DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors.

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

Available to the public from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

(703) 487-4650

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

(423) 576-8401
DOE/NV/11718--361

NEVADA TEST SITE

ANNUAL SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1998

Editors: Stuart C. Black and Yvonne E. Townsend

October 1999

Work Performed Under

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Energy

Nevada Operations Office

Prepared by:

Bechtel Nevada

Post Office Box 98521

Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8521
ii

This page intentionally left blank
iii

AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS

1.0 Summary

Stuart C. Black, BN

2.0 Introduction

Colleen M. Beck, DRI Gregory J. Shott, BN

Stuart C. Black, BN

Madelyn Hayes, BN

3.0 Compliance Summary

Colleen M. Beck, DRI

Gina M. Cook, BN

Orin L. Haworth, BN

Madelyn Hayes, BN

Cathy A. Wills, BN

4.0 Air Surveillance Activities

Stuart C. Black, BN

Christopher A. Fontana, EPA

Robert F. Grossman, BN

Orin L. Haworth, BN

Anita A. Mullen, EPA

Elizabeth C. Calman, BN

Madelyn Hayes, BN

5.0 Water Surveillance Activities

Max G. Davis, EPA

Sigmund L. Drellack, BN

Robert F. Grossman, BN

Anita A. Mullen, EPA

6.0 Other Reportable Activities

Colleen M. Beck, DRI

Stuart C. Black, BN

Daniel G. Levitt, BN

Anita A. Mullen, EPA

Cathy A. Wills, BN

7.0 Dose Assessment

Stuart C. Black, BN

Anita A. Mullen, EPA

8.0 Laboratory Quality Assurance

Stuart C. Black, BN

Mark D. Sells, EPA

9.0 Data Quality Assessment and

Analysis

Robert R. Kinnison, BN
iv

This page intentionally left blank
v

FOREWORD

Prior to 1989, annual reports of environmental monitoring and assessment results for the Nevada

Test Site (NTS) were prepared in two separate parts. Onsite effluent monitoring and

environmental monitoring results were reported in an onsite report prepared by the U.S.

Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV). Results of the Offsite Radiological

Surveillance and Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring programs conducted by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Laboratory (various names) in Las Vegas, Nevada,

were reported separately by that Agency.

Beginning with the 1989 Annual Site Environmental Report for the NTS, these two documents

were combined into a single report to provide a more comprehensive annual documentation of

the environmental protection activities conducted for the nuclear testing program and other

nuclear and non-nuclear operations at the NTS. The two agencies have coordinated preparation

of this tenth combined onsite and offsite report through sharing of information on environmental

surveillance and releases as well as meteorological, hydrological, and other supporting data used

in dose-estimation calculations. 
vi

This page intentionally left blank
vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

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

report was the graphics support provided by Larry R. Tinney and David W. Brickey of the

Geographical Information System Group. The review and advice offered by the DOE/NV’s

Environment, Safety and Health Division (ESHD) and the EPA’s Radiation & Indoor

Environments National Laboratory, Las Vegas (R&IE-LV) reviewers were invaluable. The efforts

of Robert Furlow in coordinating the review of the 1998 ASER by the ESHD are greatly

appreciated. Compilation and verification of onsite data were provided by Robert F. Grossman

and Orin L. Haworth. Compilation and verification of Bechtel Nevada’s data from offsite locations

were provided by Madelyn Hayes. Statistical analyses of data were provided by Robert R.

Kinnison. The cooperative support of Anita A. Mullen and Terry L. Mouck of the R&IE-LV in

production of this combined onsite and offsite environmental report is greatly appreciated.
viii

This page intentionally left blank
ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

Foreword ................................................................. v

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

List of Tables ............................................................. xvii

Measurement Units and Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxi

List of Acronyms and Expressions ........................................... xxiii

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

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

Radiological Monitoring at Offsite Support Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5

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

1.4 Compliance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8

1.5 Groundwater Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.6 Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storage and Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9

1.7 Quality Assurance ............................................... 1-10

Onsite Nonradiological Quality Assurance ............................. 1-10

Onsite Radiological Quality Assurance ................................ 1-10

Offsite Radiological Quality Assurance ................................ 1-10

1.8 Issues and Accomplishments ....................................... 1-10

1.9 Conclusion ..................................................... 1-11

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

2.1 NTS Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

NTS Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

Mission and Nature of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

1998 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Subcritical Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

NTS-Related Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

Topography and Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

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

Climate and Meteorology .......................................... 2-13

Flora and Fauna ................................................. 2-13

Cultural Resources .............................................. 2-15

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

Surrounding Land Use ............................................ 2-16

2.2 Non-NTS Facilities ............................................... 2-18

Livermore Operations (LO) ......................................... 2-18

Special Technologies Laboratory (STL) ............................... 2-18
Table of Contents, cont. Page

x

North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) .................................... 2-18

Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) ................................... 2-18

Los Alamos Operations (LAO) ...................................... 2-18

Washington Aerial Measurements Operations (WAMO) ................... 2-19

2.3 Non-NTS Underground Test Sites ................................... 2-19

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

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

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

Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2

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

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

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

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

Clean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4

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

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

Safe Drinking Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

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

NTS Water Haulage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

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

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

NTS RCRA Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

Hazardous Waste Reporting for Non-NTS Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

Underground Storage Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act/

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

Emergency Planning and Community 

 Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

Non-NTS Tier II Reporting Under SARA Title III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

Threatened and Endangered Species Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

Executive Order (EO) 11988 Floodplain Management .................... 3-10

Executive Order (EO) 11990 Protection of Wetlands ..................... 3-10

3.2 Agreements with States and Agencies ................................ 3-10

3.3 Current Environmental Compliance Issues and Actions ................... 3-10

Clean Air Act (CAA) .............................................. 3-11

Clean Water Act (CWA) ........................................... 3-12

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) .................................... 3-12

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

 Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) ........................... 3-13

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

Pollution Prevention (P2) and Waste Minimization ....................... 3-13

Solid/Sanitary Waste ............................................. 3-13

Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) ................. 3-14

Remedial Activities-Surface Areas ............................... 3-14

Radiation Protection ............................................. 3-16
Table of Contents, cont. Page

xi

NTS Operations ............................................ 3-16

Non-NTS BN Operations ...................................... 3-16

Environmental Compliance Audits ................................... 3-17

Occurrence Reporting ............................................ 3-17

Legal Actions ................................................... 3-17

3.4 Permit Summary ................................................ 3-17

4.0 Air Surveillance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Onsite Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

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

Airborne Effluent Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

Environmental Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4

4.2 Offsite Radiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

Air Surveillance Network (ASN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

Thermoluminescent Dosimetry (TLD) Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC) Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8

Community Technical Liaison Program (CTLP) ......................... 4-10

4.3 Nonradiological Monitoring ......................................... 4-10

Monitoring of NTS Operations ...................................... 4-10

Routine Monitoring .......................................... 4-10

NTS Air Quality Permit Compilance .................................. 4-11

Offsite Monitoring ................................................ 4-11

Non-NTS Facility Monitoring ........................................ 4-11

Air Quality Permits ............................................... 4-11

4.4 Air Surveillance Program Results .................................... 4-12

Onsite Radiological Monitoring ...................................... 4-12

Airborne Effluents ........................................... 4-12

Air Sampling Results ......................................... 4-12

Offsite Radiological Results ........................................ 4-16

Air Sampling Results ......................................... 4-16

5.0 Water Surveillance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Water Monitoring Program Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

Onsite Environmental Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2

5.2 Long Term Hydrological Monitoring Program (LTHMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

Sampling and Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5

Groundwater Near the Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

Groundwater at Other Test Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

5.3 Groundwater Protection Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

Hydrogeology of the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-7

Hydrogeology of Non-NTS Underground Test Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9

NTS Areas of Possible Groundwater Contamination ...................... 5-10

Activities Protective of Groundwater .................................. 5-12

5.4 Environmental Restoration Program (ERP) ............................. 5-15

Underground Test Area (UGTA) Sites ................................ 5-15

Industrial Sites and Decontamination and Decommissioning ............... 5-17

Offsite Locations ................................................ 5-18

5.5 Water Surveillance Program Results ................................. 5-18

Onsite Water Monitoring Results .................................... 5-18

Radioactivity in Surface Water .................................. 5-18
Table of Contents, cont. Page

xii

Radioactivity in Supply Wells and Drinking Water ................... 5-19

LTHMP Monitoring on and Around the Nevada Test Site .................. 5-21

LTHMP Monitoring at Other Test Sites ................................ 5-21

Groundwater Monitoring ........................................... 5-37

Groundwater Quantity ........................................ 5-37

Groundwater Quality ......................................... 5-37

5.6 Nonradiological Monitoring ......................................... 5-38

Clean Water Act Results .......................................... 5-38

NTS Operations ............................................. 5-38

Non-NTS Operations ......................................... 5-38

Safe Drinking Water Act Results .................................... 5-39

Bacteriological Sampling ...................................... 5-39

Chemical Analysis ........................................... 5-39

5.7 Water Quality Permits ............................................ 5-40

Onsite Water Permit .............................................. 5-40

Non-NTS Sewage Permits ......................................... 5-40

6.0 Other Reportable Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 Stockpile Stewardship Related Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.2 Radiological Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

Offsite Milk Surveillance Network (MSN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.3 Nonradiological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Environmental Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Ecological Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2

Historic Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7

6.4 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

Affirmative Procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

Employee and Public Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8

Additional 1998 Accomplishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

Volume and Toxicity Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

Comparison of RCRA Hazardous Waste Generation in Calendar 

 Year 1997 and 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9

Recycling Activities for Calendar Year 1998 ............................ 6-10

6.5 Hazardous Material Spill Center (HSC) ................................ 6-10

6.6 Waste Management Activities ...................................... 6-11

Radioactive Waste ............................................... 6-11

RWMS-5 Waste Management Operations ............................. 6-11

RWMS-5 Performance Assessment (PA) .............................. 6-13

RWMS-3 Waste Management Operations ............................. 6-13

RWMS-3 Performance Assessment (PA) .............................. 6-14

Hazardous Wastes ............................................... 6-14

Sanitary Waste .................................................. 6-15

6.7 Permits for NTS Operations ........................................ 6-15

7.0 Dose Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 Estimated Dose from NTS Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

Estimated Dose Using Reported NTS Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

Estimated Dose Using Monitoring Network Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2

7.2 Dose (EDE) from Offsite Exposures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3

7.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
Table of Contents, cont. Page

xiii

8.0 Laboratory Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.2 Overview of the Laboratory QA Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2

8.3 Data and Measurement Quality Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Data Quality Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Decision to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Range of Sampling Possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Measurements to be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3

Sampling Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Use of the Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Calculations to be Performed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4

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

Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-5

8.4 Results for Completeness, Precision, and Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

Completeness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6

Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

Radiological Performance Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-7

Corrective Actions Implemented in Response 

 to Performance Evaluation Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

Comparability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-8

9.0 Data Quality Assessment and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Air Sample Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

Gross Alpha in Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

Gross Beta in Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2

Plutonium in Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4

Tritium in Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

Gamma Emitting Radionuclides in Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6

9.2 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-8

9.3 Water Sample Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

Gamma Emitting Radionuclides in Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-9

Radium in Water ................................................ 9-10

Strontium in Water ............................................... 9-10

Uranium in Water ................................................ 9-11

Gross Alpha in Water ............................................. 9-11

Gross Beta in Water .............................................. 9-12

Plutonium in Water ............................................... 9-14

Tritium in Water ................................................. 9-16

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

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

This page intentionally left blank
xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1 Trend of Gross Beta Concentration in Air at the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6

Figure 2.1 NTS Location in Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

Figure 2.2 NTS Area Numbers, Principal Facilities, and Testing Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

Figure 2.3 Location of Safety Tests on the NTS and the NAFR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

Figure 2.4 Topography of the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

Figure 2.5 Basic Lithologic Structure of the NTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

Figure 2.6 Drill Hole Locations on the NTS .................................. 2-10

Figure 2.7 Groundwater Hydrologic Units of the NTS and Vicinity ................. 2-12

Figure 2.8 1992 Wind Rose Patterns for the NTS (Courtesy of Air Resource 

 Laboratory, Special Operations and Research Division) ............... 2-14

Figure 2.9 Land Use Around the NTS ...................................... 2-17

Figure 4.1 Air Sampling Stations on the NTS - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2

Figure 4.2 TLD Stations on the NTS - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Figure 4.3 CTLP, PIC, and Air Sampling Locations Around the NTS - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

Figure 4.4 Locations of Offsite Station and Personnel TLDs - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Figure 4.5 Annual Average Gross Beta from Air Sampling - 1998 ................. 4-13

Figure 4.6 Air Monitoring Results for RWMS-5 - 1998 .......................... 4-14

Figure 4.7 Trend in Annual Average Gross Beta Concentration in Air on the NTS ..... 4-14

Figure 4.8 Annual Average Pu in Air on the NTS - 1998 .................... 4-15 239+240

Figure 4.9 Trend in Annual Averages for Plutonium Concentration on the NTS ....... 4-17

Figure 4.10 Trend in Annual Averages for HTO Concentration on the NTS ........... 4-17

Figure 5.1 Supply Well and Potable Water Sampling Stations on the NTS - 1998 . . . . . . 5-3

Figure 5.2 Surface Water Sampling Locations on the NTS - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4

Figure 5.3 Wells on the NTS Sampled by R&IE-LV - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6

Figure 5.4 Wells and Springs Outside the NTS Included in the LTHMP - 1998 . . . . . . . . . 5-8

Figure 5.5 Areas of Potential Groundwater Contamination on the NTS ............. 5-11

Figure 5.6 Trend in Tritium Concentration, Test Well B on the NTS ................ 5-22

Figure 5.7 Sampling Locations at the FAULTLESS Site - 1998 ................... 5-23

Figure 5.8 Sampling Locations at the SHOAL Site - 1998 ....................... 5-25

Figure 5.9 Sampling Locations at the RULISON Site - 1998 ..................... 5-26

Figure 5.10 Sampling Locations at the RIO BLANCO Site - 1998 .................. 5-28

Figure 5.11 Sampling Locations at the GNOME Site - 1998 ....................... 5-29

Figure 5.12 Sampling Locations at the GASBUGGY Site - 1998 ................... 5-31

Figure 5.13 Sampling Locations Near SGZ, SALMON Site - 1998 .................. 5-33

Figure 5.14 Sampling Locations Offsite at the SALMON Site - 1998 ................ 5-34

Figure 5.15 Tritium Trends in Baxterville, Public Drinking Water Supply ............. 5-35

Figure 5.16 Tritium Trend in Well HM-S, SALMON Site in Mississippi ............... 5-35

Figure 5.17 Tritium Trends in Groundwater Near Underground Tests ............... 5-36

Figure 6.1 MSN Stations - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3

Figure 6.2 Total Volume of Waste Disposed of at RWMS-3 and RWMS-5 ........... 6-12

Figure 6.3 Total Curies Disposed of at RWMS-3 and RWMS-5 ................... 6-12
List of Figures, cont. Page

xvi

Figure 9.1 Time Series Plot of 1998 Gross Beta in Air Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

Figure 9.2 Historical Time Series for Selected Sampling Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3

Figure 9.3 Time Series Plot of Pu Annual Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5 238

Figure 9.4 Time Series Plot of Pu Annual Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-5 239+240

Figure 9.5 Time Series Plot for 1998 Tritium in Air Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

Figure 9.6 Historical Time Series for NTS Tritium in Air Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7

Figure 9.7 Historical Time Series of Boxplots of TLD Exposures .................. 9-10

Figure 9.8 Time Series Plot of 1998 Gross Alpha in Water Results ................ 9-12

Figure 9.9 Historical Time Series Plot for Gross Alpha in Water ................... 9-13

Figure 9.10 Time Series Plot of 1998 Gross Beta in Water ....................... 9-13

Figure 9.11 Historical Time Series Plot for Tap Water ........................... 9-15

Figure 9.12 Historical Time Series Plot for Supply Wells ......................... 9-15
xvii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1.1 Radionuclide Emissions on the NTS - 1998 ......................... 1-12 (a)

Table 1.2 Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations 

 During 1998 ................................................. 1-12

Table 2.1 Non-NTS Underground Nuclear Tests ............................... 2-20

Table 3.1 Environmental Permit Summary - 1998 .............................. 3-18

Table 3.2 Off-Normal Occurrences at NTS Facilities - 1998 ...................... 3-19

Table 4.1 Summary of the NTS Air and Direct Radiation Surveillance 

 Program - 1998 ............................................... 4-20

Table 4.2 Analytical Procedures, Air and TLD - 1998 ........................... 4-21

Table 4.3 NTS Active Air Quality Permits - 1998 ............................... 4-22

Table 4.4 Active Air Quality Permits for Non-NTS Facilities ....................... 4-23

Table 4.5 NTS Radionuclide Emissions - 1998 ................................ 4-24

Table 4.6 Summary Data (μCi/mL) for Gross Alpha/Beta, Be and Plutonium 7

 in Air - 1998 ................................................. 4-25

Table 4.7 Airborne Tritium Concentrations on the NTS - 1998 ..................... 4-26

Table 4.8 Mean Air Monitoring Results for Various Radionuclides at the RWMS-3,

 1994 - 1998 .................................................. 4-26

Table 4.9 Mean Air Monitoring Results for Various Radionuclides at the RWMS-5,

 1995 - 1998 .................................................. 4-26

Table 4.10 NTS Boundary Gamma Monitoring Results - 1998 ...................... 4-27

Table 4.11 NTS Historical TLD Station Comparisons, 1992 - 1998 .................. 4-27

Table 4.12 Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1998 ........ 4-27

Table 4.13 Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1998 ......... 4-28

Table 4.14 Plutonium Results for the Offsite Hi-Volume Air Surveillance Network - 1998 4-29

Table 4.15 TLD Monitoring Results for Offsite Stations - 1998 ..................... 4-29

Table 4.16 TLD Monitoring Results for Offsite Personnel - 1998 .................... 4-30

Table 4.17 Summary of Gamma Exposure Rates as Measured by PIC - 1998 ......... 4-31

Table 4.18 BN Offsite Boundary Monitoring Data - 1998 .......................... 4-31

Table 5.1 Summary of Analytical Procedures for Water Samples - 1998 ............. 5-41

Table 5.2 Summary of the Onsite Water Surveillance Program - 1998 .............. 5-42

Table 5.3 Groundwater Monitoring Parameters at the RWMS-5 ................... 5-42

Table 5.4 NTS Facilities with RCRA Closure Plans ............................. 5-42

Table 5.5 Locations with Detectable Man-Made Radioactivity - 1998 .............. 5-43 (a)

Table 5.6 Radioactivity in NTS Surface Waters - 1998 .......................... 5-44

Table 5.7 NTS Well Cross-Check Results - 1998 .............................. 5-44

Table 5.8 NTS Drinking Water Sources - 1998 ................................ 5-44

Table 5.9 NTS Supply Well Radioactivity Averages - 1998 ....................... 5-45

Table 5.10 Radioactivity Averages for NTS Tap Water Samples - 1998 .............. 5-45

Table 5.11 Radium Analysis Results for NTS Potable Water Supply Wells - 1998 ....... 5-46

Table 5.12 Summary of Tritium Results for NTS Wells Sampled by R&IE-LV - 1998 ..... 5-46

Table 5.13 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Wells Near the NTS - 1998 ........ 5-47
List of Tables, cont. Page

xviii

Table 5.14 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project FAULTLESS - 1998 ........ 5-49

Table 5.15 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project SHOAL - 1998 ............ 5-49

Table 5.16 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project RULISON - 1998 .......... 5-49

Table 5.17 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project RIO BLANCO - 1998 ....... 5-50

Table 5.18 LTHMP Summary of Tritium and Cesium Results for 

 Project GNOME - 1998 ......................................... 5-51

Table 5.19 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project GASBUGGY - 1998 ........ 5-51

Table 5.20 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project SALMON Site - April 1998 . . . 5-52

Table 5.21 Influent Quality - 1998 ........................................... 5-56

Table 5.22 Organic Loading Rates - 1998 ..................................... 5-56

Table 5.23 Pond Water Depths in Infiltration Basins - 1998 ........................ 5-57

Table 5.24 Influent Toxics for Facilities that Received Industrial Wastewater - 1998 ..... 5-58

Table 5.25 Sampling Data for Infiltration Ponds Containing 30 cm or More - 1998 ....... 5-60

Table 5.26 Nitrate Analyses of Well Water Samples (mg/L), First Quarter - 1998 ....... 5-60

Table 5.27 NTS Drinking Water System Permits - 1998 .......................... 5-60

Table 5.28 Sewage Discharge Permits - 1998 .................................. 5-61

Table 5.29 Permits for NTS Septic Waste Hauling Trucks - 1998 ................... 5-61

Table 6.1 Radionuclides Detected in Milk Samples - 1998 ....................... 6-17

Table 6.2 Pollution Prevention Results, Volume and Toxicity Waste Reduction - 1998 . . 6-17

Table 6.3 Ongoing Recycling Activities - 1998 ................................ 6-19

Table 6.4 Low-Level Waste Disposed of at the RWMS-3, 1993 - 1998 .............. 6-19

Table 6.5 Inventory of Radionuclides (>0.1 Ci) Disposed of at the RWMS-3 in 1998 .... 6-19

Table 6.6 Low-Level Waste Disposed of at the RWMS-5, 1993 - 1998 .............. 6-20

Table 6.7 Inventory of Radionuclides (>0.1 Ci) Disposed of at the RWMS-5 in 1998 .... 6-20

Table 6.8 Quantity of Wastes Disposed of in Sanitary Landfills - 1998 .............. 6-21

Table 6.9 Permits Required for NTS Operations - 1998 .......................... 6-21

Table 7-1 Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations - 1998 . . . . . . . . 7-5

Table 7.2 Monitoring Networks Data Used in Dose Calculations - 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5

Table 8.1 Precision Objectives Expressed as Percents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

Table 8.2 Accuracy Objectives Expressed as Percent Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-9

Table 8.3 Analysis Completeness Data for Calendar Year - 1998 .................. 8-10

Table 8.4 Precision Estimates from Replicate Sampling - 1998 .................... 8-10

Table 8.5 Accuracy of R&IE-LV Radioanalyses (EML QAP and PES) - 1998 ......... 8-11

Table 8.6 Accuracy of ASL Radioanalyses (EPA PES and EML QAP) - 1998 ........ 8-11

Table 9.1 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Gross Alpha in Air by Sampling Location, 

 (μCi/mL×10 ) ............................................... 9-18 -15

Table 9.2 Descriptive Statistic for 1998 Gross Beta in Air by Sampling Location, 

 (μCi/mL×10 ) ............................................... 9-19 -15

Table 9.3 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Air by Sampling Location, 238

 (μCi/mLx10 ) ................................................ 9-20 -18

Table 9.4 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Air by Sampling Location, 239+240

 (μCi/mLx10 ) ................................................ 9-21 -18

Table 9.5 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Tritium in Air by Sampling Location,

 (pCi/mLx10 ) ................................................. 9-22 -6
List of Tables, cont. Page

xix

Table 9.6 1998 TLD Gamma Exposure Rates - mR/yr ........................... 9-22

Table 9.7 Listing of Atypical TLD Data Values for 1998 .......................... 9-23

Table 9.8 Descriptive Statistics for Radionuclides Detected by Gamma Spectroscopy in

 Air Samples in 1998, (μCi/mLx10 ) ............................... 9-24 -15

Table 9.9 Descriptive Statistics for Radionuclides Detected by Gamma Spectroscopy in 

 Water in 1998, (μCi/mLx10 ) All Samples Collected at E Tunnel .......... 9-24 -9

Table 9.10 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Radium in Water, (μCi/mLx10 ) ............ 9-24 -9

Table 9.11 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Sr in Water by Sampling Location, 90

 (μCi/mLx10 ) ................................................ 9-24 -12

Table 9.12 Tabulated Means for 1998 Uranium in Water, (μCi/mLx10 ) .............. 9-26 -8

Table 9.13 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Gross Alpha in Water by Sampling Location, 

 (μCi/mL×10 ) ................................................ 9-26 -9

Table 9.14 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Gross Beta in Water by Sampling Location, 

 (μCi/mL×10 ) ................................................ 9-27 -9

Table 9.15 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Water by Sampling Location, 238

 (μCi/mL×10 ) ................................................ 9-28 -12

Table 9.16 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Water by Sampling Location, 239+240

 (μCi/mL×10 ) ................................................ 9-29 -12

Table 9.17 Historical Pu in Water Annual Averages at Selected Locations, 238

 (μCi/mL×10 ) ................................................ 9-30 -12

Table 9.18 Historical Pu in Water Annual Averages at Selected Locations, 239+240

 (μCi/mL×10 ) ................................................ 9-31 -12

Table 9.19 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Tritium in Water by Sampling Location,

 (μCi/mLx10 ) Enriched Analytical Method ........................... 9-31 -9

Table 9.20 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Tritium in Water by Sampling Location,

 (μCi/mLx10 ) Conventional Analytical Method ........................ 9-32 -6
xx

This page intentionally left blank
xxi

MEASUREMENT UNITS AND NOMENCLATURE

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

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

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

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

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

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

laboratory measurements of radioactivity in samples, background is the activity

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

(Also called a blank).

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

1 Bq = 1 disintegration per second.

concentration Activity per unit volume or weight. Usually expressed as μCi/mL, pCi/m or pCi/g. 3

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

disintegrations per second = 3.7 x 10 Bq. The usual submultiples of Ci are mCi 10

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

(10 or one trillionth Ci). -12

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

that relate dose to the risk of serious effects.

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

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

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

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

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

volume The SI unit for volume is m (cubic meter). Other units used are liter (L) and mL 3

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

The elements and corresponding symbols used in this report are:

Element Symbol Element Symbol

Actinium Ac Iron Fe

Aluminum Al Krypton Kr

Argon Ar Lead Pb

Arsenic As Lithium Li 

Barium Ba Mercury Hg

Beryllium Be Nitrogen N

Bismuth Bi Oxygen O

Boron B Plutonium Pu

Cadmium Cd Potassium K

Calcium Ca Radium Ra

Cesium Cs Radon Rn

Chlorine Cl Selenium Se

Chromium Cr Silver Ag

Cobalt Co Strontium Sr

Copper C Thallium Tl

Europium Eu Thorium Th

Fluorine F Thulium Tm

Hydrogen H Tritium H

3

Iodine I Uranium U
xxii

This page intentionally left blank
xxiii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AIP Agreement in Principle

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

APCD Air Pollution Control Division

ARL/SORD Air Resources Laboratory, Special Operations and Research Division

ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange

ASL Analytical Services Laboratory

ASN Air Surveillance Network 

BN Bechtel Nevada 

BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand

CAA Clean Air Act

CADD Corrective Action Decision Document

CAP Corrective Action Plan

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

CAU Corrective Action Unit

CEDE Committed Effective Dose Equivalent

CEI Compliance Evaluation Inspection

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CP Control Point

CRMP Community Radiation Monitoring Program

CTLP Community Technical Liaison Program 

CWA Clean Water Act

CX Categorical Exclusion

CY Calendar Year

DAF Device Assembly Facility

DCG Derived Concentration Guide

DDR Data Discrepancy Report

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOE/HQ DOE Headquarters 

DOELAP DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program

DOE/NV DOE Nevada Operations Office

DQO Data Quality Objectives

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

EA Environmental Assessment

EDE Effective Dose Equivalent

EGIS Ecological Geographic Informational System

EHS Extremely Hazardous Substances

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ELU Ecological Landform Unit

EMAC Ecological Monitoring and Compliance

EML Environmental Measurements Laboratory (DOE) 

EO Executive Order

EOD Explosive Ordnance Disposal (NTS)

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Reporting and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ERP Environmental Restoration Project

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESHD Environment, Safety and Health Division
List of Acronyms and Expressions, cont.

xxiv

ET Evapotranspiration

FFACO Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act

FY Fiscal Year

gpm Gallons per Minute

GZ Ground Zero

HRMP Hydrologic Resources Management Program

HSC Hazardous Materials Spill Center

HTO Tritiated Water

HWSU Hazardous Waste Storage Unit

ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection

ID Identification

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LAO Los Alamos Operations (BN)

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

LLW Low-Level (Radioactive) Waste

LO Livermore Operations (BN)

LTHMP Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program 

MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration

MEI Maximally Exposed Individual

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MQO Measurement Quality Objectives

MSL Mean Sea Level

MSN Milk Surveillance Network (R&IE-LV)

NAC Nevada Administrative Code 

NAFR Nellis Air Force Range 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NLVF North Las Vegas Facility (BN)

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRS Nevada Revised Statutes

NSPS New Source Performance Standard

NTS Nevada Test Site

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST)

ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, EPA

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

ORSP Offsite Radiological Safety Program

P2 Pollution Prevention

PA Performance Assessment

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

PE Performance Evaluation

PES Performance Evaluation Study

pH Hydrogen ion concentration

PHS U.S. Public Health Service

PIC Pressurized Ion Chamber
List of Acronyms and Expressions, cont.

xxv

PPOA Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments

ppm Parts per Million

QA Quality Assurance

QAP Quality Assessment Program

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

R&IE-LV Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory - Las Vegas (EPA)

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

RREMP Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan

RSD Relative Standard Deviation

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory (BN)

RWMS Radioactive Waste Management Site

RWMS-3 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 3

RWMS-5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 5

SAFER Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SGZ Surface ground zero

STEL Short Term Exposure Level

STL Special Technologies Laboratory (BN)

TaDD Tactical Demilitarization Development

TLD Thermoluminescent Dosimeter

TRU Transuranic

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

TTR Tonopah Test Range

UGTA Underground Test Area

UNLV University of Nevada, Las Vegas

U.S. United States of America

USFWS U.S Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

VZM Vadose Zone Monitoring

WAMO Washington Aerial Measurements Operations (BN)

WEF Waste Examination Facility

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

WI Work Instructions
xxvi

This page intentionally left blank
SUMMARY

1-1

1.0 SUMMARY

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

United States Department of Energy (DOE) contractors and NTS user

organizations during 1998, indicated that operations on the NTS were

conducted in compliance with applicable DOE, state, and federal regulations

and guidelines. All discharges of radioactive liquids remained onsite in

containment ponds, and there was no indication of potential migration of

radioactivity to the offsite area through groundwater. Surveillance around

the NTS indicated that airborne radioactivity from diffusion, evaporation of

liquid effluents, or resuspension of soil was not detectable offsite, and

exposure above existing background to members of the offsite population

was not measured by the offsite monitoring program. Using the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA’s) Clean Air Package 1988 model

(CAP88-PC) and NTS radionuclide emissions and environmental monitoring

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

exposed individual offsite would have been 0.092 mrem. This value is less

than 1 percent of the federal dose limit prescribed for radionuclide air

emissions. Any person receiving this dose would also have received 141

mrem from natural background radiation. There were no nonradiological

releases to the offsite area. Hazardous wastes were shipped offsite to

approved disposal facilities. Compliance with the various regulations

stemming from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is being

achieved and, where mandated, permits for air and water effluents and waste

management have been obtained from the appropriate agencies. 

Cooperation with other agencies has resulted in 12 different agreements,

memoranda, and consent orders.

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

of air quality permits and state or local wastewater discharge and hazardous

waste permits as mandated for each location.

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT

The DOE Nevada Operations Office

(DOE/NV) is committed to increasing

the quality of its management of NTS

environmental resources. This has been

promoted by the establishment of an

Environment, Safety and Health Division

(ESHD) under the purview of the Assistant

Manager for Technical Services and by

upgrading the Environmental Management

activities to the Assistant Manager level to

address those environmental issues that

have arisen in the course of performing the

original primary mission of the DOE/NV, i.e.,

underground testing of nuclear explosive

devices. DOE/NV management has

vigorously promoted the practice of pollution

prevention, including waste minimization and

material recycling.

Operational releases and seepage of

radioactivity are reported soon after their

occurrence. In compliance with the National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP), as set forth in Title 40

Code of Federal Regulations Part 61, the

accumulated annual emissions are used as

part of the input to the EPA’s CAP88-PC

software program (EPA 1992) to calculate

potential EDEs to people living beyond the

boundaries of the NTS and the surrounding

exclusion areas.
1-2

1.2 RADIOLOGICAL

ENVIRONMENT

Radiological effluents in the form of air

emissions and liquid discharges are normally

released into the environment as a routine

part of operations on the NTS. Radioactivity

in liquid discharges released to onsite waste

treatment or disposal systems (containment

ponds) is monitored to assess the efficacy of

treatment and control and to provide an

annual summary of released radioactivity. 

Air emissions are monitored for source

characterization and operational safety as

well as for environmental surveillance

purposes.

Air emissions in 1998 consisted primarily of

small amounts of tritium and plutonium that

were released to the atmosphere and were

attributed to:

 Diffusion of tritiated water (HTO) vapor

from evaporation of HTO from tunnel and

characterization well containment ponds.

 Diffuse emissions calculated from the

results of environmental surveillance

activities.

 Resuspension of plutonium as measured

with air sampling equipment or

calculated by use of resuspension

equations.

Diffuse emissions in 1998 included HTO,

only slightly above detection limits, from the

Radioactive Waste Management Site in 

Area 5 (RWMS-5), the SEDAN crater in Area

10, and the SCHOONER crater in Area 20 

and resuspended Pu from areas on the 239+240

NTS, where it was deposited by atmospheric

nuclear tests or device safety tests in earlier

years. Table 1.1 shows the quantities of

radionuclides released from all sources,

including postulated loss of standards during

laboratory operations. The radioactive

materials listed in this table were not

detected in the offsite area above ambient

radioactivity levels.

Onsite liquid discharges to containment

ponds included approximately 300 Ci 

(11 TBq) of tritium. This was much more

than the tritium discharge last year. 

Evaporation of this material could have

contributed HTO to the atmosphere, but

diffusion caused the concentration to be too

small to be detected by the tritium monitors

onsite. No liquid effluents were discharged

to offsite areas.

ONSITE ENVIRONMENTAL

SURVEILLANCE

Environmental surveillance on the 3,500-km2

(1,350-mi ) NTS is designed to cover the 2

entire area with some emphasis on areas of

past nuclear testing and present operational

activities. In 1998, samplers were operated

at 37 locations on and near the NTS to

collect air particulate samples and at 13

locations to collect HTO in atmospheric

moisture. Grab samples were collected

frequently from water supply wells, water

taps, containment ponds, and sewage

lagoons. Thermoluminescent dosimeters

(TLDs) were placed at 107 locations on the

NTS to measure ambient gamma exposures.

Data from these networks are summarized

as annual averages for each monitored

location. Those locations with

concentrations above the NTS average are

assumed to reflect onsite emissions. These

emissions arise from diffuse (areal) sources

and from certain operational activities (e.g.,

radioactivity buried in the low-level

radioactive waste [LLW] site). 

Approximately 2,400 air samples were

analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. All

isotopes detected by gamma spectroscopy

were naturally occurring in the environment

( K, Be, and members of the uranium and 40 7

thorium series), except for a few instances

where very low levels of Cs were 137

detected.

Gross beta analysis of the air samples

yielded an annual average for the network of

2.0 x 10 μCi/mL (0.74 mBq/m ). Plutonium -14 3
SUMMARY

1-3

analyses of monthly or quarterly composited Water samples from onsite supply wells and

air filters indicated an annual arithmetic

average below 10 μCi/mL (4 μBq/m ) of -16 3

Pu and about 10 μCi/mL (0.04 μBq/m ) 239+240 -18 3

of Pu for all locations during 1998, with the 238

majority of results for both isotopes being on

the order of 10 μCi/mL (0.04 μBq/m ). -18 3

Slightly higher concentrations were found in

samples from certain areas, but they were

calculated to be only 0.01 percent of the

Derived Concentration Guide (DCG) for

exposure to the public. Higher than

background levels of plutonium are to be

expected in some air samples because

fallout from atmospheric tests in the 1950s,

and nuclear safety tests in the 1950s and

1960s dispersed plutonium over a small

portion of the NTS’s surface.

Throughout the year atmospheric moisture

was collected for two-week periods at 13

locations on the NTS and analyzed for HTO

content. The annual arithmetic average of

(17 ± 56) x 10 pCi/mL (0.63 ± 2.1 Bq/m ) -6 3

was slightly higher than last year. The

highest annual average concentrations were

at the SCHOONER crater, the Decon Pad,

and the E Tunnel pond in that order. The

primary radioactive liquid discharge to the

onsite environment in 1998 was about 105

Ci (3.9 TBq) of tritium (as HTO) in seepage

from E Tunnel and from water pumped from

wells into containment ponds. When

calculating the dose for the offsite public, it

was assumed that all of the HTO had

evaporated.

Surface water sampling was conducted at

five containment ponds and an effluent and

nine sewage lagoons. A grab sample was

taken from each of these surface water sites

for analysis of gross beta, tritium, gammaemitters, and plutonium isotopes. Strontium90 was analyzed once per year for each

location. Water samples from the lagoons

contained background levels of gross beta,

tritium, plutonium, and strontium. Samples

collected from the tunnel containment pond

and containment ponds for Underground

Test Area (UGTA) characterization wells

contained detectable levels of radioactivity,

as would be expected. 

drinking water distribution systems were also

analyzed for radionuclides. The supply well

average gross beta activity of 7.0 x 10-9

μCi/mL (0.26 Bq/L) was 3 percent of the

DCG for K (used for comparison 40

purposes); gross alpha was 6.2 x 10-9

μCi/mL (0.23 Bq/L), which was about 40

percent of the drinking water standard; the

maximum Sr measured was 1.7 x 10 90 -10

μCi/mL (6.3 mBq/L), about 2 percent of the

DCG; H averaged about 3.4 x 10 μCi/mL 3 -9

(0.12 Bq/L), less than 0.002 percent of the

DCG; Pu and Pu were both below 239+240 238

their minimum detectable levels of about 

2 x 10 μCi/mL (0.074 mBq/L). -11

Monitoring of the vadose zone beneath the

waste management sites in Areas 3 and 5

revealed that wetting fronts extended only a

few feet below the floor of these sites. Also, 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

(RCRA) monitoring wells, for sampling

groundwater under RWMS-5, indicated that

contamination from mixed waste buried

therein is not detectable in the well samples.

Analysis of the TLD network showed that the

9 historic stations had an average annual

exposure of 88 mR, while the 16 boundary

stations (located at higher altitudes) had a

higher average annual exposure of 120 mR. 

Both exposures were consistent with

previous data.

MONITORING SYSTEM DESIGN

During 1998, in an effort to make the

environmental surveillance system on the

NTS more efficient, it was redesigned. 

Using the Seven-Step Data Quality

Objective (DQO) process, published by EPA

and information on the distribution and

amount of radioactive sources on the NTS, a

“Routine Radiological Environmental

Monitoring Plan” was developed (DOE

1998a). As a result of the DQO process,

some monitoring was eliminated. The

number of air and TLD monitoring stations

was reduced, and monitoring frequencies

were changed. The Plan was implemented

in the latter part of 1998.
1-4

OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL

SURVEILLANCE

The offsite radiological monitoring program

is conducted around the NTS by the EPA's

Radiation and Indoor Environments National

Laboratory-Las Vegas (R&IE-LV), under an

Interagency Agreement with DOE. This

program consists of several environmental

sampling, radiation detection, and dosimetry

networks as described below. These

networks operated continuously during

1998.

The Air Surveillance Network (ASN) was

made up of 19 continuously operating

sampling locations surrounding the NTS,

6 of which also had high-volume air

samplers. The ASN stations included 16

sampling locations, at Community Technical

Liaison Program (CTLP) stations, described

below. During 1998, no airborne

radioactivity related to current activities at

the NTS was detected on any sample from

the ASN. Other than naturally occurring Be, 7

the only specific radionuclide detected by

this network was Pu or Pu on air- 238 239+240

filter samples from high volume air samplers.

The network average gross beta in air

results were slightly less than the average

for the NTS network.

The Milk Surveillance Network consisted of

10 sampling locations within 300 km (186

mi) of the NTS. Samples were analyzed for

Sr, which averaged 0.7 pCi/L. The data 90

from this network are consistent with

previous data and indicate little or no

change.

In 1998, external exposure was monitored

by a network of 39 TLDs and 25 pressurized

ion chambers (PICs) located in towns and

communities around the NTS. There was

also a PIC located at the SALMON site near

Baxterville, Mississippi. The PIC network in

the communities surrounding the NTS

indicated background exposures, ranging

from 70 to 153 mR/yr, that were consistent

with previous data and well within the range

of background data in other areas of the 

United States. The exposures measured by

the TLDs were slightly less, as has been

true in the past.

Sampling of Long-Term Hydrological

Monitoring Program (LTHMP) wells and

surface waters around the NTS showed only

background radionuclide concentrations. 

The LTHMP also included groundwater and

surface water monitoring at locations in

Alaska, Colorado, Mississippi, New Mexico,

and Nevada, where underground nuclear

tests were conducted. The results obtained

from analysis of samples collected at those

locations were consistent with previous data,

including a sample from a deep well at

Project GASBUGGY, where H and Cs 3 137

has been detected the last few years. No

concentrations of radioactivity that were

detected in air, water, or milk samples posed

any significant health risk to nearby

residents.

A network of 17 CTLP stations was operated

by local residents, one without an air

sampler. Each station was an integral part

of the ASN and TLD networks. In addition,

they were equipped with a PIC connected to

a gamma-rate recorder. Samples and data

from these CTLP stations were analyzed

and reported by R&IE-LV and also

interpreted and reported by the Desert

Research Institute, University of Nevada

System. All measurements for 1998 were

consistent with previous years and were

within the normal background range for the

United States.

Although no radioactivity attributable to

current NTS operations was detected by any

of the offsite monitoring networks, based on

the NTS releases reported in Table 1.1, an

atmospheric dispersion model calculation

(CAP88-PC) indicated that the maximum

potential EDE to any offsite individual would

have been 0.092 mrem (9.2 x 10 mSv), and -4

the dose to the population within 80 km of

the several emission sites on the NTS would

have been 0.27 person-rem (2.7 x 10-3

person-Sv), both of which were similar to

last year. The hypothetical person receiving

this dose would also have been exposed to
SUMMARY

1-5

141 mrem from natural background plutonium on surface soil in the eastern and

radiation. A summary of the potential EDEs

due to operations at the NTS is presented in

Table 1.2.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Gross beta measurements in air samples

are, perhaps, a reasonable method for

assessing the radioactive environment at a

location. In order to indicate the present

situation at the NTS, in comparison with that

of previous years, the network annual

average gross beta concentrations in NTS

air for the last 34 years are plotted in Figure wells, installed to satisfy RCRA

1.0. The obvious peaks in this trend line are

identified with associated tests, where

possible. Also plotted are data from the

NTS offsite network operated by EPA, where

it exists.

Figure 1.1 indicates the decrease with time

of gross beta concentration in air that occurs

independently of the peaks. In the early

years, the decrease occurred because

atmospheric tests and Plowshare cratering

tests were terminated. In the later years,

improved containment methods to reduce

accidental releases led to the extremely low

levels of radioactivity in air. Only tests in the

atmosphere and nuclear accidents at foreign

locations interrupt the steady decrease of

gross beta concentration in NTS air.

LOW-LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL

Environmental monitoring at the RWMS,

Area 3 (RWMS-3) has detected plutonium 

in air samples. However, the upwind/

downwind sampler results were equivalent,

and plutonium was detected in other air

samples from Area 3, indicating that the

source is resuspended plutonium. Elevated

levels of plutonium have been detected in air

samples from several areas on the NTS

where operational activities, vehicular traffic,

and high winds resuspend plutonium for

detection by air sampling. The presence of

plutonium on the NTS is primarily due to

atmospheric and safety tests conducted in

the 1950s and 1960s. These tests spread

northeastern areas of the NTS (Figure 2.3,

Chapter 2 displays these locations). 

Environmental monitoring at and around

RWMS-5 indicated that HTO in air was

detectable at, but not beyond, the waste site

boundaries. This monitoring included air

sampling, water sampling, and external

gamma exposure measurement. Vadose

zone monitoring for water seepage is

conducted beneath RWMS-3 and RWMS-5,

as a method of detecting any downward

migration of waste. Also, three monitoring

requirements for a mixed-waste disposal

operation at RWMS-5, have not yet detected

migration of hazardous materials.

RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING AT

OFFSITE SUPPORT FACILITIES

Fence line monitoring, using Panasonic UD814 TLDs, was conducted at DOE/NV offsite

support facilities in North Las Vegas,

Nevada; Santa Barbara, California; and at

the Washington Aerial Measurements

Operation. The 1998 results indicated that

only background radiation was detected at

the fence line of these facilities.

In 1995, a small amount of tritium was

accidently released from a calibration range

building in North Las Vegas that was still

detectable this year in the room where the

release occurred. Monitoring of the release

provided data for input into the CAP88-PC

program for calculating offsite exposures. 

The maximum offsite exposure was

estimated to be only 0.00025 mrem, which is

far below the EPA permissible limit of 

10 mrem.

1.3 NONRADIOLOGICAL

MONITORING

Nonradiological environmental monitoring of

NTS operations involved only onsite

monitoring because there were no

discharges of nonradiological hazardous
(4) June Chinese Test

(3) Baneberry Venting(2) Schooner Cratering Test(1) Palanquin Cratering Test

(8) Onsite Drillbacks

(7) Chernobyl Accident

(6) October Chinese Test

(5) September Chinese Test

PEAKS ASSOCIATED WITH:

0.01

0.1

1.010

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6)

(7)

(8)

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

10

-1

10 010 110 2

Concentration - 0.01 pCi/M3

Percent of Dose Limit

Year

Offsite

Onsite

Legend

Figure 1.1 Trend of Gross Beta Concentration in Air at the NTS

1-6
SUMMARY

1-7

materials to offsite areas. The primary RCRA requirements were met through an

environmental permit areas for the NTS

were monitored to verify compliance with

ambient air quality and the RCRA

requirements. Air emissions sources

common to the NTS included particulates 

from construction, aggregate production,

surface disturbances, fugitive dust from

unpaved roads, fuel burning equipment, 

open burning, and fuel storage facilities. 

NTS environmental permits active during

1998, which were issued by the state of

Nevada or by federal agencies, included one

comprehensive air quality permit covering

emissions from construction of facilities,

boilers, storage tanks, and open burning;

four permits for surface disturbance

(environmental restoration activities); seven

permits for onsite drinking water distribution

systems; one permit for sewage discharges

to lagoon collection systems; six permits for

septage hauling; one incidental take permit

for the threatened desert tortoise; and one

permit for the scientific collection and study

of various species on the NTS. Further, a

RCRA permit has been obtained for general

NTS operations and for two specific facilities

on the NTS.

Permits at non-NTS operations included 12

air pollution control permits, 1 sewage 

discharge permit, and 2 hazardous material

storage permits. Two EPA Generator

Identification numbers were issued to NTS

operations, and three local RCRA-related

permits were required at two of those

operations.

The only nonradiological air emission of

regulatory concern under the Clean Air Act

(CAA) has been due to asbestos removal

during building renovation projects and from

insulated piping at various locations on the

NTS. During 1998, there were no projects

that required state of Nevada notifications. 

The annual estimate for non-scheduled

asbestos demolition/renovation projects for

fiscal year 1999 was sent to EPA Region 9

in December 1998.

operating permit for hazardous waste

storage, mixed waste storage, and explosive 

ordnance disposal operations. A Federal

Facilities Agreement and Consent Order

(FFACO) has been signed with the state that

exempts the NTS from potential enforcement

action related to mixed waste storage

prohibition under RCRA.

The state’s annual Compliance Evaluation

Inspection during September 1998 found

only minor deficiencies.

As there are no liquid discharges to

navigable waters, offsite surface water

drainage systems, or publicly owned

treatment works, no Clean Water Act (CWA)

National Pollution Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) permits were required for

NTS operations. Under the conditions of the

state of Nevada operating permits, liquid

discharges to onsite sewage lagoons are

regularly tested for biochemical oxygen

demand, pH, and total suspended solids. In

addition to the state-required monitoring,

these influents were also tested for RCRA

related constituents as an internal initiative

to further protect the NTS environment.

In January and June of 1998, the state

inspected all NTS equipment regulated by

the state air quality permit. There were no

findings as a result of these inspections.

In compliance with the Safe Drinking Water

Act (SDWA) and seven drinking water

supply system permits from the state, the

onsite distribution systems supplied by

onsite wells are sampled monthly for

analysis of residual chlorine, pH, bacteria,

and, less frequently, for other water quality

indicators. All results were within regulatory

limits.

Monitoring for polychlorinated biphenyls, as

required by the Toxic Substances Control

Act (TSCA), was done and was reported to

the EPA and the state in June 1998.
1-8

At the Hazardous Materials Spill Center In 1998, 16 surveys were conducted for

(HSC), 6 series of spill tests involving 33

different chemicals were conducted during

1998. None of the tests generated enough

airborne contaminants to be detected at the

NTS boundary during or after the tests. 

Boundary monitoring would have been

performed by R&IE-LV personnel if

necessary.

1.4 COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES

DOE/NV is required to comply with various

environmental laws and regulations in the

conduct of its operations. Monitoring

activities required for compliance with the

CAA, CWA, SDWA, TSCA, and RCRA are

summarized above. Endangered Species

Act activities include compliance with the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) Biological Opinion on NTS

Activities and the Biological Opinion on

Fortymile Canyon Activities. NEPA activities

included action on 3 Environmental Impact

Statements (EISs), 6 Environmental

Assessments (EAs), and 26 Categorical

Exclusions (CXs). A total of 32 other

projects were excluded because they had

been considered in the Site-Wide EIS or the

Record of Decision.

Wastewater discharges at the NTS are not

regulated under NPDES permits, because all

such discharges are to onsite sewage 

lagoons. Discharges to these lagoons are

permitted under the Nevada Water Pollution

Control Act. Wastewater discharges from

the non-NTS support facilities were within

the regulated levels established by city or

county publicly owned treatment works. 

There were 15 underground storage tanks

(USTs) that were removed this year in

accordance with state and federal

regulations. There was also one regulated

UST that was closed in place. Remedial

activities continued at previous UST removal

sites during 1998.

historical and archaeological sites that

identified 19 prehistoric and historic 

archeological sites. One of these is

considered a candidate for listing on the

National Register of Historic Places.

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act

(AIRFA) directs federal agencies to consult

with Native Americans to protect their right

to exercise their traditional religions. In

1998, work continued on a summary report,

site records, and an artifact inventory of

materials in the DOE/NV Curatorial Facility

in preparation for an AIRFA consultation. 

The Ecological Monitoring and Compliance

Program monitoring tasks, which were

selected for 1998, included habitat mapping

on the northern portion of the NTS,

characterizing the natural springs on the

NTS, conducting a census of the horse

population, and periodically monitoring manmade water sources to assess their effects

on wildlife. Ecological monitoring of certain

spill tests at the HSC (formerly Liquefied

Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility) was also

conducted.

Field surveys were conducted from June

1996 through February 1998 to identify

those natural NTS springs, seeps, tanks,

and playas, which could be designated by

the United States (U.S.) Army Corps of

Engineers as jurisdictional wetlands. A

summary report of the survey findings

entitled “NTS Wetlands Assessment” has

been published.

The annual compliance report for calendar

year 1998 NTS activities was prepared and

submitted to the USFWS.

Waste minimization and pollution prevention

activities conducted at the NTS and its

offsite facilities involve an intensive recycling

program and active product substitution

projects. For the activities in Nevada,

approximately 177 metric tons of materials 

were made useful (waste reduction) and

about 1,743 metric tons of various materials

were recycled.
SUMMARY

1-9

1.5 GROUNDWATER

PROTECTION

The LTHMP was instituted in 1972 to be

operated by the EPA under an Interagency

Agreement. In 1998, surface and

groundwaters were monitored on and around

the NTS at five sites in other states and at

two off-NTS locations in Nevada to detect

the presence of any radioactivity in potable

water supplies that may be related to

nuclear testing activities. No radioactivity

was detected above background levels in

the groundwater sampling network

surrounding the NTS. Low levels of tritium,

in the form of HTO, were detected in onsite

wells, as has occurred previously. None

exceeded 33 percent of the National Primary

Drinking Water Regulation level.

HTO was detected in samples from wells at

formerly utilized sites, such as the SALMON

(Mississippi), GNOME (New Mexico), and

GASBUGGY (New Mexico), at levels

consistent with previous experience. The

HTO concentration in water samples from

Well EPNG 10-36 at GASBUGGY that

began to increase in 1984, was still

detectable in 1998. However, the

concentration has been decreasing since

1992 from a peak of 480 pCi/L to 100 pCi/L

this year.

Because wells that were drilled for water

supply or exploratory purposes are used in

the NTS monitoring program, rather than

wells drilled specifically for groundwater

monitoring, a program of well drilling for

groundwater characterization at the NTS is

underway. The design of the program is for

installation or recompletion of groundwater

characterization wells at strategic locations Because the NTS is not a RCRA-permitted

on and near the NTS. Through 1998, 15 of disposal facility, RCRA regulations require

these wells have been drilled on the NTS the shipment of nonradioactive hazardous

and 12 existing wells recompleted, while 12 waste to licensed disposal facilities offsite.

wells have been drilled or completed in the Therefore hazardous waste is not disposed

near offsite area, downgradient of the NTS. of onsite.

Other activities included studies of

groundwater transport of contaminants

(radionuclide migration studies) and

nonradiological monitoring for water quality

assessment and RCRA requirements.

1.6 RADIOACTIVE AND

MIXED WASTE STORAGE

AND DISPOSAL

Two RWMSs are operated on the NTS; one

each in Areas 3 and 5. During 1998, the

RWMSs received LLW generated at the NTS

and other DOE facilities. Waste is disposed

of in shallow pits and trenches in RWMS-5

and in subsidence craters in RWMS-3. 

At RWMS-5, LLW is disposed of in standard

packages. Transuranic (TRU) and TRU

mixed wastes are stored on a curbed

asphalt pad on pallets in overpacked 55-gal

drums and steel boxes. These will be

characterized prior to shipment to the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. The

RWMS-3 is used for disposal of bulk LLW

waste and LLW that is packaged, including

packages that are larger than the specified

standard size used at RWMS-5.

Environmental monitoring at both sites

included air sampling for radioactive

particulates and measurement of external

exposure using TLDs. Water sampling and

vadose zone monitoring for moisture and

hazardous constituents are conducted at the

RWMS-5, as is monitoring for tritium in

atmospheric moisture. Environmental

monitoring results for 1998 indicated that

measurable radioactivity from waste

disposal operations was detectable only in

the immediate vicinity of the facilities.
1-10

Pit 3 in RWMS-5 has interim status for EPA organizational units involved in

mixed waste generated on the NTS. environmental data collection. The QA

LLW is accepted for disposal only from NTS Offsite Radiological Safety Program

generators (onsite and offsite) that have meets all requirements of EPA policy and

submitted a waste application that meets the also includes applicable elements of the

requirements of the Waste Acceptance DOE QA requirements and regulations. The

Criteria document (NTS 1996) and that have program defines DQOs, which are

received DOE/NV approval of the waste statements of the quality of data a decision

stream(s) for disposal at the NTS. maker needs to ensure that a decision

1.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE

The quality assurance (QA) program

covering NTS activities has three

components. There are QA programs for

nonradiological analyses, onsite radiological

analyses, and offsite radiological analyses

conducted by EPA’s R&IE-LV.

ONSITE NONRADIOLOGICAL

QUALITY ASSURANCE

The onsite nonradiological QA program was

not operative during 1998, because stable

chemical analyses are done by offsite

contract laboratories. These contract

laboratories are monitored for their

participation and performance in various

performance evaluation programs.

ONSITE RADIOLOGICAL QUALITY

ASSURANCE

The onsite radiological QA program includes

conformance to best laboratory practice and

implementation of the provisions of DOE

Order 5700.6C (DOE 1991a). The external

QA intercomparison program for radiological

data QA consists of participation in the DOE

Quality Assessment Program administered

by the DOE Environmental Measurements

Laboratory and the Performance Evaluation

Study conducted by the EPA’s National

Exposure Research Laboratory, Las Vegas.

OFFSITE RADIOLOGICAL

QUALITY ASSURANCE

The policy of the EPA requires participation

in a centrally managed QA program by all

program developed by the R&IE-LV for the

based on those data is defensible. 

Achieved data quality may then be

evaluated against these DQOs.

1.8 ISSUES AND

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

PRINCIPAL COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS

FOR 1998

 On June 28, 1994, the state of Nevada

filed a Complaint for Declaratory

Judgement and Injunction in the 

U.S. District Court against DOE. 

Nevada claimed that the DOE failed to

comply with NEPA requirements at the

NTS. All claims in that suit have now

been met and a settlement agreement

has been signed.

 Lead was found above acceptable levels

in the Area 1 potable water system. 

Sample results were still high after

replacing old brass fixtures. Other

remedies are being sought.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 1998

 Two EAs were initiated during 1998, and

CXs were documented for 26 projects.

 Throughout 1998, DOE/NV continued to

maintain and update the “DOE/NV

Compliance Guide” (Volume III), a

handbook containing procedures,

formats, and guidelines for personnel

responsible for NEPA compliance

activities.

 The Nevada Operations 1997 Site

Pollution Prevention Program Plan was
SUMMARY

1-11

 completed and submitted to DOE handling mixed TRU waste; a FFACO

Headquarters. Operations under that

plan in 1998 resulted in recycle or new

uses of nearly 1,920 metric tons of

materials. 

 Continued use of a Just-in-Time supply

system allowed NTS contractors to

reduce product stock and control

potentially hazardous products.

 Progress continued on the NTS

groundwater characterization program by

use of pumping programs on several

wells to estimate yields and radionuclide

content.

 Five new water sources were discovered

on the NTS in 1998. All of these sources

possess field indicators of a jurisdictional

wetland.

 A RCRA Research, Development, and

Demonstration Permit application was

submitted to the state for construction

and operation of a facility to develop

treatment methods for deactivating

waste missiles.

 Environmental Restoration Program

activities were conducted at some 30

sites on and near the NTS during 1998.

 DOE/NV has entered in 12 agreements,

memoranda, and consent orders with

other entities, including an Interagency

Agreement and Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) with EPA

regarding environmental surveillance

and NESHAP compliance; Agreements

in Principle with Alaska, Mississippi, and

Nevada on environment, safety, and

health oversight activities; a MOU with

Nevada covering radioactive releases; a

MOU with Nellis Air Force Base

regarding environmental restoration; a 

Settlement Agreement with Nevada on 

with Nevada on environmental

restoration; and a Federal Facilities

Compliance Act and Consent Order

regarding restricted waste streams on

the NTS.

 A redesign of environmental monitoring

on the NTS was accomplished by use of

the DQO process. The results of this

process were published as “Routine

Radiological Environmental Monitoring

Plan” (DOE 1998a).

1.9 CONCLUSION

The environmental monitoring results

presented in this report document that

operational activities on the NTS in 1998

were conducted so that no measurable

radiological exposure occurred to the public

in offsite areas. Calculation of the highest

individual dose that could have been

received by an offsite resident (based on

estimation of onsite worst-case radioactive

releases obtained by measurement or

engineering calculation and assuming the

person remained outdoors all year) equated

to 0.092 mrem to a person living in

Springdale, Nevada. This may be compared

to that individual's exposure to 141 mrem

from natural background radiation as

measured by the PIC instrument at Beatty,

Nevada.

There were no major incidents of

nonradiological contaminant releases to the

environment in 1998. Many contaminated

sites are on schedule for remediation, and

intensive efforts to characterize and protect

the NTS environment, implemented in 1990,

were continued in 1998.

The Underground Test Area program and

other activities devoted to characterization

and protection of groundwater on and

around the NTS continued on schedule.
1-12

Table 1.1 Radionuclide Emissions on the NTS - 1998(a)

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

Airborne Releases:

H 12.35 192 3 (c)

Pu 24065. 0.24 239+240 (c)

Containment Ponds:

H 12.35 105 3 (d)

Pu 87.743 4.3 x 10 238 -6

Pu 24065. 3.8 x 10 239+240 -5

Sr 29. 2.4 x 10 90 -5

Cs 30.17 1.5 x 10 137 -3

(a) Assumes worst-case point and diffuse source releases.

(b) Multiply by 37 to obtain GBq.

(c) Includes calculated data from air sampling results, postulated loss of laboratory standards, and

calculated resuspension of surface deposits.

(d) This amount is assumed to evaporate to become an airborne release.

Table 1.2 Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations During 1998

Collective EDE to

Maximum EDE at Maximum EDE to Population within 80 km

NTS Boundary an Individual of the NTS Sources (a) (b)

Dose 0.13 mrem 0.092 mrem 0.27 person-rem

(1.3 x 10 mSv) (9.2 x 10 mSv) (2.7 x 10 person Sv) -3 -4 -3

Location Site boundary 40 km Springdale, NV 58 km 31,750 people within

WNW of NTS CP-1 WNW of NTS CP-1 80 km of NTS Sources

NESHAP 10 mrem per yr 10 mrem per yr

 Standard (0.1 mSv per yr) (0.1 mSv per yr) -----

Percentage

 of NESHAP 1.3 0.92 -----

Background 141 mrem 141 mrem 3064 person-rem

(1.41 mSv) (1.41 mSv) (30.6 person Sv)

Percentage of

 Background 0.09 0.06 0.009

(a) The maximum boundary dose is to a hypothetical individual who remains in the open continuously

during the year at the NTS boundary located 40 km (25 mi) west northwest from the NTS Control 

Point 1.

(b) The maximum individual dose is to an individual outside the NTS boundary at a residence where the

highest dose-rate occurs as calculated by CAP88-PC (Version 2.0) using NTS effluents listed in Table

5.1, assuming all HTO input to containment ponds was evaporated, assuming resuspended plutonium

was carried offsite, and summing the contributions from each NTS source.
INTRODUCTION

2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The Nevada Test Site (NTS), located in southern Nevada, was the primary

location for testing of nuclear explosives in the continental U.S. from 

1951 to 1992. Historically, nuclear testing has included, (1) atmospheric

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

vertical holes and horizontal tunnels; (3) earth-cratering experiments; 

(4) open-air nuclear reactor and engine testing; and (5) eleven underground

tests for various purposes at other locations in the United States. No

nuclear tests were conducted in 1998. Nonnuclear testing included

controlled spills of hazardous material at the Hazardous Materials Spill

Center (HSC). Low-level radioactive and mixed waste disposal and

transuranic (TRU) and hazardous waste storage facilities for defense waste

are also operated on the NTS. 

The NTS environment is characterized by desert valley and Great Basin

mountain terrain and topography, with a climate, flora, and fauna typical of

the southern Great Basin deserts. Restricted access and extended wind

transport times are notable features of the remote location of the NTS and

adjacent United States Air Force lands. Also, characteristic of this area are

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

These features afford protection to the inhabitants of the adjacent areas from

potential exposure to radioactivity or other contaminants resulting from

operations on the NTS. Population density within 80 km of the NTS is only

0.2 persons/km versus approximately 30 persons/km in the 48 contiguous 2 2

states. The predominant use of land surrounding the NTS is open range for

livestock grazing with scattered mining and recreational areas.

In addition to the NTS operations, the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada

Operations Office (DOE/NV) is accountable for six non-NTS Bechtel Nevada

(BN) facilities in five different cities. These BN operations support DOE/NV

programs with activities ranging from aerial measurements and aircraft

maintenance to electronics and heavy industrial fabrication. All of these

latter operations are in metropolitan areas.

2.1 NTS OPERATIONS

NTS DESCRIPTION

he NTS, located in Nye County, TNevada, as shown in Figure 2.1, has

been operated by the DOE as the 

on-continent test site for nuclear explosives

testing since 1951. The southeast corner of

the NTS is about 88km (55mi) northwest of

the center of Las Vegas. By highway, it is

about 105 km (65 mi) from the center of Las

Vegas to Mercury. The NTS encompasses

about 3,500 km (1,350 mi ), an area larger 2 2

than the state of Rhode Island. The

dimensions of the NTS vary from 46 to 56

km (28 to 35 mi) in width (eastern to western

border) and from 64 to 88 km (40 to 55 mi)

in length (northern to southern border). The

NTS is surrounded on the east, north, and

west sides by public exclusion areas, called

the Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) (see

Figure 2.1). This area provides a buffer

zone varying from 24 to 104 km (15 to 65

mi) between the NTS and public lands. The

combination of the NAFR and the NTS is

one of the larger unpopulated land areas in

the United States, comprising some 14,200

km (5,470 mi ). Figure 2.2 shows the general 2 2
Figure 2.1 NTS Location in Nevada

2-2
Figure 2.2 NTS Area Numbers, Principal Facilities, and Testing Areas

2-3

INTRODUCTION
2-4

layout of the NTS, including the location of the ground surface, on a steel tower,

major facilities and the area numbers suspended from tethered balloons, or

referred to in this report. The geographical dropped from an aircraft. Several tests were

areas previously used for nuclear testing are categorized as "safety" experiments,

indicated in Figure 2.2. Mercury, located at including transport and storage tests,

the southern end of he NTS, is the main involving the destruction of a nuclear device

base camp for worker housing and with nonnuclear explosives. Some of these

administrative operations for the NTS. tests resulted in dispersion of plutonium in

MISSION AND NATURE OF

OPERATIONS

The present mission of the DOE/NV is

described by the following five statements:

 National Security: support the

Stockpile Stewardship Program through

subcritical and other weapons physics

experiments, emergency management,

test readiness, work for other national

security organizations, and other

experimental programs.

 Environmental Management: support

environmental restoration, groundwater

characterization, and low-level

radioactive waste management.

 Stewardship of the NTS: manage the

land and facilities at the NTS as a unique

and valuable national resource.

 Technology Diversification: support

nontraditional Departmental programs

and commercial activities which are

compatible with the Stockpile

Stewardship Program.

 Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy: support the development of

solar energy, alternative fuel, and energy

efficiency technologies.

Past and present operations on the NTS are

described in the following paragraphs.

The NTS was established in 1951 as the

primary location for testing the nation's

nuclear explosive devices. Tests conducted

through the 1950s were predominantly

atmospheric tests. These tests involved a

nuclear explosive device detonated while on

the test vicinity. One of these test areas lies

just north of the NTS boundary, and four

others, involving transport/storage safety, lie

at the north end of the NAFR (see Figure

2.3). All nuclear device tests are listed in

DOE/NV Report NVO-209 (DOE 1994).

Underground nuclear tests were first

conducted in 1951. Testing was

discontinued during a moratorium that began

in October 31, 1958, but was resumed in

September 1961 after tests by the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics began. Since late

1962, nearly all tests have been conducted

in sealed vertical shafts drilled into Yucca

Flat and Pahute Mesa or in horizontal

tunnels mined into Rainier Mesa. Five earthcratering (shallow-burial) tests were

conducted over the period of 1962 through

1968 as part of the Plowshare Program, that

explored peaceful uses of nuclear

explosives. The first and largest Plowshare

crater test, SEDAN (PHS 1963) was

detonated at the northern end of Yucca Flat. 

There have been no United States nuclear

explosive tests since September 1992.

Other nuclear testing over the history of the

NTS has included the Bare Reactor

Experiment - Nevada series in the 1960s. 

These tests were performed with a 14-MeV

neutron generator mounted on a 465-m

(1,530-ft) steel tower, used to conduct

neutron and gamma-ray interaction studies

on various materials. From 1959 through

1973, a series of open-air nuclear reactor,

nuclear engine, and nuclear furnace tests

was conducted in Area 25, and a series of

tests with a nuclear ramjet engine was

conducted in Area 26.

Limited nonnuclear testing has also occurred

at the NTS, including spills of hazardous

materials at the HSC in Area 5. The tests

conducted at the HSC, from the latter half of 
Figure 2.3 Location of Safety Tests on the NTS and the NAFR

2-5

INTRODUCTION
2-6

the 1980s to date, involved controlled offsite, because of the large number of

spilling of liquid materials to study both spill

control and mitigation measures and the

resultant dispersion and transport of

airborne clouds. At the Explosive Ordnance

Disposal in Area 11, explosive materials are

destroyed, generally by detonation, with the

amounts destroyed being limited in order to

maintain downwind air concentrations within

state limits. Tests are conducted involving

depleted uranium and other materials at the

Big Explosives Experimental Facility in

Area 4.

Waste storage and disposal facilities for

defense low-level radioactive waste (LLW)

and mixed waste are located in Areas 3

and 5. At the Area 5 Radioactive Waste

Management Site (RWMS-5), LLW from

DOE-affiliated onsite and offsite generators

is disposed of using standard shallow land

disposal techniques.

TRU wastes are retrievably stored in surface

containers at the RWMS-5 pending shipment

to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP)

facility in New Mexico. Nonradioactive

hazardous wastes are accumulated at a

special site before shipment to a licensed 

offsite disposal facility. 

At the Area 3 RWMS (RWMS-3), bulk LLW

(such as debris from atmospheric nuclear

test locations) and LLW in large non-standard

packages are emplaced and buried in

selected surface subsidence craters (formed

as a result of prior underground nuclear tests).

1998 ACTIVITIES

SUBCRITICAL EXPERIMENTS

No nuclear explosives tests were conducted

during 1998, due to the moratorium

announced in late 1992. There were three

subcritical experiments which involved small

amounts of fissionable materials that do not

reach the fissioning stage during the

experiment. However, continuous

environmental surveillance for radioactivity and

radiation was conducted both onsite and

potential effluent sources that exist on the

NTS as a result of the prior nuclear tests. The

surveillance program and results are described

in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.

NTS-RELATED ACTIVITIES

LLW and mixed waste handling and disposal,

TRU waste storage and packaging prior to

shipment to the WIPP in New Mexico, and

remedial actions related to sites contaminated

by tests of nuclear devices are some of the

activities that occurred in 1998.

Compliance with state and federal

environmental laws and regulations was

another principal activity during 1998. 

Specifically included were actions related to 

(1) National Environmental Policy Act

documentation preparation, such as

Environmental Impact Statements,

Environmental Assessments, etc.; (2) Clean

Air Act compliance for asbestos renovation

projects, radionuclide emissions, and state air

quality permits; (3) Clean Water Act

compliance involving state wastewater

permits; (4) Safe Drinking Water Act

compliance involving monitoring of drinking

water distribution systems; (5) Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act management

of hazardous wastes; (6) Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act reporting; and (7) Toxic

Substances Control Act management of

polychlorinated biphenyls. Also included were

preactivity surveys to detect and document

archaeological and historic sites on the NTS. 

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act

involved conducting pre-operation surveys to

document the status of state of Nevada and

federally listed endangered or threatened plant

and animal species. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SPILL CENTER

(HSC)

DOE/NV’s HSC is a research and

demonstration facility available on a user-fee

basis to private and public sector test and

training sponsors concerned with the safety 
INTRODUCTION

2-7

aspects of hazardous chemicals. The site is evaporates and seeps into permeable sands

located in Area 5 of the NTS and is

maintained by BN. The HSC is the basic

research tool for studying the dynamics of

accidental releases of various hazardous

materials. This is described more completely

in Chapter 6.

TOPOGRAPHY AND TERRAIN

The topography of the NTS is typical of the

Great Basin Section of the Basin and Range

physiographic province of Nevada, Arizona,

and Utah. North-south-trending mountain

ranges are separated by broad, flat-floored,

and gently-sloped valleys. The topography is

depicted in Figure 2.4. Elevations range from

about 910 m (3,000 ft) above mean sea

level (MSL) in the south and east, rising to

2,230 m (7,300 ft) in the mesa areas toward

the northern and western boundaries. The

slopes on the upland surfaces are steep and

dissected, whereas the slopes on the lower

surfaces are gentle and alluviated with rock

debris from the adjacent highlands.

The principal effect upon the terrain from

nuclear testing has been the creation of

numerous dish-shaped surface subsidence

craters, particularly in Yucca Flat. Most

underground nuclear tests conducted in

vertical shafts produced surface subsidence

craters that occurred when the overburden

above a nuclear cavity collapsed and formed a

rubble "chimney" to the surface. A few craters

have been formed as a result of tests

conducted on or near the surface by shallow

depth-of-burial cratering experiments, or

following some tunnel events.

There are no continuously flowing streams on

the NTS. Surface drainages for Yucca and

Frenchman Flats closed-basin systems are

onto the dry lake beds (playas) in each valley. 

The remaining areas of the NTS drain via

arroyos and dry stream beds that carry water

only during unusually intense or persistent

storms. Rainfall or snow melt typically

infiltrates quickly into the moisture-deficient soil

or runs off in normally dry channels, where it 

and gravels. During extreme conditions, flash

floods may occur. 

GEOLOGY

The basic lithologic structure of the NTS is

depicted in Figure 2.5. Investigations of the

geology of the NTS, including detailed studies

of numerous drill holes and tunnels, have been

in progress by the U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) and other organizations since 1951. 

Because of the large number of drilled holes

(see Figure 2.6), the NTS is probably one of

the better geologically characterized large

areas within the United States. 

In general, the geology consists of three major

rock units. These rock units are (1) complexly

folded and faulted sedimentary rocks of

Paleozoic age overlain at many places by; (2)

volcanic tuffs and lavas of Tertiary age, which

(in the valleys) are covered by; (3) alluvium of

late Tertiary and Quaternary age. The

sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic age are many

thousands of feet thick and are comprised

mainly of carbonate rocks (dolomite and

limestone) with clastic rocks (shale and

quartzite) near the top and at the bottom of the

section. The volcanic rocks in the valleys are

down-dropped and tilted along steeply dipping

normal faults of late Tertiary age. The

alluvium is rarely faulted and is derived from

erosion of Tertiary and Paleozoic rocks. The

volcanic rocks of the Tertiary age are

predominantly rhyolitic tuffs and lavas, which

erupted from various volcanic centers. The

aggregate thickness of the volcanic rocks is

many thousands of feet, but in most places

the actual thickness of the section is far less

because of erosion or nondeposition. These

materials erupted before the collapse of large

volcanic centers known as calderas. Alluvial

materials fill the intermountain valleys and

cover the adjacent slopes. These sediments

attain thicknesses of 600 to 900 m (2,000 to

3,000 ft) in the central portions of the valleys. 

HYDROGEOLOGY

The deep aquifers, slow groundwater

movement, and exceedingly slow downward

movement of water in the overlying 
Figure 2.4 Topography of the NTS

2-8
Carbonate and Clastic Rocks

Tuffaceous Sedimentary Rocks

Alluvial Deposits

Basalt Flows

Rhyolitic Intrusive Rocks

Granitic Rocks Volcanic & Shallow Intrusive

Rocks

Figure 2.5 Basic Lithologic Structure of the NTS

2-9

INTRODUCTION
Figure 2.6 Drill Hole Locations on the NTS

2-10
INTRODUCTION

2-11

unsaturated zone serve as significant barriers Some underflow, past all of the subbasin

to transport of radioactivity from unsaturated

zone sources via groundwater, greatly limiting

the potential for transport of radioactivity to

offsite areas. Some historic nuclear tests

were conducted below the groundwater table;

others were at varying depths above the

groundwater table. Nuclear tests below the

groundwater table have a greater potential for

offsite migration. However, the great distance

to offsite water supply wells or springs makes

it unlikely that contaminants will be transported

in significant quantities.

Depths to groundwater under the NTS vary

from about 210 m (690 ft) beneath the

Frenchman Flat playa (Winograd and

Thordarson 1975) in the southern part of the

NTS to more than 700 m (2,300 ft) beneath

part of Pahute Mesa. In the eastern portions,

the water table occurs generally in the

alluvium and volcanic rocks above the

regional carbonate aquifer, and, in the 

western portions, it occurs predominantly in

volcanic rocks. The flow in the shallower

parts of the groundwater is generally toward

the major valleys (Yucca and Frenchman),

where it may deflect downward to join the

regional drainage to the southwest in the

carbonate aquifer. 

The hydrogeology of the underground nuclear

testing areas on the NTS (Figure 2.7) has

been summarized by the Desert Research

Institute, University of Nevada System and the

USGS (Russell 1990 and Laczniak et al.,

1996). Yucca Flat is situated within the Ash

Meadows groundwater subbasin. Groundwater

occurs within the valley-fill, volcanic and

carbonate aquifers, and in the volcanic and

clastic aquitards. The depth to water generally

ranges from 210 m (690 ft) to about 580 m

(1,900 ft) below the ground surface. The tuff

aquitard forms the principal Cenozoic

hydrostratigraphic unit beneath the water table

in the eastern two-thirds of the valley and is

unconfined over most of its extent. The valleyfill aquifer is saturated in the central part of the

valley and is unconfined (Winograd and

Thordarson 1975). 

discharge areas, probably reaches springs in

Death Valley. Recharge for all of the

subbasins most likely occurs by precipitation

at higher elevations and infiltration along

ephemeral stream courses and in playas. 

Regional groundwater flow is from the upland

recharge areas in the north and east, towards

discharge areas at Ash Meadows and Death

Valley, southwest of the NTS. Due to the

large topographic changes across the area

and the importance of fractures to

groundwater flow, local flow directions can be

radically different from the regional trend. 

Groundwater is the only local source of

drinking water in the NTS area. Drinking and

industrial water supply wells, for the NTS,

produce from the lower and upper carbonate

aquifers and the volcanic and the valley-fill

aquifers. Although a few springs emerge from

perched groundwater lenses at the NTS,

discharge rates are low, and spring water is

not currently used for DOE activities. South of

the NTS, private and public supply wells are

completed in a valley-fill aquifer. 

Frenchman Flat is also within the Ash

Meadows subbasin. Regional groundwater

flow in this valley occurs within the major

Cenozoic and Paleozoic hydrostratigraphic

units at depths ranging from 210 to 350 m

(690 to 1,150 ft) below the ground surface. 

Perched water is found as shallow as 20 m

(66 ft) within the tuff and lava-flow aquitards in

the western part and older Tertiary

sedimentary rocks in the southwestern part of

the valley. In general, the depth to water is at

least 210 m (690 ft) beneath Frenchman playa

and increases to nearly 360 m (1,180 ft) near

the margins of the valley (Winograd and

Thordarson 1975). The water table beneath

Frenchman Flat is considerably shallower than

beneath Yucca Flat. Consequently, the extent

of saturation in the valley-fill and volcanic

aquifers is correspondingly greater.

Winograd and Thordarson (1975)

hypothesized that groundwater within the

Cenozoic units of Yucca and Frenchman Flats

probably cannot leave these basins without

passing through the underlying and

surrounding tuff confining unit. In addition,
Figure 2.7 Groundwater Hydrologic Units of the NTS and Vicinity

2-12
1

1 0

100

W in d (k m /h)

Precip.(cm /yr)

Te m p . H igh

(F)

Tem p. Low

(F)

Flats

M esas

INTRODUCTION

2-13

NTS METEOROLOGY

lateral gradients within the saturated volcanic Elevation also influences temperatures on the

units exist and may indicate groundwater flow

toward the central areas of Yucca and

Frenchman Flats prior to vertical drainage.

The only hydrostratigraphic units encountered

at Pahute Mesa are the volcanic aquifers and

aquitards. Pahute Mesa is thought to be a

part of both the Oasis Valley and Alkali

Flat/Furnace Creek Ranch subbasins (Figure

2.7). The location of the inter-basin boundary

is uncertain. Groundwater is thought to move

towards the south and southwest, through

Oasis Valley, Crater Flat, and western

Jackass Flats. Points of discharge are

thought to include the springs in Oasis Valley,

Alkali Flat, and Furnace Creek. The amount of

recharge to Pahute Mesa and the amount of

underflow, which moves to the various points

of discharge, are not accurately known. 

Vertical gradients within Pahute Mesa suggest

that flow may be downward in the eastern

portion of the mesa but upward in the western

part (Blankennagel and Weir 1973). The

hydrostratigraphic units beneath Rainier Mesa

consist of the welded and bedded tuff aquifer,

tuff confining unit, the lower carbonate aquifer,

and the lower clastic aquitard. The volcanic

aquifer and aquitards support a semiperched

groundwater lens. Nuclear testing at Rainier

Mesa was conducted within the tuff aquitard. 

Work by Thordarson (1965) indicates that the

perched groundwater is moving downward into

the underlying regional aquifer. Depending on

the location of the subbasin boundary, Rainier

Mesa groundwater may be part of either the

Ash Meadows or the Alkali Flat/Furnace Creek

Ranch subbasin. The regional flow from the

mesa may be directed either towards Yucca

Flat or, because of the intervening upper

clastic aquitard, towards the Alkali Flat

discharge area in the south. The nature of the

regional flow system beneath Rainier Mesa

requires further investigation.

CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY

Precipitation levels on the NTS are low, runoff

is intermittent, and the majority of the active

testing areas onsite drain into closed basins

on the NTS. Topography contributes to

temporal and spatial variability of 

precipitation (Quiring 1968).

NTS, and wind direction and speed are

important aspects of the environment at the

NTS. The movements of large-scale pressure

systems control the seasonal changes in the

wind direction frequencies. Predominating

winds are southerly from the south during

summer and northerly during winter. The

general downward slope in the terrain from

north to south results in an intermediate

scenario that is reflected in the characteristic

diurnal wind reversal from southerly winds

during the day to northerly winds at night. 

This north to south reversal is strongest in the

summer. The average wind speed and

precipitation along with the maximum and

minimum temperatures on the mesas and flats

of the NTS are shown in the graph below.

The 1992 10-m wind roses for the NTS are

shown in Figure 2.8.

FLORA AND FAUNA

The vegetation on most of the NTS includes

various associations of desert shrubs typical

of the Mojave or Great Basin Deserts or the

zone of transition between these two. 

Extensive floral collection has yielded 711

taxa of vascular plants within or near the

boundaries of the NTS (O'Farrell and Emery

1976). Associations of creosote bush, Larrea

tridentata, which are characteristic of the

Mojave Desert, dominate the vegetation

mosaic on the bajadas of the southern NTS. 

Between 1,220 and 1,520 m (4,000 and 5,000 ft)
19

2

16

17

8

6

12 15

25

AREA 12 CAMP

27 5

7

CONTROL POINT

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

MANAGEMENT SITES

Active Camps

NTS Facilities

Wind Roses

SPILL TEST FACILITY

Note: Wind rose line length is frequency

of that wind direction.

22

23

RAINIER

MESA

Figure 2.8 1992 Wind Rose Patterns for the NTS (Courtesy of Air Resources Laboratory, Special

Operations and Research Division)

2-14
INTRODUCTION

2-15

in elevation in Yucca Flat, transitional locations, hunting locales, rock art, temporary

associations are dominated by Grayia 

spinosa-Lycium andersonii (hopsage/desert

thorn) associations, while the upper alluvial

fans support Coleogyne types. Above 1,520

m (5,000 ft), the vegetation mosaic is

dominated by sagebrush associations of

Artemisia tridentata and Artemisia arbuscula

subspecies nova. Above 1,830 m (6,000 ft),

piñon pine and juniper mix with the sagebrush

associations, where there is suitable moisture

for these trees. No plant species located on

the NTS is currently on the federal

endangered species list; however, the state of

Nevada has placed Astragalus beatleyae on

its critically endangered species list.

Most mammals on the NTS are small and

secretive (often nocturnal in habitat), hence

not often seen by casual observers. Rodents

are the most important group of mammals on

the NTS, based on distribution and relative

abundance. Larger mammals include feral

horses, mule deer, mountain lions, bobcats,

coyote, kit foxes, and rabbits, among others. 

Among other taxa, the reptiles include the

desert tortoise, over 12 lizards, and 17

snakes; 4 of which are venomous. Bird

species are mostly migrants or seasonal

residents. Most nonrodent mammals have

been placed in the "protected" classification by

the state of Nevada. The Mojave population

of the desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, is

listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service. The habitat of the desert

tortoises on the NTS is found in its southern

third, outside the recent areas of nuclear

explosives test activities.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Human habitation of the NTS area began at

least as early as 10,000 years ago. Various

indigenous cultures occupied the region in

prehistoric times. The survey of less than 

5 percent of the NTS area has located more

than 2,000 archaeological sites, which contain

the only information available concerning the

prehistoric inhabitants. The site types

identified include rock quarries, toolmanufacturing areas, plant-processing 

camps, and permanent villages. The

prehistoric people's lifestyle was sustained by

a hunting and gathering economy, which

utilized all parts of the NTS. 

While major springs provided perennial water,

the prehistoric people developed strategies to

take advantage of intermittent fresh water

sources in this arid region. In the nineteenth

century, at the time of initial contact, the area

was occupied by Paiute and Shoshone

Indians. Prior to 1940, the historic occupation

consisted of ranchers, miners, and Native

Americans. Several natural springs were able

to sustain livestock, ranchers, and miners. 

Stone cabins, corrals, and fencing stand today

as testaments to these early settlers. The

mining activities included two large mines: one

at Wahmonie, the other at Climax Mine. 

Prospector claim markers are found in these

and other parts of the NTS. Native Americans

coexisted with the settlers and miners, utilizing

the natural resources of the region and, in

some cases, working for the new arrivals. 

They also maintained a connection with the

land, especially areas important to them for

religious and historical reasons. These

locations, referred to as traditional cultural

properties, continue to be significant to the

Paiute and Shoshone Indians.

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. Very few

locations associated with this time period have

been identified. In 1950, the NTS was

selected as the continental nuclear testing

ground. Surveys have located and recorded

many structures associated with nuclear

testing. These structures are significant

because of the importance of the nuclear

testing program in the history of the United

States, as well as its effects on the rest of the

world. 

DEMOGRAPHY

The population of the area surrounding the

NTS has been estimated based on the 1990

Bureau of Census estimates (Department of 
2-16

Commerce 1990). Excluding Clark County, The extreme northwestern region of Arizona is

the major population center (over 1,000,000 in

1998), the population density within a 150-km

(90-mi) radius of the NTS is about 0.2

persons/km . In comparison, the 48 2

contiguous states (1990 census) had a

population density near 29 persons/km . The 2

offsite area within 80 km (50 mi) of the NTS

Control Point (CP) is predominantly rural. 

CP-1 (a building at the Control Point)

historically has been the point from which

distances from the NTS were determined. 

Several small communities are located in the

area, the largest being in the Pahrump Valley. 

This growing rural community, with an

estimated population of nearly 20,000, is about

50 mi (80 km) south of CP-1. The Amargosa

Farm area, which has a population of about

1,200, is approximately 50 km (30 mi)

southwest of CP-1. The largest town in the

near offsite area is Beatty, which has a

population of about 1,500 and is approximately

65 km (40 mi) to the west of CP-1. 

The Mojave Desert of California, which

includes Death Valley National Monument, lies

along the southwestern border of Nevada. 

The National Park Service estimated that the

population within the boundaries ranges from

200 permanent residents during the summer

months to as many as 5,000 tourists and

campers on any particular day during holiday

periods in the winter months. The largest

nearby population in this desert is in the

Ridgecrest-China Lake area about 190 km Grazing is also common in this area,

(118 mi) southwest of the NTS, containing

about 28,000 people. The next largest is in

the Barstow area located 265 km (165 mi)

south-southwest of the NTS with a population

of 24,000. The Owens Valley, where many

small towns are located, lies west of Death

Valley. The largest town in Owens Valley is

Bishop, 225 km (140 mi) west-northwest of the

NTS, with a population of 3,500.

The extreme southwestern region of Utah is

more developed than the adjacent portion of

Nevada. The largest community is St.

George, located 220 km (137 mi) east of the

NTS, with a population of 29,000. The next

largest town, Cedar City, with a population of

14,000, is located 280 km (174 mi) eastnortheast of the NTS.

mostly rangeland, except for that portion in the

Lake Mead recreation area. In addition,

several small communities lie along the

Colorado River. The largest towns in the

area are Bullhead City, 165 km (103 mi)

south-southeast of the NTS, with a

population estimate of 22,000, and Kingman,

located 280 km (174 mi) southeast of the

NTS, with a population of about 13,000.

SURROUNDING LAND USE

Figure 2.9 is a map of the offsite area

showing a wide variety of land uses such as

farming, mining, grazing, camping, fishing, 

and hunting within a 300-km (180-mi) radius

of the CP-1. West of the NTS, elevations

range from 85 m (280 ft) below MSL in

Death Valley to 4,400 m (14,500 ft) above

MSL in the Sierras, including parts of the

Owens and San Joaquin agricultural valleys. 

The areas south of the NTS are more

uniform, since the Mojave Desert ecosystem

(mid-latitude desert) comprises most of this

portion of Nevada, California, and Arizona. 

The areas east of the NTS are primarily midlatitude steppe with some of the older river

valleys, such as the Virgin River and Moapa

Valleys, supporting irrigation for small-scale

but intensive farming of a variety of crops. 

particularly towards the northeast. The area

north of the NTS is also mid-latitude steppe

where the major agricultural activity is

grazing of cattle and sheep, and a minor

agricultural activity is the growing of alfalfa

hay. Many of the residents cultivate home

gardens.

Recreational areas lie in all directions

around the NTS and are used for such

activities as hunting, fishing, and camping. 

In general, the camping and fishing sites to

the north of the NTS are not utilized in the

winter months. Camping and fishing

locations to the south are utilized throughout

the year. The peak hunting season is from

September through January.
Figure 2.9 Land Use Around the NTS

2-17

Oil Fields

Hunting

Communities Mines

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles

0

0

50 100

50 100 150

LAKE

TAHOE WALKER

LAKE

UTAH

ARIZONA

St. George VIRGIN

VALLEY

PYRAMID

LAKE

Austin

Ely

Elko

Reno

Carson

City

Wells

Winnemucca

Lovelock

Tonopah

Hawthorne

Cedar

City

Alamo

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

NEVADA

TEST

SITE

Barstow

MOJAVE

DESERT

HAIWEE

RES.

Beatty DEATH VALLEY

SIERRA NEVADA RANGE

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

Las

Vegas

80 80

93

15 395

93

95

395 95

50

56

93

50

LAKE MEAD

Kingman

LAKE

MOJAVE

Lake Havasu

6

Camping &

Recreational Areas

Fishing

NELLIS AIR

FORCE RANGE

SALT

LAKE

INTRODUCTION
2-18

2.2 NON-NTS FACILITIES

Under a contract with DOE/NV, BN has

several offsite operations that support

activities at the NTS. Each of these facilities

is located in a metropolitan area.

City, county, and state regulations govern

emissions, waste disposal, and sewage. No

independent BN systems exist for sewage

disposal or for supplying drinking water, and

hazardous waste is moved off the facility

sites for disposal. Radiation sources are

sealed, and no radiological emissions above

a small fraction of federal guidelines are

expected during normal facility operations.

LIVERMORE OPERATIONS (LO)

The LO Facility occupies a 5,520-m2

(59,445-ft ) two-story combination 2

office/laboratory building. LO is located near

the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

(LLNL) in Livermore, California, to simplify

logistics and communications associated

with BN support of LLNL programs. 

Although most of the work has been in

support of NTS underground weapons

testing, LO also supports LLNL with optical

alignment systems and a variety of

mechanical and electrical engineering

activities associated with energy research

and development programs. Areas of

environmental interest include two small

chemical cleaning operations.

SPECIAL TECHNOLOGIES

LABORATORY (STL)

STL is located in Santa Barbara, California. 

The current facilities occupy approximately

4,608 m (49,600 ft ) and consist of 2 2

combination office/laboratory areas, used

primarily for engineering and electronic

research. The research is conducted to

develop a suite of sensor systems for testing

and field deployment in support of DOE

Headquarters and DOE/NV. Areas of

environmental interest include a small

printed circuit board operation, minor solvent

cleaning operations, neutron activation, and

pulsed X-ray system experiments.

NORTH LAS VEGAS FACILITY

(NLVF)

The NLVF provides technical support for

DOE/NV activities and includes multiple

structures totaling about 53,820 m2

(585,000 ft ). There are numerous areas of 2

environmental interest at the NLVF,

including a machine shop using cutting

fluids, a radiation source range, an X-ray

laboratory, solvent and chemical cleaning

operations, small amounts of pesticide and

herbicide application, and hazardous waste

generation and accumulation.

REMOTE SENSING LABORATORY

(RSL)

The RSL is an 11,000-m (118,000-ft ) 2 2

facility located on a 14-ha (35-acre) site

within the confines of Nellis Air Force Base. 

The facility includes space for aircraft

maintenance and operations, mechanical

and electronics assembly, computer

operations, photo processing, a light

laboratory, warehousing, and emergency

operations. Areas of environmental interest

are photo processing, aircraft maintenance,

and operations.

LOS ALAMOS OPERATIONS (LAO)

The LAO resides in an engineering and

laboratory office complex of approximately

4,645 m (50,000 ft ). It is located near the 2 2

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL)

facility to provide local support for LANL’s

programs. The work performed includes

direct support to the LANL Science-Based

Stockpile Stewardship program, the DOE

Research and Development Program, and

miscellaneous DOE cash-order work. LAO's

primary activities are twofold: the design,

fabrication, and fielding of data acquisition

systems used in underground and above
INTRODUCTION

2-19

ground testing diagnostics and the analysis capability and an eastern aerial survey

of data from prior experiments. Areas of

environmental interest include small solvent

cleaning operations, metal machining,

operations, and a small photo laboratory.

WASHINGTON AERIAL

MEASUREMENTS OPERATIONS

(WAMO)

The WAMO, located at Andrews Air Force

Base, consists of five buildings: a 186-m2

(2,000-ft ) Butler Building used as office 2

space; a 1,110-m (12,000-ft ) hangar, 2 2

combination electronics laboratory, aircraft

maintenance, and office complex; a 37-m2

(400-ft ) equipment service and storage 2

building; and 186 m (2,000 ft ) in each of 2 2

two other joint tenant buildings. A new

24,000 square foot building is 60 percent

complete. Because of weather and other

factors, the acceptance date will most likely

be delayed until late spring or early summer

1999. This building will consolidate

operations from Buildings 3802, 3812, 1792,

and the deployment shed. WAMO provides

an effective east coast emergency response

capacity to the DOE/NV. Areas of

environmental interest include minor solvent

cleaning operations, used fuels, and oils.

2.3 NON-NTS

UNDERGROUND TEST SITES

Nuclear explosive tests have been

conducted underground for a variety of

purposes at eight different non-NTS sites in

the United States. The tests and their

locations appear in Table 2.1 (Atomic

Energy Commission (AEC) 1964, 1965,

1966, 1970, 1972, 1973a, 1973b; DOE

1978, 1984, 1986; PHS 1966). Activities at

these locations generally are limited to

annual sampling of surface and groundwater

at over 200 wells, springs, etc., at locations

near the sites where tests were conducted. 

A Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

has begun at the Mississippi test location,

which will include significant new

characterization activities. Sampling near

three test sites on Amchitka Island, Alaska,

occurs only periodically. Sampling results

for these sites appear in Chapter 5 of this

report.
2-20

Table 2.1 Non-NTS Underground Nuclear Tests

Test Date of

Name Location Purpose Test

GNOME Carlsbad, New Mexico Plowshare 12/10/1961

SHOAL Fallon, Nevada Vela Uniform 10/26/1963

SALMON Hattiesburg, Mississippi Vela Uniform 10/22/1964

LONG SHOT Amchitka Island, Alaska Vela Uniform 10/29/1965

STERLING Hattiesburg, Mississippi Vela Uniform 12/03/1966

GASBUGGY Farmington, New Mexico Vela Uniform 12/10/1967

FAULTLESS Central Nevada Plowshare 01/19/1968

RULISON Grand Valley, Colorado Weapons Related 09/10/1969

MILROW Amchitka Island, Alaska Plowshare 10/02/1969

CANNIKIN Amchitka Island, Alaska Weapons Related 11/06/1971

RIO BLANCO Rifle, Colorado Plowshare 05/17/1973
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-1

3.0 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

Environmental compliance activities at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) during

calendar year (CY) 1998 involved the permitting and monitoring

requirements of numerous state of Nevada and federal regulations. Primary

activities included the following: (1) National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) documentation preparation; (2) Clean Air Act (CAA) compliance for

asbestos renovation projects, radionuclide emissions, and state air quality

permits; (3) Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance involving state wastewater

permits; (4) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) compliance involving

monitoring of drinking water distribution systems; (5) Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) management of hazardous wastes;

(6) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) reporting; (7) Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

management of polychlorinated biphenyls; (8) Endangered Species Act

(ESA) compliance involving the conduct of pre-construction and site-wide

surveys to document the status of state and federally listed endangered or

threatened plant and animal species; and (9) National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA) compliance for the protection of Cultural and Native American

Resources. There were no activities requiring compliance with Executive

Orders (EOs) on Flood Plain Management or Protection of Wetlands.

Throughout 1998 the NTS was subject to several formal compliance

agreements with regulatory agencies. Agreements with Nevada include a

Memorandum of Understanding covering releases of radioactivity; a Federal

Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO), an Agreement in Principle

covering environment, safety, and health activities; a Settlement Agreement

to manage mixed transuranic (TRU) waste; and a Mutual Consent Agreement

on management of mixed land disposal restriction (LDR) wastes, among

others. Emphasis on pollution prevention and waste minimization at the

NTS continued in 1998.

The state of Nevada filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgement and

Injunction against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in June 1994. All of

the claims in this Complaint have now been resolved.

Compliance activities at non-NTS facilities of DOE Nevada Operations Office

(DOE/NV) involved the permitting and monitoring requirements of (1) the

CAA for airborne emissions, (2) the CWA for wastewater discharges, 

(3) SDWA regulations, (4) RCRA disposal of hazardous wastes, and 

(5) hazardous substance reporting. Pollution prevention and waste

minimization efforts continued at all locations.

3.1 COMPLIANCE STATUS

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY ACT

aragraph 1500.2 of NEPA (Code of PFederal Regulations [CFR] 1969)

requires all federal agencies to

consider environmental effects, 

values, and reasonable alternatives before

making a decision to implement any major

federal action that may have a significant

impact on the human environment.

Since November 1994, DOE/NV has had full

delegation of authority from DOE

Headquarters (DOE/HQ) for Environmental

Assessments (EAs), issuing Findings of No
3-2

Significant Impact and associated floodplain  Withdrawal of public lands for range

and wetland action documentation related to safety and training purposes at the Naval

DOE/NV proposed actions. Air Station in Fallon, Nevada EIS.

DOE uses three levels of documentation to

demonstrate compliance with NEPA: (1) an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a

full disclosure of the potential environmental

effects of proposed actions and the

reasonable alternatives to those actions; 

(2) an EA is a concise discussion of a

proposed action and alternatives and the

potential environmental effects to determine

if an EIS is necessary; and (3) a Categorical

Exclusion (CX) is used for classes of action

which have been found to have no adverse

environmental impacts, based on similar

previous activities. DOE/NV activities

involved only CXs and Eas during 1998.

During fiscal year (FY) 1996 and FY 1997, 

a draft NEPA Environmental Evaluation

Checklist was circulated by DOE/NV’s

Environmental Protection Division, now the

Environment, Safety and Health Division

(ESHD). In October 1997, the Checklist was

formally issued by DOE ESHD. Completion

of the Checklist is required under the

DOE/NV Work Acceptance Process

Procedural Instructions (DOE 1997a) for all

proposed projects or activities. The

Checklist is reviewed by the DOE/NV NEPA

Compliance Officer to determine whether the

project or activity is included in the NTS/EIS

and record of decision (ROD) or other

previously completed NEPA analysis. 

During FY 1998, Checklists were completed

for 60 proposed projects or activities. 

Twenty-six of these 60 were exempted from

further NEPA analysis by being a CX; 32

were exempted due to previous analysis in

the NTS/EIS and ROD; one needed further

analysis as required for an EA; and one was

withdrawn. 

Still pending are the following documents

developed by or with DOE/NV involvement:

 Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) EIS.

 Kistler Aerospace Corporation in Areas

18 and 19 EA.

 Desert Rock Sky Park in Area 22, EA.

 B52 Bomb Bay Systems Level Fire Test

in Area 5, EA.

Throughout CY 1998, the staff of the DOE

ESHD continued to maintain and update the

NEPA Compliance Guide (Volume III), a

quick reference handbook containing

procedures, formats, and guidelines for

those personnel responsible for NEPA

compliance activities. The staff of the DOE

ESHD prepared Volume III to supplement

the NEPA Compliance Guides, Volumes I

and II, prepared and distributed by the Office

of NEPA Policy and Assistance, DOE/HQ.

CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)

The CAA and the state of Nevada air quality

control compliance activities were limited to

asbestos abatement, radionuclide

monitoring, and reporting under the National

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP), and air quality permit

compliance requirements. There were no

criteria pollutant or prevention of significant

deterioration monitoring requirements for

NTS operations.

NTS NESHAP ASBESTOS COMPLIANCE

The state Division of Occupational Safety

and Health regulations (Nevada

Administrative Code [NAC] 618.850, 1989)

require that all asbestos abatement projects

in Nevada, involving friable asbestos in

quantities greater than or equal to three

linear feet or three square feet, submit a

Notification Form. Notifications are also

required to be made to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region 9 for projects which disturb greater

than 260 linear ft or 160 ft of asbestos- 2

containing material, in accordance with Title

40 Code of Federal Regulations 61.145-146

(CFR 1989).
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-3

During 1998, there were no projects that The monitoring station with the maximum

required state of Nevada notifications be

made. The annual estimate for nonscheduled asbestos demolition/renovation

for FY 1999 was sent to EPA Region 9 in

December 1998. 

RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS ON THE NTS

NTS operations were conducted in

compliance with the NESHAP radioactive air

emission standards of Title 40 CFR 61,

Subpart H. In compliance with those

requirements, a report on airborne

radioactive effluents is provided to DOE/HQ

and to EPA’s Region 9.

There are two locations on the NTS where

airborne radioactive effluents may be 

emitted from permanent stacks: (1) the

tunnels in Rainier Mesa, and (2) the 

analytical laboratory hoods in the community

of Mercury. Based on the amount of

radioactivity handled, the exhaust from the

analytical laboratories is considered

negligible compared to other sources on the

NTS and the tunnels have been sealed

(although water still seeps from one). 

Present sources are evaporation of tritiated

water (HTO) from containment ponds,

diffusion of HTO vapor from the Area 5

Radioactive Waste Management Site

(RWMS-5), the SEDAN test in Area 10, the

SCHOONER test in Area 20, and

resuspension of plutonium contaminated soil

from nuclear device safety test and

atmospheric test locations. 

In the 1998 NTS NESHAP report for

airborne radioactive effluents (Black 1999),

airborne emission of HTO vapor from the

containment ponds was conservatively

reported as if all the liquid discharge into the

ponds had evaporated and become

airborne. For HTO vapor diffusing from the

RWMS-5, SEDAN, and SCHOONER, operations at the NTS. 

plutonium particulate resuspension from

Areas 3 and 9, and various other areas on

and near the NTS, the airborne effluents

were conservatively estimated as follows. 

annual average concentration for the

radionuclide in question was selected from

among the surrounding sampling stations. 

An effective dose equivalent (EDE) was then

calculated for that concentration. EPA's

Clean Air Package 1988 (CAP88-PC [EPA

1992]) software program was used to

determine what total emission from the

geometric center of the region in question

would be required in order to produce that

EDE. Resuspended radioactivity was

estimated by employing a published formula

and confirming the estimate with offsite data.

Using these conservative estimates of air

emissions in 1998 as input to the CAP88-PC

computer model, the EDE would have been

only 0.092 mrem (9.2 x 10 mSv), much less -4

than the 10-mrem limit that is specified in

Title 40 CFR 61.

NTS AIR QUALITY PERMIT COMPLIANCE

Compliance with air quality permits is

accomplished through permit reporting and

renewal and ongoing verification of

operational compliance with permit-specified

limitations. A summary of NTS permits is in

Table 3.1. (See Chapter 4 for a listing of

active permits.) Common air pollution

sources at the NTS include aggregate

production, stemming activities, surface

disturbances, fugitive dust from unpaved

roads, fuel burning equipment, open burning,

and fuel storage facilities. The 1997 Air

Quality Permit Data Report was sent to the

state of Nevada on January 28, 1998. This

report includes aggregate production,

operating hours of permitted equipment, and

a report of all surface disturbances of five

acres or greater. In order to provide

consistency in responses, the state provided

forms, which required calculation of actual

emissions. During 1997, approximately 

30 tons of pollutants were emitted from

NTS air quality permits limit particulate

emissions to 20 percent opacity, except for

the Area 1 Aggregate Plant, which is 
3-4

10 percent. Certification of personnel to requirements are typically included under

perform valid visible emission opacity state or local permit requirements. A

evaluations is required by the state, with summary of NTS permits is displayed in

recertification required every six months. Table 3.1, and a separate list of applicable

During 1998, one employee of Bechtel permits appear in Chapters 4,5, and 6. 

Nevada’s (BN’s) Environmental Compliance There are no National Pollutant Discharge

Department was recertified. In 1998, Elimination System permits for the NTS, as

several visible emission evaluations of there are no wastewater discharges to

permitted air quality point sources were onsite or offsite surface waters. 

conducted. When visual evaluations

determine that emissions are exceeding the

opacity requirement, corrective action is

initiated. In 1998, there was only one 

exceedance of the 10 percent limit at the

Area 1 Aggregate Plant, which required no

corrective actions.

On June 23, 1998, the state inspected all

permitted facilities/equipment located in

Areas 1, 6, 12, and 23 that are covered by

the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating

Permit No. AP9711-0549. There were no

findings as a result of that inspection.

NON-NTS OPERATIONS

Under normal conditions, the six non-NTS

facilities operated by the DOE/NV do not

produce radioactive effluents. The six are 

the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and

Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) in North

Las Vegas; Special Technologies Laboratory

(STL) in Santa Barbara, California;

Livermore Operations (LO) in Livermore,

California; Los Alamos Operations (LAO) in

Los Alamos, New Mexico; and Washington

Aerial Measurements Operations (WAMO) in

Washington, D.C.

CLEAN WATER ACT

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as

amended by the CWA, establishes ambient

water quality standards and effluent

discharge limitations, which are generally

applicable to facilities, that discharge any at the Area 6 LANL Camp system and

materials into the waters of the United the Area 6 Yucca Lake system, which

States (CFR 1977). Discharges from demonstrated that liners installed in

DOE/NV facilities are primarily regulated these systems met the groundwater

under the laws and regulations of the facility protection standards required by the

host states. Monitoring and reporting operating permit.

NTS OPERATIONS

Discharges of wastewater are regulated by

the state of Nevada under the Nevada Water

Pollution Control Law (Nevada Revised

Statutes 1977). The state of Nevada also

regulates the design, construction, and

operation of wastewater collection systems

and treatment works. Wastewater

monitoring at the NTS was limited to

sampling wastewater influents to sewage

lagoons and containment ponds. 

State general permit GNEV93001, which

regulates the ten usable sewage treatment

facilities on the NTS, was issued by the

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

(NDEP) and became effective on February

1, 1994. Hydrogeological modeling, utilizing

site-specific soil characteristics, vadose

zone monitoring, groundwater monitoring, or

lining an adequate portion of impoundments

at a specific facility were all accepted by

NDEP as methods to comply with the permit

requirements for protection of groundwater.

The following actions were taken to remain

in compliance with sewage lagoon discharge

permit requirements:

 A pump, cable, control box, level

monitoring piping, and discharge piping

were installed in the Area 23 Infiltration

Basin Groundwater Monitoring Well in

August 1998.

 NDEP concurred with studies conducted
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-5

By January 31,1999, one method of 150 foot copper pipes were being excavated

groundwater protection must be installed or

demonstrated at three remaining systems to

maintain permit compliance and renewal.

The following actions were taken in 1998:

 The primary lagoon at the Area 6 Device

Assembly Facility (DAF) was installed

during 1998 to attain permit compliance.

 Administrative Controls were accepted

by NDEP for the Area 25 Central

Support and the Area 25 Reactor Control

Point systems.

NON-NTS OPERATIONS

Three permits for wastewater discharges

were held by non-NTS facilities. One permit

is required for the NLVF, and the STL holds

wastewater permits for the Botello Road and

Ekwill Street locations. No wastewater

permits were required for the LO, LAO, or

WAMO facilities in 1998.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

NTS OPERATIONS 

The SDWA primarily addresses quality of

potable water supplies through sampling and

monitoring requirements for drinking water 

systems. The state of Nevada has enacted

and enforces SDWA regulations including

system management such as operation and

maintenance, water haulage, operator

certification, permitting, and sampling

requirements. A list of state potable water

permits is shown in Chapter 5.

As required under state health regulations authorization and acts as the primary

(NAC 1996), potable water distribution

systems at the NTS are monitored for

residual chlorine content and coliform

bacteria. NTS potable water distribution

systems are also monitored for volatile

organic compounds, inorganic compounds,

synthetic organic compounds, and other

water quality parameters.

During 1998, lead was found above the

acceptable level in the Area 1 system. 

Sample results were still high after replacing

old brass fixtures. At the end of 1998 two

to look for lead solder or brass fittings as the

source of lead. All other monitoring results

for 1998 were within regulatory limits and are

discussed in Chapter 5.

NTS WATER HAULAGE 

To accommodate the diverse and often

transient field work locations at the NTS, a

water haulage program is used. To ensure

potability of hauled water, water is obtained

from potable water fill stands and chlorinated

to obtain a residual of at least one part per

million (ppm) in the hauling tank. Water in

the hauling tank is sampled periodically for

coliform bacteria. The state of Nevada

decided in 1994 that water hauling trucks

should be permitted as water distribution

systems. Permits were obtained again in

1998 for the three trucks used in the

program. There were no positive coliform

bacteria sample results in 1998.

NON-NTS OPERATIONS

All non-NTS operations are on municipal

water systems and have no compliance

activities under the SDWA.

RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND

RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)

RCRA (RCRA 1976) and the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 constitute

the statutory basis for the regulation of

hazardous waste and underground storage

tanks (USTs). Under Section 3006 of

RCRA, the EPA may authorize states to

administer and enforce hazardous waste

regulations. Nevada has received such

regulator for many DOE/NV facilities. The

Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA) of

1992 extends the full range of enforcement

authorities in federal, state, and local laws

for management of hazardous wastes to

federal facilities, including the NTS. 

NTS RCRA COMPLIANCE

In 1995, DOE/NV received a RCRA

Hazardous Waste Operating Permit for the

Area 5 Hazardous Waste Storage Unit
3-6

(HWSU) and the Area 11 Explosive concern were identified at the out briefing,

Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Unit. In addition,

the Part B Permit application was revised to

include the Mixed Waste Storage Pad (now

under interim status) and updated

information concerning general facility

conditions. During 1996, the permit was

modified to include the change in contractor

and operational changes concerning the

EOD and HWSU. The permit application

modification for the Pit 3 Mixed Waste

Disposal Unit was completed and submitted

to the state in 1997 (NAC 1982). Several

other minor modifications were made to the

permit during 1997 and 1998, mostly relating

to updated personnel and training records. 

During 1998, a RCRA Research

Development and Demonstration Permit

Application was submitted to NDEP for the

construction and operation of the Tactical

Demilitarization Development (TaDD) facility. 

This facility will develop treatment methods

for deactivating waste missiles. The permit

is expected to be issued in early 1999. A

1997 biennial state of Nevada Hazardous

Waste Generator report was submitted on

February 24, 1998.

On January 5, 1994, the state of Nevada

and DOE/NV entered into a Mutual Consent

Agreement, that allowed low-level

radioactive mixed wastes generated on 

the NTS to be moved into storage at the

RWMS-5 TRU pad. This was amended in

June 1994 to include mixed waste generated

in Nevada via environmental restoration

work. Waste in storage at this facility will

continue to be held in storage until a final

determination of the proper treatment and

disposal technology is established by the

EPA. A FFACO (FFACO 1996) was signed,

effective March 27, 1996, requiring

compliance with a Site Treatment Plan (DOE

1996a), which was also finalized in March

1996. Compliance with the FFACO exempts

the NTS from potential enforcement action

resulting from the mixed waste storage

prohibition under RCRA. 

The NDEP conducted its annual Compliance

Evaluation Inspection (CEI) on December

10, 1998. Only a few minor areas of 

and it is unlikely that NDEP will pursue any

formal enforcement actions as a result of the

CEI. A report is expected in early 1999.

HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORTING FOR

NON-NTS OPERATIONS

In 1996, at contract transition, the existing

EPA ID numbers for the LO, STL, and LAO

locations were terminated. BN obtained new

numbers for LO and STL and will operate

the LAO facility as a conditionally exempt

small quantity generator. In 1998, facilities

were required to submit the state of Nevada

Hazardous Waste Generator 1997 biennial

report for hazardous wastes generated at

the NLVF under EPA Identification Number

NVD097868731. This report was sent on

February 24, 1998.

UNDERGROUND STORAGE

TANKS (USTs)

NTS OPERATIONS

The NTS UST program continues to meet

regulatory compliance schedules for the

reporting, upgrading, or removal of

documented USTs. Efforts are continuing to

identify undocumented USTs at the NTS. 

Once identified, undocumented USTs are

reported to the NDEP to satisfy state

regulatory reporting requirements.

During 1998, there were 15 USTs that were 

removed in accordance with state and

federal regulations. There was also one

regulated UST that was closed in place. 

Remedial activities continued at previous

tank removal sites during 1998 as funding

became available.

NON-NTS OPERATIONS

An assessment of UST compliance was

completed at RSL during 1998. Some USTs

had no overfill protection devices and were

found to be out of compliance. These

devices were installed and the USTs are

now in compliance.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-7

COMPREHENSIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY

ACT/SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS

AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT

(SARA)

In April 1996, the DOE/NV, Department of

Defense, and the NDEP entered into an

FFACO pursuant to Section 120(a)(4) of

CERCLA (CERCLA 1980) and Sections

6001 and 3004(u) of RCRA (RCRA 1976) to

address the environmental restoration of

historic contaminated sites at the NTS, parts

of Tonopah Test Range (TTR), parts of the

NAFR, the Central Nevada Test area, and

the Project SHOAL area. Appendix VI of the In compliance with EO 13101 (EO 1986), a

FFACO describes the strategy that will be 

employed to plan, implement, and complete

environmental corrective action at facilities

where nuclear-related operations were

conducted.

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND

COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW

ACT (EPCRA)

Compliance with this Act (EO 1986, CFR

1986) is discussed in the paragraphs below

and summarized in the following checklist:

SARA Title III Reports

 NTS Compliance

EPCRA Not

Section Yes No Required

302-302:

 Planning Notification x

304:

 EHS Release Notification x 

311-312:

 Material Safety Data

 Sheet/Chemical Inventory x

313:

 TRI Reporting x

Additional compliance activities under

CERCLA/SARA for 1998 included the

Nevada Combined Agency Report, which 

combines reporting under SARA Section 

312, Tier II and Nevada Chemical

Catastrophe Prevention Program

requirements. The latter program covers

extremely hazardous substances (EHSs).

The 1998 Nevada Combined Agency

Hazardous Substances Reports for the NTS,

NLVF, and RSL were submitted to the state

as required and included chemical

categories and mixtures and single

constituents. The report also included the

EHSs present.

A separate Nevada Combined Agency

Report was submitted for the Area 5

Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC) as

required.

Toxic Release Inventory Report required by

Section 313 of the SARA Title III must be

provided if the facility, any time in the prior

calendar year, exceeds any section 313

threshold for manufacture, process, or other

use. In CY 1997 no thresholds were

exceeded, so no report was required 

in 1998.

NON-NTS TIER II REPORTING UNDER

SARA TITLE III

The reports for the off-NTS Nevada facilities,

RSL and NLVF, are described under EPCRA

above.

Other non-Nevada operations either had no

chemicals above reporting thresholds or

submitted their chemical inventories to the

cities/counties as part of their business

plans.

STATE OF NEVADA CHEMICAL

CATASTROPHE PREVENTION

ACT

The state of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe

Prevention Act of 1992 contains regulations

for facilities defined as Highly Hazardous

Substance Regulated Facilities (NAC 1992). 

This law requires registration of facilities

storing highly hazardous substances above

listed thresholds. Reporting for this program

is also covered by the Nevada Combined 
3-8

Agency Report discussed under EPCRA

above. There were no reportable chemicals

for 1997, and therefore no reports were

submitted to the state in 1998.

TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL

ACT (TSCA)

State of Nevada regulations implementing

the TSCA require submittal of an annual

report describing polychlorinated biphenyl

(PCB) control activities. The 1997 NTS PCB

annual report was transmitted to DOE/NV on

June 10, 1998. This report is no longer

required to be sent to the state of Nevada,

but must be available for their review. The

report included the quantity and status of

PCB and PCB-contaminated transformers

and electrical equipment at the NTS. Also

reported was the one shipment of PCB oils

from the NTS to an EPA-approved disposal

facility. Fifty-two large and four small 

low-volume PCB capacitors remain under

the management of the LANL in Area 27 of

the NTS. 

FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,

FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE

ACT

Pesticide usage included insecticides,

herbicides, and rodenticides. Insecticides

were applied twice a month at the food

service and storage areas. Herbicides were

applied once or twice a year at NTS sewage

lagoon berms. All other pesticide

applications were on an as-requested basis. 

General-use pesticides were preferred,

although restricted-use herbicides and

rodenticides were used. Contract

companies applied pesticides at all non-NTS

facilities in 1998.

Records were maintained on all pesticides

used, both general and restricted. These

records will be held for at least three years. 

State-sponsored training materials are

available for all applicators. No unusual

environmental activities occurred in 1998 at

the NTS relating to the Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

The NHPA (CFR 1966, EO 1971), as

amended, requires federal agencies to

consider any impact of their actions on

cultural resources (archaeological sites,

historic sites, historic structures, and

traditional cultural properties) eligible for

listing in the National Register of Historic

Places (NRHP). Accordingly, cultural

resource surveys and other studies are

conducted to assess any impacts NTS

operations may have on such resources. 

When cultural resources eligible for the 

National Register are found in a project area

and they cannot be avoided, plans are

written for programs to recover data to

mitigate the effects of the projects on these

sites. The NHPA also requires that federal

agencies inventory the cultural resources

under their jurisdiction. 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act

directs federal agencies to consult with

Native Americans to protect their right to

exercise their traditional religions. The

Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) requires federal

agencies to consult with Native Americans

regarding items in their artifact collections,

that may be associated funerary items,

human remains, sacred objects, or objects

of cultural patrimony. A collection of

DOE/NV archaeological materials, that had

been housed at the Harry Reid Center at

University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV),

was transferred to the DOE/NV Curatorial

Facility along with the data for the

archaeological sites. A summary report, site

records, and an artifact inventory were

completed for this collection. NAGPRA

consultation on these artifacts will be

conducted in the near future.

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED

SPECIES PROTECTION

The ESA (CFR 1973) requires federal

agencies to insure that their actions do not

jeopardize the continued existence of

federally listed endangered or threatened 
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-9

species or their critical habitat. The Diamond cholla [Opuntia whipplei var.

American peregrine falcon is the only multigeniculata]) which are known or are

endangered species and the desert tortoise expected to exist on the NTS that are

and bald eagle are the only threatened candidates for listing by the USFWS under

species which occur on the NTS. No the ESA. There are ten plant, one reptile,

threatened or endangered plants are known one bird, and six bat species that occur on

to occur on the NTS. Consultation with the the NTS, which the USFWS has removed

United States Fish and Wildlife Service from the list of candidate species for listing. 

(USFWS) resulted in receipt of a non- These species are now considered by the

jeopardy Biological Opinion in August 1996 USFWS to be “species of concern”. In 1998,

for planned activities at the NTS for a preconstruction biological surveys were

ten-year period. conducted at 21 sites for 7 proposed

The Desert Tortoise Compliance Program species. No candidate species or species of

implemented the terms and conditions of the concern were found. Results and mitigation

USFWS Biological Opinion and documented recommendations were documented in

compliance actions taken by DOE/NV survey reports. 

(USFWS 1996). The terms and conditions

which were implemented in 1998 included Field surveys to determine the presence and

(1) tortoise clearance surveys for two distribution of Clokey’s eggvetch were

projects (conducted within 24 hours from the completed in 1998, and a report (Anderson

start of project construction); (2) onsite 1998) was prepared. NTS populations of

monitoring of construction for one project this plant appear vigorous and unthreatened

when heavy equipment was being used; and do not appear to warrant protection

(3) periodic monitoring of tortoise-proof under the ESA. Flowers and fruits of a

fencing around the ER-5-2 Well and at specific species of cholla found around

sewage treatment ponds in Areas 6 and 23; Mercury were examined in 1998 to

(4) Zone-of-Influence transect surveys determine if the species is the candidate

around ER-OV-7 and ER-OV-8, two Blue Diamond cholla, but results showed it is

proposed UGTA well sites near Beatty, not. 

Nevada believed to be outside suitable

tortoise habitat; and (5) preparation of an Inventories were conducted on the NTS for

annual compliance report for the USFWS of the western burrowing owl and six bat

NTS activities that were conducted in species. Surveys verified that burrowing

CY 1998. Project activities conducted in owls, which are known to migrate, occur

CY 1998 did not result in the loss of year-round on the NTS and that the smallundisturbed tortoise habitat. footed myotis bat (Myotis ciliolabrum) occurs

A report on The Abundance of Desert occur and breed on the NTS, which are not

Tortoises on the NTS Within Ecological protected under the ESA and are not

Landform Units was finalized and distributed species of concern. Raptors, however, are

in September 1998 (Woodward et al., 1998). protected by the federal government under

This report summarizes the objectives, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by the

methods, and results of extensive field state of Nevada. Because these birds

transect surveys conducted during 1997 and occupy high trophic levels of the food chain,

1998. they are regarded as sensitive indicators of

There is one bird (mountain plover on the number and distribution of raptor

[Charadrius montanus]) and two plant breeding sites on the NTS is lacking. Field

species (Clokey’s eggvetch [Astragalus studies were initiated in 1998 to identify

oophorus var. clokeyanus] and Blue such sites to better protect them from 

projects to determine the presence of these

on the NTS. Several birds of prey (raptors)

ecosystem stability and health. Information
3-10

impacts of NTS activities. Twelve active  a MOU with Nevada covering releases of

nests of six raptor species were found,

recorded, and mapped.

EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO) 11988

FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

NTS design criteria do not directly address

floodplain management; however, all

projects are reviewed for areas which would

be affected by a 100-year flood pursuant to

DOE Order 6430.1A (DOE 1989). There

were no projects in 1998 that required

consultation for floodplain management. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER (EO) 11990

PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

There were no projects in 1998 which

required consultation for protection of

wetlands. NTS design criteria do not

specifically address protection of wetlands;

however, all projects are reviewed pursuant

to the requirements of DOE Order 5400.1

(DOE 1990a).

Five new water sources were discovered on

the NTS during 1998. Four of these sources

are springs that appear to dry up in late

summer, while the fifth appears to be a

historic borrow pit that retains runoff water 

long enough to support wetlands vegetation. 

All of these sources possess field indicators

of a jurisdictional wetland.

3.2 AGREEMENTS WITH

STATES AND AGENCIES

During 1998, the NTS was subject to several

agreements with regulatory agencies and

states. These agreements are listed below.

 an Interagency Agreement with EPA

covering environmental monitoring,

emergency response, and related

activities.

 a MOU with EPA regarding NESHAP

compliance.

radioactivity.

 a MOU with Nellis Air Force Base for

environmental restoration on the Tonopah

Test Range.

 a FFACO with the state of Nevada on

environmental restoration activities.

 a Federal Facilities Compliance Act

Consent Order with the state of Nevada

regarding restricted mixed waste streams

on the NTS.

 an Agreement in Principle (AIP) with

Nevada on environment, safety, and

health oversight activities.

 an AIP with Mississippi on environment,

safety, and health oversight activities.

 an AIP with Alaska on environment,

safety, and health oversight activities.

 a Settlement Agreement with Nevada on

handling mixed TRU waste.

 a Mutual Consent Agreement with

Nevada on storage and management of

mixed LDR wastes generated in Nevada.

 a Five-Party Agreement among the

DOE/NV, United States Air Force,

Nevada Department of Wildlife, USFWS,

and Bureau of Land Management for

interagency planning and land

management.

3.3 CURRENT

ENVIRONMENTAL

COMPLIANCE ISSUES AND

ACTIONS

There were numerous activities and actions

relating to environmental compliance issues

in 1998. These activities and actions are

discussed below, grouped by general area

of applicability.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-11

CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)

Under Title V, Part 70 of the CAA

amendments, all owners or operators of Part

70 sources must pay annual fees that are

sufficient to cover costs of state operating

permit programs. The NAC determines

annual fees based on tons of actual

emissions. 

In 1998, the NAC was revised to include an

annual emissions fee of $5.60 per ton times

the total tons of each regulated pollutant for

sources that emit more than 25 tons per

year. An annual maintenance fee is also

required, which is based on the potential

number of tons of emissions from a source. 

Sources such as the NTS that have a

potential to emit 50 tons or more of any

regulated pollutant, except carbon

monoxide, must pay an annual fee of

$3,000.

From the 1997 Annual Report, which was

submitted in January 1998, it was

determined that approximately 30 tons of

emissions were produced. Fees of

approximately $112 were paid to the NDEP. 

The increase in emissions over the previous

years was mainly due to the inclusion of

diesel generators on the NTS Class II Air

Quality Operating Permit.

The NTS Class II Air Quality Operating

Permit AP9711-0549 was revised several

times during 1998. Modifications included

the addition of a portable screen plant and

portable crushing plant; identification of

three emission units as being subject to CAA

New Source Performance Standards

(NSPSs), including the Area 1 aggregate

plant, the double deck screen, and portable

screening plant; the removal of two boilers

from the permit because according to the

NAC they are exempt based on their output

of British thermal units.

As a result of being identified as an NSPS

source, the Area 1 aggregate plant is now

required to adhere to a more stringent

opacity limit of 10 percent, rather than the 

previous 20 percent. In December 1998,

opacity readings at the aggregate plant

indicated that one of the emission units 

was slightly in excess of the 10 percent limit. 

Informal notification (E-mail) was made to

the state on the same day that the readings

were taken, followed up by a formal

notification.

The state issued a Class II Air Quality

Operating Permit for the TaDD facility in July

1998. The facility, located in Area 11, would

be to construct a prototype facility to static

fire Shillelagh missiles. 

One open burn permit was renewed by the

state in 1998, which included Permit 98-40

for the Area 27 burn box. This permit was

issued in February 1998. The NTS open

burn permit expired in October 1998. Due to

regional haze issues, DOE ESHD was

informed that an annual “blanket” permit

would no longer be issued, and that an

individual Burn Variance would need to be

obtained prior to each burn.

The NTS has a Nevada Hazardous Materials

Storage Permit Number 13-98-0034-X, and

the HSC has Permit Number 13-98-0037-X. 

These are issued by the state Fire Marshall,

and are renewed annually when a facility

makes a report required by the state’s

Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act 

(NAC 1992).

Table 3.1 contains a summary of the permits

issued for NTS activities and for offsite

activities that support the NTS.

NON-NTS AIR QUALITY PERMITS

The state issued a General Air Quality

Permit for surface disturbances for the

portions of the Underground Test Area

(UGTA) Project located on NAFR, west of

the NTS. The UGTA Project is a DOE/NV

project for investigating and characterizing

radiological contaminants in groundwater

below areas that were previously used for

nuclear testing. Pads and access roads to 
3-12

the future well sites were installed in 1998, A bypass sewer line for the Area 25 Central

subsequent to issuance of the Permit in Support primary sewage lagoon was

March 1998. Well drilling is expected to constructed in 1997 to provide for

commence in February 1999. operational flexibility and in situ primary

Six air quality operating permits were active effectiveness of biological clogging on the

for emission units at the NLVF, and seven

permits were active for the RSL. These

permits were issued through the Clark

County Health District. Annual renewal is

contingent upon payment of permit fees. 

Permits are amended and revised only if the

situation under which the permit has been

issued changes. For the other non-NTS

operations, no permits have been required,

or the facilities have been exempted. 

During 1998 the Air Pollution Control

Division (APCD) of the Clark County Health

District began requiring an “Emissions

Inventory” submittal for all permitted sources. 

The 1997 Emissions Inventory was submitted

by BN to the APCD on June 30, 1998.

CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)

Dewatering of septage and wintertime

portable toilet waste was conducted in the

Area 25 Engine Test Stand No. 1 sewage 

lagoon and two Area 12 sewage lagoon

secondary infiltration basins during 1998 and

will be used again in 1999.

A total of 12 active septic tank systems is in

service on the NTS. Two of the active

holding tanks, which require replacement

with an approved system, are still in service. 

Nine additional septic tank systems serve

unoccupied buildings, but will remain on

active status until permanently closed. 

Facility Managers have been informed of

deficiencies noted during inspections.

Construction of the Area 23 Infiltration Basin

Groundwater Monitoring Well was completed

on February 27, 1996. The monitoring well

is now functional and in compliance with

groundwater protection requirements

contained in the state general permit

Number GNEV93001. tanks that are currently in use.

lagoon infiltration rate measurements. The

existing soils was determined to be 

inadequate for compliance with the

groundwater protection program, so DOE

requested the use of Administrative Controls

for permit compliance. NDEP agreed, but

during 1998 the Administrative Controls

were exceeded for flow and organic loading. 

DOE is negotiating with NDEP to resolve

this issue. 

Administrative Controls were also agreed to

by NDEP in 1998 for the Area 25 Reactor

Control Point sewage lagoons. These limits

were not exceeded during 1998.

Funding for design of an engineered liner in

the Area 6 DAF primary sewage lagoon was

obtained in FY 1997. The most feasible and

cost effective method to comply with

groundwater protection requirements at this

site was to line the primary lagoon to attain

full containment with existing flow rates. The

liners were installed in 1998 to satisfy the

permit deadline date.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

(SDWA)

Engineering design was completed on

buildings or facilities at the NTS requiring

installation of backflow prevention devices

on water service lines. Through 1997, over

110 separate installations were required.

Additional devices are installed as new

locations are identified.

During 1998, the tank for Army Well No. 1

was replaced along with much of the piping

and four other water tanks were recoated. 

Another six tanks were inspected externally,

and a corrosion expert inspected the inside

surfaces. All six of the tanks need some

work in the near future, and funding has

been requested to begin repairs on the four
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-13

The Operations and Maintenance Manual for prepared for the Resource Management

the NTS water distribution systems is being

updated to incorporate some recent

revisions to state regulations.

There was no sanitary survey of the water

distribution systems by the Nevada Bureau

of Health Protection Services during 1998.

COMPREHENSIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE,

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY

ACT (CERCLA)

Other than the reporting covered in Section

3.1, there is no formal CERCLA program at

the NTS. The FFACO, with the state, may

preclude the NTS from being placed on the

National Priority List. More of a RCRA

approach in remediating environmental

problems will be taken under the FFACO.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Historic preservation studies and surveys

are conducted by the Desert Research

Institute, University and Community College

System of Nevada. In 1998, 16 surveys

were conducted for historic properties on the

NTS, and reports on the findings were

prepared. These surveys identified 19

prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. 

Through consultation with the Nevada State

Historical Preservation Office, one of these

sites was determined to be eligible for the

NRHP. Work continued on historic

structures associated with early NTS

activities. Removal of the EPA Farm in Area

15 required the preparation of Historic

American Building Survey documentation for

the facility. This documentation will reside in

the Library of Congress. 

NRHP archaeological sites located during

the past year were monitored during

construction activities and two reports were

prepared. In addition, as part of the EA for

the Intermodal Transportation Facility,

cultural resources research and fieldwork

resulted in the preparation of sections for the

EA. Cultural Resources maps and text were 

Plan. Also written was a draft Cultural

Resources Management Plan which will be

finalized in 1999.

POLLUTION PREVENTION (P2)

AND WASTE MINIMIZATION

The 1998 pollution prevention (P2), waste

minimization, and recycling efforts for waste

generated at the NTS, NLV, and offsite

locations complied with the requirements of

DOE Order 5400.1, Waste Minimization

Program.

The DOE/NV P2 Program established a

process to reduce the volume and toxicity of

hazardous waste generated at all locations

and to ensure that the proposed method of

treatment or disposal minimizes the present

and future threat to human health and the

environment. 

It is a priority to minimize the generation,

release, and/or disposal of pollutants to the

environment by implementing cost-effective

P2 technologies, practices, and policies in

partnership with government and industry. A

commitment to P2, waste minimization, and

recycling manages operations in such a way

as to minimize impact on the environment,

improve the safety of operations and energy

efficiency, and promote the sustainable use

of natural resources. This commitment

includes providing adequate personnel,

budget, training, and materials on a

continuing basis to ensure source reduction,

recycling, and affirmative procurement goals

are achieved.

Chapter 6 provides a summary of the P2

Program, P2 accomplishments achieved

during CY 1998 including a summary of the

notable activities that achieved reduction in

volume and toxicity of waste, and recycling

activities and quantities.

SOLID/SANITARY WASTE

During 1998, landfills were operated in

Areas 6, 9, and 23. The amount of waste

disposed of in each is shown in Chapter 6.0,

and their operating permits are in Table 3.1.
3-14

The NTS Cleanup Project, initiated in 1994, The CADD may also include a risk

is an activity devised to remove and dispose assessment to better define the risk to

of or recycle, where applicable, humans and the environment. 

nonhazardous debris and material and

readily identify hazardous debris and If a site requires remediation, a Corrective

material. In 1998, some cleanup activities Action Plan (CAP) is prepared that provides

were completed at inactive facilities the necessary design and other information

throughout the NTS. During this cleanup, on the method of remediation. A CAP

solid wastes were disposed of in the U10c includes the proposed methods to be used

Landfill, and reusable materials were to close a site, quality control measures,

delivered to the NTS Salvage Yard for waste management strategy, design

recycling and reclamation. drawings (when appropriate), verification

FEDERAL FACILITIES

AGREEMENT AND CONSENT

ORDER (FFACO)

REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES - SURFACE

AREAS

Environmental restoration activities 

continued at the NTS and TTR in 1998.

These activities followed the agreements

specified in the FFACO signed between the

DOE/NV and the NDEP. 

These activities follow a formal work process

beginning with a Data Quality Objectives

(DQO) meeting between DOE, NDEP, and 

contractors. The purpose of the DQO

meeting is to define the scope of work, how

the site characterization is to be done

(sampling strategy), and to develop the

conceptual model for the site. The

conceptual model defines the nature and 

extent of waste in the subsurface and guides

the investigation. A Corrective Action

Investigation Plan is prepared providing the

information on how the site is to be

characterized. 

Site characterization is carried out and

documented in the Corrective Action

Decision Document (CADD). This report

provides the information that either confirms

the conceptual model or modifies it. If

suitable information is available to make a

decision, a remedial alternative is selected

from several identified for analysis that best

provides site closure. In some instances,

additional site characterization may be

required before the CADD can be prepared.

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 document

provides information on the work performed,

results of verification sampling, as-built

drawings (if appropriate), waste

management, etc.

The NDEP is a participant throughout the

remediation process. The Community

Advisory Board is also kept informed by

DOE/NV of the progress made.

Some small sites are closed under the

Streamlined Approach for Environmental

Restoration (SAFER) process. These sites

typically have small amounts of

contamination and can be remediated by

simple excavation and sampling to verify

that the Remediation Level has been

reached. A SAFER plan is prepared

providing the methods to be used to close

the site. After closure a SAFER closure

report is prepared documenting the work

performed.

Actions taken in 1998 are summarized

below:

 The Area 6 Decontamination Pond RCRA

Closure Unit design and field testing for

the engineered cover was completed in

1998. Closure activities started in 1998

and will be completed in early 1999.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-15

 An annual report was submitted to comply site characterization activities and

with the conditions of the RCRA Part B

Permit for the Area 2 Bitcutter Shop and

LLNL Post Shot Containment Building

Injection Wells RCRA Closure Unit that

were closed in 1996.

 The expedited closure of the Area 15

EPA Farm was completed in October

1997. The facility was decontaminated

and dismantled. Waste disposal and

closure documentation were completed in

1998.

 Closure of the Area 12 Fleet Operations

Steam Cleaning Discharge Area was

completed by excavation and removal of

approximately 61 m (80 yd ) of petroleum 3 3

hydrocarbon soil. A Closure Report was

submitted in 1998. Biennial monitoring

(every two years) for the next six years of

undisturbed impacted areas will be

required to evaluate whether or not

sufficient degradation of the petroleum

hydrocarbons has been demonstrated. 

 Clean closure of the Area 6 Steam

Cleaning Effluent Ponds RCRA Closure

Unit was completed by excavation and

disposal of approximately 413 m (540 3 

yd ) of soil as a RCRA hazardous waste 3

and 535 m (700 yd ) of nonhazardous 3 3

petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soil. 

The Closure Report was prepared and

transmitted to the NDEP for concurrence

during 1998.

 The Area 23 Building 650 Leachfield

RCRA Closure Unit characterization was

completed. The Closure Plan and field

work were completed in 1998.

 The contents of the aboveground tanks

located at the Area 23 Fire Training Pit

were characterized and disposed of as a

RCRA hazardous waste (approximately impacted with pesticides above the EPA

3,000 gal [11.4 m ]). Site debris and 3

materials were sampled for disposal or

reuse. Some materials were removed

from the site and disposed of as

nonhazardous construction debris. The 

additional site debris/material disposal or

reuse were completed in 1998.

 The SAFER Closure Plan for the Area 5

and 6 aboveground tanks was prepared,

completed, and approved by the NDEP. 

Closure activities were completed in

1998.

 Characterization activities were

completed for the TTR Area 3 Landfill

Complex and Area 9 UXO Landfill. The

Corrective Action Decision Document and

Corrective Action Plan were prepared and

transmitted to the NDEP for concurrence

during 1998. Remedial activities and the

Closure Report are planned to be

completed in 1999.

 Characterization of the TTR Second Gas

Station was completed. Based upon the

results, the NDEP has concurred with the

recommended closure in-place of the

petroleum impacted soils. The Closure

Report was prepared and transmitted to

the NDEP for concurrence during 1998.

 Characterization activities were started at

the TTR Building 360 Underground

Discharge Point and Areas 2 and 6 septic

systems. The Corrective Action Decision

Document and Corrective Action Plan

were prepared and transmitted to the

NDEP for concurrence during 1998.

 An expedited closure in-place of the TTR

Roller Coaster Sewage Lagoons and

North Disposal Trench was completed by

constructing an engineered vegetative

cover over the sites. The construction

activities were designed to eliminate the

generation of any waste during the

closure activities since the site was

Preliminary Remediation Goals. The site

is located approximately 56 km (35 mi)

northwest of the NTS. The Closure

Report was prepared and transmitted to

the NDEP for concurrence during 1998.
3-16

 An expedited closure in-place of the TTR percent of the guidelines for Pu in air. 

Cactus Spring Waste Trenches was Drinking water supplies on the NTS 

completed by constructing an engineered contained less than 0.001 percent of the

vegetative cover over the site. The site is DOE Order 5400.5 guideline and less than

also located approximately 56 km (35 mi) 0.004 percent of the National Primary

northwest of the NTS. The Closure Drinking Water Regulation for tritium. All

Report was prepared and transmitted to Pu concentrations in supply well water

the NDEP for concurrence during 1998. samples were less than the MDC.

 An aerial radioactivity survey of the Offsite monitoring in the vicinity of the NTS

Project 57 site was completed. 

Completion of site characterization

activities is planned for 1999. 

 The Building A-1 (Atlas) tritium

decontamination was completed. All

decontaminated areas have been freereleased with the condition that a weekly

long-term monitoring program be

conducted for a least one year. This

monitoring was conducted during 1998.

 There were five Housekeeping Sites

(Corrective Action Units [CAUs] 347, 348,

349, 353, and 354) in the FFACO, at the

NTS, that were cleaned up and had

Closure Reports submitted during 1998.

 There were four underground storage

tank release sites (CAU 452, 454, 456,

and 464) in the FFACO, at the NTS, that

were remediated and had Closure

Reports submitted in 1998.

RADIATION PROTECTION

NTS OPERATIONS

Redesign of the environmental surveillance

networks on the NTS during 1997 will result

in a reduction of monitoring costs while

maintaining necessary and sufficient

coverage. Results of monitoring during

1998 indicated full compliance with the

radiation exposure guidelines of DOE Order

5400.5, "Radiation Protection of the Public

and the Environment", and the Title 40 CFR

141 National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations. Onsite air monitoring results

showed average annual concentrations

ranging from 0.17 percent of the DOE Order

5400.5 guidelines for HTO in air to 1.2

239+240

239+240

by EPA’s Radiation & Indoor Environments

National Laboratory-Las Vegas confirmed

that emission of radioactivity from the NTS

did not exceed 1 percent of the guideline set

forth in Title 40 CFR 61, Subpart H (CFR

1989).

NON-NTS BN OPERATIONS

Results of environmental monitoring at the

off-NTS operations performing radiological

work during 1998 indicate full compliance

with the radiation exposure guidelines of

DOE Order 5400.5 and Title 10 CFR 835. 

No radioactive or nonradioactive surface

water/liquid discharges, subsurface

discharges through leaching, leaking, or

seepage into the soil column, well disposal,

or burial occurred at any of the BN

operations. Use of radioactive materials is 

primarily limited to sealed sources; however,

unsealed tritium is used in some operations. 

Facilities, which use radioactive sources or

radiation producing equipment, with the

potential to expose the general population

outside the property line to direct radiation,

are the WAMO in Washington, D.C., the

Atlas NLVF A-1 Source Range, and the STL

during the operation of the sealed tube

neutron generator or during operation of the

Febetron. Sealed sources are tested every

six months to ensure there is no leakage of 

radioactive material. Operation of any

radiation generating devices is controlled by

BN procedures. At least two TLDs are at the

fence line on each side of these facilities

that are exchanged quarterly with additional

control TLDs kept in a shielded safe. The

TLD results were consistent with previous

data indicating no exposures to the public

from any of the monitored facilities.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-17

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

AUDITS

There were no such audits in 1998.

OCCURRENCE REPORTING

Occurrences are environmental, health,

and/or safety-related tests, which are

reported in several categories in accordance

with the requirements of DOE Order

O232.1A, "Occurrence Reporting and

Processing of Operations Information," 

(DOE, 1997b). The fourteen reportable

environmental occurrences for 1998 on NTS

facilities appear in Table 3.2. 

LEGAL ACTIONS

No legal actions were filed against DOE/NV

during 1998.

3.4 PERMIT SUMMARY

For facilities used in the operation and

maintenance of the NTS and non-NTS

facilities, the contractors providing such

operation and support activities for the

DOE/NV have been granted numerous

permits by the appropriate regulatory

authorities. To facilitate management of

environmental compliance and save costs,

several operating permits have been

combined into general permits. This

reduced the number of permits, but all

facilities remain regulated and permitted. In

addition to the existing number of permits in

1998 (Table 3.1), the EOD Facility and the

Area 5 Storage Facility of the RCRA Part B

permit application were permitted, while the

other units in the application are in various

stages of the NDEP review for permission to

construct or operate. The TaDD facility was

also granted a RCRA Research and

Development permit in 1988 under the same

NTS generator number.
3-18

Table 3.1 Environmental Permit Summary - 1998

Air Drinking Waste Generator Materials 

Pollution Wastewater Water Disposal User IDs Storage Permit 

Number of

EPA Hazardous

NTS 6 8 7 4 1 4 

(a)

NAFR 3Las Vegas AreaOperations Office 13 1 1 2 (b) (a)Livermore Operations

1 1

Los AlamosOperations 1Special TechnologiesLaboratory (SantaBarbara) 2 2 1 TOTAL 23 11 7 4 6 7 

(a) Biennial Report Required.(b) Routine Monitoring of Emissions is Not Required.
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY

3-19

Table 3.2 Off-Normal Occurrences at NTS Facilities - 1998

Date Report Number Description Status

03/09/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- Ten gallons of diesel fuel leaked out of a parked Open

1998-0004 truck over the weekend at Sandia Warehouse

in Area 23.

04/09/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- Technician violated Contaminated Area Open

1998-0007 posting while collected soil sample In Area 3.

04/09/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- Worker violated Contaminated Area Open

1998-0006 posting placing an air sampling unit

in a contaminated area without having a 

Radiological Work Permit.

06/15/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- NTS Weather Service personnel service Complete

1998-0010 a portable weather station that had been 

incorrectly placed in a posted Contamination Area.

06/30/1998 NVOO-BNLV-MSRS- DOE/NV violated Contaminated Area posting by Open

1998-0001 entering remediation area at Building 650

leachfield in Area 23.

06/30/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- BN electrician violated Contaminated Area Complete

1998-0014 posting by entering remediation area at Building

 650 leachfield in Area 23.

07/09/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- Window of a glove box at the Waste Examination Open

1998-0015 Facility in Area 5 was broken while the lid from 

a drum of Transuranic waste was being removed. 

07/27/1998 NVOO-BNLV-MSRS- Worker at the Waste Examination Facility Open

1998-0002 received a radiological puncture wound when a 

broken pair of forceps penetrated his glove while 

working in a glove box.

07/29/1998 NVOO-BNLV-MSRS- BN teamster violated Contaminated Area posting Open

1998-0003 by entering remediation area at Building 650 

leachfield in Area 23.

08/12/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- Historical diesel fuel spill discovered in soil near Open

1998-0019 fill port of underground storage tank at CP-9 

in Area 6 during tank removal.

08/17/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- Historical diesel fuel leak discovered in soil under Open

1998-0020 an aboveground storage tank being removed at the 

Area 25 Engine Test Stand.

08/17/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- About 100 gallons of sodium hydroxide was Open

1998-0021 released when a storage tank being removed 

at the Area 25 Engine Test Stand fell over.
3-20

Table 3.2 (Off-Normal Occurrences at NTS Facilities - 1998, cont.)

Date Report Number Description Status

08/26/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- Historical leak of sulfuric acid discovered under Open

1998-0023 an aboveground storage tank being removed at 

the Area 25 Engine Test Stand.

08/27/1998 NVOO-BNLV-NTS- A subcontractor violated Contaminated Area Open

1998-0024 posting by entering remediation area at 

the Building 650 leachfield in Area 23.
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-1

4.0 AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

The air surveillance activities consist of monitoring and compliance

programs for the Nevada Test Site (NTS), near offsite areas, and support

facilities. These activities include radiological and nonradiological

monitoring and environmental permit and operations compliance. There are

both onsite and offsite radiological monitoring programs associated with the

NTS. The onsite program is conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN), the

operations and maintenance contractor for the NTS. BN is responsible for

NTS air surveillance, effluent monitoring, and ambient gamma radiation

monitoring. The offsite air and ambient gamma radiation monitoring

program is conducted by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA's) Center for Environmental Restoration, Monitoring and Emergency

Response of the Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory in

Las Vegas, Nevada (R&IE-LV). Non-radiological air monitoring is primarily

for permit compliance.

4.1 ONSITE RADIOLOGICAL

MONITORING

At the NTS, radiological effluents may

originate from tunnels, underground

test sites (at or near surface ground

zeros), radiological waste disposal sites, 

resuspension of surface deposits, and 

facilities where radioactive materials are

either used or processed. All of these

sources have the potential to, or are known

to, discharge radioactive effluents into the

environment. Two types of monitoring

operations are used for these sources: 

(1) effluent monitoring, which measures

radioactive material collected at the point of

discharge; and (2) environmental

surveillance, which measures radioactivity in

the general environment.

Table 4.1 is a summary of the routine air

surveillance program, as of the end of 1998.

Air sampling was conducted for radioactive

particulates and tritiated water (HTO) vapor. 

The air sampling locations are shown in

Figure 4.1, and Figure 4.2 shows the

locations where ambient gamma radiation

monitoring is conducted on the NTS using

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs). Due

to the moratorium on nuclear testing and the

lack of above background levels of 

radioactive noble gases, sampling for those

gases was terminated at the beginning of

this year. 

CRITERIA

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)

Part 50, “National Primary and Secondary

Ambient Air Quality Standards” (CFR 1971) 

and Title 40 CFR 61,“National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,”

Subpart H, “Emission of Radionuclides Other

Than Radon from Department of Energy

Facilities” (CFR 1989) issued by the EPA are

the primary drivers for air monitoring

programs. In turn, the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) published DOE Order 5400.1,

"General Environmental Protection

Program," (DOE 1990a), which establishes

environmental protection program

requirements, authorities, and

responsibilities for DOE operations. These

mandates require compliance with

applicable federal, state, and local

environmental protection regulations. Other

DOE directives applicable to environmental

monitoring include DOE Order 5480.11,

"Radiation Protection for Occupational

Workers" (DOE 1990d), DOE Order

5480.1B, "Environment, Safety, and Health

Program for DOE Operations" (DOE 1990c);

DOE Order 5484.1, "Environmental

Protection, Safety, and Health Protection
Figure 4.1 Air Sampling Stations on the NTS - 1998

4-2

5

23

22

19

2

16

17

8

6

26

27

7

12 15

25

5
Figure 4.2 TLD Stations on the NTS - 1998

4-3

Boundary TLD Stations

5

23

22

19

2

16

17

8

6

26

27

7

12 15

25

TLD Stations

AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
4-4

Information Reporting Requirements" air to monitor for radioactive material

(DOE 1990e); DOE Order 5400.5, 

"Radiation Protection of the Public and the

Environment" (DOE 1990b); and 

DOE/EH-0173T, "Environmental Regulatory

Guide for Radiological Effluent Monitoring

and Environmental Surveillance" 

(DOE 1991c).

AIRBORNE EFFLUENT

MONITORING

Airborne radioactive effluents are the

emissions on the NTS with the greatest

potential for reaching members of the public. 

For all activities on the NTS, the estimated

effective dose equivalent to any member of

the public offsite from all airborne emissions

continues to be much less than one mrem/yr

(<10 percent of the guideline) (Black 1999). 

Compliance with the regulations listed above

requires periodic measurements of effluents

to confirm the low emission levels. The

estimated effluents for 1998 are shown in

Table 4.5 and include measured and

calculated effluents, evaporated liquids, and

resuspension of contaminated soils.

An increase in efforts to monitor radioactive

air emissions at the NTS began in November

1988 as a result of requirements in DOE

Order 5400.1. Known and potential effluent

sources throughout the NTS were assessed

for their potential to contribute to public dose

and were considered in designing the “Site

Effluent Monitoring Plan”, which forms part

of the “Environmental Monitoring Plan,

Nevada Test Site and Support Facilities”

published in November 1991 (DOE 1991b). holder that faced downward at a height of

This plan was updated in 1992 and 1993,

but has been superseded by a “Routine

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan”

(DOE 1998a).

ENVIRONMENTAL

SURVEILLANCE

Air surveillance was conducted onsite

throughout the NTS. Equipment at fixed

locations continuously sampled the ambient

content. Ambient gamma exposures were

measured with TLDs placed at fixed

locations.

AIR MONITORING

The air surveillance program operated

samplers that were designed to detect

airborne radioactive particles, and H, as 3

water vapor in the form of H HO or HHO. 3 3 3

The air sampling units used to measure

radioactive particulates were operated at 32

stations on the NTS (Figure 4.1) and five on

the Nellis Air Force Range (NAFR) during

1998. These stations included 10 at

radioactive waste management facilities. 

Access, worker population, geographical

coverage, presence of radioactivity, and

availability of electrical power were

considerations in site selection for air

samplers. During 1996, air samplers

powered by solar photovoltaic/ battery

systems were acquired for operation in

contaminated areas where commercial

power was not available and were in use at

many locations during 1998.

An air sampling unit consisted of a constant

volume pump drawing approximately 85

L/min (3 cfm) of air through a 9-cm (3.5-in)

diameter Whatman GF/A glass-fiber filter

that trapped air particulates. Due to the

moratorium on nuclear explosives testing,

charcoal cartridges are no longer used in the

air sampler. The particulate filter was

mounted in a plastic, cone-shaped sample

1.5 m (5 ft) above ground. A run-time clock

measured the operating time. The time on

the clock, multiplied by 85 L/min yields the

volume of air sampled, which was about 

860 m (30,000 ft ) during the typical 3 3

seven-day sampling period.

The filters were analyzed for gross alpha,

gross beta, and for gamma-emitting

radionuclides until April when gamma

spectroscopy of weekly air filters was
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-5

discontinued. The filters from four weeks of several adjustments to the network, the total

sampling were composited and then

analyzed for plutonium isotopes. Beginning

in April, these filter composites were also

analyzed by gamma spectroscopy.

Airborne HTO vapor was monitored at 13

locations throughout the NTS. For this

monitoring, a pump continuously drew air

into the sampler at approximately 0.4 L/min,

the total volume being measured with a drygas meter. The HTO vapor was removed

from the air stream by a silica-gel drying

column followed by a Drierite column for

detection of breakthrough. These columns

were exchanged biweekly. Beginning in

June of 1998, the silica gel desiccant was

replaced with molecular sieve, which is more

efficient for the collection of HTO in

atmospheric moisture.

The analytical procedures used on all these

air samples are summarized in Table 4.2.

AMBIENT GAMMA MONITORING

Ambient gamma monitoring was conducted

at 106 stations on the NTS (Figure 4.2) by

use of TLDs. The dosimeter used was the

Panasonic UD-814AS environmental

dosimeter, consisting of four elements

housed in an air-tight, water-tight,

ultraviolet-light-protected case. One

element, made of lithium borate, was only

slightly shielded in order to measure lowenergy radiation. The other three elements,

made of calcium sulfate, were shielded by

1,000 mg/cm of plastic and lead and were 2

used to monitor penetrating gamma

radiation. TLDs were deployed in a holder

placed about one meter above the ground

and were exchanged quarterly. Locations

were chosen at the site boundary, at

locations where historical monitoring has

occurred, or where operations or ground

contamination have occurred.

The TLD network at the NTS in 1998 began

with 102 TLDs at fixed locations. During the

year, TLDs were used at a total of 106

locations. At the end of the year, after information, and community assistance.

number of stations was reduced to 85.

WASTE MANAGEMENT SITE 

MONITORING

Environmental surveillance on the NTS

included monitoring of the radioactive waste

management sites (RWMSs). These sites

are used for the disposal of low-level

radioactive waste from the NTS and other

DOE facilities. Shallow-land disposal in

trenches and pits was done at the Area 5

RWMS (RWMS-5) and in subsidence craters

at the Area 3 RWMS (RWMS-3).

There were 6 air particulate sampling

stations, 6 HTO vapor sampling stations,

and 25 TLD stations placed inside and

around RWMS-5 at the beginning of 1998. 

During the year, it was determined from site

specific data that the number of HTO

sampling stations and TLD stations could be

reduced to four and ten, respectively. 

At the beginning of 1998, monitoring at

RWMS-3 included two air particulate

sampling stations, one HTO vapor sampling

station, and four TLD stations. During the

year, the air particulate sampling stations

were increased to four, with the addition of

two stations at U-3bh. The number of TLD

stations was increased to five, and the HTO

station was removed.

4.2 OFFSITE RADIOLOGICAL

MONITORING

Under the terms of an Interagency

Agreement between DOE and EPA’s Office

of Radiation and Indoor Air, the R&IE-LV

conducts an Offsite Radiation Safety

Program (ORSP) around the NTS. The

primary activity of the ORSP is routine

monitoring of potential human exposure

pathways. Secondary activities include

maintaining readiness to monitor during

nuclear testing, emergency response, public
4-6

Maintaining readiness was exercised during The ASN is currently designed to monitor

three subcritical experiments conducted in the areas within approximately 130 km 

1998, STAGECOACH, BAGPIPE, and (80 mi) of the NTS. During calendar year

CIMARRON. For each of the experiments, (CY) 1998 the ASN consisted of 18

R&IE-LV senior personnel served on the continuously operating sampling stations 

Test Controller's Scientific Advisory Panel (an additional station was activated in the

and on the EPA offsite radiological safety third quarter). High-volume air samplers

staff. were operational at six of the stations. The

Routine offsite environmental monitoring for Station location depends in part on the

compliance with National Emission availability of electrical power and a resident

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants willing to operate the equipment.

(NESHAPs) and with DOE orders 5400.1

and 5400.5 continued throughout 1998. The low-volume air samplers at each station

Environmental monitoring networks,

described in this and following Chapters,

measure radioactivity in air (this chapter),

groundwater (Chapter 5), and milk 

(Chapter 6). These networks monitor the

major potential pathways for transfer of

radionuclides to man. Ambient gamma

radiation levels are monitored using ReuterStokes pressurized ion chambers (PICs) and

Panasonic TLDs. Data from these networks

are used to calculate an annual exposure to

the offsite residents. 

The Community Technical Liaison Program

(CTLP) stations continued to operate in 17

communities around the NTS. The CTLP

stations are managed by local residents and

contain air samplers, PICs, and TLDs. The

Desert Research Institute (DRI), University

and Community College System of Nevada,

is a cooperator with R&IE-LV in the CTLP.

AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORK

(ASN)

The inhalation of radioactive airborne

particles can be a major pathway for human

exposure to radiation. The atmospheric

monitoring networks are designed to detect

environmental radioactivity from both NTS

and non-NTS activities. Data from

atmospheric monitoring can be used to

determine the concentration and source of

airborne radioactivity and to project the

fallout patterns and durations of exposure to

man. isotopes using wet chemistry methods. 

current network is shown in Figure 4.3. 

are equipped to collect particulate

radionuclides on 5-cm (2.0-in) diameter

glass-fiber filters at a flow rate of about 80

m (2,800 ft ) per day. Filters are changed 3 3

weekly (approximately 560 m or 20,000 ft 3 3

of air sampled). Activated charcoal

cartridges placed directly behind the filters to

collect gaseous radioiodine are changed at 

the same time as the glass-fiber filters. 

High-volume air samplers collect particulates

on 20 x 25 cm (8 x 10 in) glass-fiber filters at

a flow rate of approximately 1,600 m3

(58,000 ft ) per day. High-volume samples 3

are collected monthly (approximately 

48,000 m , or 1.7 million ft of air sampled). 3 3

Duplicate air samples are collected from two

routine ASN stations each week. The

duplicate samplers are operated at randomly

selected stations for three months and then

moved to new locations. One duplicate 

high-volume sampler is operated in the

same manner as the duplicate low-volume

samplers. 

At the R&IE-LV, both the glass-fiber filters

and the charcoal cartridges from low-volume

samplers are analyzed by high-resolution

gamma spectrometry. Each of the glassfiber filters is then analyzed for gross alpha

and gross beta activity 7 to 14 days after

sample collection to allow time for the decay

of naturally occurring radon progeny. Filters

from high-volume air samplers are analyzed

using high-resolution gamma spectrometry

and are then analyzed for plutonium
SALT

LAKE

Twin

Springs Rn.

Indian Springs

UTAH

ARIZONA

St. George

Overton

Alamo

Rachel

Furnace Creek

PYRAMID

LAKE

Goldfield

Tonopah

Milford

Cedar City

CALIFORNIA

Delta

NEVADA

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles

0

0

50 100

50 100 150

Pahrump

Amargosa Valley

Stone

Cabin Rn.

Medlins Rn.

PIC Station (6)

CTLP (PIC & TLD Only) (1)

Beatty

LAKE MEAD

Complex I

Uhalde

Nyala

CaIiente

Las Vegas

Pioche

NELLIS AIR

FORCE RANGE

CTLP (Lo-Volume Air, PIC, TLD) (10)

CTLP + Hi-Volume Air Sampler (6)

Lo-Volume Air Sampler & PIC (3)

Terrells Rn.

NEVADA

TEST

SITE

Note: Real time data transmittal.

Henderson

Boulder City

Figure 4.3 CTLP, PIC, and Air Sampling Locations Around the NTS - 1998

4-7

AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
4-8

THERMOLUMINESCENT

DOSIMETRY (TLD) NETWORK

An essential component of environmental

radiological assessments is external 

dosimetry, which is used to determine both

individual and population exposure to

ambient radiation, natural or otherwise.

The primary purpose of EPA’s offsite

environmental dosimetry program is to

establish dose estimates to populations

living in the areas surrounding the NTS. 

Panasonic Model UD-814 TLDs are used for

environmental monitoring. The UD-814

consists of one element of Li B O :Cu and 24 7

three elements of CaSO :Tm phosphors. 4

The CaSO :Tm elements are behind a filter 4

of approximately 1,000 mg/cm . An average 2

of the corrected values for the latter three

elements gives the total exposure for each

TLD. For quality assurance purposes, two

UD-814 TLDs are deployed at each fixed

environmental station location. The TLDs

are exchanged quarterly.

In addition to a fixed environmental TLD,

EPA deploys personnel TLDs to individual 

volunteers, predominantly CTLP station

managers and their alternates, living in

areas surrounding the NTS. 

Panasonic Model UD-802 TLDs are used for

personnel monitoring. The UD-802 consists

of two elements, each of Li B O :Cu and 24 7

CaSO :Tm phosphors. The phosphors are 4

behind filters of approximately 17,300,300

and 1,000 mg/cm respectively. With the 2

use of different phosphors and filtrations, a

dose algorithm can be applied to ratios of

the different element responses. This

process defines the radiation type and

energy and provides data for assessing an

absorbed dose equivalent to the

participating individuals. These TLDs are

also exchanged quarterly.

An average daily exposure rate was

calculated for each quarterly exposure

period and the average of the four values

was multiplied by 365.25 to obtain the total

annual exposure for a station.

In 1998, the TLD program consisted of 39

fixed environmental monitoring stations and

18 offsite personnel. Figure 4.4 shows the 

fixed environmental TLD monitoring stations

and the location of personnel monitoring

participants.

PRESSURIZED ION CHAMBER

(PIC) NETWORK

The PIC network uses Reuter-Stokes

models 1011, 1012, and 1013 PICs. The

PIC is a spherical shell filled with argon gas

at 25 times atmospheric pressure. In the

center of the shell is a spherical electrode

with an electrical charge opposite to the

shell. When gamma radiation penetrates the

sphere, ionization of the gas occurs and the

negative ions are collected by the center

electrode. The current generated is

proportional to the radiation exposure.

The PIC measures gamma radiation

exposure rates and because of its

sensitivity, may detect low-level exposures

not detected by other monitoring methods. 

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 naturally differ among locations as

they may change with altitudes (cosmic

radiation), with radioactivity in the soil

(terrestrial radiation), and may vary slightly

within a location due to weather patterns.

Seventeen PICs are located at the CTLP

stations in communities around the NTS,

and ten PICs are located at ranches and

other non-CTLP locations, including the

SALMON test site in Mississippi. 

Meteorological data are collected from

stations in Las Vegas, Boulder City,

Henderson, and Mississippi. The locations

of the PIC stations around the NTS are

shown in Figure 4.3. 
Personnel (18)

Stations (38)

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles

0

0

50 100

50 100 150

Delta

Provo

Bishop

LAKE

TAHOE

WALKER

LAKE

MONO

LAKE

UTAH

ARIZONA

PYRAMID

LAKE

Elko

Reno

CALIFORNIA

Wells

Winnemucca

Tonopah

Milford

CALIFORNIA

Salt

Lake

City

NEVADA

NEVADA

TEST

SITE

Barstow

LAKE MEAD

Las

Vegas

Boulder City

80 80 93

15 395

395

95

50

6

56

93

50

93

95

St.

George

Ely

Beatty

NELLIS AIR

FORCE RANGE

Henderson

SALT

LAKE

Alamo

Figure 4.4 Locations of Offsite Station and Personnel TLDs - 1998

4-9

AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
4-10

From October 1997 to August 1998, PIC located at all stations. All of the equipment

data for all stations were recorded on

magnetic tape, a memory data cartridge, or

strip charts. The stations immediately

adjacent to the NTS were visited weekly and

other stations monthly to retrieve data. In

August 1998, satellite telemetry data

transfer was restored to the 17 CTLP

stations in Nevada and the station in

Mississippi. These data are displayed in

near real-time on the Los Alamos National

Laboratory NEWNET web page that is

updated automatically. Data from the

remaining stations continued to be gathered

by non-telemetry means.

COMMUNITY TECHNICAL LIAISON

PROGRAM (CTLP)

Because of the successful experience 

with the Citizen's Monitoring Program during

the purging of the Three Mile Island

containment in 1980, the Community

Radiation Monitoring Program (CRMP) was

begun. Due to reductions in the scope of

monitoring, the CRMP was converted to the

CTLP, which now consists of stations

located in Nevada and Utah. In 1998, there

were 17 stations located in these two states. 

The CTLP is a cooperative project of the

DOE, EPA, and DRI. DOE/NV sponsors the

program. The EPA provides technical and

scientific direction, maintains the

instrumentation and sampling equipment,

analyzes the collected samples, interprets

the data and sends reports to DRI. DRI

administers the program by hiring the local

station managers and alternates, securing

rights-of-way, providing utilities, distributing

data reports, and performing additional

quality assurance checks of the data. The

locations of the CTLP stations are shown in

Figure 4.3.

Each station is operated by a local resident. 

In most cases, this resident is a high-school

science teacher. All of the 17 CTLP stations

had one of the samplers for the ASN and the

Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance 

Network, on either routine or standby status,

and a TLD. In addition, a PIC and recorder

for immediate readout of external gamma

exposure and a recording barograph are 

is mounted on a stand at a prominent

location in each community so the residents

can become aware of the surveillance and, if

interested, can check the data. 

4.3 NONRADIOLOGICAL

MONITORING

The 1998 nonradiological monitoring

program for the NTS included onsite

sampling of various environmental media

and substances for compliance with federal

and state regulations or permits and for

ecological studies as discussed in Chapters

5 and 6. Air quality monitoring is not

required for the NTS. The air permits issued

by the state of Nevada do require opacity

and material throughput measurements. 

Nonradiological monitoring was conducted

for six series of tests conducted at the

Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC) on

the NTS.

MONITORING OF NTS

OPERATIONS

ROUTINE MONITORING

As there were no industrial-type production

facility operations on the NTS, there was no

significant production of nonradiological air

emissions or liquid discharges to the

environment. Sources of potential

contaminants were limited to construction

support and NTS operational activities. 

These included motor pool facilities; large

equipment and drill rig maintenance areas;

cleaning, warehousing, and supply facilities;

and general worker support facilities

(including lodging and administrative offices)

in the Mercury Base Camp, Area 12 Camp,

and to a lesser extent in Area 20 and the

NTS Control Point (CP) Complex in Area 6.

The HSC in Area 5 is a source of potential

release of nonradiological contaminants to

the environment, depending on the individual

tests conducted. In 1998, the six test series

conducted there, involved 23 different

chemicals.
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-11

Routine nonradiological environmental The inspection included an examination of

monitoring on the NTS in 1998 was limited to

Nevada operating permit requirements, and

asbestos sampling in conjunction with

asbestos removal and renovation projects

and in accordance with occupational safety

and NESHAP compliance. 

NTS AIR QUALITY PERMIT

COMPLIANCE

Compliance with air quality permits is

accomplished through permit reporting and

renewals, and ongoing verification of

operational compliance with permit specified

limitations. Common air pollution sources at

the NTS include aggregate production,

stemming activities, surface disturbances,

fugitive dust from unpaved roads, fuel

burning equipment, open burning, and fuel

storage facilities. The 1997 Air Quality 

Permit Data Report was sent to the state of

Nevada on January 28, 1998. During 1997,

approximately 30 tons of pollutants were

emitted from operations at the NTS. This

report includes aggregate production,

operating hours of permitted equipment, and

a report of all surface disturbances of five

acres or greater.

NTS air quality permits limit particulate

emissions to 20 percent opacity, except at

the Area 1 Aggregate Plant, where the limit

is 10 percent. Certification of personnel to

perform valid visible emission opacity

evaluations is required by the state, with

recertification required every six months. 

During 1998, one employee of BN’s

Environmental Compliance Department was

recertified. In 1998, several visible emission

evaluations of permitted air quality point

sources were conducted. When visual

evaluations determine that an emission

exceeds the opacity requirement, corrective

action is initiated. The opacity limit was

exceeded only once in 1998, at the Area 1

Aggregate Plant. Corrective action was not

required.

One inspection of facilities regulated under

the NTS Class II Air Quality Operating

Permit was conducted in 1998 by the state. LO, LAO, or WAMO facilities in 1998.

facilities in Areas 1, 6, 12, and 23. There

were no findings reported as a result of

these inspections.

OFFSITE MONITORING

The HSC was established in Frenchman Flat

in Area 5 as a basic research tool for

studying the dynamics of accidental

releases of various hazardous materials and

the effectiveness of mitigation procedures. 

At the beginning of each HSC test series,

and, at other tests in the series depending

on projected need, a field monitoring

technician from the EPA with appropriate air

sampling equipment is deployed downwind

of the test at the NTS boundary to measure

chemical concentrations that may have

reached the offsite area. No such

monitoring occurred in 1998.

NON-NTS FACILITY MONITORING

Under normal conditions, the operations at

the six non-NTS facilities operated by BN for

DOE/NV do not produce radioactive

effluents. The six are, (1) the North Las

Vegas Facility (NLVF), (2) the Remote

Sensing Laboratory (RSL), (3) the Special

Technologies Laboratory (STL), (4)

Livermore Operations (LO), (5) Los Alamos

Operations (LAO), and (6) Washington

Aerial Measurements Operations (WAMO).

AIR QUALITY PERMITS

The permits required for 1998 are listed in

Table 4.3. The permits required for the NTS

in 1998 for non-NTS facilities that support

the work of DOE/NV are listed in Table 4.4.

Thirteen air quality operating permits, issued

by the Clark County Health District in Las

Vegas, Nevada, were required for operations

at the NLVF and the RSL during 1998. 

There were no effluent monitoring

requirements associated with these permits.

No air permits were held or required for the
4-12

4.4 AIR SURVEILLANCE

PROGRAM RESULTS

ONSITE RADIOLOGICAL

MONITORING

AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS

During 1998, effluent monitoring at the NTS

involved several operational facilities and

some inactive locations. Due to the

continuation of the moratorium on nuclear

testing throughout 1998, effluent monitoring

for nuclear tests was not required. The

results of other effluent monitoring,

calculated or measured, are set forth in

Table 4.5. The total curies of radioactivity

included in Table 4.5 are more than that

reported in the 1997 Annual Site

Environmental Report because of higher

tritium effluents.

AIR SAMPLING RESULTS

GROSS ALPHA

The annual average gross alpha results for

each air sampling station are shown in Table

4.6. The annual average for the network

was 1.8 x 10 μCi/mL (67 μBq/m ), which -15 3

was the same as the median minimum

detectable concentration (MDC). This

average was slightly higher than the 1997

value. The samples from the NAFR were all

higher than the NTS average at 2.2 x 10-15

μCi/mL (81 μBq/m ). 3

The samples collected from the air samplers

at the low-level radioactive waste disposal

facility in RWMS-3 and in RWMS-5 had

gross alpha levels slightly above the NTS

average. Previous investigations have not

discovered the source for gross alpha

radioactivity in air. 

GROSS BETA

The annual average gross beta results for

each air sampling station are shown in

Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 indicates the

distribution of this radioactivity. The NTS

average this year at 1.9 x 10 μCi/mL -14

(0.70 mBq/m ) was slightly lower than the 3

1997 value. The air samples from the NAFR

had about the same average value. This is

consistent with the results for the past few

years. The basic data are in Table 4.6. 

Figure 4.7 depicts the trend in concentration

for the past few years (a much longer trend

is shown in Figure 1.1, Chapter 1), but

expressed as percent DCG (Derived

Concentration Guide), set by the EPA as 10

mrem per year for inhaled radioactivity. 

Note that the levels are only about 2 percent

of the DCG. This guide is for public

exposure and is based on Sr, once a 90

common beta-emitting isotope is in the

environment. 

Air samples from both RWMS-3 and 

RWMS-5 had average gross beta levels that

were slightly higher than the NTS average.

PLUTONIUM

The annual average Pu result of 238

8.6 x 10 μCi/mL (32 nBq/m ) is less than -19 3

the median MDC for this isotope and less

than the 1997 average. The results from the

NAFR were about half that. None of the 42

stations had results greater than the MDC. 

The annual averages for Pu and for 238

Pu are also included in Table 4.6. 239+240

The Pu network aver 239+240 age of 2.5 x 10 -17

μCi/mL (0.9 μBq/m ) was about seven times 3

the MDC but was less than the 1997

average value. To indicate the distribution

of this nuclide over the NTS, the annual

average concentration for each station is

plotted in Figure 4.8 (see Figure 4.6 for

RWMS-5). The highest annual average

concentration was for Area 9 9-300, 

2.2 x 10 μCi/mL. Of the NAFR samples, -16

the set from CLEAN SLATE I had the

highest concentration of any station offsite,

perhaps because of cleanup activities at that

location in the summer of 1998. The trend

of the NTS site-wide Pu concentration 239+240
Figure 4.5 Annual Average Gross Beta from Air Sampling - 1998

4-13

Annual Average Concentrations

in

4.6

(10 Ci/mL)

-14

μ

5

23

22

19

2

16

17

8

6

26

27

7

3

12 15

25

AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
0.08

2.2

1.5

2.0

Annual Average HTO in Air (10 pCi/mL Air) -6

2.1 5.8

TRU Pad Building 0.11

0.06

14

2.0

5

Annual Average Gross Beta

Annual Average Pu 239+240

Note: Atmospheric Gross Beta Concentration

on the NTS as a percent dose (based on

Strontium-90) to members of the public

assuming they could live onsite all year.

-1

0

1

2

100

10

1

10

10

10

10

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Calendar Year

% Concentration Guide

Percent DCG

(10 Ci/mL) -17

μ

(10 Ci/mL) -14

μ

2.1

2.1

Figure 4.6 Air Monitoring Results for RWMS-5 - 1998

Figure 4.7 Trend in Annual Average Gross Beta Concentration in Air on the NTS

4-14
Figure 4.8 Annual Average Pu in Air on the NTS - 1998

239+240

4-15

5

23

22

19

2

16

17

8

6

26

27

7

3

12 15

25

Annual Average Concentrations

in (10 Ci/mL)

-17

μ

4.6

AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
4-16

with time for the past few years is shown on data plotted in Figure 4.10 are the network

Figure 4.9. There the data are plotted as a average concentration of HTO in each year

percent of the DCG for the general expressed as a percent of the DCG for the

population as was done for the gross beta general offsite population. There has been a

data above. The peak in the curve in 1992 slight downward trend over the period

was due to increased concentrations in Area plotted, until this year (1998); however, all

3 during the summer, probably related to values are less than 2 percent of the DCG.

increased vehicular travel and construction

activities. TREND AT THE WASTE MANAGEMENT

Air samples from RWMS-3 generally have

concentrations of plutonium above the NTS

average, while those from RWMS-5 are

generally lower than the NTS average. 

However this year, one of the four RWMS-5

locations was above the NTS average.

GAMMA

Gamma spectral analyses of the glass-fiber

filters indicated only naturally occurring 

radioactive materials. The predominant one

was Be formed by cosmic ray interaction 7

with nitrogen in the atmosphere. The annual

average values for this isotope are shown in

Table 4.6 and the NTS average of 

1.8 x 10 μCi/mL (6.7 mBq/m ) is similar to -13 3

the value for 1997. The concentrations in

samples from the NAFR was slightly smaller

at 1.7 x 10 μCi/mL (6.3 mBq/m ). -13 3

Concentrations of Be in air samples from 7

both RWMS-3 and RWMS-5 were about 6

percent higher than the NTS average value.

The reason for this increase is unknown.

TRITIATED WATER VAPOR (HTO)

The annual average value for the 13 stations

in this network was 17 x 10 pCi/mL -6

(0.6 Bq/m ). This concentration is higher 3

than it was in 1997 due to higher

concentrations in 1998 at RWMS northeast,

at the Decon Pad, and at SCHOONER 

(a new location added this year). The

highest average was at SCHOONER and

was 1.4 x 10 pCi/mL. The other locations -4

which had annual averages above the median

MDC were EPA Farm, SEDAN crater, and E

Tunnel Pond 2. All of the data are displayed

in Table 4.7 and are plotted as a trend over

the last several years in Figure 4.10. The

SITES

The trends in air concentrations of HTO in

atmospheric moisture and plutonium at 

RWMS-3 and RWMS-5 are set forth in 

Tables 4.8 and 4.9, respectively. There

appears to be a trend of decreasing Pu 239+240

and HTO concentration at RWMS-5 but not

at RWMS-3. No average for HTO is shown

for RWMS-3, because that sampling was

terminated at the beginning of this year. The

annual average HTO concentrations have

been less than the median MDC for several

years at RWMS-3.

ONSITE TLD RESULTS

The 1998 average exposure for the 14

boundary monitoring stations was 119

mR/year, essentially the same as the

average value of 127 mR/yr for these

stations in 1997 (see Table 4.10). Also, 

the 1998 average exposure for the nine

historically monitored stations was 0.24

mR/day (88 mR/yr), as shown in Table 4.11. 

The results for these stations for the last five

years have been almost identical. 

Both sets of results indicate that external

radiation measured by TLDs has not

changed to any measurable extent, at least

for the last few years.

OFFSITE RADIOLOGICAL

RESULTS

AIR SAMPLING RESULTS

The ASN measures the major radionuclides

which could potentially be emitted from

activities on the NTS, as well as naturally

occurring radionuclides. The ASN

represents the possible inhalation exposure

pathway for the general public. 
100

1000

10

10 1

0

10

1

10

2

10

3

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Calendar Year

% Concentration Guide

Note: Atmospheric Plutonium Concentration

on the NTS as a percent dose to members

of the public assuming they could live

onsite all year.

Percent DCG

Note: Atmospheric Tritium Concentration

on the NTS as a percent dose to members

of the public assuming they could live

onsite all year.

Calendar Year

% Concentration Guide

Percent DCG

100

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

10

-2

10

-1

10

0

10

1

10

2

10

1

0.1

0.01

Figure 4.9 Trend in Annual Averages for Plutonium Concentration on the NTS

Figure 4.10 Trend in Annual Averages for HTO Concentration on the NTS

4-17

AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
4-18

Gamma spectrometry was performed Nevada. Plutonium-239 was detectable at

on all samples from the ASN high and low Beatty, but all other results were below the

volume air samplers. The majority of the

samples were gamma-spectrum negligible

(i.e., no gamma-emitting radionuclides

detected). Naturally occurring Be was 7

detected occasionally by the low-volume

network of samplers. It was detected

consistently by the high-volume sample

method with an average annual activity of

1.4 x 10 μCi/mL, slightly less than the -13

onsite average.

GROSS ALPHA

Gross alpha analysis was performed on all

low-volume network samples. The average 

annual gross alpha activity was 1.8 x 10-15

μCi/mL (67 μBq/m ), the same as the onsite 3

results. Summary results for the ASN

are shown in Table 4.12.

GROSS BETA

As in previous years, the gross beta results

from the low-volume sampling network

consistently exceeded the analytical MDC. 

The annual average gross beta activity was

1.5 ± 0.60 x 10 μCi/mL (5.5 ± 2.2 x 10 -14 -4

Bq/m ), somewhat lower than the results for 3

the onsite network. Summary gross beta

results for the ASN are in Table 4.13.

PLUTONIUM

High-volume samples were collected

monthly and analyzed for plutonium

isotopes. Due to a low limit of detection for

high-volume sampling and analysis

methods, environmental levels of Pu 239+240

were consistently detected at all six of the

sampling sites. Sixty-four samples were

analyzed during CY 1998. The average

annual activity was 0.1 x 10 μCi/mL -18

(3.7 nBq/m ) for Pu and 1.4 x 10 μCi/mL 3 238 -18

(52 nBq/m ) for Pu, about 6 percent of 3 239+240

the activity detected in the onsite air

network. Summary results of the highvolume data are shown in Table 4.14.

In November, 1998, special samples were

collected at Beatty and at Indian Springs,

MDC of the analyses.

TLD RESULTS FOR STATIONS

There were 38 offsite environmental stations

monitored with TLDs in 1998. Figure 4.4

shows current fixed environmental

monitoring locations. Total annual exposure

for 1998 ranged from 54 mR (0.54 mSv) per

year at Las Vegas, Nevada, to 170 mR 

(1.7 mSv) per year at Queen City Summit,

Nevada, with a mean annual exposure of

100 mR (1 mSv) per year for all operating

locations. All results are shown in Table

4.15. These results are consistent with

those for 1997.

TLD RESULTS FOR PERSONNEL

Eighteen offsite residents were issued TLDs

to monitor their annual dose equivalent. The

locations of personnel monitoring

participants are also shown in Figure 4.4. 

Annual whole body dose equivalents ranged

from a low of 64 mrem (0.65 mSv) to a high

of 120 mrem (1.2 mSv) with a mean of 

88 mrem (0.88 mSv) for all monitored

personnel during 1998. A summary of the

results is shown in Table 4.16. These

results are also similar to those for 1997.

PRESSURIZED ION CHAMBER (PIC) 

NETWORK

The PIC data presented in this section are

based on daily averages of gamma

exposure rates from each station. Table

4.17 contains the maximum, minimum,

mean, standard deviation, and median of the

daily averages. The table shows the total

mR/yr and the average gamma exposure

rate for each station. The mean ranged from

70 to 153 mR (18 to 39 μC/kg). Background

levels of environmental gamma exposure

rates in the United States (from the

combined effects of terrestrial and cosmic

sources) vary between 49 and 247 mR/yr

(13 to 64 μC/kg-yr) (BEIR III 1980). The

annual exposure levels observed at each

PIC station are well within these United
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-19

States background levels. The data from Range. Sealed sources are tested every six

the Amargosa station shows the greatest months to ensure there is no leakage of 

range and the most variability. Most of radioactive material. The data from sealed

these data, with the exception of Henderson source testing are kept in the BN Radiation 

and Las Vegas, are within a few tenths Protection Records. Operation of radiation

μR/hr from those of last year. generating devices is controlled by BN

NON-NTS BN FACILITY MONITORING at STL, WAMO, and NLV was conducted 

BN facilities that use radioactive sources or

radiation-producing equipment with the

potential to expose the general population

outside the property line to direct radiation 

are the STL, during operation of the Sealed

Tube Neutron Generator and operation of

the Febetron; WAMO, during storage of

sealed sources; and Atlas NLVF A-1 Source

procedures. Fence line radiation monitoring

during 1998 using Panasonic Type UD-814

TLDs. At least two TLDs were at the fence

line on each side of any facility. TLDs were

exchanged on a quarterly basis with

additional control TLDs kept in a shielded

safe. These TLD results are given in Table

4.18. The range of results, 38 to 86 mR/yr, 

is within the background range in the

continental United States.
4-20

Table 4.1 Summary of the NTS Air and Direct Radiation Surveillance Program - 1998

 Onsite Monitoring 

Sample Collection Number of Type of

Type Description Frequency Locations Analysis (a)

Air Sampling through Weekly 37 Gamma spectroscopy,

 Whatman GF/A glass gross  & ß,( Pu, 238,239+240

fiber filter, 85 L/min. monthly composite).

Low-volume sampling Biweekly 13 HTO (tritiated water)

through molecular 

Sieve

External UD-814AS Quarterly 107 Total quarterly

Gamma thermoluminescent exposure

Radiation dosimeters

Levels

 Offsite Monitoring 

Air Sampling through 5-cm Weekly 20 Gamma spectroscopy,

 glass-fiber filter and gross  & ß

a charcoal cartridge,

56 L/min

Sampling through 500- Monthly 6 Gamma spectroscopy

cm glass-fiber filter at Pu 2 238,239+240

1,100 L/min

External UD-814AS Quarterly 39 Quarterly exposure at

Gamma thermoluminescent deployed location

Radiation dosimeters

Levels

UD-802 Quarterly 18 Quarterly exposure 

thermoluminescent of offsite personnel

dosimeters

External Reuter-Stokes Continuous 26 Continuous rate 

Gamma Pressurized recording summarized 

Radiation Ion Chambers hourly

Rate
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-21

 Table 4.2 Analytical Procedures, Air and TLD - 1998

 BN Analytical Procedures 

Count 

Sample Type Analytical Time Estimated

Analysis Nominal Size Procedure Equipment (min) MDC

Gross  Air, 860 m After 5 - 7 days, Gas-flow 20 74 μBq/m 3 3

place in planchet proportional (2 x 10 pCi/m ) -3 3

counter

Gross  Air, 860 m Continue count. Gas-flow 20 150 μBq/m 3 3

proportional (4 x 10 pCi/m ) -3 3

counter

Gamma Air, Filters placed on HpGe, calibrated 20 370 μBq/m 3

spectrometry 3,400 m planched, that is 1 keV per channel, (1 x 10 pCi/m ) 3 -2 3

composite placed on crystal for Cs 137

Pu Air, Acid dissolution, Alpha spectrometer 333 0.41 μBq/m 238,239+240 3

Monthly 3,400 m ion-exchange, ppt with solid-state PIP (11 x 10 3 -6

Composite with Pu tracer, detector pCi/m ) 242 3

collect on filter

Tritium Air, 8 m Moisture trapped on 5 mL in cocktail 70 0.11 Bq/m 3 3

molecular sieve, counted in liquid (3 pCi/m )3

heat to remove scintillation counter

Ambient TLD, UD- Expose in field, 3 Automatic TL 10 mR per 

gamma 814AS months reader quarter

 EPA Analytical Procedures 

Gross  Air, 560 m After 7-14 days Gas-flow 30 30 μBq/m 3 3

place in proportional (8 x 10 pCi/m ) -4 3

planchet counter

Gross  Air, 560 m After 7-14 days Gas-flow 30 90 μBq/m 3 3

place in proportional (2.5 x 10 pCi/m ) -3 3

planchet counter

Gamma Air, 560 m Place on detector, HpGe detector, 30 2 mBq 3

spectrometry Low-vol has online calibrated 0.5 (0.05 pCi)/m3

10,000 m3 analytical program keV/channel from 20 μBq (5 x 10-4

High-vol 40 to 2,000 keV pCi) per m3

(Hi-vol), Cs 137
4-22

Table 4.3 NTS Active Air Quality Permits - 1998

Expiration Annual

Permit Description Date Reporting

AP9711-0549 02/07/2002 February 1

Area 1 Facilities Shaker Plant Circuit

Rotary Dryer Circuit

Wet Aggregate Plant

Concrete Batch Plant

Sandbag Facility

Cedar Rapids Screen

Shotcrete Hopper/Conveyor

Cambilt Conveyor

Commander Crusher 

Kolberg Screen Plant

Area 3 Facilities Mud Plant

Area 5 Facilities Navy Thermal Treatment Unit

Area 6 Facilities Cementing Equip. (Silos)

Decontamination Facility Boiler

Diesel Fuel Tank

Gasoline Fuel Tank

Portable Field Bins

Portable Stemming Systems 1 & 2

Diesel Engines (11) 

Two-Part Epoxy Batch Plant

Area 12 Facilities Concrete Batch Plant

Area 23 Facilities Building 753 Boiler

Diesel Fuel Tank

Gasoline Fuel Tank

NTS Surface Disturbances

Incinerator (Wackenhut)

AP9711-0556 Area 5 HSC 10/20/2002 February 1

AP9711-0814 Area 11 TaDD Facility 07/21/2003 February 1

AP9611-0683 DOUBLE TRACKS Surface Disturbance 06/12/2001 February 1

AP9711-0549 CLEAN SLATE I Env. Rest. Project 04/04/2002 February 1

AP9711-0549 CLEAN SLATE II Env. Rest. Project 06/30/2002 February 1

AP9711-0785 UGTA Surface Disturbance Permit 03/20/2003 February 1

99-14 Burn Variance, Areas 5 and 26 04/16/1999 None

99-25 Burn Variance, NTS 03/09/2000 None

Non-BN Operated NTS Air Permits

99-13 Open Burn Variance (LLNL) 02/05/2000 None
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-23

Table 4.4 Active Air Quality Permits for Non-NTS Facilities

Remote Sensing Laboratory

Expiration Annual

Permit Description Date Reporting

A0034811 Excimer Laser, Lumonics, EX-700 None None

A34801 Boiler, Columbia, W1-180 None March 1

A34802 Boiler, Columbia, WL-90 None March 1

A34803 Water Heater, No. 2 Natl. BD None March 1

A34804(a) Emergency Fire Control Pump Engine None None

A34804(b) Emergency Generator, Cummins None None

A34805 Spray Paint Booth None None

North Las Vegas Facility

A38701 A-16 Spray Paint Booth None None

A38702 C-1 Hamada Offset Press None None

A38703 A-5/B-5 Emergency Generators None None

A06503 Emergency Generator None None

A06505 B-1 Aluminum Sander None None

A06507 Tinco Dry Blaster None None
4-24

Table 4.5 NTS Radionuclide Emissions - 1998

Onsite Liquid Discharges

Curies(a)

ContainmentPonds H Sr Cs Pu 

3 90 137 238 

Area 12, E Tunnel 1.82 x 10 2.4 x 10 1.5 x 10 4.3 x 10 

1 -5 -3 -6 

Area 19, Well U-19q PS No. 1 1.59 x 100Area 20, ER-20-5 No. 1 1.56 x 101Area 20, ER-20-6 No. 1, No. 3 2.9 x 10-3Area 20, U-20n PS No.1 6.96 x 101

TOTAL 1.05 x 10 2.4 x 10 1.5 x 10 4.3 x 10 

2 -5 -3 -6 

Airborne Effluent Releases - Curies(a)

Facility Name H Pu 3 (b) 239+240Laboratories 6.2 x 100SCHOONER 4.5 x 101Area 5, RWMS 9.2 x 10 (d) -1SEDAN Crater 1.4 x 10 (d) 2Areas 3 and 9 0.04 (c)Other Areas 0.2 (c)TOTAL 1.92 x 10 0.24 2(a) Multiply by 3.7 × 10 to obtain Bq. Calculated releases from laboratory spills and losses are included in Tab

10

(b) In the form of tritiated water vapor, primarily HTO.(c) Resuspension from known surface deposits.(d) Calculated from air sampler data.
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-25

Table 4.6 Summary Data (μCi/mL) for Gross Alpha/Beta, Be and Plutonium in Air - 1998 7

Location Gross  Gross  Beryllium-7 Pu Pu 238 239+240

Area 1, BJY 1.9 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.7 x 10 5.7 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -17

Area 2, Complex 1.5 x 10 1.6 x 10 1.6 x 10 7.9 x 10 2.8 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 2, 2-1 Substation 1.7 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.7 x 10 -2.2 x 10 3.1 x 10 -15 -141 -13 -19 -17

Area 3, Bunker 3-300 1.7 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.8 x 10 6.5 x 10 4.8 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Area 3, U-3ah/at N 1.8 x 10 1.9 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.2 x 10 5.6 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -17

Area 3, U-3ah/at S 1.8 x 10 1.9 x 10 1.9 x 10 5.5 x 10 4.6 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Area 3, U-3bh S 2.1 x 10 2.2 x 10 1.9 x 10 -3.2 x 10 2.3 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Area 3, U-3bg N 2.1 x 10 2.2 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.4 x 10 2.2 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -17

Area 3, Well ER-3-1 1.5 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.7 x 10 2.1 x 10 1.0 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 4, Bunker T-4 1.5 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.7 x 10 5.5 x 10 2.4 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -17

Area 5, RWMS NE 1.9 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.9 x 10 -2.9 x 10 6.5 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -19

Area 5, RWMS S 2.0 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.9 x 10 5.6 x 10 8.3 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -20 -19

Area 5, RWMS W 2.3 x 10 2.1 x 10 2.0 x 10 6.0 x 10 1.1 x 10 -15 -14 -13 - -19 -18

Area 5, TP Building N 2.4 x 10 2.1 x 10 1.7 x 10 1.8 x 10 5.8 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -17

Area 5, WEF NE 1.6 x 10 1.9 x 10 1.8 x 10 -5.0 x 10 3.2 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -22 -18

Area 5, WEF SW 1.9 x 10 2.1 x 10 1.9 x 10 6.2 x 10 1.3 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Area 5, DOD 1.7 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.1 x 10 1.9 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 5, Well 5B 1.6 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.8 x 10 -8.1 x 10 4.6 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -20 -19

Area 6, YUCCA 2.0 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.8 x 10 3.0 x 10 8.0 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 6, CP-6 1.6 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.9 x 10 -2.5 x 10 2.8 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 6, Well 3 1.7 x 10 1.7 x 10 1.7 x 10 3.7 x 10 1.6 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 7, UE-7ns 1.6 x 10 1.9 x 10 1.8 x 10 -2.2 x 10 1.0 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Area 9, 9-300 1.9 x 10 1.6 x 10 1.7 x 10 3.3 x 10 2.2 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -16

Area 10, Gate 700 S 1.7 x 10 1.7 x 10 1.9 x 10 2.0 x 10 9.8 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -18

Area 10, SEDAN Crater 1.6 x 10 1.9 x 10 1.8 x 10 4.4 x 10 7.1 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -17

Area 11, Gate 293 1.5 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.7 x 10 2.9 x 10 3.6 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 15, EPA Farm 1.6 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.8 x 10 2.5 x 10 2.5 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Area 18, Little Feller II N 1.8 x 10 1.9 x 10 2.0 x 10 -7.5 x 10 4.9 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 20, CABRIOLET 1.7 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.8 x 10 3.6 x 10 1.4 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -19

Area 20, SCHOONER 1.7 x 10 1.9 x 10 1.8 x 10 2.7 x 10 9.9 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -18 -18

Area 23, Bldg 790 No. 2 1.8 x 10 1.9 x 10 1.9 x 10 -6.6 x 10 1.3 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -20 -18

Area 25, E-MAD N 1.6 x 10 1.7 x 10 1.7 x 10 1.9 x 10 5.6 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -19

Average 1.8 x 10 1.9 x 10 1.8 x 10 8.6 x 10 2.5 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Near Offsite Air Sampling

Area 13, Project 57 1.6 x 10 1.4 x 10 1.4 x 10 4.1 x 10 1.5 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE I 2.2 x 10 1.5 x 10 1.5 x 10 9.4 x 10 1.9 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -16

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE II 2.5 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.8 x 10 9.1 x 10 1.4 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -16

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE III 2.4 x 10 2.0 x 10 1.8 x 10 4.5 x 10 1.9 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -18

Area 52, DOUBLE TRACKS 2.3 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.7 x 10 1.6 x 10 1.4 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Average 2.2 x 10 1.8 x 10 1.7 x 10 4.7 x 10 4.7 x 10 -15 -14 -13 -19 -17

Median MDC 1.8 x 10 4.1 x 10 2.1 x 10 9.9 x 10 3.3 x 10 -15 -15 -14 -18 -18
4-26

Table 4.7 Airborne Tritium Concentrations on the NTS - 1998

 H Concentration (10 pCi/mL) 3 -6

Arithmetic Standard Mean as

Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation %DCG

Area 1, BJY 26 3.4 -0.81 1.0 0.96 0.010

Area 5, RWMS NE (4) 25 84 -0.12 14 22 0.14

Area 5, RWMS S (9) 27 4.6 0.11 2.2 1.1 0.022

Area 5, RWMS W (7) 26 2.8 -0.29 1.5 0.63 0.015

Area 5, WEF NE 35 3.7 -0.66 1.4 1.1 0.014

Area 5, WEF SW 26 5.6 0.0038 1.8 1.3 0.018

Area 5, Well 5B 32 2.5 -1.7 0.24 0.96 <0.01

Area 6, Decon Pad 26 180 1.8 37 41 0.37

Area 10, SEDAN Crater 35 29 1.3 8.5 7.7 0.085

Area 12, E Tunnel Pond No. 2 31 110 0.91 15 21 0.15

Area 12, Stake T-18 4 0.69 -0.32 0.11 0.42 <0.01

Area 15, EPA Farm 33 14 1.2 8.8 3.4 0.088

Area 20, Schooner 24 460 9.4 140 160 1.4

All Stations 35 460 -1.7 17 56 0.17

Median MDC was 2.9 x 10 pCi/mL -6

Table 4.8 Mean Air Monitoring Results for Various Radionuclides at the RWMS-3, 1994 - 1998

Pu Pu Tritium 239+240 238

Year ( x 10 μCi/mL) ( x 10 μCi/mL) ( x 10 μCi/mL) -17 -17 -12

Arithmetic Mean 1998 4.2 0.08 (a)

Arithmetic Mean 1997 3.8 0.06 1.2

Arithmetic Mean 1996 16 0.25 0.5

Arithmetic Mean 1995 8.8 0.16 (a)

Arithmetic Mean 1994 13 0.25 (a)

Mean MDC 1.1 0.99 2.8

Derived Concentration Guide 2,000 3,000 100,000

(a) Sampling for tritium was stopped at the end of 1997 due to concentrations less than the MDC

Table 4.9 Mean Air Monitoring Results for Various Radionuclides at the RWMS-5, 1995 - 1998

Pu Pu Tritium 239+240 238

Year ( x 10 μCi/mL) ( x 10 μCi/mL) ( x 10 μCi/mL) -17 -17 -12

Arithmetic Mean 1998 1.3 0.03 4.0

Arithmetic Mean 1997 0.23 0.03 3.7

Arithmetic Mean 1996 0.51 0.02 3.2

Arithmetic Mean 1995 0.6 0.01 5.7

Arithmetic Mean 1994 1.1 0.04 4.9

Mean MDC 1.1 0.99 2.9

Derived Concentration Guide 2,000 3,000 100,000
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-27

Table 4.11 NTS Historical TLD Station Comparisons, 1992-1998

Table 4.10 NTS Boundary Gamma Monitoring Results - 1998

First Second Third Fourth Annual

Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Average

Location (mR/day) (mR/day) (mR/day) (mR/day) (mR/d) (mR/yr)

U-15E Substation 0.26 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 92

Stake J-41 0.34 0.39 0.35 0.37 0.36 130

Stake LC-4 0.51 0.45 0.43 0.45 0.46 170

Stake A-118 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.41 0.39 140

Papoose Lake Road 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 77

Gate 19-3P 0.41 0.40 0.41 0.41 0.41 150

East of U-11B 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.31 120 (a)

Army Well No. 1 0.20 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.21 76

3.3 Miles SE of Aggregate Pit 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.16 60

Guard Station 510 0.31 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.33 120

Yucca Mountain 0.33 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.35 130

Cat Canyon/Buggy Rd 0.44 0.46 0.44 0.47 0.45 160

Gold Meadows 0.30 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.33 120

Well ER 3-1 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.35 0.33 120

(a) Missing TLD.

 Exposure Rate (mR/day) 

Area Station 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

5 Well 5B 0.31 0.39 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.29

6 CP-6 0.23 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.19

6 Yucca Oil Storage 0.31 0.37 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.26

23 Building 650 Dosimetry 0.18 0.26 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.15

23 Building 650 Roof 0.18 0.25 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.14

23 Post Office 0.23 0.30 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.20 0.18

25 HENRE Site 0.36 0.45 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.32 0.32

25 NRDS Warehouse 0.37 0.46 0.33 0.36 0.32 0.33 0.32

27 Cafeteria 0.39 0.46 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.37 0.34

Network Average 0.28 0.36 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.24

Table 4.12 Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1998

 Concentration (10 μCi/mL [37 μBq/m ]) -15 3

Sampling Standard

Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation

Alamo 52 6.6 0.2 2.3 0.14

Amargosa Center 51 5.9 0.0 1.7 0.11

Beatty 51 6.8 0.1 2.1 0.13

Boulder City 50 5.8 -0.1 1.9 0.13

Caliente 6 1.8 -0.9 1.4 0.03

Cedar City 52 5.6 0.2 3.0 0.13

Mean MDC = 7.9 x 10 μCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 3.6 x 10 μCi/mL -16 -16
4-28

Table 4.12 (Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1998, cont.)

 Concentration (10 μCi/mL [37 μBq/m ]) -15 3

Sampling Standard

Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation

Delta 51 7.1 0.0 1.8 0.13

Goldfield 49 4.3 0.1 1.4 0.09

Henderson 52 5.3 0.3 1.9 0.10

Indian Springs 49 4.5 0.2 1.4 0.09

Las Vegas 49 5.5 0.1 2.3 0.14

Milford 52 3.7 -0.3 1.6 0.09

Overton 50 4.3 0.2 1.7 0.10

Pahrump 52 5.0 -0.3 1.3 0.10

Pioche 47 4.4 0.1 1.3 0.08

Rachel 48 7.1 0.1 2.4 0.13

St. George 51 3.0 -0.4 1.5 0.09

Stone Cabin 48 5.4 -0.3 2.6 0.12

Tonopah 53 4.3 -0.2 2.1 0.09

Twin Springs 48 7.2 -0.2 2.1 0.18

Mean MDC = 7.9 x 10 μCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 3.6 x 10 μCi/mL -16 -16

Table 4.13 Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1998

 Concentration (10 μCi/mL [0.37 mBq/m ]) -14 3

Sampling Standard

Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation

Alamo 52 3.1 0.46 1.5 0.55

Amargosa Center 51 6.0 0.54 1.6 0.80

Beatty 51 2.7 0.27 1.6 0.57

Boulder City 50 3.5 0.33 1.7 0.65

Caliente 6 2.6 0.82 2.1 0.68

Cedar City 52 2.2 0.47 1.4 0.48

Delta 51 5.9 0.47 1.5 0.83

Goldfield 49 2.9 0.11 1.2 0.58

Henderson 52 3.0 0.62 1.7 0.58

Indian Springs 49 2.8 0.16 1.5 0.59

Las Vegas 49 3.3 0.49 1.6 0.55

Milford 52 4.6 0.03 1.5 0.73

Overton 50 4.0 0.17 1.6 0.69

Pahrump 52 2.5 0.43 1.5 0.54

Pioche 47 2.3 0.12 1.4 0.51

Rachel 48 2.6 0.04 1.4 0.63

St. George 51 3.7 0.39 1.6 0.67

Stone Cabin 48 2.2 0.33 1.5 0.52

Tonopah 53 2.2 0.14 1.5 0.45

Twin Springs 48 3.5 0.03 1.5 0.81

Mean MDC = 2.44 x 10 μCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 1.05 x 10 μCi/mL -15 -15
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-29

Table 4.14 Plutonium Results for the Offsite Hi-Volume Air Surveillance Network - 1998

Pu Concentration (10 μCi/mL) 238 -18

Sampling Standard

Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation %DCG(a)

Alamo 13 0.43 -0.26 0.07 0.16 (b)

Amargosa Center 12 0.28 -0.10 0.06 0.10 (b)

Goldfield 11 0.31 0.00 0.09 0.09 (b)

Las Vegas 10 0.21 -0.52 -0.01 0.22 (b)

Rachel 8 0.84 0.00 0.26 0.29 (b)

Tonopah 10 0.67 -0.18 0.12 0.24 (b)

Mean MDC = 0.53 x 10 μCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 0.39 x 10 μCi/mL -18 -18

(a) Derived Concentration Guide; Established by DOE Order as 2 x 10 μCi/mL. -15

(b) Not applicable, result less than MDC.

Note: To convert μCi/mL to Bq/m multiply by 3.7 x 10 (e.g., [0.43 x 10 ] x [3.7 x 10 ] = 3 10 -18 10

52 nBq/m ). 3

Alamo 13 1.4 0.17 0.81 0.42 0.03

Amargosa Center 12 12 0.26 1.9 3.4 0.11

Goldfield 11 1.6 0.11 0.73 0.47 0.02

Las Vegas 10 0.48 -0.08 0.23 0.19 (b)

Rachel 8 12 0.94 4.9 4.6 0.15

Tonopah 10 2.0 0.00 0.68 0.66 0.02

Mean MDC = 0.41 x 10 μCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 0.29 x 10 μCi/mL -18 -18

(a) Derived Concentration Guide; Established by DOE Order as 3 x 10 μCi/mL. -15

(b) Not applicable, result less than MDC.

Note: To convert μCi/mL to Bq/m multiply by 3.7 x 10 (e.g., [1.4 x 10 ] x [3.7 x 10 ] = 3 10 -18 10

52 nBq/m ). 3

Table 4.15 TLD Monitoring Results for Offsite Stations - 1998

Station Daily Exposure (mR) Total (mR) 

Name Min Max Mean Exposure

Alamo, NV 0.05 0.28 0.25 91

Amargosa Center, NV 0.19 0.23 0.21 78

Beatty, NV 0.28 0.49 0.37 130

Blue Jay, NV 0.31 0.51 0.40 150

Boulder City, NV 0.21 0.24 0.22 82

Caliente, NV 0.23 0.29 0.26 96

Cedar City, UT 0.18 0.21 0.19 73

Complex I, NV 0.23 0.34 0.30 110

Coyote Summit, NV 0.28 0.39 0.35 130

Delta, UT 0.20 0.24 0.22 81

Furnace Creek, CA 0.18 0.23 0.20 76

Goldfield, NV 0.27 0.42 0.33 120

Groom Lake, NV 0.21 0.43 0.30 110

Henderson (CCSN), NV 0.23 0.27 0.24 91

Hiko, NV 0.18 0.22 0.20 74

Indian Springs, NV 0.18 0.23 0.20 93
4-30

Table 4.15 (TLD Monitoring Results for Offsite Stations - 1998, cont.)

Station Daily Exposure (mR) Total (mR) 

Name Min Max Mean Exposure

Las Vegas UNLV, NV 0.02 0.20 0.13 54

Lund, NV 0.26 0.32 0.30 110

Lund, UT 0.26 0.33 0.29 110

Medlins Ranch, NV 0.25 0.36 0.32 120

Mesquite, NV 0.18 0.20 0.19 70

Milford, UT 0.29 0.34 0.31 120

Moapa, NV 0.21 0.25 0.23 86

Nyala, NV 0.21 0.40 0.29 110

Overton, NV 0.16 0.19 0.18 66

Pahrump, NV 0.16 0.25 0.21 70

Pioche, NV 0.20 0.27 0.24 89

Queen City Summit, NV 0.35 0.60 0.46 170

Rachel, NV 0.29 0.50 0.38 140

Sacorbatus Flats, NV 0.30 0.52 0.40 150

St. George, UT 0.14 0.18 0.16 60

Stone Cabin, NV 0.29 0.52 0.39 140

Sunnyside, NV 0.20 0.24 0.22 80

Tonopah Test Range, NV 0.32 0.54 0.42 150

Tonopah, NV 0.31 0.51 0.40 140

Twin Springs, NV 0.30 0.50 0.36 140

Uhaldes Ranch, NV 0.10 0.29 0.17 85

Warm Springs No. 1, NV 0.23 0.36 0.31 120

Table 4.16 TLD Monitoring Results for Offsite Personnel - 1998

Daily Deep Dose Total

Personnel Associated Number of Exposure (mrem) Annual

ID No. Station Name Days Min Max Mean Exposure

022 Alamo, NV 351 0.20 0.24 0.22 81

038 Beatty, NV 365 0.31 0.36 0.34 120

293 Pioche, NV 365 0.20 0.26 0.23 82

344 Delta, UT 365 0.19 0.24 0.21 78

345 Delta, UT 351 0.20 0.26 0.23 82

346 Milford, UT 175 0.26 0.31 0.28 100

347 Milford, UT 351 0.27 0.32 0.29 110

348 Overton, NV 350 0.17 0.21 0.19 68

427 Alamo, NV 365 0.27 0.28 0.27 100

592 Rachel, NV 107 0.25 0.25 0.25 92

593 Cedar City, UT 351 0.24 0.33 0.29 100

595 Las Vegas, NV 365 0.17 0.20 0.18 65

596 Las Vegas, NV 349 0.14 0.24 0.20 68

607 Tonopah, NV 365 0.32 0.35 0.33 120

608 Logandale, NV 350 0.15 0.22 0.18 64

610 Caliente, NV 350 0.26 0.34 0.29 100

621 Indian Springs, NV 352 0.16 0.22 0.19 67

656 Henderson, NV 350 0.20 0.35 0.26 90
AIR SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

4-31

Table 4.17 Summary of Gamma Exposure Rates as Measured by PIC - 1998

 Gamma Exposure Rate (μR/hr) 

Standard

Station Max Min Deviation Average mR/yr

Alamo 16.2 9.6 0.38 12.4 109

Amargosa 18.4 8.2 1.65 11.8 103

Beatty 20.0 11. 0.43 16.1 141

Boulder City 15.5 9.9 0.51 11.4 99

Caliente 17.9 11.4 0.47 14.4 126

Cedar City 14.1 8.6 0.45 9.8 86

Complex I 18.7 13.6 0.66 15.3 134

Delta 16.9 10.0 0.54 11.9 104

Furnace Creek 13.9 7.6 0.38 9.9 87

Henderson 15.7 10.9 0.36 12.0 105

Goldfield 10.8 13.1 0.55 14.9 131

Indian Springs 14.7 8.3 0.75 11.2 98

Las Vegas 13.6 8.3 0.33 9.1 80

Medlin’s 21.2 12.8 0.45 16.6 146

Milford 23.0 13.5 0.63 17.4 153

Nyala NO DATA 1998 

Overton 16.8 7.0 0.43 9.1 80

Pahrump 11.2 6.8 0.26 8.0 70

Pioche 17.2 8.6 0.49 11.9 105

Rachel 21.6 14.2 0.57 16.2 142

St. George 13.5 7.6 0.38 8.6 75

Stone Cabin 21.7 13.2 0.71 17.4 153

Terrel’s 18.6 15.1 0.31 16.1 141

Tonopah 22.0 13.4 0.58 17.4 152

Twin Springs 19.9 9.1 0.60 15.8 139

Uhalde’s NO DATA 1998

Note: Multiply μR/hr by 2.6 x 10 to obtain μC # kg # hr . -4 -1 -1

Table 4.18 BN Offsite Boundary Monitoring Data - 1998

Station 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1998

ID No. Description (mR) (mR) (mR) (mR) (mR)

Washington Aerial Measurements Operation

WA-006 NEST Calib. Lab Door, Bldg 1794 16.5 12.8 15.4 -- 44.6

WA-007 Work Area Wall, Bldg 1794 15.6 15.6 15.0 -- 42.3

WA-020 Work Area Corridor Corn. Bldg 1792 14.4 11.0 12.3 -- 37.8

WA-021 Deployment Bldg. Desk Area 17.7 37.8 25.4 -- 80.9

WA-022 Background Avn Machine Shop 18.6 15.1 17.4 -- 51.1

WA-023 Background Avn Machine Shop 18.9 14.8 17.7 -- 51.5

WA-012 Control -1, RSO Office, Bldg. 1792 11.4 8.7 10.0 11.4 41.6

WA-012 Control -2, RSO Office, Bldg. 1792 11.7 9.3 10.0 11.7 42.7

-- Station terminated
4-32

Table 4.18 (BN Offsite Boundary Monitoring Data - 1998, cont.)

Station 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1998

ID No. Description (mR) (mR) (mR) (mR) (mR)

North Las Vegas Facility

LV-055 NW Corner Fence/Gate C6 22.6 18.4 20.9 -- 61.9

LV-056 NW Corner Fence/Gate C6 22.2 18.9 20.9 -- 62.4

LV-057 N Fence--West End A-12 18.5 15.2 15.3 -- 49.0

LV-058 N Fence--West End A-12 18.8 14.9 15.6 -- 49.2

LV-059 N Fence--West End A-4 19.1 15.2 16.5 -- 50.7

LV-060 N Fence--West End A-4 19.4 14.3 15.9 -- 49.6

LV-061 NE Corner Fence/A-12 17.0 14.3 14.1 -- 45.4

LV-062 NE Corner Fence/A-12 17.6 14.3 14.1 -- 46.0

LV-063 E Fence/Center A-Complex 17.6 14.3 15.0 -- 46.9

LV-064 E Fence/Center A-Complex 17.6 14.3 15.6 -- 47.5

LV-065 NLV Badge Off (A-7)/A-2 17.0 13.8 14.1 -- 44.8

LV-066 NLV Badge Off (A-7)/A-2 16.4 13.2 13.5 -- 43.1

LV-067 E Fence/North End B-Complex 17.9 14.3 15.3 -- 47.5

LV-068 E Fence/North End B-Complex 19.0 14.6 15.0 -- 48.6

LV-069 E Fence/South End B-Complex 18.8 14.6 15.6 -- 49.0

LV-070 E Fence/South End B-Complex 18.5 15.5 15.6 -- 49.5

LV-071 S Fence/Center 19.6 15.8 17.1 -- 52.5

LV-072 S Fence/Center 19.4 15.2 16.5 -- 51.0

LV-075 C-1 W End Guard Gate 22.3 18.0 19.1 -- 59.5

LV-076 C-1 W End Guard Gate 21.8 18.9 19.1 -- 59.8

LV-077 W Fence/Gate C-3 19.0 15.5 17.1 -- 51.6

LV-078 W Fence/Gate C-3 19.6 17.5 16.5 -- 53.6

LV-079 NW End A-13/Double G Not Coll. 26.4 16.5 15.4 58.2

LV-080 NW End A-13/Double G Not Coll. 26.6 17.1 15.7 59.4

LV-098 Control - 1 Lost 11.5 10.3 9.4 31.2

LV-099 Control - 2 Lost 11.2 10.9 9.7 31.7

 

Special Technologies Laboratory

ST141 Bldg. 227, Rear on Fence 23.2 Missing 21.9 21.0 66.0

ST199 Bldg. 229-C, Left Side 22.0 19.7 22.5 21.0 85.2

ST200 Bldg. 229-C, Left Side 21.7 19.7 23.0 21.0 85.5

ST209 Bldg. 227, Behind CF Shed 23.2 20.3 21.9 19.5 84.9

ST210 Bldg. 227, Behind CF Shed 21.4 19.7 21.0 18.6 80.8

ST-C1 Control 1 17.3 15.6 16.6 13.8 63.2

ST-C2 Control 2 18.2 15.2 15.4 13.8 62.6

 

-- Station terminated
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-1

5.0 WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

The Nevada Test Site (NTS) has a history of underground nuclear testing and

continues to operate radioactive waste storage sites, environmental

restoration sites, and a hazardous material testing facility. Groundwater

surveillance is particularly important because of the potential for

groundwater contamination from some of these activities and the scarcity of

water supplies in this desert region. The water program includes a

combination of effluent controls, groundwater protection, monitoring,

restoration, and permit compliance. Groundwater quality monitoring is

conducted both onsite and offsite by Bechtel Nevada (BN) and

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Radiation & Indoor

Environments National Laboratory-Las Vegas (R&IE-LV). In 1998, significant

new results from in and near underground nuclear tests indicated the

migration of plutonium up to 1.3 km. Groundwater quantity monitoring is

conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and BN. No significant

water level changes were detected associated with groundwater pumping,

and water usage on the NTS continued to decline. The NTS water supply

system continues to be free of any detectable man-made radionuclides.

The Nevada Environmental Restoration Project (ERP) goals are to safeguard

the public’s health and safety and to protect the environment. This involves

the assessment and cleanup of contaminated sites and facilities to meet

standards required by federal and state environmental laws. In 1996, DOE

formalized an agreement with the state for implementing corrective actions

based on public health and environmental considerations in a cost-effective

and cooperative manner. Investigation and cleanup activities continued on

the NTS and Nellis Air Force Range and at offsite locations in the state of

Nevada and other states. Particular emphasis was directed at the Pahute

Mesa, Frenchman Flat, and Oasis Valley areas.

DOE/NV instituted a Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program (LTHMP) in

1972 to be operated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

under an Interagency Agreement. In 1998, groundwater was monitored on

and around the NTS, at five sites in other states, and at two off-NTS

locations in Nevada to detect any radioactivity that may be related to

previous nuclear testing activities. Although tritium initially seeped from

two of the offsite tests, the tritium levels in wells at both sites have been

decreasing and were well below the National Primary Drinking Water

Regulation levels. 

5.1 WATER MONITORING

PROGRAM INFORMATION

Water monitoring activities conducted

in the past on the NTS and related

facilities involve surveillance of 

surface and groundwaters, drinking water

systems, sewage treatment ponds, and

actions protective of groundwater resources. 

During 1998, the sampling of onsite surface

waters (reservoirs and natural springs) was

terminated in accordance with the “Routine

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan”,

published in December 1998 (DOE 1998a). 

The past concentrations of radionuclides in

the reservoirs have consistently been below

the Derived Concentration Guides (DCGs),

and the supply wells, the source of water for

the reservoirs, are routinely sampled. 

Likewise, the radionuclide concentrations in

past spring samples have also been

consistently below the DCGs, and all of the

onsite springs are not hydrologically
5-2

connected to the aquifers that may have discharged. Annual average radioactivity

been radioactively contaminated by

underground nuclear tests. 

ONSITE ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

CRITERIA

DOE Order 5400.1, "General Environmental

Protection Program," establishes

environmental protection program

requirements, responsibilities, and

authorities for DOE operations. These

mandates require compliance with

applicable federal, state, and local

environmental protection regulations. Other

DOE directives applicable to environmental

monitoring include DOE Order 5480.11,

"Radiation Protection for Occupational

Workers"; DOE Order 5480.1B,

"Environment, Safety, and Health Program

for DOE Operations"; DOE Order 5484.1,

"Environmental Protection, Safety and

Health Protection Information Reporting

Requirements"; DOE Order 5400.5,

"Radiation Protection of the Public and the

Environment"; and DOE/EH-0173T,

"Environmental Regulatory Guide for

Radiological Effluent Monitoring and

Environmental Surveillance."

WATER EFFLUENT MONITORING

Radiologically contaminated water continued

to be discharged from E Tunnel in Rainier

Mesa (Area 12) despite efforts to seal that

tunnel. A grab sample was collected

quarterly from the tunnel's effluent discharge

point and from the tunnel's containment

pond. These samples were analyzed for

tritium ( H), gross alpha, gross beta, Pu, 3 238

Pu, and gamma emitters. In addition, 239+240

one of the quarterly samples was analyzed

for Sr and two quarterly samples were 90

analyzed for U, U, and U. Tritium 234 235 238

was the radionuclide most consistently

detected at the tunnel sites. Other

radionuclides were detected at lower

concentrations. Flow data obtained from the

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (formerly

the Defense Special Weapons Agency) were

used to calculate the total volume

concentrations were calculated from the

quarterly measurements. From these, the

total amount of radioactivity in the effluent

was obtained. 

Water pumped from wells to obtain data for

characterization of the NTS groundwater

was discharged into containment ponds. In

1998, six wells were sampled. These wells

were purged and the purge water placed in

lined containment ponds. The total volume

and tritium concentration of water in each

pond were measured. No new wells were

drilled or recompleted at the NTS during

1998. 

WATER ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

Environmental monitoring was conducted

onsite throughout the NTS and the near

offsite area. Groundwater samples were

routinely collected at preestablished

locations and analyzed for radioactivity. 

Water samples were collected from selected

potable tap water points, water supply wells, 

sewage lagoons, and containment ponds. 

The frequency of collection and types of

analyses done for these types of samples

are shown in Table 5.2. Sampling locations

are shown on Figures 5.1 and 5.2.

A 500-mL aliquot was taken from the water

sample, placed in a plastic bottle, and

counted for gamma activity with a

germanium detector. A 2.5-mL aliquot was

used for H analysis by liquid scintillation 3

counting. An 800-mL aliquot was

evaporated to 15 mL, transferred to a

stainless steel counting planchet, and

evaporated to dryness after the addition of a

wetting agent. Alpha and/or beta analyses

were accomplished by counting the planchet

samples for 100 minutes in a gas-flow

proportional counter.

Tritium enrichment analyses were done on 

samples from the water supply wells by

concentrating the volume and tritium content

of a 250-mL sample aliquot to 10 mL by 
Figure 5.1 Supply Well and Potable Water Sampling Stations on the NTS - 1998

5-3

5

23

22

19

2

16

17

8

6

26

27

7

3

12 15

25

Supply Well Stations

Tap Water Sampling Stations

WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
Figure 5.2 Surface Water Sampling Locations on the NTS - 1998

5-4

5

23

22

19

2

16

17

8

6

26

27

7

3

12 15

25

Sewage Lagoon

Pond
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-5

electrolysis of a basic solution and analyzing wells on the NTS and of wells, springs, and

a 5-mL portion of the concentrate by liquid surface waters in the offsite area around the

scintillation counting. NTS. Samples are also collected from sites

The Ra concentrations were Mississippi, and Alaska where nuclear tests 226,228

determined from low-background gamma have been conducted. In 1965, tritium

spectrometric analyses of radium sulfate escaped from the LONG SHOT test on

precipitates. The samples were prepared by Amchitka Island and contaminated the

adding a barium carrier and Ra tracer to shallow groundwater, and during cleanup 225

800 mL of a sample, precipitating the barium and disposal operations, shallow

and radium as a sulfate, separating the groundwater at the SALMON test site in

precipitate, and analyzing it by counting for Mississippi was contaminated with tritium. 

500 minutes in a low-level gamma The tritium level in wells at both sites have

spectroscopy facility. been decreasing and were well below the

The radiochemical procedure for plutonium

was similar to that described in Section 4.1. Summaries of the 1998 sampling results for

Alpha spectroscopy was used to measure the onsite sampling program and for each of

any Pu, Pu, and the Pu tracer the offsite LTHMP locations are provided in 238 239+240 242

present in the samples. Section 5.5.

The present R&IE-LV sampling locations on

the NTS, or immediately outside its borders

on federally owned land are shown in Figure

5.3. All sampling locations are selected by

DOE and primarily represent potable water

supplies. R&IE-LV samples onsite wells

without pumps and, for quality assurance

purposes, collects samples from some

potable wells sampled by Bechtel Nevada

(BN). A total of 22 wells was sampled. All

samples were analyzed by gamma

spectrometry and for tritium.

5.2 LONG-TERM

HYDROLOGICAL

MONITORING PROGRAM

(LTHMP)

The EPA's R&IE-LV is responsible for

operation of the LTHMP, including sample

collection, analysis, and data reporting. 

Until implementation of the LTHMP in 1972,

monitoring of ground and surface waters

was done by the U.S. Public Health Service

(PHS), the USGS, and the U.S. Atomic

Energy Commission (AEC) contractor

organizations. The LTHMP consists of

routine radiological monitoring, analysis, and

reporting of samples collected from specific

in Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico,

National Primary Drinking Water limit.

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

PROCEDURES

The procedures for the analysis of water

samples, used herein, are described by

Johns et al., 1979 and are summarized in

Table 5.1. These include gamma spectral

analysis and radiochemical analysis for

tritium. The procedures are based on a

standard methodology for the stated

analytical procedures. Two methods for

tritium analysis were performed; these were

conventional and electrolytic enrichment. 

The samples were initially analyzed for

tritium by the conventional method followed

by enrichment analysis if the results were

less than 800 pCi/L (30 Bq/L). In late 1995,

it was decided that only 25 percent of the

samples would be analyzed by the

electrolytic enrichment method. The

samples selected have a tritium result of

less than 800 pCi/L by the conventional

method and are from locations that are in

position to show possible migration. Two

250-mL glass bottles and a 1-gal plastic

container are filled at each sampling 

location. At the sample collection sites, the

pH, conductivity, water temperature, and

sampling depth are measured and recorded

when the sample is collected. For wells with
Figure 5.3 Wells on the NTS Sampled by R&IE-LV - 1998

5-6
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-7

operating pumps, the samples were Nevada, the Projects GASBUGGY and

collected at the nearest convenient GNOME sites in New Mexico, the Projects

outlet. If the well has no pump, a truck- RULISON and RIO BLANCO sites in

mounted sampling unit is used. With this Colorado, and the SALMON site in

unit, it is possible to collect 3-L samples Mississippi. Sampling is normally conducted

from wells as deep as 1,800 m (5,900 ft). in odd numbered years on Amchitka Island,

The first time samples are collected from a LONG SHOT, and MILROW. 

well, Sr, Pu, Pu, and uranium 89,90 238 239+240

isotopes are determined by radiochemical

analysis, in addition to analyses mentioned

above. The 250-mL samples are analyzed

for tritium and the 1-gal sample from each

site is analyzed by gamma spectrometry. 

GROUNDWATER NEAR THE NEVADA

TEST SITE

Water sampling around the NTS is

conducted by R&IE-LV under an interagency

agreement with DOE to ensure the

radiological safety of public drinking water

supplies, and representative water sources

of rural residents and, where suitable, to

monitor any migration of radionuclides from

the NTS. This water monitoring is

conducted within the LTHMP. R&IE-LV

personnel routinely collect and analyze

water samples from locations in the offsite

areas surrounding the NTS. Due to the

scarcity of surface waters in the region, most

of the samples are groundwater, collected

from existing wells. Samples from specific

locations are collected monthly, biannually,

annually, or biennially in accordance with a

preset schedule. Many drinking water

supplies used by the offsite population are

represented in the LTHMP samples. Figure

5.4 is a map of the locations sampled.

GROUNDWATER AT OTHER TEST AREAS by evapotranspiration at Alkali Flat and by

Sampling for the LTHMP is also conducted

at sites of past nuclear device testing in

other parts of the United States to ensure

the radiological safety of public drinking

water supplies and, where suitable sampling

points are available, to monitor any

migration of radionuclides from the test

cavity. Annual sampling of surface waters

and groundwaters is conducted at the

Projects SHOAL and FAULTLESS sites in

Alaska, at the site of Projects CANNIKIN,

5.3 GROUNDWATER

PROTECTION PROGRAM

HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE NTS

The NTS has three general water-bearing

units: the lower carbonate aquifer, volcanic

aquifers, and valley-fill aquifers. The water

table occurs variably in the latter two units,

while groundwater in the lower carbonate

aquifer occurs under confined conditions. 

The depth to the saturated zone is highly

variable, but is generally at least 210 m

(approximately 690 ft) below the land

surface and is often more than 300 m

(approximately 1,000 ft). The hydrogeologic

units at the NTS occur in three groundwater

subbasins in the Death Valley Groundwater

Basin (see Chapter 2, Figure 2.7, for a

diagram of these systems). The actual

subbasin boundaries are poorly defined, but

what is known about the basin hydrology is

summarized below. 

Groundwater beneath the eastern part of the

NTS is in the Ash Meadows Subbasin and

discharges along a spring line in Ash

Meadows, south of the NTS. Most of the

western NTS is in the Alkali Flat-Furnace

Creek Subbasin, with discharges occurring

spring flow near Furnace Creek Ranch. 

Groundwater beneath the far northwestern

corner of the NTS may be in the Oasis

Valley Subbasin, which discharges by

evapotranspiration in Oasis Valley. Some

underflow from the subbasin discharge

areas probably travels to springs in Death 

Valley. Regional groundwater flow is from

the upland recharge areas in the north and
Figure 5.4 Wells and Springs Outside the NTS Included in the LTHMP - 1998

5-8
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-9

east toward discharge areas in Ash AMCHITKA ISLAND, ALASKA

Meadows and Death Valley, southwest of

the NTS. Because of large topographic

changes across the area and the importance

of fractures to groundwater flow, local flow

directions may be radically different from the

regional trend (Laczniak et al., 1996).

HYDROGEOLOGY OF NON-NTS 

UNDERGROUND TEST SITES

The following descriptions of the

hydrogeology of non-NTS underground test

sites are summarized from Chapman and

Hokett, 1991.

FALLON, NEVADA

The Project SHOAL site is located in the

granitic uplift of the Sand Spring Range. 

The highland area around the site is a

regional groundwater recharge area, with

regional discharge occurring to the west in

Fourmile Flat and Eightmile Flat and to the

northeast in Dixie Valley. Evidence

suggests that a groundwater divide exists

northwest of the site and that the main

component of lateral movement of

groundwater near the site is southeast

toward Fairview Valley. Groundwater in

Fairview Valley moves north to the

discharge areas in Dixie Valley. 

Groundwater in Fairview Valley occurs in

three separate alluvial aquifers separated by

clay aquitards. Ground-water flow velocities

through the granite to the alluvial aquifers of

Fairview Valley are calculated to be very low

(Chapman and Hokett 1991).

CENTRAL NEVADA TEST AREA

The Project FAULTLESS site is located in a

thick sequence of alluvial material underlain

by volcanic rocks in the northern portion of

Hot Creek Valley. Recharge to the alluvial 

aquifer and volcanic aquifer occurs in the

higher mountain ranges to the west, with

groundwater flowing toward the east-central

portion of the valley, and discharging by

evapotranspiration and underflow to Railroad

Valley.

The groundwater system of Amchitka Island

is typical of an island-arc chain with a

freshwater lens floating on seawater in

fractured volcanic rocks. Active freshwater

circulation occurs by precipitation,

recharging the water table with a curving

flow path downward in the interior of the

island and upward flow near the coast. 

Generally, the hydraulic gradient is from the

axis of the island toward the coast. 

Groundwater travel times have been

estimated to be between 23 and 103 years

from the test cavities to the Bering Sea.

RIFLE, COLORADO

Project RIO BLANCO is located in the Fort

Union and Mesa Verde sandstones in the

Piceance Creek Basin. Three aquifers

comprise most of the groundwater

resources: a shallow alluvial aquifer, the

upper "A" potable aquifer, and the lower "B"

saline aquifer. The "A" and "B" aquifers are

separated by the Mahogany Oil Shale

aquitard. These aquifers lie well above the

test depth. The alluvial aquifer is the

primary source of groundwater in the area

with flow to the northeast toward the

Piceance Creek. Recharge to the alluvial

aquifer occurs by downward infiltration of

precipitation and surface water and by

upward leakage from underlying aquifers. 

The "A" aquifer is larger in areal extent than

the overlying alluvial aquifer with the

permeability in the "A" aquifer controlled by

a vertical fracture system. The "B" aquifer

exhibits minimal communication with the "A"

aquifer.

GRAND VALLEY, COLORADO

Project RULISON is located in the Mesa

Verde Sandstone, which is overlain by 

alluvium, the Green River Formation (shale

and marlstone), the Wasatch Formation

(clay and shale), and the Ohio Creek

Formation (conglomerate). The direction of

groundwater flow is thought to be northward. 
5-10

The principal groundwater resources of the conducted in the halites of the Salado

area are in the alluvial aquifer, which is

separated from the test horizon by great

thicknesses of low-permeability formations. 

Pressure tests of deep water-bearing zones

indicated very little mobile water.

HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI

Project DRIBBLE and the Miracle Play

Program were conducted in a salt dome 

(known as the SALMON Site) near this town.

The salt dome interrupts and deforms the

lower units of coastal marine deposits in the

area, has low permeability, and allows little

water movement. Seven hydrologic units

are recognized in the area, exclusive of the

salt dome and its anhydrite caprock. These

are, from the surface downward, the Surficial

Aquifer, the Local Aquifer, and Aquifers 1, 2,

3, 4, and 5. These aquifers consist of sands

and gravels, sandstones, shales, and

limestones with low-permeability clay beds

acting as aquitards. The natural flow has

been disrupted by pumping from the upper

aquifers and by injection of oil-field brines

into Aquifer 5. The transient conditions and

lack of data results in uncertainties in

groundwater flow directions.

FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO

Project GASBUGGY is located on the

eastern side of the San Juan Basin. The

direction of groundwater movement is not

well known, but is thought to be to the

northwest in the Ojo Alamo sandstone

toward the San Juan River. The test was

conducted in the underlying Pictured Cliffs

sandstone and Lewis Shale, which are not

known to yield substantial amounts of water. 

The rate of groundwater movement in the

Ojo Alamo sandstone is estimated to be

approximately 0.01 m/yr.

CARLSBAD, NEW MEXICO

The Project GNOME site is located in the

northern part of the Delaware Basin, which

contains sedimentary rocks and a thick

sequence of evaporites. The test was 

Formation, which is overlain by the Rustler

Formation, the Dewey Lake Redbeds, and

alluvial deposits. The Rustler Formation

contains three water-bearing zones: a

dissolution residue at its base, the Culebra

Dolomite, and the Magenta Dolomite. The

Culebra Dolomite is the most regionally

extensive aquifer in the area. The

groundwater in the Culebra is saline, but is

suitable for domestic and stock uses. 

Groundwater in the Culebra flows to the

west and southwest toward the Pecos River.

NTS AREAS OF POSSIBLE

GROUNDWATER

CONTAMINATION 

In 1996, DOE/NV confirmed the location of

828 underground tests at the NTS that are

included in areas of possible groundwater

contamination as indicated on Figure 5.5. 

Approximately one third (259) of these tests

were at or below the water table (DOE

1996b). The principal by-products from

these tests were heavy metals and a wide

variety of radionuclides with differing

half-lives and decay products. Detonations

within, or near, the regional water table have

contaminated the local groundwater with

over 60 radionuclides being present in

significant quantities. Tritium is the most

abundant radionuclide, with an estimated

300 million curies present in or near the

water table (DOE 1996c).

Surface activities associated with

underground testing and other NTS activities

such as disposal of low-level radioactive

waste (LLW) and mixed wastes, spill testing

of hazardous liquefied gaseous fuels, and

transport of radioactive materials, also pose

potential soil and groundwater contamination

risks. The types of possible contaminants

found on the surface of the NTS include 

radionuclides, organic compounds, metals,

and residues from plastics, epoxy, and

drilling muds. A wide variety of surface

facilities, such as former injection wells,

leach fields, sumps, waste storage facilities,

tunnel containment ponds and muck piles,

and storage tanks, may have contaminated 
Figure 5.5 Areas of Potential Groundwater Contamination on the NTS

5-11

WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
5-12

the soil and shallow unsaturated zone of the WASTE MINIMIZATION AND POLLUTION

NTS. The known sites are categorized by

type and listed in Appendices II, III, and IV

of the Federal Facility Agreement and

Consent Order (FFACO 1996), agreed to by

DOE, U. S. Department of Defense, and

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection

(NDEP). The great depths to groundwater

and the arid climate mitigate the potential for

mobilization of surface and shallow

subsurface contamination. However,

contaminants entering the carbonate

bedrock from Rainier Mesa tunnel ponds,

contaminated wastes injected into deep

wells, underground tests near the water

table, and wastes disposed of into

subsidence craters have the potential to

reach groundwater.

ACTIVITIES PROTECTIVE OF

GROUNDWATER

DOE/NV has instituted a policy regarding

protection of the environment. This policy

states: "A principal objective of the DOE/NV

policy is to assure the minimization of

potential impacts on the environment,

including groundwater, from underground

testing.” An ongoing program to monitor and

assess the effectiveness of groundwater

protection efforts will be enhanced so that 

resources are allocated based on current

understanding of the effectiveness of

groundwater protection programs. 

Groundwater protection activities contained

within DOE/NV programs are described

below.

STORM WATER RUN-OFF

At this time, the state of Nevada does not

require storm water run-off permits for the

NTS. Storm water, at the NTS, primarily

follows the natural terrain and after a large

storm will temporarily collect on low spots,

including dry lake beds. With the depth to

groundwater that exists at the NTS, this

occasional pooling of storm water runoff

presents no hazard to groundwater.

PREVENTION AWARENESS PROGRAM

The Waste Minimization and Pollution

Prevention Awareness Program is designed

to reduce waste generation and possible

pollutant releases to the environment, thus

increasing the protection of employees and

the public. All DOE/NV contractors and NTS

users who exceed the EPA criteria for smallquantity generators have established

implementation plans in accordance with

DOE/NV requirements. Contractor

programs ensure that waste minimization

activities are in accordance with federal,

state, and local environmental laws and

regulations and DOE Orders. A discussion

of 1998 activities is given in Chapter 6.

There are three closed-loop recirculating

steam cleaning units that are used to clean

equipment prior to servicing. These units 

not only minimize the water that is needed to

operate, but also prevent the wastewater

from running onto the ground and potentially

contaminating the soil. These hydrocarbon

materials are instead captured in a filter and

properly disposed of or recycled.

SITING FOR UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR

TESTS

The DOE/NV Procedural Instruction “Siting

Criteria for Protection of Groundwater at the

Nevada Test Site” (DOE 1997d) defines five

criteria for siting underground nuclear tests,

based upon the current understanding of the

effects of testing on the groundwater

environment. Before an emplacement hole

or emplacement drift can be used for a test,

documentation must be submitted by the

sponsoring user to the DOE/NV Assistant

Manager for National Security to show

compliance with these criteria, which are as

follows:

 Future testing should utilize previously

used test areas.

 Tests with working points at or below the

water table should be minimized. Testing

within perched water conditions is

excluded from this criterion.
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-13

 Working points should be placed no required pending approval of a groundwater

closer than two cavity radii from any monitoring waiver. At RWMS-5, sampling

regional carbonate aquifer. protocols for characterization and detection

 Emplacement holes should not be sited Groundwater Monitoring Technical

within 1,500 m of the NTS boundary Enforcement Guidance Document (EPA

where groundwater leaves the NTS. 1986). Groundwater elevation was

 Emplacement holes, which extend more first collections of these characterization

than two cavity radii or 30 m, whichever is

greater, beneath the working point, should

be plugged to prevent the open borehole

from becoming a preferential pathway for

groundwater contamination.

WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND

DISPOSAL

DOE/NV currently operates disposal

facilities in Areas 3 and 5 at the NTS for

LLW generated by DOE and the DOD

facilities. All hazardous wastes generated at

the NTS are stored at a Hazardous Waste

Accumulation Site in Area 5 until shipped

offsite to EPA-approved commercial

disposal facilities.

Since both the RWMS-3 and RWMS-5

disposal sites contain mixed as well as LLW

waste, they are subject to Hazardous Waste

regulations dictated by RCRA. In

accordance with Title 40 Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) 265 - Subpart F 

(CFR 1984), operators of interim status

treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for

hazardous waste are required to collect

quarterly samples for one year from one

upgradient and three downgradient wells for

characterization of groundwater quality. 

However, the lack of a hydraulic gradient in

the uppermost aquifer makes it difficult to

define upgradient and downgradient

directions around RWMS-5. There are three

groundwater monitoring wells surrounding

the RWMS-5. In a letter from NDEP to

DOE/NV, dated February 24, 1994, NDEP

stated that there was no need to install

additional wells pending future data on the

groundwater gradient, thereby effectively

substituting the three pilot wells for the

standard four RCRA wells. At the RWMS-3,

there are currently no groundwater 

monitoring wells, and it is likely none will be

data collection were based on the RCRA

measured prior to each sampling event. The

data were performed in 1993. Subsequent

semi-annual sampling was continued

through 1998, and results were statistically

compared with the initial characterization

data. No chemical or radiological

constituents attributable to the DOE’s

weapons testing or waste disposal activities

have been detected. The uppermost aquifer

meets current water quality standards for

drinking water sources. The analyses

performed are shown in Table 5.3. 

Groundwater monitoring results for 1998 can

be found in the “1998 Annual Groundwater

Monitoring Data Report” (BN 1999). 

At the NTS there are three nonhazardous

waste landfills that have state of Nevada

Operating Permits. The permitting process

considers groundwater protection at these

locations. At the Area 23 Class II Municipal

and Industrial Solid Waste Disposal Site,

there is no groundwater monitoring well.

However, Well SM-23-1 described below is

considered (informally) by the state as a

supplement to vadose monitoring at the

landfill. 

VADOSE ZONE MONITORING

A vadose zone monitoring strategy is being

implemented at the RWMSs in conjunction

with groundwater monitoring at RWMS-5, in

support of the RWMS-5 and RWMS-3

Performance Assessments (PAs), and as

proof of concept. Vadose zone monitoring

(VZM) offers many advantages over

groundwater monitoring including:

 providing critical assessment of facility

performance.

 detecting potential problems long before

the groundwater resource would be

impacted.
5-14

 allowing corrective actions to be made early. RWMS-5 in 1998. At the RWMS-3, soil

 differentiating the source of contamination cased boreholes angled under the U-3ah/at

(UGTA versus RWMS). and U-3ax/bl disposal units, and in cased

 eliminating the need to retrofit monitoring U-3bh disposal unit. Soil water content

on existing waste cells using near by sites. below the RWMS-3 remained unchanged in

 considerably less expensive than

groundwater monitoring. Installation of automated vadose zone

The primary objective of RWMS VZM is to with water content sensors (Total Domain

support the assumptions made in the PAs Reflectometry Probes) buried beneath the

and to measure water movement through floors of Pit 3 and 5 at the RWMS-5.

the vadose zone. In addition, DOE Orders Sensors for measurement of water content

5820.2A (DOE 1988) and 435.1 (435.1 will and water potential will be installed in the

replace 5820.2A) require that monitoring operational cover of Pit 3 in 1999 to provide

provide data to evaluate the performance of data on waste cell cover performance. 

a waste management operation. 

The RWMS VZM strategy is to directly

measure the water balance for an entire

facility. This is accomplished by use of

meteorological data to measure precipitation

and to calculate potential evapotranspiration

(ET); weighing lysimeters to measure actual

ET; neutron logging through access tubes;

and automated soil water sensors to

measure actual soil water content and water

potential changes with time and over a large

spatial coverage. This strategy provides an

accurate estimate of downward drainage

through the facilities and therefore, potential

recharge. Based on the initial results of this

strategy, as well as other work (Tyler et al.,

1996), there is essentially zero recharge to

the groundwater under current conditions at

the RWMS-3 and RWMS-5, and all

precipitation is effectively returned to the

atmosphere by plant transpiration and soil

evaporation.

Soil water content is monitored at Pits 1

through 4 at RWMS-5 and is monitored

under the U-3ah/at, U-3ax/bl, and U-3bh

disposal units at RWMS-3. Water content is

monitored every other month at these

locations to detect the downward movement

of wetting fronts from precipitation. At the

RWMS-5, monitoring is conducted using 

neutron moisture meters in access tubes

penetrating the operational cover

(approximately 8 ft), the waste zone 

(20 - 30 ft), and the vadose zone below the

pit floor. No wetting fronts were observed to

pass through the operational covers at the

water content monitoring is conducted in 

boreholes drilled directly into the floor of the 

1998.

monitoring systems was initiated in 1998

WELLHEAD RECONSTRUCTION AND

WELL REHABILITATION

The Hydrologic Resources Management

Program (HRMP) began an active borehole

surface rehabilitation program in 1997. The

rehabilitation of 11 boreholes was completed

in 1998. Rehabilitation activities include

either the extension or shortening of the

well’s casing to approximately one-half

meter aboveground level. Locking caps are

installed on each well along with the hole

designation inscribed on the outside of the

casing extension using a weld bead and the

painting of casings for easy identification. 

Many of the holes identified for rehabilitation

are either included in monitoring programs

such as the Routine Radiological

Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) or

are suitably located for potential utilization in

the monitoring networks. Video logging will

be used to determine the integrity of the hole

and accessability to the water table.

All of the wells associated with the state

permitted drinking water distribution systems

at the NTS have been inspected by the state

and meet current wellhead protection

regulations.

SEWAGE LAGOON COMPLIANCE

State Water Pollution Control Permit

GNEV93001 requires that one of four

methods of groundwater protection be

established at active sewage lagoons on the 

NTS by January 31, 1999. The four 
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-15

acceptable groundwater protection methods implementing corrective actions based on

identified in the permit include groundwater

monitoring, VZM, engineered liner

installation, and hydrogeological site

characterization.

Over the past four years, groundwater

protection permit compliance has been

attained at all but three of the NTS facilities.

During 1998, groundwater protection permit

compliance was attained at these three

remaining facilities: (1) the Area 6 Device

Assembly Facility, (2) the Area 25 Reactor

Control Pond, and (3) the Area 25 Central

Support Facility.

Initial groundwater sampling at the Area 23

Infiltration Basin Groundwater Monitoring

Well SM-23-1 was performed in August

1997, and compliance monitoring began in

1998. Results indicate that the groundwater

adjacent to and beneath the infiltration basin

meets drinking water standards. Information

on improvements to the monitoring well is

contained in Chapter 3.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL

RESTORATION PROGRAM

(ERP)

The Nevada ERP was begun in the late

1980s to address contamination resulting

primarily from nuclear weapons testing and

related support operations. The goals of the

project are to safeguard the public’s health

and safety and to protect the environment. 

This involves the assessment and cleanup

of contaminated sites and facilities to meet

standards required by federal and state

environmental laws. Approximately 878

sites used for historic underground nuclear

tests will be investigated, along with areas

where more than 100 aboveground tests

were conducted. Additionally, 1,500 other

sites that were used for support operations

will potentially require environmental

remediation. 

The DOE/NV is working closely with

representatives of the state of Nevada to

ensure compliance with applicable 

environmental regulations. The 1996 

FFACO provides a mechanism for 

public health and environmental

considerations in a cost-effective and

cooperative manner. It also establishes a

framework for identifying, prioritizing,

investigating, remediating, and monitoring

contaminated DOE sites in Nevada. The

FFACO’s corrective action requirements

supersede some portions of the NTS RCRA

Permit issued in May 1995. Investigations

and remediations follow a strategy for

investigation and remediation outlined in

Appendix VI, Corrective Action Strategy, of

the FFACO. The strategy is based on four

steps: (1) identifying corrective action sites,

(2) grouping the sites into corrective action

units, (3) prioritizing the units for funding and

work, and (4) implementing investigations or

actions as applicable. The sites are broadly

organized into underground test area sites,

industrial sites, soil sites, and off sites. 

Information related to investigation and

cleanup activities as it relates to

groundwater protection follows.

UNDERGROUND TEST AREA

(UGTA) SITES

The 1998 UGTA subproject field activities

focused on well development, testing, and

sampling wells near underground nuclear

tests. Some of this work was also supported

by the HRMP. These activities were

conducted in order to determine

radiochemical and hydrogeologic conditions

near tests in support of modeling at the

scale of Corrective Action Units. 

Contaminated fluid produced during

sampling was managed in accordance with

the UGTA Waste Management Plan 

(DOE 1996d) to prevent degradation of

groundwater. Evaporation of tritiated water

from the sampling operations is included in

the calculations for compliance with the

National Emissions Standard for Hazardous

Air Pollutants.

Accomplishments of the UGTA project in

1998 include the sampling of four near-event

wells and two post-shot/cavity wells on

Pahute Mesa. The near-event wells were at

the TYBO (ER-20-5 #1 and #3) and the 
5-16

BULLION (ER-20-6 #1 and #3) underground conducted on Pahute Mesa in February of

nuclear tests. The two cavity wells were at 1976. Radionuclide migration studies at this

the CHESHIRE (U-20n PS1ddh) and site have been intermittent since 1976. 

CAMEMBERT (U-19q PS1A) tests. In

general, results show expected levels of Samples were analyzed at LLNL for major

contamination in the post shot and near- cations and anions, hydrogen and oxygen

event wells on Pahute Mesa. Other isotopes, C, C, Cl, Sr, U, noble

activities included support/contributions, gases, and Pu. For each of these wells,

along with other agencies and projects, to analytical letters of accomplishment were

various studies. These activities are prepared. 

summarized below. Results are scheduled

for publication in 1999. Personnel of BN successfully pumped and

POST-SHOT WELLS (“HOT WELLS”) (DALHART post-shot well drilled into the

A multi-agency team consisting of

personnel from the United States Geological

Survey (USGS), Los Alamos National

Laboratory (LANL) and Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory (LLNL) collected fluid

samples via bailing techniques from two

wells completed in and near expended test

cavities. Fluid samples were successfully

collected from wells associated with the

ALMENDRO (U-19v PS1ds) and ALEMAN

(UE-3e#4 piezometer cluster) tests. 

Samples were collected at slant depths of

1091.2 m, 658.4 m, and 573.0 m (3580’,

2160’, and 1880’) from U-19v PS1ds, 

UE-3e#4 P1, and UE-3e#4 P2, respectively. 

During sample collection, field parameters

including temperature, pH, and conductivity

were measured. Samples were then

analyzed for major cations and anions, trace

metals, H, C, C, Sr, -emitting 3 13 14 90

radionuclides, Pu, and colloids. For results

describing the discovery of colloidal

transport of plutonium over 1.3 km from the

working point of a device, see Kersting et

al., 1999. For other analytical results

associated with ALMENDRO and ALEMAN

sampling, see Smith et al., 1999.

Samples collected from the lower zone of

U20-n PS#1ddh present a unique

opportunity to analyze cavity fluids and

represent the first cavity fluid samples

collected in 14 years. U-20n PS#1ddh was

drilled to support studies of radionuclide

migration from the cavity/chimney region of

the CHESHIRE underground test that was 

13 14 36 87/86 234/238

sampled cavity fluids from well U-4uPS#2A

cavity in 1990) using tandem in-line Bennett

pumps. This new method of sample

collection may facilitate the collection of

representative cavity fluid samples. The

DALHART test was fired on October 13,

1988, in central Yucca Flat.

Samples collected at U-4uPS#2A in 1998

were analyzed at LLNL and LANL for major

cation and anions, trace metals, -emitting

radionuclides, and plutonium. For results,

see Smith et al., 1999.

NEAR-TEST STUDIES

Near-test wells that were sampled in 1998

include ER-20-5 #1 and #3, ER-20-6 #1 and

#3. Samples were analyzed at LLNL and

LANL for major cations and anions,

hydrogen and oxygen isotopes, C, C, 13 14

Cl, Sr, U, noble gases, and Pu. 36 87/86 234/238

Analytical letters of accomplishment were

prepared for each of these wells.

From 1995 to early 1996, the UGTA

subproject drilled two holes, ER-20-5 #1 and

#3, adjacent to the site of the underground 

nuclear test, code named TYBO (DOE

1997c). Water samples from these wells

were analyzed at LANL and LLNL and were

found to contain radionuclides not often

measured in similar sites (LANL 1998).

The purpose of drilling at Well Cluster ER20-5 was to characterize the nature and

extent of radionuclide migration adjacent to

a relatively large yield test conducted below 
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-17

the water table. The TYBO test was Radionuclides in water samples were

conducted on Pahute Mesa on May 14, variously analyzed by International

1975, at a depth of 765 m (2,509 ft), which is Technology, LLNL, Desert Research

below the static water level of 630 m Institute (DRI), and LANL. Additional

(2,066 ft). Well ER-20-5 #1 was completed information and analytical results for 1998

and screened in a transmissive aquifer at a studies will be reported by the respective

depth comparable to the working point of the organizations during 1999.

TYBO test. 

Well ER-20-5 #3 was completed and

screened in a deeper transmissive aquifer at

a depth comparable to the working point of

the 1968 BENHAM test, located 1,300 m

(4,265 ft) to the north (DOE 1997c). The

BENHAM test was fired on December 19,

1968, at a depth of 1,402 m (4,599 ft), which

is below the static water table of 641 m

(2,102 ft). Both ER-20-5 #1 and #3 were

believed to be sited hydrologically

downgradient of the TYBO test.

Radionuclides detected include Cs, Co, 137 60

Eu, and Pu. Except for tritium, 152,154,155 239+240

the activity levels measured in the ER-20-5

groundwater are below the drinking water

limits calculated by EPA standards. 

Groundwater samples collected in April 1997

at ER-20-5 #1 had a tritium activity of 

6.89 x 10 pCi/L (2.55 MBq/L) and 1.42 x 10 7 5

pCi/L (5.3 kBq/L) at ER-20-5 #3. Prefiltering

of the water samples indicates that, except

for tritium, the radionuclides are associated

with particulates and colloids. Furthermore,

isotopic ratios for Pu are relative to the 239+240

BENHAM test 1,300 m (4,265 ft) to the

north, and not to the closer TYBO test, as

expected (Thompson et al., 1997).

The BULLION Forced-Gradient Experiment

was conducted from June 2 to August 28,

1997, at Well Cluster ER-20-6 on Pahute 

Mesa in the northwestern corner of the NTS. 

This well cluster consists of three wells: a

production well (ER-20-6 #3) and two

injection/sampling wells located 88.7 m 

(ER-20-6 #2) and 130.1 m (ER-20-6 #1) from

the production well. The wells are aligned

approximately with the local groundwater

gradient and the major fracture system, a

short distance downgradient from the

BULLION test. In 1998, Well #3 was

pumped to sustain a groundwater gradient

towards this well.

DOE continued 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 evaluate the

decay and potential migration of

radionuclides through monitoring at or near

the source. LANL and LLNL monitored

water at the TYBO (ER-20-5), BULLION

(ER-20-6), and ALMENDRO (U-19v PS1ds) 

tests on Pahute Mesa and the DALHART

(U-4u PS2A) and ALEMAN (UE-3e#4) tests

in Yucca Flat (Smith et al., 1999). A LANL

summary will also be released in 1999.

In addition to radionuclides more commonly

found in cavity fluids, the presence of lowlevels of plutonium (0.22 pCi/L at collection

time) were confirmed in well ER-20-5#3. 

Results from this sampling event will be

included in the LLNL Hot Well Database,

which compiles new and historical

radiochemical data from cavity and near

cavity wells on the NTS. LLNL continues to

investigate the occurrence, distribution, and

potential mobility of radionuclides in the

sub-surface through investigation of archival

post-shot debris. Static leaching

experiments of glass and crystalline samples

were continued to elucidate controls on the

solubility of radionuclides.

INDUSTRIAL SITES AND

DECONTAMINATION AND

DECOMMISSIONING

The Area 6 Decontamination Pond RCRA

Closure Unit characterization was completed

in 1998. Additional geotechnical sampling

and testing were completed for the

Corrective Measures Study. Design and

field testing for the engineered cover were 

completed in 1998. Closure activities were

also completed in 1998.
5-18

An annual report was submitted to comply samples contained detectable

with the conditions of the RCRA Part B

Permit for the Area 2 Bitcutter Shop and

LLNL Post-Shot Containment Building

Injection Wells RCRA Closure Unit that were

closed in 1996. These facilities and other

NTS facilities with RCRA closure plans are

listed in Table 5.4.

ABANDONED UNDERGROUND STORAGE

TANKS 

The NTS underground storage tank (UST)

program continues to meet regulatory

compliance schedules. Details of this

program are discussed in Chapter 3.

OFFSITE LOCATIONS

The offsite areas are described in Section

5.2 of this chapter. Activities related to

groundwater protection at these sites are

conducted as part of the ERP. Investigation

and cleanup at these sites are being

conducted in accordance with the FFACO,

with the state of Nevada, for the two sites in

Nevada, SHOAL and FAULTLESS. In the

remainder of the states, agreements will be from gamma spectrometry were nondeveloped as the restoration activities

proceed. Following is a summary of

activities at sites where activities were

conducted during 1998.

Routine sampling and analysis of

groundwater was conducted at the following

offsite project locations: FAULTLESS, 

SHOAL, RULISON, RIO BLANCO, GNOME,

GASBUGGY, and DRIBBLE. Additional

work at the Project DRIBBLE site included

the addition of 14 shallow wells to the annual

sampling program; increasing the total wells

sampled onsite to 55. Results of the 1998

sampling and analysis efforts are discussed

in Section 5.5.

5.5 WATER SURVEILLANCE

PROGRAM RESULTS

The analytical results obtained for water

samples collected onsite and offsite are

described in this Section. Only a few 

concentrations of radionuclides. Table 5.5

lists the routine sampling locations, onsite

and offsite, where well water samples

contained concentrations greater than 0.2

percent of the National Primary Drinking

Water Standards.

ONSITE WATER MONITORING

RESULTS

RADIOACTIVITY IN SURFACE WATER

Surface water sampling at the NTS was

conducted at six containment ponds, one

tunnel effluent, and nine sewage lagoons. 

The locations of these sources are shown in

Figure 5.2. When water was available and

the weather permitted, a grab sample was

taken and analyzed in accordance with

Table 5.2. 

The annual average for each radionuclide

analyzed in surface waters is presented in

Table 5.6, along with the results from

analysis of tunnel effluents. The results

detectable for all sample locations, except

for samples from the E Tunnel effluent and

pond. 

With the exception of containment ponds, no

annual average concentration in surface

waters was found to be statistically different

from any other at the 5 percent significance

level. 

RESERVOIRS AND SPRINGS

These surface waters (water well reservoirs

and natural springs) were eliminated from

the environmental monitoring program in

accordance with the RREMP that was

developed in 1998.

CONTAINMENT PONDS

Due to the sealing of the tunnels at the close

of 1993, liquid effluents ceased at all except

E Tunnel. The E Tunnel containment ponds 
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-19

were fenced and posted with radiological of the distribution systems to provide a

warning signs. During each sampling, a

grab sample was taken from the E Tunnel

containment pond and at the effluent

discharge point. The samples were

analyzed for H, Sr, Pu, Pu, gross 3 90 238 239+240

alpha, gross beta, and gamma activity in

accordance with the schedule in Table 5.2. 

The annual averages of these analyses from

the two sampling locations are listed in

Table 5.6. Also detectable were U. 234, 235, 238

The effluent from characterization wells in

Areas 4, 19, and 20 was discharged into

containment ponds. The total liquid

discharged was measured. By multiplying

that volume by the average concentration of

H in collected samples, shown in Table 5.6, 3

the total amount of tritium discharged 

(87 Ci or 3.2 TBq) was calculated.

SEWAGE LAGOONS 

Samples were collected quarterly during

1998 from the nine sewage lagoons on the

network. Each of the lagoons is part of a

closed system used for evaporative

treatment of sanitary waste. The lagoons

are located in Areas 5, 6, 12, 22, 23, and 25. 

The annual gross beta concentration

averages for all lagoons ranged between 4.0

to 76 x 10 μCi/mL (0.14 to 2.8 Bq/L). No -9

radioactivity was detected above the MDCs

for H, Sr, Pu, or Pu. No test- 3 90 238 239+240

related radioactivity was detected by gamma

spectrometric analyses.

RADIOACTIVITY IN SUPPLY WELLS AND

DRINKING WATER

The principal water distribution system on

the NTS is potentially the critical pathway for

ingestion of waterborne radionuclides. quality, samples were taken from seven

Consequently, the water distribution system

is sampled and evaluated frequently. The

NTS water system consisted of 13 supply

wells, 10 of which supplied potable water to

onsite distribution systems. The drinking

water is pumped from the wells to the points

of consumption. The supply wells were

sampled on a quarterly basis. Drinking

water is sampled at taps on the end-points 

constant check of the radioactivity and to

allow end-use activity comparisons to the

radioactivity of the water in the supply wells. 

In this section, analytical results are

presented from samples taken at the 13

supply wells. Each well was sampled and

analyzed as noted in the schedule in 

Table 5.2. As a cross check on the

comparability of analyses by BN and EPA’s

R&IE-LV on water well samples, several

wells were concurrently sampled by both

organizations. The results of these

analyses, listed in Table 5.7, showed

reasonably good agreement. 

The locations of the supply wells are shown

in Figure 5.1. Water from these wells 

(11 potable and 2 nonpotable) was used for

a variety of purposes during 1998. Samples

were collected from those wells which could

potentially provide water for human

consumption. These data were used to help

document the radiological characteristics of

the NTS groundwater system. The sample 

results are maintained in a database so that

long-term trends and changes can be

studied. Table 5.8 lists the drinking water

sources, and Table 5.9 lists the potable and

nonpotable supply wells and their respective

radioactivity averages. No test-related

radionuclides were detected by gamma

spectrometry. Included in the table are the

median MDCs for each of the measurements

for comparison to the concentration

averages for each location. For various 

operational reasons, samples could not be

collected from all locations every sampling

period.

As a check on any effect the water

distribution system might have on water

water distribution system end-points (tap

water samples). To ensure that all of the

water available for consumption was being

considered, each drinking water system was

identified. The drinking water network at the

NTS consists of four drinking water systems. 

The components of the four are shown in

Table 5.8. These systems, fed by ten

potable supply wells, are the source of the 
5-20

water for the seven end-points. Table 5.10 percent and 0.018 percent, respectively, of

lists the annual concentration averages for the drinking water DCG adjusted to a 

all of the analyses performed on tap water 4 mrem (0.04 mSv) EDE.

samples. No test-related radionuclides were

detected by gamma spectrometry. PLUTONIUM

GROSS BETA

As shown in Table 5.9, the gross beta the MDCs of about 2.0 x 10 μCi/mL, which

concentration averages for all the supply are about 2.0 percent of their respective

wells were above the median MDC of the DCGs adjusted to a 4 mrem EDE per year. 

measurement. The highest average gross Table 5.9 lists the concentration averages of

beta activity occurred at Well C-1 and was these nuclides for each location.

1.4 x 10 μCi/mL (0.51 Bq/L), which was 4.7 -8

percent of the DCG for K and 35 percent of The annual averages of Pu and Pu 40

the DCG for Sr based upon 4 mrem for each tap water sample were below the 90

effective dose equivalent (EDE) per year. In median MDC of the measurements, which

earlier reports (Scoggins 1983, 1984), it was were both less than 2 percent of the 4 mrem

noted that the majority of gross beta activity DCG. These isotopes are not normally

was attributable to naturally occurring K. detected in drinking water. 40

All concentration averages were comparable

to those reported in 1997. GROSS ALPHA

As in previous years, the gross beta

concentration averages for all tap water

samples were above the median MDC of the

measurements. The highest annual average

of 7.3 x 10 μCi/mL (0.27 Bq/L) occurred in -9

the Area 23 Cafeteria, similar to the supply

well water. The annual EDE is also

equivalent to that from the supply well water.

TRITIUM

As shown in Table 5.9, the average tritium

concentrations at all supply wells was below

the average MDC of the measurement (note

that the MDC was 14 x 10 μCi/mL, based -9

on tritium enrichment analysis). 

The annual average tritium concentrations in

tap water samples, as shown in Table 5.10,

were all less than the median MDC of 

7.3 x 10 μCi/mL. The tritium -7

concentrations for all end-point water

samples, which were determined by a

conventional liquid scintillation counting

method, are expected to be lower than the

MDC, since the levels of tritium in the

potable supply wells were below the median

tritium enrichment MDC of 1.4 x 10 μCi/mL -8

(0.52 Bq/L). These MDC values are 0.9

All supply-well water samples analyzed for

Pu and Pu had concentrations below 238 239+240

-11

239+240 238

In accordance with the National Primary

Drinking Water Regulations (CFR 1976),

gross alpha measurements were made on

quarterly samples from the drinking water

systems, namely the potable supply wells. 

As shown in Table 5.9, the average gross

alpha concentration for all of the supply

wells, except Well 8, was above the median

MDC of 1.7 x 10 μCi/mL. The highest -9

concentration occurred in samples from 

Well 5C in Area 5 and was 14 x 10 μCi/mL -9

(0.51 Bq/L). This is acceptable according to 

the EPA drinking water standard (CFR 1976)

as long as the combined concentration of

Ra and Ra is less than 5 x 10 μCi/mL 226 228 -9

(0.18 Bq/L). The combined radium

concentration, for this well, was less than

the combined MDC of 4.5 x 10 μCi/mL -9

(0.17 Bq/L), as shown in Table 5.11.

As added assurance that no radioactivity

gets into the systems between the supply

wells and end-point users, measurements of

gross alpha are also made on quarterly tap

water samples. As shown in Table 5.10, the

annual concentration averages for gross

alpha radioactivity in tap water samples,

collected at three locations, exceeded the 
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-21

screening level of 5 pCi/L (0.19 Bq/L), at (2.9 kBq/L) in a sample from Well UE-5n. 

which Ra analysis is required. Samples 226

from the supply wells were collected and

analyzed for both Ra and Ra. As 226 228

shown by the radium results in Table 5.11,

the sum of the average concentrations for

Ra and Ra were all less than 5 pCi/L, 226 228

which showed the onsite systems were in

compliance with drinking water regulations.

STRONTIUM

Beginning in 1994, Sr analyses were 90

changed from annually to quarterly on

samples collected from the potable supply

wells, and analyses on non-potable supply

wells were on an annual basis. This year

both types of well received quarterly Sr 90

analysis. The concentration averages of

Sr for each location, as shown in Table 5.9, 90

were below the median MDC.

As indicated by Table 5.10, the Sr results 90

for samples collected from all the selected

tap water samples had concentrations that

were less than the median MDC of the

measurements.

LTHMP MONITORING ON AND

AROUND THE NEVADA TEST SITE

NEVADA TEST SITE MONITORING 

The present R&IE-LV sampling locations on

the NTS, or immediately outside its borders

on federally owned land are shown in Figure

5.3. All sampling locations are selected by

DOE and primarily represent locations

included in the RREMP. Since 1995, R&IELV has sampled only wells without pumps

and, for quality assurance purposes,

collected samples from some of the potable

water supply wells sampled by BN. A total

of 22 wells was included in this project.

All samples were analyzed by gamma

spectrometry and for tritium. No gammaemitting radionuclides were detected in any

of the NTS samples collected in 1998. 

Summary results of tritium analyses are

given in Table 5.12. The highest average used for sites on the NTS and offsite areas 

tritium activity was 7.8 x 10 pCi/L 4

This activity is less than the DCG for tritium

as established in DOE Order 5400.5 for

comparison with the dose limit (4 mrem) in

the National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations. Seven of the wells yielded

tritium results greater than the MDC. The

trend in tritium concentration in samples

from Test Well B is shown in Figure 5.6 and

is typical of a well with decreasing tritium

concentrations. The source of the tritium is

unknown. Well UE-7ns was routinely

sampled between 1978 and 1987 and such

sampling began again in 1992.

OFFSITE MONITORING IN THE VICINITY

OF THE NEVADA TEST SITE

Water sampling around the NTS is

conducted by the EPA’s R&IE-LV, under an

interagency agreement with DOE, to ensure

the radiological safety of public drinking

water supplies and representative water

sources of rural residents and, where

suitable, to monitor any migration of

radionuclides from the NTS. The sampling

locations are shown on Figure 5.4 and the

analytical results are in Table 5.13. No manmade gamma-emitting radionuclides were

detected in any sample. 

LTHMP MONITORING AT OTHER

TEST SITES

Annual sampling of surface and

groundwaters is conducted at the Projects

SHOAL and FAULTLESS sites in Nevada, 

Projects GASBUGGY and GNOME sites in

New Mexico, Projects RULISON and 

RIO BLANCO sites in Colorado, and Project

DRIBBLE site in Mississippi. Sampling is

normally conducted in odd numbered years

on Amchitka Island, Alaska, at the site of

Projects CANNIKIN, LONG SHOT, and

MILROW. These were last sampled in 1997

(Faller 1997).

The sampling procedure is the same as that

(described above), with the exception that
t o 3.8- samples are collected in

Cubitainers. The second sample serves as

a backup or as a duplicate sample.

P O CT FA T SS

Pro ect FA T SS as a eapons related

test conducted on anuary 19 1968 in

Central Nevada in a sparsely populated

area near lue ay aintenance Station

Nevada. The test had a yield bet een 200

and 1000 t and as designed to test the

behavior of seismic aves and to determine

the site s usefulness for high-yield tests.

The emplacement depth as 975 m

3199 ft . A surface depression as

created but as an irregular bloc along local

faults rather than as a saucer-shaped crater.

The area is characteri ed by basin and

range topography ith alluvium overlying

tuffaceous sediments. The or ing point of

the test as in tuff.

Sampling as conducted on February 26

and arch 17 1998 at locations sho n in

Figure 5.7. outine sampling locations

include one spring and five ells of varying

depths. All routine samples ere collected.

At least t o ells HTH-1 and HTH-2 are

positioned to intercept migration from the

test cavity should it occur Chapman and

Ho ett 1991 .

Gamma-ray spectral analysis results

indicated that no man-made gammaemitting radionuclides ere present in any

sample above the DC. Tritium

concentrations ere less then the DC see

Table 5.14 . These results are consistent

with those obtained in previous years. The

results for tritium indicate that no migration

into the sampled ells has ta en place and

no test-related radioactivity has entered

area drin ing ater supplies.

1.0

0.1

10 0.01

-2

10

-1

10

0

Year

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Percent DCG

Percent DCG

Figure 5.6 Trend in Tritium Concentration, Test W ell B on the NTS

5-22
Surface Ground Zero

Water Sampling Locations

Scale in Kilometers

0 Scale in Miles

0

5

5 10

Blue Jay

Maintenance

Station

Site C Complex

Six-Mile Well

Well HTH 2

Well HTH 1

Hot Creek

Ranch Spring

LOCATION MAP

NEVADA NYE

COUNTY

6

Figure 5.7 Sampling Locations at the FAULTLESS Site - 1998

5-23

WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
5-24

PROJECT SHOAL in 1976. Some surface contamination 

Project SHOAL, a 12-kt test emplaced at

365 m (1,198 ft), was conducted on October

26, 1963, in Fallon Nevada, in a sparsely

populated area near Frenchman Station,

Nevada. The test, part of the Vela Uniform

Program, was designed to improve the

capability to detect, identify, and locate locations in the area of Grand Valley and 

nuclear explosions. The working point was

in granite and no surface crater was 

created. 

Samples were collected on February 24 and

25, 1998. The sampling locations are shown

in Figure 5.8. Only eight of the nine routine

wells were sampled. In 1997, four new wells

were added to the LTHMP, which are near

surface ground zero (SGZ). Sampling of

these wells was done in February and March

1998. Well HC-3 was dry and will have to be

reworked; it will be sampled in 1999. The

routine locations include one spring, one

windmill, and seven wells of varying depths. 

At least one location, Well HS-1, should

intercept radioactivity migrating from the test

cavity, should it occur (Chapman and Hokett

1991). 

Gamma-ray spectral analysis results

indicated that no man-made gamma-emitting

radionuclides were present in any samples

above the MDC. One of the new wells, 

HC-4 drilled in 1996, had a tritium

concentration of 680 ± 140 pCi/L (25 ± 5

Bq/L). Tritium concentrations at all the other

locations were below the MDC (see Table

5.15).

PROJECT RULISON

Cosponsored by the AEC and Austral Oil

Company under the Plowshare Program,

Project RULISON was designed to stimulate

natural gas recovery in the Mesa Verde

formation. The test, conducted near Grand

Valley, Colorado, on September 10, 1969,

consisted of a 40-kt nuclear explosive

emplaced at a depth of 2,568 m (8,425 ft). 

Production testing began in 1970 and was Shallow wells at three local ranches (Koch,

completed in April 1971. Cleanup was Goad, and Arnold Machley) were sampled

initiated in 1972 and the wells were plugged during the routine visit to the RULISON site

resulted from decontamination of drilling

equipment and fallout from gas flaring.

Contaminated soil was removed during the

cleanup operations.

Sampling was conducted May 12, 1998, with

collection of samples from all sampling

Rulison, Colorado. Routine sampling

locations are shown in Figure 5.9 and 

include the Grand Valley municipal drinking

water supply springs, water supply wells for

five local ranches, and five sites in the

vicinity of SGZ, including one test well, a

surface-discharge spring and a surface

sampling location on Battlement Creek. 

Seven new monitoring wells were completed

at the RULISON site in 1995 as part of the

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility

Study. Two of these wells were added to

the LTHMP in 1997, RU-1 and RU-2.

Tritium has never been observed in

measurable concentrations in the Grand

Valley City Springs. All of the remaining

sampling sites show detectable levels of

tritium, which have generally exhibited a

stable or decreasing trend over the last two

decades. The range of tritium activity in

1998 was from 33 ± 5 pCi/L (1.2 ± 0.2 Bq/L)

at Well RU-2, to 80 ± 4.7 pCi/L (3 ± 0.2

Bq/L) at Lee Hayward Ranch. All values

were less than 1 percent of the DCG (see

Table 5.16). The detectable tritium activities

were probably a result of the high natural

background in the area. This was supported

by the DRI analysis, which indicated that

most of the sampling locations were shallow,

drawing water from the surficial aquifer

which was unlikely to become contaminated

by any radionuclides arising from the Project

RULISON cavity (Chapman and Hokett

1991). Gamma-ray spectral analysis results

indicated that man-made gamma-emitting

radionuclides were not present in any

samples above the MDC.
Figure 5.8 Sampling Locations at the SHOAL Site - 1998

5-25

WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

Surface Ground Zero

Water Sampling Locations

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles

0 5

0

10

5 10 15

Flowing Well

Well H-3

Well HC-1

Well HC-4

Hunt's Station Well

LYON COUNTY

MINERAL COUNTY

CHURCHILL COUNTY

Well HS-1

Fallon

LOCATION MAP

NEVADA

CHURCHILL

COUNTY

50

Well H-2

Well HC-2

389

95
Figure 5.9 Sampling Locations at the RULISON Site - 1998

5-26

Gardner

Ranch

Grand Valley

Grand Valley

City Springs

Rothgery

Ranch

Potter Ranch

CER

Test Well

Battlement Creek

Spring

Well Ru-1

Well Ru-2

Jacobs Ranch

Rifle

A. Machley

Goad Ranch

Koch Ranch

LOCATION MAP

COLORADO

GARFIELD

COUNTY

Rulison

624

789

13

Scale in Kilometers

0 Scale in Miles

0

5

8

Surface Ground Zero

Communities

Water Sampling Locations

Hayward Ranch
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-27

in May of 1998. A second sample was (RB-D-01 and RB-D-03) are suitable for

collected later in the month from Goad

Ranch by Maxim Environmental of Golden,

Colorado with the in-line filter removed from

the well outlet. All samples were analyzed

for tritium, uranium, and plutonium, and

surveyed for gamma-emitting radionuclides

at the EPA laboratory. In all three wells,

tritium concentrations were very similar 

(~30-40 pCi/L) and consistent with the levels 1.3 ± 2.8 pCi/L (0.05 ± 0.10 Bq/L) at the 

of tritium typically found in surface waters

and shallow wells at this latitude. Uranium

was also detectable in all the samples,

including the second sample from the Goad

Ranch well (unfiltered). Total uranium

concentrations ( U + U + U) in the 238 235 234

Rulison special samples ranged from a high

of 11 pCi/L in the Koch Ranch well to a low

of 4.2 pCi/L at the Goad Ranch with the

wellhead filter in place. The corresponding

uranium concentration in the unfiltered

sample collected from Goad Ranch later in

the month by Maxim Environmental was 

6.0 pCi/L, or slightly higher than the filtered

sample. The sample from the Arnold

Machley well contained 7.9 pCi/L of uranium.

PROJECT RIO BLANCO

Project RIO BLANCO, a joint governmentindustry test designed to stimulate natural

gas flow, was conducted under the

Plowshare Program. The test was

conducted on May 17, 1973, at a location

between Rifle and Meeker Colorado. Three

nuclear explosives, with a total yield of 99 kt,

were emplaced at 1780-, 1920-, and 2040-m

(5840-, 6299-, and 6693-ft) depths in the

Fort Union and Mesa Verde formations. 

Production testing continued to 1976 when

cleanup and restoration activities were

completed. Tritiated water produced during

testing was injected to 1710 m (5610 ft) in a

nearby gas well.

Samples were collected May 13 and 14,

1998, from the sampling sites shown in

Figure 5.10. The routine sampling locations

included four springs, four surface sites, and

five wells. Three of the wells are located

near the cavity and at least two of the wells

monitoring possible migration of radioactivity

from the cavity.

No radioactive materials attributable to the

RIO BLANCO test were detected in samples

collected in the offsite areas during May

1998. The range of tritium activity in 1998,

using the enrichment method, was from 

RB-D-03, to 2.7 ± 32 pCi/L (0.10 ± 1.2 Bq/L) 

at RB-D-01 (see Table 5.17). In samples

analyzed conventionally, all results were well

below the MDC. All tritium concentrations

are much less than the 20,000 pCi/L level

defined in the EPA National Primary Drinking

Water Regulations (CFR 1976). All samples

were analyzed for presence of gammaemitting radionuclides, and none were

detected. 

PROJECT GNOME

Project GNOME, conducted on December

10, 1961, near Carlsbad, New Mexico, was a

multipurpose test performed in a salt

formation under the Plowshare Program. A

3-kt nuclear explosive was emplaced at a

depth of 371 m (1,217 ft) in the Salado salt

formation. Radioactive gases were

unexpectedly vented during the test. The

USGS conducted a tracer study in 1963,

involving injection of 20 Ci H, 10 Ci Cs, 3 137

10 Ci Sr, and 4 Ci I (740, 370, 370, and 90 131

150 GBq, respectively) into Well USGS-8

and pumping water from Well USGS-4. 

During cleanup activities in 1968-1969,

contaminated material was placed in the test

cavity access well. More material was

slurried into the cavity and drifts in 1979.

Sampling at Project GNOME was conducted

May 19 through 21, 1998. The routine

sampling sites, depicted in Figure 5.11,

include nine monitoring wells in the vicinity

of GZ and the municipal water supplies at

Loving and Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Tritium results greater than the MDC were

detected in water samples from 4 of the 12

sampling locations in the immediate vicinity

of GZ. Tritium activities in Wells DD-1,

LRL-7, USGS-4, and USGS-8 ranged from
Figure 5.10 Sampling Locations at the RIO BLANCO Site - 1998

5-28

GARFIELD COUNTY

RIO BLANCO COUNTY

LOCATION MAP

RIO BLANCO

COUNTY

Fawn Cr. No. 3 Well

Fawn Cr. 6800'

Upstream

Fawn Cr. 500'

Upstream

Fawn Cr. 8400'

Downstream

Well RB-D-01

Well RB-D-03

Well RB-S-03

Surface Ground Zero

Water Sampling Locations

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles 0

0

2.5

4 COLORADO

Johnson

Artesian Well

Well CER-4

B-1 Equity

Camp

Brennan

Windmill

Fawn Cr. 500' Downstream

Well CER-1

Fawn Creek

Fawn Cr. No. 1
Figure 5.11 Sampling Locations at the GNOME Site - 1998

5-29

Surface Ground Zero

PHS Well 10

PHS Well 9

PHS Well 6

Well LRL-7

Well DD-1

Well USGS-1

Well USGS 4

Well USGS 8

Loving

Loving City

Well 2

Carlsbad

City

Well 7

Carlsbad

PHS Well 8

Water Sampling Locations

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles

0 5

0 5 10

10

15

LOCATION MAP

NEW

MEXICO

EDDY

COUNTY

128

285

Mobley

Ranch

WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
5-30

5.8 x 10 to 1.8 x 10 pCi/L (2.1 x 10 to 67 Well EPNG 10-36, a gas well located 132 m 7 3 6

Bq/L). Well DD-1 collects water from the

test cavity; Well LRL-7 collects water from a

side drift; and Wells USGS-4 and -8 were

used in the radionuclide tracer study

conducted by the USGS. None of these 

wells are sources of potable water. 

In addition to H, Cs and Sr 3 137 90

concentrations were observed in samples

from Wells DD-1, LRL-7, and USGS-8 and 

Sr activity was detected in Well USGS-4 as 90

in previous years (see Table 5.18). No H3

was detected in the remaining sampling

locations, including Well USGS-1, which the

DRI analysis (Chapman and Hokett 1991)

indicated is positioned to detect any

migration of radioactivity from the cavity. All

other tritium results were below the MDC.

PROJECT GASBUGGY

Project GASBUGGY was a Plowshare 

Program test co-sponsored by the U.S.

Government and El Paso Natural Gas. 

Conducted near Farmington, New Mexico,

on December 10, 1967, the test was

designed to stimulate a low productivity

natural gas reservoir. A nuclear explosive

with a 29-kt yield was emplaced at a depth

of 1290 m (4240 ft). Production testing was

completed in 1976, and restoration activities

were completed in July 1978.

Sampling at GASBUGGY was conducted

during May 16 through 17, 1998. Only

twelve samples were collected at the

designated sampling locations shown in

Figure 5.12. The Bixler Ranch well has

been sealed and the Well 28.3.32.343 north

had the pumps removed and no samples

could be obtained. 

The Cedar Springs sampling site yielded

enriched tritium activity of 36 ± 4.1 pCi/L 

(1.3 ± 0.15 Bq/L) and for Cave Spring it was

36 ± 3.5 pCi/L (1.3 ± 0.13 Bq/L), which was

less than 0.5 percent of the DCG and similar

to the range seen in previous years. Tritium

samples from the other locations were all

below the average MDC.

(435 ft) northwest of the test cavity, with a

sampling depth of approximately 1,100 m

(3,600 ft), has yielded detectable tritium

activities since 1984. The sample collected

in May 1998 contained H at a concentration 3

of 100 ± 4.5 pCi/L (3.7 ± 0.17 Bq/L) as

shown in Table 5.19. The migration

mechanism and route are not currently

known, although an analysis by DRI

indicated two feasible routes, one through

the Printed Cliffs sandstones and the other

one through the Ojo Alamo sandstone, one

of the principal aquifers in the region

(Chapman et al., 1996). In either case,

fractures extending from the cavity may be

the primary or a contributing mechanism.

All gamma-ray spectral analysis results

indicated that no man-made gamma-emitting

radionuclides were present in any offsite

samples. Tritium concentrations of water

samples collected onsite and offsite are

consistent with those of past studies at the

GASBUGGY site.

PROJECT DRIBBLE 

Project DRIBBLE was comprised of two

nuclear and two gas explosive tests,

conducted in the SALMON site area near

Hattiesburg, Mississippi, under the Vela

Uniform Program. The purpose of Project

DRIBBLE was to study the effects of

decoupling on seismic signals produced by

nuclear explosives tests. The first test,

SALMON, was a nuclear device with a yield

of 5.3 kt, detonated on October 22, 1964, at

a depth of 826 m (2710 ft). This created the

cavity used for the subsequent tests,

including STERLING, a nuclear test

conducted on December 3, 1966, with a

yield of 380 tons, and the two gas

explosions, DIODE TUBE (on February 2,

1969) and HUMID WATER (on April 19,

1970). The ground surface and shallow

groundwater aquifers were contaminated by

disposal of drilling muds and fluids in surface

pits. The radioactive contamination was

primarily limited to the unsaturated zone and

upper, nonpotable aquifers near SGZ. 

Shallow wells, labeled HMH wells on
Figure 5.12 Sampling Locations at the GASBUGGY Site - 1998

5-31

WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

Surface Ground Zero

Water Sampling Locations

Not Sampled

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles 0

0

5

8

Bixler Ranch

To Blanco &

Gobernador

Bubbling

Springs

La Jara Creek

EPNG Well 10-36 Windmill 2 Well Jicarilla Well 1

Lower Burro

Canyon Well

Well 28.3.33.233S

Cedar Springs

Cave Springs

Arnold Ranch

Arnold Ranch Well

Pond N.E. of Well Below

Well 30.3.32.343N

To Dulce

LOCATION MAP

NEW

MEXICO

RIO

ARRIBA

COUNTY

17

537

64
5-32

Figure 5.13, have been added to the area noted above. In the samples from the 14

near SGZ to monitor this contamination. 

Fifteen new wells were completed in 1996

and first sampled by the EPA LTHMP

Program in 1998. These wells are shallow,

between 9 m and 12 m (30 ft to 40 ft) in

depth. In addition to the monitoring of wells

near SGZ, extensive sampling of water wells

is conducted in the nearby offsite area as

shown in Figure 5.14.

Because of the variability noted in past

years in samples from the shallow

monitoring wells near SGZ, the sampling

procedure was modified; a second sample is

taken after pumping for a specified period of

time or after the well has been pumped dry

and permitted to recharge. These second

samples may be representative of formation

water, whereas the first samples may be

more indicative of recent rainfall. 

Sampling at the SALMON site was

conducted from April 19 to April 23, 1998. 

Long-term decreasing trends in tritium

concentrations are evident for those

locations that had detectable tritium activity

at the beginning of the LTHMP, such as in

the samples from the Baxterville City Well

depicted in Figure 5.15 and Well HM-S

shown in Figure 5.16. Due to the high

rainfall in the area, the normal sampling

procedure is modified for the shallow onsite

wells as described above. Of the 55

locations sampled onsite, 34 sites were

sampled twice (pre-and post-pumping), and

25 yielded tritium activities greater than the

MDC in either the first or second sample. Of

these, 16 yielded results higher than normal

background (about 60 pCi/L [2.2 Bq/L]) as

shown in Table 5.20. The locations where

the highest tritium activities were measured

generally correspond to areas of known

contamination. No tritium concentrations

above normal background were detected in

any offsite samples. Man-made gamma-ray

emitting radionuclides were not detected in

any sample collected in this study.

In 1998, an additional 14 shallow wells were

added to the annual sampling, increasing

the total wells sampled onsite to 55, as 

new wells, tritium values were all below the

MDC. In the samples collected from the

offsite sampling locations, only samples from

five wells were above the tritium MDC. This 

activity ranged from less than the MDC to a

maximum of 24 ± 3.4 pCi/L (0.89 ± 0.13

Bq/L) at the Ascot Well in Baxterville, 0.14

percent of the DCG. These results do not

exceed the natural tritium activity expected

in rain water in this area.

Results of sampling related to Project

DRIBBLE are discussed in more detail in the

onsite and offsite environmental monitoring

report, "Radiation Monitoring around

SALMON test site," Lamar County,

Mississippi, April 1998 (Davis 1998,

available from R&IE-LV). 

AMCHITKA ISLAND, ALASKA

Sampling is conducted biennially in odd

numbered years. The last sampling was in

1977 (Faller 1977) as mentioned above and

the next sampling will be in 1999.

TRITIUM TRENDS NEAR TEST CAVITIES

Sampling groundwaters at locations where

underground nuclear explosive devices have

been tested reveals a consistent pattern if

contamination occurs. Some time after the

detonation of the device, assuming there is

leakage from the cavity, the contamination

will rise to some maximum value and then

begin to decrease. Figure 5.17 shows the

results obtained in the LTHMP for measuring 

tritium concentration in groundwater. 

Although a few other radionuclides are

sometimes detected, they occur at much

lower concentrations than does tritium and

soon become undetectable. Note the

following as depicted in Figure 5.17.

 Well EPNG 10-36 is located near the

GASBUGGY test in northern New Mexico. 

This well was completed in sandstone. 

The test occurred in December 1967, and

the leakage began in 1984. The tritium

concentration peaked in 1988 and is now

decreasing.
Figure 5.13 Sampling Locations Near SGZ, SALMON Site - 1998

5-33

WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

LOCATION MAP

LAMAR

MISSISSIPPI MAP

Surface Ground Zero

HMH Holes

Shallow Aquifer Wells

Scale in Meters

0 Scale in Feet

0

600

180

Wells

Surface Water

1

4500 ft. from HT-4

SA5-1-M

HT-2C

SA5-5-4

SA5-4-4

SA5-2-M

SA5-3-M

0 5 10 FEET

REECo Pits

HM-3

HM-2A

HM-S SGZ

HM-L

HM-1

HM-2b

A

B

C

HM-L2

16

15 14 13 12

2 11

9

HT-4

SA3-8-1

SA4-1-M

HT-5

E-7

Swamp

Half

Moon

Cre

ek

6060 ft.

from SGZ

SGZ

Pond

7

3

6

5

SA2-5-L

SA2-1-L

SA2-2-L

SA2-4-L

SA2-3-L

4

10

8

HMC

Overflow

SA3-1-M

SA3-3-M

SA3-4-H

SA1-5-H

SA1-7-H

SA3-5-H

SA1-6-H

SA1-4-H

SA1-8-L

SA1-9-2A

SA1-2-H

SA1-1-H

SA3-10-2B

SA3-11-3

SA1-3-H

SA1-10-2B

SA1-11-3
Figure 5.14 Sampling Locations Offsite at the SALMON Site - 1998

5-34

Surface Ground Zero

Purvis City Well

G. Ray

Lumberton

City Well 2

Baxterville

City Well

Water Sampling Locations

Salmon Site Area

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles 0

0 1

1 2

3 4

3

2

LOCATION MAP

LAMAR MISSISSIPPI COUNTY

13

59

98

11

B. Dennis

Gil Ray's Crawfish Pond

G. Kelly

Roy Mills B. Hibley D. Napien Anderson's Pond

B. R. Anderson

Dennis

Saucier

S. Cockerham

W. Daniel Jr.

Ray Daniels Ray Hartfield

Ola Saul

D. Rushing

Daniel's Fish

Pond Well #2

R. L. Anderson Sr.

R. L. Anderson Jr.

Willie Burge

Joe Burge

Salt Dome Timber Co.

P. T. Lee

R. H. Anderson

R. Rogers

W. H. Noble Jr.

Arleen Anderson

Noble's Pond

M. Dennis

Little Creek #1

Lee Anderson

Columbia City

Well 64B

Howard

Smith Pond

Lower Little Creek #2

13

S. Powers
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

10

0

10

1

10

2

0.011

0.11

Concentration pCi/L

Percent of 4 Mrem Guide Percent of 4 Mrem Guide

Year

TRITIUM DECAY

10

3

104

10

5

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Concentration pCi/L

Year

Figure 5.16 Tritium Trend in Well HM-S, SALMON Site in Mississippi

Figure 5.15 Tritium Trends in Baxterville, Public Drinking Water Supply

5-35

WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
1%

10%

100%

100101

10210310410510

1970

6

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Year Collected

Percent of 4 Mrem PA Guidance

Concentration - pCi/L

PNG1032

ell HM-Sell GZ-1ell

A

Legend

Figure 5.17 Tritium Trends in Groundw ater Near nderground Tests

5-36
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-37

 Well HM-S is a surficial aquifer monitoring Results are used in regional and local

well near the salt dome at the site of the

DRIBBLE Project in Mississippi. The

STERLING test of that project occurred in

December 1966. The first samples from

this well, in 1980, had a moderate tritium

concentration, and it has been decreasing

since then. 

 Well GZ-1 is near the LONG SHOT

emplacement hole and was completed in

a freshwater lens in volcanic rock on

Amchitka Island, Alaska. This test

occurred in October 1965, and the tritium

concentration in surface waters began to

increase about a year later. Samples

from this well, first sampled in 1972,

contained a high concentration of tritium

that has been decreasing steadily. 

 Well A was completed in 1960 in a valleyfill aquifer in an area on the NTS that has

been subjected to a multitude of

underground nuclear explosive tests. 

Samples from this well had background

concentrations of tritium until 1986 when

the concentrations began increasing. The

well supplied drinking water so it was shut

down in 1988 as the tritium concentration

continued to increase. Obtaining samples

is very difficult so whether the

concentration is decreasing or not is

unknown.

This pattern of tritium concentration in

groundwater that follows leakage from

underground nuclear device testing

suggests that such contamination may not

be a serious problem, assuming it is

representative of leakage from all

underground tests that may leak. The

precise cause of this pattern is unknown at

present. The fact that the pattern is

consistent even though the geologic

parameters vary is notable.

GROUNDWATER MONITORING

GROUNDWATER QUANTITY

Water levels are monitored annually by the

USGS on and around the NTS at

approximately 149 measurement locations. chemical constituents, radioisotopes, and 

groundwater models, but are not routinely

analyzed for water level trends. However,

no significant water level impacts associated

with groundwater usage were detected in

1998. Data for the 1998 water year will be

reported in the “USGS Water Data Report,”

NV-98-1.

Water usage on the NTS is also monitored

by the both the USGS and BN. Data for the

1998 water year will also be reported in

NV-98-1. Water use at the NTS continues to

decline, due to the moratorium on nuclear

testing instituted in 1992, and was about

9.16 x 10 m (242 x 10 gal) in 1998. 5 3 6

GROUNDWATER QUALITY

Regional-scale groundwater investigations

concentrated on determining recharge

locations and flow paths for the groundwater

flow systems in southern Nevada. This

included several studies and field sampling

activities. Geochemical and isotopic

measurements included cation and anion

chemistry, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon

stable isotopes, and radiocarbon.

HRMP supported a regional-scale study of

groundwater recharge sources and

processes in Nevada. Approximately 125

spring and snow samples were collected

from the NTS and areas north of the NTS. 

Samples were analyzed for hydrogen and

oxygen isotopes at LLNL. For results, see 

Rose et al., 1999.

The multi-agency geochemical study of 

groundwater transport between Pahute

Mesa and Oasis Valley continued through

1998. This study includes geochemists from

the USGS, DRI, LLNL, HSI-GeoTrans, and

the Harry Reid Center at UNLV. Preliminary

results and interpretations from this study

will be delivered to DOE/NV in April 1999.

Groundwater quality was determined by

monitoring wells and springs, both onsite

and offsite, for radioactive constituents as 

discussed above. The remainder of this

chapter summarizes analyses of water for
5-38

stable isotopes in order to comply with Routine nonradiological environmental

environmental permits, better characterize

NTS groundwater quality, and support

regional groundwater flow and transport

models. 

5.6 NONRADIOLOGICAL

MONITORING

The 1998 nonradiological monitoring

program for the NTS included onsite

sampling of various environmental media 

and substances for compliance with federal

and state regulations or permits and for

ecological studies. 

MONITORING WATER SOURCES

Monitoring of natural and man-made water

sources for use by wild horses continued in

1998. Two newly found wetlands in Area

30, Wild Horse and Little Wild Horse

springs, are located within the annual horse

range on the NTS and were used by horses

in spring and summer. Only two other

natural water sources (Captain Jack and

Gold Meadows Springs in Area 12) and one

man-made pond (Camp 17 Pond in Area 18)

were used by horses this summer, as in past

years. There are eight man-made water

sources within or on the edge of the annual

horse range that were not used by horses. 

Biologists discovered five new water sources

in 1998 during habitat mapping of the

northern NTS and during monitoring of

natural water sources on the NTS. Four of

the water sources appear to be springs and

may dry up during drought years or late

summer. The fifth water source appears to

be a historic borrow pit which catches

surface runoff in large enough quantities and

for long enough periods to sustain wetland

vegetation. Two of the four springs were

found in Area 30 on the southwest bajadas

of the Eleana Range. They were named

Wild Horse Spring and Little Wild Horse

Spring because abundant signs of horse

use.

Nonradiological monitoring of non-NTS

DOE/NV facilities was conducted at three

offsite facilities. This monitoring was limited

to wastewater discharges to publicly owned

treatment works. were within permit limits. The RSL facility 

monitoring on the NTS in 1998 was limited

to:

 Sampling of drinking water distribution

systems and water haulage trucks for

SDWA and state of Nevada compliance.

 Sewage lagoon influent and E Tunnel

discharge sampling for compliance with

state of Nevada operating permit

requirements.

CLEAN WATER ACT RESULTS

NTS OPERATIONS

The NTS General Permit requires quarterly

reporting for biochemical oxygen demand

(BOD) and specific conductance, organic

loading rates, and water depths in infiltration

basins. It also requires reporting of second

quarter influent toxics sampling. The results

of this sampling are shown in Tables 5.21,

5.22, 5.23, and 5.24, respectively. All

values in these tables are in compliance with

the permit requirements.

The permit also requires monitoring of the

infiltration basins, which attain a depth of 30

cm or more in January and June for

parameters listed in Appendix II of the

permit. Sampling is required as soon as any

other system exceeds the 30 cm. Three

secondary ponds at the Area 23 facility

usually contain the required depth, but are

excluded as needing the sampling in Part

III.C.4 of the permit. During 1998, the Area

25 Central Support (Base Camp) system

exceeded the 30 cm in the second quarter,

and these sampling results are given in

Table 5.25. All values in this table are in

compliance with the permit requirements.

NON-NTS OPERATIONS

The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) is

required by permit to sample and analyze

wastewater effluent and submit selfmonitoring reports. The NLVF selfmonitoring report consists of monitoring

results for two outfalls and the burn pit batch

discharge. All sampling results for 1998
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-39

now discharges into the Nellis Air Force Samples from trucks, which hauled potable

Base system and no longer requires a

permit. Nellis Air Force Base does,

however, require a self-monitoring report,

which was submitted in 1998.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

RESULTS

Water sampling was conducted for analysis

of bacteria, volatile organic compounds

(VOCs), inorganic constituents, and water 

quality as required by the SDWA and state

of Nevada regulations. Samples were taken

at various locations throughout all drinking

water distribution systems on the NTS. 

Common sampling points were restroom and

cafeteria sinks. All samples were collected

according to accepted practices, and the

analyses were performed by state approved

laboratories. Analyses were performed in

accordance with Nevada Administrative

Code (NAC) 445A (NAC 1996) and Title 40

CFR 141. 

BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING

Samples were submitted to the stateapproved Associated Pathologists

Laboratories in Las Vegas, Nevada, for

coliform analyses. All water distribution

systems were tested once a month, with the

number of people being served determining

the number of samples collected. If coliform

bacteria are present, the system must be

shut down and chlorinated. In order to

reopen the system, three or four consecutive

samples must meet state requirements,

depending again on the number of people

served. There were no incidents of positive

coliform results during 1998.

Residual chlorine and pH levels were

determined at the collection point by using

colorimetric methods approved by the state. 

The results were recorded in BN’s drinking

water sample logbook, and the chlorine

residual level was recorded on an analysis

form. 

water from NTS wells to work areas, were

also analyzed for coliform bacteria. During

1996, the state relaxed the requirement to

test every truck load of water, to testing

each of the three trucks weekly. There were

no positive coliform sample results in 1998

that required superchlorination and

resampling.

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Chemical analyses in 1998 were performed

for VOCs, metals, and inorganics.

ORGANIC COMPOUND ANALYSIS

Samples for VOCs were collected during the

second quarter of 1998 from all potable

water wells except Well 5B. Four quarters of

VOCs sampling from Well 5B ended

December 1997, and DOE/NV requested a

waiver from further sampling on January 6,

1998. All samples were analyzed by a stateapproved laboratory, and none of the results

were above quantitation limits.

METAL ANALYSIS

In compliance with a state agreement,

samples were collected in the third quarter

and analyzed for lead and copper. These

samples were taken from faucets from all

four potable water distribution systems. All

results were below the method detection

limits of 0.5 mg/L for copper and three of the

systems were below 0.015 mg/L for lead. 

However, lead results in Area 1 were 0.06

mg/L. Subsequent investigations and

sampling have narrowed the problem down

to two underground copper lines. At the end

of 1998 these lines were being excavated to

look for brass fittings or lead solder.

INORGANIC COMPOUND ANALYSIS AND

WATER QUALITY

To comply with a 1991 variance to the Area

25 water system permit, fluoride samples

need to be taken annually before July 31 to

confirm that the fluoride concentration is less
5-40

than four parts per million. Samples taken hauling potable water should also have

from Area 25 wells J-12 and J-13 in the permits, so three additional permits were

second quarter of 1998 confirmed that the obtained. These permits were also

fluoride concentration was acceptable. renewed. No drinking water systems were

During the first and second quarters of 1998,

all systems (ten water wells) were sampled SEWAGE DISCHARGE PERMITS

and analyzed for nitrates. The results of

these analyses are shown in Table 5.26. 

Samples from wells J-12 and J-13 collected

in the first quarter had nitrate concentrations

below one half the maximum contaminant

level of 10 mg/L, so that completes the

required sampling for the last four

consecutive quarters. Samples were

collected from the rest of the wells in the 

second quarter, and all results were

satisfactory, at less than half of the

maximum contaminant level.

5.7 WATER QUALITY

PERMITS

Water quality permits were required by the

state for onsite drinking water systems. 

Other types of water permits were required

for onsite and offsite sewage-related

activities.

ONSITE WATER PERMITS

DRINKING WATER SYSTEM PERMITS

Four NTS drinking water system permits

issued by the state of Nevada, as shown in

Table 5.27 were renewed with new

expiration dates. During 1994, the state of

Nevada determined that the trucks used for 

maintained by non-NTS facilities.

Sewage discharge permits from the state of

Nevada, Division of Environmental

Protection are listed in Table 5.28 and

require submission of quarterly discharge

monitoring reports. 

NTS SEWAGE HAULING PERMITS

Permits issued by the state of Nevada

Division of Health for six sewage hauling

trucks for the NTS were renewed in

November 1998 and are listed in Table 5.29.

NON-NTS SEWAGE PERMITS

One sewage permit was required at the

NLVF and two at the Special Technologies

Laboratory (STL) as shown in Table 5.28. 

Each was issued by the county or local

municipality in which the facility was located

as follows:

 NLVF - The NLVF self-monitoring report

was submitted in October 1998. Two

outfalls and the burn pit batch discharge

are monitored.

 STL - The STL holds wastewater permits

for the Botello Road and Ekwill Street

locations. There is no required selfmonitoring.
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-41

Table 5.1 Summary of Analytical Procedures for Water Samples - 1998

Type of Analytical Count Analytical Sample Approximate

Analysis Equipment Time-min Procedure Size-mL MDC

 BN Procedures

Gross  Gas-flow 100 Boil down. Place 800 2 pCi/L

Proportional on planchet and

Counter heat to dryness

Gross  Gas-flow 100 Boil down. Place 800 2 pCi/L

Proportional on planchet and

Counter heat to dryness

Gamma HpGe detector 100 Online computer 500 10 pCi/L for Cs

calibrated at 1 analysis

keV/channel 

137

Tritium Liquid scintil- 70 Distillation of 2.5 300-700 pCi/L

Convent. lation counter 100 mL

Tritium Liquid scintil- 300 Electrolysis of 250 5 20 pCi/L

Enrichment lation counter mL basic solution

Plutonium Alpha 1000 Tracer, ion 900 0.02 pCi/L

Spectrometer exchange, collect

ppt on filter

Radium Gamma 1000 Tracer, ppt as 900 1 pCi/L for Ra

Spectrometer sulfate, collect 3 pCi/L for Ra

on filter

228

226

Strontium Gas-flow 100 ppt as carbonate, 900 0.3 pCi/L

Proportional count yttrium inCounter growth

R&IE-LV Procedures

Gamma HpGe detector 100 Online computer 3500 Varies with

calibrate at 0.5 analysis nuclide/detector 

keV/channel Cs: 7 pCi/L 137

Tritium Liquid scintil- 300 Distillation of 5-10 300-700 pCi/L

Convent. lation counter sample

Tritium Liquid scintil- 300 250 mL 5 5 pCi/L

Enrichment lation counter concentrate by

electrolysis, 

distill
5-42

Table 5.2 Summary of the Onsite Water Surveillance Program - 1998

Number

Sample Collection of Sampling Type of

Type Description Frequency Locations Analysis (a)

Tap Grab sample Quarterly 7 Gamma spectroscopy,

Water gross  & ß, H, 3

Pu, 238,239+240

Sr annually). 90

Potable Grab sample Quarterly 11 Gamma spectroscopy,

Supply Wells gross  & ß, Ra, 226 & 228

Pu, H enrich, 238,239+240 3

Sr. 90

Nonpotable Grab sample Quarterly 2 Gamma spectroscopy,

Supply Wells gross  & ß, H, ( Sr 3 90

annually) Pu. 238,239+240

Containment Grab sample Quarterly 1 Gamma spectroscopy,

Ponds gross ß, H, Pu 3 238,239+240

( Sr annually). 90

Sewage Grab sample Quarterly 9 Gamma spectroscopy,

Lagoons gross , H, Pu 3 238,239+240

( Sr annually). 90

(a) All locations were not sampled for various reasons.

Table 5.3 Groundwater Monitoring Parameters at the RWMS-5

Parameters Establishing Water Quality

Elements: Ca, Cl, F, Fe, K, Si, and Na.

Compounds and Ions: HCO , H CO , SO , CO , NO , and NO 3 2 3 4 3 2 2

= = - -

Indicators of Contamination

pH

Conductivity

Total Organic Halogen

Total Organic Carbon

Tritium

Table 5.4 NTS Facilities with RCRA Closure Plans

Location Designation

Area 2 Bitcutter Shop & LLNL Post-Shot Shop (closed)

Area 2 U-2bu Subsidence Crater
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-43

Table 5.4 (NTS Facilities with RCRA Closure Plans, cont.)

Location Designation

Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well (closed)

Area 6 Decontamination Facility Evaporation Pond 

Area 6 Steam Cleaning Effluent Pond (closed)

Area 23 Building 650 Leachfield (closed)

Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches (closed)

Area 27 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Facility (closed) 

 

Table 5.5 Locations with Detectable Man-Made Radioactivity - 1998(a)

Concentration

Location Radionuclide x 10 μCi/mL -9 

NTS Onsite Network

Well PM-1 H 180 3

Well UE-5n H 78,000 3

Well UE-6d H 650 3

Well UE-7ns H 300 3

Project SHOAL, Nevada

Well HC-4 H 680 3

Project DRIBBLE, Mississippi 

Well HMH-1 H 890 3

Well HMH-2 H 420 3

Well HMH-5 H 1,700 3

Well HMH-10 H 650 3

Well HMH-13 H 2,500 3

Well HM-L H 870 3

Well HM-S H 2,500 3

Well SA1-1-H H 30,000 3

Well SA1-2-H H 4,000 3

Well SA1-3-H H 940 3

Well SA1-5-H H 710 3

Project GNOME, New Mexico

Well DD-1 H 5.8 x 10 3 7

Sr 10,000 90

Cs 7.1 x 10 137 5

Well LRL-7 H 1,800 3

Cs 40 137

Well USGS-4 H 1.0 x 10 3 5

Sr 3,700 90

Well USGS-8 H 62,000 3

Sr 4,200 90

Cs 59 137

(a) Only H concentrations greater than 0.2 percent of the 4 mrem DCG are shown (i.e., greater than 3

1.6 x 10 μCi/mL [160 pCi/L {6 Bq/L}]). Detectable levels of other man-made radioisotopes are -7

also shown.
5-44

Table 5.6 Radioactivity in NTS Surface Waters - 1998

Annual Average Concentrations (10 μCi/mL) -9

Source of No. of Gross

Water Sites Alpha Beta Tritium Pu Pu Sr 238 239+240 90

Containment Ponds

 E Tunnel 2 19 56 8.4 x 10 0.2 1.6 0.2 (a) (b) 4

 A-19, U-19q PS#1 1 1.5 x 107

 A-20, ER-20-5 #1 1 6.4 x 107

 A-20, ER-20-6 #1, #3 2 2.2 x 103

 A-20, U-20n PS#1 1 6.3 x 107

Sewage Lagoons 8 26 - 140 -0.0003 0.0018 0.008 (a)

Mean MDC -1.8 1.2 750 0.018 0.019 0.45

(a) Not a potable water source.

(b) A pond and an effluent.

Table 5.7 NTS Well Cross-Check Results - 1998

Tritium Concentration (10 μCi/mL) -9 (a)

Location BN EPA

Area 2, Water Well 2 -260 -56

Area 3, Well U-3cn#5 28 38

Area 4, Test Well D 290 28

Area 6, Test Well B 44 46

Area 16, UE-16f -290 -5

Area 17, Well HTH-1 -100 -62

Area 18, Well UE-18t 96 100

Area 20, Well PM-1 180 180

Area 27, Well HTH-F 28 33

(a) Underlined results are for enrichment analysis (MDC of 10 x 10 μCi/mL); otherwise -9

indicates conventional tritium analysis (MDC of 750 x 10 μCi/mL). -9

Table 5.8 NTS Drinking Water Sources - 1998

System Supply Wells End-Point

No. 1 Wells C1, 4, 4A Area 6, Cafeteria

Wells 5B, 5C Area 6, Building 6-900

Army No. 1 Area 23, Cafeteria

No. 2 Well 8 Area 2, Restroom

Area 12, Building 12-23

No. 3 Well UE-16d Area 1, Building 101

No. 4 Wells J-12, J-13 Area 25, Building 4221
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-45

Table 5.9 NTS Supply Well Radioactivity Averages - 1998

Annual Average Concentrations - 10 μCi/mL -9

Description Gross Beta H Pu Pu Gross Alpha Sr 3 239+240 238 90 (b)

Potable Water Supply Wells

Area 5, Well 5C 8.3 -4.1 -0.00007 0.0003 14 0.11 

Area 5, Well 5B 11 -4.8 -0.0027 -0.0018 6.8 0.085

Area 6, Well 4 6.4 -1.9 -0.0018 -0.0016 9.6 0.16

Area 6, Well 4A 6.4 -0.90 -0.0014 -0.0017 11 0.11

Area 6, Well C1 14 3.6 0.0034 -0.0027 12 0.22

Area 6, Well C(a) - - - - - -

Area 16, Well UE-16d 7.0 -4.3 -0.0030 -0.0014 5.9 0.078

Area 18, Well 8 3.5 -1.9 -0.0028 0.00007 0.82 0.085

Area 22, Army Well No.1 5.6 1.1 -0.0027 -0.00023 3.9 0.10

Area 25, Well J-12 4.9 -3.7 0.00097 -0.00063 1.7 0.15

Area 25, Well J-13 5.0 -5.5 -0.0019 -0.0018 2.4 0.13

Non-Potable Water Supply Wells

Area 5, Well UE-5c 12 3.6 0.00009 -0.0014 11 0.082

Area 20, Well U-20 3.9 1.8 -0.0019 -0.0013 9.2 0.066

Median MDC 1.2 14 0.017 0.020 1.7 0.28

(a) Pump not operable.

(b) Only one sample collected during the year.

Table 5.10 Radioactivity Averages for NTS Tap Water Samples - 1998

Annual Average Concentrations -10 μCi/mL -9

Description Gross Beta H Pu Pu Gross Alpha Sr 3 239+240 238 90 (a)

Area 1, Bldg. 101 - - - - - - (b)

Area 2, Restroom 3.9 530 -0.0013 -0.0012 0.64 - (c)

Area 6, Cafeteria 7.4 300 0.0020 0.0011 11 0.14 

Area 6, Bldg. 6-900 7.3 140 0.0011 -0.0004 10 0.15 

Area 12, Ice House 3.4 160 0.0010 -0.0011 0.69 0.067 

Area 23, Cafeteria 9.9 120 0.0000 -0.0001 8.8 0.13 

Area 25, Bldg. 4221 5.1 100 -0.0017 -0.0005 1.4 -0.008

Median MDC 1.2 730 0.014 0.014 1.6 0.28

(a) Sr values are for one sample. 90

(b) Water was shut off at all buildings in Area 1 Complex.

(c) Building was not accessible; only one sample collected at outside water tap.
5-46

Table 5.11 Radium Analysis Results for NTS Potable Water Supply Wells - 1998

 Concentrations (10 μCi/mL) -9

Ra Ra 226 228

Number Arithmetic Standard Arithmetic Standard

Location of Samples Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Area 5, Well 5B 4 0.42 0.56 0.25 0.24

Area 5, Well 5C 4 0.45 0.63 0.051 0.098

Area 6, Well 4 7 0.69 0.71 0.32 0.16

Area 6, Well 4A 3 1.1 0.47 0.026 0.19

Area 6, Well C-1 2 -0.54 0.66 0.78 0.015

Area 16, Well UE-16d 4 1.4 0.88 0.17 0.28

Area 18, Well 8 4 0.067 0.88 0.30 0.20

Area 23, Army Well No. 1 4 0.096 0.25 0.054 0.32

Area 25, Well J-12 4 0.11 0.38 0.0088 0.10

Area 25, Well J-13 4 -0.31 1.3 0.29 0.21

Median MDC 3.4 1.1

Table 5.12 Summary of Tritium Results for NTS Wells Sampled by R&IE-LV - 1998

Tritium Concentration (pCi/L)

Number Arithmetic Mean Mean

Location of Samples Maximum Minimum Mean 1 Sigma as %DCG MDC (a)

Test Well B 1 --- --- 46 1.8 0.05 4.7

Test Well D 1 --- --- 28 65 220 (b)

Well HTH-F 1 --- --- 33 1.8 0.03 4.7

Well C-1 1 --- --- 9.3 1.6 0.01 5.0

Well HTH-1 1 --- --- -62 65 220 (b)

Well PM-1 1 --- --- 180 2.9 0.20 5.0

Well U-3cn5 1 --- --- 38 65 220 (b)

 Other Analyses U --- --- 1.5 0.12 7.1 0.24 234

U --- --- 0.02 0.008 0.09 0.017 235

U --- --- 0.39 0.04 1.6 0.017 238

Pu --- --- 0.003 0.005 0.019 238 (b)

Pu --- --- 0.013 0.005 1.0 0.012 239+240

Sr --- --- 0.54 0.38 1.5 90 (b)

Well UE-1c 1 --- --- -18 62 200 (b)

Well UE-5n 2 84,000 72,000 78,000 430 87 240

Well UE-6d 2 650 500 580 110 0.64 240

Well UE-6e 2 34 14 24 100 240 (b)

Well UE-7ns 2 340 270 300 110 0.33 240

Well UE-16f 1 --- --- -5 65 220 (b)

Well UE-18r 2 50 -38 6 110 240 (b)

Well UE-18t 1 --- --- 100 62 200 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide; established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L for water. 

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Tritium by conventional analysis unless underlined to indicate enrichment analysis.
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-47

Table 5.12 (Summary of Tritium Results for NTS Wells Sampled by R&IE-LV - 1998, cont.)

Tritium Concentration (pCi/L)

Number Arithmetic Mean Mean

Location of Samples Maximum Minimum Mean 1 Sigma as %DCG MDC (a)

Well 1 Army 1 --- --- 210 85 280 (b)

Well 2 1 --- --- -56 60 200 (b)

Well 4 1 --- --- 120 70 220 (b)

Well 5B 1 --- --- 120 70 220 (b)

Well 5C 1 --- --- 83 85 280 (b)

Well 6A Army 2 2.6 0.48 1.5 2.1 5.0 (b)

Well 8 1 --- --- 8 60 200 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide; established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L for water. 

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3

Table 5.13 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Wells Near the NTS - 1998

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number 1 Standard % of Mean

Location of Samples Max Min Mean Deviation DCG MDC (a)

Adaven

Adaven Spring 4 98 39 68 160 260 (b)

Alamo

Well 4 City 2 42 0 21 110 250 (b)

Amargosa Valley

Bar-B-Q Ranch 3 -0.37 -2.6 -1.8 2.7 5.1 (b)

1 -- -- -10 60 200 (b)

Ponderosa Dairy Well 2 4 77 -55 -7 160 260 (b)

Ash Meadows

Big Spring 2 0.33 -0.34 0 2.5 5.2 (b)

Crystal Pool 3 2.5 -3.7 0.37 2.7 5.0 (b)

1 -- -- -34 60 200 (b)

Fairbanks Spring 2 0.91 0.61 0.76 2.3 5.1 (b)

Longstreet Spring 2 1.1 -0.41 0.34 2.2 5.0 (b)

17S-50E-14cac 2 44 39 42 110 250 (b)

Well 18S-51E-7db 1 -- -- -15 65 220 (b)

Beatty

Low Level Waste Site Pump Out

Tolicha Peak 4 77 -250 -110 160 260 (b)

11S-48E-1dd Coffer’s 3 2.3 -3.7 -1.7 2.8 5.3 (b)

1 -- -- -10 60 200 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L. 

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3
5-48

Table 5.13 (LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Wells Near the NTS - 1998, cont.)

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number 1 Standard % of Mean

Location of Samples Max Min Mean Deviation DCG MDC (a)

Beatty

12S-47E-7dbd City 2 39 -89 -25 110 250 (b)

Boulder City

Welcome 1 -- -- -72 64 220 (b)

Caliente 1 -- -- -18 65 220 (b)

Clark Station

TTR Well 6 2 39 -61 -11 110 250 (b)

Goldfield

Klondike #2 Well 3 18 -67 -16 130 220 (b)

Henderson

Community College 1 -- -- 58 65 220 (b)

Hiko

Crystal Springs 2 22 -39 -8 110 250 (b)

Indian Springs

Sewer Co. Well 1 2 42 39 40 110 250 (b)

Air Force Well 2 2 87 39 53 110 250 (b)

Lathrop Wells

 15S-50E-18cdc City 2 22 0 11 110 250 (b)

Nyala

Sharp’s Ranch 2 -75 -79 -77 110 250 (b)

Oasis Valley

Goss Springs Dry

Pahrump

Calvada City Well 4 120 -150 -8 160 260 (b)

Passafora Residence 1 -- -- -0.21 1.6 5.5 (b)

 Other Analyses Sr -0.41 0.30 1.4 90 (b)

U -- -- 1.5 0.12 7.1 0.0054 234

U -- -- 0.044 0.011 0.2 0.0067 235

U -- -- 0.64 0.06 2.7 0.0054 238

Pu -- -- 2.0 x 10 0.0038 0.018 238 -7 (b)

Pu -- -- 0.0059 0.0034 0.45 0.0053 239

Rachel

Penoyer Culinary 4 190 -170 -22 160 260 (b)

Tonopah

City Well 2 3 -79 -38 110 250 (b)

Warm Springs

Twin Springs Ranch 4 77 -140 -30 160 260 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L. 

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-49

Table 5.14 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project FAULTLESS - 1998

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number 1 Standard % of Mean

Location of Samples Result Deviation DCG MDC (a)

Hot Creek Ranch 1 0 85 280 (b)

Blue Jay Maintenance 1 94 85 280 (b)

Site C Compels 1 -58 85 280 (b)

Well HTH-1 1 -1.2 2.0 6.5 (b)

Well HTH-2 1 2.2 1.5 4.8 (b)

Well Six Mile 1 -28 85 280 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L. 

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis 3

.

Table 5.15 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project SHOAL - 1998

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number 1 Standard % of Mean

Location of Samples Result Deviation DCG MDC (a)

Hunts' Station 1 -72 85 230 (b)

Well Flowing 1 -41 85 280 (b)

Well HC-1 1 -26 65 220 (b)

Well HC-2 1 2.1 1.5 4.8 (b)

Well HC-3 Well Dry

Well HC-4 1 680 71 0.76 220

Well H-2 1 50 85 280 (b)

Well H-3 1 14 85 280 (b)

Well HS-1 1 -1.3 1.7 5.6 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable. 

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3

Table 5.16 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project RULISON - 1998

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number % of Mean

Location of Samples Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

Battlement Creek 1 90 95 310 (b)

City Springs 1 -24 95 310 (b)

Gardner Ranch 1 180 96 310 (b)

Well CER Test 1 0 95 310 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3
5-50

Table 5.16 (LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project RULISON - 1998, cont.)

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number % of Mean

Location of Samples Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

Hayward Ranch 1 80 2.4 0.09 5.5

Potter Ranch 1 140 96 310 (b)

Jacobs Ranch 1 290 96 310 (b)

Rothgery Ranch 1 73 95 310 (b)

Spring 300 Yards N 1 -55 968 320 (b)

Well RU-1 1 42 2.5 0.05 6.9

Well RU-2 1 33 2.0 0.03 5.3

 Special Samples 

Tritium ( H) Total Uranium Plutonium Cesium-137 3 3

Koch Ranch Well 38 ± 5 11 ± ~2 <MDC <MDC

Goad Ranch Well (filtered) 32 ± 5 4.2 ± ~1 <MDC <MDC 1

Goad Ranch Well (unfiltered) 32 ± 5 6.0 ± ~1 <MDC <MDC 2

Arnold Machley Well 35 ± 5 7.9 ± ~1.5 <MDC <MDC

 Sample collected with wellhead filter in line (EPA sample, May 12, 1998). 1

 Sample collected with wellhead filter removed (Maxim Environmental sample, May 21, 1998). 2

 Total uranium error estimated to be <20%. 3

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3

Table 5.17 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project RIO BLANCO - 1998

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number % of Mean

Location of Samples Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

B-1 Equity Camp 1 30 95 310 (b)

Brennan Windmill 1 -54 60 200 (b)

CER 1 Black Sulphur 1 81 95 310 (b)

CER 4 Black Sulphur 1 30 95 310 (b)

Fawn Creek 1 1 32 95 310 (b)

Fawn Creek 500' Up 1 -54 94 310 (b)

Fawn Creek 500' Down 1 135 95 310 (b)

Fawn Creek 6800' Up 1 35 95 310 (b)

Fawn Creek 8400' Down 1 -11 95 310 (b)

Fawn Creek 3 1 170 95 310 (b)

Johnson Artesian 1 70 60 200 (b)

Well RB-D-01 1 2.7 16 5.3 (b)

Well RB-D-03 1 1.3 1.4 4.6 (b)

Well RB-S-03 1 1.4 1.5 4.8 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-51

Table 5.18 LTHMP Summary of Tritium and Cesium Results for Project GNOME - 1998

 Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number % of Mean

Location of Samples Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

Carlsbad City Well 1 0.8 1.5 4.9 (b)

Loving City Well 2 1 -72 64 220 (b)

Well DD-1 1 5.8 x 10 5.2 x 10 220 7 4 (b)

Cs 1 7.1 x 10 4.6 x 10 6.5 137 5 3 (b)

Sr 1 1.0 x 10 90 4 (b)

Well LRL-7 1 1.8 x 10 160 220 3 (b)

Cs 1 40 3.8 4.5 137 (b)

Well PHS 6 1 -20 65 220 (b)

Well PHS 8 1 49 66 220 (b)

Well PHS 9 1 -36 65 220 (b)

Well PHS 10 1 56 66 220 (b)

Well USGS 1 1 1.6 1.4 4.7 (b)

Well USGS 4 1 1.0 x 10 340 220 5 (b)

Sr 1 3.7 x 10 90 3 (b)

Well USGS 8 1 6.2 x 10 270 220 4 (b)

Cs 1 59 3.8 3.2 137 (b)

Sr 1 4.2 x 10 90 3 (b)

J. Mobley Ranch 1 3.6 1.6 4.9 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3

Table 5.19 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for Project GASBUGGY - 1998 

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Number % of Mean

Location of Samples Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

La Jara Creek 1 -4 60 200 (b)

Lower Burro Canyon 1 90 61 200 (b)

Pond N of Well 30.3.32.3 1 98 61 200 (b)

Arnold Ranch Spring 1 -24 60 200 (b)

Arnold Ranch Well 1 84 62 200 (b)

Bubbling Springs 1 -4 60 200 (b)

Cave Springs 1 36 1.8 0.04 4.6

Cedar Springs 1 36 2.0 0.04 5.6

Jicarilla Well 1 1 78 60 200 (b)

Well 28.3.33.233 1 150 62 200 (b)

Well 30.3.32.343 Windmill Removed

Windmill 2 1 52 61 200 (b)

Well EPNG 10-36 1 100 2.2 0.11 4.6

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

Note: Underline indicates enrichment analysis of H, regular font indicates conventional analysis. 3
5-52

Table 5.20 LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for the SALMON Site - April 1998

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Collected % of Mean

Location Date -1998 Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

Baxterville, MS

Anderson, Billy Ray 4/22 11 1.6 0.01 4.9

Anderson Pond 4/20 12 1.6 0.01 5.1

Anderson, Robert Harvey 4/22 -38 68 230 (b)

Anderson, Robert Lowell, Jr. 4/22 -76 68 230 (b)

Anderson, Robert Lee 4/22 -76 68 230 (b)

Anderson, Tony 4/21 191 70 230 (b)

Burge, Joe 4/22 -76 68 230 (b)

Daniels, Webster, Jr. HUB water, no sample

Daniels - Well No. 2 Fish Pond Pump out, no sample

Hibley, Billy 4/20 -76 68 230 (b)

Thompson, Mike 4/21 -76 68 230 (b)

O’Quinn, Jim 4/20 -76 68 230 (b)

Salt Dome Hunting Club Moved, no sample

Salt Dome Timber Co. Business closed, no sample

Saucier, Dennis 4/20 0 69 230 (b)

Well Ascot 2 4/21 24 1.7 0.03 4.9

Baxterville Well City 4/21 16 1.8 0.02 5.5

Well E-7 4/21 -1.2 1.4 4.7 (b)

Well HM-1 Pre pump 4/20 -1 83 280 (b)

1⁄2 hr pump 4/20 -65 84 280 (b)

1 hr pump 4/20 -76 83 280 (b)

Post 4/20 57 84 280 (b)

Well HM-2A Pre pump 4/20 -1 83 280 (b)

1⁄2 hr pump 4/20 -46 84 280 (b)

1 hr pump 4/20 16 84 280 (b)

Post pump 4/20 -22 84 280 (b)

Well HM-2B Pre pump 4/20 35 84 280 (b)

1⁄2 hr pump 4/20 -27 84 280 (b)

Post pump 4/20 -65 84 280 (b)

Well HM-3 Pre pump 4/20 1.2 1.4 4.7 (b)

1⁄2 hr pump 4/20 -1 70 280 (b)

1 hr pump 4/20 -183 82 280 (b)

11⁄2 hr pump 4/20 -65 84 280 (b)

Post pump 4/20 -85 83 280 (b)

Half Moon Creek Pre 4/20 14 1.8 0.01 5.4

Post 4/21 15 1.6 0.01 4.7

Half Moon Creek Pre 4/20 120 84 280 (d) (b)

Overflow Post 4/21 87 84 280

Lee, P. T. 4/20 -76 68 230 (b)

Little Creek No. 1 4/20 -38 68 230 (b)

Lower Little Creek No. 2 4/20 38 69 230 (b)

Mills, Roy 4/20 -150 68 230 (b)

Napier, Denice 4/20 38 70 230 (b)

Noble's Pond 4/20 38 70 230 (b)

Noble, Evelyn. 4/22 -38 69 230 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

(c) Underline indicates enrichment analysis.

(d) Pre indicates sampling prior to pumping the well, Post indicates sampling after pumping the well.
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-53

Table 5.20 (LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for the SALMON Site - April 1998, cont.)

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Collected % of Mean

Location Date -1998 Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

(Baxterville, MS, cont.)

Pond West of SGZ Pre 4/20 13 1.7 0.01 5.4

Post 4/21 12 2.0 0.01 6.2

Well HM-L Pre pump 4/20 970 88 1.0 280

1⁄2 hr pump 4/20 620 87 0.7 280

1 hr pump 4/20 620 87 0.7 280

11⁄2 hr pump 4/20 770 88 0.9 280

2 hr pump 4/20 650 87 0.7 280

Post pump 4/20 740 88 280 (b)

REECo Pit Drainage-A 4/21 11 1.7 0.01 5.3

REECo Pit Drainage-B 4/21 72 2.0 0.08 4.8

REECo Pit Drainage-C 4/21 70 2.1 0.08 4.9

Well HM-L2 Pre 4/21 -134 83 280 (d) (b)

Post 4/21 -98 83 280 (b)

Well HM-S Pre 4/19 2400 96 2.7 280

Post 4/20 2500 110 2.8 320

Well HMH-1 Pre 4/19 22 1.9 0.02 5.5

Post 4/20 890 88 0.99 280

Well HMH-2 Pre 4/19 -38 68 280 (b)

Post 4/20 420 86 0.05 280

Well HMH-3 Pre 4/19 -38 68 280 (b)

Post 4/20 22 1.9 0.02 5.5

Well HMH-4 Pre 4/19 9.8 1.5 0.01 4.7

Post 4/20 Well dry, no sample

Well HMH-5 Pre 4/19 130 80 230 (b)

Post 4/20 1700 92 1.9 280

Well HMH-6 Pre 4/19 59 2.2 0.06 5.3

Post 4/20

Well HMH-7 No Sample, well under water

Well HMH-8 No Sample, well under water

Well HMH-9 Pre 4/20 27 2.2 0.03 6.1

Post 4/21 57 84 280 (b)

Well HMH-10 Pre 4/19 650 74 0.72 230

Post 4/20 350 85 0.39 280

Well HMH-11 Pre 4/19 76 70 230 (b)

Post 4/20 -71 83 280 (b)

Well HMH-12 Pre 4/19 -153 67 230 (b)

Post 4/20 -41 84 280 (b)

Well HMH-13 Pre 4/19 2500 89 2.8 230

Post 4/20 -19 84 280 (b)

Well HMH-14 Pre Well dry, no sample

Well HMH-15 Pre 4/19 -76 68 230 (b)

Post 4/20 -153 83 280 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

(c) Underline indicates enrichment analysis.

(d) Pre indicates sampling prior to pumping the well, Post indicates sampling after pumping the well.
5-54

Table 5.20 (LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for the SALMON Site - April 1998, cont.)

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Collected % of Mean

Location Date -1998 Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

(Baxterville, MS cont.)

Well HMH-16 Pre 4/19 57 2.2 0.06 5.3

Post 4/20 67 2.2 0.07 5.1

Well HT-2C 4/21 2.2 1.4 4.6 (b)

Well HT-4 4/21 -0.8 1.6 5.3 (b)

Well HT-5 4/24 -41 84 280 (b)

SA1-1-H Pre 4/19 30,000 220 33 280

Post 4/20 28,000 200 31 230

SA1-2-H Pre 4/19 3,800 100 0.42 280

Post 4/20 4,000 100 0.44 280

SA1-3-H Pre 4/19 1,200 90 0.13 280

Post 4/20 940 88 1.0 280

SA1-4-H Pre 4/19 270 85 280 (b)

Post 4/20 200 84 280 (b)

SA1-5-H Pre 4/19 700 88 0.78 280

Post 4/20 710 88 0.79 280

SA1-6-H Pre 4/19 41 84 280 (b)

Post 4/20 -68 83 280 (b)

SA1-7-H Pre 4/19 33 1.9 0.04 5.4

Post 4/20 30 1.8 0.03 4.8

SA1-8-L 4/22 1.6 1.4 4.8 (b)

SA1-9-2A 4/23 0.09 1.4 4.7 (b)

SA1-10-2B 4/22 -2.4 1.6 5.4 (b)

SA1-11-3 4/22 -1.8 1.5 5.0 (b)

SA2-1-L 4/22 1.4 1.5 4.9 (b)

SA2-2-L 4/22 1.7 1.6 5.1 (b)

SA2-3-L 4/22 0.38 1.5 4.9 (b)

SA2-4-L 4/22 0.09 1.6 5.1 (b)

SA2-5-L 4/23 -1.3 2.9 5.3 (b)

SA3-4-H Pre 4/19 20 1.6 0.02 4.9

Post 4/20 21 1.7 0.02 4.9

SA3-1-M Pre 4/19 10 1.6 0.01 5.2

Post 4/20 7.4 1.6 <0.01 4.7

SA3-3-M Pre 4/19 11 1.5 0.01 4.7

Post 4/20 16 1.6 0.02 4.7

SA3-8-1 4/23 0 1.6 5.3 (b)

SA3-10-2B 4/22 -1.2 1.8 5.9 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

(c) Underline indicates enrichment analysis.

(d) Pre indicates sampling prior to pumping the well, Post indicates sampling after pumping the well.
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-55

Table 5.20 (LTHMP Summary of Tritium Results for the SALMON Site - April 1998, cont.)

 Tritium Concentration (pCi/L) 

Collected % of Mean

Location Date - 1998 Result 1 Sigma DCG MDC (a)

(Baxterville, MS, cont.)

SA3-11-3 4/23 0.43 1.7 5.6 (b)

SA4-1-M Pre 4/19 1.7 1.5 4.9 (b)

Post 4/20 1.7 1.5 4.9 (b)

SA5-1-M Pre 4/19 12 1.6 0.01 4.6

Post 4/20 9.9 1.5 0.01 4.7

SA5-2-M Pre 4/19 14 1.6 0.01 5.3

Post 4/20 19 1.6 0.02 4.9

SA5-3-M Pre 4/19 7.2 1.5 0.01 4.7

Post 4/20 65 84 280 (b)

SA5-4-4 4/22 -0.54 1.4 4.7 (b)

SA5-5-4 4/22 2.3 1.4 4.7 (b)

Columbia, MS

Dennis, Buddy HUB water, no sample

Dennis, Marvin Doesn’t want to participate

Well 64B City 4/21 -38 68 0.01 230

Lumberton, MS 

.

Anderson, Arleene 4/22 0 69 230 (b)

Anderson, Lee L 4/20 110 70 230 (b)

Boren, Ron 4/20 -38 70 230 (b)

Boren Crawfish Pond 4/20 38 70 230 (b)

Hartfield, Ray 4/20 -38 70 230 (b)

Ladner, Rushing, Debra HUB water, no sample

Powell, Shannon 4/20 0 61 200 (b)

Saul, O/A HUB water, no sample

Smith, Howard - Pond 4/20 38 70 230 (b)

Thompson, Roswell 4/20 76 70 230 (b)

Well 2 City 4/21 38 70 230 (b)

Purvis, MS

Burge, Willie Ray & Grace 4/22 38 70 230 (b)

City Supply Purvis 4/21 -0.72 1.4 4.7 (b)

(a) DCG - Derived Concentration Guide. Established by DOE Order as 90,000 pCi/L.

(b) Not applicable because the result is less than the MDC or water is known to be nonpotable.

(c) Underline indicates enrichment analysis.

(d) Pre indicates sampling prior to pumping the well, Post indicates sampling after pumping the well.
5-56

Table 5.21 Influent Quality - 1998

1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 

S.C. BOD5 S.C. BOD5 S.C. BOD5 S.C. BOD5 (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a)

Facility (mg/L) (μmhos/cm) (mg/L) (μmhos/cm) (mg/L) (μmhos/cm) (mg/L) (μmhos/cm)

Gate 100 306 1.08 167 1.34 121 1.27 41 1.21

Mercury 362 0.76 93 0.69 51 0.60 188 0.96

Yucca Lake 143 1.91 129 0.73 144 1.17 144 0.95

Tweezer 229 1.22 222 1.10 77 0.81 176 1.18

DAF 38 1.18 19 1.38 <60 1.18 5 1.07

Reactor Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Test Stand 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Base Camp 25 60 1.24 99 1.00 115 0.86 283 0.67

Base Camp 12 <6 0.26 10 0.30 <60 0.40 3 0.21

Test Cell C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RWMS Site 5 272 1.21 350 1.90 264 2.40 431 1.74

(a) Biochemical Oxygen Demand - 5-day Incubation.

(b) Specific Conductance.

Table 5.22 Organic Loading Rates - 1998

Metered Rates

Limit (Jan-Mar) (Apr-June) (Jul-Sept) (Oct-Dec)

Facility (Kg/day) Mean Daily Load Mean Daily Load Mean Daily Load Mean Daily Load

Mercury 172 51.34 17.12 22.02 65.78

LANL

 on Tweezer 5.0 1.17 4.64 0.37 0.55

Yucca Lake 8.6 6.16 4.47 3.79 2.97

Base Camp 12 54 0.02 0.13 0.74 0.01

RWMS Site 5 0.995 0.18 0.71 0.33 0.55

Calculated Rates

DAF 7.6 0.4 0.49 1.23 0.12

Reactor Control 4.2 0 0 0 0

Eng Test Stand 2.3 0 0 0 0

Test Cell C 1.3 0 0 0 0

Base Camp 25 7.4 0.4 1.71 2.35 4.48

Gate 100 2.4 1.4 0.53 0.46 0.09
5-57

Table 5.23 Pond Water Depths in Infiltration Basins - 1998

Maximum Average Average Average 

Operating Depth, cm Depth, cm Depth, cm 

Impound Depth, cm (1st Quarter) (2nd Quarter) (3rd Quarter) 

Gate 100, Basin 90 36 13 0 Mercury, Basin 180 0 0 0 Yucca Lake  North Basin 140 127 127 104  South Basin 140 18 18 0 Tweezer  East Basin 244 0 0 0  West Basin 244 0 0 0 DAF  Basin 1 150 0 55 0  Basin 2 150 0 0 30 Reactor Control, Basin 130 0 0 0 Reactor Control, Primary 130 - - - Test Stand 1, Basin 90 0 0 0 Test Cell C, Basin 90 0 0 0 Base Camp 25, Basin 100 0 0 0 Base Camp 25, Primary 100 - - 74 Base Camp 12, Basin 1 120 0 0 0 Base Camp 12, Basin 2 120 0 0 0 Base Camp 12, Basin 3 120 0 0 0 Base Camp 12, Basin 4 120 0 0 0 Base Camp 12, Basin 5 120 0 0 0 Note: Primary lagoons at Reactor Control and Base Camp 25 also began to be considered infiltration basins in 1
5-58

Table 5.24 Influent Toxics for Facilities that Received Industrial Wastewater - 1998

Area 25 

Mercury Base Camp Area 6 DAF Area 5 RWMS Area 6 L

Compliance Measurement Measurement Measurement Measurement Measure

Parameter Limit (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/Arsenic 5.0 0.013 0.008 0.013 0.005 0.00Barium 100 0.020 0.019 0.020 0.030 0.05Cadmium 1.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Chromium 5.0 0.00

(a) (a) (a) (a) 

Lead 5.0 0.007 0.002 0.009 0.005 0.00Mercury 0.2 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Selenium 1.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Silver 5.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Benzene 0.5 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Carbon Tertachloride 0.5 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Chlorobenzene 100 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Chloroform 6.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 1,4-dichlorobenzene 7.5 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.5 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 1,1-dichloroethylene 0.7 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Methylethyl Ketone 200 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Not Detected.
5-59

Table 5.24 (Influent Toxics for Facilities that Received Industrial Wastewater - 1998, cont.)

Area 25 

Mercury Base Camp Area 6 DAF Area 5 RWMS Area 6 L

Compliance Measurement Measurement Measurement Measurement Measure

Parameter Limit (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/Pyridine 5.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Trichloroethylene 0.5 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Vinyl Chloride 0.2 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Cresol, total 200 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 2,4-dinitrotoluene 0.13 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Nitrobenzene 2.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Pentachlorophenol 100 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 2,4,5-trichlorophenol 400 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 2,4,6-trichlorophenol 2.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Chlorodane 0.03 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Endrin 0.02 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Heptachlor 0.008 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Lindane 0.4 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Methoxychlor 10.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Toxaphene 0.5 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 2,4-D 10.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 1.0 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) Not Detected.
5-60

Table 5.25 Sampling Data for Infiltration Ponds Containing 30 cm or More - 1998

Action Level A-6 Yucca Lake

Parameter mg/L Q2 Result mg/L

 

 Arsenic 0.5 (a)

 Cadmium 0.1 (a)

 Chromium 0.5 (a)

 Lead 0.5 (a)

 Selenium 0.1 (a)

 Silver 0.5 (a)

 Nitrate Nitrogen 100 (a)

 Sulfate 5000 87.2

 Chloride 1000 74.1

 Fluoride 40 1.6

 Tritium Monitor Only (a)

(a) Not Detected.

Note: Most sewage ponds on the NTS are exempt from this requirement.

Table 5.26 Nitrate Analyses of Well Water Samples (mg/L), First Quarter - 1998

Well Name Limit Result Well Name Limit Result

Well 5C 10 1.5 Well J-12 10 2.2

Well 5B 10 2.9 Well J-13 10 2.5

Well 4 10 3.2 Well 8 10 1.4

Well C-1 10 <1 Well UE-16d 10 0.5

Well 4-A 10 3.6 Well Army 1 10 2

Table 5.27 NTS Drinking Water System Permits - 1998

Expiration Reporting

Permit No. Area(s) Date Required

NY-5024-12CNT Area 1 09/30/1999 None

NY-4099-12C Area 2 & 12 09/30/1999 None

NY-360-12C Area 23 09/30/1999 None

NY-4098-12CNT Area 25 09/30/1999 None

NY-835-12H Sitewide Truck 09/30/1999 None

NY-836-12H Sitewide Truck 09/30/1999 None

NY-841-12H Sitewide Truck 09/30/1999 None
WATER SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

5-61

Table 5.28 Sewage Discharge Permits - 1998

NTS Permits

Expiration Reporting 

Permit No./Location Areas Date Required

GNEV93001 NTS General Permit 01/31/1999 Quarterly (a)

NY-17-05704 X Tunnel Collection System 09/01/1999 Quarterly

Off-NTS Permits

North Las Vegas Facility

VEH-112 NLVF (Sewage Contribution) 12/31/1999 Annually (a)

Special Technologies Laboratory

AII-204/ Santa Barbara, California 12/31/1998

III-331/ Santa Barbara, California 12/31/1998

(a) Owner/Operator effluent monitoring required by permit.

Table 5.29 Permits for NTS Septic Waste Hauling Trucks - 1998

Expiration

Permit Number Vehicle Identification Number Date

NY-17-03311 Septic Tank Pumper E-104573 11/30/1999

NY-17-03313 Septic Tank Pumper E-105293 11/30/1999

NY-17-03314 Septic Tank Pumper E-105299 11/30/1999

NY-17-03315 Septic Tank Pumper E-105919 11/30/1999

NY-17-03317 Septic Tank Pumper E-105918 11/30/1999

NY-17-03318 Septic Tank Pumping Subcontractor 11/30/1999

 Vehicle
U12N Overview of All Ponds from the Top of Muck Pile (March 13, 1989)

5-62
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-1

6.0 OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

Reported in this section are environmental surveillance activities other than

those in air and water. Activities reported are those related to the Nevada

Test Site (NTS) missions and special studies under the purview of the

Environment, Safety and Health Division (ESHD) of the U.S. Department of

Energy Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV). Included herein are milk

surveillance, ecological monitoring, historic preservation, pollution

prevention, Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC) operations, and waste

management activities. Ecological monitoring encompasses assessment of

vegetation associations, wild horse surveys, natural and man-made water

sources used by wildlife and related studies.

6.1 STOCKPILE STEWARDSHIP 6.2 RADIOLOGICAL

RELATED ACTIVITIES SURVEILLANCE

nder the terms of an Interagency UAgreement between the DOE and the

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), the EPA’s Office of Radiation

and Indoor Environments National

Laboratory-Las Vegas (R&IE-LV) conducts

the Offsite Radiation Safety Program

(ORSP). The primary activity of the ORSP

is routine monitoring of potential human

exposure pathways. These pathways

include milk (discussed below), groundwater

(discussed in Chapter 5), and air and direct

radiation exposure (discussed in Chapter 4).

Maintaining readiness to support nuclear

testing, public information, and community

assistance constitute secondary activities.

Three subcritical experiments were

conducted in 1998: STAGECOACH,

BAGPIPE, and CIMARRON. For each of the

experiments, R&IE-LV senior personnel

served on the Test Controller's Scientific

Advisory Panel and on the EPA’s offsite

radiological safety staff.

No radioactive materials were released to

the ambient environment as a result of these

three experiments.

OFFSITE MILK SURVEILLANCE

NETWORK (MSN)

Milk is an important source for evaluating

potential human exposures to radioactive

material. It is one of the most universally

consumed nutrients, and certain

radionuclides are readily traceable through

the food chain from feed or forage to the 

consumer. This is particularly true of

radioiodine isotopes, which, when consumed

in sufficient quantities, can cause

impairment of thyroid function. Because

dairy animals consume vegetation

representing a large area and because many

radionuclides are transferred to milk,

analysis of milk samples yields information

on the deposition of small amounts of

radionuclides over a relatively large area. 

The MSN includes commercial dairies and

family-owned milk cows and goats

representing the major milksheds within 300

km (186 miles) of the NTS. This network

was designed to monitor areas adjacent to

the NTS, which could be affected by a

release of activity, as well as from areas

unlikely to be affected. There were ten
6-2

locations comprising the MSN during 1998.  Sampling of electrical equipment oil, soil,

Samples were collected from these

locations, shown in Figure 6.1, in July 1998.

Raw milk was collected in 3.8-L (1-gal) 

Cubitainers from each MSN location and

preserved with formaldehyde. The samples

were analyzed by high-resolution gamma

spectrometry for gamma emitters and for

Sr by radiochemical separation and beta 90

counting. 

The average total potassium concentration,

derived from naturally occurring K activity, 40

was 1.5 g/L for samples analyzed by gamma

spectrometry. No other gamma-ray emitters

were detected. Selected MSN milk samples

were analyzed for Sr and Sr, and the 89 90

results are similar to those obtained in

previous years with no obvious trends.

The MSN network average Sr values are 90

shown in Table 6.1.

6.3 NONRADIOLOGICAL

MONITORING

The 1998 nonradiological monitoring

program for the NTS included onsite

sampling of various environmental media

and substances for compliance with federal

and state regulations or permits and for

ecological studies. The Ecological

Monitoring and Compliance (EMAC) program

performed habitat mapping in northern NTS

areas, characterized springs, monitored

man-made water sources, conducted wild

horse surveys, and prepared a biological

monitoring plan for the HSC. In 1998,

nonradiological monitoring was performed

for six series of tests involving 23 chemicals

that were conducted at the HSC.

ENVIRONMENTAL

SURVEILLANCE

Routine nonradiological monitoring on the

NTS in 1998 was limited to:

 Nevada operating permit requirements.

water, surfaces, and waste oil for the

presence of polychlorinated biphenyls

(PCBs) as part of Toxic Substance

Control Act compliance.

 Sampling of soil, water, sediment, waste

oil, and other media for Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

constituents.

Two facilities at the NTS that are listed in the

NTS Hazardous Waste Management Permit

have undergone RCRA Closure and require

post-closure monitoring.

 Post-closure monitoring of the Mercury

Landfill Hazardous Waste Trenches

RCRA Closure Unit was conducted on a

monthly basis for soil moisture in 1998

because of much heavier than normal

rainfall. The covers continue to perform

as designed, with no releases occurring. 

 Post Closure monitoring of the U-3fi

Injection Well RCRA Closure Unit was

conducted on a quarterly basis. 

Downward movement of moisture was

not detected during the calendar year

(CY); therefore, the conditions of the

permit have not been exceeded.

In support of these NTS facility operations,

samples are collected and analyzed from

various waste streams in order to show

compliance with operational requirements, or

to properly dispose of the wastes generated. 

Most of the nonradiological analyses are

performed at approved offsite laboratories.

During 1998, 157 bulk or air samples were

collected for asbestos determination, 70 oil

samples collected for PCBs determination,

and 1,627 samples of various kinds

collected for chemical characterization.

ECOLOGICAL MONITORING

The ecological monitoring tasks conducted

under the EMAC program in 1998 included

habitat mapping of the northern two thirds of

the NTS, characterizing and monitoring 
Figure 6.1 MSN Stations - 1998

6-3

SALT

LAKE

Pahrump Dairy

Hinkley

Ridgecrest

Desert View Dairy

Lisa Froehner

UTAH

ARIZONA

June Cox Rn.

Moapa

PYRAMID

LAKE

Austin

Young Rn.

Duckwater Bradshaw Rn.

Tonopah

Ponderosa Dairy #141

Karen Epperly

Rockview

Dairies

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Nearest Town

Milk Sampling Locations (10)

Scale in Kilometers

Scale in Miles

0

0

50 100

50 100 150

NEVADA

TEST

SITE

Amargosa Valley

LAKE MEAD

Caliente

Bunker Dairy

Bunkerville

Pahrump

NELLIS AIR

FORCE RANGE

OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES
6-4

hydrologic and biotic parameters of the include lists of animal species likely to

natural springs on the NTS, conducting a 

census of the NTS horse population,

monitoring man-made water sources to

assess their affects on wildlife, monitoring

spill tests at the HSC in Area 5 if they are

determined to be necessary, and surveying

control plots at the HSC annually. 

HABITAT MAPPING

In CY 1996, efforts began to map the wildlife

and plant habitat of the NTS. Selected biotic

and abiotic habitat features are collected

within field mapping units called Ecological

Landform Units (ELUs). ELUs are landforms

with visually similar vegetation, soils, slope,

and hydrology. Boundaries of the ELUs are

defined using aerial photographs, satellite

imagery, and field confirmation. ELUs are

considered to be the most feasible mapping

unit by which sensitive plant and animal

habitats on the NTS can be described. 

From March through August 1998,

approximately 550 ELUs on the northern

portion of the NTS were defined and

sampled, completing the field component of

this habitat mapping task. The majority of

the ELUs sampled were within the

mountains and mesas of the northwestern

portion of the NTS. A total of 1,510 ELUs

have been sampled on the NTS since 

CY 1996. All field data collected in 

CY 1997 and CY 1998 (approximately 980

records) were entered into a relational

database and then linked to the ELU spatial

data (location, shape, and size of each ELU

polygon). Shrub/tree abundance within

ELUs was analyzed statistically by cluster

analysis to establish groups of ELUs with

similar abundances. Cluster groups were (> 1 year old), 9 males and 12 females, have

then given vegetation association names

according to the two or three most-abundant

shrub species found in the cluster groups. 

Vegetation associations were then colorcoded to produce a draft vegetation map of

the NTS. This map will be included in the

Resource Management Plan (RMP) being

prepared by DOE/NV for release in CY

1999. In CY 1999, ELU field data will be

linked to other spatial data within Bechtel

Nevada’s (BN’s) Ecosystem Geographic

Information System (EGIS). Examples of

databases which will be linked to ELUs

inhabit an ELU based on its vegetation

association and lists of NTS herbarium plant

specimens that have been collected from

habitats similar to that of a particular ELU. 

Completion of this task will allow the

integrated presentation, archiving, and

analysis of NTS species distribution and

abundance data with other geospatial

habitat data from the NTS. The GIS-based

map products and database produced will

facilitate ecosystem monitoring and

management of the NTS, preparation of

future environmental assessments and

impact statements, and siting of new NTS

projects and facilities.

HORSE SURVEYS

A mark-recapture survey technique was

used in CY 1998 to estimate horse

abundance on the NTS. The survey was

conducted over non-consecutive days

between March and July 1998. A standard

road course on the NTS was driven. Horses

were not marked but were identified by their

unique physical features. Horses observed

more than once during the sampling period

were considered recaptures. All

observations were used to compute a

population size estimate using the computer

program CAPTURE (White et al., 1982). 

The population estimate based on the

survey was 33 horses with a 95 percent

confidence interval of 33 to 36 animals. 

Four adult males observed in 1997 were not

seen. Since 1995, the feral horse

population, as estimated with this technique,

has declined 36 percent, from 52 to 33

individuals. A cumulative total of 21 adults

been classified as missing since 1995.

Natural processes (e.g., predation,

emigration) are the likely causes of the

observed population decline, but data to

verify this have not been collected.

The annual population census of horses has

routinely been conducted in the summer

when horses are nearer to water sources

and thus easier to find. These census

surveys provide an adequate estimate of the

summer range of horses on the NTS but are

not useful for estimating their annual range. 
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-5

Therefore, efforts continued this year to Wahmonie Seep 4, is in a wash between

record horse sign and horse sightings within

ELUs to better estimate their annual range. 

Horse sign (e.g., scat, tracks) were recorded

in each ELU sampled as part of the habitat

mapping task and during surveys for

sensitive plant species. All horse sign data

collected this year were entered into the

EGIS database. The 1998 NTS horse range

includes Kawich Canyon, Gold Meadows,

northwest Yucca Flat, southwest foothills of

the Eleana Range, the Eleana Range,

Redrock Valley, Big Burn Valley, and

southeast Pahute Mesa. The annual horse

range appears not to have changed in areal

extent or shape from the previous year. 

Monitoring of natural and man-made water

sources for use by wild horses continued in

1998. Two newly found wetlands in Area 30

are located within the annual horse range on

the NTS and were used by horses in spring

and summer. Only two other natural water

sources (Captain Jack and Gold Meadows

Springs in Area 12) and one man-made

pond (Camp 17 Pond in Area 18) were used

by horses this summer, as in past years. 

There are eight man-made water sources

within or on the edge of the annual horse

range that were not used by horses. 

MONITORING NATURAL WATER

SOURCES

Five new water sources were discovered in

1998 during habitat mapping of the northern

NTS and monitoring of natural water sources

on the NTS. Four of these appear to be

springs and may dry up during drought years

or late summer. The fifth water source

appears to be a historic borrow pit which

catches surface runoff and retains it long

enough to sustain wetland vegetation. Two

of the four springs were found in Area 30 on

the southwest bajadas of the Eleana Range. 

They were named Wild Horse Spring and

Little Wild Horse Spring because abundant

signs of horse use were found at both

springs. The third spring was named

Rattlesnake Seep. It is located in a canyon

on the southern edge of Pahute Mesa in

Area 19. The fourth spring was found in

Area 26 during monitoring the existing

Wahmonie Seeps 1, 2, and 3 northeast of

Skull Mountain. The new spring, named

Wahmonie Seeps 2 and 3. The fifth new

water source, an ephemeral pond which

biologists named Pahute Mesa Pond, is on

Pahute Mesa adjacent to Dead Horse Flats

Road in Area 19. The pond is a depression

approximately 30 x 80 m (100 x 260 ft) in

area and 3 m (10 ft) deep on the average. 

The depression catches and holds

precipitation and surface runoff. It appears

to have been formed many years ago during

excavation of fill material for use in

constructing the roadbed for Dead Horse

Flats Road. The depression contained water

for much of the year in 1998. Although this

pond is not a natural seep, spring, or pond, it

does support wetland vegetation and may,

along with the newly discovered seeps,

possess field indicators of a jurisdictional

wetland. An updated map of the natural

water sources on the NTS, including the five

new sources, was produced and included in

the “Ecological Monitoring and Compliance

Program Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 Report” (BN

1998). Periodic monitoring of selected NTS

natural water sources was continued in

1998. Several water sources were visited

between January and August 1998. They

included Cane, Captain Jack, Gold

Meadows, Tippipah, Topopah, Tub, and

Whiterock springs; Reitmann Seep and the

four Wahmonie Seeps; and Yucca Playa

Pond. Selected hydrology, water quality,

and wildlife usage data were collected. 

These data were summarized and also

presented in the report cited above 

(BN 1998).

Samples of aquatic invertebrates were

collected at eight springs during 1998; Cane,

Captain Jack, Gold Meadow, Tippipah,

Topopah, and Whiterock springs, Reitmann

Seep, and Yucca Playa Pond. The samples

were fixed and preserved for later

processing and identification. They are

collected to develop an inventory of the

invertebrate species living in the NTS’s

natural water sources. 

Five species of mammals and 17 species of

birds were detected at 11 water sources.

The most abundant and widely distributed

species was the mourning dove, observed at

nine sites. Seasonal use of water sources is

dominated by mourning doves during the
6-6

summer; the largest groups were observed Assembly Facility sewage ponds. It was

at Cane Spring and Yucca Playa Pond. 

Chukar were most abundant at Topopah

Spring.

MONITORING MAN-MADE WATER

SOURCES

Quarterly monitoring of man-made water

sources was conducted in 1998. These

sources, located throughout the NTS,

include 35 plastic-lined sumps, 46 sewage

treatment ponds, 13 unlined well ponds, 

2 cement-lined ponds, and 4 radioactive

containment ponds. Several ponds or

sumps are located next to each other at the

same project site. They are monitored to

assess their use by wildlife and to develop

and implement mitigation measures to make

them safer for use by wildlife. Many NTS

animals rely on these man-made structures

as sources of water. Wildlife and migratory

birds may drown in steep-sided or plasticlined sumps as a result of entrapment, or

ingest contaminants in drill-fluid sumps or

evaporative ponds. Mitigation measures,

required under the Mitigation Action Plan for

the Final EIS (DOE 1996c), include placing

flag lines over contaminated water sources

to repel birds, or fencing or covering them. 

Quarterly monitoring ensures that all flag

lines, fencing, or covers are checked for

their integrity and repaired when needed. 

Man-made water sources were visited during

four quarterly sampling periods; November,

February-April, May-June, and September

1998. Use of unlined sumps and ponds by

migratory birds and mammals such as

coyotes and deer was common. The fences

installed around the plastic-lined sumps do

not exclude coyotes or deer, as their tracks

were observed commonly inside many of the

fences. Birds were observed much less at

the plastic-lined sumps compared to the

unlined ponds. 

No animal mortalities from drowning or

entrapment were observed during the

surveys at any of the water sources. 

However, during the May-June sampling, 12

dead doves were observed at the Device

determined through subsequent field

observations that the doves were being

killed by a pair of nesting red-tailed hawks.

HSC MONITORING

Biological monitoring at HSC is required for

certain types of chemicals under the

Center’s Environmental Assessment. These

chemicals have either not been tested

before, have not been tested in large

quantities, or have uncertain modeling

predictions of downwind air concentrations. 

In addition, DOE ESHD has requested that

BN monitor (downwind) any test which may

impact plants or animals outside the

experimental area.

A document entitled “Biological Monitoring

Plan for Hazardous Materials Testing at the

Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility

on the Nevada Test Site” (BN 1996) has

been prepared that describes the conduct of

field surveys used to determine test impacts

on plants and animals and verify that the

spill program complies with pertinent state

and federal environmental protection

legislation. The monitoring plan calls for the

establishment of three control transects and

three treatment transects, which have similar

environmental and vegetational

characteristics, at three distances from the

chemical release point. In CY 1998,

seasonal sampling of the control and

treatment transects was conducted in March

and September of 1998. Treatment

transects are each 1,000 m (3,280 ft) long

and at 1, 3, and 5 km (0.6, 1.9, and 3.1 mi)

downwind from the spill site. Control

transects are similar lengths and at similar

distances upwind. Data collected included

the presence of any dead animals,

observations of wildlife or their sign (i.e.,

scat, burrows, nests, tracks), and any

damage to vegetation. 

The chemical spill test plans were reviewed

for five experiments: (1) Mountain Lion Test

Series conducted by the Remote Sensor

Test Range Program for 20 materials,

(2) DuPont Specialty Chemicals’ Fuming 
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-7

Acids Mitigation Workshop using five and plans and promoting public relations and

chemicals, (3) Compressed Gas Mitigation

Workshop using ammonia of varying spill

volumes, (4) Effluent Tracking Experiment

using ten chemicals, and (5) CADDIE tests

on the release of three chemicals. Not all of

these tests were performed in 1998. Letters 

documenting these reviews were submitted

to DOE ESHD. It was determined that no

biological monitoring of treatment transects

was necessary for any of the experiments,

except for the DuPont Specialty Chemicals’

Fuming Acids Mitigation Workshop. 

Concentrations of chemicals tested for this

workshop were expected to be close to their

short-term exposure limits (STELs) at 3 km

(1.9 mi) downwind of the release point,

which is the edge of the playa where some

vegetation and wildlife on the NTS may be

impacted. Concentration levels of these

same chemicals, however, would be well

below their STELs at 5 km (3.1 mi)

downwind on the Desert National Wildlife

Range. Although recommended, based on

the biological monitoring plan for HSC,

monitoring of the treatment transects was

not conducted for this DuPont experiment. 

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Historic preservation studies and surveys

are conducted by the Desert Research

Institute (DRI), University and Community

College System of Nevada. In 1998, 16

surveys were conducted for historic

properties on the NTS, and reports on the

findings were prepared. These surveys

identified 19 prehistoric and historic

archaeological sites. Through consultation

with the Nevada State Historic Preservation

Office, one of these sites was determined

eligible for the National Register of Historic

Places (NRHP). Work continued on historic

structures associated with early NTS

activities. Demolition of the EPA Farm in

Area 15 required the preparation of Historic 

American Building Survey documentation for

the facility. This documentation will reside in

the Library of Congress. 

Other efforts on the NTS in 1998, included

administration of the cultural resources

program, preparing management objectives 

communications concerning the NTS

archaeology and cultural resources program. 

The Secretary of the Interior’s Report to

Congress on Federal Archaeological

Activities Questionnaire for FY 1997 was

completed. Also the plan for the Cultural

Resources Monitoring Program was finalized

and implemented. NRHP archaeological

sites located during the past year were

monitored during construction activities and

two reports were prepared. In addition, as

part of the Environmental Assessment (EA)

for the Intermodal Transportation Facility,

cultural resources research and fieldwork

resulted in the preparation of sections for the

EA. Cultural Resources maps and text were

prepared for the RMP. Also written was a

draft Cultural RMP which will be finalized in

1999.

Cultural resource surveys and other studies

are conducted to assess any impacts NTS

operations may have on such resources. 

When cultural resources eligible for the

NRHP are found in a project area, and they

cannot be avoided, plans are written for

programs to recover data to mitigate the

effects of the projects on these sites. One

draft technical report was submitted for a

field data recovery program conducted in

1997. A technical report was completed that

summarizes hunter-gatherer adaptations on

Pahute and Rainier Mesas. For those

historic properties which can be avoided by

NTS activities, a monitoring program has

been developed to field verify the condition

of these sites through time (Beck 1997).

Two reports were prepared on consultations

conducted with American Indian tribes. The

first was a Rapid Cultural Assessment

Report on an archaeological site and the

second was a technical report on American

Indian interpretations and views of rock art.

To comply with federal regulations in Title 36

CFR 79 (CFR 1966), DRI continues to

curate the more than 500,000 artifacts in the

DOE/NV collection. DRI produced an

annual report summarizing curation

compliance activities.
6-8

6.4 Pollution Prevention and

Waste Minimization Program

When economically practicable, source

reduction is the preferred method of

handling waste, followed by reuse and

recycling, treatment, and, as a last resort,

land disposal. BN’s systematic approach to

source reduction is achieved by performing

pollution prevention opportunity

assessments (PPOAs). A PPOA is a

planned and documented procedure with the

objective of identifying methods that reduce

energy consumption or eliminate waste

streams. The technical and economical

feasible options are evaluated, and the most

promising options are selected for

implementation. Options include product

substitution, process change (i.e., use of

alternate equipment or procedure), and

onsite and offsite recycling. When selecting

which PPOA to perform, the goal is to

reduce or eliminate the volume and toxicity

of waste. 

Two PPOAs were performed during 

CY 1998. The first consisted of the team

evaluating the Boiler Room Operation at the

NTS with the goal of reducing air emissions. 

The conclusion of the assessment was to

convert the existing boiler fuel from diesel 

burn natural gas. If funding becomes

available, the PPOA recommendation will be

reevaluated for implementation.

The second PPOA was conducted on

evaluating the disposal of obsolete software. 

There was a potential to recycle paper from

software manuals; cardboard from software

cases; and plastic from the diskettes. As a

result, the paper and cardboard are being

recycled onsite and the Pollution Prevention

Project Office is evaluating sending

diskettes offsite to be recycled and reused.

At the Explosive Ordinance Disposal Unit,

approximately 100 kilograms (kg) (220

pounds) of reactive hazardous waste (waste

explosives) from devices destined for

disposal were evaluated and determined to

be useful products, thereby eliminating the

need for treatment and disposal.

Coordinating chemical and material

exchange projects between DOE/NV, BN,

and other governing agencies (i.e., Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection) is

another pollution prevention activity. These

are chemicals and materials destined for

disposal, either as solid or hazardous waste,

as a result of process modification,

discontinued use, or shelf life expiration. 

Instead, they are transferred and utilized for

their intended use or return to the vendor to

be recycled or reused. This is a substantial

cost savings for all parties.

AFFIRMATIVE PROCUREMENT

Affirmative Procurement Program has been

established to comply with the requirements

of Executive Order (EO) 13101. This EO will

drive site goals and performance to close

the loop between recycling and buying

products containing recovered/recycled

materials. This program focuses on seven

major categories including construction

materials, landscape, non-paper, paper,

park and recreation, transportation, and

vehicular products, and under each of these

categories is a number of specific products. 

The following numbers are based on Fiscal

Year 1998 totals. They are as followed: 100

percent of construction materials; 98 percent

of paper office products. For non-paper

office products, excluding toner cartridges,

BN procured 93 percent of binders, office

recycling containers, waste receptacles, 

plastic desktop accessories, and trash bags. 

Toner cartridges purchases amounted to 

$108,819. 

EMPLOYEE AND PUBLIC

AWARENESS

Employee awareness of pollution prevention,

waste minimization, and recycling

throughout the DOE/NV complexes is

accomplished by dissemination of articles

through electronic mailing and publishing in

the company newspaper, and sponsoring

employee and community events with the

intent of increasing awareness of

environmental issues and the importance of

individual participation to improve

environmental conditions in the workplace
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-9

and community. A home page was Term sales of scrap metal during 1998

developed on the BN Intranet that includes (amount listed in Table 6.3) produced a

point of contacts, material exchange profit of $138,308. This is an ongoing

projects, information on community and recycling/reuse activity.

public outreach projects, current pollution

prevention events and activities, etc. The Pollution Prevention Project Office

The Community and Public Outreach

activities included presentations at: 

 University of Nevada, Las Vegas Earth

Day.

 Bring Your Kids to Work Day.

 Local schools about pollution prevention

and recycling projects at the DOE

Nevada Operations Office. 

 A Girl Scout Community and Public

Outreach Project.

 DOE/NV, BN, Wackenhut Services

Incorporated, and International

Technology Corporation.

ADDITIONAL 1998

ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

An estimated 190.47 metric tons of large

concrete slabs were scheduled for excess

from a project; however, they were used for

the base of a drainage berm in place of the

standard compacted-earth design. There

were estimated cost savings of $20,000; this

included cost avoidance of importing and

placing 200 cubic meters of gravel and

disposal cost of 200 metric tons of concrete

blocks.

Miscellaneous equipment was donated

through the School Gift and Energy-Related

Laboratory Equipment Programs in the

amount of $2,330,315. Equipment such as

computers, oscilloscopes, amplifiers, etc., is

being reused. This is an on going

recycling/reuse activity. Also, BN and

Amador Valley Operations donated office

and computer supplies, equipment, furniture,

and appliances to a school district. The

estimated amount of items recycled/reused

is 0.59 metric tons and the estimated

donation was $5,925.

traveled to two offsite locations (Santa

Barbara and Pleasantan, California) to

promote pollution prevention, waste

minimization, and recycling awareness. In

addition, pollution prevention reporting

requirements for the sites were established.

DOE/NV received the 1998 United States

Department of Energy Pollution Prevention

Award for Recycling Radioactive/Hazardous

Waste which occurred during the Cotter

Concentrate Project at the NTS (reported in

the NTS Annual Site Environmental Report

1997).

VOLUME AND TOXICITY

REDUCTION

Table 6.2 is an overview of the estimated

Resource and Conservation Recovery Act

(RCRA) hazardous and sanitary waste and

toxicity reduction through implementation of

pollution prevention, waste minimization, and

activities during CY 1998 (Attachment 1).

The 13 hazardous waste activities

eliminated over 158 metric tons of RCRA

hazardous waste.

COMPARISON OF RCRA

HAZARDOUS WASTE

GENERATION IN CALENDAR

YEAR 1997 AND 1998

In 1998, an estimated 55.27 metric tons of

RCRA hazardous waste was generated. 

The increase from 1997 to 1998 is attributed

to the following activities:

 An estimated 2,000 gallons of routinely

used oil at NTS was disposed of as

hazardous waste due to inconclusive

total halogen contamination tests.

 Aggressive environmental restoration

projects contributed to significant

increase of RCRA hazardous waste

generation during 1998.
6-10

RECYCLING ACTIVITIES FOR

CALENDAR 1998

By recycling, the amount of hazardous and

sanitary waste disposed of can be reduced

or eliminated and there are cost savings on

disposal, shipping, and labor. Table 6.3 lists

the recycling activities that occurred at the 

DOE/NV locations on- and offsite.

6.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

SPILL CENTER (HSC)

The HSC was established in the Frenchman

Basin in Area 5 as a basic research tool for

studying the dynamics of accidental

releases of various hazardous materials and

the effectiveness of mitigation procedures. 

The HSC was designed and equipped to 

(1) discharge a measured volume of a

hazardous fluid at a controlled rate on a

specially prepared surface; (2) monitor and

record downwind gaseous concentrations,

operating data, and close-in/downwind

meteorological data; and (3) provide a

means to control and monitor these

functions from a remote location.

The HSC has the capability of releasing

large volumes of cryogenic and noncryogenic liquids at rapid rates through a

152 m (500-ft) spill line to the experimental

area supporting the tank farm. Spill rates for

the cryogenic system range from 1,000 to

26,000 gallons per minute (gpm) with the

capability to release the entire contents of

both tanks in two minutes. The noncryogenic system can release fluids at rates

of 500 to 5,000 gpm (1.9 to 19 m /min), with 3

the capability of releasing the entire 90.8 m3

(24,000 gallons) in five minutes. 

Test sponsors can vary intake air

temperature, humidity, release rate, and

release volume in a 2.4 x 4.8 x 25.3 m

(8 x 16 x 96 ft) wind tunnel. There are two

spill pads available for use in contained

open air releases of volumes of 0.19 to 3.8

m (50 to 1,000 gallons). Test Area 4 has 3

been added primarily to provide the testing

capability for determining the efficacy of

totally encapsulated chemical protective

suiting materials when exposed to high

concentrations of toxic and hazardous

gaseous materials.

DOE/NV provides the facilities, security, and

technical support, but all costs are borne by

the organization conducting the tests. The

plans for each test series were examined by

an Advisory Panel that consisted of DOE/NV

and EPA’s R&IE-LV professional personnel

augmented by personnel from the

organization performing the tests.

For each test, the R&IE-LV provides an

advisor on offsite public health and safety for

the Operations Controller's Test Safety

Review Panel. At the beginning of each test

series and, at other tests depending on

projected need, a field monitoring technician

from the EPA with appropriate air sampling

equipment is deployed downwind of the test

at the NTS boundary to measure chemical

concentrations that may have reached the

offsite area. Samples are collected with a

hand-operated Dräger pump and sampling

tube appropriate for the chemical being

tested. Not all tests are monitored by R&IELV, if professional judgement indicates that,

based on previous experience with the

chemical and the proposed test parameters,

NTS boundary monitoring is unnecessary. 

The EPA monitors at the NTS boundary, in

contact by two-way radio, are always placed

at the projected cloud center line.

During 1998, there were six projects

conducted at HSC: (1) the Diamondback

Weapons of Mass Destruction Exercise,

which included the release of methyl

salicylate as a stimulant; (2) the DuPont

Fuming Acids Workshop, which included the

release of oleum and chlorosulfonic acid for

emergency response training; (3) Remote

Sensor Test Range-Mountain Lion Episode

using 20 materials; (4) Effluent Tracking

Experiment using 10 materials; (5) the

Barrier Crash Test, which did not involve any

hazardous material releases; and (6) the

BN-sponsored First Responder Training

Class field exercises, which also did not
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-11

include any hazardous chemical releases. NTS generated wastes that meet the RCRA

No offsite air monitoring was performed by Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)

R&IE-LV personnel in 1998. requirements. Low-level mixed waste

6.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT

ACTIVITIES

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Low-level radioactive waste (LLW) from the

DOE-approved generators is disposed of at

two locations on the NTS. Packaged LLW is

disposed of at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste

Management Site (RWMS-5) in shallow pits

and trenches. LLW in large containers and

unpackaged bulk waste from environmental

restoration projects are buried in selected

subsidence craters at the Area 3 RWMS

(RWMS-3). Hazardous, transuranic (TRU),

and mixed TRU wastes are stored

aboveground pending shipment to offsite

permitted disposal facilities.

RWMS-5 WASTE MANAGEMENT

OPERATIONS

The RWMS-5 is used for the disposal of

radioactive waste generated at the NTS and

at offsite DOE and U.S. Department of

Defense facilities. LLW is accepted for

disposal from generators that have received

approval from DOE Headquarters and

DOE/NV (NTS 1996). Disposal of mixed

waste is still restricted to waste generated

on the NTS. 

LLW, mixed waste, and small quantities of

TRU waste have been disposed of in 22

shallow pits and trenches since disposal

operations began in 1961. The shallow pits

and trenches range in depth from 4.6 to 14.6

m (15 to 48 ft). Filled pits and trenches are

covered by a 2.4 m (8 ft) alluvium cap

pending final closure of the site. 

LLW disposed of prior to implementation of

RCRA (CFR 1984) by DOE in 1986 may

contain low levels of hazardous constituents. 

A single disposal unit, Pit 3, has interim

status as a mixed waste disposal unit for

generated on the NTS is stored on the TRU

waste storage pad until characterization is

complete. If the waste meets or has been

treated to meet LDR requirements, it may be

disposed of in Pit 3.

TRU mixed waste is stored in a covered

building on a specially constructed RCRAdesigned pad. In 1998, the Waste

Examination Facility (WEF) began

operations to certify this stored TRU mixed

waste for disposal at the Waste Isolation

Pilot Plant in New Mexico. Low-level

radioactive mixed waste is also currently

stored on the TRU waste storage pad. 

In 1998, the RWMS-5 received 6.59 x 10 m3 3

(2.33 x 10 ft ) of waste containing a total of 5 3

3.6 x 10 Ci (1.3 x 10 TBq) of reportable 4 3

radionuclides. This represents a decrease

in volume and activity from the previous year

because of fewer shipments from Fernald

(see Table 6.6). The trend in bulk disposal

at each RWMS is shown in Figures 6.2 and

6.3. Tritium accounted for more than 99.9

percent of the total radioactivity disposed of

in 1998 (see Table 6.7). Uranium was the

next most important radionuclide in the 1998

inventory.

Radioactivity in air, groundwater, gamma

and neutron radiation fields, and soil

moisture content were monitored at the

RWMS-5 in 1998. Air samples were

analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta

radiation, photon-emitting radionuclides,

plutonium, and tritium. Tritium and Pu 239+240

were the only man-made airborne

radionuclides detected at the RWMS-5. All

airborne radionuclide concentrations were a

small fraction of DOE allowable limits. 

Airborne tritium at the RWMS-5 probably

originates from disposed LLW. The highest

tritium concentration detected in 1998,

8.4 x 10 μCi/mL, was 0.08 percent of the -11

Derived Concentration Guide (DCG). Low

levels of Pu were detected near the 239+240

WEF and inside the TRU storage building. 

The highest outdoor Pu concentration, 239+240
Figure 6.2 Total Volume of Waste Disposed of at RWMS-3 and RWMS-5

Figure 6.3 Total Curies Disposed of at RWMS-3 and RWMS-5

6-12

20000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

1000

6000

11000

16000

Volume - m3

10-2

10-1

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

Curies

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Calendar Year

Calendar Year

RWMS-3

RWMS-5

Legend

RWMS-3

RWMS-5

Legend
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-13

1.5 x 10 μCi/mL, was 0.7 percent of the modeling studies indicate that transport of -16

most restrictive DCG. All Pu results for 239+240

the perimeter of the RWMS-5 were less than

the MDC. Groundwater samples were

analyzed for RCRA parameters, gross alpha,

gross beta, tritium, and photon emitting

radionuclides. No man-made radionuclides

or hazardous chemicals were detected in

groundwater. Gamma radiation fields were

monitored by TLDs. Neutron radiation fields

at the perimeter of the TRU waste storage

pad were monitored by proton recoil

dosimeters. Radiation exposures above

background were measured at RWMS-5, but

only at locations where radioactive waste is

stored or remained exposed in active

disposal units. Infiltration of wetting fronts

below the depth of waste disposal units was

not detected by soil moisture monitoring.

The results of air monitoring are described

further in Chapter 4 and the results of water

monitoring are described in Chapter 5.

RWMS-5 PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT (PA)

The DOE assesses the long-term

performance of LLW disposal sites by

conducting a PA. A PA is a systematic

analysis of the potential risks posed by a

waste disposal site to the public and to the

environment and a comparison of those

risks to established performance objectives. 

A PA has been completed, reviewed, and

approved for the RWMS-5 (Shott et al.,

1997a). The PA helps to identify the

processes that could cause detectable

releases of radioactive materials to the

accessible environment during operation of

the site. The only release pathway expected

at the RWMS-5 in the near term is diffusion

of volatile radionuclides through the

operational cap to the atmosphere. Tritium

is the most abundant volatile radionuclide

disposed of at the RWMS-5. PA models

indicate that nonvolatile radionuclides may

eventually be detected in soil excavated by

burrowing animals and in the tissues of

deep-rooted vegetation growing on disposal

unit covers. Site characterization data and 

nonvolatile radionuclides from the waste to

the uppermost aquifer is extremely unlikely

because of the thick dry vadose zone, low

precipitation, and high potential

evapotranspiration at the site.

RWMS-5 monitoring results are generally

consistent with PA results. Tritium, the

volatile radionuclide with the largest

inventory, is routinely detected in air

samples at the RWMS-5 at levels that are a

small fraction of DOE allowable limits. Since

maintenance operations keep operational

covers vegetation free, deep-rooted

vegetation samples are not routinely

available for analysis. Tritium is the only

radionuclide that has been detected in

previous analyses of cap vegetation. 

Groundwater monitoring results confirm that

groundwater beneath the RWMS-5 remains

uncontaminated. Monitoring of soil moisture

content confirms that infiltrating precipitation

does not percolate through the disposal unit

operational caps because it evaporates and

returns to the atmosphere.

RWMS-3 WASTE MANAGEMENT

OPERATIONS

The RWMS-3 is used for the disposal of bulk

waste. Packaged bulk LLW is accepted

from approved onsite and offsite generators. 

Unpackaged bulk LLW from NTS

environmental restoration projects also has

been accepted and disposed of. Disposal is

in subsidence craters formed by

underground nuclear tests. The subsidence

craters range in depth from 15 to 24 m (49 to

78 ft) and are filled by alternating layers of

stacked waste packages and 1 m (3 ft) of

clean alluvium. Waste disposed of at the

RWMS-3 tends to have a lower activity

concentration than waste disposed of at the

RWMS-5 because bulk waste tends to be

generated by environmental restoration

projects.

Waste disposal operations at the RWMS-3

began in the U-3ax crater in 1968. The U3ax crater was eventually joined with U-3bl

to form the U-3ax/bl disposal unit. This unit
6-14

received mostly unpackaged LLW from NTS as at the RWMS-5 because of the similar

nuclear testing operations. The U-3ax/bl

disposal unit was filled in 1987 and covered

with a 2.4-m (8-ft) thick temporary closure 

cap. This disposal unit is a mixed waste

management unit as mixed waste is known

to have been disposed of. Waste disposal

operations moved to the U-3at crater in 1988

and was joined with the U-3ah crater to form

the U-3ah/at disposal unit. This disposal

unit remained open in 1998 and contains

LLW only. During 1997, disposal of

unpackaged plutonium contaminated soil,

from sites on the Nellis Air Force Range,

about 14 mi (22 km) east of Goldfield,

Nevada began in the U-3bh crater. 

Radioactivity in air, gamma radiation fields,

and soil moisture content were monitored at

the RWMS-3. Plutonium was the only manmade airborne radionuclide detected at the

RWMS-3. The airborne plutonium likely

originates from the resuspension of soils

contaminated by atmospheric nuclear

weapons tests. Gamma radiation fields

were monitored by thermoluminescent

dosimeters (TLDs). Dose equivalents

greater than background were measured at

the RWMS-3. Contamination from

atmospheric nuclear weapons tests

contributes to the dose equivalent measured

at the RWMS-3. Soil moisture monitoring

did not detect the infiltration of wetting fronts

below the depth of waste disposal units.

During 1998, the RWMS-3 received 3.39 x

10 m (1.20 x 10 ft ) of waste containing 3 3 5 3

1.1 x 10 Ci (41 TBq) of activity (see Table 3

6.4). This represents a decrease in volume

and an increase in the activity disposed of,

compared to the previous year (see Table

6.5). The increase in activity disposed of is

largely attributable to tritium. The remainder

of the activity was predominately Sr, Cs, 90 137

and various isotopes of plutonium.

RWMS-3 PERFORMANCE

ASSESSMENT (PA)

A PA has been conducted for the RWMS-3

(Shott et al., 1997b). Release pathways at

the RWMS-3 are expected to be the same

site conditions and disposal operations. 

However, the inventory of radioactive

materials disposed of at the RMWS-3 is 

much less than that disposed of at the

RWMS-5. The RWMS-3 inventory of H, 3

which is the most likely radionuclide to be

released, is significantly less than at the

RWMS-5, so the potential for detecting

releases of radioactivity is also significantly

less. Moreover, the interpretation of

environmental monitoring results at the

RWMS-3 is confounded by the presence of

significant soil contamination from

aboveground nuclear tests. Airborne tritium

monitoring at the RWMS-3 was discontinued

in 1997 because all results were less than

the minimum detectable concentration

(MDC). Interpretation of environmental

monitoring data from the RWMS-3 and

comparison of environmental monitoring

results with PA results is difficult because of

the small RWMS-3 radionuclide inventory

and the presence of contamination from

nuclear testing. 

HAZARDOUS WASTES

NTS OPERATIONS

Hazardous wastes generated on the NTS

are accumulated at a location east of the

RWMS-5, the Hazardous Waste

Accumulation Site, before shipment to an

offsite treatment, storage, and disposal

facility. Hazardous waste generation

activities at the NTS are performed under

EPA Identification (ID) Number

NV3890090001. The NTS continues to be

regulated by the 1995 NTS RCRA

Hazardous Waste Operating Permit Number

NEV HW009 for the general operation of the

facility and the specific operation of the

Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) and

the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit.

Three permit modifications have occurred

since October 1, 1996. These modification

include changes in the NTS training program

and personnel changes in the Area 5 and

Area 11 Emergency Management Plans. 
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-15

The Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit located At the Area 23 Class II Municipal and

in the RWMS-5 continues to operate under Industrial Solid Waste Disposal Site, a

RCRA Interim Status. groundwater monitoring well has been

The NTS also has a Nevada Hazardous monitoring requirements for the Mercury

Materials Storage Permit Number 13-94- sewage lagoon system. An initial baseline

0034-X, issued by the state Fire Marshall. water sample was collected in August 1997,

This permit is renewed annually when a and compliance monitoring continued in 1998.

report required by the state’s Chemical

Catastrophe Prevention Act is submitted.

CHEMICAL ANALYSES

Chemical analyses performed in support of

operations conducted on the NTS are

described in Section 6.3 above.

NON-NTS OPERATIONS

Four EPA Generator ID numbers have been

issued to five non-NTS operations. In

addition, three local ID numbers were

required at one operation. Hazardous waste

is managed at all locations, by using satellite

accumulation areas. Three operations have

centralized accumulation areas. All

hazardous and industrial wastes are

transported offsite to RCRA-permitted

facilities for approved treatment and/or

disposal.

SANITARY WASTE

At the NTS there are three nonhazardous

waste landfills that have state of Nevada

Operating Permits, i.e., the Area 6

Hydrocarbon Disposal Site, the Area 9

U-10c Solid Waste Disposal Site, and the

Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site. There

are no monitoring requirements for nonhazardous solid waste disposed of at the

NTS in the three landfills; however, before

the waste is disposed of, it is weighed. 

During 1998, there were approximately

7,430 tons of waste disposed of at the NTS,

as shown in Table 6.8. The permitting

process considers groundwater protection at

these locations. 

installed. This well also serves to satisfy

The RCRA-permitted Area 5 HWSU also had

groundwater protection considered in the

permitting process. The facility has

impervious cement floor compartments with

adequate spill containment capacity to store

containers of hazardous waste. In the event

there was a release to the soil during

container handling, there is spill containment

present to control the release.

6.7 PERMITS FOR NTS

OPERATIONS

Federal and state permits have been issued

to DOE/NV and to BN (Table 6.9). These

permits are required for the conduct of such

DOE/NV activities as hazardous and

sanitary waste storage and disposal for

certain ecological studies and for operations

involving endangered species. All BN nonNTS facilities are located in existing

metropolitan areas and are not subject to the

Endangered Species Act. Annual reports

associated with these permits are filed as

stipulated in each permit.

The only RCRA permit in use at the NTS is

the Hazardous Waste Management Permit

NEV HW009. With this permit, hazardous

waste generated at the NTS can be stored

at the Area 5 HWSU for up to one year. It is

then shipped offsite for treatment and/or

disposal. During 1998, the total amount of

hazardous waste shipped offsite was 13,422

gallons. The pernit also allows for the

thermal treatment (disposal) of explosives at

the Area 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal

Unit. During 1998, 207 pounds of

explosives were treated at this facility.
6-16

The North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) has a DOE/NV activities on the NTS comply with

Waste Generator number of NVD09786831 all terms and conditions of a desert tortoise

that covers generation and a 90-day incidental take authorization issued in a

accumulation of hazardous waste. The Biological Opinion (File Number 1-5-96-F-33)

waste is shipped offsite for final treatment from the United States Fish and Wildlife

and/or disposal. During 1998, there were Service.

2,122 gallons of hazardous waste shipped

offsite from the NLVF. The Nevada Division of Wildlife issued a

scientific collection permit, S15842, to BN

that allows collection of wildlife samples.
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-17

Table 6.1 Radionuclides Detected in Milk Samples - 1998

Sr Concentration (10 μCi/mL) 90 -10

Sampling Location Number Result

Hinkley, CA - Desert View Dairy 1 0.23

Ridgecrest, CA - Lisa Froehner 1 0.18

Amargosa Valley, NV - Ponderosa Dairy #141 1 0.43

Austin, NV - Young’s Ranch 1 2.6

Caliente, NV - June Cox Ranch 1 1.1

Duckwater, NV - Bradshaw’s Ranch 1 0.95

Moapa, NV - Rockview Dairies 1 0.21

Pahrump, NV - Pahrump Dairy 1 0.53

Tonopah, NV - Karen Epperly 1 0.64

Bunkerville, NV - Bunker Dairy 1 -0.31

Summary of Radionuclides Detected in Milk Samples

No. of samples with results > MDC (Network average concentration in pCi/L)

1998 1997 1996 1995

Sr N/A N/A 0(0.01) 0(0.03) 89

Sr 0(0.72) 1(0.70) 0(0.63) 0(0.61) 90

N/A = Not Analyzed

Table 6.2 Pollution Prevention Results, Volume and Toxicity Waste Reduction - 1998

Waste and 

Toxicity 

Activity Accomplishment Waste Type Reduction

Recycle/Reuse Batteries shipped offsite to be recycled. Hazardous 18.62 Mg(a)

Recycle/Reuse Scrap metal term sale of lead. Hazardous 8.26 Mg

Recycle/Reuse Sent spent intact fluorescent light bulbs 

 offsite to be recycled ( result of a PPOA). Hazardous 3.41 Mg

Material Exchange Kerosene, destined for disposal, was transferred 

to another department at the NTS for use. Hazardous 3.02 Mg

Material Exchange Two 55-gallon drums of Solvent 724, destined 

for disposal, were returned to the vendor 

(buy back). Hazardous 0.42 Mg

Material Exchange Nine 55-gallon drums of Isopropyl Alcohol, 

destined for disposal, transferred to the Spill 

Test Facility to be used for it’s intended 

purpose. Hazardous 1.89 Mg
6-18

Table 6.2 (Pollution Prevention Results, Volume and Toxicity Waste Reduction - 1998, cont.)

Waste/Toxicity 

 Reduction

Activity Accomplishment Waste Type (Mg) (a)

Material Exchange Miscellaneous products (lubricants/oils, solvents, 

adhesives, janitor and soldering supplies, etc.) 

collected during closure of buildings at the NTS; 

these items were transferred and used for their 

intended purpose. Hazardous 1.88 Mg

Material Exchange One 55-gallon drum of Voltz Solvent destined 

for disposal, was transferred to security for use

to clean security guard armor. Hazardous 0.21 Mg

Material Exchange Potassium hydroxide, destined for disposal was 

transferred to the Analytical Laboratory to be 

used for neutralizing acid waste. Hazardous 0.49 Mg

Material Exchange Miscellaneous copy machine supplies destined 

for disposal were transferred within DOE/NV 

and Nevada EPA for their intended use. Sanitary 0.588 Mg

Material Exchange Refrigeration coil cleaner destined for disposal 

was transferred to the Refrigeration Shop for 

its intended use. Sanitary 0.08 Mg

Onsite Recycling Gasoline from the Area 6 Gas Station, destined 

for disposal, was transferred and used by the 

Area 23 Gas Station. Hazardous 5.05 Mg

Onsite Recycling Gasoline was removed from underground storage

tanks at NTS; destined for disposal, was 

transferred for use as its intended purpose. Hazardous 6.80 Mg

Onsite Recycling Gasoline, removed from underground storage 

tanks at NTS, destined for disposal, was 

transferred and used for it’s intended purpose. Hazardous 15.12

Offsite Recycling Used oil from routine maintenance of vehicles 

and heavy equipment was shipped offsite to 

be recycled. Hazardous 55.02 

Onsite Recycling Diesel fuel from Area 1 Drilling activities, 

destined for disposal, was transferred for use

by the Area 23 Gas Station. Sanitary 15.12

Onsite Recycling Reusable clean bath and hand towels and wash 

clothes were destined for disposal due to 

decrease in housing were transferred to Fleet 

Operations to be utilized for their intended use. Sanitary 2.72

TOTALS:

 Number of Projects completed - 17. Estimated Waste and Toxicity Reduction: 176.89

(a) Mg = megagram = metric ton = 2205 lb.
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-19

Table 6.3 Ongoing Recycling Activities - 1998

Waste Quantity

Activity Type (Mg) (a)

Paper 

 Mixed paper, cardboard, newspaper, and magazines Sanitary 241.39

Junk Mail (mixed paper) Sanitary 13.86

Aluminum Cans Sanitary 1.15

Styrofoam Sanitary 0.24

Scrap Metals includes:

 Ferrous, non-ferrous, and light Steel Sanitary 1329.50

Scrap Metal, lead Hazardous 5.28

Precious Metal, Silver Sanitary 0.02

Toner Cartridges Sanitary 1.42

Batteries Hazardous 18.62

Fluorescent Light Bulbs Hazardous 3.41

Automotive Cores/Parts Sanitary 1.67

Used Oils includes: oils, diesel fuel, and gasoline Sanitary 96.14

Tires Sanitary 16.17

Wood includes: 

 Scrap wood, pallets, chips, and compost Sanitary 14.51

Total 1743.38

 (a) Mg = megagram = metric ton = 2205 lb.

Table 6.4 Low-Level Waste Disposed of at the RWMS-3, 1993 - 1998

Calendar Year Volume of LLW Disposed of (m ) Activity of LLW Disposed of (Ci) 3

1993 9,848 2.4 x 10-1

1994 10,550 2.1 x 10-1

1995 11,073 3.1 x 100

1996 7,033 5.7 x 100

1997 14,910 6.5 x 100

1998 3,392 1.1 x 103

Table 6.5 Inventory of Radionuclides (>0.1 Ci) Disposed of at the RWMS-3 in 1998

Radionuclide Activity (Ci) Percent of Total Activity

H 1.1 x 10 9.7 x 10 3 3 1

Cs 1.8 x 10 1.6 x 10 137 1 0

Sr 1.7 x 10 1.5 x 10 90 1 0

Pu 2.4 x 10 2.2 x 10 239 -1 -2

Pu 9.6 x 10 8.7 x 10 238 -2 -3
6-20

Table 6.5 (Inventory of Radionuclides (>0.1 Ci) Disposed of at the RWMS-3 in 1998, cont.)

Radionuclide Activity (Ci) Percent of Total Activity

Pu 8.9 x 10 8.1 x 10 241 -2 -3

U 4.4 x 10 4.0 x 10 238 -2 -3

Am 3.2 x 10 2.9 x 10 241 -2 -3

Pu 1.8 x 10 1.6 x 10 240 -2 -3

U 1.1 x 10 9.7 x 10 234 -2 -4

Th 3.5 x 10 3.2 x 10 232 -3 -4

Th 3.5 x 10 3.1 x 10 228 -3 -4

Ra 2.5 x 10 2.2 x 10 228 -3 -4

Th 1.7 x 10 1.6 x 10 230 -3 -4

U 1.3 x 10 1.2 x 10 235 -3 -4

Pb 1.3 x 10 1.2 x 10 210 -3 -4

Total 1.1 x 10 1.0 x 10 3 2

Table 6.6 Low-Level Waste Disposed of at the RWMS-5, 1993 - 1998

Calendar Year Volume of LLW Disposed (m ) Activity of LLW Disposed (Ci) 3

1993 8,327 3.0 x 104

1994 12,300 5.2 x 104

1995 9,171 5.6 x 102

1996 7,293 7.7 x 103

1997 9,762 2.6 x 105

1998 6,590 3.6 x 104

Table 6.7 Inventory of Radionuclides (>1 mCi) Disposed of at the RWMS-5 in 1998

Radionuclide Activity (Ci) Percent of Total Activity

H 3.6 x 10 1.0 x 10 3 4 2

U 9.8 x 10 2.7 x 10 238 0 -2

U 3.7 x 10 1.0 x 10 234 0 -2

Pu 1.4 x 10 4.0 x 10 241 0 -3

Cs 1.4 x 10 3.8 x 10 137 0 -3

Pu 8.4 x 10 2.4 x 10 239 -1 -3

Sr 7.3 x 10 2.1 x 10 90 -1 -3

Pu 5.2 x 10 1.4 x 10 238 -1 -3

U 2.4 x 10 6.7 x 10 235 -1 -4

Th 2.4 x 10 6.7 x 10 232 -1 -4

Pu 1.8 x 10 5.0 x 10 240 -1 -4

Am 1.3 x 10 3.8 x 10 241 -1 -4

Tc 7.5 x 10 2.1 x 10 99 -2 -4

Pm 5.4 x 10 1.5 x 10 147 -2 -4
OTHER REPORTABLE ACTIVITIES

6-21

Table 6.7 (Inventory of Radionuclides (>1 mCi) Disposed of at the RWMS-5 in 1998, cont.)

Radionuclide Activity (Ci) Percent of Total Activity

Ra 2.1 x 10 6.0 x 10 226 -2 -5

Co 1.4 x 10 3.8 x 10 60 -2 -5

C 9.8 x 10 2.7 x 10 14 -3 -5

Th 8.8 x 10 2.5 x 10 230 -3 -5

P 6.9 x 10 1.9 x 10 32 -3 -5

Th 3.7 x 10 1.0 x 10 228 -3 -5

Tb 3.0 x 10 8.4 x 10 160 -3 -6

Ru 2.6 x 10 7.4 x 10 106 -3 -6

Ce 1.3 x 10 3.7 x 10 144 -3 -6

Ni 1.1 x 10 3.0 x 10 63 -3 -6

Total 3.6 x 10 1.0 x 10 4 2

Table 6.8 Quantity of Wastes Disposed of in Sanitary Landfills - 1998

Quantity (in tons)

Month Area 9 Area 23 Area 6

January -March 834 293 611

April - June 792 318 103

July - September 1849 340 851

October - December 594 598 446

Totals 4,069 1,549 2,011

Table 6.9 Permits Required for NTS Operations - 1998

EPA Generator ID 

NV3890090001 NTS Activities

NTS Permits

Permit No. Areas Expiration Date

NEV HW009 NTS Hazardous Waste Management (RCRA) 05/01/2000

SW 13 097 02 Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site On Closure

SW 13 097 03 Area 9 U-10c Solid Waste Disposal Site On Closure

SW 13 097 04 Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site On Closure

13-98-0034-X NTS Hazardous Materials 12/31/1998

13-98-0037-X HSC Hazardous Materials 12/31/1998
6-22

Table 6.9 (Permits Required for NTS Operations - 1998, cont.)

NTS Permits, cont.

Permit No. Areas Expiration date

S15482 Scientific Collection of Wildlife Samples 12/31/1998

File 1-5-96-F-33 USFWS -- Desert Tortoise Incidental Take Authorization 08/00/2006

Interim Status RCRA Part B -- Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Operation On Permit 

Approval

13-94-0034-X State Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act Compliance Renewal on

report

submission

Off-NTS Permits

03-98-0265-X North Las Vegas Facility Hazardous Materials 12/31/1998

03-98-0266-X Remote Sensing Laboratory Hazardous Materials 12/31/1998

EPA Generator ID Numbers

NVD097868731 North Las Vegas Facility Activities, NV

CAL00177640 Santa Barbara Operations, CA

CAL00177642 Santa Barbara Operations, CA

CAL00197065 Livermore Operations, CA

NMD986670370 Los Alamos Operations, NM
DOSE ASSESSMENT

7-1

7.0 DOSE ASSESSMENT

The offsite environmental surveillance system, operated around the Nevada

Test Site (NTS) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)

Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory in Las Vegas

(R&IE-LV), measured no radiation exposures attributable to recent NTS

operations. However, using onsite emission measurements and calculated

resuspension data as input to the EPA's Clean Air Package 1988 (CAP88-PC)

model, a potential effective dose equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed

individual (MEI) was calculated to be 0.092 mrem (9.2 x 10 mSv) to a -4

hypothetical resident of Springdale, Nevada, located 58 km (36 mi) westnorthwest of Control Point 1 (CP-1) on the NTS. The calculated population

dose (collective EDE) to the approximately 32,000 residents living within 80

km (50 mi) from each of the NTS airborne emission sources was 0.27

person-rem (2.7 x 10 person-Sv). Monitoring network data indicated an -3

exposure to the MEI of 141 mrem (1.41 mSv) from normal background

radiation. The calculated dose to this individual from worldwide

distributions of radioactivity as measured from surveillance networks was

0.017 mrem (1.7 x 10 mSv). These maximum dose estimates, excluding -4

background, are less than 1 percent of the most restrictive standard.

7.1 ESTIMATED DOSE FROM

NTS ACTIVITIES

he potential EDE to the offsite Tpopulation due to NTS activities is

estimated annually. Two methods are

used to estimate the EDE to residents in the

offsite area in order to determine the

community potentially most impacted by

airborne releases of radioactivity from the

NTS. In the first method, effluent release

estimates, based on monitoring data or

calculated resuspension of deposited

radioactivity, and meteorological data are

used as inputs to EPA's CAP88-PC model,

which then produces estimated EDEs. The

second method entails using data from the

Offsite Radiological Safety Program (ORSP)

monitoring networks with documented

assumptions and conversion factors to

calculate the committed EDE (CEDE). The

latter method provides an estimate of the

EDE to a hypothetical individual

continuously present outdoors at the

location of interest that includes both NTS

emissions and worldwide fallout. In addition,

a collective EDE is calculated by the first 

method for the total offsite population

residing within 80 km (50 mi) of each of the

NTS emission sources. Background

radiation measurements are used to provide

a comparison with the calculated EDEs. In

the absence of detectable releases of

radiation from the NTS, the Pressurized Ion

Chamber (PIC) network provides a

measurement of background gamma

radiation in the offsite area.

There are five sources of possible radiation

exposure to the population of Nevada, some

of which were monitored by EPA's offsite

monitoring networks during 1998. These

were:

 Background radiation due to natural

sources such as cosmic radiation,

radioactivity in soil, and Be in air. 7

 Worldwide distributions of man-made

radioactivity, such as Sr in milk and 90

plutonium in soil.

 Operational releases of radioactivity from

the NTS, including those from drill-back

and purging activities when they occur.
7-2

 Radioactivity that was accumulated in dose within 80 km (50 mi) from each of

migratory game animals during their these sources was calculated to be 0.27

residence on the NTS. person-rem (2.7 x 10 person-Sv). Activity

 Airborne releases from the NTS due to calculated doses are much higher than

resuspension of radionuclides from actually detected by the offsite monitoring

contaminated soils onsite, evaporation of network. For example, 0.09 mrem of the

tritiated water (HTO) from ponds, and calculated EDE to the MEI is due to

diffusion of HTO from cratering tests. plutonium. The annual average plutonium

Operational releases and calculated sources EDE is 3.4 x 10 μCi/mL. This is about 18

of radioactive emissions from the NTS are times the annual average plutonium in air

used as input data for CAP88-PC to provide measured in Amargosa Valley, Nevada,

estimates of exposures to offsite (nearest community) of 0.19 x 10 μCi/mL

populations. The other three sources of (Chapter 4, Table 4.15). Table 7.1

exposure listed above are discussed below. summarizes the annual contributions to the

ESTIMATED DOSE USING

REPORTED NTS EMISSIONS

Onsite source emission measurements, as

provided by the U. S. Department of Energy

Nevada Operations Office, are listed in

Chapter 4, Table 4.5, and include tritium and

plutonium. These are estimates of releases

made at the point of origin. Meteorological

data collected by the Air Resources

Laboratory, Special Operations and

Research Division (ARL/SORD) were used

to construct wind roses and stability arrays

for the following areas: Mercury, Area 12,

Area 20, Yucca Flat, and the Radioactive

Waste Management Site in Area 5. A

calculation of estimated dose from NTS

effluents was performed using EPA's

CAP88-PC model (EPA 1992). The results

of the model indicated that the hypothetical

individual with the maximum calculated dose

from airborne NTS radioactivity would reside

at Springdale, Nevada, 58 km (36 mi) westnorthwest of CP-1. The maximum dose to

that individual could have been 0.092 mrem

(9.2 x 10 mSv). For comparison, data from -4

the PIC monitoring network indicated an

exposure of 141 mrem (1.41 mSv) from

background gamma radiation occurring in

that area. The population living within a

radius of 80 km (50 mi) from the airborne

sources on the NTS was estimated to be

31,750 individuals, based on estimated

population data. The collective population

-3

concentrations in air that would cause these

concentration in air that would cause this

-17

-17

EDEs due to 1998 NTS operations as

calculated by use of CAP88-PC and the

radionuclides listed in Chapter 4, Table 4.5. 

Input data for the CAP88-PC model included

meteorological data from ARL/SORD and

effluent release data calculated from

monitoring results and from resuspension

estimates. These release data are known to

be estimates, and the meteorological data

are mesoscale, e.g., representative of an

area approximately 40 km (25 mi) or less

around the point of collection. However,

these data are considered sufficient for

model input, primarily because the model

itself is not designed for complex terrain

such as that on and around the NTS. Errors

introduced by the use of the effluent and

meteorological data are small compared to

the errors inherent in the model. The model

results are considered over-estimates of the

dose to offsite residents. This has been

confirmed by comparison with the offsite

monitoring results.

ESTIMATED DOSE USING

MONITORING NETWORK DATA 

Potential CEDEs to individuals may be

estimated from the concentrations of

radioactivity, as measured by the EPA

monitoring networks during 1998. Actual

results obtained in analysis are used; the

majority of which are less than the reported

minimum detectable concentration (MDC). 
DOSE ASSESSMENT

7-3

No krypton or tritium in air data were The algorithm for the internal dose

collected offsite, so the onsite krypton for

1997 and an average value for previous

year’s offsite tritium were used. No

vegetable or animal samples were collected

in 1998, so calculations for these intakes are

not done. 

Data quality objectives (DQOs) for precision

and accuracy are, by necessity, less

stringent for values near the MDC, so

confidence intervals around the input data 

are broad. The concentrations of

radioactivity detected by the monitoring

networks and used in the calculation of

potential CEDEs are shown in Table 7.2.

The concentrations given in Table 7.2 are

expressed in terms of activity per unit

volume. These concentrations are

converted to a dose by using the

assumptions and dose conversion factors

described below. The dose conversion

factors assume continuous presence at a

fixed location and no loss of radioactivity in

storage or handling prior to ingestion of

materials.

 Adult respiration rate = 8400 m /yr from 3

International Commission on Radiological

Protection Publication (ICRP) 21 (ICRP

1975).

 Milk intake (average for 20 and 40 yr old)

= 110 L/yr (ICRP 1975).

 Water consumption = 2 L/day (ICRP

1975).

The EDE conversion factors are derived

from Federal Guidance Report No. 11 

(EPA 1988). Those used here are:

 H: 6.4 x 10 mrem/pCi (ingestion or 3 -8

inhalation).

 Be: 2.6 x 10 mrem/pCi (inhalation). 7 -7

 Sr: 1.4 x 10 mrem/pCi (ingestion). 90 -4

 Kr: 1.5 x 10 mrem/yr per pCi/m 85 -5 3

(submersion).

 Pu: 3.7 x 10 mrem/pCi 238,239+240 -4

(ingestion, f =10 ); 3.1 x 10 mrem/pCi 1

-4 -1

(inhalation, Class Y).

calculation is:

 (concentration) x (intake in volume

[mass]/unit time) x (CEDE conversion

factors) = CEDE.

As an example calculation, the following is

the result of breathing a concentration of

tritium in air of 0.2 pCi/m :3

 (2 x 10 pCi/m ) x (8400 m /yr) x -1 3 3

(6.4 x 10 mrem/pCi) = 1.1 x 10 -8 -4

mrem/yr.

However, in calculating the inhalation CEDE

from H, the value must be increased by 3

50 percent to account for skin absorption

(ICRP 1979). The total dose in one year,

therefore, is 1.1 x 10 x 1.5 = 1.6 x 10 -4 -4

mrem/yr. Dose calculations from ORSP

data are summarized in Table 7.2.

The individual CEDEs, from the various

pathways, added together give a total of

0.017 mrem/yr (1.7 x 10 mSv/yr). Total -4

EDEs can be calculated based on different

combinations of data. If the interest was in

just one area, for example, the concentration

from those stations closest to that area

could be substituted into the equations used

herein. 

In 1998, because of budget cuts and the

standby status of nuclear device testing,

samples of game animals and garden

vegetables were not collected. Also, the

noble gas and tritium sampling network was

discontinued in the offsite locations, and the

air sampling network was reduced. In order

to calculate an EDE for a resident of

Springdale, Nevada, to compare with the

EDE from the CAP88-PC operation, it is

necessary to make some assumptions as

shown in the next section.

7.2 DOSE (EDE) FROM

OFFSITE EXPOSURES

The NTS average Kr concent ration is 85

representative of statewide levels, so it can

be used in this calculation. Also, tritium in
7-4

air does not change much from year to year, R&IE-LV detected no radiological exposures

so previous data for that can be used. 

Finally, Amargosa Valley, Nevada, has the

nearest air sampler to Springdale, Nevada,

so its plutonium concentration is used to

calculate the EDE. In addition, there is a

contribution from Be that is formed in the 7

atmosphere by cosmic ray interactions with

oxygen and nitrogen. The annual average

Be concentration measured by the NTS 7

surveillance network was 0.18 pCi/m . 3

A dose conversion factor of 2.6 x 10-7

mrem/pCi for inhalation and a breathing

volume of 8,400 m /yr, equates to a dose of 3

3.9 x 10 mrem. Also, assume the network -4

average of Sr in milk and the tritium in 90

water for sources near Springdale apply. 

All of the calculations that use these

assumptions are shown in Table 7.2 and

lead to an EDE at that location of 

0.017 mrem, which is about 18 percent of

the EDE calculated by use of CAP88-PC. 

Both of these calculated EDEs are

negligible, compared to the PIC

measurement of 141 mR at Beatty in 1998.

The maximum offsite EDE would have been

at Rachel, Nevada, because the network’s

highest annual average Pu 239+240

concentration of 4.9 x 10 μCi/mL -18

(0.18 μBq/m ) occurred there. A resident of 3

Rachel would thus receive an inhalation

exposure leading to 0.013 mrem 

(1.3 x 10 mSv) EDE for 1998. When -4

exposure to the other radionuclides listed in

Table 7.2 is added, the total becomes 

0.025 mrem.

Therefore, based on offsite monitoring data,

the MEI would live in Rachel, Nevada, and

the EDE would be 0.025 mrem as contrasted

with the CAP88-PC result that the MEI would

live in Springdale, Nevada, and the EDE

would be 0.092 mrem.

7.3 SUMMARY

The offsite environmental surveillance

system operated around the NTS by EPA’s

that could be attributed to recent NTS

operations, but a calculated EDE of

0.025 mrem can be obtained, if certain

assumptions are made, as shown in Table

7.2. Calculation with the CAP88-PC model,

using estimated or calculated effluents from

the NTS during 1998, resulted in a maximum

dose of 0.092 mrem (9.2 x 10 mSv) to a -4

hypothetical resident of Springdale, Nevada,

14 km (9 mi) west of the NTS boundary. 

Based on monitoring network data, this dose

is calculated to be 0.017 mrem. This latter

EDE is about 18 percent of the dose

obtained from CAP88-PC calculation. This

maximum dose estimate is less than 

1 percent of the ICRP recommendation that

an annual EDE for the general public not

exceed 100 mrem/yr (ICRP 1985). The

calculated population dose (collective EDE)

to the approximately 31,750 residents living

within 80 km (50 mi) of each of the NTS

airborne emission sources was 0.27

person-rem (2.7 x 10 person-Sv). Average -3

background radiation yielded an EDE of

3,064 person-rem (30.6 person-Sv).

Data from the PIC gamma monitoring

indicated a dose of 141 mrem from

background gamma radiation measured in

the Springdale, Nevada, area. The CEDE

calculated from the monitoring networks or

the model, as discussed above, is a

negligible amount by comparison. The

uncertainty (2)) for the PIC measurement at

the 141 mrem exposure level is

approximately 5 percent. Extrapolating to

the calculated annual exposure at

Springdale, Nevada, yields a total

uncertainty of approximately 7 mrem which

is greater than either of the calculated

EDEs. Because the estimated dose from

NTS activities is less than 1 mrem (the

lowest level for which DQOs are defined, as

given in Chapter 8), no conclusions can be

made regarding the achieved data quality as

compared to the DQOs for this insignificant

dose.
DOSE ASSESSMENT

7-5

Table 7.1 Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations - 1998

Collective EDE to

Maximum EDE at Maximum EDE to Population within 80 km

NTS Boundary an Individual of the NTS Sources (a) (b)

Dose 0.13 mrem 0.092 mrem 0.27 person-rem

(1.3 x 10 mSv) (9.2 x 10 mSv) (2.7 x 10 person-Sv) -3 -4 -3

 

Location Site boundary 40 km Springdale, NV 58 km 31,750 people within

WNW of NTS CP-1 WNW of NTS CP-1 80 km of NTS Sources 

NESHAP 10 mrem per yr 10 mrem per yr (c)

 Standard (0.1 mSv per yr) (0.1 mSv per yr) -----

 

Percentage 

 of NESHAP 1.3 0.92 ----- 

Background 141 mrem 141 mrem 3064 person-rem

(1.41 mSv) (1.41 mSv) (30.6 person-Sv)

Percentage of

 Background 0.09 0.06 0.009

(a) The maximum boundary dose is to a hypothetical individual who remains in the open continuously

during the year at the NTS boundary located 40 km (25 mi) west-northwest from CP-1.

(b) The maximum individual dose is to a person outside the NTS boundary at a residence where the

highest dose-rate occurs as calculated by CAP88-PC (Version 1.0) using NTS effluents listed in

Table 4.5 and assuming all tritiated water input to the Area 12 containment ponds was evaporated. 

(c) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

Table 7.2 Monitoring Networks Data Used in Dose Calculations - 1998

Medium Radionuclide Concentration Mrem\Year Comment

Meat Not collected this year

Milk Sr 0.72 1.11 x 10 Concentration is the average 90 (a) -2

(0.027) of all network results

H 0 0 Not Analyzed 3

Drinking Water H 2.3 1.1 x 10 Concentration is average 3 (a) -4

(0.085) from 4 wells in the area 

Vegetables Not collected this year

Air H 0.2 1.6 x 10 Concentration is average 3 (b) -4

(0.007) network result (1994 data)

Be 0.18 3.9 x 10 Annual average for the NTS 7 (b) -4

(0.0067)

Kr 27. 4.1 x 10 NTS network average 1997 85 (b) -4

(0.93)

Pu 1.9 x 10 4.9 x 10 Maximum value at nearest 239+240 -6 (b) -3

(7.0 x 10 ) site, Amargosa Valley, Nevada -8

TOTAL (Air = 5.86 x 10 , Liquids = 1.11 x 10 ) = 1.7 x 10 mrem/yr -3 -2 -2

(a) Units are pCi/L and Bq/L.

(b) Units are pCi/m and 3 3 Bq/m .
TLD Components (No DateProvided)

7-6
LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE

8-1

8.0 LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE

It is the policy of U.S. Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office

(DOE/NV) that all data produced for its environmental surveillance and

effluent monitoring programs be of known quality. Therefore, a quality

assurance (QA) program is used for collection and analysis of samples for

radiological and nonradiological parameters to ensure that data produced by

the laboratory meets customer-and regulatory-defined requirements. Data

quality is assured through process-based QA, procedure-specific QA, data

quality objectives (DQOs), and performance evaluation programs. The

external QA program for radiological data consists of participation in the

DOE Quality Assessment Program (QAP) administered by the DOE

Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) and the Performance

Evaluation Study (PES) conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory in Las Vegas. The

radiological external QA program also consists of participation in the Oak

Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) radiobioassay study conducted by

ORNL in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. External radiation measurement QA for the

onsite program is assessed by participation in the DOE’s Laboratory

Accreditation Program (DOELAP). EPA’s Radiation and Indoor

Environments National Laboratory-Las Vegas (R&IE-LV) offsite

thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) programs consists of participation in

the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) operated

by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The

nonradiological data QA program was accomplished by using commercial

laboratories with appropriate certification or accreditation by state or

government agencies.

The environmental surveillance program off the Nevada Test Site (NTS) was

performed by R&IE-LV. The QA program developed by R&IE-LV for the

Offsite Radiological Safety Program (ORSP) meets all requirements of EPA

policy, and also includes applicable elements of the requirements and

regulations of DOE/NV QA. The ORSP QA program defines DQOs, which are

statements of the quality of data a decision maker needs to ensure that a

decision based on that data is defensible.

8.1 POLICY

nvironmental surveillance, conducted Eonsite by Bechtel Nevada (BN) and

offsite by EPA’s R&IE-LV, is governed

by the DOE QA policy as set forth in DOE

Order 5700.6C (DOE 1991a). The Order

outlines ten specific elements that must be

considered for compliance with the QA

policy. These elements are:

1. Program

2. Personnel Training & Qualification

3. Quality Improvement

4. Documents and Records

5. Work Processes

6. Design

7. Procurement

8. Inspection and Acceptance Testing

9. Management Assessment

10. Independent Assessment

In addition, R&IE-LV meets the EPA policy

which states that all decisions which are

dependent on environmental data must be

supported by data of known quality. The

EPA’s policy requires participation in a

centrally managed QA Program by all EPA

elements as well as those monitoring and
8-2

measurement efforts supported or mandated Compliance with analytical procedures is

through contracts, regulations, or other

formalized agreements. Further, the EPA’s

policy requires participation in a QA Program

by all EPA organizational units involved in

environmental data collection. The QA

policies and requirements of R&IE-LV are

summarized in the "Quality Management

Plan" (EPA/Office of Radiation and Indoor

Air [ORIA] 1996). The QA policies and

requirements specific to the ORSP are

documented in the "Quality Assurance

Program Plan for the Center for

Environmental Restoration, Monitoring, and

Emergency Response and the Center for

Radioanalysis and Quality Assurance for the

Offsite Environmental Monitoring Program," results correspond to the data acquired and

(EPA/ORIA, 1998). The requirements of

these documents establish a framework for

consistency in the continuing application of

QA standards and implementing procedures

in support of the ORSP. Administrative and

technical implementing procedures based on

these QA requirements are maintained in

appropriate manuals or are described in

standard operating procedures of the

R&IE-LV.

8.2 OVERVIEW OF THE

LABORATORY QA PROGRAM

The BN Analytical Services Laboratory

(ASL) implements the requirements of the

DOE Order 5700.6C through integrated

quality procedures. The quality of data and

results is ensured through both processbased and procedure-specific QA.

Procedure-specific QA begins with the

development and implementation of work

instructions (WIs) which contain the

analytical methodologies and required

quality control samples for a given analysis. 

Personnel performing a given analysis are

trained and qualified for that analysis,

including the successful analysis of a quality

control sample. Analysis-specific

operational checks and calibration standards

traceable to either the NIST or the EPA are

required. Quality control samples, e.g.,

spikes, blanks, and replicates, are included environmental radiological data collected off

for each analytical procedure. 

measured through procedure-specific

assessments or surveillances.

An essential component of process-based

QA is data review and verification to assess

data usability. Data review requires a

systematic, independent review against preestablished criteria to verify that the data are

valid for their intended use. Initial data

processing is performed by the analyst or

health physicist generating the data. An

independent review is then performed by

another analyst or health physicist to ensure

that data processing has been correctly

performed and that the reported analytical

processed. Supervisory review of data is

required prior to release of the data to

sample management personnel for data

verification. Data verification ensures that

the reported results correctly represent the

sampling and/or analyses performed, and

includes assessment of quality control

sample results. Data processing by sample

management personnel ensures that

analytical results meet project requirements. 

Data discrepancies identified during the data

review and verification processes are

documented on data discrepancy reports

(DDRs). DDRs are reviewed and compiled

quarterly to discern systematic problems.

Data checks are made by Environmental

Surveillance of BN for internal consistency,

proper identification, transmittal errors,

calculation errors, and transcription errors. 

Process-based QA programs also include

periodic operational checks of analytical

parameters such as reagent water quality

and storage temperatures. Periodic

calibration is required for all measuring

equipment such as analytical balances,

analytical weights, and thermometers. The

overall effectiveness of the QA program is

determined through systematic assessments

of analytical activities. Systematic problems

are documented and corrective actions

tracked through System Deficiency Reports. 

Similar procedures and methodologies are

used by R&IE-LV to ensure the quality of

the NTS.
LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE

8-3

8.3 DATA AND

MEASUREMENT QUALITY

OBJECTIVES 

DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

DQOs delineate the circumstances under

which measurements are made and define

the acceptable variability in the measured

data. DQOs are based on the decision(s) to

be made, the range of sampling possibilities,

what measurements will be made, where the

samples will be taken, how the

measurements will be used, and what

calculations will be performed on the

measurement data to arrive at the desired

result(s). Associated measurement quality

objectives (MQOs), which define acceptable

variability in the measured data, are

established to ensure the quality of the

measurements.

DECISIONS TO BE MADE

The primary decisions to be made, based on

radiological environmental surveillance

measurements, are whether, due to NTS

activities (1) any member of the general

public, outside the site boundaries, receives

an effective dose equivalent (EDE) that

exceeds regulatory limits; (2) there is

detectable contamination of the

environment; or (3) there is a biological

effect. A potential EDE to a member of the

public from NTS activities is much more

likely to be due to inhalation or ingestion of

radionuclides which have reached the Radioanalyses are made of air, water, or

person through one or more pathways, such other media samples to determine the types

as transport through the air (inhalation and amounts of radioactivity in them. These

exposure), or through water and/or measurements are then converted to

foodstuffs (ingestion exposure), than to be radioactivity concentrations by dividing by

due to external exposure. A pathway may the sample volume or weight, which is

be quite complex; e.g., the food pathway measured separately. Nonradiological

could include airborne radioactivity falling on inorganic or organic constituents in air,

soil and plants, also being absorbed by water, soil, and sludge samples are

plants, which are eaten by an animal, which analyzed and reported by commercial

is then eaten by a member of the public. At laboratories under contract to BN. Methods

the NTS, because of the depth of aquifers, and procedures used to measure possible

negligible horizontal or vertical transport, worker exposures to nonradiological hazards 

lack of surface water flows and little rain, 

very sparse vegetation and animal

populations, lack of food grown for human

consumption, and large distances to the

nearest member of the public, the airborne

pathway is by far the most important for a

possible EDE to a member of the public.

Decisions made based on nonradiological

data are related to waste characterization,

extent and characterization of spills,

compliance with regulatory limits for

environmental contaminants, and possible

worker exposure(s). 

RANGE OF SAMPLING POSSIBILITIES

Determination of the numbers, types, and

locations of radiological sampling stations is

based on factors such as the location of

possible sources, isotopes of concern, wind

and weather patterns, the geographical

distribution of human populations, the levels

of risk involved, the desired sensitivity of the

measurements, physical accessibility to

sampling locations, and financial constraints. 

The numbers, types, and location of

nonradiological samples are typically defined

by regulatory actions on the NTS and are

determined by environmental compliance or

waste operations activities. Workplace and

personnel monitoring to determine possible

worker exposures is conducted by Industrial

Hygienists and Health Physicists from the

Environment, Safety and Health Division

(ESHD) of BN.

MEASUREMENTS TO BE MADE
8-4

are defined by Occupational Safety and calculational model gives the greatest

Health Administration or National Institute of

Occupational Safety and Health protocols. 

Typical contaminants for which BN ESHD

personnel collect samples and request

analyses are asbestos, solvents, and

welding metals. Sample media, which are

analyzed, include urine, blood, air filters,

charcoal tubes, and bulk asbestos. 

SAMPLING LOCATIONS

The locations of routine radiological

environmental surveillance sampling both on

and off the NTS are described in Chapters 4

and 5 of this report. Onsite sampling

methodologies are described in BN's

Environmental Management Procedures,

and offsite methodologies by similar R&IELV procedures. The locations of

nonradiological environmental sampling and

monitoring are determined through site

remediation and characterization activities

and by permit requirements.

USE OF THE MEASUREMENTS

There are several techniques to estimate the

EDE to a member of the public. One

technique is to measure the radionuclide

concentrations at the location(s) of interest

and use established methodologies to

estimate the EDE a person at that location

could receive. Another technique is to

measure radionuclide concentrations at

specific points within the site and to use

established models to calculate

concentrations at other, offsite locations of

interest. The potential EDE to a person at

such a location could then be estimated. 

This second technique is the one used for

most of the environmental surveillance data

measured at the NTS.

CALCULATIONS TO BE PERFORMED

The EDE of greatest interest is the EDE to

the maximally exposed individual (MEI). The

MEI is located where, based on measured 

radioactivity concentrations and distances

from all contributing NTS sources, the 

potential EDE for any member of the public. 

The assumptions used in the calculational

model are conservative; i.e., the calculated

EDE to the MEI most certainly exceeds the

EDE any member of the public would

actually receive. The model used at the

NTS is EPA’s CAP88-PC, a wind dispersion

model approved for this purpose.

MEASUREMENT QUALITY

OBJECTIVES (MQOs)

MQOs are commonly described in terms of

representativeness, comparability,

completeness, precision, and accuracy. 

Although the assessment of the first two

characteristics must be essentially

qualitative, definite numerical goals may be

set and quantitative assessments performed

for the latter three.

REPRESENTATIVENESS

Representativeness is the degree to which a

sample is truly representative of the sampled

medium, i.e., the degree to which measured

analytical concentrations represent the

concentrations in the medium being sampled

(Stanley and Verner 1985). 

Representativeness also refers to whether

the locations and frequency of sampling are

such that calculational models will lead to a

correct estimate of potential EDE to a

member of the public when measured

radioactivity concentrations are put into the

model. An environmental monitoring plan for

the NTS, “Nevada Test Site Routine

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan”

(DOE 1998a) has been established to

achieve representativeness for

environmental data. Factors which were

considered in designing this monitoring plan

include locations of known and potential

sources, historical and operational

knowledge of isotopes and pathways of

concern, hydrological, and topographical

data, and locations of human populations.
LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE

8-5

COMPARABILITY PRECISION

Comparability refers to the degree of Precision refers to "the degree of mutual

confidence and consistency we have in our agreement characteristic of independent

analytical results, or defined as "the measurements as the result of repeated

confidence with which one data set can be application of the process under specified

compared to another" (Stanley and Verner conditions" (Taylor 1987). Practically,

1985). To achieve comparability in precision is determined by comparing the

measurement data, sample collection and results obtained from performing the same

handling, laboratory analyses, and data analysis on split samples, or on duplicate

analysis and validation are performed in samples taken at the same time from the

accordance with established WIs. Standard same location, maintaining sampling and

reporting units and a consistent number of analytical conditions as nearly identical as

significant digits are used. Instruments are possible. Precision for samples is

calibrated using NIST-traceable sources. determined by comparing results for

Each batch of field samples is accompanied duplicate samples of particulates in air,

by a spiked sample with a known quantity of tritiated water vapor, noble gases, and some

the compound(s) of interest. Extensive QA types of water samples. For TLDs, precision

measures are used for all analytical is assessed from variations in the three

processes. In addition, comparability is CaSO elements of each environmental

attained through comparison of external TLD. Precision is expressed 

performance audit results to those achieved quantitatively as the percent relative

by other laboratories participating in the EPA standard deviation (%RSD), i.e., the ratio of

PES. the standard deviation of the measurements

COMPLETENESS percent. The smaller the value of the

Completeness is defined as the percentage

of samples collected versus those which had

been scheduled to be collected, or the

percentage of valid analysis results versus

the results which would have been obtained

if all samples had been obtained and

correctly analyzed. Realistically, samples

can be lost during shipping, handling,

preparation, and analysis, or not collected

as scheduled. Also data entry or

transcription errors can be made. The BN

completeness objectives for all radiological

samples and analyses have been set at 

90 percent for sample collection and 

85 percent for analyses, or 75 percent

overall. R&IE-LV's completeness objective

for the Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring

Program is 80 percent and for the other

networks it is 90 percent.

Completeness for inorganic and organic

analyses is based on the number of valid

results received versus the number

requested.

4

being compared to their mean converted to

%RSD, the greater is the precision of the

measurement. The precision objectives are

shown in Table 8.1. They are a function of

the concentration of radioactivity in the

samples; i.e., the analysis of samples with

concentrations near zero will have low

precision, while samples with higher

concentrations will have proportionately

higher precision.

ACCURACY

Accuracy refers to how well we can measure

the true value of a given quantity and can be

defined as "the degree of agreement of a

measured value with the true or expected

value of the quantity of concern" (Taylor

1987). For practical purposes, assessments

of accuracy for the ASL are done by

performing measurements on special QA

samples prepared, using stringent quality

control, by laboratories which specialize in

preparing such samples. The values of the

activities of these samples are not known by

the staff of the ASL until several months
8-6

after the measurements are made and the used in data analysis; however, the data and

results sent back to the QA laboratory. any interpretive results must be qualified. 

These sample values are unknown to the Current and historical data are maintained in

analysts and serve to measure the accuracy an access-controlled database. 

of the analytical procedures. The accuracy

of these measurements, which is assumed All sample results exceeding the traditional

to extend to other similar measurements natural background activity range are

performed by the laboratory, may be defined investigated. If data are found to be

as the ratio of the measured value divided associated with a non-environmental

by the true value, expressed as a percent. condition, e.g., a check of the instrument

Percent bias is the complement of percent using a calibration source, the data are

accuracy; i.e., percent bias = 100 percent flagged and are not included in calculations

accuracy. The smaller the percent bias, the of averages, etc. Only data verified to be

more accurate are the measurements. associated with a non-environmental

Table 8.2 shows the accuracy objectives of condition are flagged; all other data are used

the ASL and of the R&IE-LV. in calculation of averages and other

Measurements of sample volumes should be source other than the NTS.

accurate to ± 5 percent for aqueous samples

(water and milk) and to ± 10 percent for air

and soil samples. The sensitivity of

radiochemical and gamma spectrometric

analyses must allow no more than a 

5 percent risk of either a false negative or

false positive value. Control limits for

accuracy, monitored with matrix spike

samples, are required to be no greater than

± 20 percent for all gross alpha and gross

beta analyses and for gamma spectrometric

analyses. 

Both the R&IE-LV and ASL participate in

several interlaboratory performance

evaluation (PE) programs such as EPA's

PES and EML's QAP and the DOELAP for

TLDs. The ASL also participates in two

bioassay programs, DOELAP and ORNL. 

The accuracy of the TLDs is tested every

two or three years by DOELAP or biennially

by NVLAP. This involves a three-part, single

blind performance testing program followed

by an independent onsite assessment of the

overall program. Both BN and R&IE-LV

participate in this program.

Once the data have been finalized, they are

compared to the MQOs. Completeness,

accuracy, and precision statistics are

calculated. If data fail to meet one or more

of the established MQOs, they may still be 

statistics, even if the condition is traced to a

8.4 RESULTS FOR

COMPLETENESS,

PRECISION, AND ACCURACY

Summary data for completeness, precision,

and accuracy are provided in Tables 8.3 to

8.6, respectively. Complete data used in

these MQO’s for 1998 are from unpublished

PES reports by the EPA and from reports by

EML’s QAP (DOE 1998b and 1998c).

COMPLETENESS

The analysis completeness data for calendar

year 1998 are shown in Table 8.3. These

percentages represent all analyses which

were carried to completion, and include

some analyses for which the results were

found to be invalid for other reasons. Had

objectives not been met for some analyses,

other factors would be used to assess

acceptability, e.g., fit of the data to a trend or

consistency with results from samples

collected before and after.

The completeness MQOs for the onsite

networks were met or exceeded in all cases. 

For the offsite networks, the MQOs were

met or exceeded except for the pressurized 
%BIAS 
 (

Cm 	 Ca

Ca

) 100

where:

%BIAS 
 percent bias

Cm 
 measured sample activity

Ca 
 known sample activity

LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE

8-7

ion chamber (PIC) network. Failure of the that were useful for calculation of precision

PIC network was due to the loss of telemetry

systems for the majority of 1998 due to

budget restrictions. Secondary data 

collection systems were used for this period

and were not effective due to reduced

maintenance support of aging equipment. 

The telemetry system was reactivated during

August 1998 which resulted in average data

completeness of greater than 95 percent

through the end of the year.

PRECISION

From replicate samples collected and

analyzed throughout the year, the %RSD

was calculated for various types of analyses

and sampling media. The results of these

calculations are shown in Table 8.4 for both

the onsite and offsite networks. In addition

to examination of %RSDs for individual

duplicate pairs, an overall precision estimate

was determined by calculating the pooled

standard deviation, based on the algorithm

given in Taylor (1987). To convert to a

unitless value, the pooled standard deviation

was divided by the grand mean and

multiplied by 100 to yield a %RSD. The

table presents the pooled data and

estimates of overall precision. The pooled

standard deviations and %RSD indicate the

estimated achieved precision for sample

results.

For the R&IE-LV, precision data for all

analyses were well within their respective

MQOs, except for plutonium. Plutonium

results were rechecked, including selective

recounting, and are believed to be valid. 

The high %RSD in those duplicates that

exceeded the MDC suggests that there is

variability of particulate distribution in the

environment. Since this is the first year in

which duplicate high volume samplers were

employed, there are no trending data

available. The R&IE-LV data presented in

Table 8.4 include only laboratory and field 

duplicate pairs that exceeded the MDC.

For the ASL, the reason for the low precision

in some of the analyses was the low activity

in these environmental samples. The few percent. In 1998, R&IE-LV discontinued

barely exceeded the MDC.

ACCURACY

The ASL and R&IE-LV accuracy objectives

were measured through participation in the

interlaboratory comparison and QAPs

discussed below.

RADIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION RESULTS

The external radiological PEs consisted of

participation in the QAP conducted by

DOE/EML and the PES conducted by EPA. 

These programs serve to evaluate the

performance of the radiological laboratory

and to identify problems requiring corrective

actions. 

Summaries of the 1998 results of the

interlaboratory PE and QAPs conducted by

the EPA and DOE/EML are provided in

Tables 8.5 and 8.6. The column or section

in each table labeled percent bias is the

accuracy of analysis and may be compared

to the objectives listed in Table 8.2. The

individual radionuclide recoveries are listed

in tables which may be found in the 

DOELAP and PES reports.

Accuracy, as percent difference or percent

bias is calculated by:

The R&IE-LV failed the accuracy MQO in 3

of the 43 analyses attempted in the EPA PE

study. The three analyses were outside of

the bias MQO but were within three

normalized deviation limits for each study. 

In the EML QAP, all of the 44 analyses

performed were within the DQO of ± 20
8-8

accreditation by DOELAP for the personnel (in multiples of standard normal deviate,

TLD program and enrolled in and achieved unitless) lies between control limits of -3 and

accreditation by NVLAP. QA checks are +3, the accuracy (deviation from known

routinely performed to ensure compliance value) or comparability (deviation from grand

with applicable performance standards. average) is within normal statistical variation.

BN’s ASL results exceeded the 3 normalized Data from the 1998 intercomparison studies

deviation limits in 3 of the 41 analyses

attempted; however, only 2 were identified

by the PEs as being beyond control limits. normalized deviation for the R&IE-LV

The MQOs for accuracy in analysis of

DOE/EML samples were not met in only 2 of

the 78 analyses attempted.

CORRECTIVE ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED

IN RESPONSE TO PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION PROGRAMS

BN results were generally within the control

limits determined by the program sponsors. 

Results which were not within acceptable

performance limits were investigated and

corrective actions taken to prevent

reoccurrence.

In the R&IE-LV, the 1998 results that did not

meet analysis criteria were investigated to

determine the cause of the reported error. 

Corrective actions were implemented.

COMPARABILITY

The EPA PEs and the EML/QAP provide

results to each laboratory participating in

each study that include a grand average for

all values, excluding outliers. A normalized

deviation statistic compares each

laboratory's result (mean of three replicates)

to the known value and to the grand

average. If the value of this statistic 

for all variables measured were compared

with the grand average to calculate a

results. All analyses were within three

standard normal deviate units of the grand

average, and most were within one

normalized deviate unit. This indicates

acceptable comparability of the R&IE-LV

results with the laboratories participating in

the QAP.

One of the two EML studies for 1998 was

reported outside of acceptable limits for

gamma spectroscopy in both air and water

matrices. The problem with the air filters

was traced to incorrect spiking (that is

preparation) of the air filters.

The onsite ASL results in the EML QAP

were acceptable. There were only two

instances in which the ASL results were

greater than the MQO. Corrective actions

were made and the results from the next

semi-annual PE sample were acceptable. 

The EPA PES includes a grand average

(average result from all participating

laboratories, less outliers) in its report to

participants. Using the formula for percent

bias described above, the percent bias of

the ASL results as compared to the grand

average was calculated for each analysis. 

The outcome for this calculation did not

differ from the accuracy results reported

above. 
LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE

8-9

Table 8.1 Precision Objectives Expressed as Percents

< <

Table 8.2 Accuracy Objectives Expressed as Percent Bias

< <

 ASL 

Analysis Conc. > 10 MDC 4 MDC Conc. 10 MDC

Gross Alpha ±30 ±60

Gross Beta ±30 ±60

Gamma Spectrometry ±30 ±60

Scintillation Counting ±30 ±60

Alpha Spectrometry ±20 ±50

Note: The precision objective for TLDs at environmental levels is 10 percent.

 R&IE-LV 

Conventional Tritium ±10 ±30

Strontium (in milk) ±10 ±30

Thorium ±10 ±30

Uranium ±10 ±30

Enriched Tritium ±20 ±30

Strontium (in other media) ±20 ±30

Plutonium ±20 ±30

 ASL 

Analysis Conc. > 10 MDC 4 MDC Conc. 10 MDC

Gross Alpha ±20 ±50

Gross Beta ±20 ±50

Gamma Spectrometry ±20 ±50

Scintillation Counting ±20 ±50

Alpha-Spectrometry ±20 ±50

TLDs Meet DOELAP Criteria

 R&IE-LV 

Tritium, Conventional ±10 ±30% 

Strontium (Milk) ±10 ±30% 

Thorium ±10 ±30% 

Uranium ±10 ±30% 

Tritium, Enriched ±20 ±30% 

Strontium (other media) ±20 ±30% 

Plutonium ±20 ±30% 

TLDs Meet NVLAP Criteria
8-10

Table 8.3 Analysis Completeness Data for Calendar Year - 1998

Completeness

Percent

 Analysis Medium BN R&IE-LV

Gross Alpha/Beta Low Volume Particulate Air Filter 98.5 97.0

Plutonium High Volume Particulate Air Filter 82.7 (a)

Plutonium Low Volume Particulate Air Filter 98.5 (a)

Gamma Spectrometry Low Volume Particulate Air Filter 98.5 97.0

Gamma Spectrometry Low Volume Charcoal Air Filter 97.0 (a)

Gamma Spectrometry High Volume Particulate Air Filter 82.7 (a)

Tritiated Water Air 96.2 (a)

Gross Alpha Potable Water Taps 61.5 (a)

Gross Beta Potable Water Taps 61.5 (a)

Gamma Spectrometry Potable Water Taps 61.5 (a)

Tritiated Water Potable Water Taps 61.5 (a)

Plutonium Potable Water Taps 61.5 (a)

Gross Beta Wells, Ponds 85.4 (a)

Plutonium Wells, Ponds 85.4 (a)

Gamma Spectrometry Wells, Ponds 85.4 94.9

Tritiated Water Wells, Ponds 85.4 94.9

Strontium-90 Wells, Ponds 85.4 (a)

Tritium Milk 100 (a)

Strontium Milk 100 (a)

Pressurized Ion Chamber Ambient Radiation 52.5 (a)

TLDs, Environmental Ambient Radiation 99.7 98.7

TLDs, Personnel Ambient Radiation 93.1 (a)

(a) Analyses not performed.

Table 8.4 Precision Estimates from Replicate Sampling - 1998

 ASL 

Analysis Number of Replicate Analyses Precision Estimate %RSD

Gross Alpha in Air 100 33.5

Gross Beta in Air 100 13.6

Gamma in Air 22 7.96

Pu in Air 22 73.4

Tritium in Air 47 59.6

Gross Alpha in Potable Water 15 20.1

Gross Beta in Potable Water 15 6.86

HTO in Tunnel Effluent 6 2.89

Pu in Tunnel Effluent 6 20.3

 R&IE-LV 

Gross Alpha in Air 134 25.6

Gross Beta in Air 173 18.0

Gamma Spectrometry (Low-Vol Be) 18 24.4 7

Gamma Spectrometry (Hi-Vol Be) 8 30.1 7

Plutonium in Air (Hi-Vol) 8 59.1

Tritium in Water (enriched) 6 10.8

Tritium in Water (unenriched) 7 9.7
LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE

8-11

Table 8.5 Accuracy of R&IE-LV Radioanalyses (EML QAP and PES) - 1998

Water Samples Range of Results - pCi/L

Analysis No. PES R&IE-LV Percent Bias

Gross Alpha 5 7.2 - 54 9.7 - 64 -21 - 35

Gross Beta 5 3.5 - 95 8.7 - 102 -3.7 - 206

Gamma Spec. 18 6.1 - 131 6.0 - 138 -12 - 10 (a)

Strontium 8 6.0 - 32 7.0 - 31 -11 - 79

Alpha Spec. 5 3.0 - 32 3.0 - 32 -1.3 - 6.1

Tritium 2 2155 - 17996 2137 - 17357 3.6 - -0.8

(a) Three analyses exceeding bias MQO were all within 3 normalized deviations for the analysis

group.

Percent Bias Range for Analysis of EML QAP Samples

Analysis No. Air Soil Vegetation Water

Plutonium 12 2.9 - 11 -0.7 - 3.9 -11 - 10 -0.6 - 4.3

Americium 8 2.9 - 7.3 1.6 - 2.0 3.2 - 13 -2.9 - 5.6

Curium 2 -8.9 - 6.8 (a) (a) (a)

Strontium 2 -2.8 - 10 (a) (a) (a)

Tritium 2 -2.0 - 7.4 (a) (a) (a)

Gamma Spec. 18 10 - 9.4 -2.0 - 13 (a) (a)

 

(a) No sample.

Percent Bias Range for Analysis of MAPEP QAP Samples

Plutonium 3 1.6 -1.7 - -0.7 (a) (a)

Americium 1 -4.6 (a) (a) (a)

Uranium 1 -1.1 (a) (a) (a)

Strontium 1 -6.3 (a) (a) (a)

Gamma Spec. 5 -4.6 - 2.5 (a) (a) (a)

(a) No sample.

Table 8.6 Accuracy of ASL Radioanalyses (EPA PES and EML QAP) - 1998

Analysis Normalized

of Water BN/ASL EPA QA Deviation(a)

Samples No. Average pCi/L Known Grand Avg.

Gross Alpha 3 9.1 - 25 7.2 - 54.4 0.16 - 0.97

Gross Beta 3 9.2 - 91 3.9 - 94.7 -1.25 - 0.61

Tritium 2 2,190 - 17,500 2,155 - 17,996 -0.33 - 0.15
8-12

Table 8.6 (Accuracy of ASL Radioanalyses [EPA PES and EML QAP] - 1998, cont.)

Analysis Normalized

of Water BN/ASL EPA QA Deviation(a)

Samples No. Average pCi/L Known Grand Avg.

Co 3 12.7 - 51.0 12.0 - 50.0 -0.03 - 0.52 60

Zn 2 120 - 149 104.0 - 131 1.57 - 1.94 65

Sr 3 6.3 - 24.7 7.0 - 32.0 -0.64 - -0.14 90

Ba 2 40.7 - 56.0 40.0 - 56.0 0.0 - 0.89 144

Cs 3 19.0 - 91.7 22.0 - 105.0 -1.88 - 0.60 134

Cs 3 10.3 - 116 10.0 - 111.0 -0.17 - 0.53 137

Ra 4 1.29 - 19.2 1.7 - 16.0 -3.57 - 6.77 226 (a)

Ra 4 3.07 - 43.1 2.1 - 33.3 -0.20 - 2.99 228

U 2 10.7 - 13.1 10.7 - 13.8 -0.767 - 0.0 234

U 2 11.4 - 13.7 10.7 - 14.0 -0.240 - 0.757 238

U-(natural) 4 3.03 - 32.1 3.0 - 32.0 -0.28 - 0.46

(a) Three of four results exceeded three Normalized Deviations; however, PES failed only two. 

Percent Bias Range for Analysis of EML QAP Samples

Analysis No. Air Soil Vegetation Water

Americium 2 1.0 - 7.7 -12.6 - -10.3 9.9 - 13.1 0.4 - 5.6

Plutonium 2 -7.0 - 9.0 -3.5 - 7.7 -3.4 - 3.2 -24.9 - 0.0 (c)

Strontium 2 -2.2 - 17.9 -5.3 - 19.4 9.50 - 3.1 -1.3 - 7.1

Tritium 2 8.1 - 9.8 (a) (a) (a)

Gamma Spec. -26.2 - 5.6 -5.3 - 9.2 0.3 - 30.0 3.6 - 15.1 (b) (d)

Gross Alpha 2 - 10.0 -1.9 - 2.0 (a) (a)

Gross Beta 2 14.8 -5.5 - 12.0 (a) (a)

(a) No sample.

(b) Number of Isotopes was 11 (air), 5 (soil), 7 (vegetation), and 6 (water).

(c) One result with bias > 20 percent.

(d) One result had bias > 20 percent; however it was below the EML upper limit of 30 percent 

and was for Ce, a radionuclide no longer detected in the NTS environment. 144
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-1

9.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND 

ANALYSIS

Several levels of data review and screening are used to characterize the quality of the

data. The data are received from the laboratory as an American Standard Code for

Information Interchange (ASCII) file containing 33 fields of data variables that describe a

sample and the analysis performed on that sample. There is one line of data for each

sample submitted to the laboratory and one file for each type of sample and analysis; for

example, there is a file for gross alpha in air. These files are received monthly or quarterly

depending upon the frequency of sample collection.

The files received from the laboratory are screened by a data validation computer program

that runs on a personal computer. This program has 15 modules, one for each type of

sample and analysis. The modules subject each line of data to between 6 and 14 checks of

data values. A line of data that fails a check is copied to an output file with a notation

identifying the check that failed. All modules check for valid sampling location names and

identification numbers. Result values, error values, minimum detectable concentrations

(MDC), and sample volumes or weights are checked to determine if they fall within

expected ranges of values. The modules also count the number of samples in the file for

each sampling location and compare this count to the number of sample records that

should be in the file. The output files are reviewed by the sampling manager and

appropriate actions are taken. The actions taken include correcting the data entries and

calculations, submitting samples for reanalysis, collecting additional samples to verify

unexpected conditions, and inspection and repair of sampling apparatus.

The data are then copied to a spreadsheet, combined into monthly, quarterly, or annual 

files, and submitted for statistical review. Most data files are reviewed statistically when

the data for a full quarter of a year are available. The statistical review looks for trends in

the data, outliers, clustering of data values, and consistency with historical levels. 

Descriptive statistics and plots of the data are provided for management review.

All data for a year are available at about the end of the first quarter of the next year. The

data are archived in a data base management system and preparation of the data

dependent sections of the annual report commences. An extensive statistical analysis of

each data set is performed and this analysis is described in a separate data report. The

following sections summarize the results of those analyses.

9.1 AIR SAMPLE DATA

GROSS ALPHA IN AIR

n 1998, 1839 weekly gross alpha in air Isamples and duplicates from 37 locations

on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and Nellis

Air Force Range were collected and

analyzed. Descriptive statistics for the

results and duplicates from individual

sampling locations are given in Table 9.1. 

The median MDC for 1998 was 1.78 × 10-15

μCi/mL and 52 percent of the results and

duplicates were less than their individual

MDCs. A time series plot of all data values

was examined for trend. This plot indicated

a slight trend of increasing values until the

end of summer, then decreasing values. 

This plot also showed that most of the data

values were between 0 and 3 × 10 μCi/mL, -15

with a few higher values. A one-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the square

root of the data (the square root of the gross

alpha in air data has a normal statistical

distribution) versus sampling location found
9-2

a significant difference among sampling location means were examined for any

locations. An examination of location mean

values did not find any clustering of means,

rather the means gradually increased from a

low at Area 2 Camp to a high at CLEAN

SLATE II. The highest mean was only 68

percent above the lowest mean; thus, the

statistical significance may be due more to

the very large degrees of freedom rather

than a practical significance.

Gross alpha in air data have been collected

since the middle of 1996. Two and one-half

years of data are insufficient for an analysis

of historical trends.

GROSS BETA IN AIR

Gross beta is analyzed on the same 

glass-fiber filters that are used for gross

alpha analysis. In 1998, 1,810 gross beta

samples and duplicates were analyzed. 

Descriptive statistics for each sampling

location are given in Table 9.2. The median

MDC for 1998 is 4.08 × 10 μCi/mL, and -15

only 1 percent of the results and duplicates

were less than their individual MDCs. The

sampling dates were grouped by the month

that sampling began, and then an ANOVA

was performed to test for significant

differences among months. This statistical

test found significant differences; thus, there

was a statistically significant trend within

1998. Figure 9.1 is a time series plot of all

the gross beta results by sample week. The

solid line in this figure is a “locally weighted

scatterplot smoother line,” which is a

statistical tool for visualizing any trend that

may be in the data. This line seems to show

a seasonal trend with increasing gross beta

levels during the hot summer months. Most

of the weekly data that clusters substantially

below the line in Figure 9.1 can be

associated with weeks of heavy rain, which

would reduce air particulates. An ANOVA

was also performed to test for significant

differences between sampling locations. 

This analysis also found statistically

significant differences. The sampling

clustering of values, and no clusters were

found. There is a pattern of gradually

increasing mean values from the lowest

mean at Project 57 to the highest mean at

U-3bh north. 

For the analysis of historical gross beta

trends, the three sampling locations that

have been in continuous use since 1966,

when individual station data became

available, are used and also the two

locations that have been in use since 1967. 

These five locations are the Area 2

Complex, Well 5B in Area 5, CP-6 in Area 6,

Gate 700 south in Area 10, and Gate 293 in

Area 11. Figure 9.2 is a time series plot of

the annual averages from these five

locations. The line in Figure 9.2 suggests a

trend peaking in 1971, then a steady

decrease in annual averages until 1975. 

The downward trend resumes in 1978 and

continues until about 1983 when a level of

about 20 × 10 μCi/mL was reached. Since -15

1982, the annual averages have remained at

or slightly less than the 20 × 10 μCi/mL -15

level, except for the peak in 1986. Three

additional peaks are seen in Figure 9.2 that

occur before 1982. A significant peak

occurred in 1971 which was probably due to

the BANEBERRY test that accidently vented

following detonation on December 18, 1970.

This test was located in the southwest

section of Area 8. Peaks occurred in 1977

and 1981, which are probably due to foreign

nuclear testing. The peak in 1986 is

attributed to the accident at Chernoble.

Since about 1982, gross beta in air levels

have been uniformly low and essentially at

world-wide background, except for the 1986

peak. Almost all values are above analytic

MDCs; thus, the data values are valid

measures of environmental conditions. 

Statistically significant differences are found

between locations, operational areas, and

sample collection dates. The analysis of

duplicate samples was used to assess

sources of error and variability in the data.
0 10 20 30 40 50

0

Week

10

20

30

40

Ci/mL*E-15

1998 Gross Beta in Air Time Series

All Sampling Locations Combined

Well 5B

CP-6

Gate 700S

Area 2

Gate 293

0

100

200

300

400

μCi/mL*E-15

Gross Beta in Air Historical Trend

Annual Averages at Five Selected Sampling Locations

1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Locally weighted scatterplot smoother line

Figure 9.1 Time Series Plot of 1998 Gross Beta in Air Results

Figure 9.2 Historical Time Series for Selected Sampling Locations

9-3

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
9-4

PLUTONIUM IN AIR

The glass-fiber filters that were used for

weekly gross alpha and beta analysis and

gamma spectroscopy were composited on a

monthly basis and then analyzed for Pu 238

and Pu. Descriptive statistics for the 239+240

results and duplicates from individual

sampling locations are given in Table 9.3 for

Pu and in Table 9.4 for Pu. The 238 239+240

median MDC for Pu in 1998 was 238

9.85 × 10 μCi/mL. Ninety-nine percent of 18

the results were less than the MDC, and 

66 percent were negative. The median MDC

for Pu was 10.6 × 10 μCl/mL. 239+240 -18

Twenty-eight percent of the results were

negative, and 68 percent were less than the

MDC.

Probability plotting of the Pu data 238

indicated that the negative data are from a

different statistical distribution than the

positive data, and the positive data have a

lognormal statistical distribution. Because of

this, and that almost all results are less than

the MDC, only a few summary statistics

were done for this isotope.

Those sampling locations that have Pu 238

concentrations above the MDC are typically

locations that have historically shown

relatively high concentrations. Bunker T-4 in

Area 4 had above MDC results in May and the 1971 Annual Report. From 1971 to 1989

June 1998. This bunker is about 200 feet no distinction was made between Pu and

southwest of the T-4 tower location. Four Pu, but it is known from the analytical

atmospheric tests were conducted at this method used that Pu was being

tower location in the 1950's: FOX on May measured. In 1989 Pu analyses began. 

25, 1952, NANCY on March 24, 1953, Figures 9.3 and 9.4 plot historical annual

APPLE-1 on March 29, 1955, and KEPLER averages from the ten sampling locations

on July 24, 1957. The 9-300 Bunker in Area that have data available from the last ten

9 had above MDC results in October. This years. Figure 9.3 containing Pu annual

bunker is surrounded by 15 atmospheric averages shows an exponential shaped

nuclear test locations. The closest two are decline from a level of about 4 × 10

approximately 500 feet northwest of the μCi/mL in 1989 to almost zero in 1998. 

bunker and were atmospheric tests: Figure 9.4 containing Pu annual

MANATEE on December 14, 1962, and averages indicates a linear and declining

APSHAPA on June 6, 1963. The other trend over the entire time period of the

sample, with above MDC results, was figure. The highest value in Figure 9.4 is

collected at the Yucca Flat sampling location 150 × 10 μCi/mL and the public derived

in Area 6 in June 1998. This location has no concentration guide (DCG) is over 13 times

history of high values. higher at 2 × 10 μCi/mL.

Descriptive statistics for Pu by 239+240

sampling location are given in Table 9.4. 

The most striking features of this table are

the great differences between the means

and corresponding medians, large standard

deviations, and relatively high maximum

values. This pattern of statistics is

characteristic of extremely skewed data. 

Probability plots of these data indicated a

mixture of two statistical distributions. The

data above approximately 2 × 10 μCi/mL -18

have nearly a lognormal distribution and the

distribution of the data below this value has

an undetermined distribution. The

probability plots also showed a cluster of

seven higher values. An examination of the

data showed that these higher values were

from samples collected at the 9-300 Bunker,

the SEDAN crater, CLEAN SLATE I, the

Transuranic Pad Building, and BJY.

The significance of the differences in

Pu concentrations among NTS 239+240

operational areas can be assessed using

ANOVA procedures. A one-way ANOVA

was performed on the logarithms of the data;

logarithms delete the negative data values. 

This analysis showed very significant

differences among areas. The Pu 239+240

concentrations in Area 9 are significantly

higher than all other areas.

Plutonium in air data were first reported in

238

239+240

239+240

238

238

-18

239+240

-18

-15
-2

0

2

4

6

8

μCi/mL*E-18

Pu-238 Historical Trend

Annual Averages, All Selected Locations Combined

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Year

Locally weighted scatterplot smoother line

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998

Year

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

μCi/mL*E-18

Pu-239+240 Historical Trend

Annual Averages, All Selected Locations Combined

Locally weighted scatterplot smoother line

Figure 9.3 Time Series Plot of Pu Annual Averages 238

Figure 9.4 Time Series Plot of Pu Annual Averages 239+240

9-5

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
9-6

TRITIUM IN AIR

Thirteen samplers for airborne tritiated water

vapor were placed at locations on the NTS

during 1998. Samples were typically

collected over a two week period. Figure 4.1

shows the locations of the 1998 tritium in air

sampling locations on a map of the NTS. 

Table 9.5 gives descriptive statistics for the

results and duplicates from the individual

sampling locations. Note that the units used

in this table differ from those used in all

previous tables. Forty percent of the data

values are below the individual MDCs, and 

7 percent are negative. Most of the above

MDC results are from the northeast corner of

the radioactive waste management site

(RWMS), decontamination facility, EPA

Farm, SEDAN crater, E Tunnel, and

SCHOONER locations. The RWMS has

storage for tritiated waste as well as other

radiological waste materials. The EPA Farm

is close to the SEDAN crater, which is a

known source of low levels of tritium. The

decontamination facility has a storage area

in which tritiated materials have been

located within cargo containers.

Figure 9.5 is a time series plot of all the

tritium in air data for 1998. The high values

seen during the summer months are mostly

from the SCHOONER sampling location. 

Historically, most tritium in air sampling

locations have shown increased tritium

levels during the hot summer months. 

Probability plots of the tritium in air data

indicated that these data have a lognormal

statistical distribution. A logarithmic data

transformation will cause the higher values

in Figure 9.5 to appear less remarkable. 

This transformation will also discard all

negative data values; however, only 

7 percent of these data are negative, and

this is not a serious loss of information. A

one-way ANOVA on the logarithms of these

data indicated a significant difference among

sampling locations. This analysis identified

four groupings of sampling locations based

on 1998 tritium in air levels. The group with

the lowest tritium levels has data values that

were usually less than the MDC. This group 

includes Stake T-18, Well 5B, BJY, the

Waste Examination Facility (WEF)

southwest, WEF northeast, RWMS west,

and RWMS south. The second group

contains four sampling locations: RWMS

northeast, SEDAN crater, E Tunnel pond,

and the EPA Farm. This group contains

tritium levels that are well above MDC during

the summer months. The final two groups

each contain a single location and is

significantly different from all other groups. 

The last groups are the decontamination

facility and the SCHOONER location.

There are five locations that have been in

continuous use since 1982 when tritium in

atmospheric moisture data first appeared in

NTS annual reports. Figure 9.6 is a

historical time series plot of the median of

the annual averages of these five locations.

The median was used in this plot because

for small sample sizes the median is a more

robust estimator of central tendency than is

the mean. Note that this plot has a

logarithmic ordinate and that, using this

scale, the data have approximately a linear

decreasing trend. A linear regression on

these data found a very good fit and also

found that the medians for 1995 and 1996

were lower than expected. From this

regression one can compute the time for

tritium in air levels at the NTS to be reduced

to one-half; this is four years. Since four

years is about a third of the half-life of

tritium, the tritium levels at the NTS are

decreasing much faster than can be

accounted for by radioactive decay alone. 

GAMMA EMITTING

RADIONUCLIDES IN AIR

Naturally occurring radionuclides not in

equilibrium at the time of counting, such as

Tl, Pb, Pb, Bi, and Bi, were not 208 212 214 212 214

included in this report. This leaves no

gamma emitting radioisotopes other than

those listed in Table 9.8. Of the isotopes

listed in this table, Cs is man-made; the 137
0 10 20 30 40 50

Week

0

100

200

300

400

500

Result*E-12 μCi/mL

1998 Tritiated Water Vapor in Air

All Sampling Locations Combined

1985 1990 1995 2000

Year

1980

1

10

100

pCi/mL*E-6

Tritium in Air Historical Trend

Figure 9.5 Time Series Plot for 1998 Tritium in Air Results

Figure 9.6 Historical Time Series for NTS Tritium in Air Results

9-7

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
9-8

remaining are naturally occurring and in differences in annual TLD exposure rates

equilibrium. Descriptive statistics, in units of between the boundary locations and the

μCi/mL, for these radionuclides appear in background locations. Thus, the boundary

Table 9.8. locations are now included within the

9.2 THERMOLUMINESCENT

DOSIMETER DATA

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were

placed at 103 monitoring locations on the

NTS during 1998. The dosimeters are

exchanged quarterly and processed at the

Bechtel Nevada Dosimetry Laboratory in

Mercury, Nevada. Table 9.6 list the annual

total mR/yr for each location. Typically TLDs

are exchanged during the first week of each

calendar quarter. It takes several work days

to exchange all the TLDs, so the exposure

duration for each location varies from one

quarter to the next. The median days of

exposure in 1998 was 90 days. Significant

exceptions to this schedule for individual

locations can be caused by such things as

restricted access due to snow blocked roads

(a typical condition in the winter at higher

elevations of the NTS). TLD results reported

in 1998 include a TLD posted at Gold

Meadows on October 8, 1997, and collected

on April 29, 1998, resulting in a 203 day

exposure. The road to Gold Meadows is

usually closed by snow during the winter. 

This TLD was also collected late in April for

the second quarter, rather than during the

first week, in order to avoid a very short

second quarter. This resulted in a 63 day

second quarter exposure.

For convenience, TLD locations are divided

into four classes. Boundary locations are

close to the perimeter of the NTS. 

Background locations are known to have no

man-made radionuclide inventory. 

Operational locations are adjacent to stored

radioactive materials. In 1998, the

operational locations included the Areas 3

and 5 RWMS locations, and the

Decontamination Facility locations. The

remaining TLDs are in the environmental

monitoring class. Since the boundary

locations were established in 1990, there

have been no statistically significant 

background class of locations.

Atypical values or outliers were identified,

from probability plots and histograms of the

data and subsets of the data, as data points

plotting at some distance from most of the

other data points in that subset. This

process identified two distinct groups of TLD

data values that have different statistical

distributions. The group of environmental

and background TLD sampling locations has

data values with a normal statistical

distribution and a mean value of 117 mR/yr,

an upper limit of about 180 mR/yr. The

second group contains the data values from

the operational locations and the atypical

values from the environmental locations and

has approximately a lognormal statistical

distribution with a median value of 211

mR/yr. 

A formal statistical analysis of the

distribution of the operational and atypical

data, using the Box-Cox method, determined

that the inverse of the data values, that is

1/(mR/yr), had a normal statistical

distribution. Since the inverse power

transformation has no practical interpretation,

it is more convenient to assume these data

approximate a lognormal distribution.

The six data values that were judged to be

atypical and not from operational locations

are listed in Table 9.7. The last column of

this table, the “Area Mean”, gives the

average annual exposure for the NTS area

with the atypical values deleted. The 1998

atypical values had exposure rates above

200 mR/yr. The list in Table 9.7 is about the

same as in previous years, except that 

U-3co was not in the 1997 list. The

locations in Table 9.7 are mostly in Yucca

Flat in places known to be contaminated by

early atmospheric testing of nuclear devices. 

The SEDAN west location is in the throwout

from the crater. The tunnel ponds contain

products from the nuclear tests performed

within the tunnels.
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-9

The average 1998 exposure from the A three-way ANOVA was used to test for

environmental, background and boundary differences in mR/yr due to differences

locations was 117 mR/yr. From 1994 to among years, differences among operational

1997 the NTS average exposures ranged areas, and differences between location

from 120 to 128 mR/yr. The generally types (Background and Environmental

accepted value for worldwide background is locations with atypical values removed). 

120 mR/yr. The data were the annual mR/yr at each

A two-way ANOVA was performed on the years. The operational areas and types

environmental, boundary, and background

locations data to test for differences among

NTS areas and quarters of the year. This

analysis found very significant differences

among the areas and no differences among

quarters. This is the same pattern as has

been found in the past several years. A

one-way ANOVA was then used to identify

the pattern of differences among areas. 

This analysis found no grouping or clustering

of area mean values. When the area means

were sorted by magnitude, the pattern seen

was a gradual and consistent increase from

a low value for Area 23 to the highest value

for Area 30. 

Area 30 contains one TLD location. It is the

boundary station located at the junction of

Cat Canyon Road and the road to the

BUGGY test site. This location is as close to

the west boundary as can now be reached in

this region due to washed out roads. This is

in a geographic region with high natural

radiation levels from prehistoric lava flows. 

Aerial surveys of this region detect higher

than background levels of Th. The 208

highest annual exposure of all environmental

locations is in Area 20 at Stake J-31. This

stake is less than a mile north of two

cratering tests, PALANQUIN and

CABRIOLET.

Film badges were used during early

activities on the NTS for ambient gamma

exposure monitoring. TLDs replaced the film

badges in 1977, with ten monitoring stations

(locations) chosen to be near work sites. 

From 1977 to 1987, the TLDs used were

manufactured by the Harshaw Chemical

Company. In 1987, a changeover was made The only non naturally occurring radionuclide

to TLDs manufactured by Panasonic. At the

end of 1998, there were a total of 86 active

TLD locations.

location for 1998 and the previous five

were included to remove those sources of

error from the residual error and thus

increase the power of the ANOVA. The

results of this analysis were very significant

differences for all three factors. A

simultaneous inference analysis of the

differences among years identified two

clusters of annual averages. The first

cluster is composed of only the data from

1993 and has a marginal mean value of 169

mR/yr. The second cluster contains the

remaining years data, 1994 through 1998,

and has a marginal mean value of 122

mR/yr. A calibration problem was

discovered in the 1993 data. This problem

was never resolved. This pattern of a year

of higher gamma exposure levels followed

by five years of lower exposure levels can

be seen in Figure 9.7 which contains

boxplots of the data from 1998 and the

previous five years. Boxplots consist of a

box, whiskers, and outliers. A line is drawn

across the box at the median. The bottom

of the box is at the first quartile, and the top

is at the third quartile value of the data. The

whiskers are lines that extend from the top

and bottom of the box to adjacent values. 

Adjacent values are the lowest and highest

data values that are less that one and onehalf times the interquartile range from the

ends of the box. Outliers are data values

outside the adjacent values and are plotted

with an asterisk.

9.3 WATER SAMPLE DATA

GAMMA EMITTING

RADIONUCLIDES IN WATER

found by gamma spectroscopy in NTS water

samples was Cs. This isotope was found 137

in three samples and three duplicates from 
R ADIUM IN WATER

STRONTIUM IN WATER

Area 12 E Tunnel effluent and pond. The

presence of non-naturally occurring

radionuclides in E Tunnel waters is not

surprising, since nuclear experiments

formerly occurred within this tunnel.

Descriptive statistics for the E Tunnel data

are presented in Table 9.9.

R ADIUM IN WATER

Radium concentrations were measured

quarterly at 12 supply wells in 1998. Water

samples from other types of sources are not

analyzed for radium. Descriptive statistics

appear in Table 9.10. For 226

Ra all of the

results were less than the MDC, and for 228

Ra, 93 percent of the results were less

than the MDC. Since 96 percent of all

radium results are less than the MDC, only

the summary statistics in Table 9.10 were

computed.

STRONTIUM IN WATER

In 1998, 90Sr concentrations were measured

in samples from 27 locations on the NTS.

Samples were collected quarterly from 12

supply wells and an annual sample was

collected from 5 tap waters, 2 containment

pond locations, and 8 sewage ponds. A

total of 57 90Sr analyses were performed.

Descriptive statistics for each location are

given in Table 9.11.

An examination of the data showed that all

results were below the MDC except the four

from the E Tunnel. Water from inside the

E-Tunnel, where nuclear experiments

formerly occurred, drains as an effluent and

then into the pond. Thus it is not surprising

to find non-naturally occurring radionuclides

in these waters.

Since all of the 90Sr in water results from all

locations excluding the containment ponds

are less than the individual MDC, and 19

percent of those results are negative, any

statistical analyses or further data

descriptions are unreasonable. These data

simply show that, except for the containment

ponds, no 90Sr was detected in NTS water

samples.

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Year

TLD Historical Data

100

160

220

280

340

m

R/year

Environmental, Background and Control Locations Combined

Figure 9.7 Historical Time Series of Boxplots of TLD Exposures

9-10
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-11

URANIUM IN WATER

Water samples and duplicates were

collected for the second and third quarters of

1998 from the E Tunnel effluent and pond

and analyzed for U, U, and U. First 234 235 238

quarter samples could not be collected

because the water in the pond was frozen,

and no fourth quarter samples were

scheduled. The samplers logbook contains

the comment that at the time of the third

quarter sampling the E Tunnel pond

contained rain runoff. 

Uranium concentrations for all three isotopes

are substantially above the corresponding

MDC. There is very little variability in the

effluent concentrations. The pond

concentrations show some differences

among sampling dates, but little variability

between a sample and its duplicate. 

Considering this consistency and the small

number of data values, eight for each

isotope, no statistical analyses were done

for uranium. Means for each isotope appear

in Table 9.12. Each mean in this table is the

average of four values.

GROSS ALPHA IN WATER

Gross alpha levels in water for 1998 were

measured quarterly at 12 water supply wells,

6 tap waters, and 2 containment pond

locations. Alpha analyses are not done for

sewage lagoons. Descriptive statistics by

location and type are given in Table 9.13. 

The statistics for supply wells and tap water

locations combined are approximately the

same as those reported for 1996 and 1997. 

For the entire network, all results are

positive and 13 percent are less than 

the MDC.

Figure 9.8 plots the alpha levels by sampling

week of 1998 and type of location. This time

series plot shows, that in general, the

containment pond concentrations are higher

than the well waters and tap waters and that

the well waters and tap waters have about

the same concentrations. There are no

interesting time dependent patterns. The

well and tap water data for each quarter are

uniformly spread over a range of zero to

approximately 15 × 10 μCi/mL. -9

ANOVA procedures are the statistical

methods of choice to analyze the gross

alpha in water data for significant differences

among sampling locations, types of

locations, and sampling times. These

procedures require that the residuals have a

normal statistical distribution. The residuals

from the analyses discussed in the following

paragraphs were checked for normality

using probability plots, and they were found

to have the required normal distribution. 

The results from the E Tunnel sampling

locations were deleted before the ANOVA

because they are obviously higher than the

environmental sampling locations.

The most appropriate ANOVA for the gross

alpha in water data is a three-way analysis

with factors of sampling location, type of

location (wells or tap water end points), and

quarter of the year in which the sample was

collected. The locations are nested within

the types, and these factors are crossed

with the quarter factor. The data are rank

deficient for such an analysis because of

unbalanced nesting and some empty cells;

thus, the results can only be considered

suggestive. This analysis found a significant

difference among sampling locations and no

differences among types of locations and no

difference due to the quarter of sample

collection. These results suggest that the

data can be analyzed using a one-way

ANOVA testing for significant differences

among sampling locations. The one-way

ANOVA was performed, and, after the

location means were sorted by magnitude,

the mean values appeared to smoothly

range from the lowest to the highest value.

There was no clustering of values.

The statistically significant differences of the

water sampling locations does not imply that

there are health physics concerns with the

levels of gross alpha in the NTS drinking

waters. The EPA drinking water limit for

gross alpha is 15 × 10 μCi/mL, and all the -9

drinking water averages are below this limit. 
The probable cause of the gross alpha

activity in these waters is the natural radium

isotopes 226Ra and 228Ra.

Gross alpha measurements in tap water

were begun in 1984 and data exist from

1984 through 1998 for only two sampling

locations: the c afeterias in Areas 6 and 23.

The Area 23 Cafeteria is also called the

Mercury Cafeteria. Figure 9.9 is a time

series plot of the annual a verages from

these two loc ations. This figure als o

contains a loc ally weighted scatterplot

smoother line which shows the overall

general trend in the data. This figure shows

that the Area 6 Cafeteria gross alpha le vels

are slightly higher than the Area 23 Cafeteria

le vels and that there is a slight trend of

increasing le vels o ver the past 15 years at

these two loc ations.

GROSS BETA IN WATER

Gross beta concentrations in water were

measured at 12 supply wells, 6 tap water

locations, 9 sewage lagoons, and

2 containment pond locations, for a total of

29 sampling locations. Desc riptive statistics

are presented in Table 9.14. The values in

this table for the containment pond statistics

are about an order of magnitude higher than

the values from the wells and tap waters.

This is to be expected since the containment

ponds were constructed to contain the

effluents from nuclear experiments

performed inside a tunnel, and thus ha ve a

more concentrated source of radioactivity

than other surface waters. The E Tunnel

pond contained some rain runoff from

samples for weeks 16 and 31 and thus the

results for these samples are atypical. The

median MDC for all s ampling locations and

all sample c ollection dates is 1.23 × 10-9

μCi/mL. All sample results are positi ve

(greater than zero) and exceeded the

indi vidual MDCs. Figure 9.10 presents a

time series plot of the 1998 gross beta in

water results for supply wells and tap water

end points.

Probability plotting was used to determine

that the 1998 gross beta in water data ha ve

a lognormal statistical distribution, as was

0 10 20 30 40

Week of Sample Collection

0

10

20

30

μCi/mL*E-9

T

Containment

Ponds

ime Series Plot of 1998 Gross Alpha in Water

Sample Type

Faucets

Wells

Figure 9.8 Time Series Plot of 1998 Gross Alpha in Water Results

9-12
Area 6 Cafeteria

Area 23 Cafeteria

1984 1989 1994 1999

0

5

10

15

20

Year

μCi/mL*E-9

Gross Alpha in Water Annual Averages

Location

End

Points

Wells

0 10 20 30 40

Sampling Week

0

5

10

15

20

μCi/mL*E-9

1998 Gross Beta in Water

at Supply Wells and Potable Water End Points Sampling Locations

Figure 9.9 Historical Time Series Plot for Gross Alpha in Water

Figure 9.10 Time Series Plot of 1998 Gross Beta in Water

9-13

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
9-14

determined for gross beta in water results in 1998 from 12 supply wells, 6 tap water

previous years. An ANOVA using the locations, 8 sewage lagoons, and 

logarithms of the results found no 2 containment ponds. Descriptive statistics

differences among the quarter of the year for each sampling location for Pu are

that samples were collected and very given in Table 9.15 and in Table 9.16 for

significant differences among the types of Pu.

sampling locations. A one-way ANOVA was

then used to determine the pattern of and the

differences among the location types. This

analysis identified three groups of location

types: well water and tap water end points

form one group, sewage lagoons are a

second group, and the containment ponds

are a third group.

Gross beta in water measurements began in

1964 and data exist from 1964 through 1998

for only four sampling locations: the Area 6

Cafeteria, Area 23 Cafeteria (also called the

Mercury Cafeteria), Well C-1, and Well 5C. 

Figures 9.11 and 9.12 present historical time

series plots for these cafeterias and wells. 

In general, historical trends for levels of

gross beta in water are not as clear as those

of gross beta in air. Underground waters,

such as samples from wells, would not have

been affected by atmospheric nuclear

testing. Gross beta in air shows declining

levels since 1970, about the time

atmospheric testing ended. No such trend is

evident in the water data. There are obvious

differences among sampling locations, but

no long term trends are evident. There is a

possible short term trend seen in Figure 9.11

for the tap water end points. Note that

before 1996, the gross beta concentrations

at the Area 6 Cafeteria were always higher

than at the Area 23 Cafeteria. For 1996-

1998, this pattern is reversed. Except for

the E Tunnel sampling locations, the gross

beta and gross alpha activity in the water is

probably due to naturally occurring

radionuclides, and would be expected to be

relatively constant over time at any given

location but vary among locations because

of local geological structure. This is the

situation that has been observed at the NTS.

PLUTONIUM IN WATER

Water samples for Pu and Pu 238 239+240

measurement were collected quarterly in

238

239+240

An examination of the Pu data 238

statistics in Table 9.15 revealed that all

concentrations were below the MDC except

for 10 of the 12 containment pond results. 

Plutonium in the E Tunnel effluent is known

to result from several nuclear experiments

that were preformed within that tunnel. 

Water that seeps into the tunnel picks up

contamination within the tunnel then exits

the tunnel as effluent and is collected in the

containment pond. The concentrations

measured from the effluent and containment

pond in 1998 are consistent with historical

levels at these locations. Excluding the ten

Pu E Tunnel sample values that are above 238

their MDC, 72 percent of the values are less

than zero, and all but one value were within

one standard deviation of zero. This

situation indicates that the measurements

represent only randomness in the analytical

procedures, and no plutonium was actually

found in the samples. Thus, no further

statistical analyses were performed. 

Pu concentrations in water were 239+240

measured using the same samples as were

used for Pu; thus, the same sampling 238

pattern applies. The results were also

similar. All results were below the MDC,

except those from the E Tunnel containment

ponds. Results for 10 of the 12 E Tunnel

effluent and containment pond samples were

above the MDC, while the two below the

MDC results were diluted by rain runoff. 

Pu levels in the effluent and 239+240

containment ponds are known to be

elevated for the same reason Pu levels 238

are elevated. Fifty-one percent of the less

than MDC values were less than zero, and

92 percent of these results are within one

standard deviation of zero. As for Pu, no 238

further statistical analyses of the Pu 239+240

results were performed. 
Y

1970 1980 1990 2000

0

ear

5

10

15

20

μCi/mL*E-9

Gross Beta in Water Annual Averages

Supply Wells

Well C-1

Well 5C

Location

1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

0

5

10

15

20

μCi/mL*E-9

Gross Beta in Water Annual Averages

Potable Water End Points

Area 6 Cafeteria

Area 23 Cafeteria

Location

Figure 9.11 Historical Time Series Plot for Tap Water

Figure 9.12 Historical Time Series Plot for Supply Wells

9-15

DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS
9-16

Annual averages for the plutonium isotopes capable of measuring substantially lower

in water have been reported since 1989. levels of tritium and it is more accurate

Two representative locations were chosen (smaller errors) than the conventional

from each type of water sampling location, method; however, the enriched method is

except only one containment pond location more expensive. Water samples for tritium

was used. The chosen locations have data analysis are usually collected quarterly, and

available for all years since plutonium some duplicate analyses were performed. 

concentrations were first included in annual Summary statistics for the samples analyzed

reports, and are geographically dispersed using the enriched method are given in

within the NTS. The chosen locations are Table 9.19 and in Table 9.20 for samples

identified in Tables 9.17 and 9.18, which analyzed using the conventional analytical

contain the historical annual averages. method. In these two tables, if only one

Most of the annual averages in these tables only the sample value and the MDC are

are below detection limits or below the MDC, listed.

but there are a few notable exceptions. 

Over the years, the median detection limit

for both plutonium isotopes has been

approximately 20 × 10 μCi/mL. Prior to -12

1996, the sensitivity of water analyses were

reported as detection limits, and in 1996 this

was changed to reporting the MDC. Thus it

is appropriate to use detection limits when

discussing historical plutonium

concentrations in water. 

The E Tunnel effluents have had highest

plutonium levels of both isotopes for all the

tabled years. These levels are from known

sources, as discussed above. Note that, for

both isotopes, the concentrations show a

declining trend over time and the 1989

concentrations are over ten times the 1998

concentrations.

The Area 23 sewage lagoon contained

above the MDC of both plutonium isotopes

in 1996, and slightly above detection limit

levels of Pu in 1989. The 1996 239+240

observations are discussed in the 1996 Data

Report. The 1989 Annual Report did not

comment on the finding for that year.

TRITIUM IN WATER

Two analytical procedures are used for

tritium in water analyses. Most well waters

are analyzed using an enriched tritium

procedure. The remaining types are

analyzed using a conventional tritium the results reported in Tables 9.19 and 9.20

procedure. The enriched procedure is

sample was analyzed in 1998 for a location,

Examination of Tables 9.19 and 9.20 will

reveal that almost all the maximum values

are much less than the median MDC. The

exceptions are the samples from the 

E Tunnel locations and the underground test

area (UGTA) and aquifer monitoring wells

analyzed using the enriched method. The

concentrations from E Tunnel samples are

three orders of magnitude above the MDC

and thus show a substantial tritium

inventory. The results from the supply well

samples analyzed using the enriched

method are about an order of magnitude

smaller than the results from samples

analyzed using the conventional method. 

Hence, the tritium in water results can be

divided into four groups of sampling

locations based on tritium concentrations

and analytical method: the E Tunnel

sampling locations; UGTA and Aquifer

monitoring wells with samples analyzed

using the enriched method; supply well

samples analyzed using the enriched

method; and all samples analyzed using the

conventional method, except the E Tunnel

samples. Only the first two of these four

subsets of the data have results above the

corresponding MDC.

Concentrations below the MDC represent

randomness in the analytical procedure

rather than providing information about

tritium inventories. Eighty-seven percent of

are less than the corresponding MDC. 
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-17

Sixty-six percent of the results that are the effluent and the pond. A two-way

below MDC are also negative. The below

MDC data will not be analyzed in this report. 

Also, the three results from the UGTA and

aquifer monitoring wells analyzed using the

enriched method will not be analyzed. Three

numbers are insufficient for any meaningful

statistical analysis.

Tritium in the E Tunnel effluent is known to

result from the several nuclear experiments

that were performed within that tunnel. 

Water that seeps into the tunnel picks up

contamination within the tunnel then exits

the tunnel as effluent and is collected in the

containment ponds. The concentrations

measured from the effluent and containment

ponds in 1998 are consistent with historical

levels at those locations. Freezing

conditions in January 1998 prevented

collection of first quarter samples from both

ANOVA for differences between sampling

location and among sampling dates found a

statistically significant difference between

the sampling locations and no significant

difference between the quarter in which the

sample was collected. This is the opposite

of the pattern of significance found in 1997. 

The residuals from this ANOVA are normally

distributed. 

Tritium in water annual averages are

available starting in 1989. In general,

annual averages have been below detection

limits and MDCs, except for the E Tunnel

locations. (Before 1996 detection limits

were reported; in 1996 and later, MDCs

were reported.) In the ten years from 1989

through 1998, tritium levels in the E Tunnel

Effluent have ranged from 8.3 × 10 to -4

2.2 × 10 μCi/mL. -3
9-18

Table 9.1 Descriptive Statistic for 1998 Gross Alpha in Air by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 ) -15

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

Area 1, BJY 53 1.85 1.72 1.02 0.02 4.74 1.81

Area 2, 2-1 Substation 53 1.70 1.70 0.89 0.10 3.97 1.77

Area 2, Complex 39 1.50 1.45 0.88 0.02 3.46 1.74

Area 3, Bunker 3-300 51 1.70 1.55 0.86 -0.11 4.49 1.81

Area 3, U-3ah/at North 68 1.75 1.72 1.02 -0.65 4.23 1.84

Area 3, U-3ah/at South 52 1.78 1.77 0.76 0.02 3.69 1.83

Area 3, U-3bh North 29 2.08 1.92 0.88 -0.27 3.92 1.83

Area 3, U-3bh South 29 2.06 1.91 0.99 0.29 5.28 1.83

Area 3, Well ER-3-1 54 1.52 1.44 0.78 0.21 3.56 1.83

Area 4, Bunker T-4 52 1.54 1.66 0.78 0.02 3.54 1.80

Area 5, DOD Yard 67 1.73 1.64 0.84 0.02 3.63 1.82

Area 5, RWMS Northeast 53 1.86 1.95 0.82 -0.19 3.75 1.81

Area 5, RWMS South 52 2.00 1.93 0.96 0.21 4.49 1.83

Area 5, RWMS West 50 2.31 2.23 1.65 0.10 11.10 1.80

Area 5, Transuranic Bldg. North 53 2.37 2.19 1.41 0.77 9.58 1.79

Area 5, WEF Northeast 53 1.62 1.55 0.83 0.38 3.54 1.76

Area 5, WEF Southwest 52 1.94 1.83 0.88 0.35 3.87 1.83

Area 5, Well 5B 52 1.64 1.56 0.81 0.39 3.75 1.66

Area 6, CP-6 39 1.56 1.25 0.96 0.08 4.23 1.63

Area 6, Well 3 31 1.67 1.55 0.99 -0.10 4.85 1.77

Area 6, Yucca 53 1.96 1.91 1.03 -0.18 4.78 1.80

Area 7, UE-7ns 67 1.64 1.53 0.91 -0.55 4.09 1.72

Area 9, Area 9-300 61 1.94 1.72 1.25 -0.20 5.67 1.82

Area 10, Gate 700 South 39 1.66 1.56 0.94 -0.10 3.87 1.70

Area 10, SEDAN Crater 52 1.61 1.34 0.94 0.10 3.56 1.81

Area 11, Gate 293 38 1.55 1.50 0.70 0.08 3.65 1.70

Area 13, Project 57 51 1.64 1.54 0.82 -0.09 4.16 1.63

Area 15, EPA Farm 66 1.64 1.63 0.81 0.02 4.40 1.77

Area 18, LITTLE FELLER 2 North 45 1.81 1.72 0.80 -0.10 3.75 1.84

Area 20, CABRIOLET 49 1.69 1.55 0.99 0.10 4.38 1.84

Area 20, SCHOONER 50 1.74 1.93 0.77 0.10 3.87 1.83

Area 23, Bldg. 790 No. 2 52 1.81 1.72 0.90 -0.10 3.46 1.75

Area 25, E-MAD North 59 1.61 1.46 0.98 -0.19 4.52 1.77

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE I 22 2.18 1.81 1.52 0.10 6.72 1.70

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE II 28 2.52 2.28 1.22 0.96 6.08 1.66

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE III 49 2.38 2.19 1.09 0.55 4.70 1.64

Area 52, DOUBLE TRACKS 47 2.28 2.31 1.15 -0.22 5.00 1.64

All locations combined 1810 1.81 1.72 1.00 -0.65 11.10 1.78
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-19

Table 9.2 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Gross Beta in Air by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 ) -15

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

Area 1, BJY 53 19.64 19.70 6.80 3.95 31.80 4.10

Area 2, 2-1 Substation 53 18.23 18.60 6.20 3.25 34.20 4.09

Area 2, Complex 39 15.78 15.10 5.48 2.98 26.80 4.12

Area 3, Bunker 3-300 51 18.45 18.6 5.79 5.26 39.20 4.10

Area 3, U-3ah/at North 68 19.25 19.40 6.27 4.38 33.80 4.07

Area 3, U-3ah/at South 52 18.98 18.90 5.24 3.99 31.70 4.10

Area 3, U-3bh North 29 21.74 22.30 4.25 11.80 28.00 4.07

Area 3, U-3bh South 29 21.71 21.50 4.48 12.70 32.40 4.06

Area 3, Well ER-3-1 54 18.29 18.75 5.86 4.28 31.00 4.08

Area 4, Bunker T-4 52 17.53 17.35 6.00 2.93 29.40 4.07

Area 5, DOD Pad 67 20.09 20.50 5.43 7.02 32.90 4.07

Area 5, RWMS Northeast (4) 53 20.07 20.20 6.53 4.35 34.10 4.08

Area 5, RWMS South (9) 52 20.13 19.95 5.80 7.37 31.50 4.10

Area 5, RWMS West (4) 50 20.70 21.30 6.30 5.02 34.70 4.09

Area 5, Transuranic Bldg. North 53 21.49 21.80 6.43 7.43 36.80 4.10

Area 5, WEF Northeast 53 19.20 19.10 6.63 4.18 33.10 4.08

Area 5, WEF Southwest 52 21.01 21.30 6.47 3.89 33.50 4.11

Area 5, Well 5B 52 18.32 17.85 6.08 6.63 28.10 4.09

Area 6, CP-6 39 17.90 17.40 6.42 5.86 30.00 4.05

Area 6, Well 3 31 16.90 16.50 5.63 3.45 28.70 4.13

Area 6, Yucca 53 19.50 20.70 6.60 3.83 33.00 4.07

Area 7, UE-7ns 67 18.66 18.90 6.12 2.33 29.90 4.06

Area 9, Area 9-300 61 16.80 16.70 6.41 3.20 30.30 4.10

Area 10, Gate 700 South 39 17.01 17.20 5.98 4.43 27.00 4.12

Area 10, SEDAN Crater 52 19.11 19.55 6.34 2.57 31.70 4.08

Area 11, Gate 293 38 17.67 16.70 5.79 5.18 27.30 4.10

Area 13, Project 57 51 14.54 14.00 5.18 6.49 40.50 4.01

Area 15, EPA Farm 66 17.92 18.05 5.91 4.08 30.90 4.08

Area 18, LITTLE FELLER 2 North 45 19.20 20.00 5.44 3.62 28.50 4.09

Area 20, CABRIOLET 49 17.75 19.10 5.84 5.83 28.30 4.09

Area 20, SCHOONER 50 19.29 20.30 6.23 4.23 30.90 4.07

Area 23, Bldg. 790 No. 2 52 19.01 18.60 5.52 5.63 27.60 4.12

Area 25, E-MAD North 59 18.04 17.90 6.99 3.87 30.60 4.07

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE I 22 14.68 13.85 5.47 6.84 29.90 4.09

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE II 28 19.76 19.95 4.78 7.02 32.50 4.05

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE III 49 20.11 20.40 6.75 7.17 35.60 4.01

Area 52, DOUBLE TRACKS 47 18.46 19.90 6.72 6.12 34.10 4.12

All locations combined 1810 18.77 19.00 6.19 2.33 40.50 4.08
9-20

Table 9.3 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Air by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 ) 238 -18

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

Area 1, BJY 12 1.66 -0.21 3.81 -0.72 12.10 10.60

Area 2, 2-1 Substation 12 -0.22 -0.44 1.09 -0.91 3.13 10.93

Area 2, Complex 9 0.79 -0.22 1.80 -0.97 3.91 8.58

Area 3, Bunker 3-300 11 0.65 -0.25 1.74 -1.67 3.29 8.83

Area 3, U-3ah/at North 15 1.16 0.96 2.27 -1.43 6.91 14.60

Area 3, U-3ah/at South 12 0.55 -0.36 2.03 -1.39 5.55 11.50

Area 3, U-3bh North 6 1.41 1.82 2.03 -1.20 3.43 15.85

Area 3, U-3bh South 6 -0.32 -0.84 1.26 -1.38 1.60 22.75

Area 3, Well ER-3-1 12 0.21 -0.33 1.40 -1.13 3.07 8.87

Area 4, Bunker T-4 12 5.46 5.35 4.20 1.02 16.50 9.19

Area 5, DOD Yard 15 0.11 -0.27 1.49 -1.58 3.47 9.81

Area 5, RWMS Northeast (4) 12 -0.29 -0.35 0.68 -1.08 1.70 10.80

Area 5, RWMS South (9) 12 0.06 -0.32 1.34 -1.13 3.67 10.75

Area 5, RWMS West (7) 11 -0.66 -0.51 0.53 -1.63 -0.21 9.60

Area 5, Transuranic Bldg. North 12 1.81 -0.28 4.41 -1.28 11.80 9.60

Area 5, WEF Northeast 12 0.00 -0.28 1.44 -1.37 4.14 9.40

Area 5, WEF Southwest 12 0.62 -0.33 2.27 -1.35 5.94 11.85

Area 5, Well 5B 12 -0.08 -0.29 0.75 -0.64 1.71 9.09

Area 6, CP-6 9 -0.25 -0.28 0.66 -1.24 1.28 7.37

Area 6, Well 3 8 0.37 -0.30 1.20 -0.78 2.10 9.56

Area 6, Yucca 12 0.30 -0.29 1.53 -0.77 4.46 10.02

Area 7, UE-7ns 15 -0.22 -0.34 1.49 -1.43 4.96 10.70

Area 9, 9-300 Bunker 14 3.29 1.65 5.37 -0.69 19.10 9.71

Area 10, Gate 700 South 9 2.02 1.54 2.21 -0.35 5.40 8.36

Area 10, SEDAN Crater 12 4.41 3.03 4.86 -0.26 18.90 10.52

Area 11, Gate 293 9 0.29 -0.31 1.53 -0.66 3.91 9.57

Area 13, Project 57 12 0.41 -0.28 2.13 -1.56 6.01 8.78

Area 15, EPA Farm 15 0.25 -0.32 1.80 -0.88 6.09 9.37

Area 18, LITTLE FELLER 2 North 10 -0.36 -0.47 0.95 -1.45 2.11 12.25

Area 20, CABRIOLET 12 1.17 0.46 2.19 -0.99 5.66 10.80

Area 20, SCHOONER 12 2.66 2.44 2.87 -0.82 7.10 10.38

Area 23, Building 790 No. 2 12 -0.07 -0.37 1.47 -1.27 4.52 10.77

Area 25, E-MAD North 14 0.19 -0.26 1.95 -0.78 6.75 9.04

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE I 5 0.94 1.35 0.73 -0.30 1.46 8.01

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE II 6 0.91 0.16 2.36 -1.47 4.90 12.10

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE III 12 0.45 -0.23 1.97 -1.86 5.78 7.67

Area 52, DOUBLE TRACKS 12 0.16 -0.30 1.23 -0.84 3.09 10.81

All locations combined 415 0.82 -0.27 2.64 -1.86 19.10 9.85
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-21

Table 9.4 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Air by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 ) 239+240 -18

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

Area 1, BJY 12 56.79 16.35 130.98 1.07 469.00 10.85

Area 2, 2-1 Substation 12 3.14 1.91 4.48 -1.52 14.20 11.10

Area 2, Complex 9 2.84 2.83 3.39 -0.93 10.70 9.63

Area 3, Bunker 3-300 11 47.72 18.50 66.93 5.11 204.00 9.91

Area 3, U-3ah/at North 15 56.43 55.40 40.86 -0.49 148.00 16.30

Area 3, U-3ah/at South 12 46.17 35.20 41.65 7.64 164.00 12.75

Area 3, U-3bh North 6 22.25 20.45 15.11 1.67 46.30 18.05

Area 3, U-3bh South 6 22.65 18.95 13.92 2.89 39.30 23.70

Area 3, Well ER-3-1 12 1.02 0.29 2.46 -1.28 7.84 9.57

Area 4, Bunker T-4 12 23.58 24.05 14.09 -0.47 45.70 10.10

Area 5, DOD Yard 15 1.93 1.16 3.58 -2.17 9.44 10.60

Area 5, RWMS Northeast (4) 12 0.65 -0.38 1.83 -1.28 4.45 12.05

Area 5, RWMS South (9) 12 0.83 1.22 1.91 -1.89 4.21 12.40

Area 5, RWMS West (7) 11 1.14 1.26 1.85 -1.00 3.97 10.40

Area 5, Transuranic Bldg. North 12 58.47 2.00 160.11 -1.09 552.00 10.60

Area 5, WEF Northeast 12 3.21 -0.43 10.72 -2.42 36.80 10.55

Area 5, WEF Southwest 12 13.30 1.46 41.85 -1.79 146.00 13.10

Area 5, Well 5B 12 0.46 -0.48 1.56 -0.63 3.75 10.20

Area 6, CP-6 9 2.77 2.66 2.50 -0.39 6.17 7.82

Area 6, Well 3 8 1.63 1.51 2.41 -1.05 5.54 10.75

Area 6, Yucca 12 8.05 5.59 7.95 -0.56 21.20 11.05

Area 7, UE-7ns 15 10.35 8.18 9.89 -2.25 27.30 11.70

Area 9, 9-300 Bunker 14 215.86 108.50 237.73 1.31 735.00 10.11

Area 10, Gate 700 South 9 9.83 6.60 10.21 -0.42 29.10 9.36

Area 10, SEDAN Crater 12 71.29 29.30 142.60 3.40 519.00 11.30

Area 11, Gate 293 9 3.62 1.69 3.73 -0.57 9.46 10.50

Area 13, Project 57 12 14.54 4.58 27.58 -1.18 98.20 9.67

Area 15, EPA Farm 15 24.70 22.10 21.44 2.21 63.40 9.71

Area 18, LITTLE FELLER 2 North 10 4.86 2.58 9.48 -2.56 30.80 14.20

Area 20, CABRIOLET 12 0.14 -0.48 1.21 -1.12 2.28 11.85

Area 20, SCHOONER 12 9.92 2.17 20.04 -0.63 63.10 10.97

Area 23, Building 790 No. 2 12 1.32 -0.52 3.84 -1.24 11.60 12.00

Area 25, E-MAD North 14 0.56 -0.44 2.52 -3.02 6.27 9.36

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE I 5 194.42 121.00 266.50 1.31 659.00 8.36

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE II 6 144.95 160.50 90.49 22.00 269.00 13.30

Area 52, CLEAN SLATE III 12 1.89 1.10 3.54 -1.59 11.00 8.60

Area 52, DOUBLE TRACKS 12 14.29 2.23 27.53 -1.35 92.50 11.15

All locations combined 415 27.14 3.31 82.74 -3.02 735.00 10.60
9-22

Table 9.5 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Tritium in Air by Sampling Location, (pCi/mL × 10 ) -6

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

Area 1, BJY 26 1.00 0.67 0.96 -0.81 3.40 2.36

Area 5, RWMS Northeast (4) 25 14.44 4.67 21.83 -0.12 83.70 3.28

Area 5, RWMS South (9) 27 2.18 2.17 1.05 0.11 4.56 3.36

Area 5, RWMS West (7) 26 1.51 1.53 0.63 -0.29 2.81 2.36

Area 5, WEF Northeast 35 1.39 1.31 1.11 -0.66 3.74 2.79

Area 5, WEF Southwest 26 1.77 1.65 1.34 0.00 5.58 3.10

Area 5, Well 5B 32 0.24 0.23 0.96 -1.71 2.46 3.04

Area 6, Decontamination Facility 26 36.68 21.45 40.75 1.82 175.00 2.53

Area 10, SEDAN Crater 35 8.53 5.09 7.66 1.33 29.20 3.10

Area 12, E Tunnel Pond 31 14.61 6.01 21.34 0.91 105.00 2.69

Area 12, Stake T-18 4 0.11 0.04 0.42 -0.32 0.69 1.97

Area 15, EPA Farm 33 8.85 8.76 3.45 1.24 14.20 3.06

Area 20, SCHOONER 24 142.46 56.75 160.93 9.44 458.00 2.95

All locations combined 350 17.15 2.50 56.17 -1.71 458.00 2.87

All locations except

SCHOONER combined 326 7.93 2.27 17.63 -1.71 175.00 2.86

Table 9.6 1998 TLD Gamma Exposure Rates - mR/yr

Sampling Annual Sampling Annual

Location Total Location Total

Area 1, BJY 92 Area 3, U-3co South 162

Area 1, Stake TH-27 95 Area 3, Well ER-3-1 120

Area 1, Stake TH-38 104 Area 3, RWMS Center 140

Area 1, Sandbag Storage Hut 108 Area 4, Stake A-9 841

Area 1, Stake C-2 113 Area 4, Stake TH-48 115

Area 1, 1-300 Bunker 121 Area 4, Stake TH-41 105

Area 2, Stake M-140 123 Area 5, Well 5B 104

Area 2, Stake N-8 726 Area 5, RWMS East 1000' 118

Area 2, Stake L-9 171 Area 5, RWMS Northeast Corner 111

Area 2, Stake TH-58 89 Area 5, RWMS North 1000' 119

Area 3, Stake OB-20-N, End of 3B Road 85 Area 5, RWMS Northwest Corner 119

Area 3, LANL Trailers 109 Area 5, RWMS West 1000' 119

Area 3, Stake A-6.5 145 Area 5, RWMS Southwest Corner 116

Area 3, RWMS North 119 Area 5, RWMS South Gate 105

Area 3, RWMS East 148 Area 5, RWMS East Gate 134

Area 3, RWMS South 513 Area 5, RWMS Office 121

Area 3, RWMS West 121 Area 5, 3.3 Mi Southeast of Aggregate Pit 60

Area 3, U-3co North 223 Area 5, WEF West 129
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-23

Table 9.6 (1998 TLD Gamma Exposure Rates - mR/yr, cont.)

Sampling Annual Sampling Annual

Location Total Location Total

Area 5, WEF South 161 Area 11, Gate 293 120

Area 5, WEF East 121

Area 5, WEF North 116

Area 5, Trench 8 South 126

Area 5, Pit 6 502

Area 5, Building 5-31 105

Area 5, RWMS Transuranic Pad NE 176

Area 5, RWMS Transuranic Pad North 333

Area 5, RWMS Transuranic Pad SW 112

Area 5, RWMS Transuranic Pad SE 121

Area 5, RWMS Pit 5 West Side 158

Area 5, RWMS Pit 5 East Side 134

Area 6, CP-6 69

Area 6, CP-50 Calibration Door 80

Area 6, Yucca Oil Storage Area 96

Area 6, Stake OB-11.5 123

Area 6, DAF East 88

Area 6, DAF West 85

Area 6, Decon Facility Northwest 117

Area 6, Decon Facility Southeast 125

Area 7, 7-300 Bunker 282

Area 7, Stake H-8 124

Area 7, Reitman Seep 119

Area 8, Stake K-25 100

Area 8, Road 8-02 123

Area 8, Stake M-152 160

Area 9, 9-300 Bunker 122

Area 9, Papoose Lake Road 77

Area 9, V and G Road Junction 109

Area 9, Crater U-9cw 96

Area 10, SEDAN West 288

Area 10, SEDAN East Visitors Box 133

Area 10, Circle and L Road 115

Area 10, Gate 700 South 135

Area 11, East of U-11b 115

Area 11, Stake A-221 122

Area 12, T Tunnel No. 2 Pond 234

Area 12, Upper N Pond 121

Area 12, Upper Haines Lake (E Tunnel) 117

Area 12, Gold Meadows 119

Area 15, EPA Farm 106

Area 15, Substation U15E 92

Area 18, Stake A-83 135

Area 18, Stake F-11 135

Area 19, Stake P-41 156

Area 19, Stake C-27 147

Area 19, Stake P-77 150

Area 19, Stake R-26 148

Area 19, Stake R-3 153

Area 19, Gate 19-3P, Kawich Canyon 149

Area 20, Stake J-31 180

Area 20, Stake J-41 133

Area 20, Stake LC-4 168

Area 20, Stake A-118 143

Area 22, Army Well No. 1 76

Area 23, Building 650 Dosimetry 55

Area 23, Building 650 Roof 51

Area 23, Post Office 67

Area 25, NRDS Warehouse 116

Area 25, 25-4P Gate 123

Area 25, HENRE 117

Area 25, Jackass Flats at 27 Roads 76

Area 25, Guard Station 510 119

Area 25, Yucca Mountain 128

Area 27, Cafeteria 123

Area 30, Cat. Can. Rd at Buggy Turnoff 165

Table 9.7 Listing of Atypical TLD Data Values for 1998

Annual Area Annual Area

Sampling Total Mean Sampling Total Mean

Location mR/yr mR/yr Location mR/yr mR/yr

Area 2, Stake N-8 726 128 Area 7, 7-300 Bunker 282 121

Area 3, U-3co North 223 124 Area 10, SEDAN Crater W 288 128

Area 4, Stake A-9 841 110 Area 12, T-Tunnel Pond 234 119
9-24

Table 9.8 Descriptive Statistics for Radionuclides Detected by Gamma Spectroscopy in Air

 Samples in 1998, (μCi/mL × 10 ) -15

Number of Percent

Samples Standard Result

Nuclide Containing Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum > MDC

Be 415 179.0 184.0 41.7 61.0 261.0 100 7

Cs 49 0.900 0.873 0.229 0.389 1.53 37 137

Th 39 2.37 2.31 0.585 1.45 3.91 90 228

Th 5 3.71 3.36 1.20 2.55 5.69 80 232

U 6 135.0 132.0 31.2 100.0 186.0 33 238

Table 9.9 Descriptive Statistics for Radionuclides Detected by Gamma Spectroscopy in Water 

 in 1998, (μCi/mL × 10 ) All Samples Collected at E Tunnel -9

Number of

Samples Standard Median

Nuclide Containing Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

Cs 6 106 93 26 85 152 11 137

Table 9.10 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Radium in Water, (μCi/mL × 10 ) -9

Number of Standard Median

Nuclide Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

Ra 42 0.37 0.33 0.84 -1.91 2.38 3.44 226

Ra 42 0.22 0.18 0.24 -0.19 0.79 1.06 228

Table 9.11 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Sr in Water by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 ) 90 -12

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

SUPPLY WELLS

Area 5, Well 5B 3 85.2 46.0 79.8 32.5 117.0 270.5

Area 5, Well 5C 4 113.4 144.5 87.3 -14.5 179.0 310.0

Area 5, Well UE-5C 3 81.7 48.3 164.2 -63.3 260.0 325.0

Area 6, Well No. 4 6 159.3 134.0 146.4 -7.7 423.0 259.0
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-25

Table 9.11 (Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Sr in Water by Sampling Location, [μCi/mL × 10 ], 90 -12

cont.)

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

SUPPLY WELLS

Area 6, Well No. 4A 3 112.6 160.0 120.4 -24.3 202.0 273.0

Area 6, Well C-1 2 218.5 218.5 36.1 193.0 244.0 283.0

Area 16, Well UE-16d 4 77.6 85.2 106.5 -34.8 175.0 273.0

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 4 84.6 89.8 72.4 0.7 158.0 295.0

Area 20, Well U-20 1 66.4 260.0

Area 22, Army Well No. 1 2 104.3 104.3 110.0 26.5 182.0 560.5

Area 25, Well J-12 4 145.3 74.4 176.2 28.6 404.0 251.5

Area 25, Well J-13 4 127.2 77.8 150.6 8.3 345.0 251.0

TAP WATER

Area 6, Cafeteria 1 143.0 350.0

Area 6, Building 6-900 1 151.0 275.0

Area 12, Ice House 1 66.6 270.0

Area 23, Cafeteria 1 128.0 315.0

Area 25, Building 4221 1 -8.1 249.0

SEWAGE LAGOONS

Area 5, RWMS Sewage 1 142.0 590.0

Area 6, Yucca Sewage 1 194.0 285.0

Area 6, LANL Sewage 1 -95.0 331.0

Area 6, DAF Sewage 1 -64.1 1040.0

Area 12, Sewage Pond 1 159.0 301.0

Area 22, Sewage Pond 1 -115.0 287.0

Area 23, Sewage Pond 1 63.7 285.0

Area 25, Central Sewage 1 -222.0 489.0

CONTAINMENT PONDS

Area 12, E Tunnel Effluent 2 1745.0 1745.0 629.3 1300.0 2190.0 651.0

Area 12, E Tunnel Pond 2 2275.0 2275.0 586.9 1860.0 2690.0 721.0
9-26

Table 9.12 Tabulated Means for 1998 Uranium in Water, (μCi/mL × 10 ) -8

 Isotope 

 234 235 238 

Location Results MDC Results MDC Results MDC

E Tunnel Effluent 3.62 0.04 0.062 0.02 1.30 0.03

E Tunnel Pond 1.27 0.04 0.038 0.019 0.49 0.04

Table 9.13 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Gross Alpha in Water by Sampling Location,

(μCi/mL × 10 ) -9

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

SUPPLY WELLS

Area 5, Well 5B 4 6.84 7.64 1.82 4.12 7.94 1.70

Area 5, Well 5C 4 13.75 13.40 2.95 10.90 17.30 1.84

Area 5, Well UE-5C 3 11.24 11.90 1.41 9.63 12.20 1.81

Area 6, Well No. 4 7 9.60 9.64 1.94 5.72 11.40 1.60

Area 6, Well No. 4A 3 11.43 10.30 2.05 10.20 13.80 1.66

Area 6, Well C-1 2 11.50 11.50 0.99 10.80 12.20 2.98

Area 16, Well UE-16D 4 5.91 6.06 1.33 4.21 7.32 1.88

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 4 0.82 0.60 0.53 0.43 1.67 1.12

Area 20, Well U-20 1 9.21 1.50

Area 22, Army Well No. 1 2 3.90 3.90 2.05 2.45 5.35 1.74

Area 25, Well J-12 4 1.74 1.60 0.60 1.20 2.58 1.38

Area 25, Well J-13 4 2.40 2.44 0.31 2.04 2.69 1.55

All Supply Wells 42 7.17 7.64 4.53 0.43 17.30 1.67

TAP WATER

Area 2, Restroom Outside

 Tap 2 0.64 0.64 0.16 0.52 0.75 1.06

Area 6, Cafeteria 5 10.74 10.90 1.47 8.52 12.40 1.69

Area 6, Building 6-900 5 10.08 10.50 1.31 8.41 11.40 1.70

Area 12, Ice House 5 0.69 0.51 0.35 0.39 1.10 1.03

Area 23, Mercury Cafeteria 6 8.80 8.23 2.14 6.37 12.60 1.77

Area 25, Building 4221 5 1.41 1.67 0.47 0.76 1.87 1.47

All Tap Water 28 6.02 7.91 4.66 0.39 12.60 1.61
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-27

Table 9.13 (Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Gross Alpha in Water by Sampling Location, 

 [μCi/mL × 10 ], cont.) -9

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

CONTAINMENT PONDS

Area 12, E Tunnel Effluent 6 22.70 20.75 6.87 14.30 31.70 1.73

Area 12, E tunnel Pond 6 15.58 13.00 7.29 8.49 24.60 1.86

All Containment Ponds 12 19.14 18.75 7.71 8.49 31.70 1.78

Table 9.14 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Gross Beta in Water by Sampling Location,

(μCi/mL × 10 ) -9

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

SUPPLY WELLS

Area 5, Well 5B 4 11.43 11.20 0.95 10.60 12.70 1.26

Area 5, Well 5C 4 8.29 8.49 0.64 7.37 8.81 1.27

Area 5, Well UE-5C 3 11.70 11.30 4.32 7.59 16.20 1.30

Area 6, Well No. 4 7 6.39 6.86 1.09 5.08 7.92 1.22

Area 6, Well No. 4A 3 6.44 6.78 0.58 5.77 6.78 1.22

Area 6, Well C-1 2 14.35 14.35 3.04 12.20 16.50 1.89

Area 16, Well UE-16D 4 6.98 7.81 1.73 4.39 7.92 1.24

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 4 3.51 3.64 0.41 2.94 3.81 1.25

Area 20, Well U-20 1 3.90 1.22

Area 22, Army Well No. 1 2 5.59 5.59 0.52 5.22 5.96 1.24

Area 25, Well J-12 4 4.86 4.88 0.29 4.52 5.14 1.22

Area 25, Well J-13 4 5.04 5.00 0.45 4.62 5.55 1.24

All Supply Wells 42 7.22 6.78 3.22 2.94 16.50 1.23

TAP WATER

Area 2, Restroom

 Outside Tap 2 3.94 3.94 0.00 3.94 3.94 1.21

Area 6, Cafeteria 5 7.37 7.33 0.63 6.61 8.34 1.22

Area 6, Building 6-900 5 7.33 7.51 1.13 5.41 8.17 1.22

Area 12, Ice House 5 3.38 3.65 0.54 2.56 3.86 1.21

Area 23, Mercury Cafe. 6 9.88 10.50 1.13 8.28 10.80 1.22

Area 25, Building 4221 5 5.10 4.98 0.39 4.65 5.61 1.21

All Tap Water 28 6.54 6.85 2.45 2.56 10.80 1.22
9-28

Table 9.14 (Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Gross Beta in Water by Sampling Location,

[μCi/mL × 10 ], cont.) -9

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

SEWAGE LAGOONS

Area 5, RWMS Sewage Pond 4 51.15 47.30 17.83 34.40 75.60 1.31

Area 6, DAF Sewage Pond 4 30.55 32.70 15.54 10.00 46.80 1.36

Area 6, LANL Sewage Pond 5 29.34 31.10 3.21 24.30 31.90 1.36

Area 6, Yucca Sewage Pond 4 18.85 19.80 2.63 15.00 20.80 1.31

Area 12, Sewage Pond 4 5.96 4.32 3.50 4.02 11.20 1.30

Area 22, Sewage Pond 4 35.50 39.05 10.47 20.30 43.60 1.33

Area 23, Sewage Pond 4 20.60 20.55 2.56 17.70 23.60 1.32

Area 25, Central Sewage Pond 4 26.55 25.70 5.44 21.30 33.50 1.36

Area 25, Reactor Control Pond 2 9.55 9.55 1.07 8.79 10.30 1.35

All Sewage Lagoons 35 26.36 23.60 15.06 4.02 75.60 1.32

CONTAINMENT PONDS

Area 12, E Tunnel Effluent 6 75.23 71.55 14.54 60.60 103.00 1.23

Area 12, E Tunnel Pond 6 36.23 21.85 25.69 17.30 70.00 1.25

All Containment Ponds 12 55.73 68.80 28.48 17.30 103.00 1.23

Table 9.15 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Water by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 ) 238 -12

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

SUPPLY WELLS

Area 5, Well 5B 4 -1.78 -1.83 0.30 -2.09 -1.38 21.05

Area 5, Well 5C 4 0.30 -1.67 4.01 -1.76 6.31 19.20

Area 5, Well UE-5C 3 -1.36 -2.02 1.86 -2.80 0.75 24.60

Area 6, Well No. 4 6 -1.61 -1.93 1.81 -3.74 1.68 22.80

Area 6, Well No. 4A 3 -1.71 -1.60 0.49 -2.25 -1.29 17.40

Area 6, Well C-1 2 -2.67 -2.67 1.60 -3.80 -1.54 27.45

Area 16, Well UE-16D 4 -1.44 -2.07 1.92 -2.91 1.31 21.75

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 4 0.07 -0.19 2.21 -2.05 2.70 19.35

Area 20, Well U-20 1 -1.30 14.10

Area 22, Army Well No. 1 2 -0.23 -0.23 2.35 -1.89 1.43 21.60

Area 25, Well J-12 4 0.63 -1.14 3.96 -1.74 6.55 16.25

Area 25, Well J-13 4 -1.75 -1.73 0.28 -2.11 -1.43 19.90

All Supply Wells 41 -1.02 -1.63 2.19 -3.80 6.55 19.70

TAP WATER

Area 2, Restroom 

 Outside Tap 1 -1.16 13.50

Area 6, Cafeteria 3 -1.13 -1.20 0.18 -1.27 -0.93 13.80

Area 6, Building 6-900 3 -0.43 -0.91 1.15 -1.27 0.88 12.90
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-29

Table 9.15 (Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Water by Sampling Location, [μCi/mL × 10 ], 238 -12

 cont.)

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

TAP WATER, cont.

Area 12, Ice House 3 -1.14 -1.07 0.15 -1.31 -1.04 14.00

Area 23, Mercury Cafeteria 4 -0.10 -1.10 2.05 -1.18 2.97 13.65

Area 25, Building 4221 3 -0.48 -0.97 1.25 -1.40 0.95 13.90

All Tap Water 17 -0.65 -1.07 1.16 -1.40 2.97 13.70

SEWAGE LAGOONS

Area 5, RWMS Sewage Pond 4 -0.69 -1.27 1.81 -2.17 1.94 19.20

Area 6, DAF Sewage Pond 4 1.28 1.31 0.25 1.00 1.49 17.40

Area 6, LANL Sewage Pond 5 -0.42 -1.22 1.40 -1.69 1.36 15.90

Area 6, Yucca Sewage Pond 4 -0.77 -1.25 1.35 -1.80 1.21 17.05

Area 12, Sewage Pond 4 -0.85 -1.36 1.38 -1.87 1.17 16.60

Area 22, Sewage Pond 4 -0.01 -0.05 1.87 -1.89 1.95 18.50

Area 23, Sewage Pond 4 -0.15 -1.10 2.48 -1.91 3.53 15.90

Area 25, Central Sewage Pond 4 -1.00 -1.52 1.39 -2.02 1.04 17.75

Area 25, Reactor Control Pond 2 0.04 0.04 2.61 -1.81 1.88 20.45

All Sewage Lagoons 35 -0.31 -1.13 1.59 -2.17 3.53 17.40

CONTAINMENT PONDS

Area 12, E Tunnel Effluent 6 232.50 146.50 157.25 106.00 442.00 18.00

Area 12, E Tunnel Pond 6 86.10 96.30 59.00 12.10 159.00 18.40

All Containment Ponds 12 159.30 129.50 136.70 12.10 442.00 18.30

Table 9.16 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Water by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 ) 239+240 -12

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

SUPPLY WELLS

Area 5, Well 5B 4 -2.73 -2.50 0.77 -3.84 -2.08 22.95

Area 5, Well 5C 4 -0.07 0.43 1.38 -2.10 0.94 21.05

Area 5, Well UE-5C 3 0.09 0.78 1.56 -1.70 1.18 26.50

Area 6, Well No. 4 6 -1.83 -2.40 1.97 -4.45 0.80 24.35

Area 6, Well No. 4A 3 -1.44 -2.40 1.91 -2.68 0.75 19.50

Area 6, Well C-1 2 3.42 3.42 4.55 0.21 6.64 29.40

Area 16, Well UE-16D 4 -3.02 -2.41 1.56 -5.33 -1.92 22.35

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 4 -2.77 -2.74 1.01 -4.23 -1.98 21.00

Area 20, Well U-20 1 -1.88 15.70

Area 22, Army Well No. 1 2 -2.72 -2.72 0.89 -3.35 -2.09 24.40

Area 25, Well J-12 4 0.97 -1.58 6.58 -3.20 10.80 16.95

Area 25, Well J-13 4 -1.89 -2.54 1.77 -3.19 0.73 21.60

All Supply Wells 41 -1.31 -2.10 2.84 -5.33 10.80 21.30
9-30

Table 9.16 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Pu in Water by Sampling Location, [μCi/mL × 10 ], 239+240 -12

cont.)

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

TAP WATER

Area 2, Restroom 

 Outside Tap 1 -1.34 14.00

Area 6, Cafeteria 3 1.95 0.24 4.67 -1.63 7.23 14.50

Area 6, Building 6-900 3 1.11 0.39 1.39 0.24 2.71 14.30

Area 12, Ice House 3 1.00 0.25 3.28 -1.38 4.59 15.80

Area 23, Mercury Cafeteria 4 0.00 -0.56 2.02 -0.66 2.79 15.10

Area 25, Building 4221 3 -1.70 -1.71 0.32 -2.02 -1.38 15.20

All Tap Water 17 0.34 0.18 2.60 -2.02 7.23 14.50

SEWAGE LAGOONS

Area 5, RWMS Sewage Pond 4 0.22 -0.60 3.02 -2.28 4.37 21.20

Area 6, DAF Sewage Pond 4 -0.10 0.55 1.51 -2.35 0.85 19.90

Area 6, LANL Sewage pond 5 1.23 -1.62 6.43 -3.00 12.50 18.30

Area 6, Yucca Sewage Pond 4 3.58 3.18 3.24 0.82 7.14 18.85

Area 12, Sewage Pond 4 5.80 2.20 10.20 -1.92 20.70 18.05

Area 22, Sewage Pond 4 2.84 0.58 7.49 -3.09 13.30 20.35

Area 23, Sewage Pond 4 0.68 0.65 2.20 -1.99 3.39 17.40

Area 25, Central Sewage Pond 4 1.86 1.78 1.55 0.39 3.49 19.60

Area 25, Reactor Control Pond 2 -1.07 -1.07 2.70 -2.98 0.84 22.55

All Sewage Lagoons 35 1.82 0.66 5.06 -3.09 20.70 19.30

CONTAINMENT PONDS

Area 12, E Tunnel Effluent 6 2018.33 1475.00 1124.23 1100.00 3490.00 19.25

Area 12, E Tunnel Pond 6 676.61 828.50 566.76 9.98 1056.00 19.20

All Containment Ponds 12 1347.50 1125.00 1100.70 9.98 3490.00 19.20

Table 9.17 Historical Pu in Water Annual Averages at Selected Locations, (μCi/mL × 10 ) 238 -12

Location 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

WELLS

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 7.3 31.0 2.2 -12.0 4.8 -2.1 -1.7 -3.0 0.4 0.1

Area 25, Well J-13 -26.0 12.0 0.7 -5.0 -6.9 -0.7 -0.4 -2.9 -0.9 -1.8

TAP WATER

Area 2, Restroom 12.0 21.0 -5.5 -13.0 0.8 1.3 4.6 -1.4 -0.7 -1.2

Area 23, Cafeteria -8.9 12.0 18.6 5.0 0.0 1.3 1.5 -3.8 -1.1 -0.1
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-31

Table 9.17 (Historical Pu in Water Annual Averages at Selected Locations, [μCi/mL × 10 ], cont.) 238 -12

Location 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

SEWAGE LAGOONS

Area 12, Sewage Lagoon 2.7 26.7 -4.8 -9.2 1.8 -1.7 -1.3 -2.2 -1.1 -0.9

Area 23, Sewage Lagoon 26.0 -14.5 1.3 -11.4 0.0 -1.3 1.3 13.9 -1.9 -0.1

CONTAINMENT PONDS

E Tunnel Effluent 2625.0 1616.7 732.5 660.0 450.0 687.3 323.0 355.8 388.0 232.5

Table 9.18 Historical Pu in Water Annual Averages at Selected Locations, (μCi/mL × 10 ) 239+240 -12

Location 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

WELLS

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 1.6 -3.0 0.6 7.2 -8.2 2.5 -1.1 -3.5 0.1 -2.8

Area 25, Well J-13 -0.3 7.8 2.6 13.2 -6.9 2.1 -1.6 -1.1 -2.1 -2.5

TAP WATER

Area 2 Restroom -2.4 2.7 0.5 0.1 2.3 2.2 0.0 -3.5 -2.0 -1.3

Area 23 Cafeteria 3.2 0.5 2.9 0.1 2.1 0.6 -0.1 -4.1 -2.3 0.0

SEWAGE LAGOONS

Area 12 Sewage Lagoon 11.8 0.5 12.9 -2.0 4.3 2.2 -0.9 -2.6 1.4 5.8

Area 23 Sewage Lagoon 6.9 3.5 16.1 1.8 7.1 9.0 5.0 818.9 11.7 0.7

CONTAINMENT PONDS

E Tunnel Effluent 21250 9223 9500 6275 4333 5343 5208 2840 3190 2018

Table 9.19 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Tritium in Water by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 )-9

Enriched Analytical Method

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

SUPPLY WELLS

Area 5, Well 5B 4 -4.83 -5.81 2.22 -6.19 -1.51 23.25

Area 5, Well 5C 3 -4.06 -3.96 0.50 -4.61 -3.62 14.10

Area 5, Well UE-5C 3 3.55 4.68 6.28 -3.21 9.19 14.00

Area 6, Well No. 4 5 -1.86 -2.14 2.34 -4.48 1.92 13.20
9-32

Table 9.19 (Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Tritium in Water by Sampling Location, [μCi/mL × 10 ] -9

 Enriched Analytical Method, cont.)

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

Area 6, Well No. 4A 3 -0.90 -2.68 3.76 -3.43 3.42 13.70

Area 8, Well C-1 2 3.60 3.60 8.12 -2.14 9.34 13.85

Area 19, Well UE-16D 3 -4.28 -6.69 5.54 -8.20 2.06 13.70

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 3 -1.92 -1.20 2.03 -4.21 -0.36 11.40

Area 20, Well U-20 1 1.75 14.10

Area 22, Army Well No. 1 1 1.08 14.20

Area 25, Well J-12 3 -3.67 -5.88 4.40 -6.53 1.39 12.80

Area 25, Well J-13 3 -5.47 -3.77 4.06 -10.10 -2.54 13.90

AQUIFER MONITORING WELLS

Area 6, Test Well B 1 44.20 19.10

Area 20, Well PM-1 1 181.00 14.30

UGTA WELLS

Area 27, Well HTH-F 1 28.20 13.50

Table 9.20 Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Tritium in Water by Sampling Location, (μCi/mL × 10 )-6

Conventional Analytical Method

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

TAP WATER

Area 2, Restroom 

 Outside Tap 1 0.53 0.78

Area 6, Cafeteria 3 0.30 0.40 0.27 0.00 0.51 0.73

Area 6, Building 6-900 3 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.26 0.73

Area 12, Ice House 3 0.16 -0.06 0.44 -0.14 0.66 0.73

Area 23, Mercury Cafeteria 4 0.12 0.03 0.28 -0.10 0.51 0.73

Area 25, Building 4221 3 0.10 0.05 0.28 -0.15 0.40 0.73

SUPPLY WELLS

Area 5, Well 5C 1 -0.50 0.77

Area 6, Well No. 4 2 -0.06 -0.06 0.06 -0.11 -0.02 0.77

Area 16, Well UE-16D 1 -0.16 0.77

Area 18, Well HTH No. 8 1 0.14 0.77

Area 22, Army Well No. 1 1 -0.38 0.77

Area 25, Well J-12 1 -0.40 0.77

Area 25, Well J-13 1 -0.20 0.77
 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

9-33

Table 9.20 (Descriptive Statistics for 1998 Tritium in Water by Sampling Location, [μCi/mL × 10 ] -6

 Conventional Analytical Method, cont.)

Sampling Number of Standard Median

Location Samples Mean Median Deviation Minimum Maximum MDC

AQUIFER MONITORING WELLS

Area 3, Well U-3CN No. 5 1 0.03 0.73

Area 4, Test Well D 1 0.29 0.73

Area 16, Well UE-16F 1 -0.29 0.73

Area 17, Well HTH-1 1 -0.11 0.73

Area 18, Well UE-18T 1 0.10 0.73

UGTA WELLS

Area 2, Water Well 2 2 -0.26 -0.26 0.09 -0.33 -0.20 0.73

SEWAGE LAGOONS

Area 5, RWMS Sewage Pond 4 0.05 0.12 0.30 -0.39 0.32 0.76

Area 6, DAF Sewage Pond 4 -0.27 -0.33 0.19 -0.43 0.00 0.76

Area 6, LANL Sewage Pond 5 -0.08 -0.04 0.16 -0.31 0.12 0.75

Area 6, Yucca Sewage Pond 4 0.02 0.01 0.24 -0.27 0.31 0.76

Area 12, Sewage Pond 4 -0.19 -0.18 0.05 -0.25 -0.13 0.76

Area 22, Sewage Pond 4 -0.04 -0.07 0.24 -0.29 0.28 0.76

Area 23, Sewage Pond 4 -0.35 -0.25 0.36 -0.86 -0.04 0.76

Area 25, Central Sewage Pond 4 -0.12 -0.16 0.22 -0.38 0.15 0.76

Area 25, Reactor Sewage Pond 2 -0.37 -0.37 0.17 -0.50 -0.25 0.75

CONTAINMENT PONDS

Area 12, E Tunnel Effluent 6 930.83 935.00 10.67 911.00 939.00 0.75

Area 12, E Tunnel Pond 6 461.38 393.50 444.73 1.56 998.00 0.75
Solar Air Sampler Located at Well ER-3-1 (No Date Provided)

9-34
R-1

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. C., 1998, “Distribution of Clokey’s Eggvetch (Astragalus oophorus var. clokeyanus)

on the Nevada Test Site,” DOE/NV/11718--262, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada,

December 1998.

Bechtel Nevada, 1996, “Biological Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Materials Testing at the

Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility on the Nevada Test Site,” Unnumbered Report,

Ecological Sciences, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Division, Bechtel

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Bechtel Nevada, 1998, “Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 1998 Report,” 

DOE/NV/11718--255, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, October, 1998.

Bechtel Nevada, 1999, “Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Groundwater 

Monitoring Data Report,” Unnumbered Report, Waste Management Operations, Environmental

Management Division, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Beck, C. M., 1997, “Monitoring Plan for the Cultural Resources Monitoring Program,” Desert 

Research Institute, Quaternary Sciences Center, 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.

Black, S. C., 1999, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Submittal

1998,” Report DOE/NV/11718--331, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

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.

Chapman, J. B. and S. L. Hokett, 1991, “Evaluation of Groundwater Monitoring at Offsite

Nuclear Test Areas,” DOE Nevada Field Office Report DOE/NV/10845--07, Las Vegas, NV. 

Chapman, J., T. Mihevc, and B. Lyles, 1996 “Tritium Migration at the Gasbuggy Site:

Evaluation of Possible Hydrologic Pathways,” Report DOE/NV/11508--12, Desert Research

Institute, Las Vegas, NV.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1966, “Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties,” Title 36, 

Part 79.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1969, “National Environmental Policy Act,” Title 40, Parts 

1500 - 1508, Council on Environmental Quality.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1971, “National Primary and Secondary Air Quality Standards,” 

Title 40, Part 50, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1973, “Threatened and Endangered Species Regulations,” Title 50, 

Parts 17.11 and 17.12, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
References, cont.

R-2

Code of Federal Regulations, 1976, “National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,” Title 40, 

Part 141, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1977, “Clean Water Act Regulations,” Title 40, Parts 110 to 136.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1984, “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Regulations,” 

Title 40, Parts 260 to 281, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1986, “Superfund, Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act Regulations,” Title 40, Parts 300 - 373, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 1989, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants,” Title 40, Part 61, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980, 42 

U.S. Code 9601 et seq.

Davis, M. G., 1998, “Radiation Monitoring around the SALMON Test Site Area, Lamar County, MS,

April 1998" Report EPA-402-R-98-015. Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV.

EG&G/EM (EG&G Energy Measurements), 1994, “The Northern Boundary of the Desert

Tortoise Range on the Nevada Test Site,” U.S. Department of Energy Topical Report EGG

111265-1103.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 1986, Title III of SARA.

Executive Order (EO), 1971, “National Historic Preservation,” EO 11593, Office of the President, 

Washington, D.C.

Executive Order (EO), 1977a, “Floodplain Management,” EO 11988 amended by EO 12148, 1979, 

Office of the President, Washington, D.C.

Executive Order (EO), 1977b, “Protection of Wetlands,” EO 11990, Office of the President, 

Washington, D.C.

Executive Order (EO), 1986, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, EO 12856, 

Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 

Faller, S. D., 1997, “Amchitka, Alaska, Special Sampling Project 1997: Final Report,” 3 vol.,

Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory, U.S, Environmental Protection Agency,

Report No. EPA-402-R-98-002, Las Vegas, NV.

Federal Facilities Compliance Act, 1992, Public Law No. 102-386, 106 Statutes 1505.

Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO), 1996, An FFACO among the state of

Nevada, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Defense, May 1996.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1975, “Report of the Task Group on

Standard Man,” ICRP Publication 23, Pergamon Press, New York.
References, cont.

R-3

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1979, “Limits for Intake by Workers,” 

ICRP Publication 30, Supplement to Part 1, Pergamon Press, New York.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1985, Insert to “Quantitative Bases for 

Developing an Index of Harm,” ICRP Publication 45, Pergamon Press, New York.

Johns, F. B., P. B. Hahn, D. J. Thome ́, and E. W. Bretthauer, 1979, “Radiochemical and 

Analytical Procedures for Analysis of Environmental Samples,” Report EMSL-LV-0539-17,

Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Las Vegas, NV.

Kersting, A. B, D. W. Efurd, D. L. Finnegan, D. J. Rokop, D. K. Smith, and J. L. Thompson, 1999, 

“Migration of Plutonium in Groundwater at the Nevada Test Site,” Nature 397:56-59.

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.

Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1998, “Laboratory and Field Studies Related to Radionuclide

Migration at the Nevada Test Site. October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997,” J. L. Thompson,

Editor, LANL Report LA-13419-PA, Los Alamos, NM.

Nevada Revised Statutes, 1977, “Nevada Water Pollution Control Law,” Title 40,

Chapter 445A.300 - 730.

Nevada Administrative Code, 1982, “Disposal of Hazardous Waste,” Chapter 444.850 et seq.

Nevada Administrative Code, 1989, “Abatement of Asbestos.” Chapter 618.850 et seq.

Nevada Administrative Code, 1992, “Regulation of Highly Hazardous Substances”, 

Chapter 459. et seq.

Nevada Administrative Code, 1996, “Public Water Systems,” Chapter 445A, 800 - 955.

Nevada Test Site, 1996, Waste Acceptance Criteria, Report NTSWAC (Rev. 0), Waste 

Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, DOE.

O'Farrell, T. P. and L. A. Emery, 1976, “Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: A Narrative Summary 

and Annotated Bibliography,” Report NVO-167, Desert Research Institute, University of

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Quiring, R. E., 1968, “Climatological Data, Nevada Test Site, Nuclear Rocket Development 

Station,” ESSA Research Laboratory Report ERLTM-ARL-7, Las Vegas, NV.

Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA), 1976, as amended, 42 U.S. Code 6901.

Rose, T.P., M.L. Davison, R.E. Criss, and D.K. Smith, 1999, “Isotopic Investigation of Recharge 

to a Regional Groundwater Flow System,” Great Basin, Nevada, U.S.A.,International

Symposium on Water Resources Development and Management, IAEA, Vienna.

Russell, C. E., 1990, “Assessment of the Nevada Test Site Monitoring Well System,” Report 

DOE/NV/10384-31, Water Resources Center, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada,

Las Vegas, NV. 
References, cont.

R-4

Scoggins, W. A., 1983, “Environmental Surveillance Report for the Nevada Test Site, January 

1982 through December 1982,” DOE/NVO-410-76, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc.,

Las Vegas, NV.

Scoggins, W. A., 1984, “Environmental Surveillance Report for the Nevada Test Site, January 

1983 through December 1983,” DOE/NVO-10327-4, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co.,

Inc., Las Vegas, NV.

Shott, G.J., L.E. Barker, S.E. Rawlinson, and M.J. Sullt, 1997a, “Performance Assessment for

the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County,

Nevada,” Rev. 2.1, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, DOE/NV/11718--361.

Shott, G.J., V. Yucel, M.J. Sully, L.E. Barker, S.E. Rawlinson, and B.A. Moore, 1997b,

“Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management

Site at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,” Rev. 2, Report DOE/NV-491, Bechtel

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

Smith, D.K., S.B. Kersting, J.M. Keneally, T.P. Rose, G.B. Hudson and G. F. Eaton, 1999, 

“Radionuclide Migration Studies: FY 1998 Progress Report”, Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, Livermore, CA.

Stanley, T. W. and S. S. Verner, 1985, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Quality 

Assurance Program,” in J. K. Taylor and T. W. Stanley (eds.), Quality Assurance for

Environmental Measurements, ASTM STP-867, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Taylor, J. K., 1987, “Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements,” Chapter 4, Lewis 

Publications.

Thompson, J. L., A. B. Kersting, and D. L. Finnegan, 1997, “Plutonium in Groundwater at the NTS:

Observations at ER-20-5,:” Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM.

Thordarson, W., 1965, “Perched Ground Water in Zeolitized Bedded Tuff, Rainier Mesa and 

Vicinity, Nevada Test Site,” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report TEI-862.

Tyler, S. W., J. B. Chapman, S. H. Conrad, D. P. Hammermeister, D. O. Blout, J. J. Miller, M. J. 

Sully, and J. M. Ginanni, 1996, “Soil-Water Flux in the Southern Great Basin, United States:

Temporal and Spatial Variations over the Last 120,000 Years,” Water Resources Research

32(6): 1481-1499.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1964, “Project Manager’s Report, Project SHOAL,” Report 

NVO-11, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1965, “Project GNOME - the Environment Created by a 

Nuclear Explosion in Salt,” Report PNE-107F, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1966, "Report of the AEC Deputy Test Manager: Project 

LONG SHOT," Report NVO-26, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1970, "Physical and Biological Effects: MILROW Event," 

Report NVO-79, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
References, cont.

R-5

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1972, "Draft Environmental Statement: RIO BLANCO Gas 

Stimulation Project," Report WASH-1519, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1973a, "Long Term Surveillance Plan, Central Nevada Test 

Area," Report NVO-90, Appendix 2, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1973b, "Physical and Biological Effects: CANNIKIN Event," 

Report NVO-123, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990, “Population Count Pursuant to Public Law 94-171,”

Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1978, "Special Study, Tatum Dome Test Site, Lamar County, 

Mississippi, Final Report," Report NVO-200, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1984, "Long-Term Hydrologic Monitoring Program, RULISON Event 

Site, Grand Valley, Colorado," Report NVO-273, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1986, "Long-Term Hydrologic Monitoring Program, Project 

GASBUGGY, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico," Report NVO-277, Nevada Operations Office, 

Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1988, “Radioactive Waste Management,” DOE Order 5820.2A.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1989, “General Design Croteroa,” DOE Order 6430.1A.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990a, “General Environmental Protection Program,” DOE Order 

5400.1.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990b, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment,” 

DOE Order 5400.5.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990c, “Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection 

Program for DOE Operations,” DOE Order 5480.1B.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990d, “Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers,” DOE 

Order 5480.11.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990e, “Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection 

Information Reporting Requirements,” DOE Order 5484.1.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991a, “Quality Assurance,” DOE Order 5700.6C.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991b, “Environmental Monitoring Plan, Nevada Test Site and 

Support Facilities,” Report DOE/NV/10630-28, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991c, “Environmental Regulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent 

Monitoring and Environmental Surveillance,” Report DOE/EH-0173T, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1994, “United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 through September 

1992,” Report DOE/NV-209 (Revision 14), Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.
References, cont.

R-6

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996a, “Nevada Test Site, Site Treatment Plan,” Report 

DOE/NV-397, Rev. 2, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996b, “Shaft and Tunnel Nuclear Detonations at the Nevada Test 

Site: Development of a Primary Database for Estimation of Potential Interactions with the

Regional Groundwater System,” Report DOE/NV-464, Nevada Operations Office,

Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996c, “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test 

Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada,” Report DOE/EIS-0243, Nevada Operations

Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996d, “Underground Test Area Subproject Waste Management 

Plan,” Report DOE/NV-343, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997a, “Work Acceptance Process,” Nevada Operations Office, 

Procedural Instruction NV PI 97-005.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997b, “Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations 

Information,” DOE Order O232.1A, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997c, “Completion Report for Well Cluster ER-20-5,” Report 

DOE/NV-466, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997d, “Siting Criteria for Protection of Groundwater at the Nevada 

Test Site,” Nevada Operations Office, Procedural Instruction NV PI 97-001.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998a, “Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan,” Report

DOE/NV-11718-244, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998b, “Semi-annual Report of the Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Management, Quality Assessment Program,” Report EML-596, QAP 48,

Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, New York, NY.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998c, “Semi-annual Report of the Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Management, Quality Assessment Program,” Report EML-600, QAP 49,

Environmental Monitoring Laboratory, New York, NY.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998d, “Nevada Operations Office Annual Site Environmental

Report - 1997,” DOE/NV/11718-231, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, “RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical 

Enforcement Guidance Document,” Report OSWER-9950.1, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, “Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air 

Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Ingestion, and Submersion,”

Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA/520/1-88/020, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992, “User's Guide for CAP88-PC, Version 1.0,” Report

402-B-92-001, Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas Facility, Las Vegas, NV.
References, cont.

R-7

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996, “Quality Management Plan ,” Report EPA/600/X96-024, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, “Quality Assurance Program Plan for the Center for

Environmental Restoration, Monitoring, and Emergency Response and the Center for

Radioanalysis and Quality Assurance for the Offsite Environmental Monitoring Program,” Office

of Radiation and Indoor Air, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996, “Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Nevada Test Site 

Activities,” File No. 1-5-96-F-33, Nevada State Office, Reno, Nevada.

U.S. Public Health Service, 1963, “Project SEDAN, Final Off-Site Report,” AEC Report PNE-200F, 

Off-Site Radiological Safety Organization, U.S Public Health Service, Las Vegas, NV.

U.S. Public Health Service, 1966, “Final Report of Off-Site Surveillance for the SALMON Event of 

Project DRIBBLE,” Report VUF-1021, Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory, Las 

Vegas, NV.

White, G. C., D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham and D. L. Otis, 1982, “A Capture-Recapture and 

Removal Methods for Sampling Closed Populations,” Report LA-8787-NERP, Los Alamos

National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

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. 

Woodward, R., K. Rautenstrauch, D. Hall, and K. Ostler, 1998, The Abundance of Desert 

Tortoises on the Nevada Test Site Within Ecological Landform Units,” Report 

DOE/NV/11718--245, Bechtel Nevada, Inc., Las Vegas, NV.
D-1

DISTRIBUTION LIST

DOE/HQ

Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs (DP-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health (EH-1 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (10)

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Military Application (DP-2 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Development (DP-10 FORS), U.S. Department 

 of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning, Policy, & Budget (EM-20 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, MD 20585 (3)

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Support (DP-40 GTN), U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20545 (3)

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Waste Management (EM-30 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Director, Office of RD&T Facilities (DP-13 GTN), U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown 

Road, Germantown, MD 20545

Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Technical and Environmental Support (DP-45 GTN),

U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20545 (2)

Director, Air, Water and Radiation Division (EH-42 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (10)

Director, Office of Energy Research (ER-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Associate Director, Office of Health and Environmental Research (ER-70 GTN), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20545

Director, Office of Field Management (FM-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585

Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW-1 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585
Distribution, cont.

D-2

DOE/NV

Manager, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, P. O. Box 98518,

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Deputy Manager, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, P. O. Box 98518,

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Office of Chief Counsel, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, P. O. Box 98518,

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Assistant Manager for Technical Services, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department

of Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department

of Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department

of Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Assistant Manager for Business & Financial Services, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department

of Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Office of Public Affairs and Information, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (2)

Director, Waste Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Deputy Assistant Manager for Technical Services, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department

of Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Environment, Safety and Health Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Environmental Restoration Division, Nevada Operations Office, Nevada Operations Office,

U.S. Department of Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

R. Furlow, Environment, Safety and Health Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. 

Department of Energy, P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Technology Development Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Stockpile Stewardship Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy,

P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Emergency Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Director, Site Operations Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Mercury, 

NV 89023, M/S 701
Distribution, cont.

D-3

EPA

Candice Bellamy, Waste Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105 (10)

Director, Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, P. O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8517, M/S 513

Deputy Director, Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&IE), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, P. O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8517, M/S 513

Director, Center for Environmental Restoration, Monitoring and Emergency Response, R&IE-LV,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P. O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8517, M/S 513

Anita A. Mullen, Center for Environmental Restoration, Monitoring, and Emergency Response, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, P. O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8517, M/S 513 

Departments of Environment and Health

Heather Elliott, Nevada State Clearinghouse, Capitol Complex, 209 E. Musser St.,

Carson City, NV 89710 (15)

Director, Environmental Improvement Division, Department of Health and Environment, 1190 

Saint Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87503

Director, Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control Division, Department of Health, 4210 E. 

11th Avenue, Denver, CO 80220

Director, Bureau of Radiation and Occupational Health, 288 N. 1460 West, P. O. Box 

16690, Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690

Director, Division of Air Quality, State Department of Health, 150 N. 1950 West, 

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Director, Health Department, 88 E. Fiddlers Canyon, Suite 8, Cedar City, UT 84720

Chief, Department of Health and Social Services, Radiological Health Program, P. O. Box H-02, 

Juneau, AK 99811

Director, Santa Barbara Health Care Services, 315 Camino Del Remedio, Santa Barbara, CA 

93110

Director, Division of Radiological Health, State Board of Health, P. O. Box 1700, Jackson, MS 

39215-1700

LANL

C. F. Eberhart, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P. O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 

87545, M/S F670 (2)

D. L. Finnegan, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P. O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 

87545, M/S J514
Distribution, cont.

D-4

H. G. Jenkins, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P. O. Box 0, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 900 (3)

LLNL

R. C. Higgs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P. O. Box 45, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 777

J. M. Haeberlin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P. O. Box 45, Mercury, NV 89023, 

M/S 777

SNL

D. D. Thompson, Sandia National Laboratories, P. O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023,

M/S NTS944 (2)

James H. Metcalf, Sandia National Laboratories, P. O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023,

M/S NTS944

Roger Smith, Sandia National Laboratories, P. O. Box 871, Tonopah, NV 89023

S. E. Lacy, Sandia National Laboratories, P. O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-0184

DTRA

L. J. Ashbaugh, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, P. O. Box 98539, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, 

M/S 573

DRI

Colleen M. Beck, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

M/S 505

David Shafer, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120,

M/S 505 (3)

Russ Collison, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

DRI M/S 505

Marg Herndon, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

DRI M/S 505

IT

Mary L. Brown, International Technology Corporation, P. O. Box 93838, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-3838, M/S NLV439 (3)

BN

Manager, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV001

Manager, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV

89193-8521, M/S NLV102 (2) 
Distribution, cont.

D-5

Manager, Waste Management Program, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV080

Robert F. Grossman, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS279 

O. L. Haworth, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NTS110

R. R. Kinnison, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV082

D. Linkenheil, Waste Management Program, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV080

D. A. Nichols, Defense and Civil Projects, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV103

W. K. Ostler, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P. O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 

89193-8521, M/S NLV081

LIBRARIES

Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Technical Center, U.S. Department of Energy,

P. O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 (2)

Technical Information Resource Center, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

P. O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505

Public Reading Facility, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, P. O. Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, NLV040

UNLV Library Government Documents, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, P. O. Box 457013, 

Las Vegas, NV 89154-7013

UNR Getchell Library, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557-0044

Alamo Branch Library, P. O. Box 239, Alamo, NV 89001

Amargosa Valley Library District, HCR 69, P. O. Box 401-T, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020

Beatty Library District, P. O. Box 129, Beatty, NV 89003

Boulder City Library District, 813 Arizona Street, Boulder City, NV 89005

Caliente Branch Library, P. O. Box 306, Caliente, NV 89009

Goldfield Public Library, P. O. Box 430, Goldfield, NV 89013

Henderson District Public Library, 280 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015

Indian Springs Library, P. O. Box 629, Indian Springs, NV 89018
Distribution, cont.

D-6

Lincoln County Library, P. O. Box 330, Pioche, NV 89043

Moapa Valley Library, P. O. Box 397, Overton, NV 89040

Pahrump Library District, 2101 E. Calvada Boulevard, Pahrump, NV 89048

Tonopah Library District, P. O. Box 449, Tonopah, NV 89049

White Pine County Library, 950 Campton Street, Ely, NV 89301

Cedar City Public Library, 136 W. Center Street, Cedar City, UT 84720-2597

Delta City Library, 76 N. 200 W. Delta, UT 84624-9440

Milford Public Library, P. O. Box 579, Milford, UT 84751-0579

Washington County Library, 50 S. Main, Street George, UT 84770-3490

CTLP

Clark M. Hardy, P. O. Box 394, Alamo, NV 89001

Dell Sullivan, P. O. Box 182, Alamo, NV 89001

Michelle R. DeLee, HCR 69, Box 264, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020

John C. Lisle, P. O. Box 357, Beatty, NV 89003

Richard A. Johnson, P. O. Box 626, Beatty, NV 89003

Bradford M. Benson, 606 Lake Superior Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005

Brent H. Perkins, P. O. Box 495, Caliente, NV 890087

Donald Newman, 141 Sunbow, Cedar City, UT 84720

Thomas S. Judd, 850 North 500 W., Delta, UT 84624

Beverly Jean DeWyze, P. O. Box 295, Delta, UT 84624

Diane Shimp, P. O. Box 9, Goldfield, NV 89013

Charles R. Meek, 3228 La Mancha Way, Henderson, NV 89014

Kenneth F. McFate, P. O. Box 373, Indian Springs, NV 89018

Don M. Curry, 8207 Burnt Sienna, Las Vegas, NV 89123

David J. Peltz, 311 Queensbridge Way, Henderson, NV 89014

Dale E. Jenson, 402 West 500 S, Box 25, Milford, UT 84751
Distribution, cont.

D-7

Morden Leon Guy, P. O. Box 369, Milford, UT 84751

Nicklas J. Bowler, P. O. Box 368, Logandale, NV 89021

Jack W. Nelson, P. O. Box 232, Logandale, NV 89021

Albert J. Gillannotti, P. O. Box 145, Pahrump, NV 89041

Ruth Agee, Star Route, Box 52, Alamo, NV 89001

Scott Mortenson, 143 S. Main, St. George, UT 84770

Curt Walker, 239 South 169 E., Ivins, UT 84738

Mark E. Howard, P. O. Box 935, Tonopah, NV 89049 

Ted Charles Sauvageau, P. O. Box 1674, Tonopah, NV 89049

Miscellaneous

Douglas Trudeau, Water Resources Division USGS, 6770 S. Paradise Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89119

M/S 582

Michael Dwyer, Las Vegas District Manager BLM, 4765 Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89108

J. R. Dryer, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, 1551 Hillshire Dr., Suite A, 

Las Vegas, NV 89134

Richard Martin, Superintendent, Death Valley National Monument, P. O. Box 579,

Death Valley, CA 92328

Richard Birger, Project Leader, Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1500 N. Decatur,

Las Vegas, NV 89108

E. W. Chew, U.S. Department of Energy, 785 Doe Place, Idaho Falls, ID 83402, M/S 4149

Environmental Protection Department, Mason and Hanger, Silas-Mason Co., Inc., Pantex

Plant, P. O. Box 30020, Amarillo, TX 79177

E. A. Hopper USAF/EV, 4551 Devlin Drive, Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, NV 89191-6828

Ann-Marie Choephel, Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, P. O. Box 1767, 

Tonopah, NV 89049

Steve Deandi, Western Governmental Association, 223 Old P. O. Road, Boulder, CO 80302

Diane Watson, Waste Policy Institute, Savannah River Research Campus, 227 Gateway Drive,

Aiken, SC 29803

Roy Clifford, Stone Cabin Ranch, P. O. Box 48, Tonopah, NV 89040

Joe and Sue Fallini, Twin Springs Ranch, HC 76, Box 1100, Tonopah, NV 89040
Distribution, cont.

D-8

Mike Heizer, Complex 1, P. O. Box 33, Hiko, NV 89017

Steve Medlin, Medlin Ranch, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001

Norman Sharp, Nyala Ranch, HC 76, Box 900, Tonopah, NV 89040

Joan Terrell, Sarcobatus Flat Ranch, P. O. Box 454, Goldfield, NV 89013

Helen Uhalde, Uhalde Ranch, P. O. Box 88, Ely, NV 89301

Wayne Bliss, Professional Analysis, Inc., Las Vegas, NV 89030, M/S 422

Dong Phung, Professional Analysis, Inc., Las Vegas, NV 89030, M/S 422