Disclaimer 

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

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

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

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. 

Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their 

contractors, subcontractors or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal 

liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any third party's use or the results of such use of any 

information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, 

manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or 

favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors. The views 

and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

Government or any agency thereof. 

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

Available for sale to the public from: 

 U.S. Department of Commerce 

 National Technical Information Service 

 5285 Port Royal Road 

 Springfield, VA 22161-0002 

 Telephone: (800) 553-6847 

 Fax: (703) 605-6900 

 E-mail: orders@ntis.gov

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

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

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

 U.S. Department of Energy 

 Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

 P.O. Box 62 

 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

 Telephone: (865) 576-8401 

 Fax: (865) 576-5728 

 E-mail: reports@adonis.osti.gov

Front cover: Bristlecone pine, Pahute Mesa, date unknown 
DOE/NV/11718--971 

Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report 2003 

Senior Author: Cathy A. Wills 

Technical Editor: Angela L. McCurdy 

October 2004 

Work Performed Under 

Contract No. DE-AC08-96NV11718 

Prepared for: 

U. S. Department of Energy 

National Nuclear Security Administration 

Nevada Site Office 

Prepared by: 

Bechtel Nevada 

Post Office Box 98521 

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

Preface 

In 2003, the Annual Site Environmental Report for the Nevada Test Site (NTS) was reformatted to improve 

readability, reduce redundancy, satisfy U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Headquarters guidance on style and 

content, and better consolidate compliance status information. It was also renamed the Nevada Test Site Environmental 

Report 2003 (NTSER). Noticeably absent this year is an Introduction section which formerly included a description of 

the NTS and its environment, the NTS mission, and history of the site. The environmental description of the site was 

expanded to include climatology and cultural resources and was placed in a stand-alone appendix. A description of 

NTS missions and its history were placed in the Executive Summary. There are five major portions or divisions of 

the NTSER. The summary below is provided so the reader can see the overall organization and content of the report. 

Summary of Sections 

Executive Summary – This portion of the report is meant to provide the reader with: (1) the purpose of the 

NTSER, (2) the current mission and history of the NTS, (3) a description of possible radiological dose pathways to 

the public, (4) a description of any radiological releases, (5) the estimated radiological dose to the public resulting from 

site operations, (6) a description of any non-radiological releases from the site, (7) a summary of any environmental 

incidents of noncompliance that occurred during the year and actions taken in response to them, (8) a description of 

the management system used to ensure that work is conducted in compliance with environmental and public health 

protection, and (9) a summary of any significant environmental program or effort. 

Compliance Summary – The purpose of this portion (Section 1.0) of the NTSER is to: (1) present those federal, 

state, and local environmental regulations which govern how operations are conducted on the NTS in order to ensure 

that the environment and the public are protected; (2) present in tabular form a concise summary of how NTS 

operations complied with these regulations during the year; and (3) direct the reader to subsequent sections of this 

NTSER where environmental activities and programs are described in more detail. This section is divided into 

multiple subsections based on the type of regulations presented (e.g., water quality regulations are presented in a 

separate subsection from historic preservation regulations). There are a total of 12 sections within the Compliance 

Summary (Sections 1.1 – 1.12), the last section being a list of all active environmental permits. 

Environmental Monitoring and Compliance Activities – This portion constitutes the main body of the NTSER. 

It is divided into multiple sections (Sections 2.0 – 12.0) which present the reporting year’s environmental compliance 

activities related to monitoring and protecting the public, air, water, biota, cultural resources, and sensitive species and 

ecosystems on the NTS. These are the sections of the NTSER which are specifically referenced in the Compliance 

Summary, Section 1.0 and which support the compliance determinations presented in summary tabular form in 

Section 1.0. They include: 

• Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring – presents the methods and results of monitoring 

radioactive air emissions and non-radioactive air emissions (e.g., other air pollutants) on the NTS which are a 

result of past and present NTS operations. 

• Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring – presents the methods and results of monitoring 

radionuclides in surface water and groundwater both on and off the NTS and of monitoring the water quality 

of drinking water and waste water systems on the NTS. 
 ii

• Direct Radiation Monitoring – presents the methods and results of monitoring direct radiation at selected 

areas on the NTS which may expose the public or non-radiological workers on the NTS to external doses of 

radiation that are a result of NTS operations. 

• Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water – presents the methods and results of monitoring 

radioactive air emissions and radionuclides in surface, groundwater, and private and municipal water supplies 

within communities surrounding the NTS. This monitoring is conducted by the Community Environmental 

Monitoring Program (CEMP) operated by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) of the University and 

Community College System of Nevada. 

• Biota Monitoring – presents the methods and results of monitoring radionuclide concentrations in tissues 

of NTS game animals and in vegetation for the purpose of estimating radiological dose to NTS biota and for 

estimating dose to humans from the consumption of NTS game animals. 

• Radiation Dose Assessment – presents the methods and results of calculating the annual 2003 radiological 

dose to the public within an 80 km (50 mi) radius of the NTS which is a result of exposure from all pathways 

including air, water, and the consumption of NTS game animals. Also presents the methods and results of 

assessing radiological dose to NTS terrestrial and aquatic biota resulting from NTS operations. 

• Waste Management and Environmental Restoration – presents a description of NTS operations related 

to the management of low level radioactive waste, mixed waste, transuranic waste, and hazardous waste; the 

annual status of these operations; and vadose zone monitoring at the Radioactive Waste Management 

Complex. It also presents the annual clean-up, safe closure, and post-closure monitoring activities at historic 

sites on and off the NTS contaminated by nuclear and non-nuclear DOE, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) operations. 

• Hazardous Materials Control and Management – presents the actions taken to safely manage and use 

regulated hazardous/toxic materials on the NTS. 

• Pollution Prevention – presents a description of activities pursued during the year to meet federal pollution 

prevention goals in the arena of waste volume and toxicity reduction. 

• Historic Preservation – presents the methods and results of field surveys, inventories, historical evaluations, 

and consultations between NNSA/NSO and NTS-affiliated American Indian tribes for the purpose of 

managing cultural resources on the NTS according to federal and state regulations. 

• Ecological Monitoring – presents the methods and results of field monitoring and compliance activities 

related to protecting federal and state-protected species, monitoring sensitive species and habitats, ecosystem 

mapping, restoration of disturbed habitat, and evaluating and monitoring impacts of NTS operations on biota 

and the environment. 

Supportive Environmental Programs and Activities – This portion of the NTSER presents descriptions of other 

programs or activities which support environmental regulatory compliance by providing either: (1) theoretical or 

empirical data necessary to design effective monitoring networks and to properly interpret monitoring data, (2) an 

administrative framework by which environmental protection is integrated into routine NTS operations, or (3) quality 

assurance support for all sample collection and analytical analyses. Sections 13.0 – 18.0 are included in this portion of 

the NTSER and include the following: 

• Underground Test Area Project 

• Hydrologic Resources Management Program 

• Meteorological Monitoring 

• Environmental Management System 

• Compliance Quality Assurance Program 

• Oversight Quality Assurance Program 
 iii

Appendices – This portion of the NTSER includes four appendices: 

• Appendix A: NTS Description – provides descriptive information about the setting and environment of 

the NTS. Considerable emphasis is given to the geohydrology of the NTS because if its importance in 

understanding the complexities of modeling and monitoring the impacts of past underground nuclear testing 

on groundwater resources. 

• Appendix B: Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities – describes environmental compliance activities 

conducted during the year at the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), the Cheyenne Facility in Las Vegas, and 

the Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) at Nellis Air Force Base. 

• Appendix C: Helpful Information – includes tables of radiological measurement units, radiological 

nomenclature, and explanations of several data reporting concepts such as measurement uncertainty and 

negative concentration values encountered in the body of the report. 

• Appendix D: Glossary – provides a list of technical terms used in this document which may be unfamiliar 

to the general public.

• Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations 

Report Distribution 

This report is physically distributed in both hard-copy format as a bound document and in electronic format as a 

compact disk-read only memory (CD-ROM). The electronic format is also accessible on the Internet at 

<http://www.osti.gov/bridge>. 
 iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 v

Acknowledgements 

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

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

organizations in addition to ETS: Ecological Compliance, Waste Management, Waste Operations, Environmental 

Restoration, Ecological Services, Health Physics, Procurement, and Program Integration. The Water Resources and 

Cultural Resources divisions of the Desert Research Institute (DRI) contributed data for offsite water and air 

monitoring and cultural resource protection. Thanks go to the numerous authors and contributors from these 

organizations that are listed below. Bob Arnold of BN Technical Publications and Graphics Services composed the 

layout of the front cover and section dividers in the document. DOE NNSA/NSO and W. Kent Ostler of BN 

Ecological Services provided the images used in the section dividers. Elaine Upson, Angela McCurdy and Barrett 

Shaw of BN Technical Publications and Graphics Services provided technical editing support. Tom Fitzmaurice of 

BN Environmental Restoration provided graphic arts support. Don Van Etten and Bruce Hurley are acknowledged 

for their encouragement and support throughout the major reformatting efforts involved in producing this report. 

A very special “thank you” is due to three individuals whose dedication and commitment to this project were greatly 

appreciated. They are Angela McCurdy, technical editor responsible for formatting this document many times over; 

Ashley Cushman, specialist in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) who produced, also many times over, the 

GIS-generated maps and figures; and Dennis Hansen, senior scientist, who provided assistance at the eleventh-hour 

for technical review, editing, and compilation of the document. 

Authors and Contributors

Executive Summary

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

1.0 Compliance Summary

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

 Phyllis M. Radack, BN 

 Carlton Soong, BN 

 Coby Moke, BN 

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

 Madelyn A. Hayes, BN 

 Teresa M. Morgan, BN 

 Dennis L. Gustafson, BN 

 Paul K. Ortego, BN 

 Alfred J. Karnes, BN 

 Jeffrey L. Smith, BN 

 Douglas K. Clark, BN 

 Cirilo C. Gonzales, BN 

 Karen E. Williams, BN 

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

2.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological

 Air Monitoring

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

3.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological

 Water Monitoring

 Frederick S. Nawrocki, BN 

 David B. Hudson, BN 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

 Phyllis M. Radack, BN 

 Carlton Soong, BN 

 Coby Moke, BN 

4.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

5.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring

 of Air and Water

 William T. Hartwell, DRI 

 Craig Shadel, DRI 

 Charles E. Russell, DRI 

6.0 Radiological Biota Monitoring

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

7.0 Radiological Dose Assessment

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 
 vi

8.0 Waste Management and

 Environmental Restoration

 David D. Madsen, BN 

 Douglas K. Clark, BN 

 Karen E. Williams, BN 

 Shaugn A. Burnison, BN 

 Cirilo C. Gonzales, BN 

 Jeffey L. Smith, BN 

 Gary M. Romano, Stoller-Navarro 

 Frederick S. Nawrocki, BN 

9.0 Hazardous Materials Control and

 Management

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

 Coby P. Moke, BN 

 Madelyn A. Hayes, BN 

 

10.0 Pollution Prevention

 Alfred J. Karnes, BN 

11.0 Historic Preservation and Cultural

 Resources Management

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

12.0 Ecological Monitoring

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

13.0 Underground Test Area Project

 Sigmund L. Drellack, BN 

14.0 Hydrologic Resources Management

 Program

 Bruce W. Hurley, NNSA/NSO 

15.0 Meteorological Monitoring

 Darryl Randerson, ARL-SORD 

16.0 Environmental Management System

 Orin L. Haworth, BN 

17.0 Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 Jerry J. Dugas, BN 

 Theodore J. Redding, BN 

18.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program

 Craig Shadel, DRI 

Appendix A: NTS Description

 Robert F. Grossman, BN 

 Brian M. Allen, BN 

 Sigmund L. Drellack, BN 

 Darryl Randerson, ARL-SORD 

 Cathy A. Wills, BN 

 Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

Appendix B: NTS Satellite Facilities

 Sigmund L. Drellack, BN 

 Carlton Soong, BN 

 Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

 Ronald W. Warren, BN 

Appendix C: Helpful Information 

 Modified from Hanford Site 1997 

 Environmental Report 

Appendix D: Glossary 

 Modified from Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory 2003 

Environmental Report 

Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations

Cathy A. Wills, BN
Table of Contents

 vii

Table of Contents 

Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................i 

 Summary of Sections.........................................................................................................................................i 

 Report Distribution..........................................................................................................................................iii 

Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................................................v 

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

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

List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................................xxi

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

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

NTS Mission and History ..........................................................................................................................ES-1 

Pathways by Which the Public can be Exposed to NTS Radiation.....................................................ES-4 

2003 Offsite Radiological Air Emissions.................................................................................................ES-4 

Onsite Radiological Air Emissions...........................................................................................................ES-7 

Offsite Radiological Monitoring of Groundwater................................................................................ES-10 

Onsite Radiological Monitoring of Water .............................................................................................ES-13 

Radiation Dose to the Public by Air Pathways.....................................................................................ES-14 

Radiation Dose to the Public by Air and Wildlife Pathways ..............................................................ES-16 

Non-Radiological Onsite Air Emissions................................................................................................ES-18 

Onsite Non-Radiological Discharges into Water .................................................................................ES-18 

Accidental or Unplanned Environmental Releases or Occurrences .................................................ES-18 

The NTS Environmental Management System....................................................................................ES-19 

Significant Environmental Accomplishments.......................................................................................ES-20 

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

1.1 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................................1-1 

1.1.1 Applicable Regulations.......................................................................................................1-1 

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

 Air Pollutants (NESHAP)....................................................................................1-1 

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

 CAA, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) ......................................................1-2 

 CAA, Stratospheric Ozone Protection ............................................................................1-2 

 Other NTS Air Quality Permit Requirements................................................................1-2 

1.1.2 Compliance Status...............................................................................................................1-2 

1.1.3 Compliance Issues ..............................................................................................................1-2 

1.1.4 Compliance Reports ...........................................................................................................1-3 

1.2 Water Quality and Protection ........................................................................................................1-3 

1.2.1 Applicable Regulations.......................................................................................................1-3 

 Clean Water Act (CWA) ....................................................................................................1-3 

 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) ...................................................................................1-3 

 Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A: Water Controls (Public 

 Water Systems).......................................................................................................1-3 

 NAC 444 and 445A: Water Controls (Water Pollution Control) ...............................1-4 

 NAC 534: Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulations for Water 

 Well and Related Drilling .....................................................................................1-4 

1.2.2 Compliance Status...............................................................................................................1-4 

1.2.3 Out-of-Compliance Incidents...........................................................................................1-4

 Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001................................................1-4 

1.2.4 Compliance Reports ...........................................................................................................1-4 
Table of Contents

 viii

1.3 Radiation Protection.........................................................................................................................1-4 

1.3.1 Applicable Regulations.......................................................................................................1-4 

 Clean Air Act (CAA), 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, National Emission 

 Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).......................................1-4 

 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) ...................................................................................1-5 

 DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the 

 Environment”........................................................................................................1-5 

 DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002............................................................................1-5 

 DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management” ................................................1-5 

 DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program”..........................................1-5 

1.3.2 Compliance Status...............................................................................................................1-5 

1.3.3 Compliance Reports ...........................................................................................................1-5 

1.4 Waste Management and Environmental Restoration..................................................................1-6 

 1.4.1 Applicable Regulations.......................................................................................................1-6 

 10 CFR 830: Nuclear Safety Management .....................................................................1-6 

 DOE Order 435.1, "Radioactive Waste Management”.................................................1-6 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ......................................................1-6 

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

 Liability Act (CERCLA)/ Superfund Amendments and 

 Reauthorization Act (SARA) ...............................................................................1-7 

 Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA)........................................................................1-7 

 Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO)........................................1-7 

 40 CFR Subchapter I, Parts 239-299: Solid Wastes .......................................................1-7 

 NAC 444.570-7499 – Solid Waste Disposal ...................................................................1-7 

1.4.2 Compliance Status...............................................................................................................1-7 

1.4.3 Out-of-Compliance Incidents...........................................................................................1-7

1.4.4 Compliance Reports ...........................................................................................................1-7 

1.5 Hazardous Materials Control and Management ..........................................................................1-8 

1.5.1 Applicable Regulations.......................................................................................................1-8 

 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)............................................................................1-8 

 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)............................................1-8 

 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) .......................1-8 

 NAC Chapter 555 – Control of Insects, Pests and Noxious Weeds (NAC 555)......1-9 

 NAC Chapter 444 – Polychlorinated Biphenyl ..............................................................1-9 

 State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act ...............................................1-9 

1.5.2 Compliance Status...............................................................................................................1-9 

1.5.3 Compliance Reports ...........................................................................................................1-9 

1.6 Environmental Impact Analysis .....................................................................................................1-9 

1.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act.................................................................................1-9 

1.6.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................1-10 

1.7 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization ..........................................................................1-10 

1.7.1 Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................................1-10 

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)......................................1-10 

 Executive Order (EO) 13101, “Greening the Government through 

 Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition” ................................1-10 

 DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program”........................................1-10 

 Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Hazardous 

 Waste Permit Number NEV HW009 ..............................................................1-10 
Table of Contents

 ix

 Secretary of Energy’s Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency 

 Leadership Goals.................................................................................................1-11 

1.7.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................1-11 

1.7.3 Compliance Issues ............................................................................................................1-11 

1.7.4 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................1-11 

1.8 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Protection..........................................................1-11 

1.8.1 Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................................1-11 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966..................................................................1-11 

 Executive Order 11593 Protection and Enhancement of the 

 Cultural Environment.........................................................................................1-12 

 Archeological Resources and Protection Act of 1979.................................................1-12 

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 .......................................................1-12 

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990..........................1-12 

1.8.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................1-12 

1.8.3 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................1-13 

1.9 Conservation and Protection of Biota and Wildlife Habitat....................................................1-13 

1.9.1 Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................................1-13 

 Endangered Species Act...................................................................................................1-13 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ...............................................................................................1-13 

 Bald Eagle Protection Act ...............................................................................................1-13 

 Clean Water Act, Section 404, Wetlands Regulations .................................................1-13 

 National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act...............................................................1-13 

 Executive Order (EO) 11990 Protection of Wetlands................................................1-13 

 EO 11988 Floodplain Management...............................................................................1-14 

 EO 13186 Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect 

 Migratory Birds....................................................................................................1-14 

 EO 13112 Invasive Species .............................................................................................1-14 

 Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act ....................................................................1-14 

 Five-Party Cooperative Agreement................................................................................1-14 

 State of Nevada Protective Measures for Wildlife (Nevada 

 Administrative Code [NAC] 503.010-503.104)...............................................1-14 

 State of Nevada Protection of Flora (NAC 527.270) ..................................................1-14 

1.9.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................1-14 

1.9.3 Out-of-Compliance Incidents.........................................................................................1-14 

1.9.4 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................1-15 

1.10 Environmental Management System...........................................................................................1-15 

1.10.1 Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................................1-15 

 EO 13148, “Greening the Government through Leadership in 

 Environmental Management” ...........................................................................1-15 

 DOE Order 450.1 “Environmental Protection Program” .........................................1-15 

1.10.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................1-15 

1.10.3 Compliance Reports .........................................................................................................1-15 

1.11 Occurrence Reporting/Releases...................................................................................................1-15 

1.11.1 Applicable Regulations.....................................................................................................1-15 

1.11.2 Compliance Status.............................................................................................................1-16 

1.11.3 Continuous Releases.........................................................................................................1-16 

1.12 Summary of Permits.......................................................................................................................1-16 
Table of Contents

 x

2.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring .................................................................................2-1 

2.1 Radiological Air Monitoring............................................................................................................2-1 

2.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures......................................................................................2-1 

2.1.2 Methods................................................................................................................................2-2 

 2.1.2.1 Monitoring System Design...................................................................................2-2 

 2.1.2.2 Air Particulate and Tritium Sampling.................................................................2-4 

 2.1.2.3 Data Quality ...........................................................................................................2-5 

 2.1.2.4 Data Reporting ......................................................................................................2-5 

2.1.3 Results ..............................................................................................................................2-5 

 2.1.3.1 Environmental Samplers......................................................................................2-5 

 2.1.3.1.1 Americium-241 ...................................................................................2-6 

 2.1.3.1.2 Cesium-137..........................................................................................2-7 

 2.1.3.1.3 Plutonium Isotopes ............................................................................2-8 

 2.1.3.1.4 Uranium Isotopes.............................................................................2-12 

 2.1.3.1.5 Tritium................................................................................................2-13 

 2.1.3.1.6 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta ..........................................................2-15 

 2.1.3.2 Critical Receptor Samplers.................................................................................2-19 

 2.1.3.3 Point-Source (Stack) Sampler............................................................................2-19 

2.1.4 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................2-19 

2.2 Non-Radiological Air Quality Assessment .................................................................................2-20 

2.2.1 Goals and Compliance Measures....................................................................................2-20 

2.2.2 Methods..............................................................................................................................2-20 

 2.2.2.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants ...........2-21 

 2.2.2.2 Production Rates/Hours of Operation............................................................2-21 

 2.2.2.3 Opacity Readings.................................................................................................2-21 

 2.2.2.4 HSC Reporting ....................................................................................................2-21 

 2.2.2.5 TaDD Reporting .................................................................................................2-22 

 2.2.2.6 ODS Recordkeeping...........................................................................................2-22 

 2.2.2.7 Asbestos Abatement ...........................................................................................2-22 

2.2.3 Results ................................................................................................................................2-22 

 2.2.3.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants ...........2-22 

 2.2.3.2 Production Rates/Hours of Operation............................................................2-24 

 2.2.3.3 Opacity Readings.................................................................................................2-24 

 2.2.3.4 HSC Reporting ....................................................................................................2-24 

 2.2.3.5 TaDD Reporting .................................................................................................2-25 

 2.2.3.6 ODS Recordkeeping...........................................................................................2-25 

 2.2.3.7 Asbestos Abatement ...........................................................................................2-25 

 2.2.4 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................2-25 

3.0 Water Quality Assessment ............................................................................................................................3-1 

3.1 Radiological Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring........................................................3-1 

3.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures......................................................................................3-1 

3.1.2 Methods................................................................................................................................3-4 

 3.1.2.1 Monitoring Locations ...........................................................................................3-4 

 3.1.2.2 Water Sampling/Analysis.....................................................................................3-4 

 3.1.2.3 Data Quality ...........................................................................................................3-7 

 3.1.2.4 Data Reporting ......................................................................................................3-7 

3.1.3 Results ..................................................................................................................................3-7 

 3.1.3.1 Offsite Wells...........................................................................................................3-7 
Table of Contents

 xi

 3.1.3.2 Offsite Springs.......................................................................................................3-7 

 3.1.3.3 NTS Potable Water Supply Wells .......................................................................3-9 

 3.1.3.4 NTS Monitoring Wells .........................................................................................3-9 

 3.1.3.5 NTS E Tunnel Ponds.........................................................................................3-13 

 3.1.3.6 NTS Sewage Lagoons.........................................................................................3-15 

3.1.4 UGTA Wells......................................................................................................................3-15 

3.1.5 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................3-17 

3.2 Non-Radiological Drinking Water and Wastewater Monitoring.............................................3-17 

3.2.1 Goals ................................................................................................................................3-17 

3.2.2 Drinking Water Monitoring.............................................................................................3-17 

 3.2.2.1 Methods................................................................................................................3-17 

 3.2.2.2 Results ..................................................................................................................3-20 

3.2.3 Domestic Wastewater Monitoring..................................................................................3-21 

 3.2.3.1 Methods................................................................................................................3-21 

 3.2.3.2 Results ..................................................................................................................3-21 

3.2.4 Industrial Wastewater.......................................................................................................3-21 

 3.2.4.1 Methods and Results...........................................................................................3-21 

 3.2.4.1.1 Quarterly Analysis of Influent Water Quality...............................3-23 

 3.2.4.1.2 Annual Analysis of Toxicity of Sewage Lagoon 

 Pond Waters.......................................................................3-24 

 3.2.4.1.3 Annual Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Wells 

 Associated With Sewage Lagoons..................................................3-25 

 3.2.4.1.4 Sewage System Inspections.............................................................3-25 

4.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring ........................................................................................................................4-1 

4.1 Goals and Compliance Measures ...................................................................................................4-1 

4.2 Methods .............................................................................................................................................4-2 

4.2.1 TLD Locations....................................................................................................................4-2 

4.2.2 Data Quality.........................................................................................................................4-2 

4.2.3 Data Reporting....................................................................................................................4-4 

4.3 Results ...............................................................................................................................................4-4 

4.3.1 Potential Exposure to the Public along the NTS Boundary.........................................4-7 

4.3.2 Exposure Rates at Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs) ..........................4-7 

 4.3.2.1 Area 3 RWMS........................................................................................................4-8

 4.3.2.2 Area 5 RWMS........................................................................................................4-8

4.3.3 Exposure Rates From NTS Operational Activities .......................................................4-9 

4.3.4 Exposure to NTS Plants and Animals...........................................................................4-10 

4.3.5 Exposure Rate Patterns in the Environment over Time ............................................4-10 

4.4 Environmental Impact...................................................................................................................4-11 

5.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water ..............................................................................5-1 

5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................5-1 

5.2 Historical Background .....................................................................................................................5-1 

5.3 Monitoring Activities .......................................................................................................................5-2 

5.4 Public Outreach ................................................................................................................................5-3 

5.5 Participants ........................................................................................................................................5-4 

5.6 2003 Offsite Air Monitoring...........................................................................................................5-4 

5.6.1 Air Particulate Sampling Results.......................................................................................5-7 

 5.6.1.1 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta Results .................................................................5-7 
Table of Contents

 xii

 5.6.1.2 Gamma Spectroscopy Results...........................................................................5-10 

 5.6.1.3 TLD Results.........................................................................................................5-10 

 5.6.1.4 PIC Results...........................................................................................................5-11 

5.6.2 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................5-13 

5.7 Offsite Surface and Groundwater Monitoring...........................................................................5-14 

5.7.1 Sample Locations and Methods......................................................................................5-14 

5.7.2 Procedures and Quality Assurance.................................................................................5-14 

5.7.3 Results of Surface Water Monitoring from Springs.....................................................5-17 

5.7.4 Results of Groundwater Monitoring..............................................................................5-17 

5.7.5 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................5-17 

6.0 Radiological Biota Monitoring .....................................................................................................................6-1 

6.1 Biota Monitoring Goals and Measures..........................................................................................6-1 

6.2 Biota Monitoring Design.................................................................................................................6-1 

6.2.1 Species Selection .................................................................................................................6-1 

6.2.2 Site Selection........................................................................................................................6-2 

6.3 Sampling Methods............................................................................................................................6-2 

6.3.1 Plants ..................................................................................................................................6-4 

6.3.2 Animals.................................................................................................................................6-4 

6.4 Results ...............................................................................................................................................6-7 

6.4.1 Plants ..................................................................................................................................6-7 

6.4.2 Animals.................................................................................................................................6-7 

6.5 Environmental Impact...................................................................................................................6-10 

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

7.1 Radiological Dose to the Public .....................................................................................................7-1 

7.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures......................................................................................7-1 

7.1.2 Methods................................................................................................................................7-1 

 7.1.2.1 Determining Human Exposure Pathways.........................................................7-1 

 7.1.2.2 Identifying Onsite Sources and Radionuclide Air Emission Rates................7-2 

 7.1.2.3 Calculating Dose to Humans from NTS Air Emissions.................................7-2 

 7.1.2.4 Calculating Dose to Humans from Ingestion of Wild Game 

 from the NTS...........................................................................................7-5 

7.1.3 Results ..................................................................................................................................7-6 

 7.1.3.1 Total Offsite Dose to the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)..................7-6 

 7.1.3.2 Collective Population Dose .................................................................................7-7 

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

7.2.1 Goals and Compliance Measures......................................................................................7-8 

7.2.2 Methods and Results ..........................................................................................................7-9 

 7.2.2.1 Data Assembly.......................................................................................................7-9 

 7.2.2.2 General Screening: Level 1 Screen....................................................................7-12 

 7.2.2.3 Site-Specific Screening: Level 2 Screen ............................................................7-12 

 7.2.2.4 Site-Specific Analysis ..........................................................................................7-16 

 7.2.2.5 Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment ...............................................................7-16 

7.2.3 Environmental Impact .....................................................................................................7-17 

8.0 Waste Management and Environmental Restoration ...............................................................................8-1 

8.1 Radioactive Waste Management.....................................................................................................8-1 

8.1.1 Program Goal ......................................................................................................................8-1 
Table of Contents

 xiii

8.1.2 Description of Operations.................................................................................................8-1 

 8.1.2.1 Characterization of LLW and MW.....................................................................8-1 

 8.1.2.2 Disposal of LLW and MW...................................................................................8-2 

 8.1.2.3 TRU Waste Operations........................................................................................8-3 

 8.1.2.4 Maintenance of Key Documents ........................................................................8-3 

 8.1.2.5 Assessments ...........................................................................................................8-3 

 8.1.2.6 Environmental Monitoring..................................................................................8-3 

8.1.3 2003 Activities and Status..................................................................................................8-4 

 8.1.3.1 Characterization of LLW and MW.....................................................................8-4 

 8.1.3.2 Disposal of LLW and MW...................................................................................8-4 

 8.1.3.3 TRU Waste Operations........................................................................................8-4 

 8.1.3.4 Maintenance of Key Documents ........................................................................8-4 

 8.1.3.5 Assessments ...........................................................................................................8-5 

 8.1.3.6 Environmental Monitoring..................................................................................8-5 

 8.1.3.6.1 Area 3 RWMS Drainage Lysimeter Facility ....................................8-5 

 8.1.3.6.2 Area 5 RWMS Weighing Lysimeter Facility ...................................8-6 

 8.1.3.6.3 Area 5 RWMS Automated Monitoring ...........................................8-6 

 8.1.3.6.4 RWMS Supplemental Automated Monitoring...............................8-6 

8.2 Hazardous Waste Management......................................................................................................8-6 

8.3 Underground Storage Tank (USTs) Management.......................................................................8-7 

8.4 Environmental Restoration - Remediation of Historic Contaminated Sites ...........................8-7 

8.4.1 Program Goal ......................................................................................................................8-7 

8.4.2 Description of Operations.................................................................................................8-8 

 8.4.2.1 Corrective Action Strategy...................................................................................8-8 

 8.4.2.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections.........................................................8-9 

8.4.3 2003 Activities and Status..................................................................................................8-9 

 8.4.3.1 Corrective Actions.................................................................................................8-9

 8.4.3.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections.......................................................8-12 

8.5 Solid/Sanitary Waste Management..............................................................................................8-12 

8.5.1 Description of Operations...............................................................................................8-12 

8.5.2 2003 Activities ...................................................................................................................8-13 

9.0 Hazardous Materials Control and Management........................................................................................9-1 

9.1 Goals and Compliance Measures ...................................................................................................9-1 

9.2 Methods and 2003 Activities...........................................................................................................9-1 

9.2.1 TSCA Program....................................................................................................................9-1 

9.2.2 FIFRA Program ..................................................................................................................9-2 

9.2.3 EPCRA Program.................................................................................................................9-2 

9.2.4 Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act..............................................................9-2 

10.0 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization........................................................................................10-1 

10.1 P2 and WM Goals and Components...........................................................................................10-1 

10.2 Major P2/WM Accomplishments in 2003..................................................................................10-2 

10.3 Waste Generation in 2003 Compared To Prior Years..............................................................10-2 

10.4 Waste Reductions in 2003 Compared To Prior Years..............................................................10-4 

10.5 Secretary of Energy’s P2/WM Leadership Goals......................................................................10-5

11.0 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management..................................................................11-1 

11.1 Cultural Resources Surveys, Inventories, Historic Evaluations, and Associated Activities.11-1 
Table of Contents

 xiv

11.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures....................................................................................11-1 

11.1.2 Methods..............................................................................................................................11-1 

11.1.3 Results ................................................................................................................................11-2 

11.1.4 Reports ...............................................................................................................................11-3 

11.2 Curation............................................................................................................................................11-4 

11.2.1 Goals and Requirements..................................................................................................11-4 

11.2.2 Ongoing Activities ............................................................................................................11-4 

11.3 American Indian Program.............................................................................................................11-5 

11.3.1 Goals ................................................................................................................................11-5 

11.3.2 2003 Activities ...................................................................................................................11-5 

12.0 Ecological Monitoring.................................................................................................................................12-1 

12.1 Desert Tortoise Compliance Program.........................................................................................12-1 

12.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures....................................................................................12-1 

12.1.2 Methods..............................................................................................................................12-3 

12.1.3 Results ................................................................................................................................12-3 

12.1.4 Other Significant Activities Related to Desert Tortoise Compliance .......................12-4 

 Field Sampling to Update NTS Tortoise Abundance Map ........................................12-4 

 Preparation of Habitat Revegetation Plan for Tortoise Habitat................................12-4 

 Field Sampling to Update NTS Tortoise Abundance Map ........................................12-4 

12.2 Biological Surveys...........................................................................................................................12-4 

12.2.1 Goals and Compliance Measures....................................................................................12-4 

12.2.2 Methods..............................................................................................................................12-7 

12.2.3 Results ................................................................................................................................12-8 

12.3 Sensitive Species and Habitat Monitoring ..................................................................................12-9 

12.3.1 Goals and Measures..........................................................................................................12-9 

12.3.2 2003 Activities ...................................................................................................................12-9 

12.4 Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program.................................................................................12-13 

12.4.1 Goals and Measures........................................................................................................12-13 

12.4.2 2003 Activities .................................................................................................................12-14 

12.5 Biological Monitoring of the HSC.............................................................................................12-14 

12.5.1 Goals and Measures........................................................................................................12-14 

12.5.2 Methods............................................................................................................................12-15 

12.5.3 Results ..............................................................................................................................12-15 

13.0 Underground Test Area Project.................................................................................................................13-1 

13.1 New Drilling....................................................................................................................................13-1 

13.2 Aquifer Tests...................................................................................................................................13-2 

13.3 Groundwater Sampling..................................................................................................................13-2 

13.4 Geophysical Studies........................................................................................................................13-2 

13.5 3D Hydrostratigraphic Framework Models................................................................................13-2

14.0 Hydrologic Resources Management Program .........................................................................................14-1 

14.1 Program Goals ................................................................................................................................14-1 

14.2 Program Activities ..........................................................................................................................14-1 

14.2.1 Hydrology and Radionuclide Investigations for Operations......................................14-1 

14.2.2 Long-Term Groundwater Stewardship..........................................................................14-2 

15.0 Meteorological Monitoring .........................................................................................................................15-1 
Table of Contents

 xv

15.1 Meteorological Monitoring Goals................................................................................................15-1 

15.2 MEDA Station Locations..............................................................................................................15-1 

15.3 MEDA Station Instrumentation ..................................................................................................15-1 

15.4 Rain Gauge Network .....................................................................................................................15-3 

15.5 Data Access .....................................................................................................................................15-3 

16.0 Environmental Management System.........................................................................................................16-1 

17.0 Compliance Quality Assurance Program..................................................................................................17-1 

17.1 Data and Measurement Quality Objectives................................................................................17-1 

17.1.1 Precision .............................................................................................................................17-1 

17.1.2 Accuracy.............................................................................................................................17-2 

17.1.3 Representativeness............................................................................................................17-2 

17.1.4 Comparability ....................................................................................................................17-2 

17.2 Sampling Plan..................................................................................................................................17-2 

17.2.1 Sample Packages................................................................................................................17-2 

17.2.2 Database Support..............................................................................................................17-3 

17.2.3 Training ..............................................................................................................................17-3 

17.3 Laboratory Sample Analyses.........................................................................................................17-3 

17.3.1 Procurement ......................................................................................................................17-3 

17.3.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment.................................................................................17-4 

17.3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan................................................................................17-4 

 17.3.3.1 LQAP Requirements.......................................................................................17-5 

 17.3.3.2 LQAP Management Responsibilities ............................................................17-5 

 17.3.3.3 Additional Subcontract Requirements..........................................................17-5 

17.4 Data Management Procedures......................................................................................................17-7 

17.5 Data Review and Systematic Assessments..................................................................................17-7 

17.5.1 Data Checks.......................................................................................................................17-7 

17.5.2 Data Verification...............................................................................................................17-8 

17.5.3 Data Validation..................................................................................................................17-8 

17.5.4 Data Quality Assessment.................................................................................................17-8 

17.6 Results .............................................................................................................................................17-8 

17.6.1 Field Duplicates.................................................................................................................17-8 

17.6.2 Laboratory Control Samples ...........................................................................................17-9 

17.6.3 Blank Analysis..................................................................................................................17-10 

17.6.4 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies ............................................................................17-11 

18.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP..................................................................................18-1 

18.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs).................................................................................................18-1 

18.2 Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs).................................................................................18-1

18.3 Sampling QA Program...................................................................................................................18-1 

18.4 Laboratory QA Oversight .............................................................................................................18-2 

18.4.1 Procurement ......................................................................................................................18-2 

18.4.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment.................................................................................18-2 

18.4.3 Laboratory QA Program..................................................................................................18-3 

18.5 Data Review.....................................................................................................................................18-3 

18.6 QA Program Assessments.............................................................................................................18-4 

18.7 2003 Sample QA Results...............................................................................................................18-4 

18.7.1 Field Duplicates (Precision).............................................................................................18-4 
Table of Contents

 xvi

18.7.2 Laboratory Control Samples (Accuracy) .......................................................................18-5 

18.7.3 Blank Analysis....................................................................................................................18-5 

18.7.4 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies ..............................................................................18-5 

A 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 xvii

List of Tables 

Table 1-1 NTS compliance status with applicable air quality regulations ...................................................1-17 

Table 1-2 NTS compliance status with applicable water quality and protection regulations ...................1-18 

Table 1-3 NTS compliance status with regulations for radiation protection of the 

public and the environment..............................................................................................................1-20 

Table 1-4 NTS compliance status with applicable waste management and environmental 

restoration regulations.......................................................................................................................1-21 

Table 1-5 NTS compliance status with applicable regulations for hazardous substance 

control and management ..................................................................................................................1-23 

Table 1-6 NTS NEPA compliance activities conducted in 2003 .................................................................1-24

Table 1-7a NTS compliance status with applicable pollution prevention/waste minimization 

regulations ...........................................................................................................................................1-25 

Table 1-7b NTS compliance status with the Secretary of Energy’s pollution prevention and 

energy efficiency leadership goals....................................................................................................1-26 

Table 1-8 NTS compliance status with historic preservation regulations ...................................................1-27 

Table 1-9 NTS compliance status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations.........................1-28 

Table 1-10 NTS compliance status with Environmental Management System regulations.......................1-30 

Table 1-11 Environmental occurrences on the NTS in 2003 .........................................................................1-31 

Table 1-12 Environmental permits required for NTS operations..................................................................1-32 

Table 2-1 Regulatory concentration limits for radionuclides in air ................................................................2-4 

Table 2-2 Concentrations of Am-241 in air samples collected in 2003.........................................................2-6 

Table 2-3 Concentrations of Cs-137 in air samples collected in 2003...........................................................2-7 

Table 2-4 Concentrations of Pu-238 in air samples collected in 2003...........................................................2-8 

Table 2-5 Concentrations of Pu-239+240 in air samples collected in 2003 ...............................................2-10 

Table 2-6 Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2003 .......................................2-12 

Table 2-7 Ratios of uranium isotopes in air samples collected near NTS locations where 

uranium was detected above the MDC ..........................................................................................2-13 

Table 2-8 Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2003 .........................................................2-14 

Table 2-9 Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2003...........................................................2-16 

Table 2-10 Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2003.............................................................2-17 

Table 2-11 Sum of percents of compliance levels for radionuclides detected at critical receptor 

samplers...............................................................................................................................................2-19 

Table 2-12 Tons of criteria air pollutant emissions released on the NTS in 2003 .......................................2-23 

Table 2-13 Tons of air pollutants released on the NTS since 1995 ...............................................................2-24 

Table 2-14 Pounds of chemicals released during tests conducted in 2003 at the HSC...............................2-25 

Table 3-1 Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite wells in 2003..............................3-8 

Table 3-2 Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite springs in 2003..........................3-9 

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

 supply wells...........................................................................................................................................3-10 

Table 3-4 Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring 

 wells in 2003 ........................................................................................................................................3-11 

Table 3-5 Detectable concentrations of radium isotopes in NTS monitoring wells 

sampled in 2003 ...................................................................................................................................3-13 
Table of Contents

 xviii

Table 3-6 Radiological results for E Tunnel Pond effluent pertaining to Water Pollution 

 Control Permit .....................................................................................................................................3-13 

Table 3-7 Routine radiological water monitoring results for E-Tunnel Ponds in 2003..............................3-14 

Table 3-8 Tritium water monitoring results for NTS sewage lagoons in 2003 ............................................3-15 

Table 3-9 Water quality monitoring parameters and sampling design for NTS public drinking 

water sytems .........................................................................................................................................3-19 

Table 3-10 Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2003 ..........................3-20 

Table 3-11 Water quality analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon influent waters in 2003..........................3-23 

Table 3-12 Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2003...............................3-24 

Table 3-13 Groundwater analysis results for NTS groundwater monitoring well SM-23-1 in 2003 .........3-25 

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

Table 4-2 Summary statistics for annual direct radiation exposure by TLD location type ..........................4-7 

Table 5-1 Gross alpha results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2003..............................5-7 

Table 5-2 Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2003................................5-8 

Table 5-3 TLD monitoring results for CEMP offsite stations in 2003.........................................................5-10

Table 5-4 PIC monitoring results for CEMP offsite stations in 2003...........................................................5-12 

Table 5-5 Average natural background radiation for selected U.S. cities (excluding radon)......................5-13 

Table 5-6 CEMP water monitoring locations sampled in 2003......................................................................5-15 

Table 5-7 Tritium analysis results for offsite surface water samples in 2003 ...............................................5-17 

Table 5-8 CEMP water monitoring results for offsite wells in 2003 .............................................................5-18 

Table 6-1 Plant species sampled at Palanquin Crater and Palanquin Control Site in 2003 ..........................6-4 

Table 6-2 Radionuclide concentrations in NTS plants sampled in 2003 ........................................................6-8 

Table 6-3 Radionuclide concentrations in NTS animals sampled in 2003......................................................6-9 

Table 7-1 Radiological atmospheric releases from NTS for CY 2003 used in theCAP88-PC model ........7-3 

Table 7-2 Hypothetical dose to a human consuming mourning doves or pronghorn antelope 

from the NTS.........................................................................................................................................7-6 

Table 7-3 Radiological dose to the general public from 2003 NTS operations .............................................7-8 

Table 7-4 Summary of DOE’s process for evaluating radiation dose to aquatic and terrestrial ...............7-10 

Table 7-5 Results of the Level 1 Screen of dose evaluation areas (DEAs) on the NTS.............................7-13 

Table 7-6 Results of the Level 2 Screen of dose evaluation areas (DEAs) on the NTS.............................7-15 

Table 7-7 Site-specific dose assessment results for terrestrial plants and animals sampled on 

the NTS.................................................................................................................................................7-17 

Table 8-1 Hazardous waste stored or disposed at the NTS in 2003................................................................8-7 

Table 8-2 Environmental restoration activities conducted in 2003 ...............................................................8-10 

Table 8-3 Quantity of solid wastes disposed in NTS landfills in CY 2003...................................................8-13 

Table 10-1 Volume of radioactive waste generated by year ..............................................................................10-3 

Table 10-2 Mass of hazardous waste generated by year ....................................................................................10-3 

Table 10-3 Mass of solid waste generated by year..............................................................................................10-3 

Table 10-4 Volume of waste reduced through P2/WM activities by year......................................................10-4 

Table 10-5 Volume of waste reduced through P2/WM activities in 2003......................................................10-4 
Table of Contents

 xix

Table 11-1 Summary data for cultural resources surveys, inventories, and historic evaluations 

 conducted in 2003................................................................................................................................11-3 

Table 11-2 Short reports, historical evaluations, technical reports, and letter reports 

 prepared in 2003 ..................................................................................................................................11-4 

Table 11-3 Culturally affiliated tribes and organizations in the CGTO...........................................................11-5 

Table 12-1 Land-disturbing projects conducted in desert tortoise habitat in 2003 .......................................12-3 

Table 12-2 Sensitive plants which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS ......................................12-5 

Table 12-3 Sensitive reptiles and birds which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS...................12-6 

Table 12-4 Sensitive mammals which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS................................12-7 

Table 12-5 Summary of 2003 biological survey results......................................................................................12-8 

Table 12-6 Number of migratory bird deaths reported on the NTS in 2003...............................................12-12 

Table 17-1 Summary of field duplicate samples for compliance monitoring in 2003...................................17-9 

Table 17-2 Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for compliance monitoring in 2003 ................17-9 

Table 17-3 Summary of laboratory blank samples for compliance monitoring in 2003.............................17-10 

Table 17-4 Summary of interlaboratory comparison samples of the subcontract radiochemistry 

 laboratories for compliance monitoring in 2003...........................................................................17-11

Table 17-5 Summary of interlaboratory comparison TLD samples for the subcontract dosimetry 

 group in 2003......................................................................................................................................17-12 

Table 18-1 Summary of field duplicate samples for oversight monitoring in 2003.......................................18-4 

Table 18-2 Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for oversight monitoring in 2003 ....................18-5 

Table 18-3 Summary of laboratory blank samples for oversight monitoring in 2003...................................18-5 

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

laboratory for oversight monitoring in 2003 ...................................................................................18-6 

Table 18-5 Summary of interlaboratory comparison TLD samples of the subcontract 

dosimetry group for compliance monitoring in 2003 ....................................................................18-6 
Table of Contents

 xx

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Table of Contents

 xxi

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1 Radiological air sampling network on the NTS in 2003 ..................................................................2-3 

Figure 2-2 Concentrations of Am-241 in air samples collected in 2003...........................................................2-7 

Figure 2-3 Concentrations of Pu-239+240 in air samples collected in 2003 .................................................2-11 

Figure 2-4 Average long-term trends in airborne Pu-239+240 by location on the NTS.............................2-11 

Figure 2-5 Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2003 ...........................................................2-14 

Figure 2-6 Average long-term trends in tritium at locations on the NTS having at least 7 years 

 of data....................................................................................................................................................2-15 

Figure 2-7 Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2003 ............................................................2-18 

Figure 2-8 Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2003 ..............................................................2-18 

Figure 3-1 Areas of potential groundwater contamination on the NTS...........................................................3-2 

Figure 3-2 2003 RREMP groundwater monitoring locations on and off the NTS........................................3-5 

Figure 3-3 2003 RREMP surface water monitoring locations on and off the NTS .......................................3-6 

Figure 3-4 Concentrations of tritium in wells with a history of detectable levels .........................................3-12 

Figure 3-5 Wells recently drilled or sampled for the UGTA Project ..............................................................3-16 

Figure 3-6 Drinking water system on the NTS ..................................................................................................3-18 

Figure 3-7 Active permitted sewage disposal systems on the NTS.................................................................3-22 

Figure 4-1 Location of TLDs on the NTS............................................................................................................4-3 

Figure 4-2 Average annual net exposure rates at the Area 3 RWMS during 2003..........................................4-8 

Figure 4-3 Average annual exposure rates at the Area 5 RWMS during 2003.................................................4-9 

Figure 4-4 Annual exposure rates at Background and E1 locations on the NTS in 2003 .............................4-9 

Figure 4-5 Trend in direct radiation exposure measured at TLD locations with at least 

 eleven-year data histories....................................................................................................................4-10 

Figure 5-1 2003 CEMP Air Surveillance Network ..............................................................................................5-5 

Figure 5-2 CEMP station at Beatty, Nevada.........................................................................................................5-6 

Figure 5-3 Historical trend for gross alpha analysis for all CEMP stations .....................................................5-8 

Figure 5-4 Historical trend for gross beta analysis for all CEMP stations .......................................................5-9 

Figure 5-5 Historical Trend for TLD Analysis for All CEMP Stations..........................................................5-11 

Figure 5-6 The effect of meteorological phenomena on background gamma readings...............................5-13 

Figure 5-7 2003 CEMP water monitoring locations ..........................................................................................5-16

Figure 6-1 Radiological biota monitoring sites on the NTS...............................................................................6-3 

Figure 6-2 Palanquin Crater biota sampling site...................................................................................................6-5 

Figure 6-3 Palanquin Control biota sampling site................................................................................................6-5 

Figure 6-4 E Tunnel Ponds biota sampling site...................................................................................................6-6 

Figure 7-1 Map of the NTS showing annual CEDEs within 80 km of emission sources.............................7-4 

Figure 7-2 Radiation dose to MEI offsite who is not consuming game animals from the NTS..................7-5 

Figure 7-3 Comparison of radiation dose to MEI and the natural radiation background............................7-7 

Figure 7-4 Terrestrial and aquatic dose evaluation areas for assessing potential dose to biota...................7-11 

Figure 7-5 Results of Level 1 and Level 2 Screens for dose evaluation areas on the NTS..........................7-14 

Figure 12-1 Desert tortoise distribution and abundance on the NTS and locations of clearance 

surveys conducted in 2003 .................................................................................................................12-2 
Table of Contents

 xxii

Figure 12-2 Sensitive plant populations monitored on the NTS in 2003.......................................................12-10 

Figure 12-3 Sites monitored on the NTS for bat use in 2003 and roost site designations ..........................12-11 

Figure 12-4 Number of wild horses observed by age category........................................................................12-12 

Figure 12-5 Number of bird deaths recorded on the NTS by year and by cause..........................................12-13 

Figure 15-1 Example of a typical MEDA station with 10 meter tower............................................................15-1 

Figure 15-2 MEDA station locations on and near the NTS...............................................................................15-2 

Figure 15-3 Climatological rain gauge network on the NTS..............................................................................15-4 

Executive Summary

 ES-1

ES Executive Summary 

The Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2003 was prepared by Bechtel Nevada (BN) to meet the requirements and 

guidelines of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the information needs of the public. This report is meant to 

be useful to members of the public, public officials, regulators, and Nevada Test Site (NTS) contractors. The 

Executive Summary strives to present in a concise format the purpose of the document, the NTS mission and major 

programs, a summary of radiological releases and doses to the public resulting from site operations, a summary of 

non-radiological releases, and an overview of the NTS Environmental Management System. The Executive Summary, 

combined with the following Compliance Summary, are written to meet all the objectives of the report and to be 

stand-alone sections for those who choose not to read the entire document. 

 

Objectives of the NTS Environmental Report 

BN prepares this document to satisfy DOE Order 231.1A, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting”. The 

objectives of this report are to: 

• Report compliance status with environmental standards and requirements 

• Present results of environmental monitoring of radiological and nonradiological effluents 

• Report estimated radiological doses to the public from releases of radioactive material 

• Summarize environmental incidents of noncompliance reported during the year and actions taken in response to 

them 

• Describe the NTS Environmental Management System and characterize its performance 

• Highlight significant environmental programs and efforts 

NTS Mission and History 

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

directs the management and operation of the NTS and auxiliary sites across the nation. The NTS is located about 105 

kilometers (65 miles) northwest of Las Vegas. The 3,496 square kilometer (1,350 square mile) site is one of the largest 

secured areas in the United States. It is surrounded by federal installations with strictly controlled access and by 

public lands that are open to public entry. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National 

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

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

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

NTS and its seven auxiliary sites (North Las Vegas Facility, Cheyenne Facility, Remote Sensing Laboratory – Nellis, 

Remote Sensing Laboratory – Andrews, Livermore Operations, Los Alamos Operations, and Special Technologies 

Laboratory) all provide support to enhance the NTS as a site for weapons experimentation and nuclear test readiness. 

The three major NTS programs include: (1) Stockpile Stewardship, (2) National Security Response Program and 

Operations, and (3) Environmental Management. During the conduct of all programs, the NNSA/NSO complies 

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

the NTS as a unique and valuable national resource. 
Executive Summary

 ES-2

The history of the NTS, as well as its current missions, directs the focus 

and design of the environmental monitoring and surveillance activities on 

and near the site. Between 1940 and 1950, the area now known as the 

NTS was under the jurisdiction of Nellis Air Force Base and was part of 

the Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range. The NTS was established in 

1951 to be the primary location for testing the nation’s nuclear explosive 

devices and supported nuclear testing from 1951 to 1992. The NTS 

currently conducts only subcritical nuclear experiments. 

Tests conducted through the 1950s were predominantly atmospheric tests. 

These tests involved a nuclear explosive device detonated while on the 

ground surface, on a steel tower, suspended from tethered balloons, 

dropped from an aircraft, or placed on a rocket. Several tests were 

categorized as "safety experiments”, and “storage-transportation tests”, 

involving the destruction of a nuclear device with non-nuclear explosives. 

Some of these tests resulted in dispersion of plutonium in the test vicinity. 

One of these test areas lies just north of the NTS boundary at the south 

end of the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) (formerly known as 

Nellis Air Force Range), and four others involving transport/storage 

safety, are at the north end of the NTTR. All nuclear device tests are 

listed in United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992 

(DOE, 2000). 

The first underground test, a cratering test, was conducted in 1951. The 

first totally-contained underground test was in 1957. Testing was 

discontinued during a moratorium that began October 31, 1958, but was 

resumed in September 1961 after tests by the Union of Soviet Socialist 

Republics began. Since late 1962, nearly all tests have been conducted in 

sealed vertical shafts drilled into Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa or in 

horizontal tunnels mined into Rainier Mesa. From 1951 to 1992, a total 

of 828 underground nuclear tests were conducted at the NTS. 

Approximately one third of these tests were detonated near or below the 

water table and has resulted in the contamination of groundwater in some 

areas. In 1996, the DOE, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the 

state of Nevada entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent 

Order (FFACO) which established Corrective Action Units (CAUs) on 

the NTS that delineated and defined areas of concern for groundwater 

contamination. 

Five earth-cratering (shallow-burial) tests were conducted over the period 

of 1962 through 1968 as part of the Plowshare Program that explored 

peaceful uses of nuclear explosives. The first and largest Plowshare crater 

test, Sedan (PHS, 1963) was detonated at the northern end of Yucca Flat on the NTS. The second largest crater test 

was Schooner, located in the northwest corner of the NTS. From these tests, mixed fission products, tritium, and 

plutonium were entrained in the soil ejected from the craters and deposited on the ground surrounding the craters. 

Other nuclear-related tests and experiments at the NTS have included the Bare Reactor Experiment - Nevada series in 

the 1960s. These tests were performed with a 14-MeV neutron generator mounted on a 465-meter (1,530-feet) steel 

tower used to conduct neutron and gamma-ray interaction studies on various materials. From 1959 through 1973, a 

series of open-air nuclear reactor, nuclear engine, and nuclear furnace tests were conducted in Area 25, and a series of 

tests with a nuclear ramjet engine were conducted in Area 26. Mostly gaseous radioactivity (radio-iodines, radioNTS Programs and Missions 

Stockpile Stewardship – The primary 

mission of this program is to conduct 

high-hazard operations in support of 

defense-related nuclear and national 

security experiments and to maintain 

the capabilities to resume underground 

nuclear weapons testing, if directed. 

National Security Response 

Program and Operations – The goal 

of this program is to provide support 

facilities, training facilities, and 

capabilities for government agencies 

involved in counterterrorism activities, 

emergency response, first responders, 

national security technology 

development, and nonproliferation 

technology development. 

Environmental Management – This 

program includes Waste Management 

and Environmental Restoration. The 

goals of this programs are to manage 

and safely dispose of low-level waste 

received from DOE and 

DoD-approved facilities throughout 

the United States and mixed low-level 

waste generated in Nevada by DOE 

Nevada Site Office operations, safely 

manage and characterize for offsite 

disposal hazardous and transuranic 

wastes, characterize and remediate the 

environmental legacy of nuclear 

weapons and other testing at the NTS 

and at offsite locations, and develop 

and deploy technologies that enhance 

environmental restoration. 
Executive Summary

 ES-3

The NTS and Vicinity
Executive Summary

 ES-4

xenons, radio-kryptons) and some fuel particles were released due to erosion of the metal cladding on the reactor fuel 

resulting in negligible deposition on the ground. 

NTS activities in 2003 continue to be diverse, with the primary role being to help ensure that the existing United 

States stockpile of nuclear weapons remains safe and reliable. Facilities that support this mission include the U1a 

Facility, Big Explosives Experimental Facility (BEEF), the Device Assembly Facility (DAF), and Joint Actinide Shock 

Physics Experimental Research (JASPER) Facility. Other NTS activities include demilitarization activities; controlled 

spills of hazardous material at the Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC); remediation of industrial sites; processing 

of waste destined for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad, New Mexico; disposal of radioactive and 

mixed waste; and environmental research. In addition, there are continued efforts to bring other business to the NTS, 

like aerospace and alternative energy technologies and support of U.S. Department of Homeland Security National 

Center for Combating Terrorism work. 

Pathways by Which the Public can be 

Exposed to NTS Radiation 

Man-made radiation from NTS operations has the potential to 

reach the public. Such radiation includes radioactive elements 

called radionuclides which emit alpha, beta, or gamma radiation, 

or a combination of these types of radiation. A pathway outlines 

the route which radionuclide contaminants may follow to reach 

the general public. They may enter the local environment by air 

or water and reach humans through inhalation of particulates or 

water vapor, absorption through the skin, or through ingestion of 

water (i.e., drinking water). Radiolonuclides released into the air 

or water can also pass through the soil, plants, or wildlife and 

reach humans through ingestion of crops and game animals, or 

through direct external exposure. The primary pathways of 

radiation exposure to the public in the dry desert environment 

around the NTS include: (1) air and wind transport via 

resuspension of surface contamination from legacy sites (historic 

sites), (2) movement through groundwater from sites of 

underground nuclear tests or buried waste, and (3) ingestion of 

contaminated game animals. The NNSA/NSO environmental 

monitoring programs conducted on and near the NTS are 

designed to focus on these three primary exposure pathways. 

2003 Offsite Radiological Air Emissions 

An important component of the NTS monitoring program when 

demonstrating compliance with radiological air emission and 

water quality standards off the NTS (offsite), is an oversight 

monitoring program run by an organization independent of the 

M&O contractor. This oversight monitoring is performed under 

the Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) 

Forms of Radiation 

Alpha – heavy, positively charged particles given 

off by atoms of elements such as uranium. Can 

be simply washed off the skin. It can be blocked 

by a sheet of paper. It enters the body through 

cuts, breathing, food, or water.

Beta – consists of electrons. More penetrating 

than alpha radiation, beta electrons can pass 

through several millimeters of skin. A sheet of 

aluminum only a fraction of an inch thick will 

stop beta radiation.

Gamma – a form of electromagnetic radiation, 

similar to x-rays, light and radiowaves which are 

very penetrating. Can readily pass into the 

human body. Can be almost completely blocked 

by about 40 inches of concrete, 40 feet of water, 

or a few inches of lead.

X-rays – a more familiar form of 

electromagnetic radiation, usually with a limited 

penetrating power. Typically used in medical or 

dental examinations. Television sets, especially 

color, give off soft x-rays; thus, they are shielded 

to greatly reduce the risk of radiation exposure.

Neutrons – uncharged heavy particles contained 

in the nucleus of every atom heavier than 

hydrogen. They induce ionization only indirectly 

in atoms which they strike, but can damage body 

tissues. Neutrons, which are released, for 

example during the fission (splitting) of uranium 

atoms in the fuel of nuclear power plants, can 

also be very penetrating. In general, efficient 

shielding against neutrons can be provided by 

water.
Executive Summary

 ES-5

and is coordinated by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) of the University and Community College System of 

Nevada under contract with NNSA/NSO. Its purpose is to provide monitoring for radionuclides which may be 

released from the NTS. A network of 26 CEMP stations, located in selected towns and communities within 240 miles 

(mi) (386 kilometers [km]) from the NTS, were operated continuously during 2003. The CEMP stations monitored 

gross alpha and beta radioactivity in airborne particulates using low-volume particulate air samplers, penetrating 

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

chamber detectors (PICs), and meteorological parameters using automated weather instrumentation. 

In 2003, no airborne radioactivity related to historic or current NTS operations was detected in any of the samples 

from the CEMP particulate air samplers. Gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity was detected at all CEMP stations 

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

materials. No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected. Naturally-occurring radioactive beryllium (7B) 

was detected in most air particulate samples. 

Potential Dose Pathways to the Public 
Executive Summary

 ES-6

Potential Sources of Radiological Air Emissions on the NTS
Executive Summary

 ES-7

The TLD and PIC detectors measured gamma radiation 

from all sources: natural background radiation from 

cosmic or terrestrial sources and man-made sources. 

The offsite TLD and PIC results remained consistent 

with previous years’ background levels and are well 

within average background levels observed in other parts 

of the United States. The highest total annual gamma 

exposure measured offsite was 180.76 mR/yr at Milford, 

Utah. The lowest offsite gamma exposure rate measured 

was 69.03 mR/yr in Pahrump, Nevada. 

Onsite Radiological Air Emissions 

The potential for radioactive air emissions on the NTS is 

due to operations involving radioactive materials and to 

legacy soil contamination from past nuclear tests. 

Therefore, continuous onsite radiological sampling of air 

is conducted and reported annually by BN to assure the 

public and regulatory agencies that the emissions are safe and in compliance with state and federal regulations. A 

network of 21 air sampling stations (six having low-volume particulate air samplers, two having tritium water vapor 

samplers, and 13 having a combination of both), and a network of 107 TLDs were used to monitor NTS radioactive 

emissions in 2003. The 2003 monitoring results were also used, in conjunction with U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA)-approved mathematical models, to calculate the radiological dose to the public residing within 80 km 

(50 mi) of the NTS. 

The monitoring results indicate that there were minimal radioactive air emissions in 2003 from only one NTS facility: 

CP-50 in Area 6. A total of 0.00019 Ci of tritium gas was released at CP-50 during the calibration of laboratory 

equipment. No radioactivity was detected above minimum detectable concentrations (MDCs) in any of the samples 

collected from the JASPER Facility stack. No radiological releases occurred at U-1a or DAF, and no increasing 

trends in the concentrations of man-made radionuclides were detected from air samples collected nearest these 

facilities. 

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

radioactivity was observed at any station. The highest average gross alpha and gross beta activities were seen at 

U3ah/at, a low level radioactive bulk waste disposal cell located in a subsidence crater in Yucca Flat, and at Guard 

Station 510, located in Jackass Flats at the southwest entrance to the NTS, respectively. The lowest average gross 

alpha and beta activities were measured at Gate 20-2p located in Area 20, 2.7 mi (4.3 km) south-southeast of 

Schooner. 

Direct gamma radiation exposure to the public from NTS operations in 2003 was negligible. Areas accessible to the 

public (e.g., the parking lot for commercial trucks outside the NTS entrance gate) had exposure rates which were 

equal to natural background rates. Radionuclide contamination at legacy sites has resulted in localized elevated 

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

The highest exposure rate at monitored locations was 959 mR/yr at Schooner, one of the legacy Plowshare sites on 

Pahute Mesa. The 16 TLD stations that monitor the Radioactive Waste Management Complex in Areas 3 and 5 

showed a mean gross gamma exposure rate of 149 mR/yr and ranged from 104 to 466 mR/yr. The public is not 

allowed unsupervised access to these sites. 

Average Background Radiation of 

Selected U.S. Cities 

(Excluding Radon)

City 

Radiation 

Exposure 

(mR/yr) 

Denver, Colorado 164.6 

Fort Worth, Texas 68.7 

Los Angeles, California 73.6 

New Orleans, Louisiana 63.7 

Portland, Oregon 86.7 

Richmond, Virginia 64.1 

Rochester, New York 88.1 

St. Louis, Missouri 87.9 

Tampa, Florida 63.7 

Wheeling, West Virginia 111.9 

Source: < http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp/Radiation.html> 

 “Radiation in Perspective,” August 1990, as accessed on 9/20/2004 
Executive Summary

 ES-8

Range in Radioactivity/Radiation Levels 

Measured at Onsite and Offsite Air Sampling Stations 

 Average Gross Alpha Average Gross Beta Total Gamma Exposure Rate 

 x 10-15 μCi/mL x 10-15 μCi/mL mR/yr 

 

Offsite 

(CEMP) 

Onsite 

 (BN) 

Offsite 

(CEMP) 

Onsite 

(BN) 

Offsite 

(CEMP)(a) 

Onsite 

(BN)(b) 

 

Highest 

Average 

Value 

3.2 

(Boulder City) 

6.40 

(U3ah/at) 

27.4 

(Boulder City)

20.77 

(Guard Station 

510) 

181 

(Milford, Utah) 

959 

(Schooner) 

 

Lowest 

Average 

Value 

1.1 

(Nyala Ranch) 

2.73 

(Gate 20-2P) 

19.6 

(Nyala Ranch)

17.11 

(Gate 20-2P) 

69 

(Pahrump) 

63 

(Entrance Gate) 

 

(a) based on PIC detectors; (b) based on TLDs 

Several man-made radionuclides were measured in air samples at levels above their MDCs in 2003: 241Am, 137Cs, 3H 

(tritium), 238Pu, and 239+240Pu. They were all attributed to the resuspension of contamination in surface soils from 

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

sites. The highest levels of 241Am and 137Cs were detected at Bunker 9-300, a vacant building located within an area of 

known soil contamination from past nuclear tests. The highest levels of tritium were detected at Schooner, site of the 

second-largest Plowshare cratering experiment on the NTS where tritium-infused ejecta surrounds the crater. The 

highest levels of plutonium isotopes in air were at U-3ah/at, a subsidence crater created by an underground nuclear 

test located at the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS). U-3ah/at is used for disposal of bulk 

low-level radioactive waste. The high plutonium values at the U-3ah/at air sampling station, however are attributed to 

historical testing and not to waste operations, as the sampling station is within 700 m of ground zero for 13 

atmospheric nuclear tests conducted between 1952 and 1958. 

Uranium isotopes were also detected in air samples collected in areas where depleted uranium ordnance have been 

used or tested. However, the samples’ isotopic ratios were what one would expect from naturally-occurring uranium 

in soil and not from man-made depleted uranium. 

Two of the most commonly-detected man-made radionuclides, tritium and 239+240Pu, continued to show decreasing 

trends in concentrations at numerous air sampler sites in 2003. The following figures show the trends in the annual 

mean concentrations for these radionuclides at air sampling station BJY in Area 1. Station BJY has been sampled 

consistently over the years and is centrally located on the NTS. Each figure shows a horizontal line labeled “CL” 

which stands for Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Concentration Level for 

Environmental Compliance. It is the annual average concentration (different for each radionuclide) which would 

result in a dose of 10 mrem/yr, which is the federal dose limit to the public from all radioactive air emissions. 

The decrease in tritium air concentrations is a combination of the cessation of testing in 1992 (no additional releases), 

radioactive decay (half-life of tritium is 12 years), and its depletion from the soil over the years due to evaporation and 

transpiration (uptake and release of water through plants). Note that the scale of each graph is not linear but 

logarithmic, and that annual mean tritium concentrations at BJY have dropped over 99 percent from 153 x 10-6 pCi/L 

to just 1.34 x 10-6 pCi/L over the past two decades, and that the CL for tritium in air was a factor of 10 times the level 

measured in the 1980s and is now a factor of 1100 times the level measured in 2003. 
Executive Summary

 ES-9

Highest Average Concentrations of Man-Made Radionuclides in Air Samples on the NTS 

Man-Made 

Radionuclide 

Highest Average 

Concentration Detected 

(10-15 μCi/mL) (a) 

Concentration Level for 

Environmental Compliance (CL) (b) 

(10-15 μCi/mL) Sampler Location 

241Am 0.024 1.9 U-3ah/at 

137Cs 0.030 19 Bunker 9-300(c ) 

3H (tritium) 420,000 1,500,000 Schooner 

238Pu 0.0044 2.1 Yucca 

239+240Pu 0.16 2.0 U-3ah/at 

(a) Concentration units and format for radionuclides have all been standardized for inclusion in this table for ease of comparisons. 

 Units may differ from those reported in detailed radionuclide-specific data tables of this report. 

 (b) Limits established by the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 

 (c) Bunker 9-300 was the only air sampling station where 137Cs was detected 

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

1000.00

10000.00

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

Annual Mean

CL

Trend in Tritium Air Concentrations at BJY Air Sampling Station 
Executive Summary

 ES-10

The gradual decrease in plutonium concentrations in air over time is attributed to its initial wind-borne dispersal on 

resuspended soil particles and its subsequent weathering into the ground where it is bound to less mobile particles. 

The annual mean 239+240Pu air concentrations at BJY have dropped over 81 percent from 411 x 10-18 μCi/mL to under 

78.21 x 10-18 μCi/L over the past two decades. The CL for 239+240Pu in air was a factor of 4.9 times the level measured 

in the 1970s and is now a factor of 26 times the level measured in 2003. 

Trend in 239 + 240Plutonium Air Concentrations at BJY Air Sampling Station

Offsite Radiological Monitoring of Groundwater 

The DRI, through the CEMP, is tasked by NNSA/NSO to provide independent verification of the tritium activity 

within some of the offsite groundwater wells, municipal water supply systems, and springs used for water supplies in 

areas surrounding the NTS. Samples collected by DRI provide a comparison to the results obtained by BN during 

their annual monitoring of on- and offsite wells and springs. In 2003, the CEMP offsite water sampling locations 

included 17 wells, three water supply systems, and four springs located in selected towns and communities within 240 

mi from the NTS. In 2003, BN conducted radiological monitoring of 21 offsite wells and six offsite springs. The 21 

wells included private domestic and local community wells and seven NNSA/NSO wells drilled for hydrogeologic 

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

18.6 mi (30 km) from the western and southern borders of the NTS. Only one site, the Beatty Water and Sanitation 

well, is sampled by both BN and CEMP. The combined efforts of CEMP oversight monitoring and BN 

compliance-driven monitoring (necessary to verify compliance with radiation protection regulations) provide an 

extensive network of 37 wells, three water supply systems, and ten springs around the NTS which are each sampled 

annually for the presence of radionuclides which could be linked to NTS operations. 

1

10

100

1000

10000

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

x 10-18 uCi/mL

Annual Mean

CL
Executive Summary

 ES-11

Areas of Potential Radiological Contamination in Groundwater on the NTS 
Executive Summary

 ES-12

Tritium is the sole radionuclide for which CEMP water sample analyses are run. Tritium is also the analyte of primary 

interest for the BN sampling program. Tritium is the radionuclide created in the greatest quantities in underground 

nuclear tests and is widely believed to be the most mobile. Many of the other radioactive elements generated from 

subsurface testing have very short half lives, sorb strongly onto the solid phase, or are bound into what is termed 

“melt glass” and are not available for groundwater transport in the near term. The EPA has established the Maximum 

Concentration Limit (MCL) of tritium in drinking water to be 20,000 pCi/L. To be able to detect the smallest 

possible amounts of tritium in offsite water supplies, “enriched” tritium analyses were run on all CEMP and BN water 

samples. For the 2003 CEMP water samples, the MDC for tritium using this enrichment process was 21 pCi/L. The 

MDC for enriched tritium analyses of the BN water samples was also reported by their analytical laboratory to be 

approximately 20 pCi/L for each sample. Without enrichment, the MDC for tritium typically ranges from 200-400 

pCi/L. 

BN offsite water samples are also analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta activity as a screening technique to 

determine if alpha or beta activity at any well or spring are increasing over time, and for any man-made 

gamma-emitting radionuclides which would signify contamination from nuclear testing. 

In 2003, no tritium was detectable (i.e., measured above the MDC) in any of the CEMP offsite wells or springs. 

CEMP results this year, as in past years, continue to verify that no plume of contaminated groundwater has migrated 

beyond the NTS boundaries into surrounding water supplies used by the public. Samples from two municipal water 

supplies, Boulder City and Henderson, contained tritium at levels barely above detection. The Boulder City water 

treatment plant sample contained 35 ± 28 pCi/L and the sample collected at Henderson Community College of 

Southern Nevada contained 27 ± 20 pCi/L. The uncertainty, or error associated with these measures (the value 

shown after the ±) indicate that the true concentrations could be as low as 7 pCi/L for both samples, 

indistinguishable from background. Both of these municipal water systems obtain water from Lake Mead which has 

documented elevated tritium levels due to residual tritium persisting in the environment that originated from global 

atmospheric nuclear testing (DOE, 2003). 

Summary of Offsite Radiological Water Monitoring 

CEMP BN 

No. of Wells or Water Supply Systems/ Springs Monitored 20 / 4 21 / 6 

Tritium Results (Drinking water MCL = 20,000 pCi/L)

 No. of sites where detected 2 / 0 1 / 0 

 Highest measured value (pCi/L) 35 ± 28 

(Boulder City) 

29.9 ± 15.3 

(Beatty) 

Gamma-Emitting Radionuclide Results 

 No. of sites where detected - - (a) 0 / 0 

Gross Alpha Results (Drinking water MCL = 15 pCi/L)

 No. of sites where detected - - 16 / 6 

 Highest measured value (pCi/L) - - 24.4 ± 6.32 

(ER-OV-02) 

Gross Beta Results (Drinking water “Level of Concern” = 50 pCi/L)

 No. of sites where detected - - 21 / 6 

 Highest measured value (pCi/L) - - 22.2 ± 3.80 

(PM-3) 

(a) - - not analyzed 
Executive Summary

 ES-13

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

radionuclides from NTS underground contamination areas. BN detected tritium in only one offsite well: the Beatty 

Water and Sanitation well, and no offsite wells contained any man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides. All offsite 

well and spring samples contained detectable gross beta activity, and all spring samples and 16 of the 21 well samples 

contained detectable gross alpha activity. All gross alpha and beta concentrations in samples from potable water 

supply wells offsite were less than the EPA established MCL (for gross alpha) and the EPA established “Level of 

Concern” (for gross beta) for drinking water. Gross alpha was found at levels which exceeded drinking water 

standards at two offsite monitoring wells, ER-OV-01 and ER-OV-02. These two wells are NNSA/NSO wells drilled 

specifically for hydrologic investigations, are not used for drinking water, and are closed to the public. These wells 

produce water from a volcanic acquifer that may have relatively high quantities of natural alpha-yielding elements in 

the host rock. No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides and no tritium were detected in these two wells. 

The Beatty Water and Sanitation well was sampled in August and tritium was measured at 29.9 ±15.3 pCi/L, just 

above its sample-specific MDC of 23.9 pCi/L. CEMP sampled the same well in June and measured tritium at 0 ± 18 

pCi/L. In all previous years, no detectable levels of tritium have been measured by BN (or previous M&O 

contractors) or by CEMP. Given that: (1) the Beatty well’s tritium concentration is near its MDC, (2) the measure’s 

uncertainty is high, (3) no wells which are upgradient from the Beatty well and downgradient from NTS contaminated 

groundwater areas had detectable tritium or other man-made radionuclides, (4) the CEMP Beatty well sample was 

below its MDC, and (5) results for this well from previous years have been below the MDC for tritium, it is concluded 

that no man-made tritium from NTS operations occurs in the Beatty well. 

It should be emphasized that enriched tritium analyses allows laboratories to detect tritium at much lower 

concentrations with some level of confidence and provides NNSA/NSO hygeodrologists and radioecologists with 

very sensitive data to detect tritium migration in groundwater and its transport through the ecosystem. However, 

“detectable” tritium at 20 pCi/L is only 0.001 percent of the allowable drinking water standard of 20,000 pCi/L, and 

as such, represents negligible risk to public health and the environment. 

Onsite Radiological Monitoring of Water 

In 2003, BN continued to monitor radioactivity in onsite groundwater and surface waters on the NTS to: (1) ensure 

that NTS drinking water is safe, (2) determine if permitted facilities on the NTS are in compliance with permit 

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

sources, (4) provide data to validate the performance criteria for Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs established to protect 

groundwater from disposed radioactive wastes, and (4) support hydrologic investigations. The onsite monitoring 

network is comprised of ten potable water supply wells, 14 monitoring wells (which include three compliance wells 

for the Area 5 RWMS and one compliance well for the Area 23 sewage lagoon), one tritiated water containment pond 

system, and three sewage lagoons. 

The 2003 data continue to indicate that underground nuclear testing has not impacted the NTS potable water supply 

network. All of the water samples from the ten supply wells had non-detectable concentrations of tritium and manmade gamma-emitting radionuclides. Gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity was detected in potable water supply 

wells represent the presence of naturally-occurring radionuclides. 

The 2003 water monitoring results from wells and sewage lagoons indicated that NTS operations and waste 

disposal/treatment facilities were performing as per their performance criteria and according to permit regulations. 
Executive Summary

 ES-14

Radiation Dose to the Public by Air Pathways 

The maximum radiation dose to a member of the general public from airborne radionuclide emissions at the NTS was 

computed in 2003 and was less than 10 mrem/yr. This is the dose limit specified by NESHAP. The total radiation 

dose to a member of the general public attributable to NTS operations from all possible pathways (inhalation, 

ingestion of water and food) was also computed in 2003 and was less that 100 mrem/yr. This is the dose limit 

established by DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment. This section summarizes how 

dose via all possible pathways was estimated and presents the 2003 dose estimates. 

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

2003. The only pathways, therefore, by which the offsite public could receive a radiation dose from NTS operations 

are the air transport and ingestion pathways. 

The radiation dose to the general public by just the air transport pathway was estimated using the air sampling results 

from six onsite EPA-approved “critical receptor” sampling stations which represented the offsite general public. 

Among these six stations, the Schooner air station in the far northwest corner of the NTS experienced the highest 

concentrations of radioactive air emissions. If an individual resided at this station, they would experience a dose from 

air emissions of 2.9 mrem/yr. This dose is less than the limit of 10 mrem/yr. Dose, via the air transport pathway, at 

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

The radiation dose to the general public from inhalation and ingestion of airborne radioactive contaminants was also 

estimated using the 2003 air sampling results and air transport models. Estimates of radionuclide emissions from: (1) 

NTS facilities, (2) the resuspension of legacy deposits of radionuclides in NTS soil, (3) the transpiration and 

evaporation of tritium at sites of past nuclear tests, and (4) the evaporation of tritium from ponds used during 2003 to 

contain tritium-contaminated groundwater, were all used to compute total air emissions from source locations on the 

NTS. The table below lists the location names of NTS air emission sources and their 2003 emission estimates. With 

the use of NTS meteorological data, the emission estimates, and CAP88-PC software, the radiation dose (expressed as 

the committed effective dose equivalent [CEDE]) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) offsite was calculated to 

be 0.10 mrem/yr at Cactus Springs, Nevada. This dose is consistent with those calculated for past years. 

Estimated 2003 Annual Air Emissions from NTS Sources

Source Radionuclide Quantity (Ci)(a) 

Area 6 Building CP-50 3H 0.00019 

Area 12 E Tunnel Ponds 3H 13 

Well RNM#2S 3H 36 

Well U-4u PS #2A 3H 0.73 

Well U-19q PS #1D 3H 0.47 

Well U-20n PS #1DDH 3H 4.2 

Area 5 RWMS 3H 5.9 

Area 10 Sedan 3H 64 

Area 20 Schooner 3H 190 

Total for all 3H Sources 3H 314 

Total for Grouped NTS Areas 241Am 0.047 

Total for Grouped NTS Areas 239+240Pu 0.29 

(a) Multiply Ci by 37 to obtain GBq 
Executive Summary

 ES-15

2003 Calculated Radiation Dose (CEDE) to the Public Within 80 km of the NTS
Executive Summary

 ES-16

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Calendar Year

CEDE, mrem/yr

Trend in Estimated Radiation Dose to the Offsite Maximally Exposed Individual 

Radiation Dose to the Public by Air and Wildlife Pathways 

The potential radiation dose to the general public by the ingestion pathway was estimated based on radionuclide tissue 

concentrations in game animals sampled in 2003 on the NTS. Tissues from three mourning doves collected near 

containment ponds containing tritiated water (e.g., E Tunnel Ponds), one cottontail rabbit collected at the Palanquin 

Plowshare test location, and two pronghorn antelopes that were hit by a car in southern Frenchman Flat were 

analyzed for the presence of radionuclides. The doves were meant to represent a worst-case scenario of the most 

contaminated NTS game animal. As expected in the doves, elevated levels of tritium (as high as 10,800,000 pCi/L in 

the water fraction of the breast meat), as well as low but detectable levels of 137Cs (0.54 pCi/g dry weight), 241Am 

(0.0079 pCi/g dry weight), and 239+240Pu (0.012 pCi/g dry weight) were measured. Detectable levels of 90Sr (average of 

0.19 pCi/g dry weight) were found in the muscle tissue of one of the two antelopes. No man-made radionuclides 

were detected in the rabbit muscle tissue. To calculate human dose from ingestion of theses game species, it was 

assumed that over one year a hunter would consume the breast meat from 20 doves of similar weight and 10 kg 

(22 lb) of meat from one antelope. The resultant potential dose from consuming mourning doves and pronghorn 

antelope was estimated to be 0.36 mrem/yr (0.0036 mSv/yr). 

The hypothetical MEI was also assumed to be a hunter who harvested NTS game animals and received the additional 

radiation dose of 0.36 mrem/yr. The resultant radiation dose to the MEI from airborne emissions and from ingestion 

of game animals was 0.46 mrem/yr (0.0046 mSv/yr). This dose is a very small fraction (0.13 percent) of the total 

radiation dose from naturally-occurring sources. DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the 

Environment” requires that a collective population dose also be estimated annually. The collective population dose 

within 80 km (50 mi) of the emission sources was estimated to be 0.45 person-rem/yr (0.0045 person-Sv/yr). 
Executive Summary

 ES-17

Estimated Radiological Dose to the General Public from the NTS in 2003 

Pathway 

Dose to Maximally 

Exposed Individual 

(mrem/yr) (mSv/yr) 

Percent of DOE 

100-mrem/yr 

Limit 

Estimated Collective 

Population Dose(a) 

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

Air 0.10 0.0010 0.10 0.45(a) 0.0045 

Water 0 0 0 0 0 

Wildlife 0.36 0.0036 0.36 U(b) U 

All Pathways 0.46 0.0046 0.46 0.45 0.0045 

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

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

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

 by hunters in 2003. 

Comparison of Radiation Dose to MEI and the 

Natural Radiation Background (Percent) 

Dose from Cosmic and Terrestrial 

Radiation Measured by PIC at 

Indian Springs. 125 mrem/yr 

Dose from Natural Radionuclides 

in Body. 40 mrem/yr 

Dose from Inhalation of 

Natural Radon. 200 mrem/yr 

Dose from Calculated NTS 

Emissions & Consumption of 

Wildlife. 0.46 mrem/yr 

0.13 

~34

~11 

~55 
Executive Summary

 ES-18

Non-Radiological Onsite Air Emissions 

There were no discharges of non-radiological hazardous materials to offsite areas in 2003. Therefore, only onsite 

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

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

pollutants, hazardous air pollutants, or toxic and hazardous chemicals. Air emissions sources common to the NTS 

include particulates from construction, aggregate production, surface disturbances, fugitive dust from unpaved roads, 

fuel burning equipment, open burning, fuel storage facilities, and chemical release tests conducted at the HSC on 

Frenchman Flat playa in Area 5. 

An estimated 12.9 metric tons (14.3 tons) of criteria air pollutants were released on the NTS in 2003. The majority of 

these were nitrogen oxides from fuel burned by diesel-fired generators. No emission limits for criteria air pollutants 

were exceeded. Asbestos is the only non-radiological hazardous air pollutant of regulatory concern on the NTS. 

Building renovation or demolition projects may release asbestos. In 2003, asbestos-containing materials from an old 

steam plant and theatre in Mercury were removed, and the EPA was notified because the amounts removed exceeded 

EPA’s notification threshold of 260 linear feet or 160 square feet. There were no formal state inspections of NTS 

equipment regulated by the state air quality permit. 

There were four tests consisting of 17 releases of hazardous chemicals at the HSC in 2003. As per the requirements 

of the NTS air quality operating permit for the HSC, an annual report of the types and amounts of chemicals released 

and the test plans and final analysis reports for each chemical release were submitted to the state. Based on the low 

level of risk each test posed to the environment and biota, no test-specific ecological monitoring was performed. 

Onsite Non-Radiological Discharges into Water 

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

treatment works, no Clean Water Act 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 tested 

quarterly for biochemical oxygen demand, pH, and total suspended solids. Annually, sewage lagoon pond waters are 

sampled for a suite of toxic chemicals. In 2003, quarterly analysis of sewage influent waters at the Area 6, Area 12, 

and Area 23 sewage facilities and annual analysis of sewage pond waters at the Area 6 and Area 23 facilities showed 

that all water measurements were within permit limits. No detectable levels of toxic chemicals except for arsenic, 

barium, chromium, and silver, were measured in sewage pond waters, and these contaminants were detected at levels 

that were only 0.01 - 0.2 percent of the permit limits. The state conducted an annual inspection of sewage lagoon 

systems in February 2003. A malfunctioning flow meter was discovered at the Area 6 Yucca Lake sewage lagoon and 

corrective actions were completed and approved by the state in July 2003. 

Accidental or Unplanned Environmental Releases or Occurrences 

Five environmental occurrences which involved un-permitted discharges into sewage lagoons, spills of fluids onto 

soil, and the mishandling of potentially-contaminated soil occurred in 2003 and are listed and described below. The 
Executive Summary

 ES-19

direct, contributing, and root causes of these occurrences were determined and were described within occurrence 

reports. All materials released were cleaned up, corrective actions (e.g., improving work procedure documents) were 

taken to prevent reoccurrence, and no significant impact to the environment, biota, or the public occurred as a result 

of these releases. 

 Un-permitted Discharge of Non – hazardous Synthetic Oil into Area 12 Sewage Lagoons 

Blowdown fluid from an Underground Test Area (UGTA) drilling project accumulation tank was mistakenly 

discharged into dry basins of the Area 12 sewage lagoon system. This incident resulted in the release of 

approximately 5 gallons (gal) (18.9 liters [L]) of oil. 

 Diesel Fuel Discharge into Mercury Sewage Lagoon 

Approximately 10 to 15 gal (37.9 to 57.9 L) of diesel fuel was discharged into the Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoon 

system when it leaked from a boiler’s fuel system in a building in Mercury and entered the boiler room floor drain. 

 

 Hydraulic Fluid Spill Onto Soil in Area 5 Waste Disposal Cell 

A water truck operating in the bottom of the disposal cell experienced a hydraulic hose failure resulting in the 

release of 23 gal (87.1 L) of hydraulic fluid. The amount of soil affected was about 10 cubic yards (7.6 cubic 

meters). 

Unauthorized Excavation of Potentially – Contaminated Soil Located at the Central Nevada Test Area 

(CNTA) UC-4 Mud Pit C Cover (Corrective Action Unit 417) 

While performing erosion repairs to CAU 417 located at the CNTA UC-4 Mud Pit C cover, a front-end loader 

operator removed soil from within the posted use restriction boundaries of UC-4 Mud Pit B. Soil at depths 

greater than 1.2 meters (4 feet) below the surface is contaminated with diesel-based drilling mud. The state of 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection determined that the unauthorized excavation and subsequent 

placement of potentially-contaminated soil represents a non-conformance with the approved Corrective Action 

Decision Document and Closure Report for CAU 417, CNTA Surface, and a potential non-compliance with both 

the FFACO and Nevada Administrative Code. 

 

 Heating Oil Spill Onto Soil in Area 12 

During excavation of the dirt from an underground heating oil tank to retrofit spill and overfill protection, an 

historic heating oil spill was discovered. Approximately 6 cubic yards (4.6 cubic meters) of soil were impacted. 

The NTS Environmental Management System 

The NNSA/NSO contract with BN, as the M&O contractor for the NTS, requires that an Integrated Safety 

Management System (ISMS) be implemented. The term safety is used synonymously with environment, safety and health

throughout BN’s ISMS implementation policies to encompass protection of the public, the workers, and the 

environment. In 2000, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 13148, “Greening of the Government 

Through Leadership in Environmental Management”. This EO requires all federal agencies to adopt an 

environmental management system (EMS). An EMS is a continuing cycle of planning, implementing, evaluating, and 

improving processes and actions undertaken to achieve environmental goals. 

EO 13148 applies to most of the NNSA as well as to DOE and NNSA contractors. DOE requires contractors who 

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

 ES-20

In 2003, DOE adopted a set of interim milestones to assist their facilities in tracking their progress towards meeting 

this deadline. 

The first fiscal year (FY) 2003 milestone was to issue a site EMS policy statement. BN satisfied this milestone in 2000 

through issuance of a company-level document, PD-0442.001, titled “Environmental Management System 

Description” which was modeled after the voluntary industry standard established by the International Organization 

for Standards, ISO 14001, titled “Environmental Management Systems”. The document takes each of the seventeen 

required elements in the ISO standard and describes how they are implemented within BN. An important approach 

taken is that the EMS is the environmental component of the BN ISMS already in place, and not a new requirement for 

programs. Many of the required processes within a good EMS were previously in place to satisfy the BN ISMS. The 

BN EMS is a systematic, integrated management approach used to ensure compliance with all applicable 

environmental legislation and regulations. The company document describes commitments and methods used to 

integrate environmental management requirements into work planning and execution. BN also has an Environmental 

Protection Policy that addresses the key areas of an EMS. 

The second FY 2003 milestone was to implement EMS training for personnel establishing the system. BN satisfied 

this milestone by sending its EMS Coordinator to several EMS training classes and workshops in 2001, 2002, and 

2003.

The third FY 2003 milestone was to identify significant environmental aspects. An environmental aspect is an action 

that has potential environmental harm, such as the generation of hazardous waste or a hazardous material release to 

the air. BN has identified significant environmental aspects and various potential mitigating actions for each. A BN 

procedure for identifying environment, safety, and health (ES&H) hazards prior to start of work is being updated to 

include these significant environmental aspects.

During 2003, DOE finalized DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program”. This new Order adds a few 

programs or processes not previously considered to be part of the BN EMS, but which were being accomplished 

within BN. Work began in 2003 on the following items to continue improvement of the EMS: (1) gap analysis to 

identify programs that need to be added to the EMS, (2) ways to upgrade the pollution prevention (P2) program when 

DOE funding for P2 has been drastically cut, and (3) strengthening the affirmative procurement program. 

Significant Environmental Accomplishments 

The following summary of activities represents the most significant environmental accomplishments for 2003. They 

were performed either as program tasks related to a primary mission of the NTS (e.g., environmental restoration), or 

as tasks that have been integrated into program mission work processes through implementation of ISMS and the BN 

EMS discussed above. These environmental accomplishments represent efforts on the part of NNSA/NSO and BN, 

as the M&O contractor, to remain compliant with environmental regulations, ensure public health and safety, 

promote environmental awareness among employees, improve the cost-effectiveness of environmental monitoring, 

foster stakeholder involvement and public oversight, and pursue sound stewardship of NTS natural resources. 

Environmental Restoration – The cleanup of historical sites contaminated by past DOE operations on and off the 

NTS and the hydogeological investigations supporting characterization of underground nuclear contamination areas 

are the most significant environmental work performed by NNSA/NSO each year. Under the FFACO, the DOE, 

DoD, and the state of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) identify a work scope and milestone 
Executive Summary

 ES-21

schedule for the cleanup and safe closer of the above-ground sites (Corrective Action Sites) and for field 

investigations and model development necessary to characterize the underground sites. The underground sites are 

referred to as Underground Test Area Project Corrective Action Units (UGTA CAUs). In 2003, a total of 81

Corrective Action Sites (CASs) were safely closed. These closures either involved the removal of hazardous or 

radioactive wastes or were “closures-in-place”. For each CAS, NDEP must concur with the site evaluations; 

corrective action plans; the techniques applied for characterization and clean-up, if necessary or feasible; and any postclosure monitoring plan. NDEP concurred with all 81 CAS closures conducted in 2003. Extensive progress was 

made towards the development of hydrologic models of groundwater flow and radionuclide transport from the 

primary UGTA CAUs into the groundwater of public lands outside the boundaries of the NTS. In 2003, this 

involved well development, aquifer testing, groundwater characterization sampling, and the completion of several 

technical data documentation packages and modeling approach/strategy documents. 

Radiological Compliance Monitoring – In 2003, BN Environmental Technical Services (ETS) conducted an 

extensive review of the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP). The RREMP was originally 

developed in 1998 to address compliance with DOE Orders 5400.1, 5400.5, and other drivers requiring routine 

radiological effluent monitoring and environmental surveillance on the NTS. Implementation of the RREMP ensures 

environmental radiological compliance for all NNSA/NSO program activities conducted on and off the NTS, as 

identified in the 1996 final NTS Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (DOE, 1996). NDEP 

participated in the 2003 RREMP review and provided input and concurrence on any changes in monitoring design 

and methods. NDEP’s involvement was critical to assure the NNSA/NSO that the state’s concerns and stakeholder 

concerns were addressed. The RREMP was republished in June 2003. 

Radiological Oversight Monitoring – The DRI continued work on communication upgrades for the CEMP offsite 

air surveillance network which is the network of air sampling stations used to monitor gross alpha, gross beta, and 

gamma radiation exposures in selected Nevada and Utah communities surrounding the NTS. The upgrades, when 

completed, will allow direct Internet connections with air monitoring station data on a nearly real-time basis. Such 

capabilities would be useful for oversight monitoring of accidental releases from underground nuclear testing, if such 

testing were resumed as directed by the President. DRI also installed two new air monitoring stations, one in Warm 

Springs capable of detecting higher elevation plumes of airborne releases, and one in Ely, another community 

potentially downwind of NTS radiological releases. 

Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization – In 2003, NNSA/NSO continued to pursue work processes that 

reduced the volume and toxicity of wastes generated during all operations on the NTS. 

Volume of Wastes Reduced Through Pollution Prevention Activities

Calendar 

Year 

Radioactive Waste 

Reduced (m3) 

Hazardous Waste 

Reduced (mtons)

Solid Waste Reduced 

(mtons)

2003 40.0 207.3 1,547.2 

2002 63.2 177.2 904.2 

2001 79.6 123.5 799.0 

Waste Management – The Radioactive Waste Management Complex was reclassified as a Category II Nuclear 

Facility and as such became subject to more stringent operational controls to ensure the safety of NTS workers and 

the public. Over 200 NTS workers across the complex who may have access to the RWMS received nuclear facilities 
Executive Summary

 ES-22

general employee training. A total of seven new BN company directives, two new policies, and 75 operating 

procedures were revised or created to integrate new or expanded environmental controls. Evaluations of all other 

company documents were initiated for activities which could impact nuclear facility operations, maintenance, or 

nuclear program elements.

Ecological Monitoring – A tortoise habitat revegetation plan was prepared and sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for their approval. The desert tortoise is the only species that resides on the NTS which is protected under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is listed as a threatened species. Approval and implementation of the plan, 

whenever feasible, would redirect mitigation fees for the loss of tortoise habitat ($648/acre) into supporting the cost 

of restoring NTS tortoise habitat. Without an approved revegetation plan, NNSA/NSO must deposit the fee into a 

general tortoise recovery fund that does not directly benefit NTS tortoise populations. Future implementation of this 

plan will satisfy ESA compliance stipulations and also further the goals of Executive Orders and DOE Orders related 

to the control of invasive species, wildland fires, and soil erosion. 

Historical Preservation/Cultural Resources Protection – A survey of all historic nuclear testing structures on 

Yucca Lake was completed by DRI archeologists in 2003. The survey resulted in the establishment of the Yucca Lake 

Historic District which brings attention to aspects of the history of above-ground nuclear testing that had gone largely 

unnoticed. A total of 15 structures on Yucca Lake were determined eligible to the National Register of Historic 

Places. 

Environmental Reporting – BN ETS began work in October 2003 towards the redesign of the NTS Annual Site 

Environmental Report. This was done in response to a self-assessment of ETS data reporting processes conducted in 

2003 to ensure compliance with DOE Order 231.1, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting” and with DOE 

Headquarters’ supplemental guidance to this Order. This NTS Environmental Report 2003 incorporates many of the 

organization and content changes identified for improvement. 

Compliance Summary

 1-1

1.0 Compliance Summary 

Environmental regulations pertinent to operations on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) are described in this Compliance 

Summary. They include federal laws, state laws, state permit requirements, Executive Orders (EOs), DOE Orders, 

and state agreements. They dictate how the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration 

Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) conducts operations on and off the NTS to ensure the protection of the 

environment and the public. The regulations are grouped by topic and described in terms of their application to NTS 

operations. 

A compliance status table is presented for each topical group of regulations. For ease of review, all the compliance 

status tables are presented together at the end of this section. Each table lists those measures or actions which are 

tracked or performed annually to ensure compliance with a regulation. A description of the field monitoring efforts, 

actions, and results which support the data in each table can be found in subsequent sections of this document, as 

noted in the “Reference Section” column of each table. 

Non-compliance incidents or compliance issues, if any, are included in the topical subsections along with a listing of 

compliance reports generated during the reporting year. The last table presented in this section is a list of all 2003 

NTS environmental permits. 

1.1 Air Quality 

1.1.1 Applicable Regulations 

Clean Air Act (CAA), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) – Under Title 

III of the CAA, NESHAP was established to control those pollutants that might reasonably be anticipated to result in 

either an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating but reversible illness. 

Industry-wide national emissions standards were developed for 22 of the 189 designated hazardous air pollutants 

(HAPs). Radionuclides and asbestos were among the 22 HAPs for which standards were established. These 

standards are promulgated through Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61, in Subparts H and M, 

respectively. Under Subpart H, NESHAP establishes a radiation dose limit for individuals of the general public. 

Subpart M addresses protection of the public from asbestos. Both subparts define the methods to use in determining 

compliance, recordkeeping, reporting, and in determining whether federal approval is required prior to the 

construction of new facilities or the modification of an existing facility. NESHAP compliance activities at the NTS 

are limited to radionuclide monitoring and reporting and notification of asbestos abatement. 

CAA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) – Title I of the CAA established the NAAQS to limit 

levels of pollutants in the air for six “criteria” pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, ozone, 

lead, and particulate matter. Title V of the CAA authorizes the states to implement permit programs in order to 

regulate emissions of the criteria pollutants. At the NTS there is one main permit that regulates operations and 

emissions from aggregate-producing facilities, fuel-burning equipment, and fuel storage. Other permits regulating 

emissions from NTS project-specific activities include the Tactical Demilitarization Development Project (TaDD) and 

the Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC). Nevada air quality permits specify emission limits for these criteria 

pollutants that are based on published emissions values for other similar industries and on operational data specific to 

the NTS. Quantities of NAAQS emissions from operations at the NTS are calculated and submitted each year to the 

state of Nevada. Nevada air quality permits also specify recordkeeping and reporting requirements, visible emissions 

(opacity) limits for equipment/facilities, opacity field monitoring requirements, and certification requirements for 

personnel conducting opacity monitoring. The permits also grant the state access to the NTS to conduct inspections 

of permitted facilities. 

State of Nevada regulations prohibit the open burning of combustible refuse and other materials unless specifically 

exempted (Nevada Administrative Code 445B.122). Some of the exemptions include weed abatement, elimination of 
Compliance Summary

 1-2

hazards, and personnel training. An Open Burn Variance form must be submitted to and approved by the State 

before an open burn can take place. At the NTS, Open Burn Variances are routinely obtained for fire extinguisher 

training and various emergency-management exercises. 

CAA, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) – The NSPS were established by Title I of the CAA to set 

minimum nationwide emission limitations of regulated air pollutants (HAPs and criteria pollutants mentioned above) 

and for various industrial categories of facilities. The state of Nevada has adopted the NSPS and regulates emissions 

from subject facilities through state law (NRS 445B as codified in NAC 445B). At the NTS, some of the screens and 

conveyor belts that were manufactured after August 1981 are subject to NSPS under the category of Nonmetallic 

Mineral Processing Plants. The NSPS imposes more stringent standards, including a reduced allowance of visible 

emissions or opacity. NSPS compliance activities on the NTS are reported to the state of Nevada. 

CAA, Stratospheric Ozone Protection – Title VI (Section 608) of the CAA establishes production limits and a 

schedule for the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances (ODS). ODS are defined as those substances that are 

known or could reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion. Under Section 608, 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established regulations through 40 CFR Part 82 that include: 

maximizing recycling of ozone-depleting compounds during servicing and disposal of air conditioning and 

refrigeration equipment; establishing requirements for recycling and recovery equipment, technicians and reclaimers; 

requiring the repair of substantial leaks in certain air conditioning and refrigeration equipment; and establishing safe 

disposal requirements. While there are no reporting requirements for ODS, recordkeeping is required that documents 

the usage of ODS and technician certification. Under Section 608, the EPA may conduct random inspections to 

determine compliance.

At the NTS, refrigerants containing ODS are mainly used in air conditioning units in vehicles and in buildings, 

refrigerators, water fountains, vending machines, and laboratory equipment. Halon 1211 and 1301, now classified as 

ODS, have been used in the past in fire extinguishers. Self-assessments are conducted periodically to document 

adherence to Title VI of the CAA.

Other NTS Air Quality Permit Requirements – Under Title V, Part 70 of the CAA amendments, all owners or 

operators of Part 70 sources must pay annual fees to the state. Any source which has the potential to emit 45.4 

metric tons (mtons) (50 tons) or more of any regulated air pollutant, except carbon monoxide, must pay an annual fee 

of $3,000. Any source that has the potential to emit less than 22.7 mtons (25 tons) per year must pay an annual fee of 

$250. NTS operations are subject to these fees. In addition to permit fees, NNSA/NSO must allow the state of 

Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control to conduct inspections of NTS facilities and operations that are regulated by 

state air quality permits. 

1.1.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-1 for a summary of how NTS complied with air quality regulations in 2003. 

1.1.3 Compliance Issues

The NTS Class II Air Quality Operating Permit (AP9711-0549) that regulates operations and emissions generated by 

aggregate-producing facilities, fuel-burning equipment, and fuel storage tanks, expired in February 2002. An 

application to renew the permit was submitted prior to the expiration date, but as of yet the renewed permit has not 

been issued. The delay in issuing the permit is due to a number of factors, including: a decision by the state to 

combine all NTS air permits into a single permit, permitting facilities that were not previously permitted, and issues 

pertaining to the opacity limit and more stringent reporting requirements for the HSC. 

During CY 2003 and early CY 2004, meetings were held with the state to reach an agreement on some of the terms of 

the permit. It is anticipated that the renewed NTS air permit will be issued in CY 2004. 
Compliance Summary

 1-3

1.1.4 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for NTS operations in 2003 in compliance with air quality regulations: 

• National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Pollutants, Calendar Year 2003 (submitted to EPA Region IX) 

• Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form (submitted to EPA Region IX) 

• Calendar Year 2003 Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Form (submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection) 

• HSC Pre-test and Post-test Reports (submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection) 

1.2 Water Quality and Protection 

1.2.1 Applicable Regulations 

Clean Water Act (CWA) – The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the 

waters of the U.S. It gives the EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater 

standards for industry. The CWA also sets water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. At the 

NTS, applicable CWA regulations are followed through compliance with permits issued by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) and the Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services 

(BHPS) for wastewater discharges and disposal of wastewater from facilities. 

NTS operations which may be affected by the CWA involve the disturbance of drainage patterns into “waters of the 

U.S.” and disturbance to naturally-occurring wetlands from construction activities or other site operations. There are 

two intermittently wet lakes or playas (Yucca Lake and Frenchman Lake) which are potential “waters of the U.S.,” 

which may fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Section 404 permit 

regulations of the CWA. NNSA/NSO has obtained a determination from the USACE that NTS playas and 

ephemeral washes are only “potential” waters of the U.S.; however, NDEP has not endorsed this determination. 

NDEP has indicated that these potential areas will be regulated as “waters of the State.” No determination has been 

obtained yet from the USACE regarding the status of the vegetated wetlands, but they are protected and managed on 

the NTS by NNSA/NSO as unique, valuable wildlife habitats (see Section 1.9). 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – Established to protect the quality of drinking water in the U.S., this law focuses 

on all waters actually or potentially designed for drinking use, whether from above ground or underground sources. It 

authorizes the EPA to establish safe standards of purity and requires all owners or operators of public water systems 

to comply with primary (health-related) standards. State governments, which assume this power from the EPA, also 

set Secondary Standards, which are related to taste, odor, and visual aspects of drinking water. Nevada state law 

pertaining to public water systems (NAC 445A) ensures that such water systems meet the EPA water quality 

standards specified under the SDWA. 

Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 445A: Water Controls (Public Water Systems) – Enforces the SDWA 

requirements. This Nevada regulation sets standards for permitting, design, construction, operation, maintenance, 

certification of operators, and water quality of public water systems (PWS). The NTS has three PWS that are 

monitored to ensure they meet water quality standards, and that they follow the other applicable requirements in the 

regulation. The BHPS regulates the three NTS PWS through the issuance of permits. Although the SDWA sets 

drinking water standards for radionuclides, the state of Nevada does not require radionuclide monitoring of drinking 

water on the NTS because the NTS does not have a “community water system” (a PWS having at least 15 service 

connections and used by year-round residents). However, all potable water supply wells are monitored on the NTS 

for radionuclides in compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment (see 

Section 1.3). 
Compliance Summary

 1-4

NAC 444 and 445A: Water Controls (Water Pollution Control) – Regulates the collection, treatment, and disposal 

of wastewater and sewage at the NTS. The requirements of this state regulation are issued in permits for sewage 

lagoons, septic tanks, and septic hauler contractors and pumpers. In 2003, NNSA/NSO held a general permit 

covering three active sewage lagoon systems and eight inactive sewage lagoon systems, seven active systems, four 

septic tank pumpers, one septic tanker, and one septic pumper contractor (see Table 1-12 for list of all 2003 NTS 

permits). NDEP regulates the permits for active and inactive NTS sewage lagoons. Water quality and toxicity of the 

active sewage lagoons are monitored quarterly and annually, respectively, to meet permit requirements. In 2003, all 16 

septic systems on the NTS processed less than 5,000 gallons/day (18,927 liters/day), therefore they are not regulated 

by NDEP. The BHPS regulates the NTS septic systems as commercial individual systems which treat domestic 

sewage only in quantities less than 5,000 gallons/day. The BHPS does not require collection or analysis of sewage 

samples from these septic systems. 

NAC 534: Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulations for Water Well and Related Drilling – Regulates 

the drilling and construction of new wells and the reworking of existing wells in order to prevent the waste of 

underground waters and their pollution or contamination. Two site operations that are affected by this state 

regulation are the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project and the Borehole Management Project. New water wells 

are drilled for ongoing UGTA investigations of site-specific hydrogeologic characteristics, underground source terms, 

and contaminant movement through groundwater. Over 1,100 existing boreholes on the NTS are being plugged 

according to these regulations, under the Borehole Management Project. 

1.2.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-2 for a summary of how NTS complied with water quality and protection regulations in 2003. 

1.2.3 Out-of-Compliance Incidents 

Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001 – On January 21, 2003, approximately 1,700 gallons 

(6,435 liters) of condensate blowdown (oil/water mixture) was pumped from a drilling site tank and inadvertently 

disposed in a lined secondary lagoon in Area 12 that is used as a drying bed for portable toilet waste containing 

propylene glycol (anti-freeze). Also, on February 18, 2003, approximately 15 gallons (56.8 liters) of diesel fuel was 

released to a floor drain in the boiler room of Building 111, Area 23 which subsequently drained into the Area 23 

sewage lagoon system. These accidental releases of petroleum products into NTS sewage treatment facilities were 

reported to the state as per the requirements of the permit (see Section 1.11). Table 1-11 provides a full description of 

these reportable spills. No fines or penalties were incurred by these two un-permitted discharges. 

1.2.4 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for NTS operations in 2003 in compliance with water quality regulations: 

• Quarterly Monitoring Report for Nevada Test Site Sewage Lagoons was submitted April 3, July 3, and October 3, 2003, 

and January 4, 2004 to NDEP (in compliance with permit #GNEV93001). 

• Results of water quality analyses for PWSs were sent to the state throughout the year as they were obtained from 

the laboratory. 

1.3 Radiation Protection 

1.3.1 Applicable Regulations

Clean Air Act (CAA), 40 CFR 61 Subpart H, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) – NESHAP establishes radiation dose limit of 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) to individuals in the general 

public from just the air pathway. Sources of radioactive emissions on the NTS include: evaporation of tritiated water 

(HTO) from containment ponds; diffusion of HTO vapor from the soil (at Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management 
Compliance Summary

 1-5

Complex, Sedan crater, and Schooner crater); tritium gas released during experiment test calibrations at Building 

CP-50 in Area 6; and re-suspension of plutonium and americium from contaminated soil at nuclear device safety test 

and atmospheric test locations. NTS compliance in 2003 with NESHAP for radiological air emissions is summarized 

in Table 1-1 and Table 1-3. 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141), promulgated 

by the SDWA (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 236, December 7, 2000), requires that the maximum contaminate level 

goal for any radionuclide be zero. But, when this is not possible (e.g., in groundwater containing naturally-occurring 

radionuclides), the SDWA specifies that the concentration of one or more radionuclides should not result in a whole 

body or organ dose greater than 4 mrem/yr (0.04 mSv/yr). Sources of radionuclide contamination in groundwater are 

the numerous underground nuclear tests conducted at the NTS which were detonated near or below the water table. 

DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment” – Protection of the public and 

the environment is further mandated by this Order and by flow-down procedural standards established to help 

implement the objectives of the Order. DOE Order 5400.5 establishes requirements for: (1) measuring radioactivity 

in the environment, (2) applying the ALARA process (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) to all operations, (3) using 

mathematical models for estimating radiation doses, (4) releasing property having residual radioactive material, and 

(5) maintaining records demonstrating compliance with the requirements. DOE Order 5400.5 specifies a radiation 

dose limit of 100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr) to individuals in the general public from all pathways of exposure combined. 

DOE Order 5400.5 also provides the derived concentration guides (DCGs) for all radionuclides. The DCGs are the 

annual average concentrations of a radionuclide that could deliver a dose of 100 mrem/yr. The DCGs are provided 

as reference values to use in radiological protection programs at DOE facilities. 

DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002 – This Standard, titled A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota (DOE, 2002a), provides methods, computer models, and guidance in implementing a 

graded approach to evaluating the radiation doses to populations of aquatic animals, terrestrial plants, and terrestrial 

animals residing on DOE facilities. A dose limit of 1 rad/d (10 mGy/d) for terrestrial plants and aquatic animals, and 

of 0.1 rad/d (1 mGy/d) for terrestrial animals is specified by this DOE standard. Dose rates below these levels are 

believed to cause no measurable adverse effects to populations of plants and animals. 

DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management” – This order ensures that all DOE radioactive waste is 

managed in a manner that is protective of the worker, public health and safety, and the environment. This orders’ 

directive manual (DOE M435.1-1) specifies that operations at the RWMC (includes the Area 5 and Area 3 RWMSs) 

must not contribute a dose to the general public in excess of 25 mrem/yr. The order also directs how radioactive 

waste management operations are conducted on the NTS. These operational requirements are summarized in the 

next section of this report (Section 1.4) titled Waste Management and Environmental Restoration. 

DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program” – This DOE Order requires federal facilities to: 

“Conduct environmental monitoring to detect, characterize, and respond to releases from DOE activities; assess 

impacts; estimate dispersal patterns in the environment; characterize the pathways of exposure to members of the 

public; characterize the exposures and doses to individuals, to the population; and to evaluate the potential impacts to 

the biota in the vicinity of the DOE activity.” Such releases, exposures, and doses apply to radiological contaminants. 

1.3.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-3 for a summary of how NTS complied with radiation protection regulations in 2003. 

1.3.3 Compliance Reports 

In compliance with NESHAP under the CAA, the report titled National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Pollutants, 

Calendar Year 2003, was submitted to EPA Region IX in June 2004. This NTS Environmental Report was generated 

to report 2003 compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE-STD-1153-2002. 
Compliance Summary

 1-6

1.4 Waste Management and Environmental Restoration 

1.4.1 Applicable Regulations 

10 CFR 830: Nuclear Safety Management – Establishes requirements for the safe management of DOE 

contractor and subcontractor work at DOE’s nuclear facilities. It governs the possession and use of special nuclear 

material, and byproduct materials deemed necessary for the protection of health and minimization of danger to life or 

property. Part 830 also covers activities at facilities even where no nuclear material is present such as facilities that 

prepare the non-nuclear components of nuclear weapons, but which could cause radiological damage at a later time. 

It governs the conduct of the “management and operating contractor and other persons at DOE nuclear facilities” 

(including visitors to the facility). When coupled with the Price-Anderson Amendments Act (PAAA) of 1988 (Section 

234A to the Atomic Energy Act) it provides DOE with authority to assess civil penalties for violation of rules, 

regulations or orders relating to nuclear safety by contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers who are indemnified 

under PAAA. The broad intent of the regulation is to ensure compliance with all enforceable rules, regulations, or 

orders relating to nuclear safety adopted by DOE for the NTS. 

DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management” – Ensures that all DOE radioactive waste is managed in a 

manner that is protective of the worker, public health and safety, and the environment. Radioactive waste 

management activities conducted on the NTS which are subject to this Order include: 

• Characterization of low level radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed low level radioactive waste (MW) generated by 

DOE within the state of Nevada.

• Disposal of LLW and MW at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) which includes the Area 3 

Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) and the Area 5 RWMS.

• Characterization, visual examination, and repackaging of transuranic (TRU) waste at the Waste Examination 

Facility (WEF) just south of RWMS 5.

• Loading of TRU waste at the Mobile Loading Unit (MLU) at the Area 5 RWMS for shipment to the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) at Carlsbad, New Mexico. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – Ensures the safe and environmentally responsible 

management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste. RCRA (1976, 1996) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Amendments of 1984 constitute the statutory basis for the regulation of hazardous waste and underground storage 

tanks (USTs). Under Section 3006 of RCRA, the EPA may authorize states to administer and enforce hazardous 

waste regulations. Nevada has received such authorization and acts as the primary regulator for many NNSA/NSO 

facilities. 

The state of Nevada has issued a RCRA Hazardous Waste Operating Permit (NEV HW009) to NNSA/NSO. The 

permit governs operation of the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (HWSU) in Area 5, the Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

Unit (EODU) in Area 11, and the disposal of MW at the Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) at the Area 5 

RWMS. The permit also prescribes post-closure monitoring for five closed waste sites on the NTS that are RCRA 

Part B-identified Corrective Action Units (CAUs). They include: the Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches (CAU 112), 

the U3fi Injection Well (CAU 91), the U3ax/bl Subsidence Crater (CAU 110), the Area 2 Bitcutter Containment, and 

the Area 6 Decon Pond. 

The NTS has 5 USTs which are either (1) fully-regulated under RCRA and registered with the state (1 tank), 

(2) regulated under RCRA and registered with the state, but deferred from leak detection requirements (1 tank), or 

(3) excluded from federal and state regulation (3 tanks). The NTS UST program reports, upgrades, and removes 

USTs as per regulatory compliance schedules. 

RCRA also requires generators of hazardous waste to have a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and 

toxicity of such waste. These waste reduction requirements and NTS compliance with them are addressed under the 

Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization sections of this Environmental Report (Section 1.7, Section 10.0). 
Compliance Summary

 1-7

The specific Nevada laws which govern hazardous waste management operations mentioned above are the Facilities 

for Management of Hazardous Waste (NAC 444.842-8482) and the Disposal of Hazardous Waste 

(NAC 444.850-8746). 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)/ Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) – Provides a framework for the cleanup of waste sites containing 

hazardous substances and an emergency response program in the event of a release of a hazardous substance to the 

environment. There are no hazardous waste cleanup operations on the NTS which are regulated under CERCLA as 

they are regulated under RCRA. The only applicable requirements of CERCLA applicable to NTS operations pertain 

to an emergency response program for hazardous substance releases to the environment (see discussion of 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in Section 1.5). 

Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) – Extends the full range of enforcement authorities in federal, state, and 

local laws for management of hazardous wastes to federal facilities, including the NTS. Compliance with this act is 

demonstrated by compliance with other federal and state waste regulations applicable to the NTS listed in this section.

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

Sections 6001 and 3004(u) of RCRA, NNSA/NSO, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (formerly the Defense 

Nuclear Agency), and the state of Nevada entered into a FFACO in April 1996. This FFACO addressed the 

environmental restoration of historic contaminated sites at the NTS, parts of Tonopah Test Range (TTR), parts of the 

Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) (formerly known as Nellis Air Force Range), the Central Nevada Test Area 

(CNTA), and the Project SHOAL Area. Under the FFACO, hundreds of historic contaminated sites on and off the 

NTS have been identified for cleanup and closure. 

40 CFR Subchapter I, Parts 239-299: Solid Wastes – At the NTS, these federal solid waste management 

regulations are followed through compliance with permits issued by the NDEP. 

NAC 444.570-7499 – Solid Waste Disposal – Enforces the federal regulations pertaining to solid wastes (40 CFR 

Subchapter I, Parts 239-299). This Nevada regulation sets standards for solid waste management systems, including 

the storage, collection, transportation, processing, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. The NTS has four permitted 

landfills for solid waste disposal which are regulated and permitted by the state: Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid 

Waste Disposal Site, Area 6 Hydrocarbon, Disposal Site, Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site, and Area 23 Solid 

Waste Disposal Site. These landfills are designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and monitored in adherence to 

the requirements of their state-issued permits. 

1.4.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-4 for a summary of how NTS complied with waste management and environmental restoration 

regulations in 2003. 

1.4.3 Out-of-Compliance Incidents 

On June 18, 2003, a front-end loader removed soil from within the boundaries of a posted use-restricted area to repair 

the UC-4 Mud Pit C cover at CNTA Corrective Action Unit 417. The use-restricted area was around the backfilled 

UC-4 Mud Pit B, a contaminated site identified under the FFACO which was closed in-place. The un-permitted soil 

removal violated the administrative control stipulations of the closure report for UC-4 Mud Pit B and was reported to 

the state. See Table 1-11 for a full description of this reportable event. 

1.4.4 Compliance Reports 

Quarterly reports were prepared and sent to the state for the amounts of hazardous wastes handled at the three RCRA 

permitted waste disposal facilities. Post-closure monitoring reports for the five RCRA Part B identified CAUs were 

prepared and submitted to the state. The following reports were also prepared in 2003 to comply with state permits 

for solid waste operation on the NTS: 
Compliance Summary

 1-8

• Annual Asbestos Disposal Report (for the Area 5 RWMS asbestiform LLW disposal cell P06U)

• Quarterly LLW/MLLW Disposal Reports (for all active LLW and MW disposal cells) 

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

• January – June 2003 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• July – December 2003 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• 2003 Annual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfill and Area 9 U10c 

Landfills 

1.5 Hazardous Materials Control and Management 

1.5.1 Applicable Regulations 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) – Requires testing and regulation of chemical substances that enter the 

consumer market. Since the NTS does not produce chemicals, compliance with TSCA is primarily directed toward 

management of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The regulations implementing TSCA for the state of Nevada 

contain record keeping requirements for PCB activities (NAC 444.9452). There are no known pieces of PCB 

electrical equipment (transformers, capacitors or regulators) at the NTS; but remediation activities and maintenance of 

fluorescent lights can result in the disposal of PCB-contaminated waste and light ballasts, which are regulated. Waste 

classified as “bulk product waste” generated on the NTS can be disposed of onsite in the U10c landfill with prior state 

approval. PCB-containing light ballasts removed during normal maintenance can also go to an onsite landfill; but 

when remediation or upgrade activities generate several ballasts, these must be disposed of offsite at an approved PCB 

disposal facility. Soil and other materials contaminated with PCBs must also be sent offsite for disposal. 

When PCB equipment or PCB fluids are managed during a calendar year, NNSA/NSO has been submitting an annual 

report to the EPA by July 1 of the following year. In 2003, NNSA/NSO determined that annual reports were not 

required to be sent to regulators since the NTS is not considered a commercial storer or disposer of PCBs. 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – Sets forth procedures and requirements for pesticide 

registration, labeling, classification, devices for use, and certification of applicators. Use of non-registered pesticides 

(as available in consumer products) is not regulated. On the NTS, both registered and non-registered pesticides are 

applied under the direction of a state of Nevada certified applicator. Pesticide applications in food service facilities are 

subcontracted to state-certified vendors who provide these services.

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) – This act is a free-standing provision 

under Title III of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA Title III) amendments to 

CERCLA. It requires that federal, state, and local emergency planning authorities be provided information regarding 

the presence and storage of hazardous substances and their planned and unplanned environmental releases, including 

providing response to emergency situations involving hazardous materials. EO 13148 “Federal Compliance with 

Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements,” requires all federal facilities to comply with the 

provisions of EPCRA. Under EPCRA, NNSA/NSO is required to submit reports pursuant to Sections 302, 304, 

311, 312, and 313 of SARA Title III described below.

Section 302-303, Planning Notification – Requires that the state emergency response commission and the 

local emergency planning committee be notified when an extremely hazardous substance (EHS) is present at 

a facility in excess of the threshold planning quantity. An inventory of the location and amounts of all 

hazardous substances stored on the NTS is maintained and inventory data are included in a report produced 

annually called the Nevada Combined Agency (NCA) Report. Also, NNSA/NSO monitors hazardous 

materials while they are in transit on the NTS through a computerized system called HAZTRAK. 

Section 304, Extremely Hazardous Substances Release Notification – Requires that the local emergency 

planning committee and state emergency response agencies be notified immediately of accidental or 
Compliance Summary

 1-9

unplanned releases of an EHS to the environment. Also, the national response center is notified if the release 

exceeds the CERCLA reportable quantity for the particular hazardous substance. 

Section 311-312, Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)/Chemical Inventory – Requires facilities to 

provide applicable emergency response agencies with MSDSs, or a list of MSDSs for each hazardous 

chemical stored on site. This is essentially a one-time reporting unless chemicals or products change. Any 

new MSDSs are provided annually in the NCA Report. Section 312 requires facilities to report maximum 

amounts of chemicals onsite at any one time. This report is submitted to the State Emergency Response 

Commission, the Local Emergency Planning Committee, and the local fire department. 

Section 313, Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting – Requires facilities to submit an annual report 

entitled “Toxic Chemical Release Inventory, Form R” to the EPA and to the state if annual usage quantities 

of listed toxic chemicals exceed specified thresholds. 

NAC Chapter 555 – Control of Insects, Pests and Noxious Weeds (NAC 555) – Provides regulatory framework 

for certification of several classifications of registered pesticide and herbicide applicators in the state of Nevada. The 

Nevada Department of Agriculture (NDOA) administers this program and has the primary role to enforce FIFRA in 

Nevada. Inspections of pesticide/herbicide applicator programs are carried out by NDOA. Restricted use pesticides 

are not used by BN at the NTS. 

NAC Chapter 444 – Polychlorinated Biphenyl – This code incorporates by reference the federal requirements for 

the handling, storage, and disposal of PCBs at the NTS. 

State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act – This state act directed the NDEP to develop and 

implement an accident prevention program which was named the Chemical Accident Prevention Program (CAPP). 

The act requires registration of facilities storing EHSs above listed thresholds. A report is submitted to the NDEP if 

any storage quantity thresholds are exceeded.

1.5.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-5 for a summary of how NTS complied with regulations for hazardous materials control and management 

in 2003. 

1.5.3 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were generated for NTS operations in 2003 in compliance with hazardous materials control and 

management regulations: 

• Nevada Combined Agency Report - Calendar Year 2003 submitted to state and local agencies on March 5, 2004. 

• Toxic Release Inventory Report, Form R for CY2003 Operations submitted to the EPA and to the state on June 23, 2004. 

• Nevada Chemical Accident Prevention Program Report for CY2003 Operations submitted to the state on June 21, 2004. 

• Calendar Year (CY) 2002 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Report for the Nevada Test Site (NTS), submitted to the EPA 

on May 22, 2003. 

• PCB Annual Report for the NTS, Calendar Year 2003 (this report was prepared, but is no longer required to be 

submitted to the EPA). 

1.6 Environmental Impact Analysis 

1.6.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

Before any project or activity is initiated at the NTS, it must be evaluated for possible impacts to the environment. 

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) federal agencies are required to consider environmental 
Compliance Summary

 1-10

effects and values and reasonable alternatives before making a decision to implement any major federal action that 

may have a significant impact on the human environment. NNSA/NSO uses four levels of documentation to 

demonstrate compliance with NEPA: 

• Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – a full disclosure of the potential environmental effects of proposed 

actions and the reasonable alternatives to those actions. 

• Environmental Assessment (EA) – a concise discussion of proposed actions and alternatives and the potential 

environmental effects to determine if an EIS is necessary. 

• Supplement Analysis (SA) – a collection and analysis of information for an action already addressed in an existing 

EIS or EA, to determine whether a supplemental EIS/EA should be prepared, a new EIS/EA should be 

prepared, or whether no further NEPA documentation is required. 

• Categorical Exclusion (CX) – a category of actions which do not have a significant adverse environment impact 

based on similar previous activities, and for which, therefore, neither an EA nor an EIS is required. 

A NEPA Environmental Evaluation Checklist (Checklist) is completed for all proposed projects or activities on the 

NTS, as required under the NNSA/NV Work Acceptance Process Procedural Instructions (Carlson, 2000). The 

Checklist is reviewed by the NNSA/NSO NEPA Compliance Officer to determine whether the activity’s 

environmental impacts have been addressed in any existing NEPA documents. If a proposed project has not been 

covered under any previous NEPA analysis and it does not qualify as a CX, then a new NEPA analysis is performed, 

which may result in preparation of a new EA or a new SA to the existing programmatic NTS EIS (DOE, 1996). The 

NEPA Compliance Officer must approve each Checklist before a project proceeds. 

1.6.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-6 for a summary of how NTS complied with NEPA in 2003. 

1.7 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

1.7.1 Applicable Regulations 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) – Through 42 USC 6922 (b) (1) of RCRA, generators 

of hazardous waste are required to have a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity of such 

waste to the degree determined by the generator to be economically practicable. Through 42 USC 6962 of RCRA, the 

EPA was required to develop a list of types of commercially-available products (e.g., copy machine paper, plastic desk 

top items) and then specify that a certain minimum percentage of the product type’s content be comprised of recycled 

materials if they are to be purchased by a federal agency (e.g., all federally-purchased copy machine paper must be 

comprised of a minimum of 30 percent recycled paper). It then requires federal facilities to have a procurement 

process in place to ensure that they purchase product types which satisfy the EPA-designated minimum percentages 

of recycled material. 

EO 13101, “Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition” – This 

EO requires federal facilities to incorporate waste prevention and recycling into daily operations. It requires federal 

facilities to maintain an affirmative procurement process that ensures that 100 percent of products purchased which 

are found on the EPA-designated product list contain recycled material at the EPA-specified minimum content. The 

Secretary of Energy’s goal is for DOE sites to become 100 percent compliant with this EO by the end of CY 2005. 

DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program” – This DOE Order requires federal facilities to 

implement an Environmental Management System (EMS) that includes pollution prevention. The EMS must be fully 

integrated into the site Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS). 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Hazardous Waste Permit Number NEV HW009 –

This state permit for hazardous waste management activities at the NTS requires the permittee to maintain an Annual 
Compliance Summary

 1-11

Waste Minimization Summary Report in the Facility Operating Records which should include a description of the 

efforts undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated as per RCRA, 42 USC 6922 

(b) (1), and a description of the changes in volume and toxicity of waste actually achieved during the year in 

comparison to previous years to the extent such information is available for the years prior to 1984. 

Secretary of Energy’s Pollution Prevention and Energy Efficiency Leadership Goals – On November 12, 1999, 

the Secretary of Energy set numerous pollution prevention and energy efficiency goals that each DOE site is required 

to meet. They include goals for: (1) reducing wastes, (2) increasing recycling and purchases of recycled materials, and 

(3) reducing ODS and greenhouse gasses. Table 1-7b presents the status of site compliance with the first two goals. 

1.7.2 Compliance Status 

See Tables 1-7a and 1-7b for a summary of how NTS complied with pollution prevention and waste minimization 

regulations in 2003. 

1.7.3 Compliance Issues 

The 1993 baselines for LLW, MW, and TRU waste were all 0 m3. However, the new JASPER and ATLAS projects 

will generate routine radioactive wastes in the future. As long as these projects generate routine radioactive waste, 

NNSA/NSO will not be able to meet the leadership goals for reducing these waste types. 

Before CY 2001, NNSA/NSO was not required to submit a Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) (also known as a Form R 

report) to the EPA. Effective January 1, 2001, the EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead, a toxic chemical 

subject to TRI reporting, to 100 pounds (45 kilograms). NNSA/NSO has since reported lead releases from 

ammunition at the security contractor firing range on the NTS. No reduction in lead releases is anticipated as long as 

lead ammunition continues to be used. 

NNSA/NSO only recycled 7 percent of solid waste generated by all operations in CY 2003 (leadership goal is 

45 percent). Only 5 percent of waste resulting from cleanup, stabilization, and decommissioning activities was 

reduced in CY 2003 (leadership goal is 10 percent). Because of an accelerated cleanup schedule, large volumes of 

waste were generated and disposed in landfills. Little attempt was made to salvage any of this waste before disposal. 

As a result, waste generation totals were inflated, lowering the percentage of waste reduced/recycled. 

In CY 2003, 86 percent of NNSA/NSO purchases of EPA-designated items contained recycled materials. 

NNSA/NSO is working to improve the environmentally preferable procurement process in order to meet the 

CY 2005 leadership goal of 100 percent. 

1.7.4 Compliance Reports 

The compliance reports generated in 2003 to comply with pollution prevention and waste minimization (P2/WM) 

directives are presented in Table 1-7a. 

1.8 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Protection 

1.8.1 Applicable Regulations 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended – Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into 

account the effect of their undertakings on properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) and to consult with interested parties. The Section 106 process involves the agency 

reviewing background information, conducting an effort to identify National Register eligible properties within the 

area of potential effect, making a determination of effect (when applicable), and developing a mitigation plan when an 

adverse effect is unavoidable. Determinations of eligibility, effect, and mitigation are conducted in consultation with 

the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer and, in some cases, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 
Compliance Summary

 1-12

Section 110 sets out the broad historic preservation responsibilities of federal agencies and is intended to ensure that 

historic preservation is fully integrated into the ongoing programs of all federal agencies. Included in this directive, is 

the requirement that federal agencies develop and implement a Cultural Resources Management Plan. Federal 

agencies are also required to identify and evaluate the eligibility of historic properties for long-term management, as 

well as for future project-specific planning. Agencies are also required to maintain archaeological collections and their 

associated records at professional standards. At the NTS, a long-term management strategy includes (1) monitoring 

NRHP-listed and eligible properties to determine if environmental or other actions are negatively affecting the 

integrity or other aspects of eligibility and (2) taking corrective actions if necessary. 

EO 11593, “Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment” – This EO reinforces the obligation of 

federal agencies to conduct adequate surveys to locate any and all sites of historic value under their jurisdiction. This 

law also requires proper curation of artifacts and associated records from NNSA/NSO undertakings and lands under 

the agency’s jurisdiction. 

Archeological Resources and Protection Act of 1979 – The purpose of this act is to secure, for the present and 

future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands 

and Indian lands, and addresses the irreplaceable heritage of archaeological sites and materials. It requires the issuance 

of a federal archaeology permit to qualified archaeologists for any work that involves excavation or removal of 

archaeological resources on federal and Indian lands and notification to Indian tribes of these activities. Unauthorized 

excavation, removal, damage, alteration, or defacement of archaeological resources is prohibited, as is the sale, 

purchase, exchange, transport, receipt of, or offer for sale of, such resources. Criminal and civil penalties apply to 

such actions. Information concerning the nature and location of any archaeological resource may not be made 

available to the public unless the federal land manager determines that the disclosure would not create a risk of harm 

to the resources or site. Also, this law reinforces the requirement under the Archeological and Historic Preservation 

Act of 1974 that the Secretary of Interior submit an annual report at the end of each fiscal year to Congress. The 

report indicates the scope and effectiveness of all federal agencies’ efforts on the protection of archaeological 

resources, specific projects surveyed, resources excavated or removed, damage or alterations to sites, criminal and civil 

violations, the results of permitted archaeological activities, and the costs incurred by the federal government to 

conduct this work. All archaeologists working at the NTS must have qualifications that meet federal standards and 

work under a permit issued by NNSA/NSO. In the event of vandalism, NNSA/NSO would need to investigate the 

actions.

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 – This law established the government policy to protect and 

preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional 

religions, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to 

worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. There are locations on the NTS that have religious significance to 

Western Shoshone and Southern Paiute and visits to these places involve prayer and other activities. Access is 

provided by NNSA/NSO as long as there are no safety or health hazards. 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) – This act requires federal 

agencies to identify Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural 

patrimony in their possession. Agencies are required to prepare an inventory of human remains and associated 

funerary objects, and a summary with a general description of sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and 

unassociated funerary objects. Through consultation with Native American tribes, the affiliation of the remains and 

objects are determined and the tribes can request repatriation of their cultural items. The agency is required to publish 

a notice of inventory completion in the Federal Register. The law also protects the physical location where human 

remains are placed during a death rite or ceremony. The NTS artifact collection is subject to NAGPRA and the 

locations of American Indian human remains at the NTS have to be protected from NTS activities. 

1.8.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-8 for a summary of how NTS complied with historic preservation and cultural resource protection 

regulations in 2003. 
Compliance Summary

 1-13

1.8.3 Compliance Reports 

NNSA/NSO submits Section 106 cultural resources survey reports and historical evaluations to the Nevada State 

Historic Preservation Office for review and concurrence. Mitigation plans and mitigation documents also are 

submitted to the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office and some types of documents go to the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation and the National Park Service. Reports containing restricted data on site locations are not 

available to the public. Some technical reports, however, are available to the public upon request and can be obtained 

from the National Technical Information Service. The 2003 reports submitted to agencies are discussed in 

Section 11. 

1.9 Conservation and Protection of Biota and Wildlife Habitat 

1.9.1 Applicable Regulations 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) – Section 7 of this act requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. The 

desert tortoise is the only animal on the NTS protected under this Act. It is listed as threatened. NTS activities 

within tortoise habitat are conducted so as to comply with the terms and conditions of a Biological Opinion issued by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) – Prohibits the harm of any migratory bird, their nest, or eggs without 

authorization by the Secretary of the Interior. All but two of the 239 bird species observed on the NTS (Wills and 

Ostler, 2001) are protected under this act. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to prevent direct harm to 

protected birds, nests, and eggs. 

Bald Eagle Protection Act – Prohibits the capture or harm of bald and golden eagles without special authorization. 

Both bald and golden eagles occur on the NTS. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to prevent direct harm 

to eagles, their nests, and eggs. 

Clean Water Act, Section 404, Wetlands Regulations – Regulates land development affecting wetlands by 

requiring a permit obtained from the USACE to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, 

which includes most wetlands on public and private land. NTS projects are evaluated for their potential to disturb 

wetlands and their need for Section 404 permit application. Although there are more than 20 water sources on the 

NTS (see Appendix A, Figure A-7), none meet the criteria needed to be considered “jurisdictional” wetlands. Support 

for this finding has been officially requested from USACE, but has yet to be received. 

National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act – Forbids a person to knowingly disturb or injure vegetation or kill 

vertebrate or invertebrate animals, their nests, or eggs on any National Wildlife Refuge lands unless permitted by the 

Secretary of the Interior. The boundary of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR) land administered within 

this System is approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) downwind of the HSC. Biological monitoring is conducted to verify that 

approved tests do not disperse toxic chemicals that could harm biota on DNWR. 

EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands” – Requires governmental agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or 

degradation of wetlands and preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the 

agency’s responsibilities, including managing federal lands and facilities. Projects are evaluated for their potential to 

disturb the more than 20 natural water sources on the NTS (see Appendix A, Figure A-7). NTS wetlands are 

monitored to document their use by wildlife even though it is unlikely they would be considered “jurisdictional” 

wetlands because they are isolated wetlands that are not on Indian lands, nor used for recreation (e.g., bird watching, 

photography, or hunting). The change in jurisdictional status of NTS wetlands by the USACE is due to a recent 

ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court over isolated waters of the U.S. (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 99-1178, January 9, 2001). 
Compliance Summary

 1-14

EO 11988, “Floodplain Management” – Ensures protection of property and human wellbeing within a floodplain, 

and protection of floodplains themselves. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes guidelines 

and specifications for assessing alluvial fan flooding. NNSA/NSO generally satisfies EO 11988 through 

DOE Order 420.1, Facility Safety, and invoked standards. DOE Order 420.1 and the associated implementation guide 

for mitigation of natural phenomena hazards, call for a graded approach to assessing risk to all facilities (Structures, 

Systems, and Components [SSC]) from potential natural hazards. Chapter 4 of DOE Standard 1020 

(DOE-STD-1020-2002) provides flood design and evaluation criteria for SSC. Evaluations of flood hazards at the 

NTS are generally conducted to ensure protection of property and human wellbeing. 

EO 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” – Directs federal agencies to take 

certain actions to further implement the MBTA if agencies have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on 

migratory bird populations. It also directs federal agencies to support the conservation intent of the MBTA and 

conduct actions, as practicable, to benefit the health of migratory bird populations. NTS projects are evaluated for 

their potential to impact such bird populations. 

EO 13112, “Invasive Species” – Directs federal agencies to act to prevent the introduction of, or to monitor and 

control, invasive (non-native) species, to provide for restoration of native species, and to exercise care in taking 

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

resulted in the spread of numerous invasive plant species. Habitat reclamation and other controls are evaluated and 

conducted when feasible to control such species and meet the purposes of this EO. 

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act – Requires the protection, management, and control of wild horses and 

burros on public lands and calls for the management and protection of these animals in a manner that is designed to 

achieve and maintain a thriving natural ecological balance. Wild horses on the NTS may wander off the NTS onto 

public lands and therefore are protected under this act. This act makes it unlawful to harm wild horses and burros. 

Five-Party Cooperative Agreement – Agreement between NNSA/NSO, Nellis Air Force Base, FWS, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), and the state of Nevada Clearinghouse that calls for cooperation in conducting resource 

inventories and developing resource management plans for wild horses and burros and to maintain favorable habitat 

on federally withdrawn lands for these animals. BLM considers NTS a zero herd-size management area. 

NNSA/NSO consults with BLM regarding any issue of NTS horse management. 

NAC 503.010-503.104 Protection of Wildlife – Identifies Nevada animal species which are protected and unprotected and prohibits the harm of protected species without special permit. Over 200 bird species and one bat 

species on the NTS are State-protected. Biological surveys are conducted for projects to prevent direct harm to 

protected birds, nests, eggs, and protected bats. 

NAC 527.270 Protection of Flora – Specifies that the State Forester Firewarden determines the protective status of 

a Nevada plant and prohibits removal or destruction of protected plants without special permit. Currently, no 

State-protected plant species are known to occur on the NTS. Annual reviews of the protection status of NTS plants 

are conducted. 

1.9.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-9 for a summary of how NTS complied with regulations related to the conservation and protection of 

biota and wildlife habitat in 2003. 

1.9.3 Out-of-Compliance Incidents 

Thirty-five reports of mortality among migratory birds were recorded in 2003 (see Table 12-6). They included 

30 mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), 15 which died of predation, and 15 of disease; an electrocuted great-horned owl 

(Bubo virginianus); an electrocuted red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis); a road-killed chukar (Alectoris chukar); a road-killed 

loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus); and a Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) that died of unknown causes. The 

great-horned owl and the red-tailed hawk are also state-protected raptors. Since 1990, a cumulative total of 10 
Compliance Summary

 1-15

electrocutions and 22 road-kills have been recorded. The electrocutions and road-kills in 2003 occurred at different 

locations. No feasible mitigation actions were identified or taken to reduce future bird mortality from these causes. 

1.9.4 Compliance Reports 

The following reports were prepared in 2003 to meet requirements of the regulations or to document compliance 

activities: 

• Annual Report of Actions Taken Under Authorization of the Biological Opinion on Nevada Test Site Activities 

(File No. 1-5-96-F-33) – January 1, 2003 Through December 31, 2003, submitted to the FWS Southern Nevada Field 

Office in January 2004

• Annual report for handling permit S23391 for 2003, submitted via email to Nevada Division of Wildlife on 

January 20, 2004 

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

Portland Office on December 22, 2003 

• Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 2003 Report, DOE/NV11718--850, December 2003

1.10 Environmental Management System 

1.10.1 Applicable Regulations 

EO 13148, “Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental Management” – This EO 

requires federal facilities to have an EMS that considers potential environmental impacts in all aspects of its work. 

This is especially important in the work planning and budgeting stages. Pollution prevention, eliminating potential 

wastes, and recycling materials must always be addressed when planning work. The EO requires that the EMS be in 

place by December 31, 2005. 

DOE Order 450.1 “Environmental Protection Program” – requires each DOE facility to implement an EMS 

which is a continuing cycle of planning, implementing, evaluating, and improving processes and actions undertaken to 

achieve environmental goals. The objectives are to implement sound stewardship practices that are protective of the 

air, water, land, and other natural and cultural resources impacted by DOE operations and by which DOE cost 

effectively meets or exceeds compliance with applicable environmental; public health; and resource protection laws, 

regulations, and DOE requirements. The EMS must be fully integrated into each DOE site’s ISMS by 

December 31, 2005. 

1.10.2 Compliance Status 

See Table 1-10 for a summary of how NTS complied with EMS regulations. 

1.10.3 Compliance Reports 

NNSA/NSO submitted quarterly reports to DOE/HQ in 2003 regarding progress towards meeting interim goals that 

were established to help facilities meet the December 31, 2005 deadline. 

1.11 Occurrence Reporting/Releases 

1.11.1 Applicable Regulations 

40 CFR 302.1 – 302.8: Designation, Reportable Quantities, and Notification – Requires facilities to notify 

federal authorities of spills or releases of certain hazardous substances designated under CERCLA and the CWA. It 
Compliance Summary

 1-16

specifies what quantities of hazardous substance spills/releases must be reported to authorities and delineates the 

notification procedures for a release that equals or exceeds the reportable quantities. 

NAC 445A.345 – 445.348: Notification of Release of Pollutant – Requires state notification for the unplanned or 

accidental releases of specified quantities of pollutants, hazardous wastes, and contaminants. 

Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001 – This general wastewater discharge permit issued by the 

state to the NTS specifies that no petroleum products will be discharged into treatment works without first being 

processed through an oil/water separator or other approved methods. It also specifies how NNSA/NSO shall report 

each bypass, spill, upset, overflow, or release of treated or untreated sewage. 

Other NTS Permits/Agreements – As with General Permit GNEV93001 mentioned above, there are other state 

permits and agreements cited in previous subsections of this chapter (e.g., FFACO) which specify that accidents or 

events of non-compliance must be reported. They include events that may create an environmental hazard. 

1.11.2 Compliance Status 

Five reportable environmental occurrences which involved un-permitted discharges into sewage lagoons, spills of 

fluids onto soil, and the mishandling of potentially-contaminated soil occurred in 2003, and are described in 

Table 1-11. Accidental spills or releases during 2003 which were less than federal or state-designated reportable 

quantities are not presented in Table 1-11. The direct, contributing, and root causes of these occurrences were 

determined and were described within occurrence reports prepared for each occurrence and submitted to 

NNSA/NSO by the BN Environmental Compliance Department (ECD). 

1.11.3 Continuous Releases 

Section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA provides that releases of hazardous substances that are “continuous” and “stable in 

quantity and rate” may qualify for reduced reporting (notification requirements). There are no continuous releases on 

the NTS. 

1.12 Summary of Permits 

Table 1-12 presents the complete list of all federal and state permits active in 2003 that have been issued to 

NNSA/NSO and to BN for NTS operations and which have been referenced in previous subsections of this chapter. 

The table includes those pertaining to air quality monitoring, operation of drinking water and sewage systems, 

hazardous materials and hazardous waste management and disposal, and endangered species protection. Reports 

associated with these permits are submitted to the appropriate designated state or federal office. Copies of reports 

may be obtained upon request.
1-17 

Table 1-1. NTS compliance status with applicable air quality regulations 

Compliance Measure/Actions 

Compliance 

Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2003 

Clean Air Act – NESHAP  Annual dose equivalent from all radioactive air emissions 10 mrem/yr(b) Compliant 

 0.10 mrem/yr(b)

Notify EPA Region IX if the number of linear or square feet of asbestos to be removed from a facility exceeds limit. 

260 linear ft or 

160 ft2(c)

Compliant 

Maintain asbestos abatement plans, data records, and activity/maintenance records For up to 25 or 

75 years 

Compliant 

Clean Air Act – NAAQS 

Submit annual report of calculated emissions to state of Nevada Due March 1 Compliant 

Number of gallons of fuel used, hours of operation, and rate of aggregate/concrete production by permitted equipment/facility 

Limit varies(d) Compliant 

Tons of emissions of each criteria pollutant produced by permitted equipment/ facility based on calculations 

100 tons(e) for 

each pollutant 

Compliant 

14.26 tons(e) for all pollutants combined 

Conduct opacity readings from permitted equipment/facility Monthly Compliant Percent opacity of emissions from permitted equipment/facility 20% Compliant 0 to 20% for 6 facilities Submit test plans/final analysis reports for each test conducted at the HSC and annual report of all chemicals released during the year to state of Nevada 

Annual report 

due March 1 

Compliant - 4 tests conducted 

Clean Air Act - NSPS 

Conduct opacity readings from permitted equipment/facility Monthly Compliant 

 Percent opacity of emissions from permitted equipment/facility 10% Compliant 

0 - 10% for 1 facility 

Clean Air Act - Stratospheric Ozone Protection  Maintain ODS technician certification records, approvals for ODS-containing 

equipment recycling/recovery, and applicable equipment servicing records 

NA(f) Compliant 

Generic Nevada Air Quality Permit Regulations 

Allow Nevada Bureau of Air Pollution Control personnel access to NTS to conduct inspections of facilities and operations regulated by state air permits 

NA Compliant 

No state inspections conducted in 2003 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected(b) 10 mrem/yr = 0.1 mSv/yr; 0.10 mrem/yr = 1.0 x 10-3mSv/yr(c) 260 linear ft or 160 ft2 = 79.3 linear meters or 14.9 m2(d) Compliance limit is specific for each piece of permitted equipment/facility (e) 100 tons = 90.7 mtons; 14.26 tons = 12.94 mtons (f) Not applicable
1-18

Table 1-2. NTS compliance status with applicable water quality and protection regulations 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance 

Limit 

2003 Compliance Status 

Actions Taken 

Safe Drinking Water Act and Nevada Water Controls (NAC 445A - Water Controls - Public Water Systems)  Number of water samples containing coliform bacteria 1 per month 0  Concentration of lead in a water system 0.015 mg/L 0.0135 mg/L  Concentration of copper in a water system 1.3 mg/L 0.094 mg/L  Concentration of nitrates in a water system 10.0 mg/L 0.31 – 4.0 mg/L (b)  Concentration of fluoride in a water system 4.0 mg/L 1.8 mg/L  Adherence to design, construction, maintenance, and operation 

regulations 

NA( c ) Compliant 

Clean Water Act and Nevada Water Pollution Controls - Sewage Disposal (NAC 444 – Sewage Disposal) 

Adherence to all design/construction/operation requirements for new systems and those specified in 16 active septic system permits and 5 active septic tank pumper permits 

NA Compliant 

Adherence to all operation requirements specified by 6 active permits NA Compliant Allow BHPS access to conduct inspections of PWS and water hauling trucks 

NA Compliant 

No inspections 

conducted in 2003 

Allow NDEP access to conduct inspections of active sewage lagoon systems 

NA Compliant 

Inspection conducted 

 February, 2003 

Clean Water Act and Nevada Water Pollution Controls (NAC 445A - Water Pollution Controls)

Measurements of 5-day Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH in one sewage lagoon water sample sampled quarterly

BOD: varies (d)

TSS: no limit pH: 6.0 - 9.0 S.U.

Compliant – Samples collectin Sep., Jan., Apr., and Jul. 
1-19

Table 1-2. (continued) 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance 

Limit 

2003 Compliance Status o

Actions Taken 

Concentration of 36 specified contaminants in the filtrate from one sewage lagoon sample collected annually from each of two permitted facilities 

Limit varies(e) Compliant - concentrations w

limits 

pH value and concentration of 18 specified contaminants in a representative water sample collected annually from one sewage facility's groundwater monitoring well (SM-23-1) 

Limit varies(e) Compliant -concentrations w

limits 

Inspection by operator of active sewage lagoon systems Weekly Compliant Inspection by operator of inactive sewage lagoon systems Quarterly Compliant Submit quarterly monitoring reports for 3 active sewage lagoons (for Area 6, 12, and 23) 

Due end of Jan., 

Apr., Jul., Oct. 

Compliant 

NAC 534: Nevada Division of Water Resources Regulations for Water Well and Related Drilling 

Maintain state well-drilling license for personnel supervising well construction/reconditioning 

NA Compliant - 5 licensed perso

supervised well activities 

File notices of intent and affidavits of responsibility for plugging NA Compliant - 3 notices of in

with 2 affidavits were fil

Adhere to well construction requirements/waivers NA Compliant - 2 new wells an

reconditioned well complet

UGTA Project; 112 boreho

plugged for Borehole Manag

Program 

Maintain required records and submit required reports Compliant 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected (b) Lowest and highest concentrations measured from samples analyzed (c) Not applicable (d) BOD limit is calculated based on the volume of the sewage lagoon (e) Compliance limit is specific for each contaminant; see referenced tables for specific limits 
Compliance Status

 1-20

Table 1-3. NTS compliance status with regulations for radiation protection of the public and the environment

Compliance Measure 

Compliance 

Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2003 

Section 

Reference(a)

 Clean Air Act - NESHAP 

 Annual dose to the general public from all radioactive air 

emissions 

10 mrem/yr 

(0.1 mSv/yr) 

0.10 mrem/yr 

(0.001 mSv/yr) 

2.1.3.2; 

7.1.2.3 

 Safe Drinking Water Act 

 Annual dose equivalent to the general public from drinking water 4 mrem/yr 

(0.04 mSv/yr) 

0 mrem/yr(b)

(0 mSv/yr) 

3.1.3.1; 

Table 3-1 

 DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the 

Environment” 

 

 Annual dose equivalent to the general public from all pathways 100 mrem/yr

(1 mSv/yr) 

0.46 mrem/yr 

(0.0046 mSv/yr) 

7.1.3.1; 

Table 7-3 

 DOE Standard 1153-2002 

 

Absorbed radiation dose to terrestrial plants 1 rad/day 

 (0.01 Gy/day) 

<1 rad/day 

(<0.01 Gy/day) 

7.2.2 

 

Absorbed radiation dose to aquatic animals 1 rad/day 

(0.01 Gy/day) 

<1 rad/day 

(<0.01 Gy/day) 

7.2.2 

 

Absorbed radiation dose to terrestrial animals 0.1 rad/day 

(1 mGy/day) 

<0.1 rad/day 

(<1 mGy/day) 

7.2.2 

DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management” 

 

Annual dose to the general public due to RWMC operations 25 mrem/yr

(0.25 mSv/yr) 

Compliant (c ) 4.3.2 

DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program” 

 Conduct radiological environmental monitoring NA(d) Compliant 2.1; 3.1; 

4.0; 6.0 

 Characterize pathways of radiological exposure to the public NA Compliant 7.1.2.1 

 Characterize exposures and doses to individuals, population, 

and biota 

NA Compliant 7.1.3.1; 

7.1.3.2; 

7.2 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

(b) Migration of radioactivity in groundwater to offsite wells has never been detected 

(c) Nearest populations to the Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs (Amargosa Valley [55 km away] and Cactus Springs 

[36 km away], respectively) are too distant to receive any radiation exposure from operations at the sites. 

(d) Not applicable 
1-21

Table 1-4. NTS compliance status with applicable waste management and environmental restoration regulations 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance 

Limit 

Complian

Status - 20

10 CFR 830: Nuclear Facilities 

Completion and maintenance of proper conduct of operations documents required for Class II Nuclear Facility for disposal/characterization/storage of radioactive waste 

Six types of guiding documents required Complia

DOE Order 435.1, “Radioactive Waste Management” 

Establishment of Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) for radioactive wastes received for disposal/storage at Area 3 and 5 RWMSs NA(b) CompliaVadose zone monitoring at Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs Not required by Order - 

performed to validate performance assessment criteria of RWMSs 

Conduct

Groundwater monitoring at wells UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3 Not required by 

Order - performed to validate performance assessment criteria of Area 5 RWMS 

Conduct

Volume of disposed LLW at Area 3 and Area 5 RWMSs No limit Area 3: 57,1

Area 5: 34,6

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (as enforced through permits issued by the state of Nevada) 

Volume of stored non-radioactive hazardous waste at the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit 61,600 liters 

(16,280 gallons) 

Complia

Weight of approved explosive ordnance wastes detonated at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 

45.4 kg (100 lbs) at a time, not to exceed 1 detonation event/hour 

Complia

Volume of disposed MW at Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) 20,000 m3 (26,159 yd3) CompliaConduct vadose zone monitoring (VZM) for RCRA closure sites: Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches, U-3fi Injection Well, and U3ax/bl Subsidence Crater 

A23: semi-annually using NL(c ) U3fi: 

quarterly using NL U3ax/bl: continuous using TDR(d)

Complia
1-22

Table 1-4. (continued) 

Compliance Measure/Action

Compliance 

Limit

Compliance 

Status - 2003 

Upgrade, remove, and report on underground storage tanks (USTs) NA Compliant Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order 

Adherence to CY 2003 work scope for site characterization, remediation, and closures 

34 CAUs identified for some phase of action in 2003, 5 UGTA CAUs assigned 2003 milestones 

Compliant 

All milestones 

were met 

Post-closure monitoring and inspections of closed sites 17 sites requiring 

monitoring/inspecting 

Compliant 

Nevada Solid Waste Disposal Controls (NAC 444.750-8396)  Track weight and volume of waste disposed each calendar year Area 5 P06U - No limit 

Area 6 - No limit Area 9 - No limit Area 23 - 20 tons/day 

Compliant 

 Monitor vadose zone for the Area 6 Hydrocarbon and Area 9 U10c Solid 

Waste disposal sites 

Semi-annually using neutron tubes 

Compliant 

 Monitor groundwater quality at well SM-23-1 for the Area 23 Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

Once every 5 years Compliant - last 

monitored in 2002 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

(b) Not applicable 

(c) Neutron logging through access tubes (d) Time domain reflectometry sensors 
1-23

Table 1-5. NTS compliance status with applicable regulations for hazardous substance control and management 

Compliance Limit Compliance Status - 20

Storage and offsite disposal of PCB materials >50ppm PCB Compliant Storage and onsite disposal of PCB materials <50 ppm PCB Compliant Disposal of bulk product waste (BPW) containing PCBs generated by remediation and site operations

Case-by-case approval by NDEP Compliant 

Generate report of quantities of PCBs liquids and materials disposed offsite during previous calendar year

Due July 1 of following year Compliant -

submitted May 22, 2003

Application of restricted use pesticides are conducted under the direct supervision of a state-certified applicator

 NA(b) Compliant - 

no restricted use pesticides wer

Maintain state certification of onsite pesticide and herbicide applicator

NA Compliant 

Section 302-303 Planning Notification NCA Report due in March 

Compliant -

submitted March 5, 2004

no EHS thresholds exceed

Section 304 – EHS Release Notification Notification Report due 

immediately after a release

Compliant -

no releases occurred

Section 311-312 – MSDS/Chemical Inventory NCA Report due in March Compliant -

submitted March 5, 2004

Section 313 – TRI Reporting TRI Report, Form R due July 1 Compliant -

submitted June 23, 2004 - lead wa

reportable substance 

Registration of NTS with the state if EHSs are stored above listed threshold quantities

NDEP-CAPP(c ) Report due 

6/21/04

Compliant – 

submitted June 21, 2004 - oleum w

reportable EHS

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and NAC 555: Control of Insects, Pests and Noxious Weeds

Compliance Measure/Action

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

and NAC 444 - Polychlorinated BiphenylState of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act

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

(c ) CAPP = Chemical Accident Prevention Program (b) Not applicable(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected.

(c)

Required if >50 ppm PCB

Allowed if <50 ppm PCB

Generate report of quantities of PCB liquids and materials

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)and NAC 55: Control of Insect, Pests and Noxious Weeds 

June 21, 2004

July 15,
Compliance Status

 1-24

Table 1-6. NTS NEPA compliance activities conducted in 2003 

 Results of NEPA Checklist Reviews / NEPA Compliance Activities 

 

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

 

29 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis due to their inclusion under previous 

analysis in the NTS EIS (DOE, 1996) and its Record of Decision. 

 

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

in the SA to the NTS EIS (DOE, 2002b). 

 

4 projects were exempted from further NEPA analysis due to their inclusion under previous analysis 

in the Hazardous Materials Spill Center EA (DOE, 2002c) 

 

3 projects were reviewed which were not adequately addressed in existing NEPA analysis, and a 

new SA to the NTS EIS was prepared in 2003. This was an SA for NTS activities related to 

combating terrorism (DOE, 2003a). Based on the analysis in this SA, NNSA/NSO determined that 

there are no substantial changes to the NTS EIS or Record of Decision or significant new 

circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns, and that no supplemental EIS is 

needed. 

 

Preparation was initiated for one EA, the Environmental Assessment for Tests and Experiments Using 

Biological Materials and Releases of Chemicals Including Modification of Release Parameters for the 

Hazardous Materials Spill Center at the Nevada Test Site. This document has not yet been completed. 

Note: CX = Categorical Exclusion 

 EA = Environmental Assessment 

EIS = Environmental Impact Statement 

SA = Supplement Analysis 

 
Compliance Status

 1-25

Table 1-7a. NTS compliance status with applicable pollution prevention/waste minimization regulations 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance

Limit 

Compliance 

Status 2003 

Section 

Reference (a)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) 

42 USC 6922 (b) (1) 

 

 Have a program in place to reduce the volume or quantity and 

toxicity of generated hazardous waste to the degree it is 

economically practicable. 

NA(b) Compliant 10.1

 Have a process in place to ensure that EPA-designated List 

products are purchased containing the minimum content of 

recycled materials. 

NA Compliant 10.1

EO13101, “Greening the Government through Waste Prevention, 

Recycling and Federal Acquisition” 

 

 Incorporate waste prevention and recycling into daily operations N/A Compliant 10.1 

 Percent of all purchased items which contain the minimum 

content of recycled material as specified on the EPA-designated 

product list. 

100% 86% 

 Submit a calendar year RCRA/EO13101Report to 

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

DOE/HQ electronic database. 

Due 

December 30, 

2003 

Submitted 

December 12, 

2003 

- - 

DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program” 

 Implement an EMS that includes pollution prevention. Implement by 

December 31, 

2005 

On schedule 16.0 

 Submit a fiscal year Waste Generation and Pollution Prevention 

Progress Report to DOE/HQ that includes annual recycling totals 

and waste minimization accomplishments by entering the site’s 

data into the DOE/HQ electronic database. 

Due 

December 12, 

2003 

Submitted 

November 11, 

2003 

10.3, 10.4 

NDEP Hazardous Waste Permit Number NEV HW009 

 Submit a calendar year Waste Minimization Summary Report to 

NDEP 

Due by 

March 1, 2003 

Submitted 

February 26, 

2003 

10.3, 10.4 

 Submit a calendar year Waste Minimization Summary Report to 

NDEP 

Due by 

March 1, 2003 

Submitted 

February 26, 

2003 

- - 

Secretary of Energy's P2 Leadership Goals 

 See Table 1-7b 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected 

(b) Not applicable 
Compliance Status

 1-26

Table 1-7b. NTS compliance status with the Secretary of Energy’s pollution prevention and energy efficiency 

leadership goals 

 Leadership Goal 

1993 

Baseline 

CY 2005 

Goal 

CY 2003 

Status 

CY 2003 

Reduction 

Reduce waste from routine operations by the 

following percentages for each waste type by 2005, 

using a 1993 baseline: 

 Hazardous by 90% 3,724 mtons(a) 372 mtons 10.4 mtons 99.7% 

 Low Level Radioactive by 80% 0 m3 (b) 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

 Low Level Mixed Radioactive by 80% 0 m3 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

 Transuranic (TRU) by 80% 0 m3 0 m3 0 m3 N/A 

Reduce solid waste from routine operations by 

75% by 2005, using a 1993 baseline 

13,735 

mtons 

3,434 

mtons 

4,502 

mtons 67% 

Reduce releases of toxic chemicals subject to Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI) reporting by 90% by 2005, 

using a 1993 baseline 

0 pounds 

reported 

No 

reduction 

possible( c ) 

1.77 mtons of 

lead 

No reduction 

possible

 Waste 

Disposed 

Waste 

Recycled 

CY 2003 

Reduction 

Recycle 45% of solid waste from all operations by 2005 and 50% by 

2010 

21,477 

mtons 

1,547 

mtons 

7% 

 

Waste 

Disposed 

Waste 

Reduced 

CY 2003 

Reduction 

Reduce waste resulting from cleanup, stabilization, and 

decommissioning activities by 10% on an annual basis 

18,142 

mtons 

966 

mtons 

5% 

 CY 2005 

Goal 

CY 2003 

Status 

Increase purchases of EPA-designated items with recycled content to 100%, except 

when not available competitively at a reasonable price or that do not meet 

performance standards. 100% 86% 

(a) metric tons, 1 mton = 1.10 ton 

(b) cubic meters, 1m3 = 1.35 yd3

(c) No measurable reduction can be reported because no waste of this type was reported on the NTS in 1993 
Compliance Status

 1-27

Table 1-8. NTS compliance status with historic preservation regulations 

Compliance Action 

Compliance 

Status - 2003 

Section 

Reference(a)

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and 

Executive Order 11593 

Maintain and implement NTS Cultural Resources 

Management Plan 

Compliant 11.0

Conduct cultural resources pre-activity surveys, 

inventories and evaluations of historic structures 

Conducted for 8 projects 11.1.3; 

Table 11-1 

Make determinations of eligibility to the National 

Register 

Determined 20 properties eligible 11.1.3; 

Table 11-1 

Make assessments of impact to eligible properties All eligible sites avoided by NTS 

activities 

11.1.3 

Manage artifact collection as per required professional 

standards 

Compliant 11.2.2

 

Archaeological Resources and Protection Act of 1979 

Conduct archaeological work by qualified permittees Compliant -- 

Determine if archaeological sites have been damaged None damaged -- 

Complete and submit Secretary of the Interior 

Archaeology Questionnaire 

Completed 11.1.4

 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

Allow American Indians access to NTS locations for 

ceremonies and traditional use 

Access provided 11.3.2 

 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

Consult with affiliated American Indian tribes regarding 

repatriation of cultural items 

Completed 11.2.2

Protect American Indian burial locations on NTS Compliant 11.2.2 

Overall Requirement 

Consult with tribes regarding various cultural resources 

issues 

Compliant 11.3.2

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected
1-28 

Table 1-9. NTS compliance status with applicable biota and wildlife habitat regulations 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance 

Limit 

Compliance 

 Status - 2003 

Endangered Species Act  Number of tortoises accidentally injured or killed due to NTS activities per year 3 0  Number of tortoises captured and displaced from project sites per year 10 0  Number of tortoises taken since 1992 in form of injury or mortality on NTS paved roads 

by vehicles other than those in use during a project 

Unlimited 5 

 Number of total acres of desert tortoise habitat disturbed during NTS project 

construction since 1992 

3,015 217.71 

 Follow 23 terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion during construction and 

operation of NTS projects 

NA(b) Compliant 

 Conduct biological surveys at proposed project sites to assess presence of protected 

species 

NA Compliant 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act; Bald Eagle Protection Act; EO 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”  Number of birds/nests/eggs harmed by NTS project activities 0 35 bird deaths recorded

nests removed from bu

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act  Number of animals, their nests, or eggs killed and amount of vegetation disturbed or 

injured on System lands (the Desert National Wildlife Range) as a result of NTS activities 

0 0 

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and Five-Party Cooperative Agreement  Number of horses harassed or killed due to NTS activities 0 0 

Cooperation in conducting resource inventories and developing resource management plans for horses on NTS, Nellis Air Force Range, and the Desert National Wildlife Range NA NTS annual horse inv

conducted 
1-29

Table 1-9. (continued) 

Compliance Measure/Action 

Compliance 

Limit 

Compliance 

Status - 2003 

EO 11988 Floodplain Management 

Conduct flood hazard evaluations 

NA 

Evaluations were cond(1) Legacy Compliance  Smoky site, Area 8 (2) Yucca Lake runway(3) Egg Point Fire burn  Area 12 (4) Mercury, Area 23 

EO 11990, “Protection of Wetlands”  Number of wetlands disturbed by NTS activity NA None EO 13112, “Invasive Species”  Disturbed habitat is revegetated with native plant species on occasion to mitigate for loss 

of tortoise habitat (in lieu of payment), to stabilize soil, and to prevent invasion of nonnative plants. 

NA Revegetation of a 300 

wildfire in Area 12 w

completed and monito

Nevada Protective Measures for Wildlife and Flora (NAC 503.010-503.104 and NAC 527.270)  Number of state-protected animals harmed or killed and number of state-protected 

plants collected or harmed due to NTS activities 

0 2 bird deaths record

(a) The sections within this document that describe how compliance summary data were collected (b) Not applicable 
Compliance Status

 1-30

Table 1-10. NTS compliance status with Environmental Management System regulations 

(a) The section(s) within this document that describe compliance summary data

Compliance Limit

Compliance 

Status - 2003

Section 

Reference(a)

Have an EMS in place December 31, 2005 On schedule 16.0

Issue site EMS policy statement December 31, 2003 Compliant -

issued in 2000

16.0

Implement EMS training to personnel establishing the 

system

December 31, 2003 Compliant 16.0

Identify significant environmental aspects December 31, 2003 Compliant 16.0

Incorporate the EMS into the site's ISMS December 31, 2005 On schedule 16.0

Compliance Measure/Action

Executive Order (EO) 13148, “Greening the Government 

through Leadership in Environmental Management” 

DOE Order 450.1 “Environmental Protection Program” Environmental Protection Program ” 
Compliance Status

 1-31

Table 1-11. Environmental occurrences on the NTS in 2003 

Occurrence Report 

Number and Date Type of Occurrence 

NVOO-BN-NTS-2003-

0002, January 27, 2003 

Un-permitted Discharge of Nonhazardous Synthetic Oil into Area 12 Sewage Lagoons 

 

On January 21, 2003, site personnel pumped out 1,200 gallons (4,542 liters) of condensate blowdown 

fluid from an Underground Test Area (UGTA) drilling project (ER-12-2) accumulation tank. This fluid 

is mostly water with about 2-5 percent nonhazardous Royal Purple Synfilm brand synthetic oil. This 

material should have been brought to an oil/water separator in Area 23, with the separated water 

discharging into the Area 23 sewage lagoon system. In this case however the blowdown fluid was 

transferred into dry basins of the Area 12 sewage lagoon system that are permitted for discharge or 

wintertime septage from portable toilets. The final determination was that about 5 gallons (18.9 liters) 

of oil was spilled. The spill was cleaned up, and the corrective actions taken included revising the 

applicable work package and operating procedure. 

NVOO-BN-NTS-2003-

0004, February 18, 2003 

Diesel Fuel Discharge into Mercury Sewage Lagoon 

 

On February 18, 2003 at 0700 hrs it was discovered that there had been a leak of diesel over the holiday 

weekend in the boiler room of Building 111 in Mercury. The leak was fixed rapidly, but it was 

determined that approximately 10 to 15 gallons (37.9 to 57.8 liters) of diesel fuel had entered the boiler 

room floor drain and been discharged into the Mercury Sewage Lagoon System. The diesel fuel leak 

occurred due to a crack that developed in the boiler's fuel system piping because of metal fatigue. The 

lagoon and spill site were cleaned up, and the defective piping was replaced. 

NVOO-BN-NTS-2003-

0005, February 19, 2003 

Hydraulic Fluid Spill Onto Soil in Area 5 Disposal Cell 

 

A construction superintendent supporting construction of a new disposal cell in Area 5 reported that a 

water master truck (#71508) operating in the bottom of the disposal cell experienced a hydraulic hose 

failure. Repairs to the hydraulic system revealed that 23 gallons (87.1 liters) of hydraulic fluid had 

spilled. Hydraulic fluid spilled onto the bottom of the cell in a linear pattern, 800 ft. long x 2 ft wide 

(243.8 m long x 0.6 m wide). The material impacted was Type II soil being placed in the bottom of the 

cell in a 6 inch lift. The amount of soil affected is estimated at 10 cubic yards (7.6 cubic meters). The 

contaminated soil was removed and disposed of appropriately. 

NVOO-BN-NTS-2003-

0010, July 22, 2003 

Unauthorized Excavation of Potentially-Contaminated Soil Located at the CNTA UC-4 Mud Pit 

C Cover 

 

On June 18, 2003, while performing erosion repairs to CAU 417 located at the CNTA UC-4 Mud Pit C 

cover, a front-end loader operator removed soil from within the boundaries of the UC-4 Mud Pit B 

posted area. In a letter issued July 15, 2003 to the NNSA/NSO Environmental Restoration Division, the 

State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) determined that the unauthorized 

excavation and subsequent placement of potentially-contaminated soil represents a non-conformance 

with the approved Corrective Action Decision Document and Closure Report for CAU 417, CNTA 

Surface, and a potential non-compliance with both the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order 

and Nevada Administrative Code. The corrective actions taken included creating new operational 

instructions, revising the work package, establishing work “hold points”, and providing training to 

construction personnel. 

NVOO-BN-NTS-2003-

0013, September 18, 2003 

Heating Oil Spill Onto Soil in Area 12 

 

During excavation of the dirt from an underground heating oil tank (located in Area 12, outside of 

building 12-30) to retrofit spill and overfill protection, a legacy heating oil spill was discovered. 

Approximately 6 cubic yards (4.6 cubic meters) of soil were impacted. The contaminated soil was 

excavated and disposed of appropriately. 
Compliance Status

 1-32

Table 1-12. Environmental permits required for NTS operations 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Air Quality Permits 

 

AP9711-0549 Area 1 Facilities Area 6 Facilities Annually 

 Shaker Plant Circuit Cementing Equipment (Silos) 

 Rotary Dryer Circuit Decontamination Boiler 

 Wet Aggregate Plant Bulk Diesel Fuel Storage Tank 

Permit renewal pending; 

operating under existing 

expired permit per 

NAC445B.323 until new 

permit is issued 

 Concrete Batch Plant Bulk Gasoline Storage Tank 

 Sandbag Facility Portable Cement Bins 

 Cedar Rapids Screen Portable Stemming System 1 

 Shotcrete Hopper/Conveyor Portable Stemming System 2 

 Cambilt Conveyor Diesel Engines (11) 

 Commander Crusher Two-Part Epoxy Batch Plant 

 Kolberg Screen Plant 

 

 Area 3 Facilities Area 12 Facilities 

 Mud Plant Concrete Batch Plant 

 

 Various Areas Area 23 Facilities 

 Diesel Fired Generators Building 753 Boiler 

 Diesel Fired Compressors Diesel Fuel Tank 

 Laboratory Hoods Gasoline Fuel Tank 

 NTS Surface Disturbances 

 All Areas Incinerator (Wackenhut) 

 NTS Surface Disturbances 

 

AP9711-0556 Area 5 Hazmat Spill Center Annually 

 

 

Permit renewal pending; 

operating under existing 

expired permit per 

NAC445B.323 until new 

permit is issued 

 

AP9711-0814 Area 11 TaDD Facility Annually 

 

 

Permit renewal pending; 

operating under existing 

expired permit per 

NAC445B.323 until new 

 permit is issued 

03-140 Area 27 Burn Variance 

(LLNL) 

 March 5, 2004 None 

03-30 NTS Burn Variance (Training Fires) March 11, 2004 None 
Compliance Status

 1-33

Table 1-12. (continued) 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Drinking Water Permits 

 

NY-0360-12NTNC Areas 6 and 23 September 30, 2004 None 

NY-4098-12NTNC Area 25 September 30, 2004 None 

NY-4099-12NTNC Area 12 September 30, 2004 None 

NY-0835-12NP NTS Water Hauler #84846 September 30, 2004 None 

NY-0836-12NP NTS Water Hauler #84847 September 30, 2004 None 

 

Septic Systems and Pumpers 

NY-1076 Septic System, Area 6 (ART Hangar) None None 

NY-1077 Septic System, Area 27 (Baker Compound) None None 

NY-1106 Septic System, Area 5 (Building 05-08) None None 

NY-1079 Septic System, Area 12 (U12g Tunnel) None None 

NY-1080 Septic System, Area 23 (Building 1103) None None 

NY-1081 Septic System, Area 6 (CP-170) None None 

NY-1082 Septic System, Area 22 (Building 22-01) None None 

NY-1083 Septic System, Area 5 Radioactive Material Management Site None None 

NY-1084 Septic System, Area 6 (Device Assembly Facility) None None 

NY-1085 Septic System, Area 25 (Central Support Area) None None 

NY-1086 Septic System, Area 25 (Reactor Control Point) None None 

NY-1087 Septic System, Area 27 ( Able Compound) None None 

NY-1089 Septic System, Area 12 (Camp) None None 

NY-1090 Septic System, Area 6 (LANL Construction Camp Site) None None 

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

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

NY-17-03313 Septic Tank Pumper E-105293 November 30, 2004 None 

NY-17-03315 Septic Tank Pumper E-105919 November 30, 2004 None 

NY-17-03317 Septic Tank Pumper E-105918 November 30, 2004 None 

NY-17-03318 Septic Tank Pumping Contractor November 30, 2004 None 

NY-17-06838 Septic Tank Pumping Contractor (one unit) November 30, 2004 None 

NY-17-06839 Septic Tank Pumping Contractor (one unit) November 30, 2004 None 

 

Wastewater Discharge 

 

GNEV93001 Water Pollution Control General Permit December 7, 2004 Quarterly 

NEV96021 Water Pollution Control for E-Tunnel; Waste Water Disposal 

System and Monitoring Well ER-12-1 

September 25, 2007 Quarterly 
Compliance Status

 1-34

Table 1-12. (continued) 

Permit 

Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Hazardous Materials 

 

2287-5146 NTS Hazardous Materials February 29, 2004 Annually 

2287-5147 Hazmat Spill Center Hazardous Materials February 29, 2004 Annually 

 

Hazardous Waste 

 

NEV-HW009 NTS Hazardous Waste Management (RCRA) November 17, 2005 Biennially 

 

Disposal Sites 

 

SW 13 000 01 Area 5 Asbestiform Low-Level Solid Waste Disposal Site Postclosure(a) Annually 

SW 13 097 02 Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site Postclosure Annually 

SW 13 097 03 Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site Postclosure Annually 

SW 13 097 04 Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site Postclosure Annually 

 

Endangered Species/Wildlife 

 

File No. 1-5-96-F-33 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Desert Tortoise Incidental 

Take Authorization December 31, 2006 Annually 

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

Collecting Permit December 31, 2004 Annually 

S23391 Nevada Division of Wildlife - Scientific Collection of 

Wildlife Samples December 31, 2004 Annually 

 

(a) Permit expires 30 years after closure of the landfill 

 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-1

2.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring 

Section 2.1 of this chapter presents the results of radiological air monitoring conducted on and off the Nevada Test 

Site (NTS) to ensure compliance with National Emission Standard Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) radioactive 

air emission standards (see Section 1.1). Sources of radioactive air emissions from the NTS include evaporation of 

tritiated water from containment ponds; diffusion of tritiated water vapor from the soil at Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Complex, Sedan crater, and Schooner crater; tritium gas released during equipment calibrations at 

Building CP-50 in Area 6; and resuspension of plutonium and americium from contaminated soil at historical nuclear 

device safety test locations and atmospheric test locations. Radiological monitoring is conducted by Bechtel Nevada 

(BN) Environmental Technical Services. 

Data presented in Section 2.1 are limited to the concentrations of radioactivity in air samples. These data are then 

used to assess radiological dose to the general public, via inhalation, in the vicinity of the NTS. The reader is directed 

to Section 7.0 (Radiological Dose Assessment) of this Nevada Test Site Environmental Report (NTSER) where the 

calculated doses are presented. The 2003 calculated doses are based on the air sampling data presented in Section 2.1, 

the water sampling data presented in Section 3.1, and the direct radiation exposure data presented in Section 4.0. 

An oversight monitoring program has been established by U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) to independently monitor radionuclide contamination of air within 

communities adjacent to the NTS. This independent oversight program is managed by Desert Research Institute 

(DRI). DRI’s 2003 air monitoring results are presented in Section 5.0 of this NTSER. 

Section 2.2 of this chapter presents the results of non-radiological air quality assessments conducted on the NTS to 

ensure compliance with current air quality permits (see Section 1.1). NTS operations which are sources of 

non-radiological air pollution include aggregate production, surface disturbance (e.g., construction), release of fugitive 

dust from driving on unpaved roads, use of fuel burning equipment, open burning, venting from bulk fuel storage 

facilities, and releases of various chemicals during testing at the Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC). Air quality 

assessments are conducted by BN Environmental Compliance Department (ECD). 

2.1 Radiological Air Monitoring 

DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment,” and the Clean Air Acts (CAA’s) NESHAP 

require air monitoring for radiological emissions at the NTS. An air surveillance network of sampling stations has 

been established for such monitoring. The objectives and design of the network are described in detail in the Routine 

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b). This section describes briefly the RREMP 

goals, compliance measures, and methods, and presents the results of 2003 field sample collection and analysis. 

2.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

The goals of radiological air monitoring are to monitor all radionuclide emissions on the NTS that are above some 

reasonable lower limit such that no significant emission source that contributes to calculable offsite exposures is 

ignored, and to ensure that the NTS is in full compliance with the requirements of the CAA. To accomplish this, an 

air surveillance network comprised of air particulate samplers and samplers for tritium in atmospheric moisture has 

been established. The network monitors airborne radioactivity near NTS sites at which radioactivity from past nuclear 

testing was deposited on and in the soil, and at NTS operating facilities that may produce radioactive air emissions. 

Data from all sampling stations are analyzed specifically to: 

• Determine if radioactive air emissions from past or present NTS activities result in a radiation dose to any 

member of the public that exceeds the NESHAP standard of 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr). 

• Provide data to determine if radioactive air emissions from past or present NTS activities result in a radiation 

dose to any member of the public from all pathways (air, water, food) that exceeds the DOE Order 5400.5 

standard of 100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr). 

• Provide point source operational monitoring as required under NESHAP for any facility which has the potential 

to emit radionuclides into the air which could cause a dose greater than 0.1 mrem/yr (0.001 mSv/yr) to any 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-2

member of the public. The JASPER facility in Area 27 is currently the only operation which has the potential to 

emit radionuclides and which is monitored to satisfy this goal. 

• Measure radionuclide concentrations in air at or near historic or current operation sites which have the potential 

to release airborne radioactivity to (1) detect and identify local and site-wide trends, (2) identify radionuclides 

emitted to air, and (3) detect accidental and unplanned releases. 

The dose measures which are calculated to show compliance with federal radiation protection regulations are defined 

and presented in Section 7.0, Radiological Dose Assessment. The measures listed below are gathered through 

analytical analyses of air samples and comprise the base data needed to calculate dose measures. They include 

concentrations of the following radionuclides or radioactivity which are most likely to be present in the air as a result 

of past or current NTS operations: 

• 241Am 

• 137Cs 

• Tritium (3H) 

• 238Pu 

• 239+240Pu 

• 233+234U 

• 235+236U 

• 238U 

• Gross alpha radioactivity 

• Gross beta radioactivity 

These analytes were selected based on the results of NTS inventories of radionuclides in surface soil (McArthur, 

1991), and upon their volatility and availability for resuspension. Uranium is included on this list because depleted 

uranium (see Glossary, Appendix D) ordinances are used during exercises in Areas 20 and 25. It is measured in air 

particulates only from selected sampling locations in the vicinity of these areas. Gross alpha and gross beta readings 

are also used in air monitoring as a rapid screening measure and for looking at air emission trends. 

2.1.2 Methods

2.1.2.1 Monitoring System Design 

Critical Receptor Samplers – Six air particulate and tritium sampling stations located near the boundaries of the 

NTS and near the center of the NTS are approved by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX as 

critical receptor samplers (Figure 2-1). Radionuclide concentrations measured at these six stations can be used to 

assess compliance with the NESHAP dose limit to the public of 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr). Sampling and analysis of 

air particulates and tritium was performed at these six stations as described in Section 2.1.2.2 below. The annual 

average concentrations from each station were then compared with the concentration limits listed in Table 2-1. To be 

in compliance with NESHAP, the annual average concentrations must be less than the concentration limits in 

Table 2-1. If multiple radionuclides are detected at a station, then compliance with NESHAP is demonstrated when each: 

(1) the measured annual average concentration of each radionuclide is less than its regulatory concentration limit, and 

(2) the sum of the fractions, determined by dividing each radionuclide’s concentration by its concentration limit and 

then adding the fractions together, is less than 1.0. 

Point–Source (Stack) Sampler – Only one facility on the NTS, the JASPER facility in Area 27 (Figure 2-1), requires 

stack monitoring because it has the potential to emit airborne radionuclides that could result in an offsite radiation 

dose ≥ 0.1 mrem/yr. Air emissions from the facility are filtered through a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 

filter, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) performs stack monitoring down-stream of the filter. 

Environmental sampling of air particulates adjacent to the facility is performed as stated in Section 2.1.2.2 below. If 

air concentrations of any man-made radionuclide are above the minimum detectable concentration (MDC), 

(see Glossary, Appendix D) then an assessment of offsite dose to the public would be performed to determine 

NESHAP compliance and LLNL would investigate the cause of the emission and implement corrective actions. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-3

Figure 2-1. Radiological air sampling network on the NTS in 2003 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-4

Table 2-1. Regulatory concentration limits for radionuclides in air 

 Concentration (x 10-15 μCi/mL) 

Radionuclide 

NESHAP Concentration Level for 

Environmental Compliance (CL)(a) Derived Concentration Guide (DCG)(b)

241Am 1.9 2 

137Cs 19 40,000 

3H 1,500,000 10,000,000 

238Pu 2.1 3 

239Pu 2 2 

233U 7.1 9 

234U 7.7 9 

235U 7.1 10 

236U 7.7 10 

238U 8.3 10 

Note: Both the CL and DCG values represent the annual average concentration which would result in a 

committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) of 10 mrem/yr which is the federal dose limit to the 

public from all radioactive air emissions. When they differ, the CLs are more conservative than the 

DCGs. They are computed using different dose models. 

(a) From Table 2, Appendix E of 40 CFR 61, NESHAP, 1999. 

(b) From Chapter 3 of DOE Order 5400.5, 1990. 

Environmental Samplers – There are a total of 21 sampling stations that are referred to as environmental samplers. 

The six previously-described critical receptor samplers are included in this count. The environmental samplers 

include 6 stations which have only low-volume air particulate samplers, 2 which have only tritium samplers, and 13 

which have a combination of both air particulate and tritium samplers (Figure 2-1). They are located throughout the 

NTS in or near diffuse radiation sources such as large areas with: (1) radioactivity in surface soil that can be 

resuspended by the wind, (2) tritium that transpires or evaporates from plants and soil at the sites of past nuclear 

cratering tests, and (3) tritium that evaporates from ponds receiving tritiated water either pumped from contaminated 

wells or directed from tunnels that cannot be sealed shut. Sampling and analysis of air particulates and tritium was 

performed at these stations as described in Section 2.1.2.2 below. Radionuclide concentrations measured at these 

stations are used for trending, determining ambient background concentrations in the environment, and identifying 

unplanned releases of radioactivity. Air concentrations approaching 10 percent of the NESHAP Concentration 

Levels for Environmental Compliance (CLs) (second column of Table 2-1) are investigated for causes so that they 

may be mitigated to avoid exceeding regulatory dose limits. 

2.1.2.2 Air Particulate and Tritium Sampling 

A weekly sample of airborne particulates was collected from each air sampling station by drawing air through a 10-cm 

(4-in) diameter glass-fiber filter at a constant flow rate of 85 L/min (3 cfm). The particulate filter is mounted in a 

filter holder that faces downward at a height of 1.5 m (5 ft) above ground. A run-time clock measures the operating 

time. The run time, multiplied by 85 L/min yields the volume of air sampled, which is about 860 m3 (30,000 ft3) 

during a typical seven-day sampling period. Flows and subsequent volumes were measured with a mass-flow meter 

which corrects for variations in temperature and elevation on the NTS. 

The 10-cm (4-in) diameter filters were analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity five days after collection to 

allow for the decay of the progeny of naturally-occurring radon and thoron. The filters from four weeks of sampling 

were composited, analyzed by gamma spectroscopy, and then analyzed for 239+240Pu and 241Am by alpha spectroscopy 

after radiochemical separation. To monitor for any potential emissions from tests using depleted uranium, the filter 

composites from Yucca (Area 6), Substation 3545 (Area 16), Gate 20-2p (Area 20), Guard Station 510 (Area 25), and 

Able Site (Area 27) were analyzed for uranium isotopes by alpha spectroscopy. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-5

Tritiated water vapor in the form of 3H3HO or 3HHO (HTO) was monitored every two weeks at each tritium 

sampling station. Tritium samplers were operated at a constant flow rate of 566 cc/min (1.2 ft3/hr) by 

microprocessors which summed the total volume sampled (about 11 m3 [14.4 yd3] over a two-week sampling period). 

The HTO vapor was removed from the air stream by two molecular sieve columns connected in series (one for 

routine collection and a second one to indicate if breakthrough occurred during collection). These columns were 

exchanged biweekly. An aliquot of the total moisture collected was extracted from the columns and analyzed for 

tritium by liquid scintillation counting. 

2.1.2.3 Data Quality 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols, including Data Quality Objectives (DQOs), have been 

developed and are maintained as essential elements of air monitoring as directed by the RREMP. The QA 

requirements established for the monitoring program include the use of sample packages to thoroughly document 

each sampling event, rigorous management of databases, and completion of essential training. The program also 

provides for the stringent oversight of external analytical laboratories and internal data validation, verification, and 

review. Routine QC samples (e.g., duplicates, blanks, and spikes) are also incorporated into the analytical suites on a 

frequent basis. The reader is directed to Section 17.0 for a thorough discussion of QA protocols and procedures 

utilized for radiological air monitoring. 

2.1.2.4 Data Reporting 

The annual average concentration for each radionuclide at each sampling location is presented in data tables in the 

following results section. The annual average concentration for each radionuclide was calculated from the uncensored 

analytical results for individual samples, in that those values less than the sample-specific MDC were included in the 

calculation. A column is included in each table indicating the percentage of the analytical results that were greater 

than the MDC. 

Annual average concentrations are also expressed in the tables as percentages of the CL (second column of 

Table 2-1). In graphs of concentration data, the CL or some percentage of the CL is included as a green horizontal 

line so the reader can easily visualize the results in comparison to the CL. The CL for each radionuclide was used in 

all tables and graphs instead of the DCG as it was always the lesser of the two for those radionuclides for which these 

limits differed. 

For convenience in reporting, all values shown in the tables in the following results section are formatted to a greater 

number of digits (three or more) than can be justified by the accuracy of the measurements, which is two significant 

figures (e.g., 2500, 25, 2.5, or 0.025). 

2.1.3 Results 

This section presents the concentrations of airborne radionuclides and gross alpha and beta radioactivity in air 

samples collected in 2003. Multiple-year trends for radionuclides of interest (Pu and tritium) are also presented. The 

results are presented first, grouped by analytes, for all environmental samplers (Section 2.1.3.1). The final subsections 

present the 2003 sampling results for just the six critical receptor samples to show compliance with NESHAP limits 

(Section 2.1.3.2) and for the stack sampler at the Jasper facility (Section 2.1.3.3). 

2.1.3.1 Environmental Samplers 

The 2003 results from all air samplers are shown in tables and graphs below. No graphs for 238Pu and 137Cs are 

included because very few of the results for these analyses were above the sample-specific MDCs. In the graphs, a 

horizontal green line for the CL is shown for reference only and not to demonstrate compliance with NESHAP dose 

limits. The assessment of compliance is based upon annual average concentrations, not upon the single sample results 

shown in the figures. 

There were no radioactive emissions from NTS operations in 2003. Therefore, all radionuclide concentrations in the 

2003 air samples shown in the tables and graphs are attributed to the resuspension of legacy contamination in surface 

soils and to the evaporation and transpiration of tritium from the soil and plants at the sites of past nuclear tests. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-6

2.1.3.1.1 Americium-241 

During 2003, only 29 percent of all the air samples contained detectable concentrations of 241Am (Table 2-2). This is 

down from 39 percent in 2002. The percentage of samples above their MDCs were lower than last year at each 

location except at Little Feller N. The average concentration of 241Am across all sites was 7.6 x 10-18 μCi/mL (0.28 

μBq/m3). The highest mean concentration occurred at U-3ah/at S (24 x 10-18 μCi/mL [0.89 μBq/m3]), which is only 

1.3 percent of the CL. Both the proportion of measurements exceeding their MDCs and the site-wide averages were 

lower this year than over the past three years. 

Peaks in 241Am concentrations throughout the year occurred at five locations: BJY, U-3ah/at N, U-3ah/at S, Bunker 

9-300, and Sedan N (Figure 2-2). The annual mean decreased substantially from the 2002 level at U-3ah/at N and 

Bunker 9-300, whereas it increased moderately at U-3ah/at S. All of these locations were near or in areas with legacy 

soil contamination. 

Table 2-2. Concentrations of Am-241 in air samples collected in 2003 

 241Am (x 10-18 μCi/mL)

NTS 

Area Location 

Number of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

1 BJY 12 11.68 0.6 2.36 24.81 0.13 86.85 8.61 25.0 

3 U-3ah/at N 13 17.27 0.9 11.31 13.47 3.12 39.05 8.99 46.2 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 24.01 1.3 14.77 27.55 2.17 104.97 10.49 70.8 

3 U-3bh N 12 8.09 0.4 4.28 9.71 -2.19 28.82 11.65 33.3 

3 U-3bh S 12 7.45 0.4 7.42 2.67 2.94 11.06 7.74 50.0 

5 DoD 12 2.56 0.1 2.24 2.91 -1.76 7.27 9.46 8.3 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 2.72 0.1 1.72 2.86 -0.88 7.57 9.43 0.0 

6 Yucca 12 3.56 0.2 3.30 3.23 -1.25 10.03 8.18 20.8 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 15.34 0.8 11.56 11.69 2.68 41.35 7.96 66.7 

10 Gate 700 South 12 3.99 0.2 1.58 4.81 0.00 14.96 10.09 8.3 

10 Sedan N 12 9.27 0.5 5.72 12.53 0.00 46.47 8.88 33.3 

16 3545 Substation 12 3.48 0.2 3.06 3.87 -1.37 10.23 8.85 20.8 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 4.36 0.2 4.22 4.17 -1.78 14.03 8.32 41.7 

20 Gate 20-2P 5 4.36 0.2 1.22 6.59 -0.53 15.70 8.13 20.0 

20 Schooner 12 3.64 0.2 2.06 4.02 -1.21 12.98 10.14 16.7 

23 Mercury Track 12 5.44 0.3 3.04 5.42 0.00 16.84 8.03 16.7 

25 Guard Station 510 12 4.41 0.2 3.31 3.85 0.00 11.21 7.45 25.0 

27 ABLE Site 9 3.59 0.2 4.53 3.62 -1.34 8.74 8.98 0.0 

27 JASPER Stack 5 1.99 0.1 8.80 36.77 -54.35 39.53 105.06 0.0 

 All Onsite Locations 212 7.59 0.4 4.46 13.12 -54.35 104.97 11.26 29.0 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 2-1) 

(b) Standard deviation

(c) Minimum

(d) Maximum

Note: The CL for 241Am is 1,900 x 10-18 μCi/mL when expressed in the same units as the data in this table. 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers

Orange shading indicates the point-source sampler station

No shading indicates those stations which are environmental samplers
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-7

Figure 2-2. Concentrations of Am-241 in air samples collected in 2003

2.1.3.1.2 Cesium-137 

Cs-137 was measured above the MDC in samples from only one location, Bunker 9-300 in Area 9 (Table 2-3) where 

there are known legacy deposits of radionuclides from past nuclear tests. As in previous years, 137Cs is only 

occasionally detected in the monthly air sample composites. All concentration means were below or near zero, similar 

to 2002. No graph for 137Cs concentrations is included because the majority of values were below detection. 

 

Table 2-3. Concentrations of Cs-137 in air samples collected in 2003 

 137Cs (x 10-15 μCi/mL) 

Number 

NTS of Mean % > 

Area Location Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d) MDC MDC

1 BJY 11 -0.25 -1.3 -0.187 0.227 -0.673 0.023 0.613 0 

3 U-3ah/at N 11 -0.091 -0.5 -0.16 0.286 -0.418 0.449 0.672 0 

3 U-3ah/at Ss 12 -0.16 -0.8 -0.191 0.332 -0.727 0.342 0.749 0 

3 U-3bh N 12 -0.066 -0.3 -0.112 0.217 -0.37 0.268 0.779 0 

3 U-3bh S 12 -0.099 -0.5 0.058 0.442 -1.178 0.347 0.667 0 

5 DoD 12 -0.092 -0.5 -0.141 0.141 -0.283 0.15 0.615 0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 -0.311 -1.6 -0.069 0.814 -2.835 0.169 0.729 0 

6 Yucca 12 -0.092 -0.5 -0.079 0.206 -0.376 0.233 0.604 0 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 0.030 0.2 0.006 0.362 -0.481 0.862 0.607 8.3 

10 Gate 700 South 11 -0.136 -0.7 -0.011 0.376 -0.965 0.482 0.648 0 

10 Sedan N 12 -0.065 -0.3 0.065 0.271 -0.44 0.262 0.683 0 

16 3545 Substation 12 -0.184 -1 -0.128 0.45 -1.353 0.513 0.637 0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 -0.035 -0.2 0.036 0.227 -0.533 0.216 0.606 0 

241 Am

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

01-Jan-03

17-Mar-03

31-May-03

14-Aug-03

28-Oct-03

11-Jan-04

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

BJY

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

Bunker 9-300

Sedan N

Other

5% of CL
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-8

Table 2-3. (continued) 

 137Cs (x 10-15 μCi/mL) 

Number 

NTS of Mean % > 

Area Location Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d) MDC MDC

20 Gate 20-2P 4 -0.06 -0.3 -0.024 0.09 -0.193 0 0.666 0 

20 Schooner 12 -0.22 -1.2 -0.164 0.38 -1.212 0.299 0.6 0 

23 Mercury Track 10 -0.142 -0.7 -0.051 0.242 -0.599 0.153 0.615 0 

25 Guard Station 510 11 -0.136 -0.7 -0.028 0.422 -1.242 0.288 0.622 0 

27 ABLE Site 9 0.031 0.2 -0.075 0.34 -0.346 0.809 0.621 0 

27 JASPER Stack 7 -0.513 -2.7 -0.562 4.023 -5.517 6.207 6.637 0 

 

All On-site 

Locations 206 -0.132 -0.7 -0.087 0.778 -5.517 6.207 0.856 1 

2.1.3.1.3 Plutonium Isotopes 

Pu-238 was detected above the MDC in at least one sample from 11 locations (Table 2-4). The proportion of samples 

with concentrations above the MDC was approximately the same as that in 2001 and 2002. The U-3ah/at N and S 

locations had the highest proportion of samples above the MDC (35 and 25 percent, respectively) and also the highest 

mean concentrations which were only 0.2 percent of the CL. No graph for 238Pu concentrations is included because 

the majority of the sample concentrations were below the MDCs. 

Table 2-4. Concentrations of Pu-238 in air samples collected in 2003 

 238Pu (x 10-18 μCi/mL)

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

1 BJY 12 3.517 0.2 1.530 6.626 -0.909 20.623 7.353 16.7 

3 U-3ah/at N 13 3.589 0.2 2.152 2.792 0.000 9.018 5.853 34.6 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 3.916 0.2 2.324 4.683 -3.103 12.019 9.582 25.0 

3 U-3bh N 12 2.576 0.1 1.840 5.103 -5.537 15.599 9.210 16.7 

3 U-3bh S 12 2.300 0.1 1.634 2.084 0.000 6.223 5.733 8.3 

5 DoD 12 0.692 0.0 0.000 1.688 -0.739 4.691 7.379 8.3 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 3.805 0.2 0.598 9.668 -1.352 33.864 10.126 8.3 

6 Yucca 12 4.391 0.2 1.942 7.824 -3.079 22.478 11.651 12.5 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 1.597 0.1 1.367 3.618 -4.139 10.504 9.351 16.7 

10 Gate 700 South 12 0.520 0.0 0.000 3.249 -4.261 8.795 8.253 8.3 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers 

Orange shading indicates the point-source sampler station 

No shading indicates those stations which are environmental samplers 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 2-1) 

(b) Standard deviation 

(c) Minimum 

(d) Maximum 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-9

Table 2-4. (continued) 

 238Pu (x 10-18 μCi/mL)

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

10 Sedan N 12 2.454 0.1 1.937 2.317 -0.767 6.730 7.178 0.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 -0.186 0.0 -0.329 1.169 -1.624 2.437 9.897 0.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 0.565 0.0 0.782 2.565 -4.449 4.495 8.200 0.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 5 0.953 0.0 0.899 1.945 -1.691 3.286 9.196 0.0 

20 Schooner 12 1.725 0.1 1.620 2.849 -3.893 6.135 11.127 0.0 

23 Mercury Track 12 -0.441 0.0 0.000 1.476 -3.033 2.458 8.521 0.0 

25 Guard Station 510 12 2.927 0.1 1.516 5.246 -4.135 14.392 9.309 8.3 

27 ABLE Site 9 0.500 0.0 0.490 1.887 -2.679 4.055 8.504 0.0 

27 JASPER Stack 6 22.136 1.1 2.487 47.131 15.692 103.999 96.962 0.0 

 All Onsite Locations 213 2.596 0.1 1.280 9.131 15.692 103.999 11.149 9.4 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers

Orange shading indicates the point-source sampler station 

No shading indicates those stations which are environmental samplers 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 2-1) 

(b) Standard deviation 

(c) Minimum 

(d) Maximum 

Note: The CL for 238Pu is 2,100 x 10-18 μCi/mL when expressed in the same units as the data in this table. 

 

The proportion of 239+240Pu results above the MDC were higher (54 percent) in 2003 (Table 2-5) than in 2002 and 

2001 (48 and 42 percent, respectively). Those locations at which 100 percent of the air samples contained 239+240Pu 

above detection included U-3ah/at N, U-3ah/at S, U-3bh N, U-3bh S, and Bunker 9-300. In 2002, this occurred only 

at U-ah/at S and Bunker 9-300. Generally, the proportion of 239+240Pu results above MDC is greater than 50 percent 

at those air sampling locations that are in areas where 239+240Pu is in the surface soil (see Figure 2-1 and Table 2-5). 

The 239+240Pu continues to be detected while most other radionuclides are not, due to their more rapid radioactive 

decay and absorption into the soil. Due to the long half-life of 239 Pu (~24,000 years) and its insolubility in water, its 

presence in soil and resuspension into the air will continue to decrease slowly with time. 

The annual mean 239+240Pu concentrations for most locations were less than last year, as reflected by the site-wide 

mean of 38 x 10-18 μCi/mL (1.4 μBq/m3) in 2003 compared to 55 x 10-18 μCi/mL (2.0 μBq/m3) for 2002. The 

location with the highest mean concentration (160 x 10-18 μCi/m3 [5.9 μBq/m3]) was at U-3ah/at S, which was only 

7.9 percent of the CL. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-10

Table 2-5. Concentrations of Pu-239+240 in air samples collected in 2003 

 239+240Pu (x 10-18 μCi/mL)

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

1 BJY 12 78.21 3.9 11.37 155.39 0.00 444.77 9.90 58.3 

3 U-3ah/at N 13 108.77 5.4 69.14 80.80 29.69 257.37 7.22 100.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 12 157.93 7.9 108.12 199.56 37.75 774.56 9.40 100.0 

3 U-3bh N 12 52.22 2.6 38.05 47.35 13.57 184.28 9.70 100.0 

3 U-3bh S 12 42.68 2.1 34.32 31.44 14.48 130.41 9.85 100.0 

5 DoD 12 8.91 0.4 5.58 9.54 0.00 32.33 8.13 54.2 

5 Sugar Bunker N 12 16.16 0.8 5.15 38.47 -3.35 137.08 8.99 50.0 

6 Yucca 12 20.40 1.0 5.71 45.57 0.00 163.69 9.87 33.3 

9 Bunker 9-300 12 96.24 4.8 68.15 75.19 18.13 246.71 9.04 100.0 

10 Gate 700 South 12 8.01 0.4 3.79 11.32 0.29 42.20 7.28 29.2 

10 Sedan N 12 43.84 2.2 22.89 48.97 5.87 172.82 9.50 66.7 

16 3545 Substation 12 5.91 0.3 3.96 8.15 -0.47 29.78 7.69 25.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 12 6.68 0.3 6.22 5.77 -1.23 17.51 8.12 33.3 

20 Gate 20-2P 5 1.17 0.1 1.09 2.06 -1.23 3.42 5.98 0.0 

20 Schooner 12 7.25 0.4 3.06 14.74 -0.02 53.50 8.10 25.0 

23 Mercury Track 12 6.24 0.3 4.65 5.41 -1.10 13.94 10.06 25.0 

25 Guard Station 510 12 6.70 0.3 3.94 6.97 0.00 21.59 8.27 41.7 

27 ABLE Site 9 1.63 0.1 1.75 1.52 -1.07 3.30 7.44 0.0 

27 JASPER Stack 7 15.45 0.8 10.89 43.44 -26.36 103.99 123.49 0.0 

 All Onsite Locations 214 38.46 1.9 9.80 80.38 -26.36 774.56 12.44 53.7 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers

Orange shading indicates the point-source sampler station

No shading indicates those stations which are environmental samplers 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 2-1) 

(b) Standard deviation 

(c) Minimum 

(d) Maximum 

Note: The CL for 239+240Pu is 2,000 x 10-18 μCi/mL when expressed in the same units as the data in this table. 

The highest concentrations of 239+240Pu in 2003 occurred at the following five locations: BJY, U-3ah/at N, 

U-3ah/at S, Bunker 9-300, and Sedan N (Table 2-5 and Figure 2-3). The peaks in 239+240Pu concentrations and the 

peaks for 241Am occurred on the same dates for most of these locations. This is expected because 241Am is the 

daughter-product of 241Pu which is present with the 239+240Pu used in past nuclear tests. Due to the differences in 

half-lives between the 241Pu (14.4 years) and the 241Am (433 years), the concentrations of 241Am in NTS soil will 

increase gradually with time for about 80 years, after which it will begin decreasing. 

Figure 2-4 shows the long-term trends in annual mean concentrations of 239+240Pu at 43 locations having at least 

fourteen years of data. The concentration lines for each air sampling station are color coded by the station’s 

geographical location within one of nine NTS Area Groups. This plot shows a steady decrease in air-borne 239+240Pu 

over the past three decades at most locations. The locations with the slightest long-term decreases are the same as 

those with the highest means in 2003. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-11

 

Figure 2-3. Concentrations of Pu-239+240 in air samples collected in 2003 

Figure 2-4. Average long-term trends in airborne Pu-239+240 by location on the NTS 

239+240Pu Trends by Area Group

Average Trend Lines for Locations With at Least 14-Year Histories

0

50

100

150

200

250

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Annual Mean (x 10 -18 μCi/mL)

A1-3

A2-4-12-16

A5 non-RWMS

A5 RWMS

A6-11

A7-9-10-15

A18-19-20

A23

A25-27

10% of CL

239+240Pu

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

01-Jan-03

17-Mar-03

31-May-03

14-Aug-03

28-Oct-03

11-Jan-04

Collection Date

x 10-18 μCi/mL

BJY

U-3ah/at N

U-3ah/at S

Bunker 9-300

Sedan N

Other

25% of CL
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-12

2.1.3.1.4 Uranium Isotopes 

The annual mean concentrations for each of the uranium isotopes (Table 2-6) showed little change from those for last 

year. The proportion of air samples containing uranium at levels above detection were 80 to 100 percent for 233,234U 

and 238U, whereas they were only 0 to 38 percent for 235,236U. 

The uranium isotopes measured above their MDCs (Table 2-6) are attributed to naturally-occurring uranium in the 

soil which has become resuspended. This was determined by calculating the ratio of the annual average concentration 

of 238U to that of the other uranium isotopes for all sampling locations and then comparing the ratios to those for 

natural uranium (Table 2-7). Ratios greater than those shown for natural uranium (~0.93 and 21) would be an 

indication that the air samples contain uranium from human activities (i.e., depleted uranium). The 238U/235,236U ratios 

from sampling results were lower than the ratios for naturally-occurring uranium, possibly due to the greater number 

of 235+236U concentrations that were below or near the MDC. 

Table 2-6. Concentrations of uranium isotopes in air samples collected in 2003 

 233+234U by Chemistry (x 10-15 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

6 Yucca 12 0.086 1.2 0.087 0.016 0.060 0.115 0.014 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 0.088 1.2 0.078 0.024 0.065 0.135 0.014 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 5 0.073 1.0 0.089 0.028 0.033 0.096 0.015 100.0 

25 Guard Station 510 12 0.085 1.2 0.089 0.028 0.009 0.128 0.017 91.7 

27 ABLE Site 9 0.085 1.2 0.086 0.009 0.070 0.098 0.016 100.0 

 All Onsite Locations 50 0.085 1.2 0.088 0.021 0.009 0.135 0.015 98.0 

 235+236U by Chemistry (x 10-15 μCi/mL)

6 Yucca 12 0.0085 0.1 0.0070 0.0054 0.0000 0.0167 0.0105 37.5 

16 3545 Substation 12 0.0083 0.1 0.0059 0.0083 0.0020 0.0295 0.0141 20.8 

20 Gate 20-2P 5 0.0035 0.0 0.0041 0.0051 0.0041 0.0100 0.0125 0.0 

25 Guard Station 510 12 0.0076 0.1 0.0075 0.0046 0.0003 0.0143 0.0145 20.8 

27 ABLE Site 9 0.0082 0.1 0.0097 0.0055 0.0000 0.0159 0.0146 11.1 

 All Onsite Locations 50 0.0077 0.1 0.0061 0.0060 0.0041 0.0295 0.0130 21.0 

 238U by Chemistry (x 10-15 μCi/mL)

6 Yucca 12 0.086 1.0 0.086 0.013 0.065 0.105 0.012 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 12 0.085 1.0 0.089 0.014 0.056 0.107 0.013 100.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 5 0.061 0.7 0.071 0.025 0.018 0.080 0.010 80.0 

25 Guard Station 510 12 0.085 1.0 0.080 0.032 0.013 0.122 0.013 91.7 

27 ABLE Site 9 0.083 1.0 0.079 0.013 0.071 0.105 0.016 100.0 

 All Onsite Locations 50 0.082 1.0 0.081 0.021 0.013 0.122 0.012 96.0 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers 

No shading indicates those stations which are environmental samplers 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 2-1)

(b) Standard deviation 

(c) Minimum 

(d) Maximum 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-13

Table 2-7. Ratios of uranium isotopes in air samples collected near NTS locations where 

uranium was detected above the MDC 

 Ratios of Uranium Isotopes in Air Samples 

NTS 

Area Location 238U/233,234U 238U/235,236U 

6 Yucca 1 10 

16 3545 Substation 1 10 

20 Gate 20-2P 0.8 18 

25 Guard Station 510 1 11 

27 ABLE Site 1 10 

 

Ratios of Natural Uranium Isotopes(a) ~0.93 ~21 

2.1.3.1.5 Tritium 

Detectable tritium was observed in all air samples collected at the Sedan and Schooner craters and at E Tunnel Pond 2 

(Table 2-8). The tritium found at these locations comes primarily from the tritium used in nuclear testing devices. 

During the detonations, the tritium was oxidized forming tritiated water which was entrained in the ejecta from the

cratering experiments at Sedan and Schooner and in the rubble formed in the various shafts of E Tunnel. At Sedan 

and Schooner, the tritiated moisture evaporates and transpires from the soil and vegetation in these areas. At the 

E Tunnel ponds, the tritiated water continues to flow out of the tunnel and evaporates into the air. Figure 2-5 shows 

the variation of measured tritium concentrations in air throughout the year. 

The highest annual mean concentration of tritium was at Schooner (420 x 10-6 pCi/mL [16 Bq/m3]), where the 

sampler is located only 269 m from the crater and surrounded by ejecta from the crater. This concentration is only 

28 percent of the CL. The data for Schooner are plotted in Figure 2-5 at one-tenth their actual values so that the 

details at other locations may be seen. As in the past, the higher measurements occurred at Schooner and Sedan. The 

concentrations at all locations followed the same pattern observed in past years: increasing during the summer months 

and decreasing in the fall. This follows the rise and fall of the temperature and the influence of rainfall (DOE, 2003b). 

Figure 2-6 shows the annual means for nineteen air sample locations with at least a seven-year history between 1988 

and 2003. The data from 1982 through 1987 (dotted lines), taken from previous annual reports, were in some cases 

reported as “< xxx”, in which xxx was an average of values that included the “less than” values as well as actual 

measurements above the MDCs. Beginning with the 1988 data (solid lines) actual measurements were reported, 

whether above or below their MDCs. Locations are color-coded into Area Groups consisting of adjacent NTS Areas. 

As shown by this figure, the annual concentration averages of tritium in air were decreasing during the years 1982 to 

1992 and continued the decrease more gradually from then to the present time. 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers 

(a) Calculated from percent abundances occurring naturally (Brown et al., 1986). Ratios greater than these 

would indicate the presence of depleted uranium. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-14

Table 2-8. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2003 

 3H Concentration (x 10-6 pCi/mL)

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean 

% of 

 CL (a) Median Std (b) Min (c) Max (d)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC

1 BJY 26 1.34 0.1 1.16 0.97 -0.65 3.16 1.12 59.6 

5 DoD 25 0.83 0.1 0.44 1.00 -0.63 3.58 1.26 16.0 

5 RWMS 4 Northeast 12 1.89 0.1 1.61 1.21 0.17 4.03 1.09 79.2 

5 Sugar Bunker N 26 1.12 0.1 0.86 0.80 0.09 3.58 1.19 57.7 

6 Yucca 26 0.80 0.1 0.85 0.78 -0.42 3.65 1.19 30.8 

9 Bunker 9-300 26 3.24 0.2 2.83 2.24 0.56 7.27 1.09 96.2 

10 Gate 700 South 26 0.99 0.1 0.61 0.90 0.00 3.48 1.13 32.7 

10 Sedan N 26 13.67 0.9 11.01 9.92 3.03 34.21 1.13 100.0 

12 E Tunnel Pond 2 25 5.41 0.4 5.66 3.07 1.23 11.66 1.12 100.0 

16 3545 Substation 26 0.72 0.0 0.48 0.87 -0.41 3.57 1.24 26.9 

18 Little Feller 2 N 25 0.46 0.0 0.40 0.62 -0.88 1.80 1.08 16.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 11 0.66 0.0 0.49 0.65 -0.24 1.77 1.11 27.3 

20 Schooner 25 419.69 28.0 241.10 387.05 32.29 985.48 1.56 100.0 

23 Mercury Track 25 0.52 0.0 0.48 0.94 -2.28 3.05 1.24 24.0 

25 Guard Station 510 26 0.52 0.0 0.30 0.77 -0.64 2.63 1.26 23.1 

 All Onsite Locations 356 31.70 2.1 1.05 146.80 -2.28 985.48 1.19 52.7 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers

No shading indicates those stations which are environmental samplers

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC 

(a) CL is the NESHAP Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance (see Table 2-1) 

(b) Standard deviation (c) Minimum (d) Maximum 

Note: The CL for 3H is 1,500 x 10-6 pCi/mL when expressed in the same units as the data in this table. 

Figure 2-5. Concentrations of tritium in air samples collected in 2003 

3

H

-15

0

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

01-Jan-03

17-Mar-03

31-May-03

14-Aug-03

28-Oct-03

11-Jan-04

Collection Date

x 10-6 pCi/mL

Schooner x 0.1

Sedan N

Other

5% of C L
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-15

Figure 2-6. Average long-term trends in tritium at locations on the NTS having at least 7 

years of data 

2.1.3.1.6 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta 

The concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected from all environmental 

samplers in 2003 are shown in Tables 2-9 and 2-10 and Figures 2-7 and 2-8. Since these radioactivities include 

naturally-occurring uranium isotopes, 40K, and 7Be, no reference to a CL is appropriate. These analyses are useful in 

that they can be performed by BN personnel at NTS five days after collection to identify any increasing trends 

requiring investigation. 

As shown in Figures 2-7 and 2-8, the concentrations of both gross alpha and gross beta have a cyclical variation 

similar to what has been observed in the past. The locations of peak values at DoD, U-3bh N, BJY, Sugar Bunker N, 

and Bunker 9-300 identified on the figures, are at locations near or in areas of legacy deposits of radionuclides in and 

on the soil. Peak values at these same five locations have been measured during previous years. No increasing trend 

in gross alpha or beta radioactivity was observed for any location. 

3

H Annual Mean Long-Term Trends

All Locations With at Least 7-Year Histories Since 1987

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year

x 10-6 pCi/mL

A1

A5 RWMS

A10-12-15

A23-25

CL
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-16

Table 2-9. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2003 

Orange shading indicates the point-source sampler station 

No shading indicates those stations which are environmental samplers 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC 

(a) Standard deviation 

(b) Minimum 

(c) Maximum 

 Gross Alpha (x 10-15 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean Median Std (a) Min (b) Max (c)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC

1 BJY 52 4.111 3.696 2.810 -2.228 12.006 3.077 73.1 

3 U-3ah/at N 52 5.651 5.547 2.636 0.824 13.747 3.100 87.5 

3 U-3ah/at S 48 6.397 5.757 3.400 0.163 19.857 3.488 87.5 

3 U-3bh N 50 4.825 4.669 2.954 -0.492 14.501 3.794 66.0 

3 U-3bh S 51 4.424 4.602 2.051 -0.137 9.287 3.064 78.4 

5 DoD 52 4.354 4.161 2.646 -0.122 14.470 3.083 71.2 

5 Sugar Bunker N 48 5.646 5.663 2.779 0.000 15.492 3.214 87.5 

6 Yucca 52 4.425 3.969 2.496 0.166 12.411 3.082 72.1 

9 Bunker 9-300 52 4.045 3.487 2.412 -0.947 9.176 3.083 67.3 

10 Gate 700 South 51 3.665 3.518 2.032 0.402 7.583 3.083 58.8 

10 Sedan N 50 3.814 3.612 2.385 -1.112 12.651 3.356 60.0 

16 3545 Substation 51 3.686 3.218 2.327 -0.403 9.380 3.041 52.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 51 3.750 3.704 2.405 -1.342 10.754 3.051 56.9 

20 Gate 20-2P 21 2.726 2.570 1.618 -0.544 5.502 3.273 42.9 

20 Schooner 49 3.832 3.537 2.386 -0.270 11.116 3.000 59.2 

23 Mercury Track 51 3.763 3.706 2.278 -1.526 10.637 3.105 66.7 

25 Guard Station 510 51 4.304 3.788 2.464 0.487 10.764 3.107 70.6 

27 ABLE Site 39 3.822 3.422 1.975 0.166 8.105 3.160 64.1 

27 JASPER Stack 23 -0.123 0.000 7.643 -10.895 22.391 28.724 0.0 

 All Onsite Locations 894 4.227 3.935 2.927 -10.895 22.391 3.828 67.0 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-17

Table 2-10. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2003 

 Gross Beta (x 10-15 μCi/mL) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean Median Std (a) Min (b) Max (c)

Mean 

MDC 

% > 

MDC 

1 BJY 52 18.865 18.553 6.572 0.229 31.091 3.062 98.1 

3 U-3ah/at N 52 19.855 20.027 5.694 7.097 29.242 3.085 100.0 

3 U-3ah/at S 48 20.220 19.613 5.589 6.672 30.612 3.471 100.0 

3 U-3bh N 50 19.315 18.845 5.597 6.326 32.228 3.774 100.0 

3 U-3bh S 51 18.879 18.873 5.863 4.236 30.686 3.057 98.0 

5 DoD 52 20.590 20.770 6.078 9.566 31.380 3.068 100.0 

5 Sugar Bunker N 48 21.791 23.118 5.893 9.030 31.571 3.194 100.0 

6 Yucca 52 20.452 20.334 6.265 7.579 34.178 3.066 100.0 

9 Bunker 9-300 52 18.655 18.212 6.096 3.943 33.036 3.068 98.1 

10 Gate 700 South 51 18.438 18.008 5.519 6.865 30.062 3.067 100.0 

10 Sedan N 50 18.517 18.082 6.567 -4.618 31.791 3.340 98.0 

16 3545 Substation 51 17.321 17.414 5.997 1.952 28.226 3.025 98.0 

18 Little Feller 2 N 51 17.734 17.706 6.023 3.133 31.199 3.034 98.0 

20 Gate 20-2P 21 17.112 17.976 5.585 3.956 25.817 3.273 95.2 

20 Schooner 49 17.819 18.237 5.502 5.938 29.532 2.991 100.0 

23 Mercury Track 51 19.477 19.728 5.948 10.412 30.834 3.090 100.0 

25 Guard Station 510 51 20.770 20.772 6.274 8.402 37.103 3.093 100.0 

27 ABLE Site 39 19.495 19.509 5.942 4.846 30.237 3.159 97.4 

27 JASPER Stack 23 -8.803 -3.293 23.531 -96.057 20.082 28.724 0.0 

 All Onsite Locations 894 18.523 18.820 8.297 -96.057 37.103 3.814 96.5 

Blue shading indicates those stations which are EPA approved critical receptor samplers 

Orange shading indicates the point-source sampler station 

No shading indicates those stations which are environmental samplers 

Green shading indicates that some percentage of samples had concentrations above the sample specific MDC 

(a) Standard deviation 

(b) Minimum 

(c) Maximum 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-18

-10.00

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

01-Jan-03

01-Feb-03

04-Mar-03

04-Apr-03

05-May-03

05-Jun-03

06-Jul-03

06-Aug-03

06-Sep-03

07-Oct-03

07-Nov-03

08-Dec-03

Collection Date

x 10-15 μCi/mL

BJY

DoD GS 510 DoD

GS 510 U-3-bh Yucca

Sedan

Sugar B U-3-ah/at

Figure 2-7. Gross alpha radioactivity in air samples collected in 2003 

Figure 2-8. Gross beta radioactivity in air samples collected in 2003 

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

01-Jan-03

17-Mar-03

31-May-03

14-Aug-03

28-Oct-03

11-Jan-04

Collection Date

x 10-15 μCi/mL

DoD U-3bh

U-3ah/at

DoD

U-3ah/at U-3ah/atBJY

U-3ah/at

Sugar B.

B. 9-300

Gross Alpha 

Gross Beta 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-19

2.1.3.2 Critical Receptor Samplers 

The following radionuclides were detected at three or more of the critical receptor samplers: 241Am, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 

233+234U, 235+236U, 238U, and 3H (tritium) (see Tables 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, and 2-8, respectively). All concentrations of 

these radionuclides were well below the CLs. The uranium isotopes are attributed to naturally-occurring uranium 

(see Section 2.1.3.1.4). The concentration of each measured radionuclide (excluding uranium) at each of the six 

critical receptor samplers was divided by its respective CL (see Table 2-1) to obtain a “fraction of CL”. These 

fractions were then summed for each location. The sum of these fractions at each critical receptor sampler is less 

than 1.0 (Table 2-11) and shows that the NESHAP dose limit to the public of 10 mrem/yr was not exceeded. 

Table 2-11. Sum of percents of compliance levels for radionuclides detected at critical receptor samplers 

Radionuclides Included in 

Sum of Percents(a)

NTS 

Area Location 

Sum of Fractions of Compliance 

Levels (CLs) 

6 Yucca .015 

10 Gate 700 South .007 

16 3545 Substation .006 

20 Schooner .286(b)

23 Mercury .007 

241Am, 238Pu, 239+240Pu, 3H 

25 Guard Station 510 .006 

(a) 233+234U, 235+236U, and 238U are not included in sum of percents. All uranium detected in air particulate 

samples were determined to be naturally-occurring, based on their isotopic ratios. 

(b) This equates to a hypothetical receptor at this location receiving a CEDE of 2.9 mrem/yr. 

2.1.3.3 Point-Source (Stack) Sampler 

The 2003 air samples from the stack sampler at the JASPER facility contained no man-made radionuclides above their 

MDCs (see Tables 2-2 through 2-9). The HEPA filters at the facility appeared to function as intended. No 

radionuclide emission rate or offsite dose was calculated, therefore, for this potential NTS radiation source 

(see Section 7.0). 

2.1.4 Environmental Impact 

The concentrations of man-made radionuclides in air on the NTS were all less than the regulatory concentration limits 

specified by federal regulations. Long-term trends of 239+240Pu and tritium in air continue to show a decline with time. 

All radionuclides detected by environmental monitoring appear to be from legacy deposits of radioactivity on and in 

the soil from past nuclear tests. There was no significant contribution to radioactive air emissions from NTS 

operational facilities in 2003. 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-20

2.2 Non-Radiological Air Quality Assessment 

2.2.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

Non-radiological air quality assessments1 are conducted to document compliance with current state of Nevada air 

quality permits that regulate specific operations or facilities on the NTS. The state of Nevada has adopted the CAA 

standards which include NESHAP, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) (see Section 1.1.1). Therefore, requirements set forth in the NTS air permits issued by 

the state are in compliance with these national standards. Specifically omitted from this section is NESHAP 

compliance for radionuclide emissions, as these were presented in Section 2.1.3.2. Assessments, facility/equipment 

monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting activities related to air quality on the NTS are conducted by BN ECD 

specifically to: 

• Ensure that NTS operations comply with all the requirements of current air quality permits issued by the state of 

Nevada for NTS operations. 

• Ensure that air emissions of criteria pollutants (sulfur dioxide [SO2]), nitrogen oxides[NOX], carbon monoxide 

[CO], ozone, lead [Pb], and particulate matter [PM]) do not exceed limits established under NAAQS. 

• Ensure that NTS operations comply with the asbestos abatement reporting requirements under NESHAP. 

• Document usage of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) to comply with Title VI of the CAA. 

BN ECD personnel monitor the following compliance measures as required by air quality permits for the operation of 

specific facilities and/or pieces of equipment on the NTS: 

• Tons of emissions of each criteria pollutant produced annually 

• Gallons of fuel burned annually 

• Hours of operation of equipment per year 

• Monthly opacity readings 

• Rate at which aggregate and concrete is produced 

• Amount of asbestos in existing structures removed or scheduled for removal 

2.2.2 Methods 

There are three current NTS air quality permits (see Section 1.12, Table 1-12). They include: 

• AP9711-0549 for over 30 facilities/pieces of equipment in Areas 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, and 23 

• AP9711-0556 for the HSC in Area 5 

• AP9711-0814 for the (Tactical Demilitarization Development Project) TaDD Facility in Area 11 

NTS facilities that are regulated by air permits must adhere to the recordkeeping and operational requirements 

specified in the permits. Compliance is verified by conducting periodic site walk-downs, observations of equipment 

while in operation, and a review of the records associated with each permitted facility. 

Along with each air quality permit issued, there is an Air Emissions Inventory which lists all permitted 

facilities/equipment and the quantities of criteria pollutants as well as (Hazardous Air Pollutants) HAPs that each 

facility/piece of equipment would emit annually if it were operated for the maximum number of hours specified in the 

air permit. These quantities are known as the “Potential to Emit” (PTE). Lead is considered a HAP as well as a 

criteria pollutant. Emissions from lead are reported as part of the total HAPs emissions rather than as a separate 

 

1

The word “assessment” versus “monitoring” is used in this section. Adherence to most non-radiological air quality 

standards on the NTS does not require field collection and analysis of air samples (activities called “monitoring” in 

this report). Instead, adherence to NTS air quality permits for non-radiological emissions usually involves the review 

of records, gathering of operational information, and calculations of emissions. 

 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-21

criteria pollutant. Compliance with permits involves documenting that the PTE for all facilities/equipment is not 

exceeded. A description of the various activities performed or measures tracked in order to meet permit requirements 

are described below. 

2.2.2.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Quantities of emissions of criteria pollutants and non-radiological HAPs produced by each permitted facility are 

determined through calculations that take into account the number of operating hours, number of gallons of fuel 

burned, number of tons of material that were produced, and emission factors. Emission factors are representative 

values that relate the quantity of a pollutant released to the atmosphere to an activity associated with the release of 

that pollutant. These factors are generally expressed as the weight of the pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume, 

distance or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant, e.g., pounds of particulates emitted per ton of aggregate 

material produced. Emission factors have been developed for many different types of industries and activities and are 

published by the EPA in a two-volume document known as the Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors 

(EPA, 1995). This document is updated on a continuing basis and is recognized by regulatory agencies as an industry 

standard. The emission factors that were used in the NTS air quality operating permits are derived from this source. 

Each year, the state issues to NNSA/NSO, as an air quality permit holder, Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Forms

for each of the NTS air permits. These forms are used to report the actual hours of operation, gallons of fuel burned, 

etc., for each permitted facility/piece of equipment listed on each air quality permit. Using this data and emission 

factors furnished by the state, emissions of the criteria pollutants are calculated and the emissions reported along with 

the other required information mentioned above. The forms are completed by BN ECD personnel and returned to 

NNSA/NSO for submittal to the state. The state uses the information from the report to determine annual 

maintenance and emissions fees and to document compliance with emission limits. 

Quantities of criteria pollutants produced by open burns are not required to be calculated. However, submittal of an 

Open Burn Variance form is required by the state prior to each burn. An exception to this is the Open Burn Variance 

for fire extinguisher training, which is valid for one year and covers approximately 60 fire extinguisher training 

sessions conducted throughout the year. 

2.2.2.2 Production Rates/Hours of Operation 

Compliance with operational parameters such as production rates and hours of operation is verified through an 

examination of the data generated by each facility owner for the annual report to the state. The number of hours that 

equipment operates throughout a year is determined by reading meters that are located on each piece of equipment. 

Permit requirements specific to each piece of equipment dictate the frequency in which readings are obtained. 

Production rates for construction facilities such as the aggregate-producing plant are calculated using the hours of 

operation and amount of material produced. Logbooks are maintained to record this information. Gallons of fuel 

used are calculated using industry standards and the hours of operation, or simply by recording tank levels each time 

that the tank is filled. 

2.2.2.3 Opacity Readings 

Under Title 40 CFR, Part 60, personnel that conduct visible emissions evaluations to satisfy the opacity requirements 

for a facility or piece of equipment must be certified semi-annually by a qualified organization. A form similar to one 

appearing in Title 40 CFR, Part 60 for conducting visible emissions evaluations is used to record and document the 

readings. The form requires that weather conditions, wind speeds and other factors that could affect the readings be 

recorded. Visual readings are taken every 15 seconds. A minimum of 24 consecutive readings is required for a valid 

reading. The average of the 24 readings must not exceed the permit-specified limit (20 percent for NAAQS, 

10 percent for NSPS) to remain in compliance. Readings are only required to be obtained once during the month that 

the equipment is used. No readings are required during the month(s) that the equipment is not used. 

2.2.2.4 HSC Reporting 

The NTS air quality operating permit for the HSC requires, in addition to annual reporting, the submittal of test plans 

and final analysis reports to the state for each chemical release. Test plans provide detailed information regarding the 

types and quantities of chemicals to be released, a description of how they will be released, and environmental and 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-22

chemical hazards. The HSC, by its nature as a research facility, provides no air quality controls. The impact of the 

chemical releases is minimized by controlling the amount and duration of each release. When chemical release tests 

are conducted, plumes pass through an instrument array and impacts are confined to a defined area. Predictions of 

impacts for each test are reliable because of extensive meteorological data that is available on wind direction, wind 

speed, standard deviation of wind direction, vertical turbulence, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure. In 

turn, post-release monitoring is used to document the degree of actual impact. Following each release, a completion 

report is submitted that documents the test dates, chemicals, and quantities that were actually released. 

2.2.2.5 TaDD Reporting 

The TaDD is located in Area 11 at the NTS. This facility was developed as a prototype of a portable burn facility to 

dispose of unneeded Shillelagh tactical military rocket motors. As such, an air quality operating permit was required 

because of the emissions generated during each burn. Emissions are controlled by a baghouse, HEPA, and ultra high 

efficiency filters. Permit requirements include annual reporting of hours of operation and emissions and an opacity 

limit of 20 percent. 

2.2.2.6 ODS Recordkeeping 

ODS recordkeeping requirements applicable to NTS operations include maintaining, for a minimum of three years, 

evidence of technician certification, recycling/recovery equipment approval, and servicing records for appliances 

containing 22.7 kilograms (50 pounds) or more of refrigerant. Compliance with recordkeeping and certification 

requirements for the use and disposition of ODS is verified through periodic assessments. The assessments include a 

records review and interviews with managers and technicians associated with the use, disposition, and purchase of 

refrigerants. Under Section 608 of the CAA, EPA may conduct random inspections to determine compliance. 

2.2.2.7 Asbestos Abatement 

Asbestos abatement plans are made annually which estimate the quantities of asbestos-containing materials that are 

scheduled for removal during the next calendar year. These projections are submitted to EPA in an Annual Asbestos 

Abatement Notification Form. If quantities actually removed exceed 79.2 linear meters or 14.9 square meters 

(260 linear feet or 160 square feet), then EPA is notified by submitting a Notification of Demolition and Renovation 

Form. The recordkeeping requirements for asbestos abatement activities on the NTS include maintaining the 

following records for the following number of years: 

• Asbestos air and bulk sampling data records (collected during asbestos removal projects) up to 75 years 

• Asbestos abatement plans up to 25 years 

• Operations and Maintenance activity records up to 75 years 

• Location-specific records of asbestos-containing materials for a minimum of 75 years 

Compliance with recordkeeping requirements is verified through periodic assessments. The assessments include a 

records review and interviews with managers and technicians associated with asbestos abatement. State 

assessments/audits are performed periodically. 

2.2.3 Results 

2.2.3.1 Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Records that were examined for permitted facilities and equipment indicated that all operational parameters were 

being properly tracked. Table 2-12 presents the calculated tons of emissions of criteria pollutants regulated under 

permits from those NTS facilities that were operational during 2003. The maximum allowable emissions (i.e., the 

PTE) for each facility are also shown in Table 2-12 and were derived from the limits set forth in the NTS air quality 

permits. Approximately 12.9 mtons (14.3 tons) of criteria pollutants were emitted from NTS facilities and equipment 

during 2003. The majority of these emissions were nitrogen oxides from fuel burned by diesel fired generators. No 

emission limits were exceeded. 
2-23

Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

Table 2-12. Tons of criteria air pollutant emissions released on the NTS in 2003 

Calculated Tons(a) of Emissions for Calendar Year 2003 

Particulate 

Matter 

(PM10)(b)

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) 

Nitrogen Oxide 

(NOx) 

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2) 

Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) 

Facility Actual PTE(c) Actual PTE Actual PTE Actual PTE Actual PTE Wet Aggregate Plant 0.78 6.14 NA (d) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Area 1 Concrete Batch Plant 0.03 2.04 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Cementing Equipment 0.52 18.54 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Portable Cement Bins 0.01 3.06 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Boilers 0.15 0.61 0.42 1.35 1.5 5.41 0.32 1.15 0.02 0.06 Incinerator (propane fired) 0 0.03 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 Diesel Fired Compressors 0.11 0.54 0.3 1.66 1.51 7.72 0.1 0.51 0.12 0.61 Diesel Fired Generators 0.79 3.34 1.07 10.24 5.1 17.87 0.34 3.13 0.37 2.16 Laboratory Hoods NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.01 2 Bulk Gasoline Storage Tank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0.69 3.92 Bulk Diesel Fuel Storage Tank NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 0.02 

Total 2.39 34.3 1.79 13.25 8.11 31.02 0.76 4.79 1.21 8.77 

Total 2003 Actual Emissions 14.26 

(a) For mtons, multiply tons by 0.9072 (b) Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter (c) PTE = potential to emit; the quanitity of criteria pollutant that each facility/piece of equipment would emit annually if it were operated for the  maximum number of hours and at the maximum production rates specified in the air permit. (d) Not applicable because the permit does not regulate the emissions of this pollutant for this facility 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-24

Table 2-13 is a summary of tons of air pollutants released on the NTS since 1995. These numbers were derived from 

the Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Forms that are required to be submitted to the state annually. Prior to 

calendar year (CY) 2000, HAPS were not included in the Reporting Forms. HAPS are now reported, but for only a 

few of the facilities. Specific HAPS are not identified in the Reporting Forms. The quantity of HAPS released in 

2003, as calculated in the Reporting Forms, was 0 (Table 2-13). 

The Calendar Year 2003 Actual Production/Emissions Reporting Form, containing the calculated emission totals for 2003 

was submitted to the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection on February 24, 2004, prior to its due date of 

March 1. 

Table 2-13. Tons of air pollutants released on the NTS since 1995 

 Total Emissions (tons/yr)(a)

Pollutant 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Particulate Matter (PM10)(b) 4.53 2.89 1.67 1.11 1.7 1.46 2.05 3.61 2.39 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 0.21 0.04 5.28 1.85 1.87 2.76 4.84 4.6 1.79 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 1.56 0.16 19.79 7.57 8.07 12.75 22.23 21.09 8.11 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1.47 0.3 0.85 0.37 0.42 0.98 1.68 1.62 0.76 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 19.87 2.82 0.94 11.76 1.99 1.89 2.01 2.1 1.21 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS) 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.01 0 

(a) For mtons, multiply tons by 0.9072

(b) Particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns in diameter 

2.2.3.2 Production Rates/Hours of Operation 

Production rates and hours of operation were computed for all permitted facilities as an interim step in order to 

calculate the tons of air pollutants emitted in 2003, as shown in Table 2-12 above. The records examined for all 

permitted equipment and facilities indicated that the production rates, hours of operation, and gallons of fuel used by 

each were within the specified permit limits. 

2.2.3.3 Opacity Readings 

During 2003, four BN personnel were certified by Carl Koontz Associates to conduct visible emissions evaluations 

(i.e., opacity readings). Opacity readings were obtained for the following NTS permitted facilities regulated under the 

NAAQS opacity limit of 20 percent: Area 23 Incinerator, Area 1 Concrete Batch Plant, Area 1 Wet Aggregate Plant, 

Area 23 Boiler, Area 1 Storage Silos, and the Portable Field. Readings for these facilities ranged from 0 to 10 percent, 

all below the air quality permit limits of 20 percent. 

Opacity readings were obtained once a month for a portion of the Area 1 Wet Aggregate Plant which is regulated 

under the stricter NSPS opacity limit of 10 percent. Opacities were found to be within the 10 percent limit. 

One evaluation was performed for a small chemical release at Test Cell C in Area 26. Test Cell C is a non-permitted 

facility for such releases, and permission from the state was required and obtained prior to conducting the release. 

The opacities from this facility ranged from 15 to 20 percent. 

2.2.3.4 HSC Reporting 

In 2003, four chemical tests consisting of 17 releases were conducted at the HSC. They included: 

• Divine Invader Test Series (2 releases) 

• Roadrunner II Test (4 releases) 

• Quail Project (3 releases) 

• DuPont Fuming Acids Mitigation Workshop (8 releases) 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-25

A completion report was submitted to NNSA/NSO for transmittal to the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection’s Bureau of Air Pollution Control at the conclusion of each test. Table 2-14 summarizes the quantities of 

all chemicals released during all 2003 tests. 

Table 2-14. Pounds of chemicals released during tests conducted in 2003 at the HSC 

Chemical 

State in 

Container 

Total Amount 

Released (lbs)(a)

Chlorosulfonic acid Liquid 2,457 

Methyl phosphonic dichloride Liquid 22 

Dipropylene glycol methyl ether Liquid 5,228 

Dimethyl methylphosphonate Liquid 3,183 

Nitrous oxide Gas 40 

Oleum Liquid 2,545 

Sulfur hexafluoride, pure Gas 230 

Thiodiglycol Liquid 533 

Thionyl chloride Liquid 32 

(a) 1lb = 0.456 kilograms 

 

2.2.3.5 TaDD Reporting 

The TaDD facility has not been used due to lack of funding, and in 2003 the Shillelagh missiles that would have been 

burned at this facility were removed from the NTS. Thus, no opacity readings have been acquired and no emissions 

reported. 

2.2.3.6 ODS Recordkeeping 

From an assessment conducted in CY 2002, it was determined that the regulatory requirements of Title VI 

(Section 608) of the CAA for the protection of stratospheric ozone were generally being met. No assessment was 

conducted in CY 2003. An ODS Management Plan is scheduled to be written in 2004 to develop and implement a 

program and procedures to maximize the use of safe alternatives to ODS due to their required phaseout. 

2.2.3.7 Asbestos Abatement 

An Annual Asbestos Abatement Notification Form was submitted to the EPA in November 2002 which projected 

that 45.7 linear meters (150 linear feet) and 18.6 square meters (200 square feet) of asbestos-containing material would 

be removed from NTS facilities in 2003. During 2003, the actual amounts of asbestos-containing materials that were 

removed included those from the old steam plant in Mercury and the old Mercury theatre as shown below: 

• 92.9 square meters (1,000 square feet) of transite board 

• 61 linear meters (200 linear feet) of thermal system insulation 

• 74.3 square meters (800 square feet) of sprayed-on insulation 

The EPA was notified of these activities because the quantities of asbestos-containing material removed exceeded 

EPA’s notification threshold of 79.2 linear meters or 14.9 square meters (260 linear feet or 160 square feet). All other 

asbestos abatement activities throughout the NTS complex were minor in scope, involving the removal of amounts 

below the reporting threshold. Asbestos abatement records continued to be maintained as required. 

2.2.4 Environmental Impact 

Air emissions produced by NTS operations and activities during CY 2003 were within regulatory limits and had little, 

if any, impact to air quality on the NTS and at offsite locations. Emissions of pollutants for CY 2003 were 
 Radiological and Non-Radiological Air Monitoring

 2-26

significantly less than those generated during the heightened activity that occurred in the years prior to the nuclear 

weapons testing moratorium. 

Impacts of the chemical releases during tests at the HSC are minimized by controlling the amount and duration of 

each release. Biological monitoring at the HSC is performed whenever there is a risk of significant exposure to 

downwind plants and animals from the planned tests (see Section 12.5). BN biologists review all chemical release test 

plans to determine the level of field monitoring needed for each test. To date, chemical releases at the HSC have used 

such small quantities (when dispersed into the air), that downwind test-specific monitoring has not been necessary. 

No measurable impacts to downwind plants or animals have been observed. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-1 

3.0 Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring 

This chapter presents both radiological and non-radiological monitoring results for surface water and groundwater 

conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN) on and off the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Surface water and groundwater includes 

natural springs, drinking water, non-potable groundwater, and water discharged into domestic and wastewater systems 

on the NTS. Several BN programs or projects are involved with water monitoring and include: (1) routine 

radiological monitoring conducted by BN Environmental Technical Services (ETS) under the Routine Radiological 

Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b), (2) water quality assessments of permitted water systems 

conducted by BN Environmental Compliance Department (ECD), and (3) water sampling and analysis conducted by 

the Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project. Water quality assessments are driven by the need to comply with 

applicable state and federal regulations (see Section 1.2) as well as by the desire to address the concerns of 

stakeholders who reside within the vicinity of the NTS. Section 3.1 of this chapter addresses only radiological water 

monitoring. 

Data presented in Section 3.1 are limited to the concentrations of radioactivity in water samples. These data are then 

used to calculate radiological dose to the general public, via drinking water, in the vicinity of the NTS. The reader is 

directed to Section 7.0 (Radiological Dose Assessment) of this Nevada Test Site Environmental Report (NTSER) 

where the calculated dose from drinking water is presented. 

An oversight monitoring program has been established by U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) to independently monitor radionuclide contamination of offsite 

springs and water supply systems. This independent oversight program is managed by the Desert Research Institute 

(DRI). DRI’s 2003 monitoring results for surface and groundwater are presented in Section 5.7 of this NTSER. 

Section 3.2 of this chapter presents the results of non-radiological water monitoring of drinking water, domestic and 

industrial waste waters on the NTS. Non-radiological water monitoring is also conducted to comply with state and 

federal water regulations (see Section 1.2). 

3.1 Radiological Surface Water and Groundwater Monitoring 

There have been 828 underground nuclear tests conducted at the NTS. Approximately one third of these tests were 

detonated near or below the water table (DOE, 1996; DOE, 2000b). This legacy of nuclear testing has resulted in the 

contamination of groundwater in some areas. The Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO) 

established Corrective Action Units (CAUs) that delineated and defined areas of concern for groundwater 

contamination on the NTS (DOE, 1996). Figure 3-1 shows the locations of underground nuclear tests and areas of 

potential groundwater contamination. To safeguard the public’s health and safety and comply with applicable federal, 

state, and local environmental protection regulations as well as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) directives, 

groundwater on and near the NTS is monitored for radioactivity. Monitoring in the past has been conducted by the 

U.S. Public Health Service, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and 

others. In 1998, BN was tasked by NNSA/NSO to establish and manage an NTS integrated and comprehensive 

radiological environmental monitoring program. The RREMP (DOE, 2003b), was prepared and describes 

groundwater monitoring objectives, regulatory drivers, and quality assurance protocols. 

3.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

The goal of radiological water monitoring is to determine if concentrations of radionuclides in groundwater and in 

surface water bodies at the NTS and its vicinity pose a threat to public health or the environment. Specifically, the 

monitoring program collects and analyses water samples to meet the following objectives: 

• Determine if radionuclide concentrations in on and offsite water supply wells exceed the safe drinking water 

standards established by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the dose limits to the general public 

established by DOE Order 5400.5. (See Section 7.0 for calculated dose). 

• Determine if radionuclide concentrations in surface water from NTS natural springs and from bodies of water on 

the NTS result in the exposure of terrestrial and aquatic animals to doses which exceed those established by DOE 

(DOE-STD-1153-2002) to protect wildlife populations. (See Section 7.0 for calculated dose). 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-2 

Figure 3-1. Areas of potential groundwater contamination on the NTS 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-3 

• Determine if permitted facilities on the NTS are in compliance with permit discharge limits for radionuclides. 

• Determine if radionuclide concentrations in offsite natural springs and from on and offsite non-potable water 

wells (monitoring wells), including those within CAUs, indicate that past or present NNSA/NSO activities have 

an impact on the environment. Often, strict drinking water standards are used as a monitoring action level for 

this determination. 

The RREMP outlines the goal and objectives listed above. In addition to RREMP-driven monitoring, the UGTA 

Project (see Section 13.0) collects data from wells to define groundwater flow rates and direction to determine the 

nature and location of aquifers. Data from these studies are used to determine whether or not radionuclides resulting 

from nuclear testing have moved appreciable distances from the original test location. Groundwater or vadose zone 

sampling and radiological analysis results for 2003 from UGTA wells are also presented in this section of the NTSER 

along with RREMP monitoring results (see Section 3.1.5). 

The measures for radiological water monitoring in 2003 were concentrations of the following analytes: 

• 241Am 

• 14C 

• Gamma-emitting radionuclides 

• Gross alpha radioactivity 

• Gross beta radioactivity 

• 238Pu, and 239+240Pu 

• 226Ra and 228Ra 

• 90Sr 

• 99Tc 

• Tritium (3H) 

• Uranium isotopes 

The selection of analytes for groundwater monitoring are based on the radiological source term from historical 

nuclear testing, regulatory/permit requirements, and characterization needs. The isotopic inventory remaining from 

nuclear testing is presented in the most recent environmental impact statement for NTS activities (DOE, 1996c) and a 

recent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) document (Smith, 2001). Many of the radioactive species 

generated from subsurface testing have very short half-lives, sorb strongly onto the solid phase or are bound into 

what is termed “melt glass” and are not available for groundwater transport in the near term (Smith, 1993; Smith et al., 

1995). Tritium (3H) is the radioactive species created in the greatest quantities and is widely believed to be one of the 

most mobile. Tritium is therefore the primary target analyte and represents the greatest concern to users of 

groundwater on and around the NTS for at least the next 100 years due to its high mobility and concentration 

(DOE, 1996c; International Technology [IT], 1997). 

Tritium analyses are done on all water samples. Analyses for gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma-emitting 

radionuclides are also conducted on all water samples as rapid screening measures. Gross alpha and gross beta 

radioactivity include activity from both natural and potential man-made radionuclides but are used as indicators of 

radionuclide contamination. Naturally-occurring deposits of certain minerals in water can contribute to both alpha 

(e.g., isotopes of uranium and 226Ra) and beta (e.g., 228Ra and 40K) radiation. The analyses for gamma-emitting 

radionuclides by gamma spectroscopy can identify the presence of specific man-made radionuclides (e.g., 241Am, 137Cs, 

60Co, 152Eu, and 154Eu), as well as natural radionuclides (e.g., 228Ac, 212Pb, 40K, 235U, and 234Th). Specific analyses for 

238Pu, 239+240Pu, 226Ra, 228Ra, 14C , 90Sr, 99Tc, 241Am, and uranium isotopes were performed on selected water samples 

to help characterize sampled locations. Water analyses also included chemical parameters to characterize the 

groundwater system, but these measures are not reported in the NTSER. 

 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-4 

3.1.2 Methods 

3.1.2.1 Monitoring Locations 

The NTS groundwater monitoring network consists of a variety of monitoring locations that include onsite supply 

wells, domestic offsite wells, wells specifically designed to monitor groundwater, natural springs, containment ponds, 

and point of opportunity locations. The groundwater locations sampled in 2003 are presented in Figures 3-2 and 3-3. 

The NTS groundwater monitoring sites are located in a complex hydrogeologic setting as described in Appendix A, 

Section A.5. The predicted groundwater flow paths are also presented in Figures 3-2 and 3-3. 

A network of 45 wells were sampled in 2003 (Figure 3-2) and consisted of: 

• 21 offsite wells 

• 10 onsite potable water supply wells (nine of which are permitted) 

• 14 onsite monitoring wells (3 are compliance wells for the Area 5 RWMS and 1 is a compliance well for the 

Area 23 sewage lagoon) 

Current surface water monitoring locations sampled in 2003 on and off the NTS (Figure 3-3) include: 

• 6 offsite springs 

• 1 NTS operations-related containment pond system (E Tunnel ponds) 

• 3 onsite sewage lagoons 

Several UGTA wells were sampled and analyzed for radionuclides in 2003 under the UGTA program (see 

Section 13.0). These wells do not comprise the RREMP network of groundwater wells, but they are briefly discussed 

in Section 3.1.4 below. 

3.1.2.2 Water Sampling/Analysis 

Water sampling methods are based, in part, on the characteristics and configurations of the sample locations. For 

example, wells with dedicated pumps may simply be sampled from the associated plumbing (e.g., spigots) at the 

wellhead, while wells without pumps may be sampled via a wireline bailer or a portable pumping system. Grab 

samples (discrete samples with respect to space and time) are typically obtained from the springs. 

Some of the monitoring program wells are constructed with multiple strings of casing/tubing or multiple completion 

zones comprised of discrete intervals of slotted casing which access different horizons of the penetrated hydrostratigraphic units. Multiple-depth samples were obtained from four wells with such configurations in 2003: 

• 615 and 679 m (2,017 and 2,228 ft) below ground surface (bgs) in ER-6-1 

• 590, 622, 649, and 701 m (1,935, 2,040, 2,130, and 2,300 ft) bgs in HTH #1 

• 518 and 649 m (1,700 and 2,130 ft) bgs in UE-18r 

• 475 and 608 m (1,560 and 1,994 ft) bgs in PM-3 

Sampling frequencies and requisite analyses for routine radiological water monitoring are based on the location and 

type of the sampling point as defined in the RREMP (DOE, 2003b). During each monitoring year, not every water 

sample is analyzed for every analyte as per the design criteria of the RREMP. In 2003, tritium, gross alpha, gross beta, 

238Pu, 239+240Pu, and gamma spectroscopy analyses were performed on all samples. Analyses for the other listed 

radionuclides were performed only on specific subsets of groundwater, spring, onsite containment pond, and sewage 

lagoon samples based on the probability of their existence at the sampled location or whether they have been screened 

for previously at that location. 

To achieve a sufficiently low detection limit, the analyses for most tritium samples were conducted after the samples 

underwent an enrichment process. The enrichment process concentrates tritium in a sample to provide an effective 

minimum detectable concentration (MDC) (see Glossary, Appendix D) of approximately 20 pCi/L. The MDC for 

standard (non-enriched) tritium analyses typically ranges from 200-400 pCi/L. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-5 

Figure 3-2. 2003 RREMP groundwater monitoring locations on and off the NTS 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-6 

Figure 3-3. 2003 RREMP surface water monitoring locations on and off the NTS 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-7 

3.1.2.3 Data Quality 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols, including Data Quality Objectives, have been developed 

and are maintained as essential elements of water monitoring as directed by the RREMP. The QA requirements 

established for the monitoring program include the use of sample packages to thoroughly document each sampling 

event, rigorous management of databases, and completion of essential training. The program also provides for the 

stringent oversight of external analytical laboratories and internal data validation, verification, and review. Routine 

QC samples (e.g., duplicates, blanks, and spikes) are also incorporated into the analytical suites on a frequent basis. 

The reader is directed to Section 17.0 for a thorough discussion of QA protocols and procedures utilized for 

radiological water monitoring. 

3.1.2.4 Data Reporting 

Each water sample is analyzed for a potentially very large suite of radionuclides based on the analytes listed in 

Section 3.1.1 above. The following results section presents only concentrations that were above the MDC for 

gamma-emitting radionuclides, plutonium, 14C, 90Sr, and 99Tc. Concentration values of gross alpha, gross beta, tritium, 

226Ra, and 228Ra, whether they are below or above the sample-specific MDCs, are presented for all water samples in 

the data tables. 

The uncertainty values presented in the data tables of this chapter represent the counting uncertainty (or “error”) of 

the analytical method. This does not include the uncertainty associated with the preparation and concentration of 

tritium which is estimated to be up to 20 percent. Therefore, it is important to note that the total or system error 

associated with the enrichment and analysis process for tritium samples is somewhat higher than the uncertainty 

values presented in the data tables. 

3.1.3 Results 

3.1.3.1 Offsite Wells 

The offsite sampling locations included private domestic wells, community wells, and NNSA/NSO wells related to 

NTS activities. The 2003 data indicate that groundwater at the offsite locations has not been impacted by NTS 

nuclear testing operations. All of the tritium results for the offsite wells were less than the MDC except for the Beatty 

Water and Sewer well, which was barely above the sample-specific MDC (Table 3-1). The radiological analytes that 

were principally detectable in 2003 were gross alpha and gross beta. No man-made radionuclides were detected by 

gamma spectroscopy in any of the water samples. 

ER-OV-01 and ER-OV-02, had gross alpha levels above the EPA established 15 pi/L maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) in drinking water. These two offsite monitoring wells do not supply drinking water. These wells produce 

water from a volcanic aquifer that may have relatively higher quantities of natural alpha-yielding elements in the host 

rock. The gross alpha levels are attributed to the decay of naturally-occurring uranium and local variation in 

mineralogy due to hydrothermal alteration in the volcanic host rock. 

3.1.3.2 Offsite Springs 

Four of the six offsite springs sampled (Big Springs, Crystal Pool, Fairbanks Spring, and Longstreet Spring) 

(see Figure 3-3) are located within the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, which is located approximately 

6 km (3.7 mi) south-southwest of the NTS. With respect to the regional groundwater flow system, Ash Meadows is 

hydrologically downgradient of the NTS and serves as a discharge area. The two other springs sampled (Spicer Ranch 

Spring and Revert Spring) are near Beatty, Nevada. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-8 

Table 3-1. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite wells in 2003 

Detectable concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta were present in water collected from the springs, although 

their concentrations were below limits EPA has established for drinking water (Table 3-2). No detectable 

concentrations of tritium were found in any of the samples (Table 3-2). No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides 

were detected. The low measurable gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity in the spring waters is likely from natural 

sources. 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample specific MDC) 

Yellow shaded results are any which are equal to or greater than the EPA-designated levels shown below for each analyte: 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

(b) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha (α) is 15 pCi/L 

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L 

(d) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L 

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

(f) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample 

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

Amargosa Valley RV Park 8/20/2003 0.617 ± 0.873 (1.81) 2.39 ± 1.24 (2.30) -10.4 ± 16.5 (27.8)

Beatty Water and Sewer 8/6/2003 11.1 ± 2.20 (1.28) 9.58 ± 1.99 (1.84) 29.9 ± 15.3 (23.9)

Cind-R-Lite Mine 8/6/2003 3.75 ± 0.920 (0.864) 3.67 ± 1.05 (1.33) 9.44 ± 14.5 (24.1)

Cooks Ranch Well #2 8/20/2003 1.39 ± 0.921 (1.50) 11.6 ± 2.31 (2.06) -20.1 ± 16.3 (27.5)

Crystal Trailer Park 8/20/2003 2.20 ± 0.863 (1.20) 6.76 ± 1.53 (1.74) -10.9 ± 16.6 (28.0)

De Lee Ranch 8/20/2003 1.42 ± 0.939 (1.59) 5.60 ± 1.61 (2.30) -13.2 ± 16.5 (27.8)

ER-OV-01 6/23/2003 15.0 ± 4.63 (2.77) 4.89 ± 1.77 (1.77) 18.3 ± 12.8 (20.5)

ER-OV-01 FD(e) 6/23/2003 16.8 ± 5.02 (3.02) 6.25 ± 2.01 (1.91) NA(f)

ER-OV-02 6/24/2003 24.4 ± 6.32 (3.95) 2.79 ± 1.89 (2.11) 6.66 ± 15.5 (26.0)

ER-OV-02 FD 6/24/2003 23.8 ± 6.15 (3.53) 2.50 ± 1.90 (2.17) NA

ER-OV-03A 6/24/2003 12.9 ± 3.99 (3.08) 2.19 ± 1.58 (1.89) 0.972 ± 11.6 (19.7)

ER-OV-03A FD 6/24/2003 12.9 ± 4.22 (2.64) 2.44 ± 1.50 (1.76) NA

ER-OV-03C 6/25/2003 13.1 ± 4.38 (2.91) 6.73 ± 2.01 (1.91) 12.3 ± 13.0 (21.2)

ER-OV-03C2 6/25/2003 10.8 ± 3.95 (3.08) 3.64 ± 1.72 (2.00) 20.8 ± 13.9 (22.1)

ER-OV-04A 7/15/2003 8.42 ± 6.44 (8.88) 6.60 ± 4.27 (5.81) 20.1 ± 14.4 (23.0)

ER-OV-05 7/15/2003 11.4 ± 7.08 (8.61) 8.64 ± 4.26 (5.28) -8.49 ± 15.4 (25.9)

ER-OV-06A 6/23/2003 11.7 ± 3.95 (3.27) 7.22 ± 2.02 (1.91) 4.30 ± 13.0 (21.7)

Fire Hall #2 Well 8/20/2003 1.63 ± 0.989 (1.60) 11.0 ± 2.18 (1.95) 8.34 ± 16.9 (27.9)

Longstreet Casino Well #1 8/20/2003 0.872 ± 0.633 (1.05) 9.27 ± 1.78 (1.46) -16.1 ± 16.2 (27.3)

PM-3 (1,560 ft bgs) 12/10/2003 9.61 ± 1.91 (1.12) 22.2 ± 3.80 (1.75) -11.9 ± 12.1 (21.6)

PM-3 FD (1,560 ft bgs) 12/10/2003 NA NA -7.14 ± 13.0 (22.7)

PM-3 (1,994 ft bgs) 12/10/2003 5.85 ± 1.49 (1.43) 11.3 ± 2.38 (2.26) -4.88 ± 12.7 (22.1)

Roger Bright Ranch 8/20/2003 4.12 ± 1.44 (1.87) 13.4 ± 2.70 (2.45) -7.86 ± 16.0 (27.0)

School Well 8/20/2003 1.92 ± 0.733 (0.986) 10.2 ± 1.91 (1.40) -6.84 ± 16.8 (28.3)

Tolicha Peak 8/6/2003 2.84 ± 1.60 (2.56) 4.89 ± 1.79 (2.91) 7.05 ± 14.2 (23.6)

US Ecology 8/6/2003 3.56 ± 1.22 (1.50) 10.1 ± 2.23 (2.26) 21.9 ± 14.7 (23.4)

US Ecology FD 8/6/2003 NA NA -1.80 ± 13.7 (23.6)

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)(a) 

(pCi/L)(b)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)( d)

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

k 

1

Uncertainty(a) (MDC)
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-9 

Table 3-2. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for offsite springs in 2003 

3.1.3.3 NTS Potable Water Supply Wells 

The 2003 data continue to indicate that subsurface nuclear testing has not impacted the NTS potable water supply 

network. All of the water samples from the supply wells had non-detectable concentrations of tritium (Table 3-3). 

WW-C1 (also known as Water Well C-1) had a history of validated tritium detections because this well was injected 

with approximately 0.1 to 0.2 curies of tritium in 1962 by a researcher conducting a tracer test (Lyles, 1990). Since 

1994, annually-averaged tritium concentrations in WW-C1 have continued to occur below the MDC (see Figure 3-4 in 

Section 3.1.3.4 below). 

The radiological analytes that were principally detectable in 2003 were gross alpha and gross beta radioactivity which 

likely represent the presence of naturally-occurring radionuclides since there was a general lack of corresponding 

detectable man-made radionuclides in the samples. Very low, yet detectable, concentrations of naturally-occurring 

226Ra and 226Ra were also observed (Table 3-3). None of these detectable radiological analytes exceeded EPA 

established Levels of Concern or their established MCLs for drinking water. 

No man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were detected in potable supply well samples. 

3.1.3.4 NTS Monitoring Wells 

Analytical results from the network of onsite monitoring wells (see Figure 3-2) indicate that migration of radionuclides 

from the underground test areas is not significant. Tritium in most of the 2003 samples was not detectable 

(Table 3-4). Only three onsite monitoring wells, U-19BH, UE-7NS, and WW A, had detectable concentrations of 

tritium, but the results were well below the federal MCL of 20,000 pCi/L (Table 3-4). Each of these wells is located 

within 1 km (0.6 mi) of historical underground nuclear tests. 

 

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

Big Springs 8/13/2003 1.95 ± 0.688 (0.877) 6.31 ± 0.851 (1.16) -6.74 ± 16.5 (27.9)

Big Springs FD(e) 8/13/2003 NA(f) NA -2.66 ± 15.9 (26.7)

Crystal Pool 8/13/2003 2.13 ± 0.673 (0.856) 10.1 ± 1.02 (1.30) -2.34 ± 16.3 (27.4)

Fairbanks Spring 8/13/2003 2.37 ± 0.848 (0.928) 7.08 ± 1.08 (1.55) 0.799 ± 16.8 (28.1)

Longstreet Spring 8/13/2003 3.27 ± 0.760 (0.705) 7.00 ± 0.843 (1.13) 15.4 ± 17.1 (27.8)

Revert Spring 8/6/2003 4.80 ± 0.905 (0.702) 5.19 ± 0.754 (1.10) -5.42 ± 16.2 (27.2)

Spicer Ranch Spring 8/6/2003 4.86 ± 0.927 (0.827) 6.72 ± 0.846 (1.19) -9.55 ± 16.3 (27.4)

Spicer Ranch Spring FD 8/6/2003 NA NA -5.14 ± 16.5 (27.7)

3

H ±

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(d)

Gross β ± 

Uncertainty (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(c)

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 

(pCi/L)(b)

(b) The EPA established maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water for gross alpha (α) is 15 pCi/L

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample specific MDC)

(f) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample 

(a) See Glossary, Appendix D for a definition of uncertainty

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

± 2 standard deviations 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-10 

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

 

1/29/2003 4.16 ± 1.32 (1.36) 5.45 ± 0.709 (1.78) -12.7 ± 13.6 (23.9) 0.323 ± 0.225 (0.290) -0.008 ± 0.735 (0.368)

4/30/2003 1.95 ± 1.20 (1.82) 6.03 ± 1.90 (2.68) -7.08 ± 14.2 (24.7) 0.320 ± 0.205 (0.213) 0.530 ± 0.740 (0.470)

7/2/2003 4.18 ± 0.787 (0.546) 5.80 ± 0.532 (0.542) -20.0 ± 15.4 (25.8) -0.0498 ± 0.0977 (0.268) 0.619 ± 0.663 (0.389)

10/8/2003 4.17 ± 1.39 (1.77) 6.48 ± 1.63 (2.11) 7.47 ± 15.1 (24.9) 0.810 ± 0.430 (0.540) 0.451 ± 0.668 (0.358)

10/8/2003 FD(g) NA(h) NA -2.72 ± 14.8 (24.1) NA NA

1/29/2003 1.77 ± 0.730 (0.791) 4.90 ± 0.582 (1.76) 6.60 ± 14.2 (23.6) 0.129 ± 0.167 (0.277) 0.480 ± 0.633 (0.347)

4/30/2003 0.740 ± 0.642 (1.02) 4.05 ± 1.25 (1.74) -5.69 ± 14.5 (25.0) 0.299 ± 0.285 (0.433) 0.060 ± 0.770 (0.460)

7/2/2003 0.101 ± 0.424 (0.740) 1.85 ± 0.371 (0.514) -4.56 ± 15.3 (25.7) 0.0222 ± 0.144 (0.291) 0.299 ± 0.928 (0.512)

10/8/2003 0.475 ± 0.753 (1.55) 5.16 ± 1.44 (2.08) 2.73 ± 15.0 (24.9) -0.600 ± 0.330 (0.700) 0.087 ± 0.645 (0.306)

1/29/2003 2.00 ± 1.17 (1.95) 3.33 ± 0.714 (2.10) -9.57 ± 13.2 (23.0) 0.106 ± 0.194 (0.347) -0.161 ± 0.575 (0.283)

10/8/2003 0.651 ± 0.710 (1.39) 3.91 ± 1.26 (1.98) 5.64 ± 15.1 (24.9) -0.260 ± 0.370 (0.710) 0.044 ± 0.585 (0.275)

1/28/2003 5.41 ± 1.12 (0.786) 6.25 ± 0.893 (1.17) 3.16 ± 17.2 (29.0) 1.23 ± 0.383 (0.288) 0.776 ± 0.818 (0.456)

1/28/2003 FD NA NA -2.72 ± 15.5 (26.6) NA NA

4/29/2003 5.97 ± 1.57 (1.53) 6.37 ± 1.97 (2.76) -5.50 ± 14.1 (24.3) 1.25 ± 0.477 (0.320) 0.250 ± 0.710 (0.440)

7/1/2003 5.06 ± 1.49 (1.83) 5.34 ± 0.975 (1.31) -3.30 ± 15.4 (25.9) 1.32 ± 0.389 (0.300) 0.955 ± 0.738 (0.453)

10/7/2003 3.80 ± 1.34 (1.61) 6.28 ± 1.72 (2.40) 6.92 ± 15.1 (24.9) 1.92 ± 0.710 (0.660) 0.211 ± 0.589 (0.292)

1/28/2003 9.59 ± 1.69 (1.47) 6.20 ± 0.805 (1.62) -5.04 ± 15.4 (26.4) 0.0250 ± 0.177 (0.353) 1.03 ± 0.914 (0.524)

4/29/2003 5.17 ± 1.44 (1.56) 4.17 ± 1.55 (2.29) -18.3 ± 13.4 (24.2) 0.158 ± 0.233 (0.393) 0.13 ± 0.700 (0.420)

4/29/2003 FD NA NA -19.4 ± 13.2 (24.0) NA NA

7/1/2003 5.90 ± 0.888 (0.753) 4.27 ± 0.431 (0.423) -12.6 ± 15.5 (26.2) 0.301 ± 0.241 (0.353) 0.769 ± 0.875 (0.507)

10/7/2003 5.07 ± 1.45 (1.47) 4.82 ± 1.42 (2.09) 2.41 ± 14.2 (23.6) 0.310 ± 0.260 (0.360) 0.0098 ± 0.683 (0.319)

1/28/2003 10.2 ± 1.78 (1.74) 6.50 ± 0.884 (1.85) 9.98 ± 16.0 (26.5) 0.105 ± 0.206 (0.370) 0.176 ± 0.837 (0.428)

4/29/2003 5.70 ± 1.49 (1.45) 5.25 ± 1.58 (2.17) -26.4 ± 13.4 (24.8) 0.131 ± 0.139 (0.202) 0.480 ± 0.730 (0.450)

7/1/2003 5.68 ± 1.27 (0.984) 5.95 ± 0.722 (0.730) -0.367 ± 15.5 (25.8) 0.0433 ± 0.159 (0.305) 0.768 ± 0.859 (0.502)

10/7/2003 7.34 ± 1.80 (1.39) 6.65 ± 1.65 (2.12) 4.99 ± 15.9 (26.3) 0.180 ± 0.260 (0.430) 0.172 ± 0.730 (0.352)

1/28/2003 4.21 ± 1.25 (1.16) 6.21 ± 0.669 (1.78) 10.3 ± 16.2 (26.8) -0.0232 ± 0.151 (0.327) -0.304 ± 0.995 (0.492)

4/29/2003 1.37 ± 1.05 (1.64) 10.3 ± 2.34 (2.78) -16.1 ± 13.6 (24.5) 0.203 ± 0.243 (0.394) 0.00 ± 0.800 (0.480)

7/1/2003 4.13 ± 1.13 (0.908) 9.49 ± 0.853 (0.819) -7.15 ± 15.8 (26.5) -0.0664 ± 0.097 (0.266) 0.0367 ± 1.01 (0.544)

7/1/2003 FD NA NA -0.375 ± 15.8 (26.4) NA NA

10/7/2003 8.24 ± 2.02 (1.62) 7.53 ± 1.76 (2.09) -5.75 ± 15.6 (26.3) -0.360 ± 0.510 (0.980) -0.0362 ± 0.683 (0.317)

1/28/2003 4.25 ± 1.36 (1.47) 4.80 ± 0.670 (1.79) -3.66 ± 15.0 (25.6) 0.0710 ± 0.123 (0.220) -0.160 ± 0.998 (0.498)

4/29/2003 4.21 ± 1.12 (1.32) 6.42 ± 1.38 (1.64) -17.4 ± 14.0 (25.0) 0.0000 ± 0.251 (0.495) 0.020 ± 0.720 (0.430)

7/1/2003 4.93 ± 1.23 (1.08) 6.92 ± 0.806 (0.883) -6.63 ± 15.0 (25.3) 0.129 ± 0.147 (0.232) -0.106 ± 0.687 (0.363)

10/7/2003 6.04 ± 1.32 (1.05) 5.59 ± 1.30 (1.42) 8.62 ± 16.0 (26.3) 0.0200 ± 0.160 (0.320) 0.0375 ± 0.701 (0.329)

10/7/2003 FD NA NA 8.77 ± 16.2 (26.7) NA NA

1/28/2003 2.06 ± 1.04 (1.48) 2.78 ± 0.570 (1.51) 7.40 ± 16.3 (27.1) 1.51 ± 0.415 (0.331) 1.29 ± 0.782 (0.490)

4/29/2003 8.23 ± 1.78 (1.69) 14.4 ± 2.60 (2.51) -12.6 ± 14.2 (25.2) 1.51 ± 0.582 (0.522) 0.820 ± 0.820 (0.530)

7/1/2003 13.1 ± 2.99 (2.81) 14.5 ± 1.95 (2.25) -0.723 ± 15.3 (25.5) 1.52 ± 0.404 (0.264) 0.990 ± 0.635 (0.399)

10/7/2003 12.8 ± 2.47 (1.33) 13.7 ± 2.57 (1.91) 16.0 ± 14.7 (23.6) 0.690 ± 0.550 (0.830) 0.666 ± 0.620 (0.376)

1/28/2003 0.807 ± 0.467 (0.656) 2.72 ± 0.626 (1.12) -6.32 ± 16.3 (28.1) 0.526 ± 0.254 (0.244) 0.163 ± 0.932 (0.476)

4/29/2003 0.819 ± 0.763 (1.24) 2.18 ± 1.27 (2.03) -14.5 ± 13.7 (24.3) -0.0261 ± 0.170 (0.368) 0.320 ± 0.870 (0.530)

7/1/2003 -0.390 ± 0.480 (0.907) 1.41 ± 0.473 (0.719) -7.73 ± 15.4 (25.9) 0.0241 ± 0.106 (0.224) 0.636 ± 0.786 (0.459)

10/7/2003 0.536 ± 0.934 (1.94) 3.22 ± 1.20 (2.01) -1.82 ± 14.9 (24.9) 0.480 ± 0.380 (0.570) -0.0187 ± 0.637 (0.296)

WW-8

WW-C1

WW-5B

Monitoring 

Location and 

Date Sampled

WW-5C

WW-4

WW-4A

UE-16D 

228Ra ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(f)

Gross α ± 

Uncertainty(a) (MDC)

(pCi/L)(b)

Gross β ±

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(c)

226Ra ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(e)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(d)

Army Well #1 

J-12 WW

J-13 WW (i)

C)

(a) See Glossary, Appendix D for a definition of uncertainty

(b) The EPA established maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water for gross alpha (α) is 15 pCi/L

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L

(d) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L

(e) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for 226Ra + 228Ra is 5 pCi/L

(f) FD = field duplicate sample

(g) NA = Specific analysis was not run on the sample

(h) Not analyzed in sample

(i) J-13 Water Well was not operational for a period of time

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample specific MDC

± 2 standard deviations 

Army#1 WW 

WW#4 

WW#4A 

WW#5B 

WW#5C 

UE-16D WW 

J-13 WW(i)
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-11 

Table 3-4. Gross alpha, gross beta, and tritium analysis results for NTS monitoring wells in 2003 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result is greater than the sample specific MDC) 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

(b) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for gross alpha is 15 pCi/L 

(c) The EPA "Level of Concern" in drinking water for gross beta (β) is 50 pCi/L 

(d) The EPA established MCL in drinking water for tritium (3

H) is 20,000 pCi/L 

(e) FD = field duplicate sample 

(f) NA = Gross α and Gross β were not run on these FD samples 

(g) Compliance well for Area 23 sewage lagoon 

(h) Compliance well for validation of Area 5 RWMS performance assessment criteria 

 

NA 

NA 

NA 

) 

Monitoring Location

Date 

Sampled

ER-6-1 (2,017 ft bgs) 2/18/2003 3.00 ± 1.17 (1.55) 13.9 ± 2.54 (2.38) 1.25 ± 14.6 (24.8)

ER-6-1 (2,228 ft bgs) 2/18/2003 1.87 ± 1.06 (1.56) 12.4 ± 2.46 (2.56) 3.30 ± 14.4 (24.2)

ER-6-1 (2,228 ft bgs) FD(e) 2/18/2003 NA(f) NA 6.07 ± 13.7 (22.7)

HTH #1 (1,935 ft bgs) 3/12/2003 2.14 ± 0.928 (1.16) 1.46 ± 1.22 (2.00) -0.627 ± 11.2 (19.2)

HTH #1 (2,040 ft bgs) 3/12/2003 1.10 ± 0.925 (1.45) 0.463 ± 1.23 (2.10) 5.12 ± 21.9 (37.0)

HTH #1 (2,040 ft bgs) FD 3/12/2003 NA NA -4.33 ± 10.5 (18.3)

HTH #1 (2,130 ft bgs) 3/12/2003 0.916 ± 0.833 (1.31) 1.47 ± 1.23 (2.01) -5.96 ± 10.7 (18.8)

HTH #1 (2,300 ft bgs) 3/12/2003 1.81 ± 1.08 (1.56) 0.830 ± 1.26 (2.12) 0.914 ± 11.1 (18.8)

HTH #2 (Water Well 2) 1/28/2003 3.23 ± 1.16 (1.37) 6.61 ± 1.67 (2.05) -3.61 ± 11.1 (19.4)

HTH #2 (Water Well 2) FD 1/28/2003 NA NA -5.00 ± 11.7 (20.4)

SM-23-1 3/24/2003 4.20 ± 1.05 (1.14) 8.80 ± 1.69 (1.76) -3.24 ± 10.8 (18.7)

TW-D 1/28/2003 0.613 ± 0.819 (1.37) 6.58 ± 1.77 (2.25) 3.39 ± 14.8 (25.0)

TW-D FD 1/28/2003 NA NA -2.12 ± 12.1 (20.8)

U-19BH 4/23/2003 NA NA 38.2 ± 11.7 (17.2)

U-19BH 4/23/2003 NA NA 32.7 ± 12.3 (18.5)

UE-18R (1,700 ft bgs) 4/22/2003 8.41 ± 1.98 (1.42) 2.40 ± 0.912 (1.70) 3.56 ± 10.8 (18.2)

UE-18R (2,130 ft bgs) 4/22/2003 16.4 ± 2.91 (2.04) 4.85 ± 1.12 (1.83) 0.147 ± 10.5 (18.0)

UE-1Q 1/21/2003 4.77 ± 1.16 (1.04) 10.3 ± 1.88 (1.75) 7.75 ± 12.5 (20.7)

UE-1Q FD 1/21/2003 NA NA 8.80 ± 24.7 (4.4)

UE-1Q 9/3/2003 1.60 ± 0.881 (1.44) 6.34 ± 1.67 (2.31) -7.45 ± 13.0 (22.6)

UE-5C (Water Well) 1/28/2003 3.40 ± 1.29 (1.85) 3.56 ± 0.732 (1.84) -12.1 ± 14.7 (25.7)

UE5PW-1 4/15/2003 3.60 ± 1.39 (1.61) 7.17 ± 2.07 (2.71) -1.13 ± 10.1 (17.3)

UE5PW-1 10/22/2003 NA NA 2.70 ± 14.7 (24.8)

UE5PW-1 FD 10/22/2003 NA NA -0.797 ± 13.9 (23.8)

UE5PW-2 4/15/2003 3.93 ± 1.17 (1.23) 7.00 ± 1.56 (1.79) -3.64 ± 10.3 (17.9)

UE5PW-2 FD 4/15/2003 NA NA -6.80 ± 10.3 (18.1)

UE5PW-2 10/22/2003 NA NA 11.2 ± 14.9 (24.4)

UE5PW-3 4/15/2003 4.25 ± 1.56 (1.81) 5.15 ± 1.85 (2.65) 1.62 ± 10.6 (18.1)

UE5PW-3 10/21/2003 NA NA 0.404 ± 14.1 (24.1)

UE-7NS 2/19/2003 0.640 ± 0.608 (0.984) 3.83 ± 1.15 (1.62) 133 ± 17.9 (22.7)

UE-7NS FD 2/19/2003 NA NA 156 ± 19.8 (24.5)

Well A (USGS Water Well A) 1/29/2003 0.470 ± 0.661 (1.11) 6.90 ± 1.63 (2.01) 510 ± 26.0 (19.1)

Gross α ±

Uncertainty(a) (MDC)

(pCi/L)(b)

Gross β ±

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(c)

3

H ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

(pCi/L)(d)

(g) 

(h) 

(h) 

(h) 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-12 

Well U-19BH – this well is located in the Central Pahute Mesa CAU. It is an inventory emplacement borehole. 

There were several nuclear detonations conducted near U-19BH, but the source of the tritium in the borehole is 

unclear. Previous investigations suggest that the water in the well originates from a perched aquifer, but identifying 

the likely source of tritium is difficult due to a lack of data regarding the perched system (Brikowski et al., 1993). The 

results from a tracer test conducted in the well indicate that there is minimal flow across the borehole (Brikowski 

et al., 1993). The lack of measurable flow in the well suggests that the chemistry of the water sampled from the 

borehole may not be representative of the aquifer. The data are provided as a point of interest due to the detection of 

tritium. 

Well UE-7NS – this well is located in the Yucca Flat CAU and was drilled 137 m (449 ft) from the Bourbon 

underground nuclear test (U-7n) which was conducted in 1967. This well was routinely sampled between 1978 and 

1987, with the resumption of sampling in 1991. In 2003, tritium concentrations of 133 and 156 pCi/L were detected 

from this well. These results are consistent with the trend of decreasing concentrations observed in recent years 

(Figure 3-4). Well UE-7NS is the second known location on the NTS where the regionally-important lower 

carbonate aquifer (LCA) has been impacted by radionuclides from nuclear testing (Smith et al., 1999). The first 

location where the LCA has been impacted by radionuclides from nuclear testing is Well UE-2CE. Well UE-2CE is 

located less the 200 m (656 ft) from the NASH test, which was conducted in Yucca Flat in 1967. Well UE-2CE is not 

currently configured for routine sampling. 

Well WW-A (also known as USGS Water Well A) – this well is completed in alluvium in the Yucca Flat CAU 

(see Figure 3-2). It is located within 1 km (0.6 mi) of 14 underground nuclear tests in Yucca Flat, most of which 

appear to be upgradient of the well. The well has had measurable tritium since the late 1980s. The marked increase 

between 1985 and 1999 suggests inflow of tritium to this well from the HAYMAKER underground nuclear test 

(U-3aus) conducted in 1962 which is 524 m (1,720 ft) north of Well WW-A. This well which supplied non-potable 

water for construction was shut down in the early 1990s. The concentrations measured in 2003 at WW-A indicate a 

slight downward trend since 1999 (Figure 3-4).

Very low, yet detectable, concentrations of 226Ra and 226Ra were also observed in water samples from wells SM-23-1 

and UE-5C. These were the only two monitoring wells tested for 226Ra and 228Ra (Table 3-5). These radium isotopes 

were far below their EPA (MCLs) for drinking water. 

No radionuclides were detected at concentrations above their respective MDCs by gamma spectroscopy analyses in 

any of the NTS monitoring wells in 2003. 

Figure 3-4. Concentrations of tritium in wells with a history of detectable levels 

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Tritium Concentration (pCi/L)

U-19BH UE-7NS

USGS Water Well A Water Well C-1

Well PM-1

Effective MDC (20 pCi/L)

MCL (20,000 pCi/L)
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-13 

Table 3-5. Detectable concentrations of radium isotopes in NTS monitoring wells sampled in 2003 

Monitoring Location 

Date 

Sampled 

226Ra ± Uncertainty(a) (MDC)

(pCi/L) 

228Ra ± Uncertainty (MDC)

 (pCi/L) 

SM-23-1 3/24/2003 0.501 ± 0.279 (0.346) 2.37 ± 0.72 (0.882) 

UE-5C (Water Well) 1/28/2003 0.357 ± 0.212 (0.237) 1.08 ± 0.55 (0.984) 

The EPA established MCL in drinking water for 226Ra + 228Ra is 5 pCi/L 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

3.1.3.5 NTS E Tunnel Ponds 

Five primary basins were constructed to collect and hold water discharged from the onsite E Tunnels in Area 12 

where nuclear testing was conducted in the past (see Figures 3-3 and 6-4). The water is perched groundwater that has 

percolated through fractures in the tunnel system. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) conducts 

monitoring of effluent waters from E Tunnel to determine if radionuclides and non-radiological contaminants exceed 

the allowable contaminant levels regulated under a state water pollution control permit (NEV 96021), which is issued 

to DTRA. During October, 2003, water was sampled from the tunnel effluent near where water is discharged, from 

the pond influent (which at the time was flowing into Pond 2), and from Ponds 2 and 5 themselves. Sediment was 

also sampled from the basins of Ponds 2, 4, and 5. Effluent water was analyzed by DTRA for tritium, gross alpha, 

and gross beta (Table 3-6). All other samples were analyzed by BN for tritium (water samples only), gamma-emitting 

radionuclides, uranium, plutonium, 90Sr, and 241Am (Table 3-7). 

The majority of samples had radionuclide concentrations above minimum detectable concentrations (MDC) 

(Table 3-7). While tritium concentrations in tunnel effluent were elevated, they were about 12 percent lower than the 

limit allowed under permit NEV 96021 for that discharge system (Table 3-6). Tritium was found in all pond inlet and 

pond water samples at concentrations analogous to previous years’ samples except the sample from Pond 5, which 

was approximately one third lower. This was probably due to the fact that Pond 5 did not receive tunnel effluent 

during 2003 and precipitation diluted the original concentration. Concentrations of 90Sr, 137Cs, plutonium, and 241Am 

were also at levels comparable with the past two years. In samples for which it was analyzed, uranium was detected in 

both water and sediment samples, but was determined to be naturally-occurring, based on the activity ratios of 

238U/235U and 238U/233+234U not being different from 20 and 1, respectively (PHS, 1970). 

Due to the elevated concentrations of radionuclides in the containment ponds, they are fenced and posted with 

radiological warning signs. Given that the ponds are available to wildlife, game animals are also sampled under 

RREMP monitoring to assess the potential radiological dose to humans via ingestion of game animals and to evaluate 

radiological impacts to wildlife (see Section 6.0 and Section 7.0). 

 Table 3-6. Radiological results for E Tunnel Pond effluent pertaining to Water Pollution Control Permit 

 NEV 96021 

Parameter Permit Threshold/Permissible Limit Average Measured Value 

Tritium 1,000,000 pCi/L 885,000 pCi/L 

Gross Alpha 35.1 pCi/L 12.75 pCi/L 

Gross Beta 101 pCi/L 54.45 pCi/L 

Source: Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021 Quarterly Monitoring Report and Annual Summary Report for E Tunnel Waste 

Water Disposal System (DTRA, 2003)
3-14

Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

Table 3-7. Routine radiological water monitoring results for E-Tunnel Ponds in 2003 

Influent 828,000 ± 126,000 (1,820) 0.76 ± 0.37 (0.63) 43.10 ± 9.37 (6.67) 0.438 ± 0.179 (0.036) 4.960 ± 1.170 (0.036) 0.242 ± 0.061 (0.017)

(Pond 2)Pond 2 815,000 ± 125,000 (2,050) 0.34 ± 0.31 (0.63) 20.70 ± 6.20 (6.89) 0.223 ± 0.104 (0.068) 4.280 ± 0.930 (0.068) 0.144 ± 0.064 (0.041)Pond 2 FD(b) 833,000 ± 127,000 (1,830) 0.69 ± 0.35 (0.60) 22.20 ± 6.40 (6.91) 0.181 ± 0.090 (0.063) 2.570 ± 0.574 (0.023) 0.234 ± 0.066 (0.008)Pond 5 528,000 ± 80,700 (1,640) 1.49 ± 0.51 (0.63) 13.30 ± 5.39 (7.04) 0.081 ± 0.078 (0.100) 0.770 ± 0.265 (0.099) 0.170 ± 0.056 (0.025)Pond 2 NA(c) 0.37 ± 0.29 (0.57) 54.10 ± 9.10 (0.50) 0.737 ± 0.159 (0.018) 2.170 ± 0.401 (0.009) 0.456 ± 0.111 (0.010)Pond 2 FD NA 0.26 ± 0.26 (0.53) 44.40 ± 7.40 (0.30) 0.535 ± 0.125 (0.010) 2.040 ± 0.381 (0.010) 0.454 ± 0.108 (0.009)Pond 4 NA 3.30 ± 0.91 (0.64) 95.40 ± 15.90 (0.43) 0.399 ± 0.101 (0.023) 3.660 ± 0.652 (0.023) 0.433 ± 0.106 (0.009)Pond 5 NA 3.30 ± 0.90 (0.60) 60.30 ± 10.00 (0.33) 0.111 ± 0.045 (0.023) 1.430 ± 0.279 (0.026) 0.192 ± 0.061 (0.010)

Sample

Water - Concentration units are pCi/LSediment - Concentration units are pCi/g

239/240Pu ± 

Uncertainty (MDC)

241Am ± Uncertainty 

(MDC)

3H ±

Uncertainty(a) (MDC)

90Sr ±

Uncertainty (MDC)

137Cs ±

Uncertainty (MDC)

238Pu ±

Uncertainty (MDC)

Green shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the sample specific MDC)(a) See Glossary, Appendix D for definition of uncertainity(b) FD = Field duplicate(c) Not applicable: tritium is not measured in samples which do not contain water

± 2 standard deviations 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-15 

3.1.3.6 NTS Sewage Lagoons 

Each sewage lagoon at the NTS is part of a closed system used for the evaporative treatment of sanitary sewage. In 

recent years, sewage storage and treatment at the NTS has transitioned from lagoons to septic systems at several 

locations. A few permitted sewage lagoons remain: Area 6 Yucca, Area 12 Camp, and Area 23 Mercury. The permits 

for these lagoons do not require that the water or sediments be monitored for radioactivity (see Section 3.2.4 below). 

However, to more completely demonstrate the proper management of effluents on the NTS, limited radiological 

analyses are conducted for these lagoons. Due to periods of inactivity and limited fluid, the Area 12 Camp lagoon is 

only sampled intermittently. 

The lagoon water samples were analyzed for tritium using standard (un-enriched) analyses and by gamma 

spectroscopy for other radionuclides. No tritium was detected at concentrations above their MDCs in the lagoon 

water samples (Table 3-8). 

Table 3-8. Tritium water monitoring results for NTS sewage lagoons in 2003 

Monitoring Location Date Sampled 

3H ± Uncertainty(a) (MDC) 

(pCi/L) 

 Area 6 Yucca 4/9/2003 16 ± 210 (352) 

 7/1/2003 169 ± 219 (357) 

 10/1/2003 -151 ± 120 (218) 

 Area 12 Camp 7/1/2003 -17 ± 213 (357) 

 Area 23 Mercury 4/9/2003 -171 ± 206 (352) 

 7/1/2003 -93.9 ± 211 (357) 

 10/1/2003 -34 ± 130 (225) 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

 

3.1.4 UGTA Wells 

Preliminary (pre-development) groundwater characterization samples were collected from each of three newly drilled 

wells: ER-12-2, ER-7-1, and ER-2-1 (Figure 3-5). Tritium was noted at Well ER-2-1 during drilling in the vadose 

zone at 328.0 to 490.7 m (1,076 to 1,610 ft) and again in the saturated section at 743.7 to 765.0 m (2,440 to 2,510 ft) 

depth. Activity levels were less than 8,700 pCi/L in these two intervals, and returned to background levels elsewhere. 

The amount of tritium detected (less than one-half the Safe Drinking Water Act level) was much less than expected. 

No other radionuclides above background have been identified to date in groundwater produced from Well ER-2-1. 

All fluids produced during the construction of Well ER-2-1 were contained in two lined sumps. 

Groundwater characterization samples were also collected from Wells ER-5-4#2 and ER-6-1#2 following hydraulic 

testing activities. The UGTA Project also sampled eight characterization wells drilled in 1999 for the Western Pahute 

Mesa – Oasis Valley study area. The wells sampled included: ER-EC-1, ER-EC-2A, ER-EC-4, ER-EC-5, ER-EC-6, 

ER-EC-7, ER-EC-8, and ER-18-2 (Figure 3-5). No tritium or other man-made radionuclides were detected while 

drilling (except as noted at Well ER-2-1) or sampling any of these wells. The data are maintained in updated versions 

of the UGTA Project geochemical database by Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, Las Vegas, NV. 

In 2003, the UGTA Program sampled four post-shot/cavity wells, or “Hot Wells”: U-4t PS#3A, U-19q PS#1D, 

U-19v PS#1DS, and U-20n PS#1DDH (Figure 3-5). These wells access cavities from the underground nuclear tests 

GASCON, CAMEBERT, ALMENDRO, and CHESHIRE, respectively. A multi-agency team consisting of 

personnel from the USGS, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and LLNL collected fluid samples at these 

wells using a downhole sampling pump. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-16 

Figure 3-5. Wells recently drilled or sampled for the UGTA Project 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-17 

The wells access the target test cavities via perforated casing. During sample collection, field parameters, including 

temperature, pH, and conductivity were measured. Samples were then analyzed for selected radionuclides as well as 

gross alpha and gross beta. In general, preliminary results show expected levels of radionuclides for post-shot wells. 

Final laboratory analytical results for these wells are pending. Preliminary analyses indicate that tritium concentrations 

ranged from 200,000 pCi/L to 160,000,000 pCi/L. The results of this year’s “hot well” sampling effort will support 

the NNSA’s continuing efforts to create a long-term monitoring program for wells in or near underground nuclear 

test cavities. The program objectives are to characterize the hydrologic source term and evaluate the decay and 

potential migration of radionuclides through monitoring at or near the source. 

3.1.5 Environmental Impact 

All but four groundwater samples had tritium levels below detectable levels. Groundwater from three onsite 

monitoring wells (U-19BH, UE-7NS, and Well WW-A which have histories of detectable tritium levels, and had 

detectable levels of tritium in 2003. These three wells are located in close proximity to underground test. The Beatty 

Water and Sewer offsite wells had a low but detectable tritium level but there was no evidence of any other detectable 

man-made radionuclides. The tritium data provides no evidence that radionuclides have traveled significant distances 

from underground testing areas to offsite water supply wells. 

Most groundwater samples had gross alpha and beta levels above detection limits but below the EPA MCL for 

drinking water. The samples from two offsite monitoring wells (ER-OV-01 and ER-OV-02) exceeded the drinking 

water standard. The measured gross alpha and beta levels in these wells, however, are attributed to the decay of 

naturally-occurring radioactive elements particularly in volcanic host rock. 

3.2 Non-Radiological Drinking Water and Wastewater Monitoring 

3.2.1 Goals 

The quality of drinking water and wastewater on the NTS is regulated by federal and state laws. In addition, the 

design, construction, operation, and maintenance of many of the drinking water and wastewater systems on the NTS 

are regulated under state permits. BN is tasked with ensuring that such systems meet all the applicable water quality 

standards and permit requirements. BN personnel conduct field water sampling, perform assessments, and maintain 

documentation to ensure compliance. This section describes the assessment or field monitoring methods and results 

used to accomplish this task. Specifically omitted from this section are assessment methods related to monitoring 

radionuclides in drinking water on and off the NTS, as these are presented in the preceding Section 3.1.3.1 and 

Section 3.1.3.3, respectively. Monitoring reported in this section is conducted specifically to: 

• Ensure that the operation of the NTS public water systems (PWS) and private water systems provide high quality 

drinking water to workers and visitors of the NTS. 

• Determine if NTS PWS are operated in accordance with the requirements in Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 

445A under permits issued by the Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services (BHPS). 

• Determine if the operation of commercial septic systems to process domestic wastewater on the NTS meets 

operational standards in accordance with the requirements NAC 445A under permits issued by BHPS. 

• Determine if the operation of industrial wastewater systems on the NTS meets operational standards of federal 

and state regulations as prescribed under the GNEV93001 state permit issued by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP). 

3.2.2 Drinking Water Monitoring 

3.2.2.1 Methods 

A network of nine permitted wells supplies the potable water needs of NTS operations (Figure 3-6). NNSA/NSO 

operates three public water systems (PWSs) (Figure 3-6) and four private water systems. The PWSs are operated in 

accordance with the requirements in NAC 445A under permits issued by BHPS, which are renewed annually. The 

private water systems are not subject to NAC 445A. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-18 

Figure 3-6. Drinking water system on the NTS
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-19 

Sampling for Water Quality of PWS and Permitted Water Hauling Trucks – The three PWS must meet water 

quality standards for coliform bacteria, nitrates, nitrites, lead, copper, and fluoride. The PWS must also meet other 

standards and conditions listed in the regulations relating to design, operation, and maintenance. For work locations 

at the NTS that are not part of a public water system, NNSA/NSO hauls potable water for use in decontamination 

and sanitation. The NTS uses two water tanker trucks, which are permitted by the BHPS to haul water to a public 

water system. Normal use of these trucks involves hauling to private water systems and to hand-washing stations at 

construction sites, activities which are not subject to permitting. NNSA/NSO, however, retains the permits in case of 

emergency. These permits are also renewed annually. The two permitted potable water hauling trucks are subject to 

water quality standards for coliform bacteria.

Table 3-9 lists the water quality parameters monitored, sample locations, and sample frequencies. The largest PWS 

(Area 23 and 6) serves the main work areas of the NTS. It was monitored monthly for coliform bacteria at seven 

locations within the distribution systems approved by the BHPS. The two smaller systems (Area 12 and Area 25) 

were monitored quarterly for coliform bacteria. At all building locations, the sampling point for coliform bacteria is 

one of the sinks within one of the building’s bathrooms. Monitoring for other contaminants took place at the six 

points of entry to the PWSs. Although not required by regulation or permit, the private water systems were 

monitored quarterly for coliform bacteria to ensure safe drinking water. All potable water hauling trucks were 

monitored monthly for coliform bacteria. 

All water samples were collected in accordance with accepted practices, and the analyses were performed by 

state-approved laboratories. Approved analytical methods listed in NAC 445A and Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 141 were used by the laboratories. 

Table 3-9. Water quality monitoring parameters and sampling design for NTS public drinking water systems 

PWS Contaminant 

2003 Monitoring 

Requirement Monitoring Locations 

Coliform Bacteria 36 samples (3/month) Buildings 5-7, 6-624, 6-900, 22-1, 23-710, 

23-777, 23-1103 

Area 23 and 6 

Nitrates 4 samples (1/entry 

point) 

Entry points (Army Well Tank, Mercury 

Tank, 4/4a Tank, C-1 Wellhead) 

Coliform Bacteria 4 samples (1/quarter) Building 12-45 

Nitrates 1 sample Entry point (Area 12 Tank) 

Area 12 

Lead and Copper 5 samples Buildings 12-23, 12-31, 12-35, 12-30, 12-928 

Coliform Bacteria 4 samples (1/quarter) Building 25-4320 

Nitrates 1 sample Entry point (J-11 Tank) 

Total Nitrates and 

 Nitrites 

1 sample Entry point (J-11 Tank) 

Area 25 

Fluoride 2 samples (1/well) Well J-12, Well J-13 

 

Water Hauling Truck 

84846 

Coliform Bacteria 12 samples (1/month) From water tank on truck after filling at 

Area 6 potable water fill stand 

Water Hauling 

Truck 84847 

Coliform Bacteria 12 samples (1/month) From water tank on truck after filling at 

Area 6 potable water fill stand 

Sanitary Survey of PWS and Inspection of Permitted Water Hauling Trucks – The BHPS conducts a periodic 

sanitary survey of the permitted PWS. A sanitary survey consists of an inspection of the wells, tanks, and other visible 

portions of the PWS to ensure that they are maintained in a sanitary configuration. As non-community water systems, 

the minimum survey frequency for a sanitary survey is five years. The BHPS has been performing the survey more 

frequently, however. The BHPS inspects the two water hauling trucks annually at the time of permit renewal to make 

sure they still meet the requirements of NAC 445A. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-20 

3.2.2.2 Results 

Water Sampling and Analysis – In 2003, monitoring results indicated that the PWS and the permitted water hauling 

trucks complied with drinking water quality standards (Table 3-10). In Area 25, only Well J-12 was monitored for 

fluoride. The submersible pump in Well J-13 failed in April 2003 and it was taken out of service for the remainder of 

2003. 

Table 3-10. Water quality analysis results for NTS public drinking water systems in 2003 

Contaminant 

Maximum 

Contaminant Level Result 

Coliform Bacteria - Public Water 

System/ Permitted Hauling 

Truck

1 sample w/ coliforms 

present/month 

 PWS - Area 23 and 6 Absent in all samples 

 PWS - Area 12 Absent in all samples 

 PWS - Area 25 Absent in all samples 

 Water Hauling Truck 84846 Absent in all samples 

 Water Hauling Truck 84847 Absent in all samples 

Coliform Bacteria - Private Water 

System

NA (a) 

 JASPER compound Absent in all samples 

 U3ah/at complex Absent in all samples 

 Area 6 Weather Station Absent in all samples 

 G Tunnel office Absent in all samples 

Nitrates 10.0 mg/L 

 PWS - Area 23 and 6 0.31 – 4.0 mg/L (b)

 PWS - Area 12 1.2 mg/L 

 PWS - Area 25 1.9 mg/L 

Lead 0.015 mg/L 

 PWS - Area 12 .0135 mg/L 

Copper 1.3 mg/L 

 PWS - Area 12 .094 mg/L 

Total Nitrates and Nitrites 10.0 mg/L 

 PWS - Area 25 2.1 mg/L 

Fluoride 4.0 mg/L 

 PWS - Area 25 (Well J-12 only) 1.8 mg/L 

 (a) Not applicable because it is a non-permitted private water system

 (b) Lowest and highest concentration of contaminant among samples analyzed 

BHPS Surveys and Inspections – The BHPS did not conduct a sanitary survey of the PWS in 2003. Their last 

sanitary survey took place in 2002. BHPS conducted an annual inspection of the permitted water hauling trucks at the 

time of permit renewal and no findings were noted. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-21 

3.2.3 Domestic Wastewater Monitoring 

3.2.3.1 Methods 

To obtain a permit for a proposed new NTS septic system, an assessment is conducted to ensure that the sources 

producing discharges are domestic in nature. ECD and the Nevada State Health Division conduct this assessment. 

After the design of a new system is completed, a permit package is submitted through NNSA/NSO to the BHPS. 

Subsequent to state approval, a “permit to construct” is issued. At the completion of construction, the state conducts 

a final inspection. Upon approval, the state issues a “permit to operate.” 

Existing septic systems that are not permitted may be permitted by submitting a narrative describing facility 

operations, flow test results, tank and leach field sizing, engineering drawings, personnel numbers, existing flow 

(volume) information, and a fixture count. The application is reviewed by the state and an onsite inspection is 

conducted by BHPS. Approval results in the issuance of a “permit to operate.” 

There are seven active commercial septic systems on the NTS (Figure 3-7) which are periodically inspected by BN for 

sediment loading and are pumped as required. A state permitted septic pumping contractor is used. The state 

conducts onsite inspections of pumper trucks and pumping contractor operations. 

BN personnel perform management assessments of permitted facilities and services to determine and document 

adherence to permit conditions. The assessments are performed according to existing directives and procedures. 

3.2.3.2 Results 

In 2003, the following compliance actions relating to domestic wastewater on the NTS occurred: 

• One new septic system was permitted for the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex (Permit 

NY-1106). 

• Septic system design was initiated for the U1a Complex and Area 12 -910. The final permit package submittals 

will be completed in 2004. 

• Septic tank pumping contractor permit renewal (Permit NY-17-03318), septic tank pump truck permit renewals 

(Permits NY-17-03313, NY-17-03315, NY-17-03317, and NY-17-06838), and a septic tanker renewal (Permit 

NY-17-06839) were permits approved by the state and renewed in September 2003. 

• Septic system assessments were performed at the Area 6 LANL (Permit NY-1090) and the Area 25 Central 

Support Facilities and Reactor Control Point Systems (Permits NY-1085 and 1086). The septic system 

assessment performed in Area 6 resulted in no findings. The Area 25 assessment resulted in four findings: 

(1) Changes in permit conditions had occurred since the last inspection conducted in August 2002. These 

changes were forwarded to NNSA/NSO for transmittal to the state before the assessment report was 

issued. 

(2) A potential discharge pathway (to the septic tank) was identified in a paint storage area. Since an NNSA 

contractor did not occupy this facility, the finding was reported to NNSA for transmittal to the tenant 

organization. The assessor also notified the tenant organization during the assessment. 

(3) It was determined that non-commercial systems were not being inspected periodically for sediment loading. 

This finding was entered into the corrective action tracking system for resolution. 

(4) Photographic processing chemicals were found in a vacated building. This process had not been noted in a 

previous assessment conducted in 2001. The chemicals were removed and disposed before the assessment 

report was issued. 

3.2.4 Industrial Wastewater 

3.2.4.1 Methods and Results 

Industrial discharges on the NTS were limited to three operating sewage lagoon systems in 2003: Area 6 Yucca Lake, 

Area 12 Camp, and Area 23 Mercury (these lagoon systems also receive domestic wastewater) (Figure 3-7). The Area 

6 Yucca Lake system consists of two primary lagoons and two secondary lagoons. All lagoons in this system are lined 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-22 

Figure 3-7. Active permitted sewage disposal systems on the NTS 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-23 

using compacted native soils that meet the state requirements for transmissivity (10-7cm/sec). This system is 

monitored quarterly for influent quality and annually for influent toxicity. 

The Area 12 Camp system consists of four primary lagoons and five secondary lagoons. All lagoons in this system are 

lined using compacted native soils that meet the state requirements for transmissivity. This system is monitored 

quarterly for influent quality and annually for influent toxicity. The sewage that normally flows to this system was 

diverted to a permitted septic system (Permit NY-1089) in the fourth quarter of 2003 because of low flow. 

The Area 23 Mercury system consists of one primary lagoon and three infiltration basins. All lagoons in this system 

are unlined, and the groundwater well SM-23-1 is monitored for this system. Monitoring is conducted quarterly for 

influent quality and annually for influent toxicity and groundwater contamination. 

The locations where water samples were collected for analysis within each sewage system include: 

• Each influent headwork for systems where there is direct access to influent flows 

• Each pond near the lagoon’s inlet for systems where there is no direct access to influent flows 

• Each infiltration basin at a place where a sample most closely representing the infiltrating waste water can be 

collected 

• Each groundwater monitoring well or alternative-monitoring device 

Composite samples are flow-weighted (10 hours) at the Area 6 Yucca Lake and Area 23 Mercury systems which are 

equipped with an ultrasonic flow meter. At Area 12 Camp, where there are no flow meters, but automatic sampling 

equipment is used, composite samples are time-weighted (8 hours) when the facility is active. 

All water samples were collected in accordance with accepted practices, and the analyses were performed by 

state-approved laboratories. Approved analytical methods listed in NAC 445A and Title 40 CFR 141 were used by 

the laboratories. 

3.2.4.1.1 Quarterly Analysis of Influent Water Quality 

A composite sample from each influent headwork was collected quarterly and the composite sample was analyzed for 

three parameters: 5-day biological oxygen demand (BOD 5), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH (Table 3-11). The 

compliance limits for these parameters are established under Water Pollution Control General Permit GNEV93001 

and are shown in Table 3-11. All quarterly monitoring of BOD 5, TSS, and pH for sewage system influent waters 

were within permit limits in 2003. 

Table 3-11. Water quality analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon influent waters in 2003 

 Minimum and Maximum Values from Quarterly Samples 

Parameter Units Area 6 Yucca Area 12 Camp(a) Area 23 Mercury 

BOD 5 19 - 200 91 - 230 100 - 310 

BOD 5 Permit Limit 

mg/L 

No Limit No Limit No Limit 

BOD 5 Mean Daily Load (b) 0.620 – 4.94 0.432 – 2.10 13.5 – 67.5 

BOD 5 Mean Daily Load Limit 

kg/day 

8.66 54.2 172 

TSS 19.8 - 541 91 - 178 54.3 - 340 

TSS Permit Limit 

mg/L 

No Limit No Limit No Limit 

pH 7.75 – 8.46 7.64 - 8.9 7.63 – 8.02 

pH Permit Limit 

S.U. 

6.0 – 9.0 6.0 – 9.0 6.0 – 9.0 

(a) Area 12 Camp was dry the 2nd quarter of 2003, values shown are for only 3 samples collected for influent water 

quality 

(b) BOD 5 Mean Daily Load in kg/day = (mg/L BOD x L/day Average Flow x 3.785)/106. 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-24 

3.2.4.1.2 Annual Analysis of Toxicity of Sewage Lagoon Pond Waters 

A grab sample from the Area 23 Mercury primary lagoon and an equal-volume composite sample from the two Area 6 

Yucca Lake primary lagoons were collected in April. No samples were collected from the Area 12 Camp ponds for 

influent toxicity because the sewage that normally flows to the Area 12 Camp system was diverted to a permitted 

septic system. 

Each grab and composite sample was filtered, the solids discarded, and the filtrate analyzed directly, using those 

methods of analysis cited in EPA Publication SW-846. Each sample was analyzed for those contaminants listed in 

Table 3-12. The limits for the contaminants for annual monitoring are taken from 40 CFR 261.24, Table 1, Maximum 

Concentration of Contaminants for the Toxicity Characteristic. Annual monitoring of Area 6 Yucca Lake and Area 

23 Mercury sewage lagoon waters adjacent to lagoon inlets showed that no contaminants exceeded permit limits 

(Table 3-12). 

Table 3-12. Water toxicity analysis results for NTS sewage lagoon pond water in 2003 

Contaminant Limit(a) (mg/L) 

Area 6 Yucca 

(mg/L) 

Area 23 Mercury 

(mg/L) 

Benzene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Chlordane 0.03 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Chlorobenzene 100 < 0.005 < 0.005

Chloroform 6 < 0.005 < 0.005

Cresol (Total) 200 < 0.050 < 0.050

2,4-D 10 < 0.001 < 0.001

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 < 0.050 < 0.050

1,2-Dichloroethane 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

1,1-Dichlorethylene 0.7 < 0.005 < 0.005

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13 < 0.050 < 0.050

Endrin 0.02 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Heptachlor 0.008 < 0.0001 < 0.0001

Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 < 0.050 < 0.050

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 < 0.050 < 0.050

Hexachloroethane 3 < 0.050 < 0.050

Lindane 0.4 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 

Methoxychlor 10 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

Methylethyl Ketone 200 < 0.010 < 0.010

Nitrobenzene 2 < 0.050 < 0.050

Pentachlorophenol 100 < 0.120 < 0.120 

Pyridine 5 < 0.050 < 0.050

Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 < 0.005 < 0.005

Toxaphene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

Trichloroethylene 0.5 < 0.005 < 0.005

2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 400 < 0.120 < 0.120

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2 < 0.050 < 0.050

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 1 < 0.0005 < 0.0005

Vinyl Chloride 0.2 < 0.010 < 0.010

Arsenic 5 0.0091 0.0098 

Barium 100 0.0395 0.0441 

Cadmium 1 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 

Chromium 5 0.0006 0.0012 

Lead 5 < 0.0026 < 0.0026 

Mercury 0.2 < 0.0001 0.0001 

Selenium 1 < 0.0036 < 0.0036 

Silver 5 0.0016 < 0.0008 

(a) Source: 40 CFR 261.24, Table 1 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-25 

3.2.4.1.3 Annual Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Wells Associated With Sewage Lagoons 

The Area 23 Mercury lagoons are the only lagoons required to have groundwater monitoring because the lagoons and 

infiltration basins are unlined. Since they are unlined, the mode of disposal is evaporation/infiltration. The 

monitoring well (SM-23-1) is sampled annually and analyzed for those contaminants/parameters listed in Table 3-13. 

The compliance limits are those prescribed under the Nevada Drinking Water Standards (NDWS). In 2003, samples 

were collected in the second quarter, and no concentration limits were exceeded (Table 3-13). This indicates that no 

toxic chemicals or radionuclides have leached into the groundwater from the Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoons. 

Table 3-13. Groundwater analysis results for NTS groundwater monitoring 

well SM-23-1 in 2003 

Source: NDWS (NAC 445A.144) 

(a) Results of un-enriched tritium analyses from General Engineering Laboratories. 

 This value, therefore, differs from the tritium value reported in Table 3-4 

 analyzed by Sanford, Cohen, and Associates laboratory (an enriched analysis). 

3.2.4.1.4 Sewage System Inspections 

In addition to BN personnel monitoring the quality of the sewage water, as per the GNEV93001 state permit, the 

sewage system operators inspect active systems weekly and inactive lagoon systems quarterly. State inspections of 

active and inactive lagoon systems are conducted annually. Operators inspect for abnormal conditions, weeds, algae 

blooms, pond color, abnormal odors, dike erosion, burrowing animals, discharge from ponds or lagoons, depth of 

staff gauge, crest level, excess insect population, maintenance/repairs needed, and general conditions. 

In 2003, there were three notable inspection findings. Area 6 Yucca Lake sewage lagoon experienced high flow 

during January and part of February. An investigation was conducted and it was discovered that a 5 cm (2 inch) water 

Contaminant/Parameter NDWS Limit Results 

 (pCi/L):

Adjusted Gross Alpha 15 4.5 

Gross Beta/photon emitter 50 7.9 

Tritium 20,000 -34.5 ± 97.5(a)

 (mg/L):

Arsenic 0.05 0.0091 

Cadmium 0.005 < 0.0004 

Chloride 400 103 

Chromium 0.1 0.0029 

Copper 1.3 < 0.0006 

Fluoride 4 1.6 

Iron 0.6 0.0385 

Lead 0.015 < 0.0026 

Magnesium 150 25.8 

Manganese 0.1 0.0010 

Mercury 0.002 < 0.0001 

Nitrate (Nitrogen) 10 5.1 

pH (Hydrogen Ion Activity) 6.5 – 8.5 SU 7.52 

Selenium 0.05 < 0.0036 

Sulfate 500 99.6 

Zinc 5 0.0574 
Radiological and Non-Radiological Water Monitoring

3-26 

line had failed. The water line was repaired and flows returned to normal. Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoon 

experienced intermittent line blockage at the head works in June. The blockage was cleared and procedures were put 

in place to check and clean the line daily. Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoon experienced high flow during July. An 

investigation was conducted and it was discovered that cooling towers in Mercury were malfunctioning. The cooling 

towers were repaired and flows returned to normal. 

NDEP conducted an annual inspection of active and inactive sewage lagoon systems on February 5 and 6, 2003. The 

inspection found no problems with the field maintenance program in keeping the lagoons, sites, and access roads 

functional. However, at the Area 6 Yucca Lake sewage lagoon, a false influent flow measurement that exceeded the 

maximum permitted design flow was obtained. This led to a late discovery of a malfunctioning flow meter. 

Corrective actions were completed and approved by NDEP in July 2003. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-1

4.0 Direct Radiation Monitoring 

DOE Orders 5400.5 and 435.1 have requirements to protect the public and environment from exposure to radiation 

(see Section 1.3). Energy from radionuclides present in the Nevada Test Site (NTS) environment can be deposited 

inside humans and animals through inhalation and ingestion. Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this Nevada Test Site 

Environmental Report (NTSER) present the results of monitoring radionuclides in air and water on the NTS so as to 

estimate internal radiation dose to the public via inhalation and ingestion. Energy absorbed from radioactive materials 

residing outside the body results in an external dose. External dose is measured by the Direct Radiation Monitoring 

Program conducted by Bechtel Nevada (BN) Environmental Technical Services (ETS). This section presents the 

results of monitoring direct ionizing radiation on the NTS from all sources, including natural radioactivity from 

cosmic or terrestrial sources and from man-made radioactive sources. These data are then used to document and 

trend gamma radiation exposure rates (mR/hr) on the NTS. 

Monitoring occurs at certain NTS areas which have elevated radiation levels as a result of either: (1) historical 

weapons testing, (2) current and past radioactive waste management activities, and (3) current operational activities 

that involve radioactive material or radiation-generating devices. A surveillance network of sampling locations has 

been established and the objectives and design of the network are described in detail in the Routine Radiological 

Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003). This section describes briefly the RREMP goals, 

compliance measures, and methods, and presents the results of 2003 field sample collection and analysis. 

An oversight monitoring program has been established by U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) to independently monitor direct radiation within communities 

adjacent to the NTS. This independent oversight program is managed by Desert Research Institute (DRI). DRI’s 

2003 direct radiation monitoring results are presented in Section 5.6.1.3 of this NTSER. 

4.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

The goals of direct radiation monitoring are to assess the state of the external radiation environment, detect changes 

in that environment, and measure gamma radiation levels near potential exposure sites. DOE Order 450.1 states that 

environmental monitoring should be conducted to detect, characterize, and respond to releases from U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) activities, assess impacts, and estimate dispersal patterns in the environment. In addition, DOE 

Order 5400.5 states, “it is also an objective that potential exposures to members of the public be as low as is 

reasonably achievable (ALARA).” Specific objectives for direct radiation monitoring are to: 

• Measure the potential external dose to a member of the public in order to determine if the total dose (internal and 

external combined) exceeds 100 mrem/yr, the total dose limit specified in DOE Order 5400.5. 

• Determine if radiation levels from the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) are likely to result in a 

dose exceeding the 25 mrem/yr (0.25 mSv/yr) dose limit to members of the public as specified in 

DOE M 435.1-1. 

• Monitor operational activities involving radioactive material, radiation-generating devices, or accidental releases of 

radioactive material to ensure exposure to members of the public are kept ALARA as stated in DOE Order 

5400.5. 

• Determine if the absorbed radiation dose (from external radiation exposure) to NTS terrestrial plants and aquatic 

animals is less than 1 rad/day, and if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS terrestrial animals is less than 0.1 

rad/day (the limits prescribed by DOE Order 5400.5 and DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002). 

• Determine the exposure rates through time at various soil contamination areas to fulfill the DOE Order 450.1 

requirement to characterize releases in the environment. 

It is important to note that all the dose limits listed above do not include the dose contribution from background 

radiation. Direct radiation monitoring is therefore necessary to assess the proportion of dose to the public which 

comes from background radiation versus NTS operations. 

The measure of direct radiation is exposure to electromagnetic (gamma and X-ray) radiation. Electromagnetic radiation 

is able to travel long distances through air and to penetrate living tissue causing ionizations within the tissues of the 

body. In contrast, alpha and weak beta particles do not travel far in air (a few centimeters for alpha and about 10 m 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-2

(32.8 ft) for beta particles). Alpha particles only deposit negligible energy externally; they rarely penetrate the outer 

dead layer of skin, and beta particles are generally absorbed in the immediate layers of skin below the outer layer. 

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

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

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

4.2 Methods 

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were used to measure ionizing radiation exposure from all sources, including 

natural and man-made radioactivity. The TLD used was the Panasonic UD-814AS, consisting of four elements 

housed in an air-tight, water-tight, ultraviolet-light-protected case. A slightly shielded lithium borate element was used 

to check low-energy radiation levels and the average of three calcium sulfate elements were used to measure 

penetrating gamma radiation. 

A pair of TLDs are placed at 1 ± 0.3 m (28 to 51 in) above the ground surface at each monitoring location and are 

exchanged for analysis on a quarterly basis. In order to normalize all TLD locations on the NTS, and to lower the 

potential for shielding effects from TLD posts, all TLD stations were changed from metal posts or fence lines to 

plastic/fiberglass composite posts during 2003. The quarterly analysis of TLDs was performed using automated TLD 

readers that were calibrated and maintained by the BN Health Physics Department (HPD). Reference TLDs were 

exposed to 100 mR from a 137Cs radiation source under very controlled conditions and were read with TLDs collected 

from the environment to scale their response. 

4.2.1 TLD Locations 

In 2003 there were a total of 107 active environmental TLD locations on the NTS (Figure 4-1). They included the 

following numbers and types of locations: 

• Background (B) – 8 locations where radiation effects from NTS operations are negligible. 

• Environmental 1 (E1) – 42 locations where there is no measurable added radioactivity from past operations but 

where the locations are of interest due to either (1) the presence of personnel or the public in the area or (2) the 

potential for receiving radiation exposure from a current operation. 

• Environmental 2 (E2) – 35 locations where there is measurable added radioactivity from past operations and the 

locations are of interest due to (1) the potential for personnel to be in the area and (2) the need to monitor trends 

in exposure rates in the area. 

• Waste Operations (WO) – 16 locations in and around the Radioactive Waste Management Sites in Areas 3 and 5. 

• Control (C) – 6 locations spread between two buildings in Mercury. Control TLDs are kept in a stable 

environment and are used as a quality check of TLDs and the analysis process. 

4.2.2 Data Quality 

Quality Assurance (QA) and Quality Control protocols, including Data Quality Objectives, have been developed and 

are maintained as essential elements of direct radiation monitoring as directed by the RREMP. The QA requirements 

established for the monitoring program include the use of sample packages to thoroughly document each sampling 

event, rigorous management of databases, and completion of essential training. Agreement between the results 

provided by the pairs of TLDs at each location was very good, with an average relative percent difference between 

measurements of 0.93 percent for 2003. Quarterly results from Control TLDs were not significantly different from 

those of previous years and exhibited a coefficient of variation between quarters ranging from 4 to 9 percent. This 

variation is a measure of that associated with the TLD sampling process. HPD maintains certification through the 

U.S. Department of Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program for dosimetry. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-3

Figure 4-1. Location of TLDs on the NTS 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-4

4.2.3 Data Reporting 

Direct radiation is reported as an exposure per unit of time. As the number of days per calendar quarter varies and 

the levels of direct radiation in the environment are relatively low, the radiation exposures measured with the TLDs 

are generally reported in mR per day (mR/d), determined by dividing the mR exposure per quarter by the number of 

days in the quarter. Annual exposures are used for comparison to federal regulations. Mean annual exposure rates are 

calculated by summing the four quarterly exposures per location, dividing by the total number of days in all four 

quarters, and then multiplying by the number of days in 2003 (365 days). Daily exposure rates can be calculated from 

results reported in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 by dividing by 365. 

4.3 Results 

Annual exposure rates for all TLD locations are summarized in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. There were eight 

background TLD locations on the NTS. During 2003, the average exposure rate at those locations was 0.31 mR/d 

and ranged from 0.17 to 0.45 mR/d. All values reported in the following sections include the contribution from 

background unless it is specifically stated that it is a net exposure which would be the total exposure minus the 

contribution from background. Dose limits prescribed by DOE orders only apply to exposures above background 

levels. 

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

 Annual Exposure Rate (mR/yr) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number 

of 

Samples Mean(b) Median Std(c) Min(d) Max(e)

5 3.3 Mi SE of Aggregate Pit B 4 65 63 5 62 74

15 U-15e Substation B 4 108 112 10 93 115

20 Stake A-118 B 4 157 159 6 150 164

22 Army #1 Water Well B 4 84 81 9 79 99

25 Gate 25-4-P B 4 130 128 10 122 144

25 Guard Station 510 B 4 129 127 9 121 142

25 Jackass Flats & A-27 Roads B 4 81 81 5 77 89

25 Yucca Mountain B 4 138 140 6 131 143

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11 Pig, Center C 4 25 25 2 23 27

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11 Pig, NE C 4 26 26 2 24 28

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11 Pig, NW C 4 26 26 2 23 28

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11 Pig, SE C 4 25 25 1 24 26

23 Bldg 652, Rm 11 Pig, SW C 4 26 26 2 24 27

23 Building 650 Dosimetry C 4 60 59 5 56 68

1 BJY E1 4 111 115 14 91 123

1 Sandbag Storage Hut E1 4 113 115 9 102 123

1 Stake C-2 E1 4 117 114 7 113 128

2 Stake M-140 E1 4 132 130 9 125 146

2 Stake TH-58 E1 4 95 95 6 89 103

3 LANL Trailers E1 3 125 128 7 117 130

3 Stake OB-20 E1 4 88 86 8 83 101

3 Well ER 3-1 E1 4 128 126 9 121 142

4 Stake TH-41 E1 4 113 113 8 105 124

4 Stake TH-48 E1 4 121 119 9 113 134

5 Bldg 5-31 E1 4 110 108 11 100 126

5 Water Well 5B E1 4 113 111 9 105 126 

6 CP-6 E1 4 72 70 7 66 83 

6 DAF East E1 4 91 90 8 85 102 

6 DAF North E1 2 101 101 0 100 101 

6 DAF South E1 2 130 130 0 130 131 

6 DAF West E1 4 82 81 7 77 92 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-5

Table 4-1. (continued) 

 Annual Exposure Rate (mR/yr) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number 

of 

Samples Mean(b) Median Std(b) Min(c) Max(d)

6 Decon Facility Northeast E1 4 121 119 7 114 129

6 Decon Facility Southeast E1 4 129 129 5 123 134 

6 Stake OB-11.5 E1 4 128 127 6 122 136 

6 Yucca Compliance E1 2 89 89 1 89 89 

6 Yucca Oil Storage E1 4 100 97 10 93 115 

7 Reitmann Seep E1 4 130 130 4 125 134 

7 Stake H-8 E1 4 128 126 9 122 141 

9 Papoose Lake Road E1 4 85 85 5 79 91 

9 U-9cw South E1 4 105 104 5 102 113 

9 V & G Road Junction E1 4 112 111 6 108 120 

10 Gate 700 South E1 4 133 132 6 129 143 

11 Stake A-21 E1 4 133 132 6 128 142 

12 Upper N Pond E1 4 131 129 7 126 141 

16 3545 Substation E1 4 133 134 10 119 142 

18 Stake A-83 E1 4 150 150 7 145 159 

18 Stake F-11 E1 4 148 147 5 144 155 

19 Stake P-41 E1 4 165 164 9 159 179 

20 Stake J-41 E1 4 140 138 11 131 156 

23 Gate 100 Truck Parking 1 E1 1 63 63 NA(f) 63 63 

23 Gate 100 Truck Parking 2 E1 1 63 63 NA 63 63 

23 Mercury Fitness Track E1 4 70 68 18 57 95 

25 Henre E1 4 128 129 5 122 133 

25 NRDS Warehouse E1 4 125 122 8 119 137 

27 Cafeteria E1 4 112 110 10 105 128 

27 Jasper-1 E1 4 113 111 9 106 127 

1 Bunker 1-300 E2 4 121 123 8 110 128 

1 T1 E2 2 439 437 36 412 462 

2 Stake L-9 E2 4 178 176 9 172 191 

2 Stake N-8 E2 4 634 632 20 616 658 

3 Stake A-6.5 E2 4 144 142 9 138 157 

3 T3 E2 2 414 413 17 401 425 

3 T3 West E2 2 399 397 23 381 414 

3 T3A E2 1 550 550 NA 550 550 

3 T3B E2 2 527 526 35 501 551 

3 U-3co North E2 3 346 218 11 204 226 

3 U-3co South E2 4 154 153 2 152 158 

4 Stake A-9 E2 4 767 770 23 733 787 

5 Frenchman Lake E2 2 412 412 17 400 425 

7 Bunker 7-300 E2 4 260 261 4 256 264 

7 T7 E2 2 118 118 4 115 121 

8 Baneberry 1 E2 2 432 430 30 409 452 

8 Road 8-02 E2 4 128 128 4 125 134 

8 Stake K-25 E2 4 107 108 3 104 111 

8 Stake M-152 E2 4 167 167 9 159 179 

9 B9A E2 2 132 132 0 132 133 

9 Bunker 9-300 E2 4 123 123 11 112 138 

9 T9B E2 2 576 577 16 565 588 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-6

Table 4-1. (continued) 

 Annual Exposure Rate (mR/yr) 

NTS 

Area Location 

Location 

Type(a)

Number 

of 

Samples Mean(b) Median Std(c) Min(d) Max(e)

10 Circle & L Roads E2 4 121 120 7 115 130 

10 Sedan East Visitor Box E2 4 132 131 7 125 142 

10 Sedan West E2 4 263 262 10 255 276 

10 T10 E2 2 289 288 11 280 296 

12 T-Tunnel #2 Pond E2 4 262 267 12 245 271 

12 Upper Haines Lake E2 4 113 114 8 103 123 

15 EPA Farm E2 4 116 114 7 112 127 

18 Johnnie Boy North E2 2 140 140 5 136 143 

20 Palanquin E2 2 241 242 12 234 251 

20 Schooner 1 E2 4 959 986 72 889 1045 

20 Schooner 2 E2 2 333 336 57 297 377 

20 Schooner 3 E2 2 152 153 25 136 171 

20 Stake J-31 E2 4 178 179 7 171 184 

3 A3 RWMS Center WO 4 151 149 9 144 164 

3 RWMS East WO 4 150 148 8 144 162 

3 RWMS North WO 4 125 124 5 121 132 

3 RWMS South WO 4 429 423 25 411 466 

3 RWMS West WO 4 132 132 5 127 139 

5 RWMS East Gate WO 4 126 125 9 117 137 

5 RWMS Expansion NE WO 4 136 134 7 133 147 

5 RWMS Expansion NW WO 4 146 146 6 140 155 

5 RWMS Northeast Corner WO 4 123 122 6 118 131 

5 RWMS Northwest Corner WO 4 125 125 9 116 134 

5 RWMS South Gate WO 4 109 108 8 104 120 

5 RWMS Southwest Corner WO 4 126 123 9 122 140 

5 WEF East WO 4 124 122 6 121 133 

5 WEF North WO 4 120 119 6 117 129 

5 WEF South WO 4 124 124 4 120 130 

5 WEF West WO 4 129 127 9 123 144 

(a) Location types: 

 B = Background locations 

 C = Control locations 

 E1 = Environmental locations with exposure rates near background but monitored for potential for increased 

 exposure rates due to NTS operations 

 E2 = Environmental locations with measurable radioactivity from past operations, excluding those designated "WO" 

 WO = Locations in or near waste operations 

(b) Time weighted average 

(c) Standard deviation 

(d) Minimum value 

(e) Maximum value 

(f) Not applicable (no standard deviation could be calculated because there was only one measurement). 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-7

Table 4-2. Summary statistics for annual direct radiation exposure by TLD location type 

 Annual Exposure Rate (mR/yr) 

Location Type 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean Median Std(a) Min(b) Max(c)

Background (B) 32 112 118 31 62 164 

Control (C) 24 31 26 13 23 68 

Environmental 1 (E1) 155 116 120 23 57 179 

Environmental 2 (E2) 108 287 179 227 103 1045 

Waste Operations (WO) 64 149 129 75 104 466 

All Locations 386 165 126 150 23 1045 

(a) Standard deviation 

(b) Minimum value 

(c) Maximum value 

4.3.1 Potential Exposure to the Public along the NTS Boundary 

Most of the NTS is not accessible to the public and only the southern portions of the NTS boundary borders public 

land. Therefore, the only place the public has potential for exposure to direct radiation from the NTS is along the 

southern boundary. 

Gate 100 is the primary entrance point to the NTS and the outer parking areas are accessible to the public. Trucks 

hauling radioactive materials, primarily low-level radioactive waste being shipped for disposal in the RWMC often 

park outside Gate 100 while waiting for entry to the NTS. Two TLD locations were established in October 2003 to 

monitor this truck parking area. The TLDs measured an exposure rate of 0.17 mR/d for the fourth quarter. This is 

at the lower range of the background measurements taken on the NTS and is lower than the 0.26 mR/d average 

exposure rate measured by the Community Environmental Monitoring Program in Las Vegas, NV, during 2003 (see 

Table 5-3). These data indicate that trucks hauling radioactive materials did not cause elevated exposure rates at this 

location over the monitoring period. 

While the public only has access to the southern portions of the NTS borders, other people may have access to other 

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

Though military personnel on the NTTR are not members of the public, they are still subject to the 100 mrem/yr 

dose limits for members of the public unless they are classified as radiation workers. The only place a soil 

contamination area crosses a boundary with NTTR is in the Frenchman Lake region of Area 5 along the southeast 

boundary of the NTS. A TLD location was established in July 2003, near the NTS boundary in Frenchman Lake 

playa. The exposure rate measured was 1.15 mR/d during the third quarter and 1.16 mR/d during the fourth quarter. 

Subtracting the average background exposure for the NTS (0.31 mR/d) from the average of these measurements 

results in a net exposure rate of 0.85 mR/d from added man-made radioactivity. This would result in a net annual 

exposure of 310 mR/yr. This exposure rate would exceed the 100 mrem/y dose limit to a hypothetical person 

residing year-round at this location. However, there are no living quarters or full-time workers at this location. 

4.3.2 Exposure Rates at Radioactive Waste Management Sites (RWMSs) 

The Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1 (DOE, 2001a), states that low-level waste disposal 

facilities shall be operated, maintained, and closed so that a reasonable expectation exists that dose to representative 

members of the public shall not exceed 25 mrem/yr (0.25 mSv/yr). Given that the RWMSs are located well within 

the NTS boundaries, there are no members of the public which could access these areas for significant periods of 

time. However, exposure rates are measured by TLDs located at the RWMSs to show the potential dose to a 

hypothetical person residing year-round at the RWMS. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-8

4.3.2.1 Area 3 RWMS 

The Area 3 RWMS is located on Yucca Flat. Between 1952 and 1972, 60 nuclear weapons tests were conducted 

within 400 meters of the Area 3 RWMS boundary. Fourteen of these tests were atmospheric tests which left 

radionuclide contaminated surface soil and, therefore, elevated radiation exposure rates across the area. Waste pits in 

the Area 3 RWMS are subsidence craters from seven subsurface tests that are being filled with low-level radioactive 

waste and covered with clean soil. The result of this is a lower exposure rate inside the Area 3 RWMS compared with 

the average exposure rate at the fence line or with that measured in the area from the fence line out to 2.2 km (1.4 mi). 

Net average annual exposure rates surrounding the Area 3 RWMS are shown in Figure 4-2. The net exposure rate is 

the total measured minus the 0.31 mR/d average rate measured at NTS background locations. The external dose to a 

hypothetical person residing full time on the Area 3 RWMS would be about 152 percent of the 25 mrem dose limit 

specified in DOE Order M 435.1-1 (exposure of 38 mR/yr). A person residing at the Area 3 RWMS only during 

normal full-time work hours (40 hr/week x 52 weeks/yr = 2080 hours or 0.24 years) would be exposed to only 9 mR 

during 2003 (38 mR/yr x 0.24 yr). 

Figure 4-2. Average annual net exposure rates at the Area 3 RWMS during 2003 

4.3.2.2 Area 5 RWMS 

The Area 5 RWMS is located on the northern portion of Frenchman Flat. Ten underground nuclear weapons tests 

were conducted within 3 km (1.9 mi) of the Area 5 RMWS between 1965 and 1971. Nine of these released 

radioactivity to the surface which contribute to the exposure rates in the area. No nuclear weapons testing occurred 

within the boundaries of the Area 5 RWMS. During 2003, the net average annual exposure rate at the Area 5 RWMS 

boundary was 9 mR/yr. The net average of the three TLD locations closest to, but outside, of the Area 5 RWMS 

disposal area was 20 mR/yr (Figure 4-3). Two of these three locations were about 400 m (1, 312 ft) from the disposal 

areas while the third was about 5 km (3.1 mi) south-southeast of Area 5 RWMS. The external dose to a hypothetical 

person residing full-time at the boundary of Area 5 RWMS would be about 35 percent of the 25 mrem dose limit 

specified in DOE Manual 435.1-1. Because the exposure rates appear to be higher away from Area 5 RWMS 

compared with that at its boundary, it is likely that the clean soil used to cap waste pits actually lowers the exposure 

rate compared with the surrounding area. 

RWMS 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Net Average Annual Exposure (mR/yr)

Inside RWMS RWMS Boundary Outside RWMS

Error Bars = 95 % Confidence Interval

(1 location 

by capped pit)

(4 locations 

on fence line)

(9 locations 

fence to 2.2 km)

Area 3 RWMS 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-9

Figure 4-3. Average annual exposure rates at the Area 5 RWMS during 2003 

4.3.3 Exposure Rates From NTS Operational Activities 

During 2003 there were 42 TLDs located where NTS operations had the potential to produce elevated radiation 

exposure rates (E1 locations). The median exposure rate at these locations was 120 mR/yr, virtually the same as the 

average 118 mR/yr measured at background locations (Table 4-2, Figure 4-4). During 2003, NTS operations 

produced undetectable radiation exposure at monitoring locations close to those operations. The public, having no 

access to theses areas, received no direct radiation exposure from NTS operations during 2003. 

Annual Exposure Rate (mR/yr)

50 100 150 200 250 300

Background

Environmental 1

Points represent the 

5th and 95th percentile.

Whisker ends represent the

10th and 90th percentile.

Box ends represent the

25th and 75th percentile.

Solid line marks the median.

Dashed line marks the mean.

Figure 4-4. Annual exposure rates at Background and E1 locations on the 

NTS in 2003 

Area 5 RWMS RWMS 5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

RWMS Boundary Outside RWMS

Net Average Annual Exposure (mR/yr)

Error Bars = 95 % Confidence Interval

(10 locations 

around boundary)

(3 Closest Locations

Outside of Disposal area)

(3 closest locations 

outside of disposal area) 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-10

4.3.4 Exposure to NTS Plants and Animals 

The TLD location with the highest exposure rate (Schooner 1) had a maximum measurement of 2.86 mR/d during 

the second quarter of 2003. This relates to an external dose approximately 3 percent of the most limiting dose rate to 

biota (0.1 rad/day limit to terrestrial animals). Based on this, dose to plants and animals from external radiation 

exposure on the NTS is low compared with dose limits. 

4.3.5 Exposure Rate Patterns in the Environment over Time 

DOE Order 450.1 states that environmental monitoring should be conducted to characterize releases from DOE 

activities. Monitoring the exposure rates at locations of past releases on the NTS over time helps to do this. Small 

quarter-to-quarter changes are normally seen in exposure rates from all locations. During 2003, the first quarter 

measurements across all locations averaged around 10 percent higher than those of the other three quarters. This 

increase was statistically significant. Similar quarter-to-quarter differences have been noticed in previous years, 

although the third quarter has been significantly higher rather than the first quarter for the past three years. Because 

this is observed across all locations (including background locations), the reason for the differences are likely related 

to meteorological conditions. 

Changes through time are displayed in Figure 4-5 for annual TLD measurements by location type for those locations 

which have been monitored for at least eleven years. The Schooner TLD locations, which have the highest exposure 

rates of any current TLD locations on the NTS, are not included in this figure because they were established in 2003. 

The two highest exposure rates shown in Figure 4-5, Stake A-9, and Stake N-8, are overall decreasing with a half-life 

of about 15 and 12 years, respectively. The next three highest exposure rates are from the Sedan West, T-Tunnel #2 

Pond, and Bunker 7-300 locations, and are overall decreasing with a half-life of about 14, 13, and 22 years, 

respectively. All five of these locations are in the E2 category at known contaminated sites with the predominant 

photon-emitting radionuclides being 137Cs, 60Co, 152Eu, and 241Am. The observed decreases in exposure rates are due 

to the natural decay of radionuclides and to the dispersal of radionuclides in the environment. Exposure rates at all 

other locations have been relatively stable over time indicating little added radionuclides at those locations. 

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

eleven-year data histories 

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003

Year

Average Annual Exposure Rate (mR/yr)

Control

Background

En viron m en tal 1

En viron m en tal 2

W aste Operations

T LD Lo catio n T ype TLD Location Type

 Control 

 Background 

 Environmental 1 

 Environmental 2 

Waste Operations 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-11

4.4 Environmental Impact 

Direct radiation exposure to the public from NTS operations in 2003 was negligible. Areas accessible to the public 

had exposure rates virtually the same as background exposure rates. Radionuclides historically released to the 

environment on the NTS have resulted in localized elevated exposure rates. These areas are not open to the public 

nor are there personnel working in these areas. The exposure rates at the RWMSs appear to be lower inside, or at the 

boundary, compared with that outside the RWMSs. This is likely due to the presence of radionuclides released from 

historical testing distributed throughout the area around the RWMSs and clean soil used inside the RWMSs to cap 

waste pits. External dose to plants and animals at the location with the highest measured exposure rates was a small 

fraction of the dose limit to biota. There should be no detrimental effects to biota from external radiation exposure at 

these sites. 
Direct Radiation Monitoring

 4-12

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-1

5.0 Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water 

5.1 Introduction 

Community oversight for the (Nevada Test Site) NTS is provided through the Community Environmental 

Monitoring Program (CEMP), formerly the Community Technical Liaison Program (CTLP), whose mission is to 

monitor and communicate environmental data that are relevant to the safety and well-being of participating 

communities and their surrounding areas. Previously, the CEMP network functioned as a first line of offsite 

detection of potential radiation releases from underground nuclear tests, and it can be outfitted to fulfill this role again 

should underground testing ever resume. It currently exists as a non-regulatory public informational and outreach 

program, although quarterly reporting of monitoring data is furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Region IX as a supplemental requirement to NTS onsite monitoring. The CEMP is sponsored by the U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO), and is 

administered and operated by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) of the University and Community College System 

of Nevada. 

Monitored and collected data include, but are not necessarily limited to, background and airborne radiation data, 

meteorological data, and tritium concentrations in community and ranch drinking water wells. The network stations, 

located in Nevada and Utah, are managed by local citizens, many of them high school science teachers, whose routine 

tasks are to maintain the equipment, collect air filters, and route them to the DRI for analysis. These Community 

Environmental Monitors (CEMs) are also available to discuss the monitoring results with the public and to speak to 

community and school groups. DRI’s responsibilities include maintaining the physical monitoring network through 

monthly visitations by environmental radiation monitoring specialists, who also participate in training and interfacing 

with CEMs and interacting with other local community members and organizations to provide information related to 

the monitoring data. DRI also provides public access to the monitoring data through maintenance of a project web 

site at <http://www.cemp.dri.edu/>. 

5.2 Historical Background 

In order to understand how the CEMP came into being, it is helpful to become familiar with some of the history of 

nuclear research, development, and monitoring in the United States. By 1949, the pace of nuclear weapons research 

and development had accelerated to the point that the identification of an on-continent testing area was a priority of 

the U.S. government. Factors of population density, weather, available labor pool, transportation, real estate available 

to the government, and security were taken into account in the attempt to identify a suitable location. In late 1950, 

President Truman signed the order establishing the Nevada Proving Grounds, which later became known as the NTS. 

The Offsite Radiological Safety Program (ORSP) was established and in 1954 became the responsibility of the 

U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) through a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Atomic Energy 

Commission (the predecessor of U.S. Department of Energy [DOE]) and the PHS. Major objectives of this program 

were to directly measure or to collect and analyze representative samples of air, water, foodstuffs, soil, biota, and other 

environmental media to: 

• Assess and document radiation exposure to the public and the environmental radiological conditions of the 

offsite areas. 

• Initiate actions needed to protect the health and safety of the public. 

• Conduct a public information program in the offsite areas to assure the residents that all reasonable precautions 

to protect the public from radiation and other hazards associated with the nuclear testing program are being 

applied. 

• Determine compliance with applicable guidelines and legal requirements. 

In the 1950s, nuclear testing was not conducted year round, but in a series of tests requiring up to several months to 

complete. PHS officers were brought to Nevada to conduct the surveillance of each series. There were no 

permanent continuously operating environmental monitoring or sampling networks in operation. In 1959, national 

radiological health requirements were identified and the Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory (SWRHL) was 

established in Las Vegas, Nevada. The SWRHL served as the western U.S. focal point for radiological research and 

surveillance and provided training programs for all states west of the Mississippi River including Alaska and Hawaii. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-2

A nuclear testing moratorium was in effect for the United States (U.S.) and the Soviet Union from November 1, 1958 

until September 1, 1961. The U.S. resumed testing on September 15, 1961. With the resumption of nuclear testing, 

the NTS went to year-round operation, and SWRHL became the PHS base of operations for the ORSP. At this time, 

PHS initiated the first network of continuously operating air samplers in the offsite areas. 

The PHS continued the ORSP until 1970 when the EPA was created. In December 1970, responsibilities for offsite 

radiation safety, along with the SWRHL facilities, were transferred from the PHS to the EPA. The SWRHL acquired 

an expanded mission which included the development of monitoring techniques for a variety of environmental 

pollutants and conducting national environmental studies. To reflect its changing missions, SWRHL underwent 

several name changes until today it is the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL-LV). Within 

EMSL-LV, the Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division (NRD) was created to manage the ORSP. 

In March 1979, the accident at the Three-Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Power Generating Plant near Middletown, 

Pennsylvania occurred. EMSL-LV was requested to respond to this emergency. Personnel from EMSL-LV traveled 

to Pennsylvania. They established radiation monitoring and environmental sampling locations in the offsite areas 

surrounding TMI and a radioanalytical laboratory in the basement of the Pennsylvania State Health Department in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

The accident at TMI was a cause for much public concern and fostered a general distrust of the federal government. 

This distrust was still evident in the summer of 1980 when purging the nuclear reactor containment vessel of 

radiokrypton was planned. To increase credibility and to develop a method to communicate the status of the 

radiological conditions of the environment around TMI, the Citizen’s Monitoring Program (CMP) was instituted. In 

each of the communities where the monitoring stations would be located, local officials nominated residents as station 

managers. State and federal participants selected the managers from the nominees. EPA provided and installed the 

continuous beta/gamma radiation exposure detector/recorder systems. The station managers were trained by the 

Pennsylvania State University and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER). The managers 

independently analyzed the data they collected daily and reported it to their communities and the DER. The DER 

validated the data and reported it to the news media. The CMP, consisting of monitoring stations operated and 

managed by local residents, was very successful in reassuring the communities that radiation levels were being 

measured and accurately reported by the federal government. Since the creation of this program, similar independent 

community monitoring networks such as EFMR and TMI-Citizen’s Monitoring Network have been established. 

Because of the success of this program, it was proposed that a similar program be instituted in the communities 

around the NTS, where the U.S. was conducting its Nuclear Weapons Testing Program. Although the NRD had 

well-established monitoring stations already in place in these communities, the implementation of a similar community 

monitoring program would create monitoring stations located in highly visible locations where local residents would 

be aware of their presence, and have access to the radiological data and the station managers. Thus, 1981 saw the 

start of the Community Monitoring Program, a cooperative project of the DOE, DRI, and EPA, consisting of 15 

monitoring stations located in the states of California, Nevada, and Utah. 

The program has expanded and gone through several name changes, and today includes 26 monitoring stations in 

Nevada and Utah under the name CEMP. In 1999, technical administration of the CEMP was transitioned from 

EPA to DRI, and the stations were upgraded to include a full suite of meteorological instrumentation in addition to 

radiation monitoring sensors, state-of-the-art electronic data collectors, and communications hardware enabling 

updates several times daily to a publicly-accessible web page. 

5.3 Monitoring Activities 

Locations for monitoring stations are identified with special attention to placement in and near population centers 

with proximity to the NTS. In addition, special attention is given to population centers more distant which are 

located in areas downwind of the NTS according to prevailing winds. Stations may also be located in remote areas 

where ranching and farming activities are carried out. Routine monthly visits for maintenance are conducted by 

environmental radiation monitoring specialists. The emphasis of the CEMP is to monitor airborne radioactivity and 

weather conditions, and to make the results available to the public through local station managers (CEMs) and a 

publicly-accessible web site. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-3

DRI employs CEMs, who are residents of the communities in which the stations occur, and an attempt is made to 

select respected members of the community who interface with the public on a regular basis, especially high school 

science teachers. Through workshops, the CEMs are trained to independently verify the results of the environmental 

monitoring and become knowledgeable spokespersons on subjects ranging from radiation detection to local 

environmental conditions. They are effective technical liaisons between local and federal entities, helping to identify 

the environmental concerns of people in their communities. 

Instrumentation that records the airborne radioactivity and weather data is connected to a datalogger. Real-time 

radiation levels or weather conditions can immediately and easily be seen on a display on the front of the datalogger. 

The equipment array at each station has changed through time to reflect the various missions of the CEMP. For 

example, when the CEMP served as a first offsite detection of potential releases from underground nuclear tests, 

charcoal filters and noble gas samplers were part of the standard station equipment. Monitoring instrumentation at 

the stations is evaluated on an annual basis, and occasionally upgrades or additions are warranted to be appropriate. 

Monitoring stations are currently equipped with the following instrumentation: 

Low-volume particulate air sampler – This instrument pulls approximately two cubic feet of air per minute (at 

standard temperature and pressure [STP]) through a glass-fiber paper filter. The filter collects the particles, which are 

then collected weekly and analyzed by an independent laboratory for alpha, beta, and gamma radioactivity. 

Air flow totalizer – This instrument constantly monitors and sums the actual air flow rate and total volume through 

the particulate air samplers to provide accurate flow rates for filter analysis calculations. 

Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) – This instrument provides data on accumulated background-gamma 

radiation and is collected quarterly for analysis by an independent laboratory. 

Exposure rate recorder – This instrument consists of a pressurized ion chamber detector (PIC), and provides 

continuous readings of gamma radiation exposure rates. 

Weather instruments – These instruments include sensors to measure air temperature, humidity, wind speed and 

direction, solar radiation, barometric pressure, precipitation, and soil temperature and moisture data. 

All instrumentation, with the exception of the particulate air sampler, is hardwired to the datalogger, which collects 

and stores the data at a default rate of 3-second intervals. All monitoring data are archived on the web site at 

<http://www.cemp.dri.edu/> and on compact disk-read only memory. 

An additional monitoring task of the CEMP is to annually sample community and ranch drinking water well sources 

identified by the CEMs and perform radioisotopic analyses to detect for the presence and concentration of tritium. 

These analyses are performed at DRI’s Tritium Laboratory in Reno and are reported annually in this NTSER. 

Quality assurance for equipment maintenance and calibration and laboratory sample collection and collation is 

addressed in the CEMP Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). Specific responsibilities of the environmental 

radiation monitoring specialists and CEMs are detailed in Task Responsibility Documents for each position. CEMs’ 

responsibilities include monitoring the equipment, assisting with maintenance, and posting information on the 

program as well as analytical results. The CEMs are also part of the chain-of-custody for the air particulate samples, 

and are responsible for the weekly collection of air filters to be routed to DRI where they are prepared for submission 

to an independent laboratory for analysis. 

5.4 Public Outreach 

Public understanding of the CEMP and transparency of the monitoring results are important parts of the program’s 

mission, so great attention has been paid to station location and accessibility, and making the results available. 

Communications equipment transmits collected data several times daily via direct internet connection, telephone line, 

cellular phone, or satellite to DRI’s Western Regional Climate Center in Reno, Nevada. These data are automatically 

posted to a publicly-accessible web site at <http://www.cemp.dri.edu/>. Monthly summaries of these data are 

physically posted on bulletin boards at the monitoring stations. Quarterly reports of results of air filter and TLD 

analyses are provided to EPA Region IX as a required supplement to the NTS onsite monitoring network. An annual 

summary of the CEMP data is reported in this annual environmental report. 

The CEMP endeavors to make presentations, both through local CEMs and DRI program administrators, at local 

community events, school classroom settings, and town hall meetings. An annual training workshop for the CEMs 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-4

helps them remain current on program and NTS activities, the basic concepts of radiation, the station 

instrumentation, and prepares them to deal with public interactions and inquiries. 

5.5 Participants 

The CEMP is an integrated effort among federal and state agencies, and also includes members of the public in 19 

communities and 7 ranch sites with stakeholder interest in past, present, and future NTS activities. Program 

participants represent the technical expertise available to address issues and problems identified in the program as well 

as issues of general concern to participating communities. Currently, participating communities and ranch sites 

(Figure 5-1) include: 

 Nevada Communities Utah Communities Ranches (Nevada)

Alamo Indian Springs Cedar City Garden Valley* 

Amargosa Valley Las Vegas Delta Medlin’s Ranch 

Beatty Overton Milford Nyala Ranch 

Boulder City Pahrump St. George Sarcobatus Flats 

Caliente Pioche Stone Cabin Ranch 

Ely Rachel Twin Springs 

Goldfield Tonopah Warm Springs Summit 

Henderson 

*Location of Garden Valley ranch not shown on Figure 5-1 at request of owner. 

 

5.6 2003 Offsite Air Monitoring 

During calendar year (CY) 2003 there were 26 CEMP stations managed by DRI which comprised the Air Surveillance 

Network (ASN) (Figure 5-1), including two new stations installed at Ely and Warm Springs Summit in the summer 

and fall of 2003, respectively. The ASN is composed of stations that include the various equipment-specific sampling 

networks described below. The CEMP station at Beatty, Nevada is shown in Figure 5-2. 

CEMP Low-Volume Air Sampling Network – During CY 2003, the CEMP ASN included continuously operating 

low-volume particulate air-samplers located at 23 of the 26 CEMP station locations. No low-volume air samplers are 

located at Medlin’s Ranch, Sarcobatus Flats, or Warm Springs Summit. Duplicate air samplers were collected from 

two routine ASN stations each week. The duplicate samplers are operated at randomly selected stations for three 

months (one calendar quarter) before being moved to a new location. One new station, located in Ely, Nevada, was 

added to the network in July of 2003. This re-established an important monitoring site that was removed prior to the 

program being administered by DRI. 

The glass-fiber filters from the low-volume particulate samplers are collected by the CEMs, sent to DRI via the U.S. 

Postal Service, then prepared and forwarded to an independent laboratory to be analyzed for gross alpha and gross 

beta activity. Samples are held for a minimum of seven days after collection to allow for the decay of naturallyoccurring radon progeny. Upon completion of the gross alpha/beta analyses, the filters are returned to DRI to be 

recompiled on a quarterly basis for gamma spectroscopy analysis. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-5

Fi

gure 5-1. 2003 CEMP Air Surveillance Network 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-6

CEMP TLD Network – Thermoluminescent dosimetry is another of the essential components of environmental 

radiological assessments. This is used to determine both individual and population external exposure to ambient 

radiation from natural or artificial sources. In CY 2003, the TLD network consisted of fixed environmental TLDs at 

all 26 of the CEMP stations (see Figure 5-1). The TLD used was a Panasonic UD-814AS. Within the TLD, a slightly 

shielded lithium borate element is used to check low-energy radiation levels while three calcium sulfate elements are 

used to measure penetrating gamma radiation. 

Figure 5-2. CEMP station at Beatty, Nevada 

For quality assurance purposes, duplicate TLDs are deployed at three randomly-selected environmental stations. An 

average daily exposure rate was calculated for each quarterly exposure period. The average of the quarterly values was 

multiplied by 365.25 days to obtain the total annual exposure for each station. 

CEMP PIC Network – The PIC measures gamma radiation exposure rates, and because of its sensitivity may detect 

low-level exposures that go undetected by other monitoring methods. PICs are in place at all 26 stations in the 

CEMP network (see Figure 5-1). The primary function of the PIC network is to detect changes in ambient gamma 

radiation due to human activities. In the absence of such activities, ambient gamma radiation rates naturally vary 

among locations reflecting differences in altitude (cosmic radiation), radioactivity in the soil (terrestrial radiation), and 

slight variations at a single location due to weather patterns. Since the addition of a full suite of meteorological 

instrumentation at the CEMP stations, variations in PIC readings caused by weather events such as precipitation or by 

changes in barometric pressure are more readily identified. These variations can be easily viewed by selecting the 

Time Series Graph link from the CEMP home page, < http://www.cemp.dri.edu/>, after selecting a desired station 

and then selecting the desired variables. 

CEMP Meteorological (MET) Network – Because changing weather conditions can have a significant effect on 

measurable levels of background radiation, meteorological instrumentation is in place at each of the 26 CEMP 

stations. The MET network includes sensors that measure air temperature, humidity, wind speed and direction, solar 

radiation, barometric pressure, precipitation, and soil temperature and moisture data. All of these data can be 

observed real-time at the onsite station display, and archived data are accessible by accessing the CEMP home page at

<http://www.cemp.dri.edu/>.
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-7

5.6.1 Air Particulate Sampling Results 

A sample of airborne particulates from the CEMP ASN is collected by drawing air through a 2 in (5 cm) diameter 

glass-fiber filter at a constant flow rate of 2 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (86.6 liters (L)/min) at STP. The actual flow 

rate and volume is measured and recorded with an in-line air-flow calibrator. The particulate filter is mounted in a 

filter holder that faces downward at a height of 5 ft (1.5 m) above the ground. The total actual volume collected 

ranges from approximately 19,000 to 28,000 cubic feet (ft3) (538 to 793 m3) depending on the elevation of the station 

and changes in air temperature and/or pressure. 

5.6.1.1 Gross Alpha and Gross Beta Results 

Gross alpha and beta analysis in airborne particulate samples are used to screen for long-lived radionuclides in the air. 

The mean annual gross alpha activity across all sample locations was 1.8 ± 0.5 x 10-15 μCi/mL (67 ± 19 μBq/m3) 

(Table 5-1). Most of the results for CY 2003 exceeded the analytical minimum detectable concentration (MDC) 

(see Glossary, Appendix D) and overall are similar to results from previous years. Figure 5-3 shows the long-term 

maximum, mean, and minimum alpha trend for the CEMP stations as a whole. 

Table 5-1. Gross alpha results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2003 

Concentration (x 10-15 μCi/mL [37 μBq/m3]) 

Sampling 

Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Maximum Minimum Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Alamo 50 4.8 0.7 2.1 1.1 

Amargosa Valley 51 5.1 0.8 2.1 1.1 

Beatty 51 5.1 0.5 2.1 1.3 

Boulder City 52 7.3 0.7 3.2 1.3 

Caliente 52 5.8 0.8 2.3 1.2 

Cedar City 52 6.1 0.6 2.2 1.1 

Delta 52 3.3 0.6 1.4 0.6 

Ely 22 2.8 0.6 1.4 0.6 

Garden Valley 52 3.1 0.4 1.3 0.5 

Goldfield 52 3.1 0.5 1.4 0.7 

Henderson 52 4.6 0.5 1.6 0.7 

Indian Springs 46 3.4 0.5 1.4 0.6 

Las Vegas 52 5.8 0.7 2.2 0.9 

Milford 51 4.1 0.6 1.8 0.7 

Nyala Ranch 51 2.3 0.3 1.1 0.4 

Overton 52 3.8 0.5 2.1 0.8 

Pahrump 52 4.5 0.5 1.5 0.7 

Pioche 52 3.1 0.5 1.4 0.6 

Rachel 50 4.8 0.6 1.6 0.8 

Stone Cabin Ranch 52 4.8 0.7 2.6 1.1 

St. George 51 4.7 0.6 1.5 0.7 

Tonopah 48 5.2 0.5 1.5 0.7 

Twin Springs 52 3.5 0.6 1.3 0.5 

Overall Mean = 1.8 ± 0.5 x 10-15 μCi/mL 

Mean MDC = 0.5 x 10-15 μCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 0.05 x 10-15 μCi/mL 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-8

Figure 5-3. Historical trend for gross alpha analysis for all CEMP stations 

The mean annual gross beta activity across all sample locations was 23.5 ± 2.0 x 10-15 μCi/mL (869.5 ± 74.0 μBq/m3

(Table 5-2). Most of these results also exceeded the MDC, and are similar to previous years’ data. Figure 5-4 shows 

the long-term maximum, mean, and minimum beta trend for the CEMP stations as a whole. 

Table 5-2. Gross beta results for the CEMP offsite Air Surveillance Network in 2003 

Concentration (10-15 μCi/mL [37 μBq/m3]) 

Sampling 

Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Maximum Minimum Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Alamo 50 43.9 13.9 23.4 5.4 

Amargosa Valley 51 40.1 14.3 25.3 6.3 

Beatty 51 39.1 12.4 23.8 6.8 

Boulder City 52 58.6 15.8 27.4 7.9 

Caliente 52 48.4 14.1 24.2 6.1 

Cedar City 52 54.8 11.9 23.1 6.9 

Delta 52 59.7 13.5 24.1 7.5 

Ely 22 30.7 14.6 21.3 4.7 

Garden Valley 52 33.6 10.3 21.7 4.9 

Goldfield 52 33.1 10.2 21.4 5.4 

Henderson 52 45.0 13.3 27.0 16.0 

Indian Springs 46 45.1 11.7 22.8 6.4 

Las Vegas 52 43.1 13.8 24.5 6.7 

Milford 51 53.2 14.5 25.6 7.5 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

x 10-15 μCi/mL

Max

Mean

Min

Year
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

19931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

x 10-15 μCi/mL

Max

Mean

Min

Year

Table 5-2. (continued) 

Concentration (10-15 μCi/mL [37 μBq/m3]) 

Sampling 

Location 

Number of 

Samples Maximum Minimum Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Nyala 51 30.4 8.8 19.6 4.8 

Overton 52 54.8 11.9 26.3 7.1 

Pahrump 52 37.3 13.1 23.7 5.8 

Pioche 52 39.4 11.8 21.6 5.3 

Rachel 50 45.1 13.9 23.7 6.5 

Stone Cabin 52 31.8 8.1 21.7 6.0 

St. George 51 40.3 11.2 25.1 6.2 

Tonopah 48 46.3 11.6 21.4 6.5 

Twin Springs 52 37.9 11.6 22.9 6.3 

Network Mean = 23.5 ± 2.0 x 10-15 μCi/mL 

Mean MDC = 1.1 x 10-15 μCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC = 0.7 x 10-15 μCi/mL 

Figure 5-4. Historical trend for gross beta analysis for all CEMP stations 

The overall gross alpha results show a generally increasing trend from 1993 to 2001 before trending downward the 

last two years. Likewise, the gross beta results show a similar trend beginning in 1998. These trends are also reflected 

by most of the stations on an individual basis. Although this trend merits further evaluation, it may likely be explained 

as being a result of persistent drought conditions throughout the southwest and Great Basin states. Drought in these 

regions has existed to varying degrees since 1996. These dry conditions could be directly responsible for an increase 

in suspended air particles collected by the air-sampling network. The apparent spikes in the maximum trend lines for 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-10

gross alpha and beta are the result of a single analysis for that year. These analyses occurred prior to the CEMP being 

directed by DRI, so specific information is not available. 

5.6.1.2 Gamma Spectroscopy Results 

Gamma spectroscopy analysis was performed on all samples from the low-volume air-sampling network. The filters 

were combined by station on a quarterly basis after gross alpha/beta analysis. As in previous years, all samples were 

gamma spectrum negligible with respect to man-made radionuclides (i.e., gamma-emitting radionuclides were not 

detected). In most of the samples, naturally-occurring 7Be was detected above the analytical MDC. This radionuclide 

is produced by cosmic ray interaction with nitrogen in the atmosphere. The mean annual activity for 7Be for the 

sampling network was 70.3 ± 11.1 x 10-15 μCi/mL. 

5.6.1.3 TLD Results 

TLDs measure ionizing radiation from all sources, including natural radioactivity from cosmic or terrestrial sources 

and from man-made radioactive sources. The TLDs are mounted in a plexiglass holder approximately one meter 

above the ground, and are exchanged quarterly. TLD results are not presented for Warm Springs Summit because 

this new station was not installed until the last quarter of 2003. The total exposure for 2003 ranged from 87 mR 

(0.87 mSv) per year at Pahrump, Nevada, to 163 mR (1.63 mSv) at Twin Springs, Nevada, with a mean annual 

exposure of 120 mR (1.20 mSv) per year for all operating locations. Results are summarized in Table 5-3 and are 

consistent with previous years’ data. Figure 5-5 shows the long-term trend for the CEMP stations as a whole. 

Table 5-3. TLD monitoring results for CEMP offsite stations in 2003 

Daily Exposure (mR) 

Sampling 

Location 

Number of 

Days Maximum Minimum Mean 

Total Annual 

Exposure (mR) 

Alamo 366 0.3 0.21 0.28 103 

Amargosa Valley 361 0.33 0.24 0.29 104 

Beatty 364 0.44 0.42 0.43 157 

Boulder City 369 0.32 0.27 0.30 110 

Caliente 274 0.38 0.33 0.35 129 

Cedar City 366 0.28 0.25 0.29 105 

Delta 363 0.31 0.26 0.30 108 

Ely 195 0.28 0.27 0.27 99 

Garden Valley 365 0.4 0.36 0.38 138 

Goldfield 365 0.35 0.32 0.34 124 

Henderson 369 0.34 0.28 0.32 116 

Indian Springs 272 0.3 0.26 0.28 103 

Las Vegas 373 0.3 0.22 0.26 94 

Medlin's Ranch 365 0.43 0.36 0.39 142 

Milford 363 0.43 0.37 0.40 146 

Nyala Ranch 365 0.33 0.3 0.31 114 

Overton 369 0.27 0.24 0.26 95 

Pahrump 361 0.26 0.22 0.24 87 

Pioche 363 0.33 0.31 0.32 117 

Rachel 366 0.4 0.37 0.38 140 

Sarcobatus Flats 364 0.41 0.38 0.40 145 

Stone Cabin Ranch 364 0.42 0.36 0.39 144 

St. George 366 0.27 0.23 0.25 90 

Tonopah 366 0.4 0.35 0.38 137 

Twin Springs 365 0.48 0.41 0.38 163 

Overall Annual Mean = 120 mR
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-11

Figure 5-5. Historical Trend for TLD Analysis for All CEMP Stations 

As with the gross alpha and beta results, the TLD data also shows a generally increasing trend from 1996 to 2002. 

This again may be consistent with drought conditions observed in the regions around the monitoring network. As the 

soil and underlying strata become drier due to lack of precipitation, the naturally-occurring radon may more easily 

escape into the atmosphere along with the increased suspended particle load. This could result in an increase in 

detectable natural radioactivity. As with the gross alpha and beta results, further evaluation is needed. 

5.6.1.4 PIC Results 

The PIC data presented in this section are based on daily averages of gamma exposure rates from each station. 

Table 5-4 contains the maximum, minimum, and standard deviation of daily averages for the periods during 2003 

when telemetry data were available. It also shows the average gamma exposure rate for each station during the year, 

as well as the total mR/yr. The exposure rate ranged from 69.03 mR/yr (0.69 mSv) in Pahrump to 180.76 mR/yr 

(1.80 mSv) in Milford, Utah. Background levels of environmental gamma exposure rates in the United States (from 

combined effects of terrestrial and cosmic sources) vary between 49 and 247 mR/yr (BEIR III, 1980). Averages for 

selected regions of the United States were compiled by the EPA and are shown in Table 5-5. The annual exposure 

levels observed at the CEMP stations in 2003 are well within these United States background levels. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

19931994199519961997199819992000200120022003

mR/yr

Max

Mean

Min

Year
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-12

Table 5-4. PIC monitoring results for CEMP offsite stations in 2003 

Daily Average Gamma Exposure Rate (μR/hr) 

Sampling Location Maximum Minimum Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Annual 

Exposure 

(mR/yr) 

Alamo 13.37 12.02 12.70 0.17 111.21 

Amargosa Valley 13.25 11.94 12.60 0.16 110.33 

Beatty 19.08 16.56 17.82 0.55 156.10 

Boulder City 15.29 14.07 14.68 0.16 128.60 

Caliente 15.92 14.33 15.13 0.26 132.50 

Cedar City 11.59 10.10 10.85 0.22 95.00 

Delta 12.65 10.65 11.65 0.31 102.05 

Ely(a) 13.73 10.66 12.20 0.32 106.83 

Garden Valley 17.24 15.19 16.22 0.37 142.04 

Goldfield 16.42 14.09 15.26 0.44 133.63 

Henderson 16.02 14.59 15.31 0.27 134.07 

Indian Springs 12.40 10.73 11.57 0.34 101.31 

Las Vegas 10.04 8.83 9.43 0.18 82.64 

Medlin's Ranch 17.68 15.48 16.58 0.39 145.24 

Milford 23.26 18.01 20.64 0.93 180.76 

Nyala Ranch 13.86 12.01 12.94 0.44 113.31 

Overton 10.58 9.07 9.83 0.26 86.08 

Pahrump 8.76 7.00 7.88 0.21 69.03 

Pioche 19.03 13.66 16.35 0.62 143.18 

Rachel 15.72 14.18 14.95 0.29 130.96 

Sarcobatus Flats 18.84 16.71 17.78 0.26 155.71 

Stone Cabin Ranch 18.32 16.10 17.21 0.50 150.76 

St. George 10.21 8.70 9.45 0.28 82.81 

Tonopah 17.24 15.07 16.16 0.30 141.52 

Twin Springs 20.98 17.59 19.29 0.64 168.94 

Warm Springs Summit(b) 20.08 18.62 19.35 0.38 169.51 

(a) Ely station installed July 8, 2003. 

(b) Warm Springs Summit station installed October 29, 2003. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-13

Table 5-5. Average natural background radiation for selected U.S. cities (excluding radon) 

City Radiation (mR/yr) 

Denver, CO 164.6 

Tampa, FL 63.7 

Portland, OR 86.7 

Los Angeles, CA 73.6 

St. Louis, MO 87.9 

Rochester, NY 88.1 

Wheeling, WV 111.9 

Richmond, VA 64.1 

New Orleans, LA 63.7 

Fort Worth, TX 68.7 

Source: <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cemp/Radiation.html.> “Radiation in Perspective,” August 1990 

(Access Date: 9/20/2004) 

5.6.2 Environmental Impact 

Results of analyses conducted on data obtained from the CEMP network of low-volume particulate air samplers, 

TLDs, and PICs showed no measurable evidence at CEMP station locations of offsite impact from radionuclides 

originating on the NTS. Activity observed in gross alpha and beta analyses of low-volume air sampler filters was 

consistent with previous years’ results and are within the range of activity found in other communities of the United 

States which are not adjacent to man-made radiation sources. Also, no man-made gamma-emitting radionuclides were 

detected. Likewise, TLD and PIC results remained consistent with previous years’ background levels and are well 

within average background levels observed in other parts of the United States (see Table 5-5). 

Occasional elevated gamma readings (10–50 percent above normal average background) were always associated with 

precipitation events and/or low barometric pressure. Low barometric pressure can result in the release of 

naturally-occurring radon and its daughter products from the surrounding soil and rock substrates. Precipitation 

events can result in the “rainout” of globally-distributed radionuclides occurring as airborne particulates in the upper 

atmosphere. Figure 5-6, generated from the CEMP web site, illustrates an example of this phenomenon. 

Figure 5-6. The effect of meteorological phenomena on background gamma readings 

Placeholder for Figure 4-6 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 5-14

5.7 Offsite Surface and Groundwater Monitoring 

The DRI was tasked by NNSA, during fiscal year 2003, to provide independent verification of the tritium activity 

within some of the offsite groundwater wells, municipal water supply systems, and springs used for water supplies in 

areas surrounding the NTS. Samples collected by DRI personnel provide, in some cases, a direct comparison to the 

results obtained by the RREMP presented in Section 3.1. 

The sole analyte for this project was tritium. Tritium is one of the most abundant radionuclides generated by an 

underground nuclear test, and since it is a constituent of the water molecule itself, it is also one of the most mobile 

radionuclides. 

5.7.1 Sample Locations and Methods 

Four springs, 17 wells, and 3 water supply systems were sampled during the period of May 27 to June 25, 2003. 

Sample locations were selected based upon input from the CEMs and local ranch owners participating in the CEMP 

project. All wells were sampled utilizing downhole submersible pumps. Samples from water supply systems were 

collected via discharge from a faucet connected to that system. Springs were sampled by hand at the orifice, along 

surface drainage, or from the water supply system connected to the spring discharge. Each well was pumped a 

minimum of 5 to 15 minutes prior to sampling to purge water from the pump tubing and well annulus. This process 

ensured that the resultant sample was representative of local groundwater. Table 5-6 lists all of the sample points, 

their locations, the date they were sampled, and the sampling method. The locations of the sample points are also 

shown in Figure 5-7. 

5.7.2 Procedures and Quality Assurance 

DRI utilized several methods to ensure that radiological results reported herein conform to current quality assurance 

protocols (see Section 18.0 for a detailed description of the CEMP quality assurance program). This was achieved 

through the use of SOPs, field quality assurance samples, and laboratory quality assurance procedures. DRI’s SOPs 

are detailed instructions that describe the method and materials, using step-by-step instructions, which are required to 

collect field water quality samples and protect the samples from tampering and environmental conditions that may 

alter their chemistry. 

The second tier of quality assurance utilized on this project consisted of field quality assurance samples. The intent of 

these samples and procedures was to provide direct measures of the contribution of radioactive material that was 

derived from the bottles, sampling equipment, and the environment to the activity of tritium measured within the 

samples. Duplicate samples were collected to establish a measure of the repeatability of the analysis. Matrix spike 

duplicates were also collected to ensure no other parameters in the sample water were present that could cause 

erroneously high or low tritium values. Nine samples (37 percent of the sample load) were collected for the purposes 

of meeting field quality assurance requirements. Laboratory quality assurance controls consisted of the utilization of 

published laboratory techniques for the analysis of enriched tritium, method blanks, laboratory control samples, and 

laboratory duplicates. The laboratory quality assurance samples provide a measure of the accuracy and the confidence 

of the reported results. 

Enriched tritium analyses were run on all water samples. The decision level (see Glossary, Appendix D) of tritium 

was 11pCi/L. This decision level is the result that must be exceeded before there is a 95 percent confidence that the 

sample contains radioactive material above background. The MDC (see Glossary, Appendix D) for tritium was 

21 pCi/L. By comparison, Bechtel Nevada reports that the MDC for enriched tritium analyses for the RREMP water 

samples is approximately 20 pCi/L (see Section 3.1.2).
5-15 

Table 5-6. CEMP water monitoring locations sampled in 2003 

Monitoring Location Description Latitude Longitude 

Date 

Sampled Sample Collection Method 

Adaven Springs 38 08.25 115 36.20 5/27/2003 By hand from stream discharging from spring orifice Alamo city water supply system - source of water is  municipal well field 

37 21.74 115 10.15 6/3/2003 By hand from municiple water well 

Amargosa Valley school well 36 34.17 116 27.65 6/24/2003 By hand at well head Beatty Water and Sanitation - municipal well 36 54.94 116 45.65 6/4/2003 By hand at well head at utility headquarters Boulder City – at Hemingway Park from municipal water  distribution system 

35 59.73 114 49.92 6/23/2003 By hand from a drinking fountain inside Hemingway Park 

Caliente municipal water supply well 37 36.93 114 30.98 6/11/2003 By hand at well head Cedar City municipal water supply well #7 located 10 mi  west of town 

37 39.40 113 13.14 6/10/2003 By hand at well head 

Delta municipal well 39 21.59 112 34.69 6/11/2003 By hand at well head Goldfield Municipal Water Supply well approximately 12  mi north of town 

37 52.42 117 14.76 6/4/2003 By hand at well head 

Henderson CCSN - source of water is municipal water  system originating at Lake Mead 

36 00.45 114 57.94 6/23/2003 By hand from faucet inside college building 

Indian Springs municipal well 36 34.40 115 40.10 6/24/2003 By hand at well head Las Vegas Valley Water District #103 36 13.56 115 15.08 6/25/2003 By hand at well head Medlin’s Ranch - spring located 11 miles west of ranch  house 

37 24.12 115 32.24 5/28/2003 By hand at kitchen faucet 

Milford Municipal Well 38 22.97 113 01.18 6/10/2003 By hand at well head Nyala Ranch Water Well 38 14.90 115 43.73 5/27/2003 By hand from front yard hose faucet at house Overton water well located at Arrow Canyon ~ 10 mi west  of town 

36 44.07 114 44.87 6/25/2003 By hand at well head 

Pahrump municipal well 36 11.46 115 58.25 6/24/2003 By hand at well head located near old Calvada Headquarters Pioche municipal well located 1 mile east of town 37 56.97 114 25.76 6/11/2003 By hand at well head Rachel - Little Ale Inn well 37 38.81 115 44.74 6/3/2003 By hand from bar faucet inside Lil Ale Inn Restaurant Sarcobatus Flats well 37 16.78 117 01.91 6/4/2003 By hand at well head St. George Gunlock Well Field Storage System 37 11.62 113 44.59 6/10/2003 By hand of composite well discharge entering storage system Stone Cabin Ranch Spring 38 12.43 116 37.92 5/28/2003 By hand from kitchen faucet at ranch house Tonopah Public Utilities well field located 10 miles from  town 

38 11.68 117 04.70 6/4/2003 By hand at well head 

Twin Springs Ranch Spring 38 12.21 116 10.54 5/28/2003 By hand from front yard hose faucet at house 

Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 

 5-16

Fi

gure 5-7. 2003 CEMP water monitorin

g locations 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 

 5-17

5.7.3 Results of Surface Water Monitoring from Springs 

Measured tritium (3H) concentrations from the springs ranged from -1 to 16 pCi/L (Table 5-7). Three of the 

samples, Medlin’s Ranch, Stone Cabin Ranch, and Twin Springs Ranch, yielded results that were indistinguishable 

from background (i.e., ≤ 11 pCi/L). The Adaven Springs sample result, at 16 ± 20 pCi/L, was statistically greater 

than background. All sample analyses were well below the safe drinking water limit of 20,000 pCi/L. Sample results 

for Adaven Springs, Medlin’s Ranch, Stone Cabin Ranch, and Twin Springs Ranch were similar to results reported by 

DRI in the CY 2002 Annual Site Environmental Report (DOE, 2003c). 

Table 5-7. Tritium analysis results for offsite surface water samples in 2003 

Monitoring Location 

3H ± Uncertainty(a)

(pCi/L) 

Adaven Springs 16 ± 20 

Medlin's Ranch - spring located 11 miles west of ranch 

house 9 ± 22 

Stone Cabin Ranch 3 ± 24 

Twin Springs Ranch -1 ± 14 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

5.7.4 Results of Groundwater Monitoring 

The results for the 20 groundwater tritium analyses from the DRI Tritium Laboratory are presented in Table 5-8. The 

measured activities ranged from -9 to 35 pCi/L. All of the samples, with the exception of Henderson and Boulder 

City, yielded results that were statistically indistinguishable from background (≤11 pCi/L). Results from Henderson 

and Boulder City were statistically greater than background. The water in these samples originated from Lake Mead. 

Slightly elevated tritium activities in Lake Mead are well documented by previous investigations (DOE, 2002d; 

DOE, 2003c) and are due to residual tritium persisting in the environment that originated from global atmospheric 

nuclear testing. All sample analyses were well below the safe drinking water limit of 20,000 pCi/L. Trending of the 

data was not conducted due to the limited number of previously collected samples (two previous sets have been 

collected by DRI thus far). The only notable changes were at the Boulder City water treatment plant (from 27 ± 16 

pCi/L in 2002 to 35 ± 28 pCi/L in 2003). The change in measured tritium activity at Boulder City is well within the 

range of uncertainty associated with the 2002 and 2003 analyses. 

5.7.5 Environmental Impact 

Results of the CEMP tritium analyses conducted on selected offsite groundwater wells and water supply systems 

surrounding the NTS showed no evidence of tritium migration offsite via groundwater. Most of the samples analyzed 

were below the decision level for tritium (11 pCi/L) (see Tables 5-7 and 5-8). The greatest observed activities, 

(27 pCi/L and 35 pCi/L from Henderson and Boulder City, respectively) were well below the safe drinking water 

standard of 20,000 pCi/L. 
Oversight Radiological Monitoring of Air and Water

 

 5-18

Table 5-8. CEMP water monitoring results for offsite wells in 2003 

Monitoring Location 

3H ± Uncertainty(a) 

(pCi/L) 

Alamo city 0 ± 26 

Amargosa Valley 3 ± 14 

Beatty 0 ± 18 

Boulder City 35 ± 28 

Caliente 5 ± 20 

Cedar City -4 ± 18 

Delta -1 ± 18 

Goldfield 5 ± 16 

Henderson 27 ± 20 

Indian Springs 4 ± 22 

Las Vegas -2 ± 24 

Milford -2 ± 14 

Nyala Ranch -4 ± 18 

Overton 2 ± 24 

Pahrump 2 ± 22 

Pioche -1 ± 20 

Rachel -9 ± 16 

Sarcobatus Flats -7 ± 18 

St. George 4 ± 16 

Tonopah 4 ± 8 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the MDC of 21 pCi/L)

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

 6-1

6.0 Radiological Biota Monitoring 

DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment” requires that all U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) sites monitor radioactivity in the environment to ensure that the public does not receive a radiological 

dose greater than 100 mrem/yr from all pathways of exposure. The consumption, by members of the general public, 

of Nevada Test Site (NTS) game animals which may have elevated tissue concentrations of radionuclides is one of the 

pathways of radiation exposure which is assessed by Bechtel Nevada (BN) Environmental Technical Services (ETS) 

under the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP). Game animals and plants are sampled 

annually from known contaminated sites on the NTS to estimate hypothetical doses to hunters (i.e., the public) as well 

as to determine if NTS plants and animals themselves are exposed to radiation levels harmful to their populations. 

This section describes the biota monitoring program designed to meet all radiation protection regulations (see 

Section 1.3). It describes the methods, and results of field sampling and analyses in 2003. 

6.1 Biota Monitoring Goals and Measures 

Historical atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and outfalls from underground nuclear tests provide a source of 

radiation contamination and exposure to NTS plants and animals (biota). The primary objective of biota monitoring 

is to document that NTS operations do not cause a radiological dose to humans or biota which exceeds the limits 

prescribed by DOE. Specifically, samples of NTS plants and animals are collected and their tissues analyzed for the 

presence of radionuclides in order to: 

• Determine if the potential dose to humans consuming game animals from the NTS is less than 100 mrem/yr 

(the limit prescribed by DOE Order 5400.5). 

• Determine if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS terrestrial plants and aquatic animals is less than 1 rad/day, and 

if the absorbed radiation dose to NTS terrestrial animals is less than 0.1 rad/day (the limits prescribed by DOE 

Order 5400.5 and DOE Standard DOE-STD-1153-2002). 

The following sections describe the basic design criteria for biota monitoring, the sampling and analysis methods, and 

the tissue analysis results for biota samples collected in 2003. The estimated dose, both to humans consuming game 

animals from the NTS, and to biota found in contaminated areas of the NTS are presented in Section 7.0. 

6.2 Biota Monitoring Design 

Current NTS land use precludes the harvest of plants or plant parts (e.g., pine nuts and wolf berries) for direct 

consumption by humans. Therefore, the ingestion of game animals is the primary potential biotic pathway for 

radionuclides from the NTS to the public. Game birds and game mammals that occur on the NTS are monitored 

because these mobile species may travel off the site and become available, through hunting, for consumption by the 

public. Monitoring of NTS vegetation is conducted to measure radionuclide uptake rates and the potential for 

radionuclide transfer through the food chain. 

The RREMP (DOE, 2003b) specifies that the radionuclides to be monitored in NTS biota include tritium, 137Cs, 

241Am, and 239+240Pu. During 2003, this was expanded to include 90Sr and uranium to better characterize the sample 

locations. The study design for radiological monitoring of NTS biota is fully described in the RREMP. Below is a 

brief description of the species and sites selected for monitoring. 

6.2.1 Species Selection 

The goal for vegetation monitoring is to sample the most contaminated plants within the NTS environment. 

Contaminated plants are generally found inside demarcated radiological areas near the “ground zero” locations of 

historical above-ground nuclear tests. The plant species selected for sampling represent the most dominant plant life 

forms (e.g., trees, shrubs, herbs, or grasses) at these sites. Woody vegetation (i.e., shrubs versus forbs or grasses) is 

primarily selected for sampling because such vegetation is reported to have deeper penetrating roots and higher 

concentrations of tritium (Hunter and Kinnison, 1998). Additionally, this vegetation serves as a major source of 

browse for game animals that might eat such vegetation and potentially migrate offsite. Grasses and forbs are also 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

 6-2

sampled when present, however, because they are also a source of food for wildlife. Plant parts collected represent 

new growth over the past year. 

Three criteria were used to determine which animal species to monitor. The first was that the species should have a 

relatively high probability of entering the human food chain. Second, the species should have a home range which 

overlaps a contaminated site and, as a result, have the potential for relatively high radionuclide body burdens from 

exposure to contaminated soil, air, water, or plants at the contaminated site. Thirdly, the selected species should be 

sufficiently abundant at a site to acquire an adequate tissue sample for laboratory analysis. These criteria limited the 

candidate game animals on the NTS to mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), chukar (Alectoris chukar), Gambel’s quail 

(Callipepla gambelii), cottontail rabbits (Sylvilagus audubonii), and jackrabbits (Lepus californicus). Two species of large game 

animals also occur on the NTS: mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana). Mule 

deer are known to move off of the mesas on the north end of the NTS in the winter into lower elevations on and off 

the NTS (Giles and Cooper, 1985). There is a possibility that pronghorn antelope may also leave the NTS and be 

available for hunting. Because of this, opportunistic sampling (e.g., sampling road-kills) of big game animals occurs. 

Surface waters on the NTS consist of natural springs, containment ponds, and sewage lagoons. These contain aquatic 

animals, primarily invertebrates. Goldfish, golden shiners, and bluegills have been unofficially introduced into ponds 

associated with wells, and represent the only fish species known to occur on the NTS. There are also no native 

amphibians found on the NTS. Non-native bullfrogs occur in a few man-made ponds in Areas 3 and 6. There is no 

potential dose pathway directly from NTS aquatic animals to humans. 

No aquatic invertebrates or non-native fish or amphibians were sampled for radionuclide tissue analyses. To assess 

dose to aquatic NTS organisms, a comparison of radionuclide concentrations in water and sediment to biota 

concentration guide values was performed. This assessment is presented in Section 7.2. 

6.2.2 Site Selection 

The monitoring design focuses on sampling those sites having the highest known concentrations of radionuclides in 

other media (e.g., soil and surface water) and sites that have relatively high densities of candidate game animals. 

Currently, five sites are selected for monitoring, and each site is sampled at least once every five years. These sites are 

E Tunnel Ponds, Palanquin, Sedan, T2, and Plutonium Valley (Figure 6-1). One control site is selected for each 

contaminated site which has similar biological and physical features. The control site is sampled to document 

radionuclide levels representative of background. Below is a brief description of the two sites monitored during 2003. 

E Tunnel Ponds – The E Tunnel Ponds are located just southeast of Rainier Mesa in Area 12 in the northern part of 

the NTS at an elevation of 1,828 m (6,000 ft). Radionuclide contaminated water and soils occur at this site. The 

E Tunnel Ponds were constructed to collect and hold contaminated water (mainly from tritium) which drains out of 

E Tunnel where nuclear testing was conducted. The water is perched groundwater that has percolated through 

fractures in the tunnel system. Mourning doves occur at relatively high densities near these ponds. Camp 17 pond is 

the control site for E Tunnel Ponds, but this pond was not scheduled for sampling in 2003. 

Palanquin – The Palanquin Crater site is located in Area 20 in the northwest portion of the NTS at an elevation of 

1,890 m (6,200 ft). Palanquin was detonated on April 14, 1965 as part of the Plowshare project which tested the 

ability of nuclear weapons detonated below the surface to excavate large volumes of soil from the surface. The soils 

at the site are contaminated with fission products. A control area for the Palanquin Crater site is located about 6 km 

(3.7 mi) southeast of the crater in similar habitat (partially disturbed) in Area 20. Any one of the candidate game 

species is likely to be present at the crater and control sites. 

6.3 Sampling Methods 

During calendar year 2003, biota samples were successfully collected at all planned monitoring sites. Active sampling 

and trapping of biota took place July through August. Sample methods and the numbers and types of samples 

collected in 2003 are described below. 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

 6-3

Figure 6-1. Radiological biota monitoring sites on the NTS 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

 6-4

6.3.1 Plants 

No plants were sampled at the E Tunnel site in 2003 because the data of interest was potential dose to humans 

consuming doves living near the E Tunnel Ponds. Vegetation was sampled at E Tunnel in 1999. Plant sampling at 

the Palanquin Crater and the Palanquin Control sites occurred on July 9, 2003. Photographs of these sites are shown 

in Figure 6-2 and Figure 6-3. Samples were taken of the dominant shrubs species, forbs, and grasses present at each 

site (Table 6-1). 

At each site two samples, each consisting of about 300 to 500 grams (10.6 to 17.6 ounces) of fresh-weight plant 

material, were collected for each species sampled. A plant sample consisted of a composite of material from many 

plants of the same species in the area sampled. Only current year’s growth was collected from each plant and 

consisted of new green leaves and stems. Green leaves and stems from shrubs and forbs were hand-plucked and 

stored in air-tight plastic bags. Rubber gloves were used by samplers and changed between each composite sample 

collected. Samples were labeled and stored in an ice chest. Within four hours of collection, the samples were 

delivered to the laboratory. Water was separated from plant samples by distillation for tritium analysis, and the dried 

plant tissues were submitted to a commercial laboratory to be analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides, 90Sr, 

uranium, plutonium, and 241Am. 

Table 6-1. Plant species sampled at Palanquin Crater and Palanquin Control Site in 2003 

Plant Common Name Name Abbreviation(a) Plant Scientific Name Crater Site Control Site 

Basin big sagebrush BBS Artemisia tridentata X X 

desert globemallow DGM Sphaeralcea ambigua X X 

desert needlegrass DNG Achnantherum speciosa X X 

four-wing saltbush FWSB Atriplex canescens X X 

Mormon tea MT Ephedra viridis X 

Nevada jointfir NJF Ephedra nevadensis X 

Rubber rabbitbrush RRB Ericameria nauseosus X X 

(a) plant name abbreviation used in sample results table of this chapter (Table 6-2). 

6.3.2 Animals 

State and federal permits were secured to trap and analyze rabbits, Gambel’s quail, chukar, and mourning doves 

during 2003 as well as to sample road-killed, large game animals. Animal trapping took place from July through 

August at the E Tunnel Ponds (Figure 6-4), Palanquin Crater, and Palanquin Control sites. Live-traps to collect game 

birds at the E Tunnel Ponds were run for four days. Live-traps for both game birds and rabbits were run at the 

Palanquin Crater and Control sites for 249 and 70 trap-nights, respectively. Opportunistic sampling of two 

pronghorn antelope road-kills (one male and one female) occurred in December on the Mercury Highway in south 

Frenchman Flat. 

Three doves were trapped at all three sites sampled, and only one cottontail rabbit was trapped at the Palanquin 

Crater site. In the laboratory, each animal specimen was separated into two samples: a muscle tissue sample and a 

sample representing the whole body minus the portion of muscle. All samples were homogenized as much as 

possible using an industrial meat grinder and food processor. Water was distilled from the samples for tritium 

analysis and the dried tissue samples were submitted to a laboratory to be analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides, 

90Sr, uranium, plutonium, and 241Am. 

To document the general abundance of the candidate game species present during the collection period, three 

permanent 1-km (0.62-mi) transects were established in the vicinity of the Palanquin fenced radioactive material area 

to count jackrabbits, cottontail rabbits, mourning doves, chukar and Gambel’s quail. The transects were walked one 

or two times on four dates between July 2 and September 11, 2003 for a total of six transects walked. No target 

species were observed on transects suggesting that these species were not abundant in this habitat during the summer, 

and that the risk of animal migration offsite and corresponding risk to humans from eating contaminated game was 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

 6-5

Figure 6-2. Palanquin Crater biota sampling site 

Figure 6-3. Palanquin Control biota sampling site 
Radiological Biota Monitoring

 6-6

Figure 6-4. E Tunnel Ponds biota sampling site
Radiological Biota Monitoring

 6-7

very low. Mourning doves and a group of chukar, however, were detected by calls during trapping sessions, indicating 

that these species were present in the area in mid July through August. The number of target species recorded during 

2003 were too low to calculate species density. 

6.4 Results 

6.4.1 Plants 

Concentrations of man-made radionuclides detected in 2003 NTS plant samples are shown in Table 6-2. As expected, 

most all of the plant samples collected from the area adjacent to the Palanquin crater had detectable levels of 

radionuclides and those detectable concentrations were generally higher than those in plants taken from the control 

site 6 km (3.7 mi) away (Table 6-2). The exception to this was 137Cs which was detected in a low percentage of 

samples from both locations. While two 137Cs detections at Palanquin Control site were higher than the one 137Cs 

detection at Palanquin Crater site, the detections occurred in only 17 and 8 percent of the samples from the two sites, 

respectively. Overall, the concentrations of 137Cs in vegetation were not different between the two sites. 

All uranium detected in plant samples was determined to be natural based on isotopic ratios of 234U, 235U, and 238U. 

Tritium was not detected in any plant samples from the crater or control areas. 

6.4.2 Animals 

Concentrations of man-made radionuclides detected in 2003 NTS animal samples are listed in Table 6-3. All uranium 

detected in animal samples was determined to be natural based on isotopic ratios of 234U, 235U, and 238U. 

E Tunnel Doves – All three mourning doves collected near the E Tunnel Ponds contained elevated tritium 

concentrations ranging from 282,000 to 573,000 pCi/L (10,434 to 21,201 Bq/L). These elevated levels are similar to 

those reported in environmental reports over the past four years for E Tunnel doves, and are probably the result of 

doves drinking tritiated water from the ponds. In 2003, tritium concentrations in water from these ponds ranged 

from 528,000 to 885,000 pCi/L (19,536 to 32,745 Bq/L) (see Section 3.1.3.5, Tables 3-6 and 3-7). Other 

radionuclides were detected in the three doves from the E Tunnel area, albeit at low concentrations (Table 6-3). 

Palanquin Crater and Control Doves – Only one of the three doves sampled at the Palanquin Crater site had a 

barely detectable concentration of tritium in the water distilled from the body portion of its tissue (portion without 

breast muscle tissue) (321 pCi/L or 11.9 Bq/L (sample specific minimum detectable concentration (MDC)=313 

pCi/L or 11.6 Bq/L). In contrast, all three mourning doves sampled from the Palanquin Control site 6 km (3.7 mi) 

from the Palanquin crater contained detectable tritium; two of which were relatively high (Table 6-3). Mourning 

doves are highly mobile, but the presence of tritium in all doves sampled from the Palanquin Control site and the 

relatively high concentrations in two out of three of these sampled doves indicated that a tritium source existed close 

to the control site. The source appeared to be a containment pond (sump) for the Underground Test Area Project 

post-shot/cavity well U-20n PS#1DDH (see Figure 3-5) that is approximately 5 km (3.1 mi) southeast of the 

Palanquin Control site. This sump contained water with tritium at 42,000,000 pCi/L (1,554,000 Bq/L). At the time 

the control site was selected and sampled, this usually dry sump was not known to contain tritiated water. 

Additional radionuclides detected in doves from the Palanquin Crater site were 90Sr, 238Pu, 239/240Pu, and 241Am. One 

dove (#7) had all four of these in the whole body portion with the 238Pu, 239/240Pu, and 241Am being about two orders 

of magnitude higher than those detected in other animals sampled from this site. Because these radionuclides were 

not detected in the muscle portion of this dove, it is likely that the activity was associated with a relatively higher 

activity particle in the gut or on the external portion of the dove. One other dove from the crater site had low 

concentrations of 239/240Pu in both its muscle tissue and the rest of the body. The third dove from this location had 

low concentrations of 239/240Pu and 241Am in its body sample (whole body minus breast muscle). 

At the Palanquin Control site, 90Sr was detected at low concentrations in the body sample of all three doves. Low 

concentrations of 137Cs were also detected in muscle samples from two of the doves. 

Palanquin Crater Cottontail – One cottontail rabbit was collected at the Palanquin Crater site. No man-made 

radionuclides were detected in its muscle tissue. However, low concentrations of tritium, 90Sr, 137Cs, 238Pu, 239/240Pu, 

and 241Am were detected in the body fraction excluding the muscle tissue.
6-8

Table 6-2. Radionuclide concentrations in NTS plants sampled in 2003 

Radionuclide Concentrations ± Uncertainty(a)

Sample 3H (pCi/L)(b) 90Sr (pCi/g)( c ) 137Cs (pCi/g) 238Pu (pCi/g) 239/240Pu (pCi/g) 241Am (pCi/g) Palanquin Crater BBS #1 0 ± 214 0.35 ± 0.10 0.10 ± 0.09 0.0317 ± 0.0166 0.0808 ± 0.0206 0.0376 ± 0.0136 BBS #2 227 ± 215 0.39 ± 0.10 0.09 ± 0.04 0.0324 ± 0.0125 0.0657 ± 0.0176 0.0455 ± 0.0168 RRB #1 93.5 ± 201 0.13 ± 0.05 0.00 ± 0.08 0.0179 ± 0.0089 0.0324 ± 0.0124 0.0196 ± 0.0106 RRB #2 271 ± 203 0.09 ± 0.04 -0.04 ± 0.08 0.0139 ± 0.0091 0.0462 ± 0.0150 0.0112 ± 0.0092 DNG #1 182 ± 201 0.23 ± 0.09 0.08 ± 0.20 0.7240 ± 0.0910 1.1100 ± 0.1230 0.5110 ± 0.0646 DNG #2 90.3 ± 194 0.18 ± 0.07 0.01 ± 0.05 0.0848 ± 0.0208 0.2910 ± 0.0414 0.1240 ± 0.0250 FWS #1 29 ± 185 0.61 ± 0.17 0.01 ± 0.06 0.0190 ± 0.0088 0.0370 ± 0.0119 0.0202 ± 0.0085 FWS #2 123 ± 200 0.01 ± 0.04 0.01 ± 0.08 0.0572 ± 0.0174 0.1340 ± 0.0266 0.0505 ± 0.0173 DGM #1 90.7 ± 195 0.32 ± 0.10 0.03 ± 0.11 0.1440 ± 0.0265 0.3020 ± 0.0405 0.1240 ± 0.0264 DGM #2 30.5 ± 194 0.80 ± 0.18 0.05 ± 0.24 0.5720 ± 0.0601 1.3100 ± 0.1120 0.5700 ± 0.0711 NJF #1 -62.8 ± 195 0.34 ± 0.09 0.01 ± 0.03 0.0080 ± 0.0055 0.0208 ± 0.0102 0.0090 ± 0.0071 NJF #2 124 ± 201 0.44 ± 0.11 -0.01 ± 0.02 0.0103 ± 0.0098 0.0469 ± 0.0154 0.0210 ± 0.0094 Percent above MDC: 0 92 8 92 100 83 Palanquin Control BBS #1 -348 ± 181 0.11 ± 0.05 0.01 ± 0.03 0.0000 ± 0.0048 0.0020 ± 0.0061 0.0114 ± 0.0092 BBS #2 -417 ± 180 0.08 ± 0.05 0.00 ± 0.02 0.0010 ± 0.0044 -0.0020 ± 0.0048 0.0072 ± 0.0084 RRB #1 -185 ± 156 0.04 ± 0.04 -0.01 ± 0.03 0.0000 ± 0.0022 0.0000 ± 0.0031 0.0000 ± 0.0046 RRB #2 -217 ± 155 0.04 ± 0.04 -0.01 ± 0.08 -0.0001 ± 0.0071 0.0006 ± 0.0043 0.0015 ± 0.0048 DNG #1 -216 ± 155 0.08 ± 0.04 0.44 ± 0.61 0.0023 ± 0.0056 0.0175 ± 0.0105 0.0037 ± 0.0052 DNG #2 -154 ± 158 0.07 ± 0.05 0.41 ± 0.13 -0.0052 ± 0.0046 0.0093 ± 0.0074 0.0118 ± 0.0106 FWS #1 -458 ± 168 0.20 ± 0.07 0.03 ± 0.06 -0.0032 ± 0.0056 0.0053 ± 0.0076 0.0033 ± 0.0065 FWS #2 -469 ± 172 0.14 ± 0.07 0.00 ± 0.05 0.0025 ± 0.0080 0.0000 ± 0.0062 0.0046 ± 0.0085 DGM #1 -126 ± 163 0.06 ± 0.04 0.02 ± 0.07 0.0000 ± 0.0028 0.0051 ± 0.0060 0.0022 ± 0.0042 DGM #2 -181 ± 153 0.04 ± 0.04 1.34 ± 1.32 -0.0021 ± 0.0050 0.0011 ± 0.0074 0.0062 ± 0.0070 MT #1 -210 ± 150 0.20 ± 0.07 0.08 ± 0.13 0.0015 ± 0.0021 0.0076 ± 0.0063 0.0019 ± 0.0059 MT #2 -121 ± 157 0.20 ± 0.07 -0.04 ± 0.19 -0.0011 ± 0.0031 0.0000 ± 0.0081 0.0024 ± 0.0075 Percent above MDC: 0 50 17 0 8 8 

Average MDC: 359 0.29 0.31 0.0110 0.0136 0.0111 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the sample specific MDC) 

(a) ± 2 standard deviations 

(b) Concentration of 3H in water distilled from the sample 

(c) Concentrations are per gram dry weight of sample 

Radiological Biota Monitoring
6-9

Table 6-3. Radionuclide concentrations in NTS animals sampled in 2003 

Radionuclide Concentrations ± Uncertainty(a)

Sample 3H (pCi/L)(b) 90Sr (pCi/g)( c ) 137Cs (pCi/g) 238Pu (pCi/g) 239/240Pu (pCi/g) 241Am (pCi/g) E Tunnel Ponds – Animals  Dove #4 (breast) 282,000 ± 5,620 0.06 ± 0.06 0.17 ± 0.31 0.0013 ± 0.0025 -0.0064 ± 0.0083 0.0014 ± 0.0046  Dove #4 (body fraction) 275,000 ± 5,510 0.06 ± 0.04 0.22 ± 0.28 0.0012 ± 0.0062 0.0095 ± 0.0088 0.0114 ± 0.0105  Dove #5 (breast) 560,000 ± 11,000 0.02 ± 0.04 0.21 ± 0.23 0.0000 ± 0.0039 0.0056 ± 0.0067 -0.0016 ± 0.0069  Dove #5 (body fraction) 567,000 ± 11,100 0.05 ± 0.10 0.54 ± 0.48 0.0152 ± 0.0078 0.1340 ± 0.0258 0.0379 ± 0.0134  Dove #9 (breast) 573,000 ± 11,200 0.03 ± 0.12 0.59 ± 0.39 0.0054 ± 0.0064 0.0054 ± 0.0083 0.0041 ± 0.0081  Dove #9 (body fraction) 540,000 ± 10,500 0.22 ± 0.09 0.00 ± 0.35 0.0013 ± 0.0043 0.0265 ± 0.0167 0.0104 ± 0.0076 Palanquin Crater – Animals  Dove #6 (breast) 29.8 ± 232 0.04 ± 0.07 -0.14 ± 0.27 -0.0047 ± 0.0065 0.0082 ± 0.0100 0.0129 ± 0.0081  Dove #6 (body fraction) 321 ± 196 0.04 ± 0.03 0.05 ± 0.22 0.0135 ± 0.0129 0.0269 ± 0.0122 0.0062 ± 0.0054  Dove #7 (breast) 94.1 ± 194 0.70 ± 0.61 0.44 ± 0.62 0.0013 ± 0.0025 0.0025 ± 0.0120 0.0052 ± 0.0063  Dove #7 (body fraction) 249 ± 204 0.33 ± 0.12 0.50 ± 0.50 1.8300 ± 0.1530 22.1000 ± 1.5400 9.2900 ± 0.8600  Dove #8 (breast) 186 ± 199 0.58 ± 0.44 0.08 ± 1.67 -0.0014 ± 0.0039 0.0263 ± 0.0132 0.0056 ± 0.0067  Dove #8 (body fraction) 324 ± 216 0.10 ± 0.16 0.14 ± 0.35 0.0027 ± 0.0065 0.0135 ± 0.0099 0.0079 ± 0.0082  Desert cottontail (muscle) 332 ± 231 0.21 ± 0.19 0.07 ± 0.11 0.0000 ± 0.0042 0.0000 ± 0.0072 0.0043 ± 0.0060  Desert cottontail (body fraction) 839 ± 232 0.76 ± 0.18 0.76 ± 0.29 0.0229 ± 0.0116 0.1220 ± 0.0270 0.0248 ± 0.0136 Palanquin Control – Animals  Dove #1 (breast) 159 ± 254 3.82 ± 4.02 0.18 ± 0.27 0.0017 ± 0.0040 0.0050 ± 0.0052 0.0097 ± 0.0115  Dove #1 (body fraction) 626 ± 275 0.08 ± 0.04 -0.02 ± 0.20 -0.0034 ± 0.0087 0.0068 ± 0.0095 0.0080 ± 0.0096 Dove #2 (breast) 14,800,000 ± 291,000 

-

0.15 ± 0.61 0.47 ± 0.31 0.0000 ± 0.0035 0.0106 ± 0.0120 0.0072 ± 0.0085 

 Dove #2 (body fraction) 12,600,000 ± 251,000 0.06 ± 0.04 0.22 ± 0.91 0.0034 ± 0.0038 0.0134 ± 0.0108 0.0041 ± 0.0071  Dove #3 (breast) 17,500,000 ± 338,000 No Data 0.98 ± 0.35 -0.0013 ± 0.0056 0.0038 ± 0.0103 -0.0013 ± 0.0057  Dove #3 (body fraction) 16,800,000 ± 325,000 0.11 ± 0.04 0.25 ± 0.64 -0.0022 ± 0.0044 0.0056 ± 0.0105 0.0022 ± 0.0043 Area 5 Roadkill  Pronghorn #1 (hind quarter muscle) 8 198 0.00 0.04 -0.09 0.10 -0.0017 0.0076 0.0017 0.0042 0.0033 0.0059  Pronghorn #2 (hind quarter muscle) 8 195 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.07 -0.0013 0.0036 -0.0034 0.0053 0.0038 0.0055 

Average MDC : 359 0.29 0.31 0.0110 0.0136 0.0111 

Green shaded results are considered detected (result greater than the sample specific MDC) (a) ± 2 standard deviations 

(b) Concentration of 3H in water distilled from the sample 

(c) Concentrations are per gram dry weight of the sample 

Radiological Biota Monitoring
Radiological Biota Monitoring 

 6-10

Frenchman Flat Pronghorn Antelope – Muscle tissue from one of the two pronghorn antelope killed by a vehicle 

in Area 5, south Frenchman Flat, contained a detectable amount of 90Sr just above the sample-specific MDC for this 

radionuclide. No other radionuclides were detected in the pronghorn antelope muscle samples. 

6.5 Environmental Impact 

As expected, radionuclides were detected in biota sampled near the Palanquin Crater and E Tunnel Ponds. These 

were locations associated with historic testing of nuclear weapons. Elevated levels of tritium were also found in two 

of three doves sampled from the Palanquin Control location and is believed to be from uptake of water pumped 

during 2003 from a post-shot well located about 5 km (3 mi) southeast of the control location. While these 

radionuclides were detected, they pose negligible risk to humans as the potential dose to a person hunting and 

consuming these animals was well below dose limits (≤ 0.3 percent of dose limits) to members of the public 

(see Section 7.2). Also, radionuclide concentrations were below levels considered harmful to the health of the plants 

or animals as the dose resulting from observed concentrations were less than 10 percent of dose limits set to protect 

populations of plants and animals (see Section 7.2).
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-1

7.0 Radiological Dose Assessment 

DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program” and DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the 

Public and the Environment” (see Section 1.3) require U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilities to estimate the 

radiological dose to the general public and to plants and animals in the environment caused by past or present facility 

operations. This chapter uses data gathered in 2003 and radiation surveys in the past that inventoried the radionuclide 

content of Nevada Test Site (NTS) surface soils to estimate these radiological doses with the aid of mathematical 

models. The data used are presented in Chapters 2 through 6 of this environmental report and include the 2003 

results for onsite compliance monitoring of air, water, and biota, and the offsite monitoring results of air and water 

conducted by the Desert Research Institute (DRI) under the Community Environmental Monitoring Program 

(CEMP). Estimated doses calculated and presented in this chapter must fall below the limits established by DOE in 

order to demonstrate that the general public and the environment are not exposed to hazardous levels of radioactivity 

from the NTS. 

7.1 Radiological Dose to the Public 

7.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

The goals for the dose assessment component of radiological monitoring are to show that: 

• The maximum radiation dose to a member of the general public from airborne radionuclide emissions at the NTS 

did not exceed the standard of 10 mrem/yr as specified by 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart H. 

• The total radiation dose that a member of the general public could receive from the NTS by all possible pathways 

(direct exposure, inhalation, ingestion of water and food) is less than the limit of 100 mrem/yr as established by 

DOE Order 5400.5. 

• The radiation doses received by onsite biota are less than 1 rad/d (0.01 Gy/d) to aquatic animals and terrestrial 

plants, and less than 0.1 rad/d (1 mGy/d) to terrestrial animals, as specified in DOE-STD-1153-2002. 

The compliance measures which are calculated in order to accomplish these goals are listed below. Their definitions 

and the methods by which they are obtained are described in the following subsection. 

• Committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) (see Glossary, Appendix D) for an offsite maximally exposed 

individual (MEI) from air emissions, in mrem/yr (or mSv/yr). 

• CEDE for an offsite MEI from all pathways, in mrem/yr (or mSv/yr). 

• Absorbed dose to onsite plants and animals, in rad/d. 

7.1.2 Methods 

Several steps are taken to compute radiological dose to the public from all pathways. Many sources of information 

and mathematical models are used. This section briefly describes these steps, identifies how field monitoring data 

interface with other NTS data sources (e.g., radionuclide inventory data, climatological data) to provide input to the 

mathematical models, identifies the mathematical models, and presents the results of each step. 

7.1.2.1 Determining Human Exposure Pathways 

As prescribed in the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b), Bechtel Nevada 

(BN) routinely samples air, groundwater, and biota to document the amount of radioactivity in these media and to 

provide data that can be used to assess the radiation dose received by the general public. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-2

The pathways by which a member of the general public can receive a radiation dose resulting from past or present 

NTS operations include: 

• Exposure of the body to direct radiation in the environment resulting from radionuclides being transported off 

the NTS by winds and deposited on the ground offsite. 

• Inhalation of airborne radionuclide emissions transported offsite by wind. 

• Ingestion of meat from migratory wild game animals which drink from surface waters and eat vegetation 

containing NTS-related radioactivity. 

• Ingestion of water from underground aquifers containing radionuclides which have migrated from the sites of 

past underground nuclear tests. 

Since the migration of radioactivity in groundwater has not been detected in the past or in 2003 (see Section 3.1), 

exposure through ingestion of water was not considered in the 2003 calculated dose to public. Air and biota 

monitoring results indicated there was a potential for offsite residents to receive a radiation dose from past or current 

activities on the NTS from the first three pathways. 

7.1.2.2 Identifying Onsite Sources and Radionuclide Air Emission Rates 

An atmospheric diffusion model called Clean Air Package 1988 (CAP88-PC) (Version 2.0) is used, according to Title 

40 CFR, Part 61, Subpart H, for calculating the radiation CEDEs received by hypothetical offsite receptors from 

airborne emissions. To use this model, certain factors must be identified and quantified. Two of these factors 

include: (1) location of all potential sources of radioactive air emissions on the NTS, and (2) quantity of radionuclides 

released from these locations, in Ci/yr. These sources for calendar year (CY) 2003 were: 

• Release of tritium during the calibration of equipment at Building CP-50. 

• The re-suspension of surface soil contaminated by past nuclear testing at NTS. 

• The evaporation of tritiated water discharged from post-shot wells and E Tunnel. 

• The evaporation and transpiration of tritiated water from soil and vegetation, respectively at sites of past nuclear 

tests and from the Area 5 RWMC. 

Table 7-1 presents the names of those locations which were potential sources of radioactive emissions in 2003. The 

radionuclide emission rates (in Ci/yr) at each site are also presented. Brief descriptions of the methods used for 

estimating these quantities are given in the table footnotes. More detailed descriptions of the methods and emission 

sources are reported in Grossman, 2004. Note that in the last row of the table, the total amounts of 241Am and 

239+240Pu emissions from soil re-suspension are presented. They are the sum of emission rates computed (see footnote 

[d]) for each area of the NTS with surface contamination (Areas 1-11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 30). Other 

radionuclides (60Cs, 90Sr, 137Cs, 152Eu, 154Eu, 155Eu, and 238Pu), although found in surface soils by past radiation surveys, 

were not included because combined, they contributed only ten percent or less to the total dose of the MEI. 

7.1.2.3 Calculating Dose to Humans from NTS Air Emissions 

The radiation doses to offsite residents from airborne NTS emissions are estimated with the CAP88-PC software, 

Version 2.0. The following variables are entered into the software for each point/grouped source: 

• Distance and appropriate compass sector for each populated location within 80 km (50 mi) of each emission 

source. 

• The calculated annual radionuclide emission rates (Table 7-1). 

• The estimated annual emission rates for each of the NTS areas with surface contamination (Areas 1-11, 12, 13, 

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 30) (shown summed for “Grouped NTS Areas” in Table 7-1). 

• Wind data collected in 2003 from meteorological data acquisition stations (see Section 15.0) such as wind 

direction, frequency, and stability classification. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-3

Table 7-1. Radiological atmospheric releases from NTS for CY 2003 used in theCAP88-PC model 

Source Radionuclide Quantity (Ci) 

Area 6 Building CP-50 3H 0.00019(a)

Area 12 E Tunnel Ponds 3H 13(b)

Well RNM#2S 3H 36(b)

Well U-4u PS #2A 3H 0.73(b)

Well U-19q PS #1D 3H 0.47(b)

Well U-20n PS @1DDH 3H 4.2(b)

Area 5 RWMS 3H 5.9(c)

Area 10 Sedan 3H 64(c)

Area 20 Schooner 3H 190(c)

All Sources Total 3H 314 

Grouped NTS Areas Total 241Am 0.047(d)

Grouped NTS Areas Total 239+240Pu 0.29(d)

(a) Quantity of tritium gas released during the calibration of laboratory equipment. 

(b) Estimated from tritium concentration in water discharged into containment ponds or open tanks, 

assuming all water was completely evaporated during the year. 

(c) Estimated from calculations with CAP88-PC software and annual mean concentration of tritium in 

air measured by air sampling at a location near the emission source. 

(d) Calculated from inventory of radionuclides in surface soil determined by Radionuclide Inventory 

and Distribution Program (DOE, 1991), a re-suspension model (NRC, 1983), and equation 

parameters derived at the NTS (DOE, 1992). 

• A rural food source scenario (versus an urban scenario), which conservatively assumes that all food at the 

populated areas around the NTS was either home-produced or obtained from within the 80-km radius assessment 

area. The CAP88-PC software applies factors to estimate the deposition of airborne radionuclides onto crops and 

soil, their uptake into crops, and their transfer to milk and meat. 

The variables referenced above were entered into the CAP88-PC model, and the CEDEs for an individual living 

within each populated area was computed for each emission source location on the NTS. The calculated CEDEs for 

each offsite populated area from each NTS source location were then summed to determine the annual total CEDEs 

at each offsite population area within 80 km of the emission sources. 

Based on these calculations for CY 2003, the location of the MEI (the hypothetical individual receiving the highest 

offsite dose) was Cactus Springs, Nevada, where the CEDE was 0.10 mrem/yr (0.001 mSv/yr) (Figure 7-1). This 

dose is well below (1.0 percent of) the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant limit of 10 mrem/yr 

(0.1 mSv/yr) and is consistent with the estimates computed for past years (1996 to the present) (Figure 7-2). 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-4

Figure 7-1. Map of the NTS showing annual CEDEs within 80 km of emission sources 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-5

Figure 7-2. Radiation dose to MEI offsite who is not consuming game animals from the NTS 

7.1.2.4 Calculating Dose to Humans from Ingestion of Wild Game from the NTS 

Though there is little data suggesting that NTS small game animals travel offsite and become available to hunters, they 

are sampled on the NTS near contaminated areas as a conservative (worst case) estimate of the levels of radionuclides 

that hunters may consume if game animals did leave the NTS and were harvested. Radiation doses from the ingestion 

of game animals presented here are calculated from measurements of the radionuclide concentrations in game animals 

trapped in 2003 near sites where the soil, vegetation, and/or water sources are known to be contaminated with 

radioactivity from past nuclear tests (see Section 6.0). 

The average concentrations of man-made radionuclides in the muscle tissue of mourning doves and pronghorn 

antelope sampled in 2003 from the NTS are shown in Table 7-2. Although a cottontail rabbit was sampled in 2003, 

no detectable levels of radionuclides were found in its muscle tissue (see Section 6.0). The following assumptions 

were made for calculating the dose to an individual eating game animals from the NTS: 

• One individual consumed 20 doves and one antelope over the year. These numbers are based upon the current 

possession limit set for these species by the Nevada Division of Wildlife.

• Each game animal that an individual consumed contained the average concentration of radionuclides detected in 

muscle tissue for that species sampled. 

• The amount of dove meat an individual consumed per animal was the average weight of the dove breast muscle 

samples. 

• The amount of pronghorn meat consumed was 10 kg, which is within the range measured by Field, et al., 2003. 

• The moisture content of game meat consumed was equivalent to the measured moisture content of the muscle 

tissue samples (Table 7-2). 

• The CEDE was calculated using dose conversion factors (DOE, 1988) multiplied by the total activity estimated to 

be consumed for each of the detected radionuclides. The resultant potential doses from consuming mourning 

doves and pronghorn are shown in Table 7-2. 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Calendar Year

CEDE, mrem/yr
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-6

Table 7-2. Hypothetical dose to a human consuming mourning doves or pronghorn antelope from the NTS 

Animal 

Sampled 

Wet 

Weight of 

Consumed 

Muscle (g) 

% by 

Weight 

of 

Water 

Detected 

Radionuclides 

Average Radionuclide 

Concentration 

Dose 

Conversion 

 Factors 

 (mrem/pCi 

Consumed) (a)

CEDE

(mrem)

E Tunnel Ponds 

Mourning dove 588(b) 74 3H 472,000 pCi/L 0.000000063 0.013

 137Cs 0.32 pCi/g (dry) 0.00005 0.002

 Total: 0.015

Palanquin 

Mourning dove 588(b) 74 239/240Pu 0.012 pCi/g (dry) 0.0043 0.008

 241Am 0.0079 pCi/g (dry) 0.0045 0.005

 Total: 0.013

Palanquin Control 

Mourning dove 588(b) 74 3H 10,800,000 pCi/L 0.000000063 0.294

 137Cs 0.54 pCi/g (dry) 0.00005 0.005

 Total: 0.299

Area 5 Road kill 

Pronghorn 10000( c ) 73 90Sr 0.19 pCi/g (dry) 0.00013 0.064

 Total: 0.064

(a) Dose conversion factors for human ingestion from DOE (1988) 

(b) Assumed breast meat from 20 mourning doves were consumed and each breast weighed 29.4 g 

(c) Assumed one pronghorn antelope was consumed and pronghorn muscle weight was 10 kg (Field, et al., 2003)

The highest of these committed doses (0.30 mrem/yr [0.003 mSv/yr]) is only about 0.3 percent of the annual dose 

limit for members of the public. To put this potential dose received from NTS game animals in perspective, the dose 

from naturally-occurring cosmic radiation generally increases approximately 0.5 mrem/yr for every 100 feet higher in 

altitude a person lives. A 0.3 mrem dose can be thought of as the increase in dose from natural radiation received by 

merely increasing the elevation at which one lives by about 60 feet. 

7.1.3 Results 

This section presents the calculation of radiological dose to the general public from all pathways of exposure that are 

possible for individuals residing near the NTS. 

7.1.3.1 Total Offsite Dose to the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI)

As mentioned in Section 7.1.2.3 above, the location of the MEI was Cactus Springs, Nevada, where the CEDE was 

0.10 mrem/yr (0.001 mSv/yr) based on the CAPP88-PC model. This CEDE estimate for CY 2003 is consistent with 

the estimates from 1996 to the present (see Figure 7-2). 

If the MEI at Cactus Springs was also a hunter harvesting and ingesting the Palanquin Control site mourning doves 

and the pronghorn mentioned in Section 7.1.2.4, the person would receive an estimated additional 0.36 mrem/yr 

(0.0036 mSv/yr) dose for a total CEDE of 0.46 mrem/yr (0.0046 mSv/yr). 

This dose of 0.46 mrem/yr is the total offsite dose to the MEI due to NTS emissions given all feasible pathways of 

exposures. It is 0.46 percent of the DOE limit of 100 mrem/yr, and it is only 0.13 percent of the total dose the MEI 

would receive from natural background radiation (365 mrem/yr) (Figure 7-3). 

Natural background radiation consists of cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation, radiation from radionuclides (primarily 

40K) within the composition of the human body, and radiation from the inhalation of naturally-occurring radon and its 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-7

progeny. The cosmic and terrestrial components of the background (125 mrem/yr) were estimated from the annual 

mean radiation exposure rate measured with a pressurized ion chamber (PIC) at Indian Springs (see Table 5-4) by the 

offsite CEMP (see Section 5.0). The radiation exposure in air measured by the PIC in units of mR/yr is 

approximately equivalent to the unit of mrem/yr for tissue. The portion of the background dose from the internally 

deposited naturally-occurring radionuclides and the radiation dose from the inhalation of radon and its daughters were 

estimated as 40 mrem/yr and 200 mrem/yr, respectively, using the approximations by the National Council on 

Radiation Protection (NCRP, 1996). 

Figure 7-3. Comparison of radiation dose to MEI and the natural 

radiation background 

7.1.3.2 Collective Population Dose 

Approximately 38,154 persons live within an 80-km radius of the NTS (Hardcastle, 2003). The collective population 

dose (see Glossary, Appendix D) from NTS operations is the sum of the CEDEs to all individuals within the 80-km 

radius of the NTS (see Figure 7-1). The dose calculation does not include those working onsite. It is intended to 

calculate doses to residents at their homes. The 2003 collective population dose attributable to NTS operations to 

persons living within 80 km of the NTS was estimated to be 0.45 person-rem/yr (0.0045 person-Sv/yr) (Table 7-3). 

This population dose is comparable to the population dose of 0.42 person-rem reported for 2002 (DOE, 2003c). 

~

~

~
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-8

Table 7-3. Radiological dose to the general public from 2003 NTS operations 

Pathway 

Dose to Maximally 

Exposed Individual 

(mrem/yr) (mSv/yr) 

Percent of DOE 

100-mrem/yr 

Limit 

Estimated Collective 

Population Dose(a) 

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

Air 0.10 0.0010 0.10 0.45(a) 0.0045 

Water 0 0 0 0 0 

Wildlife 0.36 0.0036 0.36 U(b) U 

All Pathways 0.46 0.0046 0.46 0.45 0.0045 

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

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

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

 by hunters in 2003.

7.2 Dose to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota 

On January 15, 2003, DOE Order 450.1, “Environmental Protection Program,” was approved, replacing DOE Order 

5400.1. The new order adds specific requirements for the protection of biota and requires DOE facilities to evaluate 

the potential impacts of radiation exposure to biota in the vicinity of DOE activities. The following radiological dose 

limits for biota are established by DOE (DOE, 2002a), such that dose rates equal to or less than these are expected to 

have no direct, observable effect on plant or animal reproduction: 

• Dose limit to aquatic animals = 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day) 

• Dose limit to terrestrial plants = 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day) 

• Dose limit to terrestrial animals = 0.1 rad/day (1 mGy/day) 

7.2.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

The goal for the biota dose assessment component of radiological monitoring is to evaluate the radiological dose to 

aquatic and terrestrial biota caused by past or current NTS activities. DOE Standard 1153-2002, “A Graded 

Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota,” (DOE, 2002a) was developed by DOE’s 

Biota Dose Assessment Committee to assist in such an evaluation and to determine if the established dose limits 

shown above are exceeded at any DOE facility. This standard describes a graded approach for evaluating radiation 

doses to biota. The standard also provides concentration values for radionuclides in soil, water, and sediment that are 

to be used as a guide for determining if biota are receiving radiation doses that exceed the limits. These 

concentrations are called the Biota Concentration Guide (BCG) values. They are defined as the maximum 

concentration of a radionuclide that would not cause dose limits to be exceeded using very conservative uptake and 

exposure assumptions. The following measures or information are required by this graded approach for evaluating 

dose to biota on the NTS: 

• Identification of terrestrial and aquatic habitats on the NTS that have radionuclides in soil, water, or sediment. 

• Identification of terrestrial and aquatic biota on the NTS that occur in contaminated habitats and which are at risk 

of exposure. 

• Measured or calculated radionuclide concentrations in soil, water, and sediment in contaminated habitats on the 

NTS that can be compared to BCG values to determine the potential for exceeding biota dose limits. 

• Measured radionuclide concentrations in NTS biota, soil, water, and sediment in contaminated habitats on the 

NTS to estimate site-specific dose to biota. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-9

7.2.2 Methods and Results 

As in computing human radiological dose (Section 7.1), several steps are involved in evaluating radiological dose to 

biota. The graded approach outlined in DOE Standard 1153-2002 is a three-step process consisting of a data 

assembly step, a general screening step, and an analysis step. Furthermore, the analysis step consists of site-specific 

screening, site-specific analysis, and site-specific biota dose assessment. This section describes all of these steps 

(Table 7-4) and presents the results of each step conducted in 2003. 

7.2.2.1 Data Assembly 

The goal of the data assembly step is to define both aquatic and terrestrial biota dose evaluation areas (DEAs) on the 

NTS and the exposed biotic populations. Existing information on radiologically contaminated areas and biotic 

populations on the NTS were gathered and summarized. The bodies of water existing on the NTS during 2003 which 

were contaminated with radionuclides defined the aquatic DEAs. They included: two lined well sumps, one open 

tank, a drainage ditch (Cambric Ditch), and E Tunnel Ponds (Figure 7-4). 

The two lined ponds, open tank, and Cambric Ditch all contained groundwater pumped from the following 

underground test area post-shot wells, respectively: U-19Q PS #1D, U-20N PS #1DDH, U-4U PS #2A, and 

RNM #2S. The E Tunnel Ponds contain groundwater as it drains from the E Tunnel system. Radiological 

monitoring data gathered at these water sources under the RREMP during 2003 were used to assess dose to biota at 

these aquatic DEAs. 

Terrestrial DEAs on the NTS were defined as the historic survey areas established by the Radionuclide Inventory and 

Distribution Program (RIDP) from 1981 through 1986. RIDP compiled the most comprehensive data on 

radionuclide concentrations in NTS surface soil from a combination of field exposure rate measurements, field 

gamma spectroscopy measurements, aerial surveys of external exposure rate, and soil samples. Thirty-one soil 

contamination regions defined by RIDP (McArthur and Kordas, 1983; McArthur and Kordas, 1985; McArthur and 

Mead, 1987; McArthur and Mead, 1988; McArthur and Mead, 1989; McArthur, 1991) were used to define the NTS 

terrestrial DEAs (see Figure 7-4). RIDP radionuclide data from these 31 areas were used for comparison with the 

BCG values to assess potential dose to terrestrial biota residing in these areas. 

To identify possible plant species that might occur within DEAs which could be at risk of radiation doses that exceed 

federal limits, existing information on the distribution of vegetation associations and dominant plant species were 

examined (Ostler, et al., 2000). Ostler, et al., described vegetation associations on the NTS near the vicinity of 

contaminated sites; however, the vegetation of areas with high radionuclide concentrations in which land access is 

restricted have not been well characterized in terms of the exact numbers of plant species and their abundance. 

Preliminary observations at many of these sites suggest that the most common plants present are annual invasive 

species such as red brome (Bromus rubens), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), and tumble weed (Salsola paulensis). 

To identify NTS aquatic and terrestrial animals within DEAs which may be at risk of radiation doses that exceed 

federal limits, existing information on the presence and location of known NTS animal species were examined (Wills 

and Ostler, 2001). No known aquatic vertebrates (i.e., amphibians or fish) or crustaceans (i.e., crayfish, shrimp) reside 

in the five aquatic DEAs identified in 2003. These waters or their bottom sediments have not been sampled, 

however, to identify the presence of aquatic invertebrates such as larval stages of insects or sediment-dwelling worms. 

Within the terrestrial DEAs, fossorial small mammals including rodents (e.g., mice, kangaroo rats, ground squirrels) 

comprise the most likely and most abundant species to be adversely affected. Fossorial animals are burrow-dwellers 

and those residing in the DEAs would spend much of their life burrowing in the contaminated soils and foraging on 

plants growing at these sites. There have been numerous studies characterizing biota within undisturbed and 

disturbed areas on the NTS, including areas affected by past nuclear tests (Wills and Ostler, 2001). The data compiled 

by these studies are being reviewed on an ongoing basis and will be incorporated into this data assembly phase as it 

evolves to give a clearer picture of biota radiological dose on the NTS. 

 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-10

Table 7-4. Summary of DOE’s process for evaluating radiation dose to aquatic and terrestrial 

 biota (as per DOE-STD-1153-2002) 

Process Step Process Step Description 

Process Results That Require 

the Next Step of Evaluation 

1) Data Assembly Knowledge of radionuclide sources, 

plant and animal receptors, and 

routes of exposure is summarized. 

Existing data on radionuclide 

concentrations in soil, water, and 

sediment are assembled. 

Contaminated areas with sufficient 

data are identified as dose 

evaluation areas (DEAs). 

There is sufficient existing data on 

site-related radionuclides in the 

environment and exposed biota to 

identify DEAs. 

2) General Screening 

 (Level 1 Screen) 

Maximum measured radionuclide 

concentrations in soil, sediment, and 

water in DEAs are compared with 

BCG values for each radionuclide. 

Sum of fractions of maximum 

radionuclide concentrations in soil, 

water, and sediment in a DEA 

divided by the BCG values is 

greater than 1.0. 

3) Analysis 

a. Site-Specific Screening 

(Level 2 Screen) 

Average radionuclide concentrations 

are used in place of maximum 

concentrations and screened against 

BCG values. Receptor residence 

time in a DEA is considered. More 

realistic, site-representative, lumped 

parameters (e.g., bioaccumulation 

factors) are used in place of default 

values. 

Sum of fractions of average 

radionuclide concentrations in soil, 

water, and sediment in a DEA 

divided by the BCG values, taking 

into account residence time and 

realistic lumped model parameters, 

is greater than 1.0. 

b. Site-Specific Analysis More realistic, site-representative, 

parameters are used to represent 

uptake and dose estimation for 

specific receptors. 

Sum of fractions of average 

radionuclide concentrations in soil, 

water, and sediment in a DEA 

divided by the BCG values, taking 

into account realistic specific 

model parameters, is greater 

than 1.0. 

c. Site-Specific Biota 

Dose Assessment 

An actual site-specific biota dose 

assessment is conducted. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-11

Figure 7-4. Terrestrial and aquatic dose evaluation areas for assessing potential dose to biota 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-12

7.2.2.2 General Screening: Level 1 Screen 

The goal of General Screening is to determine whether the sum of the fractions of maximum radionuclide 

concentrations in soil, water, and sediment in a DEA divided by the BCG values are less than 1.0. For E Tunnel 

Ponds, results from water and sediment samples taken during 2003 were used (see Section 3.1.3.5). For terrestrial 

biota DEAs maximum radionuclide concentrations reported by the RIDP were used. If the maximum soil 

concentrations were reported on a per area basis (nCi/m2), they were converted to gravimetric concentrations (pCi/g) 

using the assumptions that the soil density was 1.5 g/cm3 and that radionuclides were distributed to a depth of 7 cm 

for 241Am, 238Pu, 239/240Pu, and to a depth of 11 cm for 90Sr, 137Cs, 152Eu, 154Eu, and 155Eu. These depth distributions 

represent the average measured by the RIDP (McArthur, 1991). All RIDP reported values were adjusted to account 

for radioactive decay from the dates the samples were analyzed through January 1, 2003. 

The Level 1 Screen was conducted by entering the maximum radionuclide concentrations into the RESRAD-BIOTA 

software (DOE, 2004). The RESRAD-BIOTA software then computed the fractions (maximum radionuclide 

concentration/BCG) and the sum of fractions (total fractions for all radionuclides). If the sum of fractions in a screen 

was less than 1.0 within a DEA, the absorbed dose to biota is expected to be less than the federal dose limits within 

that DEA. 

The sums of fractions for the Level 1 Screen are listed in Table 7-5. Seven DEAs passed the Level 1 screen 

(Table 7-5; Figure 7-5). The estimated maximum dose to biota in these seven DEAs, therefore, is less than the federal 

dose limit of 1 rad/day (0.01 Gy/day) for plants and 0.1 rad/day (1 mGy/day) for animals. 

The remaining terrestrial DEAs had sums of fractions greater than 1.0. These DEAs required Site-Specific Screening. 

The radionuclides primarily contributing to the failure of the Level 1 Screen for these DEAs were 137Cs (in 96 percent 

of the DEAs), 90Sr (in 84 percent), 241Am (in 20 percent), and 238+239/240Pu (in 16 percent) (Table 7-5). 

7.2.2.3 Site-Specific Screening: Level 2 Screen 

The goal of Site-Specific Screening is to determine whether the sum of fractions of average radionuclide 

concentrations in soil, water, and sediment in a DEA divided by the BCG values are less than 1.0. For E Tunnel 

Ponds, results from water and sediment samples collected by BN ETS during 2003 were used (see Section 3.1.3.5). 

For the remaining aquatic DEAs, results from water samples collected by Underground Test Area Project personnel 

were used. No sediment samples were collected in 2003 at these four water sources. For terrestrial DEAs, average 

soil concentrations were determined by taking the inventory estimates from McArthur (1991) and distributing them 

over the entire RIDP survey region using the same assumptions used for converting maximum area concentrations to 

gravimetric (see Section 7.2.2.2 above). 

The RESRAD-BIOTA software (DOE, 2004) was used for the Level 2 Screen in the same manner described above 

for the Level 1 Screen, only using average radionuclide concentrations instead of the maximums (see Section 7.2.2.2

above). 

The sum of fractions from the Level 2 Screen are listed in Table 7-6. All DEAs, except Sedan, had a resultant value 

less than 1.0 and passed the screen (Table 7-6; Figure 7-5). The Sedan DEA had a value of 1.60. The radionuclides 

contributing to the Sedan DEA not passing the Level 2 Screen were 137Cs and 90Sr which had estimated average 

concentrations in soil which were 91 percent and 67 percent of associated BCG values, respectively. 

An additional Level 2 Screen was conducted for NTS Areas 8 and 10 because they encompass the Sedan DEA 

(see Figure 7-4), and they contained outfall from the Sedan plowshare test which was outside the RIDP survey 

regions. Average soil concentrations were determined by taking the inventory estimates for NTS Areas 8 and 10 

(McArthur, 1991) and distributing them over the entire NTS Areas 8 and 10, respectively. The resulting sums of 

fractions for these Level 2 Screens were 0.40 for Area 8 and 0.56 for Area 10 (Table 7-6), both below 1.0. These areas 

therefore passed the Level 2 Screen. The fact that averaging radionuclides over a larger area resulted in the passing of 

the Level 2 Screen underscores the importance of defining the boundaries of evaluation areas with respect to 

populations of biota. Future work will characterize biota in these areas to help better define the evaluation boundaries 

and future sampling will be conducted to verify the depth distribution assumptions and the resulting average 

radionuclide concentration estimates used in the screens. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-13

Table 7-5. Results of the Level 1 Screen of dose evaluation areas (DEAs) on the NTS 

Level 1 Screening (Using Maximum Radionuclide Concentrations) 

Dose Evaluation 

Area (DEA) 

NTS 

Area(s) 

Area 

(km2) 

Soil 

Sum of 

Fractions 

Water 

Sum of 

Fractions 

Key Radionuclides Contributing to Failure 

(% of BCG) 

DEAs Passing Level 1 Screen 

Area 19 (a) 18, 19 384.1 0.18 NA None 

GMX (a) 5 1.0 0.27 NA None 

Johnnie Boy North of 

GZ (b) 18 7.3 0.14 NA None 

Kay Blockhouse (a) 5 0.4 0.04 NA None 

Plutonium Valley (a) 3, 11 8.8 0.34 NA None 

RWMS 5 (a) 5 0.4 0.10 NA None 

Yucca Flat (a) 8, 15 40.1 0.84 NA None 

DEAs Failing Level 1 Screen 

Baneberry (c) 2, 8, 12 13.5 60.71 NA 137Cs (5150%), 90Sr (906%) 

Buggy Site (a) 30 0.8 43.67 NA 137Cs (1390%), 90Sr (2900%) 

Cabriolet (b) 20 11.7 19.83 NA 137Cs (1510%), 90Sr (356%) 

Danny Boy (b) 18 2.3 23.78 NA 137Cs (1960%), 90Sr (287%) 

Diablo (d) 2 10.4 36.77 NA 137Cs (1200%), 90Sr (2460%) 

E Tunnel Ponds (e) 12 0.01 0.04 1.05 137Cs in water (101%) 

East Part of Area 18 (a) 18 55.7 2.22 NA 241Am (167%) 

Frenchman Lake (a) 5 5.7 20.18 NA 137Cs (1380%), 90Sr (606%) 

Galileo (f) 1 12.4 12.08 NA 137Cs (846%), 90Sr (302%) 

Hornet (c) 3 22.0 14.32 NA 137Cs (889%), 90Sr (483%) 

Johnnie Boy GZ (b) 18 3.0 17.75 NA 137Cs (360%), 90Sr (1410%) 

Kepler (d) 4 25.1 23.02 NA 137Cs (936%), 90Sr (1290%) 

Little Feller I (b) 18 1.6 15.21 NA 241Am (329%), 137Cs (151%), 239Pu (778%), 90Sr (262%) 

Little Feller II (b) 18 0.8 9.60 NA 241Am (167%), 137Cs (137%), 239Pu (428%), 90Sr (228%) 

Near T tunnel (a) 12 0.4 23.80 NA 137Cs (2350%) 

NRDS (a) 25 2.3 7.81 NA 137Cs (409%), 90Sr (368%) 

Pin Stripe (a) 11 1.6 1.29 NA 137Cs (89%), 90Sr (40%) 

Quay (c) 7 17.4 15.46 NA 137Cs (520%), 90Sr (876%) 

Schooner (b) 20 4.4 3.71 NA 137Cs (155%), 90Sr (128%) 

Sedan (c) 8, 10 19.9 253.12 NA 241Am (6140%), 137Cs (1920%), 239Pu (16300%), 90Sr (939%) 

Shasta (d) 2 12.7 14.28 NA 137Cs (430%), 90Sr (992%) 

Smoky (c) 8 8.5 304.98 NA 241Am (5750%), 137Cs (467%), 239Pu (23200%), 90Sr (1060%) 

Whitney (d) 2 7.0 22.35 NA 137Cs (895%), 90Sr (1280%) 

Wilson (c) 9 19.4 5.85 NA 137Cs (445%), 90Sr (88%) 

Yucca Flat South (c) 1, 3, 6 115.3 3.07 NA 137Cs (300%) 

NA = not applicable 

Maximum values taken from: (a) McArthur and Mead, 1989; (b) McArthur and Mead, 1988; (c) McArthur and 

Mead, 1987; (d) McArthur and Kordas, 1985; (e) samples collected in 2003; (f) McArthur and Kordas, 1983.
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-14

Figure 7-5. Results of Level 1 and Level 2 Screens for dose evaluation areas on the NTS 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-15

Table 7-6. Results of the Level 2 Screen of dose evaluation areas (DEAs) on the NTS 

Level 2 Screening (Using Average Radionuclide Concentrations[a]) 

Dose Evaluation Area 

(DEA) 

NTS 

Area(s) 

Area 

(km2) 

Soil Sum of 

Fractions 

Water Sum 

of Fractions 

Key Radionuclides 

Contributing to 

Failure (% of BCG) 

DEAs Passing Level 2 Screen 

Area 19 (a) 18, 19 384.1 0.04 NA None 

Baneberry(a) 2, 8, 12 13.5 0.52 NA None 

Buggy Site (a) 30 0.8 0.93 NA None 

Cabriolet (a) 20 11.7 0.18 NA None 

Cambric Ditch (b) 5 0.1 NA 0.00 None 

Danny Boy (a) 18 2.3 0.36 NA None 

Diablo (a) 2 10.4 0.53 NA None 

E Tunnel Ponds(b) 12 0.01 0.02 0.61 None 

East Part of Area 18 (a) 18 55.7 0.06 NA None 

Frenchman Lake (a) 5 5.7 0.06 NA None 

Galileo (a) 1 12.4 0.20 NA None 

GMX (a) 5 1.0 0.01 NA None 

Hornet (a) 3 22.0 0.34 NA None 

Johnnie Boy GZ & N. of GZ (a) 18 10.3 0.25 NA None 

Kay Blockhouse (a) 5 0.4 0.01 NA None 

Kepler (a) 4 25.1 0.21 NA None 

Little Feller I (a) 18 1.6 0.15 NA None 

Little Feller II (a) 18 0.8 0.30 NA None 

Near T tunnel (a) 12 0.4 0.00 NA None 

NRDS (a) 25 2.3 0.04 NA None 

Pin Stripe (a) 11 1.6 0.05 NA None 

Plutonium Valley (a) 3, 11 8.8 0.02 NA None 

Quay (a) 7 17.4 0.11 NA None 

RWMS 5 (a) 5 0.4 0.01 NA None 

Schooner (a) 20 4.4 0.17 NA None 

Shasta (a) 2 12.7 0.60 NA None 

Smoky (a) 8 8.5 0.76 NA None 

Well U-4u PS #2A (b) 4 <0.1 NA 0.11 None 

Well U-19q PS #1D (b) 19 <0.1 NA 0.05 None 

Well U-20n PS #1DDH (b) 20 <0.1 NA 0.18 None 

Whitney (a) 2 7.0 0.45 NA None 

Wilson (a) 9 19.4 0.22 NA None 

Yucca Flat (a) 8, 15 40.1 0.23 NA None 

Yucca Flat South (a) 1, 3, 6 115.3 0.02 NA None 

NTS Area 8 (a) 8 35.9 0.40 NA None 

NTS Area 10 (a) 10 52.1 0.56 NA None 

DEAs Failing Level 2 Screen 

Sedan (a)

8, 10 19.9 1.60 NA 137Cs (91%), 90Sr (67%) 

NA = not applicable 

(a) Average values taken from inventory of radionuclides (McArthur, 1991) 

(b) Average of samples collected in 2003 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-16

7.2.2.4 Site-Specific Analysis 

The goal of Site-Specific Analysis is to determine if the sum of fractions of average radionuclide concentrations in soil, 

water, and sediment in a DEA divided by the BCG values is greater than 1.0. This step differs from the Level 2 

Screen in that more realistic and site-representative parameters are to be used for uptake and dose estimations for 

specific animal species. The default terrestrial animal modeled in RESRAD-BIOTA for both the Level 1 and 2 

Screens is the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), which is probably analogous to any one of the numerous small 

mammal rodent species likely to be the most exposed animals in the DEAs. Because of this, the parameters used for 

the dose estimation in the screening process are likely site-representative, so no site-specific analyses were made in this 

assessment. Field surveys will be conducted in the future to better characterize both plant and animal species within 

the DEAs, including their abundance, period of use, and other important life history parameters that will be used to 

verify, or revise site-specific screens. Characterization efforts may be phased over several years to ensure that 

sufficient resources are available to characterize DEAs consistent with the graded approach required under DOE 

Order 450.1. 

7.2.2.5 Site-Specific Biota Dose Assessment 

Most of the graded approach for assessing dose to biota is based on radionuclide concentrations in soil, water, and 

sediment. The site-specific biota dose assessment phase; however, centers on the actual collection and analysis of 

biota from DEAs. This section presents estimates of site-specific doses to biota sampled in DEAs during 2003. 

Also included are site-specific doses to plants in the Sedan DEA because of this site’s failure to pass the Level 2 

Screen. Vegetation sampled for radioanalysis from the Sedan DEA in 2000 were used. No animals have been 

sampled from this DEA in over 10 years. 

During 2003, animal samples were collected from two contaminated sites. These sites included: (1) the Palanquin 

plowshare test site in the Cabriolet DEA (see Figure 7-4), and (2) the E Tunnel Ponds inside the E Tunnel Ponds 

DEA. Plant samples were collected in 2003 from the Palanquin site, but not the E Tunnel Ponds site. Sampling 

methods and radionuclide concentrations in these 2003 samples are presented in Section 6.0 of this report. In 2000, 

vegetation was sampled in the Sedan area (DOE, 2001b); however, no animals have been collected from the Sedan 

DEA in the past 10 years. 

Internal and external dose coefficient factors discussed in the graded approach methodology (Section 2, Module 3 of 

DOE, 2002a) were used with the measured concentrations to obtain dose rate estimates for both plants and animals. 

The external dose rate was estimated by summing the product of average concentrations in soil and the external dose 

coefficients (DOE, 2002a) for each detected radionuclide. The internal dose rates for biota were estimated by 

summing the product of average concentrations of radionuclides detected in the biota samples and the internal dose 

factors (DOE, 2002a). The external dose rate estimate was then added to the internal estimate to obtain a total dose 

rate estimate for plants and animals. 

Average doses were estimated to be 0.008 rad/day (0.08 mGy/day) for animals and 0.002 rad/day (0.02 mGy/day) for 

plants near the Palanquin plowshare test in the Cabriolet DEA (Table 7-7). Internal dose was higher than external 

dose; about 95 percent and 83 percent of the estimated dose to animals and plants, respectively, came from internally 

deposited radionuclides. The estimated dose rates are 8 percent and 0.2 percent of the dose limits for terrestrial 

animals and plants, respectively. These results support the Level 2 Screen pass of the Cabriolet DEA. For doves 

residing at the E Tunnel Ponds, average doses were estimated to be 0.002 rad/day (0.02 mGy/day) which is 2 percent 

of the dose limits to terrestrial animals and supports the Level 2 Screen pass of the E Tunnel Ponds. 

Dose rates to vegetation sampled in the Sedan DEA during 2000 were estimated to be 0.002 rad/day (0.02 mGy/day) 

(Table 7-7) of which 95 percent was from external radiation. This is a dose rate 0.2 percent of the limit to terrestrial 

plants. It is likely that radionuclide concentrations in animals taken from the same location would also not exceed 

dose limits. Future sampling of small mammals in the Sedan area will be conducted to estimate their radiological dose 

rate. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-17

Table 7-7. Site-specific dose assessment results for terrestrial plants and animals sampled on 

the NTS 

 Estimated Radiological Dose (rad/day) 

DEA Animals Plants 

 

Cabriolet Palanquin doves (a) 0.008 Palanquin vegetation (b) 0.002 

E Tunnel Ponds E Tunnel pond doves 0.002 (not sampled in 2003) - 

Sedan (not sampled in last 10 yrs) - Sedan vegetation ( c ) 0.002 

 

DOE Dose Limit 0.1 1.0 

(a) See Table 6-3 of this report 

(b) See Table 6-1 of this report 

(c) See DOE (2001b) 

7.2.3 Environmental Impact 

The estimated radiological doses to biota within DEAs examined on the NTS in 2003 do not exceed the federal dose 

limits. Based on this graded approach, plants and animals on the NTS are not expected to be exposed to significantly 

large radiological doses that may be detrimental to their populations. 

Further work is required; however, to refine this dose assessment especially in DEAs which may contain populations 

of biota that have home range sizes much smaller than the area of the DEAs they occur in. This potential disparity in 

animal home range sizes and DEA sizes (defined by the RIDP survey area boundaries) may mean that some NTS 

animals are exposed to higher or lower radionuclide levels in soils or plants than what was estimated using the RIDP 

data this year. For example, there are fairy shrimp which stay buried in the dried playa sediments in Frenchman Lake 

and then emerge when the playa fills with surface runoff from rainstorms. The Frenchman Lake DEA defined by the 

RIDP survey area boundary encompasses a much larger area than just the dried lake bed. The radionuclide 

concentrations reported by RIDP for soils in this DEA may therefore not be representative of concentrations found 

in the playa sediments that shrimp burrow into and which define the true boundary of this ephemeral aquatic DEA. 
Radiological Dose Assessment

 7-18

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-1

8.0 Waste Management and Environmental Restoration 

Several federal and state regulations govern the safe management; storage; and disposal of radioactive, hazardous, and 

solid wastes generated or received on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) for the purpose of protecting the environment and 

the public (see Section 1.4). This section describes both the waste management and environmental restoration 

operations conducted under the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site 

Office (NNSA/NSO) Environmental Management Program. The overall goals of the Program are to: (1) manage 

and safely dispose of low-level radioactive waste (LLW), mixed low-level radioactive waste (MW), and hazardous 

waste generated by NNSA/NSO and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) operations, and (2) characterize and 

remediate historic sites contaminated by NNSA/NSO testing activities. This section also summarizes the program’s 

2003 activities which were performed to meet all applicable environmental protection regulations and state permit 

requirements.

8.1 Radioactive Waste Management 

8.1.1 Program Goal 

DOE Order 435.1 “Radioactive Waste Management”requires that U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) radioactive waste 

management activities shall be systematically planned, documented, executed, and evaluated. Radioactive waste is 

managed to: 

• Protect the public from exposure to radiation from radioactive materials 

• Protect the environment 

• Protect workers 

• Comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations and with applicable Executive Orders and 

other DOE directives 

The major tasks within Radioactive Waste Management include: 

• Characterization of LLW and MW that has been generated by the DOE within the state of Nevada. 

• Disposal of LLW and MW at the Radioactive Waste Management Complex (RWMC) comprised of the Area 5 

Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS) and the Area 3 RWMS. 

• Characterization, visual examination, and repackaging of transuranic (TRU) waste at the Waste Examination 

Facility (WEF) at the RWMC. 

• Loading of TRU waste at the Mobile Loading Unit (MLU) for shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP) at Carlsbad New Mexico. 

8.1.2 Description of Operations 

8.1.2.1 Characterization of LLW and MW 

Waste Generator Services (WGS) characterizes LLW and MW generated by the DOE within Nevada, primarily at the 

NTS. Characterization is performed utilizing either knowledge of the generating process, or sampling and analysis. 

Following the complete characterization of a waste stream, a Waste Profile is completed for approval by an 

appropriate disposal facility. The Waste Profile delineates the complete pedigree of the waste, including but not 

limited to: a description of the waste generating process, physical and chemical characteristics, radioactive isotopes 

and their quantities, and detailed packaging information. The WGS then packs and ships approved waste streams in 

accordance with Department of Transportation requirements to either the Area 3 or Area 5 RWMS or to an offsite 

treatment, storage, and disposal facility. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-2

8.1.2.2 Disposal of LLW and MW 

The RWMC operates as a Category II Nuclear Facility. The RWMC, which includes the Area 3 and the Area 5 

RWMSs, is designed and operated to perform three functions: 

• Dispose of LLW from NNSA/NSO activities performed on and off the NTS and from other offsite generators 

in the state of Nevada. 

• Dispose of DOE LLW from around the complex, primarily from the cleanup of sites associated with the 

manufacture of weapons components. 

• Dispose of MW from onsite NNSA/NSO activities. 

All generators of waste streams must first request to dispose of waste, submit a request to NNSA/NSO requesting to 

ship waste to the NTS for disposal, submit profiles characterizing specific waste streams, meet the NTS Radioactive 

Waste Acceptance Criteria, and receive programmatic approval for disposal by NNSA/NSO. The NTS Radioactive 

Waste Acceptance Criteria are based on how well the site is predicted to perform in containing radioactive waste and 

ensuring that the environment (including air and groundwater) and the public will not be exposed to significant 

radiation. The NNSA/NSO assesses and predicts the long-term performance of LLW disposal sites by conducting a 

Performance Assessment (PA). A PA is a systematic analysis of the potential risks posed by a waste disposal site to 

the public and to the environment. PA and Composite Analysis (CA) documents are developed as a result of the 

assessment. The RWMC receives LLW generated within the DOE complex from numerous DOE sites across the 

United States, LLW from DoD sites which carry a national security classification, and MW generated within the state 

of Nevada for disposal or indefinite storage. 

Disposal consists of placing waste in various sealed containers in unlined cells and trenches. Soil backfill is applied 

over the waste in a single lift, which is approximately 2.4 m (8 ft) thick as rows of containers reach approximately 

1.2 m (4 ft) below the original grade. 

Area 5 RWMS – This site includes 81 hectares (200 acres) of existing and proposed disposal cells for burial of both 

LLW and MW, and approximately 202 hectares (500 acres) of land available for future radioactive disposal cells. 

Waste disposal at the Area 5 RWMS has occurred in a 37 hectare (92 acre) portion of the site since the early 1960s. 

The Area 5 RWMS consists of 27 Disposal Cells (pits and trenches) and 13 Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) 

boreholes as identified below: 

• 29 Disposal Cells: 

4 active which receive standard LLW 

1 active and permitted to receive asbestos-form LLW (P06U) 

1 active and permitted by the state to receive MW (P03U) 

4 inactive (open but have not received any waste) 

19 closed (containing waste and backfilled) containing LLW 

• 13 GCD Boreholes: 

4 inactive (open but have not received any waste) 

4 closed containing TRU waste 

5 closed containing LLW 

This site is used for disposal of waste in drums or boxes. Existing cells are expected to be filled and closed by 2010, 

and new cells extending to the north and west are expected to close by 2021. LLW and MW disposal services are 

expected to continue at Area 5 RWMS as long as the DOE complex requires disposal of wastes from the weapons 

program. 

Area 3 RWMS – This facility consists of seven craters making up five disposal cells. Each subsidence crater was 

created by an underground weapons test. This site is used for disposal of bulk LLW waste, such as soils or debris, and 

waste in large cargo containers. Disposal operations at the Area 3 RWMS began in the late 1960s. The site consists 

of the following seven craters. Waste disposal services at Area 3 RWMS will continue as long as the DOE requires 

such services. 

• 3 Active Disposal Cells: 

U3ah/at 

U3bh 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-3

• 2 Closed Cells: 

U3ax/bl 

• 2 Undeveloped Cells: 

U3az 

U3bg 

8.1.2.3 TRU Waste Operations 

The Transuranic Pad Cover Building (TPCB) at the Area 5 RWMC is a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) Part B interim status facility designed for the safe storage of TRU waste which was generated by Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory in the 1970s. The TPCB accepts no other TRU wastes for interim storage. The 

TPCB stores TRU waste until it is characterized, visually examined, and repackaged at the WEF at the Area 5 RWMC. 

Once repackaged, the TRU waste is loaded at the Mobile Loading Unit (MLU) for shipment to the WIPP at Carlsbad 

New Mexico. Current agreements between NNSA/NSO and WIPP plan for TRU waste shipments to be completed 

by March 2005. 

8.1.2.4 Maintenance of Key Documents 

Below are listed the key documents which must be current and in place at each RWMS for disposal operations to 

occur: 

• Disposal Authorization Statement (DAS) 

• Performance Assessment (PA) 

• Composite Analysis (CA) 

• NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria (NTSWAC) 

• Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan (ICMP) 

• Auditable Safety Analysis (ASA) 

8.1.2.5 Assessments 

Assessments are conducted at the RWMC in accordance with Bechtel Nevada (BN) Procedure OP-NOPS.003, 

Nuclear Operations Conduct of Operations. Schedules for BN management self-assessments (MSAs) are included in the 

Support Execution Plans for each facility. In addition to the MSAs performed internally at the RWMC, there are 

assessments performed periodically by other BN organizations, NNSA/NSO, and the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board. The results of each assessment are logged in the BN tracking system for DOE/NSO known as CaWeb. 

Assessments are performed monthly. 

8.1.2.6 Environmental Monitoring 

There are three groundwater wells which are monitored to verify the performance of the Area 5 RWMS, as specified 

in the Performance Assessment for Area 5 RWMS, Revision 2.1 (PA). They are wells UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 

PW-3, and comprise 3 of the 14 onsite monitoring wells sampled periodically for radionuclide analyses of 

groundwater. These wells are sampled to determine if the groundwater remains protected from buried radioactive 

wastes. The reader is directed to Section 3.1 where the methods and results of groundwater sampling in 2003, which 

includes wells UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3, are presented. 

Monitoring of the vadose zone (unsaturated zone above the water table) is conducted at the RWMC in addition to 

groundwater monitoring to demonstrate that: (1) the PA assumptions at the RWMSs are valid regarding the 

hydrologic conceptual models used, including soil water contents, and upward and downward flux rates; and (2) that 

there is negligible infiltration of precipitation into zones of buried waste at the RWMSs. Vadose zone monitoring 

(VZM) offers many advantages over groundwater monitoring including detecting potential problems long before 

groundwater resources would be impacted, allowing corrective actions to be made early, and being less expensive than 

groundwater monitoring. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-4

Water balance measurements for VZM are obtained by the following activities: 

• Meteorological monitoring – conducted to measure precipitation (the driving force for downward flow) and to 

calculate potential evapotranspiration (the driving force for upward flow). 

• Weighing and draining lysimeters – used to measure infiltration, soil water redistribution, bare-soil 

evaporation, evapotranspiration, and deep drainage. 

• Neutron logging through access tubes – conducted to measure infiltration, soil water redistribution, and 

monitor a large spatial area (in some locations to depths of hundreds of feet). 

• Automated VZM systems with in situ sensors (e.g., time domain reflectometry probes, and heat dissipation 

probes) – used to measure soil water content and soil water potential over a large spatial area, but usually to a 

limited depth. 

• Soil-gas sampling for tritium – conducted to confirm PA assumptions and transport coefficients. 

8.1.3 2003 Activities and Status 

8.1.3.1 Characterization of LLW and MW

In 2003, the LLW and MW were characterized by WGS for the following waste stream categories: 

• Correction Action Unit (CAU) 407, Tonopah Test Range (TTR) Solid Soil 

• Area 25 Reactor Maintenance, Assembly and Disassembly (R-MAD) Decontamination Facility Waste 

• Sealed Sources 

• Radioactive Material 

• Compactible Trash 

8.1.3.2 Disposal of LLW and MW 

In FY 2003, the Area 5 RWMS received shipments containing 34,631 m3 (45,295 yd3) of LLW for disposal. The 

Area 3 RWMS received shipments containing 57,108 m3 (74,694 yd3) of LLW. The majority of disposed LLW was 

shipped from offsite. A total of only 871 m3 (1,139 yd3) of LLW disposed in 2003 were generated onsite. 

In FY 2003, the Area 5 RWMS disposed of only 0.37 m3 (0.48 yd3) of MW at Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit 

(P03U). 

8.1.3.3 TRU Waste Operations 

In 2003, TRU wastes stored at the TPCB continued to be characterized, visually inspected, repackaged, loaded, and 

shipped for disposal to the WIPP site. 

8.1.3.4 Maintenance of Key Documents 

In 2003, the following key documents were maintained, created, or revised: 

• NTS Waste Acceptance Criteria, Revision 5, October 2003 

• This document was revised in October to incorporate the transition of the RWMC from a Radiological Facility to 

a Category II Nuclear Facility. 

• Disposal Authorization Statement for Area 5 RWMS, December 2000 

• Disposal Authorization Statement for Area 3 RWMS, October 1999 

• Performance Assessment for Area 5 RWMS, Revision 2.1, January 1998 

• Composite Analysis for Area 5 RWMS, February 2000 

• Performance Assessment/Composite Analysis for Area 3 RWMS, Revision 2.1, October 2000 

• Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan for the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs, September 2001 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-5

• Documented Safety Analysis (DSA) for the NTS Area 5 RWMC, Revision 0, October 2002 

• DSA for the NTS Area 3 RWMS, Revision 0, April 2003 

• The above two DSA documents were prepared to replace the ASA for the Area 3 and 5 RWMSs, August 2000 as 

a consequence of the transition to a Category II Nuclear Facility. 

• Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) for the Area 5 RWMC LLW Activities, Revision 2, April 2003 

• TSR for the Area 5 RWMC TRU Waste Activities, Revision 2, April 2003 

• TSR for the Area 3 RWMS, Revision 0, April 2003 

• The above three TSR documents were prepared to implement the new DSAs. 

8.1.3.5 Assessments 

Self-assessments were conducted monthly at the RWMC. 

8.1.3.6 Environmental Monitoring 

Groundwater samples were collected and analyzed from wells UE5 PW-1, UE5 PW-2, and UE5 PW-3 at the 

Area 5 RWMS. None of the water samples had detectable levels of tritium or of other radionuclides that would be 

present in the LLW or MW within the site’s disposal cells. The reader is directed to Section 3.1.3 where 2003 water 

analysis results are presented for all groundwater monitoring wells. 

All VZM conducted in 2003 for the RWMC continued to demonstrate that there is negligible infiltration of 

precipitation into zones of buried waste at the RWMC and that the performance criteria of the waste disposal cells are 

being met to prevent contamination of groundwater and the environment. A few components of the VZM 

monitoring program implemented in 2003 are presented below. For more details on the program refer to the 

NTS 2002 Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites 

(BN, 2003). 

8.1.3.6.1 Area 3 RWMS Drainage Lysimeter Facility 

In December 2000, a Drainage Lysimeter Facility was constructed approximately 15 m (50 ft) northwest of the closed 

U-3ax/bl disposal unit at the Area 3 RWMS. The facility consists of eight cylindrical drainage lysimeters. Each 

lysimeter is 3.1 m (10.0 ft) in diameter and 2.4 m (8.0 ft) deep and has been filled with the same native soil used to cap 

the closed disposal unit. Each lysimeter is instrumented with an array of eight Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR) 

sensors to measure soil water content and eight heat dissipation probe (HDP) sensors to measure soil water potential 

and temperature. The facility is also used to evaluate the effectiveness of different surface treatments of 

monolayer-evapotranspiration covers to retard the infiltration of precipitation. Different surface treatments, including 

bare (no vegetation), invasive plant species, and native vegetation (seeded), have been dedicated to pairs of lysimeters. 

In 2003, an automated irrigation system was constructed and deployed over the southern portion of four lysimeters 

(B, D, F, and H) to apply double the volume of natural rainfall events. By effectively inducing three times natural 

precipitation, shallow subsurface responses under a scenario of climate change will be assessed. Lysimeters E and F 

were reseeded in late 2002. Subsequently, they were periodically watered from late January through April 2003 to 

facilitate the establishment of the seedlings. These seedlings did not establish in the spring because of drought in the 

region. Therefore, additional efforts to reseed the two lysimeters were conducted in November 2003. 

The data acquired to date at this facility indicate that the vegetated lysimeters remain much drier than the bare soil 

lysimeters, indicating that even limited densities of vegetation are effective in removing water from the shallow 

subsurface. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-6

8.1.3.6.2 Area 5 RWMS Weighing Lysimeter Facility 

A Weighing Lysimeter Facility, comprised of two precision lysimeters, was constructed in 1993-94 approximately 

400 m (1,300 ft) southwest of the Area 5 RWMS. Each lysimeter consists of a steel box that is 2.0 m (6.6 ft) deep and 

has a surface area of 2.0 m x 4.0 m (6.6 ft x 13.1 ft). Both lysimeters were filled with the same native soil used to 

construct operational covers and closure caps at the Area 5 RWMS. Both lysimeters are mounted on sensitive scales, 

with the weight of each lysimeter being continuously monitored using an electronic loadcell. Each lysimeter was 

initially instrumented with ten thermocouple psychrometers (TCPs) for soil temperature measurements and with eight 

TDRs. Data from the TCPs proved to be problematic as they only provided reliable data within a limited pressure 

range. Data acquisition from the TCPs ceased after a lightning strike permanently damaged the TCP logging system 

in July 1999. Subsequently, HDPs were installed in June 2001 as more reliable sensors. The TDRs installed in 

1993-94 were three-wire prototypes that required extensive processing of the raw data waveforms. This resulted in 

intensive data management and processing and ultimately provided unreliable data over time. Processing of the 

waveforms from these TDRs was terminated in 2002. 

The north lysimeter is vegetated with native plant species at the approximate density (i.e., canopy cover) of the 

surrounding desert (~15 percent canopy cover). The south lysimeter is kept bare to simulate the bare operational 

waste covers at the Area 5 RWMS. The facility has been in continuous operation since its inception in 1994 and has 

provided data to support the assumptions made in the PA and CA for each RWMS and to justify other NTS closure 

covers (DOE, 2000b and c). 

Data acquired from the lysimeters indicate that water is efficiently removed from each lysimeter, but also that the 

vegetated lysimeter is considerably drier than the bare-soil lysimeter despite the paucity of plants in the vegetated 

lysimeter. No drainage has ever been observed from either lysimeter indicating that precipation does not percolate to 

the bottom lysimeters. All precipitation is either evaporated, transpired by plants, or stored in the top 2 m (6.6 ft) of 

soil. 

8.1.3.6.3 Area 5 RWMS Automated Monitoring 

Since late 1998, continuous monitoring of the waste cell covers and floors at the Area 5 RWMS using automated 

data-acquisition systems has been conducted. Instrumentation and sensors, including over 50 TDRs and 16 

thermistors, have been deployed to continuously monitor the floor and operational cover of Pit 3 (P03U), the floor 

and operational cover of Pit 5 (P05U), and the cover of Pit 4 (P04U). Due to operational requirements, the data leads 

to the sensors in the floor of Pit 3 were cut in January 2002. 

The Area 5 RWMS automated VZM indicates that groundwater recharge is not occurring under current climatic 

conditions and that no water from precipitation is percolating to the waste zone. No water movement was observed 

in the floor of Pit 5 and no wetting fronts percolated below 1.5 m (4.9 ft) in the operational covers. 

8.1.3.6.4 RWMS Supplemental Automated Monitoring 

Additional automated data-acquisition stations are maintained to provide ancillary data in the support of the more 

direct monitoring of RWMS disposal units and the lysimeters in Areas 3 and 5. These stations include meteorological 

towers that continuously measure precipitation, air temperature, humidity, wind, solar radiation, and additional 

parameters. Data are also obtained from a flume north of the Area 3 RWMS and one northwest of the Area 5 RWMS 

for assessing, in part, the potential for surface water runoff near the RWMSs. An automated system has also been 

deployed within a subsidence crater in Area 3 (U3-bw) to study the potential for infiltration into the underlying 

chimney. 

8.2 Hazardous Waste Management 

Non-radioactive hazardous wastes (HW) regulated under RCRA are generated at the NTS from a broad range of 

activities including onsite laboratories, paint shops, vehicle maintenance, communications and photo operations, and 

environmental restoration of historic contaminated sites (see Section 8.3 below). All non-radioactive HW are 

presently transported to approved offsite RCRA HW treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Nevada has issued a 

RCRA Hazardous Waste Operating Permit to NNSA/NSO for operation of the Hazardous Waste Storage Unit 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-7

(HWSU) in Area 5. The permit allows NNSA/NSO to store non-radioactive HW in containers on a pad designed for 

the safe storage of wastes that have been generated at the NTS. The HWSU is a pre-fabricated, rigid steel framed, 

roofed shelter which is permitted to store a maximum of 61,600 liters (16,280 gallons) of approved waste at a time. 

Non-radioactive HW generated at BN restoration sites off the NTS (e.g., at TTR) or generated at the North 

Las Vegas facility are direct-shipped to approved disposal facilities. 

The RCRA Hazardous Waste Operating Permit also covers operations at the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit in 

Area 11. Conventional explosive wastes are generated at the NTS from tunnel operations, the NTS firing range, the 

resident national laboratories, and other activities. The permit allows NNSA/NSO to treat explosive ordnance 

wastes, which are hazardous wastes as defined under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Sections 261.21, 261.23, 

261.24, and 261.33), by open detonation in a specially constructed and managed area designed for the safe and 

effective treatment of explosive HW. The permit allows a maximum of 45.4 kg (100 lbs) of approved waste to be 

detonated at a time, not to exceed one detonation event per hour. 

The RCRA Hazardous Waste Operating Permit also covers the disposal of mixed wastes generated from NTS 

activities (such as environmental remediation) at the Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit located at the Area 5 RWMS. 

The amounts of waste managed at each of these three permitted units are tracked and reported to the state in 

quarterly reports. NNSA/NSO pays fees to the state based on the number of tons of waste managed. 

In 2003, a total of 529.3 metric tons (mtons) (583 tons) of non-radioactive HW were managed on the NTS, and most 

(518.9 mtons [572 tons]) of this waste came from cleanup activities at environmental remediation sites (see Section 8.3 

below). Much of the wastes generated from NTS cleanup activities, however, were bulk shipments (i.e., dump trucks, 

rolloff boxes) which were direct-shipped from their point-of-generation. The HWSU only manages packaged 

(non-bulk) hazardous waste. Table 8-1 shows the mtons (tons) of non-radioactive HW which came to the HWSU, 

were temporarily stored there, and then shipped offsite in 2003. The table also shows the quantities of waste disposed 

of at the two permitted disposal units in 2003. The weight of wastes managed at each unit per quarter were reported 

to the state. No HW storage or disposal limits were exceeded in 2003. 

 Table 8-1. Hazardous waste stored or disposed at the NTS in 2003

Permitted Unit Waste Managed 

Hazardous Waste Storage Unit 23.46 mtons (25.86 tons) 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 0 kg 

Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Unit (P03U) 0.37 m3 (0.48 yd3) 

8.3 Underground Storage Tank (USTs) Management 

By 1998, the NTS UST program met all regulatory compliance schedules for the reporting, upgrading, or removal of 

documented USTs. The NNSA/NSO operates one deferred UST and three excluded USTs at the Device Assembly 

Facility. The NNSA/NSO also maintains a fully-regulated UST at the Area 6 helicopter pad which is not in service. 

8.4 Environmental Restoration - Remediation of Historic Contaminated Sites 

8.4.1 Program Goal 

In April 1996, the DOE, DoD, and the state of Nevada entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent 

Order (FFACO) to address the environmental restoration of historic contaminated sites at the NTS, parts of TTR, 

parts of the Nellis Air Force Range (now known as the Nevada Test and Training Range [NTTR], the Central Nevada 

Test Area, and the Project Shoal Area. These sites, known as Corrective Action Sites (CASs), may be contaminated 

with both radioactive and non-radioactive wastes. Appendix VI of the FFACO describes the strategy that will be 

employed to plan, implement, and complete environmental corrective actions at facilities where nuclear-related 

operations were conducted. Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture conducts site characterization activities, while BN 

Environmental Restoration conducts site remediation. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-8

8.4.2 Description of Operations 

8.4.2.1 Corrective Action Strategy 

The corrective action strategy is based on four steps: (1) identifying the CASs, (2) grouping the CASs into CAUs, (3) 

prioritizing the CAUs for funding and work, and (4) implementing the corrective action investigations (CAIs) and/or 

corrective actions, as applicable. CASs are broadly organized into the following four categories based on the source 

of contamination: 

• Industrial Sites – CASs located on the NTS and TTR where activities were conducted that supported nuclear 

testing activities 

• Underground Test Area (UGTA) Sites – CASs located where most underground nuclear test have resulted or 

might result in local or regional impacts to groundwater resources 

• Soil Sites – CASs where tests have resulted in extensive surface and/or shallow subsurface contamination 

• Nevada Off-Sites – Additional CASs associated with underground nuclear testing at the Project Shoal Area and 

the Central Nevada Test Area located in northern and central Nevada, respectively 

Identifying CASs – The first step in the strategy is to identify CASs potentially requiring CAIs and/or corrective 

actions. As CASs are identified, a literature search may be completed and each CAS is verified on aerial photographs 

or in the field to confirm its condition and location. A data repository has been created containing or referencing all 

information currently available for each CAS. 

Grouping CASs into CAUs – A CAU may have several CASs or only one. In addition to the four categories noted 

above, criteria for grouping CASs into CAUs include the following: 

• Potential source of contamination 

• Agency responsible for cleanup of the CAS 

• Function of the CAS, and therefore, the nature of the contamination 

• Geographic proximity of CASs to one another 

• Potential for investigation or cleanup of grouped CASs to be accomplished within a similar time frame 

Implementing Correction Action Investigations and/or Corrective Actions – When a CAU is assigned priority 

and funding, environmental restoration activities follow a formal work process beginning with a Data Quality 

Objectives (DQO) meeting between the NNSA/NSO, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, NDEP, and 

contractors. The DQO process is a strategic planning approach based on the scientific method used to plan data 

collection activities to ensure that the data collected will provide sufficient and reliable information to identify, 

evaluate, and technically defend the recommended corrective actions. If existing information about the nature and 

extent of contamination at the CASs in question is insufficient to evaluate and select preferred corrective actions, a 

CAI will be conducted. A Corrective Action Investigation Plan (CAIP) is prepared that provides a conceptual model 

of the site and defines how the site is to be characterized in conformance with the DQO process. 

Site characterization is carried out in the field and documented in a Corrective Action Decision Document (CADD). 

This document provides the information that either confirms the conceptual model or modifies it. If suitable 

information is available to make a decision, a remedial alternative is selected from several alternatives identified for 

analysis that best provides site closure. In some instances, additional site characterization may be required before the 

CADD can be prepared. 

If a site requires remediation, a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is prepared that provides the necessary design and other 

information on the method of remediation. A CAP includes the proposed methods to be used to close a site, quality 

control measures, waste management strategy, design drawings (when appropriate), verification sampling strategies 

(for clean closures), and other information necessary to perform the closure. Some sites also require a Post Closure 

Plan as the site or parts of the site are closed in place. Information on inspections and monitoring are provided in an 

Annual Post Closure Monitoring Report. 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-9

Once the closure has been completed, a Closure Report is prepared. This report provides information on the work 

performed, results of verification sampling, as-built drawings, waste management, etc. Some sites are closed under the 

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) process. These sites typically have suitable 

information available and can be remediated under a shorter schedule. A SAFER plan is prepared providing the 

methods to be used to close the site. After closure, a SAFER closure report is prepared that documents the work 

performed. 

The NDEP is a participant throughout the remediation process. The Community Advisory Board is also kept 

informed by NNSA/NSO of the progress made. The Board’s comments are strongly considered before final 

prioritization of corrective actions. In addition, a public participation working group made up of representatives from 

DOE, DoD, the State of Nevada, and the Community Advisory Board meets twice each year to discuss upcoming 

environmental restoration activities and the level of public involvement required. These meetings focus on the 

quarterly progress reports and priority-setting activities established under the FFACO. 

8.4.2.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections 

There are nine sites on the NTS for which remediation was indicated or completed under RCRA regulations prior to 

enactment of the FFACO. Eight have been closed and are referred to as historic RCRA closure units. For the ninth 

site, the Area 5 Retired Mixed Waste Pits and Trenches, NDEP has determined that NNSO/NSA shall close the site 

(in the future) subject to the conditions of 40 CFR 265.310. Three of the eight RCRA closure units require no further 

post-closure monitoring (Area 23 Building 650 Leachfield, Area 6 Steam Cleaning Effluent Ponds, and Area 2 U-2bu 

Subsidence Crater). Two of the eight closed units require periodic site inspections only (Area 2 Bitcutter 

Containment, Area 6 Decon Pond), and three require post-closure inspections as well as VZM. These three sites and 

the methods of VZM required by state permit are: 

CAU 91, Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well – Neutron logging of the ER-3-3 Borehole will be conducted and analyzed 

quarterly. Annual reports of Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections shall include monthly precipitation data and be 

issued to the NDEP by the last day of February each reporting year. VZM will be conducted to detect statistically 

significant changes in raw neutron counts exceeding an action level of 200 counts in the residual raw neutron count. 

Data analysis will be based on the calculated residual raw neutron counts, obtained by subtracting the first year 

average (baseline values) raw neutron count from the quarterly raw neutron count on a depth basis within the 

regulated interval of 73.1 meters (240 feet) to 82.3 meters (270 feet) below ground surface. 

CAU 110, U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater – Post-closure inspections will be done on a quarterly basis and will consist 

of visual observations to check that the cover is intact. The U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater cover is designed to limit 

infiltration into the disposal unit and is monitored using TDR soil water content sensors buried at various depths 

within the waste cover to provide water content profile data. The soil water content profile data is used to 

demonstrate whether the cover is performing as expected. 

CAU 112, Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches – Soil moisture monitoring shall be collected and analyzed 

biannually (January and July) and site inspections shall be conducted quarterly. Soil moisture data shall be obtained 

from 30 neutron access tubes specified in the permit. Annual reports of post-closure monitoring shall include 

monthly precipitation data for the reporting period and shall be submitted to NDEP by the last day of January. 

8.4.3 2003 Activities and Status 

8.4.3.1 Corrective Actions 

Table 8-2 lists all CAUs for which some step of the site remediation process was completed in calendar year 2003. All 

2003 milestones were met. A total of 81 CASs were closed, either under the SAFER process or the standard closure 

process. For DOE UGTA CAUs, 2003 milestones included field well sampling, well development, model 

development, and data documentation and evaluations (Table 8-2). 
8-10 

Table 8-2. Environmental restoration activities conducted in 2003 

CAU CAU Description 

Number 

of CASs Milestone 

D

D

 DTRA Industrial Sites 

475 Area 12 P-Tunnel Muckpile 1 CAIP 9/30478 Area 12 T-Tunnel Ponds 1 CAIP 9/30480 Area 12 N-Tunnel Ponds 1 CAIP 9/30482 Area 15 U15a/e Muckpiles and Ponds 3 CADD 9/30

 DTRA/DOE - Industrial Sites 

383 Area 12 E-Tunnel Sites 3 CAIP 1/30

 DOE Industrial Sites 

322 Areas 1 & 3 Release Sites and Injection Wells 3 CAIP 7/21335 Area 6 Injection Well and Drain Pit 3 Closure Report 8/29346 Areas 8, 10 Housekeeping Sites 14 Closure Report 9/30350 Miscellaneous Housekeeping Sites 8 Closure Report 6/30351 Areas 16, 18, 29, 30 Housekeeping Sites 13 Closure Report 8/29352 Areas 19, 20 Housekeeping Sites 21 Closure Report 5/30355 Area 2 Cellars/Mud Pits 15 SAFER Plan 1/31 Closure Report 8/31357 Mud Pits and Waste Dump 14 SAFER Plan 6/30394 Areas 12, 18, and 29 Spill/Release Sites 6 Closure Report 9/30396 Area 20 Spill Sites 4 SAFER Plan 4/30536 Area 3 Release Site 1 CAIP 7/215 Landfills 8 CADD 10/3113 Area 25 R-MAD Facility 1 Closure Report 4/30127 Areas 25 and 26 Storage Tanks 12 CADD 9/30140 Waste Dumps, Burn Pits, and Storage Area 9 CADD 11/2165 Area 25 and 26 Dry Well and Washdown Areas 8 CADD 4/30168 Area 25 and 26 Contaminated Materials and Waste Dumps 12 CADD 9/30176 Areas 5, 6, and 11 Housekeeping Sites 9 Closure Report 4/30214 Bunkers and Storage Areas 9 CAIP 5/30262 Area 25 Septic Systems and UDP 9 Closure Report 5/30
8-11 

Table 8-2. (continued) 

CAU CAU Description 

Number 

of CASs Milestone 

 DOE Industrial Sites, cont. 

271 Areas 25, 26, and 27 Septic Systems 15 CAP 6/3330 Areas 6, 22, and 23 Tanks and Spill Sites 4 Closure Report 9/3398 Area 25 Spill Sites 13 Closure Report 2/2410 Waste Disposal Trenches (TTR) 5 Closure Report  CADD 12/425 Area 9 Main Lake Construction Debris Disposal Area (TTR) 1 Closure Report 4/490 Station 44 Burn Area (TTR) 4 Closure Report 4/3516 Septic Systems and Discharge Points 6 CAIP 5/3523 Housekeeping Waste 15 Closure Report 12/528 Polychlorinated Biphenyls Contamination 1 CAIP 6/3529 Area 25 Contaminated Materials 1 CAIP 4/3

 DOE UGTA Sites 

97 Yucca Flat/Climax Mine 720 Submit draft Contaminant Boundary 

Phase I Modeling Approach/Strategy 

4/3

 Initiate well development, testing & 

sampling activities in Yucca Flat 

7/3

 Complete the resurvey of measuring 

points in Yucca Flat to improve accuracy of previous measurements 

9/3

98 Frenchman Flat 10 Complete well development and aquifer 

testing activities in Frenchman Flat 

9/3

99 Rainier/Shoshone 66 Initiate Value of Information Analysis 12/101 Central Pahute Mesa 64 Submit draft Phase I Hydrologic Data 

Documentation Package 

7/3

102 Western Pahute Mesa 18 Submit draft Phase I Hydrologic Data 

Documentation Package 

7/3

 Submit draft Phase I Hydrologic Data 

Documentation Package 

7/3
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-12

8.4.3.2 Post-Closure Monitoring and Inspections 

All required VZM and inspections of closed sites were conducted in 2003 as specified by RCRA permit or by each 

site’s closure report. VZM results for the RCRA closure sites CAU 91, CAU 110, and CAU 112 indicated that surface 

water is not migrating into buried wastes. VZM reports were submitted to the state prior to their due dates. 

A list of all sites at which physical inspections were conducted in 2003 included: 

CAU 90 Area 2 Bitcutter Containment 

CAU 91 Area 3 U-3fi Injection Well 

CAU 92 Area 6 Decon Pond Facility 

CAU 110 Area 3 U-3ax/bl Subsidence Crater 

CAU 112 Area 23 Hazardous Waste Trenches 

CAU 143 Area 25 Contaminated Waste Dumps 

CAU 261 Area 25 Test Cell A Leachfield System 

CAU 333 U-3auS Disposal Site 

CAU 339 Area 12 Fleet Operations Steam Cleaning Effluent 

CAU 342 Mercury Fire Training Pit 

CAU 400 Bomblet Pit and Five Points Landfill (TTR) 

CAU 404 Roller Coaster Lagoons and Trench (TTR) 

CAU 407 Roller Coaster RadSafe Area (TTR) 

CAU 417 Central Nevada Test Area -Surface 

CAU 424 Area 3 Landfill Complexes (TTR) 

CAU 426 Cactus Spring Waste Trenches (TTR) 

CAU 427 Area 3 Septic Waste Systems 2, 6 (TTR) 

8.5 Solid/Sanitary Waste Management 

8.5.1 Description of Operations 

The NTS has three landfills for solid waste disposal which are regulated and permitted by the state (see Table 1-12 for 

list of permits). No liquids, hazardous waste, or radioactive waste are accepted in these landfills. They include: 

• Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site – accepts hydrocarbon-contaminated wastes, such as soil and absorbents.

• Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site – designated for industrial waste such as construction and demolition 

debris. 

• Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site – accepts municipal-type wastes such as food waste and office waste. 

Regulated asbestos-containing material is also permitted in a special section. The permit allows disposal of no 

more than an average of 20 tons/day at this site. 

These landfills are designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and monitored in adherence to the requirements of 

their state-issued permits. The Nevada Department of Environmental Protection visually inspects the landfills and 

checks the records on an annual basis to ensure compliance with the permits. 

The NTS also has three state-permitted sewage lagoons that receive domestic wastewater (sanitary waste) as well as 

industrial discharges. The names of these sewage lagoon systems are: 

• Area 6 Yucca Lake 

• Area 12 Camp 

• Area 23 Mercury 
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-13

These sewage lagoons are operated by BN Waste Management, as are the solid waste landfills. The operations and 

monitoring requirements for these sewage lagoons, however, are specified by Nevada water pollution control 

regulations. Because of this, the discussion of their operations and monitoring of their water and sediments are 

presented in Section 3.2.4, within the section on non-radiological water monitoring. 

A groundwater monitoring well in Area 23 called SM-23-1 is monitored periodically under Nevada permit 

requirements for both the Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site and the Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoons. The purpose 

of monitoring is to demonstrate that waste from these systems is not reaching the groundwater. Well SM-23-1 is 

monitored once every five years for the Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site and once a year for the Area 23 Mercury 

sewage lagoons. 

The vadose zone (unsaturated zone of soil above the water table) is monitored at two of the permitted sanitary 

landfills: the Area 9 U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site and the Area 6 Hydrocarbon Disposal Site. This monitoring is 

performed in lieu of groundwater monitoring for the purpose of demonstrating that contaminants from the landfills 

are not leaching into the groundwater. Semiannual reports with the monitoring data, rainfall data, and conclusions are 

sent to the state, as specified in the landfill permits. 

8.5.2 2003 Activities 

The amount of waste disposed of in each solid waste landfill is shown in Table 8-3. An average of 4 tons/day was 

disposed at the Area 23 landfill, well within permit limits. State inspections of permitted landfills were conducted in 

February 2003. No compliance issues were noted. 

Table 8-3. Quantity of solid wastes disposed in NTS landfills in CY 2003 

Metric Tons (Tons) of Waste 

Area 6 Hydrocarbon 

Disposal Site 

Area 9 U10c Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

Area 23 Solid Waste 

Disposal Site 

5,439 (5,995) 13,190 (14,540) 1,460 (1,609) 

 

Water from well SM-23-1 was last sampled in 2002 for the purpose of monitoring the Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal 

Site, and is not scheduled for sampling again until 2007. This well was sampled, however, in 2003 to satisfy permit 

requirements for the Area 23 Mercury sewage lagoons (see Sections 3.1.3.4 and 3.2.4.1.3). 

VZM of the Area 6 and Area 9 landfills in 2003 indicated that there was no soil moisture migration, and therefore no 

waste leachate migration to the water table. 

The following reports were prepared in 2003 to comply with state permits for solid waste operations on the NTS: 

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

• January – June 2003 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• July – December 2003 Biannual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for The Nevada Test Site Area 23 Sanitary Landfill 

• 2003 Annual Solid Waste Disposal Site Report for the Nevada Test Site Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfill and Area 9 U10c 

Landfills
Waste Management and Environmental Restoration

 8-14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
 Hazardous Materials Control and Management

 9-1

9.0 Hazardous Materials Control and Management 

Hazardous materials used or stored on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) are controlled and managed through the use of a 

Hazardous Substance Inventory database. Bechtel Nevada (BN) and all other U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA/NSO) subcontractors who use or store hazardous materials utilize this 

database and are required to comply with the operational and reporting requirements of the Toxic Substances Control 

Act (TSCA); Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); the Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); and the Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Act (see Section 1.5). This section describes the 

2003 activities which were conducted on the NTS to control and manage hazardous materials. 

9.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

Requirements and responsibilities for the use and management of hazardous/toxic chemicals are provided in 

company documents. The goal is to minimize the adverse effects of improper use, storage or management of 

hazardous/toxic chemicals and ensure compliance with applicable state and federal regulations. The following 

reports/assessment activities are prepared/performed to document compliance with these regulations: 

• Use of Hazardous Substance Inventory database

• Annual TSCA report 

• FIFRA management assessments

• Annual EPCRA Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Report, Form R 

• Nevada Combined Agency Report 

• Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP)-Chemical Accident Prevention Program (CAPP) Annual 

Registration Form 

• Use of electronic hazardous material tracking database called HAZTRAK

9.2 Methods and 2003 Activities 

Chemicals to be purchased are subject to a requisition compliance review process. BN’s Environmental Compliance 

Department personnel review each chemical purchase to ensure that restricted chemicals are not purchased when less 

hazardous chemical substitutes are commercially available. 

9.2.1 TSCA Program 

The TSCA program consists mainly of properly characterizing, storing and disposing of various polychlorinated 

biphenyl (PCB) wastes generated through remediation and maintenance activities. The remediation waste is generated 

by BN and Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture at Corrective Action Sites during environmental restoration activities 

(see Section 8.4) and during maintenance activities and building decontamination and decommissioning activities 

performed by BN. These activities can generate PCB contaminated fluids and bulk product waste containing PCBs. 

There are no known pieces of PCB-containing equipment on the NTS. 

On May 22, 2003, an Annual Report was sent from NNSA/NSO to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region IX which reported the quantity of hydraulic oil containing PCBs that were generated during a site remediation 

project and were disposed of offsite during 2002. 

In 2003 during remediation activities at the Reactor Maintenance, Assembly and Disassembly Building in Area 25, 

PCB oil was discovered in a hydraulic system. The hydraulic oil was drained into twelve 55-gallon drums and shipped 

offsite for disposal. No other PCB materials were generated by remediation or site operations in 2003. On March 22, 

2004, an Annual Report was generated for calendar year 2003, but was not sent to outside regulators. 

There were no TSCA inspections by outside regulators performed at the NTS in 2003. 
 Hazardous Materials Control and Management

 9-2

9.2.2 FIFRA Program 

On the NTS, both registered and non-registered pesticides are applied under the direction of a state of Nevada 

certified applicator. This service is provided by BN Solid Waste Operations, which manages the FIFRA program. 

The following procedures are followed to ensure FIFRA compliance: (1) requisitions for purchases of restricted use 

pesticides are screened, (2) operating procedures for handling, storing and application of pesticide products are 

reviewed, (3) appropriate Commercial Category (Industrial) certification for the application of restricted use pesticides 

is maintained, and (4) facility inspections for unauthorized pesticide storage/use are conducted. Pesticide applications 

in food service facilities are subcontracted to state-certified vendors. 

In 2003, no restricted use pesticides were purchased. Formulations purchased in prior years that became restricted 

use in 2003, were applied to eliminate these items from the pesticide inventory. The Solid Waste Operations 

procedure for pesticide application was updated in 2003, and training was provided to affected personnel. 

Certifications were kept current in 2003 for Industrial Category application(s) of restricted use pesticides. Facility 

inspections were conducted in Area 6, Area 23, Area 12 and Area 25 and indicated that there were no restricted use 

pesticides being used or stored in violation of federal/state requirements. There was no FIFRA inspection by an 

outside regulator during 2003. 

9.2.3 EPCRA Program 

In response to the EPCRA requirements, all chemicals that are purchased are entered into a hazardous substance 

inventory database and assigned specific hazard classifications (e.g., corrosive liquid, flammable, diesel fuel). Annually, 

this database is updated to show the maximum amount of chemicals that was present in each building at all of the 

NTS facilities. This information is then used to complete the Nevada Combined Agency (NCA) Report. This report 

provides the state, community, and local emergency planning commissions with the maximum amount of any 

chemical, based on its hazard classification, present at any given time during the preceding year. This report also 

provides the commissions with new chemicals or chemical classes that were not previously on site. The State Fire 

Marshall then issues a permit to store hazardous chemicals to each facility. 

In 2003, the chemical inventory at NTS facilities was updated and submitted to the state in the NCA Report on 

March 5, 2004. No extremely hazardous substance (EHS) was present at any NTS facilities in quantities that were 

reportable to the state. No accidental or unplanned release of an EHS occurred on the NTS in 2003. 

The hazardous substance inventory database is also used to complete the TRI Report, Form R. This report provides 

EPA and the State Emergency Response Commission information on any toxic chemical that enters the environment 

above a given threshold. It also provides these agencies with the amounts of toxic chemicals that are recycled. 

NNSA/NSO submitted this report for calendar year 2003 to EPA on June 23, 2004. Lead was the only listed toxic 

chemical released into the environment in 2003 that was reportable. The source is lead ammunition used at the 

Mercury firing range. A total of 1.95 tons (1.77 mtons) of lead was released at the firing range. 

There were no EPCRA inspections by outside regulators performed at the NTS in 2003. 

HAZTRAK is a tracking system that monitors hazardous materials while they are in transit. When a truck 

transporting hazardous material enters the NTS, all information concerning the load is entered into the tracking 

system. Once the delivery is complete, the information provided at the time of entry is removed from the tracking 

system. 

9.2.4 Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act 

If EHSs are stored in quantities which exceed threshold quantities established by the NDEP, then NNSA/NSO 

submits a report notifying the state. During 2003, 3,192 kg (7,037 lbs) of oleum was stored and 1,154 kg (2,545 lbs) 

were released at the HSC in Area 5 as part of a planned chemical release test. These quantities exceed the CAPP 

threshold for oleum of 454 kg (1,000 lbs) and was reported in the NDEP-CAPP Annual Registration Form submitted 

to NDEP on July 15, 2004. 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

 10-1

10.0 Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization 

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

Pollution Prevention (P2) and Waste Minimization (WM) initiatives establish a process to reduce the volume and 

toxicity of waste generated by the NNSA/NSO and ensure that proposed methods of treatment, storage, and disposal 

of waste minimize potential threats to human health and the environment. These initiatives also address the 

requirements of several federal and state regulations applicable to operations on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) 

(see Section 1.7). The following information provides an overview of the P2/WM goals, major accomplishments 

during the reporting year, a comparison of the current year’s waste generation to prior years, a description of efforts 

undertaken during the year to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste generated by the NNSA/NSO, and a 

description of the Secretary of Energy’s P2 Goals and NNSA/NSO’s status towards reaching those goals. 

10.1 P2 and WM Goals and Components 

It is the priority of NNSA/NSO to minimize the generation, release, and disposal of pollutants to the environment by 

implementing cost-effective P2 technologies, practices, and policies. A commitment to P2 minimizes the impact on 

the environment, improves the safety of operations, improves energy efficiency, and promotes the sustainable use of 

natural resources. This commitment includes providing adequate administrative and financial materials on a 

continuing basis to ensure goals are achieved. 

Source Reduction – When economically feasible, source reduction is the preferred method of handling waste, 

followed by reuse and recycling, treatment, and as a last resort, landfill disposal. NNSA/NSO’s Integrated Safety 

Management System requires that every project address waste minimization issues during the planning phase and 

ensure that adequate funds are allocated to perform any identified waste minimization activities. 

To minimize the generation of waste, project managers are required to incorporate waste minimization into the 

planning phase of their projects. Waste generating processes must be assessed to determine if the waste can be 

economically reduced or eliminated. Waste minimization activities that are determined to be cost effective should be 

incorporated into the project plan and adequate funding allocated to ensure their implementation. 

Recycling – For wastes that have already been generated, an aggressive recycling program is maintained. Items 

recycled through the NNSA/NSO recycling program include paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, toner cartridges, 

inkjet cartridges, tires, used oil, food waste from the cafeteria, plastic, scrap metal, rechargeable batteries, lead-acid 

batteries, alkaline batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, mercury lamps, metal hydride lamps, sodium lamps, and electronic 

media (diskettes, audio and video tapes, backup tapes, reel-to-reel tapes, etc.). 

An effective method for reuse is the coordination of the Material Exchange Program. Created in 1998, the Material 

Exchange Program has diverted over 184 metric tons (mtons) (202.8 tons) of supplies, chemicals, and equipment 

from landfills. Unwanted chemicals, supplies, and equipment are made available through electronic mail or postings 

on the intranet Material Exchange Database so that individuals in need can obtain the items at no cost. These 

materials are destined for disposal, either as solid or hazardous waste, as a result of process modification, discontinued 

use, or shelf life expiration. Rather than disposing of these items, the majority of them are provided to other 

employees for their intended purpose, thus avoiding disposal costs and costs for new purchases. If items are not 

placed with another user, they can be returned to the vendor for recycle/reuse, or given to other U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) sites, other government agencies, or local schools. 

As required by Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Section 42 USC 6962, the NNSA/NSO maintains 

an Affirmative Procurement process that stimulates a market for recycled content products and closes the loop on 

recycling. RCRA section 42 USC 6962 requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a list of 

items containing recycled materials that should be purchased. The EPA is also required to determine what the 

minimum content of recycled material should be for each item. Once this EPA-designated list was developed, federal 

facilities were required to ensure that a process was in place for purchasing the EPA-designated items containing the 

minimum content of recycled materials. Executive Order (EO) 13101 “Greening the Government through Waste 

Prevention, Recycling and Federal Acquisition” went one step further and requires federal facilities to ensure that 100 

percent of purchases of items from the EPA-designated list contain recycled materials at the specified minimum 

content. Of the items NNSA/NSO currently purchases from the EPA-designated list, about 86 percent of those 

purchases contain recycled materials. 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

 10-2

Assessments – Pollution Prevention Assessments are conducted twice a year. These assessments look at facilities or 

processes throughout the complex and focus on what waste streams are generated, what waste minimization activities 

are practiced, if there is room for improvement, and if these activities are tracked and reported in order to document 

that a waste minimization program is in place and operating as required. The assessments also look for new P2 

opportunities. 

Employee and Public Awareness – The NNSA/NSO P2 and WM initiatives also include an employee and public 

awareness program. Awareness of P2/WM issues is accomplished by dissemination of articles through both 

electronic mail and the NNSA/NSO site newsletters, the maintenance of a P2/WM intranet website, employee 

training courses, and participation at employee and community events. These activities are intended to increase 

awareness of P2/WM and environmental issues and point out the importance of P2/WM for improving 

environmental conditions in the workplace and community. 

10.2 Major P2/WM Accomplishments in 2003 

• Decommissioned buildings destined for disassembly and disposal were donated or sold to other agencies/schools 

that disassemble and remove the buildings from the NTS for reuse at new offsite locations. This waste 

minimization effort diverted approximately 11.4 mtons (12.6 tons) of waste from the NTS landfills. 

• Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 271 – Environmental Restoration segregated 39.7 mtons (43.8 tons) of clean soil 

from soil impacted by hydrocarbons or PCBs, using the clean soil as backfill for the excavation. 

• The Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit (EODU) transferred 1.02 mtons (1.1 tons) of old explosives, destined for 

treatment/disposal, to the Counter Terrorism Operations Support (CTOS) group for use in training exercises. 

• The Bechtel Nevada (BN) Payroll Department began posting pay stub information on the intranet, eliminating 

the need to print pay stubs on check stock and mail them to employees. This effort keeps approximately 1.1 

mtons (1.2 tons) of check stock annually from ending up in local landfills. 

• The Bulk Fuel Facility in Area 23 was demolished in February, 2003. The facility, which had not been used for 

years, consisted of two 500,000 gallon (1,893 m3) above-ground storage tanks, associated piping, pumps, and a 

fuel stand. The tanks were cut into pieces and sold to a metal recycling company, saving about 400 cubic yards 

(306 m3) of landfill space. 

• Environmental Restoration recycled 21.3 mtons (47,000 pounds) of radioactively contaminated lead solids via the 

DOE Oak Ridge Office (DOE/ORO) Assets Utilization Program. 

• The Material Exchange Program reused 2.34 mtons (2.58 tons) of solid waste and 0.03 mtons (0.033 tons) of 

hazardous waste in 2003. 

• During 2003, BN Engineering has aided water conservation by specifying low flow fixtures in restrooms/showers 

for ten facilities (nine new and one renovation) which included dormitories, shops, offices, and a classroom 

building. Energy conservation was aided by replacing failed exterior insulation on two existing buildings at the 

NTS. In planning for a more active role in future projects, Engineering issued procedure OP-CENG.012, 

Sustainable Design, on May 23, 2003. This procedure provides a process to apply sustainable design principles to 

the siting, design, and construction of new facilities (buildings and infrastructure). Additionally, a BN employee 

was appointed as a point of contact for the Engineering Practices Working Group for participation in the U.S. 

Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. Future projects 

currently under consideration for design under the LEED program are new facilities for the TA-18 Project, 

replacement of the Mercury and Area 6 Fire Stations at the NTS, and modifications to Buildings B3 and A1 

in Las Vegas. 

10.3 Waste Generation in 2003 Compared To Prior Years 

For the purpose of comparison, the waste generation activities are presented in two source categories: routine waste 

and cleanup waste. Routine waste is operational waste generated from routine activities, both ongoing and new. 

Cleanup waste is waste generated from clean-up activities including investigation, site characterization, remediation 

from Environmental Restoration (ER) projects, and Deactivation and Disposal projects. 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

 10-3

Table 10-1 compares radioactive waste generated on site in calendar year (CY) 2003 with prior years. NNSA/NSO 

has not routinely generated radioactive waste, except for an occasional one-time generation. With the addition of the 

JASPER and ATLAS Projects, routine radioactive waste will be generated in the future. Clean-up radioactive waste 

has increased since 2000 due to an accelerated clean-up schedule for ER and D&D projects. 

Table 10-1. Volume of radioactive waste generated by year 

 Radioactive Waste Generated (m3)(a)

Calendar Year Routine Clean-up Total 

2003 0.23 647.2 647.4 

2002 0 1,270.3 1,270.3 

2001 0 354.4 354.1 

2000 0.46 67.1 67.6 

(a) m3 = Cubic meters; 1 m3 = 1.3 cubic yards (yd3) 

Routine hazardous waste fluctuated slightly up and down over the past three years (Table 10-2). Clean-up hazardous 

waste has increased, primarily due to the accelerated clean-up schedule for ER and D&D projects. 

Table 10-2. Mass of hazardous waste generated by year 

 Hazardous Waste Generated (mtons)(a)

Calendar Year Routine Clean-up Total 

2003 10.4 518.9 529.3 

2002 7.0 127.5 134.5 

2001 10.2 1.6 11.8 

2000 24.5 22.5 47.0 

(a) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 

Routine solid waste has shown an increase over the past three years (Table 10-3), mainly due to an increase of routine 

solid waste generated by new projects and an accelerated clean-up schedule. Solid clean-up wastes have increased, 

primarily due to the accelerated clean-up schedule for ER and D&D projects. 

Table 10-3. Mass of solid waste generated by year 

 Solid Waste Generated (mtons)(a)

Calendar Year Routine Clean-up Total 

2003 4,502 16,975 21,477 

2002 3,305 14,006 17,311 

2001 1,622 8,145 9,767 

2000 4,401 4,381 8,782 

(a) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

 10-4

10.4 Waste Reductions in 2003 Compared To Prior Years 

P2/WM techniques and practices are implemented for all activities that may generate waste. These P2/WM activities 

result in reductions to the volume and/or toxicity of waste actually generated on site. Table 10-4 compares the 

amounts of radioactive, hazardous, and solid wastes reduced in CY 2003 to prior years. 

Table 10-4. Volume of waste reduced through P2/WM activities by year 

Calendar 

Year 

Radioactive Waste 

Reduced (m3)(a) 

Hazardous Waste 

Reduced (mtons)(b)

Solid Waste Reduced 

(mtons)

2003 40.0 207.3 1,547.2 

2002 63.2 177.2 904.2 

2001 79.6 123.5 799.0 

(a) 1 m3 = 1.3 yd3

(b) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 

Table 10-5 shows a summary of the estimated volume reductions of radioactive, hazardous, and solid waste 

accomplished during CY 2003, through implementation of P2/WM activities. An estimated 52.3 yd3 (40 m3) reduction 

of radioactive waste; a 228 ton (207 mton) reduction of hazardous waste including RCRA, Toxic Substance Control 

Act, and state-regulated hazardous waste; and a 1,705 ton (1,547 mton) reduction of solid waste (sanitary waste) 

occurred in CY 2003. 

Table 10-5. Volume of waste reduced through P2/WM activities in 2003 

Waste Minimization 

Activity Activity 

Volume 

Reduction 

Radioactive Waste (m3)(a)

 Recycle/Reuse ER recycled 47,000 (21.3 mtons) pounds of radioactively contaminated 

lead solids via DOE/ORO Assets Utilization Program. 40 

 

Hazardous Waste (mtons)(b)

 Source Reduction CAU 271 – ER segregated 87,524 pounds (39.7 mtons) of clean soil from 

soil impacted by hydrocarbons or PCBs, using the clean soil as backfill 

for the excavation. 39.7 

 Recycle/Reuse Bulk used oil was sent to an offsite vendor for recycle. 134.8 

 Recycle/Reuse Lead scrap metal was sold for reuse/recycle. 18.6 

 Recycle/Reuse Lead acid batteries were shipped to an offsite vendor for recycle. 9.1 

 Recycle/Reuse Spent fluorescent light bulbs, mercury lamps, metal hydride lamps, 

and sodium lamps were sent to an offsite vendor for recycle. 3 

 Recycle/Reuse The EODU transferred 2,260 pounds (1 mton) of old explosives, 

destined for treatment/disposal, to the CTOS group for use in training 

exercises. 1 

 Recycle/Reuse Lead tire weights were reused instead of being disposed as hazardous 

waste. 0.9 

 Recycle/Reuse Rechargeable batteries were sent to an offsite vendor for recycle. 0.1 

 Recycle/Reuse Hazardous chemicals were relocated to new users through the Material 

Exchange program, diverting them from landfill disposal. 0.1 

 Total 207.3 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

 10-5

Table 10-5. (continued) 

Waste Minimization 

Activity Activity 

Volume 

Reduction 

Solid Waste (mtons)(b) 

 Recycle/Reuse Scrap ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycle. 748.4 

 Recycle/Reuse Mixed paper and cardboard was sent offsite for recycle. 562.2 

 Recycle/Reuse Scrap non-ferrous metal was sold to a vendor for recycle. 108.1 

 

Recycle/Reuse Food waste from the cafeterias was sent offsite to be reused as pig feed 

for a local pig farmer. 62.5 

 

Recycle/Reuse Shipping materials including pallets, styrofoam, bubble wrap, and 

shipping containers were reused. 27.9 

 Recycle/Reuse Tires were sent to a vendor for recycle. 19.9 

 

Recycle/Reuse Decommissioned buildings destined for disassembly and disposal were 

donated or sold to other agencies/schools that disassemble and remove 

the buildings from the site for reuse. 11.4 

 

Recycle/Reuse Non-hazardous chemicals, equipment, and supplies were relocated to 

new users through the Material Exchange program, diverting them 

from landfill disposal. 2.3 

 Recycle/Reuse Spent toner cartridges were sent offsite for recycle. 2.1 

 Recycle/Reuse Aluminum cans were sent offsite for recycle. 0.9 

 Recycle/Reuse Electronic media was sent offsite for recycle. 0.7 

 Recycle/Reuse Alkaline batteries were sent to a vendor for recycle. 0.5 

 Recycle/Reuse Number 1 Plastic was sent offsite for recycle. 0.3 

 Total 1,547.20 

(a) 1 m3 = 1.3 yd3

(b) 1 mton = 1.1 ton 

10.5 Secretary of Energy’s P2/WM Leadership Goals 

On November 12, 1999, the Secretary of Energy set numerous pollution prevention and energy efficiency goals that 

each DOE Site is required to meet. The following are the P2/WM goals: 

• Reduce waste from routine operations by 2005, using a 1993 baseline, for the following waste types: 

– Hazardous by 90 percent 

– Low Level Radioactive by 80 percent 

– Low Level Mixed Radioactive by 80 percent 

– Transuranic (TRU) by 80 percent 

• Reduce solid waste from routine operations by 75 percent by 2005 and 80 percent by 2010, using a 1993 baseline. 

• Reduce releases of toxic chemicals subject to Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) reporting by 90 percent by 

2005, using a 1993 baseline. 

• Reduce waste resulting from cleanup, stabilization, and decommissioning activities by 10 percent on an annual 

basis. 

• Recycle 45 percent of solid waste from all operations by 2005 and 50 percent by 2010. 

• Increase purchases of EPA-designated items with recycled content to 100 percent, except when not available 

competitively at a reasonable price or if items do not meet performance standards. 
Pollution Prevention and Waste Minimization

 10-6

NNSA/NSO generated 11.5 tons (10.4 mtons) of hazardous waste in CY 2003 as part of routine operations. Using 

the 1993 baseline of 4,105 tons (3,724 mtons), NNSA/NSO reduced hazardous waste by 99.6 percent. Therefore, 

NNSA/NSO has already met the 2005 goal of 90 percent. The 1993 baselines for low level radioactive, low level 

mixed radioactive, and TRU waste were all 0 m3. However, the new JASPER and ATLAS projects will generate 

routine radioactive wastes in the future. As long as these projects generate routine radioactive waste, NNSA/NSO 

will not be able to meet the goals for these waste types. 

The routine solid waste generated by the NNSA/NSO in CY 2003 was 4,963 tons (4,502 mtons). Using the 1993 

baseline of 15,140 tons (13,735 mtons), NNSA/NSO reduced solid waste by 68 percent during CY 2003. The 2005 

goal is 75 percent. 

In 1993, NNSA/NSO released 0 pounds of chemicals subject to TRI reporting into the environment. Effective 

January 1, 2001, the EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead. With this lower threshold limit, NNSA/NSO had 

releases of lead generated from lead bullets at the Wackenhut Services, Inc. (WSI) firing range that now have to be 

reported. NNSA/NSO will not be able to meet the TRI release goal as long as the WSI firing range continues to use 

lead bullets. In CY 2003, 1.95 tons (1.77 metric tons) of lead were released at the firing range. 

The NNSA/NSO generated 19,998 tons (18,142 mtons) of radioactive, hazardous, and solid waste from cleanup 

operations at the NTS. Additionally, 1,065 tons (966 mtons) were recycled, amounting to 5 percent reduction in 

cleanup waste. The goal for recycling all cleanup waste is 10 percent annually. The low percentage of waste recycled 

is mainly due to large volumes of wastes generated by ER projects and wastes associated with the D&D projects that 

get disposed at the NTS landfills. 

In CY 2003, the solid waste generated by all operations (routine and cleanup activities) was 23,674 tons 

(21,477 mtons). NNSA/NSO recycled 1,705 tons (1,547 mtons) of solid waste, or about 7 percent of the solid waste 

generated. The 2005 goal is 45 percent. Almost 18,739 tons (17,000 mtons) of solid waste were generated due to the 

accelerated cleanup schedule at the NTS where numerous buildings were decommissioned and dismantled. The 

majority of this D&D waste was disposed at the solid waste landfill at the NTS, inflating the waste generation totals 

and lowering the percentage of solid waste recycled. 

EO13101 requires that 100 percent of purchases of items found on the EPA-designated list be purchased containing 

recycled materials. In CY 2003, 86 percent of NNSA/NSO’s purchases of EPA-designated items contained recycled 

materials. 

The tabulated summary of NTS progress towards meeting these leadership goals, as discussed above, are presented in 

Chapter 1.0, Compliance Summary (Table 1-7b). 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management 

 11-1

11.0 Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 450.1 “Environmental Protection Program,” requires cultural resources 

compliance and monitoring for activities and programs conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) (see Section 1.8). 

The Cultural Resources Management (CRM) program has been established and is implemented by the Desert 

Research Institute (DRI) on the NTS to meet this requirement. The CRM program is designed to: 

• Ensure compliance with all regulations pertaining to cultural resources on the NTS 

• Inventory and manage cultural resources on the NTS 

• Provide information that can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed projects and programs to 

cultural resources on the NTS 

In order to achieve these goals and meet federal and state requirements, the CRM is multi-faceted and contains the 

following major components: (1) surveys, inventories, and historical evaluations, (2) curation of archaeological 

collections; and (3) the American Indian Program. The guidance for the CRM work is provided in the Cultural 

Resources Management Plan for the Nevada Test Site (Drollinger et al., 2002). Historic preservation personnel and 

archaeologists of DRI who meet the Secretary of the Interior standards conduct the work and the archaeological 

efforts are permitted under the Archeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA). 

11.1 Cultural Resources Surveys, Inventories, Historic Evaluations, and Associated 

Activities 

11.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

Cultural resources surveys are conducted at the NTS to meet the requirements of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) and the ARPA. The surveys are completed prior to proposed projects that may disturb or otherwise 

alter the environment. The following information is maintained in databases: 

• Number of cultural resources surveys conducted 

• Location of each survey 

• Number of acres surveyed at each project location 

• Types of cultural resources identified at each project location 

• Number of cultural resources determined eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

• Number of eligible properties avoided by project activities 

• Number of cultural resources requiring mitigation to address an adverse effect 

• Final report on results 

11.1.2 Methods 

The geographical scope of a project is determined before surveys, inventories, or historical evaluations proceed. After 

the location and the size of the area have been defined, archival research is conducted to obtain relevant background 

data to guide the development of a research design for the cultural resources work. Relevant data include the results 

of previous cultural resources surveys, known sites, historic information, and individuals with knowledge of prior 

activities in the area and, in the case of historic evaluations, building plans and maps. Some of the sources 

investigated are the DRI records for the NTS, the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) Nuclear Testing Archive, the Technical Library, and Archives and 

Records Center. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

 11-2

Generally, for field surveys of project areas, the archaeologists walk parallel pedestrian transects at 30-m (98-ft) 

intervals over the entire project area. Data are recorded on forms to be analyzed and evaluated after completion of 

the fieldwork. Data collected for cultural resources surveys and inventories are the dimensions of the area, 

environmental setting (geology, geomorphology, and botany), and existing construction (e.g., roads, power poles, etc.). 

When cultural resources are identified, information on each is recorded and includes the location of the resource, the 

size of the resource area, the type of resource, types of artifacts (when applicable), and a detailed description. 

Mapping is done with hand-held global positioning units, electronic distance measurers, and other measuring devices, 

such as measuring tapes and calipers. For evaluations of historic structures, buildings, or objects, the layout of the 

structure is mapped and an architectural description is prepared. Photographs of the resources are taken at the time 

of survey. 

After the fieldwork, the data are organized, analyzed and then put into a report format. Cultural resources site 

information is entered on Intermountain Antiquities Site Forms and maps are drawn of the sites. At that time, 

decisions are made regarding the significance of the cultural resources and statements are included regarding whether 

or not the cultural resource meets the eligibility requirements for the NRHP. If an eligible site or structure is within 

or adjacent to a proposed project location, the effort is made to relocate the project away from the site, so that the 

project will not impact the resource. When a project cannot be relocated and will impact an eligible site or structure, 

then it usually is determined that the project will have an adverse effect on the resource. This information is 

presented in the report. Data management activities involve entering the survey and cultural resources information 

into a Geographical Information System. The final report is sent to the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 

(SHPO) for review and concurrence. 

A determination of adverse effect requires preparation and implementation of a mitigation plan in consultation with 

the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Mitigation actions vary and for archaeological sites 

often include systematic collection of artifacts, excavation and detailed recording of the site area, and consultation 

with the Consolidated Group of Tribal Organizations. The results of the work are detailed in a technical report. For 

structures, consultation also includes the National Park Service and mitigation normally involves preparing Historic 

American Building Survey and Historic American Engineering Record documentation. 

11.1.3 Results 

Cultural Resources Surveys – In 2003, three surveys were conducted for proposed projects: Phoebus 1A Arc and 

Kiwi Transient Nuclear Test Arc Project Areas, the Soil Stabilization Demonstration Project Area, and the Horned 

Viper Project Areas. Seven prehistoric archaeological sites were located within these project areas. During earlier 

surveys, three of these sites had been determined eligible to the National Register and the site forms for these sites 

were updated with current information. One new site was identified and determined eligible to the National Register 

and three did not meet the eligibility requirements. The eligible sites were avoided by project activities. 

A cultural resources survey and monitoring effort was conducted at the location of the Egg Point Wildfire in Area 12. 

Most of the fire zone had been surveyed several years ago. The area that was not surveyed was examined for cultural 

resources and no new sites were located by this effort. The fire was near or crossed six known National Register 

eligible sites. All six prehistoric archaeology sites are intact and retain their integrity. Another prehistoric archaeology 

site, previously determined ineligible for the National Register, was relocated. As a result of the removal of the 

vegetation, more of the site was visible and it was re-evaluated and determined eligible to the National Register. 

Cultural Resources Inventories – There were two cultural resources inventories conducted in 2003. The ongoing 

survey and inventory of the prehistoric and historic remains at Tippipah Spring continued in 2003, and the survey of 

the historic nuclear testing structures on Yucca Dry Lake was completed. A Yucca Lake Historic District was 

proposed for National Register eligibility. The district contains 22 structures and 8 features with 15 of these 

properties contributing to the district. 

Evaluations of Historic Structures – Two historic evaluations were conducted in 2003. Kay Blockhouse, the 

instrumentation bunker for the first atmospheric test at the NTS had previously been determined ineligible to the 

National Register. The location was re-examined and re-evaluated and its status has been changed to a property 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

 11-3

eligible to the National Register. The train cars at the Radioactive Material Storage Facility were evaluated for 

eligibility. These cars were used in the nuclear rocket testing program from the late 1950s to early 1970s and some 

contain superstructures designed specifically for the tests. The facility and the cars were determined eligible to the 

National Register. 

As summarized in Table 11-1, a total of 1,487 hectares (3,674 acres) were examined during cultural resources surveys, 

inventories, and historic evaluations. Thirteen prehistoric and historic sites were examined, with four eligible to the 

National Register. Twenty-three nuclear testing related structures were recorded, with one determined eligible and 

15 contributing to a historic district. 

Table 11-1. Summary data for cultural resources surveys, inventories, and historic evaluations conducted 

in 2003 

Area Surveyed 

Survey/Inventory/Historic 

Evaluation 

Prehistoric/Historic 

Sites Found 

Structures 

Evaluated 

Sites 

Determined 

NRHP Eligible Acres Hectares 

Phoebus and Kiwi 4 0 2 200.00 80.94 

Soil Stabilization 0 0 0 13.10 5.30 

Horned Viper 1 0 0 123.60 50.02 

Egg Point Wildfire 6 0 1 85.05 34.42 

Tippipah Spring 1 0 1 50.00 20.23 

Yucca Lake HD 0 22 15 3,060.00 1,238.34 

Kay Blockhouse 0 1 1 0.05 0.02 

Train Cars 1 0 0 142.00 57.47 

Total 13 23 20 3,673.80 1,486.73 

Adverse Effect Assessments and Mitigation Activities – There were no determinations of adverse effect to 

cultural resources in 2003. No mitigation activities were undertaken or were in progress. 

Results from Other Cultural Resources Activities – General reconnaissance surveys, without systematic field 

recording, were also conducted in 2003 for three projects. They included one well location, several Corrective Action 

Sites (CASs), and NTS buildings no longer used and scheduled for demolition. The well location was near the historic 

mining town of Wahmonie. It was determined through a field examination of the area that the well and associated 

activities were within a previously-disturbed zone for which a cultural resources survey report had been prepared in 

the 1990s. Numerous CASs have been identified on the NTS for remediation or cleanup and some of these have 

historical value. Descriptions and photographs of proposed CASs were reviewed and some warranted field 

examination. After a visual examination of the areas, several were determined to have historic value related to nuclear 

testing and to be left in place for future recording efforts. Buildings proposed for demolition or removal were visited 

and photographed with historic evaluation work pending for several. Also, the technical report on the Bower Cabin 

was finalized. 

11.1.4 Reports 

Four survey and monitoring reports, two historical evaluations, two technical reports, and two letter reports were 

completed and are listed in Table 11-2. Site location information is protected from public distribution and those 

reports containing such data are not available to the public. Technical reports can be obtained from the DOE’s 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information at email address <http://www.osti.gov/bridge>. 

The data on NTS archaeological activities also were provided to DOE Headquarters in the formal Archeology 

Questionnaire for transmittal to the Secretary of the Interior and, ultimately, the U.S. Congress as part of the federal 

agency archaeology report. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

 11-4

Table 11-2. Short reports, historical evaluations, technical reports, and letter reports prepared in 2003 

Project Report No. Author(s) 

 

Phoebus 1A Arc and Kiwi Transient 

 Nuclear Test Arc SR060903-1 Drollinger H. and B.A. Holz 2003 

Soil Stabilization Demonstration SR070903-1 Jones R.C. 2003b 

Horned Viper SR102703-1 Jones, R.C. 2003d 

Egg Point Wildfire Near Tongue Wash SR032703-1 Holz, B.A. and C.M. Beck 2003 

Yucca Lake Historic District TR# 102 Jones, R.C., C.M. Beck, and B.A. Holz 2003 

Historical Evaluation of Kay Blockhouse SR030703-1 Jones, R.C. 2003a 

Historical Evaluation of Train Cars SR052003-1 Drollinger, H. 2003a 

Bower Cabin TR# 100 Drollinger, H. 2003b 

Horn Silver Mine Drilling Project LR100603-1 Jones R.C. 2003c 

Corrective Action Sites LK110603-1 Holz, B.A., C.M. Beck, and H. Drollinger 2003 

11.2 Curation 

11.2.1 Goals and Requirements 

The NHPA requires that archaeological collections and associated records be maintained at professional standards 

and the specific requirements are delineated in 36 Code of Feder Regulations (CFR) Part 79, Curation of 

federally-owned and Administered Archeological Collections. Requirements for curation of the NTS archaeological 

collection include the following: 

• Maintain a catalog of the items in the NTS collection 

• Package the NTS collection in materials that meet archival standards (e.g., acid-free boxes) 

• Store the NTS collection and records in a facility that is secure and has environmental controls 

• Establish and follow curation procedures for the NTS collection and facility 

• Comply with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

11.2.2 Ongoing Activities 

In the 1990s, the NNSA/NSO completed the required inventory and summary of NTS cultural materials accessioned 

into the NTS Archaeological Collection and distributed the inventory list and summary to the tribes affiliated with the 

NTS and adjacent lands. Consultations followed, and all artifacts the tribes requested were repatriated to the 

American Indian tribal groups. This process was completed in 2002, but will be repeated for any new additions to the 

NTS collection in the future. The known locations of American Indian human remains at the NTS continued to be 

protected from NTS activities in 2003. 

The NTS Archaeological Collection contains over 400,000 artifacts and is curated in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. 

For the past decade these materials and the associated records have been housed in a remote facility. In 2003, the 

artifacts were moved into a newly constructed building that provides additional security and environmental controls 

for the collection. Archaeologists, American Indians, NNSA/NSO personnel, and facilities staff worked on the move 

from the remote facility to the new building. The boxes of artifacts were logged in and out of the facilities and the 

move was accomplished without incident. Following the relocation of the artifacts, a draft of new curation 

procedures was completed and distributed for review. 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

 11-5

11.3 American Indian Program 

11.3.1 Goals 

The NNSA/NSO has had an active American Indian Program since the late 1980s. The function of the program is to 

conduct consultations between NNSA/NSO and NTS-affiliated American Indian tribes. Such consultation occurs 

through the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations (CGTO). The CGTO is comprised of 16 groups of 

Southern Paiute, Western Shoshone, and Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone, and one Pan-Indian organization: the 

Las Vegas Indian Center (see Table 11-3 for a list of participants in the CGTO). A history of this program is 

contained in American Indians and the Nevada Test Site, A Model of Research and Consultation (Stoffle et al., 2001). The goals 

of the program are to: 

• Provide a forum of the CGTO to express and discuss issues of importance 

• Provide the CGTO with opportunities to actively participate in decisions that involve places and locations that 

hold significance for them 

• Involve the CGTO in the curation and display of American Indian artifacts 

• Enable the CGTO and its constituency to practice their religious and traditional activities 

Table 11-3. Culturally affiliated tribes and organizations in the CGTO

Ethnic Group Tribe/Band 

 

Southern Paiute Chemehuevi Indian Tribe 

 Colorado River Indian Tribes 

 Kaibab Paiute Tribe 

 Las Vegas Paiute Tribe 

 Moapa Paiute Tribe 

 Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 

 Pahrump Band of Paiutes 

 

Western Shoshone Duckwater Shoshone Tribe 

 Ely Shoshone Tribe 

 Timbisha Shoshone Tribe 

 Yomba Shoshone Tribe 

 

Owens Valley Paiute-Shoshone Benton Paiute-Shoshone Tribe 

 Big Pine Paiute Tribe 

 Bishop Paiute Tribe 

 Fort Independence Indian Tribe 

 Lone Pine Paiute-Shoshone Tribe 

Pan-Indian Organization Las Vegas Indian Center 

 

11.3.2 2003 Activities 

In May 2003, a 2.5-day meeting was held with the CGTO at the NTS. Discussion topics at the meeting focused on 

American Indian history research, artifacts, site treatments, Traditional Cultural Properties, and the NTS Historical 

Foundation and Museum. The recommendations reached at the meeting included continuance of research on 

American Indian history, decisions regarding the handling and display of artifacts, concurrence with the handling of 

sites near activities, development of a Traditional Cultural Property study, and the creation of a sub-group to meet 

with the Atomic Testing Museum (ATM) staff to work towards creating an American Indian exhibit based on CGTO 
Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources Management

 11-6

input. One day of the meeting was spent visiting areas of interest as Traditional Cultural Properties. Also discussed 

was the impending move of the NTS artifact collection to a new facility and the preference to have involvement in 

this move. 

The Museum Sub-Group met twice with the director and exhibit planners for the ATM regarding exhibit content. 

Work on this project will continue into 2004 with consultation between the Museum and the sub-group until the 

exhibit design is finalized. The artifact collection was moved with involvement from the CGTO. Requests were made 

by American Indians to conduct ceremonies and these requests were honored by NNSA/NSO. 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-1

12.0 Ecological Monitoring 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 450.1 “Environmental Protection Program,” requires ecological monitoring and 

biological compliance support for activities and programs conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). The Ecological 

Monitoring and Compliance Program (EMAC) provides this support. EMAC is designed to: 

• Ensure compliance with all state and federal regulations (see Section 1.9) and stakeholder commitments pertaining 

to NTS flora, fauna, and sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats including wetlands 

• Delineate NTS ecosystems 

• Provide ecological information that can be used to evaluate the potential impacts of proposed projects and 

programs on NTS ecosystems 

The major sub-programs and tasks within EMAC include: (1) the Desert Tortoise Compliance Program, (2) 

biological surveys at proposed construction sites, (3) ecosystem mapping and data management, (4) monitoring of 

sensitive species and habitats, (5) the Habitat Restoration Program, and (6) biological impact monitoring at the 

Hazardous Materials Spill Center (HSC). A brief description of these program components and their 2003 

accomplishments are provided below, and more detailed information may be found in published fiscal year EMAC 

reports which are distributed to several state and federal natural resource agencies (e.g., Bechtel [BN], 2003). These

annual reports are available electronically at <http://www.osti.gov/bridge>. 

12.1 Desert Tortoise Compliance Program 

The desert tortoise occurs within the southern one-third of the NTS at fairly low estimated densities (Figure 12-1). 

This species is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In December 1995, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Site Office (NNSA/NSO) completed consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning the effects of NNSA/NSO activities on the desert tortoise, as described 

in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE, 1996). 

A final Biological Opinion (Opinion) (FWS, 1996) was received from the FWS in August 1996. The Opinion 

concluded that the proposed activities on the NTS were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Mojave 

population of the species and that no critical habitat would be destroyed or adversely modified. All terms and 

conditions listed in the Opinion must be followed when activities are conducted within the range of the desert 

tortoise on the NTS. 

12.1.1 Goals and Compliance Measures

The Desert Tortoise Program within EMAC was developed to implement the terms and conditions of the Opinion, 

to document compliance actions taken by NNSA/NSO, and to assist NNSA/NSO in FWS consultations. The 

compliance measures which are monitored include: 

• Number of tortoises accidentally injured or killed due to NTS activities 

• Number of tortoises captured and displaced from project sites 

• Number of tortoises injured or killed on NTS paved roads 

• Number of total acres of desert tortoise habitat disturbed by NTS construction 

• Adherence to 23 operational terms and conditions of the Opinion 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-2

Figure 12-1. Desert tortoise distribution and abundance on the NTS and locations of clearance surveys conducted in 2003 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-3

12.1.2 Methods 

Proposed projects on the NTS are subjected to a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. If a 

proposed project may disturb native vegetation, soils, or wildlife, biologists are informed of the project. Biologists 

conduct desert tortoise clearance surveys prior to construction for all projects that will disturb desert tortoise habitat. 

They follow written survey procedures which incorporate those terms and conditions of the Opinion that must be 

performed by qualified biologists. A database is maintained to document survey results and compliance to the 

Opinion’s terms and conditions. 

Biologists train one or more onsite project personnel to become an environmental monitor (EM) as specified by the 

Opinion. EMs monitor the land-disturbing activities at a project site and document that the project is complying with 

the Opinion. 

Biologists estimate the acreage of tortoise habitat disturbed by each project by conducting post-activity surveys. 

Post-activity surveys are not conducted if viable tortoise habitat is not found within the project area boundaries during 

the clearance survey and if the EM documents that the project stayed within its proposed boundaries. Hand-held 

global positioning satellite (GPS) units are used to record the field coordinates defining the boundary of all disturbed 

areas and then Geographic Information System (GIS) computer software is used to calculate the acres disturbed. 

12.1.3 Results 

In 2003, biologists conducted desert tortoise clearance surveys at 27 sites for 11 proposed projects (Table 12-1; 

see Figure 12-1). One inactive tortoise burrow was found and flagged (Project Number 03-10). The flagged tortoise 

burrow was avoided during surface disturbing activities. Five tortoise burrows were observed and avoided during 

surveys for off-road driving for Project 03-16. On-site construction monitoring was conducted by a designated EM at 

all sites, where required. 

Table 12-1. Land-disturbing projects conducted in desert tortoise habitat in 2003 

Tortoise Habitat Disturbed Project 

Number Project Name 

Tortoise Sign 

Found Acres Hectares 

03-02 Area 25 Septic Systems and Underground Discharge 

Point Closure (CAU 262) (2 sites) 

None 0.35 0.14 

03-04 Areas 6, 22, 23 Tanks and Spill Sites Closure (CAU 330) 

(3 sites) 

None 1.51 0.61 

03-07b Turnaround for Building Demolition None 0.09 0.04 

03-08 Area 22 Desert Rock Runway Lighting System 

Renovation 

None 0.17 0.07 

03-10 Cleanup of Old WSI Firing Range 1 inactive burrow 0 0 

03-13 Cleanup of R-MAD Yard and Port Gaston (3 sites) None 0 0 

03-15 Cleanup of Topopah Wash Military Firing Range (2 sites) None 0 0 

03-16 Characterization of Area 25 Contaminated Wash and 

Land Parcels (CAU 259) (11 sites) 

5 tortoise burrows 

avoided along 

 off-road routes 

0.97 0.39 

04-01 Jackass Flats Road Barbed Wire Cleanup None 0.005 0.002 

04-03 Characterization at Horn Silver Mine None 0.50 0.20 

04-04 Clean Closure of Areas 25, 26, and 27 Septic Systems 

(CAU 271) 

None TBD TBD 

Total 3.59 1.45 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-4

Post-activity surveys to quantify the acreage of tortoise habitat actually disturbed were conducted for seven projects at 

a total of twelve sites. Only 1.45 hectares (3.59 acres) of tortoise habitat were disturbed in 2003 (Table 12-1). No 

desert tortoises were accidentally injured or killed, nor were any captured or displaced from project sites. A 

cumulative total of 88.1 hectares (217.71 acres) of tortoise habitat on the NTS has been disturbed since the desert 

tortoise was listed as threatened in 1992. A mitigation fee for the loss of 101 hectares (250 acres) of habitat was 

prepaid in 1992 into the Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Fund Number 236-8290. During 2003, none of the 

threshold levels established by the FWS for the compliance measures listed above were exceeded (see Table 1-9). 

In January 2004, NNSA/NSO Environment, Safety and Health Division submitted a report to the FWS Southern 

Nevada Field Office that summarized tortoise compliance activities conducted on the NTS from January 1 through 

December 31, 2003. 

12.1.4 Other Significant Activities Related to Desert Tortoise Compliance 

Field Sampling to Update NTS Tortoise Abundance Map – The Opinion includes a tortoise abundance map 

which delineates areas of none-to-very-low, low, and moderate tortoise abundance based on the results of past 

transect surveys. As per the Opinion, tortoise clearance surveys and onsite construction monitoring are optional in 

none-to-very-low abundance areas, but are required in areas of higher or unknown tortoise abundance. The Opinion 

allows for updates of this map as better data become available. During August, biologists began to sample areas of 

unknown tortoise abundance. Twenty-eight transects totaling 54.8 km (34.0 mi) were sampled (BN, 2003). 

Preparation of Habitat Revegetation Plan for Tortoise Habitat – Mitigation for the loss of tortoise habitat is 

required under the terms and conditions of the Opinion. The Opinion requires either payment for habitat disturbed 

or the revegetation of disturbed habitat. Since 1992, NNSA/NSO has been using the balance of $81,000 that 

NNSA/NSO pre-paid for the future disturbance of 101 hectares (250 acres) of tortoise habitat on the NTS. This 

fund is almost depleted. In 2003, biologists developed a plan to revegetate tortoise habitat whenever it is reasonable 

and prudent. This plan was submitted to the FWS for concurrence. 

12.2 Biological Surveys 

12.2.1 Goals and Compliance Measures 

Biological surveys are performed at proposed project sites where land disturbance will occur. The goal is to minimize 

adverse effects of land disturbance on wetlands, sensitive plant and animal species and their associated habitat, and on 

important biological resources (i.e., nest sites, active burrows). Biological surveys comply with the terms and 

conditions of the Opinion and with the mitigation measures specified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE, 1996) and its final Record of Decision. 

Sensitive species include those protected under state or federal regulations which are known or suspected to occur on 

the NTS. They include 22 plants and 34 animals (Tables 12-2, 12-3, and 12-4). Important biological resources include 

such things as cover sites, nest or burrow sites, roost sites, wetlands, or water sources important to sensitive species. 

The following measures are documented: 

• Number of biological surveys conducted 

• Number of hectares/acres surveyed per proposed project 

• Types and numbers of important species and biological resources found 

• Mitigation recommendations and actions taken to protect species/resources 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-5

Table 12-2. Sensitive plants which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS 

Flowering Plant Species Common Name Status(a)

Arctomecon merriamii White bearpoppy SOC, W, IA 

Astragalus beatleyae Beatley’s milkvetch SOC , W, A 

Astragalus funereus Black woolypod SOC, W, A 

Astragalus oopherus var. clokeyanus Clokey’s egg milkvetch SOC, W, A 

Camissonia megalantha Cane Spring suncup SOC, W, IA 

Cymopterus ripleyi Ripley’s springparsley SOC, W, IA 

Eriogonum concinnum Darin’s buckwheat W, A 

Eriogonum heermannii var. clokeyi Clokey’s buckwheat W, A 

Frasera albicaulis var. modocensis Modoc elkweed SOC, W, IA 

Galium hilendiae ssp. kingstonense Kingston Mountain bedstraw SOC, W, IA 

Hulsea vestita ssp. inyoensis Inyo hulsea W, IA 

Ivesia arizonica var. saxosa Whitefeather ivesia W, A 

Lathyrus hitchcockianus Hitchcock’s peavine W, A 

Penstemon pahutensis Pahute penstemon SOC, W, IA 

Phacelia beatleyae Beatley’s phacelia SOC , W, A 

Phacelia mustelina Weasel phacelia W, IA 

Phacelia parishii Parish's phacelia SOC, W, IA 

Moss Species 

Crossidiium seriatum Seriate crossidium W, E 

Didymodon nevadensis Gold Butte moss W, E 

Entosthodon planoconvexus Planoconvex enthosthodon W, E 

Grimmia Americana American grimmia W, E 

Trichostomum sweetie Sweet trichostomum W, E 

(a) Status Codes: 

Endangered Species Act, FWS

SOC - Species of concern 

Nevada Natural Heritage Program

W - Watch list 

Long-term Plant Monitoring Status on NTS 

A - Active ; IA - Inactive; E - Evaluate 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-6

Table 12-3. Sensitive reptiles and birds which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS 

Reptile Species Common Names Status (a)

Gopherus agassizii Desert tortoise LT, NPT 

Sauromalus obesus Chuckwalla SOC 

Bird Species(b) 

Athene cunicularia hypugea Western burrowing owl SOC, P 

Alectoris chukar Chukar G 

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle BE, P 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk SOC, P 

Callipepla gambelii Gambel's quail G 

Charadrius montanus Mountain plover PT, P 

Chlidonias niger Black Tern SOC 

Empidonax wrightii Gray flycatcher SOC 

Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon <LE, P 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle LT-PD, BE, P 

Ixobrychus exillis hesperis Western least bittern SOC, P 

Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla SOC 

Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked pheasant G 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis SOC, P 

(a) Status Codes: 

Endangered Species Act, FWS

<LE - Formerly listed as endangered; LT - Listed as threatened; PD - Proposed for delisting; PT - Proposed for listing 

as threatened; SOC - Species of concern 

U.S. Department of Interior

BE - Protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act 

State of Nevada

G - Regulated as game; NPT - Protected as threatened; P - Protected bird 

(b) Does not include all bird species that are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or by the state. Additionally, 

there are 26 birds which have been observed on the NTS, which are all protected by the state. 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-7

Table 12-4. Sensitive mammals which are known to occur on or adjacent to the NTS 

Mammal Species Common Name Status(a)

Antilocapra americana Pronghorn antelope G 

Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Townsend’s big-eared bat SOC 

Equus asinus Burro H&B 

Equus caballus Horse H&B 

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat SOC, NPT 

Felis concolor Mountain lion G 

Lynx rufus Bobcat F 

Myotis ciliolabrum Small-footed myotis SOC 

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis SOC 

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis SOC 

Myotis volans Long-legged myotis SOC 

Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis SOC 

Ovis canadensis nelsoni Desert bighorn sheep G 

Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer G 

Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s cottontail G 

Sylvilagus nuttallii Nuttall’s cottontail G 

Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox F 

Vulpes velox macrotis Kit fox F 

(a) Status Codes: 

Endangered Species Act, FWS

SOC - Species of concern 

U.S. Department of Interior

H&B – Protected under Wild Free Roaming Horse and Burro Act 

State of Nevada

F - Regulated as fur-bearer; G - Regulated as game; NPT - Protected as threatened 

12.2.2 Methods 

Proposed projects are subjected to a NEPA review process, and biologists are notified of projects that may disturb 

native vegetation, soils, or wildlife. Biologists conduct surveys for projects prior to land-disturbing activities following 

written survey procedures. The locations of sensitive species and important resources found are recorded and flagged 

in the field for avoidance. Hand-held GPS units are used to record the boundary coordinates of all project areas 

surveyed. GIS computer software is then used to calculate, from the field coordinates, the acres surveyed and to 

overlay the surveyed areas onto existing vegetation and habitat maps of the NTS. A database is maintained to 

document survey results. Survey reports are written, providing project personnel with feasible mitigation measures to 

avoid or lessen impacts to such species and resources. The design and/or location of projects are altered whenever 

possible and if required under the Opinion. 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-8

12.2.3 Results 

Surveys for the following 18 projects at 290 different sites were conducted throughout the NTS in 2003: 

• Area 25 Septic Systems and Underground Discharge Point Closure (Correction Action Unit [CAU] 262) – 2 sites 

• Borehole Management (plugging existing boreholes) – 141 sites 

• Areas 6, 22, and 23 Tanks and Spill Sites Closure (CAU 330) – 3 sites 

• Building Demolitions – 113 buildings, 1 land-disturbance sites 

• Area 22 Desert Rock Runway Lighting System Renovation – 1 site 

• Unicorn Subcritical Experiment – 1 site 

• Cleanup of Area 6 Wackenhut Services, Inc. (WSI) Firing Range – 1 site 

• Installation of Surface Laid Power Cables – 2 sites 

• Legacy Rehabilitation Demarcation at SMOKEY Event – 1 site 

• Cleanup of Reactor Maintenance, Assembly and Disassembly (R-MAD) Yard and Port Gaston – 3 sites 

• CHANCELLOR Post-Shot Drill Back – 1 site 

• Cleanup of Topopah Wash Military Firing Range – 2 sites 

• Characterization of Area 25 Contaminated Wash and Land Parcels (CAU 259) – 12 sites 

• Areas 18 and 19 Borrow Pit Reactivation – 2 sites 

• Jackass Flats Road Barbed Wire Cleanup – 1 site 

• Characterization at Horn Silver Mine (CAU 527) – 1 site 

• U1a Leachfield – 1 site 

• Clean Closure of Areas 25, 26, and 27 Septic Systems (CAU 271) – 1 site 

The summary of survey results are shown in Table 12-5. No wetlands, no important species, and no important 

biological resources were impacted by these projects. 

Table 12-5. Summary of 2003 biological survey results 

Measure Result 

Number of biological surveys conducted 290 for 18 projects 

Area surveyed Total: 116.40 ha (287.62 ac) 

Undisturbed habitat: 48.11 ha (118.88 ac) 

Previously-disturbed habitat: 68.29 ha (168.74 ac) 

Important species/biological resources found 21 inactive nests of migratory birds 

1 possible bat roost 

1 inactive tortoise burrow 

23 inactive predator burrows 

Mitigation actions taken Inactive tortoise burrow avoided 

Bird nests removed prior to building demolitions 

Potential bat roost left undisturbed 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-9

12.3 Sensitive Species and Habitat Monitoring 

12.3.1 Goals and Measures 

Over the last three decades, NNSA/NSO has taken an active role in collecting or supporting the collection of 

information on the status of sensitive plants and animals and their habitat on the NTS and has produced numerous 

documents reporting their occurrence, distribution, and susceptibility to threats on the NTS (see Ecology of the Nevada 

Test Site: An Annotated Bibliography [Wills and Ostler, 2001]). In 1998, NNSA/NSO prepared a Resource Management 

Plan (DOE, 1998). One of the many natural resources goals stated in the plan is to protect and conserve sensitive 

plant and animal species found on the NTS and to minimize cumulative impacts to those species as a result of 

NNSA/NSO activities. The EMAC goals of species and habitat monitoring on the NTS are to: 

• Ensure that impacts caused directly by NTS projects can be detected, quantified, and managed so that a species’ 

occurrence on the NTS is not threatened by such projects. 

• Ensure adherence to state and federal regulations aimed at protecting wild horses, migratory birds, wetlands, and 

wildlife habitat. 

Data collected for monitored species include: 

• Distribution on the NTS 

• Relative abundance, density, or population size on the NTS 

• Susceptibility to threats from NTS projects 

• Location of nest burrows, nests, or roost sites of sensitive animals 

• Location of preferred habitats 

• Incidence and cause of mortality 

12.3.2 2003 Activities 

In 2003, the major accomplishments under this EMAC task are presented below. Detailed descriptions of these 

actions and results can be found in BN, 2003. 

Sensitive Plants – Six known population locations of Phacelia beatleyae and three of Astragalus funereus were visited to 

record plant abundance (Figure 12-2). Approximately 100 – 800 individual P. beatleyae plants were found at each of 

the six sites monitored, although numbers were lower than had been reported from previous years. The numbers 

found in 2003 seem commensurate with the amount of precipitation each site received. A. funereus was absent at two 

of the three sites monitored. This may not indicate a decline of this species on the NTS, but an effect of the 

continued drought in the southwest. When climatic conditions which favor A. funereus growth and reproduction 

occur, surveys will be conducted again so an accurate assessment of the status of this species can be made. 

Sensitive Bats – Night monitoring surveys for bats were conducted at 22 sites (Figure 12-3) to identify the 

distribution of sensitive bat species and to identify bat roost sites. Nine species of bats were documented at 21 of the 

22 sites monitored. One maternity roost (at Climax Mine Adit 1) and one day roost (at Oak Spring Middle Basin 

Adit 1) of the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) were identified (Figure 12-3). Three 

day-roosts and eight night-roost/foraging sites used by multiple bat species were also identified. 

Wild Horses – An annual horse census was conducted by driving selected roads along the boundaries of the 

suspected annual horse range in the northern portion of the NTS. Thirty adult horses and five foals were counted in 

2003. From 1995 the feral horse population has declined (Figure 12-4). The decline is mainly the result of poor foal 

survival and no immigration of new adults. Over the past ten years, the causes of mortality among adult horses, when 

observed, have included unknown causes (four), predation (one), collisions with vehicles (two), and drowning (one). 

Among young horses (1-2 year olds), two have died from unknown causes and one presumably from dehydration at a 

dried up spring. 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-10

Figure 12-2. Sensitive plant populations monitored on the NTS in 2003
Ecological Monitoring

 12-11

Figure 12-3. Sites monitored on the NTS for bat use in 2003 and roost site designations 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-12

Figure 12-4. Number of wild horses observed by age category 

Migratory Birds – No field surveys for any species of migratory birds were conducted this year. However, a 

database was updated that stores all sightings of dead birds reported by NTS workers or observed by biologists. All 

but 2 of the 239 bird species observed on the NTS are migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

In 2003, 35 birds were found dead (Table 12-6). The majority (30) were mourning doves found at man-made water 

sources that were either killed by predators or died from trichomoniasis. The great-horned owl and red-tailed hawk 

found electrocuted, are state protected birds of prey. 

Table 12-6. Number of migratory bird deaths reported on the NTS in 2003 

Cause of Death 

Species Electrocution Roadkill Predation Disease Unknown

Chukar (Alectoris chukar) 1 

Great-horned owl (Buteo jamaicensis) 1 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 1 

Mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) 15 15 

Red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) 1 

Say's phoebe (Sayornis saya) 1 

The overall reported number of bird deaths on the NTS related directly to NTS activities is low and the causes are 

varied (Figure 12-5). The major cause of recorded deaths is natural predation and disease among mourning doves. 

No feasible mitigation actions were identified in 2003 that may reduce the incidence of bird mortality on the NTS. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Number of Individuals

Foals

Yearlings

> 2 Yearsold
Ecological Monitoring

 12-13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Number of Dead Birds

Roadkill

Electrocution

Entrapment

Drowning

Predation

Disease

Chick Mortality

Unknown

Figure 12-5. Number of bird deaths recorded on the NTS by year and by cause 

The document Ecology of the Western Burrowing Owl on the Nevada Test Site (Hall et al., 2003) was completed in 2003. The 

report summarizes the results of more than four years of field data collected on the NTS regarding this species. The 

western burrowing owl is a migratory bird and is also an FWS-designated species of concern which resides and breeds 

on the NTS. A section of the report addresses current NTS management practices for this bird which have been 

adjusted in response to the ecological information gathered. 

Natural and Human-Made Water Sources – Monitoring data collected in 2003 included: (1) surface area and 

surface flow of natural water sources, (2) description of disturbances observed at natural water sources, (3) species of 

wildlife observed at natural and man-made water sources, and (4) description of dead animals or animal remains found 

at water sources. Thirteen wetlands were visited at least once during 2003. Disturbances noted were trampling and 

grazing of vegetation by horses at four sites. No NNSA/NSO projects disturbed these natural water sources. Thirtynine plastic-lined sumps, 34 unlined well ponds, and 4 radioactive containment ponds were monitored in 2003. 

About 30 dead mourning doves were detected. These deaths were from predation and disease. Dirt ramps have been 

installed during previous years in many plastic-lined sumps to allow entrapped animals to escape. No state-protected 

or un-protected animals were observed dead at any plastic-lined sumps in 2003. 

12.4 Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program 

12.4.1 Goals and Measures 

The native vegetation and wildlife habitat at disturbed NTS sites are sometimes restored by seeding and/or planting 

native plant species. This effort is called revegetation. NNSA/NSO evaluates revegetation as a potential method to 

stabilize soils at a site based on site size, future use, nature of soils, annual precipitation, slope, aspect, and site location 

(DOE, 1996). Revegetation supports the intent of Executive Order 13112 Invasive Species which is to prevent the 

introduction and spread of invasive (non-native) species and restore native species to disturbed sites. To date, the 

majority of NNSA/NSO projects for which revegetation has been pursued are abandoned industrial or nuclear test 

support sites that have been characterized and remediated under the Environmental Restoration (ER) Program. Also, 

the ER Program has funded revegetation of soil cover caps to protect against soil erosion and water percolation into 

buried waste. In 2003, a wildfire burn site in Area 12 (Egg Point Wildfire site) was revegetated to help minimize soil 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-14

erosion and the invasion of non-native species which would make the site more prone to future wildland fires. In 

addition to conducting all revegetation efforts on the NTS, the Habitat Restoration Monitoring Program conducts 

short- and long-term monitoring of revegetated sites. The summary of this program’s goals are to: 

• Design and implement site-specific revegetation plans at approved disturbed sites 

• Monitor the short- and long-term outcome of revegetation efforts 

• Monitor the long-term outcome of natural vegetation succession at disturbed sites where revegetation has not 

occurred 

• Develop a site-wide habitat restoration plan based on evaluations of past revegetation efforts, natural succession 

processes, and wildlife habitat requirements 

• Monitor the effectiveness of revegetation to restore wildlife habitat 

The field measures routinely used to monitor both revegetation success and the status of natural succession at sites 

include: 

• Plant density 

• Percent survival 

• Plant cover (percent of ground covered by living plant material) by species or by plant type (e.g., annual grasses, 

forbs) 

• Presence of wildlife species and their sign (e.g., burrows, scat, ant mounds) 

12.4.2 2003 Activities 

The Egg Point Wildfire burned approximately 121 hectares (300 acres) in Area 12 on August 16, 2002. The fire 

encompassed vegetation within the following three vegetation associations, as per Ostler, et al., (2000): BlackbrushNevada Jointfir, Singleleaf Pinyon-Black Sagebrush, and Rubber Rabbitbrush-Nevada Jointfir. The majority of plant 

cover was lost but there did not appear to be any significant direct impacts to wildlife or to any sensitive plant or 

animal species. The Nevada Test Site Wildland Fire Management Plan (BN, 2002) prescribes the rehabilitation of 

land after a fire, mainly for the prevention of future wildland fires, and secondarily for erosion control. Revegetation 

of the site began in November 2002 and was completed in March 2003. A total of 1,681 kg (3,705 lb) of bulk native 

seed of 14 different species was distributed over the site. Rocky steep areas with little, if any, soil were not seeded. 

The total area seeded is estimated to be 93 - 101 hectares (230 - 250 acres). About 5,000 transplants of native shrubs 

were planted along drainages. 

Vegetation monitoring of the burn site was conducted in June 2003. Monitoring focused on assessing the success of 

seed germination and plant establishment on the steep upper slopes and the lower slopes and bottoms. Plant density 

of seeded species on the burn site was low. The continued drought conditions on the NTS and throughout the 

southwest have not been favorable for seed germination and plant growth. On the lower and upper slopes, total plant 

density was 5.73 and 8.09 plants/m2 (plants per square meter) (0.53 and 0.75 plants/ft2) respectively. However, only a 

small portion of these were seeded species. The majority of the other plants were invasive annuals, primarily Bromus 

rubens (red brome) and B. tectorum (cheatgrass). Seeded species may emerge during future growing seasons as soil 

moisture is replenished. Transplant areas were sampled to determine transplant survival. Five months after planting, 

the overall survival of all transplants sampled was 75 percent. 

12.5 Biological Monitoring of the HSC 

12.5.1 Goals and Measures 

Biological monitoring at the HSC on the playa of Frenchman Lake in Area 5 will be performed as an EMAC task 

whenever there is a risk of significant exposure to downwind plants and animals from the planned test releases of 

hazardous materials. The Desert National Wildlife Refuge lies just east of the NTS border approximately 5 km (3 mi) 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-15

downwind from the HSC. Biological monitoring of HSC tests is a requirement of the facility’s Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment (DOE, 2002c). An unpublished BN document titled Biological Monitoring Plan for Hazardous 

Materials Testing at the Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility on the Nevada Test Site prepared in 1996 and updated in 

2002 describes how field surveys will be conducted to meet the following two goals: (1) document significant impacts 

of chemical testing on plants and animals and (2) verify that HSC operations comply with the National Wildlife 

Refuge Administration Act (see Section 1.9). Monitoring will entail sampling established transects both downwind 

and upwind of the HSC. The parameters to be measured whenever transects must be sampled will include: 

• Number and type of dead animals observed 

• Number and type of wildlife observed 

• Presence of observed vegetation damage 

12.5.2 Methods 

Biologists are tasked to review all chemical release test plans to determine the level of field monitoring needed. The 

level of monitoring is determined by the ecological exposure risk of each proposed test. Risk is ranked into three 

qualitative categories: minimal, moderate, and high. Under minimal risk there would be nondetectable levels of 

released chemicals at the playa edge as verified by air sampling instruments. At moderate risk, there would be a 

probability that released chemicals will contact biota downwind. High risk tests would potentially expose downwind 

biota to potentially damaging concentrations of chemicals. For tests classified as minimal risk, no biotic monitoring is 

conducted. For tests classified as moderate and high risk, field sampling along established transects downwind and 

upwind would be conducted before and after testing. Details of the risk assessment review process and of the levels 

of biological monitoring performed for each risk level are described in the biological monitoring plan. Chemical 

releases at the HSC use such small quantities that downwind test-specific monitoring has not been necessary. 

Biologists conduct baseline sampling of all transects three times a year regardless if biological monitoring is needed for 

chemical spill tests. This sampling documents representative baseline conditions during the spring (period of 

maximum plant growth), summer (period of declining growth and increasing plant stress), and winter (period of plant 

dormancy) and will document any long-term and/or cumulative impacts of testing that would not be detected 

otherwise. It also documents any adverse ecological effects from natural phenomenon such as drought and freezing 

which may be observed along downwind transects and erroneously attributed to HSC operations. 

12.5.3 Results 

Chemical spill test plans for the following five tests were reviewed in 2003 and determined to be minimal risk tests 

requiring no field monitoring: 

• Ground Truth Engineering Tests 

• Divine Invader Test Series 

• DuPont Fuming Acids Mitigation Workshop 

• Quail Project 

• Roadrunner II Test 

Baseline monitoring was conducted at established control and treatment transects in February and August. This 

sampling noted the condition of plants and the presence of wildlife sign during the period of vegetative dormancy. 

No differences in biota were noted along downwind (treatment) versus upwind (control) transects. Noticeable 

cumulative impacts on biota from HSC testing have not been observed. Baseline monitoring data are made available 

to neighboring land managers upon request. 
Ecological Monitoring

 12-16

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

Underground Test Area Project

 

 13-1 

13.0 Underground Test Area Project 

The Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project is the largest project in the Environmental Restoration Division and 

addresses groundwater contamination resulting from past underground nuclear testing conducted in shafts and 

tunnels by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office 

(NNSA/NSO) on the Nevada Test Site (NTS). From 1951 to 1992, more than 800 underground nuclear tests were 

conducted at the NTS (U.S. Department of Energy [DOE], 2000). Most of these tests were conducted hundreds of 

feet above the groundwater table, however, over 200 of the tests were within or near the water table. This 

underground testing was limited to specific areas of the NTS including Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa, Shoshone 

Mountain, Frenchman Flat, and Yucca Flat. 

The UGTA Project collects data to define groundwater flow rates and direction to determine the nature and location 

of aquifers (geologic formation of permeable rock containing or conducting groundwater). In addition, project team 

members gather information regarding the hydrology and geology of the area under investigation. Data from these 

studies will help determine whether or not radionuclides resulting from nuclear testing have moved appreciable 

distances from the original test location. Numerous surface and subsurface investigations are ongoing to ensure that 

these issues are addressed. 

Surface investigations include: 

• Evaluating discharges from springs located downgradient of the NTS 

• Assessing surface geology 

Subsurface investigations include: 

• Drilling deep wells to access groundwater hundreds to thousands of feet below the surface 

• Sampling groundwater to test for any radioactive contaminants 

• Assessing NTS hydrology and subsurface geology to determine possible groundwater flow direction 

13.1 New Drilling 

The UGTA Project initiated a hydrogeologic investigation well drilling program for the Yucca Flat Corrective Action 

Unit (CAU) in 2002 (International Technology [IT], 2002). This drilling initiative included five new characterization 

wells. In 2003 the UGTA Project drilled and completed the last three wells of this drilling initiative: ER-12-2, located 

in northwestern Yucca Flat; ER-7-1, located in eastern Yucca Flat; and ER-2-1, located in central Yucca Flat (see 

Section 3.1.3.4, Figure 3-5). 

Well ER-12-2 – Drilling activities at Well ER-12-2 began in December of 2002 and continued into calendar year 

2003. The well was drilled to a total depth of 2,097 m (6,881 ft) and completed in Mississippian-age clastic rocks (the 

“upper clastic confining unit, or UCCU”, see Appendix A, Section A.5.3.2 for explanation of the hydrostratigraphic 

units presented here). The primary uses of Well ER-12-2 are to provide data that constrain models of groundwater 

flow into Yucca Flat from the northwest and to constrain the hydrogeologic framework model in this area of sparse 

subsurface data. 

Well ER-7-1 – This well, located in eastern Yucca Flat, was completed in February of 2003 at a total depth of 762 m 

(2,500 ft) in Paleozoic-age carbonate rocks (the regional “lower carbonate aquifer”, or LCA). The primary use of Well 

ER-7-1 is to evaluate the LCA down-gradient from an underground nuclear test conducted close to the LCA. The 

well also provides information that will enhance the understanding of the hydrogeology of eastern Yucca Flat and 

help define hydraulic and hydrochemical parameters in the LCA. 

Well ER-2-1 – This well, located in central Yucca Flat, was the last characterization well in the Yucca Flat drilling 

initiative. It was completed in March of 2003 at a total depth of 792 m (2,600 ft) in zeolitic bedded tuffs (the “tuff 
Underground Test Area Project 

 13-2

confining unit”, or TCU). The primary use of Well ER-2-1 is to characterize the radiological and physical 

environment near underground nuclear tests conducted in a saturated volcanic aquifer setting. The goal of this 

drilling and hydrogeologic investigation program is to collect additional subsurface geologic and hydrologic data in the 

Yucca Flat CAU (see Section 3.1.4, Figure 3-5), where shaft and tunnel nuclear tests were conducted between 1957 

and 1992 (DOE, 2000). Data from these wells will allow for more accurate modeling of groundwater flow and 

radionuclide migration in this former test area. Some of the new wells may also function as long-term monitoring 

wells. Well construction information and hydrologic and geologic data for these recent UGTA wells will be published 

in separate reports by Bechtel Nevada (BN) for NNSA/NSO in 2004.

13.2 Aquifer Tests 

Well development and hydrological testing were conducted at five wells in 2003; Wells ER-2-1, ER-5-4, ER-6-1#2, 

ER-7-1, and ER-12-2. Multi-well aquifer tests were conducted at Wells ER-5-4#2 and ER-6-1#2 in 2003. Well 

ER-6-1#2 will be part of a multi-well tracer experiment designed to enhance understanding of the hydraulic 

properties of the lower carbonate aquifer. Data from initial pump tests and tracer experiments are being analyzed. 

Well development and hydrologic testing activities will be published in separate reports by Stoller-Navarro Joint 

Venture for NNSA/NSO in 2004. 

13.3 Groundwater Sampling 

UGTA groundwater samples collected in 2003 included the following: 

• Preliminary (pre-development) characterization samples from the newly drilled wells ER-12-2, ER-7-1, and 

ER-2-1 

• Characterization samples from Wells ER-5-4#2 and ER-6-1#2 following hydraulic testing activities 

• Characterization samples from eight characterization wells drilled in 1999 for the Western Pahute Mesa-Oasis 

Valley study area: ER-EC-1, ER-EC-2A, ER-EC-4, ER-EC-5, ER-EC-6, ER-EC-7, ER-EC-8, and ER-18-2 

• Samples from four post-shot/cavity wells, or “Hot Wells”: U-4t PS#3A, U-19q PS#1D, U-19v PS#1DS, and 

U-20n PS#1DDH 

The results of sampling in 2003 are presented in Section 3.1.4 of this NTSER along with all other radiological 

groundwater monitoring results. 

13.4 Geophysical Studies 

In October, November, and December 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey collected Magnetotelluric (MT) data at 52 

sites in Yucca Flat. This MT survey included a series of sites in generally west to east transects across Yucca Flat and 

Control Point (CP) Basin. Briefly, MT is an electromagnetic sounding technique that measures naturally-occurring 

electric and magnetic fields in the earth’s crust (Christopherson, 1998). These measurements can be compiled and 

processed to infer resistivity of the rocks in the subsurface to several kilometers depth. The natural source of MT 

fields is lightening discharge (perhaps many hundreds to thousands of miles away), and magnetospheric current 

systems generated by an interaction of solar wind and the earth’s magnetic field (Appendix A of Schenkel et al., 1999). 

The Yucca Flat MT data were collected primarily to provide insights regarding the pre-Tertiary stratigraphy and 

structure in Yucca Flat. Of particular interest was the presence and extent of the UCCU and the CP Thrust Fault. 

Data from this study will be used to enhance the three-dimensional (3D) hydrostratigraphic framework model of the 

Yucca Flat CAU. 

13.5 3D Hydrostratigraphic Framework Models 

A regional 3D computer groundwater model (IT, 1996) has already been developed to identify any immediate risk and 

to provide a basis for developing more detailed models of specific NTS test areas designated as individual CAUs. The 

regional model constituted Phase I of the UGTA project. The CAU-specific models, of which up to four are planned 

(geographically covering each of the six former NTS testing areas), comprise Phase II. To date, two have been built: 

Frenchman Flat (IT, 1998) and the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley model (BN, 2002a). An enhanced model for 
Underground Test Area Project 

 13-3

Frenchman Flat and a Yucca Flat model are in progress. The more detailed CAU-specific groundwater-flow and 

contaminant-transport models will be used to determine contaminant boundaries based on the maximum extent of 

contaminant migration. The results of the individual CAU groundwater models will be used to refine the Routine 

Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan monitoring network to ensure public health and safety.
Underground Test Area Project

 

 13-4 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

 14-1 

14.0 Hydrologic Resources Management Program 

The primary responsibility of the Hydrologic Resources Management Program (HRMP) is to provide U.S. 

Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) with hydrologic 

data and information on groundwater supplies to support ongoing activities and to assist in planning new uses for the 

Nevada Test Site (NTS). The main objective of this program is to provide a sound technical basis for NTS 

groundwater use decisions regarding the quality and quantity of water resources available on and around the NTS on a 

long-term scale. 

14.1 Program Goals 

The goal of the HRMP is to support national security operations at the NTS by the investigation of site hydrology, 

radionuclide migration, and protection of NTS water resources. The HRMP meets this goal through long-term 

research activities including data collection, analysis, evaluation, modeling, and documentation. These activities 

provide reliable information for decision-making on groundwater utilization, stewardship, and environmental 

protection. Research and technology development activities essential to the achievement of these goals are an integral 

part of the HRMP. 

14.2 Program Activities 

Results of program activities are available as technical reports and documents. Project participants also disseminate 

information and transfer technologies through publication in technical reports and peer-reviewed journals, 

presentations at professional meetings and symposia, and educational outreach activities. 

14.2.1 Hydrology and Radionuclide Investigations for Operations 

The HRMP assists NNSA/NSO in maintaining capabilities in hydrology and radiochemistry to support test readiness 

and science-based stockpile stewardship through applied field and laboratory studies of the occurrence, distribution, 

and movement of radionuclides in groundwater at the NTS. Scientific expertise is utilized in the assembly, analysis, 

and evaluation of data to produce requested hydrologic and radionuclide information. State of Nevada regulations 

require NNSA/NSO to provide detailed information on hydrologic conditions of the NTS. At the request of 

NNSA/NSO management, the HRMP gathers, analyzes, and transfers science-based information to the state of 

Nevada and other external customers. 

Hydrologic services, provided upon request to NNSA/NSO programs, include depth-to-groundwater estimates, water 

level measurements, containment evaluations, and determining emplacement hole integrity. Technology development 

projects and research investigations are conducted to address gaps in the capabilities and knowledge required to 

support safe conduct of operations for stockpile stewardship, nuclear test readiness, and national security. Previous 

and current activities include: 

• Determining the steady state and transient hydrologic conditions in the subsurface, such as location of 

groundwater table, perched water zones, and regions of enhanced permeability. 

• Using and developing state-of-the-art radiochemical instrumentation to analyze rocks and water samples in order 

to predict the fate and transport of radioactive isotopes deposited from subsurface experiments. 

• Achieving a more fundamental understanding of chemical fractionation in underground nuclear tests through 

sample analysis and experimentation. 

• Investigating the subsurface geology and fracture propagation in the vicinity of underground nuclear tests for 

containment issues. 

• Building public confidence by conducting public and government outreach and education programs on the 

hydrologic environment and impact of nuclear testing on water resources at the NTS. 

• Investigating the free water and bound water relationships in boreholes and cores. 
Hydrologic Resources Management Program

 14-2 

14.2.2 Long-Term Groundwater Stewardship 

A major element of the HRMP mission is the protection and long-term stewardship of NTS groundwater 

resources. A range of activities, including monitoring of groundwater levels, quality and consumption; monitoring 

well evaluation; and maintaining a wellhead protection program, are conducted to accomplish this element. HRMP 

supports groundwater flow model development for both the Death Valley Region (which includes the NTS) and for 

the NTS and will continue to support refinement of these models. Based upon hydrologic investigations and 

modeling, HRMP will evaluate proposed new groundwater uses on and near the NTS for their potential impacts on 

NTS groundwater reserves, quality, flow paths, and radionuclide migration. The HRMP protects NTS groundwater 

by implementing a well installation and maintenance program to ensure: 

• Reliability of the potable water supply. 

• Optimal location, design, and construction of new potable water wells. 

• Long-term reliability of monitoring wells to supply representative water samples. 

• Integrity of emplacement and groundwater boreholes. 

The HRMP also provides assistance to NNSA/NSO regarding the impact of NTS water usage on offsite water 

supplies and springs, such as Devil’s Hole. In addition, the HRMP assists in addressing compliance issues and is 

responsive to the needs of NNSA/NSO that result from state and federal regulations not within the purview of other 

programs, or which may be well-addressed by the capabilities of the HRMP. For example, implementation of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act dictates substantial compliance efforts both on and outside the boundaries of the NTS, a process 

to which HRMP can provide valuable support. 

HRMP also has a groundwater review and advice capability with a unique NTS perspective that is invaluable to 

NNSA/NSO. HRMP scientists conduct competent, informed, and independent reviews of NNSA/NSO 

groundwater-related program documents prior to their release to extensive regulatory and public scrutiny. This 

capability enhances both the protection of NTS groundwater resources and the accuracy and credibility of 

NNSA/NSO program documentation. 
Meteorological Monitoring

 15-1

15.0 Meteorological Monitoring 

15.1 Meteorological Monitoring Goals 

Meteorological and climatological data are collected on the Nevada Test Site (NTS) by the Air Resources Laboratory, 

Special Operations and Research Division (ARL/SORD). Data are collected through the Meteorological Data 

Acquisition (MEDA) system, a network of approximately 30 mobile meteorological towers located primarily on the 

NTS. The MEDA system became operational in 1981, replacing an older system. MEDA is used to measure, 

transmit, and display vital meteorological data to SORD meteorologists and U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO) customers. These data are used daily for 

operational support to a wide variety of projects on the NTS and form the climatological database for the NTS. 

Additional uses for the database are for safety analysis reports, emergency response activities, radioactive waste 

remediation projects, environmental reports, and consequence assessments. 

15.2 MEDA Station 

Locations 

A standard MEDA unit consists of 

an enclosed trailer, a portable 10 m 

(32.8 ft) tower, an electric generator 

(when needed), a microprocessor, 

and a microwave radio transmitter. 

An example of a MEDA unit is 

shown in Figure 15-1. Locations of 

the MEDA stations at the time of the 

preparation of this report are shown 

in Figure 15-2. All towers were sited 

according to standards set by the 

Federal Meteorological Handbook 

No. 1 (NOAA, 1995) and the World 

Meteorological Organization 

(WMO, 2002) so as not to be 

influenced by natural or man-made 

obstructions, or by heat dissipation 

and generation systems. MEDA 

station locations are based on the 

following criteria: (1) availability of 

power, (2) access by road, (3) 

line-of-sight to a microwave repeater, 

and (4) project support. The primary 

goal of the network is to provide 

details in the surface wind field for 

emergency response activities related 

to the transport and dispersion of 

hazardous materials. 

15.3 MEDA Station 

Instrumentation 

MEDA station instrumentation is 

located on booms oriented into the 

prevailing wind direction and at a 

minimum distance of two tower 

widths from the tower. Wind Figure 15-1. Example of a typical MEDA station with 10 meter tower 
Meteorological Monitoring

 15-2

Figure 15-2. MEDA station locations on and near the NTS 
Meteorological Monitoring 

 15-3

direction and speed are measured at the 10-m level according to ANS/ANSI 3.11 (American Nuclear Society, 2000). 

Ambient temperature, relative humidity, and atmospheric pressure measurements are taken at approximately the 

2-m level so as to be within the surface boundary layer. The observations are collected and transmitted every 15 

minutes on the quarter hours. Wind data are 5-min averages of speed and direction. The peak wind speed is the 

fastest instantaneous gust measured within the 15-min time interval. Temperature, relative humidity, and pressure are 

instantaneous measurements. 

15.4 Rain Gauge Network 

ARL/SORD also operates and maintains a climatological rain gauge network on the NTS. This network consists of 

17 Belford Series 5-780 Universal Precipitation Gauges (Figure 15-3). These are strip chart recorders that are read at 

least every 30 days. Once read and checked, the data are entered into the SORD precipitation climatological database. 

Data are recorded as daily totals. Under special circumstance, 1- to 3-hour totals can be obtained. 

15.5 Data Access 

The meteorological parameters measured at each station are listed on the SORD website 

<http://www.sord.nv.doe.gov> along with other information. MEDA data are also processed and archived in the 

ARL/SORD climatological database. Climatological data summaries are posted on the ARL/SORD website under 

the AClimate@ section. SORD meteorologists provide specially tailored climatological summaries by request through 

NNSA/NSO. Wind data from the MEDA stations are used each year to calculate radiological doses from NTS air 

emissions to members of the public residing near the NTS (see Section 7.1.2.3). 
Meteorological Monitoring

 15-4

Figure 15-3. Climatological rain gauge network on the NTS 
Environmental Management System

 16-1

16.0 Environmental Management System 

Bechtel Nevada’s (BN’s) Environmental Management System (EMS) is modeled after ISO 14001 while needing to 

satisfy U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 450.1. BN Process Description PD-0442.001, “Environmental 

Management System Description,” discusses how each of the seventeen elements of ISO 14001 is addressed, 

including controlling documents and organizations. This EMS Description is not a procedure, but is a roadmap to all 

the environmental processes and governing documents in the different EMS elements. The EMS Description will be 

revised in 2004 to reflect system improvements, updated procedures, and the blending in of the DOE Order 450.1 

requirements. BN has an existing Environmental Policy that will also need to be updated to reference Order 450.1 as 

a driver and model for the environmental program. During 2003, progress was made in the areas of aspect 

identification and mitigation, identification and implementation of regulatory changes, addressing environmental 

issues in work control and execution plans, and overall awareness of the EMS. 

After DOE Order 450.1 was approved in 2003, BN evaluated the Order and identified requirements that were not 

fully implemented. These were primarily in the pollution prevention areas, where DOE funding has been greatly 

reduced in the last few years. There are also areas such as resource protection from wildland and operational fires that 

are not traditionally thought of as environmental programs that will now need to be included in the EMS. A table is 

being prepared that lists all the requirements in the Order and identifies how each requirement is met and what 

organization is responsible for implementation or oversight. 

A key goal of the new Order is to incorporate the EMS program into the existing Integrated Safety Management 

System (ISMS). This will require the ISMS Program Plan to be updated to specify that the EMS and Order 450.1 are 

the method by which the environmental part of ISMS is implemented. An example of how this is being accomplished 

is that the BN procedure and form for performing a hazard analysis for a new work activity is being modified to 

include environmental aspects. BN has identified its significant environmental aspects and is in the process of adding 

them and their respective mitigating actions to the hazard analysis form. This form that people are already used to 

completing for safety and health issues will soon better incorporate environmental issues. Identifying potential 

environmental impacts and mitigating them in the planning phase of doing work is the single most important part of a 

successful EMS. Goal setting is also included in the planning phase of performing work. Each year BN has several 

environmental goals identified in the Contractor Performance and Fee Award Program. These are measurable goals 

where performance is tracked and reported to ensure the maximum change for successful completion. Affirmative 

Procurement goals are also tracked and reported annually. 

Work will continue to strengthen the EMS program. All the elements of ISO 14001 and DOE Order 450.1 are 

already in place to some degree, so full integration of EMS into ISMS, and full implementation of 450.1 should be 

complete by the deadline of December 31, 2005.
Environmental Management System

 16-2

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-1

17.0 Compliance Quality Assurance Program 

The Quality Assurance Program (QAP) ensures that all environmental monitoring data meet quality assurance and 

quality control requirements in compliance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Order 414.1A Change 1 Quality 

Assurance. Samples are collected and analyzed in accordance with standard operating procedures that are designed to 

ensure samples are representative and data are reliable and defensible. Quality control in the analytical laboratories is 

maintained through instrument calibration, efficiency and background checks, and testing for precision and accuracy. 

Data are validated as required by project-specific objectives before they are used to support decision making. 

Specifically, the Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan (RREMP) (DOE, 2003b) provides a formalized 

process to ensure that all sampling and analytical objectives are appropriate, economically feasible, reliable, and 

defensible. Elements of the QAP include the following: 

• Data and Measurement Quality Objectives are developed to ensure that clear goals and objectives are 

established for data collection, analyses, and projected data use. 

• A Sampling Plan is developed to ensure that an appropriate plan of action is developed to execute scope in 

accordance with DOE, administrative, or legal requirements such as environmental, safety, and health concerns. 

• Laboratory Sample Analyses are implemented to ensure that analysis of samples for required parameters meet 

Bechtel Nevada (BN), customer, and regulatory-defined requirements. 

• Data Management Procedures are used to ensure that all data are readily retrievable, protected through a 

system of checks and balances, and defensibly archived. 

• Data Review and Systematic Assessments are made to ensure that analytical data quality are improved and 

enhanced, and to adequately assess procedures, identify nonconforming items, implement corrective actions, 

monitor for corrective action effectiveness, and provide feedback and lessons learned. 

A discussion of these program elements follows together with the results of the 2003 QAP assessment. 

17.1 Data and Measurement Quality Objectives 

The Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) process is a strategic planning approach that is used to plan for a data collection 

activity. It provides a systematic process for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy, including 

when to collect samples, where to collect samples, the tolerable level of decision errors for the study, and how many 

samples to collect.

The Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) can generally be considered as the DQOs for the analytical process. 

The MQOs provide direction to the laboratory concerning performance objectives or requirements for specific 

method performance characteristics. Default MQOs are established in the subcontract, but may be altered on a 

project-by-project basis in order to satisfy the DQOs. MQOs may generally be described in terms of precision, 

accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability requirements. The following discussion includes brief 

statements on these terms as they apply to the overall monitoring effort to provide correlation with laboratory efforts. 

The RREMP (DOE, 2003b) provides additional discussions on monitoring, precision, accuracy, representativeness, 

completeness, and comparability. 

17.1.1 Precision 

Precision refers to “the degree of mutual agreement characteristic of independent measurements as the result of 

repeated application of the process under specified conditions” (Taylor 1987). Practically, precision is determined by 

comparing the results obtained from performing the sample analysis on split samples, or on duplicate samples taken at 

the same time from the same location, maintaining sampling and analytical conditions as nearly identical as possible. 

Precision related to the overall monitoring effort is evaluated by comparing results for field duplicate samples of 

particulates in air, tritiated water vapor, Thermoluminescent Dosimeters (TLDs), and some water samples. Precision 

related to laboratory operations is evaluated by comparing laboratory duplicates/replicates with established control 

limits. The laboratory is directed in the subcontract to establish and maintain precision control limits for various 

matrices and analytes. Control limits may be specified in the subcontract or by the specific method, but are more 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-2

commonly generated and maintained by the laboratory in order to develop controls specific to their operations. In 

most cases however, laboratory specific limits should not be less stringent than those published in the standard 

methods. 

17.1.2 Accuracy 

Accuracy refers to “the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value of the quantity of 

concern” (Taylor, 1987), and may be defined as the ratio of the measured value divided by the true value, expressed as 

a percent. Accuracy related to the overall monitoring effort is evaluated by comparing field sample results with 

historic data to determine whether the data points fall within acceptable statistical trends, or other criteria. Accuracy 

related to laboratory operations is monitored by performing measurements and evaluating results of control samples 

of known composition which contain the analytes of interest. The control samples are analyzed using the same 

sample preparation and analytical methods as employed for the project samples. The subcontract provides the 

required control limits or directs the laboratory to establish control limits. Control limits may be specified by the 

specific method, but may be generated and maintained by the laboratory in order to develop controls specific to their 

operations. In cases where a laboratory is authorized to establish in-house limits, they can not be less stringent than 

those published in the standard methods. Compliance with accuracy control limits is usually required in order for 

further analysis to be performed. 

17.1.3 Representativeness 

Representativeness is the degree to which a sample is truly representative of the sampled medium (i.e., the degree to 

which measured analytical concentrations represent the concentrations in the medium being sampled) (Stanley and 

Verner 1985). Representativeness from a sample collection standpoint is managed through sampling plan design and 

execution in order to ensure the process collects a sample which is representative of the source material. 

Representativeness related to laboratory operations is managed primarily through direction to the laboratory, for 

example if the sample is a heterogeneous matrix (soil, sludge, solids, etc.), it should be homogenized prior to 

aliquoting for preparation or analysis. Water samples are generally considered homogeneous unless observation 

suggests otherwise. Individual air samples, as a function of the collection media, cannot be homogenized by the 

laboratory. Composite air samples are necessarily homogenized by the laboratory during the preparation process. 

Field sample duplicate or replicate analyses are additional controls allowing determination of representativeness. 

17.1.4 Comparability 

Comparability refers to “the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another” (Stanley and Verner, 

1985). Comparability from an overall monitoring perspective is ensured by sampling design, sample collection and 

handling, laboratory analyses, and data review which are performed in accordance with established Organization 

Instructions (OIs) and Procedures and standardized methodologies. Comparability regarding laboratory operations is 

managed through direction to the laboratory which requires that standard methods will be used when available. When 

a standard method is not available, or when analytes may be determined by multiple techniques, equivalent quality 

assurance (QA) controls must be applied and more attention should be paid to review in order to draw conclusions 

on comparability. 

17.2 Sampling Plan 

Quality assurance in field operations includes development of an execution sampling plan, sampling assessments, 

surveillances, and oversight. Key elements of this plan include: (1) development of a Sample Package, (2) data 

management, and (3) appropriate training. 

17.2.1 Sample Packages 

Sample Packages are prepared that contains the data quality objectives, execution sampling plan or statement of work 

(SOW), organizational instructions, and field logs. Sample packages must be prepared prior to conducting any 

sampling and may include the following items: 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-3

Checklists to include: 

– Routing list showing all personnel who must review and approve the sample package 

– Pre-job and post-job checklists which describe personal protective equipment, safety, etc. 

– Sample package task lead summary 

– Requested analyses 

– Performance evaluation or certification for all labs that do the requested analyses 

– Signature page which documents signatures of all personnel associated with the work 

• Field Logs for all samples required to be taken 

• Work Package includes the “Traveler” sheet (a work notification and authorization tool) if required 

• Specific, detailed Work Instructions 

• Material Safety Data Sheets for all chemicals that are being used for the job 

• Authorization Basis Documents that would include Execution Plans (Facility, Project, Support) that apply to the 

sampling effort as well as Real Estate/Operations Permits that identify the U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office real property assets and operations involved in the sampling 

effort 

• Chains-of-Custody 

This managed approach to sampling ensures that the sampling is traceable and enhances the value of the final results 

available to project managers. The sample package also ensures that the sampler is prepared for the sampling event. 

The manager or QA Officer routinely performs assessments or surveillances of each type of sampling event to ensure 

that samplers are adhering to the OIs and sampling protocol and that the OIs represent what is actually being done. 

17.2.2 Database Support 

Database support includes the Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System (BEIDMS) for field data 

and laboratory results. Completed Sample Packages, analysis results, data review checklists, etc., are optically scanned 

and entered into the Optix Data Base to enhance accessibility to these documents. The Optix system is used for 

scanning, long term storage, and retrieval of the Sample Package as a graphic image. Data obtained in the course of 

executing field operations are entered in the Sample Package during field work and in the BEIDMS after completion 

of the field activities. 

17.2.3 Training 

Bechtel Nevada ensures that all personnel are properly trained and qualified prior to doing work under the RREMP. 

A matrix is maintained to identify training required for each individual and their current status. It is checked prior to 

each sampling episode to ensure that personnel are qualified to do the work and job-specific training requirements are 

checked by the field sampling supervisor prior to assignment of personnel to sampling jobs. 

17.3 Laboratory Sample Analyses 

Because much of the laboratory sample analyses not done internally, but through subcontracts for laboratory services, 

Bechtel Nevada ensures DOE Order 414.1A, “Quality Assurance” requirements are met by structuring subcontracts 

for services that emphasize quality assurance. This is accomplished through a multifaceted approach that focuses on 

three areas: (1) Procurement, (2) Initial and Continuing Assessment, and (3) a Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

(LQAP). 

17.3.1 Procurement 

Laboratory services are procured through subcontract. The subcontract specifies the requirements and technical 

specifications needed to determine compliance with those requirements and to evaluate overall performance of the 

subcontractor. Subcontracts are established through a competitive bid process and a formal request for proposal 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-4

(RFP) process. It is awarded on a “best value” basis. The RFP generally requires a prospective vendor to submit in a 

proposal. Successful proposals include: 

• All procedures pertinent to subcontract scope 

• An Environmental, Safety and Health Plan 

• Examples of deliverables, both hardcopies and electronic copies 

• Proficiency Testing (PT) results from previous years of participation in recognized PT programs 

• Resumes of those conducting the work 

• A description of the facility or its design 

• Accreditations and certifications 

• Licenses 

• Audits performed within the last year by the DOE Consolidated Audit Program (DOECAP) (formerly DOE 

Environmental Management CAP), other DOE sites, or other audits (DoD, etc.) covering comparable scope and 

acceptable to BN 

• Past performance surveys 

• A LQAP 

• Pricing 

Proposal evaluations are conducted and scored as detailed in the RFP. Pricing evaluation is performed by the 

procurement representative and is a separate operation from the technical evaluation. The BN technical evaluation 

team does not receive pricing information and performs the evaluation based solely on technical capability, in this way 

ensuring that the technical evaluation is not biased by pricing. 

17.3.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment 

An initial assessment is made during the RFP process above, including a pre-award audit. If an acceptable audit has 

not been performed within the past year, BN will consider performing an audit (or participating in an DOECAP 

audit) of those laboratories awarded the contract. However, in no instance does BN initiate work with a laboratory 

without approval of BN personnel authorized for ensuring acceptable vendors. A continuing assessment consists of 

the ongoing monitoring of a laboratory’s performance against the contract terms and conditions, of which the 

technical specifications are a part. Tasks supporting continuing assessment are: 

• Tracking schedule compliance 

• Review of analytical data deliverables (Appendix F of DOE, 2003b) 

• Conducting regular audits or participating in evaluation of DOECAP audit products 

• Monitoring for continued successful participation in proficiency testing (PT) programs. The subcontract 

established with the laboratory requires or suggests participation in the following PT programs: 

– National Institute of Standards and Technology Radiochemistry Intercomparison Program 

– Studies equivalent to the former Environmental Protection Agency Water Pollution and -Water Supply 

programs which support certification by the state of Nevada for analyses performed in support of Clean 

Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act monitoring 

• Monitoring of the lab’s adherence to the LQAP 

17.3.3 Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

Each laboratory must develop a Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan (LQAP). The LQAP is a statement of the 

laboratory’s policies and approach to the implementation of DOE Order 414.1A for ensuring the generation of 

quality data. Elements of the plan include: (1) the LQAP requirements, (2) LQAP management responsibilities, and 

(3) additional subcontract requirements. 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-5

17.3.3.1 LQAP Requirements 

LQAP requirements include the following elements: 

• Establishes that senior management shall be responsible for the scope of the LQAP and implementing, assessing, 

and continually improving an effective quality system 

• Designates an individual responsible for developing, implementing, and routinely monitoring the LQAP program 

• Describes the organizational structure, functional responsibilities, levels of authority, and interfaces for those 

managing, performing, and assessing the work 

• Defines the organization's policies regarding, and its commitment to, ethical standards, client confidentiality, and 

the implementation of safety and quality standards 

• Establishes that line management shall be responsible for achieving quality in specific activities 

• Establishes that all personnel, including samplers, field analysts, laboratory technicians, scientists, researchers, 

principal investigators, operators, craftspeople, clerical/support staff, and internal auditors shall retain 

responsibility for the quality of their work. 

• Establishes that regulatory actions toward the organization or its parent corporation shall be reported immediately 

to cognizant management and affected clients. This includes actions, such as suspension of contracts with other 

federal agencies, notices of investigations, and legal actions against the organization or its personnel 

• Establishes that functional responsibilities shall include the following activities as a minimum: 

– Participating with the client for planning and developing analytical work scope 

– Training and personnel development 

– Preparing, reviewing, approving, and issuing instructions, procedures, schedules, and procurement 

documents; identifying and controlling hardware and software 

– Managing and operating facilities 

– Calibrating and controlling the equipment used to measure and test 

– Conducting investigations and improving methods 

– Acquiring, evaluating, and reporting data 

– Performing maintenance, repair, and improvements 

– Controlling records 

17.3.3.2 LQAP Management Responsibilities 

QA and/or Quality Control (QC) positions shall report to the highest level of management (e.g., manager or director). 

The QA program identifies personnel positions that are given the responsibility and authority to do the following: 

• Stop unsatisfactory work. The plan shall identify the chain of command through which any employee may initiate 

a stop-work order where detrimental ethical, contractual, quality, safety, or health conditions exist 

• Initiate action to prevent reporting laboratory results from a measurement system that is out of control 

• Prevent further reporting of measurements until corrective action has been completed 

• Identify any method or procedure that poses quality problems 

• Recommend, initiate, or provide solutions through designated channels, and monitor effectiveness of corrective 

actions 

17.3.3.3 Additional Subcontract Requirements 

Additional requirements are placed on the laboratory through the subcontract. Compliance with these requirements is 

verified through Initial and Continuing Assessment. These requirements include the following items. 

Personnel Training and Qualification – The Laboratory organization shall be clearly structured with well-defined 

responsibilities for each individual in the management system. This system shall ensure that sufficient resources are 

maintained to perform the requirements specified in the subcontract. Personnel performing services specified by the 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-6

subcontract SOW and personnel performing quality assurance activities shall receive suitable and timely indoctrination 

and training in such things as technical skills, laboratory analytical methods, QC procedures, safety policies, and waste 

management practices and essential elements of the QA Program prior to performing work. Records of the 

indoctrination and training shall include descriptions of the training provided, attendance sheets, training logs, and 

personnel training records. 

Quality Improvement – A system shall be established and implemented to identify, document, correct, and prevent 

quality problems, and this system shall be subject to ongoing documented review by management to assess its 

effectiveness.

Documents and Records – Activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, 

or drawings that include quantitative or qualitative acceptance criteria that can be used to determine whether activities 

are satisfactorily accomplished. Revisions to instructions, procedures, and drawings that affect the process or are 

technical in nature shall receive the same level of review and approval by the affected parties as the original document. 

Editorial changes may be made to instructions, procedures, and drawings without review and approval. Document 

control shall include measures by which documentation can be controlled, tracked, and updated in a timely manner to 

ensure that applicability and correctness are established. Control measures shall be used to ensure that documents are 

reviewed for adequacy, approved for release by authorized personnel, and distributed to and used at the location of 

the prescribed activity. 

Work Processes – Work shall be performed to established technical standards and administrative controls. Work 

shall be performed under controlled conditions using approved instructions, procedures, or instructions. Analytical 

procedures shall be listed by method number and matrix. Any method variances employed by the laboratory shall be 

documented. The laboratory shall specify protocols for reporting any incident that delays sample processing for a 

period of time, affects holding times, or delays work, and also specify the corrective action implemented. Examples 

of forms used to document out-of-control events are to be provided in the LQAP. 

Analysis of QC Samples and Documentation – A summary of QC procedures and documentation to be employed 

in the day-to-day operation of the laboratory shall be included. The discussion will emphasize the following as they 

relate to the different QC levels: 

– Analysis of method and reagent blanks. 

– Analysis of duplicates, spiked samples, spiked laboratory blanks, and reference or control standards such as 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Standards and Technology, or other recognized 

authority check standards. 

– The criteria used to establish warning and control limits for the above types of QC samples. 

– Documentation and examples of control data and control charts. 

– The frequency of analyzing blanks and other QC samples. 

– How data from QC samples are reported and reviewed. 

– Who reviews and makes decisions relative to QC data. 

Procurement – A process shall be established and implemented to control purchased items and services; this process 

shall be subject to ongoing review by management to assess its effectiveness. Subcontract documents require that 

suppliers of all tiers comply with technical and quality assurance requirements, including but not limited to, standards, 

measuring and test equipment, calibration services, and analytical test activities. Contracted items and services that 

have the potential to affect the quality of analytical tests shall be controlled to ensure conformance with contractual 

requirements. Such control shall include one or more of the following: Source evaluation and selection 

(pre-performance/pre-award survey), source verification, audit, and examination of items or services before use. The 

procurement documents shall specify the quality system elements for which the supplier is responsible and how the 

supplier's conformance to the customer's requirements will be verified. Procurement documents shall be reviewed for 

accuracy and completeness by qualified personnel prior to release. Changes to procurement documents shall receive 

the same level of review and approval as the original documents. 

Inspection and Acceptance Testing – Inspection and acceptance testing of specified items, services and processes 

shall be conducted using established acceptance and performance criteria. Equipment used for inspection and tests 

shall be calibrated and maintained. There shall be a current list of available (on hand) equipment types, models, and 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-7

years and a general description of the facility. General information shall be included as to who performs major, 

preventative, and day-to-day equipment maintenance and how it is documented. A schedule of preventive 

maintenance activities shall be developed and the performance of preventive maintenance shall be documented. A 

documented inventory of critical spare parts and/or equipment necessary to minimize the downtime of measurement 

systems related to analytical test samples that have a holding time of 48 hours or less shall be maintained. A 

documented evaluation of the usage of such inventory shall be performed at least annually. Control processes shall be 

maintained for all instrument spikes, replicates/splits, blanks, and other standards. 

Management Assessment – A method shall be established whereby management with executive authority assesses 

the adequacy of the QAP at least annually to ensure its continuing suitability and effectiveness in satisfying the 

requirements of the SOW and the supplier's stated policies and objectives. The method shall include provisions for 

reporting the results of management assessments, including the distribution of those reports. Problems that hinder 

the organization from achieving its objectives shall be identified and corrected. 

Independent Assessment – Designated persons or organizations shall be responsible for ensuring that an 

appropriate QAP is established and for verifying that activities affecting the quality of the services specified in the 

SOW have been correctly performed. Such person or organization shall have sufficient authority, access to work 

areas, and organizational freedom necessary to independently assess all activities affecting quality and to report the 

results of such assessments. Persons conducting independent assessments shall be technically qualified and 

knowledgeable in the areas assessed. Assessment results shall be documented, reported to and reviewed by the level 

of management with authority to affect any necessary corrective actions. Assessments shall be conducted of 

subcontractors that perform work affecting the integrity of analytical results and to assure continued conformance to 

contractual requirements. 

17.4 Data Management Procedures 

The RREMP describes the need for environmental data and the details of the collection and analysis of environmental 

data to support various drivers at the NTS. A data management system is essential for understanding and sustaining 

the quality of data collected under the program, allowing programs to identify data gaps or data requirements for 

other environmental efforts, and eliminating unnecessary duplication of data collection efforts. Because decisions are 

based on environmental data, and the effectiveness of operations is measured at least in part by environmental data, 

reliable and accurate records of defensible environmental data are essential. Detailed records that must be kept 

include temporal, spatial, numerical, geotechnical, chemical, and radiological data, and all sampling and analytical 

procedures used. Failure to maintain these records in a secure but accessible form may result in exposure to legal 

challenges and the inability to respond to demands from regulators and third parties. 

BEIDMS is a hierarchical relational database management system developed by Bechtel Environmental, Inc. that is 

designed to achieve standardization and integrity in managing environmental data. The primary objective of BEIDMS 

is to store and manage unclassified environmental data which are directly or indirectly tied to field sampling events. 

This includes information on construction, analytical, geotechnical, and field parameters at the NTS. Database 

integrity and security are enforced through the assignment of role memberships and the provision of available menu 

items. 

17.5 Data Review and Systematic Assessments 

The final element of the process-based QA is the review of data and systematic assessments than can be used to 

evaluate data quality and usability. Four components of this review and assessment are: data checks, data verification, 

data validation, and data quality assessment. A description of these components follows. 

17.5.1 Data Checks 

Data checks are conducted to ensure accuracy and consistency of field operations data collection prior to and upon 

data entry into the BEIDMS. 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-8

17.5.2 Data Verification 

Data verification is defined as a subcontract compliance and completeness review to ensure that all laboratory data 

and sample documentation are present and complete. Sample preservation, sample temperature, chain-of-custody, 

and other field sampling documentation shall also be reviewed during the verification process. Data verification 

ensures that the reported results entered in BEIDMS correctly represent the sampling and/or analyses performed and 

includes evaluation of quality control sample results. A Tier I review form and/or a Verification Checklist is 

completed for all data packages. 

17.5.3 Data Validation 

Data validation is the process of reviewing a body of analytical data to determine if it meets the data quality criteria 

defined in OIs. Data validation ensures that the reported results correctly represent the sampling and analyses 

performed, determines the validity of the reported results, and assigns data qualifiers (or “flags”), if required. The 

process of data validation consists of: 

• Evaluating the quality of the data to ensure that all project requirements are met 

• Determining the impact on data quality of those requirements that were not met 

• Verifying compliance with QA requirements 

• Checking QC values against defined limits 

• Applying qualifiers to analytical results in BEIDMS for the purpose of defining the limitations in use of the 

reviewed data 

• Documenting the results of the data validation 

It is the goal to conduct data validation on 20 percent of laboratory data (10 percent using laboratory reported 

calibration data, QC results, and sample results; and 10 percent recalculating the laboratory results using submitted 

raw data to verify laboratory reported results). OIs and Procedures, applicable project specific work plans, field 

sampling plans, Quality Assurance Project Plans, analytical method references, and laboratory SOW may all be used in 

the process of data validation. Documentation of data validation includes: checklists, qualifier assignment, and 

summary forms. 

17.5.4 Data Quality Assessment 

Data Quality Assessment (DQA) is the scientific evaluation of data to determine if data obtained from environmental 

data operations are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended use. DQA requires a systematic 

review against pre-established criteria to verify that the data are valid for their intended use. DQA is conducted by the 

technical lead and is the final review performed. 

The overall effectiveness of the QA program is determined through systematic assessments and surveillances of the 

plan execution work flow (e.g., sampling plan development and execution, chain of custody, sample receiving, 

shipping, subcontract laboratory analytical activities, and data review) as well as the program requirements. 

Deficiencies are addressed on assessment/surveillance checklist, and if warranted will be tracked for corrective action 

and disposition (e.g., using the CaWeb Issues Tracking System). 

17.6 Results 

A brief discussion of the 2003 results for field duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank analysis, and 

interlaboratory comparison studies are provided within this section. Summary tables are also included. Based on 

implementation and evaluation of the QA/QC program and the results presented below, it can be concluded that the 

analytical data reported in the Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2003 are reliable and of high quality. 

17.6.1 Field Duplicates 

Field duplicates are used to evaluate the precision of the data. A field duplicate is a sample collected, handled, and 

analyzed in the same fashion as the primary sample. The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between the field 

duplicate result and corresponding field sample result is a measure of the variability in the process caused by the 

sampling uncertainty (matrix heterogeneity, collection variables, etc.) and measurement uncertainty (field and 

laboratory) used to derive the final result. The average absolute RPD, expressed as a percentage, was determined and 

listed in Table 17-1. 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-9

Table 17-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for compliance monitoring in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Samples 

Reported(a) 

Number of 

Samples Reported 

above MDC(b)

Average Absolute 

RPD of those 

above MDC (%)(c)

Gross Alpha Air 102 66 19.9 

Gross Beta Air 102 102 8.37 

241Am Air 15 3 35.6 

239+240Pu Air 24 9 39.3 

7Be Air 24 24 4.77 

3H Air 51 35 18.2 

234U Air 9 9 28.4 

238U Air 9 9 18.2 

3H Water 21 2 20.7 

Gross Alpha Water 3 3 4.6 

Gross Beta Water 3 3 15.4 

TLDs Ambient 425 425 3.13 

(a) Represents the number of field duplicates reported for the purpose of monitoring precision. If an 

 associated field sample was not processed, the field duplicate was not included in this table. 

(b) Represents the number of field duplicate - field sample result sets reported above the minimum 

 detectable concentration (MDC). MDC is not applicable for TLDs. If either the field samples or its 

 duplicate was reported below MDC, the precision was not determined. 

(c) Reflects the Average Absolute RPD calculated for those field duplicates reported above the detection limit. 

 

 The Absolute RPD calculation is as follows: 

 

Where: FD = Field Duplicate result 

 FS = Field Sample result 

 

17.6.2 Laboratory Control Samples 

Laboratory control samples (LCS) are used to evaluate analytical accuracy by the subcontract laboratory. The 

analytical accuracy is the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value. Samples of known 

concentration are analyzed using the same methods as used for the project samples. The results are determined as the 

measured value divided by the true value, expressed as a percent. To be considered valid, the results must fall within 

established control limits (or percentage range) for further analyses to be performed. The LCS results obtained for 

samples analyzed in 2003 are summarized in Table 17-2. The LCS results were satisfactory with no more than one 

result being out of control for any given analysis or matrix category for the year. 

 Table 17-2. Summary of laboratory control samples (LCS) for compliance 

monitoring in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

239+240Pu Air 8 6 

241Am Air 7 7 

137Ce Air 6 5 

100

( )/ 2

/ /

X

FD FS

FD FS Absolute RPD

+

− =
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-10

 Table 17-2. (continued) 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Water 9 9 

Gross Beta Water 8 8 

239+240Pu Water 14 14 

Tritium Water 43 42 

90Sr Water 2 2 

226Ra Water 3 3 

228Ra Water 3 3 

241Am Water 12 12 

137Ce Water 17 16 

60Co Water 9 9 

90Sr Soil 7 7 

239+240Pu Soil 10 10 

241241 Soil 6 6 

137Ce Soil 9 9 

(a) Control limits are as follows: 80 to 120 percent for gross alpha and beta; 84 to 114 

 percent for gamma (137Cs, 60Co, 241Am); and 80 to 120 percent for tritium. 

17.6.3 Blank Analysis 

Blank analysis and control samples are used to evaluate overall laboratory procedures including sample preparation 

and instrument performance. Laboratory blank sample analyses are essentially the opposite of control samples 

discussed in Section 17.6.2. These samples do not contain any of the analyte of interest. Results of these analyses are 

expected to be ‘zero’, or more accurately, below the detection limit of a specific procedure. The laboratory blank 

sample results obtained for 2003 are summarized in Table 17-3. The laboratory blank results were satisfactory with 

no more than one result being out of control for any given analysis/matrix category for the year with the exception of 

239+240Pu in air which had 28 of 32 analyses which were satisfactory. 

 Table 17-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for compliance 

 monitoring in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gamma Air 22 22 

239+240Pu Air 32 28 

Gamma Water 26 25 

Gross Alpha Water 21 21 

Gross Beta Water 21 21 

239+240Pu Water 16 15 

Tritium Water 87 86 

90Sr Water 3 3 

226Ra Water 5 5 

228Ra Water 5 4 

Gamma Soil 25 24 

Gross Alpha Soil 1 1 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-11

 Table 17-3. (continued) 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Beta Soil 1 1 

90Sr Soil 11 11 

239+240Pu Soil 18 17 

(a) Control limit is less than MDC 

17.6.4 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies 

The interlaboratory comparison sample results obtained for 2003 are summarized in Tables 17-4 and 17-5. Table 17-4

shows the summary of interlaboratory comparison sample results for the Subcontracted Radiochemistry Laboratory. 

The Subcontractor participated in the InterLaB RadCheMTM Proficiency Testing Program directed by 

Environmental Resource Associates, the QAP administered by the Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML), 

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

Environmental Laboratory. The Subcontractor performed very well during the year by passing 100 out of 105 

parameters analyzed. Table 17-5 shows the summary of interlaboratory comparison sample results for the BN 

in-house Dosimetry Group. This internal evaluation was based on National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation 

Program (NVLAP) criteria. The Dosimetry Group participated in the Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

performance evaluation study program during the course of the year. The Dosimetry Group performed very well 

during the year by passing 60 out of 60 TLDs analyzed. 

 Table 17-4. Summary of interlaboratory comparison samples of the subcontract 

radiochemistry laboratories for compliance monitoring in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

 ERA Results 

Gross Alpha Water 7 7 

Gross Beta Water 7 7 

Gamma Water 7 7 

Tritium Water 3 2 

90Sr Water 7 7 

226Ra Water 7 7 

228Ra Water 7 7 

 EML Results 

Gross Alpha Air 7 7 

Gross Beta Air 7 7 

239+240Pu Air 7 7 

Gamma Air 7 7 

Gross Alpha Water 7 3 

Gross Beta Water 7 7 

239+240Pu Water 7 7 

Gamma Water 7 7 

Gamma Soil 7 7 

239+240Pu Soil 7 7 

90Sr Soil 7 7 

Gamma Vegetation 7 7 
Compliance Quality Assurance Program

 17-12

 Table 17-4. (continued) 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

ERA Results 

239+240Pu Vegetation 7 7 

90Sr Vegetation 7 7 

MAPEP Results 

Gamma Water 5 5 

239+240Pu Water 5 5 

90Sr Water 5 5 

Gamma Soil 5 5 

239+240Pu Soil 5 5 

90Sr Soil 5 5 

(a) Control limits are determined by the individual interlaboratory comparison study 

Table 17-5. Summary of interlaboratory comparison TLD samples for the subcontract 

dosimetry group in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

TLDs Ambient Radiation 60 60 

(a) Based upon NVLAP criteria; absolute value of the bias plus one standard deviation < 0.3. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

 18-1

18.0 Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP 

The Community Environmental Monitoring Program (CEMP) Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) was 

followed for the collection and analysis of radiological air and water data presented in Section 5.0 of this Nevada Test 

Site Environmental Report (NTSER). The CEMP QAPP ensures compliance with U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) Order 414.1A Change 1 which implements a quality management system ensuring the generation and use of 

quality data. This QAPP addresses the following items previously defined in Section 17.0: 

• Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) 

• Sampling plan development appropriate to satisfy the DQOs 

• Environmental health and safety 

• Sampling plan execution 

• Sample analyses 

• Data review 

• Continuous improvement 

18.1 Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) 

The DQO process is a strategic planning approach that is used to plan data collection activities. It provides a 

systematic process for defining the criteria that a data collection design should satisfy. These criteria include when 

and where samples should be collected, how many samples to collect, and the tolerable level of decision errors for the 

study. DQOs are unique to the specific data collection or monitoring activity, and are further explained in 

Appendices A through E of DOE, 2003b. 

18.2 Measurement Quality Objectives (MQOs) 

MQOs are basically equivalent to DQOs for analytical processes. The MQOs provide direction to the laboratory 

concerning performance objectives or requirements for specific method performance characteristics. Default MQOs 

are established in the subcontract, but may be altered in order to satisfy changes in the DQOs. The MQOs for the 

CEMP project are described in terms of precision, accuracy, representativeness, completeness, and comparability 

requirements. These terms are defined and discussed in Section 17.1 (Compliance Quality Assurance Program), for 

onsite activities. 

18.3 Sampling QA Program 

Quality Assurance (QA) in field operations for the CEMP includes sampling assessments, surveillances, and oversight 

of the following supporting elements: 

• The sampling plan, data quality objectives, and field data sheets accompanying the sample package 

• Database support for field and laboratory results, including systems for long-term storage and retrieval 

• A training program to ensure that qualified personnel are available to perform required tasks 

Sample packages include the following items: 

• Station manager checklist confirming all observable information pertinent to sample collection 

• An Air Surveillance Network Sample Data Form documenting air sampler parameters, collection dates and times, 

and total sample volumes collected 

• Chains-of-Custody 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

 18-2

This managed approach to sampling ensures that the sampling is traceable and enhances the value of the final data 

available to the project manager. The sample package also ensures that the station manager Community 

Environmental Monitor (CEM) (see Section 5.0 for description of CEMs) has followed proper procedures for sample 

collection. The CEMP Project Manager or QA Officer routinely performs assessments of the station managers and 

field monitors to ensure that standard operating procedures and sampling protocol are being followed properly. 

Data obtained in the course of executing field operations are entered in the documentation accompanying the sample 

package during sample collection and in the CEMP database along with analytical results upon their receipt and 

evaluation. 

Completed sample packages are kept as hard copy in file archives. Analytical reports are kept as hard copy in file 

archives as well as Compact Disk-Read Only Memory by calendar year. Analytical reports and databases are protected 

and maintained in accordance with Desert Research Institutes (DRI’s) Computer Protection Program. 

18.4 Laboratory QA Oversight 

CEMP ensures that DOE Order 414.1A, “Quality Assurance” requirements are met with respect to laboratory 

services through review of the vendor laboratory policies formalized in a Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan (LQAP). 

CEMP is assured of obtaining quality data from laboratory services through a multifaceted approach involving 

specific procurement protocols, the conduct of quality assessments, and requirements for selected laboratories to have 

an acceptable QA program. These elements are discussed below. 

18.4.1 Procurement 

Laboratory services are procured through subcontract. The subcontract establishes the technical specifications 

required of the laboratory and provides the basis for determining compliance with those requirements and evaluating 

overall performance. The subcontract is awarded on a “best value” basis as determined by pre-award audits. The 

prospective vendor is required to provide a review package to CEMP that includes the following items: 

• All procedures pertinent to subcontract scope 

• EH&S Plan 

• LQAP 

• Example deliverables (hard copy and/or electronic) 

• Proficiency Testing (PT) results from the previous year from recognized PT programs 

• Resumes 

• Facility design/description 

• Accreditations and certifications 

• Licenses 

• Audits performed by an acceptable DOE program covering comparable scope 

• Past performance surveys 

• Pricing 

CEMP evaluates the review package in terms of technical capability. Vendor selection is based solely on these 

capabilities and not biased by pricing. 

18.4.2 Initial and Continuing Assessment 

An initial assessment of a laboratory is managed through the procurement process above, including a pre-award audit. 

Pre-award audits are conducted by CEMP (usually by the CEMP QA Officer). In no instance shall CEMP initiate 

work with a laboratory without approval of the CEMP program manager. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

 18-3

A continuing assessment of a selected laboratory involves ongoing monitoring of a laboratory’s performance against 

the contract terms and conditions, of which technical specifications are a part. Tasks supporting continuing 

assessment are: 

• Tracking schedule compliance 

• Review of analytical data deliverables 

• Monitoring of the lab’s adherence to the LQAP 

• Conducting regular audits 

• Monitoring for continued successful participation in approved PT programs 

18.4.3 Laboratory QA Program 

The laboratory policies and approach to the implementation of DOE Order 414.1A must be verified in a LQAP 

prepared by the laboratory. The elements of a LQAP required for the CEMP are identical to those required by 

Bechtel Nevada for onsite monitoring, and are described in Section 17.3.3 (LQAP). 

18.5 Data Review 

Essential components of process-based QA are data checks, verification, validation, and data quality assessment to 

evaluate data quality and usability. 

Data Checks – Data checks are conducted to ensure accuracy and consistency of field data collection operations 

prior to and upon data entry into CEMP databases and data management systems. 

Data Verification – Data verification is defined as a subcontract compliance and completeness review to ensure that 

all laboratory data and sample documentation are present and complete. Sample preservation, chain-of-custody, and 

other field sampling documentation shall be reviewed during the verification process. Data verification ensures that 

the reported results entered in CEMP databases correctly represent the sampling and/or analyses performed and 

includes evaluation of quality control (QC) sample results. 

Data Validation – Data validation is the process of reviewing a body of analytical data to determine if it meets the 

data quality criteria defined in operating instructions (OIs). Data validation ensures that the reported results correctly 

represent the sampling and/or analyses performed, determines the validity of the reported results, and assigns data 

qualifiers (or “flags”), if required. The process of data validation consists of: 

• Evaluating the quality of the data to ensure that all project requirements are met 

• Determining the impact on data quality of those requirements if they are not met 

• Verifying compliance with QA requirements 

• Checking QC values against defined limits 

• Appling qualifiers to analytical results in the CEMP databases for the purposes of defining the limitations in the 

use of the reviewed data 

OIs/Procedures, applicable project specific work plans, field sampling plans, QAPPs, analytical method references, 

and laboratory Statements of Work may all be used in the process of data validation. Documentation of data 

validation includes checklists, qualifier assignments, and summary forms. 

Data Quality Assessment – Data Quality Assessment (DQA) is the scientific evaluation of data to determine if the 

data obtained from environmental data operations are of the right type, quality, and quantity to support their intended 

use. DQA review is a systematic review against pre-established criteria to verify that the data are valid for their 

intended use. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

 18-4

18.6 QA Program Assessments 

The overall effectiveness of the QA program is determined through management and independent assessment as 

defined in the CEMP QAPP. These assessments evaluate the plan execution work-flow (sampling plan development 

and execution, chain-of-custody, sample receiving, shipping, subcontract laboratory analytical activities, and data 

review) as well as program requirements as it pertains to the organization. 

18.7 2003 Sample QA Results 

Quality assurance procedures were performed by the CEMP, including the laboratories responsible for sample 

analyses. These assessments ensure that sample collection procedures, analytical techniques, and data provided by the 

subcontracted laboratories comply with CEMP requirements. Data was provided by Severn Trent Laboratories (gross 

alpha/beta and gamma spectroscopy data), Global Dosimetry Solutions (thermoluminescent dosimeter [TLD] data), 

and DRI (tritium data). A brief discussion of the 2003 results for field duplicates, laboratory control samples, blank 

analysis, and interlaboratory comparison studies are provided along with summary tables within this section. The 

2003 CEMP radiological air and water monitoring data themselves are presented in Section 5.0. 

18.7.1 Field Duplicates (Precision) 

A field duplicate is a sample collected, handled, and analyzed following the same procedures as the primary sample. 

The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) between the field duplicate result and the corresponding field sample result is 

a measure of the variability in the process caused by the sampling uncertainty (matrix heterogeneity, collection 

variables, etc.) and measurement uncertainty (field and laboratory) used to arrive at a final result. The average 

absolute RPD, expressed as a percentage, was determined for the calendar year 2003 samples and is listed in 

Table 18-1. An RPD of zero indicates a perfect duplication of results of the duplicate pair, whereas an RPD >100 

percent generally indicates that a duplicate pair falls beyond QA requirements and are not considered valid for use in 

data interpretation. These samples are further evaluated to determine the reason for QA failure and if any corrective 

actions are required. Overall, the RPD values for all analyses indicate very good results. 

Table 18-1. Summary of field duplicate samples for oversight monitoring in 2003

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Samples 

Reported(a) 

Number of 

Samples 

Reported 

above MDC(b)

Average Absolute 

RPD of those 

above MDC (%)(c)

Gross Alpha Air 106 105 28.1 

Gross Beta Air 106 106 9.9 

Gamma - Beryllium-7 Air 8 4 16.4 

Tritium Water 4 1 11.1 

TLDs Ambient 

Radiation 12 12 4.8 

(a) Represents the number of field duplicates reported for the purpose of monitoring precision. If an 

 associated field sample was not processed, the field duplicate was not included in this table. 

(b) Represents the number of field duplicate - field sample result sets reported above the minimum detectable 

concentration (MDC) (MDC is not applicable for TLDs). If either the field sample or its duplicate was reported 

below the detection limit, the precision was not determined. 

(c) Reflects the Average Absolute RPD calculated for those field duplicates reported above the MDC. 

 The Absolute RPD calculation is as follows: 

Where: FD = Field Duplicate result 

 FS = Field Sample result 

100

( )/ 2

/ /

X

FD FS

FD FS

Absolute RPD

+

− =
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

 18-5

18.7.2 Laboratory Control Samples (Accuracy) 

Laboratory control samples (a.k.a. matrix spikes) are performed by the subcontract laboratory to evaluate analytical 

accuracy, which is the degree of agreement of a measured value with the true or expected value. Samples of known 

concentration are analyzed using the same methods as employed for the project samples. The results are determined 

as the measured value divided by the true value, expressed as a percent. To be considered valid, the results must fall 

within established control limits (or percentage range) for further analyses to be performed. The laboratory control 

samples (LCS) results obtained for 2003 are summarized in Table 18-2. The LCS results were satisfactory with only 

one sample (<1 percent) outside of control parameters each for gross alpha and gross beta for the air sample matrix. 

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

monitoring in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of LCS 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 104 103 

Gross Beta Air 104 103 

Gamma Air 24 24 

Tritium Water 2 2 

(a) Control limits are as follows: 80 to 120 percent for gross alpha and beta; 84 to 114 

percent for gamma (137Cs, 60Co, 241Am); 80 to 120 for tritium. 

18.7.3 Blank Analysis 

Laboratory blank sample analyses are essentially the opposite of control samples discussed in Section 18.7.2. These 

samples do not contain any of the analyte of interest. Results of these analyses are expected to be ‘zero’, or more 

accurately, below the MDC of a specific procedure. Blank analysis and control samples are used to evaluate overall 

laboratory procedures including sample preparation and instrument performance. The laboratory blank sample results 

obtained for 2003 are summarized in Table 18-3. The laboratory blank results were satisfactory with only one gross 

alpha sample (<1 percent) sample being outside of control parameters for the air sample matrix. 

Table 18-3. Summary of laboratory blank samples for oversight 

monitoring in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of Blank 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

Gross Alpha Air 104 103 

Gross Beta Air 104 104 

Gamma Air 8 8 

Tritium Water 4 4 

(a) Control limit is less than the MDC. 

18.7.4 Interlaboratory Comparison Studies 

Interlaboratory comparison studies are conducted by the subcontracted laboratories to evaluate their performance 

relative to other laboratories providing the same service. These types of samples are commonly known as ‘blind’ 

samples, in which the expected values are known only to the program conducting the study. The analyses are 

evaluated, and if found satisfactory, the laboratory is certified that its procedures produce reliable results. The 

interlaboratory comparison sample results obtained for 2003 are summarized in Tables 18-4 and 18-5. Note: the DRI 

tritium laboratory did not participate in any of these programs. 
Oversight Quality Assurance Program for CEMP

 18-6

Table 18-4 shows the summary of interlaboratory comparison sample results for the Subcontract Radiochemistry 

Laboratory. The Laboratory participated in the Quality Assurance Program administered by the Environmental 

Measurements Laboratory (EML) for gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma analyses. The subcontractor performed 

very well during the year by passing all of the parameters analyzed. 

Table 18-5 shows the summary of the in-house performance evaluation results conducted by the Subcontract 

Dosimetry Group. This internal evaluation was based on National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

(NVLAP) criteria and was performed biannually. The Dosimetry Group performed very well during the year passing 

20 out of 20 TLDs analyzed. 

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

radiochemistry laboratory for oversight monitoring in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

EML Results 

Gross Alpha Air 2 2 

Gross Beta Air 2 2 

Gamma Air 2 2 

(a) Control limits are determined by the individual interlaboratory comparison study. 

Table 18-5. Summary of interlaboratory comparison TLD samples of the subcontract 

dosimetry group for compliance monitoring in 2003 

Analysis Matrix 

Number of 

Results Reported 

Number Within 

Control Limits(a)

TLDs Ambient Radiation 20 20 

(a) Based upon NVLAP criteria; absolute value of the bias plus one standard deviation < 0.3. 

Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-i

Appendix A 

Nevada Test Site Description
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-ii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-iii

Table of Contents 

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

A.1 NTS Location and Facilities ........................................................................................................................A-2 

A.2 Demography ..................................................................................................................................................A-5 

A.3 Physiography..................................................................................................................................................A-6 

A.4 Geology...........................................................................................................................................................A-9 

A.4.1 Geologic Setting...............................................................................................................................A-9 

A.4.2 Stratigraphy.....................................................................................................................................A-14 

A.4.3 Structural Controls ........................................................................................................................A-15 

A.5 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................................................A-16 

A.5.1 Surface Water .................................................................................................................................A-16 

A.5.2 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................................A-16 

A.5.3 Hydrogeologic Framework for the NTS and Vicinity .............................................................A-20 

A.5.3.1 Hydrogeologic Units....................................................................................................A-20 

A.5.3.2 Hydrostratigraphic Units.............................................................................................A-22 

A.5.4 General Hydraulic Characteristics of NTS Rocks ....................................................................A-23 

A.5.5 Hydrogeology of the NTS Underground Test Areas...............................................................A-24 

A.5.5.1 Frenchman Flat Underground Test Area..................................................................A-27 

A.5.5.2 Yucca Flat/Climax Mine Underground Test Area..................................................A-29 

A.5.5.3 Pahute Mesa Underground Test Area.......................................................................A-34 

A.5.5.4 Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain ............................................................................A-39 

A.5.6 Conclusion......................................................................................................................................A-41 

A.6 Climatology ..................................................................................................................................................A-42 

A.6.1 Precipitation....................................................................................................................................A-42 

A.6.2 Temperature ...................................................................................................................................A-42 

A.6.3 Wind ................................................................................................................................................A-45 

A.6.4 Relative Humidity..........................................................................................................................A-45 

A.6.5 Severe Weather Phenomena ........................................................................................................A-45 

A.7 Ecology.........................................................................................................................................................A-47 

A.7.1 Flora.................................................................................................................................................A-47 

A.7.2 Fauna ...............................................................................................................................................A-47 

A.7.3 Natural Water Sources..................................................................................................................A-50 

A.8 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................A-52 

A.8.1 Cultural Resources Investigations on the NTS.........................................................................A-52

A.8.2 Paleo-Indian Period.......................................................................................................................A-54 

A.8.3 Early Holocene Period..................................................................................................................A-54 

A.8.4 Middle Holocene Period...............................................................................................................A-54 

A.8.5 Late Holocene Period ...................................................................................................................A-54 

A.8.6 Ethnohistoric American Indian...................................................................................................A-56 

A.8.7 Historic Mining on and near the NTS........................................................................................A-57 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-iv

List of Figures 

Figure A-1 NTS vicinity map...............................................................................................................................A-3 

Figure A-2 NTS operational areas, principal facilities, and past nuclear testing areas ................................A-4 

Figure A-3 Basin and Range Physiographic Province and Great Basin Hydrologic Province ..................A-7 

Figure A-4 Major topographic features of the NTS.........................................................................................A-8 

Figure A-5 Generalized geologic map of the NTS and vicinity ...................................................................A-10 

Figure A-6 Closed hydrographic subbasins on the NTS...............................................................................A-17 

Figure A-7 Natural springs and seeps on the NTS.........................................................................................A-18 

Figure A-8 Groundwater subbasins of the NTS and vicinity .......................................................................A-19 

Figure A-9 Location of Corrective Action Units and Corrective Action Sites on the NTS ....................A-26 

Figure A-10 Conceptual east-west cross section through Frenchman Flat ..................................................A-28 

Figure A-11 Generalized west-east hydrogeologic cross section through central Yucca Flat....................A-31 

Figure A-12 Generalized hydrostratigraphic cross section through the Silent canyon complex, 

 Pahute Mesa .....................................................................................................................................A-35 

Figure A-13 Generalized hydrostratigraphic cross section through Aqueduct Mesa..................................A-40 

Figure A-14 Mean monthly precipitation at six NTS MEDA stations..........................................................A-43 

Figure A-15 Temperature extremes and normal maximums and minimum at six NTS MEDA 

 stations ..............................................................................................................................................A-44 

Figure A-16 Annual climatological wind rose patterns at 11 NTS MEDA stations from 

 wind data gathered 1984 to 2003 ..................................................................................................A-46 

Figure A-17 Distribution of plant alliances on the NTS .................................................................................A-48 

Figure A-18 Known locations of plant species of concern on the NTS.......................................................A-49 

Figure A-19 Natural water sources on the NTS ...............................................................................................A-51 

Figure A-20 Example of an archaeological site found in Fortymile Canyon. This a rock art site 

 probably 2,000 to 4,000 years old (1996 Photo).........................................................................A-52 

Figure A-21 DRI archaeologist at an archaeological excavation of a prehistoric site on ...........................A-53 

Figure A-22 Building 400, a camera station for photographing atmospheric tests, at Area 6 ...................A-53 

Figure A-23 Prehistoric projectile points from the NTS (1992 Photo).........................................................A-55 

Figure A-24 Brownware bowl recovered from archaeological excavations on Pahute Mesa 

 (1992 Photo).....................................................................................................................................A-56 

Figure A-25 Overview of the Tippipah Springs Area (2004 Photo)..............................................................A-57 

Figure A-26 Bower cabin on the NTS (2001 Photo) .......................................................................................A-59 

List of Tables 

Table A-1 Quaternary and tertiary stratigraphic units of the NTS and vicinity.............................................A-11 

Table A-2 Pre-tertiary stratigraphic units of the NTS and vicinity..................................................................A-14 

Table A-3 Hydrogeologic units of the NTS area................................................................................................A-21 

Table A-4 Summary of hydrologic properties for hydrogeologic units at the NTS......................................A-24 

Table A-5 Information summary of NTS underground nuclear tests.............................................................A-25

Table A-6 Hydrostratigraphic units of the Frenchman Flat underground test area......................................A-28 

Table A-7 Hydrostratigraphic units of the Yucca Flat underground test area...............................................A-32 

Table A-8 Hydrostratigraphic units of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley area ...................................................A-37 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-1

A. Appendix A: Nevada Test Site Description 

This appendix provides a general description of the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Included are subsections that 

summarize the site’s topographic setting, and the known climatic, geological, hydrological, and ecological features and 

conditions which characterize the NTS. The subsections are meant to aid the reader in understanding the complex 

physical and biological environment of the NTS. An adequate knowledge of the site’s environment is necessary to 

assess the environmental impacts of new projects, design and implement environmental monitoring activities for 

current site operations, and assess the impacts of site operations on the public residing in the vicinity of the NTS. 

The NTS environment contributes to several key features of the site which afford protection to the inhabitants of 

adjacent areas from potential exposure to radioactivity or other contaminants resulting from NTS operations. These 

key features include the general remote location of the NTS, restricted access, extended wind transport times, the 

great depths to slow-moving groundwater, little or no surface water, and low population density. This appendix 

complements the annual summary of monitoring program activities and dose assessments presented in the main body 

of this report.

Aerial view of Rainer Mesa, the highest terrain on the NTS (Date Unknown) 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-2

A.1 NTS Location and Facilities 

The NTS is located in Nye County in south-central Nevada (Figure A-1). The southeast corner of the NTS is about 

88 km (55 mi) northwest of the center of Las Vegas in Clark County. By highway, it is about 105 km (65 mi) from the 

center of Las Vegas to Mercury. Mercury, located at the southern end of the NTS, is the main base camp for worker 

housing and administrative operations for the NTS. 

The NTS encompasses about 3,561 km2 (1,375 mi2). It varies from 46 to 56 km (28 to 35 mi) in width from west to 

east and from 64 to 88 km (40 to 55 mi) from north to south. The NTS is surrounded on all sides by federal lands. 

As shown in Figure A-1, the NTS is bordered on the north and west by the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) 

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

National Wildlife Range (DNWR), and on the south by Bureau of Land Management lands. The combination of the 

NTTR and the NTS represents one of the larger unpopulated land areas in the United States, comprising some 14,200 

km2 (5,470 mi2). Figure A-2 shows the general layout of the NTS, including the location of major facilities and the 

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

testing are also shown in Figure A-2. 

Aerial view of Yucca Flat showing subsidence craters formed during underground nuclear test, Yucca 

Lake Playa, and Spring Mountains in the background (Date Unknown)
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-3

Figure A-1. NTS vicinity map
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-4

Figure A-2. NTS operational areas, principal facilities, and past nuclear testing areas 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-5

A.2 Demography 

The population of the area surrounding the NTS is predominantly rural. The population estimates for Nevada 

communities has been estimated by the Nevada State Demographer Office (NSDO) up through July 1, 2003 

(Hardcastle, 2004). The annual population estimate for Nevada counties, cities, and unincorporated towns is 

2,296,566, with all but 675,818 residing in Clark County. The total population estimate for Nye County is 36,651 and 

includes the communities of Amargosa Valley (1,169), Beatty (1,079), Gabbs (314), Manhattan (135), Pahrump 

(28,847), Round Mountain (784), and Tonopah (2,481). The largest of the Nye County communities is Pahrump 

Valley, which is approximately 50 mi (80 km) south of the NTS Control Point facility, which is near the center of the 

NTS (see Figure A-2). Neighboring Lincoln County to the east of the NTS includes a few small communities 

including Alamo (428), Panaca (541), and Pioche (659). Neighboring Clark County is the major population center of 

Nevada and has an estimated total population of 1,620,748. 

The Mojave Desert of California, which includes Death Valley National Park, lies along the southwestern border of 

Nevada. This area is still predominantly rural; however, tourism at Death Valley National Park swells the population 

to more than 5,000 on any particular day during holiday periods during mild weather. 

The extreme southwestern region of Utah is more developed than the adjacent portion of Nevada. The population 

estimates for Utah communities are based on the 2000 Census data and were obtained from University of Utah 

websites (University of Utah, 2004). The largest community is St. George, located 220 km (137 mi) east of the NTS, 

with a population of 49,621. The next largest town, Cedar City, is located 280 km (174 mi) east-northeast of the NTS 

and has a population of 20,527. 

The extreme northwestern region of Arizona is mostly rangeland, except for that portion in the Lake Mead recreation 

area. In addition, several small communities lie along the Colorado River. The largest towns in the area are Bullhead 

City, 165 km (103 mi) south-southeast of the NTS, with a population estimate of 35,410, and Kingman, located 280 

km (174 mi) southeast of the NTS, with a population estimate of 22,045 ( July 1, 2002 population estimates, Arizona 

Department of Economic Security, 2004). 

The offsite population density within an 80-km radius of all emission sources of radioactivity on the NTS is about 1.0 

persons/km2 (2.6 persons/mi2). In comparison, the 48 contiguous states have a population density of about 38 

persons/km2 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003). 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-6

A.3 Physiography 

The NTS is located in the southern part of the Great Basin, the northern-most sub-province of the Basin and Range 

Physiographic Province (Figure A-3). The Great Basin is a vast area of North America which is bounded by the 

Sierra Nevada on the west, the Colorado Plateau and the Wasatch Range on the east, the Columbia Plateau on the 

north, and the Sonoran Desert on the south. The Great Basin covers a small portion of eastern California, 

southeastern Oregon, southern Idaho, western Utah, and most of Nevada. 

The NTS terrain is typical of much of the Basin and Range Physiographic Province, characterized by mostly tilted, 

fault-bounded blocks that are as much as 80 km (50 mi) long and 24 km (15 mi) wide. These features are modified 

locally by the Las Vegas Shear Zone (a component of the Walker Lane regional structural belt) in the southern part of 

the NTS, and by resurgent calderas of the Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field (SWNVF). The land forms and 

topography of the NTS area reflect the complex geology and its location in the arid Mojave Desert. 

The principal valleys within the NTS are Frenchman Flat, Yucca Flat, and Jackass Flats (Figure A-4). Both Yucca and 

Frenchman Flat are topographically closed and contain dry lake beds, or playas, at their lowest elevations. Jackass 

Flats is topographically open, and surface water from this basin flows off the NTS via the Fortymile Wash. The 

dominant highlands of the NTS are Pahute Mesa and Rainier Mesa (high volcanic plateaus), Timber Mountain 

(a resurgent dome of the Timber Mountain caldera complex), and Shoshone Mountain. In general, the slopes of the 

highland areas are steep and dissected, and the slopes in the lowland areas are gentle and less eroded. The lowest 

elevation on the NTS is 823 m (2,700 ft) in Jackass Flats in the southeast, and the highest elevation is 2,341 m 

(7,680 ft) on Rainier Mesa in the north-central region. 

The topography of the NTS has been altered by historic DOE actions, particularly underground nuclear testing. The 

principal effect of testing has been the creation of numerous collapse sinks (“craters”) in Yucca Flat basin and a lesser 

number of “craters” on Pahute and Rainier Mesas. Shallow detonations were also performed during Project 

Plowshare to determine the potential uses of nuclear devices for large-scale excavation. Lesser alterations of the 

natural topography of the NTS have occurred as a result of road building, sand and gravel mining, underground 

mining prior to the creation of the NTS, and the construction of waste disposal areas, flood controls, and drainage 

improvements. 

 

Aerial view of Fortymile Canyon (Date Unknown)
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-7

Figure A-3. Basin and Range Physiographic Province and Great Basin Hydrologic Province 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-8

Figure A-4. Major topographic features of the NTS 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-9

A.4 Geology 

The following subsections present an overview of the geologic setting of the NTS and vicinity, including summary 

descriptions of the stratigraphy and structure.

A.4.1 Geologic Setting

The NTS area is geologically complex, with at least six Tertiary-age calderas nearby, many relatively young basin-andrange-style normal faults, and Mesozoic-age thrust faults and intrusive bodies, all superimposed on a basement 

complex of highly deformed Proterozoic and Paleozoic-age sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks. Geologic units 

exposed at the surface in the NTS area can be categorized as approximately 40 percent alluvium-filled basins and 

20 percent Paleozoic and uppermost Precambrian sedimentary rocks; the remainder is Tertiary-age volcanic rocks, and 

a few intrusive masses (Orkild, 1983b; Slate et al., 1999). A generalized geologic map of the NTS area is given in 

Figure A-5. 

The NTS area is dominated by Tertiary-age volcanic rocks formed from materials that were erupted from various 

vents in the SWNVF, located on and adjacent to the northwestern part of the NTS (Figure A-5). At least six major 

calderas have been identified in this multi-caldera silicic volcanic field (Byers et al., 1976). The calderas formed by the 

voluminous eruption of zoned ash-flow tuffs between 16 and 7.5 million years ago (Ma) (Sawyer et al., 1994). From 

oldest to youngest the calderas are: Grouse Canyon, Area 20, Claim Canyon, Rainier Mesa, Ammonia Tanks, and 

Black Mountain calderas. A comprehensive review of past studies and the evolution of concepts on calderas of the 

SWNVF during the period from 1960 to 1988 is presented in Byers et al., 1989. 

The volcanic rocks are covered in many areas by a variety of late Tertiary and Quaternary surficial deposits. These 

younger deposits consist of alluvium, colluvium, eolian (wind-blown sand) deposits, spring deposits, basalt lavas, 

lacustrine (fresh-water lake) deposits, and playa deposits. 

The area includes more than 300 described Tertiary-age volcanic units (Warren et al., 2000a; 2003). As a matter of 

practicality, some units are grouped together, especially those of limited areal extent or thickness. Table A-1 presents 

most of the Tertiary volcanic units useful in characterizing the subsurface at the NTS. 

Underlying the Tertiary volcanic rocks are Paleozoic and Proterozoic sedimentary rocks including dolomite, 

limestone, quartzite, and argillite, some of which form the primary regional aquifer and the regional hydrologic 

“basement” (Table A-2). During Precambrian and Paleozoic time, as much as 10,000 m (32,800 ft) of marine 

sediments were deposited in the NTS region (Cole, 1997). The only surface exposure of Mesozoic-age rocks in the 

NTS area are granitic intrusive masses, the Gold Meadows Stock north of Rainier Mesa (Snyder, 1977; 

Gibbons et al.,1963 ), and the Climax Stock located at the extreme north end of Yucca Flat (Maldonado, 1977; Barnes 

et al., 1963) (Figure A-5). 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-10

Figure A-5. Generalized geologic map of the NTS and vicinity 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-11

Table A-1. Quaternary and tertiary stratigraphic units of the NTS and vicinity 

Stratigraphic Assemblages and Major Units(a, b) Volcanic Sources(c)

Quaternary or Tertiary Sediments 

 Young alluvium (Qay) 

 Playa (Qp) 

 Quaternary - Tertiary colluvium (QTc) 

 Middle alluvium (Qam) 

 Eolian sand (QTe) 

 Quaternary-Tertiary alluvium (QTa) 

Quaternary Basalts (Qby) 

Pliocene Basalts (Typ) 

Tertiary alluvium (Tgy) 

Not applicable 

Miocene Basalt and Rhyolite 

 Thirsty Canyon and Younger Basalts (Tyb) 

 Rhyolite of Obsidian Butte (Tyr) 

Several discrete sources 

Tertiary Sediments 

 Late synvolcanic sedimentary rocks (Tgm) 

 Caldera moat-filling sedimentary deposits (Tgc) 

 Younger landslide and sedimentary breccia (Tgyx) 

Not applicable 

Thirsty Canyon Group (Tt) 

 Gold Flat Tuff (Ttg) 

 Trachyte of Hidden Cliff (Tth) 

 Trachytic rocks of Pillar Spring and Yellow Cleft (Tts) 

 Trail Ridge Tuff (Ttt) 

 Pahute Mesa and Rocket Wash Tuffs (Ttp) 

 Comendite of Ribbon Cliff (Ttc) 

Black Mountain Caldera 

Volcanics of Fortymile Canyon (Tf) 

 Rhyolite of Boundary Butte (Tfu) 

 Post-Timber Mountain Basaltic Rocks (Tft) 

 Trachyte of Donovan Mountain (Tfn) 

 Rhyolite of Shoshone Mountain (Tfs) 

 Lavas of Dome Mountain (Tfd) 

 Younger intrusive rocks (Tiy) 

 Rhyolite of Rainbow Mountain (Tfr) 

 Beatty Wash Formation (Tfb) 

 Tuff of Leadfield Road (Tfl) 

 Rhyolite of Fleur-de-lis Ranch (Tff) 

Several discrete vent areas in and around the Timber 

Mountain caldera complex 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-12

Table A-1. (continued) 

Stratigraphic Assemblages and Major Units(a, b) Volcanic Sources(c)

Timber Mountain Group (Tm) 

 Trachyte of East Cat Canyon (Tmay) 

 Tuff of Buttonhook Wash (Tmaw) 

 Ammonia Tanks Tuff (Tma) 

 Bedded Ammonia Tanks Tuff (Tmab) 

 Timber Mountain landslide breccia (Tmx) 

 Rhyolite of Tannenbaum Hill (Tmat) 

 Basalt of Tierra (Tmt) 

 Rainier Mesa Tuff (Tmr) 

 Rhyolite of Fluorspur Canyon (Tmrf) 

 Tuff of Holmes Road (Tmrh) 

 Landslide or eruptive breccia (Tmrx) 

 Rhyolite of Windy Wash (Tmw) 

 Transitional Timber Mountain rhyolites (Tmn) 

Timber Mountain Caldera Complex 

Ammonia Tanks Caldera 

Rainier Mesa Caldera 

Paintbrush Group (Tp) 

 Rhyolite of Benham (Tpb) 

 Post-Tiva Canyon rhyolites (Tpu) 

 Paintbrush caldera-collapse breccias (Tpx) 

 Tiva Canyon Tuff (Tpc) 

 Yucca Mountain Tuff (Tpy) 

 Rhyolite of Delirium Canyon (Tpd) 

 Rhyolite of Echo Peak (Tpe) 

 Middle Paintbrush Group rhyolites (Tpm) 

 Pah Canyon Tuff (Tpp) 

 Rhyolite of Silent Canyon (Tpr) 

 Topopah Spring Tuff (Tpt) 

Claim Canyon Caldera 

Claim Canyon Caldera 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Calico Hills Formation (Th; formerly Tac) Unknown 

Wahmonie Formation (Tw) Wahmonie Volcanic Center 

Crater Flat Group (Tc) 

 Rhyolite of Inlet (Tci) 

 Prow Pass Tuff (Tcp) 

 Rhyolite of Kearsarage (Tcpk) 

 Andesite of Grimy Gulch (Tcg) 

 Bullfrog Tuff (Tcb) 

 Rhyolites in the Crater Flat Group (Tcr) 

 Tram Tuff (Tct) 

Belted Range Group (Tb) 

 Deadhorse Flat Formation (Tbd) 

 Grouse Canyon Tuff (Tbg) 

 Comendite of Split Range (Tbgs) 

 Comendite of Quartet Dome (Tbq) 

Silent Canyon Caldera Complex 

Area 20 Caldera 

Grouse Canyon Caldera 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-13

Table A-1. (continued) 

Stratigraphic Assemblages and Major Units(a, b) Volcanic Sources(c)

Tram Ridge Group (Tr) 

 Lithic Ridge Tuff (Trl) 

 Dikes of Tram Ridge (Trd) 

 Rhyolite of Picture Rock (Trr) 

Uncertain 

Tunnel Formation (Tn) 

 4 Member (Tn4) 

 3 Member (Tn3) 

Uncertain 

Volcanics of Quartz Mountain (Tq) 

 Tuff of Sleeping Butte (Tqs) 

 Hornblende-bearing rhyolite of Quartz Mountain(Tqh) 

 Tuff of Tolicha Peak (Tqt) 

 Early rhyolite of Quartz Mountain (Tqe) 

 Dacite of Mount Helen (Tqm) 

Uncertain 

Volcanics of Big Dome (Tu) 

 Comendite of Ochre Ridge (Tuo) 

 Tub Spring Tuff (Tub) 

 Comendite of Emigrant Valley (Tue) 

Unknown 

Volcanics of Oak Spring Butte (To) 

 Tunnel bed 2 (Ton2) 

 Yucca Flat Tuff (Toy) 

 Tunnel bed 1 (Ton1) 

 Redrock Valley Tuff (Tor) 

 Tuff of Twin Peaks (Tot) 

Unknown 

Older Volcanics (Tqo) Unknown 

Paleocolluvium (Tl) N/A 

(a) Compiled from Wahl et al. (1997) and Ferguson et al. (1994). 

(b) Letters in parentheses are stratigraphic unit map symbols. 

(c) Sources, where known, from Sawyer et al. (1994) 

Refer to Table A-2 for lists of Mesozoic, Paleozoic, and Precambrian sedimentary rock formations. 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-14

Table A-2. Pre-tertiary stratigraphic units of the NTS and vicinity 

Stratigraphic 

Thickness 

Map Unit 

Stratigraphic 

Unit Map 

Symbol Feet Meters Dominant Lithology 

Gold Meadows Stock 

Climax Stock 

Kgg 

Kgc N/A N/A Quartz monzonite 

Granodiorite 

Tippipah Limestone 

(correlative with the Bird 

Spring Formation) 

PPt 3,500 1,070 Limestone 

Chainman Shale and Eleana 

Formation 

Mc 

MDe 4,000 1,220 Shale, argillite, and quartzite 

Guilmette Formation 

Simonson Dolomite 

Sevy Dolomite 

Laketown Dolomite 

Ely Spring Dolomite 

Eureka Quartzite 

Antelope Valley Limestone 

Ninemile Formation 

Goodwin Limestone 

Nopah Formation 

Bonanza King Formation 

Carrara Formation (upper) 

Dg 

Ds 

DSs 

Sl 

Oes 

Oe 

Oa 

On 

Og 

Cn 

Cb 

Cc 

1,400 

1,100 

690 

650 

340 

400 

1,530 

335 

685 

2,050 

4,350 

925 

430 

330 

210 

200 

105 

125 

466 

102 

209 

620 

1,330 

280 

Limestone 

Dolomite 

Dolomite 

Dolomite 

Dolomite 

Quartzite 

Limestone 

Limestone 

Limestone 

Limestone 

Limestone/dolomite 

Limestone 

Carrara Formation (lower) 

Zabriskie Quartzite 

Wood Canyon Formation 

Stirling Quartzite 

Johnnie Formation 

Cc 

Cz 

CZw 

Zs 

Zj 

925 

200 

2,300 

2,900 

3,000 

280 

60 

700 

890 

914 

Shale/Siltstone 

Quartzite 

Micaceous quartzite 

Quartzite 

Quartzite/siltstone/limestone 

(Stratigraphic units and lithologies adapted from Cole, 1992) 

A.4.2 Stratigraphy 

In order to confidently characterize the geology at the NTS, geoscientists must start from a well understood 

stratigraphic system. Refinement of the stratigraphy of the area was a continuous process during the decades in which 

geoscientists associated with the Weapons Testing Program (WTP) worked to understand the complex volcanic 

setting (documented by Byers et al., 1989). The need to develop detailed geologic models in support of the 

Underground Test Area (UGTA) Project (see Section 13) intensified this process, and the recognition of smaller and 

smaller distinct volcanic units permitted a greater understanding of the three-dimensional configuration of the various 

types of rocks, which has been incorporated into the geologic framework. Efforts to understand the structure and 

stratigraphy of the non-volcanic rocks (pre-Tertiary) have also continued to a lesser degree (Cole, 1997; Cole and 

Cashman, 1999; Cashman and Trexler, 1991; Trexler et al., 2003). The most widespread and significant Quaternary 

and Tertiary (mainly volcanic) units of the NTS area are listed in Table A-1. Refer to Table A-2 for a list of Mesozoic 

(granitic), Paleozoic (sedimentary), and Precambrian (sedimentary and metamorphic) stratigraphic units. 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-15

A.4.3 Structural Controls 

Geologic structures are an important component of the hydrogeology of the area. Structures define the geometric 

configuration of the area, including the distribution, thickness, and orientation of units. Synvolcanic structures, 

including caldera faults and some normal faults had strong influence on depositional patterns of many of the units. 

The juxtaposition of units with different hydrologic properties across faults may have significant hydrogeologic 

consequences. Also, faults may act as either conduits or barriers of groundwater flow, depending on the difference in 

permeability between a fault zone and the surrounding rocks. This is partially determined by whether the fault zone is 

characterized by open fractures, or if it is associated with fine-grained gouge or increased alteration. 

Five main types of structural features exist in the area: 

• Thrust faults (e.g., Belted Range and CP thrusts). 

• Normal faults (e.g., Yucca and West Greeley faults). 

• Transverse faults and structural zones (e.g., Rock Valley and Cane Spring faults). 

• Calderas (e.g., Timber Mountain and Silent Canyon caldera complexes). 

• Detachment faults (e.g., Fluorspar Canyon - Bullfrog Hills detachment fault). 

The Belted Range thrust fault is the principle pre-Tertiary structure in the NTS region and thus, controls the 

distribution of pre-Tertiary rocks in the area. The fault can be traced or inferred from Bare Mountain just south of 

the southwest corner of the NTS area to the northern Belted Range, just north of the NTS, a distance of more than 

130 km (81 mi). It is an eastward-directed thrust fault that generally places late Proterozoic to early Cambrian rocks 

over rocks as young as Mississippian. Several imbricate thrust faults occur east of the main thrust fault. Deformation 

related to the Belted Range thrust fault occurred sometime between 100 and 250 Ma. Lesser thrusts of similar age are 

mapped in the area (e.g., the CP and Spotted Range thrusts). 

Normal faults in the area are related mainly to basin-and-range extension (e.g., Yucca fault in Yucca Flat and West 

Greeley fault on Pahute Mesa). Most of them likely developed during and after the main phase of volcanic activity of 

the SWNVF (Sawyer et al., 1994). The majority of these faults are northwest-to northeast-striking, high angle faults. 

However, the exact locations, amount of offset along the faults, and character of the faults become increasingly 

uncertain with depth. 

Calderas are probably the most hydrogeologically important features in the NTS area. Volcano-tectonic and 

geomorphic processes related to caldera development, result in abrupt and dramatic lithologic and thickness changes 

across caldera margins. Consequently, caldera margins (i.e., faults) separate regions with considerably different 

hydrogeologic character. 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-16

A.5 Hydrology 

The hydrologic character of the NTS and vicinity reflects the region’s arid climatic conditions and complex geology 

(D’Agnese et al., 1997). The hydrology of the NTS has been extensively studied for over 40 years (DOE, 1996), and 

numerous scientific reports and large databases are available (refer to cited references for more detailed information). 

The following subsections present an overview of the hydrologic setting of the NTS and vicinity, including summary 

descriptions of surface water and groundwater, hydrogeologic framework, and brief descriptions of the hydrogeology 

for each of the idle underground test areas on the NTS. The reader is directed to Section 13.5 in the main body of this 

document for a discussion of the hydrogeologic modeling efforts conducted under the UGTA Project. 

A.5.1 Surface Water 

The NTS is located within the Great Basin, a closed hydrographic province that comprises several closed 

hydrographic basins (Figure A-6). The closed hydrographic basins of the NTS (most notably Yucca and Frenchman 

Flats) are subbasins of the Great Basin. Streams in the region are ephemeral, flowing only in response to precipitation 

events or snowmelt. Runoff is conveyed through normally dry washes toward the lowest areas of the closed 

hydrographic subbasins, and collects on playas. Two playas (seasonally dry lakes) occur on the NTS: Frenchman 

Lake and Yucca Lake, which lie in Frenchman and Yucca Flats, respectively. While water may stand on the playas for 

a few weeks before evaporating, the playas are dry most of the year. Surface water may leave the NTS in only a few 

places, such as Fortymile Canyon in the southwestern NTS. 

Springs that emanate from local perched groundwater systems are the only natural sources of perennial surface water 

in the region. There are 24 known springs or seeps on the NTS (Hansen et al., 1997; BN, 1999) (Figure A-7). Spring 

discharge rates are low, ranging from 0.014 to 2.2 liters/sec (0.22 to 35 gallons/minute) (IT, 1997). Most water 

discharged from springs travels only a short distance from the source before evaporating or infiltrating into the 

ground. The springs are important sources of water for wildlife, but they are too small to be of use as a public water 

supply source. 

Other surface waters on the NTS include man-made impoundments constructed at several locations throughout the 

NTS to support various operations. These are numerous, and include open industrial reservoirs, containment ponds, 

and sewage lagoons (DOE, 2003). Surface water is not a source of drinking water on the NTS. 

A.5.2 Groundwater 

The NTS is located within the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system, one of the major hydrologic 

subdivisions of the southern Great Basin (Waddell et al., 1984; Laczniak et al., 1996). Groundwater in southern 

Nevada is conveyed within several flow-system subbasins within the Death Valley regional flow system (a subbasin is 

defined as the area that contributes water to a major surface discharge area [Laczniak, et al., 1996]). Three principal 

groundwater subbasins, named for their down-gradient discharge areas, have been identified within the NTS region: 

the Ash Meadows, Oasis Valley, and Alkali Flat-Furnace Creek Ranch subbasins (Waddell et al., 1984) (Figure A-8). 

The groundwater-bearing rocks at the NTS have been classified into several hydrogeologic units (HGUs; see 

Section A.5.3 below), of which the most important is the lower carbonate aquifer, a thick sequence of Paleozoic 

carbonate rock. This unit extends throughout the subsurface of central and southeastern Nevada, and is considered 

to be a regional aquifer (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; Laczniak, et al., 1996; IT, 1996a). Various volcanic and 

alluvial aquifers are also locally important as water sources. 

The depth to groundwater in wells at the NTS varies from about 210 m (690 ft) below the land surface under the 

Frenchman Flat playa in the southeastern NTS, to more than 610 m (2,000 ft) below the land surface in the 

northwestern NTS, beneath Pahute Mesa (Lock et al., 2003; Bright et al., 2000; IT, 1996b; Reiner et al., 1995; 

O’Hagan and Laczniak, 1996; Robie et al., 1995). Perched groundwater (isolated lenses of water lying above the 

regional groundwater level) occurs locally throughout the NTS, mainly within the volcanic rocks. 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-17

Figure A-6. Closed hydrographic subbasins on the NTS
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-18

Figure A-7. Natural springs and seeps on the NTS
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-19

Figure A-8. Groundwater subbasins of the NTS and vicinity 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-20

Recharge areas for the Death Valley groundwater system are the higher mountain ranges of central and southern 

Nevada, where there can be significant precipitation and snowmelt. Groundwater flow is generally from these upland 

areas to natural discharge areas in the south and southwest. Groundwater at the NTS is also derived from underflow 

from basins up-gradient of the area (Harrill et al., 1988). The direction of groundwater flow may locally be influenced 

by structure, rock type, or other geologic conditions. Based on existing water-level data (Reiner et al., 1995; 

Hale et al., 1995; IT, 1996b; DOE, 2003) and flow models (IT, 1996a; D’Agnese et al., 1997) the general groundwater 

flow direction within major water-bearing units beneath the NTS is to the south and southwest. 

Most of the natural discharge from the Death Valley flow system is via transpiration by plants or evaporation from 

soil and playas in the Amargosa Desert and Death Valley. Groundwater discharge at the NTS is minor, consisting of 

small springs which drain perched water lenses and artificial discharge at a limited number of water supply wells. 

Groundwater is the only local source of potable water on the NTS. The nine supply wells that make up the NTS 

water system and the other supply wells for the various water systems in the area (town of Beatty, small mines, and 

local ranches) produce water for human and industrial use from the carbonate, volcanic, and alluvial aquifers. Water 

chemistry varies from a sodium-potassium-bicarbonate type to a calcium-magnesium-carbonate type, depending on 

the mineralogical composition of the aquifer source. Groundwater quality within aquifers of the NTS is generally 

acceptable for drinking water and industrial and agricultural uses (Chapman, 1994), and meets Safe Drinking Water 

Act standards (Chapman and Lyles, 1993; Rose et al., 1997; BN, 2003). 

A.5.3 Hydrogeologic Framework for the NTS and Vicinity 

When the need for testing nuclear devices underground was recognized in the 1950s, among the first concerns was 

the effect testing would have on the groundwater of the area. One of the earliest nuclear tests conducted below the 

groundwater table (the BILBY test conducted in 1963) was designed in part to study explosion effects on 

groundwater and the movement in groundwater of radioactive byproducts from the explosion (Hale et al., 1963; 

Garber, 1971). Since that time additional studies at various scales have been conducted to aid in the understanding of 

groundwater flow at the NTS. The current understanding of the regional groundwater flow at the NTS is derived 

from work by Winograd and Thordarson (1975), which was summarized and updated by Laczniak et al. (1996), and 

has further been developed by the UGTA Project hydrogeologic modeling team (IT, 1996a, 1998; BN, 2002a). See 

Section 7 for a description of the UGTA Project. 

Winograd and Thordarson (1975) established a hydrogeologic framework, incorporating the work of Blankennagel 

and Weir (1973) who defined the first hydrogeologic units (HGUs) to address the complex hydraulic properties of 

volcanic rocks. HGUs are used to categorize lithologic units according to their ability to transmit groundwater, which 

is mainly a function of their primary lithologic properties, degree of fracturing, and secondary mineral alteration. 

Hydrostratigraphic units (HSUs) for the NTS volcanic rocks were first defined during the UGTA modeling initiative 

(IT, 1996a). HSUs are groupings of contiguous stratigraphic units that have a particular hydrogeologic character, such 

as aquifer (unit through which water moves readily) or confining unit (unit that generally is impermeable to water 

movement). The concept of HSUs is very useful in volcanic terrains where stratigraphic units can vary greatly in 

hydrologic character both laterally and vertically. 

The rocks of the NTS have been classified for hydrologic modeling using this two-level classification scheme in which 

HGUs are grouped to form HSUs (IT, 1996a). An HSU may consist of several HGUs but is defined so that a single 

general type of HGU dominates (for example, mostly welded-tuff and vitric-tuff aquifers or mostly tuff confining 

units). 

A.5.3.1 Hydrogeologic Units 

All the rocks of the NTS and vicinity can be classified as one of ten HGUs, which include the alluvial aquifer, a playa 

confining unit, four volcanic HGUs, two intrusive units, and two HGUs that represent the pre-Tertiary rocks 

(Table A-3). 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-21

Table A-3. Hydrogeologic units of the NTS area 

Hydrogeologic Unit Typical Lithologies Hydrologic Significance 

Alluvial Aquifer 

(AA) 

Unconsolidated to partially 

consolidated gravelly sand, 

eolian sand, and colluvium; thin, 

basalt flows of limited extent 

Has characteristics of a highly conductive aquifer, but 

less so where lenses of clay-rich paleocolluvium or 

playa deposits are present. 

Welded-Tuff Aquifer 

(WTA) 

Welded ash-flow tuff; vitric to 

devitrified 

Degree of welding greatly affects interstitial porosity 

(less porosity as degree of welding increases) and 

permeability (greater fracture permeability as degree 

of welding increases). 

Vitric-Tuff Aquifer 

(VTA) 

Bedded tuff; ash-fall and 

reworked tuff; vitric 

Constitutes a volumetrically minor hydrogeologic 

unit. Generally does not extend far below the static 

water level due to tendency to become zeolitized 

(which drastically reduces permeability) under 

saturated conditions. Significant interstitial porosity 

(20 to 40 percent). Generally insignificant fracture 

permeability. 

Lava-Flow Aquifer 

(LFA) 

Rhyolite lava flows; includes flow 

breccias (commonly at base) and 

pumiceous zones (commonly at 

top) 

Generally a caldera-filling unit. Hydrologically 

complex; wide range of transmissivities; fracture 

density and interstitial porosity differ with lithologic 

variations. 

Tuff Confining Unit 

(TCU) 

Zeolitized bedded tuff with 

interbedded, but less significant, 

zeolitized, nonwelded to partially 

welded ash-flow tuff 

May be saturated but measured transmissivities are 

very low. May cause accumulation of perched and/or 

semi-perched water in overlying units. 

Intracaldera Intrusive 

Confining Unit 

(IICU) 

Highly altered, highly 

injected/intruded country rock 

and granitic material 

Assumed to be impermeable. Conceptually underlies 

each of the SWNVF calderas and Calico Hills. 

Granite Confining Unit 

(GCU) 

Granodiorite, quartz monzonite Relatively impermeable; forms local bulbous stocks, 

north of Rainier Mesa and Yucca Flat; may contain 

perched water. 

Clastic Confining Unit 

(CCU) 

Argillite, siltstone, quartzite Clay-rich rocks are relatively impermeable; more 

siliceous rocks are fractured, but with fracture 

porosity generally sealed due to secondary 

mineralization. 

Carbonate Aquifer 

(CA) 

Dolomite, limestone Transmissivity values differ greatly and are directly 

dependent on fracture frequency. 

Note: Adapted from BN (2002a). 

The deposits of alluvium (alluvial aquifer) fill the main basins of the NTS, and generally consist of a loosely 

consolidated mixture of boulders, gravel, and sand derived from volcanic and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks 

(Slate et al., 1999). The finest sediments can be deposited as playa deposits (or dry lake beds) in some closed basins 

(e.g., Yucca and Frenchman Flats). Because of their silty/clayey nature these fine-grained units tend to behave 

hydrologically as confining units (restrictive of groundwater flow). 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-22

The volcanic rocks of the NTS and vicinity can be categorized into four HGUs based on primary lithologic 

properties, degree of fracturing, and secondary mineral alteration. In general, the altered (typically zeolitized, but 

hydrothermally altered near caldera margins) volcanic rocks act as confining units (tuff confining unit), and the 

unaltered rocks form aquifers. The volcanic aquifer units can be further divided into welded-tuff aquifers or 

vitric-tuff aquifers (depending upon the degree of welding) and lava-flow aquifers. The denser rocks (welded ash-flow 

tuffs and lava flows) tend to fracture more readily, and therefore have relatively high permeability (Blankennagel and 

Weir, 1973; Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; Laczniak et al., 1996; IT, 1997, 1996c; Prothro and Drellack, 1997). 

The pre-Tertiary sedimentary rocks at the NTS and vicinity are also categorized as aquifer or confining unit HGUs 

based on lithology. The silicic clastic rocks (quartzite, siltstone, shale) tend to be aquitards or confining units, while 

the carbonates (limestone and dolomite) tend to be aquifers (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; Laczniak et al., 1996). 

The granite confining unit is considered to behave as a confining unit due to low primary porosity and low 

permeability, and because most fractures are probably filled with secondary minerals (Walker, 1962). 

A.5.3.2 Hydrostratigraphic Units 

The rocks at the NTS and vicinity are grouped into roughly 60 HSUs. The more important and widespread HSUs in 

the area are discussed separately below, from oldest to youngest. Additional information regarding other HSUs is 

summarized in tables introduced in Section A.5.5 below where the hydrogeology of Yucca and Frenchman Flats, and 

Pahute and Rainier Mesas UGTAs at the NTS is addressed. Additional information can be found in the 

documentation packages for the UGTA CAU-scale hydrogeologic models (IT, 1996a; 1998; Gonzales and Drellack, 

1999; and BN, 2002a). 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit (LCCU) – The Proterozoic to Middle-Cambrian-age rocks are largely quartzite and 

silica-cemented siltstone. Although these rocks are brittle and commonly fractured, secondary mineralization seems 

to have greatly reduced formation permeability (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975). These units make up the LCCU, 

which is considered to be the regional hydrologic basement (IT, 1996a). The LCCU is interpreted to underlie the 

entire region, except at the calderas. Where it is in a structurally high position, the LCCU may act as a barrier to deep 

regional groundwater flow. 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) – The LCA consists of thick sequences of Middle Cambrian through Upper 

Devonian carbonate rocks. This HSU serves as the regional aquifer for most of southern Nevada and locally may be 

as thick as 5,000 m (16,400 ft) (Cole, 1997; Cole and Cashman, 1999). The LCA is present under most of the area, 

except where the LCCU is structurally high and at the calderas. Transmissivities of these rocks differ from place to 

place, apparently reflecting the observed differences in fracture and fault densities and characteristics (Winograd and 

Thordarson, 1975). 

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) – Upper Devonian and Mississippian silicic clastic rocks in the NTS 

vicinity are assigned to the Eleana Formation and the Chainman Shale (Trexler et al., 2003; Cashman and Trexler, 

1991; Trexler et al., 1996). Both formations are grouped into the UCCU. At the NTS this HSU is found mainly 

within a north-south band along the western portion of Yucca Flat. It is a significant confining unit and in many 

places forms the footwall of the Belted Range and Control Point (CP) thrust faults. 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer, Upper Thrust Plate (LCA3) – Cambrian through Devonian, mostly carbonate rocks 

that occur in the hanging wall of the Belted Range and CP thrust faults are designated as LCA3. These rocks are 

equivalent stratigraphically to the LCA, but are structurally separated from the LCA by the Belted Range thrust fault. 

The LCA3 is patchily distributed as remnant thrust blocks, particularly along the western and southern sides of Yucca 

Flat (at Mine Mountain and the CP Hills), at Calico Hills, and at Bare Mountain. 

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit (MGCU) – The Mesozoic era is represented at the NTS only by intrusive 

igneous rocks. Cretaceous-age granitic rocks are exposed at two locations: in northern Yucca Flat, at the Climax 

Stock; and the Gold Meadows Stock, which lies 12.9 km (8 mi) west of the Climax Stock, just north of Rainier Mesa 

(Snyder, 1977; Bath et al., 1983) (Figure A-5). The two are probably related in both source and time and are believed 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-23

to be connected at depth (Jachens, 1999). Because of its low intergranular porosity and permeability, and the lack of 

inter-connecting fractures (Walker, 1962), the MGCU is considered a confining unit. The Climax and Gold Meadows 

intrusives are grouped into the MGCU HSU. 

Tertiary and Quaternary Hydrostratigraphic Units – Tertiary-and Quaternary-age strata at the NTS are organized 

into dozens of HSUs. Nearly all are of volcanic origin, except the alluvial aquifer, which is the uppermost HSU. 

These rocks are important because (1) most of the underground nuclear tests at the NTS were conducted in these 

units, (2) they constitute a large percentage of the rocks in the area, and (3) they are inherently complex and 

heterogeneous. As pointed out in Section A.5.3.1, the volcanic rocks are divided into aquifer or confining units 

according to lithology and secondary alteration. More detailed information can be found in the documentation 

packages for the UGTA CAU-scale hydrogeologic models (IT, 1996a, 1998; Gonzales and Drellack, 1999; BN, 

2002a). 

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) – The alluvium throughout most of the NTS is a loosely consolidated mixture of detritus 

derived from silicic volcanic and Paleozoic-age sedimentary rocks, ranging in particle size from clay to boulders. 

Sediment deposition is largely in the form of alluvial fans (debris flows, sheet wash, and braided streams) which 

coalesce to form discontinuous, gradational, and poorly sorted deposits. Eolian sand, playa deposits, and rare basalt 

flows are also present within the alluvial section of some valleys. The alluvium thickness in major valleys 

(e.g., Frenchman Flat and Yucca Flat) generally ranges from about 30 m (100 ft) to more than 1,128 m (3700 ft) in the 

deepest subbasins. The AA HSU is restricted primarily to the basins of the NTS. However, because the water table 

in the vicinity is moderately deep, the alluvium is generally unsaturated, except in the deep subbasins of some valleys. 

These sediments are porous and thus, have high storage coefficients. Hydraulic conductivity may also be high, 

particularly in the coarser, gravelly beds. 

A.5.4 General Hydraulic Characteristics of NTS Rocks 

Volcanic rocks typically are extremely variable in lithologic character both laterally and vertically. The characteristics 

of rocks that control the density and character of fractures are the primary determinants of their hydraulic properties, 

and most hydraulic heterogeneity ultimately is related to fracture characteristics such as fracture density, openness, 

orientation, and other properties. Secondary fracture-filling minerals can drastically obstruct the flow through or 

effectively seal an otherwise transmissive formation (Drellack et al., 1997; IT, 1996c). Fracture density typically 

increases with proximity to faults, potentially increasing the hydraulic conductivity of the formation, however, the 

hydrologic properties of faults, per se, are not well known. Limited data suggest that the full spectrum of hydraulic 

properties, from barrier to conduit, may be possible (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973; Faunt, 1998). 

Table A-4 includes a brief summary of the hydrologic properties of NTS HGUs. The lowest transmissivity values in 

volcanic rocks at the NTS are typically associated with non-welded ash-flow tuff and bedded tuff (air-fall and 

reworked tuffs). Although interstitial porosity may be high, the interconnectivity of the pore space is poor, and these 

relatively incompetent rocks tend not to support open fractures. Secondary alteration of these tuffs (most commonly, 

zeolitization) ultimately yields a very impermeable unit. As described in Section A.5.3.1, these zeolitized tuffs are 

considered to be confining units. The equivalent unaltered bedded and non-welded tuffs are considered to be 

vitric-tuff aquifers, and have intermediate transmissivities. 

In general, the most transmissive rocks tend to be moderately to densely welded ash-flow tuffs (welded-tuff aquifer), 

rhyolite lava flows (lava-flow aquifer), and carbonate rocks (limestone and dolomite). Although their interstitial 

porosity is low, these competent lithologies tend to be highly fractured, and groundwater flow through these rocks is 

largely through an interconnected network of fractures (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973; GeoTrans, 1995). 

Underground nuclear explosions affect hydraulic properties of the geologic medium creating both long-term and 

short-term effects. Effects include enhanced permeability from shock-induced fractures, the formation of vertical 

conduits (e.g., collapse chimneys), and elevated water levels (mounding and over-pressurization of saturated 

low-permeability units). However, these effects tend to be localized (Borg, et al., 1976; Brikowski, 1991; 

Allen et al., 1997). 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-24

Table A-4. Summary of hydrologic properties for hydrogeologic units at the NTS 

Hydrogeologic Unit(a) Fracture Density(b, c)

Relative Hydraulic 

Conductivity(c)

Alluvial Aquifer Very low Moderate to very high 

Vitric-Tuff Aquifer Low Low to moderate 

Welded-Tuff Aquifer Moderate to high Moderate to very high 

Vitric Low Low to moderate Pumiceous 

Lava Zeolitic Low Very low 

Stony Lava and Vitrophyre Moderate to high Moderate to very high 

Lava-Flow 

Aquifer (d)

Flow Breccia Low to moderate Low to moderate 

Tuff Confining Unit Low Very low 

Intrusive Confining Unit Low to moderate Very low 

Granite Confining Unit Low to moderate Very low 

Carbonate Aquifer Low to high (variable) Low to very high 

Clastic Confining Unit Moderate Very low to low (e)

(a) Refer to Table A-3 for hydrogeologic nomenclature. 

(b) Including primary (cooling joints in tuffs) and secondary (tectonic) fractures. 

(c) The values presented are the authors’ qualitative estimates based on data from published (IT [1996c] and 

Blankennagel and Weir [1973], Winograd and Thordarson [1975]) and unpublished sources (i.e., numerous Los 

Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory drill-hole characterization reports). 

(d) Abstracted from Prothro and Drellack (1997). 

(e) Fractures tend to be sealed by the presence of secondary minerals. 

Note: Adapted from BN (2002c). 

A.5.5 Hydrogeology of the NTS Underground Test Areas 

Most NTS underground nuclear detonations were conducted in three main UGTAs: (1) Yucca Flat, (2) Pahute Mesa, 

and (3) Rainier Mesa (including Aqueduct Mesa). Underground tests in Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa typically were 

conducted in vertical drill holes, whereas almost all tests conducted in Rainier Mesa were tunnel emplacements. A 

total of 85 underground tests (85 detonations) were conducted on Pahute Mesa, including 18 high-yield detonations 

(200 kilotons [kt] or more). Rainier Mesa hosted 61 underground tests (62 detonations), almost all of which were 

relatively low-yield (generally less than 20 kt) tunnel-based weapons-effects tests. Yucca Flat was the most extensively 

used UGTA, hosting 659 underground tests (747 detonations), four of which were high-yield detonations 

(200 kilotons or more) (Allen et al., 1997). 

In addition to the three main UGTAs, underground nuclear tests were conducted in Frenchman Flat (ten tests), 

Shoshone Mountain (six tests), the Oak Spring Butte/Climax Mine area (three tests), the Buckboard Mesa area (three 

tests), and Dome Mountain (one test with five detonations) (Allen et al., 1997). It should be noted that these totals 

include nine cratering tests (13 total detonations) conducted in various areas of the NTS. Table A-5 is a synopsis of 

information about each UGTA at the NTS, and Figure A-9 shows the aerial distribution of underground nuclear tests 

conducted at the NTS. 
A-25 

Nevada Test Site Description

Table A-5. Information summary of NTS underground nuclear tests (a) Source: U.S. Department of Energy (2000b). (b) High-yield detonations – detonations more than 200 kilotons, or detonations described with an upper yield range of at least 200 kilotons. (c) Low-yield detonations – detonations less than 20 kilotons. (d) JOHNNIE BOY was detonated at a depth of 1.75 ft (essentially a surface burst) approximately one mile east of Buckboard Mesa. Source: Allen, et al., 1997.

Total Underground(a)

Physiographic Area 

NTS 

Area(s) Tests Detonations

Test 

Dates(a)

Depth of 

Burial Range 

Overburden 

Media Comments 

Yucca Flat 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 

7, 8, 9, 10 

659 747 1951 - 1992 27 - 1219 m 

(89 - 3999 ft) 

Alluvium/playa, Volcanic tuff, Paleozoic rocks 

Various test types and yields; almost all were vertical emplacements above and below static water level; includes 4 high-yield(b) detonations.

Pahute Mesa 19, 20 85 85 1965 - 1992 31 - 1452 m 

(100 - 4765 ft) 

Alluvium, (thin) volcanic tuffs and lavas 

Almost all were large-diameter vertical emplacements above and below static water level; includes 18 high-yield detonations. 

Rainier/Aqueduct Mesa 12 61 62 1957 - 1992 61 - 640 m 

(200 - 2100 ft) 

Tuffs with welded tuff caprock (little or no alluvium) 

Two vertical emplacements; all others were horizontal tunnel emplacements above static water level; mostly low-yield(c) U.S. Department of Defense weapons effects tests. 

Frenchman Flat 

5, 11 10 10 1965 - 1971 179 - 296 m 

(587 - 971 ft) 

Mostly alluvium,minor volcanic tuff 

Various emplacement configurations, both above and below static water level. 

Shoshone Mtn. 16 6 6 1962 - 1971 244 - 640 m 

(800 - 2100 ft) 

Bedded tuff Tunnel-based low-yield weapons effects and 

Vela Uniform tests. 

Oak Spring Butte (Climax Area) 

15 3 3 1962 - 1966 229 - 351 m 

(750 - 1150 ft) 

Granite Three tests above static water level. (HARD 

HAT, TINY TOT, and PILE DRIVER). 

Buckboard Mesa 18 3 3 1962 - 1964 < 27 m 

(90 ft) 

Basaltic lavas Shallow, low-yield experiments (SULKY, 

JOHNNIE BOY(d) and DANNY BOY); all were above static water level. 

Dome Mountain 30 1 5 03/12/1968 50 m 

(165 ft) 

Mafic lava BUGGY (A, B, C, D, and E); Plowshare cratering 

test of five-detonation horizontal salvo; all above static water level. 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-26

Figure A-9. Location of Corrective Action Units and Corrective Action Sites on the NTS 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-27

The location of each underground nuclear test is classified as a Corrective Action Site (CAS). These in turn have been 

grouped into six Corrective Action Units (CAUs), according to the Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order 

(FFACO, 1996) between the DOE and the state of Nevada. In general, the CAUs relate to the geographical UGTAs 

on the NTS (see Figure A-9). 

The hydrogeology of the four main NTS UGTAs is summarized in the following subsections. For detailed 

stratigraphic descriptions of geologic units at the NTS (including each of the UGTAs) see Sawyer et al. (1994) and 

Slate et al. (1999). 

A.5.5.1 Frenchman Flat Underground Test Area 

The Frenchman Flat CAU consists of ten CASs located in the northern part of NTS Area 5 and southern part of 

Area 11 (see Figure A-9). The detonations were conducted in vertical emplacement holes and two mined shafts. 

Nearly all the tests were conducted in alluvium above the water table. 

Physiography – Frenchman Flat is a closed intermontane basin located in the southeastern portion of the NTS. It is 

bounded on the north by Massachusetts Mountain and the Halfpint Range, on the east by the Buried Hills, on the 

south by the Spotted Range, and on the west by the Wahmonie volcanic center (see Figure A-5). The sparsely 

vegetated valley floor slopes gently toward a central playa lakebed. Ground-level elevations range from 938 m 

(3,078 ft) above sea level at the playa, to over 1,463 m (4,800 ft) in the nearby surrounding mountains. 

Geology Overview – The stratigraphic section for Frenchman Flat consists of (from oldest to youngest) Proterozoic 

and Paleozoic clastic and carbonate rocks, Tertiary sedimentary and tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, Tertiary volcanic 

rocks, and Quaternary and Tertiary alluvium (Slate et al., 1999). In the northernmost portion of Frenchman Flat, the 

middle to upper Miocene volcanic rocks that erupted from calderas located to the northwest of Frenchman Flat 

unconformably overlie Ordovician-age carbonate and clastic rocks. To the south, these volcanic units, including the 

Ammonia Tanks Tuff, Rainier Mesa Tuff, Topopah Spring Formation, and Crater Flat Group, either thin 

considerably, interfinger with coeval sedimentary rocks, or pinch out together (IT, 1998b). Upper-middle Miocene 

tuffs, lavas, and debris flows from the Wahmonie volcanic center located just west of Frenchman Flat dominate the 

volcanic section beneath the western portion of the valley. To the south and southeast, most of the volcanic units are 

absent and Oligocene to middle Miocene sedimentary and tuffaceous sedimentary rocks, which unconformably 

overlie the Paleozoic rocks in the southern portion of Frenchman Flat, dominate the Tertiary section (Prothro and 

Drellack, 1997). In most of the Frenchman Flat area, upper Miocene to Holocene alluvium covers the older 

sedimentary and volcanic rocks (Slate et al., 1999). Alluvium thicknesses range from a thin veneer along the valley 

edges to perhaps as much as 1,158 m (3,800 ft) in north central Frenchman Flat. 

Structural Setting – The structural geology of Frenchman Flat is complex. During the late Mesozoic era, the region 

was subjected to compressional deformation, which resulted in folding, thrusting, uplift, and erosion of the 

pre-Tertiary rocks (Barnes et al., 1982). Approximately 16 Ma, the region underwent extensional deformation, during 

which the present basin-and-range topography was developed, and the Frenchman Flat basin was formed 

(Ekren et al., 1968). In the immediate vicinity of Frenchman Flat, extensional deformation has produced 

northeast-trending, left-lateral strike-slip faults and generally north-trending normal faults that displace the Tertiary 

and pre-Tertiary rocks. Beneath Frenchman Flat, major west-dipping normal faults merge and are probably 

contemporaneous with strike-slip faults beneath the southern portion of the basin (Grauch and Hudson, 1995). 

Movement along the faults has created a relatively deep, east-dipping, half-graben basin elongated in a northeasterly 

direction (Figure A-10). 

Hydrogeology Overview – The hydrogeology of Frenchman Flat is fairly complex, but is typical of the NTS area. 

Many of the HGU-and HSU-building blocks developed for the NTS vicinity are applicable to the Frenchman Flat 

basin. The strata in the Frenchman Flat area have been subdivided into five Tertiary-age HSUs (including the 

Quaternary/Tertiary alluvium) and three pre-Tertiary HSUs to serve as layers for the UGTA Frenchman Flat CAU 

groundwater model (IT, 1998b). In descending order these units are: the AA, the Timber Mountain aquifer (TMA), 

the Wahmonie confining unit (WCU), the tuff confining unit (TCU), the volcaniclastic confining unit (VCU), the 

LCA, and the LCCU (Table A-6). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-28

Figure A-10. Conceptual east-west cross section through Frenchman Flat 

Table A-6. Hydrostratigraphic units of the Frenchman Flat underground test area 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant 

Hydrogeologic Unit(a) Typical Lithologies 

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA, minor LFA Alluvium (gravelly sand); also includes relatively 

thin basalt flow in northern Frenchman Flat and 

playa deposits in south-central part of basin 

Timber Mountain Aquifer 

(TMA) 

WTA, VTA Welded ash-flow tuff and related nonwelded and 

air-fall tuffs; vitric to devitrified 

Wahmonie Volcanic Confining 

Unit (WVCU) 

TCU, minor LFA Air-fall and reworked tuffs; debris and breccia 

flows; minor intercalated lava flows. Typically 

altered: zeolitic to argillic 

Tuff Confining Unit (TCU) TCU Zeolitic bedded tuffs, with interbedded but less 

significant zeolitic, nonwelded to partially welded 

ash-flow tuffs 

Volcaniclastic Confining Unit 

(VCU) 

TCU, minor AA Diverse assemblage of interbedded volcanic and 

sedimentary rocks including tuffs, shale, 

tuffaceous and argillaceous sandstones, 

conglomerates, minor limestones 

Upper Clastic Confining Unit 

(UCCU) 

CCU Argillite, quartzite; present only in northwest 

portion of model in the CP Basin 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) CA Dolomite and limestone; the “regional aquifer” 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit 

(LCCU) 

CCU Quartzites and siltstones; the “hydrologic 

basement” 

(a) See Table A-3 for descriptions of hydrogeologic units. 

Note: Adapted from IT, 1998b. 

TV

TV TV

TV

TV

TV TV

AA

PZ

NO SCALE

PZ PZ

PZ

PZ

PZ

PZ

PZ

PZ

AA = Alluvial Aquifer

 (Quaternary/Tertiary Alluvium) TV = Volcanic Aquifers and Confining Units

(Tertiary Volcanic Rocks)

PZ = Lower Carbonate Aquifer

(Folded and Faulted pre-Tertiary

Sedimentary Rocks)

 = Movement away from viewer. = Movement toward viewer.
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-29

Water–level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction – The depth to the static water level (SWL) in 

Frenchman Flat ranges from 210 m (690 ft) near the central playa to more than 350 m (1,150 ft) at the northern end 

of the valley. The SWL is generally located within the AA, TMA, WVCU, or TCU. In the deeper, central portions of 

the basin, more than half of the alluvium section is saturated. Water-level elevation data in the AA indicate a very flat 

water table (Blout et al., 1994; IT, 1998b). 

Water-level data for the LCA in the southern part of the NTS are limited, but indicate a fairly low gradient in the 

Yucca Flat, Frenchman Flat, and Jackass Flats areas. This gentle gradient implies a high degree of hydraulic continuity 

within the aquifer, presumably due to high fracture permeability (Laczniak et al., 1996). Furthermore, the similarity of 

the water levels measured in Paleozoic rocks (LCA) in Yucca Flat and Frenchman Flat implies that, at least for deep 

interbasin flow, there is no groundwater barrier between the two basins. Inferred regional groundwater flow through 

Frenchman Flat is to the south-southwest toward discharge areas in Ash Meadows (see Figure A-8). An increasing 

westward flow vector in southern NTS may be due to preferential flow paths subparallel to the northeast-trending 

Rock Valley fault (Grauch and Hudson, 1995) and/or a northward gradient from the Spring Mountain recharge area 

(IT, 1996a; b). 

Groundwater elevation measurements for wells completed in the AA and TMA are higher than those in the 

underlying LCA (IT, 1996b; 1998b). This implies a downward gradient. This apparent semi-perched condition is 

believed to be due to the presence of intervening TCU and VCU units. 

A.5.5.2 Yucca Flat/Climax Mine Underground Test Area 

The Yucca Flat/Climax Mine CAU consists of several hundreds of CASs located in NTS Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

and three CASs located in Area 15 (see Figure A-9). These tests were typically conducted in vertical emplacement 

holes and a few related tunnels (see Table A-5). 

The Yucca Flat and Climax Mine UGTAs were originally defined as two separate CAUs (CAU 97 and CAU 100) in 

the FFACO (1996) because the geologic frameworks of the two areas are distinctly different. The Yucca Flat 

underground nuclear tests were conducted in alluvial, volcanic, and carbonate rocks, whereas the Climax Mine tests 

were conducted in an igneous intrusion in northern Yucca Flat. However, particle-tracking simulations performed 

during the regional evaluation (IT, 1997) indicated that the local Climax Mine groundwater flow system merges into 

the much larger Yucca Flat groundwater flow system during the 1,000-year time period of interest, so the two areas 

were combined into the single CAU 97. 

Yucca Flat was the most heavily used UGTA on the NTS (see Figure A-9). The alluvium and tuff formations provide 

many characteristics advantageous to the containment of nuclear explosions. They are easily mined or drilled. The 

high-porosity overburden (alluvium and vitric tuffs) will accept and depressurize any gas which might escape the blast 

cavity. The deeper tuffs are zeolitized, which creates a nearly impermeable confining unit. The zeolites also have 

absorptive and “molecular sieve” attributes which severely restrict or prevent the migration of radionuclides. The 

deep water table (greater than 503 m [1,650 ft] depth) provides additional operational and environmental benefits. 

This section provides brief descriptions of the geologic and hydrogeologic setting of the Yucca Flat/Climax Mine 

UGTA, as well as a discussion of the hydrostratigraphic framework. This summary was compiled from various 

sources, including BN (2001a), Gonzales and Drellack (1999), Winograd and Thordarson (1975), Laczniak et al., 

(1996), Byers et al., (1989), and Cole (1997) where additional information can be found. 

Physiography – Yucca Flat is a topographically closed basin with a playa at its southern end. The geomorphology of 

Yucca Flat is typical of the arid, inter-mountain basins found throughout the Basin and Range province of Nevada 

and adjoining states. Faulted and tilted blocks of Tertiary-age volcanic rocks and underlying Precambrian and 

Paleozoic sedimentary rocks form low ranges around the basin (see Figure A-5). These rocks also compose the 

“basement” of the basin, which is now covered by alluvium. 

Ground elevation in the Yucca Flat area ranges from about 1,195 m (3,920 ft) above mean sea level at Yucca Lake 

(playa) in the southern portion to about 1,463 m (4,800 ft) in the northern portion of the valley. The highest portions 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-30

of the surrounding mountains and hills range from less than 1,500 m (5,000 ft) in the south to over 2,316 m (7,600 ft) 

at Rainier Mesa in the northwest corner of the area. Yucca Flat is bounded by the Halfpint Range to the east; by 

Rainier Mesa and the Belted Range to the north; by the Eleana Range and Mine Mountain to the west; and by the 

CP Hills, CP Hogback, and Massachusetts Mountain to the south. 

Geology Overview – The Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks of the NTS area consist of approximately 11,300 m 

(37,000 ft) of carbonate and silicic clastic rocks (Cole, 1997). These rocks were severely deformed by compressional 

movements during Mesozoic time, which resulted in the formation of folds and thrust faults (e.g., Belted Range and 

CP thrust faults). During the middle Late Cretaceous, granitic bodies (such as the Climax stock in northern Yucca 

Flat) intruded these deformed rocks (Maldonado, 1977; Houser and Poole, 1960). 

Twenty-two pre-Tertiary formations (including the Mesozoic granitic intrusives) have been recognized in the Yucca 

Flat region (see Table A-2). These rocks range in age from Precambrian to Cretaceous and represent primarily 

carbonate and silicic shallow-to deep-water sedimentation near a continental margin. Some of these units are 

widespread throughout southern Nevada and California, though complex structural deformation has created many 

uncertainties in determining the geometric relationships of these units around Yucca Flat. 

During Cenozoic time, the sedimentary and intrusive rocks were buried by thick sections of volcanic material 

deposited in several eruptive cycles from source areas in the SWNVF. The Cenozoic stratigraphy of the Yucca Flat 

area, though not structurally complicated, is very complex. Most of the volcanic rocks of the Yucca Flat area were 

deposited during many eruptive cycles of the SWNVF (see Section A.4.1). The source areas of most units (Volcanics 

of Oak Spring Butte, Tunnel Formation, Belted Range Group, Crater Flat Group, Calico Hills Formation, Paintbrush 

Group, and Timber Mountain Group) are located to the west and northwest of Yucca Flat; the Wahmonie source area 

is located southwest of Yucca Flat. Table A-1 lists the Tertiary stratigraphic units common to the Yucca Flat basin. 

The volcanic rocks include primarily ash-flow tuffs, ash-fall tuffs, and reworked tuffs, whose thicknesses and extents 

vary partly due to the irregularity of the underlying depositional surface, and partly due to the presence of topographic 

barriers and windows between Yucca Flat and the source areas to the north and west. 

Over the last several million years, gradual erosion of the highlands that surround Yucca Flat has deposited a thick 

blanket of alluvium on the tuff section. The alluvium in Yucca Flat and throughout most of the NTS is a loosely 

consolidated mixture of detritus derived from silicic volcanic and Paleozoic sedimentary rocks, ranging in particle size 

from clay to boulders. Sediment deposition is largely in the form of alluvial fans (debris flows, sheet wash, and 

braided streams) which coalesce to form discontinuous, gradational, and poorly sorted deposits. Eolian sand, playa 

deposits, and rare basalt flows are also present within the alluvium section of Yucca Flat. The alluvium thickness in 

Yucca Flat generally ranges from about 30 m (100 ft) to over 914 m (3,000 ft) (Drellack and Thompson, 1990). 

Structural Setting – The structure of the pre-Tertiary rocks in Yucca Flat is complex and poorly known (Cole, 1997), 

but it is important because the pre-Tertiary section is very thick and extensive and includes units which form regional 

aquifers. The main pre-Tertiary structures in the Yucca Flat area are related to the east-vergent Belted Range thrust 

fault which has placed Late Proterozoic to Cambrian-age rocks over rocks as young as Late Mississippian (Cole, 1997; 

Cole and Cashman, 1999). In several places along the western and southern portions of Yucca Flat, east-vergent 

structures related to the Belted Range thrust were deformed by younger west-vergent structural activity (Cole and 

Cashman, 1999). This west-vergent deformation is related to the CP thrust fault which also placed Cambrian and 

Ordovician rocks over Mississippian and Pennsylvanian-age rocks beneath western Yucca Flat (Caskey and 

Schweickert, 1992). 

Large-scale normal faulting began in Yucca Flat in response to regional extensional movements near the end of this 

period of volcanism. This faulting formed the Yucca Flat basin, and as fault movement continued, blocks between 

faults were down-dropped and tilted, creating subbasins within the Yucca Flat basin. 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-31

Over the last several million years, gradual erosion of the highlands that surround Yucca Flat has deposited a thick 

blanket of alluvium on the tuff section. The thickness of the alluvium in the Yucca Flat basin varies as a function of 

the topography of the underlying deposits and due to continuing movements along faults during alluvium deposition. 

The major basin-forming faults generally strike in a northerly direction, and relative offset is typically down to the east 

(e.g., Yucca, Topgallant, and Carpetbag faults). Movement along the Yucca fault in central Yucca Flat indicates 

deformation in the area has continued into the Holocene (Hudson, 1992). Specific details regarding these faults are 

lacking because of the propensity to avoid inferred and known faults during drilling of emplacement holes for 

underground nuclear tests. 

The configuration of the Yucca Flat basin is illustrated on the generalized west-east cross section shown in 

Figure A-11. The cross section is simplified to show the positions of only the primary lithostratigraphic units in the 

region. This cross section provides a conceptual illustration of the irregular Precambrian and Paleozoic rocks overlain 

by the Tertiary volcanic units, and the basin-filling alluvium at the surface. The main Tertiary-age, basin-forming 

large-scale normal faults are also shown. 

Hydrogeologic Overview – All the rocks of the Yucca Flat underground test area can be classified as one of eight 

HGUs (see Table A-3), which include the AA, four volcanic HGUs, an intrusive unit, and two HGUs that represent 

the pre-Tertiary rocks. 

The strata in Yucca Flat have been subdivided into eleven Tertiary-age HSUs (including the Tertiary/Quaternary 

alluvium), one Mesozoic intrusive HSU, and six Paleozoic HSUs (Gonzales and Drellack, 1999). These units are 

listed in Table A-7, and several of the more important HSUs are discussed in the following paragraphs. The alluvium 

and pre-Tertiary HSUs in Yucca Flat are as defined in Section A.5.3.2. 

The hydrostratigraphy for the Tertiary-age volcanic rocks in Yucca Flat can be simplified into two categories: zeolitic 

tuff confining units and (non-zeolitic) volcanic aquifers. 

Figure A-11. Generalized west-east hydrogeologic cross section through central Yucca Flat 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-32

Table A-7. Hydrostratigraphic units of the Yucca Flat underground test area 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant Hydrogeologic 

Units(a) Typical Lithologies 

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA, minor LFA Alluvium (gravelly sand); also includes one 

or more thin basalt flows, playa deposits 

and eolian sands 

Timber Mountain Upper Vitric-Tuff 

Aquifer (TM-UVTA) 

WTA, VTA Includes vitric nonwelded ash-flow and 

bedded tuff 

Timber Mountain Welded-Tuff 

Aquifer (TM-WTA) 

WTA Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff; 

vitric to devitrified 

Timber Mountain Lower Vitric-Tuff 

Aquifer (TM-LVTA) 

VTA Nonwelded ash-flow and bedded tuff; 

vitric 

Yucca Flat Upper Confining Unit 

(YF-UCU) 

TCU Zeolitic bedded tuff 

Topopah Spring Aquifer (TSA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff; present only in 

extreme southern Yucca Flat 

Belted Range Aquifer (BRA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff 

Belted Range Confining Unit (BRCU) TCU Zeolitic bedded tuffs 

Pre-Grouse Canyon Tuff Lava-Flow 

Aquifer (Pre-Tbg-LFA) 

LFA Lava flow 

Tub Spring Aquifer (TUBA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff 

Yucca Flat Lower Confining Unit 

(YF-LCU) 

TCU Zeolitic bedded tuffs with interbedded but 

less significant zeolitic, nonwelded to 

partially welded ash-flow tuffs 

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit 

(MGCU) 

GCU Granodiorite and quartz monzonite 

Upper Carbonate Aquifer (UCA) CA Limestone 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer - Yucca Flat 

Upper Plate (LCA3) 

CA Limestone and dolomite 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit - Yucca Flat 

Upper Plate (LCCU1) 

CCU Quartzite and siltstone 

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) CCU Argillite and quartzite 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) CA Dolomite and limestone; “regional aquifer”

Lower Clastic Confining Unit 

(LCCU) 

CCU Quartzite and siltstone; “hydrologic 

basement” 

(a) See Table A-3 for description of hydrogeologic units. 

Note: Adapted from Gonzales and Drellack, 1999. 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-33

The Yucca Flat lower confining unit (YF-LCU) is an important HSU in the Yucca Flat region (stratigraphically similar 

to the TCU in Frenchman Flat) because it separates the volcanic aquifer units from the underlying regional LCA. 

Almost all zeolitized tuff units in Yucca Flat are grouped within the YF-LCU, which comprises mainly zeolitized 

bedded tuff (air-fall tuff, with minor reworked tuff). The YF-LCU is saturated in much of Yucca Flat; however, 

measured transmissivities are very low. 

The YF-LCU is generally present in the eastern two-thirds of Yucca Flat. It is absent over the major structural highs, 

where the volcanic rocks have been removed by erosion. Areas where the YF-LCU is absent include the “Paleozoic 

bench” in the western portion of the basin. In northern Yucca Flat the YF-LCU tends to be confined to the 

structural subbasins. Outside the subbasins and around the edges of Yucca Flat the volcanic rocks are thinner and are 

not zeolitized. 

The unaltered volcanic rocks of Yucca Flat are divided into three Timber Mountain HSUs. The hydrogeology of this 

part of the geologic section is complicated by the presence of one or more ash-flow tuff units that are quite variable in 

properties both vertically and laterally. 

The Timber Mountain Group includes ash-flow tuffs that might be either welded-tuff aquifers or vitric-tuff aquifers, 

depending on the degree of welding (refer to Sections A.5.3.1 and A.5.3.2). In Yucca Flat these units are generally 

present in the central portions of the basin. They can be saturated in the deepest structural subbasins. 

The AA is confined primarily to the basins of the NTS. However, because the water table in the vicinity is moderately 

deep, the alluvium is generally unsaturated, except in the deep sub-basins of some valleys. These sediments are 

porous, and thus, have high storage coefficients. Transmissivities may also be high, particularly in the coarser, gravelly 

beds. 

The more recent large-scale extensional faulting in the Yucca Flat area is significant from both hydrologic and 

containment perspectives because the faults have profoundly affected the hydrogeology of the Tertiary volcanic units 

by controlling to a large extent their alteration potential and final geometry. In addition, the faults themselves may 

facilitate flow of high-pressure gases from nearby explosion cavities and of potentially contaminated groundwater 

from sources in the younger rocks into the underlying regional aquifers. Final geometry of formations may be such 

that rocks of very different properties are now juxtaposed (i.e., a Paleozoic carbonate scarp). 

Water-level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction – Water-level data are abundant for Yucca Flat, as a 

result of more than thirty years of drilling in the area in support of the weapons testing program. However, waterlevel data for the surrounding areas are scarce. These data are listed in the potentiometric data package prepared for 

the UGTA regional-scale groundwater model (IT, 1996b; Hale et al., 1995). 

The SWL in the Yucca Flat basin is relatively deep, ranging in depth from about 183 m (600 ft) in extreme western 

Yucca Flat to more than 580 m (1,900 ft) in north-central Yucca Flat (Laczniak et al., 1996; Hale et al., 1995). 

Elevation of the water table in Yucca Flat varies from 1,340 m (4,400 ft) in the north (western Emigrant Valley) to 

730 m (2,400 ft) at the southern end of Yucca Flat (Laczniak et al., 1996; Hale et al., 1995). Throughout much of the 

Yucca Flat area, the SWL typically is located within the lower portion of the volcanic section, in the YF-LCU. 

Beneath the hills surrounding Yucca Flat, the SWL can be within the Paleozoic-age units, while in the deeper 

structural subbasins of Yucca Flat, the Timber Mountain Tuff and the lower portion of the alluvium are also 

saturated. 

Fluid levels measured in wells completed in the AA and volcanic units in the eastern two-thirds of Yucca Flat are 

typically about 20 m (70 ft) higher than in wells completed in the LCA (Winograd and Thordarson, 1975; IT, 1996b). 

The hydrogeology of these units suggests that the higher elevation of the water table in the overlying Tertiary rocks is 

related to the presence of low permeability zeolitized tuffs of the YF-LCU (aquitard) between the Paleozoic and 

Tertiary aquifers. Detailed water-level data indicate the existence of a groundwater trough along the axis of the valley. 

The semi-perched water within the alluvial aquifer and volcanic aquifers eventually moves downward to the carbonate 

aquifer in the central portion of the valley. 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-34

Water-level elevations in western Yucca Flat are also well above the regional water level. The hydrology of western 

Yucca Flat is influenced by the presence of the Mississippian clastic rocks, which directly underlie the carbonate 

aquifer of the upper plate of the CP thrust (locally present), AA, and volcanic rocks west of the Topgallant fault. This 

geometry is a contributing factor in the development of higher (semi-perched) water levels in this area. The Climax 

Stock also bears perched water (Walker, 1962; Laczniak et al., 1996) well above the regional water level. 

The present structural interpretation for Yucca Flat depicts the LCCU at great depth, except in the northeast corner 

of the study area. The Zabriskie Quartzite and Wood Canyon Formation, which are both classified as clastic 

confining units, are exposed in the northern portion of the Halfpint Range. The high structural position of the LCCU 

there (and in combination with the Climax Stock) may be responsible for the steep hydrologic gradient observed 

between western Emigrant Valley and Yucca Flat. 

Based on the existing data and as interpreted from the UGTA regional-scale groundwater flow model (DOE, 1997c), 

the overall groundwater flow direction in Yucca Flat is to the south and southwest (see Figure A-8). Groundwater 

ultimately discharges at Franklin Lake Playa to the south and Death Valley to the southwest. 

A.5.5.3 Pahute Mesa Underground Test Area 

This section provides descriptions of the geologic and hydrologic settings of the Pahute Mesa UGTA. This summary 

was compiled from various sources, including BN (2002a and b), Winograd and Thordarson (1975), Laczniak et al., 

(1996), Byers et al. (1976; 1989), and Cole (1997). Additional information can be found in these documents. For 

detailed stratigraphic descriptions see Sawyer et al., (1994) and Slate et al., (1999). 

The Western and Central Pahute Mesa CAUs, encompassing Areas 19 and 20 of the NTS, were the site of 

85 underground nuclear tests (DOE, 2000b) (see Figure A-9). These detonations were all conducted in vertical 

emplacement holes (see Table A-5). The Western Pahute Mesa CAU is separated from the Central Pahute Mesa by 

the Boxcar fault and is distinguished by a relative abundance of tritium (IT, 1999b). For hydrogeologic studies and 

modeling purposes, these two CAUs are treated together. 

Hydrogeologically, these CAUs are considered to be part of a larger region that includes areas both within and outside 

the boundaries of the NTS, designated as the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley (PM-OV) study area. Because most of the 

underground nuclear tests at Pahute Mesa were conducted near or below the static water level, test-related 

contaminants are available for transport via a groundwater flow system that may extend to discharge areas in Oasis 

Valley. So, like the UGTAs of Frenchman Flat and Yucca Flat, a CAU-scale hydrostratigraphic framework model has 

been developed for the PM-OV study area to support modeling of groundwater flow and contaminant transport for 

the UGTA Project (BN, 2002c). 

Physiography – Pahute Mesa is a structurally high volcanic plateau in the northwest corner of the NTS 

(see Figure A-5). Ground-level elevations in the area range from below 1,650 m (5,400 ft) off the mesa to the north 

and south, to over 2,135 m (7,000 ft) in eastern Pahute Mesa. Pahute Mesa proper is composed of flat-topped buttes 

and mesas separated by deep canyons. This physiographic feature covers most of NTS Areas 19 and 20, which are 

the second most utilized testing real estate at the NTS. Consequently, there are numerous drill holes which provide a 

substantial amount of subsurface geologic and hydrologic information (BN, 2002a; Warren et al., 2000a and b). 

Geology Overview – Borehole and geophysical data from Pahute Mesa indicate the presence of several nested 

calderas which produced thick sequences of rhyolite tuffs and lavas. The older calderas are buried by ash-flow units 

produced from younger calderas. Most of eastern Pahute Mesa is capped by the voluminous Ammonia Tanks and 

Rainier Mesa ash-flow tuff units which erupted from the Timber Mountain Caldera, located immediately to the south 

of Pahute Mesa (Byers et al., 1976). The western portion is capped by ash-flows of the Thirsty Canyon Group from 

the Black Mountain caldera. A typical geologic cross section for Pahute Mesa is presented in Figure A-12. For a 

more detailed geologic summary, see Ferguson, et al., (1994), Sawyer, et al., (1994), Warren, et al., (2000b), and 

BN (2002a). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-35

Figure A-12. Generalized hydrostratigraphic cross section through the Silent Canyon complex, Pahute Mesa 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-36

The most widespread and significant Quaternary and Tertiary (mainly volcanic) units of the Pahute Mesa area are 

listed in Table A-1. Refer to Table A-2 for a list of Mesozoic (granitic), Paleozoic (sedimentary), and Precambrian 

(sedimentary and metamorphic) stratigraphic units. 

Underlying the Tertiary-age volcanic rocks (exclusive of the caldera complexes) are Paleozoic and Proterozoic 

sedimentary rocks consisting of dolomite, limestone, quartzite, and argillite. During Precambrian and Paleozoic time, 

as much as 10,000 m (32,800 ft) of these marine sediments were deposited in the NTS region (Cole, 1997). For 

detailed stratigraphic descriptions of these rocks see Slate et al. (1999). The only occurrence of Mesozoic age rocks in 

the Pahute Mesa area is the Gold Meadows Stock, a granitic intrusive mass located at the eastern edge of Pahute 

Mesa, north of Rainier Mesa (Snyder, 1977; Gibbons et al., 1963). 

The Silent Canyon caldera complex (SCCC) lies beneath Pahute Mesa. This complex contains the oldest known 

calderas within the SWNVF, and is completely buried by volcanic rocks erupted from younger nearby calderas. It was 

first identified from gravity observations that indicated a deep basin below the topographically high Pahute Mesa. 

Subsequent drilling on Pahute Mesa indicated that the complex consists of at least two nested calderas, the Grouse 

Canyon caldera and younger Area 20 caldera (13.7 and 13.25 Ma, respectively; Sawyer et al., 1994). For more 

information on the SCCC, see Ferguson et al., (1994), which is a comprehensive study of the caldera complex based 

on analysis of gravity, seismic refraction, drill hole, and surface geologic data. 

Like the SCCC, the Timber Mountain caldera complex (TMCC) consists of two nested calderas, the Rainier Mesa 

caldera and younger Ammonia Tanks caldera, 11.6 and 11.45 Ma, respectively (Sawyer et al., 1994). However, unlike 

the SCCC, the TMCC has exceptional topographic expression, consisting of an exposed topographic margin for more 

than half its circumference and a well exposed central resurgent dome (Timber Mountain, the most conspicuous 

geologic feature in the western part of the NTS). The complex truncates the older Claim Canyon caldera (12.7 Ma; 

Sawyer et al., 1994) which is further to the south. The calderas of the TMCC are the sources for the Rainier Mesa and 

Ammonia Tanks Tuffs which form important and extensive stratigraphic units at the NTS and vicinity. 

The Black Mountain caldera is a relatively small caldera in the northwest portion of the Pahute Mesa area. It is the 

youngest caldera in the area, formed as a result of the eruption, 9.4 Ma, of tuffs assigned to the Thirsty Canyon Group 

(Sawyer et al., 1994). 

Deep gravity lows and the demonstrated great thickness of tuffs in the Pahute Mesa area suggest the presence of older 

buried calderas. These calderas would pre-date the Grouse Canyon caldera and thus, could be the source of some of 

the pre-Belted Range units. 

Structural Setting – The structural setting of the Pahute Mesa area is dominated by the calderas described in the 

previous paragraphs. Several other structural features are considered to be significant factors in the hydrology, 

including the Belted Range thrust fault (see Section A.4.3), numerous normal faults related mainly to basin-and-range 

extension, and transverse faults and structural zones. However, many of these features are buried, and their presence 

is inferred from drilling and geophysical data. A typical geologic cross section for Pahute Mesa is presented in 

Figure A-12. For a more detailed geologic summary, see Ferguson et al., (1994); Sawyer et al., (1994); and BN (2002c). 

Hydrogeology Overview – The hydrogeology of Pahute Mesa is complex. The thick section of volcanic rocks 

comprises a wide variety of lithologies that range in hydraulic character from aquifer to aquitard. The presence of 

several calderas and tectonic faulting further complicate the area, placing the various lithologic units in juxtaposition 

and blocking or enhancing the flow of groundwater in a variety of ways. 

The general hydrogeologic framework for Pahute Mesa and vicinity was established in the early 1970s by USGS 

geoscientists (Blankennagel and Weir, 1973; Winograd and Thordarson, 1975). As described in Section A.5.3, their 

work has provided the foundation for most subsequent hydrogeologic studies at the NTS (IT, 1996a; BN, 2002c). 

All the rocks in the PM-OV study area can be classified as one of nine HGUs, which include the AA, three volcanic 

HGUs, two intrusive units, and two HGUs that represent the pre-Tertiary rocks (see Table A-3). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-37

The rocks within the PM-OV study area are grouped into 44 HSUs for the UGTA CAU-scale hydrogeology 

framework model (Table A-8). The volcanic units are organized into 37 HSUs that include 13 aquifers, 13 confining 

units, and 11 composite units (comprising a mixture of hydraulically variable units). The underlying pre-Tertiary rocks 

are divided into six HSUs, including two aquifers and four confining units. HSUs that are common to several CAUs 

at the NTS are briefly discussed in Section A.5.2. 

Table A-8. Hydrostratigraphic units of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley area 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant Hydrogeologic 

Unit(s)(a) Typical Lithologies 

Alluvial Aquifer (AA) AA Alluvium (gravelly sand); also includes eolian 

sand 

Younger Volcanic Composite Unit 

(YVCM) LFA, WTA, VTA Basalt, welded and nonwelded ash-flow tuff 

Thirsty Canyon Volcanic Aquifer 

(TCVA) WTA, LFA, lesser VTA Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff; vitric 

to devitrified 

Detached Volcanics Composite Unit 

(DVCM) WTA, LFA, TCU Complex distribution of welded ash-flow tuff, 

lava, and zeolitic bedded tuff 

Fortymile Canyon Composite Unit 

(FCCM) LFA, TCU, lesser WTA Lava flows and associated tuffs 

Timber Mountain Composite Unit 

(TMCM) 

TCU (altered tuffs, lavas) and 

unaltered WTA and lesser 

LFA 

Densely welded ash-flow tuff; includes lava 

flows, and minor debris flows. 

Tannenbaum Hill Lava-Flow Aquifer 

(THLFA) LFA Rhyolitic lava 

Tannenbaum Hill Composite Unit 

(THCM) Mostly TCU lesser WTA Zeolitic tuff and vitric, nonwelded to welded 

ash-flow tuffs 

Timber Mountain Aquifer (TMA) Mostly WTA, minor VTA Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff; vitric 

to devitrified 

Subcaldera Volcanic Confining Unit 

(SCVCU) TCU 

Probably highly altered volcanic rocks and 

intruded sedimentary rocks beneath each 

caldera 

Fluorspar Canyon Confining Unit 

(FCCU) TCU Zeolitic bedded tuff 

Windy Wash Aquifer (WWA) LFA Rhyolitic lava 

Paintbrush Composite Unit (PCM) WTA, LFA, TCU Welded ash-flow tuffs, rhyolitic lava and minor 

associated bedded tuffs 

Paintbrush Vitric-tuff Aquifer (PVTA) VTA Vitric, nonwelded and bedded tuff 

Benham Aquifer (BA) LFA Rhyolitic lava 

Upper Paintbrush Confining Unit 

(UPCU) TCU Zeolitic, nonwelded and bedded tuff 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-38

Table A-8. (continued) 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant Hydrogeologic 

Unit(s)(a) Typical Lithologies 

Tiva Canyon Aquifer (TCA) WTA Welded ash-flow tuff 

Paintbrush Lava-Flow Aquifer 

(PLFA) 

LFA Lava; moderately to densely welded ash-flow 

tuff 

Lower Paintbrush Confining Unit 

(LPCU) 

TCU Zeolitic nonwelded and bedded tuff 

Topopah Spring Aquifer 

(TSA) 

WTA Welded ash-flow tuff 

Yucca Mountain Crater Flat 

Composite Unit (YMCFCM) 

LFA, WTA, TCU Lava; welded ash-flow tuff; zeolitic, bedded 

tuff 

Calico Hills Vitric-tuff Aquifer 

(CHVTA) 

VTA Vitric, nonwelded tuff 

Calico Hills Vitric Composite Unit 

(CHVCM) 

VTA, LFA Partially to densely welded ash-flow tuff; vitric 

to devitrified 

Calico Hills Zeolitized 

Composite Unit (CHZCM) 

LFA, TCU Rhyolitic lava and zeolitic nonwelded tuff 

Calico Hills Confining Unit 

(CHCU) 

Mostly TCU, minor LFA Zeolitic nonwelded tuff; minor lava 

Inlet Aquifer (IA) LFA Lava 

Crater Flat Composite Unit 

(CFCM) 

Mostly LFA, intercalated with 

TCU 

Lava and welded ash-flow tuff 

Crater Flat Confining Unit 

(CFCU) 

TCU Zeolitic nonwelded and bedded tuff 

Kearsarge Aquifer (KA) LFA Lava 

Bullfrog Confining Unit (BCU) TCU Zeolitic, nonwelded tuff 

Belted Range Aquifer (BRA) LFA and WTA, with lesser 

TCU 

Lava and welded ash-flow tuff 

Pre-Belted Range Composite Unit 

(PBRCM) 

TCU, WTA , LFA Zeolitic bedded tuffs with interbedded but less 

significant zeolitic, nonwelded to partially 

welded ash-flow tuffs 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-39

Table A-8. (continued) 

Hydrostratigraphic Unit 

(Symbol) 

Dominant Hydrogeologic 

Unit(s)(a) Typical Lithologies 

Black Mountain Intrusive Confining 

Unit (BMICU) IICU 

Ammonia Tanks Intrusive Confining 

Unit (ATICU) IICU 

Rainier Mesa Intrusive Confining Unit 

(RMICU) IICU 

Claim Canyon Intrusive Confining 

Unit (CCICU) IICU 

Calico Hills Intrusive Confining Unit 

(CHICU) IICU 

Silent Canyon Intrusive Confining Unit 

(SCICU) IICU 

These units are presumed to be present beneath 

the calderas of the SWNVF. Their actual 

character is unknown, but they may be igneous 

intrusive rocks or older volcanic and preTertiary sedimentary rocks intruded to varying 

degrees by igneous rocks. 

Mesozoic Granite Confining Unit 

(MGCU) GCU Granodiorite and quartz monzonite; Gold 

Meadows Stock 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer-Thrust Plate 

(LCA3) CA Limestone and dolomite 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit 

Thrust Plate (LCCU1) CCU Quartzite and siltstone 

Upper Clastic Confining Unit (UCCU) CCU Argillite and quartzite 

Lower Carbonate Aquifer (LCA) CA Dolomite and limestone; “regional aquifer” 

Lower Clastic Confining Unit (LCCU) CCU Quartzite and siltstone; “hydrologic basement” 

(a) See Table A-3 for definitions of hydrogeologic units. 

Note: Adapted from BN, 2002c. 

Water–level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction – Water-level data are relatively abundant for the Pahute 

Mesa UGTA as a result of more than thirty years of drilling in the area in support of the weapons testing program. 

However, water-level data for the outlying areas to the west and south are sparse. These data are listed in the 

potentiometric data package prepared for the UGTA regional-scale groundwater flow model (IT, 1996b) and the 

Pahute Mesa water table map (O’Hagan and Laczniak, 1996). 

The SWL at Pahute Mesa is relatively deep, at about 640 m (2,100 ft) below the ground surface. Groundwater flow at 

Pahute Mesa is driven by recharge in the east and subsurface inflow from the north. Local groundwater flow is 

influenced by the discontinuous nature of the volcanic aquifers and the resultant geometry created by overlapping 

caldera complexes and high angle basin and range faults (Laczniak et al., 1996). Potentiometric data indicate that 

groundwater flow direction is to the southwest toward discharge areas in Oasis Valley and ultimately Death Valley 

(see Figure A-8). 

A.5.5.4 Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain 

The Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain CAU consists of 61 CASs on Rainier Mesa and six on Shoshone Mountain, 

which are located in NTS Areas 12 and 16 respectively (see Figure A-9). Together, these two mesas constitute the 

third major area utilized for underground testing of nuclear weapons at the NTS between 1957 and 1992. 

Underground nuclear tests were conducted in horizontal, mined tunnels within these mesas, and two tests were 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-40

conducted in vertical drill holes. All tests were conducted above the regional water table. Underground geologic 

mapping data from the numerous tunnel complexes, and lithologic and geophysical data from dozens of exploratory 

drill holes, provide a wealth of geologic and hydrologic information for this relatively small underground test area. 

Physiography – The Rainier Mesa underground test area includes Rainier Mesa proper and the contiguous Aqueduct 

Mesa. Rainier Mesa and Aqueduct Mesa form the southern extension of the northeast trending Belted Range 

(see Figure A-5). This high volcanic plateau cuts diagonally across Area 12 in the north-central portion of the NTS. 

Ground-level elevations on Rainier Mesa are generally over 2,225 m (7,300 ft). The highest point on the NTS, 

2,341 m (7,679 ft), is on Rainier Mesa. Aqueduct Mesa has slightly rougher and lower terrain, generally above 1,920 m 

(6,300 ft) in elevation. The edge of the mesas drop off quite spectacularly on the west, south and east sides. 

Shoshone Mountain is located about 20 km (12 mi) south of Rainier Mesa. It is located in the middle of the NTS, at 

the west end of Syncline Ridge (see Figure A-5). Ground-level elevations range from 1,707 to 2,012 m (5,600 to 

6,600 ft), but are generally above 1,830 m (6,000 ft). Tippipah Point, above the old Area 16 tunnels, has an elevation 

of 2,015 m (6,612 ft). 

Geology Overview – Both Rainer Mesa and Aqueduct Mesa are composed of Miocene age air-fall and ash-flow tuffs, 

which erupted from nearby calderas to the west and southwest. As in Yucca Flat, these silicic volcanic tuffs were 

deposited unconformably on an irregular pre-Tertiary (upper Precambrian and Paleozoic) surface of sedimentary 

rocks (Gibbons et al., 1963; Orkild, 1963) and Mesozoic granitic rocks (at Rainier Mesa only). The stratigraphic units 

and lithologies are similar to those present in the subsurface of Yucca Flat (see Section A.5.5.2). Most of Rainier 

Mesa and Shoshone Mountain consist of zeolitized bedded tuff, though the upper part of this section is unaltered 

(vitric) in some areas. At both locations, the bedded tuffs are capped by a thick layer of welded ash-flow tuff. The 

Tertiary stratigraphic units and lithologies are similar to those present in the subsurface of Yucca Flat 

(see Section A.5.5.2). 

Structural Setting – The geologic structure of the volcanic rocks of the Rainier Mesa is well documented. Several 

high-angle, normal faults have been mapped in the volcanic rocks. Faults with greater than about 30 m (100 ft) of 

displacement are notably absent in the volcanic rocks of Rainier Mesa. At Shoshone Mountain several faults have 

been mapped, but in general the structure is less well known there than at Rainier Mesa. The structure of the 

pre-Tertiary section at both locations is poorly known, though some workers speculate that the trace of the Belted 

Range thrust fault is present in the pre-Tertiary rocks beneath Rainier Mesa. A broad synclinal feature mapped at the 

surface and in the tuffs of Rainier Mesa/Aqueduct Mesa may reflect a paleo-topographic low beneath the tuffs 

(Figure A-13), but the exact character of this feature is unknown. 

Figure A-13. Generalized hydrostratigraphic cross section through Aqueduct Mesa 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-41

Hydrogeology Overview – Construction of UGTA CAU-scale hydrogeology models for the Rainier Mesa and 

Shoshone Mountain UGTAs has not yet begun. However, HGUs and HSUs in the Rainier Mesa and Shoshone 

Mountain area are expected to be similar to those defined for the Yucca Flat area (see Table A-7). 

The hydrostratigraphy of the pre-Tertiary section is unknown at Shoshone Mountain, and is poorly known at Rainier 

Mesa. At Rainier Mesa, granitic rocks (related to the nearby Gold Meadows Stock), carbonate rocks, silicic 

sedimentary rocks such as siltstone, and metamorphic rocks such as quartzite and schist have been encountered 

beneath the tuff section in the few existing drill holes that penetrate through the tuff section. This variability is 

indicative of the complex geology of the pre-Tertiary section. 

Most of the tests in Shoshone Mountain and Rainier Mesa tunnels were conducted in the tuff confining unit, though a 

few were conducted in vitric bedded tuff higher in the stratigraphic section. 

Water–level Elevation and Groundwater Flow Direction – The regional water level at Rainier Mesa is not well 

known, but is estimated to be at an elevation of approximately 1,280 m (4,200 ft) in the pre-Tertiary carbonate rocks 

that underlie the volcanic section. This is approximately 300 m (1,000 ft) below the average elevation of test locations 

in Rainier Mesa. The SWL, where measured in a few drill holes at Rainier Mesa, is at an elevation of about 1,847 m 

(6,060 ft). This anomalously high water level relative to the regional water level reflects the presence of water perched 

above the regional aquifer within the tuff confining unit (Walker 1962; Laczniak et al., 1996). Abundant water is 

present in the fracture systems of some of the tunnel complexes at Rainier Mesa. This water currently is permitted to 

flow from U12e Tunnel (also known as E Tunnel); however, water has filled the open drifts behind barriers built near 

the portals of U12n and U12t Tunnels. 

The water level elevation at Shoshone Mountain is not known. No water was encountered during mining at 

Shoshone Mountain. 

Regional groundwater flow from Rainier Mesa may be directed either toward Yucca Flat or, because of the 

intervening UCCU, to the south toward the Alkali Flat discharge area (see Figure A-8). The groundwater flow 

direction beneath Shoshone Mountain is probably southward. 

A.5.6 Conclusion 

The hydrogeology of the NTS and vicinity is complex and varied. Yet, the remote location, alluvial and volcanic 

geology, and deep water table of the NTS provided a favorable setting for conducting and containing underground 

nuclear tests. Its arid climate and its setting in a region of closed hydrographic basins also are factors in stabilizing 

residual surficial contamination from atmospheric testing, and are considered positive environmental attributes for 

existing radioactive waste management sites. 

Average groundwater flow velocities at the NTS are generally slow, and flow paths to discharge areas or potential 

receptors (domestic and public water supply wells) are long. The water table for local aquifers in the valleys and the 

underlying regional carbonate aquifer are relatively flat. The zeolitic volcanic formation (TCU) separating the 

shallower alluvial and volcanic aquifers and the regional carbonate aquifer (LCA) appears to be a viable aquitard. 

Consequently, both vertical and horizontal flow velocities are low. Additionally, carbon-14 dates for water from NTS 

aquifers are on the order of 10,000 to 40,000 years old (Rose et al., 1997). Thus, there is considerable residence time 

in the aquifers, allowing contaminant attenuating processes such as matrix diffusion, sorption, and natural decay, to 

operate. 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-42

A.6 Climatology 

The NTS is located in the extreme south-western corner of the Great Basin. Consequently, the climate is arid with 

limited precipitation, low humidity, intense solar radiation and large daily temperature ranges. The climatological data 

presented below were developed from the meteorological data network that has been located on the NTS for many 

years (see Section 15). 

A.6.1 Precipitation 

Two fundamental physical processes drive precipitation events on the NTS: those resulting from cool-season, 

mid-tropospheric cyclones and those resulting from summertime convection. Cool-season precipitation is usually 

light and can consist of rain or snow. Although light, winter precipitation events can last for several days and result in 

significant precipitation totals per winter storm; especially in January and February. Summer is thunderstorm season. 

Precipitation from thunderstorms is usually light; however, some storms are associated with very heavy rain, flash 

floods, intense cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning, and strong surface winds. Thunderstorms generally occur in July and 

August when moist tropical air can flow from the south-eastern North Pacific Ocean and spread over the desert 

southwest. This seasonal event is referred to as the south-western monsoon. The winter-summer precipitation 

mechanisms produce a bi-modal annual precipitation cycle. Figure A-14 shows patterns of mean monthly 

precipitation recorded from six MEDA stations on the NTS over the past 40+ years (see Figure 15-2 for location of 

MEDA stations). Mean annual precipitation totals on the NTS range from nearly 33 cm (13 in) over the high terrain 

in the north-western part of the NTS to less than 12.7 cm (5 in) in Frenchman Flat. However, inter-annual variations 

can be great. For example, 24.6 cm (9.67 in) occurred in Frenchman Flat in 1998 and 68 cm (26.79 in) fell on Rainier 

Mesa in 1978. Annual totals of less than 2.54 cm (1.0 in) have occurred on the lower elevations of the NTS. Daily 

precipitation totals can also be large and can range from 5 cm to over 8.89 cm (2.0 to over 3.5 in). The greatest daily 

precipitation event on the NTS was 9.22 cm (3.63 in), which was measured at Mercury on August 18, 1983. A stormtotal precipitation amount of 8.89 cm (3.5 in) is a 100-year, 24-hour, extreme precipitation event. Daily totals of 

2 – 3 in (5.1 – 7.6 cm) have been measured at several sites on the NTS (Randerson, 1997). 

Snow can fall on the NTS anytime between October and May. In Yucca Flat, the greatest daily snow depth measured 

is 25.4 cm (10 in) in January 1974. The greatest daily depth measured at Desert Rock is 15.2 cm (6 in) in February 

1987. Maximum daily totals of 38.1 to 50.8 cm (15 to 20 in) or more can occur on Pahute and Rainier Mesas. 

Hail, sleet, freezing rain, and fog are rare on the NTS. Only 24 hailstorms were observed in Yucca Flat between 1957 

and 1978. Hail and sleet can cover the ground briefly following intense thunderstorms. 

A.6.2 Temperature

As is typical of an arid climate, the NTS experiences large daily, as well as annual, ranges in temperature. Moreover, 

temperatures vary with elevation. Sites 1,524 m (5,000 ft) above mean sea level can be quite cold in the winter and 

fairly mild during the summer months. At lower elevations, summertime temperatures can frequently exceed 37.7°C 

(100oF). In the dry lakebeds, daily temperature ranges can be 4.4°C to 15.6°C (40oF to 60oF) with very cold morning 

temperatures in the winter and very hot temperatures in the summer. These temperature characteristics are clearly 

shown in Figure A-15. These annual temperature plots describe the temperature extremes and normal maximums and 

minimums throughout the year at different locations on the NTS (see Figure 15.2 for location of MEDA stations). 

In Frenchman Flat, the average daily temperature minimum and maximum for January is -4.4°C to 13.3°C 

(24oF to 56oF) while in July it is 16.7°C to 38.9°C (62oF to 102oF). By contrast, on Pahute Mesa the minimum and 

maximum temperature for January is -3.9°C to 5°C (25oF to 41oF) and for July, 16.11°C to 28.9°C (61oF to 84oF). 

The highest maximum temperature measured on the NTS is 46.1°C (115oF) in Frenchman Flat, near Well 5B, in July 

1998 and in Jackass Flats near Lathrop Gate in July 2002. The coldest minimum temperature measured on the NTS is 

-25.6°C (-14oF ) in Yucca Flat in December 1967. The temperature extremes at Mercury are -11.7°C (11oF ) to 45°C 

(113oF). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-43

40-MI Canyon (40MN) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1960-2003 

Average Annual Precipitation = 7.81 inches

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Desert Rock (DRA) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1964-2003 

Average Annual Precipitation = 5.72 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Frenchman Flat (W5B) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1963-2003 

Average Annual Precipitation = 4.77 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Jackass Flats (4JA) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1958-2003 

 Average Annual Precipitation = 5.45 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Pahute Mesa (PM1) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1964-2003

Average Annual Precipitation = 7.54 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Yucca Flat (BJY) Average Monthly Precipitation, 1960-2003

Average Annual Precipitation = 6.17 inches

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Inch

Figure A-14. Mean monthly precipitation at six NTS MEDA stations 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-44

Figure A-15. Temperature extremes and normal maximums and minimum at six NTS MEDA stations 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-45

A.6.3 Wind 

Complex topography, such as that on the NTS, can influence wind speeds and directions. Furthermore, there is a 

seasonal as well as strong daily periodicity to local wind conditions. For example, in Yucca Flat, during the summer 

months, the wind direction is usually northerly (from the north) from 10 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) to 

8 a.m. PDT and southerly from 10 a.m. PDT to 8 p.m. PDT. However, in January the winds are generally from the 

north from 6 p.m. Pacific Standard Time (PST) to 11 a.m. PST with some southerly winds developing between 

11:00 a.m. PST and 5:00 p.m. PST. March through June tend to experience the fastest average wind speeds [12.9 to 

19.3 kmh] (8 to 12 mph) with the faster speeds occurring at the higher elevations. Peak wind gusts of 80.5 to 112.7 

kmh (50 to 70 mph) have occurred throughout the NTS. Peak winds at Mercury have been as high as 84 mph during 

a spring wind storm. Frenchman Flat experienced wind gusts to 112.7 kmh (70 mph) during the same windstorm. 

The peak wind speeds measured on the NTS are above 145 kmh (90 mph) on the high terrain with maximums of 146 

kmh (91 mph) at Yucca Mountain Ridge-top, 148 kmh (92 mph) at the Monastery (MEDA station 10) in Area-6, and 

151 kmh (94 mph) in Area-12 on Radio Hill. 

Wind speed and direction data has been summarized for all the MEDA stations on the NTS. These climatological 

summaries are referred to as wind roses. Wind roses representing data collected from the early 1980s through 2002 

for six stations on the NTS are shown in Figure A-16. This figure describes the strong seasonal and diurnal effects on 

the surface air flow pattern across the NTS. In general, winter and pre-sunrise winds tend to be northerly while 

summer and afternoon flow tends to be southerly. Terrain also contributes to determining wind direction. 

A.6.4 Relative Humidity 

The air over the NTS tends to be dry. On average, June is the driest month with humidity ranging from 10 percent to 

35 percent. Humidity readings of 35 percent to 70 percent are common in the winter. The reason for this variability 

is that relative humidity is temperature dependent. The relative humidity tends to be higher with cold temperatures 

and lower with hot temperatures. Consequently there is not only a seasonal variation but also a marked diurnal 

rhythm with this parameter. Early in the morning the humidity ranges from 25 percent to 70 percent and in midafternoon it is in the 10 percent to 40 percent range, with the larger readings occurring in winter. Humidity readings 

of more than 75 percent are not common on the NTS. 

A.6.5 Severe Weather Phenomena 

Wind speeds in excess of 97 kmh (60 mph) occur annually. Additional severe weather in the region includes 

occasional severe thunderstorms, lightning, hail, and dust storms. Severe thunderstorms may produce high 

precipitation rates that may create localized flash flooding. Few tornadoes have been observed in the region and are 

not considered a significant threat. 

CG lightning can occur throughout the year, but occurs primarily between June and September. Maximum CG 

lightning activity on the NTS occurs between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. PDT while minimum activity occurs between 8 a.m. 

and 9 a.m. PDT. For safety analyses, the mean annual flash density on the NTS is 0.4 flashes per square kilometer 

(fl/km2). Randerson and Sanders (2002) have characterized CG lightning activity on the NTS. 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-46

Figure A-16. Annual climatological wind rose patterns at 11 NTS MEDA stations from wind data gathered 

1984 to 2003 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-47

A.7 Ecology 

The NTS lies on the transition between the Mojave and Great Basin deserts. As a result, elements of both deserts are 

found in a diverse and complex flora and fauna (Ostler et al., 2000; Wills and Ostler 2001). 

A.7.1 Flora 

A total of 752 taxa of vascular plants have been collected in ten major vegetation alliances (Figure A-17). Twenty 

vegetation associations from among the alliances have been identified and mapped. Distributions of the Mojave 

Desert, Transition Zone, and Great Basin Desert vegetation alliances and associations are linked to temperature 

extremes, precipitation, and soil conditions. 

Vegetation associations characteristic of the Mojave Desert occur over the southern third of the NTS, on bajadas and 

mountain ranges at elevations below about 1,219 m (4,000 ft) (Figure A-17). Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) is the 

dominant shrub within these associations. Creosote bush associations are absent from habitats where the mean 

minimum air temperature is below -1.9°C (28.5° F) or the extreme minimum is less than -17.2°C (1° F). It is also 

limited to zones with an average rainfall of 18.3 cm (7.2 in) or less (Beatley, 1974). Between elevations of 1,219 to 

1,524 m (4,000 to 5,000 ft), transitional vegetation associations exist, and the largest and most important is the 

blackbrush – Nevada jointfir (Coleogyne ramosissima-Ephedra nevadensis) Shrubland Association which covers 21.6 percent 

of the total area of the NTS (Ostler et al., 2000). Above 1,524 m (5,000 ft,) the vegetation mosaic is characteristic of 

the Great Basin Desert. Throughout the central and northwestern mountains of the NTS, the dominant shrub 

species are basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and black sagebrush (Artemisia nova). The distribution of Great 

Basin Desert associations appears to be limited by mean maximum temperature and by minimum rainfall tolerances of 

the cold desert species (Beatley, 1975). 

Above 1,828 m (6,000 ft), singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) mix with the 

sagebrush association where there is suitable moisture for these trees. Tree densities on the NTS are often not high 

enough to create closed canopies, but rather, an open woodland type with a mix of shrub and tree cover. 

There are no plants on the NTS which are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. 

However, there are 11 vascular plant species on the NTS which the FWS considers to be “species of concern” and 

there are another six vascular plants and five mosses that are considered species to watch by the Nevada Natural 

Heritage Program (see Table 12-2). Species of concern are those which the FWS recognizes may have conservation 

needs, though there is not enough information to warrant their listing. Federal agencies are encouraged to consider 

these species when evaluating environmental impacts of their activities. Through past field survey efforts over 

multiple years, population locations of the 11 plant species of concern have been mapped on the NTS (Figure A-18), 

and these species continue to be monitored under the Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 

(see Section 12). 

A.7.2 Fauna 

At least 1,163 taxa of invertebrates within the phylum Arthropoda have been identified on the NTS. Seventy-eight 

percent of the known arthropods are insects. Ants, termites, and ground-dwelling beetles are probably the most 

important groups of insects as regards distribution, abundance, and functional roles. No native fish species occur on 

the NTS, although non-native goldfish, golden shiners, and bluegills have been unofficially introduced into a few 

man-made ponds. The non-native bullfrog is the only amphibian that is known to occur on the NTS. 

Among reptiles, the desert tortoise, 16 lizard species, and 17 snake species are known to occur on the NTS (Wills and 

Ostler, 2001). The rich reptile fauna is partly due to the overlapping ranges of plant species characteristic of the 

Mojave and Great Basin Deserts. The most abundant, widely distributed lizards include the side-blotched lizard 

(Uta stansburiana), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), and desert spiny 

lizard (Sceloporus graciosus). The western shovel-nosed snake (Chionactis occipitalis) is the most common snake on the 

NTS, and there are four species of poisonous snakes. They include the Mohave Desert sidewinder (Crotalus cerastes), 

Panamint rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchellii), night snake (Hypsiglena torquata), and Sonoran lyre snake (Trimorphodon 

biscutatus). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-48

Figure A-17. Distribution of plant alliances on the NTS
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-49

Figure A-18. Known locations of plant species of concern on the NTS 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-50

There are records of 239 species of birds observed on the NTS (Wills and Ostler, 2001). Approximately 80 percent of 

the bird species are migrants or seasonal residents. Eight species of raptors (birds of prey) are known to breed on the 

NTS (BN, 2002b). They include the golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), long-eared owl (Asia otus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo 

jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), western 

burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), and the barn owl (Tyto alba). 

There are 44 terrestrial mammals and 15 bat species that are known to occur on the NTS. Rodents account for about 

40 percent of the known mammals, and in terms of distribution and relative abundance, are the most important group 

of mammals on the NTS (Wills and Ostler, 2001). There is an apparent correlation between production by winter 

annual plants and reproduction in desert rodents on the NTS. Larger mammals on the site include: black-tailed 

jackrabbit, desert and Nuttall’s cottontails, feral horses, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, coyote, kit fox, badger, 

bobcat, and mountain lion. Mule deer herds occur mainly on the high mesas and surrounding bajadas. Small 

numbers of wild horses and pronghorn antelope range over small areas of the NTS. Bighorn sheep and burros are 

thought to be rare visitors. 

The desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) is the only resident species found on the NTS which is listed as threatened 

under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat of the desert tortoise is in the southern third of the NTS 

(see Figure 12-1). The bald eagle is a threatened bird which is a rare migrant on the site. No other threatened or 

endangered animal is known to occur on the NTS. Virtually all birds on the NTS are protected by federal legislation 

under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and/or by the state of Nevada. Most non-rodent mammals of the NTS are 

protected by the state of Nevada and managed as either game or furbearing mammals, and seven bats on the NTS are 

considered species of concern by the FWS (see Tables 12-2, 12-3, and 12-4). 

A.7.3 Natural Water Sources 

Important biological communities on the NTS are those associated with springs or other natural sources of water. 

They are rare, localized habitats that are important to regional wildlife and to isolated populations of water-loving 

plants and aquatic organisms. There are 30 natural water sources on the NTS which include 15 springs, 9 seeps, 

4 tank sites (natural rock depressions that catch and hold surface runoff), and 2 ephemeral ponds (Hansen et al., 1997; 

BN, 1998; 1999) (Figure A-19). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-51

Figure A-19. Natural water sources on the NTS 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-52

A.8 Cultural Resources 

A.8.1 Cultural Resources Investigations on the NTS 

Few cultural resources investigations were performed from the 1940s to the 1960s on what is now the NTS. Earlier 

explorers did visit the area, such as O.S. Lodwick in the 1900s and Mark R. Harrington of the Heye Museum of the 

American Indian in the 1920s, but the visits were brief, and no in-depth studies were attempted. The work conducted 

by S.M. Wheeler in 1940 is the first serious investigation, resulting in some prominent sites being recorded 

(Winslow, 1996). Wheeler and a small party, including his wife, supported by the Nevada State Parks Commission, 

were guided by Roscoe J. Wright, a.k.a. “Death Valley Curley,” a local miner, into the Fortymile Canyon region with 

the specific purpose of investigating archaeological sites (Figure A-20). The party spent only a few days in the area, 

however, and only briefly described the cultural resources they found. In 1955, Richard Shutler (1961:11), seeking 

evidence of pueblo ruins, was the next archaeologist to visit and record sites in the same general area of Fortymile 

Canyon as well as on Timber Mountain. He was guided by Bill Martin, a Shoshone from Beatty. Frederick C.V. 

Worman (1965, 1966, 1967, 1969), a zoologist and a vocational archaeologist employed by Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, and Donald Tuohy (1965), an archaeologist from the Nevada State Museum, conducted limited surveys 

and excavations during the 1960s. These investigations were typically salvage archaeology in response to an Atomic 

Energy Commission (AEC) directive regarding the preservation and protection of antiquities on AEC lands. It was 

not until the late 1970s with stronger federal laws and regulations concerning cultural resources that systematic 

archaeological investigations on the NTS were carried out on a regular basis. DRI became the cultural resources 

support contractor at this time and ever since has performed numerous surveys and data recovery efforts 

(Figure A-21), as well as records keeping and curation of artifacts. Lately, historical evaluations of NTS structures and 

buildings have become part of the program in documenting a significant period in the local and national history 

regarding nuclear testing and the Cold War era (Figure A-22). 

Figure A-20. Example of an archaeological site found in Fortymile Canyon. This a rock 

art site probably 2,000 to 4,000 years old (1996 Photo). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-53

Figure A-21. DRI archaeologist at an archaeological excavation of a prehistoric site on 

Pahute Mesa. The site is probably from the middle to late Holocene period 

(1992 Photo). 

Figure A-22. Building 400, a camera station for photographing atmospheric tests, at Area 6 

Control Point built in 1951 and demolished in 2003. One of the first buildings 

constructed on the NTS to support weapons testing activities (2003 Photo). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-54

A.8.2 Paleo-Indian Period 

The oldest cultural remains discovered on the NTS are Clovis style projectile point fragments dating to the 

Paleo-Indian period, ca. 12,000 to 10,000 years before present (BP). One was found along an alluvial terrace of 

Fortymile Wash near Yucca Mountain (Reno, 1985) and a second at the upper reaches of the Fortymile drainage 

system near Rattlesnake Ridge at the west base of Rainier Mesa (Jones and Edwards, 1994). The basic economic 

strategy for the Paleo-Indian was hunting of big game and a predominant use of lacustrine-marsh areas around late 

Pleistocene and early Holocene pluvial lakes (Madsen, 1982; Warren and Crabtree, 1986). Pluvial lakes were a result 

of cooler temperatures and higher annual precipitation characteristic of this time (Grayson, 1993). No evidence is 

available, however, to indicate that the basins on the NTS supported pluvial lakes as in other nearby valleys, such as 

Groom Lake east of the NTS and the Kawich, Gold Flat, and Mud lakes to the north (Grayson, 1993: Table 5-2; 

Mifflin and Wheat, 1979). The Fortymile Canyon drainage, where the Clovis points were found, may have been used 

as a travel route between highland and lowland areas or, as proposed by Pippin (1998a), part of a hunting territory 

where certain animals such as deer and elk could be found. 

A.8.3 Early Holocene Period 

A general broadening in the types of resources being exploited from a variety of environments occurs during the early 

Holocene, ca. 10,000 to 7,500 BP, and includes aquatic and small animals as well as plants (Grayson, 1993). Initially, 

lakes and marshes still abounded overall, but the climate began to change to one more dry and by 8,000 BP most of 

the standing bodies of water were gone (Grayson, 1993). Consequently, the woodlands began to move upslope to be 

replaced by sagebrush or bursage and creosote bush (Grayson, 1993). 

Most cultural activities still appear to be restricted to the lower elevations, however (cf. Haynes, 1996; cf. Reno, et al., 

1989); and Pippin (1998a) indicates that only short term hunting forays, originating from the lower elevations, 

occurred in the higher elevations of the NTS. This is similar to the pattern described for the eastern Great Basin 

(Madsen, 1982). 

A.8.4 Middle Holocene Period 

The period from ca. 7,500 to 4,500 BP is marked by increased aridity, and a hotter and dryer climate compared to the 

previous episode and to that of today (Antevs, 1948; Miller and Wigand, 1994). Some evidence suggests that entire 

areas were abandoned. For example, Warren and Crabtree (1986) contend that the people living in the Mojave Desert 

at this time were ill-adapted to the arid conditions because so few sites have been found, and of those sites, they 

appear to represent short-term activities with low artifact densities indicative of a highly mobile lifestyle. They suggest 

that the people may have aggregated at the margins of the desert near springs and other dependable water sources and 

only briefly entered the more arid localities during times of greater effective moisture. Few sites have been found in 

the Great Basin dating to this period as well. Grayson (1993) indicates the higher elevation zones are becoming an 

important part of the subsistence base and coincides with the upward movement in elevation of the woodlands. 

Pippin (1998a) also notes this change on the NTS, but he sees the cultural response as an intensification and 

expansion of the areas previously exploited and not in the relocation of residential bases to the uplands. 

A.8.5 Late Holocene Period 

The period from ca. 4,500 to 1,900 BP is generally known for cooler and wetter conditions. Subsequent periods 

fluctuated between dry and wet episodes, with the most notable arid periods from 1,900 to 1,000 BP and 700 to 

500 BP (Miller and Wigand, 1994). A pattern of heavy winter precipitation began after 500 BP, but average 

temperatures have gradually increased since the end of the Little Ice Age about 150 years ago. Culturally, there is an 

increase in the number of sites and a broadening of the subsistence base (Grayson, 1993; Lyneis, 1982). A shift in the 

settlement pattern is made in some areas of the southern Great Basin to comparatively large, semi-sedentary 

communities on valley floors accompanied by a more frequent use of the highlands. An increase in the frequency of 

milling implements indicates a greater reliance on seeds than previously practiced (Warren and Crabtree, 1986). 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-55

Evidence at higher elevations on the NTS supports the contention that highland resources were an important part of 

the subsistence base, and quite likely, logistical seasonal movements between resource zones were being practiced 

(Pippin, 1998a:). Rock features interpreted as food caches begin to appear within the woodlands (Pippin, 1998a:). 

Examples of projectile points from this period found by DRI archaeologists on the NTS are shown in Figure A-23. 

One of the most conspicuous technological changes is the introduction of the bow and arrow, ca. 1,500 BP. Madsen 

(1986a:) suggests that the advent of this implement may have led to increased efficiency in hunting to where the 

animal populations were significantly reduced, resulting in a greater dependence by the people on plant resources, 

such as pinyon and other seed plants. Another introduction was brownware pottery (Figure A-24), ca. 700 to 1,000 

BP (Lockett and Pippin, 1990; Madsen, 1986b; Pippin, 1986; Rhode, 1994), indicating increased sedentism and a 

change in the way food was prepared and stored. 

Figure A-23. Prehistoric projectile points from the NTS (1992 Photo) 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-56

Figure A-24. Brownware bowl recovered from archaeological excavations on Pahute Mesa 

(1992 Photo) 

A.8.6 Ethnohistoric American Indian 

Early explorers and immigrants in the southern Great Basin during the nineteenth century encountered widely 

scattered groups of Numic-speaking hunters and gatherers currently known as Southern Paiute (see Kelly and Fowler, 

1986) and Western Shoshone (see Thomas et al., 1986). The areas traditionally claimed by these tribal entities 

encompassed a large region and were bound in territories of ethnic or political groups (Stoffle et al., 1990). 

Subsistence strategies revolved around movements between environmental zones within their territories 

(e.g., highlands and lowlands), according to the seasonal availability of food resources (Steward, 1938; 

cf. Wheat, 1967). The normal range was within 32 km (20 mi) of the primary residential base, but most resources 

could be found within a short distance of the main camp. Criteria for the location of the primary residential base was 

nearness to stored or cached foods, the availability of water, wood for fuel and house construction, and relatively 

warm winter temperatures like that found in canyon mouths or in the woodlands (Steward, 1938).
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-57

The communal group around Rainier Mesa and the southern end of the Belted Range ca. 1875-1880 was known as 

Eso (little hill) and had an estimated population of 42. This locale is at the boundaries of the traditional tribal lands for 

the Southern Paiute and Western Shoshone, and the Eso consisted of members from both tribes. The Eso were 

closely linked linguistically with people to the east, but maintained close relationships with groups all around them, 

particularly to the north and west. They established winter residential camps at Cane Spring, Captain Jack Spring, Oak 

Springs, Tippipah Springs (Figure A-25), Topopah Spring, White Rock Springs, and on Pahute and Rainier mesas. 

Another camp, though not located at a spring, was Ammonia Tanks. 

One of the better known spring sites, Captain Jack Spring, is named after One-eyed Captain Jack, a Paiute who 

resided there at various times with his wife(s) during the late 1800s and early 1900s (Steward, 1938; 

Stoffle et al., 1990). He died in 1928 (Stoffle et al., 1990). At White Rock Springs lived Wandagwana, headman for 

the Eso. He directed the annual fall rabbit drive in Yucca Flat which was a time of regional interaction between the 

various camps and with more distant people. A fandango was usually held at Wungiakuda off the southeast edge of 

Pahute Mesa (see Johnson et al., 1999) lasting about five days, and provided opportunity for the exchange of goods 

and information. Sweat houses, also serving as places of integration for the local group, were located at White Rock 

Springs and at Oak Springs. They were used by both women and men for smoking, gambling, sweating, and as a 

dormitory. 

Figure A-25. Overview of the Tippipah Springs Area (2004 Photo) 

A.8.7 Historic Mining on and near the NTS 

It was around the beginning of the twentieth century, when substantial gold and silver deposits were discovered, that 

the Euro American culture began to dominate this particular region of Nevada, with strikes at Tonopah, Goldfield, 

and Rhyolite (Elliott, 1966, 1973; McCracken, 1992; Zanjani, 1992). The overall population of Nevada doubled 

(Elliott, 1966; McCracken, 1992). The great mining boom was short-lived, however, and quickly entered the bust 

phase. By 1908, only four years after it began, mining in the Bullfrog district collapsed and the town of Rhyolite 

became one of the many ghost towns in the region. For Goldfield, production fell rapidly after 1911 (Zanjani, 1992), 

but the town still survives today, principally because it is the seat for Esmeralda County (Elliott, 1966). The decline 

for the Tonopah mining district was more gradual and had time to transform its primary economic base from mining 

to a supply center, albeit relatively small and limited, for the surrounding ranches, remaining mining districts, and 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-58

military installations. The Las Vegas and Tonopah rail line lasted until 1918 and the rails were removed in 1919 

(Myrick, 1963). Still evident on the NTS today are some of the abandoned ties reused for the construction of corrals 

and other structures at a number of the springs. Around the Beatty area the ties were used in some of the later mining 

operations for shoring (McCracken, 1992). 

As mining explorations continued in the region, fanning out from the earlier strikes, small mining districts were 

founded, such as Tolicha in 1917 at the west end of Pahute Mesa (Lincoln, 1923) and the Bare Mountain district just 

west of the NTS (Cornwall, 1972; Lincoln, 1923, Tingley, 1984). Recorded as an archaeological site by Jones et al. 

(1996), the mining town of Wahmonie in the southern part of the NTS around Mine and Skull mountains was 

founded in 1928. The history of Wahmonie spans only a few years and was typical of the boom-and-bust cycle of the 

mining industry. The historic mining camp of Wahmonie is located about 10 km (6 mi) west of Cane Spring 

(McLane, 1995; Quade and Tingley, 1984). It grew to a small town with boarding houses, tent stores, and cafes. The 

Silver Dollar Saloon and the Northern Club were but two of the enterprises (Long, 1950). Most of the miners lived in 

small tents. George Wingfield, a well-known mine owner and banker in Nevada, became interested and incorporated 

the Wahmonie Mining Company. Soon, however, the strike was apparently not as rich as had first been thought and 

by early 1929 optimism faded and people began leaving Wahmonie. Small amounts of prospecting in the Wahmonie 

district continued into the 1930s and 1940s, but few ore deposits were ever discovered. 

The earliest record of prospecting on what is now the NTS is the Oak Spring mining district centered around the 

northern edge of Oak Butte (Drollinger, 2002). Documents at the Recorder’s Office in Tonopah indicate it was 

established by the late 1880s. The main objectives of these early mining activities were gold, silver, and chrysocolla, a 

green to blue mineral resembling turquoise. Lincoln (1923) indicates copper ore containing some silver was shipped 

in 1917 from the Horseshoe claim in the Oak Spring mining district, and that minor amounts of tungsten were also 

mined in the district. The Oak Spring district, although having relatively abundant water and wood sources, did not 

prove to be very productive overall. 

B.M. Bower (a.k.a. Bertha Muzzy Sinclair), a noted author, with husband (Bud Cowan) and family, moved to Nevada 

from Los Angeles, California in 1920 and took up residence (Figure A-26) at a mining camp near Oak Spring 

(McLane, 1996) (see Figure A-19). An accomplished and prolific writer, B.M. Bower published a number of short 

stories and novels over a 40 year career, with some of them becoming the basis for early western-themed movies in 

Hollywood. She also served as a screenwriter on a couple of them. While living at the camp, Bower wrote 11 novels, 

incorporating some of the surrounding geographic features, such as Oak Butte and the camp itself, into a few of the 

stories. (Copies of several of her books have been made electronically available to the public by Project Gutenberg as 

Etext and can be downloaded at: <http://www.thalasson.com/gtn/gtnletB.htm#bowerbm>). The family also 

formed the El Picacho Mining Company, with B.M. Bower serving as the president, and filed assessment work for the 

claims from 1922 to 1928. The family moved to Las Vegas around 1926, but still worked the mining claims 

sporadically over the next couple years. 

They eventually returned to California. Fittingly, in keeping with the theme for some of the novels, the abandoned 

camp was used in the early 1930s by outlaws from Utah and Arizona whose escapades were later featured in a Death 

Valley Days radio episode narrated by Ronald Reagan. B.M. Bower died in 1940 and was inducted into the Western 

Writers of America Hall of Fame in 1994. 

Historically, demand of tungsten for use in weaponry was high during times of war (World Wars I and II and the 

Korean War) and fell during times of peace (Stager and Tingley, 1988). Correspondingly, so did the mining of 

tungsten in Nevada. Tungsten was discovered in the Oak Spring district and located as the Climax group in 1937 by 

V.A. Tamney (Kral, 1951; Stager and Tingley, 1988). Most operations ended when the area was closed with the 

founding of the bombing and gunnery range by the Federal government (Kral, 1951; Quade and Tingley, 1984; Stager 

and Tingley, 1988). Production was never fully established for these claims, however, and only samples totaling some 

15 tons were processed in a nearby dry concentrating mill serving the Oak Spring district. The last known mining. 

operation at the Climax claims was from December 1956 to May 1957 involving a co-use agreement between George 

Tamney, W.A. Kinney, A.J. Wright, owners of the Climax Tungsten Corporation, and the AEC (McLane, 1996; 

Quade and Tingley, 1984). The agreement was terminated and no legal mining has since been conducted on the NTS. 
Nevada Test Site Description

 A-59

Figure A-26. Bower cabin on the NTS (2001 Photo) 
Nevada Test Site Description 

 A-60

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-i

Appendix B 

B.0 Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-ii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-iii

 

Table of Contents 

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

B.1 North Las Vegas............................................................................................................................................ B-1 

B.1.1 Compliance with Water Permits.................................................................................................... B-1 

B.1.1.1 Wastewater Contribution Permit VEH-112............................................................... B-3 

B.1.2 Groundwater Control Study .......................................................................................................... B-3 

B.1.2.1 Study Goals and Methods ............................................................................................. B-4

B.1.2.2 Sample Analysis Results................................................................................................. B-4 

B.1.2.3 Future Work.................................................................................................................. B-10 

B.1.3 Compliance With Air Quality Permits........................................................................................ B-10 

B.1.4 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations................................................................. B-10 

B.1.5 Radiation Protection Regulations................................................................................................ B-10 

B.2 Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility...................................................................................................................... B-11 

B.3 Remote Sensing Laboratory....................................................................................................................... B-11 

B.3.1 Compliance with Wastewater Contribution Permit CCWRD-080 ........................................ B-12 

B.3.2 Compliance with Air Quality Permits......................................................................................... B-13 

B.3.3 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations................................................................. B-13 

 List of Tables 

Table B-1 Environmental permits for NLVF....................................................................................................... B-1

Table B-2 Results of 2003 monitoring at NLVF for Wastewater Contribution Permit VEH-112.............. B-3

Table B-3 Chemical composition of water from selected NLVF wells............................................................ B-7

Table B-4 Tons of criteria air pollutant and HAPs emissions estimated for NLVF in 2003 ......................B-10

Table B-5 Results of 2003 direct radiation exposure monitoring at NLVF...................................................B-11

Table B-6 Environmental permits for RSL.........................................................................................................B-12

Table B-7 Mean concentration of outfall measurements at RSL.....................................................................B-12

Table B-8 Summary of Air Emissions for RSL-Nellis ......................................................................................B-13 

List of Figures 

Figure B-1 Location of NTS satellite facilities ..................................................................................................... B-2 

Figure B-2 Monitoring wells and hydrologic test wells constructed at North Las Vegas facility................. B-5 

Figure B-3 Cross section through a shallow and deep well pair of a typical monitoring site at 

 the NLVF............................................................................................................................................... B-6 

Figure B-4 Water table map of the North Las Vegas Facility............................................................................ B-8 

Figure B-5 Hydrogeologic setting for NLVF showing faults and aquifers...................................................... B-9 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-1

B.0 Appendix B: Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities 

This appendix provides a general description of the three Nevada Test Site (NTS) satellite facilities which support 

work on the NTS and of all environmental monitoring and compliance activities conducted in 2003 related to these 

facilities. The NTS and these facilities are managed by the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration’s Nevada Site Office (NNSA/NSO). They include the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), Cheyenne 

Las Vegas Facility (CLVF), and Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL). They are all located in Clark County (Figure B-1). 

B.1 North Las Vegas 

The NLVF is a fenced complex comprised of 31 buildings which houses many of the NTS project management, 

diagnostic development and testing, design, engineering, and procurement. The 80-acre facility is located along Losee 

Road a short distance west of Interstate 15 (Figure B-1). The facility is buffered on the north, south, and east by 

general industrial zoning. The western border separates the property from fully developed, single-family 

residential-zoned property. The NLVF is a controlled-access facility. 

The environmental compliance and monitoring activities associated with this facility include maintenance of two 

wastewater permits, five air quality operating permits for a variety of equipment, one hazardous materials permit 

(Table B-1); and monitoring of ambient gamma-emissions associated with stored sealed radiation sources to comply 

with radiation protection regulations. 

 Table B-1. Environmental permits for NLVF 

Permit Number Description Expiration Date Reporting

Wastewater Discharge 

VEH-112 NLVF Wastewater Contribution Permit December 31, 2006 Annually 

TNEV2003349 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit November 6, 2003 Monthly 

TNEV2003461 NLVF Temporary Well Test/Discharge Permit May 21, 2004 Monthly 

Air Quality 

A38701 A-16 Spray Paint Booth None Annually 

A38703 A-5/B-5 Emergency Generators None Annually 

A06503 Emergency Generator None Annually 

A06505 B-1 Aluminum Sander None Annually 

A06507 Tinco Dry Blaster None Annually 

Hazardous Materials 

2287-5144 NLVF Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2004 Annually 

B.1.1 Compliance with Water Permits 

Wastewater permits for NLVF include: (1) a Class II Wastewater Contribution Permit with the City of North Las 

Vegas (CNLV) for sewer discharges and (2) two temporary discharge permits to support groundwater characterization 

and dewatering issued by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). 

Discharges of sewage and industrial wastewater from the NLVF are required to meet permit limits set by the CNLV. 

These limits support the permit limits for the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) operated by the City of 

Las Vegas. Regulations for wastewater discharges are codified in the municipal codes for both cities. Groundwater 

discharges are state regulated by the NDEP, and are discharged through the CNLV stormwater collection system. 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-2

Figure B-1. Location of NTS satellite facilities 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-3

These discharges enter waters of the United States (Las Vegas Wash) under a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In 2003, the NDEP issued two temporary permits (six-month duration) to 

NNSA/NSO. Sediment is the primary pollutant related to these discharges. 

B.1.1.1 Wastewater Contribution Permit VEH-112 

This permit specifies concentration limits for contaminants in domestic and industrial wastewater discharges. 

Self-monitoring and reporting of the levels of contaminants in sewage and industrial outfalls is conducted. In 2003, all 

water samples from NLVF outfalls and all sludge and liquid samples from the NLVF sand/oil interceptor contained 

contaminants below established permit limits (Table B-2). The majority of grab samples were below analytical 

detection limits. CNLV conducted an annual inspection on September 9, 2003, that resulted in no findings or 

corrective actions. In compliance with this permit, the following report summarizing wastewater monitoring was 

generated for NLVF operations and submitted October 3, 2003 to CNLV: Self-Monitoring Report for the National Nuclear 

Security Administration’s North Las Vegas Facility: Permit VEH-112. 

Table B-2. Results of 2003 monitoring at NLVF for Wastewater Contribution Permit VEH-112 

Contaminant 

Permit Limit 

 (mg/L) 

Outfall A 

(mg/L)

Outfall B 

(mg/L)

Outfall C2 

(mg/L)

Barium 13.1 0.144 0.184 0.0836 

BOD 600 56 200 24 

Cadmium 0.15 < 0.0004 < 0.0004 0.003 

Chromium (Hexavalent) 0.10 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 

Chromium (Total) 5.60 0.001 0.0038 0.0198 

Copper 0.60 0.169 0.50 0.108 

Cyanide (Total) 19.9 < 0.02 0.29 < 0.02 

Lead 0.20 < 0.0019 < 0.0019 0.0236 

Nickel 1.10 0.0041 0.0037 0.0329 

Oil & Grease (animal or vegetable) 250 4.1 7.7 2.9 

pH (Standard Units) 5.0 – 11.0 8.64 8.70 8.31 

Phenols 33.6 0.095 0.112 0.024 

Phosphorus (Total) 14.0 2.5 7.2 0.62 

Silver 2.70 < 0.0008 < 0.0008 < 0.0008 

TDS 1200 214 480 403 

TRPH 100 < 1.0 < 1.0 3.1 

TSS 750 26.8 127 45 

Zinc 8.20 0.152 0.336 0.262 

B.1.1.1.2 NPDES Permits TNEV2003349 and TNEV2003461 

These two permits apply to the groundwater characterization study and remedial dewatering operation which was 

conducted at the NLVF in 2003. The permits specify that monthly estimates of groundwater discharge volumes be 

reported for all wells being pumped for the study and that there be sediment controls on the waste stream which 

enters the storm water drains at the facility. These permit specifications were met in 2003. 

B.1.2 Groundwater Control Study 

Rising groundwater below Building A-1 at the NLVF intruded into the elevator pit in 1999. Between November 1999 

and January 2001, the water level in a well installed in the basement of Building A-1 rose at the rate of 0.6 meters (m) 

(2 feet [ft]) per year (BN, 2001). Data collected during 2002 and 2003 show the rate of rise decreasing to less than 0.3 

m (1 ft) per year (BN, 2003c). Sealing of the elevator pit and interim pumping at the nearby basement sump seems to 

have slowed the encroaching water. However, if this situation continues unchecked, it could jeopardize the integrity 

of deep-footed infrastructure (e.g., elevator pits, utility trenches, etc.). 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-4

B.1.2.1 Study Goals and Methods 

In 2002 and 2003, Bechtel Nevada (BN) conducted a groundwater control study. This comprehensive investigation 

included the installation of 25 wells, soil and water sampling, hydrologic testing, and rudimentary modeling 

(BN, 2003). The goals of the study were to discover why the water table beneath Building A-1 was rising and to 

determine what remedial actions could be taken to protect the building. Prior to this investigation, details regarding 

the subsurface structure, geology and hydrology at the site were not well known. 

Twenty-one monitoring wells and four hydrologic test wells were constructed at thirteen locations at the NLVF 

(Figure B-2). The hydrologic test wells have a larger diameter completion casing to accommodate a submersible 

pump employed during hydraulic testing. At all but one of the 13 sites (NLVF-4d), both a shallow and a deep well 

were drilled at the same drill site. At NLVF-4d, a previously-drilled monitoring well was used as the shallower 

companion well. The typical depth of each shallow well was about 12.2 m (40 ft). The typical depth of each deep 

well was about 41.1 m (135 ft). 

To construct each pair of monitoring wells, a single 21.6-centimeter (cm) (8.5-inch [in.]) diameter hole was augered to 

the planned total depth. A single 5-cm (2-in) polyvinyl chloride (PVC) completion string with one isolated and gravel 

packed slotted interval was installed in each of the 21 new monitoring wells. Figure B-3 shows a cross section 

through a shallow and deep well pair of a typical monitoring site at the NLVF. The four hydrologic test wells are 

34.3 cm (13.5 in.) in diameter and were completed with 10-cm (4-in) PVC and longer (3.0 to 6.1 m [10 to 20 ft]) 

screened intervals. 

Measurements of physical properties (e.g., grain size, bulk density, and Atterberg limits) were determined for 67 

split-spoon core samples collected from the 25 new wells. A full suite of water-chemistry analyses was preformed on 

groundwater samples collected at six wells (Table B-3). Hydraulic properties for the two alluvial aquifers were derived 

from step draw-down, constant-rate pumping, slug tests, and the physical properties measurements. 

Groundwater characterization samples were collected from the two monitoring wells which are artesian, NLVF-1d 

and NLVF-3d, on July 24, 2002, and from monitoring wells NLVF-1s and NLVF-4d on March 26, 2003. Hydrologic 

Test Well NLVF-13s and the Building A-1 Basement Sump were sampled on August 26, 2003. The parameters 

analyzed include metals, ions, alkalinity, total dissolved solids, tritium, volatile organic compounds (including 

trihalomethanes), total organic carbon, coliform bacteria, turbidity, and the field parameters pH, temperature, and 

specific conductance. Based on the site hydrogeology, groundwater from these six wells is representative of the 

shallow groundwater beneath the NLVF. 

B.1.2.2 Sample Analysis Results

Table B-3 presents the water analysis results obtained from the six wells sampled in 2002 and 2003. The water 

analysis results are maintained in the Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System (BEIDMS) 

database. These studies indicate a complex hydrogeologic setting, and implicate multiple factors for the rise of the 

water table. The wells were drilled entirely in recent alluvial deposits consisting mainly of sand, silt and clay. The 

preliminary geologic interpretation of borehole data indicates that these fine-grained sediments represent a low energy, 

mid-valley alluvial and fluvial environment. Individual lithologic units are complexly interbedded and several normal 

faults have been mapped in the vicinity. 

The near-surface (unconfined) water table at the NLVF was encountered in the depth range of 3.8 to 14.9 m (12.6 to 

49 ft). Artesian water flow of 3.0 to 7.6 liters per minute (lpm) (0.8 to 2 gallons per minute [gpm]) was encountered at 

two wells. The water-table map (potentiometric surface) produced from these data shows a rather steep gradient to 

the southeast in the vicinity of Building A-1 (Figure B-4). 

Water chemistry reveals that this water is not related to the near surface “nuisance water” commonly supplied by 

excessive irrigation, but is from a deeper alluvial aquifer. The hydrogeologic setting suggests that the source of this 

rising groundwater is water flowing upward along local faults from deeper confined aquifer(s) (Figure B-5). This 

condition is considered a long term adjustment that can be attributed to a combination of causes, including a seasonal 

water injection program and shifting of regional pumping centers away from the vicinity of the NLVF. 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-5

Figure B-2. Monitoring wells and hydrologic test wells constructed at North Las Vegas facility 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-6

Figure B-3. Cross section through a shallow and deep well pair of a typical monitoring site at the NLVF 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-7

Table B-3. Chemical composition of water from selected NLVF wells 

 NLVF Well 

Analysis/Analyte Units NLVF-1d NLVF-3d NLVF-1s NLVF-4d NLVF-13s

A-1 

Sump(a)

Date sampled mm/dd/yyyy 7/24/2002 7/24/2002 3/26/2003 3/26/2003 8/26/2003 8/26/2003 

Depth interval(b) feet 114.6-119 114.7-119 25.9-30.2 119.6-124 23.1-37.4 23.5-30.5 

Aquifer (at completion) UI(c ) UI "NS"(d) UI "NS" "NS" 

Field Parameters 

 pH - 7.33 6.91 7.97 7.45 NA(e) NA 

 Temperature deg C(f) 25.6 24.7 29.2 30.4 NA NA 

 Specific 

conductance uS/cm(g) 555 305.8 382.4 481 NA NA 

Ions 

 Cl mg/L(h) 2.7 2.8 7.5 16.3 63.2 62.9 

 SO4 mg/L 24.9 25.9 41.3 6.7 93.8 119 

 NH4 mg/L NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 NO3 mg/L 1.05 1.37 0.69/0.7 0.25 0.33 1.9 

Metals 

 Na mg/L 9.34 10 11.6 19 29.7 34.3 

 K mg/L 2.94 2.65 3.5 6.2 4.86 4.66 

 Ca mg/L 21.8 21.1 26.8 40.8 48.6 42.6 

 F(i) mg/L 0.28 0.26 0.28 2.9 0.31 0.27 

 Mg mg/L 18.7 19.7 20.7 25.6 29.9 35.8 

Alkalinity (Total) NA NA NA NA NA NA 

 Carbonate (CO3) mg/L 2 2 2 2 2 2 

 Bicarbonate (HCO3) mg/L 125 123 112 196 98.7 123 

Residue/Filtrate 

(TDS) mg/L 186 183 214 294 473 466 

Turbidity N.T.U. 0.24 ND 0.79 2.3 

TOC mg/L 1.8 0.5 0.61 22.5 0.99 0.98 

VOC mg/L ND(j) ND ND ND ND ND 

Oil & Grease mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Trihalomethanes 

(total) mg/L ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Coliform 

 Total % positive absent absent present present present absent 

 Fecal # /100/mL absent absent absent absent absent absent 

Tritium(k) pCi/L(l) 82.8 (m) 38.1(m) 35.2/120(m) 68(m) 30.6(m) 1910 

(a) Building A-1Basement Sump, BN, 2000. (g) NA – Not analyzed, or data not readily available 

(b) Screened interval as depth below ground level (includes 16.5 ft (h) milligrams per liter 

 basement floor depth for A-1 Sump) (i) Floridation started March 2000 for the LVVWD 

(c) UI – Upper intermediate aquifer municipal water supply 

(d) "NS" Near surface aquifer (j) ND – Not detected 

(e) degrees Centigrade (k) Analytical method = EPA 906.0 

(f) microsiemens per centimeter (l) picoCuries per liter 

 (m) Below minimum detectable concentration of 385 pCi/L 
B-8

Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities Figure B-4. Water table map of the North Las Vegas Facility 
B-9

Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities Figure B-5. Hydrogeologic setting for NLVF showing faults and aquifers 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-10

B.1.2.3 Future Work 

The recommended remedial action for control of the groundwater level at the NLVF consists of converting the two 

shallow hydrologic testing wells installed around Building A-1 in FY 2003 into dewatering wells. The estimated 

pumping rate for the silty-sandy aquifer was determined to be only 3.8 to 7.6 lpm (1 to 2 gpm) per well. Pumping of 

the Building A-1 basement sump should continue until the dewatering wells come on-line. 

In order to bring the dewatering operation on-line quickly, water initially would be disposed directly into the existing 

storm-water conveyance system. However, the long-range plan is to use the pumped water onsite for irrigation of 

landscape. Continued monitoring of water levels and water chemistry at selected wells is also planned. More detailed 

information regarding this project, including figures and data presentations, is reported in the summary report 

(BN, 2003c). 

B.1.3 Compliance With Air Quality Permits 

The NLVF is regulated for the emission of criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). They include 

sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, lead (Pb), particulate matter (PM), 

volatile organic compounds (VOC), and any of 189 defined HAPs. Air quality operating permits are maintained for a 

variety of equipment that includes: boilers, emergency generators, and a paint spray booth. There are no monitoring 

requirements associated with these permits. The air permits for the NLVF were issued in the mid-1980s and early 

1990s through the Clark County Health District (CCHD). Permits are amended and revised only if the situation 

under which the permit has been issued changes. The permits have no expiration date and are renewed automatically 

each year upon payment of permit fees. The CCHD requires submittal of an annual emissions inventory. The 

estimated quantities of criteria air pollutants and HAPs emitted at the NLVF in 2003 are presented Table B-4. 

Table B-4. Tons of criteria air pollutant and HAPs emissions estimated for NLVF in 2003 

Criteria Pollutant (Tons/yr)(a) 

Facility at NLVF CO NOx PM SO2 VOC 

HAPs 

(Tons/yr) 

Atlas Facility 0.076 0.285 0.009 0.005 0.008 0.00011 

Losee Facility 0.068 0.317 0.022 0.021 0.026 0.0005 

Nevada Support 

Facility 0.029 0.107 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.0001 

 

 Total 0.173 0.709 0.034 0.028 0.037 0.0012 

(a) 1 ton equals 0.91 metric tons 

B.1.4 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations 

In 2003, the chemical inventory at all NTS facilities was updated and submitted to the state in the Nevada Combined 

Agency (NCA) Report on March 5, 2004 as per the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Permit 2287-5144 

(see Section 9.2.3 of this Nevada Test Site Environmental Report (NTSER) for description of content, purpose, and 

federal regulatory driver behind the NCA Report). No extremely hazardous substance (EHS) was present at the 

NLVF in quantities that were reportable to the state. No accidental or unplanned release of an EHS occurred at the 

NLVF in 2003. 

B.1.5 Radiation Protection Regulations 

DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment” specifies that the radiological dose to 

a member of the public from external radiation must not exceed the 100 mrem/yr as a result of DOE activities. The 

facilities at NLVF which use radioactive sources or radiation producing equipment which have the potential to expose 

the general population or non-project personnel to direct radiation, are the Atlas A-1 Source Range and the Building 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-11

C-3 x-ray radiography operation. BN’s Environmental Technical Services (ETS) conducts direct radiation monitoring 

at the site. ETS utilizes environmental dosimeters (thermoluminescent dosimeters [TLDs]) to monitor external 

gamma radiation exposure near the boundaries of these NLVF facilitities. The methods of TLD use and data analyses 

are described in Section 4.0 of this NTSER. 

In 2003, two TLD stations were placed along the perimeter fence and one was placed in a control location. The 

resultant annual exposure rates estimated for those NLVF locations potentially accessible to the public are 

summarized in Table B-5. These exposures were all less than the 100 mrem/yr dose limit. 

Table B-5. Results of 2003 direct radiation exposure monitoring at NLVF 

 Gamma Exposure (mR/yr) 

Location 

Number 

of 

Samples Mean Median 

Standard 

Deviation Minimum Maximum

Control 76 

North Fence of A-1 4 63 64 4 57 68 

North Fence of Bldg C-3 4 64 64 5 57 72 

B.2 Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility 

The CLVF Facility is located at the Flynn Gallagher Corporate Center on West Cheyenne Avenue in northwest 

Las Vegas. It is comprised of five buildings which house engineering, procurement, and administrative functions. 

Access to the facility requires proper identification, badging, and a security access card. Facility and infrastructure 

maintenance is provided by the facility owner. No environmental monitoring or compliance activities are conducted 

at or for this facility. 

B.3 Remote Sensing Laboratory 

The RSL is approximately 13.7 km (8.5 mi) northeast of the Las Vegas city center, and approximately 11.3 km (7 mi) 

northeast of the NLV Facility. It occupies six facilities on approximately 14 secured hectares (35 acres) at the Nellis 

Air Force Base. The six NNSA/NSO facilities were constructed on property owned by the U.S. Air Force. There is a 

Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. Air Force and the NNSA whereby the land belongs to the Air Force, 

but is under lease to the NNSA for 25 years (as of 1989) with an option for a 25-year extension. The facilities are 

owned by NNSA/NSO. The RSL provides emergency response resources for weapons-of-mass-destruction 

incidents. The laboratory also designs and field tests counter-terrorism/intelligence technologies and has the 

capability to assess environmental and facility conditions using complex radiation measurements and multi-spectral 

imaging technologies. 

Environmental compliance and monitoring activities associated with this facility include maintenance of a wastewater 

contribution permit, six air quality permits, and a hazardous materials permit (Table B-6). Although sealed radiation

sources are used for calibration at RSL, the public has no access to any area which may have elevated gamma radiation

emitted by the sources. Therefore, no environmental TLD monitoring is conducted, only dosimetry monitoring to

ensure protection of personnel who work within the facility. 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-12

 Table B-6. Environmental permits for RSL 

Permit Number Description Expiration Date Reporting 

Wastewater Discharge 

CCWRD-080 Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit June 30, 2005 

March, May, 

September, December 

Air Quality 

A34801 Boiler, Columbia, WL-180 None March, June 

A34802 Boiler, Columbia, WL-90 None March, June 

A34803 Water Heater, #2 Natl. BD None March, June 

A34804(a) Emergency Fire Control Pump Engine None June 

A34804(b) Emergency Generator, Cummins None June 

A34805 Spray Paint Booth None June 

Hazardous Materials 

2287-5144 NLVF Hazardous Materials Permit February 28, 2004 Annually 

B.3.1 Compliance with Wastewater Contribution Permit CCWRD-080

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

District (CCWRD). These limits support the permit limits for the POTW operated by Clark County. The wastewater 

permit for this facility requires quarterly monitoring and reporting. Table B-7 presents the mean concentration of 

outfall measurements collected once per quarter in 2003. All contaminants in the outfall samples fell below permit 

limits. CCWRD also conducted two inspections of RSL in 2003. The inspections resulted in no findings or 

corrective actions for the facility. 

Table B-7. Mean concentration of outfall measurements at RSL 

Contaminant/Measure Permit Limit Outfall 

 mg/L 

Ammonia NL(a) 11.85 

Cadmium 0.35 0.00236 

Chromium (Total) 1.7 0.0023 

Copper 3.36 0.208 

Cyanide (Total) 1 0.033 

Lead 0.99 0.0029 

Nickel 10.08 0.0051 

Phosphorus NL 7.2 

Silver 6.3 0.0256 

TDS NL 1143 

TSS NL 90.9 

Zinc 23.06 0.425 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-13

 Table B-7. (continued) 

Contaminant/Measure Permit Limit Outfall 

 Standard Units 

pH 5.0 – 11.0 8.05 

 Degree Fahrenheit 

Temperature 140 60 

 

 (a) No limit listed on permit 

B.3.2 Compliance with Air Quality Permits 

The RSL is regulated for the emission of criteria pollutants and HAPs. Air quality operating permits are maintained 

for a variety of equipment (see Table B-6). There are no monitoring requirements associated with these permits. The 

air permits for RSL were issued in the mid-80’s and early 90’s through the CCHD. Permits are amended and revised 

only if the situation under which the permit has been issued changes. The permits have no expiration date and are 

renewed automatically each year upon payment of permit fees. The CCHD requires submittal of the annual emissions 

inventory (Table B-8). 

 

 Table B-8. Summary of Air Emissions for RSL-Nellis 

Criteria Pollutant (Tons/yr)(a) 

CO NOx PM SO2 VOC 

HAPs 

(Tons/yr) 

Natural Gas 

Consumption 

(ft3) 

0.271 0.494 0.031 0.01 0.026 0.0005 5,025,100 

 (a) 1 ton equals 0.91 metric tons 

B.3.3 Compliance with Hazardous Materials Regulations 

In 2003, the chemical inventory at all NTS facilities was updated and submitted to the state in the Nevada Combined 

Agency (NCA) Report on March 5, 2004 as per the requirements of the Hazardous Materials Permit 2287-5145 

(see Section 9.2.3 of this NTSER for description of content, purpose, and federal regulatory driver behind the NCA 

Report). No extremely hazardous substance (EHS) was present at the RSL in quantities that were reportable to the 

state. No accidental or unplanned release of an EHS occurred at the RSL in 2003. 
Nevada Test Site Satellite Facilities

 B-14

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Helpful Information

 C-i

Appendix C 

Helpful Information
Helpful Information

 C-ii

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
Helpful Information

 C-iii

Table of Contents 

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

C.1 Scientific Notation........................................................................................................................... C-1 

C.2 Unit Prefixes..................................................................................................................................... C-1 

C.3 Units of Radioactivity...................................................................................................................... C-1 

C.4 Radiological Dose Units ................................................................................................................. C-1 

C.5 International System of Units for Radioactivity and Dose........................................................ C-2 

C.6 Radionuclide Nomenclature........................................................................................................... C-2 

C.7 Units of Measurement..................................................................................................................... C-3 

C.8 Chemical and Elemental Nomenclature....................................................................................... C-3 

C.9 Uncertainty of Measurements........................................................................................................ C-4 

C.10 Standard Error of the Mean........................................................................................................... C-4 

C.11 Median, Maximum, and Minimum Values................................................................................... C-5 

C.12 Negative Radionuclide Concentrations........................................................................................ C-5 

C.13 Understanding Graphic Information............................................................................................ C-5 

List of Figures 

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

Figure C-2 Data plotted using a logarithmic scale............................................................................................... C-6

Figure C-3 Data with error bars plotted using a linear scale.............................................................................. C-6

List of Tables 

Table C-1 Unit prefixes............................................................................................................................................ C-1

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

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

Table C-4 Conversion table for SI units................................................................................................................ C-2

Table C-5 Radionuclides and their half-lives ........................................................................................................ C-2

Table C-6 Metric and U.S. customary unit equivalents ....................................................................................... C-3

Table C-7 Elemental and chemical constituent nomenclature........................................................................... C-4 
Helpful Information

 C-iv

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Helpful Information

 C-1

C.0 Appendix C: Helpful Information 

C.1 Scientific Notation 

Scientific notation is used in this report to express very large or very small numbers. A very small number is 

expressed with a negative exponent, for example 2.0 x 10-5. To convert this number from scientific notation to a 

more traditional number, the decimal point must be moved left by the number of places equal to the exponent (5 in 

this case). The number thus becomes 0.00002. 

Very large numbers are expressed in scientific notation with a positive exponent. The decimal point should be moved 

to the right by the number of places equal to the exponent. 

The number 1,000,000,000 could be presented in scientific 

notation as 1.0 x 109. 

C.2 Unit Prefixes 

Units for very small and very large numbers are commonly 

expressed with a prefix. The prefix signifies the amount of 

the given unit. For example the prefix k, or kilo-, means 

1,000 of a given unit. Thus 1 kg (kilogram) is 1,000 g (grams). 

Other prefixes used in this report are listed in Table C-1. 

C.3 Units of Radioactivity 

Much of this report deals with levels of radioactivity in various 

environmental media. The basic unit of radioactivity used in this report is 

the curie (Ci) (Table C-2). The curie describes the amount of radioactivity 

present, and amounts are usually expressed in terms of fractions of curies in 

a given mass or volume (e.g., picocuries per liter). The curie is historically 

defined as the number of nuclear disintegrations that occur in 1 gram of the 

radionuclide radium-226, which are 37 billion nuclear disintegrations per 

second. For any other radionuclide, 1 Ci is the quantity of the radionuclide 

that decays at this same rate. Nuclear disintegrations produce spontaneous 

emissions of alpha or beta particles, gamma radiation, or combinations of 

these. 

C.4 Radiological Dose Units 

The amount of ionizing radiation energy absorbed by a living organism 

is expressed in terms of radiological dose. Radiological dose in this 

report is usually written in terms of effective dose equivalent and 

reported numerically in units of millirem (mrem) (Table C-3). 

Millirem is a term that relates ionizing radiation to biological effect or 

risk to humans. A dose of 1 mrem has a biological effect similar to the 

dose received from an approximate 1-day exposure to natural 

background radiation. An acute (short-term) dose of 100,000 to 

400,000 mrem can cause radiation sickness in humans. An acute dose of 400,000 to 500,000 mrem, if left untreated, 

results in death approximately 50 percent of the time. Exposure to lower amounts of radiation (1,000 mrem or less) 

produces no immediate observable effects, but long-term (delayed) effects are possible. The average person in the 

United States receives an annual dose of approximately 300 mrem from exposure to naturally produced radiation. 

Medical and dental x-rays and air travel add to this total. 

Table C-1. Unit prefixes 

Prefix Abbreviation Meaning 

mega- M 1,000,000 (1 x 106) 

kilo- k 1,000 (1 x 103) 

centi- c 0.01 (1 x 10-2) 

milli- m 0.001 (1 x 10-3) 

micro- μ 0.000001 (1 x 10 -6) 

nano- n 0.000,000,1 (1 x 10-9) 

pico- p 0.000,000,000,0001 (1 x 10-12) 

Table C-2. Units of radioactivity

Symbol Name 

Ci curie 

cpm counts per minute 

mCi millicurie (1 x 10-3 Ci) 

μCi microcurie (1 x 10-6 Ci) 

nCi nanocurie (1 x 10-9 Ci) 

pCi picocurie (1 x 10-12 Ci) 

aCi attocurie (1 x 10-18 Ci) 

Table C-3. Units of radiological dose 

Symbol Name 

mrad millirad (1 x 10-3 rad) 

mrem millirem (1 x 10-3 rem) 

R roentgen 

mR milliroentgen (1 x 10-3 R) 

μR microroentgen (1 x 10-6 R) 
Helpful Information

 C-2

The unit “rad,” for radiation absorbed dose, is also used in this report. The rad is a measure of the energy absorbed 

by any material, whereas a rem relates to both the amount of radiation energy absorbed by humans and its 

consequence. A roentgen (R) is a measure of radiation exposure. Generally speaking, one roentgen of exposure will 

result in an effective dose equivalent of 1 rem. 

Additional information on radiation and dose terminology can be found in the Glossary (Appendix D). A list of the 

radionuclides discussed in this report, their symbols, and their half-lives are presented in the box below. 

C.5 International System of Units for Radioactivity and Dose 

In some instances in this report, radioactivity and radiological 

dose values are expressed in other units in addition to Ci and 

mrem. These units are the Becquerel (Bq) and the millisievert 

(mSv), respectively. The Bq and Sv belong to the International 

System of Units (SI), and their inclusion in this report is 

mandated by U.S. Department of Energy. SI units are the 

internationally accepted units and may eventually be the 

standard for reporting both radioactivity and radiation dose in 

the United States. One Bq is equivalent to one nuclear 

disintegration per second. 

The unit of radiation absorbed dose (rad) has a corresponding 

SI unit called the gray (Gy). The roentgen measure of radiation exposure has no SI equivalent. Table C-4 provides 

the multiplication factors for converting to and from SI units. 

C.6 Radionuclide Nomenclature 

Radionuclides are frequently 

expressed with the one- or 

two-letter chemical symbol 

for the element. 

Radionuclides may have many 

different isotopes, which are 

shown by a superscript to the 

left of the symbol. This 

number is the atomic weight 

of the isotope (the number of 

protons and neutrons in the 

nucleus of the atom). 

Radionuclide symbols used in 

this report are shown in Table 

C-5 along with the half-life of 

each radionuclide. The 

half-life is the time required 

for one-half the radioactive 

atoms in a given amount of 

material to decay. For 

example, after one half-life, 

half of the original atoms will 

have decayed; after two 

half-lives, three-fourths of the 

original atoms will have 

decayed; and after three 

half-lives, seven-eighths of 

the original atoms will have decayed, and so on. 

Table C-4. Conversion table for SI units

To Convert From To Multiply by

becquerel (Bq) pCi 37 

Curie (Ci) Becquerel (Bq) 3.7 x 109 

gray (Gy) Rad 100 

mrem msievert (mSv) 0.01 

msievert (mSv) Mrem 100 

picocurie (pCi) becquerel (Bq) 0.03704 

rad gray (Gy) 0.01 

sievert (Sv) rem 100 

Table C-5. Radionuclides and their half-lives

Symbol Radionuclide Half-Life (a) Symbol Radionuclide Half-Life (a)

241Am americium-241 432.2 yr 240Pu plutonium-240 6.5 x 103 yr 

7Be beryllium-7 53.44 d 241Pu plutonium-241 14.4 yr 

14C carbon-14 5,730 yr 236+238Ra radium-236+238 1.62 x 103 yr 

134Cs cesium-134 2.1 yr 220Rn radon-220 56 s 

137Cs cesium-137 30 yr 222Rn radon-222 3.8 d 

51Cr chromium-51 27.7 d 103Ru ruthenum-103 39.3 d 

60Co cobalt-60 5.3 yr 106Ru ruthenum-106 368.2 d 

152Eu europium-152 13.3 yr 125Sb antimony-125 2.8 yr 

154Eu europium-154 8.8 yr 113Sn tin-113 115 d 

155Eu europium-155 5 yr 90Sr strontium-90 29.1 yr 

3H tritium 12.35 yr 99Tc technetium-99 2.1 x 105 yr 

129I iodine-129 1.6 x 107 yr 232Th thorium=131 1.4 x 1010 yr 

131I iodine-131 8 d U (b) uranium total - - - (c)

40K potassium-40 1.3 x 108yr 234U uranium-234 2.4 x 105 yr 

85Kr krypton-85 107 yr 235U uranium-235 7 x 108 hr 

212Pb lead-212 10.6 h 238U uranium-238 4.5 x 109 yr 

238Pu plutonium-238 87.7 hr 65Zn zinc-65 243.9 d 

239Pu plutonium-239 2.4 x 104 yr 95Zr zirconium-95 63.98 d 

(a) From Shleien 1992. 

(b) Total uranium may also be indicated by U-natural (U-nat) or U-mass. 

(c) Natural uranium is a mixture dominated by 238U, thus the half-life is approximately 4.5 x 109 years. 
Helpful Information

 C-3

C.7 Units of Measurement 

Both metric and non-metric units of measurement are used in this report. Metric system and U.S. customary units 

and their respective equivalents are shown in Table C-6. 

Table C-6. Metric and U.S. customary unit equivalents 

Metric unit U.S. customary equivalent unit U.S. customary unit Metric equivalent unit 

Length 

 1 centimeter (cm) 0.39 inches (in) 1 inch (in) 2.54 centimeters (cm) 

 1 millimeter (mm) 0.039 inches (in) 25.4 millimeters (mm) 

 1 meter (m) 3.28 feet (ft) 1 foot (ft) 0.3048 meters (m) 

 1.09 yards (yd) 1 yard (yd) 0.9144 meters (m) 

1 kilometer (km) 0.62 miles (mi) 1 mile (mi) 1.6093 kilometers (km) 

Volume 

 1 liter (L) 0.26 gallons (gal) 1 gallon (gal) 3.7853 liters (L) 

 1 cubic meter (m3) 35.32 cubic feet (ft3) 1 cubic foot (ft3) 0.028 cubic meters (m3) 

 1.35 cubic yards (yd3) 1 cubic yard (yd3) 0.765 cubic meters (m3) 

Weight 

 1 gram (g) 0.035 ounces (oz) 1 ounce (oz) 28.6 gram (g) 

 1 kilogram (kg) 2.21 pounds (lb) 1 pound (lb) 0.373 kilograms (kg) 

 1 metric ton (mton) 1.10 short ton (2000 pounds) 1 short ton (2000 pounds) 0.90718 metric ton (mton) 

Geographic area 

 1 hectare 2.47 acres 1 acre 0.40 hectares 

Radioactivity 

 1 becquerel (Bq) 2.7 x 10–11 curie (Ci) 1 curie (Ci) 3.7 x 10–10 becquerel (Bq) 

Radiation dose 

 1 rem 0.01 sievert (Sv) 1 sievert (Sv) 100 rem 

Temperature 

 °C = (°F–32)/1.8 °F = (°C x1.8) + 32 

C.8 Chemical and Elemental Nomenclature 

The chemical contaminants discussed in this report are listed in Table C-7 along with their chemical (or elemental) 

names and their corresponding symbols. 
Helpful Information

 C-4

Table C-7. Elemental and chemical constituent nomenclature 

Symbol Constituent Symbol Constituent Symbol Constituent Symbol Constituent

Ag silver CHCI3 trichloromethane K potassium Pb lead 

Al aluminum Cl - chloride 

LiF lithium 

fluoride PO4-3 phosphate 

As arsenic CN - cyanide Mg magnesium P phosphorus 

B boron 

Cr+6 chromium 

(species) Mn manganese Sb antimony 

Ba barium Cr chromium (total) Mo molybdenum Se selenium 

Be beryllium CO3-2 carbonate NH3 ammonia Si silicon 

Br bromine Co cobalt NH4+ ammonium Sr strontium 

C carbon Cu copper N nitrogen SO4-2 sulfate 

Ca calcium F fluoride Na sodium Ti titanium 

CaF2 calcium fluoride Fe iron Ni nickel TI thallium 

CCI4 carbon 

tetrachloride HCO3 bicarbonate NO2-

 nitrite V vanadium 

Cd cadmium Hg mercury NO3- nitrate 

C.9 Uncertainty of Measurements 

There is always uncertainty associated with the measurement of environmental contaminants. For radioactivity, a 

major source of uncertainty is the inherent randomness of radioactive decay events. 

Uncertainty in analytical measurements is also the consequence of a series of minor, often unintentional or 

unavoidable, inaccuracies related to collecting and analyzing the samples. These inaccuracies could include errors 

associated with reading or recording the result, handling or processing the sample, calibrating the counting instrument, 

and numerical rounding. 

The uncertainty of a measurement is denoted by following the result with an uncertainty value which is preceded by 

the plus-or-minus symbol, ±. This uncertainty value gives information on what the measurement might be if the 

same sample were analyzed again under identical conditions. The uncertainty value implies that approximately 95 

percent of the time a recount or reanalysis of the same sample would give a value somewhere between the reported 

value minus the uncertainty value and the reported value plus the uncertainty value. 

If the reported concentration of a given constituent is smaller than its associated uncertainty (e.g., 40 ± 200), the 

sample may not contain that constituent. Such low concentration values are considered to be below detection, 

meaning the concentration of the constituent in the sample is so low that it is undetected by the method and/or 

instrument. 

C.10 Standard Error of the Mean 

Just as individual values are accompanied by counting uncertainties, mean values (averages) are accompanied by 

uncertainty, known as the standard error of the mean (SE). The SE conveys how accurate of an estimate the mean 

value is based on the samples that were collected and analyzed. The ± value presented to the right of a mean value 

isequal to 2 x SE (2 multiplied by the SE). The ± value implies that approximately 95 percent of the time the next 

calculated mean will fall somewhere between the reported value minus the 2 x SE value and the reported value plus 

the 2 x SE value. 
Helpful Information

 C-5

C.11 Median, Maximum, and Minimum Values 

Median, maximum, and minimum values are reported in some sections of this report. A median value is the middle 

value when all the values are arranged in order of increasing or decreasing magnitude. For example, the median value 

in the series of numbers, 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 6, is 4. The maximum value would be 6 and the minimum value would be 1. 

Maximum, minimum, and median values are reported when there are too few analytical results to accurately determine 

the average with a ± statistical uncertainty. 

C.12 Negative Radionuclide Concentrations 

There is always a small amount of natural radiation in the environment. The instruments used in the laboratory to 

measure radioactivity in environmental media are sensitive enough to measure the natural, or background, radiation 

along with any contaminant radiation in a sample. To obtain a true measure of the contaminant level in a sample, the 

natural, or background, radiation level must be subtracted from the total amount of radioactivity measured by an 

instrument. Because of the randomness of radioactive emissions, and the very low concentrations of some 

contaminants, it is possible to obtain a background measurement that is larger than the actual contaminant 

measurement. When the larger background measurement is subtracted from the smaller contaminant measurement, a 

negative result is generated. The negative results are reported because they are essential when conducting statistical 

evaluations of the data. 

C.13 Understanding Graphic Information 

Graphs are useful when comparing numbers collected at several locations or at one location over time. Graphs make 

it easy to visualize differences in data where they exist. However, they may also lead to incorrect conclusions if they 

are not read correctly. The reader must consider the scale (linear or logarithmic), concentration units, and type of 

uncertainty used in graphs. 

Some of the data graphed in this report are plotted using logarithmic, or compressed, scales. Logarithmic scales are 

useful when plotting two or more numbers that differ greatly in size. For example, a sample with a concentration of 5 

grams per liter (g/L) would get lost at the bottom of the graph if plotted on a linear scale with a sample having a 

concentration of 1,000 g/L (Figure C-1). A logarithmic plot of these same two numbers allows the reader to see both 

data points clearly (Figure C-2). 

The mean (average) and median (defined earlier) values graphed in this report have vertical lines extending above and 

below the data point. When used with a mean value, these lines (called error bars) indicate the amount of uncertainty 

in the reported result. The error bars in this report represent a 95 percent chance that the true mean is between the 

upper and lower ends of the error bar and a 5 percent chance that the true mean is either lower or higher than the 

error bar (this assumes the Normal statistical distribution of the data). For example, in Figure C-3, the first plotted 

mean is 2.0 ± 1.1, so there is a 95 percent chance that the true mean is between 0.9 and 3.1, a 2.5 percent chance that 

it is less than 0.9, and a 2.5 percent chance that it is greater than 3.1. Error bars are computed statistically, employing 

all of the information used to generate the mean value. These bars provide a quick, visual indication that one mean 

may be statistically similar to or different from another mean. If the error bars of two or more means overlap, as is 

the case with means 1 and 3 and means 2 and 3, the means may be statistically similar. If the error bars do not 

overlap (means 1 and 2), the means may be statistically different. Means that appear to be different visually (means 

2 and 3) may actually be similar when compared statistically, and these means are said to be “not statistically (or 

significantly) different from one another”. 

When vertical lines are used with median values, the lower end of each bar represents the minimum concentration 

measured; the upper end of each bar represents the maximum concentration measured. 
Helpful Information

 C-6

Figure C-1. Data plotted using a linear scale 

Figure C-2. Data plotted using a logarithmic scale 

Figure C-3. Data with error bars plotted using a linear 

scale 
Glossary

 D-1

D. Appendix D: Glossary 

A Absorbed dose: the amount of energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation per unit mass of irradiated 

material, in which the absorbed dose is expressed in units of rad or gray (l rad = 0.01 gray) 

Accuracy: the closeness of the result of a measurement to the true value of the quantity measured 

Action level: defined by regulatory agencies, the level of pollutants which, if exceeded, requires regulatory action 

Aerosol: a gaseous suspension of very small particles of liquid or solid 

Alluvium: sediment deposited by flowing water 

Alpha particle: a positively charged particle emitted from the nucleus of an atom, having mass and charge equal 

to those of a helium nucleus (two protons and two neutrons), usually emitted by transuranic elements 

Ambient air: the surrounding atmosphere, usually the outside air, as it exists around people, plants, and 

structures; not considered in monitoring purposes when immediately adjacent to emission sources 

Analysis of variance (ANOVA): a test of whether two or more sample means are statistically different 

Analyte: the specific component measured in a chemical analysis 

Anion: a negatively charged ion, such as Cl–

Aquifer: a saturated layer of rock or soil below the ground surface that can supply usable quantities of ground 

water to wells and springs, and be a source of water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses 

Aquitard: low-permeability geologic formation that bounds an aquifer 

Atom: the smallest particle of an element capable of entering into a chemical reaction 

Atomic absorption (AA) spectroscopy: a method used to determine the elemental composition of a sample, 

where the sample is vaporized and its light absorbance measured 

B Background: as used in this report, background is the term for the amounts of chemical constituents or 

radioactivity in the environment which are not caused by NTS operations 

Barcad: device that samples water in a well in which water, collected in a discrete water-bearing zone, is forced 

to the surface by pressurized nitrogen 

Becquerel (Bq): the SI unit of activity of a radionuclide, equal to the activity of a radionuclide having one 

spontaneous nuclear transition per second 

Beta particle: a negatively charged particle emitted from the nucleus of an atom, having charge, mass, and other 

properties of an electron, emitted from fission products such as Cs-137 

Biochemical (biological) oxygen demand (BOD): a measure of the amount of dissolved oxygen that 

microorganisms need to break down organic matter in water, used as an indicator of water quality 

Blowdown: water discharged from cooling towers in order to control total dissolved solids concentrations by 

allowing make-up water to replenish cooling apparatuses 

C CAP88-PC: computer code required by the EPA for modeling air emissions of radionuclides 
Glossary

 D-2

Categorical discharge: discharge from a process regulated by EPA rules for specific industrial categories 

Chain-of-custody: a method for documenting the history and possession of a sample from the time of its 

collection, through its analysis and data reporting, to its final disposition 

Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC): a compound that has fluorine and chlorine atoms on a carbon backbone, such as 

Freons 

Chlorocarbon: a compound of carbon and chlorine, or carbon, hydrogen, and chlorine, such as carbon 

tetrachloride, chloroform, and tetrachloroethene 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): a codification of all regulations promulgated by federal government 

agencies 

Collective population dose: the sums of the dose equivalents or effective dose equivalents to all individuals in 

an exposed population within 80 km (50 mi) of the radiation source. These are evaluated by multiplying the dose 

received by an individual at each location by the number of individuals receiving that dose, and summing over all 

such products for locations within 80 km of the source. They are expressed in units of person-rem or 

person-sievert. The collective EDE is also referred to as the “population dose.” 

Committed dose equivalent: the dose equivalent to a tissue or organ over a 50-year period after an intake of a 

radionuclide into the body. Committed dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem (or sievert; 100 rem equals 

one sievert). 

Committed effective dose equivalent: the sum of the committed dose equivalents to various tissues in the 

body, each multiplied by an appropriate weighting factor representing the relative vulnerability of different parts 

of the body to radiation. Committed effective dose equivalent is expressed in units of rem or sievert. 

Compliance Level (CL): stands for the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance. The CL value represents the annual average 

concentration which would result in a dose of 10 mrem/yr which is the federal dose limit to the public from all 

radioactive air emissions. 

Cosmic radiation: radiation with very high energies originating outside the earth’s atmosphere; it is one source 

contributing to natural background radiation 

Criteria pollutants: those air pollutants designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as potentially 

harmful and for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act have been 

established to protect the public health and welfare. These pollutants include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, lead, and particulate matter. 

Curie (Ci): a unit of measurement of radioactivity, defined as the amount of radioactive material in which the 

decay rate is 3.7 × 1010 disintegrations per second or 2.22 × 1012 disintegrations per minute; one Ci is 

approximately equal to the decay rate of one gram of pure radium 

D Daughter nuclide: a nuclide formed by the radioactive decay of another nuclide, which is called the parent 

Decision Level: the counts of radioactivity (or concentration level of a radionuclide) in a sample that must be 

exceeded before there is a 95 percent confidence that the sample contains radioactive material above the 

background.

Depleted uranium: uranium having a lower proportion of the isotope 235U than is found in naturally occurring 

uranium. The masses of the three uranium isotopes with atomic weights 238, 235, and 234 occur in depleted 

uranium in the weight-percentages 99.8, 0.2, and 5 × 10–4, respectively. Depleted uranium is sometimes referred 

to as D-38. 
Glossary

 D-3

Derived Concentration Guide (DCG): concentrations of radionuclides in water and air that could be 

continuously consumed or inhaled for one year and not exceed the DOE primary radiation standard to the public 

(100 mrem/y EDE) 

Dose: the energy imparted to matter by ionizing radiation; the unit of absorbed dose is the rad, equal to 0.01 

joules per kilogram for irradiated material in any medium 

Dose commitment: the dose that an organ or tissue would receive during a specified period of time (e.g., 50 or 

70 years) as a result of one year’s intake of one or more radionuclides 

Dose equivalent: the product of absorbed dose in rad (or gray) in tissue and a quality factor representing the 

relative damage caused to living tissue by different kinds of radiation, and perhaps other modifying factors 

representing the distribution of radiation, etc. expressed in units of rem or sievert (l rem = 0.01 sievert) 

Dosimeter: a portable detection device for measuring the total accumulated exposure to ionizing radiation 

Dosimetry: the theory and application of the principles and techniques of measuring and recording radiation 

doses 

Downgradient: in the direction of groundwater flow from a designated area; analogous to downstream 

E Effective dose equivalent (EDE): an estimate of the total risk of potential effects from radiation exposure, it is 

the summation of the products of the dose equivalent and weighting factor for each tissue. The weighting factor 

is the decimal fraction of the risk arising from irradiation of a selected tissue to the total risk when the whole body 

is irradiated uniformly to the same dose equivalent. These factors permit dose equivalents from nonuniform 

exposure of the body to be expressed in terms of an effective dose equivalent that is numerically equal to the dose 

from a uniform exposure of the whole body that entails the same risk as the internal exposure (ICRP 1980). The 

effective dose equivalent includes the committed effective dose equivalent from internal deposition of 

radionuclides and the effective dose equivalent caused by penetrating radiation from sources external to the body, 

and is expressed in units of rem (or sievert). 

Effluent: used in this report to refer to a liquid discharged to the environment 

Emission: used in this report to refer to a vapor, gas, air-borne particulate, or radiation discharged to the 

environment via the air 

Environmental impact statement (EIS): a detailed report, required by the National Environmental Policy Act, 

on the environmental impacts from a federally approved or funded project. An EIS must be prepared by a 

federal agency when a “major” federal action that will have “significant” environmental impacts is planned. 

F Federal facility: a facility that is owned or operated by the federal government, subject to the same requirements 

as other responsible parties when placed on the Superfund National Priorities List 

Federal facility agreement (FFA): a negotiated agreement that specifies required actions at a federal facility as 

agreed upon by various agencies (e.g., EPA, DOE, DoD) 

Federal Register: a document published daily by the federal government containing notification of government 

agency actions, including notification of EPA and DOE decisions concerning permit applications and 

rule-making 

Fiscal year: NNSA/NSO’s fiscal year is from October 1 through September 30 

Freon 11: trichlorofluoromethane 

Freon 113: 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane; also known as CFC 113 
Glossary

 D-4

G Gamma ray: high-energy, short-wavelength, electromagnetic radiation emitted from the nucleus of an atom, 

frequently accompanying the emission of alpha or beta particles 

Gray (Gy): the SI unit of measure for absorbed dose; the quantity of energy imparted by ionizing radiation to a 

unit mass of matter, such as tissue. One gray equals 100 rads, or 1 joule per kilogram. 

Gross alpha: the measure of radioactivity caused by all radionuclides present in a sample which emit alpha 

particles. Gross alpha measurements reflect alpha activity from all sources, including those that occur naturally. 

Gross measurements are used as a method to screen samples for relative levels of radioactivity. 

Gross beta: the measure of radioactivity caused by all radionuclides present in a sample which emit beta 

particles. Gross beta measurements reflect beta activity from all sources, including those that occur naturally. 

Gross measurements are used as a method to screen samples for relative levels of radioactivity. 

Groundwater: all subsurface water 

H Half-life (radiological): the time required for one-half the radioactive atoms in a given amount of material to 

decay; for example, after one half-life, half of the atoms will have decayed; after two halflives, three-fourths; after 

three half-lives, seven-eighths; and so on, exponentially 

Hazardous waste: hazardous wastes exhibit any of the following characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, 

reactivity, or EP-toxicity (yielding toxic constituents in a leaching test), but other wastes that do not necessarily 

exhibit these characteristics have been determined to be hazardous by EPA. Although the legal definition of 

hazardous waste is complex, according to EPA the term generally refers to any waste that, if managed improperly, 

could pose a threat to human health and the environment. 

High-efficiency particulate air filter (HEPA): a throwaway, extended-media, dry type filter used to capture 

particulates in an air stream; HEPA collection efficiencies are at least 99.97% for 0.3 micrometer diameter 

particles 

High explosives (HE): materials that release large amounts of chemical energy when detonated 

Hydraulic gradient: in an aquifer, the rate of change of total head (water-level elevation) per unit distance of 

flow at a given point and in a given direction 

Hydrology: the science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of natural water systems 

I Inorganic compounds: compounds that either do not contain carbon or do not contain hydrogen along with 

carbon, including metals, salts, and various carbon oxides (e.g., carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide) 

In situ: in the natural or original position. Generally refers to measurements taken in the environment or to the 

treatment of contaminated areas in place without excavation or removal. 

Interim status: a legal classification allowing hazardous waste incinerators or other hazardous waste 

management facilities to operate while EPA considers their permit applications, provided that they were under 

construction or in operation by November 19, 1980 and can meet other interim status requirements 

Interquartile range (IQR): the distance between the top of the lower quartile and the bottom of the upper 

quartile, which provides a measure of the spread of data 

Isotopes: forms of an element having the same number of protons in their nuclei, but differing numbers of 

neutrons 

L Less than detection limits: a phrase indicating that a chemical constituent or radionuclide was either not 

present in a sample, or is present in such a small concentration that it cannot be measured by a laboratory’s 

analytical procedure, and therefore is not identified or not quantified at the lowest level of sensitivity 
Glossary

 D-5

Low level radioactive waste (LLW): waste defined by DOE Order 5820.2A, which contains transuranic 

nuclide concentrations less than 100 nCi/g 

Lower limit of detection: the smallest concentration or amount of analyte that can be detected in a sample at a 

95% confidence level 

Lysimeter: an instrument for measuring the water percolating through soils and determining the dissolved 

materials 

M Maximally exposed individual (MEI): a hypothetical member of the public at a fixed location who, over an 

entire year, receives the maximum effective dose equivalent (summed over all pathways) from a given source of 

radionuclide releases to air. Generally, the MEI is different for each source at a site 

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): the highest level of a contaminant in drinking water that is allowed by 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation 

Minimum Detectable Concentration (MDC): also known as the lower limit of detection, the smallest amount 

of radioactive material in a sample that can be quantitatively distinguished from background radiation in the 

sample with 95 percent confidence 

Multiple completion: a borehole with water surveillance monitoring devices (Barcads) placed at various levels 

and separated by impermeable layers of material such as grout. Usually referred to as a well, the uppermost 

“completion” is accessible from the surface, making physical sample-taking possible (as opposed to Barcads).

Metric units: Metric system and U.S. customary units and their respective equivalents are shown in Table C-6. 

Except for temperature for which specific equations apply, U.S. customary units can be determined from metric 

units by multiplying the metric units by the U.S. customary equivalent. Similarly, metric units can be determined 

from U.S. customary equivalent units by multiplying the U.S. customary units by the metric equivalent. 

Mixed waste (MW): waste that has the properties of both hazardous and radioactive waste 

N National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs): standards found in the Clean Air 

Act that set limits for hazardous air pollutants 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): federal regulation under the Clean Water Act 

that requires permits for discharges into surface waterways 

Nonpoint source: any nonconfined area from which pollutants are discharged into a body of water (e.g., 

agricultural runoff, construction runoff, and parking lot drainage), or into air (e.g., a pile of uranium tailings) 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): the federal agency charged with oversight of nuclear power and 

nuclear machinery and applications not regulated by DOE or the Department of Defense Nuclide: a species of 

atom characterized by the constitution of its nucleus. The nuclear constitution is specified by the number of 

protons, number of neutrons, and energy content; or, alternatively, by the atomic number, mass number, and 

atomic mass. To be regarded as a distinct nuclide, the atom must be capable of existing for a measurable length 

of time. 

O Offsite: for effluent releases or in the nuclear testing area, offsite is any place outside the NTS and adjacent 

NTTR 

Onsite: for effluent releases or in the nuclear testing area, onsite is any place inside the NTS and adjacent NTTR 

P Part B permit: the second, narrative section submitted by generators in the RCRA permitting process that 

covers in detail the procedures followed at a facility to protect human health and the environment 
Glossary

 D-6

Parts per billion (ppb): a unit of measure for the concentration of a substance in its surrounding medium; for 

example, one billion grams of water containing one gram of salt has a salt concentration of one part per billion 

Parts per million (ppm): a unit of measure for the concentration of a substance in its surrounding medium; for 

example, one million grams of water containing one gram of salt has a salt concentration of one part per million 

Perched aquifer: aquifer that is separated from another water-bearing stratum by an impermeable layer 

Performance standards (incinerators): specific regulatory requirements established by EPA limiting the 

concentrations of designated organic compounds, particulate matter, and hydrogen chloride in incinerator 

emissions 

pH: a measure of hydrogen ion concentration in an aqueous solution. Acidic solutions have a pH from 0 to 6; 

basic solutions have a pH greater than 7; and neutral solutions have a pH of 7. 

Piezometer: instrument for measuring fluid pressure used to measure the elevation of the water table in a small, 

nonpumping well 

Pliocene: geological epoch of the Tertiary period, starting about 12 million years ago 

PM-10: fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 10 microns 

Point source: any confined and discrete conveyance (e.g., pipe, ditch, well, or stack) 

Pretreatment: any process used to reduce a pollutant load before it enters the sewer system 

Pretreatment regulations: national wastewater pretreatment regulations, adopted by EPA in compliance with 

the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act, which required that EPA establish pretreatment standards for 

existing and new industrial sources 

Q Quality assurance (QA): a system of activities whose purpose is to provide the assurance that standards of 

quality are attained with a stated level of confidence 

Quality control (QC): procedures used to verify that prescribed standards of performance are attained 

Quality factor: the factor by which the absorbed dose (rad) is multiplied to obtain a quantity that expresses (on a 

common scale for all ionizing radiation) the biological damage to exposed persons, usually used because some 

types of radiation, such as alpha particles, are biologically more damaging than others. Quality factors for alpha, 

beta, and gamma radiation are in the ratio 20:1:1. 

Quaternary: the geologic era encompassing the last 2–3 million years 

R Rad: the unit of absorbed dose and the quantity of energy imparted by ionizing radiation to a unit mass of matter 

such as tissue, and equal to 0.01 joule per kilogram, or 0.01 gray 

Radioactive decay: the spontaneous transformation of one radionuclide into a different nuclide (which may or 

may not be radioactive), or de-excitation to a lower energy state of the nucleus by emission of nuclear radiation, 

primarily alpha or beta particles, or gamma rays (photons) 

Radioactivity: the spontaneous emission of nuclear radiation, generally alpha or beta particles, or gamma rays, 

from the nucleus of an unstable isotope 

Radionuclide: an unstable nuclide. See nuclide and radioactivity 

Rem: a unit of radiation dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent describing the effectiveness of a type of 

radiation to produce biological effects; coined from the phrase “roentgen equivalent man,” and the product of the 
Glossary

 D-7

absorbed dose (rad), a quality factor (Q), a distribution factor, and other necessary modifying factors. One rem 

equals 0.01 sievert. 

Risk assessment: the use of established methods to measure the risks posed by an activity or exposure by 

evaluating the relationship between exposure to radioactive substances and the subsequent occurrence of health 

effects and the likelihood for that exposure to occur 

Roentgen (R): a unit of measurement used to express radiation exposure in terms of the amount of ionization 

produced in a volume of air 

S Sanitary waste: most simply, waste generated by routine operations that is not regulated as hazardous or 

radioactive by state or federal agencies 

Saturated zone: a subsurface zone below which all rock pore-space is filled with water; also called the phreatic 

zone 

Sensitivity: the capability of methodology or instrumentation to discriminate between samples having differing 

concentrations or containing varying amounts of analyte 

Sievert (Sv): the SI unit of radiation dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent, that is the product of the 

absorbed dose (gray), quality factor (Q), distribution factor, and other necessary modifying factors. 1 Sv equals 

100 rem 

Source term: amount of a specific pollutant emitted or discharged to a particular medium, such as the air or 

water, from a particular source

Specific conductance: measure of the ability of a material to conduct electricity; also called conductivity 

Subcritical experiment: an experiment using high explosives and nuclear weapon materials (including special 

nuclear materials like plutonium) to gain data used to maintain the nuclear stockpile without conducting nuclear 

explosions banned by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. 

Surface impoundment: a facility or part of a facility that is a natural topographic depression, manmade 

excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials, although it may be lined with man-made 

materials. The impoundment is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes, or wastes containing free 

liquids, and is not an injection well. Examples of surface impoundments are holding, storage, settling and 

aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons. 

Système International d’Unités (SI): an international system of physical units which include meter (length), 

kilogram (mass), kelvin (temperature), becquerel (radioactivity), gray (radioactive dose), and sievert (dose 

equivalent) 

T Thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD): a device used to measure external beta or gamma radiation levels, and 

which contains a material that, after exposure to beta or gamma radiation, emits light when processed and heated 

Total dissolved solids (TDS): the portion of solid material in a waste stream that is dissolved and passed 

through a filter 

Total organic carbon (TOC): the sum of the organic material present in a sample 

Total organic halides (TOX): the sum of the organic halides present in a sample 

Total suspended solids (TSS): the total mass of particulate matter per unit volume suspended in water and 

wastewater discharges that is large enough to be collected by a 0.45 micron filter 

Transpiration: a process by which water is transferred from the soil to the air by plants that take the water up 

through their roots and release it through their leaves and other aboveground tissue 
Glossary

 D-8

Tritium: the radioactive isotope of hydrogen, containing one proton and two neutrons in its nucleus, which 

decays at a half-life of 12.3 years by emitting a low-energy beta particle 

Transuranic waste (TRU): material contaminated with alpha-emitting transuranium nuclides, which have an 

atomic number greater than 92 (e.g. 239Pu), half-lives longer than 20 years, and are present in concentrations 

greater than 100 nCi/g of waste 

U Uncertainty: the parameter associated with a sample measurement that characterizes the range of the 

measurement that could reasonably be attributed to the sample. Used in this report, the uncertainty value is 

established at ± 2 standard deviations.

Unsaturated zone: that portion of the subsurface in which the pores are only partially filled with water and the 

direction of water flow is vertical; is also referred to as the vadose zone 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE): the federal agency responsible for conducting energy research and 

regulating nuclear materials used for weapons production 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal 

environmental laws. Although some of this responsibility may be delegated to state and local regulatory agencies, 

EPA retains oversight authority to ensure protection of human health and the environment. 

V Vadose zone: the partially saturated or unsaturated region above the water table that does not yield water to 

wells 

Volatile organic compound (VOC): liquid or solid organic compounds that have a high vapor pressure at 

normal pressures and temperatures and thus tend to spontaneously pass into the vapor state 

W Waste accumulation area (WAA): an officially designated area that meets current environmental standards and 

guidelines for temporary (less than 90 days) storage of hazardous waste before off-site disposal 

Wastewater treatment system: a collection of treatment processes and facilities designed and built to reduce 

the amount of suspended solids, bacteria, oxygen-demanding materials, and chemical constituents in wastewater 

Water table: the water-level surface below the ground at which the unsaturated zone ends and the saturated 

zone begins, and the level to which a well that is screened in the unconfined aquifer would fill with water 

Weighting factor: a tissue-specific value used to calculate dose equivalents which represents the fraction of the 

total health risk resulting from uniform, whole-body irradiation that could be contributed to that particular tissue. 

The weighting factors used in this report are recommended by the International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP 1980). 

Wind rose: a diagram that shows the frequency and intensity of wind from different directions at a specific 

location 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-1

E.0 Appendix E: Acronyms and Abbreviations 

a.k.a also known as 

AA alluvial aquifer 

AIP agreement in principle 

ALARA as low as reasonably achievable 

ARL Air Resources Laboratory 

ASER Annual Site Environmental Report 

ARPA Archeological Resources Protection Act 

ASA Auditable Safety Analysis 

ASN Air Surveillance Network 

ATM Atomic Testing Museum 

B background 

BCG Biota Concentration Guide 

BEEF Big Explosives Experimental Facility 

BEIDMS Bechtel Environmental Integrated Data Management System 

BGS below ground surface 

BHPS Bureau of Health Protection Services 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BN Bechtel Nevada 

BOD biological oxygen demand 

BP before present 

BPW bulk product waste 

Bq Becquerel 

0C degree Celsius 

ca. circa, meaning “approximately” 

CA Composite Analysis 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CADD Corrective Action Decision Document 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-2

CAIP Corrective Action Investigation Plan 

CAP Corrective Action Plan 

CAPP Chemical Accident Prevention Program 

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

CAS Corrective Action Site 

CAU Corrective Action Unit 

CCHD Clark County Health District 

CCSD Clark County Sanitation District 

CCWRD Clark County Reclamation District 

CD-ROM Compact Disk-Read Only Memory 

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent 

CEM Community Environmental Monitor 

CEMP Community Environmental Monitoring Program 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CG cloud-to-ground 

CGTO Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 

Ci curie 

cm centimeter(s) 

CL Compliance Level (used in text for the Clean Air Act National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Pollutants Concentration Level for Environmental Compliance) 

CLVF Cheyenne Las Vegas Facility (BN) 

CNLV City of North Las Vegas 

CNTA Central Nevada Test Area 

CP Control Point 

CRM Cultural Resources Management 

CTLP Community Technical Liaison Program 

CTOS Counter Terrorism Operations Support 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CX categorical exclusion 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-3

CY calendar year 

DAF Device Assembly Facility 

DAS Disposal Authorization Statement 

DCG Derived Concentration Guide 

DEA Dose Evaluation Area 

DNFSB Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board 

DNWR Desert National Wildlife Refuge 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOE/HQ DOE Headquarters 

DOE LAP U.S. Department of Energy, Laboratory Accreditation Program 

DOE/ORO DOE Oak Ridge Office 

DQA Data Quality Assessment 

DQO Data Quality Objectives 

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

DTRA Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

DWR Division of Water Resources 

EA Environmental Assessment 

ECD Environmental Compliance Department (BN) 

EDE effective dose equivalent 

EFMR EFMR Monitoring Network 

EGIS Ecological Geographic Information System 

EHS extremely hazardous substances 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ELU ecological landform unit 

EM environmental monitor 

EMAC Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program 

EMCAD Environmental Management Consolidated Audit Program 

EML Environmental Measurements Laboratory 

EMS Environmental Management System 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-4

EMSL-LV Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory 

EO Executive Order 

EODU Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA Emergency Reporting and Community Right-to-Know Act 

ER Environmental Restoration 

ERA Environmental Resource Associates 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESHD Environment, Safety and Health Division 

ET evapotranspiration 

ETS Environmental Technical Services (BN) 

0F degree Fahrenheit 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FFACO Federal Facilities Agreement and Consent Order 

FFCA Federal Facilities Compliance Act 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act 

ft foot or feet 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY fiscal year 

g gram(s) 

gal gallon(s) 

GCD Greater Confinement Disposal 

GIS Geographic Information System 

gpm gallons per minute 

GPS global positioning satellite 

ha hectare 

HAP hazardous air pollutants 

HDP heat dissipation probe 

HEPA high efficiency particulate air 

HGU hydrogeologic unit 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-5

HPD Health Physics Department (BN) 

HQ Headquarters 

hr hour 

HRMP Hydrologic Resources Management Program 

HSC Hazardous Materials Spill Center 

HSU hydrostratigraphic unit 

HTO tritiated water 

HW hazardous waste 

HWSU hazardous waste storage unit 

IA inactive 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

ICMP Integrated Closure and Monitoring Plan 

in inch(es) 

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 

ISMS Integrated Safety Management System 

IT International Technology 

JASPER Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research 

kg kilogram(s) 

km kilometer(s) 

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory 

LAO Los Alamos Operations (BN) 

lb pound 

lbs pounds 

LCA lower carbonate aquifer 

LCA3 lower carbonate aquifer, upper thrust plate 

LCCU lower clastic confining unit 

LDR Land Disposal Restrictions 

LEED U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

LFA lava-flow aquifer 

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-6

LLW low level radioactive waste 

LLWMU Low Level Waste Management Unit 

LO Livermore Operations (BN) 

lpm liters per minute 

LQAP Laboratory Quality Assurance Plan 

m meter(s) 

M&O Management and Operations 

Ma million years ago 

MAPEP Mixed Analyte Performance Evaluation Program 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

MCL maximum contaminant level 

MDC minimum detectable concentration 

MEDA meteorological data acquisition 

MEI maximally exposed individual 

MGCU Mesozoic granite confining unit 

mi miles 

MLU Mobile Loading Unit 

mm millimeter(s) 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MQO Measurement Quality Objectives 

MSA Management Self-Assessments 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

mt metric ton 

MT magnetotelluric 

MTRU mixed transuranic 

MW mixed low level radioactive waste 

MWDU Mixed Waste Disposal Unit 

NA not applicable 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAC Nevada Administrative Code 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-7

NAFR Nellis Air Force Range 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

NCA Nevada Combined Agency 

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection 

NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

NDOA Nevada Department of Agriculture 

NDOW Nevada Division of Wildlife 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

NLV North Las Vegas 

NLVF North Las Vegas Facility (BN) 

NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program 

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

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

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NRD Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NRS Nevada Revised Statues 

NSDO Nevada State Demographer Office 

NSHPO Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTS Nevada Test Site 

NTSER Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 

NTSWAC Nevada Test Site Waste Acceptance Criteria 

NTTR Nevada Test and Training Range 

NVLAP National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

ODS ozone-depleting substances 

OI Operating Instruction 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-8

ORSP Offsite Radiological Safety Program 

oz ounce(s) 

P2 pollution prevention 

P2/WM pollution prevention/waste minimization 

PA Performance Assessment 

PAAA Price-Anderson Amendments Act 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl 

PCC Post Closure Plan 

PEP Performance Evaluation Program 

PHS Public Health Service 

PIC pressurized ion chamber 

PM-OV Pahute Mesa-Oasis Valley 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

POTW publically owned treatment works 

PPOA Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments 

PT proficiency testing 

PTE potential to emit 

PWS public water systems 

QA quality assurance 

QAP Quality Assurance Program 

QAPP Quality Assurance Program Plan 

QC quality control 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RFP request for proposal 

RIDP Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program 

ROD Record of Decision 

R-MAD Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly 

RREMP Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan 

RSD relative standard deviation 

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-9

RWID Radioactive Waste Information Document 

RWMC Radioactive Waste Management Complex 

RWMS Radioactive Waste Management Site 

RWMS-3 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 3 

RWMS-5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 5 

SA Supplement Analysis 

SAFER Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SCCC Silent Canyon caldera complex 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SHPO Nevada State Historic Preservation Office 

SOC species of concern 

SOP Standard Operating Procedures 

SORD Special Operations and Research Division 

SOW Statement of Work 

SSCS Structures, Systems, and Components 

STL Special Technologies Laboratory 

STP standard temperature and pressure 

SWL static water level 

SWNVF Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field 

SWRHL Southwestern Radiological Health Laboratory 

t short ton or 2,000 lbs 

TaDD Tactical Demilitarization Development Project 

TCP thermocouple psychrometer 

TCU tuff confining unit 

TDR time domain reflectometry 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TMA Timber Mountain aquifer 

TMCC Timber Mountain caldera complex 

TMI Three-Mile Island 

TMI-CMN Three Mile Island Citizen’s Monitoring Network 
Acronyms and Abbreviations

 E-10

TPCB Transuranic Pad Cover Building 

TRB to be determined 

TRI Toxic Release Inventory 

TRU transuranic 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSS total suspended solids 

TTR Tonopah Test Range 

UCCU upper clastic confining unit 

UGTA Underground Test Area 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

UST underground storage tank 

VCU volcaniclastic confining unit 

VTA vitric-tuff aquifer 

VZM vadose zone monitoring 

WEF Waste Examination Facility 

WGS Waste Generation Services 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WMO World Meteorological Organization 

WO Waste Operations (BN) 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WSI Wackenhut Services, Inc. 

WTA welded-tuff aquifer 

WTP Weapons Testing Program 

WVCU Wahmonie volcanic confining unit 

XRF x-ray diffractometer 

yd yard 

YF-LCU Yucca Flat lower confining unit 

YMP Yucca Mountain Project 

References

 R-1

References 

American Nuclear Society, 2000: American National Standard for Determining Meteorological Information at Nuclear Facilities, 

ANSI/ANS-3.11-2000, American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, IL. 

60525, 28 pp. 

Allen, B. M., S. L. Drellack, Jr., and M. J. Townsend, 1997. Surface Effects of Underground Nuclear Explosions, 

DOE/NV/11718--122, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Antevs, E., 1948. Climatic Changes and Pre White Man. In The Great Basin with Emphasis on Glacial and Postglacial Times, 

pp. 168-191. Biological Series 10(7), University of Utah Bulletin 38(20), Salt Lake City. 

Arizona Department of Economic Security, 2004. July 1, 2002 Population Estimates for Arizona’s Counties, 

Incorporated Places and Balance of County Areas, from Internet URL: 

<http://www.workforce.az.gov/admin/uploadedPublications/518_EEC-02.pdf>, as accessed on 2/4/2004. 

Barnes, H., F. N. Houser, and F. G. Poole, 1963. Geologic Map of the Oak Spring Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada, 

U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-214, scale 1:24,000. Washington, D.C. 

Barnes, H., E. B. Ekren, C. L. Rodgers, and D. C. Hedlund, 1982. Geology and Tectonic Maps of the Mercury Quadrangle, 

Nye and Clark Counties, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Series Map 

I-1197, scale 1:24,000. 

Bath, G. D., C. E. Jahren, J. G. Rosenbaum, and M. J. Baldwin, 1983. Geologic and Geophysical Investigations of Climax 

Stock Intrusive, Nevada: Magnetic Investigations, in U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-377, p. 40-57., 

Denver, CO. 

Beatley, J.C., 1974. Effects of Rainfall and Temperature on the Distribution and Behavior of Larrea tridentata (creosote-bush) in the 

Mojave Desert of Nevada, Ecology 55:245-261. 

Bechtel Nevada, 1996a. Biological Monitoring Plan for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test 

Facility on the Nevada Test Site, Ecological Sciences, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 

Division, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 1996b, revised 2002. Biological Monitoring Plan for the Hazardous Materials Spill Center. Unpublished. 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Bechtel Nevada, 1998. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 1998 Report, DOE/NV/11718--255, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 1999. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 1999 Report, DOE/NV/11718--387, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2001. Groundwater Control Study, North Las Vegas Facility, Bechtel Nevada Project Report, March 2001. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2002a. A Hydrostratigraphic Framework Model of the Pahute Mesa - Oasis Valley Area, Nye County, Nevada,

DOE/NV/11718--646, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2002b. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 2002, DOE/NV/11718--753, Bechtel 

Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2002c. A Hydrostratigraphic Model and Alternatives for the Groundwater Flow and Contaminant Transport 

Model of Corrective Action Units 101 and 102: Central and Western Pahute Mesa, Nye County, Nevada. 

DOE/NV/11718-706. Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 
References

 R-2

Bechtel Nevada, 2003a. Ecological Monitoring and Compliance Program Fiscal Year 2003 Report. DOE/NV/11718--850, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, December 2003. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2003b. Waste Management Monitoring Report Area 3 and Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Sites - 2002 

DOE/NV/11718--822, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Bechtel Nevada, 2003c. Summary Report for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada 

Site Office FY02/FY03 Groundwater Control Study at the North Las Vegas Facility, September 2003, prepared by 

the Bechtel Nevada Geotechnical Sciences Group.

BEIR III, 1980. The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980, Committee on the 

Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation III, National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20418. 

Blankennagel, R. K. and J. E. Weir, 1973. Geohydrology of the Eastern Part of Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 

Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 712-B. 

Blout, D. O., D. P. Hammermeister, K. A. Zukosky, and K. D. Donnelson, 1994. Site Characterization Data from the 

Area 5 Science Boreholes, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., 

Las Vegas, NV. 

BN, see Bechtel Nevada. 

Borg, I. Y., R. Stone, H. B. Levy, and C. D. Ramspott, 1976. Information Pertinent to the Migration of Radionuclides in 

Groundwater at the Nevada Test Site, Part 1: Review and Analysis of Existing Information, UCRL-52078, Part 1, 

216 pp. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 

Bright, D. J., S. A. Watkins, and B. A. Lisle, 2001. Analysis of Water Levels in the Frenchman Flat Area, Nevada Test Site. 

00-4272. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4272, 43 pp., Carson City, NV. 

Brikowski, T. H., J. B. Chapman, B. F. Lyles, and S. Hokett, 1993. Origin of Elevated Water Levels Encountered in Pahute 

Mesa Emplacement Boreholes: Preliminary Investigations, Desert Research Institute Publication No. 45123, 

Las Vegas, NV. 

Byers, F. M., Jr., W. J. Carr, P. P. Orkild, W. D. Quinlivan, and K. A. Sargent, 1976. Volcanic Suites and Related Cauldrons 

of the Timber Mountain-Oasis Valley Caldera Complex, Southern Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 

919, 70 pp. Washington, D.C. 

Byers, F. M., Jr., W. J. Carr, and P. P. Orkild, 1989. Volcanic Centers of Southwestern Nevada: Evolution of Understanding, 

1960-1988. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 94, no. 5, pp. 5,908-5,924. 

Carlson, K.A., 2000. DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance 

Program, Letter to Bechtel Nevada Distribution, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, February 25, 2000. 

Cashman, P. H., and J. H. Trexler, Jr., 1991. The Mississippian Antler Foreland and Continental Margin in Southern 

NevadaBThe Eleana Formation Reinterpreted, in J. D. Cooper and C. H. Stevens, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the 

Western United States II, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, v. 67, p 

271-280. 

Caskey, S. J. and R. A. Schweickert, 1992. Mesozoic Deformation in the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity: Implications for the 

Structural Framework of the Cordilleran Fold and Thrust Belt and Tertiary Extension North of Las Vegas, Tectonics, v. 11, 

no. 6, pp. 1,314-1,331. 

Chapman, J. B. and B. F. Lyles, 1993. Groundwater Chemistry at the Nevada Test Site: Data and Preliminary Interpretations, 

Desert Research Institute Report 45100 DOE/NV/10845--16. 
References

 R-3

Chapman, J. B., 1994. Classification of Groundwater at the Nevada Test Site, Desert Research Institute Report 45069, 

DOE/NV/10384--28. 

Cashman, P. H., and J. H. Trexler, Jr., 1991. The Mississippian Antler foreland and continental Margin in Southern Nevada-The 

Eleana Formation Reinterpreted, in J. D. Cooper and C. H. Stevens, eds., Paleozoic Paleogeography of the 

Western United States II, Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Pacific Section, v. 67, 

p 271-280. 

Christopherson, K.R., 1998. MT Gauges Earth’s Electric Fields. in Geophysical Corner, AAPG Explorer, December, 1998. 

Cole, J. C., 1992. U.S. Geological Survey. Written communication to S. L. Drellack, Raytheon Services Nevada,

regarding thickness of Paleozoic units at the Nevada Test Site. 

Cole, J. C., 1997. Major Structural Controls on the Distribution of Pre-Tertiary Rocks, Nevada Test Site Vicinity, Southern Nevada,

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-533. 

Cole, J. C., and P. H. Cashman, 1999. Structural Relationships of Pre-Tertiary Rocks in the Nevada Test Site Region, Southern 

Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1607, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 1980, 42 U.S. Code 9601 

et seq. 

Cornwall, Henry R, 1972. Geology and Mineral Deposits of Southern Nye County, Nevada, Bulletin No. 77, Nevada Bureau 

of Mines and Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno. 

D=Agnese, F. A., C. C. Faunt, A. K. Turner, and M. C. Hill, 1997. Hydrogeologic Evaluation and Numerical Simulation of the 

Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow System, Nevada and California, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 96-4300, Denver, CO. 

DOE, see U.S. Department of Energy. 

Drellack, S. L., L. B. Prothro, K. E. Roberson, B. A. Schier, and E, H. Price, 1997a. Analysis of Fractures in Volcanic 

Cores from Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, DOE/NV/11718--160, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drellack, S. L. and L. B. Prothro, 1997b. Descriptive Narrative for the Hydrogeologic Model of Western and Central Pahute Mesa 

Corrective Action Units, Geology/Hydrology Group, Geotechnical Services, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

Drellack, S. L., Jr., and P. H. Thompson, 1990. Selected Stratigraphic Data for Drill Holes in LANL Use Areas of Yucca 

Flat, NTS. DOE/NV-10322-39. Las Vegas, NV: Fenix & Scisson, Inc. 

Drollinger, Harold, 2002. An Archaeological Investigation of the Bower Cabin Site, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,

Cultural Resources Technical Report No. 100, Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences, Desert Research 

Institute, Las Vegas. 

Drollinger, H., C. M. Beck and R. Furlow, 2002. Cultural Resources Management Plan for the Nevada Test Site. Desert 

Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Drollinger, Harold, 2003a. An Historical Evaluation of Train Cars at the Radioactive Material Storage Facility in Area 25, 

Nevada Test Site, Nye county, Nevada. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No. SR052003-1, 

Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Drollinger, Harold, 2003b. An Archaeological Investigation of the Bower Cabin Site, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,. 

Cultural Resources Technical Report No. 100. Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Drollinger, H. and B. A. Holz, 2003. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Phoebus 1A Arch and Kiwi 

Transient Nuclear Test Arc Project Area, Area 25, Jackass Flats, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural 

Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No. SR060903-1, Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 
References

 R-4

Defense Threat Reduction Agency, 2003. Water Pollution Control Permit NEV 96021, Quarterly Monitoring Report 

and Annual Summary Report for E Tunnel Waste Water Disposal System. Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 

2003 Report. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Mercury, NV. 

Ekren, E. B., C. L. Rogers, R. E. Anderson, and P. P. Orkild, 1968. Age of Basin and Range Normal Faults in Nevada Test 

Site and Nellis Air Force Range, Nevada, in Nevada Test Site, The Geological Society of America, Inc., Memoir 

110, pp. 247-250. 

Elliott, Russell R., 1966. Nevada's Twentieth Century Mining Boom: Tonopah, Goldfield, Ely. University of Nevada Press, 

Reno. 

Elliott, Russell R., 1973. History of Nevada. University of Nevada Press, Reno. 

EPA, see U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Faunt, C. C., 1998. Effect of Faulting on Ground-water Movement in the Death Valley Region, Nevada and California,

U.S. Geological Survey Report WRI 95-4132, U.S. Geological Survey Denver, CO. 

Ferguson, J. F., A. H. Cogbill, and R. G. Warren, 1994. A Geophysical-Geological Transect of the Silent Canyon Caldera 

Complex, Pahute Mesa, Nevada, Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 99, n. 33, pp. 4323-4339. 

Field, R. A., F. C. Smith, W. G. Hepworth, and W. J. Means, 2003. The Pronghorn Antelope Carcass. Report B-565R. 

Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. 

FWS, 1996. Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Nevada Test Site Activities, File No. 1-5-96-F-33, August 22, 1996, 

Reno, NV. 

GeoTrans, Inc., 1995. A Fracture/Porous Media Model of Tritium Transport in Underground Weapons Testing Areas, Nevada 

Test Site, 62 pp., Boulder, CO. 

Gibbons, A. B., E. N. Hinrichs, W. R. Hansen, and R. W. Lemke, 1963. Geology of the Rainier Mesa Quadrangle, Nye 

County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-215, scale 1:24,000, Washington, D.C. 

Giles, K. R., and J. Cooper. 1985. Characteristics and Migration Patterns of Mule Deer on the Nevada Test Site, 

EPA/600/4-85-030, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV. 

Gonzales J. L. and S. L. Drellack, 1999. Addendum to the Descriptive narrative for the Hydrogeologic Model of the Yucca Flat 

Corrective Area Unit: Northern Extension, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas NV. 

Garber, M. S., 1971. Hydraulic-Test and Quality-of-Water Data from hole U-3cn PS#2, Bilby Site, Nevada Test Site,

U.S. Geological Survey Report USGS-474--102 (NTS-230). Denver, CO. 

Grauch, V. J. S., and M. R. Hudson, 1995. Preliminary Analysis of Major Structures and Lithologic Boundaries for the 

Frenchman Flat Model Area, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 

Grayson, Donald K., 1993. The Desert's Past: A Natural Prehistory of the Great Basin. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

Grossman, R. F. 2004. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Calendar Year 2003. DOE/NV/ 11718-

929. U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear. 

Hale, W. E., I. J. Winograd, and M. S. Garber, 1963. Preliminary Appraisal of Close-in Aquifer Response to the Bilby Event, 

Yucca Flat, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Technical Letter NTS-63. Denver, CO. 

Hale, G. S., D. A. Trudeau and C. S. Savard, 1995. Water-Level Data from Wells and Test Holes Through 1991, and 

Potentiometric Contours as of 1991 for Yucca Flat, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 95-4177, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 
References

 R-5

Hall, D. B., P. D. Greger, A. V. Cushman, and C. A. Wills, 2003. Ecology of the Western Burrowing Owl on the Nevada Test 

Site. DOE/NV/11718--701, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, December 2003. 

Hansen, D. J., P. D. Greger, C. A. Wills, and W. K. Ostler, 1997. Nevada Test Site Wetlands Assessment,

DOE/NV/11718--124, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, May 1997. 

Hardcastle, Jeff, 2003. Nevada County Population Estimates July 1, 1986 to July 2003, Includes Cities and Towns. Prepared for 

Nevada Department of Taxation, Nevada Small Business Development Center, 

<http://www.nsbdc.org/demographer/pubs/pop_increase.html>, as accessed on 4/20/2004. 

Harrill, J. R., J. S. Gates, and J. M. Thomas, 1988. Major Groundwater Flow Systems in the Great Basin Region of Nevada, 

Utah, and Adjacent States, Hydrological Investigations Atlas HA-694-C, scale: 1:1,000,000, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Denver, CO. 

Haynes, Gregory M., 1996. Evaluating Flake Assemblages and Stone Tool Distributions at a Large Western Stemmed Tradition 

Site near Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 

18(1):104-130. 

Hendricks, T. J. and S. R. Riedhauser, 1999. An Aerial Radiological Survey of the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV/11718-324. 

Bechtel Nevada Remote Sensing Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 

Holz, B. A., and C. M. Beck, 2003. Survey and Monitoring at the Location of the Egg Point Wildfire Near Tongue Wash, Area 

12, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No. SR032703-1 Desert 

Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Holz, B. A., C. M. Beck and H. Drollinger, 2003. Nine Corrective Action Sites, Areas 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, and 18, Nevada Test 

Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Letter Report No. LR110503-1, Desert Research 

Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Houser, F. N. and F.G. Poole, 1960. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Climax Stock and Vicinity, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. 

Geological Survey Map I-328, scale 1:4,800, Washington, D.C. 

Hudson, M. R., 1992. Paleomagnetic Data Bearing on the Origin of Arcuate Structures in the French Peak-Massachusetts Mountain 

Area of Southern Nevada, in Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 104, pp. 581-594. 

Hunter, R. B. and R. R. Kinnison, 1998. Tritium in Vegetation on the Nevada Test Site, United States Department of 

Energy, December 1998, Nevada Test Site Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan, 

Appendices, DOE/NV/11718--244. Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by 

Current Radiation Protection Standards, Technical Report Series No. 332, Vienna, Austria. 

IT Corporation, 1996a. Regional Geologic Model Data Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis Documentation, Volume I, 

Parts 1 and 2), ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV. 

IT Corporation, 1996b. Potentiometric Data Task Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis Documentation, Volume II), 

ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV. 

IT Corporation, 1996c. Hydrologic Parameters Data Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis Documentation, Volume 

IV), ITLV/10972-181, Las Vegas, NV. 

IT Corporation, 1997. Groundwater Flow Model Documentation Package (Phase I, Data Analysis Documentation, Volume VI),

prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

IT Corporation. 2002. Yucca Flat Hydrogeologic Investigation Wells Drilling and Completion Criteria. ITLV/13052-164. 

Las Vegas, NV. 
References

 R-6

Jachens, R. C., 1999. Written communication, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA. 

Johnson, W. G., R. C. Jones, H. Drollinger, and A. DuBarton, 1999. Archaeological Data Recovery at Site 26NY10133, 

Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Technical Report No. 95, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research 

Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R. C., 2003a. Historical Evaluation of Kay Blockhouse, Frenchman Flat, Area 5, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. 

Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No. SR030703-1. Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R. C., 2003b. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of a Soil Stabilization Demonstration Project Area, Area 8, 

Nevada Test Site, Nye county, Nevada. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No. SR070903-1. Desert 

Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R. C., 2003c. Horned Silver Mine Drilling Project, Area 26, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources 

Reconnaissance Letter Report No. LR100603-1. Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R.C., 2003d. A Class III Cultural Resources Reconnaissance of the Horned Viper Project Areas, Areas 1, 5, and 6, Nevada 

Test Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Short Report No. SR102703-1. Desert Research 

Institute, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Jones, R.C., C.M. Beck and B.A. Holz, 2003. Inventory of Structures for the Yucca Lake Historic District, Area 6, Nevada Test 

Site, Nye County, Nevada. Cultural Resources Technical Report No. 102. Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

Jones, R. C. and S. R. Edwards, 1994. A Clovis Point on the Nevada Test Site, Nevada Archaeologist, 12:18-23. 

Kelly, I. T. and C. S. Fowler, 1986. Southern Paiute. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 135-148. 

Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Kral, Victor E., 1951. Mineral Resources of Nye County, Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Bulletin 50, 

Volume 45(3), Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno. 

Laczniak, R. J., J. C. Cole, D. A. Sawyer, and D. A. Trudeau, 1996. Summary of Hydrogeologic Controls on Ground-Water 

Flow at the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Water Resources Investigation Report 96-4109, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Carson City, NV. 

Leavitt, D. G., 2003. Summary of the 2003 Calibrations of the Area 5 Weighing Lysimeters at the Nevada Test Site. SEASFTR-03-285. Science and Engineering Associates, Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico. 

Lincoln, Francis C., 1923. Mining Districts and Mineral Resources of Nevada, Nevada Newsletter Publishing Co., Reno. 

Locke, G. L., R. J. La Camera, 2003. Selected Ground-Water Data for Yucca Mountain Region, Southern Nevada and Eastern 

California, January 2000-December 2002. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-387, 133 pp., 

Carson City, NV. 

Lockett, Cari L. and Lonnie C. Pippin, 1990. Re-examining Brownware Ceramics in the Central and Southern Great Basin. In 

Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from the Far West, edited by J. M. Mack, pp. 67-82. Anthropological Papers No. 23, 

Nevada State Museum, Carson City. 

Long, M., 1950. The Shadow of the Arrow, Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. 

Lyles, B. F., 1990. Tritium Variations in Groundwater on the Nevada Test Site, Desert Research Report 45086 

DOE/NV/10384--380. 

Lyneis, M, 1982. An Archaeological Element for the Nevada Historic Preservation Plan. Nevada Division of 

Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Carson City. 
References

 R-7

Madsen, David B., 1982. Get It Where the Gettin's Good: A Variable Model of Great Basin Subsistence and Settlement Based on 

Data from the Eastern Great Basin. In Man and Environment in the Great Basin, edited by D.B. Madsen and 

J.F. O'Connell, pp. 207-226. Society for American Archaeology Paper 2, Washington, D.C. 

Madsen, David B., 1986a. Great Basin Nuts: A Short Treatise on the Distribution, Productivity and Prehistoric Use of Pinyon. In 

Anthropology of the Desert West: Essays in Honor of Jesse D. Jennings, edited by C. Stout and D.D. Fowler, 

pp. 23-41, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Madsen, David B., 1986b. Prehistoric Ceramics. In: Great Basin, edited by W.L. d'Azevedo, pp. 206-214. Handbook of 

North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Maldonado, F., 1977. Summary of the Geology and Physical Properties of the Climax Stock, Nevada Test Site, U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 77-356, 25 pp., Denver, CO. 

McArthur, R. D., 1991. Radionuclides in Surface Soil at the Nevada Test Site. DOE/NV/10845-02 prepared by the Desert 

Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and J. F. Kordas, 1983. Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: The Galileo Area. Report 

DOE/NV/10162-14 prepared by the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and J. F. Kordas, 1985. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #2 Areas 

2 and 4. DOE/NV/10162-20 prepared by the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and S. W. Mead, 1987. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #3 

Areas 3, 7, 8, 9, and 10. DOE/NV/10384-15 prepared by the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and S. W. Mead, 1988. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #4 

Areas 18 and 20. DOE/NV/10384-22 prepared by the Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

McArthur, R. D. and S. W. Mead, 1989. Nevada Test Site Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program: Report #5 

Areas 5, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, and 30. Report prepared by the Desert Research Institute, 

Las Vegas, NV. 

McCracken, Robert D., 1992. A History of Beatty, Nevada. Nye County Press, Tonopah, Nevada. 

McLane, Alvin R., 1995. The Silent Land: History of Yucca Mountain and the Fortymile Canyon Country, Nye County, Nevada,

Manuscript on file, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. 

McLane, Alvin R, 1996. El Picacho, The Writing Cabin of B.M. Bower. Nevada 39(2):134-146. 

Mifflin, M.D. and M.M. Wheat, 1979. Pluvial Lakes and Estimated Pluvial Climates of Nevada, Bulletin No. 94, Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology, Mackay School of Mines, University of Nevada, Reno. 

Miller, Richard F. and Peter E. Wigand, 1994. Holocene Changes in Semiarid Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands, Bioscience 

44(7):465-474. 

Myrick, David F., 1963. Railroads of Nevada and Eastern California, Volume 2. Howell-North, Berkeley, California. 

NCRP, see National Council on Radiation Protection. 

National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP), 1996. A Guide for Uncertainty Analysis in Dose and Risk Assessments 

Related to Environmental Contamination, NCRP Commentary No. 14, Bethesda, Maryland.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1995: Surface Weather Observations and Reports, 

FCM-H1-1995, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 

NRC, see U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
References

 R-8

O=Hagan, M. D., and R. J. Laczniak, 1996. Ground-Water Levels Beneath Eastern Pahute Mesa and Vicinity, Nevada Test Site, 

Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4042, 1 sheet. 

Orkild, P. P., 1963. Geologic Map of the Tippipah Spring Quadrangle, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Map 

GQ-213, scale 1:24,000, Washington, D.C. 

Orkild, P. P., 1983. Geologic and Geophysical Investigations of Climax Stock Intrusive, Nevada: Summary of Geologic and 

Geophysical Investigations. in U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-377, p. 79-82. Denver, CO. 

Ostler, W. K., D. J. Hansen, D. C. Anderson, and D. B. Hall, 2000. Classification of Vegetation on the Nevada Test Site. 

DOE/NV/11718--477. December 6, 2000. Bechtel Nevada, Ecological Services, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

PHS, see U.S. Public Health Service. 

Pippin, Lonnie C., 1986. An Overview of Cultural Resources on Pahute and Rainier Mesas on the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, 

Nevada. Desert Research Institute Social Sciences Center, Technical Report No. 45, Desert Research Institute, Reno, 

Nevada. 

Pippin, Lonnie C., 1998a. Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations and Environmental Change in the Southern Great Basin: The Evidence 

from Pahute and Rainier Mesas, Technical Report No. 92, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, 

Reno, Nevada. 

Pippin, Lonnie C., 1998b. Changing Adaptive Strategies of the Ethnohistoric Eso and Ogwei: Hunter and Gathereres in the 

Southern Great Basin. Technical Report No. 94, Quaternary Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, 

Reno, Nevada. 

Public Health Service, 1970. Radiological Health Handbook. Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and 

Environmental Health Service, Rockville, MD. 

Prothro, L. B., and S. L. Drellack, 1997. Nature and Extent of Lava-Flow Aquifers Beneath Pahute Mesa, Nevada Test Site, 

Bechtel Nevada Report DOE/NV11718-156. 

Quade, Jack, and J.V. Tingley, 1984. A Mineral Inventory of the Nevada Test Site, and Portions of Nellis Bombing and Gunnery 

Range, Southern Nye County, Nevada, Open file report 84-2, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, University 

of Nevada, Reno. 

Reiner, S. R., G. L. Locke, and L. S. Robie, 1995. Ground-Water Data for the Nevada Test Site and Selected Other Areas in 

South-Central Nevada, 1992-1993, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-160. 

Reno, Ronald L., 1985. Clovis Projectile Points from Lahontan Reservoir and the Nevada Test Site, Nevada, Nevada 

Archaeologist 5(1):7_9. 

Reno, Ronald L., Gregory H. Henton, Lonnie C. Pippin, and Cari L. Lockett, 1989. Miscellaneous Data Recovery Studies 

at Yucca Mountain. Technical Report No. 59, Desert Research Institute, Reno, Nevada. 

Rhode, David, 1994. Direct Dating of Brown Ware Ceramics using Thermoluminescence and Its Relation to the Numic Spread. In 

Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa, edited by D. B. Madsen and 

D. Rhode, pp. 124-130. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 

Robie, L. S., G. L. Locke, and S. R. Reiner, 1995. Ground-Water Data for the Nevada Test Site, 1992, and for Selected Other 

Areas in South-Central Nevada, 1952-1992, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95-284. 

Rose, T. P., J. M. Kenneally, D. K. Smith, M. L. Davison, G. B. Hudson, and J. H. Rego, 1997. Chemical and Isotopic 

Data for Groundwater in Southern Nevada, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report UCRL-ID-128000, 

Livermore, CA. 
References

 R-9

Sawyer, D. A., R. J. Fleck, M. A. Lanphere, R. G. Warren, and D. E. Broxton, 1994. Episodic Caldera Volcanism in the 

Miocene Southwest Nevada Volcanic Field: Revised Stratigraphic Caldera Framework, 40Ar/39Ar Geochronology and 

Implications for Magnetism and Extension, Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 67, n. 10, pp. 1304-1318. 

Shutler, Richard Jr., 1961. Lost City, Pueblo Grande de Nevada, Anthropological Papers No. 5, Nevada State Museum, 

Carson City. 

Slate, J. L., M. E. Berry, P. D., Rowley, C. J. Fridrich, K. S. Morgan, J. B. Workman, O. D. Young, G. L. Dixon, V. S. 

Williams, E. H. McKee, D. A. Ponce, T. G. Hildenbrand, W. C. Swadley, S. C. Lundstrom, E. B. Ekren, R. G. 

Warren, J. C. Cole, R. J. Fleck, M. A. Lanphere, D. A. Sawyer, S. A. Minor, D. J. Grunwald, R. J. Laczniak, 

C. M. Menges, J. C. Yount, and A. S. Jayko, 1999. Digital Geologic Map of the Nevada Test Site and Vicinity, Nye, 

Lincoln, and Clark Counties, Nevada, and Inyo County, California, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 

99B554BA. 

Smith, D. K., 1993. A Review of Literature Pertaining to the Leaching and Sorption of Radionuclides Associated with Nuclear 

Explosive Melt Glasses, UCRL-ID-113370, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. 

Smith, D. K., 2001. Unclassified Radiologic Source Term for Nevada Test Site Areas 19 and 20, UCRL-ID-141706 Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. 

Smith, D. K., B. K. Esser and J. L. Thompson, 1995. Uncertainties Associated with the Definition of a Hydrologic Source Term 

for the Nevada Test Site. Lawerence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-ID-120322. 

Smith, D. K., S. B. Kersting, J. M. Keneally, T. P. Rose, G. B. Hudson and G. F. Eaton, 1999. Radionuclide Migration 

Studies: FY 1998 Progress Report, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA. 

Snyder, R. P., 1977. Geology of the Gold Meadows Stock, Nevada Test Site, U.S. Geological Survey Report 474-179, 10, pp., 

Denver, CO. 

Stager, Harold K. and Joseph V. Tingley, 1988. Tungsten Deposits in Nevada, Bulletin No. 105, Nevada Bureau of Mines 

and Geology, Reno. 

Stanley, T. W. and S. S. Verner, 1985. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Quality Assurance Program, in J. K. Taylor 

and T. W. Stanley (eds.), Quality Assurance for Environmental Measurements, ASTM STP-867, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. 

Steward, Julian H., 1938. Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 120, 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Reprinted by University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, 1997. 

Stoffle, R. W., M. N. Zedeno, and D. B. Halmo, 2001. American Indians and the Nevada Test Site, A Model of Research 

and Consultation. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Stoffle, Richard W., David B. Halmo, John E. Olmsted, and Michael J. Evans, 1990. Native American Cultural Resource 

Studies at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 

Taylor, J. K., 1987. Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements, Chapter 4, Lewis Publications. 

Thomas, David H., Lorann S. A. Pendleton, and Stephen C. Cappannari, 1986. Western Shoshone, In Great Basin, edited 

by Warren L. d'Azevedo, pp. 262-283. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Tingley, Joseph V., 1984. Trace Element Associations in Mineral Deposits, Bare Mountain (Flourine) Mining District, Southern 

Nye County, Nevada, Report No. 39, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Reno. 

Trexler, J. H., Jr., P. H. Cashman, J. C. Cole, W. S. Snyder, R. M. Tosdal, and V. I. Davydov, 2003. Middle 

Devonian-Mississippian Stratigraphy On and Near the Nevada Test Site: Implications for Hydrocarbon Potential, 

AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 80, No. 11. 1736- 1762. Tulsa, OK: American Association of Petroleum Geologists. 
References

 R-10

Tuohy, Don R., 1965. Stone Age Missiles from a Modern Test Site, Masterkey 39(2):44-59. 

University of Utah, 2004. Utah Census 2000 Profiles Based on SF3, from Internet URL: 

<http://www.business.utah.edu/BEBR/CensusData/webpage1.htm>, as accessed on 2/4/2004. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2003. Table NST-EST2003-01 – Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States and 

States, and for Puerto Rico: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2003, from Internet URL: 

<http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/NST-EST2003-01.php>, as accessed on 2/4/2004. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1988. Internal Dose Conversion Factors for Calculation of Dose to the Public. 

DOE/EH-0071. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991. Radionuclides in Surface Soil at the Nevada Test Site, Report DOE/NV/10845--02, 

Water Resources Center Publication #45077, Desert Research Institute, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1992. Summary of the Nevada Applied Ecology Group and Correlative Programs, DOE/NV--357, 

Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the 

State of Nevada, Volume 1, Chapters 1-9. DOE/EIS--0243, Las Vegas, NV, August 1996. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1997. Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of the 

Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, DOE/NV--477, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1998. Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan, DOE/NV-518, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV, December 1998. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2000. United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992, Report No. 

DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 15), Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a. Radioactive Waste Management Manual, DOE M 435.1-1, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2001b. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2000, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--605, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002a. A Graded Approach for Evaluating Radiation Doses to Aquatic and Terrestrial Biota, 

DOE-STD-1153-2002, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002b. Supplement Analysis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site 

and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, Report DOE/EIS-0243-SA-1, Nevada Operations Office, 

Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002c. Environmental Assessment for Hazardous Materials Testing at the Hazardous Materials 

Spill Center, Nevada Test Site, Report DOE/EA-0864, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2002d. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2002, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--747, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003a, Supplement Analysis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada 

Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada to Address the Increase in Activities Associated with the 

National Center for Combating Terrorism and Counterterrorism Training and Related Activities, Report 

DOE/EIS--0243-SA-2, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003b. Routine Radiological Environmental Monitoring Plan, Report DOE/NV/11718--804, 

Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 2003c. Nevada Test Site Annual Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2002, Report 

DOE/NV/11718--842, Bechtel Nevada, Las Vegas, NV. 
References

 R-11

U.S. Department of Energy, 2004. Users Guide, Version 1; RESRAD-BIOTA: A tool for implementing a graded approach to 

biota dose evaluation. DOE/EH-0676 [also Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) 

Technical Report 2004-02]. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Report AP-42, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1983. Radiological Assesment. Report NUREG/CR-3332, J.E. Till and H.R. 

Meyer Editors, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Public Health Service, 1963. Project SEDAN, Final Off-Site Report, AEC Report PNE-200F, Offsite Radiological 

Safety Organization, U.S. Public Health Service, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Public Health Service, 1970. Radiological Health Handbook. Public Health Service, Consumer Protection and 

Environmental Health Service, Rockville, MD. 

Waddell, R. K., J. H. Tobison, and R. K. Blankennagel, 1984. Hydrology of Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Nevada-California 

Investigative Results through Mid-1983, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigation Report 84-4267, 

72 pp, Denver, CO. 

Wahl, R. R., D. A. Sawyer, M. D. Carr, S. A. Minor, J. C. Cole, W. C. Swadley, R. J. Laczniak, R. G. Warren, K. S. 

Green, and C. M. Engle, 1997. Digital Geologic Map of the Nevada Test Site Area, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey 

Open-File Report 97-1140, scale, 1:120,000. Denver, CO. 

Walker, G. E., 1962. Groundwater in the Climax Stock, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Trace 

Element Investigations Report TEI-813, 48 pp., Washington, D.C. 

Warren, Claude N. and Robert H. Crabtree, 1986. Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In Great Basin, edited by Warren L. 

d'Azevedo, pp. 183-193. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 11, Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 

Warren, R. G., G. L. Cole, and D. Walther, 2000a. A Structural Block Model for the Three-Dimensional Geology of the 

Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-UR-00-5866. 

Warren, R. G., D. A. Sawyer, and F. M. Byers, Jr., and J. C. Cole, 2000b. A Petrographic/Geochemical Database and 

Stratigraphic and Structural Framework for the Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field, Internet address: 

<http://www.pggdb-swnvf.lanl.gov/>, as accessed on 9/20/2004, LANL Report LA-UR-00-3791. 

Warren, R. G., D. A. Sawyer, and F. M. Byers, Jr., and J. C. Cole, 2003. A Petrographic/Geochemical and Geophysical 

Database, and Stratigraphic Framework for the Southwestern Nevada Volcanic Field. LANL Report LA-UR-03-1503. 

Wills, C. A. and W. K. Ostler, 2001. Ecology of the Nevada Test Site: An Annotated Bibliography, with Narrative Summary, 

Keyword Index, and Species List. DOE/NV/11718--594. December 2001. Bechtel Nevada, Ecological Services, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Winograd, I. J. and W. Thordarson, 1975. Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Framework South-Central Great Basin, 

Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test Site, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-c, 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Winslow, Diane L., 1996. Restricted Reconnaissance: Wheeler’s Nye County Explorations, M.A. thesis, Department of 

Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

WMO, see World Meteorological Organization. 

World Meteorological Organization, 1996: Guide to Meteorological Instruments and Methods of Observation, WMO-No. 8, 

Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 
References

 R-12

Worman, Frederick C.V., 1965. Anatomy of the Nevada Test Site, University of California Los Alamos Scientific 

Laboratory Report. Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Worman, Frederick C.V., 1966. The Current Status of Archaeology at the Nevada Test Site and the Nuclear Rocket Development 

Station. University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, General, Miscellaneous and Progress 

Reports LA_3250_MS, (U.S.A.E.C. Contract W-7405-Eng-36), Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Worman, Frederick C.V., 1967. Nevada Test Site Archaeology. Nevada Archaeological Survey Reporter 1(2):5-6. 

Worman, Frederick C.V., 1969. Archaeological Investigations at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's Nevada Test Site and 

Nuclear Rocket Development Station. Report LA4125, University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 

Los Alamos, New Mexico. 

Zanjani, Sally, 1992. Goldfield: The Last Gold Rush on the Western Frontier. Ohio University Press, Athens.
Distribution List

 DL-1

D.0 Distribution List

DOE/HQ

Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs (NA-10 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-1 FORS), Forrestal, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Under Secretary and Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-1 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Principal Deputy Administrator for National Nuclear Security Administration (NA-2 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment (EH-4 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics and Waste Disposition Enhancements (EM-10 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 (3) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Business Operations (EM-30 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance Intelligence and Improvement (EM-40 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Air, Water and Radiation Division (EH-412 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Office of Science (SC-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Research Development and Simulation NNSA/HQ (NA-11 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Military Application and Stockpile Op NNSA/HQ (NA-12 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Assistant Deputy Administrator for Program Integration NNSA/HQ (NA-13 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Office of Planning, Budgeting and Integration NNSA/HQ (NA-133 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, DOE/HQ (RW-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Cleanup and Acceleration, DOE/HQ (EM-20 FORS), U.S. Department 

of Energy, Forrestal, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20585 
Distribution List

 DL-2

NNSA/NSO

Manager, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Deputy Manager, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Office of Chief Counsel, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Assistant Manager for Safety & Security Programs, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Assistant Manager for National Security, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Environmental Restoration Division, Nevada Site Office, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Environment, Safety and Health Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Facility Representative Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 701 

Director, Homeland Security and Defense Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Office of Business Affairs, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Office of Public Affairs, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Performance Assurance Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 

Director, Stockpile Stewardship Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Technology Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Waste Management Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Deputy Manager for Test & Operations, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Deputy Assistant Manager for Environmental Management, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 

Assistant Manager for Site Operations, NNSA/NSO, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 
Distribution List

 DL-3

W. J. Arthur, Deputy Director, Office of Repository Development, U.S. Department of Energy, 1551 Hillshire Drive, 

Las Vegas, NV 89134 

B. W. Hurley, Environment, Safety and Health Division, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Nuclear Security Administration, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

EPA

Kandice Bellamy, Waste Management Division, EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 

Jack P. Broadbent, Director, Air Division, Region IX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105-390 

Deputy Director, Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89198-8517, M/S 513 

Director, Radiation & Indoor Environments National Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89198-8517, M/S 513 

Director, Center for Environmental Restoration, Monitoring, and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, NV 89198-8517, M/S 513 

LANL

C. F. Eberhart, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545, M/S F670 

Jean Dewart, Los Alamos National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 87545, M/S J978 

LLNL

W. A. Bookless, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-160, Livermore, CA 94550-9234 

J. M. Haeberlin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 45, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 777 

R. C. Higgs, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, P.O. Box 45, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 777 

SNL

D. R. Bozman, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S NTS944 

S. E. Lacy, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 5800, Albuquerque, NM 87185-0184 

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 

D. D. Thompson, Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023, M/S NTS944 

DTRA

Dave Loewer, Chief, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, P.O. Box 208, Las Vegas, NV 89023, M/S NTS 645 

Tiffany Lantow, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, P.O. Box 208, Las Vegas, NV 89023, M/S NTS 645 

NDEP

Don Elle, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Tim Murphy, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 
Distribution List

 DL-4

Greg Raab, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 171 E. Flamingo Rd., Suite 121-A, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Departments of Environment and Health

Michael Stafford, Nevada State Clearinghouse, Capitol Complex, 209 E. Musser St., Carson City, NV 89710 

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 

DRI

Colleen M. Beck, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, M/S 505 

Scott Campbell, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Dee Donithan, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Ken Giles, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

William Hartwell, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89120, M/S 505 

Lynn Karr, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Barbara Kennedy, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Greg McCurdy, 2215 Raggio Parkway, Reno, NV 89512 

Amy Russell, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Charles Russel, Desert Research Institute, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Craig Shadel, Desert Research Institute, 755 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

David Shafer, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119, M/S 505 

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 

Manager, Waste Management Program, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV080 

B. Calman, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV080 

D. K. Clark, Low-Level Waste Operations, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS403 

S. L. Drellack, Science and Technology, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV082 

J. J. Dugas, BN, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

P. D. Greger, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS260 
Distribution List

 DL-5

R. F. Grossman, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

D. L. Gustafson, Science and Technology, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS110 

D. J. Hansen, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS260 

O. L. Haworth, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS110 

J. M. Holden, Solid Waste Operations, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS403 

D. B. Hudson, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S 

NTS273 

A. J. Karns, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV082 

F. S. Nawrocki, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

D. A. Nichols, Defense and Civil Projects, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV103 

W. K. Ostler, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS260 

H. A. Perry, Site Maintenance, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS110 

P. M. Radack, Environmental Compliance, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S 

NTS327 

T. J. Redding, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

J. L. Smith, Environmental Management, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS306 

Carlton Soong, Environmental Compliance, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS327 

D. M. Van Etten, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

R. W. Warren, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS273 

C. A. Wills, Environmental Technical Services, Bechtel Nevada, P.O. Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS260 

PAI

Sydney Gordon, PAI, 537 E. Brooks Ave, North Las Vegas, NV 89030, M/S 422 

Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture

Wayne Bliss, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, P.O. 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 
Distribution List

 DL-6

J. M. Fowler, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S CF438 

P. K. Matthews, Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture, 7710 West Cheyenne Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89129, M/S CF439 

CEMP

J. Randall Allen, P.O. Box 93, Panaca, NV 89042 

Kaye Allisen-Medlin, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001-9706 

Marina Anderson, 1151 “A” Avenue N, P.O. Box 869, Beatty, NV 89003 

Melvin D. Baldwin, 1646 North 175 West, Cedar City, UT 84720 

Bradford L. Benson, 606 Lake Superior Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005-1057 

Nicklas J. Bowler, P.O. Box 368, Logandale, NV 89021 

Brian W. Brown, P.O. Box 61, Shoshone, CA 92384 

Roy Clifford, Jr., Stone Cabin Ranch, P.O. Box 206, Tonopah, NV 89040 

Don M. Curry, 8207 Burnt Sienna, Las Vegas, NV 89123 

Melanie Darby, 1111 Avenue M, Ely, NV 89301 

Michael DeLee, P.O. Box 96, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 

Beverly Jean DeWyze, P.O. Box 295, Delta, UT 84624 

Paul Donohue, P.O. Box 291, Pioche, NV 89043 

Joe and Sue Fallini, Twin Springs Ranch, HC 76, P.O. Box 1100, Tonopah, NV 89040 

Kenneth G. Gary, BarBQ Ranch, Box 1, Amargosa Valley, NV 89020 

Morden Leon Gay, P.O. Box 369, Milford, UT 84751 

Rita Gillum, P.O. Box 3, Goldfield, NV 89013 

Larry B. Goins, 2440 South River Plate Drive, Pahrump, NV 89048 

Christy S. Graf, P.O. Box 385, Alamo, NV 89001 

Linda Lee Hafen, 1009 Providence Lane, Boulder City, NV 89005 

Clark M. Hardy, P.O. Box 299, Alamo, NV 89001 

Gerald F. Hein, 612 Largo Azul Avenue, Henderson, NV 89015 

Mike Heizer, Garden Valley, P.O. Box 33, Hiko, NV 89017 

Michael Herndon, 5867 Alcott Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89142 

James M. Hopkin, P.O. Box 597, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

Mark E. Howard, P.O. Box 935, Tonopah, NV 89049 

Dale E. Jenson, 2982 South 300 East, Box 25, Milford, UT 84751 
Distribution List

 DL-7

Richard A. Johnson, P.O. Box 626, Beatty, NV 89003 

Victoria G. Johnson, P.O. Box 765, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

Thomas S. Judd, 850 North 500 West, Delta, UT 84624 

John C. Lisle, P.O. Box 357, Beatty, NV 89003 

Larry Martin, 1200 Avenue H, Ely, NV 89301 

Kenneth F. McFate, P.O. Box 373, 470 W. Raleigh Lane, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

Steve and Glenda Medlin, HCR 61, Box 30, Alamo, NV 89001 

Scott Mortensen, 143 S. Main, St. George, UT 84770 

Jack W. Nelson, P.O. Box 232, Logandale, NV 89021 

Donald Newman, 141 Sunbow, Cedar City, UT 84720 

Jason L. Odegard, 630 Tomahawk Court, Pahrump, NV 89060 

David J. Peltz, 10194 Eden Falls Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89123 

Brent H. Perkins, P.O. Box 495, Caliente, NV 89008 

Ted Charles Sauvageau, P.O. Box 1674, Tonopah, NV 89049 

GN&M Sharp, Nyala Ranch, HC 76, Box 900, Tonopah, NV 89040 

Jon Skullestad, P.O. Box 593 Goldfield, NV 89013 

Ann P. Smith, P.O. Box 101 Caliente, NV 89008 

Glade V. Sorensen, 421 Circle Way Drive, Cedar City, UT 84720 

Dell Sullivan, P.O. Box 182, Alamo, NV 89001 

Ruston Taylor, 917 Three Fountains, Cedar City, UT 84720 

Joan Terrell, P.O. Box 454, Goldfield, NV 89013 

Helen Uhalde, Uhalde Ranch, P.O. Box 88, Ely, NV 89301 

Curt Walker, 903 Coyote Way, Dammeron Valley, UT 84738 

Gayle Williams, HCR 61, Box 24, Alamo, NV 89001 

Libraries

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 
Distribution List

 DL-8

Cedar City Public Library, 136 W. Center Street, Cedar City, UT 84720-2597 

Delta City Library, 76 N. 200 W. Delta, UT 84624-9440 

Goldfield Public Library, P.O. Box 430, Goldfield, NV 89013 

Henderson District Public Library, 280 Water Street, Henderson, NV 89015 

Indian Springs Library, P.O. Box 629, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

Lincoln County Library, P.O. Box 330, Pioche, NV 89043 

Milford Public Library, P.O. Box 579, Milford, UT 84751-0579 

Moapa Valley Library, P.O. Box 397, Overton, NV 89040 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Technical Center, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, 

TN 37831 (electronic copy) 

Pahrump Library District, 2101 E. Calvada Boulevard, Pahrump, NV 89048 

Public Reading Facility, Nuclear Testing Archive, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear 

Security Administration P.O. Box 98521 Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521M/S 400 

Technical Library, Nevada Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 

P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Tonopah Library District, P.O. Box 449, Tonopah, NV 89049 

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 

Washington County Library, 50 S. Main Street, St George, UT 84770-3490 

White Pine County Library, 950 Campton Street, Ely, NV 89301 

Miscellaneous

Community Advisory Board for Nevada Test Site Programs, c/o Navarro Engineering, 2721 Losee Rd, Suite D, North 

Las Vegas, NV 89030 (5) 

Richard Birger, Project Leader, Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 1500 N. Decatur, Las Vegas, NV 89108 

David Swanson, Nye County Department of Natural Resources & Federal Facilities, 1210 East Basin Rd, Suite 6, 

Pahrump, NV 89060 

E. W. Chew, U.S. Department of Energy, 785 Doe Place, Idaho Falls, ID 83402, M/S 4149 

Ann-Marie Choephel, Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, P.O. Box 1767, Tonopah, NV 89049 

Larry Coch, Dyncorp, P.O. Box 569, Indian Springs, NV 89018 

Steve Deandi, Western Governmental Association, 223 Old P.O. Road, Boulder, CO 80302 

J. R. Dryer, Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office, 1551 Hillshire Dr., Suite A, Las Vegas, NV 89134 

Michael Dwyer, Las Vegas District Manager BLM, 4765 Vegas Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89108 
Distribution List

 DL-9

Vernon Gabbard, Tonopah Test Range, 15421, M/S TTR001 

N. W. Golchert, Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439 

Mason and Hanger, Environmental Protection Department, Silas-Mason Co., Inc., Pantex Plant, P.O. Box 30020, 

Amarillo, TX 79177 

E. A. Hopper USAF/EV, 4551 Devlin Drive, Nellis AFB, Las Vegas, NV 89191-6828 

Richard Martin, Superintendent, Death Valley National Monument, P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, CA 92328 

Susan Moore, P.O. Box 3539, Tonopah, NV 89049 

David and Natalie Spicer, P.O. Box 897, Beatty, NV 89003 

Bob Swedock, Tetra Tech, Inc., 5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1400, Falls Church, VA 22041 

Bonnie K. Thompson, NNSA Program Manager, USGS, 160 N. Stephanie St., Henderson, NV 89074 

Diane Watson, Waste Policy Institute, Savannah River Research Campus, 227 Gateway Drive, Aiken, SC 29803 
Distribution List

 DL-10

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK