Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2006 

 

Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus)

DOE/NV/25946--259 

September 2007
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/25946--259 

Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2006 

Senior Author: Cathy A. Wills 

Technical Editor: Fina Martinez-Myers 

Graphics Arts/Desktop Publisher Specialist: Angela McCurdy 

Geographic Information System Specialist: Ashley Cushman

September 2007 

Work Performed Under 

Contract No. DE-AC52-06NV25946 

Prepared for: 

U. S. Department of Energy 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Nevada Site Office 

Prepared by: 

National Security Technologies, LLC 

P. O. Box 98521 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521
ii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 iii

ES Executive Summary 

The Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 (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 National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec). 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 nonradiological 

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 2006 produced to be a more cost-effective 

means of distributing 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 (RSL)-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. Up until June 30, 2006, Bechtel Nevada (BN) was the Management and Operating 

(M&O) contractor accountable for the successful execution of work and ensuring that work was performed in 

compliance with environmental regulations. On July 1, 2006, NSTec became the responsible NTS M&O contractor. 

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 was expected to be operational in 

2006, but is currently on hold. 

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 

iv Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Environmental Performance Measures 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, and 

then later NSTec, relied upon their 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. 

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 and approved the set of NSTec WSS in July 2006. 

The approved WSS identify within each M&O Contractor’s 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. 

The NSTec EMS is currently integrated with the ISMS. It is designed to incorporate concern for environmental 

performance throughout the organization, with the ultimate goal being continual reduction of the organization's 

impact on the environment. Specific objectives and targets to reduce environmental impacts are identified through 

the EMS process and are tracked annually. 

The major event affecting the EMS program during 2006 was a commitment by NSTec to pursue ISO 14001 

Certification (ISO stands for the International Organization for Standardization). NSTec committed in their contract 

proposal to obtain the certification by June 30, 2009. An internal management assessment was performed in 

December 2006 to evaluate the current environmental program against the requirements of the ISO 14001:2004 

Standard. The assessment showed that the current program is mature and effective, but improvements must be made 

in some of the elements to satisfy all the rigorous ISO 14001 requirements. 

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 the EMS, objectives and targets to reduce environmental 

impacts were also identified. The objectives and targets for 2006 were reviewed and approved by the Executive Safety 

Committee. They are related to the protection of cultural and natural resources, reduction of generated wastes and 

amounts of petroleum-based fuels used, the protection of groundwater, and the environmentally-sound management 

of groundwater resources. These additional objectives and targets (Section 17.0) were tracked by BN and then by 

NSTec 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 29 CEMP stations, located in selected towns and communities within a 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 v

160,000 square kilometer (km2) (61,776 square mile [mi2]) area of southern Nevada, southeastern California, and 

southwestern Utah, was operated during 2006. 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. Two new stations were established in 2006, one 

between Shoshone and Tecopa, California, in February and one in Duckwater, Nevada, in November. 

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

CEMP particulate air samplers during 2006. 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 

1.36 ± 0.48 x 10-15 microcuries per milliliter (μCi/mL). The mean annual gross beta activity across all sample 

locations was 2.22 ± 0.21 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 183.08 milliroentgens per year (mR/yr) at 

Milford, Utah. The lowest offsite gamma exposure rate measured was 72.27 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 2006 included: (1) tritium gas released at 

Building 650 in Area 23 during equipment calibration (0.0000225 curies per year [Ci/yr]); (2) the evaporation of 

tritiated water discharged from E Tunnel in Area 12 (9.8 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 (0.0003 Ci/yr); (4) the evaporation and transpiration of tritiated water from soil and 

vegetation, respectively, from the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) (54 Ci/yr), the Area 5 RWMS 

(19 Ci/yr), the Schooner crater (77 Ci/yr), and the Sedan crater (85 Ci/yr); and (5) the re-suspension 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 245 curies (Ci) in 2006, and those for 

americium and plutonium were 0.047 and 0.29 Ci, respectively (Section 3.1.9). 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 resuspension and air transport models. 

Total NTS Radiological Atmospheric Releases for 2006 (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 

245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0001 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 2006. Several human-made radionuclides from legacy contamination were measured in air samples at levels above 

their minimum detectable concentrations (MDCs) in 2006: 241Am, tritium (3H), 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 (178.52 ± 98.57 x 10-18 μCi/mL] was detected at Bunker 9-300 in Area 9, a vacant building 
Executive Summary 

vi Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

located within an area of known soil contamination from past nuclear tests (Section 3.1.4.1). The highest mean level 

of tritium (360.31 ± 401.58 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 (Section 3.1.4.5). 

The highest mean levels of plutonium isotopes in air were at Bunker 9-300 (17.61 ± 9.51 x 10-18 and 

1,201.9 ± 622.14 x 10-18 μCi/mL for 238Pu and 239+240Pu, respectively) (Section 3.1.4.3). The relatively high plutonium 

values occur most often at the Bunker 9-300 air sampling 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 17.72 ± 7.60 to 60.26 ± 34.82 x 10-16 μCi/mL; the highest seen at Bunker 9-300. The 

average gross beta activities ranged from 17.76 ± 4.78 to 21.33 ± 5.06 x 10-15 μCi/mL; the highest seen at Sugar 

Bunker N in Area 5 where heavy loading of soil on the air filters is typical due to the sampler’s proximity to a busy 

dirt road. 

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, respectively). Tritium in air concentrations have decreased since the cessation of testing in 1992. At most 

locations, the average decline rate of tritium air concentrations is around 19 percent per year across all locations. This 

ranges 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 only 

exception to this trend has been Schooner in Area 20, at which sampling began relatively recently. 239+240Pu 

concentrations have likewise decreased. The estimated average annual rates of decline in 239+240Pu air concentrations 

range from 3.4 percent for Areas 1 and 3 to 17.2 percent for 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 771 ± 41 mR/yr at 

Schooner, one of the legacy Plowshare sites on Pahute Mesa. The lowest was 59 ± 3 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 143 ± 60 mR. At the 35 TLD locations near known legacy sites (including Schooner), it was 268 ± 175 mR. At 

9 TLD locations in uncontaminated sites away from all current operations, it was 125 ± 29 mR. 

Offsite Radiological Monitoring of Water 

Offsite water monitoring conducted by the M&O Contractor and by DRI (through the CEMP) verifies that there has 

been no offsite migration of man-made radionuclides from NTS underground contamination areas. 

In 2006, BN and then NSTec conducted radiological monitoring of 16 offsite wells and 7 offsite springs. The wells 

included 3 private domestic wells, 3 local community wells, and 10 NNSA/NSO wells drilled for hydrogeologic 

investigations including groundwater flow modeling. All of the NSTec-sampled wells and springs are in Nevada 

within 35 mi from the western and southern borders of the NTS. The DRI, through the CEMP, sampled 27 offsite 

water locations in 2006. They included 4 springs, 20 wells, and 3 surface water bodies located in selected towns and 

communities within 232 mi from the NTS. One site, the Beatty Water and Sewer well, is sampled by both NSTec and 

DRI. CEMP and the M&O Contractor water samples are both analyzed for tritium. The BN and NSTec offsite 

water samples were 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 2006, 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). Tritium concentrations from the 

wells ranged from -12.9 ± 12.8 to 12.9 ± 12.8 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). For the springs and surface waters, they 

ranged from 0 ± 19.2 to 35.4 ± 25.8 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. 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 vii

Similarly, the results of BN and NSTec offsite water monitoring verified that there has been no offsite migration of 

man-made 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, except the School Well in 

Amargosa Valley. This well had one duplicate sample for tritium of 23 ± 13 pCi/L, slightly above its sample-specific 

MDC of 20 pCi/L, but the grab sample collected on the same date had 13 ± 10 pCi/L of tritium, below its MDC of 

16 pCi/L. Tritium levels among all the sampled drinking water wells ranged from 9.3 ± 11 to 23 ± 13 pCi/L 

(Section 4.1.4). Tritium in the seven offsite springs ranged from -0.54 ± 1.2 to 16 ± 2.1 pCi/L (Section 4.1.5). 

Tritium in the ten non-potable NNSA/NSO offsite wells ranged from 1.2 ± 7.4 to 23 ± 14 pCi/L (Section 4.1.4). 

The highest tritium levels measured in offsite wells are 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. 

Most offsite wells and all offsite 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 than the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) limits set for drinking water (15 pCi/L), except for the spring at Spicer Ranch. This 

spring’s measured gross alpha activity was 16 ± 2.1 pCi/L. 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 2006, the onsite water monitoring network was comprised of 6 potable and 4 non-potable water supply wells, 

15 monitoring wells, 1 tritiated water containment pond system, and 2 sewage lagoons. The 2006 data continue to 

indicate that underground nuclear testing has not impacted the NTS potable water supply network. None of the six 

potable wells had detectable concentrations of tritium. However, the duplicate samples from UE-16D and WW C1 

(both non-potable wells) collected in October measured 13 and 14 pCi/L, respectively, both slightly above their 

MDCs. In both cases the tritium results from the grab samples, collected at the same time as the duplicate samples, 

were below their MDCs. All of the water samples from the ten supply wells had non-detectable concentrations of 

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. 

Four of the 15 monitoring wells sampled had detectable levels of tritium ranging from 12 ± 7.2 to 484 ± 35 pCi/L, all 

well below the MCL of 20,000 pCi/L (Section 4.1.7). Three of these wells (PM-1, UE-7NS, and WW A) 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. One other monitoring well 

(ER-20-2 #1) had detectable tritium levels just above the sample-specific MDC. 

Most groundwater samples on the NTS had measurable gross alpha and/or gross beta levels below the EPA limits for 

drinking water which are likely from natural sources. One well (U-19BH) had gross alpha levels above the EPA 

drinking water limits which is likely due to contamination due to its proximity (within 1 km) to an historical 

underground nuclear test. 

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 2006 (Section 4.1.8). The 

average tritium concentration in tunnel effluent water was 604,000 pCi/L, lower than the limit allowed under a 

discharge permit (1,000,000 pCi/L). Gross alpha and gross beta values in 2006 were also less than their permitted 

limits. 

Neither of the two onsite sewage lagoons had detectable levels of tritium (Section 4.1.9). 

The Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project pumps tritiated water into lined sumps during studies conducted at 

post-shot or near-cavity wells on the NTS. None of these types of contaminated wells were sampled in 2006. The 

UGTA Project did sample three uncontaminated wells in 2006, and the tritium levels in these wells were all below 

detection limits (Section 4.1.10). 
Executive Summary 

viii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Radiation Dose to the Public from the NTS 

Background Gamma Radiation – Mean background gamma radiation exposure rates on the NTS are measured at 

ten TLD stations located away from radiologically-contaminated sites. These ranged from 82 to 164 mR/yr during 

2006 (Section 5.3). This equates to an annual estimated background external dose of 82 to 164 millirem per year 

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

radiation in 2006 at offsite locations using TLDs which ranged from 78 mR/yr at Pahrump, Nevada, to 154 mR/yr at 

Sarcobatus Flats, Nevada. The DRI PIC detectors measured background radiation ranging from 72.27 mR/hr at 

Pahrump to 183.08 mR/yr at Milford, Utah. 

Public Dose from Drinking Water - Man-made radionuclides from past nuclear testing have not been detected in 

offsite groundwater in the past or during 2006 (Section 4.1). The offsite public cannot receive a radiation dose from 

NTS operations from drinking water.

Public Dose from 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 2006: 

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 2.5 mrem/yr, 25 percent of the 

admissible dose 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. 

Public Dose from Direct Radiation – The radiation dose limit to the general public via all possible transport 

pathways (over and above background dose) established by DOE Order 5400.5 is 100 mrem/yr. This includes 

internal and external dose. The external, direct gamma radiation exposure to the public from NTS operations in 2006 

was negligible. Areas accessible to the public had exposure rates comparable to natural background rates in 2006 

(Section 5.3.1). In 2005, 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. In 2006, however, this Gate 100 TLD station measured a mean annual 

exposure of 105 mR, with quarterly values ranging from 68 to 160 mR, similar to background doses measured offsite 

by DRI. It is likely that low-level radioactive waste shipments intermittently parked there prior to entering the NTS 

are responsible for such year-to-year and quarter-to-quarter variation. 

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 2006 of 379 mR (down from 391 in 2005 and from 411 mR in 2004). The resulting 

above-background dose of approximately 215 to 313 mrem/yr, depending on which background radiation value is 

used, would exceed the 100 mrem/yr dose limit to a hypothetical person residing year-round at this location. 

However, there are no living quarters or full-time personnel in this vicinity. 

Public Dose from 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. In 

2006, jackrabbits were trapped at the T2 site in Area 2 and at a control site in Area 14. Also, one mule deer in Yucca 

Flat and two pronghorn antelope from Areas 5 and 23, all killed accidentally by vehicles, were sampled. No manmade radionuclides were detected in muscle tissue from the deer or antelope. Based on the jackrabbit samples, the 

highest annual dose to a member of the public was estimated to be 0.12 mrem (0.0012 millisieverts), assuming that 

this person eats 20 jackrabbits. This hypothetical dose is only 0.12 percent of the annual dose limit for members of 

the public. To put this dose into perspective, it is 4 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). 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 ix

Public Dose from All Pathways - Existing 2006 radiological monitoring data from groundwater monitoring wells, 

air sampling stations, TLD stations, 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. 

Nonradiological Releases into Air 

The release of air pollutants is regulated on the NTS under a Class II air quality operating permit. Class II permits are 

issued for “minor” sources where annual emissions must not exceed 100 tons of any one criteria pollutant, or 10 tons 

of any one of the 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), or 25 tons of any combination of HAPs. Criteria pollutants 

include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs). The NTS facilities regulated by the permit include: (1) over 15 facilities/185 pieces of 

equipment in Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 23; (2) the NPTEC; (3) Site-Wide Chemical Release Areas; (4) the Big 

Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF); and (5) the Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit. 

An estimated 4.57 tons of criteria air pollutants were released on the NTS in 2006 (Section 3.2.1). The majority of the 

emissions were NOx from diesel generators and VOCs from the bulk storage of gasoline. The estimated quantity of 

all HAPs released in 2006 was 1.87 tons (Section 3.2.1). Total air emissions of lead, classified as a HAP as well as a 

criteria pollutant, was 42 pounds (Section 10.3). No emission limits for any criteria air pollutants or HAPS were 

exceeded. In 2006, performance emission tests were conducted for four NTS generators. One of the generators (the 

JASPER generator) exceeded its emission limits set by the air permit and was shut down. 

In 2006, four tests consisting of a combined total of 49 releases of hazardous chemicals were conducted at the Area 5 

NPTEC facility and at the Port Gaston facility in Area 26 (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. 

There were no discharges of nonradiological hazardous materials off of the NTS or off of any of its satellite facilities 

in 2006. 

Nonradiological 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 2006, 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 2006, 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 (BOD5) Mean 

Daily Load was exceeded at the Area 23 Mercury lagoons in the second quarter. The lagoon waters were resampled in 

the second quarter, and BOD5 levels were found to be below permit limits and remained so for the remainder of the 

calendar year (Section 4.2.3). 

Onsite Nonradiological Drinking Water Quality 

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

NTS; these supply the potable water needs of NTS workers and visitors. NNSA/NSO also hauls potable water to 

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 2006 with one exception. The Area 12 water system exceeded the action level 
Executive Summary 

x Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

for lead (0.037 milligrams per liter [mg/L]; with action level of 0.015 mg/L) (Section 4.2.1). The high level is attributed 

to the camp’s inactivity and resultant lack of flushing within the service lines. In September 2006, this public water system 

was reclassified to a non-community transient system. 

Nonradiological Releases into Air and Water at the NLVF 

Like the NTS, the NLVF is regulated for the emission of criteria air pollutants and HAPs. The regulated sources of 

emissions include an aluminum sander, an abrasive blaster, emergency generators, and a spray paint booth. The 

combined quantity of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted at the NLVF in 2006 was 0.351 tons, ranging from 

0.001 tons for HAPS to 0.237 tons for nitrogen oxides (Appendix A, Section A.1.3). 

Water discharges at the NLVF were regulated in 2006 by a permit with the City of North Las Vegas (CNLV) for 

sewer discharges, two temporary state-issued NPDES discharge permits, and an EPA-issued NPDES discharge 

permit which replaced the temporary permits. The final EPA NPDES authorizes the discharge of pumped 

groundwater from dewatering operations to the groundwater of the State via percolation and to the Las Vegas Wash 

via the CNLV storm drain system. Self-monitoring and reporting of the levels of nonradiological contaminants in 

sewage and industrial outfalls is conducted. In 2006, contaminant measurements were below established permit limits 

in all water and sludge samples from NLVF 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 November 2006 that resulted in no findings or corrective actions. 

Nonradiological Releases into Air and Water at RSL-Nellis

The sources of air pollutants at RSL-Nellis that are regulated for the emission of criteria pollutants and HAPs include 

boilers, water heaters, emergency generators, a spray paint booth, and a vapor degreaser. The total estimated 

quantities of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted in 2006 is 0.383 tons. Natural gas consumption at RSL-Nellis in 

2006 was 3,213,100 cubic feet (ft3). Natural gas consumption is reported as a requirement of the RSL-Nellis air 

permit. 

Discharges of wastewater from RSL-Nellis are required to meet permit limits set by the Clark County Water 

Reclamation District. All wastewater outfall samples in 2006 were below permit limits (Appendix A, Section A.3.1). 

Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization (P2/WM) Activities 

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

reduction of 149 mtons (164 tons) of hazardous wastes was realized in 2006. The largest volume of hazardous waste 

reduction came from shipments of bulk used oil (98.2 metric tons (mtons) [108 tons]) and lead acid batteries (34.5 

mtons [38 tons]) to offsite vendors for recycling. In 2006, NSTec bought three refrigerant recycling machines and 

recycled 0.6 mtons (0.66 tons) of refrigerant. 

Overall, a reduction of 803 mtons (883 tons) of solid wastes was realized in 2006 (Section 11.3). The largest 

proportion of solid waste reductions came from offsite shipments of 538.7 mtons (593 tons) of scrap ferrous metal 

and 154.4 mtons (170 tons) of mixed paper and cardboard to offsite vendors for recycling and shipment of 67 mtons 

(74 tons) of food wastes from the NTS cafeterias to a local pig farm. 

Accidental or Unplanned Environmental Releases or Occurrences 

In 2006, there were no reportable accidental or unplanned environmental releases or occurrence on the NTS or at any 

of the NTS satellite facilities. 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xi

Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management 

DRI archeologists examined a total of 140.2 hectares (ha) (346.7 acres [ac]) during cultural resources inventories and 

historical evaluations in 2006. The inventories were conducted for two proposed projects in Area 18. Three 

prehistoric sites, two isolated features, and seven isolated artifacts were found and recorded. None of the sites met 

the criteria for eligibility of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Section 12.1.1). Evaluations of historic 

structures were conducted for U12b Tunnel, U12e Tunnel, and the Area 25 BREN Tower Complex, but only the 

U12b Tunnel complex has been determined eligible to the NRHP; the review and determinations for the other two 

are pending. The potential adverse effects of the proposed Divine Strake high explosives test on the rock cabin near 

Tippipah Spring were mitigated through intensive documentation (Section 12.1.2). 

The National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to identify and maintain the integrity of historic 

properties under their jurisdiction. Historic properties are cultural resources that have been determined eligible to the 

NRHP through consultation between the NNSA/NSO and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. Two field 

projects were conducted in 2006 to meet this requirement. One project focused on 10 sites that were temporary 

American Indian camps and lithic tool manufacturing areas. The second field project was at Cane Spring 

(Section 12.1.3). All of the sites were in a very good state of preservation. Additional 2006 field projects focused on 

obtaining photographic documentation of late twentieth century nuclear testing related structures. One 2006 project 

required archival research but no fieldwork. This was in support of the proposed small arms range in Area 12 near 

Area 12 Camp which was later cancelled. 

The NTS Archaeological Collection currently contains over 400,000 artifacts (Section 12.2). Any new additions to the 

NTS collection continue to be inventoried and the inventory list provided to the NTS-affiliated American Indian 

tribes. All artifacts which the tribes have requested have been repatriated to them. Known locations of American 

Indian human remains at the NTS continued to be protected from NTS activities in 2006. All consultations between 

NNSA/NSO and the tribes occurs through the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO) 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. 

In 2006, the CGTO tribal groups were consulted regarding the proposed Divine Strake test, and work with the 

CGTO continued on the American Indian exhibit at the Atomic Testing Museum in Las Vegas (Section 12.3). 

Ecological Monitoring 

A cumulative total of 110.25 ha (272.43 ac) of habitat on the NTS within the range of the federally threatened desert 

tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) has been disturbed since the desert tortoise was listed as threatened in 1992. In 2006, 

biologists conducted surveys for 21 projects within tortoise habitat. No desert tortoises were accidentally injured or 

killed, nor were any found, captured, or displaced from project sites. One desert tortoise was accidentally killed along 

a paved road (Section 13.1). 

Numerous field surveys for important plants and animals were conducted on the NTS in 2006. They include species 

protected or managed under state or federal regulations, those listed on the Nevada Natural Heritage Program’s 

Nevada At-Risk Plant and Lichen Tracking List and the At-Risk Animal Tracking List, and bats listed as being at risk 

under the Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. In total, they include 44 plants, 1 mollusk, 2 reptiles, over 250 birds, and 

26 mammals. One new population of the plant Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa was found (Section 13.3.1.3). The western 

red-tailed skink (Eumeces gilberti rubricaudatus) was trapped from six new locations (Section 13.3.2.1). Western 

burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) were also trapped at six new locations (Section 13.3.2.2). A common 

black-hawk (Buteogallus anthracinus) was observed for the first time on the NTS (Section 13.3.2.3). 

In 2006, there were 16 wildland fires and a total of 3,486 ha (8,615 ac) burned. An annual vegetation survey to 

determine wildland fire hazards was conducted in the spring, and survey findings were submitted to the NTS Fire 

Marshal. The roadside areas that had the highest risk of wildland fires were in Areas 29 and 30 (Section 13.5). 

A West Nile Virus sampling program on the NTS continued in 2006. Biologists conducted 14 trapping sessions at 

8 sites on the NTS. A total of 111 individuals representing 6 species was captured and analyzed. One Culiseta inornata

mosquito tested positive for the virus, but the test result is suspected to be false. Six injured hawks from the NTS 

tested negative for the virus (Section 13.3.2.3). 
Executive Summary 

xii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Compliance with Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Policies 

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

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 noncompliance incidents are noted. 

Environmental Compliance Summary for the NTS in 2006 

Category Noncompliance 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, to have 100 percent of purchases of 

items from the EPA-designated list contain recycled materials at 

the specified minimum content, was not met. The percentage of such 

purchases in 2006 was 73 percent (Section 11.1). 

Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource 

Protection 

None 

Conservation and Protection of Biota and 

Wildlife Habitat 

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

represented 3 species protected as migratory birds (Section 13.3.2.3). 

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 339 contaminated above-ground sites was closed safely in 2006. These 

above-ground sites consist of facilities and land, such as the Test Cell A Facility, and are referred to as Industrial 

Sites. In addition to the Industrial Sites closures, extensive progress was made toward 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 the completion of 

groundwater flow models for CAU 98 (Frenchman Flat) and CAUs 101 and 102 (central and western Pahute Mesa) 

(Section 14.3).

Pollution Prevention - NNSA/NSO received two NNSA Environmental Stewardship Awards (ESAs) and two 

NNSA Best-In-Class Awards for pollution prevention activities in 2006. The BEEF, operated by the Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, won an ESA for incorporating P2/WM practices into the facility design and daily 

operating procedures. NSTec’s Information Services Personal Computer Leasing Group was awarded the second 

ESA for developing an electronics stewardship program that promotes environmentally responsible management of 

leased computers (from Dell Corporation) and company-owned computers. Through this program, all company 

computers are either refurbished, reused, or their parts are recycled, and NSTec orders new leased “green computers” 
 Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xiii

from Dell Corporation whenever possible, because they are manufactured with materials that are more easily recycled 

and less toxic to the environment (Section 11.2.2). 

One NNSA Best-In-Class Award recognized the efforts of Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture for fully integrating EMS 

into their infrastructure and culture. By instituting the EMS, NNSA/NSO enhanced workplace safety, reduced 

potentially hazardous and potentially radioactive waste streams by an estimated 11,167 cubic feet, and saved an 

estimated $1.4 million in disposition costs over the life-cycle of the Environmental Restoration Project. The second 

NNSA Best-In-Class Award went to the NSTec Advanced Monitoring Systems Initiative Program for developing an 

automated universal platform for the deployment of analytical sensors in the field for long-term monitoring of 

environmental contaminants. Use of this system greatly reduces costs associated with sampling, transportation, 

shipment, and analysis of samples, and decreases the risk of environmental contamination and out-of-compliance 

violations as well as worker exposure to hazardous chemicals (Section 11.2.2) 

Waste Management - In 2006, the secondary sewage lagoon in Area 23 was lined with a geosynthetic clay and high 

density polyethylene liners. The Area 23 sewage lagoon system is now a fully contained basin, thus preventing any 

infiltration to the waters of the State. 
Executive Summary 

xiv Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 Acknowledgements 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xv 

Acknowledgements 

Environmental Technical Services (ETS) of National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), 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 NSTec 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. 

SNJV also provided radioanalysis data for certain onsite wells sampled under the Underground Test Area Project. 

The Air Resources Laboratory, Special Operations and Research Division (ARL/SORD) provided summary 

descriptions of the Nevada Test Site (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. 

Chapter Authors and Contributors

Executive Summary

 Cathy A. Wills, NSTec 

1.0 Introduction

Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat

 Cathy A. Wills, NSTec 

2.0 Compliance Summary

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

 Elizabeth C. Calman, NSTec 

 Andrea L. Gile, NSTec 

 Robert F. Grossman, NSTec 

 Dennis L. Gustafson, NSTec 

 Madelyn A. Hayes, NSTec 

 Orin L. Haworth, NSTec 

 David B. Hudson, NSTec 

 Alfred J. Karnes, NSTec 

 Coby P. Moke, NSTec 

 Teresa M. Morgan, NSTec 

 Steve J. Nacht, NSTec 

 Paul K. Ortego, NSTec 

 Phyllis M. Radack, NSTec 

 Stuart E. Rawlinson, NSTec 

 Glenn Richardson, NSTec 

 Gregory T. Schmett, NSTec 

 Carlton Soong, NSTec 

 Janene L. VanDeroef, NSTec 

 Tammy H. Wallace, NSTec 

 Ronald W. Warren, NSTec 

3.0 Radiological and Nonradiological

 Air Monitoring

 Elizabeth C. Calman, NSTec 

 Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat 

 Robert F. Grossman, NSTec 

 Teresa M. Morgan, NSTec 

 Tammy H. Wallace, NSTec 

 Ronald W. Warren, NSTec 

4.0 Radiological and Nonradiological

 Water Monitoring 

 Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat 

 David B. Hudson, NSTec 

 Paul K. Ortego, NSTec 

 Phyllis M. Radack, NSTec 

 David D. Rudolph, NSTec 

 Carlton Soong, NSTec 

 Janene L. VanDeroef, NSTec 

 Ronald W. Warren, NSTec 

5.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring

 Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat 

 Ronald W. Warren, NSTec 

6.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring

 of Air and Water

 William T. Hartwell, DRI 

 Craig Shadel, DRI 

 Charles E. Russell, DRI 
Acknowledgements 

xvi Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

7.0 Radiological Biota Monitoring

 Ronald W. Warren, NSTec 

8.0 Radiological Dose Assessment

 Robert F. Grossman, NSTec 

 Ronald W. Warren, NSTec 

 Phillip D. Worley, NSTec 

9.0 Waste Management and

 Environmental Restoration

 Pat Arnold, NSTec 

 Troy S. Belka, NSTec 

 Tamiko Y. Brown, SNJV 

 Carol F. Dinsman, SNJV

David B. Hudson, NSTec 

 Steve J. Nacht, NSTec 

 Gregory T. Schmett, NSTec 

 Carlton Soong, NSTec 

 Glenn Richardson, NSTec 

10.0 Hazardous Materials Control and

 Management

 Orin L. Haworth, NSTec 

 Madelyn A. Hayes, NSTec 

11.0 Pollution Prevention

 Alfred J. Karnes, NSTec 

12.0 Historic Preservation and Cultural

 Resources Management

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

 Barbara A. Holz, DRI 

13.0 Ecological Monitoring

 David C. Anderson, NSTec 

 Paul D. Greger, NSTec 

 

13.0 Ecological Monitoring (continued)

 Derek B. Hall, NSTec 

 Dennis J. Hansen, NSTec 

 W. Kent Ostler, NSTec 

14.0 Underground Test Area Project

 Sigmund L. Drellack, NSTec 

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, NSTec 

 David Schrock, SNJV 

 Cathy A. Wills, NSTec 

18.0 Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 Elizabeth Burns, NSTec 

 Jerry J. Dugas, NSTec 

 Theodore J. Redding, NSTec 

19.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program

 Craig Shadel, DRI 

Appendix A: NTS Satellite Facilities

 Elizabeth C. Calman, NSTec 

Sigmund L. Drellack, NSTec 

Madelyn A. Hayes, NSTec 

 Ronald W. Warren, NSTec 

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: 

Terrence P. Sonnenburg 
 Acknowledgements 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xvii 

Field Sampling for RREMP, CWA, and SDWA Projects: 

Melissa A. Cabble 

Martin D. Cavanaugh 

Paul D. Greger 

Matthew O. Weaver 

Alan O. Wittig 

Laboratory Operations Supporting RREMP Screening and Sample Processing: 

Lynn N. Jaussi 

 

Sample Management Supporting the NSTec Subcontracting of Environmental Analytical Services: 

Catherine D. Castaneda 

Theodore J. Redding 

 

RREMP Data Verification,Validation, and Review: 

Elizabeth Burns 

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 NSTec Geographic Information Systems (GIS) worked with all the authors to produce the highquality 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 NSTec 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) produced 

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

production schedule. 

Fina Martinez-Myers of Technical Publications provided a thorough review of this document to ensure spelling, 

format, grammar, references, tables, figures, acronyms, table of contents, etc., were all in order. 

Angela McCurdy of TPGS/OS is the document’s graphics specialist and desktop publisher 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 greatly appreciated. 
Acknowledgements 

xviii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xix

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... iii 

Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................................... xv 

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................................................xxvi 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................xxviii 

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 ..............................................................................................................1-8 

1.7 Understanding Data in this Report ................................................................................................1-8 

 1.7.1 Scientific Notation ..............................................................................................................1-8 

 1.7.2 Unit Prefixes.........................................................................................................................1-8 

 1.7.3 Units of Radioactivity .........................................................................................................1-9 

 1.7.4 Radiological Dose Units.....................................................................................................1-9 

 1.7.5 International System of Units for Radioactivity and Dose ...........................................1-9 

 1.7.6 Radionuclide Nomenclature ............................................................................................1-10 

 1.7.7 Units of Measurement ......................................................................................................1-10 

 1.7.8 Measurement Variability...................................................................................................1-10 

 1.7.9 Mean and Standard Deviation.........................................................................................1-11 

 1.7.10 Standard Error of the Mean.............................................................................................1-11 

 1.7.11 Median, Maximum, and Minimum Values ....................................................................1-11

 1.7.12 Less Than (<) Symbol ......................................................................................................1-12 

 1.7.13 Negative Radionuclide Concentrations..........................................................................1-12 

 1.7.14 Understanding Graphic Information .............................................................................1-12 

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

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

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

 2.1.2 Compliance Reports............................................................................................................2-3 

 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 Nonradioactive 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 Reports..........................................................................................................2-17 

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

2.6 National Environmental Policy Act.............................................................................................2-19 
Table of Contents 

xx Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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

 2.7.1 Compliance Reports..........................................................................................................2-20 

 2.7.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-20 

2.8 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Protection..........................................................2-22 

 2.8.1 Reporting Requirements...................................................................................................2-23 

 2.8.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-23 

2.9 Conservation and Protection of Biota and Wildlife Habitat ....................................................2-24 

 2.9.1 Compliance Issues.............................................................................................................2-25 

 2.9.2 Compliance Reports..........................................................................................................2-25 

 2.9.3 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-25 

 2.10 Environmental Management System ...........................................................................................2-28 

 2.10.1 Compliance Reports..........................................................................................................2-28 

 2.10.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-28 

2.11 Occurrences, Unplanned Releases, and Continuous Releases .................................................2-29 

 2.11.1 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-29 

2.12 Summary of Permits .......................................................................................................................2-30 

3.0 Radiological and Nonradiological 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

 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 Nonradiological 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..................................................3-24 

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

 3.2.4 Opacity Readings...............................................................................................................3-25 

 3.2.5 NPTEC and BEEF Reporting ........................................................................................3-26 

 3.2.6 Tactical Demilitarization Development (TaDD) Project 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......................................................................................................3-28 

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

4.1 Radiological Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring ........................................................4-1 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xxi

 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 Water Supply Wells..........................................................................4-12 

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

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

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

 4.1.10 UGTA Wells ......................................................................................................................4-21 

 4.1.11 Environmental Impact......................................................................................................4-21 

4.2 Nonradiological Drinking Water and Wastewater Monitoring................................................4-23 

 4.2.1 Drinking Water Monitoring.............................................................................................4-23 

 4.2.1.1 Water Quality of PWS and Permitted Water-Hauling Trucks...................4-23

 4.2.1.2 Sanitary Survey of PWS and Inspection of Permitted 

 Water-Hauling Trucks .....................................................................................4-26 

 4.2.2 Domestic Wastewater Monitoring..................................................................................4-26 

 4.2.3 Industrial Wastewater Monitoring ..................................................................................4-27 

 4.2.3.1 Quarterly Analysis of Influent Water Quality ..............................................4-27 

 4.2.3.2 Annual Analysis of Toxicity of Sewage Lagoon Pond Waters ..................4-29 

 4.2.3.3 Sewage System Inspections.............................................................................4-30 

5.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring.........................................................................................................................5-1 

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

5.2 Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (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................................................................................................5-7 

 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...............................................5-9 

5.4 Environmental Impact ...................................................................................................................5-10 

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......................................................................................................6-15 
Table of Contents 

xxii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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.................................8-4 

 8.1.5 Dose to the Public from Direct Radiation Exposure Along NTS Borders................8-4 

 8.1.6 Dose to the Public from Release of Property Containing Residual 

 Radioactive Material............................................................................................................8-4 

 8.1.7 Total Offsite Dose to the Public from all Pathways......................................................8-5 

 8.1.8 Collective Population Dose ...............................................................................................8-6 

8.2 Dose to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota ...........................................................................................8-7 

 8.2.1 2006 Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment......................................................................8-7 

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

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 Low-level Waste 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 Pit P03U................................................................................................................................9-7 

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

 9.2.3 EODU ..................................................................................................................................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 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xxiii

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 

 11.2.1 Accomplishments..............................................................................................................11-2 

 11.2.2 Award-winning Accomplishments..................................................................................11-2 

 11.3 Waste Reductions............................................................................................................................11-3 

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

12.1 Cultural Resources Inventories, Historical Evaluations, and Associated Activities..............12-1 

 12.1.1 Cultural Resources Inventories .......................................................................................12-2 

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

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

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

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

 12.1.3.3 Reports...............................................................................................................12-3 

12.2 Curation............................................................................................................................................12-4 

12.3 American Indian Program .............................................................................................................12-4 

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 ................................................................................13-8 

 13.3.1 Sensitive Plants ..................................................................................................................13-8 

 13.3.1.1 Frasera pahutensis................................................................................................13-8 

 13.3.1.2 Hulsea vestita spp. inyoensis.............................................................................. 13-10 

 13.3.1.3 Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa ............................................................................... 13-10 

 13.3.2 Important Animals......................................................................................................... 13-11 

 13.3.2.1 Western Red-tailed Skink............................................................................. 13-11 

 13.3.2.2 Western Burrowing Owl .............................................................................. 13-11 

 13.3.2.3 Bird Monitoring and Mortality ................................................................... 13-11 

 13.3.2.4 State-Protected Small Mammals.................................................................. 13-15 

 13.3.2.5 Sensitive Bats ................................................................................................. 13-15 

 13.3.2.6 Wild Horses.................................................................................................... 13-15 

 13.3.2.7 Mule Deer....................................................................................................... 13-16 

 13.3.2.8 Mountain Lions ............................................................................................. 13-16 

 13.3.3 Natural and Man-Made Water Sources....................................................................... 13-16 

 13.3.4 West Nile Virus............................................................................................................... 13-17 

13.4 Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program................................................................................ 13-17 

 13.4.1 Revegetated Project Sites .............................................................................................. 13-17 
Table of Contents 

xxiv Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

 13.4.2 Wildland Fire Sites ......................................................................................................... 13-18 

13.5 Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment............................................................................................. 13-18 

13.6 Biological Monitoring of the NPTEC Complex ..................................................................... 13-21 

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

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

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

 14.3 UGTA Subproject Modeling.........................................................................................................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 2006 Field Monitoring....................................................................................................................15-2 

 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 Scope of Chapter.............................................................................................................................17-1 

 17.2 Elements and Status of the NTS EMS ........................................................................................17-2 

 17.2.1 NTS Environmental Policy.............................................................................................17-2 

 17.2.2 Environmental Aspects...................................................................................................17-2 

 17.2.3 Legal and Other Requirements ......................................................................................17-3 

 17.2.4 Objectives, Targets, and Programs................................................................................17-3 

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

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

 17.2.7 Communication................................................................................................................17-7 

 17.2.8 Documentation.................................................................................................................17-7 

 17.2.9 Control of Documents ....................................................................................................17-7 

 17.2.10 Operational Control.........................................................................................................17-7 

 17.2.11 Emergency Preparedness and Response ......................................................................17-8 

 17.2.12 Monitoring and Measurement........................................................................................17-8 

 17.2.13 Evaluation of Compliance ..............................................................................................17-8 

 17.2.14 Nonconformity and Corrective and Preventive Actions ...........................................17-8 

 17.2.15 Control of Records ..........................................................................................................17-8 

 17.2.16 Internal Audit ...................................................................................................................17-9 

 17.2.17 Management Review........................................................................................................17-9 

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

18.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan...........................................................................................................18-2 

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

 18.1.2 Accuracy .............................................................................................................................18-2 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xxv

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

 18.1.4 Comparability.....................................................................................................................18-2 

18.2 Environmental Sampling ...............................................................................................................18-3 

 18.2.1 Training and Qualification ...............................................................................................18-3 

 18.2.2 Procedures and Methods..................................................................................................18-3 

 18.2.3 Field Documentation........................................................................................................18-3 

 18.2.4 Inspection and Acceptance Testing................................................................................18-3 

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

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

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

 18.3.3 Data Evaluation.................................................................................................................18-5 

18.4 Data Review.....................................................................................................................................18-5 

 18.4.1 Data Verification ...............................................................................................................18-5 

 18.4.2 Data Validation..................................................................................................................18-5 

 18.4.3 Data Quality Assessment (DQA)....................................................................................18-5 

18.5 Assessments.....................................................................................................................................18-6 

 18.5.1 Programmatic.....................................................................................................................18-6 

 18.5.2 Measurement Data ............................................................................................................18-6 

 18.5.2.1 Field Duplicates................................................................................................18-6 

 18.5.2.2 Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs)..............................................................18-8 

 18.5.2.3 Blank Analysis...................................................................................................18-8 

 18.5.2.4 Proficiency Testing Program Participation...................................................18-9 

19.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program for the Community Environmental 

 Monitoring Program.......................................................................................................................19-1 

19.1 Data Quality Objectives.................................................................................................................19-1 

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

19.3 Sampling Quality Assurance 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 2006 Sample QA Results ...............................................................................................................19-4 

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

 19.7.2 Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs) (Accuracy)...........................................................19-5 

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

 19.7.4 Inter-laboratory Comparison Studies.............................................................................19-5 

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

Appendix B Glossary of Terms ...........................................................................................................................B-1 

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

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

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

xxvi Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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. NTS land-use map................................................................................................................................1-7 

Figure 1-5. Data plotted using a log scale ...........................................................................................................1-13 

Figure 1-6. Data plotted using a linear scale.......................................................................................................1-13 

Figure 3-1. Radiological air sampling network on the NTS in 2006.................................................................3-3 

Figure 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2006 .............................................................3-6 

Figure 3-3. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2006 ...............................................................3-8 

Figure 3-4. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2006........................................................3-10 

Figure 3-5. Long-term trends in average annual mean 239+240Pu for NTS area groups.................................3-10 

Figure 3-6. Fitted average long-term trends in 239+240Pu mean values by NTS area groups.........................3-11 

Figure 3-7. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2006 and Pahute Mesa 

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

Figure 3-8. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2006 and Pahute Mesa 

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

Figure 3-9. Average long-term trends in tritium at locations having at least 7 years of data ......................3-15 

Figure 3-10. Tritium emissions at Schooner and June-September average temperatures at 

Pahute Mesa ........................................................................................................................................3-15 

Figure 3-11. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2006...........................................................3-17 

Figure 3-12. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2006.............................................................3-18 

Figure 3-13. 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 2006..................................4-5 

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

 NTS in 2006 ..........................................................................................................................................4-6 

Figure 4-4. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite wells from 2000 to 2006..........................................4-9

Figure 4-5. Tritium concentrations in offsite wells from 2000 to 2006 ...........................................................4-9 

Figure 4-6. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite springs from 2000 to 2006....................................4-11 

Figure 4-7. Tritium concentrations in offsite springs from 2000 to 2006......................................................4-11 

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

 2000 to 2006........................................................................................................................................4-14 

Figure 4-9. Tritium concentrations in NTS potable water supply wells from 2000 to 2006.......................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 2006 ...................................................4-20 

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

Figure 4-13. Drinking water systems on the NTS ...............................................................................................4-24 

Figure 4-14. Active permitted sewage disposal systems on the NTS................................................................4-28 

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

Figure 5-2. 2006 annual exposure rates in and around Area 3 RWMS and at background locations..........5-8 

Figure 5-3. 2006 annual exposure rates around Area 5 RWMS and at background locations......................5-8 

Figure 5-4. 2006 annual exposure rates on the NTS by location type and off the NTS 

(CEMP stations) ...................................................................................................................................5-9 

Figure 5-5. Trend in direct radiation exposure measured at TLD locations .................................................5-10 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xxvii

Figure 6-1. 2006 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 

Figure 6-6. The effect of meteorological phenomena on background gamma readings .............................6-10 

Figure 6-7. 2006 CEMP water monitoring locations ........................................................................................6-13 

Figure 7-1. Radiological biota monitoring sites on the NTS and sites sampled in 2006 ...............................7-3 

Figure 7-2. Concentrations of man-made radionuclides in plants from T2, 2002 and 2006.........................7-8 

Figure 7-3. Concentrations of man-made radionuclides in animals from T2, 2002 and 2006......................7-8 

Figure 8-1. Estimated radiation dose from NTS air emissions to the offsite MEI 

 from 1992 to 2004................................................................................................................................8-5 

Figure 8-2. Comparison of radiation dose to the MEI and the natural radiation background 

(percent of total)...................................................................................................................................8-6 

Figure 8-3. Collective population dose within 80 km of NTS emission sources from 

1992 to 2004..........................................................................................................................................8-6 

Figure 13-1. Desert tortoise distribution and abundance on the NTS .............................................................13-2 

Figure 13-2. Location of biological surveys conducted on the NTS in 2006 ..................................................13-7 

Figure 13-3. Location of sensitive plant populations monitored on the NTS in 2006 ..................................13-9 

Figure 13-4. H. vestita spp. inyoensis on road cut along Stockade Wash Road................................................ 13-10 

Figure 13-5. I. arizonica var. saxosa growing on north and west faces of large boulders on 

Pahute Mesa ..................................................................................................................................... 13-10 

Figure 13-6. Western red-tailed skink captured at Twin Spring, Site 9.......................................................... 13-11 

Figure 13-7. Captured western burrowing owl.................................................................................................. 13-11 

Figure 13-8. Locations where western red-tailed skinks have been trapped and sites 

sampled in 2006............................................................................................................................... 13-12 

Figure 13-9. Known western burrowing owl distribution on the NTS and locations 

trapped in 2006................................................................................................................................ 13-13 

Figure 13-10. Number of bird deaths recorded on the NTS by year and cause............................................ 13-14 

Figure 13-11. Mountain lion photographed at Tub Spring............................................................................... 13-16 

Figure 13-12. Location of wildland fires on the NTS........................................................................................ 13-19 

Figure 13-13. Index of combined fine and woody fuels at 211 survey stations on the 

 NTS during 2006............................................................................................................................ 13-20 

Figure 14-1. Location of UGTA Project model areas.........................................................................................14-3 

Figure 16-1. Example of a typical MEDA station with a10-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 

xxviii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Unit prefixes..........................................................................................................................................1-8 

Table 1-2. Units of radioactivity............................................................................................................................1-9 

Table 1-3. Units of radiological dose....................................................................................................................1-9 

Table 1-4. Conversion table for SI units..............................................................................................................1-9 

Table 1-5. Radionuclides and their half-lives ....................................................................................................1-10 

Table 1-6. Metric and U.S. customary unit equivalents...................................................................................1-11 

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 2006..................................................................2-19 

Table 2-7. NTS compliance status with applicable pollution prevention/waste minimization 

regulations............................................................................................................................................2-21 

Table 2-8. NTS compliance status with historic preservation regulations ...................................................2-23 

Table 2-9. NTS compliance status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations .........................2-26 

Table 2-10. NTS compliance status with Environmental Management System regulations .......................2-28 

Table 2-11. Environmental permits required for NTS and NTS site facility operations .............................2-30 

Table 3-1. Regulatory concentration limits for radionuclides in air.................................................................3-4 

Table 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2006 .............................................................3-6 

Table 3-3. Concentrations of 137Cs in air samples collected in 2006 ...............................................................3-7 

Table 3-4. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2006 ...............................................................3-8 

Table 3-5. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2006..........................................................3-9 

Table 3-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2006 .......................................3-11 

Table 3-7. Observed values of uranium isotope ratios....................................................................................3-12 

Table 3-8. Expected ratios of uranium isotopes by type of source ...............................................................3-12 

Table 3-9. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2006..........................................................3-13 

Table 3-10. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2006...........................................................3-16 

Table 3-11. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2006.............................................................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 2006 ................................................................3-20 

Table 3-14. Tons of criteria air pollutant emissions released on the NTS from permitted 

facilities operational in 2006 .............................................................................................................3-23 

Table 3-15. Criteria air pollutants and HAPS released on the NTS since 1996.............................................3-24 

Table 3-16. Performance emission testing, state inspection, and/or corrective actions taken in 2006......3-25 

Table 3-17. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC in 2006...............................3-26 

Table 3-18. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Port Gaston facility in 2006........................3-27 

Table 3-19. Types and weights of explosives detonated at BEEF in 2006.....................................................3-27

Table 4-1. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite wells in 2006 ............................4-8 

Table 4-2. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite springs in 2006.......................4-10 
 Table of Contents

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 xxix

Table 4-3. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS potable water supply 

wells in 2006........................................................................................................................................4-12 

Table 4-4. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring wells in 2006 ........4-16 

Table 4-5. Radiological results for E Tunnel Pond effluent pertaining to Water Pollution 

Control Permit NEV 96021..............................................................................................................4-18 

Table 4-6. Routine radiological water monitoring results for E-Tunnel Ponds in 2006 ............................4-19 

Table 4-7. Tritium water monitoring results for NTS sewage lagoons in 2006...........................................4-20 

Table 4-8. Radiochemistry analysis results from UGTA well samples analyzed in 2006 ...........................4-21 

Table 4-9. Water quality monitoring parameters and sampling design for NTS public drinking 

water systems ......................................................................................................................................4-25 

Table 4-10. Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2006.........................4-26 

Table 4-11. Water quality analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon influent waters in 2006.........................4-29 

Table 4-12. Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2006 .............................4-29 

Table 5-1. Annual direct radiation exposure rates measured at TLD locations on 

the NTS in 2006 ...................................................................................................................................5-4 

Table 5-2. Summary statistics for 2006 annual direct radiation exposure by TLD 

location type..........................................................................................................................................5-7 

Table 6-1. Gross alpha results for the CEMP offsite ASN in 2006 ................................................................6-4 

Table 6-2. Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite ASN in 2006 ..................................................................6-5 

Table 6-3. TLD monitoring results for the CEMP offsite ASN in 2006........................................................6-7

Table 6-4. PIC monitoring results for the CEMP offsite ASN in 2006..........................................................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 2006 ....................................................................6-12 

Table 6-7. Tritium results for CEMP offsite surface water and spring discharges in 2006 .......................6-14 

Table 6-8. Tritium results for CEMP offsite wells 2006 .................................................................................6-15 

Table 7-1. Plant species sampled at T2 and the T2 control site in 2006.........................................................7-4 

Table 7-2. Concentrations of man-made radionuclides in plants from T2 and the T2 control 

site in 2006.............................................................................................................................................7-6 

Table 7-3. Concentrations of man-made radionuclides in animals from T2 and the T2 control 

site in 2006.............................................................................................................................................7-7 

Table 8-1. Hypothetical annual dose to a human consuming NTS jackrabbits based on 2006 samples ...8-3 

Table 8-2. Allowable total residual surface contamination ...............................................................................8-4 

Table 8-3. Estimated radiological dose to the general public from 2006 NTS operations ..........................8-5 

Table 8-4. Site-specific dose assessment for terrestrial plants and animals sampled at T2 in 2006............8-8 

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 2006 ..........9-4 

Table 9-3. Hazardous waste managed at the NTS in 2006 ...............................................................................9-7 

Table 9-4. Environmental restoration activities conducted in 2006..............................................................9-10 

Table 9-5. Quantity of solid wastes disposed in NTS landfills in calendar year 2006.................................9-13 

Table 10-1. EPCRA compliance reporting at the NTS in 2006.......................................................................10-2 

Table 10-2. EPCRA reportable releases of toxic chemicals in 2006................................................................10-3 
Table of Contents 

xxx Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 11-1. Waste reduction through P2/WM activities by year.....................................................................11-3 

Table 11-2. Waste reduction activities in 2006....................................................................................................11-4 

Table 12-1. Summary data for cultural resources inventories and historical evaluations 

conducted in 2006 ..............................................................................................................................12-2 

Table 12-2. Reports prepared in 2006..................................................................................................................12-3 

Table 12-3. Culturally affiliated tribes and organizations in the CGTO .........................................................12-5 

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. Records of bird mortality and injury on the NTS in 2006 ........................................................ 13-14 

Table 13-5. Number of individual horses observed on the NTS by age class, gender, 

and year............................................................................................................................................. 13-15 

Table 13-6. Comparison of plant density and cover at revegetated sites versus plant density 

and cover at their reference undisturbed sites as measured in 2006........................................ 13-17 

Table 13-7. Precipitation history and presence of top species contributing to fine fuels.......................... 13-18 

Table 17-1. 2006 EMS objectives and targets .....................................................................................................17-5 

Table 18-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for compliance monitoring in 2006..................................18-7 

Table 18-2. Summary of LCSs for 2006...............................................................................................................18-8 

Table 18-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for 2006 ............................................................................18-9 

Table 18-4. Summary of 2006 radiological MAPEP reports ......................................................................... 18-10 

Table 18-5. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison TLD samples for the subcontract 

 dosimetry group in 2006................................................................................................................. 18-10 

Table 19-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for oversight monitoring in 2006 .....................................19-4 

Table 19-2. Summary of LCSs for oversight monitoring in 2006....................................................................19-5 

Table 19-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for oversight monitoring in 2006 .................................19-5 

Table 19-4. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison samples of the subcontract 

radiochemistry laboratory for oversight monitoring in 2006.......................................................19-6 

Table 19-5. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison TLD samples of the subcontract 

dosimetry group for oversight monitoring in 2006.......................................................................19-6 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 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 Attachment A: Nevada Test Site Description, included as a separate file on the compact disc of 

this 2006 report, where the geology, hydrology, climatology, ecology, and cultural resources of the NTS are described. 
Introduction

1-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 1-1. NTS vicinity map
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 1-3

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

1-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 was 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 Facility Agreement and Consent Order which established Corrective Action Units 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 Laboratories are the 

principal organizations that sponsor and implement the nuclear weapons programs at the NTS. From 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 1-5

January 1 to June 30, 2006, Bechtel Nevada was the Management and Operating (M&O) contractor accountable for 

the successful execution of work and ensuring that work was performed in compliance with environmental 

regulations. On July 1, 2006, National Security Technologies, LLC, became the responsible M&O contractor. 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 2006 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 was expected to be operational in October 2006, but is currently on hold. 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. Land use by each of the NTS missions occur within zones designated by the land-use map 

shown in Figure 1-4. It is the resultant Record of Decision land use map for the 1996 programmatic NTS 

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE, 1996a), as depicted in the NTS Resource Management Plan (DOE, 1998). 

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 2006 

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

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 1-7

Figure 1-4. NTS land-use map (Source: DOE, 1998) 
Introduction

1-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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, 2007). The annual population estimate for Nevada counties, cities, and unincorporated towns is 

2,623,050, with all but 748,213 residing in Clark County. The total population estimate for Nye County is 44,795 and 

includes the communities of Amargosa (1,435), Beatty (1,025), Gabbs (313), Manhattan (122), Pahrump (36,645), 

Round Mountain (787), and Tonopah (2,600). The largest of the Nye County communities is Pahrump, 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 (432), 

Caliente (1,002), Panaca (558), and Pioche (703). Neighboring Clark County is the major population center of Nevada 

and has an estimated total population of 1,874,837. Mesquite, on the northwest border of Arizona, has an estimated 

population of 17,656. 

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 for the year 2005 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 39,930, and Kingman, located 

280 km (174 mi) southeast of the NTS, with an estimated population of 27,635 ( July 1, 2006 population estimates, 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2007). 

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

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 1-9

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,” for roentgen equivalent man, 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, 

1 R 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

1-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 1-11

 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

1-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 nonradiological 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, 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 [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 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 Figures 1-5 and 1-6. Both show long-term trends in annual mean 3H concentrations in air 

samples. The use of the log scale in Figure 1-5 allows for the Schooner data to be represented on the same plot with 

the same scale as the data from the other stations with lower mean concentrations, without losing the detail of the 

year-to-year variation in the data from those other stations. The compliance level (CL) (see Glossary, Appendix B), 

(1500 x 10-6 picocuries per milliliter [pCi/mL]), can also be plotted on the log scale. Using the original units, as in 

Figure 1-6, one either loses the detail in the year-to-year variation at most stations or (the option selected in Figure 1-

6) multiplies the Schooner values by 0.1 and the CL by 0.01 to retain that detail. 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 1-13

 

 

 Figure 1-5. Data plotted using a log scale 

 Figure 1-6. Data plotted using a linear scale 

3

H Annual Mean Long-Term Trends

All Locations With at Least 7-Year Histories Since 1987

Data before 1999 adjusted

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

Area 1

Area 5 RWMC

Areas 10-12-15

Schooner

Areas 23-25

CL

3

H Annual Mean Long-Term Trends

All Locations With at Least 7-Year Histories Since 1987

Data before 1999 adjusted

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

Area 1

Area 5 RWMC

Areas 10-12-15

Schooner * 0.1

Areas 23-25

1% of CL
Introduction

1-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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. Noncompliance 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 2006. 

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. 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, and emissions of lead are reported as part of the total HAPs emissions. 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, particulate 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, support vehicle live-fire 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 2006

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 (Nevada Revised Statutes [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

Performance emissions testing is required for point sources (equipment with emissions stacks) regulated by the NTS 

air permit. In 2006, the Area 23 Incinerator was permanently shut down and removed from the NTS air permit. The 

Area 27 Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research (JASPER) generator exceeded the 100-hour operating 

limit that requires emissions testing; it also exceeded the 90-day testing deadline. The exceedances were reported to 

NNSA/NSO and to the state’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control. The JASPER generator failed its performance 

emission test. The Bureau of Air Pollution Control was notified of the test results, and the JASPER generator was 

shut down (see Section 3.2.2). Any environmental effects of excess emissions from the failed generator prior to 

shutdown is expected to have been negligible because the equipment is used so infrequently. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 2-3 

2.1.2 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for 2006 NTS operations in compliance with air quality regulations: 

• National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Calendar Year 2006 (submitted to EPA Region IX) 

• Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form, submitted to EPA Region IX 

• Calendar Year 2006 Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Form, submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection 

• Quarterly Class II Air Quality Reports, 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 2006 operations at NTS satellite facilities 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 2006. 
Compliance Summary 

e status with applicable air quality regulations 

tions Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2006 Section Reference (a) 

rom all radioactive air emissions 10 mrem/yr (b) (0.1 mSv/yr) Compliant 3.1.5 

he number of linear feet (ft) or square feet (ft2) of 

om a facility exceeds limit 260 linear ft or 160 ft2 (c) Compliant 3.2.8 

ment plans, data records, activity/ maintenance records For up to 75 years Compliant 3.2.8 

of calculated emissions at the NTS to the state Due 30 days after end of quarter Compliant 3.2.1 

alculated emissions at the NTS to the state Due March 1 Compliant 3.2.1 

l used, hours of operation, and rate of 

ction by permitted equipment/facility at the NTS 

Limit varies (d) Compliant 3.2.3 

 criteria pollutant produced by permitted 

NTS based on calculations 

PTE (e) varies Compliant 3.2.1; Table 3-12 

mance emission tests on permitted equipment 

Test every 100 hours of 

operation, emissions limit 

varies 

Noncompliant - JASPER 

generator test conducted late 

and failed test 

3.2.2 

s from permitted equipment/facility Quarterly Compliant 3.2.4 

itoring for NPTEC and BEEF releases/detonations Per test Compliant 3.2.5 

ons from permitted equipment/facility at the NTS 20% Compliant 3.2.4 

alysis reports for each chemical release test at NPTEC 

annual report of all chemicals released during the 

Annual report due March 1 Compliant 

3.2.5; 

Table 3-17; 

Table 3-18 

alculated emissions at the NLVF and the RSL-Nellis 

Due March 31 Compliant A.1.3; A.3.2 

 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 - 2006 

Section 

Reference(a)

gs from permitted equipment/facility Quarterly Compliant 3.2.4 

ions from permitted equipment/facility 10% Compliant 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 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 2006

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. A permanent NPDES permit was issued to 

NNSA/NSO in November 2006 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 United States. 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 (PWS). The NTS has three PWS 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. 

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 23 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 Bureau of Federal Facilities (BFF) regulates the 

NTS septic systems as commercial individual systems which treat domestic sewage only in quantities less than 

5,000 gal/d. The BFF does not require collection or analysis of sewage samples from these septic systems. The 

BHPS regulates the permits that NNSA/NSO holds for five septic tank pumpers and one septic tank pumping 

contractor’s license. 

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 2006 2-7 

2.2.1 Compliance Issues 

All drinking water and wastewater samples in 2006 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), and (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 2006 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 PWS 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, 2006) 

The following reports were generated for operations at the NTS satellite facilities in 2006 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 2006. 

 
Compliance Summary 

iance status with applicable water quality and protection regulations 

/Action Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2006 Section Reference(a) 

ct and Nevada Water Controls (NAC 445A - Water 

 Systems) 

mples containing coliform bacteria 3 per month Compliant 4.2.1.1; Table 4-10 

rganic contaminants in Area 12 PWS Limit varies(c) Noncompliant for lead 4.2.1.1; Table 4-10 

rganic Phase II contaminants in all PWS Limit varies Compliant 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 4.2.3.3 or of inactive sewage lagoon systems Quarterly Compliant 4.2.3.3 

nitoring reports for 2 active sewage lagoons (for 

Due end of Jan., 

Apr., Jul., Oct. Compliant - -
Compliance Summary

ce status with applicable water quality and protection regulations (continued) 

ction Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2006 Section Reference(a)

da Water Pollution Controls (NAC 445A - Water 

ued)

onduct inspections of active sewage lagoon systems NA Compliant 4.2.3.3 

m (3H), gross alpha (α), and gross beta (β), (in 

/L]), and 16 nonradiological 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

Compliant 4.1.8: Table 4-5 

ntaminants in water samples from three NLVF sewage 

nd liquid samples from the NLVF sand/oil interceptor Limit varies Noncompliant 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 - licensed personnel supervised deepening of ER-16-1 well 

- - 

d affidavits of responsibility for plugging NA 

Compliant – filed revised notice of intent for deepening of ER-16-1 well 

- - 

ction requirements/waivers NA 

Compliant - 112 boreholes plugged for Borehole Management Program 

- - 

rds and submit required reports NA 

Compliant – annual borehole plugging report submitted to Nevada Division of Water Resources 

- - 

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 2006

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) resuspension 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 2006, was submitted to EPA Region IX in June 2007. This Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 was 

generated to report 2006 compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE-STD-1153-2002. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 2006. 

Table 2-3. NTS compliance status with regulations for radiation protection of the public and the 

environment

Compliance Measure Compliance Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2006 

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) 

Compliant 3.1.5 

 Safe Drinking Water Act 

 Annual dose to the general public from drinking 

water 

4 mrem/yr 

(0.04 mSv/yr) 

 Compliant(b) 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) 

Compliant 8.1.7; Table 8-3;

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 

8.1.6 

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) 

Compliant 8.2 

 Absorbed radiation dose to aquatic animals 1 rad/d Compliant 8.2 

 

Absorbed radiation dose to terrestrial animals 0.1 rad/d 

(1 mGy/d) 

Compliant 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 3-13 

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; 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 kilometers [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 2006

2.4 Radioactive and Nonradioactive 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. 

40 CFR 265 (Groundwater Monitoring) Subpart F (40 CFR 265.92) - Requires groundwater monitoring to verify 

the performance of waste disposal facilities so as to protect groundwater from buried radioactive and mixed wastes 

(MW). The Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) at the Area 5 RWMS requires groundwater monitoring to verify 

the performance of the pit under this regulation, and as specified by a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) Part B permit (see below). 

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 (HW) and 

underground storage tanks (USTs). Under Section 3006, the EPA authorizes Nevada to administer and enforce HW 

permits for many NNSA/NSO facilities. In November 2005, Nevada renewed the RCRA Part B Permit 

(NEV HW0021). The permit regulates the operation of the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) in Area 5, the 

EODU in Area 11, and authorizes the disposal of LLMW generated from DOE offsite facilities in P03U at the Area 5 

RWMS. Part II.K.2 of the permit requires preparation of an EPA Biennial Hazardous Waste Report of all HW 

volumes generated at the NTS and at the NLVF during a year. 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 and RSL-Nellis has 4 USTs. The tanks are either (1) fully regulated under RCRA and 

registered with the state; (2) regulated under RCRA and registered with the state of Nevada, but deferred from leak 

detection requirements; or (3) excluded from federal and state regulation. The UST program reports, upgrades, and 

removes USTs in accordance with regulatory compliance schedules. 

RCRA also requires generators of HW 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 HW management operations under Permit NEV HW0021 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). 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 2-13 

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 HW cleanup operations on the NTS are regulated under CERCLA; they are regulated under RCRA 

instead. The only applicable requirements of CERCLA pertain to an emergency response program for hazardous 

substance releases (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 HWs to federal facilities. The FFCA of 1992, signed by NNSA/NSO and the state of 

Nevada, requires the identification of existing quantities for MW, the proposal of methods and technologies of MW 

treatment and management, the creation of enforceable timetables, and the tracking and completion of deadlines. 

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) – Pursuant to Section 120(a)(4) of CERCLA and to 

Sections 6001 and 3004(u) of RCRA, the DOE, U.S. Department of Defense, and the state of Nevada entered into a 

FFACO in May 1996. It addresses the environmental restoration of historically contaminated sites at the NTS, parts 

of Tonopah Test Range, 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 have been identified for cleanup and closure. An 

individual site is called a Corrective Action Site (CAS). 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. 

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 one inactive and four active permitted 

landfills. The Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Unit P07U is inactive. Active units include the 

Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Unit P06U), 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 2006 or 2007 to comply with environmental regulations for waste 

management and environmental restoration operations conducted on the NTS in 2006. All CAU/CAS reports 

prepared in 2006 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 MW disposal cells) 

• 2005 EPA Biennial Hazardous Waste Report for the Nevada Test Site and North Las Vegas Facility (Note: this 2005 report 

was prepared and submitted to NDEP in February 2006, but was erroneously not included in DOE, 2006b 

• Biannual Neutron Monitoring Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 9 10c and Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfills 

• Nevada Test Site 2006 Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site (National 

Security Technologies, LLC, 2007a)

• Post-closure monitoring reports for the five RCRA Part B-identified CAUs 

• January-June 2006 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• July-December 2006 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• 2006 Annual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the NTS Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfill and Area 9 U10c Landfills 

• Nevada Test Site 2006 Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites

(NSTec, 2007b) 

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 2006.
Compliance Summary

e status with applicable waste management and environmental restoration regulations 

tion Compliance Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2006 

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 9.1.7 

d LLW at Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs (in cubic meters [m3]) NA 28,803 m3 9.1.3 

 Conservation and Recovery Act (as enforced through permits 

da) 

 (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 

pH: 7.6 to 9.2 

SC: 0.440 mmhos/cm(c)

TOC: 1 mg/L(d)

TOX: 50 μg/L(e)

H3: 2,000 pCi/L 

Compliant 

9.1.6; 

Table 9-2; 

4.1.7; 

Table 4-4; 

MW at Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) (in cubic meters 

20,000 m3 (706,293 ft3) Compliant 9.2.1; 

Table 9-3 

dioactive HW stored at the HWSU 61,600 liters 

(16,280 gallons) 

Compliant 9.2.2; 

Table 9-3 

osive ordnance wastes detonated at the EODU (in kilograms 

45.4 kg (100 lbs) at a time, not to 

exceed 1 detonation event/hour 

Compliant 9.2.3; 

Table 9-3 

of volume of wastes received at P03U, HWSU, and EODU to 

Due April, July, October, 

January 

Compliant 9.2 

zardous Waste Report for NTS and NLVF to the state of Nevada Due the following February for 

odd-numbered years 

Compliant 9.2 
Compliance Summary

e status with applicable waste management and environmental restoration regulations (continued) 

tion Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2006 Section Reference(a) 

 Recovery Act (as enforced through permits issued by the state 

monitoring for RCRA closure site U3ax/bl Subsidence Crater Continuous monitoring using TDR(f) sensors Compliant 9.4.2 

nspection of Area 2 Bitcutter Containment and 

NA Compliant 9.4.2 

report on USTs NA Compliant 9.3; A.3.4 

and Consent Order 

year work scope for site characterization, remediation, 

43 CAUs identified for some phase of action; 339 CASs were closed Compliant 9.4.1; Table 9-4 

g and inspections of closed sites 33 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 

Annually using neutron logging through access tubes Compliant 9.5.1 

s document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

 per centimeter 

er 

iter 

try 
Compliance Summary

2-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

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 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 administers this program and has the primary role to enforce FIFRA in Nevada. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 2-17 

Inspections of pesticide/herbicide applicator programs are carried out by NDOA. Restricted-use pesticides are not 

used by NSTec at the NTS. 

NAC 444 – Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) – 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 2006 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 2006, submitted to state and local agencies 

• Toxic Release Inventory Report, Form R for CY2006 Operations, submitted to the EPA and to the state of Nevada 

• Calendar Year (CY) 2006 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 2006.
Compliance Summary

nce status with applicable regulations for hazardous substance control and management 

Action Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2006 

Section 

Reference(a)

 Act (TSCA) and 

d Biphenyls

isposal of PCB materials Required if >50 ppm(b) PCBs Compliant 10.1 

isposal of PCB materials Allowed if <50 ppm PCBs Compliant 10.1 

duct waste containing PCBs generated 

site operations 

Case-by-case approval by 

NDEP 

Compliant 10.1 

uantities of PCB liquids and materials 

ng previous calendar year 

Due July 1 of following year Compliant 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 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 10.3; A.1.4; 

A.3.3 

elease Notification Notification Report due 

immediately after a release 

Compliant 10.3; A.1.4; 

A.3.3 

SDS/Chemical Inventory NCA Report due in March for 

previous calendar year 

Compliant 10.3; A.1.4; 

A.3.3 

porting TRI Report, Form R due July 1 

for previous calendar year 

Compliant 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 10.4 

s document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

ention Program 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 2006 for 97 projects. 

Table 2-6. NTS NEPA compliance activities conducted in 2006 

Results of NEPA Checklist Reviews / NEPA Compliance Activities 

23 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis because they were of CX status. 

66 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. 

1 project was exempted from further NEPA analysis due to its inclusion under previous analysis in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Relocation of Technical Area 18 Capabilities and Materials at the Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (DOE, 2002b). 

The EA titled Environmental Assessment for Large-Scale, Open-Air Explosive Detonation DIVINE STRAKE at the Nevada Test 

Site (DOE, 2005b) was revised and reissued (DOE, 2006a). 

2 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis due to their inclusion under previous analysis in the Environmental 

Assessment for Large-Scale, Open-Air Explosive Detonation DIVINE STRAKE at the Nevada Test Site (DOE, 2005b; DOE, 2006a).

1 project was exempted from further NEPA analysis due to its 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). 

2 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, 2002c) and in the 

Final Environmental Assessment for Activities Using Biological Simulants and Release of Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site 

(DOE, 2004a). 

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, 2004b). 
Compliance Summary

2-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

2.7 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (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. 

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, 

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. 

2.7.1 Compliance Reports 

The compliance reports for 2006 activities performed to comply with pollution prevention and waste minimization 

(P2/WM) directives are presented in Table 2-7. 

2.7.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-7 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with P2/WM regulations in 2006. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 2-21 

Table 2-7. NTS compliance status with applicable P2/WM regulations 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance

Limit/Goal 

Compliance 

Status 2006 

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% Noncompliant 

73% 

11.1 

 Submit a 2006 fiscal year RCRA/EO 13101 Report to 

DOE/Headquarters (HQ) by entering the site’s data into the 

DOE/HQ electronic database 

Due 

December 15, 

2006 

Compliant - - 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program 

 Submit a 2006 fiscal year (October 1, 2005 – September 31, 2006) 

Waste Generation and Pollution Prevention Progress Report to 

DOE/HQ 

Due 

December 15, 

2006 

Compliant 11.3 

NDEP Hazardous Waste Permit Number NEV HW0021 

Submit a 2006 calendar year Waste Minimization Summary 

Report to NDEP 

Due by 

March 1, 2007 

Compliant 11.3 

(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 2006

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

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 2-23 

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 

2006 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 2006. 

 Table 2-8. NTS compliance status with historic preservation regulations 

Compliance Action 

Compliance 

Status - 2006 

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 inventories and evaluations of historic 

structures 

Compliant 12.1; 

Table 12-1 

Make determinations of eligibility to the National Register Compliant 12.1.2; 

Table 12-1 

Make assessments of impact to eligible properties Compliant 12.1.2 

Manage artifact collection as per required professional standards Compliant 12.2 

Archaeological Resources and Protection Act of 1979 

Conduct archaeological work by qualified personnel Compliant - - 

Determine if archaeological sites have been damaged Compliant 12.1.3.2 

Complete and submit Secretary of the Interior Archaeology 

Questionnaire 

Compliant 12.1.3.3 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Allow American Indians access to NTS locations for ceremonies 

and traditional use 

Compliant 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

2-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

2.9 Conservation and Protection of Biota and Wildlife Habitat 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) – 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 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 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 well-being. 

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 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 2-25 

actions that could promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. Land-disturbing activities on the NTS have 

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. 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program – Requires federal facilities to address the protection of 

site resources from wildland and operational fires and the protection of the environment and biota from site activities 

through the integration of an EMS into each site’s ISMS (see Section 2.10). Annual surveys of vegetation fuel 

hazards, ecosystem mapping, surveys for protected and important species, and habitat revegetation are conducted to 

meet the intent of this Order. 

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. Biologist conduct periodic horse 

census surveys on the NTS. 

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 Stateprotected plant species are known to occur on the NTS. Annual reviews of the status of NTS plants are conducted. 

2.9.1 Compliance Issues 

Four deaths recorded among migratory birds in 2006 were related to NTS activities (roadkill and electrocution, see 

Table 13-4). 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 2006 or 2007 to meet regulation requirements or to document compliance for 

all activities conducted in 2006: 

• Annual Report of Actions Taken Under Authorization of the Biological Opinion on NTS Activities (File No. 1-5-96-F-33) – 

January 1, 2006 Through December 31, 2006 

• Annual Report for Handling Permit S26952 for 2006, submitted via email to Nevada Division of Wildlife (Julie 

Meadows) 

• Annual Report for Federal Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit MB008695-0, submitted via FAX to FWS Portland 

Office 

• Annual Report for Federal Migratory Bird Special Purpose Possession Permit (Dead Permit) MB037277-0, submitted via FAX 

to FWS Portland Office 

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 2006.
Compliance Summary 

e status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations 

tion Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2006 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 272.43 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 13.2 

Bald Eagle Protection Act; and 

f Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds

ggs harmed by NTS project activities 0 4 bird deaths 13.2; 

Table 13-4 

ystem Administration Act 

 nests, or eggs killed and amount of vegetation disturbed or 

the DNWR) as a result of NTS activities 

0 0 13.6 

nd Burro Act and 

eement 

ed or killed due to NTS activities 0 0 13.3.2.6 

resource inventories and developing resource management 

NTTR, and the DNWR 

NA Compliant 13.3.2.6; 

Table 13-5 

gement

NA NA – No projects proposed 

that required floodplain 

evaluations 

-- 
Compliance Summary

e status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations (continued) 

tion 

Compliance 

Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2006 

Section 

Reference(a)

4-Wetlands Regulations and 

lands

urbed by NTS activity NA 0 13.3.4 

nducting habitat reclamation and other controls to control 

s 

NA Compliant 13.1, 13.4, 

Table 13-6 

AC 527.270 - Nevada Protective Measures for 

d animals harmed or killed and number of state-protected 

d due to NTS activities 

0 4 bird deaths 13.3.2.3; 

Table 13-4 

ocument that describe how compliance summary data were collected 
Compliance Summary

2-28 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

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 required that the EMS be in place by the 

end of 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 Order required each DOE site’s EMS to be fully integrated into their site’s ISMS by the 

end of 2005. 

2.10.1 Compliance Reports 

No reports were required in 2006 to comply with this Executive Order and DOE Order. Chapter 17 presents the 

status and 2006 activities related to NSTec’s EMS. 

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 EMS regulations 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance 

Status - 2006 

Section 

Reference(a)

EO 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in 

Environmental Management 

 

Have an EMS in place by end of 2005 Compliant 17.0 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program 

 

Incorporate the EMS into the site's ISMS Compliant 17.0 

Implement the EMS by annually identifying 

environmental aspects, objectives, targets, and goals, and 

tracking environmental measures to improve processes 

Compliant 17.2.4; 

Table 17-1 
 Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 2-29 

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 EPCRA 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 2006, no reportable environmental occurrence happened at the NTS or at its satellite facilities. 
Compliance Summary

2-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

2.12 Summary of Permits 

Table 2-11 presents the complete list of all federal and state permits active during calendar year 2006 that were issued 

to NNSA/NSO and to NSTec 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 

06-28 NTS Burn Variance (Various Locations) March 12, 2007 None 

06-49 NTS Open Burn Variance, NTS, A-23, Facility #23-T00200 

(NTS Fire & Rescue Training Center) 

April 30, 2007 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, 2007 None 

NY-4098-12NTNC Area 25 September 30, 2007 None 

NY-4099-12NTNC Area 12 September 30, 2007 None 

NY-0835-12NP NTS Water Hauler #84846 September 30, 2007 None 

NY-0836-12NP NTS Water Hauler #84847 September 30, 2007 None 

NTS Septic Systems and Pumpers 

NY-1054 Septic System, Area 3 (Waste Management Offices) None None 

NY-1069 Septic System, Area 18 (820th Red Horse Squadron) None None 

NY-1076 Septic System, Area 6 (Airborne Response Team Hangar) None None 

NY-1077 Septic System, Area 27 (Baker Compound) 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 (Control Point-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 (Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Construction Camp Site) 

None None 

NY-1091 Septic System, Area 23 (Gate 100) None None 
 Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 2-31 

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-1103 Septic System, Area 22 (Desert Rock Airport) None None 

NY-1106 Septic System, Area 5 (Hazmat Spill Center) None None 

NY-1110-HAA-A Individual Sewage Disposal System, A-12, Building 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 

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, 2007 None 

NY-17-03315 Septic Tank Pumper E 107105 November 30, 2007 None 

NY-17-03317 Septic Tank Pumper E-105918 November 30, 2007 None 

NY-17-03318 Septic Tank Pumping Contractor (one unit) November 30, 2007 None 

NY-17-06838 Septic Tank Pumper E-105919 November 30, 2007 None 

NY-17-06839 Septic Tank Pumper E-107103 November 30, 2007 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 

TNEV2006369 NLVF Temporary Authorization to Discharge June 6, 2006 Monthly 

TNEV2006445 NLVF Temporary Authorization to Discharge December 6, 2006 Monthly 

NV0023507 North Las Vegas National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System Permit 

November 2, 2011 Quarterly 

RSL-Nellis 

CCWRD-080 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit June 30, 2007 Quarterly 

Hazardous Materials NTS 

2287-5146 NTS Hazardous Materials February 28, 2007 Annually 

2287-5147 Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex February 28, 2007 Annually 

NLVF 

2287-5144 NLVF Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2007 Annually 

RSL-Nellis 

2287-5145 RSL Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2007 Annually 

NTS Hazardous Waste 

NEV-HW0021 NTS Hazardous Waste Management Permit (RCRA) December 1, 2010 Biennially 

0510003453 Utah Generator Site Access Permit November 1, 2007 None 

NTS Waste Management 

U1576-33N-01 RSL-Nellis Waste Management Permit-Underground 

Storage Tank 

December 31, 2007 None 
Compliance Summary

2-32 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

Table 2-11. Environmental permits required for NTS and NTS site facility operations (continued) 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

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 

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 

MB008695-0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Migratory Bird Scientific 

Collecting Permit December 31, 2009 Annually 

MB037277-1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Migratory Bird Special 

Purpose Possession – Dead Permit March 31, 2009 Annually 

S26952 Nevada Division of Wildlife - Scientific Collection of 

Wildlife Samples December 31, 2006 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 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-1 

3.0 Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring 

Section 3.1 of this chapter presents the results of radiological air monitoring conducted on 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 2006, radiological monitoring was conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN) (up through June 30) and then by National 

Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), 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 air 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 2006 offsite 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) or at other release areas. In 2006, air quality assessments were conducted by BN (up through June 30) and 

then by NSTec 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 (DOE, 2003a). 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 analytes monitored in order to perform dose assessments. They are the radionuclides 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. In addition, 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. Also, gross alpha and gross beta readings are used in air monitoring as a rapid 

screening measure. 

 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 (CLs) for Environmental Compliance 

(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, called the committed effective dose equivalent 

(CEDE) (see Glossary, Appendix B), 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 Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-3 

Figure 3-1. Radiological air sampling network on the NTS in 2006
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 

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 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61, 1999 

(b) From Chapter 3 of DOE Order 5400.5, 1990, see Glossary, Appendix B for definition 

Point–Source (Stack) Sampler – 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. 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), 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 (4-inch) 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 collected within each month 

were composited for each station, 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 exerceses 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 

flow rate of about 566 cubic centimeters per minute (1.2 ft3 per hour). The total volume sampled is determined from 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-5 

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 

All elevated radionuclide concentrations in the 2006 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. 

Monitoring results for the point-source station at JASPER are included in the tables in this section. These results are 

not included in NTS-wide averages of air concentrations due to legacy contamination. 

3.1.4.1 Americium-241 

During 2006, 40 percent of 241Am measurements exceeded their MDCs (see Table 3-2). This is slightly higher than 

for 2005 (35 percent) and slightly lower than for 2004 (41 percent). The mean concentration over all locations was 

21 x 10-18 μCi/mL. This is slightly lower than 2005; both 2005 and 2006 are higher than preceding 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 179 x 10-18 μCi/mL, which is 

9 percent of the compliance limit. 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 Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

241Am

0

100

200

300

400

500

01-Jan-06

02-Apr-06

02-Jul-06

01-Oct-06

01-Jan-07

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

U-3bh N

Bunker 9-300

Other

20% of CL

Table 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2006 

 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 15.58 0.8 12.61 14.08 -1.55 36.98 8.03 58.3 

3 U-3ah/at N 12 33.43 1.8 12.87 51.85 3.92 161.73 7.12 75.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 47.09 2.5 34.69 43.31 1.09 128.25 6.96 66.7 

3 U-3bh N 12 25.07 1.3 11.25 33.36 -0.61 97.54 8.04 58.3 

3 U-3bh S 12 15.72 0.8 12.55 13.24 0.62 44.34 7.48 75.0 

5 DoD 12 2.87 0.2 3.52 2.45 -1.92 5.61 8.23 16.7 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 3.65 0.2 2.72 4.77 -2.18 15.67 10.64 16.7 

6 Yucca 12 10.33 0.5 2.92 16.81 0.21 56.08 6.12 33.3 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 178.52 9.4 175.85 98.57 29.80 400.83 7.16 100.0 

10 Gate 700 S 12 2.02 0.1 1.58 3.44 -3.32 7.62 6.99 25.0 

10 Sedan N 12 10.41 0.5 10.00 9.11 0.50 31.86 7.07 66.7 

16 3545 Substation 11 7.79 0.4 2.07 15.37 -1.87 48.39 9.59 22.7 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 4.10 0.2 3.62 3.52 -0.98 11.16 7.62 33.3 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 1.47 0.1 0.49 4.55 -1.86 14.96 8.08 16.7 

20 Schooner 12 4.31 0.2 2.29 5.38 -0.43 17.07 7.24 33.3 

23 Mercury Track 12 2.38 0.1 1.43 3.45 0.00 12.79 6.42 16.7 

25 Gate 510 12 2.94 0.2 1.23 3.73 -0.21 12.75 7.84 4.2 

27 ABLE Site 11 1.87 0.1 1.83 2.48 -2.46 6.52 8.47 4.5 

All Environmental Samplers 214 20.68 1.1 3.90 49.88 -3.32 400.83 7.71 40.4 

27 JASPER Stack 12 22.38 1.2 13.42 42.24 -18.43 132.68 71.67 8.3 

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 2006 

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.
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-7 

3.1.4.2 Cesium-137 

During 2006, 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 2006

3.1.4.3 Plutonium Isotopes 

During 2006, 14 percent of 238Pu measurements exceeded their MDCs, about the same as in 2005. The overall mean 

concentration (2.8 x 10-18 μCi/mL) is slightly lower than in 2005 as well. As with 241Am, the 2005 and 2006 values are 

somewhat higher than in preceding years. This increase is due to the increased concentrations measured at 

Bunker 9-300 in Area 9; the annual mean at that location was 17.6 x 10-18 μCi/mL. This is just 0.8 percent of the CL 

(see Table 3-4 and Figure 3-3).

 137Cs (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

1 BJY 11 4.36 0.2 1.33 29.78 -44.09 54.95 73.26 0.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 12 -6.89 -0.4 -12.43 19.01 -35.52 26.38 66.13 0.0 

3 U-3ah/at Ss 12 8.01 0.4 -0.81 26.43 -27.24 67.84 72.23 0.0 

3 U-3bh N 11 -3.27 -0.2 -1.30 14.17 -25.74 18.77 76.23 0.0 

3 U-3bh S 12 7.84 0.4 2.58 21.89 -17.95 60.04 71.31 0.0 

5 DoD 12 1.46 0.1 1.63 29.07 -53.41 55.82 72.77 0.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 -2.74 -0.1 -4.09 21.64 -42.04 29.93 91.50 0.0 

6 Yucca 12 -5.78 -0.3 -15.80 37.05 -54.19 48.53 73.79 0.0 

9 Bunker 9-300 11 11.68 0.6 8.19 14.28 -12.16 45.13 68.57 0.0 

10 Gate 700 S 12 -8.82 -0.5 -1.70 31.77 -80.90 29.34 72.99 0.0 

10 Sedan N 12 3.52 0.2 -1.06 43.55 -63.11 112.02 87.44 0.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 -5.77 -0.3 -1.27 24.73 -59.00 27.48 82.16 0.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 -3.07 -0.2 3.36 29.60 -82.63 35.21 76.65 0.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 2.85 0.2 11.85 34.02 -91.11 31.13 74.90 0.0 

20 Schooner 12 -2.79 -0.1 6.08 35.50 -71.63 40.14 70.60 0.0 

23 Mercury Track 12 -1.18 -0.1 0.05 23.20 -44.97 30.50 76.91 0.0 

25 Gate 510 12 -3.12 -0.2 3.50 32.43 -79.42 33.33 70.73 0.0 

27 ABLE Site 11 -1.34 -0.1 -7.06 21.00 -32.45 30.79 71.29 0.0 

All Environmental Samplers 212 -0.34 0.0 1.52 27.76 -91.11 112.02 75.02 0.0 

27 JASPER Stack 12 -64.93 -3.4 -58.66 97.35 -255.72 146.41 586.12 0.0 

Note: The CL for 137Cs is 1,900 x 10-17μCi/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. 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 3-1). 

(b) Standard deviation 

(c) Minimum 

(d) Maximum 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

238Pu

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

01-Jan-06

02-Apr-06

02-Jul-06

01-Oct-06

01-Jan-07

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

Bunker 9-300

3545 Substation

Other

2% of CL

Table 3-4. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2006

 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 1.77 0.1 0.95 2.77 -1.05 8.48 8.71 8.3 

3 U-3ah/at N 12 4.54 0.2 3.20 5.33 -2.68 15.91 7.24 25.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 5.89 0.3 6.48 4.53 0.00 13.33 8.70 33.3 

3 U-3bh N 12 2.50 0.1 0.80 3.55 -2.22 8.47 7.90 25.0 

3 U-3bh S 12 0.96 0.0 0.33 2.71 -2.48 7.37 9.09 25.0 

5 DoD 12 0.17 0.0 -0.09 1.76 -1.99 4.18 8.48 0.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 1.16 0.1 0.72 3.29 -3.76 8.93 8.99 8.3 

6 Yucca 12 2.27 0.1 1.61 2.72 -1.18 8.95 6.41 8.3 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 17.61 0.8 16.35 9.51 2.64 39.32 9.68 75.0 

10 Gate 700 S 12 1.24 0.1 1.55 1.04 -0.76 2.65 6.47 0.0 

10 Sedan N 12 3.63 0.2 2.56 4.21 -3.02 13.16 9.65 16.7 

16 3545 Substation 12 3.79 0.2 0.15 9.62 -2.10 31.77 8.25 16.7 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 1.46 0.1 1.24 2.44 -2.82 5.78 8.23 0.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 0.25 0.0 -0.01 1.58 -1.66 4.29 7.54 0.0 

20 Schooner 12 1.33 0.1 0.90 2.37 -1.16 8.03 9.07 8.3 

23 Mercury Track 12 -0.26 0.0 -0.15 1.92 -2.83 4.42 10.54 0.0 

25 Gate 510 12 0.45 0.0 0.27 2.18 -2.91 5.27 7.28 0.0 

27 ABLE Site 12 1.07 0.1 0.43 1.52 -0.29 4.33 7.19 0.0 

All Environmental 

Samplers 216 2.77 0.1 1.00 5.67 -3.76 39.32 8.30 13.9 

27 JASPER Stack 11 3.88 0.2 0.12 10.19 -9.91 23.74 62.39 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 2006
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-9 

The isotopes 239+240Pu (analytical methods cannot readily distinguish between these two) are of greater abundance 

and hence greater interest. Overall, 62 percent of measurements exceeded their MDCs. The overall mean of 

138 x 10-18 μCi/mL is modestly lower than in 2005 (148 x 10-18 μCi/mL); again, these are higher than preceding 

years (48, 38, and 55 in 2004, 2003, and 2002 respectively). 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 

1,201 x 10-18 μCi/mL; this is 60 percent of the CL (see Table 3-5 and Figure 3-4). 

Table 3-5. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2006 

 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 11 94.02 4.7 60.47 86.08 1.56 248.04 8.12 86.4 

3 U-3ah/at N 11 248.94 12.4 115.63 358.62 17.90 1101.29 6.77 100.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 11 349.33 17.5 308.79 304.18 45.32 1012.94 10.35 100.0 

3 U-3bh N 11 171.88 8.6 57.70 226.22 4.22 614.42 10.63 90.9 

3 U-3bh S 11 112.82 5.6 67.79 111.44 14.19 380.37 8.57 100.0 

5 DoD 11 18.50 0.9 7.49 36.02 0.00 125.55 10.29 45.5 

5 Sugar Bunker N 11 23.75 1.2 8.64 43.29 -3.76 144.27 8.84 63.6 

6 Yucca 11 53.42 2.7 14.96 128.83 1.50 440.40 5.81 77.3 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 1,201.19 60.1 1,116.64 622.14 179.69 2,449.50 5.67 100.0 

10 Gate 700 S 11 14.98 0.7 13.84 11.07 -1.32 34.91 8.88 63.6 

10 Sedan N 12 57.49 2.9 47.75 51.23 6.00 169.28 10.09 91.7 

16 3545 Substation 11 17.94 0.9 4.85 37.14 2.16 128.53 5.74 54.5 

18 Little Feller 2 N 11 10.28 0.5 6.29 11.86 -2.89 31.36 6.91 54.5 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 2.67 0.1 2.09 2.87 -1.86 7.88 6.99 31.8 

20 Schooner 11 5.04 0.3 2.29 7.52 -1.98 22.35 7.81 18.2 

23 Mercury Track 11 2.32 0.1 2.38 2.71 -1.65 7.68 11.43 0.0 

25 Gate 510 11 2.77 0.1 1.42 3.70 -1.50 9.58 6.62 27.3 

27 ABLE Site 11 2.59 0.1 3.68 1.98 -1.48 4.54 7.61 4.5 

All Environmental Samplers 200 137.74 6.9 12.11 344.50 -3.76 2449.50 8.17 62.0 

27 JASPER Stack 10 16.83 0.8 11.79 25.59 -24.40 59.04 67.14 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 Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

239+240Pu

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

01-Jan-06

02-Apr-06

02-Jul-06

01-Oct-06

01-Jan-07

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

U-3bh N

Bunker 9-300

Other

CL

239+240Pu Long-Term Trends

All Locations With at Least 15-Year Histories

1

10

100

1000

10000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Annual Mean (x 10 -18 μCi/mL)

Areas 1-3

Areas 2-12-16

Area 5 non-RWMC

Area 5 RWMC

Areas 6-11

Areas 7-9-10-15

Areas 19-20

Area 23

Areas 25-27

CL

Figure 3-4. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2006 

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. 

Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show long-term trends in 239+240Pu annual mean concentrations at locations with at least 15-year 

data histories since 1971. The estimated average annual rates of decline for the groups of NTS areas shown range 

from 3.4 percent for Areas 1 and 3 to 17.2 percent for Areas 18, 19, and 20. 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 6,537 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. 

Figure 3-5. Long-term trends in average annual mean 239+240Pu for NTS area groups
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-11 

239+240Pu Trends by Area Group

Average* Trend Lines for Locations With at Least 15-Year Histories

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Annual Mean (x 10 -18 μCi/mL)

Areas 1-3

Areas 2-12-16

Area 5 non-RWMC

Area 5 RWMC

Areas 6-11

Areas 7-9-10-15

Areas 19-20

Area 23

Areas 25-27

10% of CL

Figure 3-6. Fitted average long-term trends in 239+240Pu mean values by NTS area groups 

3.1.4.4 Uranium Isotopes 

Uranium analyses were performed for samples from Areas 6, 16, 25, 27, and one location (Gate 20-2P) in Area 20. 

Exercises using depleted uranium ordinances have been conducted in Areas 20 and 25. The annual mean 

concentrations at locations where samples where analyzed by radiochemistry for uranium isotopes 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 60 percent for 235+236U. These are very close to the proportions observed in 2005 and 2004. Mean 

concentrations of 233+234U and 238U isotopes are likewise similar to those for 2005 and 2004, but higher than the mean 

values for the preceding three years. The mean concentrations remain less than 2.5 percent of the CLs for 233+234U 

and 238U, and at most 0.2 percent of the CL for 235+236U. No substantial or statistically significant differences were 

observed between stations. 

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. Medians and 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 very slightly and the 

latter somewhat more so, although not as much as with the 2005 data. 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 essentially natural. In particular, there is no 

suggestion of any contribution from depleted uranium. 

Table 3-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2006 

 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 11 16.56 2.3 18.37 5.37 3.23 21.69 1.26 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 11 17.15 2.4 18.70 5.10 3.80 21.99 1.46 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 16.93 2.4 18.52 5.54 0.73 20.04 1.42 90.9 

25 Gate 510 11 17.53 2.5 17.87 4.71 5.30 22.24 1.11 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 11 17.53 2.5 17.87 4.71 5.30 22.24 1.11 100.0 

 All Locations 55 16.94 2.4 18.48 4.89 0.73 22.26 1.29 98.2 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 3-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2006 (continued) 

 Table 3-7. Observed values of uranium isotope ratios 

Isotope Ratio Values 

 238U / 233+234U 238U / 235+236U 

Median 0.95 16.4 

95% CI for Mean (a) (0.94, 1.03) (14.1, 19.8) 

(a) arithmetic mean for the 238U/233+234U ratio, geometric mean for the 

238U/235+236U ratio 

 Table 3-8. Expected ratios of uranium isotopes by type of source 

Expected Isotope Ratios Source 238U / 233+234U 238U / 235+236U 

Natural ~1.0 ~21 

Enriched ~0.1 ~5.2 

Depleted ~0.9 ~62 

 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 11 9.70 0.1 8.76 5.33 1.96 21.74 10.54 54.5 

16 3545 Substation 11 12.29 0.2 12.36 7.56 2.74 31.99 9.95 63.6 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 10.35 0.1 11.10 4.38 4.14 17.48 11.53 54.5 

25 Gate 510 12 20.64 0.3 15.93 15.89 8.82 62.36 21.28 62.5 

27 ABLE Site 11 10.01 0.1 9.04 7.16 1.02 25.06 10.88 54.5 

 All Locations 55 10.67 0.2 10.07 5.77 1.02 31.99 10.39 60.0 

 238U (x 10-17 μCi/mL)

6 Yucca 11 16.67 2.0 17.34 5.35 3.23 23.66 1.13 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 11 16.30 2.0 17.59 4.45 4.14 20.81 1.20 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 16.66 2.0 18.28 5.53 1.34 21.07 1.04 100.0 

25 Gate 510 11 16.50 2.0 17.94 4.71 2.80 20.45 0.99 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 11 15.88 1.9 17.01 4.98 4.43 22.07 1.17 100.0 

 All Locations 55 16.40 2.0 17.63 4.84 1.34 23.66 1.11 100.0 

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 Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-13 

3.1.4.5 Tritium 

Measurements of tritium in air vary widely across the NTS. Overall 52 percent of atmospheric moisture samples have 

tritium (3H) concentrations above their MDCs; this proportion ranges from 100 percent at Schooner, E Tunnel Pond, 

and Sedan N to less than 20 percent at Little Feller 2 N, Gate 510, and Mercury Track. The spatial patterns are very 

similar to those observed in 2005, with minor exceptions discussed below. See Table 3-9 for summary statistics. 

The highest mean concentration was found at Schooner (360 x 10-6 picocuries per milliliter [pCi/mL]). The next 

highest is 9.4 x 10-6 pCi/mL at Sedan N. These data are shown in Figure 3-7. 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 24 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 2006 

 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 24 1.24 0.1 1.27 0.90 -0.01 3.13 0.98 58.3 

3 U-3ah/at S 25 1.17 0.1 1.13 0.84 0.06 2.66 0.87 52.0 

3 U-3bh N 26 0.71 0.0 0.65 0.53 -0.07 1.63 0.89 44.2 

5 DoD 25 3.23 0.2 1.47 3.18 0.36 13.19 0.91 72.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 25 4.03 0.3 2.39 4.36 -0.30 18.11 0.91 84.0 

6 Yucca 26 0.61 0.0 0.49 0.35 0.01 1.54 0.92 32.7 

9 Bunker 9-300 25 2.66 0.2 2.42 2.07 0.39 6.60 0.94 76.0 

10 Gate 700 S 25 0.76 0.1 0.65 0.63 -0.26 2.21 0.94 40.0 

10 Sedan N 24 9.38 0.6 6.67 8.56 1.07 28.02 0.92 100.0 

12 E Tunnel Pond 2 15 6.51 0.4 6.75 3.16 1.43 11.75 0.92 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 24 0.38 0.0 0.36 0.41 -0.37 1.34 0.87 25.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 25 0.39 0.0 0.45 0.51 -0.77 1.73 0.90 16.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 26 0.38 0.0 0.35 0.48 -0.60 1.78 0.89 23.1 

20 Schooner 25 360.31 24.0 183.58 401.58 19.16 1,228.06 1.59 100.0 

23 Mercury Track 26 0.34 0.0 0.32 0.41 -0.47 1.40 0.97 19.2 

25 Gate 510 26 0.34 0.0 0.23 0.39 -0.20 1.61 0.95 11.5 

 All Environmental Samplers 392 24.84 1.7 0.79 132.65 -0.77 1228.06 0.96 51.8 

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 Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 3-7. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2006 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 3-7 shows the relationship between 3H 

measurements and the average daily temperature at Pahute Mesa, where Schooner is located; Figure 3-8 shows the 

time and amount of precipitation events in that area. 

Figure 3-8. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2006 and Pahute Mesa precipitation

3

H and Pahute Mesa Temperature

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

01-Jan-06

02-Apr-06

02-Jul-06

01-Oct-06

01-Jan-07

Collection Date

x 10-6 pCi/mL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

oF

Schooner x 0.1

Sedan N

Sugar Bunker N

Other

5% of CL

Temperature

3

H and Pahute Mesa Precipitation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

01-Jan-06

02-Apr-06

02-Jul-06

01-Oct-06

01-Jan-07

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

Sugar Bunker N

Other

5% of CL

Precipitation
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-15 

At the end of 2005, elevated measurements of 3H occurred at Sugar Bunker N and DoD, as reported in the Nevada 

Test Site Environmental Report 2005 (DOE, 2006b). These levels tapered off through the first few months of 2006, after 

which the measurements returned to background levels. The annual mean values for these locations are at most 

0.2 percent of the CL. 

Figure 3.9 shows long-term trends for the annual means of all locations with at least seven-year histories since 1987, 

color-coded by NTS area. At most locations, the 3H measurements have been decreasing fairly rapidly from year to 

year; the average decline rate is around 19 percent per year across all locations. This ranges from 5.5 percent per year 

at BJY in Area 1 to an average of 36 percent per year in Areas 23 and 25. During 1998, a more efficient sampling 

system (molecular sieve) was incorporated. The trend plots and decline rates presented here (Figures 3-8 and 3-9) are 

adjusted for the impact of this more efficient system. 

Figure 3-9. Average long-term trends in tritium at locations having at least 7 years of data 

The exception to the generally-decreasing trend occurs at Schooner, where on average the air concentrations of 

tritium have been increasing at an average rate of 6 percent per year. As Figure 3-10 shows, however, this is not a 

consistent trend, but rather appears to be related to the temperatures on Pahute Mesa during the summer months. 

Schooner Tritium vs Temperature

100

200

300

400

500

1997 2001 2005

Tritium (x 10 -6 pCi/mL)

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

Temperature (oF)

Tritium in Air

Jun-Sep avg temp

Figure 3-10. Tritium emissions at Schooner and June-September average temperatures at Pahute Mesa 

3

H Annual Mean Long-Term Trends All Locations With at Least 7-Year Histories Since 1987

Data before 1999 adjusted

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

Area 1

Area 5 RWMC

Areas 10-12-15

Schooner * 0.1

Areas 23-25

1% of CL
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 2006 are shown in Tables 3-10 and 3-11 and Figures 3-11 and 3-12. Since these radioactivities include 

naturally-occurring 40K, 7Be, uranium, thorium, and the daughter isotopes of uranium and thorium in uncertain 

proportions, a meaningful CL cannot be constructed. These analyses are useful in that they can be performed just 

five days after sample collection to identify any increases requiring investigation. 

Overall, 38 percent of gross alpha measurements exceeded their MDCs, nearly the same as in 2005 and only slightly 

higher than 2004. The overall mean measurements are slightly higher than 2005 as well. The biggest increase in 

measurements over 2005 is found at Bunker 9-300; this corresponds to the increased concentrations of 241Am, 238Pu, 

and 239+240Pu present during the summer. 

All of the gross beta measurements exceeded their MDCs in 2006; it was nearly 100 percent in 2005 and 2004 as well. 

The mean value is slightly higher than in 2005; there is only one outstanding value to highlight in Figure 3-12. The 

week-to-week parallel variation between sampling locations is much more pronounced with gross beta than with gross 

alpha which continues the pattern of prior years. 

Table 3-10. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2006 

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 24.64 21.73 14.91 -2.23 80.10 27.66 38.5 

3 U-3ah/at N 52 28.61 26.73 19.30 4.54 116.00 27.41 51.9 

3 U-3ah/at S 50 34.17 28.80 21.89 0.00 87.50 27.28 52.0 

3 U-3bh N 52 25.84 25.88 17.21 0.00 105.70 27.36 44.2 

3 U-3bh S 52 24.27 24.67 11.22 0.00 45.00 27.54 42.3 

5 DoD 52 20.05 18.81 9.92 -4.48 47.30 27.45 24.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 45 34.60 33.86 16.98 3.40 91.80 28.56 64.4 

6 Yucca 51 26.78 25.63 15.71 2.71 102.60 27.50 38.2 

9 Bunker 9-300 52 60.26 58.93 34.82 7.99 157.60 27.61 78.8 

10 Gate 700 S 51 23.78 24.90 11.75 1.16 56.00 28.18 41.2 

10 Sedan N 49 22.25 21.90 13.78 -3.45 55.40 28.42 26.5 

16 3545 Substation 50 18.50 16.10 10.40 1.10 54.30 27.52 23.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 52 19.73 20.86 11.84 -3.31 42.60 27.56 26.9 

20 Gate 20-2P 51 18.59 19.44 11.39 -11.65 45.00 27.97 23.5 

20 Schooner 51 18.58 16.58 12.25 -2.28 46.80 27.20 27.5 

23 Mercury Track 51 18.02 18.12 9.88 -3.39 43.40 27.47 23.5 

25 Gate 510 52 20.74 20.37 12.33 -5.60 49.50 27.57 35.6 

27 ABLE Site 50 17.72 18.69 7.60 -1.16 30.80 27.33 17.0 

All Environmental Samplers 924 915 25.37 22.31 18.55 -11.65 157.55 27.64 

27 JASPER Stack 50 269.73 9.87 1753.81 -686.16 12339.40 1160.66 3.0 

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations.
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-17 

Table 3-11. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2006 

 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 19.03 18.57 5.07 8.00 30.98 4.13 100.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 52 19.13 19.10 4.72 7.67 30.51 4.10 100.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 50 19.89 20.56 5.15 9.09 29.88 4.08 100.0 

3 U-3bh N 52 19.28 19.57 5.50 7.91 32.32 4.09 100.0 

3 U-3bh S 52 19.47 19.38 4.90 9.90 29.72 4.12 100.0 

5 DoD 52 20.04 19.84 5.19 9.64 33.76 4.10 100.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 45 21.33 20.92 5.06 8.69 34.07 4.32 100.0 

6 Yucca 51 20.41 20.81 5.41 9.13 33.51 4.12 100.0 

9 Bunker 9-300 52 19.50 20.02 5.23 9.41 29.24 4.12 100.0 

10 Gate 700 S 51 18.90 19.14 5.27 5.57 32.63 4.23 100.0 

10 Sedan N 49 18.20 18.59 4.86 7.69 28.63 4.24 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 50 18.27 17.38 5.31 7.57 36.30 4.13 100.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 52 17.76 18.20 4.78 6.88 27.62 4.12 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 51 18.04 18.08 5.01 5.76 29.63 4.18 100.0 

20 Schooner 51 18.58 18.16 4.96 7.14 28.20 4.06 100.0 

23 Mercury Track 51 19.02 19.85 5.13 6.59 29.00 4.11 100.0 

25 Gate 510 52 19.86 20.52 5.18 10.99 32.42 4.12 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 50 18.41 18.40 5.17 7.43 30.24 4.08 100.0 

All Environmental Samplers 925 915 19.16 19.42 5.14 5.57 36.30 4.13 

27 JASPER Stack 50 66.41 1.02 471.11 -41.00 3329.63 177.50 4.0 

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) Standard deviation (b) Minimum (c) Maximum

Gross Alpha

-5

0

5

10

15

01-Jan-06

02-Apr-06

02-Jul-06

01-Oct-06

01-Jan-07

Collection Date

x 10-15 μCi/mL

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

U-3bh N

Bunker 9-300

Other

Figure 3-11. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2006 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Gross Beta

0

10

20

30

40

01-Jan-06

02-Apr-06

02-Jul-06

01-Oct-06

01-Jan-07

Collection Date

x 10-15 μCi/mL

3545 Substation

Figure 3-12. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2006 

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 (see Tables 3-2, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-9, respectively). All measured concentrations of 

these radionuclides were well below their CLs. The uranium isotopes are attributed to naturally-occurring uranium 

(see Section 3.1.4.3). 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) demonstrating that the NESHAP dose limit (10 

mrem/yr) at these critical receptor locations was not exceeded. The highest radiation dose (CEDE) at a critical 

receptor location would be approximately 2.5 mrem/yr for a hypothetical individual residing at Schooner. 

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 0.032 

10 Gate 700 S 0.009 

16 3545 Substation 0.015 

20 Schooner 0.249(b)

23 Mercury 0.002 

241Am, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 3H 

25 Gate 510 0.003 

(a) 233+234U, 235+236U, and 238U are not included in sum of percents. 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 2.5 mrem/yr. 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-19 

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

Analyses of the 2006 air samples from the stack sampler at the JASPER facility contained only one measurement of a 

man-made radionuclide (241Am) above its MDC (see Tables 3-2 through 3-5). For the year, the mean of the 241Am 

measurements was only 1.2 percent of the CL. The detected 241Am was likely from ambient air since no plutonium 

(source-term at JASPER) was detected and outside air occasionally gets pulled through the stack sampler during 

diagnostic tests when the blowers are purposely blocked from exhausting through the stack. 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 2006, 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. 

Those projects that were evaluated 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 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 Warren and Grossman (2007). 

• Remediation activities for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 214: Bunkers and Storage Areas in Areas 5, 11, and 25 

• A series of experiments planned by the Dense Plasma Focus project in Area 11 

• Construction activities for the Legacy Compliance Project in radiologically-impacted portions of Area 8 

• Air emissions from a research project in Area 14 

3.1.8 Unplanned Releases 

No unplanned radionuclide releases occurred on the NTS during 2006. 

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 quantities 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 

• 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 resuspension model (Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC], 1983), and equation 

parameters derived at the NTS (DOE, 1992) 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

3-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Emission sources identified in 2006 were: 

• Release of tritium gas during the calibration of analytical equipment in Building 650, Area 23 

• Evaporation of tritium from E Tunnel containment ponds in Area 12 which received water seeping from the 

Tunnel complex 

• Evaporation of tritium from Area 5 Sewage Lagoon which received liquid effluents from the Building A-1 basement 

at the North Las Vegas Facility 

• Release of uranium from a research project in Area 14 

• Evapotranspiration of tritium from the Sedan and Schooner craters and from the areas including the Area 3 and 

Area 5 RWMSs 

• Resuspension of 241Am and 239+240Pu from soil deposits on the 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 Warren and Grossman (2007). 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 2006 

Source Radionuclide 

Annual Quantity 

(Ci) 

Area 23 Building 650 3H 0.0000225(a)

Area 12 E Tunnel Ponds 3H 9.8(b)

Area 5 Sewage Lagoon 3H 0.0003(b)

Area 3 RWMS 3H 54(c)

Area 5 RWMS 3H 19(c)

Area 14 U 0.0001 

Area 20 Schooner 3H 77(c)

Area 10 Sedan 3H 85(c)

All Sources Total 3H 245 

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, 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. 

All radionuclides detected by environmental air samplers in 2006 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 2006. 
 Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-21

3.2 Nonradiological Air Quality Assessment 

Nonradiological air monitoring and air quality assessments1 are conducted to document compliance with the current 

state of Nevada air quality permit that regulates 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 2006, assessments, 

facility/equipment monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting activities related to air quality on the NTS were 

conducted by ES personnel to meet the program goals shown in the table below. ES personnel collected and tracked 

the compliance measures shown in the table below. 

NNSA/NSO has been issued a Class II Air Quality Operating Permit (AP9711-0549.01) for NTS activities. Class II 

permits are issued for sources of air pollutants considered “minor” and where annual emissions must not exceed 

100 tons of any one criteria pollutant (see Glossary, Appendix B), or 10 tons of any one hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP), or 25 tons of any combination of HAPs. The NTS facilities regulated by this permit include: 

• Over 15 facilities/185 pieces of equipment in Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 23 

• NPTEC in Area 5 

• Site-Wide Chemical Release Areas 

• Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF) 

• Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit 

In March 2006, this permit was modified to include a number of revisions. The more noteworthy revisions included: 

(1) removal of the Area 23 incinerator from the permit, (2) a change in the due date for the NPTEC summary report 

to the state from 60 days following a test to quarterly, (3) and renaming of the Area 25 Test Cell C Facility to SiteWide Chemical Release Areas to reflect the ability to release small amounts of certain chemicals at various other NTS 

 

1The word “assessment” versus “monitoring” is used in this section. Adherence to most nonradiological 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 nonradiological 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 Nonradiological Air Monitoring 

3-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

locations. In December 2006, a second modification package was submitted to the state. The modification included 

the deletion of some equipment, a reduction in hours for many of the generators and compressors, and the addition 

of a small industrial shredder. The revised permit was issued in March 2007. 

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 2006 air quality activities are described below. 

3.2.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants 

A source’s regulatory status is determined by the maximum number of tons of criteria pollutants and nonradiological 

HAPs it may emit in a 12-month period if it were operated for the maximum number of hours and at the maximum 

production amounts specified in the source’s air permit. This maximum emission quantity, known as the “Potential to 

Emit” (PTE), is specified in an Air Emissions Inventory of all permitted NTS facilities and equipment. Each year, the 

state issues to NNSA/NSO Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Forms for the NTS air permit. They are used to report 

the actual hours of operation, gallons of fuel burned, etc., for each permitted facility/piece of equipment. Using these 

data, emissions of the criteria pollutants and HAPs are calculated and reported. The forms are completed by 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 that calculated emission quantities do not exceed 

the PTEs. Because lead is considered a HAP as well as a criteria pollutant, NTS lead emissions for permitted 

operations are reported to the state as part of the total HAPs emissions. Lead emissions from non-permitted activities 

such as soldering and weapons use are covered under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

and are reported to the EPA (see Section 10.3).

In 2006, examination of records for permitted facilities and equipment indicated that all operational parameters were 

being properly tracked. Approximately 4.57 tons (4.15 metric tons [mtons]) of criteria pollutants were emitted from 

NTS facilities and equipment that were operational in 2006 (Table 3-14). No PTEs were exceeded. The majority of 

the emissions were NOx from diesel generators and volatile organic compounds from the bulk storage of gasoline. 

The quantity of HAPs released in 2006 was 1.87 tons (Table 3-15). The Calendar Year 2006 Actual Production/Emissions 

Reporting Form was submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) on February 28, 2007. 

Table 3-15 and Figure 3-13 show the calculated tons of air pollutants released on the NTS since 1996. 

Field measurements (versus calculated emissions) of particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 

(PM10) is required for two permitted facilities: the BEEF and the NPTEC. A minimum of one portable PM10 

sampler is required to be located at each facility. The sampling systems must operate and record ambient PM10 

concentrations at least each day a detonation or chemical release occurs. The PM10 emissions are reported to the 

state in reports specific to each series of detonations or chemical releases (see Section 3.2.5). 

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. Exceptions to this include the Open Burn Variances issued to NNSA/NSO for 

fire extinguisher training at the NTS and for support-vehicle live-fire training evolutions. These Open Burn Variances 

are renewed annually and require 24-hour advance notification to the state prior to each burn. There were 

approximately 60 fire extinguisher training sessions and 15 vehicle burns conducted throughout 2006. Quantities of 

criteria pollutants produced by open burns are not required to be calculated. 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring

 criteria air pollutant emissions released on the NTS from permitted facilities operational in 2006 

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 

 0.36 5.52 NA(d) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 0.19 3.64 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

nt 

0.02 0.51 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

yors 0.002 0.21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

ers 0.0003 0.35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

lant 0.06 1.02 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

0.00003 8.0 0.00005 0.535 0 0.07 0 0.003 0 0.007 

ors 0.06 1.73 0.43 10.24 1.9 17.87 0.03 3.13 0.06 2.16 

e Tank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1.19 3.92 

age Tank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.01 0.02 

0 3.00 0 3.26 0.122 3.02 0 3.00 0.15 10.0 

Pollutant 0.69 23.98 0.43 14.04 2.02 20.96 0.03 6.13 1.40 16.11 

missions 4.57 Actual, 81.22 PTE 

tons), multiply 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 Nonradiological Air Monitoring 

3-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 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 2006 

Particulate Matter (PM10)(b) 2.89 1.67 1.11 1.7 1.46 2.05 3.61 2.39 0.94 0.84 0.69 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.04 5.28 1.85 1.87 2.76 4.84 4.6 1.79 0.24 0.15 0.43 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 0.16 19.79 7.57 8.07 12.75 22.23 21.09 8.11 1.01 0.69 2.02 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.3 0.85 0.37 0.42 0.98 1.68 1.62 0.76 0.12 0.04 0.03 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 2.82 0.94 11.76 1.99 1.89 2.01 2.1 1.21 4.60 1.94 1.40 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) NR NR NR NR 0.01 0.03 0.01 0 0.41 0.05 1.87(d)

(a) For mtons, multiply tons by 0.9072 

(b) Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 

(c) Not reported 

(d) 92 percent of HAPs were emitted during chemical spill tests at NPTEC, <0.006 percent were from lead from all permitted operations 

Total Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and HAPs

0

5

10

15

20

25

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Year

Tons

PM10

CO

NOx

SO2

VOCs

HAPs

Figure 3-13 Criteria air pollutants released on the NTS since 1996 

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 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. Visible emissions 

readings must also be conducted by a certified evaluator during the tests (see Section 3.2.4 below). In 2006, corrective 

actions were taken for three pieces of equipment which failed performance emission tests conducted in June 2005. In 

2006, the Area 27 JASPER generator exceeded the 100-hour operating limit that requires emissions testing; it also 

exceeded the 90-day testing deadline. The exceedances were reported to NNSA/NSO and to the state’s Bureau of 

Air Pollution Control. In 2006, performance emission tests were conducted for both the JASPER and the Area 23 

Building 650 generators and for two other generators that had been repaired (Table 3-16). The Nevada Bureau of Air 

Pollution Control was notified of all equipment failures. 

On July 11, the state of Nevada conducted an inspection of the Area 23 Incinerator and the Area 23 diesel generator 

located in Building 725 (Table 3-16). The state’s inspection confirmed that both pieces of equipment had been 

satisfactorily disconnected to prevent further usage. During the July 11 inspection, the Area 6 Portable Screen Plant 
 Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-25 

was observed in operation. The operation was virtually dust free. However, the inspector noted that the emissions 

controls specified in the air permit (i.e., water spray bars) were not being used, but rather the material was pre-wetted. 

The NTS air permit is being modified to indicate that pre-wetting is used as an emissions control. 

Table 3-16. Performance emission testing, state inspection, and/or corrective actions taken in 2006 

Point Source Test Dates Results State Inspection and/or 

Corrective Action 

Area 23 Building 725 Generator NA(a) NA Shut down in June, 2006. State inspection 

July 2006. Was removed from air permit in 2007. 

Area 23 Incinerator June 2005 Failed Shut down, removed from air permit in 2006. State 

inspection July 2006. 

Device Assembly Facility (DAF) 

Generator 

June 2005 Failed Shut down, repaired, retested in 2006 

 March 2006 Passed None 

Area 6 Dual-stack Generator June 2005 Failed Shut down, repaired, retested in 2006 

 April 2006 Passed None 

Area 23 Building 650 Generator April 2006 Passed None 

Area 27 JASPER Generator September 2006 Failed Shut down, no decision yet as to future action 

(a) Not applicable. After 100 hours of operation, generator was shut down without conducting test. 

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 for the annual report to the state. The number of hours that equipment operates 

throughout a year is determined either by meter readings 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. In 2006, production 

rates, hours of operation, and gallons of fuel used all were within the specified permit limits and were used to calculate 

the tons of air pollutants emitted (see Table 3-14 above). 

3.2.4 Opacity Readings 

Under Title 40 CFR Part 60, personnel that conduct visible emissions evaluations must be certified semiannually 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. 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 permitspecified limit (20 percent for NAAQS, 10 percent for NSPS). The NTS air permit requires that readings be obtained 

once each quarter that the equipment is used and be kept on file. This applies to construction equipment only. 

Readings are taken for all other permitted facilities and equipment periodically but are not recorded. 

During 2006, five ES personnel were certified by Carl Koontz Associates to obtain opacity readings. Readings were 

taken for the following NTS facilities regulated under the NAAQS opacity limit of 20 percent: Area 1 Concrete Batch 

Plant, Area 1 Wet Aggregate Plant, Area 6 Storage Silos, and the Portable Screen Plant. Readings for these facilities 

ranged from 0 to 10 percent. Readings were also obtained during the performance emission tests for the Area 27 

DAF Generator in March, the Area 6 Dual-stack Generator in April, the Area 23 Building 650 Generator in April, and 

the JASPER Generator in September. 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 under the 

NSPS includes miscellaneous conveyor belts, screens and hoppers, and also the Area 1 pugmill. During 2006, one 

conveyor and hopper were used for the Unicorn project. Results of the opacity readings ranged from 0 to 5 percent. 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring 

3-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

3.2.5 NPTEC and BEEF Reporting 

In addition to annual reporting, the NTS air quality operating permit for the NPTEC and the site-wide chemical 

releases requires the submittal of test plans and final analysis reports to the state for each chemical release or release 

series. 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. For the BEEF, quarterly test 

plans and final reports must be submitted for the types and weights of explosives used and estimated emissions that 

may be released. 

In 2006, 4 chemical tests consisting of 40 releases were conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC. One chemical test that 

included 9 releases was conducted at the Area 26 Port Gaston facility. The tests included: 

• Tarantula -- Black Widow Releases (13 releases at NPTEC) 

• Tarantula -- Brown Recluse Releases (2 releases at NPTEC) 

• Tarantula II – Engineering Checkout Releases (2 releases at NPTEC) 

• DuPont Fuming Acids Workshop (23 releases at NPTEC) 

• Raven Project (9 releases at the Port Gaston facility) 

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. 

Table 3-17. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC in 2006 

Chemical Total Released (kg) Total Released (lb)(a)

1,1,1,2-Tetrafluorethane 109.22 239.52 

Acetylene 5.19 11.38 

Ammonia 51.47 112.87 

Chlorine 6.62 14.52 

Chlorosulfonic acid 819 1,796 

Diethyl ethylphosphonate 17.39 38.14 

Dimethyl methylphosphonate 40.33 88.44 

Dodecane 2.33 5.11 

Ethanol 36.82 80.75 

Ethylene 63.43 139.10 

Hydrogen chloride 9 20 

Hydrogen fluoride 2.93 6.43 

Isopropyl alcohol 25.43 55.77 

Kerosene >2 >4 

Methyl iodide >4.1 >9.0 

Methyl salicylate 7.72 16.93 

n-Butyl alcohol 4.7 10.31 

Nitric acid 0.65 1.43 

Nitrogen dioxide 47.28 103.69 

Nitrous oxide 133.61 293.00 

OLEUM 632 1,386 

Propylene 40 88 

Sulfur hexafluoride 40.19 88.14 

Tributyl phosphate 43.68 95.79 

Triethylamine 0.133 0.292 

Triethyl phosphate > 14.2 >31..1 

Trimethylamine 13.48 29.56 

(a) 1 pound (lb) = 0.456 kilograms (kg) 
 Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 3-27 

Table 3-18. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Port Gaston facility in 2006 

Chemical 

Total Amount 

Released (kg) 

Total Amount 

Released (lb)(a)

Cyanogen chloride < 0.585 < 1.29 

Hydrogen chloride < 2.43 < 5.37 

Hydrochloric acid (37%) < 10.62 < 23.47 

Potassium cyanide < 6.75 < 14.92 

Potassium permanganate < 6.75 < 14.92 

 (a) 1lb = 0.456 kg 

The majority of BEEF activities involve sensitive or classified information. To protect confidentiality of data, 

summary reports are submitted on a quarterly basis rather than for each test or test series. Table 3-19 is a summary of 

the general types and weights of explosives detonated during tests conducted in 2006. Emissions generated from 

these releases are summarized in Table 3-14. 

Table 3-19. Types and weights of explosives detonated at BEEF in 2006

Type of Explosive 

Total Amount 

Released (kg) 

Total Amount 

Released (lb)(a)

Detonator materials 109.64 240.43 

Nitramine/binder 81.77 179.32 

(a) 1lb = 0.456 kg 

3.2.6 Tactical Demilitarization Development (TaDD) Project Reporting 

The TaDD project 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 2007. 

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 lb) 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 

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. 

An assessment of the NTS ODS program was conducted in 2006. 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. The NSTec 

company directive for air pollution and permitting, which contains a section on ODS, will be revised in 2007. The 

ODS section will provide guidance on servicing and disposal of ODS appliances, recycling ODS material and 

maximizing the use of safe alternatives to ODS due to their required phase-out. 
Radiological and Nonradiological Air Monitoring 

3-28 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 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 80 linear m (260 linear ft), less than 15 square meters (m2) (160 square feet [ft2]), or less than 1 

cubic meter (m3) (35 cubic feet [ft3]). 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 equal or exceed 80 linear m, 15 m2, or 1 m3. 

The recordkeeping requirements for asbestos abatement activities on the NTS include maintaining air and bulk 

sampling data records, abatement plans, and operations and maintenance activity records for up to 75 years and 

maintaining 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/NSO informal reviews are performed periodically. 

An Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form was submitted to the EPA on October 18, 2005, which projected 

that 45.7 linear m (250 linear ft) and 23.2 m2 (150 ft2) of asbestos-containing material would be removed from small 

projects from NTS facilities in 2006. However, two large asbestos abatement projects arose in 2006: the Phoenix 

Landfill in Area 25 for which 1,073 m3 (29,000 ft3) of asbestos-containing materials were excavated/removed, and 

Warehouse 1 in Area 23 for which 186 m2 (2,000 ft2) 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 

The NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit states that the best practical methods should be used to prevent 

particulate matter from becoming airborne prior to the construction, repair, demolition, or use of unpaved or 

untreated areas. Methods and materials that are typically used to control fugitive dust include presoaking, water 

sprays, 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 2006, NSTec personnel conducted several fugitive dust readings of operations throughout the NTS that 

included the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex, the Portable Screen Plant, and 

the Area 1 Concrete Batch Plant. No excessive fugitive dust was noted. 

3.2.10 Environmental Impact 

During 2006, NTS activities produced a total of only 4.57 tons of criteria pollutants and 1.87 tons of HAPs. These 

small quantities had little, if any, impact to air quality on the NTS and at offsite locations. Emissions of pollutants for 

2006 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 release 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 13.6). NSTec 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 

(and at Port Gaston in 2006) 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 Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-1 

4.0 Radiological and Nonradiological Water 

Monitoring 

This chapter presents radiological and nonradiological 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 2006, several 

programs or projects were involved in water monitoring. These included: (1) routine radiological monitoring 

conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN) and National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), 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 and NSTec 

Environmental Services, 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 2006 monitoring results for surface and groundwater are presented in 

Section 6.2. 

Section 4.2 of this chapter presents the results of nonradiological 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, 1996a; 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 2006 from UGTA wells are presented in 

Section 4.1.10 of this chapter. 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 4-1. Areas of potential groundwater contamination on the NTS
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 (Bowen et al., 

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 Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

4.1.1 Water Monitoring Locations 

The NTS groundwater and surface water monitoring network is located in a complex hydrogeologic setting (see 

Nevada Test 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 ten additional wells (seven offsite and three onsite) not 

identified in the RREMP which have been added to the network and which are sampled opportunistically or at the 

suggestion of NNSA/NSO. Of all these 88 wells, 72 have been sampled at least once since 1999. These 72 include 

33 offsite wells, 10 onsite water supply wells, and 29 onsite monitoring wells (Figure 4-2). Those wells not sampled 

since 1999, but identified in the RREMP, include 15 onsite monitoring wells and 1 offsite well. They are not 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. The next revision of the RREMP will document these 

changes. In 2006, a network of 41 groundwater locations was sampled (Figure 4-2) and included: 

• 16 offsite wells 

• 10 onsite water supply wells (6 potable, 4 non-potable) 

• 15 onsite monitoring wells (3 are compliance wells for the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site) 

Two routinely sampled onsite wells, UE-18r and ER-19-1, were not sampled in 2006 because the roads to the wells 

were impassable. 

The RREMP identifies seven offsite springs that are sampled at intervals from once a year to once every three years 

(Figure 4-3). Three onsite springs, not identified in the RREMP, were sampled in 2005 but no onsite springs were 

sampled in 2006. The RREMP also identifies one containment pond system and three sewage lagoons that are 

sampled once every three months to once a year. There are six additional onsite sewage lagoons not identified in the 

RREMP which have been sampled opportunistically. Only two of the three sewage lagoons are currently active and 

were sampled in 2006. The surface water monitoring locations sampled in 2006 (Figure 4-3) included: 

• 7 offsite springs 

• 1 NTS operations-related containment pond system (E Tunnel ponds) 

• 2 onsite sewage lagoons 

The UGTA Project sampled 3 wells in 2006. These samples were analyzed for radionuclides and are briefly discussed 

in Section 4.1.10 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. 

Six 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. The sample depths for these six wells are: 

• 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) 

• 615 and 679 m (2017 and 2228 ft) bgs in ER-6-1 

Only HTH#1 and PM-3 were sampled in 2006. The other multiple depth wells were not sampled in 2006.
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-5 

Figure 4-2. RREMP well monitoring locations sampled on and off the NTS in 2006 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

 Figure 4-3. RREMP spring and surface water monitoring locations sampled on and off the NTS in 2006
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-7 

Sampling frequencies and requisite analyses for routine radiological water monitoring are based on location and type 

of 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 2006, tritium analyses were performed on all 

samples. Other analyses were performed on specific samples based on the probability of their detection 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 were enriched. 

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. Sample-specific MDCs for laboratory 

analysis, reported in each results table, ranged from 11 to 37 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) with an average of 

18.7 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 were 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 the same period 

were added to the background well samples, the Lc increased to 25 pCi/L. When only the sample blanks were 

retained in the analysis, the LC increased 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 16 offsite well locations sampled in 2006 included 3 private domestic wells, 3 community wells, and 

10 NNSA/NSO wells related to NTS activities (see Figure 4-2). The 2006 data indicate that groundwater at the 

offsite locations has not been impacted by NTS nuclear testing operations. 

The initial tritium results for grab samples from ER-OV-03C, ER-OV-03C2, ER-OV-04A and field duplicate samples 

from ER-OV-03A3, PM-3, and School Well were slightly above the MDC. The remaining tritium results for the 

offsite wells were all less than the MDC. Reanalysis results from the same samples that were above the MDC were 

non-detectable except for the School Well field duplicate sample. The School Well duplicate sample reanalysis result 

was slightly above the sample-specific MDC, but the grab sample result collected on the same date was below the 

MDC. The reanalyzed tritium results along with tritium (3H) results from the other offsite wells are provided in Table 

4-1. 

Gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity were detected in most offsite well samples collected in 2006 (Table 4-1). 

None of the 2006 results are greater than the EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water for gross 

alpha of 15 pCi/L or the EPA level of concern for gross beta of 50 pCi/L. 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 4-1. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite wells in 2006 

Monitoring Location 

Date 

Sampled 

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty)(a)

(MDC) (pCi/L)(b)

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c) 

3H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Non-Potable NNSA/NSO Wells 

ER-OV-01 11/28/2006 5.8 ± 1.5 (1.4) 5.4 ± 1.4 (2.0) 11 ± 7.5 (12) 

ER-OV-02 11/28/2006 7.9 ± 1.8 (1.3) 3.6 ± 1.3 (2.0) 7.4 ± 7.2 (12) 

ER-OV-02 FD(e) 11/28/2006 NA(f) NA 10 ± 7.5 (12) 

ER-OV-03A 11/21/2006 NS(g) NS 8.1 ± 7.3 (12) 

ER-OV-03A3 11/28/2006 NS NS 11 ± 7.7 (12) 

ER-OV-03A3 FD 11/28/2006 NS NS 5.4 ± 7.6 (13) 

ER-OV-03C 11/27/2006 7.4 ± 1.8 (1.4) 1.1 ± 1.0 (1.9) 1.2 ± 7.4 (13) 

ER-OV-03C2 11/27/2006 7.5 ± 1.7 (0.92) 2.0 ± 1.06 (1.9) 13 ± 11 (19) 

ER-OV-03C2 FD 11/27/2006 6.3 ± 1.5 (1.2) 0.66 ± 1.0 (1.9) NA 

ER-OV-04A 11/29/2006 NS NS 1.4 ± 7.3 (12) 

ER-OV-05 11/28/2006 NS NS 9.6 ± 7.4 (12) 

ER-OV-06A 11/28/2006 3.9 ± 1.2 (1.3) 4.6 ± 1.3 (2.0) 12 ± 7.7 (12) 

ER-OV-06A FD 11/28/2006 NA NA 9.2 ± 7.3 (12) 

PM-3 (1,560 ft bgs) 6/28/2006 NS NS 23 ± 14 (23) 

PM-3 (1,560 ft bgs) FD 6/28/2006 NS NS 9.0 ± 16 (28) 

PM-3 (1,993 ft bgs) 6/28/2006 NS NS 3.5 ± 13 (22) 

Private/Community Drinking Water Wells 

Beatty Water and Sewer 10/17/2006 NS NS 12 ± 9.8 (16) 

Fuller Property 10/17/2006 NS NS 11 ± 10 (16) 

Roger Bright Ranch 10/17/2006 NS NS 15 ± 10 (16) 

Roger Bright Ranch FD 10/17/2006 NS NS 13 ± 11 (18) 

School Well 10/17/2006 NS NS 13 ± 10 (16) 

School Well FD 10/17/2006 NS NS 23 ± 13 (20) 

Tolicha Peak 10/31/2006 1.3 ± 1.2 -(1.9) 3.2 ± 0.4 (0.5) 9.3 ± 11 (17) 

U.S. Ecology 10/17/2006 NS NS 13 ± 10 (16) 

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 3H is 20,000 pCi/L 

(e) FD = field duplicate 

(f) NA = not analyzed in FD sample 

(g) NS = not scheduled for analysis in 2006, analysis run once every 2-3 years, last analyzed in 2005 

Samples from wells ER-OV-01, ER-OV-02, ER-OV-03C, ER-OV-03C2, and ER-OV-06A were also analyzed for 

gamma-emitting radionuclides, 238Pu, and 239+240Pu. No man-made or natural radionuclides were detected. 

Among the 33 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). Most measured gross alpha and gross beta levels are below EPA MCL or 

levels of concern for drinking water. In 2006, the 9 Oasis Valley wells (ER-OV-01, ER-OV-02, ER-OV-03A, 

ER-OV-03A3, ER-OV-03C, ER-OV-03C2, ER-OV-04A, ER-OV-05, and ER-OV-06A) were purged and sampled 

with a pump which resulted in slightly lower gross alpha and gross beta activities. Previously, many of these wells 

were not purged and were sampled with a bailer. There are no detectable trends in tritium activity (Figure 4-5) from 

2000 to 2006. Most measured tritium concentrations are below the MDC. 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-9 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07

Activity (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha

Gross Alpha MCL = 15 pCi/L

Gross Beta

Gross Beta MCL = 50 pCi/L

 

Figure 4-4. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite wells from 2000 to 2006 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate MDC = 25 pCi/L

Figure 4-5. Tritium concentrations in offsite wells from 2000 to 2006 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

4.1.5 Results from Offsite Springs 

No detectable concentrations of tritium were found in the seven offsite springs sampled (Table 4-2, Figure 4-3). The 

initial tritium results for grab samples from Big Springs, Peacock Ranch, Revert Spring, and Spicer Ranch and the 

initial tritium results for duplicate samples from Crystal Pool, Peacock Ranch, Revert Spring, and Spicer Ranch were 

slightly above the MDC. The remaining tritium results were less than the MDC. Reanalysis results from the same 

samples that were above the MDC were all nondetectable. The original tritium results that are below the MDC and 

the reanalysis results are provided in Table 4-2. 

There were no analyses for man-made or natural gamma-emitting radionuclides in 2006 on samples from offsite 

springs. 

Detectable concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta were present in water collected from the springs, although all 

but one of the measured concentrations are below the EPA MCL and level of concern for drinking water (Table 4-2). 

The measured gross alpha activity at Spicer Ranch is slightly above the EPA MCL of 15 pCi/L. This measurable 

gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity is likely from natural sources. 

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 from 2000 to 2006 (Figure 4-7). Alpha and 

beta levels have mostly been below the EPA MCL for drinking water, and tritium concentrations have all been below 

the MDC. 

 Table 4-2. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite springs in 2006 

Monitoring Location 

Date 

Sampled 

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty)(a) (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(b) 

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c) 

3H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Big Springs 10/24/2006 2.4 ± 1.2 (1.8) 7.6 ± 0.65 (0.66) 13 ± 12 (19) 

Crystal Pool 10/24/2006 3.5 ± 1.4 (2.0) 7.3 ± 0.63 (0.68) 9.1 ± 11 (18) 

Crystal Pool FD(e) 10/24/2006 NA(f) NA 9.9 ± 11 (19) 

Fairbanks Spring 10/24/2006 -0.54 ± 1.2 (2.0) 5.8 ± 0.54 (0.63) 16 ± 11 (18) 

Fairbanks Spring FD 10/24/2006 NA NA 12 ± 10 (16) 

Longstreet Spring 10/24/2006 3.0 ± 1.3 (1.9) 5.8 ± 0.59 (0.63) 13 ± 10 (16) 

Peacock Ranch 10/31/2006 4.8 ± 1.6 (2.0) 9.1 ± 0.83 (0.86) 2.0 ± 11 (19) 

Peacock Ranch FD 10/31/2006 3.5 ± 1.5 (1.9) 7.4 ± 0.91 (0.88) NA 

Revert Spring 10/31/2006 14 ± 2.0 (1.8) 3.8 ± 0.53 (0.57) 9.3 ± 12 (19) 

Revert Spring FD 10/31/2006 NA NA 4.4 ± 11 (19) 

Spicer Ranch 10/31/2006 16 ± 2.1 (2.0) 6.1 ± 0.64 (0.61) 12 ± 10 (17) 

Spicer Ranch FD 10/31/2006 NA NA 13 ± 13 (20) 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample-specific MDC) 

Yellow shaded result is greater than the EPA-designated levels shown below: 

(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 3H is 20,000 pCi/L 

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

(f) NA = not analyzed in FD sample 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-11 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07

Activity (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha

Gross Alpha MCL = 15 pCi/L

Gross Beta

Gross Beta MCL = 50 pCi/L

Figure 4-6. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite springs from 2000 to 2006 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate MDC = 25 pCi/L

Figure 4-7. Tritium concentrations in offsite springs from 2000 to 2006 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

4.1.6 Results from NTS Water Supply Wells 

Results from the ten NTS water wells (six permitted potable and four non-potable) sampled in 2006 (see Figure 4-2) 

continue to indicate that nuclear testing has not impacted the NTS water supply network. All but two water samples 

had non-detectable concentrations of tritium (Table 4-3). The duplicate samples from UE-16D and WW C-1 

collected in October were slightly above the MDC. In both cases the tritium results from the grab samples, collected 

at the same time as the duplicate samples, were below the MDC. These wells are non-potable water supply wells. 

Prior to 1994, WW 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 the MDC. 

The radiological analytes that were principally detectable in the NTS water supply wells are gross alpha and gross beta 

radioactivity (Table 4-3). 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. Neither gross alpha nor gross 

beta ctivity exceeded EPA-established Levels of Concern or the established MCLs for drinking water (Table 4-3). 

No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides or other man-made radionuclides were detected in the water supply well 

samples. 

These ten wells have 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 2006. 

The Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services (BHPS) independently sampled all the NTS 

water supply wells, except Army #1 Well, at least once in 2006. BHPS and BN/NSTec ETS personnel sampled 

supply wells at the same time in January, April, and October of 2006. The BHPS sample results also indicate that 

man-made radionuclides are at or below the MDCs and that naturally-occurring radioactive materials such as thorium 

and uranium decay chain radionuclides are within normal ranges (BHPS, 2006a; 2006b; 2006c). 

Table 4-3. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS water supply wells in 2006 

Monitoring 

Location Date Sampled 

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty)(a) (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(b) 

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty 

(MDC) (pCi/L)(c) 

3H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Army #1 WW 5/1/2006 2.4 ± 0.58 (0.48) 5.3 1.1 (1.0) -7.2 ± 13 (23) 

 5/1/2006 FD(e) NA(f) NA -11 ± 14 (23) 

 8/29/2006 3.4 ± 1.3 (1.6) 4.9 0.8 (0.92) 10 ± 7.3 (12) 

 8/29/2006 FD NA NA 7.2 ± 7.1 (12) 

 10/4/2006 2.6 ± 1.1 (1.5) 5.2 1.6 (2.5) 8.2 ± 6.9 (11) 

 

J-12 WW 1/24/2006 0.27 ± 1.0 (1.9) 2.6 ± 0.81 (1.0) 7.0 ± 13 (23) 

(permitted, 4/11/2006 -3.6 ± 1.3 (1.9) 2.5 ± 0.49 (0.64) -8.1 ± 13 (22) 

 potable well) 7/25/2006 0.64 ± 0.32 (0.4) 4.7 ± 1.0 (0.99) -10 ± 12 (21) 

 10/4/2006 0.80 ± 0.77 (1.4) 5.3 ± 1.6 (2.4) 7.0 ± 6.9 (11) 

 

J-13 WW 1/24/2006 -1.1 ± 1.18 (1.9) 1.8 ± 0.63 (0.85) 3.4 ± 13 (22) 

(permitted, 

potable well) 

 

UE-16D WW 1/24/2006 3.7 ± 1.5 (2.1) 4.5 ± 0.66 (0.79) 0.00 ± 13 (23) 

4/11/2006 4.1 ± 1.4 (2.0) 4.1 ± 0.60 (0.74) -0.31 ± 14 (23) 

4/11/2006 FD 4.4 ± 1.4 (1.9) 4.1 ± 0.60 (0.75) NA 

 7/25/2006 3.0 ± 0.63 (0.35) 6.4 ± 1.3 (1.0) 1.3 ± 12 (21) 

 7/25/2006 FD NA NA -1.3 ± 12 (21) 

 10/4/2006 5.0 ± 1.7 (1.9) 8.7 ± 2.1 (2.6) 10 ± 7.4 (12) 

 10/4/2006 FD NA NA 13 ± 7.4 (12) 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-13 

Table 4-3. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS water supply wells in 2006 

 (continued) 

Monitoring 

Location Date Sampled 

Gross α ± Uncertainty)(a)

(MDC) (pCi/L)(b) 

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty 

(MDC) (pCi/L)(c) 

3H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

WW #4 1/24/2006 9.4 ± 2.0 (1.9) 3.7 ± 0.72 (0.78) 3.5 ± 13 (23) 

(permitted, 4/11/2006 7.1 ± 1.6 (2.0) 4.4 ± 0.44 (0.47) -11 ± 14 (23) 

potable well) 7/25/2006 4.4 ± 0.90 (0.49) 4.9 ± 1.0 (1.0) -14 ± 12 (22) 

 7/25/2006 FD 4.2 ± 0.86 (0.54) 5.0 ± 1.1 (1.0) -4.1 ± 12 (21) 

 10/4/2006 4.5 ± 1.5 (1.6) 5.4 ± 1.6 (2.5) 8.0 ± 7.0 (11) 

 

WW #4A 1/24/2006 4.7 ± 1.4 (1.9) 4.9 ± 0.57 (0.63) 3.4 ± 13 (22) 

(permitted, 1/24/2006 FD NA NA 3.5 ± 13 (23) 

potable well) 4/11/2006 4.6 ± 1.4 (1.9) 4.7 ± 0.56 (0.56) -6.5 ± 13 (21) 

 4/11/2006 FD NA NA -2.0 ± 14 (23) 

 7/25/2006 4.4 ± 0.89 (0.47) 5.7 ± 1.2 (1.2) -1.7 ± 13 (22) 

 7/25/2006 FD 4.1 ± 0.84 (0.48) 6.7 ± 1.3 (1.1) NA 

 10/4/2006 5.6 ± 1.6 (1.3) 7.5 ± 1.9 (2.5) 10 ± 7.1 (11) 

 

WW 5B 1/24/2006 4.0 ± 1.5 (2.1) 8.1 ± 0.66 (0.65) 0.00 ± 13 (23) 

(permitted, 4/11/2006 6.5 ± 1.5 (1.8) 11 ± 0.66 (0.51) -9.1 ± 13 (22) 

potable well) 7/25/2006 3.3 ± 0.73 (0.46) 11 ± 1.8 (0.99) -9.5 ± 12 (21) 

 10/4/2006 2.9 ± 1.4 (1.9) 12 ± 2.5 (2.6) 5.9 ± 6.7 (11) 

 

WW 5C 1/24/2006 11 ± 1.72 (1.9) 5.5 ± 0.61 (0.64) 3.5 ± 13 (23) 

 1/24/2006 FD 9.7 ± 1.8 (2.0) 4.2 ± 0.70 (0.82) NA 

 4/11/2006 12 ± 1.9 (2.0) 8.6 ± 0.64 (0.59) -12 ± 14 (23) 

 7/25/2006 4.2 ± 0.92 (0.67) 6.1 ± 1.3 (1.1) 0.00 ± 13 (22) 

 10/4/2006 5.1 ± 1.6 (1.5) 6.2 ± 1.7 (2.5) 3.7 ± 6.9 (11) 

 

WW 8 1/24/2006 -0.86 ± 1.1 (1.9) 1.8 ± 0.65 (0.86) 3.4 ± 13 (22) 

(permitted, 7/25/2006 0.048 ± 0.39 (0.67) 2.8 ± 0.80 (1.0) -24 ± 21 (37) 

potable well) 10/4/2006 0.88 ± 0.93 (1.8) 3.0 ± 1.4 (2.6) 2.6 ± 7.1 (12) 

 10/4/2006 FD 0.17 ± 0.70 (1.6) 2.2 ± 1.4 (2.8) NA 

 

WW C-1 10/4/2006 11 ± 2.3 (1.5) 15 ± 2.9 (2.1) 11 ± 7.3 (12) 

 10/4/2006 FD NA NA 14 ± 7.4 (12) 

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 3H is 20,000 pCi/L 

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

(f) NA = not analyzed in FD sample 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jul-00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06

Activity (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha

Gross Alpha MCL = 15 pCi/L

Gross Beta

Gross Beta MCL = 50 pCi/L

Figure 4-8. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in NTS water supply wells from 2000 to 2006 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jul-00 Jul-01 Jul-02 Jul-03 Jul-04 Jul-05 Jul-06

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate MDC = 25 pCi/L

Figure 4-9. Tritium concentrations in NTS water supply wells from 2000 to 2006 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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. In 2006, the tritium activity in U-19BH was below the MDC (Table 4-4). Each of these four wells is 

located within 1 kilometer (km) (0.6 miles [mi]) of an historical underground nuclear test. These wells are discussed 

below, and their historic tritium concentrations are shown in Figure 4-10. 

In 2006, there were also measured tritium levels above the MDC at ER-20-2 #1; however, the tritium levels are only 

slightly above the very low sample-specific MDCs (Table 4-4). Tritium was not detectable in other samples from 

onsite monitoring wells during 2006 (Table 4-4). 

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 down-gradient. GREELY and KASSERI tests are both 

upgradient from PM-1 at distances of 2,429 m (7,969 ft) and 1,196 m (3,924 ft), respectively. 

U-19BH – This well is located in the Central Pahute Mesa CAU. It is an unexpended 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 tritium concentrations measured since 1999 at U-19BH 

show a downward trend (Figure 4-10). 

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). 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 located less the 200 m 

(656 ft) from the NASH test conducted in Yucca Flat in 1967. Well UE-2CE is not currently configured for 

routine sampling. 

WW A – This well is completed in alluvium in the Yucca Flat CAU. It is located within 1 km (0.6 mi) of 

14 underground nuclear tests, most of which appear to be up-gradient 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 WW A. 

This well, which supplied non-potable water for construction, was shut down in the early 1990s. The tritium 

concentrations measured since 2000 at WW A indicate a slight downward trend (Figure 4-10). 

Detectable concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta were present in water collected from NTS onsite monitoring 

wells in 2006. The low measurable gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in these wells is likely from natural 

sources. 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 2006. Low levels of naturally-occurring 40K were detected in a sample 

from TW D, and low levels of naturally-occurring 234Th were detected in a sample from WW 2. 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 4-4. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring wells in 2006 

Monitoring Location 

Date 

Sampled 

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty)(a)

(MDC) (pCi/L)(b)

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c) 

3H ± 

Uncertainty 

(MDC) (pCi/L)( d)

ER-20-1 8/8/2006 NS(e) NS 11 ± 7 (12) 

 

ER-20-2 #1 8/8/2006 NS NS 12 ± 7.2 (12) 

ER-20-2 #1 FD(f) 8/8/2006 NS NS 13 ± 7.1 (11) 

 

PM-1 6/28/2006 NS NS 141 ± 18 (23) 

 

SM-23-1 11/8/2006 3.9 ± 2.4 (2.6) 11 ± 2.2 (1.9) 5.7 ± 7.6 (13) 

SM-23-1 FD 11/8/2006 3.8 ± 2.3 (2.4) 9.6 ± 2.0 (1.7) NA 

 

U-19BH 4/18/2006 31 ± 5.3 (0.78) 40 ± 6.7 (1.8) 19 ± 15 (24) 

U-19BH FD 4/18/2006 NA(g) NA 21 ± 15 (24) 

 

UE-1Q 2/8/2006 5.2 ± 1.4 (1.9) 8.6 ± 0.65 (0.65) 6.8 ± 13 (22) 

UE-1Q FD 2/8/2006 NA NA 6.6 ± 13 (22) 

 

UE-5C WW 2/14/2006 21 ± 4.1 (2.0) 49 ± 8.5 (4.1) 8.7 ± 17 (28) 

UE-5C WW FD 2/14/2006 NA NA 4.6 ± 17 (30) 

 

UE5PW-1(h) 4/26/2006 NS NS -1.2 ± 10 (17) 

UE5PW-1 FD 4/26/2006 NS NS 2.2 ± 11 (19) 

UE5PW-1 10/10/2006 NS NS 12 ± 11 (18) 

UE5PW-1 FD 10/10/2006 NS NS 2.3 ± 10 (18) 

 

UE5PW-2(h) 4/26/2006 NS NS -5.5 ± 11 (18) 

UE5PW-2 FD 4/26/2006 NS NS 0.13 ± 11 (18) 

UE5PW-2 10/10/2006 NS NS 7.6 ± 11 (18) 

UE5PW-2 FD 10/10/2006 NS NS 11 ± 11 (18) 

 

UE5PW-3(h) 4/26/2006 NS NS -5.5 ± 11 (19) 

UE5PW-3 FD 4/26/2006 NS NS -7.9 ± 13 (22) 

UE5PW-3 10/10/2006 NS NS 12 ± 11 (18) 

UE5PW-3 FD 10/10/2006 NS NS 16 ± 11 (18) 

 

UE-7NS 5/2/2006 0.62 ± 0.37 (0.55) 4.4 ± 1.1 (1.2) 114 ± 22 (20) 

UE-7NS FD 5/2/2006 NA NA 126 ± 23 (20) 

 

HTH #1 (1935 ft bgs) 4/19/2006 1.4 ± 0.56 (0.69) 0.83 ± 0.76 (1.4) -3.8 ± 14 (24) 

HTH #1 (2040 ft bgs) 4/19/2006 1.2 ± 0.56 (0.80) 0.83 ± 0.82 (1.5) -13 ± 14 (24) 

HTH #1 (2130 ft bgs) 4/19/2006 0.63 ± 0.52 (0.91) 0.49 ± 0.79 (1.5) -7.5 ± 14 (23) 

HTH #1 (2300 ft bgs) 4/19/2006 1.1 ± 0.57 (0.86) 0.41 ± 0.79 (1.5) -14 ± 15 (25) 

 

TW D 2/8/2006 0.31 ± 1.0 (1.8) 6.7 ± 0.54 (0.55) 0.00 ± 17 (29) 

TW D FD 2/8/2006 NA NA 8.4 ± 16 (27) 

 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-17 

Table 4-4. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring wells in 2006 (continued)

Monitoring Location 

Date 

Sampled 

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a)

(pCi/L)(b)

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c) 

3H ± 

Uncertainty 

(MDC) (pCi/L)( d)

WW A 2/7/2006 0.60 ± 1.0 (1.8) 5.5 ± 0.61 (0.59) 484 ± 35 (28) 

WW A FD 2/7/2006 -0.85 ± 1.0 (1.7) 4.5 ± 0.52 (0.51) NA 

 

WW 2 (2750 ft bgs) 2/7/2006 1.1 ± 1.1 (1.9) 5.0 ± 0.45 (0.47) 4.4 ± 17 (29) 

WW 2 (2750 ft bgs) FD 2/7/2006 2.2 ± 1.1 (1.6) 6.2 ± 0.65 (0.61) NA 

WW 2 (2442 ft bgs) 9/7/2006 1.8 ± 0.76 (0.98) 6.2 ± 0.78 (1.0) 9.7 ± 7.1 (11) 

WW 2 (2442 ft bgs) FD 9/7/2006 NA NA 6.0 ± 7.1 (12) 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample-specific MDC) 

Yellow shaded results 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 3H is 20,000 pCi/L 

(e) NS = not scheduled for analysis in 2006, analysis run once every 2 years, last analyzed in 2005 

(f) FD = field duplicate sample 

(g) NA = not analyzed in FD sample 

(h) Compliance well for validation of waste pit P03U at Area 5 RWMS (see Section 9.1.6) 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Year

Tritium Concentration (pCi/L)

PM-1 U-19BH

WW A UE-7NS

MCL (20, 000 pCi/L

Effective MDC 25 pCi/L

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

 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

4.1.8 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 nonradiological contaminants exceed the allowable 

contaminant levels regulated under a state water pollution control permit (NEV 96021), which is issued to DTRA. 

During October 2006, a DTRA contract company sampled the tunnel effluent near where water is discharged. 

During November, NSTec personnel sampled tunnel effluent, water from Pond 4, water from Pond 5, and sediment 

from the basin of Ponds 3, 4, and 5. Effluent water was analyzed by DTRA for tritium, gross alpha, and gross beta 

(Table 4-5) and for 16 nonradiological contaminants and water quality parameters (DTRA, 2006). All other samples 

were analyzed by NSTec for tritium (water samples only), gamma-emitting radionuclides, plutonium, 90Sr, and 241Am 

(Table 4-6). 

Table 4-5. 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 1,000,000 604,000 

Gross Alpha 35 16.8 

Gross Beta 100 50.8 

Source: Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021 Quarterly Monitoring Report and Annual Summary Report 

 for E Tunnel Waste Water Disposal System (DTRA, 2006) 

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 four 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). 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

logical water monitoring results for E-Tunnel Ponds in 2006 

 ± Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 90Sr ± Uncertainty (MDC) 137Cs ± Uncertainty (MDC) 238Pu ± Uncertainty (MDC) 239+240Pu ± Uncertainty (MDC) 241Am ± Uncertainty (MDC) 

s are pCi/L 

000 ± 85000 (1300) 0.38 ± 0.24 (0.46) 32 ± 9.6 (12) 0.48 ± 0.12 (0.033) 3.8 ± 0.67 (0.029) 0.25 ± 0.075 (0.034) 000 ± 83000 (1300) 0.38 ± 0.24 (0.45) 34 ± 7.7 (7.5) 0.45 ± 0.11 (0.022) 3.7 ± 0.65 (0.027) 0.33 ± 0.089 (0.024) 000 ± 83000 (1300) 0.54 ± 0.27 (0.47) 37 ± 8.9 (9.3) 0.39 ± 0.11 (0.040) 3.2 ± 0.62 (0.014) 0.27 ± 0.079 (0.030) 000 ± 84000 (1300) 0.59 ± 0.27 (0.45) 28 ± 8.0 (9.0) 0.47 ± 0.11 (0.026) 3.4 ± 0.60 (0.021) 0.25 ± 0.076 (0.030) 

units are pCi/g 

NA(c) 1.8 ± 0.56 (0.46) 81 ± 9.8 (0.53) 0.25 ± 0.052 (0.0065) 2.8 ± 0.47 (0.0065) 0.39 ± 0.080 (0.0034) NA 0.88 ± 0.35 (0.44) 62 ± 7.4 (0.33) 0.31 ± 0.062 (0.0026) 1.8 ± 0.31 (0.0026) 0.28 ± 0.061 (0.011) 

NA 0.84 ± 0.36 (0.50) 93 ± 11 (0.38) 0.20 ± 0.042 (0.0075) 1.6 ± 0.27 (0.0025) 0.14 ± 0.033 (0.0059) 

NA 0.11 ± 0.22 (0.51) 26 ± 3.3 (0.37) 0.067 ± 0.020 (0.011) 0.46 ± 0.086 (0.0026) 0.053 ± 0.018 (0.0091) 

nsidered detected (results greater than the sample-specific MDC) 

s not measured in samples which do not contain water 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 4-11. Tritium concentration in E Tunnel Ponds from 1995 to 2006 

4.1.9 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 4.2.3). 

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 4-7) and no man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected. 

Table 4-7. Tritium water monitoring results for NTS sewage lagoons in 2006 

Monitoring Location Date Sampled 

3H ± Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 

(pCi/L) 

 Area 23 Mercury 01/25/2006 89.3 ± 118 (194) 

 04/11/2006 64.1 ± 131 (218) 

 07/18/2006 -27.8 ± 121 (210) 

 10/11/2006 61.2 ± 111 (185) 

 Area 6 Yucca 01/25/2006 94.8 ± 120 (198) 

 04/11/2006 -50.8 ± 125 (219) 

 07/18/2006 42 ± 126 (212) 

 10/11/2006 74.7 ± 111 (184) 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

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 Jan-07

Tritium Concentration ( x 10 6 pCi/L)

Pond Influent

Pond Water
 Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-21 

4.1.10 UGTA Wells 

In 2006, the UGTA Project deepened the ER-16-1 Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain investigation well and 

completed the well as a water level measurement well. No groundwater samples were collected from this well. 

The UGTA Project installed pumps and collected groundwater samples from wells ER-12-4, U-12s, and WW 2 

(USGS HTH #2) (Figure 4-12). The first two wells were in Area 12 (Rainier Mesa) and the third in Area 2 (Yucca 

Flat). These three wells were purged using downhole electric submersible pumps prior to the collection of samples. 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 these three wells. During purging 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. These three wells are classified as not contaminated, and 

groundwater from them was pumped into unlined sumps or discharged to the ground surface. The tritium 

concentration of groundwater samples from the three wells were all below the detection limit (Table 4-8). Gross 

alpha and beta radioactivity were detected in most samples at levels just above detection limits. No man-made 

radionuclides were detected in the wells. 

There were no post-shot or near-cavity wells sampled by UGTA during 2006. 

 Table 4-8. Radiochemistry analysis results from UGTA well samples analyzed in 2006 

UGTA Well 

Date 

Sampled 

3H ± ERR(a) (DL)(b)

pCi/L 

Gross Alpha ± ERR (DL)

pCi/L 

Gross Beta ± ERR (DL) 

pCi/L 

ER-12-4 4/25/2006 20 ± 210 (350) 0.58 ± 0.35 (0.53) 4.6 ± 1 (1.1) 

ER-12-4 FD(c) 4/25/2006 -70 ± 180 (310) 0.18 ± 0.33 (0.6) 3.86 ± 0.94 (1.11) 

U-12s 8/22/2006 20 ± 200 (330) 1.9 ± 1 (1.5) 5.5 ± 1.7 (2.7) 

U-12s FD 8/22/2006 -80 ± 190 (330) 2.9 ± 1.1 (1) 5.4 ± 1.7 (2.6) 

WW 2 9/7/2006 -90 ± 190 (330) 1.8 ± 1 (1.2) 6.7 ± 2 (2.3) 

WW-2 FD 9/7/2006 -130 ± 190 (330) 1.4 ± 1 (1.3) 6.9 ± 2.1 (2.3) 

(a) ERR = the range of error in the measurement based on the reported value, taking into account the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL) 

 (see Glossary, Appendix B) 

(b) DL = sample detection limit reported by laboratory 

(c) FD = Field duplicate 

4.1.11 Environmental Impact 

The 2006 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, the private offsite water supply 

wells, or the 10 offsite NNSA/NSO monitoring wells sampled had levels of tritium consistently above MDCs. 

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. 

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, 

2004c; 2005a).
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 4-12. UGTA Project wells on and off the NTS 
 Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-23 

4.2 Nonradiological 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, and then NSTec was tasked with ensuring that such systems meet the applicable water quality 

standards and permit requirements (see Section 2.2). The NTS nonradiological water monitoring goals are shown 

below. BN/NSTec ES personnel met these goals by conducting field water sampling and analyses, performing 

assessments, and maintaining documentation. The major compliance measures/actions that ES personnel 

monitor/performed on the NTS are also shown below. This section describes the results of 2006 monitoring. 

Radiological monitoring of drinking water on and off the NTS is presented in the preceding Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.6. 

4.2.1 Drinking Water Monitoring 

Six 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 and then NSTec in 2006. The PWSs are operated in accordance with 

the requirements in NAC 445A under permits issued by the BHPS, which are renewed annually. Two BHPSpermitted tanker trucks are also used to haul potable water from permitted wells to private NTS water systems and 

remote work sites. As mentioned in the 2005 NTS Environmental Report, to adhere to new, lower allowable drinking 

water concentrations for arsenic, the Army #1 WW and WW 5C wells were taken off the Area 23 and 6 PWS 

(NV0000360) in 2005. WW C-1 was taken off the same PWS due to elevated total dissolved solids and the water’s 

hardness. The permit for the Area 23 and 6 PWS was revised in 2006 upon BHPS’s approval of water project 

completion reports documenting deactivation of the wells. Army #1 WW, WW 5C, and WW C-1 wells were all 

officially taken off the permit for the Area 23 and 6 PWS in 2006. 

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. 

Nonradiological Water Monitoring Goals Compliance Measures/Actions 

Ensure that the operation of NTS public water systems 

(PWSs) 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 inorganic contaminants and 

inorganic Phase II contaminants in PWS samples 

Measurements of 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand 

(BOD5), 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 Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 4-13. Drinking water systems on the NTS 
 Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-25 

The two permitted potable water-hauling trucks are subject to water quality standards for coliform bacteria. 

Table 4-9 lists the water quality parameters monitored in 2006, 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 four 

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 4-9. Water quality monitoring parameters and sampling design for NTS public drinking water systems 

PWS Contaminant 2006 Monitoring 

Requirement Monitoring Locations 

Coliform Bacteria 36 samples (3 buildings per 

month and 4 samples per 

building) 

Buildings 5-7, U1H restroom, 6-609, 

6-900, 22-1, 23-180, 23-701, 23-777, 

23-1103 

Area 23 and 6 

Nitrate and Nitrite (an 

Inorganic Phase II Chemical) 

2 samples (1 per entry point 

per year) 

Two entry points: 4/4A S. Tank, 

Mercury N. Tank 

Coliform Bacteria 4 samples (1 per quarter) Building 12-45 

Nitrate and Nitrite (an 

Inorganic Phase II Chemical) 

1 sample (1 per entry point 

per year) 

One entry point: Area 12 S. Tank 

Area 12 

Lead (an Inorganic 

Contaminant) 

5 samples (1 per building 

per year) 

Buildings: 12-31, 12-34, 12-35, 12-910, 

12-928 

Area 25 Coliform Bacteria 4 samples (1 per quarter) Building 25-4320 

Nitrate and Nitrite (an 

Inorganic Phase II Chemical) 

1 sample (1 per entry point 

per year) 

One entry point: J-11 Tank 

Truck 

Water-Hauling 

Truck 84846 

Coliform Bacteria 12 samples (1 per month) From water tank on truck after filling at 

Area 6 potable water fill stand 

Water-Hauling 

Truck 84847 

Coliform Bacteria 12 samples (1 per month) From water tank on truck after filling at 

Area 6 potable water fill stand 

In 2006, monitoring results (Table 4-10) indicated that the PWS and the permitted water-hauling trucks complied with 

National Primary Drinking Water Quality Standards with one exception. The Area 12 water system 

(PWS NV0004099) exceeded the action level for lead in the samples collected in April 2006. The high level is 

attributed to the camp’s inactivity and resultant lack of flushing within the service lines. Based on the information NSTec 

provided to NDEP concerning use of the water system, BHPS granted NSTec approval in September 2006 to reclassify this 

PWS to a non-community transient system, and monitoring of the system’s water quality has been reduced to coliform 

sampling only.

 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 4-10. Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2006 

 Results (mg/L) 

Contaminant 

Maximum 

Contaminant 

Level (mg/L) 

Area 23 and 6 PWS Area 12 

PWS 

Area 25 

PWS 

Coliform Bacteria (a) Coliforms present 

in 1 sample/month 

Present in 1 sample 

from Building 22-1 in 

October; present in 1 

sample from Building 

6-900 in November 

Absent in all 

samples 

Absent in all 

samples 

Inorganic Chemicals – Phase II 

 Fluoride 2.0 NA(c) NA 1.9 

 Nitrate 10 (as N) 3.4 – 3.8 1.1 2.3 

 Nitrite 1 (as N) ND(d) – 0.070 NA 0.20 

Inorganic Chemicals 

 Lead 0.015 NA 0.037(e) NA 

Yellow shading indicates a water quality measure that 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: Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research (JASPER) 

Compound, U3ah/at Complex, Area 6 Weather Station, and G Tunnel Office. 

(c) NA = Not applicable 

(d) ND = Not detectable 

(e) 90th percentile of 5 samples (1 sample/building)

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. 

The BHPS conducted a sanitary survey of the PWS in 2006. No significant deficiencies were noted, and corrections 

of nonsignificant deficiencies are in progress. BHPS conducted an annual inspection of the permitted water-hauling 

trucks in 2006; 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. NSTec 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.” 
 Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-27 

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 2006, 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 the Area 6 Radiological/Nuclear 

Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex (Permit NY-1124). 

• A septic system design was initiated and approved for Area 6 Criticality Experiments Facility. Construction 

should be completed in 2007. 

• 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 July 2006. 

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 2006, a 

project was completed that lined the secondary lagoon using a geosynthetic clay liner and a high-density polyethylene 

liner. Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001 will be reissued, and the new permit will have reduced 

monitoring requirements starting in 2007. 

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. 

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: BOD5, TSS, and pH (Table 4-11). The compliance limits for these parameters, established under 

Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001, are shown in Table 4-11. All quarterly monitoring results for 

BOD5, TSS, and pH for sewage system influent waters were within permit limits in 2006 with one exception. One 

BOD5 Mean Daily Load was exceeded at the Area 23 Mercury Sewage lagoons in the second 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 Area 23 Mercury Lagoon was resampled in the second quarter for BOD5. These results showed that the 

lagoons were once again in compliance and no other action was taken by NSTec nor requested by the state of Nevada.

 
Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-28 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 4-14. Active permitted sewage disposal systems on the NTS
 Radiological and Nonradiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 4-29 

Table 4-11. Water quality analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon influent waters in 2006 

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 4-12. 

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 4-12). 

Table 4-12. Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2006 

Contaminant(a) Limit(b) (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

Chlorobenzene 100 < 0.005 < 0.005

Chloroform 6.0 < 0.005 < 0.005

Cresol (Total) 200 < 0.010 < 0.010

2,4-D 10 < 0.010 < 0.010

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

Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 < 0.010 < 0.010

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 < 0.010 < 0.010

Hexachloroethane 3.0 < 0.010 < 0.010

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

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

Vinyl Chloride 0.2 < 0.010 < 0.010

Arsenic 5.0 0.0099 0.0075 

Barium 100 0.0284 0.0246 

 Minimum and Maximum Values from Quarterly Samples 

Parameter Units Area 6 Yucca Lake Area 23 Mercury 

BOD5 120.0 - 200 45.0 - 300 

BOD5 Permit Limit 

mg/L 

No Limit No Limit 

BOD5 Mean Daily Load (a) 3.67 – 7.34 7.26 – 42.2 

BOD5 Mean Daily Load Limit 

kg/d 

8.66 37.5 

TSS 65.4 - 137 76.3 – 200.0 

TSS Permit Limit 

mg/L 

No Limit No Limit 

pH 8.21 – 8.60 7.64 – 8.29 

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 Nonradiological Water Monitoring

4-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 4-12. Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2006 (continued) 

Contaminant(a) Limit(b) (mg/L) 

Area 6 Yucca 

(mg/L) 

Area 23 Mercury 

(mg/L) 

Cadmium 1.0 < 0.0007 < 0.0007 

Chromium 5.0 0.0024 0.0018 

Lead 5.0 < 0.00231 < 0.00231 

Mercury 0.2 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 

Selenium 1.0 < 0.0047 < 0.0047 

Silver 5.0 0.00095 < 0.0007 

(a) Starting in 2006, unnecessary monitoring contaminants were removed to comply with 

Appendix A parameters located in discharge permit GNEV93001. 

(b) 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 2006, there were no notable findings relating to the permitted lagoons and their weekly inspections. Although the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection did not conduct an annual inspection of active and inactive sewage 

lagoon systems in 2006, field maintenance programs aided in keeping the lagoons, sites, and access roads functional. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 2006, external dose was measured under the Direct Radiation 

Monitoring Program of Bechtel Nevada and National Security Technologies, LLC, 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)”. 

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 (in a unit of measure called a rad [see Glossary, Appendix B]) 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 2006 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 

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 Monitoring 

5-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

Direct radiation exposure is usually reported in the unit milliroentgen (mR), which is a measure of exposure in terms of 

numbers of ionizations in air. Generally, the dose in human tissue resulting from an exposure from the most common 

external radionuclides can be approximated by equating a 1 mR exposure with a 1 millirem (mrem) (0.01 millisievert 

[mSv]) dose. 

5.2 Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (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. Monitoring is 

provided by a surveillance network of TLDs 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 by the BN/NSTec 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 2006, 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 Radioactive Waste 

Management Complex (RWMC). 

• 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, provide rigorous management of databases, and document 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 2006. Quarterly results from Control TLDs were not 

significantly different from those of previous years. These exhibited quarter-to-quarter coefficients of variation 

ranging from 1.9 to 8.9 percent and averaging 7.4 percent in 2006. 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 2006 5-3

Figure 5-1. Location of TLDs on the NTS 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

5-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

5.2.2 Data Reporting

Direct radiation is reported and maintained in a database as exposure per unit of time, 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 2006, the average of the estimated annual exposures at background 

locations was 125 mR; these ranged from 82 to 164 mR over nine of ten background locations for which data were 

available (Table 5-2). Data were not available at one of the background locations (3.3 Mi SE of Aggregate Pit) due to 

the TLDs being either missing from the location or found on the ground which is an unacceptable condition for valid 

data. A 95 percent prediction interval (PI) for annual exposures based on the average of background location values 

for 2005 and 2006 is 40.8 to 197.0 mR. 

For comparison, the CEMP estimated annual exposure in Las Vegas, Nevada (at 2,040 ft elevation) was 103 mR 

during 2006 (see Table 6-3). Estimated exposures at CEMP locations ranged from 78 mR at Pahrump (2,550 ft 

elevation) to 154 mR at Sarcobatus Flats (4,015 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 2006 

 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 0 * * * * *

14 Mid-Valley B 3 143 142 3 140 146

16 Stake P-3 B 4 122 122 2 119 124

20 Stake A-112 B 4 164 164 1 163 166

20 Stake A-118 B 4 156 156 2 154 158

22 Army #1 Water Well B 4 86 87 3 83 89

25 Gate 25-4-P B 4 134 134 2 132 136

25 Guard Station 510 B 2 127 127 1 126 127

25 Jackass Flats & A-27 Roads B 4 82 81 2 80 84

25 Skull Mtn Pass B 4 109 110 1 108 110

23 Building 650 Dosimetry C 4 60 60 1 59 61

23 Lead Cabinet, 1 C 4 26 26 2 25 29

23 Lead Cabinet, 2 C 4 26 26 2 25 28

23 Lead Cabinet, 3 C 4 27 26 2 24 29

23 Lead Cabinet, 4 C 4 27 26 2 25 30

23 Lead Cabinet, 5 C 4 26 26 2 24 29

1 BJY E1 4 120 119 4 117 125

1 Sandbag Storage Hut E1 4 115 114 3 113 119

1 Stake C-2 E1 4 120 120 5 114 126

2 Stake M-140 E1 4 134 133 4 131 139

2 Stake TH-58 E1 4 97 95 5 93 104

3 LANL Trailers E1 2 122 122 2 121 124

3 Stake OB-20 E1 4 89 89 3 86 92

3 Well ER 3-1 E1 1 131 131 * 131 131
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 5-5

Table 5-1. Annual direct radiation exposure rates measured at TLD locations on the NTS in 2006 (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 4 112 112 3 110 115

4 Stake TH-48 E1 4 123 122 4 119 129 

5 Water Well 5B E1 3 113 114 1 112 114 

6 CP-6 E1 4 71 72 2 68 72 

6 DAF East E1 4 97 97 2 95 99 

6 DAF North E1 4 103 104 3 100 106 

6 DAF South E1 4 137 137 1 136 138 

6 DAF West E1 4 84 84 3 81 87 

6 Decon Facility NW E1 4 131 131 2 130 133 

6 Decon Facility SE E1 4 134 135 4 130 138 

6 Stake OB-11.5 E1 4 132 133 2 129 135 

6 Yucca Compliance E1 4 92 92 3 89 95 

6 Yucca Oil Storage E1 3 101 101 4 97 104 

7 Reitmann Seep E1 2 130 130 1 130 131 

7 Stake H-8 E1 4 130 128 4 127 135 

9 Papoose Lake Road E1 4 89 90 3 86 92 

9 U-9CW South E1 3 104 105 2 101 105 

9 V & G Road Junction E1 3 115 113 5 112 120 

10 Gate 700 South E1 4 133 131 6 129 142 

11 Stake A-21 E1 4 133 132 2 131 136 

12 Upper N Pond E1 4 133 130 6 130 141 

16 3545 Substation E1 4 143 142 3 140 146 

18 Stake A-83 E1 4 149 149 1 147 150 

18 Stake F-11 E1 4 149 149 1 147 150 

19 Stake P-41 E1 4 161 161 3 158 165 

20 Stake J-41 E1 4 140 141 4 134 143 

23 Gate 100 Truck Parking 1 E1 4 105 96 39 68 160 

23 Gate 100 Truck Parking 2 E1 4 64 63 4 62 70 

23 Mercury Fitness Track E1 4 59 59 3 57 64 

25 HENRE E1 4 124 124 2 121 126 

25 NRDS Warehouse E1 4 125 125 3 122 129 

27 Cafeteria E1 4 115 114 3 112 120 

27 JASPER-1 E1 4 115 115 2 113 116 

1 Bunker 1-300 E2 4 121 121 2 119 123

1 T1 E2 4 293 291 8 286 303 

2 Stake L-9 E2 4 174 174 5 169 178 

2 Stake N-8 E2 4 565 567 19 541 586 

3 Stake A-6.5 E2 3 144 144 4 140 148 

3 T3 E2 4 387 391 9 374 393 

3 T3 West E2 4 372 376 14 352 383 

3 T3A E2 4 448 453 12 431 458 

3 T3B E2 4 474 474 7 468 482 

3 U-3co North E2 4 199 197 6 193 208 

3 U-3co South E2 4 150 149 2 148 153 

4 Stake A-9 E2 4 692 691 38 657 729 

5 Frenchman Lake E2 3 379 385 10 367 385 

7 Bunker 7-300 E2 4 247 248 8 237 253 

7 T7 E2 4 118 118 2 116 120 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

5-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

Table 5-1. Annual direct radiation exposure rates measured at TLD locations on the NTS in 2006 (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 4 409 404 13 399 428 

8 Road 8-02 E2 4 127 125 6 123 137 

8 Stake K-25 E2 4 107 105 4 104 113 

8 Stake M-152 E2 4 166 167 3 162 169 

9 B9A E2 4 134 133 3 131 139 

9 Bunker 9-300 E2 4 126 123 6 122 134 

9 T9B E2 4 545 538 16 535 568 

10 Circle & L Roads E2 4 123 122 4 120 130 

10 Sedan East Visitor Box E2 4 135 135 4 130 140 

10 Sedan West E2 3 249 246 12 239 263 

10 T10 E2 4 269 267 8 261 281 

12 T-Tunnel #2 Pond E2 4 259 259 5 254 266 

12 Upper Haines Lake E2 4 109 108 4 105 114 

15 EPA Farm E2 2 117 117 4 114 120 

18 JOHNNIE BOY North E2 4 149 149 3 146 152 

20 PALANQUIN E2 4 236 235 9 226 249 

20 SCHOONER-1 E2 4 771 783 41 713 806 

20 SCHOONER-2 E2 4 279 279 7 270 287 

20 SCHOONER-3 E2 4 146 145 4 142 151 

20 Stake J-31 E2 4 170 170 2 167 172 

3 A3 RWMS Center WO 4 142 144 4 136 145 

3 A3 RWMS East WO 4 137 137 3 133 140 

3 A3 RWMS North WO 4 125 125 3 121 129 

3 A3 RWMS South WO 4 372 373 11 357 383 

3 A3 RWMS West WO 4 127 128 3 122 129 

5 A5 RWMS East Gate WO 4 115 114 4 112 120 

5 A5 RWMS Expansion NE WO 4 140 140 1 139 142 

5 A5 RWMS Expansion NW WO 4 146 146 3 142 148 

5 A5 RWMS NE Corner WO 4 127 127 2 125 130 

5 A5 RWMS NW Corner WO 4 127 127 2 125 129 

5 A5 RWMS South Gate WO 4 110 110 2 107 112 

5 A5 RWMS SW Corner WO 4 127 127 2 126 131 

5 Building 5-31 WO 4 112 112 4 108 118 

5 WEF East WO 4 129 128 5 125 135 

5 WEF North WO 4 128 127 5 122 135 

5 WEF South WO 4 136 133 10 128 151 

5 WEF West WO 3 133 131 9 124 143 

 * = No measurements available to calculate 

 (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 2006 5-7

Table 5-2. Summary statistics for 2006 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) 10 125 127 29 82 164 

Control (C) 6 32 27 14 26 60 

Environmental 1 (E1) 41 116 120 23 59 161 

Environmental 2 (E2) 35 268 199 175 107 771 

Waste Operations (WO) 17 143 128 60 110 372 

 (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 64 mR, with quarterly estimates varying between 62 and 70 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 during 2005, as discussed in the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 (DOE, 2006b). Quarterly 

exposure estimates had returned to background (i.e. similar to Gate 100 Truck Parking 2 values) by the fourth quarter 

of 2005 and remained there during the first quarter of 2006. For all of 2006, the yearly estimated exposure was 

105 mR, with quarterly values ranging from 68 to 160 mR. It is likely that waste shipments entering the NTS are 

responsible for a typical quarter-to-quarter variation. 

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/yr public dose limit. The only place a radiological boundary extends beyond the NTS 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 2006 was 

379 mR (down from 391 mR in 2005). The resulting above-background dose of approximately 215 to 313 mrem, 

depending on which background value is used, would exceed the 100 mrem dose limit to a person residing year-round 

at this location; however, there are no living quarters or full-time workers in this vicinity. 

5.3.2 Exposure Rates at RWMSs 

The Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1 (DOE, 2001), 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, no members of 

the public could access these areas for significant periods of time. Exposures are still measured by TLDs located at 

the RWMSs to show the potential dose to a hypothetical person residing year-round at each 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, resulting 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. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

5-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

During 2006, the exposures measured inside Area 3 RWMS and three of four measurements at the boundary were 

within the range of background exposures (Figure 5-2). 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 2006. 

Area 3 RWMS Estimated Annual Exposures

0

200

400

600

800

mR

Background Locations

Environmental 2 Locations

Waste Operation Locations

Prediction Interval for Background

All Background

Locations

Inside

RWMS

RWMS

Boundary

Area 3

Outside RWMS

 Figure 5-2. 2006 annual exposure rates in and around Area 3 RWMS and at background locations 

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 2006, 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) of 6 atmospheric tests in Frenchman Lake Playa. 

Area 5 RWMC Estimated Annual Exposures

0

200

400

600

800

mR

Background Locations

Environmental 1 Locations

Environmental 2 Locations

Waste Operation Locations

Predictions Interval for Background

All Background

Locations

RWMS

Boundary

Area 5

Outside RWMS

Figure 5-3. 2006 annual exposure rates around Area 5 RWMS and at background locations 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 5-9

5.3.3 Exposures from NTS Operational Activities 

During 2006, 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 (Environmental 1 locations). The estimated mean annual exposure at 

these locations was 116 mR, slightly lower than the mean estimated annual exposure at background locations (see 

Table 5-2). Overall, annual exposures were not different between background and Environmental 1 locations 

(Figure 5-4); the estimated annual exposures at all Environmental 1 locations were within the background-based PIs. 

Estimated Annual Exposures

by Location Type

0

200

400

600

800

CEMP B C E1 E2 WO 

Location Type

mR

95% PI from B

Figure 5-4. 2006 annual exposure rates on the NTS by location type and off the NTS (CEMP stations) 

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 

2.21 mR/d during the second quarter (806 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. 

This would result in an external dose that is approximately 10 percent of the most stringent total dose rate to biota, 

which is the 0.1 rad/d (approximately 100 mR/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 2006, for example, the first 

quarter was higher than the others. The differences were statistically significant (p=0.000) for all location types except 

Waste Operations, but fairly small: a 3.0 percent difference between the first quarter and the lowest (third) quarter for 

Background locations, 5.0 percent for Environmental 1 locations (third quarter was low), and 5.26 percent for 

Environmental 2 locations(fourth quarter was low). The largest quarter-to-quarter relative differences were seen in 

the Control locations (15.1 percent between first and fourth quarters), which suggests that systematic analytical 

variability is a major, but not the only, contributing factor to the observed quarter-to-quarter variation. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

5-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

Long-term trends are displayed in Figure 5-5 by location type for locations that have been monitored for at least ten 

years. The Schooner-1 TLD location, which has the highest exposure of any current NTS location, is not included in 

this figure because it was established in 2003. The two highest exposures shown in Figure 5-5, at Stake A-9 and 

Stake N-8, continue to decrease by 4.1 and 5.7 percent per year, respectively; these correspond to half-lives of about 

17 and 12 years. The next four highest exposures shown are at T-Tunnel #2 Pond, Sedan West, Bunker 7-300, Sedan 

West, and U-3co North, which are decreasing by 0.7, 4.1, 1.5, and 2.5 percent per year since 1989, respectively. All six 

of these locations are in the Environmental 2 category at known contaminated sites, with the predominant photonemitting 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; see 

Figure 5-5. 

Estimated Annual Exposures

at Locations With at Least 10-Year Histories by 2006

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1988 1994 2000 2006

Year

mR

Control

Background

Environmental 1

Environmental 2

Waste Operations

A4 Stake A-9

A2 Stake N-8

 

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

5.4 Environmental Impact 

Direct radiation exposure to the public from NTS operations in 2006 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. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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, Utah, and California are managed by local citizens, many of them high school science teachers, 

whose routine tasks are to ensure equipment is operating normally and 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 

informational background of the CEMP can be found at <http://www.cemp.dri.edu/cemp/moreinfo.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 2006, 29 CEMP stations managed by DRI comprised the Air Surveillance Network (ASN) (Figure 6-1). Two 

new stations were established during the past year, one between Shoshone and Tecopa, California (February 2006), 

and one in Duckwater, Nevada (November 2006). Data for the Duckwater station represents only about six weeks of 

collection due to its installation late in the year. 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 2006, the CEMP ASN included continuously operating lowvolume particulate air samplers located at 27 of the 29 CEMP station locations. No low-volume air samplers were 

located at Medlins Ranch or Warm Springs Summit, Nevada, during 2006. 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. 
6-2

 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006Figure 6-1. 2006 CEMP Air Surveillance Network 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 6-3 

Figure 6-2. CEMP station at Mesquite, Nevada 

CEMP Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD) Network – 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 2006, the TLD network consisted of fixed environmental 

TLDs at 28 of the 29 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 Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC) Network – The 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 29 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 29 CEMP 

stations. The MET network includes sensors that measure air temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, solar 

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/>.
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

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 are 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 1.36 ± 0.48 x 10-15 microcuries per milliliter 

(μCi/mL) (5.03 ± 1.78 x 10-5 Becquerels [Bq]/m3) (Table 6-1). Most of the results for 2006 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 ASN in 2006 

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 1.62 0.74 0.52 3.91 

Amargosa Valley 53 1.23 0.57 0.52 3.23 

Beatty 51 1.32 0.62 0.44 2.97 

Boulder City 53 2.33 0.87 0.58 4.41 

Caliente 53 1.70 0.73 0.55 3.43 

Cedar City 53 1.06 0.40 0.39 2.31 

Delta 53 1.11 0.41 0.43 2.53 

Duckwater 6 2.78 0.60 1.78 3.47 

Ely 51 0.95 0.43 0.21 1.90 

Garden Valley 53 1.12 0.43 0.48 2.41 

Goldfield 53 1.28 0.77 0.36 3.87 

Henderson 50 1.14 0.39 0.34 2.36 

Indian Springs 50 1.00 0.33 0.28 1.77 

Las Vegas 53 2.55 1.00 0.69 5.64 

Mesquite 53 1.24 0.46 0.34 2.47 

Milford 51 1.21 0.54 0.32 2.98 

Nyala Ranch 53 0.87 0.32 0.34 1.72 

Overton 53 1.48 0.71 0.54 3.67 

Pahrump 53 1.37 0.79 0.26 4.46 

Pioche 53 1.03 0.40 0.49 2.20 

Rachel 39 1.14 0.84 0.31 5.82 

Sarcobatus Flats 51 1.66 0.83 0.28 3.36 

Stone Cabin Ranch 53 1.03 0.34 0.47 2.09 

St. George 53 1.17 0.40 0.30 2.28 

Tecopa/Shoshone 41 1.28 0.56 0.32 2.92 

Tonopah 51 1.06 0.50 0.36 2.78 

Twin Springs 53 0.98 0.32 0.42 1.70 

Network Mean = 1.36 ± 0.48 x 10-15 μCi/ml 

Mean MDC = 0.47 x 10-15 μCi/mL Standard Error of Mean MDC = 0.09 x 10-15 μCi/mL 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 6-5 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

x 10-15 μCi/mL

Max

Mean

Min

Year

 Figure 6-3. Historical trend for gross alpha analysis for all CEMP stations 

The mean annual gross beta activity across all sample locations was 2.22 ± 0.21 x 10-14 μCi/mL 

(8.21 ± 0.78 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 ASN in 2006 

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 2.23 0.64 1.29 4.52 

Amargosa Valley 53 2.20 0.66 0.99 3.97 

Beatty 51 2.20 0.69 0.74 3.95 

Boulder City 53 2.47 0.87 1.12 5.46 

Caliente 53 2.41 0.68 1.14 4.51 

Cedar City 53 1.99 0.56 0.90 3.37 

Delta 53 2.23 0.80 0.97 5.75 

Duckwater 6 2.78 0.60 1.78 3.42 

Ely 51 2.02 0.59 1.06 3.18 

Garden Valley 53 2.19 0.55 1.13 3.37 

Goldfield 53 2.02 0.60 0.92 3.33 

Henderson 50 2.17 0.72 0.95 4.78 

Indian Springs 50 2.00 0.54 1.01 3.31 

Las Vegas 53 2.55 0.81 1.26 5.30 

 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

Table 6-2. Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite ASN in 2006 (continued) 

Concentration (x 10-14 μCi/mL [3.7 x 10-4 Bq/m3]) 

Sampling Location 

Number of 

Samples Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Mesquite 53 2.38 0.77 1.19 4.74 

Milford 51 2.36 0.79 1.01 5.04 

Nyala Ranch 53 1.95 0.66 1.05 5.12 

Overton 53 2.42 0.75 1.20 5.66 

Pahrump 53 2.18 0.67 0.89 3.86 

Pioche 53 1.98 0.61 0.92 3.76 

Rachel 39 2.22 0.71 0.71 3.85 

Sarcobatus Flats 51 2.25 0.61 1.00 3.79 

Stone Cabin 53 1.98 0.53 0.50 2.86 

St. George 53 2.41 0.86 1.05 5.07 

Tecopa/Shoshone 41 2.39 0.91 0.87 6.10 

Tonopah 51 1.95 0.59 0.88 3.01 

Twin Springs 53 2.13 0.71 1.06 5.13 

Network Mean = 2.22 ± 0.21 x 10-14 μCi/mL 

Mean MDC = 0.12 x 10-14 μCi/mL Standard Error of Mean MDC = 0.01 x 10-14 μCi/mL 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

x 10-14 μCi/mL

Max

Mean

Min

Year

 Figure 6-4. Historical trend for gross beta analysis for all CEMP stations 

The overall gross alpha results show a generally increasing trend from 1996 to 2001 before slightly trending downward 

the last five 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. This trend is most likely explained as being a result of 

persistent drought conditions throughout the southwest and Great Basin states. Drought in these regions has existed 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 6-7 

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. 

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 88.1 ± 24.9 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. 

TLD results are not presented for Duckwater, as a TLD was not placed at the station until January of 2007. The total 

annual exposure for 2006 ranged from 77 milliroentgens (mR) (0.77 millisieverts [mSv]) at Pahrump, Nevada, to 

154 mR (1.54 mSv) at Sarcobatus Flats, Nevada, with a mean annual exposure of 119 mR (1.19 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 ASN in 2006 

Sampling Daily Exposure (mR) 

Location 

Number of 

Days Mean Minimum Maximum 

Total Annual 

Exposure (mR) 

Alamo 364 0.33 0.31 0.38 121 

Amargosa Valley 371 0.30 0.28 0.34 109 

Beatty 364 0.39 0.36 0.41 142 

Boulder City 358 0.30 0.28 0.31 108 

Caliente 364 0.34 0.32 0.35 123 

Cedar City 364 0.26 0.26 0.27 96 

Delta 364 0.28 0.27 0.29 101 

Ely 364 0.31 0.26 0.41 115 

Garden Valley 372 0.42 0.40 0.43 152 

Goldfield 364 0.34 0.33 0.36 125 

Henderson 358 0.32 0.30 0.33 145 

Indian Springs 371 0.20 0.26 0.28 98 

Las Vegas 350 0.28 0.26 0.30 103 

Medlin's Ranch 370 0.39 0.37 0.42 142 

Mesquite 358 0.29 0.28 0.32 107 

Milford 364 0.40 0.37 0.41 144 

Nyala Ranch 370 0.31 0.29 0.32 112 

Overton 358 0.26 0.24 0.29 95 

Pahrump 371 0.21 0.20 0.22 78 

Pioche 364 0.31 0.31 0.32 113 

Rachel 364 0.37 0.33 0.39 134 

Sarcobatus Flats 364 0.42 0.40 0.44 154 

Stone Cabin Ranch 370 0.38 0.29 0.43 140 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

Table 6-3. TLD monitoring results for the CEMP offsite ASN in 2006 (continued) 

Sampling Daily Exposure (mR) 

Location 

Number of 

Days Mean Minimum Maximum 

Total Annual 

Exposure (mR) 

St. George 364 0.24 0.22 0.27 89 

Tecopa/Shoshone 371 0.31 0.31 0.31 113 

Tonopah 365 0.36 0.33 0.38 132 

Twin Springs 371 0.42 0.36 0.46 153 

Overall Annual Mean = 119 mR

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

mR/yr

Max

Mean

Min

Year

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 four 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, similar to the gross alpha and beta 

results. 

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 2006 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 

Shoshone/Tecopa station includes data from mid-February through 2006. The Duckwater station was installed in 

November 2006, and therefore includes data from November and December only. The exposure rate ranged from 

72.27 mR/yr (0.72 mSv) in Pahrump to 183.08 mR/yr (1.83 mSv) in Milford, Utah. Background levels of 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 6-9 

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 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and are shown in Table 6-5. The annual exposure levels observed at 

the CEMP stations in 2006 are well within these United States background levels. 

 Table 6-4. PIC monitoring results for the CEMP offsite ASN in 2006 

Daily Average Gamma Exposure Rate (μR/hr) 

Sampling Location Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Annual 

Exposure 

(mR/yr) 

Alamo 13.33 0.23 12.49 14.17 116.77 

Amargosa Valley 12.63 0.15 11.95 13.31 110.64 

Beatty 15.71 0.74 12.97 18.45 137.62 

Boulder City 15.62 0.13 14.62 15.62 132.45 

Caliente 15.79 0.30 14.87 16.70 138.28 

Cedar City 11.25 0.21 10.43 12.07 98.55 

Delta 10.75 0.75 8.61 12.89 94.17 

Duckwater 14.40 0.47 13.50 15.30 126.14 

Ely 11.16 0.81 9.05 13.27 97.76 

Garden Valley 18.51 0.50 17.06 19.96 162.15 

Goldfield 15.15 0.36 14.23 16.07 132.71 

Henderson 15.09 0.12 14.65 15. 52 132.14 

Indian Springs 11.60 0.22 10.87 12.32 101.57 

Las Vegas 10.67 0.12 10.21 11.12 93.43 

Medlin's Ranch 16.63 0.37 15.61 17.65 145.68 

Mesquite 11.79 0.16 11.29 12.29 103.28 

Milford 20.90 0.36 19. 34 22. 46 183.08 

Nyala Ranch 13.38 0.45 12.01 14.75 117.21 

Overton 10.76 0.19 9. 58 10.76 89.09 

Pahrump 8.25 0.13 7.87 8.63 72.27 

Pioche 14.82 0. 62 13.14 16.49 129.78 

Rachel 15.70 0.30 14.78 16.61 137.49 

Sarcobatus Flats 17.59 0.26 16.53 18.64 154.04 

Stone Cabin Ranch 17.18 0.75 15.67 18. 69 150.50 

St. George 9.31 0. 20 8.75 9.86 81.51 

Tecopa/Shoshone 15.05 0.17 14.50 15.60 131.84 

Tonopah 15.99 0.29 15.00 16.98 140.07 

Twin Springs 19.57 0.58 17.85 21. 28 171.39 

Warm Springs Summit 19.58 0.47 18.04 21.12 171.52 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

 

Source: <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp/Radiation.html.> “Radiation in Perspective,” August 1990 (Access Date: 6/26/2007) 

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 2006 6-11 

6.2 Offsite Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 

During 2006, the DRI was tasked by NNSA/NSO 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, in some cases, a direct comparison to the results obtained by 

National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), under the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) 

(Section 4.1). 

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 June 27 to October 24, 2006, 4 springs, 20 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 the 

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, field QA samples, and laboratory QA procedures. DRI’s standard operating procedures 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. Eight samples (23 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 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. 

The method by which tritium samples were analyzed was changed in 2006. Prior to 2006, samples were analyzed at 

DRI using enriched tritium analysis. The tritium laboratory at DRI was closed in 2006. Samples collected in 2006 

were analyzed using gas proportional counting at the University of Miami. Detection limits were low enough that 

enrichment was not required. The decision level (LC) (see Glossary, Appendix B) of tritium ranged from 10.5 to 16.0 

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 24 pCi/L. NSTec reports that the MDC for enriched tritium analyses for the RREMP water samples 

ranged from 11 to 37 pCi/L with an average of 18.7 pCi/L (see Section 4.1.2). 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water 

monitoring locations sampled in 2006 

scription Latitude Longitude Date Sampled Sample Collection Method 

38 08.25 -115 36.20 6/28/2006 By hand from stream discharging from spring orifice 

stem - source of water is 

37 21.74 -115 10.14 7/05/2006 By hand from municipal water well 

ll 36 34.16 -116 27.66 8/01/2006 By hand at wellhead 

unicipal well 36 54.94 -116 45.65 10/01/2006 By hand at wellhead at utility headquarters 

ay Park from municipal water 

35 59.74 -114 49.90 8/24/2006 By hand from a drinking fountain inside Hemingway Park, water originates from Lake Mead 

pply well 37 36.93 -114 30.98 8/15/2006 By hand at well in municipal well field 

 supply well about 

n 37 39.84 -113 13.03 8/17/2006 By hand at wellhead, sampled new well location this year 

39 21.59 -112 34.65 8/16/2006 By hand at well head 39 13.80 -114 54.01 6/28/2006 By hand from spring, discharge used as municipal water supply 

Supply well about 12 mi 

37 52.41 -117 14.76 8/21/2006 By hand at wellhead, sampled new well location this year 

f water is municipal water 

e Mead 36 00.43 -114 57.95 8/24/2006 By hand from faucet inside college building; water originates from Lake Mead 

ell 36 06.87 -115 08.85 10/20/2006 By hand at wellhead, sampled new well location this year 

trict #103 36 13.94 -115 15.13 8/23/2006 By hand at wellhead 

mi west of ranch house 37 24.10 -115 32.25 7/05/2006 By hand at kitchen faucet 

Supply Well 3 mi S.E. of town 36 46.40 -114 03.26 8/23/2006 By hand at well head 

38 22.88 -112 59.78 8/16/2006 By hand at wellhead 

38 14.93 -115 43.72 6/27/2006 By hand from front yard hose faucet at house 

at Arrow Canyon about 10 mi 

36 44.06 -114 44.87 8/23/2006 By hand at wellhead 

well #11 36 12.32 -115 59.12 8/02/22006 By hand at wellhead 

ed 1 mi east of town 37 56.98 -114 25.78 8/15/2006 By hand at wellhead 

37 38.79 -115 44.75 6/27/2006 By hand from bar faucet inside Lil Ale Inn Restaurant 

37 16.78 -117 01.92 8/02/2006 By hand at wellhead 

rvoir 37 10.43 -113 23.96 8/17/2006 By hand at water treatment plant, water originates from Quail Creek Reservoir 

38 12.51 -116 37.95 6/27/2006 By hand from outside house faucet at new location this year 

37 55.60 -116 15.71 10/20/2006 By hand at well head 

l field located 10 mi from town 38 11.68 -117 04.70 10/24/2006 By hand at wellhead 

38 13.02 -116 09.83 6/27/2006 By hand from well head, sampled new location this year 

esurveyed in 2004 using global positioning satellite data. The following sample locations were moved in 2006: Indian Springs was moved 

n request by the facility manager. Cedar City sampled a new well this year. Goldfield sampled a new well this year. Stone Cabin was sampled at an 

acent house this year. The origin of Twin Springs Ranch water has, in the past, been erroneously reported as being from a spring on location. In actuality, 

well drilled near the spring. All updated sample locations are shown in Figure 6-7. 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 6-13Figure 6-7. 2006 CEMP water monitoring locations 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

6.2.3 Results of Surface Water and Spring Discharge Monitoring 

Measured tritium (3H) concentrations from the springs and surface waters ranged from 0 to 35.4 pCi/L (Table 6-7). 

Four of the samples, Ely, Medlin’s Ranch, Stone Cabin Ranch, and St. George, yielded results that were 

indistinguishable from background (i.e., ≤ LC). The Adaven Springs and Henderson samples 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 had a tritium activity that was 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 (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], 2002d; 

2003b; 2004c; 2005a) and are due to residual tritium persisting in the environment that originated from global 

atmospheric nuclear testing. The Henderson sample also originates from Lake Mead. The discrepancy between the 

Henderson and Boulder City samples are due to fairly large uncertainties associated with each sample. All tritium 

results were well below the safe drinking water limit of 20,000 pCi/L. The majority of sample results were statistically 

similar to results reported by DRI in the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 (DOE, 2005a). The 

exceptions consist of Medlin’s Ranch, Boulder City, and Henderson. In 2005, Medlin’s Ranch was reported as 10 ± 

18 pCi/L, which exceeded the LC associated with that analysis (7 pCi/L). This year’s result are below the LC. Boulder 

City and Henderson were both reported in 2005 to have activities of 24 ± 24 pCi/L. This year, Boulder City 

increased by approximately 11 pCi/L and Henderson decreased by approximately 8 pCi/L despite the samples having 

a common point of origin. The degree to which the aforementioned values fluctuate from year to year is consistent 

with and due to the relatively high level of uncertainty associated with each sample. 

Table 6-7. Tritium results for CEMP offsite surface water and spring discharges in 2006 

Monitoring Location 

3H ± Uncertainty(a)

(pCi/L) 

LC

(pCi/L) 

Adaven Springs 22.6 ± 12.8 12 

Ely Municipal Water Source – springs 3 to 4 mi west of town 9.7 ± 12.8 12 

Medlin's Ranch - spring located 11 mi west of ranch house 0.0 ± 19.2 12 

Stone Cabin Ranch 0.0 ± 19.2 12 

Boulder City – Source of Water is Lake Mead 35.4 ± 25.8 12 

Henderson – Source of Water is Lake Mead 16.1 ± 19.4 12 

St. George – Source of Water is Quail Creek Reservoir 9.7 ± 12.8 12 

 (a) ± 2 standard deviations 

6.2.4 Results of Groundwater Monitoring 

The results for the 20 groundwater tritium analyses from the DRI Tritium Laboratory are presented in Table 6-8. 

Two new sample locations, Mesquite and Tecopa were added this year. The measured activities ranged from -12.9 to 

12.9 pCi/L. All but one 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. The only sample to exceed background (≥Lc) was 

Milford. The difference between the 2005 reported activity for Milford (1 ± 20 pCi/L) was statistically indistinguishable from this year’s result due to relatively large uncertainties associated with each sample. No statistically significant 

trends were evident when the results were compared to samples taken in previous years. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 6-15

 Table 6-8. Tritium results for CEMP offsite wells in 2006 

Monitoring Location 

3H ± Uncertainty(a) 

(pCi/L) 

LC 

(pCi/L) 

Alamo City -9.7 ± 19.4 12 

Amargosa Valley -6.4 ± 12.8 12 

Beatty -12.9 ± 12.8 12 

Caliente -3.2 ± 12.8 12 

Cedar City 0.0 ± 12.8 12 

Delta 6.4 ± 12.8 12 

Goldfield -9.7 ± 12.8 12 

Indian Springs 9.7 ± 12.8 12 

Las Vegas 3.2 ± 19.4 12 

Mesquite 0.0 +/- 12.8 12 

Milford 12.9 ± 12.8 12 

Nyala Ranch 9.7 ± 19.4 12 

Overton 6.4 ± 12.8 12 

Pahrump 3.2 ± 12.8 12 

Pioche 6.4 ± 12.8 12 

Rachel 3.2 ± 12.8 12 

Sarcobatus Flats -3.2 ± 12.8 12 

Tecopa 3.2 +/- 12.8 12 

Tonopah -3.2 ± 12.8 12 

Twin Springs Ranch 3.2 ± 12.8 12 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

 

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 activity, 35.4 pCi/L for Boulder City, 

was well below the safe drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L. 

 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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. The DOE also requires monitoring to determine if the radiological dose to aquatic and terrestrial biota on 

site exceeds DOE-established limits expressed in rad (for radiation absorbed dose, see Glossary, Appendix B) per day 

(rad/d). 

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, 2003a). In 2006, National 

Security Technologies, LLC, 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 2006. The reader is directed to 

the RREMP (DOE, 2003a) 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 2006 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/d for terrestrial plants and aquatic animals 

 < 0.1 rad/d 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 (3H) (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 2006 

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 2006, the T2 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). 

The T2 site is located in Area 2 in the northern portion of the NTS. Four nuclear weapons tests were conducted on 

the surface of the T2 site from 1952 to 1957 (DOE, 2000a). All of these weapons were placed on towers and totaled 

99 kilotons. Contaminants resulting from these tests were primarily 3H, 90Sr, 137Cs, 239+240Pu, and 241Am. A control 

area for T2 is located about 18 kilometers (11.2 miles) south-southwest of the sample site in Mid-Valley, Area 14. Any 

of the candidate game species are likely to be present at the T2 and control sites. 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 7-3 

Figure 7-1. Radiological biota monitoring sites on the NTS and sites sampled in 2006 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

7.3 Sampling Methods 

During 2006, biota samples were successfully collected at the T2 and the T2 control site. Sample methods and the 

numbers and types of samples collected are described below. 

7.3.1 Plants 

Plant sampling occurred June 28, 2006. At each site, two samples of each plant species shown in Table 7-1 were 

collected. These species represent the dominant shrubs 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 were hand-plucked 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 3H and dried plant tissue was analyzed for gammaemitting radionuclides, 90Sr, uranium, plutonium, and 241Am. 

Table 7-1. Plant species sampled at T2 and the T2 control site in 2006 

Plant Common Name 

Name 

Abbreviation(a) Plant Scientific Name T2 T2 Control Site 

Blackbrush CORA Coleogyne ramosissima X 

Brittlebrush ENVI Encelia virginensis X 

Nevada jointfir EPNE Epheda nevadensis X 

Rubber rabbitbrush ERNA Ericameria nauseosus X X 

Burrobush HYSA Hymenoclea salsola 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 2006 as well as to sample road-killed, large game animals. Animal trapping took place July through August. 

Live-traps were run for a total of 78 trap-nights. Three jackrabbits were trapped at the T2 site and one jackrabbit was 

trapped at the T2 control site. 

Opportunistic sampling of three big game animals occurred during 2006. All of these were mortalities due to being hit 

by an automobile. The first was a mule deer on Tippipah Highway on Yucca Flat in Area 1. The second was a 

pronghorn on Mercury Highway in Area 23, and the third was a pronghorn from the 5-01 road 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 were individually 

homogenized using an industrial meat grinder and food processor. Water was distilled from the samples and 

submitted to a laboratory for 3H analysis. Past results have shown no difference in 3H concentrations in water from 

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. 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 7-5 

7.4 Results 

7.4.1 Plants 

Concentrations of man-made radionuclides detected in 2006 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 the T2 site had 

detectable concentrations of man-made radionuclides. These radionuclides were 3H, 90Sr, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, and 241Am. 

Only two samples from the T2 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. 

Figure 7-2 displays average concentrations of radionuclides detected in plant samples collected from the T2 site during 

2006 compared with those detected in samples last collected from the T2 site in 2002. While 2006 average 

concentrations were lower than those from 2002 for all detected radionuclides, variability between samples within 

sample years was high enough to make them not significantly different. 

7.4.2 Animals 

Man-made radionuclides were detected in all animals collected from the T2 site. Only trace amounts of 239+240Pu and 

241Am were detected in the rabbit from the T2 control site. The 239+240Pu in muscle is a questionable detection given 

the high counting error associated with it. Uranium was detected, but at levels and isotopic ratios not different from 

those expected with natural uranium. Of all detected radionuclides, 3H had the highest concentrations, with 137Cs 

following at much lower concentrations. As expected, the most 90Sr, plutonium, and 241Am were detected in the body 

fraction of animals because these isotopes tend to concentrate in bone tissue or be bound with soil in the gut rather 

than concentrating in muscle tissue. No man-made radionuclides were detected in large game animals sampled during 

2006. 

Figure 7-3 displays average concentrations of radionuclides detected in animal samples collected from the T2 site 

during 2006 compared with those detected in samples last collected from the T2 site in 2002. Average concentrations 

between sample years were not significantly different. 

7.5 Environmental Impact 

As expected, higher concentrations of radionuclides were detected in biota sampled at the T2 site. This location 

contained radioactivity associated with historic testing of nuclear weapons. While 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. 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). 
ons of man-made radionuclides in plants from T2 and the T2 control site in 2006 

Radiological Biota Monitoring Radionuclide Concentrations ± Uncertainty(a) 

3H(b) 90Sr(c) 238Pu(c) 239/240Pu(c) 241Am(c) 

880 ± 260 1.10 ± 0.10 0.042 ± 0.015 0.140 ± 0.029 0.023 ± 0.021 

2,400 ± 370 0.59 ± 0.09 0.006 ± 0.008 0.017 ± 0.010 0.016 ± 0.015 

650 ± 250 0.12 ± 0.06 0.004 ± 0.007 0.032 ± 0.014 0.008 ± 0.012 

1,100 ± 280 0.12 ± 0.05 0.005 ± 0.006 0.032 ± 0.014 -0.004 ± 0.007 3,100 ± 250 0.30 ± 0.07 -0.003 ± 0.006 0.022 ± 0.015 -0.004 ± 0.007 1,900 ± 330 0.37 ± 0.08 0.018 ± 0.011 0.059 ± 0.018 0.021 ± 0.025 

DC (Average MDC): 100% (314) 100% (0.08) 33% (0.011) 100% (0.008) 33% (0.019) 

340 ± 220 0.02 ± 0.03 0.001 ± 0.004 0.002 ± 0.004 0.005 ± 0.008 

260 ± 210 -0.03 ± 0.03 -0.001 ± 0.003 0.004 ± 0.005 0.000 ± 0.005 

67 ± 190 -0.01 ± 0.03 0.002 ± 0.005 0.002 ± 0.004 0.004 ± 0.007 

120 ± 190 0.01 ± 0.03 -0.001 ± 0.003 

-

0.001 ± 0.004 -0.001 ± 0.005 

310 ± 220 0.02 ± 0.04 0.009 ± 0.008 

-

0.001 ± 0.005 0.003 ± 0.007 

230 ± 210 0.00 ± 0.03 0.001 ± 0.003 0.007 ± 0.006 0.000 ± 0.003 

DC (Average MDC): 17% (338) 0% (0.06) 0% (0.009) 17% (0.008) 0% (0.014) 

sidered detected (results greater than the sample-specific MDC).

rom sample

eight of sample
Radiological Biota Monitoring

s of man-made radionuclides in animals from T2 and the T2 control site in 2006 

Radionuclide Concentrations ± Uncertainty(a)

3H(b) 90Sr(c) 137Cs(c) 238Pu(c) 239/240Pu(c) 241Am(c)

0.00 ± 0.03 0.15 ± 0.21 -0.001 ± 0.005 0.002 ± 0.005 -0.006 ± 0.007

ion) 

1,070 ± 291 

0.08 ± 0.04 0.14 ± 0.09 0.030 ± 0.018 0.041 ± 0.021 0.014 ± 0.012

0.01 ± 0.03 0.01 ± 0.04 0.000 ± 0.005 0.000 ± 0.005 0.008 ± 0.008

ion) 

244 ± 200 

0.13 ± 0.05 0.39 ± 0.14 0.027 ± 0.017 0.048 ± 0.022 0.025 ± 0.016

0.01 ± 0.03 0.13 ± 0.06 -0.001 ± 0.005 0.007 ± 0.009 0.003 ± 0.005

ion) 

443 ± 228 

0.68 ± 0.08 0.24 ± 0.14 0.022 ± 0.016 0.038 ± 0.020 0.027 ± 0.017

ge MDC): 67% (338) 50% (0.06) 67% (0.07) 50% (0.012) 50% (0.011) 50% (0.013) 

-0.01 ± 0.02 0.00 ± 0.02 -0.001 ± 0.005 0.011 ± 0.010 0.008 0.011

ion) 

291 ± 214 

 0.02 ± 0.03 0.03 ± 0.06 0.001 ± 0.006 -0.001 ± 0.006 0.021 ± 0.015

ge MDC): 0% (339) 0% (0.05) 0% (0.04) 0% (0.039) 50% (0.012) 50% (0.018) 

ad-kill)

 5) -42 ± 99 0.00 ± 0.12 0.05 ± 0.18 0.027 ± 0.037 -0.007 ± 0.029 0.000 ± 0.005

 23) 165 ± 209 0.18 ± 0.26 0.10 ± 0.11 -0.007 ± 0.038 0.022 ± 0.033 0.024 ± 0.029

 1) 185 ± 214 0.00 ± 0.23 0.00 ± 0.06 0.048 ± 0.039 0.032 ± 0.038 -0.021 ± 0.023

ge MDC): 0% (299) 0% (0.37) 0% (0.13) 0% (0.060) 0% (0.064) 0% (0.045) 

idered detected (results greater than the sample-specific MDC). 

om sample 

ght of sample 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 7-2. Concentrations of man-made radionuclides in plants from T2, 2002 and 2006 

Figure 7-3. Concentrations of man-made radionuclides in animals from T2, 2002 and 2006 

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

H-3 Sr-90 Pu-238 Pu-239+240 Am-241

Radionuclide

Average Concentration

(pCi/L for H-3, pCi/g for rest)

2002

2006

error bars = ± one standard deviation

0.0001

0.001

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

H-3 Sr-90 Cs-137 Pu-238 Pu-239+240 Am-241

Radionuclide

Average Concentration

(pCi/L for H-3, pCi/g for rest)

2002

2006

error bars = ± one standard deviation
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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) and National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), in 2006 

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 2006 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 radiation dose (in a unit of measure called a rad [see 

Glossary, Appendix B]) to NTS biota is less than the following limits 

set by DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002: 

 < 1 rad per day (rad/d) for terrestrial plants and aquatic animals 

 < 0.1 rad/d 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 Code of Federal Regulations (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/d 

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 (DOE, 2003b), BN/NSTec 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 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

2. Ingestion of meat from wild game animals which drink from surface waters and eat vegetation containing 

NTS-related radioactivity 

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 2006, 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 2006. 

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 2006 (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 2006 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 

2.5 mrem/yr, 25 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, CAP88-PC was no longer used to estimate public dose from ongoing legacy-related airborne 

radionuclide sources on the NTS (Grossman, 2006). The EPA approved this action in 2001 and DOE concurred 

(DOE, 2004d). 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. See Sections 3.1 and 8.0 of the Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2005 (DOE, 2006b) for discussions on this change in dose assessment methods. 

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 2006, or new activities executed and 

monitored in 2006, 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). 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 8-3 

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. In 2006, jackrabbits 

were sampled from the T2 site and the T2 control site, and 1 mule deer and 2 pronghorn antelope were 

opportunistically sampled (see Section 7.0) for radioanalysis. 

Tritium and 137Cs were detected in the muscle tissue (the edible portion) of all jackrabbits collected from the T2 site 

(see Table 7-3, Section 7.0). Also, trace levels of 239+240Pu were detected in the muscle tissue of the one jackrabbit 

sampled from the T2 control site. No man-made radionuclides were detected in muscle tissue from the deer or 

antelope, so no potential dose was calculated from consuming these large game species. The potential dose from 

consuming jackrabbits sampled from the T2 and the T2 control site were calculated using the following assumptions: 

• One individual consumed 20 jackrabbits over the year (these numbers are the possession limits set for these 

species by the Nevada Division of Wildlife)

• Each jackrabbit consumed contained the average concentration of radionuclides (expressed as picocuries per 

liter (pCi/L) or picocuries per gram (pCi/g) that was detected in muscle tissue for the jackrabbits sampled 

• Radionuclides detected in muscle tissue from any jackrabbit were included in dose calculations from each 

location 

• The amount of jackrabbit meat consumed was the average weight in grams (g) of muscle on the animals sampled 

• The moisture content of jackrabbit 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 are shown in Table 8-1. The highest 

estimated CEDE was 0.12 mrem (0.0012 mSv) which is only 0.12 percent of the annual dose limit for members of the 

public. It assumes that 20 jackrabbits would be consumed. The maximum potential dose from consuming just one 

jackrabbit would be 0.002 mrem for jackrabbits from the T2 site and 0.006 for jackrabbits from the T2 control site. 

The radionuclide contributing most to dose was 239+240Pu though, at the T2 site, tritium had the highest 

concentrations. Tritium produces a relatively low dose because it only emits low energy beta particles and has a short 

biological half-life. The CEDE was higher for the one jackrabbit from the T2 control site due to its questionable level 

of 239+240Pu in muscle. 

To put these potential doses in perspective, the dose from naturally-occurring cosmic radiation received during a onehour airplane flight at 39,000 feet is about 0.5 mrem (0.005 mSv) or about four times higher than the CEDE from 

consuming 20 jackrabbits like the ones sampled in 2006. 

Table 8-1. Hypothetical annual dose to a human consuming NTS jackrabbits based on 2006 samples 

Sample Location 

Average Radionuclide 

Concentrations (a)

Dose Conversion Factor 

(mrem/pCi ingested)(b)

CEDE 

(mrem) (c)

Total CEDE 

(mrem) 

T2 3H 586 pCi/L 0.000000063 0.0003 

 137Cs 0.09 pCi/g(d) 0.000050 0.0112 

 239+240Pu 0.003 pCi/g(d) 0.0043 0.0321 

0.04 

T2 - Control 3H 291 pCi/L 0.000000063 0.0001 

 137Cs 0.00 pCi/g(d) 0.000050 0.0000 

 239+240Pu 0.011 pCi/g(d) 0.0043 0.1178 

0.12 

(a) Negative values were set to zero prior to obtaining average 

(b) Dose conversion factors for human ingestion are from DOE (1988) 

(c) CEDE calculation assumes 9960 g of meat were consumed (20 jackrabbits x 498 g muscle weight for each jackrabbit) 

(d) pCi/g dry weight; water content = 75% by weight 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 2006 (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 2006, the 

only place where the public had the potential to be exposed to direct radiation along the NTS borders was at 

Gate 100, the primary entrance to the site on the southern NTS border. 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. 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. 

No vehicles, equipment, structures, or other materials can be 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 8-2) (DOE, 2000b) as specified in 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. 

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 8-2 are met. 

However, NSTec Radiological Control does not authorize the release of materials off the NTS that have detectable 

radioactivity above background levels, even if these levels are less than the criteria levels shown in Table 8-2. 

Some building structures on the NTS once housed uncontained contamination. NSTec Radiological Control has no 

plans to release such structures off the NTS. If, in the future, there are plans to do so, the criteria for their 

unrestricted release will be determined through agreements between the affected stakeholders (e.g., DOE and the 

state of Nevada). 

During 2006, no vehicles, equipment, or other materials with detectable residual radioactivity were released, therefore, 

radiological dose to the public from such materials is assumed to be negligible. 

Table 8-2. 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 

 (a) disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters Source: DOE, 2000b 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 8-5 

8.1.7 Total Offsite Dose to the Public 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 2006, 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 2006 dose to the maximally exposed individual 

(MEI) (see Glossary, Appendix B) residing offsite. 

The dose estimate for an offsite MEI from radionuclides in air 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 NTS (see Table 8-1), this individual may 

receive an estimated additional 0.12 mrem/yr (0.0012 mSv/yr) dose. The total CEDE to this MEI would be 

0.32 mrem/yr (0.0032 mSv/yr) (Table 8-3). The total dose of 0.32 mrem/yr is 0.32 percent of the DOE limit of 

100 mrem/yr and about 0.1 percent of the total dose the MEI receives from natural background radiation 

(340 mrem/yr) (Figure 8-2). 

Figure 8-1. Estimated radiation dose from NTS air emissions to the offsite MEI from 1992 to 2004 

Table 8-3. Estimated radiological dose to the general public from 2006 NTS operations 

Dose to MEI 

Pathway (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) 0.12 0.0012 0.12 

Direct (d) 0 0 0 

All Pathways 0.32 0.0032 0.32 

(a) Assumed from historical data from 1992 to 2004 

(b) Based on all offsite groundwater sampling in 2006 (Sections 4.1 and 5.2) 

(c) Assumes that the MEI consumes 20 jackrabbits from the NTS (Table 8-1) 

(d) Based on 2006 gamma radiation monitoring data (Sections 5.0, 6.1), 2006 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

8-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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

29.4%

11.8% 58.8%

0.1%

Dose from cosmic and

terrestrial radiation at Indian

Springs, 100 mrem/yr

Dose from natural

radionuclides in body, 

40 mrem/yr

Dose from inhalation of

decay product from natural

radon, 200 mrem/yr

Dose from calculated NTS

emissions and consumption

of wildlife, 0.32 mrem/yr

Figure 8-2. Comparison of radiation dose to the MEI and the natural radiation background (percent of total) 

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 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 (98 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). 

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 

2006 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). The DOE approved the 

discontinuance of reporting collective population dose because it is so low for the NTS. The 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, 2004d). 

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 2006 8-7 

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/d (0.01 grays per day [Gy/d]) for aquatic animals 

• 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) for terrestrial plants 

• 0.1 rad/d (1 milligrays per day [mGy/d]) 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 Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2003 (DOE, 2004c). 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 2006. 

8.2.1 2006 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. Animal and plant samples were collected from the known-contaminated T2 site (see Figure 7-1) during 2006. 

Sampling methods and radionuclide concentrations in these samples are presented in Section 7.0. To obtain a 

predicted dose to biota at the T2 site, the RESRAD-BIOTA, Version 1.21 computer model (DOE, 2004e) was used. 

Input to the model included the average concentrations of radionuclides in soil, as reported by McArthur and Kordas 

(1985) and decay-corrected to 2003, and the maximum measured concentrations in animals and plants sampled from 

the T2 site (see Tables 7-2 and 7-3). Internal dose is calculated using measured concentrations in biota tissue, and 

external dose is predicted from the average soil concentrations. 

Average doses were estimated to be 0.0034 rad/d for plants and 0.0030 rad/d for animals (Table 8-4). Dose from 

internal radionuclides accounted for about 17 percent of the total for animals while it accounted for about 26 percent 

for plants; this difference is attributable primarily to the higher concentration of 239+240Pu in the plants. The total 

estimated dose rates are 0.3 percent and 3 percent of the dose limits, respectively, for terrestrial plants and animals. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 8-4. Site-specific dose assessment for terrestrial plants and animals sampled at T2 in 2006 

 Estimated Radiological Dose (rad/d) 

 To Plants(a) To Animals 

Internal External Total Internal External Total 

0.0009 0.0025 0.0034 0.0005 0.0025 0.0030 

DOE Dose Limit: 1 0.1 

 (a) For list of plant species sampled, see Table 7-1 in Section 7.0 

8.2.2 Environmental Impact 

Based on the graded approach for assessing potential dose to biota, the 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. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 2006 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: 

• Verifying that NTS waste acceptance criteria are met for waste received 

• 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 2006

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 2006, 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 

 Disposal Authorization Statement for Area 5 RWMS, December 2000 

 Disposal Authorization Statement for Area 3 RWMS, October 1999 

Performance Assessment 

 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 

 Composite Analysis for Area 5 RWMS, September 2001 

 Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for Area 3 RWMS, Revision 2.1, October 2000 

NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria 

 NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria, Revision 6-02, October 2006 

 (This document was revised to incorporate requirements for accepting LLMW generated outside Nevada.) 

Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan 

 Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan for the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs, June 2005 

Auditable Safety Analysis 

 Documented Safety Analysis for the NTS Area 5 RWMC, Revision 2, August 2006 

 Documented Safety Analysis for the NTS Area 3 RWMS, Revision 2, March 2006 

 Technical Safety Requirements for the Area 5 RWMC LLW Activities, Revision 4, August 2006 

 Technical Safety Requirements for the Area 5 RWMC TRU Waste Activities, Revision 4, August 2004 

 Technical Safety Requirements for the Area 3 RWMS, Revision 2, March 2006 

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 U.S. Department of 

Transportation requirements to either the Area 3 or Area 5 RWMS or to an offsite treatment, storage, and disposal 

facility. 

In 2006, LLW and MW were characterized by WGS for the following general waste stream categories: 

• Lead Solids • Compactable Trash 

• Sealed Sources • Condensate Water 

• Miscellaneous Debris 

• Contact Water 

 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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. 

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. This part of the Area 5 RWMS (commonly referred to as the “92-Acre Area”) 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, soft sided containers, large cargo containers, and boxes. The 92 acre area is expected to 

be filled and closed by 2010, and new cells extending to the north and west are expected to close by 2027. 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 asbestiform LLW (P06U) 4 closed containing TRU waste 

1 active and permitted by the State to receive LLMW (P03U) 5 closed containing LLW 

11 operationally closed containing LLW 

11 cells operationally closed containing LLW and LLMW 

 (Corrective Action Unit [CAU] 111) 

1 operationally closed containing asbestiform LLW (P07U) 

Disposal operations at the Area 3 RWMS began in the late 1960s. The Area 3 RWMS consists of seven craters 

making up five disposal cells. Each subsidence crater was created by an underground weapons test. Until July 1, 2006 

when the site was placed into inactive status, the site was used for disposal of bulk LLW waste, such as soils or debris, 

and waste in large cargo containers. The site consists of the following seven craters: 

 3 Disposal Cells (Inactive Status): 2 Closed Cells: 2 Undeveloped Cells: 

 U3ah/at U3ax/bl (CAU 110) U3az 

 U3bh U3bg 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

In calendar year 2006, the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs received shipments containing 28,803 cubic meters (m3) 

(1,009,680 cubic feet [ft3]) of LLW for disposal and 212 m3 (7,497 ft3) of LLMW. The majority of disposed LLW and 

all of the LLMW were received from offsite generators. Only 1,779m3 (62,809 ft3) of the LLW disposed in 2006 was 

generated onsite. Fiscal year 2006 (October 1 – September 30) volumes of waste shipments are reported in 

DOE (2007). 

In 2006, the Area 5 RWMS received and disposed of 55.87 tons (net weight) of asbestos-form LLW at P06U. 

9.1.4 TRU Waste Operations 

The TRU-Pad/Transuranic Pad Cover Building (TPCB) at the Area 5 RWMC is a Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) Part B interim status facility designed for the safe storage of TRU waste generated by Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory and other small- quantity sites. The TPCB accepts TRU waste from NTS generators 

including the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research facility. The TPCB stores TRU waste until it is 

characterized at the WEF at the Area 5 RWMC. Once characterized, the TRU waste is loaded at the mobile loading 

unit for shipment either to the WIPP at Carlsbad, New Mexico, for disposal or to an interim site for further 

characterization. Current agreements between NNSA/NSO and WIPP plan for TRU waste shipments to be 

completed by September 2008. In 2006, TRU waste stored at the TPCB continued to be characterized, visually 

inspected, repackaged, and prepared for shipment. 

9.1.5 Assessments 

In 2006, assessments were conducted at the RWMC in accordance with National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec) 

procedures. Schedules for management self-assessments (MSAs) are developed for the RWMC. In addition to the 

MSAs performed internally at the RWMC, assessments were performed periodically by other NSTec organizations, 

NNSA/NSO, and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. The results of each assessment and any required 

corrective action(s) were logged for NNSA/NSO in the companywide issues tracking system known as CaWeb. 

9.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring for Low-level Waste 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 the results from all replicate samples exceed a parameter’s IL. In 2006, the average total organic 

carbon (TOC) result of 1.12 milligrams per liter (mg/L) at UE5 PW-2 in October 2006 exceeds the IL. The 

individual TOC results for this average value are 2.3 mg/L, 0.56 mg/L, and <0.5 mg/L. None of the other water 

samples collected semi-annually from the wells had average contaminant levels above their ILs (Table 9-2). General 

water chemistry parameters are also monitored; all sample analysis results are presented in NSTec (2007a). 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 2006 

Parameter Investigation Level (IL) Sample Levels 

pH < 7.6 or > 9.2 S.U.(a) 8.03 to 8.34 S.U. 

Specific conductance (SC) 0.440 mmhos/cm(b) 0.341 to 0.384 mmhos/cm 

Total organic carbon (TOC) 1 mg/L <0.5 – 1.12 mg/L 

Total organic halides (TOX) 50 μg/L(c) < 5.0 – 7.3 μg/L 

Tritium (3H) 2,000 pCi/L(d) -6.71 – 13.77 pCi/L 

(a) S.U. = standard unit(s) (for measuring pH) (b) mmhos/cm = millimhos per centimeter Source: NSTec, 2007a 

(c) μg/L = microgram(s) per liter (d) pCi/L = picocuries per liter 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 

2006 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 2006 are 

presented below. For more details on the program refer to the Nevada Test Site 2006 Waste Management Monitoring 

Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (NSTec, 2007b). 

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 has ever occurred from any of the four non-irrigated lysimeters, but moisture did accumulate at the 

bottom of the bare-soil lysimeter and the revegetated lysimeter. After a period of heavy precipitation in the fall of 

2004 and the the spring of 2006, 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 (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 2006

The weighing lysimeter data represent a simplified water balance: the change in soil water storage is equal to 

precipitation minus evaporation on bare lysimeters, or precipitation minus evapotranspiration 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 per 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 Pits P03U, P04U, and P05U; the floor of 

P05U 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 P05U 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 

P03U, P04U, and P05U, 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 evapotranspiration in six months. The measurements in the floor of P05U 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. 

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 17-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 on the U-3ax/bl cover at the Area 3 RWMS and on the P06U and P14U covers 

at the Area 5 RWMS during 2006. Electrets inserted in domes (Rad Elec, Inc.) measure radon flux from the ground. 

None of the radon flux measurements from the covers are higher than those from undisturbed or control locations. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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. The RCRA Part B 

Permit (NEV HW0021) regulates the operation of three HW facilities on the NTS: P03U at the Area 5 RWMS, the 

Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) in Area 5, and the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) in Area 11. 

Quarterly reports are submitted to the state of Nevada which document the weight of HW received each quarter at 

each of these HW units for management (i.e., for disposal, temporary storage, or detonation). Quarterly fees are paid 

to the state based on the weights of HW received. Also, Part II.K.2 of the permit requires preparation of a U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency Biennial Hazardous Waste Report of all hazardous waste volumes generated at the 

NTS and at the NLVF during a year. This biennial report is prepared for odd-numbered years and is submitted the 

following February. Quarterly 2006 reports and the 2005 biennial report were submitted on time. 

9.2.1 Pit P03U 

Pit P03U began receiving LLMW from offsite DOE facilities in April 2006. P03U received a total of 182.29 tons in 

2006 (Table 9-3). 

9.2.2 Hazardous Waste Storage Unit and Waste Accumulation Areas 

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 NSTec restoration sites off the NTS 

(e.g., at the Tonopah Test Range [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 are also direct-shipped if the 

sites generate bulk, non-packaged HW which is not accepted at the HWSU for storage. HW would also be directshipped in the unlikely case when the waste volume capacity of the HWSU is approaching its permitted limits. 

Satellite accumulation areas (SAAs) and 90-day hazardous waste accumulation areas (HWAAs) are used at the NTS 

for the temporary storage of HW prior to shipment offsite or to the HWSU. 

In 2006, a total of 11.83 tons of HW was managed at the HWSU which included treatment, storage, and disposal 

activities (Table 9-3). The HW managed at the HWSU in 2006 included drums of liquid polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs) (see Section 10.1). In 2006, no HW was direct-shipped from NTS SAAs, but a total of 384.45 tons of HW 

were direct-shipped offsite from HWAAs (Table 9-3). No storage limits were exceeded. Quarterly reports of 

applicable waste quantities were submitted on time to NDEP. 

9.2.3 EODU 

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 at the 

EODU by open detonation of no more than 45.4 kilograms (kg) (100 lb) of approved waste at a time, not to exceed 

one detonation event per hour. In 2006, no explosive ordnance were detonated at the EODU (Table 9-3). 

 Table 9-3. Hazardous waste managed at the NTS in 2006 

Permitted Unit Total Waste Managed (tons) (a)

P03U 182.29 

HWSU 11.83 

HWSU – PCB Waste 2.346 

HWAAs 384.45 (b) 

EODU 0 

(a) The permitted storage limit for LLMW at P03U is 20,000 m3 (706,293 ft3), and for HW at the HWSU, it is 61,600 liters 

(16,280 gallons). However, the reporting units are tons, by which quarterly fees to the state of Nevada are based. 

(b) Tons shipped directly offsite from HWAAs. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

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 Facility 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 the NTS Management 

and Operations contractor (Bechtel Nevada and then NSTec) conducted site restoration, soil remediation, and some 

facility decontamination and decommissioning activities in 2006. 

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 location and site condition. 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 2006 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: 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 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 43 CAUs for which some step of the site remediation process was completed in calendar year 2006. 

All 2006 milestones were met. A total of 339 CASs was closed, either under the SAFER process or the standard 

closure process. 

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 NNSA/NSO 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 quarterly site inspections (Area 6 Decon Pond 

[CAU 92], Area 3 U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater [CAU 110], and Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches [CAU 112]), and 

two currently require semi-annual post-closure inspections (Area 2 Bitcutter Containment [CAU 90] and Area 3 U-3fi 

Injection Well ([CAU 91]). VZM for the Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well and Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches is no 

longer conducted because the most recent monitoring results demonstrated continuing stable conditions at these sites. 

The one site still requiring VZM is CAU 110, the Area 3 U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater. At this site, 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 
ntal restoration activities conducted in 2006 

ption Number of CASs Milestone Due Date Date Submitted Date NDEP Approved DOE Industrial Sites – Defense Project 

Release Sites and Injection Wells 3 Closure Report to State 09/30/06 06/26/06 07/02/06 

ot Mud Pits 54 Closure Report to State 07/31/06 07/10/06 07/27/06 

ot Mud Pits 12 Closure Report to State 07/31/06 07/10/06 07/27/06 

t Mud Pits 78 Closure Report to State 07/31/06 07/10/06 07/27/06 

ot Mud Pits 69 Closure Report to State 07/31/06 07/10/06 07/27/06 

nstrumentation Mud Pits 40 Closure Report to State 07/31/06 07/10/06 07/27/06 

posal Areas 15 Closure Report to State 07/31/06 07/10/06 07/27/06 

9 Closure Report to State 02/28/07 10/19/06 11/09/06 

ms 5 CAIP to State 02/28/06 12/27/05 01/09/06 

es 1 CAIP to State 09/30/06 08/30/06 09/07/06 Defense Threat Reduction Agency/DOE - Industrial Sites 

mpressor/Blower Pad 1 CADD to State 11/30/06 11/28/06 12/21/06 mpressor/Blower Pad 1 Closure Report to State 11/30/06 11/28/06 12/21/06 DOE Industrial Sites – Environmental Restoration Project (ERP) 

8 Closure Report to State 02/28/06 02/08/06 03/07/06 

Cell A Facility 4 Closure Report to State 03/31/06 03/06/06 03/13/06 

Cell C Facility 2 SAFER Plan to State 09/30/06 07/24/06 08/11/06 

r Kukla Facility 1 SAFER Plan Rev 1 to State 09/20/06 09/21/06 

r Kukla Facility 1 SAFER Plan to State 09/30/06 08/24/06 09/05/06 

al Sites 7 CAIP to State 05/31/06 04/07/06 04/18/06 

rage Holes 6 CAP to State 12/31/06 11/16/06 12/04/06 

rage Holes 6 CADD to State 05/31/06 04/27/06 05/04/06 

ms and Discharge Area 8 CADD to State 05/31/06 05/10/06 06/09/06 

s and Contaminated Materials 7 CAIP to State 07/31/06 06/16/06 06/26/06 

Contaminated Materials & Waste Dumps 12 CADD Rev 2 to State 12/05/06 12/21/06 

Contaminated Materials & Waste Dumps 12 CAP Rev 1 to State 12/14/06 12/28/06 

 Cellars 12 SAFER Plan to State 07/31/06 06/12/06 06/29/06 

d Waste Sites 4 CAIP to State 01/31/07 12/11/06 12/14/06 

ers 6 Closure Report to State 05/01/06 04/04/06 04/17/06 

Storage Areas 9 Closure Report to State 09/30/06 09/13/06 09/18/06 

ms and Injection Wells 6 Closure Report to State 06/30/06 05/31/06 06/15/06 ms and Injection Wells 6 CADD to State 06/30/06 05/31/06 06/15/06 

Waste Management and Environmental Restoration
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

ntal restoration activities conducted in 2006 (continued) 

ption 

Number 

of CASs Milestone 

Due 

Date 

Date 

Submitted 

Date NDEP 

Approved 

DOE Industrial Sites – ERP cont. 

nd Septic Systems 9 CAP to State 08/30/06 08/02/06 08/08/06 

ms 5 Closure Report to State 09/30/06 09/20/06 09/21/06 ms 5 CADD to State 09/30/06 09/20/06 09/21/06 

se Areas 7 CAP to State 08/31/06 08/02/06 08/08/06 

kpiles 3 CADD to State 02/28/06 12/23/05 01/10/06 

kpiles 3 Closure Report to State 02/28/06 12/23/05 01/10/06 

et Area (TTR) 1 SAFER Plan to State 11/30/06 10/31/06 11/09/06 

ites (TTR) 3 Closure Report to State 09/30/06 06/14/06 06/23/06 

s (Piles & Debris) 9 CADD to State 01/31/06 12/12/05 01/03/06 s (Piles & Debris) 9 Closure Report to State 01/31/06 12/12/05 01/03/06 

ed Biphenyls Contamination 1 Closure Report to State 02/28/07 09/26/06 10/17/06 

7 SAFER Plan to State 04/30/06 04/12/06 05/04/06 

es 8 CAIP to State 06/30/06 05/26/06 06/08/06 

sal Units 7 CAP to State 01/31/07 10/05/06 10/16/06 

kpiles 4 CADD/Closure Report Rev. 1 to State 11/30/06 11/17/06 12/18/06 

Mud Pits and Cellars 4 SAFER Plan to State 12/08/06 11/22/06 12/06/06 

DOE UGTA Sites 

imax Mine 720 

Submit Hydrostratigraphic Model & 

Alternatives for the Groundwater Flow & 

Contaminant Transport Model 02/01/06 01/24/06 03/16/06 

imax Mine 720 

Submit Phase I Hydrology Documentation 

Package 07/01/06 06/22/06 06/27/07 

lat 11 Initiate Phase II Transport Modeling 03/15/06 03/10/06 03/14/06 

lat 11 Submit Phase II Flow Model Report 05/31/06 05/03/06 05/08/06 

hone 66 Complete Well Development and Testing 04/01/06 03/22/06 04/10/06 

hone 66 Initiate Phase I Hydrostratigraphic Model 06/01/06 06/01/06 06/05/06 

hone 66 Draft Phase I Hydrostratigraphic Model 12/01/06 11/28/06 11/29/06 

te Mess 64 Submit Final Phase I Flow Model Report 07/31/06 06/07/06 06/20/07 

ute Mess 18 Submit Final Phase I Flow Model Report 07/31/06 06/07/06 06/20/07 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

content profile data are used to demonstrate whether the cover is performing as expected. An annual report of postclosure monitoring includes monthly precipitation data for the reporting period, an annual vegetation survey, and 

results of semi-annual subsidence surveys. The annual report is submitted to NDEP by the last day of August. 

All required VZM and inspections of the applicable RCRA closed sites were conducted in 2006 as specified by RCRA 

permit or by each site’s closure report. VZM results for the RCRA closure site CAU 110 indicated that surface water 

is not migrating into buried wastes. Annual reports were prepared for the 5 RCRA post closure sites and submitted to 

NDEP. 

The sites at which physical inspections were conducted in 2006 are: 

CAU 005 Landfills 

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 140 Waste Dumps, Burn Pits, and Storage Area 

CAU 143 Area 25 Contaminated Waste Dumps 

CAU 165 Area 25 and 26 Dry Well and Washdown Areas 

CAU 204 Storage Bunkers 

CAU 254 Area 25 Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly 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 322 Areas 1 and 3 release Sites and Injection Wells 

CAU 333 U-3auS Disposal Site (not required until 2011) 

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 357 Mud Pits and Waste Dump 

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 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 2006 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 2006 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 2006 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 2006. No out-of-compliance issues were noted. 

 Table 9-5. Quantity of solid wastes disposed in NTS landfills in calendar year 2006 

Metric Tons (Tons) of Waste 

Area 6 Hydrocarbon 

Disposal Site 

Area 9 U10c Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

Area 23 Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

597 (658) 6,619 (7,296) 1,650 (1,819) 

9.5.2 Sewage Lagoons 

The NTS also has two state-permitted sewage lagoons that were operated by NSTec Waste Management in 2006, 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 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 Hazardous Materials Control and Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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. The NTS Maintenance and Operating contractor and all other U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) subcontractors 

utilize this database if they use or store hazardous materials. They 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. 

Environmental Services personnel, with Bechtel Nevada (BN) (through June 30, 2006) and then with National 

Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), reviewed each chemical purchase in 2006 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/NSTec 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/NSTec. These activities can generate PCB-contaminated fluids and 

bulk product waste containing PCBs. 

Waste classified as bulk product waste generated on the NTS by remediation and site operations 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, 

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 the electronic Hazardous Materials Notification 

System (known as HAZTRAK) for tracking the 

movements of such materials 
Hazardous Materials Control and Management

10-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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. 

During 2006, 15 drums of PCB light ballasts were generated from demolition and renovation activities and sent offsite 

for disposal in four separate shipments. No onsite disposal of PBW containing PCBs occurred in 2006. 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 23, 2007, an Annual Report was generated for PCB management activities during 

calendar year 2006, and may again be sent to outside regulators. 

There were no TSCA inspections by outside regulators performed at the NTS in 2006. 

10.2 FIFRA Program 

ES personnel 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 Solid 

Waste Operations (SWO). 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. 

SWO did not purchase any restricted-use pesticides during 2006. The SWO procedure for pesticide application was 

updated in 2006, and training is provided to affected personnel annually. Certifications were kept current in 2006 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. 

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 (RSL)-Nellis (see Section A.3.3). This information is then used to complete the 

Nevada Combined Agency (NCA) Report. This report satisfies EPCRA reporting requirements (Table 10-1). It 

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-Nellis and the NLVF. 

 Table 10-1. EPCRA compliance reporting at the NTS in 2006 

Section of the Act Activity Regulated Notification/Report Submitted per 

Applicable Requirement 

Section 302-303 Planning Notification NCA Report 

Section 304 Extremely Hazardous Substance 

Release Notification 

Not applicable (no releases occurred) 

Section 311-312 Material Safety Data Sheet/ 

Chemical Inventory 

NCA Report 

Section 313 TRI Reporting TRI Report 
 Hazardous Materials Control and Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 10-3 

The 2006 chemical inventory for NTS facilities was updated and submitted to the state of Nevada in the NCA Report 

on February 22, 2007. No accidental or unplanned release of an extremely hazardous substance occurred on the NTS 

in 2006. 

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 2006 to EPA on June 26, 2007. Lead was the only listed toxic 

chemical released into the NTS environment in 2006 that was reportable (Table 10-2). Lead that is either recovered 

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 11,362 pounds was sent offsite for recycling and 21,430 pounds sent off 

for disposal. 

 Table 10-2. EPCRA reportable releases of toxic chemicals in 2006 

Toxic Chemical Source Quantity (lbs) 

Lead - solid Ammunition - 

Mercury Firing Range 4,295.4 

Lead – air release Ammunition - 

Mercury Firing Range 30 

Lead – air release Solder 12 

There were no EPCRA inspections by outside regulators performed at the NTS in 2006. 

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 2006, no NTS facility stored EHSs in quantities which 

required state notification. Therefore, no Nevada Chemical Accident Prevention Program Report was prepared 

regarding calendar year 2006 NTS operations. 
Hazardous Materials Control and Management

10-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 and waste minimization (P2/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 National 

Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), during 2006 to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated by the 

NNSA/NSO. 

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 in 2006 included paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, toner cartridges, inkjet cartridges, 

used oil, food waste from the cafeteria, plastic, scrap metal, rechargeable batteries, lead-acid batteries, fluorescent light 

bulbs, mercury lamps, metal hydride lamps, and sodium lamps. 

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 United 

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 2006 

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 73 percent of those purchases contain recycled materials. 

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 electronic 

mail, contractor and NNSA/NSO 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 highlight the importance of P2/WM for improving environmental conditions 

in the workplace and community. 

11.2 Major P2/WM Accomplishments and Awards 

11.2.1 Accomplishments 

In 2006, the NSTec Maintenance Department bought three refrigerant recycling machines. Two machines are located 

at the NTS, one at the Mercury base camp and one at the Area 6 base camp. The third machine is located at the 

North Las Vegas Facility. Refrigerant from old air conditioning and refrigeration units cannot be released to the 

atmosphere and must be collected. Non-contaminated refrigerant is stored on site and reused when needed. In past 

years, contaminated refrigerant was sent off site to a local vendor for destruction. The refrigerant recycling machines 

send used, contaminated refrigerant through a series of replaceable filters and oil separators to remove impurities, 

cleaning the refrigerant to virgin refrigerant quality for reuse. These machines are capable of removing wax and 

sludge contaminates, acid in the system, and excessive oil contaminates. In 2006, NSTec recycled 0.6 metric tons 

(mtons) of refrigerant. 

Per NSTec’s Environmental Management System (EMS), the Material Exchange Program is continually striving for 

improvement. To improve employee usage of the program in 2006, NSTec focused on publishing articles about it in 

site and contractor newsletters. These articles were disseminated to employees from all organizations within 

NNSA/NSO to raise the level of awareness of the program and its website. The Material Exchange Program diverted 

2.1 mtons of chemicals, office supplies, and equipment from solid and hazardous waste landfills in 2006 and a total of 

190 mtons of usable materials from such landfills since the program’s inception in 1998.

11.2.2 Award-winning Accomplishments 

NNSA/NSO received four NNSA Pollution Prevention Awards for P2 activities in 2006. Two were Environmental 

Stewardship Awards (ESAs) and two were NNSA Best-In-Class Awards. The Big Explosive Experiment Facility 

(BEEF), operated by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, won an ESA for incorporating P2/WM practices 

into the facility design and daily operating procedures. These practices reduced or eliminated waste or emissions and, 

in most instances, improved safety by reducing the risk of occupational exposure through the use of safer, less 

hazardous materials. By implementing these P2/WM practices, BEEF realized improved efficiency of programmatic 

operations as well as some cost savings. 

The second ESA was awarded to NSTec’s Information Services Personal Computer Leasing Group for developing an 

electronics stewardship program. Computer equipment contains many components that are toxic to the environment. 

Because of these hazardous components, they are considered hazardous waste at end-of-life and are banned from 

municipal solid waste landfills. NSTec developed an electronic stewardship program whereby over 90 percent of the 

company’s computers are leased from Dell Corporation for three years. At end-of-life, hard drives are removed and 

the leased computers are returned to Dell to be refurbished and sold for reuse. NSTec-owned computers are sold at 

end-of-life to the public through auction via the Excess Equipment Program, usually to salvage companies that 

disassemble and recycle most of the parts. As part of the continuous improvement process through integration of 

NSTec’s EMS, Information Services now orders Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-

registered computers from Dell whenever possible as computers are replaced. EPEAT-registered computers are 

considered “Green Computers” because they are manufactured with materials that are more easily recycled and less 

toxic to the environment. 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 11-3 

One NNSA Best-In-Class Award recognized the efforts of Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture (SNJV) for fully integrating 

EMS into their infrastructure and culture. In fiscal year 2006, SNJV instituted a core team concept, developed and 

provided Safety Leadership training, and developed an EMS. The EMS identified areas to improve the reduction of 

life-cycle cost and liability of mission-related activities by reducing the amount of hazardous and radioactive waste at 

the source of generation by more than 50 percent, reducing the amount of hazardous products procured by more than 

10 percent, procuring products that are either less hazardous or non-hazardous than products SNJV used previously, 

and implementing innovative modifications in planning and performing work. By instituting the SNJV EMS, the 

NNSA/NSO enhanced workplace safety, reduced potentially hazardous and potentially radioactive waste streams by 

an estimated 11,167 cubic feet, and saved an estimated $1.4 million in disposition costs over the life-cycle of the 

Environmental Restoration Project. 

The second NNSA Best-In-Class Award recognized the efforts of the NSTec Advanced Monitoring Systems Initiative 

Program for developing a ‘Universal’ platform for the deployment of analytical sensors in the field for long-term 

monitoring of environmental contaminants. This work was done in conjunction with Burge Environmental in 

Tempe, Arizona. The sensor platform is an automated version of the EPA SW-846 Standard Test Method, capable of 

sampling, calibrating, analyzing, and performing quality-control checks. The ‘Universal’ platform allows for the use of 

a variety of different sensors, depending on the analyte of interest. The analysis can be completed at any time of the 

day or night, during any season, regardless of weather, at intervals of 15 minutes or greater. At the completion of 

each analysis, analytical results are sent via wireless modem to the operator’s computer, eliminating the 6-week 

laboratory turn-around time. The system was developed to monitor hexavalent chromium contamination in salmon 

spawning gravel beds in the Columbia River in Washington. The system was first tested at the NTS and then on 

location at the Columbia River under a variety of temperature extremes and weather conditions. Results of analyses 

during precision testing compared very well with control samples sent to an analytical laboratory. System power is 

furnished by solar array, and the ability to operate this system remotely from an office reduces disturbance to the local 

flora in the field. Use of this system greatly reduces costs associated with sampling, transportation, shipment, and 

analysis of samples as well as worker exposure to hazardous chemicals. This system is currently proposed and under 

review for acceptance as an equivalent EPA standard test method. Although the automated method cannot yet be 

used for compliance, this sensor platform can be programmed to function as an alarm if analyte levels approach 

compliance levels, greatly minimizing the potential for hazardous contamination of the environment and reducing the 

risk of out-of-compliance fines. 

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 2006 to prior years. 

Table 11-1. Waste reduction through P2/WM activities by year 

Calendar 

Year 

Radioactive Waste 

Reduced (m3)(a)

Hazardous Waste 

Reduced (mtons)(b)

Solid Waste 

Reduced (mtons)

2006 0 149 803 

2005 0 13,992 1,194 

2004 0 115 1,438 

2003 40.0 207 1,547 

2002 63.2 177 904 

(a) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards 

(b) (b) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

11-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 11-2 shows a summary of the waste reduction activities accomplished during 2006. An estimated 149-mtons 

reduction of hazardous waste (including RCRA, Toxic Substance Control Act, and state-regulated hazardous wastes) 

and an 803-mtons reduction of solid waste (sanitary waste) occurred in 2006, all from recycling and reuse. 

Table 11-2. Waste reduction activities in 2006 

Activity 

Volume 

Reduction 

(mtons)(a)

Hazardous Waste

Bulk used oil was sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 98.2 

Lead acid batteries were shipped to an offsite vendor for recycling 34.5 

Computer equipment was returned to the vendor where it is refurbished and sold for reuse 5.8 

Lead scrap metal was sold for reuse/recycling 5.2 (b)

 Spent fluorescent light bulbs, mercury lamps, metal hydride lamps, and sodium lamps 

 were sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 3.1 

Rechargeable batteries were sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 1.6 

 Lead tire weights were reused instead of being disposed as hazardous waste 0.7 

 Hazardous chemicals were relocated to new users through the Material Exchange 

 Program, diverting them from landfill disposal 0.3 

Total 149.4 (b)

Solid Waste

Scrap ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycling 538.7 

Mixed paper and cardboard was sent offsite for recycling 154.4 

Food waste from the cafeterias was sent offsite to be reused as pig feed for a local pig 

 farmer 67.0 

Shipping materials including pallets, styrofoam, bubble wrap, and shipping containers 

 were reused 20.7 

Scrap non-ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycling 17.4 

Spent toner cartridges were sent offsite for recycling 2.6 

Non-hazardous chemicals, equipment, and supplies were relocated to new users through 

 the Material Exchange Program, diverting them from landfill disposal 1.8 

Aluminum cans were sent offsite for recycling 0.4 

Total 803.0

(a) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 

(b) The value reported to Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) in the 2006 Annual Waste Minimization Summary Report for 

lead scrap metal was 3.2 mtons. The correct value of 5.2 mtons was verified after submittal of the report to NDEP. Therefore, the total 

volume reduction of hazardous waste in 2006 was 149.4 mtons, not 147.4 mtons as reported to NDEP. 

By December 15, 2006, NSTec completed the 2006 fiscal year (October 1, 2005–September 31, 2006) Waste 

Generation and Pollution Prevention Progress Report for the NTS. This was done by entering the site’s data, 

including annual recycling totals and waste minimization accomplishments, into the DOE Headquarters electronic 

database. NSTec also submitted to NDEP on February 23, 2007, a 2006 calendar year Waste Minimization 

Summary Report. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 multifaceted and 

contains the following major components: (1) 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 2006 accomplishments are provided in this chapter. 

The methods used to conduct inventories and historical evaluations in support of NTS operations were summarized 

in the 2003 NTS Environmental Report (DOE, 2004c). The reader is directed to a separate file called Nevada Test Site 

Description on the compact disc of this 2006 report. The Nevada Test Site Description contains 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. 

12.1 Cultural Resources Inventories, Historical Evaluations, and 

Associated Activities 

Cultural resources inventories are conducted at the NTS to meet the requirements of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) and the ARPA. The inventories 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 2006

• Number of cultural resources inventories conducted 

• Location of each inventory 

• 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 Inventories 

In 2006, two cultural resources inventories were conducted for proposed projects: (1) the replacement of the existing 

Castle Rock Substation and the associated construction of a new powerline corridor to the substation, and (2) the 

Chicken Little Project. Both projects are in NTS Area 18. One isolated artifact was identified during the Castle Rock 

Substation inventory. During the Chicken Little survey, three prehistoric sites, two isolated features, and six isolated 

artifacts were recorded. None of the sites meet the criteria for eligibility of the NRHP. 

12.1.2 Evaluations of Historic Structures

Three historical evaluations (U12b Tunnel, U12e Tunnel, and the Area 25 BREN Tower Complex) were undertaken 

in 2006 with the U12b Tunnel completed and the latter two in progress as of the end of 2006. The U12b Tunnel 

complex was utilized between 1957 and 1963. During this time, six underground nuclear tests and one high 

explosives test were conducted at the location. Fieldwork consisted of inventorying the portal areas and recording 

associated structures and features. During the inventory of the U12b Tunnel complex, 21 structures and 20 features 

were recorded (Jones et al., 2006). The U12b Tunnel complex is eligible to the NRHP because of its significance in 

the history of nuclear testing. The U12b Tunnel was specifically designed and constructed in 1957 to facilitate the 

Rainier Test which became the first fully contained underground nuclear explosion in the world. Seventeen of the 

recorded 21 structures and 12 of the 20 recorded features are contributing properties (Jones et al., 2006). 

As summarized in Table 12-1, a total of 140.2 hectares (346.7 acres) was examined during cultural resources 

inventories and historical evaluations. No historic or prehistoric archaeological sites were studied for inclusion to the 

NRHP. The U12b Tunnel complex has been determined eligible to the NRHP. 

 Table 12-1. Summary data for cultural resources inventories and historical evaluations conducted in 2006

Inventory/Historical Area Surveyed 

Evaluation 

Prehistoric/Historic 

Sites Found 

Structures 

Evaluated 

Sites 

Determined 

NRHP Eligible Acres Hectares 

Castle Rock Substation and 

Powerline Corridor 0 0 0 167 68 

Chicken Little Project 3 0 0 147 59 

Historical Evaluation of U12b 

Tunnel Complex 0 21 1 32.7 13.2 

Totals 3 21 1 346.7 140.2 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 12-3

12.1.3 Associated Cultural Resources Activities

12.1.3.1 Adverse Effect Assessments and Mitigation Activities 

One project was undertaken to mitigate potential adverse effects to the rock cabin near Tippipah Spring from the 

proposed Divine Strake test (Jones, 2006). The mitigation research was undertaken by DRI for the National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) to meet the NNSA/NSO’s responsibilities under section 

110 of the NHPA (Jones, 2006). The historic research consisted of in-depth document searches at local, state, and 

federal repositories, black-and-white photographic documentation of the cabin and development of a floor plan for 

the building. 

12.1.3.2 General Reconnaissance/Archival Research 

General reconnaissance and other activities were also conducted in 2006. There were four field projects and one 

archival research project. Two field projects monitored cultural resources sites because the NHPA requires federal 

agencies to identify and maintain the integrity of historic properties under their jurisdiction. Historic properties are 

cultural resources that have been determined eligible to the NRHP through consultation between the NNSA/NSO 

and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. 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. The first monitoring project focused on 10 properties eligible to the 

NRHP. The sites monitored were temporary American Indian camps and lithic tool manufacturing areas. All of the 

sites were in a very good state of preservation. The second monitoring effort was conducted at Cane Spring. The 

other two field projects focused on obtaining photographic documentation of late twentieth century nuclear testing 

related structures. 

One project required archival research but no fieldwork. This was in support of the proposed small arms range in 

Area 12 near Area 12 Camp. Later, the project was cancelled. 

12.1.3.3 Reports 

Three inventory reports (SR), one historical evaluation (HE), one letter report (LR), and one historical research report 

(HR) 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. Reports prepared in 2006 

Project Report No. 

Author(s) 

(see References) 

Castle Rock Substation and a New PowerLine Corridor SR050106-1 Holz and Rager, 2006 

Chicken Little Project SR071006-1 Holz, 2006a 

Fiscal Year 2006 Monitoring SR102405-1 Holz, 2006b 

Historical Evaluation of the U12b Tunnel HE050106-1 Jones et al., 2006 

Underground Centrifuge LR061206-1 Beck and Holz, 2006 

Documentation for the mitigation of potential adverse effect to 

the Rock Cabin near Tippipah Spring 

HR040606-1 Jones, 2006 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

12-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

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. Known 

locations of American Indian human remains at the NTS continued to be protected from NTS activities in 2006. 

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). 

Continuing in 2006 is the review of the documents in the curation archives. Currently the move of project files to the 

new fire proof cabinets in the archival records room has provided the opportunity to identify records for disposal, 

such as draft documents, out-of-date documents, non-project documents, or duplicate documents and records no 

longer pertinent to the cultural resources program. This effort is about 50 percent complete and is combined with a 

reorganization of the archives that also is in progress. Original copies of technical reports in standard file cabinets in 

the records room have also been transferred to the fire proof cabinets. Large maps, such as USGS topographic map 

records, and other similar size documents have been stored in the larger flat file cabinets in the records room 

(Drollinger, 2006). 

In regard to the artifact collection, one change implemented in 2006 was to reorganize the collection by provenience, 

that is, according to site number. 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, 2005). This effort is 80 percent complete. Combined with the reorganization is 

the transfer of the artifacts from archival cardboard boxes to archival plastic carton 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 with the extension of the loan agreement for 

these artifacts and historic artifacts from ranching and mining sites from the NTS artifact collection. 

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 (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 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 12-5

• 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 

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 2006, the CGTO tribal groups were consulted regarding the proposed Divine Strake high explosives test at the 

NTS. Also, work continued on the Atomic Testing Museum American Indian exhibit. In 2003, the CGTO 

established an Atomic Testing Museum subgroup to work with the museum on the content of an 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 museum. In 2006, the American Indian History Timeline, created by the subgroup, was 

added to the museum display. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

12-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 National Security 

Technologies, LLC (NSTec), 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). Brief descriptions of these program 

components and their 2006 accomplishments are provided in this chapter. More detailed information may be found 

in the most recent annual EMAC report (NSTec, 2007c) which is distributed to several state and federal 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 (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. The Desert Tortoise Compliance 

Program was developed to implement the Opinion’s terms and conditions, document compliance actions taken, and 

assist NNSA/NSO in FWS consultations. 

In 2006, biologists conducted surveys for 21 projects that were within the distribution range of the desert tortoise (see 

Figure 13-2). All of the proposed projects were covered under the 1996 Opinion. No desert tortoises were 

accidentally injured or killed, nor were any found, captured, or displaced from project sites. One desert tortoise was 

accidentally killed along a paved road. One site-specific revegetation plan was submitted to the FWS as required by 

the desert tortoise habitat revegetation plan approved in 2004. Revegetation of habitat at the Bren Tower burn was 

completed in the spring of 2006. In the summer of 2006, NSTec biologists prepared a Biological Assessment of the 

security activities that were being conducted at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF). In late 2006, NNSA/NSO 

requested a Biological Opinion from the FWS regarding security operations at the DAF.

Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 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 
13-2

 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 Figure 13-1. Desert tortoise distribution and abundance on the NTS 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 13-3

A cumulative total of 110.25 hectares (ha) (272.43 acres [ac]) of tortoise habitat on the NTS has been disturbed since 

the desert tortoise was listed as threatened in 1992. During 2006, none of the threshold levels for compliance 

measures established by the FWS were exceeded (Table 13-1). In January 2007, 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, 2006. 

Table 13-1. Compliance limits and status for NTS operations in tortoise habitat 

Compliance Measure Threshold 

Value 

2006 

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) 110.25 (272.43) 

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. 

Species considered important include those protected or managed under state or federal regulations, plants listed on 

the Nevada Natural Heritage Program’s (NNHP’s) Nevada At-Risk Plant and Lichen Tracking List (called “sensitive” 

plants), animals listed on NNHP’s Nevada At-Risk Animal Tracking List (called “sensitive” animals), and bats 

assigned a high or moderate risk assessment designation under The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan (Bradley 

et al., 2005). The important species known to occur on the NTS include 44 plants, 1 mollusk, 2 reptiles, over 

250 birds, and 26 mammals (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 that are vital to important 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 

In 2006, surveys at 100 sites for 34 projects were conducted (Figure 13-2). The important species and biological 

resources found included: 2 inactive tortoise burrows, 2 western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), several 

horses (Equus caballus), 2 active predator burrows, mature Joshua trees (Yucca brevifolia), yuccas and cacti, 1 barn owl 

(Tyto alba), 1 active great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) nest (2 eggs), and 1 kestrel nest with four eggs in it. The greathorned owl nest with two eggs was monitored during work activity. At least one of the eggs hatched and the owls did 

not abandon the nest. With approval from the FWS, biologists removed the four kestrel eggs from their nest located 

in a crane that needed to be used. The four eggs were taken to Wild Wing Project, Inc., in Las Vegas and determined 

to be non-viable. For each project, NSTec provided a written summary report of all survey findings and mitigation 

recommendations. All flagged burrows were avoided during construction activities. 
Ecological Monitoring

13-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Table 13-2. Important plants which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS 

SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES

Flowering Plant Species Common Name Status(a)

Astragalus beatleyae Beatley milkvetch W, 5 years 

Astragalus funereus Black woolypod W, 5 years 

Astragalus oopherus var. clokeyanus Clokey eggvetch W, 5 years 

Eriogonum concinnum Darin buckwheat W, 5 years 

Eriogonum heermannii var. clokeyi Clokey buckwheat W, 5 years 

Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa Rock purpusia W, 5 years 

Lathyrus hitchcockianus Bullfrog Hills peavine W, 5 years 

Phacelia beatleyae Beatley scorpionflower W, 10 years 

Arctomecon merriamii White bearpoppy W, 10 years 

Camissonia megalantha Cane Spring suncup W, 10 years 

Cymopterus ripleyi var. saniculoides Sanicle biscuitroot W, 10 years 

Frasera pahutensis Pahute green gentian W, 10 years 

Galium hilendiae ssp. kingstonense Kingston Mountains bedstraw W, 10 years 

Hulsea vestita ssp. inyoensis Pumice alpinegold W, 10 years 

Penstemon fruticiformis var. armagosae Death Valley beardstongue T, 5 years 

Penstemon pahutensis Pahute Mesa beardstongue W, 10 years 

Phacelia filiae Clarke phacelia W, 10 years 

Phacelia mustelina Weasel phacelia W, 10 years 

Phacelia parishii Parish phacelia W, 10 years 

Moss Species 

Entosthodon planoconvexus Planoconvex entosthodon W, 5 years 

PROTECTED/REGULATED PLANT SPECIES

Cactaceae Cacti (18 species) CY 

Agavaceae Yucca (3 species), Agave (1 species) CY 

Pinus monophylla/Juniperus osteosperma Pinyon/Juniper CY 

(a) Status Codes: 

 State of Nevada

T - NNHP At Risk Plant and Lichen Taxa, Threatened: believed to meet the ESA definition of Threatened 

W - NNHP At Risk Plant and Lichen Taxa, Watch-list species: potentially vulnerable to becoming Threatened or Endangered 

CY - Protected as a cactus, yucca, or Christmas tree 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 

 Long-term Sensitive Plant Monitoring Status under EMAC

 5 years - Monitor a minimum of once every 5 years 

10 years - Monitor a minimum of once every 10 years 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 NP, S, IA 

Alectoris chukar Chukar G 

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle EA, NP 

Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western burrowing owl NP, S, A 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk NP, S, IA 

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk NP, S, IA 

Callipepla gambelii Gambel's quail G 

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover PT, NP 

Chlidonias niger Black tern NP, S, IA 

Coccyzus americanus Western yellow-billed cuckoo NP, S, IA 

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon <LE, NPE, S, IA 

Gavia immer Common loon NP, S, IA 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus Bald eagle LT-PD, EA, NPE, S, IA 

Ixobrychus exillis hesperis Western least bittern NP, S, IA 

Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike NPS 

Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher NPS 

Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla NP, S, IA 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis NP, S, IA 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow NPS 

Mammal Species 

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat NP, M, A 

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn antelope G 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Townsend’s big-eared bat NPS, S, H, A 

Equus asinus Burro HB 

Equus caballus Horse HB 

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat NPT, S, M, A 

Felis concolor Mountain lion G 

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat M, A 

Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat NPS, S, H, 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 2006 

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 NP, S, H, 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

 <LE - Former listed endangered species 

LT - Listed Threatened 

 PD - Proposed for delisting 

PT - Proposed for listing as Threatened 

 

 U.S. Department of Interior

 EA - Protected under Bald and Golden Eagle Act 

 HB - Protected under Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act 

 

State of Nevada

 F - Regulated as fur-bearer species 

G - Regulated as game species 

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 NNHP’s Nevada At-Risk Animal Tracking List

 

 Revised 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 

Long-term Sensitive Animal Monitoring Status under EMAC

A - Active: 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 

IA - Inactive: not currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

 

 

(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 2006 13-7

 Figure 13-2. Location of biological surveys conducted on the NTS in 2006 
Ecological Monitoring

13-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 2006, the major accomplishments under this EMAC task are presented below. Detailed descriptions of these 

actions and results can be found in NSTec, 2007c. 

13.3.1 Sensitive Plants 

The list of sensitive plants for the NTS (see Table 13-2) was reviewed in 2006 and two plants were added: Penstemon 

fruticiformis var. amargosae (Death Valley beardtongue), which may occur along the southern boundary of the NTS, and 

Phacelia filiae (Clarke phacelia), a newly described species that occurs in Frenchman Flat and Rock Valley. One plant 

was removed from the list: Sclerocactus polyancistrus (redspined fishhook cactus), a cactus widespread throughout several 

western states. There are currently 19 vascular species and 1 non-vascular species on the list of NTS sensitive plants. 

Field surveys for three species were conducted in 2006 which yielded new data. Populations of Frasera pahutensis and

Hulsea vestita spp. inyoensis were inventoried, and detailed delineations of their population boundaries were updated. 

Surveys for potential habitat for Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa were conducted and a new population was found. Results 

of these surveys are summarized below. 

Field surveys for three additional sensitive plants were conducted in 2006 but did not yield new data or the 

identification of new populations. The Mercury Ridge population of Eriogonum heermannii var. clokeyi was surveyed 

with the objective of making voucher collections, but because of poor growing conditions, no collections were made. 

Surveys of known populations of Cymopterus ripleyi var. ripleyi and C. ripleyi var. saniculoides, two species whose taxonomy 

has been in question for years, were conducted to correctly distinguish the collection sites of each species on the NTS. 

However, growing conditions were poor, and an insufficient number of plants were located. Surveys were conducted 

for Entosthodon planoconvexus, a bryophyte, to look for similar habitat and new plants in the immediate vicinity of the 

one previous collection site on the NTS. No similar habitat was found in the area. 

13.3.1.1 Frasera pahutensis 

F. pahutensis is known from two regions on the NTS: Pahute Mesa in Area 19 along the 19-01 Road (the type locality), 

and Rainier Mesa near Gold Meadows in Area 12 (Figure 13-3). The goal of monitoring in 2006 was to revisit 

populations along the 19-01 Road to better define population boundaries using more accurate Geographical 

Positioning System (GPS) units and to assess population status (density and vigor). A total of approximately 30 ha 

(73 ac) were surveyed at two locations adjacent to 19-01 Road in July. At each location, several hundred plants were 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 13-9

 

 Figure 13-3. Location of sensitive plant populations monitored on the NTS in 2006 
Ecological Monitoring

13-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

counted. Based on the abundance of individual plants, their vigor, and the lack of any activities in the immediate 

vicinity, these two populations appear to be in good condition and there appears to be no impacts from NNSA/NSO 

activities. There appears to be an abundance of potential habitat for this species on the NTS and additional locations 

may be found in the future as remote locations are accessed and surveyed. The Gold Meadows population of 

F. pahutensis will be similarly surveyed in future years. 

13.3.1.2 Hulsea vestita spp. inyoensis 

Known NTS populations of H. vestita spp. inyoensis

occur on road cuts along Holmes and Stockade 

Wash roads, the vicinity of Captain Jack Springs, 

the slopes of Rainier Mesa, north into Kawich 

Canyon and east along Papoose Lake Road 

(Figure 13-3). Surveys were conducted in June at 

the previously reported locations along Holmes and 

Stockade Wash roads. Plant population boundaries 

were recorded using GPS readings. Plant numbers 

were small and consisted of but a few plants along 

several road cuts. Plants were flowering 

(Figure 13-4) and showed no signs of threats either 

from NNSA/NSO activities in the area or from 

natural impacts such as pests, disease, or herbivory. 

Future surveys for this species will focus on the 

other known NTS population sites. 

13.3.1.3 Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa 

I. arizonica var. saxosa is endemic to Nevada and is only known to occur on the NTS and in the Pahroc Mountains in 

Lincoln County. Before 2005, only one NTS population was known to occur in Columbine Canyon just off of Pahute 

Mesa Road (Figure 13-3). In 2005, an extension of this population was located about 100 m (328 ft) to the south, and 

then a second small population was found an additional 300 meters (m) (984 feet [ft]) south. The objective of the 

surveys in 2006 was to identify this species’ potential habitat using aerial photographs and topographic maps and 

conduct field surveys in those areas to locate new populations. Two areas of potential habitat covering about 815 ha 

(2,024 ac) were identified to the south of the 

known locations and were surveyed. One 

was about 5 kilometers (km) (3 miles [mi]) to 

the south and west of Columbine Canyon and 

the other was 8 km (5 mi) east and south of 

Columbine Canyon. No new populations of 

I. arizonica var. saxosa were found. A third 

area of potential habitat covering almost 

10 ha (25 ac) about 2,000 m (6,561 ft) south 

of Columbine Canyon was also surveyed, and 

one new population was found (Figure 13-3). 

The population’s habitat is on the westerly 

and northerly exposures of large boulders of 

Rainier Mesa tuff (Figure 13-5). Plants at this 

location were more abundant than at 

Columbine Canyon. Future monitoring 

efforts for this species may involve the 

 establishment of permanent transects to 

 monitor the density of plants over time. 

Figure 13-4. H. vestita spp. inyoensis on road cut along 

Stockade Wash Road (Photo by D. C. Anderson, June 2006)

Figure 13-5. I. arizonica var. saxosa growing on north and west 

faces of large boulders on Pahute Mesa (Photo by W. K. Ostler, 

June 2006)
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 13-11

13.3.2 Important Animals 

13.3.2.1 Western Red-tailed Skink 

Surveys for the western red-tailed skink (Eumeces 

gilberti rubricaudatus) (Figure 13-6), an NNHP 

sensitive species, were conducted in 2006. A total of 

9 skinks was captured over 6,092 trap days 

(1 skink/677 trap days) at 7 of 48 sampling sites

(see Figure 13-8, following page). All skinks were 

captured in funnel traps set near rocks or vegetation. 

Figure 13-8 (following page) shows the current 

known distribution of this skink on the NTS where 

“Location” on the figure denotes a site where a 

skink was trapped either in 2006 (“New Location”) 

or prior to 2006 (“Historic Location”). In 2006, 

over 500 other reptiles were observed or captured in 

the funnel traps at the 48 sampling sites. These 

other reptiles included 10 of 16 lizard species known 

to occur on the NTS and 11 of 17 snake species 

known to occur on the NTS. Overall trap success was 8.8 percent (538 captures/6,092 trap days). 

13.3.2.2 Western Burrowing Owl 

Western burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) 

(Figure 13-7) were trapped on the NTS in 2006 as 

part of a collaborative effort with Dr. Courtney 

Conway to evaluate the genetic relatedness and 

migratory status of owls in western North America. 

Dr. Conway is funded by the Department of 

Defense Legacy Project. One adult female owl that 

was banded last year as a juvenile was captured again 

this year 5.3 km (3.29 mi) from her natal site. 

Radioisotopic analysis of the feathers from this owl 

should provide information on where she spent the 

winter. 

Trapping also contributes new information on the 

distribution of burrowing owls on the NTS. A total 

of 34 owls, including 16 adults and 18 juveniles, were 

captured. Additionally, six new burrow sites were 

found, including four burrows in the Mojave Desert 

ecoregion and two in the Great Basin Desert ecoregion. 

A total of 132 burrowing owl locations (30 owl sightings 

and 102 burrow sites) are documented on the NTS (see Figure 13-9, page 13-13). 

13.3.2.3 Bird Monitoring and Mortality 

Several raptors occur on the NTS. Some are sensitive species and all are protected or regulated under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act or Nevada state law (see Table 13-3). Because these birds occupy the higher trophic levels of the 

food chain, they are regarded as indicators of ecosystem stability and health. Nine raptor species are known to breed 

on the NTS. No field surveys for active raptor nests were conducted in 2006, although this means of monitoring 

raptor breeding is conducted at least once every five years. 

Figure 13-6. Western red-tailed skink captured at Twin 

Spring, Site 9 (Photo by D. B. Hall, May 11, 2006)

Figure 13-7. Captured western burrowing owl 

(Photo by D. B. Hall on June 6, 2006)
Ecological Monitoring

13-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 13-8. Locations where western red-tailed skinks have been trapped and sites sampled in 2006
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 13-13

Figure 13-9. Known western burrowing owl distribution on the NTS and locations trapped in 2006
Ecological Monitoring

13-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Opportunistic sightings of raptors were common in 2006 and included red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey 

vultures (Cathartes aura), golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), American kestrels (Falco sparverius) and prairie falcons (Falco 

mexicanus). Many of these individuals are commonly seen perching on utility poles on Frenchman and Yucca flats. 

Barn owls (Tyto alba) nesting in buildings on the NTS were a common occurrence in 2006. Cooper’s hawk (Accipter 

cooperii) and red-tailed hawks were observed around water sources near Rainier Mesa. A common black-hawk 

(Buteogallus anthracinus) was observed flying near the Mercury Highway on Yucca Flat (Area 4) on April 4, 2006, by a 

NSTec biologist. This species breeds in central and southern Arizona and New Mexico and has been observed as a 

rare species in southern Nevada. It is the first known record of this hawk for the NTS. 

Bird mortality is recorded as a measure of potential impacts that NNSA/NSO activities may have on protected birds. 

Only 5 bird mortalities and 6 injured raptors were recorded in 2006. Two of the primary causes of bird mortality were 

road kill and electrocution (Table 13-4). Injured birds were captured and taken to the North Las Vegas Animal 

Hospital for examination, cared for by Wild Wing Project, Inc., and were then released into the wild. No feasible 

mitigation actions were identified in 2006 to reduce the incidence of bird mortality on the NTS. NTS activities appear 

to have a low impact on natural bird populations since the reported number of bird deaths related directly to NTS 

activities over the past 16 years is very low and the causes are varied (Figure 13-10). 

 Table 13-4. Records of bird mortality and injury on the NTS in 2006 

Species Cause of Death 

 Electrocution Road Kill Unknown Injury (a)

Barn owl (Tyto alba) 3 

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) 2 

Long-eared owl (Asio otus) 1 

Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) 1 

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 2 

Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) 1 

Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) 1 

Total 2 2 1 6 

(a) Taken to veterinary clinic for treatment, rehabilitated at Wild Wing Project, Inc., and released 

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 2006

Year

Number of Dead Birds

Roadkill

Electrocution

Entrapment

Drowning

Predation

Disease

Chick Mortality

Unknown

Figure 13-10. Number of bird deaths recorded on the NTS by year and cause
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 13-15

13.3.2.4 State-Protected Small Mammals 

Each year the NNHP 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 in 2005 was the addition of the dark kangaroo 

mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus) and the pale kangaroo mouse (M. 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. Small mammal trapping continued in 2006, however, neither of these two species were 

captured. A total of 2,965 animal captures representing 14 species was recorded in 7,488 trap nights at 23 sites. 

13.3.2.5 Sensitive Bats 

Monitoring sensitive bat species of the NTS (see Table 13-3) focused on sampling known maternity roosts to 

determine occupancy patterns and compare techniques for counting bats; conducting pre-closure surveys at N and 

T Tunnel complexes to determine if gating is necessary; passive acoustic monitoring of bat activity at Camp 17 Pond; 

and responding to numerous calls to remove bats, including a rabid bat, and documenting their roost sites. Maternity 

roosts occupied in previous years were occupied again this year by both Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii) and fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes). Counts from the two types of cameras showed varying results. 

Counting bats was easier using the images from the NightSightTM camera than images from the Sony® nightshot 

camera. Two bat gates were installed in the N Tunnel Complex. These are the first bat gates to be installed on the 

NTS. Several thousand files containing bat vocalizations were recorded from Camp 17 Pond and are in the process of 

being analyzed. The first rabid bat on the NTS was collected, and 23 bats in or around buildings were found roosting 

(8 dead) on 19 occasions at 15 buildings. Ten bats were western pipistrelles (Pipistrellus hesperus), five were pallid bats 

(Antrozous pallidus), one was either California or small-footed myotis (Myotis spp.), and seven were unknown species. 

13.3.2.6 Wild Horses 

An annual horse census is conducted at the NTS by driving selected roads, and by using cameras to record individual 

markings of animals. Numbers have increased from a low of about 33 in 1999 to about 53 individuals in 2006 

(Table 13-5). Moderate numbers of young horses have been recruited to the population during this period. Mountain 

lion predation pressure may be reduced on horses, allowing the increase numbers of young horses, because many 

more deer are now available as prey (see Section 13.3.2.7). 

 Table 13-5. Number of individual horses observed on the NTS by age class, gender, and year 

Age Class Years 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Foals 5 11 11 5 6 5 5 8 

Yearlings 2 4 2 0 9 (a) 9 6 8 

Gender (b)

 M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F 

2-Year Olds 0 0 2 (c) 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 4 4 5 4 3 3 

3-Year Olds 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 4 4 4 4 

(>3-Year Olds) 11 20 13 21 11 20 8 19 8 20 6 21 5 21 7 24 

Total 

(excludes foals 

and dead horses) 

33 38 37 33 38 44 49 53 

(a) 1 of the 9 was found dead 

(b) M=Male, F=Female 

(c) These 2 were found dead 
Ecological Monitoring

13-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

During 2006, road surveys were conducted to monitor the size and location of the wild horse range on the NTS. 

Eight days of effort were expended for the road surveys. Horse sign data and horse use at natural and human-made 

water sources indicate that the 2006 horse range includes Gold Meadows, Yucca Flat, Eleana Range, southwest 

foothills of the Eleana Range, and the Echo Peak region of southeast Pahute Mesa. This range appears to be similar 

to previous years but possibly smaller due to less use of habitats east of the Eleana Range. In 2006, Camp 17 pond 

and Gold Meadows Spring continue to be important summer water sources for horses. 

13.3.2.7 Mule Deer 

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) abundance has been measured on the NTS from 1989-1994, 1999-2000, and in 2006 by 

driving two standardized road courses at night with spotlights in the northern region of the NTS (77 km [47.8 mi] 

total length). A spotlighting session involved three consecutive nights of surveying. The number of deer per 

spotlighting session has increased greatly from 38-42 in 1999-2000 to 153-245 in 2006. Overall, this represents a 5-6 

fold increase in deer counted on the NTS. Periodic surveys will continue to be conducted to see if deer numbers 

remain high. 

13.3.2.8 Mountain Lions 

Mountain lions (Puma concolor) prey on wild 

horses, deer, antelope, and even tortoises, 

and pose a potential threat to humans on 

the NTS. A collaborative effort continued 

in 2006 between Erin Boydston, a research 

scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey, 

and NSTec biologists to investigate 

mountain lion distribution and abundance. 

Remote, motion-activated cameras were 

were set up at 12 sites where mountain 

lions were likely to occur. Only one 

mountain lion was photographed, a female 

at Tub Spring in late March (Figure 13-11). 

At least 29 other species of mammals and 

birds were also detected with the greatest 

activity at water sources, particularly during 

the dry summer and fall 

months. 

13.3.3 Natural and Man-Made Water Sources 

Natural wetlands (e.g., vegetated seeps and springs) and human-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 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 2006 included (1) documenting surface area, surface 

flow, observed disturbances, and wildlife use and mortality at 12 natural wetlands; and (2) documenting wildlife use 

and mortality observed at 38 plastic-lined sumps and 2 radioactive containment ponds. The surface areas (in square 

meters [m2]) and flow rates (in liters per minute [L/min]) were very small at the natural springs (0 – 200 m2 and 

0 – 0.9 L/min where flow was measurable, respectively). No wetlands were damaged by NTS activities. A dead deer 

was found in each of two plastic-lined sumps at ER-20-6, Sumps #5 and #6. Two sediment ramps were subsequently 

constructed in these two sumps to prevent future deer entrapment. These sumps will be monitored closely in 2007 to 

evaluate their effectiveness. Other detailed results of water source monitoring are reported in NSTec, 2007c. 

Figure 13-11. Mountain lion photographed at Tub Spring (Photo by 

remote camera, March 30, 2006)
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 13-17

13.3.4 West Nile Virus 

Within the important species and habitat monitoring subtask of EMAC, NSTec biologists work cooperatively with the 

Clark County Health District (CCHD) to determine if mosquitoes on the NTS carry the West Nile virus (WNV). 

This effort continued in 2006 for the third consecutive year. Mosquito traps were set up at eight NTS sites and were 

sampled 14 times. Mosquitoes were taken to CCHD personnel for species identification and WNV testing. A total of 

111 individuals representing 6 species was captured and analyzed. Three species of mosquitoes were newly detected 

on the NTS in 2006. All specimens tested negative for WNV except for one Culiseta inornata from Well 3 Pond, and 

the test result is suspected to be false. This site will be sampled more intensively along with other sites in 2007 to 

confirm WNV presence on the NTS. The six injured raptors taken to the North Las Vegas Animal Hospital for 

treatment (see Section 13.3.2.3 above) were also tested for WNV. All raptors tested negative. 

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 Executive Order 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 wildland fire sites and 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 (or cover caps) to 

protect against soil erosion and water percolation into buried waste. In addition to conducting all seeding and 

planting, the Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program conducts short- and long-term monitoring of revegetated sites. 

13.4.1 Revegetated Project Sites 

In 2006, eight Corrective Action Units (CAUs) were monitored (Table 13-6). At each site, the plant density and the 

percent plant cover of each life form (i.e., shrub, grass, forb/annual) were measured and compared to the plant 

density and cover measured at adjacent undisturbed habitat to assess the success of revegetation efforts (Table 13-6). 

Table 13-6. Comparison of plant density and cover at revegetated sites versus plant density and cover at their 

 reference undisturbed sites as measured in 2006 

 Percent Plant Cover 

Comparison (a)

Plant Density 

Comparison (a)

CAU Monitored Site Shrub Grass 

Forb/ 

Annual Total (b) Shrub Grass 

Forb/ 

Annual Total 

400 Five Points Landfill H L H H H L H H 

400 Bomblet Pit H L = H H = L H 

426 Cactus Springs Waste Trenches Staging Area L H = H L H H H 

426 Cactus Springs Waste Trenches Cover Cap H H L H H L L L 

404 Rollercoaster Sewage Lagoons Staging Area H L L H H L L = 

404 Rollercoaster Sewage Lagoons Cover Cap H H L H H H L H 

417 Central Nevada Test Area Cover Cap L H = L H L = H 

110 U-3ax/bl Cover Cap No undisturbed reference site for comparison. Total plant cover was 19.6%, total 

plant density was 8.3 plants/m2. 

NA Area 6 Waterline – Tortoise Habitat 

Restoration 

Seeded in the fall of 2005. Subsequent lack of rain resulted in poor germination. 

Site was visited but no monitoring data were collected. 

(a) H - cover/density of revegetated site was higher than cover/density of its undisturbed reference site 

 L - cover/density of revegetated site was lower than cover/density of its undisturbed reference site 

 = - cover/density of revegetated site was equal to cover/density of its undisturbed reference site 

(b) All life forms combined
Ecological Monitoring

13-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

13.4.2 Wildland Fire Sites 

Several major fires on NTS in the past decade have impacted several thousand acres (see Section 13.5). Restoration 

efforts at these sites have been minimal. The Egg Point Fire in Area 12 that occurred in August 2002 impacted an 

area near several major facilities, and it was important that some action be taken to protect those facilities from the 

effects of the fire. In the fall of 2002, the burned areas were revegetated using a combination of seeding and 

transplanting. The site was monitored the first three years afterwards to evaluate transplant survival and seeding 

success. The site was not monitored in 2006, but will be in 2007. 

The Shoshone Mountain and Bren Tower fires occurred during the summer of 2005. Reseeding trials with native 

species were conducted in 2006 at these two sites. The objectives of the trials were to evaluate seeding rates, season 

of seeding, seed soaking, and harrowing for covering the seed. At the Shoshone Mountain site, germination and 

establishment of seeded species was very poor in 2006, and the density values were very low. The treatment that had 

the highest density of seeded species (2.43 plants/m2) was spring seeding (March). No germination occurred at the 

Bren Tower Fire so the plots were not sampled. They will be sampled in 2007 if adequate rainfall occurs.

13.5 Wildland Fire Hazard Assessment 

DOE Order 450.1, Environmental Protection Program, requires protection of site resources from wildland and operational 

fires. In response to this Order, an annual vegetation survey to determine wildland fire hazards is conducted on the 

NTS each spring. Survey findings are submitted to the NTS Fire Marshal and also summarized in the annual EMAC 

report (NSTec, 2007c) along with a description of NTS wildland fires that occurred during the year. 

An average of 11 wildland fires per year have occurred on the NTS since 1978, and the average aerial extent of each 

fire has been 96 ha (23 ac). Based on the limited data set of the dates and number of historic NTS fires, the “fire 

season” on the NTS appears to be the months of June through August. Wildland fires do not occur randomly across 

the NTS. They occur more often in blackbrush vegetation types that have sufficient fuels (fine and woody) that are 

conducive to ignition and spread of wildland fires. Fine fuels refer to fine-textured fuels, typically invasive non-native 

and native grasses and forbs. Woody fuels refer mainly to shrubs. In 2006, there were 16 wildland fires and a total of 

3,486 ha (8,615 ac) burned. The largest was located in Mid Valley (about 3,270 ha [8,000 ac]) (Figure 13-12). 

The 2006 vegetation survey was conducted in April and May. A total of 211 sampling stations was visited to assess a 

fuel index (a rating from 0 to 10) for the risk of wildfires based on the presence of fine fuels and woody fuels 

combined. Mean precipitation in 2006 was about 20 percent above average (Table 13-7) at the 17 NTS rain gauges 

operated by the Air Resources Laboratory, Special Operations and Research Division (ARL/SORD) 

(see Section 16.0). This contributed to an increase in the percent presence of invasive non-native grasses and forbs 

and therefore, a slight increase in fine fuels in 2006. Also, a substantial amount of fine fuels from 2005 still persisted. 

In 2006, the mean combined fuels index for all 211 sampling stations on the NTS was 5.26, compared to 5.64 and 

4.88 in 2005 and 2004, respectively. The location of the sampling stations and their fuel index (i.e., sum of each site’s 

fine fuel index and woody fuel index) for 2006 are shown in Figure 13-13. 

 Table 13-7. Precipitation history and presence of top species contributing to fine fuels 

2004 2005 2006

Mean Precipitation Percent Above Average

 (January – April, for 17 ARL/SORD rain guage stations) 4 67 20 

Invasive Introduced Species Percent Presence

 Bromus matridensis spp. rubens (red brome) 51.7 64.4 67.8 

 Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) 40.3 54.0 60.7 

 Erodium cicutarium (redstem stork's bill) 5.2 6.2 24.6 

 Schismus arabicus (Arabian schismus) 4.7 2.8 5.2 

Native Species 

 Amsinkia tessellata (bristly fiddleneck) 34.0 62.0 16.1 

 Mentzelia albicaulis (whitestem blazingstar) 49.8 8.1 0.0 

 Chaenactis fremontii (pincushion flower) 27.0 8.0 0.0 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 13-19

Figure 13-12. Location of wildland fires on the NTS 
Ecological Monitoring

13-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Figure 13-13. Index of combined fine and woody fuels at 211 survey stations on the NTS during 2006 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 13-21

13.6 Biological Monitoring of the NPTEC Complex 

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 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, 2002c). 

An unpublished 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 2006, chemical release test plans for two activities on Frenchman Lake playa were reviewed. These tests were 

called Raven and Tarantula II. Because chemical releases for these tests were of such low volumes or low toxicity, 

there was no need to monitor downwind transects for biological impacts. Seasonal sampling of downwind and 

upwind transects near the NPTEC was conducted in 2006 to document baseline conditions of biota and any 

cumulative impacts over time of test center activities on biota downwind of the facility. The condition of plants and 

the presence of wildlife sign during the period of vegetative growth and following summer drought were noted. No 

differences in biota were noted along downwind (treatment) versus upwind (control) transects. These data are made 

available to neighboring land managers upon request.
Ecological Monitoring

13-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Underground Test Area Project 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 14-1 

14.0 Underground Test Area Subproject 

The Underground Test Area (UGTA) Subproject is the largest project in the Environmental Restoration Program. 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 Subproject 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 2006. 

14.2 Groundwater Sampling 

Well purging and sampling operations were conducted at three UGTA well sites: ER-12-4, U-12s and 

USGS HTH #2. Groundwater samples were collected at all three of these sites. The results of sampling in 2006 

are presented in Section 4.1.11 of this report along with all other radiological groundwater monitoring results. 

14.3 UGTA Subproject Modeling 

A regional three-dimensional computer groundwater model (International Technologies Corporation [IT], 1996) was 

developed in the initial stages of the UGTA project to identify any immediate risk and to provide a basis for 

developing more detailed models of specific nuclear testing areas designated as Corrective Action Units (CAUs). The 

CAU-specific models, of which four are planned, geographically cover the six former NTS underground nuclear 

testing areas (Figure 14-1). CAU-specific groundwater-flow and contaminant-transport models will be used to 

determine contaminant boundaries based on the extent of contaminant migration at specified regulatory limits. The 

models will also be used to refine a monitoring network to ensure public health and safety. 

Construction of CAU-specific groundwater-flow and contaminant-transport models requires a hydrostratigraphic 

framework that depicts the character and extent of hydrostratigraphic units in three dimensions. To date, three 

hydrostratigraphic framework models, also referred to as Geologic models, have been built: Frenchman Flat 
Underground Test Area Project 

14-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

(Bechtel Nevada [BN], 2005a), Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley (BN, 2002) and Yucca Flat-Climax Mine (BN, 2006) 

models. A draft hydrostratigraphic framework model for the Rainier Mesa-Shoshone Mountain CAU was completed 

in 2006 and is scheduled to be finalized early in 2007. 

Also in 2006, two UGTA CAU-scale flow models were completed. This work is documented in the following 

reports: Phase II Groundwater Flow Model of Corrective Action Unit 98: Frenchman Flat, Nye County, Nevada (Stoller-Navarro 

Joint Venture [SNJV], 2006a) and Groundwater Flow Model of Corrective Action Units 101 and 102: Central and Western 

Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada (SNJV, 2006b). 
Underground Test Area Project 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 14-3 

Figure 14-1. Location of UGTA Project model areas 
Underground Test Area Project 

14-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 hydrologic and radionuclide information products. 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 determination of 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 2006

• 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 rock samples from 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; evaluation of monitoring well locations and conditions; 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 groundwater sub-basins which include portions of the NTS. Based upon 

hydrologic investigations and modeling, HRMP will evaluate proposed new groundwater withdrawals 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 supporting a well installation and maintenance program which insures: 

• 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 2006 HRMP Activities 

15.2.1 USGS Activities 

The USGS Water Resources Discipline 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 Underground Test Area 

Project. Hydrologic data are collected quarterly or semi-annually from wells within two monitoring networks: an 

onsite and an offsite network (wells located on and off of the NTS). 

By the end of 2006, the USGS monitored water levels in 181 wells. This included 95 wells on the NTS and 86 wells 

off the NTS. Also during 2006, 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 are also published in the USGS Nevada Water Science 

Center Annual Water-Resources Data Report available at <http://nevada.usgs.gov/>. 

Groundwater use from water-supply wells on the NTS is collected using flow meters which are read monthly by the 

NTS Maintenance and Operating subcontractor and then reported to the USGS Water Resources Discipline. The 

principal water supply wells monitored during 2006 included 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 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 15-3 

withdrawals in millions of gallons. Discharge data from these wells for 2006 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 2006 was approximately 223 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 2006 report is available at 

<http://nevada.usgs.gov/> and will include monthly water-use data for each well listed from October 2005 through 

September 2006. 

The USGS also continued to maintain and develop the Death Valley Regional Groundwater Flow System Model, 

manage the NTS well hydrologic and geologic information database, and characterize high-altitude precipitation 

environmental isotope parameters in cooperation with LLNL.

15.2.2 DRI Activities 

DRI continued work on NTS sub-basin groundwater withdrawal impact modeling and development of a staged, 

portable, Bennett pump system and a delayed down-hole tritium monitor. 

15.2.3 LANL Activities 

LANL analyzed radionuclide speciation and transport parameters and characterized NTS groundwater parameters. 

15.2.4 LLNL Activities 

LLNL analyzed radionuclide speciation and transport parameters, and characterized high-altitude precipitation 

environmental isotope parameters in cooperation with USGS. 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

15-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Meteorological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 form 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. The NTS Site Description, Section 3 presents descriptive NTS 

climatological data collected by the MEDA system. The NTS Site Description is included as a separate file on the 

compact disc of this 2006 report for easy reference. 

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. 

Figure 16-1. Example of a typical MEDA station with a 

 10-meter tower 
16-2

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 Figure 16-2. MEDA station locations on and near the NTS 
Meteorological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 16-3

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 Web site 

<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 Web site 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 potential 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 2006 

Figure 16-3. Climatological rain gauge network on the NTS 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 17-1 

17.0 Integrated Safety Management System and 

Environmental Management System 

A plan to integrate environment, 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 shown 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. 

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

issued. It requires all federal agencies to adopt an environmental management system (EMS). An EMS is a business 

management practice that allows an organization to strategically address its ES&H 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. 

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 31, 2005. 

17.1 Scope of Chapter 

This chapter, written in April 2007, reflects the status of EMS and ISMS in 2006 when Bechtel Nevada (BN) was the 

Management and Operating (M&O) contractor until June 30 and then when National Security Technologies, LLC 

(NSTec), became the new M&O contractor on July 1. Work in previous years on the M&O’s EMS and ISMS 

integration can be found in the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005 (DOE, 2006b). 

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 2006 

For 2006, an effort was made to include, within this chapter, the EMS status and activities of other National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) contractors involved in environmental work on the NTS. 

Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture (SNJV) is an NNSA/NSO contractor involved with site characterization and 

groundwater monitoring work at historic sites scheduled for cleanup or monitoring under the Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order. In 2006, SNJV developed an EMS. The EMS identified areas to improve the 

reduction of life-cycle cost and liability of mission-related activities. Although the EMS elements presented below 

discuss predominantly the M&O Contractor’s status and activities, those of SNJV are also briefly discussed. 

17.2 Elements and Status of the NTS EMS 

The major event affecting the EMS program during 2006 was a commitment by NSTec, the new M&O contractor, to 

pursue ISO 14001 Certification (ISO stands for the International Organization for Standardization). NSTec 

committed in their contract proposal to obtain the certification by June 30, 2009. An internal management 

assessment was performed in December 2006 to evaluate the current environmental program against the requirements 

of the ISO 14001:2004 Standard. The assessment showed that the current program is mature and effective, but 

improvements must be made in some of the elements to satisfy all the rigorous ISO 14001 requirements. In 2007, an 

Implementation Strategy will be developed to address the identified deficiencies, and an Implementation Working 

Group representing all operating parts of the company will be formed to direct the implementation strategy. The 

2006 status and some of the intended NSTec future actions to meet the requirements of each ISO element are 

discussed in the subsections below. 

At the end of 2005, SNJV senior staff reviewed their EMS to ensure compliance with the requirements of DOE 

Order 450.1A. In particular, its programmatic description, its inclusion into the SNJV ISMS, and its implementation 

through flow-down implementing procedures were reviewed. Areas for improvement were identified and approved 

by the SNJV Environment, Safety, Health and Quality (ESH&Q) Project Manager. These areas are presented in some 

of the subsections below along with actions taken in 2006 to implement and improve the EMS. 

17.2.1 NTS Environmental Policy 

The previous BN Environmental Policy was adopted without revision by NSTec on July 1, 2006. It will be reviewed, 

updated, and made an NSTec policy in 2007. The policy is a statement of NSTec’s intentions and principles regarding 

overall ES&H performance. It provides a framework for planning and action. The new policy will be placed on the 

NSTec Internet home page, so it will be available to the public. The NSTec 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 (P2) activities 

• Communicate and instill an organizational commitment to environmental excellence in company activities 

SNJV integrates the NSTec Environmental Policy throughout SNJV's processes. The integregation of the policy is 

documented in its Standards Based Management System which consists of program level documents. Such 

documents include the ISMS, Project Execution Plans, Subject Areas, and Implementing Procedures. 

17.2.2 Environmental Aspects 

When operations have an environmental aspect, NSTec implements the EMS to minimize or eliminate any potential 

impact. NSTec 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 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 17-3 

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. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, Health and Safety Plans, and 

Execution Plans also identify aspects that can have potential impacts. Each of these documents then requires that 

mitigative actions be identified to minimize the risk of adverse impacts. NSTec has determined that the following 

aspects of its operations have the potential to affect the environment:

• Waste generation and management 

• Air quality 

• Waste management 

• Industrial chemical use 

• NEPA compliance 

• Drinking water quality 

SNJV identified the environmental aspects of their work. These include: 

• Waste generation 

• Waste disposal 

• Industrial chemical use and storage 

• NEPA compliance 

17.2.3 Legal and Other Requirements 

To implement the compliance commitments of the NSTec Environmental Policy and to meet its legal requirements, 

NSTec 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. 

Execution plans identify requirements applicable to each NSTec managed facility, project, and work activity by 

referencing the NNSA/NSO Work Smart Standards that apply to that plan. Execution Plans are required to be 

reviewed annually and updated as necessary. 

To ensure compliance with SNJV’s EMS, SNJV included its requirements in all appropriate contracts. SNJV 

verified that the ISMS Clause was included in the Staff Augmentation contracts, the Drilling contract, and the 

Amchitka contract. It was also verified that the new Recycling contract included an expanded recycling stream (see 

Section 17.2.5 below). All contractors fulfilled their defined roles and responsibilities. 

17.2.4 Objectives, Targets, and Programs 

Objectives and targets are developed by NSTec 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. NSTec also works with NNSA/NSO to 

clearly define expectations and performance measures. Objectives and targets, established in FY 2005 and 

implemented in FY 2006, are described in Table 17-1. Organizations within NSTec 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. The current procedure for objectives and targets is an Environmental 

Services (ES) Organizational Instruction. The procedure will be revised and upgraded to a Company Directive to 

document the responsibilities of all organizations involved in establishing, tracking and reporting progress on 

environmental targets. 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

bjectives and targets 

Objectives Targets Goals Measures Tracked – 2006 Results and Progress 

ate 

onmental 

cts of new 

ties Maintain compliance with 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 - 88% of checklists (44 of 50) were submitted with at least a two-week review period. 

ate 

onmental 

cts of approved 

ties 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 – 22.49 acres disturbed to date for which mitigation fee was not paid to Clark County. Of these, 20.28 acres were seeded in 2005-2006, and 2.21 acres are scheduled for seeding in 2007 upon approval of the site- specific plan. Success of revegetation to be assessed 5 years after seeding. 

ce paper use by 

 double-sided 

rs NSTec organizations with high volume paper use will be identified, double-sided printing will be promoted within these target organizations, metrics to track solid waste reduction will be developed All high volume copiers within NTS complex will have double-sided capability and all high volume print jobs will be double- sided Percent of high volume copiers with double-sided capability – By end of 2006, 100% of such copiers within NSTec had this capability. Was unable to automatically set copiers to double- sided output for high volume print jobs. Identified the need to give awareness training to help meet goals. No suitable metrics nor metric tracking/reporting systems to achieve the goals were finalized in 2006. 

ute affirmative 

rement 

Implement a system to ensure purchased items conform to the Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines for products that contain recovered and recycled materials 

Educate all NSTec buyers to recognize affected items and to take actions to achieve conformity with guidelines Investigate implications and possible rework of Just-In-Time procurement contracts and modify the procurement system to make recycled products the default choice 

Number of procurement system procedural 

revisions – Tracking discontinued 

Number of buyers who have received awareness 

training – Tracking discontinued 

Number of contract revisions – Tracking 

discontinued The three measures above were identified to be tracked in 2006, but were not useful in achieving the goals. The use of more appropriate metrics will continue to be developed in 2007. The modification of the procurement system to make recycled products the default choice was initiated in 2006 but not completed. 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System

bjectives and targets (continued) 

Objectives Targets Goals Measures Tracked – 2006 Results and Progress 

Plan for implementing a chemical pharmacy system for hazardous materials 

Assess the hazardous materials program Develop plan for centralization of system for purchasing chemicals 

No metric to be tracked was determined for 2006. The hazardous materials program was assessed in 2006. The centralized purchasing system to be used was identified, and it will be purchased in 2007. A pilot project was started at the receiving warehouse to bar code and track chemicals. 

uce chemical 

te 

Enhance requisition compliance reviews (RCRs) to identify purchase requests for large quantity chemical purchases to avoid having excess chemicals at end of project 

Train at least three ES personnel to recognize large-quantity chemical purchase requests and obtain justification for purchase prior to purchase approval Reduce the volume of large quantity chemicals purchased when not justifiable 

Number of ES personnel trained - Four ES 

personnel trained. Percent of RCRs for large quantity chemical 

purchase requests that received extra scrutiny - 

100 % of such purchase requests were reviewed, justified, and approved. They represented only 4% of all chemical purchase requests. Volume of chemicals that were not approved for 

purchase - Zero. All purchase were justified and 

approved. 

ect ground

er quality Plug boreholes in accordance with the Borehole Management Plan Meet schedule in Plan Number of boreholes plugged - 100 boreholes were scheduled for plugging, 112 were 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 - Discontinued tracking. This metric did 

not provide the information needed to determine if goal is reached. Will work to identify more suitable metric and metric tracking/reporting system in 2007. 

Promote increased use of alternative fuels 

Decrease use of petroleum-based fuels by 20% by end of 2006 using 1st Quarter 

FY06 as baseline 

Percent decrease in gallons of gasoline used in 

government vehicles within Fleet Services - 

11% decrease by 4th Quarter FY06. 

uce 

umption of 

oleum-based 

s 

Purchase vehicles that accept alternative fuels 

75% of new vehicles ordered must accept alternative fuel 

Percentage of new vehicles received that accept 

alternative fuels - 99% of new vehicles received 

(98/99) accept alternative fuel. 

nage North Las 

as Facility 

VF) pumped 

undwater 

Develop a system to collect and manage NLVF groundwater after pumping 

Use 50% of groundwater for beneficial use such as irrigation 

Percent of groundwater volume pumped that is 

beneficially used onsite - 100% of the water was 

reused for dust suppression in 2006. 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

17-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Several environmental management programs exist throughout NSTec. 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 

Throughout 2006, SNJV identified, reviewed, and updated measurable environmental goals, objectives, and targets. 

Between 80 and 100 percent of the identified targets were on schedule. The goal and targets and the dates by which 

they were met, or the 2006 results obtained while working towards them, include: 

• Establish and document internal P2 goals (including recycling activities training) - completed February 28; 

SNJV Program Manager approved SNJV Pollution Prevention (P2) Goals on February 16 

• Address and document what SNJV does, or plans to do, to conserve energy – completed February 28 

• Revise NEPA guidance to address SNJV responsibilities – completed February 28 

• Revise SNJV investigation-derived waste procedure to include segregation and screening of investigationderived waste and disposition of waste – competed March 4 

• Complete Environmental Compliance Improvement Plan, Initiative A -- Evaluation of the SNJV Environmental 

Management System (EMS) - March 31. 

• Replace gasoline-only vehicles with Alternative Fuel Vehicles - replaced 60 percent of the current fleet; 

scheduled to replace 100 percent in 2007. 

• Enhance solid waste recycling processes - selected a new paper recycling service in May, expanded recycle 

streams to include 3-ring binders, glass, plastic, books, magazines, newspaper, and cardboard in August. 

• Update SNJV Purchase Requisition Form (SN-178) – September 5. Included a “Green” check box on form 

that, when selected, indicates an environmentally-preferable purchase of products, supplies, or services. 

17.2.5 Resources, Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities 

All employees at NSTec 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. 

ES technical support personnel assist the line organizations with developing and meeting their environmental 

responsibilities.

17.2.6 Competence, Training, and Awareness 

Extensive training on NSTec’s 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. Training and awareness specific to the ISO 14001 Standard will 

be conducted in 2007 at all worker and management levels.
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 17-7 

SNJV established environmental training procedures to identify individual competence and responsibility 

requirements. Training was offered, conducted, recorded, and tracked within the company. Training requirements 

were monitored, revised, and refresher training was offered to maintain competence, as appropriate. The 2006 

training activities performed by SNJV included: 

• Updated slide presentation of Waste Awareness Training - February 8 

• EMS System Awareness Training received by all personnel - February 15 

• New Employee Orientation and EMS Training - June 16 

• Added P2 to the SNJV All-Hands Meeting 

17.2.7 Communication 

NSTec communicates environmental issues to employees through e-mails, articles in newsletters, safety meetings, 

new-hire orientations, job hazard analyses, pre-task briefings, and company procedures. NSTec 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 program and projects onsite. Environmental 

Management also sponsors a Speakers Bureau which provides representatives a chance 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. All external communications are coordinated 

through NNSA/NSO. 

17.2.8 Documentation 

NSTec 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 in a way that protects the environment. The current “Environmental Management System Description” will be 

updated in 2007 to incorporate the program improvements being made in pursuit of ISO Certification. 

In 2006, SNJV identified, re-evaluated, and updated (added/deleted/modified) selected environmental documents and 

work procedures as appropriate. The following documents were all issued and implemented in 2006: 

• NEPA Subject Area - issued March 14 

• Waste Minimization Procedure - issued March 16 

• Affirmative Procurement Procedure - issued March 16 

• Waste Characterization Subject Area - issued June 16 

17.2.9 Control of Documents 

The NSTec 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. Documents of longterm NNSA/NSO or NSTec interest are archived, and are destroyed according to federal laws. 

17.2.10 Operational Control 

Operations are evaluated through Hazard Assessments for the adequacy of current controls to prevent or minimize 

impacts to the environment. Task-specific procedures or work plans are developed when needed. Additional 

administrative or engineered controls are identified, and plans for upgrades and improvements are developed and 

implemented. Assessments are currently being performed to make sure that all environmental issues identified in 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

17-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

upper-tier documents like Hazard Analyses are rolled down to the work level plans. Lessons learned and critiques are 

incorporated into work processes to continually improve environmental performance. 

SNJV performs management assessments to ensure that significant environmental aspects identified under the EMS 

are being addressed consistent with identified goals, objectives, and targets. Management assessments are tracked 

within SNJV’s Assessment & Condition Tracking System. In 2006, the following assessments were performed and 

entered into the tracking system: 

• Pollution Prevention Assessments - completed July 28, 2006 

• Reduce, Reuse, Recycle Assessments - completed July 28 and August 15, 2006 

• Energy Efficiency Assessments - completed August 1 and August 17, 2006 

• Training Assessments - completed August 15, 2006 

17.2.11 Emergency Preparedness and Response

NSTec 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. Agreements are in place with outside emergency response agencies 

to support non-NTS facilities. 

17.2.12 Monitoring and Measurement 

NSTec 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 NSTec for NNSA/NSO. In addition to the 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. 

Many of these monitoring activities are required by state or federal environmental operating permits. In addition, 

NSTec tracks and trends its progress and performance in achieving environmental objectives and performance 

measures which are not strictly compliance-driven (see Table 17-1). 

17.2.13 Evaluation of Compliance 

NSTec has procedures for periodically evaluating its compliance with relevant environmental regulations. Line 

managers and facility managers periodically inspect their operations and facilities. NSTec ES and NNSA/NSO 

personnel also perform 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. 

17.2.14 Nonconformity and Corrective and Preventive Actions 

NSTec 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 promote continual 

improvement. Any deficiencies resulting from incidents or assessments are entered into an electronic Web-based 

system, where corrective actions are identified and tracked until completed. 

17.2.15 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. 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 17-9 

17.2.16 Internal Audit 

NSTec 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. 

SNJV established EMS audit/evaluation procedures and an internal audit was conducted in 2006. It identified 

nonconformities that were addressed, corrected, or are in the process of being corrected. 

17.2.17 Management Review 

The NSTec Senior Manager for ESH&Q will ensure periodic review of the EMS to ensure its continuing suitability, 

adequacy, and effectiveness. The review process will be scheduled in the NSTec ESH&Q Execution Plan and 

documented. The results of these internal audits will be reported to the Executive Leadership Council to prioritize 

improvement initiatives. 

SNJV will ensure periodic EMS reviews at the senior management level. During FY 2006, SNJV conducted a Senior 

Leadership review of the EMS and top management responded to recommendations for continual improvement. The 

following list includes actions performed by senior SNJV management as a result of their reviews: 

• Implemented the ISMSs flow-down of P2 activities into SNJV’s EMS program and Program Manager 

approved P2 goals by February 14 

• Program Manager recommended energy efficient lighting to the landlord 

• Program Manager participated in the New-Hire Orientation and EMS video
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

17-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 18-1

18.0 Compliance Quality Assurance 

The National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), Quality Assurance Program (QAP) establishes the requirements 

to comply with the quality requirements of the contract’s Work Smart Standards, namely: (1) Title 10 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 830, Subpart A, Quality Assurance Requirements; (2) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

Order 414.1C, Quality Assurance; and (3) other relevant requirements documents for the operation, process, or 

program to which they apply. The ten criteria established in 10 CFR 830 Subpart A and DOE Order 414.1C that are 

required as part of a quality program are shown in the box below. The NSTec QAP requires a graded approach to 

quality for determining the level of rigor that effectively provides assurance of performance and conformance to 

requirements. 

The Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process developed by 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 

generally used to provide the quality assurance (QA) 

structure for designing, implementing, and improving upon 

environmental monitoring efforts when environmental 

sampling and analysis are involved. 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 collection, preparation, instrument calibration, instrument performance checking, testing for precision and 

accuracy, and laboratory data review. NSTec data users perform review as required by the project-specific objectives 

before the data are used to support decision making. 

The key elements of environmental monitoring process work flow are listed below. Each of these elements is 

designed to ensure the applicable QA requirements are implemented. A discussion of these elements follows. 

• A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) is developed using the EPA DQO process to ensure clear goals and 

objectives are established for the environmental monitoring activity. The SAP is implemented in accordance with 

EPA, DOE, and other requirements addressing environmental, safety, and health concerns. 

• Environmental Sampling is performed in accordance with the SAP and site work controls to ensure 

defensibility of the resulting data products and protection of the workers and the environment. 

• Laboratory Analyses are performed to ensure that the resultant data meet DOE, NSTec, and regulatory-defined 

requirements. 

• Data Review is done to ensure that the SAP DQOs have been met, and thereby determine whether the data are 

suitable for their intended purpose. 

• Assessments are employed to ensure that monitoring operations are conducted accordingly and that analytical 

data quality requirements are met in order to identify nonconforming items, investigate causal factors, implement 

corrective actions, and monitor for corrective action effectiveness. 

Required Criteria of a Quality Program 

• Quality assurance program 

• Personnel training and qualification 

• Quality improvement process 

• Documents and records 

• Established work processes 

• Established standards for design and 

verification 

• Established procurement requirements 

• Inspection and acceptance testing 

• Management assessment 

• Independent assessment 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

18.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan 

Most environmental monitoring is specifically mandated to demonstrate compliance with a variety of requirements 

including federal and state regulations, and DOE orders and standards. Developing the SAP with a DQO approach 

ensures those requirements are considered in the planning stage. The following statistical concepts and controls are 

vital in designing and evaluating the system design and implementation. 

18.1.1 Precision 

Precision is the degree to which a set of observations or measurements of the same property, obtained under similar 

conditions, conform to themselves; a data quality indicator. Precision is usually expressed as standard deviation, 

variance or range, in either absolute or relative terms (DOE, 2006c). 

Practically, precision is determined by comparing the results obtained from performing analyses on split or duplicate 

samples taken at the same time from the same location, and maintaining sampling and analytical conditions as nearly 

identical as possible. 

18.1.2 Accuracy 

Accuracy refers to the degree of agreement between an observed value and an accepted reference value. Accuracy 

includes a combination of random error (precision) and systematic error (bias) components that are due to sampling 

and analytical operations; a data quality indicator (DOE, 2006c). 

Accuracy related to the overall monitoring effort is evaluated by analyzing field sample results to determine whether 

the data points fall within acceptable statistical trends. Accuracy related to laboratory operations is monitored by 

performing measurements and evaluating results of control samples containing known quantities of the analytes of 

interest. 

18.1.3 Representativeness 

Representativeness is the degree to which a measurement 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). 

At each sampling point in the sampling and analysis process, subsamples of the medium of interest are obtained. The 

challenge is to ensure that each subsampling maintains the character of the larger sampled population. From a field 

sample collection standpoint, representativeness is managed through sampling plan design and execution. 

Representativeness related to laboratory operations concerns the ability to appropriately subsample and characterize 

for analytes of interest. For example, in order to ensure representative characterization of a heterogeneous matrix 

(soil, sludge, solids, etc.), the sampling and/or analysis process should evaluate whether homogenization or 

segregation should be employed prior to sampling or analysis. Water samples are generally considered homogeneous 

unless observation suggests otherwise. Field sample duplicate analyses are additional controls allowing evaluation of 

representativeness and heterogeneity. 

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 consistent execution of the sampling 

design concerning sample collection and handling, laboratory analyses, and data review. This is ensured through 

adherence to established procedures and standardized methodologies. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 18-3

18.2 Environmental Sampling 

Environmental samples are collected in support of various environmental programs. Each program executes the field 

sampling activities in accordance with the SAP to ensure usability and defensibility of the resulting data. The key 

elements supporting the quality and defensibility of the sampling process and products include: 

• Training and qualification 

• Procedures and methods 

• Field documentation 

• Inspection and Acceptance testing 

18.2.1 Training and Qualification 

The environmental programs ensure that personnel are properly trained and qualified prior to doing the work. In 

addition to procedure-specific and task-specific qualifications for performing work, training addresses environment, 

safety, and health aspects to ensure protection of the workers, the public, and the environment. Recurrent training is 

also conducted if necessary to maintain proficiency.

18.2.2 Procedures and Methods 

Sampling is conducted in accordance with established procedures to ensure consistent execution and continuous 

comparability of the environmental data. The methods to be used for sample analyses are also consulted in order to 

ensure that viable samples are obtained. 

18.2.3 Field Documentation 

Field documentation is generated for each sample collection activity, and may include chain of custody, sampling 

procedures, analytical methods, equipment and data logs, maps, Material Safety Data Sheets, and other materials 

needed to support the safe and successful execution and defense of the sampling effort. Chain of custody practices 

are employed from point of generation through disposal (cradle-to-grave) and are critical to defensibility of the 

decisions made as a result of the sampling and analysis. Sampling data and documentation are stored and archived in 

a manner that they are readily retrievable in the event they are needed at a later date. In many cases, these data may be 

managed in electronic data management systems for more convenient management of the data. Routine assessments 

or surveillances are performed to ensure that sampling activities are performed in accordance with applicable 

requirements. Deficiencies are noted, causal factors are determined, corrective actions are implemented, and followup assessments are performed to ensure effective resolution. This managed approach to sampling ensures the quality 

and defensibility of the decisions made on the resulting analytical data. 

18.2.4 Inspection and Acceptance Testing 

Sample collection data are reviewed for appropriateness, accuracy and fit with historical measurements. In the case of 

groundwater sampling, real-time field measurements may be monitored during purging to determine when parameters 

have stabilized, thereby indicating that the purge water is generally representative of the aquifer and sampling may 

begin. After a sampling activity is complete, data are reviewed to ensure the samples were collected in accordance 

with the SAP. Samples are further inspected to ensure the integrity has not been compromised, either physically 

(leaks, tears, breakage, custody seals) or administratively (labeled incorrectly) and that they are valid for supporting the 

intended analyses. If concerns are raised at any point during collection, the data user, in consideration of data 

usability, is consulted for direction on proceeding or canceling the subsequent analyses. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

18.3 Laboratory Analyses 

Samples are transported to a laboratory for characterization. Several NSTec organizations maintain measurement 

capabilities which are generally considered “screening” operations, and may be used to support planning or 

preliminary decision-making activities. However, unless specifically authorized by the National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office or the regulator, all data used for reporting purposes are generated by a DOE and 

NSTec-qualified laboratory which have been obtained through subcontracts. Ensuring the quality of procured 

laboratory services is accomplished through focus on three specific areas: (1) procurement, (2) initial and continuing 

assessment, and (3) data evaluation. 

18.3.1 Procurement 

Laboratory services are procured through a request for proposal (RFP) and formal bid process, and are awarded on a 

“best value” basis. The RFP requires that a prospective vendor submit an in-depth proposal, which includes: 

• A Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan and/or Manual describing the laboratory’s policies and approach to the 

implementation of quality assurance requirements for ensuring the generation of data of a known quality 

• An Environment, Safety and Health Plan 

• A Waste Management Plan 

• All procedures pertinent to subcontract scope 

• Examples of deliverables, both hardcopy and electronic 

• Proficiency testing results from previous year participation in recognized proficiency testing programs 

• Resumes of those conducting the work 

• A description of the facility or its design, and instrumentation and capabilities 

• Licenses, accreditations and certifications 

• 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 NSTec 

• Past performance surveys 

• Pricing 

Proposal evaluations are conducted and scored as explained to proposers in the RFP. A procurement representative 

evaluates pricing separately from the technical evaluation. The NSTec technical evaluation team does not receive 

pricing information. Rather, it bases its evaluation solely on technical capability. The results of the technical 

evaluation are then compiled with those of the pricing evaluation to ensure a “best-value” award is achieved. 

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, NSTec will consider performing an audit (or participating in a DOECAP 

audit) of those laboratories awarded the contract. NSTec will not initiate work with a laboratory without authorized 

approval of those NSTec personnel responsible 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: 

• Conducting regular audits or participating in evaluation of DOECAP audit products 

• Monitoring for continued successful participation in proficiency testing programs such as: 

– National Institute of Standards and Technology Radiochemistry Intercomparison Program 

– Studies that support certification by the state of Nevada or appropriate regulatory authority for analyses 

performed in support of compliance monitoring 

• Monitoring of the laboratory’s adherence to the quality assurance requirements 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 18-5

18.3.3 Data Evaluation 

Data products are continuously evaluated for compliance with contract terms and specifications. This primarily 

involves review of the data against the specified analytical method to determine the laboratory’s ability to adhere to 

the quality assurance and quality control requirements as well as an evaluation of the data against the DQOs. This 

activity is discussed in further detail in Section 18.4. Any discrepancies are documented and resolved with the 

laboratory, and continuous assessment tracks the recurrence and efficacy of corrective actions. 

18.4 Data Review 

A systematic approach to thoroughly evaluating the data products generated from an environmental monitoring effort 

is essential for understanding and sustaining the quality of data collected under the program. This allows the 

programs to determine whether the DQOs established in the planning phase were achieved and whether the 

monitoring design performed as intended or requires review. 

Because decisions are based on environmental data, and the effectiveness of operations is measured at least in part by 

environmental data, reliable, accurate and defensible records are essential. Detailed records that must be kept include 

temporal, spatial, numerical, geotechnical, chemical, and radiological data, and all sampling, analytical and data review 

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 or requests from regulators and other interested organizations. 

An electronic data management system is a key tool used by many programs for achieving standardization and 

integrity in managing environmental data. The primary objective is to store and manage in an easily and efficiently 

retrievable form unclassified environmental data that are directly or indirectly tied to monitoring events. This may 

include information on monitoring system construction (groundwater wells, ambient air monitoring), analytical, 

geotechnical, and field parameters at the Nevada Test Site. Database integrity and security are enforced through the 

assignment of role memberships and the provision of available menu items. 

18.4.1 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. Additional critical sampling and analysis process information is 

also reviewed at this stage, which may include, but is not limited to, sample preservation and temperature, defensible 

chain-of-custody documentation and integrity, and analytical hold-time compliance. Data verification also ensures 

that electronic data products correctly represent the sampling and/or analyses performed and includes evaluation of 

quality control sample results. 

18.4.2 Data Validation 

Data validation supplements verification and is a more thorough process of analytical data review to better determine 

if the data meet the analytical and project requirements. 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. 

18.4.3 Data Quality Assessment (DQA) 

DQA is a scientific and statistical evaluation to determine if the data obtained from environmental operations are of 

the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use. The DQA includes reviewing data for accuracy, 

representativeness, and fit with historical measurements, to ensure that the data will support their intended uses. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

18.5 Assessments 

The overall effectiveness of the environmental program is determined through routine surveillance and assessments of 

work execution as well as review of the program requirements. Deficiencies are identified, causal factors are 

investigated, corrective actions are developed and implemented, and follow-on monitoring is performed to ensure 

effective resolution. The assessments discussed below are broken down into general programmatic and focused 

measurement data areas. 

18.5.1 Programmatic 

Assessments and audits under this category include evaluations of the work planning, execution, and performance 

activities. Personnel independent of the work activity perform the assessments to evaluate compliance with 

established requirements and report on the identified deficiencies. Organizations responsible for the activity are 

required to develop and implement corrective actions, with the concurrence of the deficiency originator or recognized 

subject matter expert. NSTec maintains the companywide issues tracking system (called CaWeb) to manage 

assessments, findings, and corrective actions. 

18.5.2 Measurement Data 

This type of assessment includes routine evaluation of data generated from analyses of QC samples. QC sample data 

monitor the analytical control on a given batch of samples and are indicators over time of potential biases in 

laboratory performance. Discussion of the 2006 results for field duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank analysis, 

and inter-laboratory comparison studies are provided and summary tables are included below. 

18.5.2.1 Field Duplicates 

Samples obtained at approximately the same locations and times as initial samples are termed field duplicates and are 

used to evaluate measurement precision of the analyte of interest in the sampled environment. The relative error ratio 

(RER) is the standardized absolute difference between the sample and corresponding field duplicate and incorporates 

the analytical uncertainty of the measurements into the precision calculation. The radiological measurement RER data 

were determined and are presented in Table 18-1. The average absolute relative percent differences (RPDs) for 

measurements above their MDCs are also provided in Table 18-1. (For thermoluminescent dosimeter [TLD] data, all 

measurements are included in the average RPD calculation.) Nonradiological data are not reported with an associated 

uncertainty, and therefore, an RER cannot be determined. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 18-7

Table 18-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for compliance monitoring in 2006 

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 100 16 20.6 0.7 

Gross Beta Air 100 100 8.6 0.7 

241Am Air 24 3 70.3 1.0 

7Be(e) Air 24 23 14.3 2.5 

40K(e) Air 18 3 45.8 1.2 

238Pu Air 24 0 NA 0.6 

239+240Pu Air 22 5 87.7 1.5 

Tritium Air 43 21 13.1 1.1 

241Am Soil 1 1 66.0 4.0 

238Pu Soil 1 1 46.2 3.2 

239+240Pu Soil 1 1 12.7 1.1 

90Sr Soil 1 1 4.6 0.2 

241Am Water 1 1 5.0 0.2 

Gross Alpha Water 10 7 11.7 0.9 

Gross Beta Water 10 8 15.3 1.6 

238Pu Water 1 1 18.2 1.0 

239+240Pu Water 1 1 4.5 0.3 

90Sr Water 1 1 8.1 0.2 

Tritium Water 34 3 8.8 0.5 

TLDs Ambient 

Radiation 

400 NA 2.5 0.5 

(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 as follows: 

 

 

Where: S = Sample result 

 D = Duplicate 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 one sigma uncertainties. 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 = 1 sigma total propagated uncertainty of the field sample 

 TPUD = 1 sigma total propagated uncertainty of the field duplicate 

(e) 7Be and 40K are naturally occurring analytes included in the gamma for quality assessment of the analyses. 

100

( ) / 2

| | X

D S

D S Absolute RPD

+

− =

( )( ) 2 2

| |

TPU S TPU D

S D Absolute RER

+

− =
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

18.5.2.2 Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs) 

An LCS is a sample matrix, free from the analytes of interest, spiked with verified known amounts of analytes or a 

material containing known and verified amounts of analytes. It is generally used to establish intra-laboratory or 

analyst-specific precision and bias or to assess the performance of all or a portion of the measurement system (DOE, 

2006c). 

The results are calculated as a percentage of the true value, and must fall within established control limits (or 

percentage range) to be considered acceptable. If the LCS recovery falls outside control limits, evaluation for 

potential sample data bias is necessary. The numbers of 2006 LCSs analyzed and within control limits are summarized 

in Table 18-2. 

 Table 18-2. Summary of LCSs for 2006 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits 

Control Limits 

(%) 

Radiological Analyses 

239+240Pu Air 40 40 70-130 

241Am Air 37 37 70-130 

137Cs Air 31 31 70-130 

60Co Air 31 31 70-130 

Tritium Air 56 55 70-130 

Gross Alpha Water 16 16 70-130 

Gross Beta Water 16 16 70-130 

239+240Pu Water 16 16 70-130 

Tritium Water 42 42 70-130 

90Sr Water 11 11 70-130 

241Am Water 2 1 70-130 

137Cs Water 14 14 70-130 

60Co Water 14 14 70-130 

90Sr Soil 7 7 70-130 

239+240Pu Soil 12 12 70-130 

241Am Soil 13 13 70-130 

60Co Soil 12 12 70-130 

137Cs Soil 12 12 70-130 

Nonradiological Analyses 

Metals Water 170 170 80-120 

Volatiles Water 273 271 70-130 

Semi Volatiles Water 78 76 Laboratory specific 

Miscellaneous Water 227 222 80-120 

Metals Soil 25 25 75-125 

Volatiles Soil 10 10 70-130 

Semi Volatiles Soil 46 44 Laboratory specific 

18.5.2.3 Blank Analysis 

In general terms, a blank is a sample that has not been exposed to the analyzed sample stream in order to monitor 

contamination during sampling, transport, storage or analysis. The blank is subjected to the usual analytical and 

measurement process to establish a zero baseline or background value and is sometimes used to adjust or correct 

routine analytical results (DOE, 2006c).

Laboratory method blank data are summarized in Table 18-3. A method blank is a sample of a matrix similar to the 

batch of associated samples (when available) that is free from the analytes of interest and is processed simultaneously 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 18-9

with and under the same conditions as samples through all steps of the analytical procedures, and in which no target 

analytes or interferences are present at concentrations that impact the analytical results for sample analyses (DOE, 

2006c).

 Table 18-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for 2006 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Radiological Analyses 

239+240Pu Air 26 21 

137Cs Air 31 31 

241Am Air 23 20 

Tritium Air 57 54 

7 Be Air 31 31 

238 Pu Air 26 26 

Gross Alpha Water 16 15 

Gross Beta Water 16 16 

60Co Water 14 14 

239+240Pu Water 10 9 

Tritium Water 42 40 

90Sr Water 6 5 

241Am Water 1 0 

238 Pu Water 10 10 

238 Pu Soil 12 12 

241Am Soil 13 13 

90Sr Soil 7 7 

239+240Pu Soil 12 12 

60Co Soil 12 12 

 Nonradiological Analyses

Number of Results 

< Reporting Limit

Metals Water 185 163 

Volatiles Water 269 265 

Semi Volatiles Water 81 81 

Miscellaneous Water 168 166 

Metals Soil 56 54 

Volatiles Soil 20 20 

Semi Volatiles Soil 60 60 

(a) Indicates the numbers of results reported less than the MDC (radiochemistry) or 

 the reporting limit (non-radiochemistry) 

18.5.2.4 Proficiency Testing Program Participation 

Laboratories are required to participate in Proficiency Testing Programs. Laboratory performance supports decisions 

on work distribution and may also be a basis for state certifications. Table 18-4 presents the 2006 results for the 

Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) conducted by the Radiological and Environmental 

Sciences Laboratory of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. 

 

 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a) 

Gross Alpha Filter 4 4 

Gross Beta Filter 4 4 

60Co Filter 6 6 

137Cs Filter 6 6 

241Am Filter 6 6 

239+240Pu Filter 6 6 

Gross Alpha Water 6 6 

Gross Beta Water 6 6 

60Co Water 6 6 

137Cs Water 6 6 

241Am Water 6 6 

239+240Pu Water 6 6 

90Sr Water 6 6 

Tritium Water 6 6 

60Co Vegetation 6 6 

137Cs Vegetation 6 5 

241Am Vegetation 6 4 

239+240Pu Vegetation 5 3 

90Sr Vegetation 6 6 

60Co Soil 6 5 

137Cs Soil 6 6 

241Am Soil 6 6 

239+240Pu Soil 6 6 

90Sr Soil 6 5 

(a) Control limits are determined by the individual inter-laboratory comparison study 

Table 18-5 shows the summary of inter-laboratory comparison sample results for the NSTec 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 36 out of 36 TLDs analyzed. 

 Table 18-5. Summary of inter-laboratory comparison TLD samples for the subcontract 

 dosimetry group in 2006 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

TLD Ambient Radiation 36 36 

 (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 2006 19-1

19.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program for the 

Community Environmental Monitoring Program 

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 

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) 

The 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 Quality Assurance 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 2006

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 the Desert Research Institute’s (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 

• Enironment, Safety, and Health 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 2006 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 laboratory’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 

National Security Technologies, LLC 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 2006

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 2006 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 were 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 2006 results for field duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank analysis, 

and inter-laboratory comparison studies is provided along with summary tables within this section. The 2006 CEMP 

radiological air and water monitoring data 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 2006 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 two 

alpha duplicate exceeding an RPD of 100 percent. 

Table 19-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for oversight monitoring in 2006 

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 153 145 26.1 

Gross Beta Air 153 153 8.5 

Gamma - Beryllium-7 Air 12 9 26.1 

Tritium Water 4 1 19.9 

TLDs Ambient 

Radiation 

12 12 4.5 

(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 

100 %

( ) / 2

| | X

FD FS

FD FS Absolute RPD

+

− =
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 19-5

19.7.2 Laboratory Control Samples (LCSs) (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 LCS results obtained 

for 2006 are summarized in Table 19-2. The LCS results were satisfactory with only 2 percent of the alpha control 

samples falling outside of control parameters for the air sample matrix. 

Table 19-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for oversight 

 monitoring in 2006 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 106 104 

Gross Beta Air 106 106 

Gamma Air 8 8 

Tritium Water 13 13 

(a) Control limits are as follows: 80 to 120 percent for gross alpha, 80 to 120 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 2006 are summarized in Table 19-3. The laboratory blank results were satisfactory with less than 

5 percent of the alpha and beta blank samples outside of control parameters for the air sample matrix. 

Table 19-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for oversight 

monitoring in 2006 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 106 100 

Gross Beta Air 106 101 

Gamma Air 8 8 

Tritium Water 4 4 

(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 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

19-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006

inter-laboratory comparison sample results obtained for 2006 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 Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP) 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 2006 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

MAPEP and EML Results 

Gross Alpha Air 2 2 

Gross Beta Air 2 2 

Gamma Air 2 2 

(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 oversight monitoring in 2006 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

TLDs Ambient Radiation 20 20 

(a) Based upon NVLAP criteria; absolute value of the bias plus one standard deviation < 0.3. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 2006 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 2006 included the maintenance of 

three wastewater permits, one National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, 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 2006 

Permit Number Description Expiration Date Reporting

Wastewater Discharge 

 VEH-112 NLVF Wastewater Contribution Permit December 31, 2006 Annually 

 TNEV2006369 NLVF Temporary Authorization to Discharge June 6, 2006 Monthly 

 TNEV2006445 NLVF Temporary Authorization to Discharge December 6, 2006 Monthly 

 NV0023507 NLVF NPDES Permit November 2, 2011 Quarterly 

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, 2007 Annually 

A.1.1 Compliance with Water Permits 

Wastewater permits in 2006 for NLVF included: (1) a Class II Wastewater Contribution Permit with the City of 

North Las Vegas (CNLV) for sewer discharges, and (2) two temporary discharge permits to support groundwater 

characterization and dewatering issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), and (3) one 

NPDES Discharge permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

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 2006 

Figure A-1. Location of NTS satellite facilities 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 2006, 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 Outfalls B and C2. In response to these 

exceedances, National Security Technologies, LLC (NSTec), 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 were collected and the results were reported. CNLV conducted an annual inspection on November 14, 2006, 

that resulted in no findings or corrective actions. In compliance with this permit, a report summarizing wastewater 

monitoring was generated for NLVF operations and was submitted on October 18, 2006 to CNLV. The report is 

titled Self-Monitoring Report for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s North Las Vegas Facility: Permit VEH-112. 

 Table A-2. Results of 2006 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 7.6 20.7 10.0 

Barium 13.1 0.162 0.216 0.211 

BOD 600 28 140 37 

Cadmium 0.15 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 

Chromium (hexavalent) 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01

Chromium (total) 5.60 0.0013 0.00089 0.0187 

Copper 0.60 0.0849 0.184 0.0515 

Cyanide (total) 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 

Lead 0.20 < 0.0029 < 0.0029 0.0066 

Nickel 1.10 0.0043 0.0035 0.0121 

Oil & Grease (animal or vegetable) 250 5.9 3.6 1.8 

pH (Standard Units) 5.0 – 11.0 8.15 8.14 7.83 

Phenols 33.6 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 

Phosphorus (total) 14.0 2.3 5.1 1.9 

Silver 2.70 < 0.0008 < 0.0008 < 0.0008 

TDS (total dissolved solids) 1200 1020 1,320 4,760 

TSS (total suspended solids) 750 48.6 182 25.3 

Zinc 8.20 0.182 0.261 0.0673 

Yellow-shaded results are any which are equal to or greater than the permit limit. 

A.1.1.2 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits TNEV2006369, 

TNEV2006445, and NV0023507

Temporary and Final NPDES/State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits covered the 

groundwater characterization study and remedial dewatering operation conducted in 2006 at the NLVF (see 

Section A.1.2 below). Each temporary permit was valid for a period of six months. In November 2006, the EPA 

awarded the NLVF a final NPDES Discharge Permit, NV0023507, which will expire in 2011. NNSA/NSO is 

authorized to discharge water from dewatering operations to the groundwater of the State via percolation and to the 

Las Vegas Wash via the CNLV storm drain system. Onsite discharge may continue for irrigation of landscape and for 

dust suppression. Water produced from the dewatering wells may also be used for purposes that do not require a 

groundwater discharge or an NPDES permit (e.g., evaporative cooling). The volume of water pumped is reported 

quarterly to the state per the requirements of the permit (Table A-3). 

 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006T 

Table A-3. NPDES/SPDES Noncompliances 

Permit Type Outfall Parameter 

Number 

of Permit 

Exceedances 

Number of 

Samples 

Taken 

Number of 

Compliant

Samples 

Percent 

Compliance 

Date(s) 

Exceeded 

Description/ 

Solution 

TNEV 

2006369 

2006445 

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 

During 2006, the groundwater control study and dewatering operation at the NLVF added three new wells and 

deactivated one well that was producing poorly. A total of four dewatering wells are now active, producing about 

9,275 liters (L) (2,450 gallons [gal]) per day. The project, in general, has transitioned from initial groundwater 

investigations and characterization phases to a long-term/permanent dewatering operational mode. As mentioned 

above, the project also transitioned from short-term (six month), renewable temporary discharge permits to a longterm (five year) NPDES permit that allows for discharge into the CNLV storm water drainage system. Routine water 

chemistry monitoring indicates that the quality of the water pumped continues to meet the Safe Drinking Water 

Standards. 

Work performed in 2006 is summarized here following a review of the rising groundwater situation and past efforts to 

understand and remediate the problem. More information regarding this project, including maps, figures, and data is 

reported in previous annual reports (e.g., Bechtel Nevada [BN], 2003; 2004; 2005b; NSTec, 2006). 

A.1.2.1 Background 

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 the 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 and 2005 NTS 

environmental reports (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], 2005a and 2006, respectively). 

In 2002 and 2003, BN conducted a groundwater control study. This comprehensive investigation included the 

installation of 25 wells, 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 lowenergy, 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). 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 2006 A-5

On May, 18, 2004, two shallow hydrologic characterization wells, proximal to Building A-1, NLVF-12S and 

NLVF-13S (Figure A-2), 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. 

The water level at the A-1 Basement Sump well showed a steady decrease 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 began to 

rise, 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 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 in April 2005. While waiting for an appropriate long-term discharge 

permit, interim onsite water disposal methods were put in place. They included dust suppression, landscape irrigation, 

and evaporation of the Building A-1 Basement Sump well water. Since data gathered to date suggest that groundwater 

pumping may need to be continued indefinitely, permanent options for onsite use or disposal of pumped groundwater 

were investigated (BN, 2005c). 

Based on recommendations using data collected from the NLVF Groundwater Control Program (BN, 2003; 2004; 

2005b), three shallow dewatering wells were drilled in July and August, 2005. The new wells, NLVF-15, NLVF-16, 

and NLVF-17, are located along the north side of Building A-1 (Figure A-2). They 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, sandy-silty aquifer as the two existing dewatering wells, NLVF-12S and 

NLVF-13S. Preliminary results from short-term step drawdown aquifer tests conducted in the three new wells 

suggested that discharge rates from 2.6 to 3.8 Lpm (0.7 to 1.0 gpm) might be sustained. BN and then NSTec 

Construction personnel performed the drilling and well construction activities. BN and then NSTec Geotechnical 

Sciences personnel conducted geologic and hydrologic data collection and analysis. 

A.1.2.2 Dewatering System Development 

Activities at the NLVF in 2006 focused on wellhead construction, pump installation, and completion of the discharge 

water collection and plumbing system. Subsurface vaults with traffic-rated covers were installed at each wellhead in 

2006 (Figure A-3). Submersible pumps were installed in April and June, 2006. The new pumping wells installed in 

fiscal year (FY) 2005 (see Figure A-2) were brought on-line sequentially as construction efforts progressed. On June 

22, 2006, Well NLVF-12S was shut down. Its pump rate was only 0.95 Lpm (0.25 gpm) and was contributing little to 

the overall dewatering effort. Well NLVF-13s was connected on July 25, 2006 to the discharge accumulation 

plumbing system mounted on the exterior wall of Building A-1 (see Figure A-3). Water from Well NLVF-13S is now 

directed into a 10,500 gal (39,747 L) storage tank (Figure A-4), along with the discharged waters from Wells NLVF15, NLVF-16, and NLVF-17. Water in the storage tank can be transferred to a tanker truck for dust suppression and 

landscape irrigation (permit “Outfall 001”), or pumped directly into the CNLV storm water sewer system (permit 

“Outfall 002”). 

By August 2006, all on-line wells were operational and pumping rates were adjusted to maximize output. Recent 

pumping rates are 3.18 Lpm (0.70 gpm) at NLVF-13S, 1.59 Lpm (0.35 gpm) at NLVF-15, 1.82 Lpm (0.40 gpm) at 

NLVF-16, and 2.95 Lpm (0.65 gpm) at NLVF-17. 

A state-required Operations and Maintenance Manual for the NLVF groundwater dewatering system was completed 

in late 2006 (NSTec, 2006). This manual provides direction for the operation and maintenance of the dewatering 

wells and distribution network and facilitates compliance with the final NPDES permit. Topics addressed include 

roles and responsibilities, monitoring, reporting, records management, health and safety, and training. 

Future project work plans include the installation of a permanent water distribution system. The long-range plan is to 

use the pumped water onsite for landscape irrigation, dust control, and possibly in existing cooling towers. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006T 

Figure A-2. Location of existing and new dewatering wells around Building A-1 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 A-7

A.1.2.3 Groundwater Monitoring 

Groundwater monitoring includes taking periodic water-level 

measurements at all accessible NLVF wells (including continuous 

measurements at the A-1 Basement Sump well), measuring the total 

volume of discharged groundwater, and conducting groundwater 

chemistry analyses quarterly and annually for the active dewatering wells. 

Under the temporary permits, composite water samples were collected 

periodically from selected dewatering wells and analyzed for tritium and 

for the standard field parameters of pH, conductivity, temperature, and 

turbidity. The sample results were not required to be reported to the 

State, but were reported in previous NTS annual environmental reports 

(e.g., DOE, 2006b). 

Under the final NDEPS permit, water samples will be collected 

periodically from the 10,500 gal storage tank and analyzed for a number 

of parameters as specified in Table A-4. Compliance sampling for this 

final NPDES permit begins in January 2007, and the first sampling results 

are due to NDEP at the end of the first quarter of 2007. Quarterly 

sampling will then be required for the duration of the NPDES permit. 

Additionally, the NPDES permit requires a very comprehensive analysis 

to be conducted bi-annually. The standardized list of analytes, presented 

as Appendix A of the NPDES permit, includes 46 base neutral 

extractables (e.g., dichlorobenzene, naphalene. diethylphthalate), 12 acid 

extractables (e.g., chlorophenol), 28 volatile organics (e.g., benzene, 

trichloro-ethene, carbon tetrachloride, toluene), 25 pesticides (e.g., Aldrin, 

Chlordane, Endosulfan), dioxin, 13 metals (e.g., arsenic, lead, mercury), cyanide, and asbestos. 

Though not required, water samples were collected 

in September 2006 from the storage tank and 

analyzed for metals, total dissolved solids (TDS), 

tritium, volatile organics, and pH. These results 

were used to compare regulatory permit limits of 

these parameters with their levels in groundwater 

from the dewatering well system. All of the 

parameters analyzed in the September 2006 water 

samples from the 10,500 gal storage tank were either 

non-detectable or below permit limits (Table A-4). 

The pumping rate at the dewatering wells varies 

from 3.2 Lpm (0.85 gpm) at NLVF-13S to 1.5 Lpm 

(0.4 gpm) at NLVF-16. The average combined 

discharge from all four dewatering wells is about 

277,440 L (73,300 gal) per month. The total 

quantity of water produced/discharged was reported 

quarterly to the NDEP, Bureau of Water Pollution 

Control in Carson City, Nevada. Groundwater 

monitoring data are reported in the 2006 dewatering 

initiative report (NSTec, 2006) and are used to help 

characterize the groundwater. The presence or absence of particular constituents, or overall chemical signature, could 

suggest or confirm source(s) of the rising near-surface groundwater. In 2006, all sampled well waters met the Safe 

Drinking Water Standards (Table A-4). These analyses were as expected and compare well with previous sampling 

events. Water monitoring data are maintained in the Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System 

database. 

Figure A-3. Well NLVF-17 vicinity 

showing concrete pull box installed to 

ground level, completed utility trench 

from wellhead to Building A-1, wallmounted control box, and piping of the 

accumulation system. 

(Photo by S. L. Drellack, August 9, 2006)

Figure A-4. Storage tank used to hold discharge water from 

the active dewatering wells on the north side of Building A-1. 

(Photo by S. L. Drellack, August 9, 2006)
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006T 

 Table A-4. NPDES Permit NV0023507 monitoring requirements and 2006 preliminary sampling results 

Monitoring Requirements 

Parameter Permit Discharge 

Limits/Requirements 

Sample 

Results 

9/19/2006 Sample 

Frequency 

Sample 

Type 

Daily Maximum Flow (MGD) (a) 0.005184 0.002473 Continuous Flow Meter 

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 

(mg/L) 1.0 ND (b) Annually 

(4th Quarter) Discrete 

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 135 ND Quarterly Discrete 

Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 1900 582 Quarterly Discrete 

Total Inorganic Nitrogen as N (mg/L) 20.0 1.1 Quarterly Discrete 

pH (S.U.) 6.5 – 9.0 8.47 Quarterly Discrete 

Tritium (pCi/L) 20,000 ND Annually 

(4th Quarter) Discrete 

Metals (mg/L): Bi-Annually Discrete 

 Ag 0.05 ND 

 As MR (c) 0.0129 

 Be MR 0.00016 

 Cd 0.01 0.0013 

 Cr 0.05 ND 

 Cu 1.0 0.101 

 Hg 0.002 ND 

 Ni MR 0.0039 

 Pb 0.05 0.0019 

 Sb MR ND 

 Se MR 0.0063 

 Th MR ND 

 Zn 5.0 0.0156 

Permit Appendix A Analytes (mg/L): Bi-Annually Discrete 

 Volatile Organics MR ND 

 Pesticides/PCBs MR ND 

 Acid Extractables MR ND 

 Base Neutral Extractables MR ND 

 Dioxins MR ND 

 Asbestos MR ND 

(a) MGD = million gallons per day 

(b) ND = not detected 

(c) MR = monitor and report 

A.1.2.4 Building A-1 Sump Well 

During 2001, a sump well was installed in the basement of Building A-1 and used in remediation operations. The 

discharge water was disposed of at the NTS. The sump well was turned off after the remedial operations were 

completed. However, beginning in early 2003, the sump well has been used intermittently to help control the 

encroaching water below Building A-1. Because this water contains some residual tritium (1,900 pCi/L, or about one 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 A-9

tenth of the Safe Drinking Water Act limits of 20,000 pCi/L), it is kept separate with its own disposal process. The 

discharge is transported to the NTS during the winter, but during the warm months, the discharge is evaporated with 

an exterior array of evaporative units on the north side of Building A-1. In 2006, about 37,854 to 60,566 L (10,000 to 

16,000 gal) were transported monthly to the NTS for disposal during the winter and about 30,283 to 94,635 L (8,000 

to 25,000 gal) were evaporated at the NLVF during the summer months. 

A.1.3 Compliance with Air Quality Permits 

Sources of air pollutants at the NLVF are regulated by the Facility 657 Authority to Construct/Operating Permit for 

the emission of criteria pollutants (see Glossary, Appendix B) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). They include 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), and any of 189 defined HAPs. The regulated sources of emissions at the NLVF include an 

aluminum sander, an abrasive blaster, emergency generators, and a spray paint booth. There are no monitoring 

requirements associated with the permit. An application to modify the Facility 657 permit by adding three new diesel 

generators was submitted to Clark County at the end of 2006. The Clark County Department of Air Quality and 

Environmental Management (DAQEM) requires submittal of an annual emissions inventory. The emissions 

inventory for 2006 was submitted to DAQEM on March 21, 2007. The estimated quantities of criteria air pollutants 

and HAPs emitted in 2006 are shown in Table A-5. 

Table A-5. Tons of criteria air pollutant and HAPs emissions estimated for NLVF in 2006 

Criteria Pollutant (Tons/yr)(a) 

CO NOx PM10(b) SO2 VOC 

HAPs 

(Tons/yr) 

0.056 0.237 0.022 0.016 0.019 0.001 

Total Emissions = 0.351 

(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 2006, the chemical inventory at NLVF was updated and submitted to the state in the Nevada Combined Agency 

(NCA) Report on February 22, 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 2006. 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. One air sample was 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006T 

collected from the basement in 2006 (from September 12 to September 19). 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 0.002 mrem/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 which 

use radioactive sources 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. NSTec’s Environmental Technical Services (ETS) conducts direct 

radiation monitoring at the site. ETS utilizes 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. 

In 2006, radiation exposure was measured at two locations along the perimeter fence and at one control location. 

Annual exposure rates estimated from measurements at those NLVF locations are summarized in Table A-6. These 

exposures include contributions from background radiation and were all less than 100 mrem/yr. 

 Table A-6. Results of 2006 direct radiation exposure monitoring at NLVF 

 Gamma Exposure (milliroentgens per year [mR/yr]) 

Location 

Number of 

Samples Mean Median Minimum Maximum 

Control 4 70 69 64 78 

North Fence of Building A-1 4 64 63 61 69 

North Fence of Building C-3 4 64 64 60 69 

A.2 Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility 

The CLVF 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 USAF 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 counter-terrorism/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 2006 included maintenance of a wastewater 

contribution permit, an air quality permit, and a hazardous materials permit (Table A-7). 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 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 A-11

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. 

Table A-7. Environmental permits for RSL-Nellis in 2006 

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-8 presents the mean 

concentration of outfall measurements collected once per quarter in 2006. All contaminants in the outfall samples 

were below permit limits. Quarterly reports were submitted on March 6, May 11, August 8, and December 11, 2006, 

to the CCWRD. The CCWRD also conducted two inspections of RSL-Nellis in 2006. The inspections resulted in no 

findings or corrective actions for the facility. 

Table A-8. Mean concentration of outfall measurements at RSL-Nellis in 2006 

Contaminant/Measure Permit Limit Outfall 

 mg/L 

Ammonia NL(a) 11.08 

Cadmium 0.35 0.0010 

Chromium (Total) 1.7 0.0029 

Copper 3.36 0.304 

Cyanide (Total) 1 0.0816 

Lead 0.99 0.0038 

Nickel 10.08 0.0072 

Phosphorus NL 3.21 

Silver 6.3 0.0081 

TDS NL 1,293 

TSS NL 162.28 

Zinc 23.06 0.612 

 Standard Units 

pH 5.0 – 11.0 5.0 – 11.0 

 Degrees Fahrenheit 

Temperature 140 140 

(a) No limit listed on permit 

Permit Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Wastewater Discharge 

CCWRD-080 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit June 30, 2007 March, May, 

September, December 

Air Quality 

Facility 348, Mod. 2 

Clark County Authority to 

Construct/Operating Permit for a 

Testing Laboratory 

None March 

Hazardous Materials 

2287-5145 RSL-Nellis Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2007 Annually 

Waste Management 

U1576-33N-01 RSL-Nellis Waste Management PermitUnderground Storage Tank December 31, 2006 None 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

A-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006T 

A.3.2 Compliance with Air Quality Permits 

Sources of air pollutants at RSL-Nellis are regulated by the Facility 348 Authority to Construct/Operating Permit for 

the emission of criteria pollutants and HAPs (see Glossary, Appendix B). The regulated sources include boilers, water 

heaters, emergency generators, a spray paint booth, and a vapor degreaser. There are no monitoring requirements 

associated with the permit. In mid 2006, a permit modification application was submitted to the DAQEM to remove 

a boiler and large water heater, replacing the latter with two smaller water heaters, and increasing the testing and 

maintenance hours for two permitted emergency generators. The modified permit was issued in January 2007. The 

DAQEM requires submittal of the annual emissions inventory. The estimated quantities of criteria air pollutants and 

HAPs emitted at RSL-Nellis in 2006 are presented in Table A-9. Natural gas consumption is also reported as per the 

requirements of the consolidated air permit issued for RSL-Nellis. The emissions inventory for 2006 was submitted 

to DAQEM on March 21, 2007. 

 Table A-9. Summary of air emissions for RSL-Nellis in 2006 

Criteria Pollutant (Tons/yr)(a) 

CO NOx PM10(b) SO2 VOC 

HAPs 

(Tons/yr) 

Natural Gas 

Consumption (ft3) (c)

0.0637 0.261 0.013 0.010 0.032 0.003 3,213,100 

Total Emissions of Pollutants = 0.383 

(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 2006, the chemical inventory at RSL-Nellis was updated and submitted to the state in the NCA Report on February 

23, 2007, 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 2006. Also, no annual usage quantities of toxic chemicals kept at 

RSL-Nellis exceeded specified thresholds (see Section 2.5 concerning Toxic Chemical Release Inventory, Form R). 

A.3.4 Compliance with Waste Management Regulations 

The underground storage tank program at RSL-Nellis consists of two active permitted tanks (gasoline/diesel 

fuel), one inactive tank (empty used oil tank), one deferred tank (as per 40 Code of Federal Regulations 280.10(d)) for 

emergency power generation, and three unregulated tanks. The permitted and deferred tanks are located at Building 

2211. The fuel tanks were retrofitted with spill/overflow protection in 1998. They are inspected annually by the 

Southern Nevada Health District. No deficiencies were noted during the 2006 health district’s inspection at RSLNellis.

 
Appendix B – Glossary of Terms 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 B-1

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms 

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: a 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 Nevada Test Site operations. 

Becquerel (Bq): the Système International d’Unités 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: a computer code required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 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 of Terms

B-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 millirem per year, 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 Nevada Test Site 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 Nevada Test Site 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-to-Know 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 U.S. Department of Energy primary radiation 

dose limit to the public of 100 millirem per year 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 of Terms 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 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 EDE 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 EDE includes the committed 

effective dose equivalent from internal deposition of radionuclides and the EDE 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., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, 

U.S. Department of Defense). 

Federal Register: a document published daily by the federal government containing notification of government 

agency actions, including notification of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy 

decisions concerning permit applications and rule-making. 

Fiscal year: the National Nuclear Security Agency Nevada Site Office’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 Système International d’Unités 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. 
Appendix B – Glossary of Terms

B-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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. 

Hazardous waste: hazardous wastes exhibit any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, or Extraction Procedure 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. 

Instrument detection limit (IDL): the lowest concentration that can be detected by an instrument without 

correction for the effects of sample matrix or method-specific parameters such as sample preparation. IDLs are 

explicitly determined and generally defined as three times the standard deviation of the mean noise level. This 

represents 99 percent confidence that the signal is not random noise.

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 U.S. Department of Energy Order 5820.2A, which 

contains transuranic nuclide concentrations less than 100 nanocuries per gram. 

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. 
Appendix B – Glossary of Terms 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 B-5

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 units, 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. 

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): a 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, any place outside the Nevada Test Site and adjacent 

Nevada Test and Training Range. 

Onsite: for effluent releases or in the nuclear testing area, any place inside the Nevada Test Site and adjacent 

Nevada Test and Training Range. 

P Part B Permit: the second, narrative section submitted by generators in the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act 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: a 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. 
Appendix B – Glossary of Terms

B-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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. 

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 Système International d’Unités 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. 

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). 
Appendix B – Glossary of Terms 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 B-7

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. 

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 of Terms

B-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 C-1 

C.0 Appendix C: Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ac acre(s) 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

241Am americium-241 

ARL Air Resources Laboratory 

ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act 

ASN Air Surveillance Network 

ATM Atomic Testing Museum 

BCG Biota Concentration Guide 

Be beryllium 

BEEF Big Explosives Experimental Facility 

BFF Bureau of Federal Facilities 

bgs below ground surface 

BHPS Bureau of Health Protection Services 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BN Bechtel Nevada 

BOD biological oxygen demand 

BREN Bare Reactor Experiment Nevada 

Bq Becquerel 

Bq/m3 Becquerels per cubic meter 

°C degree(s) Celsius 

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 

CAS Corrective Action Site 

CAU Corrective Action Unit 

CCHD Clark County Health District 

CCWRD Clark County Water Reclamation District 

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

CEM Community Environmental Monitor 

CEMP Community Environmental Monitoring Program 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CGTO Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 

Ci curie(s) 

Ci/yr curie(s) per year 

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 

cm centimeter(s) 

CNLV City of North Las Vegas 

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(s) 

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 

DOECAP U.S. Department of Energy Consolidated Audit Program 

DOE/HQ U.S. Department of Energy Headquarters 

dpm/100 cm2 disintegrations per minute per 100 square centimeters 

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 substance 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 C-3 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EMAC Ecological Monitoring and Compliance 

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 

EPEAT Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool 

ER Environmental Restoration 

ES Environmental Services 

ES&H Environment, Safety, and Health 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESH&Q Environment, Safety, Health, and Quality 

ETS Environmental Technical Services 

°F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

FD field duplicate 

FFACO Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order 

FFCA Federal Facility Compliance Act 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 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 gallon(s) per day 

GCD Greater Confinement Disposal 

GIS Geographic Information System 

gpm gallon(s) per minute 

GPS global positioning satellite 

Gy gray(s) 

Gy/d gray(s) per day 

ha hectare(s) 

3H tritium 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HC hard copy 

HENRE High-Energy Neutron Reactions Experiment 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air 

HRMP Hydrologic Resources Management Program 

HTO tritiated water 

HW hazardous waste 

HWAA hazardous waste accumulation area 

HWSU hazardous waste storage unit 

ICMP Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan 

IDL instrument detection limit 

IL investigation level 

in. inch(es) 

INL Idaho National Laboratory 

ISMS Integrated Safety Management System 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

IT International Technology Corporation 

JASPER Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research 

K potassium 

kg kilogram(s) 

kg/d kilogram(s) per day 

km kilometer(s) 

km2 square kilometer(s) 

kmh kilometer(s) per hour 

L liter(s) 

L/d liter(s) per day 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

lb pound(s) 

LC Critical Level (synonymous with Decision Level) 

LCA lower carbonate aquifer 

LCS laboratory control sample 

L/d liter(s) per day 

LLMW low-level mixed waste 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

LLW low-level radioactive waste 

L/min liter(s) per minute 

log logarithmic 

lpm liter(s) per minute 

LQAP Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

μBq/m3 microbecquerel(s) per cubic meter 

μCi/mL microcurie(s) per milliliter 

μg/L microgram(s) per liter 

μR/hr microroentgens per hour 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 C-5 

m meter(s) 

m2 square meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s) 

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(s) per day 

mg/L milligram(s) per liter 

mi mile(s) 

mi2 square mile(s) 

mm millimeter(s) 

mmhos/cm millimhos per centimeter 

M&O Management and Operating 

MQO Measurement Quality Objectives 

mR milliroentgen(s) 

mR/d milliroentgen(s) per day 

mR/yr milliroentgen(s) per year 

mrad milliard(s) 

mrad/yr milliard(s) per year 

mrem millirem(s) 

mrem/yr millirem(s) per year 

MSA Management Self-Assessments 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

mSv millisievert(s) 

mSv/yr millisievert(s) per day 

mton metric ton(s) 

MW mixed waste 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC Nevada Administrative Code 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

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 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NLV North Las Vegas 

NLVF North Las Vegas Facility 

NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program 

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

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSTec National Security Technologies, LLC 

NTS Nevada Test Site 

NTSER Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 

NTTR Nevada Test and Training Range 

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

ODS ozone-depleting substance 

OI operating instruction (DRI) or organization instruction (NSTec) 

oz once(s) 

p page 

P03U Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit 

P06U An Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Unit 

P2 pollution prevention 

P2/WM pollution prevention/waste minimization 

PA Performance Assessment 

PAAA Price-Anderson Amendments Act 

Pb lead 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

pCi picocurie(s) 

pCi/g picocurie(s) per gram 

pCi/L picocurie(s) per liter 

pCi/mL picocurie(s) per milliliter 

PHS Public Health Service 

PI prediction interval 

PIC pressurized ion chamber 

PM particulate matter 

PM10 particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 

POTW Publicly-Owned Treatment Works 

pp pages 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 C-7 

ppb part(s) per billion 

ppm part(s) 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 

QA/QC quality assurance and quality control 

QC quality control 

R roentgen(s) 

rad radiation absorbed dose (a unit of measure) 

rad/d rad(s) per day 

Rad/NucCTEC Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex 

RCD Radiological Control Department 

RCR requisition compliance reviews 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

rem roentgen equivalent man (a unit of measure) 

RER Relative Error Ratio 

RFP request for proposal 

RPD relative percent difference 

RREMP Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan 

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory 

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

RWMS Radioactive Waste Management Site 

SA Supplement Analysis 

SAFER Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration 

SAP Sampling and Analysis Plan 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SC specific conductance 

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 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

SORD Special Operations and Research Division 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSC structures, systems, and components 

STL Special Technologies Laboratory 

STP standard temperature and pressure 

S.U. standard unit(s) (for measuring pH) 

SUV sport utility vehicle 

Sv sievert(s) 

SWL static water level 

SWO Solid Waste Operations 

TaDD Tactical Demilitarization Development Project 

TCP thermocouple psychrometer 

TDR time-domain reflectometry 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TOC total organic carbon 

TOX total organic halides 

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 

USAF U.S. Air Force 

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 

WM waste minimization 

WMO World Meteorological Organization 

WSI Wackenhut Services, Inc. 

WSS Work Smart Standards 

WNV West Nile virus 
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 C-9 

WW water well 

yd yard(s) 

yd3 cubic yard(s) 

YMP Yucca Mountain Project 

yr year(s)
Appendix C - Acronyms and Abbreviations

C-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 R-1 

References 

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. 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2007. July 1, 2006 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 5/17/2007. 

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, 2004. 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. 2006. 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. 

Beck, C. and B. A. Holz, 2006. Historical Assessment Statement for CAU 190, CAS11-02-01, Underground Centrifuge Area 6, 

Nevada Test Site, Nye County Nevada. Desert Research Institute Letter Report No. LR061206-1, Las Vegas. 

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, Washington, D.C. 

BHPS, see Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services. 

BN, see Bechtel Nevada. 

Bowen, S. M., D. L. Finnegan, J. L. Thompson, C. M. Miller, P. L. Baca, L. F. Olivas, C. G. Geoffrion, D. K. Smith, 

W. Goishi, B. K. Esser, J. W. Meadows, N. Namboodiri, J. F. Wild, 2001. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide 

Inventory, 1951-1992. LA-13859-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM. 

Bradley, P. V., J. J. O’Farrell, J. A. Williams, and J. E. Newmark (Editors), 2005. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation 

Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group, Reno, NV. 209 pp. 

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. 
References

R-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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. 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 2006. Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021, Quarterly Monitoring Report and 

Annual Summary Report for E Tunnel Waste Water Disposal System. Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2006 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., 2005. Curation Compliance Annual Progress Report. Desert Research Institute Short Report 

No. SR091905-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drollinger, H., 2006. Curation Compliance Annual Progress Report. Desert Research Institute Letter Report 

No. LR092606-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

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. 

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, Las Vegas, NV. 

Hardcastle, J., 2007. 2006 Estimates by County. Prepared by Nevada State Demographer’s Office for Nevada 

Department of Taxation, Nevada Small Business Development Center, from Internet URL: 

<http://www.nsbdc.org/what/data_statistics/demographer/pubs/pop_increase/>, as accessed on 

5/17/2007. 

Holz, B. A., 2006a. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Chicken Little Project, Area 18, Nevada Test Site, 

Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Inventory Short Report No. SR071006-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Holz, B. A, 2006b. Fiscal Year 2006 Cultural Resources Site Monitoring Short Report for the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 

Nevada. Desert Research Institute Monitoring Report No. MR0192405-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Holz, B. A. and H. B. Rager, 2006. A Class III Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Replacement of the Castle Rock 

Substation and New Powerline Corridor, Area 18, Nevada Test Site, Nye County Nevada. Cultural Resources 

Inventory Short Report No. SR050106-1, 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. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 R-3 

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., 2006. Historical Evaluation of U12b Tunnel Complex in Area 12, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada.

Historical Evaluation Short Report No. SR050106-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Jones, R. C., T. F. Bullard, and C. M. Beck, 2006. Architectural and Historic Documentation for the Mitigation of Potential 

Adverse Effects to the Rock Cabin Near Tippipah Spring, Area 16, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Historical 

Research Report No. HR040606-1, Las Vegas, NV. 

Kelly, I. T., and C. S. Fowler, 1986. Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by W. L. d'Azevedo, pp. 135-148. Handbook 

of North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

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. 

McArthur, R. D., and J. F. Kordas, 1985. Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #2, Areas 2 and 4, 

DOE/NV/10162-20, Desert Research Institute, Water Resources Center Publication 45-41, 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. 

National Security Technologies, LLC, 2006. 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. 

National Security Technologies, LLC, 2007a. Nevada Test Site 2006 Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 

Radioactive Waste Management Site, DOE/NV/25946--138, NSTec, Las Vegas, NV, February 2007. 

National Security Technologies, LLC, 2007b. Nevada Test Site 2006, Waste Management Monitoring Report, Area 3 and 

Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites. DOE/NV/25946--225, NSTec, Las Vegas, NV. 

National Security Technologies, LLC, 2007c. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 2006 Report, 

DOE/NV/25946--174, March 2007, Las Vegas, NV. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2006a. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 27, 

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 6614, Las Vegas, NV. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2006b. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 28, 

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 6730, Las Vegas, NV. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2006c. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 29, 

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 7124, 7125, and 7200, Las Vegas, NV. 

NOAA, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

NRC, see U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
References

R-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

NSTec, see National Security Technologies, LLC. 

PHS, see U.S. Public Health Service. 

Shleien, 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. 

SNJV, see Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture. 

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. 

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. 

Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 2006a. Phase II Groundwater Flow Model of Corrective Action Unit 98: Frenchman Flat, Nye 

County, Nevada. S-N/99205--074. Las Vegas, NV. 

Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 2006b. Groundwater Flow Model of Corrective Action Units 101 and 102: Central and Western 

Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. S-N/99205--076. Las Vegas, NV. 

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. 

Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000a. United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992, DOE/NV--209, 

Rev. 15, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000b. NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual, DOE/NV/11718--079, Rev. 4, Nevada 

Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2001. Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1, Washington, D.C. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 R-5 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002a. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota, 

DOE-STD-1153-2002, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002b. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Relocation of Technical Area 18 

Capabilities and Materials at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EIS-0319, Washington D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002c. Environmental Assessment for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Hazardous Materials 

Spill Center, Nevada Test Site, DOE/EA-0864, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002d. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2001, 

DOE/NV/11718--747, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003a. Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan, DOE/NV/11718--804, Bechtel 

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003b. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2002, 

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, DOE/EA-1494, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004b. Environmental Assessment for the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and 

Evaluation Complex, DOE/EA-1499, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004c. Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2003, DOE/NV/11718--971, Bechtel 

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004d, E-mail from Gustavo Vazquez, DOE/EH-41, to Bruce W. Hurley, 

NNSA/NVO, dated April 1, 2004. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004e. Users Guide, Version 1; RESRAD-BIOTA: A Tool for Implementing A Graded 

Approach To Biota Dose Evaluation. DOE/EH-0676 [also Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation 

Standards (ISCORS) Technical Report 2004-02], Washington D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2005a. Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004, 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, DOE/EA-1550, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2006a. Environmental Assessment for Large-Scale, Open-Air Explosive Detonation DIVINE 

STRAKE at the Nevada Test Site - Revised Environmental Assessment, DOE/EA-1550, Nevada Site Office, Las 

Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2006b. Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2005, DOE/NV/11718--1214 and 

DOE/NV/25946-007, Bechtel Nevada and National Security Technologies, LLC, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2006c. Quality Systems for Analytical Services, Revision 2.2, October 2006. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2007. Annual Transportation Report for Radioactive waste Shipments to and from the Nevada Test 

Site – Fiscal Year 2006, DOE/NV--1187, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

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. 
References

R-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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, 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 2000 – 2030, from Internet URL: 

< http://governor.utah.gov/dea/Publications/2000FinalPublish.pdf>, as accessed on 5/17/2007. 

Warren, R. W., and R. F. Grossman, 2007. National Emissioni Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Calendar Year 2006. 

DOE/NV/25946--171, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site 

Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

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, 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. 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 DL-1

Distribution List 

All individuals in this list will be mailed a compact disc of this report and a hard copy (HC) of the abbreviated Nevada 

Test Site Environmental Report Summary 2006. One or more HCs of this report will be mailed to only those individuals 

specified. 

DOE and NNSA Headquarters

J. A. Rispoli, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-1/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

F. Marcinowski, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulatory Compliance (EM-10/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

M. A. Gilbertson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Technology (EM-20/Forrestal Building), 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

M. W. Frei, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Budget (EM-30/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

J. J. Fiore, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Capital and Business Services (EM-40/Forrestal Building), 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

G. S. Podonsky, Director, Office of Health, Safety and Security (HS-1/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (2 HC) 

P. R. Worthington, Director, Office of Health and Safety (HS-10/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

A. C. Lawrence, Director, Office of Nuclear Safety and Environment (HS-20/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Director, Office of Corporate Safety Analysis (HS-30/270 Corporate Square Building), U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0270 (1 HC) 

R. L. Natoli, Office of Analysis (HS-32/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (3 HCs) 

B. A. Peterson, Director, Office of Independent Oversight (HS-60/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-1/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

W. C. Ostendorff, Principal Deputy Administrator for National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-2/Forrestal 

Building), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

T. P. D’Agostino, Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs (NA-10/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

D. H. Crandall, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Research Development and Simulation (NA-11/Forrestal 

Building), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

M. J. Schoenbauer, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Application and Stockpile Op (NA-12 /Forrestal 

Building), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 
Distribution List

DL-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

T. P. D’Agostino, Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration (NA-13/Forrestal Building), 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

D. P. Wade, Director, Office of Programming, Budgeting and Execution (NA-133/Forrestal Building), 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

E. F. Sproat, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW-1/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

R. L. Orbach, Under Secretary for Science, Office of Science (SC-1/Forrestal Building), U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Associate Director, Office of Safety, Security and Infrastructure (SC-31/Germantown Building), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-1290 

DOE

W. J. Arthur, Deputy Director, Office of Repository Development, U.S. Department of Energy, 1551 Hillshire Drive, 

Las Vegas, NV 89134 

NNSA/NSO

G. L. Talbot, 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) 

R. T. Brock, Acting 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) 

S. A. Hejazi, Site 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) 

K. M. Lynn, Acting 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, Program Manager, 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) 

K. J. Rohrer, 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 

J. L. Appenzeller-Wing, Deputy 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, Acting 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, M/S 505 

R. L. Phifer, Jr., Assistant Manager for Safeguards and 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 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 DL-3

K. A. Hoar, Environmental Protection Team Leader, 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) 

L. M. Cohn, 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) 

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) 

EPA

K. Bellamy, Waste Management Division, EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 

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 89049 

D. D. Thomson, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S NTS944 
Distribution List

DL-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 

State of Nevada

M. Elges, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 901 South Stewart Street Suite 4001, Carson City, NV 89701 

D. Elle, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

(1 HC) 

T. Murphy, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

G. Raab, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

S. Marshall, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 1179 Fairview Drive, Carson, City, NV 89701-5405 (1 HC) 

K. K. Beckley, Supervisor, Radiological Health Section, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 4150 Technology Way 

Ste. 300, Carson City, NV 89706 (1 HC) 

M. Stafford, Nevada State Clearinghouse, Capitol Complex, 209 E. Musser St., Carson City, NV 89710 

State Departments of Environment and Health

Dr. D. Blodgett, Southwest Utah Public Health Department, 260 East DL Sargent Dr., Cedar City, UT 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 

DRI

C. Beck, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

S. Campbell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

D. Donithan, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

H. Drollinger, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

K. Giles, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

W. Hartwell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

B. Holz, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

R. Jones, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 DL-5

L. Karr, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

B. Kennedy, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 

C. Martin, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1HC) 

G. McCurdy, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512 (1 HC) 

A. Russell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 

C. Russell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

C. Shadel, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

D. Shafer, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 433 (1 HC) 

NSTec

E. C. Calman, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS327 

J. A. Ciucci, Director, Environmental Management, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NSF082 (1 HC) 

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 

G. R. Griess, Manager, Environment, Safety, Health and Quality, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 

98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS327 (1 HC) 

R. F. Grossman, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS273 (1 HC) 

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 
Distribution List

DL-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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 (1 HC) 

A. J. Karns, Environmental Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 

89193-8521, M/S NSF083 

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 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 DL-7

R. W. Warren, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS273 (1 HC) 

C. A. Wills, Environmental Technical Services, National Security Technologies, LLC, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

 89193-8521, M/S NTS260 (1 HC) 

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) 

PAI

S. Gordon, Professional Analysis, Inc., 537 E. Brooks Ave, North Las Vegas, NV 89030, M/S 422 

SNJV

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 

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 (1 HC) 

P. K. Matthews, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, 

M/S CF439 (1 HC) 

D. Schrock, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S 505 

D. Taylor, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S 505 

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) 

K. Allisen-Medlin, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001-9706 (1 HC) 

M. Anderson, 1151 “A” Avenue N, P.O. Box 869, Beatty, NV 89003 

M. D. Baldwin, 1646 North 175 West, Cedar City, UT 84720 

B. L. Benson, 606 Lake Superior Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005-1057 

N. J. Bowler, P.O. Box 368, Logandale, NV 89021 

B. W. Brown, P.O. Box 61, Shoshone, CA 92384 

R. Clifford, Jr., P.O. Box 206, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

C. Crookshanks, P.O. Box 150464, Ely, NV 89315 

D. M. Curry, 8207 Burnt Sienna, Las Vegas, NV 89123 
Distribution List

DL-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

N. Darby, 1111 Avenue M, Ely, NV 89301 

M. DeLee, P.O. Box 96, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 

B. P. DeWyze, P.O. Box 295, Delta, UT 84624 

P. Donohue, P.O. Box 291, Pioche, NV 89043 

J. and S. Fallini, HC 76, P.O. Box 1100, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

K. G. Gary, BarBQ Ranch, Box 1, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 

M. L. Gay, P.O. Box 369, Milford, UT 84751 

L. B. Goins, 2440 South River Plate Drive, Pahrump, NV 89048 

C. S. Graf, P.O. Box 385, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

L. L. Hafen, 1009 Providence Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005 

C. M. Hardy, P.O. Box 299, Alamo, NV 89001 

L. Hatthorn, 1182 Pebble Beach Drive, Mesquite, NV 89027-2554 

G. F. Hein, 612 Largo Azul Avenue, Henderson, NV 89015 

M. Heizer, Garden Valley, P.O. Box 33, Hiko, NV 89017 (1 HC) 

M. Herndon, 8104 Squaw Springs Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89131 

J. M. Hopkin, P.O. Box 597, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

R. Hopkins, P.O. Box 3516, Pahrump, NV 89041 

M. E. Howard, P.O. Box 935, Tonopah, NV 89049 

D. E. Jenson, 2982 South 300 East, Box 25, Milford, UT 84751 

R. A. Johnson, P.O. Box 626, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

R. Johnson, P.O. Box 332, Goldfield, NV 89013 

V. G. Johnson, P.O. Box 765, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

T. S. Judd, 850 North 500 West, Delta, UT 84624 

G. Leggio, 5177 South 5200 West, Cedar City, UT 84720 

J. C. Lisle, P.O. Box 357, Beatty, NV 89003 

L. Martin, 1200 Avenue H, Ely, NV 89301 

K. F. McFate, P.O. Box 373, 470 W. Raleigh Lane, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

S. and G. Medlin, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

J. Mike, 153 Second Street, Duckwater, NV 89134 

R. Mike, 161 Second Street, Duckwater, NV 89314 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 DL-9

S. Mortensen, 143 S. Main, St. George, UT 84770 

J. W. Nelson, P.O. Box 232, Logandale, NV 89021 

D. Newman, 141 Sunbow, Cedar City, UT 84720 

J. L. Odegard, 630 Tomahawk Court, Pahrump, NV 89060 (1 HC) 

D. J. Peltz, 10194 Eden Falls Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89123 

B. H. Perkins, P.O. Box 495, Caliente, NV 89008 

T. C. Sauvageau, P.O. Box 1674, Tonopah, NV 89049 

GN&M Sharp, Nyala Ranch, HC 76, Box 900, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

J. Skullestad, P.O. Box 593 Goldfield, NV 89013 (1 HC) 

A. P. Smith, P.O. Box 101 Caliente, NV 89008 

K. Smith, P.O. Box 114, Shoshone, CA 92384 

G. V. Sorensen, 421 Circle Way Drive, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

D. Sullivan, P.O. Box 182, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

R. Taylor, 1239 Cedar Knolls South, Cedar City, UT 84720-3626 (1 HC) 

J. Terrell, P.O. Box 454, Goldfield, NV 89013 (1 HC) 

H. Uhalde, Uhalde Ranch, P.O. Box 88, Ely, NV 89301 

C. Vogel, 107 Navajo Street, Mesquite, NV 89027 

C. Walker, 903 Coyote Way, Dammeron Valley, UT 84738 

G. 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) 
Distribution List

DL-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

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) 

A. 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) 

R. Birger, Project Leader, Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130 

A. Choephel, Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, P.O. Box 1767, Tonopah, NV 89049 

L. Coch, Dyncorp, P.O. Box 569, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

C. B. Davis, EnviroStat, 3468 Misty Court, Las Vegas, NV 89120 

S. 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 

M. Estrada, 4370 N. Washington Blvd., Suite 223, Nellis AFB, NV 89191 

D. Finerfrock, Director, Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, 

P. O. Box. 144850, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 

P. Fledderman, Washington Savannah River Co., Bldg. 735-B, Aiken SC 29802 

V. Gabbard, Tonopah Test Range, P.O. Box 871, Tonopah, NV 89049 

N. W. Golchert, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 

R. P. Graves, U.S. Geological Survey, 160 N. Stephanie St., Henderson, NV 89074-8829 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 DL-11

B. Jonker, DOE Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Ave., Mailstop 1216, Idaho Falls, ID 83401 

W. Mackie, Program Manager, Nuclear Waste Transportation Western Governors' Association, 1515 Cleveland Place, 

Suite 200, Denver, CO 80202-5114 

R. 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 

J. Palma, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Manager, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89130 

M. Morse, Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130 

D. and N. Spicer, P.O. Box 897, Beatty, NV 89003 

D. Swanson, Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, 1210 E. Basin Road, Suite #6, Pahrump, 

NV 89048 

B. Swedock, Tetra Tech, Inc., 5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1400, Falls Church, VA 22041 

B. K. Thompson, National Nuclear Security Administration Program Manager, U.S. Geological Survey, 

160 N. Stephanie St., Henderson, NV 89074
Distribution List

DL-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK