.::* 

f ., 

;: $:~ .: 

.) .:..: 

:: 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Nevada Test Site 

Annual Site 

Environmental Report 

for 

Calendar Year - 1995 

Editors: 

Stuart C. Black and Yvonne E. Townsend 

Technical Rev/e wer: 

Wayne M. Gllnes 

September 7 996 

Work Performed Under Contract No. DE-ACO8-96NV7 777 8 

Prepared by: 

Bechtel Nevada 

Post Office Box 9852 7 

Las Vegas, NV89 7 93-852 7 

Prepared for: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Nevada Operations Office 
AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS 

1.0 Summarv 5.2 Radiological Environmental 

Surveillance 

Stuart C. Black, BN 

2.0 Introduction 

Colleen M. Beck, DRI 

Stuart C. Black, BN 

James W. Kesler, BN 

Tim A. Lindemann, BN 

3.0 Compliance Summarv 

Colleen M. Beck, DRl 

Stuart C. Black, BN 

Orin L. Haworth, BN 

James W. Kesler, BN 

Tim A. Lindemann, BN 

Amadeo Sanchez, BN 

George D. White, BN 

Max G. Davis, EPA 

Bruce B. Dicey, EPA 

Christopher A. Fontana, EPA 

Ken R. Giles, EPA 

Robert F. Grossman, BN 

Polly A. Huff, EPA 

Balwan S. Hooda, BN 

Anita A. Mullen, EPA 

Mark D. Sells, EPA 

Cathy A. Wills, BN 

6.0 Dose Assessment 

Stuart C. Black, BN 

Anita A. Mullen, EPA 

4.1 Radioloaical Monitoring 7.0 Nonradioloaical Monitorina Results 

Stuart C. Black, BN 

Robert F. Grossman, BN 

Orin L. Haworth, BN 

Tim A. Lindemann, BN 

Anita A. Mullen, EPA 

Richard B. Hunter, BN 

Orin L. Haworth, BN 

James W. Kesler, BN 

8.0 Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storaae 

and Disposal 

4.2 Nonradioloaical Monitorinq 

Orin L. Haworth, BN 

James W. Kesler, BN 

Brian L. Dozier, BN 

Deron Linkenheil, BN 

4.3 Environmental Permits 9.0 Groundwater Protection 

Elizabeth C. Calman, BN 

Orin L. Haworth, BN 

James W. Kesler, BN 

George D. White, BN 

Max G. Davis, EPA 

Major-y A. Jones, DRI 

Brian L. Dozier, BN 

5.1 Radioloaical Effluent Monitoring 

Robert F. Grossman, BN 

10.0 Labora tory Quality Assurance 

Theodore J. Redding, BN 

Mark D. Sells, EPA 

. . . 

III 
FOREWORD 

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

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

monitoring results were reported in an onsite report prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV). Results of the Offsite Radiological Surveillance and LongTerm Hydrological Monitoring programs conducted by the US. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Radiation Sciences Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada, were reported separately by that 

Agency. 

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

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

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

non-nuclear operations at the NTS. The two agencies have coordinated preparation of this seventh 

combined onsite and offsite report through sharing of information on environmental surveillance and 

releases as well as meteorological, hydrological, and other supporting data used in dose-estimation 

calculations. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The skill, dedication, and perseverance of Angela L. McCurdy in word processing and desktop 

publishing support were crucial to the production of this report. The review and advice offered by 

the Environmental Protection Division, Nevada Operations Office and the EPA Radiation Sciences 

Laboratory, Las Vegas (RSL-LV) reviewers were invaluable. Compilation and verification of onsite 

data were provided by Robert F. Grossman, Balwan S. Hooda, and Orin L. Haworth. Compilation 

and verification of EG&G/EM’s, onsite and offsite data were provided by James W. Kesler. 

Statistical analyses of data were provided by Robert R. Kinnison. The cooperative support of Anita 

A. Mullen of the RSL-LV in production of this combined onsite and offsite environmental report is 

greatly appreciated. 

vii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Authors and Contributors 

................................................ 

Foreword............................................................::: : 

Acknowledgements 

Table of Contents 

........................................................ 

........................ 

ListofFigures 

........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ::: ............ 

ListofTables.....................~...........................::::::::::: : 

Measurement Units and Nomenclature 

ListofAcronymsandExpressions . ..::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 

. . . 

. III 

. v 

. vii 

. ix 

xv 

xvii 

xix 

xxi 

1.0 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~... l-l 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

1.7 

1.8 

Environmental Management 

RadiologicalEnvironment.. .............................................................. 

l-l 

1.2.1 Onsite Environmental Surveillance 

::I::::: l-2 

........................... 

1.2.2 Offsite Environmental Surveillance 

l-2 

1.2.3 EcologicalStudies.............::::::::::::::::::::::::: .. 

l-3 

1.2.4 Low-Level Waste Disposal 

l-5 

............................... 

1.25 Radiological Monitoring at Offsite Support Facilities 

: : l-5 

............... 

Nonradiological Monitoring 

l-5 

........................................ 

Compliance Activities 

l-5 

............................................ 

Groundwater Protection 

I-6 

.... ....... ... 

Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storage and Disposal 

..................................... l-7 

Quality Assurance 

: : : : : : l-8 

.............................................. l-8 

1.7.1 Onsite Nonradiological Quality Assurance 

...................... l-8 

1.7.2 Onsite Radiological Quality Assurance 

........................ l-8 

1.7.3 Offsite Radiological Quality Assurance 

........................ 

Issues and Accomplishments 

l-9 

...................................... l-9 

2.1 

2.0 Introduction 2-1 

NTSOperations ........................................................................... :::::::::::I::: 2-l 

2.1.1 NTS Description 

......................................... 2-I 

2.1.2 Mission and Nature of Operations 

............................ 2-3 

2.2 

2.3 

2.1.3 1995 Activities 

............................................ 2-6 

2.1.3.1 Nuclear Tests 

................................... 2-6 

2.1.3.2 2-6 

2.1.4 

Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility ............ 

Topography and Terrain 

................................... 2-6 

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

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

2.1.7 Climate and Meteorology 

.................................. 2-13 

2.1.8 FloraandFauna ........................................ 2-13 

2.1.9 Cultural Resources 

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

2.1.10 Demography 

........................................... 2-16 

2.1.11 Surrounding Land Use 

.................................... 2-16 

Non-NTS Facilities 

............................................. 2-18 

2.2.1 Amador Valley Operations (AVO) 

........................... 2-l 8 

2.2.2 Special Technologies Laboratory (STL) ....................... 2-18 

2.2.3 Las Vegas Area Operations (LVAO) 

......................... 2-l 8 

2.2.4 Los Alamos Operations (LAO) 

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

2.2.5 Washington Aerial Measurements Operations(WAM0) ........... 2-l 9 

Non-NTS Underground Event Sites 

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

ix 
‘Table of Contents. cont. Paae 

3.0 Compliance Summary ................................................. 3-l 

3.1 Compliance Status .............................................. 3-2 

3.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act ........................... 3-2 

3.1.2 Clean Air Act ............................................ 3-3 

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

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

3.1.2.3 NTS Air Quality Permit Compliance ................... 3-4 

3.1.2.4 Non-NTS EG&G/EM Operations ..................... 3-4 

3.1.3 Clean Water Act ......................................... 3-5 

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

3.1.3.2 Non-NTS EG&G/EM Operations ..................... ,3-6 

3.1.4 Safe Drinking Water Act ................................... 3-6 

3.1.4.1 NTS Operations ................................. 3-6 

3.1.4.2 NTS Water Haulage .............................. 3-7 

3.1.4.3 Non-NTS EG&G/EM Operations ..................... 3-7 

3.1.5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ...................... 3-7 

3.1.5.1 NTS RCRA Compliance ........................... 3-7 

3.152 Hazardous Waste Reporting for Non-NTS, EG&G/EM 

Operations .................................... 3-8 

3.1.5.3 Underground Storage Tanks ........................ 3-8 

3.1.6 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act/Super-fund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA) ............................... 3-9 

3.1.6.1 NTS Tier II Reporting Under SARA Title III ............. 3-9 

3.1.6.2 Non-NTS Tier II Reporting Under SARA Title III .......... 3-9 

3.1.6.3 SARA Title III Section 313 Reporting .................. 3-9 

3.1.7 State of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act ............ 3-9 

3.1.8 Toxic Substances Control Act ............................... 3-9 

3.1.9 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ............. 3-10 

3.1.10 Historic Preservation ..................................... 3-I 0 

3.1 .l 1 Threatened and Endangered Species Protection ................ 3-l 1 

3.1.12 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management ................ 3-l 1 

3.1.13 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands ................. 3-l 1 

3.1.14 Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance With Right-To-Know 

Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements ................. 3-11 

3.2 Current Environmental Compliance Issues and Actions ................. 3-11 

3.2.1 Clean Air Act ........................................... 3-12 

3.2.2 Clean Water Act ........................................ 3-12 

3.2.3 Safe Drinking Water Act .................................. 3-13 

3.2.4 Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act ........................... 3-l 4 

3.2.5 Historic Preservation .................................... 3-l 4 

3.2.6 Waste Minimization ..................................... 3-l 4 

3.2.6.1 NTS Operations ................................ 3-14 

3.2.6.2 Non-NTS EG&G/EM Operations .................... 3-15 

3.2.7 Solid/Sanitary Waste .................................... 3-17 

3.2.8 Environmental Restoration/Remediation Activities .............. 3-l 8 

3.2.9 Radiation Protection ..................................... 3-19 

3.2.9.1 NTS Operations ................................ 3-19 

3.2.9.2 Non-NTS EG&G/EM Operations .................... 3-19 

3.2.10 Environmental Compliance Audits ........................... 3-20 

3.2.10.1 Tiger Team Compliance Assessment ................ 3-20 

X 
$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~~rrrOO~~~~~~~~oo0~~~~~~~ 

....... ~~d~~~~d~~b~~~b~~~~~~~~ 

............... 

............... 

................................. 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

................................ 

E : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 

............ . ..a ................ 

........... .L. 

........ 

......... 

........... 

........... 

........... 
Table of Con tents. cont. 

5.2.1 Onsite Environmental Surveillance ........................... 5-7 

5.2.1 .I Radioactivity in Air. ............................... 5-7 

5.2.1.2 Air (Particulate and Halogen Gas) Sampling 

Results ........................................ 5-8 

5.2.1.3 Noble Gas Sampling Results ....................... 5-11 

5.2.1.4 Tritiated Water Vapor Sampling Results .............. 5-l 1 

5.2.1.5 Radioactivity in Surface Water ...................... 5-13 

5.2.1.6 Radioactivity in Supply Well Water .................. 5-16 

5.2.1.7 Radioactivity in Drinking Water ..................... 5-18 

5.2.1.8 External Gamma Exposures - Onsite Area ............ 5-19 

5.2.2 Offsite Environmental Surveillance .......................... 5-l 9 

5.2.2.1 Air Monitoring Networks .......................... 5-20 

5.2.2.2 Water Monitoring ................................ 5-21 

5.2.2.3 Milk Surveillance Network ......................... 5-21 

5.2.2.4 Biomonitoring .................................. 5-21 

5.2.2.5 Thermoluminescent Dosimetry Network (TLD) .......... 5-21 

5.2.2.6 Pressurized Ion Chamber Network .................. 5-21 

5.2.2.7 Internal Dosimetry Program ........................ 5-22 

5.2.3 Non-NTS EG&G/EM Facility Monitoring ....................... 5-24 

6.0 Dose Assessment .................................................... 6-1 

6.1 Estimated Dose from Nevada Test Site Activities ....................... 6-1 

6.1 .I Estimated Dose Using Reported NTS Emissions ................. 6-2 

6.1.2 Estimated Dose Using Monitoring Network Data ................. 6-2 

6.2 Dose (EDE) from Background Radiation .............................. 6-3 

6.3 Summary ..................................................... 6-4 

7.0 Nonradiological Monitoring Results ....................................... 7-1 

7.1 Environmental Samples .......................................... 7-I 

7.1 .I Safe Drinking Water Act ................................... 7-1 

7.1.1.1 Bacteriological Sampling ........................... 7-l 

7.1.1.2 Chemical Analysis ................................ 7-l 

7.1.2 Clean Water Act ......................................... 7-2 

7.1.2.1 NTS Operations ................................. 7-2 

7.1.2.2 Non-NTS Sampling Results ......................... 7-2 

7.1.3 Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Disposal ......................... 7-2 

7.1.4 Toxic Substances Control Act ............................... 7-3 

7.1.5 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants ............................................. 7-3 

7.1.6 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ............... 7-3 

7.1.7 Special Studies ........................................... 7-3 

7.2 Ecological Conditions ............................................ 7-3 

7.2.1 Flora .................................................. 7-3 

7.2.2 Fauna ................................................. 7-4 

8.0 Radioactive and Mixed Waste Storage and Disposal .......................... 8-1 

8.1 Waste Disposat Operations ........................................ 8-l 

8.1.1 Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site .................... 8-2 

8.1.1.1 .............. 8-2 

8.1.i.2 

RWMS-5 Mixed Waste Management Unit 

RWMS-5 Groundwater Monitoring .................... 8-3 

xii 
Table of Contents, cont. i 

8.1.2 Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site .................... 8-3 

8.1.3 Strategic Materials Storage Yard .............................. 8-3 

8.1.4 Transuranic Waste Storage ................................. 8-3 

8.2 Environmental Monitoring at Waste Storage and Disposal Sites ............ 8-4 

8.2.1 AirMonitoring ........................................... 8-4 

8.2.1 .l RWMS-5 Air Monitoring ............................ 8-4 

8.2.1.2 RWMSS Air Monitoring ............................ 8-5 

8.2.2 Radiation Exposure Rates ................................. 8-5 

8.2.2.1 Gamma Exposure ................................ 8-5 

8.2.2.2 Neutron Dose Equivalents .......................... 8-5 

8.2.3. Vadose Zone Monitoring for Mixed Waste Disposal ............... 8-5 

8.2.4 Tritium Migration Studies at the RWMS-5 ...................... 8-6 

9.0 Groundwater Protection ............................................... 9-i 

9.1 Existing Groundwater Conditions .................................... 9-2 

9.1 .l Hydrogeology of the NTS .................................. 9-2 

9.1.2 Hydrogeology of Non-NTS Underground Event Sites .............. 9-2 

9.1.2.1 Fallon, Nevada .................................. 9-2 

9.1.2.2 Blue Jay, Nevada ................................ 9-2 

9.1.2.3 Amchitka Island, Alaska ........................... 9-2 

9.1.2.4 Rio Blanco, Colorado .............................. 9-3 

9.1.2.5 Grand Valley, Colorado ............................ 9-3 

9.1.2.6 Baxterville, Mississippi ............................ 9-3 

9.1.2.7 Gobernador, New Mexico .......................... 9-3 

9.1.2.8 Malaga, New Mexico .............................. 9-3 

9.1.3 Areas of Possible Groundwater Contamination at the 

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

9.2 Groundwater Protection .......................................... 9-4 

9.2.1 Groundwater Protection for Underground Nuclear Tests ........... 9-4 

9.2.2 Groundwater Protection for Surface Facilities ................... 9-6 

9.2.2.1 Waste Minimization and Pollution 

Prevention Awareness Program .................... 9-6 

9.2.2.2 Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Program ....................................... 9-6 

9.2.2.3 Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal .............. 9-6 

9.3 Environmental Restoration ........................................ 9-7 

9.3.1 Underground Nuclear Testing Sites .......................... 9-7 

9.3.2 Surface Facilities ........................................ 9-8 

9.3.2.1 Rainier Mesa Tunnel Ponds ........................ 9-8 

9.3.2.2 Surface Operational Support Facilities .................. 9-8 

9.4 Hydrologic Resources Management Program ......................... 9-8 

9.4.1 Program Coordination and Technical Support ................... 9-9 

9.4.1 .l Hydrostratigraphic Unit Delineation At the Nevada 

Test Site ...................................... 9-9 

9.4.1.2 Risk Assessment of Nevada Test Site Groundwaters .... 9-16 

9.4.2 Operational Support ..................................... 9-10 

9.4.2.1 Water-Level Altitudes ............................. 9-10 

9.4.2.2 Yucca Flat Hydrology Study ....................... 9-10 

9.4.2.3 Evaluation of Aquifer Properties .................... 9-l 1 

9.4.2.4 Drillback Activities at Nuclear Test Sites .............. 9-11 

. . . 

XIII 
Table of Contents. cont. 

9.4.2.5 Pahute Mesa Groundwater Levels ................... 9-11 

9.4.2.6 Groundwater Recharge ........................... 9-11 

9.4.3 Groundwater Protection .................................. 9-l 2 

9.4.3.1 Radionuclide Transport Studies ...................... 9-l 2 

9.4.4 Groundwater Monitoring .................................. 9-12 

9.4.4.1 Monitoring of Groundwater Levels ................... 9-l 2 

9.4.4.2 Groundwater Sampling ........................... 9-13 

9.5 Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program ......................... 9-l 3 

9.5.1 Sampling and Analysis Procedures 9-13 

9.5.2 Activities on and Around the Nevada Test&& ’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9-14 

9.5.2.1 Nevada Test Site Monitoring ...................... 9-14 

9.5.2.2 Offsite Monitoring in the Vicinity of the Nevada 

Test Site ..................................... 9-14 

9.6 LTHMP at Off-NTS Nuclear Device Test Locations ..................... 9-16 

9.6.1 Project FAULTLESS ..................................... 9-18 

9.6.2 Project SHOAL ......................................... 9-18 

9.6.3 Project RULISON ....................................... 9-18 

9.6.4 Project RIO BLANC0 ..................................... 9-21 

9.6.5 Project GNOME. ........................................ 9-21 

9.6.6 Project GASBUGGY ..................................... 9-24 

9.6.7 Project DRIBBLE ........................................ 9-27 

9.6.8 Amchitka Island, Alaska .................................. 9-27 

10.0 Laboratory Quality Assurance .......................................... 1 O-1 

10.1 Policy.. ..................................................... 10-l 

10.2 Overview of the Laboratory QA Program ............................. 1 O-2 

10.3 Data and Measurement Quality Objectives ........................... 1 O-3 

10.3.1 Data Quality Objectives ................................... 1 O-3 

10.3.1.1 Decisions to be Made ............................ IO-3 

10.3.1.2 Range of Sampling Possibilities ..................... 1 O-3 

10.3.1.3 Measurements to be Made ........................ 10-3 

10.3.1.4 Sampling Locations ............................. IO-4 

10.3.1.5 Use of the Measurements ......................... IO-4 

10.3.1.6 Calculations to be Performed ...................... 1 O-4 

10.3.2 Measurement Quality Objectives ............................ 1 O-4 

10.3.2.1 Representativeness ............................. 1 O-4 

10.3.2.2 Comparability .................................. IO-4 

10.3.2.3 Completeness ................................. 10-5 

10.3.2.4 Precision ...................................... IO-5 

10.3.2.5 Accuracy ...................................... 10-5 

10.4 Results for Completeness, Precision, and Accuracy .................... 1 O-6 

10.4.1 Completeness .......................................... 1 O-6 

10.4.2 Precision .............................................. 10-6 

10.4.3 Accuracy ............................................ 

xiv 
LIST OF FIGURES Paae 

Figure 2.1 

Figure 2.2 

Figure 2.3 

Figure 2.4 

Figure 2.5 

Figure 2.6 

Figure 2.7 

Figure 2.8 

Figure 2.9 

Figure 4.1 

Figure 4.2 

Figure 4.3 

Figure 4.4 

Figure 4.5 

Figure 4.6 

Figure 4.7 

Figure 4.8 

Figure 5.1 

Figure 5.2 

Figure 5.3 

Figure 5.4 

Figure 5.5 

Figure 5.6 

Figure 5.7 

Figure 5.8 

Figure 5.9 

Figure 5.10 

Figure 9.1 

Figure 9.2 

Figure 9.3 

Figure 9.4 

Figure 9.5 

Figure 9.6 

Figure 9.7 

Figure 9.8 

Figure 9.9 

Figure 9.10 

Figure 9.11 

Figure 9.12 

NTSLocation ................................................. 2-2 

NTS Area Designations, (A) Principal Facilities, and (0) Testing Areas ..... 2-4 

Location of Safety Tests on NTS and the Nellis Base Range ............. 2-5 

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

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

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

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

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

Laboratory Special Operations & Research Division) ................. 2-14 

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

Air Sampling Stations on the NTS - 1995 ............................ 4-2 

Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Stations on the NTS (+) - 1995 ............ 4-3 

Supply Well and Potable Water Sampling Stations on the NTS - 1995 ...... 4-4 

Surface Water Sampling Locations on the NTS - 1995 .................. 4-5 

ASN and PIC Station Locations - 1995 ............................. 4-10 

Milk Surveillance Network Stations - 1995 .......................... 4-12 

Onsite Collection Sites for Animals Sampled - 1995 ................... 4-14 

TLD Fixed Environmental Stations and Personnel 

Monitoring Participants - 1995 .................................. 4-15 

RWMS-5 Air Sampling Annual Average Results - 1995 . : ................ 5-3 

RWMS-5 HTO Annual Average Results - 1995 ........................ 5-4 

NTS Airborne Gross Beta Annual Average Concentrations - 1995 ......... 5-9 

NTS Airborne 239+240Pu Annual Average Results - 1995 ................. 5-l 0 

NTS *5Kr Annual Average Concentrations - 1995 ..................... 5-l 2 

NTS Tritiated Water Vapor Annual Average Concentrations - 1995 ........ 5-14 

Annual Average Gross Beta in Open Reservoirs (0) and 

Natural Springs (m) - 1995 ........................ .1 ........... 5-15 

Annual Average Gross Beta in Supply Wells (u) and Potable 

Water (0) - 1995 ............................................. 5-17 

Average Strontium Levels in Mule Deer, 1956 - 1995 .................. 5-22 

Distribution of Weekly Averages from Each PIC Network 

Station - 1995 ............................................... 5-23 

Areas of Potential Groundwater Contamination on the NTS .............. 9-5 

Wells on the NTS Included in the LTHMP .......................... 9-15 

Tritium Concentration Trends in Test Well B on the NTS ................ 9-16 

Wells Outside the NTS Included in the LTHMP. ...................... 9-17 

LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project FAULTLESS - 1995 ............. 9-l 9 

LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project SHOAL - 1995 ................. 9-20 

Tritium Results in Water from Smith/James Spring, Nevada. ............ 9-21 

LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project RULISON - 1995 ............... 9-22 

LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project RIO BLANCO, Colorado. ......... 9-23 

LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project GNOME - 1995 ................ 9-25 

LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project GASBUGGY - 1995 ............. 9-26 

LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project DRIBBLE, Near Ground 

Zero-1995 ................................................. 9-28 

YV 
List of Fiaures. cont. Paae 

Figure 9.13 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project DRIBBLE, Towns and 

Residences-1995 . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . ee.D . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . e..Oss. 9-29 

Figure 9.14 Tritium Results Trends in Baxterville, MS Public Drinking 

WaterSupply-1995.... . . . . . . . . . . n . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . 9-30 

Figure 9.15 Tritium Results in Well HM-S, SALMON Site, Project DRIBBLE - 1995 s . D . . 9-30 

xvi 
Table 1 .l 

Table 1.2 

Table 2.1 Non-NTS Nuclear Underground Test Sites , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-20 

Table 3.1 

Table 3.2 

Table 3.3 

Table 3.4 

Table 3.5 

Table 3.6 

Table 4.1 Summary of Onsite Environmental Surveillance Program - 1995 ........... 4-23 

Table 4.2 NTS Active Air Quality Permits - 1995 ............................... 4-24 

Table 4.3 Active Air Quality Permits, Non-NTS Facilities - 1995 .................... 4-25 

Table 4.4 NTS Drinking Water Supply System Permits - 1995 ..................... 4-25 

Table 4.5 Sewage Discharge Permits - 1995 .................................. 4-26 

Table 4.6 NTS Septic Waste Hauling Trucks .................................. 4-26 

Table 5.1 

Table 5.2 

Table 5.3 

Table 5.4 

Table 5.5 

Table 5.6 

Table 5.7 

Table 5.8 

Table 5.9 

Table 5.10 

Table 5.11 

Table 5.12 

Table 5.13 

Table 5.14 

Table 5.15 

Table 5.16 

Table 5.17 

Table 5.18 

Table 5.19 

Table 5.20 

Table 5.21 

Table 5.22 

Table 5.23 

LIST OF TABLES 

Radionuclide Emissions on the NTS - 1995(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-l 1 

Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations 

During1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11 

NESHAP Notifications to the State of Nevada for NTS Asbestos 

Activities - 1995 ............................................... 3-22 

Underground Storage Tank Activities - 1995 .......................... 3-22 

NTS Recycling Activities - 1995 .................................... 3-22 

Off-Normal Occurrences at NTS Facilities ............................ 3-23 

Off-Normal Environmental Occurrences at Off-NTS Support Facilities ....... 3-23 

Environmental Permit Summary - 1995 .............................. 3-24 

NTS Radionuclide Emissions - 1995 ................................ 5-25 

Airborne Gross Beta Concentrations on the NTS - 1995 ................. 5-26 

Airborne 23g+240 Pu Concentrations on the NTS - 1995 .................... 5-27 

Airborne *%Pu Concentrations on the NTS - 1995 ...................... 5-29 

Derived Limits for Radionuclides in Air and Water ...................... 5-30 

Summary of NTS *‘Kr Concentrations - 1995 .......................... 5-31 

Airborne Tritium Concentrations on the NTS - 1995 ..................... 5-31 

Radioactivity in NTS Surface Waters - 1995 ... : ...................... 5-32 

NTS Open Reservoir Gross Beta Analysis Results - 1995 ................ 5-32 

NTS Natural Spring Gross Beta Analysis Results - 1995 ................. 5-33 

NTS Containment Pond Gross Beta Analysis Results - 1995 .............. 5-33 

NTS Drinking Water Sources - 1995 ................................ 5-33 

NTS Supply Well Radioactivity Averages - 1995 ....................... 5-34 

Radioactivity Averages for NTS End-Use Consumption Points - 1995 ....... 5-34 

Radium Analysis Results for NTS Drinking Water - 1995 ................. 5-35 

NTS Boundary Gamma Monitoring Result Summary - 1995 .............. 5-35 

NTS TLD Control Station Comparison - 1989-l 995 ...................... 5-36 

Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1995 ......... 5-36 

Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1995 ........ 5-37 

Offsite Low Volume Airborne Plutonium Concentrations - 1995 ............ 5-37 

Summary of Radionuclides Detected in Milk Samples ................... 5-38 

Summary of Weekly Gamma Exposure Rates as Measured by 

Pressurized Ion Chambers - 1995 ................................. 5-38 

EG&G/EM Boundary Line Monitoring Data - 1995 ...................... 5-39 

xvii 
List of Tables. cont. Page 

Table 6.1 

Table 6.2 

Table 7.1 

Table 7.2 

Table 7.3 

Table 7.4 

Table 7.5 

Table 7.6 

Table 7.7 

Table 7.8 

Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS 

Operations During 1995 ......................................... 6-5 

Monitoring Networks Data used in Dose Calculations ................... 6-5 

Monthly Monitoring Results for NTS Potable-Water Systems - 1995(a) ........ 7-5 

lnfluent Quality ....................................... ; ......... 7-6 

Organic Loading Rates for 1995 .................................... 7-6 

Pond Water Depths in Infiltration Basins .............................. 7-7 

lnfluent Toxics for Facilities that Receive Industrial Wastewater ............ 7-8 

Sampling Data for Infiltration Ponds Containing 30 cm or More ............ 7-l 0 

Quantity of Waste Disposed of in Landfills - 1995 ...................... 7-11 

Number of RCRA Samples Analyzed - 1995 .......................... 7-l 1 

Table 8.1 

Table 8.2 

Table 8.3 

Table 8.4 

Table 8.5 

Table 8.6 

Low-Level Waste Disposed of at RWMS-5 for 1993-l 995 ................. 8-7 

Radionuclides Disposed of at the RWMS-5 During 1995 .................. 8-7 

Low-Level Waste Disposed of at RWMS-3 for 1993-l-995 ................. 8-7 

Radionuclides Disposed of at RWMS-3 During 1995 ..................... 8-8 

Air Monitoring Results for Various Radionuclides at RWMS-5 

for1994-1995 ................................................. 8-8 

External Gamma Exposure Measured by TLDs at the RWMS .............. 8-8 

Table 9.1 

Table 9.2 

Table 9.3 

Table 9.4 

Table 9.5 

Locations with Detectable Man-Made Radioactivity in 1995(a) ............. 9-31 

Groundwater Monitoring Parameters at the RWMS-5 ................... 9-32 

NTS Facilities with RCRA Closure Plans ............................. 9-32 

Sample Activities from U-7ba psl as ................................ 9-32 

Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Summary of Tritium Results 

for NevadaTest Site Network, 1995 ............................... 9-33 

Table 10.1 Precision Objectives Expressed as Percents .......................... 1 O-9 

Table 10.2 Accuracy Objectives Expressed as Percent Bias ....................... IO-9 

Table 10.3 Analysis Completeness Data for Calendar Year 1995 .................. 1 O-l 0 

Table 10.4 Precision Estimates from Replicate Sampling - 1995 ................... 1 O-l 0 

Table 10.5 Accuracy of RSL-LV Radioanalyses (EML QAP and PESP) - 1995 ........ 1 O-1 1 

Table 10.6 Accuracy of ASD Radioanalyses (PESP and EML QAP) -’ 1995 .......... 1 O-l 2 

. . . 

XVIII 
MEASUREMENT UNITS AND NOMENCLATURE 

Radioactivity data in this report are expressed in curies, microcuries (one millionth of a curie), 

and picocuries (one millionth of a millionth). The curie (Ci) is the customary unit used to express 

the rate of atomic nuclei transformations that occur each second. A curie is 37 billion (37 x 10’) 

nuclear transformations per second. The unit of becquerel is also used. A becquerel (Bq) is 

equal to one disintegration per second; therefore, it takes 3.7 x 10” becquerels to equal one 

curie. 

The roentgen (R) is the customary unit used to describe the intensity of.gamma radiation at a 

given measurement point (in air). The radiation exposure rate to external sources of penetrating 

radioactivity is expressed in milliroentgens per hour (mR/h), or one-thousandth of a roentgen per 

hour. Radiation exposure rates in the U.S. from natural radioactivity of cosmic and terrestrial 

origin typically vary between 0.005 and 0.025 mR/h. 

The rem (for roentgen equivalent man) is a unit describing dose equivalent, or the energy 

imparted to human tissue when exposed to radiation. Dose is expressed in rem, millirem (mrem), 

or microrem @rem). A typical annual dose rate from natural radioactivity (excluding exposure to 

radon) is 100 to 130 mrem per year. The unit of sievert (Sv) is also used. One sievert is 

equivalent to 100 rem. 

The elements and corresponding symbols used in this report are: 

Element Symbol Element Symbol 

Argon 

Arsenic 

Boron 

Barium 

Beryllium 

Bromine 

Carbon 

Calcium 

Cadmium 

Chlorine 

Cobalt 

Chromium 

Cesium 

Copper 

Hydrogen 

Potassium 

Krypton 

Ar 

As 

B 

Ba 

Be 

Be 

C 

Ca 

Cd 

Cl 

co 

Cr 

cs 

cu 

H 

K 

Kr 

Lithium 

Nitrogen 

Oxygen 

Lead 

Plutonium 

Radium 

Radon 

Selenium 

Sulfur 

Strontium 

Technetium 

Thorium 

Thulium 

Tritium 

Uranium 

Xenon 

Zinc 

Li 

N 

0 

Pb 

Pu 

Ra 

Rn 

Se 

S 

Sr 

Tc 

Th 

Tm 

3H 

U 

Xe 

Zn 

viv 
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND EXPRESSIONS 

ADTS 

AEC 

AIRFA 

AIHA 

AlARA 

ALI 

AMEM 

ANSI 

APCD 

ARUSORD 

ASD 

ASER 

ASN 

AVO 

BECAMP 

BN 

BOD 

BoFF 

CAA 

CAP88-PC 

CCHD 

CCSD 

CEDE 

CEI 

CERCLA 

C.F.R. 

CLP 

CP 

CRMP 

CWA 

cx 

DAC 

DAF 

DCG 

DDR 

DNA 

DOD 

DOE 

DOE/HQ 

DOELAP 

DOE/NV 

DOT 

DQO 

DRI 

EA 

EDE 

EG&G 

EG&G/EM 

Automated Deficiency Tracking System 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

American Industrial Hygiene Association 

as low as reasonably achievable 

Annual Limit of Intake 

Assistant Manager for Environmental Restoration and Waste Management 

American National Standard Institute 

Air Pollution Control District 

Air Resource Laboratory Special Operations and Research Division 

REECo Analytical Services Department 

Annual Site Environmental Report 

Air Surveillance Network (RSL-LV) 

Amador Valley Operations, EG&G/EM 

Basic Environmental Compliance and Monitoring Program 

Bechtel Nevada 

biochemical oxygen demand 

Bureau of Federal Facilities 

Clean Air Act 

EPA software program for estimating doses 

Clark County Health Department 

Clark County Sanitation District 

Committed effective dose equivalent 

Compliance Evaluation Inspection 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Contract Laboratory Program (EPA) 

Control Point 

Community Radiation Monitoring Program 

Clean Water Act 

Categorical Exclusion 

Derived Air Concentration 

Device Assembly Facility 

Derived Concentration Guide 

Data Discrepancy Report 

Defense Nuclear Agency 

U.S. Department of Defense 

U.S. Department of Energy 

DOE Headquarters 

DOE Laboratory Accreditation Program 

DOE Nevada Operations Office 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Data Quality Objectives 

Desert Research Institute 

Environmental Assessment 

Effective dose equivalent 

Edgerton, Germeshausen, & Grier 

EG&G/Energy Measurements, Inc. 

xxi 
List of Acronyms and Expressions. cont. 

EHS 

Eh 

EIS 

EIS/ODIS 

EMAD 

EML 

EMSULV 

EOD 

EPA 

EPD 

EPTox 

ERP 

ERPESP 

ESA 

ES&H 

ESS&H 

FFA 

FFCA 

FIFRA 

FOAV 

Gbq 

GCD 

GIS 

GMX 

GOES 

GSD 

GZ 

HEPA 

HPD 

HRMP 

HSWA 

HTO 

HWAS 

ICRP 

ID 

IH 

IT 

JIT 

KAFB 

KO 

LANL 

LAO 

LCS 

LDR 

LGFSTF 

LINAC 

LLD 

LLNL 

LLW 

LTHMP 

LVAO 

Extremely Hazardous Substances 

Oxidation potential 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Environmental Information System/Onsite Discharge Information System 

Engine Maintenance, Assembly and Disassembly 

Environmental Measurements Laboratory 

Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

DOE Environmental Protection Division 

extraction procedure toxicity 

Environmental Restoration Project 

Environmental Radioactivity Performance Evaluation Studies Program 

Endangered Species Act 

Environment, Safety, and Health 

Environment, Safety, Security, & Health 

Federal Facilities Agreement 

Federal Facilities Compliance Act 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

Finding of Alleged Violation 

Giga Bequerel (x 10’) 

Greater Confinement Disposal 

geographical information system 

Gadgets, Mechanics and Explosives 

Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 

Goleta Sanitation District 

ground zero 

high-efficiency particulate filter 

REECo Health Protection Department 

Hydrologic Resources Management Program 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 

tritiated water 

Hazardous Waste Accumulation Storage 

International Commission on Radiological Protection 

identification 

REECo Industrial Hygiene 

International Technology Corp. 

Just-in-Time 

Kirtland Air Force Base 

Kirtland Operations, EG&G/EM 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Los Alamos Operations, EG&G/EM 

laboratory control standard 

Land Disposal Restrictions 

Liquified Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility 

linear accelerator 

lower limit of-detection 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

low-level (radioactive) waste 

Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program (RSL-LV) 

Las Vegas Area Operations, EG&G/EM 

xxii 
MCL 

MDA 

MDC 

MEI 

MGD 

MOU 

MQO 

MSL 

MSN 

MWMU 

NAC 

NAEG 

NAFB 

NAGPRA 

NDEP 

NEPA 

NERL-LV 

NESHAP 

NEST 

NGTSN 

NIOSH 

NIST 

NLV 

NLVF 

NOAA 

NPDES 

NPL 

NPS 

NR 

NRC 

NRS 

NTS 

NTSO 

NV-ERP 

NVLAP 

offsite 

onsite 

O&M 

OP 

OR 

ORNL 

ORSP 

OSHA 

PCB 

PESP 

PH 

PHS 

PIG 

POTW 

PPOA 

wb 

Maximum Contaminant Levels 

minimum detectable activity 

minimum detectable concentration 

maximally exposed individual 

million gallons per day 

memorandum of understanding 

Measurement Quality Objectives 

mean sea level 

Milk Surveillance Network (RSL-LV) 

Mixed Waste Management Unit 

Nevada Administrative Code 

Nevada Applied Ecology Group 

Nellis Air Force Base 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Exposure Research Laboratory - Las Vegas 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Nuclear Emergency Search Team 

Noble Gas and Tritium Surveillance Network (RSL-LV) 

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

North Las Vegas, Nevada 

North Las Vegas Facility 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

National Priority List 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places 

National Response Center 

Nevada Revised Statutes 

Nevada Test Site 

DOE Nevada Test Site Operations 

Nevada Environmental Restoration Project 

National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 

in the immediate area off the NTS 

on the NTS 

Operations and Maintenance 

Operating Permit 

Occurrence Report 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Offsite Radiological Safety Program 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

polychlorinated biphenyl 

Performance Evaluation Studies Program 

Hydrogen ion concentration 

U.S. Public Health Service 

pressurized ion chamber 

Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessments 

parts per billion 

. . . XXIII 
PPm parts per million 

QA quality assurance 

QAP Quality Assessment Program 

QC quality control 

QSG Quality Support Group 

RC residual chlorine 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

R&D Research and Development 

REECo Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Company, Inc. 

RIDP Radionuclide Inventory and Distribution Program 

RI/FS remedial investigation and feasibility study 

RNMS Radionuclide Migration Study 

RPD relative percent difference 

RSD EPA Radiation Science Division 

RSD relative standard deviation 

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory 

RSL-LV EPA Radiation Sciences Laboratory - Las Vegas 

RSN Raytheon Services Nevada 

RWMS Radioactive Waste Management Site 

RWMS-3 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 3 

RWMS-5 Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 5 

S sample standard deviation 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SASN Standby Air Surveillance Network (RSL-LV) 

SBO Santa Barbara Operations, EG&G/EM 

SC Specific Conductance 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SGZ surface ground zero 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

SMSY Strategic Materials Storage Yard 

SMSN Standby Milk Surveillance Network (RSL-LV) 

SNL Sandia National Laboratories 

SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

STL Special Technologies Laboratory, EG&G/EM 

TCA thermal curve adapter 

IDS total dissolved solids 

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TMI Three Mile Island 

TP TRU Pad 

TRU transuranic 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

TSD Treatment, Storage and Disposal 

TSS total suspended solids 

-l-l-R Tonopah Test Range 

UCB University California, Berkeley 

UCLA University of California, Los Angeles 

UGTA Underground Test Area 

UNLV University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

URDS upper respiratory disease syndrome 

USDI United States Department of Interior 

List of Acronvms and Exoressions. cont. 

xxiv 
List of Acronvms and Expressions. cont. 

USAF 

USFWS 

USGS 

UST 

UTM 

VCA 

voc 

WAMO 

WC0 

WHO 

WOD 

WIPP 

WM & PPAP 

United State Air Force 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

underground storage tank 

Universal Transverse Mercator 

Voluntary Compliance Agreement 

volatile organic compound 

Washington Aerial Measurements Operations, EG&G/EM 

Woburn Cathode Ray Tube Operations, EG&G/EM 

World Health Organization 

REECo Waste Operations Department 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

Waste Minimization & Pollution Prevention Awareness Plan 

xxv 
1.0 SUMMARY 

Monitoring and surveillance on and around the Nevada Test Site (NTS) by U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) contractors and NTS user organizations during 

1995 indicated that operations on the NTS were conducted in compliance with 

applicable federal and DOE regulations and guidelines. All discharges of 

radioactive liquids remained onsite in containment ponds, and there was no 

indication of potential migration of radioactivity to the offsite area through 

groundwater. Surveillance around the NTS indicated that airborne radioactivity 

from diffusion, evaporation of effluents, or resuspension was not detectable 

offsite, and no measurable net exposure to members of the offsite population 

was detected through the offsite dosimetry program. Using the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) CAPS&-PC model and NTS 

radionuclide emissions and environmental monitoring data, the calculated 

effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed individual offsite would 

have been 0.18 mrem. This value is less than two percent of the federal dose 

limit due to radionuclide air emissions. Any person receiving this dose would 

also have received 144 mrem from natural background radiation. There were 

no nonradiological releases to the offsite area. Hazardous wastes were 

shipped offsite to approved disposal facilities. Compliance with the various 

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

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

waste management have been obtained from the appropriate agencies. 

Cooperation with other agencies has resulted in seven different consent orders 

and agreements. 

Support facilities at off-NTS locations complied with the requirements of air 

quality permits and state or local wastewater discharge and hazardous waste 

permits. 

1 .I ENVIRONMENTAL 

MANAGEMENT 

l==n he DOE Nevada Operations Office 

(DOE/NV) is committed to increasing 

the quality of its management of NTS 

u environmental resources. This has 

been promoted by the establishment 

of an Environmental Protection Division and a 

Health Protection Division within the Office of 

Environment, Safety, Security, and Health 

(ESS&H) and upgrading the Environmental 

Management activities to the Assistant 

Manager level to address those environmental 

issues that arise in the course of performing 

the primary mission of the DOE/NV, 

underground testing of nuclear explosive 

devices. An environmental survey in 1987 and 

a Tiger Team assessment in 1989 identified 

numerous issues that had to be resolved 

1-l 

before DOE/NV could be considered to be 

in full compliance with environmental laws 

and regulations. At the end of 1995, all of 

the 149 Tiger Team findings had been 

satisfied. Progress on corrective actions to 

bring operations into compliance have been 

reported to DOE Headquarters (DOUHQ) 

Office of ESS&H in a Quarterly Compliance 

Action Report. 

Operational releases of radioactivity were 

reported soon after their occurrence to the 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory 

through Environmental Information 

SystemIOnsite Discharge Information 

System (EIS/ODIS) reports. In compliance 

with the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), the 

accumulated annual data from these reports 

are used each year as input to the EPA’s 

CAP88-PC software program to calculate 
potential effective dose equivalents to people 

living beyond the boundaries of the NTS and 

the surrounding exclusion areas. 

1.2 RADIOLOGICAL 

ENVIRONMENT 

Radiological effluents in the form of air 

emissions and liquid discharges are released 

into the environment as a routine part of 

operations on the NTS. Radioactivity in liquid 

discharges released to onsite waste treatment 

or disposal systems (containment ponds) is 

monitored to assess the efficacy of treatment 

and control and to provide a quantitative and 

qualitative annual summary of released 

radioactivity. Air emissions are monitored for 

source characterization and operational safety 

as well as for environmental surveillance 

purposes. 

Air emissions in 1995 consisted primarily of 

small amounts of tritium, radioactive noble 

gases, and plutonium released to the 

atmosphere that were attributed to: 

Diffusion of tritiated water (HTO) vapor in 

atmospheric moisture from evaporation of 

tritiated water from tunnel and 

characterization well containment ponds. 

Continuing seepage of radioactive noble 

gases from higher yield (>20 kt) tests 

previously conducted on Pahute Mesa. 

Diffuse emissions calculated from the 

results of environmental surveillance 

activities. 

Resuspension of plutonium as measured 

with air sampling equipment or calculated 

by use of resuspension equations. 

Diffuse emissions included HTO, only slightly 

above detection limits, from the Radioactive 

Waste Management Site in Area 5 (RWMS-5), 

resuspended 23gc240Pu from areas on the NTS 

where it was deposited by atmospheric nuclear 

or device safety tests, and *‘Kr from Pahute 

Mesa. Table 1 .I shows the quantities of 

radionuclides released from all sources, 

including postulated loss of laboratory 

standards. None of the radioactive 

materials listed in this table were detected 

above ambient levels in the offsite area. 

Onsite liquid discharges to containment 

ponds included approximately 283 Ci (10.5 

TBq) of tritium. This was about six times 

last year’s tritium releases because of 

effluent from characterization wells drilled in 

Area 20 this year. Evaporation of this 

material could have contributed HTO to the 

atmosphere, but the amounts were too 

small to be detected by the tritium monitors 

offsite. No liquid effluents were discharged 

to offsite areas. 

1.2.1 ONSITE ENVIRONMENTAL 

SURVEILLANCE 

Environmental surveillance on the 3500 km2 

(1350 mi’) NTS is designed to cover the 

entire area with some emphasis on areas of 

past nuclear testing and present operational 

activities. In 1995, there were 57 samplers 

for air particulates and reactive gases; 17 

samplers collecting HTO in atmospheric 

moisture, and 6 samplers collecting air for 

analysis of noble gas content. Grab 

samples were collected frequently from 

water supply wells, springs, open reservoirs, 

containment ponds, and sewage lagoons. 

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were 

placed at 168 locations on the NTS. 

Data from these networks are summarized 

as annual averages for each monitored 

location. Those locations with concentrations 

above the NTS average are assumed to 

reflect onsite emissions. These emissions 

arise from diffuse (areal) sources and from 

particular operational activities; e.g., 

radioactivity buried in the Low-Level Waste 

(LLW) site. 

Approximately 2500 air samples were 

analyzed by gamma spectroscopy. All 

isotopes detected by gamma spectroscopy 

were naturally occurring in the environment 

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

thorium series), except for a few instances 
where very low levels of 13’Cs were detected. 

The gross beta annual average for the air 

sampling network was 2.0 x 1 cl4 uCi/mL (0.74 

mBq/m3). Plutonium analyses of monthly or 

quarterly composited air filters indicated an 

annual arithmetic average below 1O”6 uCi/mL 

(4 uBq/m3) of 23g+240Pu and below 10 -” 

pCi/mL (0.04 uBq/m3) of 236Pu for all locations 

during 1995, with the majority of results for 

both isotopes being on the order of lo-l8 

pCi/mL (0.04 uBq/m3). A slightly higher 

average was found in samples in certain areas, 

but that level was calculated to be only 0.01 

percent of the Derived Air Concentration (DAC) 

for exposure to the public. Higher than 

background levels of plutonium are to be 

expected in some air samples because 

atmospheric testing in the 1950s and nuclear 

safety tests (where chemical explosives were 

used to blow apart nuclear devices) deposited 

plutonium on a small portion of the surface of 

the NTS.. 

The annual average concentration of 85Kr from 

the six noble gas monitoring stations was 

28 x lo-‘* uCi/mL (1 Bq/m3). This concentration 

is similar to that reported in previous years and 

is attributed to worldwide distribution of 85Kr 

from the use of nuclear technology. 

Throughout the year, atmospheric moisture 

was collected for two-week periods at 17 

locations on the NTS and analyzed for HTO 

content. The annual arithmetic average of (3.7 

f 7.0) x 1 U6 pCi/mL (0.13 * 0.26 Bq/m ) was 

similar to last year’s average. The locations on 

the border of the RWMS-5 and at the Area 10, 

SEDAN Crater had the highest concentrations. 

The primary radioactive liquid discharge to the 

onsite environment in 1995 was 261 Ci of 

tritium in effluent generated during drilling of 

characterization wells in Area 20. Seepage 

from test Tunnel E in Rainier Mesa (Area 

12)contributed 20 million liters of water 

containing about 21 Ci (1.8 Tbq) of tritium to 

containment ponds near the tunnels. For dose 

calculations, all of the HTO was assumed to 

have evaporated. 

Surface water sampling was conducted 

quarterly at 15 open reservoirs, 8 springs, 1 

containment pond, and 11 sewage lagoons. A 

1-3 

grab sample was taken from each of these 

surface water sites for analysis of gross 

beta, tritium, gamma-emitters, and 

plutonium isotopes. Strontium-90 was 

analyzed once per year for each location. 

Water samples from the springs, reservoirs, 

and lagoons contained background levels of 

gross beta, tritium, plutonium, and 

strontium. Samples collected from the 

containment pond contained detectable 

levels of radioactivity as would be expected. 

Water from onsite supply wells and 

distribution systems was ‘sampled and 

analyzed for radionuclides. The supply well 

average gross beta activity of 8.1 x 1 Oeg 

pCi/mL (0.3 Bq/L) was 3 percent of the 

Derived Concentration Guide (DCG) for 40K 

(used for comparison purposes); gross 

alpha was 6.4 x IO“ uCi/mL (0.24 Bq/L), 

which was 40 percent of the drinking water 

standard; 90Sr was measured at 0.23 x 16” 

uCi/mL (0.9 Bq/L), about 1 percent of the 

DCG; 3H concentrations averaged about 

0.26 x lo-’ uCi/mL (9.6 mBq/L), less than 

0.006 percent of the DCG; 239+240Pu was -0.9 

x 1 O-l* uCi/mL ( -0.3 x 1 OS4 Bq/L), and 238Pu 

was 0.18 x lo“* @i/ml (6.7 uBq/L), both 

below detectable levels. 

Analysis of the TLD network showed that 

the 15 boundary station locations had an 

annual average exposure of 114 mR, and 

the 9 control stations annual average was 

92 mR, both within the range of values 

previously reported. 

1.2.2 OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL 

SURVEILLANCE 

The offsite radiological monitoring program 

is conducted around the NTS by the EPA’s 

Radiation Sciences Laboratory-Las Vegas 

(RSL-LV), under an Interagency Agreement 

with DOE. This program consists of several 

environmental sampling, radiation detection, 

and dosimetry networks that are described 

below. These networks operated 

continuously during 1995. 

The Air Surveillance Network (ASN) was 

made up of 20 continuously operating 

sampling locations surrounding the NTS. 
The ASN stations included 18 located at 

Community Radiation Monitoring Program 

(CRMP) stations, described below. During 

1995, no airborne radioactivity related to 

current activities at the NTS was detected on 

any sample from the ASN. Other than naturally 

occurring ‘Be, the only specific radionuclide 

possibly detected by this network was 238Pu or 

23g+240Pu on a few air filter samples. 

The Milk Surveillance Network (MSN) consisted 

of 10 sampling locations within 300 km (186 mi) 

of the NTS. Tritium and “Sr are rarely 

detected in milk samples at present and “Sr is 

practically never detected. The levels in the 

milk network have decreased over time since 

reaching a maximum in 1964. The results from 

this network are consistent with previous data 

and indicate little or no change. 

Other foods have been analyzed regularly, 

most of which were meat from domestic or 

game animals collected on and around the 

NTS. This year, only one deer from the NTS 

was sampled and analyzed. The “Sr levels in 

samples of animal bone remained very low, as 

did 23g+240Pu in both bone and liver samples. 

In 1995, external exposure was monitored by a 

network of 47 TLDs and 27 pressurized ion 

chambers (PICs). The PIC network in the 

communities surrounding the NTS indicated 

background exposures, ranging from 72 to 164 

mR/yr, that were consistent with previous data 

and well within the range of background data in 

other areas of the U.S. Internal exposure was 

assessed by whole-body counting through use 

of a single germanium detector, lung counting 

with six semi-planar detectors, and bioassay 

through radiochemical procedures. In 1995, 

counts were made on 60 individuals. In the 

participants, the spectra obtained were 

representative of natural background with only 

normal 40K being detected. No transuranics 

were detected in any lung counting data. 

Sampling of Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring 

Program (LTHMP) wells and surface waters 

around the NTS showed only background 

radionuclide concentrations. The LTHMP also 

included groundwater and surface water 

monitoring at locations in Colorado, Mississipp.i, 

1-4 

New Mexico, and Nevada where 

underground tests were conducted. The 

results obtained from analysis of samples 

collected at those locations were consistent 

with previous data except for a sample from 

a deep well at Project GASBUGGY where 

the tritium concentration continues to 

increase and 13’Cs has been detected. No 

concentrations of radioactivity that were 

detected in air, water, milk, or animal 

samples posed any significant health risk. 

A network of 18 CRMP stations was 

operated by local residents. Each station 

was an integral part of the ASN and TLD 

networks. In addition, they were equipped 

with a PIC connected to a gamma-rate 

recorder. Each station also had satellite 

telemetry transmitting equipment so that 

gamma exposure measurements acquired 

by the PlCs are transmitted via the 

Geostationary Operational Environmental 

Satellite (GOES) to the NTS and from there 

to the RSL-LV by dedicated telephone line. 

Samples and data from these CRMP 

stations were analyzed and reported by 

RSL-LV and interpreted and reported by the 

Desert Research Institute (DRI), University 

of Nevada system. All measurements for 

1995 were consistent with previous years 

and were within the normal background 

range for the U.S. 

Although no radioactivity attributable to 

current NTS operations was detected by 

any of the offsite monitoring networks, 

based on the NTS releases reported in 

Table 1 .l , an atmospheric dispersion model 

calculation CAP88-PC indicated that the 

maximum potential effective dose equivalent 

to any offsite individual would have been 

0.18 mrem (1.8 x lo4 mSv), and the dose to 

the population within 80 km of the emission 

sites would have been 0.53 person-rem (5.3 

x lo” person-Sv). The hypothetical person 

receiving this dose would also have been 

exposed to 144 mrem from natural 

background radiation. A summary of the 

potential effective dose equivalents due to 

operations at the NTS is presented in Table 1.2. 
1.2.3 ECOLOGICAL STUDIES 

In 1995; DOE/NV reviewed the ecological 

monitoring studies conducted under Basic 

Environmental Compliance and Monitoring 

Program (BECAMP) over the past eight years. 

These studies monitored the flora and fauna on 

the NTS to assess changes in ecological 

conditions over time. Data were summarized 

from previous years’ studies of vegetation, 

small mammals, and lizards conducted on 

disturbed and undisturbed areas of the NTS. 

Data for these studies were not collected in 

1995 during the study review and data 

summarization efforts. Work began on 

redesigning an ecological monitoring plan for 

DOE/NV activities on NTS to address changes 

in DOE/NV missions and policies. 

Monitoring of feral horses continued for the 

sixth consecutive year. All horses, including 

foals, were individually identified. Selected 

water sources on the NTS were surveyed to 

evaluate their effect on the distribution of 

horses. In addition, field surveys of chukar 

were initiated in 1995 to assess their 

reproductive success and relative abundance 

on the NTS. The Nevada Department of 

Wildlife received permission from DOE/NV to 

trap and relocate NTS chukar. Eighty-six 

chukar were removed from three areas on the 

NTS. 

1.2.4 LOW-LEVEL WASTE 

DISPOSAL 

l-5 

Environmental monitoring at the RWMS, Area 3 

(RWMSS) has detected plutonium in air 

samples. However, plutonium was detected in 

other air samples from Area 3 indicating that 

the source is resuspended plutonium. 

Elevated levels of plutonium have been 

detected in air samples from several areas on 

the NTS where operational activities and 

vehicular traffic resuspend plutonium for 

detection by air sampling. The presence of 

plutonium on the NTS is primarily due to 

atmospheric and safety tests conducted in the 

1950s and 1960s. These tests spread 

plutonium in the eastern and northeastern 

areas of the NTS (see Chapter 2, Figure 

2.3, for these locations). Environmental 

monitoring at and around RWMS-5 indicated 

that radioactivity was just detectable at, but 

not beyond, the waste site boundaries. This 

monitoring included air sampling, water 

sampling, tritium migration studies, and 

external gamma exposure measurement. 

Vadose zone monitoring for hazardous 

constituents has been installed in the mixed 

waste disposal pit (Pit 3) in RWMS-5 as a 

method of detecting any downward 

migration of mixed waste. 

1.2.5 RADIOLOGICAL 

MONITORING AT OFFSITE 

SUPPORT FACILITIES 

Fence line monitoring, using Panasonic UD814 TLDs, was conducted at EG&G Energy 

Measurements, Inc., (EG&G/EM) facilities in 

North Las Vegas, at Nellis Air Force Base, 

and in Santa Barbara, California. The 1995 

results indicated that only background 

radiation was detected at the fence line. A 

‘small amount of tritium was accidently 

released from a calibration range building in 

North Las Vegas. Fence line monitoring of 

the release provided data for input into the 

CAP88-PC program for calculating offsite 

exposures. The maximum offsite exposure 

was calculated to be only 0.0006 mrem, far 

below the EPA permissible limit of 10 mrem. 

1.3 NONRADIOLOGICAL 

MONITORING 

Nonradiological environmental monitoring of 

NTS operations involved only onsite 

monitoring because there were no 

nonradiological hazardous material 

discharges offsite. The primary 

environmental permit areas for the NTS 

were monitored to verify compliance with 

ambient air quality and the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

requirements. Air emissions sources 
common to the NTS included particulates from 

construction, aggregate production, and 

surface disturbances, fugitive dust from 

unpaved roads; fuel burning equipment, open 

burning, and fuel storage facilities. NTS 

environmental permits active during 1995, 

which were issued by the state of Nevada or 

federal agencies included 16 air quality permits 

involving emissions from construction operation 

facilities, boilers, storage tanks, and open 

burning; 8 permits for onsite drinking water 

distribution systems; 1 permit for sewage 

discharges to lagoon collection systems; 8 

permits for septage hauling; 1 incidental take 

permit for the threatened desert tortoise: and 3 

permits for wildlife handling, collection; and 

salvage. RCRA Part A and Part B permit 

applications, based on comments made by the 

state of Nevada, continued .during 1995. 

Non-NTS EG&G/EM permits included 17 air 

pollution control permits and 4 sewage 

discharge permits. Five EPA Generator 

Identification (ID) numbers were issued to six 

EG&G/EM operations, and three local RCRArelated permits were required at two EG&G/EM 

operations. 

The only nonradiological air emissions of 

regulatory concern under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) were due to asbestos removal during 

building renovation projects and from insulated 

piping at various locations onsite. During 1995, 

three state of Nevada notifications were made, 

and one of these projects required notification 

to EPA Region 9. Reynolds Electrical 

Engineering Co., Inc., (REECo) colleoted and 

analyzed bulk, occupational, environmental, 

and clearance samples for these projects. The 

annual estimate for non-scheduled asbestos 

demolition/renovation for 1996 was sent to EPA 

Region 9 in November 1995. 

RCRA required monitoring included waste 

management and environmental compliance 

activities that necessitated the analysis of soil, 

water, sediment, and oil samples. Low levels 

of targeted chemicals were found in several 

samples. 

As there are no liquid discharges to navigable 

waters, offsite surface water drainage systems, 

or publicly owned treatment works, no Clean 

Water Act (CWA), National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits were required for NTS operations. 

Under the conditions of state of Nevada 

operating permits, liquid discharges to 13 

onsite sewage lagoons are regularly tested 

for biochemical oxygen demand, pH, and 

total suspended solids. In addition to the 

state-required monitoring, these influents 

were ‘also tested for RCRA-related 

constituents as an internal initiative to 

further protect the NTS environment. 

In compliance with the Safe Drinking Water 

Act (SDWA) and eight state of Nevada 

drinking water supply system permits for 

onsite ,distribution systems supplied by 

onsite wells, drinking water systems are 

sampled monthly for residual chlorine, pH, 

bacteria, and, less frequently, for other 

water quality parameters. Federal and state 

standards for fluorides and pH were slightly 

exceeded in the water system. In the case 

of fluorides, the state granted a variance to 

exceed secondary fluoride standards as 

long as primary standards were met. For 

exceedance of the pH standard, the state 

has been contacted to assist in developing 

a mitigation plan. 

Monitoring for polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs) as required by the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA) involved analysis of 106 

various samples. Eleven sample results 

with concentrations greater than five parts 

per million PCBs were reported. 

At the Liquified Gaseous Fuels Spill Test 

Facility (LGFSTF), 5 series of spill tests 

using 24 different chemicals were 

conducted during 1995. None of the tests 

generated enough airborne contaminants to 

be detected at the NTS boundary during or 

after the tests. Boundary monitoring was 

performed by RSL-LV personnel. 

1.4 COMPLIANCE 

ACTIVITIES 

DOE/NV is required to comply with various 

environmental laws and regulations in the 

conduct of its operations. Monitoring 
activities required for compliance with the CAA, 

CWA, SDWA, TSCA, and RCRA are 

summarized above. Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) activities include compliance with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

Biological Opinion on the NTS Activities, 

USFWS Biological Opinion on Forty-mile 

Canyon Activities, and preparation of Biological 

Assessments. Also, NEPA activities included 

action on 11 Environmental Impact Statements 

(EIS), 10 Environmental Assessments (EA) and 

47 Categorical Exclusions (CX). Of these, 

only the categorical exclusions were initiated in 

1995. 

Wastewater discharges at the NTS are not 

regulated under NPDES permits because all 

such discharges are to onsite sewage lagoons. 

Discharges to these lagoons are permitted 

under the Nevada Water Pollution Control Act. 

Wastewater discharges from the non-NTS 

support facilities of EG&G/EM were within the 

regulated levels established by city or county 

publicly owned treatment works. 

During 1995, nine underground storage tanks 

were removed in accordance with state and 

federal regulations (see Chapter 3, Table 3.2). 

Reportable releases were discovered with the 

removal of three tanks in Area 25 at the Control 

Building, the Power House, and the Radiation 

Safety Building. Remedial activities are 

planned for 1996 at these release sites 

providing funding becomes available. 

In 1995, a cultural resource survey was 

conducted for historical and archaeological 

sites on Rainier Mesa and a report on the 

findings prepared. One data-recovery project 

that began in 1994 was completed. A paper 

entitled “Cultural Chronology of Pahute and 

Rainier Mesas” was completed. 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) directs federal agencies to consult 

with Native Americans to protect their right to 

exercise their traditional religions. In 1995, 5 

elders from 17 tribal groups examined almost 

300 items from DOE/NV’s collection and 

recommended that nearly all be placed in 

perpetuity beneath the ground. 

1.5 GROUNDWATER 

PROTECTION 

The DOE/NV instituted a LTHMP in 1972 to 

be operated by the EPA under an 

Interagency Agreement. Groundwater was 

monitored on and around the NTS, at five 

sites in other states, and at two off-NTS 

locations in Nevada in 1995 to detect the 

presence of any radioactivity that may be 

related to nuclear testing activities. No 

radioactivity was detected above 

background levels in the groundwater 

sampling network surrounding the NTS. 

Low levels of tritium, in the form of HTO, 

were detected in onsite wells as has 

occurred previously. None exceeded 33 

percent of the National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulation level. 

Tritiated water was detected in samples 

from wells at formerly utilized sites, such as 

DRIBBLE (Mississippi), GNOME (New 

Mexico), and GASBUGGY (New Mexico) at 

levels consistent with previous experience. 

The tritium concentration in Well EPNGI O-36 

at GASBUGGY continued the increase that 

began about 1984, and 13’Cs was detected 

for the fourth year in a row. 

Because wells that were drilled for water 

supply or exploratory purposes are used in 

the NTS monitoring program rather than 

wells drilled specifically for groundwater 

monitoring, a program of well drilling for 

groundwater characterization has been 

started. The design of the program is for 

installation or recompletion of groundwater 

characterization wells at strategic locations 

on and near the NTS. Through 1995,13 of 

these wells have been drilled and 11 

existing wells recompleted for a total of 24. 

Of these, two .wells were drilled in 1995, 

and water quality parameters are being 

collected for future use in the 

characterization project. 

l-7 
Other activities in this program included studies 

of groundwater transport of contaminants 

(radionuclide migration studies) and 

nonradiological monitoring for water quality 

assessment and RCRA requirements. 

1.6 RADIOACTIVE AND MIXED 

WASTE STORAGE AND 

DISPOSAL 

Two radioactive waste disposal facilities are 

.operated on the NTS: the RWMS-5 and the 

RWMS-3. During 1995, the RWMSs received 

LLW generated at the NTS and other DOE 

facilities. Waste is disposed of in shallow pits, 

trenches in the RWMS-5, and in selected 

craters in the RWMS-3. Transuranic and TRU 

mixed wastes are stored on a curbed asphalt 

pad on pallets in overpacked 55 gallon drums 

and assorted steel boxes pending shipment to 

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New 

Mexico. The RWMS-3 is used for disposal of 

bulk LLW waste and LLW that is contained in 

packages that are larger than the specified 

standard size used at the RWMS5. 

Environmental monitoring at both sites included 

air sampling for radioactive particulates and 

reactive gases and external exposure 

measurements using TLDs. Sampling for HTO 

in air, water sampling, tritium migration studies, 

and vadose zone monitoring for moisture and 

hazardous constituents are conducted at the 

RWMS-5. Environmental monitoring results for 

1995 indicated that measurable radioactivity 

from waste disposal operations was detectable 

only in the immediate vicinity of the facilities. 

Because the NTS is not a RCRA permitted 

disposal facility, RCRA regulations require the 

shipment of nonradioactive hazardous waste to 

licensed disposal facilities offsite. No disposal 

of hazardous waste was performed at the NTS 

in 1995. 

A Mixed Waste Management Unit (MWMU) is 

planned to be located immediately north of the 

existing pits within RWMS-5 and will be part of 

routine disposal operations. This area, 

designed to encompass 10 hectares (25 

acres), will contain 8 landfill cells to be used for 

mixed waste disposal. Construction of the 

MWMU will commence upon completion of 

necessary NEPA documentation and 

issuance of a state of Nevada Part B 

Hazardous Waste Permit. 

Mixed waste and LLW will only be accepted 

for disposal from generators (onsite and 

offsite) that have: submitted a waste 

application as required by NVO-325, NTS 

Defense Waste Acceptance Criteria, 

Certification, and Transfer Requirements; 

verified compliance to NVO-325; and 

received DOE/NV approval of the waste 

stream(s) for disposal at the NTS. 

1.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE 

The quality assurance (QA) program 

covering NTS activities has three 

components. There are QA programs for 

nonradiological analyses, for onsite 

radiological analyses, and for offsite 

radiological analyses conducted by RSL-LV. 

1.7.1 ONSITE 

NONRADIOLOGICAL QUALITY 

ASSURANCE 

The onsite nonradiological QA program was 

not operative during 1995 because of 

budgetary restrictions. The current QA 

program includes sample management 

activities such as sample collection, chainof-custody, shipment, and data review. The 

offsite subcontract laboratories are 

monitored for their participation and 

performance in various performance 

evaluation programs. 

1.7.2 ONSITE RADIOLOGICAL 

QUALITY ASSURANCE 

The onsite radiological QA program includes 

conformance to best laboratory practices 

and implementation of the provisions of 

DOE Order 5700.66. The external QA 

intercomparison program for radiological 

data quality assurance consists of 

participation in the DOE Quality Assessment 

Program (QAP) administered by the DOE 
Environmental Measurements Laboratory 

(EML) and the Performance Evaluation Studies 

Program conducted by the EPA’s National 

Exposure Research Laboratory. 

1.7.3 OFFSITE RADIOLOGICAL 

QUALITY ASSURANCE 

The policy of the EPA requires participation in 

a centrally managed QA program by all EPA 

organizational units involved in environmental 

data collection. The QA program developed by 

the RSL-LV for the Offsite Radiological Safety 

Program (ORSP) meets all requirements of 

EPA policy and also includes applicable 

elements of the DOE QA requirements and 

regulations. The ORSP QA program defines 

data quality objectives (DQOs), which are 

statements of the quality of data a decision 

maker needs to ensure that a decision based 

on those data is defensible. Achieved data 

quality may then be evaluated against these 

DQOs. 

1.8 ISSUES AND 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

PRINCIPAL COMPLIANCE PROBLEMS 

FOR 1995 

l On June 28, 1994, the state of Nevada filed 

a Complaint for Declaratory Judgement and 

Injunction in the U.S. District Court against 

DOE. Nevada claims that DOE has failed 

to comply with NEPA requirements at the 

NTS and must initiate a single, site-wide 

EIS for all major federal actions at the NTS. 

The state seeks to halt shipments of LLW 

from Fernald and all other transportation, 

receipt, storage, and disposal of 

mixedwaste, hazardous waste, and 

defense waste. The state is also seeking 

to enjoin DOE from pursuing any “Weapons 

Complex” activities until publication of the 

EIS. In January 1995 the U.S. District 

Court dismissed the claims regarding 

Femald waste and the site-wide EIS but the 

other claims remain to be answered. 

l In March 1995, the state filed a Finding of 

Alledged Violation (FOAV) alleging RCRA 

violations for failure to adequately 

characterize, to appropriately label, and 

to properly containerize hazardous waste 

and failure to place an EPA code on the 

waste. This involved lead bricks and 

pipes at a lead storage area. After 

discussion, Nevada reduced the 

proposed fine from $135,000 to $52,000. 

DOE/NV received two notification letters 

in 1995 alleging potential responsible 

party status for waste disposal sites in 

California and Colorado. A California 

hazardous waste facility declared 

bankruptcy and is unable to clean up the 

site: documents indicate some NTS 

waste was shipped there between 1988 

and 1992. The Colorado incident 

involves the salvage sale of drums that 

occurred from 1974 to 1977 at the 

Hansen Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) Container Site. Because 

of the minimal contribution to the 

Colorado site, EPA settled with REECo 

for $5,684. 

In 1993, the state of Nevada indicated a 

desire to begin negotiating a three-party 

Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA). The 

DOE/NV, Defense Nuclear Agency 

(DNA), and state negotiations for this 

agreement continued in 1994 and 1995. 

A Me’morandum of Understanding (MOU) 

is being formulated with the DNA to 

address joint concerns. The DNA is 

expected to be a signatory to the FFA. 

ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR 1995 

The initial Annual NEPA Planning Summary 

covering accomplishments during 1994 was 

prepared in January 1995. 

A draft Implementation Plan for a new NTS 

EIS was approved in June 1995, and the 

draft site-wide EIS for the NTS and offsite 

locations in the state of Nevada is expected 

to be published and released for public 

comment in January 1996. 

Work was performed on 10 EAs during 

1995, of which 4 were approved. Two of the 

1-Q 
EAs weie discontinued due to a change in 

programmatic needs. /Ii 

l Throughout 1995, the DOE/NV continued to 

maintain and update the DOE/NV Compliance 

Guide (Volume Ill), a handbook containing 

procedures, formats, and guidelines for 

personnel responsible for NEPA compliance 

activiies. 

l Continued use of a Just-in-Time (JIT) supply 

system allowed NTS contractors to reduce 

product stock and control potentially 

hazardous products. 

l All of the. 149 Tiger Team findings from the 

1989 assessment have now been resolved. 

e Progress continued on the NTS groundwater 

characterization program. Thirteen special - 

wells have been completed and eleven 

existing wells have been recompleted to meet 

program requirements. 

0 At the state of Nevada’s request, the Waste 

Management Program installed three pilot 

wells at RWMSd. Underground conditions 

were carefully monitored, and the data have 

been used for site characterization. The 

uppermost groundwater table was found at 

approximately 244 m (800 ft). Only naturally 

occuning radioactivity was detected in the 

groundwater. 

0 The DOE/NV has entered into several consent 

orders and agreements. These are: (1) a MOU 

with the state coveting radiological releases; (2) 

an Agreement in Principle with Nevada and 

Mississippi covering oversight of environment 

safety and health adivities; (3) a Cooperative 

Agreement with Alaska’s Fish and Wildlife 

Service; (4) a Settlement Agreement with the 

state to manage mixed TRU waste and a 

Mutual Consent Agreement for providing 

storage of low-level mixed waste 

generatedat the NTS; (5) a Programmatic 

Agreement with the state covering 

archaeological and historic preservation 

activities; (6)a MOU with Nye County as 

a cooperating agency on the NTS EIS; 

and (7) a MOU with the Bureau of Land 

Management as a cooperating agency on 

the NTS EIS. 

The environmental monitoring results 

presented in this report document that 

operational activities on the NTS in 1995 

were conducted so that no radiological 

exposure occurred to the offsite public. 

Calculation of the highest individual dose 

that could have been received by an offsite 

resident (based on estimation of onsite 

worst-case radioactive releases obtained by 

measurement or engineering calculation and 

assuming the person remained outside all 

year) equated to 0.18 mrem to a person 

living in Springdale, Nevada. This may be 

compared to that individual’s exposure to 

144 mrem from natural background radiation 

as measured by the PIC at Beatty, Nevada. 

There were no major incidents of 

nonradiological contaminant releases to the 

environment,. and intensive efforts to 

characterize and protect the NTS 

environment, implemented in 1990, were 

continued in 1995. 
Table 1 .l Radionuclide Emissions on the NTS - 1995(a) 

Radionuclide Half-life @ears) Quantitv Released (Ci) tb) 

piborne Releases: 

&Kr 

239+24op” 

12.35 @‘1.2 

10.72 300. 

24065. @‘0.40 

Containment Ponds: 

3H 

nePu 

zF3Ypu 

‘%s 

Gross Beta 

12.35 “‘263 

67.743 6.8 x 10" 

24065. 1.0 x lo4 

z:17 

6.2 x lo” 

5.5 x lo9 

--s 3.3 x lo9 

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

(b) Multiply by 37 to obtain GBq. 

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

and calculated resuspension of surface deposits. 

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

Table 1.2 Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations During 1995 

Maximum EDE( Tt 

NTS. Boundary a 

Dose 0.22 mrem 

(2.2 x 1 Q3 mSv) 

Location Site boundary 40 km 

WNW of NTS CP-1 

NESHAP 

Standard 

10 mrem per yr 

(0.1 mSv per yr) 

Percentage 

of NESHAP 2.2 

Maximum ECIbF to 

an lndividua 

0.18 mrem 

(1.8 x lo” mSv) 

Springdale, NV 58 km 

WNW of NTS CP-1 

10 mrem per yr 

(0.1 mSv per yr) 

1.8 

Collective EDE to 

Population within 80 km 

of the NTS Sources 

0.53 person-rem 

(5.3 x lob3 person-Sv) , 

32,210 people within 

80 km of NTS Sources 

*---- 

---me 

Background 

Percentage of 

Background 

144 mrem 

(1.44 mSv) 

1.5 x 10-l 

144 mrem 3064 person-rem 

(1.44 mSv) (30.6 person Sv) 

1.2 x 10-l 1.7 x lo” 

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

continuously during the year at the NTS boundary located 40 km (25 mi) WNW from the 

NTS Control Point 1. 

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

where the highest dose-rate occurs as calculated by CAP88-PC (Version 1 .O) using NTS 

effluents listed in Table 5.1, assuming all tritiated water input to containment ponds was 

evaporated, assuming resuspended plutonium was carried offsite, and summing the 

contributions from each NTS source. 

l-11 I!&!% ASER &.w the N7X 

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

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

location for testing of nuclear explosives in the continental U.S. from 1951 to 

1992. Historically, nuclear testing has included: (1) atmospheric testing in the 

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

horizontal tunnels; (3) earth-cratering experiments; and (4) open-air nuclear 

reactor and engine testing. No nuclear tests were conducted in 1995. Nonnuclear testing included controlled spills of hazardous material at the Liquefied 

Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility (LGFSTF). Low-level radioactive and mixed 

waste disposal and storage facilities for defense waste are also operated on the 

NTS. 

The NTS environment is characterized by desert valley and Great Basin 

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

southern GreatBasin deserts. Restricted access and extended wind transport 

times are notable features of the remote location of the NTS and adjacent U.S. 

Air Force lands. Also characteristic of this area are the great depths to slowmoving groundwaters and little or no surface water. These features afford 

protection to the inhabitants of the adjacent areas from potential exposure to 

radioactivity or other contaminants resulting from operations on the NTS. 

Population density within 150 km of the NTS is only 0.5 persons per square 

kilometer versus approximately 29 persons per square kilometer in the 48 

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

range for livestock grazing with scattered mining and recreational areas. 

In addition to the NTS operations, DOE/NV is accountable for six non-NTS 

EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. (EG&G/EM) facilities in five different cities. 

The EG&G/EM operations support the DOEINV programs with activities ranging 

from aerial measurements and aircraft maintenance to electronics and heavy 

industrial fabrication. All of these operations are in metropolitan areas. 

The EPA’s Radiation Sciences Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada (RSL-LV), 

conducts hydrological studies at eight formerly used U.S. nuclear testing 

locations off the NTS. The last test conducted at any of these sites was in 1973 

(Project RIO BLANC0 in Colorado). 

2.1 NTS OPERATIONS 

2.1.1 NTS DESCRIPTION 

v 7 he NTS has been operated by the 

DOE as the on-continent test site for 

I 1 nuclear weapons testing. It i.s located 

in Nye County, Nevada, with the 

southeast corner lying about 105 km (65 mi) 

northwest of the city of Las Vegas, Nevada, as III 

shown in Figure 2.1. The NTS 

encompasses about 3500 km2 (1350 mi’), 

an area targer than the state of Rhode 

Island. The dimensions of the NTS vary 

from 46 to 56 km (28 to 35 mi) in width 

(eastern to western border) and from 64 to 

88 km (40 to 55 mi) in length (northern to 

southern border). The NTS is surrounded 

on the east, north, and west sides by public 

exclusion areas, previously designated the 

Nellis Air Force Base (NAFB) Bombing and 

3-1 
WINNEMUCCA 

\/ \ TONO_P)CH ) ARM SPR’NG 

100 50 0 50 100 

9-W-Y , 

MILES 

IQ0 0 100 

L-P , 

KILOMETERS 

Figure 2.1 NTS Location 
Gunnery Range and the Tonopah Test Range 

(Figure 2.1). These two areas comprise the 

Nellis Base Range, which provides a buffer 

zone varying from 24 to 104 km (15 to 65 mi) 

between the NTS and public lands. The 

combination of the Nellis Base Range and the 

NTS is one of the larger unpopulated land 

areas in the U.S., comprising ‘some 14,200 

km* (5470 mi’). Figure 2.2 shows the general 

layout of the NTS, including the location of 

major facilities and area numbers referred to 

in this report. The areas outlined in green in 

Figure 2.2 indicate the principal geographical 

areas used recently for underground nuclear 

testing. Mercury, Nevada, at the southern 

end of the NTS, is the main base camp for 

worker housing and administrative operations 

for the NTS. Area 12 Base Camp, at the 

northern end of the NTS, was another major 

worker housing and operations support 

facility. 

2.1.2 MISSION AND NATURE OF 

OPERATIONS 

The NTS has been the primary location for 

testing the nation’s nuclear explosive devices 

since January 1951. 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 a tethered balloon, or 

dropped from an aircraft. Several of the tests 

were non-nuclear, i.e., “safety” tests involving 

destruction of a nuclear device with nonnuclear explosives. Safety tests resulted in 

dispersion of plutonium in the test vicinity. 

One of these test areas lies just north of the 

NTS boundary on the Nellis Base Range (see 

Figure 2.3). All nuclear tests are listed in 

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

Underground nuclear tests were first 

conducted in 1957. Testing was discontinued 

during a moratorium from November 1958 

through September 1961. Four small 

atmospheric (surface) tests were conducted 

in 1961 and 1962 following the resumption of 

underground and atmospheric testing. Two 

additional safety test series were conducted 

in the mid-1960s, one on the previously 

designated NAFB Bombing and Gunnery 

Range and one on the Tonopah Test 

Range. Since late 1962 nearly all tests 

were conducted in sealed vertical shafts 

drilled into Yucca Flat and Pahute Mesa or 

in horizontal tunnels mined into Rainier 

Mesa. Five earth-cratering (shallow-burial) 

tests were conducted over the period of 

1962 through 1968 as part of the Plowshare 

Program, which explored peaceful uses of 

nuclear explosives. The first and largest 

(SEDAN) was detonated at the northern end 

of Yucca Flat. 

Other nuclear testing over the history of the 

NTS has included the Bare Reactor 

Experiment - Nevada series in the 1960s. 

These tests were performed with a 14-MeV 

neutron generator mounted on a 465 m 

(1530 ft) steel tower used to conduct 

neutron and gamma-ray interaction studies 

on various materials. From 1959 through 

1973 a series of open-air nuclear reactor, 

nuclear engine, and nuclear furnace tests 

were conducted in Area 25. Another series 

of tests with a nuclear ramjet engine was 

conducted in Area 26 by the Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), 

Livermore, California. 

Limited non-nuclear testing has also 

occurred at the NTS, including spills of 

hazardous materials at the LGFSTF in Area 

5. The tests at the LGFSTF, conducted 

from the latter half of the 1980s to date, 

involve controlled spilling of liquid materials 

to study both spill control and mitigation 

measures and the resultant dispersion and 

transport of airborne clouds. These tests 

are cooperative studies involving private 

industry, the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), and the DOE. At the 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 

Facility, explosive materials are destroyed, 

generally by detonation, with the amounts 

destroyed being limited to maintain 

downwind air concentrations within state 

limits. Waste storage and disposal facilities 

for defense radioactive and mixed waste are 

located in Areas 3 and 5. At the Area 5 

Radioactive Waste Management Site (RWMS5) low-level radioactive wastes (LLW) from 

DOE-affiliated onsite and offsite generators 

are disposed of using standard shallow land 
‘N 20 119 ,,,-- -_-__------. 

MESA/ 

q 

III 30 ‘IG I \ u---I 1 1 iii 

Area Boundq .- _.-.-.-.-.-.- 

Paved Road 

I” G 0 R ,n 

I 

,.. 

5 a 10 

1 

KIL’JYETERS I 

Figure 2.2 NTS Area Designations, (A) Principal Facilities, and (0) Testing Areas 
,-_-_-_-_-_---------____________________- 

I , 

I I 

I I 

I I 

I I---_-. 

I 

I 

I 

a 

8 

I 

I 

I 

0 0 

0 

i_____-_-_-_-_---_--___ 

-_-- 

-I 

I-’ 

-- 

I 

I 

I 

I 

-7 

L-1 

L- 

-1 

-- 

I 

Li-, 

L-1 u_ L-1 L- 

, -1 -- L-7 

.- 

‘IL- 

-- 

NELLIS BASE 

RANGE 

I 

I I 

I t 

I I 

I ----- 

.------ 

tlgure 2.3 Location of Safety Tests on NTS and the Nellis Base Range 
disposal techniques. A greater confinement . 

disposal technique was used for disposal of 

wastes that had high specific activity, high 

mobility, or were not acceptable for normal 

disposal. This method’ is no longer used. 

Transuranic wastes are retrievably stored in 

surface containers at the RWMS-5 pending 

shipment to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIMP). facility in New Mexico. 

Nonradioactive hazardous wastes are 

accumulated at a special accumulation site 

before shipment to a licensed offsite disposal 

facility. At the RWMS-3, bulk LLW (such as 

debris from atmospheric nuclear test 

locations) and LLW in large non-standard 

packages is emplaced and buried in selected 

surface subsidence craters (formed as a 

result of prior underground nuclear tests). 

2.1.3 1995 ACTIVITIES 

2.1.3.1 NUCLEAR TESTS 

No nuclear explosives tests were conducted 

during 1995 due to the moratorium 

announced in late 1992. However, 

continuous environmental surveillance for 

radioactivity and radiation was conducted 

both onsite and offsite because of the large 

number of potential effluent sources that exist 

on the NTS resulting from prior nuclear tests. 

The surveillance program and results are 

described in Chapters 4 and 5. 

2.1.3.2 LIQUEFIED GASEOUS FUELS 

SPILL TEST FACILITY 

The U.S. DOE’s LGFSTF is a research and 

demonstration facility available on a user-fee 

basis to private and public sector test and 

training sponsors concerned with the safety 

aspects of hazardous chemicals. The site is 

located in Area 5 of the NTS and is 

maintained by EG&G/EM. The LGFSTF is 

the basic research tool for studying the 

dynamics of accidental releases of various 

hazardous materials. Discharges from the 

LGFSTF tanks occur at a controlled rate and 

consist of a measured volume of hazardous 

test fluid released on a surface especially 

prepared to meet the test requirements. The 

Facility has the capability for releasing large 

volumes of cryogenic and non-cryogenic 

liquids. Spill rates for the cryogenic system 

range from 1,000 to 26,000 gpm with the 

capability to release the entire contents of 

two tanks in two minutes. The noncryogenic system can release materials at 

rates of 500 to 5,000 gpm with the entire 

24,000 gallons capable of being released in 

five minutes. Test sponsors can vary intake 

air temperature, humidity, release rate, and 

release volume in an 8 ft x 16 ft x 96 ft wind 

tunnel. There are two spill pads available 

for use in contained open air releases of 

volumes of 50 to 1,000 gallons. An area 

has been added to provide the capability for 

determining the efficacy of encapsulated 

chemical protective suiting materials when 

exposed to high concentrations of toxic and 

hazardous gaseous materials. 

An array of diagnostic sensors may be 

placed up to 16 km downwind of the spill 

point to obtain cloud-dispersion data. 

Deployment of the array is test dependent 

and is not used for all experiments. The 

array can consist of up to 20 meteorological 

and 41 sensor stations to gather wind data 

and gaseous concentration data from a 

variety of sensors at various levels above 

ground. The array and associated dataacquisition system are linked to the LGFSTF 

control point by means of telemetry. The 

operation and performance of the LGFSTF 

are controlled and monitored from the 

Command Control and Data Acquisition 

System building located one mile from the 

test fluid spill area. 

LGFSTF personnel monitor and record 

operating data, close-in and downwind 

meteorological data, and downwind gaseous 

concentrations. ‘Calculation of the potential 

path of the test effluent is used to help 

control the test and monitor the data, which 

is done from a remote location. Five series 

of spill tests were conducted in 1995. 

2.1.4 TOPOGRAPHY AND 

TERRAIN 

The topography of the NTS is typical of 

much of the Basin and Range physiographic 

province of Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. 
North-south-trending mountain ranges are 

separated by broad, flat-floored, and gentlysloped valleys. The topography is depicted in 

Figure 2.4. Elevations range from about 910 

m (3000 ft) above mean sea level (MSL) in 

the south and east, rising to 2230 m (7300 ft) 

in the mesa areas toward the northern and 

western boundaries. The slopes on the 

upland surfaces are steep and dissected, 

whereas the slopes on the lower surfaces are 

gentle and alluviated with rock debris from the 

adjacent highlands. 

The principal effect upon the terrain from 

nuclear testing has been the creation. of 

numerous dish-shaped surface subsidence 

craters, particularly in Yucca Flat. Most 

underground nuclear tests conducted in 

vertical shafts produced surface subsidence 

craters that occurred when the overburden 

above a nuclear cavity collapsed and formed 

a rubble “chimney” to the surface. A few 

craters have been formed as a result of tests 

conducted on or near the surface, by shallow 

depth-of-burial cratering experiments, or 

following some tunnel events. 

There are no continuously flowing streams on 

the NTS. Surface drainages for Yucca and 

Frenchman Flats, closed-basin systems, are 

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

The remaining areas of the NTS drain via 

arroyos and dry stream beds that carry water 

only during unusually intense or persistent 

storms. Rainfall or snow melt typically 

infiltrates quickly into the moisture-deficient 

soil or runs off in normally dry channels, 

where it evaporates and seeps into 

permeable sands and gravels. During 

extreme conditions, flash floods may occur. 

2.1.5 GEOLOGY 

The basic lithologic structure of the NTS is 

depicted in Figure 2.5. Investigations of the 

geology of the NTS, including detailed studies 

of numerous drill holes and tunnels, have 

been in progress by the U.S. Geological 

Survey and other organizations since 1951. 

Because of the large number of drilled 

holes,see Figure 2.6, the NTS is probably one 

of the better geologically characterized large 

areas within the U.S. 

In general the geology consists of three 

major rock units. These are: (1) complexly 

folded and faulted sedimentary rocks of 

Paleozoic age overlain at many places by; 

(2) volcanic tuffs and lavas of Tertiary age, 

which (in the ‘valleys) are covered by; (3) 

alluvium of late Tertiary and Quaternary 

age. The sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic 

age are many thousands of feet thick and 

are comprised mainly of carbonate rocks 

(dolomite and limestone) in the upper and 

lower parts, separated by a middle section 

of elastic rocks (shale and quartzite). The 

volcanic rocks in the valleys are downdropped and tilted along steeply dipping 

normal faults of late Tertiary age. The 

alluvium is rarely faulted and is derived from 

erosion of Tertiary and Paleozoic rocks. 

Compared to the Paleozoic rocks, the 

Tertiary rocks are relatively undeformed, 

and dips are generally gentle. The volcanic 

rocks of Tertiary age are predominantly 

tuffs, which erupted from various volcanic 

centers and lavas, mostly of rhyolitic 

composition. The aggregate thickness of 

the volcahic rocks is many thousands of 

feet, but in most places the total thickness 

of the section is far less because of erosion 

or nondeposition. These materials erupted 

before the collapse of large volcanic centers 

known as calderas. Alluvial materials fill the 

intermountain valleys and cover the 

adjacent slopes. These sediments attain 

thicknesses of 600 to 900 m (2000 to 3000 

ft) in the central portions of the valleys. The 

alluvium in Yucca Flat is vertically offset 

along the prominent north-south-trending 

Yucca fault. 

2.1.6 HYDROGEOLOGY 

The deep aquifers, slow groundwater 

movement, and exceedingly slow downward 

movement of water ‘in the overlying 

unsaturated zone serve as significant 

barriers to transport of radioactivity from 

unsaturated zone sources via groundwater; 

greatly limiting the potential for transport of 

radioactivity to offsite areas. Some historic 
PAlibTE MESX BELTED 

-v k/u 

HALFPINT RAtiGE 

Figure 2.4 Topography of the NTS 

2-8 

N 

f 

\ 

I ’ Drill Hole Location 

I 

0 

I l&i 4 I------- 1 -- i 

I 

------------? 

I o Iotg%o,~ 

oi J 

i30 

i w ‘I” 

i e16. t ----- 

“~ 

00 

I-- _--_---w---- -r-1 

------- 

0 

i i 

ito -.i! 

10 5 0 5 1 

KILOMETERS 

8 

0 ’ : 

m I I 

-- 

0 

I I I 

I I I 

I 

Figure 2.6 Drill Hole Locations on the NTS 
nuclear tests were conducted below the 

groundwater table, others were at varying 

depths above the groundwater table. Nuclear 

tests below the water table have a greater 

potential for offsite migration. However, the 

great distance to offsite water supply wells or 

springs makes it unlikely that contaminants 

will be transported in significant quantities. 

Depths to groundwater beneath the NTS vary 

from about 157 m (515 ft) beneath the 

Frenchman Flat playa (Winograd and 

Thordarson 1975) in the southern part of the 

NTS to more than 700 m (2300 ft) beneath 

part of Pahute Mesa. In the eastern portions, 

the water table occurs generally in the 

alluvium and volcanic rocks above the 

regional carbonate aquifer, and in the western 

portions it occurs predominantly in volcanic 

rocks. The flow in the shallower parts of the 

groundwater body is generally toward the 

major valleys (Yucca and Frenchman) where 

it may deflect downward to join the regional 

drainage to the southwest in the carbonate 

aquifer. 

The hydrogeology of the underground nuclear 

testing areas on the NTS (Figure 2.7) has 

been summarized by the Desert Research 

Institute, University of Nevada System 

(Russell 1990). Yucca Flat is situated within 

the Ash Meadows groundwater subbasin. 

Groundwater occurs within the valley-fill, 

volcanic, and carbonate aquifers and in the 

volcanic and elastic aquitards. The depth to 

water generally ranges from 160 m (525 ft) to 

about 580 m (1900 ft) below the ground 

surface. The tuff aquitard forms the principal 

Cenozoic hydrostratigraphic unit beneath the 

water table in the eastern two thirds of the 

valley and is unconfined over most of its 

extent. The valley-fill aquifer is saturated in 

the central part of ‘the valley and is 

unconfined (Winograd and Thordarson 1975). 

Some underflow, past all of the subbasin 

discharge areas, probably reaches springs in 

Death Valley. Recharge for all of the 

subbasins most likely occurs by precipitation 

at higher elevations and infiltration along 

stream courses and in playas. Regional 

groundwater flow is from the upland 

recharge areas in the north and east 

towards discharge areas at Ash Meadows 

and Death Valley, southwest of the NTS. 

Due to the large topographic changes 

across the area and the importance of 

fractures to groundwater flow, local flow 

directions can be radically different from the 

regional trend. Groundwater is the only 

local source of drinking water in the NTS 

area. Drinking and industrial water supply 

wells for the NTS produce from the lower 

and upper carbonate, the volcanic, and the 

valley-fill aquifers. Although a few springs 

emerge from perched groondwater lenses at 

the NTS, discharge rates are low, and 

spring water is not currently used for DOE 

activities. South of the NTS, private and 

public supply wells are completed in a 

valley-fill aquifer. Frenchman Flat is also 

within the Ash Meadows subbasin. 

Regional groundwater flow in this .valley 

occurs within the major Cenozoic and 

Paleozoic hydrostratigraphic units at depths 

ranging from 157 to 360 m (515 to 1180 ft) 

below the ground surface. Perched water is 

found as shallow as 20 m (66 ft) within the 

tuff and lava flow aquitards in the . 

southwestern part of the valley. In general, 

the depth to water is at least 157 m (515 ft) 

beneath Frenchman playa and increases to 

nearly 360 m (1180 ft) near the margins of 

the valley (Winograd and Thordarson 1975). 

The water table beneath Frenchman Flat is 

considerably shallower (and stratigraphically 

higher) than beneath Yucca Flat. 

Consequently, the areal extent of saturation 

in the valley~fill and volcanic aquifers is 

correspondingly greater. 

Winograd and Thordarson (1975) 

hypothesized that groundwater within the 

Cenozoic units of Yucca and Frenchman 

Flats probably cannot leave these basins 

without passing through the underlying and 

surrounding lower carbonate aquifer. In 

addition, lateral gradients within the 

saturated volcanic units exist and may 

indicate groundwater flow toward the central 

areas of Yucca and Frenchman Flats prior 

to vertical drainage. 
02-7 Hmargosaf 

j FURNACE CfREEK i A - -...^I. 

\ 

Death Valley * 

Junction 

m Uischarge Area 

A/ Hyckologic Basin 

4%’ Hyd;ologic Subtisin 

.q Nevada Test Site 

15 10 5 D5 10 

MILES 

16 a 16 

fflLOMETERS 

Figure 2.7 Groundwater Hydrologic Units of the NTS and Vicinity 

. --- - --.. _. .j -__--__ 

I.. 
The only hydrostratigraphic units encountered 

at Pahute Mesa are the volcanic aquifers and 

aquitards. Pahute Mesa is thought to be a 

part of both the Oasis Valley and Alkali 

Flat/Furnace Creek Ranch subbasins. The 

location of the inter-basin boundary is 

uncertain. Groundwater is thought to move 

towards the south and southwest, through 

Oasis Valley, Crater Flat and western 

Jackass Flats (Blankennagel and Weir 1973). 

Points of discharge are thought to include the 

springs in Oasis Valley, Alkali Flat, and 

Furnace Creek. The amount of recharge to 

Pahute Mesa and the amount of underflow 

which moves to the various points of 

discharge are not accurately known. Vertical 

gradients within Pahute Mesa suggest that 

flow may be downward in the eastern portion 

of the mesa but upward in the western part. 

The hydrostratigraphic units beneath Rainier 

Mesa consist of the welded and bedded tuff 

aquifer, zeolitized tuff aquitard, the lower 

carbonate aquifer, and the tuffaceous and 

lower elastic aquitards. The volcanic aquifer 

and aquitards support a semiperched 

groundwater lens. Nuclear testing at Rainier 

Mesa was conducted within the tuff aquitard. 

Work by Thordarson (1965) indicates that the 

perched groundwater is moving downward 

into the underlying regional aquifer. 

Depending on the location of the subbasin 

boundary, Rainier Mesa groundwater may be 

part of either the Ash Meadows or the Alkali 

Flat/Furnace Creek Ranch subbasin. The 

regional flow from the mesa may be directed 

either towards Yucca Flat or, because of the 

intervening upper elastic aquitard, towards 

the Alkali Flat discharge area in the south. 

The nature of the regional flow system 

beneath Rainier Mesa requires further 

investigation. 

2.1.7 CLIMATE AND 

METEOROLOGY 

Precipitation levels on the NTS are low, runoff 

is intermittent, and the majority of the active 

testing areas onsite drain into closed basins 

on the NTS. Topography contributes to 

temporal and spatial variability of 

precipitation. For example, on the NTS the 

mesas receive an average annual 

precipitation of 23 cm (9 in), which includes 

wintertime snow accumulations. The lower 

elevations receive approximately 15 cm (6 

in) of precipitation annually, with occasional 

snow accumulations lasting only a matter of 

days (Quiring 1968). 

Elevation also influences temperatures on 

the NTS. At an elevation of 2000 m (6560 

ft) above MSL in Area 20 on Pahute Mesa; 

the average daily maximum temperatures 

range from 40 to 8O”F, minimums from 21 to 

57°F (4 to 27°C and -6 to 14X, 

respectively). In Area 6 [Yucca Flat, 1200 

m (3940 ft MSL)], the average daily 

maximums range from 51 to 96°F and the 

minimums from 28 to 62°F (11 to 36°C and 

-2 to 17X, respectively). 

Wind direction and speed are important 

aspects of the environment at the NTS. The 

movements of large-scale pressure systems 

control the seasonal changes in the wind 

direction frequencies. Predominating winds 

are southerly during summer and northerly 

during winter. The general downward slope 

in the terrain from north to south results in 

an intermediate scenario that is reflected in 

the characteristic diurnal wind reversal from 

southerly winds during the day to northerly 

winds at night. This north to south reversal 

is strongest in the summer and, on 

occasion, becomes intense enough to 

override the wind regime associated with 

large-scale pressure systems. This 

scenario is very sensitive to the orientation 

of the mountain slopes and valleys. At 

higher elevations such as Area 20, the 

average annual wind speed is 17 km/h (10 

mi/h) but is only 11 km/h (7 mi/h) in the 

valleys, such as Yucca Flat. The prevailing 

wind direction during winter months is from 

the north-northeast and north-northwest but 

it reverses in the summer months. The 

1992 ten-meter wind rose patterns for the 

NTS are shown in Figure 2.8. 

2.1.8 FLORA AND FAUNA 

The vegetation on most of the NTS includes 

various associations of desert shrubs typical 

of the Mojave or Great Basin Deserts or the 
N 

i 

‘iii 

III 

i III 

/II--!! _-.-.- ----- 

111 

iii 

I 30 ,,,--- -___------- 111 

F-Iii 

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

Operations & Research Division ) 
zone of transition between these two. There 

are areas of desert woodland (piiion, juniper) 

at higher elevations. Even there, typical 

Great Basin shrubs, principally sagebrushes, 

are conspicuous, Although shrubs (or 

shrubs and small trees) are the dominant 

forms, herbaceous plants are well 

represented in the flora and play an important 

role in supporting animal life. 

Extensive floral collection has yielded 711 

taxa of vascular plants within or near the 

boundaries of the NTS (O’Farrell and Emery 

1976). Associations of creosote bush, Larrea 

trident&a, which are characteristic of the 

Mojave Desert, dominate the vegetation 

mosaic on the bajadas of the southern NTS. 

Between1220and1520m(4000and5000ft) 

in elevation in Yucca Flat, transitional 

associations are dominated by Grayia 

spinosa-Lycium andersonii (hopsage1deset-t 

thorn) associations, while the upper bajadas 

support Coleogyne types. Above 1520 m 

(5000 ft) the vegetation mosaic is dominated 

by sagebrush associations of Artemisia 

triden ta ta and Atfemisia at-bus&a 

subspecies nova. Above 1830 m (6000 ft) 

pinon pine and juniper mix with the sagebrush 

associations where there is suitable moisture 

for these trees. No plant species located on 

the NTS is currently on the federal 

endangered species list; however, the state 

of Nevada has placed Astragalus beatleyae 

on its critically endangered species list. 

Most mammals on the NTS are small and 

secretive (often nocturnal in habitat), hence 

not often seen by casual observers. Rodents 

are, based on distribution and relative 

abundance, the most important group of 

mammals on the NTS. Larger mammals 

include feral horses, burros, deer, mountain 

lions, bobcats, coyote, kit foxes, and rabbits. 

Reptiles include four species of venomous 

snakes. Bird species are mostly migrants or 

seasonal residents. Most nonrodent 

mammals have been placed in the “protected” 

classification by the state of Nevada. On 

August 4, 1989, the Mojave population of the 

desert tortoise, Gopherus agassizii, was 

placed on the endangered species list by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This 

population was relisted as threatened on April 

2, 1990. The reasons for listing this 

population included deterioration and loss of 

.- 

habitat, collection for pets and other 

purposes, elevated levels of predation, loss 

from disease, and the inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms to protect 

tortoises and their habitat. Tortoise habitat 

on the NTS is found in the southern third of 

the NTS outside the recent areas of nuclear 

explosive test activities. 

2.1.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Human habitation of the NTS area began at 

least as early as 10,000 years ago. Various 

indigenous cultures occupied the region in 

prehistoric times. The survey of less than 5 

percent of the NTS area has located more 

than 2,000 archaeological sites which 

contain the only information available 

concerning the prehistoric inhabitants. The 

site types identified include rock quarries, 

tool-manufacturing areas, plant-processing 

locations, hunting locales, rock art, 

temporary camps, and permanent villages. 

The prehistoric people’s lifestyle was 

sustained by a hunting and gathering 

economy which utilized all parts of the NTS. 

While major springs provided perennial 

water, the prehistoric people developed 

strategies to take advantage of intermittent 

fresh water sources in the arid region. In 

the nineteenth century, at the time of initial 

contact, the area was occupied by Paiute 

and Shoshone Indians. 

Prior to 1940, the historic occupation 

consisted of ranchers, miners and Native 

Americans. Several natural springs were 

able to sustain livestock, ranchers and 

miners. Stone cabins, corrals, and fencing 

stand today as testaments to these early 

settlers. The mining activities included two 

large mines, one at Wahmonie, the other at 

Climax Mine. Prospector claim markers are 

found in these and other parts of the NTS. 

Native Americans co-existed with the 

settlers and miners, utilizing the natural 

resources of the region and, in some cases, 

working for the new arrivals. They also 

maintained a connection with the land, 

especially areas important to them for 

religious and historical reasons. These 

locations, referred to as traditional cultural 

properties, continue to be significant to the 

Paiute and Shoshone Indians. 
Between 1940 and 1950, the area now known 

as the NTS was under the jurisdiction of 

NAFB and was part of the Nellis Bombing and 

Gunnery Range. Very few locations 

associated with this time period have been 

identified. In 1950, the NTS was selected as 

the continental nuclear testing ground. 

Surveys have located and recorded many 

structures associated with nuclear testing. 

These structures are significant because of 

the importance of the nuclear testing program 

in the history of the United States as well as 

its effects on the rest of the world. 

2.1.10 DEMOGRAPHY 

The population of the area surrounding the 

NTS has been estimated based on 1990 

Bureau of Census estimates (Department of 

Commerce 1990). Excluding Clark County, 

the major population center (over 1 ,OOO,OOO 

in 1995), the population density within a 150- 

km (90-mi) radius of the NTS is about 0.5 

persons per square kilometer. In comparison, 

the 48 adjoining states (1990 census) had a 

population density near 29 persons per 

square kilometer. The offsite area within 80 

km (50 mi) of the NTS Control Point (CP) is 

predominantly rural. CP-1 (a building at the 

Control Point) historically has been the point 

from which distances from the NTS were 

determined. Several small communities are 

located in the area, the largest being in the 

Pahrump Valley. This growing rural 

community, with an estimated population of 

20,000, is about 80 km (50 mi) south of CP-1. 

The Amargosa Farm area, which has a 

. population of about 1200, is approximately 50 

km (30 mi) southwest of CP-1. The largest 

town in the near offsite area is Beatty, which 

has a population of about 1500 and is 

approximately 65 km (40 mi) to the west of 

CP-1. 

The Mojave Desert of California, which 

includes Death Valley National Monument, 

lies along the southwestern border of 

Nevada. The National Park Service 

estimated that the population within the 

boundaries ranges from 200 permanent 

residents during the summer months to as 

many as 5000 tourists and campers on any 

particular day during holiday periods in the 

winter months. As many as 30,000 are in 

the area during “Death Valley Days” in the 

month of November. The largest nearby 

population in this desert is in the 

Ridgecrest-China Lake area about 190 km 

(118 mi) southwest of the NTS containing 

about 28,000 people. The next largest is in 

the Barstow area located 265 km (165 mi) 

south-southwest of the NTS with a 1992 

population of 24,006. The Owens Valley, 

where numerous small towns are located, 

lies 50 km (31 mi) west of Death Valley. 

The largest town in the Owens Valley is 

Bishop, located 225 km (140 mi) westnorthwest of the NTS, with a population of 

3500. 

The extreme southwestern region of Utah is 

more developed than the adjacent portion of 

Nevada. The largest community is St. 

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

NTS, with a 1991 population of 29,000. The 

next largest town, Cedar City, with a 

population of 14,000, is located 280 km (174 

mi) east-northeast of the NTS. 

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 

1991 population estimate of 22,000, and 

Kingman, located 280 km (174 mi) 

southeast of the NTS, with a population of 

about 13,000. 

2.1.11 SURROUNDING LAND USE 

Figure 2.9 is a map of the offsite area 

showing a wide variety of land uses such as 

mining, grazing, camping, fishing, and 

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

the CP-1. West of the NTS elevations 

range from 85 m (280 ft) below MSL in 

Death Valley to 4400 m (14,500 ft) above 

MSL in the Sierra Nevadas, including parts 

of the Owens and San Joaquin agricultural 
-----_ 

---- --- 

I 

I 

I 

i I I 

Lovelock 

ARIZONA 

MEAD 

Scale in Miies 

Figure 2.9 Land Use Around the NTS 

2-17 
valleys. The areas south of the NTS are 

more uniform since the Mojave Desert 

ecosystem (mid&latitude desert) comprises 

most of this portion of Nevada, California, and 

Arizona. The areas east of the NTS are 

primarily mid-latitude steppe with some of the 

older river valleys, such as the Virgin River 

and Moapa Valleys, supporting irrigation for 

small-scale but intensive farming of a variety 

of crops. Grazing is also common in this 

area, particularly towards the northeast. The 

area north of the NTS is also mid-latitude 

steppe where the major agricultural activity is 

grazing of cattle and sheep, and a minor is 

growing of alfalfa hay. Many of the residents 

cultivate home gardens. 

Recreational areas lie in all directions around 

the NTS and are used for such activities as 

.hunting, fishing, and camping. In general ‘the 

camping and fishing sites to the north of the 

NTS are not utilized in the winter months. 

Camping and fishing locations to the south 

are utilized throughout the year. The peak 

hunting season is from September through 

January. 

2.2 NON-NTS FACILITIES 

EG&GIEM had several offsite operations in 

support of activities at the NTS under a 

contract with the DOE/NV. Those that were 

operational in support of NTS activities are 

described in the following sections. Each of 

these facilities is located in a metropolitan 

area. 

City, county, and state regulations govern 

emissions, waste disposal, and sewage. No 

independent EG&G/EM systems exist for 

sewage disposal or for supplying drinking 

water, and hazardous waste is moved off the 

facility sites for disposal. Radiation sources 

are sealed, and no radiological emissions are 

expected during normal facility operations. 

2.2.1 AMADOR VALLEY 

OPERATIONS (AVO) 

AVO facility in Pleasanton, California, 

occupies a 5520 m2 (59,445 ti) two story 

combination office/laboratory building. AVO 

is located near the LLNL in Livermore, 

California, to simplify logistics and 

communications associated with EG&G/EM 

support of LLNL programs. Most of the 

work is in support of NTS underground 

weapons testing, but AVO also supports 

LLNL with optical alignment systems, and a 

variety of mechanical and electrical 

engineering activities associated with 

energy research and development 

programs. Areas of environmental interest 

include two small chemical cleaning 

operations. 

2.2.2 SPECIAL TECHNOLOGIES 

LABORATORY (STL) 

STL is located in Santa Barbara, California. 

In February, 1995,’ the STL picked up 

additional personnel and a facility in Goleta, 

California from the Santa Barbara 

Operations that were closed down. The 

current facilities occupy approximately 4125 

m2 (44,400 square feet) and consist of 

combination office/lab areas used primarily 

for engineering and electronic research. 

The research is conducted to develop a 

suite of sensor systems for testing and field 

deployment in support of DOE Headquarters 

and DOE/NV. Areas of environmental 

interest include a small printed circuit board 

operation, minor solvent cleaning operations 

and neutron activation experiments. 

2.2.3 LAS VEGAS AREA 

OPERATIONS (LVAO) 

LVAO includes two facilities, the North Las 

Vegas facility and the Remote Sensing 

Laboratory on the NAFB in North Las 

Vegas, Nevada. Both provide technical 

support for the DOE/NV test program. 

The North Las Vegas facility includes 

multiple structures totaling about 53,820 m2 

(585,000 ff2). At the facility, there are 

numerous areas of environmental interest, 

including metal finishing operations, a 

radiation source range, an X-ray laboratory, 

solvent and chemical cleaning operations, 

sm&! -amounts of pesticide and herbicide 

application, photo laboratories, and 

hazardous waste generation and 

accumulation. 
The Remote Sensing Laboratory is an 11,000 

m2 (118,000 ff) facility located on a 14 ha (35 

acre) site within the confines of the NAFB. 

The facility includes space for aircraft 

maintenance and operations, mechanical and 

electronics assembly, computer operations, 

photo processing, a light laboratory, and 

warehousing. Areas of environmental interest 

are photo processing and aircraft 

maintenance and operations. 

2.2.4 LOS ALAMOS OPERATIONS 

(LAO) 

LAO resides in a facility of approximately 

6040 m2 (65,000 @). It is a two-story 

combination engineering/laboratory/office 

complex located near the Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL) facility to provide 

local support for lANL’s programs. The work 

performed includes direct support of the 

LANL testing program, the DOE Research 

and Development (R&D) Program, and 

miscellaneous DOE cash-order work. LAO’s 

primary activities are twofold: the design, 

fabrication, and fielding of data acquisition 

systems used in underground nuclear testing 

diagnostics and the analysis of data from 

underground and high-altitude experiments. 

Two LAOS also have the responsibility of 

building and fielding Continuous Reflectrometry 

for Radius versus Time Experiment 

(CORRTEX) III recorders. Areas of 

environmental interest include small solvent 

cleaning, alodining, metal machining 

operations, and a small photo laboratory. 

2.2.5 WASHINGTON AERIAL 

MEASUREMENTS 

OPERATIONS(WAM0) 

The WAMO, located at Andrews Air Force Base, 

consists of a 186 m2 (2000 ft’) Butler building 

used as office space; a 1110 m2 (12,000 ft 2, 

combination electronics laboratory, aircraft 

maintenance, and office complex; and a portion 

of a large aircraft hangar. WAMO operations 

provide an effective East Coast Nuclear 

Emergency Search Team (NEST) response 

capability and an eastern aerial’survey capacity 

to the DOUNV. Areas of environmental interest 

include minor solvent cleaning operations and 

used fuels and oils. 

2.3 NON-NTS UNDERGRqUND 

EVENi SITES 

In past years, nuclear tests were conducted for 

a variety of purposes at eight different non-NTS 

sites in the U.S. The events and their locations 

that were sampled in 1995 appear in Table 2.1. 

Activities at these locations generally are limited 

to annual sampling of surface and groundwater 

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

the sites where nuclear explosive tests were 

conducted. However, a Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study has begun at the 

Mississippi test location which will include 

significant new characterization activities. 

Sampling near three test sites on Amchitka, 

Alaska, occurs only in odd numbered years. 

Sampling results for these sites appear in 

Chapter 9 of this report. 

2-19 
Table 2.1 Non-NTS Nuclear Underground Test Sites 

Event Name Location Puroose 

GNOME Carlsbad, New Mexico Multi-purpose in salt 

SHOAL Fallon, Nevada Test detection research 

SALMON (Dribble) Hattiesburg, Mississippi Test detection research 

LONG SHOT Amchitka, Alaska -Test detection research 

STERLING (Dribble) Hattiesburg, Mississippi Test detection research 

GASBUGGY Farmington, New Mexico Gas stimulation experiment 

FAULTLESS Central Nevada Seismic calibration 

RULISON Grand Valley, Colorado Gas stimulation experiment 

MILROW Amchitka, Alaska Seismic calibration 

CANNIKIN Amchitka, Alaska Spartan missile warhead test 

RIO BLANC0 Rifle, Colorado Gas stimulation experiment 

Date of 

l&t 

12/10/61 

1 O/26/63 

1 O/22/64 

1 O/29/65 

12/03/66 

12/l O/67 

01 /19/68 

09/l O/69 

1 O/02/69 

11/06/71 

05/l 7l73 
3.0 COMPLIANCE SUMMARY 

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

calendar year 1995 involved the permitting and monitoring requirements of 

numerous state of Nevada and federal regulations. Primary activities included: 

(1) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation preparation; (2) 

Clean Air Act (CAA) compliance for asbestos renovation projects, radionuclide 

emissions, and state air quality permits; (3) Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance 

involving state wastewater permits; (4) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

compliance involving monitoring of drinking water distribution systems; (5) 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) management of hazardous 

wastes; (6) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

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

management of polychlorinated biphenyls. Also included were preactivity 

surveys to detect and document archaeological and historic sites on the NTS. 

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act involved conducting preoperation surveys to document the status of state of Nevada and federally 

listed endangered or threatened plant and animal species. There were no 

activities requiring compliance with Executive Orders on Flood Plain 

Management or Protection of Wetlands. 

Throughout 1995, the NTS was subjected . to several formal compliance 

agreements with regulatory agencies, including: a Programmatic Agreement 

with the Nevada Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology and the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; a Biological Opinion with the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for protection of the desert tortoise; 

a Memorandum of Understanding with Nevada covering releases of 

radioactivity; Agreements in Principle with Nevada and Mississippi covering 

Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) activities; and a Settlement Agreement 

to manage mixed transuranic (TRU) waste. Emphasis on waste control and 

minimization at the NTS continued in 1995. 

In June 1994, the state of Nevada filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgement 

and Injunction against the Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office 

(DOE/NV). This action seeks a judgement that DOE has failed to comply with 

NEPA requirements at the NTS. In January 1995, three of the claims in this 

case were dismissed by the U.S. District Court. 

Compliance activities at DOE/NV non-NTS facilities operated by EG&G Energy 

Measurements, Inc. (EG&G/EM), involved the permitting and monitoring 

requirements of: (1) the CAA for airborne emissions, (2) the CWA for 

wastewater discharges, (3) state SDWA regulations, (4) RCRA disposal of 

hazardous wastes, and (5) hazardous substance reporting. Waste minimization 

efforts continued at all EG&G/EM operations. 

n-1 
3.1 COMPLIANCE STATUS 

3.1.1 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

POLICY ACT 

El 

ection 102 of the NEPA of 1969 

requires all federal agencies to 

consider environmental effects and 

values and reasonable alternatives 

before making a decision to implement any 

.major federal action which may have a 

significant impact on the human environment. 

Since November 1994, DOE/NV has had full 

delegation of authority from DOE Headquarters 

(DOUHQ) for Environmental Assessments 

(EAs), issuing Findings of No Significant 

Impact, and associated floodplain and wetland 

action documentation relating to DOE/NV 

proposed actions. 

Within DOE, there are three levels of 

documentation used to comply with NEPA: (1) 

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is a 

full disclosure of the potential environmental 

effects of proposed actions and the reasonable 

alternatives to those actions; (2) An EA is a 

concise discussion of a proposed action and 

alternatives and the potential environmental 

effects to determine if an EIS is necessary; and 

(3) A Categorical Exclusion (CX) is used for 

classes of activities which, based on similar 

past activities, has been found to have no 

adverse environmental impacts. During 1995, 

DOE/NV was involved in activities under all 

three of these categories. 

A Notice of Intent to prepare a sitewide EIS for 

the NTS and other test locations within the 

state of Nevada, including the Tonopah Test 

Range, portions of Nellis Air Force Range, the 

Project SHOAL site, and the Central Nevada 

Test Area, was published in the Federal 

Register on August 10, 1994. The Preliminary 

Draft EIS was sent out for internal comments in 

December 1995. Comments will be 

incorporated and the Draft EIS is expected to 

be sent out for review in January 1996. After a 

series of Public Hearings, the final EIS js 

scheduled for publication in June 1996. 

Work was conducted on 10 EAs during 

1995. They include: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Nevada Support Facility, at the North 

Las Vegas Facility, North Las Vegas, 

NV (DOE/EA-0955)-approved and 

distributed as a final on February 22, 

1995. 

Device Assembly Facility(DAF) NTS, 

Area 6 (DOUEA-0971)-approved and 

distributed as a final on June 8, 1995. 

Interim Storage of Nuclear Weapons 

at the NTS, Area 27 (DOE/EA-1031)-- 

withdrawn. 

Liquid Waste Treatment System, NTS, 

Area 6, preapproval draft distributed 

for review in August. 

Sewage Lagoon System, at the NTS 

Radioactive Waste Management Site 

Area 5 (RWMS-5)--approved and 

distributed as a final on March 3, 

1995. 

Fire Training Facility, NTS, Area 23. 

Solid Waste Disposal, NTS, Areas 5, 

9, and 23-approved and distributed as 

a final on September 8, 1996. 

Double Tracks Site Remediation, 

Tonopah Test Range (TTR). 

RWMS-5 Site Access Improvement 

Project. 

(10) Navy Thermal Treatment Unit Test at 

the Liquified Gaseous Fuels Spill Test 

Facility (LGFSTF). 

Forty-seven CX documents were processed 

by DOE/NV during 1995. 

As of January 31, 1996, there are no 

additional ElSs expected to be required of 

DOE/NV within the next 24 months. 

However, DOE/NV anticipates involvement 

as a cooperating agency in supporting the 

preparation of a new Department of Air 

Force EIS on the renewal of the Nellis Air 

Force Range withdrawal. 

Throughout calendar year 1995, the 

DOE/NV Environmental Protection Division 

(EPD) staff continued to maintain and 

update the DOE/NV NEPA Compliance 

Guide (Volume Ill), a quick reference 
handbook containing procedures, formats, and 

guidelines for those personnel responsible for 

DOE/NV’s NEPA compliance activities. As 

noted in last year’s annual summary, over 70 

controlled copies of the DOE/NV NEPA 

Compliance Guide have been distributed for 

use within the DOE/NV organization. The EPD 

staff prepared Volume III to supplement the 

NEPA Compliance Guides, Volumes I and II, 

prepared and distributed by the Office of NEPA 

Policy and Assistance, DOE Headquarters. 

3.1.2 CLEAN AIR ACT 

Clean Air Act and state of Nevada air quality 

control compliance activities were limited to 

asbestos abatement, radionuclide monitoring 

and reporting under the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP), and air quality permit compliance 

requirements. There were no criteria pollutant 

or prevention of significant deterioration 

monitoring requirements for NTS operations. 

3.1.2.1 NTS NESHAP ASBESTOS 

COMPLIANCE 

The state of Nevada, Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health, regulations (Nevada 

Revised Statutes [NRS] 618.760-805) requires 

that all asbestos abatement projects in 

Nevada, involving friable asbestos in quantities 

greater than or equal to 3 linear ft or 3 ft*, 

submit a Notification Form. Notifications are 

also required to be made to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region 9 for projects which disturb greater than 

260 linear ft or 160 ft2 of asbestos-containing 

material in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 61.145- 

146. 

During 1995, three state of Nevada 

notifications were made, and one of these 

projects required notification to EPA Region 9. 

A list of these notifications appears in Table 

3.1. Reynolds Electrical & Engineering 

Company, Inc., (REECo) collected and 

analyzed bulk, occupational, environmental, 

and clearance samples for these projects. The 

annual estimate for non-scheduled asbestos 

demolition/renovation for FY 1996 was sent to 

EPA Region 9 in November 1995. 

3.1.2.2 RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS ON 

THE NTS 

NTS operations were conducted in 

compliance with the NESHAP radioactive air 

emission standards of Subpart H, of 40 

C.F.R. 61. In compliance with those 

requirements, DOE/NV provides reports to 

DOE/HQ on airborne radioactive effluents 

for submission to EPA. 

There are two locations on the NTS where 

airborne radioactive effluents may be 

emitted from permanent stacks: (1) the 

tunnels in Rainier Mesa, and (2) the 

analytical laboratory hoods in the town of 

Mercury. The tunnels are closed and based 

on the amount of radioactivity handled, the 

exhaust from the analytical laboratories is 

considered negligible compared to other 

sources on the NTS. Diffuse sources which 

are difficult to monitor, include seepage of 

noble gases from the ground caused by 

barometric pressure variations, evaporation 

of tritiated water from containment ponds, 

diffusion of tritiated water vapor from the 

RWMS-5, and resuspension of plutonium 

contaminated soil from safety and 

atmospheric test locations. 

In the 1995 NTS NESHAP report for 

airborne radioactive effluents (Black 1996), 

effluents from the tunnel ventilation systems 

were not reported because the tunnels were 

inactive. The airborne emission of tritiated 

water vapor from the containment ponds 

was conservatively reported as if all the 

liquid discharge into the ponds had 

evaporated and become airborne. For 

tritiated water vapor diffusing from the 

RWMS-5, plutonium particulate 

resuspension from Areas 3, 9 and various 

other areas on and near the NTS, and 

seepage of *‘Kr from Pahute Mesa, the 

airborne effluents were conservatively 

estimated as follows. The monitoring 

station with the maximum annual average 

concentration for the radionuclide in 

question was selected from among the 

surrounding sampling stations. An effective 

dose equivalent (EDE) was then calculated 

for that concentration. EPA’s CAP88-PC 

software program was used to determine 
what total activity would have to have been be 

emitted from the geometric center of the region 

in question in order to prbduce that EDE. 

Using these best estimates of air emissions in 

1995 as input to the CAP88-PC computer 

software model, EDEs and collective EDEs 

were calculated. The maximum potential 

individual EDE would have been only 0.18 

mrem, much less than the 10 mrem limit 

specified in 40 C.F.R. 61. 

3.1.2.3 NTS AIR QUALITY PERMIT 

COMPLIANCE 

Compliance with air quality permits is 

accomplished through permit reporting and 

renewals and ongoing verification of 

operational compliance with permit specified 

limitations. (See Chapter 4, Table 4.3, for a 

listing of active permits.) Common air pollution 

sources at the NTS include aggregate 

production, stemming activities, surface 

disturbances, fugitive dust from unpaved roads, 

fuel burning equipment, open burning, and fuel 

storage facilities. The 1994 Air Quality Permit 

Data Report was sent to the state of Nevada 

on February 13, 1995. This report includes 

aggregate production, operating hours of 

permitted equipment, and a report of all surface 

disturbances of five acres or greater. Hourly 

production rates were within permit 

specifications for 11 facilities. 

NTS air quality permits limit particulate 

emissions to 20 percent opacity, with the 

exception of one permit which limits opacity to 

10 percent. Certification to perform visible 

emissions opacity evaluations is required by 

the state, with recertification required every six 

months. During 1995, three REECo 

Environmental Compliance Office personnel 

and five operational personnel were certified 

and/or recertified. In 1995 these personnel 

performed, at a minimum, semiannual visible 

emission evaluations of permitted air quality 

point sources. When visual evaluations 

determine that an emission exceeds the 

opacity requirement, corrective action is 

initiated. Only the Area 1 Rotary Dryer 

exceeds opacity limit. Modifications that were 

initiated in 1993 to improve the situation are 

under way to bring the dryer into full 

compliance (see Section 3.2.1). 

During 1995, the state of Nevada personnel 

conducted one inspection of NTS equipment 

permitted under air quality operating permits 

or permits to construct. No findings of 

violations were issued. 

3.1.2.4 NON-NTS EG&G/EM 

OPERATIONS 

Normally, no activities that are part of 

ongoing operations at the six EG&G/EM 

facilities with DOE/NV projects produce 

radioactive effluents. In 1995, however, an 

unplanned release of radioactive tritium 

occurred at the Atlas Facility in North Las 

Vegas. This release was only a fraction of 

the level requiring action under the NESHAP 

radioactive air emission standards. 

Air quality operating permits were required 

for three of the six EG&G/EM operations. 

There were no effluent monitoring 

requirements associated with these permits. 

Compliance for each of these specific 

permits is discussed below. Twenty 

emission units at the EG&G/EM, Las Vegas 

Area Operation (LVAO);which includes the 

North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) and the 

Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL), were 

regulated during 1995 under conditions of 

15 permits issued by the Clark County 

Health District (CCHD), Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Amador Valley Operations (AVO) 

discontinued operation of its’ two solvent 

cleaning processes. 

Special Technologies Laboratory (STL) 

holds a permit to operate a vapor degreaser 

issued by the County of Santa Barbara, Air 

Pollution Control District (APCD). Permit 

conditions include throughput limitations and 

record-keeping requirements. 

Woburn Cathode Ray Tube Operations 

(WCO) ceased operation and was closed 

during the last quarter of 1994. 
No air permits were held or required for Los 

Alamos Operations, nor Washington Aerial 

Measurements Operations in 1995. 

3.1.3 CLEAN WATER ACT 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended by the CWA, establishes ambient 

water quality standards and effluent discharge 

limitations which are generally applicable to 

facilities which discharge any materials into the 

waters of the United States. Discharges from 

DOE/NV facilities are primarily regulated under 

the laws and regulations of the facility host 

states. Monitoring and reporting requirements 

are typically included under state or local 

permit requirements. A complete listing of 

applicable permits appears in Section 4.3. 

There are no National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 

DOE/NV facilities as there are no wastewater 

discharges to onsite or offsite surface waters. 

3.1.3.1 NTS OPERATIONS 

Discharges of wastewater are regulated by the 

state of Nevada under the Nevada Water 

Pollution Control Act. The state of Nevada also 

regulates the design, construction, and 

operation of wastewater collection systems and 

treatment works. Wastewater monitoring at the 

NTS was limited to sampling wastewater 

influents to sewage lagoons and containment 

ponds. 

State general permit GNEV93001, which 

regulates all ten active sewage treatment 

facilities on the NTS, was issued by the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP), and became effective on February 1, 

1994. Hydrogeological modeling utilizing site 

specific soil characteristics, vadose zone 

monitoring, groundwater monitoring, or lining 

an adequate portion of the impoundments at a 

specific facility were all accepted by NDEP as 

methods to comply with the permit 

requirements for protection of the groundwater. 

Compliance with sewage lagoon discharge 

permit requirements was achieved with the 

following four exceptions: 

l Organic loading limits listed in the permit 

were exceeded four times at three 

different facilities throughout the calendar 

year. Abnormally high influent flow rates 

were recorded at the Area 22, Gate 100 

facility during the first and second 

quarters; the Area 6, Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (LANL) Camp facility 

during the third quarter; and at the Area 

6, Yucca Lake facility during the fourth 

quarter. An innovative continuous flow 

measuring and sampling device installed 

at the Area 22, Gate 100 facility was 

taken out of service since solids 

accumulation created an artificial head. 

The flow rates recorded at the Area 6, 

LANL Camp and Yucca Lake facilities 

were also abnormally high due to solids 

accumulation. No operational problems 

were encountered at these facilities 

verifying that organic loadings on the 

primary lagoons was not excessive. 

A design flaw was also noted at the 

Yucca Lake continuous flow measuring 

device. The flow through the 3 inch 

influent Parshall flume is submerged 

resulting in an increased head at the 

measuring point. An insert for the flume 

has been ordered to correct this defect. 

An unauthorized discharge of 

approximately 10,000 gal of raw sewage 

from the Area 25, Reactor Control Point 

collection system occurred on May 1, 

1995. The main influent line was 

crushed by a backhoe performing 

environmental investigative work for a 

septic tank/leach field closure. The 

break occurred at a point where 

inadequate cover depth of 15 inches and 

improper cover material were installed on 

the line. 

Staff gages reliable to 8 cm are required 

in each infiltration basin according to Part 

I.D.2 of the general permit for sewage 

lagoons. These gages were only 

installed in the new RWMS-5 sewage 

lagoons, but no other active sites. 

R-!i 
Arsenic at a concentration of 0.91 mg/L was 

found within the Area 6, Yucca Lake infiltration 

basins in June of 1995. The general permit 

requires that an investigation be performed to 

determine the cause of any exceedance which 

is ten times the Nevada drinking water 

standard for specific inorganic constituents of 

infiltration basin liquids. Action to address this 

anomalous concentration and satisfy permit 

requirements will be completed in early 1996. 

A May 17, 1995, letter from NDEP indicated 

that the state’s interest regarding completion of 

all groundwater protection activities is deferred 

until the general permit expires on January 31, 

1999. Action outlines will still be submitted to 

NDEP at the start of each fiscal year to 

demonstrate progress in the implementation of 

acceptable methods of groundwater protection 

as improvements at all active facilities cannot 

be completed during the final year for which the 

permit is in effect. Evaluation of the acceptable 

methods for groundwater protection are 

reviewed on a regular basis due to the constant 

changes in material, equipment, construction, 

and indirect costs as well as changes in the 

usage of facilities. The chosen alternative for 

a facility which still requires an improvement 

may change from conclusions made in prior 

Action Outlines. 

Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) staff is still 

investigating a means to terminate the surface 

discharge from the U-12e Tunnel portal in Area 

12. The flow rate has not stabilized during 

these investigations, but has averaged less 

than 10 gal per minute. An application for a 

discharge permit was sent to NDEP in June of 

1993. NDEP has yet to initiate the permit 

process for this flow by issuing a draft permit 

for review. 

State of Nevada compliance personnel 

routinely inspected the NTS sewage lagoons 

and tunnel discharge ponds in 1995. No 

findings or notices of violation were issued for 

these permitted units. 

3.1.3.2 NON-NTS EG&G/EM OPERATIONS 

Permits for wastewater discharges were held 

for four non-NTS facilities. Monitoring and 

reporting were performed according to specific 

local requirements. 

The LVAO wastewater permit was revised 

from a Class I permit to a Class II permit by 

the City of North Las Vegas Department of 

Public Works. Monitoring was reduced from 

two times a year to once per year in 

October. The monitoring requirements were 

retained for the MG burn pit (a device for 

cutting metal) water prior to discharging; 

however, monitoring at ten additional 

outfalls prior to discharge was eliminated. 

The NLVF self-monitoring reports were 

submitted in October and November 1995. 

The Clark County Sanitation District 

wastewater permit for the RSL required 

biannual monitoring of two outfalls and 

quarterly pH and monthly septage reports. 

RSL monitoring reports were submitted in 

May and November 1995. 

The STL holds wastewater permits for the 

Botello Road and Elkhill Road locations. 

There is no required self monitoring. 

The WC0 ceased operation and was closed 

during the last quarter of 1994. 

No wastewater permits were held for the 

Los Alamos Operations, or the Washington 

Aerial Measurements Operations in 1995. 

3.1.4 SAFE DRINKING WATER 

ACT 

3.1.4.1 NTS OPERATIONS 

The SDWA primarily addresses quality of 

potable water supplies through sampling 

and monitoring requirements for drinking 

water systems. The state of Nevada has 

enacted and enforces SDWA regulations 

including system operations such as 

operation and maintenance, water haulage, 

operator certification, permitting, and 

sampling requirements. 

As required under state health regulations, 

potable water distribution systems at the 

NTS are monitored for residual chlorine 

content and coliform bacteria. Monitoring 

results for 1995 are discussed in Section 

7.1 .l .l. There were no incidents of positive 

coliform in 1995. 
NTS potable water distribution systems are 

also monitored for volatile organic compounds, 

inorganic compounds, and other water quality 

parameters. These monitoring results are 

discussed in Section 7.1.1.2. Volatile organic 

compounds, PCBs, and pesticides were not 

detected in any NTS potable water distribution 

system. Nitrate samples were also collected 

during 1995, with all of the results being below 

the maximum contaminant level (MCL). 

3.1.4.2 NTS WATER HAULAGE 

To accommodate the diverse and often 

transient field work locations at the NTS, a 

substantial water haulage program is used. To 

ensure potability of hauled water, the water is 

obtained from potable water fill stands, 

chlorinated in the truck and then sampled for 

coliform bacteria. The state of Nevada decided 

in 1994 that water hauling trucks should be 

permitted as water distribution systems. 

Permits were obtained again in 1995 for the 

three trucks and are listed in Chapter 4, Table 

4.4. There were no positive coliform sample 

results in 1995. 

3.1.4.3 NON-NTS EG&G/EM OPERATIONS 

The WC0 ceased operation and was closed 

during the last quarter of 1994. EG&G/EM has 

no other operations requiring compliance with 

SDWA. 

3.1.5 RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

AND RECOVERY ACT 

3-7 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 

constitute the statutory basis for the regulation 

of hazardous waste and underground storage 

tanks. 

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 DOE/NV facilities. 

The Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA) 

of 1992 extends the full range of enforcement 

authorities in federal, state, and local laws for 

management of hazardous wastes to 

federal facilities, including the NTS. A 

discussion of actions regarding the FFCA at 

the NTS is given in Section 3.1.6. 

3.1.5.1 NTS RCRA COMPLIANCE 

Compliance activities under state of Nevada 

hazardous waste management regulations 

during 1995 included receipt of a RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Operating Permit, 

participation in several NDEP inspections, 

and a response to a state finding of alleged 

violation (FOAV). The NDEP’s Bureau of 

Federal Facilities (BoFF) staff routinely 

inspects NTS facilities and work sites. 

During 1995, DOE/NV received a RCRA 

Hazardous Waste Operating Permit for 

operating the Area 5 Hazardous Waste 

Storage Unit and the Area 11 Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Unit. In addition, 

the DOE/NV revised the Part B Permit 

application to include the Mixed Waste 

Storage Pad and updated information 

concerning general facility conditions. 

On January 5, 1994, the state of Nevada 

and DOE/NV entered into a Mutual Consent 

Agreement, which allowed low-level 

radioactive mixed wastes generated on the 

NTS to be moved into storage at the Area 5 

RWMS TRU pad. This was amended in 

June to include Environmental Restoration 

mixed waste generated in Nevada. A 

quantity of waste was already in storage at 

this facility and will continue to be held in 

storage until a final determination of the 

proper treatment and disposal technology is 

established by the EPA. Under the FFCA, 

these mixed wastes were exempt from 

storage prohibitions in the Land Disposal 

Restrictions until October 6, 1995. NDEP 

has specified that this exemption has been 

extended through February 1996 pending 

negotiations towards a signed FFCA 

Compliance Order. 

A Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) 

was conducted in August 1995 by NDEP 

personnel. Four potential violations were 

identified in the 1995 CEI report. In a letter 

dated October 16, 1995, the NDEP stated 
that it would not pursue formal enforcement 

proceedings against DOE or REECo with 

regard to these potential violations. 

From March 9, 1995 through April 20, 1995, the 

state conducted a formal RCRA inspection of 

the facilities at the NTS that perform 

photographic processing. On June 6, 1995, 

the state issued an inspection report which 

fisted 36 potential vio!ations of state and federal law 

governing the treatment, storage, and disposal 

of hazardous waste. EG&G/EM was cited for 

17 potential violations, REECo for 16 potential 

violations, and lANL for 1 potential violation. 

On June 21,1995, REECo, EG&G/EM, and the 

state entered into a Voluntary Compliance 

Agreement (VCA) in the interest of amicably 

resolving any differences of opinion regarding 

environmental requirements under the NTS 

wastewater permit and other legal standards. 

The state agreed that in lieu of pursuing 

enforcement actions, REECo and EG&G/EM 

would complete a variety of activities designed 

to promote community service, education, and 

the clean-up of blighted sites located on the 

NTS. REECo and EG&G/EM also agreed to 

certain changes in the management of 

photographic wastes containing silver, 

including establishing a centralized 

management system for spent silver recovery 

canisters. On December 5, 1995, the state 

issued a letter confirming that all actions 

required by- the VCA had been completed 

satisfactorily. 

Following an informal inspection of the Area 25 

paint shop in July 1995, the state issued an 

inspection report/advisory letter to DOE/NV 

and REECo alleging noncompliance with NAC 

444.8632 “Compliance with Federal 

Regulations Adopted By Reference,” and NAC 

444.8671 “EPA Waste Code.” The state 

declined to issue any FOAVs. REECo did 

change its paint disposal practices to correct 

the problems noted by the state. 

On February 21, 1995, the state conducted a 

formal RCRA inspection of the T2B site at the 

NTS. Lead shielding material with radiological 

contamination at the T2B site had been 

characterized as mixed waste, but had not 

been moved to the designated mixed waste 

storage area. On March 10, 1995, the state 

issued a FOAV to DOE/NV and REECo for 

the improper storage of waste lead at the 

T2B site, in violation of NAC 444.8632 

“Compliance with Federal Standards.” On 

May 22, 1995, the state determined that 

“DOE, as the facility owner, is responsible 

for overseeing and insuring its contractor’s 

actions comply with regulatory requirements 

” Therefore, the penalty assessment 

was directed to DOE. 

3.1 S.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE 

REPORTING FOR NON-NTS, EG&G/EM 

OPERATIONS 

LVAO submitted to DOE/NV, in February 

1994, for submission to the state of Nevada, 

the Hazardous Waste Generator biennial 

report for hazardous wastes generated at 

the North Las Vegas Facility under EPA ID 

Number NVD097868731. No additional 

actions were required in 1995. 

3.1.5.3 UNDERGROUND STORAGE 

TANKS 

NTS OPERATIONS 

The NTS underground storage tank (UST) 

program continues to meet regulatory 

compliance schedules for the reporting, 

upgrading or removal of documented USTs. 

Efforts are continuing to identify 

undocumented USTs at the NTS. Once 

identified, undocumented USTs are reported 

to NDEP to satisfy state regulatory reporting 

requirements. 

During 1995, nine USTs were removed in 

accordance with state and federal 

regulations (see Table 3.2). Reportable 

releases were discovered with the removal 

of three tanks in Area 25 at the Control 

Building, the Power House, and the 

Radiation Safety Building. Remedial 

activities have commenced at each site. 

Twelve reportable UST release sites were 

remediated in 1995, including the Area 12 

Boiler House and Gas Station, the Area 23, 

By-Pass Yard and Gas Station, three sites 

at the Area 25, Power House, the Area 25, 

Technical Services Building, the Area 26, 

Power House, the Area 27, Boiler House, 

and the Area 11, Tweezer Facility. 
NON-NTS EG&G/EM OPERATIONS 

There were no issues involving UST at nonNTS locations during 1995. 

3.1.6 COMPREHENSIVE 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY 

ACT/SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS 

AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT 

(SARA) 

Compliance activities under CERCLASARA for 

1995 included SARA Section 312, Tier II 

reporting, and SARA Section 313 reporting to 

the state of Nevada. 

The possibility of listing the NTS on the 

National Priority List (NPL) of hazardous waste 

sites carries potential for extensive budgetary 

and organizational impacts. Although the NTS 

has not been listed on the NPL, planning for 

environmental mitigation and restoration are 

ongoing (see Section 3.2.8). The state of 

Nevada has taken action to negotiate a formal 

agreement with DOE/NV rather than waiting for 

the EPA to list the NTS on the NPL. This 

agreement will clearly establish the state’s role 

and authority over sites requiring evaluation 

and corrective actions, and establish agreedupon tasks, time schedules, and funding 

commitments. Negotiations continued in 1995 

between the DOE, the DNA and the NDEP to 

develop a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA). 

The final approval of the FFA is expected by 

April 1996. A preliminary three year schedule 

of activities for the Environmental Restoration 

Program and Defense Programs projects was 

provided to NDEP. 

3.1.6.1 NTS TIER II REPORTING UNDER 

SARA TITLE Ill 

In 1992, the state of Nevada combined 

reporting requirements for the SARA Title Ill, 

Sections 301-312 Tier II report to include 

information for the Nevada Fire Marshall 

Division, Uniform Fire Code Materials Report. 

The Sta?e renamed the document the “Nevada 

Combined Agency Hazardous Substances 

Report.” The 1994 Nevada Combined Agency 

Hazardous Substances Report for the NTS was 

submitted to the state on April 5, 1995, and 

contained information on 34 different 

chemicals in 36 areas which were above the 

reporting threshold. 

3.1.6.2 NON-NTS TIER II REPORTING 

UNDER SARA TITLE Ill 

The combined SARA Section 312, Tier II 

Report for the Area 5, Spill Test Facility and 

the EG&G/EM facilities in Areas 5 and 6 

was submitted to DOE/NV in April 1995. 

Ammonia and sulfur dioxide exceeded the 

SARA Extremely Hazardous Substances 

(EHS) threshold planning quantity. The 

Nevada Combined Agency Reports for 

EG&G/EM’s LVAO were submitted to 

DOE/NV in April 1995. There were no 

reportable EHSs at the NLVF. 

3.1.6.3 SARA TITLE Ill SECTION 313 

REPORTING 

In compliance with Executive Order 12856, 

DOE/NV must provide a Toxic Release 

Inventory Report required by Section 313 of 

the SARA Title Ill. In calender year 1994, 

no chemicals over the reporting threshold 

were handled so no report was required in 

1995. 

3.1.7 STATE OF NEVADA 

CHEMICAL CATASTROPHE 

PREVENTION ACT 

The state of Nevada Chemical Catastrophe 

Prevention Act of 1992 contains regulations 

for facilities defined as Highly Hazardous 

Substance Regulated Facilities. This law 

requires the registration of highly hazardous 

substances above predetermined thresholds. 

There were no reportable chemicals for 

1994, but a negative report to the state in 

1995 was not required. 

3.1.8 TOXIG SUBSTANCES s 

CONTROL ACT 

State of Nevada regulations implementing 

the TSCA require submittal of an annual 

report describing polychlorinated biphenyl 

(PCB) control activities. The 1994 NTS 
PCB annual report was transmitted to EPA and 

the state of Nevada on June 7, 1995. The 

report included the quantity and status of PCB 

and PCB-contaminated transformers and 

electrical equipment, at the NTS. Also reported 

were the number of shipments of PCBs and 

PCB-contaminated items from the NTS to an 

EPA approved disposal facility. Fifty-four (54) 

large and five small, low volume PCB 

capacitors remain under the management of 

the LANL in Area 27 of the NTS. 

3.1.9 FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, 

FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE 

ACT 

Pesticide usage included insecticides, 

herbicides, and rodenticides. Insecticides were 

applied twice a month at the food service and 

storage areas. Herbicides were applied once 

or twice a year at NTS sewage lagoons berms. 

All other pesticide applications were on an asrequested basis. General-use pesticides were 

preferred, although restricted-use herbicides 

and rodenticides were sometimes used. 

Contract companies applied pesticides at all 

non-NTS facilities in 1995. 

Records were maintained on all pesticides 

used, both general and restricted. These 

records will be held for at least three years. 

State-sponsored training materials are 

available for all applicators. No unusual 

environmental activities occurred in 1995 at the 

NTS relating to the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

3.1 .I 0 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

The National Historic Preservation Act requires 

federal agencies to consider any impact of their 

actions on cultural resources (archaeological 

sites, historic sites, historic structures, and 

traditional cultural properties) eligible for listing 

in the National Register of Historic Places (NR). 

Accordingly, DOE/NV conducts cultural 

resource surveys and other studies to assess 

any impacts NTS operations may have on such 

resources. When cultural resources eligible for 

the NR are found in a project area, and they 

cannot be avoided, plans are written for 

programs to recover data to mitigate the 

effects of operations on these sites. 

Technical reports contain the results of 

these data recovery programs. A data 

recovery program for a prehistoric site which 

began in 1994 was completed. More than 

27,000 artifacts were analyzed and a draft 

technical report was prepared on the 

various archaeological studies conducted at 

the NTS. The final technical report for 

another archaeological data recovery 

program was completed and distributed. 

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(AIRFA) directs federal agencies to consult 

with Native Americans to protect their right 

to exercise their traditional religions. In 

1989 the NTS AIRFA Compliance Program 

was established to assist DOE/NV in the 

development and implementation of a 

consultation plan, designed to solicit Native 

American comments regarding the effects of 

DOE/NV activities on Native American 

historic properties and the expression of 

traditional Native American religions. The 

Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) requires federal 

agencies to consult with Native Americans 

regarding items in their artifact collections 

which may be associated funerary items 

and human remains. In 1995, 5 elders from 

the 17 Native American tribal groups 

examined almost 300 items in the NTS 

collections. A workbook summarizing their 

information was completed and distributed 

to the tribes. The tribes representatives met 

at the NTS and recommended that nearly all 

the artifacts be considered NAGPRA items 

to be placed in perpetuity beneath the 

ground on the NTS. 

As part of the Programmatic Agreement with 

the State Historic Preservation Office and 

the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, work continued on the Long 

Range Study Plan for Pahute and Rainier 

Mesas. The objective of the plan is to study 

a geographically representative sample of 

all cultural resources on Pahute and Rainier 

Mesas. A modification of this plan, known 

as Attachment A, requires a summary and 

synthesis of existing archaeological data 

f!X% ASER frsr the NT!3 3-10 
from the Mesas and the preparation of three 

professional papers over a 2- to 3-year period. 

In 1995, the first paper, Cultural Chronology of 

Pahute and Rainier Mesas, was reviewed, 

revised, and completed. Work was initiated on 

the Adaptive Strategies paper. In 1995, one 

cultural resources survey was conducted on 

Rainer Mesa and located one historic 

archaeological site which was determined 

ineligible for the NR. During the tenure of this 

agreement, no data recovery will be 

undertaken on the Mesas. 

3.1.11 THREATENED AND 

ENDANGERED SPECIES 

PROTECTION 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires 

federal agencies to insure that their actions do 

not jeopardize the continued existence of 

federally listed endangered or threatened 

species or their critical habitat. The American 

peregrine falcon is the only endangered 

species that has been documented on the 

NTS. The desert tortoise and the bald eagle 

are threatened species which occur on the 

NTS. DOE/NV consulted with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and received a 

non-jeopardy Biological Opinion in April 1991 

for planned activities at Forty-mile Canyon on 

the NTS for a g-year period and a non-jeopardy 

Biological Opinion in May 1992 for planned 

activities at the NTS for a 5-year period. 

There are 22 species known or expected to 

occur on the NTS that are candidates for listing 

by the USFWS under the ESA. In 1995, 

DOE/NV conducted 17 preconstruction 

biological surveys at proposed construction 

sites to determine the presence of these 

species. Survey results and mitigation 

recommendations were documented in survey 

reports. 

Locations were mapped and updated for one 

Category 2 candidate plant species for federal 

listing (Parish’s phacelia). New locations of two 

other candidate plant species were found as a 

result of the Parish’s phacelia surveys. After 

summarizing the results of data collected on all 

candidate plant species from 1991 through 

1995, a final report was prepared that 

•!l 

summarized the distributions, habitat, and 

status of Category 2 candidate plant 

species on and near the NTS. 

3.1.12 EXECUTIVE ORDER 

11988, FLOODPLAIN 

MANAGEMENT 

There were no projects in 1995 which 

required consultation for floodplain 

management. NTS design criteria do not 

specifically address floodplain management; 

however, all projects are reviewed for areas 

which would be affected by a loo-year flood 

pursuant to DOE Order 6430.1 A. 

3.1 .I 3 EXECUTIVE ORDER 

il990, PROTECTION OF 

WETLANDS 

There were no projects in 1995 which 

required consultation for protection of 

wetlands. NTS design criteria do not 

specifically address protection of wetlands; 

however, all projects are reviewed pursuant 

to the requirements of DOE Order 5400.1. 

3.1.14 EXECUTIVE ORDER 

12856, FEDERAL COMPLIANCE 

WITH RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAWS 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

REQUIREMENTS 

Actions taken to comply with the 

requirements of this Executive Order are 

discussed in Section 3.2.6. 

3.2 CURRENT 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

COMPLIANCE ISSUES AND 

ACTIONS 

There were numerous activities and actions 

relating to environmental compliance issues 

in 1995. These activities and actions are 

discussed below grouped by general area of 

applicability. 

3-11 
3.2.1 CLEAN AIR ACT 

Modifications to the Area 1 Rotary Dryer, 

including the installation of new heat tiles and 

modifications to the storage silo, are still in 

progress to bring the operation into full 

compliance with state opacity limits. The Area 

3, Portec Hopper, which had been scheduled 

for relocation to the Area 1 Batch Plant, has 

not been in operation and will be dismantled 

and sold. 

Under Title V, Part 70 of the CAA 

Amendments, all owners or operators of Part 

70 sources must pay annual fees that are 

sufficient to cover costs of state operating 

permit programs. Accordingly, annual source 

maintenance and emission fees of $17,500 

were assessed by the state in August 1995, for 

all NTS facilities operating under Air Quality 

Operating Permits. Of the $17,500, only $10 

was attributable to emissions. At a workshop 

held by the state in October 1995, Bureau of 

Air Quality personnel stated that the existing 

fee schedule was being revised to possibly 

place more emphasis on emissions fees rather 

than maintenance fees. 

On October 5, 1995, the EPA Region 9 issued 

identical warning letters to DOE/NV and 

REECo, alleging violations of Section 608 of 

the CAA, which deals with emissions of ozonedepleting compounds (mainly refrigerants). 

The EPA had received a written complaint 

stating that REECo knowingly vented regulated 

refrigerants to the atmosphere and assigned 

uncertified technicians to perform refrigeration 

work. REECo reviewed the allegations and 

determined they were unsubstantiated. The 

EPA has not corresponded further or attempted 

any enforcement action. 

3.2.2 CLEAN WATER ACT 

A NPDES permit may be issued for the NTS 

and the NLVF as part of the state 

implementation of the federal storm water 

discharge regulations. The federal storm water 

regulations identify regulated facilities by a 

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code. 

A survey conducted in accordance with 

guidance received from the EPA Region 9 

and the Office of Management and Budget 

revealed that the primary SIC code for the 

NLVF suggested that it was not an activity 

subject to those regulations. A survey 

report was prepared and submitted to the 

state of Nevada requesting a formal 

determination on the regulatory status of the 

NLVF. This determination is still pending. 

Dewatering of septage and winter time 

portable toilet waste was conducted in the 

Area 25 Engine Test Stand No. 1 sewage 

lagoon and two Area 12 sewage lagoon 

secondary infiltration basins. The Area 2 

secondary basin was permanently 

abandoned after a flash flood destroyed the 

facility in March of 1995. The Area 12 and 

Area 25 locations will be used again in 1996 

for this application. 

Improvements to the Area 6 

Decontamination Facility were completed in 

May of 1995. A fourth Baker tank, individual 

outlets from all the holding tanks, and a 

common discharge line which directs flow of 

acceptable quality to the domestic sewage 

collection system were installed. Previous 

comprehensive sampling and analyses have 

verified that this flow is acceptable. An 

updated Operation and Maintenance 

Manual which includes these improvements 

and operational changes still must be 

submitted to NDEP for approval. 

A total of 14 active septic tanWleachfield 

systems and two holding tanks are still in 

service on the NTS. Facility Managers of 

each will be informed of deficiencies noted 

during recent inspections. The two active 

holding tanks must be taken out of service 

or replaced with acceptable septic 

tank/leachfield systems. 

Approval of the Closure Plan for Active or 

Recently Abandoned Septic Tank/Holding 

Tank Systems was granted by NDEP in 

August 1995. Final NDEP comments 

contained in the approval have been 

included in the plan. The Plan contains 

guidance for content sampling, analysis, 

and disposal; tank abandonment; and, 

requirements for future leachfield sampling. 
Funding was secured in 1995 for the 

installation of geo-synthetic clay liners within 

the existing primary lagoons and secondary 

infiltration basin at the Area 22 system. 

Construction should be started by the early 

summer of 1996.’ 

Funding for hydrogeological modeling proposed 

for the Area 6 DAF and the LANL Camp 

infiltration basins was not secured in 1995. An 

acceptable method of groundwater protection 

will again be proposed at both of these sites in 

the future. The installation of an engineered 

liner in one of the secondary infiltration basins 

at the LANL Camp facility to a 2 foot depth is 

now the most cost effective method of 

complying with the permit due to recent 

reduction in flows. 

A February 27, 1995, letter from the Yucca 

Mountain Site Characterization Office indicated 

that the sewage lagoon operations serving the 

Area 25 Central Support facilities will be 

assessed and that costs for appropriate 

monitoring, modeling, or engineered solutions 

would be funded in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. 

That letter also indicated that plans were 

finalized to relocate users of the Area 25 Test 

Cell C sewage lagoons by 1998. It can then be 

taken out of service. 

No improvements are planned to the Area 25 

Reactor Control Point sewage lagoons. 

Expansion of the lagoons is required to prevent 

a surface discharge due to increased usage 

along with implementation of a groundwater 

protection method. Treated sewage flowed into 

the secondary basin for the first time in 

September 19, 1995. Pumping is required to 

ensure containment of treated sewage within 

the existing impoundments. It is planned to 

take this facility out of service by the expiration 

date of the permit since no source of funding is 

available for expansion and evaluation of 

groundwater protection methods. 

The Area 6 CP Gravity Sewer Main Project was 

completed on September 12, 1995. Sewage 

flows previously directed into the CP-6 and CP72 sewage lagoons are now discharged into 

the Area 6 Yucca Lake facility. A savings of 

approximately $20,000 per year for monitoring, 

•!l 

operation, and maintenance costs will be 

realized by taking the two lagoon sites out 

of service. 

The Area 23, Infiltration Basin Groundwater 

Monitoring Well Project Management Plan 

was approved by NDEP on August 24, 

1995. Drilling activity for the monitoring well 

was initiated on October 30, 1995, with 

completion anticipated in February of 1996. 

Compliance with the groundwater protection 

requirements in the permit will be attained 

for the Area 23 sewage lagoons with the 

completed installation. 

Construction of the RWMS-5 sewage 

collection system and lagoons was 

completed in September 1995. Engineered 

liners have been installed within both 

primary lagoons and both secondary basins 

to comply with the groundwater protection 

requirements in the state general permit. 

As-built certification and sewage lagoon 

specifications still must be forwarded to 

NDEP for approval and addendum to the 

general permit. 

Construction of the Area 3 RWMS septic 

tanWleachfield system was completed in 

October 1995. This installation eliminated 

the use of a sewage holding tank which did 

not comply with state regulations. 

The Area 6, Service Station septic 

tank/leachfield system was placed in service 

in September 1995. This installation also 

eliminated the use of a sewage holding tank 

which did not comply with state regulations. 

Approval for closure of the sewage holding 

tank is still required from NDEP. 

3.2.3 SAFE DRINKING WATER 

ACT 

Engineering design was completed in 1995 

on approximately 50 buildings or facilities at 

the NTS requiring retrofit through installation 

of backflow prevention devices on water 

service lines. These facilities included over 

110 separate installations. Engineering 

plans for four of these facilities were sent to 

3-13 lQ!XASER hr the NT’S 
the state for approval prior to start of 

construction. As of the end of 1995, work in 

eight facilities has been completed, and 

materials for all remaining installations have 

been received. REECo has completed 

installation of anti-siphon devices in 

approximately 132 facilities that did not require 

state approval or engineering. It is projected 

that all backflow prevention work will be 

completed by May 1996. 

During 1995, quarterly samples continued to be 

collected from Well 4 to monitor the nitrate 

level. The state-collected sample in 1993 was 

over half the allowable level, which requires 

four quarterly samples to be taken. All sample 

results were within the allowable level, and the 

required sampling was completed in 1995. 

The well casings were raised to extend at least 

six inches above the surface at Well 4 and at 

the Army Well to meet state requirements. 

Other system improvements were the 

replacement of the water line between Army 

Well and Mercury, replacement of pump 

equipment in six wells and the replacement of 

two booster pumps at the 5a Booster Station. 

There was no inspection of the water 

distribution systems by the Nevada Bureau of 

Health Service during 1995. 

3.2.4 COMPREHENSIVE 

ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, 

COMPENSATION, AND LIABILITY 

ACT 

Other than the reporting covered in Section 

3.1.6, there is no formal CERCLA program at 

the NTS. The FFA with the state may preclude 

the NTS from being placed on the National 

Priority List. The FFA will take more of a 

RCRA approach in remediating environmental 

problems. 

3.2.5 HISTORIC PRESERVATION 

Historic preservation studies and surveys are 

conducted by the Desert Research Institute 

(DRI), University and Community College 

System of Nevada. In 1995,25 surveys were 

19?25 ASER fsr tie NTS 3-14 

conducted for historic properties on the 

NTS, and reports on the findings were 

prepared. These surveys identified four 

prehistoric archaeological sites, four historic 

archaeological sites, and three historic 

structures associated with the nuclear 

testing program. Only one of these locales 

was considered eligible for the NR. One 

other structure and one other location 

associated with the nuclear testing program 

were evaluated for their historic significance 

and were deemed eligible for the NR. To 

negate potential adverse effects on the 

Japanese Village and Jr. Hot Cell, the 

structures were recorded in accordance with 

the Historic American Building Survey 

requirements. The documents for the 

Japanese Village are in review at the 

National Park Service. The Jr. Hot Cell 

documentation has been completed and 

approved. 

Other efforts in 1995 included administration 

of the cultural resources program on the 

NTS, preparing management objectives and 

plans, and’ promoting public relations and 

communications concerning the NTS 

archaeology and cultural resources 

program. 

To comply with federat regulations in 36 

C.F.R. 79, a multi-phase program is in 

progress to upgrade the NTS archaeological 

collection and archives. In 1995, DRI 

continued the piece-by-piece inventory of 

the lithic artifacts in the collection. Over 60 

percent of the nearly 566,000 artifacts in the 

collection have been inventoried and 

repackaged according to federal 

requirements. 

3.2.6 WASTE MINIMIZATION 

3.2.6.1 NTS OPERATIONS 

. 

The majority of NTS contractors and users 

have published Waste Minimization/Pollution 

Prevention Plans and Task Plans in 

accordance with DOE/NV requirements. 

These plans are designed to reduce waste 

generation and possible pollutant releases 

to the environment. 
Some contractors have revised their plans, 

incorporating the most current waste 

minimization requirements and Executive 

Orders, and are establishing ongoing goals for 

further improvements. These ongoing efforts 

provide increased protection of public health 

and the environment, as well as: 

l Reduced employee exposure. 

l Reduced waste management and 

compliance costs. 

l Reduced resource usage. 

l Reduced inventories of chemicals that 

require reporting under the SARA, and the 

EPA 33/5Q Pollution Prevention Program. 

l Reduced exposure to civil and criminal 

liabilities under environmental laws. 

l Reduced overhead costs and increased 

productivity through improved work 

processes and greater awareness. 

All DOE/NV quantitative goals and schedules 

for 1995 were met or exceeded. Total NTS 

hazardous waste generation was reduced in 

1995 compared to waste generated in 1994. 

The NTS program recycles and returns to 

productive use significant quantities of 

materials. (see Table 3.3). 

The REECo Just-in-Time (JIT) supply system 

now accounts for nearly 90 percent of all 

procurement actions, providing most common 

use items; e.g., cleansers and lubricants, to all 

NTS agencies. This program has significantly 

reduced on-hand stores, thereby reducing 

administrative and handling costs, and 

significantly reducing waste generation due to 

expiration of shelf life or overstock conditions. 

All parties benefit in reduced waste disposal 

and increased productivity. 

Chlorofluorocarbon (freon) recycling equipment 

is in place at all NTS service and maintenance 

centers. All freon is recovered and reused, 

eliminating ozone-depleting substance 

emissions into the atmosphere almost 

completely. New service personnel are 

trained and certified in the operation of this 

equipment. Previously certified workers 

were recertified under a Federal EPA clause 

recognizing primary training efforts. 

Approximately 80 service personnel are 

currently certified to operate freon recycling 

equipment. 

The DOE/NV, its contractors, and other 

agencies and users serve as members of 

the DOE/NV Waste Minimization Task Force 

which conducts pollution prevention 

campaigns, reaching all employees as well 

as the surrounding community. The Task 

Force has developed a Pollution Prevention 

and Waste Minimization training course 

which has been concurred with by DOE/NV 

and is available to all DOE/NV contractors 

and users. 

3.2.6.2 NON-NTS EG&G/EM 

OPERATIONS 

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 

During 1995, processes were evaluated for 

product substitution, cross-contamination 

control, or site treatment. Organizational 

Operating Procedure No. 31 -C300-004.A, 

“JIT Purchase Requisition Review” 

establishes the review requirements for the 

procurement of hazardous materials to 

ensure proper tracking and appropriate 

substitutes are identified. 

TRAINING 

EG&G/EM employees and managers are 

trained on company policies, procedures, 

and rules and review waste minimization 

training videos. Some employees have 

completed the performance-based training 

module entitled “Introduction to Waste 

Minimization Techniques.” Many employees 

received refresher training during 1995. 

PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION 

EG&G/EM has made progress towards 

substituting chemicals that have a high 

stratospheric ozone depletion potential with 
chemicals that have a lower depletion potential. 

Most air conditioner refrigerants at EG&G/EM 

facilities have been substituted with HCFC-22, 

which has an ozone depletion potential of five 

percent as compared to CFC-11 and CFC-12. 

Substitutions for l,,l ,l -trichloroethane have 

either been implemented or are in the trial 

phase. Less hazardous janitorial chemicals 

have replaced existing stock to minimize 

variety and quantity of chemicals used and 

stored onsite. 

POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITY 

ASSESSMENTS (PPOA) 

Fifteen PPOAs were completed in fiscal year 

1995 (FY95). Eight of the 15 have been 

implemented, which has reduced the amount of 

waste streams or decreased the use of 

precious resources. 

REPORTS. 

The 1994 annual report on Waste Generation 

and Waste Minimization Progress was 

submitted to DOE in September 1995, in 

accordance with the requirements of DOE 

Order 5400.1, “General Environmental 

Protection Program.” 

RECYCLING 

Freon recycling systems capable of capturing, 

cleaning, and drying the freon for reuse are 

used for air conditioning systems EG&G/EM 

operates and maintains. EG&G/EM has also 

implemented a recycling program for HP Laser 

Jet II/III and Canon FAX toner cartridges. 

EG&G/EM recycled over 2064 lb of automotive 

batteries, 2,628 lb of toner cartridges, and 

265,160 lb of OPSEC and high-grade paper. 

TREATMENT/VOLUME REDUCTION 

The RSL PhotoNideo Section implemented in 

FY95 the following process modifications to the 

aerial film processors (Kodak RT-1811 and 

Houston VNF) to minimize potassium 

ferricyanide bleach consumption and 

associated discharges to the Clark County 

Sanitation District (CCSD). 

The aerial film processes bleach tank’s 

spillover and drainage are transported via a 

plumbing network to a Kobelcell ferricyanide 

bleach regeneration system. During the 

aerial film’s bleaching process, potassium 

ferricyanide, the bleaching agent, is 

depleted, converting all metallic silver 

formed by development into insoluble silver 

salts. Potassium ferrocyanide is the byproduct of this chemical reaction. 

The bleach regeneration process 

incorporates a Nash Cell to electrolytically 

convert potassium ferrocyanide to 

potassium ferricyanide. Depleted bleach is 

circulated through an electrically charged 

cell, converting the ferrocyanide to 

ferricyanide with the by-products of 

hydroxide and hydrogen gas. The hydrogen 

gas discharged from the regeneration 

process is 5 percent of the threshold for 

flammability. The hydroxide is separated 

from the ferricyanide solution and mixed 

with a solution of hydrobromic acid. The 

bromide and water replenishment make up 

the requirements for an active regenerated 

ferricyanide bleach. The ferricyanide bleach 

is then pumped to a 150-gal holding tank 

and routed back to the aerial film 

processors completing the closed loop 

regeneration process. 

The Kobelcell bleach regeneration system 

reduces aerial bleach consumption by 1,850 

gal annually. Additionally, total cyanide 

discharges to the CCSD have been virtually 

eliminated. Since the aerial bleach 

regeneration system is a closed-loop 

process, all remaining cyanide discharges to 

the CCSD are associated with ferricyanide 

carry-over transported by the aerial film into 

the fixer and wash processor tanks following 

the bleach tanks. The following process 

modifications were implemented in FY95 to 

eliminate total cyanide discharges 

associated with aerial film carry-over. 

The aerial processor’s fixer chemical tank 

spillover and drainage are pumped to a 

holding tank containing silver bearing 
3.Q CO/W& lANCE SUMMARY 

chemicals, pH adjusted, electrolytically 

desilvered, pumped through a metallic 

replacement column, transported to a holding 

tank, pH adjusted and then processed through 

evaporators to reduce the spent chemical’s 

volume by up to 97 percent. The evaporators 

produce two products, water distillate and a 

dried sludge. The water distillate from the 

evaporators is pumped to a 4000-gal holding 

tank. After the water has accumulated to a set 

threshold in the holding tank, it is routed 

through a neutralization system to achieve a 

pH between 5.0 and 11 .O. The dried sludge is 

accumulated in 55-gal drums for disposal. The 

final stage of treatment consists of routing 

the water distillate through a network of ion 

exchange columns. The columns reduce 

the silver concentration to a level below the 

permitted 6.3 ppm. 

Annual non-regenerated EA-5 bleach and 

associated labor mixing costs equal 

$19,500. The annual cost for operating the 

Kobelcell bleach regeneration system is 

$9,000. Annual savings of $10,500 are 

realized by regenerating EA-5 bleach. 

Additionally, 1,800 gal of ferricyanide bleach 

annually discharged to the CCSD are 

eliminated. 

MATERIAL & WASTE STREAM SUMMARY 

Total Releases 

Input Material 

Annual % 

Usage Recycle 

% % % % 

Air Liquid Solid Total 

Hydrobromic 

Acid 

Potassium 

Ferricyanide 

EA-5 Bleach 

Water 

6 gal 99 c 1.0 c 1.0 0 c 1.0 

15,000 gal 99 < 1.0 c 1.0 0 c 1.0 

/ 1,850 gal 99 < 1.0 c 1.0 0 c 1.0 

I 150 gal 90 10 c 1.0 0 10 

3.2.7 SOLID/SANITARY WASTE 

During 1995, sanitary landfills were operated in 

Areas 9 and 23. The amount of material 

disposed of in each is provided in Chapter 7.0, 

Table 7.9. 

EPA regulations promulgated in 1991 required 

that Class II municipal solid waste landfills; i.e., 

those receiving less than 20 tons per day of 

waste be closed by October 9, 1995. (This 

requirement was delayed by EPA for two years 

on October 5,1995.) An agreement was made 

with the NDEP/BoFF which allowed the 

existing Class II landfill at U-1Oc Crater to . 

be partially closed for accepting municipal 

solid waste and reopened as a less 

regulated Class III landfill for the 

acceptance of construction debris only. The 

partial closure plan accepted by 

NDEP/BoFF required the placement of a 

barrier layer consisting of at least four feet 

of native soil compacted to 90 percent. Five 

neutron monitoring tubes were to be placed 

three feet into the barrier layer and one tube 

outside of the landfill to detect the 

percolation of moisture into the soil. 
Construction of the barrier began on October 

16, 1995, and by December 14, 1995, the 

neutron monitoring tubes were in place. A 

Construction Summary Report was prepared 

for NDEP/BoFF’s acceptance, and the landfill 

will reopen in mid-January. Total cost for the 

project was approximately $700,000. 

Table 7.9 in Chapter 7.0 gives the amount of 

hydrocarbon contaminated soil disposed of in 

the Area 6 landfill in 1995. The O&M Plan for 

this facility was approved in 1995 to allow for 

the disposal of gasoline-contaminated soil. 

The revision indicates the sampling and 

analysis to be done to ensure lead and 

benzene concentrations meet the state criteria 

for disposal in the hydrocarbon landfill. 

Eleven inactive landfills had been identified by 

the NDEP/BoFF which required closure 

according to solid waste regulations 

promulgated prior to 1991. Discussions with 

NDEP/BoFF personnel allowed one of these 

sites (a crater used as landfill) to be considered 

closed for purposes of this corrective action 

program. Work plans were prepared and 

accepted by NDEP/BoFF prior to commencing 

closure work. Each work plan requires postclosure inspection and maintenance for a 

minimum of five years. Closure work started in 

mid-October. Eight of the remaining ten sites 

were completed by the end of 1995. 

The NTS Cleanup Project, initiated in 1994, is 

an activity devised to remove and dispose of or 

recycle, where applicable, nonhazardous 

debris and material and readily identifiable 

hazardous debris and material. Approximately 

681,000 Ibs of solid waste were removed from 

Area 2 and properly disposed of. Also, 

approximately 62,000 Ibs of salvageable 

materials, consisting primarily of lead-acid 

batteries, were salvaged and subsequently 

recycled. 

3.2.8 ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESTORATION/REMEDIATlON 

ACTIVITIES 

The NTS has an ongoing Environmental 

Restoration Program (ERP) for the 

characterization and restoration of 

contaminated facilities or areas. In 1995, 

1%X ASER liar the MS 3-l 8 

characterization and restoration activities 

associated with the ERP included: 

Post closure monitoring of the Mercury 

Landfill Hazardous Waste Trenches 

RCRA Closure Unit was conducted on a 

quarterly basis for soil moisture. Due to 

excessive precipitation in the winter 

months, monthly monitoring was 

conducted during the first six months of 

the year. Monthly inspections of the two 

covers also occurred. The covers are 

performing as designed with no releases 

occurring. Monthly inspections of the 

unit indicated that the surface drainage 

needs to be modified to prevent standing 

water. A preliminary drainage design 

was completed in August. This work as 

well as maintenance to neutron access 

tubes is planned for 1996. 

Characterization of the U3fi Injection Well 

RCRA Closure Unit was completed in 

August. Unit closure was initiated on 

September 5 and it was closed on 

September 28, 1995. 

Eight underground storage tanks were 

removed under the Environmental 

Restoration Program and one was 

removed under Defense Programs. All 

tank contents were removed and properly 

disposed of, and the soil around the 

tanks was sampled for proper site closure. 

Remediation was completed at the Area 

2 Vertical Pull Test Facility with the 

excavation and disposal of the lead and 

petroleum hydrocarbon impacted soils. 

Impact to the soils was the result of the 

use of lead containing pipe lubricants 

during pipe thread testing and cleaning 

activities. 

. 

Preliminary characterization of the Area 

23, Building 650 Leachfield RCRA 

Closure Unit was conducted through a 

hole in the bottom of the distribution box. 

Results indicate that fission products are 

present below the distribution box. 

Additional characterization will be 

conducted in 1996 to determine site 

conditions and remedial options. 
l The Area 2, Bitcutter Shop and Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Post 

Shot Containment Building were removed. 

In March, approximately 90 gal of lead 

impacted sludge was removed from one 

injection well. The Bitcutter Shop and LLNL 

Post Shot Containment Building 

characterization was completed in May. All 

investigation derived waste was properly 

managed and disposed of in November 1995 

(seventy-two 55-gal drums). 

l Decommissioning and decontamination 

activities of the Area 25 Jr. Hot Cell began in 

August and were completed in September to 

meet a DOE/HQ and NV milestone. 

l Fourteen abandoned leachfields were 

sampled for a wide range of parameters for 

preliminary characterization. A report 

summarizing the activities and findings was 

submitted to DOE/NV. Additional 

characterization will be required to determine 

site conditions and disposal options. 

l The Area 12 Fleet Operations Steam 

Cleaning Discharge Area was sampled for a 

wide range of parameters to evaluate site 

conditions. Additional sampling is 

anticipated during 1996 to determine 

remedial options and waste volumes for 

disposal. 

. A total estimated cost was prepared for the 

environmental restoration/remediation of the 

former Areas 2 and 3 Camps under Defense 

Programs. 

. Preliminary characterization of the Area 6 

Steam Cleaning Effluent Ponds RCRA 

Closure Unit was conducted. 

+ Twelve UST sites, where the tanks had been 

removed in prior years, were remediated in 

1995. 

3.2.9 RADIATION PROTECTION 

3.2.9.1 NTS OPERATIONS 

Redesign of the environmental surveillance 

networks on the NTS during 1995 resulted in a 

reduction of monitoring costs while maintaining 

necessary and sufficient coverage. Results 

of this monitoring during 1995 indicated full 

compliance with the radiation exposure 

guidelines of DOE Order 5400.5, “Radiation 

Protection of the Public and the 

Environment” and the 40 C.F.R. 141 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations. Onsite air monitoring results 

showed average annual concentrations 

ranging from 0.009 percent of the DOE 

Order 5400.5 guidelines for (j5Kr in air to 1.6 

percent of the guidelines for 239+240Pu in air. 

Drinking water supplies on the NTS 

contained less than 0.001 percent of the 

DOE Order 5400.5 guideline and less than 

0.004 percent of the National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulation for tritium. 

Supply wells contained 0.0 percent of the 

DOE Order 5400.5 guideline for 23g+240Pu. 

3.2.9.2 NON-NTS EG&G/EM 

OPERATIONS 

Results of environmental monitoring at the 

off-NTS EG&GIEM operations doing 

radiological work during 1995 indicate full 

compliance with the radiation exposure 

guidelines of DOE Order 5400.5. An 

unplanned radioactive emission at the Atlas 

facility in North Las Vegas caused by 

inspection of stored tritium foils released 

about 123 mCi. Onsite air monitoring 

results at this facility showed a maximum 

average annual concentration of 28.5 

pCi/m3 (1 .l Bq/rr?) for tritium in air. Using 

CAP88-PC, this release caused a maximum 

EDE to an offsite person of 0.59 prem, far 

below the 10 mrem EPA limit. No 

radioactive or nonradioactive surface 

water/liquid discharges, subsurface 

discharges through leaching, leaking, 

seepage into the soil column, well disposal, 

or burial occurred at any of the EG&G/EM 

operations. Use of radioactive materials is 

primarily limited to sealed sources; however, 

unsealed tritium sources are used in some 

operations. Facilities which use radioactive 

sources or radiation producing equipment, 

with the potential to expose the general 

population outside the prope’rty line to direct 

radiation, are: STL during the operation of 

the sealed tube neutron generator; STL 

during operation of the Febetron; the RSL at 

NAFB; and the Atlas, NLVF A-l Source 
Range. Sealed sources are tested every six 

months to ensure there is no leakage of 

radioactive material. Fence line radiation 

monitoring was conducted at these facilities. 

At least two TLDs are at the fence line on each 

side of the facility. The TLDs are exchanged 

quarterly with additional control TLDs kept in a 

shielded safe. The monitoring data were 

consistent with previous data indicating no 

exposures to the public from any of the 

monitored facilities. 

3.2.10 ENVIRONMENTAL 

COMPLIANCE AUDITS 

3.2.10.1 TIGER TEAM COMPLIANCE 

ASSESSMENT 

The DOE Tiger Team Compliance Assessment of 

the NTS conducted from October 30 to December 

1, 1989, was part of a 1 O-point initiative by the 

Secretary of Energy to conduct independent 

oversight compliance and management 

assessments of environmental, safety, and health 

programs at DOE facilities. The Team identified 

149 deficiencies including 45 environmental 

“findings” in its assessment, none of which 

reflected situations which presented an 

immediate risk to public health or the 

environment. In 1995, the last of these 

deficiencies was closed. 

3.2.10.2 NTS ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS 

In March 1993, an environmental compliance 

assessment was conducted by REECo of all 

active REECo facilities and work sites at the 

NTS. Numerous deficiencies were corrected at 

the time of the assessment. Those 

deficiencies which were not correctable were 

assigned a system deficiency number and are 

being formally tracked. The assessment 

identified approximately 55 of these system 

deficiencies. As of the end of 1995, two of the 

identified deficiencies remain open. As part of 

the Environmental Corrective Action Plan 

developed to prevent these problems from 

reoccurring, line management is now required 

to perform monthly compliance inspections of 

their facilities, and to enter any deficiencies into 

an Automated Deficiency Tracking System 

(ADTS) for corrective action tracking. During 

1995 line management inspections found 88 

(42 percent) of the 209 environmental 

deficiencies that were entered into the 

ADTS. 

3.2.11 OCCURRENCE 

REPORTING 

Occurrences are environmental, health, 

and/or safety-related events which are 

repotted in several categories in accordance 

with the requirements of DOE Order 

5000.3B, “Occurrence Reporting and 

Processing of Operations Information.” The 

reportable occurrences for both on- and offNTS facilities appears in Tables 3.4 and 3.5, 

respectively. An analysis of occurrences for 

1995 as required by the Order showed that 

there were four main reasons for them: (1) 

management problems - 50 percent, (2) 

personnel error -18 percent, (3) procedural 

problems - 11 percent, and (4) external 

phenomena - 9 percent. 

3.2.12 LEGAL ACTIONS 

On June 28, 1994, the state of Nevada filed 

a Complaint for Declaratory Judgement and 

Injunction against DOE in the U.S. District 

Court in Nevada. Nevada is seeking 

declaratory judgements that DOE has failed 

to comply with NEPA requirements at the 

NTS by not issuing a sitewide EIS for all 

major federal actions at the NTS and 

seeking orders to halt shipments of low-level 

radioactive waste from Fernald, as well as 

all other transportation, receipt, storage, and 

disposal of mixed waste, hazardous waste, 

and defense waste. The state is also 

seeking to enjoin DOE from pursuing any 

“Weapons Complex” activities, including 

nuclear testing, research, and development 

that will significantly impact the environment 

until publication of the sitewide EIS. In 

January 1995, the Court dismissed claims 

regarding an EIS due to mootness since 

DOE/NV had already begun the scoping 

process for a sitewide EIS, dismissed 

Nevada’s claims regarding shipment of 

Fernald low-level waste, and dismissed 

claims regarding contents of the EIS as not 

yet ripe for adjudication. The remaining 
claim is regarding disposal of low-level 

radioactive waste from other offsite disposal 

facilities. Discovery is proceeding in this case. 

DOE/NV and REECo received a notification 

letter regarding alleged potentially responsible 

party status connected with a commercial 

disposal site in California. The California 

Department of Toxic Substances Control 

notified DOE/NV that Omega Chemical Co., a 

hazardous waste treatment and storage facility 

which recently declared bankruptcy and is 

unable to clean up the site, possessed records 

indicating that DOE/NV had shipped hazardous 

waste to the site between January 1988 and 

January 1992. Jurisdiction of this site has 

been transferred to the U.S. EPA. 

3.3 PERMIT SUMMARY 

For facilities used in the operation and 

maintenance of the NTS and non-NTS 

facilities, the DOE/NV contractors providing 

such operation and support activities for the 

DOE/NV have been granted numerous 

permits by the appropriate regulatory 

authorities. In addition to the existing 

number of permits in 1995 (Table 3.6) the 

EOD Facility and the Area 5 Storage Facility 

of the RCRA Part 6 permit application were 

permitted, while the other units in the 

application are in various stages of NDEP 

review for permission to construct or 

operate. 

3-21 
Table 3.1 NESHAP Notifications to the State of Nevada for NTS Asbestos Activities - 1995 

Area Building Friable Asbestos 

23 1000 32 Square Feet of Ceiling Tiles March 1995 

23 Manholes Beside 

Bldgs. 116 & 156 

25 Square Feet of Asbestos 

Cloth Wrapped Around Cable 

April 1995 

23 1 52’a’ 435 Square Feet of Silver 

Felt-Like Roof Coating 

June 1995 

(a) Project also Reported to EPA Region 9. 

Table 3.2 Underground Storage Tank Activities - 1995 

Area/Facility Tank Number 

Action 

Taken 

02Net-t. Pull Test 

12/B-Tunnel 

12/Comm Bldg. 

23NVarehouse 7 

23/Fire Station 

23NT0 Bldg. 

25/R-MAD 

25/E-MAD 

26IDisassembly Bldg. 

02-VPTF-1 

12-B-l 

12-COMM-1 

23-W7-1 

23:425-l 

23-600-l 

25-311 O-2 

25-3900-l 

26-2201-l 

Removal 

Removal 

Removal 

Removal 

Removal 

Removal 

Removal 

Removal 

Removal 

Table 3.3 NTS Recycling Activities - 1995 

Material Quantity 

Office Paper 

Aluminum (bulk) 

Aluminum cans 

Used Motor Oil 

Cable 

Light Iron 

Heavy Iron 

Brass & Copper 

Batteries 

Tires 

Cardboard 

Lead 

165 tons 

125 tons 

0 tons 

82 tons 

280 tons 

2500 tons 

1160 tons 

0 tons 

359 tons 

191 tons 

1 ton 

142 tons 
Table 3.3 (NTS Recycling Activities - 1995, cont.) 

Material 

Off-NTS Recycling Activities. NLV Facility 

Quantity 

Automotive Batteries 2,064 Ibs 

Toner Cartridges (3Kar-t) 2,628 Ibs 

SEC/High-Grade Paper 265,160 Ibs 

Silver Recovery 

Mixed Paper 

5,666 g 

75,700 Ibs 

Cardboard 26,150 Ibs 

Aluminum Cans 5,640 Ibs 

Used Oil 250 gal 

Table 3.4 Off-Normal Occurrences at NTS Facilities 

Date 

02/02/95 

Report Number Description 

NVOO-REED-OMDO- Draining Diesel from Forklift, 15 - 20 gal 

1995-0001 Spilled, Area 25 

02/09/95 

02/i 5195 

NVOO-REEC-OMDO- Diesel Fuel Spill from 2000-gal Fuel Tank 

1995-0002 Blown Over by Wind, Area 2 

NVOO-REEC-EHDO- Ethylene Glycol Spill Due to Motor Vehicle 

1995-0002 Accident 

0311 S/95 NVOO-REEC-EMDO- FOAV for Improper Storage of Lead, 

1995-0001 T-2 Site, Area 2 

04/l 2/95 NVOO-REEC-OMDO- While Filling 5-gal cans, 75 gal Spilled, 

1995-0007 Area 1 

05125195 

OS/l s/95 

NVOO-REEC-EMDO- Petroleum Leakage from Abandoned 

1995-0002 Underground Storage Tank, B-tunnel Area 12 

NVOO-REEC-OMDO- Petroleum Leakage from Abandoned UST, 

1995-0004 Area 12 Camp 

Status 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Complete 

Table 3.5 Off-Normal Environmental Occurrences at Off-NTS Support Facilities 

Date Rebort Number Descriotion Status 

1 o/02/95 

1 o/02/95 

NVOO-EGGO-NLVF- Curtailment of Operations of A-l Source Range Pending 

1995-0001 at North Las Vegas Facilities 

NVOO-EGGO-NLVF- Tritium Contamination of Workplace and Pending 

1995-0002 Equipment 

1 o/02/95 NVOO-EGGO-NLVF- Notification of Significant Non-Compliance Complete 

1995-0003 Violation, Clark County Sanitation Pretreatment 

Standard 
Table 3.6 Environmental Permit Summary - 1995 

NTS 16 9 8 l(a) 4 

EG&G, NTS, 

LGFSTF 

1 

Las Vegas Area 

Operations Office 15@) 2 

Amador Valley 

Operations 1 -l--Y 2 

1 

Los Alamos 

Operations 

Special 

Technologies 

Laboratory (Santa 

Barbara) 

1 2 1 

Washington Aerial 

Measurements 

Dept. 

TOTAL 33 13 8 6 6 4 

Air Pollution Wastewater 

(a) Biennial Report Required. 

(b) Area 5, Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility. 

(c) Routine Monitoring of Emissions is Not Required. 

Drinking 

Water 

Number of 

EPA 

Generator 

User IDS 

Nevada 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Storage 

Permit 

Endangered 

Species Act 
4.1.1 

A 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM 

INFORMATION 

The environmental monitoring and compliance programs for the Nevada Test 

Site (NTS) and offsite EG&G Energy Measurements, Inc. (EG&G/EM) facilities 

consist of radiological monitoring, nonradiological monitoring, and 

environmental permits and operations compliance. 

4.1 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

There are two radiological monitoring programs associated with the NTS, one 

onsite and the other offsite. The onsite program is conducted by several 

organizations. Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc. (REECo), the 

operations & maintenance contractor for the NTS, was responsible for 

environmental surveillance and effluent monitoring. Several other 

organizations, such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Los 

Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Desert Research Institute (DRI), and the 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also make radiological 

measurements onsite. The offsite program is conducted by the EPA’s 

Radiation Sciences Laboratory in Las Vegas, Nevada (RSL-LV). 

ONSITE MONITORING 

t the NTS radiological effluents may 

originate from tunnels, from 

underground test event sites (at or 

e near surface ground zeros [SGZs]), 

and from facilities where radioactive materials 

are either used, processed, stored, or 

discharged. All of these sources have the 

potential to, or are known ‘to discharge 

radioactive effluents into the environment. Two 

types of monitoring operations are used for 

these sources: (1) effluent monitoring, which 

measures radioactive material collected at the 

point of discharge; and (2) environmental 

surveillance, which measures radioactivity in the 

general environment. 

Table 4.1 is a summary of the routine 

environmental surveillance program. Air 

sampling is conducted for radioactive 

particulates, halogens, noble gases, and tritiated 

water vapor (see Figure 4.1 for sampling 

locations). Ambient gamma radiation monitoring 

is conducted throughout the NTS using 

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) (see 

Figure 4.2). Water from groundwater wells, 

springs, well reservoirs, water taps, and 

waste disposal ponds is analyzed for 

radioactivity (see Figures 4.3 and 4.4) 

4.1 .l .-l CRITERIA 

DOE Order 5400.1, “General Environmental 

Protection Program,” establishes 

environmental protection program 

requirements, authorities, and responsibilities 

for Department of .Energy (DOE) operations. 

These mandates require compliance with 

applicable federal, state and local 

environmental protection regulations. Other 

DOE directives applicable to environmental 

monitoring include DOE Order 5480.11, 

“Radiation Protection for Occupational 

Workers”; DOE Order 5480.1 B, 

“Environmental, Protection, Safety, and 

Health Protection Program for Department of 

Energy Operations”; DOE Order 5484.1, 

“Environmental Protection, Safety, and 

Health Protection Information Reporting 

Requirements”; DOE Order 5400.5, 

“Radiation Protection of the Public and the 

Environment”; and DOE/EH-0173T, 

“Environmental Regulatory Guide for 

Radiological Effluent Monitoring and 

Environmental Surveillance.” 
----- 

e 

~=y”=4==~===-~--7== =================== ~r~~=;~~---“, 

I- li------ .* 
Ill 

III i I 

III 

III 

i j 

,,,- III 29 --- _---- ---------- 

111 

Ill 

@ Ill 

fll 

+ 

4TLDS iii 

III 

Figure 4.2 Thermoluminescent Dosimeter Stations on the NTS (+) - 1995 
\,, VW j \ 

---.+===T-===== 

12;15 I 111 

i / 

I I 

1/1 29 

I 

I 

.___ -._----_ I 

!I, I 

j 1416 w I 

_____ -- .---.- 

IF Xl 

-i-- '11 

i j !--v 

111 

0 III 

Ill 

10 6 0 5 10 

MILES 

10 5 0 5 10 

I 

KlLOhlETERS 

Figure 4.3 Supply Well and Potable Water Sampling Stations on the NTS - 1995 
40 E#l#t?OlV#ENTAL PUOGUAM INFO#?MAT/ON 

III 111 

Ill 

111 30 ,I)-------- ____ 

Iii 

Ill III 

I 

I 146 x$ j III 

Ill 

III 

X Sewage Lagoon Pond 

A Spring q Reservair 

10 5 0 5 10 

L----- 1 

MILES 

10 5 F 5 IO 

KILJJMEPERS I 

Figure 4.4 Surface Water Sampling Locations on the NTS - 1995 

4-5 
4.1 .I 2 EFFLUENT MONITORING 

During 1995, effluent monitoring at the NTS 

involved tunnel and groundwater 

characterization well discharge waters. Due to 

the continuation of the moratorium on nuclear 

testing throughout the year, no effluent 

monitoring for nuclear tests was required. 

LIQUID EFFLUENT MONITORING 

Radiologically contaminated water was 

discharged only from E Tunnel in Rainier Mesa 

(Area 12). N and T Tunnels were sealed to 

prevent liquid effluent discharges. A grab 

sample was collected quarterly from the tunnel’s 

effluent discharge point and from the tunnel‘s 

containment pond. These samples were 

analyzed for tritium (3H), gross beta, 23*Pu, 

23g+240Pu and gamma emitters. In addition, an 

annual sample was analyzed for %Sr. Tritium 

was the radionuclide most consistently detected 

at the tunnel sites. Other radionuclides were 

detected infrequently. 

In previous years the flow rate of liquid effluents 

from the tunnel was measured by equipment 

installed by the DRI, University of Nevada. 

These previous measurements were used to 

quantify the total radiological effluent release for 

1995. The quarterly average concentration of 

the radionuclide of interest in the effluent was 

multiplied by the total quantity of liquid 

discharged based on the average flow rate for 

the quarter and the quarterly values summed to 

obtain the annual value. 

This year, groundwater characterization wells 

drilled near a nuclear test ,cavity produced water 

containing high levels of tritium. This water was 

analyzed as it was discharged to containment 

ponds and the volume calculated from the pond 

area and liquid depth. 

Typical lower limits of detection for water 

analyses were: 

0 Gross a: 1 x lo-’ uCi/mL (O-037 Bq/L) 

l Gross 0: 1 x lo-’ pCi/mL (0.037 Bq/L) 

l Gamma Spectroscopy: 0.1 to 20 x 1 O-’ 

uCi/mL (0.3 - 74 Bq/L) (Using a 13’Cs 

standard) 

l Tritium (conventional): 5 x lo-’ pCi/mL 

(18.5 Bq/L) 

l Tritium (enrichment): 2 x 1 V8 pCi/mL 

(0.74 Bq/L) 

l “Sr: 2 x 19” uCi/mL (7.4 x 1 Oe3 Bq/L) 

l =‘Ra: 1 x lo-’ uCi/mL (0.074 Bq/L) 

l 238Pu: 2 x IO-” pCi/mL (7.4 x 10e4 Bq/L) 

0 23g+240Pu: 2 x 10-l’ pCi/mL (7.4 x 1c4 

WL) 

AIRBORNE EFFLUENT MONITORING 

As the moratorium on nuclear testing was 

continued throughout the year, airborne 

effluent monitoring was not required on 

Pahute Mesa. 

4.1.1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL 

SURVEILLANCE 

Environmental surveillance was conducted 

onsite throughout the NTS. Equipment at 

fixed, continuously sampling stations was 

used to monitor for radioactive materials in 

the air. Surface water and groundwater 

samples were routinely collected at preestablished locations and analyzed for 

radioactivity. Ambient gamma exposures 

were measured with TLDs placed at fixed 

locations. 

AIR MONITORING .. ‘, 

The environmental surveillance program 

maintained samplers designed to detect 

airborne radioactive particles, radioactive 

gases (including radioiodines and noble ’ 

gases), and radioactive hydrogen (3H) as 

water vapor in the form 3H3H0 or 3HH0. 

Air sampling units were located at 57 stations 

on the NTS (Figure 4.1) to measure 

radioactive ‘particulates and halogens. 

These stations included 15 inside radioactive 

waste management facilities. By year’s end, 

the number of stations was reduced to 45. 

Access, worker population, geographical 

coverage, and availability of electrical power 
were considered in site selection. During this 

year, air samplers powered by solar 

photovoltaic-battery systems were placed- in 

nine contaminated areas where commercial 

power was unavailable. 

An air sampling unit consisted of a positive 

displacement pump drawing approximately 140 

Umin (5 cfm) of air through a nine-centimeter 

diameter Whatman GF/A glass fiber filter for 

trapping particulates. This was followed by a 

charcoal cartridge for collecting radioiodines. 

The filter and cartridge were mounted in a 

plastic, cone-shaped sample holder. A dry-gas 

meter measured the volume of air sampled 

during the sampling period (typically seven 

days). The unit collected approximately 1400 

cubic meters of air during the sampling period. 

The filters were held for no less than five nor 

more than seven days prior to analysis to allow 

naturally occurring radon and jts daughter 

products to decay. Gross beta counting was 

performed with a gas-flow proportional counter 

for 20 minutes. The lower limit of detection for 

gross beta, assuming typical counting 

parameters, was 2 x 1 O-l5 uCi/mL (7.4 x 1 U5 

Bq/mT using a “Sr calibration source. Gamma 

spectroscopy of the filter and cartridge was 

accomplished using germanium detectors with 

an input to a 2000-channel spectrometer. This 

spectrometer was calibrated at 1 kiloelectronvolt 

(keV) per channel from 0.02 to 2 

megaelectronvolts (MeV) using a National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

traceable mixed radionuclide source. The lower 

limit of detection for gamma spectroscopy is 

5 x lo-” uCi/mL (1.8 x 1 Oe4 Bq/m3) for ‘37Cs. 

Weekly air samples collected for radioactive 

waste operations in Area 3 and 5 were 

composited on a monthly basis and 

radiochemically analyzed for 23ePu and 23g+240Pu. 

The weekly air filters collected from all other 

locations were composited quarterly and 

analyzed for plutonium. The filters were 

subjected to an acid dissolution and an 

ion-exchange recovery on a resin bed. 

Plutonium was deposited by plating on. a 

stainless steel disk. The chemical yield of the 

plutonium was determined with an internal 242Pu 

tracer. Alpha spectroscopy was performed 

utilizing a solid-state silicon surface barrier 

detector. The lower limit of detection for 23*Pu 

and 23g+240Pu was approximately 1 x 1U17 

uCi/mL (3.7 x 1Q7 Bq/m3). 

Initially, radioactive noble gases 85Kr and 

‘33Xe were continuously sampled at ten 

locations. This network was reduced to three 

locations by year’s end, and ‘33Xe analysis 

was discontinued. The noble gas samplers 

maintained a steady sampling flow rate of 

approximately 0.08 Umin. These sampling 

units were housed in a metal tool box with 

three metal air bottles attached to the 

sampling units with short hoses. A vacuum 

was maintained on the first bottle by pumping 

the sample into the other two bottles. The 

two collection bottles were exchanged 

weekly and contained a sample volume of 

about 400 L each at standard conditions. 

The noble gases were separated from the 

atmospheric sample by cryogenic gas 

fractionation. Water and carbon dioxide were 

removed at room temperature, and the Kr 

and Xe were collected on charcoal at liquid 

nitrogen temperatures. These gases were 

transferred to a molecular sieve where they 

were separated from any remaining gases 

and from each other. The krypton was 

transferred to a scintillation vial and counted 

on a liquid scintillation counter. The lower 

limit of detection for &Kr was 3 x 1 O-l2 uCi/mL 

(0.1 Bq/m3). 

Airborne tritiated water vapor was initially 

monitored at 17 permanent locations 

throughout the NTS and at two temporary 

locations for preoperational monitoring at the 

Liquid Waste Treatment Facility. For this 

monitoring, a small pump drew air 

continuously into the sampler at 

approximately 0.4 Umin, the total volume 

being measured with a dry gas meter. The 

tritiated water vapor was removed from the 

air stream by a silica-gel drying column 

followed by a drierite column. These 

columns were exchanged every two weeks. 

Appropriate aliquots of condensed moisture 

were obtained by heating the silica gel. The 

tritium activity was then obtained by liquid 

scintillation counting. The median Minimum 

Detectable Concentration(MDC) for tritiated 

water vapor analysis was 2 x lo-l2 uCi/mL 

(0.074 Bq/m3) of air. 
AMBIENT GAMMA MONITORING 

Ambient gamma monitoring was conducted at 

194 stations within the NTS (Figure 4.2) through 

use of TLDs, later reduced to 168 stations. The 

dosimeter used was the Panasonic UD-814AS 

environmental dosimeter, consisting of four 

elements housed in an air-tight, water-tight, 

ultraviolet-light-protected case. One element, 

made of lithium borate, was only slightly 

shielded in order to measure low-energy 

radiation. The other three elements, made of 

calcium sulfate, were shielded by 1000 mg/cm2 

of plastic and lead to monitor penetrating 

gamma radiation only. TLDs were deployed in 

a holder placed about one meter above the 

ground and exchanged quarterly. Locations 

were chosen at the site boundary, or where 

operations or ground contamination occurred. 

WAT-ER MONITORING 

Water samples were collected from selected 

potable tap-water points, water supply wells, 

natural springs, open reservoirs, sewage 

lagoons, and containment ponds. The 

frequency of collection and types of analyses 

performed for these types of samples are shown 

in Table 4.1. Sampling locations are shown on 

Figures 4.3 and 4.4. 

A 500-mL aliquot was taken from the water 

sample, placed in a plastic bottle, and counted 

for gamma activity with a germanium detector. 

A 2.5mL aliquot was used for 3H analysis by 

liquid scintillation counting. The remainder of 

the original sample was evaporated to 15 mL, 

transferred to a stainless steel counting 

planchet, and evaporated to dryness after the 

addition of a wetting agent. Alpha and/or beta 

analyses were accomplished by counting the 

planchet samples for 100 minutes in a gas-flow 

proportional counter. 

Tritium enrichment analyses were performed by 

concentrating the volume and tritium content of 

a 250 mL sample aliquot to 10 mL by 

electrolysis of the basic solution and analyzing 

a 5 mL portion of the concentrate by liquid 

scintillation counting. 

The 226s22*Ra concentrations were determined 

from low-background gamma spectrometric 

analyses of radium sulfate. The samples were 

prepared by adding a barium carrier and 

225Ra tracer to 800 mL of sample, 

precipitating the barium and radium as a 

sulfate, separating the precipitate, and 

counting for 500 minutes. 

The radiochemical procedure for plutonium 

was similar to that previously described in 

this chapter under “Air Monitoring.” Alpha 

spectroscopy was used to measure any 

238Pu, 23g+240Pu, and the 242Pu tracer present 

in the samples. 

WASTE MANAGEMENT SITE 

MONITORING 

Environmental surveillance on the NTS 

included Radioactive Waste Management 

Sites (RWMS). These sites are used for the 

disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) 

from the NTS and other DOE facilities. 

Shallow disposal in trenches, pits, and 

augured shafts, was accomplished at the 

Area 5 RWMS (RWMS-5) and in subsidence 

craters at the Area 3 RWMS (RWMS-3). 

RWMS-5 monitoring included 17 permanent 

air particulate/halogen sampling stations, 

nine permanent tritiated water vapor 

sampling stations, and 26 TLD stations 

placed inside and around the site. The 

RWMS-3 is monitored by four air 

particulate/halogen sampling stations with 

several TLD stations located nearby. 

4.1 .1.4 SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

STUDIES 

The Basic Environmental Compliance and 

Monitoring Program (BECAMP) was involved 

in special studies at the NTS that focused on 

the movement of radionuclides through the 

environment and the resultant dose to man. 

BECAMP uses the past accomplishments of 

two former DOE/NV-sponsored programs at 

the NTS, the Nevada Applied Ecology Group 

(NAEG) and the Radionuclide Inventory and 

Distribution Program (RIDP) in ongoing 

efforts to design effective programs to 

assess changes over time in the radiological 

conditions on the NTS, update human doseassessment models, and provide information 

to DOE/NV for site restoration projects and 

compliance with environmental regulations. 
In 1995, DOE/NV reviewed the ecological 

monitoring studies conducted under BECAMP 

over the past eight years. These studies 

monitored the flora and fauna on the NTS to 

assess changes in ecological conditions over 

time. Data were summarized from previous 

years’ studies of vegetation, small mammals, 

and lizards conducted on disturbed and 

undisturbed areas of the NTS. Data for these 

studies were not collected in 1995. 

4.1.2 OFFSITE MONITORING 

Under the terms of an Interagency Agreement 

between DOE and EPA, the Environmental 

Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, 

(EMSL-LV) conducts the Offsite Radiation 

Safety Program (ORSP) in areas surrounding 

the NTS. In October 1995 these activities were 

assumed by the RSL-LV which is assigned to 

EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. The 

largest component of the RSL-LV program is 

routine monitoring of potential human exposure 

pathways. Public information and community 

assistance activities constitute a second 

component. 

Due to the continuing moratorium on nuclear 

weapons testing, only readiness exercises were 

conducted in 1995 For each of the three tests, 

RSL-LV senior personnel served on the Test 

Controller’s Scientific Advisory Panel and on the 

EPA offsite radiological safety staff. Routine 

offsite environmental monitoring for National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP), DOE orders 5400.1, 

5400.5, and 10 C.F.R. 834 continued throughout 

1995. 

Environmental monitoring networks, described 

in the following subsections, measure 

radioactivity in air, milk, and groundwater. 

These networks monitor the major potential 

pathways of radionuclide transfer to man. 

Ambient gamma radiation levels are monitored 

using Reuter-Stokes pressurized ion chambers 

(PICs) and Panasonic TLDs. Groundwater on 

and in the vicinity of the NTS is monitored in the 

Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program 

(LTHMP). Data from these monitoring networks 

are used to calculate an annual exposure dose 

to the offsite residents. 

A decreased number of Community 

Radiation Monitoring Program (CRMP) 

stations that were established at prominent 

locations in a number of offsite communities 

continued to operate. The CRMP stations 

contain samplers for several of the 

monitoring networks and are managed by 

local residents. The DRI is a cooperator with 

RSL-LV in the CRMP. 

4.1.2.1 AIR MONITORING 

The inhalation of radioactive airborne 

particles can be a major pathway for human 

exposure to radiation. The atmospheric 

monitoring networks are designed to detect 

environmental radioactivity from both NTS 

and non-NTS activities. Data from 

atmospheric monitoring can be used to 

determine the concentration and source of 

airborne radioactivity and to project the 

fallout patterns and durations of exposure to 

man. Atmospheric monitoring networks have 

included the Air Surveillance, Noble Gas, and 

Atmospheric Moisture (Tritium-in-Air) 

Networks. The noble gas and tritium-in-air 

networks were inactivated in 1994. 

The Air Surveillance Network (ASN) was 

originally designed to monitor the areas 

within 350 km (220 mi) of.the NTS. Due to 

the current moratorium on nuclear weapons 

testing, DOE began reducing the area of the 

offsite monitoring networks to within 

approximately 130 km (80 mi) of the NTS. 

Station location depends in part on the 

availability of electrical power and a resident 

willing to operate the equipment. This 

continuously operating network is 

supplemented by a Standby Air Surveillance 

Network (SASN) encompassing the 

contiguous states west of the Mississippi 

River. Standby samplers are identical to 

those used at the active stations and are 

operated by state and municipal health 

department personnel or by other local 

residents. 

During 1995 the ASN consisted of 20 

continuously operating sampling stations as 

shown in Figure 4.5 and 73 standby stations. 
I 

----- Be--- ------- 

----- 

T--’ 

i 

PYRAMID 

LAKE 

i 

i \ \ 

Austin e 

NEVADA 1 UTAH 

i 

i 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

El* ’ 

I 

Stone 

Cabin Rn 

Tonopah H 

I 

I 

N ala 

I b q Sunny Sid 

Twin i 

Sorings Rn. Uha,des * *Complex I , 

Rn. I 

I 

H Piqche 

ins Rn. I 

0 Caiiente 

H Alamo 1 wst. 

I--- 

N I 

L Furnace Creek= Overton 1. I 

Pahrur?lp n \ Las= 

Shoshonem \ Vegas c 

\ 

MEAD 

q Air Sampler (1) 

w Air Sampler & PIC (19) 

0 PIC Station (8) 

Scale in Miles 

OM 

0 50 iD0 150 

Scale in Kilometers 

dote: Real time data transmittal 

3r EPA use 

I 

i 

Delta m I 

I 

I 

I 

q Milford i 

i 

w Cedar City i 

I 

I 

George 

------ 

ARIZONA 

Figure 4.5 ASN and PIC Station Locations - 1995 

4-10 
High volume air samplers were installed at five 

of the stations at the beginning of the year. The 

SASN was not activated during 1995. 

Dismantling of the SASN began during the fall of 

1995 and is expected to be completed by the 

end of March, 1996. 

Low-volume air samplers at each station are 

equipped to collect particulate radionuclides on 

5-cm (2.0-in) diameter glass-fiber filters at a flow 

rate of about 80 m3 (2800 f?) per day. Filters 

are changed weekly (approximately 560 m3 or 

20,000 ft3 of air sampled). Activated charcoal 

cartridges placed directly behind the filters to 

collect gaseous radioiodine are changed at the 

same time as the fiber filters. High-volume air 

samplers at selected stations collect particulate 

on 8 x 10 inch glass fiber filters at a flow rate of 

approximately 1,600 m3 (58,000 ft3) per day. 

Duplicate air samples are collected from two 

routine ASN stations each’week. The duplicate 

samplers operate at randomly selected stations 

for three months and are then moved to new 

locations. One duplicate high-volume sampler 

is operated in the same manner as the lowvolume sampler. High-volume samples are 

collected every two weeks (approximately 

22,000 m3 or 800,000 ft3 of air is sampled). 

At RSL-LV, both the glass-fiber filters and the 

charcoal cartridges were promptly analyzed by 

high-resolution gamma spectrometry. Each of 

the glass-fiber filters was then analyzed for 

gross alpha and gross beta activity 7 to 14 days 

after sample collection to allow time for the 

decay of naturally occurring radon-thoron 

progeny. Glass-fiber filters from selected 

stations were cornposited and analyzed for 

plutonium isotopes. 

4.1.2.2 WATER MONITORING 

As part of the LTHMP, RSL-LV personnel 

routinely collect and analyze water samples 

from locations on the NTS and from sites in the 

surrounding offsite areas. Due to the scarcity of 

surface waters in the region, most of the 

samples are groundwater, collected from 

existing wells. Samples from specific locations 

are collected monthly, biannually, annually, or 

biennially in accordance with a preset schedule. 

Many of the drinking water supplies used by the 

offsite population are represented in the 

LTHMP samples. Results for the LTHMP 

samples are discussed in Chapter 9. 

4.1.2.3 MILK SURVEILLANCE NETWORK 

WN) 

Milk is an important source for evaluating 

potential human exposures to radioactive 

material. It is one of the most universally 

consumed foodstuffs and certain 

radionuclides are readily traceable through 

the chain from feed or forage to the 

consumer. This is particularly true of 

radioiodine isotopes which, when consumed 

in sufficient quantities, can cause impairment 

of thyroid function. Because dairy animals 

consume vegetation representing a large 

area and because many radionuclides are 

transferred to milk, analysis of milk samples 

yields information on the deposition of small 

amounts of radionuclides over a relatively 

large area. 

The MSN includes commercial dairies and 

family-owned milk cows and goats 

representing the major milksheds within 300 

km (186 mi) of the NTS. The 10 locations 

comprising the MSN at the beginning of 1995 

are shown in Figure 4.6. Samples were 

collected from nine of these locations in 1995 

because the Mesquite, NV, dairy closed. 

The Standby Milk Surveillance Network 

(SMSN) was discontinued October 1, 1994. 

Raw milk was collected in 3.8-L (1 -gal) 

Cubitainers from each MSN location in July 

and preserved with formaldehyde. The 

samples are analyzed for 3H by liquid 

scintillation counting and for “Sr and %Sr by 

radiochemical separation and beta counting. 

This network was designed to monitor areas 

adjacent to the NTS, which could be affected 

by a release of radioactivity, as well as 

areas unlikely to be so affected. 

4.1.2.4 BIOMONITORING 

The biomonitoring program for radionuclides 

has been discontinued. No samples of beef 

cattle or vegetation were collected offsite and 

only one mule deer was collected on the 

NTS. The deer was hunted by personnel 
i 

-----_ -------_ ------- -- ---_ l- ----- 

NEVADA I UTAH I 

; 

i 

i 

I 

I 

i Q Et”‘” 

Austin* 

Young Rn.~ 

; 

I 

i 

i 

i 

i 

McGill 

8 i 

I 

‘uckwateraa Bradshaw Rn. 

@Lund 

i 

I 

l Tonopah 

l! yala 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

June Cox Rn. 

k 

t 

Caliente Cedar City 1 

l 1 i lvins 

q Brent Jones , 

Alamo 

Dairy 

I 

David Hafen I 

I I 

Mow - - iBFO;A 

4 

4D 

\ RO 

\ D 

Pahruti+p 

Pahrump Dairy t 

\ 

\ \ * 

8 lnyokern 

m Frances Jones Farm 

@ Hinkley 

IDesert View Dairy 

n Milk Sampling Locations 

Scale in Miles 

NOTE: When Sampling location 

occurred in city or town, the 

sampling location symbol was 

used for showing both town 

and sampling location. 

Figure 4.6 Milk Surveillance Network Stations - 1995 
with a special permit to carry weapons on the 

NTS. The location of the mule deer is shown in 

Figure 4.7. The deer was dressed in the field 

with precautions taken to minimize risk of 

contamination. The location of the deer, weight, 

sex, condition, and other information were 

recorded on a field data form. Organs were 

removed, sea!ed in sample bags, and labeled. 

Later, at the NTS farm facility, samples are 

placed in 350 mL sealed aluminum cans for 

gamma counting. Samples of blood were 

analyzed for gamma-emitting radionuclides and 

tritium. Bone samples were shipped to a 

contract laboratory for ashing. 

All analyses for plutonium isotopes and 

strontium, gamma, and tritium are done at the 

RSL-LV Radioanalysis Laboratory. 

4.1.2.5 THERMOLUMINESCENT 

DOSIMETRY NETWORK 

The primary purpose of an offsite environmental 

dosimetry program is to identify potential 

increases in ambient radiation levels in areas 

surrounding the NTS. Continuing to monitor 

“natural background” is essential for offsite 

characterization. Panasonic Model UD-814 

TLDs are used for environmental monitoring. 

The UD-814 consists of one element of 

Li,B,O,:Cu and three elements of CaSO, :Tm 

phosphors. The CaSQ,:Tm elements are 

behind an approximately 1000 mg/cm2 filter. An 

average of the corrected values for the three 

elements gives the total exposure for each TLD. 

Two UD-814 TLDs are deployed at each 

environmental station location so six values are 

available for Quality Assurance (QA) purposes. 

In addition to a fixed environmental TLD 

program, EPA deploys personnel TLDs to a 

limited number of individual volunteers living in 

areas surrounding the NTS. Panasonic Model 

UD-802 TLDs are used for personnel 

monitoring. The UD-802 consists of two 

elements of Li,B,O,:Cu and two elements of 

CaSO,:Tm phosphors. The phosphors are 

behind approximately 17, 300, 300, and 1000 

mg/cm2 of filtration, respectively. With the use 

of different phosphors and filtrations, a dose 

algorithm can be applied to ratios of the different 

element responses. This process defines the 

radiation type and energy and provides data for 

assessing an absorbed dose equivalent. 

Figure 4.8 shows fixed environmental TLD 

monitoring stations and the, location of 

personnel monitoring participants. 

During 1995 a soft cycle was installed on one 

of the Panasonic TLD readers which 

improves the heating cycle of the reader and 

lowers the percent coefficient of variation. 

Subsequent heating adjustments were made 

to the reader. Once validation is completed 

on the reader, installation of a soft cycle will 

be performed on the other reader. In 

addition, the reader’s heating conditions will 

be replicated -- one to another -- using a 

thermal curve adapter (TCA) for improved 

backup capability. New computers and 

software will also be installed in 1996 to 

improve report options. 

4.1.2.6 PRESSURIZED ION CHAMBER 

NETWORK 

The PIC network uses Reuter-Stokes models 

1011, 1012, and 1013 PICs. The PIC is a 

spherical shell filled with argon gas at 25 

times atmospheric pressure. In the center of 

the chamber is a spherical electrode with a 

charge opposite to the outer shell. When 

gamma radiation penetrates the sphere, 

ionization of the gas occurs and the negative 

ions are collected by the center electrode. 

The electrical current generated is 

proportional to the radiation exposure. 

The PIC measures gamma radiation 

exposure rates and because of its sensitivity, 

may detect low-level exposures not detected 

by other monitoring methods. The primary 

function of the PIC network is to detect 

changes in ambient gamma radiation due to 

human activities. In the absence of such 

activities, ambient gamma radiation rates 

naturally differ among locations as they vary 

with altitude (cosmic radiation), with 

radioactivity in the soil (terrestrial radiation), 

and vary slightly within a location due to 

weather patterns. 

There are 27 PlCs located in communities 

around the NTS and one in Mississippi, 

which provide near real-time estimates of 
IA Deer (1995) 

,),_ --_--__ _--_--_-L-- 

111 III III [II ____.__ 29 --__-_---. III 

111 

Ill 

ia 5 0 5 10 

m----y I 

MILES 

IO 5 0 5 IO 

w--- I 

Kl LOYETERS I 

Figure 4.7 Onsite Collection Sites for Animals Sampled - 1995 
,. 

i 

L---------L--“-q 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

i 

--__ ? 
gamma exposure rates. The locations of the 

PlCs are shown in Figure 4.5 for stations around 

the NTS. Near real-time telemetry-based data 

retrieval is achieved by the connection of each 

PIC to a device which collects and transmits the 

data through the Geostationary Operational 

Environmental Satellite directly to an NTS/Los 

Alamos receiver and then to RSL-LV by 

dedicated telephone line. In addition to 

telemetry retrieval, PIC data are also recorded 

on either magnetic tapes and hard copy strip 

charts or on magnetic cards. The magnetic 

tapes and cards provide a backup for the 

telemetry data. 

4.1.2.7 INTERNAL DOSIMETRY NETWORK 

Internal radiation exposure is caused by 

radionuclides that are ingested, absorbed, or 

inhaled and retained within the body. The RSLLV Internal Dosimetry Program employs two 

methods to detect body burdens: whole body 

counting (including lung counting) and 

urinalysis. A detailed discussion of this network 

may be found in Section 5.2.2.7 of this report. 

4.1.2.8 COMMUNITY RADIATION 

MONITORING PROGRAM 

Because of the successful experience with the 

Citizen’s Monitoring Program during the purging 

of the Three Mile Island (TMI) containment in 

1980, the CRMP consisting of stations located 

in the states of California, Nevada, and Utah 

was begun. In 1995, there were 18 stations 

located in these three states. The CRMP is 

a cooperative project of the DOE, EPA, and 

DRI. 

DOE/NV sponsors the program. The EPA 

provides technical and scientific direction, 

maintains the instrumentation and sampling 

equipment, analyzes the collected samples, 

and interprets and reports the data. The DRI 

administers the program by hiring the local 

station managers and alternates, securing 

rights-of-way, providing utilities, and 

performing additional QA checks of the data. 

Each station is operated by a local resident, 

in most cases a high-school science teacher. 

Samples are analyzed at the RSL-LV. Data 

interpretation is provided by DRI to the 

communities involved. All of the 18 CRMP 

stations had one of the samplers for the ASN 

In addition, a PIC and recorder for immediate 

readout of external gamma exposure and a 

recording barograph are located at the 

station. and a TLD. All of the equipment is 

mounted on a stand at a prominent location 

in each community so the residents are 

aware of the surveillance and, if interested, 

can check the data. Also, computergenerated reports of the PIC data are issued 

monthly for each station. 
4.2 NONRADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

The 1995 nonradiological monitoring program for the NTS included onsite 

sampling of various environmental media and substances for compliance with 

federal and state regulations.or permits and for ecological studies. BECAMP 

conducted wild horse and chukar surveys on the NTS in 1995. Nonradiological 

monitoring was conducted in 1995 for five series of tests conducted at the 

Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility (LGFSTF) on the NTS. 

Nonradiological monitoring of non-NTS DOE/NV facilities was conducted by 

EG&G/EM at three facilities. This monitoring was limited to wastewater 

discharges to publicly owned treatment works. 

4.2.1 NTS OPERATIONS 

MONITORING 

4.2.1 .l ROUTINE MONITORING 

As there were no industrial-type production 

facility operations on the NTS, there was no 

significant production of nonradiological air 

emissions or liquid discharges to the 

environment. Sources of potential contaminants 

were limited to construction support and NTS 

operation activities. This included motor pool 

facilities; large equipment and drilling rig 

maintenance areas; cleaning, warehousing, and 

supply facilities; and general worker support 

facilities (including lodging and administrative 

offices) in the Mercury Base Camp, Area 12 

Camp, and to a lesser extent in Area 20 and the 

NTS Control Point Complex in Area 6. The 

LGFSTF in Area 5 is a source of potential 

release of nonradiological contaminants to the 

environment, depending on the individual tests 

conducted. In 7995 there were five series of 

tests involving 24 different chemicals conducted 

at this facility. Monitoring was performed to 

assure these contaminants did not move to 

offsite areas. Since these monitoring functions 

are performed by the RSL-LV at the NTS 

boundary, monitoring functions for the LGFSTF 

are described below in Section 4.2.2, “Offsite 

Monitoring.” Routine nonradiological 

environmental monitoring on the NTS in 1995 

was limited to: 

l Sampling of drinking water distribution 

systems and water haulage trucks for Safe 

Drinking Water Act and state of Nevada 

compliance; 

4-17 

Sewage lagoon influent and N-tunnel 

discharge sampling for compliance with 

state of Nevada operating permit 

requirements; 

Sampling of electrical equipment oil, soil, 

water, surfaces, and waste oil for the 

presence of polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCB) as part of Toxic Substance Control 

Act compliance; 

Asbestos sampling in conjunction with 

asbestos removal and renovation projects 

and in accordance with occupational 

safety and NESHAP compliance; and 

Sampling of soil, water, sediment, waste 

oil, and other media for the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

constituents. 

4.2.1.2 ECOLOGICAL MONITORING 

In 1995 DOE/NV reviewed the ecological 

monitoring studies conducted under 

BECAMP over the past eight years. These 

studies monitored the flora and fauna on the 

NTS to assess changes in ecological 

conditions over time. Data were summarized 

from previous years’ studies of vegetation; 

small mammals, and lizards conducted on 

disturbed and undisturbed areas of NTS. 

Data for these studies were not collected in 

1995 during the study review and data 

summarization efforts. Work began on 

redesigning an ecological monitoring plan for 

DOE/NV activities on the NTS to address 

changes in DOE/NV missions and policies. 
Monitoring of feral horses, however, continued 

for the sixth consecutive year. All horses, 

including foals, were individually identified. 

Selected water sources on the NTS were 

surveyed to evaluate their effect .on the 

distribution of horses. In addition, field surveys 

of chukar were initiated in 1995 to assess their 

reproductive success and relative abundance on 

the NTS. The Nevada Department of Wildlife 

received permission from DOE/NV to trap and 

relocate NTS chukar. Eighty-six chukar were 

removed from three areas on the NTS. 

4.2.2 OFFSITE MONITORING 

The LGFSTF was established in the Frenchman 

Basin in Area 5 as a basic research tool for 

studying the dynamics of accidental releases of 

various hazardous materials and the 

effectiveness of mitigation procedures. The 

LGFSTF was designed and equipped to: (1) 

discharge a measured volume of a hazardous 

fluid at a controlled rate on a specially prepared 

surface; (2) monitor and record down-wind 

gaseous concentrations, operating data, and 

close-in/down-wind meteorological data; and (3) 

provide a means to control and monitor these 

functions from a remote location. 

The Facility has the capability for releasing large 

volumes of cryogenic and non-cryogenic liquids 

at rapid rates through a 500-ft spill line to the 

experimental area supporting the tank farm. 

Spill rates for the cryogenic system range from 

1,000 to 26,000 gpm with the capability to 

release the entire contents of both tanks in two 

minutes. The non-cryogenic system can be 

released at rates of 500 to 5,000 gpm with the 

entire 24,000 gal capable of being released in 

five minutes. 

Test sponsors can vary intake air temperature, 

humidity, release rate and release volume in an 

8 ft x 16 ft x 96 ft wind tunnel. There are two 

spill pads available for use in contained open-air 

releases of volumes of 50 to 1,000 gal. Test 

Area 4 has been added primarily to provide the 

testing capability for determining the efficacy of 

totally encapsulated chemical protective suiting 

materials when exposed to high concentrations 

of toxic and hazardous gaseous materials. 

DOE/NV provides the facilities, security, and 

technical support, but all costs are borne by 

the organization conducting the tests. In 

1995 five series of tests were conducted 

involving 24 different chemicals. The plans 

for each test series were examined by an 

Advisory Panel that consisted of DOE/NV 

and RSL-LV professional personnel 

augmented by personnel from the 

organization performing the tests. 

For each test, the RSL-LV provided an 

advisor on offsite public health and safety for 

the Operations Controller’s Test Safety 

Review Panel. At the beginning of each test 

series and at other tests depending on 

projected need, a field monitoring technician 

from the EPA with appropriate air sampling 

equipment was deployed downwind of the 

test at the NTS boundary to measure 

chemical concentrations that may have 

reached the offsite area. Samples were 

collected with a hand-operated Drager pump 

and sampling tube appropriate for the 

chemical being tested. Not all tests were 

monitored by EPA if professional judgement 

indicated that, based on previous experience 

with the chemical and the proposed test 

parameters, NTS boundary monitoring was 

unnecessary. 

The EPA monitors at the NTS boundary, in 

contact by two-way radio, were always 

placed at the projected cloud center line at 

the time when the cloud was expected to 

arrive at the boundary, so the air samples 

would be collected at the time and place of 

maximum concentration. The exact location 

of the boundary monitor was adjusted during 

the test to ensure that monitoring was 

performed at the projected cloud center line. 

4.2.3 NON-NTS FACILITY 

MONITORING 

Although permits for the six EG&G/EM nonNTS facilities, included 17 air pollution, 4 

wastewater, and 3 local hazardous waste 

generator permits, effluent monitoring was 

limited to wastewater discharges at two sites 
(see below). A description involving any 

unexpected emission was re,quired for some 

permits, but again, monitoring was not required. 

All results from routine monitoring were within 

the permit limits, and monitoring activities were 

limited to the following: 

l The Las Vegas Area Operations (LVAO) 

wastewater permit was revised from a Class 

I permit to a Class II permit by the city of 

North Las Vegas Department of Public 

Works. Monitoring was reduced from two 

times a year to once per year in October. 

The monitoring requirements were retained 

for analyzing the MG burn pit (metal-cutting 

device) water prior to discharging; however, 

monitoring of the ten metal finishing outfalls 

4-l 9 

was eliminated. NLVF self monitoring 

reports were submitted in October and 

November 1995. 

l The Clark County Sanitation District 

wastewater permit for the RSL required 

biannual monitoring of two outfalls and 

quarterly pH and monthly septage reports. 

RSL monitoring reports were submitted in 

May and November 1995. EG&G/EM has 

installed a silver recovery electrolytic unit, 

evaporators, ion exchange system, an 

improved pH neutralization system, pH 

monitoring, and associated plumbing and 

electrical systems. Installation was 

completed April 30, 1995. 
4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS 

4.3.1 

NTS environmental permits active during 1995 which were issued by the state 

of Nevada or Federal agencies included 16 air quality permits involving 

emissions from construction operation facilities, boilers, storage tanks, and 

open burning; 8 permits for onsite drinking water distribution systems; 1 

permit for sewage discharges to lagoon collection systems; 8 permits for 

septage hauling; 1 incidental take permit for the threatened desert tortoise, 

and 3 permits for wildlife handling, collection, and salvage. RCRA Part A and 

Part B permit applications based on comments made by the state of Nevada, 

continued during 1995. 

Non-NTS EG&G/EM permits included 16 air pollution control permits and 4 

sewage discharge permits. Nine EPA Generator Identification (ID) numbers 

were issued to seven EG&G/EM operations, and three local RCRA-related 

permits were required at two EG&G/EM operations. 

AIR QUALITY PERMITS 

Air quality permits were required for numerous 

locations at the NTS and at two non-NTS 

facilities. 

4.3.1.1 NTS AIR QUALITY PERMITS 

Table 4.2 is a listing of state of Nevada air 

quality operating or construction permits active 

in 1995. The expiration date indicated in the 

table for air quality permits to construct, 

identified with the prefix PC, is identified as 

“varies” because a permit to construct is 

generally valid until-the time the state performs 

an inspection and an operating permit is issued. 

During 1995, the Bureau of Air Quality began 

revising all air quality operating permits to meet 

the new Clean Air Act requirements under Title 

V. At the NTS, permits have been consolidated 

according to area. For example, Permit 

AP971 l-0554, issued for Area 6, includes the 

Well 3 Yard cementing equipment, the bulk fuel 

storage tanks, and the Decontamination Facility 

boiler. During 1995, four consolidated permits 

were issued for Areas 1, 5, 6, and 23. It is 

anticipated that the remaining single-source 

permits will be replaced by consolidated permits 

in 1996. The annual reporting date of operating 

hours and production amounts was revised from 

April 15 to February 1. As before, the new 

permits are valid for five years. 

1?#5 ASER Pgp tie NT!3 4-20 

For OP 95-21, the Nevada Air Quality Officer 

must be notified of each burn no later than 

five days following the burn, either by 

telephone or written communication. During 

1995 no open burns of explosivescontaminated debris were conducted in Area 

27. As the Part A and B RCRA permit 

applications did not include burning of 

explosives in. Area 27, these burning 

activities were transferred to the Area 11 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Area 

that received RCRA permit approval by the 

state during 1995. 

For OP 96-20, the Air Quality Officer no 

longer must be notified by telephone at least 

two working days in advance of each training 

exercise for Class A flammables with a 

written summary of each exercise submitted 

within 15 days following the exercise. This 

summary, which includes the date, time, 

duration, exact location, and amount of 

flammables burned, is now included in an 

annual report. During 1995, five burn events, 

which included seven fires, were conducted 

for radiological emergency response training. 

No training burns were conducted by onsite 

fire protection services, and no controlled 

burns for Class A flammables were held in 

1995. Burn permits which had been issued 

for the demolition of old buildings and for a 

single burn which involved destruction of a 

Bradley vehicle expired in 1995 and were not 

renewed. 
4.3.1.2 NON-NTS AIR QUALITY PERMITS 

Fifteen air pollution control permits were active 

for emission units at EG&G/EM LVAO. These 

permits were issued through the Clark County 

Health District. Annual renewal is contingent 

upon payment of permit fees. Permits are 

amended and revised only if the situation under 

which the permit has been issued changes. 

STL has one air pollution control permit. For the 

other non-NTS, EG&G/EM operations, no 

permits have been required or the facilities have 

been exempted. Table 4.3 lists each of the 

required permits. 

4.3.2 DRINKING WATER SYSTEM 

PERMITS 

Five NTS drinking water system permits issued 

by the state of Nevada as shown in Table 4.4 

were renewed with new expiration dates as 

shown. During 1994, the state of Nevada 

determined that the trucks used for hauling 

potable water should also have permits, so 

three additional permits were obtained and 

renewed in 1995. No drinking water systems 

were maintained by non-‘NTS facilities. 

4.3.3 SEWAGE DISCHARGE 

PERMITS 

Sewage discharge permits from the state of 

Nevada, Division of Environmental Protection 

(NDEP), are listed in Table 4.5 and require 

submission of quarterly discharge monitoring 

reports. One NTS General Permit replaced all 

four individual system permits on January 31, 

1994. 

4.3.3.1 NTS SEWAGE HAULING PERMITS 

Permits issued by the state of Nevada Division 

of Health for eight sewage hauling trucks for the 

NTS were renewed in November 1995 and are 

listed in Table 4.6. 

4.3.3.2 NON-NTS SEWAGE PERMITS 

Sewage permits were required for four of the six 

non-NTS EG&G/EM operated facilities. These 

included two permits at the LVAO facilities and 

two at the STL as shown in Table 4.5. Each 

was issued by the county or community in 

which the facility was located. ’ 

4.3.4 RCRA PERMITS 

4.3.4.1 NTS OPERATIONS 

Hazardous waste generation activities at 

the NTS continue to be performed under 

EPA ID Number NV3890090001. RCRA 

permit application Part A and Part B has 

been submitted to the state of Nevada for 

the following NTS operations: Pit 3 Mixed 

Waste Disposal Units (existing), the Mixed 

Waste Disposal Units (proposed), the Area 

5 Hazardous Waste Storage Unit (existing), 

the Area 11 EOD Area (existing), and the 

Mixed Waste Storage Pad (existing)(see 

Section 3.1.5.1). During 1995, the Area 11 

EOD Unit and the Area 5 Hazardous Waste 

Storage Unit received Permit Approval. 

The Pit 3 Mixed Waste Disposal Units still 

has interim status. 

The NTS also has a “Nevada Hazardous 

Materials Storage Permit,” Number 13-94- 

0034-X, issued by the state Fire Marshall. 

This permit is renewed annually when a 

facility makes a report required by the 

Chemical Catastrophe Prevention Act (see 

Section 3.1.7). 

4.3.4.2 NON-NTS FACILITIES 

Five EPA Generator ID numbers have been 

issued to five EG&GIEM operated facilities. 

In addition, three local ID numbers were 

required at two of those facilities. Hazardous 

waste is managed at all locations using 

satellite accumulation areas. Three facilities 

have centralized accumulation areas. All 

hazardous and industrial wastes are 

transported offsite to RCRA-permitted 

facilities for approved treatment and/or 

disposal. 

4.3.5 ENDANGERED SPECIES 

ACT/WILDLIFE PERMITS 

Federal and state permits have been issued 

to DOE/NV and to NTS entities. These 

permits are required for the conduct of 

4-21 
DOE/NV activities in habitat of the threatened 

desert tortoise and for the study and collection 

of this threatened species and other wildlife. (All 

EG&G/EM non-NTS facilities are located in 

existing metropolitan areas and are not subject 

to the Endangered Species Act.) Annual reports 

associated with these permits are filed as 

stipulated in each permit. 

DOE/NV activities on the NTS comply with all 

terms and conditions of a desert tortoise 

incidental take authorization issued in a 

Biological Opinion (File No. l-5-91 -F-225) from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Desert tortoise studies are performed under a 

USFWS threatened species permit (No. PRT781234) issued to EG&G/EM in 1994 

(expiration date: May 30, 1998). 

The Nevada Division of Wildlife issued a 

scientific collection permit to EG&G/EM (No. 

S-l 1009) on January 1, 1995, for the 

collection and study of various species at the 

NTS. This permit expired on December 31, 

1995. Also, the USFWS issued REECo a 

Special Purpose Salvage permit (No. PRT762816) on November 8, 1993, which 

allowed the salvaging of dead migratory 

birds. It also expired on December 31, 1995. 
Table 4.1 Summary of Onsite Environmental Surveillance Program - 1995 

Sample Tvpe 

Air 

Potable 

Water 

Potable 

Supply Wells 

Non-Potable 

Supply Wells 

Open 

Reservoirs 

Natural 

Springs 

Containment 

Ponds 

Sewage 

Lagoons 

External 

Gamma 

Radiation 

Levels 

DescriDtion 

Sampling through 

Whatman GF/A glass 

fiber filter and a 

charcoal cartridge 

Low-volume sampling 

through silica gel 

Low-volume 

sampling 

Grab sample 

Grab sample 

Grab sample 

Grab sample 

Grab sample 

Grab sample 

Grab sample 

UD-814AS 

thermoluminescent 

dosimeters 

Collectiori 

Frequency 

Weekly 

Biweekly 

Weekly 

Monthly/ 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Quarterly. 

Quarterly 

Quarterly 

Monthly 

Quarterly 

Quarterly. 

Number 

of Samplin 

7 Locationsla 

45 

15 

3 

7 

11 

2 

15 

8 

2 

11 

169 

Type of 

Analysis 

Gamma spectroscopy, 

gross f3,(2 8,239+240Pu, 

monthly composite)(b) 

HTO (tritium oxide) 

ffiKr and ‘%Xe 

Gamma spectroscopy, 

gross 0, 3H, (238*239+2 Pu, 

gross a quarterly), 

(%r annually) 

Gamma spectroscopy, 

9 ross 0, 3H, “%a, 36,239+240pu, 3,, 

enrichment, gross a, 

%Sr quarterly 

Gamma spectroscopy, 

gross R, 3H, 238*239+240Pu, 

gross a, quarterly, 

(?Sr annually) 

Gamma spectroscopy, 

gross 0, 3H, 23823g+240Pu 

quarterly, (+Sr annually) 

Gamma spectroscopy, 

gross 0, 3H, 23**239+240Pu 

quarterly, (YSr annually) 

Gamma spectroscopy, 

gross 0, 3H, 238*239+240Pu 

quarterly, (%r annually) 

Gamma spectroscopy, 

gross 0, 3H, 238,239+240Pu 

quarterly, (YSr annually) 

Total quarterly 

exposure 

(a) Not all of these locations were sampled because of inaccessibility or lack of water. 

(b) Beginning with the fourth quarter of 1994, the air filters from stations, other than the 12 stations inside 

RWMS Areas 3 and 5, were composited quarterly for plutonium analyses. Monthly compositing of 

filters was continued for the stations inside the RWMS. 
Table 4.2 NTS Active Air Quality Permits - 1995 

Permit No. Facility or Operation 

Expiration 

Q& 

AP971 l-0549 

AP971 l-0554 

Area I Facilities 

Shaker Plant 

Rotary Dryer 

Aggregate Plant 

Concrete Batch Plant 

Sandbag Facility 

Area 6 Facilities 

Cementing Equip. (silos) 

Decontamination Facility Boiler 

Diesel Fuel Tank 

Gasoline Fuel Tank 

Slant Screen 

AP971 l-0555 Area 23 Facilities 

Building 753 Boiler 

Cafeteria Boilers (2) 

Diesel Fuel Tank 

Gasoline Fuel Tank 

Slant Screen 

NTS Surfaces Disturbances 

WSI Incinerator 

03121/00 

I I/21/99 

14104196 

AP971 l-0578 Area 5 Facilities 

Slant Screen 

05/05/00 

OP I 975Ca’ 

OP 1976’“’ 

OP 2744 

OP 2849 

OP 2850 

PC 2988 

PC 3246 

PC 3774 

OP 2625 

OP 96-20 

OP 95-21 

OP 95-24 

Area 2 Portable Stemming System 

Area 2 Portable Stemming System 

Area I2 Cafeteria Boiler 

Area 12 Concrete Batch Plant 

Area 6 Portable Field Bins 

Area 3 Two-Part Epoxy Batch Plant 

Area 3 Mud Plant 

Area 6 Portable Stemming System 

Area 5 Spill Test Facility 

NTS Open Burn - Training 

Area 27 Open Burning 

Area 4 BEEF Facility 

(a) Permits renewal submitted. 

12lo4/94 

12/04/94 

03123198 

12102198 

12/02/98 

Varies 

Varies 

Varies 

I I I02197 

1 O/24/96 

01/23/96 

02/29/96 
Table 4.3 Active Air Quality Permits, Non-NTS Facilities - 1995 

Permit No. Facility or Operation Exoiration Date 

Las Vegas Area Operation(a) 

A38702 

A06501 

A06505 

A06506 

A06507 

A38701 

A06502 

A06503 

A38703 

A34801 

A34802 

A34803 

A34804 

Hamada Offset Press, Bldg. C-I, NLVF 

Spray Paint Booth, Bldg. A-16 NLVF 

Time Saver Aluminum Sander, NLVF 

Abrasive Blasting, NLVF 

Trinco Dry Blast with Dry Bag Dust Filters, NLVF 

Spray Paint Booth, NLVF 

Vapor Degreasers #I 

3 Emergency Generators, and 

Emergency Fire Control Equipment, NLVF 

Emergency Generator, NLVF 

Columbia Boiler Model WL-180, Penthouse #l , RSL 

Columbia Boiler Model WL-90, Penthouse #I, RSL 

4.0 MM BTU Water Heater #2, RSL 

2 Cummins Emergency Generators and Emergency 

Fire Control Equipment, RSL 

A34805 Spray Paint Booth, Room 1328, RSL 

A34811 . Excimer Laser 

Special Technologies Laboratory(a) 

8477 Permit to Operate a I2 Gallon Capacity Vapor Degreaser 

(a) An annual fee is paid on these permits. 

02128198 

02128198 

02128198 

02128198 

02l28l98 

02/28/98 

02128198 

02l28l98 

02128198 

02128198 

02l28l98 

02128198 

02l28l98 

02f28l98 

Indef. 

Indef. 

Table 4.4 NTS Drinking Water Supply System Permits - 1995 

Permit No. llfB&.d Exoiration Date 

NY-5024-I 2NC Area 1 09/30/96 

NY-4099-1 2C Area2 & I2 09/30/96 

NY-360-I 2C Area 23 09/30/96 

NY-4098-I 2NCNT Area 25 09l3Ol96 

NY-5000-12NCNT Area 6 09/30/96 

NY-835-I 2NCNT Site Wide Truck 09/30/96 

NY-836-12NCNT Site Wide Truck 09/30/96 

NY-841 -12NCNT Site Wide Truck 09/30/96 
Table 4.5 Sewage Discharge Permits - 1995 

Permit Number/Location Areas 

NTS General Permit 

Off-NTS Permits 

Las Vegas Area Operations 

CCSD-032/Remote Sensing Laboratory’“) 

VEH-I 12/North Las Vegas Facility(“) 

Special Technologies Laboratory 

All-2041 Santa Barbara, California 

Ill-331/ Santa Barbara, California 

(a) Owner/Operator effluent monitoring required by permit. 

Expiration Date 

01/31/99 

. 06/30/96 

03/I 3197 

12/31/95 

Table 4.6 NTS Sewage Waste Hauling Trucks 

Permit Number Vehicle Identification Number 

Expiration 

Q&e 

NY-I 7-0331 Ola) 

NY-I 7-0331 I 

NY-1 7-03312 

NY-1 7-03313 

NY-I 7-03314 

NY-I 7-03315 

NY-I 7-03317 

NY-I 7-03318 

Septic Tank Pumper E-I 04866 

Septic Tank Pumper E-I 04573 

Septic Tank Pumper E-l 04296 

Septic Tank Pumper E-I 05293 

Septic Tank Pumper E-I 05299 

Septic Tank Pumper E-I 05919 

Septic Tank Pumper E-l 05918 

Septic Tank Pumping Subcontractor 

Vehicle 

(a) Truck no longer used, permit allowed to expire. 

I I I30195 

I I /30/96 

I I /30/96 

I1 I30196 

I I I30196 

I I I30196 

11 I30196 

I I I30196 
5.0 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

RESULTS 

Radiological monitoring results from onsite environmental programs included 

effluent sampling results for airborne emissions and liquid discharges to 

containment ponds and environmental sampling results for onsite surveillance 

conducted by Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., (REECo). Offsite 

environmental surveillance was conducted by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Radiation Sciences Laboratory - Las Vegas (RSLLV). Onsite monitoring results indicated that environmental concentrations of 

radioactivity resulting from Nevada Test Site (NTS) air emissions were 

statistically no different than background except in the immediate vicinity of the 

emissions. These airborne emissions, and radioactive liquid discharges to 

onsite containment ponds, produced concentrations that were only a fractional 

percentage above background in terms of potential exposure of onsite workers. 

Offsite monitoring indicated that environmental radionuclide concentrations 

and exposure rates were statistically no different than background, with no 

measurable exposure of offsite residents from current NTS test operations. 

Small amounts of radioactivity were detected in animal samples collected 

onsite. 

5.1 RADlOLOGlCAL EFFLUENT MONITORING 

Since no nuclear tests were performed at the NTS during 1995, monitoring 

efforts for radioactive effluents consisted primarily of routine air sampling and 

of periodic sampling of liquid discharges to the Area 12 tunnel containment 

ponds. Air samples collected in and around the Area 5 Radioactive, Waste 

Management Site (RWMS-5) indicated that no measurable radioactivity was 

detectable away from the area, although trace amounts of tritium were detected 

at its boundary. Samples in Area 3, at the Area 9 Bunker, and a few other areas 

showed above-background levels of 239+240Pu. Measured *‘Kr levels on Pahute 

Mesa were about 6 pCi/m3 (0.22 Bq/d) higher than the NTS average, due to 

atmospheric pumping of the krypton from past nuclear tests. In each case, by 

using data from the station with the highest annual average, replacing the 

diffuse source with an equivalent point source, and using CAP88-PC, upper 

limits of 0.023 Ci (850 MBq) of 23g+240Pu, 0.97 Ci (36 GBq) of 3H, and 300 Ci ( 11 

TBq) of 85Kr were estimated for airborne emissions from Area 3, from the 

RWMS-5, and from Pahute Mesa, respectively. Using a different model, an 

upper limit of 0.048 Ci (1.8 GBq) was estimated for airborne emissions of 

2,3g+240Pu from the Area 9 Bunker. The primary liquid effluent was water from 

Area 20 characterization wells collected in a containment pond. lnfluent to this 

pond contained 261 Ci (9.7 TBq) of tritium (3H). 

5.1 .I EFFLUENT MONITORING 

PLAN 

n important part of the NTS 

Environmental Monitoring Plan 

(DOE 199Ic), as required by 

DOEOrder 5400.1 (DOE 1990b), is 

the onsite Effluent Monitoring Plan, in which 

the Area 12 tunnels, the Area 6 

Decontamination Facility, nuclear test sites, 

Radioactive Waste Management Sites, and all 

other potential effluent sites throughout the 

NTS have been assessed for their potential to 

contribute to the public dose. 
Airborne radioactive effluents are the 

emissions on the NTS with the greatest 

potential for reaching members of the public. 

All radioactive liquid effluents from activities 

on the NTS are contained within its 

boundaries. For all activities on the NTS, the 

estimated effective dose equivalent to any 

member of the public from all airborne 

radionuclide emissions is much less than one 

mrem/year. Requirements of the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) are set forth in 40 

C.F.R. 61.93(b)(4)(ii), and in Regulatory Guide 

DOUEH-0173T (DOE 1991 d). Compliance 

with these requirements is achieved by 

periodic measurements of effluents to confirm 

the low emission levels. For consistency with 

past practices, the monitoring methods and 

procedures developed over the years are 

being used with changes being introduced as 

conditions warrant. 

5.1.2 AIRBORNE EFFLUENTS 

No nuclear tests were performed during 1995, 

so there were no test-related effluents. The 

majority of radioactive air effluents at the NTS 

in 1995 originated from tritiated water seeping 

from E Tunnel and pumped from 

characterization wells, resuspension of 

contaminated surface soil, and seepage of 

*5Kr from underground tests with various 

amounts of other radionuclides calculated 

from monitoring data (see Table 5.1 for a 

listing of onsite releases). 

An increase in efforts to monitor radioactive 

air emissions at the NTS began in November 

1988 as a result of requirements in DOE 

Order 5400.1, DOE Order 5400.5, and 

regulatory guide DOUEH-0173T, as well as 

from EPA requirements in the NESHAP, 40 

C.F.R. 61. Known and potential effluent 

sources throughout the NTS were assessed 

for their potential to contribute to public dose 

and were considered in designing the Site 

Effluent Monitoring Plan, which forms part of 

the Environmental Monitoring Plan, Nevada 

Test Site and support Facilities, 

DOE/NV/l 0630-28, published in November 

1991. This plan was updated in 1992 and 

1993. 

5.1.2.1 CHARACTERIZATION WELL 

EFFLUENT 

As part of environmental restoration activities, 

the groundwater under the NTS is being 

characterized by drilling special wells for 

measuring the characteristics of NTS aquifers. 

In 1995, three such wells were drilled near the 

cavity created by a nuclear explosive test. 

The water pumped from these wells into 

containment ponds was contaminated with 

tritium. Measurement of the tritium 

concentration and volume of water discharged 

gives a source term for this activity. 

5.1.2.2 TUNNEL COMPLEX EFFLUENT 

As noted above, there was fluid drainage from 

the E Tunnel complex during 1995. The HTO 

content is shown in Table 5.1. 

5.1.2.3 RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

MANAGEMENT SITES 

Two permanent particulate/halogen samplers 

were located within the disposal pits at the 

RWMS-5. The 1995 annual average 

concentration of gross beta activity in samples 

taken within Pit 3 in Area 5 was 1.7 x 1 O-l4 

uCi/mL (0.63 mBq/m3). Pit 5, a new pit, was 

opened this year and an air sampler installed. 

The annual average gross beta for this pit was 

2.5 x lo-l4 uCi/mL (0.93 mBq/m3), within the 

range of NTS results. The NTS 1995 annual 

average gross beta concentration was 2.0 x 

lo-l4 uCi/mL (0.74 mBq/m ). These results 

indicate that, except for trace amounts of 

tritium as noted below, the operations in the 

RWMS-5 are not contributing radiological 

effluents to the NTS environment. Average 

annual gross beta and plutonium results for 

1995 from all the samples collected at the 

RWMS-5 facility are shown in Figure 5.1. 

Nine HTO samplers were located on the 

perimeter of RWMS-5 as shown in Figure 5.2. 

The 1995 annual average HTO concentration 

for the nine stations was 5.6 x 10m6 pCi/mL 

(0.21 Bq/m3); the individual values are 

displayed in Figure 5.2. This value is less 

than 0.06 percent of the Derived 

Concentration Guide for tritiated water vapor 

in air. 
Q 2.1 * 2.1 

0.55 a 0.49 

Pit No, 5 

N 

t 

Q 2.0 

Ia 0.35 

TRU Pad 

I 

2.2 * 

0.67 la 0.6 q 

@ Annual Average Gross Beta (x 1 O-l4 JHIX/~~L) 

Annual Average 23g+240Pu ( x 10Vi7 pCi/mL) 

Figure 5.1 RWMS-5 Air Sampling Annual Average Results - 1995 
bea 

-._ . . . .-.- -_-.- -.-. _.- ._.. -. . .._- . .-_--. - 

8 6.6 

9 Annual Average HTO in Air ( 16” pCi/mL Air) 

Figure 5.2 RWMS-5 HTO Annual Average Results - 1995 
The Area 3 RWMS (RWMS-3) is used for 

disposal of radiologically contaminated waste 

in packages that are unsuitable for disposal in 

the Area 5 facility. This waste is buried in 

subsidence craters much like waste is buried 

at the RWMS-5. The RWMS-3 is surrounded 

by four permanent particulate/halogen 

samplers located approximately north, south, 

east, and west of the burial pit. Several TLDs 

were distributed at the RWMS-3 and 

surrounding areas, 

Although a statistical analysis shows that 

there are differences between NTS areas in 

levels of environmental exposure, there were 

not enough data to determine the pattern of 

the differences. Nevertheless, an examination 

of annual average exposure rates shows that 

the gamma exposure rates detected at the 

perimeter fences of RWMSS and RWMS-5 

are similar to gamma measurements taken at 

other locations on the NTS. 

The gross beta 1995 annual average at the 

RWMS-3 of 1.7 x 1614 uCi/mL was slightly 

lower than the 1994 average, and was not 

statistically different at the five percent 

significance level from the sitewide average of 

2.0 x lo-l4 uCi/mL (0.74 mBq/m “). However, 

23g+240Pu results indicated that levels of these 

radionuclides in the vicinity of the RWMS3 

were consistently above the NTS average. 

Vehicular traffic and opera tional activities in 

Area 3 apparently resuspend plutonium that 

was deposited on the soil surface during 

earlier nuclear explosives testing. These 

elevated 23g+240 Pu levels indicated that Area 3 

is a diffuse source of effluents. Air sampling 

results are displayed in Tables 5.2, 5.3, and 

5.4. 

5.1.3 LIQUID DISCHARGES 

The radioactive liquid discharges at the NTS 

in 1995 originated from tunnel drainage and 

from water pumped from characterization 

wells in Area 20. Typically, all liquid 

discharges within the NTS have been held in 

containment ponds. Monthly grab samples 

were taken from each pond and where 

possible, from the influent. 

Radioactivity in liquid discharges released to 

the containment ponds was monitored to 

assess the efficacy of tunnel sealing and 

provide a quantitative and qualitative annual 

summary of the radioactivity released onsite 

for use in calculating doses for NESHAP 

compliance. 

5.1.3.1 TUNNELS 

Rainier Mesa in Area 12 is the location where 

nuclear tests were conducted within tunnels 

by the Department of Defense (DOD). 

Seepage water discharged from these tunnels 

was collected in containment ponds as 

described above. This water was usually 

contaminated with radionuclides, mainly 3H, 

generated during nuclear tests in previous 

years. 

Liquid effluents were discharged during 1995 

only from E Tunnel. The liquid discharge from 

this tunnel decreased during 1995 compared 

to previous years because of success in 

sealing the tunnels. The flow from T Tunnel 

was eliminated with the installation of plugs in 

1993. Only at E Tunnel was the 1995 flow 

comparable to that for previous years. 

Monitoring results indicated that the water 

discharged from E tunnel contained 

measurable quantities of 3H and small 

amounts of other radionuclides. Total 

quantities of 3H, 23*Pu, 23g+240Pu, “Sr, 13’Cs, 

and beta activity. were determined for this 

liquid effluent source and are listed in Table 

5.1. No liquid effluents were discharged 

offsite. 

5.1.3.2 CHARACTERIZATION WELL 

EFFLUENT 

The total volume of liquid discharged to 

containment ponds from the three 

characterization wells in Area 20 during 1995 

was 891,700 gal (3375 m3) that contained 

260.8 Ci of tritium. This was a new source for 

this year. 
5.1.3.3 DECONTAMINATION FACILITY tests were conducted. Until a new lined 

containment pond is constructed, any effluent 

The Decontamination Facility, located in Area from that Facility will be captured in holding 

6, was not used during 1995 since no nuclear tanks and held for disposal. 
5.2 RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

SURVEILLANCE 

Onsite surveillance of airborne particulates, noble gases, and tritiated water 

vapor indicated concentrations that were generally not statistically different 

from background concentrations. Surface water samples collected from open 

reservoirs or natural springs and industrial-purpose water, exclusive of tunnel 

ponds, gave no indication of statistically significant contamination levels. 

External gamma exposure monitoring results indicated a decrease from 1994. 

Special environmental studies included soil radionuclide transport studies and 

development of a NTS-specific dose assessment model. Results of offsite 

environmental surveillance by the U.S. EPA RSL-LV showed no NTS-related 

radioactivity was detected by the offsite monitoring networks and there were 

no apparent net exposures detectable by the offsite internal dosimetry network. 

Radionuclides were detectable at levels near the minimum detectable 

concentration (MDC) in tissues from a deer collected onsite. 

52.1 ONSITE ENVIRONMENTAL 

SURVEILLANCE 

At the end of 1995 the onsite radiological 

surveillance networks consisted of 45 air 

sampling stations; 3 radioactive noble gas 

sampling stations; 15 tritiated water vapor 

sampling stations; surface water samples from 

15 open water supply reservoirs, 8 springs, 1 

containment pond, and 11 sewage lagoons; 

groundwater samples from 11 potable and 2 

non-potable supply wells and 7 drinking water 

consumption points; and 168 locations where 

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) 

measure gamma exposures. Summary 

tables for each of the analytes for this 

program are placed at the end of this chapter. 

Individual results for each collected sample 

are published separately and may be found in 

the “Environmental Data Report for the 

Nevada Test Site - 1995” (DOE/NV/l 1718- 

038, in prep.). 

5.2.1.1 RADIOACTIVITY IN AIR 

A total of 63 air sampling stations were 

operated at various times during the year. 

Eight of the stations had solar photovoltaic 

battery powered samplers and were placed in 

contaminated areas where commercial power 

was unavailable. At each of the stations, 

samples were collected weekly on glass fiber 

filters (for particulate) and charcoal cartridges 

(for halogens). The filters were counted for 

gamma and gross beta activity, composited 

monthly for RWMS samplers or quarterly for 

the remainder,. and then analyzed for 238Pu 

and 23g+240Pu. The charcoal cartridges were 

counted for gamma activity only if test-related 

radionuclides were detected on the particulate 

filters. * 

Air monitoring for the noble gases began at six 

fixed locations and ended with only three. 

These air samples were collected weekly. A 

distillation process separated the radioactive 

krypton and xenon from the sample for 

measurement. 

Tritiated water vapor was monitored 

continuously at 15 locations and monitored for 

only a portion of the year at five locations 

which were either terminated or added during 

the year. Samples were collected every two 

weeks and analyzed for 3H. Liquid scintillation 

counting was used for these measurements. 

For the purpose of comparing measured 

quantities of airborne radioactivity to the 

Derived Air Concentrations (DAC), the guides 

for occupational exposures found in DOE 
Order 5480.11, and to the Derived 

Concentration Guides (DCG), the guides for 

exposures to members of the general public 

found in DOE Order 5400.5, the following 

assumptions were made: 

o The chemical species of the radionuclides 

detected was unknown so the most 

restrictive DAC or DCG was used (almost 

always Class Y compounds which take on 

the order of years to clear from the 

respiratory system). The DCG and DAC 

values used are listed in Table 5.5. 

l For air sampling results, all of the gross 

beta activity detected was assumed to be 

“Sr. 

5.2.1.2 AIR (PARTICULATE AND HALOGEN 

GAS) SAMPLING RESULTS 

GROSS BETA 

Figure 5.3 displays the average NTS gross 

beta results for 1995. Air particulate samples 

were held for five to seven days prior to’ gross 

beta counting and gamma spectrum analysis 

to allow for the decay of radon and radon 

daughters. Table 5.2 presents the network 

arithmetic averages, minimums, and 

maximums for gross beta in air during 1995. 

All results exceeded the MDC, except for 

instances where the sample volume was 

unusually low. The network 1995 annual 

average gross beta concentration was 2.0 x 

1 O-l4 uCi/mL (0.74 mBq/m3), similar to 1994. 

This concentration is 0.001 percent of the “Sr 

DAC listed in DOE Order 5480.11 and less 

than 3 percent of the 10 mrem DCG in DOE 

Order 5400.5. A statistical evaluation of the 

gross beta concentrations indicated that a 

lognormal distribution provides an adequate 

approximation to the true distribution. 

Although the gross beta concentration 

average for all stations was the same as last 

year’s, it was apparent that there was a slight 

increasing trend in concentrations throughout 

the year which changed abruptly to a 

decrease between October and December. 

This trend was observed at all stations and 

was similar to what was observed last year. 

No deficiency or discrepancy was found to 

which this trend could be attributed. 

PLUTONIUM 

The composite filter samples from each 

particulate sampling location were analyzed 

for 238~~ and 239+240 Pu. Figure 5.4 shows the 

airborne 23g+240Pu annual average results for 

each of the sampling locations. Tables 5.3 

and 5.4 list the maximum, minimum, annual 

arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and the 

mean expressed as a percentage of the DCG 

for each sampling location, for 23g+240Pu and 

238Pu, respectively. The ranges in the annual 

mean concentrations for =Pu and 23g+240Pu for 

all stations were -0.095 to 1 .O x 19” uCi/mL 

and -0.16 to 72 x 10-l’ uCi/mL (-3.5 to 37 x 1 OS8 

and -0.06 to 27 x 10m6 Bq/m3), respectively. 

The arithmetic mean and standard deviation of 

238Pu in air for all stations were (6.3 * 15) x 10-l’ 

uCi/mL (2.3 * 5.6 x lo-* Bq/n? ). Most 

observed values of 238.Pu were well below the 

limit of detection. The arithmetic mean and 

standard deviation of 23g+240Pu in air for all 

stations were (3.2 * 7.8) x 10-l’ uCi/mL (1.2 f 

2.9) x la6 Bq/m3. The network arithmetic 

mean for 23g+240Pu was 33 percent lower than 

the 1994 mean concentration, a decrease that 

is within the statistical variation of the network 

results. 

During 1995, the maximum annual average 

(mean) 23g+240Pu concentration was found at 

the Area 9, 9-300 Bunker and the next highest 

at the Area 3 sampling locations. Results 

from samples taken at Area 9, 9-300 Bunker 

averaged 16 x 10-l’ uCi/mL (5.9 uBq/m ) 

durihg 1995. This quantity was less than 0.01 

percent of the DAC and 1 percent of the 10 

mrem DCG. Historically, the highest 

concentrations of 23g+240Pu have occurred in 

Areas 3 and 9. A statistical analysis of the 

23g+240Pu results indicated that due to the 

heterogeneity of the variances, the differences 

reported among the areas are not statistically 

significant. 

The presence of plutonium on the NTS is 

primarily due to atmospheric tests and tests in 

which nuclear devices were detonated with 

5-8 
‘J. \/ / 1.5*\ ---+LL===T =========== 

12015 J=ll 

III 

IJI-’ -_-_-.- 8 - _____. 

111 

KlLOMETERS 

Figure 5.3 NTS Airborne Gross Beta Annual Average Concentrations - 1995 

-^ *--- - --- _ . _ .-- 
N 

k 

I 

I 

/ 0.09 

I CIA an 

111 

111 III 

III 

------ 

III 

111 

III 

! aI 

i / 

I I 

I I I !F-----------------l I 

10 5 0 5 10 

m----s I 

KILOMETERS I 

Figure 5.4 NTS Airborne nJYcz4uP~ Annual Average Results - 1995 

tW5ASERbrMeNTS 5-10 
high explosives (“safety shots”). These latter 

tests spread low-fired plutonium in the eastern 

and northeastern areas of the NTS (see 

Chapter 2, Figure 2.3 for these locations). 

Almost three decades later, measurable levels 

of plutonium in air are still present because 

operational activities and vehicular traffic in 

these areas resuspended some of the 238Pu 

and 23*240Pu in the soil. 

GAMMA 

The glass fiber filters used to collect 

particulates were analyzed by gamma 

spectroscopy. The only radionuclides 

detected by gamma spectroscopy were 

naturally occurring in the environment (40K, 

7Be, and members of the uranium and thorium 

series), except for traces of an event related 

radionuclide, 137Cs, which was detected in 

seven samples. All of these samples had 

137Cs concentrations ~0.1 percent of the 10 

mrem DCG. 

5.2.1.3 NOBLE GAS SAMPLING RESULTS 

The locations at which compressed air 

samples were routinely collected throughout 

the year are shown in Figure 5.5 with the 

annual averages of the 85Kr analyses. All 

average concentrations were well below the 

DCG values of 3 xl O7 uCiimL (1 .l x 1 O4 Bq/n-?) 

for 85Kr. The samplers at three locations will 

constitute the new network; the remainder 

were terminated during the year because of 

budget limitations and the cessation of nuclear 

explosives tests. Due to the closing of Areas 

19 and 20 during the winter months, these 

stations did not begin sampling until April and 

May 1994. Summaries of the results are listed 

in Table 5.6. Individual results for each 

collected sample are published separately and 

may be found in the “Environmental Data 

Report for the Nevada Test Site - 1995” 

(DOE/NV/l 1718-038, in prep.). 

As in the past, the levels of 85Kr (half-life of 

10.76 years) observed in the samples were 

from worldwide nuclear power and fuel 

processing operations, with a small 

contribution of “Kr from underground nuclear 

tests at the NTS. Xenon-133 analyses were 

not done this year because its short half-life 

of 5.27 days and the moratorium on tests 

make it unlikely that any would be detected on 

the NTS. 

. 

KRYPTON-85 

Again this year the highest annual average 

concentration occurred in Area 20, at the Area 

20 Camp, 34 x 1 O-l2 uCi/mL (1.3 Bq/m3), which 

is 0.01 percent of the 10 mrem DCG. The 

higher average for the samples collected in 

Area 20 was expected as it is in the northern 

portion of the NTS in the proximity of the sites 

where seepage of noble gases from the 

ground has been observed in the past. 

Stations in this area have consistently had the 

highest concentration of noble gases 

Nevertheless, statistical evaluation of these 

data showed that the average concentration 

for Area 20 was not significantly higher than 

the other averages at the five percent 

significance level. Each location had 

environmental levels of 85Kr with occasional 

spikes attributed to seepage of noble gases 

from the Pahute Mesa area. All data since 

1982 were evaluated for any trend in 

concentrations. The 85Kr concentrations were 

found to have remained relatively constant 

over this period. 

5.2.1.4 TRITIATED WATER VAPOR 

SAMPLING RESULTS 

The concentrations of tritiated water vapor 

determined from sampling conducted at 15 

permanent sampling stations are summarized 

in Table 5.7. Individual results for each 

collected sample are published separately and 

may be found in the “Environmental Data 

Report for the Nevada Test Site - 1995,” 

(DOE/NV/l 1718-038, in prep.), which also 

includes a statistical evaluation of the data. 

As shown in Table 5.7, the location having the 

highest annual average tritium concentration 

was the Area 5 RWMS No. 4 station with an 
,,,_ --__-_- ------.-L’Z111 -I----/ 

I I 

Ill 

III I I 

Ill 29 

I I 

I 

Area Boundary .-.--.-.-.-.-.- 

Paved Road (10-l” L FCi/mL) -.’ -.

10 5 0 5 ia 

I----- I ’ 

MILES 

10 5 4 10 

I 

KILOMETERS I 

Figure 5.5 NTS 85Kr Annual Average Concentrations - 1995 
El 

average of 15 x 1 Om6 pCi/mL (0.56 Bq/m3). 

This average was only 0.15 percent of the 10 

mrem DCG for tritium. The annual average 

concentration at each station is shown in 

Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.2 for RWMS-5. 

The data were found to be lognormally 

distributed, therefore the natural logarithms of 

‘the individual concentrations were used in a 

one-way analysis of variance to test for 

differences between station means. This 

statistical testing also identified three separate 

groups of stations, similar to those found in 

the data for 1994. The annual concentration 

averages at the locations in the higher 

grouping were 0.15 percent or less of the 10 

mrem DCG. 

A review of the historical trend in 

concentrations at the NTS over the years 

1982 through 1995 was made. The review 

found that the average tritium concentration 

for all environmental stations showed an 

exponential decrease from about 1.4 x 1 Om4 

pCi/mL in 1982 to about 4.0 x 1 Q5 pCi/mL in 

1987, followed by a steady decrease to the 

current value, 1.7 x 1 OS6 pCi/mL. The same 

trend was observed at all environmental 

stations, including the RWMS stations, which 

implies that the RWMS, although emitting 

measurable tritium, may not be the only 

source of tritium at the NTS. 

5.2.1.5 RADIOACTIVITY IN SURFACE 

WATER 

Surface water sampling at the NTS was 

conducted at 12 open reservoirs, 8 natural 

springs, 3 containment ponds or effluents, and 

11 sewage lagoons. The locations of these 

sources are shown in Figure 4.4. When water 

was available and the weather permitted, a 

grab sample was taken quarterly. The sample 

was analyzed for 3H, gross beta, gamma 

activity, 236Pu, 23g+240Pu, and %r according to 

the schedule shown in Table 4.1. Sources of 

surface water were, for the most part, 

man-made, i.e., created for or by NTS 

operations. There is no known human 

consumption of any surface water on the NTS. 

The annual average for each radionuclide 

analyzed in surface waters is presented in 

Table 5.8, along with the results from analysis 

of tunnel effluents. The annual averages for 

open reservoirs and natural springs (see 

Figure 5.7) are compared to the DCGs for 

ingested water. Gamma results for all sample 

locations indicated that radionuclide levels 

were consistently below the detection limit 

except for samples from the containment 

ponds. 

With the exception of containmentponds, no 

annual average concentration in surface 

waters was found to be statistically different 

from any other at the five percent significance 

level. The analytical results from the Area 12 

containment ponds showed measurable 

quantities of radioactivity and displayed 

identifiable trends. 

OPEN RESERVOIRS 

Open reservoirs have been established at 

various locations on the NTS for industrial 

uses. The annual average concentrations of 

radioactivity were compared to the DCGs for 

ingested water listed in DOE Order 5400.5, 

even though there was no known consumption 

of these waters. The appropriate data are 

shown in Table 5.9. 

NATURAL SPRINGS 

Of the nine natural springs found onsite (i.e., 

spring-supplied pools located within the NTS), 

eight were consistently sampled. These 

springs were a source of drinking water for 

wild animals on the NTS. The annual average 

gross beta results for each spring are shown 

in Table 5.10 and compared to the ?Sr DCG 

for drinking water, although the water is not 

used for drinking. The highest result was for 

Area 7, Reitman Seep, but it was still below 

the DCG. 

CONTAINMENT PONDS 

Due to the sealing of the tunnels by the end of 

the year 1993, liquid effluents ceased at all 

except E Tunnel. The E Tunnel containment 

pond was fenced and posted with radiological 

warning signs. During each sampling, a grab 

sample was taken from the E Tunnel 

containment pond and at the effluent 

discharge point. The samples were analyzed 

for 3H, “Sr, 238 Pu,*~‘+*~~ Pu, gross beta, and 
I 

III~!2!~~.--.-- ---- _-- III 111 1 ;‘- 4 0.9 l ; 

III 

Ill L _-_ .- ___ .---iii 

Ill 30 LEAL-L 

7--j 1 1 111 

,“-------- -------- 

i I 111 

Area Boundary 

Paved Road 

f.+ Far the RWMS 

_____ -.-.-.-._.- 

see Figure 5.2 

(1 OM6 pCi/lnl 1 

13 5 0 6 IO 

I 

KILOMETERS 

Figure 5.6 NTS Tritiated Water Vapor Annual Average Concentrations - 1995 
111 

III 

!i-’ -_-_-._ 8 _ 

!I III 

Ill 

Ill 30 111-------- -- 

111 Ill 

!I -.. 

---_-_ 

-L 

1 63 i s 

‘7.6 

-_ _-. .- ___ 

w 

,I, 

!/ 

Ill 

9.0 j --ii 111 

Ill 

jl! 

111 

I 

I 14!6 \ 

Dte: NS - No Sample Reservoir Dry 

Figure 5.7 Annual Average Gross Beta in Open Reservoirs(o) and Natural Springs( n ) - 1995 

5-15 1995 ASER kw the NT’S 
gamma activity in accordance with the 

schedule in Table 4.1. The annual average of 

gross beta analyses from each sampling 

location is listed in Table 5.11 and compared 

to the DCG for ingested water. This water is 

not used for drinking. 

The effluent from characterization wells drilled 

in Area 20 was discharged into containment 

ponds. The total liquid discharged was 

calculated from the measured area and water 

depth. The averaged 3H concentration of 

collected samples can then be used to 

calculate the total discharged (261 Ci or 9.6 

TW. 

SEWAGE LAGOONS 

Samples were collected quarterly during this 

year from the 11 sewage lagoons on the 

network at the end of 1995. Each of the 

lagoons is part of a closed system used for 

evaporative treatment of sanitary waste. The 

lagoons are located in Areas 6, 12, 22, 23, 

and 25. There was no known contact by the 

working population during the year. The 

annual gross beta concentration averages for 

all lagoons ranged between 0.88 and 26 x 19’ 

uCi/mL (0.33 to 9.6 Bq/L). No radioactivity 

was detected above the MDCs for tritium, 

238Pu, 239+240Pu, or %r. No event-related 

radioactivity was detected by gamma 

spectrometric analyses. 

5.2.1.6 RADIOACTIVITY IN SUPPLY 

WELL WATER 

The principal water distribution system on the 

NTS is potentially the critical pathway for 

ingestion of waterborne radionuclides. 

Consequently, the water distribution system is 

sampled and evaluated frequently. At the 

start of 1995 the NTS water system consisted 

of 13 supply wells, 10 of which supplied 

potable water to onsite distribution systems. 

The drinking water is pumped from the wells to 

the points of consumption. The supply wells 

were sampled on a quarterly basis, Drinking 

water is sampled at end-points to provide a 

constant check, of the radioactivity and to 

allow end-use activity comparisons to the 

radioactivity of the water in the supply wells. 

In this section analytical results are presented 

from samples taken at the 13 supply wells. 

Each well was sampled and analyzed as 

noted in the schedule in Table 4.1. 

The locations of the supply wells are shown in 

Figure 5.8. Water from these wells (10 

potable and 3 non-potable) was used for a 

variety of purposes during 1995. Samples 

were collected from those wells which could 

potentially provide water for human 

consumption. These data were used to help 

document the radiological characteristics of 

the NTS groundwater system. The sample 

results were maintained in a database so that 

long-term trends and changes could be 

studied. Table 5.12 lists the drinking water 

sources, and Table 5.13 lists the potable and 

non-potable supply wells and their respective 

radioactivity averages. No event-related 

radionuclides were detected by gamma 

spectrometry. Included in the table are the 

median MDCs for each of the measurements 

for comparison to the concentration averages 

for each location. For various operational 

reasons, samples could not be collected from 

all locations every month. 

GROSS BETA 

As shown in Table 5.13, the gross beta 

concentration averages for all the supply wells 

were above the median MDC of the 

measurement. The highest average gross 

beta activity occurred at Well C and was 2.1 x 

1Om8 uCi/mL (0.78 Bq/L), which was 7.0 

percent of the DCG for 40K and 53 percent of 

the DCG for ?Sr based upon 4 mrem effective 

dose equivalent (EDE) per year. In earlier 

reports (Scoggins 1983 and Scoggins 1984), 

it was noted that the majority of gross beta 

activity was attributable to naturally occurring 

40K. The gross beta annual averages are 

shown at their supply well sampling locations 

in Figure 5.8. All concentration averages were 

comparable to those reported last year, 

except for Well C which was a factor of 3 

higher than last year. This is an anomaly 

probably due to the high dissolved and 

suspended solids in the samples. 
L j- 

, 

~~~~~ .-.-.-.-. -.-.- (1 Omg +XmL) 

5 5 5 15 i 

UUZS 

6 5 

HiLDUETms 

Figure 5.8 Annual Average Gross Beta in Supply Wells (m) and Potable Water (0) - 1995 

5-l 7 
TRITIUM 

As shown in Table 5.13 the average tritium 

concentrations at all locations were at or 

below the average MDC of the measurement 

(note that the MDC was 16 x IO-’ uCi/mL for 

the tritium enrichment analysis). 

PLUTONIUM 

All supply water samples analyzed for 238Pu 

and 23g+240Pu had concentrations below their 

MDCs of about 2.4 x IO-” uCi/mL, which are 

1.2 and 2.2 percent of their respective DCGs 

adjusted to a 4 mrem EDE per year. Table 

5.13 lists the concentration averages for these 

nuclides for each location. 

GROSS ALPHA 

As shown in Table 5.13, the average gross 

alpha concentration for all of the supply wells, 

except for Well 8 and Well J-12 were above 

the median MDC of 1.5 x 19’ uCi/mL. The 

highest concentration from the potable wells 

occurred in samples from the Area 6, Well C1, and was 13 x 19’ pCi/mL (0.48 Bq/L). This 

is acceptable according to the EPA drinking 

water standard as long as the combined 

concentration of 226Ra and 22*Ra is less than 

5 x lo-’ uCi/mL (0.18 Bq/L). The combined Ra 

concentration for this well was less than this at 

1.6 x 1 Omg uCi/mL (0.06 Bq/L). 

STRONTIUM 

Beginning in 1994, “Sr analyses were 

changed from annually to quarterly on 

samples collected from the potable supply 

wells. Note that the “Sr results for two of the 

non-potable supply wells are for single 

samples and not an average. Concentrations 

of ‘OSr slightly above the MDC of the 

measurement were reported for 12 percent of 

the samples from the supply wells. However, 

in Table 5.13 all of the “Sr concentration 

averages were below the median MDC. 

5.2.1.7 RADIOACTIVITY IN DRINKING 

WATER 

As a check on any effect the water distribution 

system might have on water quality, seven 

end-points (labeled potable water in Figure 5.8) 

were sampled. In order to ensure that all of 

the water available for consumption was being 

considered, each drinking water system was 

identified. The drinking water network at the 

NTS was found to consist of five drinking 

water systems. The components ‘of the five 

are shown in Table 5.12. These systems, fed 

by 10 potable supply wells, are the source of 

the water for 7 end-points. Table 5.14 lists the 

annual concentration averages for all the 

analyses performed on the end point samples. 

No event-related radionuclides were detected 

by gamma spectrometry. 

GROSS BETA 

As in previous years, the gross beta 

concentration averages for all end-points were 

above the median MDC of the measurements. 

The highest annual average occurred in Area 

6 Cafeteria, 10 x IO-’ uCi/mL (0.37 Bq/L). 

This annual average was 3.3 and 25 percent 

of the DCG for 40K and “Sr, respectively, 

adjusted to an annual 4 mrem EDE. 

TRITIUM 

The annual average tritium concentrations, as 

shown in Table 5.14, were all less than the 

median MDC of 7.8 x 19’ uCi/mL. The tritium 

concentrations for all end-point water 

samples, which were determined by a 

conventional liquid scintillation counting 

method, are expected to be lower than the 

MDC because the levels of tritium in the 

potable supply wells were near the median 

tritium enrichment MDC of 1.6 x 1 Om8 uCi/mL 

(0.59 Bq/L). These MDC values of 7.8 x IO-’ 

and 1.6 x 1Om8 uCi/mL are 1 .O percent and 

0.02 percent, respectively, of the drinking 

water DCG adjusted to a 4 mrem (0.04 mSv) 

EDE per year. 

PLUTONIUM 

The annual averages of 23g+240Pu and 238Pu for 

each end-point were below the median MDC 

of the measurements, which were 1 and 2 

percent, respectively, of the 4 mrem DCG. 

These isotopes are not normally detected in 

drinking water. 
GROSS ALPHA 

In accordance with the National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations (40 C.F.R. 141), 

gross alpha measurements were made on 

quarterly samples from the drinking water 

systems, namely, the potable supply wells 

reported in the previous section of this report. 

As added assurance that no radioactivity gets 

into the systems between the supply wells and 

end-point users, measurements of gross alpha 

are also made on quarterly samples from the 

end-points. As shown in Table 5.14, the 

annual concentration averages for gross alpha 

radioactivity in samples collected at four of the 

end-points exceeded the screening level at 

which z6Ra analysis is required, 5 pCi/L (0.19 

Bq/L). Samples from the supply wells were 

collected and analyzed for both 226Ra and 

**‘Ra. As shown by the radium results in 

Table 5.15, the sums of the average 

concentrations for 226Ra and*** Ra were all 

less than 5 pCi/L so the onsite systems were 

in compliance with drinking water regulations. 

STRONTIUM 

As indicated by Table 5.14, the ?Sr results for 

samples collected from all the selected endpoints had concentrations that were less than 

the median MDC of the measurements. 

5.2.1.8 EXTERNAL GAMMA EXPOSURES 

- ONSITE AREA 

The TLD network at the NTS in 1995 

consisted of 194 TLDs at fixed locations. 

Each TLD is fixed on a stake about one meter 

above the ground to measure ambient beta 

and gamma radiation. Three TLDs posted at 

the Liquid Waste Treatment System and four 

at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) were 

deployed only for the fourth quarter of 1995. 

There were another 17 TLD locations that 

were discontinued during the fourth quarter of 

1995 due to the budget cut for FY96. Fifteen 

of the stations were established as the 

boundary locations and were reachable by 

truck as stated in the previous year’s report. 

Environmental monitoring is done with the UD814 Dosimeters of special design. The UD814 is a modification of UD-804 environmental 

dosimeter with the addition of a Li, B, 0;Cu 

element in position 1 encapsulated in 14 

mg/cm* to monitor beta particles in the 

environment. The remaining three elements 

are replicates of CaSO,:Tm encapsulated in 

1000 mg/cm* of plastic and lead. Since 

CaSO, is about 30 times more sensitive than 

’ Li, B,O,:Cu, it makes an excellent phosphor to 

measure the low doses (10 mWmonth) 

generally encountered in low level radiation 

environments. 

The results for boundary locations are given in 

the Table 5.16. The annual rates were 

between 58 mR/year and 161 mR/year for all 

the boundary locations. 

A group of locations which were not, to the 

best available knowledge, influenced by 

radiological contamination, and had been 

monitored for many years served as controls 

for the NTS. The data from these locations 

are presented in Table 5.17. The annual rates 

were between 54 mR/year and 130 mR/year 

and overall network extrapolated average 

exposure rate was 0.23 mR/day or 83 

m R/year. 

An investigation of historical trends in onsite 

environmental gamma levels as measured by 

the TLD network showed no significant 

differences between years until 1993, except 

for data from 1987 (dosimetry system 

changed) and 1988 (due to a calibration 

problem). A change in procedure has 

introduced an additional significant change in 

historical trend data in 1994. A description of 

this analysis is published separately and may 

be found in the “Environmental Data Report 

for the Nevada Test Site - 1995,” 

(DOE/NV/l 1718-038, in prep.). 

5.2.2 OFFSITE ENVIRONMENTAL 

SURVEILLANCE 

The RSL-LV offsite environmental surveillance 

program was operated to detect any releases 

of radioactivity related to current NTS 

activities which could potentially result in 

human exposure. Monitoring was 

concentrated on possible human exposure 

pathways so monitoring locations were 

generally selected to represent inhabited 
areas around the NTS. Monitoring was not 

designed to provide full spatial 

characterization of the offsite area, nor was 

the monitoring designed to detect all types of 

radioactivity arising from all natural and 

manmade sources. Possible pathways 

monitored included inhalation, ingestion, and 

external exposure. In brief (a full description 

is in Chapter 4) the following was done. 

Alpha, beta, and gamma radiation in air were 

monitored by the Air Surveillance Network 

(ASN), which included 20 continuously 

operating stations around the NTS. Noble gas 

and atmospheric moisture samplers were 

discontinued in 1994. Groundwater and some 

surface water supplies were sampled regularly 

in the Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring 

Program (LTHMP). Water sampling locations 

included 37 wells on the NTS or immediately 

outside its borders and 32 locations in the 

offsite area. The Milk Surveillance Network 

(MSN) consisted of annual collections from 10 

locations in the immediate offsite area, of 

which 9 were sampled this year. The network 

included family-owned cows and goats and 

commercial dairies. The Biomonitoring 

Network was reduced to collection and 

analysis of one mule deer from the NTS. 

External gamma radiation was monitored by 

the Pressurized Ion Chamber (PIC) Network 

and the TLD Network. The PIC network 

included 27 stations that were connected by 

satellite telemetry to the NTS for real-time 

data collection. Approximately 25 local 

residents voluntarily participated in the TLD 

network and another 47 TLDs were located at 

fixed environmental stations. In late 1995, the 

offsite Internal Dosimetry Program, which had 

included an annual whole-body and lung count 

and urinalysis, was discontinued. 

The results of monitoring conducted in 1995 

are discussed in the following subsections for 

each of the environmental surveillance 

networks mentioned above. No major 

accidental releases of radionuclides from the 

NTS were reported in 1995. All individual 

sample data are published separately, but 

summary data are included herein. 

5.2.2.1 AIR MONITORING NETWORKS 

The following sections describe results for the 

ASN. The atmospheric monitoring network 

measures the major radionuclides which could 

potentially be emitted from activities on the 

NTS, as well as naturally occurring 

radionuclides. This network represents the 

possible inhalation exposure pathway for the 

general public. 

AIR SURVEILLANCE NETWORK 

Gamma spectrometry was performed promptly 

on all ASN samples. The majority of the 

samples were gamma-spectrum negligible 

(i.e., no gamma-emitting radionuclides 

detected). Naturally occurring ‘Be, annual 

average 3.7 x IO-l3 uCi/mL, was detected 

occasionally. 

As in previous years, the gross beta results 

consistently exceeded the analytical MDC. 

The annual average gross beta activity was 

1.61 2 0.38 ~10’~ uCiimL (6.0 +I .4 xl 0 -4 Bq/m “) 

for the ASN. Summary results for the ASN 

gross. beta are in Table 5.18. Individual 

results are published separately and may be 

found in the “Environmental Data Report for 

the Nevada Test Site - 1995,” 

(DOE/NV/l 1718-038, in prep.). 

Gross alpha analysis was performed on all 

samples. The average annual gross alpha 

activity was 1.4 x 1 O-l5 uCi/mL (52 uBq/m3 ). 

Summary results for the ASN gross alpha are 

shown in Table 5.19. 

Selected air prefilters were also analyzed for 

plutonium isotopes. This report contains 

results for samples collected during the fourth 

quarter of 1994 and the first and second 

quarters of 1995, presented in Table 5.20. 

Due to the length of time required for analysis, 

the data for the third and fourth quarter are not 

available but will be included in the combined 

report for 1996. Although annual average 

values were essentially nondetectable, one 

sample exceeded the MDC. This was a 

composite sample from Rachel, NV for 

23g+240Pu analysis. 

5-20 

w 
5.2.2.2 WATER MONITORING 

Environmental surveillance of water in the 

offsite areas is conducted as part of the 

LTHMP. Results are discussed in Chapter 9 

of this report. 

5.2.2.3 MILK SURVEILLANCE NETWORK 

The average total potassium concentration 

derived from naturally occurring 40K activity 

was 1.5 g/L for samples analyzed by gamma 

spectrometry. Selected MSN milk samples 

were analyzed for 3H, “Sr, and %Sr, and the 

results are similar to those obtained in 

previous years; neither increasing nor 

decreasing trends are evident. The MSN 

network average values are shown in Table 

5 . 21 for 3H “Sr and %r. , , 

5.2.2.4 BlOMONlTORlNG 

The site where one mule deer was collected in 

1995 is shown in Chapter 4, Figure 4.7. The 

results of the collected samples are discussed 

below. 

MULE DEER 

Blood samples are analyzed for gammaemitting radionuclides and tritium. Soft tissue 

samples (lung, muscle, liver, rumen contents, 

and fetus) are analyzed for gamma-emitting 

radionuclides. Additionally, samples of soft 

tissue and bone were ashed and then 

analyzed for plutonium isotopes; ashed bone 

samples were also analyzed for “Sr. The 

results are shown in Figure 5.9. 

The mule deer collected on the NTS during 

the first quarter of 1995 was a female 4 - 5 

years old. The deer was collected at the north 

end of Mid Valley Road in Area 16. The doe 

was estimated to be in about the 90th day of 

gestation. No histopathology was noted 

except for sarcocyts in the skeletal muscle. 

No gamma-emitting radionuclides were found 

above MDC. Amniotic fluid found with the 

fetus contained tritium at 456 pCi/L (MDC = 

443 pCi/L). The analysis for 238Pu was below 

MDC for all samples. Detectable 

concentrations of =Pu were found in samples 

of the fetus at .0036 pCi/g of ash (MDC = 

0.0027 pCi/g ash), and concentrations were 

found in muscle samples at 0.0052 pCi/g of 

ash (MDC = 0.0037 pCi/g ash). “Sr found in 

bone samples was 2.9 pCi/g of ash (MDC = 

0.25 pCi/g ash). 

5.2.2.5 THERMOLUMINESCENT 

DOSIMETRY NETWORK 

OFFSITE STATION NETWORK 

There were 47 offsite environmental stations 

monitored using TLDs. Figure 4.8 shows 

current fixed environmental monitoring 

locations. Total annual exposure for 1995 

ranged from 55 mR (0.55 mSv) per year at the 

McCarran International Airport station to 140 

mR (1.4 mSv) per year at Queen City Summit, 

Nevada, with a mean annual exposure of 97 

mR (0.97 mSv) per year for all operating 

locations. The next highest annual exposure 

was 130 mR (1.3 mSv) per year at Austin, 

Nevada. These results are consistent with 

those for 1994. 

OFFSITE PERSONNEL NETWORK 

A limited number of offsite personnel were 

issued TLDs to monitor their annual absorbed 

dose equivalent. Locations of personnel 

monitoring participants are also shown in 

Figure 4.8. Annual whole body absorbed dose 

equivalents ranged from a low of 70 mrem 

(0.70 mSv) to a high of 130 mrem (1.3 mSv) 

with a mean of 98 mrem (0.93 mSv) for all 

monitored personnel during 1995. These 

results are similar to those for 1994. 

5.2.2.6 PRESSURIZED ION CHAMBER 

NETWORK 

The PIC data presented in this section are 

based on weekly averages of gamma 

exposure rates from each station. Table 5.22 

contains the number of weekly averages 

available from each station and the maximum, 

minimum, mean, standard deviation, and 

median of the weekly averages. The mean 

ranged from 8.2 uWhr at Pahrump, NV to 18.7 

uR/hr at Stone Cabin Ranch, NV or annual 

exposures from 73 to 164 mR (19 to 43 

PC/Kg). For each station, this table also 
Note: Nos. above bars represent No. of samples YMB 

I-rgure 5.8 Average stromrum Levers in rvrure veer, 1~30 - IYY~ 

shows the total mR/yr (calculated based on 

the mean of the weekly averages) and the 

average gamma exposure rate from 1994. 

Background levels of environmental gamma 

exposure rates in the U.S. (from the combined 

effects of terrestrial and cosmic sources) vary 

between 49 and 247 mR/yr (13 to 64 uC/kg-yr) 

(BEIR III, 1980). The annual exposure levels 

observed at each PIC station are well within 

these U.S. background levels. Figure 5.10 

shows the distribution of the weekly averages 

from each PIC station arranged by ascending 

means (represented by filled circles). The 

horizontal lines extend from the box to the 

minimum and maximum values. The data from 

the Austin, Overton, Rachel and Uhalde’s 

Ranch stations show the greatest range and 

the most variability. Data from the Austin 

station have historically shown a natural 

fluctuation during the winter months (EPA 

1993). These data are within a few tenths 

uR/hr from those of last year. 

5.2.2.7 INTERNAL DOSIMETRY PROGRAM 

The RSL-LV Internal Dosimetry Program was 

developed to identify the presence of 

radionuclides that have been ingested, 

absorbed, or inhaled by offsite residents, and 

to determine the total quantities of these 

contaminants and their possible health effects. 

To accomplish this task, a Whole Body 

Counting facility is operated at the laboratory 

in which semiconductor detectors are used to 

scan participants for gamma- or X-rays that 

could indicate that a radioactive burden has 

accumulated. A routine scan involves a 1000 

to 2000-second data collection time with a 

large volume detector placed near a reclining 

individual inside a heavily shielded vault. 

Scans of the lungs are conducted in a similar 

manner with an array of detectors that are 

highly sensitive to low energy gamma emitting 

radionuclides such as plutonium or uranium. 

The Internal Dosimetry Program for the year 

included the Radiological Safety Program 

consisting of: selected government and 

contractor employees; members of other 

federal, state, or local institutions; and the 

general public. In 1995, a total of 60 whole 

body scans was conducted. No radioactivity 

above background levels was detected in any 

of the scans (spectra). The Offsite Internal 

Dosimetty Program (which monitored 

individuals living in the area surrounding the 
Pahrump, NV - il 

St. George, UT - w 

Over-ton, NV - #--+ 

Las Vegas, NV -. IF 

Furnace Creek, CA - w 

Salt Lake City. UT - I 

Indian Springs, NV - .+-+- 

Pioche, NV - 

Nyala. NV - I 

Delta, UT -. +--a-+ 

Shoshone, CA - * 

Cedar City, UT - I 

Alamo, NV - I@- 

Ely, NV - 

I 

Amargosa Valley, NV -. * 

Caliente, NV - 

Goldfield, NV - 

I + I 

Complex I, NV - - 

Medlins Ranch, NV - +--@IUhaldes Ranch, NV - - 

Beatiy, NV - I 

Rachel, NV - - 

Twin Springs, NV - I 

Tonopah, NV - I 

Stone Cabin, NV - - 

Milford, UT -. 

Austin, NV - --I 

510 

/ I I I 

10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 

Average Weekly Gamma Rate (uR/hr) 

Figure 5.10 Distribution of Weekly Averages from Each PIC Network Station - 1995 
NTS) was discontinued. The tritium analyses 

for bioassay were also discontinued. The last 

whole body scan was done on September 28, 

1995. 

52.3 NON-NTS EG&G/EM FACILITY 

MONITORING 

EG&G/EM facilities which use radioactive 

sources or radiation producing equipment with 

the potential to expose the general population 

outside the property line to direct radiation 

are: the Special Technologies Laboratory 

(STL), during operation of the Sealed Tube 

Neutron Generator; STL during operation of 

the Febetron; the Remote Sensing Laboratory 

(RSL) at Nellis Air Force Base; and the Atlas 

,North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) A-l Source 

Range. Sealed sources are tested every six 

months to assure there is no leakage of 

radioactive material. The data from sealed 

source testing are kept in the EG&GIEM 

Radiation Protection Records. 

Fence line radiation monitoring at STL, RSL, 

and NLV was conducted during 1995 using 

Panasonic Type UD-814 TLDs. At least two 

TLDs were at the fence line on each side of 

the facility. TLDs were exchanged on a 

quarterly basis with additional control TLDs 

kept in a shielded safe. These TLD results 

are given in Table 5.23. The range of results, 

52 to 96 mR/yr, is within the background 

range in the continental U.S. 
g ; 

Table 5.1 NTS Radionuclide Emissions - 1995 

E I 

Onsite Liquid Discharaes P * 

0 P 

Curie&) 8 

I 

-a. : 

Containment 

"H ""a 13'cs 23epu 

5! 

Ponds 239t240pu 

E 

Area 12, E Tunnel 2.1 x 10’ 6.2 x 10-5 5.5 x 1o-3 1.3 x 10-5 1.0 x 104 ? 

Area 20, Well ER-20 2.6 x lo2 =s 

B 

TOTAL 2.8 x lo2 6.2 x 1O-5 5.5 x 1o-3 1.3 x 1o-5 1.0 x lo4 

3i 

Airborne Effluent Releases 

Curiesta) ul 

lb Facility Name 

u-l (Airborne Releases) 9H(b) 3 239+24op 

Area 3@) 

Area 5, RWMS@) 

Atlas Facility 

Area 9 Bunker(@ 

Pahute Mesa 

Other Areascd) 

0.023 

9.7 x 10-l 

2.5 x 10-l 

0.048 

300 , 

0.33 

Y 

H. 

TOTAL 1.2 x loo 300 4.0 x lo-’ 

t 

(a) Multiply by 3.7 x 10” to obtain Bq. Calculated releases from laboratory spills and losses are included in Table 1 .I. 

: 

(b) In the form of tritiated water vapor, primarily HTO. 

(c) Calculated from air sampler data. I 

5 

(d) Resuspension from known surface deposits. 
Table 5.2 Airborne Gross Beta Concentrations on the NTS - 1995 

Gross Beta Concentration (1 O-l4 uCi/mLj 

Location Number Maximum Minimum 

Anthtitht;tic Standard 

Deviation 

Mean 

as %DCG 

Area 1, Gravel Pit 39 3.1 0.55 1.8 0.65 2.0 

Area 1, BJY 48 4.8 0.42 1.9 0.81 2.1 

Area 2, Complex 32 4.5 0.82 2.1 0.82 2.3 

Area 2,2-l Substation 49 4.1 0.05 1.8 0.72 2.1 

Area 3, USAH/AT S 46 3.1 0.48 1.7 0.54 1.9 

Area 3, U3AH/AT E 49 3.2 0.29 1.7 0.65 1.9 

Area 3, USAH/AT N 46 3.2 0.62 1.8 0.57 2.0 

Area 3, U3AHIAT W 48 6.2 0.56 1.8 0.85 2.0 

Area 3, Complex 29 2.8 0.69 1.7 0.45 1.8 

Area 3, Mud Plant 51 3.7 0.56 1.8 0.64 2.0 

Area 3, Well ER-3-1 19 3.9 1.17 2.4 0.70 2.6 

Area 4, Bunker T-4 2 3.9 1.51 2.7 1.71 3.0 

Area 5, RWMS Pit 5 28 5.1 1.31 2.5 0.82 2.8 

Area 5, RWMS No. 4 51 4.9 0.87 2.2 0.80 2.4 

Area 5, RWMS No. 5 52 4.8 1.03 2.1 0.76 2.3 

Area 5, RWMS No. 6 50 4.8 1.04 2.1 0.73 2.3 

Area 5, RWMS No. 7 51 4.1 0.77 1.9 0.65 2.1 

Area 5, RWMS No. 8 52 5.6 0.85 2.2 0.90 2.5 

Area 5, RWMS Pit-3 39 2.8 0.77 1.7 0.48 1.9 

Area 5, RWMS No. 9 52 4.1 0.73 1.9 0.64 2.2 

Area 5, Gate 200 S 40 2.8 0.62 1.6 0.54 1.8 

Area 5, DOD Yard 50 5.0 0.71 2.2 0.84 2.5 

Area 5, RWMS No. 2 40 3.0 0.76 1.8 0.54 2.0 

Area 5, RWMS No. 3 50 4.6 1 .oo 2.0 0.74 2.2 

Area 5, RWMS No. 1 52 5.0 0.78 2.1 0.89 2.3 

Area 5, RWMS TP SE 16 3.4 0.94 1.8 0.60 2.0 

Area 5, RWMS TP S 16 3.0 0.65 1.5 0.57 1.7 

Area 5, RWMS TP SW 40 3.3 1 .oo 1.9 0.53 2.1 

Area 5, RWMS TP NW 38 3.9 0.77 2.0 0.69 2.2 

Area 5, RWMS TP N 39 3.5 0.80 2.0 0.62 2.2 

Area 5, RWMS TP NE 40 3.2 0.84 1.9 0.57 2.1 

Area 5, RWMS Pit-4 19 2.8 0.77 1.7 0.55 1.9 

Area 5, RWMS TP Bldg. 36 4.1 1.06 2.2 0.78 2.5 

Area 5, RWMS TP Bldg. 34 3.9 1.22 2.2 0.74 2.5 

Area 5, Well 58 47 4.2 0.88 2.1 0.72 2.3 

Area 6, Yucca 49 4.0 0.49 2.0 0.70 2.2 

Area 6, Bldg. 6-900 39 3.4 0.91 1.9 0.51 2.1 

Area 6, CP 6 40 4.7 0.68 2.0 0.76 2.2 

Area 6, Well 3 50 3.8 0.72 1.9 0.64 2.2 

Area 6, Gas Station 18 3.3 0.97 2.5 0.70 2.8 

Area 6, Substation 6-9 12 3.5 1.24 2.4 0.70 2.6 

Area 7, UE-7ns 50 4.5 0.48 1.9 0.75 2.1 

Area 9, Area 9-300 50 5.1 0.76 1.9 0.74 2.1 

Median MDC = 1.5 x lo-” uCi/mL. 
Table 5.2 (Airborne Gross Beta Concentrations on the NTS - 1995, cont.) 

Location Number Maximum Minimum 

AritMtm;tic Standard 

Devratron 

Mean 

as %DCG 

Area 10, Gate 700 S 51 5.1 0.30 2.0 0.77 2.2 

Area 10, Sedan Crater 17 4.0 1.1 2.4 0.67 2.6 

Area 12, 12 Complex 44 3.7 0.49 1.8 0.75 2.0 

Area 13, Area 13 2 4.8 1.7 3.2 2.2 3.6 

Area 15, EPA Farm 52 4.2 0.67 1.9 0.66 2.1 

Area 16, 3545 Substation 46 3.7 0.53 1.7 0.69 1.9 

Area 18, Well UE-18t 2 4.5 1.4 3.0 2.1 3.3 

Area 19, Echo Peak 33 2.8 1.0 1.9 0.42 2.1 

Area 19, Pahute Substation 38 2.8 1.0 1.8 0.42 2.0 

Area 20, Schooner 2 4.2 1.8 3.0 1.7 3.3 

Area 20, Complex 32 3.4 0.64 2.0 0.67 2.2 

Area 23, Building 790 No. 2 49 4.6 0.59 2.2 0.82 2.5 

Area 23, East Boundary 39 2.7 0.76 1.6 0.46 1.8 

Area 23, H&S Building 50 4.7 0.71 2.1 0.92 2.4 

Area 25, E-MAD N 48 5.5 0.56 2.4 1.03 2.7 

Area 25, NRDS 48 4.1 0.80 2.2 0.75 2.5 

Area 27, Cafeteria 44 3.7 0.79 1.9 0.68 2.1 

TTR, Double Tracks 1 1.7 1.69 1.7 0.00 1.9 

TTR, Clean Slate 1 1.8 1.75 1.8 0.00 1.9 

Median MDC = 1.5 x 10+15 uCi/mL. 

Gross Beta Concentration (1 O-l4 uCi/mL) 

Table 5.3 Airborne 23g+240Pu Concentrations on the NTS - 1995 

23g+240Pu Concentration (10-l’ uCi/mL) 

Location 

Arithmetic Standard Mean 

Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation as %DCG 

Area 1, Gravel Pit 3 2.0 0.12 1.2 0.98 0.61 

Area 1, BJY 4 6.1 0.49 3.8 2.4 1.9 

Area 2, Area 2 4 0.87 -0.03 0.47 0.38 0.24 

Area 2,2-l Substation 4 3.8 0.33 1.7 1.5 0.83 

Area 3, U3AH/AT S 12 12 -0.07 6.0 4.6 3.0 

Area 3, U3AH/AT E 12 40 -0.07 9.9 13 4.9 

Area 3, U3AH/AT N 12 31 0.08 10 9.4 5.0 

Area 3, U3AH/AT W 12 42 0.08 9.5 12 4.8 

Area 3, Area 3 3 7.2 1.2 3.8 3.1 1.9 

Area 3, Mud Plant 4 18 0.43 9.3 7.8 4.7 

Median MDC = 7.1 x 1 Q’* pCi/mL. 


Table 5.4 (Airborne 238Pu Concentrations on the NTS - 1995, cont.) 

238Pu Concentration (19” uCi/mL) 

Location 

Ari$m;tic Standard 

Number Maximum Minimum Devrat’on 

Area 16, 3545 Substation 4 

Area 19, Echo Peak 2 

Area 19, Pahute Substation 2 

Area 20, Complex 3 

Area 23, Building 790 No. 2 4 

Area 23, East Boundary 3 

Area 23, H&S Building 4 

Area 25, E-MAD N 3 

Area 25, NRDS 4 

Area 27, Cafeteria 4 

-0.005 -0.016 -0.010 0.005 <O.Ol 

0.024 -0.016 0.0040 0.028 co.01 

0.031 -0.011 0.010 0.030 co.01 

0.35 -0.010 0.13 0.19 0.042 

-0.009 -0.029 -0.015 0.010 co.01 

0.035 -0.010 0.0062 0.025 Qo.01 

0.080 -0.009 0.034 0.037 0.011 

-0.008 -0.010 -0.009 0.001 co.01 

0.11 -0.011 0.030 0.056 0.010 

-0.007 -0.017 -0.010 0.005 co.01 

Median MDC = 5.6 x lo-l8 uCi/mL. 

Mean 

as %DCG 

Table 5.5 Derived Limits for Radionuclides in Air and Water 

, uCi/mL 

Radionuclide DAC (Air)‘“) DCG (AiQtb) DCG (Water)@) 

2x 10-5 

2 x lo-’ 

1 x 10-4 

6x 16* 

2 x 1o-g 

1 x 10-4’ 

5 x 1o-5 

3 x 1O“O 

7 x 10-l” 

6 x lo-l2 

1 x lo‘* 

9 x 10-l’ 

3 x lo-’ 

3 x 10-l’ 

9 x lo-l3 

5 x 1 o-* 

4 x 10-l’ 

1 x lo-l3 

3 x lo-l5 

2 x lo-l5 

8 x 1O-5 

3 x lo-’ 

8 x lo-’ 

4 x lo-* 

- 

1 x 16’ 

4. x 1 o-g 

2 x 1O-g 

1 x 1o-g 

(a) DAC - The Derived Air Concentration used for limiting radiation exposures of workers. The 

values are based on either a stochastic effective dose equivalent of 5 rem or a nonstochastic 

organ dose of 50 rem, which ever is more limiting (DOE Order 5480.11). Class Y is used for 

plutonium. 

(b) DCG - Derived Concentration Guides are reference values for conducting radiological 

.protection programs at operational DOE facilities and sites. The DCG values are for an 

effective dose equivalent of 10 mrem (0.1 mSv) (inhalation) for a year as required by 40 C.F.R. 

61.92 and DOE Order 5400.5. 

(c) The values listed for beta and photon emitters in the table are based on 4 mrem committed 

effective dose equivalent for the radionuclide taken into the body by ingestion of water during 

one year (730 L). 

(d) Nonstochastic value. 
Table 5.6 Summary of NTS 85Kr Concentrations - 1995 

85Kr Concentration (1 O-l2 uCi/mL) 

Location 

Arithmetic Standard Mean as 

Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation %DCG 

Area 1, BJY 40 48 10 28 7.5 co.01 

Area 5, Gate 200 S. 29 79 9.1 28 13 co.01 

Area 12, Camp 20 35 11 27 4.9 co.01 

Area 18, Gate 400 25 42 11 27 6.2 co.01 

Area 19, Pahute Substation 16 42 11 27 7.6 co.01 

Area 20, Dispensary 15 66 12 ,34 12 co.01 

All Stations 145 79 9.1 28 9.1 co.01 

Table 5.7 Airborne Tritium Concentrations on the NTS - 1995 

3H Concentration (1 Om6 oCi/mL) 

Location Number 

Area 1, BJY 25 3.7 -1.3 0.86 1.2 

Area 3, Mud Plant 6 1.4 0.43 0.93 0.47 

Area 5, RWMS No. 1 24 12.’ -0.28 3.2 3.1 

Area 5, RWMS No. 2 21 10. -0.70 3.1 3.1 

Area 5, RWMS No. 3 24 14. -0.47 4.1 3.7 

Area 5, RWMS No. 4 26 53. 0.32 15. 16. 

Area 5, RWMS No. 5 20 11. -0.15 3.0 3.1 

Area 5, RWMS No. 6 26 58. -0.42 8.6 13. 

Area 5, RWMS No. 7 26 10. -0.41 3.4 3.0 

Area 5, RWMS No. 8 26 10. -0.57 3.4 3.3 

Area 5, RWMS No. 9 25 14. 0.83 6.0 4.2 

Area 6, Gas Station 8 1.3 -0.35 0.29 0.64 

Area 6, Substation 6-9 9 0.60 -0.34 0.13 0.32 

Area 10, Gate 700 S 17 1.9 -1.3 0.64 0.90 

Area 10, Sedan Crater 9 12. 2.0 6.6 3.5 

Area 12, Complex 26 2.0 -1.7 0.25 0.65 

Area 12, E-Tunnel Pond No. 1 2 6.6 5.6 6.1 0.69 

Area 15, EPA Farm 25 10. 0.79 5.1 2.6 

Area 23, Bldg. 790 No. 2 24 3.4 -0.67 0.29 0.85 

Area 23, H&S Bldg. 15 2.6 -0.90 0.32 0.88 

Area 25, E-MAD N 18 1.4 -1.9 0.11 0.81 

All Stations 402 

Maximum Minimum 

58 -1.9 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

3.8 

Standard 

Deviation 

7.0 

Mean as 

%DCG 

c 0.01 

co.01 

0.032 

0.031 

0.041 

0.15 

0.030 

0.086 

0.034 

0.034 

0.060 

c 0.0 

c 0.01 

c 0.01 

0.066 

c 0.01 

0.061 

0.051 

c 0.01 

c 0.01 

c 0.01 

0.038 

Average MDC * 1 Standard Deviation was (2.6 -I 1.2) x 1 OM6 pCi/mL. 
Table 5.8 Radioactivity in NTS Surface Waters - 1995 

Annual Averaae Concentrations (1 Omg uCi/mU 

% of 

No. of DCG 

Source of Water Locations Gross I3 Tritium 238pu 239+240pu 

3 Ranaeca) 

Open Reservoirs 12 7.6 -15 4.1 x 1o-4 -0.0014 -0.064 co.01 -0.02 

Natural Springs 8 14 -65 -3.3 x 104 0.0028 0.011 co.01 -0.28 

Containment Ponds 

E Tunnel 2 81 7.5 x lo5 0.67 . 5.5 2.6 (-4 . 

Well ER-20-5 4 9.7x10’ - - Cc) 

Decon Facility(b)’ - - - - 

Sewage Lagoons 11 18 1.5 0.0013 0.0014 -0.079 (d 

(a) DCG based on value for drinking water (4 mrem EDE). 

(b) No samples collected due to no effluent and dry pond. 

(c) Not a potable water source. 

Table 5.9 .NTS Open Reservoir Gross Beta Analysis Results - 1995 

Gross Beta Concentration (lo-’ pCi/mL) 

Location Concentration 

Area 2, Mud Plant Reservoir 

Area 2, Well 2 Reservoir 

Area 3, Mud Plant Reservoir(b) 

Area 3, Well A Reservoir 

Area 5, UE-5c Reservoir 

Area 5, Well 5B Reservoir 

Area 6, Well 3 Reservoir 

Area 6, Well Cl Reservoir 

Area 18, Camp 17 Reservoir 

Area 18, Well 8 Reservoirtb) 

Area 19, UE-19c Reservoir 

Area 20, Well 20A Reservoircb) 

Area 23, Swimming Pool 

Area 25, Well J-l 1 Reservoir 

Area 25, Well J-12 Reservoir 

5.3 13 

9.7 24 

7.6 19 

6.1 15 

12 30 

9.8 25 

6.9 17 

4.6 12 

9.3 

- 

8.6 

5.7 

5.8 

(a) DCG based on “Sr value for drinking water (4 mrem EDE). 

(b) Reservoir was dry. 

Note: Annual samples only. 

Concentration 

as %DCG(“) 

23 

22 

14 

15 
Table 5.10 NTS Natural Spring Gross Beta Analysis Results - 1995 

Gross Beta Concentration (16’ uCi/mL) 

Location Concentration 

Concentration 

as %DCG(@ 

Area 5, Cane Spring 5.7 14 

Area 7, Reitmann Seep 28 70 

Area 12, Captain Jack 7.8 20 

Area 12, Gold Meadows 13 33 . 

Area 12, White Rock Spring 8.7 22 

Area 15;Tub Spring 21 53 

Area 16, Tippipah Spring 6.3 16 

Area 29, Topopah Spring 19 48 

(a) DCG based on “Sr value for drinking water (4 mrem EDE). 

Note: Annual samples only. 

Table 5.11 NTS Containment Pond Gross Beta Analysis Results - 1995 

Gross Beta Concentration (1 Owg uCi/mL) 

Arithmetic Standard Mean as 

Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation %DCGfa) 

Area 12, E Tunnel Effluent 4 a7 7.7 51 40 130 

Area 12, E Tunnel Pond No. 1 4 145 27 85 49 210 

Area 20, Well ER-20-5 Ponds -- -- -- -- -- m-(b) 

(a) DCG based on “Sr value for drinking water (4 mrem EDE). 

(b) Analyzed only for tritium. 

Table 5.12 NTS Drinking Water Sources - 1995 

Svstem Supplv Wells 

No. 1 Wells Cl, 4, 4A 

No. 2 Well 8 

No. 3 

No. 4 

No. 5 

Well UE-16d 

Wells 58, 5C, 

and Army No. 1 

Wells J-l 2, J-l 3 

End-Point 

Area 6, Cafeteria 

Area 6, Building 6-900 

Area 2, Restroom 

Area 12, Building 12-23 

Area 1, Building 101 

Area 23, Cafeteria 

Area 25, Building 4221 
Table 5.13 NTS Supply Well Radioactivity Averages - 1995 

Descriotion Gross Beta %! 239+24Op 238pu Gross Alpha 9osT 

Potable Water Supply Wells 

Area 5, Well 5C 7.5 x log -1.7 x lo-’ -1.1 x 10-12 -8.7 x 1613 9.2 x lo-’ 9.3 x 10-l’ 

Area 6, Well 4 6.7 x 16’ -2.3 x 16’ 8.7 x lo-l3 2.0 x 1 O-l2 7.6 x 10“ 8.2 x IO-” 

Area 6, Well 4A 7.1 x 1o-g -2.0 x 1 O-’ -9.5 x 1 O-l3 3.8 x 1 O-l3 8.8 x 1 O-’ -4.5 x 10“’ 

Area 5, Well 58 1.2 x lo-* -1.6 x 16’ -2.0 x 1 O-l2 -8.4 x 1 O-l4 4.8 x 1 O-’ 4.5 x 10“’ 

Area 6, Well Cl 1.6 x lo-* 1.7 x 1o-8 -1.4x lo-l2 -6.6x10-13 1.3x 1o-8 1.4x lo-lo 

Area 16, Well UE-16d 6.4 x lO-’ 5.0 x 10“’ -3.1 x lo-l2 7.7 x lo-l3 5.3 x 10“ -3.8 x 10-l’ 

Area 18, Well 8@) 4.1 x 1o-g 1.4 x 1O-g -1.1 x lo-l2 1.7 x lo-l2 7.6 x 10“’ 1.9 x 10“’ 

Area 22, Army Well No. lea) 5.6 x lo-’ 7.3 x 10-l’ -1.3 x lo-l2 1.4x lo-l2 2.5 x lo-’ 1.3 x 10-l’ 

Area 25, Well J-12 4.6 k lo-’ -1.7 x 16’ -5.6 x lo-l3 -2.5 x lo-l2 1.2 x lo-’ 5.3 x 10-l’ 

Area 25, Well J-13 4.3 x 1o-g 6.1 x10-” 1.6~10-‘~ -3.8x10-l3 1.7x10-’ 6.0x 10-l’ 

Non-Potable Water Supply Wells 

Area 5, Well UE-5~‘“’ 7.5 x 1o-g -3.7 x lag 7.2 x 1 O-l3 -3.8 x 1 O-l3 5.9 x 10“ 5.6 x 10-l’ 

Area 6, Well Ctb) 2.1 x 10m8 -4.6 x lo-’ 3.3 x 10-12 -8.3 x lo-l3 1.6 x 16’ 1.7 x lo-lo 

Area 20, Well U-20’“’ 3.0 x 1o-g 1.3 x 1O-g -4.8 x lo-l2 2.5 x 10-l’ 5.9 x lo-’ -1.4 x 10-l’ 

Median MDC 1.4 x 16’ 1.6 x lo‘* 2.4 x 10-l’ 2.4 x 10-l’ 1.5 x IO-’ 3.2 x 16” 

(a) Three samples collected. 

(b) Two samples collected. 

(c) Only one sample collected. 

Table 5.14 Radioactivity Averages for NTS End-Use Consumption Points - 1995 

Description Gross Beta 

Area 1, Bldg. 101 6.4 x 16’ 

Area 2, Restroom 3.7 x 1o-g 

Area 6, Cafeteria 1.0 x 1O-8 

Area 6, Bldg. 6-900 8.9 x 16’ 

Area 12, Bldg. 12-23 3.2 x lo-’ 

Area 23, Cafeteria 8.5 x lo-’ 

Area 25, Bldg. 4221 4.9 x 1o‘g 

Median MDC 1.4 x 1o-g 

(a) “Sr values are for one sample. 

1.6 x lo-’ 

8.7 x IO‘* 

1.5 x 10“ 

-7.7 x lo.* 

6.0 x 16* 

2.3 x 19’ 

1.6 x 10-’ 

7.8 x lo-’ 

23S+240pu 

-2.3 x 10-12 

-4.0 x lo-l4 

9.2 x lo-l3 

-2.4 x 1 O-l2 

-1.9 x lo-l2 

-7.0 x lo-l4 

7.9 x 10-13 

2.3 x W” 

5.5 x 10-13 

4.6 x lo-l2 

2.6 x lo-l2 

1.2 x 10-12 

-3.0 x IO-l4 

1.5 x lo-l2 

-1.5 x lo-l2 

2.2 x 10-l’ 

Gross Alpha 9OcJ.b) 

7.2 x lo-’ 1.7 x 10-l’ 

6.1 x 10“’ -9.2 x 11 -12 

1.3 x 1o-8 -1.0 x lo-l0 

8.0 x 10“ -1.2 x lo-lo 

5.5 x 1 O-l0 -3.5 x 10-l’ 

5.2 x 16’ -3.9 x 10“’ 

1.3 x 1o-g 1.9 x 10-l’ 

1.5 x lo-g 3.1 x 1O“O 
Table 5.15 Radium Analysis Results for NTS Drinking Water - 1995 

Concentrations (16’ uCi/mL) 

Location Number 

226Ra 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

228Ra 

Arithmetic 

Mean 

Standard 

Deviation 

Area 5, Well 58 4 0.24 0.10 -0.071 0.22 

Area 5, Well 5C 4 0.16 0.81 -0.12 0.25 

Area 6, Well 4 4 0.43 0.35 0.038 0.13 

Area 6, Well 4A 4 0.58 0.38 -0.087 0.15 

Area 6, Well C 2 0.66 0.15 0.057 0.080 

Area 6, Well C-l 4 1.4 0.31 0.24 0.21 

Area 16, Well UE-16d 4 0.85 0.44 -0.17 0.36 

Area 18, Well 8 3 0.51 0.52 -0.094 0.20 

Area 23, Army Well No. 1 3 0.92 0.35 -0.13 0.16 

Area 25, Well J-12 4 0.29 0.26 0.041 0.26 

Area 25, Well J-13 4 0.26 0.64 0.42 0.48 

Table 5.16 NTS Boundary Gamma Monitoring Results Summary - 1995 

Location 

First Second Third Fourth 

Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter 

(mR/day) (mR/day) (mR/day) (mR/day) 

310 15E Substation 

342 Stake C-31 

Gold Meadows 

Stake R-29 

Stake J-41 

Stake LC-4 

Papoose Lake Road 

387 Gate 19-3P 

Hill Top 

East of UllB 

Army Well No. 1 

Jet Jackass Flats 

3.3 Miles SE OF 

Guard Station 510 

Yucca Mountain 

Gate 30-3P IN 

0.33 0.25 0.29 0.26 

0.34 (4 0.41 0.30 

(b) (b) 0.26 (a) 

0.32 0.42 0.42 0.37 

0.38 0.39 (4 0.38 

(4 (a) 0.44 (a) 

0.22 W (a) 0.20 

(‘3 (b) 0.37 08 

(b) (b) 0.36 0.36 

0.31 0.31 0.31 0.32 

0.22 (a) (4 (4 

0.19 (b) 0.19 0.20 

0.16 (a) 0.16 0.16 

0.35 W 0.34 0.31 

0.56 0.41 0.36 0.37 

(b) (b) 03 (b) 

Annual 

Average 

(mR/d) (mR/vr) 

0.28 103 

0.35 128 

0.26 95 

0.38 140 

0.38 140 

0.44 161 

0.21 77 

0.37 135 

0.36 131 

0.31 114 

0.22 80 

0.19 71 

0.16 58 

0.33 122 

0.43 155 

(a) Missing TLD. 

(b) Location could not be found. 
Table 5.17 NTS TLD Control Station Comparison, 1989 - 1995 

Exposure Rate (mR/day) 

Area Station 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 

5 

6 

6 

23 

Well 5B 

CP-6 

Yucca Oil Storage 

Building 650 

Dosimetry 

Building 650 Roof 

Post Office 

HENRE Site 

NRDS Warehouse 

Cafeteria 

0.36 0.34 0.37 0.31 0.40 0.34 0.30 

0.27 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.30 0.19 0.19 

0.32 0.32 0.33 0.31 0.37 0.27 0.26 

0.19 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.26 0.15 0.15 

0.18 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.25 0.14 0.15 

0.23 0.23 0.24 0.23 0.30 0.21 0.20 

0.38 0.39 0.40 0.36 0.45 0.31 0.36 

0.38 0.39 0.39 0.37 0.46 0.33 0.33 

0.32 0.40 0.42 0.39 0.46 0.33 0.33 

23 

23 

25 

25 

27 

Network Average 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.28 0.36 0.25 0.25 

Table 5.18 Gross Beta Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1995 

Gross Beta Concentration (1 O-l4 uCi/mL LO.37 mBa/m% 

Samplina Location Number Maximum Minimum 

AritMhet;tic Standard 

Deviation 

Alamo, NV 

Amargosa Valley, NV 

Amargosa Center, NV 

Beatty, NV 

Clark Station, NV 

Stone Cabin Ranch 

Currant, NV 

Blue Eagle Ranch 

Goldfield, NV 

Indian Springs, NV 

Las Vegas, NV 

Overton, NV 

Pahrump, NV 

Pioche, NV 

Rachel, NV 

Sunnyside, NV 

Tonopah, NV 

Twin Springs, NV 

Fallini’s Ranch 

Cedar City, UT 

Delta, UT 

Milford, UT 

St. George, UT 

52 2.6 0.17 1.4 0.54 

34 2.5 0.46 1.3 0.46 

12 4.6 0.84 2.3 0.88 

10 3.5 0.69 2.2 0.80 

52 20 0.53 1.6 2.6 

17 1.9 0.24 0.96 0.49 

49 3.4 0.45 1.5 0.64 

12 3.9 0.47 2.2 1.0 

11 3.2 0.25 1.6 0.89 

47 3.9 0.59 1.9 0.74 

12 3.2 0.70 2.0 0.63 

49 3.6 0.13 1.3 0.55 

51 3.4 0.52 1.4 0.61 

23 2.3 0.58 1.3 0.53 

50 2.9 0.12 1.3 0.54 

49 3.9 0.63 1.6 0.65 

47 3.4 0.39 1.2 0.50 

31 8.3 0.10 1.4 1.5 

49 5.6 0.54 1.7 0.77 

14 15 -0.05 2.1 3.8 

Mean MDC: 2.39 x lo-l5 pCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 1.23 x 1 O-l5 pCi/mL 
Table 5.19 Gross Alpha Results for the Offsite Air Surveillance Network - 1995 

Concentration (1 O-l5 uCi/mL f37 uBa/m?) 

Samolina Location 

Standard 

Number Maximum Minimum 

Arithmetic . 

Mean Deviation 

Alamo, NV 0.00 

Amargosa Valley, NV z 1:: -0.20 :*z 

0.99 

0.82 

Amargosa Center, NV iii ::i 0.50 1:7 

Beatty, NV 0.70 1.8 ::: 

Clark Station, NV 

Stone Cabin Ranch 52 5.4 0.30 2.0 1.1 

Currant, NV 

Blue Eagle Ranch :i 2.1 -0.50 0.75 0.64 

Goldfield, NV 

43.22 

0.00 0.65 

Indian Springs, NV 

Las Vegas, NV :: 2:9 

0.60 :::, 

-0.50 

::; 

i-g 

Overton, NV 47 0:90 

Pahrump, NV 12 

23:: -i-G: 

Pioche, NV 4: 3:; 0:10 GO 

0.78 

Rachel, NV 0.10 1:2 

0.51 

0.93 

Sunnyside, NV 

EZ $3 

0.20 0.53 

Tonopah, NV -0.20 ::;8 0.63 

Twin Springs, NV 

Fallini’s Ranch 49 0.00 0.81 

;i;~ ;;V, U-IMilfoid, UT $7 ::: 

i* : 

-0.200 :::, :*: 

49 -0.20 :i 0:70 

St. George, UT 14 14:o 0.10 1:7 3.6 

Mean MDC: 7.59 x lo’16 uCi/mL Standard Deviation of Mean MDC: 5.57 x lO“‘j uCi/mL 

Table 5.20 Offsite Low Volume Airborne Plutonium Concentrations - 1995 

238Pu Concentration (1 a’* uCi/mL) 

Composite Arithmetic Standard Mean as 

Samolina Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation %DCG 

Alamo, NV 

Amargosa Valley, NV :4 ::: 

-2.8 3.4 

-5.1 A.:6 

Las Vegas, NV 

15 63:: -iti 

1:5 

3.3 K 

Rachel, NV 1.4 ::: ii? 

Mean MDC: 8.1 x l@‘* uCi/mL Std. Dev. of Mean MDC: 4.8 x 10-l’ uCi/mL ’ 

23g+240Pu Concentration (lo-” uCi/mL) 

Composite Arithmetic Standard Mean as 

Samolina Location Number Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation %DCG’“’ 

Alamo, NV 14 14.0 

j-g 

3.38 3.71 NA”” 

Amargosa Valley, NV 15 4.6 

Las Vegas, NV 

1: 2::; 

-2:6 

0.98 2.18 

-0.42 3.05 ;$; 

Rachel, NV -1.3 3.46 6.47 NAtb’ 

Mean MDC: 9.5 x lo-” uCi/mL Std. Dev. of Mean MDC: 4.9 x 10“’ uCi/mL 

(a) DCG; Established by DOE Order as 3 x 1615 uCi/mL. 

(b) Not applicable, result less than MDC. 

Note: To convert from uCi/mL to Bq/m3 multiply by 3.7 x 10” (e.g., [7.1 x 16’8] x [37 x 107 = 26 uBq/m3). 
Table 5.21 Summary of Radionuclides Detected in Milk Samples 

Milk Surveillance Network 

No. of samples with results > MDC 

(Network average concentration in pCi/L) 

1995 1994 1993 

3H 0(37) W35) O(l20) 

8gSr O(O.03) O(O.22) 0(-0.18) 

“Sr O(0.81) 2(0.44) 5(0.55) 

Table 5.22 Summary of Weekly Gamma Exposure Rates as Measured by Pressurized Ion 

Chambers - 1995 

Gamma Exoosure Rate (uR/hrj 

Station 

Number of 

Weekly 

Averaaes Maximum Minimum Mean Deviation Median 

Furnace Creek, CA 15 10.7 

Shoshone, CA 49 12.0 

Alamo, NV 48 13.5 

Amargosa Valley, NV 43 14.4 

Austin, NV 50 19.8 

Beatty, NV 49 17.0 

Caliente, NV 44 15.3 

Complex I, NV 51 16.9 

Ely, NV 48 14.1 

Goldfield, NV 46 16.6 

Indian Springs, NV 47 11.9 

Las Vegas, NV 2 9.9 

Medlin’s Ranch, NV 49 17.0 

Nyala, NV 48 12.6 

Over-ton, NV 49 10.5 

Pahrump, NV 51 8.6 

Pioche, NV 46 11.9 

Rachel, NV 49 17.6 

Stone Cabin Ranch, NV 49 

Tonopah, NV 50 

Twin Springs, NV 44 

Uhalde’s Ranch, NV 49 

Cedar City, UT 44 

Delta, UT 34 

Milford, UT 50 

Salt Lake City, UT 32 

St. George, UT 50 

19.4 

19.0 

19.0 

18.1 

15.3 

12.8 

19.1 

10.8 

9.0 

1994 

Mean 

mR/yr (uFUhr) 

10.2 10.3 0.13 10.3 91 

11.1 11.4 0.21 11.4 100 

12.4 12.8 0.24 12.8 112 

13.7 14.0 0.14 14.0 123 

16.4 18.7 0.74 18.9 164 

15.9 16.4 0.25 16.3 144 

14.0 14.4 0.30 14.3 126 

14.1 15.5 0.55 15.4 136 

13.1 13.5 0.25 13.6 118 

14.7 15.5 0.44 15.4 136 

11.2 11.4 0.17 11.4 100 

9.5 9.7 0.30 9.7 85 

15.7 16.3 0.31 16.2 143 

11.6 12.0 0.25 11.9 105 

9.3 9.6 0.31 9.5 84 

8.0 8.2 0.16 8.2 72 

10.5 11.5 0.23 11.5 101 

16.1 16.8 0.50 16.7 147 

16.6 18.0 0.57 17.9 157 

15.4 17.7 0.54 17.8 155 

15.9 17.6 0.70 17.6 154 

11.7 16.7 1.56 17.1 146 

14.0 14.4 0.30 14.3 126 

11.7 12.1 0.26 12.1 106 

17.2 17.7 0.48 17.5 155 

9.2 10.2 0.46 10.1 89 

8.1 8.4 0.22 8.3 73 

Arithmetic Standard 

Note: Multiply uR/hr by 2.6 x lo-” to obtain C . kg“ . hr’. 

10.4 

11.4 

12.9 

14.1 

18.3 

17.5 

14.5 

15.6 

13.3 

15.2 

11.6 

9.2 

16.0 

12.0 

9.4 

8.8 

11.3 

17.1 

18.7 

17.9 

16.8. 

16.7 

11.2 

12.0 

17.6 

10.3 

8.3 
Table 5.23 EG&G/EM Boundary Line Monitoring Data - 1995 

Facility: EG&G - Remote Sensina Laboratow/Nellis 

Station 

ID No. DescriDtion 

RS-022 SE Fence--Near Gate 

RS-023 SE Fence--Near Gate 

RS-024 S Fence--Center 

RS-025 S Fence--Center 

RS-026. SW Fence--Near Gate 

RS-027 SW Fence--Near Gate 

RS-028 NW Fence--Near Gate 

RS-029 NW Fence--Near Gate 

RS-030 N Fence--Center 

RS-031 N Fence--Center 

RS-032 NE Fence--Near Corner 

RS-033 NE Fence--Near Corner 

RS-098 Control - 1 

RS-099 Control - 2 

Facility: EG&G - Atlas/Las Veaas 

LV-055 NW Corner Fence/Gate C6 

LV-056 NW Corner Fence/Gate C6 

LV-057 N Fence-West End A- 12 

LV-058 N Fence--West End A-12 

LV-059 N Fence--West End A-4 

LV-060 N Fence--West End A-4 

LV-06 1 NE Corner Fence/A-l2 

LV-062 NE Corner Fence/A-l 2 

LV-063 E Fence/Center A-Complex 

LV-064 E Fence/Center A-Complex 

LV-065 NLV Badge Off (A-7)/A-2 

LV-066 NLV Badge Off (A-7)/A-2 

LV-067 E Fence/North End B-Complex 

LV-068 E Fence/North End B-Complex 

LV-069 E Fence/South End B-Complex 

LV-070 E Fence/South End B-Complex 

LV-071 S Fence/Center/Next to Substation 

LV-072 S Fence/Center/Next to Substation 

LV-073 SW Corner/Gate C-l 

LV-074 SW Corner/Gate C-l 

LV-075 C-l W End Guard Gate 

LV-076 C-l W End Guard Gate 

LV-077 W Fence/Gate C-3, 

LV-078 W Fence/Gate C-3 

LV-079 NW End A-13/Double G 

LV-080 NW End A-13/Double G 

LV-098 Control - 1 

LV-099 Control - 2 

1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr. CY-95 

(mRI 0 0 h.mL ImR) 

20.2 

19.9 

17.6 

16.8 

14.7 

14.2 

15.9 

14.5 

16.8 

17.1 

14.2 

15.0 

11.0 

21.0 .18.6 26.6 96 

20.6 19.5 27.0 87 

19.3 17.1 23.3 77 

21.6 16.8 25.7 81 

17.2 28.6 20.6 81 

16.2 14.8 20.9 66 

17.6 15.1 20.9 70 

16.2 15.4 21.9 68 

21.3 17.7 23.9 80 

20.3 18.0 24.3 80 

15.5 14.2 19.6 64 

16.6 15.7 20.6 68 

13.9 11.8 36.7 52 

14.5 12.4 34.1 54 

19.0 

17.8 

15.4 

16.9 

16.9 

17.2 

14.8 

15.7 

15.4 

15.7 

14.2 

14.5 

16.3 

15.4 

16.9 

15.4 

16.0 

16.6 

16.0 

15.7 

19.9 

19.9 

16.9 

16.0 

17.2 

16.3 

18.7 17.7 28.5 84 

18.1 17.4 28.5 82 

16.6 18.7 25.5 76 

17.2 22.3 24.4 81 

17.2 17.4 25.1 77 

16.0 16.0 26.8 76 

15.1 15.4 23.8 69 

15.4 15.7 24.1 71 

15.1 15.4 23.4 69 

15.7 15.4 24.4 71 

14.8 15.7 23.7 68 

14.8 16.4 24.4 70 

17.7 16.4 24.1 74 

15.7 16.7 25.4 73 

16.6 16.7 27.5 78 

15.7 16.0 26.8 74 

16.6 15.7 26.8 75 

16.6 17.1 23.7 74 

15.4 16.7 24.7 73 

16.6 17.0 24.1 73 

19.9 19.0 28.2 87 

20.5 19.7 27.5 88 

17.7 24.4 26.1 85 

16.6 16.7 26.8 76 

18.4 17.7 25.8 79 

17.8 16.4 24.1 75 

11.6 14.0 13.6 49 

11.3 13.7 13.9 55 
Station 

ID No. Description 

1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 

(mR) (mR) ‘(mR) 

ST1 97 Bldg. 226, West Fence 20.7 22.7 

ST1 98 Bldg. 226, West Fence 21.3 23.0 

ST1 99 Bldg. 229-C, Left Side of Sliding Gate 28.8 30.0 

ST200 Bldg. 229-C, Left Side of Sliding Gate 28.1 29.0 

ST201 Bldg. 227, E Fence 27.3 22.7 

ST202 Bldg. 227, E Fence 20.7 23.0 

ST203 Bldg. 227, E Fence NE Comer 21.6 24.0 

ST204 Bldg. 227, E Fence NE Comer 20.6 24.0 

ST205 Bldg. 227, NE Corner Step 20.4 24.0 

ST206 Bldg. 227, NE Corner Step 20.0 23.0 

ST207 Bldg. 227, NE Fence 24.7 43.7 

ST208 Bldg. 227, NE Fence 23.8 45.4 

ST209 Bldg. 227, Behind CF Shed 23.2 23.7 

ST210 Bldg. 227, Behind CF Shed 23.2 26.7 

ST21 1 Bldg. 227, E Fence Center 21.3 25.0 

ST212 Bldg.227, E Fence Center 21.6 25.4 

ST213 Bldg. 227, SE Fence Corner 22.8 25.4 

ST214 Bldg. 227, SE Fence Comer 22.2 26.1 

ST141 Bldg. 227, Rear on Fence 24.4 24.0 

ST147 Bldg. 231, Rear on Fence 24.2 23.0 

Control 19.1 17.3 

Control 19.1 17.6 

(a) Not available, missing data. 

Facility: EG&G - Special Technoloaies Laboratory 

Table 5.23 (EG&G/EM Boundary Line Monitoring Data - 1995, cont.) 

25.0 17.0 85 

26.7 17.5 88 

(a) 17.2 101 

(4 17.0 99 

24.0 16.1 90 

24.4 15.8 84 

(a) 16.7 83 

ia) 17.0 82 

25.4 16.7 86 

27.7 16.1 87 

28.4 18.1 115 

29.0 17.2 115 

26.0 18.1 91 

26.4 17.5 94 

25.7 18.7 91 

25.4 18.4 91 

25.4 17.8 91 

25.7 17.5 92 

27.7 18.7 95 

27.7 19.3 94 

(a) 14.4 68 

(a) 14.4 68 

4th Qtr. 

0 

CY-95 

0 
6.0 DOSE ASSESSMENT 

The offsite environmental surveillance system operated around the Nevada Test 

Site (NTS) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Radiation 

Sciences Laboratory-Las Vegas (RSL-LV) measured no radiation exposures that 

could be attributed to recent NTS operations. The potential effective dose 

equivalent (EDE) to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) was calculated to 

be 0.18 mrem (1.8 x 10m3 mSv) to a hypothetical resident of Springdale, Nevada 

located 40 km (25 mi) WNW of Control Point 1 (CP-l), on the NTS. This value 

was based on onsite emission measurements, estimates provided by U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) and calculated resuspension data input to EPA’s 

CAP88-PC model. The calculated population dose (collective effective dose 

equivalent) to the approximately 32,210 residents living within 80 km (50 mi) 

from each of the NTS airborne emission sources was 0.53 person-rem (5.3 x 10m3 

person-Sv). Monitoring network data indicated a 1995 exposure to the MEI of 

144 mrem (1.44 mSv) from normal background radiation. The calculated dose 

to this individual from worldwide distributions of radioactivity as measured 

from surveillance networks was 0.023 mrem (2.3 x lOA mSv). An EDE of 8.5 x 

lOa mrem (8.5 x lo6 mSv) was included that would be received if edible tissues 

from a contaminated deer collected on the NTS were to be consumed. All of 

these maximum dose estimates, excluding background, are c2 percent of the 

most restrictive standard. 

6.1 ESTIMATED DOSE FROM 

NEVADA TEST SITE 

ACTIVITIES 

LIl 

he potential EDE to the offsite 

population due to NTS activities is 

estimated annually. Two methods 

are used to estimate the EDE to 

residents in the offsite area in order 

to determine the community potentially most 

impacted by airborne releases of radioactivity 

from the NTS. In the first method, effluent 

release estimates and meteorological data are 

used as inputs to EPA’s CAP88-PC model 

which then produces estimated EDEs. The 

second method entails using data from the 

Offsite Radiological Safety Program (ORSP) 

with documented assumptions and conversion 

factors to calculate the committed effective 

dose equivalent (CEDE). The latter method 

provides an estimate of the EDE to a 

hypothetical individual continuously present 

outdoors at the location of interest that 

includes both NTS emissions and worldwide 

fallout. In addition, a collective EDE is 

calculated by the first method for the total 

offsite population residing within 80 km (50 mi) 

of each of the NTS emission sources. 

Background radiation measurements are used 

to provide a comparison with the calculated 

EDEs. In the absence of detectable releases 

of radiation from the NTS, the Pressurized Ion 

Chamber (PIC) network provides a 

measurement of background gamma radiation 

in the offsite area. 

There are four sources of possible radiation 

exposure to the population of Nevada that 

were monitored by EPA’s offsite monitoring 

networks during 1995. These four sources 

were: 

l Background radiation due to natural 

sources such as cosmic radiation, 

radioactivity in soil, and ‘Be in air. 

l Worldwide distributions of manmade 

radioactivity, such as ‘OSr in milk, 13’ Kr in 

air, and Pu in soil. 

l Operational releases of radioactivity from 

the NTS, including those from drill back 

and purging activities when they occur. 

l Radioactivity that was accumulated in 

migratory game animals during their 

residence on the NTS. 
Operational releases and calculated sources 

of radioactive emissions from the NTS are 

used as input data for CAP88-PC to provide 

estimates of exposures to offsite populations. 

The other three sources of exposure listed 

above are treated in Section 6.1.2 below. 

6.1.1 ESTIMATED DOSE USING 

REPORTED NTS EMISSIONS 

Onsite source emission measurements, as 

provided by the DOE, are listed in Chapter 5, 

Table 5.1, and include tritium, radioactive 

noble gases, and plutonium. These are 

estimates of releases made at the point of 

origin. Meteorological data collected by the 

Air Resources Laboratory Special Operations 

and Research Division, (ARUSORD) were 

used to construct wind roses and stability 

arrays for the following areas: Mercury, Area 

12, Area 20, Yucca Flat, and the Radioactive 

Waste Management Site (RWMS) in Area 5. 

A calculation of estimated dose from NTS 

effluents was performed using EPA’s 

CAP88-PC model (EPA 1992). The results of 

the model indicated that the hypothetical 

individual with the maximum calculated dose 

from airborne NTS radioactivity would reside 

at Springdale, Nevada, 40 km (25 mi) WNW of 

CP-1. The maximum dose to that individual 

would be 0.18 mrem (1.8 x 10e3 mSv). For 

comparison, data from the PIC monitoring 

network indicated a 1995 dose of 144 mrem 

(1.44 mSv) from background gamma radiation 

occurring in that area. The population living 

within a radius of 80 km (50 mi) from the 

airborne sources on the NTS was estimated to 

be 32,210 individuals, based on 1995 data. 

The collective population dose within 80 km 

(50 mi) from each of these sources was 

calculated to be 0.53 person-rem (5.3 x 10m3 

person-Sv). Activity concentrations in air that 

would cause these calculated doses are much 

higher than actually detected by the offsite 

monitoring network. For example, 0.15 mrem 

of the calculated EDE to the MEI is due to 

plutonium. The annual average plutonium 

concentration in air that would cause this EDE 

is 59 times the annual average measured 

plutonium in air in Amargosa Valley. Table 6.1 

summarizes the annual contributions to the 

EDEs due to 1995 NTS operations as 

calculated by use of CAP88-PC and the 

radionuclides listed in Chapter 5, Table 5.1. 

Input data for the CAP88-PC model include 

meteorological data from ARUSORD and 

effluent release data reported by DOE. The 

‘effluent release data are known to be 

estimates and the meteorological data are 

mesoscale; e.g., representative of an area 

approximately 40 km (25 mi) or less around 

the point of collection. However, these data 

are considered sufficient for model input, 

primarily because the model itself is not 

designed for complex terrain such as that on 

and around the NTS. Errors introduced by the 

use of the effluent and meteorological data are 

small compared to the errors inherent in the 

model so the model results are considered 

over-estimates of the dose to offsite residents. 

This was confirmed by comparison with the 

offsite monitoring results. 

6.1.2 ESTIMATED DOSE USING 

MONITORING NETWORK DATA 

Potential CEDES to individuals may be 

estimated from the concentrations of 

radioactivity as measured by the EPA 

monitoring networks during 1995. Actual 

results obtained in analysis are used; the 

majority of which are less than the reported 

minimum detectable concentration (MDC). No 

krypton or tritium.in air data were collected 

offsite so the onsite krypton for this year and 

last years offsite tritium were used. Similarly, 

last year’s data for deer and beef liver were 

used. No vegetables were collected in 1995 

so no calculations for vegetables were done. 

Data quality objectives for precision and 

accuracy are, by necessity, less stringent for 

values near the MDC so confidence intervals 

around the input data are broad. The 

concentrations of radioactivity detected by the 

monitoring networks and used in the 

calculation of potential CEDES are shown in 

Table 6.2. 

The concentrations given in Table 6.2 are 

expressed in terms of activity per unit volume 

or weight. These concentrations are 

converted to a dose by using the assumptions 

6-2 
and dose conversion factors described below. 

The dose conversion factors assume 

continuous presence at a fixed location and 

no loss of radioactivity in meat and vegetables 

through storage and cooking. 

0 Adult respiration rate = 8400 m3/yr 

[International Commission on Radiological 

Protection (ICRP) 19751 

Milk intake (average for 20 and 40 yr old) 

= 110 Uyr (ICRP 1975) 

Consumption of beef liver = 0.5 Ib/wk 

(11.5 kg/yr) 

An average deer has 100 lb (45 kg) of 

meat 

Water consumption = 2 L/day (ICRP 

1975) 

Fresh vegetable consumption = 516 g/day 

(1 .I lb/day) for a four-month growing 

season (ICRP 1975). 

The EDE conversion factors are derived from 

EPA-520/l -88-020 (Federal Guidance Report 

No. 11). Those used here are: 

0 3H: 6.4 x 1 U’mrem/pCi (ingestion or 

inhalation) 

0 ‘Be: 2.6 x 1 OS7 mrem/pCi (inhalation) 

0 “Sr: 1.4 x 1 Om4 mrem/pCi (ingestion) 

a 85Kr: 1.5 x 1 Om5 mrem/yr per pCi/m 3 

(submersion) 

0 

238.239+240pu3 3.7 x low4 mrem/pCi 

(ingestion, f,=lU4) 3.1 x 10-l mrem/pCi 

(inhalation, Class Y) 

The algorithm for the internal dose calculation 

is: 

l (concentration) x (intake in volume 

(mass)/unit time) x (CEDE conversion 

factors) = CEDE 

As an example calculation, the following is the 

result of breathing tritium in air: 

l (2 x10~‘pCi/m3)x (8400 m3/yr) x (6.4~10‘~ 

mrem/pCi) = 1 .I x 10” mrem/yr 

However, in calculating the inhalation CEDE 

from 3H, the value must be increased by 50 

percent to account for skin absorption (ICRP 

1979). The total dose in one year, therefore, 

is 1 .I x IO4 mrem/yr x 1.5 = 1.6 x 104 mrem/yr. 

Dose calculations from ORSP data are 

summarized in Table 6.2. 

The dose from consumption of a mule deer 

collected on the NTS is included in Table 6.2. 

The individual CEDES from the various 

pathways added together give a total of 0.023 

mrem/yr. The additional dose from ingestion 

of deer meat and liver containing the 23g+240Pu 

activities given in Table 6.2 would be: 

{[(5.2 x lU’pCi/kg)x (45 kg meat)] + [(4.3 x 1 Oe2 

pCi/kg) x (6.28 kg liver)]} x (3.7 x IO4 

mrem/pCi) = 8.7 x 1 O3 mrem. 

Total EDEs can be calculated based on 

different combinations of data. If the interest 

was in just one area, for example, the 

concentrations from those stations closest to 

that area could be substituted into the 

equations used herein. 

6.2 DOSE (EDE) FROM 

BACKGROUND RADIATION 

In addition to external radiation exposure due 

to cosmic rays and gamma radiation from 

naturally occurring radionuclides in soil (e.g., 

40K, uranium and thorium daughters), there is 

a contribution from ‘Be that is formed in the 

atmosphere by cosmic ray interactions with 

oxygen and nitrogen. The annual average ‘Be 

concentration measured by the offsite 

surveillance network was 0.37 pCi/m3. With a 

dose conversion factor for inhalation of 

2.6 x 1 O-’ mrem/pCi, and an annual breathing 

volume of 8400 m3/yr, this equates to a dose 

of 8.1 x 10e4 mrem as calculated in Table 6.2. 
This is a negligible quantity when compared 

with the PIC network measurements that vary 

from 73 to 164 mR/year, depending on 

location. 

6.3 SUMMARY 

The extensive offsite environmental 

surveillance system operated around the NTS 

by EPA’s RSL-LV detected no radiological 

exposures that could be attributed to recent 

NTS operations, but a calculated EDE of 

0.023 mrem can be obtained if certain 

assumptions are made. Calculation with the 

CAP88-PC model, using estimated or 

calculated effluents from the NTS during 1995, 

resulted in a maximum dose of 0.18 mrem 

(1.8 x 10m3 mSv) to a hypothetical resident of 

Springdale, Nevada, 14 km (9 mi) W of the 

NTS boundary. Based on monitoring network 

data, this dose is calculated to be 0.023 

mrem. This latter EDE is about 12 percent of 

the dose obtained from CAP88-PC calculation. 

This maximum dose estimate is less than 1 

percent of the ICRP recommendation that an 

annual effective dose equivalent for the 

general public not exceed 100 mrem/yr (ICRP 

1985). The calculated population dose 

(collective EDE equivalent) to the 

approximately 32,210 residents living within 

80 km (50 mi) of each of the NTS airborne 

emission sources was 0.53 person-rem 5.3 x 

1 Om3 person-Sv). Background radiation would 

yield a CEDE of 3064 person-rem (30.6 

person-Sv). 

Data from the PIC gamma monitoring 

indicated a 1995 dose of 144 mrem from 

background gamma radiation measured in the 

Springdale area. The CEDE calculated from 

the monitoring networks or the model as 

discussed above is a negligible amount by 

comparison. The uncertainty (2a) for the PIC 

measurement at the 144 mrem exposure level 

is approximately 5 percent. Extrapolating to 

the calculated annual exposure at Springdale, 

Nevada, yields a total uncertainty of 

approximately 7 mrem which is greater than 

either of the calculated EDEs. Because the 

estimated dose from NTS activities is less 

than 1 mrem (the lowest level for which Data 

Quality Objectives [DQOs] are defined, as 

given in Chapter 10) no conclusions can be 

made regarding the achieved data quality as 

compared to the DQOs for this insignificant 

dose. 
Table 6.1 Summary of Effective Dose Equivalents from NTS Operations during 1995 

Dose 

Location 

NESHAP’“’ ’ 

Standard 

Percentage 

of NESHAP 

Percentage of 

Background 

Maximum EDE at 

NTS Boundary’“) 

Maximum Eyb$ to 

an lndividua 

0.22 mrem 0.18 mrem 

(2.2 x lo9 mSv) (1.8 x 1Q3 mSv) 

Site boundary 40 km 

WNW of NTS CP-1 

Springdale, NV 58 km 32,210 people within 

WNW of NTS CP-1 80 km of NTS Sources 

10 mrem per yr 

(0.1 mSv per yr) 

10 mrem per yr 

(0.1 mSv per yr) 

2.2 1.8 

144 mrem 

(1.44 mSv) 

144 mrem 3064 person-rem 

(1.44 mSv) (30.6 person Sv) 

0.15 0.12 

Collective EDE to 

Population within 80 km 

of the NTS Sources 

0.53 person-rem 

(5.3 x lo” person-Sv) 

0.017 

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

during the year at the NTS boundary located 40 km (25 mi) WNW from CP-1. 

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

highest dose-rate occurs as calculated by CAP88-PC (Version 1 .O) using NTS effluents listed in Table 

5.1 and assuming all tritiated water input to the Area 12 containment ponds was evaporated. 

(c) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. 

Table 6.2 Monitoring Networks Data used in Dose Calculations 

Medium Radionuclide Concentration Mrem\Year Comment 

Animals 

. 

Beef Liver 239+240pu 1.56 x 10-l 6.6 x lOA Concentrations are the 

(1994 data) (1.9 x 10”)‘@ median for each tissue type 

Deer Muscle 239+240pu 5.2 x 10-l 8.5 x lo4 

(1 .o x 1 o-3)3)‘“’ 

Deer Liver 

(1994 data) 

239+240pu 4.3 x lo” 4.4 x lo6 

(1.6 x 193)‘a’ 

(a) Units are pCi/kg and Bq/kg. 

(b) Units are pCi/L and Bq/L. 

(c) Units are pCi/m3 and Bq/m3. 
Table 6.2 (Monitoring Networks Data used in Dose Calculations, cont.) 

Medium 

Milk 

Radionuclide 

%r 

3H 

Drinking Water 3H 

Vegetables Not collected this year 

Air 

(1994 data) 

3H 

‘Be 

(NTS data) 

85Kr 

239+240pu 

Concentration 

0.61 

(0.023)‘b’ 

37 

(1 *4)Cb’ 

(A::5)tb) 

(EO7)‘C’ 

0.37 

(0.014)@ 

28 

(l.l)@’ 

9.8 x IO-’ 

(3.6 x 1 O-8)‘c’ 

Mrem\Year 

9.4 x 1 o-3 

2.6 x 1O-4 

6.5 x 1O-5 

1.6x lOA 

8.1 x 1O-4 

4.4 x 1 o-4 

2.6 x 1O-3 

Comment 

Concentration is the average 

of all network results 

Concentration is the average 

of all network results 

Concentration is the average 

from wells in the area 

Concentrations are average 

or median network results 

TOTAL (Air = 4.0 x 10m3, Liquids = 9.7 x 10s3, Meat = 9.1 x 10m3) = 2.3 x 1 c2 mremlyr 

(a) Units are pCi/kg and Bq/kg. 

(b) Units are pCi/L and Bq/L. 

(c) Units are pCi/m3 and Bq/m3. 
7.0 NONRADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 

RESULTS 

Nonradiological monitoring of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) operations was 

confined to onsite monitoring as there were no nonradiological discharges to 

the offsite environment. Types of monitoring conducted included: (1) drinking 

water distribution systems for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) compliance, (2) 

sewage influents to lagoons for state of Nevada permit requirements, (3) 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) as part of Toxic Substance Control Act 

(TSCA) compliance, (4) asbestos monitoring for asbestos removal and 

renovation projects, and (5) environmental media for hazardous characteristics 

and constituents. Wild horses and chukar were also monitored as components 

of an NTS ecological monitoring program being reviewed and redesigned. 

7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL 

SAMPLES 

7.1.1 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT 

LEI 

ater . sampling was conducted for 

analysis of bacteria, volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs), 

inorganic constituents, and water 

quality as required by the SDWA and state of 

Nevada regulations. Samples were taken at 

various locations throughout all drinking water 

distribution systems on the NTS by Reynolds 

Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc. (REECo). 

Common sampling points were restroom and 

cafeteria sinks (see Chapter 4, Figure 4.3). All 

samples were collected according to accepted 

practices, and the analyses were performed by 

state approved laboratories. Analyses were 

performed in accordance with Nevada 

Administrative Code (NAC) 445 and 40 C.F.R. 

Part 141. 

7.1.1.1 BACTERIOLOGICAL SAMPLING 

Samples were submitted to the state-approved 

Associated Pathologists Laboratories in Las 

Vegas, Nevada for coliform analyses. All water 

distribution systems were tested once a month, 

with the number of people being served 

determining the number of samples collected. 

If coliform bacteria are present, the system must 

7-I 

be shut down and chlorinated. In order to 

reopen the system, three or four consecutive 

samples must meet state requirements, 

depending again on the number of people 

served. There were no incidents of positive 

coliform bacteria results during 1995. 

Residual chlorine (RC) and pH levels were 

determined at the collection point by using 

calorimetric methods approved by the state. 

The results were recorded in REECo’s 

drinking water sample logbook, and the 

chlorine residual level was recorded on an 

analysis form. 

Sample results for 1995 for cofiform and RC 

are given in Table 7.1, along with applicable 

state of Nevada permit numbers. The RC 

results are paired with the coliform results 

from each specific sample. The RC results 

were all within state permit limits. 

Samples from each truck which hauled 

potable water from NTS wells to work areas 

were also analyzed for coliform bacteria. 

There were no positive coliform sample 

results in 1995. 

7.1 .1.2 Chemical Analysis 

Chemical analysis in 1995 consisted of: (1) 

VOCs, (2) pesticides, and (3) nitrate levels 

from Well 4. 
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND 

ANALYSIS 

Samples for VOCs were collected during the 

second quarter of 1995 from all NTS potable 

water wells. The samples were analyzed by a 

state approved laboratory. None of the results 

for VOCs were above quantitation limits. 

Samples were also collected from each well all 

four quarters and analyzed for pesticides. 

Because all the results were negative, pesticide 

analyses will probably not be required by the 

state for a few years. 

INORGANIC COMPOUND ANALYSIS AND 

WATER QUALITY 

The nitrate sample collected for Well 4 during 

1993 by the state inspector did not exceed the 

Maximum Concentration Level (MCL); however, 

because it was over 50 percent of the MCL the 

well must be sampled for four quarters. This 

resampling was completed in the third quarter of 

1995, and all sample results were under the 

MCL, so no further sampling is required. 

To comply with a 1991 variance to the Area 25 

water system permit, fluoride samples need to 

be taken annually before July 31 to confirm that 

the fluoride concentration is less than 4 ppm. 

Samples taken from Area 25 wells J-12 and J13 in January 1995 confirmed that the fluoride 

concentration was ~4 ppm. 

7.1.2 CLEAN WATER ACT 

7.1.2.1 NTS OPERATIONS 

The NTS General Permit requires quarterly 

reporting for biochemical oxygen demand 

(BOD), specific conductance (SC), organic 

loading rates, and water depths in infiltration 

basins. It also requires reporting of second 

quarter influent toxics sampling. The results of 

this sampling are shown in Tables 7.2 to 7.5 

respectively. All values in these tables are in 

compliance with the permit requirements. 

The permit also requires monitoring of the 

infiltration basins which attain a depth of 30 cm 

or more in January and June for parameters 

7-2 

listed in Appendix II of the permit. Sampling 

is required as soon as any other system 

exceeds the 30 cm. Three secondary ponds 

at the Area 23 facility usually contain the 

required depth, but are excluded as needing 

the sampling in Part lll.C.4 of the permit. 

During 1995 the Yucca Lake system 

exceeded the 30 cm in the first two quarters, 

the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) system 

exceeded in the second quarter, the Gate 

100 system exceeded in the first quarter, and 

the Reactor Control Point system exceeded 

in the third quarter. These sampling results 

are given in Table 7.6. 

7.1.2.2 NON-NTS SAMPLING RESULTS 

Only the EG&G/EM, North Las Vegas Facility 

(NLVF) and the Remote Sensing Laboratory 

(RSL), were required by permit to sample 

and analyze wastewater effluent and submit 

self monitoring reports. The EG&G/EM, 

NLVF wastewater permit was downgraded 

from a Class I permit to a. Class II permit by 

the City of North Las Vegas Department of 

Public Works. This reduced monitoring from 

twice a year to once per year in October. The 

monitoring requirements were retained for 

analyzing the MG burn pit (metal-cutting 

device) water prior to discharging; however, 

monitoring of the ten metal finishing outfalls 

was eliminated. 

The Clark County Sanitation District 

wastewater permit for the RSL required 

biannual monitoring of two outfalls and 

quarterly pH and monthly septage reports. 

RSL monitoring reports were submitted in 

January and July 1995. EG&G/EM has 

installed a silver recovery electrolytic unit; 

evaporators, ion exchange system, an 

improved pH neutralization system, pH 

monitoring, and associated plumbing and 

electrical systems. Installation was 

completed April 30, 1995. 

7.1.3 NON-HAZARDOUS SOLID 

WASTE DISPOSAL 

Monitoring of the three sanitary landfills was 

limited to recording daily refuse amounts by 

weight. The state has no permit system for 
landfills, but these do have approved Operation 

& Maintenance manuals. All waste disposed of 

in the Area 23 landfill was weighed at the Gate 

100 weighing station. All waste disposed of in 

1Oc Crater (Area 9) was weighed at the landfill 

on a new weighing station. About 18,000 tons 

of waste were disposed of in the Areas 6, 9, and 

23 sanitary landfills as shown in Table 7.7. 

7.1.4 TOXIC SUBSTANCES 

CONTROL ACT 

During 1995, a total of 106 samples were 

analyzed for PCBs. Eleven sample results were 

reported with concentrations greater than five 

parts per million. 

7.1.5 NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS 

During 1995, 702 bulk or general area air 

samples were collected and analyzed in 

conjunction with asbestos removal and 

renovation projects at the NTS. The sample 

volume was divided equally between general 

area and bulk air samples, 

7.1.6 RESOURCE CONSERVATION 

AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) 

A total of 2281 chemical analyses were 

performed in 1995 in support of waste 

management and environmental compliance 

activities at the NTS. Table 7.8 gives a 

breakdown of these analyses by matrix and 

analysis type. 

7.1.7 SPECIAL STUDIES 

Five series of tests were conducted involving 24 

different chemicals at the Liquified Gaseous 

Fuels Spill Test Facility (LGFSTF) in 1995. 

Pursuant to the agreement between LGFSTF 

and the state of Nevada, the EPA is invited to 

participate in both the spill test advisory panels 

and the field monitoring. 

7.2 ECOLOGICAL , 

CONDITIONS 

All components of the DOE/NV-sponsored 

Basic Environmental Compliance and 

Monitoring Program (BECAMP) were 

evaluated in 1995 for their ability to meet 

current DOE/NV objectives given changes in 

NTS missions and DOE policy. Work began 

on developing a comprehensive NTS 

ecological monitoring program focused on 

site-specific compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act and the new 

Federal Land and Facility Use Management 

Policy. During data evaluations and program 

development efforts, field data on annual and 

perennial plants, reptiles, small mammals, 

and deer were not collected. Data collection 

may be resumed in part or in total as 

necessary under the revised monitoring 

program to be initiated in 1996. BECAMP 

field efforts which were maintained in 1995, 

however, included the monitoring of wild 

horses and chukar on the NTS. Data on 

annual plant populations and precipitation 

from two established sampling plots on NTS 

were collected in 1995 as independent 

research and are reported below. 

7.2.1 FLORA 

Winter annual plant densities in Rock Valley 

totaled 1822 f 335 (mean * 2 standard 

errors) per square meter, and produced 

52 2 20 g/m2 dry weight. This was 50 times 

the biomass produced at the same location 

in 1994. Bromus rubens made up 64 percent 

of density and 73 percent of the biomass. 

Rainfall in Rock Valley for September 1994 

through April 1995 totaled 238 mm, 

compared to 64 mm for 1993-l 994. 

In Southwestern Yucca Flat, at the YUFOOl 

baseline site, winter annual densities were 

1354 f 397 /m2, and biomass 50 f g/m2 , 

compared to 192 f 38 /m2 and 3 f 2 g/m’ in 

1994. El. rubens contributed 55 percent of 

density and 74 percent of biomass. Rainfall 

from September 1994 through April 1995 

totaled 220 .mm, compared to 87 mm in 

1993-I 994. 
No data on perennial plants were collected in 

1995. However, regression lines of rainfall 

versus perennial live volume produced from 8 

years of the BECAMP program (Hunter 1995) 

indicate that in Yucca Flat, total live volume 

should have increased slightly, from 18.0 to 19.9 

m3/1 00m2. 

7.2.2 FAUNA 

Fifty-four horses were identified during field 

surveys conducted between August and 

December. Three foals first observed in 1994 

survived to yearling age. Five adults observed 

in 1994 were missing, representing a possible 8 

percent decline in the population. One new foal 

was observed in August but was absent by 

year-end. Selected water sources on NTS also 

were surveyed to evaluate their effect on the 

distribution of horses on NTS. Camp 17 pond in 

Area 18 and Well 2 pond in Area 2 were heavily 

used by horses. An estimated 35 horses 

appear dependent on water at Camp 17 pond 

and 17 horses appear dependent on the Well 2 

pond during summer and fall. The distribution of 

horses in 1995 relative to NTS water sources 

has not changed from previous years. 

Summer brood surveys for chukar were 

conducted for five days between June 19 

and August 17, 1995. Four NTS springs 

were visited: Tippipah, Topopah, Tub, and 

Cane springs. These springs were those at 

which the Nevada Division of Wildlife 

(NDOW) requested permission to trap birds 

in 1995 for relocation elsewhere in the state. 

At Topopah Spring, an estimated 20 young 

and 8 adults were observed. At Tub Spring, 

an estimated 75 young and 5 adults were 

observed. No chukar were observed at 

Tippipah or at Cane springs. Nevada 

Division of Wildlife biologists trapped and 

removed 71 chukar from Tub Spring on 

August 31 and September 1, eight chukar 

from Topopah Spring on September 13, and 

seven chukar from Cane Spring on 

September 14. At the time of trapping, the 

NDOW biologists estimated that there were 

80 chukar at Topopah Spring and 

approximately 30 chukar at Cane Spring. 
Table 7.1 Monthly Monitoring Results for NTS Potable Water Systems - 1995’“) 

Area 22 

RC 

Coliform 

Area 23 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

Area 25 

RC 

%?form 

Eiform 

Coliform 

Area 12 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

Area 6 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

RC 

Coliform 

JAN APR MAY .JUN J!& 

PERMIT.NY-360-12C 

AUG SEP OCT NOV LEG 

0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.0 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.6 

t.6 

:I 

0’ 

__ 

_- 

__ 

0.8 

:6 

0’ 

1.0 

0 

-_ 

__ 

__ 

0.6 

0 

0.8 

0 

0.6 

0 

1.0 

0 

1.0 

0 

1.0 

0 

1.0 

0 

1.0 

0 

-- 

1.0 

0 

1.0 

0 

1.0 

0 

-_ 

-- 

0.5 

:5 

0’ 

0.5 

0 

__ 

__ 

-- -_ 

-- 

-- 

__ 

-- 

_- 

0.8 1.0 1.0 0.0 

0’ :8

0 0 0 

1.0 0 1.0 0 1.0 

0.8 :6 1.5 05 

0 0’ 0 0’ 

_- mm 1.0 

-- 0 

__ -- 1.0 

-- -- -- 0 

-- *- mm 1.0 

-- -_ me 0 

PERMIT NY-4098-12NC 

__ 

1.0 1.0 

0 0 

1.0 1.0 

0 0 

0.8 0.8 

:8 

0’ 

008 

0’ 

0.8 -- 

0 -_ 

-- -- 

-- -- 

-- 

__ 

-_ 

-- 

-- 

-- 

0.4 

0 

-_ 

0.6 

0 

1.0 

0 

-- 

__ 

1.5 0.6 1.0 0.0 

0 ” 0 0 

1.0 -- 1 0 

0 - - 0’ 

-_ -_ 1.0 

__ -- -- 0 

PERMIT NY-4099-1 2NC 

1.0 

i.8 

z.8 

0 

0.8 0.8 

g.8 :8 

0 0’ 

1.0 1.2 

0 0 

1.0 

i.8 

0 

__ 

__ 

-_ 

-- 

1.5 

0 

1.0 

0 

__ 

-- -_ 

0.8 

iI 

0’ 

0.2 

0 

0.6 

0 

0.5 

004 

0’ 

0.6 0.05 1.0 0.3 

:6 

0’ 

0.05 0.05 00 3 

0 0 0’ 

PERMIT NY-5000-12NC 

0.4 

i.8 

0 

0.3 0.1 0.8 0.6 

0 0 0 0 

0.1 0.1 0.4 0.8 

0 0 0 0 

1.0 

0 

1.0 

t.8 

:8 

0’ 

0.8 1.0 

:.6 z.6 

:6 

0’ 

z.6 

0 

-- -_ 

1.5 

0 

1.2 

z.8 

0 

-_ 

2.0 

i.8 

Z.0 

0 

-_ 

-- __ 

1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 

0.6 0 1.0 :.6 i.2 

:6 

0’ 

0 10 

0’ 

i.6 t.4 

0 

-_ -- 1.0 0 

-- -- 0 -- 

0.0 

0 

0.5 

i.8 

0 

0.8 

0 

0.1 

0 

0.8 

0 

1.0 

0 

-- 

-- 

0.8 

:1 

0’ 

1.0 

0 

__ 

-_ -- -- 

Area 6 (Sample of Water at Area 5) 

RC _- 1.0 1.0 

Coliform - 0 0 

A;ZI 6 (Sample ;f 2Water 

Coliform 0’ 

at 0.1 Area 27) 0.1 

0 0 

Area 1 

RC 

Coliform 

0.8 1.0 0.1 

0 0 0 

1.0 0.8 0.06 1.0 

0 0 0 0 

1.0 0.3 -- 0.25 

0 0 -- 0 

PERMIT NY-5024-12NC 

1.0 

0 

0.1 

0 

0.3 1.0 0.05 0.4 0.8 

0 0 0 0 0 

1.0 

0 

0.1 

0 

0.5 

0 

0.4 

0 

0.0 

0 

0.1 

0 

1.2 0.06 

0 0 

1.2 1.5 

0 0 

0.8 0.5 

0 0 

(a) RC - residual chlorine in parts per million (ppm); coliform colony count is in number/100 mL. 
Table 7.2 lnfluent Quality 

1 st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th Quarter 

BO D5”’ S.C.tb’ BOD5 S.C. 

Facility (ma/L) &mhos/cm) (ma/L) &mhos/cm) 

BOD5 

(ma/L) ($t%s) 

BOD5 S.C. 

(ma/L) (.pmhos/cm) 

Gate 100 

Mercury 

Yucca Lake 

Tweezer 

CP-6 

CP-72 

DAF 

Reactor Control 

Test Stand 1 

Base Camp 25 

Base Camp 12 

Base Camp 2 

Test Cell C 

RWMS Site 5 

238 1.12 240 1.40 144 

355 0.93 412 .93 178 

338 1.19 196 1.15 157 

393 1.54 126 1.02 376 

608 1.26 190 1 .oo 406 

193 1.05 81 1.07 37 

201 1.04 162 1.39 c20 

0 0 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 0 

203 1 .oo 199 .99 144 

69 0.34 64 .30 57 

0 0 0 0 - 

0 0 0 0 0 

(a) Biochemical Oxygen Demand. 

(b) Specific Conductance. 

1.24 340 0.88 

0.77 71 0.80 

1.14 524 0.75 

1.71 280 1.32 

1.35 0 0 

0.82 0 0 

1.50 77 1.08 

0 129 0.82 

0 0 0 

0.97 125 0.78 

0.41 16 0.29 

0 0 0 

- 203 1.05 

Table 7.3 Organic Loading Rates for 1995 

Metered Rates 

Facility 

(Jan-Mar) (Apr-June) (Jul-Sept) (Ott-Dee) 

Limit (Ko/dav) Mean Daily Load Mean Dailv Load Mean Dailv Load Mean Dailv Load 

Mercury 172 

DAF 7.6 

Gate 100 2.4 

LANL on Tweezer 5.0 

Base Camp 25 7.4 

Yucca Lake 8.6 

Base Camp 12 54 

RWMS Site 5 0.995 

65.0 

- 

6.74 

CP-6 8.7 

CP-72 1.1 

DAF 7.6 

Reactor Control 4.2 

Eng Test Stand 2.3 

Test Cell C 1.3 

Base Camp 25 7.4 

Base Camp 2 

Gate 100 :*f 

LANL on Tweezer 510 

Base Camp 12 54 

3.45 

0.29 

1.74 

: 

0 

4.37 

0 

4.33 

2.42 

0.57 

97.3 

1.22 

2.97 

1.67 

4.16 

7.01 

1.75 

Calculated Rates 

1.08 

0.12 

72.5 16.7 

10.9 

- 

4.0 

0.9 

1.24 

23.9@’ 

0.24 

0.77 

5.0 

0.05 

0.17 

0 

0 

0 

1.4 

: 

0.29 

1.00 

0 

0 

1.18 

1.6 0.90 

(a) Considered to be an anomalous value. 
Table 7.4 Pond Water Depths in Infiltration Basins 

Maximum Average 

Operating Depth, cm 

Impound Depth. cm (1 st Quarter) 

Gate 100, Basin 90 35 

Mercury, Basin 180 0 

Yucca Lake 

North Basin 140 40 

South Basin 140 39 

Tweezer 

East Basin 244 0 

West Basin 244 0 

CP-6 

East Basin 90 1 

West Basin 90 1 

CP-72 90 0 

DAF 

Basin 1 150 0 

Basin 2 150 0 

Reactor Control, Basin 130 0 

Test Stand 1, Basin 90 0 

Test Cell C, Basin 90 0 

Base Camp 25, Basin 100 0 

Base Camp 12, Basin 1 120 3 

Base Camp 12, Basin 2 120 0 

Base Camp 12, Basin 3 120 0 

Base Camp 12, Basin 4 120 0 

Base Camp 12, Basin 5 120 

Base Camp 2, Basin 90 

(a) Infiltration basin was partially filled with rain water during a flash flood. 

Average Average 

Depth, cm Depth, cm 

(2nd Quarter) (3rd Quarter) 

16 

0 

35 

41 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Average 

Depth, cm 

(4th Quarter) 

0 ” 

0 

15 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 
G 

8 

Table 7.5 lnfluent Toxics for Facilities that Receive Industrial Wastewater 

8 Area 25 Area 6 

9 Mercury Central Support _- Area 6 DAF Area 6 CP Area 6 LANL Yucca Lake 

$ Compliance Measurement Measurement Measurement Measurement Measurement Measurement 

Parameter Limit (ma/L) 

Arsenic 5.0 

Barium 100 

Cadmium 1 .o 

Chromium 5.0 

Lead 5.0 

Mercury 0.2 

Selenium 1.0 

Silver 5.0 

Benzene 0.5 

Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5 

Chlorobenzene 100 

Chloroform 6.0 

1,4-dichlorobenzene 7.5 

1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.5 

1,l -dichloroethylene 0.7 

Methylethyl Ketone 200 

Pyridine 5.0 

Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 

Trichloroethylene 0.5 

Vinyl Chloride 0.2 

(ma/L) (ma/L) ImalL) 

(a) Units for tritium are 1 Om7 uCi/cc. 

ND Not Detected. 

ND ND <O.Ol ND ND ND 

0.025 0.036 ND 0.021 0.120 0.025 

ND ND <0.005 ND ND ND 

ND ND co.05 ND ND ND 

ND ND <0.05 ND ND ND 

ND <0.0015 ND ND ND ND 

ND ND <O.Ol ND ND ND 

ND ND co.05 ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND 12 ND ND 0.035 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

ND ND ND ND ND ND 

Note: Volatile samples were taken from each primary lagoon as they can not be composited. No volatiles were detected during this reporting 

period. Future measurements for volatile samples from facilities with multiple primary lagoons will be average values. 
Table 7.5 (influent Toxics for Facilities that Receive Industrial Wastewater, cont.) 

Compliance 

Parameter Limit (ma/L) 

Cresol, total 200 

2,4-dinitrotoluene 0.13 

Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 

Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5 

Nitrobenzene 2.0 

Pentachlorophenol 100 

2,4,5-trichlorophenol 400 

2,4,6-trichlorophenol 2.0 

Chlorodane 0.03 

Endrin 0.02 

Heptachlor 0.008 

Lindane 0.4 

Methoxychlor 10.0 

Toxaphene 0.5 

2,4-D 10.0 

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 1.0 

Nitrate Nitrogen 100 

Sulfate 5000 

Chloride 1000 

Fluoride 40 

Tritium Monitor Only 

Mercury 

Measurement 

[ma/L) 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

Area 25 

Central Support 

Measurement 

(ma/L) 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

Area 6 DAF Area 6 CP Area 6 LANL 

Measurement Measurement Measurement 

(ma/L) 0 (ma/L) 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

<l .o 

c5.0 

81 .O 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

Area 6 

Yucca Lake 

Measurement 

(mg/L) 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

ND 

(a) Units for tritium are 1 a7 uCi/cc. 

ND Not Detected. 

Note: Volatile samples were taken from each primary lagoon as they can not be cornposited. No volatiles were detected during this reporting 

period. Future measurements for volatile samples from facilities with multiple primary lagoons will be average values. 
Table 7.6 Sampling Data for Infiltration Ponds Containing 30 cm or More 

A-6 Yucca A-22 Gate A-6 Yucca A-6 DAF A-25 Reactor 

Lake/Q1 1 OO/Ql Lake/Q2 Q2 Control Pt/Q3 

Result Result Result Result Result 

ma/L ma/L . ma/L ma/L ma/L 

co.01 0 <O.OlO 0.91 x0.01 0.022 

Action Level 

ma/L 

0.5 

0.1 

0.5 

0.5 

0.1 

0.5 

Parameter 

Arsenic 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Lead 

Selenium 

Silver 

Nitrate Nitrogen 

Sulfate 

0.030 0.040 0.03 <o.oos 0.005 

co.05 0.004 

eo.05 0.0042 

co.01 0.004 

co.05 0.003 

cl .o 0.05 

c5.0 41 

81 47 

2.0 3.0 

2.091a’ ND 

<0.250 co.250 0.08 

0.34 

0.03 

0.03 

0.04 

160 

370 

2.1 

ND 

0.003 0.002 

co.020 co.020 

co.200 co.200 

100 

5000 

co.500 <0.500 

63 82 

Chloride 1000 117 80 

Fluoride 40 2 2 

Tritiumta) Monitor Only 1 ,62’a’ 1 *6ata’ 

(a) Units for tritium is 1 OV7 pCi/cc. 

ND - Not Detected. 
Table 7.7 Quantity of Waste Disposed of in Landfills - 1995 

Quantity (in pounds) 

Month Area Area Area 6 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1,237,600 

1,823,909 

4,528,510 

2,384,015 

4,934,964 

2,728,750 

2,975,968 

2,955,889 

857,150 

1,174,870 

211,360 480 

351,040 272,184 

440,004 960,620 

255,260 3,375,520 

261,910 477,940 

164,525 645,470 

145,470 23,422 

275,820 40,800 

360,290 40,120 

1 ,187,390 4,720 

501,740 59,520 

332.990 0 

Total 25,601,625 4,487,799 5,900,796 

Table 7.8 Number of RCRA Samples Analyzed - 1995 

Sample Type 

Analysis Water Other 

Volatile 

Organic 

Semi-volatile 

Organic 

ICP Metalsra) 

TCLP Metalslb) 

PH 

Flashpoint 

TPH’“’ 

Chlor-D-tect 

PCB/Pest 

Total 

244 98 98 48 488 

152 

91 

230 

51 

37 

219 

46 

-?!I 

1141 

61 61 30 304 

36 36 18 181 

92 92 46 460 

20 20 11 102 

15 15 7 74 

88 88 43 438 

2 -2 Ai 4 

457 457 226 2281 

(a) “ICP Metals” refers to samples analyzed on an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer for 

the presence of certain metals. 

(b) “TCLP Metals” refers to samples that have been subjected to the EPA approved “toxicity 

characteristic leaching procedure. 

(c) “TPH” (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons) refers to samples usually associated with underground 

storage tanks and fuel spills. 

8.0 RADIOACTIVE AND MIXED 

WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL 

Disposal of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) from Department of Energy (DOE) 

approved generators occurs at two areas on the Nevada Test Site (NTS). 

Disposal of packaged LLW at the Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 5 

(RWMS-5) is in shallow pits and trenches. LLW packaged in large bulk waste 

containers, and unpackaged bulk waste (only from the NTS) are buried in 

selected subsidence craters at the Radioactive Waste Management Site, Area 

3 (RWMS-3). 

Hazardous waste and specific categories of radioactive waste are stored above 

ground in Area 5. Transuranic (TRU) waste categorized as mixed waste; i.e., 

radioactive material mixed with hazardous waste, is stored in a covered 

building on a specially constructed Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA) designed pad. The TRU waste will be characterized for .proposed 

disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. Low-level 

radioactive mixed waste is currently being stored on the TRU waste storage pad 

before permanent disposal. Uranium ore residues that are considered mixed 

waste are stored north of the RWMS-5. Hazardous wastes generated on the 

NTS are accumulated at the Hazardous Waste Accumulation Site east of the 

RWMS-5 before shipment to an offsite treatment, storage and disposal facility. 

During 1995,.environmental monitoring involved air sampling, radiation dose 

rate surveys, ground water analysis, and environmental sampling. Air samples 

were collected at RWMS-3 and RWMS-5 for analysis of gross beta radiation, 

photon-emitting radionuclides, plutonium, and tritium. Tritium was the only 

airborne radionuclide detected at the RWMS-5 from the disposal of radioactive 

waste. All radionuclide concentrations were well below derived concentration 

guides (DCG). Gamma radiation fields were monitored by thermoluminescent. 

dosimeters (TLD). Gamma doses greater than background were detected at the 

RWMS-5 in areas where waste is stored or disposed. Neutron radiation fields 

at the perimeter of the TRU waste storage pad were monitored by proton recoil 

dosimeters. Radiation exposure rates were consistent with historical ranges. 

8.1 WASTE DISPOSAL 

OPERATIONS 

R-l adioactive waste disposal was 

initiated at Area 5 on the NTS in 

1961. By July 1976, six trenches 

e out of nine developed trenches had 

been filled with LLW. In 1978, waste disposal 

operations were expanded when the DOE 

established the Radioactive Waste 

Management Project for the disposal of 

defense related LLW from the NTS and from 

offsite DOE generators and U.S. Department 

of Defense (DOD) facilities. The state of 

Nevada granted the NTS interim status in 

1987 for the disposal of low-level mixed waste 

in Pit 3 of the RWMS-5. LLW disposed of 

prior to 1986 may contain low levels of 

constituents that would be regulated as 

hazardous waste under RCRA. Mixed waste 

disposal was curtailed in 1990 by the DOE 

because of the possible presence of Land 

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) constituents. The 

state of Nevada later directed that the DOE 

provide National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) documentation and implement a state 

approved Waste Analysis Plan. No offsite 

mixed waste has been received for disposal 

since 1990. Mixed waste generated on the 
NTS may be disposed of in Pit 3 of the 

RWMS-5 if LDR requirements are met. The 

RWMS-3 has been used for the disposal of 

bulk atmospheric test debris, bulk LLW in 

large containers, and packaged LLW. 

Hazardous waste generated on the NTS is 

accumulated at the Hazardous Waste 

Accumulation Site (HWAS) which is adjacent 

to and east of the RWMS-5. At this site, the 

hazardous waste is prepared for shipment to 

an offsite treatment, storage, and disposal 

facility. Hazardous waste is not accepted 

from offsite generators. 

8.1 .l AREA 5 RADIOACTIVE 

WASTE MANAGEMENT SITE 

The RWMS-5 occupies approximately 296 

hectares (732 acres) and is located in the 

northern area of Frenchman Flat, 

approximately 26 km (16 mi) north of the NTS 

main gate. Currently, 37 hectares (92 acres) 

are posted as radiological areas used for 

waste storage and disposal. Before 1968, 

Area 5 had been, used for the testing of 

conventional .weapons and both above and 

below ground testing of nuclear weapons. 

The general surface geology of the area is 

alluvial sediment derived from tuffaceous 

material. The basin is filled with up to 305 m 

(1000 ft) of alluvium from the surrounding 

mountain ranges. The disposal site is located 

on a gently sloping alluvial fan extending 

southward from the Massachusetts 

Mountains, which lie approximately 3.3 km (2 

mi) to the north. The slope of the terrain is 

two percent near the disposal site, but 

increases to 3 percent to the west. Two 

shallow dry washes cross the site, from the 

northwest and from the northeast. An,earthen 

dike has been constructed along the western, 

northern, and eastern borders of the RWMS-5 

to prevent water flow into the disposal area. 

In the past, disposal of LLW and mixed 

wastes occurred in shallow land burial 

trenches and pits at depths ranging from 4.6 

m to 9.1 m (15 to 30 ft). Pits and trenches 

that reach full capacity are temporarily 

covered by 2.4 m (8 ft) of soil until a 

permanent closure cap is constructed. In 

addition,. disposal of high specific activity 

waste has occurred in augured shafts that are 

36 m (120. ft) in depth,. termed Greater 

Confinement Disposal (GCD). When disposal 

capacity is reached, GCD shafts are filled with 

soil from 21 m (70 ft) to the surface. 

LLW is accepted for disposal from generators 

that have received approval from DOE 

Headquarters (DOUHQ) and DOE Nevada 

Operations Office (DOE/NV). Prior to 

receiving approval, generators must submit an 

application detailing the characterization of the 

waste for disposal and their waste certification 

program. The waste program must meet 

NVO-325 (Revision l), “Nevada Test Site 

Defense Waste Acceptance Criteria, 

Certification, and Transfer Requirements.” 

Approval may be granted if an audit shows 

that the waste characterization meets the 

requirements and the waste certification plan 

has been satisfactorily implemented. 

Approved generator programs are reviewed 

and audited annually. 

The majority of the waste disposed of in 1995 

was placed in Pits 4 and 5. Construction of 

Pit 5 was completed during the first quarter of 

1995. Pit 4 was filled during 1995 and its 

operations moved to Pit 5. 

During 1995, LLW was received from 15 

generators. A volume of 9,171 m3 (3.24 x 1 O5 

ft3) containing a total of 556 Ci (20.6 TBq) of 

radioactivity was disposed of at the RWMS-5. 

This was a decrease both in volume and 

radioactivity from the previous year (see Table 

8.1). Tritium and uranium accounted for over 

94.4 percent of total radioactivity disposed of 

(see Table 8.2). The majority of the remaining 

radioactivity was attributed to isotopes of 

thorium and plutonium. 

8.1.1.1 RWMS-5 MIXED WASTE 

MANAGEMENT UNIT 

A Mixed Waste Management Unit (MWMU) is 

planned for construction in the northeastern 

area of the RWMS-5. The proposed MWMU 

will cover approximately 10 hectares (25 

acres) and contain 8 landfill cells. Mixed 

waste disposal operations at the NTS will re- 
X commence under interim status in Pit 3 upon 

completion of NEPA documentation and a 

state approved Waste Analysis Plan. 

Disposal operations at the MWMU will be 

initiated upon issuance of a state RCRA Part 

B Permit. In the interim, an agreement 

between DOE/NV and the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection (NDEP) has been 

negotiated that allows low-level mixed waste 

generated on the NTS to be stored on the 

TRU waste storage pad until treatment or 

permanent disposal. 

8.1 .I .2 RWMS-5 GROUNDWATER 

MONITORING 

Data collection was initiated in 1993 and was 

continued during 1995 to monitor the 

groundwater chemistry under the waste 

disposal cells at RWMS-5. The purpose of 

this study is to determine the water quality and 

the flow gradients. Sampling is being 

performed using three pilot wells drilled in 

1992 into the uppermost aquifer under the 

disposal cells. Further information on this 

study can be found in Section 9.2.2.3 of this 

document and in the “1995 Groundwater 

Monitoring Report” (Bechtel 1995). 

8.1.2 AREA 3 RADIOACTIVE 

WASTE MANAGEMENT SITE 

The RWMS-3 lies at an elevation of 1230 m 

(4050 ft) and covers approximately 20 

hectares (50 acres). It is located in the center 

of Yucca Flat approximately 5 miles north of 

the Yucca Dry Lake Bed. The site is located 

on alluvial sediments that are approximately 

1500 ft deep. Atmospheric and underground 

nuclear tests have been conducted in several 

areas in Yucca Flat including Area 3. Safety 

tests have resulted in the dispersion of 

plutonium in surface soils in Area 3. 

The RWMS-3 is used for the management of 

bulk debris from above ground nuclear tests 

and packaged bulk LLW generated offsite. 

Subsidence craters formed by underground 

nuclear tests are used for disposal. The 

subsidence craters range in depth from 15 to 

24 m (49 to 78 ft) and are filled by alternating 

layers of stacked waste packages and 3 ft of 

clean fill dirt. Two craters, U-3ax and U-3bl, 

have been filled to date. A 2.5-m (8 ft) thick 

operational cap of clean soil extending 1.2 m 

(4 ft) above grade has been used for 

temporary closure of U3ax/bl craters. In 1995, 

the RWMSS received 11,073 m3 (3.9 x 1 O5 ft3) 

of waste containing 3.1 Ci (115 GBq) of 

radioactivity (see Table 8.3). There was a 

slight increase in volume of waste and 

radioactivity disposed of during 1995 as 

compared to 1994. Tritium accounted for 

approximately 92.0 percent of the total 

radioactivity disposed of during 1995’ (see 

Table 8.4). The adjacent craters U-3ah/at are 

being used at present for LLW disposal. 

8.1.3 STRATEGIC MATERIALS 

STORAGE YARD 

The strategic materials storage yard is used 

for storage of mixed waste consisting of 

residues from the processing of uranium ores 

from the Mound Plant in Miamisburg, Ohio. 

On a mass basis, this material is primarily 238U 

and iron. The residues contain approximately 

290 Ci (11 TBq) of total radioactivity. Storage 

of this waste north of the RWMS-5 will 

continue until treatment for disposal is 

performed. In 1995, cement stabilization was 

assessed as a possible treatment option. 

Dates for completion of treatment activities 

and further information on the waste can be 

found in the “NTS Site Treatment Plan” (DOE1995b). 

The residue material is packaged in steel 

drums inside wooden boxes that are stored 

inside steel cargo containers. A total of 28 

cargo containers is stored on concrete pads 

that are surrounded by a control fence. 

Required inspections are performed routinely 

to ensure the integrity of the waste containers. 

Opening of the cargo containers for inspection 

is controlled following established as low as 

reasonably achievable (ALARA) practices to 

reduce radiation exposure to personnel. 

8.1.4 TRANSURANIC WASTE 

STORAGE 

The TRU waste storage pad is located in the 

southeast corner of the RWMS-5. The pad is 

used for interim storage of TRU waste 
previously received from Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory (LLNL). During 1992, all 

of the mixed TRU waste packaged in 55-gal 

drums was overpacked into steel drums with 

carbon filter vents. This waste is stored in a 

cover building that sits on a curbed asphalt 

pad surrounded by a security fence. The pad 

and waste storage configuration comply with 

RCRA, 40 C.F.R. 265, Subpart I. 

Inspections of all mixed TRU waste containers 

are performed weekly while inspections of the 

TRU waste storage pad are performed 

monthly. The current inventory is awaiting 

permanent disposal at the WIPP. This waste 

will be characterized and packaged for 

certification according to WIPP criteria. 

8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL 

MONITORING AT WASTE 

STORAGE AND DISPOSAL 

SITES 

The Analytical Services Department (ASD), 

Environmental Section was responsible for 

collection of samples and verifying sample 

results. The ASD Radioanalytical Section was 

responsible for analysis of the samples. 

Collection and analysis of samples were 

performed in accordance with approved 

operating procedures. The Waste Management 

Program reviews the sampling results for any 

unexpected trends. 

8.2.1 AIR MONITORING 

Air sampling is conducted at nine stations 

along the perimeter of the RWMS-5 fence, at 

two stations inside the TRU waste storage 

cover and at one station in Pit 5. Two 

samplers inside the TRU cover building along 

with the perimeter samplers were determined 

to provide adequate monitoring for the TRU 

waste storage facility. Originally, there were 

six stations that surrounded the TRU waste 

storage pad. The Pit 3 sampling station was 

discontinued in September 1995 due to 

suspension of operations in Pit 3. Air 

sampling is also conducted at four stations 

along the perimeter of the U-3ah/at craters at. 

RWMS-3. 

Air samplers operate at an air flow rate of 

approximately 140 Umin (5 cf/min). Sampling 

media is a 9 cm (approximately 4 in) glassfiber filter. Filters are exchanged on a weekly 

basis. Each filter is analyzed for gross 

beta/gamma radiation. The filters are 

cornposited monthly for samplers located at 

the perimeter of RWMS-5 and quarterly for all 

other sample locations and analyzed for 238Pu 

and 239+240Pu. Samplers for tritiated water 

(HTO) are located with eight of the particulate 

samplers along the perimeter of the RWMS-5. 

Tritiated water is not measured at the RWMS3. Sampling for radioiodine was discontinued 

in 1995 because radioiodine is not expected to 

be produced from disposal operations. 

Radioiodine was measured in the past 

because it was produced during nuclear 

testing. 

8.2.1 .l RWMS-5 AIR MONITORING 

Tritium, 238Pu,23g+240 Pu,(see Table 8.5) and 

gross beta activity were measured in air at the 

RWMS-5 during 1995. The 1995 airborne 

plutonium levels were generally lower than 

those in 1994. The average concentration of 

23g+240Pu during 1995 was 0.6 x 10-l’ uCi/mL 

(0.22 uBq/m3), while the maximum 

concentration was 3.4 x 10-l’ uCi/mL (1.3 

uBq/m3). The average concentration is 

approximately 0.3 percent of the 10 mrem per 

year modified DCG for 23g+240Pu (2 x IO-l5 

uCi/mL [74 uBq/m3]) (DOE Order 5400.5). 

The average air concentration of 238Pu was 

approximately a factor of 46 lower than the air 

concentration of 23g+240 Pu. Airborne plutonium 

in Area 5 is most likely due to resuspension of 

contaminated soils and not attributable to the 

waste disposed of in this LLW site. 

The average HTO concentration was 5.7 x 1 O-l* 

uCi/mL (0.21 Bq/m3) where the highest 

concentration was 5.8 x lo“’ uCi/mL (2.1 

Bq/m3). The high value is approximately 0.6 

percent of the 10 mrem per year mod,ified 

DCG for HTO (1 x 1 OS8 uCi/mL [370 Bq/n?]). 

Tritium is associated with waste disposal 

operations. The levels of tritium have 

remained consistent with historical averages. 

The average HTO air concentration in 1995 

was in the range of the 1993 average 

concentration of 7.9 x IO-‘* uCi/mL (0.29 

Bq/m3) and the 1994 average concentration of 

4.9 x 1 O-‘* uCi/mL (0.18 Bq/m3). 
Et.0 RADIoACThE AND MIXED WASTE STORAGE AND DEPOSAL F+ 

Gross beta air concentration results are used 

as a screening tool to check if a significant 

release occurred and if other radionuclides 

warrant analysis. The results were in the 

range of 1 O-l4 and 1 O-l5 uCi/mL. These levels 

are consistent with levels for previous years. 

8.2.1.2 RWMSS AIR MONITORING 

Traces of plutonium (238Pu and 23g+240Pu) were 

detected in air at all of the RWMS-3 samplers 

in 1995. The average air concentration of 

23g+240Pu in 1995 was 8.9 x 10“’ uCi/mL (3.3 

uBq/m3) which was slightly less than the 1994 

average of 13.1 x IO-” uCi/mL (4.9 uBq/rt?). 

The average air concentration of 238Pu was 

approximately a factor of 56 lower than the 

average concentration of 23g+240Pu. The 

highest concentration of 23g+240Pu detected in 

1995 was 42 x 10-l’ uCi/mL (15.5 uBq/m” ) 

which is far below the Derived. Air 

Concentration (DAC) for 23g+240Pu. Airborne 

plutonium is most likely due to resuspension 

of soils contaminated by atmospheric 

weapons testing, and is not attributable to the 

waste being disposed of at this site. Gross 

beta air concentrations were consistent with 

the RWMS-5 results. 

8.2.2 RADIATION EXPOSURE 

RATES 

Areas where disposal operations take place 

are radiologically controlled through 

engineering and administrative controls to 

ensure radiation exposures are ALARA. 

Workers are trained thoroughly in exposure 

reduction techniques and ALARA practices. 

Worker radiation doses have remained below 

ALARA administration goals that are 

considerably less than the DOE occupational 

limit. 

8.2.2.1 GAMMA EXPOSURE ’ 

Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were 

deployed at 44 locations at RWMS-5 and at 5 

locations of the U3ah/at craters at RWMS-3 

disposal site to measure the gamma radiation 

exposure (see Table 8.6). Ten TLDs were 

placed within the perimeter of RWMS-5 

including six TLDs around the TRU waste 

storage pad, two TLDs in Pit 3, and two 

TLDs in the operational disposal pit (Pits 4 

and 5). The TLDs in the pits were 

approximately 30 m (100 ft) from the waste 

stacks. Fifteen TLDs were located at the 

perimeter of the RWMS-5 site and one was 

placed at the facility office. Another 18 TLDs 

were located around the Strategic Materials 

Storage Yard (SMSY). All TLDs were 

exchanged and analyzed quarterly. 

The TLDs located at the perimeter of RWMS-3 

and RWMS-5 had exposures that were slightly 

above or at background levels (see Table 8.6). 

Exposure rates at the TRU pad, in the 

operational disposal pits of RWMS-5 and at 

the SMSY were above background due to 

their proximity to the radioactive waste 

containers. No significant increases were 

identified when comparing the 1995 exposure 

rates with historical levels. 

8.2.2.2 NEUTRON DOSE EQUIVALENTS 

Neutron dose equivalents were measured at 

six locations at the perimeter of the TRU 

waste storage pad. The dose equivalents for 

1995 ranged from the detection limit of 84 

mrem to 221 mrem per year. Neutron doses 

for 1995 were consistent with the 1994 

results. 

8.2.3 VADOSE ZONE MONITORING 

FOR MIXED WASTE DISPOSAL 

A vadose zone monitoring program has been 

implemented to allow earlier detection of 

potential contaminant migration from the 

mixed waste disposal pit (Pit 3) at the RWMS5. Monitoring is conducted in 24 access 

tubes. Tubes are installed through the 

operational cover (approximately 8 ft deep), 

the waste zone (20 - 30 ft), and ten feet of soil 

below the pit floor. Tubes are monitored 

quarterly with neutron moisture meters to 

detect wetting fronts from precipitation. 

Wetting fronts that progressed through the 

operational cap and into the waste zone could 

indicate that contaminant migration might 

have occurred. In 1995 and in the past, no 

wetting fronts have been detected below the 

operational cap. 
8.2.4 TRITIUM MIGRATION 

STUDIES AT THE RWMS-5 

The results of the tritium migration study at the 

Greater Confinement Disposal (GCD) site 

showed that the waste buried between depths 

of 70 and 120 ft has remained isolated from 

the accessible environment (i.e., the surface). 

In addition, plants and near surface soil were 

sampled above shallow land disposal cells in 

RWMS-5 to confirm seasonal variations. 

Results indicated that the worker and public 

radiation exposure are negligible. 

t?%5 ASER fix the NT3 8-6 
Table 8.1 Low-Level Waste Disposed of at RWMS-5 for 1993 - 1995 . 

Calendar Year 

Volume of LLW Disposed 

0 

Activity-of LLW Disposed 

Ka 

1995 9171 5.56 x 10’ 

1994 12300 5.17 x lo4 

1993 8327 3.00 x lo4 

Table 8.2 Radionuclides Disposed of at the RWMS-5 During 1995 

Radionuclide 

3H 

238~ 

234~ 

235~ 

228Th 

23”Th 

232Th 

238Pu 

239,240pu 

24’ Pu 

13’Cs 

g”Sr 

g9TC 

6oco 

Other 

Total 

Activitv CCi) Percent of Total Activity 

244.34 43.97 

164.24 33.16 

92.56 16.66 

3.53 0.64 

6.80 1.22 

0.68 0.12 

6.77 1.22 

0.66 0.12 

1.60 0.29 

7.56 1.36 

3.62 0.65 

1.48 0.27 

1.11 0.20 

0.38 0.07 

0.31 0.06 

555.64 100 

Table 8.3 Low-Level Waste Disposed of at RWMS-3 for 1993 -1995 

Calendar Year Volume of LLW Disposed(m3) Activitv of LLW Disposed (Ci) 

1995 11073 3.1 

1994 10550 0.21 

1993 9848 0.24 
Table 8.4 Radionuclides Disposed of at RWMS-3 During 1995 

Radionuclide Activity(Ci) Percent of Total Activitv 

3H 2.8545 92.00 

238 U 0.1382 4.45 

234 U 0.1017 3.28 

235 U 0.0083 0.27 

Total 3.1027 100.00 

Table 8.5 Air Monitoring-Results for Various Radionuclides at RWMS-5 for 1994 - 1995 

239+240pu 238Pu Tritium 

( x 10-l’ uCi/mL) ( x 10-l’ uCi/mL) ( x lo-l2 uCi/mL) 

Average 1995 

High 1995 

Average 1994 

High 1994 

Derived Concentration Guide 

(10 mrem for nonworkers) 

0.6 0.013 5.7 

3.4 0.11 5.8 

1.1 0.038 4.9 

52 0.15 4.7 

200 300 lo4 

Table 8.6 External Gamma Exposure Measured by TLDs at the RWMS 

Calendar Year 

Number of 

Dosimeters 

Average 

(mR/y) 

Standard Deviation 

(mR/y) 

RWMS-5, perimeter 16 127 10.7 

RWMS-5, TRU pad, Pit 3 and 5 10 304 224 

RWMS-3, ah/at perimeter 5 137 21.6 

Strategic Material Storage Yard 18 1804 1051 
9.0 GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 

The primary mission of the Department of Energy Nevada Operations Office 

(DOE/NV) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) has been the testing of nuclear devices 

and their components. The DOE/NV’s Environmental Protection Policy 

Statement outlines a general policy of preventing pollutants from reaching 

groundwater, but it also recognizes that some options for groundwater 

protection are precluded by an increased risk of atmospheric releases and 

potential violation of international agreements. Therefore, the DOE/NV 

groundwater protection policy represents a balance between strict compliance 

with atmospheric release agreements and minimization of groundwater 

impacts. Groundwater protection is implemented by various programs that 

address compliance with regulatory requirements, minimization of waste 

streams, closure and monitoring of waste facilities, remedial investigations, 

groundwater monitoring, and environmental research. 

The Nevada Environmental Restoration Project (NV-ERP) was established to 

assess past hazardous and radioactive waste contamination that may have 

occurred as a result of operations at DOE/NV facilities. For those sites that 

could pose a threat to human health, welfare, and/or the environment, remedial 

actions consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan.were developed. The NV-ERP has been designed to ensure 

DOE/NV compliance with federal laws such as the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (R&A); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); and the Super-fund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act (SARA). 

A program of well drilling at the NTS for groundwater characterization 

continued in 1995. This program will continue until the location, quantity, and 

movement of groundwater and contaminants are sufficiently understood to 

support a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RVFS). The Rl/FS will 

evaluate potential groundwater contaminant transport pathways, risks 

associated with these pathways, and possible remedial actions. 

DOE/NV instituted a Long-Term Hydrological.Monitoring Program (LTHMP) in 

1972 to be operated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under 

an Interagency Agreement. In 1995, groundwater was monitored on and around 

the NTS, at six sites in other states, and at two off-NTS locations in Nevada to 

detect any radioactivity that may be related to previous nuclear testing 

activities. Although tritium initially seeped from two of the offsite tests, the 

tritium levels in wells at both of these sites are decreasing and were well below 

the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation levels. NTS supply wells were 

monitored for gross alpha and beta activity as well as tritium levels. 

a-1 
9.1 EXISTING 

GROUNDWATER 

CONDITIONS 

9.1.1 HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE 

NTS 

El 

he NTS has three general waterbearing units: the lower carbonate 

aquifer, volcanic aquifers, and 

valley-fill aquifers. The water table 

occurs variously in the latter two units while 

groundwater in the lower carbonate aquifer 

occurs under confined conditions. The depth 

to the saturated zone is highly variable but is 

generally at least 150 m (approximately 500 ft) 

below the land surface and is often more than 

300 m (approximately 1000 ft). The 

hydrogeologic units at the NTS occur in three 

groundwater subbasins in the Death Valley 

Groundwater Basin (see Chapter 2, Figure 

2.9, for a diagram of these systems). The 

actual subbasin boundaries are poorly 

defined, but what is known about the basin 

hydrology is summarized below. 

Groundwater beneath the eastern part of the 

NTS is in the Ash Meadows Subbasin and 

discharges along a spring line in Ash 

Meadows, south of the NTS. Most of the 

western NTS is in the Alkali Flat-Furnace 

Creek Subbasin with discharges occurring by 

evapotranspiration at Alkali Flat and by spring 

flow near Furnace Creek Ranch. 

Groundwater beneath the far northwestern 

comer of the NTS may be in the Oasis Valley 

Subbasin which discharges by 

evapotranspiration in Oasis Valley. Some 

underflow from the subbasin discharge areas 

probably travels to springs in Death Valley. 

Regional groundwater flow is from the upland 

recharge areas in the north and east toward 

discharge areas in Ash Meadows and Death 

Valley, southwest of the NTS. Because of 

large topographic changes across the area 

and the importance of fractures to 

groundwater flow, local flow directions may be 

radically different from the regional trend 

(Waddell 1982). 

9.1.2 HYDROGEOLOGY OF NONNTS UNDERGROUND EVENT SITES 

The following descriptions of the hydrology of 

non-NTS underground event sites are 

summarized from Chapman and Hokett 1991. 

9.1.2.1 FALLON, NEVADA 

The Project SHOAL site is located in the 

granitic uplift of the Sand Springs Range. The 

highland area around the site is a regional 

groundwater recharge area, with regional 

discharge occurring to the west in Four-mile 

Flat and Eight-mile Flat, and to the northeast 

in Dixie Valley. Evidence suggests that a 

groundwater divide exists northwest of the site 

and that the main component of lateral 

movement of groundwater near the site is 

southeast toward Fairview Valley. 

Groundwater in Fairview Valley moves north 

to the discharge areas in Dixie Valley. 

Groundwater in Fairview Valley occurs in three 

separate alluvial aquifers that are separated 

by clay aquitards. Groundwater flow velocities 

through the granite to the alluvial aquifers of 

Fairview Valley are calculated to be very slow. 

9.1.2.2 BLUE JAY, NEVADA 

The Project FAULTLESS site is located in a 

thick sequence of alluvial material underlain 

by volcanic rocks in the northern portion of 

Hot Creek Valley. Recharge to the alluvial 

aquifer and volcanic aquifer occurs in the 

higher mountain ranges to the west with 

groundwater flowing toward the east-central 

portion of the valley and discharging by 

evapotranspiration and underflow to Railroad 

Valley. 

9.1.2.3 AMCHITKA ISLAND, ALASKA 

The groundwater system of Amchitka Island is 

typical of an island-arc chain with a freshwater 

lens floating on seawater in fractured volcanic 

rocks. Active freshwater circulation occurs by 

precipitation recharging the water table with a 

curving flow path downward in the interior of 
the island and upward near the coast. 

Generally, the hydraulic gradient is from the 

axis of the island toward the coast. 

Groundwater travel times have been 

estimated to be between 23 and 103 years 

from the test cavities to the Bering Sea. 

9.1.2.4 RIO BLANCO, COLORADO 

Project RIO BLANC0 is located in the Fort 

Union and Mesa Verde Sandstones in the 

Piceance Creek Basin. Three aquifers 

comprise the majority of the groundwater 

resources; a shallow alluvial aquifer, the upper 

“A” potable aquifer, and the lower “B” saline 

aquifer. The “A” and “B” aquifers are 

separated by the Mahogany Oil Shale 

aquitard. These aquifers lie well above the 

test depth. The alluvial aquifer is the primary 

source of groundwater in the area with flow to 

the northeast toward the Piceance Creek. 

Recharge to the alluvial aquifer occurs by 

downward infiltration of precipitation and 

surface water, and by upward leakage from 

underlying aquifers. The “A” aquifer is larger 

in areal extent than the overlying alluvial 

aquifer with the permeability in the “A” aquifer 

controlled by a vertical fracture system. The 

“B” aquifer exhibits minimal communication 

with the “A” aquifer. 

9.1.2.5 GRAND VALLEY, COLORADO 

Project RULISON is located in the Mesa 

Verde Sandstone which is overlain by 

alluvium, the Green River Formation (shale 

and marlstone), the Wasatch Formation (clay 

and shale), and the Ohio Creek Formation 

(conglomerate). The direction of groundwater 

flow is thought to be northward. The principal 

groundwater resources of the area are in the 

alluvial aquifer which is separated from the 

test horizon by great thicknesses of lowpermeability formations. Pressure tests of 

deep water-bearing zones indicated very little 

mobile water. 

9.1.2.6 BAXTERVILLE, MISSISSIPPI 

Project DRIBBLE and the Miracle Play 

Program were conducted in the Tatum Salt 

Dome. The Tatum Salt Dome interrupts and 

deforms the lower units of coastal marine 

^ . 

deposits in the area, has low permeability, and 

allows little water movement. Seven 

hydrologic units are recognized in the area, 

exclusive of the salt dome and its anhydrite 

caprock. These are, from the surface 

downward, the Surficial Aquifer, the Local 

Aquifer, and Aquifers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. These 

aquifers consist of sands and gravels, 

sandstones, shales, and limestones with lowpermeability clay beds acting as aquitards. 

The natural flow has been disrupted by 

pumping from the upper aquifers and by 

injection of oil-field brines into Aquifer 5. The 

transient conditions and lack of data result in 

uncertainties in groundwater flow directions. 

9.1.2.7 GOBERNADOR, NEW MEXICO 

Project GASBUGGY is located on the eastern 

side of the San Juan Basin. The direction of 

groundwater movement is not well known, but 

is thought to be to the northwest in the Ojo 

Alamo Sandstone toward the San Juan River. 

The test was conducted in the underlying 

Pictured Cliffs Sandstone and Lewis Shale 

which are not known to yield substantial 

amounts of water. The rate of groundwater 

movement in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone is 

estimated to be approximately 0.01 meters per 

year. 

9.1.2.8 MALAGA, NEW MEXICO 

The Project GNOME site is located in the 

northern part of the Delaware Basin which 

contains sedimentary rocks and a thick 

sequence of evaporites. The test was 

conducted in the halites of the Salado 

Formation which is overlain by the Rustler 

Formation, the Dewey Lake Redbeds, and 

alluvial deposits. The Rustler Formation 

contains three water-bearing zones: a 

dissolution residue at its base, the Culebra 

Dolomite, and the Magenta Dolomite. The 

Culebra Dolomite is the most regionally 

extensive aquifer in the area. The 

groundwater in the Culebra is saline but is 

suitable for domestic and stock uses. 

Groundwater in the Culebra flows to the west 

and southwest toward the Pecos River. 
9.1.3 AREAS OF 

POSSIBLEGROUNDWATER 

CONTAMINATION AT THE NTS 

A preliminary assessment of underground and 

surface contamination at the NTS was 

conducted by the DOE in 1987 and submitted 

to the EPA Region 9. The survey delineated 

known and potential sources of groundwater 

contamination at the NTS including 

underground nuclear testing areas and 

surface facilities (Figure 9.1). Information 

from this document and from DOE/NV’s “Site 

Specific Plan for Environmental Restoration 

and Waste Management, Five Year Plan,” was 

used to describe the possible areas of 

groundwater contamination at the NTS. Table 

9.1 is a listing of routine sampling locations at 

NTS and off-NTS sites where 1995 

groundwater samples contained levels of manmade radioactivity greater than 0.2 percent of 

the National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations. 

To date, over 1050 announced nuclear tests 

have been conducted at the NTS with the 

majority of them occurring in Yucca Flat, 

Frenchmen Flat, Pahute Mesa, Rainier Mesa, 

and Shoshone Mountain. The principal 

by-products from these tests were heavy 

metals and a wide variety of radionuclides with 

differing half-lives and decay products. 

Detonations within, or near, the regional water 

table may have contaminated the local 

groundwater with radionuclides, principally 

tritium. 

Surface activities associated with underground 

testing and other NTS activities such as 

disposal of low-level radioactive and mixed 

wastes, spill testing of hazardous liquified 

gaseous fuels, and transport of radioactive 

materials, also pose potential soil and 

groundwater contamination risks. The types 

of possible contaminants found on the surface 

of the NTS include radionuclides, organic 

compounds, metals, and residues from 

plastics, epoxy, and drilling muds. A wide 

variety of surface facilities, such as former 

injection wells, leach fields, sumps, waste 

storage facilities, tunnel containment ponds 

and muck piles, and storage tanks, may have 

contaminated the soil and shallow unsaturated 

zone of the NTS. The great depths to 

groundwater and the arid climate mitigate the 

potential for mobilization of surface and 

shallow subsurface contamination. However, 

contaminants entering the carbonate bedrock 

from Rainier Mesa tunnel ponds, 

contaminated wastes injected into deep wells, 

underground tests near the water table, and 

wastes disposed into subsidence craters have 

the potential to reach groundwater. 

9.2 GROUNDWATER 

PROTECTION 

DOE/NV has instituted a policy regarding 

protection of the environment. This policy 

states: “A principal objective of the DOE/NV 

policy is to assure the minimization of 

potential impacts on the environment, 

including groundwater, from underground 

testing. An ongoing program to monitor and 

assess the effectiveness of groundwater 

protection efforts will be enhanced so that 

resources are allocated based on current 

understanding of the effectiveness of 

groundwater protection programs.” 

Groundwater protection activities contained 

within-DOE/NV programs are described below. 

9.2.1 GROUNDWATER 

PROTECTION FOR 

UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR TESTS 

The DOE/NV standard operating procedure 

“Protection of Groundwater at Nuclear Test 

Locations” (NTS-SOP 5417), defines five 

criteria for siting underground nuclear tests 

based upon the current understanding of the 

effects of testing on the groundwater 

environment. Before an emplacement hole or 

emplacement drift can be used for a test, 

documentation must be submitted by the 

sponsoring user to the DOE/NV Assistant 

Manager for Environmental Restoration and 

Waste Management Division (AMEM) to show 

compliance with these criteria, which are: 

l Future testing should utilize previously used 

areas of testing. 

l Tests with working points at or below the 

water table should be minimized. Testing 

within perched water conditions is excluded 

from this criterion. 

9-4 
- 

Q I---. -.-$--_-./--~‘-.-I_ __-. 

jj/I!! 

---I,, 

_-_-_- 

111 a 

1 iii ,,,-- 30” --_--- ------.-L 1,J-J--- -__, ~i-----p!?ll-T-~i~~ 

I,, I I III 

T 

II! I 

I I 

111 

III I I 111 

III 29 

I 

,,,- ---_-------- ______ _/ I q 1 Ill III 

I III 

111 I ,I, I 1 I ! ! 

111 i 14/6 

III 

Ill 

Ill 

)I! 

III 

Ill 

111 

;1L25-=----- I ---a------------ ----- --- 3=i,- --2dL T’ 

Ill 

-_ _-. 0 I, 

II 

i 

I! 

x Ill III 

1 Underground Testing x Crrntamlna 

Waste Dum 

b Sump & Injection Wells fl Leachfields 

Storage Tanks 4 k?Tk‘ilP 

Figure 9.1 Areas of Potential Groundwater Contamination on the NTS 
l Working points should be placed no closer 

than two cavity radii from any regional 

carbonate aquifer. 

l Emplacement holes should not be sited 

within 1,500 m of the NTS boundary where 

groundwater leaves the NTS. 

l Emplacement holes which extend more 

than two cavity radii or 30 m, whichever is 

greater, beneath the working point should 

be plugged to prevent the open borehole 

from becoming a preferential pathway for 

groundwater contamination. 

The Hydrologic Resources Management 

Program (HRMP) reviews the emplacement 

hole documentation for technical content and 

the DOE/NV Environmental Protection 

Division (EPD) reviews the documentation for 

environmental compliance. Based on 

recommendations by AMEM, HRMP, and 

EPD, the proposed location will either be 

approved or modifications recommended. If 

groundwater levels encountered during drilling 

of the emplacement holes are substantially 

different than predicted, the acceptability of 

the emplacement hole will be re-evaluated. 

9.2.2 GROUNDWATER 

PROTECTION FOR SURFACE 

FACILITIES 

Because of the large distance from the 

surface to groundwater, there is a minimal risk 

of groundwater contamination from surface 

activities at the NTS. Nonetheless, provisions 

for groundwater protection from surface 

activities have been established in several 

programs: (1) Waste Minimization and 

Pollution Prevention Awareness; (2) 

Decontamination and Decommissioning; and 

(3) Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal. 

9.2.2.1 WASTE MINIMIZATION AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION AWARENESS 

PROGRAM s 

The Waste Minimization and Pollution 

Prevention Awareness Program is designed to 

reduce waste generation and. possible 

pollutant releases to the environment, 

increasing the protection of employees and 

the public. All DOE/NV contractors and NTS 

users who exceed the EPA criteria for smallquantity generators have established 

implementation plans in accordance with 

DOE/NV requirements. Contractor programs 

ensure that waste minimization activities are in 

accordance with federal, state, and local 

environmental laws and regulations, and DOE 

Orders. A discussion of 1995 activities is 

given in Section 3.2.6. 

9.2.2.2 DECONTAMINATION AND 

DECOMMISSIONING PROGRAM 

The Decontamination and Decommissioning 

Program identifies inactive radiologically 

contaminated facilities, assesses the extent of 

contamination, minimizes its spread, ensures 

that facilities are maintained in a safe manner 

pending determination of final disposition, and 

secures or disposes of facilities. Seven 

facilities at the NTS have been identified for 

decontamination and decommissioning. 

9.2.2.3 WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, 

AND DISPOSAL 

DOE/NV currently operates two disposal 

facilities in Areas 3 and 5 at the NTS for lowlevel radioactive waste (LLW) generated by 

DOE and the Department of Defense (DOD) 

facilities. The Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Site (RWMS-5) also serves as a 

temporary storage area for Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) 

transuranic wastes, which will be shipped 

upon final certification to the Waste Isolation 

Pilot Plant in New Mexico for disposal. All 

hazardous wastes generated at the NTS are 

stored at a Hazardous Waste Accumulation 

Site in Area 5 until shipped offsite to EPAapproved commercial disposal facilities. 

Uranium-ore residues designated as strategic 

materials are stored north of the RWMS-5. 

The Area 3 RWMS (RWMS-3) is used for the 

disposal of non-standard packaged LLW from 

offsite and unpackaged bulk wastes from the 

NTS. 

Mixed waste disposal facilities are presently 

operating under the RCRA interim status 

pending completion of the RCRA permitting 

process. Site characterization activities are 

being performed in support of the RCRA Part B 
permit application to evaluate the potential for 

the release and migration of waste from the 

waste disposal activities. Because of it’s great 

depth, groundwater is not monitored directly. 

However, monitoring and vadose zone studies 

are being conducted beneath RWMS-5 to detect 

the migration of contaminants from the waste 

facilities. 

During 1992, three pilot wells (UE5PW-1, 

UE5PW-2, UE5PW-3) were drilled through the 

vadose zone into the uppermost aquifer under 

the RWMS-5. The principal purpose of these 

wells was to characterize the hydrogeology of 

the vadose zone under the waste disposal cells 

at RWMS-5. This characterization is consistent 

with the leakage detection requirements for 

interim treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) 

facilities required by EPA and the state of 

Nevada. 

In accordance with 40 C.F.R. 265 - Subpart F, 

operators of interim status TSD facilities are 

required to collect quarterly samples for one 

year from one upgradient and three 

downgradient wells for characterization of 

background water quality. The first collections 

of these characterization data were performed in 

1993. In 1994 and 1995, the frequency was 

reduced to semi-annual and results were 

statistically compared with the initial 

characterization data. 

Sampling protocols for characterization and 

detection data collection were based on the 

RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical 

Enforcement Guidance Document (EPA 1986). 

Groundwater elevation was measured prior to 

each sampling event. Water was withdrawn 

from each well with dedicated submersible 

double piston pumps for the purpose of purging 

and sample collection. Temperature, pH, 

specific conductance, and Eh (oxidation 

potential) were monitored during purging and at 

the conclusion of sampling. Samples were 

collected and analyzed in accordance with 

written procedures that specified sample 

collection methodology, sample preservation, 

sample shipment, analytical procedures, and 

chain-of-custody control. Preservative 

measures were applied in the field to all samples 

at the time of removal from each well. 

Based on characterization results during 1993 

and detection monitoring results for 1994 and 

1995, the uppermost aquifer beneath the 

RWMS-5 disposal cells is suitable for use as 

drinking water or for agricultural purposes. The 

analyses performed for these samples can be 

found in Table 9.2. No chemical or radiological 

contaminants attributable to either DOE 

weapons testing or waste management 

activities have been detected in the three wells. 

9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL 

RESTORATION 

The NV-ERP was established to assess past 

hazardous and radioactive waste contamination 

that may have occurred as a result of operations 

at DOE facilities. For those sites that could 

pose a threat to human health, welfare, and/or 

the environment, remedial actions consistent 

with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances 

Pollution Contingency Plan are developed. The 

NV-ERP has been designed to ensure DOE/NV 

compliance with federal laws such as RCRA, 

CERCIA, and the SARA. CERCLA and SARA 

are the primary legislative acts governing 

remedial action at former hazardous waste 

disposal sites. These acts require the 

development of a RI/FS to assess the potential 

risks present at a site and to develop and 

evaluate remedial actions. The ERP has been 

modified to include a RI/FS for all former 

DOE/NV hazardous waste disposal and 

expended nuclear test sites. As an initial action, 

a site characterization is conducted to determine 

the type of contamination present, the extent 

and’ concentration of contaminants, and to 

identify and delineate potential contaminant 

transport pathways. 

9.3.1 UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR 

TESTING SITES 

The Underground Test Area (UGTA) RI/FS, 

conducted by the NV-ERP, has entered into 

preliminary negotiations with the state of 

Nevada Department of Environmental 

Protection (NDEP). Early negotiations have 

culminated in the Federal Facilities Agreement 

(FFA). The strategy outlined in the FFA is 

based upon the acknowledgment that there is a 

high degree of uncertainty in the groundwater 

transport of radionuclides from UGTAs on the 

NTS. This uncertainty is to be quantified, via 
modeling, and presented to the NDEP. It is the 

strategy of DOE that current levels of 

uncertainty are acceptable and once 

concurrence is reached with NDEP, the 

aforementioned models can be used to develop 

compliance boundaries and to design 

monitoring networks to assess whether the 

compliance boundaries remain unaffected by 

transport. 

Field studies conducted in 1995 continued data 

collection in support of the UGTA. These 

activities, conducted by International 

Technology Corp. (IT) and Reynolds Electrical & 

Engineering Company, Inc., (REECo), included 

deepening and coring Well 6-l (Well ER-6-1) 

and Wells ER-20-1, 5, & 6). In total, 13 

characterization wells have been drilled and 11 

others have been recompleted for the UGTA. 

Two of these were drilled in 1995. 

9.3.2 SURFACE FACILITIES 

Because of the arid climate and the great 

depths to groundwater, any contaminants 

found in the near-surface environment are 

unlikely to migrate to or contaminate 

groundwater. However, liquid wastes 

distributed to leachfields, unlined ponds, and 

subsidence craters could introduce 

contaminants into the unsaturated zone and 

supply the mechanisms necessary to 

transport contaminants to the local 

groundwater table. Injection of liquid wastes 

into wells also greatly increases the potential 

for contamination of groundwater by 

shortening the pathway to the water table and 

supplying a medium of transport. Corrective 

actions and RCRA closures are planned for 

various NTS leachfields, ponds, and 

subsidence craters. All injection wells have 

been closed and remediated. 

9.3.2.1 RAINIER MESA TUNNEL PONDS 

Nuclear devices have been tested in 

horizontal tunnels mined into Rainier Mesa at 

the NTS. The tests were conducted in 

zeolitized volcanic tuffs which act as a 

perching layer for water infiltrating from the 

mesa surface. During normal mining 

operations, fractures containing water are 

intercepted, creating artificial springs in the 

tunnels. Periodically, these waters contained 

radionuclides from underground nuclear tests, 

and were drained out of the tunnels into 

unlined evaporation ponds. Mining and 

related operations also released organic 

compounds and heavy metals to the tunnel 

effluent. In 1994, N Tunnel and T Tunnel were 

plugged; at years end, E Tunnel was in the 

process of being plugged. During 1995, 

efforts to plug E Tunnel continued. 

9.3.2.2 SURFACE OPERATIONAL 

SUPPORT FACILITIES 

NTS operational support facilities such as 

ponds, sumps, lagoons, leachfields, and 

injection wells have been identified for 

assessment of contamination. Corrective 

actions and RCRA closures are being 

conducted to bring facilities into compliance 

with current regulations, characterize and 

remediate contaminated facilities, and close 

disposal sites. 

Corrective actions are being taken at NTS 

sewage lagoons, steam-cleaning pads, and 

decontamination facilities. Closed-loop 

steam-cleaning systems have been installed 

at steam-cleaning pads. A general 

wastewater discharge permit has been issued 

for the sewage lagoons. Liners will be placed 

in some of the sewage lagoons and a 

monitoring well is being installed at the Area 

23 sewage lagoons. In 1993, preparation of 

RVFS work plans for some facilities was 

initiated. As part of the RCRA site closure 

process, discharges of liquid wastes to 

injection wells, ponds, leachfields, and 

subsidence craters were discontinued. NTS 

facilities which were planned to be closed per 

RCRA, by DOUERD, are shown in Table 9.3. 

Of the facilities listed, the Area 27 Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal Facility was cleaned and 

closed in November 1994, and the Area 3 U3fi 

injection well and Area 23 Hazardous Waste 

Trench were closed in 1995. A monitoring 

well was drilled at an angle below the waste 

zone at the Area 3 U3fi and will be monitored 

for at least the next 10 years. 

9.4 HYDROLOGIC 

RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

PROGRAM 

The Hydrology/Radionuclide Migration 

Program has previously provided information 

and support on radionuclide and hazardous 
substance source terms, near-field hydrology, 

site hydrology, and contamination transport. 

Many of this program’s historic work elements, 

in particular, source characterization and 

subsurface transport of contaminants, have 

been assumed by AMEM and the UGTA 

Operable Unit. Accordingly, the name, 

mission, and objectives of this program have 

been redefined. The HRMP is now 

responsible for groundwater stewardship, 

hydrology and radionuclide characterization 

for operations support, and integrated 

monitoring. Previously established milestones 

have been extended due to the 1995 budget 

cuts. 

HRMP activities are conducted by agencies 

such as LLNL, Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL), U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS), and Desert Research Institute (DRI) 

with expertise in the sciences required to 

study the subsurface effects of the weapons 

testing program. Program organization is 

divided into four broad categories: (1) 

Program Coordination and Technical Support, 

(2) Operational Support, (3) Groundwater 

Protection, and (4) Groundwater Monitoring. 

9.4.1 PROGRAM COORDINATION 

AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT 

The primary purpose of the HRMP 

. coordination and technical support task was to 

carry out the many different activities of the 

HRMP that are not directly related to the 

individual research projects in the program. 

Such activities included attending program 

planning, review, and coordination meetings; 

writing, editing, and reviewing project reports, 

work plans, p.roposals, and other documents; 

providing radiation safety training; and 

processing security badge requests, 

conducting security briefings, and preparing 

security plans and regulations. These and 

other general administrative, programmatic, 

field, and laboratory support activities were 

performed as needed throughout 1995. The 

main objectives of the task are the planning, 

developing, managing, budgeting, and 

coordination of the HRMP. 

9.4.1 .l HYDROSTRATIGRAPHIC UNIT 

DELINEATION AT THE NEVADA TEST 

SITE 

Efforts were made at compiling a geologic, 

hydrogeologic, and hydrologic column for the 

NTS. Work on the hydrostratigraphic and 

lithostratigraphic units in Yucca Flat was 

completed and a first draft of the report was 

prepared for review. A thesis entitled 

“Hydrostratigraphic Units within the Alluvium 

and Tertiary Volcanics of East Central Yucca 

Flat, Nevada Test Site,” by Craig Shirley, was 

successfully defended. The thesis will 

become a DRI publication, scheduled for 

completion in 1996. Lithologic and 

geophysical log data from 46 boreholes in 

East Central Yucca Flat on the NTS were 

used to develop lithostratigraphic and 

hydrostratigraphic columns. Non-zeolitized 

volcanic lithostratigraphic units geologically 

correlate to hydrostratigraphic units. 

Zeolitized volcanic lithostratigraphic units are 

combined into a single hydrostratigraphic unit. 

No systematic trend of porosity or permeability 

was found in the alluvium which comprises the 

uppermost hydrostratigraphic unit. (Profiles of 

mean porosity vs. lithostratigraphic elevation 

for 11 lithostratigraphic units were presented.) 

Nuclear test cavities, rubble chimneys, and 

collapsed craters collectively comprise a 

fourth hydrostratigraphic unit. 

Another thesis, “Comparison and Correlation 

of Lithostratigraphic and Hydrostratigraphic 

Units of Southwest Area 20, Pahute Mesa, 

Nevada Test Site,” by Deborah Dale, will be 

completed as a DRI publication in FY 1996. 

Recognizing hydrogeologic units based strictly 

upon the lithostratigraphic boundaries of the 

host rock(s) assumes the groundwater flow 

potential of the rock will remain constant 

throughout the entire unit. This method of 

delineation overlooks potential variation in 

the hydrogeologic characteristics of the rock, 

which can cause fluctuations in the 

hydrogeologic unit’s ability to transmit water. 

Hydrostratigraphic units classify rock based 

upon its porosity and permeability, ignoring 

boundaries based upon age, lithology, and/or 

mode of deposition. In this study, a 

comparison of hydrostratigraphic and 
lithostratigraphic units within two exploratory 

wells on Pahute Mesa revealed sufficient 

variation in the unit-boundary locations to 

justify separation of these two types of 

stratigraphic units in future hydrogeologic 

investigations. 

9.4.1.2 RISK ASSESSMENT OF NEVADA 

TEST SITE GROUNDWATERS 

A paper entitled “Radionuclide Migration Using 

Travel Time Transport Approach and its 

Application in Risk Analysis,” by Andricevic et 

al., (DRI) was published in the Journal of 

Hydro/ogy. Evaluation of the potential impacts 

on public health from contaminants in 

groundwater is related to the estimation of the 

travel time of the contaminants migrating in 

the groundwater from the input zone to the 

accessible environment. Direct application to 

risk analysis for migrating radionuclides at the 

NTS revealed the importance and necessity of 

considering parameter uncertainty and its 

correlation in the application of the transport 

travel time approach. Migration of tritium, 

because of the lack of sorption, is found to 

provide the largest potential health risk to the 

accessible environment. The results from the 

risk-based screening analysis suggest that 

tritium has a short effective half-life (both 

physical and biological) and is responsible for 

about 90 percent of the total risk. 

9.4.2 OPERATIONAL SUPPORT 

Operational Support activities are designed to 

respond to environmental requirements of 

DOE Order 5400.1 and to provide hydrologic 

and radionuclide information to NTS testing 

and other operations. The activities 

emphasize hydrologic, environmental 

monitoring, and environmental restoration 

issues that are tied to weapons testing and its 

impacts. In addition, Operational Support 

activities complement NV-ERP studies and 

provide technical support for the management 

and operation of NTS groundwater monitoring 

programs. 

9.4.2.1. WATER-LEVEL ALTITUDES 

The USGS collects water-level elevation 

measurements in wells, emplacement holes, , 

and test holes to support operations at the 

NTS. These data along with other 

hydrogeologic data are maintained in a 

computerized database. Both historical and 

current data are used to produce water-table 

altitude maps to estimatethe depth to water at 

proposed weapons testing sites and to 

determine aquifer properties. 

9.4.2.2 YUCCA FLAT HYDROLOGY STUDY 

Unusually high hydraulic pressures observed 

in Yucca Flat present problems with respect to 

nuclear testing by increasing engineering and 

material costs and causing concern for 

radionuclide migration. Hydraulic information 

necessary to understand and to mitigate 

problems caused by the high pressure zone in 

Yucca Flat is being collected. 

The movement of groundwater within Yucca 

Flat is complex and not well understood. 

Generally, groundwater is thought to flow from 

the overlying Cenozoic hydrologic units 

downward into the underlying Paleozoic 

hydrologic units and then flows laterally in the 

Paleozoic units. This study uses historical as 

well as recently acquired NV-ERP 

groundwater-quality and isotopic data to 

model possible chemical reactions in the 

various hydrologic units and along several 

flowpaths. Preliminary modeling results from 

two flowpaths in Yucca Flat indicate that 

historical carbon-l 3 and carbon-l 4 

groundwater values collected from the same 

wells at different times and analyzed at 

different laboratories are highly variable. 

Preliminary modeling also indicates the need 

for detailed mineralogical characterization of 

solid-phase aquifer materials. Ongoing 

geochemical modeling efforts will attempt to 

constrain the effects of these issues. 

During 1995, the USGS collected and 

analyzed continuous water-level data in wells 

UEQce, UE-4t#l, UE-4t#2, UE-3e#4-1, UE3e#4-2, UE-3e#4-3, and U-3cn#5. A reduction 

in funding and loss of staff in 1995 

necessitated discontinuing this investigation; 

however, data collected during this study will 

benefit future studies of the high pressure 

area and can be used to analyze aquifer 

properties at a later date. 
9.4.2.3 EVALUATION OF AQUIFER 

PROPERTIES 

A study by the USGS has involved the 

analysis of water-level fluctuations in wells to 

determine aquifer properties and the related 

investigation of evaluating the suitability of 

transducer systems in measuring water-level 

fluctuations in deep wells and test holes under 

nonstressed conditions. The analysis of the 

frequency response of water levels in wells 

and test holes to earth tides, atmospheric 

loading, and to seismic events was 

discontinued due to reduction in funding and 

loss of project staff. Data collected at wells 

equipped with transducers were analyzed to 

determine if hydrologic properties of the 

hydrogeologic units at the NTS and vicinity 

could be determined by means other than 

conventional aquifer tests. Preliminary results 

show that at certain wells, such as WW-4a 

and U-3cn#5, hydrologic properties could be 

determined. An abstract of the techniques 

used at the NTS by the USGS-Hydrology 

Program was presented at a USGS 

conference. 

9.4.2.4 DRILLBACK ACTIVITIES AT 

NUCLEAR TEST SITES 

Stainless steel pressure tubes (bailers) have 

been used for many years to collect water 

samples down hole. During 1995, LANL 

designed and tested a modified bailer to 

remedy the problem of clogged inlet ports 

when sampling fluid high in particulates. In 

July 1995, the modified bailer was 

successfully field tested in the access tube at 

the BASEBALL site. LANL is working on the 

modification of several more bailers and 

expects to use them at sites where the fluid 

contains significant amounts of solids. 

9.4.2.5 PAHUTE MESA GROUNDWATER 

LEVELS 

During drilling at Pahute Mesa, water is often 

encountered in emplacement holes well above 

the predicted elevation of the local 

groundwater table. This water may originate 

as fluids introduced during drilling, from 

naturally perched groundwater draining into 

the borehole, or from penetration of the 

shallower-than-expected local groundwater 

table. In 1991, during drilling of the final 100 m 

of borehole U-19bh, a lithium-bromide (LiBr) 

tracer was added to drilling fluids. Analysis of 

tracer concentration in water in the 

emplacement hole after drilling suggests that 

this water originates from perched 

groundwater that lies above the bottom of the 

borehole. Br mass in U-19bh has changed 

little since fluid levels stabilized in the 

borehole in late summer 1991, indicating little 

or no movement of water out of the borehole. 

Although Pahute Mesa is widely considered to 

be a recharge area for the Oasis Valley and 

Alkalai Flat-Furnace Creek hydrologic 

subbasins, these investigations so far have 

been unable to find evidence of significant 

groundwater fluxes in certain emplacement 

holes. Preliminary results suggest that the 

shallow hydrologic system of Pahute Mesa 

consists of isolated, relatively stagnant bodies 

of water; therefore, any contamination found in 

this shallow system may not be mobile. 

Continued monitoring of tracer concentrations 

at the two sites will be important in confirming 

the surprising lack of mobility of elevated 

water bodies at Pahute Mesa. A DRI report 

(Hershey and Brikowski 1995) was published 

on this work. 

9.4.2.6 GROUNDWATER RECHARGE 

It is assumed that, because of the great depth 

to groundwater and the arid climate at the 

NTS, surface contamination and radionuclides 

from water table tests will not migrate through 

the unsaturated zone to the groundwater. 

However, few investigations have been 

conducted to verify this assumption that will 

most likely be questioned by environmental 

regulators in the future. The recharge of 

precipitation infiltrating to the water table is not 

believed to occur uniformly throughout the 

NTS region under the present climate. The 

present arid conditions limit groundwater 

recharge to higher-elevation mesas and to 

flash-flood events in major drainages. This 

ongoing study uses chemical and isotopic 

analyses of precipitation and groundwater to 

predict the composition of recharging waters 

and to reevaluate the apparent groundwater 

ages. The computer program NETPATH is 

9-l 1 I!%25 ASEF? jtBr tha M’S 
being used to calculate carbon-isotope mass 

balance and transfer to mineral, gas, 

andaqueous phases under assumed 

equilibrium conditions. Preliminary data 

searches and modeling simulations indicate 

that two important model input parameters, 

soil-gas carbon-l 3 and solid-phase soilcarbonate carbon-l 4 values are not 

sufficiently characterized at the NTS. 

Assuming possible carbon-isotope ranges for 

these parameters in the upper reaches of 

Forty-mile Wash for a surface-to-groundwater 

recharge distance of 30 m, preliminary 

modeling results suggest a recharge time 

ranging from approximately 300 to 2,500 

years. Modeling of recharge at Pahute Mesa 

is continuing. 

9.4.3 GROUNDWATER 

PROTECTION 

HRMP groundwater protection activities at the 

NTS range from evaluation of proposed 

emplacement holes to establishment of a 

wellhead protection program. A well 

development and maintenance program has 

been initiated to ensure reliability of the 

potable water supply, optimal location of new 

potable water wells, proper design and 

construction of new potable water wells, 

proper plugging of unusable wells, and the 

long-term reliability of monitoring wells to 

supply representative water samples. The 

HRMP also addresses compliance issues from 

time to time, such as provisions of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandating 

extensive protective activities around any 

public groundwater-supply system. 

9.4.3.1 RADIONUCLIDE TRANSPORT 

STUDIES 

Nuclear weapons testing at the NTS has 

caused radionuclide contamination of the 

groundwater in close proximity to these tests. 

Colloid transport, groundwater transport, and 

radionuclide distribution studies have been 

I undertaken to gain a better understanding of 

this process. A graduate student at LANL is 

currently involved in a laboratory study to 

validate a mathematical model of colloid 

transport and then apply this model to colloid 

transport at the NTS. In another study, a 

professor and students at University 

California, Berkeley are attempting to use 

the computer program TRACR3D to model. 

the elution of krypton from a pumped well 

(RNMPS) at the CAMBRIC site. The elution 

pattern of krypton is different from that of 

tritium, of which many studies have previously 

been conducted at that site. 

The USGS proposed a study during 1995 to 

investigate the potential for surface-water 

transport of radionuclides at the NTS, but the 

activity was discontinued due to funding 

reductions. 

In 1989, the INGOT event was fired in hole 

UPgg at a depth of 500 m beneath Yucca Flat 

at the NTS. In 1994, a satellite hole was 

drilled to within 10 m of the edge of the cavity 

at the depth of the working point. This hole 

was drilled intentionally outside of the cavity in 

the vadose zone to ensure that any observed 

radionuclide signatures would be the result of 

transport associated with the explosion and 

not transport by groundwater during or after 

the event. Results of studies conducted by 

LLNL suggest that some nuclear cavities may 

contain a surrounding region composed 

largely of volatile radionuclides that were 

transported in late time along fractures 

created by the nuclear explosion. If these 

radionuclides have been deposited on free 

surfaces, they may be available to 

groundwater through processes such as ion 

exchange, desorption, and surface-layer 

alteration associated with dissolution. 

9.4.4 GROUNDWATER 

MONITORING 

Groundwater monitoring at the NTS is an 

ongoing activity conducted by several different 

DOE/NV contractors and is conducted to 

satisfy environmental, health, and safety 

regulations of the state of Nevada,the EPA, 

and the DOE. Groundwater monitoring is also 

conducted to determine the presence and 

movement of radionuclides produced from 

underground nuclear testing. 

9.4.4.1 MONITORING OF 

GROUNDWATER LEVELS 

The USGS monitors groundwater levels in a 

network of 50 selected wells, test holes, and 

emplacement holes at the NTS and at 40 

other wells and test holes in areas adjacent to 
the NTS. These networks of selected wells 

allow for intermittent or continuous 

measurement of depth to water for the 

purpose of monitoring fluctuations in 

groundwater levels. 

During 1995, the USGS-Hydrology Program 

compiled water-use data using REECo water 

production reports from 14 wells. To more 

accurately monitor groundwater withdrawal at 

the NTS, seven water-supply wells were 

instrumented with flowmeters and dataloggers. 

The seven water-supply wells instrumented 

with this equipment included Water Wells 4, 

4A, J-l 2, UE-16d, C, C-l and Army #Il. 

9.4.4.2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING 

Groundwater samples from the NTS, when 

collected, are analyzed for radionuclides by 

LLNL, LANL, and the USGS [tritium analysis 

of USGS samples is done by the EPA’s 

Radiation Sciences Laboratory in Las Vegas, 

Nevada (RSL-LV)]. 

During 1995, LANL and LLNL personnel 

participated in efforts to obtain water from the 

cavity or chimney at two drill sites, U-4u ps2a 

and U-7ba pslas (the BASEBALL site). 

Efforts to collect water samples at U-4u ps2a 

were unsuccessful, but several samples were 

obtained from U-7ba pslas using the modified 

bailer LANL had developed. The collected 

water samples were split between LLNL and 

LANL laboratories, and the tritium content and 

gamma activity were measured. LANL’s 

results (shown in Table 9.4) indicated that 

despite the small-volume water samples, all of 

the radionuclides found when the drill-back 

holes were made in 1994 were found in this 

analysis. 

Results of LLNCs 1992/l 993 groundwater 

sampling and analysis campaign of over 30 

wells on the NTS helped identify offsite 

recharge and discharge centers as a focus for 

the 1995 sampling effort. Areas include 

Pahranagat Valley, Emigrant Valley, Ash 

Meadows, Oasis Valley and the U.S. Air Force 

(USAF) lands north of the NTS. Because of 

security, safety, and logistical concerns, USAF 

lands were inaccessible. However, samples 

were collected from 19 other spring and well 

sites outside the NTS boundaries. Analysis 

for environmental isotopes is scheduled for 

1996. 

9.5 LONG-TERM 

HYDROLOGICAL 

MONITORING PROGRAM 

The EPA’s RSL-LV is responsible for 

operation of the LTHMP, including sample 

collection, analysis, and data reporting. From 

the early 1950s until implementation of the . 

LTHMP in 1972, monitoring of ground and 

surface waters was done by the U.S. Public 

Health Service (PHS), the USGS, and the 

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 

contractor organizations. The LTHMP 

conducts routine radiological monitoring of 

specific wells on the NTS and of wells, 

springs, and surface waters in the offsite area 

around the NTS. In addition, samples are 

collected from sites in Nevada, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Mississippi, and Alaska where nuclear 

tests have been conducted. In 1965, tritium 

escaped from the LONG SHOT test on 

Amchitka Island and contaminated the 

groundwater. During cleanup and disposal 

operations, shallow groundwater at the Tatum 

Dome Test Site in Mississippi was 

contaminated by tritium. The tritium 

concentration in- water at both of these sites 

has steadily decreased and is well below the 

drinking water standard. 

A discussion of LTHMP sampling and analysis 

procedures and locations is provided below. 

Summaries of the 1995 sampling results for 

each of the offsite LTHMP locations is 

provided in Section 9.6. More detailed 

sampling results for the LTHMP will be 

published separately in the “Environmental 

Data Report for the Nevada Test Site - 1995,” 

(DOE/NV/l 1718-038, in prep.). 

9.5.1 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 

PROCEDURES 

Under standard operating procedures, three 

samples are collected from each source. Two 

samples are collected in 500-mL glass bottles 
to be analyzed for tritium. The results from 

one of these samples are reported while the 

other sample serves as a backup in case of 

loss or as a duplicate sample. The third 

sample is collected in a 3.8-L plastic container 

(Cubitainer). At LTHMP sites other than the 

NTS and vicinity, two Cubitainer samples are 

collected. One of these is analyzed by 

gamma spectrometry and the other is stored 

as a backup or for duplicate analysis. At a 

few locations, because of limited water supply, 

only 500-mL samples for tritium analysis are 

collected. 

For wells with operating pumps, the samples 

are collected at the nearest convenient outlet. 

If the well has no pump, a truck-mounted 

sampling unit is used. With this unit it is 

possible to collect 3-L samples from wells as 

deep as 1800 meters (5,900 ft). At the normal 

sample collection sites, the pH, conductivity, 

water temperature, and sampling depth are 

measured and recorded when the sample is 

collected. 

The first time samoles are’ collected from a 

well, *g%r, 238,23g+24dPu, and uranium isotopes 

are determined by radiochemistry. At least 

one of the Cubitainer samples from each site 

is analyzed by gamma spectrometry. If 

conventional tritium analysis results are close 

to or less than the minimum detectable 

concentration (MDC) of approximately 400 to 

700 pCilL (15 to 26 Bq/L), the sample is 

concentrated by electrolysis (i.e., enrichment) 

and reanalyzed. This enrichment reduces the 

MDC to approximately 5 to 7 pCi/L (0.2 to 0.26 

Bq/L) . 

9.52 ACTIVITIES ON AND 

AROUND THE NEVADA TEST SITE 

9.5.2.1 NEVADA TEST SITE MONITORING 

The present sample locations on the NTS, or 

immediately outside its borders on federally 

owned land, are shown in Figure 9.2. All 

sampling locations are selected by DOE and 

primarily represent potable water supplies. In 

1995, sampling on the NTS was reduced for 

EPA to only sample downhole wells and to 

collect ten percent of the potable wells 

sampled by REECo for quality assurance 

purposes. A total of 19 down holes was 

scheduled to be sampled semiannually and 

annually. Only 16 were sampled for various 

reasons. 

All samples were analyzed by gamma 

spectrometry and for tritium by the enrichment 

method. No gamma-emitting radionuclides 

were detected in any of the NTS samples 

collected in 1995. Summary results of tritium 

analyses are given in Table 9.5. The highest 

tritium activity was 3.27 x 1 O4 pCi/L (1210 

Bq/L) in a sample from Well UE-5n. This 

activity is less than 33 percent of the DCG for 

tritium established in DOE Order 5400.5 for 

comparison with the dose limit (4 mrem) in the 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 

Five of the wells sampled semiannually 

yielded tritium results greater than the MDC. 

The trend in tritium concentration in samples 

from Test Well B is shown in Figure 9.3 and is 

typical of a well with decreasing 

concentrations. 

Well UE-7ns was routinely sampled between 

1976 and 1987 and sampling began again in 

1992. An increasing trend in tritium activity 

was evident at the time sampling ceased in 

1987. Recent results have shown a decrease 

from those previous results. 

9.5.2.2 OFFSITE MONITORING IN THE 

VICINITY OF THE NEVADA TEST SITE 

The monitoring sites in the area around the 

NTS are shown in Figure 9.4. Most of the 

sampling locations represent drinking water 

sources for rural residents or public drinking 

water supplies for the communities in the 

area. The sampling locations include 12 

wells, 9 springs, and a surface water site. All 

of the locations are sampled quarterly or 

semiannually. 

9-14 
,, ml 

/ 

I__-_----- 3-1 

4’ r 

FL---.-- 

; 
-Blanks 

ov74 Olff8 01/82 Ok’86 omo 01/94 01/98 

Sample Collection Date 

Figure 9.3 Tritium Concentration Trends in Test Well B on the NTS 

Gamma spectrometric analyses are performed 

on the samples when collected. No gammaemitting radionuclides were detected in any 

sample. Tritium analyses are performed on a 

semiannual basis using the enrichment 

method. Adaven Spring was the only site 

consistently showing detectable tritium 

activity. The tritium activity in this spring 

represents environmental levels that have 

been decreasing over time. 

9.6 LTHMP AT OFF-NTS NUCLEAR 

DEVICE TEST LOCATIONS 

The LTHMP conducts sampling at sites of 

past nuclear device testing in other parts of 

the United States to ensure the safety of 

public drinking water supplies and, where 

suitable sampling points are available, to 

monitor any migration of radionuclides from 

the test cavity. Annual sampling of surface 

and ground waters is conducted at the 

Projects SHOAL and FAULTLESS sites in 

Nevada, the Projects GASBUGGY and 

f%irggASER kw the NTS 9-16 

GNOME sites in New Mexico, the Projects 

RULISON and RIO BLANC0 sites in 

Colorado, and the Project DRIBBLE site in 

Mississippi. Sampling was conducted in both 

the spring and fall to determine rainfall dilution 

of 3H concentration at the Mississippi site. 

Sampling is conducted in odd numbered years 

on the island of Amchitka, Alaska, site of 

Projects CANNIKIN, LONG SHOT, and 

MILROW. 

The sampling procedure is the same as that 

used for sites on the NTS and offsite areas 

(described -in Section 9.5.1), with the 

exception that two 3.8-L samples are collected 

in Cubitainers. The second sample serves as 

a backup or as a duplicate sample. 

Because of the variability noted in past years 

in samples from the shallow monitoring wells 

near Project DRIBBLE ground zero (GZ), the 

sampling procedure was modified several 

years ago. A second sample is taken after 

pumping for a specified period of time or after 

the well has been pumped dry and permitted 
ISharp’s Ranch 

l Adaven Springs 

l Twin Springs Rn. 

l Penoyer Culinary Well 

l Crystal Springs 

u Alamo 

City Well 4 

Cofkrs 1 lS/48E-ld 

Well 15S150E-18cdc 

\ n Springs 

\ 

N ‘\ 

l Crystal Pool 

n Spring 17Si50E-14cac 

i 

, ,f Well 18S15-i E-7db 

‘1 

‘\ 

\ 

\ 

S@shon,e 

.S@ring m ‘1 

\ 

Scale in Kihme 

LOCATION MAP 

Figure 9.4 Wells Outside the NTS included in the LTHMP 

9-17 
to recharge with water. These second 

samples may be representative of formation 

water, whereas the first samples may be more 

indicative of recent rainfall. 

’ 9.6.1 PROJECTFAULTLESS‘ 

Project FAULTLESS was a “calibration test” 

conducted on January 19, 1968, in a sparsely 

populated area near Blue Jay Maintenance 

Station, Nevada. The test had a yield of less 

than 1 megaton (Mt) and was designed to test 

the behavior of seismic waves and to 

determine the usefulness of the site for highyield tests. The emplacement depth was 975 

m (3199 ft). A surface crater was created, but 

as an irregular block along local faults rather 

than as a saucer-shaped depression. 

Sampling was conducted on March 1 - 3, 

1995, at locations shown in Figure 9.5 which 

include one spring and five wells of varying 

depths. All of these locations are being used 

as, or are suitable for, drinking water supplies. 

At least two wells (HTH-1 and HTHQ) are 

positioned to intercept potential migration from 

the test cavity (Chapman and Hokett, 1991). 

All samples yielded negligible gamma activity. 

There was no tritium activity above the MDC. 

Six-mile well was not sampled due to an 

inoperative pump. 

9.6.2 PROJECT SHOAL 

Project SHOAL, a 12-kiloton (kt) test 

emplaced at 365 m (1198 ft), was conducted 

on October 26, 1963, in a sparsely populated 

area near Frenchman Station, Nevada. The 

test, part of the Vela Uniform Program, was 

designed to investigate detection of a nuclear 

detonation in an active earthquake zone. The 

working point was in granite, and no surface 

crater was created. Sampling was conducted 

February 27 - 28,. 1995. The routine sampling 

locations (see Figure 9.6) include one spring, 

one windmill, and five wells of varying depths. 

Six of these seven sampling locations were 

sampled. At least one location, Well HS-1, 

should intercept radioactivity migrating from 

the test cavity (Chapman and Hokett, 1991). 

No gamma.activity was detected in any of the 

samples. A tritium result of 39 * 3.8 pCi/L (1.4 

* 0.14 Bq/L), 0.02 percent of the DCG, 

was detected in the water sample from 

Smith/James Spring, but all remaining 

samples yielded tritium results less than the 

MDC. The result for Smith/James Springs is 

consistent with values obtained in previous 

years, as shown in Figure 9.7. The most 

probable source of this tritium is assumed to 

be rainwater infiltration, not. the Project 

SHOAL cavity. 

9.6.3 PROJEeP RULISON 

Cosponsored by the AEC and Austral Oil 

Company under the Plowshare Program, 

Project RULISON was designed to stimulate 

natural gas recovery in the Mesa Verde 

formation. The test, conducted near Grand 

Valley, Colorado on September 10, 1969, 

consisted of a 40-kt nuclear explosive 

emplaced at a depth of 2568 m (8425 ,ft). 

Production testing began in 1970 and was 

completed in April 1971. Cleanup was 

initiated in 1972 and the wells were plugged in 

1976. Some surface contamination resulted 

from decontamination of drilling equipment 

and fallout from gas flaring. Contaminated soil 

was removed during the cleanup operations. 

Sampling was conducted June 13, 1995, with 

collection of nine samples in the area of Grand 

Valley and Rulison, Colorado. Routine 

sampling locations, shown in Figure 9.8, 

include the Grand Valley municipal drinking 

water supply springs, water supply wells for 

five local ranches, and three sites in the 

vicinity of GZ, including one test well, a 

surface-discharge spring, and a surface 

sampling location on Battlement Creek. An 

analysis of the sampling locations indicated 

that none are likely to detect ‘migration of 

radionuclides from the test cavity (Chapman 

and Hokett, 1991). 

Tritium has never been observed in 

measurable concentrations in the Grand 

Valley City Springs. All of the remaining 

sampling sites show detectable levels of 

tritium, which have generally exhibited a 

stable or decreasing trend over the last two 

decades. The range of tritium activity in 1995 

was from 54 * 3.9 pCi/L (2.0 Bq/L) at 

Battlement Creek, to 85 * 4.5 pCi/L (3.1 Bq/L) 

at Lee Hayward Ranch. All values were 
/’ 

/I 

* n HTH2 

\rnHTH 1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

1; 

, I / 

/* i 

/’ ; 

; -. 

/’ 

// i 

,;-,f-.-- 

, 

/ 

\ i 

---, /’ \ I \ , \ / \ I -\ I -*/’ 

H;aFcrk 1 

, Six-Mile Well 

I 

, 

I 

1 

I 

/ 

I 

; 

q 

Jim Bias W$l 

; (Blue Jay Springs 

; 

; 

N /I 

/I 

/I 

i 

; 

I 

* Sutfaoe Ground Zero 

q Water Samplln$ Locations 

q Not Sampled &is year 

Scale in Miles 5 

Scale in Kilometers 

LOCATKIN MAP 

Figure 9.5 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project FAULTLESS - 1995 

9-I 9 
_...._... ..-.-- .____ 

Flowing Well n 

H-3 i 

Hunt’s Station n * l HS-1 

* Surface Ground Zero 

n Water Sahpliqg Locations 

H Not Sampled this year 

Scale in Miles 

0 5 IO 15 

Scale in Kilametsrs 

LOCATION MAP 

Figure 9.6 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project SHOAL - 1995 
9.0 GROUlVl3WA7EF? t=#?OTECTTON 

--J. 60’ 

0 i i 2% 50: 

E : 

:s 40: 

I= If 

30: 30: 

20: 

10: 10: x x X 

x x X ’ x-Blanks 

o:, 0 . . . , , . . , , , . , ( * , . * , , , . ,_ j 

01/01/88 01/01/90 Ol/Oi/92 01/01/94 01/01/96 

Sample Collection Date 

Figure 9.7 Tritium Results in Water from Smith/James Spring, Nevada 

less than one percent of the DCG. The 

detectable tritium activities are probably a 

result of the high natural background in the 

area. This is supported by the DRI analysis, 

which indicated that most of the sampling 

locations are shallow, drawing water from the 

surficial aquifer which is unlikely to become 

contaminated by any radionuclides arising 

from the Project RULISON cavity (Chapman 

and Hokett, 1991). 

9.6.4 PROJECT RIO BLANC0 

Project RIO BLANC0 was a joint governmentindustry test designed to stimulate natural gas 

flow and was conducted under the Plowshare 

Program. The test was conducted on May 17, 

1973, at a location between Rifle and Meeker, 

Colorado, using three explosives with a total 

yield of 99 kt emplaced at 1780-, 1920-, and 

2040-m (5840-, 6299-, and 6693-ft) depths in 

the Fort Union and Mesa Verde formations. 

Production testing continued to 1976 when 

cleanup and restoration activities were 

completed. Tritiated water produced during 

testing was injected to 1710 m (5610 ft) in a 

nearby gas well. 

Samples were collected June 14 - 15, 1995 

from the sampling sites, shown in Figure 9.9, 

which include two shallow supply wells, six 

surface water sites along Fawn Creek, three 

springs, and three wells located near the 

cavity. At least two of the wells (Wells RB-D01 and RB-D-03) are suitable for monitoring 

possible migration of radioactivity from the test 

cavity. There is no statistically significant 

difference between sites located upstream 

and downstream of the cavity area. There 

was no detectable tritium in the three 

monitoring wells, indicating migration from the 

test cavity has not been detected. No gamma 

activity was detected in any sample. 

9.6.5 PROJECT GNOME 

Project GNOME, conducted on December 10, 

1961, near Carlsbad, New Mexico, was a 

multipurpose test performed in a salt 
Potter Ranch 

N 

i 

* Surface Ground Zero 

W Water Sampling Locations 

Pe, 

a a 

Scala in Kilometers 

LOCATION MAP 

Figure 9.8 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project RULISON - 1995 
00’ Downstream 

RIO BLANC0 COUNTY 

--------------------------------------------- 

GARFIELD COUNTY 

LOCATION MAP 

1111 Water Sampling Locations 

Scale in Kilomelen 

Figure 9.9 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project RIO BLANCO, Colorado 

9-23 
formation. A slightly more than 3-kt nuclear 

explosive was emplaced at 371 m (1217 ft) 

depth in the Salado salt formation. 

Radioactive gases were unexpectedly vented 

during the test. The USGS conducted a tracer 

study in 1963, involving injection of 20 Ci 3H, 

10 Ci 13’Cs, 10 Ci %r, and 4 Ci 13’ I (27, 14, 

14, and 5.5 GBq respectively) into Well 

USGS-8 and pumping water from Well USGS4. During cleanup activities in 1968-69, 

contaminated material was placed in the test 

cavity access well. More material was slurried 

into the cavity and drifts in 1979. 

Sampling at Project GNOME was conducted 

June 22 - 25, 1995. The routine sampling 

sites, depicted in Figure 9.10, include nine 

monitoring wells in the vicinity of GZ, and the 

municipal supplies at Loving and Carlsbad, 

New Mexico. Stock tanks at PHS 8, PHS 9, 

and PHS 10, were sampled at the request of 

DOE. Tritium results from stock tank PHS 8 

were greater than the MDC. The remaining 

two were below the MDC. 

Tritium results greater than the MDC were 

detected in water samples from seven of the 

nine sampling locations in the immediate 

vicinity of GZ. Tritium activities in Wells DD-1, 

LRL-7, USGS-4, and USGS-8 ranged from 

1.04 f lo4 pCi/L (385 Bq/L) in Well LRL-7 to 

8.58 x 10’ pCi/L (3.2 MBq/L) in Well DD-1. 

Well DD-1 collects water from the test cavity, 

Well LRL-7 collects water from a sidedrift, and 

Wells USGS-4 and -8 were used in the 

radionuclide tracer study conducted by the 

USGS. None of these wells supply potable 

water. In addition to tritium, 13’Cs 

concentrations were observed in samples 

from Wells DD-1, LRL-7, and USGS-8, while 

%r activity was detected in Wells DD-1, 

USGS-4 and USGS-8. The remaining two 

wells with detectable tritium concentrations 

were PHS wells 6 and 8, with results less than 

3 0.02 percent of the DCG. No tritium was 

detected in the remaining sampling locations, 

including Well USGS-l, which the DRI 

analysis (Chapman and Hokett, 1991) 

indicated is positioned to detect any migration 

of radioactivity from the cavity. 

9.6.6 PROJECT GASBUGGY 

Project GASBUGGY was a Plowshare 

Program test co-sponsored by the U.S. 

Government and El Paso Natural Gas. 

Conducted near Farmington, New Mexico on 

December 10, 1967, the test was designed to 

stimulate a low productivity natural gas 

reservoir. A nuclear explosive with a 29-M 

yield was emplaced at a depth of 1290 m 

(4240 f-t). Production testing was completed in 

1976 and restoration activities were completed 

in July 1978. 

Sampling at GASBUGGY was conducted June 

17 - 19, 1995. The 12 routine sampling 

locations included 6 wells, 1 windmill, 3 springs, 

and 2 surface water sites, as depicted in 

Figure 9.11. The two surface water sampling 

sites and three springs yielded tritium 

activities that were less than 0.02 percent of 

the DCG, similar to the activity seen in 

previous years. Tritium activities in two 

shallow wells which were sampled this year 

varied from 1.3 to 7.0 * 2.8 pCi/L (0.05 to 0.26 

Bq/L). Bixler Ranch was closed and was not 

sampled. The pump at Windmill 233 South 

was removed and Windmill 343 North was 

inoperative. 

Well EPNG 10-36, a well located 132 m (435 

ft) northwest of the test cavity with a sampling 

depth of approximately 1100 m (3600 ft), had 

yielded tritium activities between 100 and 560 

pCi/L (3.7 and 21 Bq/L) in the years since 

1984. The tritium activity is roughly the same 

as observed in 1994. Samples from various 

depths were collected in 1995. These 

samples yielded tritium activities from 9.4 f 

3.9 to 127 f 5.5 pCi/L at 1900’ (0.35 to 4.7 

Bq/L) . 

The presence of fission products in samples 

collected in 1995 from EPNG 1 O-36 confirms 

that migration from the Project GASBUGGY 

cavity has occurred. The migration 

mechanism and route are not currently known, 

although an analysis by DRI indicated two 

feasible routes, one through the Painted Cliffs 

sandstone and the other through the Ojo 

Alamo sandstone, one of the principal aquifers 
Carlsbad 

Carlsbad 

zi 7 q 

PHS Well 6 E 

PHS Well IO 

N 

i 

LOCATION MAP 

EDDY 

COUNTY 

Scale in Miles 

Figure 9.10 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project GNOME - 1995 

lQ95ASEf? far ihe M’S 
Bixler Ranch 111 

Well 30.3.32.343N 

To Blanco & 

E La Jara Creek 

Cedar Springs q 

Cave Springs q 

Jicarilla Well 1 

Arnold Ranch q 

•l Well 28.3.33.233 (South) 

* Surface Ground Zero 

81 Water Sampling Locations 

CATION MAP 

o”“““‘“” 

0 Scale in Kilometem 8 

Figure 9.11 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project GASBUGGY - 1995 
in the region (Chapman and Hokett, 1991). In 

either case, fractures extending from the 

cavity may be the primary or a contributing 

mechanism. 

9.6.7 PROJECT DRIBBLE 

Project DRIBBLE was comprised of two 

nuclear and two gas explosive tests, 

conducted in the SALMON Test Site area of 

Mississippi under the Vela Uniform Program. 

The purpose of Project DRIBBLE was to study 

the effects of decoupling on seismic signals 

produced by nuclear explosives tests. The 

first test, SALMON, was a nuclear device with 

a yield of about 5 kt, detonated on October 22, 

1964, at a depth of 826 m (2710 ft). This test 

created the cavity used for the subsequent 

tests, including STERLING, a nuclear test 

conducted on December 3, 1966, with a yield 

of 380 tons, and the two gas explosions, 

DIODE TUBE (on February 2, 1969) and 

HUMID WATER (on April 19, 1970). The. 

ground surface and shallow groundwater 

aquifers were contaminated by disposal of 

drilling muds and fluids in surface pits: The 

radioactive contamination was primarily limited 

to the unsaturated zone and upper, 

nonpotable aquifers. Shallow wells, labeled 

HMH wells on Figure 9.12, have been added 

to the area near surface GZ to monitor this 

contamination. In addition to the monitoring 

wells near GZ, extensive sampling of water 

wells is conducted in the nearby offsite area 

as shown in Figure 9.13. 

A total of 164 samples was collected on and in 

the vicinity of the SALMON Test Site in April 

1995. In the 52 samples collected from offsite 

sampling locations, tritium activities ranged 

from less than the MOC to 33 pCi/L (1.2 Bq/L), 

0.02 percent of the OCG. These results do 

not exceed the natural tritium activity expected 

in rainwater in the area. In general, results for 

each location were similar to results obtained 

in previous years. Long-term decreasing 

trends in tritium concentrations are evident 

only for a few locations, such as the 

Baxterville City Well, depicted in Figure 9.14. 

Due to the high rainfall in the area, the normal 

sampling.procedure is modified for the shallow 

onsite wells as described in Section 9.6. Of 

the 32 locations sampled onsite (20 sites 

sampled twice), all yielded tritium activities 

greater than the MDC in either the first or 

second sample. Of these, nine yielded results 

higher than normal background [approximately 

60 pCi/L (2.2 Bq/L)] as shown in Table 9.1. 

The locations where the highest tritium 

activities were measured generally correspond 

to areas of known contamination. Decreasing 

trends are evident for the wells where high 

tritium activities have been found, such as 

Well HM-S depicted in Figure 9.15. No tritium 

concentrations above normal background 

values were detected in any offsite samples. 

Man-made gamma-ray emitting radionuclides 

were not detected in any sample collected in 

this study. 

Results of sampling related to Project 

DRIBBLE are discussed in greater detail in the 

Onsite and Offsite Environmental Monitoring 

Report, “Radiation Monitoring around 

SALMON Test Site,” Lamar County, 

Mississippi, April 1995 (available from RSLLV). 

9.6.8 AMCHITKA ISLAND, ALASKA 

Sampling is normally conducted every two 

years but a low budget prevented collection 

during 1995. The next sampling is scheduled 

for 1997. 
L 

its 

HMU 

l 

* Surface Ground Zero 

n Surface Water 

A HMH Holes 

* Wells 

0 Sods in Feet 500 

Figure 9.12 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project DRIBBLE, Near Ground Zero - 1995 
18. Dennis 

IM. Dennis 

1 Columbia City Little Creek ?&I 

il Ray’s Crawfish Pond 

Salt Dome Timber Co. 

Figure 9.13 LTHMP Sampling Locations for Project DRIBBLE, Towns ana Heslaences - 1995 

9-29 l&35 ASER lbr the NT-S 
l/72 01/76 01 /a0 01/84 01/88 01192 01 

Sample Collect ion Date 

llanks 

16 

Figure 9.14 Tritium Results Trends in Baxterville, MS Public Drinking Water Supply - 1995 

40000 1 

Tritium vs Normal Tritium Decay 

:H 

J 

30000: 

2- 

on 

; 20000: 

3 .- 

.z 

I1 

i 

I 

ilanks 

01181 01184 01187 01190 

Sample Collection Date 

01193 01196 

Figure 9.15 Tritium Results in Well HM-S, SALMON Site, Project DRIBBLE - 1995 
Table 9.1 Locations With Detectable Man-Made Radioactivity in 1995 ca) 

Concentration 

Samplina Location Radionuclide x 1 O‘guCi/mL 

NTS Onsite Network 

Well PM-1 3H 

Well UE-5n 3H 

Well UE-6d 3H 

Well UE-7ns 3H 

Well UE-18t 3H 

Project DRIBBLE, Mississippi (b) 

Well HMH-1 3H 470 

Well HMHP 3H 3600 

Well HMH-5 3H 2400 

Well HM-L 3H 1700 

Well HM-S ’ 3H 5100 

Half .Moon Creek Overflow 3H 200 

220 

3.3 x lo4 

900 

1300 

190 

Project GASBUGGY, New Mexico 

Well EPNG lo-36 3H 130 

Project GNOME, New Mexico 

Well DD-1 3H 

%r 

137& s 

8.6 x 10’ 

1.1 x104 

7.5 x lo5 

Well LRL-7 3H 1.0 x lo4 

137cs 1.6 x 10’ 

%r <22 

Well USGS-4 3H 8.3 x lo4 

?Sr 5.9 x lo3 

137cs ~5.2 

Well USGS-8 3H 8.1 x lo4 

+Sr 4.2 x lo3 

‘37cs co.12 

(a) Only 3H concentrations greater than 0.2 percent of the 4 mrem DCG are shown {i.e., 

greater than 1.6 x 19’ uCi/mL [160 pCi/L (6 Bq/L)]}. Detectable levels of other man-made 

radioisotopes are also shown. 

(b) Project DRIBBLE wells were sampled in April 1995. 
Table 9.2 Groundwater Monitoring Parameters at the RWMS-5 

Parameters Determinina Suitabilitv of Groundwater 

Total and Dissolved Metals - As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ag, Pb, Se 

Total and Dissolved Gross Alpha/Beta 

Parameters Establishina Water Quality 

Chloride 

Total and Dissolved Fe, Mn, Na 

Phenols 

Sulfate 

Indicators of Contamination 

PH 

Conductivity 

Total Organic Carbon 

Total Organic Halogen 

Additional Selected Parameters 

Volatile Organics (8270) 

Tritium 

Table 9.3 NTS Facilities with RCRA Closure Plans 

Area Desianation 

Area 2 

Area 2 

Area 3 

Area 6 

Area 6 

Area 23 

Area 23 

Area 27 

Bitcutter Shop & LLNL Post Shot Shop 

U-2bu Subsidence Crater 

U3fi Injection Well [closed] 

Decontamination Facility Evaporation Pond 

Steam Cleaning Effluent Pond 

Building 650 Leachfield 

Hazardous Waste Trenches [closed] 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Facility [closed] 

Table 9.4 Sample Activities from U-7ba psl as 

Measured H-3 cs-137 

Depth (m) (BqlmL) 0 

366 4.6 x 10’ 1.6 x 10’ 

427 6.4 x lo2 2.6 x 10’ 

488 8.2 x lo2 3.8 x 10’ 

549 1.9 x lo3 3.3 x 10’ 

584 3.6 x lo3 6.2 x 10’ 

Co-60 

fEQ&.l 

4.2 x 10’ 

6.6 x 10’ 

4.2 x 10’ 

1.2 x lo2 

Sb-125 

B&l 

3.9 x 10’ 

5.9 x 10’ 

4.5 x 10’ 

1.1 x lo2 

Eu-155 

(Ba/a) 

2.4 x 10’ 

3.8 x 10’ 

2.4 x 10’ 

7.2 x lo2 
Table 9.5 Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program Summary of Tritium Results for Nevada 

Test Site Network, 1995 

. . ntlumConcentratlon(oCI/L\ 

Location Number Maximum 

Well UE-6d 

Well UE-6e 

Well UE-7ns 

Well UE-16f 

Well UE-18r 

Well UE-18t 

Well 6A Army 

Well HTH-1 

Well PM-1 

Well U3cn-5 

Well UE-lc 

Well UE-15d 

Well HTH-F 

Well C 

Well Cl 

Well 1 Army 

Well 58 

Well 5C 

Well UE 5n 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

2 

3 

2 

670 

21 

550 

16 

0.92 

190 

18 

27 

220 

4.3 

11 

3.3 

0.63 

5.1 

2.3 

33000 

Arithmetic Mean Mean 

Minimum !!l!mo .1 as MDC; 

670 670 11 

13 16 2.1 

550 550 4.6 

16 16 1.6 

0.92 0.92 1.3 

190 190 3.0 

4.0 12 3.9 

27 27 1.6 

220 220 3.1 

Inaccessible 

0.53 2.4 1.7 

Pump inoperative 

Pump inoperative 

11 11 1.6 

3.3 3.3 1.6 

0.63 0.63 1.4 

2.7 3.9 1.8 

1.7 2.1 1.6 

23000 28000 220 

0.76 6.1 

0.02 6.4 

0.61 5.2 

0.02 4.9 

NA 4.2 

0.21 5.4 

0.01 6.1 

0.03 4.5 

0.25 5.0 

NA 5.7 

0.01 4.8 

0.01 5.1 

NA 4.4 

NA 5.7 

NA 5.6 

31 430 

Conventional and/or enrichment tritium analysis techniques were used for the samples summarized in 

this table. 

DCG Derived Concentration Guide; established by DOE Order 5400.5 as. 90,000 pCi/L for water. 

NA Not-applicable; percent of concentration guide is not applicable as the tritium result is less than the 

MDC or the water is known to be nonpotable. 

n -A A--- *a-- * .L _ .-- 

10.0 LABORATORY QUALITY ASSURANCE 

It is the policy of DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) that all data 

produced for its environmental surveillance and effluent monitoring programs 

be of known quality. Therefore, a quality assurance (QA) program is used for 

collection and analysis of samples for radiological and nonradiological 

parameters to ensure that data produced by the laboratory meets customer and 

regulatory defined requirements. Data quality is assured through processbased QA, procedure-specific QA, data quality objectives (DQOs), and 

performance evaluation programs. The external QA program for radiological 

data consists of participation in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Quality 

Assessment Program (QAP) administered by the DOE Environmental 

Measurements Laboratory (EML), and the Performance Evaluation Studies 

Program (PESP) conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

National Exposure Research Laboratory in Las Vegas (NERL-LV). The 

radiological external QA program also consists of participation in the DOE 

Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP) Radiobioassay In-Vitro study 

administered by DOE; the Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL) 

radiobioassay study conducted by ORNL in Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and the 

Tritium Enrichment program sponsored by the DOE/NV Environmental 

Protection Division (EPD). The QA program for nonradiological data was 

accomplished by using commercial laboratories with appropriate certification 

or accreditation by state or government agencies. 

The environmental surveillance program off the Nevada Test Site (NTS) was 

conducted by Radiation Sciences Laboratory-Las Vegas (RSL-LV). The QA 

program developed by RSL-LV for the Offsite Radiological Safety Program 

(ORSP) meets all requirements of EPA policy, and also includes applicable 

elements of the DOE/NV QA requirements and regulations. The ORSP QA 

program defines DQOs, which are statements of the quality of data a decision 

maker needs to ensure that a decision based on that data is defensible. 

10.1 POLICY 

El nvironmental surveillance, 

conducted onsite by Reynolds 

Electrical & Engineering Company, 

Inc., (REECo) and offsite by EPA’s 

RSL-LV, is governed by DOE QA policy as set 

forth in DOE Order 5700.6C. The Order 

outlines 10 specific elements that must be 

considered for compliance with the QA policy. 

These elements are: 

. Program 

. Personnel Training & Qualification 

l Quality Improvement 

. Documents and Records 

l Work Processes 

l Design 

. Procurement 

. Data Acceptance and Review 

l Management Assessment 

l Independent Assessment 

In addition, RSL-LV’meets the EPA policy 

which states that all decisions which are 

dependent on environmental data must be 

supported by data of known quality. EPA 

policy requires participation in a centrally 

managed QA program by all EPA elements as 

well as those monitoring and measurement 

efforts supported or mandated through 

contracts, regulations, or other formalized 

agreements. Further, EPA policy requires 
participation in a QA program by all EPA 

organizational units involved in environmental 

data collection. The QA policies and 

requirements of RSL-LV are summarized in 

the “Quality Management Plan” (EPA 1994a). 

Policies and requirements specific to the 

ORSP are documented in the “Quality 

Assurance Program Plan for the Nuclear 

Radiation Assessment Division Offsite 

Radiation Safety Program” (EPA 1992b). The 

requirements of these documents establish a 

framework for consistency in the continuing 

application of QA standards and implementing 

procedures in support of the ORSP. 

Administrative and technical implementing 

procedures based on these QA requirements 

are maintained in appropriate manuals or are 

described in standard operating procedures 

(SOP) of the RSL-LV, Radiation Science 

Division (RSD). 

10.2 OVERVIEW OF THE 

LABORATORY QA PROGRAM 

The REECo Analytical Services Department 

(ASD) implements the requirements of DOE 

Order 5700.6C, “Quality Assurance,” through 

integrated quality procedures. The quality of 

data and results is assured through both 

process-based and procedure-specific QA. 

Procedure-specific QA begins with the 

development and implementation of SOPS 

which contain the analytical methodologies 

and required quality control samples for a 

given analysis. Personnel performing a given 

analysis are trained and qualified for that 

analysis, including the successful analysis of 

a quality control sample. Analysis-specific 

operational checks and calibration standards 

traceable to either the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST) or the EPA 

are required. Quality control samples, e.g., 

spikes, blanks, and replicates, are included for 

each analytical procedure. Compliance to 

analytical procedures is measured through 

procedure specific assessments or;1 

surveillances. 

An essential component of process-based 

quality assurance is data review and 

verification to assess data usability. Data 

review requires a systematic, independent 

review against pre-established criteria to verify 

that the data are valid for their intended use. 

Initial data processing is performed by the 

analyst or health physicist generating the 

data. An independent review is then 

performed by another analyst or health 

physicist to ensure that data processing has 

been correctly performed and -that the 

reported analytical results correspond to the 

data acquired and processed. Data checks 

are made for internal consistency, proper 

identification, transmittal errors, calculation 

errors, and transcription errors. Supervisory 

review of data is required prior to release of 

the data to sample management personnel for 

data verification. Data verification ensures 

that the reported results correctly represent 

the sampling and/or analyses performed, and 

includes assessment of quality control sample 

results. Data processing by sample 

management personnel ensures that 

analytical results meet project requirements. 

Data discrepancies identified during the data 

review and verification process are 

documented on data discrepancy reports 

(DDRs). DDRs are reviewed and compiled 

quarterly to discern systematic problems. 

Process-based quality assurance programs 

also include periodic operational checks of 

analytical parameters such as reagent water 

quality and storage temperatures. Periodic 

calibration is required for all measuring 

equipment such as analytical balances, 

analytical weights, and thermometers. The 

overall effectiveness of the quality assurance 

program is determined through systematic 

assessments of analytical activities. 

Systematic problems are documented and 

corrective actions tracked through System 

Deficiency Reports. 

Similar procedures and methodologies are 

used by RSL-LV to ensure the quality of 

environmental radiological data collected off 

the NTS. 
10.3 DATA AND 

MEASUREMENT QUALITY 

OBJECTIVES 

10.3.1 DATA QUALITY 

OBJECTIVES 

DQOs delineate the circumstances under 

which measurements are made, and define 

the acceptable variability in the measured 

data. DQOs are based on the decision(s) to 

be made, the range of sampling possibilities, 

what measurements will be made, where the 

samples will be taken, how the measurements 

will be used, and what calculations will be 

performed on the measurement data to arrive 

at the final desired result(s). Associated 

measurement quality objectives (MQOs), 

which define acceptable variability in the 

measured.data, are established to ensure the 

quality of the measurements. 

10.3.1 .I DECISIONS TO BE MADE 

The primary decisions to be made, based on 

radiological environmental surveillance 

measurements, are whether, due to NTS 

activities: (1) any member of the general 

public, outside the site boundaries, receives 

an effective dose equivalent (EDE) that 

exceeds regulatory limits; (2) there is 

detectable contamination of the environment; 

or (3) there is a biological effect. A potential 

EDE to a member of the public from NTS 

activities is much more likely to be due to 

inhalation or ingestion of radionuclides which 

have reached the person through one or more 

pathways, such as transport through the air 

(inhalation exposure), or through water and/or 

foodstuffs (ingestion exposure), than to be 

due to external exposure. A pathway may be 

quite complex; e.g., the food pathway could 

include airborne radioactivity falling on soil 

and plants, also being absorbed by plants, 

which are eaten by an animal, which is then 

eaten by a member of the public. At the NTS, 

because of the depth of aquifers, negligible 

horizontal or vertical transport, lack of surface 

water flows and little rain, very sparse 

vegetation and animal populations, lack of 

food grown for human consumption, and large 

distances to the nearest member of the public, 

the airborne pathway is by far the most 

important for a possible EDE to a member of 

the public. 

Decisions made based on nonradiological 

data are related to waste characterization, 

extent and characterization of spills, 

compliance with regulatory limits for 

environmental contaminants, and possible 

worker exposure(s). 

10.3.1.2 RANGE OF SAMPLING 

POSSIBILITIES 

Determination of the numbers, types, and 

locations of radiological sampling stations is 

based on factors such as the location of 

possible sources, isotopes of concern, wind 

and weather patterns, the geographical 

distribution of human populations, the levels of 

risk involved, the desired sensitivity of the 

measurements, physical accessibility to 

sampling locations, and financial constraints. 

The numbers, types, and location of 

nonradiological samples are typically defined 

by regulatory actions on the NTS and are 

determined by environmental compliance or 

waste operations activities. Work place and 

personnel monitoring to determine possible 

worker exposures is conducted by Health 

Protection Department (HPD) Industrial 

Hygienists and Health Physicists. 

10.3.1.3 MEASUREMENTS TO BE MADE 

Radioanalyses are made of air, water, or other 

media samples to determine the types and 

amounts of radioactivity in them. These 

measurements are then converted to 

radioactivity concentrations by dividing by the 

sample volume or weight, which is measured 

separately. Nonradiological inorganic or 

organic constituents in air, water, soil, and 

sludge samples are analyzed and reported by 

commercial laboratories under contract to 

REECo. Methods and procedures used to 

measure possible worker exposures to 

nonradiological hazards are defined by 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration or National Institute of 

Occupational Safety and Health protocols. 

Typical contaminants for which HPD 

personnel collect samples and request 

1 o-3 l&X ASB? ibr th A/l74 
analyses are asbestos, solvents, and welding 

metals. Sample media which are analyzed 

include urine, blood, air filters, charcoal tubes, 

and bulk asbestos. 

10.3.1.4 SAMPLING LOCATIONS 

The locations of routine radiological 

environmental surveillance sampling both on 

and off the NTS are described in Chapters 4 

and 5 of this Report. Onsite sampling 

methodologies are described in REECo’s 

Environmental Section SOPS, and offsite 

methodologies by similar RSL-LV procedures. 

The locations of nonradiological environmental 

sampling and monitoring are determined 

through site remediation and characterization 

activities and by permit requirements. 

10.3.1.5 USE OF THE MEASUREMENTS 

There are several techniques to estimate the 

EDE to a member of the public. One 

technique is to measure the radionuclide 

concentrations at the location(s) of interest 

and use established methodologies to 

estimate the EDE a person at that location 

could receive. Another technique is to 

measure radionuclide concentrations at 

specific points within the site and to use 

established models to calculate 

concentrations at other offsite locations of 

interest. The potential EDE to a person at 

such a location could then be estimated. This 

second technique is the one used for most of 

the environmental surveillance data measured 

at the NTS. 

10.3.1.6 CALCULATIONS TO BE 

PERFORMED 

The EDE of greatest interest is the EDE to the 

maximally exposed individual (MEI). The MEI 

is located where, based ‘on measured 

radioactivity concentrations and distances 

from all contributing NTS sources, the 

calculational model gives the greatest 

potential EDE for any member of the public. 

The assumptions used in the calculational 

model are conservative; i.e., the calculated 

EDE to the MEI most certainly exceeds 

EDE any member of the public would actually 

receive. The model used at the NTS is EPA’s 

CAP88-PC, a wind dispersion model approved 

for this purpose. 

10.3.2 MEASUREMENT QUALITY 

OBJECTIVES 

MQOs are commonly described in terms of 

representativeness, comparability, 

completeness, precision, and accuracy. 

Although the assessment of the first two 

characteristics must be essentially qualitative, 

definite. numerical goals may be set and 

quantitative assessments performed for the 

latter three. 

10.3.2.1 REPRESENTATIVENESS 

Representativeness is the degree to which a 

sample is truly representative of the sampled 

medium, i.e., the degree to which measured 

analytical concentrations represent the 

concentrations in the medium being sampled 

(Stanley and Verner, 1985). 

Representativeness also refers to whether the 

locations and frequency of sampling are such 

that calculational models will lead to a correct 

estimate of potential EDE to a member of the 

public when measured radioactivity 

concentrations are input into the model. An 

environmental monitoring plan for the NTS, 

DOE/NV/l 0630-28, “Environmental Monitoring 

Plan, Nevada Test Site and Support 

Facilities,” has been established to achieve 

representativeness for environmental data. 

Factors which were considered in designing 

this monitoring plan include locations of known 

and potential sources, historical and 

operational knowledge of isotopes and 

pathways of concern, hydrological, and 

topographical data, and locations of human 

populations. 

10.3.2.2 COMPARABILITY 

Comparability refers to the degree of 

confidence and consistency we have in our 

analytical results, or is defined as “the 

confidence with which one data set can be 
compared to another” (Stanley and Verner, 

1985). Sample collection and handling, 

laboratory analyses, data analysis and 

validation are performed in accordance with 

established SOPS to achieve comparability in 

measurement data. Standard reporting units 

and a consistent number of significant digits 

are used. Instruments are calibrated using 

NIST-traceable sources. Each batch of field 

samples is accompanied by a spiked sample 

with a known quantity of the compound(s) of 

interest. Extensive QA measures are used for 

all analytical -processes. In addition, 

comparability is attained through comparison 

of external performance audit results to those 

achieved by other laboratories participating in 

the PESP. 

10.3.2.3 COMPLETENESS 

Completeness is defined as the percentage of 

samples collected versus those which had 

been scheduled to be collected, or the 

percentage of valid analysis results versus the 

results which would have been obtained if all 

samples had been obtained. and correctly 

analyzed. Realistically, samples can be lost 

during shipping, handling, preparation, and 

analysis, or not collected as scheduled. Also 

data entry or transcription errors can be made. 

The REECo completeness objectives for all 

radiological samples and analyses have. been 

set at 90 percent for sample collection and 85 

percent for analyses, or 75 percent overall. 

RSL-LV’s completeness objective for the 

Long-Term Hydrological Monitoring Program 

(LTHMP) is 80 percent and for the other 

networks is 90 percent. 

Completeness for inorganic and organic 

analyses is based on the number of valid 

results received versus the number requested. 

10.3.2.4 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 same 

analysis on split samples, or on duplicate 

samples taken at the same time from the 

same location, maintaining sampling and 

analytical c.onditions as nearly identical as 

possible. Precision for samples is determined 

by comparing results for duplicate samples of 

particulates in air, tritiated water vapor, noble 

gases, and some types of water samples. For 

thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD), 

precision is assessed from variations in the 

three CaSO, elements of each TLD. Precision 

is expressed quantitatively as the percent 

relative standard deviation (%RSD), i.e., the 

ratio of the standard deviation of the 

measurements being compared to their mean 

converted to percent. The smaller the value 

of the %RSD, the greater is the precision of 

the measurement. The precision objectives 

are shown in Table 10.1. They are a function 

of the concentration of radioactivity in the 

samples, i.e., the analysis of samples with 

concentrations near zero will have low 

precision while samples with higher 

concentrations will have proportionately higher 

precision. 

10.3.2.5 ACCURACY 

Accuracy refers to how well we can measure 

the true value of a given quantity and can be 

defined as “the degree of agreement of a 

measured value with the true or expected 

value of the quantity of concern” (Taylor 

1987). For practical purposes, assessments 

of accuracy for ASD are done by performing 

measurements on special QA samples 

prepared, using stringent quality control, by 

laboratories which specialize in preparing 

such samples. The values of the activities of 

these samples are not known by ASD staff 

until several months after the measurements 

are made and the results sent back to the QA 

laboratory. Additionally, quality control 

samples with known values are submitted to 

the Laboratories by the ASD Quality Support 

Group. These sample values are unknown to 

the analysts and serve to measure the 

accuracy of the analytical procedures. The 

accuracy of these measurements, which is 

assumed to extend to other similar 

measurements performed by the laboratory, 

may be defined as the ratio of the measured 

value divided by the true value, expressed as 
a percent. Percent bias is the complement of 

percent accuracy, i.e., %Bias = 100 - % 

accuracy. The smaller the percent bias, the 

more accurate are the measurements. Table 

10.2 shows the ASD and RSL-LV accuracy 

objectives. 

Measurements of sample volumes should be 

accurate to *:5 percent for aqueous samples 

(water and milk) and to *lo percent for air and 

soil samples. The sensitivity of radiochemical 

and gamma spectrometric analyses must 

allow no more than a 5 percent risk of either a 

false negative or false positive value. Control 

limits for accuracy, monitored with matrix 

spike samples, are required to be no greater 

than &O percent for all gross alpha and gross 

beta analyses and for gamma spectrometric 

analyses. 

Both the RSL-LV and ASD laboratories 

participate in several interlaboratory 

performance evaluation (PE) programs such 

as EPA’s PESP and EML’s QAP and the 

DOELAP for TLDs. The ASD Laboratory also 

participates in two bioassay programs which 

are conducted by the DOELAP and ORNL. 

The accuracy of the TLDs is tested every two 

or three years by the DOELAP. This involves 

a three-part, single-blind, performance testing 

program followed by an independent onsite 

assessment of the overall program. Both 

REECo and RSL-LV participate in this 

program. 

Once the data have been finalized, they are 

compared to the MQOs. Completeness, 

accuracy, and precision statistics are 

calculated. If data fail to meet one or more of 

the established MQOs, they may still be used 

in data analysis; however, the data and any 

interpretive results must be qualified. Current 

and historical data are maintained in an 

access-controlled database. 

All sample results exceeding the traditional 

natural background activity range are 

investigated. If data are found to be 

associated with a non-environmental 

condition, e.g., a check of the instrument ’ 

using a calibration source, the data are 

flagged and are not included in calculations of 

averages, etc. Only data verified to be 

associated with a non-environmental condition 

are flagged; all ‘other data are used in 

calculation of averages and other statistics, 

even if the condition is traced to a source 

other than the NTS. 

10.4 RESULTS FOR 

COMPLETENESS, 

PRECISION, AND ACCURACY 

Summary data for completeness, precision, 

and accuracy are provided in Tables 10.3 to 

10.6. Complete data used in these MQOs for 

1995 may be found in the “Environmental 

Data Report for the Nevada Test Site - 1995” 

(DOE/NV/l 1718-038, in prep.). 

10.4.1 COMPLETENESS 

Analysis completeness data for calendar year 

1995 are shown in Table 10.3. These 

percentages represent all analyses which 

were carried to completion, and include some 

analyses for which the results were found to 

be invalid for other reasons. Had objectives 

not been met for some analyses, other factors 

would be used to assess acceptability, e.g., fit 

of the data to a trend or consistency with 

results from samples collected before and 

after. 

The completeness MQOs for the onsite 

networks were met or exceeded in all cases 

except for 85K collection and analyses. For 

the offsite networks, the MQOs were met or 

exceeded. The completeness was ?89%, just 

short of the 90 percent objective. 

10.4.2 PRECISION 

From replicate samples collected and 

analyzed throughout the year, the %RSD was 

calculated for various types of analyses and 

sampling media. The results of these 

calculations are shown in Table 10.4 for both 
the onsite and offsite networks. In addition to 

examination of %RSDs for individual duplicate 

pairs, an overall precision estimate was 

determined by calculating the pooled standard 

deviation, based on the algorithm given in 

Taylor (1987). To convert to a unitless value, 

the pooled standard deviation was divided by 

the grand mean and multiplied by 100 to yield 

a %RSD. The table presents the pooled data 

and estimates of overall precision. The 

pooled standard deviations and %RSD 

indicate the estimated achieved precision for 

samples. 

For the RSL-LV Laboratory, the samples not 

meeting the precision MQO were low-activity 

air-particulate samples analyzed for gross 

alpha in air. The data would still be useful, as 

many of the individual samples met the MQO 

and the others would serve as an alerting 

mechanism, suggesting an event that requires 

some investigation. The precision data for all 

other analyses were well within their 

respective MQOs. 

For the ASD Laboratory, there was one 

analysis that failed to meet the MQO, namely, 

85Kr in air. Subsequent investigation of the 

analytical procedure revealed equipment and 

procedure problems for part of the year that 

have since been corrected. One reason for 

the low precision in some of the analyses was 

the low activity in these environmental 

samples, e.g., for tritium in air, the few that 

were useful for calculation of precision barely 

exceeded the minimum detectable 

concentration (MDC). 

10.4.3 ACCURACY 

The ASD and RSL-LV accuracy objectives 

were measured through participation in the 

interlaboratory comparison and quality 

assessment programs discussed below. 

10.4.3.1 RADIOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE 

EVALUATION RESULTS 

The external radiological PE program 

consisted of participation in the QAP 

conducted by DOUEML and the PESP 

conducted by EPA. These programs serve to 

evaluate the performance of the radiological 

laboratory and to identify problems requiring 

corrective actions. 

Summaries of the 1995 results of the 

interlaboratory performance evaluation and 

quality assessment programs conducted by 

the EPA and DOUEML are provided in Tables 

10.5 and 10.6. The last column in each table 

(percent Bias) is the accuracy of analysis and 

may be compared to the objectives listed in 

Table 10.2. The individual radionuclide 

recoveries are listed in tables which are being 

published separately in the “Environmental 

Data Report for the Nevada Test Site - 1995” 

(DOE/NV/l 1718-038, in prep.). 

Accuracy, as percent difference or percent 

bias is calculated by: 

%BIAS = ( cln - ca 

c )lOO 

a 

where 

%BIAS = percent bias 

cln = measured sample activity 

ca = known sample activity 

The RSL-LV Laboratory failed the accuracy 

MQO in only 1 of the 25 analyses attempted in 

the EPA PE Study. In the EML QAP, 4 of the 

41 analyses performed exceeded the DQO of 

*20 percent. In 1994 RSL-LV obtained 

renewed accreditation by the DOELAP for the 

environmental TLD program and also 

participated in the U.S. Army TMDE Activity 

which had the objectives of both a QA check 

on the DOELAP categories and a data 

gathering activity on performance 

characteristics of personnel TLDs. The 

results of this blind testing confirmed that the 

RSL-LV TLD program was accurate and 

reproducible within the established 

performance standards. 

REECo’s ASD Laboratory accuracy in the 

EPA PESP was acceptable having only 1 

unacceptable result. The MQOs for accuracy 

in analysis of DOE/EML samples were not met 

in only 2 of the 21 samples supplied. 
10.4.3.2 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 

IMPLEMENTED IN RESPONSE TO 

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 

PROGRAMS 

FiEECo results were generally within the 

control limits determined by the program 

sponsors. Results which were not within 

acceptable performance limits were 

investigated, and corrective actions taken to 

prevent reoccurrence. Corrective actions 

included a new process for preparing and 

including quality control samples, training of 

analysts, the use of an internal standard for 

solvents, and an improved tracking system for 

PE samples. 

10.4.4 COMPARABILITY 

The EPA PESP and the EML QAP provide 

results to each laboratory participating in each 

study that include a grand average for all 

values, excluding outliers. A normalized 

deviation statistic compares each laboratory’s 

result (mean of three replicates) to the known 

value and to the grand average. If the value 

of this statistic (in multiples of standard normal 

deviate, unitless) lies between control limits of 

-3 and +3, the accuracy (deviation from known 

value) or comparability (deviation from grand 

average) is within normal statistical variation. 

Data from the. 1995 intercomparison studies 

for all variables measured were compared with 

the grand average to calculate a normalized 

deviation for the RSL-LV results. All analyses 

were within three standard normal deviate 

units of the grand mean, and most were within 

two normalized deviate units. This indicates 

acceptable comparability of the RSL-LV 

Laboratory results with the 73 to 262 

laboratories participating in the EPA PESP. 

The onsite ASD Laboratory’s results in the 

EML QAP were acceptable. In only two 

instances were the ASD results greater than 

the MQO. The EPA PESP includes a grand 

average (average result from all participating 

laboratories, less outliers) in its report to 

participants. Using the formula for percent 

bias described above, the percent bias of ASD 

results as compared to the grand average was 

calculated for each analysis. The average 

deviation from the EPA known value was 0.71 

while the average deviation from the grand 

average was 0.90 so the ASD had both 

acceptable accuracy and acceptable 

comparability except for plutonium in water 

samples. 
Table 10.1 Precision Objectives Expressed as Percents 

ASD Laboratorv 

Analysis Cont. > 10 MDC 4 MDC 5 Cont. 5 10 MDC 

Gross Alpha 

Gross Beta 

Gamma Spectrometry 

Scintillation Counting 

Alpha Spectrometry 

*30 *60 

*30 ~60 

*30 *60 

*30 *60 

Zk20 *50 

Note: The precision objective for TLDs at environmental levels is 10 percent. 

RSL-LV Laboratory 

Conventional Tritium 

Strontium (in milk) 

Thorium 

Uranium 

Enriched Tritium 

Strontium (in other media) 

Noble Gases 

Plutonium 

*lO 

*lO 

*IO 

*lO 

220 

*20 

*20 

zt20 

*30 

*30 

*30 

*30 

*30 

*30 

*30 

*30 

Table 10.2 Accuracy Objectives Expressed as Percent Bias 

ASD Laboratory 

Analysis Cont. > 10 MDC 4 MDC 5 Cont. I 10 MDC 

Gross Alpha 

Gross Beta 

Gamma Spectrometry 

Scintillation Counting 

Alpha-Spectrometry 

Noble Gas Analysis 

*20 *50 

*20 *50 

*20 *50 

&O *50 

*20 *50 

*30 *60 

Note: The accuracy objective for TLDs is 20 percent for exposures < 10 mR and 10 percent 

for exposures 1 10 mR. 

R SL-LV Laboratory 

Tritium, Conventional 

Strontium (Milk) 

Thorium 

Uranium 

Tritium, Enriched 

Strontium (other media) 

Plutonium 

TLDs 

110 

*lO 

*lO 

*lO 

*20 

*20 

*20 

Meet DOELAP Criteria 

*30% of MDC 

9~30% of MDC 

*30% of MDC 

~30% of MDC 

*30% of MDC 

*30% of MDC 

*30% of MDC 
Table 10.3 Analysis Completeness Data for Calendar Year 1995 

Analysis Medium 

Completeness 

Percent 

REECo RSL-LV 

Gross Beta Particulate Air Filter 

Plutonium Particulate Air Filter 

Gamma Spectrometty Particulate Air Filter 

Gamma Spectrometry Charcoal Air Filter 

Tritiated Water Air 

Krypton-85 Air 

Gross Beta Potable Water Endpoints 

Gamma Spectrometry Potable Water Endpoints 

Tritiated Water Potable Water Endpoints 

Plutonium Potable Water Endpoints 

Gross Beta Wells, Reservoirs, Springs, Ponds 

Plutonium Wells, Reservoirs, Springs, Ponds 

Gamma Spectrometry Wells, Reservoirs, Springs, Ponds 

Triiiated Water Wells, Reservoirs, Springs, Ponds 

Strontium-90 Wells, Reservoirs, Springs, Ponds 

Gross Atpha Potable Wells and Endpoints 

Tritium Milk 

Strontium Milk 

Animal Investigation Tissues 

Pressurized Ion Chamber Ambient Radiation 

TLDs Ambient Radiation 

(a) Analyses not performed. 

93.0 

98.2 

98.0 

(a) 

97.1 

74.0 

93.6 

93.6 

93.6 

96.6 

91.6 

95.5 

91.6 

91.6 

95.5 

98.7 

la) 

(a) 

(4 

(a) 

(a) 

92.2 

.92.2 

92.2 

92.2 

(a) 

6) 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

(a) 

90.5 

89.7 

(a)- 

(a) 

100 

100 

100 

99.1 

71.2 

Table 10.4 Precision Estimates from Replicate Sampling - 1995 

Analvsis : Number of Replicate Analyses Precision Estimate % RSD 

Gross Beta in Air 42 11.5 

Gamma in Air 32 16.1 

Gross Alpha in Potable Water 17 15.5 

Gross Beta in Potable Water 19 16.0 

HTO in Tunnel Effluent 4 1.4 

Pu in Tunnel Effluent 12 32.8 

Gross Alpha in Air 

Gross Beta in Air 

Gamma Spectrometry (‘Be) 

“Kr in Air 

Tritium in Water (enriched) 

Tritium in Water (unenriched) 

ASD I abarv 

- abqCatorv 

168 

169 

12 

me51 

9 

62.5 

16.2 

31.3 

--- 

45.6 

5.9 
Table 10.5 Accuracy of RSL-LV Radioanalyses (EML QAP and PESP) - 1995 

Analysis 

Gross Alpha 

Gross Beta 

Gamma Spec 

Strontium 

Alpha Spec 

Tritium 

Gross Alpha 1 

Gross Beta 1 

13’cs 1 

?OSr 1 

8gSr 1 20 22 8.5 

g”Sr 1 15 15 2.0 

131 I 1 99 63 -36 

13’cs 1 50 54 8.6 

Potassium 1 1700. 1500 -11 

Gross Alpha 1 

Gross Beta 1 

Plutonium 13 

Uranium 3 

Strontium 3 

Tritium 1 

Gamma Spec 19 

Water Samples Range of Results - pCi/L 

No. PESP RSL-LV % Bias 

4 5 - 99 6 - 102 -30 - 14 

4 5 - 124 8 - 123 -0.4 - 54 

7 35 - 148 35 - 154 -11 - 4 

4 8 - 20 8 - 15 -30 - 0 

4 11 - 30 10 - 29 -14 - -0.7 

2 4900 - 7400 4700 - 7100 -4.2 - -3.9 

Air Filter Samples Ranae of Results - oCi/L 

25 24 

87 81 

25 24 

30 27 

Milk Samples Ranae of Results - &i/L 

-3.2 ’ 

-6.5 

-5.2 

-9.0 

% Bias Range for Analysis of EML QAP Samples 

Air soil Vegetation Water 

(a) (4 (a) 2.3 

(a) (4 (4 68 

-6.3 - 9.7 -0.6 - 4.3 -13 - 5.4 -1.8 - IO 

(a) (a) (a) 9.6 - 157 

(a) (a) 6.3 -9.6 - 8.5 

(a) 64 (a) -4.8 

-5.2 - 18 (a) (4 25 - 28 

(a) No sample. 
Table 10.6 Accuracy of ASD Radioanalyses (PESP and EML QAP) - 1995 

Analysis REECo/ASD PESP 

Water Samples No. Averaae oCi/L Known 

6oco 3 65.3 1.85 

65Zn 3 132 0.89 

134cs 3 43 0.92 

13’cs 3 54 1.66 

133Ba 3 99 -0.06 

Strontium 3 14 -0.46 

1311 6 135 1.53 

Tritium 3 4920 0.16 

226Ra 3 27 0.98 

U (nat.) 3 30 -0.35 

23gPu 3 38.8 -3.62 

(a) f 3 Normalized Deviation is acceptable. 

% Bias Ranae for Analvsis of EML QAP Samoles 

Americium 2 

Plutonium 4 

Uranium 3 

Strontium 2 

Tritium 2 

Gamma Spec 6 

Gross Alpha 1 

Gross Beta 1 

(a) No sample. 

&r sgil Veaetation 

-41 - -35 -40 - 10 -15 - 22 

-50 - 8 -45 - -4 -34 

-13 - 111 -51 - -13 (a) 

6- 16 17- 26 -23 - 5.6 

(a) (a) (a) 

-42 - 4.6 -23 - -12 -37 - 27 

39 (a) (4 

(a) (a) (4 

Normalized 

Deviation(a) 

Grand Ava. 

1.97 

0.37 

2.01 

0.92 

0.52 

-0.21 

1.37 

0.46 

1.5 

0.06 

-2.85 

Water 

128 - -1.5 

-8 - 9 

-4.1 - 6 

-1.2 - 8 

-17 - 1.2 

-9 - 16 

31 

-9 
REFERENCES 

Bechtel Nevada Corp., 1995, “Area 5 Radioactive Waste Manaaement Site. 1995 Groundwater 

Monitoring Proaram” Waste Management Operations, Environmental Management Division, 

Unnumbered Report. 

BEIR III, 1980, “The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of lonizina Radiation: 

1980,” Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation III, National Academy Press, 

2101 Constitution Ave, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418. 

Black, S. C., 1995, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Submittal 

1994,” Report DOE/NV/l 1432-194, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., 

Las Vegas, NV. 

B1ankennageL.R. K. and J. E. Weir, 1973, “Geohydroloav of the Eastern Part of Pahute Mesa, 

Nevada Test Site. Nye County. Nevada,” U.S. Geological Survey Prof. Paper 712-B. 

Chapman, J. B. and S. L. Hokett, 1991, “Evaluation of Groundwater Monitorina at Offsite 

Nuclear Test Areas,” DOE Nevada Field Office Report DOE/NV/l 0845-07, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Code of Federal Regulations, 1966, “Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties,” Title 36, Part 

800. 

Code of Federal Regulations, 1973, “Threatened and Endangered Species Regulations,” U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Title 50, Parts 17.11 and’17.12. 

Code of Federal Regulations, 1976, “National Primary Drinkina Water Reaulations,” Title 40, 

Part 141, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Code of Federal Regulations, 1977, “Clean Water Act Regulations,” U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Title 40, Parts 1 IO to 136. 

Code of Federal Regulations, 1984, “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Reaulations,” 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,, Title 40, Parts 260 to 281. 

Code of Federal Regulations, 1986, “Superfund. Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act Reaulations,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Title 40, Parts 300 to 373. 

Code of Federal Regulations, 1989, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants,” Title 40, Part 61, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Daniels, J. I., R. Andricevic, L. R. Anspaugh and R. L. Jacobson, 1993, “Risk-Based Screening 

Analvsis of Groundwater Contaminated by Radionuclides Introduced at the Nevada Test Site,” 

in: Pilot Study Risk Assessment for Selected Problems at the Nevada Test Site (NTS), J. I. 

Daniels, Editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report UCRL-LR-113891, Livermore, 

CA, June 1993. 

EG&G/EM (EG&G Energy Measurements), 1994, “The Northern Boundarv of the Desert 

Tortoise Ranae on the Nevada Test Site,” U.S. Department of Energy Topical Report EGG 

111265-l 103,2Opp. 

R-l 
References. cont. 

Friesen, H. N., 1992, “Summary of the Nevada Applied Ecoloav Grouo and Correlative 

Proarams,” Nevada Field Office, U.S. Department of Energy Report DOE/NV-357, Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

Hershey, R. and T. Brikowski, 1995, “Continued lnvestiaation of the Occurrence of Water in 

Pahute Mesa Emolacement Holes,” Report DOE/NV/l 084552, Desert Research Institute, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Hunter, R. B., 1994, “Status of the Flora and Fauna on the Nevada Test Site. 1994,” Report 

DOE/NV/l 1432-l 95, pp 245-348, EG&G Energy Measurements, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

international Commission on Radiological Protection, 1975, “Report of the Task Group on 

Standard Man,” ICRP Publication 23, Pergamon Press, New York. 

International Commission on Radiological Protection, 1979, “Limits for Intake bv Workers,” 

ICRP Publication 30, Supplement to Part 1, Pergamon Press, New York. 

international Commission on Radiological Protection, 1985, Insert to “Quantitative Bases for 

Develooina an Index of Harm,” ICRP Publication 45, Pergamon Press, New York. 

Kercher, J. R., and L. R. Anspaugh, 1991, “Analysis of the Nevada-Applied-Ecology-Group 

Model of Transuranic Radionuclide Transport and Dose,” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 

s: 191-216. 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement, 1975, “Krypton-85 in the 

Atmosphere,” NCRP Report No. 44, Washington D.C. 

Nevada Revised Statutes, “Public Health and Safety/Water Pollution Control,” Title 40, 

Chapter 445, and Nevada Administrative Code 445.247. 

Nevada Revised Statutes, “Public Health and Safety/Disposal of Hazardous Waste,” 

Title 40, Chapter 459, and Nevada Administrative Code 444.8632. 

Nuclear Energy Agency, 1981, “The Environmental and Bioloaical Behavior of Plutonium and 

Some Other Transuranium Elements,” Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 

Paris, France. 

O’Farrell, T; P., and L. A. Emery, 1976, “ E c o I oav of the Nevada Test Site: A Narrative Summarv 

and Annotated Biblioaraphy,” Desert Research Institute, U.S. Department of Energy, 

NVO-167. 

Patton, S. E. 1992, “Bervllium in Soils of the Ne ada Test Site: A Preliminarv Assessment,” 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermire, California UCRL-ID-104740. 

Quiring, R. E., 1968, “Climatoloaical Data. Nevada Test Site. Nuclear Rocket Develooment 

Station,” ESSA Research Laboratory Report ERLTM-ARL-7, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Reno, R. L. and L. C. Pippin, 1985, “An Archaeotoaical Reconnaissance of Yucca Flat. Nye 

Countv. Nevada,” Social Sciences Center, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, 

Technical Report No. 35. 

R-2 
References. cont. 

Russell, C. E., 1990, “Assessment of the Nevada Test Site Monitoring Well System,” Report 

DOE/NV/l 0384-31, Water Resources Center, Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Sanderson, C. G., and S. C. Scarpitta, 1991, “Environmental Measurements Laboratorv. SemiAnnual Department of Enerav Qualitv Assessment Proaram Reoort,” Report # EML-535, U.S. 

Department of Energy, New York, New York. 

Scoggins, W. A., 1983, “Environmental Surveillance Report for the Nevada Test Site. January 

1982 throuah December 1982,” DOE/NVO-41 O-76, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Scoggins, W. A., 1984, “Environm LQf ntal rv illa c R 

1983 through December 1983,” DOUNVO-10327-4, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Shinn, J. H., E. H. Essington, R. 0. Gilbert and F. J. Gouveia, 1993, “Precision of In Situ 

Gamma Spectrometry for Estimation of Plutonium Concentrations in Soil: Effects of Soil 

Variability,,, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California. PREPRINT. 

Stanley, T. W. and S. S. Verner, 1985, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Aaencv’s Quality 

Assurance Proaram,” in J. K. Taylor and T. W. Stanley (eds.), Duality Assurance for 

Environmental Measurements, ASTM STP-867, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Taylor, J. K., 1987, “Quality Assurance of Chemical Measurements,” Chapter 4, Lewis 

Publications. 

Thordarson, W., 1965, “Perched Ground Water in Zeolitized Bedded Tuff. Rainier Mesa and 

Vicinitv. Nevada Test Site,” US. Geological Survey Open-File Report TEI-862. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1990, “Population Count Pursuant to Public Law 

94-l 71,” Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1988b, “Radioactive Waste Management,” DOE Order 5820.2A. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1988c, “Nevada Test Site Defense Waste Acceptance Criteria, 

Certification. and Transfer Requirements,” Report NVO-325, Nevada Operations Office, Las 

Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990a, “Occurrence Reportina and Processina of Operations 

Information,” DOE Order 5000.38. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990b, “General Environmental Protection Program,” DOE Order 

5400.1. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 199Oc, “Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment,” 

DOE Order 5400.5. 

R-3 
References. cont. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990d, “Environmental Protection, Safetv. and Health Protection 

Proaram for DOE Operations,” DOE Order 5480.1 B. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990e, “Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers,” DOE 

Order 5480.11. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1990f, “Environmental Protection. Safety. and Health Protection 

Information Repottina Requirements,” DOE Order 5484.1. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 199Og, “Site Soecific Plan for Environmental Restoration and 

Waste Manaaement,” Report DOEINV-336, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991 a, “Qualitv Assurance:’ DOE Order 5700.6C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991 b, “General Desian Criteria Manual,” DOE Order 6430.1 A. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991c, “Environmental Monitorina Plan. Nevada Test Site and 

Suooort Facilities,” Report DOE/NV/l 0630-28, Nevada Field Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1991d, “Environmental Reaulatory Guide for Radiological Effluent 

Monitorina and Environmental Surveillance,” Report DOE/EH-0173T, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1994a, “United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 through September 

1992,” Report DOE/NV-209 (Revision 14)’ Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1994b, “Site Characterization and Monitorina Data from Area 5 

Pilot Wells. Nve Countv. Nevada,” DOE/NV/l 1432-74, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., 

Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1994c, “Nevada Operations Office Annual Site Environmental 

Report - 1993.” DOE/NV/l 1432-123, Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995a, “Environmental Data Report for the Nevada Test Site - 

1995,” DOE/NV/l 1718-038, in prep., Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., Las Vegas, 

Nevada. 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1995b, “Nevada Test Site Site Treatment Plan,” Report 

DOE/NV-397, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, 1977, “Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Nve County. Nevada,,, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Report ERDA-l 551, 

available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIS, Springfield, Virginia. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976, “Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution 

Measurement Svstems,” Report EPA/600/9-76/005, Office of Research and Development, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

R-4 
“. References. cont. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980, “Upgradina Environmental Radiation Data,” Health 

Physics Society Committee Report HPSR-1, EPA 520/l -80-012, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983, “Interim Guidelines and Soecifications for 

Preparina Quality Assurance Proiect Plans - QAMS-005/80,” Office of Research and 

Development, Report EPA/600/4-83/004, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, “RCRA Groundwater Monitoring Technical 

Enforcement Guidance Document,” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Report No. 

OSWER-9950.1,208 pp. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, “Quality Assurance Program Plan,” EPA/GOO/X87/241, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, P-0. Box 93478, Las Vegas, Nevada 

89193-3478. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, “Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air 

Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation. Ingestion. and Submersion,” Federal 

Guidance Report No. 11, EPA/520/i -88/020, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992a, “User’s Guide for CAP88-PC. Version 1 .O,” 

Office of Radiation Programs, Las Vegas Facility, Report 402-B-92-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992b, “Quality Assurance Proaram Plan - Offsite 

Radioloaical Safety Proaram,” Report EPA/600/X-92/xxx, Nuclear Radiation Assessment Division, 

Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, “Offsite Environmental Monitorina Reoort, 

Ra d iation Monitorina Around United States Nuclear Test Areas. Calendar Year 1991,” Report 

EPA/600/R-93/141, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994a, “Quality Management Plan %” Report EPA/GOO/X93-024, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, Nevada. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994b, “Environmental Radioactivity Performance 

Evaluation Studies Proaram and Radioactive Standards Distribution Proaram,” Report 

EPA/600/R-94/xXx, Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1991, “NRC TLD Direct Radiation Monitorina Network 

Progress Report. October to December. 1991,” NUREG-0873, 11: No. 4, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Region 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

Waddell, R. K., 1982, ‘Two-Dimensional Steady-State Model of Groundwater Flow. Nevada Test 

Site and Vicinity. Nevada-California,” U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations ’ 

Report 82-4085. 

Winograd, I. J., and W. Thordarson, 1975, “Hydroaeoloaic and Hvdrachemical Framework, 

South-Central Great Basin. Nevada-California. with Soecial Reference to the Nevada Test Site,” 

U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-c’ U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, 

D.C., 1975. 

R-5 
DISTRIBUTION LIST 

DOUHQ 

Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety and Health (EH-1 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 (10) 

Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW-1 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs (DP-1 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs (DP-2 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Development (DP-10 FORS), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Director, Office of RD&T Facilities (DP-13 GTN), U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown 

Road, Germantown, MD 20545 

Director, Office of Environmental Support (DP-34 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Director, Office of Field Management (FM-l FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-l FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Waste Management (EM-30 FORS), U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Director, Office of Energy Research (ER-1 FORS), US. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Associate Director, Office of Health and Environmental Research (ER-70 GTN), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20545 

Director, Office of Environmental Audit (EH-24 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Director, Environmental Compliance Division (EH-22 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 (3) 

D-l 
Distribution List. cont. 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning & Resource Management (DP-40 FORS), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington; MD 20585 (3) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Compliance and Program Coordination (EM-20 FORS), 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585 

Director, LLNUNTS Facility Management Division (DP-13 GTN), U.S. Department of Energy, 

19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20545 

Director, Office of Reconfiguration (DP-25 FORS), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585 (5) 

Assistant Administrator for Research and Development (RD-672), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460 

Director, Criteria and Standards (ANR-460 ORP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 

M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460 

Director, Analysis & Support Division (ANR-461 ORP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460 

Director, Air & Toxic Division, Region IX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 

Regional Radiation Representative, Region VIII, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

999 18th Street Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202 

Regional Radiation Representative, Region VI, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, First 

Interstate Bank Tower Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202 

Regional Radiation Representative, Region X, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 

Regional Radiation Representative, Region VII, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 726 

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101 

Director, National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Post Office Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, MIS 513 

Director, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Post Office Box 

93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, M/S 513 

Christopher A. Fontana, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Post 

Office Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, M/S 513 

D-2 
Distribution List. cont. 

Bruce B. Dicey, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Post Office 

Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 891933478, M/S 513 

Max G. Davis, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Post Office Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, M/S 513 

Scott H. Faller, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Post Office Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, MIS 513 

Ken R. Giles, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Post Office Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, M/S 513 

Polly A. Huff, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Post Office Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, M/S 513 

Anita A. Mullen, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Post Office Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, M/S 513 

Mark Sells, Radiation Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Post Office Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, M/S 513 

Angela Haag, Librarian, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Post Office 

Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478, MIS 513 

Deoattments of Environment and Health 

Radiological Health Section, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 505 E. King Street 

Room 203, Carson City, NV 89710 

Darrell Rasner, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 505 E. King Street, Room 103, 

Carson City, NV 89710 

Al Tinney, Bureau of Health Protection Services, 620 Belrose Street, Las Vegas, NV 

89158-5242 

Paul Liebendorfer, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 123 W. Nye Lane, 

Carson City, NV 89710 

Richard Sardoz, Las Vegas, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 1515 E. Tropicana 

Avenue, Suite 395, Las Vegas, NV 89119 

Director, Environmental Improvement Division, Department of Health and Environment, 1190 

Saint Francis Drive, Santa Fe, NM 87503 

Director, Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control Division, Department of Health, 4210 E. 

11 th Avenue, Denver, CO 80220 

D-3 
Distribution -iis t. cont. 

Director, Bureau of Radiation and Occupational Health, 288 N. 1460 West, Post Office Box 

16690, Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690 

Director, Division of Air Quality, State Department of Health, 150 N. 1950 West, Salt Lake 

City, UT 84116 

Director, Health Department, 88 E. Fiddlers Canyon, Suite 8, Cedar City, UT 84720 

Chief, Department of Health and Social Services, Radiological Health Program, 

Post Office Box H-02, Juneau, AK 99811 

Chief, Radiological Health Branch, Department of Health Services, 1232 Q Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Public Health Physicist, Radiological Health Section, Orange County Health Care Agency, 

Post Office Box 355, Santa Ana, CA 92705 

Director, Department of Health Services, Occupational Health and Radiation Management, 

2615 S. Grand Avenue, Room 608, Los Angeles, CA 90007 

Director, Santa Barbara Health Care Services, 315 Camino Del Remedio, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 

Director, Division of Radiological Health, State Board of Health, Post Office Box 1700, Jackson, MS 

39215-l 700 

Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, 4814 S. 40th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040 

LANL 

C. F. Eberhart, M/S F670, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Post Office Box 1663, Los Alamos, NM 

87545 (2) 

C. F. Costa, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Post Office Box 0, Mercury, NV 89023 M/S 900 

Julie A. Carpenter, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Post Office Box 0, Mercury, NV 89023 

M/S NTS967 

Edward H. Essington, M/S J495, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Post Office Box 1663, 

Los Alamos, NM 87545 

LLNL 

Resident Manager, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Post Office Box 45, Mercury, NV 

89023, M/S 777 

J. M. Haeberlin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Post Office Box 45, Mercury, NV 

89023, M/S 777 

D-4 
Distribution List. cont. 

J. Shinn, Environmental Science Division L-453, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 

Post Office Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551 

J. Fischer, Chemistry and Materials Division L-31 1, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 

Post Office Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551 

Jim Kercher, Health and Ecological Assessment Division, L-524, Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory, Post Office Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551 

Lynn Anspaugh, Risk Sciences Center, L-453, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Post 

Office Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551 

Bob Schock, Energy Program L-641, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Post Office 

Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551 

David Smith, L-231, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Post Office Box 808, 

Livermore, CA 94551 

Resident Manager, Sandia National Laboratories, Post Office Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023 

MIS NTS944 

James H. Metcalf, Sandia National Laboratories, Post Office Box 238, Mercury, NV 89023 

M/S NTS944 

Roger Smith, Sandia National Laboratories, Post Office Box 871, Tonopah, NV 89023 

David A. Bedsun, Defense Nuclear Agency, Post Office Box 98539, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 

M/S 573 

Battelle 

R. 0. Gilbert, Sigma 3, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Post Office Box 999, Richland, WA 

99352 

Manager, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 

Post Office Box 999, Richland, WA 99352 

Colleen M. Beck, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

MIS 505 

Roger L. Jacobson, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

MIS 505 

D-5 
Distribution List. cont. 

David Gillespie, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

MIS 505 

R. L. Hershey, Desert Research Institute, 755 E. Flamingo Rd., Las Vegas, NV 89120, 

M/S 505 

Manager, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLVOOl 

Manager, Environmental Management Division, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV022 (2) 

Manager, Waste Management Department, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV080 

Martha E. DeMarre, Health Protection Department, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV040 

Robert F. Grossman, Analytical Services Section, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS279 

K. R. Krenzien, Analytical Services Section, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS314 

R. R. Kinnison, Analytical Services Section, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, MIS NLV082 

J. W. Kessler, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NLV042 

R. B. Hunter, Analytical Services Section, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTS279 

C. A. Wills, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NLV081 

0. L. Haworth, Environmental Management Division, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NTSl 10 

D. Linkenheil, Waste Management Department, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV080 

Daniel A. Gonzalez, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS270 

D. P. Schlick, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, 

M/S NTS405 

T. Van Sittert, Bechtel Nevada, Post Office Box 98521, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8521, M/S NLV022 

D-6 
Distribution List. cont. 

DOE/NV 

Manager, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 98518, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, MIS 505 

Assistant Manager for Technical Services, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Nevada Test Site Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 435, 

Mercury, NV 89023, M/S 701 

Director, Test Operations Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 (2) 

Acting Director, Waste Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, MIS 505 

Deputy Assistant Manager for Environment, Safety, Security and Health, Nevada Operations 

Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Health Protection Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy 

Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Budget and Resources Management Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Environmental Protection Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, MIS 505 

Norman McNeil, Environmental Protection Division, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Director, Technology Development and Program Management Division, Nevada Operations 

Office, U.S. Department of Energy, Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Technical Information Resource Center, Nevada Operations Office, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Post Office Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518, M/S 505 

Miscellaneous 

E. W. Chew, U.S. Department of Energy, 785 Doe Place, Idaho Falls, ID 83402 M/S 4149 

Environmental Protection Department, Mason and Hanger, Silas-Mason Co., Inc., Pantex 

Plant, Post Office Box 30020, Amarillo, TX 79177 

Manager, Health Protection Department, EHSD, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 

Post Office Box 616, Aiken, SC 29802 

Jeff Tappan, Westinghouse Corporation, 101 Convention Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89109 

D-7 
Distribution List. cont. 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Technical Center, U.S. Department 

of Energy Post Office Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 (2) 

Director, ARUSORD, Post Office Box 94227, Las Vegas, NV 89193-4227, M/S 516 

.Deputy Director, ARUSORD, Post Office Box 94227, Las Vegas, NV 89193-4227, M/S 516 

UNLV Library Government Documents, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Post Office Box 

457013, Las Vegas, NV 89154-7013 

UNR Getchell Library, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 89557-0044 

E. A. Hopper UDAF/EV, 4551 Devlin Drive, Nellis AFB, NV 89191-6828 

Ann-Marie Choephel, Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, P.O. Box 1767, Tonopah, NV 89049 

Steve Deandi, Western Governmental Association, 223 Old Post Office Road, Boulder, Colorado, 

80302 

Clem Goewert, NDEP, 555 E. Washington, Suite 4300, Las Vegas, NV 89101 

Clinton Case, NDEP, Capitol Complex, 333 W. Nye Lane, Carson City, NV 89710 
r 

Department of Energy 

Nevada Operations Office 

F! 0. 80x 98518 

las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 

Distribution 

ANNUAL SITE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (ASER) FOR CY 1995 

Annually, the DOE Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV) reviews it’s environmental monitoring 

programs. It is the responsibility of DOE/NV to monitor the Nevada Test Site @ITS) and other 

off-site support facilities used to support it’s mission statement. As part of DOE’s openness 

initiative, DOE/NV publishes the ASER for public review and comment. A copy of the 1995 

report is enclosed. The ASER includes results of on-site and off-site monitoring activities, actions 

required to comply with environmental regulations, and explanations of long-term studies that 

assess the environmental conditions at DOE/NV administered locations. Quality assurance 

programs which are used to ensure the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data’are also 

described in the report. 

It is the policy of DOE to protect the environment, human health, and ensure safety to both 

employees and the general public in all of it’s activities. Analysis of the 1995 environmental 

monitoring data demonstrates that NTS operations and other DOE/NV activities meet radiation 

protection standards established by both DOE and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Therefore, exposures above natural background levels to the general public who reside outside of 

these DOE/NV locations is negligible. It has further been documented that no federal or 

contractor employee has received an exposure dose greater than the international standards set for 

radiation workers. Most exposures are far below allowable limits established by DOE, EPA, or 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

If you have any questions or comments, please contact Kenneth A Hoar at (702) 295-1428. 

Technical questions regarding this report can be addressed to N. George McNeill at 

(702) 295-0960. 

EPD:GM-3700 

Enclosure: 

As stated 
Distribution 

Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, DOE&IQ @P-l) FORS 

Assistant Secretary far Environment, Safety and Health, DOE/HQ (EH-1) FORS (10) 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, DOEHQ (EM-l) FORS 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, DOEHQ @P-2) FORS 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Development, @P-J 0) FORS 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Resource Management, DOE&IQ @P-40) FORS (3) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, 05ce of Compliance and Program Coordination, DOE&IQ (EM-20) 

FORS 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Waste Management, DOEIHQ (EM-30) FORS 

Deputy Assistant Secretary, 05ce of Environmental Restoration, (EM-40) FORS 

Director, 05ce of RD&T Facilities, DOEIHQ (DP- 13) GTN 

Director, LLNTJNTS Facility Management Division, DOE&IQ @P-13) GTN 

Director, 05ce of Recotiguration, @P-25) FORS (5) 

Director, 05ce of Environmental Support, @P-34) FORS 

Director, Environmental Compliance Division, (EH-22) FORS (3) 

Director, 05ce of Environmental Audit, DOE/HQ (EH-24) FORS 

Director, 05ce of Energy Research, (ER-1) FORS 

Associate Director, 05ce of,Health and Environmental Research, (ER-70) GTN 

Director, 05ce of Field Management, (FM-l) FORS 

Director, 05ce of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, (RW-1) FORS 

EPA 

Assistant Administrator for Radiation and Indoor Air, U.S. EPA Washington, DC 

Director, Criteria and Standards (ANR-460 ORP), U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 

Director, Analysis and Support Division (ANR-46 1 ORP), U.S. EPA, Washington, DC 

Director, Air and Toxic Division, Region IX, U.S. EPA, San Francisco, CA 

Regional Radiation Representative, Region VIII, U.S. EPA, Denver, CO 

Regional Radiation Representative, Region VI, U.S. EPA, Dallas, TX 

Regional Radiation Representative, Region X, U.S. EPA, Seattle,, WA 

Regional Radiation Representative, Region VII, U.S. EPA, Kansas City, KS 

Director; Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory (R&B), U.S. EPA., 

Las Vegas, NV (6) 

Deputy Director, Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory, U.S. EPA, 

Las Vegas, NV 

Director, Center for Environmental Restoration, Monitoring and Emergency ,Response, R&IE, 

U.S. EPA, Las Vegas, NV 

Angela Haag, Librarian Center for Environmental Restoration, Monitoring and Emergency 

Response, R.&E, US. EPA, Las Vegas, NV 
eD: 

Director, Radiological Health Section, BHPS, Carson City, NV 

Director, BHPS, Las Vegas, NV 

P. J. Liebendorfer,NDEP, Carson City, NV 

Clem Goewert, NDEP, Las Vegas, NV 

Clinton Case, NDEP, Carson City, NV 

Charles Bubak, NDEP, Las Vegas, NV 

L. M. Franks, Radiological Health Section, NDEP, Las Vegas, NV 

Director, Environmental Improvement Division, Department of Health and Environment, 

Santa Fe, NM 

Director, Radiation and Hazardous Waste Control Division, Department of Health Denver, CO 

Director, Bureau of Radiation and Occupational Health, Salt Lake City, UT 

Director, Division of Air Quality, State Department of Health, Salt Lake City, UT 

Director, Health Department, Cedar City, UT 

Chief, Department of Health and Social Services, Radiological Health Program, Juneau, AK 

Chief, Radiological Health Branch, Department of Health Services, Sacramento, CA 

Public Health Physicist, Radiological Health Section, Orange County Health Care Agency, 

Santa Ana, CA 

Director, Department of Health Services, Occupational Health and Radiation Management, 

Los Angeles, CA 

Director, Santa Barbara Health Care Services, Santa Barbara, CA 

Director, Division of Radiological Health State Board of Health, Jackson, MS 

Director, Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, Phoenix, AZ 

C. F. Eberhart, LANL, M/S F670, Los Alamos, NM (2) 

C. F. Costa, LANL, Mercury, NV 

J. A. Carpenter, LANL, Mercury, NV 

E. H. Essingto4 LANL, M/S 5495, Los Alamos, NM 

Resident Manager, LLNL, Mercury, NV 

J. M. Haeberliq LLNL, Mercury, NV 

John Shinn, Environmental Science Division, LLNL, L-453, Livermore, CA 

John Fischer, Chemistry and Materials Division, LLNL, L-3 11, Livermore, CA 

Jii Kercher, Health and Ecological Assessment Division, LLNL, L-524, Livermore, CA 

Lynn Anspaugh, Risk Sciences Center, LLNL, L-453, Livermore, CA 

Bob Schock, Energy Program, LLNL, L-641, Liver-more CA 

David Smith LLNL, L-23 1, Livermore, CA 
Resident Manager, SNL, Mercury, NV 

J. H. Metcti, SNL, Mercury, NV 

Roger Smith, SNL; Tenopah, NV 

D. A Bedsun, DSWA Las Vegas, NV 

Battelle 

R. 0. Gilbert, Sigma 3., Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA 

Manager, Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 

Richland, WA 

C. M. Beck, DRJ, Las Vegas, NV 

R L. Jacobson, DRJ, Las Vegas, NV (3) 

BN 

Manager, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

Manager, Environmental Management Division, BN, Las Vegas, NV (2) 

Manager, Waste Management Department, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

M. E. DeMarre, Health Protection Department, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

R F. Grossman, Analytical Services Section, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

R R Kin&o4 Analytical Services Section, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

J. W. Kessler, Environmental Compliance Office, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

R B. Hunter, Analytical Services Section, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

C. A. Wiis, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

0. L. Haworth, Environmental Management Division, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

Deron Linkenheil, Waste Management Department, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

D. A Gonzalez, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

D. P. S&lick, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

T. P. Van Sitter-t, BN, Las Vegas, NV 

DOEiNV 

T. A Vaeth, AMGR, DOE&V, Las Vegas, NV 

K. D. Jzell, AMTS, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

J. N. Fiore, AMNS, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

G. L. Dever, AMEM, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

K. W. Powers, AMBFS, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

D. J. Morgan, PAJO, DOE/NV, L.as Vegas, NV (2) 

C. E. McWilliam, DPD, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

R C. Wycoff, WMD, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

M. A Marelli, DAMTS, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

L. P. Skousen, Dir., DOEINV, Las Vegas, NV 

A. J. Roberts, Dir., RMD, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

a 
A J. Roberts, Dir., RMD, DOEMV, Las Vegas, NV 

K. A Hoar Dir., EPD, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

N. G. McNeill, EPD, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

F. E. Di Sanza, Dir., ETD, DOE/NV, Las Vegas, NV 

Technical Information Resource Center, DOE/NV, Las Veagas, NV 

E. W. Chew, DOE/ID, M/S 4149, Idaho Falls, ID 

Environmental Protection Department, Mason and Hanger, Silas-Mason Co., Inc., Pantex Plant, 

Amarillo, TX 

Manager, Health Protection Department, EHSD, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 

A&en, SC 

Jeff Tappan, Westinghouse Corporation, Las Vegas, NV 

05ce of Scientific and Technical Information, Technical Center, DOE, Oak Ridge, TN (2). 

UNLV Library Government Documents, University of NevadaiLas Vegas, Las Vegas, NV 

UNR Getchell Library, University of Nevada-Reno, Reno, NV 

E. A Hopper UDAF/EV, 455 1 Deviin Drive, Nellis AFB, NV 

Ann-Marie Choephel, Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office, Tonopah, NV 

Steve Deandi, Western Governmental Association, Boulder, CO 

Waste Policy Institute, Attn: Diane Watson, Savannah River Research Campus, A&en, SC