DOE/NV/11718--1080

Nevada Test Site

Environmental Report 2004

National Nuclear Security Administration

Strengthening national security through

 engineering and operational excellence

Bechtel Nevada
Disclaimer

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, 

or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the 

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

Available for sale to the public from: 

 U.S. Department of Commerce 

 National Technical Information Service 

 5285 Port Royal Road 

 Springfield, VA 22161-0002 

 Telephone: (800) 553-6847 

 Fax: (703) 605-6900 

 E-mail: orders@ntis.gov

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

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

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

 U.S. Department of Energy 

 Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

 P.O. Box 62 

 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

 Telephone: (865) 576-8401 

 Fax: (865) 576-5728 

 E-mail: reports@adonis.osti.gov
DOE/NV/11718--1080 

Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2004 

Senior Author: Cathy A. Wills 

Technical Editor: Angela L. McCurdy 

October 2005 

Work Performed Under 

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718 

Prepared for: 

U. S. Department of Energy 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Nevada Site Office 

Prepared by: 

Bechtel Nevada 

Post Office Box 98521 

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

Acknowledgements 

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

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

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

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

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

(DRI) contributed data for offsite water and air monitoring and cultural resource protection. My sincere thanks go to 

each of the authors and contributors from these organizations that are listed below. Your generous help and 

perseverance during the writing and review phases were greatly appreciated. 

Chapter Authors and Contributors

Executive Summary

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

1.0 Introduction

Robert F. Grossman, BN

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

2.0 Compliance Summary

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

 Shaughn A. Burnison, BN 

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

 Douglas K. Clark, BN 

 Andrea L. Gile, BN 

 Cirilo C. Gonzales, BN 

 Dennis L. Gustafson, BN 

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Madelyn A. Hayes, BN 

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

 Alfred J. Karnes, BN 

 Coby Moke, BN 

 Teresa M. Morgan, BN 

 Paul K. Ortego, BN 

 Phyllis M. Radack, BN 

 Stuart E. Rawlinson, BN 

 Carlton Soong, BN 

 Tammy H. Wallace, BN 

 Karen E. Williams, BN 

3.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological

 Air Monitoring

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

 Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat 

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Teresa M. Morgan, BN 

 Tammy H. Wallace, BN 

 Phillip D. Worley, BN 

4.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological

 Water Monitoring

 David B. Hudson, BN 

 Coby Moke, BN 

 Paul K. Ortego, BN 

 Phyllis M. Radack, BN 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

5.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

6.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring

 of Air and Water

 William T. Hartwell, DRI 

 Craig Shadel, DRI 

 Charles E. Russell, DRI 

7.0 Radiological Biota Monitoring

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

8.0 Radiological Dose Assessment

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

9.0 Waste Management and

 Environmental Restoration

 Shaughn A. Burnison, BN 

 Douglas K. Clark, BN 

 Cirilo C. Gonzales, BN 

 Michelle A. Hallmark, BN 

 Gary M. Romano, Stoller-Navarro 

 Carlton Soong, BN 

 Karen E. Williams, BN 
ii 

10.0 Hazardous Materials Control and

 Management

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

 Madelyn A. Hayes, BN 

 Coby P. Moke, BN 

11.0 Pollution Prevention

 Alfred J. Karnes, BN 

12.0 Historic Preservation and Cultural

 Resources Management

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

 Barbara A. Holz, DRI 

 Robert C. Jones, DRI 

13.0 Ecological Monitoring

 David C. Anderson, BN 

 Paul D. Greger, BN 

 Derek B. Hall, BN 

 Dennis J. Hansen, BN 

 W. Kent Ostler, BN 

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

14.0 Underground Test Area Project

 Sigmund L. Drellack, BN 

15.0 Hydrologic Resources Management

 Program

 Bruce W. Hurley, NNSA/NSO 

16.0 Meteorological Monitoring

 Darryl Randerson, ARL-SORD 

17.0 Environmental Management System

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

18.0 Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 Jerry J. Dugas, BN 

 Theodore J. Redding, BN 

19.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program

 Craig Shadel, DRI 

Appendix A: NTS Description

 Sigmund L. Drellack, BN 

Harold Drollinger, DRI 

Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Darryl Randerson, ARL-SORD 

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

Appendix B: NTS Satellite Facilities

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

Sigmund L. Drellack, BN 

Madelyn A. Hayes, BN 

 Coby P. Moke, BN 

Ronald W. Warren, BN 

Appendix C: Helpful Information

 Modified from Hanford Site 1997 

 Environmental Report 

 Charles B. Davis, EnviroStat 

Appendix D: Glossary 

 Modified from Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 2003 

Environmental Report 

Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations

Cathy A. Wills, BN

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 NTSER. 

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

Administration of the Bechtel Environmental 

Integrated Data Management System

(BEIDMS) for Routine Radiological 

Environmental Monitoring Program (RREMP), 

Clean Water Act (CWA) and Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA) Projects:

Elizabeth Burns 

Robert G. Peppard 

Coordination of Field Sampling Operations for 

RREMP, CWA, and SDWA Projects:

Terrance P. Sonnenburg 

Field Sampling for RREMP, CWA, and SDWA 

Projects:

Martin D. Cavanaugh 

Paul D. Greger 

David D. Rudolph 

Matthew O. Weaver 

Alan O. Wittig 
iii 

Laboratory Operations Supporting RREMP 

Screening and Sample Processing:

Lynn N. Jaussi 

Sample Management Supporting the BN

Subcontracting of Environmental Analytical 

Services:

Catherine D. Castaneda 

Theodore J. Redding 

RREMP Data Verification,Validation, and 

Review:

Elizabeth Burns 

Robert F. Grossman 

David B. Hudson 

Ronald W. Warren 

Quality Assurance Oversight of the RREMP:

Jerry J. Dugas 

Report Production and Distribution Support Personnel 

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

and timely production and distribution of this report: 

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

monitoring data collected by ETS. Charles also collaborated in editing the document for clarity and accuracy 

of the text and data presentation. 

Bob Arnold of BN Technical Publications and Graphics Services (TPGS) designed the cover for this document and 

the 2004 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report Summary (NTSER Summary). Elaine Upson of BN TPGS 

designed the layout of the NTSER Summary.

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

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

Ashley Cushman of BN Geographic Information Systems (GIS)/Data Management is a GIS specialist who worked 

with all the authors to produce the high-quality GIS-generated maps and figures. 

Kurt Jahn and Mark Shaw of Office Services are thanked for producing high-quality hardcopies and compact discs of 

the NTSER and the NTSER Summary under a tight production schedule. 

Fina Martinez-Myers of Office Services oversaw the Government Printing Office subcontract, the print production 

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

products. Thank you for your impeccable customer service. 

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

responsible for the final layout and format of the NTSER. Her skill and dedication applied to this project year after 

year are acknowledged. Thank you, Angela.
iv 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
v

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................................................................i 

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................v

List of Tables.................................................................................................................................................................xiii

List of Figures...............................................................................................................................................................xvii 

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................ES-1 

 Purpose of the NTS Environmental Report...........................................................................................ES-1 

Major Site Programs ...................................................................................................................................ES-1

 Other Key Initiatives ..................................................................................................................................ES-1 

Environmental Performance Measure Programs...................................................................................ES-2

 Performance Measures ...............................................................................................................................ES-2 

Offsite Radiological Releases into Air......................................................................................................ES-2

 Onsite Radiological Releases into Air ......................................................................................................ES-3 

 Offsite Radiological Monitoring of Water...............................................................................................ES-4 

 Onsite Radiological Releases into Water .................................................................................................ES-5 

 Estimated Radiation Dose to the Public..................................................................................................ES-5 

 Onsite Non-Radiological Releases into Air.............................................................................................ES-7 

 Onsite Non-Radiological Releases into Water........................................................................................ES-8 

 Onsite Non-Radiological Drinking Water Quality.................................................................................ES-8 

 Non-Radiological Releases into Air and Water at the NLVF...............................................................ES-8 

Accidental or Unplanned Environmental Releases or Occurrences ...................................................ES-9

 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Activities............................................................................ES-9 

 Overall Compliance with Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Policies .......................................ES-9 

1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1-1 

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

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

1.3 Site History........................................................................................................................................1-5 

1.4 Site Mission........................................................................................................................................1-5 

1.5 Primary Operations and Activities.................................................................................................1-6 

1.6 Demography .....................................................................................................................................1-6 

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

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

Clean Air Act (CAA), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) ..........................................................................................................................2-1 

 CAA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)........................................................2-1 

 CAA, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)....................................................................2-2 

 CAA, Stratospheric Ozone Protection..........................................................................................2-2 

 Other NTS Air Quality Permit Requirements..............................................................................2-2 

 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 

 Clean Water Act (CWA)..................................................................................................................2-6 

 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).................................................................................................2-6 

 Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A - Water Controls (Public Water Systems) .........2-6 
vi

 NAC 444 and 445A - Water Controls (Water Pollution Control) ............................................2-6 

 NAC 534 - Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulations for Water Well 

 and Related Drilling............................................................................................................2-6 

 2.2.1 Out-of-Compliance Incidents...........................................................................................2-7 

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

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

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

 Clean Air Act (CAA), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) ................................................................................................................................2-10 

 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)...............................................................................................2-10 

 DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment...................................2-10 

 DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002 .......................................................................................2-10 

 DOE Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management.........................................................................2-10 

 DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program.....................................................................2-10 

 2.3.1 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................2-11

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

2.4 Radioactive and Non-Radioactive Waste Management and Environmental 

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

 10 CFR 830: Nuclear Safety Management.................................................................................2-12 

 DOE Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management.........................................................................2-12 

 Atomic Energy Act (AEA) ...........................................................................................................2-12 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)..................................................................2-12 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA)/ Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) ...............2-13 

 Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA)....................................................................................2-13 

 Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) ...................................................2-13 

 40 CFR Subchapter I, Parts 239-299: Solid Wastes...................................................................2-13 

 NAC 444.570-7499 – Solid Waste Disposal...............................................................................2-13 

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

 2.4.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-14 

2.5 Hazardous Materials Control and Management ........................................................................2-17 

 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) .......................................................................................2-17

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)................................................2-17 

 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)...................................2-17 

 NAC Chapter 555 – Control of Insects, Pests, and Noxious Weeds.....................................2-17 

 NAC Chapter 444 – Polychlorinated Biphenyls ........................................................................2-18 

 State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act...........................................................2-18 

 2.5.1 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................2-18 

 2.5.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-18 

2.6 National Environmental Policy Act.............................................................................................2-20 

2.7 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization ..........................................................................2-22 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) ...................................................2-22 

 EO 13101 Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and 

 Federal Acquisition ...............................................................................................................2-22 

 DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program.....................................................................2-22 

 NDEP Hazardous Waste Permit Number NEV HW009........................................................2-22 

 Secretary of Energy’s Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency Leadership Goals........2-22 

 2.7.1 Compliance Issues ............................................................................................................2-22 

 2.7.2 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................2-23 
vii 

 2.7.3 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-23 

2.8 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Protection..........................................................2-25 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ...............................................................................2-25 

 EO 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment................................................2-25 

 Archeological Resources and Protection Act of 1979...............................................................2-25 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.....................................................................2-25 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA).................2-25 

 2.8.1 Reporting Requirements ..................................................................................................2-26 

 2.8.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-26 

2.9 Conservation and Protection of Biota and Wildlife Habitat....................................................2-28 

 Endangered Species Act (ESA) ....................................................................................................2-28 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).............................................................................................2-28 

 Bald Eagle Protection Act.............................................................................................................2-28 

 Clean Water Act, Section 404, Wetlands Regulations...............................................................2-28 

 National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act ............................................................................2-28 

 EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands .....................................................................................................2-28 

 EO 11988 Floodplain Management...................................................................................................2-28 

 EO 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds .........................................2-28 

 EO 13112 Invasive Species................................................................................................................2-28 

 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act..................................................................................2-29 

 Five-Party Cooperative Agreement..............................................................................................2-29 

 NAC 503.010 - 503.104 – Protection of Wildlife ......................................................................2-29 

 NAC 527.270 - Protection of Flora.............................................................................................2-29 

 2.9.1 Out-of-Compliance Incidents.........................................................................................2-29

 2.9.2 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................2-29 

 2.9.3 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-29 

2.10 Environmental Management System...........................................................................................2-32 

 EO 13148 Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management ..................2-32

 DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program.....................................................................2-32 

 2.10.1 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................2-32 

 2.10.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-32 

2.11 Occurrences, Unplanned Releases, and Continuous Releases.................................................2-33 

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

 Act (CERCLA)..................................................................................................................2-33 

 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)...................................2-33 

 40 CFR 302.1 – 302.8: Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification ....................2-33 

 DOE Order 231.1A Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting....................................................2-33 

 NAC 445A.345–445.348 - Notification of Release of Pollutant .............................................2-33 

 Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001 ...........................................................2-33 

 Other NTS Permits/Agreements.................................................................................................2-33 

 2.11.1 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................2-33 

2.12 Summary of Permits.......................................................................................................................2-35 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 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................................................................................................3-12

 3.1.4.5 Tritium ..................................................................................................................3-14 

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

 3.1.5 Air Sampling Results from Critical Receptor Samplers...............................................3-20 

 3.1.6 Air Sampling Results from Point-Source (Stack) Sampler..........................................3-20 

3.1.7 Radiological Atmospheric Releases used for Estimating Dose to the Maximally 

Exposed Individual .............................................................................................3-20 

3.1.8 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................3-21 

3.2 Non-Radiological Air Quality Assessment .................................................................................3-22

 3.2.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants.........................3-23 

 3.2.2 Production Rates/Hours of Operation .........................................................................3-26 

 3.2.3 Opacity Readings ..............................................................................................................3-26 

 3.2.4 NPTEC Reporting............................................................................................................3-26 

 3.2.5 TaDD Reporting...............................................................................................................3-28 

 3.2.6 ODS Recordkeeping.........................................................................................................3-28 

 3.2.7 Asbestos Abatement.........................................................................................................3-28 

 3.2.8 Fugitive Dust Control ......................................................................................................3-29 

 3.2.9 State Inspections ...............................................................................................................3-29 

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

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

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

 4.1.1 Water Monitoring Locations.............................................................................................4-3 

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

 4.1.6 Results from NTS Potable Water Supply Wells...........................................................4-11 

 4.1.7 Results from NTS Monitoring Wells .............................................................................4-14 

 4.1.8 Results from NTS E Tunnel Ponds...............................................................................4-16 

 4.1.9 Results from NTS Sewage Lagoons...............................................................................4-18 

 4.1.10 UGTA Wells......................................................................................................................4-19 

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

4.2 Non-Radiological Drinking Water and Wastewater Monitoring.............................................4-22 

 4.2.1 Drinking Water Monitoring.............................................................................................4-22 

 4.2.1.1 Water Quality of PWS and Permitted Water Hauling Trucks......................4-22 

 4.2.1.2 Sanitary Survey of PWS and Inspection of Permitted Water 

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

 4.2.2 Domestic Wastewater Monitoring..................................................................................4-27 

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

 4.2.3.1 Quarterly Analysis of Influent Water Quality .................................................4-29 

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

 4.2.3.3 Annual Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Wells Associated 

 With Sewage Lagoons.........................................................................................4-30 

 4.2.3.4 Sewage System Inspections................................................................................4-31 
ix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 5.3.2 Exposure Rates at Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs) ..........................5-8 

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

 5.3.2.2 Area 5 RWMS ......................................................................................................5-8 

 5.3.3 Exposure Rates from NTS Operational Activities ........................................................5-9 

 5.3.4 Exposure to NTS Plants and Animals...........................................................................5-10 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 6.2.3 Results of Surface Water Monitoring from Springs.....................................................6-14 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.4 Results ...............................................................................................................................................7-6 

 7.4.1 Plants.....................................................................................................................................7-6 

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

7.5 Environmental Impact.....................................................................................................................7-9 

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

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

8.1.1 Determining Human Exposure Pathways ......................................................................8-1

8.1.2 Identifying Onsite Sources and Radionuclide Air Emission Rates..............................8-2

8.1.3 Calculating Dose to Humans from NTS Air Emissions...............................................8-2

8.1.4 Calculating Dose to Humans from Ingestion of Wild Game from the NTS ............8-5

8.1.5 Estimating Dose to the Public from Release of Property Containing

Residual Radioactive Material.....................................................................................8-7
x

8.1.6 Total Offsite Dose to the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)................................8-8

8.1.7 Collective Population Dose...............................................................................................8-9 

8.2 Dose to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota.........................................................................................8-10

8.2.1 Summary of 2003 Dose Assessment..............................................................................8-10

8.2.2 New Radionuclide Sources Accessible to Biota in 2004 .............................................8-13

8.2.3 2004 Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment ...................................................................8-13

8.2.4 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................8-14 

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 MW...................................................................................9-2 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 9.1.7.3 Area 5 RWMS Automated Monitoring..............................................................9-6 

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

9.2 Hazardous Waste Management......................................................................................................9-6 

9.3 Underground Storage Tank (USTs) Management.......................................................................9-7 

9.4 Environmental Restoration - Remediation of Historic Contaminated Sites ...........................9-7 

 9.4.1 Corrective Actions..............................................................................................................9-7 

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

9.5 Solid and Sanitary Waste Management........................................................................................9-12 

 9.5.1 Landfills .........................................................................................................................9-12 

 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 and WM Goals and Components...........................................................................................11-1 

11.2 Major P2/WM Accomplishments in 2004..................................................................................11-2 

11.3 Waste Generation in 2004 Compared To Prior Years..............................................................11-2 

11.4 Waste Reductions in 2004 Compared To Prior Years..............................................................11-3 

11.5 Secretary of Energy’s P2/WM Leadership Goals......................................................................11-4 

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

12.1 Cultural Resources Surveys, Inventories, Historical Evaluations, and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 12.1.4.2 General Reconnaissance...................................................................................12-3 

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

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

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

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

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

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

13.3 Sensitive Species and Habitat Monitoring ..................................................................................13-8 

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

 13.3.2 Sensitive Bats.....................................................................................................................13-9 

 13.3.3 Wild Horses .......................................................................................................................13-9 

 13.3.4 Birds..................................................................................................................................13-13 

 13.3.5 Natural and Human-Made Water Sources ..................................................................13-15 

13.4 Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program.................................................................................13-15

13.5 Biological Monitoring of the NPTEC.......................................................................................13-16 

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

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

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

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

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

15.1 Program Goals ................................................................................................................................15-1 

15.2 Program Activities ..........................................................................................................................15-1 

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

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

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 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 18.3.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment.................................................................................18-5

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

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

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

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

18.4 Data Management Procedures......................................................................................................18-8 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 18.6.2 Laboratory Control Samples .........................................................................................18-11

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

 18.6.4 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies ............................................................................18-12 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19.7 2004 Sample QA Results...............................................................................................................19-4 

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

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

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

 19.7.4 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies ..............................................................................19-6 

Appendix A Nevada Test Site Description.............................................................................................................. A-i 

Appendix B Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities..................................................................................................... B-i 

Appendix C Helpful Information.............................................................................................................................. C-i 

 Appendix D Glossary.................................................................................................................................................D-1 

 Appendix E Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................. E-1 

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

 Distribution List.......................................................................................................................................................DL-1 
xiii 

List of Tables

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...............................................................................................................2-15

Table 2-5. NTS compliance status with applicable regulations for hazardous substance 

 control and management...........................................................................................................2-19

Table 2-6. NTS NEPA compliance activities conducted in 2004...................................................................2-20

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

regulations ...................................................................................................................................2-23

Table 2-7b. NTS compliance status with the Secretary of Energy’s pollution prevention and 

energy efficiency leadership goals............................................................................................2-24

Table 2-8. NTS compliance status with historic preservation regulations.....................................................2-26

Table 2-9. NTS compliance status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations...........................2-30

Table 2-10. NTS compliance status with Environmental Management System regulations.........................2-32

Table 2-11. Environmental occurrences on the NTS in 2004 ...........................................................................2-34

Table 2-12. Environmental permits required for NTS and NTS site facility operations...............................2-35

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

Table 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2004...............................................................3-6 

Table 3-3. Concentrations of 137Cs in air samples collected in 2004 .................................................................3-8 

Table 3-4. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2004.................................................................3-9 

Table 3-5. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2004.........................................................3-10 

Table 3-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2004.........................................3-12 

Table 3-7. Expected ratios of uranium isotopes by type of source.................................................................3-13 

Table 3-8. Mean uranium isotope ratios from air samples collected in 2004 ................................................3-14

Table 3-9. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2004...........................................................3-15 

Table 3-10. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2004 ............................................................3-17 

Table 3-11. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2004 ..............................................................3-18 

Table 3-12. Sum of percents of compliance levels for radionuclides detected at critical receptor 

samplers.......................................................................................................................................3-20 

Table 3-13. NTS radiological atmospheric releases for calendar year 2004.....................................................3-21 

Table 3-14. Tons of criteria air pollutant emissions released on the NTS in 2004.........................................3-24 

Table 3-15. Criteria air pollutants and HAPS released on the NTS since 1995 ..............................................3-25 

Table 3-16. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC in 2004 ................................3-27 

Table 3-17. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 25 Test Cell C facility in 2004 ............3-28 

Table 4-1. Gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, and radium analysis results for offsite wells in 2004 ................4-8 

Table 4-2. Gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, and radium analysis results for offsite springs in 2004 ............4-9 

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

 supply wells .................................................................................................................................4-12 

Table 4-4. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring wells in 2003...........4-15 

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

 Permit NEV 96021 ....................................................................................................................4-16 

Table 4-6. Routine radiological water monitoring results for E-Tunnel Ponds in 2004...............................4-17 

Table 4-7. Tritium water monitoring results for NTS sewage lagoons in 2004 .............................................4-19 
xiv 

Table 4-8. Tritium concentrations in UGTA hot wells sampled in 2004........................................................4-19

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

 systems.........................................................................................................................................4-24 

Table 4-10. Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2004...........................4-25 

Table 4-11. Water quality analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon influent waters in 2004..........................4-29 

Table 4-12. Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2004...............................4-30 

Table 4-13. Groundwater analysis results for NTS groundwater monitoring well SM-23-1 in 2004 ........4-31 

Table 5-1. Annual direct radiation exposure rates measured at TLD locations on the NTS in 2003...........5-4 

Table 5-2. Summary statistics for annual direct radiation exposure by TLD location type ...........................5-7 

Table 6-1. Gross alpha results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2004...............................6-4 

Table 6-2. Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2004.................................6-5 

Table 6-3. TLD monitoring results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2004.......................6-7 

Table 6-4. PIC monitoring results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2004.........................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 2004........................................................................6-12 

Table 6-7. Tritium results for CEMP offsite springs and spring discharges in 2004......................................6-14 

Table 6-8. Tritium results for CEMP offsite wells in 2004 ................................................................................6-15 

Table 7-1. Plant species sampled at Plutonium (Pu) Valley and Pu Valley Control Site in 2004....................7-4 

Table 7-2. Bats and invertebrates sampled at E Tunnel Ponds and E Tunnel Ponds 

Control Site in 2004.....................................................................................................................7-6 

Table 7-3. Radionuclide concentrations in plants from Pu Valley and Control Site in 2004 ..........................7-7 

Table 7-4. Radionuclide concentrations in animals from Pu Valley and Control Site in 2004 .......................7-8 

Table 7-5. Radionuclide concentrations in animals from E Tunnel Pond 5 and E Tunnel 

control site.....................................................................................................................................7-9 

Table 8-1. Radiological atmospheric releases from NTS for 2004 used in the CAP88-PC model ................8-3 

Table 8-2. Hypothetical annual dose to a human consuming NTS game animals sampled in 2004..............8-6 

Table 8-3. Hypothetical annual dose to a human consuming NTS game animals sampled in 

2000-2003......................................................................................................................................8-7 

Table 8-4. Hypothetical worst-case dose to the MEI consuming NTS game animals based on all years of 

sampling.........................................................................................................................................8-7 

Table 8-5. Allowable total residual surface contamination...................................................................................8-8 

Table 8-6. Radiological dose to the general public from 2004 NTS operations ...............................................8-9 

Table 8-7. Biota dose assessment to terrestrial biota for temporary water sources created on the 

NTS in 2004................................................................................................................................8-13 

Table 8-8. Site-specific dose assessment results for terrestrial plants and animals sampled on 

the NTS .......................................................................................................................................8-14 

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 2004.............9-4 

Table 9-3. Hazardous waste stored or disposed at the NTS in 2004.................................................................9-7 

Table 9-4. Environmental restoration activities conducted in 2004 ................................................................9-10 

Table 9-5. Quantity of solid wastes disposed in NTS landfills in CY 2004 ....................................................9-13 

Table 11-1. Volume of radioactive waste generated by year ..............................................................................11-2 

Table 11-2. Mass of hazardous waste generated by year.....................................................................................11-3 
xv 

Table 11-3. Mass of solid waste generated by year ..............................................................................................11-3 

Table 11-4. Volume of waste reduced through P2/WM activities by year ......................................................11-3

Table 11-5. Volume of waste reduced through P2/WM activities in 2004......................................................11-4

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

conducted in 2004......................................................................................................................12-3 

Table 12-2. Short reports, historical evaluations, technical reports, and letter reports 

prepared in 2004.........................................................................................................................12-4 

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. Summary of 2004 biological survey results......................................................................................13-8 

Table 13-5. Records of bird injury or mortality on the NTS in 2004 .............................................................13-14 

Table 18-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for compliance monitoring in 2004.................................18-10 

Table 18-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for 2004.............................................................18-11 

Table 18-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for 2004............................................................................18-12 

Table 18-4. Summary of interlaboratory comparison samples of the subcontract radiochemistry 

laboratories for compliance monitoring in 2004 .................................................................18-12 

Table 18-5. Summary of interlaboratory comparison TLD samples for the BN Radiological Health 

 Dosimetry Group in 2004 ......................................................................................................18-13 

Table 19-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for oversight monitoring in 2004.......................................19-5 

Table 19-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for oversight monitoring in 2004 ....................19-5 

Table 19-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for oversight monitoring in 2004...................................19-6 

Table 19-4. Summary of interlaboratory comparison samples of the subcontract radiochemistry 

 laboratory for oversight monitoring in 2004.........................................................................19-6 

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

 dosimetry group for compliance monitoring in 2004...........................................................19-6 
xvi

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
xvii

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...................................1-4

Figure 3-1. Radiological air sampling network on the NTS in 2004.................................................................3-3 

Figure 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2004 .............................................................3-7 

Figure 3-3. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2004........................................................3-11 

Figure 3-4. Long-term trends in highest annual mean 239+240Pu for NTS area groups .................................3-11 

Figure 3-5. Long-term trends in average annual mean 239+240Pu for NTS area groups.................................3-12 

Figure 3-6. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2004..........................................................3-15 

Figure 3-7. Average long-term trends in tritium at locations on the NTS having at least 7 years 

 of data........................................................................................................................................3-16 

Figure 3-8. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2004...........................................................3-19 

Figure 3-9. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2004.............................................................3-19 

Figure 3-10. Criteria air pollutants released on the NTS since 1995.................................................................3-25 

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 2004..................................4-5 

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

 in 2004 .........................................................................................................................................4-6 

Figure 4-4. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite wells from 2000 to 2004..........................................4-8

Figure 4-5. Tritium concentrations in offsite wells from 2000 to 2004 ...........................................................4-9 

Figure 4-6. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite springs from 2000 to 2004....................................4-10 

Figure 4-7. Tritium concentrations in offsite springs from 2000 to 2004......................................................4-10 

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

 2004............................................................................................................................................4-13 

Figure 4-9. Tritium concentrations in NTS potable water supply wells from 2000 to 2004.......................4-13 

Figure 4-10. Concentrations of tritium in wells with a history of detectable levels........................................4-16

Figure 4-11. Tritium concentration in E Tunnel Ponds from 1995 – 2004.....................................................4-18

Figure 4-12. UGTA Project wells on and off the NTS.......................................................................................4-20 

Figure 4-13. Drinking water systems on the NTS ...............................................................................................4-23 

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. Annual exposure rates at the Area 3 RWMS during 2004..............................................................5-8 

Figure 5-3. Annual exposure rates at the Area 5 RWMS during 2004..............................................................5-9 

Figure 5-4. Annual exposure rates at B and E1 locations on the NTS in 2004 ............................................5-10 

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

 at least eleven-year data histories...........................................................................................5-11 

Figure 6-1. 2004 CEMP Air Surveillance Network.............................................................................................6-2 

Figure 6-2. CEMP station at Beatty, 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
xviii

Figure 6-7. 2004 CEMP water monitoring locations ........................................................................................6-13 

Figure 7-1. Radiological biota monitoring sites on the NTS .............................................................................7-3 

Figure 7-2. E Tunnel Ponds biota sampling site..................................................................................................7-5 

Figure 8-1. Map of the NTS showing CY 2004 CEDEs within 80 km of emission sources........................8-4 

Figure 8-2. Radiation dose to MEI offsite who is not consuming game animals from the NTS.................8-5 

Figure 8-3. Comparison of radiation dose to the MEI from NTS operations and from natural 

 background radiation.................................................................................................................8-9 

Figure 8-4. Terrestrial and aquatic dose evaluation areas for assessing potential dose to biota .................8-11 

Figure 8-5. Results of Level 1 and Level 2 Screens for dose evaluation areas on the NTS ........................8-12 

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

 clearance surveys conducted in 2004 ....................................................................................13-2 

Figure 13-2. Biological surverys on the NTS........................................................................................................13-7 

Figure 13-3. Sensitive plant populations monitored on the NTS in 2004......................................................13-10

Figure 13-4. Sites monitored on the NTS for bat activity in 2004 ..................................................................13-11 

Figure 13-5. Feral horse range on the NTS and sighting locations of horses and 

 horse sign in 2004 ..................................................................................................................13-12 

Figure 13-6. Number of wild horses observed by age category in 2004 ........................................................13-13

Figure 13-7. Number of bird deaths recorded on the NTS by year and by cause ........................................13-14 

Figure 16-1. Example of a typical MEDA station with a 10 meter tower .......................................................16-1

Figure 16-2. MEDA station locations on and near the NTS .............................................................................16-2

Figure 16-3. Climatological rain gauge network on the NTS.............................................................................16-4
Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 ES-1

Executive Summary 

The Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 was prepared by Bechtel Nevada (BN) 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. This Executive Summary presents the purpose of the document, the major programs 

conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), NTS key environmental initiatives, radiological releases and potential doses 

to the public resulting from site operations, a summary of non-radiological releases, implementation status of the NTS 

Environmental Management System, 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 2004. It was produced this year to provide a more cost-effective and wider distribution of a hardcopy 

summary of the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 to interested DOE stakeholders. 

Purpose of the NTS Environmental Report 

BN prepares this document to satisfy DOE Order 231.1A Environment, Safety and Health Reporting. It is prepared in 

order 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 

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

the management and operation of the NTS and seven satellite sites across the nation. The NTS is located about 105 

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

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

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

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

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

programs at the NTS. BN is the Management and Operations (M&O) contractor accountable for the successful 

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

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

readiness. The three major NTS programs are Stockpile Stewardship, National Security Response Program and 

Operations, and Environmental Management. 

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) (formerly known as the 

Hazardous Materials Spill Center) for research purposes, remediation of industrial sites, processing of waste destined 

for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico, disposal of radioactive and mixed waste, and 

environmental research. In addition, there are continued efforts to bring other business to the NTS, such as 

aerospace and alternative energy technology development and support of U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

National Center for Combating Terrorism. 
Executive Summary 

ES-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Environmental Performance Measure Programs 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Management Council. Each Council member performed a self-assessment in September 2004 and verified that the 

ISMS continues to be effectively implemented at the NTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOE sites to develop an EMS and expects full integration of their EMS into their ISMS by December 2005. In 2004, 

the ISMS Program Plan was updated to specify that the EMS and DOE Order 450.1 are the method by which the 

environmental part of ISMS is implemented (see Section 17.0). A committee during 2004 was formed that identified 

priority areas of improvement (Objectives) and is starting to identify organization specific goals (Targets) within these 

priority areas. These Targets and Objectives will be approved by the Executive Safety Committee, and the progress 

will be tracked and reported. During 2004, the employee environmental awareness program was expanded. Copies of 

the revised Environmental Policy were mailed to BN organizations, posted on bulletin boards and the BN intranet 

home page. Articles about the new Policy and the EMS were put in BN employee publications, and a section on 

environmental issues was added to the BN project manager training course. Full integration of EMS into ISMS 

should be complete by the deadline of December 31, 2005. 

Performance Measures 

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

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

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

several programs and processes. They include (1) the potential radiological dose received by the maximally exposed 

offsite individual, (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. 

Offsite 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 University and Community College System 

of Nevada under contract with NNSA/NSO (see Section 6.0). Its purpose is to provide monitoring for radionuclides 

that might be released from the NTS. A network of 26 CEMP stations, located in selected towns and communities 

within 386 km (240 mi) from the NTS, was operated continuously during 2004. The CEMP stations monitored gross 
Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 ES-3

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. 

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

CEMP particulate air samplers during 2004. 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 (see Section 6.1.1.1). 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 178 milliroentgen (mR) at 

Milford, Utah. The lowest offsite gamma exposure rate measured was 67 mR per year (yr) at Pahrump, Nevada (see 

Section 6.1.3). 

Onsite Radiological Releases into Air 

A network of 19 air sampling stations (three having low-volume particulate air samplers, one having a tritium water 

vapor sampler, and 15 having both) and a network of 107 TLDs were used to monitor onsite NTS radioactive 

emissions in 2004 (see Section 3.1). The 2004 monitoring results were also used, in conjunction with U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved mathematical models, to calculate the radiological dose to the 

public residing within 80 km (50 mi) of the NTS. There were minimal radioactive air emissions from current NTS 

projects in 2004 which came from only one NTS facility: Building 650 in Mercury, Area 23. A total of 0.000042 

Curies (Ci) of tritium gas was released at Building 650 during the calibration of laboratory equipment (see 

Section 8.1.2). 

Gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity was detected at all stations on the NTS, but no increasing trend in levels of 

radioactivity was observed at any station (see Section 3.1.4.6). The highest average gross alpha and gross beta 

activities were seen at Sugar Bunker, an unoccupied structure used during past nuclear testing, located about 1 km 

(0.6 mi) south-southwest of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC). The lowest average gross 

alpha and beta activities were measured at the Little Feller 2 air sampler in Area 18 and the 3545 Substation air 

sampler in Area 16, respectively. The mean gross alpha concentrations were slightly higher at the locations near sites 

with known deposits of radioactivity from past nuclear tests in Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 20. The mean gross beta 

concentrations varied less by location throughout all NTS areas. Both the weekly gross alpha and gross beta 

concentrations continued to show a general temporal variation that was common for all locations. 

Background gamma radiation exposure rates on the NTS, measured at TLD stations located away from radiologically 

contaminated sites, ranged from 60 to 156 mR/yr during 2004 (see Section 5.3). Direct gamma radiation exposure to 

the public from NTS operations was negligible (see Section 5.3.1). Areas accessible to the public (e.g., the NTS 

entrance gate) had exposure rates comparable to natural background rates, with one exception. During the fourth 

quarter of 2004, the daily average gamma radiation exposure rate measured on the west side of the parking area 

outside the NTS entrance gate rose to 358 mR/yr. It is likely that waste shipments entering the NTS were responsible 

for this increase in the fourth quarter. Radionuclide contamination at legacy sites has resulted in localized elevated 

gamma exposure rates, but the public has no access to these sites nor are there NTS personnel working in these areas. 

The highest exposure rate at monitored locations was 888 mR/yr at Schooner, one of the legacy Plowshare sites on 

Pahute Mesa (see Table 5-1). Sixteen TLD stations monitor the RWMC in Areas 3 and 5 (see Section 5.3.2). The 

mean gamma exposure rate at these stations was 148 mR/yr; exposure rates ranged from 106 to 401 mR/yr. The 

public is not allowed unsupervised access to these sites. 

Several man-made radionuclides from legacy contamination were measured in air samples at levels above their 

minimum detectable concentrations (MDCs) in 2004: americium-241 (241Am); tritium (3H); and plutonium isotopes 

(238Pu and 239+240Pu) (see 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 (48.07 x 10-18 micro-curies per milliliter [μCi/mL]) was detected at 

Bunker 9-300 in Area 9, a vacant building located within an area of known soil contamination from past nuclear tests. 
Executive Summary 

ES-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

The highest mean level of tritium (364.69 x 10-6 picocuries [pCi]/mL) was detected at Schooner, site of the secondhighest yield Plowshare cratering experiment on the NTS where tritium-infused ejecta surrounds the crater. The 

highest mean levels of plutonium isotopes in air were at Bunker 9-300 (5.61 x 10-18 μCi/mL for 238Pu and 

294.12 x 10-18 μCi/mL for 239+240Pu). 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 detected in air samples collected in areas where depleted uranium ordnance have been used or tested. However, 

the samples’ isotopic ratios were what one would expect from naturally-occurring uranium in soil and not from either 

man-made depleted or enriched uranium. 

Both 239+240Pu and tritium continued to show overall decreasing trends in concentrations at air sampler sites (see 

Section 3.1.4.3 and Section 3.1.4.5). The decrease in tritium air concentrations is a result of the cessation of testing in 

1992 (no additional releases), of radioactive decay (half-life of tritium is 12 years), and of its depletion from the soil 

over the years due to evaporation and transpiration (uptake and release of water through plants). Annual mean 

tritium concentrations, grouped by NTS administrative areas, have dropped a factor of one thousand for all areas 

except Area 20 (where Schooner is located). The gradual decrease in plutonium concentrations in air over time is 

attributed to its dispersal by wind and its weathering in the ground where it is bound to less mobile particles. 

Offsite Radiological Monitoring of Water 

Offsite water monitoring conducted annually by BN (see Section 4.1), as well as by DRI through the CEMP (see 

Section 6.2), verifies that there has been no offsite migration of man-made radionuclides from NTS underground 

contamination areas. 

In 2004, BN conducted radiological monitoring of 14 offsite wells and 2 offsite springs. The 14 wells include 6 

private domestic and local community wells and 8 NNSA/NSO wells drilled for hydrogeologic investigations 

including groundwater flow modeling. All of the BN-sampled wells and springs are in Nevada within 18.6 mi (30 km) 

from the western and southern borders of the NTS. The DRI, through the CEMP, sampled 24 offsite sampling 

locations in 2004. They include 17 wells, 3 water supply systems, and 4 springs located in selected towns and 

communities within 240 mi from the NTS. One site, the Beatty Water and Sewer well, is sampled by both BN and 

CEMP. 

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

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

enrichment process was approximately 25 pCi/L and 26 pCi/L for the BN and the CEMP samples, respectively. 

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

the drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for tritium is 20,000 pCi/L. 

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

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

any well or spring are increasing over time. 

CEMP results this year, 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. Samples from only two locations, Boulder 

City and Henderson municipal water supplies, contained tritium at levels barely above detection (see Section 6.2.4). 

All other wells had non-detectable levels of tritium. These two municipal water systems obtain water from Lake 

Mead, which has documented levels of residual tritium persisting in the environment that originated from global 

atmospheric nuclear testing. 

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

radionuclides from NTS underground contamination areas. BN detected tritium in only one offsite well, PM-3 at 

20 pCi/L, slightly above the sample-specific MDC (see Section 4.1.4). A duplicate sample from PM-3 collected on 

the same date was below the sample-specific MDC. All offsite well and spring samples contained detectable gross 

alpha and gross beta activity which are believed to come from natural sources. Gross alpha was found at levels which 

exceeded drinking water standards at only one offsite monitoring well, ER-OV-02. This well is an NNSA/NSO well 

that is not used for drinking water and is closed to the public. This well produces water from a volcanic aquifer that 
Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 ES-5

may have relatively high quantities of natural alpha-yielding elements in the host rock. All gross beta concentrations 

in samples from offsite wells sampled by BN were less than the EPA Level of Concern for drinking water. No offsite 

wells contained any man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides. 

Onsite Radiological Releases into Water 

Radioactivity in onsite groundwater and surface waters on the NTS is monitored to (1) ensure that NTS drinking 

water is safe, (2) determine if permitted facilities on the NTS are in compliance with permit discharge limits for 

radionuclides, (3) estimate radiological dose to onsite wildlife using natural and man-made water sources, and 

(4) verify that groundwater is being protected from disposed radioactive wastes at the Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive 

Waste Management Sites (RWMSs). In 2004, the onsite monitoring network was comprised of 10 potable water 

supply wells, 12 monitoring wells (which include 3 compliance wells for the Area 5 RWMS and 1 compliance well for 

the Area 23 sewage lagoon), 1 tritiated water containment pond system, and 2 sewage lagoons. 

The 2004 data continue to indicate that underground nuclear testing has not impacted the NTS potable water supply 

network (see Section 4.1.6). All of the water samples from the ten supply wells had non-detectable concentrations of 

tritium and man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides. The gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity detected in 

potable water supply wells represent the presence of naturally-occurring radionuclides. 

Four onsite monitoring wells (PM-1, U-19BH, UE-7NS, and WW A) had detectable concentrations of tritium in 

2004 ranging from 23 ± 14 to 475 ± 27 pCi/L, all well below the MCL of 20,000 pCi/L (see Section 4.1.7). Each of 

the four monitoring wells is located within 1 km (0.6 mi) of an historical underground nuclear test; all have 

consistently had detectable levels of tritium in past years. There were also tritium levels above the MDC from three 

wells sampled to validate performance of a radioactive waste disposal pit at the Area 5 RWMS (UE5PW-1, UE5PW-2, 

and UE5PW-3). Tritium concentrations ranged from 30 ± 12 to 37 ± 13 pCi/L in these wells; in each case duplicate 

samples collected at the same times from each well had measured tritium levels below their MDCs. 

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 2004 (see Section 4.1.8). The 

average tritium concentration in tunnel effluent water was 710,000 pCi/L, lower than the limit allowed under a 

discharge permit (1,000,000 pCi/L). Gross alpha and gross beta values in 2004 were also less than their permitted 

limits: 13.4 pCi/L with a permissible limit of 35.1 pCi/L for gross alpha and 72 pCi/L with a permissible limit of 

101 pCi/L for gross beta. 

Tritiated water is also pumped into lined sumps during studies conducted by the Underground Test Area (UGTA) 

Project. To characterize the groundwater regime under the NTS, suitable wells are being drilled and existing wells recompleted in the vicinity of certain underground tests and at other locations on the NTS designated by hydrologists. 

During these drilling operations, if the tritium level exceeds 200,000 pCi/L, contaminated water is pumped from the 

wells and diverted to lined containment ponds, as required by the state. During 2004, water containing tritium was 

pumped from Wells U-3cn PS#2, U-19ad PS#1, ER-20-5 #1, and ER-20-5 #3 into lined containment ponds. Levels 

of tritium in these ponds ranged from 113,000 pCi/L at ER-20-5 #3 to 38,000,000 pCi/L at ER-20-5 #1 (see 

Section 4.1.10). 

Estimated Radiation Dose to the Public 

Man-made radionuclides from past nuclear testing have not been detected in offsite groundwater in the past or during 

2004. The only pathways, therefore, by which the offsite public could receive a radiation dose from NTS operations 

are from inhalation and ingestion. 
Executive Summary 

ES-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Measured Background NTS Radiation Dose - Background gamma radiation exposure rates on the NTS were 

measured at eight TLD stations located away from radiologically contaminated sites; these ranged from 0.16 to 

10.43 mR/day during 2004 (see Section 5.3). This equates to an annual estimated background external dose of 

60 to 156 millirem per year (mrem/yr)1

 to a hypothetical person residing at those locations all year. 

Inhalation Pathway - The radiation dose to the general public via just the air transport pathway was estimated using 

the air sampling results from six onsite EPA-approved “critical receptor” sampling stations. Among these six stations, 

the Schooner air station in the far northwest corner of the NTS experienced the highest concentrations of radioactive 

air emissions (see Section 3.1.5). An individual residing at this station would experience a dose from air emissions of 

2.5 mrem/yr. This dose is less than the limit of 10 mrem/yr. No one resides at this location, of course; the dose at 

offsite populated locations 20-80 km from the Schooner station would be much lower due to wind dispersion. 

Inhalation and Ingestion Pathway - The radiation dose to the general public from inhalation and ingestion of 

airborne radioactive contaminants was estimated using the air sampling results and air transport models. Estimates of 

radionuclide emissions from the following sources were used to compute total air emissions from source locations on 

the NTS: (1) NTS facilities; (2) the resuspension of legacy deposits of radionuclides in NTS soil; (3) the transpiration 

and evaporation of tritium at sites of past nuclear tests; and (4) the evaporation of tritium from ponds used to contain 

tritium-contaminated groundwater. The radiation dose to the general public is expressed as the effective dose 

equivalent [EDE]) to the maximally-exposed individual (MEI); this was computed to be 0.12 mrem/yr 

(0.0012 mSv/yr) for a resident of Cactus Springs, Nevada (see Section 8.1.3). This is well below the dose limit of 

10 mrem/yr specified by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants under the Clean Air Act. 

This dose is consistent with those calculated for past years. 

Ingestion Pathway for Radionuclides in Game Animals - Game animals from different contaminated NTS sites 

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

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

animals include pronghorn antelope, mule deer, chukar, Gambel’s quail, mourning doves, cottontail rabbits, and 

jackrabbits. The MEI who is a hunter is assumed to eat 20 doves, 20 quail, 20 chukar, 20 jackrabbits, and 1 

pronghorn antelope in a year. It is also assumed that the dose from each animal consumed is the average calculated 

dose for that species which was sampled from the NTS location where the highest levels of radionuclides in that 

species’ muscle tissues were found. The resultant potential dose from consuming NTS game animals representative 

of those sampled is 0.39 mrem/yr (see Section 8.1.4). To put this dose into perspective, it is less than the dose from 

cosmic radiation received by an individual while on a one-hour plane ride at 39,000 ft. 

All Possible Pathways - The hypothetical MEI was also assumed to be a hunter who harvested NTS game animals 

and received the additional radiation dose of 0.39 mrem/yr. The resultant total radiation dose to the MEI attributable 

to NTS operations from all possible pathways combined was 0.51 mrem/yr (0.0051 mSv/yr (see Section 8.1.6) This

dose is a very small fraction (0.15 percent) of the total radiation dose from naturally-occurring sources. This total 

dose is also well below the dose limit of 100 mrem/yr established by DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the 

Public and the Environment. 

The collective population dose within 80 km (50 mi) of the emission sources was estimated to be 0.47 person-rem/yr 

(0.0047 person-Sv/yr) (see Section 8.1.7).

1

Direct radiation exposure is usually measured in the unit milli-roentgen (mR), which is a measure of exposure in terms 

of a specified number of ionizations in air. Generally, the dose resulting from an exposure from the most common 

external radionuclides can be approximated by equating a 1 mR exposure with a 1 mrem (0.01 mSv) dose. 
Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 ES-7

Estimated Radiation Dose to the General Public from the NTS in 2004 

(a) Sum of radiation doses from all emission sources at each populated location within 80 km of emission 

sources multiplied by the population at each location, and then summed over all locations. 

(b) Unable to make this estimate due to a lack of data on number of game animals harvested near the NTS 

 by hunters in 2004. 

(c) The dose contribution from wildlife is not included. It is likely to be negligible when averaged over the 

 entire population within an 80-km radius. 

Comparison of Radiation Dose to the MEI and the 

Natural Radiation Background (Percent of Total)

Onsite Non-Radiological Releases into Air 

There were no discharges of non-radiological hazardous materials to offsite areas in 2004. Therefore, only onsite 

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

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

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

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

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

combination of HAPs). 

Pathway 

Dose to Maximally 

Exposed Individual 

(mrem/yr) (mSv/yr) 

Percent of DOE 

100-mrem/yr 

Limit 

Estimated Collective 

Population Dose(a) 

(person-rem/yr) (person-Sv/yr)

Air 0.12 0.0012 0.12 0.47(a) 0.0047 

Water 0 0 0 0 0

Wildlife 0.39 0.0039 0.39 U(b) U

All Pathways 0.51 0.0051 0.51 0.47(c) 0.0047 
Executive Summary 

ES-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

An estimated 6.91 tons of criteria air pollutants were released on the NTS in 2004. They included: particulate matter 

equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (see Section 3.2.1). The majority of these emissions (4.60 tons) were 

VOCs. The NPTEC facility, where controlled spills of hazardous materials are conducted, produced more VOCs 

than all other permitted NTS facilities. Total air emissions of lead, also a criteria pollutant, in 2004 was 10.4 pounds. 

The quantity of HAPS released in 2004 was 0.41 tons. No emission limits for any criteria air pollutants of HAPS were 

exceeded. On May 12, 2004, the state of Nevada conducted an inspection of the following facilities regulated by the 

NTS air quality permit: the Area 1 Aggregate Plant, Area 1 Batch Plant, and the NPTEC. There were no findings or 

exceedances of permit limits. 

Asbestos is the only non-radiological HAP of regulatory concern on the NTS. In 2004, all materials containing 

regulated asbestos that were removed from NTS facilities were disposed of in the Mercury landfill. The quantities 

removed did not exceed EPA’s notification threshold (see Section 3.2.7). The Mercury landfill documented receipt of 

15 tons of such material in 2004. 

A combined total of 5 tests consisting of 25 releases of hazardous chemicals were conducted at the Area 5 and the 

Area 25 Test Cell C NPTEC facilities in 2004 (see Section 3.2.4). 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. 

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

Onsite Non-Radiological Releases into Water 

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

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

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

In 2004, 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 2004, quarterly and annual analyses of 

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

(see Section 4.2.3). The majority of samples had concentrations of toxic chemicals below detectable levels. The few 

toxic chemicals which were detectable were found at levels all less than 0.1 percent of their permit limits. 

Onsite Non-Radiological Drinking Water Quality 

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

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

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

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

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

Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards in 2004 (see Section 4.2.1). Samples from two of the water systems 

slightly exceeded a Secondary Standard for pH. No monitoring of the private water systems was conducted. 

Non-Radiological Releases into Air and Water at the NLVF 

Like the NTS, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) is regulated for the emission of criteria air pollutants and HAPs. 

Air quality operating permits are maintained for a variety of equipment at the NLVF. There are no monitoring 

requirements associated with these permits. The Clark County Health District requires submittal of an annual 

emissions inventory. The estimated quantities of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted at the NLVF in 2004 were 

minimal; they ranged from 0.0009 tons for HAPS to 0.679 tons for nitrous oxides (see Appendix B, Section B.1.3). 

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

discharges and by temporary NPDES discharge permits with the state for groundwater discharges into the CNLV 
Executive Summary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 ES-9

storm water drainage system. The NPDES permits were obtained for a groundwater characterization and dewatering 

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

industrial outfalls is conducted. In 2004, all water samples from NLVF outfalls and all sludge and liquid samples from 

the NLVF sand/oil interceptor had contaminant levels below established permit limits (see Appendix B, 

Section B.1.1). An unauthorized discharge of tritiated water occurred at the NLVF in 2004, as discussed below. 

Accidental or Unplanned Environmental Releases or Occurrences 

On the NTS, one environmental occurrence was reportable in 2004. About 75 gallons of oil leaked onto the soil from 

a 650-gallon oil holding tank mounted on a lubrication truck (see Section 2.11). 

At the NLVF, one environmental occurrence was reportable in 2004 (see Appendix B, Section B.1.1.2). Parts of 

Building A-1 at the NLVF were contaminated with tritium by a previous contractor in 1995. During a pre-inspection 

and safety walkthrough in 2004, it was observed that a 5-gallon bucket of water was located near a floor drain and 

under the drainpipe of the air-handling unit in Room 4520 of Building A-1. The bucket was being used to catch 

condensate from the air handler. Tritiated water from the bucket had been emptied into the floor drain, constituting 

an unauthorized discharge to the city of North Las Vegas sewer system. Water samples from the bucket indicated a 

tritium concentration of 23,000 r 4,000 (pCi/L). NNSA/NSO reported the unauthorized discharge to the CNLV. 

Several actions required by the CNLV were taken to prevent future discharges and to document that the tritium was 

not detectable at the sewage outfall for the NLVF following each of the discharge incidents.

During preparation of this report, EPA informed the state that it was in direct violation of the Clean Water Act by 

issuing the temporary NPDES discharge permits for the NLVF that allowed discharge of pumped groundwater to the 

CNLV storm water drainage system. BN will implement one of several corrective action options presented by the 

state in order to comply with the EPA ruling and resolve this issue. 

Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Activities 

Decommissioned NTS buildings destined for disassembly and disposal were donated or sold for reuse. This waste 

minimization effort diverted approximately 27.9 metric tons (mtons) (30.8 tons) of waste from the NTS landfills in 

2004. The Material Exchange Program reused 1.97 mtons (2.17 tons) of non-hazardous chemicals, equipment, and 

supplies. The BN Payroll Department converted to a paperless, electronic time keeping system. This new process 

eliminated the need for paper timecards and reduced the amount of paper waste by about 2.0 mtons (2.2 tons). Other 

significant waste reduction efforts continued in 2004, such as selling scrap ferrous metal to a vendor for recycling 

(751.2 mtons [826.3 tons]) and offsite recycling of mixed paper and cardboard (518.7 mtons [570.6 tons]). Overall, a 

reduction of 114.8 mtons (126.3 tons) of hazardous wastes and 1,437.5 mtons (1,581.3 tons) of solid wastes were 

realized in 2004 (see Section 11.0). 

Overall Compliance with Environmental Laws, Regulations, and 

Policies 

NTS compliance status with over 100 applicable environmental laws, regulations, and policies are summarized in 

Section 2.0. The major categories of these drivers are listed below along with the 2004 percent compliance within 

each category. Where compliance for a category is not 100 percent, the non-compliance incidents are noted. 
Executive Summary 

ES-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Environmental Compliance Summary for the NTS in 2004 

Category Number of Compliance 

Measures/Actions Percent in Compliance 

Air Quality 18 94 

One incidence of excessive fugitive dust 

Water Quality and Protection 26 96 

pH (a Secondary Standard for water quality) 

was exceeded in samples from two NTS 

public water systems 

Radiation Dose Protection 12 100 

Radioactive and Non-Radioactive Waste 

Management and Environmental Restoration 16 100 

Hazardous Materials Control and 

Management 11 100 

Pollution Prevention and Waste 

Minimization 

9 measurable annually 

5 future goals measurable in 2005 

100

NA 

Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource 

Protection 12 100 

Conservation and Protection of Biota and 

Wildlife Habitat 

13 92 

16 accidental bird deaths attributable to NTS 

activities (e.g., roadkill), represented 8 species 

protected as migratory birds 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 1-1

1.0 Introduction 

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. As shown in Figure 1-1, the NTS 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) (previously 

known as the Nellis Air Force Range), on the east by an area used by both the NTTR and the Desert National 

Wildlife Range (DNWR), 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 m (2,700 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. 

Figure 1-3 shows the general layout of the NTS, including the location of major facilities and the numbered 

operational areas of the NTS referred to in this report. The geographical areas previously used for nuclear testing are 

also shown in Figure 1-3. 

The reader is directed to Appendix A where the geology, hydrology, climatology, ecology, and cultural resources of 

the site are described. 
1-2

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004Figure 1-1. NTS vicinity map
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 1-3

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

1-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 1-5

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 1951 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. 

Atmospheric Tests - Tests conducted through the 1950s were predominantly atmospheric tests. These tests 

involved a nuclear explosive device detonated while on the ground surface, on a steel tower, suspended from tethered 

balloons, dropped from an aircraft, or placed on a rocket. Several tests were categorized as “safety experiments”, and 

“storage-transportation tests”, involving the destruction of a nuclear device with non-nuclear explosives. Some of 

these tests resulted in the dispersion of plutonium in the test vicinity. One of these test areas lies just north of the 

NTS boundary at the south end of the NTTR, and four others involving storage-transportation are at the north end 

of the NTTR. These test areas have been monitored for radionuclides in the past (1996 – 2000) in support of 

remediation projects, two of which were completed. The three remaining sites will be monitored again once 

restoration of these sites begins. All nuclear device tests are listed in United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through 

September 1992 (DOE, 2000a). 

Underground Tests - The first underground test, a cratering test, was conducted in 1951. The first totally-contained 

underground test was in 1957. Testing was discontinued during a moratorium that began October 31, 1958, but was 

resumed in September 1961 after tests by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics began. Since late 1962, nearly all 

tests have been conducted in sealed vertical shafts drilled into Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa or in horizontal tunnels 

mined into Rainier Mesa. From 1951 to 1992, a total of 828 underground nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS. 

Approximately one third of these tests were detonated near or below the water table; this has resulted in the 

contamination of groundwater in some areas. In 1996, DOE, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the state of 

Nevada entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) which established Corrective 

Action Units (CAUs) on the NTS that delineated and defined areas of concern for groundwater contamination. 

Cratering Tests - Five earth-cratering (shallow-burial) tests were conducted over the period of 1962 through 1968 as 

part of the Plowshare Program that explored peaceful uses of nuclear explosives. The first and highest yield 

Plowshare crater test, Sedan (PHS, 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 tests and experiments at the NTS have included the Bare Reactor Experiment - 

Nevada (BREN) series in the 1960s conducted in Area 25. These tests were performed with a 14 million electron volt 

(MeV) neutron generator mounted on a 465-meter (1,530-feet) steel tower used to conduct neutron and gamma-ray 

interaction studies on various materials. From 1959 through 1973, a series of open-air nuclear reactor, nuclear engine, 

and nuclear furnace tests 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 radioiodines, radio-xenons, 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 (LANL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Sandia National 

Laboratories (SNL) are the principal organizations that sponsor and implement the nuclear weapons programs at the 

NTS. Bechtel Nevada (BN) is the Management and Operations (M&O) contractor who is accountable for the 

successful execution of work and ensuring that work is performed in compliance with environmental regulations. The 

seven satellite sites of the NTS include the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility (CLVF), 

Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) – Nellis, RSL – Andrews, Livermore Operations, Los Alamos Operations, and 
Introduction

1-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 B). The three major NTS 

programs include: (1) Stockpile Stewardship, (2) National Security Response Program and Operations, and (3) 

Environmental Management. 

1.5 Primary Operations and Activities 

NTS activities in 2004 continue to be diverse, with the primary role being to help ensure that the existing United 

States stockpile of nuclear weapons remains safe and reliable. Facilities that support this mission include the 

U1a Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF), Device Assembly Facility (DAF), and Joint Actinide 

Shock Physics Experimental Research (JASPER) Facility. Other NTS activities include demilitarization activities; 

controlled spills of hazardous material at the Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC) (formerly 

known as the Hazardous Materials Spill Center); remediation of industrial sites; processing of waste destined for the 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico; disposal of radioactive and mixed waste; and environmental 

research. In addition, there are continued efforts to bring other business to the NTS, like aerospace and alternative 

energy technologies and support of U.S. Department of Homeland Security National Center for Combating 

Terrorism work. 

1.6 Demography 

The population of the area surrounding the NTS is predominantly rural. The population estimates for Nevada 

communities has been estimated by the Nevada State Demographer Office (NSDO) up through July 1, 2004 

(Hardcastle, 2005). The annual population estimate for Nevada counties, cities, and unincorporated towns is 

2,410,768, with all but 695,431 residing in Clark County. The total population estimate for Nye County is 38,131 and 

includes the communities of Amargosa Valley (1,211), Beatty (981), Gabbs (316), Manhattan (128), Pahrump (30,465), 

Round Mountain (767), and Tonopah (2,341). The largest of the Nye County communities is Pahrump Valley, which 

is approximately 50 mi (80 km) south of the NTS Control Point facility, which is near the center of the NTS 

(see Figure A-2). Neighboring Lincoln County to the east of the NTS includes a few small communities including 

Alamo (441), Caliente (1,014), Panaca (552), and Pioche (669). Neighboring Clark County is the major population 

center of Nevada and has an estimated total population of 1,715,337. 

NTS Program Missions 

Stockpile Stewardship – The primary mission of this program is to conduct high-hazard operations in support 

of defense-related nuclear and national security experiments and to maintain the capabilities to resume 

underground nuclear weapons testing, if directed. 

National Security Response Program and Operations – The goal of this program is to provide 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. 

Environmental Management – This program includes Waste Management and Environmental Restoration. 

The goals of this program are to manage and safely dispose of low-level waste received from DOE and 

DoD-approved facilities throughout the United States and mixed low-level waste generated in Nevada by 

NNSA/NSO operations, safely manage and characterize for offsite disposal hazardous and transuranic wastes, 

characterize and remediate the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons and other testing at the NTS and at offsite 

locations, and develop and deploy technologies that enhance environmental restoration. 
Introduction

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 1-7

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 during mild weather. 

The extreme southwestern region of Utah is more developed than the adjacent portion of Nevada. The population 

estimates for Utah communities are based on the 2000 Census data and were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. 

The largest community is St. George, located 220 km (137 mi) east of the NTS, with a population of 49,663. The next 

largest town, Cedar City, is located 280 km (174 mi) east-northeast of the NTS and has a population of 20,527. 

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 37,325, and Kingman, located 

280 km (174 mi) southeast of the NTS, with an estimated population of 24,600 ( July 1, 2004 population estimates, 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2004). 

The offsite population density within an 80-km radius of all emission sources of radioactivity on the NTS is about 

1.0 persons/km2 (2.6 persons/mi2). In comparison, the 48 contiguous states have a population density of about 

36 persons/km2 (94 persons/mi2) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). 
Introduction

1-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 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 [CLVF], and Remote Sensing Laboratory [RSL]-

Nellis) are listed in this Compliance Summary. They include federal and state laws, state permit requirements, 

Executive Orders (EOs), DOE Orders, and state agreements. They dictate how the U. S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) conducts operations on and off the NTS 

to ensure the protection of the environment and the public. The regulations are grouped by topic. A compliance 

status table is presented for each topical group of regulations. Each table lists those measures or actions which are 

tracked or performed annually to ensure compliance with a regulation. A description of the field monitoring efforts, 

actions, and results which support the data in each table can be found in subsequent sections of this document, as 

noted in the “Reference Section” column of each table. Non-compliance incidents or compliance issues, if any, are 

included in the topical subsections along with a listing of compliance reports generated during the reporting year. The 

last table presented in this section is a list of all NNSA/NSO environmental permits for the NTS and its satellite 

facilities for the year 2004. 

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. These 

standards are promulgated through Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 61, in Subparts H and M, 

respectively. Under Subpart H, NESHAP establishes a radiation dose limit for individuals of the general public. 

Subpart M addresses protection of the public from asbestos. Both subparts define the methods to use in determining 

compliance, recordkeeping, reporting, and in determining whether federal approval is required prior to the 

construction of new facilities or the modification of existing facilities. NESHAP compliance activities at the NTS are 

limited to radionuclide monitoring and reporting and notification of asbestos abatement. No NESHAP compliance 

activities are required at the Nevada satellite facilities. 

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) (formerly the Hazardous Materials 

Spill Center), Test Cell C Facility, and the Tactical Demilitarization Development Project (TaDD). Detonations 

conducted at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF) and the Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU), 

which heretofore did not require permitting, are now included in the permit. The NTS also has a temporary air 

permit for a portable screening and crushing plant in Area 6. Nevada air quality permits specify emission limits for 

criteria pollutants (except ozone and lead) that are based on published emissions values for other similar industries 

and on operational data specific to the NTS. Lead is considered a HAP as well as a criteria pollutant. Emissions from 

lead are reported as part of the total HAPs emissions rather than as a separate criteria pollutant. Lead emissions 

above a specified threshold are also reported under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (see Section 2.5). 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, visible emissions (opacity) limits for equipment or facilities, opacity field monitoring 
Compliance Summary

2-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

requirements, and certification requirements for personnel conducting opacity monitoring. The permit also grants the 

state access to the NTS to conduct inspections of permitted facilities. 

State of Nevada regulations prohibit the open burning of combustible refuse and other materials unless specifically 

exempted by an authorized variance (Nevada Administrative Code 445B.122). At the NTS, Open Burn Variances are 

routinely obtained for fire extinguisher training and various emergency management exercises. 

The NTS satellite facilities discussed in Appendix B operate under air quality permits that require the reporting of 

estimated annual emissions of criteria pollutants. 

CAA, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) – The NSPS were established by Title I of the CAA to set 

minimum nationwide emission limitations of regulated air pollutants (HAPs and criteria pollutants mentioned above) 

and for various industrial categories of facilities. The state of Nevada has adopted the NSPS and regulates emissions 

from subject facilities through state law (NRS 445B as codified in NAC 445B). At the NTS, some of the screens and 

conveyor belts that were manufactured after August 1981 are subject to NSPS under the category of Nonmetallic 

Mineral Processing Plants. 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. 

The NTS satellite facilities discussed in Appendix B operate under air quality permits that require the reporting of 

estimated annual emissions of HAPs. 

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 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. 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. 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

During the summer of 2004, NNSA/NSO personnel observed an excess of fugitive dust resulting from an operation 

at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. NNSA/NSO determined that Bechtel Nevada (BN) was 

failing to monitor operations sufficiently to prevent excessive fugitive dust. In response, BN Environmental Services 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-3 

finalized a fugitive dust control policy in November (Organization Instruction, OI-0442.002 Fugitive Dust Monitoring). 

This policy establishes periodic monitoring of dust-producing activities and operations. 

2.1.2 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for NTS operations in 2004 in compliance with air quality regulations: 

• National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Calendar Year 2004 (submitted to EPA Region IX) 

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

• Calendar Year 2004 Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Form, submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection 

• Quarterly Class II Air Quality Report, submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

• NPTEC Pre-test and Post-test Reports, submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

The following reports were generated for operations at NTS satellite facilities in 2004 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 2004. 
2-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 2-1. NTS compliance status with applicable air quality regulations Compliance Measure/Actions Compliance Limit Compliance Sta

Clean Air Act – NESHAP Annual dose equivalent from all radioactive air emissions 10 mrem/yr(b) (0.1 mSv/yr) Compliant - 0.12 

(0.0012 mS

Notify EPA Region IX if the number of linear or square feet (ft) of asbestos to be removed from a facility exceeds limit 260 linear ft or 160 ft2(c) CompliaMaintain asbestos abatement plans, data records, and activity/ maintenance records For up to 25 or 75 years Complia

Clean Air Act – NAAQS 

Submit quarterly reports of calculated emissions to state of Nevada Due 30 days after end of quarter Complia

Submit annual report of calculated emissions to state of Nevada Due March 1 Complia

Number of gallons of fuel used, hours of operation, and rate of aggregate/concrete production by permitted equipment/facility 

Limit varies(d) Complia

Tons of emissions of each criteria pollutant produced by permitted equipment/facility based on calculations PTE varies(e) Complia

Conduct opacity readings from permitted equipment/facility Quarterly CompliaPercent opacity of emissions from permitted equipment/facility 20% Complia

0 to 10% for 6 

Submit test plans/final analysis reports for tests at NPTEC facilities and annual report of all chemicals released during the year to the state Annual report due March 1 Complia

5 tests cond

Estimated quantities of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted annually at the NLVF and the RSL submitted in annual emissions inventory reports to Clark County Health District 

No emissions limits, 

Emissions Inventories due 

March 31 

Complia

Clean Air Act - NSPS

Conduct opacity readings from permitted equipment/facility Quarterly Complia

 Percent opacity of emissions from permitted equipment/facility 10% Complia

< 10% for 1 f
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-5

Table 2-1. (continued) 

Compliance Measure/Actions Compliance Limit Compliance Sta

Clean Air Act - Stratospheric Ozone Protection  Maintain ODS technician certification records, approvals for ODS-containing 

equipment recycling/recovery, and applicable equipment servicing records NA(f) Complia

Generic Nevada Air Quality Permit Regulations

Implement program to control fugitive dust for land disturbing activities NA 

Non-comp

One incidence o

fugitive d

Allow Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control access to conduct inspections of facilities and operations regulated by state air permits NA Complia

Inspection conduc

 (a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected (b) mrem/yr = millirem per year; mSv/yr = millisievert per year (c) 260 linear ft or 160 ft2 = 79.3 linear meters (m) or 14.9 m2

(d) Compliance limit is specific for each piece of permitted equipment/facility 

 (e) Potential to emit (PTE) = the quantities of criteria pollutants that each facility/piece of equipment would emit annually if it were operated for the maxim

 in the state air permit  (f) Not applicable 
Compliance Summary

2-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 also sets water 

quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. At the NTS, applicable 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. On the NTS, no wastewater discharges are released into any waters of the U.S. 

Therefore, NTS operations do not require any NPDES permits. Three NPDES permits have been issued to 

NNSA/NSO for the discharge of pumped groundwater at the NLVF into the North Las Vegas storm water drainage 

system during the conduct of a groundwater characterization study (see Appendix B). 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – Protects the quality of drinking water in the U.S. This law focuses on all 

waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above-ground or underground sources. 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. 

Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A - Water Controls (Public Water Systems) – Enforces the SDWA 

requirements and sets standards for permitting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, certification of 

operators, and water quality of public water systems (PWSs). The NTS has three PWSs and two potable water hauler 

trucks which BHPS regulates through the issuance of permits. Although the SDWA sets drinking water standards for 

radionuclides, the state of Nevada does not require radionuclide monitoring of drinking water on the NTS because 

the NTS does not have a “community water system” (i.e., a PWS having at least 15 service connections and used by 

year-round residents). However, all potable water supply wells are monitored on the NTS for radionuclides in 

compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (see Section 2.3). 

NAC 444 and 445A - Water Controls (Water Pollution Control) – Regulates the collection, treatment, and 

disposal of wastewater and sewage at the NTS. The requirements of this state regulation are issued in permits for E 

Tunnel effluent waters, sewage lagoons, septic tanks, and septic hauler contractors and pumpers. Perched 

groundwater which seeps out of E Tunnel in Area 12 is contained and monitored annually for radiological 

contaminants and quarterly for non-radiological contaminants as required under an NDEP permit issued to the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). NNSA/NSO holds a general permit issued by NDEP covering two 

active and nine inactive sewage lagoon systems (see Table 2-12). Water quality and toxicity of the active sewage 

lagoons are monitored quarterly and annually, respectively, to meet permit requirements. The 19 septic systems on 

the NTS each process less than 5,000 gallons per day (gal/d) (18,927 liters/day), therefore they are not regulated by

NDEP. The BHPS regulates the NTS septic systems as commercial individual systems which treat domestic sewage

only in quantities less than5,000 gal/d. The BHPS does not require collection or analysis of sewage samples from

these septic systems. The BHPS also regulates the permits that NNSA/NSO holds for the four septic tank pumpers,

one septic tanker, and one septic tank pumping contractor. 

Discharges of sewage and industrial wastewater from the NLVF are required to meet permit limits set by the 

City of North Las Vegas. Discharges of wastewater from the RSL are required to meet permit limits set by the Clark 

County Water Reclamation District. 

NAC 534 - Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulations for Water Well and Related Drilling – 

Regulates the drilling and construction of new wells and the reworking of existing wells in order to prevent the waste 

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, 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-7 

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. 

2.2.1 Out-of-Compliance Incidents 

Septic System, Area 27, Able Compound Permit NY-1087 – On Monday, March 1, 2004, approximately 30 

gallons of raw sewage was accidentally released onto the ground from the manhole above the Able Compound septic 

tank. The manhole was pumped and the sewer line was jetted to clear the obstruction (roots and sediment). No fines 

or penalties were incurred from this discharge. 

Septic System, Area 25, Reactor Control Point Permit NY-1086 – On Thursday, April 8, 2004, at 

Building 25-3102, a valve was missing from a cooling radiator. While the laborers were cutting water pipes on the 

inside of the building, water started to flow from the radiator and approximately 2.8 liters of water made it into a drain 

about 10 feet away. No fines or penalties were incurred from this discharge. 

2.2.2 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for NTS operations in 2004 in compliance with water quality regulations: 

• Quarterly Monitoring Report for Nevada Test Site Sewage Lagoons, submitted April 13, July 13, and October 18, 2004, 

and January 13, 2005 to NDEP (in compliance with permit GNEV93001) 

• Results of water quality analyses for PWSs were sent to the state throughout the year as they were obtained from 

the laboratory. 

• Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021, Quarterly Monitoring Report (for E Tunnel effluent monitoring), submitted 

April 20, July 20, and October 19, 2004, and January 24, 2005 to NDEP 

• Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021 Quarterly Monitoring Report and Annual Summary Report for E Tunnel Waste 

Water Disposal System (DTRA, 2004) 

The following reports were generated for operations at the NTS satellite facilities in 2004 in compliance with water 

quality regulations: 

• Self-Monitoring Report for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s North Las Vegas Facility: Permit VEH-112, 

submitted October 25, 2004 to the City of North Las Vegas 

• Quarterly reports titled Remote Sensing Laboratory Self Monitoring Report- Permit No. CCWRD-080, submitted March 3, 

May 6, September 7, and December 1, 2004 to the Clark County Water Reclamation District 

• Two additional monitoring reports titled Remote Sensing Laboratory Additional Monitoring Reports - Permit No. 

CCWRD-080 were submitted February 4 and July 1, 20 

• Reports of groundwater discharge volumes for NLVF temporary NPDES permits TNEV2003461, 

TNEV2004348, and TNEV2004364 04, submitted each month to NDEP 

2.2.3 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-2 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with water quality and protection regulations at the NTS 

and its satellite facilities in 2004. 
2-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 2-2. NTS compliance status with applicable water quality and protection regulations Compliance Measure/Action Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 20

Safe Drinking Water Act and Nevada Water Controls (NAC 445A - Water Controls - Public Water Systems)  Number of water samples containing coliform bacteria 1 per month 0  Concentration of nitrates in all PWSs (in milligrams per liter [mg/L]) 10 mg/L ND(b) – 4.3 mg/L  Concentration of organic contaminants in all PWSs Limit varies(c) Compliant  Concentration of Phase V inorganic contaminants in all PWSs Limit varies Compliant  Concentration of disinfection byproducts in all PWSs 0.06 – 0.08 mg/L 0.0011 – 0.0066  Concentration of secondary standards in all PWSs Limit varies 

Compliant for all standar

except pH from Area 23 an

PWS and Area 25 PWS 

 Concentration of lead and copper in Area 12 PWS Limit varies Compliant  Concentration of fluoride in Area 25 PWS 4.0 mg/L 1.8 - 2.4 mg/L 

Adhere to design, construction, maintenance, and operation regulations specified by permits NA(d) Compliant 

 Allow BHPS access to conduct inspections of PWS and water hauling trucks NA Compliant Clean Water Act – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits 

Measure and report volume of pumped groundwater discharged at the NLVF NA Compliant 

Clean Water Act and Nevada Water Pollution Controls - Sewage Disposal (NAC 444 – Sewage Disposal) 

Adhere to all design/construction/operation requirements for new systems and those specified in 16 septic system permits, 5 septic tank pumper permits, and 1 septic tank pumping contractor permit 

NA Compliant 

Clean Water Act and Nevada Water Pollution Controls (NAC 445A - Water Pollution Controls) 

 Value of 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD5), total suspended 

 solids (TSS), and pH in one sewage lagoon water sample sampled quarterly

BOD5: varies 

TSS: no limit pH: 6.0 - 9.0 S.U.

Compliant – Samples collecin Jan., Apr., Jul, and Oct. 

Concentration of 36 contaminants in the filtrate from one sewage lagoon sample collected annually from each of two permitted facilities Limit varies Compliant - concentratio

within limits 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-9 

Table 2-2. (continued) 

Compliance Measure/Action Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 

pH value and concentration of 18 contaminants in a water sample collected annually from groundwater monitoring well SM-23-1 Limit varies Compliant Inspection by operator of active sewage lagoon systems Weekly Compliant Inspection by operator of inactive sewage lagoon systems Quarterly Compliant Submit quarterly monitoring reports for 3 active sewage lagoons (for Area 6, 12, and 23) 

Due end of Jan., Apr., 

Jul., Oct. Compliant 

Allow NDEP access to conduct inspections of active sewage lagoon systems NA 

Compliant 

Inspection conducte

 April, 2004 

Concentrations of tritium (3H), gross alpha (

α), and gross beta (β), (in 

picocuries per liter [pCi/L]), and 16 non-radiological contaminants/water quality parameters in E Tunnel effluent water samples collected quarterly 

3H: 1,000,000 pCi/L 

α: 35.1 pCi/L 

β: 101 pCi/L 

Non-rad: Limit varies

3H: 710,000 pCi/L 

α: 13.4 pCi/L 

β: 72 pCi/L 

Non-rad: Complian

Concentrations of 19 contaminants in water samples from three NLVF sewage outfalls and all sludge and liquid samples from the NLVF sand/oil interceptor Limit varies Compliant Concentrations of 12 contaminants in water samples from sewage outfall at the RSL Limit varies Compliant 

NAC 534 - Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulations for Water Well and Related Drilling 

Maintain state well-drilling license for personnel supervising well construction/reconditioning NA

Compliant - 5 licens

personnel supervised 

activities 

File notices of intent and affidavits of responsibility for plugging NA Compliant - 3 notices of 

with 2 affidavits were 

Adhere to well construction requirements/waivers NA 

Compliant - no new w

constructed for UGTA P

90 boreholes plugged 

Borehole Management P

Maintain required records and submit required reports NA Compliant 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected (b) Not detectable (c) Compliance limit is specific for each contaminant; see referenced tables for specific limits (d) Not applicable 
Compliance Summary

2-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 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 (RWMC), Sedan crater, and Schooner crater, (3) release of tritium 

gas during calibration of analytical equipment at Building 650 in Area 23, and (4) re-suspension of plutonium and 

americium from contaminated soil at nuclear device safety test and atmospheric test locations. NESHAP also 

specifies “Concentration Levels for Environmental Compliance” (abbreviated as CLs) for radionuclides. A CL is the 

annual average concentration of a radionuclide that could deliver a dose of 10 mrem/yr. The CLs are provided for 

facilities which use air sampling at offsite receptor locations to demonstrate compliance. 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141), 

promulgated by the SDWA (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 236, December 7, 2000), 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 are the numerous underground nuclear tests conducted at the NTS which were 

detonated near or below the water table. 

DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program – This DOE Order 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 – Protection of the public and the 

environment is further mandated by this Order and by flow-down procedural standards established to help implement 

the objectives of the Order. DOE Order 5400.5 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. DOE Order 5400.5 specifies 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. DOE Order 5400.5 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 – This Standard, titled A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota (DOE, 2002a), 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. A dose limit of 1 rad per day (rad/d) (10 milligray per day [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 – This order ensures that all DOE radioactive waste is 

managed in a manner that is protective of the worker, public health and safety, and the environment. The directive 

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. The order 

also directs how radioactive waste management operations are conducted on the NTS. These operational 

requirements are summarized in Section 2.4. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-11 

2.3.1 Compliance Reports 

In compliance with NESHAP under the CAA, the report National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 

Calendar Year 2004, was submitted to EPA Region IX in June 2004. This Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 was 

generated to report 2004 compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE-STD-1153-2002. 

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 2004. 

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

environment

Compliance Measure Compliance Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2004 

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) 

0.12 mrem/yr 

(0.0012 mSv/yr) 

3.1.5; 

8.1.3 

 Safe Drinking Water Act 

 Annual dose to the general public from drinking 

water 

4 mrem/yr 

(0.04 mSv/yr) 

0 mrem/yr(b)

(0 mSv/yr) 

4.1.4; 

Table 4-1 

 DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public 

 and the Environment 

 

 Annual dose above background levels to the general 

public from all pathways 

100 mrem/yr 

(1 mSv/yr) 

0.51 mrem/yr 

(0.0051 mSv/yr) 

8.1.6; Table 8-6; 

B.1.5; Table B-5 

Total residual surface contamination of property 

released offsite (in disintegrations per minute per 100 

square centimeters [dpm/100 cm2]) 

300–15,000 dpm/100 cm2 

depending on 

radionuclide 

Compliant 

No detectable 

releases 

8.1.5 

 DOE Standard 1153-2002 

 Absorbed radiation dose to terrestrial plants 1 rad/d 

(0.01 Gy/d) 

<1 rad/d 

(<0.01 Gy/d) 

8.2 

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

 

Absorbed radiation dose to terrestrial animals 0.1 rad/d 

(1 mGy/d) 

<0.1 rad/d 

(<1 mGy/d) 

8.2 

DOE Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management 

 

Annual dose to the general public due to RWMS 

operations 

25 mrem/yr

(0.25 mSv/yr) Compliant(c ) 5.3.2 

DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program 

Conduct radiological environmental monitoring NA(d) Compliant 3.1; 4.1; 5.0; 

6.0; 7.0 

Detect and characterize radiological releases NA Compliant 3.1; 4.1; 5.0; 6.0; 

Table 3-12 

 Characterize pathways of exposure to the public NA Compliant 8.1.1 

Characterize exposures and doses to individuals, the 

population, and biota NA Compliant 8.1.6; 8.1.7; 8.2 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

(b) Migration of radioactivity in groundwater to offsite wells has never been detected 

(c) Nearest populations to the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs are Amargosa Valley (55 km away) and Cactus Springs (36 km away), 

respectively. They are too distant to receive any radiation exposure from operations at the sites. 

(d) Not applicable 
Compliance Summary

2-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

2.4 Radioactive and Non-Radioactive Waste Management and 

Environmental Restoration 

10 CFR 830: Nuclear Safety Management – Establishes requirements for the safe management of DOE 

contractor and subcontractor work at DOE’s nuclear facilities. It governs the possession and use of special nuclear 

material and byproduct materials deemed necessary for the protection of health and minimization of danger to life or 

property. 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. The broad intent of the regulation is to ensure compliance with all enforceable rules, 

regulations, or orders relating to nuclear safety adopted by DOE for the NTS. 

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. Radioactive waste 

management activities conducted on the NTS which are subject to this Order include: (1) characterization of low level 

radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low level radioactive waste (MW) generated by DOE within the state of Nevada, 

(2) disposal of LLW and MW at the RWMC which includes the Area 3 RWMS and the Area 5 RWMS, 

(3) characterization, visual examination, and repackaging of transuranic (TRU) waste at the Waste Examination 

Facility (WEF) just south of the Area 5 RWMS, and (4) loading of TRU waste at the Mobile Loading Unit (MLU) at 

the Area 5 RWMS for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant at Carlsbad, New Mexico. 

Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954 (42 U.S.C. Sect. 2011 et seq.) – Ensures the proper management of source, 

special nuclear, and byproduct material. At the NTS, AEA regulations are followed through compliance with 

DOE Order 435.1 and 10 CFR 830. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – Ensures the safe and environmentally responsible 

management of hazardous (see Glossary, Appendix D) and non-hazardous solid waste. RCRA (1976, 1996) and the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 constitute the statutory basis for the regulation of hazardous waste 

and underground storage tanks (USTs). Under Section 3006, the EPA has authorized the state of Nevada to 

administer and enforce hazardous waste permits for many NNSA/NSO facilities. Nevada has issued a RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Operating Permit (NEV HW009) which governs operation of the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit 

(HWSU) in Area 5, the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) in Area 11, and the disposal of MW at the Pit 3 

Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) at the Area 5 RWMS. Under Subpart F of RCRA (40 CFR 265.92), groundwater 

monitoring is required to verify the performance of P03U. The NEV HW009 permit also prescribes post-closure 

monitoring for five closed waste sites on the NTS that are RCRA Part B-identified Corrective Action Units (CAUs). 

They include the Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches (CAU 112), the Area 3 U3fi Injection Well (CAU 91), the 

Area 3 U3ax/bl Subsidence Crater (CAU 110), the Area 2 Bitcutter Containment (CAU 90), and the Area 6 Decon 

Pond Facility (CAU 92). 

The NTS has five USTs which are either (1) fully regulated under RCRA and registered with the state (1 tank), 

(2) regulated under RCRA and registered with the state, but deferred from leak detection requirements (1 tank), or 

(3) excluded from federal and state regulation (3 tanks). The NTS UST program reports, upgrades, and removes 

USTs in accordance with regulatory compliance schedules. 

RCRA also requires generators of hazardous waste to have a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and 

toxicity of such waste. These requirements and NTS compliance with them are addressed under the Pollution 

Prevention and Waste Minimization sections of this report (Section 2.7, Section 11.0). 

The specific Nevada laws which govern hazardous waste management operations under Permit NEV HW009 are 

Disposal of Hazardous Waste (NRS 459-400 – 459.600), Facilities for Management of Hazardous Waste 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-13 

(NAC 444.842 – 444.8482), Disposal of Hazardous Waste (NAC 444.850 – 444.8746), and Limitations on Issuance of 

Permits (NAC 444.960). 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)/ Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) – Provides a framework for the cleanup of waste sites 

containing hazardous substances and an emergency response program in the event of a release of a hazardous 

substance to the environment. No hazardous waste cleanup operations on the NTS are regulated under CERCLA; 

they are regulated under RCRA instead. The only requirements of CERCLA applicable to NTS operations pertain to 

an emergency response program for hazardous substance releases to the environment (see discussion of Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in Section 2.5). 

Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) – Extends the full range of enforcement authorities in federal, state, 

and local laws for management of hazardous wastes to federal facilities, including the NTS. The FFCA of 1992, 

signed by NNSA/NSO and the state of Nevada, requires identification of existing quantities for mixed waste, the 

proposal of methods and/or technologies of mixed waste treatment and management, the creation of enforceable 

timetables, and tracking and completion of deadlines. 

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

to Sections 6001 and 3004(u) of RCRA, the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, and the state 

of Nevada entered into a FFACO in May 1996. This FFACO addresses the environmental restoration of historically 

contaminated sites at the NTS, parts of Tonopah Test Range (TTR), parts of the Nevada Test and Training Range 

(NTTR) (formerly known as Nellis Air Force Range), the Central Nevada Test Area (CNTA), and the Project 

SHOAL Area. Under the FFACO, hundreds of historically contaminated sites on and off the NTS have been 

identified for cleanup and closure. Individual sites are called Corrective Action Sites (CASs). Multiple CASs are often 

grouped into CAUs.

40 CFR Subchapter I, Parts 239-299: Solid Wastes – At the NTS, these federal solid waste management 

regulations are followed through compliance with permits issued by the NDEP. 

NAC 444.570-7499 – Solid Waste Disposal Controls – Enforces the federal regulations pertaining to solid 

wastes (40 CFR Subchapter I, Parts 239-299). This Nevada regulation sets standards for solid waste management 

systems, including the storage, collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. The NTS 

has four permitted landfills for solid waste disposal which are regulated and permitted by the state: Area 5 

Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site (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 2004 to comply with environmental regulations for waste management and 

environmental restoration operations on the NTS. All CAU or CAS reports prepared in 2004 as per the FFACO 

schedule for environmental restoration of contaminated sites 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) 

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

• Nevada Test Site 2004 Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site 

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

• January-June 2004 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• July-December 2004 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 
Compliance Summary

2-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

• 2004 Annual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfill and Area 9 U10c 

Landfills 

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 2004.
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-15 Table 2-4. NTS compliance status with applicable waste management and environmental restoration regulations Compliance Measure/Action Compliance Limit Com

Statu

10 CFR 830: Nuclear Facilities Completion and maintenance of proper conduct of operations documents required for Class II Nuclear Facility for disposal/characterization/storage of radioactive waste Six types of guiding documents required ComDOE Order 435.1 Radioactive Waste Management Establishment of Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for radioactive wastes received for disposal/storage at Area 3 and 5 RWMSs NA(b) Com

Vadose zone monitoring at Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs Not required by Order - Performed to validate performance assessment criteria of RWMSs ConVolume of disposed LLW at Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs (in cubic meters [m3]) No limit Area 3: 

Area 5: 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (as enforced through permits issued by the state of Nevada) 

pH, specific conductance (SC), total organic carbon (TOC), total organic halides (TOX), and tritium (H3) and 11 general water chemistry parameters in groundwater sampled 

semi-annually from wells UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3 to verify performance of the Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) 

pH: 7.6 to 9.2 

SC: 0.440 mmhos/cm(c)

TOC: 1 mg/L 

TOX: 50 

μg/L(d)

H3: 2,000 pCi/L 

Com

Volume of stored non-radioactive hazardous waste at the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit 61,600 liters (16,280 gallons) ComWeight of approved explosive ordnance wastes detonated at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (in kilograms [kg] or pounds [lbs]) 

45.4 kg (100 lbs) at a time, not to exceed 1 detonation event/hour Com

Volume of disposed MW at Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) (in cubic meters [m3] or cubic yards [yd3]) 20,000 m3 (260,159 yd3) ComConduct vadose zone monitoring (VZM) for RCRA closure sites: Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches, U-3fi Injection Well, and U3ax/bl Subsidence Crater 

A23: semi-annually using NL(e)

U3fi: quarterly using NL U3ax/bl: continuous using TDR(f)

Com
2-16 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 2-4. (continued) 

Compliance Measure/Action Compliance Limit 

Comp

Status 

 Periodic post-closure inspection of Area 2 Bitcutter Containment and Area 6 Decon Pond NA Com Upgrade, remove, and report on underground storage tanks (USTs) NA ComFederal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order 

Adherence to calendar year work scope for site characterization, remediation, and closures 

33 CAUs identified for some 

phase of action; 56 CASs 

were closed 

Com

All m

we

Post-closure monitoring and inspections of closed sites 23 Sites required monitoring/ inspecting Com

NAC 444.750-8396 - Solid Waste Disposal Controls 

Track weight and volume of waste disposed each calendar year 

Area 5 P06U - No limit Area 6 - No limit Area 9 - No limit Area 23 - 20 tons/d 

Com

Monitor vadose zone for the Area 6 Hydrocarbon and Area 9 U10c Solid Waste disposal sites Annually using NL(e) ComMonitor groundwater quality at Well SM-23-1 for the Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site 

In June 2004, NDEP granted a 

groundwater monitoring 

exclusion 

N

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

(b) Not applicable 

(c) mmhos/cm = milli-mhos per centimeter (d)

μg/L = micrograms per liter 

(e) Neutron logging through access tubes 

(f) Time domain reflectometry sensors 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-17 

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 are 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, both restricted-use and 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 state-certified vendors who provide these services.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) – This act is a free-standing provision 

under Title III of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III) amendments to 

CERCLA. It requires that federal, state, and local emergency planning authorities be provided information regarding 

the presence and storage of hazardous substances and their planned and unplanned environmental releases, including 

provisions and plans for responding to emergency situations involving hazardous materials. EO 13148 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 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 
Compliance Summary

2-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Department of Agriculture (NDOA) administers this program and has the primary role to enforce FIFRA in Nevada. 

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

used by BN at the NTS. 

NAC 444 – Polychlorinated Biphenyls – This code incorporates by reference the federal requirements for the 

handling, storage, and disposal of PCBs at the NTS. 

State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act – This state act directed the NDEP to develop and 

implement an accident prevention program which was named the Chemical Accident Prevention Program (CAPP). 

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 NNSA/NSO operations in 2004 on the NTS and its satellite facilities in 

compliance with hazardous materials control and management regulations: 

• Nevada Combined Agency Report - Calendar Year 2004, submitted to state and local agencies on February 25, 2005

• Toxic Release Inventory Report, Form R for CY2004 Operations, submitted to the EPA and to the state on June 22, 2005 

• Calendar Year (CY) 2003 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Report for the Nevada Test Site (NTS), submitted to 

NNSA/NSO on March 22, 2004. (This report is no longer required to be submitted to the EPA).

• Calendar Year (CY) 2004 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Report for the Nevada Test Site (NTS), submitted to 

NNSA/NSO on March 22, 2005. (This report is 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 2004.
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-19 Table 2-5. NTS compliance status with applicable regulations for hazardous substance control and management Compliance Measure/Action Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and NAC 444 - Polychlorinated Biphenyls Storage and offsite disposal of PCB materials Required if >50 ppm(b) PCBs Compliant 

Storage and onsite disposal of PCB materials Allowed if <50 ppm PCBs Compliant Disposal of bulk product waste (BPW) containing PCBs generated by remediation and site operations Case-by-case approval by NDEP Compliant Generate report of quantities of PCB liquids and materials disposed offsite during previous calendar year Due July 1 of following year Compliant - submitted March 22, 2004 for 

submitted March 22, 2005 for 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and NAC 555 - Control of Insects, Pests, and Noxious Weeds Application of restricted-use pesticides are conducted under the direct supervision of a state-certified applicator NA(c) Compliant - no restricted-use pesticides we

Maintain state certification of onsite pesticide and herbicide applicator NA Compliant 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Section 302-303 Planning Notification NCA Report due in March Compliant - submitted February 25, 2

no EHS thresholds excee

Section 304 – EHS Release Notification Notification Report due immediately after a release Compliant - no releases occurred Section 311-312 – MSDS/Chemical Inventory NCA Report due in March Compliant - submitted February 25, 2Section 313 – TRI Reporting TRI Report, Form R due July 1 Compliant - submitted June 22, 2005 - lead 

only reportable substan

State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act Registration of NTS with the state if EHSs are stored above listed threshold quantities NDEP-CAPP(d ) Report due June 21, 2005 Compliant – no threshold qu

exceeded, no report subm

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected (b) ppm = parts per million (c) Not applicable (d) Chemical Accident Prevention Program 
Compliance Summary

2-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 2004. 

Table 2-6. NTS NEPA compliance activities conducted in 2004 

Results of NEPA Checklist Reviews / NEPA Compliance Activities 

 

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

25 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 an SA to the NTS EIS 

to address the increase in activities associated with the National Center for Combating Terrorism & Counterterrorism 

Training and related activities (DOE, 2003a). 

An EA was initiated in 2003 and completed in June, 2004: Final Environmental Assessment for Activities Using Biological 

Simulants and Releases of Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site (DOE, 2004a). It was initiated in 2003 under a different title 

(Environmental Assessment for Tests and Experiments Using Biological Materials and Releases of Chemicals Including Modification 

of Release Parameters for the Hazardous Materials Spill Center at the Nevada Test Site). 

3 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis due to their inclusion under previous analysis in the Final

Environmental Assessment for Activities Using Biological Simulants and Releases of Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site (DOE, 

2004a). 

2 projects were reviewed which were not adequately addressed in existing NEPA analysis and resulted in the preparation 

of two EAs: Environmental Assessment for Aerial Operations Facility Modifications (completed October, 2004) (DOE, 2004b) 

and Environmental Assessment for the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex (completed August, 

2004) (DOE, 2004c). 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-21 

Table 2-6. (continued) 

Results of NEPA Checklist Reviews / NEPA Compliance Activities 

 

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

Assessment for Aerial Operations Facility Modifications (DOE, 2004b). 

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

the Environmental Assessment for the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and Evaluation Complex (DOE, 2004c). 
Compliance Summary

2-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

2.7 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) – Through 42 USC 6922 (b) (1) of RCRA, 

generators of hazardous waste are required to have a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity 

of such waste to the degree determined by the generator to be economically practicable. The EPA was required to 

develop a list of types of commercially-available products (e.g., copy machine paper, plastic desk top items) and then 

specify that a certain minimum percentage of the product type’s content be comprised of recycled materials if they are 

to be purchased by a federal agency (e.g., all federally-purchased copy machine paper must be comprised of a 

minimum of 30 percent recycled paper). It then requires federal facilities to have a procurement process in place to 

ensure that they purchase product types which satisfy the EPA-designated minimum percentages of recycled material. 

EO 13101 Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition – 

Requires federal facilities to incorporate waste prevention and recycling into daily operations. It requires federal 

facilities to maintain an affirmative procurement process that ensures that 100 percent of products purchased which 

are found on the EPA-designated product list contain recycled material at the EPA-specified minimum content. The 

Secretary of Energy’s goal is for DOE sites to become 100 percent compliant with this EO by the end of CY 2005. 

DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program – Requires federal facilities to implement an 

Environmental Management System (EMS) that includes pollution prevention. The EMS must be fully integrated 

into the site Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS). 

NDEP Hazardous Waste Permit Number NEV HW009 –This state permit requires NNSA/NSO to maintain 

an Annual Waste Minimization Summary Report in the Facility Operating Records. This report should include a 

description of the efforts taken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated as per RCRA, 

42 USC 6922 (b) (1), as well as a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually achieved during 

the year in comparison to previous years to the extent such information is available for the years prior to 1984. 

Secretary of Energy’s Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency Leadership Goals – On November 12, 

1999, the Secretary of Energy set numerous pollution prevention and energy efficiency goals that each DOE site is 

required to meet. They include goals for: (1) reducing wastes, (2) increasing recycling and purchases of recycled 

materials, and (3) reducing ODS and greenhouse gasses. Table 1-7b presents the status of site compliance with the 

first two goals. 

2.7.1 Compliance Issues 

The 1993 baselines for LLW, MW, and TRU waste were all 0 m3. However, the JASPER project generates TRU 

waste. As long as this project generates TRU waste, NNSA/NSO will not be able to meet the leadership goals for 

reducing this waste type. 

Before CY 2001, NNSA/NSO was not required to submit a TRI Report, Form R to the EPA. Effective January 1, 

2001, the EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead, a toxic chemical subject to TRI reporting, to 100 pounds (45 

kilograms). NNSA/NSO has since reported lead releases from ammunition at the security contractor firing range on 

the NTS. No reduction in lead releases is anticipated as long as lead ammunition continues to be used. 

NNSA/NSO recycled only 12 percent of solid wastes generated by all operations in CY 2004 (the leadership goal is 

45 percent). Because of an accelerated cleanup schedule, large volumes of waste were generated and disposed in 

landfills. Little attempt was made to salvage any of this waste before disposal. As a result, waste generation totals 

were inflated, lowering the percentage of waste recycled. 

In CY 2004, 68 percent of NNSA/NSO purchases of EPA-designated items contained recycled materials. 

NNSA/NSO is working to improve the procurement process in order to meet the CY 2005 leadership goal of 

100 percent. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-23 

2.7.2 Compliance Reports 

The compliance reports generated in 2004 to comply with pollution prevention and waste minimization (P2/WM) 

directives are presented in Table 2-7a. 

2.7.3 Compliance Status 

See Tables 2-7a and 2-7b for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with pollution prevention and waste 

minimization regulations in 2004. 

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

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance

Limit/Goal 

Compliance 

Status 2004 

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 N/A 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% 68% 11.1 

 Submit a calendar year RCRA/EO 13101 Report to 

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

DOE/HQ electronic database 

Due 

December 31, 

2004 

Submitted 

December 15, 

2004 

- - 

DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program 

 

Implement an EMS that includes pollution prevention 

Implement by 

December 31, 

2005 

On schedule 17.0 

 Submit a fiscal year Waste Generation and Pollution Prevention 

Progress Report to DOE/HQ that includes annual recycling totals 

and waste minimization accomplishments by entering the site’s 

data into the DOE/HQ electronic database 

Due 

December 3, 

2004 

Submitted 

November 15, 

2004 

11.3, 11.4 

Submit a calendar year Waste Minimization Summary Report to 

NDEP 

Due by 

March 1, 2004 

Submitted 

February 14, 

2004 

11.3, 11.4 

Secretary of Energy's P2 Leadership Goals 

See Table 2-7b 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected

(b) Not applicable
Compliance Summary

2-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 2-7b. NTS compliance status with the Secretary of Energy’s pollution prevention and energy efficiency 

leadership goals 

 Leadership Goal 

1993 

Baseline 

CY 2005 

Goal 

CY 2004 

Status 

CY 2004 

Reduction 

Reduce waste from routine operations by the 

following percentages for each waste type by 2005, 

using a 1993 baseline: 

 Hazardous by 90% 3,724 mtons(a) 372 mtons 18.4 mtons 99.5% 

 Low Level Radioactive by 80% 0 m3 (b) 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

 Low Level Mixed Radioactive by 80% 0 m3 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

 Transuranic (TRU) by 80% 0 m3 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

Reduce solid waste from routine operations by 

75% by 2005, using a 1993 baseline 

13,735 

mtons 

3,434 

mtons 

4,502 

mtons 68% 

Reduce releases of toxic chemicals subject to Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI) reporting by 90% by 2005, 

using a 1993 baseline 

0 pounds 

reported 

No 

reduction 

possible( c ) 

5,868.7 

pounds 

No reduction 

possible

 Waste 

Disposed 

Waste 

Recycled 

CY 2004 

Reduction 

Recycle 45% of solid waste from all operations by 2005 and 50% by 

2010 

11,875 

mtons 

1,438 

mtons 

12% 

 

Waste 

Disposed 

Waste 

Reduced 

CY 2004 

Reduction 

Reduce waste resulting from cleanup, stabilization, and 

decommissioning activities by 10% on an annual basis 

7,556 

mtons 

839 

mtons 

11% 

 CY 2005 

Goal 

CY 2004 

Status 

Increase purchases of EPA-designated items with recycled content to 100%, except 

when not available competitively at a reasonable price or that do not meet 

performance standards 

100% 68% 

(a) metric tons, 1 mton = 1.10 ton 

(b) cubic meters, 1 m3 = 1.35 yd3

(c) No measurable reduction can be reported because no waste of this type was reported on the NTS in 1993 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-25

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, 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 Nevada State 

Historic Preservation Officer (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 project-specific 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 of 1990 (NAGPRA) – This act requires federal 

agencies to identify Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural 

patrimony in their possession. Agencies are required to prepare an inventory of human remains and associated 

funerary objects, as well as a summary with a general description of sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and 

unassociated funerary objects. Through consultation with Native American tribes, the affiliation of the remains and 

objects are determined and the tribes can request repatriation of their cultural items. The agency is required to publish 

a notice of inventory completion in the Federal Register. The law also protects the physical location where human 
Compliance Summary

2-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 

2004 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 2004. 

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

Compliance Action 

Compliance 

Status - 2004 

Section 

Reference(a)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 

EO 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

Maintain and implement NTS Cultural Resources Management 

Plan Compliant -- 

Conduct cultural resources pre-activity surveys, inventories and 

evaluations of historic structures Conducted for 8 projects 12.1; Table 12-1 

Make determinations of eligibility to the National Register Determined 8 properties 

eligible 

12.1.3; 

Table 12-1 

Make assessments of impact to eligible properties All eligible sites are avoided 

by NTS activities 12.1.3 

Manage artifact collection as per required professional 

standards Compliant 12.2 

Archaeological Resources and Protection Act of 1979 

Conduct archaeological work by qualified permittees Compliant -- 

Determine if archaeological sites have been damaged None damaged 12.1.4.1 

Complete and submit Secretary of the Interior Archaeology 

Questionnaire Completed 12.1.4.3 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Allow American Indians access to NTS locations for ceremonies 

and traditional use Access provided 12.3 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-27 

Table 2-8. (continued) 

Compliance Action 

Compliance 

Status - 2004 

Section 

Reference(a)

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

Consult with affiliated American Indian tribes regarding 

repatriation of cultural items Completed 12.2 

Protect 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

2-28 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 a Biological 

Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) – Prohibits the harming of any migratory bird, their nest, or eggs without 

authorization by the Secretary of the Interior. All but five of the 239 bird species observed on the NTS (Wills and 

Ostler, 2001) are protected under this act. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to prevent direct harm to 

protected birds, nests, and eggs. 

Bald Eagle Protection Act – Prohibits the capture or harming of bald and golden eagles without special 

authorization. Both bald and golden eagles occur on the NTS. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to 

prevent direct harm to eagles and their nests and eggs. 

Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404, Wetlands Regulations – Regulates land development affecting wetlands 

by requiring a permit obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to discharge dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States, which includes most wetlands on public and private land. NTS projects are 

evaluated for their potential to disturb wetlands and their need for a Section 404 permit application. Based on recent 

rulings, no natural NTS wetland may meet the criteria of a “jurisdictional” wetland subject to Section 404 regulations. 

However, final determination from the USACE regarding the status of NTS wetlands has yet to be received. 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act – Forbids a person to knowingly disturb or injure vegetation or 

kill vertebrate or invertebrate animals or their nests or eggs on any National Wildlife Refuge lands unless permitted by 

the Secretary of the Interior. The boundary of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR), land administered 

within this System, is approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) downwind of the NPTEC in Area 5. Biological monitoring is 

conducted to verify that approved tests conducted at the NPTEC do not disperse toxic chemicals that could harm 

biota on the DNWR. 

EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands – Requires governmental agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the 

agency’s responsibilities, including managing federal lands and facilities. Projects are evaluated for their potential to 

disturb the more than 20 natural water sources on the NTS. NTS wetlands are monitored to document their status 

and use by wildlife, even though they may not meet the criteria for “jurisdictional” status under the CWA. 

EO 11988 Floodplain Management – Ensures protection of property and human wellbeing within a floodplain and 

protection of floodplains themselves. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes guidelines and 

specifications for assessing alluvial fan flooding. NNSA/NSO generally satisfies EO 11988 through 

DOE Order 420.1, Facility Safety, and invoked standards. DOE Order 420.1 and the associated implementation guide 

for mitigation of natural phenomena hazards call for a graded approach to assessing risk to all facilities (structures, 

systems, and components [SSC]) from potential natural hazards. Chapter 4 of DOE Standard 1020 

(DOE-STD-1020-2002) provides flood design and evaluation criteria for SSC. Evaluations of flood hazards at the 

NTS are generally conducted to ensure protection of property and human wellbeing. 

EO 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds – Directs federal agencies to take 

certain actions to further implement the MBTA if agencies have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on 

migratory bird populations. It also directs federal agencies to support the conservation intent of the MBTA and 

conduct actions, as practicable, to benefit the health of migratory bird populations. NTS projects are evaluated for 

their potential to impact such bird populations. 

EO 13112 Invasive Species – Directs federal agencies to act to prevent the introduction of, or to monitor and 

control, invasive (non-native) species, to provide for restoration of native species, and to exercise care in taking 

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

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-29 

resulted in the spread of numerous invasive plant species. Habitat reclamation and other controls are evaluated and 

conducted when feasible to control such species and meet the purposes of this EO. 

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act – Requires the protection, management, and control of wild horses 

and burros on public lands and calls for the management and protection of these animals in a manner that is designed 

to achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. Wild horses on the NTS may wander off the NTS onto 

public lands and therefore are protected under this act. This act makes it unlawful to harm wild horses and burros. 

Five-Party Cooperative Agreement – Agreement between NNSA/NSO, NTTR, FWS, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and the state of Nevada Clearinghouse that calls for cooperation in conducting resource 

inventories and developing resource management plans for wild horses and burros and to maintain favorable habitat 

on federally withdrawn lands for these animals. BLM considers NTS a zero herd-size management area. 

NNSA/NSO consults with BLM regarding any issue of NTS horse management. 

NAC 503.010-503.104 - Protection of Wildlife – Identifies Nevada animal species, both protected and unprotected, and prohibits the harm of protected species without special permit. Over 200 bird species and 1 bat 

species on the NTS are State-protected. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to prevent direct harm to 

protected birds, nests, eggs, and protected bats. 

NAC 527.270 - Protection of Flora – Requires that the State Forester Firewarden determine the protective status 

of Nevada plants and prohibits removal or destruction of protected plants without special permit. Currently, no 

State-protected plant species are known to occur on the NTS. Annual reviews of the protection status of NTS plants 

are conducted. 

2.9.1 Out-of-Compliance Incidents 

Sixteen of 19 reports of mortality among migratory birds recorded in 2004 were related to NTS activities (see 

Table 13-5). They included eight species of migratory birds. The major cause of mortality was being hit by vehicles 

on roads (eight road kills). The electrocutions and road-kills in 2004 occurred at different locations. 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 2004 to meet requirements of the regulations or to document compliance 

activities: 

• Annual Report of Actions Taken Under Authorization of the Biological Opinion on Nevada Test Site Activities 

(File No. 1-5-96-F-33) – January 1, 2004 Through December 31, 2004, submitted to the FWS Southern Nevada Field 

Office in January 2005

• Annual Report for Handling Permit S23391 for 2004, submitted via email to Nevada Division of Wildlife on 

December 15, 2004 

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

Office in December 2004 

• Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal/Calendar Year 2004 Report, DOE/NV/11718-985, March 2005 

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 2004.
2-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 2-9. NTS compliance status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations Compliance Measure/Action Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 2004 

Endangered Species Act Number of tortoises accidentally injured or killed due to NTS activities, per year 3 0  Number of tortoises captured and displaced from project sites, per year 10 0  Number of tortoises taken since 1992 by way of injury or mortality on NTS paved roads 

by vehicles other than those in use during a project 

Unlimited 5 

 Number of total acres of desert tortoise habitat disturbed during NTS project 

construction since 1992 

3,015 240.01 

 Follow the 23 terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion during construction and 

operation of NTS projects 

NA(b) Compliant 

 Conduct biological surveys at proposed project sites to assess presence of protected 

species 

NA Compliant 

145 surveys conducted f

projects 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act; Bald Eagle Protection Act and EO 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds Number of birds/nests/eggs harmed by NTS project activities 0 6 bird nests removed fr

buildings, 16 bird dea

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act  Number of animals, their nests, or eggs killed and amount of vegetation disturbed or 

injured on System lands (the Desert National Wildlife Range) as a result of NTS activities 

0 0 

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and Five-Party Cooperative Agreement  Number of horses harassed or killed due to NTS activities 0 0 

Cooperation in conducting resource inventories and developing resource management plans for horses on NTS, NTTR, and the Desert National Wildlife Range NA NTS annual horse inven

conducted 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-31 

Table 2-9. (continued) 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance 

Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2004 

EO 11988 Floodplain Management

Conduct flood hazard evaluations 

 NA 

Evaluations were conducted (1) Corrective Action Unit 48 15 U15a/e muckpiles and (2) DHS Training Facility, A(3) Radioactive Waste Mana Sites, Area 3 and Area 5 

Clean Water Act, Section 404-Wetlands Regulations and EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands Number of wetlands disturbed by NTS activity NA 18 natural wetlands surveye

disturbed by NTS activ

EO 13112 Invasive Species Disturbed habitat is revegetated with native plant species on occasion to mitigate for 

loss of tortoise habitat (in lieu of payment), to stabilize soil, and to prevent invasion of non-native plants 

NA No revegetation conduc

previously revegetated Eg

Fire area was monitor

NAC 503.010-503.104 and NAC 527.270 - Nevada Protective Measures for Wildlife and Flora  Number of state-protected animals harmed or killed and number of state-protected 

plants collected or harmed due to NTS activities 

0 16 bird deaths recorde

(a) The sections within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected (b) Not applicable 
Compliance Summary

2-32 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

2.10 Environmental Management System 

EO 13148 Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management – Requires federal 

facilities to have an EMS that considers potential environmental impacts in all aspects of its work. This is especially 

important in the work planning and budgeting stages. Pollution prevention, eliminating potential wastes, and 

recycling materials must always be addressed when planning work. The EO requires that the EMS be in place by 

December 31, 2005. 

DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program – Requires each DOE facility to implement an EMS 

which is a continuing cycle of planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and actions undertaken to 

achieve environmental goals. The objectives are to implement sound stewardship practices that are protective of the 

air, water, land, and other natural and cultural resources impacted by DOE operations, by which DOE cost-effectively 

meets or exceeds compliance with applicable environmental, public health, and resource protection laws, regulations, 

and DOE requirements. The EMS must be fully integrated into each DOE site’s ISMS by December 31, 2005. 

2.10.1 Compliance Reports 

NNSA/NSO submitted quarterly reports to DOE Headquarters (HQ) in 2004 regarding progress towards meeting 

interim goals that were established to help facilities meet the December 31, 2005 deadline. 

2.10.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 2-10 for a summary of how NNSA/NSO complied with EMS regulations. 

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

Compliance Measure/Action Compliance Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2003 

Section 

Reference(a)

Executive Order (EO) 13148 Greening the Government 

through Leadership in Environmental Management

 

 

 

Have an EMS in place December 31, 2005 On schedule 17.0 

 

Have measurable environmental Objectives and Targets 

established 

December 31, 2004 Compliant 17.0 

 

Have environmental programs established to achieve 

EMS Objectives and Targets 

December 31, 2004 Compliant 17.0 

 Establish awareness training program December 31, 2004 Compliant 17.0 

DOE Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program 

 

Incorporate the EMS into the site's ISMS December 31, 2005 On schedule 17.0 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe compliance summary data 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-33 

2.11 Occurrences, Unplanned Releases, and Continuous Releases 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) – Continuous 

release reporting under Section 103 requires that a non-permitted hazardous substance release that is equal to or 

greater than its reportable quantity be reported to the National Response Center. The EPA requires all facilities that 

release a hazardous substance meeting the Section 103(f) requirements to report annually to EPA and perform an 

annual evaluation of releases. CERCLA requirements applicable to NTS operations also pertain to an emergency 

response program for hazardous substance releases to the environment (see discussion of Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act in Section 2.5). 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) – This act is described in Section 2.5. 

See Table 2-5 for summary of compliance to EPCRA pertaining to unplanned environmental releases of hazardous 

substances. 

40 CFR 302.1 – 302.8: Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification – Requires facilities to notify 

federal authorities of spills or releases of certain hazardous substances designated under CERCLA and the CWA. It 

specifies what quantities of hazardous substance spills/releases must be reported to authorities and delineates the 

notification procedures for a release that equals or exceeds the reportable quantities. 

DOE Order 231.1A Environment, Safety, and Health Reporting – This Order includes the requirement for 

reporting environmental occurrences. Along with DOE M 231.1-1 Environment, Safety and Health Reporting Manual, 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. 

One reportable environmental occurrence happened on the NTS in 2004 and involved the release of used motor oil 

onto soil. This occurrence is described in Table 2-11. 

One reportable environmental occurrence happened at the NLVF in 2004 and is discussed in Appendix B. 

Accidental spills or releases which are less than federal or state-designated reportable quantities are not presented in 

this report. The direct, contributing, and root causes of all occurrences are determined and are described within 

occurrence reports prepared for each occurrence. Occurrence reports are submitted to NNSA/NSO by 

BN Environmental Services. 
Compliance Summary

2-34 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 2-11. Environmental occurrences on the NTS in 2004 

Occurrence Report 

Number and Date Type of Occurrence 

NVOO-BN-NTS-2004-0006, 

November 17, 2004 

Waste Oil Release 

 

A BN lubrication truck leaked used oil from a 650-gallon oil holding tank. 

The truck was parked on a hard packed dirt surface near the Generator 

Shop (Building 6-621) in Area 6. A piece of tubing attached to the oil 

holding tank broke during non-work hours over a weekend, resulting in 

the release of what was first estimated to be 210 gallons of oil. The 

surface stain on the ground measured approximately 20 x 20 ft. A review 

of the truck’s log sheets resulted in a revised estimate of approximately 75 

gallons of oil spilled. The leak exceeded the NDEP limit of 25 gallons. 

The oil release was controlled. Notifications were made to NDEP. 

Contaminated soils were excavated to meet NDEP clean up levels. The 

truck was taken out of service for repairs. The cause of tubing failure was 

determined to be exposure to the environment. New ultraviolet light 

resistant tubing was used for replacement tubing. Approximately 12 – 15 

cubic yards of contaminated soil was disposed of in the Area 6 

Hydrocarbon Landfill. The excavation was backfilled with clean fill. 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-35

2.12 Summary of Permits 

Table 2-12 presents the complete list of all federal and state permits active in 2004 that have been issued to 

NNSA/NSO and to BN for NTS, NLVF, and RSL 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 2-12. 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 

AP1442-1429 Temporary Sand and Gravel Processing, Hot Mix Asphalt, 

and Concrete Batch Facilities June 29, 2009 Annually 

04-121 Area 27 Burn Variance (LLNL) March 31, 2005 None 

04-27 NTS Burn Variance (Training Fires) March 12, 2005 None 

NLVF

A38701 A-16 Spray Paint Booth None Annually 

A38703 A-5/B-5 Emergency Generators None Annually 

A06503 Emergency Generator None Annually 

A06505 B-1 Aluminum Sander None Annually 

A06507 Tinco Dry Blaster None Annually 

RSL 

A34801 Boiler, Columbia, WL-180 None March, June 

A34802 Boiler, Columbia, WL-90 None March, June 

A34803 Water Heater, #2 Natl. BD None March, June 

A34804(a) Emergency Fire Control Pump Engine None June 

A34804(b) Emergency Generator, Cummins None June 

A34805 Spray Paint Booth None June 

NTS Drinking Water 

NY-0360-12NTNC Areas 6 and 23 September 30, 2005 None 

NY-4098-12NTNC Area 25 September 30, 2005 None 

NY-4099-12NTNC Area 12 September 30, 2005 None 

NY-0835-12NP NTS Water Hauler #84846 September 30, 2005 None 

NY-0836-12NP NTS Water Hauler #84847 September 30, 2005 None 

NTS Septic Systems and Pumpers 

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

NY-1077 Septic System, Area 27 (Baker Compound) None None 

NY-1106 Septic System, Area 5 (Building 05-08) None None 

NY-1079 Septic System, Area 12 (U12g Tunnel) None None 

NY-1080 Septic System, Area 23 (Building 1103) None None 

NY-1081 Septic System, Area 6 (CP-170) None None 

NY-1082 Septic System, Area 22 (Building 22-01) None None 

NY-1083 Septic System, Area 5 Radioactive Material Management Site None None 

NY-1084 Septic System, Area 6 (Device Assembly Facility) None None 
Compliance Summary

2-36 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 2-12. (continued) 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

NTS Septic Systems and Pumpers (cont.) 

NY-1085 Septic System, Area 25 (Central Support Area) None None 

NY-1086 Septic System, Area 25 (Reactor Control Point) None None 

NY-1087 Septic System, Area 27 ( Able Compound) None None 

NY-1089 Septic System, Area 12 (Camp) None None 

NY-1090 Septic System, Area 6 (LANL Construction Camp Site) None None 

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

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

NY-1110-HAA-A Individual Sewage Disposal System, A-12, Bldg. 12-910 None None 

NY-1112 Commercial Sewage Disposal System, U1a, Area 1 None None 

NY-1113 Commercial Sewage Disposal System, Area 1, Building 121 None None 

NY-17-03313 Septic Tank Pumper E 106785 November 30, 2005 None 

NY-17-03315 Septic Tank Pumper E 107105 November 30, 2005 None 

NY-17-03317 Septic Tank Pumper E-105918 November 30, 2005 None 

NY-17-03318 Septic Tank Pumping Contractor (one unit) November 30, 2005 None 

NY-17-06838 Septic Tank Pumper E-105919 November 30, 2005 None 

NY-17-06839 Septic Tank Pumper E-107103 November 30, 2005 None 

Wastewater Discharge NTS 

GNEV93001 Water Pollution Control General Permit May 7, 2005 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 

TNEV2003461 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit May 21, 2004 Monthly 

TNEV2004348 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit November 21, 2004 Monthly 

TNEV2004364 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit May 21, 2005 Monthly 

RSL 

CCWRD-080 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit June 30, 2005 Quarterly 

Hazardous Materials NTS 

2287-5146 NTS Hazardous Materials February 28, 2005 Annually 

2287-5147 Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (formerly 

known as the Hazardous Materials Spill Center) February 28, 2005 Annually 

NLVF 

2287-5144 NLVF Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2005 Annually 

RSL 

2287-5145 RSL Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2005 Annually 

NTS Hazardous Waste 

NEV-HW009 NTS Hazardous Waste Management (RCRA) November 17, 2005 Biennially 
Compliance Summary

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 2-37

Table 2-12. (continued) 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

NTS Disposal Sites 

SW 13 000 01 Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site Postclosure(a) Annually 

SW 13 097 02 Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site Postclosure Annually 

SW 13 097 03 Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site Postclosure Annually 

SW 13 097 04 Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site Postclosure Annually 

Endangered Species/Wildlife

File No. 1-5-96-F-33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Desert Tortoise Incidental 

Take Authorization December 31, 2006 Annually 

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

Collecting Permit December 31, 2004 Annually 

S23391 Nevada Division of Wildlife - Scientific Collection of 

Wildlife Samples December 31, 2004 Annually 

(a) Permit expires 30 years after closure of the landfill
Compliance Summary

2-38 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-1

3.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

Section 3.1 of this chapter presents the results of radiological air monitoring conducted on and off the 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)s, 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. Radiological 

monitoring is conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN) Environmental Technical Services (ETS). 

The concentrations of radioactivity in air samples are presented in Section 3.1. These data are then used to assess 

radiological dose to the general public in the vicinity of the NTS. The calculated doses are presented in Section 8.0 

(Radiological Dose Assessment). The calculated doses are based on the air sampling data presented in Section 3.1, 

the water sampling data presented in Section 4.1, and the direct radiation exposure data presented in Section 5.0.

An oversight monitoring program has been established by the 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). DRI’s 2004 air monitoring results are presented in 

Section 6.0. 

Section 3.2 of this chapter presents the results of non-radiological air quality assessments conducted on the NTS to 

ensure compliance with current air quality permits (see Section 2.1). NTS operations which are potential sources of 

non-radiological air pollution include aggregate production, surface disturbance (e.g., construction), release of fugitive 

dust from driving on unpaved roads, use of fuel-burning equipment, open burning, venting from bulk fuel storage 

facilities, and releases of various chemicals during testing at the Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex 

(NPTEC). Air quality assessments are conducted by BN Environmental Services (ES). 

3.1 Radiological Air Monitoring 

DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment, and the Clean Air Act (CAA) National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) require air monitoring for radiological emissions at the NTS. 

Radiological air monitoring is conducted to ensure that no significant emission source that contributes to calculable 

offsite exposures is ignored and that the NTS is in full compliance with the requirements of DOE Order 5400.5 and 

the CAA. To accomplish this, an air surveillance network comprised of air particulate samplers and samplers for 

tritium in atmospheric moisture has been established. The objectives and design of the network are described in detail 

in the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b). The network monitors airborne 

radioactivity near NTS sites at which radioactivity from past nuclear testing was deposited on and in the soil, at NTS 

operating facilities that may produce radioactive air emissions, and along the boundaries of the NTS. Data from all 

sampling stations are analyzed to meet the specific goals listed below. The dose measures which are calculated to show 

compliance with federal radiation protection regulations are defined and presented in Section 8.0.

Also listed below are the monitored analytes that comprise the base data needed to perform dose assessments. They 

are concentrations of the radionuclides or radioactivity which are most likely to be present in the air as a result of past 

or current NTS operations. These analytes were selected based on the results of NTS inventories of radionuclides in 

surface soil (McArthur, 1991), and upon their volatility and availability for resuspension. Uranium is included on this 

list because depleted uranium (see Glossary, Appendix D) ordinances are used during exercises in Areas 20 and 25. It 

is analyzed for in air samples only from selected sampling locations in the vicinity of these areas. Gross alpha and 

gross beta readings are also used in air monitoring as a rapid screening measure and for looking at trends in gross 

radioactivity concentrations. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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). The 6 critical receptor samplers described below are included in 

this count. With the exception of the 6 critical receptor samplers, 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 was performed at these 

stations as described in Section 3.1.2. Radionuclide concentrations measured at these stations are used for trending, 

determining ambient background concentrations in the environment, and monitoring for unplanned releases of 

radioactivity. Air concentrations approaching 10 percent of the NESHAP Concentration Levels for Environmental 

Compliance (CLs) (second column of Table 3-1) are investigated for causes so that they may be mitigated to avoid 

exceeding regulatory dose limits. 

Critical Receptor Samplers – Six air particulate and tritium sampling stations located near the boundaries and the 

center of the NTS are approved by 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 

Measure radionuclide concentrations in air at or near historic or current 

operation sites which have the potential to release airborne radioactivity to: 

(1) detect and identify local and site-wide trends, (2) identify radionuclides 

emitted to air, and (3) detect accidental and unplanned releases 

Determine if radioactive air emissions from past or present NTS activities 

result in a radiation dose to any member of the public that exceeds the 

NESHAP standard of 10 millirem per year (mrem/yr) (0.1 millisievert per 

year [mSv/yr])

Provide point source operational monitoring as required under NESHAP 

for any facility that has the potential to emit radionuclides into the air which 

could cause a dose greater than 0.1 mrem/yr (0.001 mSv/yr) to any 

member of the public 

Provide data to determine if radioactive air emissions from past or present 

NTS activities result in a radiation dose to any member of the public from 

all pathways (air, water, food) that exceeds the DOE Order 5400.5 standard 

of 100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr) 

Americium-241 

(241Am)

Cesium-137 (137Cs) 

Tritium 

(3H) 

Plutonium-238 

(238Pu) 

Plutonium239+240 (239+240Pu) 

Uranium-233+234 

(233+234U) 

Uranium-235+236 

(235+236U) 

Uranium-238 

(238U) 

Gross alpha 

radioactivity 

Gross beta 

radioactivity 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-3

Figure 3-1. Radiological air sampling network on the NTS in 2004
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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

 Concentration ( x 10-15 microcuries/milliliter [μCi/mL]) 

Radionuclide 

NESHAP Concentration Level for 

Environmental Compliance (CL)(a) Derived Concentration Guide (DCG)(b)

241Am 1.9 2 

137Cs 19 40,000 

3H 1,500,000 10,000,000 

238Pu 2.1 3 

239Pu 2 2 

233U 7.1 9 

234U 7.7 9 

235U 7.1 10 

236U 7.7 10 

238U 8.3 10 

Note: Both the CL and DCG values represent the annual average concentration which would result in a 

committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) of 10 mrem/yr which is the federal dose limit to the 

public from all radioactive air emissions. When they differ, the CLs are more conservative than the 

DCGs. They are computed using different dose models. 

(a) From Table 2, Appendix E of 40 CFR 61, NESHAP, 1999 

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

Point–Source (Stack) Sampler – Only one facility on the NTS, the JASPER facility in Area 27 (Figure 3-1), 

requires stack monitoring because it has the potential to emit airborne radionuclides that could result in an offsite 

radiation dose  0.1 mrem/yr. Air emissions from the facility are filtered through a high efficiency particulate air 

(HEPA) filter, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) performs stack monitoring down-stream of the 

filter. Environmental sampling of air particulates adjacent to the facility is performed as stated in Section 3.1.2. If air 

concentrations of any man-made radionuclide were found above the minimum detectable concentration (MDC), 

(see Glossary, Appendix D) then an assessment of offsite dose to the public would be performed to determine 

NESHAP compliance and LLNL would investigate the cause of the emission and implement corrective actions. 

3.1.2 Air Particulate and Tritium Sampling Methods 

A weekly sample of airborne particulates was collected from each air sampling station by drawing air through a 

10-centimeter (cm) (4-inch [in]) diameter glass-fiber filter at a constant flow rate of 85 liters per minute (L/min) 

(3 cubic feet per minute [cfm]). 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 meters (m3) (30,000 cubic feet [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, which measured the rates at existing temperature and barometric pressure. 

The 10-cm diameter filters were analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity after a five-day holding time to 

allow for the decay of the progeny of naturally-occurring radon and thoron. The filters from four weeks of sampling 

were composited, analyzed by gamma spectroscopy, and then analyzed for 239+240Pu and 241Am by alpha spectroscopy 

after radiochemical separation. To monitor for any potential emissions from tests using depleted uranium, the filter 

composites from Yucca (Area 6), Substation 3545 (Area 16), Gate 20-2p (Area 20), Guard Station 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 at a constant flow rate of 

566 cubic centimeters per minute (cc/min) (1.2 cubic feet per hour [ft3/hr]) by microprocessors that summed the total 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-5

volume sampled (about 11 m3 [14.4 yd3] over a two-week sampling period). Due to failures in aging components, the 

microprocessor controls were replaced by the end of the year with mechanical controls which simplified repairs and 

reduced maintenance costs. 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. 

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 the 

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 results sections are formatted to a greater 

number of digits (three or more) 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 

No radioactive emissions were detected from current NTS operations in 2004. All radionuclide concentrations in the 

2004 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 the sites of past nuclear tests and 

of low-level radioactive waste burial. 

3.1.4.1 Americium-241 

During 2004, 41 percent of all the air samples contained detectable concentrations of 241Am (Table 3-2). The average 

concentration of 241Am across all environmental sampler sites was 9.7 x 10-18 μCi/mL (0.36 microbecquerel per cubic 

meter [μBq/m3]). The highest mean concentration occurred at Bunker 9-300 (48.1 x 10-18 μCi/mL [1.8 μBq/m3]), 

which is only 2.5 percent of the CL. Peaks in 241Am concentrations throughout the year occurred predominately at 

Bunker 9-300 (Figure 3-2). 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2004 

 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 7.95 0.4 5.48 9.88 0.00 35.34 7.49 50.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 12 12.79 0.7 11.62 7.83 2.25 28.83 7.48 75.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 20.58 1.1 19.04 11.38 0.70 34.95 6.76 83.3 

3 U-3bh N 12 14.05 0.7 7.79 20.06 -2.89 73.51 7.89 66.7 

3 U-3bh S 12 8.57 0.5 8.96 3.33 2.61 13.28 7.70 50.0 

5 DoD 12 4.11 0.2 3.69 5.22 -1.44 18.62 7.92 41.7 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 3.89 0.2 3.55 2.78 0.40 8.63 7.38 33.3 

6 Yucca 12 3.57 0.2 3.59 4.15 -1.30 13.94 8.54 33.3 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 48.07 2.5 24.27 50.04 5.26 169.66 7.93 66.7 

10 Gate 700 S 12 5.54 0.3 2.82 7.37 1.13 27.46 8.38 25.0 

10 Sedan N 12 17.89 0.9 5.98 19.98 0.06 59.00 7.63 50.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 2.74 0.1 2.88 2.41 -0.95 6.44 7.83 29.2 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 4.85 0.3 4.41 4.16 -2.37 13.90 8.21 33.3 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 0.88 0.0 1.45 2.21 -3.89 3.97 9.36 8.3 

20 Schooner 12 2.18 0.1 1.79 4.05 -4.52 12.95 8.28 16.7 

23 Mercury Track 12 2.96 0.2 3.04 2.26 -1.50 5.74 7.05 20.8 

25 Guard Station 510 12 4.69 0.2 3.03 8.29 -0.37 30.56 7.40 16.7 

27 ABLE Site 12 8.99 0.5 1.86 17.56 -0.60 62.85 8.45 33.3 

All Environmental Samplers 216 9.68 0.5 4.18 18.12 -4.52 169.66 7.87 40.7 

27 JASPER Stack 10 19.01 1.0 5.10 29.89 -0.20 93.51 78.40 0.0 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample-specific MDC 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 3-1) 

(b) Standard deviation

(c) Minimum

(d) Maximum

Note: The CL for 241Am is 1,900 x 10-18 μCi/mL when expressed in the same scale as the data in this table. 

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 Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-7

Figure 3-2. Concentrations of 241Am in air samples collected in 2004 

3.1.4.2 Cesium-137 

Cs-137 was measured above the MDC in samples from only one location, Gate 700 S in Area 10 (Table 3-3), which is 

near known legacy deposits of radionuclides from past nuclear tests. As in previous years, 137Cs is only occasionally 

detected in the monthly air sample composites. All concentration means were below or near zero, similar to past 

years. No graph for 137Cs concentrations is included because the majority of values were below detection levels. 

3.1.4.3 Plutonium Isotopes 

Pu-238 was detected above the MDC in at least one sample from each of 13 locations (Table 3-4). The proportion of 

samples with concentrations above their MDCs was approximately the same as that in the last three years. The 

U-3ah/at S and Bunker 9-300 locations had the highest proportion of samples above their MDCs (27 and 36 percent, 

respectively) and also the highest mean concentrations which were only 0.2 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, of 

the CL. No graph for 238Pu concentrations is included because the majority of the sample concentrations were below 

their MDCs. 

The proportion of 239+240Pu results above their MDCs in 2004 (50 percent, Table 3-5) was slightly lower than in 2003 

but slightly higher than in 2002 (54 and 48 percent, respectively). In 2004, the only location at which 100 percent of 

the air samples contained 239+240Pu above detection was Bunker 9-300. In 2003, this occurred at U-3ah/at N, 

U-3ah/at S, U-3bh N, U-3bh S, and Bunker 9-300. Generally, the proportion of 239+240Pu results above their MDCs is 

greater than 50 percent at those air sampling locations that are in areas where 239+240Pu is in the surface soil (see 

Figure 3-1 and Table 3-5). The 239+240Pu continues to be detected while most other radionuclides are not, due to their 

more rapid radioactive decay and absorption into the soil. Due to the long half-life of 239Pu (~24,000 years) and its 

insolubility in water, its presence in soil and resuspension into the air will continue to decrease slowly with time. 

241Am

-50

0

50

100

150

200

01-Jan-04

31-Mar-04

29-Jun-04

27-Sep-04

26-Dec-04

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

U-3ah/at S

U-3bh N

Bunker 9-300

Sedan N

Other

10% of CL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 3-3. Concentrations of 137Cs in air samples collected in 2004 

 137Cs (x 10-15 μCi/mL) 

Number 

NTS of Mean % >

Area Location Samples Mean 

% of CL 

(a) Median SD (b) Min (c) Max (d) MDC MDC

1 BJY 11 -0.78 -0.4 -1.00 3.74 -9.33 5.23 6.42 0.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 11 0.54 0.3 0.02 2.49 -4.89 3.74 6.67 0.0 

3 U-3ah/at Ss 11 -0.60 -0.3 0.21 4.92 -14.57 3.79 6.45 0.0 

3 U-3bh N 10 -1.89 -1.0 -0.71 4.97 -13.70 4.32 7.01 0.0 

3 U-3bh S 11 -0.81 -0.4 0.07 2.92 -5.96 3.68 6.17 0.0 

5 DoD 12 -1.39 -0.7 -0.70 4.42 -14.31 2.55 6.55 0.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 11 -0.98 -0.5 -1.13 2.01 -4.98 2.48 6.65 0.0 

6 Yucca 12 -2.11 -1.1 -0.75 4.90 -16.98 1.74 6.64 0.0 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 -0.97 -0.5 -0.90 2.42 -5.40 2.32 6.07 0.0 

10 Gate 700 S 12 -0.21 -0.1 -0.88 2.19 -2.85 5.04 6.56 8.3 

10 Sedan N 11 -1.66 -0.9 -0.53 7.11 -21.37 4.43 6.64 0.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 -0.55 -0.3 -0.52 2.03 -4.58 2.43 6.17 0.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 11 -2.03 -1.1 -0.18 5.88 -17.88 4.69 6.50 0.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 -1.88 -1.0 -0.42 5.56 -18.30 1.89 6.89 0.0 

20 Schooner 10 0.56 0.3 0.73 2.50 -3.79 4.82 6.99 0.0 

23 Mercury Track 11 0.86 0.5 0.60 1.76 -2.14 4.56 6.30 0.0 

25 Guard Station 510 12 -1.84 -1.0 -0.72 4.49 -14.92 2.40 7.11 0.0 

27 ABLE Site 12 0.13 0.1 -0.09 2.33 -3.20 5.44 6.47 0.0 

All Environmental Samplers 203 -0.87 -0.5 -0.42 3.94 -21.37 5.44 6.56 0.5 

27 JASPER Stack 11 -5.13 -2.7 -0.54 14.34 -37.21 9.61 58.18 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 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-9

Table 3-4. Concentrations of 238Pu in air samples collected in 2004 

 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 11 1.87 0.1 0.27 2.84 -0.78 7.44 9.08 9.1 

3 U-3ah/at N 11 2.87 0.1 2.11 3.89 -2.87 11.21 9.49 9.1 

3 U-3ah/at S 11 4.68 0.2 2.70 5.57 -1.98 17.55 8.73 27.3 

3 U-3bh N 10 3.34 0.2 1.55 4.91 -1.91 10.83 9.49 10.0 

3 U-3bh S 11 2.89 0.1 2.10 3.80 -1.96 12.06 9.28 18.2 

5 DoD 11 1.12 0.1 0.00 2.85 -3.02 5.83 10.10 0.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 11 0.98 0.0 0.18 3.63 -2.92 10.22 10.68 9.1 

6 Yucca 11 1.68 0.1 0.81 3.12 -2.10 9.92 10.38 18.2 

9 Bunker 9-300 11 5.61 0.3 5.25 4.18 0.00 13.21 9.51 36.4 

10 Gate 700 S 11 2.21 0.1 1.78 3.49 -1.83 9.04 8.64 18.2 

10 Sedan N 11 4.10 0.2 2.75 5.12 -1.98 14.05 9.36 18.2 

16 3545 Substation 9 3.08 0.1 0.12 5.11 -0.14 14.92 8.27 11.1 

18 Little Feller 2 N 11 1.03 0.0 0.43 3.28 -4.32 7.64 10.30 0.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 0.20 0.0 -0.29 1.38 -1.23 2.57 8.48 0.0 

20 Schooner 11 2.07 0.1 1.57 2.87 -1.04 9.17 9.31 0.0 

23 Mercury Track 11 1.17 0.1 0.85 2.00 -1.19 4.96 7.82 0.0 

25 Guard Station 510 11 1.76 0.1 0.00 4.67 -2.18 14.04 8.07 9.1 

27 ABLE Site 12 1.61 0.1 1.11 2.79 -2.11 8.17 9.78 8.3 

All Environmental Samplers 197 2.32 0.1 1.26 3.85 -4.32 17.55 9.27 11.2 

27 JASPER Stack 11 -1.35 -0.1 -4.69 16.11 -23.70 36.22 89.50 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 when expressed in the same scale as the data in this table. 

The annual mean 239+240Pu concentrations for most locations were slightly greater than last year, as reflected in the 

site-wide mean of 48 x 10-18 μCi/mL (1.8 μBq/m3) in 2004 compared to 38 x 10-18 μCi/mL (1.4 μBq/m3) for 2003. 

The location with the highest mean concentration (290 x 10-18 μCi/m3 [11 μBq/m3]), at Bunker 9-300, was only 

15 percent of the CL. 

The highest concentrations of 239+240Pu in 2004 occurred at the following five locations: U-3ah/at N, U-3ah/at S, 

U-3bh N, Bunker 9-300, and Sedan N (Table 3-5 and Figure 3-3). The peaks in 239+240Pu concentrations and the 

peaks for 241Am occurred on the same dates for most of these locations. This is expected because 241Am is the 

daughter-product of 241Pu which is present with the 239+240Pu used in past nuclear tests. Due to the differences in 

half-lives between 241Pu (14.4 years) and 241Am (433 years), concentrations of 241Am in NTS soils will increase 

gradually with time for about 80 years, after which they will begin decreasing. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 3-5. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2004 

 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 56.15 2.8 30.97 69.81 5.76 241.83 7.71 81.8 

3 U-3ah/at N 11 89.47 4.5 79.65 69.38 11.47 267.41 7.17 90.9 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 119.52 6.0 132.48 66.85 8.89 213.06 7.06 91.7 

3 U-3bh N 11 83.73 4.2 59.75 119.31 0.00 431.06 17.24 81.8 

3 U-3bh S 11 40.79 2.0 38.14 31.95 1.42 101.09 7.24 81.8 

5 DoD 11 16.55 0.8 3.97 35.83 -3.02 121.30 5.83 45.5 

5 Sugar Bunker N 11 6.44 0.3 5.92 4.27 1.95 17.18 8.67 36.4 

6 Yucca 11 15.96 0.8 9.58 16.86 1.63 56.24 8.76 36.4 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 294.12 14.7 196.88 310.83 17.83 1048.71 17.55 100.0 

10 Gate 700 S 11 20.52 1.0 6.63 43.80 1.21 151.58 8.03 50.0 

10 Sedan N 11 77.39 3.9 29.41 115.92 2.39 366.98 7.49 81.8 

16 3545 Substation 9 3.38 0.2 4.14 1.95 0.25 5.60 6.37 27.8 

18 Little Feller 2 N 11 7.71 0.4 4.50 7.64 -1.44 20.46 7.10 54.5 

20 Gate 20-2P 12 1.62 0.1 1.15 1.90 -1.07 5.90 9.65 8.3 

20 Schooner 11 0.24 0.0 0.00 4.26 -7.25 6.88 10.26 9.1 

23 Mercury Track 11 1.84 0.1 1.27 1.58 0.09 5.31 7.60 0.0 

25 Guard Station 510 11 3.07 0.2 2.63 3.43 -1.70 9.18 8.32 13.6 

27 ABLE Site 11 1.31 0.1 0.75 3.16 -1.70 10.12 10.96 9.1 

All Environmental Samplers 199 48.25 2.4 6.88 113.82 -7.25 1048.71 9.52 50.0 

27 JASPER Stack 12 31.73 1.6 9.85 40.74 -4.47 118.39 80.74 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 when expressed in the same scale as the data in this table. 

Figure 3-4 shows the long-term trends in the highest annual mean for 239+240Pu among sampling locations that have 

been grouped into one of nine NTS Area Groups and which have at least 14 years of sampling data. The 

concentration lines for each air sampling station are color-coded by the station’s geographical location within an area 

group. Fluctuations in the highest mean concentrations occur throughout the years within each area group, but within 

most area groups, a general decline in the highest annual mean concentrations occurs over time. No annual mean 

239+240Pu concentration from any area group has exceeded the CL in over a decade. Figure 3-5 shows the long-term 

trends in the average (rather than the highest) mean concentration for 239+240Pu from air sampling stations within each 

area group. This plot shows a steady decrease in air-borne 239+240Pu over the past three decades at most locations. 

The area groups with the slightest long-term decreases are those with the highest means in 2004. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-11

Figure 3-3. Concentrations of 239+240Pu in air samples collected in 2004 

Figure 3-4. Long-term trends in highest annual mean 239+240Pu for NTS 

area groups 

Highest Annual Mean for 239+240Pu by Area Group

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Annual Mean (x 10 -18 μCi/mL)

A1,3

A2,4,12,16

A5 non-RWMS

A5 RWMS

A6,11

A7,9,10,15

A18,19,20

A23

A25,27

CL

239+240Pu

-200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

01-Jan-04

31-Mar-04

29-Jun-04

27-Sep-04

26-Dec-04

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

BJY

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

U-3bh N

Bunker 9-300

Sedan N

Other

50% of CL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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

area groups 

3.1.4.4 Uranium Isotopes 

Uranium analyses were performed for samples from only those locations in Areas 20 and 25 where depleted uranium 

ordinances have been used during exercises. The annual mean concentrations for uranium isotopes, measured in air 

samples collected at these locations and analyzed by radiochemistry, are shown in Table 3-6. The concentrations 

show little change from those of previous years. All of the air samples (100 percent) contained uranium at levels 

above detection for 233+234U and 238U, whereas the detection rate ranged from 38 to 67 percent for 235+236U. 

The uranium isotopes measured are attributed to naturally-occurring uranium in soils which have become 

resuspended. This was determined by calculating the ratio of the annual average concentration of 238U to that of the 

other uranium isotopes for all sampling locations and then comparing these ratios to those expected from various 

uranium sources (Table 3-7). Isotope ratios calculated from samples with very low values of 235+236U are expected to 

be somewhat unreliable. Therefore, in estimating the mean ratio of 238U / 235+236U, only those samples in which 

235+236U was more than half its MDC were used; therefore it is expected that the actual mean of the 238U / 235+236U

ratio is underestimated. 

Table 3-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2004 

 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 18.02 2.5 19.27 3.99 12.00 22.84 2.53 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 18.33 2.6 17.99 1.94 15.62 22.08 2.68 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 17.59 2.5 17.22 3.53 11.50 24.87 1.93 100.0 

25 Guard Station 510 12 21.02 3.0 18.37 8.06 15.40 45.15 1.98 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 12 19.79 2.8 19.20 3.81 14.36 29.44 1.81 100.0 

 All Locations 58 18.99 2.7 18.50 4.77 11.50 45.15 2.19 100.0 

239+240Pu Trends by Area Group

Average Trend Lines for Locations With at Least 14-Year Histories

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Annual Mean (x 10 -18 μCi/mL)

A1,3

A2,4,12,16

A5 non-RWMS

A5 RWMS

A6,11

A7,9,10,15

A18,19,20

A23

A25,27

10% of CL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-13

Table 3-6. (continued) 

Table 3-7. Expected ratios of uranium isotopes by type of source 

Expected Isotope Ratios Source 238U / 233+234U 238U / 235+236U

Natural 1 21 

Enriched 0.1 5 

Depleted 1 62 

Table 3-8 shows the estimated isotope ratios from the 2004 data. As previously mentioned, the estimates of the mean 

238U / 235+236U ratio obtained from the censored data are expected to underestimate the true mean ratio. Therefore, 

the overall average ratio for data from these locations should be somewhat higher than 15, perhaps around 17. This is 

close to the expected value for uranium from natural sources (21) and far below the expected value for depleted 

uranium (62). It is also well above the expected value for enriched uranium (5). 

 235+236U (x 10-18 μCi/mL)

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

6 Yucca 12 22.05 0.3 14.67 20.62 0.58 66.78 23.90 45.8 

16 3545 Substation 12 17.23 0.2 12.14 13.82 0.00 46.87 15.94 62.5 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 14.80 0.2 15.85 8.20 -4.01 25.41 14.44 54.5 

25 Guard Station 510 12 13.38 0.2 11.82 10.28 -2.63 34.01 14.19 37.5 

27 ABLE Site 12 19.25 0.3 13.87 21.78 5.16 84.25 15.06 66.7 

 All Locations 59 17.39 0.2 13.33 15.75 -4.01 84.25 16.74 53.4 

 238U (x 10-17 μCi/mL)

6 Yucca 11 18.47 2.2 18.70 2.98 14.14 24.65 2.16 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 18.05 2.2 17.14 3.31 14.94 25.12 2.04 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 17.73 2.1 17.51 1.83 14.79 20.16 1.46 100.0 

25 Guard Station 510 12 21.18 2.6 18.63 9.65 14.32 50.87 1.47 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 12 18.05 2.2 17.97 3.55 12.42 26.51 1.58 100.0 

 All Locations 58 18.71 2.3 18.26 5.13 12.42 50.87 1.74 100.0 

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 when expressed in the same scale as the data in this table.

Note: The CL for 235+236U is about 7,100 x 10-18 μCi/mL when expressed in the same scale as the data in this table. 

Note: The CL for 238U is 830 x 10-17 μCi/mL when expressed in the same scale as the data in this table. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 3-8. Mean uranium isotope ratios from air samples collected in 2004 

NTS Estimated Mean Isotope Ratios 

Area Location 238U / 233+234U 238U / 235+236U

6 Yucca 1.050 > 12.44 

16 3545 Substation 0.983 > 14.02 

20 Gate 20-2P 1.035 > 12.40 

25 Guard Station 510 0.999 > 19.16 

27 ABLE Site 0.922 > 16.35 

All Locations 0.998 > 14.97 

3.1.4.5 Tritium 

Detectable tritium was observed in all air samples collected at Schooner crater and E Tunnel Pond 2 and in 92 percent 

of the Sedan samples (Table 3-9). The tritium found at these locations comes primarily from tritium used in nuclear 

testing devices. During the detonations, the tritium was oxidized forming tritiated water which was entrained in the 

ejecta from the cratering experiments at Sedan and Schooner and in the rubble formed in the various shafts of 

E Tunnel. At Sedan and Schooner, the tritiated moisture evaporates and transpires from the soil and vegetation in 

these areas. At the E Tunnel ponds, the tritiated water continues to flow out of the tunnel and evaporates into the air. 

Figure 3-6 shows the variation of measured tritium concentrations in air throughout the year. 

The highest annual mean concentration of tritium was at Schooner (360 x 10-6 picocuries [pCi]/mL [13 Bq/m3]), 

where the sampler is located only 269 m (882 ft) from the crater and is surrounded by ejecta from the crater. This 

concentration is only 24 percent of the CL. The data for Schooner are plotted in Figure 3-6 at one-tenth their actual 

values so that the details at other locations may be seen. Sedan crater was the other location with relatively higher 

concentrations, as in past years. The concentrations at all locations followed the same pattern observed in past years, 

increasing during the summer months and decreasing in the fall. This lags somewhat the rise and fall of the 

temperature. The influence of rainfall events in suppressing tritium releases is also seen in Figure 3-6. 

Figure 3-7 shows the annual means for nineteen air sample locations with at least a seven-year history between 1988 

and 2004. The data from 1982 through 1987 (dotted lines), taken from previous annual reports, were in some cases 

reported as “< xxx”, in which xxx was an average of values that included the “less than” values as well as actual 

measurements above the MDCs. Beginning with the 1988 data (solid lines) actual measurements were reported, 

whether above or below their MDCs. Locations are color-coded into Area Groups consisting of adjacent NTS Areas. 

As shown by this figure, the annual concentration averages of tritium in air decreased during the years 1982 to 1992 

and continued the decrease more gradually from then to the present time. Sampling at Schooner (in Area 20) began in 

1998 when a solar photovoltaic system was available to provide electrical power to operate the sampler. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-15

Table 3-9. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2004 

 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 26 1.32 0.1 1.06 1.17 -0.13 5.16 1.02 53.8 

3 U-3ah/at S 4 0.54 0.0 0.72 0.40 -0.06 0.79 0.78 25.0 

3 U-3bh N 4 0.50 0.0 0.59 0.43 -0.10 0.92 0.78 25.0 

5 DoD 26 0.43 0.0 0.60 0.83 -1.28 2.46 1.02 21.2 

5 Sugar Bunker N 25 0.78 0.1 0.74 0.85 -0.88 2.46 1.03 40.0 

6 Yucca 23 0.76 0.1 0.60 1.15 -1.15 4.22 1.03 30.4 

9 Bunker 9-300 26 3.41 0.2 2.52 2.91 -0.21 12.11 1.02 76.9 

10 Gate 700 S 26 1.02 0.1 0.91 1.27 -0.97 5.79 0.92 57.7 

10 Sedan N 26 10.33 0.7 4.66 10.08 0.44 28.80 1.00 92.3 

12 E Tunnel Pond 2 25 3.61 0.2 2.92 2.35 0.74 9.57 0.90 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 26 0.62 0.0 0.48 1.15 -1.65 4.34 0.98 25.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 24 0.56 0.0 0.40 1.06 -1.46 3.90 0.94 25.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 25 0.81 0.1 0.63 0.93 -1.22 2.94 0.95 35.3 

20 Schooner 25 364.69 24.3 177.58 360.03 15.34 1064.66 0.94 100.0 

23 Mercury Track 26 0.51 0.0 0.37 1.11 -1.24 3.74 1.05 15.4 

25 Guard Station 510 26 0.73 0.0 0.28 2.27 -1.12 11.03 1.03 19.2 

 All Environmental Samplers 363 26.89 1.8 0.86 130.66 -1.65 1064.66 0.98 49.0 

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 3H is 1,500 x 10-6 pCi/mL when expressed in the same scale as the data in this table. 

Figure 3-6. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2004 

3

H

T emp erat ure at Pahut e M esa

also sho wn

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

01-Jan-04

01-Apr-04

01-Jul-04

30-Sep-04

30-Dec-04

Colle ction Date

x 10-6 pCi/mL

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

oF

Scho o ner x 0.1

Sedan N

Other

5% o f C L

Temp

High rainfall event
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 3-7. Average long-term trends in tritium at locations on the NTS having 

at least 7 years of data 

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 2004 are shown in Tables 3-10 and 3-11 and Figures 3-8 and 3-9. Since these radioactivities include 

naturally-occurring 40K, 7Be, uranium, thorium, and the daughter isotopes of uranium and thorium, no reference to a 

CL is appropriate. These analyses are useful in that they can be performed by BN personnel at NTS five days after 

collection to identify any increases requiring investigation. 

As shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, the concentrations of both gross alpha and gross beta have a parallel variation 

common to all locations similar to what has been observed in the past. The locations of peak values at U-3ah/at N, 

U-3bh N, Sugar Bunker N, and Bunker 9-300, identified on the figures, are at locations near or in areas of legacy 

deposits of radionuclides in and on the soil. Peak values occurred at these five locations during previous years as well. 

No increasing trend in gross alpha or beta radioactivity was observed for any location. 

3

H Annual M e an Long-Te rm Tre nds

All Locations With at Least 7-Year Histories Since 1987

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

A 1

A 5 RWMS

A10,12,15

A20

A23,25

CL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-17

Table 3-10. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2004 

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 10-15 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of

Samples Mean Median SD (a) Min (b) Max (c)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC

1 BJY 52 2.39 2.13 1.62 -1.90 5.06 3.42 33.7 

3 U-3ah/at N 52 3.49 3.48 2.24 -1.35 9.83 3.57 51.9 

3 U-3ah/at S 52 3.07 2.95 1.98 -1.15 8.67 3.45 46.2 

3 U-3bh N 51 2.85 3.00 1.95 -0.82 6.79 3.41 37.3 

3 U-3bh S 52 2.34 2.29 1.86 -1.68 6.07 3.40 32.7 

5 DoD 52 2.11 1.76 1.79 -1.01 7.85 3.47 28.8 

5 Sugar Bunker N 51 3.80 4.04 2.11 -0.51 8.58 3.47 60.8 

6 Yucca 50 2.44 2.44 1.49 -0.79 5.91 3.43 21.0 

9 Bunker 9-300 52 2.83 2.49 2.93 -1.04 15.41 3.39 36.5 

10 Gate 700 S 49 2.10 2.08 1.66 -1.49 5.82 3.44 25.5 

10 Sedan N 51 2.41 2.18 1.72 -0.96 6.11 3.58 31.4 

16 3545 Substation 52 1.85 1.89 1.43 -1.22 4.61 3.40 19.2 

18 Little Feller 2 N 50 1.57 1.78 1.53 -2.01 5.22 3.37 16.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 50 2.03 2.09 1.24 -0.19 4.79 3.45 17.0 

20 Schooner 49 1.97 2.04 1.28 -0.31 4.71 3.37 20.4 

23 Mercury Track 52 1.77 1.68 1.25 -0.47 5.49 3.42 13.5 

25 Guard Station 510 51 1.93 2.03 1.54 -0.77 5.17 3.42 20.6 

27 ABLE Site 51 1.80 1.71 1.52 -1.67 5.90 3.45 19.6 

All Environmental Samplers 919 2.38 2.24 1.86 -2.01 15.41 3.44 29.7 

27 JASPER Stack 49 -0.38 0.00 11.59 -51.26 29.43 24.83 2.0 

Blue-shaded locations are EPA-approved critical receptor sampler stations
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 3-11. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2004 

 Gross Beta (x 10-14 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of

Samples Mean Median SD (a) Min (b) Max (c)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC

1 BJY 52 1.85 1.85 0.61 0.55 4.00 0.34 100.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 52 1.98 1.98 0.66 0.69 4.48 0.36 98.1 

3 U-3ah/at S 52 1.99 2.01 0.65 0.48 4.35 0.34 100.0 

3 U-3bh N 51 1.89 1.96 0.63 0.39 4.21 0.34 100.0 

3 U-3bh S 52 1.95 1.98 0.63 0.49 3.85 0.34 100.0 

5 DoD 52 2.03 2.02 0.69 0.52 4.56 0.35 100.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 51 2.12 2.15 0.69 0.19 4.45 0.35 98.0 

6 Yucca 50 1.98 2.00 0.66 0.61 4.41 0.34 100.0 

9 Bunker 9-300 52 1.85 1.94 0.56 0.58 3.73 0.34 100.0 

10 Gate 700 S 49 1.83 1.84 0.62 0.40 3.67 0.34 100.0 

10 Sedan N 51 1.85 1.86 0.60 0.65 3.68 0.36 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 52 1.75 1.79 0.58 0.51 3.24 0.34 100.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 50 1.76 1.74 0.57 0.34 3.53 0.34 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 50 1.84 1.81 0.61 0.37 4.06 0.34 100.0 

20 Schooner 49 1.86 1.85 0.59 0.41 4.29 0.34 100.0 

23 Mercury Track 52 1.91 1.96 0.66 0.49 4.61 0.34 100.0 

25 Guard Station 510 51 1.93 1.91 0.64 0.57 4.49 0.34 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 51 1.87 1.90 0.61 0.46 4.13 0.34 100.0 

All Environmental Samplers 919 1.90 1.91 0.63 0.19 4.61 0.34 99.8 

27 JASPER Stack 49 -0.18 0.08 1.16 -3.72 2.66 2.48 2.0 

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 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-19

Figure 3-8. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2004 

Figure 3-9. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2004 

Gross Alpha

-4

0

4

8

12

16

20

01-Jan-04

01-Apr-04

01-Jul-04

30-Sep-04

30-Dec-04

Collection Date

x 10-15 μCi/mL

Bnkr 9-300

U-3ah/at N Sugar Bnkr N

Bnkr 9-300

Bnkr 9-300

Sugar Bnkr N

U-3ah/at N

U-3bh N

Gross Beta

0

1

2

3

4

5

01-Jan-04

01-Apr-04

01-Jul-04

30-Sep-04

30-Dec-04

Collection Date

x 10-14 μCi/mL
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

3-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

3.1.5 Air Sampling Results from Critical Receptor Samplers 

The following radionuclides were detected at three or more of the critical receptor samplers: 241Am, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 

233+234U, 235+236U, 238U, and 3H (tritium) (see Tables 3-2, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-9, respectively). All concentrations of 

these radionuclides were well below their CLs. The uranium isotopes are attributed to naturally-occurring uranium 

(see Section 3.1.4.4). The concentration of each measured radionuclide (excluding uranium, since it has been 

determined to be of natural origin) at each of the six critical receptor samplers was divided by its respective CL 

(see Table 3-1) to obtain a “fraction of CL”. These fractions were then summed for each location. The sum of these 

fractions at each critical receptor sampler is less than 1.0 (Table 3-12) and shows that the NESHAP dose limit to the 

public of 10 mrem/yr was not exceeded. A hypothetical individual residing at Schooner would receive a CEDE of 

2.5 mrem/yr. 

Table 3-12. Sum of percents of compliance levels for radionuclides detected at critical receptor samplers 

Radionuclides Included in 

Sum of Percents(a)

NTS 

Area Location 

Sum of Fractions of Compliance 

Levels (CLs) 

6 Yucca 0.010 

10 Gate 700 S 0.014 

16 3545 Substation 0.005 

20 Schooner 0.245(b)

23 Mercury 0.003 

241Am, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 3H

25 Guard Station 510 0.005 

(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. 

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

The 2004 air samples from the stack sampler at the JASPER facility contained no man-made radionuclides above their 

MDCs (see Tables 3-2 through 3-5). The HEPA filters at the facility appeared to function as intended, therefore, no 

radionuclide emission rate or offsite dose was calculated for this potential NTS radiation source (see Section 8.0). 

3.1.7 Radiological Atmospheric Releases used for Estimating Dose to the 

Maximally Exposed Individual 

Selected air sampling data gathered from the network of 19 environmental samplers are used to estimate the 

radiological dose to the hypothetical maximally exposed individual (MEI) residing near the NTS that is attributable to 

NTS emissions. Certain factors must be identified and quantified to estimate the dose to the MEI using the EPAapproved atmospheric diffusion model, called the Clean Air Package 1988, Version 2.0 (CAP88-PC). One of these 

factors is the quantity of radionuclides released from potential NTS sources, in Ci/yr. The following are measured or 

calculated to obtain the quantity of radiological atmospheric releases: 

x The quantity of tritium gas released during the calibration of laboratory equipment 

x 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 completely evaporated 

during the year 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-21

x The quantity of tritium released from the Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs and from Schooner and Sedan crater sites, 

estimated from calculations with CAP88-PC software and annual mean concentration of tritium in air measured 

by environmental air samplers at locations near these sources 

x 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 

(DOE, 1991), a re-suspension model (NRC, 1983), and equation parameters derived at the NTS (DOE, 1992) 

Table 3-13 summarizes the quantity of 2004 NTS radiological air emissions used in the CAP88-PC computer model 

to compute dose to the MEI. The calculated dose to the hypothetical MEI is 0.12 mrem/yr (0.0012 mSv/yr), and the 

MEI resides in Cactus Springs, Nevada (see Section 8.1.3). This is well below the NESHAP limit of 10 mrem/yr

(0.1 mSv/yr). 

Table 3-13. NTS radiological atmospheric releases for calendar year 2004 (in Curies) 

3H 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

RadiostrontiumTotal

Uranium Plutonium

Other

Actinides Other

560 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 

(239+240Pu) 

0.047 

(241Am) 

0

3.1.8 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 monitoring 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 2004. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

3.2 Non-Radiological Air Quality Assessment 

Non-radiological air quality assessments1 are conducted to document compliance with current state of Nevada air 

quality permits that regulate specific operations or facilities on the NTS. The state of Nevada has adopted the CAA 

standards which include National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (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 permits issued by the state are in compliance with these national standards. 

Specifically omitted from this section is NESHAP compliance for radionuclide emissions, as these are presented in 

Section 3.1. Assessments, facility/equipment monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting activities related to air quality 

on the NTS are conducted by BN ES personnel to meet the program goals shown in the table below. BN ES 

personnel collect and track the compliance measures shown in the table below. 

There are two current NTS air quality permits. They are listed below along with the facilities they cover on the NTS. 

NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit AP9711-0549.01

x Over 30 facilities/pieces of equipment in Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 23 

x Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC) in Area 5 

x NPTEC in Area 25 (Test Cell C Facility) 

x Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF) 

x Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) 

x Tactical Demilitarization Development Project (TaDD) Facility in Area 11 

Class II/Temporary General Air Quality Operating Permit AP1442-1429

x Portable screen and crushing plant in Area 6 

1The word “assessment” versus “monitoring” is used in this section. Adherence to most non-radiological air quality standards on

the NTS does not require field collection and analysis of air samples (activities called “monitoring” in this report). Instead,

adherence to NTS air quality permits for non-radiological emissions usually involves the review of records, gathering of 

operational information, and calculation of emissions. 

Air Quality Assessment Program Goals Compliance Measures 

Ensure that NTS operations comply with all the Tons of emissions of criteria pollutants produced annually 

requirements of current air quality permits issued by the 

state of Nevada for NTS operations Gallons of fuel burned annually 

Hours of operation of equipment per year Ensure that air emissions of criteria pollutants (sulfur 

dioxide [SO2]), nitrogen oxides[NOX], carbon monoxide 

[CO], volatile organic compounds ([VOCs], and particulate 

matter [PM]) do not exceed limits established under 

NAAQS 

Rate at which aggregate and concrete is produced 

Quarterly opacity readings Ensure that NTS operations comply with the asbestos 

abatement reporting requirements under NESHAP Pounds of chemicals released from NPTEC facilities 

Document usage of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to 

comply with Title VI of the CAA 

Amount of asbestos in existing structures removed or 

scheduled for removal 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-23

The NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit that regulates operations and emissions generated by aggregateproducing facilities, fuel-burning equipment, and fuel storage tanks was renewed in June 2004. The new permit is a 

consolidation of all of the existing NTS Class II air permits into a single site-wide permit. Its issuance resulted in 

some new requirements, including quarterly reporting of emissions from certain sources, performance testing of point 

source emissions units, and installation of monitors at NPTEC and BEEF to measure airborne particulate matter 

equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The BEEF facility is scheduled to start operation in April 2005. 

In June, 2004, the Class II/Temporary General Air Quality Operating Permit was issued for the placement of a 

screening and crushing plant in Area 6 at the NTS. The plant may be operated for up to one year at this location and 

if it remains, must be transferred to the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit. As of this writing, the plant is 

still on location and plans are being made to include it in the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit. 

NTS facilities regulated by these permits must adhere to the recordkeeping and operational requirements specified in 

the permits. 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 2004 air quality activities are 

described below. 

3.2.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Along with each air quality permit issued, there is an Air Emissions Inventory which lists all permitted facilities and 

equipment and the quantities of criteria pollutants (see Glossary, Appendix D) as well as Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(HAPs) that each facility/piece of equipment would emit annually if it were operated for the maximum number of 

hours specified in the air permit. These quantities are known as the “Potential to Emit” (PTE). Lead is considered a 

HAP as well as a criteria pollutant. Emissions from lead are reported as part of the total HAPs emissions rather than 

as a separate criteria pollutant. Compliance with permits involves documenting that the PTE for all facilities or 

equipment is not exceeded. Quantities of emissions of criteria pollutants and non-radiological HAPs produced by 

each permitted facility are determined through calculations that take into account the number of operating hours, 

number of gallons of fuel burned, number of tons of material that were produced, and emission factors. Emission 

factors are representative values that relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere to an activity 

associated with the release of that pollutant. These factors are generally expressed as the weight of the pollutant 

divided by a unit weight, volume, distance, or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant, e.g., pounds of 

particulates emitted per ton of aggregate material produced. Emission factors have been developed for many different 

types of industries and activities and are published by the EPA in a document titled Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors (EPA, 1995). The emission factors that were used in the NTS air quality operating permits are derived from 

this source. 

Each year, the state issues Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Forms for the NTS air permit to NNSA/NSO. These 

forms are used to report the actual hours of operation, gallons of fuel burned, etc. for each permitted facility/piece of 

equipment. Using this data and emission factors furnished by the state, emissions of the criteria pollutants are 

calculated and reported along with the other required information mentioned above. The forms are completed by BN 

ES personnel and returned to NNSA/NSO for submittal to the state. The state uses the submitted information to 

determine annual maintenance and emissions fees and to document compliance with emission limits. 

Quantities of criteria pollutants produced by open burns are not required to be calculated. However, submittal of an 

Open Burn Variance form is required by the state prior to each burn. An exception to this is the Open Burn Variance 

for fire extinguisher training, which is valid for one year and covers approximately 60 fire extinguisher training 

sessions conducted throughout the year. 

In 2004, examination of records for permitted facilities and equipment indicated that all operational parameters were 

being properly tracked. Table 3-14 presents the calculated tons of emissions of criteria pollutants from NTS facilities 

that were operational during 2004. The PTEs for each facility are shown in Table 3-14 and were derived from the 

limits set forth in the NTS air quality permits. Approximately 6.91 tons (6.27 mtons) of criteria pollutants were 

emitted from NTS facilities and equipment during 2004. The majority of these emissions were volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) from the NPTEC facilities. The PTE for VOCs from NPTEC facilities was 100 tons under its 

permit which expired in June 2004. This limit was lowered to 3.01 tons under the renewed Class II NTS air quality 
3-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 3-14. Tons of criteria air pollutant emissions released on the NTS in 2004 Calculated Tons(a) of Emissions Particulate Matter (PM10)(b) Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 

C

Facility Actual PTE(c) Actual PTE Actual PTE Actual PTE AWet Aggregate Plant 0.49 6.14 NA(d) NA NA NA NA NA Area 1 Concrete Batch Plant 0.07 2.04 NA NA NA NA NA NA Cementing Equipment 0.33 18.54 NA NA NA NA NA NA Portable Cement Bins 0 3.06 NA NA NA NA NA NA Boilers 0.02 0.61 0.04 1.35 0.15 5.41 0.01 1.15 Incinerator (propane fired) 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 Diesel Fired Compressors 0 0.54 0 1.66 0 7.72 0 0.51 Diesel Fired Generators 0.03 3.34 0.20 10.24 0.86 17.87 0.01 3.13 Laboratory Hoods NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bulk Gasoline Storage Tank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Bulk Diesel Fuel Storage Tank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NPTEC Facilities 0 3.00(e) 0 3.26(e) 0 3.02(e) 0.10 3.00(e) Area 1 Miscellaneous Conveyors 0 0.21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Total 0.94 37.51 0.24 16.51 1.01 34.04 0.12 7.79 

Total 2004 Actual Emissions 6.91 

(a) For mtons, multiply tons by 0.9072 (b) Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (c) Potential to Emit - the quantity of criteria pollutant that each facility/piece of equipment would emit annually if it were operated  maximum number of hours at the maximum production rate specified in the air permit (d) Not applicable because the permit does not regulate the emissions of this pollutant for this facility (e) PTE under Permit AP9711-0814, which expired in June 2004, was 100 tons. PTE under Permit AP9711-0549.01, renewed in June 

Most tests were conducted at NPTEC facilities prior to June. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-25 

Total Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants

0

5

10

15

20

25

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Year

Tons

PM10

CO

NOx

SO2

VOC

permit. The renewed permit was then modified in May 2005 to increase the VOC limits at these facilities to 10 tons 

based on better projections of future operations. 

Table 3-15 and Figure 3-10 show the tons of air pollutants released on the NTS since 1995. These numbers were 

derived from the Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Forms that are required to be submitted to the state 

annually. Prior to calendar year (CY) 2000, HAPS were not included in the Reporting Forms. HAPs are now 

reported, but for only a few of the facilities. Specific HAPs are not identified in the Reporting Forms. The quantity 

of HAPs released in 2004, as calculated in the Reporting Forms, was 0.41 tons (Table 3-15). Total air emissions of 

lead from the NTS, as reported in the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Report, Form R (see Section 10.3) was 

10.4 pounds. 

The Calendar Year 2004 Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Form, containing the calculated emission totals for 2004 

was submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) on February 28, 2005, prior to its due 

date of March 1. 

 Table 3-15. Criteria air pollutants and HAPS released on the NTS since 1995 

Total Emissions (tons/yr)(a)

Pollutant 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Particulate Matter (PM10)(b) 4.53 2.89 1.67 1.11 1.7 1.46 2.05 3.61 2.39 0.94 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.21 0.04 5.28 1.85 1.87 2.76 4.84 4.6 1.79 0.24 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 1.56 0.16 19.79 7.57 8.07 12.75 22.23 21.09 8.11 1.01 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1.47 0.3 0.85 0.37 0.42 0.98 1.68 1.62 0.76 0.12 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 19.87 2.82 0.94 11.76 1.99 1.89 2.01 2.1 1.21 4.60 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) NR(c) NR NR NR NR 0.01 0.03 0.01 0 0.41 

(a) For mtons, multiply tons by 0.9072 

(b) Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter

(c) Not reported

 Figure 3-10. Criteria air pollutants released on the NTS since 1995 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

3.2.2 Production Rates/Hours of Operation 

Compliance with operational parameters such as production rates and hours of operation is verified through an 

examination of the data generated by each facility owner for the annual report to the state. The number of hours that 

equipment operates throughout a year is determined by reading meters that are located on each piece of equipment. 

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 using industry standards and the hours of operation, or simply by recording tank levels each time 

that the tank is filled. 

Production rates and hours of operation were computed for all permitted facilities as an interim step in order to 

calculate the tons of air pollutants emitted in 2004, as shown in Table 3-14 above. The records examined for all 

permitted equipment and facilities indicated that the production rates, hours of operation, and gallons of fuel used by 

each were within the specified permit limits. 

3.2.3 Opacity Readings 

Under Title 40 CFR Part 60, personnel that conduct visible emissions evaluations to satisfy the opacity requirements 

for a facility or piece of equipment must be certified semi-annually by a qualified organization. A form similar to one 

appearing in Title 40 CFR Part 60 for conducting visible emissions evaluations is used to record and document the 

readings. The form requires that weather conditions, wind speeds, and other factors that could affect the readings be 

recorded. Visual readings are taken every 15 seconds. A minimum of 24 consecutive readings is required for a valid 

reading. The average of the 24 readings must not exceed the permit-specified limit (20 percent for NAAQS, 

10 percent for NSPS) to remain in compliance. Readings must be obtained only once during the month that the 

equipment is used. No readings are required during months that the equipment is not used. 

The opacity reading requirement was revised from monthly to quarterly when the renewed air permit was issued in 

June 2004. During 2004, four BN personnel were certified by Carl Koontz Associates to conduct visible emissions 

evaluations (opacity readings). Opacity readings were obtained for the following NTS permitted facilities regulated 

under the NAAQS opacity limit of 20 percent: Area 23 Incinerator, Area 1 Concrete Batch Plant, Area 1 Wet 

Aggregate Plant, Area 23 Boiler, Area 1 Storage Silos, and the Portable Field Bins. Readings for these facilities ranged 

from 0 to 10 percent, all below the air quality permit limits of 20 percent. 

Opacity readings were obtained for a portion of the Area 1 Wet Aggregate Plant which is regulated under the stricter 

NSPS opacity limit of 10 percent. Opacities were found to be within the 10 percent limit. 

3.2.4 NPTEC Reporting 

The NTS air quality operating permit for both the Area 5 NPTEC and the Area 25 Test Cell C facility requires, in 

addition to annual reporting, the submittal of test plans and final analysis reports to the state for each chemical release. 

Test plans provide detailed information regarding the types and quantities of chemicals to be released, a description of 

how they will be released, and environmental and chemical hazards. The Area 5 and Area 25 Test Cell C NPTEC 

facilities, by their nature as research facilities, provide no air quality controls. The impact of the chemical releases at 

both facilities is minimized by controlling the amount and duration of each release. When chemical release tests are 

conducted, plumes pass through an instrument array and impacts are confined to a defined area. Predictions of 

impacts for each test are reliable because of extensive meteorological data that is available on wind direction, wind 

speed, standard deviation of wind direction, vertical turbulence, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. In 

turn, post-release monitoring is used to document the degree of actual impact. Following each release, a completion 

report is submitted that documents the test dates, chemicals, and quantities that were actually released. 

In 2004, 5 chemical tests consisting of 25 releases were conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC and the Area 25 Test Cell C 

facility. They included: 

x Divine Invader 55-63 Project at Area 5 (4 releases) 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-27 

x Divine Invader 53-54 Project at Area 5 (3 releases) 

x Rattler Project at Area 5 (5 releases) 

x Roadrunner III Test at Frenchman Lake Bed (Area 5) (8 releases) 

x Roadrunner III Test at Area 25 Test Cell C (5 releases) 

A completion report was submitted to NNSA/NSO for transmittal to NDEP’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control at the 

conclusion of each test. Table 3-16 summarizes the total quantities of all chemicals released during tests in 2004. 

Table 3-16. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 5 NPTEC in 2004 

Chemical Total Amount Released (lbs)(a)

2-Diisopropylamino ethanol 2.8 

2-Diethylaminoethanol 4.6 

3,3-dimethyl-2-butanol 12.9 

Dimethyl methylphosphonate 2768.2 

Ammonia 127.9 

Boron Trichloride 2100 

Butanol 40 

Butyl nitrate 17.5 

Carbon tetrachloride 12 

Chlorobenzene 41 

Cyclohexanol 12.9 

Chlorobenzene 41 

DC (Methyl phosphonic dichloride) 9 

Deuterium oxide 2.2 

Diethanolamine 4.2 

Diethyl ethylphosphonate 37.4 

Diethylamine 2.6 

Diisopropylamine 2.2 

Dimethyl ether 18.6 

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether 2610 

DV methyl ester 13.2 

Ethylene 12 

Freon 134A 41 

Freon R414b 400 

Isobar E fluid 11.2 

Isopropyl alcohol 29 

Methanol 544.3 

Methyl chloride 213 

Methylamine 3 

m-Phenoxybenzyl alcohol 11.2 

Permethrin 5.5 

Pinacolone 13.2 

Propane 1 

Propylene 5.3 

Sulfur dioxide 208 

Thionyl chloride 12 

Triethyl phosphate 98.6 

Triethyl phosphorothioate 33.2 

(a) 1lb = 0.456 kilograms 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-28 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 3-17. Chemicals released during tests conducted at the Area 25 Test Cell C 

facility in 2004 

Chemical 

Total Amount Released 

(lbs)(a)

Ethyl formate 6.4 

Methanol 56.2 

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 11.5 

Dimethyl methylphosphonate 28 

Trimethyl phosphite 22.3 

Ammonia 0.7 

Dimethyl ether 2.2 

Ethylene 20.5 

Methylamine 8.3 

Freon R134a 3.5 

(a) 1lb = 0.456 kilograms 

3.2.5 TaDD Reporting 

The TaDD is located in Area 11 at the NTS. This facility was developed as a prototype of a portable burn facility to 

dispose of unneeded Shillelagh tactical military rocket motors. As such, TaDD was added to the NTS air quality 

operating permit because of the emissions generated during each burn. Emissions are controlled by a baghouse, 

HEPA, and ultra high efficiency filters. Permit requirements include annual reporting of hours of operation and 

emissions and an opacity limit of 20 percent. 

The TaDD facility has not been used due to lack of funding. It is listed in the renewed air permit with 0 allowable 

operating hours and is expected to be removed from the air permit during 2005. 

3.2.6 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 kilograms (50 pounds) 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. 

From an assessment conducted in CY 2002, it was determined that the regulatory requirements of Title VI 

(Section 608) of the CAA for the protection of stratospheric ozone were generally being met. No assessment was 

conducted in CY 2004. An ODS Management Plan is scheduled to be written in 2005 to develop and implement a 

program and procedures to maximize the use of safe alternatives to ODS due to their required phase-out. 

3.2.7 Asbestos Abatement 

A NESHAP notification is submitted annually to the EPA for the next calendar year. This notification provides an 

estimate of the quantities of asbestos-containing materials that are expected to be removed from small projects: 

removal of less than 79.2 linear meters [260 linear feet] or less than 14.9 square meters (m2) (160 square feet [ft2]). 

These projections are submitted to EPA in an Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form. A Notification of 

Demolition and Renovation Form is also submitted to EPA at least 10 working days prior to the start of each project 

if either (1) no asbestos is present in a facility scheduled for demolition, or (2) if quantities of asbestos-containing 

materials to be removed are estimated to exceed 79.2 linear meters or 14.9 m2. The recordkeeping requirements for 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 3-29 

asbestos abatement activities on the NTS include maintaining the following records for the following number of 

years: 

x Asbestos air and bulk sampling data records (collected during asbestos removal projects) up to 75 years 

x Asbestos abatement plans up to 25 years 

x Operations and Maintenance activity records up to 75 years 

x Location-specific records of asbestos-containing materials for a minimum of 75 years 

Compliance with recordkeeping requirements is verified through periodic assessments. The assessments include a 

records review and interviews with managers and technicians associated with asbestos abatement. State 

assessments/audits are performed periodically. 

An Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form was submitted to the EPA in February 2004 which projected that 

45.7 linear meters (150 linear feet) and 23.2 m2 (250 ft2) of asbestos-containing material would be removed from small 

projects from NTS facilities in 2004. During 2004, all 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. 

3.2.8 Fugitive Dust Control 

Section VII of the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit, No. AP9711-0549.01, Surface Area Disturbance Conditions

states that "Permittee may not cause or permit the construction, repair, demolition, or use of unpaved or untreated 

areas without first putting into effect an ongoing program using the best practical methods to prevent particulate 

matter from becoming airborne”. Methods that are typically used to control fugitive dust include presoaking, using 

water sprays, using dust palliatives, gravelling or paving haul routes, revegetating, reducing vehicle speeds, and either 

covering stockpiles or watering them. At the NTS, the main method of dust control is the use of water sprays. 

During the summer of 2004, NNSA/NSO personnel observed an excess of fugitive dust resulting from an operation 

at the Area 5 RWMS. NNSA/NSO determined that BN was failing to monitor operations sufficiently to prevent 

excessive fugitive dust. In response to this finding, BN ES finalized a fugitive dust control policy in November 

(Organization Instruction, OI-0442.002 Fugitive Dust Monitoring). This policy establishes periodic monitoring of nonpermitted dust-producing activities and operations. 

3.2.9 State Inspections 

On May 12, 2004, the state of Nevada conducted an inspection of some facilities regulated by the NTS air quality 

permit. These facilities included the Area 1 Aggregate Plant, Area 1 Batch Plant, and the NPTEC. There were no 

findings or exceedances of permit limits. 

3.2.10 Environmental Impact 

In order to be considered a Class II or “minor” source of pollutants for air permitting purposes, a facility’s annual 

emissions must not exceed 100 tons of any one criteria pollutant, or 10 tons of any one HAP, or 25 tons of any 

combination of HAPS. During 2004, NTS activities produced a total of only 6.91 tons of criteria pollutants and 

0.41 tons of hazardous air pollutants (see Table 3-14). These small quantities had little, if any, impact to air quality on 

the NTS and at offsite locations. Emissions of pollutants for CY 2004 were significantly less than those generated 

during the heightened activity that occurred in the years prior to the nuclear weapons testing moratorium. 

Impacts of the chemical releases during tests at the NPTEC are minimized by controlling the amount and duration of 

each release. Biological monitoring at the NPTEC is performed whenever there is a risk of significant exposure to 

downwind plants and animals from the planned tests (see Section 13.5). BN biologists review all chemical release test 

plans to determine the level of field monitoring needed for each test. To date, chemical releases at the NPTEC have 

used such small quantities (when dispersed into the air) that downwind test-specific monitoring has not been 

necessary. No measurable impacts to downwind plants or animals have been observed. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

3-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-1 

4.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water 

Monitoring 

This chapter presents radiological and non-radiological monitoring results for surface water and groundwater 

conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN) 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. Several BN programs or projects are involved with water monitoring. These include: (1) routine 

radiological monitoring conducted by BN Environmental Technical Services (ETS) under the Routine Radiological 

Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b), (2) water quality assessments of permitted water systems 

conducted by BN ES, and (3) water sampling and analysis conducted by the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project. 

Water quality assessments are driven by the need to comply with applicable state and federal regulations (see 

Section 2.2) as well as by the desire 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 (CEMP) has been 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 2004 monitoring results for surface and groundwater are 

presented in Section 6.2. 

Section 4.2 of this chapter presents the results of non-radiological monitoring of drinking water and domestic and 

industrial wastewaters on the NTS. 

4.1 Radiological Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring 

There have been 828 underground nuclear tests conducted at the NTS. Approximately one third of these tests were 

detonated near or below the water table (DOE, 1996; DOE, 2000a). This legacy of nuclear testing has resulted in the 

contamination of groundwater in some areas. The Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) 

established Corrective Action Units (CAUs) that delineated and defined areas of concern for groundwater 

contamination on the NTS (DOE, 1996). 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 (USGS), 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 2004 from UGTA wells are also presented in 

this section along with RREMP monitoring results (see Section 4.1.10).
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 4-1. Areas of potential groundwater contamination on the NTS
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-3 

The selection of analytes for groundwater monitoring shown above is based on the radiological source term from 

historical nuclear testing, regulatory/permit requirements, and characterization needs. The isotopic inventory 

remaining from nuclear testing is presented in the most recent environmental impact statement for NTS activities 

(DOE, 1996a) and in a recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) document (Smith, 2001). Many of 

the radioactive species generated from subsurface testing have very short half-lives, sorb strongly onto the solid phase, 

or are bound into what is termed “melt glass” and are not available for groundwater transport in the near term (Smith, 

1993; Smith et al., 1995). Tritium (3H) is the radioactive species created in the greatest quantities and is widely 

believed to be the most mobile. Tritium is therefore the primary target analyte; it represents the greatest concern to 

users of groundwater on and around the NTS for at least the next 100 years due to its high mobility and concentration 

(DOE, 1996a; International Technology [IT], 1997). 

Tritium analyses are done on all water samples. Analyses for gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma-emitting 

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 (e.g., isotopes of uranium and 226Ra) and 

beta (e.g., 228Ra and 40K) radiation. The analyses for gamma-emitting radionuclides by gamma spectroscopy can 

identify the presence of specific man-made radionuclides (e.g., 241Am, 137Cs, 60Co, 152Eu, and 154Eu), as well as natural 

radionuclides (e.g., 228Ac, 212Pb, 40K, 235U, and 234Th). Specific analyses for 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 226Ra, 228Ra, 14C, 90Sr, 99Tc,

241Am, and uranium isotopes are performed on selected water samples to help characterize sampled locations. Water 

analyses also include chemical parameters to characterize the groundwater chemistry and hydrology, but these 

measures are not presented in this report. 

4.1.1 Water Monitoring Locations 

The NTS groundwater and surface water monitoring network consists of a variety of monitoring locations that 

include onsite supply wells, domestic offsite wells, wells specifically designed to monitor groundwater, onsite and 

offsite natural springs, onsite containment ponds, and point-of-opportunity locations. The monitoring network is 

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 offsite natural springs and 

from onsite and offsite non-potable water wells (monitoring wells), 

including those within CAUs, indicate that NNSA/NSO activities have 

had an impact on the environment. Strict drinking water standards are 

often used as a monitoring action level for this determination. Technetium-99 (99Tc)
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

located in a complex hydrogeologic setting as described in Appendix A. The RREMP (DOE, 2003b) identifies a 

groundwater monitoring network of 78 wells to be sampled at frequencies which range from once every three months 

to once every three years. There are also eight additional wells (five offsite and three onsite) not identified in the 

RREMP which have been added to the network and which are sampled opportunistically or under the suggestion of 

NNSA/NSO. Of all these 86 wells, 63 have been sampled at least once since 1999. These 63 include 26 offsite wells, 

10 onsite potable water supply wells, and 27 onsite monitoring wells (Figure 4-2). Those wells not sampled since 

1999, but identified in the RREMP, include 14 onsite monitoring wells and 1 offsite well that have not been sampled 

because they are either not accessible, are used for other purposes, are blocked, provide water samples that are of 

poor quality or are contaminated (disqualifying them from monitoring), or contain waters with known high levels of 

radiological contamination which are not expected to change. 

A network of 36 groundwater locations was sampled in 2004 (Figure 4-2). The 36 sampled wells include: 

x 14 offsite wells 

x 10 onsite potable water supply wells (9 of which are permitted) 

x 12 onsite monitoring wells (3 are compliance wells for the Area 5 RWMS and 1 is a compliance well for the 

Area 23 sewage lagoon) 

The RREMP identifies seven offsite springs that have been sampled over the years at intervals which range from once 

a year to once every three years (Figure 4-3). The RREMP also identifies one containment pond system and three 

sewage lagoons that are sampled at intervals of once every three months to once a year. Only two of the three sewage 

lagoons are currently active (Yucca and A23). Those surface water monitoring locations sampled in 2004 on and off 

the NTS (Figure 4-4) include: 

x 2 offsite springs 

x 1 NTS operations-related containment pond system (E Tunnel ponds) 

x 2 onsite sewage lagoons 

Several UGTA wells were sampled and analyzed for radionuclides in 2004 under the UGTA program (see 

Section 14.0). These wells do not comprise the RREMP network of groundwater wells, but they 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. 

Some of the monitoring program wells are constructed with multiple strings of casing/tubing or multiple completion 

zones comprised of discrete intervals of slotted casing which access different horizons of the penetrated hydrostratigraphic units. Multiple-depth samples were obtained from three wells with such configurations in 2004: 

x 590, 622, 649, and 701 m (1,935, 2,040, 2,130, and 2,300 ft) below ground surface (bgs) in HTH #1 

x 518 and 649 m (1,700 and 2,130 ft) bgs in UE-18r 

x 475 and 608 m (1,560 and 1,994 ft) bgs in PM-3 

Sampling frequencies and requisite analyses for routine radiological water monitoring are based on the location and 

type of the sampling point as defined in the RREMP (DOE, 2003b). During each monitoring year, not every water 

sample is analyzed for every analyte, per the design criteria of the RREMP. In 2004, tritium analyses were performed 

on all samples. Analyses for the other analytes listed were performed only on specific subsets of groundwater, spring, 

onsite containment pond, and sewage lagoon samples based on the probability of their detection at the sampled 

location or on whether they had been screened for previously at that location. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-5 

Figure 4-2. RREMP well monitoring locations sampled on and off the NTS in 2004 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 4-3. RREMP spring and surface water monitoring locations sampled on and off the NTS in 2004 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-7 

To achieve a sufficiently low detection limit, most tritium analyses were conducted after the samples underwent an 

enrichment process. The enrichment process concentrates tritium in a sample to provide an effective minimum 

detectable concentration (MDC) (see Glossary, Appendix D) of approximately 25 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). 

Sample-specific MDCs, reported in each results table, ranged from 17 to 26 pCi/L. The MDC for standard (nonenriched) 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 

Each water sample is analyzed for a potentially very large suite of radionuclides based on the analyses listed above. 

The following section presents only concentrations that were above the MDC for gamma-emitting radionuclides, 

plutonium, 14C, 90Sr, and 99Tc. Concentration values of gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, 226Ra, and 228Ra, 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 the preparation and concentration of tritium, 

which is estimated to be up to 20 percent. Therefore, it is important to note that the total or system error associated 

with the enrichment and analysis process for tritium samples is somewhat higher than the uncertainty values presented 

in the data tables. 

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 14 offsite locations sampled in 2004 include private domestic wells, community wells, and NNSA/NSO wells 

related to NTS activities. The 2004 data indicate that groundwater at the offsite locations has not been impacted by 

NTS nuclear testing operations. All of the tritium results for the offsite wells were less than the MDC except for one 

sample from well PM-3, which was slightly above the sample-specific MDC (Table 4-1). A duplicate sample from 

PM-3 collected on the same date was below the sample-specific MDC (Table 4-1). 

The radiological analytes that were most often detected in 2004 are gross alpha and gross beta. ER-OV-02 had gross 

alpha levels above the EPA 15 pCi/L maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water, and similar levels have 

been measured in previously from this well. This offsite monitoring well does not supply drinking water. It produces 

water from a volcanic aquifer that may have relatively higher quantities of natural alpha-yielding elements in the host 

rock. The gross alpha levels are attributed to the decay of naturally occurring uranium and local variation in 

mineralogy due to hydrothermal alteration in the volcanic host rock. 226Ra and 228Ra measurements indicate that 

radium is not a significant contributor to the gross alpha activity. No man-made radionuclides were detected by 

gamma spectroscopy in any of the water samples. 

Among the 26 offsite wells which have been sampled at least once since 1999, there are no detectable trends in gross 

alpha or gross beta activity (Figure 4-4), or in tritium concentrations (Figure 4-5) from 2000 to 2004. Alpha and beta 

levels have mostly been below the EPA MCL for drinking water, and tritium concentrations have mostly been below 

their MDCs. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 4-1. Gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, and radium analysis results for offsite wells in 2004 

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

Beatty Water And Sewer 12/1/2004 15 ± 2.7 (1.2) 9.9 ± 2.1 (2.1) 5.9 ± 15 (25) 0.018 ± 0.12 (0.24) -0.068 ± 0.40 (0.87)

Beatty Water And Sewer 

FD(f) 12/1/2004 14 ± 2.6 (1.1) 11 ± 2.2 (2.2) 6.1 ± 15 (25) -0.032 ± 0.11 (0.24)

0.32 ± 0.41

(0.81)

Crystal Trailer Park 12/1/2004 2.8 ± 0.90 (1.1) 6.8 ± 1.6 (1.8) 11 ± 15 (25) 0.038 ± 0.15 (0.29) 0.34 ± 0.40 (0.80)

ER-OV-02 9/27/2004 45 ± 7.7 (1.6) 48 ± 8.1 (3.4) -5.9 ± 11 (19)

ER-OV-02 FD 9/27/2004 51 ± 8.7 (1.9) 40 ± 7.0 (3.7)

ER-OV-03A 9/28/2004 6.9 ± 1.4 (0.78) 7.1 ± 1.5 (1.4) -6.9 ± 12 (21)

ER-OV-03A FD 9/28/2004 7.4 ± 1.5 (0.73) 7.2 ± 1.6 (1.7)

ER-OV-03A3 9/29/2004 8.3 ± 1.6 (0.85) 7.8 ± 1.6 (1.5) -9.0 ± 12 (21)

ER-OV-03C 9/28/2004 8.4 ± 1.6 (0.64) 7.4 ± 1.4 (1.1) -7.2 ± 13 (22)

ER-OV-03C2 9/28/2004 5.7 ± 1.1 (0.62) 4.6 ± 1.0 (1.1) 7.8 ± 13 (21)

ER-OV-04A 9/27/2004 7.9 ± 1.6 (1.0) 17 ± 3.0 (1.9) -11 ± 12 (22)

ER-OV-05 9/27/2004 6.1 ± 1.4 (1.1) 15 ± 2.9 (2.2) -4.8 ± 13 (22)

PM-3 5/25/2004 3.3 ± 0.85 (0.78) 17 ± 2.9 (1.5) 20 ± 12 (18)

PM-3 FD 5/25/2004 17 ± 12 (18)

Roger Bright Ranch 12/1/2004 2.5 ± 1.0 (1.4) 14 ± 2.9 (2.6) 8.9 ± 15 (24) 0.10 ± 0.12 (0.18) 0.49 ± 0.45 (0.87)

School Well 12/1/2004 1.6 ± 0.53 (0.58) 8.6 ± 1.7 (1.4) 3.0 ± 15 (25) 0.036 ± 0.090 (0.17) 0.18 ± 0.43 (0.90)

Tolicha Peak 12/1/2004 2.6 ± 0.68 (0.67) 5.0 ± 1.1 (1.2) 10 ± 15 (25) 0.19 ± 0.15 (0.16) 0.22 ± 0.43 (0.89)

U.S. Ecology 12/1/2004 4.4 ± 1.2 (1.1) 11 ± 2.5 (2.8) 11 ± 16 (26) 0.063 ± 0.13 (0.23) 0.20 ± 0.38 (0.78)

(a) ±2 standard deviations

Gross  ̈́ ± 

Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(b)

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample specific MDC)

(f) FD = field duplicate sample

(b) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha ( ̈́) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (Ά) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

Yellow shaded results are any which are equal to or greater than the EPA-designated levels shown below for each analyte:

Gross Ά ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

226Ra ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(e)

228Ra ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(e)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

NA NA

NA(g)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

(e) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for 226Ra and 228Ra combined is 5 pCi/L 

(g) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05

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 2004
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-9 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate MDC = 25 pCi/L

Figure 4-5. Tritium concentrations in offsite wells from 2000 to 2004 

4.1.5 Results from Offsite Springs 

Two offsite springs, Spicer Ranch Spring and Revert Spring, were sampled in 2004. Both springs are near Beatty, 

Nevada. Detectable concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta were present in water collected from the springs, 

although their concentrations were below the EPA MCL for drinking water (Table 4-2). The measurable gross alpha 

and gross beta radioactivity is likely from natural sources. 

No detectable concentrations of tritium were found in any of the samples (Table 4-2). 226Ra and 228Ra measurements 

indicate that radium is not a significant contributor to the gross alpha activity. 

No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected. 

Among the seven offsite springs that have been sampled at least once since 1999, there are no detectable trends in 

gross alpha or gross beta activity (Figure 4-6), or in tritium concentrations (Figure 4-7) from 2000 to 2004. Alpha and 

beta levels have all been below the EPA MCL for drinking water, and tritium concentrations have all been below the 

MDC. 

Table 4-2. Gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, and radium analysis results for offsite springs in 2004 

Monitoring 

Location

Date 

Sampled

Revert Spring 12/1/2004 4.1 ± 1.0 (0.87) 4.8 ± 1.5 (2.1) -7.8 ± 14 (25) 0.71 ± 0.30 (0.21) 0.15 ± 0.46 (0.96)

Revert Spring FD(f) 12/1/2004 5.7 ± 15 (24)

Spicer Ranch 12/1/2004 6.2 ± 1.4 (1.1) 8.3 ± 1.9 (2.0) 6.7 ± 15 (25) 0.92 ± 0.40 (0.36) -0.050 ± 0.40 (0.86)

(a) ±2 standard deviations

(b) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha ( ̈́) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (Ά) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(g) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample 

(f) FD = field duplicate sample 

Gross Ά ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

226Ra ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(e)

NA(g) NA NA

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample specific MDC)

(e) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for 226Ra and 228Ra combined is 5 pCi/L

228Ra ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(e)

Gross  ̈́ ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

NA
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 4-6. Gross alpha and gross beta levels in offsite springs from 2000 to 2004 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate MDC = 25 pCi/L

Figure 4-7. Tritium concentrations in offsite springs from 2000 to 2004 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05

Activity (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha

Gross Alpha MCL = 15 pCi/L

Gross Beta

Gross Beta MCL = 50 pCi/L
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-11 

4.1.6 Results from NTS Potable Water Supply Wells 

Results from the ten potable NTS water wells sampled in 2004 continue to indicate that subsurface nuclear testing has 

not impacted the NTS potable water supply network. The water samples from the supply wells had non-detectable 

concentrations of tritium except for one sample from UE-16D Water Well (WW), one sample from WW 5B, and one

sample from WW 8 (Table 4-3). These three samples were only slightly above their sample-specific MDCs; and all

other samples collected throughout the year from these wells had non-detectable concentrations of tritium. 

There was a problem with the tritium analyses for all ten well samples collected in January 2004. Initially, all the 

January samples had tritium levels above their MDCs, but when the same samples were reanalyzed, eight of the ten 

samples were below their MDCs. The two samples that remained above their MDCs were for wells UE-16D WW 

and WW C-1. These results are inconsistent with all subsequent analyses performed in 2004 as well as the previous 

analyses performed over the past ten years for these two wells. Therefore, the January samples from these two wells 

were considered contaminated by an outside source and the results from these samples were rejected (Table 4-3). 

Prior to 1994, WW C-1 (also known as Water Well C-1) had a history of validated tritium detections because this well 

was injected with approximately 0.1 to 0.2 curies of tritium in 1962 by a researcher conducting a tracer test (Lyles, 

1990). Since 1995, tritium concentrations in WW C-1 have remained below their MDCs. 

The radiological analytes that were principally detectable in 2004 in the potable water supply wells were gross alpha 

and gross beta radioactivity. This activity likely represents the presence of naturally occurring radionuclides, since 

there was a general lack of corresponding detectable man-made radionuclides in the samples. Very low, yet 

detectable, concentrations of naturally occurring 226Ra and 228Ra were also measured (Table 4-3). None of these 

detectable radiological analytes exceeded EPA established Levels of Concern or the established MCLs for drinking 

water (Table 4-3). 

No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in the potable water supply well samples. 

These 10 NTS potable water supply wells have all been sampled routinely since 1999. No detectable trends in gross 

alpha or gross beta activity (Figure 4-8) or in tritium concentrations (Figure 4-9) have been found from 2000 to 2004. 

The state of Nevada, Bureau of Health Protection Services independently sampled all of the NTS potable water 

supply wells at least once during 2004 at the same time as BN ETS personnel collected samples. The state of Nevada 

sample results also indicate that man-made radionuclides are at or below MDC and that naturally occurring radioactive 

materials, such as thorium and uranium decay chain radionuclikes, are within normal ranges (BHPS, 2005a; 2005b; 

2005c; 2005d). 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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

1/21/2004 3.8 ± 0.90 (0.80) 5.2 ± 1.2 (1.4) -1.2 ± 13 (21) 0.20 ± 0.32 (0.53) 0.35 ± 0.36 (0.69)

4/21/2004 1.6 ± 1.20 (1.9) -1.6 ± 1.5 (2.6) -4.5 ± 14 (24) 0.56 ± 0.32 (0.39) 0.46 ± 0.63 (1.2)

4/21/2004 FD(f) 0.60 ± 14 (24)

7/21/2004 2.6 ± 0.78 (0.88) 5.8 ± 1.4 (1.7) 8.3 ± 13 (21)

10/13/2004 3.2 ± 0.91 (0.93) 5.9 ± 1.4 (1.6) 5.9 ± 10 (17)

1/21/2004 0.71 ± 0.39 (0.56) 4.1 ± 0.96 (1.1) 1.5 ± 13 (22) -0.15 ± 0.18 (0.40) 0.046 ± 0.33 (0.71)

4/21/2004 1.3 ± 0.62 (0.82) 2.7 ± 1.2 (2.0) 2.7 ± 14 (24) 0.27 ± 0.27 (0.43) 1.2 ± 0.57 (1.0)

7/21/2004 0.28 ± 0.53 (1.1) 4.5 ± 1.4 (2.1) 6.9 ± 13 (21)

10/13/2004 0.45 ± 0.49 (0.89) 3.8 ± 1.1 (1.5) 2.4 ± 10 (17)

10/13/2004 1.2 ± 0.55 (0.83) 3.0 ± 0.96 (1.5) 3.6 ± 10 (17)

1/20/2004 5.6 ± 1.2 (0.83) 7.1 ± 1.4 (1.3) 1.3 ± 0.53 (0.39) 0.26 ± 0.34 (0.68)

4/20/2004 5.7 ± 1.3 (1.1) 7.5 ± 1.8 (2.3) -0.97 ± 14 (23) 2.1 ± 0.65 (0.61) 0.63 ± 0.37 (0.65)

7/20/2004 4.1 ± 0.94 (0.77) 6.5 ± 1.4 (1.3) 3.1 ± 12 (21)

10/12/2004 5.2 ± 1.3 (1.2) 7.8 ± 1.6 (1.5) 23 ± 11 (18)

10/12/2004 FD 28 ± 12 (18)

1/20/2004 4.6 ± 0.95 (0.61) 5.5 ± 1.2 (1.1) 18 ± 14 (23) -0.11 ± 0.27 (0.54) 0.31 ± 0.34 (0.66)

4/20/2004 7.5 ± 2.0 (1.5) 4.4 ± 1.5 (2.3) -3.3 ± 13 (23) 0.54 ± 0.33 (0.42) 0.56 ± 0.42 (0.76)

7/20/2004 4.8 ± 1.5 (1.6) 5.5 ± 1.6 (2.4) 9.2 ± 13 (21)

10/12/2004 4.0 ± 1.0 (0.88) 4.9 ± 1.2 (1.5) 9.9 ± 11 (18)

1/20/2004 4.7 ± 1.0 (0.61) 5.2 ± 1.1 (1.1) 7.1 ± 13 (22) 0.25 ± 0.25 (0.36) 0.54 ± 0.38 (0.69)

4/20/2004 6.7 ± 1.3 (1.2) 6.3 ± 1.4 (2.1) -3.3 ± 14 (24) 0.27 ± 0.32 (0.53) 0.90 ± 0.46 (0.81)

7/20/2004 5.1 ± 1.5 (1.5) 5.3 ± 1.7 (2.6) 9.0 ± 13 (21)

10/12/2004 5.7 ± 1.3 (0.82) 6.0 ± 1.3 (1.5) 9.4 ± 11 (18)

2/2/2004 2.5 ± 0.73 (0.82) 9.2 ± 1.7 (1.1) 2.7 ± 13 (22) 0.042 ± 0.18 (0.34) 0.31 ± 0.34 (0.67)

7/20/2004 1.7 ± 0.71 (0.94) 11 ± 2.2 (1.7) 27 ± 13 (21)

10/12/2004 4.2 ± 1.0 (0.94) 11 ± 2.0 (1.2) 6.0 ± 10 (17)

2/2/2004 4.3 ± 1.2 (1.3) 4.9 ± 1.3 (1.7) -5.6 ± 13 (23) 0.19 ± 0.24 (0.37) -0.054 ± 0.34 (0.72)

7/20/2004 4.4 ± 1.1 (0.89) 5.1 ± 1.4 (1.7) 19 ± 13 (21)

10/12/2004 6.5 ± 1.3 (0.91) 6.0 ± 1.3 (1.2) 6.7 ± 11 (18)

1/20/2004 0.14 ± 0.55 (1.2) 3.1 ± 1.2 (2.1) 15 ± 14 (23) 0.024 ± 0.16 (0.32) 0.20 ± 0.36 (0.74)

4/20/2004 0.13 ± 0.62 (1.1) 1.8 ± 1.3 (2.1) 2.1 ± 14 (23) 0.10 ± 0.22 (0.41) 1.4 ± 0.62 (1.1)

7/20/2004 0.44 ± 0.57 (1.1) 3.0 ± 1.2 (2.1) -12 ± 12 (21)

7/20/2004 FD -11 ± 12 (22)

10/12/2004 0.36 ± 0.44 (0.82) 2.5 ± 0.91 (1.4) 27 ± 12 (18)

1/20/2004 11 ± 2.2 (1.5) 14 ± 2.8 (2.5) 0.66 ± 0.43 (0.60) 0.62 ± 0.38 (0.66)

4/20/2004 11 ± 3.5 (1.4) 16 ± 2.6 (2.6) 1.7 ± 14 (23) 1.61 ± 0.52 (0.50) 0.92 ± 0.41 (0.66)

7/20/2004 7.0 ± 1.8 (1.8) 13 ± 2.7 (2.8) 9.0 ± 13 (21)

10/12/2004 10 ± 2.0 (1.2) 15 ± 2.7 (2.1) 17 ± 11 (18)

(a) ±2 standard deviations

(b) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha ( ̈́) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (Ά) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(e) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for 226Ra and 228Ra combined is 5 pCi/L

R

(h) R = analysis was rejected due to suspected contamination

(g) NA = specific analysis was not run on the sample 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample specific MDC)

NA

NA

Monitoring 

Location and 

Date Sampled

UE-16D WW

WW #4

WW #4A

Gross Ά ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

226Ra ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(e)

WW 5B

NA(g) NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

228Ra ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(e)

Gross  ̈́ ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

(f) FD = field duplicate sample 

Army #1 WW

J-12 WW

J-13 WW

WW 5C

WW 8

WW C-1

NA

NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA NA

R(h)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-13 

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

 2000 to 2004 

Figure 4-9. Tritium concentrations in NTS potable water supply wells from 

 2000 to 2004 

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05

Activity (pCi/L)

Tritium

Approximate MDC = 25 pCi/L

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04 Jan-05

Activity (pCi/L)

Gross Alpha

Gross Alpha MCL = 15 pCi/L

Gross Beta

Gross Beta MCL = 50 pCi/L
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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) have detectable concentrations of tritium, although they are all well below the federal MCL of 20,000 pCi/L 

(Table 4-4). Each of these four monitoring wells is located within 1 km (0.6 mi) of a historical underground nuclear 

test; all have consistently had detectable levels of tritium. These wells are discussed below, and their historic tritium 

concentrations are shown in Figure 4-10. 

There were also measured tritium levels above the MDC from three wells sampled to validate performance of a waste 

pit at the Area 5 RWMS (UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3), but in all cases, a duplicate sample collected at the 

same time had measured tritium levels below the MDC. 

Tritium was not detectable in other samples from onsite monitoring wells during 2004 (Table 4-4). 

Well PM-1 – this well is located in the Central Pahute Mesa CAU. This well 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 of the tritium include the underground nuclear tests Farm (U-20ab), Greeley (U-20g), and Kasseri 

(U-20z). The Farm test is closest to PM-1 but is believed to be downgradient from PM-1. The Greely test is 2,429 m 

(7,969 ft) upgradient from PM-1, and the Kasseri test is 1,196 m (3,924 ft) upgradient from PM-1. 

Well U-19BH – this well is located in the Central Pahute Mesa CAU. It is an inventory emplacement borehole. 

There were several nuclear detonations conducted near U-19BH, but the source of the tritium in the borehole is 

unclear. Previous investigations suggest that the water in the well originates from a perched aquifer, but identifying 

the likely source of tritium is difficult due to a lack of data regarding the perched system (Brikowski et al., 1993). The 

results from a tracer test conducted in the well indicate that there is minimal flow across the borehole (Brikowski 

et al., 1993). The lack of measurable flow in the well suggests that the chemistry of the water sampled from the 

borehole may not be representative of the aquifer. The data are provided as a point of interest due to the detection of 

tritium. 

Well UE-7NS – this well is located in the Yucca Flat CAU and was drilled 137 m (449 ft) from the Bourbon 

underground nuclear test (U-7n) which was conducted in 1967. This well was routinely sampled between 1978 and 

1987, with the resumption of sampling in 1991. Tritium levels in this well have been decreasing in recent years 

(Figure 4-10). Well UE-7NS is the second known location on the NTS where the regionally important lower 

carbonate aquifer (LCA) has been impacted by radionuclides from nuclear testing (Smith et al., 1999). The first 

location where the LCA has been impacted by radionuclides from nuclear testing is Well UE-2CE. Well UE-2CE is 

located less the 200 m (656 ft) from the NASH test, which was conducted in Yucca Flat in 1967. Well UE-2CE is not 

currently configured for routine sampling. 

Well WW-A (also known as USGS Water Well A) – this well is completed in alluvium in the Yucca Flat CAU 

(see Figure 4-2). It is located within 1 km (0.6 mi) of 14 underground nuclear tests in Yucca Flat, most of which 

appear to be upgradient of the well. The well has had measurable tritium since the late 1980s. The marked increase 

between 1985 and 1999 suggests inflow of tritium to this well from the HAYMAKER underground nuclear test 

(U-3aus) conducted in 1962 524 m (1,720 ft) north of Well WW-A. This well, which supplied non-potable water for 

construction, was shut down in the early 1990s. The concentrations measured in 2004 at WW-A indicate a slight 

downward trend since 1999 (Figure 4-4). 

Detectable concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta were present in water collected from NTS onsite monitoring 

wells. The low measurable gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in these wells is likely from natural sources. The 

high levels of gross alpha and gross beta activity in U-19BH are likely related to contamination. 

No radionuclides were detected by gamma spectroscopy analyses at concentrations above their respective MDCs in 

any of the NTS monitoring wells in 2004. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-15 

Table 4-4. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring wells in 2004

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

 HTH #1 (1935 ft bgs) 3/24/2004 -2.4 ± 13 (23)

 HTH #1 (1935 ft bgs) FD(f) 3/24/2004 -8.2 ± 13 (22)

 HTH #1 (2040 ft bgs) 3/24/2004 8.6 ± 14 (23)

 HTH #1 (2130 ft bgs) 3/24/2004 -6.0 ± 13 (23)

 HTH #1 (2300 ft bgs) 3/24/2004 0.54 ± 13 (22)

 J-11 WW 7/13/2004 4.0 ± 1.9 (2.9) 21 ± 2.2 (2.6) -14 ± 11 (20)

 PM-1 6/30/2004 -0.17 ± 1.1 (1.9) 6.0 ± 2.4 (3.6) 149 ± 18 (20)

 PM-1 FD 6/30/2004 137 ± 18 (20)

 SM-23-1(g) 2/18/2004 3.5 ± 1.2 (1.5) 5.0 ± 1.0 (1.3) -13 ± 12 (22)

 U-19BH 3/23/2004 66 ± 11 (1.3) 99 ± 16 (2.6) 32 ± 15 (23)

 U-19BH FD 3/23/2004 65 ± 11 (1.3) 93 ± 15 (2.7) 23 ± 14 (22)

 UE-18R (1700 ft bgs) 3/23/2004 5.7 ± 1.1 (0.55) 2.1 ± 0.76 (1.1) -4.8 ± 13 (22)

 UE-18R (1700 ft bgs) FD 3/23/2004 -15 ± 12 (22)

 UE-18R (2130 ft bgs) 3/23/2004 12 ± 2.1 (0.68) 3.0 ± 0.86 (1.1) 2.4 ± 13 (21)

 UE5 PW-1(h) 5/4/2004 34 ± 13 (20)

 UE5 PW-1 FD 5/4/2004 2.7 ± 11 (19)

 UE5 PW-1 10/19/2004 0.18 ± 13 (22)

 UE5 PW-1 FD 10/19/2004 -3.2 ± 12 (21)

 UE5 PW-2(h) 5/4/2004 11 ± 12 (20)

 UE5 PW-2 FD 5/4/2004 30 ± 12 (20)

 UE5 PW-2 10/19/2004 -7.1 ± 12 (21)

 UE5 PW-2 FD 10/19/2004 -13 ± 12 (21)

 UE5 PW-3(h) 5/4/2004 -3.0 ± 10 (17)

 UE5 PW-3 FD 5/4/2004 37 ± 13 (20)

 UE5 PW-3 10/20/2004 -4.5 ± 12 (21)

 UE5 PW-3 FD 10/20/2004 -8.2 ± 12 (22)

 UE-7NS 4/7/2004 -0.21 ± 0.74 (1.8) 3.1 ± 1.3 (2.2) 144 ± 19 (22)

 UE-7NS FD 4/7/2004 123 ± 18 (23)

 WW A 2/3/2004 0.93 ± 0.7 (1.2) 7.0 ± 1.6 (1.7) 471 ± 26 (20)

 WW A FD 2/3/2004 475 ± 27 (20)

 WW 2 2/11/2004 6.3 ± 1.6 (1.1) 6.6 ± 1.9 (2.8) -2.4 ± 13 (22)

 WW 2 FD 2/11/2004 4.2 ± 1.4 (1.5) 6.8 ± 2.0 (3.0)

(a) ±2 standard deviations

(b) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha ( ̈́) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA Level of Concern in drinking water for gross beta (Ά) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(e) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample

(f) FD = field duplicate sample 

(g) Compliance well for Area 23 sewage lagoon

(h) Compliance well for validation of waste pit P03U a Area 5 RWMS (see Section 9.1.6)

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA(e)

NA

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 drinking water limits for each analyte

NA

NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Gross  ̈́ ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Gross Ά ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA(f) NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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

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 and Figure 7-2). The water is perched groundwater that has 

percolated through fractures in the tunnel system. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) conducts 

monitoring of effluent waters from E Tunnel to determine if radionuclides and non-radiological contaminants exceed 

the allowable contaminant levels regulated under a state water pollution control permit (NEV 96021), which is issued 

to DTRA. During October, 2004, a DTRA contract company sampled the tunnel effluent near where water is 

discharged. During September, 2004, BN personnel sampled water from the pond influent (which at the time was 

flowing into Pond 5), and from Pond 5 itself. Sediment was also sampled from the basin of Pond 5. Effluent water 

was analyzed by DTRA for tritium, gross alpha, and gross beta (Table 4-5) and for 16 non-radiological contaminants 

and water quality parameters (DTRA, 2004). All other samples were analyzed by BN for tritium (water samples only), 

gamma-emitting radionuclides, uranium, 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 1,000,000 710,000 

Gross Alpha 35.1 13.4 

Gross Beta 101 72

 Source: Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021 Quarterly Monitoring Report and Annual Summary Report 

 for E Tunnel Waste Water Disposal System (DTRA, 2004) 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Tritium Concentration (pCi/L)

PM-1 U-19BH

WW A UE-7NS

MCL (20, 000 

Ci/L)

Effective MDC (25 pCi/L)
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-17 Table 4-6. Routine radiological water monitoring results for E-Tunnel Ponds in 2004 Sample 3H ± Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 90Sr ± Uncertainty (MDC) 137Cs ± Uncertainty (MDC) 238Pu ± Uncertainty (MDC) 239+240Pu ± Uncertainty (MDC) 

Water - Concentration units are pCi/L Influent to Pond 5 738,000 ± 74,300 (1,620) 0.51 ± 0.39 (0.63) 62.70 ± 6.38 (2.84) 0.36 ± 0.09 (0.04) 3.10 ± 0.39 (

 Pond 5 Water 721,000 ± 72,600 (1,610) 0.29 ± 0.26 (0.47) 55.30 ± 4.38 (2.95) 0.40 ± 0.09 (0.03) 3.25 ± 0.41 ( Pond 5 Water FD(b) 730,000 ± 73,500 (1,620) 0.59 ± 0.36 (0.58) 49.00 ± 5.75 (3.17) 0.40 ± 0.09 (0.03) 3.60 ± 0.44 (Sediment - Concentration units are pCi/gram Pond 5 Sediment NA(c) -0.02 ± 0.21 (0.49) 17.00 ± 0.25 (0.06) 0.05 ± 0.02 (0.02) 0.34 ± 0.08 (

Pond 5 Sediment FD NA 0.30 ± 0.31 (0.61) 19.70 ± 1.38 (0.06) 0.02 ± 0.02 (0.01) 0.36 ± 0.08 (

Green shaded results are considered detected (results greater than the sample-specific MDC) (a) ± 2 standard deviations (b) FD = Field duplicate (c) Not applicable: tritium is not measured in samples which do not contain water 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

The majority of samples had radionuclide concentrations above their MDC (Table 4-6). While tritium concentrations 

in tunnel effluent were elevated, they were about 29 percent lower than the limit allowed under permit NEV 96021 

for that discharge system (Table 4-5). Tritium was found in all pond inlet and pond water samples at concentrations 

slightly lower than the previous two years’ samples (Figure 4-11). Most pond water samples had tritium 

concentrations very close to those in tunnel effluent, but there have been measurements of tritium in pond water 

much lower than the tunnel effluents (Figure 4-11). This is likely due to precipitation events that dilute the original 

tritium concentrations. Concentrations of 90Sr, 137Cs, plutonium, and 241Am were at levels comparable with the past 

two years. Uranium was not detected in samples collected during 2004. 

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). 

 Figure 4-11. Tritium concentration in E Tunnel Ponds from 1995 – 2004 

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 4.2.4). 

However, to more completely demonstrate the proper management of effluents on the NTS, limited radiological 

analyses are conducted for these lagoons under the RREMP (DOE, 2003b). 

The lagoon water samples were analyzed for tritium using standard (un-enriched) analyses and by gamma 

spectroscopy for other radionuclides. No tritium was detected at concentrations above MDCs in the lagoon water 

samples (Table 4-7) and no man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-19 

Table 4-7. Tritium water monitoring results for NTS sewage lagoons in 2004 

Monitoring Location Date Sampled 

3H ± Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 

(pCi/L) 

Area 23 Mercury 1/13/2004 -115 ± 172 (290) 

 4/6/2004 134 ± 166 (278) 

 7/7/2004 -27 ± 197 (358) 

10/26/2004 -29 ± 121 (210) 

Area 6 Yucca 1/13/2004 -98.1 ± 172 (290) 

 4/6/2004 42.1 ± 165 (292) 

 7/7/2004 -124 ± 185 (352) 

10/26/2004 -119 ± 118 (214) 

ar 2 standard deviations 

4.1.10 UGTA Wells 

The UGTA Project took custody of one new well drilled in 2004, U-19ad PS#1A. Groundwater from eight UGTA 

Project wells was sampled and analyzed in 2004 (Figure 4-12). A multi-agency team consisting of personnel from 

Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture (SNJV), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and LLNL collected samples at 

these wells using downhole sampling pumps. During sample collection, the field parameters temperature, pH, and 

conductivity were measured. Samples were then analyzed for selected radionuclides as well as gross alpha and gross 

beta. Well water data are maintained in the UGTA Project geochemical database by SNJV, Las Vegas, NV. 

A tracer test for well ER-6-1 was conducted, and samples were obtained and analyzed from ER-6-1 and ER-6-1 #2 

during the test. Well ER-6-2 was developed, tested, and sampled in 2004. Water samples from all of these UGTA 

wells contained no detectible tritium or man-made radionuclides. 

Well RNM #1 was pumped and sampled in 2004. Analysis results are pending. 

The UGTA Project sampled four post-shot/cavity wells (“Hot Wells”) in 2004: U-3cn PS#2A; U-19ad PS#1A; 

ER-20-5 #1; and ER-20-5 #3 (Figure 4-12). The first two wells access test cavities from underground nuclear tests 

BILBY and CHANCELLOR, respectively. The two ER-20-5 wells were drilled near the TYBO test. Preliminary 

results show expected levels of radionuclides for post-shot wells. Sample tritium concentrations ranged from 

113,000 pCi/L to 38,000,000 pCi/L (Table 4-8). Final laboratory analytical results for these wells are pending. 

The results of well sampling will support the NNSA’s continuing efforts to create a long-term monitoring program 

for wells in or near underground nuclear test cavities. The program objectives are to characterize the hydrologic 

source term and to evaluate the decay and potential migration of radionuclides through monitoring at or near the 

source. 

Table 4-8. Tritium concentrations in UGTA hot wells sampled in 2004 

Sump Water Source 3H (pCi/L) 

ER-20-5 #1 38,000,000 

ER-20-5 #3 113,000 

U-3cn PS #2A 7,900,000 

U-19ad PS #1A 22,000,000 

Source: Eaton, 2005 (personal communication) 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 4-12. UGTA Project wells on and off the NTS
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-21 

4.1.11 Environmental Impact 

The tritium data provide no evidence that radionuclides have traveled significant distances from underground testing 

areas, much less to offsite water supply wells. Where detectable tritium was found in a well sample, it was often at 

concentrations very near its MDC and at levels not consistently detectable in samples taken from the same well at the 

same time or later in the year. All but one sample from offsite wells and springs had tritium levels below detectable 

levels. The one exception came from monitoring well PM-3, for which a duplicate sample taken at the same time in 

the same sample run had a tritium concentration below detectable levels. 

Four samples from NTS potable supply wells had tritium levels above their MDCs, but subsequent quarterly samples 

from the same wells were below their MDCs. 

The onsite monitoring wells UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3 had tritium levels above their MDC in single 

samples, but duplicate samples taken at the same time had tritium levels below their MDCs. 

Groundwater from NTS monitoring wells PM-1, U-19BH, UE-7NS, and WW A also had detectable levels of tritium 

in 2004. These wells, however, have histories of consistently detectable tritium levels and are in close proximity to 

underground tests. 

No man-made radionuclides were detected in any wells, whether or not detectable tritium was measured. Most 

groundwater samples had gross alpha and beta levels above detection limits, but below the EPA limits for drinking 

water. The samples from the offsite monitoring well ER-OV-02 exceeded the gross alpha drinking water standard; 

this is attributed to the decay of naturally occurring radioactive elements particularly in volcanic host rock. The 

samples from U-19BH exceeded the gross alpha and gross beta drinking water limits, and this well is in close 

proximity to underground tests. Neither of these two monitoring wells supply drinking water. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

4.2 Non-Radiological Drinking Water and Wastewater Monitoring 

The quality of drinking water and wastewater on the NTS is regulated by federal and state laws. The design, 

construction, operation, and maintenance of many of the drinking water and wastewater systems are regulated under 

state permits. BN is tasked with ensuring that such systems meet the applicable water quality standards and permit 

requirements (see Section 2.2). The NTS non-radiological water monitoring goals are shown below. BN ES 

personnel meet these goals by conducting field water sampling and analyses, performing assessments, and maintaining 

documentation. The major compliance measures/actions that BN ES personnel monitor/perform on the NTS are 

also shown below. This section describes the results of 2004 monitoring. Radiological monitoring of drinking water 

on and off the NTS was presented in the preceding Sections 4.1.4 and 4.1.6. 

4.2.1 Drinking Water Monitoring 

Nine permitted wells supply the potable water needs of NTS operations (Figure 4-13); these are grouped into three 

PWSs (Figure 4-13) that are operated by BN for NNSA/NSO. The PWSs are operated in accordance with the 

requirements in NAC 445A under permits issued by the Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection 

Services (BHPS), which are renewed annually. There are also four private water systems which are not subject to 

NAC 445A. 

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, 

Non-Radiological Water Monitoring Goals Compliance Measures/Actions 

Number of PWS samples containing coliform 

bacteria Ensure that the operation of NTS public water systems 

(PWS) and private water systems provide high quality 

drinking water to workers and visitors of the NTS 

Determine if NTS PWS are operated in accordance with the 

requirements in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A 

under permits issued by the state 

Concentration of nitrates, organic contaminants, 

Phase V inorganic contaminants, secondary 

standards, and disinfection byproducts in PWS 

samples 

Measurements of 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand 

(BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH in 

sewage lagoon water 

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 Inspection of sewage lagoon systems 

pH and concentration of 18 contaminants in water 

Determine if the operation of industrial wastewater systems from groundwater monitoring well SM-23-1

on the NTS meets operational standards of federal and state 

regulations as prescribed under the GNEV93001 state permit Concentrations of 16 contaminants/water quality 

parameters in E Tunnel effluent water
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-23 

Figure 4-13. Drinking water systems on the NTS 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

however, retains the permits in case of emergency. These permits are also renewed annually. 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 2004, 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 seven 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 six 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 

2004 Monitoring 

Requirement Monitoring Locations 

Coliform Bacteria 36 samples (3/month) Buildings 5-7, 6-624, 6-900, 22-1, 23-710, 

23-777, 23-1103 

Nitrates 4 samples (1/entry point) Entry points (Army Well Tank, Mercury 

Tank, 4/4a Tank, C-1 Wellhead) 

Organic Contaminants 4 samples (1/entry point) Entry points (Army Well Tank, Mercury 

Tank, 4/4a Tank, C-1 Wellhead) 

Phase V Inorganic 

Contaminants 

4 samples (1/entry point) Entry points (Army Well Tank, Mercury 

Tank, 4/4a Tank, C-1 Wellhead) 

Disinfection By-Products 3 samples Buildings 6-900, 22-1, and 180 

Area 23 and 6 

Secondary Standards 4 samples (1/entry point) Entry points (Army Well Tank, Mercury 

Tank, 4/4a Tank, C-1 Wellhead) 

Coliform Bacteria 4 samples (1/quarter) Building 12-45 

Nitrates 1 sample Entry point (Area 12 Tank) 

Organic Contaminants 1 sample Entry point (Area 12 Tank) 

Disinfection By-Products 1 sample Building 12-30 

Secondary Standards 1 sample Entry point (Area 12 Tank) 

Area 12 

Lead and Copper 5 samples Buildings 12-23, 12-31, 12-35, 12-30, 12-

928

Coliform Bacteria 4 samples (1/quarter) Building 25-4320 

Nitrates 1 sample Entry point (J-11 Tank) 

Organic Contaminants 1 sample Entry Point (J-11 Tank) 

Phase V Inorganic 

Contaminants 

1 sample Entry Point (J-11 Tank) 

Disinfection By-Products 1 sample Building 4320 

Secondary Standards 1 sample Entry Point (J-11 Tank) 

Area 25 

Fluoride 2 samples (1/well) Well J-12, Well J-13 

 

Water Hauling 

Truck 84846 

Coliform Bacteria 12 samples (1/month) From water tank on truck after filling at 

Area 6 potable water fill stand 

Water Hauling 

Truck 84847 

Coliform Bacteria 12 samples (1/month) From water tank on truck after filling at 

Area 6 potable water fill stand 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-25 

In 2004, monitoring results indicated that the PWS and the permitted water hauling trucks complied with National 

Primary Drinking Water Quality Standards (Table 4-10). Two of the water systems slightly exceeded a Secondary 

Standard for pH. State of Nevada regulations do not include notification requirements for exceeding the 

pH standard. 

Table 4-10. Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2004 

 Results (mg/L) 

Contaminant 

Maximum 

Contaminant 

Level (mg/L) 

Area 23 and 6 

PWS (a)

Area 12 

PWS 

Area 25 

PWS 

 

Coliform Bacteria (b)

Coliforms 

present in 1 

sample/month 

Absent in all 

samples 

Absent in all 

samples 

Absent in all 

samples 

Nitrates 10 BDL( c ) - 4.3 1.4 2 

Organic Contaminants 

 Vinyl chloride 0.0002 BDL BDL BDL 

 Benzene 0.005 BDL BDL BDL 

 Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 BDL BDL BDL 

 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 BDL BDL BDL 

 Trichloroethylene 0.005 BDL BDL BDL 

 para-Dichlorobenzene 0.075 BDL BDL BDL 

 1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.007 BDL BDL BDL 

 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 BDL BDL BDL 

 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.07 BDL BDL BDL 

 1,2-Dichloropropane 0.005 BDL BDL BDL 

 Ethylbenzene 0.7 BDL BDL BDL 

 Monochlorobenzene 0.1 BDL BDL BDL 

 o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 BDL BDL BDL 

 Styrene 0.1 BDL BDL BDL 

 Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 BDL BDL BDL 

 Toluene 1 BDL BDL BDL 

 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.1 BDL BDL BDL 

 Xylenes (total) 10 BDL BDL BDL 

 Dichloromethane 0.005 BDL BDL BDL 

 1,2,4-Trichloro-benzene 0.07 BDL BDL BDL 

 1,1,2-Trichloro-ethane 0.005 BDL BDL BDL 

 

Disinfection Byproducts 

 Total Trihalomethanes: 

 (bromodichloromethane, chloroform, 

 dibromochloromethane, 

 trichlorofluoromethane) 0.08 0.0066 BDL BDL 

 Haloacetic Acids (HAA5): 

 (monochloroacetic acid, 

 dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic 

 acid, mono-bromoacetic acid, 

 dibromoacetic acid) 0.06 0.0011 BDL BDL 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 4-10. (continued) 

 Results (mg/L) 

Contaminant 

Maximum 

Contaminant 

Level (mg/L) 

Area 23 and 6 

PWS (a)

Area 12 

PWS 

Area 25 

PWS 

Phase V Inorganic Contaminants 

 Antimony 0.006 BDL BDL BDL 

 Beryllium 0.004 BDL 0.00029 BDL 

 Nickel None 1.5 - 7.0(b) BDL 2.4 

 Thallium 0.002 BDL BDL BDL 

 Cyanide 0.2 BDL BDL BDL 

Secondary Standards 

 Copper 1.0 <0.001 - 0.022 0.002 <1.0 

 Iron 0.3 <0.02 - 0.25 0.167 0.16 

 Magnesium 125.5 8.0 - 24.0 1.04 1.2 

 Manganese 0.05 <0.00002 - 0.0036 0.00008 0.0043 

 Zinc 5.0 <0.00005 - 0.0062 0.00001 <0.005 

 Fluoride 2.0 0.9 - 1.0 0.89 1.9 

 Chloride 250.0 11.0 - 23.0 9.4 6.8 

 Sulfate 250.0 24.0 - 40.0 15.3 21 

 pH 6.5 - 8.5 7.68 - 8.73 7.84 8.52 

 Color 15.0 color units < 5.0 color units 3 color units <5.0 

 Odor 3.0 threshold 

odor number 

< 1.0 odor 

number ND <1.0 

 TDS 500 300 - 380 150 230 

 Foaming Agents 0.05 ND ND ND 

 

 Lead (Area 12 PWS only) 0.015 NA(d) 0.0085 NA 

 Copper (Area 12 PWS only) 1.3 NA 0.062 NA 

 Fluoride (Area 25 PWS only) 4.0 NA NA 1.8 - 2.4 

 

Highlighted cells indicate those water quality results which exceeded maximum contaminant levels 

(a) Coliform bacteria were not present in any samples collected from Water Hauling Trucks 84846 and 84847 nor 

from the following private water systems: JASPER Compound, U3ah/at Complex, Area 6 Weather Station, 

and G Tunnel Office 

(b) Multiple samples analyzed at Area 23 and 6 PWS throughout year. Results show lowest and highest 

concentration of contaminant among samples analyzed. 

(c) BDL = below detection limits 

(d) NA = Not applicable 

4.2.1.2 Sanitary Survey of PWS and Inspection of Permitted Water Hauling Trucks 

The BHPS conducts a periodic sanitary survey of the permitted PWS. A sanitary survey consists of an inspection of 

the wells, tanks, and other visible portions of the PWS to ensure that they are maintained in a sanitary configuration. 

As non-community water systems, the minimum survey frequency for a sanitary survey is five years. The BHPS has 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-27 

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 did not conduct a sanitary survey of the PWS in 2004. Their last sanitary survey took place in 2002. 

BHPS conducted an annual inspection of the permitted water hauling trucks at the time of permit renewal; no 

findings were noted. 

4.2.2 Domestic Wastewater Monitoring 

To obtain a permit for a proposed new NTS septic system, an assessment is conducted to ensure that the sources 

producing discharges are domestic in nature. BN and the Nevada State Health Division conduct this assessment. 

After the design of a new system is completed, a permit package is submitted through NNSA/NSO to the BHPS. 

Subsequent to state approval, a “permit to construct” is issued. At the completion of construction, the state conducts 

a final inspection. Upon approval, the state issues a “permit to operate.” 

Existing septic systems that are not permitted may be permitted by submitting a narrative describing facility 

operations, flow test results, tank and leach field sizing, engineering drawings, personnel numbers, existing flow 

(volume) information, and a fixture count. The application is reviewed by the state and an onsite inspection is 

conducted by BHPS. Approval results in the issuance of a “permit to operate.” 

There are seven active septic systems being used in place of inactive lagoons on the NTS (Figure 4-14). These are 

inspected periodically by BN 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. 

BN 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 2004, the following compliance actions relating to domestic wastewater on the NTS occurred: 

x Three new septic systems were permitted at the NTS. These include one for Area 12 Building 910 (Permit NY1110-HAA-A), one for the U1a Complex (Permit NY-1112), and one for Area 1 Building 121 (Permit NY-1113). 

x Septic System design was initiated for Area 1 Phoenix Complex. This new design will utilize an aerobic treatment 

process and disposal through an underground drip system. The final permit package submittal will be completed 

in 2005. 

x 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 December 2004. 

4.2.3 Industrial Wastewater Monitoring 

Industrial discharges on the NTS were limited to two operating sewage lagoon systems in 2004: 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 requirements for transmissivity (10-7cm/sec). This system is monitored 

quarterly for influent quality and annually for influent toxicity. 

The Area 23 Mercury system consists of one primary lagoon and three infiltration basins. All lagoons in this system 

are unlined, and groundwater well SM-23-1 is monitored for this system. Monitoring is conducted quarterly for 

influent quality and annually for influent toxicity and groundwater contamination. 

The locations where water samples were collected for analysis within each sewage system include: 

x Each influent headwork for systems where there is direct access to influent flows 

x Each pond near the lagoon’s inlet for systems where there is no direct access to influent flows 

x Each infiltration basin at a place where a sample most closely representing the infiltrating waste water can be 

collected 

x Each groundwater monitoring well or alternative monitoring device 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-28 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 4-14. Active permitted sewage disposal systems on the NTS 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-29 

Composite samples are flow-weighted (10 hours) at the Area 6 Yucca Lake and Area 23 Mercury systems; these 

systems are equipped with an ultrasonic flow meter for this purpose. 

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. 

In 2004, the Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001 expiration date was extended from 

December 7, 2004 to May 7, 2005. This extension was granted to allow completion of a project at the Area 23 

Mercury sewage lagoons. That project, which began in 2004 and will be completed in 2005, was to combine the 

primary lagoon and the first installation basin. This project will also install a geosynthetic clay liner and high-density 

polyethylene liner to convert the primary lagoon to total containment. Once this project is complete, a new permit 

will be issued that will have reduced monitoring requirements and no longer require the sampling of well SM-23-1. 

4.2.3.1 Quarterly Analysis of Influent Water Quality 

A composite sample from each influent headwork was collected quarterly. The composite sample was analyzed for 

three parameters: 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH (Table 4-11). 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 2004. 

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

in 2004 

Minimum and Maximum Values from 

Quarterly Samples 

Parameter Units Area 6 Yucca Area 23 Mercury 

BOD5 45.3 - 190 42.5 - 86 

BOD5 Permit Limit 

mg/L 

No Limit No Limit 

BOD5 Mean Daily Load (a) 1.50 – 7.16 9.32 – 16.32 

BOD5 Mean Daily Load Limit 

kg/d

8.66 172 

TSS 99.5 - 320 57.9 - 161 

TSS Permit Limit 

mg/L 

No Limit No Limit 

pH 7.93 – 8.61 7.20 – 8.12 

pH Permit Limit 

S.U. 

6.0 – 9.0 6.0 – 9.0 

(a) BOD 5 Mean Daily Load in kg/d = (mg/L BOD x L/d Average Flow x 3.785)/106.

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 April. 

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). 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 4-12. Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2004 

Contaminant Limit(a) (mg/L) 

Area 6 Yucca 

(mg/L) 

Area 23 Mercury 

(mg/L) 

Benzene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Chlordane 0.03 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Chlorobenzene 100 < 0.005 < 0.005

Chloroform 6.0 < 0.005 < 0.005

Cresol (Total) 200 0.15 < 0.050

2,4-D 10 0.0016 0.0014

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 0.005 < 0.050

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

1,1-Dichlorethylene 0.7 < 0.005 < 0.005

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13 < 0.050 < 0.050

Endrin 0.02 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Heptachlor 0.008 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 < 0.050 < 0.050

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 < 0.050 < 0.050

Hexachloroethane 3.0 < 0.050 < 0.050

Lindane 0.4 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 

Methoxychlor 10 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

Methylethyl Ketone 200 < 0.010 < 0.010

Nitrobenzene 2.0 0.012 < 0.050

Pentachlorophenol 100 < 0.250 < 0.012 

Pyridine 5.0 < 0.100 < 0.050

Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 < 0.005 < 0.005

Toxaphene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Trichloroethylene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 400 < 0.250 < 0.120

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2.0 0.005 < 0.050

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 1.0 0.00057 0.0008

Vinyl Chloride 0.2 < 0.010 < 0.010

Arsenic 5.0 0.0052 0.0175 

Barium 100 0.0223 0.0568 

Cadmium 1.0 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 

Chromium 5.0 0.0017 0.0085 

Lead 5.0 < 0.002 < 0.002 

Mercury 0.2 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 

Selenium 1.0 < 0.0034 < 0.0034 

Silver 5.0 < 0.0006 < 0.0006 

(a) Source: 40 CFR 261.24, Table 1 

4.2.3.3 Annual Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Wells Associated With Sewage Lagoons 

The Area 23 Mercury lagoons are the only lagoons required to have groundwater monitoring, because the lagoons and 

infiltration basins there are unlined. Since they are unlined, the mode of disposal is evaporation/infiltration. The 

monitoring well (SM-23-1) is sampled annually; the sample is analyzed for those contaminants/parameters listed in 

Table 4-13. The compliance limits are those prescribed under the Nevada Drinking Water Standards (NDWS). 

In 2004, samples were collected in the second quarter; no concentration limits were exceeded (Table 4-13). 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 4-31 

Table 4-13. Groundwater analysis results for NTS groundwater monitoring 

well SM-23-1 in 2004 

(a) Source: NDWS (NAC 445A.144) 

(b) ± 2 standard deviations 

(c) Results of un-enriched tritium analyses from General Engineering Laboratories. This value 

differs from the enriched tritium analysis result of -13 ± 12 pCi/L (see Table 4-4) from Sanford, 

Cohen, and Associates Laboratory. 

4.2.3.4 Sewage System Inspections 

The sewage system operators inspect active systems weekly and inactive lagoon systems quarterly. State 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 2004, there was one notable inspection finding at each active lagoon. Each lagoon had problems related to the 

flow meters located at the influent headworks. The problems were investigated and determined to be caused by 

several electrical storms that caused power outages at the NTS during the month of September. 

NDEP conducted an annual inspection of active and inactive sewage lagoon systems on April 27 and 28, 2004. The 

inspection found no problems with the field maintenance program in keeping the lagoons, sites, and access roads 

functional.

Contaminant/Parameter NDWS Limit (a) Results 

pCi/L ± Uncertainty(b)

Adjusted Gross Alpha 15 5.2 ± 1.33 

Gross Beta/photon emitter 50 5.8 ± 1.07 

Tritium 20,000 764 ± 267(c) 

 mg/L

Arsenic 0.05 0.0137 

Cadmium 0.005 < 0.0004 

Chloride 400 103 

Chromium 0.1 0.0035 

Copper 1.3 < 0.0012 

Fluoride 4 1.1 

Iron 0.6 0.0195 

Lead 0.015 < 0.0020 

Magnesium 150 26.5 

Manganese 0.1 0.0007 

Mercury 0.002 < 0.0001 

Nitrate (Nitrogen) 10 5.8 

pH (Hydrogen Ion Activity) 6.5 – 8.5 SU 7.44 

Selenium 0.05 0.0036 

Sulfate 500 103 

Zinc 5 < 0.0004 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

4-32 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 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. External dose is measured under the Direct Radiation 

Monitoring Program of Bechtel Nevada (BN) Environmental Technical Services (ETS). This section presents the 

results of monitoring direct ionizing radiation on the NTS from all sources, including natural radioactivity from 

cosmic or terrestrial sources and from man-made radioactive sources. These data are then used to document and 

trend gamma radiation exposure rates on the NTS. 

Direct radiation monitoring is conducted to assess the state of the external radiation environment, detect changes in 

that environment, and measure gamma radiation levels near potential exposure sites. DOE Order 450.1 Environmental 

Protection Program states that environmental monitoring should be conducted to detect, characterize, and respond to 

releases from DOE activities, assess impacts, and estimate dispersal patterns in the environment. In addition, 

DOE Order 5400.5 states that “it is also an objective that potential exposures to members of the public be as low as is 

reasonably achievable (ALARA)”. The specific goals for the direct radiation monitoring program are shown below. 

Direct Radiation Monitoring Program Goals

Assess the proportion of dose to the public which comes from background radiation versus NTS operations 

Measure the potential external dose to a member of the public in order to determine if the total dose (internal and 

external) exceeds 100 millirem per year (mrem/yr) (1 millisievert [mSv]/yr), the dose limit of DOE Order 5400.5 

Determine if radiation levels from the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) are likely to result in a 

dose exceeding the 25 mrem/yr (0.25 mSv/yr) dose limit to members of the public as specified in DOE M 435.1-1 

Monitor operational activities involving radioactive material, radiation-generating devices, or accidental releases of 

radioactive material to ensure exposure to members of the public are kept ALARA as stated in DOE Order 5400.5 

Determine if the absorbed radiation dose from external radiation exposure to NTS terrestrial plants and aquatic 

animals is less than 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day), and if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS terrestrial animals is less 

than 0.1 rad/day (1mGy/day) (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 NNSA/NSO 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 2004 

direct radiation monitoring results are presented in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3.

5.1 Measurement of Direct Radiation 

The measure of 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 ionizations within the tissues 
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

of the body. In contrast, alpha and weak beta particles do not travel far in air (a few centimeters for alpha and about 

10 m (32.8 ft) for beta particles). Alpha particles only deposit negligible energy externally; they rarely penetrate the 

outer dead layer of skin. Beta particles are generally absorbed in the immediate layers of skin below the outer layer. 

Direct radiation exposure is usually measured in the unit milliroentgen (mR), which is a measure of exposure in terms of 

a specified number of ionizations in air. Generally, the dose resulting from an exposure from the most common 

external radionuclides can be approximated by equating a 1 mR exposure with a 1 mrem (0.01 mSv) dose. 

5.2 TLD Surveillance Network Design 

Monitoring occurs at certain NTS areas which have elevated radiation levels as a result of one or more of the 

following: (1) historical weapons testing, (2) current and past radioactive waste management activities, and (3) current 

operational activities that involve radioactive material or radiation-generating devices. A surveillance network of 

thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) sampling locations has been established on the NTS. The objectives and design 

of the network are described in detail in the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b). 

For more details on sampling and analysis methods, the reader is encouraged to refer to the RREMP. 

TLDs are used to measure ionizing radiation exposure from all sources, including natural and man-made radioactivity. 

The TLD used is the Panasonic UD-814AS, consisting of four elements housed in an air-tight, water-tight, ultravioletlight-protected 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 ± 0.3 m (28 to 51 in) above the ground surface 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 Radiological Control Department (RCD). Reference TLDs are exposed to 

100 mR from a 137Cs radiation source under very controlled conditions and are read with TLDs collected from the 

environment to scale their response. 

In 2004 there were a total of 107 active environmental TLD locations on the NTS (Figure 5-1). They include the 

following numbers and types of locations: 

x Background (B) – 8 locations where radiation effects from NTS operations are negligible. 

x Environmental 1 (E1) – 42 locations where there is no measurable added radioactivity from past operations but 

where the locations 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. 

x 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 trends 

in exposure rates in the area, excluding locations in the WO category below. 

x Waste Operations (WO) – 16 locations in and around the RWMSs in Areas 3 and 5. 

x Control (C) – 6 locations in two buildings in Mercury. Control TLDs are kept in a stable environment and are 

used as a quality check of TLDs and the analysis process. 

5.2.1 Data Quality 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols, including Data Quality Objectives, have been developed 

and are maintained as essential elements of direct radiation monitoring as directed by the RREMP. The QA/QC 

requirements established for the monitoring program include the use of sample packages to thoroughly document 

each sampling event, rigorous management of databases, and completion of essential training. Agreement between 

the results provided by the paired TLDs at each location was very good, with an average relative percent difference 

between measurements of 3.0 percent for 2004. Quarterly results from Control TLDs were not significantly different 

from those of previous years and exhibited a coefficient of variation between quarters ranging from 1 to 7 percent. 

This is a measure of the inherent variation associated with the TLD sampling process. The RCD maintains 

certification through the U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program for dosimetry. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 5-3

Figure 5-1. Location of TLDs on the NTS
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

5.2.2 Data Reporting 

Direct radiation is reported as exposure per unit of time. TLD analysis results are maintained in a database as 

mR per day (mR/d), calculated by dividing the average mR exposure per quarter for each paired TLD by the number 

of days in the quarter. Annual exposures are also reported to determine compliance with the federal annual direct 

radiation exposure limits. Mean annual exposure (mR/yr) at each location is estimated by averaging the four quarterly 

estimates. An estimate of average daily exposures can be calculated by dividing the results reported in Table 5-1 and 

Table 5-2 by 366. 

5.3 Results 

Annual exposures for all TLD locations are summarized in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. There were eight background 

TLD locations on the NTS. During 2004, the estimated average annual exposure at the background locations was 

110 mR/yr and ranged from 60 to 156 mR/yr (0.16 to0.43 mR/d) (Table 5-2). For comparison, the CEMP measured 

the average annual exposure in Las Vegas, Nevada as 100 mR/yr during 2004 (see Table 6-3). All values reported in 

the following sections include the contribution from background. 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 2003 

 Estimated Annual Exposure (mR/yr) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number of 

Quarterly 

Samples Mean(b) Median SD(c) Min(d) Max(e)

5 3.3 Mi SE of Aggregate Pit B 4 62 62 1 60 63

15 U-15e Substation B 4 113 113 1 112 115

20 Stake A-118 B 4 154 154 2 152 156

22 Army #1 Water Well B 4 84 84 1 82 85

25 Gate 25-4-P B 4 129 129 2 127 131

25 Guard Station 510 B 3 126 126 2 124 129

25 Jackass Flats & A-27 Roads B 4 80 80 3 76 82

25 Yucca Mountain B 4 141 140 4 137 146

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11, Pig, C 4 26 26 2 24 29

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11, Pig, NE C 4 25 26 0 25 26

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11, Pig, NW C 4 25 25 1 24 27

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11, Pig, SE C 4 25 25 1 25 27

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11, Pig, SW C 4 26 26 1 25 26

23 Building 650 Dosimetry C 4 60 61 2 58 62

1 BJY E1 4 117 118 4 112 120

1 Sandbag Storage Hut E1 4 112 112 4 107 117

1 Stake C-2 E1 4 117 116 5 112 123

2 Stake M-140 E1 4 134 134 2 132 135

2 Stake TH-58 E1 4 93 93 3 91 97

3 LANL Trailers E1 4 120 120 3 117 123

3 Stake OB-20 E1 4 88 87 2 85 91

3 Well ER 3-1 E1 4 124 125 4 119 127

4 Stake TH-41 E1 4 111 110 3 108 116

4 Stake TH-48 E1 4 118 118 4 114 122

5 Building 5-31 E1 4 114 114 9 105 124

5 Water Well 5B E1 4 112 112 1 110 113 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 5-5

Table 5-1. (continued) 

 Estimated Annual Exposure (mR/yr) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number of 

Quarterly 

Samples Mean(b) Median SD(b) Min(c) Max(d)

6 CP-6 E1 4 70 71 2 68 72

6 DAF East E1 4 91 91 2 88 94 

6 DAF North E1 4 101 102 3 97 104 

6 DAF South E1 4 135 134 2 132 137 

6 DAF West E1 4 83 83 2 81 85 

6 Decon Facility NW E1 4 124 124 2 122 128 

6 Decon Facility SE E1 4 133 133 2 131 134 

6 Stake OB-11.5 E1 4 130 130 3 126 133 

6 Yucca Compliance E1 4 93 94 3 89 96 

6 Yucca Oil Storage E1 4 98 98 2 96 101 

7 Reitmann Seep E1 4 125 126 4 119 128 

7 Stake H-8 E1 4 128 128 4 124 132 

9 Papoose Lake Road E1 4 88 88 1 86 88 

9 U-9cw South E1 4 102 103 2 98 104 

9 V & G Road Junction E1 4 112 111 3 109 116 

10 Gate 700 South E1 4 134 134 3 131 136 

11 Stake A-21 E1 4 130 131 4 124 135 

12 Upper N Pond E1 4 130 130 2 127 132 

16 3545 Substation E1 4 137 136 6 132 144 

18 Stake A-83 E1 4 144 144 4 140 149 

18 Stake F-11 E1 4 147 148 4 142 151 

19 Stake P-41 E1 4 158 159 8 148 167 

20 Stake J-41 E1 4 139 138 4 134 144 

23 Gate 100 Truck Parking 1 E1 4 155 95 136 73 358 

23 Gate 100 Truck Parking 2 E1 4 66 65 3 64 70 

23 Mercury Fitness Track E1 4 59 60 2 57 61 

25 HENRE E1 4 123 122 4 120 129 

25 NRDS Warehouse E1 4 123 123 3 119 126 

27 Cafeteria E1 4 110 109 3 108 114 

27 JASPER-1 E1 4 113 113 2 110 116 

1 Bunker 1-300 E2 4 119 121 5 111 123 

1 T1 E2 4 343 336 75 266 433 

2 Stake L-9 E2 4 176 176 5 170 181 

2 Stake N-8 E2 4 600 601 14 582 615 

3 Stake A-6.5 E2 4 140 140 3 137 143 

3 T3 E2 4 403 405 12 390 414 

3 T3 West E2 4 394 396 16 374 412 

3 T3A E2 4 524 508 64 470 612 

3 T3B E2 4 500 502 9 489 507 

3 U-3co North E2 4 209 208 5 203 216 

3 U-3co South E2 3 147 148 2 144 149 

4 Stake A-9 E2 4 739 739 39 704 776 

5 Frenchman Lake E2 4 411 416 19 387 427 

7 Bunker 7-300 E2 4 257 255 9 248 269 

7 T7 E2 4 118 118 2 117 121 

8 Baneberry 1 E2 4 419 426 18 394 432 

8 Road 8-02 E2 4 126 126 3 122 130 

8 Stake K-25 E2 4 106 106 3 102 109 
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 5-1. (continued) 

 Estimated Annual Exposure (mR/yr) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number of 

Quarterly 

Samples Mean(b) Median SD(c) Min(d) Max(e)

8 Stake M-152 E2 4 165 166 5 159 171 

9 B9A E2 4 132 133 4 127 136 

9 Bunker 9-300 E2 4 124 123 4 120 130 

9 T9B E2 4 582 586 16 558 595 

10 Circle & L Roads E2 4 122 123 5 115 126 

10 SEDAN East Visitor Box E2 4 133 132 3 130 137 

10 SEDAN West E2 4 257 257 4 252 262 

10 T10 E2 4 281 281 6 275 287 

12 T-Tunnel #2 Pond E2 4 259 262 10 245 267 

12 Upper Haines Lake E2 4 108 108 2 104 110 

15 EPA Farm E2 4 111 111 3 107 113 

18 JOHNNIE BOY North E2 4 144 144 7 135 152 

20 PALANQUIN E2 4 246 248 8 235 253 

20 SCHOONER-1 E2 4 863 868 25 830 888 

20 SCHOONER-2 E2 4 294 294 7 284 301 

20 SCHOONER-3 E2 4 139 140 5 132 144 

20 Stake J-31 E2 4 174 171 6 170 183 

3 A3 RWMS Center WO 4 141 140 3 139 145 

3 A3 RWMS East WO 4 145 145 2 144 148 

3 A3 RWMS North WO 4 121 121 4 117 125 

3 A3 RWMS South WO 4 393 393 7 385 401 

3 A3 RWMS West WO 4 129 124 11 122 145 

5 A5 RWMS East Gate WO 4 135 135 9 126 143 

5 A5 RWMS Expansion NE WO 4 135 134 3 132 139 

5 A5 RWMS Expansion NW WO 4 141 141 3 137 144 

5 A5 RWMS NE Corner WO 4 122 122 4 117 126 

5 A5 RWMS NW Corner WO 4 149 124 53 120 228 

5 A5 RWMS South Gate WO 4 108 108 3 106 112 

5 A5 RWMS SW Corner WO 4 124 124 3 121 127 

5 WEF East WO 4 125 125 1 124 125 

5 WEF North WO 4 127 127 8 119 134 

5 WEF South WO 4 138 139 10 125 149 

5 WEF West WO 4 128 128 4 125 133 

(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) Time weighted average 

(c) Standard deviation 

(d) Minimum value 

(e) Maximum value 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 5-7

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

 Estimated Average Annual Exposure (mR/yr) 

Location Type 

Number of 

Quarterly 

Samples Mean Median SD(a) Min(b) Max(c)

Background (B) 31 110 115 31 60 156 

Control (C) 24 31 26 13 24 62 

Environmental 1 (E1) 168 115 117 29 57 358 

Environmental 2 (E2) 139 283 210 194 102 888 

Waste Operations (WO) 64 148 128 66 106 401 

All Locations 426 170 126 142 24 888 

(a) Standard deviation 

(b) Minimum value 

(c) Maximum value 

5.3.1 Potential Exposure to the Public along the NTS Boundary 

Most of the NTS is not accessible to the public; 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 RWMC, 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 average annual exposure of 66 mR/yr and ranged from 64 mR/yr in the third quarter to 70 mR/yr during 

the fourth quarter. These estimated annual exposures fall within those measured at NTS background locations. The 

TLD location on the west side of the parking area (Gate 100 Truck Parking 1) showed increased average exposures of 

113 mR/yr in the third quarter and 358 mR/yr during the fourth quarter, up from 73 and 77 mR/yr during the first 

and second quarters, respectively. It is likely that waste shipments entering the NTS are responsible for this increase. 

NTS background exposure rates ranged from 60 to 156 mR/yr during 2004, therefore only the fourth quarter 

measurement was above the range of background levels. Nobody resides full-time in the truck parking area. If an 

individual did reside there 24 hours a day for the fourth quarter, they may have received an external dose of about 

54 to 80 mrem (fourth quarter exposure rate minus background multiplied by the length of the fourth quarter [98 

days]). Given this extremely conservative scenario, the dose would still be below the 100 mrem/yr limit. 

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 NTTR. Military or other personnel on the 

NTTR who are not classified as radiation workers would also be subject to the 100 mrem/yr dose limit for members 

of the public. The only place a soil contamination area crosses a boundary with NTTR is in the Frenchman Lake 

region of Area 5 along the southeast boundary of the NTS. A TLD location was established in July 2003 near the 

NTS boundary in the Frenchman Lake playa. The mean estimated annual exposure measured at Frenchman Lake 

during 2004 was 411 mR. This exposure rate 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 workers at this location. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

5.3.2 Exposure Rates at Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs) 

The Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1 (DOE, 2001a), states that low-level waste disposal 

facilities shall be operated, maintained, and closed so that a reasonable expectation exists that dose to members of the 

public shall not exceed 25 mrem/yr. Given that the RWMSs are located well within the NTS boundaries, there are no 

members of the public which could access these areas for significant periods of time. However, exposure rates are 

measured by TLDs located at the RWMSs to show the potential dose to a hypothetical person residing year-round at 

each RWMS. 

5.3.2.1 Area 3 RWMS 

The Area 3 RWMS is located in Yucca Flat. Between 1952 and 1972, 60 nuclear weapons tests were conducted within 

400 meters of the Area 3 RWMS boundary. Fourteen of these tests were atmospheric tests which left radionuclide 

contaminated surface soil and, therefore, elevated radiation exposure rates 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; the result of this is a lower exposure rate inside the Area 3 RWMS compared with the 

average exposure rate at the fence line or in Area 3 outside the fence line. 

Annual exposure rates during 2004 in and around the Area 3 RWMS are shown in Figure 5-2. The exposure rates 

measured inside Area 3 RWMS and three of four measurements at the boundary were within the range of background 

exposure rates. All exposure rates above the range of NTS background levels were associated with historic aboveground 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 2004. 

Area 3 RWMS Estimated Annual Exposure Rates

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

mR/year

Background Mean

NTS

Background

Locations

Inside

RWMS

RWMS

Boundary

Outside

RWMS

Figure 5-2. Annual exposure rates at the Area 3 RWMS during 2004 

5.3.2.2 Area 5 RWMS 

The Area 5 RWMS is located on the northern portion of Frenchman Flat. Ten underground nuclear weapons tests 

were conducted within 3 km (1.9 mi) of the Area 5 RWMS between 1965 and 1971. Nine of these released 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 5-9

radioactivity to the surface which contributed to the exposure rates in the area. No nuclear weapons testing occurred 

within the boundaries of the Area 5 RWMS. During 2004, the annual exposure rates at Area 5 RWMS TLD locations 

were within the range of exposure rates measured at NTS background locations (Figure 5-3). However, significant 

variation was recorded in the first quarter at one location along the western boundary of the Area 5 RWMS. At this 

location the average exposure rate was 227 mR/yr during the first quarter, up from 124, 121, and 121 mR/yr 

measured in the second, third, and fourth quarters, respectively. This variation is thought to be associated with waste 

operations. Waste shipments being placed into Pit 11, adjacent to this TLD location were likely the cause of the 

elevated exposure. A hypothetical person residing full-time at this TLD location during the first quarter may have 

received a net external dose of about 70 to 218 mrem (227 mrem minus background [60 to 156 mrem/yr], multiplied 

by the length of the first quarter [77 days]). 

Area 5 RWMS Estimated Annual Exposure Rates

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

mR/year

Background Mean

NTS Background

Locations

RWMS

Boundary

Figure 5-3. Annual exposure rates at the Area 5 RWMS during 2004 

5.3.3 Exposure Rates from NTS Operational Activities 

During 2004 there were 42 TLDs located where current NTS operations had the potential to produce elevated 

radiation exposure rates (E1 locations). The estimated mean annual exposure rate at these locations was 115 mR/yr, 

within 5 percent of the estimated mean annual exposure rate at background locations (110 mR/yr) (see Table 4-2). 

Overall, annual exposure rates were not different between B (background) and E1 locations (Figure 5-4). In 

Figure 5-4, the box includes the middle 50 percent of values; the middle line is the median; the “+” is the mean; and 

the whiskers extend to the lowest and highest values. 

One E1 location had elevated daily exposure rates exceeding background rates during the third and fourth quarters. 

This was at the Gate 100 Truck Parking 1 TLD location (see Section 5.2.1). At all other E1 locations, NTS operations 

produced radiation exposures comparable to those at background locations. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring 

5-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 5-4. Annual exposure rates at B and E1 locations on the NTS in 2004 

5.3.4 Exposure to NTS Plants and Animals 

The TLD location with the highest annual exposure (Schooner 1) had a maximum measurement of 2.43 mR/d during 

the fourth quarter of 2004. At an elevation near the ground (e.g., 3 cm [1.2 in]), the exposure would be about four 

times higher than at 1 m (3.3 ft) where TLDs are placed. Therefore, daily exposure rates near the ground surface at 

the Schooner 1 TLD location would be about 10 mR/d. This would result in an external dose that is approximately 

10 percent of the most limiting total dose rate to biota (0.1 rad/day limit to terrestrial animals). Based on this, dose to 

plants and animals from external radiation exposure at NTS monitoring locations is low compared with dose limits. 

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. Monitoring the exposure rates at locations of past releases on the NTS over time helps to do this. Small 

quarter-to-quarter changes are normally seen in exposure rates from all locations. In 2004, the first quarter was 

slightly higher and the third quarter slightly lower; the difference was statistically significant (p=0.013) but quite minor 

(4.0 percent difference between quarter 1 and quarter 3). Overall there was a slight decrease of about 1 percent in 

exposure rates in 2004 compared with 2003. 

Changes through time are displayed in Figure 5-5 for annual TLD measurements by location type for those locations 

which have been monitored for at least eleven years. The Schooner TLD locations, which have the highest exposure 

rates of any current TLD locations on the NTS, are not included in this figure because they were established in 2003. 

The two highest exposure rates shown in Figure 5-5, Stake A-9 and Stake N-8, continue to decrease with a half-life of 

about 15 and 12 years, respectively. The next three highest exposure rates are from the Sedan West, T-Tunnel #2 

Pond, and Bunker 7-300 locations, where exposure rates have decreased by an average of 4.6, 4.7, and 3.0 percent 

since 1989, respectively. All five of these locations are in the E2 category at known contaminated sites with the 

predominant photon-emitting radionuclides being 137Cs, 60Co, 152Eu, and 241Am. The observed decreases in exposure 

rates are due to the natural decay of radionuclides and to the dispersal of radionuclides in the environment. Exposure 

rates at all other locations have been relatively stable over time indicating little added radioactivity at those locations. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 5-11

Estimated Annual Exposures

at Locations With at Least 11-Year Histories

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1988 1994 2000 2006

Year

mR/yr

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 with 

 at least eleven-year data histories 

5.4 Environmental Impact 

Direct radiation exposure to the public from NTS operations in 2004 was negligible. Radionuclides historically 

released to the environment on the NTS have resulted in localized elevated exposure rates. These areas of elevated 

exposure rates are not open to the public nor are there personnel working in these areas. Overall exposure rates at the 

RWMSs appear to be 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 and 

the clean soil used inside the RWMSs to cap waste pits. External dose to plants and animals at the location with the 

highest measured exposure rates was a small fraction of the dose limit to biota. There should be no detrimental 

effects to biota from external radiation exposure at these sites. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

5-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 6-1 

6.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and 

Water 

Community oversight for the 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 Nevada Test Site (NTS), and it 

can be outfitted to fulfill this role again should underground testing resume. It currently exists as a non-regulatory 

public informational and outreach program, although quarterly reporting of monitoring data is furnished to the 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 

University and Community College System of Nevada. 

Monitored and collected data include, but are not necessarily limited to, background and airborne radiation data, 

meteorological data, and tritium concentrations in community and ranch drinking water wells. Network stations, 

located in Nevada and Utah, are managed by local citizens, many of them high school science teachers, whose routine 

tasks are to maintain the equipment, collect air filters, and route them to the DRI for analysis. These Community 

Environmental Monitors (CEMs) are also available to discuss the monitoring results with the public and to speak to 

community and school groups. DRI’s responsibilities include maintaining the physical monitoring network through 

monthly visitations by environmental radiation monitoring specialists, who also participate in training and interfacing 

with CEMs and interacting with other local community members and organizations to provide information related to 

the monitoring data. DRI also provides public access to the monitoring data through maintenance of a project web 

site at <http://www.cemp.dri.edu/>. A detailed historical background of the CEMP can be found at 

<http://www.cemp.dri.edu/CEMPhist.html> along with more detailed descriptions of the various types of sensors 

found at the stations and on outreach activities conducted by the CEMP. 

6.1 Offsite Air Monitoring 

During CY 2004, 26 CEMP stations managed by DRI comprised the Air Surveillance Network (ASN) (Figure 6-1). 

Two newer stations installed at Ely and Warm Springs Summit in the summer and fall of 2003 respectively have now 

been on line their first full calendar year. The ASN stations include various equipment, as described below. The 

Beatty, Nevada CEMP station is shown in Figure 6-2.

CEMP Low Volume Air Sampling Network - During CY 2004, the CEMP ASN included continuously 

operating low-volume particulate air-samplers located at 24 of the 26 CEMP station locations. No low-volume air 

samplers are located at Medlins Ranch or Warm Springs Summit, but an air sampler system was re-established at 

Sarcobatus Flats. 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. The new air sampler added to Sarcobatus Flats, Nevada in August of 2004 re-established an important 

air data collection capability that was removed prior to DRI acquiring administration of the program. 

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 2004 Figure 6-1. 2004 CEMP Air Surveillance Network 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 6-3 

Figure 6-2. CEMP station at Beatty, Nevada 

CEMP TLD Network – Thermoluminescent dosimetry (TLD) is another of the essential components of 

environmental radiological assessments. This is used to determine both individual and population external exposure 

to ambient radiation from natural and artificial sources. In CY2004, the TLD network consisted of fixed 

environmental TLDs at 25 of the 26 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 purposes, duplicate TLDs 

are deployed at three randomly-selected environmental stations. An average daily exposure rate was calculated for 

each quarterly exposure period. The average of the quarterly values was multiplied by 365.25 days to obtain the total 

annual exposure for each station. 

CEMP PIC Network – The pressurized ion chamber (PIC) detector measures gamma radiation exposure rates, and 

because of its sensitivity may detect low-level exposures that go undetected by other monitoring methods. PICs are in 

place at all 26 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 26 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 2004

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 in (5 cm) 

diameter glass-fiber filter at a constant flow rate of 2 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (86.6 liters (L)/min) at standard 

temperature and pressure. The actual flow rate and volume is measured and recorded with an in-line air-flow 

calibrator. The particulate filter is mounted in a filter holder that faces downward at a height of 5 ft (1.5 m) above the 

ground. The total actual volume collected ranges from approximately 19,000 to 28,000 cubic feet (ft3) (538 to 793 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 1.73 r 0.46 x 10-15 PCi/mL (6.40 r 1.70 x 10-5

Bq/m3) (Table 6-1). Most of the results for CY 2004 exceeded the analytical minimum detectable concentration 

(MDC) (see Glossary, Appendix D) and, overall, are similar to results from previous years. Figure 6-3 shows the longterm maximum, mean, and minimum alpha trend for the CEMP stations as a whole. 

 Table 6-1. Gross alpha results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2004 

Concentration (x 10-15 μCi/mL [3.7 x 10-5 Bq/m3])

Sampling Location 

Number 

of

Samples Mean Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Alamo 52 2.18 1.03 0.56 5.49 

Amargosa Valley 52 2.29 1.26 0.56 6.63 

Beatty 52 1.82 1.08 0.19 4.50 

Boulder City 52 2.96 1.15 0.49 6.81 

Caliente 52 2.17 1.22 0.38 7.02 

Cedar City 52 2.46 1.10 0.79 5.95 

Delta 52 1.46 0.61 0.48 2.90 

Ely 52 1.20 0.51 0.29 2.46 

Garden Valley 52 1.32 0.53 0.36 2.60 

Goldfield 51 1.41 0.66 0.36 3.81 

Henderson 50 1.60 0.58 0.79 3.26 

Indian Springs 48 1.36 0.50 0.40 3.00 

Las Vegas 52 2.19 1.14 0.56 5.60 

Milford 51 1.68 0.79 0.55 3.75 

Nyala Ranch 52 1.11 0.43 0.46 2.51 

Overton 51 1.90 0.91 0.37 5.11 

Pahrump 52 1.66 0.62 0.29 3.20 

Pioche 52 1.29 0.43 0.50 2.27 

Rachel 49 1.67 0.79 0.24 3.58 

Sarcobatus Flats 14 2.15 1.21 0.70 4.95 

Stone Cabin Ranch 52 1.40 0.49 0.48 2.64 

St. George 50 1.50 0.59 0.61 2.92 

Tonopah 50 1.45 0.47 0.36 2.64 

Twin Springs 52 1.37 0.52 0.47 2.56 

Network Mean = 1.73 ± 0.46 x 10-15 PCi/ml 

Mean MDC = 0.59 x 10-15 μCi/mL Standard Error of Mean MDC = 0.08 x 10-15 μCi/mL 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 6-5 

Figure 6-3. Historical trend for gross alpha analysis for all CEMP stations 

The mean annual gross beta activity across all sample locations was 2.18 r 0.18 x 10-14 PCi/mL (8.07 r 0.67 x 10-4 

Bq/m3) (Table 6-2). Most of these results also exceeded the MDC, and are similar to previous years’ data. Figure 6-4 

shows the long-term maximum, mean, and minimum beta trend for the CEMP stations as a whole.

Table 6-2. Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2004 

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 2.11 0.57 0.86 3.90 

Amargosa Valley 52 2.37 0.63 1.09 4.83 

Beatty 52 2.17 0.64 0.28 4.38 

Boulder City 52 2.46 0.92 1.14 7.43 

Caliente 52 2.16 0.75 0.96 5.62 

Cedar City 52 2.23 0.66 1.06 4.68 

Delta 52 2.30 1.08 1.34 6.04 

Ely 52 1.85 0.44 0.97 3.20 

Garden Valley 52 1.97 0.50 1.04 3.44 

Goldfield 51 2.10 0.68 0.74 4.98 

Henderson 50 2.31 0.71 1.00 5.46 

Indian Springs 48 2.13 0.59 0.98 4.76 

Las Vegas 52 2.24 0.64 0.86 4.86 

Milford 51 2.31 0.88 0.94 5.56 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

x 10-15 μCi/mL

Max

Mean

Min

Year
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 6-2. (continued) 

Concentration (x 10-14 μCi/mL [37 μBq/m3])

Sampling 

Location 

Number of 

Samples Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Nyala 52 1.86 0.72 0.82 4.92 

Overton 51 2.42 0.79 0.89 6.07 

Pahrump 52 2.24 0.58 1.06 4.74 

Pioche 52 1.90 0.52 0.84 3.84 

Rachel 49 2.19 0.65 0.76 4.89 

Sarcobatus Flats 14 2.46 0.59 1.34 3.73 

Stone Cabin 52 1.98 0.43 0.98 3.00 

St. George 50 2.40 1.00 1.18 7.05 

Tonopah 50 1.99 0.46 0.98 3.13 

Twin Springs 52 2.17 1.03 0.89 6.8 

Network Mean = 2.18 ± 0.18 x 10-14 PCi/mL 

Mean MDC = 0.11 x 10-14 μCi/mL Standard Error of Mean MDC = 0.01 x 10-14 μCi/mL 

 Figure 6-4. Historical trend for gross beta analysis for all CEMP stations 

The overall gross alpha results show a generally increasing trend from 1994 to 2001 before trending downward the 

last three years. Likewise, the gross beta results show a similar trend beginning in 1998. These trends are also 

reflected by most of the stations on an individual basis. Although this trend merits further evaluation, it may likely be 

explained as being a result of persistent drought conditions throughout the southwest and Great Basin states. 

Drought in these regions has existed to varying degrees since 1996. These dry conditions could be directly 

responsible for an increase in suspended air particles collected by the air-sampling network. The apparent spikes in 

the maximum trend lines for gross alpha and beta are the result of a single analysis for that year. These analyses 

occurred prior to the CEMP being directed by DRI, so specific information is not available. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

x 10-14 μCi/mL

Max

Mean

Min

Year
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 6-7 

6.1.1.2 Gamma Spectroscopy 

Gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed on all samples from the low-volume air-sampling network. The filters 

were composited by station on a quarterly basis after gross alpha/beta analysis. As in previous years, all samples were 

gamma spectrum negligible with respect to man-made radionuclides (i.e. gamma-emitting radionuclides were not 

detected). In most of the samples, naturally occurring 7Be was detected above the analytical MDC. This radionuclide 

is produced by cosmic ray interaction with nitrogen in the atmosphere. The mean annual activity for 7Be for the 

sampling network was 76.4 r 24.7 x 10-15 PCi/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 one meter 

above the ground, and are exchanged quarterly. TLD results are not presented for Warm Springs Summit at this time 

since its access is limited in the winter months. This does not allow for a proper quarterly change of the TLD as 

required. The total annual exposure for 2004 ranged from 81 milliroentgens (mR) (0.81 millisieverts [Sv]) at Pahrump, 

Nevada, to 157 mR (1.57 mSv) at Twin Springs, 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 Air Surveillance Network in 2004 

Sampling Daily Exposure (mR) 

Location 

Number of 

Days Mean Minimum Maximum 

Total Annual 

Exposure (mR) 

Alamo 364 0.32 0.29 0.34 115 

Amargosa Valley 367 0.29 0.27 0.31 107 

Beatty 364 0.40 0.35 0.43 145 

Boulder City 368 0.29 0.27 0.31 106 

Caliente 371 0.34 0.31 0.37 125 

Cedar City 371 0.25 0.23 0.29 93 

Delta 371 0.27 0.24 0.31 100 

Ely 365 0.29 0.28 0.31 106 

Garden Valley 372 0.37 0.34 0.38 135 

Goldfield 364 0.37 0.35 0.38 135 

Henderson 368 0.31 0.28 0.33 113 

Indian Springs 367 0.27 0.25 0.29 98 

Las Vegas 364 0.27 0.26 0.29 100 

Medlin's Ranch 364 0.39 0.36 0.41 141 

Milford 371 0.39 0.35 0.41 141 

Nyala Ranch 364 0.31 0.30 0.32 114 

Overton 369 0.26 0.23 0.29 93 

Pahrump 367 0.22 0.20 0.25 81 

Pioche 371 0.31 0.30 0.33 114 

Rachel 364 0.38 0.36 0.40 140 

Sarcobatus Flats 364 0.42 0.37 0.46 155 

Stone Cabin Ranch 365 0.39 0.38 0.40 142 

St. George 371 0.24 0.20 0.29 88 

Tonopah 364 0.37 0.33 0.40 136 

Twin Springs 365 0.43 0.41 0.47 157 

Overall Annual Mean = 119 mR
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 two 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 naturally 

occurring radionuclides may more easily escape into the atmosphere as part of the increased suspended particle load. 

This could result in an increase in natural radioactivity detected by the TLD. As with the gross alpha and beta results 

further evaluation is needed. 

6.1.3 PIC Results 

The PIC data presented in this section are based on daily averages of gamma exposure rates from each station. 

Table 6-4 contains the maximum, minimum, and standard deviation of daily averages (in microroentgens per hour 

[μR/hr]) for the periods during 2004 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/yr). The exposure rate 

ranged from 67.10 mR/yr (0.67 mSv) in Pahrump to 178.35 mR/yr (1.80 mSv) in Milford, Utah. Background levels 

of environmental gamma exposure rates in the United States (from combined effects of terrestrial and cosmic 

sources) vary between 49 and 247 mR/yr (BEIR III, 1980). Averages for selected regions of the United States were 

compiled by the EPA and are shown in Table 6-5. The annual exposure levels observed at the CEMP stations in 2004 

are well within these United States background levels. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

mR/yr

Max

Mean

Min

Year
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 6-9 

Table 6-4. PIC monitoring results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2004 

Daily Average Gamma Exposure Rate (PR/hr) 

Sampling Location Mean 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum 

Annual 

Exposure 

(mR/yr) 

Alamo 13.10 0.42 12.00 14.19 114.71 

Amargosa Valley 12.57 0.16 11.98 13.16 110.11 

Beatty 16.93 0.45 15.80 18.06 148.31 

Boulder City 16.07 0.23 14.28 17.86 140.77 

Caliente 15.31 0.24 14.45 16.16 134.07 

Cedar City 10.87 0.27 9.85 11.88 95.18 

Delta 10.86 0.35 9.88 11.83 95.09 

Ely 11.63 0.35 10.32 12.94 101.88 

Garden Valley 15.94 0.30 14.84 17.03 139.59 

Goldfield 14.82 0.35 13.76 15.88 129.82 

Henderson 15.91 0.31 14.69 17.13 139.37 

Indian Springs 11.39 0.18 10.83 11.94 99.73 

Las Vegas 10.85 0.73 8.83 12.86 95.00 

Medlin's Ranch 16.68 0.25 15.80 17.56 146.12 

Milford 20.36 0.43 19.02 21.70 178.35 

Nyala Ranch 12.87 0.41 11.86 13.88 112.74 

Overton 9.98 0.21 9.21 10.74 87.38 

Pahrump 7.66 0.15 7.21 8.11 67.10 

Pioche 15.13 0.30 14.07 16.19 132.54 

Rachel 14.84 0.30 13.95 15.72 129.95 

Sarcobatus Flats 17.20 0.28 16.36 18.03 150.63 

Stone Cabin Ranch 16.69 0.66 14.92 18.45 146.16 

St. George 9.49 0.53 8.30 10.68 83.13 

Tonopah 15.70 0.33 14.60 16.79 137.49 

Twin Springs 19.17 0.46 17.81 20.53 167.93 

Warm Springs Summit 19.08 0.48 17.65 20.50 167.10 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Source: <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp/Radiation.html.> “Radiation in Perspective,” August 1990 

(Access Date: 3/22/2005) 

6.1.4 Environmental Impact 

Results of analyses conducted on data obtained from the CEMP network of low-volume particulate air samplers, 

TLDs, and PICs showed no measurable evidence at CEMP station locations of offsite impact from radionuclides 

originating on the NTS. Activity observed in gross alpha and beta analyses of low-volume air sampler filters was 

consistent with previous years’ results and are within the range of activity found in other communities of the 

United States which are not adjacent to man-made radiation sources. Also, no man-made gamma-emitting 

radionuclides were detected. Likewise, TLD and PIC results remained consistent with previous years’ background 

levels and are well within average background levels observed in other parts of the United States (see Table 6-5). 

Occasional elevated gamma readings (10–50 percent above normal average background) were always associated with 

precipitation events and/or low barometric pressure. Low barometric pressure can result in the release of 

naturally-occurring radon and its daughter products from the surrounding soil and rock substrates. Precipitation 

events can result in the “rainout” of globally-distributed radionuclides occurring as airborne particulates in the upper 

atmosphere. Figure 6-6, generated from the CEMP web site, illustrates an example of this phenomenon. 

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

Table 6-5. Average natural background radiation for selected U.S. cities (excluding radon)

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 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 6-11 

6.2 Offsite Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 

Dring fiscal year 2004, the DRI was tasked by NNSA to provide independent verification of the tritium activity within 

some of the offsite groundwater wells, municipal water supply systems, and springs used for water supplies in areas 

surrounding the NTS. Samples collected by DRI personnel provide a direct comparison to the results obtained by the 

RREMP (Section 4.1) in some cases. 

The sole analyte for this project was tritium. Tritium is one of the most abundant radionuclides generated by an 

underground nuclear test, and since it is a constituent of the water molecule itself, it is also one of the most mobile 

radionuclides. 

6.2.1 Sample Locations and Methods 

During the period of June 1 to June 25, 2004, 4 springs, 17 wells, and 3 water supply systems were sampled. 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 water supply systems were collected via 

discharge from a faucet connected to that system. 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 quality assurance 

protocols (see Section 19.0 for a detailed description of the CEMP quality assurance program). This was achieved 

through the use of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), field quality assurance samples, and laboratory quality 

assurance procedures. DRI’s SOPs are detailed instructions that describe the method and materials, using step-bystep 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 quality assurance utilized on this project consisted of field quality assurance samples. The intent of 

these samples and procedures was to provide direct measures of the contribution of radioactive material that was 

derived from the bottles, sampling equipment, and the environment to the activity of tritium measured within the 

samples. Duplicate samples were collected to establish a measure of the repeatability of the analysis. Matrix spike 

duplicates were also collected to ensure no other parameters in the sample water were present that could cause 

erroneously high or low tritium values. Twelve samples (33 percent of the sample load) were collected for the 

purposes of meeting field quality assurance requirements. Laboratory quality assurance controls consisted of the 

utilization of published laboratory techniques for the analysis of enriched tritium, method blanks, laboratory control 

samples, and laboratory duplicates. The laboratory quality assurance samples provide a measure of the accuracy and 

the confidence of the reported results. 

Enriched tritium analyses were run on all water samples. The decision level (Lc) (see Glossary, Appendix D) of 

tritium ranged from 10.5 to 16 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 D)

for tritium was approximately 26 pCi/L. BN reports that the MDC for enriched tritium analyses for the RREMP 

water samples is approximately 25 pCi/L (see Section 4.1.2). 
6-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 6-6. CEMP water monitoring locations sampled in 2004 Monitoring Location Description Latitude Longitude Date Sampled Sample Collecti

Adaven Springs 38 08.25 115 36.20 6/15/2004 By hand from stream discharging Alamo city water supply system - source of water is municipal well field 37 21.74 115 10.14 6/1/2004 By hand from municiple water weAmargosa Valley school well 36 34.16 116 27.66 6/22/2004 By hand at well head Beatty Water and Sewer - municipal well 36 54.94 116 45.65 6/2/2004 By hand at well head at utility heaBoulder City – at Hemingway Park from municipal water distribution system 35 59.74 114 49.90 6/25/2004 By hand from a drinking fountain Caliente municipal water supply well 37 36.95 114 30.83 6/8/2004 By hand at well head Cedar City municipal water supply well #7 10 mi west of town 37 39.39 113 13.14 6/10/2004 By hand at well head Delta municipal well 39 21.59 112 34.65 6/9/2004 By hand at well head Goldfield Municipal Water Supply well about 12 mi north  of town 37 52.40 117 14.96 6/2/2004 By hand at well head Henderson CCSN - source of water is municipal water  system originating at Lake Mead 36 00.43 114 57.95 6/25/2004 By hand from faucet inside college Indian Springs municipal well 36 34.41 115 40.10 6/22/2004 By hand at well head Las Vegas Valley Water District #103 36 13.94 115 15.13 6/25/2004 By hand at well head Medlin’s Ranch - spring 11 mi west of ranch house 37 24.10 115 32.25 6/16/2004 By hand at kitchen faucet Milford municipal well 38 22.96 113 01.19 6/9/2004 By hand at well head Nyala Ranch water well 38 14.93 115 43.72 6/15/2004 By hand from front yard hose faucOverton water well located at Arrow Canyon about 10 mi  west of town 36 44.06 114 44.87 6/24/2004 By hand at well head Pahrump municipal well 36 12.38 115 59.11 6/22/2004 By hand at well head located near Pioche municipal well located 1 mile east of town 37 56.98 114 25.78 6/8/2004 By hand at well head Rachel - Little Ale Inn well 37 38.79 115 44.75 6/1/2004 By hand from bar faucet inside Lil Sarcobatus Flats well 37 16.78 117 01.92 6/2/2004 By hand at well head St. George Dameron Valley well 16 mi north of St George 37 11.60 113 38.77 6/10/2004 By hand at well head Stone Cabin Ranch Spring 38 12.44 116 37.91 6/15/2004 By hand from kitchen faucet at ranTonopah public utilities well field located 10 mi from town 38 11.68 117 04.70 6/16/2004 By hand at well head Twin Springs Ranch Spring 38 12.21 116 10.55 6/15/2004 By hand from front yard hose faucNote: Sample locations were resurveyed in 2004 using global positioning satellite data and location latitudes and longitudes were update

data. The following sample locations were moved in 2004: St. George was moved approximately 17 km based on request by the Capproximately 370 m due to mechanical problems in the well sampled previously, Goldfield was moved approximately 500 m basand Pahrump was moved approximately 1,970 m based on request by the CEM. All updated sample locations are shown in Figure 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 6-13

Figure 6-7. 2004 CEMP water monitoring locations 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

6.2.3 Results of Surface Water Monitoring from Springs 

Measured tritium (3H) concentrations from the springs ranged from -3 to 12 pCi/L (Table 6-7). Three of the samples, 

Medlin’s Ranch, Stone Cabin Ranch, and Twin Springs Ranch, yielded results that were indistinguishable from 

background (i.e.,  Lc). The Adaven Springs sample result, at 12 ± 22 pCi/L, was statistically at Lc. All sample 

analyses were well below the safe drinking water limit of 20,000 pCi/L. Sample results for Adaven Springs, Medlin’s 

Ranch, Stone Cabin Ranch, and Twin Springs Ranch were similar to results reported by DRI in the Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2003 (DOE, 2004d). 

Table 6-7. Tritium results for CEMP offsite springs and spring discharges in 2004 

Monitoring Location 

3H ± Uncertainty(a)

(pCi/L) Lc 

Adaven Springs 12 ± 22 12 

Medlin's Ranch - spring located 11 miles west of ranch 

house 

9 ± 18 14 

Stone Cabin Ranch -2 ± 16 12 

Twin Springs Ranch -3 ± 16 12 

(a) r 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. The 

measured activities ranged from -5 to 29 pCi/L. All of the samples, with the exception of Henderson and 

Boulder City, yielded results that were statistically indistinguishable from background ( Lc). Results from 

Henderson and Boulder City were statistically greater than background. The water in these samples originated from 

Lake Mead. Slightly elevated tritium activities in Lake Mead are well documented by previous investigations (DOE, 

2002d; DOE, 2003c; DOE, 2004) and are due to residual tritium persisting in the environment that originated from 

global atmospheric nuclear testing. All sample analyses were well below the safe drinking water limit of 20,000 pCi/L. 

Trending of the data was not conducted due to the limited number of previously collected samples (three previous 

sets have been collected by DRI thus far). The only notable changes were at the Boulder City water treatment plant 

(from 27 r 16 pCi/L in 2002 to 35 r 28 pCi/L in 2003 and back to 29 r 17 in 2004). The change in measured tritium 

activity at Boulder City is well within the range of uncertainty associated with the 2002, 2003, and 2004 analyses. 

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 decision level for tritium (see Tables 6-7 and 6-8). The greatest observed activities, (27 pCi/L and 

29 pCi/L from Henderson and Boulder City, respectively) were well below the safe drinking water standard of 

20,000 pCi/L. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 6-15

 Table 6-8. Tritium results for CEMP offsite wells in 2004 

Monitoring Location 

3H ± Uncertainty(a) 

(pCi/L) 

Lc 

(pCi/L) 

Alamo City -3 ± 23 13 

Amargosa Valley -2 ± 24 14 

Beatty -2 ± 23 16 

Boulder City 29 ± 17 10

Caliente 7 ± 23 12 

Cedar City -4 ± 21 16 

Delta 2 ± 20 16 

Goldfield -4 ± 23 13 

Henderson 27 ± 16 11

Indian Springs -1 ± 25 14 

Las Vegas 3 ± 18 14 

Milford -5 ± 20 16 

Nyala Ranch -1 ± 19 12 

Overton 3 ± 22 14 

Pahrump -1 ± 23 14 

Pioche 2 ± 22 16 

Rachel -1 ± 20 13 

Sarcobatus Flats 3 ± 25 13 

St. George -3 ± 21 16 

Tonopah -2 ± 19 13 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the MDC of 26 pCi/L) 

(a) r 2 standard deviations 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

6-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 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 mrem/yr from all pathways of exposure, including the ingestion of contaminated plants and animals. 

Current NTS land use precludes the harvest of plants or plant parts (e.g., pine nuts and wolf berries) for direct 

consumption by humans. Therefore, the ingestion of game animals is the primary potential biotic pathway for 

radionuclide contamination from the NTS to the public. Game birds and game mammals that occur on the NTS may 

travel off the site and become available, through hunting, for consumption by the public. Game animals are therefore 

monitored by Bechtel Nevada (BN) Environmental Technical Services (ETS) under the Routine Radiological 

Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b). 

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 2004. The reader is directed to 

the RREMP (DOE, 2003b) for a more detailed description of monitoring design and methods. The estimated 

radiological dose, both to humans consuming game animals from the NTS and to biota found in contaminated areas 

of the NTS, that was calculated based on 2004 monitoring data is presented in Section 8.0.

Radiological Biota Monitoring Goals Analytes Measured in 

Plant and Animal Tissues 

Americium-241 (241Am) 

Cesium-137 (137Cs) 

Determine if the potential dose to humans consuming game animals from the 

NTS is less than 100 millirems per year (mrem/yr), the limit set by DOE Order 

5400.5 

Tritium (3H) 

Plutonium- 239+240 (239+240Pu) 

Strontium-90 (90Sr) 

Determine if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS biota is less than the following 

limits set by DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002: 

 < 1 rad/day for terrestrial plants and aquatic animals 

 < 0.1 rad/day for terrestrial animals Uranium isotopes 

7.1 Species Selection 

The goal for vegetation monitoring is to sample the most contaminated plants within the NTS environment. 

Contaminated plants are generally found inside demarcated radiological areas near the “ground zero” locations of 

historical above-ground nuclear tests. The plant species selected for sampling represent the most dominant plant life 

forms (e.g., trees, shrubs, herbs, or grasses) at these sites. Woody vegetation (i.e., shrubs versus forbs or grasses) is 

primarily selected for sampling because such vegetation is reported to have deeper penetrating roots and higher 

concentrations of tritium (Hunter and Kinnison, 1998). Additionally, this vegetation serves as a major source of 

browse for game animals that might eat such vegetation and potentially migrate offsite. Grasses and forbs are also 

sampled when present, however, because they are also a source of food for wildlife. Plant parts collected for analysis 

represent new growth over the past year. 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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)

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 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. Below is a brief description of the two sites monitored during 2004. 

Plutonium Valley – Plutonium Valley is located in Area 11 on the eastern edge of the NTS at an elevation of 1,250 

m (4,100 ft). Four safety experiments were conducted in Plutonium Valley from November 1, 1955 through 

January 18, 1956 in which conventional explosives were used on nuclear weapons. In one of these tests there was a 

slight yield that resulted in the production of fission products (e.g., 137Cs and 90Sr), but the primary contaminant 

produced and dispersed in the area was plutonium. A control area for Plutonium Valley is located about 24 km 

(14.9 mi) southwest of the sample site near a spring in Area 27. Any of the candidate game species is likely to be 

present in Plutonium Valley or at the control site. 

E Tunnel Ponds – The E Tunnel Ponds are located just southeast of Rainier Mesa in Area 12 in the northern part of 

the NTS at an elevation of 1,828 m (6,000 ft). Radionuclide-contaminated water and soils occur at this site. The 

E Tunnel Ponds were constructed to collect and hold contaminated water (mainly from tritium) which drains out of 

E Tunnel where nuclear testing was conducted. The water is perched groundwater that has percolated through 

fractures in the tunnel system. A special sampling effort, focusing on bats, took place at E Tunnel Pond 5 during 

2004. The E Tunnel Ponds are the only perennial source of radiologically contaminated water on the NTS. There 

was interest, from a biota dose perspective, to determine radiolonuclide concentrations in bats and their food source. 

Camp 17 pond is the normal control site for E Tunnel Ponds, but because bats can have large home ranges that can 

encompass both Camp 17 pond and the E Tunnel Ponds, the Well J-11 pond in Area 25 was used as a control site. 

No known radiologically-contaminated waters used by bats occur in the region of Well J-11 pond. 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 7-3 

Figure 7-1. Radiological biota monitoring sites on the NTS 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

7.3 Sampling Methods 

During CY 2004, biota samples were successfully collected at Plutonium Valley, the Plutonium Valley control site, 

E Tunnel Pond 5, and the E Tunnel control site. Sample methods and the numbers and types of samples collected in 

2004 are described below. 

7.3.1 Plants 

Plant sampling occurred on July 1, 2004. At each site, two samples of each plant species shown in Table 7-1 were 

collected. These species represent the dominant shrubs, forbs, and grasses present at each site. Each sample 

consisted of about 300 to 500 grams (g) (10.6 to 17.6 ounces [oz]) of fresh-weight plant material and consisted of a 

composite of material from many plants of the same species in the sample area. Only current year’s growth was 

collected from each plant and consisted of new green leaves and stems. Green leaves and stems from shrubs and 

forbs were hand-plucked and stored in air-tight plastic bags. Rubber gloves were used by samplers and changed 

between each composite sample collected. Samples were labeled and stored in an ice chest. Within four hours of 

collection, the samples were delivered to the laboratory. Water was separated from plant samples by distillation. 

Water and dried plant tissues were submitted to a commercial laboratory for analysis of radionuclides. Water from 

plants was analyzed for tritium and dried plant tissue was analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides, 90Sr, uranium, 

plutonium, and 241Am. 

Table 7-1. Plant species sampled at Plutonium (Pu) Valley and Pu Valley Control Site in 2004 

Plant Common Name

Name 

Abbreviation(a) Plant Scientific Name Pu Valley 

Pu Valley 

Control Site 

Bashful four o’clock BFOC Mirabilis pudica X

Basin wildrye BWR Leymus cinereus X 

Four-wing saltbush FWSB Atriplex canescens X X 

Goodding's willow GW Salix gooddingii X 

Green rabbitbrush GRB Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus X X 

Nevada jointfir NJF Ephedra nevadensis X X 

Panamint prince’s plume PPP Stanleya elata X

Prince’s plume PP Stanleya pinnata X 

Russian thistle RT Salsola paulsenii X

(a) plant name abbreviation used in the sample results table (Table 7-3). 

7.3.2 Animals 

State and federal permits were secured to trap and analyze rabbits, Gambel’s quail, chukar, mourning doves, and bats 

during 2004 as well as to sample road-killed, large game animals. Animal trapping took place at the Plutonium Valley 

and Plutonium Valley control sites June through July. Live-traps for both game birds and rabbits were run at these 

sites for 173 and 84 trap-nights, respectively. Three jackrabbits and two mourning doves were trapped at Plutonium 

Valley, and three cottontail rabbits, two Gambel’s quail and one mourning dove were trapped at the Plutonium Valley 

Control site. 

Bat sampling at the E Tunnel Ponds (Figure 7-2) and J-11 pond took place during September. Mist nets were used to 

capture bats at the E Tunnel Ponds on three nights for an average of 3.0 hours each night and at the J-11 pond on 

two nights for an average of 2.25 hours each night. On three nights, a light trap was used to capture flying insects 

around the E Tunnel ponds. A total of 29 bats representing seven species were sampled from E Tunnel Pond 5. A 

total of 10.3 g (0.36 oz) (wet weight) of flying insects representing seven Orders (Odonata, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, 

Diptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, and Hemiptera) were also captured approximately 10 m (33 ft) from the E Tunnel 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 7-5 Figure 7-2. E Tunnel Ponds biota sampling site 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Ponds. Eight bats, all of the same species, were captured from the Well J-11 pond. Samples were composited to 

obtain adequate sample size in all cases except for the one big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) which was large enough to 

be an individual sample. The individuals and species in each analyzed sample are listed in Table 7-2. 

Opportunistic sampling of one pronghorn antelope road-kill occurred in October on the Mercury Highway on 

Frenchman Flat. 

In the laboratory, each animal specimen was 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 as much as possible using an industrial meat grinder and food processor. Water was distilled from the 

samples and submitted to a laboratory for tritium analysis. The dried tissue samples were also submitted to a 

laboratory for analysis of gamma-emitting radionuclides, 90Sr, uranium, plutonium, and 241Am. 

To document the general abundance of the candidate game species present during the collection period, three 

permanent 1-km (0.62-mi) transects were established in the vicinity of the Plutonium Valley fenced radioactive 

material area to count jackrabbits, cottontail rabbits, mourning doves, chukar and Gambel’s quail. The transects were 

walked once each on June 17, 2004, June 28, 2004 and July 27, 2004, for a total of nine transects walked. Few target 

wildlife species were observed. A total of seven doves were recorded and these all occurred on transects walked 

June 17, 2004. No cottontails were observed on transects but one jackrabbit was observed on a transect walked 

June 28, 2004. This result was supported by trapping results as jackrabbits and no cottontail rabbits were captured in 

Plutonium Valley. The number of target species recorded during 2004 was too low to calculate species density. 

Table 7-2. Bats and invertebrates sampled at E Tunnel Ponds and E Tunnel Ponds Control Site in 2004 

Location

Sample 

Designation Sample Composition 

Bats 1 1 big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus)

Bats 2 3 fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) and 2 long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)

Bats 3 5 long-legged myotis (Myotis volans)

Bats 4 5 small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) and 1 California myotis (Myotis 

californicus)

Bats 5 5 small-footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum)

Bats 6 7 western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus)

E Tunnel Ponds 

Inverts 10.3 g(a) invertebrates (from the Orders: Odonata, Lepidoptera, Neuroptera, 

Diptera, Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, Hemiptera) 

Well J-11 Pond 

(E Tunnel Ponds 

Control) 

Control Bats 8 western pipistrelle (Pipistrellus hesperus)

(a) grams wet weight 

7.4 Results 

7.4.1 Plants 

Concentrations of man-made radionuclides detected in 2004 NTS plant samples are shown in Table 7-3. The only 

man-made radionuclides detected in plant samples were 90Sr, 239+240Pu, and 241Am. As expected, most of the plant 

samples collected from the area in Plutonium Valley had detectable levels of radionuclides (primarily 239+240Pu) and 

those detectable concentrations were higher than those in plants taken from the control site 24 km (14.9 mi) away. 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 7-7 

Table 7-3. Radionuclide concentrations in plants from Pu Valley and Control Site in 2004 

Radioncuclide Concentratons ± Uncertainty(a) (pCi/g)(b)

Sample 90Sr 239+240Pu 241Am 

Plutonium Valley 

BFOC #1 0.015 ± 0.022 0.007 ± 0.008 -0.002 ± 0.002 

BFOC #2 0.029 ± 0.034 0.010 ± 0.010 0.009 ± 0.013 

FWSB #1 0.021 ± 0.042 0.023 ± 0.012 0.011 ± 0.008 

FWSB #2 0.072 ± 0.041 0.014 ± 0.010 0.001 ± 0.004 

GRB #1 0.026 ± 0.026 0.053 ± 0.017 0.105 ± 0.028 

GRB #2 0.027 ± 0.030 0.047 ± 0.017 0.003 ± 0.005 

NJF #1 0.015 ± 0.023 0.087 ± 0.019 0.573 ± 0.089 

NJF #2 0.029 ± 0.024 0.077 ± 0.023 0.011 ± 0.008 

PPP #1 0.047 ± 0.031 0.015 ± 0.009 0.258 ± 0.061 

PPP #2 0.028 ± 0.028 0.012 ± 0.008 0.006 ± 0.008 

RT #1 0.034 ± 0.024 0.004 ± 0.005 0.001 ± 0.004 

RT #2 0.065 ± 0.043 0.008 ± 0.006 0.009 ± 0.009 

Percent of Samples Above MDC: 25% 83% 42% 

 

Plutonium Valley - Control 

BWR #1 0.042 ± 0.055 0.001 ± 0.004 0.002 ± 0.004 

BWR #2 0.037 ± 0.039 0.003 ± 0.005 0.002 ± 0.005 

FWSB #1 0.054 ± 0.048 -0.002 ± 0.003 0.001 ± 0.004 

FWSB #2 0.037 ± 0.052 -0.002 ± 0.002 0.001 ± 0.003 

GRB #1 0.024 ± 0.048 0.000 ± 0.002 0.001 ± 0.003 

GRB #2 0.088 ± 0.068 0.000 ± 0.002 0.005 ± 0.005 

GW #1 0.032 ± 0.033 0.007 ± 0.006 0.001 ± 0.004 

GW #2 0.023 ± 0.029 -0.002 ± 0.002 0.003 ± 0.005 

NJF #1 -0.003 ± 0.050 0.000 ± 0.002 0.007 ± 0.006 

NJF #2 -0.014 ± 0.036 0.001 ± 0.003 0.009 ± 0.008 

PP #1 0.000 ± 0.028 0.003 ± 0.005 0.001 ± 0.004 

PP #2 0.043 ± 0.030 0.002 ± 0.005 -0.001 ± 0.001 

Percent of Samples Above MDC: 0% 8% 17% 

Average MDC: 0.062 0.009 0.011 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the sample specific MDC 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

(b) picocuries per gram dry weight of sample 

7.4.2 Animals 

No man-made radionuclides were detected in the muscle tissue from the pronghorn antelope killed by a vehicle in 

Area 5, south Frenchman Flat. 

All animals sampled from Plutonium Valley had detectable concentrations of 239+240Pu and 241Am (Table 7-4). Of 

these, 239+240Pu was the only man-made radionuclide detected in muscle tissue (of one mourning dove). It is expected 

that most plutonium should be detected in the body fraction as plutonium tends to concentrate in bone tissue or be 

bound with soil in the gut. The other detected man-made radionuclide, 238Pu, was detected only in the body fraction 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

of two jackrabbits and one dove. Barely detectable concentrations of 239+240Pu were found in two cottontail rabbits 

and the two quail sampled from the control site (Table 7-4). 

 Table 7-4. Radionuclide concentrations in animals from Pu Valley and Control Site in 2004 

Radioncuclide Concentrations ± Uncertainty(a) (pCi/g)(b)

Sample 238Pu 239/240Pu 241Am 

Plutonium Valley 

Dove #1 (muscle) 0 ± 0.003 0.003 ± 0.004 0.005 ± 0.008 

Dove #1 (body fraction) 0.001 ± 0.004 0.15 ± 0.024 0.039 ± 0.018 

Dove #2 (muscle) 0.003 ± 0.005 0.012 ± 0.007 0.011 ± 0.01 

Dove #2 (body fraction) 0.038 ± 0.014 2.13 ± 0.168 0.294 ± 0.054 

Jackrabbit #1 (muscle) 0.002 ± 0.005 0.002 ± 0.006 0.005 ± 0.007 

Jackrabbit #1 (body fraction) 0.012 ± 0.009 0.26 ± 0.042 0.059 ± 0.019 

Jackrabbit #2 (muscle) -0.003 ± 0.004 0.005 ± 0.006 0.004 ± 0.006 

Jackrabbit #2 (body fraction) 0.008 ± 0.007 0.471 ± 0.066 0.105 ± 0.026 

Jackrabbit #3 (muscle) -0.001 ± 0.003 0.005 ± 0.005 -0.001 ± 0.006 

Jackrabbit #3 (body fraction) 0.017 ± 0.011 1.06 ± 0.129 0.201 ± 0.043 

Number of Samples above MDC: 30% 60% 50% 

Plutonium Valley - Control 

Desert Cottontail #1 (muscle) 0.003 ± 0.006 -0.001 ± 0.004 0.001 ± 0.006 

Desert Cottontail #1 (body fraction) 0.002 ± 0.005 0.006 ± 0.006 0.006 ± 0.006 

Desert Cottontail #2 (muscle) 0.001 ± 0.006 0.003 ± 0.003 0.004 ± 0.006 

Desert Cottontail #2 (body fraction) -0.002 ± 0.004 0.004 ± 0.005 0.007 ± 0.01 

Desert Cottontail #3 (muscle) 0 ± 0.004 0.004 ± 0.003 0.004 ± 0.006 

Desert Cottontail #3 (body fraction) 0.01 ± 0.008 0.012 ± 0.008 0.002 ± 0.007 

Dove #1 (muscle) -0.002 ± 0.005 0.005 ± 0.006 0.001 ± 0.006 

Dove #1 (body fraction) 0 ± 0.002 0.01 ± 0.008 0.001 ± 0.007 

Quail #1 (muscle) 0.001 ± 0.005 0.01 ± 0.008 0.004 ± 0.007 

Quail #1 (body fraction) -0.001 ± 0.004 0.025 ± 0.011 0.003 ± 0.008 

Quail #2 (muscle) -0.002 ± 0.003 -0.001 ± 0.003 -0.001 ± 0.006 

Quail #2 (body fraction) 0.001 ± 0.005 0.014 ± 0.008 0.009 ± 0.011 

Number of Samples above MDC: 0% 42% 0% 

Pronghorn (muscle) 0.003 ± 0.004 -0.003 ± 0.004 0.005 ± 0.006 

Number of Samples above MDC: 0% 0% 0% 

Average MDC: 0.01 0.009 0.015 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the sample specific MDC 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations (b) picocuries per gram dry weight of sample 

All biota samples collected from E Tunnel Pond 5 had detectable concentrations of tritium (Table 7-5). Observed 

tritium concentrations were consistent with levels measured in birds sampled at the E Tunnel ponds in recent years 

(DOE, 2001b; DOE, 2002d; DOE, 2003c; DOE, 2004d). The composite insect sample also had detectable 

concentrations of 137Cs and 241Am. Of the composite bat samples, one had detectable concentrations of 137Cs and 

241Am and another had a barely detectable concentration of 239+240Pu. Again, concentrations of these radionuclides 

observed in the 2004 bat samples were consistent with concentrations observed in birds sampled at E Tunnel Ponds 

in recent years. There were no man-made radionuclides detected in the composite bat sample collected at the E 

Tunnel Ponds control site (Table 7-5). 
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 7-9 

Table 7-5. Radionuclide concentrations in animals from E Tunnel Pond 5 and E Tunnel Control Site

7.5 Environmental Impact 

As expected, radionuclides were detected in biota sampled in Plutonium Valley and near the E Tunnel Ponds. These 

were locations associated with historic testing of nuclear weapons. While these radionuclides were detected, they pose 

negligible risk to humans. The potential dose to a person hunting and consuming these animals is well below dose 

limits to members of the public (see Section 8.1.4). Also, radionuclide concentrations were below levels considered

harmful to the health of the plants or animals as the dose resulting from observed concentrations were less than 

1 percent of dose limits set to protect populations of plants and animals (see Section 8.2).

Radioncuclide Concentrations ± Uncertainty(a)

Sample 3H

 (pCi/L)(b)

137Cs 

 (pCi/g)(c)

239/240Pu 

(pCi/g) 

241Am 

(pCi/g) 

E Tunnel 

 Bats 1 66471 ± 1857 0.103 ± 0.107 0.004 ± 0.003 0 ± 0.001 

 Bats 2 60312 ± 2002 0.206 ± 0.195 0 ± 0.016 0.003 ± 0.004 

 Bats 3 50631 ± 1609 0.638 ± 0.164 0.007 ± 0.016 0.008 ± 0.006 

 Bats 4 19110 ± 1328 0.081 ± 0.09 -0.01 ± 0.015 0.001 ± 0.004 

 Bats 5 15081 ± 1194 0.088 ± 0.094 0.013 ± 0.018 0.002 ± 0.003 

 Bats 6 43111 ± 1956 0.016 ± 0.324 -0.01 ± 0.021 0.004 ± 0.005 

Percent of Samples Above MDC: 100% 17% 17% 17% 

 

 Inverts 42014 ± 2030 0.31 ± 0.236 0 ± 0.003 0.008 ± 0.006 

Percent of Samples Above MDC: 100% 100% 0% 100% 

 

E Tunnel - Control 

 Control bats 62 ± 897 0.03 ± 0.056 0.002 ± 0.003 0 ± 0.001 

Percent of Samples Above MDC: 0% 0% 0% 0% 

 

Average MDC: 1189 0.139 0.027 0.007 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the sample specific MDC) 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations

(b) picocuries per liter of water distilled from the sample

(c) picocuries per gram dry weight of sample
Radiological Biota Monitoring

7-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 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 in 2004 and radiation surveys in the past that inventoried the radionuclide content of 

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 2004 results for onsite compliance monitoring of 

air, water, and biota, and the offsite monitoring results of air and water conducted under the Community 

Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP). Estimated doses calculated and presented in this chapter must fall 

below the limits established by DOE in order to demonstrate that the general public and the environment are not 

exposed to hazardous levels of radioactivity from the NTS. 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 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 limit of 10 millirems per year (mrem/yr) 

(0.1 millisieverts [Sv]/yr) 

Committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) 

(see Glossary, Appendix D) for an offsite 

maximally exposed individual (MEI) from air 

emissions, in mrem/yr (or 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 

CEDE for an offsite MEI from all pathways, 

in mrem/yr (or mSv/yr) 

Determine if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS biota is less than 

the following limits set by DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE Standard 

DOE-STD-1153-2002: 

 < 1 rad/day for terrestrial plants and aquatic animals 

 < 0.1 rad/day for terrestrial animals 

Absorbed dose to onsite plants and animals, 

in rad/day 

8.1 Radiological Dose to the Public 

Several steps are taken to compute radiological dose to the public from all pathways. Many sources of information 

and mathematical models are used. This section briefly describes these steps, identifies how field monitoring data 

interface with other NTS data sources (e.g., radionuclide inventory data, climatological data) to provide input to the 

mathematical models, identifies the mathematical models, and presents the results of each step. 

8.1.1 Determining Human Exposure Pathways

As prescribed in the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b), BN routinely samples 

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. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

The potential pathways by which a member of the general public can receive a radiation dose resulting from past or 

present NTS operations include: 

x Exposure of the body to direct radiation in the environment resulting from radionuclides being transported off 

the NTS by winds and deposited on the ground offsite 

x Inhalation of airborne radionuclide emissions transported offsite by wind 

x Ingestion of meat from migratory wild game animals which drink from surface waters and eat vegetation 

containing NTS-related radioactivity 

x Ingestion of water from underground aquifers containing radionuclides which have migrated from the sites of 

past underground nuclear tests 

Since the migration of radioactivity in groundwater has not been detected in the past or in 2004 (see Section 4.1), 

exposure through ingestion of water was not considered in the 2004 calculated dose to public. Air and biota 

monitoring results indicated there was a potential for offsite residents to receive a radiation dose from past or current 

activities on the NTS from the first three pathways. 

8.1.2 Identifying Onsite Sources and Radionuclide Air Emission Rates

An atmospheric diffusion model called Clean Air Package 1988, Version 2.0 (CAP88-PC) is used, according to 

40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart H, for calculating the radiation CEDEs received by hypothetical offsite receptors from 

airborne emissions. To use this model, certain factors must be identified and quantified. Two of these factors 

include: (1) location of all potential sources of radioactive air emissions on the NTS, and (2) radionuclides released 

from these locations, in Ci/yr. These sources for calendar year (CY) 2004 were: 

x Release of tritium during the calibration of equipment at Building 650, Area 23 

x The re-suspension of surface soil contaminated by past nuclear testing at NTS 

x The evaporation of tritiated water discharged from post-shot wells and E Tunnel 

x The evaporation and transpiration of tritiated water from soil and vegetation, respectively, at sites of past nuclear 

tests and from the Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs 

Table 8-1 presents those locations which were potential sources of radioactive emissions in 2004. The radionuclide 

emission rates (in Ci/yr) at each site are also presented. Brief descriptions of the methods used for estimating these 

quantities are given in the table footnotes. More detailed descriptions of the methods and emission sources are 

reported in Grossman (2005). Note that 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 (see footnote [d]) 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 by past radiation surveys, 

were not included because combined, they contributed only ten percent or less to the total dose of the MEI. 

8.1.3 Calculating Dose to Humans from NTS Air Emissions

The radiation doses to offsite residents from airborne NTS emissions are estimated with the CAP88-PC software. 

The following variables are entered into the software for each point/grouped source: 

x Distance and appropriate compass sector for each populated location within 80 km (50 mi) of each emission 

source 

x The calculated annual radionuclide emission rates (Table 8-1) 

x The estimated annual emission rates for each of the NTS areas with surface contamination (Areas 1-11, 12, 13, 

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 30) (shown summed for “Grouped NTS Areas” in Table 8-1) 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 8-3 

x Wind data collected in 2004 from meteorological data acquisition stations (see Section 16.0) such as wind 

direction, frequency, and stability classification 

x A rural food source scenario (versus an urban scenario), which conservatively assumes that all food at the 

populated areas around the NTS was either home-produced or obtained from within the 80-km radius 

assessment area. The CAP88-PC software applies factors to estimate the deposition of airborne radionuclides 

onto crops and soil, their uptake into crops, and their transfer to milk and meat. 

Table 8-1. Radiological atmospheric releases from NTS for 2004 used in the CAP88-PC model 

Source Radionuclide Quantity (Ci) 

Area 23 Building 650 3H 0.000042(a)

Area 12 E Tunnel Ponds 3H 12(b)

Well U-3cn PS#2A 3H 0.52(b)

Well U-19ad PS#1A 3H 18(b)

Well ER-20-5 #1 3H 4.5(b)

Well ER-20-5 #3 3H 0.020(b)

Area 3 RWMS 3H 83(c) 

Area 5 RWMS 3H 4.9(c)

Area 10 Sedan 3H 200(c)

Area 20 Schooner 3H 240(c)

All Sources Total 3H 560 

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 tritium concentration in water discharged into containment ponds or open tanks, 

assuming all water was completely evaporated during the year. 

(c) Estimated from calculations with CAP88-PC software and annual mean concentration of tritium 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 (DOE, 1991), a re-suspension model (NRC, 1983), and equation 

parameters derived at the NTS (DOE, 1992). 

The variables referenced above were entered into the CAP88-PC model, and the CEDEs for an individual living 

within each populated area was computed for each emission source location on the NTS. These calculated CEDEs 

were then summed to determine the annual total CEDEs at each offsite population area within 80 km of the emission 

sources. 

Based on these calculations for CY 2004, the location of the MEI (the hypothetical individual receiving the highest 

offsite dose) was Cactus Springs, Nevada, where the CEDE was 0.12 mrem/yr (0.0012 mSv/yr) (Figure 8-1). This 

dose is well below (only 1.2 percent of) the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) 

limit of 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) and is consistent with the estimates computed for past years (1996 to the present) 

(Figure 8-2). 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 8-1. Map of the NTS showing CY 2004 CEDEs within 80 km of emission sources 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 8-5 

Figure 8-2. Radiation dose to MEI offsite who is not consuming game animals from the NTS 

8.1.4 Calculating Dose to Humans from Ingestion of Wild Game from the NTS

Though there are few data suggesting that NTS small game animals travel offsite and become available to hunters, 

they are sampled on the NTS near contaminated areas as a conservative (worst case) estimate of the levels of 

radionuclides that hunters may consume if game animals did leave the NTS and were harvested. Radiation doses 

from the ingestion of game animals presented here are calculated from measurements of the radionuclide 

concentrations in game animals trapped near sites where the soil, vegetation, and/or water sources are known to be 

contaminated with radioactivity from past nuclear tests (see Section 7.0). 

The only man-made radionuclide detected in muscle tissue of game animals sampled during 2004 was 239+240Pu. The 

concentration of 239+240Pu measured in the muscle tissue of one mourning dove sampled at Plutonium Valley and in 

two cottontail rabbits and one quail sampled at the Plutonium Valley control site are shown in Table 8-2. There were 

no man-made radionuclides detected in the muscle tissue of jackrabbits and other doves sampled from Plutonium 

Valley, nor in one mourning dove or other cottontail rabbits and quail sampled at the Plutonium Valley control site 

(see Section 7.0). The following assumptions were made for calculating the dose to an individual eating game animals 

sampled from the NTS during 2004: 

x One individual consumed 20 doves, 20 cottontail rabbits, and 20 quail over the year (these numbers are the 

possession limits set for these species by the Nevada Division of Wildlife)

x Each game animal that an individual consumed contained the average concentration of radionuclides detected in 

muscle tissue for that species sampled 

x The amount of dove meat an individual consumed per animal was the average weight of the dove breast muscle 

samples 

x The amount of rabbit or quail meat consumed was the average weight of muscle on the animals sampled 

x The moisture content of game meat consumed was equivalent to the average moisture content measured in 

muscle tissue samples 

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Calendar Year

CEDE, mrem/yr
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

The CEDE was calculated using dose conversion factors (DOE, 1988) multiplied by the total activity estimated to be 

consumed for each of the detected radionuclides. The resultant potential doses from consuming mourning doves, 

cottontail rabbits, and quail are shown in Table 8-2. 

 Table 8-2. Hypothetical annual dose to a human consuming NTS game animals sampled in 2004 

Animal Sampled 

Average Wet 

Weight of 

Muscle Tissue 

Consumed 

Average % 

by Weight 

of Water 

Average 

239+240Pu in 

Muscle 

(pCi/g dry wt) 

Dose Conversion 

Factor 

(mrem/pCi 

ingested)(a)

CEDE 

(mrem)

Plutonium Valley 

 Mourning dove 501(b) 71 0.007 0.0043 0.005 

Plutonium Valley Control 

 Desert cottontail 2790(c) 72 0.002 0.0043 0.007 

 Gambel’s quail 946(d) 74 0.005 0.0043 0.005 

(a) Dose conversion factors for human ingestion from DOE (1988) 

(b) Assumed breast meat from 20 mourning doves was consumed and each breast weighed 25.1 g 

(c) Assumed all meat from 20 cottontail rabbits was consumed and the meat on each weighed 139.5 g 

(d) Assumed all meat from 20 quail was consumed and the meat on each weighed 47.3 g 

Detected 239+240Pu concentrations were highest in the dove from Plutonium Valley, but the calculated dose to a hunter 

from consuming Plutonium Valley doves was equal to or slightly less than that computed from consuming quail or 

cottontails, respectively, from the control site. This is an artifact of the difference in the amount of muscle tissue on 

doves versus larger quail and cottontails. The amount of muscle tissue from quail and cottontails is approximately 

two to six times greater than from doves. 

The highest CEDE from game animals sampled during 2004 was 0.007 mrem (0.00007 mSv) which is only 

0.007 percent of the annual dose limit for members of the public. To put this potential dose in perspective, the dose 

from naturally-occurring cosmic radiation received during a one hour airplane ride at 39,000 ft is about 0.5 mrem 

(0.005 mSv) or over 70 times higher than the highest dose that would result from consuming game animals sampled 

during 2004. 

Radionuclide concentrations in game animals sampled from Plutonium Valley during 2004 were not as high as in 

those sampled from other contaminated NTS locations in recent years (Table 8-3), and sources of contamination at 

other NTS locations are still present. Therefore, the dose to a maximally exposed individual was calculated by 

assuming one person ate game animals that would yield the highest potential dose, based on animal sampling data 

from 2000 - 2003 (Table 8-4). Although the probability is virtually zero that one person would eat 20 doves and 20 

chukar from the E Tunnel ponds, 20 quail and 20 jackrabbits from the T2 site, and one pronghorn from Area 5; the 

resulting worst-case dose is 0.39 mrem (Table 8-4). This is about 0.4 percent of the annual dose limit for members of 

the public and still less than the dose from cosmic radiation received while on a one hour plane ride at 39,000 ft. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 8-7 

 Table 8-3. Hypothetical annual dose to a human consuming NTS game animals sampled in 2000-2003 

Year Location Species 

Dose 

(mrem CEDE) Data Reference 

2000 E-Tunnel Mourning Doves 0.16 DOE, 2001b 

 

2001 E-Tunnel Chukar 0.07 DOE, 2002d 

2002 E-Tunnel Mourning Doves 0.02 

 T2 Gambel's Quail 0.08 

 T2 Jackrabbit 0.11 

DOE, 2003c 

 

2003 E-Tunnel Mourning Doves 0.02 

Palanquin Mourning Doves 0.01 

Area 5 Pronghorn 0.06 

DOE, 2004d 

 Table 8-4. Hypothetical worst-case dose to the MEI consuming NTS game animals based on all years 

 of sampling 

Species / Location 

CEDE 

(mrem) Assumptions 

Mourning dove/E-Tunnel 0.07 Average dose from eating 20 doves from E Tunnel (2000, 2002, and 2003) 

Chukar/E-Tunnel 0.07 Dose from eating 20 chukar from E Tunnel (2001) 

Gambel's quail/T2 0.08 Dose from eating 20 quail from T2 (2002) 

Jackrabbit/T2 0.11 Dose from eating 20 jackrabbit from T2 (2002) 

Pronghorn antelope/Area 5 0.06 Dose from eating 1 pronghorn from Area 5 (2003) 

 

Total to MEI 0.39 

8.1.5 Estimating Dose to the Public from Release of Property Containing

Residual Radioactive Material 

DOE’s radiation protection framework and dose limits are centered around an “all sources and all pathways” 

philosophy. In addition to radiological air and water discharges to the environment reported in Sections 3.1 and 4.1,

respectively, the release of property off of the NTS which contains residual radioactive material is another type of 

“release” to the environment. It is a potential contributor to the dose received by the public. This section describes 

release criteria, materials released during the reporting year, and the resultant dose to the public as a result of any 

releases. 

No vehicles, equipment, structures, or other materials are released from the NTS unless the amount of radiological 

contamination on such items is less than the authorized limits specified in the NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual 

(Table 8-5) (DOE, 2000b). These limits are taken from DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and the 

Environment. Items proposed for unrestricted release must be surveyed to document compliance with the release 

criteria. The detailed survey requirements are contained in BN’s Organizational Instruction (OI) 0441.212, Controlled 

and Unrestricted Release.
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 8-5 are met. 

BN Radiological Control does not authorize the release of materials off the NTS that have detectable radioactivity 

above background levels, however, even if these levels are less than the criteria levels shown in Table 8-5. During 

2004, no vehicles, equipment, or other materials with detectable residual radioactivity were released. 

Due to the potential for volumetric contamination of building structures that once housed uncontained 

contamination, the surveys for release of structures are not in a procedure. Instead, the criteria for unrestricted release 

of structures with potential or actual residual radioactivity are determined through agreements between the affected 

stakeholders, e.g., DOE and the state of Nevada. There were no releases of such structures in 2004. 

NTS materials released for unrestricted use in 2004 contained no residual radioactivity, therefore, no radiological dose 

to the public from such materials was incurred. 

Table 8-5. Allowable total residual surface contamination

Residual Surface Contamination (dpm/100 cm2)

Radionuclide Removable 

Total 

(Fixed & 

Removable) 

Maximum Allowable 

Fixed & Removable 

Transuranics, 125I, 129I, 226Ra, 227Ac, 228Ra, 228Th, 

230Th, 231Pa 20 100 300 

Th-natural, 90Sr, 126I, 131I, 133I, 223Ra, 224Ra, 232U,

232Th 200 1,000 3,000 

U-natural, 235U, 238U and associated decay 

products, alpha emitters 1,000 5,000 15,000 

Beta-gamma emitters (radionuclides with 

decay modes other than alpha emission or 

spontaneous fission) except 90Sr and others 

noted above 

1,000 5,000 15,000 

Source: DOE, 2000b 

8.1.6 Total Offsite Dose to the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)

As mentioned in Section 8.1.3, the location of the MEI was Cactus Springs, Nevada, where the CEDE was 

0.12 mrem/yr (0.0012 mSv/yr) based on the CAPP88-PC model. This dose of 0.12 mrem/yr is the offsite dose to 

the MEI due to NTS emissions from all pathways except ingestion of NTS game animals. This estimate for CY 2004 

is consistent with those from 1996 to the present (see Figure 8-2). 

If the MEI at Cactus Springs was also a hunter harvesting and ingesting the list of game animals shown in Table 8-4, 

the person would receive an estimated additional 0.39 mrem/yr (0.0039 mSv/yr) dose. Their total CEDE would be 

0.51 mrem/yr (0.0051 mSv/yr). 

The dose of 0.51 mrem/yr is the total offsite dose to the MEI due to NTS emissions given all feasible pathways of 

exposure. It is 0.51 percent of the DOE limit of 100 mrem/yr, and it is 0.15 percent of the total dose the MEI would 

receive from natural background radiation (340 mrem/yr) (Figure 8-3). Natural background radiation consists of 

cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation, radiation from radionuclides (primarily 40K) within the composition of the 

human body, and radiation from the inhalation of naturally-occurring radon and its progeny. 

The cosmic and terrestrial components of background radiation (100 mrem/yr) were estimated from the annual mean 

radiation exposure rate measured with a pressurized ion chamber (PIC) at Indian Springs by the CEMP (see 

Section 6.0, Table 6-4). The radiation exposure in air measured by the PIC in units of mR/yr is approximately 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 8-9 

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 were estimated as 40 mrem/yr 

and 200 mrem/yr, respectively, using the approximations by the National Council on Radiation Protection 

(NCRP, 1996) (Figure 8-3). 

 

Figure 8-3. Comparison of radiation dose to the MEI and the 

 natural radiation background (percent of total) 

8.1.7 Collective Population Dose

Approximately 43,000 persons live within an 80-km radius of the NTS (Hardcastle, 2005). The collective population 

dose (see Glossary, Appendix D) from NTS operations is the sum of the CEDEs to all individuals within the 80-km 

radius of the NTS (see Figure 8-1). The dose calculation does not include those working onsite. It is intended to 

calculate doses to residents at their homes. The 2004 collective population dose attributable to NTS operations to 

persons living within 80 km of the NTS was estimated to be 0.47 person-rem/yr (Table 8-6). This population dose is 

comparable to the population dose of 0.45 person-rem reported for 2003 (DOE, 2004d). 

 Table 8-6. Radiological dose to the general public from 2004 NTS operations 

Pathway 

Dose to Maximally 

Exposed Individual 

(mrem/yr) (mSv/yr) 

Percent of DOE 

100-mrem/yr 

Limit 

Estimated Collective 

Population Dose(a) 

(person-rem/yr) (person-Sv/yr)

Air 0.12 0.0012 0.12 0.47(a) 0.0047 

Water 0 0 0 0 0 

Wildlife 0.39 0.0039 0.39 U(b) U

All Pathways 0.51 0.0051 0.51 0.47(c) 0.0047 

(a) Sum of radiation doses from all emission sources at each populated location within 80 km of emission 

 sources multiplied by the population at each location, and then summed over all locations. 

(b) Unable to make this estimate due to a lack of data on number of game animals harvested near the NTS by hunters in 2004. 

(c) The dose contribution from wildlife is not included. It is likely to be negligible when averaged over the entire population 

within an 80-km radius. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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: 

x 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day) for aquatic animals 

x 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day) for terrestrial plants 

x 0.1 rad/day (1 mGy/day) for terrestrial animals 

The goal for the NTS biota dose assessment component of radiological monitoring is to determine if the established 

dose limits shown above are exceeded at the NTS using the graded approach for dose evaluation described in 

DOE Standard 1153-2002. The standard also provides concentration values for radionuclides in soil, water, and 

sediment that are to be used as a guide for determining if biota are potentially receiving radiation doses that exceed the 

limits. These concentrations are called the Biota Concentration Guide (BCG) values. They are defined as the 

maximum concentration of a radionuclide that would not 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: 

x Identification of terrestrial and aquatic habitats on the NTS that have radionuclides in soil, water, or sediment 

x Identification of terrestrial and aquatic biota on the NTS that occur in contaminated habitats and which are at 

risk of exposure 

x 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 

x 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 2003 NTSER 

(DOE, 2004d). This section summarizes the results of the 2003 assessment that remain valid and presents new data 

related to contaminated habitats (tritiated water sumps from UGTA wells drilled in 2004) and to site-specific biota 

monitoring conducted in 2004. 

8.2.1 Summary of 2003 Dose Assessment

Surface areas on the NTS contaminated with radionuclides were identified by the Radionuclide Inventory and 

Distribution Program (RIDP) conducted from 1981 through 1986. These areas were used as dose evaluation areas 

(DEAs) for assessing potential dose to biota (Figure 8-4). RESRAD-BIOTA software (DOE, 2004e) was used to 

compare concentrations of radionulcides in the environment (soil, water, and sediment) to BCG values. The first 

evaluation step was to conduct a Level 1 screen which compared the maximum concentrations of radionuclides in 

surface soils with BCG values. The second step was to conduct a Level 2 screen which compared the average

concentrations of radionuclides in surface soils with BCG values. Both steps demonstrated that the potential 

radiological dose to biota within the DEAs from sources present in 2003 was not likely to exceed dose limits 

(Figure 8-5). Seven DEAs passed the Level 1 screen, and all DEAs except Sedan passed the Level 2 screen 

(Figure 8-5). Vegetation samples collected near Sedan in 2000 (DOE, 2001), however, had radionuclide 

concentrations that would result in doses much lower than the dose limits. The Level 1 and 2 screens conducted in 

2003 were based on data of known surface soil contamination from historical nuclear weapons testing on the NTS. 

No data exist to suggest that NTS surface contamination conditions have changed, therefore, the biota dose 

evaluation conclusion remains the same for 2004. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 8-11 

Figure 8-4. Terrestrial and aquatic dose evaluation areas for assessing potential dose to biota 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 8-5. Results of Level 1 and Level 2 Screens for dose evaluation areas on the NTS 
Radiological Dose Assessment

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 8-13 

8.2.2 New Radionuclide Sources Accessible to Biota in 2004

There were four new temporary water sources created in late 2004 which contained radioactivity. These were lined 

sumps that received water pumped from four UGTA wells near underground nuclear weapons test locations. These 

were wells ER-20-5 #1, ER-20-5 #3, U-3cn PS #2A, and U-19ad PS #1A (see Section 4.1.10). Because these water 

sources dry up in a matter of months, they are not considered aquatic nor riparian habitat (there is no vegetation 

growing on the shores of these plastic-lined ponds). They are, however, water sources for terrestrial animals living in 

the area. Available radionuclide concentrations in these water sources were compared with BCGs. In all instances, 

radionuclide concentrations were well below the BCG values, suggesting that the dose limit for terrestrial biota that 

may drink from these sumps are not being exceeded (Table 8-7). 

Table 8-7. Biota dose assessment to terrestrial biota for temporary water sources created on the NTS in 2004 

 Sample Concentration Ratio of Maximum Sample 

Concentration to BCG(a) 

Sump Water 

Source 

3H

(x 105 pCi/L) 

137Cs 

(x 105 pCi/L) 3H 137Cs Sum of 

Fractions(b)

ER-20-5 #1 380 NA(c) 0.165 - 0.165 

ER-20-5 #3 1.13 NA 0.000489 - 0.000489 

U-3cn PS #2A 79.0 NA 0.0342 - 0.0342 

U-19ad PS #1A 220 0.530 0.0952 0.0885 0.184 

Source of sample concentrations: Eaton, 2005 (personal communication) 

(a) Biota Concentration Guide (BCG) for 3H in water for terrestrial biota is 2.31 x 108 pCi/L, and the BCG for 137Cs in water for 

terrestrial biota is 5.99 x 105pCi/L. 

(b) Per the graded approach (DOE, 2002a), biota dose limits are not exceeded if the sum of fractions of the maximum 

radionuclide concentrations divided by the radionuclide’s BCG value is less than 1.0. 

(c) Data not available. 

8.2.3 2004 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 from DEAs. This section presents estimates of site-specific doses to biota in two DEAs from which plants and 

animals were sampled in 2004. 

Animal samples were collected from two contaminated sites: the Plutonium Valley site in the Plutonium Valley DEA 

and the E Tunnel Ponds inside the E Tunnel Ponds DEA (Figure 8-4). Plant samples were collected from the 

Plutonium Valley site, but not the E Tunnel Ponds site. Sampling methods and radionuclide concentrations in these 

2004 samples are presented in Section 7.0.

Internal and external dose coefficient factors, discussed in the graded approach methodology (Section 2, Module 3 of 

DOE, 2002a), were used with the measured concentrations found in the biota samples (see Section 7.0) to obtain dose 

rate estimates for both plants and animals. The external dose rate was estimated by summing the product of average 

concentrations in soil and the external dose coefficients for each detected radionuclide. The internal dose rates for 

biota were estimated by summing the product of average concentrations of radionuclides detected in the biota 

samples and the internal dose factors. The external dose rate estimate was then added to the internal estimate to 

obtain a total dose rate estimate for plants and animals. 

Average doses were estimated to be 0.0009 rad/day for animals (0.0007 rad/day for jackrabbits and 0.001 rad/day for 

doves) and 0.0004 rad/day for plants in Plutonium Valley (Table 8-8). Internal dose was higher than external dose; 

about 87 percent and 70 percent of the estimated dose to animals and plants, respectively, came from internally 
Radiological Dose Assessment

8-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

deposited radionuclides. The estimated dose rates are  1.0 percent and 0.04 percent of the dose limits, respectively, 

for terrestrial animals and plants. For bats residing at the E Tunnel Ponds, average doses were estimated to be 

5 x 10-4 rad/day which is 0.5 percent of the dose limit to terrestrial animals. 

Table 8-8. Site-specific dose assessment results for terrestrial plants and animals sampled 

on the NTS 

Estimated Radiological Dose (rad/day) 

DEA Animals Plants 

 

Plutonium Valley Plutonium Valley jackrabbits (a) 0.0007 Plutonium Valley vegetation (b) 0.0004 

Plutonium Valley Plutonium Valley doves (a) 0.001 

E Tunnel Ponds E Tunnel pond bats 0.0005 (not sampled in 2004) - 

 

DOE Dose Limit 0.1 1.0 

(a) See Table 6-3 of this report 

(b) See Table 6-1 of this report 

8.2.4 Environmental Impact

Based on the graded approach for assessing potential dose to biota, plants and animals on the NTS are not expected 

to be exposed to significantly large radiological doses that may be detrimental to their populations. Work will 

continue to refine this dose assessment, especially in the area of defining DEAs. Boundaries of plant and animal 

populations intersecting contaminated areas will be evaluated in an attempt to ensure that potential populations within 

currently defined DEAs are not missed. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 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 2004 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 shall 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: 

x Characterization of LLW and MW that has been generated by the DOE within the state of Nevada 

x Disposal of LLW and MW at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) comprised of the 

Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) and the Area 5 RWMS 

x Characterization, visual examination, and repackaging of TRU waste at the Waste Examination Facility (WEF) at 

the RWMC 

x Loading of TRU waste at the Mobile Loading Unit (MLU) for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP) at Carlsbad, New Mexico 

Waste Management and 

Environmental Restoration Goals Compliance Measures/Actions 

Completion/maintenance of documents required for a 

Class II Nuclear Facility 

Establishment of Waste Acceptance Criteria for radioactive 

wastes received for disposal/storage 

Manage and safely dispose of the following wastes 

generated by NNSA/NSO and Department of Defense 

(DoD) operations: 

 Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) 

 Mixed low-level radioactive waste (MW) 

 Hazardous waste Volume of disposed LLW 

Volume of stored non-radioactive hazardous waste 

Volume of disposed MW 

Continue to characterize, inspect, repackage, load, and 

ship transuranic (TRU) wastes stored on an interim 

basis at the NTS to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in 

Carlsbad, New Mexico Weight of approved explosive ordnance wastes detonated 

Characterize and remediate historic sites contaminated Vadose zone monitoring 

by NNSA/NSO testing activities Groundwater monitoring 

Site characterization, remediation, closure, and postManage and safely dispose of solid/sanitary wastes closure site monitoring 

generated by NNSA/NSO Weight and volume of solid waste disposed 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 2004, all of these key documents were maintained. No key documents required revision in 2004. 

Table 9-1. Key documents required for Area 3 RWMS and Area 5 RWMS operations 

Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) 

 Disposal Authorization Statement for Area 5 RWMS, December 2000 

 Disposal Authorization Statement for Area 3 RWMS, October 1999 

Performance Assessment (PA) 

 Performance Assessment for Area 5 RWMS, Revision 2.1, January 1998 

 Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for Area 3 RWMS, Revision 2.1, October 2000 

Composite Analysis (CA) 

 Composite Analysis for Area 5 RWMS, February 2000 

 Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for Area 3 RWMS, Revision 2.1, October 2000 

NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria (NTSWAC) 

 NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria, Revision 5, October 2003. 

 

This document was revised in October to incorporate the transition of the RWMC from a Radiological 

Facility to a Category II Nuclear Facility 

Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan (ICMP) 

 Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan for the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs, September 2001 

Auditable Safety Analysis (ASA) 

 Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for the NTS Area 5 RWMC, Revision 0, October 2002 

 DSA for the NTS Area 3 RWMS, Revision 0, April 2003 

 

The above two DSA documents were prepared to replace the ASA for the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs, August 

2000 as a consequence of the transition to a Category II Nuclear Facility. 

 Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) for the Area 5 RWMC LLW Activities, Revision 2, April 2003 

 TSR for the Area 5 RWMC TRU Waste Activities, Revision 2, April 2003 

 TSR for the Area 3 RWMS, Revision 0, April 2003 

 The above three TSR documents were prepared to implement the new DSAs. 

9.1.2 Characterization of LLW and MW 

Waste Generator Services (WGS) characterizes LLW and MW generated by the DOE within Nevada, primarily at the 

NTS. Characterization is performed utilizing either knowledge of the generating process or sampling and analysis. 

Following the characterization of a waste stream, a Waste Profile is completed for approval by an appropriate disposal 

facility. The Waste Profile delineates the pedigree of the waste, including but not limited to a description of the waste 

generating process, physical and chemical characteristics, radioactive isotopes and their quantities, and detailed 

packaging information. WGS then packs and ships approved waste streams in accordance with Department of 

Transportation requirements to either the Area 3 or Area 5 RWMS or to an offsite treatment, storage, and disposal 

facility. In 2004, LLW and MW were characterized by WGS for the following waste stream categories: 

x Lead Soil 

x Lead Solids 

x Compactable Trash 

x Downdraft Table 

x Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Liquids 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 9-3 

9.1.3 Disposal of LLW and MW 

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: 

x Dispose of LLW from NNSA/NSO activities performed on and off the NTS and from other offsite generators 

in the state of Nevada. 

x Dispose of DOE LLW from around the DOE complex, primarily from the cleanup of sites associated with the 

manufacture of weapons components. 

x Dispose of MW from onsite NNSA/NSO activities. 

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 for disposal by 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 (including air and groundwater) 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 MW generated within the state of Nevada for disposal or indefinite storage. 

Disposal consists of placing waste in sealed containers in unlined cells and trenches. Soil backfill is applied over the 

waste in a single lift, which is approximately 2.4 m (8 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 MW, and approximately 202 ha (500 ac) of land available for future radioactive disposal cells. Waste 

disposal at the Area 5 RWMS has occurred in a 37 ha (92 ac) portion of the site since the early 1960s. The Area 5 

RWMS consists of 29 Disposal Cells (pits and trenches) and 13 Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) boreholes 

(listed below). This site is used for disposal of waste in drums or boxes. Existing cells are expected to be filled and 

closed by 2010, and new cells extending to the north and west are expected to close by 2021. LLW and MW 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. 

 29 Disposal Cells at Area 5 RWMS: 13 GCD Boreholes at Area 5 RWMS:

4 active which receive standard LLW 4 inactive (open but have not received any waste) 

1 active and permitted to receive asbestos-form LLW (P06U) 4 closed containing TRU waste 

1 active and permitted by the State to receive MW (P03U) 5 closed containing LLW 

4 inactive (open but have not received any waste) 

19 closed (containing waste and backfilled) containing LLW 

The Area 3 RWMS consists of seven craters making up five disposal cells. Each subsidence crater was created by an 

underground weapons test. This site is used for disposal of bulk LLW waste, such as soils or debris, and waste in 

large cargo containers. Disposal operations at the Area 3 RWMS began in the late 1960s. Waste disposal services at 

Area 3 RWMS will continue as long as the DOE requires such services. The site consists of the following seven 

craters: 

 3 Active Disposal Cells: 2 Closed Cells: 2 Undeveloped Cells:

 U3ah/at U3ax/bl U3az 

 U3bh U3bg 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

In 2004, the Area 5 RWMS received shipments containing 45,863 m3 (59,986 yd3) of LLW for disposal. The 

Area 3 RWMS received shipments containing 57,010 m3 (74,566 yd3) of LLW. The majority of disposed LLW was 

shipped from offsite. A total of only 330 m3 (432 yd3) of LLW disposed in 2004 were generated onsite. 

In 2004, the Area 5 RWMS received and disposed of 789.5 tons (net weight), of asbestos-form LLW at P06U. No 

MW was disposed at the Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U). 

9.1.4 TRU Waste Operations 

The 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 in the 1970s. The TPCB accepts no other wastes. The TPCB stores TRU waste until it is 

characterized, visually examined, and repackaged at the WEF at the Area 5 RWMC. Once repackaged, the TRU waste 

is loaded at the MLU for shipment to the WIPP at Carlsbad, New Mexico. Current agreements between 

NNSA/NSO and WIPP plan for TRU waste shipments to be completed by March 2005. In 2004, TRU wastes stored 

at the TPCB continued to be characterized, visually inspected, repackaged, loaded, and shipped for disposal to the 

WIPP site. 

9.1.5 Assessments 

Assessments are conducted at the RWMC in accordance with Bechtel Nevada (BN) Procedure OP-NOPS.003 Nuclear 

Operations Conduct of Operations. Schedules for BN management self-assessments (MSAs) are included in the Support 

Execution Plans for each facility. In addition to the MSAs performed internally at the RWMC, assessments are 

performed periodically by other BN organizations, NNSA/NSO, and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The results of each assessment are logged for DOE/NSO in the BN tracking system known as CaWeb. In 2004, 

MSAs were conducted monthly at the RWMC. 

9.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring for LLW Pit P03U 

P03U is operated according to RCRA Interim Status standards for the disposal of mixed LLW. Title 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) 265 (Groundwater Monitoring) Subpart F (40 CFR 265.92) requires groundwater 

monitoring to verify the performance of P03U to protect groundwater from buried radioactive wastes. Wells 

UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3 are monitored for this purpose; these wells comprise 3 of the 14 onsite 

monitoring wells sampled periodically for radionuclide analyses of groundwater (see Section 4.1.7). Investigation 

levels (ILs) for five indicators of groundwater contamination (Table 9-2) were established by NNSA/NSO and the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) for these three wells in 1998. Further groundwater analyses 

will be required if a parameter’s IL is exceeded. In 2004, none of the water samples collected semi-annually from the 

wells had contaminant levels above their ILs (Table 9-2). General water chemistry parameters are also monitored; all 

sample analysis results are presented in BN, 2005a. 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 2004 

Parameter Investigation Level (IL) Sample Levels 

pH < 7.6 or > 9.2 S.U. 8.24 – 8.50 S.U. 

Specific conductance (SC) 0.440 mmhos/cm 0.352 – 0.378 mmhos/cm 

Total organic carbon (TOC) 1 mg/L <0.5 – 0.90 

Total organic halides (TOX) 50 ΐg/L < 5.2 ΐg/L

Tritium (3H) 2,000 pCi/L -13 – 37 pCi/L 

Source: BN, 2005a 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 9-5 

9.1.7 Vadose Zone Monitoring 

Monitoring of the vadose zone (unsaturated zone above the water table) is conducted at the RWMC in addition to 

groundwater monitoring 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 2004 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 2004 are presented below. For more details on the program refer to the Nevada 

Test Site 2004 Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites (BN, 2005b). 

9.1.7.1 Area 3 RWMS Drainage Lysimeter Facility 

In December 2000, a Drainage Lysimeter Facility was constructed approximately 15 m (50 ft) northwest of the closed 

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 and packed with the same native soil used to cap 

the closed disposal unit. The rate and quantity of gravity-driven drainage from each lysimeter is measured by funneling 

the drainage through tipping bucket rain gauges. Each lysimeter is instrumented with an array of eight Time Domain 

Reflectometry (TDR) sensors to measure soil water content and eight heat dissipation probe (HDP) sensors to 

measure soil water potential and temperature. 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 applied to each of the three surface vegetation 

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. 

Vegetation effectively removes moisture from the lysimeters, preventing deep percolation of infiltrated precipitation. 

The bare soil lysimeters have more water and wetting fronts go deeper. Drainage is observed in all lysimeters with 

irrigation, but the vegetated lysimeters have much less drainage than the bare soil lysimeters.

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 mm (0.004 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 the bare 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. 

The weighing lysimeter data represent a simplified water balance: the change in soil water storage is equal to 

precipitation minus evaporation (E) on bare lysimeters, or precipitation minus evapotranspiration (ET) on vegetated 

lysimeters. The water balance is simplified because no drainage can occur through the solid bottoms of the lysimeters 

and because a 2.5 cm (1 in) lip around the edge of the lysimeters prevents run-on and run-off. The vegetated 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

lysimeter is considerably drier than the bare-soil lysimeter, despite the small number of plants on the vegetated 

lysimeter (about 15 percent plant cover). Soil water storage decreases rapidly in the vegetated lysimeter following 

high-rainfall periods. Increases in soil water storage observed early in the data record in the vegetated lysimeter were a 

result of irrigation conducted to ensure that transplanted vegetation survived. Although no water has accumulated at 

the bottom of the lysimeters, long-term (30-year) numerical simulations using a unit gradient bottom boundary 

indicate that 1.1 cm/year reaches the bottom of the bare lysimeter and <0.1 cm/year reaches the bottom of the 

vegetated lysimeter. 

9.1.7.3 Area 5 RWMS Automated Monitoring 

Automated monitoring systems are installed in the operational covers on Pit 3 (P03U), Pit 4 (P04U), Pit 5 (P05U), the 

floor of Pit 5 underneath the waste, and the closure cover on U-3x/bl. These monitoring systems measure moisture 

content depth profiles with TDR probes. The system at P05U also has heat dissipation probes to measure water 

potential depth profiles. The measurements in the covers show that precipitation infiltrates into the covers but does 

not percolate down to the bottom of the covers. The moisture is removed from the covers by evapotranspiration. 

No water from precipitation is percolating to the waste zone and no wetting fronts percolated below 1.5 m (4.9 ft) in 

the operational covers. The measurements in the floor of Pit 5 do not show any evidence of water movement. 

9.1.7.4 RWMS Supplemental Automated Monitoring 

Additional automated data-acquisition stations are maintained to provide ancillary data in support of the more direct 

monitoring of RWMS disposal units and the lysimeters in Areas 3 and 5. These stations include meteorological 

towers that continuously measure precipitation, air temperature, humidity, wind speed, wind direction, barometric 

pressure, and solar radiation. Data are also obtained from a flume north of the Area 3 RWMS and one northwest of 

the Area 5 RWMS for assessing, in part, the potential for surface water runoff near the RWMSs. An automated 

system has also been deployed within a subsidence crater in Area 3 (U3-bw) to study the potential for infiltration into 

the underlying chimney. 

9.2 Hazardous Waste Management 

Hazardous wastes (HW) (see Glossary, Appendix D) regulated under RCRA are generated at the NTS from a broad 

range of activities including onsite laboratories, paint shops, vehicle maintenance, communications and photo 

operations, and environmental restoration of historic contaminated sites (see Section 9.3). HW exclude radioactive 

wastes by definition; a waste which is both hazardous and radioactive is termed a Mixed Waste. All HW are presently 

transported to approved offsite RCRA HW treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Nevada has issued a RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Operating Permit to NNSA/NSO for operation of the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) in 

Area 5. The permit allows NNSA/NSO to store HW in containers on a pad designed for the safe storage of wastes 

that have been generated at the NTS. The HWSU is a pre-fabricated, rigid steel framed, roofed shelter which is 

permitted to store a maximum of 61,600 liters (16,280 gallons) of approved waste at a time. HW generated at BN 

restoration sites off the NTS (e.g., at TTR) or generated at the NLVF are direct-shipped to approved disposal 

facilities. 

The RCRA Hazardous Waste Operating Permit also covers operations at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit in 

Area 11. Conventional explosive wastes are generated at the NTS from tunnel operations, the NTS firing range, the 

resident national laboratories, and other activities. The permit allows NNSA/NSO to treat explosive ordnance 

wastes, which are hazardous wastes as defined under 40 CFR (Sections 261.21, 261.23, 261.24, and 261.33), by open 

detonation in a specially constructed and managed area designed for the safe and effective treatment of explosive HW. 

The permit allows a maximum of 45.4 kg (100 lbs) of approved waste to be detonated at a time, not to exceed one 

detonation event per hour. 

The RCRA Hazardous Waste Operating Permit also covers the disposal of mixed wastes generated from NTS 

activities (such as environmental remediation) at P03U located at the Area 5 RWMS. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 9-7 

The amounts of waste managed at each of these three permitted units are tracked and reported to the state in 

quarterly reports. NNSA/NSO pays fees to the state based on the number of tons of waste managed. 

In 2004, a total of 23.549 metric tons (mtons) (25.958 tons) of non-radioactive HW was managed on the NTS, which 

includes 19.187 mtons (21.150 tons) managed at the NTS HWSU. Most of this waste came from routine activities, 

such as facility housekeeping, demolitions, and renovations. A small volume of HW (4.362 mtons [4.808 tons]) 

consisted of bulk shipments (i.e., roll-off boxes) direct-shipped from their points of generation. The HWSU manages 

only packaged (non-bulk) HW. The volumes managed at the HWSU in 2004 included 2.868 mtons (3.161 tons) of 

light ballasts and oil, both containing PCBs. Table 9-3 shows the mtons/tons of non-radioactive HW that came to 

the HWSU, were temporarily stored there, and then shipped offsite in 2004. The table also shows the quantities of 

waste disposed of at the two permitted disposal units in 2004. The volume of waste managed at each unit per quarter 

was reported to the state of Nevada. No HW storage or disposal limits were exceeded in 2004. 

Table 9-3. Hazardous waste stored or disposed at the NTS in 2004 

Permitted Unit Waste Managed 

Hazardous Waste Storage Unit 19.187 mtons (21.151 tons)(a) 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 2.2 kg (4.85 lbs) 

Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) 0 m3

 (a) The permitted storage limit for HW at the HWSU is 61,600 liters (16,280 gallons), however, 

 the reporting units are tons (short tons), on which quarterly fees to the State are based.

9.3 Underground Storage Tank (UST) Management 

By 1998, the NTS UST program met all regulatory compliance schedules for the reporting, upgrading, or removal of 

documented USTs. The NNSA/NSO operates one deferred UST and three excluded USTs at the Device Assembly 

Facility. The NNSA/NSO also maintains a fully-regulated UST at the Area 6 helicopter pad which is not in service. 

9.4 Environmental Restoration - Remediation of Historic 

Contaminated Sites 

In April 1996, the DOE, DoD, and the state of Nevada entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent 

Order (FFACO) to address the environmental restoration of historic contaminated sites at the NTS, parts of TTR, 

parts of the Nellis Air Force Range (now known as the Nevada Test and Training Range [NTTR]), 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 nuclearrelated operations were conducted. Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture conducts site characterization activities, while BN 

Environmental Restoration conducts site remediation. 

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: 

x Industrial Sites – CASs located on the NTS and TTR where activities were conducted that supported nuclear 

testing activities 

x Underground Test Area (UGTA) Sites – CASs located where underground nuclear test have resulted or might 

result in local or regional impacts to groundwater resources 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

x Soil Sites – CASs where tests have resulted in extensive surface and/or shallow subsurface contamination 

x Nevada Off-Sites – Additional CASs associated with underground nuclear testing at the Project Shoal Area and 

the Central Nevada Test Area, located in northern and central Nevada respectively 

Identifying CASs – The first step in the strategy is to identify CASs potentially requiring CAIs and/or corrective 

actions. As CASs are identified, a literature search may be completed and each CAS is verified on aerial photographs 

or in the field to confirm its condition and location. A data repository has been created containing or referencing all 

information currently available for each CAS. 

Grouping CASs into CAUs – A CAU may have several CASs or only one. In addition to the four categories 

noted above, criteria for grouping CASs into CAUs include the following: 

x Potential source of contamination 

x Agency responsible for cleanup of the CAS 

x Function of the CAS and the nature of the contamination 

x Geographic proximity of CASs to one another 

x Potential for investigation or cleanup of grouped CASs to be accomplished within a similar time frame 

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, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, NDEP, and 

contractors. The DQO process is a strategic planning approach based on the scientific method used to plan data 

collection activities to ensure that the data collected will provide sufficient and reliable information to identify, 

evaluate, and technically defend the recommended corrective actions. If existing information about the nature and 

extent of contamination at the CASs in question 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 carried out 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 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 remediation, a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is prepared that provides the necessary design and other 

information on the method of remediation. A CAP includes the proposed methods to be used to close a site, quality 

control measures, waste management strategy, design drawings (when appropriate), verification sampling strategies 

(for clean closures), and other information necessary to perform the closure. Some sites also require a Post Closure 

Plan as the site or parts of the site are closed in place. Information on inspections and monitoring are provided in an 

Annual Post Closure Monitoring Report. 

Once the closure has been completed, a Closure Report is prepared. This report provides information on the work 

performed, results of verification sampling, as-built drawings, waste management, etc. Some sites are closed under the 

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) process identified in the FFACO. These sites 

typically have suitable information available and can be remediated under a shorter schedule. For such sites, a SAFER 

plan is prepared providing the methods to be used to close the site. After closure, a SAFER closure report is 

prepared that documents the work performed. 

The NDEP is a participant throughout the remediation process. The Community Advisory Board is also kept 

informed by NNSA/NSO of the progress made. The Board’s comments are strongly considered before final 

prioritization of corrective actions. In addition, a public participation working group made up of representatives from 

DOE, DoD, the state of Nevada, and the Community Advisory Board meets twice each year to discuss upcoming 

environmental restoration activities and the level of public involvement required. These meetings focus on the 

quarterly progress reports and priority-setting activities established under the FFACO. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 9-9 

Table 9-4 lists all CAUs for which some step of the site remediation process was completed in calendar year 2004. All 

2004 milestones were met. A total of 56 CASs were closed, either under the SAFER process or the standard closure 

process. For DOE UGTA CAUs, 2004 milestones included well development and testing of new wells, model 

calibration and development, data documentation and evaluations, and completion of draft and final reports. 

9.4.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections 

There are nine sites on the NTS for which remediation was indicated or completed under RCRA regulations prior to 

enactment of the FFACO. Eight have been closed and are referred to as historic RCRA closure units. For the ninth 

site, the Area 5 Retired Mixed Waste Pits and Trenches, the NDEP has determined that NNSO/NSA shall close the 

site (in the future) subject to the conditions of 40 CFR 265.310. Three of the eight RCRA closure units require no 

further post-closure monitoring (Area 23 Building 650 Leachfield, Area 6 Steam Cleaning Effluent Ponds, and Area 2 

U-2bu Subsidence Crater). Two of the eight closed units require periodic site inspections only (Area 2 Bitcutter 

Containment and Area 6 Decon Pond), and three require post-closure inspections as well as VZM. These three sites 

and the methods of VZM required by state permit are: 

CAU 91, Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well – Neutron logging of the ER-3-3 Borehole is conducted and analyzed 

quarterly. Annual reports of Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections include monthly precipitation data and are 

issued to the NDEP by the last day of February each reporting year. VZM is conducted to detect statistically 

significant changes in raw neutron counts exceeding an action level of 200 counts in the residual raw neutron count. 

Data analysis is based on the calculated residual raw neutron counts obtained by subtracting the first year’s average 

raw neutron count from the quarterly raw neutron count on a depth basis within the regulated interval of 73.1 meters 

(240 feet) to 82.3 meters (270 feet) below ground surface. The average raw neutron count used is the average of nine 

baseline values obtained during logging runs conducted July 1995 to July 1996. 

CAU 110, U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater – Post-closure inspections are done quarterly and consist of visual 

observations to check that the cover is intact. The U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater cover is designed to limit infiltration 

into the disposal unit and is monitored using TDR soil water content sensors buried at various depths within the 

waste cover to provide water content profile data. The soil water content profile data are used to demonstrate 

whether the cover is performing as expected. Annual reports of post-closure monitoring include monthly 

precipitation data for the reporting period and are submitted to NDEP by the last day of August. 

CAU 112, Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches – Soil moisture monitoring data are collected and analyzed 

semiannually (January and July); site inspections are conducted quarterly. Soil moisture data are obtained from 30 

neutron access tubes specified in the permit. Annual reports of post-closure monitoring include monthly 

precipitation data for the reporting period and are submitted to NDEP by the last day of January. 

All required VZM and inspections of closed sites were conducted in 2004 as specified by RCRA permit or by each 

site’s closure report. VZM results for the RCRA closure sites CAU 91, CAU 110, and CAU 112 indicated that surface 

water is not migrating into buried wastes. VZM reports were submitted to the state prior to their due dates. 

The sites at which physical inspections were conducted in 2004 are: 

CAU 90 Area 2 Bitcutter Containment 

CAU 91 Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well 

CAU 92 Area 6 Decon Pond Facility 

CAU 110 Area 3 U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater 

CAU 112 Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches 

CAU 143 Area 25 Contaminated Waste Dumps 

CAU 254 Area 25 R-MAD Decontamination Facility 

CAU 261 Area 25 Test Cell A Leachfield System 

CAU 262 Area 25 Septic Systems and UDP 

CAU 333 U-3auS Disposal Site 

CAU 335 Area 6 Injection Well and Drain Pit 

CAU 339 Area 12 Fleet Operations Steam Cleaning Effluent 
9-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 Table 9-4. Environmental restoration activities conducted in 2004 CAU CAU Description Number of CASs Milestone D

D

 DP Industrial Sites 355 Area 2 Cellars/Mud Pits 15 Closure Report 8/3

358 Areas 18, 19, 20 Cellars/Mud Pits 17 Closure Report 9/3396 Area 20 Spill Sites 4 Closure Report 11/536 Area 3 Release Site 1 CADD 12/3

DTRA/DOE - Industrial Sites 383 Area 12 E Tunnel Sites 3 CAIP 1/3

DOE Industrial Sites 5 Landfills 8 CAP 11/

115 Area 25 Test Cell A Facility 4 SAFER Plan 9/3127 Areas 25 and 26 Storage Tanks 12 CAP 11/140 Waste Dumps, Burn Pits, and Storage Area 9 CAP 11/145 Wells and Storage Holes 6 CAIP 10/1165 Area 25 and 26 Dry Well and Washdown Areas 8 CAP 7/3167 Contaminated Materials and Trash Pits 2 Closure Report 5/3168 Area 25 and 26 Contaminated Materials and Waste Dumps 12 CAP 5/3204 Storage Bunkers 6 CAP 11/

CADD 4/3

210 Storage Areas and Contaminated Material 2 Closure Report 9/3214 Bunkers and Storage Areas 9 CADD 8/3224 Decon Pad and Septic Systems 9 CAIP 5/3271 Areas 25, 26, and 27 Septic Systems 15 Closure Report 8/3300 Surface Release Areas 7 CAIP 9/3484 Surface Debris, Waste Sites, and Burn Area (TTR) 6 SAFER Plan 9/3496 Buried Rocket Site - Antelope Lake (TTR) 1 SAFER Plan 7/3516 Septic Systems and Discharge Points 6 CADD 8/3527 Horn Silver Mine 1 CADD 9/3528 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Contamination 1 CADD 8/529 Area 25 Contaminated Materials 1 Closure Report 9/1

CADD 9/1
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 9-11 Table 9-4. (continued) CAU CAU Description Number of CASs Milestone 

DOE Industrial Sites, cont. 543 Liquid Disposal Units 7 CAIP 6

551 Area 12 Muckpiles 4 CAIP 6/552 Area 12 Muckpile and Ponds 1 CAIP 4/

 DOE UGTA Sites 97 Yucca Flat/Climax Mine 720 Submit draft Contaminant Boundary Phase I Modeling Approach/Strategy 4/

Complete well development and testing of new wells 9/

98 Frenchman Flat 10 Complete Transport Parameter Phase II Analysis and Evaluation 9

Submit Draft Hydrology Phase II Report 9/

99 Rainier/Shoshone 66 CAIP 12/

101 Central Pahute Mesa 64 Complete the calibration of the Flow Model 7/

Submit Final Source Term Report 8/

102 Western Pahute Mesa 18 Complete the calibration of the Flow Model 7/

Submit Final Source Term Report 8/
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

CAU 342 Mercury Fire Training Pit 

CAU 400 Bomblet Pit and Five Points Landfill (TTR) 

CAU 404 Roller Coaster Lagoons and Trench (TTR) 

CAU 407 Roller Coaster RadSafe Area (TTR) 

CAU 417 Central Nevada Test Area -Surface 

CAU 423 Area 3 Underground Discharge Point, Building 0360 (TTR) 

CAU 424 Area 3 Landfill Complexes (TTR) 

CAU 426 Cactus Spring Waste Trenches (TTR) 

CAU 427 Area 3 Septic Waste Systems 2, 6 (TTR) 

CAU 453 Area 9 UXO Landfill (TTR) 

CAU 487 Thunderwell Site (TTR) 

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 (see Table 2-12 for 

list of permits). No liquids, hazardous waste, or radioactive waste are accepted in these landfills. They include: 

x Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site – accepts hydrocarbon-contaminated wastes, such as soil and absorbents. 

x Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site – designated for industrial waste such as construction and demolition 

debris. 

x 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, as specified in the landfill permits. In 

July 2004, the State granted a reduction in the frequency of VZM at these landfills. Monitoring will now take place 

annually instead of semiannually. VZM of the Area 6 and Area 9 landfills in 2004 indicated that there was no soil 

moisture migration and therefore no waste leachate migration to the water table. 

Water from Well SM-23-1 was last sampled in 2002 for the purpose of monitoring the Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal 

Site. In 2004, a No-Migration Petition, based on EPA530-R-99-008 Preparing No-Migration Demonstrations for Municipal 

Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: A Screening Tool, was prepared and submitted to the NDEP. In June 2004, the NDEP 

granted a groundwater monitoring exclusion for the Area 23 landfill. Well SM-23-1 was sampled in 2004, however, to 

satisfy permit requirements for the Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoons (see Section 9.5.2). 

The amount of waste disposed of in each solid waste landfill in 2004 is shown in Table 9-5. An average of 4 tons/day 

was disposed at the Area 23 landfill, well within permit limits. State inspections of the three permitted landfills were 

conducted in March 2004. No out-of-compliance issues were noted. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 9-13

 Table 9-5. Quantity of solid wastes disposed in NTS landfills in CY 2004 

Metric Tons (Tons) of Waste 

Area 6 Hydrocarbon 

Disposal Site 

Area 9 U10c Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

Area 23 Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

1,012 (1,166) 6,638 (7,319) 927 (1,022) 

9.5.2 Sewage Lagoons 

The NTS also has three state-permitted sewage lagoons that are operated by BN Waste Management, as are the solid 

waste landfills. They are the Area 6 Yucca Lake, Area 12 Camp, 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 monitoring of their water and sediments are presented in 

Section 4.2.3. A groundwater monitoring well in Area 23 (SM-23-1) is monitored once a year under Nevada permit 

requirements for the Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoons. The purpose of monitoring is to demonstrate that waste from 

this system is not reaching the groundwater. Monitoring results for Well SM-23-1 are presented in Table 4-13 of 

Section 4.2.3.3. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

9-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 Hazardous Materials Control and Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 10-1 

10.0 Hazardous Materials Control and Management 

Hazardous materials used or stored on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) are controlled and managed through the use of a 

Hazardous Substance Inventory database. Bechtel Nevada (BN) and all other U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) subcontractors who use or store hazardous 

materials utilize this database and are required to comply with the operational and reporting requirements of the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); and the Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Act (see Section 2.5). 

Chemicals to be purchased are subject to a requisition compliance review process. BN’s Environmental Services 

personnel review each chemical purchase to ensure that restricted chemicals are not purchased when less hazardous 

chemical substitutes are commercially available. Requirements and responsibilities for the use and management of 

hazardous/toxic chemicals are provided in company documents and are 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. The TSCA program consists mainly of properly characterizing, storing, and 

disposing of various PCB wastes generated through remediation activities and maintenance of fluorescent lights. The 

remediation waste is generated by BN and Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture at Corrective Action Sites during 

environmental restoration activities (see Section 9.4) and during maintenance activities and building decontamination 

and decommissioning activities performed by BN. These activities can generate PCB contaminated fluids and bulk 

product waste containing PCBs. 

Waste classified as bulk product waste (BPW) generated on the NTS can be disposed of onsite in the U10c landfill 

with prior state approval. PCB-containing light ballasts removed during normal maintenance can also go to an onsite 

landfill, but when remediation or upgrade activities generate several ballasts, these must be disposed of offsite at an 

approved PCB disposal facility. Soil and other materials contaminated with PCBs must also be sent offsite for 

disposal. 

Hazardous Materials Control 

and Management Goals Compliance Activities/Reports 

Use of Hazardous Substance Inventory database

Annual TSCA report 

FIFRA management assessments

Minimize the adverse effects of improper 

use, storage, or management of 

hazardous/toxic chemicals 

Annual EPCRA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Report, 

Form R 

Annual Nevada Combined Agency (NCA) Report 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)-

Chemical Accident Prevention Program (CAPP) Annual 

Registration Form 

Ensure compliance with applicable state 

and federal environmental regulations 

related to hazardous materials 

Use of electronic hazardous material tracking database 

called HAZTRAK 
Hazardous Materials Control and Management

10-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

About 22.9 m3 (30 yd3) of BPW containing less than 50 ppm PCB were disposed of onsite in the U10c landfill in 

2004. During 2004, one drum of diesel fuel containing PCB, and two drums of PCB light ballasts were shipped 

offsite for disposal. Offsite disposal was required because the drums contained more than 50 ppm of PCB. 

When PCB equipment or PCB fluids are managed during a calendar year, NNSA/NSO has been submitting an annual 

report to the EPA by July 1 of the following year. On March 22, 2004, an Annual Report was prepared which 

reported the quantity of articles and containers containing PCBs that were generated during a site remediation project 

and were disposed of offsite during 2003. 

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 March 22, 2005, an Annual Report was generated for 

calendar year 2004, but was not sent to outside regulators. 

There were no TSCA inspections by outside regulators performed at the NTS in 2004. 

10.2 FIFRA Program 

BN Environmental Services performs the following oversight functions to ensure FIFRA compliance: (1) screens all 

purchase requisitions for restricted-use pesticides, (2) reviews operating procedures for handling, storing and applying 

pesticide products, and (3) conducts 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 is provided by BN 

Solid Waste Operations (SWO). BN SWO maintains appropriate Commercial Category (Industrial) certifications for 

applying restricted-use pesticides. Pesticide applications in food service facilities are subcontracted to state-certified 

vendors. 

BN SWO did not purchase any restricted-use pesticides during 2004. The SWO procedure for pesticide application 

was updated in 2003, and training was provided to affected personnel during 2003 and 2004. Certifications were kept 

current in 2004 for Industrial Category application(s) of restricted use pesticides. Facility inspections were conducted 

and indicated that there were no restricted use pesticides being used or stored in violation of federal/state 

requirements. There were no FIFRA inspections by an outside regulator during 2004. 

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 NPTEC, the NLVF (see Section B.1.4), and the RSL (see Section B.3.3). This information is then used to 

complete the Nevada Combined Agency (NCA) Report. This report provides information to the state, 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 on site. The State Fire Marshall then issues permits to 

store hazardous chemicals on the NTS, as well as at the RSL and the NLVF. 

In 2004, the chemical inventory at NTS facilities was updated and submitted to the state in the NCA Report on 

February 25, 2005. No accidental or unplanned release of an extremely hazardous substance (EHS) occurred on the 

NTS in 2004. 

The hazardous substance inventory database is also used to complete the Toxic Release Inventory (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 2004 to EPA on 

June 22, 2005. Lead was the only listed toxic chemical released into the NTS environment in 2004 that was 
 Hazardous Materials Control and Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 10-3 

reportable. Total air emissions of lead from the NTS was 10.4 pounds (lbs), and 5,868.7 lbs of lead ammunition were 

released at the Mercury firing range. Lead which either is 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 

107,512 lbs of lead was sent offsite for recycling in 2004. 

There were no EPCRA inspections by outside regulators performed at the NTS in 2004. 

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. During 2004, no NTS facility stored EHSs in quantities which required state 

notification. Therefore, no Nevada Chemical Accident Prevention Program Report was prepared regarding calendar 

year 2004 NTS operations. 
Hazardous Materials Control and Management

10-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 11-1 

11.0 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

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

Pollution Prevention (P2) and Waste Minimization (WM) initiatives. These initiatives establish a process to reduce the 

volume and toxicity of waste generated by the NNSA/NSO on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and its satellite facilities. 

They also ensure that proposed methods of treatment, storage, and disposal of waste minimize potential threats to 

human health and the environment. These initiatives also address the requirements of several federal and state 

regulations applicable to operations on the NTS (see Section 2.7). The following information provides an overview of 

the P2/WM goals, major accomplishments during the reporting year, a comparison of the current year’s waste 

generation to prior years, a description of efforts undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of 

waste generated by the NNSA/NSO, and a description of the Secretary of Energy’s P2 Goals and NNSA/NSO’s 

status towards reaching those goals. 

11.1 P2 and 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. 

Source Reduction – 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. NNSA/NSO’s Integrated Safety 

Management System requires that every project address waste minimization issues during the planning phase and 

ensure that adequate funds are allocated to perform any identified waste minimization activities. 

To minimize the generation of waste, project managers are required to incorporate waste minimization into the 

planning phase of their projects. Waste generating processes must be assessed to determine if the waste can be 

economically reduced or eliminated. Waste minimization activities that are determined to be cost effective should be 

incorporated into the project plan and adequate funding allocated to ensure their implementation. 

Recycling – For wastes that are generated, an aggressive recycling program is maintained. Items recycled through the 

NNSA/NSO recycling program include paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, toner cartridges, inkjet cartridges, tires, 

used oil, food waste from the cafeteria, plastic, scrap metal, rechargeable batteries, lead-acid batteries, alkaline 

batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, mercury lamps, metal hydride lamps, sodium lamps, and electronic media (diskettes, 

audio and video tapes, backup tapes, reel-to-reel tapes, etc.). 

An effective method for reuse is the coordination of the Material Exchange Program. Created in 1998, the Material 

Exchange Program diverts supplies, chemicals, and equipment from landfills. Unwanted chemicals, supplies, and 

equipment are made available through electronic mail or postings on the intranet Material Exchange Database so that 

individuals in need can obtain the items at no cost. These materials are destined for disposal, either as solid or 

hazardous waste, as a result of process modification, discontinued use, or shelf life expiration. Rather than disposing 

of these items, the majority of them are provided to other employees for their intended purpose, thus avoiding 

disposal costs and costs for new purchases. If items are not placed with another user, they can be returned to the 

vendor for recycle/reuse, or given to other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sites, other government agencies, or 

local schools. 

As required by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Section 42 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 (EO) 13101 Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, 

Recycling and Federal Acquisition went one step further and 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 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

11-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

items NNSA/NSO currently purchases from the EPA-designated list, about 68 percent of those purchases contain 

recycled materials. 

Assessments – Pollution Prevention Assessments are conducted twice a year. These assessments look at facilities or 

processes throughout the complex and focus on what waste streams are generated, what waste minimization activities 

are practiced, if there is room for improvement, and if these activities are tracked and reported in order to document 

that a waste minimization program is in place and operating as required. The assessments also look for new P2 

opportunities. 

Employee and Public Awareness – The NNSA/NSO P2 and WM initiatives also include an employee and public 

awareness program. Awareness of P2/WM issues is accomplished by dissemination of articles through both 

electronic mail and the NNSA/NSO site newsletters, the maintenance of a P2/WM intranet website, employee 

training courses, and participation at employee and community events. These activities are intended to increase 

awareness of P2/WM and environmental issues and point out the importance of P2/WM for improving 

environmental conditions in the workplace and community. 

11.2 Major P2/WM Accomplishments in 2004 

x Decommissioned buildings destined for disassembly and disposal were donated or sold to other agencies/schools 

that disassemble and remove the buildings from the NTS for reuse at new offsite locations. This waste 

minimization effort diverted approximately 27.9 mtons (30.8 tons) of waste from the NTS landfills. 

x The Material Exchange Program reused 1.97 mtons (2.17 tons) of solid waste in 2004. 

x The Bechtel Nevada Payroll Department converted to a paperless, electronic time keeping system. This new 

process eliminated the need for paper timecards which reduced the amount of paper waste by approximately 

2.0 mtons (2.2 tons). 

11.3 Waste Generation in 2004 Compared To Prior Years 

For the purpose of comparison, the waste generation activities are presented in two source categories: routine waste 

and cleanup waste. Routine waste is operational waste generated from routine activities, both ongoing and new. 

Cleanup waste is waste generated from clean-up activities including investigation, site characterization, remediation 

from Environmental Restoration (ER) projects, and Deactivation and Disposal (D&D) projects. 

Table 11-1 compares radioactive waste generated on site in 2004 with prior years. NNSA/NSO does not routinely 

generate radioactive waste, except for occasional events. With the addition of the Joint Actinide Shock Physics 

Experimental Research (JASPER) Project, routine radioactive waste will be generated in the future. Clean-up 

radioactive waste has decreased recently as the accelerated clean-up schedule for ER and D&D projects begins to 

wind down. 

Table 11-1. Volume of radioactive waste generated by year 

 Radioactive Waste Generated (m3)(a)

Calendar Year Routine Clean-up Total 

2004 0 334.7 334.7 

2003 0.23 647.2 647.4 

2002 0 1,270.3 1,270.3 

2001 0 354.4 354.1 

2000 0.46 67.1 67.6 

(a) m3 = Cubic meters; 1 m3 = 1.3 cubic yards (yd3)
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 11-3 

Routine hazardous waste has fluctuated slightly up and down over the past five years (Table 11-2). Clean-up 

hazardous waste decreased in 2004 as the accelerated clean-up schedule for ER and D&D projects begins to wind 

down. 

Table 11-2. Mass of hazardous waste generated by year 

 Hazardous Waste Generated (mtons)(a)

Calendar Year Routine Clean-up Total 

2004 18.4 36.0 54.4 

2003 10.4 518.9 529.3 

2002 7.0 127.5 134.5 

2001 10.2 1.6 11.8 

2000 24.5 22.5 47.0 

(a) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 

Routine solid waste has shown a slight decrease over the year (Table 11-3), mainly due to no new major projects 

coming online during the year. Solid clean-up wastes have decreased as the accelerated clean-up schedule for ER and 

D&D projects begins to wind down. 

Table 11-3. Mass of solid waste generated by year 

 Solid Waste Generated (mtons)(a)

Calendar Year Routine Clean-up Total 

2004 4,092 6,346 10,438 

2003 4,502 16,975 21,477 

2002 3,305 14,006 17,311 

2001 1,622 8,145 9,767 

2000 4,401 4,381 8,782 

(a) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 

11.4 Waste Reductions in 2004 Compared To Prior Years 

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 on site. Table 11-4 compares the 

amounts of radioactive, hazardous, and solid wastes reduced in 2004 to prior years. 

Table 11-4. Volume of waste reduced through P2/WM activities by year 

Calendar 

Year 

Radioactive Waste

Reduced (m3)(a) 

Hazardous Waste 

Reduced (mtons)(b)

Solid Waste Reduced 

(mtons)

2004 0 114.8 1,437.5 

2003 40.0 207.3 1,547.2 

2002 63.2 177.2 904.2 

2001 79.6 123.5 799.0 

(a) 1 m3 = 1.3 yd3 (b) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

11-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

Table 11-5 shows a summary of the estimated volume reductions of radioactive, hazardous, and solid waste 

accomplished during 2004, through implementation of P2/WM activities. An estimated 127 ton (115 mton) 

reduction of hazardous waste including RCRA, Toxic Substance Control Act, and state-regulated hazardous waste; 

and a 1,585 ton (1,438 mton) reduction of solid waste (sanitary waste) occurred in 2004. 

Table 11-5. Volume of waste reduced through recycling and reuse activities in 2004 

 Activity 

Volume 

Reduction 

(mtons)(a)

Hazardous Waste

 Bulk used oil was sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 80.7 

 Lead scrap metal was sold for reuse/recycling 23.0 

 Lead acid batteries were shipped to an offsite vendor for recycling 4.4 

Spent fluorescent light bulbs, mercury lamps, metal hydride lamps, and sodium lamps 

were sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 3.3 

 Used antifreeze was recycled onsite and reused 3.0 

 Lead tire weights were reused instead of being disposed as hazardous waste 0.2 

 Rechargeable batteries were sent to an offsite vendor for recycling 0.2 

Total 114.8 

Solid Waste

 Scrap ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycling 751.2 

 Mixed paper and cardboard was sent offsite for recycling 518.7 

 Scrap non-ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycling 37.2 

Food waste from the cafeterias was sent offsite to be reused as pig feed for a local pig 

farmer 51.6 

Shipping materials including pallets, styrofoam, bubble wrap, and shipping containers 

were reused 22.9 

 Tires were sent to a vendor for recycling 18.4 

Decommissioned buildings destined for disassembly and disposal were donated or sold 

to other agencies/schools that disassemble and remove the buildings from the site for 

reuse 

27.9 

Non-hazardous chemicals, equipment, and supplies were relocated to new users through 

the Material Exchange program, diverting them from landfill disposal 2.0 

 Spent toner cartridges were sent offsite for recycling 4.9 

 Aluminum cans were sent offsite for recycling 0.6 

 Electronic media were sent offsite for recycling 2.0 

 Number 1 plastic was sent offsite for recycling 0.1 

Total 1,437.5 

(a) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 

11.5 Secretary of Energy’s P2/WM Leadership Goals 

On November 12, 1999, the Secretary of Energy set numerous pollution prevention and energy efficiency goals that 

each DOE Site is required to meet. The following are the P2/WM goals: 

x Reduce waste from routine operations by 2005, using a 1993 baseline, for the following waste types: 

– Hazardous by 90 percent 

– Low Level Radioactive by 80 percent 

– Low Level Mixed Radioactive by 80 percent 

– Transuranic (TRU) by 80 percent 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 11-5 

x Reduce solid waste from routine operations by 75 percent by 2005 and 80 percent by 2010, using a 1993 baseline 

x Reduce releases of toxic chemicals subject to Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) reporting by 90 percent by 

2005, using a 1993 baseline 

x Reduce waste resulting from cleanup, stabilization, and decommissioning activities by 10 percent on an annual 

basis 

x Recycle 45 percent of solid waste from all operations by 2005 and 50 percent by 2010 

x Increase purchases of EPA-designated items with recycled content to 100 percent, except when not available 

competitively at a reasonable price or if items do not meet performance standards 

NNSA/NSO generated 20.3 tons (18.4 mtons) of hazardous waste in 2004 as part of routine operations. Using the 

1993 baseline of 4,105 tons (3,724 mtons), NNSA/NSO reduced hazardous waste by 99.5 percent. Therefore, 

NNSA/NSO has already met the 2005 goal of 90 percent. 

The 1993 baselines for low level radioactive, low level mixed radioactive, and TRU waste were all 0 m3. However, the 

JASPER project will generate routine TRU waste in the future. As long as this project generates routine radioactive 

waste, NNSA/NSO will not be able to meet the goal for this waste type. 

The routine solid waste generated by the NNSA/NSO in 2004 was 4,511 tons (4,092 mtons). Using the 1993 baseline 

of 15,140 tons (13,735 mtons), NNSA/NSO reduced solid waste by 70 percent during 2004. The 2005 goal is 

75 percent. 

In 1993, NNSA/NSO released 0 pounds of chemicals subject to TRI reporting into the environment. Effective 

January 1, 2001, the EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead. With this lower threshold limit, NNSA/NSO had 

releases of lead generated from lead bullets at the Wackenhut Services, Inc. (WSI) firing range that now have to be 

reported. NNSA/NSO will not be able to meet the TRI release goal as long as the WSI firing range continues to use 

lead bullets. A total of 5,868.7 lbs of lead ammunition was released at the Mercury firing range. Also, total air 

emissions of lead from the NTS was 10.4 pounds (lbs). 

The NNSA/NSO generated 8,330 tons (7,556 mtons) of radioactive, hazardous, and solid waste from cleanup 

operations at the NTS. Additionally, 925 tons (839 mtons) were recycled, amounting to 11 percent reduction in 

cleanup waste. The goal for recycling all cleanup waste is 10 percent annually. 

In 2004, the solid waste generated by all operations (routine and cleanup activities) was 13,092 tons (11,875 mtons). 

NNSA/NSO recycled 1,586 tons (1,438 mtons) of solid waste, or about 12 percent of the solid waste generated. The 

2005 goal is 45 percent. Almost 6,996 tons (6,346 mtons) of solid waste were generated due to the accelerated 

cleanup schedule at the NTS, increasing the waste generation totals and lowering the percentage of solid waste 

recycled. 

EO13101 requires that 100 percent of purchases of items found on the EPA-designated list be purchased containing 

recycled materials. In 2004, 68 percent of NNSA/NSO’s purchases of EPA-designated items contained recycled 

materials. 

The tabulated summary of NTS progress towards meeting these leadership goals, as discussed above, are presented in 

Chapter 2.0, Compliance Summary (Table 2-7b). 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

11-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 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 is multi-faceted and contains 

the following major components: (1) surveys, inventories, and historical evaluations; (2) curation of archaeological 

collections; and (3) the American Indian Program. The guidance for the CRM 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 2004 accomplishments are provided in this chapter. 

The methods used to conduct surveys, inventories, and historical evaluations in support of NTS operations were 

summarized in last year’s NTS environmental report (DOE, 2004). The reader is directed to Appendix A, Section A.5

for a summary of the known human occupation and use of the NTS from the Paleo-Indian Period, about 12,000 years 

ago, until the mining and ranching period of the twentieth century, just before NTS lands were withdrawn for federal 

use. 

12.1 Cultural Resources Surveys, Inventories, Historical Evaluations, 

and Associated Activities 

Cultural resources surveys are conducted at the NTS to meet the requirements of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) and the ARPA. The surveys are completed prior to proposed projects that may disturb or otherwise 

alter the environment. The following information is maintained in databases: 

Cultural Resources Management Program Goals 

Ensure compliance with all regulations pertaining to cultural resources on the NTS (see Section 2.8)

Inventory and manage cultural resources on the NTS 

Provide information that can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed projects and programs to 

cultural resources on the NTS and mitigate adverse effects 

Curate archaeological collections in accordance with 36 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 2004

x Number of cultural resources surveys conducted 

x Location of each survey 

x Number of acres surveyed at each project location 

x Types of cultural resources identified at each project location 

x Number of cultural resources determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

x Eligible properties avoided by project activities 

x Cultural resources requiring mitigation to address an adverse effect 

x Final report on results 

12.1.1 Cultural Resources Surveys 

In 2004, five surveys were conducted for proposed projects: the Yucca Lake Aerial Operations Facility Project, the 

Underground Test Area Well Pad ER-12-3 area, the Underground Test Area Well Pad ER-12-4 area, the 

Underground Test Area Well Pad ER-12-4 relocation, and the Area 6 Borrow Pit Expansion Project. Eight prehistoric 

sites were identified within the project areas. During earlier surveys, six of these sites had been determined eligible to 

the NRHP. In the course of these projects, the site forms for the six sites were updated with current information. All 

six sites were re-evaluated, with four of the sites now considered not eligible. In addition, a historic wooden structure 

was identified within the project area for the Yucca Lake Aerial Operations Facility, but no reliable information was 

found regarding its origin. As a result, the structure is being treated as eligible until information becomes available 

regarding its purpose and age. When this information is acquired, the wooden structure can be evaluated for eligibility 

to the NRHP. 

12.1.2 Cultural Resources Inventories 

There were three cultural resources inventories conducted in 2004. The archaeological survey and inventory of the 

prehistoric and historic remains at Tippipah Spring were completed during the summer. This research identified 

prehistoric use areas and documented the extent of the early 20th century historic occupation. Analysis of the field 

data is in progress. An inventory was conducted of sets of historic wooden benches at the primary atmospheric test 

viewing locations in Frenchman Flat and Yucca Flat. Six sets of benches were identified and each set was mapped 

and photographed. The area surrounding BREN Tower in Area 25 was surveyed with equipment and all associated 

remains inventoried. BREN stands for Bare Reactor Experiment Nevada, an early 1960s project to develop a way to 

accurately estimate the radiation doses received by survivors of the World War II atomic bombings of Hiroshima and 

Nagasaki through the use of a small, unshielded reactor on BREN Tower. Near the base of the original tower 

location in Area 4, an analog Japanese village was built with various types of Japanese structures. Inside the 

structures, instruments were placed to measure the dosage from the reactor. In 1966, the tower was moved to its 

current location in Area 25 where it was used for Operation HENRE (High Energy Neutron Reactions Experiment), 

a series of radiation measurement experiments using a small linear accelerator. BREN Tower has been determined 

eligible to the NRHP; the current effort is intended to document the associated equipment and land use areas for 

Project HENRE. 

12.1.3 Evaluations of Historic Structures

Three historic evaluations were conducted in 2004. The structures evaluated were the Super Kukla Control Building 

in Area 27, Station 7-800 (Bunker 7-800) in Area 7, and the Japanese House near BREN Tower in Area 25. The 

Super Kukla Building once housed a prompt burst nuclear reactor to irradiate and measure a wide variety of 

specimens and samples used in the nuclear weapons testing program from 1964 to 1979. Station 7-800, currently 

known as Bunker 7-800, was constructed in 1956 as the main winch and guy cable winch shelter for Station B-7b. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 12-3

Station B-7b was ground zero for five balloon shots conducted under the Plumbbob program and eight balloon shots 

conducted under Operation Hardtack II. The Japanese House was part of the BREN project in Area 4. When 

BREN Tower was moved to Area 25, this Japanese House also was moved and is the most complete structure from 

the Japanese Village that survives today. 

As summarized in Table 12-1, a total of 220 hectares (538 acres) were examined during cultural resources surveys, 

inventories, and historical evaluations. Nine prehistoric and historic archaeological sites were studied with four 

eligible to the NRHP with one determination pending. Eleven nuclear testing related structures were documented 

with three eligible to the NRHP and eight determinations pending. 

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

in 2004 

Area Surveyed 

Survey/Inventory/Historic 

Evaluation 

Prehistoric/Historic 

Sites Found 

Structures 

Evaluated 

Sites 

Determined 

NRHP 

Eligible Acres Hectares 

Yucca Lake Aerial Operations 

Facility 0 1 P(a) 151 61.1 

ER-12-3 Well Pad 2 0 0 9.7 3.9 

ER-12-4 Well Pad 6 0 4 15.7 6.35 

ER-12-4 Well Pad Relocation 0 0 0 4.69 1.90 

Area 6 Borrow Pit Expansion 0 0 0 88.74 35.91 

Bench Inventory 0 6 P 1.32 0.53 

Station 7-800 0 1 1 0.02 0.008 

Super Kukla Control Building 0 1 1 0.06 0.02 

Bren Tower 0 1 1 224 90.6 

Japanese House 0 1 P 2.0 0.81 

Tippipah Spring 1 0 P 50 20.2 

Total 9 11 7 537.53 220.14 

(a) P = determination is pending 

12.1.4 Associated Cultural Resources Activities

12.1.4.1 Adverse Effect Assessments and Mitigation Activities 

There were no determinations of adverse effect to cultural resources in 2004. No mitigation activities were 

undertaken or were in progress. 

12.1.4.2 General Reconnaissance 

General reconnaissance and other activities, without systematic field recording, were also conducted in 2004. There 

were two field visits. One was to look at the Neptune Ant Mound project area in Area 3 and the other was to a road 

location in Area 30. Another field activity involved photographing the relocation of an Army Tank from Frenchman 

Flat to Area 1. This tank was not used in the atmospheric testing program. Only one project required a background 

search but no survey. This was a 6,000 ft (1,829 m) diameter circle centered on the DAF, an area proposed for 

vegetation removal and leveling. Background research indicated that the area had been previously surveyed in 1984 

and there were no significant sites or structures. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

12-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

12.1.4.3 Reports 

Four survey reports, two historical evaluations, and one letter report were completed and are listed in Table 12-2. Site 

location information is protected from public distribution and those reports containing such data are not available to 

the public. Technical reports can be obtained from the DOE’s Office of Scientific and Technical Information at 

email address <http://www.osti.gov/bridge>.

The data on NTS archaeological activities also were provided to DOE Headquarters in the formal Archeology 

Questionnaire for transmittal to the Secretary of the Interior and, ultimately, to the U.S. Congress as part of the 

federal agency archaeology report. 

Table 12-2. Short reports, historical evaluations, technical reports, and letter reports 

prepared in 2004 

Project Report No. Author(s) 

 

Yucca Lake Aerial Operations Facility SR071304-1 Holz, B.A. 2004 

Well Pad ER-12-3 SR080204-1 Jones, R.C. 2004b 

Well Pad ER-12-4 and Access Road SR080304-1 Jones, R.C. 2004c 

Well Pad ER-12-4 Relocation SR091504-1 Jones, R.C. 2004d 

 

Neptune Ant Mound LR112304-1 Jones, R.C. 2004e 

Historical Evaluation Station 7-800 HE042004-1 Jones, R.C. 2004a 

Historical Evaluation Super Kukla Building 5430 HE042104-3 Drollinger, H. 2004a 

 

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: 

x Maintain a catalog of the items in the NTS collection 

x Package the NTS collection in materials that meet archival standards (e.g., acid-free boxes) 

x Store the NTS collection and records in a facility that is secure and has environmental controls 

x Establish and follow curation procedures for the NTS collection and facility 

x Comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

In the 1990s, the NNSA/NSO completed the required inventory and summary of NTS cultural materials accessioned 

into the NTS Archaeological Collection and distributed the inventory list and summary to the tribes affiliated with the 

NTS and adjacent lands. Consultations followed, and all artifacts the tribes requested were repatriated to them. This 

process was completed in 2002; it will be repeated for any new additions to the NTS collection in the future. The 

known locations of American Indian human remains at the NTS continued to be protected from NTS activities in 

2004. 

The NTS Archaeological Collection contains over 400,000 artifacts and is curated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. 

For the past decade these materials and the associated records were housed in a remote facility. In 2003, the artifacts 

were moved into a newly constructed building on the DRI campus that provides additional security and 

environmental controls for the collection. Archaeologists, American Indians, NNSA/NSO personnel, and facilities 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 12-5

staff worked on the move from the remote facility to the new building. The boxes of artifacts were logged in and out 

of the facilities, and the move was accomplished without incident. Following the relocation of the artifacts, a draft of 

new curation procedures was completed and distributed for review. 

In 2004, the curation procedures were revised. The new procedures provide guidelines to follow in order to comply 

with 36 CFR Part 79 (Drollinger, 2004b). The reorganization of the records associated with the collection was 

initiated; this effort will be on-going for at least one more year. In anticipation of the YMP land withdrawal, the 

artifacts and records associated with several sites formerly under the jurisdiction of YMP were transferred into the 

NTS collection. Also, 16 historic ranching and mining artifacts were placed on loan to the Atomic Testing Museum 

for display in the museum.

12.3 American Indian Program 

The NNSA/NSO has had an active American Indian Program since the late 1980s. The function of the program is to 

conduct consultations between NNSA/NSO and NTS-affiliated American Indian tribes. Such consultation occurs 

through the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO). The CGTO is comprised of 16 groups of 

Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone, along with the Las Vegas Indian Center, a 

Pan-Indian organization (see Table 12-3). A history of this program is contained in American Indians and the Nevada 

Test Site, A Model of Research and Consultation (Stoffle et al., 2001). The goals of the program are to: 

x Provide a forum of the CGTO to express and discuss issues of importance 

x Provide the CGTO with opportunities to actively participate in decisions that involve places and locations that 

hold significance for them 

x Involve the CGTO in the curation and display of American Indian artifacts 

x 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 September 2004 an American Indian Field Study was conducted at a canyon within the area of Wunjiakuda, an 

important traditional property on the NTS. Wunjiakuda is documented in an early 20th century ethnographic study as 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

12-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

the location of the annual regional fall festival for the Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute. This gathering 

occurred at the time when the pine nuts were ready to harvest and provided the opportunity for ceremonial activities, 

festivities, and regular interaction between the various Indian groups. A small number of people lived at the location 

year round. The 2004 field study focused on a small canyon and the surrounding terrain, a location identified in 1997 

as having special significance to the Indian people. There were two three-day field sessions and interviews were 

conducted with 14 tribal elders and cultural specialists at various places within and near the canyon regarding their 

knowledge and stories about the area. 

In 2003, the CGTO established an Atomic Testing Museum (ATM) subgroup to work with the museum on the 

content of a planned exhibit for the NTS American Indian history, culture, and views regarding the NTS landscape. 

The subgroup had two meetings in 2003. In 2004, there was one meeting between the subgroup and the museum 

director, facilitated by NNSA/NSO, during which the concept for the exhibit was finalized. Following the meeting, 

late 19th and early 20th century photographs of Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute were identified for possible 

inclusion in the exhibit. Also, efforts were made to locate recently made American Indian items that could represent 

traditional life ways, with some identified for purchase. The exhibit was planned for completion in 2005. 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 13-1

13.0 Ecological Monitoring 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 450.1 Environmental Protection Program requires ecological monitoring and 

biological compliance support for activities and programs conducted at the DOE facilities. The Bechtel Nevada (BN) 

Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program (EMAC) provides this support for the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The 

major sub-programs and tasks within EMAC include: (1) the Desert Tortoise Compliance Program, (2) biological 

surveys at proposed construction sites, (3) ecosystem mapping and data management, (4) monitoring of sensitive 

species and habitats, (5) the Habitat Restoration Program, and (6) biological impact monitoring at the 

Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex (NPTEC). A brief description of these program components and 

their 2004 accomplishments are provided in this chapter. More detailed information may be found in published fiscal 

year EMAC reports which are distributed to several state and federal natural resource agencies (e.g., BN, 2005c). 

These 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 NNSA/NSO completed 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning the effects of U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration (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 within EMAC was developed to implement the terms and conditions of 

the Opinion, to document compliance actions taken by NNSA/NSO, and to assist NNSA/NSO in FWS 

consultations. The compliance measures which are monitored include: 

x Number of tortoises accidentally injured or killed due to NTS activities 

x Number of tortoises captured and displaced from project sites 

x Number of tortoises injured or killed on NTS paved roads 

x Number of total acres of desert tortoise habitat disturbed by NTS construction 

x Adherence to 23 operational terms and conditions of the Opinion 

Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Goals 

Ensure compliance with all state and federal regulations and stakeholder commitments pertaining 

to NTS flora, fauna, wetlands, and sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats (see Section 2.9)

Delineate NTS ecosystems 

Provide ecological information that can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed 

projects and programs on NTS ecosystems 
13-2

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 Figure 13-1. Desert tortoise distribution and abundance on the NTS 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 13-3

In 2004, biologists conducted desert tortoise clearance surveys at 40 sites for 20 proposed projects. Flagged tortoise 

burrows were avoided during surface-disturbing activities. On-site construction monitoring was conducted by a 

designated EM at all sites, where required. 

A total of 9.02 hectares (22.30 acres) of tortoise habitat were disturbed in 2004. No desert tortoises were accidentally 

injured or killed, nor were any captured or displaced from project sites. A cumulative total of 97.13 hectares 

(240.01 acres) of tortoise habitat on the NTS has been disturbed since the desert tortoise was listed as threatened in 

1992. A mitigation fee for the loss of 101 hectares (250 acres) of habitat was prepaid in 1992 into the Desert Tortoise 

Habitat Conservation Fund Number 236-8290. During 2004, none of the threshold levels established by the FWS in 

the Opinion for compliance measures were exceeded (Table 13-1). In January 2005, NNSA/NSO submitted a report 

to the FWS Southern Nevada Field Office that summarized tortoise compliance activities conducted on the NTS 

from January 1 through December 31, 2004. 

Table 13-1. Compliance limits and status for NTS operations in tortoise habitat 

Monitored Parameter Threshold 

Value 

CY 2004 Value of 

Monitored Parameter

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 3 

Number of total hectares (acres) of desert tortoise habitat disturbed during 

NTS project construction since 1992 

1,220 (3,015) 97.13 (240.01) 

In October 2004, a tortoise habitat revegetation plan for the NTS was approved by the FWS. Revegetation is an 

approved mitigation for the loss of tortoise habitat on the NTS in lieu of paying for acreage disturbed. Since 1992, 

NNSA/NSO has been using the balance of $81,000 that NNSA/NSO pre-paid for the future disturbance of 101 

hectares (250 acres) of tortoise habitat on the NTS. This fund is almost depleted. In the future, BN biologists will 

now have the option to revegetate disturbed tortoise habitat whenever it is feasible. 

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, on 

important biological resources (i.e., nest sites, active burrows), and on wetlands. Biological surveys comply with the 

terms and conditions of the 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 final Record of 

Decision. 

Species considered important include those protected or managed under state or federal regulations and species 

considered “sensitive.” Sensitive species include those whose long-term viability has been identified as a concern by 

natural resource experts. The important species known to occur on the NTS include 19 plants (all sensitive) and 42 

animals (Tables 13-2 and 13-3). All NTS sensitive species are evaluated for their inclusion in long-term monitoring 

activities on the NTS. Important biological resources include such things as cover sites, nest or burrow sites, roost 

sites, wetlands, or water sources important to sensitive species. The biological survey parameters which are 

documented include: 

x Number of biological surveys conducted 
Ecological Monitoring

13-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

x Number of hectares/acres surveyed per proposed project 

x Types and numbers of important species and biological resources found 

x Mitigation recommendations and actions taken to protect species/resources 

In 2004, surveys at 145 sites for 40 projects were conducted (Figure 13-2). The summary of survey results are shown 

in Table 13-4. No wetlands or important species were impacted by these projects. Some resources used by important 

species were impacted: six inactive bird nests were removed from buildings which were demolished. 

Table 13-2. Important plants which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS 

Flowering Plant Species Common Name Status(a)

Arctomecon merriamii White bearpoppy S, IA 

Astragalus beatleyae Beatley’s milkvetch S, A 

Astragalus funereus Black woolypod S, A 

Astragalus oopherus var. clokeyanus Clokey’s egg milkvetch S, A 

Camissonia megalantha Cane Spring suncup S, IA 

Cymopterus ripleyi var. saniculoides Ripley’s springparsley S, IA 

Eriogonum concinnum Darin’s buckwheat S, A 

Eriogonum heermannii var. clokeyi Clokey’s buckwheat S, A 

Frasera albicaulis var. modocensis(b) Modoc elkweed S, IA 

Galium hilendiae ssp. kingstonense Kingston Mountain bedstraw S, IA 

Hulsea vestita ssp. inyoensis Inyo hulsea S, IA 

Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa Whitefeather ivesia S, A 

Lathyrus hitchcockianus Hitchcock’s peavine S, A 

Penstemon pahutensis Pahute penstemon S, IA 

Phacelia beatleyae Beatley’s phacelia S, A 

Phacelia mustelina Weasel phacelia S, IA 

Phacelia parishii Parish's phacelia S, IA 

Sclerocactus polyancistrus Hermit cactus S, IA 

Moss Species 

Entosthodon planoconvexus Planoconvex enthosthodon S, E 

(a) Status Codes: 

 State of Nevada

 S - Nevada Natural Heritage Program – Sensitive Plant Taxa 

 Long-term Sensitive Plant Monitoring Status under EMAC

A - Active: currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

 IA - Inactive: not currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

 E - Evaluate: species for which more information on distribution, abundance, and susceptibilities to threats 

 on the NTS must be gathered before deciding to include in long-term monitoring activities 

(b) Nevada Natural Heritage Program calls this plant Frasera pahutensis

Note: The State of Nevada protects all cactus, yucca, and “Christmas trees” from unauthorized collection on public 

lands. Such plants are not protected from harm on private lands or on withdrawn public lands. 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 13-5

Table 13-3. Important animals which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS 

Mollusk Species Common Names Status (a)

Pyrgulopsis turbatrix Southeast Nevada springsnail S, A 

Reptile Species 

Eumeces gilberti rubricaudatus Western red-tailed skink S, E 

Gopherus agassizii Desert tortoise LT, NPT, S, IA 

Bird Species(b)

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk S, NP, IA 

Alectoris chukar Chukar G 

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle EA, NP 

Athene cunicularia hypugaea Western burrowing owl S, NP, A 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk S, NP, IA 

Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk S, NP, A 

Callipepla gambelii Gambel's quail G 

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover PT, NP 

Chlidonias niger Black tern S, NP, IA 

Coccyzus americanus Western yellow-billed cuckoo S, NP, IA 

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon <LE, S, NPE, IA 

Gavia immer Common loon S, NP, IA 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus Southern bald eagle LT-PD, EA, S, NPE, IA 

Ixobrychus exillis hesperis Western least bittern S, NP, IA 

Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla S, NP, IA 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis S, NP, IA 

Mammal Species 

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat M, A 

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn antelope G 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Townsend’s big-eared bat S, H, A 

Equus asinus Burro HB 

Equus caballus Horse HB 

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat S, M, NPT, A 

Felis concolor Mountain lion G 

Lasionycteris noctivagans Silver-haired bat S, M, A 

Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat S, H, A 

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary bat S, M, A 

Lynx rufus Bobcat F 

Myotis californicus California myotis S, M, A 

Myotis ciliolabrum Small-footed myotis S, M, A 

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis M, A 

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis S, H, A 
Ecological Monitoring

13-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 13-3. (Continued) 

Mammal Species (continued) Common Name Status(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 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox F 

Vulpes velox macrotis Kit fox F 

(a) Status Codes: 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Act

 LT - Listed Threatened 

 PT - Proposed for listing as Threatened 

 PD - Proposed for delisting 

 <LE- Former listed endangered species 

 U.S. Department of Interior

 HB - Protected under Wild Free Roaming Horses and Burros Act 

 EA - Protected under Bald and Golden Eagle Act 

 

State of Nevada

 S - Nevada Natural Heritage Program-Sensitive Animal Taxa 

 NPE - Species protected as endangered under NAC 503 

 NPT - Species protected as threatened under NAC 503 

 NP - Species listed as protected under NAC 503 

 G - Regulated as game species 

 F - Regulated as fur-bearer species 

 Note: The State of Nevada protects all birds that are protected by federal laws in addition to the species listed above 

 Long-term Sensitive Animal Monitoring Status under EMAC

A - Active: currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

IA - Inactive: not currently included in long-term population monitoring activities 

 E - Evaluate: species for which more information on distribution, abundance, and susceptibilities to threats 

 on the NTS must be gathered before deciding to include in long-term monitoring activities 

 Nevada Bat Conservation Plan – Bat Species Risk Assessment Designations

 H - High: species imperiled or at high risk of imperilment and having the highest priority for funding, planning, 

 and conservation actions 

 M - Moderate: species which warrant closer evaluation, more research, and conservation actions and lacking 

 meaningful information to adequately assess species’ status 

(b) All bird species on the NTS are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act except for the following five species: 

 Gambel’s quail, chukar, English house sparrow, rock dove, and European starling 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 13-7

Figure 13-2. Location of biological surveys conducted on the NTS in 2004
Ecological Monitoring

13-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 13-4. Summary of 2004 biological survey results 

Measure Result 

Number of biological surveys conducted 145 for 40 projects 

Area surveyed Total: 220.87 ha (545.7 ac) 

Undisturbed habitat: 101.67 ha (251.23 ac) 

Previously-disturbed habitat: 119.20 ha (294.47 ac) 

Important species/biological resources found 1 population of Ripley’s springparsley plants 

6 inactive nests of migratory birds 

1 barn owl 

1 unidentified bat 

2 potential burrowing owl burrows 

6 inactive tortoise burrows 

2 kit fox burrows 

27 predator burrows 

Mitigation actions taken Ripley’s springparsley plants avoided 

Bird nests removed prior to building demolitions 

Ensured no birds or bats present prior to building demolitions 

Potential burrowing owl burrows avoided 

Inactive tortoise burrows avoided 

Kit fox/predator burrows avoided or verified inactive prior to 

construction 

13.3 Sensitive 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 sensitive 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: 

x 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 

x Ensure adherence to state and federal regulations aimed at protecting wild horses, migratory birds, wetlands, and 

wildlife habitat 

Data collected for monitored species include: 

x Distribution on the NTS 

x Relative abundance, density, or population size on the NTS 

x Susceptibility to threats from NTS projects 

x Location of nest burrows, nests, or roost sites of sensitive animals 

x Location of preferred habitats 

x Incidence and cause of mortality 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 13-9

In 2004, the major accomplishments under this EMAC task are presented below. Detailed descriptions of these 

actions and results can be found in BN, 2005c. 

13.3.1 Sensitive Plants 

Known populations and potential habitat of three sensitive plant species were visited to document plant abundance, 

population distributions, habitat features, and potential threats to the populations (Figure 13-3). The species were 

Eriogonum concinnum, an annual herb; Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa, a perennial herb; and Lathyrus hitchcockianus, a perennial 

forb (see Table 13-1). Between 150 and 1,600 E. concinnum plants were found at six of eight known population 

locations visited. Two new populations were found in 2004, extending the known NTS distribution of E. concinnum.

Although commonly found on the NTS, this species is rarely found off the NTS. About 150 I. arizonica var. saxosa

were found at one of two known population sites; none were found at an area of potential habitat surveyed in 2004. 

A total of about 225 L. hitchockianus plants were found in the Pinyon Pass area within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) west of the NTS 

western boundary in Area 25. This is the only known population location for L. hitchockianus on or near the NTS. 

Habitat features such as elevation, vegetation association, soils, and slope were recorded at each site where plants were 

found. No human threats to any populations of these three sensitive plant species were documented. Future field 

surveys will be conducted to better identify each species’ distribution and abundance on the NTS. 

13.3.2 Sensitive Bats 

Night monitoring surveys for bats were conducted at 18 water sources and 41 potential roost sites (Figure 13-4) to 

identify the distribution of sensitive bat species and bat roosts on the NTS. Bat monitoring involves a variety of 

techniques including direct capture with mist nets, recording ultrasonic echolocation calls using the Anabat IITM 

system (Titley Electronics, Ballina, Australia), recording bat activity with a special night vision camera equipped with 

NightSightTM technology attached to a camcorder, and observing bat activity with night vision goggles. 

Thirteen of the monitored water sources were human-made and five were natural. Bats were detected at all but one 

water source, U2gg sump. The lack of bat sightings at this sump was presumably due to high winds and stormy 

conditions at the time of monitoring. At the water sources, 81 individual bats were captured by mist net (representing 

7 sensitive and 3 non-sensitive species) and 11 sensitive and 3 non-sensitive bat species were detected acoustically. 

Bat activity was detected at all of the 41 potential roost sites but one (Mine Mountain Shaft 1). At the monitored sites, 

49 bats were captured by mist net (representing 3 sensitive species) and 7 sensitive and 2 non-sensitive species were 

detected acoustically. Three maternity roosts, 6 day roosts, 12 night roost/night foraging sites, and 20 

“indeterminate” roost sites were identified as a result of monitoring in 2004. The three maternity roosts are used by 

both Townsend’s big-eared bats and fringed myotis (both sensitive species) based on capture and acoustic data. 

13.3.3 Wild Horses 

An annual horse census was conducted by driving selected roads along the boundaries of the suspected annual horse 

range in the northern portion of the NTS (Figure 13-5). Thirty-seven adult horses and six foals were counted in 2004. 

Five horse bands (composed of stallions, subordinate males, females, and their offspring) were observed. The bands 

ranged in size from 5 to 11 individuals excluding foals. The population showed a small increase in number over last 

year due to the recent survival of several younger-aged horses (yearlings and 2 year olds). 

The feral horse population has declined since 1995 when over 50 individuals were known to inhabit the NTS. The 

decline is mainly the result of poor foal survival and a lack of immigration of new adults. Presently, the surviving 

population of NTS horses is still dominated by older-aged individuals (10 to >16 years) (Figure 13-6). Most of the 

living males are older horses; mortality of these individuals will be expected to increase in the near future. Over the 

past ten years, the causes of mortality, when observed among adult horses, have included unknown causes (four), 

predation (one), collisions with vehicles (two), and drowning (one). Among young horses (1-2 year olds), two have 

died from unknown causes and one presumably from dehydration at a dried up spring. 
Ecological Monitoring

13-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 13-3. Sensitive plant populations monitored on the NTS in 2004
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 13-11

Figure 13-4. Sites monitored on the NTS for bat activity in 2004 
13-12

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004Figure 13-5. Feral horse range on the NTS and sighting locations of horses and horse sign in 2004 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 13-13

Figure 13-6. Number of wild horses observed by age category in 2004 

13.3.4 Birds 

All but 5 of the 239 bird species observed on the NTS are migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act or are regulated by the state of Nevada as game birds (see footnote b of Table 13-3). No field surveys for birds 

were conducted in 2004. However, opportunistic sightings of birds including raptors, raptor nests, and any reported 

or observed bird mortalities were entered into wildlife databases. Rare sightings in 2004 included a juvenile peregrine 

falcon (formerly listed as endangered) and a southern bald eagle (currently listed as threatened). More common raptor 

sightings included red-tailed hawks, turkey vultures, golden eagles, American kestrels, prairie falcons, Cooper’s hawks, 

and great horned owls. In 2004, 19 birds were found dead; 16 of the deaths were human-related (i.e., not due to 

predation or unknown causes) (Table 13-5). The four nest mortalities were common raven chicks which starved after 

their parents were electrocuted (Table 13-5). Mitigation actions were taken as a result of the chukar deaths to ensure 

that no other birds could be exposed to open oil containers. No other feasible mitigation actions were identified in 

2004 that may reduce the incidence of bird mortality on the NTS. The overall reported number of bird deaths on the 

NTS related directly to NTS activities over the past 14 years is low and the causes are varied (Figure 13-7). 

In September, an adult female red-tailed hawk was hit by a car and injured on Frenchman Flat. Biologists transported 

the bird to a North Las Vegas animal hospital for examination and treatment. It was later released in the Las Vegas 

area. In early October, an adult female golden eagle was observed on the ground in Frenchman Flat. It was captured 

and taken to the North Las Vegas animal hospital for examination. It appeared to be weak from lack of food. It 

tested negative for West Nile virus. It was cared for by Wild Wings and later released near Corn Creek on the Desert 

National Wildlife Range. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Number of 

individuals

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Estimated Age of Horses

Age Structure of Live Horses on NTS 2004
Ecological Monitoring

13-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 13-5. Records of bird injury or mortality on the NTS in 2004 

Cause of Death 

Species Electrocution 

Road 

kill/injury 

Nest 

Mortality Other(a) Unknown Predation 

American coot 

 (Fulica americana) 1 

Chukar 

 (Alectorus chukar) 2 2 

Common raven 

 (Corvus corax) 2 4 

Common poorwill 

 (Phalaenoptilus nuttallii) 2 

Gambel's quail 

 (Callipepla gambelii) 2 

Horned lark 

 (Eremophila alpestris) 1 

Loggerhead shrike 

 (Lanius ludovicianus) 1 

Mourning dove 

 (Zenaida macroura) 2 2 

Red-tailed hawk 

 (Buteo jamaicensis) 1(b) 

Total 2 8/1 2 4 1 2 

Red text indicates causes of mortality related to NTS activities 

(a) Found dead in oil pan 

(b) Hit by vehicle, transported to animal hospital, and later released 

Figure 13-7. Number of bird deaths recorded on the NTS by year and by cause 
Ecological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 13-15

13.3.5 Natural and Human-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. In prior years, natural wetlands on the NTS were evaluated for 

their potential to qualify as “jurisdictional wetlands” regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under 

the Clean Water Act. In 2004, a formal request was initiated to obtain confirmation from the USACE that there are 

no jurisdictional wetlands on the NTS under the current interpretation of recent wetland-related rulings. Regardless 

of their potential non-jurisdictional status, 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 2004 included: (1) the identification and characterization of 12 human-made wetlands on 

Frenchman Lake which had not been previously described by Hansen, et al. (1997), (2) documenting surface area, 

surface flow, observed disturbances, and wildlife use at 18 selected natural wetlands, and (3) documenting wildlife use 

and mortality observed at 39 plastic-lined sumps, 7 sewage treatment ponds, 8 unlined well ponds, and 1 radioactive 

containment pond. The total areas of wetland habitat and surface area of standing water among the 12 human-made 

wetlands on Frenchman Lake were 2.38 ha (5.88 ac) and 0.99 ha (2.46 ac), respectively. Sizes of wetlands monitored 

varied greatly from very small areas (<1 m2) to moderately sized springs and playa ponds (>3,000 m2). Surface flow 

rates were low (<3 L/min) at most wetlands where flow was measurable. Disturbances noted at the 18 natural 

wetlands were trampling and grazing of vegetation by horses at five sites. No NNSA/NSO projects disturbed these 

natural water sources. Overall, 6 mammal species (excluding bats) and more than 40 species of birds were detected at 

water sources in 2004. Detailed results are reported in BN, 2004a. 

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 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 cover caps to protect against soil erosion and water percolation into 

buried waste. In 2003, a wildland fire burn site in Area 12 (Egg Point Fire burn site) was revegetated to help minimize 

soil erosion and the invasion of non-native species which would make the site more prone to future wildland fires. In 

addition to conducting all revegetation efforts on the NTS, the Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program conducts 

short- and long-term monitoring of revegetated sites. The summary of this program’s goals are to: 

x Design and implement site-specific revegetation plans at approved disturbed sites 

x Monitor the short- and long-term outcome of revegetation efforts 

x Monitor the long-term outcome of natural vegetation succession at disturbed sites where revegetation has not 

occurred 

x Develop a site-wide habitat restoration plan based on evaluations of past revegetation efforts, natural succession 

processes, and wildlife habitat requirements 

x Monitor the effectiveness of revegetation to restore wildlife habitat 

The field measures routinely used to monitor revegetation success and the status of natural succession at sites include: 

x Plant density 
Ecological Monitoring

13-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

x Percent survival 

x Plant cover (percent of ground covered by living plant material) by species or by plant type (e.g., annual grasses, 

forbs) 

x Presence of wildlife species and their sign (e.g., burrows, scat, and ant mounds) 

The Egg Point Fire burned approximately 121 hectares (ha) (300 acres [ac]) in Area 12 on August 16, 2002. 

Revegetation of the site began in November 2002 and was completed in March 2003. A total of 1,681 kg (3,705 lb) of 

bulk native seed of 14 different species was distributed over the site. The total area seeded is estimated to be 

93 - 101 ha (230 to 250 ac). About 5,000 transplants of native shrubs were planted along drainages. Vegetation 

monitoring of the burn site was conducted in June 2003 (BN, 2004a) and again in 2004 (BN, 2005c). Monitoring 

focused on assessing the success of seed germination and plant establishment on the steep upper slopes and the lower 

slopes and bottoms. There was an increase in 2004 in the number of shrubs that established on the upper slopes. On 

the lower slopes, the density of perennial plant species declined slightly from 2003. Detailed results of 2004 activities 

are reported in BN, 2005c. 

Over the past several decades, various reclamation research trials have been conducted on the NTS to evaluate 

different reclamation techniques or to test the performance of certain plant species in this environment. In 2004, 28 

such trial sites were identified from literature and files. The sites were visited in 2004; 15 of the sites were selected for 

future monitoring to further refine the reclamation techniques used on the NTS. 

13.5 Biological Monitoring of the NPTEC 

Biological monitoring at NPTEC on the playa of Frenchman Lake in Area 5 will be performed as an EMAC task 

whenever there is a risk of significant exposure to downwind plants and animals from planned test releases of 

hazardous materials. The Desert National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR) lies just east of the NTS border, approximately 

5 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 BN document titled Biological 

Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility on the Nevada Test Site,

prepared in 1996 and updated in 2002, describes how field surveys will be conducted to meet the following two goals: 

(1) document significant impacts of chemical testing on plants and animals and (2) verify that NPTEC operations 

comply with the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (see Section 2.9). Monitoring will entail sampling 

established transects both downwind and upwind of the NPTEC. The parameters to be measured whenever transects 

must be sampled will include: 

x Number and type of dead animals observed 

x Number and type of wildlife observed 

x Presence of observed vegetation damage 

In 2004, BN reviewed chemical spill test plans for the following three activities this year: Divine Invader 53-54, 

Rattler, and Roadrunner III. Chemicals were released at such low volumes or low toxicity that there was no need to 

monitor downwind transects for biological impacts. Baseline monitoring was conducted at established controltreatment transects near the NPTEC in May and September. This sampling noted the condition of plants and the 

presence of wildlife sign during the period of vegetative growth and summer drought, respectively. No differences in 

biota were noted along downwind versus upwind transects. Baseline monitoring data are collected to document any 

cumulative impacts over time of test center activities on biota downwind of the facility. These data are made available 

to neighboring land managers upon request. Noticeable cumulative impacts on biota are not expected. 
Underground Test Area Project 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 14-1 

14.0 Underground Test Area Project 

The Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project is the largest project in the Environmental Restoration Division. 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 (DOE, 2000). Most of these tests were conducted hundreds of feet above groundwater; 

however, over 200 of the tests were within or near the water table. Underground testing was limited to specific areas 

of the NTS including Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa, Shoshone Mountain, Frenchman Flat, and Yucca Flat. 

The UGTA Project collects data to define groundwater flow rates and direction to determine the nature and location 

of aquifers (geologic formations of permeable rock containing or conducting groundwater). In addition, project team 

members gather information regarding the hydrology and geology of the area under investigation. Data from these 

studies will help in determining whether or not radionuclides resulting from nuclear testing have moved appreciable 

distances from the original test locations. Numerous surface and subsurface investigations are ongoing to ensure that 

these issues are addressed. 

Surface investigations include: 

x Evaluating discharges from springs located downgradient of the NTS 

x Assessing surface geology 

Subsurface investigations include: 

x Drilling deep wells to access groundwater hundreds to thousands of feet below the surface 

x Sampling groundwater to test for radioactive contaminants 

x Assessing NTS hydrology and subsurface geology to determine possible groundwater flow direction 

14.1 Aquifer Tests 

A long-term multi-well aquifer/tracer test was conducted at the ER-6-1 well cluster site during 2004. It involved the 

wells ER-6-1, ER-6-1 #1, and ER-6-1 #2. Approximately 64 million gallons of water were pumped from the ER-6-1 

#2 well while tracers were injected into the other two wells. 

14.2 Groundwater Sampling 

Well development, testing, and sampling operations were conducted at ER-6-2 and at ER-6-1 prior to the start of the 

multi-well aquifer/tracer test. Groundwater samples were also collected from the RNM #1 well and from four postshot/cavity wells, or “Hot Wells”: ER-20-5 #1, ER-20-5 #3, U-3cn PS #2A, and U-19ad PS #1A. The results of 

sampling in 2004 are presented in Section 4.1.10 of this report along with all other radiological groundwater 

monitoring results. 

14.3 3D Hydrostratigraphic Framework Models 

A regional 3D computer groundwater model (IT, 1996) has been developed to identify any immediate risk and to 

provide a basis for developing more detailed models of specific NTS test areas designated as individual Corrective 

Action Units (CAUs). The regional model constituted Phase I of the UGTA project. The CAU-specific models, of 

which up to four are planned (geographically covering each of the six former NTS testing areas), comprise Phase II. 

To date, two have been built:: Frenchman Flat (IT, 1998 and BN, 2005d) and the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley model 
Underground Test Area Project 

14-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

(BN, 2002a). A model for the Yucca Flat CAU is in progress. These more detailed CAU-specific groundwater flow 

and contaminant transport models will be used to determine contaminant boundaries based on the maximum extent 

of contaminant migration. The results of the individual CAU groundwater models will be used to refine the Routine 

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan groundwater monitoring network to ensure public health and safety.
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 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 activities and to assist in planning new uses for 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 and around the NTS on a 

long-term scale. 

15.1 Program Goals 

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, 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. 

15.2 Program Activities 

Results of program activities are available as technical reports and documents. Project participants also disseminate 

information and transfer technologies through publication in technical reports and peer-reviewed journals, 

presentations at professional meetings and symposia, and educational outreach activities. 

15.2.1 Hydrology and Radionuclide Investigations for Operations 

The HRMP assists NNSA/NSO in maintaining capabilities in hydrology and radiochemistry to support test readiness 

and science-based stockpile stewardship through applied field and laboratory studies of the occurrence, distribution, 

and movement of radionuclides in groundwater at the NTS. Scientific expertise is utilized in the assembly, analysis, 

and evaluation of data to produce requested hydrologic and radionuclide information. State of Nevada regulations 

require NNSA/NSO to provide detailed information on hydrologic conditions of the NTS. At the request of 

NNSA/NSO management, the HRMP gathers, analyzes, and transfers science-based information to the state of 

Nevada and other external customers. 

Hydrologic services, provided upon request to NNSA/NSO programs, include depth-to-groundwater estimates, water 

level measurements, containment evaluations, and determining emplacement hole integrity. Technology development 

projects and research investigations are conducted to address gaps in the capabilities and knowledge required to 

support safe conduct of operations for stockpile stewardship, nuclear test readiness, and national security. Previous 

and current activities include: 

x 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 

x 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 

x Achieving a more fundamental understanding of chemical fractionation in underground nuclear tests through 

sample analysis and experimentation 

x Investigating the subsurface geology and fracture propagation in the vicinity of underground nuclear tests for 

containment issues 

x 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 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

15-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

x Investigating the free water and bound water relationships in boreholes and cores 

15.2.2 Long-Term Groundwater Stewardship 

A major element of the HRMP mission is the protection and long-term stewardship of NTS groundwater 

resources. Numerous activities are conducted to accomplish this element. These include the following: monitoring 

of groundwater levels, quality and consumption; evaluating monitoring wells; and maintaining a wellhead protection 

program. HRMP supports the development and ongoing refinement of groundwater flow models for both the Death 

Valley Region (which includes the NTS) and for the NTS specifically. Based upon hydrologic investigations and 

modeling, HRMP will evaluate proposed new groundwater uses on and near the NTS for their potential impacts on 

NTS groundwater reserves, quality, flow paths, and radionuclide migration. The HRMP protects NTS groundwater 

by implementing a well installation and maintenance program to ensure: 

x Reliability of the potable water supply. 

x Optimal location, design, and construction of new potable water wells. 

x Long-term reliability of monitoring wells to supply representative water samples. 

x 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. 
Meteorological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 16-1

16.0 Meteorological Monitoring 

16.1 Meteorological Monitoring Goals 

Meteorological and climatological data are collected on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) by the Air Resources Laboratory, 

Special Operations and Research Division (ARL/SORD). Data are collected through the Meteorological Data 

Acquisition (MEDA) system, a network of approximately 30 mobile meteorological towers located primarily on the 

NTS. The MEDA system became operational in 1981, replacing an older system. MEDA is used to measure, 

transmit, and display vital meteorological data to SORD meteorologists and U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) customers. These data are used daily for 

operational support to a wide variety of projects on the NTS and from the climatological database for the NTS. The 

data are also used in safety analysis reports, emergency response activities, radioactive waste remediation projects, 

environmental reports, and consequence assessments. Section A.3 of Appendix A presents descriptive NTS 

climatological data collected by the MEDA system. 

16.2 MEDA Station 

Locations 

A standard MEDA unit consists of an 

enclosed trailer, a portable 10 m (32.8 ft) 

tower, an electric generator (when needed), a 

microprocessor, and a microwave radio 

transmitter. An example of a MEDA unit is 

shown in Figure 16-1. Locations of the 

MEDA stations at the time of the preparation 

of this report 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 (see Section 8.0)

16.3 MEDA Station 

Instrumentation 

MEDA station instrumentation is located on 

booms oriented into the prevailing wind 

direction and at a minimum distance of two 

tower widths from the tower. Wind 

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

 10 meter tower 
16-2

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004Figure 16-2. MEDA station locations on and near the NTS 
Meteorological Monitoring

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 16-3

direction and at a minimum distance of two tower widths from the tower. Wind direction and speed are measured at 

the 10-m level, in accordance to ANS/ANSI 3.11 (American Nuclear Society, 2000) specifications. Ambient 

temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure measurements are taken at approximately the 2-m level so as 

to be within the surface boundary layer. Observations are collected and transmitted every 15 minutes on the quarter 

hours. Wind data are 5-minute averages of speed and direction. The peak wind speed is the fastest instantaneous gust 

measured within the 15-minute time interval. Temperature, relative humidity, and pressure are instantaneous 

measurements. 

16.4 Rain Gauge Network 

ARL/SORD also operates and maintains a climatological rain gauge network on the NTS. This network consists of 

17 Belford Series 5-780 Universal Precipitation Gauges (Figure 16-3). These are strip chart recorders that are read at 

least every 30 days. Once read and checked, the data are entered into the SORD precipitation climatological database. 

Data are recorded as daily totals. Under special circumstances, 1- to 3-hour totals can be obtained. 

16.5 Data Access 

The meteorological parameters measured at each station are listed on the SORD website 

<http://www.sord.nv.doe.gov> along with other information. MEDA data are also processed and archived in the 

ARL/SORD climatological database. Climatological data summaries are posted on the ARL/SORD website under 

the AClimate@ section. SORD meteorologists provide specially tailored climatological summaries by request through 

NNSA/NSO. Wind data from the MEDA stations are used each year to calculate radiological doses from NTS air 

emissions to members of the public residing near the NTS (see Section 8.1.3). 
Meteorological Monitoring

16-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure 16-3. Climatological rain gauge network on the NTS 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 17-1 

17.0 Integrated Safety Management System and 

Environmental Management System 

A plan to integrate environmental, safety, and health (ES&H) management programs at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) 

was developed and initiated at the NTS in 1996. The NTS Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) is designed 

to ensure the systematic integration of ES&H concerns into management and work practices so that missions are 

accomplished safely. The term safety is used synonymously with environment, safety, and health throughout the NTS ISMS 

implementation policies to encompass protection of the public, the workers, and the environment. The seven guiding 

principles of ISMS and the five core functions are presented below. 

The use of an ISMS helps ensure that (1) all levels of program organizations are accountable for environmental 

protection, (2) all projects are planned with ES&H concerns in mind, and (3) continuous improvements in program 

implementation occur. 

Implementation of an ISMS at the NTS was verified by the NNSA/NSO in July, 2001. NNSA/NSO oversees ISMS 

implementation through the ISM Council. Each Council member performed a self-assessment in September, 2004 

and verified that the ISMS continues to be effectively implemented at the NTS.

Work Smart Standards (WSS) are an integral part of the ISMS whereby hazards and environmental aspects of work 

are identified and standards of operation are established that are specific to the work environment, its associated 

hazards, and its threats to the environment. WSS are approved at the management level with the most expertise in the 

work. NNSA/NSO approved the initial complete set of Bechtel Nevada (BN) WSS in September, 1996. The 

approved WSS identify within each program of BN, the contractual commitment to meet applicable laws, regulations, 

and policies which protect the public and the environment. Compliance with Work Smart Standards is tracked 

through management assessments. 

In 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 13148 Greening of the Government Through Leadership in 

Environmental Management. This EO requires all federal agencies to adopt an environmental management system 

(EMS). An EMS is a globally embraced business management practice that allows an organization to strategically 

address its environmental, health and safety matters. EMSs are designed to incorporate concern for environmental 

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

impact on the environment. EMS implementation reflects accepted quality management principles based on the 

Seven Guiding Principles Five Core Functions 

Line management is directly responsible for the protection of the public, 

the workers, and the environment 

Define the scope of work 

Clear roles and responsibilities for ES&H are established and maintained 

Personnel competence is commensurate with their responsibilities 

Identify and analyze the hazards 

and environmental aspects 

associated with the work 

Resources are effectively allocated to address ES&H, programmatic, and 

operational considerations with balanced priorities 

Develop and implement hazard 

and aspect controls 

ES&H standards and requirements are established that ensure adequate 

protection of the employees, the public, and the environment 

Perform work within the 

controls 

Administrative and engineering controls to prevent and mitigate ES&H 

hazards are tailored to the work being performed 

Operations are authorized 

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 2004

“Plan, Do, Check, Act” model (shown below), using a standard process to identify goals, implement them, determine 

progress, and make improvements to ensure continual improvement. 

In an EMS, this effort focuses on: 

x Environmental policy development and endorsement 

x Planning activities by identifying environmental impacts and related legal and other requirements and developing 

objectives and targets to control and improve performance related to environmental issues 

x Implementing activities and operations, including training and documentation, to achieve the objectives and 

maintain control over environmental issues 

x Monitoring and measuring the status of environmental parameters, status of objectives and targets, 

compliance status, and the health of the EMS itself, and providing procedures for corrective action in cases where 

data indicate non-conformance 

x Management review of information for action, including enhancing the EMS towards the goal of continual 

improvement. 

EO 13148 applies to most of the NNSA as well as to DOE and NNSA contractors. DOE requires contractors who 

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

BN’s EMS is modeled after ISO 14001 while simultaneously being revised to satisfy DOE Order 450.1 Environmental 

Protection Program. BN Process Description PD-0442.001 Environmental Management System Description discusses how 

each of the seventeen elements of ISO 14001 is addressed, including controlling documents and organizations. This 

EMS Description is not a procedure, but rather a roadmap to all the environmental processes and governing 

documents in the different EMS elements. The EMS Description is being revised to reflect system improvements, 

updated procedures, and the blending in of the DOE Order 450.1 requirements. BN has an Environmental Policy 

that was updated in 2004 to reference DOE Order 450.1 as a driver and model for the environmental program. 

During 2003, progress was made in the areas of aspect identification and mitigation. During 2004 aspect 

identification and mitigation were incorporated into a hazard analysis procedure that is required for Work Execution 

Plans. This is an example of integrating the environmental program into an existing ISMS process. After DOE 

Order 450.1 was approved in 2003, BN evaluated it and identified Order requirements that were not fully 

implemented on the NTS. These were primarily in the pollution prevention areas, where DOE funding has been 

greatly reduced in the last few years. There were also areas such as resource protection from wildland and operational 

fires that are not traditionally thought of as environmental programs that will now need to be included in the EMS. A 

table was prepared that lists all the requirements in the Order and identifies how each requirement is or will be met 

and what organization is responsible for implementation and/or oversight. During 2004 an outside consultant was 

brought in to evaluate progress toward satisfying each of these requirements. The final report verified the progress 

that has been made and provided suggestions for satisfying the last few requirements. 

A key goal of DOE Order 450.1 is to incorporate the EMS program into the existing ISMS. During 2004 the ISMS 

Program Plan was updated to specify that the EMS and DOE Order 450.1 are the methods by which the 

environmental part of ISMS is implemented. An example of how this is being accomplished is that the BN procedure 

and form for performing a hazard analysis for a new work activity was modified to include environmental aspects and 

Continuous 

Improvement 

Environmental Policy 

Planning 

Implementation & Control 

Monitoring & Measuring

Management Review 
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 17-3 

their mitigations. Identifying potential environmental impacts and mitigating them in the planning phase of doing 

work is the single most important part of a successful EMS. 

Goal setting is also included in the planning phase of performing work. Each year BN has several environmental 

goals identified in the Contractor Performance and Fee Award Program. These are measurable goals where 

performance is tracked and reported to ensure the maximum chance for successful completion. Affirmative 

Procurement goals are also tracked and reported annually. During 2004 a committee was formed that represented all 

programs. This committee identified priority areas of improvement (Objectives) and is starting to identify 

organization specific goals (Targets) within these priority areas. These will be reviewed by the Executive Safety 

Committee; once they have been approved, progress toward meeting them will be tracked and reported. 

During 2004 the employee environmental awareness program was expanded. Copies of the revised Environmental 

Policy were mailed to all mail stops and posted on many bulletin boards, as well as on the BN intranet home page. 

Articles about the new Policy and the EMS were put in employee publications, and a section on environmental issues 

was added to the project manager training course. 

Work will continue to strengthen the EMS program. All the elements of ISO 14001 and DOE Order 450.1 are 

already in place to some degree, so full integration of EMS into ISMS and full implementation of DOE Order 450.1 

should be complete by the deadline of December 31, 2005.
Integrated Safety Management System and Environmental Management System 

17-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 18-1

18.0 Compliance Quality Assurance 

The Bechtel Nevada (BN) Quality Assurance Program (QAP) establishes the requirements necessary to comply with 

(1) Title 10 CFR 830, Subpart A Quality Assurance Requirements, (2) U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 414.1A 

Quality Assurance, (3) contractual Work Smart Standards (WSS), and (4) other relevant requirements documents for the 

operation, process, or program to which they apply. The BN QAP requires a graded approach to quality, which 

provides for determining the level of rigor that effectively provides assurance of performance and conformance to 

requirements. 

In the conduct of environmental management activities employing sampling and analysis, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA)-developed Data Quality Objectives (DQO) process is generally used to provide the quality 

assurance (QA) structure for designing, implementing, and improving upon environmental monitoring efforts. 

Sampling and Analysis Plans are developed prior to performing an activity to ensure complete understanding of the 

data use objectives. Personnel are trained and qualified in accordance with company and task-specific requirements. 

Access to sampling locations is coordinated with operations conducting work at or having authority over those 

locations in order to de-conflict activities and communicate hazards to better ensure successful execution of the work 

and the safety and health of sampling personnel. Sample collection activities adhere to organization instructions 

and/or procedures that are designed to ensure that samples are representative and data are reliable and defensible. 

Sample shipments onsite and to offsite laboratories are conducted in accordance with Department of Transportation 

(DOT) and International Air Transport Association (IATA) 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, American Standard for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM) International, and others. Key quality-affecting procedural areas cover sample 

preparation, instrument calibration, instrument performance checking, testing for precision and accuracy, and 

laboratory data review. BN data users perform review as demanded by the project-specific objectives before they are 

used to support decision making. The Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b) 

provides a formalized process to ensure that all sampling and analytical objectives are appropriate, economically 

feasible, reliable, and defensible within its area of application. 

Elements of the QAP are listed below. A discussion of these program elements follows, together with the results of 

the 2004 assessment. 

x Data and Measurement Quality Objectives are developed to ensure that clear goals and objectives are 

established for data collection, analyses, and projected data use. 

x A Sampling Plan is developed to ensure that an appropriate plan of action is developed to execute scope in 

accordance with DOE, administrative, or legal requirements such as environmental, safety, and health concerns. 

x Laboratory Sample Analyses are implemented to ensure that analysis of samples for required parameters 

meet BN, customer, and regulatory-defined requirements. 

x Data Management Procedures are used to ensure that all data are readily retrievable, protected through a 

system of checks and balances, and defensibly archived. 

x Data Review and Systematic Assessments are made to ensure that analytical data quality are improved and 

enhanced, and to adequately assess procedures, identify nonconforming items, implement corrective actions, 

monitor for corrective action effectiveness, and provide feedback and lessons learned. 

18.1 Data and Measurement Quality Objectives 

The DQO process is a strategic planning approach used to plan a data collection activity. It provides a systematic 

process for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy, including when to collect samples, where 

to collect samples, tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many samples to collect.

Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) can generally be considered as DQOs for the analytical process. MQOs 

provide direction to the laboratory concerning performance objectives or requirements for specific method 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

performance characteristics. Default MQOs are established in the subcontract, but may be altered on a project-byproject basis in order to satisfy the DQOs. MQOs may generally be described in terms of precision, accuracy, 

representativeness, completeness, and comparability requirements. The following discussion includes brief statements 

on these terms as they apply to the overall monitoring effort to provide correlation with laboratory efforts. The 

RREMP (DOE, 2003b) provides additional discussions on monitoring, precision, accuracy, representativeness, 

completeness, and comparability. 

18.1.1 Precision 

Precision refers to “the degree of mutual agreement characteristic of independent measurements as the result of 

repeated application of the process under specified conditions” (Taylor 1987). Practically, precision is determined by 

comparing the results obtained from performing the sample analysis on split samples, or on duplicate samples taken at 

the same time from the same location, maintaining sampling and analytical conditions as nearly identical as possible. 

Precision related to the overall monitoring effort is evaluated by comparing results for field duplicate samples of 

particulates in air, tritiated water vapor, thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), and some water samples. Precision 

related to laboratory operations is evaluated by comparing the agreement of laboratory duplicates/replicates with 

established control limits. The laboratory is directed in the subcontract to establish and maintain precision control 

limits for various matrices and analytes. Control limits may be specified in the subcontract or by the specific method, 

but are more commonly generated and maintained by the laboratory in order to develop controls specific to their 

operations. In most cases, however, laboratory specific limits should not be less stringent than those published in the 

standard methods. 

18.1.2 Accuracy 

Accuracy refers to “the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value of the quantity of 

concern” (Taylor, 1987), and may be defined as the ratio of the measured value divided by the true value, expressed as 

a percent. Accuracy related to the overall monitoring effort is evaluated by comparing field sample results with 

historic data to determine whether the data points fall within acceptable statistical trends, or by other criteria. 

Accuracy related to laboratory operations is monitored by performing measurements and evaluating results of control 

samples containing known quantities of the analytes of interest. Control samples are analyzed using the same sample 

preparation and analytical methods as employed for project samples. The subcontract may provide required control 

limits or may direct the laboratory to establish control limits. Control limits may be specified for a specific analytical 

method, but may be generated and maintained by the laboratory in order to develop controls specific to their 

operations. In cases where a laboratory is authorized to establish in-house limits, those limits may not be less 

stringent than those published in the standard methods. Compliance with accuracy control limits is usually required in 

order for data to be considered acceptable for use in further analyses. 

18.1.3 Representativeness 

Representativeness is the degree to which a sample is truly representative of the sampled medium (i.e., the degree to 

which measured analytical concentrations represent the concentrations in the medium being sampled) (Stanley and 

Verner 1985). From a sample collection standpoint representativeness is managed through sampling plan design and 

execution. Representativeness related to laboratory operations is managed primarily through direction to the 

laboratory. For example, sample of a heterogeneous matrix (soil, sludge, solids, etc.) should be homogenized prior to 

aliquoting for preparation or analysis. Water samples are generally considered homogeneous unless observation 

suggests otherwise. Individual and composite air samples are necessarily homogenized by the laboratory during the 

preparation process. Field sample duplicate analyses are additional controls allowing the evaluation of sample 

representativeness and medium heterogeneity. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 18-3

18.1.4 Comparability 

Comparability refers to “the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another” (Stanley and Verner, 

1985). Comparability from an overall monitoring perspective is ensured by sampling design, sample collection and 

handling, laboratory analyses, and data review which are performed in accordance with established Organization 

Instructions (OIs) and Procedures and standardized methodologies. Comparability regarding laboratory operations is 

managed through direction to the laboratory requiring that standard methods will be used when available. When a 

standard method is not available, or when analytes may be determined by multiple techniques, equivalent QA controls 

must be applied; in these cases, more attention should be paid to review in order to draw conclusions on 

comparability. 

18.2 Sampling Plan 

Quality assurance in field operations includes development of an execution sampling plan, sampling assessments, 

surveillances, and oversight. Key elements of this plan include: (1) development of a Sample Package; (2) data 

management; and (3) appropriate training. 

18.2.1 Sample Packages 

For each data collection activity, a Sample Package is prepared containing the data quality objectives, execution 

sampling plan or statement of work (SOW), organizational instructions, and field logs. Sample packages must be 

prepared prior to conducting any sampling and may include the following items: 

x Checklists to include: 

– Routing list showing all personnel who must review and approve the sample package 

– Pre-job and post-job checklists describing personal protective equipment, safety, etc. 

– Sample package task lead summary 

– Requested analyses 

– Performance evaluation or certification for all labs that do the requested analyses 

– Signature page which documents signatures of all personnel associated with the work 

x Field Logs for all samples required to be taken 

x Work Package, including a “Traveler” sheet (a work notification and authorization tool) if required 

x Specific, detailed Work Instructions 

x Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals that are being used for the job 

x Authorization Basis Documents including Execution Plans (Facility, Project, Support) that apply to the sampling 

effort as well as Real Estate/Operations Permits that identify NNSA/NSO real property assets and operations 

involved in the sampling effort 

x Chains-of-Custody forms 

This managed approach to sampling ensures that the sampling is traceable and enhances the value of the final results 

to project managers. The sample package also ensures that the sampler is prepared for the sampling event. The 

manager or QA Officer routinely performs assessments or surveillances of each type of sampling event to ensure that 

samplers are adhering to the OIs and sampling protocol and that the OIs represent what is actually being done. 

18.2.2 Database Support 

Database support includes the Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System (BEIDMS) for field data 

and laboratory results. In addition, completed Sample Packages, analysis results, data review checklists, etc., are 

optically scanned and entered into the Optix Data Base to enhance accessibility to these documents. The Optix 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

system is used for scanning, long-term storage, and retrieval of the Sample Package as a graphic image. Data obtained 

in the course of executing field operations are entered into the Sample Package during field work, and then in the 

BEIDMS after completion of the field activities. 

18.2.3 Training 

BN ensures that all personnel are properly trained and qualified prior to doing work under the RREMP. 

BN-provided training is documented and maintained in the company tracking system (currently the PLATEAU 

system). In addition, an organizational training matrix is maintained to efficiently identify training required for each 

individual and their current status. 

18.3 Laboratory Sample Analyses 

Because most of the laboratory sample analyses are not done internally, but through subcontracts for laboratory 

services, BN ensures that DOE Order 414.1A Quality Assurance requirements are met by structuring subcontracts for 

services that emphasize quality assurance. This is accomplished through a multifaceted approach that focuses on 

three areas: (1) Procurement; (2) Initial and Continuing Assessment; and (3) a Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

(LQAP). 

18.3.1 Procurement 

Laboratory services are procured through subcontract. The subcontract specifies the requirements and technical 

specifications needed to determine compliance with those requirements and to evaluate overall performance of the 

subcontractor. Subcontracts are established through a competitive bid process and a formal request for proposal 

(RFP) process. They are awarded on a “best value” basis. The RFP generally requires a prospective vendor to submit 

a proposal. Successful proposals include: 

x All procedures pertinent to subcontract scope 

x An Environmental, Safety and Health Plan 

x Examples of deliverables, both hardcopy and electronic 

x Proficiency Testing (PT) results from previous year participation in recognized PT programs 

x Resumes of those conducting the work 

x A description of the facility or its design 

x Accreditations and certifications 

x Licenses 

x Audits performed within the last year by the DOE Consolidated Audit Program (DOECAP), other DOE sites, or 

other audits (DoD, etc.) covering comparable scope and acceptable to BN 

x Past performance surveys 

x A LQAP 

x Pricing 

Proposal evaluations are conducted and scored as detailed in the RFP. Pricing evaluation is performed by the 

procurement representative separately from the technical evaluation. The BN technical evaluation team does not 

receive pricing information. Rather, it bases its evaluation solely on technical capability, ensuring that the technical 

evaluation is not biased by pricing. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 18-5

18.3.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment 

An initial assessment is made during the RFP process above, including a pre-award audit. If an acceptable audit has 

not been performed within the past year, BN will consider performing an audit (or participating in a DOECAP audit) 

of those laboratories awarded the contract. However, in no instance does BN initiate work with a laboratory without 

approval of BN personnel authorized for ensuring vendor acceptability. A continuing assessment consists of the 

ongoing monitoring of a laboratory’s performance against contract terms and conditions, of which the technical 

specifications are a part. Tasks supporting continuing assessment are: 

x Tracking schedule compliance 

x Review of analytical data deliverables (Appendix F of DOE, 2003b) 

x Conducting regular audits or participating in evaluation of DOECAP audit products 

x Monitoring for continued successful participation in PT programs; the subcontract requires or suggests 

participation in the following PT programs: 

– National Institute of Standards and Technology Radiochemistry Intercomparison Program 

– Studies equivalent to the former EPA Water Pollution and EPA Water Supply programs that support 

certification by the state of Nevada for analyses performed in support of Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking 

Water Act monitoring 

x Monitoring of the lab’s adherence to the LQAP 

18.3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

Each laboratory must develop a LQAP. The LQAP is a statement of the laboratory’s policies and approach to the 

implementation of DOE Order 414.1A for ensuring the generation of quality data. Elements of the plan include: 

(1) LQAP requirements; (2) LQAP management responsibilities; and (3) additional subcontract requirements. 

18.3.3.1 LQAP Requirements 

The LQAP must do the following: 

x Establish that senior management shall be responsible for the scope of the LQAP and implementing, assessing, 

and continually improving an effective quality system. 

x Designate an individual responsible for developing, implementing, and routinely monitoring the LQAP program. 

x Describe the organizational structure, functional responsibilities, levels of authority, and interfaces for those 

managing, performing, and assessing the work. 

x Define the organization's policies regarding, and its commitment to, ethical standards, client confidentiality, and 

the implementation of safety and quality standards. 

x Establish that line management shall be responsible for achieving quality in specific activities. 

x Establish that all personnel, including samplers, field analysts, laboratory technicians, scientists, researchers, 

principal investigators, operators, craftspeople, clerical/support staff, and internal auditors shall retain 

responsibility for the quality of their work. 

x Establish that regulatory actions toward the organization or its parent corporation shall be reported immediately 

to cognizant management and affected clients. This includes actions, such as suspension of contracts with other 

federal agencies, notices of investigations, and legal actions against the organization or its personnel. 

x Establish that functional responsibilities shall include the following activities as a minimum: 

– Participating with the client for planning and developing analytical work scope 

– Training and personnel development 

– Preparing, reviewing, approving, and issuing instructions, procedures, schedules, and procurement 

documents; identifying and controlling hardware and software 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

– Managing and operating facilities 

– Calibrating and controlling the equipment used to measure and test 

– Conducting investigations and improving methods 

– Acquiring, evaluating, and reporting data 

– Performing maintenance, repair, and improvements 

– Controlling records 

18.3.3.2 LQAP Management Responsibilities 

QA and/or QC positions shall report to the highest level of management (e.g., manager or director). The QA 

program identifies personnel positions that are given the responsibility and authority to do the following: 

x Stop unsatisfactory work. The plan shall identify the chain of command through which any employee may initiate 

a stop-work order where detrimental ethical, contractual, quality, safety, or health conditions exist. 

x Initiate action to prevent reporting laboratory results from a measurement system that is out of control. 

x Prevent further reporting of measurements until corrective action has been completed. 

x Identify any method or procedure that poses quality problems. 

x Recommend, initiate, or provide solutions through designated channels and monitor effectiveness of corrective 

actions. 

18.3.3.3 Additional Subcontract Requirements 

Additional requirements are placed on the laboratory through the subcontract. Compliance with these requirements is 

verified through Initial and Continuing Assessment. These requirements include the following items. 

Personnel Training and Qualification – The Laboratory organization shall be clearly structured with well-defined 

responsibilities for each individual in the management system. This system shall ensure that sufficient resources are 

maintained to perform the requirements specified in the subcontract. Personnel performing services specified by the 

subcontract SOW and personnel performing QA activities shall receive suitable and timely training in such things as 

technical skills, laboratory analytical methods, QC procedures, safety policies, and waste management practices and 

essential elements of the QA Program prior to performing work. Records of the training shall include descriptions of 

the training provided, attendance sheets, training logs, and personnel training records. 

Quality Improvement – A system shall be established and implemented to identify, document, correct, and prevent 

quality problems; this system shall be subject to ongoing documented review by management to assess its 

effectiveness.

Documents and Records – Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, 

or drawings that include quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria that can be used to determine whether activities 

are satisfactorily accomplished. Revisions to instructions, procedures, and drawings that affect the process or are 

technical in nature shall receive the same level of review and approval by the affected parties as the original document. 

Editorial changes may be made to instructions, procedures, and drawings without review and approval. Document 

control shall include measures by which documentation can be controlled, tracked, and updated in a timely manner to 

ensure that applicability and correctness are established. Control measures shall be used to ensure that documents are 

reviewed for adequacy, approved for release by authorized personnel, and distributed to and used at the location of 

the prescribed activity. 

Work Processes – Work shall be performed to established technical standards and administrative controls. Work 

shall be performed under controlled conditions using approved instructions, procedures, or instructions. Analytical 

procedures shall be listed by method number and matrix. Any method variances employed by the laboratory shall be 

documented. The laboratory shall specify protocols for reporting any incident that delays sample processing for a 

period of time, affects holding times, or delays work, and also specify the corrective action implemented. Examples 

of forms used to document out-of-control events are to be provided in the LQAP. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 18-7

Analysis of QC Samples and Documentation – A summary of QC procedures and documentation to be 

employed in the day-to-day operation of the laboratory shall be included. The discussion will emphasize the following 

as they relate to the different QC levels: 

x Analysis of method and reagent blanks 

x Analysis of duplicates, spiked samples, spiked laboratory blanks, and reference or control standards such as EPA, 

National Institute of Standards and Technology, or other recognized authority check standards 

x The criteria used to establish warning and control limits for the above types of QC samples 

x Documentation and examples of control data and control charts 

x The frequency of analyzing blanks and other QC samples 

x How data from QC samples are reported and reviewed 

x Who reviews and makes decisions relative to QC data 

Procurement – A process shall be established and implemented to control purchased items and services; this process 

shall be subject to ongoing review by management to assess its effectiveness. Subcontract documents require that 

suppliers of all tiers comply with technical and QA requirements, including but not limited tostandards, measuring and 

test equipment, calibration services, and analytical test activities. Contracted items and services that have the potential 

to affect the quality of analytical tests shall be controlled to ensure conformance with contractual requirements. Such 

control shall include one or more of the following: source evaluation and selection (pre-performance/pre-award 

survey); source verification; audit; and examination of items or services before use. Procurement documents shall 

specify the quality system elements for which the supplier is responsible and how the supplier's conformance to the 

customer's requirements will be verified. Procurement documents shall be reviewed for accuracy and completeness 

by qualified personnel prior to release. Changes to procurement documents shall receive the same level of review and 

approval as the original documents. 

Inspection and Acceptance Testing – Inspection and acceptance testing of items, services, and processes shall be 

conducted using established acceptance and performance criteria. Equipment used for inspection and testing shall be 

calibrated and maintained. There shall be a current list of available (on hand) equipment types, models, and years 

along with a general description of the facility. General information shall be included as to who performs major, 

preventative, and day-to-day equipment maintenance and how this maintenance is documented. A schedule of 

preventive maintenance activities shall be developed and the performance of preventive maintenance shall be 

documented. A documented inventory of critical spare parts and/or equipment necessary to minimize the downtime 

of measurement systems related to analytical test samples that have a holding time of 48 hours or less shall be 

maintained. A documented evaluation of the usage of such inventory shall be performed at least annually. Control 

processes shall be maintained for all instrument spikes, replicates/splits, blanks, and other standards. 

Management Assessment – A method shall be established whereby management with executive authority assesses 

the adequacy of the QAP at least annually to ensure its continuing suitability and effectiveness in satisfying the 

requirements of the SOW and the supplier's stated policies and objectives. The method shall include provisions for 

reporting the results of management assessments, including the distribution of those reports. Problems that hinder 

the organization from achieving its objectives shall be identified and corrected. 

Independent Assessment – Designated persons or organizations shall be responsible for ensuring that an 

appropriate QAP is established and for verifying that activities affecting the quality of the services specified in the 

SOW have been correctly performed. Such person or organization shall have sufficient authority, access to work 

areas, and organizational freedom necessary to independently assess all activities affecting quality and to report the 

results of such assessments. Persons conducting independent assessments shall be technically qualified and 

knowledgeable in the areas assessed. Assessment results shall be documented, reported to and reviewed by the level 

of management with authority to affect any necessary corrective actions. Assessments shall be conducted of 

subcontractors that perform work affecting the integrity of analytical results and to assure continued conformance to 

contractual requirements. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

18.4 Data Management Procedures 

The RREMP describes the need for and the details of the collection and analysis of environmental data to support 

various drivers at the NTS. A data management system is essential for understanding and sustaining the quality of 

data collected under the program, allowing programs to identify data gaps or data requirements for other 

environmental efforts, and eliminating unnecessary duplication of data collection efforts. Because decisions are based 

on environmental data, and the effectiveness of operations is measured at least in part by environmental data, reliable 

and accurate records of defensible environmental data are essential. Detailed records that must be kept include 

temporal, spatial, numerical, geotechnical, chemical, and radiological data, and all sampling and analytical procedures 

used. Failure to maintain these records in a secure but accessible form may result in exposure to legal challenges and 

the inability to respond to demands from regulators and third parties. 

BEIDMS is a hierarchical relational database management system developed by Bechtel Environmental, Inc. that is 

designed to achieve standardization and integrity in managing environmental data. The primary objective of BEIDMS 

is to store and manage unclassified environmental data that are directly or indirectly tied to field sampling events. This 

includes information on construction, analytical, geotechnical, and field parameters at the NTS. Database integrity 

and security are enforced through the assignment of role memberships and the provision of available menu items. 

18.5 Data Review and Systematic Assessments 

The final element of the process-based QA is the review of data and systematic assessments than can be used to 

evaluate data quality and usability. Four components of this review and assessment are: data checks, data verification, 

data validation, and data quality assessment. A description of these components follows. 

18.5.1 Data Checks 

Data checks are conducted to ensure the accuracy and consistency of data collected during field operations prior to 

and upon data entry into the BEIDMS. 

18.5.2 Data Verification 

Data verification is defined as a subcontract compliance and completeness review to ensure that all laboratory data 

and sample documentation are present and complete. Sample preservation, sample temperature, chain-of-custody, 

and other field sampling documentation shall also be reviewed during the verification process. Data verification 

ensures that the reported results entered in BEIDMS correctly represent the sampling and/or analyses performed and 

includes evaluation of quality control sample results. A Tier I review form and/or a Verification Checklist is 

completed for all data packages. 

18.5.3 Data Validation 

Data validation is the process of reviewing a body of analytical data to determine if it meets the data quality criteria 

defined in OIs. Data validation ensures that the reported results correctly represent the sampling and analyses 

performed, determines the validity of the reported results, and assigns data qualifiers (or “flags”), if required. The 

process of data validation consists of: 

x Evaluating the quality of the data to ascertain whether all project requirements are met. 

x Determining the impact on data quality of those requirements that are not met, if any. 

x Verifying compliance with QA requirements. 

x Checking QC values against defined limits. 

x Applying qualifiers to analytical results in BEIDMS for the purpose of defining the limitations in use of the 

reviewed data. 

x Documenting the results of the data validation. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 18-9

It is the goal to conduct data validation on 20 percent of laboratory data (10 percent using laboratory reported 

calibration data, QC results, and sample results, and 10 percent recalculating the laboratory results using submitted 

raw data to verify laboratory reported results). OIs and Procedures, applicable project specific work plans, field 

sampling plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, analytical method references, and laboratory SOW may all be used in 

the process of data validation. Documentation of data validation includes: checklists, qualifier assignment, and 

summary forms. 

18.5.4 Data Quality Assessment 

Data Quality Assessment (DQA) is the scientific evaluation of data to determine if data obtained from environmental 

data operations are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use. DQA requires a systematic 

review against pre-established criteria to verify that the data are valid for their intended use. DQA is conducted by the 

technical lead and is the final review performed. 

The overall effectiveness of the QA program is determined through systematic assessments and surveillances of the 

plan execution work flow (e.g., sampling plan development and execution, chain of custody, sample receiving, 

shipping, subcontract laboratory analytical activities, and data review) as well as the program requirements. 

Deficiencies are addressed on assessment/surveillance checklist, and if warranted will be tracked for corrective action 

and disposition (e.g., using the CaWeb Issues Tracking System). 

18.6 Results 

A brief discussion of the 2004 results for field duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank analysis, and 

interlaboratory comparison studies are provided within this section. Summary tables are also included. Based on 

implementation and evaluation of the QA/QC program and the results presented below, it can be concluded that the 

analytical data reported in the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 are reliable and of high quality. 

18.6.1 Field Duplicates 

Field duplicates obtained at nearly the same locations and times is their primary samples are used to evaluate the 

precision of the data. A field duplicate is collected, handled, and analyzed in the same fashion as the primary sample. 

The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between the field duplicate result and corresponding field sample result is a 

measure of the variability in the process caused by the sampling uncertainty (matrix heterogeneity, collection variables, 

etc.) and measurement uncertainty (field and laboratory) used to derive the final result. The average absolute RPD, 

expressed as a percentage, was determined and listed in Table 18-1. The Relative Error Ratio (RER) is the 

standardized absolute difference between the sample and its field duplicate. The RER compared to the RPD is a 

more appropriate monitor of precision near the minimum detectable concentration (MDC) and provides a better 

indicator of precision anomalies that may need to be further evaluated. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 18-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for compliance monitoring in 2004 

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 124 5 98.5 0 

Gross Beta Air 29 29 3.5 0.1 

Am-241 Air 125 14 31.7 0 

Be-7 Air 125 117 8.6 0 

Pu-238 Air 27 0 NA 0 

Pu-239/240 Air 27 3 78.1 0.1 

Tritium Air 60 28 8.8 2.5 

Am-241 Soil 8 0 NA 0.5 

Pu-238 Soil 2 2 60.4 0.7 

Pu-239+240 Soil 2 2 3 0.1 

Sr-90 Soil 2 0 NA 0.7 

Am-241 Water 6 2 104.7 0.3 

Gross Alpha Water 5 5 17.2 0.2 

Gross Beta Water 5 5 6.6 0.6 

Pu-238 Water 1 1 0.2 0 

Pu-239+240 Water 1 1 10.2 0.6 

Ra-226 Water 1 0 NA 0.3 

Ra-228 Water 1 0 NA 0.7 

Sr-90 Water 1 0 NA 0.7 

Tritium Water 33 16 25.9 0.1 

TLDs Ambient 

Radiation 424 424 3.0 NA 

(a) Represents the number of field duplicates reported for the purpose of monitoring precision. If an associated field sample

was not processed, the field duplicate was not included in this table.

(b) Represents the number of field duplicate - field sample result sets reported above the MDC. The MDC does not apply to 

TLD measurements. If either the field samples or its duplicate was reported below MDC, the precision was not 

determined. 

(c) Reflects the Average Absolute RPD calculated for sample and field duplicate pairs reported above the detection limit. 

 The Absolute RPD is calculated as follows: 

Where: FD = Field Duplicate result 

FS = Field Sample result 

(d) Relative Error Ratio (RER) determined by the following equation is used to determine whether a sample result and the 

associated field duplicate result differ significantly when compared to their respective uncertainty (standard deviation). 

The RER is calculated for all sample and field duplicate pairs reported without regard to the MDC. 

Where: S = Sample result 

 D = Duplicate result 

 TPUS = Total Propagated Uncertainty of the Field Sample 

 TPUD = Total Propagated Uncertainty of the Field Duplicate 

100 %

( ) / 2

| | X

FD FS

FD FS Absolute RPD



 

   2 2

| |

TPU S TPU D

FS FD Absolute RER



 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 18-11

18.6.2 Laboratory Control Samples 

Laboratory control samples (LCS) are used to evaluate analytical accuracy by the subcontract laboratory. The 

analytical accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value. Samples of known 

concentration are analyzed using the same methods as used for the project samples. The results are determined as the 

measured value divided by the true value, expressed as a percent. To be considered valid, the results must fall within 

established control limits (or percentage range) for further analyses to be performed. The LCS results obtained for 

samples analyzed in 2004 are summarized in Table 18-2. The LCS results were satisfactory with no more than one 

result being out of control for any given analysis or matrix category for the year. 

 Table 18-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for 2004 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

239+240Pu Air 22 22 

241Am Air 22 21 

137Cs Air 15 15 

60Co Air 13 13 

Gross Alpha Water 3 3 

Gross Beta Water 3 3 

239+240Pu Water 4 4 

Tritium Water 54 54 

90Sr Water 3 3 

226Ra Water 2 2 

228Ra Water 2 2 

241Am Water 7 7 

137Cs Water 6 6 

60Co Water 6 6 

90Sr Soil 6 6 

239+240Pu Soil 10 10 

241Am Soil 16 15 

137Cs Soil 8 8 

(a) Control limits are 70 to 130 percent for all analyses 

18.6.3 Blank Analysis 

Blank analysis and control samples are used to evaluate overall laboratory procedures including sample preparation 

and instrument performance. Laboratory blank sample analyses are essentially the opposite of control samples 

discussed in Section 18.6.2. These samples do not contain any of the analyte of interest. Results of these analyses are 

expected to be “zero”, or more accurately, below the detection limit of a specific procedure. The laboratory blank 

sample results obtained for 2004 are summarized in Table 18-3. The laboratory blank results were satisfactory with 

no more than one results being out of control for any given analysis/matrix category for the year. 
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

 Table 18-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for 2004 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gamma Air 24 24 

239+240Pu Air 31 31 

Gamma Water 18 18 

Gross Alpha Water 16 16 

Gross Beta Water 16 16 

239+240Pu Water 11 11 

Tritium Water 54 53 

90Sr Water 7 7 

226Ra Water 4 4 

228Ra Water 5 4 

Gamma Soil 14 13 

90Sr Soil 8 8 

239+240Pu Soil 12 12 

(a) Control limit is less than MDC

18.6.4 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies 

Table 18-4 shows the summary of 2004 interlaboratory comparison sample results for the subcontract radiochemistry 

laboratories. The subcontractors participated in the InterLaB RadCheMTM Proficiency Testing Program directed by 

Environmental Resource Associates (ERA) and the Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program (MAPEP) 

conducted by the Radiological and Environmental Sciences Laboratory (RESL) of the Idaho National Engineering 

and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). The subcontractors performed very well during the year by passing 80 out 

of 81 parameters analyzed. 

Table 18-5 shows the summary of interlaboratory comparison sample results for the BN Radiological Health 

Dosimetry Group. This internal evaluation was based on National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP) criteria. The Dosimetry Group participated in the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

performance evaluation study program during the course of the year. The Dosimetry Group performed very well 

during the year by passing 35 out of 35 TLDs analyzed. 

 Table 18-4. Summary of interlaboratory comparison samples of the subcontract radiochemistry 

laboratories for compliance monitoring in 2004 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

ERA Results

Gross Alpha Water 9 9 

Gross Beta Water 9 9 

Gamma Water 17 16 
Compliance Quality Assurance

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 18-13

Table 18-4. (continued) 

(a) Control limits are determined by the individual interlaboratory comparison study 

Table 18-5. Summary of interlaboratory comparison TLD samples for the BN Radiological 

Health Dosimetry Group in 2004 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

TLDs Ambient Radiation 35 35 

(a) Based upon NVLAP criteria; absolute value of the bias plus one standard deviation < 0.3. 

ERA Results, cont.

Tritium Water 5 5 

89Sr Water 8 8 

90Sr Water 8 8 

226Ra Water 12 12 

228Ra Water 10 10 

MAPEP Results

Gamma Soil 1 1 

239+240Pu Soil 1 1 

90Sr Soil 1 1 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)
Compliance Quality Assurance

18-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 19-1

19.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP 

The Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) was 

followed for the collection and analysis of radiological air and water data presented in Section 6.0 of this report. The 

CEMP QAPP ensures compliance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 414.1A Quality Assurance which 

implements a quality management system ensuring the generation and use of quality data. This QAPP addresses the 

following items previously defined in Section 18.0:

x Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) 

x Sampling plan development appropriate to satisfy the DQOs 

x Environmental health and safety 

x Sampling plan execution 

x Sample analyses 

x Data review 

x Continuous improvement 

19.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) 

The DQO process is a strategic planning approach that is used to plan data collection activities. It provides a 

systematic process for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy. These criteria include when 

and where samples should be collected, how many samples to collect, and the tolerable level of decision errors for the 

study. DQOs are unique to the specific data collection or monitoring activity, and are further explained in 

Appendices A through E of DOE (2003b). 

19.2 Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) 

MQOs are basically equivalent to DQOs for analytical processes. The MQOs provide direction to the laboratory 

concerning performance objectives or requirements for specific method performance characteristics. Default MQOs 

are established in the subcontract, but may be altered in order to satisfy changes in the DQOs. The MQOs for the 

CEMP project are described in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability 

requirements. These terms are defined and discussed in Section 18.1 for onsite activities. 

19.3 Sampling QA Program 

Quality Assurance (QA) in field operations for the CEMP includes sampling assessments, surveillances, and oversight 

of the following supporting elements: 

x The sampling plan, data quality objectives, and field data sheets accompanying the sample package 

x Database support for field and laboratory results, including systems for long-term storage and retrieval 

x A training program to ensure that qualified personnel are available to perform required tasks 

Sample packages include the following items: 

x Station manager checklist confirming all observable information pertinent to sample collection 

x An Air Surveillance Network Sample Data Form documenting air sampler parameters, collection dates and times, 

and total sample volumes collected 

x Chains-of-Custody forms 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

19-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

This managed approach to sampling ensures that the sampling is traceable and enhances the value of the final data 

available to the project manager. The sample package also ensures that the station manager Community 

Environmental Monitor (CEM) (see Section 6.0 for description of CEMs) has followed proper procedures for sample 

collection. The CEMP Project Manager or QA Officer routinely performs assessments of the station managers and 

field monitors to ensure that standard operating procedures and sampling protocol are being followed properly. 

Data obtained in the course of executing field operations are entered in the documentation accompanying the sample 

package during sample collection and in the CEMP database along with analytical results upon their receipt and 

evaluation. 

Completed sample packages are kept as hard copy in file archives. Analytical reports are kept as hard copy in file 

archives as well as Compact Disk-Read Only Memory by calendar year. Analytical reports and databases are protected 

and maintained in accordance with Desert Research Institutes (DRI’s) Computer Protection Program. 

19.4 Laboratory QA Oversight 

CEMP ensures that DOE Order 414.1A Quality Assurance requirements are met with respect to laboratory services 

through review of the vendor laboratory policies formalized in a Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan (LQAP). CEMP 

is assured of obtaining quality data from laboratory services through a multifaceted approach involving specific 

procurement protocols, the conduct of quality assessments, and requirements for selected laboratories to have an 

acceptable QA program. These elements are discussed below. 

19.4.1 Procurement 

Laboratory services are procured through subcontract. 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: 

x All procedures pertinent to subcontract scope 

x EH&S Plan 

x LQAP 

x Example deliverables (hard copy and/or electronic) 

x Proficiency Testing (PT) results from the previous year from recognized PT programs 

x Resumes 

x Facility design/description 

x Accreditations and certifications 

x Licenses 

x Audits performed by an acceptable DOE program covering comparable scope 

x Past performance surveys 

x 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 2004 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: 

x Tracking schedule compliance 

x Review of analytical data deliverables 

x Monitoring of the lab’s adherence to the LQAP 

x Conducting regular audits 

x 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 BN 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: 

x Evaluating the quality of the data to ensure that all project requirements are met 

x Determining the impact on data quality of those requirements if they are not met 

x Verifying compliance with QA requirements 

x Checking QC values against defined limits 

x 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 2004

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 2004 Sample QA Results 

Quality assurance procedures were performed by the CEMP, including the laboratories responsible for sample 

analyses. These assessments ensure that sample collection procedures, analytical techniques, and data provided by the 

subcontracted laboratories comply with CEMP requirements. Data was provided by Severn Trent Laboratories (gross 

alpha/beta and gamma spectroscopy data), Global Dosimetry Solutions (thermoluminescent dosimeter [TLD] data), 

and DRI (tritium data). A brief discussion of the 2004 results for field duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank 

analysis, and interlaboratory comparison studies are provided along with summary tables within this section. The 

2004 CEMP radiological air and water monitoring data themselves are presented in Section 6.0.

19.7.1 Field Duplicates (Precision) 

A field duplicate is a sample collected, handled, and analyzed following the same procedures as the primary sample. 

The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between the field duplicate result and the corresponding field sample result is 

a measure of the variability in the process caused by the sampling uncertainty (matrix heterogeneity, collection 

variables, etc.) and measurement uncertainty (field and laboratory) used to arrive at a final result. The average 

absolute RPD, expressed as a percentage, was determined for the calendar year 2004 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 >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. 

19.7.2 Laboratory Control Samples (Accuracy) 

Laboratory control samples (a.k.a. matrix spikes) are performed by the subcontract laboratory to evaluate analytical 

accuracy, which is the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value. Samples of known 

concentration are analyzed using the same methods as employed for the project samples. The results are determined 

as the measured value divided by the true value, expressed as a percent. To be considered valid, the results must fall 

within established control limits (or percentage range) for further analyses to be performed. The laboratory control 

samples (LCS) results obtained for 2004 are summarized in Table 19-2. The LCS results were satisfactory with no 

samples falling outside of control parameters for gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma spectroscopy analyses for the air 

sample matrix, and tritium for the water matrix. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 19-5

Table 19-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for oversight monitoring in 2004

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 116 112 27.7 

Gross Beta Air 116 116 7.8 

Gamma - Beryllium-7 Air 9 8 17.1 

Tritium Water 4 1 23.1 

TLDs Ambient 

Radiation 12 12 6.2 

(a) Represents the number of field duplicates reported for the purpose of monitoring precision. If an 

 associated field sample was not processed, the field duplicate was not included in this table. 

(b) Represents the number of field duplicate - field sample result sets reported above the minimum detectable 

concentration (MDC) (MDC is not applicable for TLDs). If either the field sample or its duplicate was reported 

below the detection limit, the precision was not determined. 

(c) Reflects the Average Absolute RPD calculated for those field duplicates reported above the MDC. 

 The Absolute RPD calculation is as follows: 

Where: FD = Field Duplicate result 

 FS = Field Sample result 

 Table 19-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for oversight 

monitoring in 2004 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 106 106 

Gross Beta Air 106 106 

Gamma Air 8 8 

Tritium Water 4 4 

(a) Control limits are as follows: 80 to 134 percent for gross alpha and beta; 80 to 114 

percent for gamma (137Cs, 60Co, 241Am); 80 to 120 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 2004 are summarized in Table 19-3. The laboratory blank results were satisfactory with only one gross 

alpha sample (<1 percent) sample being outside of control parameters for the air sample matrix. 

100 %

( ) / 2

| | X

FD FS

FD FS Absolute RPD



 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

19-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table 19-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for oversight 

monitoring in 2004 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 107 106 

Gross Beta Air 107 107 

Gamma Air 8 8 

Tritium Water 6 6 

(a) Control limit is less than the MDC. 

19.7.4 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies 

Interlaboratory 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 

interlaboratory comparison sample results obtained for 2004 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 interlaboratory 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 interlaboratory comparison samples of the subcontract 

radiochemistry laboratory for oversight monitoring in 2004 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

MAPEP and EML Results 

Gross Alpha Air 6 6 

Gross Beta Air 6 6 

Gamma Air 4 4 

(a) Control limits are determined by the individual interlaboratory comparison study. 

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

dosimetry group for compliance monitoring in 2004 

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 Description 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-i 

Appendix A 

Nevada Test Site Description
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-ii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-1 

A.0 Appendix A: Nevada Test Site Description 

This appendix expands on the general description of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) presented in the Introduction. 

Included are subsections that summarize the site’s geological, hydrological, climatological, and ecological setting. The 

cultural resources of the NTS are also presented. The subsections are meant to aid the reader in understanding the 

complex physical and biological environment of the NTS. An adequate knowledge of the site’s environment is 

necessary to assess the environmental impacts of new projects, design and implement environmental monitoring 

activities for current site operations, and assess the impacts of site operations on the public residing in the vicinity of 

the NTS. The NTS environment contributes to several key features of the site which afford protection to the 

inhabitants of adjacent areas from potential exposure to radioactivity or other contaminants resulting from NTS 

operations. These key features include the general remote location of the NTS, restricted access, extended wind 

transport times, the great depths to slow-moving groundwater, little or no surface water, and low population density. 

This appendix complements the annual summary of monitoring program activities and dose assessments presented in 

the main body of this report.

A.1 Geology 

A.1.1 Physiographic/Geologic 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 (Figure A-1). The NTS terrain is typical of much of the Basin and Range Physiographic 

Province, characterized by mostly tilted, fault-bounded blocks that are as much as 80 kilometers (km) (50 miles [mi]) 

long and 24 km (15 mi) wide. These features are modified locally by the Las Vegas Shear Zone (a component of the 

Walker Lane regional structural belt) in the southern part of the NTS, and by resurgent calderas of the Southwest 

Nevada Volcanic Field (SWNVF). The land forms and topography of the NTS area reflect the complex geology and 

its location in the arid Mojave Desert. 

The NTS area is geologically complex, with at least six Tertiary-age calderas nearby, many relatively young basin-andrange-style normal faults, and Mesozoic-age thrust faults and intrusive bodies, all superimposed on a basement 

complex of highly deformed Proterozoic and Paleozoic-age sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks. Geologic units 

exposed at the surface in the NTS area can be categorized as approximately 40 percent alluvium-filled basins and 

20 percent Paleozoic and uppermost Precambrian sedimentary rocks, the remainder beingTertiary-age volcanic rocks 

with a few intrusive masses (Orkild, 1983b; Slate et al., 1999). A generalized geologic map of the NTS area is given in 

Figure A-2. 

The NTS area is dominated by Tertiary-age volcanic rocks formed from materials that were erupted from various 

vents in the SWNVF, located on and adjacent to the northwestern part of the NTS (Figure A-2). At least six major 

calderas have been identified in this multi-caldera silicic volcanic field (Byers et al., 1976). The calderas formed by the 

voluminous eruption of zoned ash-flow tuffs between 16 and 7.5 million years ago (Ma) (Sawyer et al., 1994). From 

oldest to youngest the calderas are: Grouse Canyon, Area 20, Claim Canyon, Rainier Mesa, Ammonia Tanks, and 

Black Mountain calderas. A comprehensive review of past studies and the evolution of concepts on calderas of the 

SWNVF during the period from 1960 to 1988 is presented in Byers et al., 1989. 

The volcanic rocks are covered in many areas by a variety of late Tertiary and Quaternary surficial deposits. These 

younger deposits consist of alluvium, colluvium, eolian (wind-blown sand) deposits, spring deposits, basalt lavas, 

lacustrine (fresh-water lake) deposits, and playa deposits. 

The area includes more than 300 described Tertiary-age volcanic units (Warren et al., 2000a; 2003). As a matter of 

practicality, some units are grouped together, especially those of limited areal extent or thickness. Table A-1 presents 

most of the Tertiary volcanic units useful in characterizing the subsurface at the NTS. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure A-1. Basin and Range Physiographic Province and Great Basin Hydrologic Province 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-3 

Figure A-2. Generalized geologic map of the NTS and vicinity 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Underlying the Tertiary volcanic rocks are Paleozoic and Proterozoic sedimentary rocks including dolomite, 

limestone, quartzite, and argillite, some of which form the primary regional aquifer and the regional hydrologic 

“basement” (Table A-2). During Precambrian and Paleozoic time, as much as 10,000 meters (m) (32,800 feet [ft]) of 

marine sediments were deposited in the NTS region (Cole, 1997). The only surface exposure of Mesozoic-age rocks 

in the NTS area are granitic intrusive masses, the Gold Meadows Stock north of Rainier Mesa (Snyder, 1977; 

Gibbons et al.,1963 ), and the Climax Stock located at the extreme north end of Yucca Flat (Maldonado, 1977; Barnes 

et al., 1963) (Figure A-2). 

Table A-1. Quaternary and Tertiary stratigraphic units of the NTS and vicinity 

Stratigraphic Assemblages and Major Units(a, b) Volcanic Sources(c)

Quaternary or Tertiary Sediments 

 Young alluvium (Qay) 

 Playa (Qp) 

 Quaternary - Tertiary colluvium (QTc) 

 Middle alluvium (Qam) 

 Eolian sand (QTe) 

 Quaternary-Tertiary alluvium (QTa) 

Quaternary Basalts (Qby) 

Pliocene Basalts (Typ) 

Tertiary alluvium (Tgy) 

Not applicable 

Miocene Basalt and Rhyolite 

 Thirsty Canyon and Younger Basalts (Tyb) 

 Rhyolite of Obsidian Butte (Tyr) 

Several discrete sources 

Tertiary Sediments 

 Late synvolcanic sedimentary rocks (Tgm) 

 Caldera moat-filling sedimentary deposits (Tgc) 

 Younger landslide and sedimentary breccia (Tgyx) 

Not applicable 

Thirsty Canyon Group (Tt) 

 Gold Flat Tuff (Ttg) 

 Trachyte of Hidden Cliff (Tth) 

 Trachytic rocks of Pillar Spring and Yellow Cleft (Tts) 

 Trail Ridge Tuff (Ttt) 

 Pahute Mesa and Rocket Wash Tuffs (Ttp) 

 Comendite of Ribbon Cliff (Ttc) 

Black Mountain Caldera 

Volcanics of Fortymile Canyon (Tf) 

 Rhyolite of Boundary Butte (Tfu) 

 Post-Timber Mountain Basaltic Rocks (Tft) 

 Trachyte of Donovan Mountain (Tfn) 

 Rhyolite of Shoshone Mountain (Tfs) 

 Lavas of Dome Mountain (Tfd) 

 Younger intrusive rocks (Tiy) 

 Rhyolite of Rainbow Mountain (Tfr) 

 Beatty Wash Formation (Tfb) 

 Tuff of Leadfield Road (Tfl) 

 Rhyolite of Fleur-de-lis Ranch (Tff) 

Several discrete vent areas in and around the Timber 

Mountain caldera complex 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-5 

Table A-1. (continued) 

Stratigraphic Assemblages and Major Units(a, b) Volcanic Sources(c)

Timber Mountain Group (Tm) 

 Trachyte of East Cat Canyon (Tmay) 

 Tuff of Buttonhook Wash (Tmaw) 

 Ammonia Tanks Tuff (Tma) 

 Bedded Ammonia Tanks Tuff (Tmab) 

 Timber Mountain landslide breccia (Tmx) 

 Rhyolite of Tannenbaum Hill (Tmat) 

 Basalt of Tierra (Tmt) 

 Rainier Mesa Tuff (Tmr) 

 Rhyolite of Fluorspur Canyon (Tmrf) 

 Tuff of Holmes Road (Tmrh) 

 Landslide or eruptive breccia (Tmrx) 

 Rhyolite of Windy Wash (Tmw) 

 Transitional Timber Mountain rhyolites (Tmn) 

Timber Mountain Caldera Complex 

Ammonia Tanks Caldera 

Rainier Mesa Caldera 

Paintbrush Group (Tp) 

 Rhyolite of Benham (Tpb) 

 Post-Tiva Canyon rhyolites (Tpu) 

 Paintbrush caldera-collapse breccias (Tpx) 

 Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc) 

 Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy) 

 Rhyolite of Delirium Canyon (Tpd) 

 Rhyolite of Echo Peak (Tpe) 

 Middle Paintbrush Group rhyolites (Tpm) 

 Pah Canyon Tuff (Tpp) 

 Rhyolite of Silent Canyon (Tpr) 

 Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) 

Claim Canyon Caldera 

Claim Canyon Caldera 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Calico Hills Formation (Th; formerly Tac) Unknown 

Wahmonie Formation (Tw) Wahmonie Volcanic Center 

Crater Flat Group (Tc) 

 Rhyolite of Inlet (Tci) 

 Prow Pass Tuff (Tcp) 

 Rhyolite of Kearsarage (Tcpk) 

 Andesite of Grimy Gulch (Tcg) 

 Bullfrog Tuff (Tcb) 

 Rhyolites in the Crater Flat Group (Tcr) 

 Tram Tuff (Tct) 

Belted Range Group (Tb) 

 Deadhorse Flat Formation (Tbd) 

 Grouse Canyon Tuff (Tbg) 

 Comendite of Split Range (Tbgs) 

 Comendite of Quartet Dome (Tbq) 

Silent Canyon Caldera Complex 

Area 20 Caldera 

Grouse Canyon Caldera 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table A-1. (continued) 

Stratigraphic Assemblages and Major Units(a, b) Volcanic Sources(c)

Tram Ridge Group (Tr) 

 Lithic Ridge Tuff (Trl) 

 Dikes of Tram Ridge (Trd) 

 Rhyolite of Picture Rock (Trr) 

Uncertain 

Tunnel Formation (Tn) 

 4 Member (Tn4) 

 3 Member (Tn3) 

Uncertain 

Volcanics of Quartz Mountain (Tq) 

 Tuff of Sleeping Butte (Tqs) 

 Hornblende-bearing rhyolite of Quartz Mountain(Tqh) 

 Tuff of Tolicha Peak (Tqt) 

 Early rhyolite of Quartz Mountain (Tqe) 

 Dacite of Mount Helen (Tqm) 

Uncertain 

Volcanics of Big Dome (Tu) 

 Comendite of Ochre Ridge (Tuo) 

 Tub Spring Tuff (Tub) 

 Comendite of Emigrant Valley (Tue) 

Unknown 

Volcanics of Oak Spring Butte (To) 

 Tunnel bed 2 (Ton2) 

 Yucca Flat Tuff (Toy) 

 Tunnel bed 1 (Ton1) 

 Redrock Valley Tuff (Tor) 

 Tuff of Twin Peaks (Tot) 

Unknown 

Older Volcanics (Tqo) Unknown 

Paleocolluvium (Tl) N/A 

(a) Compiled from Wahl et al. (1997) and Ferguson et al. (1994). 

(b) Letters in parentheses are stratigraphic unit map symbols. 

(c) Sources, where known, from Sawyer et al. (1994). 

Refer to Table A-2 for lists of Mesozoic, Paleozoic, and Precambrian sedimentary rock formations. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-7 

Table A-2. Pre-Tertiary stratigraphic units of the NTS and vicinity 

Stratigraphic 

Thickness 

Map Unit 

Stratigraphic 

Unit Map 

Symbol Feet Meters Dominant Lithology 

Gold Meadows Stock 

Climax Stock 

Kgg 

Kgc N/A N/A Quartz monzonite Granodiorite 

Tippipah Limestone 

(correlative with the Bird 

Spring Formation) 

PPt 3,500 1,070 Limestone 

Chainman Shale and Eleana 

Formation 

Mc

MDe 4,000 1,220 Shale, argillite, and quartzite 

Guilmette Formation 

Simonson Dolomite 

Sevy Dolomite 

Laketown Dolomite 

Ely Spring Dolomite 

Eureka Quartzite 

Antelope Valley Limestone 

Ninemile Formation 

Goodwin Limestone 

Nopah Formation 

Bonanza King Formation 

Carrara Formation (upper) 

Dg 

Ds 

DSs 

Sl

Oes 

Oe 

Oa

On 

Og 

Cn 

Cb 

Cc

1,400 

1,100 

690

650

340

400

1,530 

335

685

2,050 

4,350 

925

430

330

210

200

105

125

466

102

209

620

1,330 

280

Limestone 

Dolomite 

Dolomite 

Dolomite 

Dolomite 

Quartzite 

Limestone 

Limestone 

Limestone 

Limestone 

Limestone/dolomite 

Limestone 

Carrara Formation (lower) 

Zabriskie Quartzite 

Wood Canyon Formation 

Stirling Quartzite 

Johnnie Formation 

Cc

Cz

CZw 

Zs 

Zj 

925

200

2,300 

2,900 

3,000 

280

60

700

890

914

Shale/Siltstone 

Quartzite 

Micaceous quartzite 

Quartzite 

Quartzite/siltstone/limestone 

(Stratigraphic units and lithologies adapted from Cole, 1992) 

A.1.2 Stratigraphy 

In order to confidently characterize the geology at the NTS, geoscientists must start from a well understood 

stratigraphic system. Refinement of the stratigraphy of the area was a continuous process during the decades in which 

geoscientists associated with the Weapons Testing Program (WTP) worked to understand the complex volcanic 

setting (documented by Byers et al., 1989). The need to develop detailed geologic models in support of the 

Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project (see Section 14) intensified this process, and the recognition of smaller and 

smaller distinct volcanic units permitted a greater understanding of the three-dimensional configuration of the various 

types of rocks, which has been incorporated into the geologic framework. Efforts to understand the structure and 

stratigraphy of the non-volcanic rocks (pre-Tertiary) have also continued to a lesser degree (Cole, 1997; Cole and 

Cashman, 1999; Cashman and Trexler, 1991; Trexler et al., 2003). The most widespread and significant Quaternary 

and Tertiary (mainly volcanic) units of the NTS area are listed in Table A-1. Refer to Table A-2 for a list of Mesozoic 

(granitic), Paleozoic (sedimentary), and Precambrian (sedimentary and metamorphic) stratigraphic units. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

A.1.3 Structural Controls 

Geologic structures are an important component of the hydrogeology of the area. Structures define the geometric 

configuration of the area, including the distribution, thickness, and orientation of units. Synvolcanic structures, 

including caldera faults and some normal faults had strong influence on depositional patterns of many of the units. 

The juxtaposition of units with different hydrologic properties across faults may have significant hydrogeologic 

consequences. Also, faults may act as either conduits or barriers of groundwater flow, depending on the difference in 

permeability between a fault zone and the surrounding rocks. This is partially determined by whether the fault zone is 

characterized by open fractures, or if it is associated with fine-grained gouge or increased alteration. 

Five main types of structural features exist in the area: 

x Thrust faults (e.g., Belted Range and CP thrusts) 

x Normal faults (e.g., Yucca and West Greeley faults) 

x Transverse faults and structural zones (e.g., Rock Valley and Cane Spring faults) 

x Calderas (e.g., Timber Mountain and Silent Canyon caldera complexes) 

x Detachment faults (e.g., Fluorspar Canyon - Bullfrog Hills detachment fault) 

The Belted Range thrust fault is the principle pre-Tertiary structure in the NTS region, and thus, controls the 

distribution of pre-Tertiary rocks in the area. The fault can be traced or inferred from Bare Mountain just south of 

the southwest corner of the NTS area to the northern Belted Range, just north of the NTS, a distance of more than 

130 km (81 mi). It is an eastward-directed thrust fault that generally places late Proterozoic to early Cambrian rocks 

over rocks as young as Mississippian. Several imbricate thrust faults occur east of the main thrust fault. Deformation

related to the Belted Range thrust fault occurred sometime between 100 and 250 Ma. Lesser thrusts of similar age are 

mapped in the area (e.g., the CP and Spotted Range thrusts). 

Normal faults in the area are related mainly to basin-and-range extension (e.g., Yucca fault in Yucca Flat and West 

Greeley fault on Pahute Mesa). Most of them likely developed during and after the main phase of volcanic activity of 

the SWNVF (Sawyer et al., 1994). The majority of these faults are northwest-to northeast-striking, high angle faults. 

However, the exact locations, amount of offset along the faults, and character of the faults become increasingly 

uncertain with depth. 

Calderas are probably the most hydrogeologically important features in the NTS area. Volcano-tectonic and 

geomorphic processes related to caldera development, result in abrupt and dramatic lithologic and thickness changes 

across caldera margins. Consequently, caldera margins (i.e., faults) separate regions with considerably different 

hydrogeologic character. 

A.2 Hydrology 

The hydrologic character of the NTS and vicinity reflects the region’s arid climatic conditions and complex geology 

(D’Agnese et al., 1997). The hydrology of the NTS has been extensively studied for over 40 years (DOE, 1996); 

numerous scientific reports and large databases are available (refer to cited references for more detailed information). 

The following subsections present an overview of the hydrologic setting of the NTS and vicinity, including summary 

descriptions of surface water and groundwater, hydrogeologic framework, and brief descriptions of the hydrogeology 

for each of the idle underground test areas on the NTS. The reader is directed to Section 14 in the main body of

this document for a discussion of the hydrogeologic modeling efforts conducted through the Underground Test Area 

(UGTA) Project. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-9 

A.2.1 Surface Water 

The NTS is located within the Great Basin, a closed hydrographic province that comprises several closed 

hydrographic basins (Figure A-3). The closed hydrographic basins of the NTS (most notably Yucca and Frenchman 

Flats) are subbasins of the Great Basin. Streams in the region are ephemeral, flowing only in response to precipitation 

events or snowmelt. Runoff is conveyed through normally dry washes toward the lowest areas of the closed 

hydrographic subbasins, and collects on playas. There are two playas (seasonally dry lakes) on the NTS: Frenchman 

Lake and Yucca Lake, which lie in Frenchman and Yucca Flats, respectively. While water may stand on the playas for 

a few weeks before evaporating, the playas are dry most of the year. Surface water may leave the NTS in only a few 

places, such as Fortymile Canyon in the southwestern NTS. 

Springs that emanate from local perched groundwater systems are the only natural sources of perennial surface water 

in the region. There are 24 known springs or seeps on the NTS (Hansen et al., 1997; BN, 1999) (Figure A-4). Spring 

discharge rates are low, ranging from 0.014 to 2.2 liters/sec (0.22 to 35 gallons/minute) (IT, 1997). Most water 

discharged from springs travels only a short distance from the source before evaporating or infiltrating into the 

ground. The springs are important sources of water for wildlife, but they are too small to be of use as a public water 

supply source. 

Other surface waters on the NTS include man-made impoundments constructed at several locations throughout the 

NTS to support various operations. These are numerous, and include open industrial reservoirs, containment ponds, 

and sewage lagoons (DOE, 2003). Surface water is not a source of drinking water on the NTS. 

A.2.2 Groundwater 

The NTS is located within the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, one of the major hydrologic 

subdivisions of the southern Great Basin (Waddell et al., 1984; Laczniak et al., 1996). Groundwater in southern 

Nevada is conveyed within several flow-system subbasins within the Death Valley regional flow system (a subbasin is 

defined as the area that contributes water to a major surface discharge area [Laczniak, et al., 1996]). Three principal 

groundwater subbasins, named for their down-gradient discharge areas, have been identified within the NTS region: 

the Ash Meadows, Oasis Valley, and Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek Ranch subbasins (Waddell et al., 1984) (Figure A-5). 

The groundwater-bearing rocks at the NTS have been classified into several hydrogeologic units (HGUs; see 

Section A.2.3 below), of which the most important is the lower carbonate aquifer, a thick sequence of Paleozoic 

carbonate rock. This unit extends throughout the subsurface of central and southeastern Nevada, and is considered 

to be a regional aquifer (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; Laczniak, et al., 1996; IT, 1996a). Various volcanic and 

alluvial aquifers are also locally important as water sources. 

The depth to groundwater in wells at the NTS varies from about 210 m (690 ft) below the land surface under the 

Frenchman Flat playa in the southeastern NTS, to more than 610 m (2,000 ft) below the land surface in the 

northwestern NTS, beneath Pahute Mesa (Lock et al., 2003; Bright et al., 2000; IT, 1996b; Reiner et al., 1995; 

O’Hagan and Laczniak, 1996; Robie et al., 1995). Perched groundwater (isolated lenses of water lying above the 

regional groundwater level) occurs locally throughout the NTS, mainly within the volcanic rocks. 

Recharge areas for the Death Valley groundwater system are the higher mountain ranges of central and southern 

Nevada, where there can be significant precipitation and snowmelt. Groundwater flow is generally from these upland 

areas to natural discharge areas in the south and southwest. Groundwater at the NTS is also derived from underflow 

from basins up-gradient of the area (Harrill et al., 1988). The direction of groundwater flow may locally be influenced 

by structure, rock type, or other geologic conditions. Based on existing water-level data (Reiner et al., 1995; 

Hale et al., 1995; IT, 1996b; DOE, 2003) and flow models (IT, 1996a; D’Agnese et al., 1997) the general groundwater 

flow direction within major water-bearing units beneath the NTS is to the south and southwest. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure A-3. Closed hydrographic subbasins on the NTS
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-11 

Figure A-4. Natural springs and seeps on the NTS
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure A-5. Groundwater subbasins of the NTS and vicinity 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-13 

Most of the natural discharge from the Death Valley flow system is via transpiration by plants or evaporation from 

soil and playas in the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. Groundwater discharge at the NTS is minor, consisting of 

small springs which drain perched water lenses and artificial discharge at a limited number of water supply wells. 

Groundwater is the only local source of potable water on the NTS. The nine supply wells that make up the NTS 

water system and the other supply wells for the various water systems in the area (town of Beatty, small mines, and 

local ranches) produce water for human and industrial use from the carbonate, volcanic, and alluvial aquifers. Water 

chemistry varies from a sodium-potassium-bicarbonate type to a calcium-magnesium-carbonate type, depending on 

the mineralogical composition of the aquifer source. Groundwater quality within aquifers of the NTS is generally 

acceptable for drinking water and industrial and agricultural uses (Chapman, 1994), and meets Safe Drinking Water 

Act standards (Chapman and Lyles, 1993; Rose et al., 1997; BN, 2003). 

A.2.3 Hydrogeologic Framework for the NTS and Vicinity 

When the need for testing nuclear devices underground was recognized in the 1950s, among the first concerns was 

the effect testing would have on the groundwater of the area. One of the earliest nuclear tests conducted below the 

groundwater table (the BILBY test conducted in 1963) was designed in part to study explosion effects on 

groundwater and the movement in groundwater of radioactive byproducts from the explosion (Hale et al., 1963; 

Garber, 1971). Since that time additional studies at various scales have been conducted to aid in the understanding of 

groundwater flow at the NTS. The current understanding of the regional groundwater flow at the NTS is derived 

from work by Winograd and Thordarson (1975), which was summarized and updated by Laczniak et al. (1996), and 

has further been developed by the UGTA Project hydrogeologic modeling team (IT, 1996a, 1998; BN, 2002a). See 

Section 14 for a description of the UGTA Project. 

Winograd and Thordarson (1975) established a hydrogeologic framework, incorporating the work of Blankennagel 

and Weir (1973) who defined the first hydrogeologic units (HGUs) to address the complex hydraulic properties of 

volcanic rocks. HGUs are used to categorize lithologic units according to their ability to transmit groundwater, which 

is mainly a function of their primary lithologic properties, degree of fracturing, and secondary mineral alteration. 

Hydrostratigraphic units (HSUs) for the NTS volcanic rocks were first defined during the UGTA modeling initiative 

(IT, 1996a). HSUs are groupings of contiguous stratigraphic units that have a particular hydrogeologic character, such 

as aquifer (unit through which water moves readily) or confining unit (unit that generally is impermeable to water 

movement). The concept of HSUs is very useful in volcanic terrains where stratigraphic units can vary greatly in 

hydrologic character both laterally and vertically. 

The rocks of the NTS have been classified for hydrologic modeling using this two-level classification scheme in which 

HGUs are grouped to form HSUs (IT, 1996a). An HSU may consist of several HGUs but is defined so that a single 

general type of HGU dominates (for example, mostly welded-tuff and vitric-tuff aquifers or mostly tuff confining 

units). 

A.2.3.1 Hydrogeologic Units

All the rocks of the NTS and vicinity can be classified as one of ten HGUs, which include the alluvial aquifer, a playa 

confining unit, four volcanic HGUs, two intrusive units, and two HGUs that represent the pre-Tertiary rocks 

(Table A-3). 

The deposits of alluvium (alluvial aquifer) fill the main basins of the NTS, and generally consist of a loosely 

consolidated mixture of boulders, gravel, and sand derived from volcanic and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks 

(Slate et al., 1999). The finest sediments can be deposited as playa deposits (or dry lake beds) in some closed basins 

(e.g., Yucca and Frenchman Flats). Because of their silty/clayey nature these fine-grained units tend to behave 

hydrologically as confining units (restrictive of groundwater flow). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table A-3. Hydrogeologic units of the NTS area 

Hydrogeologic Unit Typical Lithologies Hydrologic Significance 

Alluvial Aquifer 

(AA) 

Unconsolidated to partially 

consolidated gravelly sand, 

eolian sand, and colluvium; thin, 

basalt flows of limited extent 

Has characteristics of a highly conductive aquifer, but 

less so where lenses of clay-rich paleocolluvium or 

playa deposits are present. 

Welded-Tuff Aquifer 

(WTA) 

Welded ash-flow tuff; vitric to 

devitrified 

Degree of welding greatly affects interstitial porosity 

(less porosity as degree of welding increases) and 

permeability (greater fracture permeability as degree 

of welding increases). 

Vitric-Tuff Aquifer 

(VTA) 

Bedded tuff; ash-fall and 

reworked tuff; vitric 

Constitutes a volumetrically minor hydrogeologic 

unit. Generally does not extend far below the static 

water level due to tendency to become zeolitized 

(which drastically reduces permeability) under 

saturated conditions. Significant interstitial porosity 

(20 to 40 percent). Generally insignificant fracture 

permeability. 

Lava-Flow Aquifer 

(LFA) 

Rhyolite lava flows; includes flow 

breccias (commonly at base) and 

pumiceous zones (commonly at 

top) 

Generally a caldera-filling unit. Hydrologically 

complex; wide range of transmissivities; fracture 

density and interstitial porosity differ with lithologic 

variations. 

Tuff Confining Unit 

(TCU) 

Zeolitized bedded tuff with 

interbedded, but less significant, 

zeolitized, nonwelded to partially 

welded ash-flow tuff 

May be saturated but measured transmissivities are 

very low. May cause accumulation of perched and/or 

semi-perched water in overlying units. 

Intracaldera Intrusive 

Confining Unit 

(IICU) 

Highly altered, highly 

injected/intruded country rock 

and granitic material 

Assumed to be impermeable. Conceptually underlies 

each of the SWNVF calderas and Calico Hills. 

Granite Confining Unit 

(GCU) 

Granodiorite, quartz monzonite Relatively impermeable; forms local bulbous stocks, 

north of Rainier Mesa and Yucca Flat; may contain 

perched water. 

Clastic Confining Unit 

(CCU) 

Argillite, siltstone, quartzite Clay-rich rocks are relatively impermeable; more 

siliceous rocks are fractured, but with fracture 

porosity generally sealed due to secondary 

mineralization. 

Carbonate Aquifer 

(CA) 

Dolomite, limestone Transmissivity values differ greatly and are directly 

dependent on fracture frequency. 

Note: Adapted from BN (2002a). 

The volcanic rocks of the NTS and vicinity can be categorized into four HGUs based on primary lithologic 

properties, degree of fracturing, and secondary mineral alteration. In general, the altered (typically zeolitized, but 

hydrothermally altered near caldera margins) volcanic rocks act as confining units (tuff confining unit), and the 

unaltered rocks form aquifers. The volcanic aquifer units can be further divided into welded-tuff aquifers or 

vitric-tuff aquifers (depending upon the degree of welding) and lava-flow aquifers. The denser rocks (welded ash-flow 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-15 

tuffs and lava flows) tend to fracture more readily, and therefore have relatively high permeability (Blankennagel and 

Weir, 1973; Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; Laczniak et al., 1996; IT, 1997, 1996c; Prothro and Drellack, 1997). 

The pre-Tertiary sedimentary rocks at the NTS and vicinity are also categorized as aquifer or confining unit HGUs 

based on lithology. The silicic clastic rocks (quartzite, siltstone, shale) tend to be aquitards or confining units, while 

the carbonates (limestone and dolomite) tend to be aquifers (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; Laczniak et al., 1996). 

The granite confining unit is considered to behave as a confining unit due to low primary porosity and low 

permeability, and because most fractures are probably filled with secondary minerals (Walker, 1962). 

A.2.3.2 Hydrostratigraphic Units 

The rocks at the NTS and vicinity are grouped into roughly 60 HSUs. The more important and widespread HSUs in 

the area are discussed separately below, from oldest to youngest. Additional information regarding other HSUs is 

summarized in tables introduced in Section A.2.5 below where the hydrogeology of Yucca and Frenchman Flats, and 

Pahute and Rainier Mesas UGTAs at the NTS is addressed. Additional information can be found in the 

documentation packages for the UGTA CAU-scale hydrogeologic models (IT, 1996a; 1998; Gonzales and Drellack, 

1999; and BN, 2002a). 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit (LCCU) – The Proterozoic to Middle-Cambrian-age rocks are largely quartzite 

and silica-cemented siltstone. Although these rocks are brittle and commonly fractured, secondary mineralization 

seems to have greatly reduced formation permeability (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975). These units make up the 

LCCU, which is considered to be the regional hydrologic basement (IT, 1996a). The LCCU is interpreted to underlie 

the entire region, except at the calderas. Where it is in a structurally high position, the LCCU may act as a barrier to 

deep regional groundwater flow. 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) – The LCA consists of thick sequences of Middle Cambrian through Upper 

Devonian carbonate rocks. This HSU serves as the regional aquifer for most of southern Nevada and locally may be 

as thick as 5,000 m (16,400 ft) (Cole, 1997; Cole and Cashman, 1999). The LCA is present under most of the area, 

except where the LCCU is structurally high and at the calderas. Transmissivities of these rocks differ from place to 

place, apparently reflecting the observed differences in fracture and fault densities and characteristics (Winograd and 

Thordarson, 1975). 

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) – Upper Devonian and Mississippian silicic clastic rocks in the NTS 

vicinity are assigned to the Eleana Formation and the Chainman Shale (Trexler et al., 2003; Cashman and Trexler, 

1991; Trexler et al., 1996). Both formations are grouped into the UCCU. At the NTS this HSU is found mainly 

within a north-south band along the western portion of Yucca Flat. It is a significant confining unit and in many 

places forms the footwall of the Belted Range and Control Point (CP) thrust faults. 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer, Upper Thrust Plate (LCA3) – Cambrian through Devonian, mostly carbonate rocks 

that occur in the hanging wall of the Belted Range and CP thrust faults are designated as LCA3. These rocks are 

equivalent stratigraphically to the LCA, but are structurally separated from the LCA by the Belted Range thrust fault. 

The LCA3 is patchily distributed as remnant thrust blocks, particularly along the western and southern sides of Yucca 

Flat (at Mine Mountain and the CP Hills), at Calico Hills, and at Bare Mountain. 

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit (MGCU) – The Mesozoic era is represented at the NTS only by intrusive 

igneous rocks. Cretaceous-age granitic rocks are exposed at two locations: in northern Yucca Flat, at the Climax 

Stock; and the Gold Meadows Stock, which lies 12.9 km (8 mi) west of the Climax Stock, just north of Rainier Mesa 

(Snyder, 1977; Bath et al., 1983) (Figure A-5). The two are probably related in both source and time and are believed 

to be connected at depth (Jachens, 1999). Because of its low intergranular porosity and permeability, and the lack of 

inter-connecting fractures (Walker, 1962), the MGCU is considered a confining unit. The Climax and Gold Meadows 

intrusives are grouped into the MGCU HSU. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description 

A-16 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Tertiary and Quaternary Hydrostratigraphic Units – Tertiary-and Quaternary-age strata at the NTS are 

organized into dozens of HSUs. Nearly all are of volcanic origin, except the alluvial aquifer, which is the uppermost 

HSU. These rocks are important because (1) most of the underground nuclear tests at the NTS were conducted in 

these units, (2) they constitute a large percentage of the rocks in the area, and (3) they are inherently complex and 

heterogeneous. As pointed out in Section A.2.3.1, the volcanic rocks are divided into aquifer or confining units 

according to lithology and secondary alteration. More detailed information can be found in the documentation 

packages for the UGTA CAU-scale hydrogeologic models (IT, 1996a, 1998; Gonzales and Drellack, 1999; 

BN, 2002a). 

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) – The alluvium throughout most of the NTS is a loosely consolidated mixture of detritus 

derived from silicic volcanic and Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks, ranging in particle size from clay to boulders. 

Sediment deposition is largely in the form of alluvial fans (debris flows, sheet wash, and braided streams) which 

coalesce to form discontinuous, gradational, and poorly sorted deposits. Eolian sand, playa deposits, and rare basalt 

flows are also present within the alluvial section of some valleys. The alluvium thickness in major valleys 

(e.g., Frenchman Flat and Yucca Flat) generally ranges from about 30 m (100 ft) to more than 1,128 m (3700 ft) in the 

deepest subbasins. The AA HSU is restricted primarily to the basins of the NTS. However, because the water table 

in the vicinity is moderately deep, the alluvium is generally unsaturated, except in the deep subbasins of some valleys. 

These sediments are porous and thus, have high storage coefficients. Hydraulic conductivity may also be high, 

particularly in the coarser, gravelly beds. 

A.2.4 General Hydraulic Characteristics of NTS Rocks 

Volcanic rocks typically are extremely variable in lithologic character both laterally and vertically. The characteristics 

of rocks that control the density and character of fractures are the primary determinants of their hydraulic properties, 

and most hydraulic heterogeneity ultimately is related to fracture characteristics such as fracture density, openness, 

orientation, and other properties. Secondary fracture-filling minerals can drastically obstruct the flow through or 

effectively seal an otherwise transmissive formation (Drellack et al., 1997; IT, 1996c). Fracture density typically 

increases with proximity to faults, potentially increasing the hydraulic conductivity of the formation; however, the 

hydrologic properties of faults, per se, are not well known. Limited data suggest that the full spectrum of hydraulic 

properties, from barrier to conduit, may be possible (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973; Faunt, 1998). 

Table A-4 includes a brief summary of the hydrologic properties of NTS HGUs. The lowest transmissivity values in 

volcanic rocks at the NTS are typically associated with non-welded ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff (air-fall and 

reworked tuffs). Although interstitial porosity may be high, the interconnectivity of the pore space is poor, and these 

relatively incompetent rocks tend not to support open fractures. Secondary alteration of these tuffs (most commonly, 

zeolitization) ultimately yields a very impermeable unit. As described in Section A.2.3.1, these zeolitized tuffs are 

considered to be confining units. The equivalent unaltered bedded and non-welded tuffs are considered to be 

vitric-tuff aquifers, and have intermediate transmissivities. 

In general, the most transmissive rocks tend to be moderately to densely welded ash-flow tuffs (welded-tuff aquifer), 

rhyolite lava flows (lava-flow aquifer), and carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite). Although their interstitial 

porosity is low, these competent lithologies tend to be highly fractured, and groundwater flow through these rocks is 

largely through an interconnected network of fractures (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973; GeoTrans, 1995). 

Underground nuclear explosions affect hydraulic properties of the geologic medium, creating both long-term and 

short-term effects. Effects include enhanced permeability from shock-induced fractures, the formation of vertical 

conduits (e.g., collapse chimneys), and elevated water levels (mounding and over-pressurization of saturated 

low-permeability units). However, these effects tend to be localized (Borg, et al., 1976; Brikowski, 1991; 

Allen et al., 1997). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-17 

Table A-4. Summary of hydrologic properties for hydrogeologic units at the NTS 

Hydrogeologic Unit(a) Fracture Density(b, c)

Relative Hydraulic 

Conductivity(c)

Alluvial Aquifer Very low Moderate to very high 

Vitric-Tuff Aquifer Low Low to moderate 

Welded-Tuff Aquifer Moderate to high Moderate to very high 

Vitric Low Low to moderate Pumiceous 

Lava Zeolitic Low Very low 

Stony Lava and Vitrophyre Moderate to high Moderate to very high 

Lava-Flow 

Aquifer (d)

Flow Breccia Low to moderate Low to moderate 

Tuff Confining Unit Low Very low 

Intrusive Confining Unit Low to moderate Very low 

Granite Confining Unit Low to moderate Very low 

Carbonate Aquifer Low to high (variable) Low to very high 

Clastic Confining Unit Moderate Very low to low (e)

(a) Refer to Table A-3 for hydrogeologic nomenclature. 

(b) Including primary (cooling joints in tuffs) and secondary (tectonic) fractures. 

(c) The values presented are the authors’ qualitative estimates based on data from published (IT [1996c] and 

Blankennagel and Weir [1973], Winograd and Thordarson [1975]) and unpublished sources (i.e., numerous 

 Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory drill-hole characterization reports). 

(d) Abstracted from Prothro and Drellack (1997). 

(e) Fractures tend to be sealed by the presence of secondary minerals. 

Note: Adapted from BN (2002c). 

A.2.5 Hydrogeology of the NTS Underground Test Areas 

Most NTS underground nuclear detonations were conducted in three main UGTAs: (1) Yucca Flat, (2) Pahute Mesa, 

and (3) Rainier Mesa (including Aqueduct Mesa). Underground tests in Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa typically were 

conducted in vertical drill holes, whereas almost all tests conducted in Rainier Mesa were tunnel emplacements. A 

total of 85 underground tests (85 detonations) were conducted on Pahute Mesa, including 18 high-yield detonations 

(200 kilotons [kt] or more). Rainier Mesa hosted 61 underground tests (62 detonations), almost all of which were 

relatively low-yield (generally less than 20 kt) tunnel-based weapons-effects tests. Yucca Flat was the most extensively 

used UGTA, hosting 659 underground tests (747 detonations), four of which were high-yield detonations 

(200 kilotons or more) (Allen et al., 1997). 

In addition to the three main UGTAs, underground nuclear tests were conducted in Frenchman Flat (ten tests), 

Shoshone Mountain (six tests), the Oak Spring Butte/Climax Mine area (three tests), the Buckboard Mesa area (three 

tests), and Dome Mountain (one test with five detonations) (Allen et al., 1997). It should be noted that these totals 

include nine cratering tests (13 total detonations) conducted in various areas of the NTS. Table A-5 is a synopsis of 

information about each UGTA at the NTS, and Figure A-6 shows the aerial distribution of underground nuclear tests 

conducted at the NTS. 
A-18 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Table A-5. Information summary of NTS underground nuclear tests (a) Source: U.S. Department of Energy (2000b). (b) High-yield detonations – detonations more than 200 kilotons, or detonations described with an upper yield range of at least 200 kilot(c) Low-yield detonations – detonations less than 20 kilotons. (d) JOHNNIE BOY was detonated at a depth of 1.75 ft (essentially a surface burst) approximately one mile east of Buckboard Mesa.  Source: Allen, et al., 1997.

Total Underground(a)

Physiographic Area 

NTS 

Area(s) Tests Detonations

Test 

Dates(a)

Depth of 

Burial Range

Overburden 

Media C

Yucca Flat 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10 

659 747 1951 - 1992 27 - 1219 m 

(89 - 3999 ft) 

Alluvium/playa, Volcanic tuff, Paleozoic rocks 

Various test types avertical emplacemewater level; include

Pahute Mesa 19, 20 85 85 1965 - 1992 31 - 1452 m 

(100 - 4765 ft) 

Alluvium, (thin) volcanic tuffs and lavas 

Almost all were largemplacements abovlevel; includes 18 hi

Rainier/Aqueduct Mesa 12 61 62 1957 - 1992 61 - 640 m 

(200 - 2100 ft) 

Tuffs with welded tuff caprock (little or no alluvium) 

Two vertical emplahorizontal tunnel emwater level; mostly 

of Defense weapons 

Frenchman Flat 

5, 11 10 10 1965 - 1971 179 - 296 m 

(587 - 971 ft) 

Mostly alluvium,minor volcanic tuff 

Various emplacemeabove and below st

Shoshone Mtn. 16 6 6 1962 - 1971 244 - 640 m 

(800 - 2100 ft) 

Bedded tuff Tunnel-based low-y

Vela Uniform tests. 

Oak Spring Butte (Climax Area) 

15 3 3 1962 - 1966 229 - 351 m 

(750 - 1150 ft) 

Granite Three tests above st

HAT, TINY TOT, an

Buckboard Mesa 18 3 3 1962 - 1964 < 27 m 

(90 ft) 

Basaltic lavas Shallow, low-yield 

JOHNNIE BOY(d) an

above static water l

Dome Mountain 30 1 5 03/12/1968 50 m 

(165 ft) 

Mafic lava BUGGY (A, B, C, D, 

test of five-detonatiabove static water l
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-19

Figure A-6. Location of Corrective Action Units and Corrective Action Sites on the NTS 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-20 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

The location of each underground nuclear test is classified as a Corrective Action Site (CAS). These in turn have been 

grouped into six Corrective Action Units (CAUs), according to the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order 

(FFACO, 1996) between the DOE and the state of Nevada. In general, the CAUs relate to the geographical UGTAs 

on the NTS (see Figure A-6). 

The hydrogeology of the four main NTS UGTAs is summarized in the following subsections. For detailed 

stratigraphic descriptions of geologic units at the NTS (including each of the UGTAs) see Sawyer et al. (1994) and 

Slate et al. (1999). 

A.2.5.1 Frenchman Flat Underground Test Area 

The Frenchman Flat CAU consists of ten CASs located in the northern part of NTS Area 5 and southern part of 

Area 11 (see Figure A-6). The detonations were conducted in vertical emplacement holes and two mined shafts. 

Nearly all the tests were conducted in alluvium above the water table. 

Physiography – Frenchman Flat is a closed intermontane basin located in the southeastern portion of the NTS. It is 

bounded on the north by Massachusetts Mountain and the Halfpint Range, on the east by the Buried Hills, on the 

south by the Spotted Range, and on the west by the Wahmonie volcanic center (see Figure A-5). The sparsely 

vegetated valley floor slopes gently toward a central playa lakebed. Ground-level elevations range from 938 m 

(3,078 ft) above sea level at the playa, to over 1,463 m (4,800 ft) in the nearby surrounding mountains. 

Geology Overview – The stratigraphic section for Frenchman Flat consists of (from oldest to youngest) 

Proterozoic and Paleozoic clastic and carbonate rocks, Tertiary sedimentary and tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, 

Tertiary volcanic rocks, and Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium (Slate et al., 1999). In the northernmost portion of 

Frenchman Flat, the middle to upper Miocene volcanic rocks that erupted from calderas located to the northwest of 

Frenchman Flat unconformably overlie Ordovician-age carbonate and clastic rocks. To the south, these volcanic 

units, including the Ammonia Tanks Tuff, Rainier Mesa Tuff, Topopah Spring Formation, and Crater Flat Group, 

either thin considerably, interfinger with coeval sedimentary rocks, or pinch out together (IT, 1998b). Upper-middle 

Miocene tuffs, lavas, and debris flows from the Wahmonie volcanic center located just west of Frenchman Flat 

dominate the volcanic section beneath the western portion of the valley. To the south and southeast, most of the 

volcanic units are absent and Oligocene to middle Miocene sedimentary and tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, which 

unconformably overlie the Paleozoic rocks in the southern portion of Frenchman Flat, dominate the Tertiary section 

(Prothro and Drellack, 1997). In most of the Frenchman Flat area, upper Miocene to Holocene alluvium covers the 

older sedimentary and volcanic rocks (Slate et al., 1999). Alluvium thicknesses range from a thin veneer along the 

valley edges to perhaps as much as 1,158 m (3,800 ft) in north central Frenchman Flat. 

Structural Setting – The structural geology of Frenchman Flat is complex. During the late Mesozoic era, the region 

was subjected to compressional deformation, which resulted in folding, thrusting, uplift, and erosion of the 

pre-Tertiary rocks (Barnes et al., 1982). Approximately 16 Ma, the region underwent extensional deformation, during 

which the present basin-and-range topography was developed, and the Frenchman Flat basin was formed 

(Ekren et al., 1968). In the immediate vicinity of Frenchman Flat, extensional deformation has produced 

northeast-trending, left-lateral strike-slip faults and generally north-trending normal faults that displace the Tertiary 

and pre-Tertiary rocks. Beneath Frenchman Flat, major west-dipping normal faults merge and are probably 

contemporaneous with strike-slip faults beneath the southern portion of the basin (Grauch and Hudson, 1995). 

Movement along the faults has created a relatively deep, east-dipping, half-graben basin elongated in a northeasterly 

direction (Figure A-7). 

Hydrogeology Overview – The hydrogeology of Frenchman Flat is fairly complex, but is typical of the NTS area. 

Many of the HGU-and HSU-building blocks developed for the NTS vicinity are applicable to the Frenchman Flat 

basin. The strata in the Frenchman Flat area have been subdivided into five Tertiary-age HSUs (including the 

Quaternary/Tertiary alluvium) and three pre-Tertiary HSUs to serve as layers for the UGTA Frenchman Flat CAU 

groundwater model (IT, 1998b). In descending order these units are: the AA, the Timber Mountain aquifer (TMA), 

the Wahmonie confining unit (WCU), the tuff confining unit (TCU), the volcaniclastic confining unit (VCU), the 

LCA, and the LCCU (Table A-6). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-21

Figure A-7. Conceptual east-west cross section through Frenchman Flat 

Table A-6. Hydrostratigraphic units of the Frenchman Flat underground test area 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant 

Hydrogeologic Unit(a) Typical Lithologies 

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA, minor LFA Alluvium (gravelly sand); also includes relatively 

thin basalt flow in northern Frenchman Flat and 

playa deposits in south-central part of basin 

Timber Mountain Aquifer 

(TMA) 

WTA, VTA Welded ash-flow tuff and related nonwelded and 

air-fall tuffs; vitric to devitrified 

Wahmonie Volcanic Confining 

Unit (WVCU) 

TCU, minor LFA Air-fall and reworked tuffs; debris and breccia 

flows; minor intercalated lava flows. Typically 

altered: zeolitic to argillic 

Tuff Confining Unit (TCU) TCU Zeolitic bedded tuffs, with interbedded but less 

significant zeolitic, nonwelded to partially welded 

ash-flow tuffs 

Volcaniclastic Confining Unit 

(VCU) 

TCU, minor AA Diverse assemblage of interbedded volcanic and 

sedimentary rocks including tuffs, shale, 

tuffaceous and argillaceous sandstones, 

conglomerates, minor limestones 

Upper Clastic Confining Unit 

(UCCU) 

CCU Argillite, quartzite; present only in northwest 

portion of model in the CP Basin 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) CA Dolomite and limestone; the “regional aquifer” 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit 

(LCCU) 

CCU Quartzites and siltstones; the “hydrologic 

basement” 

(a) See Table A-3 for descriptions of hydrogeologic units. 

Note: Adapted from IT, 1998b. 

TV

TV TV

TV

TV

TV TV

AA

PZ

NO SCALE

PZ PZ

PZ

PZ

PZ

PZ

PZ

PZ

AA = Alluvial Aquifer

 (Quaternary/Tertiary Alluvium) TV = Volcanic Aquifers and Confining Units

(Tertiary Volcanic Rocks)

PZ = Lower Carbonate Aquifer

(Folded and Faulted pre-Tertiary

Sedimentary Rocks)

 = Movement away from viewer. = Movement toward viewer.
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-22 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Water–level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction – The depth to the static water level (SWL) in 

Frenchman Flat ranges from 210 m (690 ft) near the central playa to more than 350 m (1,150 ft) at the northern end 

of the valley. The SWL is generally located within the AA, TMA, WVCU, or TCU. In the deeper, central portions of 

the basin, more than half of the alluvium section is saturated. Water-level elevation data in the AA indicate a very flat 

water table (Blout et al., 1994; IT, 1998b). 

Water-level data for the LCA in the southern part of the NTS are limited, but indicate a fairly low gradient in the 

Yucca Flat, Frenchman Flat, and Jackass Flats areas. This gentle gradient implies a high degree of hydraulic continuity 

within the aquifer, presumably due to high fracture permeability (Laczniak et al., 1996). Furthermore, the similarity of 

the water levels measured in Paleozoic rocks (LCA) in Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat implies that, at least for deep 

interbasin flow, there is no groundwater barrier between the two basins. Inferred regional groundwater flow through 

Frenchman Flat is to the south-southwest toward discharge areas in Ash Meadows (see Figure A-5). An increasing 

westward flow vector in southern NTS may be due to preferential flow paths subparallel to the northeast-trending 

Rock Valley fault (Grauch and Hudson, 1995) and/or a northward gradient from the Spring Mountain recharge area 

(IT, 1996a; b). 

Groundwater elevation measurements for wells completed in the AA and TMA are higher than those in the 

underlying LCA (IT, 1996b; 1998b). This implies a downward gradient. This apparent semi-perched condition is 

believed to be due to the presence of intervening TCU and VCU units. 

A.2.5.2 Yucca Flat/Climax Mine Underground Test Area 

The Yucca Flat/Climax Mine CAU consists of several hundreds of CASs located in NTS Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

and three CASs located in Area 15 (see Figure A-6). These tests were typically conducted in vertical emplacement 

holes and a few related tunnels (see Table A-5). 

The Yucca Flat and Climax Mine UGTAs were originally defined as two separate CAUs (CAU 97 and CAU 100) in 

the FFACO (1996) because the geologic frameworks of the two areas are distinctly different. The Yucca Flat 

underground nuclear tests were conducted in alluvial, volcanic, and carbonate rocks, whereas the Climax Mine tests 

were conducted in an igneous intrusion in northern Yucca Flat. However, particle-tracking simulations performed 

during the regional evaluation (IT, 1997) indicated that the local Climax Mine groundwater flow system merges into 

the much larger Yucca Flat groundwater flow system during the 1,000-year time period of interest, so the two areas 

were combined into the single CAU 97. 

Yucca Flat was the most heavily used UGTA on the NTS (see Figure A-6). The alluvium and tuff formations provide 

many characteristics advantageous to the containment of nuclear explosions. They are easily mined or drilled. The 

high-porosity overburden (alluvium and vitric tuffs) will accept and depressurize any gas which might escape the blast 

cavity. The deeper tuffs are zeolitized, which creates a nearly impermeable confining unit. The zeolites also have 

absorptive and “molecular sieve” attributes which severely restrict or prevent the migration of radionuclides. The 

deep water table (greater than 503 m [1,650 ft] depth) provides additional operational and environmental benefits. 

This section provides brief descriptions of the geologic and hydrogeologic setting of the Yucca Flat/Climax Mine 

UGTA, as well as a discussion of the hydrostratigraphic framework. This summary was compiled from various 

sources, including BN (2001a), Gonzales and Drellack (1999), Winograd and Thordarson (1975), Laczniak et al., 

(1996), Byers et al., (1989), and Cole (1997) where additional information can be found. 

Physiography – Yucca Flat is a topographically closed basin with a playa at its southern end. The geomorphology of 

Yucca Flat is typical of the arid, inter-mountain basins found throughout the Basin and Range province of Nevada 

and adjoining states. Faulted and tilted blocks of Tertiary-age volcanic rocks and underlying Precambrian and 

Paleozoic sedimentary rocks form low ranges around the basin (see Figure A-5). These rocks also compose the 

“basement” of the basin, which is now covered by alluvium. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-23

Ground elevation in the Yucca Flat area ranges from about 1,195 m (3,920 ft) above mean sea level at Yucca Lake 

(playa) in the southern portion to about 1,463 m (4,800 ft) in the northern portion of the valley. The highest portions 

of the surrounding mountains and hills range from less than 1,500 m (5,000 ft) in the south to over 2,316 m (7,600 ft) 

at Rainier Mesa in the northwest corner of the area. Yucca Flat is bounded by the Halfpint Range to the east; by 

Rainier Mesa and the Belted Range to the north; by the Eleana Range and Mine Mountain to the west; and by the 

CP Hills, CP Hogback, and Massachusetts Mountain to the south. 

Geology Overview – The Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks of the NTS area consist of approximately 11,300 m 

(37,000 ft) of carbonate and silicic clastic rocks (Cole, 1997). These rocks were severely deformed by compressional 

movements during Mesozoic time, which resulted in the formation of folds and thrust faults (e.g., Belted Range and 

CP thrust faults). During the middle Late Cretaceous, granitic bodies (such as the Climax stock in northern Yucca 

Flat) intruded these deformed rocks (Maldonado, 1977; Houser and Poole, 1960). 

A total of 22 pre-Tertiary formations (including the Mesozoic granitic intrusives) have been recognized in the Yucca 

Flat region (see Table A-2). These rocks range in age from Precambrian to Cretaceous and represent primarily 

carbonate and silicic shallow-to deep-water sedimentation near a continental margin. Some of these units are 

widespread throughout southern Nevada and California, though complex structural deformation has created many 

uncertainties in determining the geometric relationships of these units around Yucca Flat. 

During Cenozoic time, the sedimentary and intrusive rocks were buried by thick sections of volcanic material 

deposited in several eruptive cycles from source areas in the SWNVF. The Cenozoic stratigraphy of the Yucca Flat 

area, though not structurally complicated, is very complex. Most of the volcanic rocks of the Yucca Flat area were 

deposited during many eruptive cycles of the SWNVF (see Section A.4.1). The source areas of most units (Volcanics 

of Oak Spring Butte, Tunnel Formation, Belted Range Group, Crater Flat Group, Calico Hills Formation, Paintbrush 

Group, and Timber Mountain Group) are located to the west and northwest of Yucca Flat; the Wahmonie source area 

is located southwest of Yucca Flat. Table A-1 lists the Tertiary stratigraphic units common to the Yucca Flat basin. 

The volcanic rocks include primarily ash-flow tuffs, ash-fall tuffs, and reworked tuffs, whose thicknesses and extents 

vary partly due to the irregularity of the underlying depositional surface, and partly due to the presence of topographic 

barriers and windows between Yucca Flat and the source areas to the north and west. 

Over the last several million years, gradual erosion of the highlands that surround Yucca Flat has deposited a thick 

blanket of alluvium on the tuff section. The alluvium in Yucca Flat and throughout most of the NTS is a loosely 

consolidated mixture of detritus derived from silicic volcanic and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, ranging in particle size 

from clay to boulders. Sediment deposition is largely in the form of alluvial fans (debris flows, sheet wash, and 

braided streams) which coalesce to form discontinuous, gradational, and poorly sorted deposits. Eolian sand, playa 

deposits, and rare basalt flows are also present within the alluvium section of Yucca Flat. The alluvium thickness in 

Yucca Flat generally ranges from about 30 m (100 ft) to over 914 m (3,000 ft) (Drellack and Thompson, 1990). 

Structural Setting – The structure of the pre-Tertiary rocks in Yucca Flat is complex and poorly known (Cole, 

1997), but it is important because the pre-Tertiary section is very thick and extensive and includes units which form 

regional aquifers. The main pre-Tertiary structures in the Yucca Flat area are related to the east-vergent Belted Range 

thrust fault which has placed Late Proterozoic to Cambrian-age rocks over rocks as young as Late Mississippian (Cole, 

1997; Cole and Cashman, 1999). In several places along the western and southern portions of Yucca Flat, eastvergent structures related to the Belted Range thrust were deformed by younger west-vergent structural activity (Cole 

and Cashman, 1999). This west-vergent deformation is related to the CP thrust fault which also placed Cambrian and 

Ordovician rocks over Mississippian and Pennsylvanian-age rocks beneath western Yucca Flat (Caskey and 

Schweickert, 1992). 

Large-scale normal faulting began in Yucca Flat in response to regional extensional movements near the end of this 

period of volcanism. This faulting formed the Yucca Flat basin. A fault movement continued, blocks between faults 

were down-dropped and tilted, creating subbasins within the Yucca Flat basin. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-24 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Over the last several million years, gradual erosion of the highlands that surround Yucca Flat has deposited a thick 

blanket of alluvium on the tuff section. The thickness of the alluvium in the Yucca Flat basin varies as a function of 

the topography of the underlying deposits and due to continuing movements along faults during alluvium deposition. 

The major basin-forming faults generally strike in a northerly direction, and relative offset is typically down to the east 

(e.g., Yucca, Topgallant, and Carpetbag faults). Movement along the Yucca fault in central Yucca Flat indicates 

deformation in the area has continued into the Holocene (Hudson, 1992). Specific details regarding these faults are 

lacking because of the propensity to avoid inferred and known faults during drilling of emplacement holes for 

underground nuclear tests. 

The configuration of the Yucca Flat basin is illustrated on the generalized west-east cross section shown in 

Figure A-8. The cross section is simplified to show the positions of only the primary lithostratigraphic units in the 

region. This cross section provides a conceptual illustration of the irregular Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks overlain 

by the Tertiary volcanic units, and the basin-filling alluvium at the surface. The main Tertiary-age, basin-forming 

large-scale normal faults are also shown. 

Hydrogeologic Overview – All the rocks of the Yucca Flat underground test area can be classified as one of eight 

HGUs (see Table A-3), which include the AA, four volcanic HGUs, an intrusive unit, and two HGUs that represent 

the pre-Tertiary rocks. 

The strata in Yucca Flat have been subdivided into eleven Tertiary-age HSUs (including the Tertiary/Quaternary 

alluvium), one Mesozoic intrusive HSU, and six Paleozoic HSUs (Gonzales and Drellack, 1999). These units are 

listed in Table A-7, and several of the more important HSUs are discussed in the following paragraphs. The alluvium 

and pre-Tertiary HSUs in Yucca Flat are as defined in Section A.2.3.2. 

The hydrostratigraphy for the Tertiary-age volcanic rocks in Yucca Flat can be simplified into two categories: zeolitic 

tuff confining units and (non-zeolitic) volcanic aquifers. 

Figure A-8. Generalized west-east hydrogeologic cross section through central Yucca Flat
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-25

 Table A-7. Hydrostratigraphic units of the Yucca Flat underground test area 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant Hydrogeologic 

Units(a) Typical Lithologies 

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA, minor LFA Alluvium (gravelly sand); also includes one 

or more thin basalt flows, playa deposits 

and eolian sands 

Timber Mountain Upper Vitric-Tuff 

Aquifer (TM-UVTA) 

WTA, VTA Includes vitric nonwelded ash-flow and 

bedded tuff 

Timber Mountain Welded-Tuff 

Aquifer (TM-WTA) 

WTA Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff; 

vitric to devitrified 

Timber Mountain Lower Vitric-Tuff 

Aquifer (TM-LVTA) 

VTA Nonwelded ash-flow and bedded tuff; 

vitric 

Yucca Flat Upper Confining Unit 

(YF-UCU) 

TCU Zeolitic bedded tuff 

Topopah Spring Aquifer (TSA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff; present only in 

extreme southern Yucca Flat 

Belted Range Aquifer (BRA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff 

Belted Range Confining Unit (BRCU) TCU Zeolitic bedded tuffs 

Pre-Grouse Canyon Tuff Lava-Flow 

Aquifer (Pre-Tbg-LFA) 

LFA Lava flow 

Tub Spring Aquifer (TUBA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff 

Yucca Flat Lower Confining Unit 

(YF-LCU) 

TCU Zeolitic bedded tuffs with interbedded but 

less significant zeolitic, nonwelded to 

partially welded ash-flow tuffs 

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit 

(MGCU) 

GCU Granodiorite and quartz monzonite 

Upper Carbonate Aquifer (UCA) CA Limestone 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer - Yucca Flat 

Upper Plate (LCA3) 

CA Limestone and dolomite 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit - Yucca Flat 

Upper Plate (LCCU1) 

CCU Quartzite and siltstone 

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) CCU Argillite and quartzite 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) CA Dolomite and limestone; “regional aquifer”

Lower Clastic Confining Unit 

(LCCU) 

CCU Quartzite and siltstone; “hydrologic 

basement” 

(a) See Table A-3 for description of hydrogeologic units. 

Note: Adapted from Gonzales and Drellack, 1999. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-26 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

The Yucca Flat lower confining unit (YF-LCU) is an important HSU in the Yucca Flat region (stratigraphically similar 

to the TCU in Frenchman Flat) because it separates the volcanic aquifer units from the underlying regional LCA. 

Almost all zeolitized tuff units in Yucca Flat are grouped within the YF-LCU, which comprises mainly zeolitized 

bedded tuff (air-fall tuff, with minor reworked tuff). The YF-LCU is saturated in much of Yucca Flat; however, 

measured transmissivities are very low. 

The YF-LCU is generally present in the eastern two-thirds of Yucca Flat. It is absent over the major structural highs, 

where the volcanic rocks have been removed by erosion. Areas where the YF-LCU is absent include the “Paleozoic 

bench” in the western portion of the basin. In northern Yucca Flat the YF-LCU tends to be confined to the 

structural subbasins. Outside the subbasins and around the edges of Yucca Flat the volcanic rocks are thinner and are 

not zeolitized. 

The unaltered volcanic rocks of Yucca Flat are divided into three Timber Mountain HSUs. The hydrogeology of this 

part of the geologic section is complicated by the presence of one or more ash-flow tuff units that are quite variable in 

properties both vertically and laterally. 

The Timber Mountain Group includes ash-flow tuffs that might be either welded-tuff aquifers or vitric-tuff aquifers, 

depending on the degree of welding (refer to Sections A.2.3.1 and A.2.3.2). In Yucca Flat these units are generally 

present in the central portions of the basin. They can be saturated in the deepest structural subbasins. 

The AA is confined primarily to the basins of the NTS. However, because the water table in the vicinity is moderately 

deep, the alluvium is generally unsaturated, except in the deep sub-basins of some valleys. These sediments are 

porous, and thus, have high storage coefficients. Transmissivities may also be high, particularly in the coarser, gravelly 

beds. 

The more recent large-scale extensional faulting in the Yucca Flat area is significant from both hydrologic and 

containment perspectives because the faults have profoundly affected the hydrogeology of the Tertiary volcanic units 

by controlling to a large extent their alteration potential and final geometry. In addition, the faults themselves may 

facilitate flow of high-pressure gases from nearby explosion cavities and of potentially contaminated groundwater 

from sources in the younger rocks into the underlying regional aquifers. Final geometry of formations may be such 

that rocks of very different properties are now juxtaposed (i.e., a Paleozoic carbonate scarp). 

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction – Water-level data are abundant for Yucca Flat, as a 

result of more than 30 years of drilling in the area in support of the weapons testing program. However, water-level 

data for the surrounding areas are scarce. These data are listed in the potentiometric data package prepared for the 

UGTA regional-scale groundwater model (IT, 1996b; Hale et al., 1995). 

The SWL in the Yucca Flat basin is relatively deep, ranging in depth from about 183 m (600 ft) in extreme western 

Yucca Flat to more than 580 m (1,900 ft) in north-central Yucca Flat (Laczniak et al., 1996; Hale et al., 1995). 

Elevation of the water table in Yucca Flat varies from 1,340 m (4,400 ft) in the north (western Emigrant Valley) to 

730 m (2,400 ft) at the southern end of Yucca Flat (Laczniak et al., 1996; Hale et al., 1995). Throughout much of the 

Yucca Flat area, the SWL typically is located within the lower portion of the volcanic section, in the YF-LCU. 

Beneath the hills surrounding Yucca Flat, the SWL can be within the Paleozoic-age units, while in the deeper 

structural subbasins of Yucca Flat, the Timber Mountain Tuff and the lower portion of the alluvium are also 

saturated. 

Water levels measured in wells completed in the AA and volcanic units in the eastern two-thirds of Yucca Flat are 

typically about 20 m (70 ft) higher than in wells completed in the LCA (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; IT, 1996b). 

The hydrogeology of these units suggests that the higher elevation of the water table in the overlying Tertiary rocks is 

related to the presence of low permeability zeolitized tuffs of the YF-LCU (aquitard) between the Paleozoic and 

Tertiary aquifers. Detailed water-level data indicate the existence of a groundwater trough along the axis of the valley. 

The semi-perched water within the alluvial aquifer and volcanic aquifers eventually moves downward to the carbonate 

aquifer in the central portion of the valley. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-27

Water-level elevations in western Yucca Flat are also well above the regional water level. The hydrology of western 

Yucca Flat is influenced by the presence of the Mississippian clastic rocks, which directly underlie the carbonate 

aquifer of the upper plate of the CP thrust (locally present), AA, and volcanic rocks west of the Topgallant fault. This 

geometry is a contributing factor in the development of higher (semi-perched) water levels in this area. The Climax 

Stock also bears perched water (Walker, 1962; Laczniak et al., 1996) well above the regional water level. 

The present structural interpretation for Yucca Flat depicts the LCCU at great depth, except in the northeast corner 

of the study area. The Zabriskie Quartzite and Wood Canyon Formation, which are both classified as clastic 

confining units, are exposed in the northern portion of the Halfpint Range. The high structural position of the LCCU 

there (and in combination with the Climax Stock) may be responsible for the steep hydrologic gradient observed 

between western Emigrant Valley and Yucca Flat. 

Based on the existing data and as interpreted from the UGTA regional-scale groundwater flow model (DOE, 1997c), 

the overall groundwater flow direction in Yucca Flat is to the south and southwest (see Figure A-5). Groundwater 

ultimately discharges at Franklin Lake Playa to the south and Death Valley to the southwest. 

A.2.5.3 Pahute Mesa Underground Test Area 

This section provides descriptions of the geologic and hydrologic settings of the Pahute Mesa UGTA. This summary 

was compiled from various sources, including BN (2002a and b), Winograd and Thordarson (1975), Laczniak et al., 

(1996), Byers et al. (1976; 1989), and Cole (1997). Additional information can be found in these documents. For 

detailed stratigraphic descriptions see Sawyer et al., (1994) and Slate et al., (1999). 

The Western and Central Pahute Mesa CAUs, encompassing Areas 19 and 20 of the NTS, were the site of 

85 underground nuclear tests (DOE, 2000a) (see Figure A-6). These detonations were all conducted in vertical 

emplacement holes (see Table A-5). The Western Pahute Mesa CAU is separated from the Central Pahute Mesa by 

the Boxcar fault and is distinguished by a relative abundance of tritium (IT, 1999b). For hydrogeologic studies and 

modeling purposes, these two CAUs are treated together. 

Hydrogeologically, these CAUs are considered to be part of a larger region that includes areas both within and outside 

the boundaries of the NTS, designated as the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley (PM-OV) study area. Because most of the 

underground nuclear tests at Pahute Mesa were conducted near or below the SWL, test-related contaminants are 

available for transport via a groundwater flow system that may extend to discharge areas in Oasis Valley. So, like the 

UGTAs of Frenchman Flat and Yucca Flat, a CAU-scale hydrostratigraphic framework model has been developed for 

the PM-OV study area to support modeling of groundwater flow and contaminant transport for the UGTA Project 

(BN, 2002c). 

Physiography – Pahute Mesa is a structurally high volcanic plateau in the northwest corner of the NTS 

(see Figure A-5). Ground-level elevations in the area range from below 1,650 m (5,400 ft) off the mesa to the north 

and south, to over 2,135 m (7,000 ft) in eastern Pahute Mesa. Pahute Mesa proper is composed of flat-topped buttes 

and mesas separated by deep canyons. This physiographic feature covers most of NTS Areas 19 and 20, which are 

the second most utilized testing real estate at the NTS. Consequently, there are numerous drill holes which provide a 

substantial amount of subsurface geologic and hydrologic information (BN, 2002a; Warren et al., 2000a and b). 

Geology Overview – Borehole and geophysical data from Pahute Mesa indicate the presence of several nested 

calderas which produced thick sequences of rhyolite tuffs and lavas. The older calderas are buried by ash-flow units 

produced from younger calderas. Most of eastern Pahute Mesa is capped by the voluminous Ammonia Tanks and 

Rainier Mesa ash-flow tuff units which erupted from the Timber Mountain Caldera, located immediately to the south 

of Pahute Mesa (Byers et al., 1976). The western portion is capped by ash-flows of the Thirsty Canyon Group from 

the Black Mountain caldera. A typical geologic cross section for Pahute Mesa is presented in Figure A-9. For a more 

detailed geologic summary, see Ferguson, et al., (1994), Sawyer, et al., (1994), Warren, et al., (2000b), and BN (2002a).
A-28

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004Figure A-9. Generalized hydrostratigraphic cross section through the Silent Canyon complex, Pahute Mesa 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-29

The most widespread and significant Quaternary and Tertiary (mainly volcanic) units of the Pahute Mesa area are 

listed in Table A-1. Refer to Table A-2 for a list of Mesozoic (granitic), Paleozoic (sedimentary), and Precambrian 

(sedimentary and metamorphic) stratigraphic units. 

Underlying the Tertiary-age volcanic rocks (exclusive of the caldera complexes) are Paleozoic and Proterozoic 

sedimentary rocks consisting of dolomite, limestone, quartzite, and argillite. During Precambrian and Paleozoic time, 

as much as 10,000 m (32,800 ft) of these marine sediments were deposited in the NTS region (Cole, 1997). For 

detailed stratigraphic descriptions of these rocks see Slate et al. (1999). The only occurrence of Mesozoic age rocks in 

the Pahute Mesa area is the Gold Meadows Stock, a granitic intrusive mass located at the eastern edge of Pahute 

Mesa, north of Rainier Mesa (Snyder, 1977; Gibbons et al., 1963). 

The Silent Canyon caldera complex (SCCC) lies beneath Pahute Mesa. This complex contains the oldest known 

calderas within the SWNVF, and is completely buried by volcanic rocks erupted from younger nearby calderas. It was 

first identified from gravity observations that indicated a deep basin below the topographically high Pahute Mesa. 

Subsequent drilling on Pahute Mesa indicated that the complex consists of at least two nested calderas, the Grouse 

Canyon caldera and younger Area 20 caldera (13.7 and 13.25 Ma, respectively; Sawyer et al., 1994). For more 

information on the SCCC, see Ferguson et al., (1994), which is a comprehensive study of the caldera complex based 

on analysis of gravity, seismic refraction, drill hole, and surface geologic data. 

Like the SCCC, the Timber Mountain caldera complex (TMCC) consists of two nested calderas, the Rainier Mesa 

caldera and younger Ammonia Tanks caldera, 11.6 and 11.45 Ma, respectively (Sawyer et al., 1994). However, unlike 

the SCCC, the TMCC has exceptional topographic expression, consisting of an exposed topographic margin for more 

than half its circumference and a well exposed central resurgent dome (Timber Mountain, the most conspicuous 

geologic feature in the western part of the NTS). The complex truncates the older Claim Canyon caldera (12.7 Ma; 

Sawyer et al., 1994) which is further to the south. The calderas of the TMCC are the sources for the Rainier Mesa and 

Ammonia Tanks Tuffs which form important and extensive stratigraphic units at the NTS and vicinity. 

The Black Mountain caldera is a relatively small caldera in the northwest portion of the Pahute Mesa area. It is the 

youngest caldera in the area, formed as a result of the eruption, 9.4 Ma, of tuffs assigned to the Thirsty Canyon Group 

(Sawyer et al., 1994). 

Deep gravity lows and the demonstrated great thickness of tuffs in the Pahute Mesa area suggest the presence of older 

buried calderas. These calderas would pre-date the Grouse Canyon caldera and thus, could be the source of some of 

the pre-Belted Range units. 

Structural Setting – The structural setting of the Pahute Mesa area is dominated by the calderas described in the 

previous paragraphs. Several other structural features are considered to be significant factors in the hydrology, 

including the Belted Range thrust fault (see Section A.1.3), numerous normal faults related mainly to basin-and-range 

extension, and transverse faults and structural zones. However, many of these features are buried, and their presence 

is inferred from drilling and geophysical data. A typical geologic cross section for Pahute Mesa is presented in 

Figure A-9. For a more detailed geologic summary, see Ferguson et al., (1994); Sawyer et al., (1994); and BN (2002c). 

Hydrogeology Overview – The hydrogeology of Pahute Mesa is complex. The thick section of volcanic rocks 

comprises a wide variety of lithologies that range in hydraulic character from aquifer to aquitard. The presence of 

several calderas and tectonic faulting further complicate the area, placing the various lithologic units in juxtaposition 

and blocking or enhancing the flow of groundwater in a variety of ways. 

The general hydrogeologic framework for Pahute Mesa and vicinity was established in the early 1970s by USGS 

geoscientists (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973; Winograd and Thordarson, 1975). As described in Section A.2.3, their 

work has provided the foundation for most subsequent hydrogeologic studies at the NTS (IT, 1996a; BN, 2002c). 

All the rocks in the PM-OV study area can be classified as one of nine HGUs, which include the AA, three volcanic 

HGUs, two intrusive units, and two HGUs that represent the pre-Tertiary rocks (see Table A-3). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-30 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

The rocks within the PM-OV study area are grouped into 44 HSUs for the UGTA CAU-scale hydrogeology 

framework model (Table A-8). The volcanic units are organized into 37 HSUs that include 13 aquifers, 13 confining 

units, and 11 composite units (comprising a mixture of hydraulically variable units). The underlying pre-Tertiary rocks 

are divided into 6 HSUs, including 2 aquifers and 4 confining units. HSUs that are common to several CAUs at the 

NTS are briefly discussed in Section A.2.3.2. 

Table A-8. Hydrostratigraphic units of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley area 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant Hydrogeologic 

Unit(s)(a) Typical Lithologies 

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA Alluvium (gravelly sand); also includes eolian 

sand 

Younger Volcanic Composite Unit 

(YVCM) LFA, WTA, VTA Basalt, welded and nonwelded ash-flow tuff 

Thirsty Canyon Volcanic Aquifer 

(TCVA) WTA, LFA, lesser VTA Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff; vitric 

to devitrified 

Detached Volcanics Composite Unit 

(DVCM) WTA, LFA, TCU Complex distribution of welded ash-flow tuff, 

lava, and zeolitic bedded tuff 

Fortymile Canyon Composite Unit 

(FCCM) LFA, TCU, lesser WTA Lava flows and associated tuffs 

Timber Mountain Composite Unit 

(TMCM) 

TCU (altered tuffs, lavas) and 

unaltered WTA and lesser 

LFA 

Densely welded ash-flow tuff; includes lava 

flows, and minor debris flows. 

Tannenbaum Hill Lava-Flow Aquifer 

(THLFA) LFA Rhyolitic lava 

Tannenbaum Hill Composite Unit 

(THCM) Mostly TCU lesser WTA Zeolitic tuff and vitric, nonwelded to welded 

ash-flow tuffs 

Timber Mountain Aquifer (TMA) Mostly WTA, minor VTA Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff; vitric 

to devitrified 

Subcaldera Volcanic Confining Unit 

(SCVCU) TCU 

Probably highly altered volcanic rocks and 

intruded sedimentary rocks beneath each 

caldera 

Fluorspar Canyon Confining Unit 

(FCCU) TCU Zeolitic bedded tuff 

Windy Wash Aquifer (WWA) LFA Rhyolitic lava 

Paintbrush Composite Unit (PCM) WTA, LFA, TCU Welded ash-flow tuffs, rhyolitic lava and minor 

associated bedded tuffs 

Paintbrush Vitric-tuff Aquifer (PVTA) VTA Vitric, nonwelded and bedded tuff 

Benham Aquifer (BA) LFA Rhyolitic lava 

Upper Paintbrush Confining Unit 

(UPCU) TCU Zeolitic, nonwelded and bedded tuff 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-31

Table A-8. (continued) 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant Hydrogeologic 

Unit(s)(a) Typical Lithologies 

Tiva Canyon Aquifer (TCA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff 

Paintbrush Lava-Flow Aquifer 

(PLFA) 

LFA Lava; moderately to densely welded ash-flow 

tuff 

Lower Paintbrush Confining Unit 

(LPCU) 

TCU Zeolitic nonwelded and bedded tuff 

Topopah Spring Aquifer 

(TSA) 

WTA Welded ash-flow tuff 

Yucca Mountain Crater Flat 

Composite Unit (YMCFCM) 

LFA, WTA, TCU Lava; welded ash-flow tuff; zeolitic, bedded 

tuff 

Calico Hills Vitric-tuff Aquifer 

(CHVTA) 

VTA Vitric, nonwelded tuff 

Calico Hills Vitric Composite Unit 

(CHVCM) 

VTA, LFA Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff; vitric 

to devitrified 

Calico Hills Zeolitized 

Composite Unit (CHZCM) 

LFA, TCU Rhyolitic lava and zeolitic nonwelded tuff 

Calico Hills Confining Unit 

(CHCU) 

Mostly TCU, minor LFA Zeolitic nonwelded tuff; minor lava 

Inlet Aquifer (IA) LFA Lava 

Crater Flat Composite Unit 

(CFCM) 

Mostly LFA, intercalated with 

TCU 

Lava and welded ash-flow tuff 

Crater Flat Confining Unit 

(CFCU) 

TCU Zeolitic nonwelded and bedded tuff 

Kearsarge Aquifer (KA) LFA Lava 

Bullfrog Confining Unit (BCU) TCU Zeolitic, nonwelded tuff 

Belted Range Aquifer (BRA) LFA and WTA, with lesser 

TCU 

Lava and welded ash-flow tuff 

Pre-Belted Range Composite Unit 

(PBRCM) 

TCU, WTA , LFA Zeolitic bedded tuffs with interbedded but less 

significant zeolitic, nonwelded to partially 

welded ash-flow tuffs 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-32 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

 Table A-8. (continued) 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant Hydrogeologic 

Unit(s)(a) Typical Lithologies 

Black Mountain Intrusive Confining 

Unit (BMICU) IICU 

Ammonia Tanks Intrusive Confining 

Unit (ATICU) IICU 

Rainier Mesa Intrusive Confining Unit 

(RMICU) IICU 

Claim Canyon Intrusive Confining 

Unit (CCICU) IICU 

Calico Hills Intrusive Confining Unit 

(CHICU) IICU 

Silent Canyon Intrusive Confining Unit 

(SCICU) IICU 

These units are presumed to be present beneath 

the calderas of the SWNVF. Their actual 

character is unknown, but they may be igneous 

intrusive rocks or older volcanic and preTertiary sedimentary rocks intruded to varying 

degrees by igneous rocks. 

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit 

(MGCU) GCU Granodiorite and quartz monzonite; Gold 

Meadows Stock 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer-Thrust Plate 

(LCA3) CA Limestone and dolomite 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit 

Thrust Plate (LCCU1) CCU Quartzite and siltstone 

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) CCU Argillite and quartzite 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) CA Dolomite and limestone; “regional aquifer” 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit (LCCU) CCU Quartzite and siltstone; “hydrologic basement” 

(a) See Table A-3 for definitions of hydrogeologic units. 

Note: Adapted from BN, 2002c. 

Water–level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction – Water-level data are relatively abundant for the 

Pahute Mesa UGTA as a result of more than 30 years of drilling in the area in support of the weapons testing 

program. However, water-level data for the outlying areas to the west and south are sparse. These data are listed in 

the potentiometric data package prepared for the UGTA regional-scale groundwater flow model (IT, 1996b) and the 

Pahute Mesa water table map (O’Hagan and Laczniak, 1996). 

The SWL at Pahute Mesa is relatively deep, at about 640 m (2,100 ft) below the ground surface. Groundwater flow at 

Pahute Mesa is driven by recharge in the east and subsurface inflow from the north. Local groundwater flow is 

influenced by the discontinuous nature of the volcanic aquifers and the resultant geometry created by overlapping 

caldera complexes and high angle basin and range faults (Laczniak et al., 1996). Potentiometric data indicate that 

groundwater flow direction is to the southwest toward discharge areas in Oasis Valley and ultimately Death Valley 

(see Figure A-5). 

A.2.5.4 Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain 

The Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain CAU consists of 61 CASs on Rainier Mesa and 6 on Shoshone Mountain, 

which are located in NTS Areas 12 and 16 respectively (see Figure A-6). Together, these two mesas constitute the 

third major area utilized for underground testing of nuclear weapons at the NTS between 1957 and 1992. 

Underground nuclear tests were conducted in horizontal, mined tunnels within these mesas, and two tests were 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-33

conducted in vertical drill holes. All tests were conducted above the regional water table. Underground geologic 

mapping data from the numerous tunnel complexes, and lithologic and geophysical data from dozens of exploratory 

drill holes, provide a wealth of geologic and hydrologic information for this relatively small underground test area. 

Physiography – The Rainier Mesa underground test area includes Rainier Mesa proper and the contiguous Aqueduct 

Mesa. Rainier Mesa and Aqueduct Mesa form the southern extension of the northeast trending Belted Range 

(see Figure A-5). This high volcanic plateau cuts diagonally across Area 12 in the north-central portion of the NTS. 

Ground-level elevations on Rainier Mesa are generally over 2,225 m (7,300 ft). The highest point on the NTS, 

2,341 m (7,679 ft), is on Rainier Mesa. Aqueduct Mesa has slightly rougher and lower terrain, generally above 1,920 m 

(6,300 ft) in elevation. The edge of the mesas drop off quite spectacularly on the west, south and east sides. 

Shoshone Mountain is located about 20 km (12 mi) south of Rainier Mesa. It is located in the middle of the NTS, at 

the west end of Syncline Ridge (see Figure A-5). Ground-level elevations range from 1,707 to 2,012 m (5,600 to 

6,600 ft), but are generally above 1,830 m (6,000 ft). Tippipah Point, above the old Area 16 tunnels, has an elevation 

of 2,015 m (6,612 ft). 

Geology Overview – Both Rainer Mesa and Aqueduct Mesa are composed of Miocene age air-fall and ash-flow 

tuffs, which erupted from nearby calderas to the west and southwest. As in Yucca Flat, these silicic volcanic tuffs 

were deposited unconformably on an irregular pre-Tertiary (upper Precambrian and Paleozoic) surface of sedimentary 

rocks (Gibbons et al., 1963; Orkild, 1963) and Mesozoic granitic rocks (at Rainier Mesa only). The stratigraphic units 

and lithologies are similar to those present in the subsurface of Yucca Flat (see Section A.2.5.2). Most of Rainier 

Mesa and Shoshone Mountain consist of zeolitized bedded tuff, though the upper part of this section is unaltered 

(vitric) in some areas. At both locations, the bedded tuffs are capped by a thick layer of welded ash-flow tuff. The 

Tertiary stratigraphic units and lithologies are similar to those present in the subsurface of Yucca Flat 

(see Section A.2.5.2). 

Structural Setting – The geologic structure of the volcanic rocks of the Rainier Mesa is well documented. Several 

high-angle, normal faults have been mapped in the volcanic rocks. Faults with greater than about 30 m (100 ft) of 

displacement are notably absent in the volcanic rocks of Rainier Mesa. At Shoshone Mountain several faults have 

been mapped, but in general the structure is less well known there than at Rainier Mesa. The structure of the 

pre-Tertiary section at both locations is poorly known, though some workers speculate that the trace of the Belted 

Range thrust fault is present in the pre-Tertiary rocks beneath Rainier Mesa. A broad synclinal feature mapped at the 

surface and in the tuffs of Rainier Mesa/Aqueduct Mesa may reflect a paleo-topographic low beneath the tuffs 

(Figure A-10), but the exact character of this feature is unknown. 

Figure A-10. Generalized hydrostratigraphic cross section through Aqueduct Mesa
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-34 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Hydrogeology Overview – Construction of UGTA CAU-scale hydrogeology models for the Rainier Mesa and 

Shoshone Mountain UGTAs is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2006. However, HGUs and HSUs in the Rainier 

Mesa and Shoshone Mountain area are expected to be similar to those defined for the Yucca Flat area (see Table A-7). 

The hydrostratigraphy of the pre-Tertiary section is unknown at Shoshone Mountain, and is poorly known at Rainier 

Mesa. At Rainier Mesa, granitic rocks (related to the nearby Gold Meadows Stock), carbonate rocks, silicic 

sedimentary rocks such as siltstone, and metamorphic rocks such as quartzite and schist have been encountered 

beneath the tuff section in the few existing drill holes that penetrate through the tuff section. This variability is 

indicative of the complex geology of the pre-Tertiary section. 

Most of the tests in Shoshone Mountain and Rainier Mesa tunnels were conducted in the tuff confining unit, though a 

few were conducted in vitric bedded tuff higher in the stratigraphic section. 

Water–level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction – The regional water level at Rainier Mesa is not well 

known, but is estimated to be at an elevation of approximately 1,280 m (4,200 ft) in the pre-Tertiary carbonate rocks 

that underlie the volcanic section. This is approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) below the average elevation of test locations 

in Rainier Mesa. The SWL, where measured in a few drill holes at Rainier Mesa, is at an elevation of about 1,847 m 

(6,060 ft). This anomalously high water level relative to the regional water level reflects the presence of water perched 

above the regional aquifer within the tuff confining unit (Walker 1962; Laczniak et al., 1996). Abundant water is 

present in the fracture systems of some of the tunnel complexes at Rainier Mesa. This water currently is permitted to 

flow from U12e Tunnel (also known as E Tunnel); however, water has filled the open drifts behind barriers built near 

the portals of U12n and U12t Tunnels. 

The water level elevation at Shoshone Mountain is not known. No water was encountered during mining at 

Shoshone Mountain. 

Regional groundwater flow from Rainier Mesa may be directed either toward Yucca Flat or, because of the 

intervening UCCU, to the south toward the Alkali Flat discharge area (see Figure A-5). The groundwater flow 

direction beneath Shoshone Mountain is probably southward. 

A.2.6 Conclusion 

The hydrogeology of the NTS and vicinity is complex and varied. Yet, the remote location, alluvial and volcanic 

geology, and deep water table of the NTS provided a favorable setting for conducting and containing underground 

nuclear tests. Its arid climate and its setting in a region of closed hydrographic basins also are factors in stabilizing 

residual surficial contamination from atmospheric testing, and are considered positive environmental attributes for 

existing radioactive waste management sites. 

Average groundwater flow velocities at the NTS are generally slow, and flow paths to discharge areas or potential 

receptors (domestic and public water supply wells) are long. The water table for local aquifers in the valleys and the 

underlying regional carbonate aquifer are relatively flat. The zeolitic volcanic formation (TCU) separating the 

shallower alluvial and volcanic aquifers and the regional carbonate aquifer (LCA) appears to be a viable aquitard. 

Consequently, both vertical and horizontal flow velocities are low. Additionally, carbon-14 dates for water from NTS 

aquifers are on the order of 10,000 to 40,000 years old (Rose et al., 1997). Thus, there is considerable residence time 

in the aquifers, allowing contaminant attenuating processes such as matrix diffusion, sorption, and natural decay, to 

operate. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-35

A.3 Climatology 

The NTS is located in the extreme southwestern corner of the Great Basin. Consequently, the climate is arid with 

limited precipitation, low humidity, intense sunlight, and large daily temperature ranges. Meteorological and 

climatological data are collected on the 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 which have been located on and near the NTS for many years (see 

Figure 16-2). The climatological data presented below were developed from the MEDA system. 

A.3.1 Precipitation 

Two fundamental physical processes drive precipitation events on the NTS: those resulting from cool-season, midtropospheric cyclones and those resulting from summertime convection. Cool-season precipitation is usually light 

and can consist of rain or snow. Although light, winter precipitation events can last for several days and result in 

significant precipitation totals per winter storm; especially in January and February. Summer is thunderstorm season. 

Precipitation from thunderstorms is usually light; however, some storms are associated with very heavy rain, flash 

floods, intense cloud-to-ground lightning (CG), and strong surface winds. Thunderstorms generally occur in July and 

August when moist tropical air can flow from the south-eastern North Pacific Ocean and spread over the desert 

southwest. This seasonal event is referred to as the south-western monsoon. The winter-summer precipitation 

mechanisms produce a bi-modal monthly precipitation cycle. Figure A -11 shows these patterns of mean monthly 

precipitation recorded from six of the 16 climatological stations on the NTS over the past 40+ years. Mean annual 

precipitation totals on the NTS range from nearly 33 centimeters (cm) (13 inches [in]) over the high terrain in the 

north-western part of the NTS to less than 12.7 cm (5 in) in Frenchman Flat. However, inter-annual variations can be 

great. For example, 24.6 cm (9.67 in) occurred in Frenchman Flat in 1998 and 68 cm (26.79 in) fell on Rainier Mesa 

in 1978. Annual totals of less than 2.54 cm (1.0 in) have occurred on the lower elevations of the NTS. Daily 

precipitation totals can also be large and can range from 5 cm to just over 9 cm (2.0 to over 3.5 in). The greatest daily 

precipitation event on the NTS was 9.32 cm (3.67 in), which was measured in Mid-Valley on October 19-20, 2004. A 

storm-total precipitation amount of 8.9 cm (3.5 in) is a 100-year, 24-hour, extreme precipitation event. Daily totals of 

5.1 to-7.6 cm (2-3 in) have been measured at several sites on the NTS (Randerson, 1997). 

Snow can fall on the NTS anytime between October and May. In Yucca Flat, the greatest daily snow depth measured 

is 25.4 cm (10 in) in January 1974. The greatest daily depth measured at Desert Rock is 15.2 cm (6 in) in February 

1987. Maximum daily totals of 38 to 50 cm (15 to 20 in) or more can occur on Pahute and Rainier Mesas. 

Hail, sleet, freezing rain, and fog are rare on the NTS. Only 24 hailstorms were observed in Yucca Flat between 1957 

and 1978. Hail and sleet can cover the ground briefly following intense thunderstorms. 

A.3.2 Temperature

As is typical of an arid climate; the NTS experiences large daily, as well as annual, ranges in temperature. Moreover, 

temperatures vary with elevation. Sites 1,524 m (5,000 ft) above mean sea level can be quite cold in the winter and 

fairly mild during the summer months. At lower elevations, summertime temperatures frequently exceed 37.7 degrees 

Centigrade (oC) (100 degrees Fahrenheit [oF]). In the dry lakebeds, daily temperature ranges can be 22.2 to 33.3 oC 

(40 to 60 oF) with very cold morning temperatures in the winter and very hot temperatures in the summer. These 

temperature characteristics are clearly shown in Figure A-12. These annual temperature plots describe the 

temperature extremes and normal maximums and minimums throughout the year at different locations on the NTS. 

In Frenchman Flat, the average daily temperature minimum and maximum for January is -4.4 to 13.3 oC 

(24 to 56 oF), while in July it is 16.7 to 38.9 oC (62 to 102 oF). By contrast, on Pahute Mesa the minimum and 

maximum temperature for January is -3.9 to 5 oC (25 to 41 oF ) and for July, 16.1 to 28.9 oC (61 to 84 oF .) The 

highest maximum temperature measured on the NTS is 46.1 oC (115 oF) in Frenchman Flat near Well 5B in July 1998 

and in Jackass Flats near Lathrop Gate in July 2002. The coldest minimum temperature measured on the NTS is 

-28.9 oC (-20 oF) in Area 19 in January 1970. The temperature extremes at Mercury are -11.7 to 45 oC (11 to 113 oF). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-36 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

40-MI Canyon (40MN) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1960-2003 

Average Annual Precipitation = 7.81 inches

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Desert Rock (DRA) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1964-2003 

Average Annual Precipitation = 5.72 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Frenchman Flat (W5B) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1963-2003 

Average Annual Precipitation = 4.77 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Jackass Flats (4JA) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1958-2003 

 Average Annual Precipitation = 5.45 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Pahute Mesa (PM1) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1964-2003

Average Annual Precipitation = 7.54 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Yucca Flat (BJY) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1960-2003

Average Annual Precipitation = 6.17 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Figure A-11. Mean monthly precipitation at six NTS MEDA stations 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-37

Figure A-12. Temperature extremes and normal maximums and minimum at six NTS MEDA stations 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-38 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

A.3.3 Wind

Complex topography, such as that on the NTS, can influence wind speeds and directions. Furthermore, there is a 

seasonal as well as strong daily periodicity to local wind conditions. For example, in Yucca Flat, during the summer 

months, the wind direction is usually northerly (from the north) from 10 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) to 8 a.m. 

PDT and southerly from 10 a.m. PDT to 8 p.m. PDT. However, in January the winds are generally from the north 

from 6 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) to 11 a.m. PST with some southerly winds developing between 1100 a.m. 

PST and 5 p.m. PST. March through June tend to experience the fastest average wind speeds 13 to 19 kilometers per 

hour (kmh) (8 to 12 miles per hour [mph]) with the faster speeds occurring at the higher elevations. Peak wind gusts 

of 80 to 113 kmh (50 to 70 mph) have occurred throughout the NTS. Peak winds at Mercury have been as high as 

84 mph during a spring wind storm. Frenchman Flat experienced wind gusts to 113 kmh (70 mph) during the same 

windstorm. The peak wind speeds measured on the NTS are above 145 kmh (90 mph) on the high terrain with 

maximums of 146 kmh (91 mph) at Yucca Mountain Ridge-top, 148 kmh (92 mph) at the Monastery 

(MEDS station 10) in Area-6, and 151 (94 mph) in Area-12 on Radio Hill. 

Wind speed and direction data has been summarized for all the meteorological towers (MEDAs) on the NTS. These 

climatological summaries are referred to as wind roses. Annual wind roses for six stations on the NTS are shown in 

Figure A-13. This figure describes the strong seasonal and diurnal effects on the surface air flow pattern across the 

NTS. In general, winter and pre-sunrise winds tend to be northerly while summer and afternoon flow tends to be 

southerly. Terrain also contributes to determining wind direction. 

A.3.4 Relative Humidity

The air over the NTS tends to be dry. On average, June is the driest month with humidity ranging from 10 percent to 

35 percent. Humidity readings of 35 percent to 70 percent are common in the winter. The reason for this variability 

is that relative humidity is temperature dependent. The relative humidity tends to be higher with cold temperatures 

and lower with hot temperatures. Consequently there is not only a seasonal variation but also a marked diurnal 

rhythm with this parameter. Early in the morning the humidity ranges from 25 percent to 70 percent and in midafternoon it is in the 10 percent to 40 percent range, with the larger readings occurring in winter. Humidity readings of 

more than 75 percent are not common on the NTS. 

A.3.5 Atmospheric Pressure 

On the NTS, atmospheric pressure is measured at many of the sites shown in Figure 16-2. These measurements show 

that atmospheric pressure has marked annual and diurnal cycles. In addition, pressure decreases with elevation. 

Consequently, stations at high elevations have lower atmospheric pressures than do those stations at lower elevations. 

Moreover, since pressure depends on temperature, the larger pressure readings occur during the winter months and 

the smaller readings in the summer months. The diurnal cycle is bimodal and is driven by the diurnal tide of the 

entire atmosphere and by the diurnal heating/cooling cycle. In general, maximum daily surface pressure on the NTS 

occurs between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. PST (later in winter, earlier in summer) and minimum pressure tends to occur 

between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. PST (earlier in winter, later in summer). Weaker secondary maxima occur at approximately 

midnight PST and minima near 3 a.m. PST. In Yucca Flat (elevation 1195 m) the atmospheric pressure varies from 

857 millibars (mb) to 908 mb, annually; however, the daily range is only approximately 3.4 mb in summer and 2.7 mb 

in winter. 

A phenomena referred to as atmospheric or barometric pumping can occur as atmospheric pressure decreases. When 

this happens, gases trapped below ground can “vent” or seep upward through the soil and enter the atmosphere. 

Barometric pumping was observed on the NTS following some underground nuclear tests, and small concentrations 

of noble gases from the tests were detected for several months afterwards. Barometric pumping also contributes to 

the release of naturally-occurring radionuclides (e.g., radon) from terrestrial sources. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-39

Figure A-13. Annual climatological wind rose patterns at 11 NTS MEDA stations from wind data gathered 

1984 to 2004 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-40 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

A.3.6 Dispersion Stability Categories 

Determination of the stability of the atmosphere near the ground is a key input requirement for atmospheric 

dispersion models. Such models are used to estimate the impacts of hazardous materials that might be accidentally 

released into the atmosphere or become airborne from radioactively contaminated soil sites on the NTS. The 

dispersion models commonly used for this purpose are Gaussian plume models that require the specification of 

stability categories to account for effects of atmospheric turbulence on the dispersion process. The mountain-valley 

topography on the NTS makes it impossible to calculate a single set of values that characterizes atmospheric turbulent 

mixing on the NTS. Consequently, the stability categories for the NTS are calculated from the average hourly wind 

speeds for each MEDA station, the solar angle, and the hourly cloud-cover observations reported at the Desert Rock 

Meteorological Observatory. This procedure follows regulatory guidance provided by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) (2000) and the American Nuclear Society (2000). The stability category concept makes use 

of the letters “A” through “F” to define different turbulence regimes. Category “A” specifies free convection in 

statistically unstable air, “D” represents neutral stability, and “F” is very stable (dispersion suppressed) with little 

turbulent mixing. In Yucca and Frenchman Flats, in winter, F-stability tends to persist from 4 p.m. PST until 8 a.m. 

PST the next morning with an abrupt transition to C- or B-stability near 9 a.m. PST, followed by C- or B-stability 

during the afternoon. In summer, E- or F-stabilities occur between 7 p.m. PST and 6 a.m. the next morning with a 

rapid change to B-stability at 7 a.m. PST and generally C- or B-stabilities and some D-stability in late afternoon. 

A.3.7 Other Natural Phenomena

Wind speeds in excess of 97 kmh (60 mph) occur annually. Additional severe weather in the region includes 

occasional severe thunderstorms, lightning, hail, and dust storms. Severe thunderstorms may produce high 

precipitation rates that may create localized flash flooding. Few tornadoes have been observed in the region and are 

not considered a significant threat. 

Cloud-to-ground lightning can occur throughout the year but occurs primarily between June and September. 

Maximum clouod-to-ground lightning activity on the NTS occurs between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. PDT while minimum 

activity occurs between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. PDT. For safety analyses, the mean annual flash density on the NTS is 

0.4 flashes per square kilometer. Randerson and Sanders (2002) have characterized CG lightning activity on the NTS.
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-41

A.4 Ecology 

The NTS lies on the transition between the Mojave and Great Basin deserts. As a result, elements of both deserts are 

found in a diverse and complex flora and fauna (Ostler et al., 2000; Wills and Ostler 2001). 

A.4.1 Flora 

A total of 752 taxa of vascular plants have been collected in 10 major vegetation alliances (Figure A-14). A total of 20 

vegetation associations from among the alliances have been identified and mapped. Distributions of the Mojave 

Desert, transition zone, and Great Basin Desert ecoregion vegetation alliances and associations are linked to 

temperature extremes, precipitation, and soil conditions. 

Vegetation associations characteristic of the Mojave Desert occur over the southern third of the NTS, on hillsides and 

mountain ranges at elevations below about 1,219 m (4,000 ft) (Figure A-14). Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is the 

dominant shrub within these associations. Creosote bush associations are absent from habitats where the mean 

minimum air temperature is below -1.9°C (28.5° F) or the extreme minimum is less than -17.2°C (1° F). It is also 

limited to zones with an average rainfall of 18.3 cm (7.2 in) or less (Beatley, 1974). Between elevations of 1,219 to 

1,524 m (4,000 to 5,000 ft), transitional vegetation associations exist. The largest and most important is the 

Blackbrush – Nevada Jointfir (Coleogyne ramosissima-Ephedra nevadensis) Shrubland Association which covers 21.6 

percent of the total area of the NTS (Ostler et al., 2000). Above 1,524 m (5,000 ft,) the vegetation mosaic is 

characteristic of the Great Basin Desert. Throughout the central and northwestern mountains of the NTS, the 

dominant shrub species are basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). The 

distribution of Great Basin Desert associations appears to be limited by mean maximum temperature and by 

minimum rainfall tolerances of the cold desert species (Beatley, 1975). 

Above 1,828 m (6,000 ft), singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) mix with the 

sagebrush association where there is suitable moisture for these trees. Tree densities on the NTS are often not high 

enough to create closed canopies, but rather, an open woodland type with a mix of shrub and tree cover. 

There are no plants on the NTS which are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

However, there are 18 plant species and 1 moss species on the NTS considered to be sensitive by the Nevada Natural 

Heritage Program (see Table 13-2). Sensitive species are those whose long-term viability has been identified as a 

concern by natural resource experts. Through past field survey efforts over multiple years, population locations of 14 

sensitive species have been mapped on the NTS (Figure A-15), and many of these species as well as new species (see 

Table 13-2) continue to be monitored under the Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program (see Section 13). 

A.4.2 Fauna 

At least 1,163 taxa of invertebrates within the phylum Arthropoda have been identified on the NTS. Of the known 

arthropods, 78 percent are insects. Ants, termites, and ground-dwelling beetles are probably the most important 

groups of insects as regards distribution, abundance, and functional roles. No native fish species occur on the NTS, 

although non-native goldfish, golden shiners, and bluegills have been unofficially introduced into a few man-made 

ponds. The non-native bullfrog is the only amphibian that is known to occur on the NTS. 

Among reptiles, the desert tortoise, 16 lizard species, and 17 snake species are known to occur on the NTS 

(Wills and Ostler, 2001). The rich reptile fauna is partly due to the overlapping ranges of plant species characteristic 

of the Mojave and Great Basin Deserts. The most abundant, widely distributed lizards include the side-blotched 

lizard (Uta stansburiana), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), and desert 

spiny lizard (Sceloporus graciosus). The western shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis) is the most common snake on 

the NTS. There are four species of poisonous snakes: the Mohave Desert sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes), Panamint 

rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchellii), night snake (Hypsiglena torquata), and Sonoran lyre snake (Trimorphodon biscutatus). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-42 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure A-14. Distribution of plant alliances on the NTS
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-43

Figure A-15. Known locations of plant species of sensitive plant species on the NTS 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-44 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

There are records of 239 species of birds observed on the NTS (Wills and Ostler, 2001). Approximately 80 percent of 

the bird species are migrants or seasonal residents. To date, 26 species, including 9 raptor species (birds of prey) are 

known to breed on the NTS. The raptors which breed on the NTS include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), longeared owl (Asia otus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), prairie falcon (Falco 

mexicanus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), the barn owl (Tyto 

alba), and the great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) (BN, 2002b). 

There are 44 terrestrial mammals and 15 bat species that are known to occur on the NTS. Rodents account for about 

40 percent of the known mammals, and in terms of distribution and relative abundance, are the most important group 

of mammals on the NTS (Wills and Ostler, 2001). There is an apparent correlation between production by winter 

annual plants and reproduction in desert rodents on the NTS. Larger mammals on the site include black-tailed 

jackrabbit, desert and Nuttall’s cottontail rabbits, feral horses, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, coyote, kit fox, badger, 

bobcat, and mountain lion. Mule deer herds occur mainly on the high mesas and surrounding bajadas. Small 

numbers of wild horses and pronghorn antelope range over small areas of the NTS. Bighorn sheep and burros are 

thought to be rare visitors. 

The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is the only resident species found on the NTS which is listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat of the desert tortoise is in the southern third of the NTS 

(see Figure 13-1). The bald eagle is a threatened bird which is a rare migrant on the site. No other threatened or 

endangered animal is known to occur on the NTS. All but five birds on the NTS are protected by federal legislation 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or by the state of Nevada. Most non-rodent mammals of the NTS are 

protected by the state of Nevada and managed as either game or furbearing mammals, and 12 bats on the NTS are 

considered sensitive species (see Tables 13-2 and 13-3). 

A.4.3 Natural Water Sources 

Important biological communities on the NTS are those associated with springs or other natural sources of water. 

They are rare, localized habitats that are important to regional wildlife and to isolated populations of water-loving 

plants and aquatic organisms. There are 30 natural water sources on the NTS which include 15 springs, 9 seeps, 

4 tank sites (natural rock depressions that catch and hold surface runoff), and 2 ephemeral ponds (Hansen et al., 1997; 

BN, 1998; 1999) (Figure A-16). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-45

Figure A-16. Natural water sources on the NTS 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-46 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

A.5 Cultural Resources 

A.5.1 Cultural Resources Investigations on the NTS 

Few cultural resources investigations were performed from the 1940s to the 1960s on what is now the NTS. Earlier 

explorers did visit the area, such as O.S. Lodwick in the 1900s and Mark R. Harrington of the Heye Museum of the 

American Indian in the 1920s, but the visits were brief, and no in-depth studies were attempted. The work conducted 

by S.M. Wheeler in 1940 is the first serious investigation, resulting in some prominent sites being recorded 

(Winslow, 1996). Wheeler and a small party, including his wife, supported by the Nevada State Parks Commission, 

were guided by Roscoe J. Wright, a.k.a. “Death Valley Curley,” a local miner, into the Fortymile Canyon region with 

the specific purpose of investigating archaeological sites (Figure A-17). The party spent only a few days in the area, 

however, and only briefly described the cultural resources they found. In 1955, Richard Shutler (1961), seeking 

evidence of pueblo ruins, was the next archaeologist to visit and record sites in the same general area of Fortymile 

Canyon as well as on Timber Mountain. He was guided by Bill Martin, a Shoshone from Beatty. Frederick C.V. 

Worman (1965, 1966, 1967, 1969), a zoologist and a vocational archaeologist employed by Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, and Donald Tuohy (1965), an archaeologist from the Nevada State Museum, conducted limited surveys 

and excavations during the 1960s. These investigations were typically salvage archaeology in response to an Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC) directive regarding the preservation and protection of antiquities on AEC lands. It was 

not until the late 1970s with stronger federal laws and regulations concerning cultural resources that systematic 

archaeological investigations on the NTS were carried out on a regular basis. Desert Research Institute (DRI) became 

the cultural resources support contractor at this time and ever since has performed numerous surveys and data 

recovery efforts (Figure A-18), as well as records keeping and curation of artifacts. Lately, historical evaluations of 

NTS structures and buildings have become part of the program in documenting a significant period in the local and 

national history regarding nuclear testing and the Cold War era (Figure A-19). 

Figure A-17. Example of prehistoric petroglyphs found on the NTS. This rock art site is in 

Fortymile Canyon (photo by DRI, 1996). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-47

Figure A-18. DRI archaeologist at an archaeological excavation of a prehistoric site on 

Pahute Mesa. The site is probably from the middle to late Holocene period 

(photo by DRI, 1992). 

 Figure A-19. Building 400, a camera station for photographing atmospheric tests, at 

Area 6 Control Point, built in 1951. One of the first buildings constructed 

on the NTS to support weapons testing activities (photo by DRI, 2003). 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-48 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

A.5.2 Paleo-Indian Period 

The oldest cultural remains discovered on the NTS are Clovis style projectile point fragments dating to the 

Paleo-Indian period, ca. 12,000 to 10,000 years before present (BP). One was found along an alluvial terrace of 

Fortymile Wash near Yucca Mountain (Reno, 1985) and a second at the upper reaches of the Fortymile drainage 

system near Rattlesnake Ridge at the west base of Rainier Mesa (Jones and Edwards, 1994). The basic economic 

strategy for the Paleo-Indian was hunting of big game and a predominant use of lacustrine-marsh areas around late 

Pleistocene and early Holocene pluvial lakes (Madsen, 1982; Warren and Crabtree, 1986). Pluvial lakes were a result 

of cooler temperatures and higher annual precipitation characteristic of this time (Grayson, 1993). No evidence is 

available, however, to indicate that the basins on the NTS supported pluvial lakes as in other nearby valleys, such as 

Groom Lake east of the NTS and the Kawich, Gold Flat, and Mud lakes to the north (Grayson, 1993: Table 5-2; 

Mifflin and Wheat, 1979). The Fortymile Canyon drainage, where the Clovis points were found, may have been used 

as a travel route between highland and lowland areas or, as proposed by Pippin (1998a), part of a hunting territory 

where certain animals such as deer and elk could be found. 

A.5.3 Early Holocene Period 

A general broadening in the types of resources being exploited from a variety of environments occurs during the early 

Holocene, ca. 10,000 to 7,500 BP, and includes aquatic and small animals as well as plants (Grayson, 1993). Initially, 

lakes and marshes still abounded overall, but the climate began to change to one more dry and by 8,000 BP most of 

the standing bodies of water were gone (Grayson, 1993). Consequently, the woodlands began to move upslope to be 

replaced by sagebrush or bursage and creosote bush (Grayson, 1993). 

Most cultural activities still appear to be restricted to the lower elevations, however (cf. Haynes, 1996; 

cf. Reno, et al., 1989); and Pippin (1998a) indicates that only short term hunting forays, originating from the lower 

elevations, occurred in the higher elevations of the NTS. This is similar to the pattern described for the eastern Great 

Basin (Madsen, 1982). 

A.5.4 Middle Holocene Period 

The period from ca. 7,500 to 4,500 BP is marked by increased aridity, and a hotter and dryer climate compared to the 

previous episode and to that of today (Antevs, 1948; Miller and Wigand, 1994). Some evidence suggests that entire 

areas were abandoned. For example, Warren and Crabtree (1986) contend that the people living in the Mojave Desert 

at this time were ill-adapted to the arid conditions because so few sites have been found, and of those sites, they 

appear to represent short-term activities with low artifact densities indicative of a highly mobile lifestyle. They suggest 

that the people may have aggregated at the margins of the desert near springs and other dependable water sources and 

only briefly entered the more arid localities during times of greater effective moisture. Few sites have been found in 

the Great Basin dating to this period as well. Grayson (1993) indicates the higher elevation zones are becoming an 

important part of the subsistence base and coincides with the upward movement in elevation of the woodlands. 

Pippin (1998a) also notes this change on the NTS, but he sees the cultural response as an intensification and 

expansion of the areas previously exploited and not in the relocation of residential bases to the uplands. 

A.5.5 Late Holocene Period 

The period from ca. 4,500 to 1,900 BP is generally known for cooler and wetter conditions. Subsequent periods 

fluctuated between dry and wet episodes, with the most notable arid periods from 1,900 to 1,000 BP and 

700 to 500 BP (Miller and Wigand, 1994). A pattern of heavy winter precipitation began after 500 BP, but average 

temperatures have gradually increased since the end of the Little Ice Age about 150 years ago. Culturally, there is an 

increase in the number of sites and a broadening of the subsistence base (Grayson, 1993; Lyneis, 1982). A shift in the 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-49

settlement pattern is made in some areas of the southern Great Basin to comparatively large, semi-sedentary 

communities on valley floors accompanied by a more frequent use of the highlands. An increase in the frequency of 

milling implements indicates a greater reliance on seeds than previously practiced (Warren and Crabtree, 1986). 

Evidence at higher elevations on the NTS supports the contention that highland resources were an important part of 

the subsistence base, and quite likely, logistical seasonal movements between resource zones were being practiced 

(Pippin, 1998a:). Rock features interpreted as food caches begin to appear within the woodlands (Pippin, 1998a:). 

Examples of projectile points from this period found by DRI archaeologists on the NTS are shown in Figure A-20. 

One of the most conspicuous technological changes is the introduction of the bow and arrow, ca. 1,500 BP. Madsen 

(1986a:) suggests that the advent of this implement may have led to increased efficiency in hunting to where the 

animal populations were significantly reduced, resulting in a greater dependence by the people on plant resources, 

such as pinyon and other seed plants. Another introduction was brownware pottery (Figure A-21), ca. 700 to 1,000 

BP (Lockett and Pippin, 1990; Madsen, 1986b; Pippin, 1986; Rhode, 1994), indicating a more sedentary lifestyle and a 

change in the way food was prepared and stored. 

Figure A-20. Prehistoric projectile points from the NTS (photo by DRI, 1992) 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-50 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure A-21. Brownware bowl recovered from archaeological excavations on Pahute Mesa 

(photo by DRI, 1992) 

A.5.6 Ethnohistoric American Indian 

Early explorers and immigrants in the southern Great Basin during the nineteenth century encountered widely 

scattered groups of Numic-speaking hunters and gatherers currently known as Southern Paiute (see 

Kelly and Fowler, 1986) and Western Shoshone (see Thomas et al., 1986). The areas traditionally claimed by these 

tribal entities encompassed a large region and were bound in territories of ethnic or political groups 

(Stoffle et al., 1990). Subsistence strategies revolved around movements between environmental zones within their 

territories (e.g., highlands and lowlands), according to the seasonal availability of food resources (Steward, 1938; 

cf. Wheat, 1967). The normal range was within 32 km (20 mi) of the primary residential base, but most resources 

could be found within a short distance of the main camp. Criteria for the location of the primary residential base was 

nearness to stored or cached foods, the availability of water, wood for fuel and house construction, and relatively 

warm winter temperatures like that found in canyon mouths or in the woodlands (Steward, 1938). 

The communal group around Rainier Mesa and the southern end of the Belted Range ca. 1875-1880 was known as 

Eso (little hill) and had an estimated population of 42. This locale is at the boundaries of the traditional tribal lands for 

the Southern Paiute and Western Shoshone, and the Eso consisted of members from both tribes. The Eso were 

closely linked linguistically with people to the east, but maintained close relationships with groups all around them, 

particularly to the north and west. They established winter residential camps at Cane Spring, Captain Jack Spring, 

Oak Springs, Tippipah Springs (Figure A-22), Topopah Spring, White Rock Springs, and on Pahute and Rainier 

mesas. Another camp, though not located at a spring, was Ammonia Tanks.
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-51

One of the better known spring sites, Captain Jack Spring, is named after One-eyed Captain Jack, a Paiute who 

resided there at various times with his wife(s) during the late 1800s and early 1900s (Steward, 1938; 

Stoffle et al., 1990). He died in 1928 (Stoffle et al., 1990). At White Rock Springs lived Wandagwana, headman for 

the Eso. He directed the annual fall rabbit drive in Yucca Flat which was a time of regional interaction between the 

various camps and with more distant people. A fandango was usually held at Wungiakuda off the southeast edge of 

Pahute Mesa (see Johnson et al., 1999) lasting about five days, and provided opportunity for the exchange of goods 

and information. Sweat houses, also serving as places of integration for the local group, were located at White Rock 

Springs and at Oak Springs. They were used by both women and men for smoking, gambling, sweating, and as a 

dormitory. 

Figure A-22. Overview of the Tippipah Spring Area (photo by DRI, 2004) 

A.5.7 Historic Mining on and near the NTS 

Around the beginning of the twentieth century, when substantial gold and silver deposits were discovered, the 

Euro American culture began to dominate this particular region of Nevada, with strikes at Tonopah, Goldfield, and 

Rhyolite (Elliott, 1966, 1973; McCracken, 1992; Zanjani, 1992). The overall population of Nevada doubled 

(Elliott, 1966; McCracken, 1992). The great mining boom was short-lived, however, and quickly entered the bust 

phase. By 1908, only four years after it began, mining in the Bullfrog district collapsed and the town of Rhyolite 

became one of the many ghost towns in the region. For Goldfield, production fell rapidly after 1911 (Zanjani, 1992), 

but the town still survives today, principally because it is the seat for Esmeralda County (Elliott, 1966). The decline 

for the Tonopah mining district was more gradual and had time to transform its primary economic base from mining 

to a supply center, albeit relatively small and limited, for the surrounding ranches, remaining mining districts, and 

military installations. The Las Vegas and Tonopah rail line lasted until 1918; the rails were removed in 1919 (Myrick, 

1963). Still evident on the NTS today are some of the abandoned ties reused for the construction of corrals and other 

structures at a number of the springs. Around the Beatty area the ties were used in some of the later mining 

operations for shoring (McCracken, 1992). 

As mining explorations continued in the region, fanning out from the earlier strikes, small mining districts were 

founded, such as Tolicha in 1917 at the west end of Pahute Mesa (Lincoln, 1923) and the Bare Mountain district just 

west of the NTS (Cornwall, 1972; Lincoln, 1923, Tingley, 1984). Recorded as an archaeological site by Jones et al. 

(1996), the mining town of Wahmonie in the southern part of the NTS around Mine and Skull mountains was 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-52 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

founded in 1928. The history of Wahmonie spans only a few years and was typical of the boom-and-bust cycle of the 

mining industry. The historic mining camp of Wahmonie is located about 10 km (6 mi) west of Cane Spring 

(McLane, 1995; Quade and Tingley, 1984). It grew to a small town with boarding houses, tent stores, and cafes. The 

Silver Dollar Saloon and the Northern Club were but two of the enterprises (Long, 1950). Most of the miners lived in 

small tents. George Wingfield, a well-known mine owner and banker in Nevada, became interested and incorporated 

the Wahmonie Mining Company. Soon, however, the strike was apparently not as rich as had first been thought and 

by early 1929 optimism faded and people began leaving Wahmonie. Small amounts of prospecting in the Wahmonie 

district continued into the 1930s and 1940s, but few ore deposits were ever discovered. 

The earliest record of prospecting on what is now the NTS is the Oak Spring mining district centered around the 

northern edge of Oak Butte (Drollinger, 2002). Documents at the Recorder’s Office in Tonopah indicate it was 

established by the late 1880s. The main objectives of these early mining activities were gold, silver, and chrysocolla, a 

green to blue mineral resembling turquoise. Lincoln (1923) indicates copper ore containing some silver was shipped 

in 1917 from the Horseshoe claim in the Oak Spring mining district, and that minor amounts of tungsten were also 

mined in the district. The Oak Spring district, although having relatively abundant water and wood sources, did not 

prove to be very productive overall. 

B.M. Bower (a.k.a. Bertha Muzzy Sinclair), a noted author, with husband (Bud Cowan) and family, moved to Nevada 

from Los Angeles, California in 1920 and took up residence (Figure A-23) at a mining camp near Oak Spring 

(McLane, 1996) (see Figure A-16). An accomplished and prolific writer, B.M. Bower published a number of short 

stories and novels over a 40 year career, with some of them becoming the basis for early western-themed movies in 

Hollywood. She also served as a screenwriter on a couple of them. While living at the camp, Bower wrote 11 novels, 

incorporating some of the surrounding geographic features, such as Oak Butte and the camp itself, into a few of the 

stories. (Copies of several of her books have been made electronically available to the public by Project Gutenberg as 

Etext and can be downloaded at: <http://www.thalasson.com/gtn/gtnletB.htm#bowerbm>). The family also 

formed the El Picacho Mining Company, with B.M. Bower serving as the president, and filed assessment work for the 

claims from 1922 to 1928. The family moved to Las Vegas around 1926, but still worked the mining claims 

sporadically over the next couple years. 

They eventually returned to California. Fittingly, in keeping with the theme for some of the novels, the abandoned 

camp was used in the early 1930s by outlaws from Utah and Arizona whose escapades were later featured in a Death 

Valley Days radio episode narrated by Ronald Reagan. B.M. Bower died in 1940 and was inducted into the Western 

Writers of America Hall of Fame in 1994. 

Historically, demand of tungsten for use in weaponry was high during times of war (World Wars I, II, the 

Korean War) and fell during times of peace (Stager and Tingley, 1988). Correspondingly, so did the mining of 

tungsten in Nevada. Tungsten was discovered in the Oak Spring district and located as the Climax group in 1937 by 

V.A. Tamney (Kral, 1951; Stager and Tingley, 1988). Most operations ended when the area was closed with the 

founding of the bombing and gunnery range by the Federal government (Kral, 1951; Quade and Tingley, 1984; 

Stager and Tingley, 1988). Production was never fully established for these claims, however, and only samples totaling 

some 15 tons were processed in a nearby dry concentrating mill serving the Oak Spring district. The last known 

mining. operation at the Climax claims was from December 1956 to May 1957 involving a co-use agreement between 

George Tamney, W.A. Kinney, A.J. Wright, owners of the Climax Tungsten Corporation, and the AEC (McLane, 

1996; Quade and Tingley, 1984). The agreement was terminated and no legal mining has since been conducted on the 

NTS. 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 A-53

Figure A-23. Bower cabin on the NTS (photo by DRI, 2001) 
Appendix A - Nevada Test Site Description

A-54 Nevada Test Site Description

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities B-i 

Appendix B 

B.0 Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

B-ii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 B-1

Appendix B: 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 of all environmental monitoring and compliance activities conducted in 2003 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 B-1). 

B.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 B-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 include the maintenance of four

wastewater permits, five air quality operating permits for a variety of equipment, one hazardous materials permit 

(Table B-1), and the monitoring of tritium in air and ambient gamma-emissions to comply with radiation protection 

regulations. 

 Table B-1. Environmental permits for NLVF 

Permit Number Description Expiration Date Reporting

Wastewater Discharge 

VEH-112 NLVF Wastewater Contribution Permit December 31, 2006 Annually 

TNEV2003461 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit May 21, 2004 Monthly 

TNEV2004348 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit November 21, 2004 Monthly 

TNEV2004364 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit May 21, 2005 Monthly 

Air Quality 

A38701 A-16 Spray Paint Booth None Annually 

A38703 A-5/B-5 Emergency Generators None Annually 

A06503 Emergency Generator None Annually 

A06505 B-1 Aluminum Sander None Annually 

A06507 Tinco Dry Blaster None Annually 

Hazardous Materials 

2287-5144 NLVF Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2005 Annually 

B.1.1 Compliance with Water Permits 

Wastewater permits for NLVF include: (1) a Class II Wastewater Contribution Permit with the City of North Las 

Vegas (CNLV) for sewer discharges and (2) three temporary discharge permits to support groundwater 

characterization and dewatering issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

B-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure B-1. Location of NTS satellite facilities
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 B-3

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 discharged through the CNLV stormwater collection system. 

These discharges enter waters of the United States (Las Vegas Wash) under a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 2004, the NDEP issued two new temporary permits (six-month duration) to 

NNSA/NSO. Sediment is the primary pollutant related to these discharges. 

B.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 2004, contaminant measurements were below established permit limits (Table B-2) in all water samples 

from NLVF outfalls and all sludge and liquid samples from NLVF sand/oil interceptor. CNLV conducted an annual 

inspection on September 14, 2004, that resulted in no findings or corrective actions. In compliance with this permit, 

the following report summarizing wastewater monitoring was generated for NLVF operations and submitted October 

25, 2004 to CNLV: Self-Monitoring Report for the National Nuclear Security Administration’s North Las Vegas Facility: Permit 

VEH-112.

Table B-2. Results of 2004 monitoring at NLVF for Wastewater Contribution Permit VEH-112 

Contaminant 

Permit Limit 

 (mg/L) 

Outfall A 

(mg/L)

Outfall 

B (mg/L)

Outfall C2 

(mg/L)

Ammonia 61 8.9 1.9 11 

Barium 13.1 0.152 0.100 0.200 

BOD 600 110 380 170 

Cadmium 0.15 0.0023 0.0182 <0.0003 

Chromium (hexavalent) 0.10 < 0.19(a) < 0.19(a) < 0.19(a) 

Chromium (total) 5.60 0.0022 0.0072 0.0014 

Copper 0.60 0.207 0.171 0.262 

Cyanide (total) 19.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 

Lead 0.20 0.0026 0.0145 <0.0019 

Nickel 1.10 0.007 0.0096 0.005 

Oil & Grease (animal or vegetable) 250 20 < 17 11 

pH (Standard Units) 5.0 – 11.0 8.17 6.90 8.26 

Phenols 33.6 0.05 0.77 0.045 

Phosphorus (total) 14.0 4.3 1.8 4.7 

Silver 2.70 < 0.0009 < 0.0009 < 0.0009 

TDS (total dissolved solids) 1200 832 470 1120 

TRPH (total recoverable petroleum 

hydrocarbons) 100 5.5 270(b) 11 

TSS (total suspended solids) 750 44.5 14.8 81 

Zinc 8.20 0.378 0.277 0.318 

Yellow shaded results are any which are equal to or greater than the permit limit

(a) The normal detection limit for hexavalent chromium is 0.01. Due to a sample dilution factor of 19, 

the resultant detection limit was elevated. No further action was required. 

(b) Data was qualified as suspect due to poor surrogate recovery caused by matrix interference. No 

further action was required. 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

B-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

B.1.1.2 Unauthorized Discharge from Building A-1 

On August 19, 2004, during a pre-inspection and safety walkthrough, the Facility Owner and Experimentation 

Support Department Safety Professional observed an unmarked and nearly full 5-gallon bucket of water under the 

drainpipe of the air-handling unit in Building A-1, Room 4520. The bucket was located approximately 1 foot from a 

floor drain. Upon investigation, it was determined that the bucket had been placed there to collect potentially tritiated 

condensate from the air handler. Parts of Building A-1, including Room 4520, were contaminated with tritium by a 

previous contractor in 1995. The 5-gallon bucket was replaced with a 40-gallon drum and the water was sampled. 

The sample results indicated a tritium concentration of 23,000 r 4,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). Further 

investigation identified that at least three times since work was resumed in Room 4520 in May 2004, tritiated water 

from the bucket had been emptied into the floor drain constituting an unauthorized discharge to the city of North Las 

Vegas sewer system. NNSA/NSO reported the unauthorized discharge to the CNLV on September 10, 2004. This 

event was determined to meet occurrence reporting criteria and Occurrence Report Number NVOO--BN-NLV2004-0003, was submitted on September 13, 2004. The following actions were required by the CNLV to close out 

this unauthorized discharge, all of which have been completed: 

x Fix the condensate tubing in Room 4520 so the hose flows directly into the containment barrel. 

x Supply secondary containment for the barrel in Room 4520. 

x Install a permanent sign in Room 4520. The sign must state “Do not discharge air conditioner condensate 

from this room into any building drain”. 

x Remove the portion of pipe teeing off the source range wastewater pipe and leading to the floor drain located 

in Room 4540. 

x Institute weekly checks of the condensate barrels. 

x Send information to the inspector demonstrating the tritium concentration at the outfall was not detectable 

following each of the incidents. 

x Explain why incident was reported so long after occurrence. 

B.1.1.3 NPDES Permits TNEV2003461, TNEV2004348, and TNEV2004364 

Temporary National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits covered the groundwater characterization study and remedial dewatering operation which was conducted at 

NLVF in 2004. Each permit is valid for a period of six months; these are renewed each May and November as long 

as the study and groundwater pumping is performed. Each renewal involves the issuance of a uniquely numbered 

permit. Each permit specifies that the total flow volumes from both of the wells being pumped during the study be 

monitored and that there be sediment controls as necessary on the discharge stream which enters the storm water 

drains at the facility. Because the groundwater discharges are “clean” (i.e., not wastewater or discharges from an 

industrial process), no other water parameters are required to be monitored. Water pumped from both wells flow into 

one storm water outfall; there have been no need for sediment controls. Monthly reports of discharge volumes were 

submitted to NDEP as required. All permit specifications were met in 2004 (Table B-3). 

Table B-3. NPDES/SPDES Non-Compliances 

Permit 

Type Outfall Parameter

Number 

of Permit 

Exceedances 

Number of 

Samples 

Taken 

Number of 

Compliant 

Samples 

Percent 

Compliance 

Date(s) 

Exceeded 

Description 

/Solution 

TNEV2

003461/

004348/

004364 

001 Discharge 

volume NA 12 (1/month) 12 100 NA NA 

 Note: This table and its specific format are requested by DOE Headquarters for ease in collecting NPDES/SPDES data across multiple DOE 

and NNSA facilities. NA = Not applicable. 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 B-5

In 2005, during preparation of this report, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed the State that 

they were in direct violation of the Clean Water Act by issuing the temporary NPDES discharge permits for NLVF 

that allowed discharge of pumped groundwater to the CNLV storm water drainage system. Bechtel Nevada (BN) will 

implement one of several corrective action options which the State presented so as to comply with the EPA ruling 

and resolve this issue in 2005. 

B.1.2 Groundwater Control Study 

Rising groundwater below Building A-1 at 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 the rate of 0.6 meters (m) 

(2 feet [ft]) per year (BN, 2001). Data collected during 2002 and 2003 show the rate of rise decreasing to less than 

0.3 m (1 ft) per year (BN, 2003c). 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 deepfooted infrastructure (e.g., elevator pits, utility trenches, etc.). 

In 2002 and 2003, BN conducted a groundwater control study. This comprehensive investigation included the 

installation of 25 wells (Figure B-2), soil and water sampling, hydrologic testing, and rudimentary modeling 

(BN, 2003c). The goals of the study were to discover why the water table beneath Building A-1 was rising and to 

determine what remedial actions could be taken to protect the building. Prior to this investigation, details regarding 

the subsurface structure, geology, and hydrology at the site were not well known. 

The 25 new wells were typically constructed in well pairs. Each site consists of a shallow well (designated with an “s”) 

drilled to about 12.2 m (40 ft), and a deep well (designated with a “d”) drilled to about 41.1 m (135 ft) depth. The 

four wells closest to Building A-1 are NLVF-12s and 12d and NLVF-13s and -13d, which were constructed with 

larger diameter completion casing to accommodate a submersible pump employed during hydraulic testing. Hydraulic 

properties for the two alluvial aquifers were derived from step draw-down tests, constant-rate pumping, slug tests, and 

the physical properties measurements. The estimated pumping rate for the silty-sandy aquifer was determined to be 

only 3.8 liters per minute (lpm) (1 gallons per minute [gpm]) per well. 

B.1.2.1 Study Results 

The NLVF groundwater control studies indicate a complex hydrogeologic setting, and implicate multiple factors for 

the rise of the water table. The wells were drilled entirely in relatively young alluvial deposits consisting mainly of 

sand, silt, and clay. The preliminary geologic interpretation of borehole data indicates that these fine-grained 

sediments represent a low energy, mid-valley alluvial and fluvial environment. Individual lithologic units are 

complexly interbedded and several normal faults have been mapped in the vicinity. 

The near-surface (unconfined) water table at 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 lpm (0.8 to 2 gpm) was encountered at two wells. The water-table 

map (potentiometric surface; provided in BN, 2004b and DOE, 2004d) produced from these data shows a rather 

steep gradient to the southeast in the vicinity of Building A-1. 

Water chemistry reveals that this water is not related to the near surface “nuisance water” commonly supplied by 

excessive irrigation, but is from a deeper alluvial aquifer. The hydrogeologic setting suggests that the source of this 

rising groundwater is water flowing upward along local faults from deeper confined aquifer(s) (Figure B-3). This 

condition is considered a long-term adjustment that can be attributed to a combination of causes, including a seasonal 

water injection program conducted by the Southern Nevada Water Authority and shifting of regional pumping centers 

away from the vicinity of NLVF. 

B.1.2.2 Work Conducted in 2004 

The two shallow hydrologic characterization wells near Building A-1, NLVF-12s and NLVF-13s, were converted into 

dewatering wells with the installation of submersible pumps (Figure B-4). The two wells were brought on-line on 

May 18, 2004. Their flow was discharged into the CNLV storm-water drain system according to temporary discharge 

permits issued by NDEP. The objective of this dewatering effort was to lower the water level 4 ft (1.2 m) (or one 

foot below the lowest building footing) within two years. 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

B-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 Figure B-2. Monitoring wells and hydrologic test wells constructed at NLVF 
Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 B-7

Figure B-3. Hydrogeologic setting for NLVF showing faults and aquifers 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

B-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Figure B-4. Well construction diagram for the dewatering wells at NLVF
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 B-9

Groundwater monitoring activities for the dewatering project include periodic water-level measurements at all 

accessible wells at NLVF (including continuous measurements at the A-1 Basement Sump Well not shown on Figure 

B-2) and specific groundwater chemistry analyses conducted quarterly at the two dewatering wells. Water samples are 

analyzed for tritium and the standard field parameters: pH, conductivity, temperature, and turbidity. 

Analytical results for tritium from both dewatering wells have been below the minimum detectable concentration 

(MDC) of 250 pCi/L. Field parameter values and tritium levels were as expected and compare well with previous 

sampling events. Well NLVF-12s has been pumping approximately 34,595 liters (9,140 gallons) per month in the year 

since it was installed, and Well NLVF-13s has pumped about 154,920 liters (40,930 gallons) per month. The average 

combined discharge from both dewatering wells is about 189,515 liters (50,070 gallons) per month. 

Depth-to-water in the A-1 basement sump is plotted versus time (date) in Figure B-5. The raw water-level data have 

been corrected for barometric pressure. The low water levels depicted on the far left side of Figure B-5 reflect 

continued pumping of the A-1 Basement Sump Well. The A-1 basement sump pump was turned off on 

 May 22, 2004, several days after the two dewatering wells came on-line. Figure B-5 shows a steady decrease in the 

water level at the A-1 Basement Sump Well due to pumping at Wells NLVF-12s and NLVF-13s up to about 

December 20, 2004. After this date, the water level at the A-1 Basement Sump Well has been gradually rising, 

possibly due to recharge associated with the higher than normal precipitation for this period. 

Figure B-5. Diagram showing the daily transducer head at A-1 sump 

B.1.2.3 Future Work 

Hydrologic modeling conducted in fiscal year 2004 (BN, 2004b) and water-level measurements collected since May 

2004, indicate that the two shallow dewatering wells currently on-line are not able to control the rising groundwater 

beneath Building A-1. Additional dewatering wells have been proposed for fiscal year 2005. Four wells will be drilled 

near to Building A-1: three on the north side and one at the northwest corner. Hydrologic tests are planned to be 

conducted at all four wells following completion and development activities. Dedicated submersible pumps are 

planned for installation in the two best producing wells, and these two wells would then be added to the existing 

dewatering system. 

In order to bring the dewatering operation on-line quickly, water will be disposed directly into the existing stormwater conveyance system. However, the long-range plan is to use the pumped water onsite for irrigation of landscape 

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

03/26/04 04/23/04 05/21/04 06/18/04 07/16/04 08/13/04 09/10/04 10/08/04 11/05/04 12/03/04 12/31/04

Date

Transducer head (feet)

daily transducer head

approximate SWL before dewatering

Discontinue pumping at Sump Well

Start dewatering
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

B-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

and possibly in existing cooling towers. Continued monitoring of water levels and water chemistry at selected wells is 

also planned. More detailed information regarding this project, including figures and data presentations, is reported in 

annual summary reports (BN, 2003c and BN, 2004b). 

B.1.3 Compliance with Air Quality Permits 

The NLVF is regulated for the emission of criteria pollutants (see Glossary, Appendix D) and hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs). They include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrous oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), and any of 189 defined HAPs. Air quality operating permits are maintained for a 

variety of equipment that includes boilers, emergency generators, and a paint spray booth. There are no monitoring 

requirements associated with these permits. The air permits for NLVF were issued in the mid-1980s and early 1990s 

through the Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM), formerly the Clark 

County Health District (CCHD). Permits are amended and revised only if the situation under which the permit has 

been issued changes. The permits have no expiration date and are renewed automatically each year upon payment of 

permit fees. The DAQEM requires submittal of an annual emissions inventory. The estimated quantities of criteria 

air pollutants and HAPs emitted at NLVF in 2004 are presented in Table B-4. The emissions inventory for 2004 was 

reported to DAQEM on March 23, 2005. 

Table B-4. Tons of criteria air pollutant and HAPs emissions estimated for NLVF in 2004 

Criteria Pollutant (Tons/yr)(a) 

Facility at NLVF CO NOx PM SO2 VOC 

HAPs 

(Tons/yr) 

Atlas Facility 0.034 0.129 0.004 0.002 0.004 0.00011 

Losee Facility 0.106 0.491 0.035 0.032 0.040 0.0007 

Nevada Support Facility 0.016 0.059 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.00008 

 

 Total 0.156 0.679 0.041 0.035 0.046 0.0009 

(a) 1 ton equals 0.91 metric tons 

B.1.4 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations 

In 2004, the chemical inventory at NLVF was updated and submitted to the state in the Nevada Combined Agency 

(NCA) Report on February 25, 2005, as per the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Permit 2287-5144 

(see Section 2.5, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act [EPCRA] for description of content, 

purpose, and federal regulatory driver behind the NCA Report). No accidental or unplanned release of an EHS 

occurred at NLVF in 2004. 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 [TRI Report]). 

B.1.5 Compliance with Radiation Protection Regulations 

B.1.5.1 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

The Clean Air Act, Title 40 CFR 61, Subpart H (NESHAP) requires managers of U.S. Department of Energy (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 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 B-11

outdoors. Since 1995, a dose assessment has been performed every year for this building. Two air samples were 

collected from the basement in 2004 (from March 29 to April 6 and from September 1 to September 7). As in 

previous years, the calculated radiation dose to the nearest member of the general public, located 100 m northwest of 

the building vent pipe, was less than 2 microrems (μrem)/yr. 

B.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. BN’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 2004, two TLD stations were placed along the perimeter fence and one was placed in a control location. The 

resultant annual exposure rates estimated for those NLVF locations potentially accessible to the public are 

summarized in Table B-5. These exposures were all less than the 100 mrem/yr dose limit. 

 Table B-5. Results of 2004 direct radiation exposure monitoring at NLVF 

 Gamma Exposure (mR/yr) 

Location 

Number of 

Samples Mean Median Minimum Maximum 

Control 4 70 71 67 72 

North Fence of A-1 4 62 63 60 65 

North Fence of Bldg C-3 4 64 64 62 66 

B.2 Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility 

The CLVF Facility is located at the Flynn Gallagher Corporate Center on West Cheyenne Avenue in northwest 

Las Vegas. It is comprised of five buildings which house engineering, procurement, and administrative functions. 

Access to the facility requires proper identification, badging, and a security access card. Facility and infrastructure 

maintenance is provided by the facility owner. No environmental monitoring or compliance activities are conducted 

at or for this facility. 

B.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. There is a Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Air Force and the NNSA whereby the land 

belongs to the Air Force, but is under lease to the NNSA 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 include maintenance of a wastewater contribution 

permit, six air quality permits, and a hazardous materials permit (Table B-6). Sealed radiation sources are used for 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

B-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

calibration at RSL - Nellis, but the public has no access to any area which may have elevated gamma radiation emitted 

by the sources. Therefore, no environmental TLD monitoring is conducted. Dosimetry monitoring to ensure 

protection of personnel who work within the facility is performed, however. 

Table B-6. Environmental permits for RSL - Nellis 

B.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 B-7 presents the mean 

concentration of outfall measurements collected once per quarter in 2004. All contaminants in the outfall samples fell 

below permit limits. Quarterly reports were submitted on March 3, May 6, September 7, and December 1, 2004 to the 

CCWRD. The CCWRD also conducted two inspections of RSL - Nellis in 2004. The inspections resulted in no 

findings or corrective actions for the facility. 

Table B-7. Mean concentration of outfall measurements at RSL - Nellis in 2004 

Contaminant/Measure Permit Limit Outfall 

mg/L 

Ammonia NL(a) 16.28 

Cadmium 0.35 0.0011 

Chromium (Total) 1.7 0.0028 

Copper 3.36 0.233 

Cyanide (Total) 1 0.065 

Lead 0.99 0.005 

Nickel 10.08 0.0055 

Phosphorus NL 7.83 

Silver 6.3 0.0063 

TDS NL 935 

TSS NL 88.55 

Zinc 23.06 0.427 

Standard Units 

pH 5.0 – 11.0 7.93 

Degrees Fahrenheit 

Temperature 140 73.1 

(a) No limit listed on permit 

Permit Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Wastewater Discharge 

CCWRD-080 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit June 30, 2005 March, May, 

September, December 

Air Quality 

A34801 Boiler, Columbia, WL-180 None March, June 

A34802 Boiler, Columbia, WL-90 None March, June 

A34803 Water Heater, #2 Natl. BD None March, June 

A34804(a) Emergency Fire Control Pump Engine None June 

A34804(b) Emergency Generator, Cummins None June 

A34805 Spray Paint Booth None June 

Hazardous Materials 

2287-5145 RSL - Nellis Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2005 Annually 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 B-13

B.3.2 Compliance with Air Quality Permits 

RSL - Nellis is regulated for the emission of criteria pollutants and HAPs. Air quality operating permits are 

maintained for a variety of equipment (see Table B-6). There are no monitoring requirements associated with these 

permits. The air permits for RSL - Nellis were issued in the mid-80’s and early 90’s through the DAQEM. Permits 

are amended and revised only if the situation under which the permit has been issued changes. The permits have no 

expiration date and are renewed automatically each year upon payment of permit fees. The DAQEM requires 

submittal of the annual emissions inventory. The estimated quantities of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted at 

RSL - Nellis in 2004 are presented in Table B-8. Natural gas consumption is also reported as per the requirements of 

Permit #A34803 issued for the water heater (see Table B-6). The emissions inventory for 2004 was reported to 

DAQEM on March 23, 2005. 

Table B-8. Summary of air emissions for RSL - Nellis in 2004 

Criteria Pollutant (Tons/yr)(a) 

CO NOx PM SO2 VOC 

HAPs 

(Tons/yr) 

Natural Gas 

Consumption 

(ft3)

0.734 1.268 0.078 0.022 0.067 0.007 7,087,152 

 (a) 1 ton equals 0.91 metric tons 

B.3.3 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations 

In 2004, the chemical inventory at RSL - Nellis was updated and submitted to the state in the Nevada Combined 

Agency (NCA) Report on February 25, 2005, as per the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Permit 2287-5145 

(see Section 2.5 of this NTSER 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 2004. 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 [TRI Report]). 
Appendix B - Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

B-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix C - Helpful Information

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 C-i

Appendix C 

Helpful Information 
Appendix C - Helpful Information

C-ii Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix C - Helpful Information

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 C-1

C.0 Appendix C: Helpful Information 

C.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. 

C.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 C-1. 

C.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 C-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 gram of the 

radionuclide radium-226, which are 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. 

C.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 C-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 

Table C-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)

Table C-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 C-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) 
Appendix C - Helpful Information

C-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

radiation (1,000 mrem or less) produces no immediate observable effects, but long-term (delayed) effects are possible. 

The average person in the United States receives an annual dose of approximately 300 mrem from exposure to 

naturally produced radiation. Medical and dental x-rays, air travel, and tobacco smoking add to this total. 

The unit “rad,” for radiation absorbed dose, is also used in this report. The rad is a measure of the energy absorbed 

by any material, whereas a rem relates to both the amount of radiation energy absorbed by humans and its 

consequence. A roentgen (R) is a measure of radiation exposure. Generally speaking, one roentgen of exposure will 

result in an effective dose equivalent of 1 rem. Additional information on radiation and dose terminology can be 

found in the Glossary (Appendix D). A list of the radionuclides discussed in this report, their symbols, and their halflives are presented in the box below. 

C.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 U.S. Department of Energy. 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 C-4 provides the 

multiplication factors for converting to and from SI units. 

C.6 Radionuclide Nomenclature 

 Radionuclides are frequently expressed with the one- or twoletter 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 used in this report are shown 

in Table C-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 halflife, 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, seven-eighths 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. 

C.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 C-6. 

Table C-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 

Table C-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 
Appendix C - Helpful Information

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 C-3

Table C-6. Metric and U.S. customary unit equivalents 

Table C-5. (continued)

Symbol Radionuclide Half-Life (a)

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-131 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. 

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 (2000 pounds) 1 short ton (2000 pounds) 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 
Appendix C - Helpful Information

C-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

C.8 Uncertainty of Measurements 

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. 

C.9 Standard Error of the Mean 

Just as individual values are accompanied by counting uncertainties, mean values (averages) are accompanied by 

uncertainty, 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. 

C.10 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. 

C.11 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. 

C.12 Understanding Graphic Information 

Some of the data graphed in this report are plotted using logarithmic, or compressed, scales. Logarithmic (log) scales 

are used in plots where the values are of widely different magnitudes at different locations and/or different times. 
Appendix C - Helpful Information

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 C-5

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 1400. 

For example, compare Figures C-1 and Figure C-2. Figure C-1 shows long-term trends in mean 3H concentrations. 

The use of the log scale for the concentration (vertical) axis allows the variation in measurements in all areas of NTS 

to be seen for the entire time history. Figure C-2 contains the same data, but uses a linear scale for the 

concentrations. In Figure C-2 only the variation in the highest values (pre-1987 values from Area 23) can be seen 

clearly; nearly all of the rest of the values are smudges along the bottom of the graph. 

 

 Figure C-1. Data plotted using a log scale

Figure C-2. Data plotted using a linear scale

3

H Annual M e an Long-Te rm Tre nds

A ll Lo catio ns With at Least 7-Year H isto ries Since 1987

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

A 1

A 5 RW MS

A 10,12,15

A 20

A 23,25

CL

3

H Annual M e an Long-Te rm Tre nds

A ll Lo catio ns With at Least 7-Year H isto ries Since 1987

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Ye ar

x 10-6 pCi/mL

A 1

A 5 RWMS

A10,12,15

A20

A23,25

CL
Appendix C - Helpful Information

C-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Appendix D - Glossary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 D-1

Appendix D: Glossary 

A Absorbed dose: the amount of energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation per unit mass of irradiated 

material, in which the absorbed dose is expressed in units of rad or gray (l rad = 0.01 gray). 

Accuracy: the closeness of the result of a measurement to the true value of the quantity measured. 

Action level: defined by regulatory agencies, the level of pollutants which, if exceeded, requires regulatory 

action. 

Aerosol: a gaseous suspension of very small particles of liquid or solid. 

Alluvium: sediment deposited by flowing water. 

Alpha particle: a positively charged particle emitted from the nucleus of an atom, having mass and charge equal 

to those of a helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons), usually emitted by transuranic elements. 

Ambient air: the surrounding atmosphere, usually the outside air, as it exists around people, plants, and 

structures; not considered in monitoring purposes when immediately adjacent to emission sources. 

Analyte: the specific component measured in a chemical analysis. 

Anion: a negatively charged ion, such as Cl–.

Aquifer: a saturated layer of rock or soil below the ground surface that can supply usable quantities of ground 

water to wells and springs, and be a source of water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses. 

Aquitard: low-permeability geologic formation that bounds an aquifer. 

Atom: the smallest particle of an element capable of entering into a chemical reaction. 

B Background: as used in this report, background is the term for the amounts of chemical constituents or 

radioactivity in the environment which are not caused by NTS operations. 

Becquerel (Bq): the SI unit of activity of a radionuclide, equal to the activity of a radionuclide having one 

spontaneous nuclear transition per second. 

Beta particle: a negatively charged particle emitted from the nucleus of an atom, having charge, mass, and other 

properties of an electron, emitted from fission products such as 137Cs. 

Biochemical (biological) oxygen demand (BOD): a measure of the amount of dissolved oxygen that 

microorganisms need to break down organic matter in water, used as an indicator of water quality. 

C CAP88-PC: computer code required by the EPA for modeling air emissions of radionuclides. 

Chain-of-custody: a method for documenting the history and possession of a sample from the time of its 

collection, through its analysis and data reporting, to its final disposition. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): a codification of all regulations promulgated by federal government 

agencies. 

Collective population dose: the sums of the dose equivalents or effective dose equivalents to all individuals in 
Appendix D - Glossary

D-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

an exposed population within 80 km (50 mi) of the radiation source. These are evaluated by multiplying the dose 

received by an individual at each location by the number of individuals receiving that dose, and summing over all 

such products for locations within 80 km of the source. They are expressed in units of person-rem or 

person-sievert. The collective EDE is also referred to as the “population dose.” 

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; 100 rem equals 

one sievert). 

Committed effective dose equivalent: the sum of the committed dose equivalents to various tissues in the 

body, each multiplied by an appropriate weighting factor representing the relative vulnerability of different parts 

of the body to radiation. Committed effective dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem or sievert. 

Compliance Level (CL): stands for the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance. The CL value represents the annual average 

concentration which would result in a dose of 10 mrem/yr which is the federal dose limit to the public from all 

radioactive air emissions. 

Cosmic radiation: radiation with very high energies originating outside the earth’s atmosphere; it is one source 

contributing to natural background radiation. 

Criteria pollutants: those air pollutants designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as potentially 

harmful and for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act have been 

established to protect the public health and welfare. These pollutants include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, lead, and particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10). The state of Nevada, through an air quality permit, establishes emission limits on the NTS for 

SO2, NOX, CO, PM10, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Ozone is not regulated by the permit as an 

emission as it is formed in part from NOX and VOCs. Lead is considered a hazardous air pollutant as well as a 

criteria pollutant, and lead emissions on the NTS are reported as part of the total HAPs 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 95 percent confidence that the sample contains radioactive material above the 

background.

Depleted uranium: uranium having a lower proportion of the isotope 235U than is found in naturally occurring 

uranium. The masses of the three uranium isotopes with atomic weights 238, 235, and 234 occur in depleted 

uranium in the weight-percentages 99.8, 0.2, and 5 × 10–4, respectively; see Table 3-7 and related discussion. 

Derived Concentration Guide (DCG): concentrations of radionuclides in water and air that could be 

continuously consumed or inhaled for one year and not exceed the DOE primary radiation standard to the public 

(100 mrem/y EDE). 

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. 
Appendix D - Glossary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 D-3

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 (l rem = 0.01 sievert). 

Dosimeter: a portable detection device for measuring the total accumulated exposure to ionizing radiation. 

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 nonuniform 

exposure of the body to be expressed in terms of an effective dose equivalent that is numerically equal to the dose 

from a uniform exposure of the whole body that entails the same risk as the internal exposure (ICRP 1980). The 

effective dose equivalent includes the committed effective dose equivalent from internal deposition of 

radionuclides and the effective dose equivalent caused by penetrating radiation from sources external to the body, 

and is expressed in units of rem (or sievert). 

Effluent: used in this report to refer to a liquid discharged to the environment. 

Emission: used in this report to refer to a vapor, gas, air-borne particulate, or radiation discharged to the 

environment via the air. 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): a detailed report, required by the National Environmental Policy 

Act, on the environmental impacts from a federally approved or funded project. An EIS must be prepared by a 

federal agency when a “major” federal action that will have “significant” environmental impacts is planned. 

F Federal facility: a facility that is owned or operated by the federal government, subject to the same 

requirements as other responsible parties when placed on the Superfund National Priorities List. 

Federal facility agreement (FFA): a negotiated agreement that specifies required actions at a federal facility as 

agreed upon by various agencies (e.g., EPA, DOE, DoD). 

Federal Register: a document published daily by the federal government containing notification of government 

agency actions, including notification of EPA and DOE decisions concerning permit applications and 

rule-making. 

Fiscal year: NNSA/NSO’s fiscal year is from October 1 through September 30. 

G Gamma ray: high-energy, short-wavelength, electromagnetic radiation emitted from the nucleus of an atom, 

frequently accompanying the emission of alpha or beta particles. 

Gray (Gy): the SI unit of measure for absorbed dose; the quantity of energy imparted by ionizing radiation to a 

unit mass of matter, such as tissue. One gray equals 100 rads, or 1 joule per kilogram. 

Gross alpha: the measure of radioactivity caused by all radionuclides present in a sample which emit alpha 

particles. Gross alpha measurements reflect alpha activity from all sources, including those that occur naturally. 

Gross measurements are used as a method to screen samples for relative levels of radioactivity. 
Appendix D - Glossary

D-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Gross beta: the measure of radioactivity caused by all radionuclides present in a sample which emit beta 

particles. Gross beta measurements reflect beta activity from all sources, including those that occur naturally. 

Gross measurements are used as a method to screen samples for relative levels of radioactivity. 

Groundwater: all subsurface water. 

H Half-life: the time required for one-half the radioactive atoms in a given amount of material to decay; for 

example, after one half-life, half of the atoms will have decayed; after two half-lives, three-fourths; after three 

half-lives, seven-eighths; and so on, exponentially. 

Hazardous waste: hazardous wastes exhibit any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, or EP-toxicity (yielding excessive levels of toxic constituents in a leaching test), but other wastes that do 

not necessarily exhibit these characteristics have been determined to be hazardous by 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% for 0.3 micrometer diameter 

particles. 

Hydraulic gradient: in an aquifer, the rate of change of total head (water-level elevation) per unit distance of 

flow at a given point and in a given direction. 

Hydrology: the science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of natural water systems. 

I Inorganic compounds: compounds that either do not contain carbon or do not contain hydrogen along with 

carbon, including metals, salts, various carbon oxides (e.g., carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide), and cyanide. 

In situ: in the natural or original position. Generally refers to measurements taken in the environment or to the 

treatment of contaminated areas in place without excavation or removal. 

Interim status: a legal classification allowing hazardous waste incinerators or other hazardous waste 

management facilities to operate while EPA considers their permit applications, provided that they were under 

construction or in operation by November 19, 1980 and can meet other interim status requirements. 

Isotopes: forms of an element having the same number of protons in their nuclei, but differing numbers of 

neutrons. 

L Less than detection limits: a phrase indicating that a chemical constituent or radionuclide was either not 

present in a sample, or is present in such a small concentration that it cannot be measured as significantly 

different from zero by a laboratory’s analytical procedure, and therefore is not identified at the lowest level of 

sensitivity. 

Low level radioactive waste (LLW): waste defined by DOE Order 5820.2A, which contains transuranic 

nuclide concentrations less than 100 nCi/g. 

Lower limit of detection: the smallest concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected in a sample at a 

95% 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. 
Appendix D - Glossary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 D-5

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): the highest level of a contaminant in drinking water that is allowed 

by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation. 

Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC): also known as the lower limit of detection, the smallest 

amount of radioactive material in a sample that can be quantitatively distinguished from background radiation in 

the sample with 95 percent confidence. 

Metric units: Metric system and U.S. customary units and their respective equivalents are shown in Table C-6. 

Except for temperature for which specific equations apply, U.S. customary units can be determined from metric 

units by multiplying the metric units by the U.S. customary equivalent. Similarly, metric units can be determined 

from U.S. customary equivalent units by multiplying the U.S. customary units by the metric equivalent. 

Mixed waste (MW): waste that has the properties of both hazardous and radioactive waste. 

N National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs): standards found in the Clean 

Air Act that set limits for hazardous air pollutants. 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): federal regulation under the Clean Water 

Act that requires permits for discharges into surface waterways. 

Nonpoint source: any nonconfined area from which pollutants are discharged into a body of water (e.g., 

agricultural runoff, construction runoff, and parking lot drainage), or into air (e.g., a pile of uranium tailings). 

O Offsite: for effluent releases or in the nuclear testing area, offsite is any place outside the NTS and adjacent 

NTTR. 

Onsite: for effluent releases or in the nuclear testing area, onsite is any place inside the NTS and adjacent 

NTTR. 

P Part B permit: the second, narrative section submitted by generators in the RCRA permitting process that 

covers in detail the procedures followed at a facility to protect human health and the environment. 

Parts per billion (ppb): a unit of measure for the concentration of a substance in its surrounding medium; for 

example, one billion grams of water containing one gram of salt has a salt concentration of one part per billion. 

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 one part per 

million. 

Perched aquifer: aquifer that is separated from another water-bearing stratum by an impermeable layer. 

Performance standards (incinerators): specific regulatory requirements established by EPA 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: geological epoch of the Tertiary period, starting about 12 million years ago. 

PM-10: fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns. 

Point source: any confined and discrete conveyance (e.g., pipe, ditch, well, or stack). 
Appendix D - Glossary

D-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Q Quality assurance (QA): a system of activities whose purpose is to provide the assurance that standards of 

quality are attained with a stated level of confidence. 

Quality control (QC): procedures used to verify that prescribed standards of performance are attained. 

Quality factor: the factor by which the absorbed dose (rad) is multiplied to obtain a quantity that expresses (on 

a common scale for all ionizing radiation) the biological damage to exposed persons, usually used because some 

types of radiation, such as alpha particles, are biologically more damaging than others. Quality factors for alpha, 

beta, and gamma radiation are in the ratio 20:1:1. 

Quaternary: the geologic era encompassing the last 2–3 million years. 

R Rad: the unit of absorbed dose and the quantity of energy imparted by ionizing radiation to a unit mass of 

matter such as tissue, and 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 SI unit of radiation dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent, that is the product of the 

absorbed dose (gray), quality factor (Q), distribution factor, and other necessary modifying factors. 1 Sv equals 

100 rem. 

Source term: amount of a specific pollutant emitted or discharged to a particular medium, such as the air or 

water, from a particular source.

Specific conductance: measure of the ability of a material to conduct electricity; also called conductivity. 
Appendix D - Glossary 

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 D-7

Subcritical experiment: an experiment using high explosives and nuclear weapon materials (including special 

nuclear materials like plutonium) to gain data used to maintain the nuclear stockpile without conducting nuclear 

explosions banned by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 

Surface impoundment: a facility or part of a facility that is a natural topographic depression, manmade 

excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials, although it may be lined with man-made 

materials. The impoundment is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes, or wastes containing free 

liquids, and is not an injection well. Examples of surface impoundments are holding, storage, settling and 

aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons. 

Système International d’Unités (SI): an international system of physical units which include meter (length), 

kilogram (mass), kelvin (temperature), becquerel (radioactivity), gray (radioactive dose), and sievert (dose 

equivalent). 

T Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD): a device used to measure external beta or gamma radiation levels, and 

which contains a material that, after exposure to beta or gamma radiation, emits light when processed and heated. 

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. 
Appendix D - Glossary

D-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

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 (ICRP 1980). 

Wind rose: a diagram that shows the frequency and intensity of wind from different directions at a specific 

location.
Appendix E – Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 E-1 

E.0Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AA alluvial aquifer 

ac acres 

AEA Atomic Energy Act 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

ARL Air Resources Laboratory 

ASER Annual Site Environmental Report 

ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act 

ASA Auditable Safety Analysis 

ASN Air Surveillance Network 

ASTM American Standard for Testing and Materials 

ATM Atomic Testing Museum 

BCG Biota Concentration Guide 

BEEF Big Explosives Experimental Facility 

BEIDMS Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System 

bgs below ground surface 

BHPS Bureau of Health Protection Services 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BN Bechtel Nevada 

BOD biological oxygen demand 

BP before present 

BPW bulk product waste 

BREN Bare Reactor Experiment Nevada 

Bq Becquerel 

°C degree Celsius 

ca. circa, meaning “approximately” 

CA Composite Analysis 

CAA Clean Air Act 
Appendix E - Acronyms and Abbreviations

E-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

CADD Corrective Action Decision Document 

CAI corrective action investigation 

CAIP Corrective Action Investigation Plan 

CAP Corrective Action Plan 

CAPP Chemical Accident Prevention Program 

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

CAS Corrective Action Site 

CAU Corrective Action Unit 

CCHD Clark County Health District 

cc/min cubic centimeters per minute 

CCWRD Clark County Reclamation District 

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent 

CEM Community Environmental Monitor 

CEMP Community Environmental Monitoring Program 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

cfm cubic feet per minute 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CG cloud-to-ground 

CGTO Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 

Ci curie 

cm centimeter(s) 

CL Compliance Level (used in text for the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Pollutants Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance) 

CLVF Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility (BN) 

CNLV City of North Las Vegas 

CO carbon monoxide 

CP Control Point 

CRM Cultural Resources Management 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CX categorical exclusion 
Appendix E – Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 E-3 

CY calendar year 

d day 

DAF Device Assembly Facility 

DAS Disposal Authorization Statement 

DCG Derived Concentration Guide 

D&D Deactivation and Disposal 

DEA Dose Evaluation Area 

DNWR Desert National Wildlife Refuge 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOE/HQ DOE Headquarters 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DQA Data Quality Assessment 

DQO Data Quality Objectives 

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

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

EA Environmental Assessment 

EDE effective dose equivalent 

EHS extremely hazardous substances 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EM environmental monitor 

EMAC Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 

EML Environmental Measurements Laboratory 

EMS Environmental Management System 

EO Executive Order 

EODU Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Reporting and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ER Environmental Restoration 
Appendix E - Acronyms and Abbreviations

E-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

ERA Environmental Resource Associates 

ES Environmental Services (BN) 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESHD Environment, Safety and Health Division 

ET evapotranspiration 

ETS Environmental Technical Services (BN) 

°F degree Fahrenheit 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FFACO Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order 

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act 

ft foot or 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) 

GCD Greater Confinement Disposal 

GIS Geographic Information System 

gpm gallons per minute 

GPS global positioning satellite 

Gy gray 

ha hectare 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HDP heat dissipation probe 

HENRE High Energy Neutron Reactions Exxperiment 

HEPA high efficiency particulate air 

HGU hydrogeologic unit 
Appendix E – Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 E-5 

hr hour 

HRMP Hydrologic Resources Management Program 

HSU hydrostratigraphic unit 

HTO tritiated water 

HW hazardous waste 

HWSU hazardous waste storage unit 

ICMP Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan 

in inch(es) 

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

ISMS Integrated Safety Management System 

IT International Technology 

JASPER Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research 

kg kilogram(s) 

km kilometer(s) 

km2 square kilometer(s) 

kmph kilometer(s) per hour 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LAO Los Alamos Operations (BN) 

lb pound 

LCA lower carbonate aquifer 

LCA3 lower carbonate aquifer, upper thrust plate 

LCCU lower clastic confining unit 

LCS laboratory control samples 

LFA lava-flow aquifer 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

LLW low level radioactive waste 

L/min liters per minute 

LO Livermore Operations (BN) 

lpm liters per minute 
Appendix E - Acronyms and Abbreviations

E-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

LQAP Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

μBq/m3 microbecquered per cubic meter 

μCi/mL microcurie per milliliter 

m meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s) 

Ma million years ago 

MAPEP Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MDC minimum detectable concentration 

MEDA meteorological data acquisition 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

MGCU Mesozoic granite confining unit 

mGy/d milligray per day 

mi miles 

mi2 square miles 

MLU Mobile Loading Unit 

mm millimeter(s) 

M&O Management and Operations 

MQO Measurement Quality Objectives 

mR milliroentgen 

mrem/yr millirem per year 

MSA Management Self-Assessments 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

mSv/yr millisievert per day 

mton metric ton 

MW mixed low level radioactive waste 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC Nevada Administrative Code 
Appendix E – Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 E-7 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

NCA Nevada Combined Agency 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOA Nevada Department of Agriculture 

NDWS Nevada Drinking Water Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NLV North Las Vegas 

NLVF North Las Vegas Facility (BN) 

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

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

NOx nitrous oxides 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NPTEC Non-Proliferation Test and Evaluation Complex 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRS Nevada Revised Statues 

NSDO Nevada State Demographer Office 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTS Nevada Test Site 

NTSER Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 

NTSWAC Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria 

NTTR Nevada Test and Training Range 

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

ODS ozone-depleting substances 

OI Operating Instruction 

oz ounce(s) 

P2 pollution prevention 
Appendix E - Acronyms and Abbreviations

E-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

P2/WM pollution prevention/waste minimization 

PA Performance Assessment 

PAAA Price-Anderson Amendments Act 

Pb lead 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

pCi/L picocuries per liter 

PHS Public Health Service 

PIC pressurized ion chamber 

PM particulate matter 

PM-OV Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley 

POTW publicly-owned treatment works 

PST Pacific Standard Time 

PT proficiency testing 

PTE potential to emit 

PWS public water systems 

QA quality assurance 

QAP Quality Assurance Program 

QAPP Quality Assurance Program Plan 

QC quality control 

R roentgen 

RCD Radiological Control Department 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RER Relative Error Ratio 

RFP request for proposal 

RIDP Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program 

R-MAD Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly 

RPD Relative Percent Difference 

RREMP Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan 

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory 
Appendix E – Acronyms and Abbreviations

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 E-9 

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

RWMS Radioactive Waste Management Site 

SA Supplement Analysis 

SAFER Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SCCC Silent Canyon caldera complex 

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 Laboratory 

SNJV Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

SORD Special Operations and Research Division 

SOW Statement of Work 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SSC Structures, Systems, and Components 

STL Special Technologies Laboratory 

STP standard temperature and pressure 

SWL static water level 

SWNVF Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 

SWO Solid Waste Operations 

TaDD Tactical Demilitarization Development Project 

TCP thermocouple psychrometer 

TCU tuff confining unit 

TDR time domain reflectometry 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TMA Timber Mountain aquifer 
Appendix E - Acronyms and Abbreviations

E-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

TMCC Timber Mountain caldera complex 

TPCB Transuranic Pad Cover Building 

TRI Toxic Release Inventory 

TRU transuranic 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSS total suspended solids 

TTR Tonopah Test Range 

UCCU upper clastic confining unit 

UGTA Underground Test Area 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VCU volcaniclastic confining unit 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

VTA vitric-tuff aquifer 

VZM vadose zone monitoring 

WEF Waste Examination Facility 

WGS Waste Generation Services 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WMO World Meteorological Organization 

WSI Wackenhut Services, Inc. 

WSS Work Smart Standards 

WTA welded-tuff aquifer 

WVCU Wahmonie volcanic confining unit 

yd yard 

yd3 cubic yards 

YF-LCU Yucca Flat lower confining unit 

YMP Yucca Mountain Project 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 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. 

60525, 28 pp. 

Allen, B. M., S. L. Drellack, Jr., and M. J. Townsend, 1997. Surface Effects of Underground Nuclear Explosions, 

DOE/NV/11718--122, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Antevs, E., 1948. Climatic Changes and Pre White Man. In The Great Basin with Emphasis on Glacial and Postglacial Times, 

pp. 168-191. Biological Series 10(7), University of Utah Bulletin 38(20), Salt Lake City. 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2004. July 1, 2002 Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, 

Incorporated Places and Balance of County Areas, from Internet URL: 

<http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/518_EEC-02.pdf>, as accessed on 2/4/2004. 

Barnes, H., F. N. Houser, and F. G. Poole, 1963. Geologic Map of the Oak Spring Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada, 

U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-214, scale 1:24,000. Washington, D.C. 

Barnes, H., E. B. Ekren, C. L. Rodgers, and D. C. Hedlund, 1982. Geology and Tectonic Maps of the Mercury Quadrangle, 

Nye and Clark Counties, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Series Map 

I-1197, scale 1:24,000. 

Bath, G. D., C. E. Jahren, J. G. Rosenbaum, and M. J. Baldwin, 1983. Geologic and Geophysical Investigations of Climax 

Stock Intrusive, Nevada: Magnetic Investigations, in U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-377, p. 40-57., 

Denver, CO. 

Beatley, J.C., 1974. Effects of Rainfall and Temperature on the Distribution and Behavior of Larrea tridentata (creosote-bush) in the 

Mojave Desert of Nevada, Ecology 55:245-261. 

Bechtel Nevada, 1996a. Biological Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test 

Facility on the Nevada Test Site, Ecological Sciences, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 

Division, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 1996b, revised 2002. Biological Monitoring Plan for the Hazardous Materials Spill Center. Unpublished. 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Bechtel Nevada, 1998. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 1998 Report, DOE/NV/11718--255, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 1999. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 1999 Report, DOE/NV/11718--387, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2001. Groundwater Control Study, North Las Vegas Facility, Bechtel Nevada Project Report, March 2001. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2002a. A Hydrostratigraphic Framework Model of the Pahute Mesa - Oasis Valley Area, Nye County, Nevada,

DOE/NV/11718--646, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2002b. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 2002, DOE/NV/11718--753, Bechtel 

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2002c. A Hydrostratigraphic Model and Alternatives for the Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport 

Model of Corrective Action Units 101 and 102: Central and Western Pahute Mesa, Nye County, Nevada.

DOE/NV/11718-706. Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 
References

R-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Bechtel Nevada, 2003a. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 2003 Report, DOE/NV/11718--850, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, December 2003. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2003b. Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites - 2002 

DOE/NV/11718--822, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2003c. Summary Report for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada 

Site Office FY02/FY03 Groundwater Control Study at the North Las Vegas Facility, September 2003, prepared by 

the Bechtel Nevada Geotechnical Sciences Group.

Bechtel Nevada, 2004a. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 2003, DOE /NV/11718—850, Bechtel 

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2004b. Summary Report for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada 

Site Office Groundwater Control at Building A-1 North Las Vegas Facility. Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2005a. Nevada Test Site 2004 Data Report: Groundwater Monitoring Program Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Site, DOE/NV/11718--1015, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, February 2005. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2005b. Nevada Test Site 2004 Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Sites, BN-NTS-05-0025, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, June 2005. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2005c. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal/Calendar Year 2004 Report,

DOE/NV/11718—985, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2005d. 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, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

BEIR III, 1980. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980, Committee on the 

Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation III, National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20418. 

BHPS, see Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services. 

Blankennagel, R. K. and J. E. Weir, 1973. Geohydrology of the Eastern Part of Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 

Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 712-B. 

Blout, D. O., D. P. Hammermeister, K. A. Zukosky, and K. D. Donnelson, 1994. Site Characterization Data from the 

Area 5 Science Boreholes, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., 

Las Vegas, NV. 

BN, see Bechtel Nevada. 

Borg, I. Y., R. Stone, H. B. Levy, and C. D. Ramspott, 1976. Information Pertinent to the Migration of Radionuclides in 

Groundwater at the Nevada Test Site, Part 1: Review and Analysis of Existing Information, UCRL-52078, Part 1, 

216 pp. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 

Bright, D. J., S. A. Watkins, and B. A. Lisle, 2001. Analysis of Water Levels in the Frenchman Flat Area, Nevada Test Site. 

00-4272. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4272, 43 pp., Carson City, NV. 

Brikowski, T. H., J. B. Chapman, B. F. Lyles, and S. Hokett, 1993. Origin of Elevated Water Levels Encountered in Pahute 

Mesa Emplacement Boreholes: Preliminary Investigations, Desert Research Institute Publication No. 45123, 

Las Vegas, NV. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 R-3 

Byers, F. M., Jr., W. J. Carr, P. P. Orkild, W. D. Quinlivan, and K. A. Sargent, 1976. Volcanic Suites and Related Cauldrons 

of the Timber Mountain-Oasis Valley Caldera Complex, Southern Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

919, 70 pp. Washington, D.C. 

Byers, F. M., Jr., W. J. Carr, and P. P. Orkild, 1989. Volcanic Centers of Southwestern Nevada: Evolution of Understanding, 

1960-1988. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 94, no. 5, pp. 5,908-5,924. 

Carlson, K.A., 2000. DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 

Program, Letter to Bechtel Nevada Distribution, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, February 25, 2000. 

Cashman, P. H., and J. H. Trexler, Jr., 1991. The Mississippian Antler Foreland and Continental Margin in Southern 

NevadaBThe Eleana Formation Reinterpreted, in J. D. Cooper and C. H. Stevens, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the 

Western United States II, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, v. 67, p 

271-280. 

Caskey, S. J. and R. A. Schweickert, 1992. Mesozoic Deformation in the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity: Implications for the 

Structural Framework of the Cordilleran Fold and Thrust Belt and Tertiary Extension North of Las Vegas, Tectonics, v. 11, 

no. 6, pp. 1,314-1,331. 

Chapman, J. B. and B. F. Lyles, 1993. Groundwater Chemistry at the Nevada Test Site: Data and Preliminary Interpretations, 

Desert Research Institute Report 45100 DOE/NV/10845--16. 

Chapman, J. B., 1994. Classification of Groundwater at the Nevada Test Site, Desert Research Institute Report 45069, 

DOE/NV/10384--28. 

Cashman, P. H., and J. H. Trexler, Jr., 1991. The Mississippian Antler foreland and continental Margin in Southern Nevada-The 

Eleana Formation Reinterpreted, in J. D. Cooper and C. H. Stevens, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the 

Western United States II, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, v. 67, 

p 271-280. 

Christopherson, K.R., 1998. MT Gauges Earth’s Electric Fields. in Geophysical Corner, AAPG Explorer, December, 1998. 

Cole, J. C., 1992. U.S. Geological Survey. Written communication to S. L. Drellack, Raytheon Services Nevada,

regarding thickness of Paleozoic units at the Nevada Test Site.

Cole, J. C., 1997. Major Structural Controls on the Distribution of Pre-Tertiary Rocks, Nevada Test Site Vicinity, Southern Nevada,

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-533. 

Cole, J. C., and P. H. Cashman, 1999. Structural Relationships of Pre-Tertiary Rocks in the Nevada Test Site Region, Southern 

Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1607, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980, 42 U.S. Code 9601 

et seq. 

Cornwall, Henry R, 1972. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Southern Nye County, Nevada, Bulletin No. 77, Nevada Bureau 

of Mines and Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno. 

D’Agnese, F. A., C. C. Faunt, A. K. Turner, and M. C. Hill, 1997. Hydrogeologic Evaluation and Numerical Simulation of the 

Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 96-4300, Denver, CO. 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 2004. Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021, Quarterly Monitoring Report and 

Annual Summary Report for E Tunnel Waste Water Disposal System. Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2004 Report. 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Mercury, NV. 
References

R-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

DOE, see U.S. Department of Energy. 

Drellack, S. L., L. B. Prothro, K. E. Roberson, B. A. Schier, and E, H. Price, 1997a. Analysis of Fractures in Volcanic 

Cores from Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, DOE/NV/11718--160, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drellack, S. L. and L. B. Prothro, 1997b. Descriptive Narrative for the Hydrogeologic Model of Western and Central Pahute Mesa 

Corrective Action Units, Geology/Hydrology Group, Geotechnical Services, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drellack, S. L., Jr., and P. H. Thompson, 1990. Selected Stratigraphic Data for Drill Holes in LANL Use Areas of Yucca 

Flat, NTS. DOE/NV-10322-39. Las Vegas, NV: Fenix & Scisson, Inc. 

Drollinger, Harold, 2002. An Archaeological Investigation of the Bower Cabin Site, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,

Cultural Resources Technical Report No. 100, Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Desert Research 

Institute, Las Vegas. 

Drollinger, H., C. M. Beck and R. Furlow, 2002. Cultural Resources Management Plan for the Nevada Test Site. Desert 

Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Drollinger, Harold, 2004a. An Historical Evaluation of the Super Kukla Control Building, Building 5430, Area 27, Nevada Test 

Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Historical Evaluation Report No. HE042104-3, Desert Research 

Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Drollinger, Harold, 2004b. Curation Compliance Annual Progress Report. Desert Research Institute Short Report No. 

SR120704-1. 

DTRA, see Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 

Eaton, Gail F., 2005. Personal communication on June 6, 2005 with G.F. Eaton of Chemical Biology & Nuclear 

Chemistry Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. 

Ekren, E. B., C. L. Rogers, R. E. Anderson, and P. P. Orkild, 1968. Age of Basin and Range Normal Faults in Nevada Test 

Site and Nellis Air Force Range, Nevada, in Nevada Test Site, The Geological Society of America, Inc., Memoir 

110, pp. 247-250. 

Elliott, Russell R., 1966. Nevada's Twentieth Century Mining Boom: Tonopah, Goldfield, Ely. University of Nevada Press, 

Reno. 

Elliott, Russell R., 1973. History of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 

EPA, see U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Faunt, C. C., 1998. Effect of Faulting on Ground-water Movement in the Death Valley Region, Nevada and California,

U.S. Geological Survey Report WRI 95-4132, U.S. Geological Survey Denver, CO. 

Ferguson, J. F., A. H. Cogbill, and R. G. Warren, 1994. A Geophysical-Geological Transect of the Silent Canyon Caldera 

Complex, Pahute Mesa, Nevada, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 99, n. 33, pp. 4323-4339. 

Field, R. A., F. C. Smith, W. G. Hepworth, and W. J. Means, 2003. The Pronghorn Antelope Carcass. Report B-565R. 

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 

FWS, 1996. Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Nevada Test Site Activities, File No. 1-5-96-F-33, August 22, 1996, 

Reno, NV. 

GeoTrans, Inc., 1995. A Fracture/Porous Media Model of Tritium Transport in Underground Weapons Testing Areas, Nevada 

Test Site, 62 pp., Boulder, CO. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 R-5 

Gibbons, A. B., E. N. Hinrichs, W. R. Hansen, and R. W. Lemke, 1963. Geology of the Rainier Mesa Quadrangle, Nye 

County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-215, scale 1:24,000, Washington, D.C. 

Giles, K. R., and J. Cooper. 1985. Characteristics and Migration Patterns of Mule Deer on the Nevada Test Site, 

EPA/600/4-85-030, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV. 

Gonzales J. L. and S. L. Drellack, 1999. Addendum to the Descriptive narrative for the Hydrogeologic Model of the Yucca Flat 

Corrective Area Unit: Northern Extension, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas NV. 

Garber, M. S., 1971. Hydraulic-Test and Quality-of-Water Data from hole U-3cn PS#2, Bilby Site, Nevada Test Site,

U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474--102 (NTS-230). Denver, CO. 

Grauch, V. J. S., and M. R. Hudson, 1995. Preliminary Analysis of Major Structures and Lithologic Boundaries for the 

Frenchman Flat Model Area, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 

Grayson, Donald K., 1993. The Desert's Past: A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Grossman, R. F. 2004. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Calendar Year 2003. DOE/NV/ 11718-

929. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office. 

Grossman, R. F. 2005. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Calendar Year 2004. DOE/NV/ 11718-

929, Rev. 1. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations 

Office. 

Hale, W. E., I. J. Winograd, and M. S. Garber, 1963. Preliminary Appraisal of Close-in Aquifer Response to the Bilby Event, 

Yucca Flat, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-63. Denver, CO. 

Hale, G. S., D. A. Trudeau and C. S. Savard, 1995. Water-Level Data from Wells and Test Holes Through 1991, and 

Potentiometric Contours as of 1991 for Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 95-4177, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 

Hall, D. B., P. D. Greger, A. V. Cushman, and C. A. Wills, 2003. Ecology of the Western Burrowing Owl on the Nevada Test 

Site. DOE/NV/11718--701, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, December 2003. 

Hansen, D. J., P. D. Greger, C. A. Wills, and W. K. Ostler, 1997. Nevada Test Site Wetlands Assessment,

DOE/NV/11718--124, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, May 1997. 

Hardcastle, Jeff, 2005. Nevada County Population Estimates July 1, 1986 to July 1, 2004, Includes Cities and Towns. Prepared 

for Nevada Department of Taxation, Nevada Small Business Development Center, 

<http://www.nsbdc.org/demographer/pubs/pop_increase.html>, as accessed on 6/6/2005. 

Harrill, J. R., J. S. Gates, and J. M. Thomas, 1988. Major Groundwater Flow Systems in the Great Basin Region of Nevada, 

Utah, and Adjacent States, Hydrological Investigations Atlas HA-694-C, scale: 1:1,000,000, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Denver, CO. 

Haynes, Gregory M., 1996. Evaluating Flake Assemblages and Stone Tool Distributions at a Large Western Stemmed Tradition 

Site near Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 

18(1):104-130. 

Hendricks, T. J. and S. R. Riedhauser, 1999. An Aerial Radiological Survey of the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV/11718-324. 

Bechtel Nevada Remote Sensing Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 

Holz, Barbara A., 2004. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Expansion of the Yucca Lake Aerial 

Operations Facility in Area 6, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No.

SR071304-1 Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 
References

R-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Houser, F. N. and F.G. Poole, 1960. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Climax Stock and Vicinity, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. 

Geological Survey Map I-328, scale 1:4,800, Washington, D.C. 

Hudson, M. R., 1992. Paleomagnetic Data Bearing on the Origin of Arcuate Structures in the French Peak-Massachusetts Mountain 

Area of Southern Nevada, in Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 104, pp. 581-594. 

Hunter, R. B. and R. R. Kinnison, 1998. Tritium in Vegetation on the Nevada Test Site, United States Department of 

Energy, December 1998, Nevada Test Site Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan, 

Appendices, DOE/NV/11718--244. Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by 

Current Radiation Protection Standards, Technical Report Series No. 332, Vienna, Austria. 

IT Corporation, 1996a. Regional Geologic Model Data Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis Documentation, Volume I, 

Parts 1 and 2), ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV. 

IT Corporation, 1996b. Potentiometric Data Task Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis Documentation, Volume II), 

ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV. 

IT Corporation, 1996c. Hydrologic Parameters Data Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis Documentation, Volume 

IV), ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV. 

IT Corporation, 1997. Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis Documentation, Volume VI),

prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

IT Corporation. 2002. Yucca Flat Hydrogeologic Investigation Wells Drilling and Completion Criteria. ITLV/13052-164. 

Las Vegas, NV. 

Jachens, R. C., 1999. Written communication, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. 

Johnson, W. G., R. C. Jones, H. Drollinger, and A. DuBarton, 1999. Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 26NY10133, 

Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Technical Report No. 95, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research 

Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R.C., 2004a A Class III Cultrual Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Underground Test Area Well Pad ER-12-3, 

Rainier Mesa, Area 12, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No.

SR080204-1. Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R.C., 2004b. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Underground Test Area Well Pad ER-12-4 and 

Access Road, Rainier Mesa, Area 12, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Short Report No.

SR080304-1. Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R.C., 2004c. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Underground Test Area ER-12-4 well Pad 

Relocation, Access Road, and Borrow Pit, Rainier Mesa, Area 12, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural 

Resources Short Report No. SR091504-1. Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R.C., 2004d. Neptune Ant Mound Excavation Trenches, Area 3, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources 

Letter Report No. LR112304-1. Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R. C., 2004e. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Proposed Borrow Pit Expansion, Area 6, Nevada Test 

Site, Nye County, Nevada. IN PROGRESS Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No. SR112304-2. Desert 

Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R. C. and S. R. Edwards, 1994. A Clovis Point on the Nevada Test Site, Nevada Archaeologist, 12:18-23. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 R-7 

Kelly, I. T. and C. S. Fowler, 1986. Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 135-148. 

Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Kral, Victor E., 1951. Mineral Resources of Nye County, Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 50, 

Volume 45(3), Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno. 

Laczniak, R. J., J. C. Cole, D. A. Sawyer, and D. A. Trudeau, 1996. Summary of Hydrogeologic Controls on Ground-Water 

Flow at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Water Resources Investigation Report 96-4109, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Carson City, NV. 

Leavitt, D. G., 2003. Summary of the 2003 Calibrations of the Area 5 Weighing Lysimeters at the Nevada Test Site. SEASFTR-03-285. Science and Engineering Associates, Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Lincoln, Francis C., 1923. Mining Districts and Mineral Resources of Nevada, Nevada Newsletter Publishing Co., Reno. 

Locke, G. L., R. J. La Camera, 2003. Selected Ground-Water Data for Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada and Eastern 

California, January 2000-December 2002. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-387, 133 pp., 

Carson City, NV. 

Lockett, Cari L. and Lonnie C. Pippin, 1990. Re-examining Brownware Ceramics in the Central and Southern Great Basin. In 

Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from the Far West, edited by J. M. Mack, pp. 67-82. Anthropological Papers No. 23, 

Nevada State Museum, Carson City. 

Long, M., 1950. The Shadow of the Arrow, Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. 

Lyles, B. F., 1990. Tritium Variations in Groundwater on the Nevada Test Site, Desert Research Report 45086 

DOE/NV/10384--380.

Lyneis, M, 1982. An Archaeological Element for the Nevada Historic Preservation Plan. Nevada Division of 

Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Carson City. 

Madsen, David B., 1982. Get It Where the Gettin's Good: A Variable Model of Great Basin Subsistence and Settlement Based on 

Data from the Eastern Great Basin. In Man and Environment in the Great Basin, edited by D.B. Madsen and 

J.F. O'Connell, pp. 207-226. Society for American Archaeology Paper 2, Washington, D.C. 

Madsen, David B., 1986a. Great Basin Nuts: A Short Treatise on the Distribution, Productivity and Prehistoric Use of Pinyon. In 

Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by C. Stout and D.D. Fowler, 

pp. 23-41, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Madsen, David B., 1986b. Prehistoric Ceramics. In: Great Basin, edited by W.L. d'Azevedo, pp. 206-214. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Maldonado, F., 1977. Summary of the Geology and Physical Properties of the Climax Stock, Nevada Test Site, U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 77-356, 25 pp., Denver, CO. 

McArthur, R. D., 1991. Radionuclides in Surface Soil at the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV/10845-02 prepared by the Desert 

Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and J. F. Kordas, 1983. Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: The Galileo Area. Report 

DOE/NV/10162-14 prepared by the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and J. F. Kordas, 1985. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #2 Areas 

2 and 4. DOE/NV/10162-20 prepared by the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and S. W. Mead, 1987. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #3 

Areas 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10. DOE/NV/10384-15 prepared by the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 
References

R-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

McArthur, R. D. and S. W. Mead, 1988. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #4 

Areas 18 and 20. DOE/NV/10384-22 prepared by the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and S. W. Mead, 1989. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #5 

Areas 5, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, and 30. Report prepared by the Desert Research Institute, 

Las Vegas, NV. 

McCracken, Robert D., 1992. A History of Beatty, Nevada. Nye County Press, Tonopah, Nevada. 

McLane, Alvin R., 1995. The Silent Land: History of Yucca Mountain and the Fortymile Canyon Country, Nye County, Nevada,

Manuscript on file, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. 

McLane, Alvin R, 1996. El Picacho, The Writing Cabin of B.M. Bower. Nevada 39(2):134-146. 

Mifflin, M.D. and M.M. Wheat, 1979. Pluvial Lakes and Estimated Pluvial Climates of Nevada, Bulletin No. 94, Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno. 

Miller, Richard F. and Peter E. Wigand, 1994. Holocene Changes in Semiarid Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Bioscience 

44(7):465-474. 

Myrick, David F., 1963. Railroads of Nevada and Eastern California, Volume 2. Howell-North, Berkeley, California. 

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, Maryland.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1995. Surface Weather Observations and Reports, FCM-H1-1995, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2005a. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 20,

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 5153, Las Vegas, NV. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2005b. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 21,

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 5385, Las Vegas, NV. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2005c. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 22,

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 5578, Las Vegas, NV. 

Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 2005d. State of Nevada Report HDAIP 23,

Sanford Cohen & Associates ID 5676, Las Vegas, NV. 

NOAA, see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

NRC, see U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

O’Hagan, M. D., and R. J. Laczniak, 1996. Ground-Water Levels Beneath Eastern Pahute Mesa and Vicinity, Nevada Test Site, 

Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4042, 1 sheet. 

Orkild, P. P., 1963. Geologic Map of the Tippipah Spring Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Map 

GQ-213, scale 1:24,000, Washington, D.C. 

Orkild, P. P., 1983. Geologic and Geophysical Investigations of Climax Stock Intrusive, Nevada: Summary of Geologic and 

Geophysical Investigations. in U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-377, p. 79-82. Denver, CO. 

Ostler, W. K., D. J. Hansen, D. C. Anderson, and D. B. Hall, 2000. Classification of Vegetation on the Nevada Test Site.

DOE/NV/11718--477. December 6, 2000. Bechtel Nevada, Ecological Services, Las Vegas, Nevada. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 R-9 

PHS, see U.S. Public Health Service. 

Pippin, Lonnie C., 1986. An Overview of Cultural Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas on the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 

Nevada. Desert Research Institute Social Sciences Center, Technical Report No. 45, Desert Research Institute, Reno, 

Nevada. 

Pippin, Lonnie C., 1998a. Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations and Environmental Change in the Southern Great Basin: The Evidence 

from Pahute and Rainier Mesas, Technical Report No. 92, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, 

Reno, Nevada. 

Pippin, Lonnie C., 1998b. Changing Adaptive Strategies of the Ethnohistoric Eso and Ogwei: Hunter and Gathereres in the 

Southern Great Basin. Technical Report No. 94, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, 

Reno, Nevada. 

Prothro, L. B., and S. L. Drellack, 1997. Nature and Extent of Lava-Flow Aquifers Beneath Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, 

Bechtel Nevada Report DOE/NV11718-156. 

Quade, Jack, and J.V. Tingley, 1984. A Mineral Inventory of the Nevada Test Site, and Portions of Nellis Bombing and Gunnery 

Range, Southern Nye County, Nevada, Open file report 84-2, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University 

of Nevada, Reno. 

Randerson, D., 1997. Analysis of Extreme Precipitation Events in Southern Nevada, NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL 

ARL-221, Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD. 

Randerson, D. and J. B. Sanders, 2002. Characterization of Cloud-to-Ground Lightning on the Nevada Test Site, NOAA 

Technical Memorandum OAR ARL-242, Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD. 

Reiner, S. R., G. L. Locke, and L. S. Robie, 1995. Ground-Water Data for the Nevada Test Site and Selected Other Areas in 

South-Central Nevada, 1992-1993, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-160. 

Reno, Ronald L., 1985. Clovis Projectile Points from Lahontan Reservoir and the Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Nevada 

Archaeologist 5(1):7_9. 

Reno, Ronald L., Gregory H. Henton, Lonnie C. Pippin, and Cari L. Lockett, 1989. Miscellaneous Data Recovery Studies 

at Yucca Mountain. Technical Report No. 59, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. 

Rhode, David, 1994. Direct Dating of Brown Ware Ceramics using Thermoluminescence and Its Relation to the Numic Spread. In 

Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and 

D. Rhode, pp. 124-130. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Robie, L. S., G. L. Locke, and S. R. Reiner, 1995. Ground-Water Data for the Nevada Test Site, 1992, and for Selected Other 

Areas in South-Central Nevada, 1952-1992, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-284. 

Rose, T. P., J. M. Kenneally, D. K. Smith, M. L. Davison, G. B. Hudson, and J. H. Rego, 1997. Chemical and Isotopic 

Data for Groundwater in Southern Nevada, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report UCRL-ID-128000, 

Livermore, CA. 

Sawyer, D. A., R. J. Fleck, M. A. Lanphere, R. G. Warren, and D. E. Broxton, 1994. Episodic Caldera Volcanism in the 

Miocene Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field: Revised Stratigraphic Caldera Framework, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology and 

Implications for Magnetism and Extension, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, n. 10, pp. 1304-1318. 

Shutler, Richard Jr., 1961. Lost City, Pueblo Grande de Nevada, Anthropological Papers No. 5, Nevada State Museum, 

Carson City. 
References

R-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

Slate, J. L., M. E. Berry, P. D., Rowley, C. J. Fridrich, K. S. Morgan, J. B. Workman, O. D. Young, G. L. Dixon, V. S. 

Williams, E. H. McKee, D. A. Ponce, T. G. Hildenbrand, W. C. Swadley, S. C. Lundstrom, E. B. Ekren, R. G. 

Warren, J. C. Cole, R. J. Fleck, M. A. Lanphere, D. A. Sawyer, S. A. Minor, D. J. Grunwald, R. J. Laczniak, 

C. M. Menges, J. C. Yount, and A. S. Jayko, 1999. Digital Geologic Map of the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity, Nye, 

Lincoln, and Clark Counties, Nevada, and Inyo County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99B554BA.

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. 

Snyder, R. P., 1977. Geology of the Gold Meadows Stock, Nevada Test Site, U.S. Geological Survey Report 474-179, 10, pp., 

Denver, CO. 

Stager, Harold K. and Joseph V. Tingley, 1988. Tungsten Deposits in Nevada, Bulletin No. 105, Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology, Reno. 

Stanley, T. W. and S. S. Verner, 1985. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Quality Assurance Program, in J. K. Taylor 

and T. W. Stanley (eds.), Quality Assurance for Environmental Measurements, ASTM STP-867, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania.

Steward, Julian H., 1938. Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120, 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Reprinted by University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1997. 

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. 

Stoffle, Richard W., David B. Halmo, John E. Olmsted, and Michael J. Evans, 1990. Native American Cultural Resource 

Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

Taylor, J. K., 1987. Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements, Chapter 4, Lewis Publications. 

Thomas, David H., Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stephen C. Cappannari, 1986. Western Shoshone, In Great Basin, edited 

by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 262-283. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Tingley, Joseph V., 1984. Trace Element Associations in Mineral Deposits, Bare Mountain (Flourine) Mining District, Southern 

Nye County, Nevada, Report No. 39, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno. 

Trexler, J. H., Jr., P. H. Cashman, J. C. Cole, W. S. Snyder, R. M. Tosdal, and V. I. Davydov, 2003. Middle 

Devonian-Mississippian Stratigraphy On and Near the Nevada Test Site: Implications for Hydrocarbon Potential, 

AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 11. 1736- 1762. Tulsa, OK: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. 

Tuohy, Don R., 1965. Stone Age Missiles from a Modern Test Site, Masterkey 39(2):44-59. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2005. Table NST-EST2004-01 – Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and 

States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004, from Internet URL: 

<http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html>, as accessed on 6/6/2005.
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 R-11

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, 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. 

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, 1997. Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of the 

Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, DOE/NV--477, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998. Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan, DOE/NV-518, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, December 1998. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000a. United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992, Report No. 

DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 15), Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000b. NV/YMP Radiological Control Manual, Report No. DOE/NV/11718--079, 

Rev. 4, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a. Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2001b. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2000, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--605, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002a. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota, 

DOE-STD-1153-2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002b. Supplement Analysis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site 

and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, Report DOE/EIS-0243-SA-1, Nevada Operations Office, 

Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002c. Environmental Assessment for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Hazardous Materials 

Spill Center, Nevada Test Site, Report DOE/EA-0864, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002d. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2001, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--747, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003a, Supplement Analysis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada 

Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada to Address the Increase in Activities Associated with the 

National Center for Combating Terrorism and Counterterrorism Training and Related Activities, Report 

DOE/EIS--0243-SA-2, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003b. Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan, Report DOE/NV/11718--804, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003c. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2002, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--842, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 
References

R-12 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004a. Final Environmental Assessment for Activities Using Biological Simulants and Releases of 

Chemicals at the Nevada Test Site, Report DOE/EA-1494, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004b. Environmental Assessment for Aerial Operations Facility Modifications, Report 

DOE/EA-1334, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004c. Environmental Assessment for the Radiological/Nuclear Countermeasures Test and 

Evaluation Complex, Report DOE/EA-1499, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004d. Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2003, Report DOE/NV/11718--971, Bechtel 

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004e. 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]. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Report AP-42, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000. On-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications,

EPA-450/4-87 013, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983. Radiological Assesment. Report NUREG/CR-3332, J.E. Till and H.R. 

Meyer Editors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Public Health Service, 1963. Project SEDAN, Final Off-Site Report, AEC Report PNE-200F, Offsite Radiological 

Safety Organization, U.S. Public Health Service, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Public Health Service, 1970. Radiological Health Handbook, Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and 

Environmental Health Service, Rockville, MD. 

Waddell, R. K., J. H. Tobison, and R. K. Blankennagel, 1984. Hydrology of Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Nevada-California 

Investigative Results through Mid-1983, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 84-4267, 

72 pp, Denver, CO. 

Wahl, R. R., D. A. Sawyer, M. D. Carr, S. A. Minor, J. C. Cole, W. C. Swadley, R. J. Laczniak, R. G. Warren, K. S. 

Green, and C. M. Engle, 1997. Digital Geologic Map of the Nevada Test Site Area, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 97-1140, scale, 1:120,000. Denver, CO. 

Walker, G. E., 1962. Groundwater in the Climax Stock, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Trace 

Element Investigations Report TEI-813, 48 pp., Washington, D.C. 

Warren, Claude N. and Robert H. Crabtree, 1986. Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. 

d'Azevedo, pp. 183-193. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 

Warren, R. G., G. L. Cole, and D. Walther, 2000a. A Structural Block Model for the Three-Dimensional Geology of the 

Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-00-5866. 

Warren, R. G., D. A. Sawyer, and F. M. Byers, Jr., and J. C. Cole, 2000b. A Petrographic/Geochemical Database and 

Stratigraphic and Structural Framework for the Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field, Internet address: 

<http://www.pggdb-swnvf.lanl.gov/>, as accessed on 9/20/2004, LANL Report LA-UR-00-3791. 

Warren, R. G., D. A. Sawyer, and F. M. Byers, Jr., and J. C. Cole, 2003. A Petrographic/Geochemical and Geophysical 

Database, and Stratigraphic Framework for the Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field. LANL Report LA-UR-03-1503. 
References

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 R-13

Wills, C. A. and W. K. Ostler, 2001. Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: An Annotated Bibliography, with Narrative Summary, 

Keyword Index, and Species List. DOE/NV/11718--594. December 2001. Bechtel Nevada, Ecological Services, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Winograd, I. J. and W. Thordarson, 1975. Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Framework South-Central Great Basin, 

Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test Site, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-c, 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Winslow, Diane L., 1996. Restricted Reconnaissance: Wheeler’s Nye County Explorations, M.A. thesis, Department of 

Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

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. 

Worman, Frederick C.V., 1965. Anatomy of the Nevada Test Site, University of California Los Alamos Scientific 

Laboratory Report. Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Worman, Frederick C.V., 1966. The Current Status of Archaeology at the Nevada Test Site and the Nuclear Rocket Development 

Station. University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, General, Miscellaneous and Progress 

Reports LA_3250_MS, (U.S.A.E.C. Contract W-7405-Eng-36), Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Worman, Frederick C.V., 1967. Nevada Test Site Archaeology. Nevada Archaeological Survey Reporter 1(2):5-6. 

Worman, Frederick C.V., 1969. Archaeological Investigations at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Nevada Test Site and 

Nuclear Rocket Development Station. Report LA4125, University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 

Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Zanjani, Sally, 1992. Goldfield: The Last Gold Rush on the Western Frontier. Ohio University Press, Athens.
References

R-14 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 DL-1

Distribution List 

All individuals in this list will be mailed a compact disc of this report and a hardcopy of the abbreviated Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report Summary 2004. One or more hardcopies (HCs) of this report will be mailed to only those individuals 

specified. 

DOE and NNSA/HQ

Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Facility Safety (EH-2 FORS, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment (EH-4 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Office of Air, Water and Radiation Protection Policy and Guidance (EH-41 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (3 HCs)

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-1 FORS), Forrestal, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics and Waste Disposition Enhancements, (EM-10 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Cleanup and Acceleration, DOE/HQ (EM-20 FORS), U.S. Department 

of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Business Operations (EM-30 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance Intelligence and Improvement, (EM-40 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Under Secretary and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-1 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Principal Deputy Administrator for National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-2 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs (NA-10 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Research Development and Simulation (NA-11 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Application and Stockpile Op (NA-12 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration (NA-13 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Office of Planning, Budgeting and Integration (NA-133 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 
Distribution List

DL-2 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, (RW-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Office of Science (SC-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20585 (1 HC) 

Director, Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance, (SP-1 GTN), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Germantown, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

W. J. Arthur, Deputy Director, Office of Repository Development, U.S. Department of Energy, 1551 Hillshire Drive, 

Las Vegas, NV 89134 

NNSA/NSO

K. A. Carlson, Manager, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

M. A. Hunemuller, Deputy Manager, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

J. H. Norman, Deputy Manager for Test & Operations, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

K. D. Izell, Office of Chief Counsel, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

M. C. Bell, Assistant Manager for Business and Contract Management, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

D. J. Morgan, Office of Public Affairs, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

S. A. Mellington, Acting Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

D. D. Monette, Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

L.M. Tomlinson, Deputy Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

S. J. Lawrence, Assistant Manager for Site Operations, NNSA/NSO, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 

M. A. Marelli, Acting Assistant Manager for Safety & Security Programs, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

K. A. Hoar, Director, Environment, Safety and Health Division, 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, Environment, Safety and Health Division, 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, Environment, Safety and Health Division, 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) 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 DL-3

E. F. Di Sanza, Director, Waste Management Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

EPA

Kandice Bellamy, Waste Management Division, EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 

Jack P. Broadbent, Director, Air Division, Region IX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105-390 (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 

Eleanor Thorton-Jones, EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Radiation Protection Division, Center for Waste 

Management, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, MC 6608J, Washington, DC, 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

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 

M. J. Dunning, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-149, Livermore, CA (1 HC)

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) 

James H. Metcalf, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S NTS944 

R. A. Smith, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 871, Tonopah, NV 89023 

D. D. Thomson, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S NTS944 

DTRA

Tiffany Lantow, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, P.O. Box 208, Las Vegas, NV 89023, M/S NTS 645 

Dave Loewer, Chief, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, P.O. Box 208, Las Vegas, NV 89023, M/S NTS 645 

NDEP

Don Elle, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, 

NV 89119 (1 HC) 
Distribution List

DL-4 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

Tim Murphy, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, 

NV 89119 

Greg Raab, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Departments of Environment and Health

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, Health Department, 88 E. Fiddlers Canyon, Suite 8, Cedar City, UT 84720 

Director, Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control Division, Department of Health, 4210 E. 11th Avenue, Denver, 

CO 80220

Director Santa Barbara Health Care Services, 315 Camino Del Remedio, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 

Stan Marshall, Bureau of Health Protection, 1179 Fairview Drive, Carson, City, NV 89701-5405 (1 HC) 

Michael Stafford, Nevada State Clearinghouse, Capitol Complex, 209 E. Musser St., Carson City, NV 89710 

DRI

Colleen M. Beck, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

Scott Campbell, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Dee Donithan, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Harold Drollinger, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

Lynn Karr, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Ken Giles, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

William Hartwell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

Barbara Holz, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

Robert Jones, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, M/S 505Lynn Karr, 755 East 

Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Barbara Kennedy, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Greg McCurdy, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512 (1 HC) 

Amy Russell, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Charles Russell, Desert Research Institute, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

Craig Shadel, Desert Research Institute, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (1 HC) 

David Shafer, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 505 (1 HC) 

BN

J.E. Powell, Manager, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV001 (1 HC) 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 DL-5

W. F. Johnson, Assistant General Manager, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, 

NV 89193-8521, M/S NSF080 (1 HC) 

S. A. Burnison, Science & Technology, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS306 

D. K. Clark, Low-Level Waste Operations, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS403 

A. V. Cushman, GIS/Data Management Section, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS780 

S. L. Drellack, Science and Technology, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV082 

J. J. Dugas, BN, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

P. D. Greger, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS260 

R. F. Grossman, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

D. L. Gustafson, Science and Technology, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS110 

D. J. Hansen, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS260 

O. L. Haworth, Environmental Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS110 

J. M. Holden, Technical Facilities Operation, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS401 

B. C. Hopkins, Waste Facilities and Operations, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS304 

D. B. Hudson, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

A. J. Karns, Environmental Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 89193-8521, M/S NSF083 

D. D. Madsen, Science & Technology, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS306 

C. P. Moke, Environmental Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS327 

D. A. Nichols, Defense and Civil Projects, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV103 

W. K. Ostler, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS260 (1 HC) 

H. A. Perry, Solid Waste Operations, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS110 

P. M. Radack, Environmental Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS327 

(1 HC) 

S. E. Rawlinson, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS416 
Distribution List

DL-6 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

T. J. Redding, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 (1 HC) 

J. L. Smith, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS306 

Carlton Soong, Environmental Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS327 

D. M. Van Etten, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 (1 HC) 

R. W. Warren, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

K. E. Williams, Solid Waste Operations, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS207 

C. A. Wills, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS260 (1 HC) 

PAI

Sydney Gordon, PAI, 537 E. Brooks Ave, North Las Vegas, NV 89030, M/S 422 

Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture

Wayne Bliss, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, P.O. 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

J. M. Fowler, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S CF438 

P. K. Matthews, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S 

CF439 (1 HC) 

G. M. Romano, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Building 3, Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S 

CF438 

ARL-SORD

Darryl Randerson, Director, Air Resources Laboratory, Special Operations and Research Division, P.O. Box 94227, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193, M/S NSF516 (1 HC) 

CEMP

J. Randall Allen, P.O. Box 93, Panaca, NV 89042 (1 HC) 

Kaye Allisen-Medlin, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001-9706 (1 HC) 

Marina Anderson, 1151 “A” Avenue N, P.O. Box 869, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

Melvin D. Baldwin, 1646 North 175 West, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

Bradford L. Benson, 606 Lake Superior Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005-1057 (1 HC) 

Nicklas J. Bowler, P.O. Box 368, Logandale, NV 89021 (1 HC) 

Brian W. Brown, P.O. Box 61, Shoshone, CA 92384 (1 HC) 

Roy Clifford, Jr., Stone Cabin Ranch, P.O. Box 206, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 DL-7

Don M. Curry, 8207 Burnt Sienna, Las Vegas, NV 89123 (1 HC) 

Michael DeLee, P.O. Box 96, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 (1 HC) 

Beverly Jean DeWyze, P.O. Box 295, Delta, UT 84624 (1 HC)

Paul Donohue, P.O. Box 291, Pioche, NV 89043 (1 HC) 

Joe and Sue Fallini, Twin Springs Ranch, HC 76, P.O. Box 1100, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

Kenneth G. Gary, BarBQ Ranch, Box 1, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 (1 HC) 

Morden Leon Gay, P.O. Box 369, Milford, UT 84751 (1 HC) 

Larry B. Goins, 2440 South River Plate Drive, Pahrump, NV 89048 (1 HC) 

Christy S. Graf, P.O. Box 385, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Linda Lee Hafen, 1009 Providence Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005 (1 HC) 

Clark M. Hardy, P.O. Box 299, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Gerald F. Hein, 612 Largo Azul Avenue, Henderson, NV 89015 (1 HC) 

Mike Heizer, Garden Valley, P.O. Box 33, Hiko, NV 89017 (1 HC) 

Michael Herndon, 5867 Alcott Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89142 (1 HC) 

James M. Hopkin, P.O. Box 597, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

Mark E. Howard, P.O. Box 935, Tonopah, NV 89049 (1 HC) 

Dale E. Jenson, 2982 South 300 East, Box 25, Milford, UT 84751 (1 HC) 

Richard A. Johnson, P.O. Box 626, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

Victoria G. Johnson, P.O. Box 765, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

Thomas S. Judd, 850 North 500 West, Delta, UT 84624 (1 HC) 

John C. Lisle, P.O. Box 357, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

Larry Martin, 1200 Avenue H, Ely, NV 89301 (1 HC) 

Kenneth F. McFate, P.O. Box 373, 470 W. Raleigh Lane, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

Steve and Glenda Medlin, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Scott Mortensen, 143 S. Main, St. George, UT 84770 (1 HC) 

Jack W. Nelson, P.O. Box 232, Logandale, NV 89021 (1 HC) 

Donald Newman, 141 Sunbow, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

Jason L. Odegard, 630 Tomahawk Court, Pahrump, NV 89060 (1 HC) 

David J. Peltz, 10194 Eden Falls Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89123 (1 HC) 

Brent H. Perkins, P.O. Box 495, Caliente, NV 89008 (1 HC) 
Distribution List

DL-8 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

Ted Charles Sauvageau, P.O. Box 1674, Tonopah, NV 89049 (1 HC) 

GN&M Sharp, Nyala Ranch, HC 76, Box 900, Tonopah, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

Jon Skullestad, P.O. Box 593 Goldfield, NV 89013 (1 HC) 

Ann P. Smith, P.O. Box 101 Caliente, NV 89008 (1 HC) 

Glade V. Sorensen, 421 Circle Way Drive, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

Dell Sullivan, P.O. Box 182, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Ruston Taylor, 917 Three Fountains, Cedar City, UT 84720 (1 HC) 

Joan Terrell, P.O. Box 454, Goldfield, NV 89013 (1 HC) 

Helen Uhalde, Uhalde Ranch, P.O. Box 88, Ely, NV 89301 

Curt Walker, 903 Coyote Way, Dammeron Valley, UT 84738 (1 HC) 

Gayle Williams, HCR 61, Box 24, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Libraries

Alamo Branch Library, P.O. Box 239, Alamo, NV 89001 (1 HC) 

Amargosa Valley Library District, HCR 69, P.O. Box 401-T, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 (1 HC) 

Beatty Library District, P.O. Box 129, Beatty, NV 89003 (1 HC) 

Boulder City Library, 701 Adams Blvd., Boulder City, NV 89005 (1 HC) 

Caliente Branch Library, P.O. Box 306, Caliente, NV 89009 (1 HC) 

Cedar City Public Library, 303 N 100 E Cedar City, UT 84720-2610 (1 HC) 

Delta City Library, 76 N. 200 W. Delta, UT 84624-9440 (1 HC) 

Goldfield Public Library, P.O. Box 430, Goldfield, NV 89013 (1 HC) 

Henderson District Public Library, 280 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 (1 HC) 

Indian Springs Library, P.O. Box 629, Indian Springs, NV 89018 (1 HC) 

Lincoln County Library, P.O. Box 330, Pioche, NV 89043 (1 HC) 

Milford Public Library, P.O. Box 579, Milford, UT 84751-0579 (1 HC) 

Moapa Valley Library, P.O. Box 397, Overton, NV 89040 (1 HC) 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Technical Center, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, 

TN 37831 (1 electronic copy) 

Pahrump Library District, 2101 E. Calvada Boulevard, Pahrump, NV 89048 (1 HC) 

Public Reading Facility, Nuclear Testing Archive, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration P.O. Box 98521 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521M/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 89193-8518, M/S 505 (1 HC) 
Distribution List

Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 DL-9

Tonopah Library District, P.O. Box 449, Tonopah, NV 89049 (1 HC) 

UNLV Library Government Documents, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, P.O. Box 457013, Las Vegas, NV 

89154-7013 (1 HC) 

Alisa Huckle, Business & Government Information Center/322, University of Nevada Libraries, 1664 North Virginia 

Street, Reno, Nevada 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) 

Richard Birger, Project Leader, Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 

89130

Ann-Marie Choephel, Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, P.O. Box 1767, Tonopah, NV 89049 

Larry Coch, Dyncorp, P.O. Box 569, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

Steve Deandi, Western Governmental Association, 223 Old P.O. Road, Boulder, CO 80302 

Michael Dwyer, Las Vegas District Manager BLM, 4765 Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89108 

J. R. Dyer, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, 1551 Hillshire Dr., Suite A, Las Vegas, NV 89134 

Michael Estrada, 4370 N. Washington Blvd., Suite 223, Nellis AFB, NV 89191 

Vernon Gabbard, Tonopah Test Range, 15421, M/S TTR001 

N. W. Golchert, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 

B. Jonker, DOE Idaho Operations Office, 1955 Fremont Ave., Mailstop 1216, Idaho Falls, ID 83401 

Richard Martin, Superintendent, Death Valley National Monument, P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, CA 92328 

Mason and Hanger, Environmental Protection Department, Silas-Mason Co., Inc., Pantex Plant, P.O. Box 30020, 

Amarillo, TX 79177 

Susan Moore, P.O. Box 3539, Tonopah, NV 89049 

Mark Morse, Bureau of Land Management Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89130 

David and Natalie Spicer, P.O. Box 897, Beatty, NV 89003 

David Swanson, Nye County Department of Natural Resources & Federal Facilities, 1210 East Basin Rd, Suite 6, 

Pahrump, NV 89060 

Bob Swedock, Tetra Tech, Inc., 5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1400, Falls Church, VA 22041 

Bonnie K. Thompson, NNSA Program Manager, USGS, 160 N. Stephanie St., Henderson, NV 89074 

Diane Watson, Waste Policy Institute, Savannah River Research Campus, 227 Gateway Drive, Aiken, SC 29803
Direct Radiation Monitoring

DL-10 Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2004 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK