) per hour 

L liter 

L/d liters per day 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LAO Los Alamos Operations (BN) 

lb pound 

LC Critical Level (synonymous with Decision Level) 

LCS laboratory control samples 

L/d liters per day 

LLMW low-level mixed waste 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

LLW low level radioactive waste 

L/min liters per minute 

LO Livermore Operations (BN) 

lpm liters per minute 

LQAP Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

μBq/m3 microbecquerels per cubic meter 

μCi/mL microcurie per milliliter 

m meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s) 

Ma million years ago 

MAPEP Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MDC minimum detectable concentration 

MEDA meteorological data acquisition 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

mGy/d milligray per day 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 C-7 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

mi miles 

mi2 square miles 

mm millimeter(s) 

M&O Management and Operations 

MQO Measurement Quality Objectives 

mR milliroentgen 

mR/d milliroentgen per day 

mrad millirad 

mrad/yr millirads per year 

mrem millirem 

mrem/yr millirem per year 

MSA Management Self-Assessments 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

mSv millisievert 

mSv/yr millisievert per day 

mton metric ton 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC Nevada Administrative Code 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

NCA Nevada Combined Agency 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOA Nevada Department of Agriculture 

NDWS Nevada Drinking Water Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NLV North Las Vegas 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

NLVF North Las Vegas Facility (BN) 

NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program 

NNSA/NSO U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office 

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

NOx nitrous oxides 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NPTEC Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRS Nevada Revised Statues 

NSDO Nevada State Demographer Office 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTS Nevada Test Site 

NTSER Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 

NTSWAC Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria 

NTTR Nevada Test and Training Range 

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

ODS ozone-depleting substances 

OI operating instruction (DRI) or organization instruction (BN) 

P2 pollution prevention 

P2/WM pollution prevention/waste minimization 

PA Performance Assessment 

PAAA Price-Anderson Amendments Act 

Pb lead 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

pCi picocuries 

pCi/L picocuries per liter 

pCi/mL picocuries per milliliter 

PHS Public Health Service 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 C-9 

PI prediction interval 

PIC pressurized ion chamber 

PM particulate matter 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

ppb parts per billion 

ppm parts per million 

PST Pacific Standard Time 

PT proficiency testing 

PTE potential to emit 

Pu plutonium 

PWS public water systems 

QA quality assurance 

QAP Quality Assurance Program 

QAPP Quality Assurance Program Plan 

QC quality control 

R roentgen 

rad radiation absorbed dose (a unit of measure) 

rad/d rads per day 

Rad/NucCTEC Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex 

RCD Radiological Control Department 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

rem roentgen equivalent man (a unit of measure) 

RER Relative Error Ratio 

RIDP Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program 

R-MAD Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly 

RPD Relative Percent Difference 

RREMP Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan 

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory 

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Complex 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

RWMS Radioactive Waste Management Site 

SA Supplement Analysis 

SAFER Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SCP Salinity Control Plan 

SD standard deviation 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SE standard error of the mean 

SHPO Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 

SI International System of Units 

SNL Sandia National Laboratories 

SNJV Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture 

SOP standard operating procedure 

SORD Special Operations and Research Division 

SOW statement of work 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSC Structures, Systems, and Components 

STL Special Technologies Laboratory 

STP standard temperature and pressure 

S.U. standard unit (for measuring pH) 

SUV sport utility vehicle 

Sv sievert 

SWL static water level 

SWNVF Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 

SWO Solid Waste Operations 

TaDD Tactical Demilitarization Development Project 

TCP thermocouple psychrometer 

TCU tuff confining unit 

TDR time domain reflectometry 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 C-11 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TON threshold odor number 

TPCB Transuranic Pad Cover Building 

TRI Toxic Release Inventory 

TRU transuranic 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSS total suspended solids 

TTR Tonopah Test Range 

UGTA Underground Test Area 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

VZM vadose zone monitoring 

WEF Waste Examination Facility 

WGS Waste Generation Services 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WMO World Meteorological Organization 

WSI Wackenhut Services, Inc. 

WSS Work Smart Standards 

WW water well 

yd yard 

yd3 cubic yards 

YMP Yucca Mountain Project 

yr year
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 R-1 

References 

Altenbach, J. S., W. Amy, P. V. Bradley, P. E. Brown, K. Dewberry, D. B. Hall, J. Jeffers, B. Lund, J. E. Newmark, 

M. J. O”Farrell, M. Rahn, R. E. Sherwin, C. R. Tomlinson, J. A. Williams, 2002. Nevada Bat Conservation 

Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. June 21, 2002. Austin, NV. 188 pp. 

American Nuclear Society, 2000: American National Standard for Determining Meteorological Information at Nuclear Facilities, 

ANSI/ANS-3.11-2000, American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, IL. 

60525, 28 pp. 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2006. July 1, 2005 Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, 

Incorporated Places and Balance of County Areas, from Internet URL: 

<http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/1943_EEC05.pdf>, as accessed on 

6/13/2006. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2001. Groundwater Control Study, North Las Vegas Facility, Bechtel Nevada Project Report, March 2001. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2002. A Hydrostratigraphic Framework Model of the Pahute Mesa - Oasis Valley Area, Nye County, Nevada,

DOE/NV/11718—646. Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2003. Summary Report for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site 

Office FY02/FY03 Groundwater Control Study at the North Las Vegas Facility, September 2003, prepared by the 

Bechtel Nevada Geotechnical Sciences Group.

Bechtel Nevada, 2004a. Background Concentrations of Arsenic, Beryllium, Cadmium, Chromium, and Lead in Rocks and Soil at 

the Nevada Test Site. Bechtel Nevada, Mercury, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2004b. Summary Report for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada 

Site Office Groundwater Control at Building A-1 North Las Vegas Facility. Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2005a. A Hydrostratigraphic Framework Model and Alternatives for the Groundwater Flow and Contaminant 

Transport Model of Corrective Action Unit 98: Frenchman Flat, Clark, Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada. 

DOE/NV/11718--1064. Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2005b. FY 2005 Mid-Year Status Report for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office Groundwater Control at Building A-1 North Las Vegas Facility. Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2005c. North Las Vegas (NLV) Ground Water Control System Plan. August 15, 2005, Revision 0. Las 

Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2006a. Nevada Test Site 2005 Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Site, DOE/NV/11718—1143, February 2006. Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2006b. Nevada Test Site 2005 Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Sites, DOE/NV/11718—1241, June 2005. Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2006c. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Calendar Year 2005 Report, DOE/NV/11718--1196. 

Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada. 2006d. A Hydrostratigraphic Framework Model and Alternatives for the Groundwater Flow and Contaminant 

Transport Model of Corrective Action Unit 97: Yucca Flat-Climax Mine, Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada. 

DOE/NV/11718--1119. Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2006e. U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office Groundwater 

Control at Building A-1, North Las Vegas Facility Enhanced Dewatering Initiative. Las Vegas, NV. 
References

R-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Beck, C. M., 2005. Historical Significance of CAU-20, CAS-10-23-01, Area 10, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Desert 

Research Institute Letter Report No. LR121705-1. 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. 

BHPS, see Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services. 

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. EGG11265-1149, December 1995. EG&G Energy Measurements, Las Vegas, NV. 

BN, see Bechtel Nevada. 

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. 

Carlson, K.A., 2000. DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 

Program, Letter to Bechtel Nevada Distribution, February 25, 2000. U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

Castor, S. B., S. C. Feldman and J. V. Tingley. 1989. Mineral Evaluation for the Yucca Mountain Addition, Nye County, 

Nevada. Prepared for Science Applications International Corp. Las Vegas, NV. 

Cornwall, H.R. 1972. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Southern Nye County, Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and 

Geology, Bulletin 77. Reno NV. 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 2005. Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021, Quarterly Monitoring Report and 

Annual Summary Report for E Tunnel Waste Water Disposal System. Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2005 Report. 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Mercury, NV. 

Desotell, L. T., D. B. Hudson, V. Yucel, and J. T. Carilli, 2006. Use of Long-term Lysimeter Data in Support of 

Shallow Land Waste Disposal Cover Design. Proceedings of the Waste Management '06 Conference, 

Tucson, AZ, February 26 to March 2, 2006. 

DOE, see U.S. Department of Energy. 

Drollinger, H., 2004. Curation Compliance Annual Progress Report. Desert Research Institute Short Report No. SR120704-

1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drollinger, H., 2005a. Cultural Resources Assessment for Tunnels U12B, U12E, U12N, U12T, U15A, U15E, U16A, Nevada 

Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute Letter Report No. LR100605-1, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Drollinger, H., 2005b. An Historical Evaluation of the Pluto Control Facility Area 26, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. 

Desert Research Institute Short Report No. HE041305-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drollinger, H., 2005c. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of a Borrow Pit and Access Road, Areas 22 and 23, Nevada 

Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute Short Report No. SR122704-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drollinger, H., 2005d. Nineteen Artifacts photographed for the Atomic Testing Museum. Desert Research Institute Letter 

Report No. LR011005-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drollinger, H., 2005e. Curation Compliance Annual Progress Report. Desert Research Institute Short Report 

No. SR091905-1, Las Vegas, NV. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 R-3 

Drollinger, H., C. M. Beck, and R. Furlow, 2002. Cultural Resources Management Plan for the Nevada Test Site. Desert 

Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

DTRA, see Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 

EPA, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

FWS, see U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Grossman, R. F. 2006. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Calendar Year 2005. 

DOE/NV/11718-1235. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site 

Office. 

Hansen, D. J., P. D. Greger, C. A. Wills, and W. K. Ostler, 1997. Nevada Test Site Wetlands Assessment,

DOE/NV/11718--124, May 1997. Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Hardcastle, J., 2006. Nevada County Population Estimates July 1, 1986 to July 1, 2005, Includes Cities and Towns. Prepared 

for Nevada Department of Taxation, Nevada Small Business Development Center, 

<http://www.nsbdc.org/what/data_statistics/demographer/pubs/pop_increase/>, as accessed on 

6/13/2006. 

Hendricks, T. J. and S. R. Riedhauser, 1999. An Aerial Radiological Survey of the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV/11718-324. 

Bechtel Nevada Remote Sensing Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 

Holz, B. A., 2005a. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Fire Station No. 2, Yucca Flat, in Area 6, Nevada 

Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute Short Report No. SR082905-1. Las Vegas, NV. 

Holz, B. A., 2005b. Fiscal Year 2005 Cultural Resources Site Monitoring Short Report for the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 

Nevada. Desert Research Institute Letter Report No. LR042105-1. Las Vegas, NV. 

Holz, B. A. and H. Rager, 2005. Identification of Known Cultural Resources within the Area of the Air Force Fire (BTH 2), Nye 

County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute Letter Report No. LR062305-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Hunter, R. B. and R. R. Kinnison, 1998. Tritium in Vegetation on the Nevada Test Site, United States Department of 

Energy, December 1998, In: Nevada Test Site Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan, Appendices, 

DOE/NV/11718--244. Bechtel NV, Las Vegas, NV. 

International Technology Corporation, 1996. Regional Geologic Model Data Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis 

Documentation, Volume I, Parts 1 and 2), ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV. 

International Technology 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, see International Technology Corporation. 

Jones, R. C., 2005a. An Inventory of Benches at Viewing Points for Atmospheric Nuclear Testing Events at the Nevada Test Site, 

Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No. SR020904-1, Desert Research 

Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

Jones, R. C., 2005b. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Fire Break for a Fiber Optic Line, Area 1, Nevada 

Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute Short Report No. SR082905-2, Las Vegas, NV 

Jones, R. C. 2005c. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Truck Parking Area, Area 22, Nevada Test Site, Nye 

County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute Short Report No. SR102605-1, Las Vegas, NV. 
References

R-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Jones, R. C., 2005d. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of Two Proposed Regegetation Study Plots in Areas 14 and 25, 

Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute Short Report No. SR120805-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Jones, R. C., 2005e. Magazine 802 and a Nearby Unnumbers Magazine, Area 5, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Desert 

Research Institute Letter Report No. LR030305-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Jones, R. C., 2005f. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Borrow Pit Expansion, Area 6, Nevada Test 

Site, Nye County, Nevada. Desert Research Institute, Short Report No. SR112304-2, Las Vegas, NV. 

Jones, R. C., 2005g. Monitoring of Underground Test Area Well Pad ER-12-4. Desert Research Institute Letter Report 

No. LR091405-2, Las Vegas, NV. 

Jones, R. C., 2005h. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of Tippipah Spring, Area 16, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 

Nevada. Desert Research Institute Short Report No. SR051302-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Jones, R. C., and B. A. Holz, 2005. Nine Corrective Action Sites, Areas 2, 3, 5, 18, and 19, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 

Nevada. Desert Research Institute Letter Report No. LR071305-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Jones, R. C., C. M. Beck, and B. A. Holz, 2005. Yucca Lake Historic District, Area 6, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada.

Desert Research Institute Technical Report No. 102, Las Vegas, NV. 

Kelly, I. T. and C. S. Fowler, 1986. Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 135-148. 

Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

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. 

McArthur, R. D., 1991. Radionuclides in Surface Soil at the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV/10845-02, Water Resources 

Center Publication #45077, Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

NCRP, see National Council on Radiation Protection. 

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, MD. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1995. Surface Weather Observations and Reports, FCM-H1-1995, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2006a. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 24, 

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 5960, Las Vegas, NV. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2006b. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 25, 

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 6174, 6273, Las Vegas, NV. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2006c. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 26, 

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 6404, 6405, Las Vegas, NV. 

NOAA, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

NRC, see U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 R-5 

Ortego, P. K., 2006. Personal communication on February, 28 2006 between P. K. Ortego, Manager, UGTA/ 

Borehole Management and R. F. Grossman, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, 

NV. 

Ostler, W. K., D. J. Hansen, D. C. Anderson, and D. B. Hall, 2000. Classification of Vegetation on the Nevada Test Site. 

DOE/NV/11718--477. December 6, 2000. Bechtel Nevada, Ecological Services, Las Vegas, NV. 

PHS, see U.S. Public Health Service. 

Shielen, B. (ed.). 1992. The Health Physics and Radiological Health Handbook, Revised Edition. Scinta, Inc., Silver Spring, 

MD. 

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., 2001. Unclassified Radiologic Source Term for Nevada Test Site Areas 19 and 20, UCRL-ID-141706 Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. 

Smith, D. K., B. K. Esser and J. L. Thompson, 1995. Uncertainties Associated with the Definition of a Hydrologic Source Term 

for the Nevada Test Site. Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-ID-120322. 

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. 

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, 

PA. 

Stark, L. R., A. T. Whittemore, and B. D. Mishler. 2002. Noteworthy bryophyte records from the Mojave Desert. 

Madroño 49: 49-53. 

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. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. Table NST-EST2004-01 – Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and 

States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004, from Internet URL: 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html>, as accessed on 6/6/2005. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1988. Internal Dose Conversion Factors for Calculation of Dose to the Public, 

DOE/EH-0071. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. 

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. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the 

State of Nevada, Volume 1, Chapters 1-9, DOE/EIS--0243, Las Vegas, NV, August 1996. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996b. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Submittal – 1995, 

DOE/NV/11718--032, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998. Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan, DOE/NV-518, December 1998. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000a. United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992, Report No. 

DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 15), Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 
References

R-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000b. NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual, Report No. DOE/NV/11718--079, 

Rev. 4, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2000, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--605, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2001b. Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002a. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota, 

DOE-STD-1153-2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002b. Environmental Assessment for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Hazardous Materials 

Spill Center, Nevada Test Site, Report DOE/EA-0864, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002c. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2001, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--747, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003a, Supplement Analysis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada 

Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada to Address the Increase in Activities Associated with the 

National Center for Combating Terrorism and Counterterrorism Training and Related Activities, Report 

DOE/EIS--0243-SA-2, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003b. Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan, Report DOE/NV/11718--804, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003c. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2002, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--842, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004a. Final Environmental Assessment for Activities Using Biological Simulants and Releases of 

Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site, Report DOE/EA-1494, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004b. Environmental Assessment for Aerial Operations Facility Modifications, Report 

DOE/EA-1334, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004c. Environmental Assessment for the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and 

Evaluation Complex, Report DOE/EA-1499, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004d. Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2003, Report DOE/NV/11718--971, Bechtel 

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004e, E-mail from Gustavo Vazquez, DOE/EH-41, to Bruce W. Hurley, 

NNSA/NVO, dated April 1, 2004. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2005a. Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004, Report DOE/NV/11718--1080, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2005b. Environmental Assessment for Large-Scale, Open-Air Explosive Detonation DIVINE 

STRAKE at the Nevada Test Site, Report DOE/EA-1550, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Report AP-42, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications, 

EPA-450/4-87 013, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 R-7 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996. Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Nevada Test Site Activities, 

File No. 1-5-96-F-33, August 22, 1996, Reno, NV. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Biological Opinion for Proposed Chemical Release Tests at the Nevada Test Site, Nye 

County, Nevada, File No. 1-5-05-F-455, June 24, 2005, Reno, NV. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983. Radiological Assessment. Report NUREG/CR-3332, J. E. Till and H. R. 

Meyer, Editors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

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. 

Utah’s Associations of Government and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic 

Analysis, 2000. Population Projections for Utah’s Cities & Unincorporated Areas 200 – 2030. Internet address: 

< http://governor.utah.gov/dea/Publications/2000FinalPublish.pdf>, as accessed on 6/13/06. 

Wills, C. A. and W. K. Ostler, 2001. Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: An Annotated Bibliography, with Narrative Summary, 

Keyword Index, and Species List. DOE/NV/11718--594. December 2001. Bechtel Nevada, Ecological Services, 

Las Vegas, NV. 

WMO, see World Meteorological Organization. 

World Meteorological Organization, 2002. Manual on the Global Observing System, Vol. 1, WMO No. 55, Secretariat of 

the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 

Zavarin, M., 2006. E-mail communication from M. Zavarin of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to C. Wills 

of Bechtel Nevada, dated May 8, 2006. 
References

R-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 DL-1

Distribution List 

All individuals in this list will be mailed a compact disc of this report and a hardcopy (HC) of the abbreviated Nevada 

Test Site Environmental Report Summary 2005. One or more HCs of this report will be mailed to only those individuals 

specified. 

DOE and NNSA Headquarters

Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Facility Safety (EH-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 

Director, Office of Air, Water and Radiation Protection Policy and Guidance (EH-41 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (3 HCs) 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-1 FORS), Forrestal, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance (EM-10 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Technology (EM-20 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Budget (EM-30 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Capital and Business Services (EM-40 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Under Secretary and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-1 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

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 Administrator for Defense Programs (NA-10 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Research Development and Simulation (NA-11 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Application and Stockpile Op (NA-12 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration (NA-13 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Office of Planning, Budgeting and Integration (NA-133 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 
Distribution List

DL-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Office of Science (SC-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Director, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance (SP-1 GTN), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Germantown, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

W. J. Arthur, Deputy Director, Office of Repository Development, U.S. Department of Energy, 1551 Hillshire Drive, 

Las Vegas, NV 89134 

NNSA/NSO

J. H. Norman, Acting Manager, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

M. A. Hunemuller, Deputy Manager, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

K. D. Izell, Office of Chief Counsel, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

R. D. Betteridge, Assistant Manager for Business and Contract Management, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

D. J. Morgan, Office of Public Affairs, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

S. A. Mellington, Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

D. D. Monette, Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

L. M. Tomlinson, Deputy Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

S. J. Lawrence, Assistant Manager for Site Operations, NNSA/NSO, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 

W. D. Seaborg, Acting Assistant Manager for Safety Programs, NNSA/NSO, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 

K. A. Hoar, Acting Deputy Assistant Manager for Safety Programs, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

B. W. Hurley, Environmental Protection Team, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

M. G. Skougard, Environmental Protection Team, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

E. F. Di Sanza, Acting Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

EPA
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 DL-3

K. Bellamy, Waste Management Division, EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 

J. P. Broadbent, Director, Air Division, Region IX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105 (1 HC) 

Deputy Director, Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89198-8517, M/S 513 

Director, Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89198-8517, M/S 513 

Director, Center for Environmental Restoration, Monitoring, and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89198-8517, M/S 513 

E. Thorton-Jones, EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division, Center for Waste 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, MC 6608J, Washington, D.C., 20460 

LANL

J. M. Dewart, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545, M/S J978 (1 HC) 

C. F. Eberhart, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545, M/S F670 

LLNL

M. J. Dunning, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-149, Livermore, CA 94551 (1 HC) 

J. M. Haeberlin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 45, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 777 

R. C. Higgs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 45, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 777 

SNL

D. R. Bozman, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S NTS944 

S. E. Lacy, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-0184 (1 HC) 

J. H. Metcalf, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S NTS944 

R. A. Smith, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 871, Tonopah, NV 89023 

D. D. Thomson, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S NTS944 

DTRA

T. Lantow, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, P.O. Box 208, Las Vegas, NV 89023, M/S NTS645 

D. Loewer, Chief, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, P.O. Box 208, Las Vegas, NV 89023, M/S NTS645 

NDEP

Don Elle, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, 

NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Tim Murphy, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, 

NV 89119 

Greg Raab, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Departments of Environment and Health
Distribution List

DL-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Dr. David Blodgett, Southwest Utah Public Health Department, 260 East DL Sargent Dr., Cedar City, Utah 84720 

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, 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 Santa Barbara Health Care Services, 315 Camino Del Remedio, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 

Stan Marshall, Bureau of Health Protection, 1179 Fairview Drive, Carson, City, NV 89701-5405 (1 HC) 

Michael Stafford, Nevada State Clearinghouse, Capitol Complex, 209 E. Musser St., Carson City, NV 89710 

DRI

Colleen M. Beck, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

Scott Campbell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Dee Donithan, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Harold Drollinger, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

Ken Giles, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

William Hartwell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

Barbara Holz, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

Robert Jones, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 

Lynn Karr, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Barbara Kennedy, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Cheryl Martin, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1HC) 

Greg McCurdy, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512 (1 HC) 

Amy Russell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Charles Russell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Craig Shadel, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

David Shafer, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

NSTec (formerly BN)

S. M. Younger, President and General Manager, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV001 (1 HC) 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 DL-5

J. A. Ciucci, Assistant General Manager, Environmental Management, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 

98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NSF082 (1 HC) 

T. S. Belka, Waste Generator Services Supervisor, National Security Technologies, LLC P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, NTS110 

E. C. Calman, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS327 

D. K. Clark, Low-Level Waste Operations, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS403 

E. L. Cox, Jr., Emergency Planning and Preparedness, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS 780 

A. V. Cushman, Geographic Information Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS780 

S. L. Drellack, Science and Technology, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV082 

J. J. Dugas, BN, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS273 

A. L. Gile, Contractor Assurance, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NSF118 

P. D. Greger, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS260 

R. F. Grossman, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS273 

D. L. Gustafson, Science and Technology, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS416 

D. J. Hansen, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS260 

M. A. Hayes, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS327

O. L. Haworth, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS327 

J. M. Holden, Technical Facilities Operation, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS401 

B. C. Hopkins, Waste Facilities and Operations, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

 89193-8521, M/S NTS304 

D. B. Hudson, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS273 

A. J. Karns, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 

89193-8521, M/S NSF083 
Distribution List

DL-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

C. F. Lohrstorfer, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS273 (1 HC) 

D. A. Nichols, Defense and Civil Projects, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV103 

P. K. Ortego, Environmental Management, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NSF082 

W. K. Ostler, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS260 (1 HC) 

H. A. Perry, Solid Waste Operations, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS110 

P. M. Radack, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS327 (1 HC) 

S. E. Rawlinson, Environmental Management, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS416 

T. J. Redding, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS273 (1 HC) 

G. Richardson, Environmental Restoration, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS306 

J. L. Smith, Environmental Management, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS306 

C. Soong, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS327 

J. L. VanDeroef, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS327

T. H. Wallace, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS327

R. W. Warren, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS273 

K. E. Williams, Solid Waste Operations, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS207 

C. A. Wills, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

 89193-8521, M/S NTS260 (1 HC) 

PAI

S. Gordon, PAI, 537 E. Brooks Ave, North Las Vegas, NV 89030, M/S 422 

Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture

W. Bliss, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, P.O. 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193, M/S 505 

T. Y. Brown, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S 505 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 DL-7

C. F. Dinsman, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S 505 

J. M. Fowler, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, 

M/S CF438 

P. K. Matthews, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, 

M/S CF439 (1 HC) 

ARL-SORD

D. Randerson, Director, Air Resources Laboratory, Special Operations and Research Division, P.O. Box 94227, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193, M/S NSF516 (1 HC) 

CEMP

J. Randall Allen, P.O. Box 93, Panaca, NV 89042 (1 HC) 

Kaye Allisen-Medlin, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001-9706 (1 HC) 

Marina Anderson, 1151 “A” Avenue N, P.O. Box 869, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

Melvin D. Baldwin, 1646 North 175 West, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

Bradford L. Benson, 606 Lake Superior Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005-1057 (1 HC) 

Nicklas J. Bowler, P.O. Box 368, Logandale, NV 89021 (1 HC) 

Brian W. Brown, P.O. Box 61, Shoshone, CA 92384 (1 HC) 

Roy Clifford, Jr., Stone Cabin Ranch, P.O. Box 206, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

Don M. Curry, 8207 Burnt Sienna, Las Vegas, NV 89123 (1 HC) 

Neal Darby, 1111 Avenue M, Ely, NV 89301 

Michael DeLee, P.O. Box 96, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 (1 HC) 

Beverly Jean DeWyze, P.O. Box 295, Delta, UT 84624 (1 HC)

Paul Donohue, P.O. Box 291, Pioche, NV 89043 (1 HC) 

Joe and Sue Fallini, Twin Springs Ranch, HC 76, P.O. Box 1100, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

Kenneth G. Gary, BarBQ Ranch, Box 1, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 (1 HC) 

Morden Leon Gay, P.O. Box 369, Milford, UT 84751 (1 HC) 

Larry B. Goins, 2440 South River Plate Drive, Pahrump, NV 89048 (1 HC) 

Christy S. Graf, P.O. Box 385, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Linda Lee Hafen, 1009 Providence Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005 (1 HC) 

Clark M. Hardy, P.O. Box 299, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Lawrence Hatthorn, 1060 Chaparral Drive, Mesquite, NV 89027-2554 

Gerald F. Hein, 612 Largo Azul Avenue, Henderson, NV 89015 (1 HC) 
Distribution List

DL-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Mike Heizer, Garden Valley, P.O. Box 33, Hiko, NV 89017 (1 HC) 

Michael Herndon, 5867 Alcott Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89142 (1 HC) 

James M. Hopkin, P.O. Box 597, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

Mark E. Howard, P.O. Box 935, Tonopah, NV 89049 (1 HC) 

Dale E. Jenson, 2982 South 300 East, Box 25, Milford, UT 84751 (1 HC) 

Richard A. Johnson, P.O. Box 626, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

Ronald Johnson, P.O. Box 332, Goldfield, NV 89013 

Victoria G. Johnson, P.O. Box 765, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

Thomas S. Judd, 850 North 500 West, Delta, UT 84624 (1 HC) 

John C. Lisle, P.O. Box 357, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

Larry Martin, 1200 Avenue H, Ely, NV 89301 (1 HC) 

Kenneth F. McFate, P.O. Box 373, 470 W. Raleigh Lane, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

Steve and Glenda Medlin, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Scott Mortensen, 143 S. Main, St. George, UT 84770 (1 HC) 

Jack W. Nelson, P.O. Box 232, Logandale, NV 89021 (1 HC) 

Donald Newman, 141 Sunbow, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

Jason L. Odegard, 630 Tomahawk Court, Pahrump, NV 89060 (1 HC) 

David J. Peltz, 10194 Eden Falls Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89123 (1 HC) 

Brent H. Perkins, P.O. Box 495, Caliente, NV 89008 (1 HC) 

Ted Charles Sauvageau, P.O. Box 1674, Tonopah, NV 89049 (1 HC) 

GN&M Sharp, Nyala Ranch, HC 76, Box 900, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

Jon Skullestad, P.O. Box 593 Goldfield, NV 89013 (1 HC) 

Ann P. Smith, P.O. Box 101 Caliente, NV 89008 (1 HC) 

Kenneth Smith, P.O. Box 114, Shoshone, CA 92384 

Glade V. Sorensen, 421 Circle Way Drive, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

Dell Sullivan, P.O. Box 182, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Ruston Taylor, 917 Three Fountains, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

Joan Terrell, P.O. Box 454, Goldfield, NV 89013 (1 HC) 

Helen Uhalde, Uhalde Ranch, P.O. Box 88, Ely, NV 89301 

Christopher Vogel, 107 Navajo Street, Mesquite, NV 89027 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 DL-9

Curt Walker, 903 Coyote Way, Dammeron Valley, UT 84738 (1 HC) 

Gayle Williams, HCR 61, Box 24, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Libraries

Alamo Branch Library, P.O. Box 239, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Amargosa Valley Library District, HCR 69, P.O. Box 401-T, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 (1 HC) 

Beatty Library District, P.O. Box 129, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

Boulder City Library, 701 Adams Blvd., Boulder City, NV 89005 (1 HC) 

Caliente Branch Library, P.O. Box 306, Caliente, NV 89009 (1 HC) 

Cedar City Public Library, 303 N 100 E Cedar City, UT 84720-2610 (1 HC) 

Delta City Library, 76 N. 200 W. Delta, UT 84624-9440 (1 HC) 

Goldfield Public Library, P.O. Box 430, Goldfield, NV 89013 (1 HC) 

Henderson District Public Library, 280 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 (1 HC) 

Indian Springs Library, P.O. Box 629, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

Lincoln County Library, P.O. Box 330, Pioche, NV 89043 (1 HC) 

Milford Public Library, P.O. Box 579, Milford, UT 84751-0579 (1 HC) 

Moapa Valley Library, P.O. Box 397, Overton, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Technical Center, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 62, 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831 (1 electronic copy) 

Pahrump Library District, 2101 E. Calvada Boulevard, Pahrump, NV 89048 (1 HC) 

Public Reading Facility, Nuclear Testing Archive, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration P.O. Box 98521 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S 400 (1 HC) 

Technical Library, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

Tonopah Library District, P.O. Box 449, Tonopah, NV 89049 (1 HC) 

UNLV Library Government Documents, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, P.O. Box 457013, Las Vegas, 

NV 89154-7013 (1 HC) 

Alisa Huckle, Business & Government Information Center/322, University of Nevada Libraries, 1664 North Virginia 

Street, Reno, NV 89557-0044 (1 HC) 

Washington County Library, 50 S. Main Street, St George, UT 84770-3490 (1 HC) 

White Pine County Library, 950 Campton Street, Ely, NV 89301 (1 HC) 

Miscellaneous

Community Advisory Board for Nevada Test Site Programs, c/o Navarro Engineering, 2721 Losee Rd, Suite D, North 

Las Vegas, NV 89030 (5 HCs) 
Distribution List

DL-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 

Richard Birger, Project Leader, Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, 

NV 89130 

Ann-Marie Choephel, Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, P.O. Box 1767, Tonopah, NV 89049 

Larry Coch, Dyncorp, P.O. Box 569, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat, 3468 Misty Court, Las Vegas, NV 89120 

Steve Deandi, Western Governmental Association, 223 Old P.O. Road, Boulder, CO 80302 

J. R. Dyer, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, 1551 Hillshire Dr., Suite A, Las Vegas, NV 89134 

Michael Estrada, 4370 N. Washington Blvd., Suite 223, Nellis AFB, NV 89191 

Dane Finerfrock, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 

West, P. O. Box. 144850, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 

Pete Fledderman, Washington Savannah River Co., Bldg. 735-B, Aiken SC 29802 

Vernon Gabbard, Tonopah Test Range, 15421, M/S TTR001 

N. W. Golchert, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 

Robert P. Graves, U.S. Geological Survey, 160 N. Stephanie St., Henderson, NV 89074-8829 

B. Jonker, DOE Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Ave., Mailstop 1216, Idaho Falls, ID 83401 

William Mackie, Program Manager, Nuclear Waste Transportation Western Governors' Association, 1515 Cleveland 

Place, Suite 200, Denver, CO 80202-5114 

Richard Martin, Superintendent, Death Valley National Monument, P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, CA 92328 

Mason and Hanger, Environmental Protection Department, Silas-Mason Co., Inc., Pantex Plant, P.O. Box 30020, 

Amarillo, TX 79177 

Juan Palma, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Manager, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89130 

Mark Morse, Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130 

David and Natalie Spicer, P.O. Box 897, Beatty, NV 89003 

David Swanson, Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, 1210 E. Basin Road, Suite #6, Pahrump, 

NV 89048 

Bob Swedock, Tetra Tech, Inc., 5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1400, Falls Church, VA 22041 

Bonnie K. Thompson, NNSA Program Manager, USGS, 160 N. Stephanie St., Henderson, NV 89074