For further information on this final SWEIS, or to request a copy 

of the SWEIS or references, please contact:

AVAILABILITY OF THE FINAL SITE-WIDE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE

CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY/ 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN

THE STATE OF NEVADA (NNSS SWEIS)

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

Linda M. Cohn, SWEIS Document Manager

NNSA Nevada Site Office

U.S. Department of Energy

P. O. Box 98518

Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518

Telephone: 702-295-0077

Fax: 702-295-5300

Email: nepa@nv.doe.gov
 iii

COVER SHEET 

Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration 

Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Air Force 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Nye County, NV 

Title: Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the 

Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site 

and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE/EIS-0426) 

Location: Nye and Clark Counties, Nevada 

For additional information or for copies of this final 

site-wide environmental impact statement (SWEIS), 

contact: 

Linda M. Cohn, SWEIS Document Manager 

 NNSA Nevada Site Office 

 U.S. Department of Energy 

 P. O. Box 98518 

 Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8518 

Telephone: 702-295-0077 

Facsimile: 702-295-5300 

E-mail: nepa@nv.doe.gov 

For general information on the DOE National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, 

contact: 

Carol M. Borgstrom, Director 

Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

Telephone: 202-586-4600, or leave a message 

at 1-800-472-2756 

Facsimile: 202-586-7031 

E-mail: askNEPA@hq.doe.gov 

Abstract: This Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the 

Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site 

Locations in the State of Nevada (NNSS SWEIS) analyzes the potential environmental impacts of proposed 

alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly 

known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security 

Administration (DOE/NNSA)-managed sites in Nevada, including the Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) on 

Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, the North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF), the Tonopah Test Range 

(TTR), and environmental restoration areas on the U.S. Air Force Nevada Test and Training Range. The 

purpose and need for agency action is to provide support for meeting NNSA’s core missions established by 

Congress and the President and to satisfy the requirements of Executive Orders and comply with Congressional 

mandates to promote, expedite, and advance the production of environmentally sound energy resources, 

including renewable energy resources such as solar and geothermal energy systems. 

The NNSS has a long history of supporting national security objectives by conducting underground nuclear 

tests and other nuclear and nonnuclear activities. Since the October 1992 moratorium on nuclear testing, 

NNSA’s mission at the NNSS has evolved from one that focuses on active nuclear weapons tests to one that 

maintains readiness and the capability to conduct underground nuclear weapons tests; such a test would be 

conducted only if so directed by the President in the interest of national security. Resources have been 

reallocated to introduce and expand other mission activities/programs at the NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and TTR to 

support three DOE/NNSA core missions: National Security/Defense, Environmental Management, and 

Nondefense. The National Security/Defense Mission includes the Stockpile Stewardship and Management, 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

iv 

Nuclear Emergency Response, Nonproliferation and Counterterrorism, and Work for Others Programs. The 

Work for Others Program supports other DOE programs and Federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of 

Defense, U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Environmental 

Management Mission includes the Waste Management and Environmental Restoration Programs. The 

Nondefense Mission includes the General Site Support and Infrastructure, Conservation and Renewable 

Energy, and Other Research and Development Programs. 

The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and TTR support DOE/NNSA’s core missions by providing the capabilities to 

process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard 

experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, nonnuclear experiments, and 

hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium 

experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear 

weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and 

emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, in accordance with 

the amended Record of Decision (ROD) (DOE/EIS-0243) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (1996 NTS EIS), DOE/NNSA receives lowlevel and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS.

This NNSS SWEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of three reasonable alternatives for continued 

operations at the NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and TTR. These alternatives include a No Action Alternative and two 

action alternatives: Expanded Operations and Reduced Operations. The No Action Alternative, which is 

analyzed as a baseline for evaluating the two action alternatives, would continue implementation of the 1996 

NTS EIS ROD (DOE/EIS-0243) and subsequent amendments (61 FR 65551and 65 FR 10061), as well as other 

decisions supported by separate NEPA analyses completed since issuance of the final 1996 NTS EIS. The 

No Action Alternative reflects activity levels consistent with those seen since 1996. The Expanded Operations 

Alternative considers adding new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, 

high-hazard and other experiments, research and development, and testing. Such expanded operations could 

include developing test beds for concept testing of sensors, mitigation strategies, and weapons effectiveness. 

The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings 

and structures. NNSA would also consider allowing the development of solar power generation facilities under 

each alternative.

Public Comments: In preparing this Final NNSS SWEIS, NNSA considered comments received during the 

scoping period (July 24, 2009, to October 16, 2009) and during the public comment period on the 

Draft NNSS SWEIS (July 29, 2011, to December 2, 2011), as well as those received after the close of the public 

comment period on the Draft NNSS SWEIS. Five public hearings on the Draft NNSS SWEIS were held to 

provide interested members of the public with opportunities to learn more about NNSA missions, programs, 

and activities and the content of the Draft NNSS SWEIS from exhibits, factsheets, and discussion with NNSA 

subject matter experts. From September 20 through 28, 2011, public hearings were held in Las Vegas, 

Pahrump, Tonopah, and Carson City, Nevada, and St. George, Utah. An additional hearing was conducted for 

the Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations on October 6, 2011. All comments received were 

considered during preparation of this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

This Final NNSS SWEIS contains revisions and new information based in part on comments received on the

Draft NNSS SWEIS. Vertical change bars in the margins indicate the locations of these revisions and new 

information. Volume 3 contains the comments received on the Draft NNSS SWEIS and DOE/NNSA’s 

responses to those comments. DOE/NNSA will use the analysis presented in this Final NNSS SWEIS, as well 

as other information, in preparing a ROD regarding the continued operation of the NNSS and offsite locations 

in Nevada. DOE/NNSA will issue a ROD no sooner than 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency publishes a Notice of Availability of this Final NNSS SWEIS in the Federal Register. 
v

FOREWORD 

This Foreword to the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of 

the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and 

Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (NNSS SWEIS) focuses on the nature of the changes to the 

Draft NNSS SWEIS that resulted from public comments, as well as changes in environmental baseline 

information and the analyses of potential environmental impacts. The Foreword also discusses the role 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process and this Final NNSS SWEIS play in the 

DOE/NNSA decisionmaking process. 

PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE NNSS SWEIS

This Final NNSS SWEIS analyzes potential environmental impacts of continued management and 

operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and 

other sites managed by the U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration 

(DOE/NNSA) in Nevada. During development of an environmental impact statement (EIS), there are two 

required opportunities for public involvement: during public scoping and during the public comment 

period after the draft EIS is issued. The NNSS SWEIS public scoping process began on July 24, 2009, and 

concluded on October 16, 2009. DOE/NNSA received approximately 150 comment documents, each of 

which was evaluated to determine the scope of issues to be evaluated in this site-wide environmental 

impact statement (SWEIS). 

On July 29, 2011, DOE/NNSA published a notice in the Federal Register (FR) announcing the 

availability of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, the duration of the comment period, the location and timing of the 

public hearings, and methods for submitting comments. DOE/NNSA announced a 90-day public 

comment period, from July 29 to October 27, 2011, to provide time for interested parties to review the 

Draft NNSS SWEIS. In response to requests for additional review time, DOE/NNSA extended the 

comment period by 36 days, through December 2, 2011, giving commentors a total review and comment 

period of 126 days. DOE/NNSA received more than 240 comment documents containing almost 

800 comments. 

WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF PUBLIC COMMENTS? 

In reviewing the comments on the Draft NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA identified several topics that were of 

heightened interest or concern to stakeholders, or resulted in generally substantive changes to relevant 

information and analyses in this NNSS SWEIS. These topics included: 

 Transportation Routing. Commentors were concerned that DOE/NNSA was considering 

changing routes for shipping radioactive waste to allow shipment of waste through 

Las Vegas, and indicated the analysis should address site-specific conditions along the routes 

in the vicinity of Las Vegas. Additionally, commentors stated that the analysis of rail 

transfer stations was incomplete because specific operations and accidents that could occur at 

the analyzed rail transfer stations were not addressed. 

 Groundwater Quality and Use. Commentors stated that groundwater contamination from 

historic nuclear weapons testing continued to pose an unacceptable risk to human health and 

that the Draft NNSS SWEIS did not characterize this risk adequately. Commentors alleged 

that this groundwater contamination and restrictions on public access to other groundwater on 

the NNSS constituted a loss of a valuable resource, which contributed to a lack of economic 

development. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

vi 

 Former Yucca Mountain Site. Commentors believed that DOE/NNSA should analyze, as a 

reasonably foreseeable future action, either the construction and operation of a high-level 

radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain or the remediation and reclamation of the 

former Yucca Mountain Site. 

 American Indian Rights. Commentors expressed concern that the U.S. Government is not 

abiding by the terms of the Treaty of Ruby Valley, and stated that the lands encompassing the 

NNSS rightfully belong to the Western Shoshone people. 

 Use of the NNSS. Commentors contended that ongoing and proposed activities at the NNSS 

were not consistent with the purposes for which the land was originally withdrawn from 

public use and stated that DOE/NNSA should consider returning some or all of the lands to 

public use. 

 Nuclear Weapons Testing. Commentors were opposed to resumption of nuclear weapons 

testing and were concerned that resumption of testing was possible, despite the current 

moratorium on such tests. 

 Renewable Energy. Commentors were generally supportive of using the NNSS for research 

and commercial-scale renewable energy projects, but expressed concerns that such projects, 

particularly commercial-scale projects, have the potential to cause adverse environmental 

impacts on many resources. 

DOE/NNSA has responded to each public comment in the Comment Response Document (Volume 3) of 

this Final NNSS SWEIS. 

HOW WAS THE DRAFT NNSS SWEIS CHANGED? 

DOE/NNSA revised the Draft NNSS SWEIS in response to public comments and provided additional 

environmental baseline information and new and revised analyses including, but not limited to, the 

following: 

 DOE/NNSA added information (figures and supporting text) regarding current and projected 

levels of surface soil and groundwater contamination. 

 DOE/NNSA enhanced its cumulative effects analysis by including the remediation of the former 

Yucca Mountain Site as a reasonably foreseeable future action. 

 DOE/NNSA added a human health impacts analysis for an alternate maximally exposed 

individual based upon a “subsistence consumer” lifestyle pattern. 

 DOE/NNSA added an analysis of potential impacts associated with wildland fire events. 

 DOE/NNSA included new information regarding existing environmental conditions based upon 

more-recent, routine sampling and field data collection (e.g., groundwater contaminant sampling). 

DOE/NNSA also corrected inaccuracies, made editorial corrections, and clarified text. Substantive 

changes to the text are identified through the use of margin bars on the edges of the affected pages. 
Summary 

vii

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

DOE/NNSA will announce its decision regarding the selected alternative or alternatives in a Record of 

Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Notice of 

Availability for this Final NNSS SWEIS is published in the Federal Register. The ROD will be published 

in the Federal Register and explain all factors, including the potential environmental impacts, considered 

by DOE/NNSA in reaching its decision. The ROD will identify the environmentally Preferred 

Alternative or Alternatives. If mitigation measures, monitoring, or other conditions are adopted as part of 

DOE/NNSA’s decision, these will be summarized in the ROD, as applicable, and included in a mitigation 

action plan that will be prepared following issuance of the ROD. The mitigation action plan will explain 

how and when mitigation measures would be implemented and how DOE/NNSA would monitor the 

mitigation measures over time to judge their effectiveness. 

After DOE/NNSA issues its ROD, both the ROD and the mitigation action plan will be posted on DOE’s 

NEPA website (http://nepa.energy.gov), and copies will be placed in the DOE/NNSA Reading Room in 

Las Vegas, Nevada, and in public libraries in southern Nevada and southwestern Utah; they also will be 

made available to interested parties upon request. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

viii 

This page left blank intentionally. 
Summary 

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................... x 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. x 

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Conversion Charts ...................................................................................................... xi 

S.1 Introduction and Purpose and Need ...........................................................................................................S-1

S.1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................S-1

S.1.2 Purpose and Need for Agency Action .................................................................................................S-2

S.2 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................................................S-3

S.2.1 Background .........................................................................................................................................S-3

S.2.2 No Action Alternative .........................................................................................................................S-5

S.2.3 Expanded Operations Alternative ........................................................................................................S-8

S.2.4 Reduced Operations Alternative ..........................................................................................................S-8

S.2.5 Preferred Alternative ......................................................................................................................... S-18

S.2.6 Potential Decisions Resulting from this Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement ...................... S-19

S.3 Summary of Environmental Impacts ........................................................................................................ S-19

S.3.1 Nevada National Security Site ........................................................................................................... S-19

S.3.1.1 Energy .............................................................................................................................. S-19

S.3.1.2 Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................ S-20

S.3.1.3 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ S-24

S.3.1.4 Groundwater Hydrology ................................................................................................... S-25

S.3.1.5 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ S-34

S.3.1.6 Air Quality........................................................................................................................ S-37

S.3.1.7 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. S-39

S.3.1.8 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... S-39

S.3.1.9 Waste Management .......................................................................................................... S-41

S.3.1.10 Human Health .................................................................................................................. S-43

S.3.1.11 Cumulative Impacts .......................................................................................................... S-62

S.3.2 Remote Sensing Laboratory .............................................................................................................. S-62

S.3.3 North Las Vegas Facility ................................................................................................................... S-62

S.3.3.1 Energy .............................................................................................................................. S-81

S.3.3.2 Traffic ............................................................................................................................... S-81

S.3.3.3 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ S-81

S.3.3.4 Air Quality........................................................................................................................ S-82

S.3.3.5 Waste Management .......................................................................................................... S-83

S.3.3.6 Human Health .................................................................................................................. S-83

S.3.4 Tonopah Test Range .......................................................................................................................... S-88

S.3.4.1 Transportation .................................................................................................................. S-88

S.3.4.2 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................ S-88

S.3.4.3 Air Quality........................................................................................................................ S-88

S.3.4.4 Waste Management .......................................................................................................... S-89

S.3.4.5 Human Health .................................................................................................................. S-90

S.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. S-99

S.4.1 Major Conclusions............................................................................................................................. S-99

S.4.2 Areas of Controversy ......................................................................................................................... S-99

S.4.3 Issues to be Resolved ....................................................................................................................... S-101

S.5 References .................................................................................................................................................. S-102
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

x 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure S–1 Location of Nevada National Security Site and Offsite Locations in the State of Nevada .................S-3

Figure S–2 No Action Alternative Land Use Zones ..............................................................................................S-7

Figure S–3 Expanded Operations Alternative Land Use Zones ............................................................................S-9

Figure S–4 Reduced Operations Alternative Land Use Zones ............................................................................ S-10

Figure S–5 Latent Cancer Fatalities from Incident-Free Transportation (Constrained Case) .............................. S-22

Figure S–6 Daily Vehicle Trips Between U.S. Route 95 and Mercury Highway ................................................ S-24

Figure S–7 Underground Test Area Corrective Action Units at the Nevada National Security Site ................... S-27

Figure S–8 Concentration of Tritium Detected in Monitoring and Hydrogeologic Investigation Wells 

and Springs of the Nevada National Security Site ............................................................................ S-28

Figure S–9 Modeled Extent of the Contaminant Boundary in the Frenchman Flat 

Corrective Action Unit in 1,000 Years .............................................................................................. S-29

Figure S–10 Hydrographic Basins at the Nevada National Security Site .............................................................. S-30

Figure S–11 Desert Tortoise Range and Abundance on the Nevada National Security Site ................................. S-36

LIST OF TABLES

Table S–1 Comparison of Mission-Based Program Activities Under the Proposed Alternatives 

and Identification of the Preferred Alternative (blue shading) .......................................................... S-11

Table S–2 Estimated Number of Shipments of Radioactive Waste and Materials ............................................. S-21

Table S–3 No Action Alternative Impacts on Groundwater Supply .................................................................. S-32

Table S–4 Expanded Operations Alternative Impacts on Groundwater Supply ................................................. S-32

Table S–5 Reduced Operations Alternative Impacts on Groundwater Supply ................................................... S-33

Table S–6 Land Disturbance .............................................................................................................................. S-34

Table S–7 Potential Impacts on Desert Tortoises at the Nevada National Security Site .................................... S-37

Table S–8 Emissions of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases at the Nevada National Security Site 

(tons per year) ................................................................................................................................... S-38

Table S–9 Cultural Resources Sites Impacted by Solar Power Generation Facilities ........................................ S-40

Table S–10 Waste Generated and Disposed at the Nevada National Security Site .............................................. S-41

Table S–11 Waste Generated by Construction and Operation of Commercial Solar Power 

Generation Facilities ......................................................................................................................... S-41

Table S–12 Estimated Incidence of Nonfatal Accidents at the Nevada National Security Site ........................... S-45

Table S–13 Estimated Incidence of Fatal Construction Accidents at the Nevada National Security Site ............ S-45

Table S–14 Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts at the Nevada National Security Site ................ S-46

Table S–15 Potential Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................... S-63

Table S–16 Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts at the Remote Sensing Laboratory .................... S-77

Table S–17 Emissions of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases at the North Las Vegas Facility 

(tons per year) ................................................................................................................................... S-82

Table S–18 Annual Estimated Incidence of Nonfatal Accidents at the North Las Vegas Facility ....................... S-83

Table S–19 Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts at the North Las Vegas Facility ........................ S-84

Table S–20 Emissions of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases at the Tonopah Test Range 

(tons per year) ................................................................................................................................... S-89

Table S–21 Annual Estimated Incidence of Nonfatal Accidents at the Tonopah Test Range .............................. S-90

Table S–22 Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts at the Tonopah Test Range ............................... S-91
Summary 

xi

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGTO Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR Federal Register

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NLVF North Las Vegas Facility 

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration 

NNSS Nevada National Security Site 

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NTS Nevada Test Site 

NSO Nevada Site Office 

rem roentgen equivalent man 

ROD Record of Decision 

RSL Remote Sensing Laboratory 

SWEIS site-wide environmental impact statement 

TNT 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene 

TTR Tonopah Test Range 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

xii 

CONVERSIONS 

METRIC TO ENGLISH ENGLISH TO METRIC 

Multiply by To get Multiply by To get 

Area

Square meters 

Square kilometers 

Square kilometers 

 Hectares 

10.764 

247.1 

0.3861 

2.471 

Square feet 

Acres 

Square miles 

Acres 

Square feet 

Acres 

Square miles 

Acres 

0.092903 

0.0040469 

2.59 

0.40469 

Square meters 

Square kilometers 

Square kilometers 

Hectares 

Concentration

Kilograms/square meter 

Milligrams/liter 

Micrograms/liter 

Micrograms/cubic meter 

0.16667 

1 a

1 a

1 a

Tons/acre 

Parts/million 

Parts/billion 

Parts/trillion 

Tons/acre 

Parts/million 

Parts/billion 

Parts/trillion 

0.5999 

1 a

1 a

1 a

Kilograms/square meter 

Milligrams/liter 

Micrograms/liter 

Micrograms/cubic meter 

Density

Grams/cubic centimeter 

Grams/cubic meter 

62.428 

0.0000624 

Pounds/cubic feet 

Pounds/cubic feet 

Pounds/cubic feet 

Pounds/cubic feet 

0.016018 

16,025.6 

Grams/cubic centimeter 

Grams/cubic meter 

Length

Centimeters 

Meters 

Kilometers 

0.3937 

3.2808 

0.62137 

Inches 

Feet 

Miles 

Inches 

Feet 

Miles 

2.54 

0.3048 

1.6093 

Centimeters 

Meters 

Kilometers 

Temperature

Absolute

Degrees C + 17.78 

Relative

Degrees C 

1.8 

1.8 

Degrees F 

Degrees F 

Degrees F - 32 

Degrees F 

0.55556 

0.55556 

Degrees C 

Degrees C 

Velocity/Rate

Cubic meters/second 

Grams/second 

Meters/second 

2118.9 

7.9366 

2.237 

Cubic feet/minute 

Pounds/hour 

Miles/hour 

Cubic feet/minute 

Pounds/hour 

Miles/hour 

0.00047195 

0.126 

0.44704 

Cubic meters/second 

Grams/second 

Meters/second 

Volume

Liters 

Liters 

Liters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

0.26418 

0.035316 

0.001308 

264.17 

35.315 

1.3079 

0.0008107 

Gallons 

Cubic feet 

Cubic yards 

Gallons 

Cubic feet 

Cubic yards 

Acre-feet 

Gallons 

Cubic feet 

Cubic yards 

Gallons 

Cubic feet 

Cubic yards 

Acre-feet 

3.78533 

28.316 

764.54 

0.0037854 

0.028317 

0.76456 

1233.49 

Liters 

Liters 

Liters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Cubic meters 

Weight/Mass

Grams 

Kilograms 

Kilograms 

Metric tons 

0.035274 

2.2046 

0.0011023 

1.1023 

Ounces 

Pounds 

Tons (short) 

Tons (short) 

Ounces 

Pounds 

Tons (short) 

Tons (short) 

28.35 

0.45359 

907.18 

0.90718 

Grams 

Kilograms 

Kilograms 

Metric tons 

ENGLISH TO ENGLISH

Acre-feet 

Acres 

Square miles 

325,850.7 

43,560 

640 

Gallons 

Square feet 

Acres 

Gallons 

Square feet 

Acres 

0.000003046 

0.000022957 

0.0015625 

Acre-feet 

Acres 

Square miles 

a. This conversion is only valid for concentrations of contaminants (or other materials) in water.

METRIC PREFIXES

Prefix Symbol Multiplication factor 

exapetateragigamegakilodecadecicentimillimicronanopicoE 

P 

T 

G 

M 

k 

D 

d 

c 

m 

μ

n 

p 

1,000,000,000,000,000,000

1,000,000,000,000,000

1,000,000,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,000,000

1,000

10

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.000 001

0.000 000 001

0.000 000 000 001

= 1018

= 1015

= 1012

= 109

= 106

= 103

= 101

= 10-1

= 10-2

= 10-3

= 10-6

= 10-9

= 10-12
S-1

SUMMARY 

S.1 Introduction and Purpose and Need 

S.1.1 Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) “National Environmental Policy Act Implementing 

Procedures” (10 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1021.330(c)) require preparation of a site-wide 

environmental impact statement (SWEIS), a broad-scope document that identifies and assesses the 

potential individual and cumulative impacts of ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions for 

certain large multiple-facility DOE sites, such as the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly the 

Nevada Test Site). An evaluation of an existing SWEIS is required every 5 years. DOE determines 

whether an existing SWEIS remains adequate or whether a new SWEIS or supplement to the existing 

SWEIS is needed. 

In 1996, DOE issued the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site 

Locations in the State of Nevada (1996 NTS EIS) (DOE 1996) and an associated Record of Decision 

(ROD) (61 Federal Register [FR] 65551). In the ROD, DOE selected the Expanded Use Alternative for 

most activities, but decided to manage low-level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste 

at levels described under the No Action Alternative, pending decisions resulting from the Final Waste 

Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and 

Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste (WM PEIS) (DOE 1997). In the February 2000 WM PEIS

ROD (65 FR 10061), DOE announced that the NNSS would be one of two regional sites to be used for 

disposal of low-level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste. At the same time, DOE 

amended the 1996 NTS EIS ROD to select the Expanded Use Alternative for waste management activities 

at the NNSS. 

Subsequently, as required by DOE regulations (10 CFR 1021.330(d)), the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA), a separately organized semiautonomous agency within DOE, conducted the first 

5-year review of the 1996 NTS EIS, as documented in the 2002 Supplement Analysis for the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada

(DOE 2002). Based on this review, DOE/NNSA concluded there were no substantial changes to the 

actions proposed in the 1996 NTS EIS and no significant new circumstances or information relevant to 

environmental concerns. Thus, DOE/NNSA determined that no further National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) analysis was required. 

In 2007, DOE/NNSA initiated its second 5-year review of the 1996 NTS EIS and, in April 2008, issued 

the Draft Supplement Analysis for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site and 

Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada (DOE 2008). Based on consideration of comments received on 

the draft supplement analysis, potential changes to the NNSS program work scope, and changes to the 

environmental baseline, DOE/NNSA decided to prepare this Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security 

Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

(NNSS SWEIS) (DOE/EIS-0426). DOE/NNSA has prepared this NNSS SWEIS in compliance with 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations that implement NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508) and 

DOE NEPA implementing procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-2 

The U.S. Air Force, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and Nye County, Nevada, are cooperating 

agencies in the preparation of this NNSS SWEIS. In addition, the Consolidated Group of Tribes and 

Organizations, which includes representatives from 17 tribes and organizations, participated in the 

preparation of this SWEIS; their assessments and recommendations appear in text boxes in this Summary 

and throughout this SWEIS. 

S.1.2 Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

The purpose and need for agency action is to support DOE/NNSA’s core missions established by the 

U.S. Congress and the President. These include meeting its obligations to ensure a safe and reliable 

nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of 

the NNSS and offsite locations previously 

contaminated as a result of the Nation’s nuclear 

weapons testing program, and provide for the 

disposal of low-level and mixed low-level 

radioactive waste from across the DOE 

complex. 

DOE/NNSA also must meet the mandates of 

Executive Orders 13212, Actions to Expedite 

Energy-Related Projects, and 13514, Federal 

Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Performance, as well as the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public 

Law 109-58). Accordingly, DOE/NNSA’s 

purpose and need is also to satisfy the 

requirements of these Executive Orders and 

comply with Congressional mandates to 

promote, expedite, and advance the production 

of environmentally sound energy resources, 

including renewable energy resources such as 

solar and geothermal energy systems. 

Consolidated Group of Tribes and Organizations 

Southern Paiute 

 Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Arizona 

 Paiute Indian Tribes of Utah 

 Moapa Band of Paiutes, Nevada 

 Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Nevada 

 Pahrump Paiute Tribe, Nevada 

 Chemehuevi Paiute Tribe, California 

 Colorado River Indian Tribes, Arizona 

Owens Valley Paiute and Shoshone 

 Benton Paiute Tribe, California 

 Bishop Paiute Tribe, California 

 Big Pine Paiute Tribe, California 

 Lone Pine Paiute Tribe, California 

 Fort Independence Paiute Tribe, California 

Western Shoshone 

 Duckwater Shoshone Tribe, Nevada 

 Ely Shoshone Tribe, Nevada 

 Yomba Shoshone Tribe, Nevada 

 Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, California 

Other Official Native American Indian Organizations 

 Las Vegas Indian Center, Nevada 
Summary 

S-3

The NNSS has a long history of supporting national security objectives by conducting underground 

nuclear tests and other nuclear and nonnuclear activities. Since October 1992, there has been a 

moratorium on underground nuclear testing. Thus, DOE/NNSA’s mission at the NNSS has evolved from 

one that focused on active nuclear weapons tests to one that maintain readiness and the capability to 

conduct underground nuclear weapons tests; such a test would be conducted only if so directed by the 

President in the interest of national security. DOE/NNSA’s primary mission at the NNSS is to support 

nuclear stockpile reliability through subcritical experiments. Changes in national security priorities have 

resulted in resource reallocation and the introduction and expansion of other national security missions, 

programs, and activities at the NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada. In addition, the NNSS supports 

DOE waste management activities, including disposal; environmental restoration activities; and research, 

development, and testing programs related to national security. The NNSS also provides opportunities 

for various environmental research projects and development of commercial-scale solar energy projects, 

as well as development of innovative solar and other renewable energy technologies. 

S.2 Alternatives 

S.2.1 Background 

This NNSS SWEIS analyzes the potential 

environmental impacts of continued 

management and operation of the NNSS 

and other DOE/NNSA-managed sites in 

Nevada, including the Remote Sensing 

Laboratory (RSL), North Las Vegas Facility 

(NLVF), and Tonopah Test Range (TTR) 

(see Figure S–1). This NNSS SWEIS also 

analyzes the impacts of other DOE program 

activities, as well as those of other Federal 

agencies, such as the U.S. Department of 

Defense and U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, that occur or are proposed to occur 

on these DOE/NNSA-managed sites. 

The NNSS occupies approximately 

1,360 square miles of desert and mountain 

terrain in southern Nevada. About 

6,500 square miles of the U.S. Air Force’s 

Nevada Test and Training Range and the 

Desert National Wildlife Refuge surround 

the NNSS on the northern, western, and 

eastern sides. The NNSS is a multidisciplinary, multi-purpose facility primarily 

engaged in work that supports national 

security, homeland security initiatives, waste 

management, environmental restoration, and 

defense and nondefense research and 

development programs for DOE/NNSA, and 

other government entities. Figure S–1 Location of Nevada National Security Site 

and Offsite Locations in the State of Nevada 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-4 

RSL is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base in North Las Vegas, Nevada, approximately 59 miles 

southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary. RSL is adjacent to the Nellis Air Force Base runway and has 

seven buildings. Radiological emergency response, the Aerial Measuring System, radiological sensor 

development and testing, Secure Systems Technologies, nuclear nonproliferation capabilities, and 

information and communication technologies are supported at RSL. 

NLVF, located on 78 acres approximately 55 miles southeast of the nearest NNSS boundary in 

Las Vegas, comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The facility includes office 

buildings, a high bay, machine shop, laboratories, experimental facilities, and various other missionsupport facilities. Among the NLVF buildings is the Nevada Support Facility, the location of most of the 

DOE/NNSA Nevada Site Office (NSO) personnel offices. 

The TTR, located approximately 12 miles north of the nearest NNSS boundary, is a U.S. Air Force 

facility. It consists of a 280-square-mile area north of the NNSS on the Nevada Test and Training Range. 

DOE/NNSA operations at the TTR are conducted pursuant to a land use permit from the U.S. Air Force 

under the direction of Sandia National Laboratories and the DOE/NNSA Sandia Site Office (other 

DOE/NNSA sites in Nevada are under the direction of the DOE/NNSA NSO). DOE/NNSA operations at 

the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of 

nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. 

In this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA analyzes the potential environmental impacts of three alternatives: 

(1) No Action, (2) Expanded Operations, and (3) Reduced Operations. Each alternative comprises current 

and reasonably foreseeable missions, programs, capabilities, and projects at the NNSS and the three 

offsite locations during a 10-year period. This SWEIS considers ongoing and proposed programs, 

capabilities, and projects (i.e., activities) at DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada over the next 10 years. 

 

The nature of ongoing activities and their associated environmental impacts are well understood. In 

contrast, however, the nature of some proposed activities is less well known. In the interest of disclosing 

potential environmental impacts that could occur at the NNSS and offsite locations, this SWEIS includes 

ongoing activities, as well as activities that are more conceptual in nature. DOE/NNSA understands that 

the level of NEPA analysis conducted for some proposed future activities may not be sufficient to permit 

implementation, and such activities could require additional NEPA analysis. 

Terminology Used in this Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation 

of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and 

Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

Missions. This term refers to the major responsibilities assigned to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and 

the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and comprises the National Security/Defense Mission, 

Environmental Management Mission, and Nondefense Mission. 

Programs. DOE and NNSA are organized into program offices, each of which has primary responsibilities 

within the set of missions. Funding and direction for activities at DOE and NNSA facilities are provided through 

these program offices, and similarly coordinated sets of activities to meet program office responsibilities are often 

referred to as “programs.” Programs are usually long-term efforts with broad goals or requirements. 

Capabilities. This term refers to the combination of facilities, equipment, infrastructure, and expertise necessary 

to undertake types or groups of activities and to implement mission assignments. Capabilities at the Nevada 

National Security Site and offsite locations have been established over time, principally through mission 

assignments and activities directed by program offices. 

Projects. This term is used to describe activities with a clear beginning and end that are undertaken to meet a 

specific goal or need. Projects can vary in scale from very small (such as a project to undertake one experiment 

or a series of small experiments) to major (such as a project to construct and start up a new nuclear facility). 

Activities. In this site-wide environmental impact statement, activities are those physical actions used to 

implement missions, programs, capabilities, or projects. 
Summary 

S-5

Alternative descriptions are organized under three missions, each with two or more associated programs. 

The DOE/NNSA missions and associated programs in Nevada are (1) the National Security/Defense 

Mission, which includes the Stockpile Stewardship and 

Management, Nuclear Emergency Response, Nonproliferation, 

Counterterrorism, and Work for Others Programs; (2) the 

Environmental Management Mission, which includes the 

Waste Management and Environmental Restoration Programs; 

and (3) the Nondefense Mission, which includes the General 

Site Support and Infrastructure, Conservation and Renewable 

Energy, and Other Research and Development Programs. 

Mission-related capabilities, projects, and activities are 

identified for each of the alternatives. The three alternatives 

include similar types of capabilities, projects, and activities, 

but differ primarily in their levels of operations and facility 

requirements. The No Action Alternative reflects the use of 

existing facilities and ongoing projects to maintain operations 

at levels consistent with those experienced since 1996. The 

Expanded Operations Alternative differs from the No Action 

Alternative in that the levels of operations would be enhanced or accelerated, and new facilities would be 

constructed to support increased levels of operations. In addition, under the Expanded Operations 

Alternative, DOE/NNSA would modify (resize) land use zones at the NNSS to better reflect the kinds of 

activities that would be undertaken in those zones. Under the Reduced Operations Alternative, 

DOE/NNSA would conduct some activities at levels similar to those under the No Action Alternative, but 

for other activities, the levels of operations would be reduced or would cease altogether. DOE/NNSA 

also would modify land use zones on the NNSS, and limit most activities in the northwestern portion of 

the NNSS. 

Sections S.2.2 through S.2.4 describe the three 

alternatives in greater detail. Table S–1 (at the end of 

Section S.2.4) summarizes the mission-based 

programmatic similarities and differences among the 

three alternatives. 

S.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative reflects the use of existing 

facilities and ongoing projects to maintain the levels of 

operations (activities) consistent with those experienced 

in recent years at the NNSS and offsite locations. For 

each of the three mission areas and their supporting 

programs, the levels of operations for associated 

capabilities, projects, and activities were determined by 

analyzing operational levels realized since 1996. 

Under the No Action Alternative, Stockpile 

Stewardship and Management Program activities would 

continue at DOE/NNSA facilities in Nevada under the 

conditions of the ongoing nuclear testing moratorium. 

These activities would include science-based stockpile 

stewardship tests, experiments, and projects to maintain 

the safety and reliability of the Nation’s nuclear 

weapons stockpile without underground nuclear testing. 

Levels of Operations – An Example

In the 1996 Record of Decision, the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) selected 

the Expanded Use Alternative. Under this 

alternative, DOE proposed to undertake as 

many as 110 annual experiments to 

improve its knowledge of the properties of 

plutonium, and assess the performance 

and safety of nuclear weapons. Since 

then, however, only about 10 such 

experiments have occurred annually. 

The historic levels of operations form the 

underlying basis for the No Action 

Alternative in this site-wide environmental 

impact statement. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-6 

Under Presidential Decision Directive 15, DOE/NNSA must be able to resume underground nuclear 

weapons tests within 24 to 36 months if so directed by the President. Although DOE/NNSA would 

maintain the capability to conduct an underground nuclear test, conducting such a test is neither included 

nor analyzed under this, or any, of the alternatives. 

In support of the Nuclear Emergency Response, Nonproliferation, and Counterterrorism Programs, under 

the No Action Alternative, DOE/NNSA would continue to (1) provide support to the Nuclear Emergency 

Support Team, the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center, the Accident Response 

Group, and the Radiological Assistance Program; (2) undertake Aerial Measuring System activities; 

(3) provide emergency responder training for emergencies involving weapons of mass destruction; 

(4) disposition improvised nuclear devices; (5) support DOE/NNSA’s Emergency Communications 

Network; and (6) integrate existing activities and facilities to support national efforts to control the spread 

of weapons of mass destruction. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Work for Others Program hosted by DOE/NNSA would entail the 

shared use of certain facilities, such as the Big Explosives Experimental Facility, Nonproliferation Test 

and Evaluation Complex, and the T-1 Training Area, by other agencies such as the U.S. Department of 

Defense, as well as the shared use of resources at the NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR. DOE/NNSA 

also would continue to host projects of other Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Departments of Defense 

and Homeland Security, as well as state and local government agencies and nongovernmental 

organizations. 

As part of the Environmental Management Mission, Waste Management Program, the NNSS would 

continue accepting and disposing of wastes, such as low-level radioactive waste and mixed low-level 

radioactive waste. The Environmental Restoration 

Program would continue to ensure compliance with the 

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order to 

characterize, monitor, and, if necessary, remediate 

contaminated areas, facilities, soils, and groundwater that 

have sustained adverse environmental impacts 

(NDEP 1996). 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Nondefense Mission 

would include those activities that are necessary to support 

mission-related programs, such as construction and 

maintenance of facilities, provision of supplies and 

services, and warehousing. Activities related to supply and 

conservation of energy, including renewable energy and 

other research and development projects, would also 

continue to be conducted under the Nondefense Mission. For example, DOE/NNSA would continue to 

identify and implement energy conservation measures and renewable energy projects related to energy 

efficiency, renewable energy, water, and transportation/fleet management. DOE/NNSA would also 

support development of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility and an associated 

transmission line in the southwest corner of the NNSS. If a commercial solar power generation facility 

were proposed at the NNSS, additional project-specific NEPA review would be required. 

At the NNSS, the missions, programs, capabilities, and projects under the No Action Alternative would 

be undertaken in one or more of seven land use zones. The land use zones, which are used to manage 

activities at the NNSS and prevent interference among the various projects and activities, are not 

considered absolute descriptors of the range of activities that may occur in a particular zone. In addition, 

the NNSS is divided into numbered operational areas to facilitate management; communications; and 

distribution, use, and control of resources. Figure S–2 provides the locations and sizes of these zones and 

operational areas, as well as the locations of major facilities within these zones and areas. 

Federal Facility Agreement and 

Consent Order 

The Nevada National Security Site 

Environmental Restoration Program includes 

activities to comply with the Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order, which was 

entered into in 1996 by the U.S. Department of 

Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and 

the State of Nevada. The Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order provides a 

process for identifying sites having potential 

historic contamination, implementing stateapproved corrective actions, and instituting 

closure actions for remediated sites. 
Summary 

S-7

Figure S–2 No Action Alternative Land Use Zones 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-8 

S.2.3 Expanded Operations Alternative 

The Expanded Operations Alternative includes the levels of operations, capabilities, and projects 

described under the No Action Alternative, as well as additional proposed capabilities and projects. 

These additional capabilities and projects include modification and/or expansion of existing facilities and 

construction of new facilities. In addition, some ongoing activities would be conducted more frequently 

than under the No Action Alternative. 

To illustrate, under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the annual number of stockpile stewardship 

tests and experiments and the yearly number of nuclear weapons that would be dispositioned would 

increase relative to the No Action Alternative. DOE/NNSA would construct new facilities to support 

enhanced training for the Office of Secure Transportation, to enhance efforts to control the spread of 

weapons of mass destruction, and to advance counterterrorism training, research, and development. 

Although the pace of environmental restoration activities would remain unchanged from that under the 

No Action Alternative, DOE/NNSA would accelerate the pace and amount of low-level radioactive waste 

that would be disposed on the NNSS. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, there would be two changes in NNSS land use zones: 

(1) the designated use for Area 15 would be changed from “Reserved” to “Research, Test, and 

Experiment,” and (2) approximately 39,600 acres within Area 25 would be designated as a Renewable 

Energy Zone (an expansion of the 4,100-acre area under the No Action Alternative). In the Renewable 

Energy Zone, DOE/NNSA would support development of several commercial solar power generation 

facilities with a maximum combined generating capacity of 1,000 megawatts in Area 25. Elsewhere, 

DOE/NNSA would construct a 5-megawatt photovoltaic solar power generation facility (in Area 6), and a 

Geothermal Demonstration Project and Geothermal Research Center (location to be determined). The 

locations and sizes of the land use zones and operational areas, as well as the locations of major facilities 

within these zones and areas, are shown in Figure S–3. 

S.2.4 Reduced Operations Alternative 

The Reduced Operations Alternative includes all of the types of activities conducted at the NNSS and 

offsite locations since 1996. The activity level under the Reduced Operations Alternative would vary 

across programs; however, the levels of operations for many programs would be reduced (relative to the 

No Action Alternative). Furthermore, under the Reduced Operations Alternative, activities would cease 

in the northwestern portion of the NNSS (Areas 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30), with the exception of 

environmental restoration and monitoring, site security operations, military training and exercises, and 

maintenance of Well 8 and critical communications and electrical transmission systems. Maintenance of 

roads on Pahute Mesa, Stockade Wash, and Buckboard Mesa would also be reduced to provide access 

only for maintaining necessary infrastructure and conducting environmental restoration activities. 

Operation of the Pahute Mesa Airstrip would be limited to those operations necessary to provide access 

for activities that would continue in these areas. In addition, the electrical transmission and distribution 

system beyond the Echo Peak Substation in Areas 19 and 20 would be de-energized. 

The pace of environmental restoration activities and most waste generation and disposal rates would 

remain unchanged from that under the No Action Alternative. However, the amount of transuranic waste 

generated, as well as the amount of sanitary waste generated and disposed of on site, would be reduced. 

Under the Reduced Operations Alternative, activities related to supply and conservation of energy, 

including renewable energy and other research and development projects, would continue to be 

conducted. For example, DOE/NNSA would support development of a 100-megawatt commercial solar 

power generation facility in Area 25. 

At the NNSS, the Area 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30 land use designations would change to a Limited Use Zone. 

Figure S–4 provides the locations and sizes of these zones and operational areas, as well as the locations 

of major facilities within these zones and areas. 
Summary 

S-9

Figure S–3 Expanded Operations Alternative Land Use Zones 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-10 

Figure S–4 Reduced Operations Alternative Land Use Zones 
 S-11 Table S–1 Comparison of Mission-Based Program Activities Under the Proposed Alternatives and Identif

Preferred Alternative (blue shading) NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE EXPANDED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE REDUCED OPERATI

National Security/Defense Mission Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program Maintain readiness to conduct underground nuclear tests. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 

Conduct up to 10 dynamic experiments per year within NNSS Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, or 20. Conduct up to 20 dynamic experiments per year within NNSS Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, or 20. Conduct up to 6 dynamic exp

NNSS; no dynamic experime

Areas 19 or 20. Conduct up to 20 conventional explosives experiments per year at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility and up to 10 per year within NNSS Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, or 16 using up to 70,000 pounds TNT-equivalent of explosives charges; would also support Work for Others Program.  Conduct up to 100 conventional explosives experiments per year within NNSS Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, or 16 using up to 120,000 pounds TNT-equivalent of explosives charges (50 of these would be at the Big Explosives Experimental Facility with a TNT-equivalent limitation of 70,000 pounds); would also support Work for Others Program.  Add second firing table and high-energy x-ray capability at Big Explosives Experimental Facility.  Establish up to three areas at the NNSS for conducting explosives experiments with depleted uranium and conduct up to 20 experiments per year. Conduct up to 10 conventionper year at the Big Explosiveusing up to 70,000 pounds TNcharges per year to directly suStewardship and Managemenexplosives experiments woul

Conduct up to 12 shock physics experiments per year at the NNSS using actinide targets at the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility in Area 27 and up to 10 experiments per year using the Large-Bore Powder Gun in Area 1. Conduct up to 36 shock physics experiments per year at the NNSS using actinide targets at the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility in Area 27 and up to 24 experiments per year using the Large-Bore Powder Gun in Area 1. Conduct up to 6 shock physic

the NNSS using actinide targShock Physics Experimental 27 and up to 8 experiments pBore Powder Gun in Area 1. Conduct up to 500 criticality operations, training, and other operations per year at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center at the Device Assembly Facility in Area 6. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 

Maintain the Atlas Facility in standby with the capability to conduct up to 12 pulsed-power experiments per year. Activate the Atlas Facility and conduct up to 24 pulsed- power experiments per year. Decommission and dispositioConduct up to 600 plasma physics and fusion experiments each year at NLVF and 50 per year in NNSS Area 11. Conduct up to 1,000 plasma physics and fusion experiments each year at NLVF and 650 per year in NNSS Area 11, increasing the size and complexity of such experiments. Conduct up to 350 plasma ph

experiments each year at NLVNNSS Area 11. Conduct five drillback operations at the NNSS over an approximate 10-year period. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 
S-12 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE EXPANDED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE REDUCED OPERATI

Conduct Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program activities in NNSS Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, or 20, including the following: 

Same as under the No Action Alternative: Same as under the No Action 

Stockpile Stewardship and Mactivities would not be condu

 Disposition damaged U.S. nuclear weapons on an asneeded basis.  Stage nuclear devices pending dismantlement, modification/maintenance, and/or transportation to 

another location. 

 Dismantle up to 100 nuclear weapons per year  Replace limited-life components of up to 360 nuclear 

devices per year and conduct associated maintenance activities. 

 Test weapons components for quality assurance under the 

Limited Life Component Exchange Program. 

 Stage special nuclear material, including nuclear 

weapon pits. 

 Transfer special nuclear material, including nuclear 

weapon pits, to and from other locations in the DOE complex for staging and use in experiments at the NNSS. 

Conduct training for the Office of Secure Transportation up to six times per year at various locations on NNSS roads. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus: 

 Develop facilities in Area 17 and upgrade or construct 

new facilities in Area 6, 12, or 23 to support training for the Office of Secure Transportation. 

Conduct training for the Officup to four times per year at vroads. 

Conduct the following stockpile stewardship operations at the TTR: 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, except: Same as under the No Action 

 Conduct tests and experiments, including flight test 

operations for gravity weapons (i.e., bombs). 

 Conduct ground/air-launched rocket and missile 

operations. 

 Conduct impact testing.  Conduct passive testing of joint test assemblies and 

conventional weapons. 

 Conduct fuel-air explosives testing. 

 Certain safeguards and security functions and other 

administrative functions would be turned over to the U.S. Air Force. 

 Discontinue ground/air-lau

operations. 

 Discontinue fuel-air explo

Nuclear Emergency Response, Nonproliferation, and Counterterrorism Programs Provide support for the Nuclear Emergency Support Team, the Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center, the Accident Response Group, and the Radiological Assistance Program (most of this support is provided by RSL at Nellis Air Force Base). 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 

Conduct Aerial Measuring System activities from RSL at Nellis Air Force Base. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 

Conduct weapon of mass destruction emergency responder training at various DOE/NNSA NSO locations. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 
 S-13 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE EXPANDED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE REDUCED OPERATI

Support DOE Emergency Communications Network. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Disposition improvised nuclear dispersion devices and deploy the DOE/NNSA Disposition Program and Federal Bureau of Investigation Disposition and Disposition Forensics Program to the NNSS for training and exercises or for an actual event, as needed. Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus:  Disposition radiological dispersion devices, as needed Same as under the No Action Integrate existing activities and primarily NNSS facilities to support United States efforts to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons of mass destruction, including arms control, nonproliferation activities, nuclear forensics, and counterterrorism capabilities. Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus: At the NNSS:  Construct laboratory space and other facilities for design and certification of treaty verification technology, training of inspectors, and development of arms control confidence-building measures as part of the Arms Control Treaty Verification Test Bed. a Same as under the No Action 

 Develop and construct new facilities to support a Nonproliferation Test Bed to simulate chemical and radiological processes that an adversary would clandestinely conduct. a  Construct an Urban Warfare Complex to support counterterrorism training. a Work for Others Program Work for Others Program activities would continue to be conducted in all appropriate zones on the NNSS, and at RSL and NLVF. Same as under the No Action Alternative, except the NNSS land use zone designation for Area 15 would be changed from “Reserved Zone” to “Research, Test, and Experiment Zone.” Same as under the No Action 

for Others Program activitiesmilitary training and exercisein Areas 18, 19, 20, 29, and 3

Host treaty verification activities. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Conduct nonproliferation projects and counterproliferation research and development at the NNSS, including: Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action  Conduct conventional weapons effects and other explosives experiments within parameters established for conducting conventional high-explosives experiments.  Discontinue Work for Othe

weapons effects and other experiments.  Support development of capabilities to hold at-risk and defeat military assets in deeply buried hardened targets.  Discontinue development oand defeat military assets itargets.  Conduct up to 20 controlled chemical and biological simulant release experiments per year (each experiment would include multiple releases by a variety of means, including explosives).  Discontinue projects requirchemical or biological sim
S-14 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE EXPANDED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE REDUCED OPERATI

 Support training, research, and development of 

equipment, specialized munitions, and tactics related to counterterrorism. 

Support the U.S. Department of Defense and other Federal agencies in developing counterterrorism capabilities. 

Develop and construct new facilities to support counterterrorism training, research, and development activities. 

Same as under the No Action 

Conduct criticality experiments to support National Aeronautics and Space Administration deep space power source development within the parameters for criticality experiments established under the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus:  Conduct experiments using existing boreholes at the 

NNSS to sequester emissions such as radionuclides. 

Same as under the No Action 

Host the use of various aerial platforms, such as airplanes, unmanned aerial systems, and helicopters, at various locations at the NNSS for research and development, training, and exercises. 

 Increase use of various aerial platforms, such as airplanes, 

unmanned aerial systems, and helicopters, for research and development, training, and exercises, including constructing additional hangars, shops, and buildings at existing airports at the NNSS. 

Same as under the No Action 

 Conduct up to 3 underground and 12 open-air radioactive 

tracer experiments per year. 

 Host treaty verification activities, including development 

of a facility for simulating nuclear fuel cycle-related radionuclide release detection and characterization. a

 Develop a facility for specialized explosive experiments 

and simulated manufacture to support high-explosives experiments. a

 Support increased research and development of active 

interrogation equipment, methods, and training. 

 Develop new facilities to support research and 

development in radio frequency generation and infrasonic observations. a

 Develop new facilities, including simulated clandestine 

laboratories, to support chemical and biological simulant experiments. a

Conduct Work for Others Program activities at the TTR, including robotics testing, smart transportation-related testing, smoke obscuration operations, infrared tests, and rocket development. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, except:  Certain safeguards and security functions and other 

administrative functions would be turned over to the U.S. Air Force. 

Same as under the No Action 
 S-15 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE EXPANDED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE REDUCED OPERATI

Environmental Management Mission Waste Management Program Dispose up to 15 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste and 900,000 cubic feet of mixed low- level radioactive waste in the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Dispose up to 48 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste and 4 million cubic feet of mixed low-level radioactive waste at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex and Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site.b Same as under the No Action 

Maintain the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site on standby. Open the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site for disposal of authorized and/or permitted waste. Same as under the No Action Treat onsite-generated mixed low-level radioactive waste. Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus:  At the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex, store mixed low-level radioactive waste received from on- and offsite generators pending treatment via macroencapsulation and microencapsulation (i.e., repackaging), sorting/segregating, and bench-scale mercury amalgamation, as appropriate, and/or disposal. Same as under the No Action Store onsite-generated transuranic waste (up to 9,600 cubic feet over the next 10 years) pending offsite disposal. Same as under the No Action Alternative, except a larger volume of transuranic waste (up to 19,000 cubic feet over the next 10 years) would be generated by increased activities at NNSS facilities, such as the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility. Same as under the No Action 

smaller volume of transuranic 

feet over the next 10 years) wincreased activities at NNSS Actinide Shock Physics Expe

Store onsite-generated hazardous waste as needed at the Area 5 Hazardous Waste Storage Unit pending offsite treatment or disposal. Up to 170,000 cubic feet would be generated over the next 10 years. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Operate the Area 11 Explosives Ordnance Disposal Unit. No more than 41,000 pounds of explosives would be treated over the next 10 years. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Operate the Area 6 Hydrocarbon Landfill. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Operate the Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site and the U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site. Up to 3,400,000 cubic feet would be disposed over the next 10 years. Same as under the No Action Alternative, except larger volumes of solid sanitary waste (up to 8,500,000 cubic feet) would be generated by increased activity levels at the NNSS over the next 10 years. Construct new sanitary solid waste disposal facilities as needed in Area 23 and develop a new solid waste disposal site in Area 25 to support environmental restoration activities. Same as under the No Action 

volumes of solid sanitary wasfeet) would be generated by rNNSS over the next 10 years
S-16 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE EXPANDED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE REDUCED OPERATI

Environmental Restoration Program Underground Test Area Project – Comply with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order; monitor groundwater from existing wells; drill new characterization and monitoring wells; develop groundwater flow and transport models; and continue to evaluate closure strategies. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, except:  Characterization and monitoring wells would be 

developed more quickly. 

Same as under the No Action 

Soils Project – Identify and characterize areas with contaminated soils and perform corrective actions in compliance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, except:  If stricter cleanup standards were implemented, larger 

volumes of radioactive waste would be generated and disposed. 

Same as under the No Action 

Industrial Sites Project – Identify, characterize, and remediate industrial sites under the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order and continue decontaminating and decommissioning facilities. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency Sites – In accordance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, perform remediation activities at sites that are the responsibility of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 

Execute the Borehole Management Program. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 

Nondefense Mission 

General Site Support and Infrastructure Program Conduct small projects to maintain the present capabilities of DOE/NNSA NSO facilities in all areas of the NNSS and at NLVF, RSL, and the TTR. Maintain existing infrastructure, manage various permits and agreements, and provide security for the former Yucca Mountain Repository site. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus:  Construct a new 85,000-square-foot multistory security 

building in Area 23. 

 Replace the NNSS 138-kilovolt electrical transmission 

system. 

 Expand cellular telecommunication system on the NNSS.  Reconfigure Mercury.a

Same as under the No Action Only critical infrastructure wAreas 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30 ocertain communications facillines and substations, and Weareas would only be maintaininfrastructure and environme
 S-17

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE EXPANDED OPERATIONS ALTERNATIVE REDUCED OPERATI

Conservation and Renewable Energy Program Continue to identify and implement energy conservation measures and renewable energy projects in compliance with applicable Executive Orders and DOE Orders. 

 Reduce energy intensity by 3 percent annually and a 

total of 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2015. 

 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent by 

fiscal year 2020. 

 Install advanced electric metering systems.  Obtain at least 7.5 percent of the NNSS annual 

electricity and thermal consumption from renewable energy sources. 

 Support development of a 240-megawatt commercial 

solar power generation facility in NNSS Area 25. a

 Reduce water use by 16 percent by 2015.  Maximize use of alternative fuels (e.g., E85 and 

biodiesel). 

 Ensure all new construction and renovation projects 

implement high-performance building goals. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus: 

 Support development of 1,000 megawatts of commercial 

solar power generation facilities in NNSS Area 25. a

 Modify NNSS land use zones to establish a 39,600-acre 

Renewable Energy Zone in Area 25. 

 Construct a 5-megawatt photovoltaic solar power 

generation facility near the Area 6 Construction Facilities. 

 Support a Geothermal Energy Demonstration Project and 

Geothermal Research Center at the NNSS. a

Same as under the No Action 

 Support development of a 1

solar power generation fac

Other Research and Development Programs Support the DOE National Environmental Research Park Program and other non-DOE/NNSA research and development activities in all areas of the NNSS. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action 

Activities would be conducteexcept Areas 18, 19, 20, 29, a

NLVF = North Las Vegas Facility; NSO = Nevada Site Office; RSL = Remote Sensing Laboratory; TNT = 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene; TTR = Tonopah Test Ran

a These potential projects have not reached a point of development that allows full analysis in this NNSS SWEIS, and would be subject to addit

DOE/NNSA would make any decision regarding implementation. At this point, DOE/NNSA has not received or solicited proposals for any commerprojects. 

b Reopening of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site would only occur based upon mission need and as stated in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.11

including detailed consultation with the state of Nevada. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-18 

S.2.5 Preferred Alternative 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14(e)) require an 

agency to identify its preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft EIS. At the 

time the Draft NNSS SWEIS was published, DOE/NNSA had not selected a preferred alternative. Since 

publication of the Draft NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA has identified its Preferred Alternative (see the blueshaded cells in Table S–1). 

In identifying its Preferred Alternative, NNSA considered the current and future needs of DOE/NNSA 

and other users of the NNSS and offsite locations. In doing so, DOE/NNSA balanced mission 

requirements established by the U.S. Congress with contemporary goals and objectives identified in 

planning documents such as the 10 Year Site Plan Fiscal Year 2012 for the NNSS (DOE 2011), as well as 

anticipated funding levels for DOE/NNSA and other users of the NNSS and offsite locations, such as the 

Department of Homeland Security. DOE/NNSA also considered the preferences expressed by 

commentors on the Draft NNSS SWEIS and sought to balance those preferences with the needs of the 

agency and other users of the NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada. Moreover, NNSA analyzed and 

considered the potential environmental impacts that could accrue from the implementation of any 

alternative. 

Based on these considerations, DOE/NNSA identified a Preferred Alternative for continued operation of 

the NNSS and offsite locations in the state of Nevada. DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is a “hybrid” 

alternative comprising various programs, capabilities, projects, and activities selected from among the 

three alternatives. Table S–1 provides a comparison of mission-based program activities under the three 

alternatives and the Preferred Alternative (identified by blue-shaded cells). 

Under the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program, activities would largely reflect the 

No Action Alternative, but with an increased frequency of conventional explosives and shock physics 

experiments, and the Expanded Operations Alternative, under which certain functions at the TTR would 

be transferred to the U.S. Air Force. As identified under the Reduced Operations Alternative, the Atlas 

facility (designed for pulsed power experiments) would be decommissioned. Within the Nuclear 

Emergency Response, Nonproliferation, and Counterterrorism Programs, activities would also align with 

the No Action Alternative, except that the capability for disposition of radiological dispersion devices 

would be added, as well as some additional laboratory and test bed facilities. The Work for Others 

Program, as an emerging mission, would implement the Expanded Operations Alternative in most areas. 

Under the Waste Management Program, activities would generally conform to the Expanded Operations 

Alternative, with the exception of hazardous waste, explosive ordnance wastes, and hydrocarbon waste 

management activities, which would remain at current levels. Under the Environmental Restoration 

Program, activities would resemble those described under the No Action Alternative, but could proceed at 

a faster pace and/or meet stricter cleanup standards as described under the Expanded Operations 

Alternative. 

The preferred alternative for the General Site Support and Infrastructure Program would be Expanded 

Operations, which would entail developing new facilities and upgrading existing infrastructure elements 

(e.g., electrical and cellular communications) on much of the NNSS. Only critical infrastructure would be 

retained in Areas 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30 of the NNSS, as described under the Reduced Operations 

Alternative. For the Conservation and Renewable Energy Program, activities would closely conform to 

the No Action Alternative, except that a 5-megawatt photovoltaic solar power facility and a Geothermal 

Demonstration Project and Geothermal Research Center could be constructed at the NNSS as identified 
Summary 

S-19

under the Expanded Operations Alternative. For the Other Research and Development Programs, 

activities would continue as described under the No Action Alternative. 

S.2.6 Potential Decisions Resulting from this Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement 

The information, analyses, and potential environmental impacts of this NNSS SWEIS will provide the 

basis, in part, for DOE/NNSA to determine the nature of capabilities and projects, as well as their 

associated levels of operations, over the next 10-year period at the NNSS and offsite locations in Nevada. 

Accordingly, DOE/NNSA may choose to implement, either wholly or in part, any of the three 

alternatives, or may choose to implement a “hybrid” alternative, comprising various capabilities, projects, 

and activities selected from among the three alternatives. Implementation of any of the alternatives could 

result in changes to the names, sizes, or locations of the land use zones, or in the locations of ongoing or 

proposed capabilities and projects within these zones. 

Although DOE/NNSA analyzed various radioactive waste shipping routes through and around 

metropolitan Las Vegas, Nevada, decisions on routing would not be made as part of this NEPA process. 

DOE/NNSA undertook this analysis to inform any highway-routing-related revisions to its waste 

acceptance criteria; such revisions are developed in accordance with DOE/NNSA’s standard practices, 

which include consultation with the State of Nevada; and, when finalized, become publicly available 

through publication on the NNSS website. As discussed in Section S.3.1.2, DOE/NNSA determined that 

it would retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of low-level radioactive waste; therefore, 

there would be no need to revise the waste acceptance criteria in this regard (DOE 2012). 

DOE/NNSA also would not make any decisions regarding environmental restoration activities that are not 

consistent with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order unless agreed to by the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection. 

S.3 Summary of Environmental Impacts 

S.3.1 Nevada National Security Site 

This section summarizes the potential environmental impacts at the NNSS from continuing and proposed 

projects and capabilities, including their associated levels of operations (activities), under each of three 

alternatives analyzed in this SWEIS. The text focuses on those resource areas for which the impacts are 

sufficiently different to permit the reader to distinguish among the alternatives in a meaningful manner or 

those resource areas that may be controversial, i.e., infrastructure and energy, transportation and traffic, 

socioeconomics, groundwater hydrology, biological resources, air quality, visual resources, and cultural 

resources, waste management, human health, and cumulative impacts. 

Table S–14 (at the end of Section S.3.1.10) summarizes the potential environmental impacts for all 

13 resource areas for each alternative. As discussed above in Section S.2.5, DOE/NNSA’s Preferred 

Alternative is a “hybrid” alternative comprising various programs, capabilities, projects, and activities 

selected from among the three alternatives. Although the text of this Summary does not discuss the 

potential environmental impacts from implementing the Preferred Alternative, consistent with the 

approach used in Chapter 3 of the NNSS SWEIS, Table S–14 summarizes those impacts to enable a 

comparison to the three alternatives. 

S.3.1.1 Energy 

DOE/NNSA compared projections of utility resource requirements, such as the demand for electricity and 

liquid fuels, under each alternative to local and regional capabilities to supply these resources. 

Implementing the Expanded Operations Alternative would result in the highest energy demands of the 

three alternatives. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-20 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, continuing and newly proposed projects and capabilities 

would require an increase of up to 25 percent or about 1.4 million gallons per year of various fuel types, 

such as unleaded gasoline, ethanol-gasoline blended fuel, and biodiesel fuel. DOE/NNSA does not 

foresee difficulty in obtaining this amount of liquid fuels from regional suppliers. The projected annual 

demand for most fuel types constitutes a small proportion of current fuel use in Nevada. For example, the 

estimate of unleaded gasoline needed annually (534,000 gallons) would be approximately 0.05 percent of 

the total unleaded gasoline used in Nevada (NSOE 2009). However, the NNSS is a major consumer of 

biodiesel fuel in Nevada, making up approximately 60 percent of the current, annual statewide demand of 

575,000 gallons (NSOE 2009); under the Expanded Operations Alternative, DOE/NNSA would increase 

consumption of biodiesel fuel to about 75 percent (429,000 gallons). Although not anticipated, if demand 

for biodiesel fuel were to exceed regional supply, the NNSS could temporarily switch to petroleum-based 

diesel fuel for most applications. 

Implementing the Expanded Operations Alternative also would result in increased demand for electricity 

during construction and, later, operation of proposed projects and capabilities. DOE/NNSA estimates that 

the average power demand would increase up to approximately 25 percent (from 22 to 28 megawatts) 

over current demand, and up to approximately 35 percent (from 30 to 41 megawatts) under peak power 

demand. Peak demand would exceed existing system capacity (40 megawatts) (NNSA/NSO 2010a), 

which could result in voltage fluctuations or blackouts. However, as part of implementing the Expanded 

Operations Alternative, DOE/NNSA would upgrade the existing electrical distribution system to 

accommodate projected electrical demand, increase service reliability, and provide additional capacity to 

support future growth on the NNSS. 

A 35 percent increase over the 2009 average electrical demand of 84,600 megawatt-hours at the NNSS 

(DOE 2008) would amount to approximately 105,700 megawatt-hours. During 2009, NV Energy and 

Valley Electric Association provided about 21,675,000 megawatt-hours collectively to their customers. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, electricity demand would represent only about 0.49 percent 

of the regional electrical supply (NSOE 2009). In addition, the construction of commercial solar power 

generation facilities in Area 25 would increase regional electricity supplies. 

S.3.1.2 Transportation and Traffic 

Transportation. Radiological and nonradiological impacts on workers and the public would result from 

the shipments to the NNSS of radioactive waste (such as low-level radioactive waste) and radioactive 

materials (such as special nuclear material) from locations outside the State of Nevada, as well as from 

locations within Nevada, such as the TTR, to the NNSS. Radiological impacts are those associated with 

the effects of radiation emitted during incident-free transportation (normal operations) and from accidents 

resulting in a release of radioactive materials; radiological impacts are expressed as additional latent 

cancer fatalities. Nonradiological impacts are independent of the nature of the cargo being transported 

and are expressed as number of traffic accident fatalities. 

Radioactive waste shipments would be by truck or by 

a combination of rail and truck. There is no rail line to the 

NNSS; therefore, rail cargo must be transferred to trucks at a 

transfer station. DOE/NNSA is not proposing, however, to 

construct or cause to be constructed any new rail-to-truck 

transfer facilities. Some shipments, such as radioactive materials 

shipments, would only be by truck. Table S–2 provides the 

estimated number of shipments of radioactive waste and 

radioactive materials to the NNSS under each alternative. 

Special Nuclear Material 

Special nuclear material is (1) plutonium, 

uranium-233, uranium enriched in 

isotopes of uranium-233 or -235, or any 

other material that the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission determines to 

be special nuclear material, or (2) any 

material artificially enriched by any of 

these radioactive materials. 
Summary 

S-21

Table S–2 Estimated Number of Shipments of Radioactive Waste and Materials 

Mode of Shipment to the Nevada National Security Site 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

Truck 

 In-state radioactive waste shipments 2,300 15,000 2,300 

 Out-of-state radioactive waste shipments 25,000 80,000 25,000 

 Out-of-state radioactive material shipments 240 11,000 180 

Rail-to-Truck

 In-state radioactive waste shipments (truck only) 2,300 15,000 2,300 

 Out-of-state radioactive waste shipments (rail and truck) 38,000 92,000 38,000 

 Out-of-state radioactive material shipments (truck only) 240 11,000 180 

This Final NNSS SWEIS includes analyses of incident-free transportation for two cases: a Constrained 

Case and an Unconstrained Case. The Constrained Case retains current routing of shipments of low-level 

and mixed low-level radioactive waste to avoid crossing the Colorado River near Hoover Dam and the 

interstate system in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Unconstrained Case, in which shipments of this waste 

would travel over the bypass bridge near the Hoover Dam and on the interstate system through the greater 

metropolitan area, was analyzed to provide information relevant to consideration of potential highway 

routing-related revisions to NNSS’s waste acceptance criteria. After consultation with the Nevada 

Department of Environmental Protection as part of the waste acceptance criteria revision process, 

DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway routing restrictions for shipments of low-level 

radioactive waste; therefore, there will be no need to revise the waste acceptance criteria in this regard 

(DOE 2012). For this reason, the Summary no longer includes the results of the Unconstrained Case 

analysis; those results, however, may be found in Volume 2, Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1.2, of the 

NNSS SWEIS. 

Incident-Free Transportation (Constrained Case). For incident-free truck transportation, under all 

three alternatives (No Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations), DOE/NNSA estimated 

(numerically calculated) that approximately 1 (1.3), 3 (3.3), and 1 (1.3) latent cancer fatality(ies), 

respectively, would occur in the population of transportation workers exposed to radiation from shipments 

of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste (see Figure S–5). Because many workers would be 

involved, the risk to an individual worker would be small. Similarly, DOE/NNSA estimated that less than 

1 (0.2, 0.8, and 0.2, respectively) latent cancer fatality would occur among members of the public exposed 

to these same truck shipments under the three alternatives. 

For incident-free rail-to-truck transportation, under all 

three alternatives (No Action, Expanded Operations, 

and Reduced Operations), DOE/NNSA estimated 

(numerically calculated) that less than 1 (0.5), 2 (1.5), 

and less than 1 (0.5) latent cancer fatality(ies), 

respectively, would occur in the population of 

transportation workers exposed to radiation from 

shipments of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive 

waste. Similarly, DOE/NNSA estimated that less than 

1 (0.1 for No Action and Reduced Operations and 0.3 

for Expanded Operations) latent cancer fatality would 

occur among members of the public exposed to these 

same truck and rail shipments under the three 

alternatives (see Figure S–5). 

What is a Latent Cancer Fatality?

A latent cancer fatality is a death from cancer 

resulting from, and occurring sometime after, 

exposure to ionizing radiation or other carcinogens. 

This site-wide environmental impact statement 

focuses on latent cancer fatalities as the primary 

means of evaluating health risk from radiation 

exposure. The values reported for latent cancer 

fatalities are the increased risk of a fatal cancer for 

a maximally exposed individual or noninvolved 

worker, or the increased risk of a single fatal cancer 

occurring in an identified population. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-22 

Figure S–5 Latent Cancer Fatalities from Incident-Free Transportation 

(Constrained Case) 

Under the No Action Alternative or Reduced Operations Alternative, if an individual member of the 

public were exposed to every truck shipment of radioactive waste and materials, an unlikely event, this 

maximally exposed individual would receive an estimated dose of about 10 millirem, resulting in a risk of 

contracting a fatal cancer of 5 × 10-5 (1 chance in 200,000). Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, 

this individual would receive an estimated dose of about 20 millirem, resulting in a risk of contracting a 

fatal cancer of 1 × 10-5 (1 chance in 100,000). An individual exposed to every rail shipment would 

receive an estimated dose of about 10 millirem under the No Action and Reduced Operations 

Alternatives, and about 20 millirem under the Expanded Operations Alternative. 

Transportation Accidents. Two types of accident analyses were performed: an assessment of 

consequences associated with a maximum reasonably foreseeable accident and a risk analysis that 

accounted for all types of accidents. The maximum reasonably foreseeable transportation truck accident 

involving the release of radiation was estimated to occur at an annual frequency of about 3.2 × 10-7

(about 1 chance in 3.1 million) under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives and about 

6.1 × 10-7 (about 1 chance in 1.6 million) under the Expanded Operations Alternative. This accident 

would involve the release of radiation from a truck 

carrying low-level radioactive waste or mixed low-level 

radioactive waste that is involved in a severe collision 

and an ensuing fire. If the accident were to occur in an 

urban area, DOE/NNSA estimates that the 

consequences for the population within 50 miles of the 

accident would be a collective dose of approximately 

180 person-rem, which would result in less than 1 (0.1) 

additional fatal cancer in that population. The 

consequences for the maximally exposed individual, a 

hypothetical individual assumed to be located 

downwind of the event and exposed to the entire plume 

of radioactive release, would be an estimated dose of 

34 millirem, resulting in a risk to that individual of 

contracting a fatal cancer of 2 × 10-5 (1 chance in 

50,000). The corresponding rail accident was estimated 

to occur at an annual frequency of about 8.4 × 10-8

Units of Radiation 

A rem is a unit of radiation dose used to measure the 

biological effects of different types of radiation on 

humans. The dose in rem is estimated by a formula 

that accounts for the type of radiation, the total 

absorbed dose, and the tissues involved. One 

thousandth of a rem is a millirem. The average dose 

to an individual in the United States, primarily from 

natural background sources of radiation, is about 310 

millirem per year; the national average including 

medical sources is about 620 millirem. 

A person-rem is a unit of collective dose applied to a 

population or group of individuals. It is calculated as 

the sum of the estimated doses, in rem, received by 

each individual of the specific population. For 

example, if 1,000 people each received a dose of 

1 millirem, the collective dose would be 1 person-rem 

(1,000 persons × 0.001 rem = 1.0 person-rem). 
Summary 

S-23

(about 1 chance in 10 million); this accident was not analyzed because the probability of the event is so 

remote. 

For the risk analysis, under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives, the total transportation 

accident risk for all projected accidents involving radioactive waste and radioactive materials would result 

in an estimated collective dose to the general population of 0.33 person-rem (truck) and 0.13 person-rem 

(rail-to-truck), resulting in less than 1 (0.0002) latent cancer fatality for truck transport and less than 

1 (0.00008) latent cancer fatality for rail-to-truck transport. 

The nonradiological accident risks were estimated to be 2 and 

6 traffic accident fatalities in the general population for truck 

transport and rail-to-truck transport, respectively. Under the 

Expanded Operations Alternative, the total transportation 

accident risk for all projected accidents would result in an 

estimated collective dose to the population of about 17 personrem (truck) and 8 person-rem (rail-to-truck), resulting in less 

than 1 (0.01) latent cancer fatality for truck transport, and less 

than 1 (0.005) latent cancer fatality for rail-to-truck transport. 

The nonradiological accident risks were estimated to be 7 and 

16 fatal traffic accident fatalities in the general population for truck transport and rail-to-truck transport, 

respectively. 

Traffic. Traffic impacts would result from personnel (worker) trips, and trucks transporting radioactive 

waste and radioactive and nonradioactive materials. Traffic impacts are expressed as the relative change 

in the number of onsite and offsite daily vehicle trips and the degree to which traffic on nearby Federal 

and state highways would be affected, collectively referred to as the “level of service.” The level of 

service provides a means to gauge the degree of congestion on 

transportation networks. The six levels, designated “A” through 

“F,” represent a range of traffic conditions; the best operating 

conditions are characterized by free flow and little delay (level 

of service A) and the worst operating conditions, by poor 

progression and long delays (level of service F) (TRB 2000). 

Under the No Action Alternative, traffic on Mercury Highway 

(onsite traffic) would continue to operate at level of service A during peak traffic hours, as there would be 

an increase of only 16 daily vehicle trips (relative to a baseline of 1,748 trips) (see Figure S–6). 

Implementing the Expanded Operations Alternative would result in additional congestion on Mercury 

Highway during peak traffic hours (level of service B), as there would be an increase of about 832 daily 

vehicle trips. Under the Reduced Operations Alternative, traffic on Mercury Highway would continue to 

flow freely (level of service A), as daily vehicle trips would decrease by about 153. 

Construction of one or more commercial solar power generation facilities in Area 25 would result in 

increased traffic on Lathrop Wells Road north of U.S. Route 95 and on site (level of service information 

is unavailable). Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations Alternatives, 

DOE/NNSA estimates that average daily vehicle trips (worker vehicles) during peak hours would 

increase by 250, 375, and 200, respectively. The increase in traffic from workers and construction 

equipment would require increased road maintenance or fundamental improvements. Although traffic 

during operations of solar power generation facilities would be less than traffic during construction, road 

maintenance or fundamental improvements would continue to be needed. 

Transportation Accident Risk 

In a shipping campaign, risk is defined 

as the sum of the probability of each 

accident involving a release of 

radioactive material multiplied by the 

consequence of that event (i.e., the 

product of these two factors summed for 

all accidents). 

Level of Service C 

The number of vehicles stopping is 

significant, although many still pass 

through the affected intersection 

without being required to stop. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-24 

Figure S–6 Daily Vehicle Trips Between U.S. Route 95 and Mercury Highway 

To estimate offsite traffic impacts after complete implementation of the alternatives, DOE/NNSA 

estimated baseline traffic levels and corresponding levels of service for the year 2020 for highways 

nearby the NNSS. The additional traffic associated with any alternative generally would not change 

future levels of service; for instance, the levels of service along U.S. Route 95 just west of Nevada State 

Route 373 in Amargosa Valley would remain at level of service C, and along Nevada State Route 373 

south of U.S. Route 95 would remain at level of service A. 

S.3.1.3 Socioeconomics 

The continued operation and proposed projects and capabilities at the NNSS would result in changes to 

the current (baseline) workforce under each of the three alternatives. Accordingly, DOE/NNSA evaluated 

how these changes in workforce could affect economic activity; population; and the demand on housing, 

public finance, and public services, such as police and fire protection, in Clark and Nye Counties (the 

counties in which the principal direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts are likely to occur). 

DOE/NNSA estimates that implementing the No Action Alternative would result in the creation of up to 

1,000 temporary and 150 permanent jobs (direct employment), in addition to the current (baseline) 

workforce of about 1,700. Most of the additional workforce would be due to the construction and 

operation of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility in Area 25, as construction 

would require an average of approximately 500 individuals during the 35-month construction period 

(temporary workforce), and operation would require approximately 150 individuals (permanent 

workforce). 

An increase in direct employment under the No Action Alternative also would result in an increase in the 

demand for goods (for example, fuel for personal vehicles) and services (for example, vehicle repair), 

which, in turn, would create additional employment opportunities (indirect jobs). DOE/NNSA used the 

Regional Input-Output Modeling System II (RIMS II 2010), which was developed for the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, to evaluate the indirect economic impact of employment. Based on this 

analysis, approximately 930 to 1,860 indirect temporary and approximately 394 indirect permanent jobs 

would be created. 
Summary 

S-25

The addition of 544 direct and indirect permanent jobs (150 direct and 394 indirect) was estimated to 

reduce unemployment by 0.3 percent in Clark County and 3.9 percent in Nye County. DOE/NNSA 

estimates there would be adequate housing and public services available for this additional workforce. 

For example, housing vacancies in Clark and Nye Counties would decrease by only 0.01 percent and 

0.1 percent, respectively, and the person-to-hospital-bed ratio would remain unchanged. 

Implementing the Expanded Operations Alternative would result in the creation of up to 1,500 temporary 

and 625 permanent jobs, in addition to the current (baseline) workforce of about 1,700. Most of the 

additional workforce would be a result of the construction and operation of 1,000 megawatts of 

commercial solar power generation facilities in Area 25, as construction would require an average of 

approximately 750 individuals (1,500 workers at peak) during the 42-month construction period 

(temporary workforce), and operation would require approximately 200 individuals (permanent 

workforce). DOE/NNSA estimates that this workforce would result in approximately 1,866 to 

3,256 indirect temporary and approximately 920 indirect permanent jobs. 

The addition of 1,545 direct and indirect permanent jobs (625 direct and 920 indirect) under the Expanded 

Operations Alternative would reduce unemployment in Clark and Nye Counties by 0.8 and 11.0 percent, 

respectively. The increased temporary and permanent workforce would not result in undue demand on 

housing (vacancies would decrease by only 0.02 percent in Clark County and 0.4 percent in Nye County) 

and most public services, although there could be a need to hire five new teachers (four in Clark County 

and one in Nye County) to maintain the current student-to-teacher ratio, and a need to expand the medical 

clinic in Mercury to maintain the person-to-hospital-bed ratio. 

Implementing the Reduced Operations Alternative would result in the need for an average of 

400 individuals (800 workers at peak) during the 32-month period to construct a 100-megawatt 

commercial solar power generation facility in Area 25. The permanent workforce needed to operate a 

solar power generation facility (125 individuals), however, would not offset the loss of employment due 

to the reduction in the levels of operation at the NNSS; the NNSS workforce would be reduced by 

approximately 45 individuals (from about 1,700 to 1,655 individuals). The longer-term workforce 

reduction also would reduce the demand for goods and services and thus indirect employment in Clark 

and Nye Counties. Housing vacancies would increase and demand for public services would decrease 

because of the reduction in the permanent workforce. 

S.3.1.4 Groundwater Hydrology 

Groundwater Quality. Drinking water quality is monitored to assess compliance with primary and 

secondary drinking water standards according to a schedule set in Federal and state laws, and 

requirements set by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. The three public water systems on 

site and permitted water hauling trucks meet primary and secondary drinking water standards. 

Implementing any of the three alternatives is not expected to result in a degradation of groundwater 

quality because projects and activities would be undertaken within confinement barriers, such as tests in 

the Joint Actinide Shock Physics Experimental Research Facility, or would be above ground, where depth 

to groundwater is on the order of several hundred feet. In addition, the use of operational controls and 

other administrative measures would remove and remediate any surface spills well before contaminants 

could migrate to the water table (the zone beneath the surface that is saturated with water). 

There have been 828 underground nuclear tests at the NNSS. Of these, approximately one-third were 

detonated near, below, or within the water table. These detonations have contaminated groundwater with 

43 radionuclides; tritium (a radioactive form of hydrogen) is believed to be the most mobile 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-26 

(Bowen et al. 2001). The Federal Facility Agreement 

and Consent Order established five corrective action 

units that delineate and define areas of concern for 

groundwater contamination (see Figure S–7). 

In response, and to satisfy DOE Orders and other 

program requirements, DOE/NNSA has monitored 

tritium (and other radionuclides) in wells on the NNSS 

and nearby offsite areas. Other organizations, such as 

Nye County, also monitor tritium and other radionuclides 

in groundwater. Tritium has been detected in two offsite 

wells. In 2009, DOE/NNSA detected tritium in Well ER-EC-11, which is less than half a mile off the 

northwestern boundary of the NNSS on the Nevada Test and Training Range and about 14 miles from the 

nearest public water source, a private well (see Figure S–7). The tritium concentration was 

13,180 picocuries per liter, which is below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Safe 

Drinking Water Act standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter. Later, in 2010, DOE/NNSA found detectable 

levels of tritium (48.3 picocuries per liter) in Well PM-3, which is located about 11,000 feet west of the 

NNSS boundary on the Nevada Test and Training Range (see Figure S–7). Figure S–8 displays the 

locations of these and other wells on the NNSS and nearby offsite areas, as well as associated tritium 

concentrations. 

In compliance with the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, DOE/NNSA continues to develop 

groundwater flow and transport models for each of the corrective action units to identify contaminant 

boundaries where waters inside the boundaries exceed the radiological protection requirements of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. Contaminant boundaries provide the basis for establishing use-restriction areas 

and identifying regulatory boundaries for protection of the health and safety of the public. 

Groundwater modeling development requires two steps. First, a regional three-dimensional groundwater 

flow model was developed for the Death Valley regional flow system to identify risks to the public, 

workers, and the environment (DOE/NV 1997). Second, groundwater flow (boundary conditions) from 

this regional model was used to develop groundwater flow and transport models for each underground 

corrective action unit. These smaller-scale groundwater models will be used to identify contaminant 

boundaries based on the maximum extent of contaminant migration over a 1,000-year period. 

Although groundwater flow and transport models are under development, they have been completed only 

for the Frenchman Flat corrective action unit (see Figure S–7) (Navarro Nevada Environmental 

Services 2010). Figure S–9 shows the model-based estimation of the extent of groundwater 

contamination where there is a 95 percent certainty that contamination will exceed the Safe Drinking 

Water Act standards for radionuclides in the Frenchman Flat area over the next 1,000 years. 

Groundwater Use. In this NNSS SWEIS, DOE/NNSA examined the extent to which each of the 

alternatives would have an adverse impact on the capacity of aquifers (sustainable yield) within a 

hydrographic basin. Potential impacts were estimated by comparing current (baseline) groundwater 

demand for each basin, modified by the demand from continuing and proposed projects and capabilities 

under each alternative, to the sustainable yield of each basin. Figure S–10 shows the basins underlying 

the NNSS. 

Corrective Action 

Corrective action unit means one or more 

corrective action sites grouped geographically, 

by technical similarity or agency responsibility, 

or for other appropriate reasons, for purposes 

of determining corrective actions. 

Corrective action site refers to the sites 

potentially requiring corrective action. 
Summary 

S-27

Figure S–7 Underground Test Area Corrective Action Units at the Nevada National Security Site 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-28 

Figure S–8 Concentration of Tritium Detected in Monitoring and Hydrogeologic Investigation 

Wells and Springs of the Nevada National Security Site 
Summary 

S-29

Figure S–9 Modeled Extent of the Contaminant Boundary in the Frenchman Flat 

Corrective Action Unit in 1,000 Years 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-30 

Figure S–10 Hydrographic Basins at the Nevada National Security Site 
Summary 

S-31

Annual water usage at the NNSS from 2005 through 2011 ranged from 530 to 691 acre-feet 

(NSTec 2010; Rudolph 2012). DOE/NNSA has established goals to reduce the use of potable water by 

2015 by at least 16 percent from the 2007 total water use level of about 691 acre-feet per year 

(NSTec 2008) (potable water accounts for up to 90 percent of the current groundwater use). However, 

the analysis in this NNSS SWEIS did not account for this reduction in demand, and, instead, 

conservatively assumed a continued annual (baseline) water usage of 691 acre-feet. 

Tables S–3 through S–5 illustrate the estimated groundwater demand and the extent to which demand 

would affect sustainable yield of the affected basins (sustainable yields are from the Nevada State 

Engineer [NDWR 2010]). Under the three alternatives, withdrawals from each basin would be below the 

sustainable yield of each basin, with the exception of 

Frenchman Flat, where approximately 427 (Reduced 

Operations Alternative) to 591 percent (Expanded 

Operations Alternative) of the basin’s sustainable 

yield would be withdrawn annually. The Nevada 

State Engineer estimates a perennial yield of 

100 acre-feet per year for Frenchman Flat 

(NDWR 2010), which is based on assumptions that 

little or no groundwater recharge from precipitation 

occurs in the basin. Studies by DOE/NNSA and 

others suggest that in-basin recharge does occur and 

that perennial yield values are much higher than 

100 acre-feet per year. Groundwater flow and 

transport models from underground corrective action 

unit activities (SNJV 2004), two U.S. Geological Survey models (Hevesi et al. 2003), and two Desert 

Research Institute models (Russell and Minor 2002) suggest greater estimates of precipitation-driven 

recharge (and thus perennial yield) to the Frenchman Flat basin. As an example, the underground 

corrective action unit model yields an estimate of 1,070 acre-feet per year, and the Desert Research 

Institute models provide perennial yield estimates of 1,920 acre-feet per year. Although DOE/NNSA 

appears to be overdrawing water from Frenchman Flat by a large percentage, water levels in wells have 

remained static and have not declined, even during peak water usage of 3,375 acre-feet in 1989. This 

suggests that the perennial yield of Frenchman Flat is far higher than 100 acre-feet per year and more 

likely in the range of yields estimated by DOE/NNSA and other models. 

Construction and operation of one or more commercial solar power generation facilities would result in a 

marked increase in water consumption in Jackass Flats basin (and the single largest use of water on the 

NNSS), with the resulting long-term demand ranging from 5 (Reduced Operations Alternative) to 

19 percent (Expanded Operations Alternative) of sustainable yield of the basin. While the Nevada State 

Engineer lists the perennial yield of the Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision as 4,000 acre-feet 

per year, this value represents an aggregation of yield values for several basins adjacent to Jackass Flats 

(i.e., a regional yield value). Studies conducted by DOE show a range of values as low as 880 acre-feet 

per year (DOE 2008). These demands would be unlikely to reduce groundwater recharge to another 

downgradient aquifer to the degree that the aquifer’s sustainable yield is reduced or current uses of that 

aquifer are adversely affected. Regardless, DOE/NNSA would continue to monitor groundwater levels 

and flow patterns across the NNSS, employ site-specific modeling to estimate specific impacts of future 

projects, and modify the points of diversion and pumping rates as needed to avoid adversely impacting 

any single aquifer. 

Groundwater Use Terms 

Perennial yield is an estimate of the quantity of 

groundwater that can be withdrawn from a basin 

on an annual basis without depleting the basin 

(Scott et al. 1971). 

Sustainable yield is the perennial yield of the 

basin minus any rights already committed by the 

Nevada State Engineer to other users. 

Hydrographic basins are mapped on the basis of 

topographic divides and are used by the State of 

Nevada for the purposes of water appropriation 

and management. 
S-32 Table S–3 No Action Alternative Impacts on Groundwater Supply Basin Water Demand, excluding solar power generation facility(ies) (acre-feet per year) Water Demand, including construction demand from solar power generation facility(ies) (acre-feet per year) Water Demand, including operational demand from solar power generation facility(ies) (acre-feet per year) Nevada State Engineer Sustainable Yield of Basin (acre-feet per year) Maximum Percentage of Sustainable Yie

Consumed duri

Construction 

Frenchman Flat (160) 474 474 474 100 474 a Fortymile Canyon, Buckboard Mesa Subdivision (227b) 42 42 42 3,600 1 Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision (227a) 47 397 297 4,000 10 Yucca Flat (159) 128 128 128 350 37 Total 691 1,041 941 a Analysis is based on Nevada State Engineer estimates of perennial yield (100 acre-feet per year), which results in the appearance of an overutiliza

the contrary, several groundwater flow and transport models demonstrate higher estimates of precipitation-driven recharge (and thus perennial yiewells have not declined suggesting that perennial yield is far higher than 100 acre-feet per year.

Table S–4 Expanded Operations Alternative Impacts on Groundwater Supply 

Basin 

Water Demand, 

excluding solar 

power generation 

facility(ies) 

(acre-feet per year) 

Water Demand, including 

construction demand 

from solar power 

generation facility(ies) 

(acre-feet per year) 

Water Demand, including 

operational demand from 

solar power generation 

facility(ies) 

(acre-feet per year) 

Nevada State 

Engineer 

Sustainable 

Yield of Basin 

(acre-feet per 

year) 

Maximum 

Percentage of 

Sustainable Yie

Consumed duri

Construction 

Frenchman Flat (160) 591 591 591 100 591 a Fortymile Canyon, Buckboard Mesa Subdivision (227b) 

53 53 53 3,600 1 

Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision (227a) 

59 1,059 759 4,000 27 

Yucca Flat (159) 159 159 159 350 46 Total 862 1,862 1,562 a Analysis is based on Nevada State Engineer estimates of perennial yield (100 acre-feet per year), which results in the appearance of an overutiliza

the contrary, several groundwater flow and transport models demonstrate higher estimates of precipitation-driven recharge (and thus perennial yiewells have not declined suggesting that perennial yield is far higher than 100 acre-feet per year.
 S-33 Table S–5 Reduced Operations Alternative Impacts on Groundwater Supply Basin Water Demand, excluding solar power generation facility(ies) (acre-feet per year) Water Demand, including construction demand from solar power generation facility(ies) (acre-feet per year) Water Demand, including operational demand from solar power generation facility(ies) (acre-feet per year) Nevada State Engineer Sustainable Yield of Basin (acre-feet per year) Maximum Percentage of Sustainable Yie

Consumed duri

Construction 

Frenchman Flat (160) 427 427 427 100 427 a Fortymile Canyon, Buckboard Mesa Subdivision (227b) 38 38 38 3,600 1 Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision (227a) 42 242 217 4,000 6 Yucca Flat (159) 115 115 115 350 33 Total 622 822 797 a Analysis is based on Nevada State Engineer estimates of perennial yield (100 acre-feet per year), which results in the appearance of an overutiliza

contrary, several groundwater flow and transport models demonstrate higher estimates of precipitation-driven recharge (and thus perennial yield)have not declined suggesting that perennial yield is far higher than 100 acre-feet per year.
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-34 

S.3.1.5 Biological Resources 

Implementing the alternatives would result in the permanent loss of native and nonnative vegetation of 

varying types, distribution and abundance, which would adversely impact wildlife that inhabit or 

otherwise use the NNSS. Vegetation would be lost through actions such as the drilling of new wells, 

grading and excavation for new facilities, detonations of high explosives, remediation of contaminated 

soils, and modification or construction of infrastructure such as roads and water lines. 

In general, DOE/NNSA assessed the impacts on biological resources by considering the amount of land 

that would be disturbed under each alternative as a means to represent the permanent loss of vegetation 

and animal habitat. Table S–6 provides an estimate of the amount of newly disturbed lands, and thus 

vegetation and habitat that would be lost, under each alternative. 

Table S–6 Land Disturbance 

Source of Disturbance 

No Action Alternative

(acres) 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative (acres) 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative (acres) 

Total Land Disturbance 4,460 25,877 2,740 

Commercial Solar Power 

Generation Facilities 2,650 10,300 1,200 

The NNSS occupies approximately 870,000 acres of land, about 790,400 (91 percent) of which are 

undisturbed (DOE 2008). Of the undisturbed land, implementing the No Action, Expanded Operations, 

and Reduced Operations Alternatives would require an additional 4,460 (0.6 percent), 

25,877 (3.3 percent), and 2,740 (0.4 percent) acres, respectively. 

Vegetation. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, which would result in the highest land 

disturbance among the alternatives, the primary vegetation alliances that would be impacted are Creosote 

Bush/White Bursage Shrubland, Nevada Jointfir Shrubland, Saltbush Shrubland, Blackbrush Shrubland, 

and Burrobush/Wolfberry Shrubland. In total, these vegetation alliances cover about 483,200 acres, or 

about 61 percent of the undisturbed lands on the NNSS. Because of the prevalence of these vegetation 

types on the NNSS as well as regionally, the amount of additional habitat loss (25,877 acres) would not 

reduce the viability of any of the vegetation alliances or result in substantial adverse impacts on 

biodiversity. However, some areas of creosote bush/white bursage vegetation in Jackass Flats and 

Frenchman Flat, as well as blackbrush vegetation in Yucca Flat, are considered sensitive habitat 

(BN 1999; DOE/NV 1998a) because soils are particularly vulnerable to wind erosion and require longer 

periods of time to recover if disturbed. To the extent possible, DOE/NNSA would avoid activities that 

would disturb soils in these areas. 

Implementing the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives would result in lesser amounts of land 

disturbance (see Table S–6) in the same vegetation alliances, with the exception of Blackbrush Shrubland, 

which is not prevalent in the areas that would be affected by these alternatives. The additional habitat 

loss under either of these alternatives would not reduce the viability of any of the vegetation alliances or 

result in substantial adverse impacts on biodiversity because of the prevalence of these vegetation types 

on the NNSS and regionally. However, although less than under the Expanded Operations Alternative, 

activities under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives would also occur in some areas of 

Jackass Flats and Frenchman Flat that have creosote bush/white bursage vegetation. To the extent 

possible, DOE/NNSA would avoid activities that would disturb soils in these areas. 
Summary 

S-35

Sensitive and Protected Species. The desert tortoise, a “threatened” species, is the only plant or animal 

species on the NNSS that has been determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be 

threatened or endangered. DOE/NNSA focused its analysis of direct and indirect impacts on the desert 

tortoise because data are available to delineate desert tortoise habitat on the NNSS, and these data allow 

quantitative estimates of the potential impacts on desert tortoises from ongoing and proposed activities at 

the NNSS. 

On the NNSS, the northern extent of the desert tortoise occurs between elevations of approximately 

3,900 and 4,880 feet above mean sea level, and its distribution and population densities are shown in 

Figure S–11. In its 2009 Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for Implementation of Actions 

Proposed on the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada (2009 Biological Opinion), USFWS concluded 

that activities on the NNSS would not jeopardize the continued existence of the Mojave population of 

desert tortoises, and no critical habitat would be destroyed or adversely modified (USFWS 2009). The 

2009 Biological Opinion also identified terms and conditions applicable to activities on the NNSS. Under 

these terms and conditions, USFWS determined that up to 2,710 acres of land could be disturbed, and up 

to 216 tortoises could be “taken” incidentally, that is, 22 could be killed or injured, and 194 could be 

harassed (captured, displaced, relocated, have their behavior disrupted, or intentionally removed and 

relocated) without the need to reinitiate consultation. 

Based on the distribution and a density range of 10 to 45 tortoises per square mile (DOE/NV 1998b), 

DOE/NNSA estimated the amount of desert tortoise habitat disturbed and the range of the number of 

tortoises that could be taken under each alternative (see Table S–7). Implementing any alternative would 

result in disturbing desert tortoise habitat; however, only the No Action and Expanded Operations 

Alternatives would result in disturbance in excess of that permitted by USFWS. Under the Expanded 

Operations Alternative, the estimated number of tortoises taken (163 to 346) could exceed that permitted 

by USFWS (216), whereas under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives, the estimated 

number of tortoises taken (133 to 213 and 131 to 181, respectively) would be less than that permitted 

by USFWS. 

DOE/NNSA anticipates that the take of desert tortoises would be due primarily to harassment, rather than 

injury or death, because DOE/NNSA would continue to implement its Desert Tortoise Compliance 

Program, which requires, in part, (1) conducting clearance surveys at project sites within 1 day of the start 

of project construction, (2) ensuring that environmental monitors are on site during heavy equipment 

operations, and (3) ensuring personnel are trained in the requirements of the 2009 Biological Opinion. 

Based on the annual average of takes due to injury or death on NNSS roadways since 1992 

(0.75 tortoises), only a single (1) tortoise would be expected to be taken by injury or mortality each year, 

and the remainder would be taken by harassment by being moved off roadways or from areas of proposed 

land disturbance to prevent their injury or death. Nonetheless, if either the permitted disturbance of 

tortoise habitat or take of tortoises were reached and anticipated to be exceeded during implementation of 

the alternatives, DOE/NNSA would reinitiate consultation with USFWS in accordance with the 

2009 Biological Opinion. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-36 

Figure S–11 Desert Tortoise Range and Abundance on the Nevada National Security Site 
Summary 

S-37

Table S–7 Potential Impacts on Desert Tortoises at the Nevada National Security Site 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Limit 

Area of Desert Tortoise Habitat Disturbed (acres) 

 Total 3,705 13,670 2,120 2,710 

 Commercial Solar Power 

Generation Facility(ies) 

2,650 10,300 1,200 

Number of Desert Tortoises Taken 

 Total 133—213 163–346 131–181 216 

 Commercial Solar Power 

Generation Facility(ies) 

0–41 0–161 0–19 

S.3.1.6 Air Quality 

Ambient air quality in Clark and Nye Counties would be adversely impacted because of releases of air 

pollutants from stationary, mobile, and fugitive sources, with the magnitude of the impact variable by 

alternative. Greenhouse gases, also released from these sources, would contribute to global climate 

change. 

Air quality is determined, in part, by measuring concentrations of certain pollutants (referred to as 

“criteria pollutants”) in the atmosphere. The EPA designates an area as “in attainment” for a particular 

pollutant if ambient air concentrations of that pollutant are below the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. Criteria pollutants regulated under these standards by both EPA and the State of Nevada 

include ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and particulate matter (two 

different sizes of particulates are regulated). 

Air quality also is determined, in part, by estimating emissions of hazardous air pollutants; these 

pollutants are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as birth defects. 

EPA, under the Clean Air Act, established emission standards (the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants) for 188 such pollutants, most of which originate from manmade sources. 

Benzene, for example, is found in gasoline. In establishing the standards, EPA identified various 

industries and corresponding emission limits that, if exceeded, would require the use of additional control 

technologies to reduce such emissions to the maximum extent achievable. 

Greenhouse gases are emitted from a wide variety of 

sources, including energy production, industrial 

processes, waste, agriculture, and forestry. Carbon 

dioxide is by far the primary greenhouse gas emitted 

in the United States (EPA 2009); other gases include 

methane, nitrous oxide, and a variety of fluorinated 

gases. Effects of these emissions on the climate 

involve very complex processes, although recent 

advances in the state of the science regarding these 

processes suggest a very high likelihood that 

greenhouse gases produced by humans are affecting 

climate in detectable and quantifiable ways 

(IPCC 2008). 

Greenhouse Gases 

Greenhouse gases are gaseous constituents of 

the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic 

(resulting from or produced by human beings), that 

absorb and emit thermal infrared radiation (heat) 

emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere 

itself, and clouds. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, 

nitrous oxide, methane, and ozone are the primary 

greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. 

Greenhouse gases trap heat between the Earth’s 

surface and the lower part of the atmosphere; this 

phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-38 

For each alternative, DOE/NNSA estimated the amount of nonradiological and hazardous air pollutants, 

and greenhouse gases (expressed as carbon dioxide-equivalents) that would be released during the 

construction of proposed projects and the operation of ongoing and proposed projects (see Table S–8). 

Table S–8 Emissions of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases at the Nevada National Security Site 

(tons per year) 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

Estimated 2008 

Emissions Annual Average Operational Emissions in 2015 

Particulate Matter10 

Particulate Matter2.5 

Carbon Monoxide 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Lead 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Carbon Dioxide-equivalent 

3.3 

2.7 

181.3 

64.2 

0.41 

4.0 

0.0024 

0.56 

50,478 

6.8 

3.4 

123.3 

39.7 

0.55 

5.9 

0.030 

0.41 

39,690

20.1 

8.1 

160.9 

56.6 

1.1 

11.0 

~0.010 

~0.53 

49,303 

4.4 

2.6 

109.8 

36.3 

0.41 

4.8 

0.0024 

0.40 

38,045 

Estimated 2008 

Emissions Peak Year Construction Emissions a 

Particulate Matter10 

Particulate Matter2.5 

Carbon Monoxide 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Lead 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Carbon Dioxide-equivalent 

3.3 

2.7 

181.3 

64.2 

0.41 

4.0 

0.0024 

0.56 

50,478 

20.0 

6.0 

44.8 

56.0 

0.14 

6.2 

0.0000089 

0.038 

5,686 

129.1 

35.6 

296.5 

388.6 

0.68 

41.6 

0.000013 

0.058 

21,158 

8.4 

2.6 

24.4 

24.4 

0.08 

2.8 

0.0000071 

0.030 

2,774 

Particulate Matter10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers; Particulate 

Matter2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers. a Represents emissions for first year of construction, as construction activity would be linearly distributed over multiple years; 

however, mobile source emissions would be highest in the first construction year.

In general, emission-generating activities under any alternative would be widely dispersed over the 

1,360-square-mile area of the NNSS, as well as along the U.S. Route 95 corridor between Las Vegas and 

the NNSS. Thus, at the boundaries of the NNSS, ambient air concentrations are expected to be below the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Nye County would continue to be in attainment for all criteria 

pollutants, while in Clark County, these emissions would not cause or contribute to any new violations of 

the standards or increases in the frequency or severity of any violations of the standards. DOE/NNSA 

also estimates that emissions of hazardous air pollutants would continue to remain low under any 

alternative and would not require additional emission control technologies; and, therefore, such emissions 

would not pose an undue health risk to workers or the public. Greenhouse gas emissions, while estimated 

to decrease relative to baseline levels, would still contribute to global climate change. 

More specifically, emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases attributable to 

the levels of operations would decrease relative to existing levels under any alternative. These reductions 

would be due primarily to the introduction over time of newer DOE/NNSA fleet and worker vehicles with 

improved fuel economy, as well as improved combustion and emissions treatment efficiencies for electric 

power generation sources on the NNSS. 

In contrast, relative to 2008 levels, emissions of volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, and 

particulate matter would increase under the No Action and Expanded Operations Alternatives. The 
Summary 

S-39

higher emissions of volatile organic compounds would result from the increased use of ethanol-blended 

fuels in vehicles. Sulfur dioxide and particulate matter emissions would increase primarily because of 

new projects and an increase in the levels of operations on the NNSS. Corresponding emissions under the 

Reduced Operations Alternative would tend to remain similar to existing emissions levels. 

S.3.1.7 Visual Resources 

The evaluation of visual impacts requires an understanding and identification of the visual resources 

(features) of the landscape, an assessment of the character and quality of those resources relative to the 

overall regional visual character, and a determination of the importance to people, or sensitivity, of views 

of visual resources in the landscape. DOE/NNSA evaluated the impact on visual resources in 

consideration of scenic quality classes, which are defined as follows: 

 Class A – The visual environment is made up of outstanding natural and manmade physical 

features. 

 Class B – The visual environment is made up of a combination of outstanding natural and 

manmade physical features and those that are common to the region. 

 Class C – The visual environment is made up of natural and manmade physical features that are 

common to the region. 

Under the No Action Alternative, only the construction of a commercial solar power generation facility 

and associated transmission lines in Area 25 would affect the existing visual resources of the NNSS. 

However, with projected traffic volumes along U.S. Route 95 of about 3,000 average daily trips, viewer 

sensitivity (i.e., the importance of a particular viewshed to the public) would remain moderate. A solar 

power generation facility and associated transmission line, which would occupy about 2,650 acres, would 

introduce a source of glare, alter the visual character of a landscape that is largely undeveloped, be visible 

to highly sensitive viewers, and reduce the existing visual quality from Class B to Class C. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, new facilities would be constructed or reconfigured, an 

existing electric transmission line would be upgraded, and geothermal and solar energy projects would be 

constructed. With the projected traffic volumes along U.S. Route 95, viewer sensitivity would change 

from moderate to high near Mercury (approximately 5,310 average daily trips) and near Area 25 

(approximately 3,030 average daily trips). For most such facilities, impacts on visual resources would not 

be adverse. However, the addition of approximately 200,000 square feet of facilities to the Desert Rock 

Airport would be visible from U.S. Route 95 and would have an adverse visual impact, as would the 

construction of commercial solar power generation facilities and associated transmission lines on 

approximately 10,350 acres in Area 25, which would reduce the visual quality from Class B to Class C. 

The Geothermal Demonstration Project could also alter the visual character and reduce visual quality if its 

facilities are visible from U.S. Route 95. 

Under the Reduced Operations Alternative, only the construction of a commercial solar power generation 

facility in Area 25 would affect existing visual resources. A solar power generation facility, which would 

occupy about 1,200 acres, would reduce the existing visual quality of this area of Area 25 from Class B to 

Class C, even though viewer sensitivity would remain moderate (2,980 average daily trips). 

S.3.1.8 Cultural Resources 

Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological districts, sites, buildings, structures, or 

objects created or modified by human activity. Cultural resources also include traditional cultural 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-40 

properties—properties that are eligible for inclusion in the 

National Register of Historic Places (the Register) 

because of their association with the cultural practices or 

beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that 

community’s history and (b) important in maintaining the 

continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and 

King 1998). 

An area’s potential for containing cultural resources sites 

is site specific and influenced by factors such as the 

presence of water, food sources, shelter (e.g., caves or 

rock alcoves), sources of materials for building shelters, 

and less-tangible but equally important factors such as features that may have spiritual value to a culture. 

While all areas of the NNSS have the potential to possess cultural resources, the areas with the highest 

number of recorded cultural resources are Rainier 

and Pahute Mesas in the northwest, Jackass Flats 

in the southwest, and Yucca Flat in the east. 

Although it is not possible to predict with a high 

degree of certainty the number of cultural 

resources sites in a given area, the record provided 

by cultural resources surveys conducted at the 

NNSS provides a means to estimate site densities 

and, therefore, the likelihood of encountering a 

cultural resources site within a given area. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the disturbance 

of approximately 4,460 acres of land would affect 

an estimated 1,855 cultural resources sites, 575 of 

which would be eligible for inclusion in the 

Register. DOE/NNSA estimates that 

implementing the Expanded Operations Alternative would disturb approximately 25,877 acres of land and 

thereby directly affect about 7,688 cultural resources sites, about 2,447 of which would be eligible for 

inclusion in the Register. Under the Reduced Operations Alternatives, approximately 2,170 acres of land 

would be disturbed, directly affecting about 861 cultural resources sites; about 266 of these sites would be 

eligible for inclusion in the Register. 

One or more commercial solar power generation facilities, including an associated transmission line, 

would be developed in Area 25. Solar power generation facilities would vary in size; under the No 

Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations Alternatives, the facilities would disturb 

approximately 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively. Table S–9 presents the estimated number of 

cultural resources sites that would be impacted by solar power generation facilities under the three 

alternatives, including a subset of those eligible for listing in the Register. 

Table S–9 Cultural Resources Sites Impacted by Solar Power Generation Facilities 

Alternative Cultural Resources Sites National Register of Historic Places – Eligible Sites 

No Action 1,802 557 

Expanded Operations 7,004 2,163 

Reduced Operations 816 252 

Cultural Resources Management 

As part of compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act, the National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) conducts 

cultural resource surveys and identifies cultural 

resources within the area of potential effect for all 

proposed projects and activities (undertakings) that 

may affect cultural resources. If possible, NNSA 

avoids significant cultural resources impacts by 

adjusting the location of a proposed undertaking. 

When avoidance is not practicable, NNSA consults 

with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, 

and possibly the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, to identify measures to mitigate adverse 

impacts on those resources. 

National Register of Historic Places

The National Register of Historic Places is 

the official list of the Nation's historic places 

worthy of preservation. Authorized by the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

the National Park Service's National Register 

of Historic Places is part of a national 

program to coordinate and support public 

and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and 

protect America’s historic and archeological 

resources.
Summary 

S-41

S.3.1.9 Waste Management 

At the NNSS, DOE/NNSA operations, environmental restoration, and decontamination and 

decommissioning activities would generate low-level radioactive waste; mixed low-level radioactive 

waste; transuranic waste; hazardous waste; explosive waste; and nonhazardous wastes, including sanitary 

solid waste, hydrocarbon-contaminated soil and debris, and construction and demolition debris. 

DOE/NNSA also accepts waste for disposal at the NNSS, including low-level and mixed low-level 

radioactive waste and selected nonradioactive classified wastes, from other in-state locations such as the 

TTR, as well as from authorized out-of-state DOE and U.S. Department of Defense generators. 

DOE/NNSA assessed waste management impacts by comparing the projected waste volumes generated or 

disposed under each alternative to current waste management practices and/or the availability of onsite or 

offsite waste management capacity. Table S–10 summarizes the types and volumes of wastes generated 

and disposed at the NNSS under the three alternatives. The estimates of low-level radioactive waste and 

mixed low-level radioactive waste volumes to be disposed of at the NNSS under the Expanded 

Operations Alternative are based upon conservative estimates from waste-generating facilities, and the 

aggregated totals reflect this conservatism (i.e., likely overestimates quantities). Appendix A, 

Section A.2.2.1, Table A–6, of this SWEIS provides additional details regarding generators and their 

associated waste volumes; Chapter 6, Table 6–13, of this SWEIS shows historical and projected disposal 

volumes. 

Table S–10 Waste Generated and Disposed at the Nevada National Security Site 

Waste Stream 

Alternatives 

No Action 

(cubic feet) 

Expanded Operations 

(cubic feet) 

Reduced Operations 

(cubic feet) 

Waste Volumes Generated at the Nevada National Security Site 

Low-level radioactive waste 1,000,000 1,300,000 1,000,000 

Mixed low-level radioactive waste 520,000 520,000 520,000 

Transuranic waste 9,600 19,000 7,100 

Hazardous waste 210,000 340,000 190,000 

Sanitary solid waste and construction and demolition debris 3,800,000 10,000,000 3,700,000 

Waste Volumes Disposed at the Nevada National Security Site 

Low-level radioactive waste 15,000,000 48,000,000 15,000,000 

Mixed low-level radioactive waste 900,000 4,000,000 900,000 

Sanitary solid waste and construction and demolition debris 3,500,000 9,200,000 3,400,000 

Construction and operation of one or more solar power generation facilities in Area 25 at the NNSS under 

each of the three alternatives also would generate hazardous waste, sanitary solid waste, and construction 

debris. Table S–11 describes the estimated volumes of these wastes. 

Table S–11 Waste Generated by Construction and Operation of 

Commercial Solar Power Generation Facilities 

Waste Stream 

Alternatives 

No Action 

(cubic feet) 

Expanded Operations 

(cubic feet) 

Reduced Operations 

(cubic feet) 

Waste Volumes Generated During Construction 

Hazardous waste 6,500 27,000 2,700 

Sanitary solid waste and construction debris 140,000 600,000 60,000 

Waste Volumes Generated During Operations (per year) 

Hazardous waste 7,100 30,000 3,000 

Sanitary solid waste and construction and demolition 

debris 

41,000 5,400 3,400 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-42 

Under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives, sufficient capacity would be available at the 

NNSS to dispose the projected volume of low-level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive 

waste at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near 

Carlsbad, New Mexico, maintains adequate capacity to enable the disposal of transuranic waste generated 

at the NNSS. In addition, adequate capacity is expected to exist in Nevada and elsewhere in the 

United States to recycle or treat, store, and dispose hazardous waste generated at the NNSS, including 

waste generated by a solar power generation facility. For instance, four treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities were permitted to receive hazardous waste in Nevada as of 2009 (NDEP 2009). There is also 

existing capacity at the NNSS to dispose nonhazardous waste (including such waste from a solar power 

generation facility). As of 2008, DOE/NNSA estimated that the three NNSS landfills have the following 

waste capacities: the Area 6 Hydrocarbon Solid Waste Disposal Site, 2.8 million cubic feet; the Area 9 

U10c Solid Waste Disposal Site, 15 million cubic feet; and the Area 23 Solid Waste Disposal Site, 

13 million cubic feet. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site could be 

reopened to receive low-level radioactive waste generated from environmental restoration and other 

activities at DOE/NNSA sites in the State of Nevada. Specifically, this action could be triggered by a 

need for additional disposal space beyond that available in the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management 

Complex for the disposal of large onsite remediation debris, or soils from cleanup activities on the 

Nevada Test and Training Range. There is no near-term need to use the Area 3 Radioactive Waste 

Management Site; however, should DOE/NNSA identify a need to reopen the Area 3 Radioactive Waste 

Management Site in the future, it would first undertake detailed consultation with the State of Nevada and 

would limit disposal to in-state-generated, nonhazardous low-level radioactive waste. The Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant maintains adequate capacity to enable the disposal of transuranic waste generated at 

Waste Definitions 

Radioactive Waste – Solid, liquid, or gaseous material that contains radionuclides regulated under the Atomic Energy 

Act of 1954, as amended, and is of negligible economic value considering costs of recovery. 

Transuranic Waste – Radioactive waste containing alpha particle-emitting radionuclides having an atomic number 

greater than 92 (the atomic number of uranium) and half-lives greater than 20 years, in concentrations greater than 

100 nanocuries per gram. 

Low-Level Radioactive Waste – Radioactive waste not classified as high-level radioactive waste, transuranic waste, 

spent fuel, or byproduct material as defined by Section 11e(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Test 

specimens of fissionable material irradiated for research and development only, and not for the production of power or 

plutonium, may be classified as low-level radioactive waste, provided the concentration of transuranic elements is less 

than 100 nanocuries per gram. 

Greater-than-Class C Waste -- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) classification system for the four 

classes of low-level radioactive waste (A, B, C, and greater-than-Class C) is established in Title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, Section 61.55, (10 CFR 61.55) and is based on the concentrations of specific short- and longlived radionuclides given in two tables. Section 3(b)(1)(D) of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments 

Act of 1985 specifies that the Federal Government is responsible for disposal of greater-than-Class C low-level 

radioactive waste generated by NRC and agreement state licensees. The U.S. Department of Energy is the Federal 

Agency responsible for disposal of greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste. 

Hazardous Waste – A category of waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. To be 

considered hazardous, a waste must be a solid waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and must 

exhibit at least one of four characteristics described in 40 CFR 261.20-24 (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and 

toxicity) or be specifically listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR 261.31-33. 

Mixed Waste – Waste containing both radioactive and hazardous components, as defined by the Atomic Energy Act 

and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, respectively. Mixed waste intended for disposal must meet the 

Land Disposal Restrictions as listed in 40 CFR Part 268. Mixed waste is a generic term for specific types of mixed 

waste, such as mixed low-level radioactive waste and mixed transuranic waste. 
Summary 

S-43

the NNSS. In addition, for the reasons described immediately above, adequate capacity is expected to 

exist in Nevada and elsewhere in the United States to recycle or treat, store, and dispose hazardous waste 

generated at the NNSS, including the waste from solar power generation facilities, and to dispose 

nonhazardous solid waste in NNSS or offsite landfills. 

S.3.1.10 Human Health 

Surface-disturbing activities, tests, and experiments (operations) at various facilities on the NNSS could 

result in health impacts on workers and the public from exposure to radioactive waste and materials and 

hazardous chemicals. Workers could also be exposed to hazardous chemicals and would be subject to 

industrial accidents. 

Radiological impacts were estimated (numerically calculated) for three public receptors: the general 

population living within 50 miles of a location at which radiation is released; a maximally exposed 

individual, which is a hypothetical individual assumed to be at the offsite location that would receive the 

maximum radiological exposure; and a subsistence consumer who derives all of his or her sustenance 

from the land and receives the same exposures as the maximally exposed individual. General population 

impacts were estimated for a residential scenario whereby people are exposed to radiation emitted from 

operational facilities, other locations where experiments are to be performed, environmental restoration 

activities, or legacy weapons testing areas that emit tritium or are contaminated with particulate 

radioactive materials. DOE/NNSA also considered potential impacts on the public from exposure to 

hazardous chemicals. 

Impacts on the maximally exposed individual were estimated for a scenario that included the same 

exposure pathways assumed for the general population, but assumed an increased amount of time spent 

outdoors and a higher rate of contaminated food consumption. Impacts on the subsistence consumer were 

estimated for a scenario in which the maximally exposed individual was assumed to live near the NNSS 

at a location where the soil has been contaminated with radionuclides, and a portion of the individual’s 

diet was assumed to be derived from crops raised on this soil, with the balance of the diet coming from 

wildlife that also has become contaminated on the NNSS. 

Potential radiological and chemical impacts also were considered for two categories of workers: (1) those 

directly involved in activities associated with assigned missions (involved workers) and (2) nearby, 

noninvolved workers. An involved worker is defined as a person who is exposed to radioactive or 

chemical emissions during normal operations. A noninvolved worker is defined as a person who is 

incidentally exposed to radioactive or chemical emissions, either during normal operations or as a result 

of an accident. 

Radiological impacts were estimated (numerically calculated) for involved workers routinely exposed to 

radioactive emissions, but were not estimated for these workers under accident conditions. In the event of 

an accident, although involved workers could receive a radiation dose, the impacts were not estimated 

because it is recognized that an accident could lead to extensive physical injuries or high radiological 

exposures and, ultimately, to worker deaths. 

Impacts also were estimated (numerically calculated) for noninvolved workers incidentally exposed to 

radiological emissions under accident conditions. Noninvolved workers generally were assumed to be 

110 yards downwind of the emission source, except in those instances where the presence of a 

noninvolved worker would not be logical (for example, inside the exclusion zone of a high-explosives 

experiment). 

In addition, DOE/NNSA estimated impacts on the entire workforce (involved and noninvolved) from 

industrial accidents. 

Normal Operations. Under the No Action Alternative, the public and workers would be exposed to 

radiation primarily from widespread diffuse sources, such as residual radioactive contamination, and from 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-44 

releases from activities associated with the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program at the Dense 

Plasma Focus Facility in Area 11 and the Environmental Restoration Program. DOE/NNSA estimates 

that the offsite population would receive 0.50 person-rem, resulting in an estimated risk of 0.0003 latent 

cancer fatalities to that population (an annual risk of 1 chance in 3,300 of a single latent cancer fatality in 

the population). The maximally exposed individual would receive an estimated dose of 2.8 millirem, 

resulting in a risk of 1 chance in 500,000 (0.000002) of contracting a fatal cancer, and the subsistence 

consumer would receive an estimated dose of 13 millirem, resulting in a risk of 1 chance in 130,000 

(0.000008) of contracting a fatal cancer. The involved worker population would receive an estimated 

collective dose of 5.2 person-rem, resulting in a risk of 0.003 latent cancer fatalities to that population (an 

annual risk of 1 chance in 330 of a single latent cancer fatality in the population). The estimated latent 

cancer fatalities to the public and worker populations under the Reduced Operations Alternative would be 

the same as or less than those under the No Action Alternative. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the public and workers would be exposed to radiation 

primarily from widespread diffuse sources, such as residual radioactive contamination, and from releases 

from activities associated with the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program at the Dense Plasma 

Focus Facility in Area 11 and the Big Explosives Experimental Facility in Area 4, tracer experiments 

under the Work for Others Program, and the Environmental Restoration Program activities. DOE/NNSA 

estimates that the offsite population would receive a dose of 0.89 person-rem, resulting in a risk of 0.0005 

latent cancer fatalities to that population (an annual risk of 1 chance in 2,000 of a single latent cancer 

fatality in the population). The maximally exposed individual would receive an estimated dose of 

4.8 millirem, resulting in an annual risk of 1 chance in 330,000 (0.000003) of contracting a fatal cancer, 

and the subsistence consumer would receive an estimated dose of 15 millirem, resulting in a risk of 1 

chance in 110,000 (0.000009) of contracting a fatal cancer. The involved worker population would 

receive an estimated collective dose of 6.6 person-rem, resulting in a risk of 0.004 latent cancer fatalities 

to that population (an annual risk of 1 chance in 250 of a single latent cancer fatality in the population). 

Radiological and Chemical Accidents. DOE/NNSA considered a range of potential accidents, 

including the maximum reasonably foreseeable accident, associated with ongoing and proposed projects 

and activities at various facilities on the NNSS. The same types of operations involving radioactive waste 

and materials, and hazardous chemicals would occur at the facilities under each of the alternatives, but the 

levels of operations would vary by alternative. Nonetheless, the accident scenarios and consequences 

analyzed were the same for each alternative because the differences in accident frequencies (probabilities 

of occurrence) due to the levels of operations were within the uncertainty range of the accident 

frequencies. 

Maximum reasonably foreseeable accidents involving a release of 

radioactivity would involve a beyond-design basis earthquake at 

the Device Assembly Facility in Area 6 followed by the release of 

5 kilograms of plutonium, or an explosion followed by the release 

of 1 kilogram of plutonium to the atmosphere. The estimated 

probabilities of these events occurring are 1 × 10-6 and 8 × 10-4 per 

year of operation, respectively (1 chance in 1,000,000 and 

1 chance in 1,250). 

The severe earthquake accident would result in the highest consequences for the public and workers. If it 

were to occur, the maximally exposed individual would receive an estimated dose of 860 millirem, 

corresponding to a latent cancer fatality risk of 0.0005 (1 chance in 2,000). The offsite population within 

50 miles would receive a collective dose estimated to be 113 person-rem; the calculated number of latent 

cancer fatalities associated with this dose is 0.07, implying that the most likely outcome would be no 

additional latent cancer fatalities in the exposed population. An involved worker within the Device 

Assembly Facility could be fatally injured in the explosion, and a noninvolved worker (located 110 yards 

downwind of the release) would receive an estimated dose of 2,800 rem, resulting in a lethal dose. 

Maximum Reasonably 

Foreseeable Accident

A maximum reasonably foreseeable 

accident is an accident with the 

most severe consequences that can 

reasonably be expected to occur.
Summary 

S-45

The above consequences would be reduced by a factor of 1 million if the probability of the accident 

occurring were taken into account. Because the probability of this accident is 1 chance in 1 million, the 

Device Assembly Facility accident involving an explosion followed by release of plutonium presents a 

higher risk (consequence times probability) to the public. The explosion followed by a plutonium release 

accident represents an estimated latent cancer fatality risk to the maximally exposed individual of 9 × 10-8

(1 chance in 11 million), the risk of a single latent cancer fatality in the population of 1 × 10-5 (1 chance in 

100,000), and a latent cancer fatality risk to a noninvolved worker of 3 × 10-6 (1 chance in 300,000). 

The maximum reasonably foreseeable accident involving a chemical release would involve an accidental 

chlorine gas release from a railcar at the Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex. This 

hypothetical accident is expected to be in the “extremely unlikely” to “beyond extremely unlikely” 

frequency category, in other words, in the 10-4 (1 chance in 10,000) to 10-6 (1 chance in 1,000,000) per 

year or lower frequency range. 

DOE/NNSA estimates that fatal concentrations of chlorine would extend downwind a few miles under 

typical daytime conditions and for 5 to 6 miles, or greater under more-stable (reduced windspeeds and 

limited vertical mixing) nighttime conditions. Chlorine concentrations that could lead to irreversible and 

long-lasting health effects would extend further downwind. DOE/NNSA considers these health impacts 

to be conservative in that the analysis was based on a 1-hour chlorine release; during actual accidents, 

however, releases occurred over many hours, which resulted in lower concentrations than estimated here. 

Members of the public likely would not be affected by a chlorine release because the remote location of 

the Nonproliferation Test and Evaluation Complex on the NNSS and the additional buffer provided by the 

Nevada Test and Training Range would keep members of the public at least 8 miles away. 

Industrial Accidents. DOE/NNSA estimated the injuries and fatalities that could arise in the workforce 

from industrial accidents based upon accident rates from DOE and the U.S. Department of Labor 

(DOE 2010; DOL 2010a, 2010b). Total recordable cases, as well as those cases that result in lost 

workdays, restricted duty, or require a transfer, were estimated for construction activities and facility 

operations (see Table S–12). Industrial accidents that could result in fatalities are more likely to occur 

during construction activities than during facility operations and include, for example, electrocution and 

equipment mishaps. DOE/NNSA estimates that less than one fatality would occur during construction 

activities at the NNSS (see Table S–13). 

Table S–12 Estimated Incidence of Nonfatal Accidents at the Nevada National Security Site 

Location/Activity 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

All Operations (annual total) 32 14 44 20 28 13 

Commercial Solar Power 

Generation Facilities – 

Operations (annual) 

6.2 3.2 8.3 4.2 5.2 2.7 

Commercial Solar Power 

Generation Facilities – 

Construction 

60 31 110 56 44 23 

Table S–13 Estimated Incidence of Fatal Construction Accidents at the 

Nevada National Security Site 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

All Operations Annually (includes commercial 

solar power generation facilities) 

0.019 0.031 0.015 

Commercial Solar Power Generation 

Facilities Construction (during construction) 

0.019 0.029 0.015 
S-46

Table S–14 Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts at the Nevada National Security 

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Land Use National Security/ Defense Mission 

No impacts were identified from the continuation of activities at the current levels of operations or foreseeable actions because activities under this alternative would continue to be compatible with existing land use designations on the NNSS and primary land uses adjacent to the site. 

No impacts were identified from the increased activities and change in land use designations under this alternative because activities would be compatible with the proposed land use designations and primary land uses adjacent to the NNSS. The Reserved Zone would decrease in area by 5.5 percent; the Research, Test, and Experiment Zone would increase by 21 percent. 

No impacts were identified from the decreased activities and change in land use designations under this alternative because activities would be compatible with the proposed land use designations and primary land uses adjacent to the NNSS. The Reserved Zone would decrease in area by 71 percent, and Areas 18, 19, 20, and 30 would change from Reserved to Limited Use, which is a new land use zone designation. 

No impact

increased designatiobecause acwith the prand primarNNSS. ArReserved tExperimen19, 20, and Reserved ta new land 

Airspace

No new impacts were identified from airspace activities because these activities would be maintained at the current levels of air traffic, navigational aid services, and airspace structure, and would be coordinated and scheduled by the controlling entity responsible for NNSS airspace, the Nellis Air Traffic Control Facility. 

Airspace

Minimal impacts would result from increased usage of aerial platforms and airspace usage, as these activities would continue to be coordinated with the Nellis Air Traffic Control Facility. 

Airspace

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Airspace

Minimal imincreased airspace ucontinue to Air Traffic 

Environmental Management Mission 

No impacts were identified from the continuation of activities at the current levels of operations because activities under this alternative would not change. 

No impacts were identified from the increased activities under this alternative as these activities would be compatible with land use designations and primary land uses adjacent to the site. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

No impact

increased as these acwith land uland uses a

Nondefense Mission No impacts were identified from the 

continuation of activities at the current levels of operations or foreseeable actions because activities under this alternative would continue to be compatible with existing land use designations on the NNSS and primary land uses adjacent to the site. The Solar Enterprise Zone would be renamed the Renewable Energy Zone. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus: 

 Area 15 would be changed from a 

Reserved Zone to a Research Test and Experiment Zone and the Solar Enterprise Zone would be renamed the Renewable Energy Zone and increase in area by 276 percent. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as u

plus: 

 Area 15 

ReservExperim
 S-47 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Infrastructure and Energy Infrastructure Buildings, transportation, water supply, and services are adequate to handle temporary increases in demands during construction and long-term demands during operations. Infrastructure would be maintained as needed to accommodate ongoing activities. In addition, new low-level radioactive waste cells would be developed to accommodate disposal of those waste types. Up to 50 new wells would be developed by the Underground Test Area Project. A commercial 240-megawatt solar power generation facility would be developed in Area 25 of the NNSS. Up to 10 miles of new 230-kilovolt transmission lines would be required to interconnect the new generation facility with the main power grid. The commercial facility would provide a portion of the electrical power at the NNSS. Sanitary needs of construction and operational employees would be provided by the commercial entity and are not expected to affect the NNSS solid waste or wastewater infrastructure. Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus: 

 New buildings (about 479,000 square 

feet), ranges and training facilities (13,455 acres), water distribution lines, wastewater treatment systems (septic tanks), power lines, and communication systems would be added and improvements would be made to existing infrastructure. In addition, new low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste cells would be developed to accommodate disposal of increased volumes of those waste types and new sanitary and construction, decontamination and decommissioning waste landfills in Areas 23 and 25. 

 An upgrade to the NNSS electrical 

transmission system would increase capacity from 40 to 100 megawatts. 

 A 5-megawatt photovoltaic solar 

power generation facility would be developed in Area 6. 

Up to 1,000 megawatts of commercial solar power generating capacity would be developed in Area 25 of the NNSS. Up to 10 miles of new 500-kilovolt 

transmission lines would be required to interconnect the new generation facilities with the main power grid. The commercial facilities would provide a portion of the electrical power at the NNSS. Sanitary needs of construction and operational employees would be provided by the commercial entity and are not expected to affect the NNSS solid waste or wastewater infrastructure.

Same as under the No Action Alternative, except: 

 Buildings, transportation, water 

supply, and services would experience reduced demands. Because most operations in the northwestern portion of the NNSS (within Areas 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30) would be discontinued, nonessential infrastructure in those areas would be shut down or removed. 

A commercial 100-megawatt solar power generation facility would be developed in Area 25 of the NNSS. No 

new transmission lines would be required to interconnect the new generating facility with the main power grid. The commercial facility would provide a portion of the electrical power at the NNSS. Sanitary needs of construction and operational employees would be provided by the commercial entity and are not expected to affect the NNSS solid waste or wastewater infrastructure.

Same as u

plus: 

 New bu

feet), ra(approxdistribusystemand comadded amade to additiolow-levbe deveof incretypes aconstrudecommAreas 2

 An upg

transmicapacit

 A 5-me

power gdevelop

 Becaus

northw(within would binfrastrshut do

A commergeneration Area 25 of new 230-kbe requiregeneration grid. The provide a pthe NNSSand operatprovided bnot expectwaste or w
S-48

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Energy Average electric power demand would 

be 22 megawatts, with a peak demand of 30 megawatts. 

Average electrical power demand would be 28 megawatts, with a peak demand of 41 megawatts. As noted under Infrastructure, DOE/NNSA would 

rebuild the 138-kilovolt transmission system on the NNSS to accommodate increased loads.

Average electrical power demand would be 20 megawatts, with a peak demand of 27 megawatts. 

Average e

be 28 meg41 megawInfrastruct138-kilovoNNSS to a

Annual usage of various liquid fuels was estimated as follows: Fuel oil for heating – 66,000 gallons Unleaded gasoline – 427,000 gallons Ethanol/E85 – 217,000 gallons #2 Diesel fuel – 65,000 gallons Biodiesel fuel – 343,000 gallons DOE/NNSA would maintain and repair energy infrastructure.

Annual usage of various liquid fuels was 

estimated as follows: Fuel oil for heating – 83,000 gallons Unleaded gasoline – 534,000 gallons Ethanol/E85 – 271,000 gallons #2 Diesel fuel – 81,000 Biodiesel fuel – 429,000 gallons DOE/NNSA would maintain and repair energy infrastructure.

Annual usage of various liquid fuels 

was estimated as follows: Fuel oil for heating – 59,000 gallons Unleaded gasoline – 384,000 gallons Ethanol/E85 – 195,000 gallons #2 Diesel fuel – 59,000 gallons Biodiesel fuel – 309,000 gallons DOE/NNSA would maintain and repair energy infrastructure.

Annual us

estimated Fuel oil foUnleaded Ethanol/E#2 Diesel Biodiesel – DOE/NNSenergy inf

Transportation a and TrafficTransportation Out-of-State Low-Level Radioactive and Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste  Truck transport 

Worker risk 

(latent cancer fatality) 

1 (1.3) 3 (3.1) 1 (1.3) 

Population risk 

(latent cancer fatality) 

0 (0.2) 1 (0.7) 0 (0.2) 

Radiological accident 

(latent cancer fatality) 

0 (0.0002) 0 (0.01) 0 (0.0002) 

Traffic fatality 2 6 2 

 Rail transport only 

Worker risk 

(latent cancer fatality) 

0 (0.3) 1 (1.1) 0 (0.3) 

Population risk 

(latent cancer fatality) 

0 (0.1) 0 (0.3) 0 (0.1) 

Radiological accident 

(latent cancer fatality) 

0 (0.00006) 0 (0.005) 0 (0.00006) 

Traffic fatality 6 15 6 

 Combined rail-truck transport

Worker risk 

(latent cancer fatality) 

0 (0.5) 2 (1.5) 0 (0.5) 

Population risk 

(latent cancer fatality) 

0 (0.1) 0 (0.3) 0 (0.1) 

Radiological accident 

(latent cancer fatality) 

0 (0.00008) 0 (0.005) 0 (0.00008) 

Traffic fatality 6 16 6 
 S-49 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Traffic Onsite traffic impacts There would be about 20 additional vehicle trips per day on Mercury Highway, which would operate at a level of service A during peak traffic hours. Construction of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility would result in 500 (average over the period of construction) and 1,000 (during the peak of the construction period) additional vehicle trips on a daily basis during the peak commute hours on Lathrop Wells Road; increased roadway maintenance or improvements may be required. There would be about 800 additional vehicle trips per day on Mercury Highway, which would operate at a level of service B or better during peak traffic hours. Construction of 1,000 megawatts of commercial solar power generation facilities would result in 750 (average over the period of construction) and 1,500 (during the peak of the construction period) additional vehicle trips on a daily basis during the peak commute hours on Lathrop Wells Road; increased roadway maintenance or improvements may be required. There would be about 150 fewer vehicle trips per day on Mercury Highway, which would operate at a level of service A during peak traffic hours. Construction of a 100-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility would result in 400 (average over the period of construction) and 800 (during the peak of the construction period) additional vehicle trips on a daily basis during the peak commute hours on Lathrop Wells Road; increased roadway maintenance or improvements may be required. There wou

vehicle tripHighway, of service hours. Constructicommerciafacility wothe period 500 (durinperiod) adbasis durinLathrop Wmaintenanrequired. Regional traffic impacts U.S. Route 95, State Route 160, and State Route 372 would experience the greatest increases in daily traffic volumes in the area around the NNSS; however, these would be relatively minor and would not affect the levels of service on regional roadways. Overall traffic volumes would increase during peak hours because of additional traffic volumes attributable to construction and operation of a solar power generation facility. Segments of State Route 372, State Route 160, U.S. Route 95, and State Route 164 would experience moderately high percent increases in daily traffic compared to the No Action Alternative. Most of the increase in daily traffic volumes during the peak hours would be attributable to workers commuting to the NNSS; any detectable changes in traffic volumes would primarily occur during the main commuting hours and at the entry gates of the NNSS (the main entrance gate for regular NNSS employees and Gate 510 for those associated with the construction and operation of the commercial solar power generation facilities in Area 25). However, the levels of service on public roadways in the region would not change. Although the number of commuter trips for the reduced NNSS workforce would decrease, overall traffic volumes would increase slightly during peak hours because of additional traffic volumes attributable to construction and operation of the solar power generation facility. Impacts on regional traffic under this alternative would, therefore, be slightly less or similar to those described under the No Action Alternative; volume-to-capacity ratios and levels of service would not change. Segments State RoutRoute 164 high percecompared Most of thvolumes dattributablNNSS; anvolumes wmain commgates of thfor regular 510 for thoconstructiocommerciafacilities in of service region wou
S-50

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Socioeconomics 

Operation of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility would increase employment by 150 full-time equivalents, of which about 15 solar power generation facility employees would relocate from outside of the region. Sufficient housing exists to support the increased population. A total of 22 new students relocating to Clark County would create a need for 1 additional teacher to maintain the student-to-teacher ratio. An increase of 6 new students in Nye County would not result in a need for additional teachers. Direct jobs would reduce unemployment by 0.07 and 0.99 percent, respectively, in Clark and Nye Counties. 

Site employment would increase by 625 full-time equivalents; about 63 employees would relocate from outside of the region. Sufficient housing exists in the area to support the increased population. A total of 92 new students relocating to Clark County would create a need for 4 new teachers to maintain the student-to-teacher ratio. An increase of 27 new students in Nye County would create a need for 1 new teacher to maintain the student-to-teacher ratio. Direct jobs would reduce unemployment by 0.31 and 4.2 percent, respectively, in Clark and Nye Counties. 

Site employment would decrease by 45 full-time equivalents, increasing unemployment in Clark County by about 0.03 percent and in Nye County by about 0.39 percent. Additional employees would not relocate to Clark or Nye County and there would be no need for new housing or teachers. 

Site emplo

approximaabout 60 eoutside of exists in thpopulationstudents recreate a nemaintain thincrease of in Nye Conew teachteacher ratunemploymrespective

Approximately 500 full-time equivalents over 35 months, with a peak of 1,000 full-time equivalents, would need to be hired for construction of the solar power generation facility. 

Approximately 750 full-time equivalents over 42 months, with a peak of 1,500 full-time equivalents, would need to be hired for construction of the solar power generation facilities. Other construction projects at the NNSS would require approximately 250 full-time equivalents over the 10-year period. 

Approximately 400 full-time equivalents over 32 months, with a peak of 800 full-time equivalents, would need to be hired for construction of the solar power generation facility. 

Approxim

over 35 mtime equivfor construgeneration projects at approximaover the 10

Direct jobs, indirect jobs, and construction materials purchases would reduce unemployment and have a beneficial effect on local government revenues. 

Direct jobs, indirect jobs, and construction materials purchases would 

reduce unemployment and have a beneficial effect on the local economy and government revenues. 

Direct construction jobs and indirect jobs would reduce the unemployment rate in the region and would have a beneficial impact on the economy in the region. Job loss would have a small negative impact on the local economy; construction material purchases for the solar power generation facility would have a small positive economic impact, including generating additional revenues for local governments. 

Direct job

materials punemploymeffect on l

Buildings associated with construction and operation of a solar power generation facility and increased site personnel would create an increased 

demand for onsite security and fire and rescue services. 

Buildings associated with construction and operation of solar power generation facilities and other facilities on site and increased personnel would create a greater demand for onsite security and fire and rescue services. 

Buildings associated with construction and operation of a solar power generation facility would create an 

increased demand for onsite security and fire and rescue services. 

Buildings a

operation ofacility and create a moonsite secuservices. 
 S-51 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Geology and Soils National Security/ Defense Mission About 700 acres of soil would be disturbed by dynamic experiments in boreholes, explosives experiments, drillback operations, Office of Secure Transportation training and exercises, experiments involving biological simulants, and counterterrorism training. About 13,455 acres of soil would be disturbed by the same kinds of activities as under the No Action Alternative, including: Up to 10,000 acres of soil would be disturbed for an Office of Secure Transportation training facility; 120 acres for depleted uranium experiment sites; and 3,335 acres for additional explosives experiments, new test beds and training facilities, drillback operations, and additions to existing aviation facilities at the NNSS. About 430 acres of soil would be disturbed by many of the same kinds of activities as under the No Action Alternative, except: There would be 50 percent fewer explosive experiments and 33 percent fewer Office of Secure Transportation training and exercises. About 3,45

disturbed bdynamic eexperimenof Secure exercises, biological training, dnew test badditions tthe NNSS

Environmental Management Mission About 190 acres of soil would be disturbed for construction of new waste cells at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Up to 420 acres of soil would be disturbed as part of the Environmental Restoration Program, Soils Project cleanup. Up to 500 acres of soil would be disturbed for development of Underground Test Area Project monitoring wells. About 600 acres of soil would be disturbed for construction of new waste cells at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. About 35 acres of soil would be disturbed for new sanitary, decontamination, decommissioning, and construction waste landfills in Areas 23 and 25. Environmental Restoration Program impacts would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. About 600 

disturbed fcells at the Managemesoil would decontamiconstructioand 25. Up to 420 as part of tProgram, S500 acres developmeProject mo

Nondefense Mission Construction of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility and associated transmission lines would disturb approximately 2,650 acres. Construction of 1,000 megawatts of commercial solar power generation facilities and associated transmission lines would disturb up to 10,300 acres. Replacing the existing 138-kilovolt NNSS electrical transmission line would disturb, temporarily, about 467 acres of soil. Construction of a DOE photovoltaic solar power generation facility would disturb about 50 acres of land. Minor soil disturbance is expected from several additional research projects. Development of a Geothermal Demonstration Project would disturb up to 50 acres of soil. Construction of a 100-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility could disturb up to 1,200 acres. Constructi

commerciafacility anwould distReplacing electrical ttemporarilsoil. Constructipower genabout 50 adisturbancadditional DevelopmDemonstra50 acres o
S-52

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Hydrology Surface Water Resources National Security/ Defense Mission 

Disturbance of about 700 acres of land by dynamic experiments in boreholes, explosives experiments, drillback operations, Office of Secure Transportation training and exercises, experiments involving releases of chemicals and biological simulants, and counterterrorism training would cause alterations of natural drainage pathways, contamination of ephemeral surface waters via chemical agents, and sedimentation to ephemeral surface waters. 

About 13,455 acres of soil and nearsurface geologic media would activities 

similar to those as under the No Action Alternative, plus:  Up to 10,000 acres of disturbance for 

Office of Secure Transportation training facilities, 120 acres for depleted uranium experiment sites, and 3,335 acres for additional explosives experiments, new test beds and training facilities, drillback operations and additions to existing aviation facilities at the NNSS. This would result in proportionately larger impacts on ephemeral waters compared to the No Action Alternative. 

About 430 acres of soil and nearsurface geologic media would be disturbed by many of the same kinds of activities as under the No Action Alternative, except: There would be 50 percent fewer explosives experiments and 33 percent less Office of Secure Transportation training and exercises. This would result in proportionately smaller impacts on ephemeral waters compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Disturbanc

would caudrainage pephemeral agents, and surface waexperimenexperimendepleted uof Secure exercises, facilities, aaviation fa

Environmental Management Mission 

Disturbance of up to 190 acres of soil to construct, use, cover, and close disposal units within the existing Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex would result in impacts on ephemeral waters due to alteration of natural drainage pathways, increased erosion, and subsequent sedimentation. The Soils Project would reduce or stabilize legacy contamination in soil and could result in disturbance of up to 420 acres. Soil disturbance on about 500 acres of land from drilling additional wells for the Underground Test Area Project could cause localized erosion, as could decontamination and decommissioning of industrial sites, remediation of Defense Threat Reduction Agency sites, and the Borehole Management Program. These activities would affect ephemeral waters by altering natural drainage pathways and increasing sedimentation. Stabilization and/or removal of contaminated facilities and soils would reduce the potential for contamination of ephemeral waters. 

Disturbance of up to 600 acres of soil to 

construct, use, cover, and close disposal units within the existing Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex, plus up to 35 acres of disturbance for new sanitary, decontamination, decommissioning, and construction waste landfills would result in impacts on ephemeral waters due to alteration of natural drainage pathways, increased erosion, and subsequent sedimentation. Environmental Restoration Program impacts would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative for both Waste Management and Environmental Restoration Programs. 

Disturbanc

construct, units withiRadioactivComplex, disturbancdecontamiconstructioin impacts alteration increased sedimentaThe Soils stabilize lecould resuacres. Soiof land frothe Undergcause locadecontamiindustrial Threat RedBorehole Mactivities wby altering increasing and/or remand soils wcontamina
 S-53 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Nondefense Mission No new land disturbances would occur during infrastructure-related activities under the No Action Alternative. Development of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility and associated transmission lines would alter natural drainage pathways over 2,650 acres in Area 25, though it is expected that larger ephemeral waters (e.g., Fortymile Wash) would be avoided; however, there would be a potential for chemical contamination and sedimentation to ephemeral waters during construction-related land preparation. Up to 517 acres of land would be disturbed by rebuilding the existing 138-kilovolt transmission line on the NNSS and constructing a 5-megawatt photovoltaic solar power generation facility. These disturbances would result in alterations of natural drainage pathways and increased sedimentation of ephemeral waterways. Development of up to 1,000 megawatts of commercial solar power generation facilities and associated transmission lines would disturb drainage pathways over 10,300 acres and increased erosion and construction/operational activities would potentially increase sedimentation and chemical contamination in ephemeral waterways. Development of a Geothermal Demonstration Project would disturb up to 50 acres and cause sedimentation to ephemeral waters, as well as long-term alteration of natural drainage pathways. Same as under the No Action Alternative, except:  The land area associated with the development of a 100-megawatt solar power generation facility would be 1,200 acres. Up to 517 

disturbed bkilovolt traand constrphotovoltaDevelopmDemonstra50 acres. in alteratioand increawaterwaysDevelopmcommerciafacility anwould alteover 2,650 expected t(e.g., Fortyhowever, tchemical csedimentaconstructio
S-54

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Groundwater ResourcesTotal water use (excluding solar power generation facility[ies])

Total water use for DOE/NNSA activities would not exceed 691 acre-feet per year. This water demand would exceed published estimates of the 

sustainable yield for Basin 160 (Frenchman Flat) , although other yield estimates suggest that adverse impacts to water supply may not occur. 

Total water use for DOE/NNSA activities would increase by 25 percent from the No Action Alternative to 862 acre-feet per year. This water demand would exceed published estimates of the sustainable yield for Basin 160 (Frenchman Flat) , although other yield estimates suggest that adverse impacts to water supply may not occur. 

Total water use for DOE/NNSA activities would decrease by 10 percent from the No Action Alternative to 622 acre-feet per year. This water demand would exceed published estimates of the sustainable yield for Basin 160 (Frenchman Flat) , although other yield estimates suggest that adverse impacts to water supply may not occur. 

Total watewould totayear. This published yield for Balthough oadverse imoccur. 

National Security/ Defense Mission 

No new or additional impacts on groundwater resources. 

The following would be impacts on groundwater resources, in addition to impacts under the No Action Alternative:  5.5 acre-feet per year of potable water 

for construction workers. 

 Water use for construction of facilities 

included in the overall 25 percent increase in all water uses. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

The follow

impacts on compared  5.5 acre

for con

Water use facilities is per year. 

Environmental Management Mission 

Through 2020, 30 acre-feet per year of nonpotable water for the drilling of new wells under the Underground Test Area Project. Less than 7 acre-feet of total water use for dust suppression during decontamination and decommissioning of facilities. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Through 2

nonpotable the drilling UndergrouLess than dust supprand decom

Nondefense Mission Positive impact of reducing potable 

water production 16 percent by 2015 utilizing water conservation measures. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus:  A 5-megawatt photovoltaic solar 

power system near Area 6 would use 0.5 acre-feet per year of nonpotable water. 

 A one-time nonpotable water demand 

of 20 acre-feet to prime a geothermal power plant. 

Once operational, the geothermal power plant would use 50 acre-feet of water per year. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

The positi

water prodwould be p A 5-meg

system n0.5 acrewater. 

 A one-ti

of 20 acrequired plant. 

Once operplant woulyear. 
 S-55 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Commercial Solar Power Generation Facility(ies) Construction Operation 350 acre-feet per year from Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision 250 acre-feet per year from Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision These water demands would be below the sustainable yield of the Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision Basin (4,000 acre-feet per year). 1,000 acre-feet per year from Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision 700 acre-feet per year from Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision These water demands would be below the sustainable yield of the Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision Basin (4,000 acre-feet per year). 200 acre-feet per year from Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision 175 acre-feet per year from Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision These water demands would be below the sustainable yield of the Fortymile Canyon, Jackass Flats Subdivision Basin (4,000 acre-feet per year). 350 acre-f

Canyon, Ja250 acre-fCanyon, JaThese watsustainable Jackass Flacre-feet p

Biological Resources National Security/ Defense Mission Approximately 295 acres of currently undisturbed desert tortoise habitat would be affected by activities in Frenchman Flat, Yucca Flat, and Jackass Flats; Mercury Valley; and Fortymile Canyon. The estimated number of desert tortoises affected ranges from 4 to 21, all by harassment. Total new disturbed area (about 700 acres) would be 0.09 percent of undisturbed land on the NNSS. Approximately 1,930 acres of currently undisturbed desert tortoise habitat would be affected in the same areas as under the No Action Alternative. The estimated number of desert tortoises affected ranges from 30 to 136, all by harassment. Total new disturbed area (about 13,455 acres) would be 1.70 percent of undisturbed land on the NNSS. Approximately 160 acres of currently undisturbed desert tortoise habitat would be affected in the same areas as under the No Action Alternative. The estimated number of desert tortoises affected ranges from 2 to 11, all by harassment. Total new disturbed area (about 430 acres) would be 0.05 percent of undisturbed land on the NNSS. Approxim

undisturbebe affected No Action number of from 30 to Total new 3,455 acreundisturbe

Environmental Management Mission Approximately 760 acres of currently undisturbed desert tortoise habitat would be affected, primarily by environmental restoration activities in Frenchman, Yucca, and Jackass Flats, and Mercury Valley. The estimated number of desert tortoises affected ranges from 4 to 26, all by harassment. Total new disturbed area (about 1,110 acres) would be 0.14 percent of undisturbed land on the NNSS. Approximately 1,205 acres of currently undisturbed desert tortoise habitat would be affected in the same areas as under the No Action Alternative because of additional waste management activities. The estimated number of desert tortoises affected ranges from 4 to 33, all by harassment. Total new disturbed area (about 1,555 acres) would be 0.2 percent of undisturbed land on the NNSS. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Approxim

undisturbebe affected managemenumber of from 4 to 3Total new 1,555 acreundisturbe

Nondefense Mission Over the next 10 years, up to 125 desert tortoises would be taken on NNSS roadways due to non-project vehicle travel. Fewer than 20 of these desert tortoises are expected to be taken by injury or mortality. Approximately 2,650 acres of currently undisturbed desert tortoise habitat in Jackass Flats, Mercury Valley, and Frenchman Flat would be affected by DOE/NNSA activities, including a 240-megawatt commercial solar power Over the next 10 years, up to 125 desert tortoises would be taken on NNSS roadways due to non-project vehicle travel. Fewer than 20 of these desert tortoises are expected to be taken by injury or mortality. Approximately 10,535 acres of currently undisturbed desert tortoise habitat in Jackass Flats, Mercury Valley, and Frenchman Flat would be affected by DOE/NNSA activities, including 1,000 megawatts of commercial solar power Over the next 10 years, up to 125 desert tortoises would be taken on NNSS roadways due to non-project vehicle travel. Fewer than 20 of these desert tortoises are expected to be taken by injury or mortality. Approximately 1,200 acres of currently undisturbed desert tortoise habitat in Jackass Flats, Mercury Valley, and Frenchman Flat would be affected by DOE/NNSA activities, including a 100- megawatt commercial solar power Over the n

tortoises wroadways travel. Fewtortoises ainjury or mApproximundisturbeJackass FlFrenchman DOE/NNSmegawatts 
S-56

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

generation facility and associated transmission lines in Jackass Flats. The estimated number of desert tortoises affected ranges from 0 to 41, all by harassment. Total new disturbed area (about 2,650 acres) would be 0.34 percent of undisturbed land on the NNSS. 

generation facilities and associated 

transmission lines in Jackass Flats. The estimated number of desert tortoises affected ranges from 4 to 178, all by harassment. Total new disturbed area (about 10,867 acres) would be 1.37 percent of undisturbed land on the NNSS. 

generation facility in Jackass Flats. The estimated number of desert tortoises affected ranges from 0 to 19, all by harassment. Total new disturbed area (about 1,200 acres) would be 0.15 percent of undisturbed land on the NNSS. 

generation 

transmissiestimated affected raharassmenTotal new 3,167 acreundisturbe

Air Quality Annual Average Operational Emissions in 2015 (tons per year) Particulate Matter10

Particulate Matter2.5

Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Dioxide Volatile Organic 

Compounds

Lead Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Dioxideequivalent 

6.8 3.4 

123.3 

39.7 0.73 

5.9 

0.030 

0.41 

39,690

20.1 

8.1 

160.9 

56.6 

1.1 

11.0 

0.010 

0.53 

49,303 

4.4 2.6 

109.8 

36.3 0.43 

4.8 

0.0024 

0.40 

38,045 

Peak Year Construction Emissions (tons per year)Particulate Matter10

Particulate Matter2.5

Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Dioxide Volatile Organic 

Compounds

Lead Hazardous Air PollutantsCarbon Dioxideequivalent 

20.0 

6.0 

44.8 56.0 0.14 

6.2 

0.0000089 

0.038 5,686 

129.1 

35.6 

296.5 388.6 

0.68 41.6 

0.000013 

0.058 

21,158 

8.4 2.6 

24.4 24.4 0.08 

2.8 

0.0000071 

0.030 2,774 

Radiological Air Quality 

No activities are expected to produce aboveground radiation beyond those documented for 2008 baseline conditions.

Except for depleted uranium and radiotracer experiments, no additional activities are expected to produce aboveground radiation beyond those documented for 2008 baseline conditions.

No activities are expected to produce aboveground radiation beyond those documented for 2008 baseline conditions. 

Except for 

radiotracer activities aabovegroudocumente
 S-57 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Visual Resources National Security/ Defense Mission No impacts on visual resources. No impacts on visual resources. No impacts on visual resources. No impactEnvironmental Management Mission No impacts on visual resources. No impacts on visual resources. No impacts on visual resources. No impactNondefense Mission Construction and operation of a commercial solar power generation facility and associated transmission lines over about 2,400 acres of land would reduce the visual quality from a Class B to a Class C rating in portions of Area 25 visible to viewers on U.S. Route 95. Construction of approximately 200,000 square feet of additional facilities would be added to Desert Rock Airport that would have an adverse effect on visual resources visible from U.S. Route 95. Construction and operation of commercial solar power generation facilities and associated transmission lines over about 10,300 acres of land would reduce the visual quality from a Class B to a Class C rating in portions of Area 25 visible to viewers on U.S. Route 95. A Geothermal Demonstration Project could alter the visual character and reduce visual quality if facilities are built along U.S. Route 95. Construction and operation of a commercial solar power generation facility over 1,200 acres of land would reduce the visual quality from a Class B to a Class C rating in portions of Area 25 visible to viewers on U.S. Route 95. Constructi

power gentransmissi2,650 acrevisual quarating in pviewers on of approxiadditional Desert Roan adverse visible froGeothermavisual chaif facilities 

Cultural Resources National Security/ Defense Mission Approximately 700 acres of undisturbed land would be affected by activities in Frenchman Flat, Yucca Flat, and Jackass Flats; Mercury Valley; and Fortymile Canyon. An estimated 24 cultural resources sites would be involved, of which an estimated 10 may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 13,455 acres of undisturbed land would be affected in the same areas as under the No Action Alternative. An estimated 624 cultural resources sites would be involved, of which an estimated 265 may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 430 acres of undisturbed land would be affected in the same areas as under the No Action Alternative. An estimated 16 cultural resources sites would be involved, of which an estimated 6 may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Approxim

land would as under thestimated would be i63 may eliof Historic 

Environmental Management Mission Approximately 1,110 acres of undisturbed land would be affected, primarily by environmental restoration activities in Frenchman Flat, Yucca Flat, and Jackass Flats; Emigrant and Mercury Valleys; and Fortymile Canyon. An estimated 29 cultural resource sites would be involved, of which an estimated 7 may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 1,555 acres of undisturbed land would be affected in the same areas as under the No Action Alternative because of additional waste management activities. An estimated 43 cultural resources sites would be involved, of which an estimated 12 may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Approxim

land would additional An estimawould be i12 may be Register o
S-58

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Nondefense Mission No impacts on cultural resources from 

DOE/NNSA infrastructure and energy conservation activities. 

Approximately 517 acres of undisturbed land would be affected by DOE/NNSA infrastructure and renewable energy projects. An estimated 15 cultural resource sites may be involved, of which an estimated 6 would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Approximland would infrastructprojects. Aresource sian estimatNational R

Approximately 2,650 acres of undisturbed land in the Jackass Flats area would be affected by development of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility and associated transmission lines. An estimated 1,802 cultural resources sites would be involved, of which an estimated 557 would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Approximately 10,300 acres of undisturbed land in the Jackass Flats 

area would be affected by development of commercial solar power generation facilities and associated transmission lines. An estimated 7,004 cultural resources sites would be involved, of which an estimated 2,163 would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Approximately 50 acres of undisturbed land would be affected by development of a Geothermal Demonstration Project in the Yucca Flat area. An estimated 2 cultural resources sites may be involved, of which 1 would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Approximately 1,200 acres of undisturbed land in the Jackass Flats area would be affected by development 

of a 100-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility. An estimated 816 cultural resources sites would be involved, of which an estimated 252 may be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 

Approxim

land in the affected by solar poweassociated estimated would be i557 would Register o

Waste Management (10-year volumes) Low-level radioactive waste 

15,000,000 cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste is within the disposal capacity of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. 

48,000,000 cubic feet of low-level radioactive waste is within the disposal capacity of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site and the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex.b

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

48,000,000 

radioactive disposal caRadioactivand the ArManageme

Mixed low-level radioactive waste 

900,000 cubic feet of mixed low-level radioactive waste is within the permitted disposal capacity of Cell 18 in the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. 

Disposal of 4,000,000 cubic feet of mixed low-level radioactive waste would require additional permitted mixed low-level radioactive waste disposal capacity at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Disposal o

mixed lowwould requmixed lowdisposal caRadioactivComplex. 

Transuranic waste 9,600 cubic feet would be generated by 

DOE/NNSA activities in Nevada. All transuranic waste would be disposed within available capacity at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

19,000 cubic feet would be generated by DOE/NNSA activities in Nevada. All transuranic waste would be disposed within available capacity at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

7,100 cubic feet would be generated by DOE/NNSA activities in Nevada. All transuranic waste would be disposed within available capacity at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

19,000 cub

DOE/NNSAll transuravailable cPilot Plant
 S-59 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Hazardous waste Total of 210,000 cubic feet would be generated, including 42,000 cubic feet generated by a commercial solar power generation facility. All would be recycled, treated, and/or disposed within available offsite capacity. Disposal of hazardous solid waste generated by a commercial solar power generation facility would be the responsibility of that project. NNSS hazardous waste management capabilities would not be impacted under current permit conditions. Total of 340,000 cubic feet would be generated, including 170,000 cubic feet generated by commercial solar power generation facilities. All would be recycled, treated, and/or disposed within available offsite capacity. Disposal of hazardous solid waste generated by a commercial solar power generation facility would be the responsibility of that project. NNSS hazardous waste management capabilities would not be impacted under current permit conditions. Total of 190,000 cubic feet would be generated, including 17,000 cubic feet generated by a commercial solar power generation facility. All would be recycled, treated, and/or disposed within available offsite capacity. Disposal of hazardous solid waste generated by a commercial solar power generation facility would be the responsibility of that project. NNSS hazardous waste management capabilities would not be impacted under current permit conditions. Total of 2

generated, generated generation recycled, tavailable ohazardous commerciafacility woproject. Nmanagemeimpacted u

Solid waste Total of 3,800,000 cubic feet would be generated, including 3,700,000 cubic feet generated by DOE/NNSA activities in Nevada and 160,000 cubic feet generated by construction and operation of a 240-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility. DOE/NNSA solid waste disposed at the NNSS would not exceed the disposal capacity at NNSS landfills. Included in the DOE/NNSA volume are 370,000 cubic feet that would be transported off site for recycling within available offsite capacity. Total of 10,000,000 cubic feet would be generated, including 9,400,000 cubic feet generated by DOE/NNSA activities in Nevada and 630,000 cubic feet generated by construction and operation of 1,000 megawatts of commercial solar power generation facilities. DOE/NNSA solid waste disposed at the NNSS would not exceed the disposal capacity at NNSS landfills. Included in the DOE/NNSA volume are 970,000 cubic feet that would be transported off site to be recycled within available offsite capacity. Total of 3,700,000 cubic feet would be generated, including 3,600,000 cubic feet generated by DOE/NNSA activities in Nevada and 77,000 cubic feet generated by construction and operation of a 100-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility. DOE/NNSA solid waste disposed at the NNSS would not exceed the available capacity at NNSS landfills. Included in the DOE/NNSA volume are 360,000 cubic feet that would be transported off site to be recycled within available offsite capacity. Total of 9,

generated, generated Nevada anby operaticommerciafacilities. disposed athe disposIncluded i970,000 cutransported available o

Disposal of nonhazardous solid waste generated by a commercial solar power generation facility would be the responsibility of that project. NNSS disposal capacity would not be impacted under current permit conditions. Disposal of nonhazardous solid waste generated by a commercial solar power generation facility would be the responsibility of that project. NNSS disposal capacity would not be impacted under current permit conditions. Disposal of nonhazardous solid waste generated by a commercial solar power generation facility would be the responsibility of that project. NNSS disposal capacity would not be impacted under current permit conditions. Disposal o

generated generation responsibidisposal caunder curr
S-60

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Human Health Annual Radiological Impacts of Normal OperationsOffsite Population 

 Collective Dose 

(person-rem) 

 Latent Cancer Fatality 

Risk

0.50 

3 × 10-4

0.89 

5 × 10-4

0.48 

3 × 10-4

Maximally Exposed Individual 

Dose (millirem) 

 Latent Cancer Fatality 

Risk

2.8 

2 × 10-6

4.8 

3 × 10-6

2.7 

2 × 10-6

Workers 

Collective Dose 

(person-rem) 

 Latent Cancer 

Fatality Risk

5.2 

3 × 10-3

6.6 

4 × 10-3

4.8 

3 × 10-3

Subsistence Consumer 

Dose (millirem)

Latent Cancer 

Fatality Risk

13 

8 × 10-6

15 

9 × 10-6

13 

8 × 10-6

Noise Impacts Workers Mitigated through worker protection 

practices. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Mitigated 

practices. 

 Public Minimal due to remoteness of site and 

distance to receptors. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative, but there would be some increased traffic noise due to a larger workforce and increased daily truck trips. 

Similar to under the No Action Alternative, but slightly reduced due to a smaller workforce. 

Same as ubut there wnoise due increased 

Facility Accident – Dose Consequence and Annual Risk c

Highest Risk Facility Accident – Device Assembly Facility explosion involving 55 pounds of high explosive and 1 kilogram of plutonium (assumed frequency of 1 cha

Offsite Population 

Collective Dose (personrem) 23 Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Latent Cancer Fatality 

Risk 

1 × 10-5 Same as under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Maximally Exposed Individual 

 Dose (rem) 0.18 Same as under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Latent Cancer Fatality 

Risk 

9 × 10-8 Same as under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Noninvolved Workers 

 Dose (rem) 6.5 Same as under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

 Latent Cancer Fatality 

Risk 

3 × 10-6 Same as under the No Action 

Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 
 S-61 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Environmental Justice Impacts on low-income and minority populations would be identical to those of the general population. Therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations are expected. An increase in construction jobs for the solar power generation facility could provide jobs for unemployed individuals, which would have a beneficial impact on low-income individuals. Same as under the No Action Alternative, except there would be a larger number of construction jobs created. Same as under the No Action Alternative, except there would be fewer construction jobs created. Impacts on 

populationthe generadisproportimpacts on populationconstructiogeneration unemployehave a benindividual

NNSA = National Nuclear Security Administration; NNSS = Nevada National Security Site; Particulate Matter10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less 

10 micrometers; Particulate Matter2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers; rem = roentgen equivalent man. a The reported radiological risks are the projected number of latent cancer fatalities in the population and are, therefore, presented as whole numbers. The calculated va

Both radiological impacts and nonradiological traffic impacts are based upon shipment of the entire inventory of low-level radioactive waste over a 10-year period. b Reopening of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site would only occur based upon mission need and as stated in 4.1.11.1.1.1, including detailed consultation 

c The risk is the annual increased likelihood of a latent cancer fatality in the maximally exposed individual or the noninvolved worker, or the increased likelihood of a s

occurring in the offsite population, accounting for the estimated probability (frequency) of the accident occurring. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-62 

S.3.1.11 Cumulative Impacts 

Council on Environmental Quality regulations define a cumulative impact as the “impact on the 

environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively 

significant, actions taking place over a period of time.” Thus, the cumulative impacts of an action are the 

total effects on a resource, ecosystem, or human community of that action and all other activities affecting 

that resource, no matter which entity is acting. 

Most of the land in the vicinity of the NNSS is managed by Federal agencies, including the U.S. Bureau 

of Land Management, U.S. Air Force, USFWS, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. National Park Service. In 

addition, there are lands and facilities under the jurisdiction of agencies of the State of Nevada; Nye, 

Clark, Esmeralda, and Lincoln Counties in Nevada; the State of California; Inyo County, California; 

various municipal governments; and private landowners. DOE/NNSA identified reasonably foreseeable 

future actions of others by conducting a review of publicly available documents prepared by these 

Federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies and organizations. In addition, DOE/NNSA 

requested information regarding potential future actions that may not yet have been addressed in publicly 

available documents. 

For DOE/NNSA contributions to cumulative impacts, the analysis primarily used the Expanded 

Operations Alternative, as it tends to result in the highest estimates of potential cumulative impacts 

associated with alternatives analyzed in this NNSS SWEIS. To provide a comparison of the cumulative 

impacts associated with each of the three alternatives considered in this NNSS SWEIS, Table S–15

summarizes cumulative impacts by alternative. 

S.3.2 Remote Sensing Laboratory 

No new project or capabilities or changes in the levels of operations (activities) are proposed at RSL. For 

this reason, among the 13 resource areas, either there would be no impacts or the impacts associated with 

ongoing operations would continue unchanged from baseline conditions. Table S–16 summarizes the 

potential environmental impacts for all 13 resource areas under each alternative. As discussed above in 

Section S.2.5, DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is a “hybrid” alternative comprising various programs, 

capabilities, projects, and activities selected from among the three alternatives. Although the text of this 

Summary does not discuss the potential environmental impacts from implementing the Preferred 

Alternative, consistent with the approach used in Chapter 3 of the NNSS SWEIS, Table S–16 summarizes 

those impacts to enable a comparison to the three alternatives. 

S.3.3 North Las Vegas Facility 

This section summarizes the potential environmental impacts at NLVF from continuing and proposed 

projects and capabilities, including their associated levels of operations (activities), under each of three 

alternatives. The text focuses on those resource areas for which the impacts would be sufficiently 

different to permit distinguishing among the alternatives in a meaningful manner or would tend to be 

controversial, i.e., energy, traffic, socioeconomics, air quality, waste management, and human health. 

Table S–19 (at the end of Section S.3.3.6) summarizes the potential environmental impacts for all 

13 resource areas. As discussed above in Section S.2.5, DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is a “hybrid” 

alternative comprising various programs, capabilities, projects, and activities selected from among the 

three alternatives. Although the text of this Summary does not discuss the potential environmental 

impacts from implementing the Preferred Alternative, consistent with the approach used in Chapter 3 of 

the NNSS SWEIS, Table S–19 summarizes those impacts to enable a comparison to the three alternatives. 
 S-63 Table S–15 Potential Cumulative Impacts Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Land Use The following land use changes would occur under the noted NNSS SWEIS alternatives: No Action  There would be no changes to NNSS Land Use Zones.  Construction of a commercial solar power generation facility would affect land use patterns outside of the NNSS due to construction of a 230-kilovolt transmission line. Expanded Operations  Area 15 – Change from Reserved Zone to Research, Test and Experiment Zone.  Area 25 – Designate about 39,600 acres as a Renewable Energy Zone.  Construction of commercial solar power generation facilities would affect land use patterns outside of the NNSS due to construction of a 500-kilovolt transmission line. Reduced Operations  Areas 19 and 20 – Change from Nuclear Test Zone to Limited Use Zone.  Areas 18, 29, and 30 – Change from Reserved Zone to Limited Use Zone.  Construction of a commercial solar power generation facility would not affect land use patterns outside of the NNSS. In Nye County, approximately 149,000 acres of public land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would be committed to use for renewable energy facilities or commercial/industrial uses. In Clark County, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would dispose up to about 36,000 acres of public land. Use of this land would be changed from its current public uses to private and/or municipal uses. Regardless of the implem

in this NNSS SWEIS, chan

zone designations or funcaffect land use patterns in NNSS, except for the potinterconnecting transmisssolar power generation faNo Action (250 acres) an(300 acres) Alternatives. and the TTR are expected would not affect land useOver 185,000 acres of puU.S. Bureau of Land Mandisposed or withdrawn foClark and Nye Counties. 
S-64 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Infrastructure and Energy Infrastructure Construction of new facilities at the NNSS, particularly one or more solar power generation facilities with a capacity of 240 megawatts under the No Action Alternative, a combined capacity of 1,000 megawatts under the Expanded Operations Alternative, and 100 megawatts under the Reduced Operations Alternative, would cause a demand for construction materials and skilled labor, in proportion to their size, similar to those of other large construction projects. Infrastructure Construction of new facilities, particularly large projects, would place cumulative demands on goods and services. The proposed renewable energy projects in Amargosa Valley and Area 25 of the NNSS would all have similar needs for large tracts of undeveloped land and water; use earthmoving/grading equipment, cranes, and other construction equipment; require similar materials, such as concrete, steel, wood, wiring and cables, etc.; and require the services of both general and specialized construction workers. Infrastructure Large-scale construction 

renewable energy facilitieof the NNSS and in Amarconstruction of new high-would create an increase cumulatively affect availamaterials, supplies, and larelative number and/or sizconstruction considered in 

noted cumulative impact greater for the Expanded than for the No Action AlOperations Alternative wdemand on construction mlabor and would contribuimpacts. Energy The 2020 projected cumulative annual electrical 

energy demand for DOE/NNSA activities in Nevada under the No Action Alternative is about 113,000 megawatt-hours; under the Expanded Operations Alternative, about 127,000 megawatthours; and under the Reduced Operations Alternative, about 96,000 megawatt-hours. A portion of the electrical energy demand under the Expanded Operations Alternative would be offset by development of a 5-megawatt photovoltaic solar power generation facility in Area 6 of the NNSS. 

Energy

In 2009, NV Energy (southern division) and Valley Electric Association provided a total of about 21,670,000 megawatt-hours of electricity to their customers (NSOE 2010). The Nevada Public Utilities Commission forecasts a 1.5 percent growth rate in electricity sales through 2020 (NDEP 2008). Based on that growth rate, by 2020, total electricity sales in southern Nevada would be about 25,500,000 megawatt-hours, an increase of almost 4,000,000 megawatt-hours. There are proposals for renewable energy projects in southern Nevada that would produce a total of about 5,800 megawatts of new generating capacity. 

Energy

Cumulatively, the projectenergy demand, regardlesof the alternatives, would of up to 5,800 megawatts from proposed renewable addition, construction of ntransmission lines, such aTransmission Line ProjecExpress Transmission Prostronger connection with electrical demand in south
 S-65 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Transportation and Traffic Traffic Personnel and trucks associated with one or more commercial solar power generation facilities in Area 25 would increase daily vehicle trips on local roadways by 500 to 1,000 through the 36-month construction period under the No Action Alternative; by 750 to 1,500 through the 42-month construction period under the Expanded Operations Alternative; and by 400 to 800 under the Reduced Operations Alternative. The addition of these vehicles and associated construction trucks on a daily basis would increase the rate of pavement deterioration, degrade levels of service, and could require increased road maintenance and upgrades for roads in the project area. Traffic During construction of proposed renewable energy projects in Amargosa Valley and the Yucca Mountain Project Gateway Area development, roads in Nye County could experience increases in daily traffic ranging from a two- to a fivefold increase on primary roads such as U.S. Route 95 and Nevada State Route 160, which could degrade levels of service from A to D during peak commuting hours. Personnel and trucks associated with one or more commercial solar power generation facilities in Area 25 would increase daily vehicle trips on local roadways by 500 to 1,000 through the 35-month construction period. During operations, primary roadways could experience increases in daily traffic, and levels of service could degrade one level during peak commuting hours. The degradation in levels of service caused by increased traffic volumes on these roads could generate the need for additional travel lanes and other improvements. Traffic The cumulative impact of 

roadways in southern Nye NNSS, associated with Nconstruction and operatiocommercial solar power gArea 25 would be a reducU.S. Route 95 from B to baseline, regardless of the from implementation of aWhen combined with inclarge construction projectlevel of service would deaccelerated deterioration need for maintenance and and traffic control measurupgraded. Radiological Transportation No Action Alternative 

 Worker dose = 2,100 person-rem, equivalent to 

1.3 latent cancer fatalities. 

 Population dose = 400 person-rem, equivalent 

to 0.2 latent cancer fatalities. 

Expanded Operations Alternative  Worker dose = 5,600 person-rem, equivalent to 

3 latent cancer fatalities. 

 Population dose = 1,400 person-rem, 

equivalent to 1 latent cancer fatality. 

Reduced Operations Alternative  Worker dose = 2,100 person-rem, equivalent to 

1.3 latent cancer fatalities. 

 Population dose = 400 person-rem, equivalent 

to 0.2 latent cancer fatalities. 

Radiological Transportation

Collective worker dose (1943 to 2073) = 399,000 person-rem, equivalent to 240 latent cancer fatalities over 130 years. Collective general population dose (1943 to 2073) = 373,000 person-rem, equivalent to 224 latent cancer fatalities over 130 years. 

Radiological TransportatiNo Action Alternative

 Worker dose = 401,000 

241 latent cancer fatali

 Population dose = 373,

equivalent to 224 laten130 years. 

Expanded Operations A Worker dose = 405,000 

243 latent cancer fatali

 Population dose = 374,

equivalent to 225 laten130 years. 

Reduced Operations Alt Worker dose = 401,000 

241 latent cancer fatali

 Population dose = 373,

equivalent to 224 laten130 years. 
S-66 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Geology and Soils An unknown but substantial amount of deep subsurface geologic media has been affected by underground nuclear tests conducted on the NNSS. Approximately 80,000 acres of land on the NNSS has been disturbed by previous DOE/NNSA activities. Overall, new disturbance of soils and near-surface geological media resulting from proposed DOE/NNSA actions at the NNSS would be as follows: No Action: About 1,800 acres plus an additional 2,650 acres for a commercial solar power generation facility. Expanded Operations: About 15,500 acres, plus an additional 10,350 acres for commercial solar power generation facilities and a Geothermal Demonstration Project. Reduced Operations: About 1,540 acres plus an additional 1,200 acres for a commercial solar power generation facility. Within the cumulative impacts region of influence, about 215,000 acres of Clark County and 51,000 acres of Nye County have been disturbed by previous development. A total of about 509,750 acres of additional soil and near- surface geologic media would be affected by reasonably foreseeable land development activities in Nye and Clark Counties. This would result in a total of about 775,750 acres of soil and near-surface geologic media being disturbed. Previous combined action

impacts region of influen346,000 acres. Reasonabwould disturb additional geological media within tfollows: No Action: About 514

Expanded OperationsReduced Operations: 

The total potential cumuldisturbance would range 881,750 acres, which reprpercent of the total area o(15,737,760 acres). 

Hydrology 

Surface Water

Within areas that drain off the NNSS, under the No Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations Alternatives, a total of 2,650, 10,300, and 1,200 acres, respectively, of land could be disturbed for construction of one or more commercial solar power generation facilities. 

During construction of these facilities, the potential for soil erosion affecting surface waters would be greater due to removal of vegetation and other earth-disturbing activities. If such erosion were to occur it would likely result in increased sediments being transported into Fortymile Wash and eventually into the Amargosa River. However, implementation of erosion control measures would reduce the likelihood of such erosion. 

Surface Water

Disturbing about 94,300 acres in Amargosa Valley for constructing one or more solar power generation facilities and developing the Yucca Mountain Project Gateway Area could result in erosion and slightly increase sedimentation in the Amargosa River during the construction period. However, U.S. Bureau of Land Managementprescribed and enforced erosion control measures would reduce the likelihood of such an impact. 

Surface Water

Although the potential foin the Amargosa River drcumulative impact regardconsidered in this NNSS Srecognized measures to preduce the likelihood of s
 S-67 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Hydrology (cont’d) Groundwater Past underground nuclear testing has contaminated an unknown volume of groundwater beneath the NNSS. That contamination is not expected to impact publicly available water supplies within the next 100 years, based on estimated groundwater travel times between the NNSS and Oasis Valley that range from 337 to over 6,191 years (95 percent confidence limits) (Rose et al 2002). DOE/NNSA proposed activities under this NNSS SWEIS would not cause new or additional groundwater contamination. DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS and the TTR, as well as operation of one or more solar power generation facilities in Area 25 of the NNSS, under all three alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS, would require withdrawal of groundwater, as follows: No Action: 959 acre-feet Expanded Operations: 1,580 acre-feet Reduced Operations: 815 acre-feet This volume of groundwater represents about 16 percent, 27 percent, and 14 percent, respectively, of the cumulative sustainable yield for all of the affected hydrographic basins. DOE/NNSA would not withdraw groundwater from the Oasis Valley, Crater Flats, or Amargosa Valley Hydrographic Basins. Groundwater The town of Beatty, Nevada, uses just under 500 acre-feet of water per year obtained from the Oasis Valley Hydrographic Basin. Operational water requirements for one or more solar power generation facilities proposed in Amargosa Valley would require almost 6,000 acre-feet of groundwater each year, primarily from the Amargosa Desert, Oasis Valley, and Crater Flats Hydrographic Basins. Nevada State Engineer Order 1197 requires that water for new uses in the Amargosa Desert Hydrographic Basin be obtained by acquisition of existing water rights. Groundwater Regardless of alternative 

SWEIS, groundwater monconducted by DOE/NNSA such as the U.S. GeologicResearch Institute, would sufficient lead-time for Dimplement appropriate prmeasures if contamination underground nuclear testisupply located off FederaDue to the implementatioOrder 1197, there would impacts associated with gresulting from DOE/NNSreasonably foreseeable prDesert Hydrographic Bas
S-68 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Biological Resources 

Currently, approximately 80,000 acres of the NNSS are considered disturbed. Overall, new wildlife habitat disturbed by DOE/NNSA actions would be as follows: 

No Action: About 1,810 acres, plus an additional 2,650 acres for a commercial solar power generation facility. Expanded Operations: About 15,500 acres, plus an additional 10,350 acres for commercial solar power generation facilities and a Geothermal Demonstration Project. Reduced Operations: About 1,540 acres, plus an additional 1,200 acres for a commercial solar power generation facility. 

Impacts on the threatened desert tortoise under all alternatives would be the result of harassment. 

No Action: DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS would affect about 1,055 acres of desert tortoise habitat and impact up to 47 tortoises; a commercial solar power generation facility would affect an additional 2,650 acres of tortoise habitat and up to 41 tortoises. Expanded Operations: DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS would affect about 3,370 acres of desert tortoise habitat and impact up to 60 tortoises; commercial solar power generation facilities would disturb about 10,300 acres of tortoise habitat and up to 161 desert tortoises. Reduced Operations: DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS would disturb about 920 acres of desert tortoise habitat and impact up to 37 tortoises; a commercial solar power generation facility would affect an additional 1,200 acres of tortoise habitat and up to 19 tortoises. 

An additional 125 tortoises may experience impacts due to harassment on NNSS roads under all three alternatives. Overall, wildlife habitat disturbed by DOE/NNSA actions would total about 26,000 acres. 

Reasonably foreseeable actions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would result in a total of about 360,000 acres of desert tortoise habitat in Clark County, Nevada, being permitted under the 

Endangered Species Act for incidental take of desert tortoises (USFWS 2000; 74 FR 50239). This represents about 9 percent of the estimated 4,000,000 acres of tortoise habitat in Clark County. Within Nye County, desert tortoise habitat would be affected by a number of reasonably foreseeable actions. The development of solar energy projects in Nye County would remove up to about 131,500 acres of desert tortoise habitat; development of the Nye County Yucca Mountain Project Gateway Area would remove up to 5,800 acres. The development of over 509,000 acres of open land in the region would cumulatively affect wildlife and wildlife habitat. The loss of large areas of habitat would reduce the available habitat for native wildlife, including federally listed species and other special status species. Development of undisturbed land would contribute to loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat and encourage nonnative invasive species, thereby eliminating or degrading natural plant communities on which wildlife depend. 

The development of from aOperations Alternative) to Operations Alternative) of region would cumulatively habitat. The loss of large athe available habitat for natfederally listed species and Development of undisturbeloss, fragmentation, and deencourage nonnative invasieliminating or degrading nawhich wildlife depend. DOE/NNSA proposed actiforeseeable actions by otheimpacts region of influence over 522,000 acres of tortoExpanded Operations Alter508,000 acres under the No Operations Alternatives. Hportion of that habitat loss USFWS under the EndangeSection 10(a)(1)(B) for nonSection 7 for Federal agencnot threaten the continued tortoise. 
 S-69 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Air Quality and Climate Nye County Annual DOE/NNSA air emissions in Nye County from all sources in 2015: No Action Alternative: Particulate Matter10 = 9.8 tons Particulate Matter2.5 = 6.8 tons Carbon Monoxide = 66 tons Nitrogen Oxides = 40 tons Sulfur Dioxide = 1.3 tons Volatile Organic Compounds = 5.2 tons Lead = 0.04 tons Hazardous Air Pollutants = 1.4 tons Expanded Operations Alternative: Particulate Matter10 = 22.6 tons Particulate Matter2.5 = 11 tons Carbon Monoxide = 82 tons Nitrogen Oxides = 50 tons Sulfur Dioxide = 2 tons Volatile Organic Compounds = 10 tons Lead = 0.2 tons Hazardous Air Pollutants = 1.4 tons Reduced Operations Alternative: Particulate Matter10 = 7.2 tons Particulate Matter2.5 = 5.8 tons Carbon Monoxide = 55 tons Nitrogen Oxides = 36 tons Sulfur Dioxides = 1.2 tons Volatile Organic Compounds = 4.1 tons Lead = 0.01 tons Hazardous Air Pollutants = 1.3 tons Nye County Because Nye County is considered an attainment/nondesignated area for purposes of compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards, no countywide air monitoring data are available. Nye County Cumulatively, the annual 

and non-Federal activities sources in 2015, regardleemissions under any of ththis NNSS SWEIS, are not nonattainment condition wAmbient Air Quality Stan
S-70 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Air Quality and Climate (cont’d) Clark County Estimated annual mobile source emissions related to DOE/NNSA activities in Clark County, including worker commuting, for the criteria pollutants that are in nonattainment in the Las Vegas Valley are: No Action Alternative: Particulate Matter10 = 1.5 tons Carbon Monoxide = 97 tons Nitrogen Oxides = 24 tons Volatile Organic Compounds = 3.1 tons Expanded Operations Alternative: Particulate Matter10 = 2 tons Carbon Monoxide = 119 tons Nitrogen Oxides = 29 tons Volatile Organic Compounds = 3.9 tons Reduced Operations Alternative: Particulate Matter10 = 2 tons Carbon Monoxide = 86 tons 

Nitrogen Oxides = 22 tons Volatile Organic Compounds = 3 tons 

Clark County

Clark County, principally the Las Vegas Valley, is classed as a nonattainment area for some air pollutants, i.e., not in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Criteria pollutants for which the Las Vegas Valley have been out of attainment and the projected (2013) annual mobile source emissions are:  Particulate Matter10 = 28,744 tons 

 Carbon Monoxide = 140,160 tons  Nitrogen Oxides = 11,625 tons  Volatile Organic Compounds = 12,399 

Clark County

The estimated 2015 cumumobile source emissions are currently in nonattainValley are: 

No Action Alternative: 

Particulate Matter10 = 2

Carbon Monoxide = 14Nitrogen Oxides = 11,6Volatile Organic Comp

Expanded Operations A

Particulate Matter10 = 2Carbon Monoxide = 14Nitrogen Oxides = 11,6Volatile Organic Comp

Reduced Operations Alt

Particulate Matter10 = 2Carbon Monoxide = 14Nitrogen Oxides = 11,6Volatile Organic Comp

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

DOE/NNSA activities in Nye and Clark County were estimated to annually generate the following estimated amounts of greenhouse gas emissions in 2015: No Action Alternative: 60,555 tonsExpanded Operations Alternative: 88,679 tons Reduced Operations Alternative: 53,755 tons 

Greenhouse Gas EmissionsAnnual greenhouse gas emissions in Nye, Clark, Lincoln, and Esmeralda Counties in 2015 were estimated to be about 54.6 million tons. 

Greenhouse Gas Emission

Annual cumulative greenNye, Clark, Lincoln, and projected to be as followsNo Action: 54,661,000 tExpanded Operations: Reduced Operations: 5

Visual Resources 

Under all three alternatives addressed in this NNSS SWEIS, the development of one or more solar power generation facilities with generating capacities ranging from 100 to 1,000 megawatts in Area 25 of the NNSS would reduce the visual quality rating of that viewshed from Class B to Class C due to intrusion of manmade elements. Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, construction of additional facilities at Desert Rock Airport would adversely impact the viewshed along U.S. Route 95 in Mercury Valley. 

In Nye County, in the vicinity of the NNSS, development of one or more solar power generation facilities would substantially alter the visual character along U.S. Route 95 in Amargosa Valley. 

Regardless of the alternatNNSS SWEIS, developmepower generation facilitieGateway Project, and new Airport (only under the EAlternative) would substacharacter along U.S. RouMercury Valleys, reducinfrom Class B to Class C. 
 S-71 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Cultural Resources The estimated number of cultural resources sites potentially affected by DOE/NNSA activities and development of one or more commercial solar power generation facilities under each alternative are as follows: No Action Alternative: DOE/NNSA activities would potentially affect up to 53 sites; 18 could be considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Development of a 100-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility would potentially affect up to 802 sites; 557 could be considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Expanded Operations Alternative: DOE/NNSA activities would potentially affect up to 682 sites; 283 could be considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Development of up to 1,000 megawatts of commercial solar power generation facilities and a Geothermal Demonstration Project would potentially affect up to 7,006 sites; 2,163 could be considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Reduced Operations Alternative: DOE/NNSA activities would potentially affect up to 45 sites; 14 could be considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Development of a 100-megawatt commercial solar power generation facility would potentially affect up to 816 sites; 252 could be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. An estimated 26,000 cultural resources sites would be affected by land-disturbing activities within the cumulative impacts region of influence, with about 13,000 of those sites being considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The estimated cumulative 

affected cultural resourceproposed and reasonably under each alternative, arNo Action Alternative: Total sites—26,855 National Register of Hi

sites—13,565 Expanded Operations ATotal sites—33,688 National Register of Hisites—15,446 Reduced Operations AltTotal sites—26,861 National Register of Hisites—13,266 
S-72 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Waste Management Radioactive Waste Historic disposal of low-level and mixed low- level radioactive waste, and some transuranic waste at the NNSS totaled about 40,000,000 cubic feet through 2010. During the next 10 years, the following estimated volumes of radioactive waste would potentially be disposed at the NNSS: No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives:

 Low-level radioactive waste = 15,000,000 

cubic feet 

 Mixed low-level radioactive waste = 900,000 

cubic feet 

Expanded Operations Alternative: Low-level radioactive waste = 48,000,000 

cubic feet 

 Mixed low-level radioactive waste = 4,000,000 

cubic feet 

Radioactive Waste

The NNSS is the only active disposal facility for low-level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste in Nevada. It accepts for disposal only low-level radioactive waste and mixed low-level radioactive waste that meet the NNSS waste acceptance criteria. A commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility operated from 1962 to the end of 1992 in Beatty, Nevada, about 45 miles west of Mercury on the NNSS. Because of a lack of a groundwater pathway from NNSS radioactive waste management facilities, the large distances between this facility and DOE/NNSA waste management operations, depth to groundwater, the high evaporation rate in the region, and monitoring by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to ensure continued proper function of closure/containment measures, this closed disposal facility is not expected to have any cumulative impacts with DOE/NNSA waste management activities. 

Radioactive WasteBecause the NNSS operaradioactive waste/mixed ldisposal facilities in Nevacumulative impacts from wastes outside of the NN
 S-73 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Waste Management (cont’d) Nonradioactive Waste The following estimated volumes of hazardous waste would be generated by DOE/NNSA activities and one or more commercial solar power generation facilities over the next 10 years: No Action Alternative:  DOE/NNSA activities—170,000 cubic feet  Commercial solar power generation facility— 42,000 cubic feet Expanded Operations Alternative:  DOE/NNSA activities—170,000 cubic feet  Commercial solar power generation facilities— 170,000 cubic feet Reduced Operations Alternative:  DOE/NNSA activities—170,000 cubic feet  Commercial solar power generation facility— 17,000 cubic feet All hazardous waste generated by DOE/NNSA activities would be transported to commercial treatment, storage, and disposal facilities for treatment and/or disposal. Hazardous waste generated by one or more commercial solar power generation facilities would be managed by the operator in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. Nonradioactive Waste There are a number of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities in Nevada and neighboring states that treat and dispose such wastes from many generators. Nonradioactive Waste The volume of hazardous 

and one or more commercfacilities would dispose astorage, and disposal facicapacity of such facilities very small portion of the waste disposal, regardless considered. 
S-74 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Human Health Radiological The dose to the offsite population resulting from DOE/NNSA activities in southern Nevada under each alternative addressed in this NNSS SWEIS would be: No Action Alternative:  Dose = 5.0 person-rem over 10 years  Consequences = No (0.003) latent cancer fatality Expanded Operations Alternative:  Dose = 8.9 person-rem over 10 years  Consequences = No (0.005) latent cancer fatality Reduced Operations Alternative:  Dose = 4.8 person-rem over 10 years  Consequences = No (0.003) latent cancer fatality Radiological There are no other non-background sources of potential radiological exposure for an offsite member of the public within the cumulative impacts region of influence. Radiological Because there is no other 

background level of expocumulative impacts regioDOE/NNSA is the sole codose analyzed in this NNS

the impacts would then be No Action Alternative:  Dose = 5.0 person-rem 

 Consequences = No (0Expanded Operations A Dose = 8.9 person-rem  Consequences = No (0Reduced Operations Alt Dose = 4.8 person-rem  Consequences = No (0
 S-75 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Human Health (cont’d) Nonradiological The following estimated nonradiological consequences would occur over a 10-year period from DOE/NNSA activities at the NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR and construction of one or more commercial solar power generation facilities at the NNSS under each alternative addressed in this NNSS SWEIS: No Action Alternative: Operations Total recordable cases = 578 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 253 Construction Total recordable cases = 60 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 31 TOTAL for Alternative Total recordable cases = 638 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 314 Expanded Operations Alternative: Operations Total recordable cases = 700 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 314 Construction Total recordable cases = 148 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 48 TOTAL for Alternative Total recordable cases = 848 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 362 Reduced Operations Alternative: Operations Total recordable cases = 508 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 225 Construction Total recordable cases = 44 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 23 TOTAL for Alternative Total recordable cases = 552 Days away, restricted, or transferred = 248 Nonradiological During construction of proposed renewable energy projects in Amargosa Valley, industrial accidents could result in an estimated fatality to one worker in 750 total recordable cases and 380 days away, restricted, or transferred. Nonradiological Industrial accidents from 

DOE/NNSA sites over a construction of renewable Amargosa Valley could rrecordable cases and days transferred for each alternNo Action Alternative: Total recordable cases = 

Days away, restricted, o

Expanded Operations A

Total recordable cases = Days away, restricted, o

Reduced Operations Alt

Total recordable cases = Days away, restricted, o
S-76 Resource Area DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Non-DOE/NNSA Contribution to Cumulative Impacts Cumulati

Environmental Justice Potential new land disturbances on the NNSS for both DOE/NNSA activities and development of one or more commercial solar power generation facilities would result in new land disturbance on up to about 4,500 acres, 26,000 acres, and 2,700 acres, respectively under the No Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations Alternatives. Previously undisturbed lands may be important to American Indians. Land disturbances on the NNSS could affect traditional cultural properties of concern for various American Indian tribes with a cultural affiliation with the NNSS. Non-DOE/NNSA actions would account for approximately 509,750 acres of new land disturbances within the cumulative impacts region of influence. Land disturbance of this magnitude would likely have adverse impacts on American Indian traditional cultural properties by destroying places important to the continuation of those cultures. The potential disturbance 

(No Action Alternative), Operations Alternative), oOperations Alternative) oland within the cumulativinfluence would likely haAmerican Indian traditionaffecting places importanthose cultures. NLVF = North Las Vegas Facility; Particulate Matter10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers; Par

Matter2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers; rem = roentgen equivalent man; RSL = Remote STTR = Tonopah Test Range. Note: Chapter 6, Section 6.2, of the NNSS SWEIS provides additional qualitative discussions of other potentially cumulative actions (including the pClass C Low-Level Waste Disposal Facility and the formerly proposed Yucca Mountain Repository Projects) located within the region of influence
 S-77 Table S–16 Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts at the Remote Sensing Laborato

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Land Use No impacts were identified from the continuation of activities at the current levels of operations or foreseeable actions because activities under this alternative would continue to be compatible with existing land use designations on Nellis Air Force Base. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. No im

the cthe cor foactivwoulwith desigBase

Infrastructure and Energy Infrastructure would be maintained as needed to accommodate ongoing activities. No new buildings or facilities are planned. Energy demand is expected to continue at about 4,850 megawatt-hours per year and the existing electrical distribution is adequate to support this demand. Natural gas use is expected to continue to be about 33,673 therms per year. There is adequate capacity to serve this demand and the condition of the gas lines is satisfactory. Approximately 11,000 gallons of JP-8 jet fuel are used each year for aircraft operations. An adequate supply of JP-8 fuel is available directly through Nellis Air Force Base. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Infra

mainaccomNo nare pEnerto co4,850 and tdistrisuppNatuto co33,67adeqdemagas lApprof JPyear adeqavailAir F
S-78 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Transportation and Traffic Transportation No radioactive materials would be transported. Nonradioactive material transports are included in Nevada National Security Site impacts. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. No ra

be tramatein Neimpa

Traffic The number of personnel at the Remote Sensing Laboratory is expected to remain the same, and no construction or other projects are proposed that would result in increased traffic. There would be no additional impacts on onsite or regional traffic conditions. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. The n

Remexpeand nprojeresulwoulon oncond

Socioeconomics There would be no change in employment; therefore, there would be no change in socioeconomic 

impacts. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Ther

emplwoulsocio

Geology and Soils 

There would be no impacts on geological and soil resources. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Ther

geolo

Hydrology Surface Water Resources No proposed activities would affect 

surface hydrology. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

No p

affec

Groundwater Resources No proposed facilities or activities 

would adversely affect groundwater quality or supply. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

No p

activgroun

Biological Resources 

All activities would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas and would not affect biological resources. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

All a

previareas biolo
 S-79 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Air Quality Annual Average Operational Emission in 2015 (tons per year) Particulate Matter10 Particulate Matter2.5 Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Dioxide Volatile Organic Compounds Lead Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Dioxide-equivalent 0.084 0.067 4.1 1.6 0.034 0.3 0.01 0.19 3,147 Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Radiological Air Quality No activities are expected to produce radiation beyond those documented for 2008 baseline conditions. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. No a

produdocucond

Visual Resources There would be no impacts on visual resources. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Ther

visua

Cultural Resources All activities would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas and would not affect cultural resources. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. All a

previareas cultu

Waste Management Hazardous waste Annually, about 680 cubic feet of hazardous waste would be generated and transported to be recycled, treated, and/or disposed within available offsite capacity. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Annu

of haand ttreateavail

Solid waste Annually, about 4,550 cubic feet of solid waste would be generated and transported to be recycled or disposed within available offsite capacity. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Annu

generecycavail
S-80 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Human Health Normal Operations There would be no radiological or hazardous chemical risks. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Ther

or ha

Noise Noise from Remote Sensing Laboratory activities and traffic would be minimal compared to ambient traffic noise and aircraft noise at Nellis Air Force Base. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Nois

Labowoulambinoise 

Facility Accidents There would be no radiological or hazardous chemical accident risks. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Ther

or harisks

Environmental Justice Impacts on low-income and minority populations would be identical to those of the general population. Therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations are expected. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Impa

minoidentpopudispradvelow-iexpe

Particulate Matter10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers; Particulate Matter2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodyna

to 2.5 micrometers.
Summary 

S-81

S.3.3.1 Energy 

DOE/NNSA assessed potential impacts on energy resources by comparing projections of utility resource 

requirements, such as the demand for electricity, natural gas, and liquid fuels at NLVF, to local and 

regional capabilities to supply these resources. The baseline or current energy demand is the same as that 

under the No Action Alternative. For instance, recent peak electrical demand was about 3.2 megawatts, 

and approximately 48,000 therms of natural gas (equivalent to 

about 495,000 cubic feet) were used for heating and in boilers 

(NNSA/NSO 2010b). Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, 

continuing and newly proposed projects and capabilities would 

require an increase of up to 10 percent in the use of electricity, 

natural gas, and liquid fuels such as gasoline and diesel fuel. 

Energy demand under the Reduced Operations Alternative would 

be no more than that under the No Action Alternative. 

DOE/NNSA does not foresee difficulty in obtaining electricity and 

fuels from regional suppliers under any alternative. 

S.3.3.2 Traffic 

Traffic impacts would result primarily from changes in the workforce. DOE/NNSA estimates that the 

current workforce would not change under the No Action Alternative, would increase by approximately 

25 percent (from 1,442 to 1,803) under the Expanded Operations Alternative, and would decrease by 

about 10 percent (from 1,442 to 1,298) under the Reduced Operations Alternative. 

Traffic conditions of roadways near NLVF are represented by 

Losee Road. Under the No Action and Reduced Operations 

Alternatives, minimal changes in daily traffic volumes would affect 

Losee Road as a result of NNSS personnel. DOE/NNSA estimates 

that implementing the Expanded Operations Alternative would 

result in an approximately 3 percent increase in traffic volumes 

during the peak hour; the level of service, however, would remain 

at a level of service C. 

S.3.3.3 Socioeconomics 

The continued operation and proposed activities at NLVF would result in changes to the current 

(baseline) workforce only under the Expanded Operations and Reduced Operations Alternatives. 

Accordingly, DOE/NNSA evaluated how these workforce changes could affect economic activity; 

population; housing; public finance; and public services, such as police and fire protection, in Clark and 

Nye Counties. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the workforce would increase by 361 (from about 1,442 

to 1,803). DOE/NNSA estimates that approximately 10 percent, or 36 individuals, would relocate to 

Clark and Nye Counties (the remaining 325 individuals would already live in Clark and Nye Counties). 

Of the total employment increase, DOE/NNSA estimates that 99 percent of the workers would live in 

Clark County and 1 percent in Nye County. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, in Clark County, a total of 322 direct jobs could be added, 

which would decrease the unemployment rate by about 0.23 percent. In Nye County, up to 3 jobs would 

be added, decreasing unemployment by about 0.10 percent. 

An increase in direct employment also would result in an increase in the demand for goods (for example, 

fuel for personal vehicles) and services (for example, vehicle repair), which in turn would create 

Level of Service C 

The number of vehicles stopping is 

significant, although many still pass 

through the affected intersection 

without being required to stop. 

What is a Therm? 

A therm equals 100,000 British 

thermal units. A British thermal unit 

is the heat required to raise the 

temperature of one pound of water 

by one degree Fahrenheit. 

On average, 1,000 cubic feet of 

natural gas equals 10.31 therms. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-82 

additional employment opportunities (indirect jobs). The combined effect of direct (361) and indirect 

(699) jobs would result in a decrease in the unemployment rate in Clark County by about 0.5 percent and 

in Nye County by about 0.22 percent. 

The increased workforce due to relocating workers (36 individuals) is not expected to result in undue 

demand on housing (vacancies would decrease by about 0.2 percent) and most public services. There 

could be a need, however, to hire three new teachers in Clark County to maintain the current student-toteacher ratio. 

Under the Reduced Operations Alternative, the workforce would decrease by about 144; the 

unemployment rate in Clark County would, in turn, increase by about 0.10 percent and the rate in 

Nye County would increase by about 0.03 percent. There would be no impact on housing or public 

services in either county. 

S.3.3.4 Air Quality 

For each alternative, DOE/NNSA estimated the amount of nonradiological and hazardous air pollutants 

and greenhouse gases that would be released from activities at NLVF (see Table S–17). 

Table S–17 Emissions of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases at the North Las Vegas Facility 

(tons per year) 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

Estimated 2008 

Emissions Annual Average Operational Emissions in 2015 

Particulate Matter10 

Particulate Matter2.5 

Carbon Monoxide 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Lead 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Carbon Dioxide-equivalent 

0.48 

0.34 

26.6 

8.8 

0.090 

0.80 

~0.060 

0.076 

13,355 

0.36 

0.24 

24.4 

5.9 

0.079 

0.77 

Less than 0.01 

0.062 

8,379

0.44 

0.28 

30.5 

7.2 

0.095 

0.96 

Less than 0.01 

0.078 

9,031 

0.33 

0.21 

22.0 

5.4 

0.072 

0.70 

Less than 0.01 

0.056 

8,118 

Particulate Matter10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers; Particulate 

Matter2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers. 

Under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives, the NLVF contribution to Clark County 

emissions of nonradiological (criteria) pollutants would continue to be small and would decrease relative 

to 2008 emission levels. Most of the emission reductions at NLVF would be associated with the phasing 

in of newer worker vehicles with emission reduction technology. Thus, neither alternative would 

contribute to or cause additional violations of the criteria pollutant standards. 

Implementing the Expanded Operations Alternative would result in increases (relative to the 2008 

baseline) in emissions of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds, principally 

from mobile sources. Because the increases in emissions would be small and would come from mobile 

sources dispersed throughout the Las Vegas Valley, the additional pollutant burden would not produce 

additional violations of pollutant standards. 

DOE/NNSA estimates that emissions of hazardous air pollutants would continue to remain low under any 

alternative and would not require additional emission control technologies; and, therefore, such emissions 

would not pose an undue health risk to workers or the public. Greenhouse gas emissions, although 

estimated to decrease relative to baseline levels under all alternatives, would continue to contribute to 

global climate change. 
Summary 

S-83

S.3.3.5 Waste Management 

At NLVF, DOE/NNSA operations would generate low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, sanitary 

solid waste, and demolition debris. Under all alternatives, about 150 cubic feet of low-level radioactive 

waste and small amounts of water containing tritium would be generated. The low-level radioactive 

waste would be shipped to the NNSS for disposal where adequate capacity exists; water containing 

tritium either would be evaporated by introducing it to evaporative coolers at NLVF or by shipping it to 

the NNSS for evaporation. 

About 1,100 cubic feet of hazardous waste would be generated over 10 years under all alternatives. This 

waste would be transferred off site to permitted facilities to be recycled or treated, stored, and disposed. 

Adequate capacity is expected to exist in Nevada and elsewhere in the United States to recycle or treat, 

store, and dispose hazardous waste generated at NLVF. For instance, four treatment, storage, and 

disposal facilities were permitted to receive hazardous waste in Nevada as of 2009 (NDEP 2009). 

About 390,000, 490,000, and 350,000 cubic feet of sanitary solid waste would be generated under the 

No Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations Alternatives over 10 years, respectively. 

DOE/NNSA anticipates that the local municipal waste service would have sufficient capacity to 

accommodate disposal of this waste. 

Decommissioning and demolition of certain structures at NLVF were estimated to generate up to about 

110,000 cubic feet of demolition debris under each alternative. Sufficient capacity is expected to exist at 

landfills in Clark County to accommodate disposal of these amounts of demolition debris (otherwise, this 

waste would be disposed at landfills on the NNSS, which have adequate disposal capacity). 

S.3.3.6 Human Health 

Tritium is the only radionuclide that could result in an exposure to a noninvolved worker or a member of 

the public. In 1995, an accident resulted in the release of more than 1 curie of tritium in the basement of 

Building A-1. The tritium release was cleaned up, but residual tritium continues to emanate from the 

basement floor. The small amount of tritium released was estimated (numerically calculated) to result in 

a dose of about 0.00035 millirem per year to the maximally exposed individual member of the public 

located at the facility boundary or to a noninvolved worker. This dose represents an annual risk of a 

latent cancer fatality of about 1 chance in 5 billion. Applying this dose to the entire population of 

approximately 2,390,000 persons within 50 miles of NLVF results in an estimated collective dose of 

4.1 × 10-5 person-rem per year, with a corresponding estimate of 2 × 10-8 latent cancer fatalities, resulting 

in an annual risk of 1 in 50 million of a single latent cancer fatality in the exposed population. The 

amount of tritium released, and thus the dose and latent cancer fatalities, would be the same among all 

alternatives. 

DOE/NNSA estimated the injuries that could arise in the workforce from industrial accidents based upon 

accident rates from DOE and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOE 2010; DOL 2010a, 2010b). Total 

recordable cases, and those cases that result in lost workdays, restricted duty, or require a transfer are 

shown in Table S–18. 

Table S–18 Annual Estimated Incidence of Nonfatal Accidents at the North Las Vegas Facility 

Activity 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

Facility Operations 22 9.5 27 12 20 8.6 
S-84 Table S–19 Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts at the North Las Vegas Facilit

No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Land Use No impacts were identified from the continuation of activities at the current levels of operations or foreseeable actions because activities under this alternative would continue to be compatible with existing land use designations. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. No im

contincurrenforeseactivitwould with e

Infrastructure and Energy Infrastructure would be maintained as needed to accommodate ongoing activities. No new buildings or facilities are planned. Electric energy demand is expected to continue at about 15,000 megawatt-hours per year and the existing electrical distribution is adequate to support this demand. Natural gas use is expected to 

continue to be about 48,000 therms per year. There is adequate capacity to serve this demand. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative for infrastructure. Electric energy demand would increase by no more than 10 percent 

to a total of 16,500 megawatt-hours per year. The capacity of the electrical distribution system and the capability of commercial providers are adequate to supply the needed electrical energy. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative for infrastructure. Electrical energy demand is expected to be the same as under the No Action Alternative or slightly lower. 

Infras

as neeactivitfacilitElectrincreato a toper yedistribthis deNaturacontinper yeto serv

Transportation and Traffic Transportation No radioactive materials were 

analyzed. Nonradioactive material transports are included in the NNSS impacts. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

No ra

analyztranspimpac

Traffic No increase in traffic volume due to 

NLVF-related traffic compared to the projected baseline; levels of service would remain the same. 

Approximately a 3 percent increase in daily traffic volumes during peak hours on local roads, when compared to the projected baseline; levels of service would remain the same. 

Less than a 1 percent decrease in daily traffic volumes during peak hours on local roads; levels of service would remain the same. 

Appro

in dailduring when baseliremai
 S-85 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Socioeconomics There would be no change in employment; therefore, there would be no change in socioeconomic impacts. Employment would increase by 361 full-time equivalents; about 36 employees would relocate from outside the region. Up to 3 new teaching jobs would need to be filled to maintain the current student-to-teacher ratio. Sufficient housing exists in the region to support the increased population. Direct jobs would reduce unemployment by 0.27 and 0.12 percent in Clark and Nye Counties, respectively. Direct jobs and indirect jobs would have a beneficial effect on the local economy and government revenues. The addition of 361 employees would result in an increase in the number of service calls, but would have a negligible impact on area hospitals and hospital personnel. Employment would decrease by 45 full-time equivalents, increasing unemployment in Clark County by about 0.12 percent and in Nye County by about 0.04 percent. Additional employees would not relocate to Clark or Nye County and there would be no impact on student-to-teacher ratios. Job loss would have a small negative impact on the local economy and government revenues. There would be no impact on public services. Emplo

361 fuemplooutsid3 new be fillstudenhousinsuppoDirect unemppercenrespecDirect have a econoThe adwould numbehave a hospit

Geology and Soils Proposed activities would not affect geological and soil resources. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Propo

geolog

Hydrology Surface Water Resources Proposed activities would not affect surface hydrology. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Propo

surfac

Groundwater Resources Proposed activities would not adversely affect groundwater quality or supply. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Propo

adversor sup

Biological Resources All activities would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas and would not affect native biological resources. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. All ac

previoareas biolog
S-86 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Air Quality Annual Average Operational Emission in 2015 (tons per year) Particulate Matter10 Particulate Matter2.5 Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Dioxide Volatile Organic Compounds Lead Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon Dioxide-equivalent 0.36 0.24 24.4 5.9 0.079 0.77 <0.01 0.062 8,378 0.44 0.28 30.5 7.2 0.095 0.96 <0.01 0.078 9,031 0.33 0.21 22.0 5.4 0.072 0.70 <0.01 0.056 8,118 Radiological Air Quality No activities are expected to produce radiation beyond those documented for 2008 baseline conditions. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. No ac

produdocumcondit

Visual Resources There would be no impacts on visual resources. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. There 

visual 

Cultural Resources 

All activities would occur in previously disturbed, developed areas and would not affect cultural resources. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

All ac

previoareas resour

Waste Management  Low-level radioactive waste a 150 cubic feet would be generated 

over the next 10 years and disposed within available capacity at the NNSS in the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

150 cu

next 1availathe ArManag

 Hazardous waste 1,100 cubic feet would be generated 

over the next 10 years and shipped off site to be recycled, treated, and/or disposed within available capacity. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

1,100 

next 1be recwithin 

 Solid waste 500,000 cubic feet would be 

generated over the next 10 years and shipped off site to be recycled or disposed within available capacity. 

590,000 cubic feet would be generated over the next 10 years and shipped off site to be recycled or disposed within available capacity. 

460,000 cubic feet would be generated over the next 10 years and shipped off site to be recycled or disposed within available capacity. 

590,00

the nesite to within 
 S-87 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Human Health Offsite Population Collective Dose (person-rem) Latent Cancer Fatality Risk Maximally Exposed Individual or Noninvolved Worker Dose (millirem) Latent Cancer Fatality Risk 4.1 × 10-5 2 × 10-8 3.5 × 10-4 2 × 10-10 Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative.  Noise Noise from NLVF-related activities and traffic would not exceed ambient traffic noise. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Noise 

and trambie

Facility Accidents There would be negligible radiological or hazardous chemical accident risks. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. There 

radiolaccide

Environmental Justice Impacts on low-income and minority populations would be identical to those of the general population. Therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations are expected. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Impac

minoridenticpopuladisproimpacincom

NLVF = North Las Vegas Facility; Particulate Matter10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers; Particulat

with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers; rem = roentgen equivalent man. a Does not include tritiated liquids shipped from NLVF to the NNSS for treatment. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-88 

S.3.4 Tonopah Test Range 

This section summarizes the potential environmental impacts at the TTR from continuing and proposed 

projects and capabilities, including their associated levels of operations (activities), under each of three 

alternatives. The text focuses on those resource areas for which the impacts would be sufficiently 

different to permit distinguishing among the alternatives in a meaningful manner or would tend to be 

controversial, i.e., transportation, socioeconomics, air quality, waste management, and human health. 

Table S–22 (at the end of Section S.3.4.5) summarizes the potential environmental impacts for all 

13 resource areas. As discussed above in Section S.2.5, DOE/NNSA’s Preferred Alternative is a “hybrid” 

alternative comprising various programs, capabilities, projects, and activities selected from among the 

three alternatives. Although the text of this Summary does not discuss the potential environmental 

impacts from implementing the Preferred Alternative, consistent with the approach used in Chapter 3 of 

the NNSS SWEIS, Table S–22 summarizes those impacts to enable a comparison to the three alternatives. 

S.3.4.1 Transportation 

Radiological impacts on workers and the public would result from the shipment of low-level radioactive 

waste from the Nevada Test and Training Range, including the TTR, to the NNSS. This waste would be 

generated from environmental restoration activities. DOE/NNSA estimates there would be approximately 

230 truck shipments to the NNSS under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives, and about 

13,100 truck shipments under the Expanded Operations Alternative. 

For incident-free truck transportation, DOE/NNSA estimated that less than 1 latent cancer fatality would 

occur in the population of transportation workers exposed to radiation from shipments of low-level 

radioactive waste under the No Action Alternative (9 × 10-6), Expanded Operations Alternative (0.0005), 

and Reduced Operations Alternative (9 × 10-6). Because many workers would be involved, the risk to an 

individual worker would be small. Similarly, DOE/NNSA estimated that less than 1 (1 × 10-6, 0.0002, 

and 1 × 10-6, respectively) latent cancer fatality would occur among members of the public exposed to 

these same truck shipments under the three alternatives. 

S.3.4.2 Socioeconomics 

Continued operations and proposed activities at the TTR would result in changes to the current (baseline) 

workforce only under the Expanded Operations and Reduced Operations Alternatives. Accordingly, 

DOE/NNSA evaluated how this change in workforce would affect economic activity, population, 

housing, public finance, and public services, such as police and fire protection, in Clark and 

Nye Counties. 

Under the Expanded Operations Alternative, the workforce would decrease from about 106 to 43 

(a decrease of 63 employees); the unemployment rate in Clark County would, in turn, increase by about 

0.01 percent and the rate in Nye County would increase by about 1.34 percent. There would be no impact 

on housing or public services in either county. 

Implementing the Reduced Operations Alternative would have essentially the same impacts as those 

under the Expanded Operations Alternative, as the workforce would decrease by 67 employees. 

S.3.4.3 Air Quality 

For each alternative, DOE/NNSA estimated the amount of nonradiological and hazardous air pollutants 

and greenhouse gases that would be released from ongoing and proposed activities at the TTR 

(see Table S–20). In general, emission-generating activities under any alternative would be widely 

dispersed over the 280-square-mile area of the TTR, and mobile sources of emissions would occur mostly 

outside of the TTR. 
Summary 

S-89

Table S–20 Emissions of Air Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases at the Tonopah Test Range 

(tons per year) 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

Estimated 2008 

Emissions Annual Average Operational Emissions in 2015 

Particulate Matter10 

Particulate Matter2.5 

Carbon Monoxide 

Nitrogen Oxides 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Lead 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Carbon Dioxide-Equivalent 

Less than 4.5 

Less than 4.4 

Less than 14.3 

Less than 21.4 

Less than 0.94 

Less than 2.0 

Less than 0.05 

Less than 1.2 

4,166 

Less than 4.0 

Less than 4.0 

Less than 10.8 

Less than 17.1 

Less than 0.93 

Less than 1.4 

Less than 0.010 

Less than 1.1 

3,653

Less than 3.8 

Less than 3.8 

Less than 6.1 

Less than 14.8 

Less than 0.92 

Less than 1.1 

Less than 0.01 

Less than 1.1 

1,791 

Less than 3.8 

Less than 3.8 

Less than 5.8 

Less than 14.7 

Less than 0.92 

Less than 1.1 

Less than 0.01 

Less than 1.1 

1,671 

Particulate Matter10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers; Particulate 

Matter2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers. 

Under all alternatives, emissions of criteria pollutants (hazardous air pollutants) would decrease relative 

to baseline (2008) levels, and, therefore, would not contribute to or cause additional violations of the 

criteria pollutant standards. Nye County would continue to be in attainment for all criteria pollutants, 

while in Clark County, these emissions would not cause or contribute to any new violations of the 

standards or increases in the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard. 

DOE/NNSA estimates that emissions of hazardous air pollutants would continue to remain low under any 

alternative and would not require additional emission control technologies; therefore, such emissions 

would not pose an undue health risk to workers or the public. Greenhouse gas emissions, although also 

estimated to decrease relative to baseline levels under all alternatives, would continue to contribute to 

global climate change. 

S.3.4.4 Waste Management 

At the TTR, DOE/NNSA actions would generate low-level radioactive waste, hazardous waste, solid 

waste, and construction debris. Environmental restoration activities at the Nevada Test and Training 

Range, including the TTR, also would generate low-level radioactive waste and possibly some transuranic 

waste. 

Under the No Action and Reduced Operations Alternatives, about 2.9 million cubic feet of low-level 

radioactive waste would be generated over 10 years; this waste would be shipped by truck to the NNSS 

for disposal at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. Under the Expanded Operations 

Alternative, environmental restoration would generate about 11 million cubic feet of low-level radioactive 

waste. Although this waste would be shipped to the NNSS for disposal at the Area 5 Radioactive Waste 

Management Complex, because of the volume of low-level radioactive waste from the TTR and from 

other in-state and out-of-state sources (see Section S.3.1.10), DOE/NNSA also would need to reactivate 

the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site to accommodate the disposal of this waste. 

About 8 tons of hazardous waste would be generated annually under all alternatives. This waste would be 

shipped from the TTR to permitted facilities to be recycled or treated, stored, and disposed. Adequate 

capacity is expected to exist in Nevada and elsewhere in the United States to recycle or treat, store, and 

dispose hazardous waste generated at the TTR. For instance, four treatment, storage, and disposal 

facilities were permitted to receive hazardous waste in Nevada as of 2009 (NDEP 2009). 

TTR site operations also would generate solid waste, including sanitary waste and construction debris. 

Under the No Action, Expanded Operations, and Reduced Operations Alternatives, about 9,400; 7,700; 

and 6,600 cubic feet, respectively, of solid waste would be generated annually. The volume of solid 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-90 

waste would be lower under the Expanded Operations Alternative because the projection for sanitary 

solid waste was based on the estimated number of employees and there would be a decrease of about 

63 employees at the TTR. Sufficient capacity exists for DOE/NNSA to dispose this waste in solid waste 

landfills on the TTR, the solid waste landfills on the NNSS, or in local municipal landfills. 

S.3.4.5 Human Health 

Normal Operations. Environmental restoration activities on the TTR would result in the resuspension of 

legacy radioactive materials that are transported in the air. DOE/NNSA numerically estimated, for the 

alternatives, that the annual dose to a maximally exposed individual and the population within 50 miles of 

the TTR would be 0.024 millirem and much less than 1 person-rem, respectively. The maximally 

exposed individual would incur an increased risk of contracting a latent cancer fatality of 1 × 10-8

(1 chance in 100 million). The estimated number of latent cancer fatalities associated with the annual 

population dose of 1 person-rem is 0.0006, which results in an annual risk of a single latent cancer fatality 

in the population of much less than 1 in 1,700. 

Workers also would be exposed to legacy radioactive materials. Under the No Action Alternative, the 

estimated collective worker dose would be 1.3 person-rem per year (workforce of 106 workers), resulting 

in an estimated annual latent cancer fatality risk of 0.0008. The workforces under the Expanded 

Operations and Reduced Operations Alternatives would decrease to 43 and 39 workers, respectively; and, 

therefore, the collective dose and risk of contracting a latent cancer fatality would be less than estimated 

for the No Action Alternative. 

Accidents. The maximum reasonably foreseeable accident (a beyond-design-basis event), which is the 

same for all alternatives, would involve an aircraft crash and ensuing fire involving multiple low-level 

radioactive waste containers. The estimated probability of this event occurring was estimated to be 

1.7 × 10-6 per year of operation (1 chance in 590,000). 

If the accident were to occur, the maximally exposed individual would receive a dose of 0.34 millirem, 

corresponding to a latent cancer fatality risk of 2 × 10-7 (1 chance in 5,000,000). The offsite population 

within 50 miles would receive a collective dose estimated to be 0.012 person-rem; the calculated number 

of latent cancer fatalities associated with this dose is 7 × 10-6, implying that the most likely outcome 

would be no additional latent cancer fatalities in the exposed population. A noninvolved worker outside 

the immediate area of the crash would receive an estimated dose of 1.5 rem, with an associated risk of 

contracting a fatal cancer of 9 × 10-4 (1 chance in 1,100). When the frequency of this accident was 

considered, the annual risk of a latent cancer fatality was estimated to be 3 × 10-13 for the maximally 

exposed individual, 1 × 10-11 for the population, and 2 × 10-9 for the noninvolved worker. 

DOE/NNSA estimated the injuries that could arise in the workforce from industrial accidents based upon 

accident rates from DOE and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOE 2010; DOL 2010a, 2010b). Total 

recordable cases and those cases that could result in lost workdays, restricted duty, or a transfer are shown 

in Table S–21. 

Table S–21 Annual Estimated Incidence of Nonfatal Accidents at the Tonopah Test Range 

Activity 

No Action 

Alternative 

Expanded Operations 

Alternative 

Reduced Operations 

Alternative 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

Total 

Recordable 

Cases 

Lost Workdays, 

Restrictions, 

Transfer 

Tonopah Test Range 

Industrial – Site Operations 

1.6 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.3 

Source: DOE 2010. 
 S-91 Table S–22 Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Impacts at the Tonopah Test Range No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Land Use There would be no impact on land use from the continuation of activities at the current levels of operations because activities would continue to be compatible with existing land use designations on the TTR and primary land uses on the Nevada Test and Training Range. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. T

laoleacuaNR

Airspace No new impacts were identified for airspace activities because these activities would be maintained at the current levels of air traffic, navigational aid services, and airspace structure, and would continue to be coordinated and scheduled by the Nellis Air Traffic Control Facility. Airspace Same as under the No Action Alternative. Airspace Impacts would be slightly reduced compared to the No Action Alternative because of the discontinuation of fixed rocket and missile launches, cruise missile operations, and detonation of fuel- air explosives at the TTR, which would increase the restricted airspace availability for other military uses as coordinated and scheduled by the Nellis Air Traffic Control Facility. A

NfothmosasT

Infrastructure and Energy Infrastructure would be maintained as needed to accommodate ongoing activities. No new buildings or facilities are planned. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. In

maafa
S-92 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Transportation a and Traffic Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Incident-free truck transport Worker risk (latent cancer fatality) 0 (9 × 10-6) 0 (0.0005) 0 (9 × 10-6) 

Population risk (latent cancer fatality) 0 (1 × 10-6) 0 (0.0002) 0 (1 × 10-6) 

Transport accidents Radiological risk (latent cancer fatality) 0 (1 × 10-12) 0 (6 × 10-11) 0 (1 × 10-12) 

Nonradiological fatalities 0 (0.002) 0 (0.1) 0 (0.002) 

Nonradiological waste transport fatalities Nonradioactive material transports included in Nevada National Security Site impacts. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. N

trN

Traffic Up to 4 additional truck trips per day from Environmental Restoration Program radioactive waste transport; minimal impacts on onsite and regional traffic conditions. Up to 14 additional truck trips per day from Environmental Restoration Program radioactive waste transport; minimal impacts on onsite and regional traffic 

conditions. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

U

pRramre

Socioeconomics 

There would be no change in employment; therefore, there would be no change in socioeconomic impacts. 

Employment would decrease by 63 full-time equivalents, which would increase the unemployment rate by about 0.01 percent in Clark County and about 1.64 percent in Nye County. Local spending would decrease and revenues for Clark and Nye Counties could decrease. This small decrease would have a negligible adverse impact on local economies. There would be no impact on public services. 

Employment would decrease by 67 full-time equivalents, which would increase the unemployment rate by about 0.01 percent in Clark County and about 1.76 percent in Nye County. Local spending would decrease and revenues for Clark and Nye Counties could decrease. This small decrease would have a negligible adverse impact on local economies. There would be no impact on public services. 

E

bwu0aNLaCsnlobs
 S-93 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Geology and Soils National Security/Defense Mission There would be localized impacts on soil and geology from tests using gravity weapons, joint test assemblies, and inert projectiles. Some soil contamination could occur. Work for Others Program – Some localized soil disturbance from a variety of site activities. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. T

imfrwacWSfr

Environmental Management Mission Environmental Restoration – Possible disturbance of soil from environmental restoration of contaminated sites, including Clean Slate 1, 2, and 3 at the TTR. Overall, however, environmental restoration would reduce or stabilize the inventory of legacy contamination. Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus:  Up to 11,000,000 cubic feet of soil could be removed during environmental restoration activities at the Clean Slate 1, 2, and 3 sites. Overall, however, environmental restoration would reduce or stabilize the inventory of legacy contamination. Same as under the No Action Alternative. U

sea2hresle

Nondefense Mission There would be no impacts on geological and soil resources. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. T

g
S-94 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Hydrology Surface Water Resources National Security/Defense Mission Gravity weapons drops and rocket and missile testing could cause alterations of natural drainage pathways and chemical contamination of ephemeral waters. Operation of ground-based remote-control vehicles could cause sedimentation to ephemeral waters. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. G

rocdceovsw

Environmental Management Mission Environmental restoration projects could cause beneficial restoration of natural drainage pathways and adverse impacts of chemical contamination of and sedimentation to ephemeral waters. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. E

prepoaw

Nondefense Mission No proposed activities would affect 

surface hydrology. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

N

a

Groundwater Resources Proposed activities would not 

adversely affect groundwater quality or supply. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Potable water use would decrease by 50 percent compared to current use because several testing activities would cease. 

P

aq

Biological Resources 

All work would occur in previously disturbed areas and there would be no additional impacts on biological resources. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

A

pthimre
 S-95 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Air Quality and Climate Annual Average Operational Emission in 2015 (tons per year) b Particulate Matter10 Particulate Matter2.5 Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Dioxide Volatile Organic Compounds Lead Hazardous Air Pollutants Carbon dioxide-equivalent <4.0 <4.0 <10.8 <17.1 <0.93 <1.4 <0.010 <1.1 3,652 <3.8 <3.8 <6.1 <14.8 <0.92 <1.1 <0.010 <1.1 1,790 <3.8 <3.8 <5.8 <14.7 <0.92 <1.1 <0.010 <1.1 1,671 Radiological Air Quality No activities are expected to produce radiation beyond those documented for 2008 baseline conditions. Remediation activities would likely result in increased suspended particulates and higher radiological air emissions relative to those observed in the 2008 baseline conditions. Monitoring would be performed to assess the potential for offsite impacts and the need for mitigating action. Same as under the No Action Alternative. R

lisuheocbpth

Visual Resources No impacts on visual resources. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. NCultural Resources All work would occur in previously disturbed areas. DOE/NNSA would consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer prior to environmental restoration of Clean Slate sites 1, 2, and 3 because they are considered to be historically significant. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. A

pDwPeCbb
S-96 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Waste Management Low-Level Radioactive Waste 200,000 cubic feet would be generated by environmental restoration activities would be disposed within available capacity at the NNSS Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex. 11,000,000 cubic feet would be generated by environmental restoration activities would be disposed within available capacity at the NNSS Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Complex and Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site. Same as under the No Action Alternative. 1

gredcRMAM

Hazardous waste About 4,600 cubic feet of hazardous waste would be generated over the next 10 years that would be transported to permitted offsite facilities to be recycled, treated, and/or disposed within available capacity. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. A

hg1trfaaa

Solid waste 33,000 cubic feet disposed at onsite landfills within available capacity. An 

additional 61,000 cubic feet recycled or disposed at the NNSS or other offsite facilities within available capacity. 

16,000 cubic feet disposed at onsite landfills within available capacity. An additional 61,000 cubic feet recycled or disposed at the NNSS or other offsite facilities within available capacity. 

15,000 cubic feet disposed at onsite landfills within available capacity. An additional 61,000 cubic feet recycled or disposed at the NNSS or other offsite facilities within available capacity. 

1

dwawafac
 S-97 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Human Health Annual Radiological Impacts of Normal Operations due to Legacy Soil Contamination Offsite Population Collective Dose (person-rem) Latent cancer fatality risk Maximally Exposed Individual Dose (millirem) Latent cancer fatality risk <1 <6 × 10-4 0.024 1.4 × 10-8 Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. 

Noise Impacts Workers Public Mitigated through worker protection practices Large noises and traffic noise mitigated due to remoteness of site and distance to receptors Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative, plus:  Minimal increase from higher level of traffic. Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative, except:  No large noises (fuel-air explosive experiments would not occur). M

pLms

Facility Accidents – Dose Consequence and Annual Risk c Highest Risk Accident (aircraft crash and fire into multiple containers of contaminated soil - estimated frequency 1 in 590,000 per year) Offsite Population Collective Dose (person-rem) Latent cancer fatality risk per year) Maximally Exposed Individual Dose (rem) Latent cancer fatality risk per year) Noninvolved Worker Dose (rem) Latent cancer fatality risk per year) 0.012 1 × 10-11 0.00034 3 × 10-13 1.5 2 × 10-9 Same as under the No Action Alternative. Same as under the No Action Alternative. 
S-98 No Action Alternative Expanded Operations Alternative Reduced Operations Alternative 

Environmental Justice Impacts on low-income and minority populations would be identical to those of the general population. Therefore, no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations are expected. Im

midpdaaa

Particulate Matter10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers; Particulate Matter2.5 = particulate matter with an 

than or equal to 2.5 micrometers; rem = roentgen equivalent man; TTR = Tonopah Test Range. a The reported radiological risks are the projected number of latent cancer fatalities in the population and are, therefore, presented as whole numbers. The 

parentheses. b The emissions under the Expanded Operations Alternative would be less than the levels projected under the No Action Alternative, as the Record o

Transformation Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement would occur under the Expanded Operations Alternative because certain site 

transferred from DOE/NNSA to the U.S. Air Force, resulting in fewer DOE/NNSA and DOE/NNSA-contractor employees at the TTR. c The risk is the annual increased likelihood of a latent cancer fatality in the maximally exposed individual or the noninvolved worker or the increased likeliho

fatality occurring in the offsite population, accounting for the estimated probability (frequency) of the accident occurring. 
Summary 

S-99

S.4 Conclusions 

S.4.1 Major Conclusions 

DOE/NNSA evaluated the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on 13 environmental 

resource areas that include features of the natural environment and matters of social, cultural, and 

economic concern. Each resource area is evaluated under each of three alternatives and the Preferred 

Alternative, and the potential environmental consequences are summarized in Section S.3. 

In general, the potential environmental impacts would be greatest under the Expanded Operations 

Alternative, and lowest under the Reduced Operations Alternative. For most resource areas, the potential 

environmental impacts of the Preferred Alternative would be the same as those under the Expanded 

Operations Alternative. However, for a few resource areas at the NNSS, such as biological and cultural 

resources and air quality, the potential impacts under the Preferred Alternative would be less than those 

under the Expanded Operations Alternative, but greater than those under the No Action Alternative. 

The continuation and enhancement of current levels of operations, specifically the rate of radioactive 

waste disposal, quantities of radioactive material used in tests and experiments, and transportation of 

radioactive wastes and materials at the NNSS, as well as the pace of environmental restoration at the 

Nevada Test and Training Range, including the TTR, are the primary factors that would contribute to the 

radiological dose and estimated health impacts on the public and workers. The vast majority of the public 

dose would be due to transportation of radioactive materials and waste. If all of the transportation 

activities evaluated under this alternative were to occur, the public would receive a collective dose of 

1,400 person-rem, resulting in an estimated 1 (0.8) latent cancer fatality in that population. 

Under each alternative, construction and operation of one or more solar power generation facilities at the 

NNSS would result in the following: an increase in employment relative to the current workforce, loss of 

desert tortoise habitat and the taking of tortoises, direct impacts on cultural resources, and increases in 

demand for groundwater. At present, DOE/NNSA has neither sought nor received proposals for specific 

solar facilities. Prior to authorizing the development of such facilities, DOE/NNSA would conduct a 

project-specific NEPA review, and undertake actions necessary to demonstrate compliance with 

applicable regulations. 

At RSL, DOE/NNSA would maintain the current levels of operations, as no new projects or enhanced 

capabilities are proposed. Among the 13 resource areas, either there would be no impacts or the impacts 

associated with ongoing operations would remain small and continue unchanged from baseline 

conditions. Although the levels of operations could increase and proposed projects could be implemented 

at NLVF and the TTR, DOE/NNSA concluded that environmental impacts on all resource areas would 

remain small. 

S.4.2 Areas of Controversy 

American Indian tribes and organizations believe that activities at the NNSS and offsite locations, 

regardless of the magnitude of potential environmental impacts under any of the alternatives, would result 

in an adverse and unacceptable disturbance of the natural and cultural environment. In recognition of 

Federal laws and policies, DOE/NNSA maintains an ongoing consultation program with the Consolidated 

Group of Tribes and Organizations to address American Indian concerns about the environment, and, in 

particular, archaeological sites, plant and animal resources, traditional cultural properties, and sacred sites 

of cultural value. 

The public in general, and Nye County residents in particular, remain concerned about the quality of 

groundwater from the NNSS, which flows into southern Nye County along multiple flow paths. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-100 

Groundwater contaminated by past underground 

nuclear weapons testing has the potential to 

affect the quality of water available to 

communities, residents, and commercial 

enterprises in the future. In 2009, tritium was 

detected in a well located on the Nevada Test 

and Training Range adjacent to the Western 

Pahute Mesa region of the NNSS. This well is 

about 14 miles from the nearest public water 

source, a private well. In 2010, tritium also was 

detected in a second well on the Nevada Test 

and Training Range. The tritium concentrations 

were well below the Safe Drinking Water Act 

standards established by the EPA. Based on 

early computer model predictions, DOE/NNSA 

does not expect contamination to reach the 

private well for at least 100 years; and 

furthermore, contamination may never reach the 

well. 

Water use and water rights will continue to be a major concern, regardless of the water demands 

associated with the NNSS. Growth in water demand in Nevada, particularly in Nye County, has been 

rapid, and water use and Federal water rights at the NNSS remain a controversial issue when considered 

against the backdrop of regional water transfer plans. 

The State of Nevada continues to believe that disparities exist between the original NNSS land 

withdrawals and DOE/NNSA activities. 

The public remains concerned about possible health effects that 

could occur from the resuspension of radioactively contaminated 

soils on the NNSS. DOE/NNSA continues to monitor the releases 

of radionuclides to the environment from all sources, such as soils 

and air, and used these data to estimate the dose to a maximally 

exposed individual. Since 2004, this dose is estimated to have 

ranged from 2.0 to 2.9 millirem per year, a small fraction of the 

average annual dose of about 310 millirem that a member of the 

public receives from natural background sources of radiation. 

The State of Nevada and others 

continue to promote the current 

DOE/NNSA commitment of avoiding 

shipments of low-level and mixed 

low-level radioactive waste through 

Las Vegas, Nevada. This 

commitment, as expressed in the 

waste acceptance criteria for the 

NNSS, avoided Hoover Dam and 

Las Vegas. DOE/NNSA committed 

to avoid these areas at a time when 

major highways, specifically 

Interstate 15 and U.S. Route 95, were 

Maximally Exposed Individual 

A hypothetical individual whose 

location and habits result in the 

highest total radiological exposure, 

(and thus dose), from a particular 

source for all relevant exposure 

routes (e.g., inhalation, ingestion, 

direct exposure). 

Routing of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Shipments

While the U.S. Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security 

Administration’s (DOE/NNSA’s) environmental analyses showed no 

meaningful differences in potential environmental effects between the 

constrained and unconstrained cases, the preponderance of 

stakeholder comments recommended that DOE/NNSA retain highway 

routing restrictions to avoid shipments of low-level radioactive waste 

through greater metropolitan Las Vegas (constrained case). In 

consideration of the environmental analyses and stakeholder 

comments, and after consultation with the Nevada Department of 

Environmental Protection as part of the waste acceptance criteria 

revision process, DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the 

highway routing restrictions for shipments of low-level radioactive 

waste and therefore there would be no need to revise the waste 

acceptance criteria in this regard (DOE 2012). 
Summary 

S-101

unable to accommodate the growing traffic volume. Since then, these highways have been widened and 

otherwise improved, the Bruce Woodward Beltway (Interstate 215 and Clark County Route 215) around 

Las Vegas has been expanded, and the bypass bridge has been constructed near Hoover Dam. 

DOE/NNSA, in this NNSS SWEIS, has analyzed two transportation cases; a Constrained Case and an 

Unconstrained Case. The Constrained Case retains current routing of shipments of low-level and mixed 

low-level radioactive waste and avoids crossing the Colorado River near Hoover Dam, as well as the 

interstate system in Las Vegas. The Unconstrained Case analyzes shipments on highways through the 

greater metropolitan area. This analysis was undertaken to develop a greater understanding of the 

potential environmental consequences of shipping such waste through and around metropolitan 

Las Vegas, as well as to inform any potential highway routing-related revisions to DOE/NNSA’s waste 

acceptance criteria. Such revisions are developed in accordance with DOE/NNSA’s standard practices, 

which include consultation with the State of Nevada; when finalized, they will be made publicly available 

through publication on the NNSS website. DOE/NNSA determined that it would retain the highway 

routing restrictions for shipments of low-level radioactive waste; therefore, there would be no need to 

revise the waste acceptance criteria in this regard (DOE 2012). As discussed above in Section S.3.1.2, the 

Summary no longer includes the results of the Unconstrained Case analysis; they may be found in 

Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 5.1.3.1.2. 

S.4.3 Issues to be Resolved 

Implementing any of the alternatives may trigger other regulatory actions that DOE/NNSA would need to 

undertake prior to proceeding, such as reinitiating consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act with USFWS regarding the desert tortoise, consultations with the Nevada State Historic Preservation 

Officer under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, or consultations with the State of 

Nevada regarding reactivation of the Area 3 Radioactive Waste Management Site. DOE/NNSA has in the 

past undertaken such consultations, and continues to do so. As an example, DOE/NNSA, in consultation 

with USFWS, submitted a biological assessment of projects and activities anticipated to occur on the 

NNSS, and in 2009, USFWS issued its 2009 Biological Opinion (USFWS 2009). This SWEIS addresses 

a range of reasonably foreseeable projects and activities that would be developed or undertaken over the 

next 10 years, although several such projects and activities are in the early phases of development. For 

these proposals, conservative assumptions regarding the location and scale of these projects and activities 

were made to provide a basis for programmatic analysis. Accordingly, when the planning processes for 

future projects and activities are refined and more-detailed information becomes available, and 

subsequent to any decisions in a Record of Decision, DOE/NNSA would identify regulatory requirements 

applicable to newly proposed projects and to changes in ongoing operations (activities), and then initiate 

actions leading to compliance with those requirements. 

Groundwater contaminated from past weapons testing continues to migrate, and tritium has been found in 

a well outside the NNSS, but within the secure boundaries of the Nevada Test and Training Range. 

Developing an improved understanding of where radiological contamination exists in the groundwater, 

predicting where the contamination is moving, and defining how far it will migrate will require 

DOE/NNSA to continue the development of a regional three-dimensional groundwater computer model. 

This model also formed the basis for individualized models for each major area where underground 

testing was conducted. Individualized models continue to evolve as additional data are collected, and 

further analysis and model calibration are conducted. 

DOE/NNSA could not proceed with the development of utility-scale solar power generation facilities in 

Area 25 of the NNSS in the absence of a commercial developer. If a developer were to propose such a 

facility, additional NEPA review would be required to identify and analyze potential project-specific 

environmental impacts. In addition, DOE/NNSA would need to identify and resolve any conflicts 

between the proposed facility and ongoing operations at the NNSS before the facility could be 

constructed. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-102 

S.5 References 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2010, Mapping Sciences, Nevada State Office, Landowner – 

Digital Data, Nevada. 

BN (Bechtel Nevada), 1999, Traffic Study and Cost Benefit Analysis to Renovate Existing Roadways, 

Nevada Test Site, PBS&J 511036.00, North Las Vegas, Nevada. 

Bowen, S. M., D. L. Finnegan, J. L. Thompson, C. M. Miller, P. L. Baca, L. F. Olivas, C. G. Geoffrion, 

D. K. Smith, W. Goishi, B. K. Esser, J. W. Meadows, N. Namboodiri, and J. F. Wild, 2001, Nevada Test 

Site Radionuclide Inventory, 1951–1992, LA-13859-MS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 

New Mexico, September. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1996, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Nevada Test Site 

and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, DOE/EIS-0243, Nevada Operations Office, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, August. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1997, Final Waste Management Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Managing Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive and Hazardous Waste,

DOE/EIS-0200F, May. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2002, Supplement Analysis for the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, DOE/EIS-0243-SA-01, 

July. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2008, Draft Supplement Analysis for the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Nevada Test Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada, DOE/EIS-0243-SA-03, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, April. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2010, Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting System,” 

Occupational Injury and Illness Summary Report,” Office of Health, Safety and Security 

(http://www.hss.doe.gov/csa/analysis/cairs/cairs/summary/oipds094/sum.html). 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2011, 10 Year Site Plan Fiscal Year 2012, National Nuclear Security 

Administration, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 23. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2012, Nevada National Security Site Waste Acceptance Criteria, 

National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Site Office, Nevada, February. 

DOE/NV (U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada), 1997, Regional Groundwater Flow and Tritium 

620 Transport Modeling and Risk Assessment of the Underground Test Area, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, 

621 DOE/NV-477, UC-700, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, October. 

DOE/NV (U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada), 1998a, Nevada Test Site Resource Management Plan, 

DOE/NV-518, Las Vegas, Nevada, December. 

DOE/NV (U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada), 1998b, The Relative Abundance of Desert Tortoises on 

the Nevada Test Site Within Ecological Landform Units, DOE/NV/11718-245, Nevada Operations Office, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, September. 

DOE/NV (U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada), 2009, Nevada Test Site Environmental Report 2008, 

DOE/NV/25946-790, National Nuclear Security Administration, Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, 

September. 
Summary 

S-103

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2010a, “Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) – Current and 

Revised Data,” Bureau of Labor Statistics, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm, April 21. 

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2010b, “Workplace Injuries and Illnesses -- 2009,” News Release 

USDL-10-1451, Bureau of Labor Statistics, October 21. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2009, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks, EPA 430-R-09-004, (accessed August 5, 2009, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

usinventoryreport.html), Washington, DC, July 14. 

Hevesi, J. A., A. L. Flint, and L. E. Flint, 2003, “Simulation of Net Infiltration and Potential Recharge 

Using a Distributed-Parameter Watershed Model of the Death Valley Region, Nevada and California,” 

U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4090 (available at 

http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri034090/), Sacramento, California. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2008, Climate Change 2007. 

Navarro Nevada Environmental Services, LLC, 2010, Phase II Documentation Overview of Corrective 

Action Unit 98: Frenchman Flat, Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada, Rev. 0, N-I/28091-007, 

Las Vegas, Nevada. 

NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 1996, The State of Nevada Department of 

Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection and the United States 

Department of Energy and the United States Department of Defense in the matter of Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order, March 15. 

NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 2008, Nevada Statewide Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Inventory and Projections, 1990-2020, Carson City, Nevada, December. 

NDEP (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection), 2009, Bureau of Waste Management (accessed 

April 20, 2010, http://ndep.nv.gov/bwm/hazard01.htm), October 13. 

NDWR (Nevada Division of Water Resources), 2006, Hydrographic Boundaries – State of Nevada, 

Nevada. 

NDWR (Nevada Division of Water Resources), 2010, Summary of Hydrographic Area Nos. 147, 157, 

158, 159, 160, 212, 225, 226, 227A, 227B, 228, State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources Division of Water Resources (accessed January 27, 2010, http://water.nv.gov/WaterPlanning/ 

UGactive/index.cfm). 

NNSA/NSO (National Nuclear Security Administration/Nevada Site Office), 2010a, Personal 

communication with K. Thornton and G. Babero, Office of the Assistant Manager for Site Operations, 

Information provided on existing electrical circuit configuration and capacity, email on April 14. 

NNSA/NSO (National Nuclear Security Administration/Nevada Site Office), 2010b, (Parts 1-4), Personal 

communication with R. A. Reece, Manager at Facility and Infrastructure Planning, Data provided on 

electrical usage, natural gas, and liquid fuel usage (gallons) by type (red dye, E85, unleaded, biodiesel, 

#2 diesel, jet fuel) for NTS, RSL, and NLVF. 

NSOE (Nevada State Office of Energy), 2009, 2008 Status of Energy in Nevada, Report to Governor 

Jim Gibbons and Legislature (accessed January 19, 2011, http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Interim/75th2009/ 

Committee/Studies/Energy/Other/2008StatusofEnergyinNevadaFinalReport.pdf), Carson City, Nevada. 
Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Continued Operation of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear 

Security Administration Nevada National Security Site and Off-Site Locations in the State of Nevada 

S-104 

NSOE (Nevada State Office of Energy), 2010, 2009 Status of Energy in Nevada, Report to 

Governor Jim Gibbons and Legislature, Carson City, Nevada, May. 

NSTec (National Security Technologies LLC), 2008, FY 2009 NNSA/NSO Energy Executable Plan,

December. 

NSTec (National Security Technologies LLC.), 2010, Water usage data for NTS active wells and 

fillstations between 2005 and 2009, Provided by D. D. Rudolph, Senior Scientist, Water and Waste 

Section, National Security Technologies, Data sent as 2005-2010wellFlowTotals.pdf and Fillstandsall.pdf 

(data compiled and summarized in Well Water DATA compiled AMW spreadsheets 1-21-10.xls), 

January 20. 

Parker, P. L., and T. F. King, 1998, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural 

Properties,” National Register Bulletin, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National 

Register, History and Education, and National Register of Historic Places, Washington, DC. 

RIMS II, 2010, Regional Input-Output Modeling System II, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. 

Rose, T. R., B. C. Benedict, Jr., J. M. Thomas, W. S. Sicke, R. L. Hershey, J. B. Paces, I. M. Farnham, 

and Z. E. Peterman, 2002, Geochemical Data Analysis and Interpretation of the Pahute Mesa-Oasis 

Valley Groundwater Flow System, Nye County, Nevada, August 2002, UCRL-TR-224559, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, September. 

Rudolph, D., 2012, Senior Scientist, Water and Waste Section, National Security Technologies, LLC, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, Personal communication (email) to M. Skougard, Potomac-Hudson Engineering, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, “Urgent Request for Water Data,” August 8. 

Russell, C. E., and T. Minor, 2002, Reconnaissance Estimates of Recharge Based on an Elevationdependent Chloride Mass-balance Approach, Division of Hydrologic Sciences, DOE/NV/11508-37, 

Las Vegas, Nevada, August. 

Scott, B. R., T. J. Smales, F. E. Rush, and A. S. Van Denburgh, 1971, Water for Nevada, Water Planning 

Report 3, Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources, 

State of Nevada, Carson City, Nevada. 

SNJV (Stoller-Navarro Joint Venture), 2004, Phase II Hydrologic Data for the Groundwater Flow and 

Contaminant Transport Model of Corrective Action Unit 98: Frenchman Flat, Nye County, Nevada, 

S-N/99205--032, Revision No. 0, Las Vegas, Nevada, December. 

TRB (Transportation Research Board), 2000, Highway Capacity Manual. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2000, Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

Environmental Impact Statement, U.S. Department of the Interior, Las Vegas, Nevada, September.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2009, Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for 

Implementation of Actions Proposed on the Nevada Test Site, Nye County, Nevada,

(File Nos. 84320-2008-F-0416 and 84320-2008-B-00 15), U.S. Department of the Interior, Nevada Fish 

and Wildlife Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 12.